Multiple Wound Infantry Models in Assault

[Drunkencorgimaster]

The main rulebook states that in an assault after one wound is allocated to an infantry model with multiple-wounds, any additional wounds must be placed on that specific model until it is removed. So here is my question...

Is that per initiative step or per phase? -I assume it is not per turn.

Permit me to outline a scenario: imagine a five-man squad of infantry contains a high initiative independent character (let's say initiative 5), four initiative 4 regular dudes, and a slow slug with an axe at initiative 1. They are fighting Warriors or Nobs or some such unit with two wounds each. Imagine too that most of them are in base-to-base combat with more than one enemy.

Our independent character scores a wound at the initiative 5 step. The opponent places one wound on a model in base to base. At the initiative 4 step another wound is scored and placed on a different model. At initiative 1 the axe man lands another wound. This is placed on yet a third model.

Three wounds and nobody dead. Would that be legal in 6th? I did not enjoy that stuff in 5th and hoped we'd seen the last of it.

[Denzark]

DCM - sounds like tosh to me. I think keep allocating on one until dead. I'll reserve judgement until Nabby and Darklink pipe up - they are always well versed. It may be that the shenanigas is based on the opponent claiming that the individual allocated to, is closest to the troops fighting at that I step?

[Nabterayl]

I think you're looking for this quote, from page 25:


Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either rernoved as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty.

Wound pools are generated at each initiative step, so the answer is "per initiative step" and not "per phase," and definitely not "per turn."

What you describe is legal, assuming of course that the wounds are otherwise legally allocated (e.g., according to the rules for who is "closest," also on page 25).

[Slacker]

Nabterayl has it right. While this still allows for some wound allocation shenanigans (plus throw in a dash of look-out-sir) it is still much better than wound allocation in 5th. It still simplifies things and units like nobz and paladins still take quite a bit to take out, but as they get wore down, their fighting strength diminishes as casualties will still happen sooner than if every wound would get individually allocated.

[Zeshin]

This is handled like shooting in a way. All models in base contact with that initiative step are the "closest" so you have to figure out which one it is. Then that model is the closest until he dies or the wound pool is exhausted. Same thing in shooting where once you determine which equidistant target model is "closest" he is the closest until he is dead.

[Nabterayl]

True, but assault adds the wrinkle that not all attacks are made simultaneously. Suppose I shoot a warrior squad and score four bolter hits and one plasma hit. Further suppose two warriors are each tied for closest model. Either of the two warriors can be the patsy, and I can choose which wounds get applied in what order, but my opponent cannot take the plasma hit on one warrior and then switch so the other, equally close warrior gets the bolter shots. In a shooting attack, there is only one wound pool, even though it may contain different types of wounds.

In assault, wound pools may still contain different types of wounds, but there is also a fresh wound pool with each initiative step. At each step, one model of those who are "closest" to the attackers for that step must be chosen as the patsy, and suck down all the wounds caused at that step until he dies. The patsy doesn't have to be the same for all initiative steps, though, assuming there are multiple eligible patsies.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, unfortunately a lot of this gets complicated enough, especially combined with things like the 3" pile in only at your Initiative step and other new rules, that in practice it just doesn't get played either because people misunderstand the rules or didn't know about them. Soothing out Look Out Sir helped a little, but 6th ed has made wound allocation overly complex. They should have just gone back to 4th edition, which was very simple and easy to play and didn't have the issues with multi-wound models that 5th did.

[Learn2Eel]

Whilst that is legal, a lot of people I know just keep allocating wounds to the same models. Quite a few people have very bad memories about Nobz and Paladins from 5th, even if they aren't playing it correctly.

[Zeshin]

Whilst that is legal, a lot of people I know just keep allocating wounds to the same models. Quite a few people have very bad memories about Nobz and Paladins from 5th, even if they aren't playing it correctly.The problem with that is this: Say you have two Nobz. Nob A is in base contact with 3 LC terminators only, and Nob B is in base contact with 1 TH Terminator. Nob A may not be allocated any of the TH wounds (unless B is dead) because he is not in base contact with the init 1 step termy, and likewise Nob B has to take those TH hits (until he dies) because he is only in base contact with the init 1 step termy.

[Tepogue]

Strictly speaking, you designate who is closest at each I step. So only people in base or range(if none in base) of the I 5 guy can get wounds allocated to them. The the normal I 4 dudes can only allocate to models they are in base with (or if none in base then those within the range limit) and lastly the guy with the Power Axe only gets to allocate to those in base with him or within range if none in base to base. A lot of people havn't caught on that this is part of the reason Screamers are so nasty. 2 wounds and Eternal Warrior on each one. You actually want to fight enemy squads with different I values so you can allocate all over the place.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I was afraid of that. It does beat 5th Edition but as DL says, 4th was better in this regard.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, in 4th, you took all your saves at once, then allocated wounds as you saw fit. The only restrictions were that you had to remove whole models. That's more or less the whole rule.

In 6th, this is how wound allocation works (though this was made before the 6th ed FAQs were released): https://www.frontlinegaming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/WoundAllocation6E.pdf

One is simple, easy to play, and easy to understand. The other is not. 6th ed just traded 5th's wound allocation problems out for a whole different set of problems. Instead of wound allocation shenanigans, we now have overly complex gameplay.

[Nabterayl]

One is simple, easy to play, and easy to understand. The other is not. 6th ed just traded 5th's wound allocation problems out for a whole different set of problems. Instead of wound allocation shenanigans, we now have overly complex gameplay.
True enough, but I'm not sure I liked the days of the most valuable models in a squad always being the last to die no matter what. I liked the 5th edition rules better than 4th for that reason, and I like the 6th edition rules better than 5th. If I were to make a change, it would simply be to let the attacker allocate wounds when there is a choice, instead of the defender.

EDIT: I don't have a 4e book handy, but did you always have to kill a wounded multi-wound model first? I don't remember 4e coming out any differently in this scenario. I know you had to maximize kills within a given attack (e.g., if a unit has a T4 W2 nob and a T4 W1 boy and suffers one unsaved wound each from a meltagun and a bolter, you couldn't melta the boy and bolter the nob), but from attack to attack, did you still have to go for wounded multi-wound models first? If not, then 4e and 6e have the exact same results in the scenario DCM posted.

[DarkLink]

I don't remember exactly.

And any benefit from the more complex rules are canceled out by the amount of time it take to explain to half of my opponents when and why you take Look Out Sirs before/after armor saves, and then the amount of time it actually takes to physically roll all the dice.

[Learn2Eel]

At least people won't feel forced to kit their multi-wound models out differently all the time to do wound allocation shenanigans. I guess it just isn't necessary now.