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.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

So what do you do with that extra wound ?

It was applied to the base that just died. Because you have no permission to put it back in the pool and its not doubled until after its allocated.

Can you cite a rule that lets you apply more wounds to a model than it has.

I don't need to. Ill spell it out again.

Wound is caused, pool is populated. No doubling here. Agreed?
Wound is allocated, save is failed/ignored. No doubling here. Agreed?
Wound is applied - model suffers wound. Wound is now doubled. Either wound was ID, model dies.

To make it work differently, you need a rule moving the doubled wound back into the pool (which would make sense), or the doubling to happen when the pool is populated (which would be dumb).

To make it work differently, you need a rule moving the doubled wound back into the pool (which would make sense), or the doubling to happen when the pool is populated (which would be dumb).

Without a rule to support your interpretation though, any of those 3 options have as much weight depending on how you see it. Personally I'm on the fence on this one.

I've cited how my interpretation is supported by rules. The wound is not doubled until it is suffered.

But you havent shown how a model can suffer more wounds than it has. Which we know it can't. So your interpretation breaks RAW as much as those others.

Fragile wrote:
But you havent shown how a model can suffer more wounds than it has. Which we know it can't. So your interpretation breaks RAW as much as those others.

Most swarms have 3 wounds - I'm not aware of any with less.
The model isn't suffering more wounds than it has. It suffers 2 and is IDed.

That works with ID weapons. But it doesnt work with non ID weapons.

Your 3W swarm takes 2 wounds from a blast. The first deals 2, the second deals 1 and removes the swarm. What happens to that last wound though?

It's discarded. You have no permission to return it to the wound pool, and no permission to allocate it anywhere.

I have 6 wounds in my unit. You cause 10. What happens to the other 4?

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't need to. Ill spell it out again.

1. Wound is caused, pool is populated. No doubling here. Agreed?
2. Wound is allocated, save is failed/ignored. No doubling here. Agreed?
3. Wound is applied - model suffers wound. Wound is now doubled. Either wound was ID, model dies.

To make it work differently, you need a rule moving the doubled wound back into the pool (which would make sense), or the doubling to happen when the pool is populated (which would be dumb).

1. Wound is caused, pool is populated. No doubling here. Agreed?
2. Save is failed/ignored.Wound is doubled. No allocation as there is no mixed armor involved.
3. Wound is applied - model suffers ID wound.

Until this is FAQ'd by GW, in my games my swarms will lose two bases for each unsaved wound from ID blasts/templates, the same as they have always done since 4th ed. Not enough has changed to make me believe it should be otherwise.

 don_mondo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't need to. Ill spell it out again.

1. Wound is caused, pool is populated. No doubling here. Agreed?
2. Wound is allocated, save is failed/ignored. No doubling here. Agreed?
3. Wound is applied - model suffers wound. Wound is now doubled. Either wound was ID, model dies.

To make it work differently, you need a rule moving the doubled wound back into the pool (which would make sense), or the doubling to happen when the pool is populated (which would be dumb).

1. Wound is caused, pool is populated. No doubling here. Agreed?
2. Save is failed/ignored.Wound is doubled. No allocation as there is no mixed armor involved.
3. Wound is applied - model suffers ID wound.

You've doubled before a model suffers a wound. You've broken a rule and therefore cannot be correct.

Nope, once the save is failed, the unit has suffered wounds. Now you apply those wounds. No rules broken.

We're going to disagree until GW FAQs it, so I'm done here.

 don_mondo wrote:
Nope, once the save is failed, the unit has suffered wounds. Now you apply those wounds. No rules broken.

We're going to disagree until GW FAQs it, so I'm done here.

That would matter if the unit was a swarm. It's not. Swarm must be a model based special rule, just like Fearless, FnP, etc.
Wounding the unit isn't good enough, you must wound the model. Disagree all you want, but use actual rules to attempt to prove me wrong instead of making them up.

 Lordhat wrote:
Until this is FAQ'd by GW, in my games my swarms will lose two bases for each unsaved wound from ID blasts/templates, the same as they have always done since 4th ed. Not enough has changed to make me believe it should be otherwise.

Overall I think I agree with this. I really see nothing that convinces me that this rule is anything more than a poorly phrased rule since RAW breaks either way.

The wording of the rule in question has changed dramatically since 4th. But not only that, the very mechanism of wound calculation-allocation has changed dramatically too.

The most important fact is that the wound pool is calculated only once and that happens well before allocation. You have no permission whatsoever to add wounds to the wound pool afterwards. Furthermore you can allocate wounds from the wound pool only.

And concerning the swarm rule itself, when a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from blasts/templates then that wound is multiplied by 2. It not an extra wound, but that specific wound which was allocated to a specific swarm is multiplied by 2. You don't get to go back to the wound calculation process and recalculate the wound pool. You just multiply that wound by 2. So in the end that swarm suffers 2 wounds that both deal ID. There is nothing illegal/wrong with that.