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.

3) Allocate Wound
If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.

Change to:

If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit with one or more wounds remaining (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible.

If you have a rule that says your model is not removed when it reaches 0 wounds then it can absorb an infinite amount of wounds, could it be fixed on an individual basis? Sure, but this also fixes the issue of who to put wounds on if two models are wounded, currently, the game doesn't tell us how to resolve it.

I'm not opposed, but is anyone actually having an issue with wound allocation? I'm struggling to think of anything in the game that has a rule stating it isn't removed when it reaches 0 wounds. Guilliman or Celestine maybe? But neither of them are part of a unit (Celestine's bodyguards changed in the beta codex), so putting infinite wounds on them after they reach 0 is moot.

As for those rare instances where multiple models in the unit are wounded, we've always just let the controlling player decide where new wounds go so long as it's to one of the wounded models. Is anyone out there gaming this to the point that it's a problem? RAI seems to just be that you have to finish wounded guys off first before allocating wounds to another guy to prevent players from spreading damage around to prevent a unit from losing damage output.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm not opposed, but is anyone actually having an issue with wound allocation? I'm struggling to think of anything in the game that has a rule stating it isn't removed when it reaches 0 wounds. Guilliman or Celestine maybe? But neither of them are part of a unit (Celestine's bodyguards changed in the beta codex), so putting infinite wounds on them after they reach 0 is moot.

As for those rare instances where multiple models in the unit are wounded, we've always just let the controlling player decide where new wounds go so long as it's to one of the wounded models. Is anyone out there gaming this to the point that it's a problem? RAI seems to just be that you have to finish wounded guys off first before allocating wounds to another guy to prevent players from spreading damage around to prevent a unit from losing damage output.

It's a badly written rule, this fixes it. I have never had any bad experiences with it and from a balance perspective it seems clear that you should be able to kill more than one Wraith or Tyrant Guard in each fight phase so people just house rule those abilities to include that you cannot allocate wounds to slain models.

The rule I wrote isn't very much longer and I think it leaves out all ambiguity and I think that's a worthwhile effort for GW to make. Even if the ruleset becomes a few pages longer, if it becomes twice and clear and has a third the number of FAQs needed then it's a worthwhile change to make. As you mentioned it's not going to change anything in games between reasonable adults unless you have two wounded models and in that case you'd just pluck wounds off the model with the fewest wounds instead of a model of your choice.

...So...we're bringing Musical Wounds back?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...So...we're bringing Musical Wounds back?

No. His proposal would still require you to keep putting wounds on already-wounded models. He's just making it slightly more explicit. If I understand the ambiguity he's trying to address, his changes basically boil down to:

A.) You can't put wounds on a dead model. So if you kill the first of 5 terminators in a squad, I can't claim that I'm putting any further wounds onto the already dead terminator to render the other 4 invulnerable.

B.) He's clarifying that the player who owns the models gets to decide which wounded model in a squad takes new wounds in those niche cases where you have more than one wounded model at a time. (Like when a brotherhood of psykers model suffers a wound to shooting and then a different psyker in the unit suffers perils.)

I feel like A probably already works that way RAW as-is, but if not, 99.9% of all players are probably already playing it that way. B is a bit more gray, but Vict's suggestion would clarify things. You know. In case you're playing against some jerk who wants to argue that he should be allowed to decide where your wounds get allocated for some reason.

Neither suggestion is bad, but I feel like almost everyone is already playing the game this way anyway.

If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit with one or more wounds remaining that is within range and visible to the attacking unit. If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible.

That would be my suggestion. The idea of hitting models that your weapons can't reach or you can't see is just dumb.

Obviously weapons that are indirect fire or blast weapons could be allowed to do so (as that makes some sense)

Jbz` wrote:

If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit with one or more wounds remaining that is within range and visible to the attacking unit. If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible.

That would be my suggestion. The idea of hitting models that your weapons can't reach or you can't see is just dumb.

Obviously weapons that are indirect fire or blast weapons could be allowed to do so (as that makes some sense)

Eh. I've never really had an issue with the range or out of sight thing. I just sort of accept it's an abstraction. I wouldn't hate your proposal, but it would nerf short-ranged weapons like flamers and grenades a fair bit. It arguably makes it more important to resolve weapons one at a time. If I've got 4 flamers in range of the first 4 models in the target unit but not the other 26, then I'd have to roll out each flamer one at a time until those first 4 models were dead, at which point my other flamers would be unable to hurt the target. You can see how that would slow things down a bit.

If I can see at least one model in the target unit, I'm pretty comfortable abstracting that as representing that the squad is actively on the move getting out of line of sight or that the terrain is too patchwork to hide them entirely.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Jbz` wrote:

If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit with one or more wounds remaining that is within range and visible to the attacking unit. If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible.

That would be my suggestion. The idea of hitting models that your weapons can't reach or you can't see is just dumb.

Obviously weapons that are indirect fire or blast weapons could be allowed to do so (as that makes some sense)

Eh. I've never really had an issue with the range or out of sight thing. I just sort of accept it's an abstraction. I wouldn't hate your proposal, but it would nerf short-ranged weapons like flamers and grenades a fair bit. It arguably makes it more important to resolve weapons one at a time. If I've got 4 flamers in range of the first 4 models in the target unit but not the other 26, then I'd have to roll out each flamer one at a time until those first 4 models were dead, at which point my other flamers would be unable to hurt the target. You can see how that would slow things down a bit.

If I can see at least one model in the target unit, I'm pretty comfortable abstracting that as representing that the squad is actively on the move getting out of line of sight or that the terrain is too patchwork to hide them entirely.

Nah, you'd just roll all your flamers, and if you score 4 or more unsaved wounds, remove those 4 models.

The downside is this brings back flamer sniping, where you can position yourself in range of just their sergeant/lascannon/flamer and force them to remove that model. heaven forbid tactics & positioning enter the game, eh?

 some bloke wrote:


Nah, you'd just roll all your flamers, and if you score 4 or more unsaved wounds, remove those 4 models.

The downside is this brings back flamer sniping, where you can position yourself in range of just their sergeant/lascannon/flamer and force them to remove that model. heaven forbid tactics & positioning enter the game, eh?

I think it might increases the amount of time people have to spend positioning models exactly right, just a thought. I really liked it when you had to remove the front-most model first, but it's terrible for melee units. Removing from anywhere and pile in/consolidate shananigans are the fuel that keeps melee alive. I think a lot of people forget just how terrible melee was outside a tiny amount of units (consisting mostly of deathstars) were in 6th/7th.

 some bloke wrote:

Nah, you'd just roll all your flamers, and if you score 4 or more unsaved wounds, remove those 4 models.

The downside is this brings back flamer sniping, where you can position yourself in range of just their sergeant/lascannon/flamer and force them to remove that model. heaven forbid tactics & positioning enter the game, eh?

Eh. That sort of model sniping isn't really what I'd call "tactics." Or at least not desirable, game-improving tactics. In the past, rules along those lines (including simply killing the closest models first) basically just created optimal positioning for models and then punished players who didn't agonize over the exact spacing and positioning of every special weapon and sergeant in their army each time they moved the unit. It's in the same ballpark as blast templates. A player isn't a tactical genius for setting up perfect 2" spacing in their squad to make templates less good; they're just more willing to sacrifice more of their finite time on this planet measuring out 2" distances than the other guy.

Basically, that sort of thing doesn't make a person "tactical" or clever; it just makes the mechanics more gamey. Plus, it's a long-standing assumption for many armies that the important models dying last represents someone picking up important wargear, accepting a field promotion, etc.