Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
(reposted from rules help)
Wound allocation allows for loads of cheese. One situation in particular seems really dumb, where a mix of high and low AP wounds actually kills fewer troops than if the low AP wounds never happened.
I think this situation could be solved with the extra line:
Wounds from separate weapon types have to be assigned to the squad separately.
You'd have to try to allocate all the wounds from one weapon type as evenly as possible before you could move on. Overall the number of wounds per model would still have to be as equal as possible though.
This means no stacking low AP wounds onto your high value troops while the grunts take multiple save-negating/instant death hits.
I think that's fairly neat, but I'd like to hear other's views on it before I start telling my opponents that they should agree to it.
As a rule it benefits imperial guard to a greater degree than other force - house rules that benefit some books more than others are generally bad house rules regardless of the intention behind them.
Well the idea that shooting more weapons at a squad means you do less damage is just lame, from a logic, fluff, gameplay, funplay or any which way you want to slice it. This is to encourage more Dakka plain and simple!
Yeah it's good for mech guard. It also benefits devastator squads and any vehicles with multiple weapon types. It's great for Tau stealth and crisis suits. It pretty much helps out any deep striking squad with more than one low AP weapon, which is most of them, so I reject the idea that it's a runaway for guard and rubbish for everyone else.
Having said that, the reason to post up ideas here first is to gauge general public reactions before I go pissing off my opponents with ideas that they're going to hate.
Copy, Improve, Innovate
It's not 'great' for stealth and crisis suits - they are comparatively expensive models with good saves and small unit sizes, the kind of unit that will get shot up by the rule.
Likewise devastators are victims or range and target selection more than mixed AP rules (i.e. not being able to shoot rocket launchers at tanks and bolters at nearby infantry), drop-units are often combat squadded to avoid the allocation/target issues (and again - small, good save units like marines suffer from this rule) and there are some forces that simply don't gain anything at all - nids for instance - though still lose out in some cases.
Like I said, it's not the intention or fluff behind the rule that counts, only whether it's impact on the game is fair and even for all players.
The house rule my club uses is that any wounds that cannot be saved are allocated first, then allocate the rest of them. This allows you to still stack multiple wounds on individuals, but there is no longer a way to exploit the process so that more attacks equals fewer casualties.
It has yet to cause any issues with the rules, and has been in use for quite a while. One question that has come up is in mixed units where a shot would ignore a one model's save but not another's (say, if the squad leader has a 4+ invulnerable). The answer is you still treat that wound as a no-save wound and allocate it with the first batch, and if it went on that model it of course can still use his special save (or better armor, whatever the case may be).
How do you feel about replacing the wound allocation in 40k?
The attacking unit declares the attack on the defending unit.
The defending unit , MAY reorganise the unit so special models are 'swopped out' with standard models.
(Special models are Characters,leaders, and models carrying special and heavy weapons.)
Attack is declared.
X X X X
H X X X
S L C X
Attacking unit this side.
Defender re-organises before attack takes place.
H X X X
L X C S
X X X X
Attacking unit this side.
After the defneding player has re organised his unit.
The attacker roll to hit .
The hits are resoved vs the models CLOSEST to the attacking unit.(One weapon type at a time.)
Models closest to the attacking unit are removed first.(Defending player picks if models are equdistant.)
I have not explained that too well but I hope you get the basic idea...
See I like the rules as they are - currently you either have a choice between shooting all your guns, or just shooting the high powered guns.
And the idea of removing the closest models unfairly penalises CC focused armies like 'nids or orks, as it could be the difference between a charge being in range or failing.
You always have such cool ideas lanrak, but in this case the other rules of the 40k don't quite mesh. For instance, shooting at a unit could allow that player to shift a model into firing range for it's next turn, which isnt the intention of the rule.
Allocating each weapon type in chunks in and of itself is what (sort of) solves the problem, but I have learned that it is best to just separate the wounds into the "savable or unsavable" categories to insure no exploitation.
realitycheque, it is true you can choose not to shoot the extra guns, but why is that better than making those guns work like they are supposed to (ie hurt stuff rather than protect it)?
I'm going to go ahead and predict that the wording for 6th edition will be something like...Wound Priority
If any wounds could deny a model in the target unit from using one of it's available saving throws, those wounds take priority and must all be allocated before any other wounds that were inflicted by the attacking unit.
Last edited by Krovin-Rezh; September 8th, 2010 at 06:39.
Basically what I'm saying is that the rules are abstractions, and are balanced within the environment (i.e. the rest of the ruleset). To tweak one or two aspects of it would unbalance other parts, and also you can't consider common sense or realism when discussing the rules as the game simply doesn't work like that.