Wound allocation games for marines

[Tech Brother Torgo]

I'm working on upgrading my beloved biker-themed army from 1500 to 2000 by including a bike command squad (along with another Typhoon :) , and I'm curious about some of your thoughts on the value of altering the load out to maximize the wound allocation potential. My ideal in this case would be to go for 4x storm shields, 4x lightning claws and 4x meltaguns (go big or go home, right?), but I recall reading in a recent bike tactica thread that there was some value in mixing it up more to play with the wounds.

 

I can definitely see changing one of the claws out for a fist, and maybe one more out for a sword I suppose, but more than that and I'd feel I'm making sacrifices to the effectiveness in order to play wound games. One or two one-offs makes sense to help eat an extra killer shot if I'm hit by a significant volley, but for the bigger bike worries (weight of fire, massive ordnance blast) I'm not sure it's worth it. Thoughts?

[breng77]

It really depends, wound allocation for marines (the command squad in general) Is all about stacking killer wounds on only a few models. Say you take rapid fire plasma(2) and Bolters(8).

 

That is 16 bolter shots (against bikers that is 3 or 4 wounds), and 4 Plasma shots, which is another 2 wounds on average. So lets say you took 6 wounds (4 bolter, 2 plasma), If you wound allocate those 2 plasma wounds onto 1 guy with a storm shield, you get to take 2 3++ saves, while everyone else still gets a 3+ armor followed by a 4+ feel no pain. The storm shields make this a little less important as everyone still gets a 3+ save at least, but with wound allocation squads with worse invul saves, can be more survivable. It also helps in that you get to decide which models to put at more risk under weight of fire, although in your case the only model you care about dying is the Apothecary (for FNP) and you can already allocate around him.

 

In the end for a biker command squad, it is probably not worth it (unless you just like rolling few dice at a clip).

[DarkGuard]

Personally, I prefer in going for effectiveness over purposefully playing wound allocation games. In C:SM, it's hard anyway to play wound allocation games. We can only do so in small squads like Command squads and Veteran squads, otherwise we don't have enough upgrades to play wound games. In the end, the chances are that you'll often loose a lot of people to torrent of fire anyway. In your case, I'd probably go for what you were planning, possibly with a power fist instead of one lightning claw, but that's more for diversity and allowing them to be able to deal with ICs and MCs more efficiently.

[Wildfire]

With single-wound models, I find that wound allocation games only really produce results for medium sized squads with few or no invulnerable saves (or mixed inv saves), and only when in situations where you'll be receiving a large number of normal wounds and few wounds which ignore your save (usually combat with a squad and attached IC, or stuff like SW squads).

 

So, how much do you run into that situation? It you said often, it may be worth it for you. Otherwise, it's probably more headache than it's worth.

[breng77]

I agree, in my bike army I use wound allocation all the time, but I don't create my squads for the express purpose of wound allocation. For example if I had my captain attached to the above command squad I would always have him take the first wound (unless it would cause instant death), simply because should he take the wound, it does not change the effectiveness of the squad.

[Captain Idaho]

The amount of times I've taken 4 saves plus a plasma shot on 3 normal bolter chumps and a single save on a sergeant, it's just awesome for Marines. I still prefer the 4th edition rules for it though. Always bear in mind the rules at present though, because we can abuse the system!

[awfulawful]

I'm still not convinced that it's worth it to do this on purpose, but my bike command squad has one hammer and three claws, along with a banner. That means that if I should find myself with 5 points left to spend, then adding meltabombs to the squad results in all four veterans having different load-outs. When that has happened, I have certainly seen the benefits of playing with wound allocation.

[breng77]

Let me put it this way, it is not worth it if: 1.) You need to spend unecessary points to do so or 2.) Will make the unit less effective otherwise. That said when I was playing Ravenwing I would always give 1 of my 3 bikes a chainsword instead of his bolt pistol for wound allocation. He was never going to fire the bolt pistol anyway and this gave me, 1 sargent, a melta bike with BP, a melta bike with Chain sword. That way if I took 4 or 5 wounds the odds of me losing all of my bikes was decreased (ever so slightly). Look at it this way, if I roll 3 saves on 2 Marines and fail 2, 2 marines die, if I roll 2 on one and 1 on the other it is possible to fail, the two on one guy and only lose one marine. While I would not go out of your way to do this (wound allocation works better with multiple wound models), if it is free, I say why not.

[Mysticaria]

I agree. If you don't lose any effectiveness (through spending points of through taking sub-par gear), and you potentially gain the ability to save models by stacking low AP hits, or by spreading around saves to reduce the effects of below average dice rolling... why not? It won't be as effective as it would be with 2-wound models, but it still can make a difference some times.

 

-Myst

[ShinyRhino]

I've started running a Biker Command Squad, with the following loadout: Apothecary, Standard Bearer (bp+chainsword), Champion, Veteran (poweraxe+pistol), Veteran (pistol+chainsword). They're joined by Khan, or a Captain on bike.

 

In the games I've used them in so far, they tend to draw high-S, AP3 fire (krak, rokkit, etc). I don't have mine all tooled out with stormshields, so I am typically removing a model very time they take a hit like that. After the vanilla veteran is gone to the first casualty, I start feeling the loss of Marines keenly. I don't have redundancy in my armaments, but I can play the wound games. but wound games typically are triggered by masses of small arms fire, mixed with heavy fire. A tac squad firing at MANz, for example. A bunch of the bolters will hit and wound, but only one heavy and special.

Bikers aren't all that afraid of small arms fire, being T5. You're even less afraid when you're making FNP rolls.

So, unless you're taking volleys of 4-6 krak missiles at a time, wound shenanigans aren't really going to happen a lot with a Biker Command Squad.

 

The only place you're going to see a ton of wound shenanigans available for these guys is in close combat, because models tend to swing more in melee. A sergeant with powerfist and bolter shoots once at range, but swings 2-3 times in melee.

But initiative mitigates a lot of this. Charge your Biker Command Squad into a tactical squad. Your Captain will scythe down a bunch of Marines at I5, and then everything else goes at I4. You get to make a ton of rolls, hitting and wounding on 4s. The Marines punch back at the same time, but need 4+/5+ rolls. You get 3+ armor on all those strikes, plus FNP. Even if the Tac squad is full strength, you're lookign at MAYBE two wounds inflicted on you at I4. You can't play allocation games with two wounds! Even if the sergeant is still alive at I1 to punch your face, he'll be wounding twice on an average day. Again, you can't play any games with those two wounds.

 

The only time you're going to get to play wound allocation in melee to max effect with a Biker Command Squad is going to be against a unit that is dedicated to assault, and has a large number of both standard attacks, AND power attacks. Genestealers, for example. They'll land a ton of hits at high Initiative values, and every 6 rolled can kill a biker. If the Genestealers land 8 standard wounds, and two Rending wounds, you get to put both Rends on one guy and the allocation game matters. Otherwise, it doesn't.

 

As others have said before me, build for effectiveness first, wound games second.

[AyanamiKun]

I tend to do it if I field my Honour Guard. It's just 4 guys with 1 IC but they also have 4 wound groups. 2 normal guys, 1 champion, 1 guy with chapter banner and the IC. This did save my ass in my last game where I used this squad to draw enemy fire en masse. Basically the hole enemy army was shooting them up instead of moving towards my mission objective and because of the wound groups I managed to make them last quite long. Without they would have died much much quicker :wub:

[Captain Idaho]

I tend to do it if I field my Honour Guard. It's just 4 guys with 1 IC but they also have 4 wound groups. 2 normal guys, 1 champion, 1 guy with chapter banner and the IC. This did save my ass in my last game where I used this squad to draw enemy fire en masse. Basically the hole enemy army was shooting them up instead of moving towards my mission objective and because of the wound groups I managed to make them last quite long. Without they would have died much much quicker :D

 

I do the same thing! Especially when in assaults. It's amazing just how many times the two models who both die to power weapon hits also take a further 4 saves leaving my Champion and Ancient to take 2 each!

[Algesan]

I concur with not decreasing effectiveness, but wound allocation games can increase durability, which increases effectiveness in many situations, so sometimes it is a trade off.

 

Consider you have five models with a 3+ armor save. They can be Marines, Sisters or anything. No differences for wound allocation, say, all bolters. On average, it takes 15 hits on the unit to get a potential of having 5 unsaved wounds by failing 1 in 3 saves (I know, it is a little different, but I'm not getting that complicated). Now insert wound allocation, instead of it just being a straight need of 3x wounds to get by the 1 in 3 save, you now have to worry about which five dice out of the fifteen actually roll a 1 or 2. If the unit is composed of five different models for wounds, and the first five dice are the 1-2 rolls, then only two models die.

 

In other words, it becomes harder statistically to kill all five models at once and the more wound allocation categories you have, the more resilient the unit becomes.

[breng77]

In other words, it becomes harder statistically to kill all five models at once and the more wound allocation categories you have, the more resilient the unit becomes.

 

This is true if you are dealt more wounds then you have Models, otherwise the survivability is the same.

[Algesan]

In other words, it becomes harder statistically to kill all five models at once and the more wound allocation categories you have, the more resilient the unit becomes.

 

This is true if you are dealt more wounds then you have Models, otherwise the survivability is the same.

 

Which will happen at one time or another in a unit's lifespan under fire. It is why I also mentioned not decreasing effectiveness just to play wound allocation games.

[Captain Idaho]

It does get harder to maintain an effect unit though, because it is wholly possible the wrong models (i.e. Ones you didn't want to die) are removed. The amount of times I lost a Sergeant and melta gunner but kept 4 basic Marines is not funny!

[Captain Idaho]

Ah, double post madness from mobile phone shenanigans!

[breng77]

It does get harder to maintain an effect unit though, because it is wholly possible the wrong models (i.e. Ones you didn't want to die) are removed. The amount of times I lost a Sergeant and melta gunner but kept 4 basic Marines is not funny!

 

this is true for the wound allocation mechanic in general as opposed to the old take saves and remove the models that you want mechanic. While it is possible to lose fewer models, it is also easier to lose important models.

[Captain Idaho]

Definitely. I prefer the old 4th edition mechanic not because I lose the wrong models (it's fun when you inflict such losses on opponents!) but rather because it is largely quicker to work out and the newer mechanic doesn't feel like it really adds anything to the game (GW stated they wanted to create more cinematic moments, yet losing a Sergeant and melta gunner whilst the last 4 dudes shrug off the fire isn't as cinematic as a heroic Sergeant and his trusty Marine who picked up the melta gun from Brother Pyro advance menacingly towards the Defiler that killed the rest of the unit...)

[breng77]

I think what they mean is that their is more tension on saves where you stand to lose something. Say I take 5 wounds on a 5 man combat squad, their are moments of dread/tension, when I am rolling for that sargent, or melta gunner, that I don't get when I roll all 5 saves and then kill off 1 or 2 bolter dudes. I actually prefer the new mechanic for this reason, because my opponent might lose the fist in their squad before if gets to strike, saving my last terminator to fight another day, or my independent character from getting insta killed. Things like that are exciting, for both players. Does it suck when you are on the losing end of such an exchange...sure, but it still leads to moments in games where there is a cinematic or exciting moment.

[Captain Idaho]

Does slow up the game no end and leads to us being able to take advantage of the rule to reduce losses. I prefer the quicker and cleaning versions for that reason too. :rolleyes:

[breng77]

Against experienced players it does not really slow the game down all that much (in my experience). Both rules have their advantages and disadvantages. Can these rules be abused, certainly, and maybe that will need to be addressed in 6E. Would I prefer that they go back to 4E rules, perhaps with some thought, but I am also not a fan of those rules protecting special weapons and such. Perhaps some melding, where in shooting the rules work as 4E, but in CC, wounds are allocated as in 5E (or even by the opposing player, to me a smart unit would look to kill the guy weilding the power fist, but this would make fists useless, so probably would not work).

[ShinyRhino]

The only time wound allocation is unbalanced is with multiwound models. We all know how annoying Ork Nobz all equipped differently are to face.

For single-wound models, wound allocation isn't a problem unless you're applying a torrent of mixed-S fire. Plasma alongside bolters, for example. Everyone cries "It's so stupid that my two plasma shots only kill one guy!" but IMO it's perfectly reasonable that the same target could be hit by two simultaneous plasma bolts.

[Captain Idaho]

The only time wound allocation is unbalanced is with multiwound models. We all know how annoying Ork Nobz all equipped differently are to face.

For single-wound models, wound allocation isn't a problem unless you're applying a torrent of mixed-S fire. Plasma alongside bolters, for example. Everyone cries "It's so stupid that my two plasma shots only kill one guy!" but IMO it's perfectly reasonable that the same target could be hit by two simultaneous plasma bolts.

 

But is it not perfectly reasonable the plasma shots can kill more than one guy? Most games the same plasma bolt kills the same guy whenever I play.

[ShinyRhino]

The only time wound allocation is unbalanced is with multiwound models. We all know how annoying Ork Nobz all equipped differently are to face.

For single-wound models, wound allocation isn't a problem unless you're applying a torrent of mixed-S fire. Plasma alongside bolters, for example. Everyone cries "It's so stupid that my two plasma shots only kill one guy!" but IMO it's perfectly reasonable that the same target could be hit by two simultaneous plasma bolts.

 

But is it not perfectly reasonable the plasma shots can kill more than one guy? Most games the same plasma bolt kills the same guy whenever I play.

 

Both outcomes are equally reasonable. My example is the complaint I hear most from folks around my local area who rail against the wound allocation system. They go on and on about how much better it was in 4th Edition, but forget that in 4th, yuor final three Marines in a squad were ALWAYS the sergeant, special, and heavy. Wound allocation at least provides the threat of reduced heavy/special firepower in a squad early in the game. Without it, every squad always has its full non-bolter effectiveness for the entire early game.