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.

Is dangerous terrain test done per model or is it allocatable? Like say I have a squad of 10 with a sarge and they ALL walk in to a minefield. Do I roll for the sarge separately or do I just roll 10d6 and allocated the DT 1 results?

Thanks in advance.

You roll separately for each model.

per model. Bottom of page 14, main rulebook.

D6 is rolled per model, and then that model takes the wound.

Per model. It's not allocated like shooting.

Because if 1 melta gun armed marine steps on a mine the guy with the missile launcher isn't going to blow up

Chompy1804 wrote:Because if 1 melta gun armed marine steps on a mine the guy with the missile launcher isn't going to blow up

Don't try to use logic with 40K...in fact i think it's against the rules in YMDC . After all why can i only be able to see one guy in a squad and shoot him 40 times but kill the whole squad?

Dangerous terrain tests override the usual allocation rules and tell you who the wounds are allocated to. However, casualty removal rules still let you choose which of the identical models you remove.

That is, if in your squad of 10, 9 are identical, you can safely roll those 9 all at once.

Unless you're assaulting, then you have no choice in which to remove. And it can lead to a failed assault.

don_mondo wrote:Unless you're assaulting, then you have no choice in which to remove. And it can lead to a failed assault.

I've never seen anything to support this (even though I used to run it that way), do you have a reference?

ElCheezus wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Unless you're assaulting, then you have no choice in which to remove. And it can lead to a failed assault.

I've never seen anything to support this (even though I used to run it that way), do you have a reference?

It says per model, each model that begins, ends or passes through makes a dangerous terrain check, not each unit. It makes more sense to me...

Right, I can agree with that it seems to make sense. That's why I played it that way for a while. The way I see it now is that when it talks about "per model," it only overrides the wound allocation step. After the applicable saves (invuln only, if I remember), then you move to the Remove Casualties step. In that step, you can remove any specific model you want from the "group" of identical models that were assigned the wounds.

It's a bit on the rules-lawyer side of things, but after taking a long look at it, it seems clear. I'd play "my" way by default, but wouldn't really have a problem with changing if it bothered someone enough.

ElCheezus wrote:Dangerous terrain tests override the usual allocation rules and tell you who the wounds are allocated to. However, casualty removal rules still let you choose which of the identical models you remove.

That is, if in your squad of 10, 9 are identical, you can safely roll those 9 all at once.

No, rolls are made per model, casualties are removed per model. The rules you are referring to are found in the Shooting Phase section and apply only to casualties suffered from shooting (Assault phase section later reference these rules). Rolling for each model separately is important as it may severely impact a unit's squad coherency, and as such your troop movement.

GW never gives you any rules for how to deal with casualty removal in the general case.

Mahtamori wrote:GW never gives you any rules for how to deal with casualty removal in the general case.

There's a lot things that GW doesn't do, sadly. Since we don't have any other way of casualty removal, does that mean the model stays on the board? I think it's safe to use the only method we've been given as the general case.

Ah, actually, my bad. The rules for dangerous terrain actually does reference the rules for wounds "in the next section", which has a few words dedicated to identical casualties. *bleeping* sloppy piece of writing.

Yet another way we Eldar can piss off an Ork player. Hit 3 units of 30 orks with a Nightspinner and as he advances the horde remind him that dangerous terrain is per model.

ElCheezus wrote:Right, I can agree with that it seems to make sense. That's why I played it that way for a while. The way I see it now is that when it talks about "per model," it only overrides the wound allocation step. After the applicable saves (invuln only, if I remember), then you move to the Remove Casualties step. In that step, you can remove any specific model you want from the "group" of identical models that were assigned the wounds.

It's a bit on the rules-lawyer side of things, but after taking a long look at it, it seems clear. I'd play "my" way by default, but wouldn't really have a problem with changing if it bothered someone enough.

The problem with what you propose is what Don_mondo was referring to.



If the red models were assaulting the green model through the dangerous terrain, and they are 4" away and roll a '4' on a dangerous terrain test, the closest model 'A' has to move to contact 'D'.
When it moves through the dangerous terrain, if it fails and takes a wound then it is removed and the assault fails.
If, instead, you allocate the wound to another model in the unit (like 'C') then 'A' can still get into base contact, which is an incorrect way to play.

time wizard wrote: which is an incorrect way to play.

why?

Because dangerous terrain tests are taken on a model by model basis.
In my diagram, model 'A' moving 4" would move through the dangerous terrain and have to test.
If it passes the dangerous terrain test, then models 'B' and 'C' could move forward and join in the assault.
If 'A' failed the test, it is removed and the assault fails because even if 'B' moved 4",it would not be able to move into base contact with model 'D' so the assault would fail.
If, when 'A' failed the test, you chose to remove 'B' or 'C' instead, then 'A' would be in base contact proceeding with the assault. That would be wrong.

I'm familiar with it's effects on assault, I have no problem with that part.

You see it that if a model takes a wound from a DT test, the specific model is removed.

I see it that a model fails a DT test, then they suffer an unsaved wound. Then we reference "Remove Casualties" on pg. 24, which lets us remove any model we choose as long as they are identical.

So if A, B, and C have different stats or wargear, we go by your example. If they're all the same, then we can pick which model leaves.

ElCheezus wrote:I'm familiar with it's effects on assault, I have no problem with that part.

You see it that if a model takes a wound from a DT test, the specific model is removed.

I see it that a model fails a DT test, then they suffer an unsaved wound. Then we reference "Remove Casualties" on pg. 24, which lets us remove any model we choose as long as they are identical.

So if A, B, and C have different stats or wargear, we go by your example. If they're all the same, then we can pick which model leaves.

But the rule for removing casualties covers targetted units.

The rule for dangerous terrain on page 14 specifically says that you roll for every model that moves into, out of or through the terrain, not for any unit that moves that way.
And if you roll a '1' for the model, it suffers a wound. There are no cover or armor saves allowed.
The rules then say that wounds and saves are explained in the next section, not that you can allocate wounds in that manner.
For you to allocate wounds throughout the unit, permission would have to be given in the dangerous terrain section.

At no point that I'm aware of (other than what you're trying to say now) does the BRB ever have a different method of resolving wounds and casualties than presented on pg. 24. We don't need permission to use that method because that's the only method we have.

ElCheezus wrote:At no point that I'm aware of (other than what you're trying to say now) does the BRB ever have a different method of resolving wounds and casualties than presented on pg. 24. We don't need permission to use that method because that's the only method we have.

Gets Hot! - page 31
Sweeping advance - page 40
Fall Back! - page 45

There may be others, but these are off the top of my head.

Get's Hot is the same situation as DT tests, in my book. I know that seems like a whole other can of worms, but in both cases the rules tell you how to allocate the wound, not how to resolve casualties. It was a rules threat about Gets Hot!, actually, that changed my mind about all this from the way I used to play it (the way you're advocating).

Sweeping advance and Fall Back! don't have to do with wounds, just situations where models are removed from play.

I am so sad :(
Allocating DT wounds would've been nice.

The fact that the rules for dealing with resolving wounds lists only the examples they are refing to is not an indication that it only applies to those situations.

For example: Resolving shooting attacks is used references and needed for resolving close combat--simply because the turn occurs in that order and the rules are written in relation to when the rules will occur.

Not written to assume every situation in which they may occur.

See: Cover saves being denied by Close Combat attacks and the large number of people that assume and assert falsely that it all non-shooting attacks deny cover saves because they are not shooting.

ElCheezus wrote:Get's Hot is the same situation as DT tests, in my book. I know that seems like a whole other can of worms, but in both cases the rules tell you how to allocate the wound, not how to resolve casualties. It was a rules threat about Gets Hot!, actually, that changed my mind about all this from the way I used to play it (the way you're advocating).

Sweeping advance and Fall Back! don't have to do with wounds, just situations where models are removed from play.

The key part is, neither shooting nor assault wound models, but units. Models only matter when actually removing casualties. "Get's Hot" and dangerous terrain wound models.

@Time Wizard - I play this the same as you as it makes more sense IMO. I know GW don't usually make sense but that's the whole point of Dangerous/Difficult terrain. To hinder or stop an assault.

What would be the point in DT if Model A took the wound but Model C was removed STILL allowing Model A to attack?! Totally bloody pointless.

I agree with ElCheezus. Even though the model suffers a wound, you can remove someone else if they are identical. If you don't use the remove casualties section then you can avoid having to remove multiple wound models. For example, a nob squad of 10 identical nobz walk into DT, they suffer 2 wounds. Are you going to remove 1 model or are you going to give 2 models 1 wound each to avoid removing models, thus breaking the rules?

You are not breaking any rule. Only wounds suffered by units are allocated to groups, and thus force you to remove whole models. Wounds suffered by models are not. Psychic powers like Mind War allow multiple identical nobz to be wounded, too.

As above.

Only the model that failed the test can suffer the wound, same as for Gets Hot.