Rumor: 6th ed wound Allocation from BoW

[Denied]

Hey Guys Beast of War did a little video segment on rumored wound allocation in 6th ed based on one of their "credible" sources. Take it as you will here is the link:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/wound-allocation-works-6th-edition-40k/

[Shadoq]

Interesting but here is my question.
Say you take 6 wounds on a unit. All bolter wounds for the sake of argument. Lets say you measure to the target and find that while 3 man dudes in the target unit are in range of your guns, 7 other man dudes are found to be out of range. What happens then? Do the wounds wrap around to only the guys who are in range or do they get spread even if the 7 man dudes are out of range?

I know how it would work in 5th, just curious to see what the thinking will be for 6th.

[Chuck777]

Interesting but here is my question.
Say you take 6 wounds on a unit. All bolter wounds for the sake of argument. Lets say you measure to the target and find that while 3 man dudes in the target unit are in range of your guns, 7 other man dudes are found to be out of range. What happens then? Do the wounds wrap around to only the guys who are in range or do they get spread even if the 7 man dudes are out of range?

I know how it would work in 5th, just curious to see what the thinking will be for 6th.

The pay off for all the measuring you'll be doing, for the defender, would most likely be that woulds do not wrap around. You can only hit models that are within range.

Of course, then the debate becomes - All of your bugs are within range of the first six of my 10 marines. Another 3 are within range of 2 of your bugs, while the last is not within range. How would allocation work for this very common scenario?

[DrLove42]

Given i've disliked most the other 6th ed rumours, unsuprisingly i dislike this one

I guess the idea is that if your heavy weapons aren't in the front, they lose a little bit of range, for some safety. Except is loosing 2" of range worth the guy with the lascannon in a squad being the last to die?

It also encourages the idea of flanking I guess. Move round to the sides and back to get the models being protected faster.

So its a flanking maneuvre,....yet another thing from Fantasy to 40k

[eldargal]

This is sodding awful. People say 40k is supposed to be getting more like 8th ed WFB, but this is straight out of 7th ed, having to micromanage units to an 8th of an inch in movement to maximise your advantages.

I still don't actually believe in any of this, but if the yare true then 6th is looking like it is going to be a disaster.

[Deadlift]

If half the 6th rumours are true (which I doubt) then myself and our small group will just keep playing 5th.

[Aetaosrau]

Can't say I'm overly keen on this as it seems to make this round overly converluted and will slow things down and cause more arguements.
I can see this being a sticking point in the game and coursing more rules imperfections and holes, like blast weapons were does the allocations go then.

[eldargal]

Well that is it isn't it, ALL the rumours for 6th so far point to a ridiculously convoluted ruleset which will result in slow, boring games. You can get away with a bit more sedentary pace in WFB because of the style of warfare it represents, but not in a fast paced scifi setting. GW deliberately made 40k a more streamlined, fast paced ruleset with 3rd and we are supposed to believe they are going to turn their back on fourteen years in which 40k became the dominant tabletop wargame in the world.

[MC Tic Tac]

I remember when the rumours for 5th where floating around.....

Every rumored rule on it's own was thought to be the end of the game.

But as we all know now the combination is the game we know and love today.

Perspective is a power thing.


Personally I will wait till the book is in my hands rather than panic over a single rule in isolation away from the rest of the book.

[lobster-overlord]

You hit me with a laz and 2 bolters. I allocate teh las to the closest model, and the bolters to 2... ook, only 1 more is in range of teh bolters, even though their were two models in range, but because i allocated the laz first, to a closer model, then I get to skip allocating that second bolter since no other neww marine is in range.... there's a flaw already if they don't carry over into the rest of the unit... or they have to specify allocating in range order first since the two marines in range of the bolters have to get those shots and the laz goes to someone in a further group in the same unit.

[The Shadow King]

Sounds like a good rule, encourages manouevering and more intelligent game playing, whilst also being more 'realistic'. Use jump pack armed troops to jump over a unit and shoot their more valuable guys from behind? Sounds cool.

[Deadlift]

Having just watched the BOW video I have to say I like the sound of this now, if it takes all the wound allocation crap were used to seeing in lists like GK paladins as an example I think it could be great. Blast template weapons actually killing what they hit, that's no bad thing either.

[Angelofblades]

This sounds like a spin off version of 4th's range sniping. In 4th only models in range could suffer wounds. It was an art form in 4th ed because it worked hand in hand with LoS sniping simply because 4th ed had a much more simplified set for terrain and los. But it also didn't have the silly rule of wound allocation to complex multi-wound units. If a multi-wound model in a unit took a wound it would have to take another before you could go around spreading wounds.

This rule has to potential to be disastrous, but it also has the potential to be great. Itremains to be seen how it interacts with LoS and Terrain. Imho, we need to know how 6th is going to treat terrain, area terrain and LoS.

[eldargal]

It really doesn't, it rewards time-wasting micromaneuvering where you can be punished for depploying a unit a fraction of an inch one direction or another.

Sounds like a good rule, encourages manouevering and more intelligent game playing, whilst also being more 'realistic'. Use jump pack armed troops to jump over a unit and shoot their more valuable guys from behind? Sounds cool.

[SaganGree]

It also feels like it could be exploited... example characters built like bricks could vanguard a unit and soak a Lot of fire before dying and getting into the unit.

Example... BA, Captain (I know... who knew) with Terminator Armor, SS, with a Priest nearby... That's three wounds at 2+/3++ FnP that you have to get through to make a difference... and would have to be rolled individually as you don't know how many wounds its going to take to get through.

Now as I'm writing this, I realize that there has to be something more to this... Multi-wound models that is. Or I'm just not understanding how this is working.

[Bigred]

It also does nothing to address the REAL problem which is units of multi-wound models.

Under these rules, you can still spread wounds around to various multi-wound models and minimize casualties.

I stand my my earlier statement that ii sucks and is amateur game design.

I really hope this is just BoW trolling for more hits, but the problem we have now is GW's design studio lost all its senior staff. This is the first major edition changeover since the departure of Alessio, Priestley, etc...
Chambers, Hoare, and Gav left a while back, but no old hand is left on the design side except for Jervis and Vetock.

When companies make major product missteps, the classic reason is departure of senior personnel. GW could easily be at such a juncture. I hope everything is good, but the conditions are set for a misstep.

[DrLove42]

You think movement and shooting is slow now, wiat till people are measuring factions of inches.

Also how would this even work with bigger squads?

Enemy model A is closer to my shooting guy B. But enemy C is closer to my guy D than A. So theoretically B's shots have to go on A and D's shots on C. So after rolling hits and wounds I am left with one wounding hit. Who does that nominate onto? Do i have to roll each individual models shots individually and nominate them on the closest model? Good luck doing that with Ork hordes or my 20 strong De warrior groups

[MarneusCalgar]

Well, I think we should wait until rulebook comes...

But if this is true, it will make the game become more realistic and tactically advanced

[robrodgers46]

Seems like a context issue. We don't know what is in the paragraph before and the one after. As a stand alone it doesn't make much sense, but no rule stands alone.

I *hate* the way wounds are allocated now in units like Nobs and Paladins, but then I totally take advantage of the ablative wounds tactic with my blob squads, which seems ridiculous too. So it has the potential to be an improvement, but anything that supports rule mongering like pre-measuring ranges during movement is a bad thing.

r

[LordGrise]

So what y'all are saying is, Shooting phase and AoE hits are actually gonna be WYSIWYG?

Good. It frustrates the hell out of me to land a pie plate squarely on a unit, or worse actually have the gunline perform as advertised, and then watch the models at the back of the target unit get removed, not the ones taking the hits. Followed, of course, by the inevitable assault and annihilation of my heretofore unscathed unit, in one assault phase, by the one or two models who only got thru because of all the ablative meatshielding around them. That's equivalent, if you think about it, to awarding the unit being hit a free four or five inch move towards assault range.

Sounds like a long-overdue change to me.

[flekkzo]

I remember when the rumours for 5th where floating around.....

Every rumored rule on it's own was thought to be the end of the game.

But as we all know now the combination is the game we know and love today.

Perspective is a power thing.


Personally I will wait till the book is in my hands rather than panic over a single rule in isolation away from the rest of the book.

The worst part of the game, and this goes for all other tabletop games, is unclear situations. Who gets hit and who gets removed is crystal clear in 8th ed WHFB. This proposed rule will end up being endless amounts of arguments. This is the one thing that is guaranteed to have me stop playing, arguments. Rules should remove points of arguments as much as possible, then they are good rules.

That is why I like pre-measuring, random charge ranges, etc. I dearly hope 40k will continue to be enjoyable (hopefully more so than 5th!). I find WHFB quite enjoyable :)

[Rapture]

Good. It frustrates the hell out of me to land a pie plate squarely on a unit, or worse actually have the gunline perform as advertised, and then watch the models at the back of the target unit get removed, not the ones taking the hits.

Sounds like a long-overdue change to me.

Quad missile launcher squads (or any multi blast squad) would effectively become snipers. Incredibly unlikely.

I just look at templates in the abstract. What the clear plastic shows is what could happen, not what does.

[daboarder]

if this, snapfire, overwatch and random charge ranges are in then assualt armies are as dead as the proverbial doorknob.

[Denied]

if this, snapfire, overwatch and random charge ranges are in then assualt armies are as dead as the proverbial doorknob.

Then again if things like assaulting off of deepstriking and consolidating into another assault are possible it basically becomes a game of get into assault or die horribly. If random charge range is also in the rules then it literally is that the game gets determined on the assault roll. interesting to comprehend.

[HsojVvad]

I am surprised at some of the people here. Already saying the game is going to suck just by a "rumour" that may or may not be true and not knowing all the other details and saying this will be the worst edition ever?

Come on, it's a rumour, take it as that, nothing more, nothing less.

Even if true, we don't know how anything else works so this may actually be a very good rule. As I remember, 5th editon was going to be the worst ever when the rumours came out. Funny how so many love 5th edition but sure were saying how crap 5th was going to be before actually playing it.

Lets play it first then complain afterwards.

[daboarder]

I remember when the rumours for 5th where floating around.....

Every rumored rule on it's own was thought to be the end of the game.

But as we all know now the combination is the game we know and love today.

Perspective is a power thing.


Personally I will wait till the book is in my hands rather than panic over a single rule in isolation away from the rest of the book.


really? thats pretty funny, I actually don't remember that, as far as I remember there was excitement with regards to the changing rules, debates about the value of true line of sight and excessive cover, with most people decidedly in favour of the changes to prevent the indiviual model sniping that was becoming prevalent in 4th. With that in mind could you please provide some hard evidence for this speculation.

[dawnofthedead]

All the rumors concerning 6th I have absolutely hated. This is the first edition of 40k that I am really dreading. Every other one I was excited about. I got back into it at the beginning of 3rd.

I think one of the problems is how GW is going about doing things. There are a lot of players I know that just don't trust GW to take care of the hobby they have created. For instance, no real advanced advertising, not releasing any real info on anything for that matter, switching over to finecast and charging more for the metal model equivalent and the finecast quality is poor (If you have been getting good quality finecast that is great, we haven't). That is just a few of the things. That is why when these 6th edition rumors come out and they seem off the wall or just horrible (though some may like the reported changes) people just don't blow it off. I just don't think there is a the same level of trust and confidence in GW as with previous editions. Just my two cents worth.

[Bushido]

I just don't think there is a the same level of trust and confidence in GW as with previous editions. Just my two cents worth.

No, people have always been complaining, they will continue to complain, it will never end. The sky is perpetually falling on anything geek related. Every new codex has its share of people complaining that it is game breaking, every new rule makes ________ army unplayable. Just like how every Star Trek spin-off isn't as good as the original, every Star Wars release is terrible, every Call of Duty worse than the last (okay, maybe the critics have a point with this one at least). Geeks are a cynical, critical, conceited group of people, and by the God Emperor I love them.

[The Shadow King]

It really doesn't, it rewards time-wasting micromaneuvering where you can be punished for depploying a unit a fraction of an inch one direction or another.

It really doesn't, it makes you think about what you are doing with your troops more, rather than just piling them 6" thataway. Tactics in a wargame is shocking I know, but it's a good thing :p

[eldargal]

Micromanaging model placement isn't tactics and it is not a good thing for what is supposed to be a fast paced game. In a skirmish game, sure, in a squad based battle game, no.

[The Shadow King]

Micromanaging model placement isn't tactics and it is not a good thing for what is supposed to be a fast paced game. In a skirmish game, sure, in a squad based battle game, no.

It's not micromanaging, it's just being aware of what troops are where, rather than dumping them in a random pile like some people do at the moment. It's being aware of where your enemies forces are compared to your own. It punishes sloppy play without taking any real time. You don't need to micromeasure where your troops are going, just make sure the ones you want to protect are covered by bullet bait, much like at the moment, generally champs, sergeants and other cc specialists are nearer the front to be able to dictate placement in combat.

[Billyjoeray]

Is it possible that this rumor is true and that everyone is just over complicating it? Maybe all this means is that you can't put wounds onto models that are completely out of range of the gun which is negligible for heavy weapons like missiles with 48" range. It just means that you can't pull the last row of dudes in a huge unit that stretches from 12" away from the firing unit all the way back to you board edge.

[DrLove42]

It's not micromanaging, it's just being aware of what troops are where, rather than dumping them in a random pile like some people do at the moment. It's being aware of where your enemies forces are compared to your own. It punishes sloppy play without taking any real time. You don't need to micromeasure where your troops are going, just make sure the ones you want to protect are covered by bullet bait, much like at the moment, generally champs, sergeants and other cc specialists are nearer the front to be able to dictate placement in combat.

Wait till the first game were someone gets out a tape measure and says his lascannon is 1/8 of an inch behind the sergeant, so his shooting doens't suffer, but the other guy takes the hit

New product from GW! The certified micrometer! Make sure your troops are in perfect position with this handy caliper set that allows maximum precision!

[The Shadow King]

Wait till the first game were someone gets out a tape measure and says his lascannon is 1/8 of an inch behind the sergeant, so his shooting doens't suffer, but the other guy takes the hit

New product from GW! The certified micrometer! Make sure your troops are in perfect position with this handy caliper set that allows maximum precision!

I'm quite happy with that, he wants to remove his sergeant that's fine. A lot better than now where the damned thing gets passed around dead mans hands like a hot coal, so it's always the last thing left no matter what you do. When a charge is out/not out by a MM in the current rules, do you long for the fabled micrometer?

[eldargal]

You're happy the first time it happens with one model, wait until you play someone who spends an hour carefully positioning every single model during deployment then half an hour micromanaging movement every turn thereafter. Don't think it won't happen, it happened in 7th ed WFB all the time. It is NOT better than now because it does nothing to address the problems with wound allocation as it stand now, it just adds more problems on top.

[Kevlarshark]

I do not like the rumoured change much...

More strategy in moving and shooting = good thing

The only problem is if this system will be more strategic or if it is too open to exploitation.

I will cry a little the first time I see a queue of models with the sgt and heavy guy at the end, facing narrow side on to the opponents guns.

But also any rule wich encourages you to place your leaders at the rear is dissapointing. 40k is not a realistic sim type game, it is designed to be cinematic. The Heros should lead from the front laying waste to their opponents.

[TheDirtyHippy]

Micromanaging model placement isn't tactics and it is not a good thing for what is supposed to be a fast paced game. In a skirmish game, sure, in a squad based battle game, no.

It's not just micromanaging model placement, it's micromanaging every shooting wound. My unit of Ork boys or gaunts or whatever large unit has now become a unit of 30 individual models. If I'm interpreting this correctly, that means that I'm going to have to roll EVERY shooting wound on a model by model basis. That does nothing but needlessly slow the game down.

I just don't understand this. I've always looked at units as a single entity, rather than a collection of individual models. A tactical squad is a unit with 10 wounds, a sarge, missle launcher and flamer. It shouldn't matter when the flamer guy dies, because someone else in the unit could just pick that weapon up. IMO, sarge should be the only unique model in the unit.


It also does nothing to address the REAL problem which is units of multi-wound models. Under these rules, you can still spread wounds around to various multi-wound models and minimize casualties.


For sure. It very slightly tones down units of multi-wound models by forcing you to allocate more wounds on the guys in front. I thought that 3rd edition did it best. Basically units had wounds, rather than models (Independent Characters excluded). Also, you just rolled saves by armour/invulnerable save grouping and took the casualties as you wanted. This was the simplest approach and I hope the game moves back to it. There's nothing I hate more than watching my opponent fail 3 saves and only pull one model because of wound allocation. It gives an unfair advantage to units with diverse wargear selection and better saves.


as far as I remember there was excitement with regards to the changing rules, debates about the value of true line of sight and excessive cover, with most people decidedly in favour of the changes to prevent the indiviual model sniping that was becoming prevalent in 4th. With that in mind could you please provide some hard evidence for this speculation..

My gaming group (a league of 24 players) was unanimously in favor of the changes for 5th edition. I was a big fan of 4th edition changes too (killed that stupid Blood Angel rhino rush). 3rd edition was a bit rocky because it invalidated all the 2nd edition codexes, but it was still an improvement over 2nd ediiton.

What I'm saying is that every iteration of the rules has been better than the last. Not just better, but obviously better. I'm honestly worried about 6th edition. I've hated almost every rumor so far.

[The Shadow King]

You're happy the first time it happens with one model, wait until you play someone who spends an hour carefully positioning every single model during deployment then half an hour micromanaging movement every turn thereafter. Don't think it won't happen, it happened in 7th ed WFB all the time. It is NOT better than now because it does nothing to address the problems with wound allocation as it stand now, it just adds more problems on top.

Can honestly say that I never saw that sort of thing happen in WHFB 7th. Ever. And I can't see that happening in 6th, except by the sort of people who do that sort of thing in 5th anyway. People who are AP prone are AP prone anyway, no matter the system.

[The Shadow King]

It's not just micromanaging model placement, it's micromanaging every shooting wound. My unit of Ork boys or gaunts or whatever large unit has now become a unit of 30 individual models. If I'm interpreting this correctly, that means that I'm going to have to roll EVERY shooting wound on a model by model basis. That does nothing but needlessly slow the game down.


No you won't, or at least any more than you need to at the moment. You roll to wound 5 times with bolters, and hit 5 generic front marines, the opponent rolls for saves, and any fails get removed from the front. At least that;s how I read it. Of course being merely a rumour, the final rule if true could be significantly different.

[Defenestratus]

Wait till the first game were someone gets out a tape measure and says his lascannon is 1/8 of an inch behind the sergeant, so his shooting doens't suffer, but the other guy takes the hit


And then you shoot at the same squad with your fast land speeder or an outflanking model where the LC is closer than the sarg.

See, strategy works both ways.

[DrLove42]

And then you shoot at the same squad with your fast land speeder or an outflanking model where the LC is closer than the sarg.

See, strategy works both ways.

Oh yeah i'm sure thats why they're doing it, to promote outflanking and fast maneuverability.

But the benefit it brings (even if this is true) is going to be outweighed by the massive micromanagment that will occur

[Defenestratus]

Oh yeah i'm sure thats why they're doing it, to promote outflanking and fast maneuverability.

But the benefit it brings (even if this is true) is going to be outweighed by the massive micromanagment that will occur

I remember when 5th edition and TLOS rumors started flying around. It brought back horrible memories of 2nd edition and my friends and I would literally blow up and scream at each other over what was partial and what was full cover - and I was horribly worried about returning to those dark days.

Fortunately those incidents were never to be repeated. The "-1 to cover save if you disagree" rule works fantastically for us and mitigated the need for us to be hoarse the next day.

This is why I'm really waiting to see the whole product. I'm worried when I read stuff like this because you're right - people will use millimeters to their advantage if they can. But lets wait and see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together before we're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[triplare]

Is it possible that this rumor is true and that everyone is just over complicating it? Maybe all this means is that you can't put wounds onto models that are completely out of range of the gun which is negligible for heavy weapons like missiles with 48" range. It just means that you can't pull the last row of dudes in a huge unit that stretches from 12" away from the firing unit all the way back to you board edge.

Sounds very plausible to me. I also wonder if they'll restrict which models can be assigned wounds from blast and template hits as well.

[HsojVvad]

Wait till the first game were someone gets out a tape measure and says his lascannon is 1/8 of an inch behind the sergeant, so his shooting doens't suffer, but the other guy takes the hit

New product from GW! The certified micrometer! Make sure your troops are in perfect position with this handy caliper set that allows maximum precision!

So how come it's ok when people say this in 5th edition? There was Space Marines, (again hiding and cowering in a small building wich had a roof wich was hard to see) and when I had my DoM for Sprit Leech the guy CRIED, I was 1 mm ( or about 1/32nd) away and wouldn't let me use it just because of the roof, I couldn't see to cleary and to "SPEED UP" the game (5th edition is already pretty slow btw) I just placed my mini down. Low and behold I got the " Hey its 1/8 of an inch away you can't use it".

No different than 5th edition right now. So many times people are saying "out of range" right now in 4th, and 5th edition.

[MajorWesJanson]

Distance would be too much of a hassle. My preferred option would be printed statline + saves to determine a group. a Tactical squad would thus have 9 guys in one group, and the sergeant in another. Wolfguard and Ork Nobz would mostly be the same, with changes for things like adding storm shields, or bikes, rather than a single bosspole making two guys different.