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.

From the first time I read the wound allocation rules in fifth edition, they struck me as odd. You go through all that trouble to allocate wounds to individual models, but then you scoop up the dice for the same models and roll their saves together. Different models, on the other hand, get their saves rolled separately.

I sort of understand GW's motivation for the system -- it is designed to speed up rolling saves, rather than doing them individually. But in doing so I think they have created a system with the potential for abuse.

As many have already noted, if you have multi-wound models it is better to give them different equpment, since you will get to carry more partial wounds (a single wound on a two-wound model, for example) in a unit, rather than have to apply two failed saves to a single model, killing it.

However as I thought about it more I realized that this would also affect single wound models, if you have more wounds then models. If you can allocate two wounds to a single wound model, then there is a chance that it may get excess wounds, which would lessen the overall effect on the unit.

To test this I calculated some probabilities, running two test cases.

Test Case A: Three single-wound models, six wounds, 4+ saves, identical units

In this example, we assume that a 3-model unit has suffered six wounds, so two are allocated to each model, and that the models get a 4+ save (simpler for calculating).

If all of the models are identical, we just roll six dice and see how many wounds are not saved, losing that many models.

Here are the probabilities:

|Loss|Prob | | 0 | 1.6%| | 1 | 9.4%| | 2 |23.4%| | 3 |65.6%|

So there is a 65.6% chance of losing the entire unit. Any roll that results in 3, 4, 5, or 6 missed saves results in complete elimination.

Test Case B: Three single-wound models, six wounds, 4+ saves, all different equipment

Now let's take a look at the same situation, except that all three units are different, So here each unit is rolling it's saves separately:

|Loss|Prob | | 0 | 1.6%| | 1 | 14.1%| | 2 |42.2%| | 3 |42.2%|

Quite a difference! Why is this? Well, now the rolls are 'allocated'. So, for example, if you get four wounds, there is a possibility that only two units are killed if those wounds are all on two units. The third unit skates off unharmed, whereas if you just rolled all the dice together for identical units, four wounds would kill all three.

So giving 3 units different equipment reduces your chance of being eliminated by almost 1/3. That's a big difference in keeping some firepower (or a scoring unit) on the table.

The advantage of giving units different equipment only grows as the size of the unit increases. Let's take a look at 5-model units suffereing 10 wounds:

Test Case C: Five single-wound models, ten wounds, 4+ saves, identical

|Loss|Prob | | 0 | 0.1%| | 1 | 1.0%| | 2 | 4.4%| | 3 |11.7%| | 4 |20.5%| | 5 |62.3%|

Comparable numbers to case 'A' -- 62% chance of the whole unit is eliminated. Compare with:

Test Case D: Five single-wound models, ten wounds, 4+ saves, all distinct

|Loss|Prob | | 0 | 0.1%| | 1 | 1.5%| | 2 | 8.8%| | 3 |26.4%| | 4 |39.6%| | 5 |23.7%|

This is a huge difference! In the identical model case (Case C) the chance of elimination is 62% -- now it's down to 24%.

So the lesson is clear:

Differentiate your models as much as possible. This may have to be balanced with tactical, load-out, and point considerations, but maximizing the number of different models you have on the board will pay big dividends in survivability over the course of the game.

Personally I think the rules should just be changed to you ALWAYS roll saves separately for each model if there is more than one wound allocated. I do not think this will add significant time to the game, as if you just have single wounds on models you can still roll them together and it WILL NOT change the outcome. This only comes into play if there are multiple wounds on models, or wounds on multi-wound models.

Hope this is useful info!

Geoff

The big problem with rolling all saves separately for each model come down to the fact that it doesn't really mesh with the concept of piling wounds on to multi-wound models, so if you took everyone's saves separately on a multi-wound unit (even if they're all identical) you'd probably have to track everyone's wounds separately. Imagine a relatively simple unit like Necron Scarabs or Nurgling Swarms (particularly the Nurglings since they're immune to ID). If you just rolled every individual model's saves separately, the logical next step is that individual wounds would be tracked separately, so you'd have tons of Nurglings with 0-2 wounds running around, and it would take ages to put enough wounds on a 9-base squad to even start killing them. The squad could theoretically take 18 wounds without losing a single bit of size, combat effectiveness, anything.

The wound allocation system you're describing is how it was worded (to a large degree) in that playtest pdf that was circulating months ago. It definitely works differently than the current system (scoop up all dice of "like" models and roll), and you're definitely right that it is advantageous to differentiate your squad members, but I think it's still the lesser of two evils compared with the system of rolling everyone's saves separately all the time. The current system kinda sucks for people who don't really have the option of differentiation (for exampe... Necrons, most Tyranid units, Eldar, anyone who only has one squad leader who can take options). Anyone who has lots of different squad options (I'm looking at SM, CSM, and Orks here) will have it better off.

I also brought this into consideration, esp with those orc nobz on bikes.. It will boost their survival rates thru the roof and leave them with very small losses in hitting power, with all of them running around with 1 wound each. Guess the only drawback is they will take a little more time to use.. but its definently worth it.

I think the new rules are really handy and easy to use, rolling separatly just takes time and can change things since you no longer choose who you take away. Sure, you can "abuse" it by having diverse units, but this also means that each time you take a wound, you are likly to loose a more pricy model than if you just had a basic unit.

I do however have a problem with how Independant Characters work with this, mainly because I don't understand it. When shooting at a unit with a IC, you are to "allocate hits as normal". But you don't allocate hits in the first place... So far, we are just guessing they means allocate wounds, not hits.

I like the wound allocation system. Most of the Troop types do not have more than 2-3 ways to individualize squad members. Elites are the ones that benefit most, like Tyranid Warriors and Marine Veteran and Command squads. Personally, I welcome the more interesting diversity that will result. Down with cookie cutter lists! A nice, well earned, reward...

Warprat

5 man marine squad with plasma, heavy bolter, veteran sergeant, and some shmuck with an auspex!

Chosen with a champion, 4 different weapons, one regular guy, an icon bearer, and one more with a meltabomb!