Wound Allocation Question

[Grimtooth]

Just a quick question for Brother Ramses - What is your definition of "same weapon" in the statement :

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

How do you come to the conclusion that any two given models weapons are "the same"?

 

Weapons is defined by the equipment section in the individual codex. If you have two of of the same entry in said codex, that would be the same weapons.

[Grey Mage]

Just a quick question for Brother Ramses - What is your definition of "same weapon" in the statement :

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

How do you come to the conclusion that any two given models weapons are "the same"?

 

Weapons is defined by the equipment section in the individual codex. If you have two of of the same entry in said codex, that would be the same weapons.

However, that is your interpretation. The BRB doesnt define a weapon as anything with the same title- it does however state how different weapons have different characteristics- such as str, ap, etc- and different special rules- gets hot, etc.

[dswanick]

Just a quick question for Brother Ramses - What is your definition of "same weapon" in the statement :

By this we mean that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

How do you come to the conclusion that any two given models weapons are "the same"?

 

Weapons is defined by the equipment section in the individual codex. If you have two of of the same entry in said codex, that would be the same weapons.

OK then, let me reask you my earlier question.

Question : Can someone please post the summary/statline for a Combi-melta along with book and page were they found it published.

For example :

Missile Launcher

- Frag missile S4 AP6 Heavy 1, Blast

- Krak missile S8 AP3 Heavy 1

Thanks in advance.

[SeattleDV8]

Okay how about this, a Chaos Rhino can take a Combi-weapon.

Are you folks, that claim a Combi-weapon is actually two weapons, allowing someone to count the melta (plasma,flamer, which ever) as one weapon destroyed and the bolter as a seperate weapon?

[Grey Mage]

Okay how about this, a Chaos Rhino can take a Combi-weapon.

Are you folks, that claim a Combi-weapon is actually two weapons, allowing someone to count the melta (plasma,flamer, which ever) as one weapon destroyed and the bolter as a seperate weapon?

Having reveiwed the Combi-weapon stats in C:CSM, I would.

[SeattleDV8]

Well at least you are consistent, sadly most people will find that that point is very, very silly.

[Grey Mage]

Indeed, because most people are trying to say its one weapon, despite that the rules talk about it being two weapons. We all have a few issues like this it seems.

[Algesan]

Algesan:

 

Again, if we are being hyper technical in both of these examples where the entire weapon is consumed in one use, then the model should be replaced after expending the weapon, although from the looks, you could have the grunt holding the empty bag (or nothing) and the tank should have an empty launch rail on it (with a scorched tank commander if that thing launches right then). This is because the represented weapon is consumed by use.

 

In the case of a combi, the weapon empty looks the same as the weapon full, since the weapon doesn't consume itself, it simply has expended its ammo.

But that is purely fluff/modelling. There is no difference in rules between a hunter-killer missile that has expended it's one shot and the meltagun of a combi-melta that has expended it's one shot. Take for example a Space Marines hunter-killer missile. That is modeled as a missile launcher tube. So, do the Space Marines keep the weapon, but the Imperial Guard loses the single missile? No, that is purely a cosmetic issue. In the game both have the same function. If for a HK missile "fired = gone" and for a demolition charge "fired = gone" then you would have to treat a meltagun from a combi-melta the same way. In the rules it is just another weapon that can only be used once, and then no more during the rest of the game.

 

Have to have that WYSIWYG!

 

Seriously, go back and look at the combi weapon bits. Then go back and look a the picture of a real life M16 with M203 grenade launcher. The weapon does not "disappear", it has simply fired. In your other examples you must call on two bits of wargear that distinctly add something extra and obviously tacked on to them. Like I said, personally, I'd prefer not to call complex unit on this thing. It would be easier to kill the entire unit that way.

[Legatus]

Seriously, go back and look at the combi weapon bits. Then go back and look a the picture of a real life M16 with M203 grenade launcher. The weapon does not "disappear", it has simply fired.

As I said, a weapon that has been expent being either gone or not gone is purely fluff. In the game, HK missiles, demolition charges and the special weapons of a combi-weapon are all simply weapons that can only be used once. None of them is stated to then disappear. But all of them stop having any meaning for the game from that point on.

[Grey Mage]

Have to have that WYSIWYG!

 

Seriously, go back and look at the combi weapon bits. Then go back and look a the picture of a real life M16 with M203 grenade launcher. The weapon does not "disappear", it has simply fired. In your other examples you must call on two bits of wargear that distinctly add something extra and obviously tacked on to them. Like I said, personally, I'd prefer not to call complex unit on this thing. It would be easier to kill the entire unit that way.

The grenade certainly dissapeared, hopefully in a bright shining explosion.

[Algesan]

Have to have that WYSIWYG!

 

Seriously, go back and look at the combi weapon bits. Then go back and look a the picture of a real life M16 with M203 grenade launcher. The weapon does not "disappear", it has simply fired. In your other examples you must call on two bits of wargear that distinctly add something extra and obviously tacked on to them. Like I said, personally, I'd prefer not to call complex unit on this thing. It would be easier to kill the entire unit that way.

The grenade certainly dissapeared, hopefully in a bright shining explosion.

 

Or a nice smoky one depending on the shell. :blink:

 

As I said, a weapon that has been expent being either gone or not gone is purely fluff. In the game, HK missiles, demolition charges and the special weapons of a combi-weapon are all simply weapons that can only be used once. None of them is stated to then disappear. But all of them stop having any meaning for the game from that point on.

 

Regardless of the subject, this is a simulation that uses (at least on the battlefield) some real world functions.

 

Let me ask you this again. In a target squad of 5 combi-x weapons, where 3 are expended and 2 are not (or vice-versa), why is this important except for trying to force a chance of a lucky kill when only more than 3 and less than 8 wounds need to be rolled for?

 

In any other case, either the number of wounds are too low to get an unexpended weapon and if you have more wounds (heck, if you have more than 5 wounds), then it is far better to simply try and whiff the entire squad on straight saving throw rolls. 10 wounds, 4+ save, probably wipe. 15 wounds, 3+ save, probably wipe. Using complex unit rules means the distribution get more complicated, but you will probably have some units surviving rather than every last one of the buggers dead and off the table!

 

I gave an example above, where using the simple unit rules I would have had 11 armor saves to roll on one figure, but as a complex unit, I lost the six instakill wounds on two models and spread the 11 saves over 5 models. Win for the home team there.

[Legatus]

Let me ask you this again. In a target squad of 5 combi-x weapons, where 3 are expended and 2 are not (or vice-versa), why is this important except for trying to force a chance of a lucky kill when only more than 3 and less than 8 wounds need to be rolled for?

Because in 5th Edition the entire squad is not supposed to be ablative wounds and allow the special weapons to survive to the very end. In 5th Edition if the enemy inflicts enough wounds you are forced to allocate wounds to those special models and they are in real danger to be killed earlier.

 

5 Marines, one of them has a meltagun. If that unit suffers 5 or more wounds, you are now required to allocate a wound to the meltagun, and that meltaguun now has to pass it's own save, putting it directly in harms way. (In case of 5 wounds, the chance would be 33% that the Meltagun is killed.)

 

5 Marines, four with empty combi-weapons, one with full combi-weapon. If that unit now suffers 5 wounds, if you treat them as a complex unit the situation would be just like in the single meltagun situation. The (functional) special weapon has to make it's own save and is in danger of being killed by a failed save.

If you treated all the models as identical, the chance that the special weapon would be killed would be approaching nil (about 0.4% in case of 5 wounds.)

 

In 4th Edition the rules allowed the player to remove any model he wanted and so to keep the special models alive until the very end. In 5th Edition GW has removed that complete control and introduced an element of threat for the special models. I am suggesting that the special combi-weapon model is treated exactly like any other special weapon would be.

 

 

I gave an example above, where using the simple unit rules I would have had 11 armor saves to roll on one figure, but as a complex unit, I lost the six instakill wounds on two models and spread the 11 saves over 5 models. Win for the home team there.

That's just what the complex unit system will sometimes lead to. It is not perfect and can lead to stacking up armour ignoring wounds on a few models. But that situation will occur far less than the unit simply suffering enough normal wounds so that the special weapon would be endangered. If you treat spent combi-weapons the same as full combi-weapons then the special weapons of your squad will have increased protection against basic wounds. Protection like actual special weapons can never enjoy.

 

Had the unit in your example, the one in the situation you had experienced yourself, been a squad of Sternguard or a Command Squad with multiple combi-weapons? Or was that just another kind of complex unit? Because then it would seem that you have a problem with the complex unit rules in general, and not specifically with spent or full combi-meltas adding another differentiation. Most likely, a unit with multiple combi-meltas will already include differently armed models (like a Sergeant with special CCW, for example). So wounds would already be allocated to different elements of the squad. Treating empty cobi-weapons differently than full ones merely forces you to allocate wounds to the precious special weapons. Like you would normally be required to in any other special weapon/heavy weapon/sergeant situation.

[shatter]

I seem to be merely vote casting. I'm totally in Legatus's camp on this issue.

[Algesan]

It was a Vet Sister Superior, Sister with HF, Sister with F, and four remaining Sisters. 4th Ed vets called it correctly for 4th Ed rules, when 17 wounds came in, with 6 rending, pull the unit. Doesn't work that way in 5th as we found out since that is a bonafide complex unit. I got to tarpit for a turn with it.

 

So my point once again, you are arguing for a chance to use the complex rules in a certain particular situation with extremely flimsy support for your advantage when you manage to score X wounds. At less than X wounds, the question is irrelevant, the expended combis will die first. At greater than X wounds, using simple unit rule armor saves will produce more model kills since those are like 4th ed rules.

 

Ignore the fact that those wounds were rending, I still would have had several models left after saves using complex rules. If simple rules had applied, the unit would have been dead! I'm not going to draw out the probabilities for you, it is a complicated pain in the arse to do and if you don't realize that it is easier to kill simple units with sufficient wounds in 5th, then you probably cannot understand the math that proves it.

 

Roll 10 wounds, then roll 10 4+ armor saves (it works for 3+, just use 15 wounds). Odds are that half of the saves will be failed. 50% chance of unit wipe. Period. If you use complex rules, you have to figure the probabilities of each individual model failing exactly one of each of its two saves.

 

2-2-1-0-0

2-2-0-1-0

2-2-0-0-1

2-1-2-0-0

2-0-2-1-0

2-0-2-0-1

2-1-0-2-0

2-0-1-2-0

2-0-0-2-1

2-1-0-0-2

2-0-1-0-2

2-0-0-1-2

 

12 chances of three models dying. Something like 20 chances of four models dying. One and only one chance of all five models dying. So, something like a 1/33 chance of killing the unit when you could have had a sure thing before. Real good choice there.

[Grey Mage]

*shakes head*.

 

1) Your wrong, as there were 7 models in the above unit, it would *potentially* be alive.

 

2) The chance on an armor save doesnt change because the model has different weapons- only the number of wounds allocated to it matter.

 

3) Most importantly, this has nothing to do with cheese or lack there of- so keep your insults out of this thread please.

 

4) This has to do with how the rules are written. All your math has to say here is that wether or not theyre the same has a significant impact on the game- we knew that, thank you for confirming it.

[Legatus]

It was a Vet Sister Superior, Sister with HF, Sister with F, and four remaining Sisters. 4th Ed vets called it correctly for 4th Ed rules, when 17 wounds came in, with 6 rending, pull the unit. Doesn't work that way in 5th as we found out since that is a bonafide complex unit. I got to tarpit for a turn with it.

 

(...)

 

 

Ignore the fact that those wounds were rending, I still would have had several models left after saves using complex rules. If simple rules had applied, the unit would have been dead! I'm not going to draw out the probabilities for you, it is a complicated pain in the arse to do and if you don't realize that it is easier to kill simple units with sufficient wounds in 5th, then you probably cannot understand the math that proves it.

You see, that's exactly what I was saying. Your beef is with the 5th Edition rules for wound allocation. But that is how 5th Edition works. You are now basically trying to argue to keep those pesky 5th Edition rules awaye from a mixed-combi-weapon squad.

 

 

Roll 10 wounds, then roll 10 4+ armor saves (it works for 3+, just use 15 wounds). Odds are that half of the saves will be failed. 50% chance of unit wipe. Period. If you use complex rules, you have to figure the probabilities of each individual model failing exactly one of each of its two saves.

 

(...)

 

12 chances of three models dying. Something like 20 chances of four models dying. One and only one chance of all five models dying. So, something like a 1/33 chance of killing the unit when you could have had a sure thing before. Real good choice there.

Ok, now take a unit with 4 Boltgun Marines and 1 Meltagun Marine. That unit suffers 5 regular wounds. If you had such a scenario 30 times, how often would you end up with a dead Meltagun?

 

Now take a unit with 4 empty combi-meltas and 1 full combi-melta. That units suffers 5 regular wounds. In 30 takes, how often would the full combi-melta be removed as a casualty if you treat the models as identical for wound allocation?

 

Do you notice a difference? Do you think there should be a difference?

[Grimtooth]

Yes.

 

Not because of dice theory or mathhammer, but because that is the RULES.

[Grey Mage]

Yes.

 

Not because of dice theory or mathhammer, but because that is the RULES.

Wow, this could be interpreted so many ways Ramses.

 

Please, by all means elaborate on your point- because if you werent normally such a good poster Id think this was spam.

[KJQ]

Wow, excellent discussion gents. I'm a 6 month newbie and so ignore my comments as you will. I've read and re-read the rules and your posts and IMHO there is no clear cut RAW. I don't play Sternguard and so my comb-weapons are only with Sargeants in my tactical squads, and therefore roll saves separately when I take multiple wounds. If I do play Sternguard in future, I'll be sure to settle the argument prior to starting the game. I will speak to RAI a bit, even though this is a rules forum. To cut to the chase, treating fired and not-fired combi weapons/models separately favors the attacker, and treating them the same favors the defender. The 'remove whatever like model you want' rule favors the defender as there are clear advantages to choosing certain like models over others based upon their position. I think the new edition rules are intended to balance that advantage a bit by putting special models at risk sooner (i.e. with fewer wounds taken by a unit). The excellent mathhammer done above clearly shows that treating spent/not-spent like combi models differently keeps the stats about the same as the new WA rules do. Based upon that, I'd side with the 'treat separately' camp. I already face this in my non-Sternguard squads so why should multi-combi armed squads have dramatically different survival odds? Again, I think we'll all just have to settle this before games with house rules or dice rolls.

[Grimtooth]

Yes.

 

Not because of dice theory or mathhammer, but because that is the RULES.

Wow, this could be interpreted so many ways Ramses.

 

Please, by all means elaborate on your point- because if you werent normally such a good poster Id think this was spam.

 

Well it appears that some people have shifted their arguments to the mathhammer aspect of either counting them as still being combi-weapons or not and how it doesn't matter one way or the other. My point is despite what mathhammer tells us is the odds on better situation for either countiing them all the same or fired ones differently is a moot point that has absolutely zero bearing on the rules discussion.

 

Not once is functionality of the weapon a qualifier for the BRB definition for being identical. Not once is anyone directed to rename or reclassify there combi-weapon after it has been fired. That is the crux of the argument.

 

So despite what is the better odds for me killing unfired combi-weapons or saving unfired combi-weapons, I go by what the rules dictate.

[Grey Mage]

Yes.

 

Not because of dice theory or mathhammer, but because that is the RULES.

Wow, this could be interpreted so many ways Ramses.

 

Please, by all means elaborate on your point- because if you werent normally such a good poster Id think this was spam.

 

Well it appears that some people have shifted their arguments to the mathhammer aspect of either counting them as still being combi-weapons or not and how it doesn't matter one way or the other. My point is despite what mathhammer tells us is the odds on better situation for either countiing them all the same or fired ones differently is a moot point that has absolutely zero bearing on the rules discussion.

 

Not once is functionality of the weapon a qualifier for the BRB definition for being identical. Not once is anyone directed to rename or reclassify there combi-weapon after it has been fired. That is the crux of the argument.

 

So despite what is the better odds for me killing unfired combi-weapons or saving unfired combi-weapons, I go by what the rules dictate.

We are however directed to check wich group a model belongs to each time the unit takes wounds, do to how wound allocation functions.

[Grimtooth]

Yes.

 

Not because of dice theory or mathhammer, but because that is the RULES.

Wow, this could be interpreted so many ways Ramses.

 

Please, by all means elaborate on your point- because if you werent normally such a good poster Id think this was spam.

 

Well it appears that some people have shifted their arguments to the mathhammer aspect of either counting them as still being combi-weapons or not and how it doesn't matter one way or the other. My point is despite what mathhammer tells us is the odds on better situation for either countiing them all the same or fired ones differently is a moot point that has absolutely zero bearing on the rules discussion.

 

Not once is functionality of the weapon a qualifier for the BRB definition for being identical. Not once is anyone directed to rename or reclassify there combi-weapon after it has been fired. That is the crux of the argument.

 

So despite what is the better odds for me killing unfired combi-weapons or saving unfired combi-weapons, I go by what the rules dictate.

We are however directed to check wich group a model belongs to each time the unit takes wounds, do to how wound allocation functions.

 

And we are directed to soley use the BRB definition of how to group said models which weapon functionality is not listed, but only the weapon equipped.

[Grey Mage]

And we are directed to soley use the BRB definition of how to group said models which weapon functionality is not listed, but only the weapon equipped.

And see... there we go again.

 

You interpret weapon as 'weapon equiped'. It could just as easily be 'weapon functionality', 'weapon profile', 'wether they have any weapons or not', etc etc.

 

What makes your interpretation any more valid than anyone elses?

[Legatus]

Well it appears that some people have shifted their arguments to the mathhammer aspect of either counting them as still being combi-weapons or not and how it doesn't matter one way or the other. My point is despite what mathhammer tells us is the odds on better situation for either countiing them all the same or fired ones differently is a moot point that has absolutely zero bearing on the rules discussion.

That is true. I find it interresting none the less. Whereas Algesan is of the opinion that treating fired combi-weapons as different model types than non-fired ones would result in complications and odd situations, I on the other hand think that treating them that way works out just how other common situations with limited special weapons in a squad work out, and thus should be the desired outcome.

 

 

Not once is functionality of the weapon a qualifier for the BRB definition for being identical.

Unfortunately the BRB does not explain when two weapons are considered identical at all.

 

Which is why I look at examples where two weapons are considered identical or not identical. I have found examples where the weapons are called the same, look the same and work in the fluff the same but have different rules (CSM Chain Axes, CSM Terminator Chain Axes), and would be considered not identical. And I have found examples where the weapons are called differently, look differently and work differently in the fluff, but have the exact same rules (Lasguns and Autoguns, Chain Swords and CSM Chain Axes) and would be considered identical in the game.

My conclusion based on those examples is that the rules only care for the weapon's in game properties and in no way care for the weapon's name, it's model representation or how it is described to work in the fluff when determining whether or not two weapons are considered to be identical.

 

Is the name the same? Does not matter!

 

Is the model the same? Does not matter!

 

Do they have the same background? Does not matter!

 

Are they working the same in the game? <-- This is the sole criterion!

[Grimtooth]

Becase the BRB definition only lists weapon. It doesn't tell you to dig any deeper or expand upon the word "weapon".

 

By you standard of weapon functionality I could create a unit where half the models are different soley by switching the weapons from left side to rightside.

 

A left handed wolf claw is the same as a right handed wolf claw per the BRB. Functionally they are different. If I put a right handed wolf claw on 5 wolf guard with a bolt pistol and the I put left handed wolf claws on the rest with bolt pistols.

 

Now per RAW they all have the same weapons. By your RAI, they are all different as a right handed wolf claw is functionally different from a left handed wolf claw.

 

Want to really see how screwed up it gets? Replace those bolt pistols with a combination of your RAI fired and unfired combi-weapons:

 

Right handed wolf claw with unfired combi

Right handed wolf claw with fired combi

Left handed wolf claw with unfired combi

Left handed wolf claw with fired combi

 

How about I add in some left and right handed powerfists with fired/unfired comb-weapons? Add some left handed and right handed power weapons and combis to that?

 

Or we just have,

 

Wolf claw and combi x3

powerfist and combi x3

power weapon and combi x4