 |
| Look at this shit. |
I mean honestly, why?
Look at the god damn flow chart for a second. I didn't make it, some other dude did.
Check it out by clicking on this link.
Why can't it be like 4th Ed.? I played 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th and I honestly think 4th Ed. has the best wound allocation system out of all of it.
Look at the flow chart above and observe my 4th Ed. wound allocation flowchart.
 |
| This flowchart took longer for me to make in paint than it takes to resolve a shooting phase. This took about 10 seconds to make. |
Everything can be made out to be ridiciously complicated if you want to.
ReplyDeleteTry making a flowchart of breathing and include all the possible steps your body goes trough, including the ones that happen automatically.
6th wound allocation works fine and is the wound allocation the least prone to abuse that I've seen so far.
Yes you can move unwounded models forward to protect wounded models, but that will invariably slow you down and is otherwise a viable tactic and not intentional wound allocation abuse such as 5th with tons of different wargear.
Yes, character units can LOS on each other, at least that doesn't happen pr default as with 5th where you for example needed 11 wounds to kill 1 nob realiably, now you can get away with as little as 1 and the nob who got pulled in front will be vulnerable to attacks from a different direction.
I think all those systems of directional combat and LoS! could of been implemented in the 4th Ed. system for the new 6th Ed. I'm a big fan of well-designed systems that's simple to understand and execute. Unfortunately, the new system is not it.
ReplyDeleteThere's a saying in the gaming industry that sometimes, KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid is the right way to do things. This doesn't mean it should be done all over the place, but when it comes to something that is subject to abuse and rules lawyering, and can potentially slow the game down to the crawl due to loose interpretations, KISS should of been enforced.
The person who made that original chart is just being douchey. 6th ed. wound allocation (and "Look Out, Sir" is quite a bit simpler than 5th edition.
ReplyDeleteI don't get why you need to rage about it. Its deceptively simple;
ReplyDeleteStep 1: Once enemy has finishing resolving hit and wound rolls, he nominates which group of wounds to get allocated first. So, if you took two plasma and four bolter, he can force you to take the plasma first. If they're all the same AP, just allocate like normal.
Step 2: Resolve the group of wounds nominated by the enemy player, allocating from closest model to furtherest. If you suffer more wounds than models, go from closest to furtherest, then back to closest (this is a slightly subtler version of how its always worked, deal with it).
Step 3: If you have any characters, you make 'Look Out Sir!' to allocate to another friendly model within 6". Its a 4+ for squad leaders, 2+ for IC's
Step 4: Take saves, remove casualties
Done, how hard is that?
"6th wound allocation works fine and is the wound allocation the least prone to abuse that I've seen so far."
ReplyDeleteYou've CLEARLY never had to face anybody that carefully lined up 2 rhinos -just- so and sniped your veteran sergeant through the narrow gap between them with his meltagun because he was now the only one in LOS. Or had somebody that pre-measured (which is legal now) and moved his special weapon to the exact distance away where your lascannon was the only one in range. If that isn't abusing the system, it's at least gaming the system in such a way as to suck all the fun out of playing.
To say nothing of the fact that it simply takes longer to measure and assign wounds to the closest. 4th ed had a fantastic wound allocation system, and 5th and 6th ed have not made it any more interesting or complex, just more complicated and time consuming.
I completely agree with you. I hated how wound allocation in fifth unneccassarily allows units to survive overwhelming amounts of fire power that they otherwise couldn't inherently take. It forgives a person from making poor decisions in the movement phase with little consequence barring really poor luck. And I know that they have drawbacks in the form of strength 10 weapons or bring your own version of the unit but for god sake this game doesn't have to turn into paper rock scissors. They could have just made allocation simple so that wounds suffered simply equaled model removed. Use terrain better if you want to keep your units alive.
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteOr had somebody that pre-measured (which is legal now) and moved his special weapon to the exact distance away where your lascannon was the only one in range."
I fail to see the problem with that.
First: With the new system he wouldn't need to do that(Premeasuring; Firing at the exact distance etc.) as the Lascannon being the closest model is enough to ensure that it gets the first unsaved wound allocated to it.
Second:
To achieve what you have described your enemy had to outmaneuver you or you just placed your models poorly.
In both cases that seems alright.
I've played some games and come to quite a different conclusion that also tells me that your approach is kinda flawed and not really objective.
ReplyDeleteAllocating wounds to models which have the same armor save is very easy and not complicated, unless you want to make it complicated.
At least my opponents and myself did it in a flash.
It's as complicated as the system of 4th edition, no even easier, as you can kill models that are out of range (so you don't have to measure which ones you can kill) and you don't have to think about which models to remove. You just do it
Yet it takes ~11 steps in the first graphic to remove a single model.
In yours it takes 2-3, but only by design, not by actual amount of time it takes to remove models, because you summarize steps.
With this in mind you're arguments sound really flawed.
Where it does get more time consuming (but not that more complicated) is models with different saves, possibly characters and allocating wounds per Precision Shots/Strikes.
That is true.
But you're not focusing on that. You're saying that the process is flawed as a whole even if it's just normal rank and file soldiers.
Which isn't true by my experience, quite the opposite.
Where's the step about mixed armor saves?
ReplyDeleteOr ICs with mixed armor saves?
The entire process is more complicated than it needs to be. That's the point I'm making.
You can apply directional damage, pulling the closest model to the shooting player, and use LoS! in 4th just as easy. GW just didn't do that, instead they made it much more complicated than it should be. It's time consuming and not needed. ICs with different armor profiles in a unit full of characters is just a nightmare to sort through. It doesn't need to be at all.
ReplyDeleteI love removing models that are closest, it has great tactical value and make the game far more interesting. The same can be said for focus fire, moving units so that the models you want to kill don't have cover saves and the ones you don't want to kill have cover so that you can focus fire. "Look out sir" and challenges have made week independent characters like succubi far more survivable in assault.
ReplyDeleteThose two additions alone are fantastic. And to be honest the wound system can be clunky (it's a shame it's not more polished), but as far as I'm concerned I'm just glad "focus fire", "look out sir", "removing closest models" and "challenges" are in as they all make for a better game.
You win some you lose some, and the winning out ways the loosing in 6th ed in my opinion.
I also think that untis of "characters" (nobs etc) will be faqed in due course.
I agree with hero on this. Doesn't matter if 6th is "easier than 5th" when it's far more complicated than it needs to be. It gained nothing and lost about 10 minutes per game. What's too difficult about rolling to wound, target player chooses models to save with? Done. Simple. Two steps. Can't figure it out? Stop playing. Chess is probably your thing. 6th ed doesn't add much at all. Mostly, it's just limiting assault and making everything a special rule. Looks more like GW is trying to copy smaller companies in the hopes they'll regain lost customers. The reality is that their new system is a complete mess and makes them look even more dumb for claiming to invent everything since fire and the wheel.
ReplyDelete