Thoughts on Rumored Wound Allocation Rules for 6th ed

Rumor Stew! Mmmmmm.

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.


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.


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
10 years ago


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.


Paul Cornelius
Paul Cornelius
10 years ago

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?

Paul Cornelius
Paul Cornelius
10 years ago
Reply to  Reecius

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.

10 years ago

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).

10 years ago

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).

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x