Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Foreword: I'm not interested in quick 'you remove a model with no other wounds on it when wounded by ID' replies. I wouldn't be posting this if it were that simple.

BRB pg26: during the allocation of wounds, if any unsaved wounds are wounds that inflict ID, then unwounded models (within groups of identical models) have to be removed where possible, and have to be removed first.

BRB pg50: after wounds from Force Weapons have been allocated and saves rolled, one of the models upon which FW wounds were allocated and not saved can be made to suffer ID by successfully using a psychic power.

This issue can't be resolved by saying that Force Weapons cause wounds that inflict ID. They do not. A FW is a power weapon. It just happens to give one a psychic power that can be cast that to make a model that has suffered a wound inflicted by a FW suffer ID. Force Weapons do not cause wounds that inflict ID in the same way as a Huskblade, the Swarmlord, etc. (I would prefer for the power to simply say 'cast at the start of combat, your FW now inflicts ID, wham' - hardly excessive given how much ID's flying around these days - but at present RAW are not that simple.)

So, if there's a unit of two identical Nobz, which have previously taken a wound to a bolter, and a Librarian wounds them once with his FW, RAW would seem to state that the wound is distributed as normal (which would result in a Nob having 2W stacked on it and thus being removed as a casualty), and that that the Librarian can cast a psychic power that makes a model that had a wound inflicted upon it by the FW suffer ID. I don't see a model in play that meets that criterion.

If there's a unit of two identical Ogryns, which have previously taken two wounds to bolters, and a Librarian wounds them once with his FW, RAW would seem to state that the wound is distributed as normal (which would result in an Ogryn being removed as a casualty due to having 3W stacked on it and thus being removed as a casualty), and that that the Librarian can cast a psychic power that makes a model that had a wound inflicted upon it by the FW suffer ID. I don't see a model in play that meets that criterion.

If there's a unit of three identical Carnifexes, which have previously taken three wounds to bolters, and a Librarian wounds them once with his FW, RAW would seem to state that the wound is distributed as normal (which would result in a Canifex being removed as a casualty due to having 4W stacked on it and thus being removed as a casualty), and that that the Librarian can cast a psychic power that makes a model that had a wound inflicted upon it by the FW suffer ID. I don't see a model in play that meets that criterion.

However, if there's a unit of two identical Carnifexes, which have previously taken two wounds to bolters, and a Librarian wounds them once with his FW, it's not so bad for the Marines. RAW would seem to state that the wound is distributed as normal (which would result in a group of Carnifexes having three wounds on it, no casualties there yet), and that that the Librarian can cast a psychic power that makes a model that had a wound inflicted upon it by the FW suffer ID.

Now on the one hand, RAI are fairly clear that the designer doesn't want wounds that inflict ID being used to reset the 'wound counter' on a group of similar models. We are not dealing with a wound that inflicts ID here. On the other hand, it's a bit vague as to where these prior wounds 'live'.

Some people use the parlance that 'one of these Carnifexes has taken three wounds'.

Some people use the parlance that 'these Canifexes have taken three wounds'.

The problem is, neither and both of these statements can be true. Wounds jump all over the place throughout a unit.

We're going to imagine these identical Carnifexes can be distinguished, by one of them being red and one of the being blue.

When the Carnifexes were shot at by bolters, they were wounded eight times and had a Tyranid Prime amongst them. Three wounds were allocated on Redfex, three on Bluefex, and two on Prime. Redfex and Bluefex are identical, so six armour saves were thrown for them as a group of models, and two failed. (Prime was unhurt, and left the unit before the Librarian arrived.) Two wounds were unsaved. Which Carnifex was wounded? We don't know, and generally speaking don't care as we just wait until they've taken another two unsaved wounds wounds between them, whereupon Red drops dead and Blue is still untouched - or until a wound that inflicts ID is unsaved, whereupon Blue drops dead and Red limps along with 2W remaining.

However, there's no point I can find at which the rulebook states what happens when ID is inflicted by a cause other than a wound that inflicts ID. An argument can be made for either case:

"When I get a wound that inflicts ID past your save, you have to allocate it to an unhurt Carnifex first." (But this isn't a wound that causes ID.)

"But when this FW wound that does not inflict ID got past my save, we stacked it and two other wound counters next to one Carnifex and compared the number of counters to its Wounds. The wound that turns fatal when you cast your psychic power is on the same Carnifex as two other wounds." (But this isn't an instance where wounds are being allocated to determine casualties; those wounds are carried by the unit, not an individual member thereof, and can jump all over the place.)

Pretty obvious that we're not going to leave a Carnifex standing with 3W inflicted on it; at the very least, the Fex that drops dead is going to take with it the wound that was inflicted by the FW. But the ID isn't inflicted by a wound, and there's no stated way of allocating wounds when an instakill is not arising from something that has to inflict a wound.

Now, if the unnamed psychic power made the wound retroactively count as inflicting ID (like a NFW), it'd be a different kettle of fish. In the above examples, all of the pre-existing wounds would be preserved. The Librarian could kill two multi-wound models with two wounds (three in the case of the 2W Carnifex unit), one of which inflicts ID. But even then, there's non-wounding ID or remove-from-play attacks that can't be fudged in this manner.

Previously this wasn't a big issue; multi-wound units tended to be complex (Nobz) and/or have EW (4ed Tyranid Warriors) and/or be rubbish and rarely seen (Ogryns). Now that we've got Fexstars out there, there's going to be a lot more at stake when it comes to agreeing where the excess wounds go when non-wounding ID or remove-from-play attacks (JoTWW) are flying around.

Sorry if this is scattered, but it's a damn complicated issue to write about around.

Thoughts?

Maybe I'm completely off base here, but why does it matter? If Redfex and Bluefex are identical and suffer 3 unsaved wounds, in total, then Redfex-- no matter what because Redfex and Bluefex are identical-- suffers 3 wounds and Bluefex is fine. This is because identical models have to stack wounds in a way that would result in a whole model being taken off the table before wounds 'spill over'.

The real problem is if FW wounds do not cause ID before wound allocation, then all 3 unsaveable power weapon wounds go onto Redfex, force weapons are activated, the 3 wounds become ID, and Redfex dies--but Bluefex is still fine.

That seems to be the Pandora's box.

That's exactly the issue I'm raising - the red/bluefex digression was to make it clear that no amount of common parlance makes it factually true that a single member of a mulitwound unit 'has been wounded'.

Ah-ha, sorry then, my tiny screen and a quick readthrough caused me to miss the crux of your argument.

Yeah, that's a huge problem, and could lead to intentional 'staggering' I values with weapons (i.e. halberd/sword/hammer) within GK units just to get around that issue.

sourclams wrote:The real problem is if FW wounds do not cause ID before wound allocation, then all 3 unsaveable power weapon wounds go onto Redfex, force weapons are activated, the 3 wounds become ID, and Redfex dies--but Bluefex is still fine.

Unsaved wounds are suffered by the unit, not by models.

Normally:
1 Allocate to models
2 Take saves as a group
3 Remove casualties from the unit

FW adds a new step 2.5 that may convert one of the wounds suffered to instant death.

Which could be a neat (as in tidy) way around it, but for FW to activate after wounds have been resolved (i.e. after saves are rolled), all the wounds would still go onto Redfex and Bluefex would be fine. Redfex hasn't suffered 'instant death' until after wounds have gone onto individual models, which is why Bluefex squeaks past.

Unsaved wounds occur before you remove models. As such the NFW activates immediately you fail a save - and all wounds then cause ID

It really doesnt cause a problem.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unsaved wounds occur before you remove models. As such the NFW activates immediately you fail a save - and all wounds then cause ID

It really doesnt cause a problem.

Indeed. Since all attacks are made at the same time within an initiative order, and all saves are made at the same time within an initiative order, only one of three things can happen:

1. The FW didn't wound and is irrelevant.

2. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and if the model is still alive, triggers an ID test.

3. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and the model that took the wound is dead, negating the need for ID test.


Where's the confusion?

biccat wrote:

sourclams wrote:The real problem is if FW wounds do not cause ID before wound allocation, then all 3 unsaveable power weapon wounds go onto Redfex, force weapons are activated, the 3 wounds become ID, and Redfex dies--but Bluefex is still fine.

Unsaved wounds are suffered by the unit, not by models.

Normally:
1 Allocate to models
2 Take saves as a group
3 Remove casualties from the unit

FW adds a new step 2.5 that may convert one of the wounds suffered to instant death.

I reiterate that RAW state that a FW wound can be used to facilitate the suffering of ID by a model that took a wound from the FW; the wound itself is not a wound that inflicts ID.

In fact, RAW specifies that FW instakill can be attempted against 'any one opponent that suffered an unsaved wound inflicted by the weapon'. So, here's a scenario:

In a melee, Librarian inflicts 1W on 4-strong Tyranid Warrior unit with VC. Assault Squad accompanying Librarian inflicts 11W on TW unit. FW and two normal hits allocated to Redwarrior. Three normal hits allocated to Bluewarrior. Three normal hits allocated to Pinkwarrior. Three normal hits allocated to VCwarrior.

VCwarrior passes all saves. Red, Blue and Pink's save rolls are pooled; three fail.

I can see three possible ways to play it from here:

- Play house rule that FW power retroactively turns one unsaved wound into a wound that inflicts ID between saving throws and casualty removal. One TW has to be given an unsaved ID wound, one has to be given three unsaved normal wounds. This is a simple, consistent, common sense solution, one that I would favour (even as a more-often-than-not victim of FW ID) but it is not RAW.

- FW power requires a model to 'suffer' the wound before it can be used. Tyrand player can nominate Pink, and place next to it normal dice, then normal dice, then FW dice; Green is removed as a casualty due to suffering full wounds; then place normal dice next to Blue; no more casualties, group of identical Warriors now have a wound between them, with no viable target for FW to zap.

- Because Tyranid player allocated FW wound to Red, Marine player gets to attempt to FW zap Red for ID before wounds are allocated. This is a very generous interpretation of 'suffered an unsaved wound inflicted by the weapon', essentially giving the Marine player the right to replace 'suffered' with the word 'allocated', a word that is very specifically used in relation to armour saves, not casualty removal. It makes it unclear as to whether a failed psychic test would mean that Red has to be chosen for the FW wound, and opens the door to the following situations:

Librarian joins Assault squad, charges 4-strong Ogryn unit with Bone'ead. Librarian is in b2b with Red Ogryn, other Marines are in b2b with Blue, Pink and Bone'ead. In melee, Librarian inflicts 3W. Assault Squad inflicts no wounds. Guard player doesn't want to lose Bone'ead, so allocates wounds to Red, Blue and Pink, saves autofailing. Guard player wants Red to survive to single out IC Librarian for attacks and so plans to put all three wounds on Pink, but because Red and Blue and Pink all had wounds allocated to them Marine player can single out Red as a target for FW zap, regardless of onto which Ogryn the Guard player may choose to stack the resulting lost wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unsaved wounds occur before you remove models. As such the NFW activates immediately you fail a save - and all wounds then cause ID

It really doesnt cause a problem.

We're not talking about Nemesis Force Weapons, which AFAIK can be made to inflict wounds that inflict instant death.

We're talking about Force Weapons, which can make a model that has suffered an unsaved wound (that does not inflict instant death) from them then suffer instant death.

The rules for wounds that inflict instant death are not relevant here.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Indeed. Since all attacks are made at the same time within an initiative order, and all saves are made at the same time within an initiative order, only one of three things can happen:

1. The FW didn't wound and is irrelevant.

2. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and if the model is still alive, triggers an ID test.

3. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and the model that took the wound is dead, negating the need for ID test.


Where's the confusion?

Well, there's confusion as to a FW needing a model to suffer a wound to be a target for zap, and wounds being allocated during the working out of saving throws, and the removal of casualties, and in this particular instance the use of the word assigned. None of these terms are strictly interchangeable. A model can have a hundred wounds allocated to it. Any number of those wound dice could become a failed saving throw. But with multiwound units, that doesn't mean it'll suffer the loss of any wounds.

Here's another confusing situation.

Three surviving members of a unit of Paladins. Two armed with Falchions, one with a Hammer. One Falchion is engaged by BA Librarian, others by assault squad; due to a convenient Sanguinary Priest, all BA have FC for I5.

Librarian hits and wounds three times, Assault Squad all fail to wound. Every Paladin has a wound allocated. Hammer saves, both saves pooled by Falchions fail. Both Paladins have had FW wounds allocated to them. Both of these are unsaved wounds. GK player wants to put the unsaved wounds on the Falchion not in b2b with Librarian, to have a shot at NFW IDing Librarian. Can the BA player point to the Falchion guy in b2b with the Librarian, claim it has suffered a wound by the FW (despite the GK player's stated intent to stack all unsaved FW wounds on another model) and ID him?

The owner of the librarian doesn't get to choose what models suffer the wounds from his attacks.

Dashofpepper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unsaved wounds occur before you remove models. As such the NFW activates immediately you fail a save - and all wounds then cause ID

It really doesnt cause a problem.

Indeed. Since all attacks are made at the same time within an initiative order, and all saves are made at the same time within an initiative order, only one of three things can happen:

1. The FW didn't wound and is irrelevant.

2. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and if the model is still alive, triggers an ID test.

3. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and the model that took the wound is dead, negating the need for ID test.


Where's the confusion?

This is not quite right. There is no difference between 2 and 3, as the unsaved wounds do not remove models before the force weapons are activated.

The reason for this is, that "unsaved wounds" are not identical to wounds/models actually lost, as discussed to the death in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/353828.page
This is the same problem the OP seems to be having. Force Weapons my be activated as soon as an unsuffered wound is cause. This is not the same time a wound is lost by a multiwound model, but exactly the same time you would roll FNP rolls. To pick up the two identical nob example:

Before anything happens:
Nob1 one wound left
Nob2 two wounds left
Painboy two wounds left
All three have cybork(5++) and no other special wargear

Regular ID:
- Nobz get run over by a deff rolla and suffer four hits (S10 DS-), wounded successful. The hit would cause instant death.
- Allocate wounds. Owner decides to put the extra wound on Nob1.
- Painboy fails. Nob2 saves. Nob1 saves one, fails one.
- The group of Nob1 and Nob2 suffers one unsaved wound, the painboy suffers one unsaved wound. As per BRB pg. 26 multi-wound models never suffer unsaved wounds as model, but as group.
- Feel no Pain could usually be used now, but the wounds are caused by a power weapon.
- Feel no Pain could usually be used now, but the wound causes ID.
- Remove causalties. The wounds cause Instant Death. Nob2 has to be removed because he is unwounded, even though Nob1 failed the save. Painboy is removed.

Force Weapon:
- Nobz are hit by a force weapon wielder that hits four times, all wound.
- Allocate wounds. Owner decides to put the extra wound on Nob1.
- Painboy fails. Nob2 saves. Nob1 saves one, fails one.
- The group of Nob1 and Nob2 suffers one unsaved wound, the painboy suffers one unsaved wound.
- Feel no Pain could usually be used now, but the wounds are caused by a power weapon.
- Force weapon may be activated to make either victem of the unsaved wounds suffer an instant death. The nob group's wound is chosen.
- Remove causalties. The wound on the nobz causes Instant Death. Nob2 has to be removed because he is unwounded, even though Nob1 failed the save. Painboy loses one wound.

Overkill with Force Weapon:
- Nobz are hit by force weapon wielders six times, all wound.
- Allocate wounds. All models take two wounds.
- Painboy two. Nob2 saves both. Nob1 fails two.
- The group of Nob1 and Nob2 suffers two unsaved wounds, the painboy suffers two unsaved wounds.
- Feel no Pain could usually be used now, but the wounds are caused by a power weapon.
- Force weapon may be activated to make any of the unsaved wounds victims suffer instant death. The nobz are chosen. It IS possibly to chose the painboy, but not smart.
- Remove causalties. One wound on the nobz causes Instant Death. Nob2 has to be removed because he is unwounded, even though Nob1 failed the save. Non-ID wounds have to be taken off wounded models, so Nob1 loses a wound and is removed. Painboy loses two wounds and is removed.

Nemesis Force Weapons:
- Nobz are hit grey knights wielding helberds that hits four times, all wound.
- Allocate wounds. Owner decides to put the extra wound on Nob1.
- Painboy fails. Nob2 saves. Nob1 saves one, fails one.
- The group of Nob1 and Nob2 suffers one unsaved wound, the painboy suffers one unsaved wound.
- Feel no Pain could usually be used now, but the wounds are caused by a power weapon.
- Nemesis Force Weapons may be activated to make all unsaved wounds cause instant death. GK player choses to activate.
- Remove causalties. The wounds cause Instant Death. Nob2 has to be removed because he is unwounded, even though Nob1 failed the save. Painboy is removed.

The confusion comes from regular force weapons telling us to chose one opponent and removing one model suffering an unsaved wound, but multi-wound models never suffer an unsaved wound. Unless their are in a group of one their group suffers the wound, not them.

- Play house rule that FW power retroactively turns one unsaved wound into a wound that inflicts ID between saving throws and casualty removal. One TW has to be given an unsaved ID wound, one has to be given three unsaved normal wounds. This is a simple, consistent, common sense solution, one that I would favour (even as a more-often-than-not victim of FW ID) but it is not RAW.

You're explanation is not RAW, but it still works that way. The wound does not cause instant death, the force weapon's activation replaces one unsaved wound on a model/group with one instant death.

@ Jidmah - thanks for your concise reply, glad to see you're on the page regarding the distinction between FW ID and wounds that inflict ID.

I think you might be contradicting yourself here:

Nob1 one wound left
Nob2 two wounds left
Painboy two wounds left
All three have cybork(5++) and no other special wargear

...

The confusion comes from regular force weapons telling us to chose one opponent and removing one model suffering an unsaved wound, but multi-wound models never suffer an unsaved wound. Unless their are in a group of one their group suffers the wound, not them.

It seems to me Nob1 having 1W left when it's identical to Nob2; surely they should be Nob1 and Nob2 have suffered a wound between them?

Regardless of this point, your examples do make sense to me. Can I ask how you'd see the following situation:

Unit of 3 Carnifexes wounded four times by Librarian. Does a Carnifex drop dead of 4W before Librarian gets to activate FW ID? Or does the FW wound used to inflict ID kill one Carnifex, with the remaining three wounds carrying over exactly as they would as if the FW wound used to inflict ID was a wound inflicting ID?

Your example with the Nob suggests the first interpretation to me.

Since the defender picks where the ID wound goes to, he would obviously assign it to the Fex with three wounds allocated to it already. When that fex dies from the FW ID wound the other two wounds are "extraneous" at that point and disappear. The second fex receives one unsaved wound.

That's how I interpret it anyway.

Now, if combat actually had attacks for each model in order (I.E. librarian Attack 1 - Activate force weapon, hit, wound, ID. Attack 2 - Target second fex, rinse repeat...). But it doesn't. It all happens at the same time essentially so there is no way for you to know or to discern if the ID attack happened first or last in the librarians assault of 4 attacks.

lindsay40k wrote:@ Jidmah - thanks for your concise reply, glad to see you're on the page regarding the distinction between FW ID and wounds that inflict ID.

I think you might be contradicting yourself here:

Nob1 one wound left
Nob2 two wounds left
Painboy two wounds left
All three have cybork(5++) and no other special wargear

...

The confusion comes from regular force weapons telling us to chose one opponent and removing one model suffering an unsaved wound, but multi-wound models never suffer an unsaved wound. Unless their are in a group of one their group suffers the wound, not them.

It seems to me Nob1 having 1W left when it's identical to Nob2; surely they should be Nob1 and Nob2 have suffered a wound between them?

No I don't. At some point during the game they were hit by a bolter which caused an unsaved wound. Because of that unsaved wound between the two, one of the nobz lost one of its "hit points", having one left. While the models do not suffer unsaved wounds by themselves, some model in the group loses one of its "hit points" for every unsaved wound. For example JoTWW could kill either nob1 or nob2, so it makes a differnce which one actually was wounded(lost a wound from its profile) in the end.

Regardless of this point, your examples do make sense to me. Can I ask how you'd see the following situation:

Unit of 3 Carnifexes wounded four times by Librarian. Does a Carnifex drop dead of 4W before Librarian gets to activate FW ID? Or does the FW wound used to inflict ID kill one Carnifex, with the remaining three wounds carrying over exactly as they would as if the FW wound used to inflict ID was a wound inflicting ID?

Your example with the Nob suggests the first interpretation to me.

I assume carnifexes have 4 wounds on their profile, my tyranid knowledge is not the best and no book to look up in reach.

- Librarian hits and wounds the carnifexes
- Allocate wounds. Each carnifex is assigned one wound, one takes an excess wound.
- No saves allowed, the group of carnifexes suffers 4 unsaved wounds
- The Librarian may use his force weapon do make one opponent suffer an instant death
- Casualties are removed. For the instant death, you must remove one unwounded carnifex first. Then you must take wounds off a wounded carnifex if possible, not possible in this case. Then you take three wounds of an unwounded carnifex, leaving you with two of them, one only one wound left.

So, while the carnifexes suffer four unsaved wounds, you don't remove any of them yet, as some things, like force weapons or feel no pain, might alter the amount of casualties you have to remove.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kevin949: This is wrong, the librarian may not wait until casualties are removed to activate his force weapon, he has to activate it before anything is removed, after saves are failed. Also the librarian's player may chose the wound freely.

No, the librarian would not get to choose. Unless the rule states that he can then he is still subject to the normal wound allocation rules. If he was in base contact with an IC and a unit at the same time and split his attacks THEN you could choose to have the FW wound be on the IC or the unit if BOTH units failed 1 save. But that is the only time he would be able to choose.

*Edit*
Didn't say to remove casualties first, but I get the flow of it now.

Kevin949 wrote:No, the librarian would not get to choose. Unless the rule states that he can then he is still subject to the normal wound allocation rules. If he was in base contact with an IC and a unit at the same time and split his attacks THEN you could choose to have the FW wound be on the IC or the unit if BOTH units failed 1 save. But that is the only time he would be able to choose.

*Edit*
Didn't say to remove casualties first, but I get the flow of it now.

Of course he can only activate for models he actually inflicted unsaved wounds on, but he can chose freely from among them. If he has unsaved wounds on four different equiped nobz, he could choose to ID any one of them. We probably meant the same, just wrote it down differently

So then the term 'suffered an unsaved wound' where used in the FW rules should be taken to mean 'had a FW wound allocated against it and failed to save', as opposed to 'lost 1 or more wounds (AKA hitpoints) to unsaved FW wounds during the removal of casualties', right?

Jidmah wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unsaved wounds occur before you remove models. As such the NFW activates immediately you fail a save - and all wounds then cause ID

It really doesnt cause a problem.

Indeed. Since all attacks are made at the same time within an initiative order, and all saves are made at the same time within an initiative order, only one of three things can happen:

1. The FW didn't wound and is irrelevant.

2. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and if the model is still alive, triggers an ID test.

3. All saves (or non-saves if invulnerable isn't present) were allocated and rolled together. Any model(s) having a force weapon wound assigned them, and the model that took the wound is dead, negating the need for ID test.


Where's the confusion?

This is not quite right. There is no difference between 2 and 3, as the unsaved wounds do not remove models before the force weapons are activated.

The reason for this is, that "unsaved wounds" are not identical to wounds/models actually lost, as discussed to the death in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/353828.page
This is the same problem the OP seems to be having. Force Weapons my be activated as soon as an unsuffered wound is cause. This is not the same time a wound is lost by a multiwound model, but exactly the same time you would roll FNP rolls. To pick up the two identical nob example:
.

You do not get to roll FNP since it stated that Force weapons are like Power Weapons with a added affect. It does not matter is the model with the FW made 20 unsaved Wounds because it states in the rule that this only can be used against one model. It is a psychic ability and you only get to do this one time, well most. If the 20 wounds got through then it still only goes to one guys not the full group.

lindsay40k wrote:So then the term 'suffered an unsaved wound' where used in the FW rules should be taken to mean 'had a FW wound allocated against it and failed to save', as opposed to 'lost 1 or more wounds (AKA hitpoints) to unsaved FW wounds during the removal of casualties', right?

Right. This is the same for any other rules asking for "unsaved wounds" (FNP, Blood Talons, Acid Blood etc).

jordan23ryan wrote:You do not get to roll FNP since it stated that Force weapons are like Power Weapons with a added affect. It does not matter is the model with the FW made 20 unsaved Wounds because it states in the rule that this only can be used against one model. It is a psychic ability and you only get to do this one time, well most. If the 20 wounds got through then it still only goes to one guys not the full group.

I explicitly stated FNP can not be used, for the exact same reason you mentioned. It was mentioned only to explain the difference between "unsaved wounds" and "profile wounds lost".

If a unit of multiple-mound models contains any identical models, those identical models will never suffer an unsaved wound, as they form a group, and any unsaved wounds will be suffered by the group instead. If you you deal any amount of unsaved wounds to a group, you may activate the force weapon and cause one instant death to the group, killing exactly one model with it.

If you'd want to, you could try to lawyer it really strict, in that case regular force weapons could never be activated against groups of identical multi-wound models, because none of them suffered a wound as model, which is obviously bogus.

Jidmah wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:No, the librarian would not get to choose. Unless the rule states that he can then he is still subject to the normal wound allocation rules. If he was in base contact with an IC and a unit at the same time and split his attacks THEN you could choose to have the FW wound be on the IC or the unit if BOTH units failed 1 save. But that is the only time he would be able to choose.

*Edit*
Didn't say to remove casualties first, but I get the flow of it now.

Of course he can only activate for models he actually inflicted unsaved wounds on, but he can chose freely from among them. If he has unsaved wounds on four different equiped nobz, he could choose to ID any one of them. We probably meant the same, just wrote it down differently

I still disagree with this, unless the nobs were in separate units he could only declare one of his attacks being a FW ID attack amongst the unsaved wounds but the rules for wound allocation still have to be applied where applicable meaning it would still be the choice of the defender to determine which one got insta-gibbed even though wounds have been allocated already. Unless the rule for the FW on the librarian says that they can choose which model it gets applied to. If it does, then nevermind me.

They can choose any wound they caused to become the ID one, whcih means that they can choose from amongst the wounds allocated to the nobz.

Kevin949 wrote:Unless the rule for the FW on the librarian says that they can choose which model it gets applied to. If it does, then nevermind me.

It does. *neverminds you*

I was promised some JotWW related shenanigans WHERE ARE THEY!

I don't think anyone disputes how FW's work do they? It's laid out pretty clearly in the book. You use the Psychic Power on the model you wound.

Aramoro wrote:I was promised some JotWW related shenanigans WHERE ARE THEY!

I don't think anyone disputes how FW's work do they? It's laid out pretty clearly in the book. You use the Psychic Power on the model you wound.

I was expecting JoTWW to be drawn in as a highly relevant issue, but it doesn't seem to be getting taken up. So, yeah: Unit of 3 identical Carnifexes, been wounded 3 times previously, one gets removed from play by JoTWW or suchlike, what happens to the wounds? Anybody?

As for the FW dispute - it's not how the FW works that's a grey area; it's exactly how we're identifying a model the FW user has wounded where there's groups of identical models who 'share' a pool of inflicted wounds until there's enough to remove one of them. The only time a wound gets allocated to an individual is during saves and casualty removal, and the FW rules do not specify which of these is the time to activate the power.

It depends which one gets removed from play, given that this is not ID and does not cause any wounds.

Still not quite right - the "pool" disappears once you reach the "remove casualties"-step. The three wounds are substracted from the "hitpoints" of one carnifex (usually marked by using dice). Leaving one wounded and two unwounded carnifexes.

For example the Eldar Mind War targets models, not units, so a Farseer could wound one of the carnifexes, and another Farseer another one. If they do the same thing next turn, you'd have three carnifex with four wounds total, but two wounds on two of them, so none are removed. Groups are only formed when the unit is wounded, and you need to figure out who will lose "hit points"/die.

When any model is removed by JoTWW, the exact model hit simply disappears, wound allocation and any rules for removing casualties have no bearing here. So if it hits the wounded carnifex, you have two unwounded ones left, if it hits an unwounded one, you simply remove that one.

I had a decent post written up defending my earlier position, but I think I'm going to change sides to "unclear."

Although JOTWW isn't a good example, because in that case the wounds would carry over (wounds are held by the unit, not individual models). Units of multi-wound models never have their wounds reduced.

1. "use the weapon's power against any one opponent that suffered an unsaved wound"

2. "if the test is passed, the enemy model suffers instant death."

2 implies that "opponent" in 1 means "enemy model." So the power can only be used against an "enemy model," not a unit.

However, as explained on p. 26, wounds aren't removed from individuals in a unit of multi-wound models, so it seems (from RAW) that (non-Nemesis) FWs have no effect on units of multi-wound models.

In the example about the nobz on page 26, the player is noting that one nob has suffered a wound, so you actually have to assign the excess wounds to a specific model, they won't keep floating among the group until they all die.
They also tell you to track the wounds "as noted above", which refers to marking specific models. So JOTWW would not keep wounds floating arround if it actually hits the one model who took the wounds in the end. But this can easily be avoided by the SW player, unless he was not aiming for that model and hit it by accident.

Agree on the RAW FW thing, though I would never enforce it against my opponent.