More Wounds Than Models... What Now?

[ShinyRhino]

On an slightly related note, at our LGS, we've had a new phenomenon of players crowing "Instant Death wounds have to be allocated first!!!" during games.

CAn someone give me a rules quote and page number that specifies what the heck they're on about here? I've never personally run into a situation where it mattered, since you have to remove one full model for each ID wound anyways. It matters little if that wound is allocated first, or tenth, since you have to remove two full models. Where is this rule?

[BearersOfSalvation]

The rules for allocating wounds say that you allocate all of the wounds from one firing unit to your unit at one time, you don't do ID wounds at a different time than the rest.

[Jakobus]

What I believe that they are referencing is the rules that are under the Units of Multiple wound models on p26. which is used after wound allocation and saves.

 

Where as on p25. the diagram clearly has the details where you allocate all the wounds and then take the saves.. or don't bother if something ignores wounds and kills the model.

I am not aware of any rules indicating which order you have to allocate the wounds beyond the fact you have to allocate the total dice equally. Although I would probably call shenannigans if a 6 man dev squad (Sarg, 4 heavy weapons and a boltgun guy) suffers 2 Melta shots and 5 bolt wounds and they wanted to allocate both melta shots to the Boltgun guy.

[ShinyRhino]

What I believe that they are referencing is the rules that are under the Units of Multiple wound models on p26. which is used after wound allocation and saves.

 

Where as on p25. the diagram clearly has the details where you allocate all the wounds and then take the saves.. or don't bother if something ignores wounds and kills the model.

I am not aware of any rules indicating which order you have to allocate the wounds beyond the fact you have to allocate the total dice equally. Although I would probably call shenannigans if a 6 man dev squad (Sarg, 4 heavy weapons and a boltgun guy) suffers 2 Melta shots and 5 bolt wounds and they wanted to allocate both melta shots to the Boltgun guy.

 

That's the only thing I can think of, that sometime, somewhere, someone allocated two ID wounds to a single-model grouping illegally.

[Arikel]

{Although I would probably call shenannigans if a 6 man dev squad (Sarg, 4 heavy weapons and a boltgun guy) suffers 2 Melta shots and 5 bolt wounds and they wanted to allocate both melta shots to the Boltgun guy.}

 

Except that it is totally legal to do this, and part of why having at least 2 different wound groups in one squad is important, ideally I think you will want 3 or 4 groups.

 

Edit: I believe it's also the principle behind the nigh indestructible orc biker nob squad, where if you have a full sqaud you can actually pull off having 10 or so different wound groups(all with a cover save and 2 wounds to boot) (perhaps more, i'd have to grab my buddy's orc book again)

[Jakobus]

{Although I would probably call shenannigans if a 6 man dev squad (Sarg, 4 heavy weapons and a boltgun guy) suffers 2 Melta shots and 5 bolt wounds and they wanted to allocate both melta shots to the Boltgun guy.}

 

Except that it is totally legal to do this, and part of why having at least 2 different wound groups in one squad is important, ideally I think you will want 3 or 4 groups.

 

Edit: I believe it's also the principle behind the nigh indestructible orc biker nob squad, where if you have a full sqaud you can actually pull off having 10 or so different wound groups(all with a cover save and 2 wounds to boot) (perhaps more, i'd have to grab my buddy's orc book again)

 

I believe the Nob bike thing is being able to make each one of the 10 Nobz a seperate wound allocation group. Its just I would have issues in a situation where I'm playing someone and shoot the Nobz and inflict 3 melta wounds and 18 bolt rounds (unlikey yes but as an example), and they say "hmm, I'll allocate 1 melta wound here then I'll allocate 9 bolter wounds, now allocate 2nd melta wound to ummm the same guy allocate another 9 bolter wounds and round off by allocatign the 3rd melta wound to the guy that already has 2 melta shots.

And while this is technically leagal I'd still be calling shennannigans, either not playing that person again or giving them a 0 on sports or if possible a Skull (a local thing for some tournys which mean you think the guys is a :))

[TyrionTheImp]

I don't see why you would give someone bad scores for using rules that are clearly written in the book. I do it all the time, and in fact most people at my local game store do too and will actually tell you how to allocate wounds properly if you don't do it right, even if you're playing against them. It's not as underhanded as other things I've heard.

[Arikel]

{Although I would probably call shenannigans if a 6 man dev squad (Sarg, 4 heavy weapons and a boltgun guy) suffers 2 Melta shots and 5 bolt wounds and they wanted to allocate both melta shots to the Boltgun guy.}

 

Except that it is totally legal to do this, and part of why having at least 2 different wound groups in one squad is important, ideally I think you will want 3 or 4 groups.

 

Edit: I believe it's also the principle behind the nigh indestructible orc biker nob squad, where if you have a full sqaud you can actually pull off having 10 or so different wound groups(all with a cover save and 2 wounds to boot) (perhaps more, i'd have to grab my buddy's orc book again)

 

I believe the Nob bike thing is being able to make each one of the 10 Nobz a seperate wound allocation group. Its just I would have issues in a situation where I'm playing someone and shoot the Nobz and inflict 3 melta wounds and 18 bolt rounds (unlikey yes but as an example), and they say "hmm, I'll allocate 1 melta wound here then I'll allocate 9 bolter wounds, now allocate 2nd melta wound to ummm the same guy allocate another 9 bolter wounds and round off by allocatign the 3rd melta wound to the guy that already has 2 melta shots.

And while this is technically leagal I'd still be calling shennannigans, either not playing that person again or giving them a 0 on sports or if possible a Skull (a local thing for some tournys which mean you think the guys is a :cuss)

 

This isn't really abuse of the rules or unfair play though, it's how the game was designed by the developers to be played, and is a way to shelter your upgraded characters by taking multiple unsaveable or instant death wounds on the same wound group, rather than technically legal, I see this as deliberately legal . The wounds are assigned by the player who receives them, which makes characters like telion and the assasins special in that they can assist in stacking wounds on models you would prefer to snipe.

[DemetriiTZ]

{Although I would probably call shenannigans if a 6 man dev squad (Sarg, 4 heavy weapons and a boltgun guy) suffers 2 Melta shots and 5 bolt wounds and they wanted to allocate both melta shots to the Boltgun guy.}

 

Except that it is totally legal to do this, and part of why having at least 2 different wound groups in one squad is important, ideally I think you will want 3 or 4 groups.

 

Edit: I believe it's also the principle behind the nigh indestructible orc biker nob squad, where if you have a full sqaud you can actually pull off having 10 or so different wound groups(all with a cover save and 2 wounds to boot) (perhaps more, i'd have to grab my buddy's orc book again)

 

I believe the Nob bike thing is being able to make each one of the 10 Nobz a seperate wound allocation group. Its just I would have issues in a situation where I'm playing someone and shoot the Nobz and inflict 3 melta wounds and 18 bolt rounds (unlikey yes but as an example), and they say "hmm, I'll allocate 1 melta wound here then I'll allocate 9 bolter wounds, now allocate 2nd melta wound to ummm the same guy allocate another 9 bolter wounds and round off by allocatign the 3rd melta wound to the guy that already has 2 melta shots.

And while this is technically leagal I'd still be calling shennannigans, either not playing that person again or giving them a 0 on sports or if possible a Skull (a local thing for some tournys which mean you think the guys is a :))

 

So, he should be a good sport and let you annihilate 250+ points of Nob Bikers, rather than using the perfectly legal wound allocation rules in the manner the BRB actually suggests you use them, in order to put you at a disadvantage, and protect his crucial and expensive unit?

 

There's a reason I frown upon softscores like sportsmanship; it encourages whining, like the above. When people get outplayed or get nailed by a rule they didn't take into account, they want to dock sportsmanship. Baby, if you didn't get punched in the mouth by this guy, or he didn't key your car, or he didn't insult you or verbally berate you in some way, he deserves a 10 for sportsmanship. Anything less, and you're automatically less of a man in my book.

 

And really, you don't want to lose Man points over a board game, because that automatically multiplies the Man point loss by a factor of 10. Which almost makes you a girl. Which means you eventually have to sleep with men.

 

Do you want to sleep with men? :P

[mowglie]

you have to remove one full model for each ID wound anyways

 

I don't see that rule. Not under "Complex Units" on page 25, nor under "Instant Death" on page 26.

 

Consider:-

 

2x Tactical Marine, Sergeant, Flamer, Missile Launcher

 

They've been deployed in a forward position and are about to move into rapidfire range, so I don't need the missile launcher any more.

 

They come under fire from a large IG combined blob and suffer 2 lascannon wounds and 4 lasgun wounds.

 

I allocate one lascannon wound to the ML, 1 lasgun wound each to the sergeant, flamer, and 2x basic.

 

Then, since everyone has a wound allocated, I can allocate the second lascannon wound to the ML.

 

Then I take saving throws. The ML suffers two unsaved wounds and dies. The 2x tac, sergeant, and flamer probably take one casualty between them.

 

There was another example on the previous page where adding two bolters to a hypothetical attack *reduced* the expected number of casualties.

 

"Allocate ID wounds first" is a common house rule to resolve this silliness.

[ShinyRhino]

Hmm, color me corrected, then. I'll have to post on my LGS's forums about it and see exactly why folks are going on about it.

Thanks.

 

Edit:

 

Ok, this is what I got from those players:

 

"26 in the small rule book:

 

If amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes instant death, and then proceed as normal (this is done for each group of identical multiple-wound models). This rule is designed to stop players avoiding single wounds by putting them on a model that has suffered instant death anyway. "

[ShinyRhino]

And, the provided quote doesn't support the argument that you have to allocate ID wounds FIRST. You can indeed soak them into a single-model wound group, because the sequence runs like this:

 

1. Attacker rolls to hit.

2. Attacker rolls to wound.

3. Defender allocates wounds.

4. Defender makes saving throws.

5. Defender removes models that failed saves.

 

You don't fail saves until after Step 4. Allocation is done at Step 3. :P

[mowglie]

That's right.

 

The idea behind the text on p26 is that if you've got a unit of e.g. identical nobz, you can't give a nob an unsaved non-ID wound, then an ID wound. So if your nobz squad takes 2 unsaved non-ID wounds and 2 ID wounds in the same attack, you must remove three whole models. If you've got five different wound groups, though (and you should), you can (and should) allocate such that all the ID wounds stack up on as few guys as possible. Then in step 5 once you've suffered unsavable wounds you remove e.g. 2 whole models from your group of 1 model. The extra wound is lost.

 

Looks like the guys at your flgs are doing it wrong as per RAW, but I will say that allocating ID wounds first (just before step 3) is both a common and sensible house rule because RAW makes mixed attacks so bad that if you're likely to cause more than one save-ignoring wound with your heavy/special, you're often better *not* firing your small arms.

[ShinyRhino]

That's right.

 

The idea behind the text on p26 is that if you've got a unit of e.g. identical nobz, you can't give a nob an unsaved non-ID wound, then an ID wound. So if your nobz squad takes 2 unsaved non-ID wounds and 2 ID wounds in the same attack, you must remove three whole models. If you've got five different wound groups, though (and you should), you can (and should) allocate such that all the ID wounds stack up on as few guys as possible. Then in step 5 once you've suffered unsavable wounds you remove e.g. 2 whole models from your group of 1 model. The extra wound is lost.

 

Looks like the guys at your flgs are doing it wrong as per RAW, but I will say that allocating ID wounds first (just before step 3) is both a common and sensible house rule because RAW makes mixed attacks so bad that if you're likely to cause more than one save-ignoring wound with your heavy/special, you're often better *not* firing your small arms.

 

Yeah, we cleared it up on our forums.

 

I can see the basis for the houserule, too. It's hard to be simultaneously exploded by two krak missiles at once, you know? Problem is, we have a lot of out-of-town players that drop in for our monthly tourneys, so imposing house rules on people is sorta frowned upon. We have to play it by the book, to be fair to all.

[Ryjak]

This isn't really abuse of the rules or unfair play though, it's how the game was designed by the developers to be played, and is a way to shelter your upgraded characters by taking multiple unsaveable or instant death wounds on the same wound group, rather than technically legal, I see this as deliberately legal . The wounds are assigned by the player who receives them, which makes characters like telion and the assasins special in that they can assist in stacking wounds on models you would prefer to snipe.

Funny you say that, since the game developers created the wound allocation rule specifically to make your upgraded characters and special weapons vulnerable. Too bad they achieved an epic fail.

[thade]

Concrete examples incoming.

 

EXAMPLE ONE

 

Unit of two marines. One is a sergeant with a PF, the other a marine with a boltgun. The unit takes three wounds. Two of them are from krak missiles; one is from a boltgun. I allocate as follows:

 

- krak missile wound to boltgun marine

- boltgun wound to sergeant

 

Now ever model in the unit has one wound, so I may overflow...

 

- krak missile wound to boltgun marine

 

The kraks are str 8, ap3...instant death and no save. The marine is gone, but the sergeant gets to make a save. It is not the case that two krak missiles into this unit guarantee that both models are pasted, because we allocate before we resolve wounds (resolve meaning we save for them or suffer them). The reason for that becomes clearer given the following example...

 

EXAMPLE TWO

 

Unit of two marines. One is a Librarian with two wounds, the other is a Master of the Forge with two wounds. The unit takes three wounds. Two of them are krak missile wounds. One of them is a boltgun wound. (For sake of argument, let's say I want to try to save the Librarian.) I allocate as follows:

 

- krak missile wound to the MotF

- boltgun wound to Librarian

 

Now every model in my unit has one wound, so I may overflow...

- krak missile wound to MotF

 

The krak missile is AP3 and Instant Death (marines are T4), but the MotF has a 2+ save, so he's got a chance of making both of those saves. A pretty decent one, actually. If he fails just one of them though, he's gone to Instant Death. As long as models have different wargear and/or statlines, you can mix and match between them. As people have pointed out, Nobs are NOTORIOUS for this. It's insane how much fire a Nob unit can take because each one of them will have a different wargear load out, and so the controlling player can bounce wounds around.

 

Were they all identical, a pair of unsaved wounds to the unit would eat a Nob...but any Ork player worth his salt will make sure each one of them has something slightly different about their configuration so they're each unique. Then you'd have to either deal one wound to each Nob before you kill any of them (no small task with a healthy helping of 2+ armor saves (Mega Nobs), a few invulns (Cybork Parts), and a FnP save from a Painboy mixed in there) OR hit them with more krak missiles than they have invuln saves and go for Instant Death.

 

Here's where it gets really annoying: if your first unit inflicts a wound to that "Wound Allocation Nob Unit", then your second unit fires a Krak missile into the unit, then the controlling player can (smartly) allocate that Krak missile wound to a model that ALREADY HAS a wound on it. Then if he fails the save and loses a Nob to the missile, it's a Nob that was already hurting...so he lost 1 wound instead of 2, effectively. Recall that this is legal only because each model in the unit is different...and that this is a good reason to still bring Devestator Squads with Missile Launchers to games against Orks.

 

I reeeeaaaallly hate Wound Alloc Units.

[BearersOfSalvation]

And while this is technically leagal I'd still be calling shennannigans, either not playing that person again or giving them a 0 on sports or if possible a Skull (a local thing for some tournys which mean you think the guys is a :D)

 

So your idea of sportsmanship is that someone is a bad sportsman if they foolishly play by the real rules and don't follow rules you made up in your head and never told them?

[Jakobus]

I do wish to point out that I haven't said anyone who employs this is cheating, I would be the first to say it is fully within the rules. If allocating the wounds that way wasn't in the rules I would point that out and the game would continue as per the book.

 

It may just be that when I started playing with sports scores it was explain to me in a way that using loopholes and so on isn't encouraged. Now I may be completely wrong when I look at sports scores that way, maybe I should score the rules laywers top sports scores but that won't mean I enjoyed that game or would choose to play that person in a friendly game, which is how I was told how to judge sports and how I personally would teach other people how to judge a sports score.

[AyanamiKun]

Why would it be good sportsmanship to give onself a disadvantage and not use the rule correctly? I wouldn't even want to win if my opponent intentionally puts ID wounds on different models without being forced to do so. Why? Because I propably did not win because I played well but because I was given an advantage. And that is just boring to me :P If I loose fairly and had fun that's great. If I win fairly and have fun that's great, too. But if I loose by making myself intentionally weaker or win against someone doing that, boring ... :)

[mowglie]

(I) did not win because I played well but because I was given an advantage.

 

I agree. Sportsmanship doesn't mean "letting your opponent win by giving yourself a disadvantage". The gaming component of sportsmanship is *fair play*, not intentionally playing poorly.

 

Sometimes I intentionally play poorly in friendly games (because I'm optimising the chance for awesome stuff to happen rather than optimising the chances that I win), but I think it would be a huge sign of disrespect to intentionally play poorly in an ostensibly competitive event.

 

If my opponent wasn't aware of the rules and unintentionally played themselves to a disadvantage (e.g. by firing a couple of bolters or lasguns along with multiple heavy weapons), I might consider saying "ok, well that means I can allocate like this and that's bad for you. Would you like to not fire those bolters?", but only if I was sure my opponent wouldn't be offended (or especially if they were a new player).

[Ryjak]

Emphasizing once again that a rule mechanic which encourages you to fire less guns to cause more death is probably a bad mechanic.

[ShinyRhino]

I think we're straying off topic here, folks.

[thade]

I think we're straying off topic here, folks.

 

Agreed. Sportsmanship discussions - even as they may relate to Tactics used - are not really what the Tactica board discusses. Here we discuss tactics objectively and how both employ and deal with them.