Wound Allocation thoughts

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  Guest on Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:57 am

Was just browsing Bols and found this article on wound allocation.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/08/40k-editorial-wound-allocation-cheating.html

Now, I only started with the new edition, so don't know anything OTHER than wound allocation, but I must say I agree mostly with this guys views. I don't think it's CHEATING, but aside from that I understand the frustration. I think my favourite is his example and the statement "In no system should shooting your enemy more times actually make it more likely he survives. It doesn't make any sense from either a logical perspective or a game play perspective. It's just bad." All too true, and as a guard player I've had this happen to me several times, and it's both annoying and unintuitive. How does more firepower = less killing power?

Just wanted to share the article with you all b/c I'm sure at least some of you have similar feelings, and maybe some of you out there have opposite views you'd like to express?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  System Commander on Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:35 am

Its one of those things that has some really good points, but under the wrong circumstances can really make it feel like your being cheated.

The problem I had with wound allocation in older editions was that the person controlling the troops always got to choose where to put those wounds. So there was no way to ever really get rid of that power fist or lascannon. Imp Guard units were basically a 10 wound Lascannon. Now, you can justify by saying as guys get mowed down, they pick up the better weapons.. ok, sure.. but, I always thought it kinda of looked funny.

I really liked the idea of having to assign a wound to each different model in the group and having to roll individually.. but I really dislike the whole idea that you can cause less casualties by doing more wounds.. its pretty retarded.. and then the multiwound models pop up.. ugh. That's something they'll have to fix in the next edition, and Im assuming they will. But, how can you have the benefits of both.. ?

What can you do.. you have to take the good with the bad and all in all, I personally think the wound allocation works better in this edition than in previous ones. I dont know why Im complaning about the old way though, I would always have a few Khorne unit champions running around alone at the end of the game causing trouble with their powerfist. I'm lucky if my Champions make it past the 3 turn nowadays.. they always choke their own armor rolls.


Last edited by System Commander on Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:49 am; edited 1 time in total

System Commander
System Commander

Posts : 4693
Join date : 2008-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  Guest on Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:57 am

I'm not going to argue the overall theme of the argument, for wound allocation has been a touchy issue for a long time. I will say however, that I understand how shooting more can in fact be worse. Lets face it, people playing shooting armies would love to stop and imagine their firing line each picking a different target, each hitting with perfect accuracy and each foe falling down with a hole in his head. But the fact of the matter is, once you start firing more shots than targets things start to get hectic. Multiple shots will hit the same person, the guy aiming at the sqaud vet or the lascannon misses while his four buddies shooting at the 2 normal marines hit on target. Volley fire is an imperfect system, thats all there is too it.

You want to take a look at a precise example as to why firing more can be bad? Take a look at an automatic rifle vs a normal one. You fire at 2 people, the auto might hit more, but odds are those hits will be on the same target, wheras the normal rifle is more likely to get an even split between both targets.

Once again, not saying the rules are good, and the fact that the defender gets control is a unfortunate twist against the shooter, but it isn't as unrealistic as people would have you believe.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  Guest on Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:16 pm

Just wanted to share the article with you all b/c I'm sure at least some of you have similar feelings, and maybe some of you out there have opposite views you'd like to express?
With gusto Smile


BoLS, and it specifically commenting on something other than rumours or modeling or painting? Check.

Writer = iamaddj, the same person who wrote this dross? Check.

So far the article's credibility is looking pretty darn shaky. I would critique it myself but that would be considered stealing considering Kirby did an excellent job already.


Final thoughts: there's a reason the term "BoLShit" is drifting around the net.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  System Commander on Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:27 am

We all know how much you dislike Bols Alex, youve gone after them before here. .. some people here do like the site, some people dont. I happen to love Bols for what they do, compile 40K infomation. I dont have to enjoy or agree with their articles.. its their blog for pete's sake, who cares what they put up? If you dont like it, dont go there. Seems like the simplest thing in the world to me.

I will never understand the hate and vitriole they get though. Why waste the effort critiquing their stuff, or why even go the site period? I dont like Why the Truth Hurts, so I dont read the articles.. and I dont bring up why I dislike it.

Lets stick to talking about wound allocation.. not the article, I think that was the primary point.

System Commander
System Commander

Posts : 4693
Join date : 2008-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  Guest on Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:21 am

You missed the point completely. I'm saying that, the article and any arguments brought up as a result of the article are kinda silly.

Where did I mention "why the truth hurts" - whatever that is - in my post???

Wound allocation in 5th is fine. It may not be the best thing in the world (nothing is) but it's simple and effective. Granted, the rulebook does a very poor job of explaining it but the rulebook tends to do a poor job of explaining almost every rule - it's just not written very well. I'm at the point where I stopped quoting the rulebook verbatim. I have a decently good memory and like to quote things as written (such as in D&D, MTG, FFG games, etc.) but the GW rules make more sense when paraphrased in a bullet form.

Sometimes wound allocation gets annoying when there's five different types of attacks and ten different types of models involved, but then it just gets a bit more complicated. And I'm sure none of us are above a little thinking once and a while Wink

As for realism, I find these arguments really poor in their validity - I thought we abandoned realism when tens of thousands of years later we're using WWI/II tanks and gunpowder-based weapons; instead of using actual tactics, giant supermen in powered armour simply walk across the battlefield firing from the hip. Scratch that, why are we even sending people to the surface? Aren't nukes much more effective (and cheaper)? And as for the fallout, it's the future - where's our radiation consuming bacteria?

(And for that record, what about daemons and psykers and Tolkien elves in SPEHSS? Wink )

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  Guest on Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:45 am

I would say that I agree with his argument that shooting more should not help the defender in any case (unless they have fancy abilities like the Dark Templars do).

I disagree with the way that he argues his point, but that is another story.

I can't remember if it was a house rule, or an old rule. But I recall that a group that I played with had a system of wound realocation.

For example: There is a group of 10 space marines, 5 have bolters and 5 have pistols and close combat weapons. They suffer 20 wounds, which are split 10 on each half of the marines. If the bolters fail 7 saves, and the CCW marines pass all of theirs, then the 2 extra unsaved wounds are placed onto the CCW marines. In the end only 3 CCW marines remain of the initial 10 because the sqaud because the defender failed 7 saves.

The system worked great when everyone had the same armour save. However, players found it rediculous when their Captain in arteficer (2+) armour was allocated extra wounds that his sqaud mates failed too many saves on 2's (which he would have saved).

Another system that I recall is that if a group of models is assigned more wounds that it had available, then the defending player would first only resolve an amount of saves equal the number of wounds avaiable. If models still remain afterwards, than the defending player would roll another set of saves, and continue untill no models remained, or all the wounds were saved. If they are eliminated, than any remaining wounds would be placed onto the next group of models in their unit.

EX: "6 Space Marines (a Sergeant, a meltagunner, a guy with a lascanon, and 3 normal Marines) get shot by an Imperial Guard veteran squad. The Marines take 6 lasgun wounds and 6 wounds from plasma guns.... The defending player... allocates two lasgun wounds each to the sergeant, the meltagunner and the guy with the lascannon. Meanwhile the 3 normal marines take the 6 plasma gun wounds."

So, if we start with the unsaveable wounds, the 3 normal marines get assigned 3 plasma gun wounds. They can not save so they are all removed. So the remaining 3 wounds are realocated evenly with 1 on each remaining model. We then go to resolve the special model's saves. Since each of them has an unsaveable wound, they are all removed.

With this method, every wound dealt has to be assigned to something untill it is either saved or failed. No simply saying that all 4 Vets happened to really hate Timmy, and felt that it was very necessary to plasma gun him to death 6 times.

I realize that it is most likely that the store is most likely to just stay with Games' Workshop rulings for the simple fact that, "the rules are the rules" and, "what is a game without rules?".

On the note of rules though; I mentioned a month or two ago that I found a ruling that when lashing a jump infantry unit, they can all be forced to make difficult terrain tests (and therefore kill 1/6 of the unit). I found the FAQ:: (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1610178_Chaos_Space_Marines_FAQ_2008-05_Edition.pdf)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Can you use Lash of Submission to move models around within a unit and re-arrange them? Can models be moved out of unit coherency? Can a unit be moved out of combat? If a unit is moved into dangerous terrain, do they have to test? If jump infantry are moved, are they assumed to be using their packs or walking? Can a unit be shoved right off the table, or into impassable terrain?

A. The move created by this power is executed exactly like a normal move, except that it's not slowed by difficult terrain. If follows that, for example:

the 2D6" distance rolled is the unit's maximum move, as normal, and models in the unit can move up to that distance or less

models cannot be moved out of coherency

units cannot be moved out of combat

dangerous terrain tests must be taken as normal

jump infantry may choose to move either with their packs or on foot (moving player's choice)

units cannot enter impassable terrain, leave the table or be moved closer than 1" to enemy models.

Q.Can a unit be affected by Lash of Submission more than once in the same turn?

A. Yes, as long as it does not fail its Pinning test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Soo, given that there is a tournament coming up, and that blood angels tend to stomp pretty hard. Would it be accepted by all that Jump Infantry can be forced to fly into walls and trees when they are being led around by Slaanesh?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  System Commander on Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:02 am

If thats the exact text from the faq, then yup, you can bounce them around into terrain and force dangerous terrain checks. I dont know how many people are playing blood angels in town though...

As for the Bols thing, I just dont like to see bashing for no reason, or maybe you have a reason? There's enough negativity around to begin with, why pick on guys that post stuff on their own blogs, who are doing good things for the game community? And in my first post, I meant Yes the Truth Hurts.. Im sure everyone knows what I meant. If people dont like the articles on Bols.. why even bother going there? Ill never ever understand that. If you dont like articles some specific people write, skip em. Its his opinion, his blog, he can post what he wants.. why do people get their hate on so much for stuff posted there? I cant understand it.. seriously, not at all, its beyond me completly. But there must be a reason.. I wish I could figure it out. But, thats the internets these days.. 1000 negative comments.. 2 positive comments. If only we could all get along.

Anyway, as far as wound allocation, I think everyone can agree there are still problems. I dont think it's as complicated as it is a bit frustrating. In the end though, find it only comes up a couple times a game where you have you feel like you get shafted by them as a shooter. Now, I play more assault armies than shooty, but the same allocation applies. Ive never thought i was cheated or robbed of a game because of it.. I jsut wish it could be streamlined a bit more. Of all the phases of a game turn, its seems the allocation parts bogs down time the most.. allocating, rolling separate, etc.



System Commander
System Commander

Posts : 4693
Join date : 2008-02-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  Terran on Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:48 pm

canadin wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Can you use Lash of Submission to move models around within a unit and re-arrange them? Can models be moved out of unit coherency? Can a unit be moved out of combat? If a unit is moved into dangerous terrain, do they have to test? If jump infantry are moved, are they assumed to be using their packs or walking? Can a unit be shoved right off the table, or into impassable terrain?

A. The move created by this power is executed exactly like a normal move, except that it's not slowed by difficult terrain. If follows that, for example:

the 2D6" distance rolled is the unit's maximum move, as normal, and models in the unit can move up to that distance or less

models cannot be moved out of coherency

units cannot be moved out of combat

dangerous terrain tests must be taken as normal

jump infantry may choose to move either with their packs or on foot (moving player's choice)

units cannot enter impassable terrain, leave the table or be moved closer than 1" to enemy models.

Q.Can a unit be affected by Lash of Submission more than once in the same turn?

A. Yes, as long as it does not fail its Pinning test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Soo, given that there is a tournament coming up, and that blood angels tend to stomp pretty hard. Would it be accepted by all that Jump Infantry can be forced to fly into walls and trees when they are being led around by Slaanesh?

Lash of Submission allows you to move Jump Infantry into terrain, possibly allowing for dangerous terrain tests. That is if they decide to use their jetpacks. As the moving player (I am guessing that is the Lasher, since he is dictating that particular move) you would need to specify that 'These Assault Marines make this Lash move w/ Jump packs, which will cause a dangerous terrain test". If you didn't specify this, then I would say they are assumed to be walking, and would be fine no matter how many trees they bounce off of.

Also, while wound allocation is still less than perfect, I don't see it as quite as broken as many people say. It still forces the 'shot at' to sometimes allocate wounds onto the special squad members. I have lost plenty of Champions, Exarchs, and Melta-gunners to wounds allocated by the current rules. Plus, for our gaming circle I would ask this question: How many Nob Bikers or Thunderwolves do we have riding around? Oh, wait, none.

Terran
Assassin

Posts : 305
Join date : 2009-09-14
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wound Allocation thoughts

Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:54 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum