BoLS posted up the rumored rules and they look pretty terrible….
First of all, here’s the rumors:
RUMORED 6th Wound Allocation
Wounds inflicted upon a target unit must be applied in order of closest models to the firing unit, with the owning player getting to assign the individual hits as he sees fit within the legal models selected.
Example
If a 5 man unit suffers 3 wounds (say 2 bolters, and a lascannon), the owning player must assign them to the three models closest to the firing unit (get out your tape measures), but you can assign the lascannon hit to any of the three models who were closest.
So, why do they look terrible? Well as Big Red pointed out over at BoLS, it’s amateurish. It creates a great deal of additional measuring and micromanagement that quite simply isn’t needed.
It also opens the door to gamesmanship and sniping. Anyone who remembers 4th ed remembers how stupid the rule worked then. YOu could only hit models in LOS, which meant you could snipe individual models by carefully positioning of your own models to limit your LOS. So now, you can snipe by positioning your models at just the right distance to only hit the models you want. Or, if Tank Shocking still exists (or Lash, Pavane or any such similar means to move your opponents’ models) canny players will soon abuse this system with ease.
Also, who wants to hide their heroic characters in the back of their units? That isn’t either cinematic or fun. What we’ll see if characters hiding in units, then an over emphasis on model placement when you get into combat. Lame.
Bottom line: it’s a a rule that I think will not be fun. Therefore, it’s a bad rule in a game that is meant to be fun.
Wound allocation works fine now. It is a bit of an abstraction sure, but you must accept a certain degree of abstraction in a game if you want it to not drag on with endless book keeping or hyper-complex rules.
The more we hear about these rules, the more we lose heart. I will not pass final judgement until we have played the game several times, but things are looking a bit grim.
Hi,
I agree that this rumoured rule will lead to more micromanagement, and gameship, but I do think wound allocation abuses need to be reigned in.
I doubt the intention was for paladins, orc bikers etc to be able to take 9 wounds without losing a single model. However as usual GW comes up with an obscure way to resolve it. There are many more simple ways. My preference would be to have a clearing up of wounds step (just for multi-wound units) before morale checks to prevent the worst of the abuses, eg. under the rules for multi-wound units:
“Before morale checks are done, transfer wound between wounded models, until there is only one model that is partially wounded, take of as casualties any models that have been allocated there fully wounded. No model may have no more wounds allocated to it than it wound characteristics”
Also to trump instant killing shots being allocated to wounded models, add the following:
“Any instant killings shots must be allocated to an unwounded model if possible, regardless of wound allocation groups”.
Lets hope the GW rumoured rule has been changed to something more sensible in the final rules.
Rathstar
I agree, the rules in that “leaked” rule-set we got were awesome and fixed the rules quite simply. That rule-set was brilliant, too bad it sounds like won’t be getting it. What we’re hearing just keeps getting worse. Time will tell, of course, but I have a sinking feeling in my stomach for sure.
I have to disagree with your negative assessment here, Reece; I believe that it will lead to equal if not faster game play, more realism, and the abuses you describe don’t sound terribly offensive.
However, my question to you: Do you think this wound-allocation regimen would also be applied to hand-to-hand combat? If they were to be consistent in their game logic, it seems as though it would, and that would be huge for the game, right?
If they applied it to hand to hand combat I believe that would really slow things down as you would have to see who was within range of each kind of weapon in the combat. It would be like 2nd ed (somewhat) where every soldier was fighting its own little battle, which took ages. I could be wrong, perhaps the actual application of the rule gets around this, but at a glance it would be a lot slower than what we have now.
As for more realism? I suppose, as it makes sense only guys that are in LOS and range of the weapon could be hurt, but then that is ignoring the fact that weapons in 40K have absurdly short ranges. Arguments for realism really don’t work in an abstracted system like this. A pistol shooting as far as a guy can run in the same amount of time is pretty obviously unrealistic. What often happens is that a rule designed to increase realism results in gamesmanship and even less realism (wound allocation for example). IMO, rules should be written with the idea that it is a game first, and for realism second.
As for me being overly negative? Perhaps you are right. I am just so used to being disappointed with GW rules that maybe I am being a bit overly pessimistic. I hope I am wrong on this one, I really do. I hope we are blown away with an awesome rule-set and that 40K has a bright future ahead of it.
I don’t think you are writing an overly negative assessment, merely a negative one; you don’t like the rule rumor, and there’s nothing wrong with stating you dislike something. I dislike a lot of things, and on this small point, you and I disagree. I would say your critics of the rumors line up pretty well with my own, and I’m a much more “negative” person, I would say, than you.
To the bigger point about realism and the example you give: what you write about weapons and range are all very true. My arms only stretch so far, and my back only support my bell so much. However, I’m sure we would agree that a rifle round has greater range than a thrown knife, and that we would require a certain amount of abstraction to represent that expectation, while also maintaining a game that can be played. There’;s a give and a take. Good game design does sacrifice realism; however, if the two can coexist, so much the better.
Good point. The two can coexist (Take Heavy Gear for example), but that is an art form that requires a lot of skill.
We’ll see what we end up with in the end. July is coming on us rapidly.
If true, this rule would not be there to fix wound allocation as much as fix cover save shinanigans. Cover saves would be determined based on the models hit, not the entire squad. Therefore, this rule could be combined with other wound allocation rules which could still allow your sergeants and characters to lead from the front.
My initial reaction is that I like it. I know it will speed up play in my area (we never used LOS sniping in 4th).
But if only characters in range can be hit, you could still snipe. However, it depends on how you play locally, too for sure.
To me it feels like more rules than are necessary for the flow of the game.
And I hear you about the cover saves, it does seem unrealistic. But remember, that 40K is a squad based game. It speeds things up a ton to deal with squads instead of individual models in a game with as many models as you use in 40K. Having to keep track of each model will bog things down a lot, IMO. I prefer some abstraction to speed up game play, but that is me.
Keep in mind that it doesn’t say you can only wound models within the weapon range, only that wounds are allocated to the closest models first. So, no range sniping here. Still, I think this is one of the worst rule rumors I’ve heard so far (except maybe the HQ challenges).