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.

O, rules lords of Dakka!
I call upon you to put my mind to rest!

Ok here goes.

The scenario:
As part of a bigger combat, a 2 wound Ork nob geta stomped by an instant death MC smash attack.

The rules say:
-Combat resolution rules say 'total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side'.
-Instant death rule says that an instant death wound requires that the model be 'reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty'. There is no mention of intervening wounds.

Question:
Do instant death wounds in close combat on multi-wound models count as 1 wound, or the amount of wounds on the model stat?

My opinion/thought process/confusion:
This appears (to me) to be a rule within a rule, where combat resolution counts wounds inflicted. Instant death is an actual wound that was inflicted, however, instant death requires that you go directly to 0 wounds. Do not pass go, or collect $200.

So my logic is that the inflicted wounds of instant death are counted as 1 wound because I cannot see another explanation in the rules.

Help?

Determine Assault Results explicitly answers this question.

(Check the Index for 'Assault Results' and look at the Determine Assault Results section).

All wounds removed due to instant death count. If it was a 2 wound nob, it counts as 2. If it was a 5 wound riptide, it's 5.

I dont mean to sound like a pain, but this really doesnt make sense to me and perhaps I need someone to spell this out for me if I'm seeing this wrong.

Over the last few days I've read and re-read the 'Determining Assault Results' over and over... Not getting through, but find it difficult to accept, because it doesn't stack up to me.
I can admit I'm wrong when its clear, but it seems clear the other way to me according to RAW.

The rules say:
-total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents.
-Note that Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat.
-only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count (including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffered Instant Death - seepage 16).

The last line is what I see as the root of the issue.

Also, the Instant Death rule says:
-it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty.

The confusion for me is the absence of any mention of what happens with the wounds between 2 and 0, if you see what I mean. The instant death rule also does not specify whether the wounds are negated or not, however, the combat resolution rules explicitly state that wounds negated by special rules are not counted. Instant Death is a USR.

So my brain reads this as literally as possible, meaning the model goes from 2 to 0 immediately within the realm of an instant death wound. As I only actually suffered 1 instant death wound, but that wound required me to be reduced to 0. No mention is made between 2 and 0.

Am I making sense?
This is genuinely confusing...

[Edit] - My dodgy formatting.

(including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffered Instant Death - seepage 16).

This doesnt talk about wounds inflicted. It talks about all wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death. Your model suffered instant death and had 2 wounds remaining. It lost 2 wounds (otherwise it wouldnt have been dead) so it counts as 2 wounds. No other reading possible.

(including all of the wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death)

THe riptide had 5 wounds, and suffered 1 instant death wound. This reduces the model to 0 wounds.

How many wounds did the riptide lose to the instant death rule? 5.

No wounds were negated - in this context that means saved from occuring, such as through armour, feel no pain, reroll to wound due to Yarrick,

I kinda see where you are coming from. The second line that states all wounds negated by special rules, is referring to wounds caused, that are the ignored and not removed from a model. Hence the operative word 'negated' meaning they haven't taken effect. This could be due to an invulnerable save, or feel no pain, or other crazy witch craft that stops the target from being turned to mush.

As for the instant death rule, the part you have placed in brackets is the important thing to remember. "Including all wounds caused by instant death" this is stating that if the model had two wounds, and suffers instant death it counts as 2 wounds (that is the amount of wounds he lost, not the amount you caused) the clearest most understandable way to view it to help it make sense is to count wounds lost by the opponent. It's important to remember that if you have it a multiple wound model who has already lost a wound or two and you then inflict instant death, you only take his remaining wounds. Therefor if you hit a 3 wound model, who has lost a wound already by being shot, and you then instant death him, you only obviously gain 2 wounds for combat res.

I understand how it could be a touch ambiguous, but it really is the number of wounds lost.

Khaine's Wrath wrote:
I kinda see where you are coming from. The second line that states all wounds negated by special rules, is referring to wounds caused, that are the ignored and not removed from a model. Hence the operative word 'negated' meaning they haven't taken effect. This could be due to an invulnerable save, or feel no pain, or other crazy witch craft that stops the target from being turned to mush.

As for the instant death rule, the part you have placed in brackets is the important thing to remember. "Including all wounds caused by instant death" this is stating that if the model had two wounds, and suffers instant death it counts as 2 wounds (that is the amount of wounds he lost, not the amount you caused) the clearest most understandable way to view it to help it make sense is to count wounds lost by the opponent. It's important to remember that if you have it a multiple wound model who has already lost a wound or two and you then inflict instant death, you only take his remaining wounds. Therefor if you hit a 3 wound model, who has lost a wound already by being shot, and you then instant death him, you only obviously gain 2 wounds for combat res.

I understand how it could be a touch ambiguous, but it really is the number of wounds lost.

^^This. This is what I'm looking for.

Its the bit that says (including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffered Instant Death)

This makes sense to me, but is not 100% clear. The red highlighted part is crucial to the logic for me (Thats the rule within the rule, within the rule).
That takes me from 0% clear to more like 75% clear, which is good enough for me.

I don't have high expectations of GW rules clarity, but I respect the rules.

To everybody who said "re-read the rules", that doesn't help someone asking for a logical and intelligent clarification that was not found by reading and re-reading the rules.

Glad I could kinda help bud, even if only by 75%!

Khaine's Wrath wrote:
Glad I could kinda help bud, even if only by 75%!

I don't think you've taken it negatively, but you've given me clarity, and I thank you deeply for that.

I don't think its reasonable for me to expect much more than that, as these are rules written by GW after all...

Haha. I have plenty of similar scenarios myself!

And there's no point taking anything negatively. We are supposed to all be here to help each other out! Not talk down to one another or speak condescendingly.... Oh well!

I do question GW sometimes. On the 6th edition of the rules and charging extortionate prices for rule books and PACKED full of ambiguities! Shocking.

I completely agree, and I don't see enough actual helping on Dakka sometimes, but I think everybody means well.

Thank you again. I know at least 1 person who will be very pleased to read this.