Follow-Up to Wound Allocation, Part 2  

Posted by Michael Hogan in

Hey everyone. There were some comments concerning my post yesterday and I decided that I would do another, quick, post to wrap things up rather than try to fit them in the comments section. I hope no one minds.
I'm going to start by quoting myself from the comments section of the post and then work from there. Please comment away as I hope to clear this up for everyone, including myself. I'll make edits upon the original once I come to an agreeable consensus.


Quote from myself-

Keep in mind it is very possible for me to be wrong, so please do argue with me if you don't agree!
 That being said, I'll start from the top and work my way down.

Sgt. Brisbane said -
Nice read, man, I'll definitely be reading part one (and three!) asap. Just wanted to add a note to this question here, maybe it'll help your readers:

You may think "why not put all the AP 2 wounds on one of the normal guys?"

p26 of the BRB says, "If amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes instant death, and then proceed as normal....This rule is designed to stop players avoiding single wounds by putting them on a model that has suffered instant death anyway."

Basically, you can't put all the AP2 wounds on one model, in addition to all the logical reasons you've pointed out.


p26 could just apply to multi-wound models, though. Honestly, I'm not sure, but it might worth a discussion ;)
As another poster pointed out, the AP of the weapon doesn't have to deal with instant death. While it would almost kill wound allocation if this was the case, you may allocate AP 1 weapons at the same time as AP -; there is no order. You can stack AP 1 weapons on one guy or spread them out, the armor penetration does not matter. Also, keep in mind this one deals with multi-wound models. If you only have single wound models, then you don't have to even think what can and cannot cause instant death while wound allocating (though it is nice to think of if you have Feel No Pain).

ServvsUmbrarum said-
Hey Sgt. Brisbane, what does AP2 have to do with instant death? Only attacks that cause instant death or double out it strength would apply to what was stated there?

I'm fairly new to the game so I just wanted to make sure. I think it was done to prevent you removing a model with only 1 would left instead of a fresh one against something that doubles them out...say a lascannon.

If you could clarify it would be great as this article is amazing for newbies like me!

"The Initiate" - calmbeforewar.blogspot.com
ServvsUmbrarum is correct with the AP value not dealing with Instant Death. As stated above. And normally speaking, if you have a squad of 10 multiwound models, each with the same wargear, that are hit by Lascannons and boltguns, you cannot put the boltgun wounds on the models struck by Instant Deathing Lascannons.  I hope there was no confusion over that.

Darth Yoda said -
Sgt. Brisbane is right in that the big rulebook says instant death needs to be spread out around whole models. However, that only applies to multi-wound models and weapons that cause Instant Death.

So, for example, let's take a unit of Paladins, each with their own wargear, and let's say two of them are down a wound. They come across another Terminator squad with a Cyclone Missile launcher and storm bolters. Both missiles hit and wound from the Cyclone, and four Storm Bolter shots wound. You can't put the instant-death-causing Cyclone wounds on one of the guys with one wound left; you can't even put them on either guy with one wound. You'll have to put one Cyclone hit on two unwounded Paladins. Only then can you circle around and stack the extra Storm Bolter wound on one of the Cyclone'd guys.

It's all very confusing, and even the BRB says multi-wound models with wound allocation shennanigans gets really tricky, so you should just not worry about it if at all possible.

Let's take the example of 5 Paladins as Darth Yoda proposed. I think it is a very good point he brought up. You are down two wounds already on two of the models and the others are nice and healthy. Now, according to the rules, you cannot spread the instant death wounds to guys who are missing wounds, you have to remove the most number of wounds possible with unsaved rules (I'm looking on the end of page 26 of the main rulebook, by the way). Okay, but this passage is talking about unsaved wounds. This means they have had saves taken for them, and that means that the wounds were already allocated. On the same page, a couple paragraphs above, it mentions taking saves on multi-wound units.

"If the unit includes different models, first allocate wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time."

This is where the rules lawyer in me shines. And yes, I am a bit of a rules lawyer, but don't hate me for it. In this passage, it tells you to go to the page on wound allocation and allocate as normal. This page makes no reference to having to spread out Instant Death wounds or anything like that. A bit of a cheap move, I know, and I wish they would not allow this but it is in the rules.
Following this logic, you could apply both Cyclone Missile Launcher saves to even the same guys as long as you have enough wounds to wrap-around (6 in this case) and reapply a wound to one of the wounded guys.

Please let me know if I have misread or misinterpreted any of the rules. What I'm going by is that all of the rules regarding multi-wound models having to spread out instant death wounds is after saves have been taken. Think of it this way: Even in a group of 5 models exactly the same, one at 1 wound, if I wanted to allocate the wounds, I could. I would put 2 Cyclones on one guy, and the rest of the wounds on the others. When I make my saves, however, I'm doing it for the entire group of models. In this case, I find I have failed 3 wounds, 1 of which is Instant Death, and I remove an unwounded model from the Cyclone, kill the wounded one from the Storm Bolter, and then wound but not kill a third. When allocating, the rules don't ever state you have to split up into different groups, they only really come into play when making saves. Wound groups, however, are very important to look at before allocating if you want to allocate in the most optimal manner.

I hope this clears things up for people and please do comment away and try to agree with you if you think otherwise. I could very easily be wrong! If I missed anything, please let me know.

Thanks everyone for reading!
Xethik

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 30, 2011 at Thursday, June 30, 2011 and is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .

3 comments

Doh, yea, I meant Melta, not AP1/2.

Great read and awesome followup. I am really hoping that GW adjusts the wound allocation rules in 6th. I've been playing again for nearly 3 years and it still throws me off at times, so this follow up has been super helpful.

July 1, 2011 at 8:28 AM

Hah, I'll concede to you here. I guess I misread the rule, thinking it said you had to spread out the Insta-Death as much as possible. I'm perfectly fine with even more abuse with my Paladins though. :P Although that brings up an interesting question about Grey Knights in general (I know these rules are all for shooting, but combat wound allocation is basically the same): would your opponent be allowed to allocate the wounds taken in combat as if they weren't Instant Death, or should he assume the Knights' Force Weapons go off and are?

Really sucks for Tyranids though. Like with their Warriors, they WOULD have to allocate the Cyclone wounds to two different models and straight up kill them. Poor codex.

July 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Darth
When you allocating wounds, you don't really have to allocate any differently whether or not the weapon is a force weapon, you just take models off differently after you fail saves. So you would allocate normally, make saves, test for Force Weapons, and see what dies. I think. Hah.

July 2, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Post a Comment

Post a Comment