Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

5th edition forced you to allocate wounds before saving if the unit wasn't made up of identical models. Each different model had wounds assigned separately. So, for example, a Marine squad of 4 bolters and a sergeant taking 9 hits, you would allocate 1 to the sergeant and then the other 8 to regular guys. If the sergeant passed his save, and the other 8 saves all failed, you would only remove the 4 bolter guys.

It was tedious and time-consuming (although not as bad as 6th edition forcing you to roll saves one at a time if there was a character in the front of the squad), and could be gamed through clever unit composition.+


Edit - so yes, on reflection, I think it was fairly similar to 3rd edition's version.

There's a bunch of simple ways you can fix this, but off the top of my head:

divide target units up by toughness and sv and group them. ie taking crusaders with 2 groups of T4 Sv3+/4+, you have two target groups. Apply attacks to the larger group until have received an attack and then move to the next group.

Attacks themselves are made and applied in discrete groups of identical properties - all bolters, all power weapons etc. If the number of attacks overflows the number of targets in the target group, the remainder spill into the next group, or wrap around onto the group again.

The owning player makes saves or removes casualties and its up to them what comes off from each target group.

An independent character would count as its own group for attack application purposes even if it had identical stats to the unit joined.


Your target groups can only be made up of models in btb or within 2". This means that technically, your crusader unit with more marines than neophytes might end up with the neophytes getting hit first because they happen to be the majority group.

5th edition had the best wound allocation rules GW have ever written.
They made it so that the special weapon wasn't always the last to die, and weight of fire was actually an effective threat to specials. It was a very effective way of encouraging larger units without removing the option of small squad sizes.

Where the problems arrose was with a handful of units of multi-wound models which could all take different equipment.
That could have been largely solved by adding an extra sentence to the wound allocation rules (allocate all AP1 hits, then all AP2, then 3, etc) and trimming some of the unnecessary wargear from codexes.

As with most editions, 5th was mostly screwed by the codexes and not the core rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You also remove a whole class of terrain which was terrain-that-blocks-LOS-but-not-movement, which is what forest/area terrain could be earlier.

What it turned it into, though, was terrain that could block LOS but not movement. You could still block LOS with forests, you just needed more than a single MDF base with a tree stuck at each end of it. Larger areas of forest blocked LOS better than a small stand of trees... and that works just fine in my book, and makes area terrain functionally completely different to solid terrain like buildings.

Ok, think about that for a second. You make a dense forest instead of "a single mdf base with a tree at each corner". How exactly? You get pre-built model railroad trees, but the foliage only starts partway up the trunk because it looks like a real tree. So even though you spend the money for a dense pack of trees, you can see right through it at model-eye height or similar. So then you pack the base with lichen to *actually* block LOS, but now you've made it harder to set up, or if pre-built and glued in place, you've made it harder to move models into/through. If you haven't fastened your trees in place, when you move a model through it you may have to move some trees out of the way in the process, which changes the LOS characteristics of the forest. All of this is in addition to the fact that checking for individual LOS all the time becomes a fiddly and potentially time consuming process in a game where a couple hundred models might be moving around.

As opposed to the ease of putting some trees on bases down, calling the extent of the group the edge of the forest, and making things quicker, cheaper, easier and potentially even better looking.

So sure, in the 5th ed paradigm you could make a dense tree clump that actually blocked LOS, but what the 5th ed system actually did was force ITC to make their own rules for Ruins (the first floor of a ruin/building always blocking LOS) because the GW system was inadequate.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ok, think about that for a second. You make a dense forest instead of "a single mdf base with a tree at each corner". How exactly? .

I didn't say you make a dense forest - that causes problems with model placement. But using foliage of varying sizes and adding rocks and raised areas to the base helps to break up those sight lines (and looks better than flat bases with 2 or 3 identical trees spaced arounds them), and using multiple forest bases makes them block increasing amounts of LoS depending on where exactly your target is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
5th edition had the best wound allocation rules GW have ever written.
They made it so that the special weapon wasn't always the last to die, and weight of fire was actually an effective threat to specials. It was a very effective way of encouraging larger units without removing the option of small squad sizes..

4th edition already accomplished that with the torrent of fire rule, without the need for the wound allocation shenanigans.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
5th edition had the best wound allocation rules GW have ever written.
They made it so that the special weapon wasn't always the last to die, and weight of fire was actually an effective threat to specials. It was a very effective way of encouraging larger units without removing the option of small squad sizes.

So, in 4th ed they had a quicker system with the same intent. If you did more wounds to a unit than it had models, then the attacking player got to choose one model to make a save. (If you doubled the wounds, then two models, etc.) I think I prefer that over the 5th ed one. I like that there's no individual wound allocation for most of the time, and that the attacker gets to pick the model when it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ok, think about that for a second. You make a dense forest instead of "a single mdf base with a tree at each corner". How exactly? .

I didn't say you make a dense forest - that causes problems with model placement. But using foliage of varying sizes and adding rocks and raised areas to the base helps to break up those sight lines (and looks better than flat bases with 2 or 3 identical trees spaced arounds them), and using multiple forest bases makes them block increasing amounts of LoS depending on where exactly your target is.

You could make the same varied forest bases, and have it be more effective at blocking LOS under the 4th ed rules, while taking less time during gameplay for checking individual LOS lines. It grants more freedom, aesthetically, while also being faster and more effective.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You could make the same varied forest bases, and have it be more effective at blocking LOS under the 4th ed rules, while taking less time during gameplay for checking individual LOS lines. It grants more freedom, aesthetically, while also being faster and more effective.

But that's the thing - I don't want forests to be more effective at blocking LOS. The fact that a forest base blocked LOS differently to a building (because forests are not composed of solid walls) was precisely what I liked about 5th edition's terrain rules.

YMMV, obviously.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You could make the same varied forest bases, and have it be more effective at blocking LOS under the 4th ed rules, while taking less time during gameplay for checking individual LOS lines. It grants more freedom, aesthetically, while also being faster and more effective.

But that's the thing - I don't want forests to be more effective at blocking LOS. The fact that a forest base blocked LOS differently to a building (because forests are not composed of solid walls) was precisely what I liked about 5th edition's terrain rules.

YMMV, obviously.

Heh, but they were different. In 4th forests gave a 5+ cover save and buildings/ruins 4+. In 5th both categories were 4+

Also, you could just throw down some terrain pieces and declare them not area terrain in 4th, and get the same results you want above.

And when you say building do you mean building or ruin? A building blocked LOS differently than a forest in 4th, because you could see up to 6" into a forest (or ruin). A solid wall building blocked LOS just as it would in 5th.

And to bring it back around, in 4th your transports could be better protected with intervening forests/area terrain, because area terrain more effectively blocked LOS.

For a long time 5e was my favourite edition, but I think it's just because I got the 4e Ork codex right before 5e dropped and I really loved that codex.

If I look at the edition more neutrally, I agree that the background started to get worse around then. The actual 5e books especially for Marines were pretty bad - I really didn't like the direction they took the special marine chapters in back then, I felt they should have remained supplements rather than distinct armies with special units.

And with the core rules, I prefer 5e's vehicle rules but 4e's line of sight rules. The 4e rules were just more practical for gameplay - you could have a base for your forest and move the individual elements around to make it easy to fit troops inside it. In 5e, the forest had to be a fixed object, which made it annoying to work with in game and if you didn't magnetise it or build it with recessed bases (or buy GW's very cartoony grimdark forests) you needed to glue the trees in place, which made it a nightmare for storage.

But the pendulum swing against vehicles was far too harsh in 4e, due to Rhino Rush being stupid. Rather just go and fix the stupid fast Blood Angles Rhinos that throw vehicles that aren't skimmers under the bus.

What ruined 4e as an experience for me was being a one codex guy for most of it playing a codex that was just outclassed, and feeling hard done by. Going back now, with everything published, I think I'd agree that you pick and choose the best codices for each faction from 3rd to 5th and use either 4th with tweaks to vehicles or 5th with tweaks to terrain and maybe wound allocation. In my ideal world all marine chapters would be represented with the traits system rather than bespoke supplements.

 Kagetora wrote:


I missed 5th edition (was playing WFB and Epic instead). Can someone explain the wound-allocation shenanigans that went on?
<snip>
So...was 5th edition actually worse than that?

5th you would allocate hits based on group of different models, based on different wargear in the squad. No restriction of putting wounds on damaged models first. IIRC you couldn’t allocate a second hit to a mini until everyone had been tagged at least once. For “normal” squads it meant the one plasma gunner would probable be the last guy to die, unless you dumped a lot of firepower into the squad all at once.

Where it got abusive was multi wound squads who could have different gear profiles. Nob bikers and GK terminators were the stand out examples, but there were others. The hypothetical worst case was a 10 man squad of 2W models that needed to eat 11 wounds before they lost anyone.

It was mildly cumbersome at its best, and brokenly irritating at its worst.

Lets just get straight to the elephant in the room with 5th ed wound allocation.

Group of nob bikers 10 in number all T6 (for being on a bike) with 2 wounds, all have 1 different piece of war gear. apply 10 wound, 1 to each model. fail 8, assign 8 wounds to separate models. nothing actually dies.

VS 4th-wounded models must die first, but the owning player gets to assign wounds. so the special/heavy weapons or squad leader might be more likely to survive as the rules explanation put it-the brother with the plasma gun goes down, but since it is a relic weapon the marine behind him will just pick it up and fill in the gap. wounds were usually taken on the group overall not specific models.

Also area terrain is still a thing in 5th. it represents ruins or forests because it would be ridiculous to expect a player to break out 20 trees to put on a template to represent something as abstract as a forest thus leaving no room for minis. the different is the "if you not within 6" of the edge you cannot see in or out for direct fire weapons" that sized area terrain had in 4th. Andy re-used those area terrain rules (always blocking LOS unless your in it with in a certain distance from the facing edge) when he made the 3d terrain rules for DUST 1947, so apparently he still likes the idea as well.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
5th edition had the best wound allocation rules GW have ever written.
They made it so that the special weapon wasn't always the last to die, and weight of fire was actually an effective threat to specials. It was a very effective way of encouraging larger units without removing the option of small squad sizes.

So, in 4th ed they had a quicker system with the same intent. If you did more wounds to a unit than it had models, then the attacking player got to choose one model to make a save. (If you doubled the wounds, then two models, etc.) I think I prefer that over the 5th ed one. I like that there's no individual wound allocation for most of the time, and that the attacker gets to pick the model when it does.

Torrent of fire only worked with one save no matter the number of wounds.

So a five man Tactical Squad with a Plasma Gun, Missile Launcher, Sergeant, and two Bolters takes ten wounds, and only one can be specifically allocated.

Whereas in 5th each model would have to take two saves (four on the pair of Bolters), which significantly increases the odds of killing something worthwhile.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Whereas in 5th each model would have to take two saves (four on the pair of Bolters), which significantly increases the odds of killing something worthwhile.

5e was just far too granular.

Upgraded / not upgraded / character - plus the usual split of armour saves that 4e also had. That is all that was needed to scale up the torrent of fire rule from 4e.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
5th edition had the best wound allocation rules GW have ever written.
They made it so that the special weapon wasn't always the last to die, and weight of fire was actually an effective threat to specials. It was a very effective way of encouraging larger units without removing the option of small squad sizes.

So, in 4th ed they had a quicker system with the same intent. If you did more wounds to a unit than it had models, then the attacking player got to choose one model to make a save. (If you doubled the wounds, then two models, etc.) I think I prefer that over the 5th ed one. I like that there's no individual wound allocation for most of the time, and that the attacker gets to pick the model when it does.

Torrent of fire only worked with one save no matter the number of wounds.

So a five man Tactical Squad with a Plasma Gun, Missile Launcher, Sergeant, and two Bolters takes ten wounds, and only one can be specifically allocated.

Whereas in 5th each model would have to take two saves (four on the pair of Bolters), which significantly increases the odds of killing something worthwhile.

Ah fair. I thought the 4th ed one scaled for some reason.

But as AT says, the 5th ed one is too tedious. (In addition to the horrific shennanigans that could be pulled). Though still not as tedious as 6th(?), where a model in the front could tank hits one by one. Eff that.

I also like the notion in 4th that maybe a model with a special weapon is killed, but another model in the squad picks it up. The implied agency of your troops is nice there.

A big difference between 4e and 5e was line of sight.

4e - one guy visible? Every single shot hits that one guy alone. YMMV with using vehicles and other objects to 'snipe' models out of units this way.

5e - one guy half visible? Whole squad visible, albeit with a 50/50 cover roll.

6e/7e - visible models only again, front guy dies first which really screws with assault armies.

While directional wound allocation had it’s issues, (making life harder for assault armies as mentioned being a big one) I liked how it made maneuver mean something. Sure, you might have your tanky character on point, but when I zip a pair of land speeders down your flank, suddenly it doesn’t mater and I can shoot up the squad.

To be honest the tanky character tanking all the shots was also very silly.

A.T. wrote:
5e - one guy half visible? Whole squad visible, albeit with a 50/50 cover roll.

Which, at the scale of 40K, is the right way to do it. Micromanaging the positions of individual squad members is for smaller skirmish-sized games.

 Tyran wrote:
To be honest the tanky character tanking all the shots was also very silly.

Except the ones he didn’t want to take, which were Look our Sir!’d over to the mooks in the squad.

No arguments that it was also a flawed system open to abuse/manipulation.

Pretty much all the systems have issues, which is why I prefer the “the guy taking the hits just kills who he wants, if they are already wounded, that guy needs to finish soaking up wounds before moving to the next one”. It’s not perfect, but at least it’s fast. Splash in a little precision hits to taste.

Yeah, anything more is simply way to granular for a game with potentially hundred of models.

4e's version had problems. Rhino sniping was one. A character with artificer armor taking every AP3 wound (but never AP2) was another. I actually think 10e has the best rules for wound allocation so far.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
4e's version had problems. Rhino sniping was one. A character with artificer armor taking every AP3 wound (but never AP2) was another. I actually think 10e has the best rules for wound allocation so far.

I agree with the first one, and I'd modify it somehow. I'm not fond of 5ths solution though. I think a good compromise is to let the defender choose whether the "snipe" is successful, or whether to allow hits to hit unseen models like 5th. This way any attempted Rhino snipe is understood to be potentially thwarted, so becomes less of a viable tactic. On the flipside, a random model left out of cover doesn't automatically damn the whole squad.

As to a model with artificer armor tanking wounds, that wasn't a thing because you took the majority save among elegible targets.

Going down the abstraction route, and given the behaviour of soldiers, you could say that if only some of the models are out (the single model visible thing) then up to half can see and be seen.

It's not perfect, but it gives you a consequence and makes it a risk reward decision.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
4e's version had problems. Rhino sniping was one. A character with artificer armor taking every AP3 wound (but never AP2) was another. I actually think 10e has the best rules for wound allocation so far.

I agree with the first one, and I'd modify it somehow. I'm not fond of 5ths solution though. I think a good compromise is to let the defender choose whether the "snipe" is successful, or whether to allow hits to hit unseen models like 5th. This way any attempted Rhino snipe is understood to be potentially thwarted, so becomes less of a viable tactic. On the flipside, a random model left out of cover doesn't automatically damn the whole squad.

As to a model with artificer armor tanking wounds, that wasn't a thing because you took the majority save among elegible targets.

Really in 4e? In that case we were playing it wrong.

 Hellebore wrote:
Going down the abstraction route, and given the behaviour of soldiers, you could say that if only some of the models are out (the single model visible thing) then up to half can see and be seen.

It's not perfect, but it gives you a consequence and makes it a risk reward decision.

Sorry, I don't follow. What's the decision?

Then you were playing it wrong saves were taken based on the majority save and toughness for the unit. made black templar super good. sacrifice all the neophytes.

 Orkeosaurus wrote:

Really in 4e? In that case we were playing it wrong.

Yeah, it's later in the book but it is referenced in the Shooting/Take Casualties section. There's a passage that points to pg 76 (I think) which lays out the mixed armor saves rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Going down the abstraction route, and given the behaviour of soldiers, you could say that if only some of the models are out (the single model visible thing) then up to half can see and be seen.

It's not perfect, but it gives you a consequence and makes it a risk reward decision.

Sorry, I don't follow. What's the decision?

To prevent the 'see one model, see all, or los from one model means the whole squad has it', and give cover an effect, you basically have to have los or draw los to more than half the unit to see or see from that whole unit. Less than half means just half.

So no rhino sniping etc, but also not as extreme as loss of cover entirely.

^Oh I see. That's pretty reasonable. But you said "risk reward decision" and I don't get where that comes from.

It was the risk of exposing 1 model exposes half the squad, but gives you half the squad to shoot with.

Rather than either none of the squad, or all of the squad.