Gravmyr wrote:
@easycheese You are the one missing the part that says when "a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound", .

again, you are completely ignoring the underlined part below that states "UNSAVED WOUNDS HAVE BEEN CAUSED" hence are doubled,


again, you are ignoring page 15, which goes save, then allocate the unsaved wounds (the # of which is doubled by swarms)

pg 15 says "first of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw...for each wound being resolved. Make note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused."

since after that save, unsaved wounds have been caused, the # of those unsaved wounds on the unit is doubled due to the unit being a swarm. are you interpreting "unsaved wounds have been caused" as unsaved wounds have not been caused? because that is a wrong interpretation.
the next rule, immediately follows the above one i have quoted, setting an ACTUAL order of operation, instead of the single, solitary line you quote to back up your theory that a model may be allocated more wounds then are on its profile.

pg 15 then says "next, allocate an unsaved wound (not two, one) to the enemy model closest to the firing unit... if the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating wounds to the closest model until there are no wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties"

RAW if a T3 swarm suffers 4 unsaved S6 hits, they lose 8 bases

The swarm rule states:

If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds.

The Instant death rule states:

If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a strength value of double its toughness or greater, it is reduced to 0 wounds, and removed as a casualty.

The blast rules state:

..Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked outm roll to wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack. pg 16

The turn sequence is as follows:

1) Roll to wound
2) Take saves
3) Allocate unsaved wounds & remove casualties

So, in the example given by the OP: a swarm has just been hit by a S6 blast, and suffered 4 hits

1) the to wound rolls are taken now, and we can assume that 4 wounds are inflicted
2) Roll to save now and we can assume the saves are either failed, or the AP is sufficient to negate the save entirely. wounds now become 'unsaved wounds'

At this point the unit has taken 4 unsaved wounds, and the swarm rule kicks in, doubling the number of unsaved wounds from 4 to 8 (each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds.)

3) Allocating unsaved wounds comes next, and follows the rules on pg 15, allocating to the model nearest the firer if a normal blast, and from the center of the blast marker if a barrage weapon. wounds are allocated one by one. since each wound is S6 it causes instant death, and so a single base is removed for each unsaved wound caused, which is 8 (not withstanding LOS and any focus firing that may have occured)

That is my interpretation, following the BRB to the letter. I'm not a rules lawyer, and i'm not about to disect every word and phrase individually, i just read the question, some of the discussion that is ongoing, and then referenced the relevant rules in the BRB, which took me 5 minutes. My initial reaction was 'that can't be right, they should only lose 4 bases' but i applied the rules, step by step, as indicated by the rules, and hey, it sucks, but thems the rules

@easycheese Again a Swarm, a model based rule, has not suffered a wound at the unsaved wound pool the unit has. Once the Wound has been allocated that is when the wound is suffered and as such doubled at the model level. You are doubling before allocation and therefor the wounds have not been suffered. Suffered and caused are not the same thing. I have spent multiple posts showing exactly why suffering unsaved wounds requires a save and allocation.

@sirlynchmob Again all saves require allocation except in the Same Save method which allows you to take any save you have without allocation. You have specific permission to do so. the entire section of Take Saving Throws in the same save method talks about the unit and not model, so how wound the pool apply to anything but the unit? Depends on the specific rule you are talking about but I say the same to you there is a specific section allowing the saves do you have permission to check for for and apply any rule that models have to the entire unit except at the rule itself? Since cover saves cannot be calculated without looking at terrain and any USR's affecting their save how do you calculate the cover save without taking into account some USR's? Some Invuln saves are the same they can have an Invuln save without wargear and so can have one that requires you to look in their special abilities for such a rule. You have special permission to look for these things it does not tell you to apply all rules across the board.


In a single instance your interpretation at least has fewer discrepancies but as soon as anything changes in the least your way piles up problems left and right. My interpretation applies uniformly and within the special circumstances you put forth as well as all other save methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok listen go back and at least try to read the thread this has in fact been covered multiples times: suffered=allocation. A model has not suffered a wound until it is allocated as I have shown 3 locations where this is true and the only place anyone can try to quote to say otherwise includes and allocation as part of it it does not prove that failing a save is the same suffering. Causing wounds is also not the same as suffering wounds. people keep trying to equate it with no proof in the least yet I have shown numerous times that it is true. In the end you have to read the Swarms USR as applying to the model not to a unit.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easycheese Again a Swarm, a model based rule, (no it is not, it does not say model or unit in the swarms rule, it simply says when a swarm) has not suffered a wound at the unsaved wound pool the unit has. Once the Wound has been allocated that is when the wound is suffered (this is incorrect, again read pg 15 nothing you are saying undoes page 15 which says unsaved wounds are caused after saving throws and before allocation) and as such doubled at the model level. You are doubling before allocation (this is the only thing you are saying that is correct, you do in fact double before allocation, but this is no way means wounds have not been suffered, again you ignore what the BRB actually says on pg 15 "unsaved wounds have been caused" that sentence, whether you believe it or not, means unsaved wounds have been caused) and therefor the wounds have not been suffered. Suffered and caused are not the same thing. I have spent multiple posts showing exactly why suffering unsaved wounds requires a save and allocation. (you have spent multiple posts, but you still have yet to quote rules that back up your statements, multiple people have however posted rules that completely contradict what you say, and the rule book specifically says pg 15"unsaved wounds have been caused" then tells you to allocate those unsaved wounds, which means, surprise, wounds have been caused, and you must then allocate them)

you draw several incorrect conclusions from a single line on pg 16 the most noteworthy, and rule breaking being that it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then that model has

even in the mixed saves, you allocate the single wound, and then make the save, on the model, which if it is a swarm, will cause two unsaved ID wounds, the first of which reduces the first models wounds to 0 since it has been allocated to that model, removing it, the 2nd is still in the wound pool, since no model has yet to be allocated it (the rules only state that the first wound is allocated, not the second one, by definition, you allocate wounds one at a time, so while the initial wound is allocated to the model, the bonus wound created from an unsaved wound in this case, has not yet been allocated). you then continue with mixed saves rule until the wound pool is empty

you need to prove that the extra wounds are discarded from the wound pool,

Gravmyr wrote:
@easycheese Again a Swarm, a model based rule, has not suffered a wound at the unsaved wound pool the unit has. Once the Wound has been allocated that is when the wound is suffered and as such doubled at the model level. You are doubling before allocation and therefor the wounds have not been suffered. Suffered and caused are not the same thing. I have spent multiple posts showing exactly why suffering unsaved wounds requires a save and allocation.

@sirlynchmob Again all saves require allocation except in the Same Save method which allows you to take any save you have without allocation. You have specific permission to do so. the entire section of Take Saving Throws in the same save method talks about the unit and not model, so how wound the pool apply to anything but the unit? Depends on the specific rule you are talking about but I say the same to you there is a specific section allowing the saves do you have permission to check for for and apply any rule that models have to the entire unit except at the rule itself? Since cover saves cannot be calculated without looking at terrain and any USR's affecting their save how do you calculate the cover save without taking into account some USR's? Some Invuln saves are the same they can have an Invuln save without wargear and so can have one that requires you to look in their special abilities for such a rule. You have special permission to look for these things it does not tell you to apply all rules across the board.


In a single instance your interpretation at least has fewer discrepancies but as soon as anything changes in the least your way piles up problems left and right. My interpretation applies uniformly and within the special circumstances you put forth as well as all other save methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok listen go back and at least try to read the thread this has in fact been covered multiples times: suffered=allocation. A model has not suffered a wound until it is allocated as I have shown 3 locations where this is true and the only place anyone can try to quote to say otherwise includes and allocation as part of it it does not prove that failing a save is the same suffering. Causing wounds is also not the same as suffering wounds. people keep trying to equate it with no proof in the least yet I have shown numerous times that it is true. In the end you have to read the Swarms USR as applying to the model not to a unit.

one last try, the SR's all state what triggers those rules. When those conditions are met, you follow the SR. You don't need permission to go looking for them, they are rules, and those rules are always in affect. and pg 3 says "other important information" "it's enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model" there you go, blanket permission to look for SR's so you know when they apply.

Swarms trigger is unsaved wounds
FNP's trigger is unsaved wounds
Invuln saves trigger is a suffered wound.

suffered =/= allocate it keeps being said, but it is not RAW. And it disallows invuln saves 1/3 of the time so its not really uniform. I'd say you're side creates many more rules conflict than mine. Read back through all the pages and count them up if you wish.

you cause wounds and they go into the pool
allocate to models to determine saves and any rules that may or may not have an effect.
you now have suffered wounds
take saves (models have a sv characteristic, units do not) You might roll as a unit to save time, but it is the models making the saves. armor: IF a model, Invuln "models with" cover "model will be entitled"
failed saves = you now have suffered unsaved wounds. Any SR trigger on unsaved wounds, trigger here.
allocate unsaved wounds as required.

there is plenty of evidence to support this, read pages 14 - 19.

I assert multiplying an unsaved wound to get Two unsaved wounds is causing a new wound. From that point of view, all blast ID wounds remove two bases no matter the method of resolving the wounds. As its created another unsaved wound it can not be saved again and then gets allocated. pg 32 allows for breaking or bending main game rules, like slipping another unsaved wound caused into the pool to be allocated, or I'd say, just resolved after the wound that created a second wound. Whichever way you'd like to do it, the end result is the same.

Then A swarm could either mean "a model" or "a unit of models with swarm" Dictionary would imply that a swarm is all models making up the swarm. You only have a swarm, not 10 swarms within a swarm. So whether its a model or unit SR is debatable as well.

Now the only thing really debated (for 11 pages now) is the second newly created wound and how to handle it, but my method does not create any new paradoxes, it is truly uniform. All SR's get checked and used as required, invuln saves can be taken, and a ID wound does not kill off the entire unit, see word victim. FNP & swarm both trigger on unsaved wounds, but that seems to be a different debate so lets not get into it here.I'm in favor of active player, because apparently the exception rule contains all the information to resolve it.

If you'd like to continue this you need to show where under cover saves you get permission to check for SR's that may improve your cover save. Then explain how a unit gets a save since you want to separate models & units. and actually prove allocate = suffers and why that doesn't disallow a invuln save for same save units.

Neither side can really show 100% RAW so it really comes down to RAI, and in 5th ed it was faq'd 1 blast ID wound removes 2 bases. evidence for intent.

til it comes up again or I see something new to respond to, Peace.

easysauce wrote:


you draw several incorrect conclusions from a single line on pg 16 the most noteworthy, and rule breaking being that it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then that model has

even in the mixed saves, you allocate the single wound, and then make the save, on the model, which if it is a swarm, will cause two unsaved ID wounds, the first of which reduces the first models wounds to 0 since it has been allocated to that model, removing it, the 2nd is still in the wound pool, since no model has yet to be allocated it (the rules only state that the first wound is allocated, not the second one, by definition, you allocate wounds one at a time, so while the initial wound is allocated to the model, the bonus wound created from an unsaved wound in this case, has not yet been allocated). you then continue with mixed saves rule until the wound pool is empty

you need to prove that the extra wounds are discarded from the wound pool,

Nowhere in Gravmyr's method is he allocating more wounds to a model than a model has. He is saying that you must allocate a wound before it can be suffered. If you allocate a wound that wound comes out of the wound poll. If you start with 4 wounds in the pool and you allocate 1 you have 3 more wounds in the pool. Now if you assume a model suffers a wound after allocation, you can't double a wound with the swarm rule until after the original wound has been allocated. Once you allocate the original wound then you double it, and now both wounds are on the same model and in a normal scenario that model would take -2 to it's wound characteristic. You can't allocate, double the wounds, and put one of those wounds back in the pool to be allocated. This all of course assumes you consider suffering an unsaved wound must happen after allocation and saves.

You're dead wrong on the mixed save portion even with DeathReaper's "after failed armor save" reading of suffering a wound. Again you can't put a wound back in the pool after allocation without a specific rule saying you can. In the mixed save scenario, after rolling to wound from a blast causing 1 wound:

1) You allocate the wound to the closest model (in this case the model has the swarm rule). The wound pool is now at zero.
2) You make a save for the model if it has one.
3) Before you reduce the Wounds characteristic you double the amount of unsaved wounds caused. The model now reduces its Wounds characteristic by 2. If the Wounds characteristic of that model is 0 or less remove it. If the wound would cause ID you reduce the Wounds characteristic of the model to 0 and remove the model, in this case doubling the wound does not matter.
4) Check the wound pool for more wounds. There are none
5) Move on to shooting with the next unit or to the next phase.

If at any point with the mixed save scenario you are doubling wounds in the wound pool you are doing it wrong. Mostly because the wounds aren't unsaved yet, also because you could potentially make a model without the swarm rule suffer the doubling because of the swarm rule.

for units with one save, the answer is plain and clear

pg 15 specifically states to take save throws, that unsaved wounds are caused, and then allocated,

that part is 100% RAW,

as for mixed saves, it is a totally separate scenario from the above,

even mixed saves says to allocate ONE wound at a time, so if in mixed saves the wound is allocated to the closest model, only if that model has a different save, then rolled for save, causing an unsaved wound, which is doubled, where does it say to allocate that 2nd wound to the same, now dead , model? even if you can lawyer that both wounds go on the same model, how can a 1 wound model suffer two wounds? find a rule saying it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then it actually has, or its breaking the rule.

if it did it would also contradict even the mixed saves rule as you have now allocated two wounds at once,

if he is not allocating more wounds to a model then it has, where does the extra wound go then? if its not on the initial model, where is it? it must be allocated somewhere.

At first glance, I agreed that 2 unsaved wound with ID would kill 4 swarms.

But then a friend of mine suggested me to put an IC in the mix, so I did:


reductio ad absurdum:
If we suppose that [1] and [2] get hit and miss their save, we have 2 unsaved wounds, then they are multiplied by 2.
It will then be allocated on the IC

So end of the conversation, 2 ID unsaved wound on swarms, will only kill 2 swarms.

Unfortunately a few (thank god) people in this forum think that the same save method can alter the shooting attack rules.

The rules sequence for a shooting attack is on page 12. The same save is just a method on how to resolve the shooting attack more efficiently in a specific situation. The other method is mixed saves. Since both methods are based on the same rules, it is absurd to suggest that in any situation these 2 methods will give 2 different results. And in any case if there is a doubt about any result between the 2 methods, revert back to the actual rules on page 12.

@easysauce What it boils down to is you seem to think that allocating a wound onto a model and then doubling it is somehow allocating two wounds... it isn't. You are doubling a wound that has been allocated that is all. I even posted an easier explination in the thread but you seem to think that somehow you are allocating that second wound when it is simply the first wound twice. Until you can come up with something to disprove the three spots that I have pointed out that allocation=suffering that does not include allocation first you have no leg to stand on in the discussion. Unsaved wounds caused are not the same as unsaved wounds suffered if that were the case FNP wound be taken before allocation and as GW has demonstrated that is not their intent. I have quoted the rules that state it 4 times now that allocation=suffering I have yet to see a single quote from you that says that caused=suffered.

@sirlynchmob Kinda try to stay the actual wording of the rules. Swarms and FNP both trigger on suffering unsaved wounds, both suffering and unsaved are the key words there. State what you would like I have shown the three places that suffer=allocate and the only spot anyone can even try to claim otherwise has allocation as part of it. I have shown RAW multiple times where the only claims I have seen against it are basically I want swarms gone sooner. RAW the Swarms USR is a model based rule end of discussion. As soon as you claim that it applies to the unit then it alters the rule from "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound...' to "If a unit with at least on model with Swarm suffers an unsaved wound...." You also claim that despite the fact it states that you take saves first then allocate you somehow magically think there are two allocation steps.... I have shown why you take any save that is best for you and why you can do so without allocation.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easysauce What it boils down to is you seem to think that allocating a wound onto a model and then doubling it is somehow allocating two wounds... it isn't. You are doubling a wound that has been allocated that is all. I even posted an easier explination in the thread but you seem to think that somehow you are allocating that second wound when it is simply the first wound twice. Until you can come up with something to disprove the three spots that I have pointed out that allocation=suffering that does not include allocation first you have no leg to stand on in the discussion. Unsaved wounds caused are not the same as unsaved wounds suffered if that were the case FNP wound be taken before allocation and as GW has demonstrated that is not their intent. I have quoted the rules that state it 4 times now that allocation=suffering I have yet to see a single quote from you that says that caused=suffered.

@sirlynchmob Kinda try to stay the actual wording of the rules. Swarms and FNP both trigger on suffering unsaved wounds, both suffering and unsaved are the key words there. State what you would like I have shown the three places that suffer=allocate and the only spot anyone can even try to claim otherwise has allocation as part of it. I have shown RAW multiple times where the only claims I have seen against it are basically I want swarms gone sooner. RAW the Swarms USR is a model based rule end of discussion. As soon as you claim that it applies to the unit then it alters the rule from "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound...' to "If a unit with at least on model with Swarm suffers an unsaved wound...." You also claim that despite the fact it states that you take saves first then allocate you somehow magically think there are two allocation steps.... I have shown why you take any save that is best for you and why you can do so without allocation.

you mean this gem from page 2 you are claiming is RAW?

What if allocation and suffered are being used interchangeably?

What if you're just wrong about this?
since your entire premise is wrong and not RAW and your argument disallows invuln saves, while picking and choosing which SR's to use and when. I don't think you have a rule to stand on.

easysauce wrote:
for units with one save, the answer is plain and clear

pg 15 specifically states to take save throws, that unsaved wounds are caused, and then allocated,

that part is 100% RAW,

as for mixed saves, it is a totally separate scenario from the above,

even mixed saves says to allocate ONE wound at a time, so if in mixed saves the wound is allocated to the closest model, only if that model has a different save, then rolled for save, causing an unsaved wound, which is doubled, where does it say to allocate that 2nd wound to the same, now dead , model? even if you can lawyer that both wounds go on the same model, how can a 1 wound model suffer two wounds? find a rule saying it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then it actually has, or its breaking the rule.

if it did it would also contradict even the mixed saves rule as you have now allocated two wounds at once,

if he is not allocating more wounds to a model then it has, where does the extra wound go then? if its not on the initial model, where is it? it must be allocated somewhere.

No, it's actually the same either way. Technically whether it's mixed or same saves you're *always* allocating wounds one at a time. It really does not matter if you roll saves before or after allocating the wound because you only suffer a wound when allocated it, not before.
Read "The Shooting Sequence" on page 12. Step 5, specifically.

The resolution methods provided later in the book are to help speed up gameplay, but they do not change the core rule that all wounds are allocated one at a time.

You also seem to forget that generally swarms are multi-wound models. I personally can't think of a single wound swarm anyway.

@sirlynchmob I have in fact shown you three locations where GW has in fact used allocation to mean suffering. The only thing anyone has pointed out is in armour saves, where allocation is done first, that states it was suffered. To me that is exactly what RAW is, when GW writes a rule. My premise allows all rules to work as written. Following your setup there is two allocation steps and as long as a unit has a USR you can apply it at any time without regard for the wording of the USR or the fact that all USR's are model based rules.

Gravmyr wrote:
@sirlynchmob I have in fact shown you three locations where GW has in fact used allocation to mean suffering. The only thing anyone has pointed out is in armour saves, where allocation is done first, that states it was suffered. To me that is exactly what RAW is, when GW writes a rule. My premise allows all rules to work as written. Following your setup there is two allocation steps and as long as a unit has a USR you can apply it at any time without regard for the wording of the USR or the fact that all USR's are model based rules.

starting with "what if" does not make RAW, and when you follow up with a appeal to authority, I can just safely write you off as wrong. And if you want to play that way, then you are disallowing invuln saves in same save units. Because nothing is allocated until wounds are unsaved. so you never have a suffered wound to take a invuln save against. And the fact you can present a argument and apply it two different ways also leads me to believe you to be wrong.

@sirlynchmob Actually if you read it you get no saves under normal circumstances without allocation. You have still yet to show a single location that allows two allocations. Yes I asked a question first before I proved it correct. I didn't start with the assumption that I could not be wrong. Believe what you will but in the end if they faq it to follow my setup and prove your assumptions false then will you at least then look at what I put forth instead of assuming they could in no way allow saves without allocation? I am in fact presenting the argument and showing that it does apply two different ways as in same saves you do not allocate first and in mixed saves you do. Your presentation shows two allocations which is not backed by any rules. Your assumption that it adds a wound to the wound pool is not backed, it says a wound that is allocated and save failed is multiplied to two which is different. I want you to look back at the precursor section to the same save section which states that there is allocation and resolution. Both sections then tell you when to resolve and when to allocate. Neither actually tell you to look at pg 16 to see how to take a save but same save does tell you to look there to determine if and what save the unit is allowed.

Ok people here seem to think that the swarm special rule is for the unit, its not. The swarm special rule is model specific just like all the special rules are. So in the rules where it states that the swarm's unsaved wounds are multiplied by 2 its talking about the models unsaved wounds are multiplied by 2. No where does it make any mention to the swarm's unit. The wounds are not added back into the wound pool they are given to the model that is triggering the effect. So an instant death blast would inflict 2 ID wounds on the MODEL not on the unit. Just because all models in a unit have the same special rule does not mean that the special rule affects all models in the unit every time it procs.

Four S6 wounds go out to T3 models with the Swarms Special Rule.

All four wounds go unsaved.

We now assign the (currently) four unsaved wounds to the group of eight models.

First model takes one unsaved wound, due to its Special Rule, it now takes two. Due to the Instant Death rule, that model now dies. The extra wound goes with the model assigned that first unsaved wound.

Continue removing wounds from the pool until it is empty.


The reason you dont double the unsaved wounds to eight before you start assigning them is written within the Swarms Special rule itself. When the model is assigned the wound, if it has the special rule, you apply what that rule en-tales. If it doesnt, then you dont. Should an IC be in the group you wouldnt be allowed to double the wounds in the pool before assignment. Thus, doubling the wounds -before- assignment is an incorrect assessment, even if you remove the IC from the equation.

rigeld2 wrote:

barnowl wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:
I was going to leave this allone, but show me the quote that says you allocate the wound to the same model. There is no rule telling us what to do with the new as yet handled wound. We have on allocated wound and wound that is in limbo. Your side say to the same model, Sirlynchmob's side says to send it back to the pool and so far neither side has come up with a rule one way or the other.

It's not in limbo. A wound is allocated. That allocated wound is doubled. Model now has 2 wounds.

See, here is were you keep making the assumption that it is a second allocated wound. The rules don't tell use that itis allocated yet. As you keep pointing out that is different than a suffered wound. Not saying is it a wrong assumption just not a backed up one.

No, you're making the assumption that all wounds to a model must be allocated. This is demonstrably untrue.
There's no guidance implying the new wound goes to the wound pool. Therefore it doesn't.

So you have just said that:
A: The wounds are not allocated to the model
B:The wound does not go to the pool

So were does it go? Limbo. I see no rule that lets you assign the second wound to the model or the pool. You have not provide one, so RAW the wound sits in limbo.

No, that's not what I've said at all.
A wound is on a model. That wound is doubled. Since the first wound was on the model, the second wound is as well.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's not what I've said at all.
A wound is on a model. That wound is doubled. Since the first wound was on the model, the second wound is as well.

And I am pointing out that this is an assumption on your part based on how you think the rules should be read. There is no, to use your favorite point , permission to assign the new wound to the model, nor to the pool. So either is an assumption and this is really I think were the biggest sticking point over how this rule should be read is occuring.

If the correct method is to return it to the pool, then I.D. blasts against a swarm take out 2 bases per wound.
If the correct method is to apply the second wound to the same model, the I.D. blasts only take out one base per wound.

Does this make sense why I am grinding on this point now? And want to see an actual rule either way? Otherwise the best you can do is make an assumption and wait for it to one day get FAQed.

If a dollar is put in your bank account and then doubled, do you have one dollar in your bank account and another one floating around in limbo? Or so you have 2 dollars in your bank account?

It's not that you have permission to do anything with the wound - indeed that's exactly why it's applied to the model that suffered the wound in the first place.

Actually barnowl I think I have shown more then enough evidence for most people to agree that the directions that rigeld2 myself and Tarrasq have put forth are the only way to apply the rules without breaking some rule. For a model to suffer a wound it has to be allocated and the save failed. The wound that is already allocated then becomes 2 wounds. We are not allocating another wound nor are we creating another wound. There are no assumptions being made on our side.

The side that is stating you double the wounds in the pool or allocate a second wound are making assumptions. Either that as long as unit has a rule it can be applied at any time the unit is referenced or that the new wound somehow reenters the pool. If you look back to my posts you can see that I have shown the areas in the BRB that back our standing.

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually barnowl I think I have shown more then enough evidence for most people to agree that the directions that rigeld2 myself and Tarrasq have put forth are the only way to apply the rules without breaking some rule. For a model to suffer a wound it has to be allocated and the save failed. The wound that is already allocated then becomes 2 wounds. We are not allocating another wound nor are we creating another wound. There are no assumptions being made on our side.

The side that is stating you double the wounds in the pool or allocate a second wound are making assumptions. Either that as long as unit has a rule it can be applied at any time the unit is referenced or that the new wound somehow reenters the pool. If you look back to my posts you can see that I have shown the areas in the BRB that back our standing.

seeing how your summary is still wrong, you have not provided enough evidence for anything. And your reasoning just denies invuln saves to same save units, but I guess that's not breaking any rules for you.

We are not allocating another wound nor are we creating another wound

swarm creates another unsaved wound. "wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds" You had one wound, now you have two wounds. a new wound was created.

As I pointed out earlier you actually have permission to take any save....

There is no new wound the originally allocated wound becomes two like an amoeba splitting.

Gravmyr wrote:
As I pointed out earlier you actually have permission to take any save....

There is no new wound the originally allocated wound becomes two like an amoeba splitting.

yet you ignore the wording for invuln saves, they can only be taken when "a model suffers a wound" if there is no suffering until allocation then same save units can not take invuln saves. as they don't get allocated/suffered until they are unsaved wounds.

Yet you ignore you are told to save without allocation which is required for all saves....

Gravmyr wrote:
Yet you ignore you are told to save without allocation which is required for all saves....

citation please. This is one of your assumptions your side is making

armor and cover save against wounds

invul is against suffered wounds

so do you suffer wounds without allocation or not?

Seriously? pg 15 the first sentence under Take Saving Throws.......

Gravmyr wrote:
Seriously? pg 15 the first sentence under Take Saving Throws.......

general rule:
"the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each wound being resolved."

now what is the procedure for taking the saving throws?

more specific rules:
page 16
"to take an armor save, roll a d6 and compare the results to the armor save characteristic of that MODEL that has been ALLOCATED the wound."
or page 17
"invulnerable saves are DIFFERENT to armor saves because they may always be taken whenever the MODEL SUFFERS a wound"

The only thing that general rule is allowing for is to roll all the saves at once, nothing more, nothing less. then you look at the specific rule to see how it is done.

Yet you ignore you are told to save without allocation which is required for all saves....

Now where on page 15 does it say you can save without allocation?

rigeld2 wrote:
If a dollar is put in your bank account and then doubled, do you have one dollar in your bank account and another one floating around in limbo? Or so you have 2 dollars in your bank account?

It's not that you have permission to do anything with the wound - indeed that's exactly why it's applied to the model that suffered the wound in the first place.

Bad analogy as it doe snot accurately reflect the situation. Second since you have to reach for analogy on a vague rule, as it obviously is seeing as how this debate has raged for at least 2 editions, you must be making an assumption about the status of the wound. Neither one breaks rules, the case of a swarm wound rolling over on to an IC, has an analogous case in the fact that because the IC is a minority model it is wounded on the swarms toughness.

Till either side can but forth a clear rule on the were the multiplied wound goes to the best you got are good or bad arguments either way.

The part where it says that the unit takes a save for each wound in the pool. It does not say a model takes a wound for each. There is no mention at this point to allocation. You are the one making an assumption that you are allocating before the save. It then tells you to allocate the wounds.

Gravmyr wrote:
Yet you ignore you are told to save without allocation which is required for all saves....

you have not backed up your presentation with RAW
'


RAW pg 15 state you only get one save ever be that armour cover or invul

after failing that one save you have unsaved wounds, that is raw, this is where you apply swarm and double those unsaved wounds, even in the mixed save section, it is the same, the # of unsaved wounds doubles, and only one is allocated to the model that suffered it, if that model can only suffer one ID wound. by RAW you cannot allocate allocate more unsaved wounds to a model then it has, unless there are no other models to allocate it to.

You do not need to "move the wound back into the pool" because it never left there in the first place, the unsaved wound was suffered, then doubled, who the original was allocated does not matter, the second unsaved wound has not yet been allocated BY raw,

if you claim it has been allocated, you are now breaking RAW since you cannot allocate more then one wound at a time. RAW is that until allocated a wound at a time, the wound has never left the pool.

by definition you cannot allocated more then one wound at a time in mixed saves, which is what you have done if you allocate both at once to the same model as you would want to do.


and that is the only way you make those extra wounds "disappear" is by making a model suffer more wounds then it has on its profile, by allocating 2 wounds to it at a time.

that is not RAW, RAW are very clear that the # of unsaved wounds double, it does not say anything special in it about breaking normal allocation procedure and allocating two wounds at once, on a model only able to suffer one wound,

ergo the permission to allocate two wounds to a model that cannot suffer them is not RAW.

Actually I have. No one has yet to put forth any rule that contradicts the fact that suffer is allocation. The only place anyone can even attempt to contradict the FAQ, the invuln save use of suffer and the CC use of suffer is where armour saves uses it after allocation. You need to allocate to suffer. I have shown three places as stated above that directly equate suffer to allocation. Please show me an instance where they use suffering a wound without allocation, which is what you would need to back up your idea that failing a save is the same as suffering an unsaved wound. No one is allocating two wounds ever, the single allocated unsaved wound is doubling on the model.

You are doubling an allocated wound plain and simply not doubling the wounds in the pool nor are you doubling the number of hits like it was in 5th.

Reread and parse the entire sentence "if a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound" = is allocated an unsaved wound or fails a save versus a wound.

Edit: The section right there tells you to do it out of order. It tells you to take a save then allocate. It is the only way you can make saves for a unit otherwise you must make saves on an individual basis one at a time with allocation first. pg 15 tells you "First of all...." is it followed by instructions to follow the regular rules of taking saves? It does not. It tells you to make the saves if the entire unit gets one and to look at pg 16 to determine if the unit does. Please show me where it tells you to allocate the saves.

nice assumptions there.

and your assumption denies invuln saves ie you break a rule. As suffer = allocation, you can not suffer a wound to take an invuln save against. And you don't allocate the would til its unsaved.

But keep station your assumptions as fact, maybe someone else will believe you.

I've already had people comment in this thread that they are now following my directions and following the rules.....

@sirlynchmob You have to show some evidence that the rules telling you to take any save without allocation and therefor suffering a wound breaks any rule.

Gravmyr wrote:
I've already had people comment in this thread that they are now following my directions and following the rules.....

@sirlynchmob You have to show some evidence that the rules telling you to take any save without allocation and therefor suffering a wound breaks any rule.

Wait, so now your addressing me wanting me to prove what you keep assuming is true?

that save without allocation is your assumption, so you need to show some rules supporting it.

No I want you to show that the section that tell you to take saves without allocation is wrong. I have shown you where it tells you to take the save without allocation from the section that tells you how to make the saves if they are all the same. What evidence do you have that this is incorrect?

Gravmyr wrote:
No I want you to show that the section that tell you to take saves without allocation is wrong. I have shown you where it tells you to take the save without allocation from the section that tells you how to make the saves if they are all the same. What evidence do you have that this is incorrect?

The fact you have to claim you are not making any assumptions and don't break any other rules when it has been shown by myself and others, that you are making assumption and breaking rules.
The fact you keep adding in "without allocation" (assumption)
The fact you don't allow invuln saves. (broke rule)
The fact it refers you to page 16 to read and follow the save rules.

armor saves =
allocate a wound
roll fails
suffer unsaved wounds

back to page 15, unsaved wounds in the pool (double for swarm, they meet the condition at this point)

Just because you are given permission to take all your saves at the same time, does not in any way say or imply we're not allocating.

Actually it does as it tells you to calculate and roll them it does not tell you to follow the rules on pg 16 and allocate first. It does allow invuln saves as it tells you to take any save they get.

pg 15 "First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each wound being resolved."

Units cannot make saves if you follow the rules on page 16. Your assumption that it tells you to do so is based off of what? It does not tell you to follow the rules on page 16. To tell you to follow the rules on page 16 it would have been placed as such: "First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw (see page 16), if it has one, for each wound being resolved."

What it does say is to look at page 16 to see if the unit gets a save, see above. See how if it has one is in a smaller section of the sentence with see page 16? This indicates determining the save is what you look at page 16 to find out.

It does not in any part on page 15 to ever tell you to follow those rules for individual allocation found on page 16. If it did there wouldn't be a point is writing it differently then they did in fast dice on page 16 would it? Therefor you are making an assumption to parse it like the wording in Fast Dice.

For the last time you can never make a save without allocation except in the same save so trying to state that somehow invuln saves are different then Armour or Cover saves tells me the basics of the game may not be clear to you.

Look at the example below it, it does not allocate till after the saves are rolled. If they wanted you to allocate, save, then allocate again wouldn't they do so there? Look at Fast Dice pg 16 one allocation. Saves section pgs 16 - 19, one allocation. Shooting Sequence pg 12, one allocation. Allocating wounds in assault pg 25, one allocation. Shooting phase wound allocation pg 427, one allocation. CC wound wound allocation, pg 429, one allocation. Every section you look at in the entire book there is a single allocation step not multiple. You are rolling the saves all in one go then allocating afterword.

So you are saying if i shoot at a squad of paladins, i allocate ID wounds before they are saved? if that were true you would need to roll for separate models. fails save, 2 wounds caused, ID kills base on first wound, wound left in pool gets allocated to next model. same way if 2 wounds are caused ot the paladins and id kills paladin and then second wound goes to paladin 2 who also dies from ID.

Swarms are bad VS templates/blasts get over it.

The problem people seem to run into is timing. When is a wound suffered. I have actually been able to show that GW intends suffering to equate to allocation.

Paladins don't have the swarm rule so bring them in makes as much sense as mentioning buildings. The Str of the attack and the targets Toughness are checked at the same time as the wound is doubled. they both happen at the same time, when a wound is suffered and a save failed.

Gravmyr wrote:
The problem people seem to run into is timing. When is a wound suffered. I have actually been able to show that GW intends suffering to equate to allocation.

Actually a wound is suffered when a save is failed.

P. 16 "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound."

 DeathReaper wrote:


P. 16 "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound."

The wearer refers to the model rolling the save. So the wound is already allocated to that model.

@deathreaper & sirlynhcmob If you look at the start of the operations for taking a an armour save from which you are quoting the text of failing a save is suffering a wound, what does it say has to have happened to take the Armour save? pg 16 "To take an armour save, roll a D6 and compare the results to the Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the Wound." This backs up my statement that you need allocation to suffer a wound, not that failing a save is all you need.

I further point to the fact that page 16 does not in it's entirety tell you to allocate a wound. Both cover saves and Armour saves state a wound must have been allocated while Invuln saves states that a wound must be suffered. If suffered is failing a save as you put forth when can any one ever take an invuln save? As you can only take a single save so that would be never.

When doing same save you are rolling saves first without allocation as that is what that section tells you to do. Then you allocate. It's not breaking any rule when the BRB itself tells you to do so. That would be like saying that skimmers break the rules for impassible terrain, they don't as they have their own rule governing it. The same is true in this instance.

@sirlynchmob You say that I am making an assumption that you take the saves without allocation but in same save it tells you to take the saves first then allocate. Page 16 - 19 does not tell you to allocate a wound anywhere. I have also shown that all saves, as a general rule, require allocation but you are told to ignore that in same saves. I have also pointed out it does not tell you to follow the rules on page 16 as if it did you would only be allowed to look at armour saves as that is the only save on that page. Page 16 does not in fact tell you to allocate a wound, it does say what to do after a wound has been allocated, which is the same as Invuln saves and cover saves.

I have also posted 5 places that say there is a single allocation and a save. I have asked multiple times for you to show where you are told to allocate the wounds then make the save then allocate the unsaved wounds. Your response is to follow the rules on page 16. As posted above it does not say to allocate a wound. Please quote the location it tells you to allocate the wound.

Too bad the faq didn't address this, i guess they think it's clear enough... that usually means we are reading too far into it.

@gravmyr more strawmen, and a red herring nice, It's a shame they didn't address this in the latest faq's.

Now if you could address my points, and not more of your assumptions on my points.

Please actually quote where it says to ignore allocation. Then actually read pg 16-19, you do have a BRB right? Are you really saying, it just tells you to see page 16, so you just look at that page but don't do any of it?

If you had read them you'd see that cover and armor saves are the same, but invuln saves are different.

Then using only rules quote, explain to me how your position can take a save against a suffered wound, if no wounds have been suffered yet.

pg 16, second column, Armor saves, second paragraph
You quote the rule, then deny what it says.

the model that has been allocated the Wound."
As posted above it does not say to allocate a wound

Then you state your assumption. And instead of just using the word allocate you should say what you are allocating. You have "wounds" and "unsaved wounds"

you suffer wounds
you fail saves
you suffer unsaved wounds
you allocate unsaved wounds
see the difference?

No one has ever said failing a save is all you need, failing saves makes the wounds an unsaved wound.

As we agree you allocate unsaved wounds, and we agree that swarm doubles unsaved wounds. Did you look at all those models with swarm to figure out what save they had? Yep, and that help us conclude they all have the same save. So we should agree that, once you have unsaved wounds, they double which would be in the pool.

If you want to keep assuming that model SR's don't apply to the unit, (even though every model in the whole unit has that rule) would it also mean that unit SR's don't apply to models? Because stealth improves the units cover save by 1, so its helpful for same save units. For mixed saves, if the unit has stealth, the model allocated the wound does not, so that model doesn't benefit from stealth right?

But I'm sure you can cite some rules that actually say model SR and units SR are two totally separate concepts. or show anywhere it says to check models for any SR's, you assume you have permission to look for a model with stealth, yet just don't look at those same models to see that they have swarm. See the double standard there?

My position is still, all SR's are applicable when they say to apply them. All SR's start with a trigger statement saying when they work.

You can post as many times as you want, it doesn't make you right. or is this really just the one with the most posts wins?

You should at least acknowledge your assumptions.

sirlynchmob wrote:

But I'm sure you can cite some rules that actually say model SR and units SR are two totally separate concepts. or show anywhere it says to check models for any SR's, you assume you have permission to look for a model with stealth, yet just don't look at those same models to see that they have swarm. See the double standard there?

Sure. Read page 32 under "What special rules do I have". It talks about models and models only. Rules that apply to the whole unit specify it in their wording. A fine example is the Stealth rule that you are referring to. It starts as "A unit that contains...". So Stealth applies to units. Swarm does not. It is a model based rule and comes in effect only when an unsaved wound is allocated to a swarm model.

copper.talos wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

But I'm sure you can cite some rules that actually say model SR and units SR are two totally separate concepts. or show anywhere it says to check models for any SR's, you assume you have permission to look for a model with stealth, yet just don't look at those same models to see that they have swarm. See the double standard there?

Sure. Read page 32 under "What special rules do I have". It talks about models and models only. Rules that apply to the whole unit specify it in their wording. A fine example is the Stealth rule that you are referring to. It starts as "A unit that contains...". So Stealth applies to units. Swarm does not. It is a model based rule and comes in effect only when an unsaved wound is allocated to a swarm model.

Odd, I'm not seeing that word allocate anywhere under swarm. It's a nice assumption though.

copper.talos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

P. 16 "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound."

The wearer refers to the model rolling the save. So the wound is already allocated to that model.

Not for same save units. you roll saves before allocation.

Please stop quoting fragments to make claims of something I said not making sense. The full line there is instructions on how to make an armour save versus an allocated wound. It does not include any wording instructing you to allocate those wounds. There is no assumption as there is no directive to allocate the wounds.

pg 15 no mention of allocation before the saves. Pg 16 - 19 no mention of allocation, just of having been allocated. That is the difference. pg 16 - 19 tell you what to do after a wound has been allocated. It does not tell you to allocate the wounds. If suffer is not allocation then you can only take invlun saves per your outline above as they are worded differently with Armour and cover saves having stated after a wound is allocated and invuln saves using suffer. You can't show something that isn't there and wound allocation isn't there. Every location in the book other than in same saves tell you to allocate the wounds first before saves, the same saves section does not.

As far as model usr's vs unit usr's they wording of the usr's themselves tell you the difference as talos pointed out. Whenever they want a rule to apply to the entire unit they say so by stating "A unit with at least one model with blahblah..... " Swarms does not state this.

deathreaper has in fact said that failing a save is suffering a wound. It's basically all his posts have broken down into, a quote of part of a rule.

I have not made a single assumption.

It tells you to look at pg 16 to see what says the models have.
Then it tell you to take one save versus each wound.
Then it tells you to allocate the unsaved wounds.
Since the model has now suffered an unsaved wound the wound doubles on the model becoming 2.
You compare the S versus T and the model's wounds characteristic is reduced to 0.

The wordage suffer is not used in the wound pool nor in the the same save section on page 15 you are changing it from wounds caused and unsaved wounds caused to wounds suffered and unsaved wounds suffered. I have shown where GW has equated allocation to suffer in four locations now. You are using suffer outside of the parameters set by GW.

Since GW did not indicate that Swarms USR is a unit based SR it must by their own definition be a model based SR.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Odd, I'm not seeing that word allocate anywhere under swarm. It's a nice assumption though.

This section I provided proves 100% that the swarm rule is model based. The only way for a model to suffer a wound is to have the wound allocated to it. So the doubling comes after allocation.

PS This is my final post on this. I believe the majority has understood how to play the rule correctly.

copper.talos wrote:
The only way for a model to suffer a wound is to have the wound allocated to it.

Again this is not true for models with the same save.

@deathreaper Do you see that the section you are quoting has allocation before the save that you are talking about?

Gravmyr wrote:
@deathreaper Do you see that the section you are quoting has allocation before the save that you are talking about?

Right so one of two things happens Either:

We can not take saves first as they have not been allocated.
Or
We must take saves first and the full rules apply. (This includes creating unsaved wounds)

The rules tell us it is the second one.

SO LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.

1 lonely tac flamer guy walkes up to 10 canoptic scarabs. Lays out a template covers 4 bases.

I roll to wound get 4 wounds, If my opponent has a save he could take he would roll for all of the scarabs at once since they are fought as a group and all have the same save. Alas he can't make a save and is wounded 4 times multiplied by 2 for a grand total of 8 wound due to the swarm rule, which in fact are double tough insta kill wounds.

He would then allocate the unsaved wounds per rullebook page 15.
And according to the new FAq would remove 4 bases only.

Seems pretty simple to me....

Exactly but as I have shown that GW has equated suffering with allocation you cannot suffer an unsaved wound till:

A. an a wound has been allocated and save failed
B. an unsaved wound is allocated

All you have done up to allocation is caused not suffered. In same saves it actually tells you the unsaved wound shave been caused it does not use the wording suffered that is derived from a singular source.

The wounds have still been suffered as per P.16 and the armor save rules.

Only if allocated.

Gravmyr wrote:
Only if allocated.

So We can not take saves first as they have not been allocated? P. 15 disagrees.

No you cannot have a suffered wound without allocation. You keep quoting half of the info on pg 16 which is if a model is allocated a wound and fails it's save the wound is suffered. To say that the wound is suffered without allocation is to ignore the text that sets up taking the save. It's the allocation the allows the use of the suffer text. If you look at page 15 under same save they do not use suffer they use cause.

With fast rolling you take the save, fail the save suffer the wound when failed and then allocate the wound to a model...

Gravmyr wrote:
No you cannot have a suffered wound without allocation.

This is false.

P 15 tells you to take saving throws for like save units. (This tells you what to do).

P. 16 tells us the process of tanking a saving throw. (This tells you how to do it).

P.16 says for each wound allocated, this is over-riden by P.15 that tells us to take saves before allocation.

If pg 15 overrides the need for the allocation then it would also override the suffer and turn it into caused. In same save does use suffer at all? It's wounds caused then unsaved wounds caused. If you are agreeing that pg 15 overrides the requirement of a save then you are also agreeing to all the changes to saves including changing it from suffer to cause as that is what pg 15 calls the now unsaved wounds, caused not suffered.

Lungpickle wrote:
SO LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.

1 lonely tac flamer guy walkes up to 10 canoptic scarabs. Lays out a template covers 4 bases.

I roll to wound get 4 wounds, If my opponent has a save he could take he would roll for all of the scarabs at once since they are fought as a group and all have the same save. Alas he can't make a save and is wounded 4 times multiplied by 2 for a grand total of 8 wound due to the swarm rule, which in fact are double tough insta kill wounds.

He would then allocate the unsaved wounds per rullebook page 15.
And according to the new FAq would remove 4 bases only.

Seems pretty simple to me....

and which new faq would that be? I missed any mention of swarm being clarified. feel free to post the relevant faq entry.

If im looking at pg 15 and 16 correctly i see two rules being explained. thats pretty much it. pg 16 is explaining a saving throw, page 15 is telling you how to allocate wounds and remove casualties on alike models. Allocating wounds and removing casualties it what IMHO should be used in this case since its point specific on how and when saves are used apllied wounds are done and the like. The other explains the saving throw fundamentals.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
@deathreaper Do you see that the section you are quoting has allocation before the save that you are talking about?

Right so one of two things happens Either:

We can not take saves first as they have not been allocated.
Or
We must take saves first and the full rules apply. (This includes creating unsaved wounds)

The rules tell us it is the second one.

Why are you still applying a model based rule before allocating to a model?
"Saves are model based and they're applied before allocation therefore everything is!"
No. Absolutely false. Page 15 gives permission to use saves before allocation. Cite permission to use other model based rules that do not modify saves before a model suffers a wound.

Because you took the saves for a model/unit of models with the swarm rule and generated unsaved wounds because of failing a save on a model/unit of models with the swarm rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because you took the saves for a model/unit of models with the swarm rule and generated unsaved wounds because of failing a save on a model/unit of models with the swarm rule.

So you still haven't found permission then?
And unit/model are not interchangeable - that was proven incorrect a few pages ago.

Permission is in the Swarms rule.

"If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds" P. 43

If the swarm failed the save, then the swarm suffered an Unasved wound from a blast or template.

And Swarm is a USR the unit has, or one the model has?

rigeld2 wrote:
And Swarm is a USR the unit has, or one the model has?

All of the models in the unit have it.

You rolled the armor save for the models in the unit, and suffered an unsaved wound for each failed armor save, thus those wounds are doubled as the models that failed the save have the Swarms rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And Swarm is a USR the unit has, or one the model has?

All of the models in the unit have it.

You rolled the armor save for the models in the unit, and suffered an unsaved wound for each failed armor save, thus those wounds are doubled as the models that failed the save have the Swarms rule.

Page 15 - it's the unit's saving throw, not the model's. so it isn't a model failing a save.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And Swarm is a USR the unit has, or one the model has?

All of the models in the unit have it.

You rolled the armor save for the models in the unit, and suffered an unsaved wound for each failed armor save, thus those wounds are doubled as the models that failed the save have the Swarms rule.

Page 15 - it's the unit's saving throw, not the model's. so it isn't a model failing a save.

Except the unit does not have a Sv value, the models do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And Swarm is a USR the unit has, or one the model has?

All of the models in the unit have it.

You rolled the armor save for the models in the unit, and suffered an unsaved wound for each failed armor save, thus those wounds are doubled as the models that failed the save have the Swarms rule.

Page 15 - it's the unit's saving throw, not the model's. so it isn't a model failing a save.

Except the unit does not have a Sv value, the models do.

And page 15 gives allowance to use the models save for the unit (same save unit). Cite permission to apply other model based rules to the unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

And page 15 gives allowance to use the models save for the unit (same save unit). Cite permission to apply other model based rules to the unit.

If you use the save from the model, why are you ignoring the other rules of the model when you fail a save and suffer a wound?

It only tells you to use the model's save for the unit not to apply all model based usr's to the unit.

Gravmyr wrote:
It only tells you to use the model's save for the unit not to apply all model based usr's to the unit.

Nice assumption there

All you need to prove that point, is to show anywhere that you are specifically given permission to check models for any USR, model or otherwise.

It's not an assumption. It's all same save tells you to look at.

Gravmyr wrote:
It's not an assumption. It's all same save tells you to look at.

Its a far leap from "target unit gets to make one saving through, if it has one" to

check models for any SR's that may modify the saving throw.

It only tells you to use the model's save for the unit not to apply all model based usr's to the unit.

so if it only says to use the models save, you are then only using the models unmodified save. Unless you can quote where it says to check for USR.

Since there is no way for them to always to have a correct cover save and you have to calculate it on a model by model basis you have to look at the special rules to determine each model's save. Does it say to apply anything else? How do you calculate cover saves without looking at USR's? You calculate each model's save and compare and then take that save. It's not a far save they write different things different ways. A model doesn't have an invuln save on it's sheet without wargear/psychic powers/special rules. Tell me do you allow invuln saves?

Gravmyr wrote:
Since there is no way for them to always to have a correct cover save and you have to calculate it on a model by model basis you have to look at the special rules to determine each model's save. Does it say to apply anything else? How do you calculate cover saves without looking at USR's? You calculate each model's save and compare and then take that save. It's not a far save they write different things different ways. A model doesn't have an invuln save on it's sheet without wargear/psychic powers/special rules. Tell me do you allow invuln saves?

RAP (rules as played) Yep, I love me some invuln saves. so tell me do you allow invuln saves from the skyshield? If you can't have permission to check for models and any SR's that they have, where do you get permission to check buildings for SR's?

pg 18 & 19, cover saves. Its a set value based on what you hide behind. Now show me under those two pages where it grants permission to check for or apply stealth or shroud? Then why you think you can pick and choose when to look for SR's without permission.

permissive based rules remember, so where do you get permission to check for any SR's?

If you look at the model's save and this were something that could affect it without my looking they would alter the save. Since you cannot calculate the saves without looking you have to look to see what the save is you look. Seriously for someone that claims someone else is using logical fallacies...... I can in fact write you off entirely.

So since we are apparently applying model based rules to units, does that mean my Tac Squad with Librarian in Termie armour are now Relentless?

Gravmyr wrote:
If you look at the model's save and this were something that could affect it without my looking they would alter the save. Since you cannot calculate the saves without looking you have to look to see what the save is you look. Seriously for someone that claims someone else is using logical fallacies...... I can in fact write you off entirely.

The point is, which you keep missing, is that you can't claim you have permission to look for models with SR's that apply to saves yet ignore any other SR's those same models have. You can't claim that to be RAW if you can not show anywhere that you are given permission to check for SR's that only affect saves. When can you check for SR's? where are you given permission to do so?

I keep asking you for your proof, and you have never provided any, ergo it's just your assumption, not RAW.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
If you look at the model's save and this were something that could affect it without my looking they would alter the save. Since you cannot calculate the saves without looking you have to look to see what the save is you look. Seriously for someone that claims someone else is using logical fallacies...... I can in fact write you off entirely.

The point is, which you keep missing, is that you can't claim you have permission to look for models with SR's that apply to saves yet ignore any other SR's those same models have.

Absolutely 100% false. What save does a unit of Scouts have?

You can't claim that to be RAW if you can not show anywhere that you are given permission to check for SR's that only affect saves. When can you check for SR's? where are you given permission to do so?

When you're told to determine if the entire unit has the same save.

I keep asking you for your proof, and you have never provided any, ergo it's just your assumption, not RAW.

False. Proof has been provided - you've simply refused to accept it.

Answer my question - what save does a unit of Scouts have?

rigeld2 wrote:

False. Proof has been provided - you've simply refused to accept it.

You're projecting again.

and Units don't have saves.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

False. Proof has been provided - you've simply refused to accept it.

You're projecting again.

and Units don't have saves.

You're told to determine if all models in a unit have the same save and then use that save as the units save.
So what save does a unit of Scouts have?

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

False. Proof has been provided - you've simply refused to accept it.

You're projecting again.

and Units don't have saves.

You're told to determine if all models in a unit have the same save and then use that save as the units save.
So what save does a unit of Scouts have?

So you still can't prove your point, so you're just going to post random questions now?

How about you answer this question, Other than just saying its wrong. As you can't prove its wrong, I have no reason to follow you on your random tangents.

The point is, which you keep missing, is that you can't claim you have permission to look for models with SR's that apply to saves yet ignore any other SR's those same models have. When are you ever given permission to check for SR's?

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

False. Proof has been provided - you've simply refused to accept it.

You're projecting again.

and Units don't have saves.

You're told to determine if all models in a unit have the same save and then use that save as the units save.
So what save does a unit of Scouts have?

So you still can't prove your point, so you're just going to post random questions now?

How about you answer this question, Other than just saying its wrong. As you can't prove its wrong, I have no reason to follow you on your random tangents.

The point is, which you keep missing, is that you can't claim you have permission to look for models with SR's that apply to saves yet ignore any other SR's those same models have. When are you ever given permission to check for SR's?

I've answered it a few times.
You must determine saves.
To determine saves, you must look for SRs that modify saves.
The Swarm rule does not modify any saves whatsoever.

Now, what save does a unit of Scouts have?

rigeld2 wrote:
You're told to determine if all models in a unit have the same save and then use that save as the units save.

and lets say those models fail one save, and those models have the Swarms rule.

Has a Swarm suffered an unsaved wound after the failed save? (Hint: Yes it has).

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're told to determine if all models in a unit have the same save and then use that save as the units save.

and lets say those models fail one save, and those models have the Swarms rule.

Has a Swarm suffered an unsaved wound after the failed save? (Hint: Yes it has).

The models don't make the save, the unit does. So no, the models have not.
Unless you'd like to show me where on page 15 under "same save" a model is making the save?
That's ignoring the fact that you continue to misrepresent the Armor Save rules (which require allocation) as being more specific than the Same Save rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

False. Proof has been provided - you've simply refused to accept it.

You're projecting again.

and Units don't have saves.

You're told to determine if all models in a unit have the same save and then use that save as the units save.
So what save does a unit of Scouts have?

So you still can't prove your point, so you're just going to post random questions now?

How about you answer this question, Other than just saying its wrong. As you can't prove its wrong, I have no reason to follow you on your random tangents.

The point is, which you keep missing, is that you can't claim you have permission to look for models with SR's that apply to saves yet ignore any other SR's those same models have. When are you ever given permission to check for SR's?

I've answered it a few times.
You must determine saves.
To determine saves, you must look for SRs that modify saves.
The Swarm rule does not modify any saves whatsoever.

Now, what save does a unit of Scouts have?

Absolutely 100% false. You're question is as irrelevant as your your claims you've proved or explained anything.

so when do you ever get permission to check for swarm?

When a model suffers an unsaved wound.

My question isn't irrelevant, I'd appreciate an answer. And I've explained/proved my point - if you disagree perhaps you should respond with a counterpoint proving my assertions wrong?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're told to determine if all models in a unit have the same save and then use that save as the units save.

and lets say those models fail one save, and those models have the Swarms rule.

Has a Swarm suffered an unsaved wound after the failed save? (Hint: Yes it has).

The models don't make the save, the unit does. So no, the models have not.
Unless you'd like to show me where on page 15 under "same save" a model is making the save?
That's ignoring the fact that you continue to misrepresent the Armor Save rules (which require allocation) as being more specific than the Same Save rules.

They are not more specific as they cover two totally different things, as I have proven a few pages ago.

rigeld2 wrote:
When a model suffers an unsaved wound.

My question isn't irrelevant, I'd appreciate an answer. And I've explained/proved my point - if you disagree perhaps you should respond with a counterpoint proving my assertions wrong?

You're almost right, but its"If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon"

Now when do you have unsaved wounds? in the pool, true?

fine your scouts have a 4+.

But I do love how you like asking for citations and counterpoints, yet you almost never provide any. You provide helpful counterpoints like "Absolutely 100% false."

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When a model suffers an unsaved wound.

My question isn't irrelevant, I'd appreciate an answer. And I've explained/proved my point - if you disagree perhaps you should respond with a counterpoint proving my assertions wrong?

You're almost right, but its"If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon"

Now when do you have unsaved wounds? in the pool, true?

The unit has suffered unsaved wounds if the pool is populated. No model has until allocation.
This means that a Swarm has not suffered an unsaved wound from anything, let alone the mentioned weapon types.

fine your scouts have a 4+.

And how did you determine that?

But I do love how you like asking for citations and counterpoints, yet you almost never provide any. You provide helpful counterpoints like "Absolutely 100% false."

I've provided them in the past - page 15 for the same save rules is all I've needed to support my argument. Page 43? (from memory) for Swarm SR. Page 16 for Armor Save rules.
Please don't pretend I haven't cited rules - I have, and this isn't the first time. Also, your sniping at me isn't productive to the conversation.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When a model suffers an unsaved wound.

My question isn't irrelevant, I'd appreciate an answer. And I've explained/proved my point - if you disagree perhaps you should respond with a counterpoint proving my assertions wrong?

You're almost right, but its"If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon"

Now when do you have unsaved wounds? in the pool, true?

The unit has suffered unsaved wounds if the pool is populated.
This means that a Swarm has not suffered an unsaved wound from anything, let alone the mentioned weapon types.

fine your scouts have a 4+.

And how did you determine that?

But I do love how you like asking for citations and counterpoints, yet you almost never provide any. You provide helpful counterpoints like "Absolutely 100% false."

I've provided them in the past - page 15 for the same save rules is all I've needed to support my argument. Page 43? (from memory) for Swarm SR. Page 16 for Armor Save rules.
Please don't pretend I haven't cited rules - I have, and this isn't the first time. Also, your sniping at me isn't productive to the conversation.

so you're the only one allowed to snipe with irrelevant questions? But when I quote you I'm not being productive to the conversation?

because this:
Absolutely 100% false. What save does a unit of Scouts have?
alse. Proof has been provided - you've simply refused to accept it.

is your way of being productive?

and your
"No model has until allocation." is your opinion and in no way supported by rules.
and as we know that makes it:
Absolutely 100% false.

You just live by double standards don't you, and I guessed.

I actually don't.

And how is "No model has until allocation." Not supported by the rules on page 15? Could you explain that?

I apologize if you felt lighted by my statements, that's not my intent. My intent was to say that your statement was false.

the problem is, people are assuming that when you double the wound in the mixed saves process, that the 2nwound is automatically allocated to the model that suffered it at the same time.

RAW is that you allocate wounds one at a time,
one wound is allocated to the swarm model,
it fails a save, we now have one unsaved wound, which is doubled to two.
only one has actually been allocated, via the process in the rule book which must be done for every wound, no exceptions.
the allocated unsaved wound is resolved,
then the remaining unsaved wound is now allocated as normal (unsaved wounds have already had their ONE save, please dont tangentially make the argument that a 2nd save is then possible, because that would not logically follow)

things broken by NOT allocating wounds one at a time:
1. RAW is one wound is allocated at a time
2. RAW is a model is removed as a casualty when its wounds reaches 0, a model will reach 0 wounds before it reaches -1, or -2 or however many extra wounds are being "wasted" on it, you cannot allocate wounds on a model that has already been removed.

easysauce wrote:
only one has actually been allocated, via the process in the rule book which must be done for every wound, no exceptions.

The rules say no exceptions in your book? Which page? What paragraph explains tat they go back into the wound pool?
I'm sure you can cite permission to do so.

things broken by NOT allocating wounds one at a time:
1. RAW is one wound is allocated at a time
2. RAW is a model is removed as a casualty when its wounds reaches 0, a model will reach 0 wounds before it reaches -1, or -2 or however many extra wounds are being "wasted" on it, you cannot allocate wounds on a model that has already been removed.

I've never advocated for allocating more than one wound at a time. It would be ludicrous to do so.
You're making the mistaken assumption that the doubled wound must be in the wound pool. Find rules support.

easysauce wrote:
the problem is, people are assuming that when you double the wound in the mixed saves process, that the 2nwound is automatically allocated to the model that suffered it at the same time.

RAW is that you allocate wounds one at a time,
one wound is allocated to the swarm model,
it fails a save, we now have one unsaved wound, which is doubled to two.
only one has actually been allocated, via the process in the rule book which must be done for every wound, no exceptions.
the allocated unsaved wound is resolved,
then the remaining unsaved wound is now allocated as normal (unsaved wounds have already had their ONE save, please dont tangentially make the argument that a 2nd save is then possible, because that would not logically follow)

things broken by NOT allocating wounds one at a time:
1. RAW is one wound is allocated at a time
2. RAW is a model is removed as a casualty when its wounds reaches 0, a model will reach 0 wounds before it reaches -1, or -2 or however many extra wounds are being "wasted" on it, you cannot allocate wounds on a model that has already been removed.

No the reason it goes on the scarab (or any swarm) is the because the rule says when a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from [snip] it is multiplied to two, swarm "must" be referring to the specific model as there is no "swarm unit".
In conjunction with what I mentioned in another thread, a wound can not be "Suffered" until it has been unsaved and allocated. Until that point, it is only "caused". A wound caused is nothing until it is suffered.

Didn't realize this discussion was going on in 3 different threads. So here is what I posted to a different thread. Like I said in the other thread, this isn't my argument, just kinda how it was explained to me to get me on the fence about it.

Lets say there is a string of models conga-line-style like this.

XXXXXXXOX E

Where E is the enemy, X models are T4 swarm models with 3 wounds each and a 5+ save and O is a T5 model with 1 wound and a 2+ save. E fires a Str 8 AP- blast but do to bad luck, it only hits the closest X model. All models are in range, but only 1 is hit. What happens now?

I think that would be 1 wound, which then must be allocated to the closest model, an X (T4, W3, 5+). If it fails it's save, then that is an unsaved wound on the closest model, however X is vulnerable to blasts. What happens now?

I have not heard anyone argue that the closest model would not be dead, since the blast is double it's toughness. However, it should double the unsaved wounds, does it take the 2nd unsaved wound with it when it dies or does that second unsaved wound hit the T5 2+ save guy. Does he get a save? (Can you save on a wound twice?) Does it just hit another of the swarm models?

If the T5 is in the same group, it also uses T4.

This thread got to 14 pages because the rules are unclear and can be interpreted in several ways.

The big discussion is whether:
A) The wound to the model is doubled.
B) The wound to the unit is doubled.

My general rule of thumb is that if a YMDC-thread exceeds 10 pages, it means there is no clear ruling and you should ask your friends on how they would do it.
My group follows A.


If you would follow B, the ruling says that the unsaved wound is doubled to two unsaved wounds.
That means that O cannot use his 2+, since it's an unsaved wound and he suffers one wound.

Do not forget that for ID it does use the T5, so it will not be ID!

units are not wounded, models are,

I can see why people are having a hard time reading these rules,

but they are not unclear,

regardless of when the wound is doubled, before or after the initial wound is allocated, it has not itself been allocated, and must follow the allocation process

it is treated just like any other wound that is caused, it is simply caused at a different time,

allocating 2 wounds at a time, is illegal
allocating more wounds to a model then it has, is also illegal

Wounds are dealt to a unit and then allocated to individual models.
After that it can be saved by the individual model his saves.

The time-frame would be, according to my 6th edition rulebook:
1. Roll to hit.
2. Roll to wound.
3. 'Collect' these wounds in a "wound pool".
4. Allocate these wounds to models.
5. Use appropriate saves.
6. If the model has the Swarm rule, it gets doubled.

What you are doing is taking the left-overs from step 6 and putting them back into step 3.

Why aren't you allowed to do this:
A) The wound is not suffered or dealt, the initial wound is just multiplied by two.
B) The 'additional' wound is unsaved too, but you are placing it before the save-step.
C) Wounds are dealt in step 2 and suffered in step 4, the Swarm-rule says that it suffers two wounds. That means it is already allocated! You can't allocate a wound that is already allocated.

it is treated just like any other wound that is caused

Proof?

allocating 2 wounds at a time, is illegal

We don't allocate two at a time, we allocate ONE and that one is doubled the moment it is suffered.

allocating more wounds to a model then it has, is also illegal

The 'Swarm-Wound' is never allocated at all.

your example is only looking at mixed saves

normal process is take saves, then allocate wounds,

100% in that normal process two swarm bases will be removed from the doubling of the ID wound

in mixed saves,
all you do is allocate the wound first, then take saves, then double unsaved wounds. that 2nd wound has not been allocated, and is not specifically on the model (as say a perils or over heat wound is)



No where does it say this 2nd wound is allocated already, yes you are in fact doubling the # of unsaved wounds, but no where does it say to allocate it to the model the prior wound was allocated to, it simply does not tell you to do this,

it does say wounds are allocated one at a time, if you simply assume the 2nd wound is allocated on the already dead model, several rules have been broken
such as:

allocating more wounds to a model, after its W characteristic has reached 0

allocating more then one wound at a time

allocating the 2nd wound by assumption, as opposed to following the normal process.

assuming the swarm wound is not allocated at all makes no sense.




there is no skipping back to step three, it is simply doing the normal mixed saves process for the "swarm wound" as well.

caused wounds go into the wound pool, when a swarm suffers an unsaved template wound, an aditional wound is caused, thats the requirement to go into the pool, the wound has been caused

wounds only go away from models suffering them, or when there are no models left to suffer them,

even if ID is NOT in the equation, allocating two wounds, at one, to the same model breaks rules,

why?
you flamer a swarm that is t3 with 3 wounds with a normal flamer st 4



they suffer two hits, fail both saves, and now 4 unsaved wounds are caused,

by that logic, one base is removed, and one wound disappears, never having been allocated, or suffered, despite there being eligible models to allocate it to


Automatically Appended Next Post:
mixed saves even states
"if the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty.

continue allocating wounds to the closest model"


so where has that wound gone? the model you assume it has already been allocated to is dead, and cannot have wounds in excess put on it after it is dead,


the wound pool is made up of wounds "caused" pg 14 brb, that is the only stipulation to be put into the wound pool, is a wound must be caused.

hence why causing the "swarm wound" puts it into the wound pool, it has been caused, but it has not been through allocation


so breif outline

normal process:
cause hits,
cause wounds,
wounds you cause go into the wound pool,
make saves,
unsaved wounds are doubled, causing new wounds, that go into the pool,
allocate original wound since you can only resolve one at a time legally.
repeat for the remaining wounds/unsaved wounds

mixed saves
cause hits,
cause wounds,
wounds caused go into wound pool,
allocate one,
make saves, unsaved wounds are doubled, causing additional wounds,
caused wounds go into the wound pool, finish resolving the ONE wound since you can only resolve one at a time,
repeat for the remaining wounds/unsaved wounds

Please show any allowance to add additional wounds to the wound pool after it is populated.

Please show where you can apply any model based USR to an entire unit.

These are the only two ways your example can work cheesey.

Look back at the 14 pages of this thread and you will see that the only wording that is under question is what is classified as suffered. It does say the wound is already applied as it tells you that a wound that has already been allocated and a save failed is multiplied to two. This does not break a single rule as a player you have only allocated a single wound which became two after allocation & save. You are stuck somehow thinking that this makes a nebulous wound then doesn't tell you what to do with it. If you double it at the model level after allocation and failed save there are no rules broken. There is only one wound allocated at a time then becomes two. There are many times when wounds are lost so to imply that you should never loose the possibility to do wounds is naive.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Please show any allowance to add additional wounds to the wound pool after it is populated.

where is this mythical restriction on wounds that are caused being put into a wound pool?

wounds were caused, after the initial wound, hence why being put into a pool at a later time.

the wound was caused AFTER the first wound was, so it does not need your permission to go back into any pool, because its not going "back" into anyting, it simply goes in a new pool of unsaved wounds.

the wound pool is populated many times, close combat initiative steps for one, multiple units firing for another... why you think there can be only one is odd

you are assuming there is only one wound pool, ever, which is false.

as more and/or different types of wounds are caused, more pools are made, and dealt with accordingly.


you are not "re" pooling the new wounds caused by swarms, you are making a new pool, and then dealing with it as normal.

All wounds caused must go into pools, they do not have to go into a previously made pool of wounds that may not be the same type, and that may have already been resolved

you must prove that you are allowed to do the following:

you are allowed to be allocating two wounds at once to a model,
you are allowed to be allocating more wounds to a model then it has,
you are allowed to be skipping the allocation process for wounds caused by the swarms rule by not making a pool of them and resolving them one at a time as per the rules.


in order to allocate the extra wounds caused to the same model, despite there being no allocation process, and that model being ineligible for allocation of that # of wounds

The problem is everything falls apart when you either

A) Remove ID from the scenario
B) Factor in Mixed saves

 Gravmyr wrote:

These are the only two ways your example can work cheesey.

and lets keep the insults away,

please actually address the issues instead of repetition, just because you say wounds need permission to go back into the same wound pool as other, different types of wounds, does not mean such a clause exists in 40k

you are literally saying you have to put different kinds of wounds in the same pool, which is wrong.

you cannot put the unsaved wound caused by "swarms"into the same pool as the initial wound because
they are different types for one,
they happened at different times for two,
and thirdly there is no requirement that wounds of any type caused down the line must go back into the same wound pool.

pg 14 talks about multiple pools very clearly

why you keep insisting I need permission to put wounds in the wrong pool, is beyond me, and certainly isnt proof for doing things one way for normal saves, and another way for mixed saves re:swarms +ID rules stacking







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
The problem is everything falls apart when you either

A) Remove ID from the scenario
B) Factor in Mixed saves

how does everything fall apart?

last few editions worked fine with ID + swarms stacking,

so does this one, nothing breaks, just means swarm paper has met swarm's rock

The argument for multiple bases being removed is that the unsaved wound goes back into the wound pool.

First, let's look at what happens when there is no ID (such as a Flamer against a T3 swarm). The template hits 1 model putting a single wound in the pool. It gets allocated to the closest model. That model has now suffered an unsaved wound. How many wounds does that model lose from its profile? What if the model only has 1 Wound left?

Next, what happens with mixed saves? Either from an IC being attached to the unit, the unit having FNP or some models in the unit being in cover. A Strength 6 blast hits a unit of T3 swarms. 1 model is out in the open and does not get a save (assume AP is strong enough). If you double the unsaved wound to 2 unsaved wounds and immediately allocate it to the next model, you are now denying that model to take a save that he should get against the wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore it worked fine in the previous edition due to how wound were dealt with.

 Happyjew wrote:
The argument for multiple bases being removed is that the unsaved wound goes back into the wound pool.

First, let's look at what happens when there is no ID (such as a Flamer against a T3 swarm). The template hits 1 model putting a single wound in the pool. It gets allocated to the closest model. That model has now suffered an unsaved wound. How many wounds does that model lose from its profile? What if the model only has 1 Wound left?

Next, what happens with mixed saves? Either from an IC being attached to the unit, the unit having FNP or some models in the unit being in cover. A Strength 6 blast hits a unit of T3 swarms. 1 model is out in the open and does not get a save (assume AP is strong enough). If you double the unsaved wound to 2 unsaved wounds and immediately allocate it to the next model, you are now denying that model to take a save that he should get against the wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore it worked fine in the previous edition due to how wound were dealt with.

It was also heavily debated last edition, until a FAQ finally settled the matter.

and from the wording of swarm of "each unsaved wound is doubled" to me says before allocation.

They don't just say the model removes 2 wounds instead of 1.

so from the flamer the lead model takes a wound and is removed, and the next model takes the next wound, as you still have an unsaved wound. In a mixed save unit, the lead swarm fails the save and doubles the unsaved wound. Then the created unsaved wound gets allocated to the next closest model, with or without swarm.

RAW, I guess were going to necro this thread every few weeks.
RAI, double the unsaved wounds, then allocate all of them. Based on last FAQ mentioning this.

 Happyjew wrote:
The argument for multiple bases being removed is that the unsaved wound goes back into the wound pool.

First, let's look at what happens when there is no ID (such as a Flamer against a T3 swarm). The template hits 1 model putting a single wound in the pool. It gets allocated to the closest model. That model has now suffered an unsaved wound. How many wounds does that model lose from its profile? What if the model only has 1 Wound left?

Next, what happens with mixed saves? Either from an IC being attached to the unit, the unit having FNP or some models in the unit being in cover. A Strength 6 blast hits a unit of T3 swarms. 1 model is out in the open and does not get a save (assume AP is strong enough). If you double the unsaved wound to 2 unsaved wounds and immediately allocate it to the next model, you are now denying that model to take a save that he should get against the wound.

again, thre is no need to put an unsaved wound, back into the wrong type of wound pool,

wound pools are simply made when wounds are caused, show where it says that the rules on pg 14-15 only apply once a phase? or turn ect

they do not.

your words

 Happyjew wrote:
First, let's look at what happens when there is no ID (such as a Flamer against a T3 swarm). The template hits 1 model putting a single wound in the pool. It gets allocated to the closest model. That model has now suffered an unsaved wound. How many wounds does that model lose from its profile? What if the model only has 1 Wound left?

in normal saves, RAW is 100% stacking ID with swarms to remove two bases per initial wound, since it clearly states you make saves, note how many unsaved wounds you have(which would include doubling) then allocate them.
as per pg 15

so for normal saves, RAW is clear, that yes you are screwed taking swarm against ID causing templates, it clearly states allocation happens after unsaved wounds,


mixed saves, is a different process,
which is intended you give you the benefit of better saves,
which cannot be used in a unit consisting only of swarm models with the same save,

it is worded differently then normal saves, it makes no mention of unsaved wounds by name, though we all know they are caused.

you allocate a wound to the closest model,, if applicable they get their save, if they fail the wound is resolved against them, if it takes them to 0 wounds, you remove them as a casualty. it then tells you to continue allocating wounds.

if we want to go all "literal" on the rules, mixed saves doesn't mention "unsaved wounds" being caused at all, so why double the number of "wounds" when it says "unsaved wounds" right?



in both cases, the end result, is wounds are always allocated to the closest model one at a time anyways, until it runs out of wounds, at which point you continue to allocate remaining wounds to the next closest.

so while you can argue for "Schrodinger's" swarm wounds in mixed saves, that because the swarm wound has happened after initial wound was allocated, it too must be allocated to the same model, by an assumed process. but then again, we assume we have "unsaved wounds" in mixed saves as well, since it does not use the term like the normal saves process does.

so while GW has basically worded "mixed saves" into something I agree is confusing at best, only mixed saves fails to mention "unsaved wounds".

normal saves there is no debate, since BRB tells you to allocate after unsaved wounds are caused and counted.

easysauce wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
Please show any allowance to add additional wounds to the wound pool after it is populated.

where is this mythical restriction on wounds that are caused being put into a wound pool?

Backwards. You need permission to do things first.
The wound pool was already populated - you've moved on. Roll To Wound (and therefore populating the Wound Pool) is step 4 of a shooting attack. Allocating is step 5. (reference pages 12, 14, and 15). Find permission to add a wound to the Wound Pool after you've moved on.

wounds were caused, after the initial wound, hence why being put into a pool at a later time.

And of course you have a rule allowing it?

the wound was caused AFTER the first wound was, so it does not need your permission to go back into any pool, because its not going "back" into anyting, it simply goes in a new pool of unsaved wounds.

There's only ever one Pool per shooting attack - unless you have a rule that references a second?

the wound pool is populated many times, close combat initiative steps for one, multiple units firing for another... why you think there can be only one is odd

It's populated once per initiative step and once per shooting attack. Is the doubled wound part of a separate shooting attack? Rule citation. Please.

you are assuming there is only one wound pool, ever, which is false.

Page 14 and 15 (where The Wound Pool is defined) disagree with you.

as more and/or different types of wounds are caused, more pools are made, and dealt with accordingly.

Citation required. You keep asserting this but as far as I can tell have never backed it up with rules. Did I miss something? Please link the post to me if I did.

you are not "re" pooling the new wounds caused by swarms, you are making a new pool, and then dealing with it as normal.

Which, from all the rules I can see, isn't legal.

All wounds caused must go into pools, they do not have to go into a previously made pool of wounds that may not be the same type, and that may have already been resolved

A resolved wound is no longer in the wound pool...

you must prove that you are allowed to do the following:

you are allowed to be allocating two wounds at once to a model,

Which I've never claimed to be able to do. This is not required.

you are allowed to be allocating more wounds to a model then it has,

The doubled wound is never allocated. You keep asserting that it is but you've never proven that.

you are allowed to be skipping the allocation process for wounds caused by the swarms rule by not making a pool of them and resolving them one at a time as per the rules.

This is creating rules out of nothing. There's only one Wound Pool per shooting attack. You are only allowed to allocate from the Wound Pool. Pretending that a wound not in the Wound Pool must be allocated has no rules basis.

in order to allocate the extra wounds caused to the same model, despite there being no allocation process, and that model being ineligible for allocation of that # of wounds

Only one wound at a time is allocated. Ever.

This idea of putting the "multiplied" wound back in the Wound Pool for further allocation has a small problem. There is nothing to distinguish this "multiplied" unsaved Wound from any other unsaved Wound in the pool, and as soon as you allocate it to a Swarm model, the USR kicks in and generates another "multiplied" Wound that gets put back in the pool, ad infinitum - Wounds that just keep on giving apparently.

anyways



its pretty clear RAW for normal saves, they do stack, since unsaved wounds are caused, and counted, before allocation, you lose twice as many swarms to ID blasts


RAW is not clear for mixed saves,

mixed saves rules do not even once mention the term "unsaved wounds"

so no abilities (FnP, swarms, ect) that trigger off of "unsaved wounds" work with mixed saves by some people's logic (i would never play this way)



they tell you to allocate wounds, before saves, true enough, makes no difference when wounds only cause one wound,

when a wound turns into two,
so we are either forced to assumed the extra one is allocated the normal way, IE closest model,
or we assume they are allocated on the same model as the original wound,


obviously we can all safely assume unsaved wounds are suffered in the end, but it technically does not say that.

so mixed saves, ask your TO, and tell GW to FAQ

but normal unmixed is clear, they stack

easysauce wrote:
its pretty clear RAW for normal saves, they do stack, since unsaved wounds are caused, and counted, before allocation, you lose twice as many swarms to ID blasts

So models suffer wounds before allocation?
How does that work?

mixed saves rules do not even once mention the term "unsaved wounds"

so no abilities (FnP, swarms, ect) that trigger off of "unsaved wounds" work with mixed saves by some people's logic (i would never play this way)

If a model is allocated a Wound and fails its save, is the wound an unsaved wound?
I'd say, "Yes, by definition."

when a wound turns into two,
so we are either forced to assumed the extra one is allocated the normal way, IE closest model,
or we assume they are allocated on the same model as the original wound,

One assumption requires inventing rules and pretending that everything works okay if you don't look at it too closely.
The other way doubles post allocation.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
its pretty clear RAW for normal saves, they do stack, since unsaved wounds are caused, and counted, before allocation, you lose twice as many swarms to ID blasts

So models suffer wounds before allocation?
How does that work?

you are not reading properly, i said nothing about models suffering wounds before allocation, suffering, is not the term in the book, CAUSING and CAUSED are, those the words i am using/quoting

the rule book says for normal saves to take the save first, make a note of how many unsaved wounds are caused, then allocate the wounds.
pg 15

although I expect you to ignore this rule, as you have for 14 pages
quoted again, for your ignoring pleasure,

first off for normal saves, you take saves.
pg 15 says "first of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw...for each wound being resolved. Make note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused."<--- rigel this is where unsaved wounds have been caused, noting how many as well, so we already know we have unsaved wounds x2

it then says next, which means next, as in after unsaved wounds have been caused

pg 15 then says "next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit... if the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating wounds to the closest model until there are no wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties"

since after that save, unsaved wounds have been caused, the # of those unsaved wounds on the unit is doubled due to the unit being a swarm. are you interpreting "unsaved wounds have been caused" as unsaved wounds have not been caused? because that is a wrong interpretation.


mixed saves, which can only be used on mixed save units, follow different rules that swap the order of saves and allocation, causing confusion.

well there are two sides,
one assumes its allocated on the initial model,
one side assumes its allocated as normal to the closest model,

GW will FAQ this, and it will be FAQ'd to say they do stack, till then ask your opponent, or TO ect









Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

If a model is allocated a Wound and fails its save, is the wound an unsaved wound?
I'd say, "Yes, by definition."

so "unsaved wounds" are "wounds" just like "venerable dreadnaughts" are "dreadnaughts" now?



obviously there are unsaved wounds, I said as much, thats the point

Skimmed much of this as their is 14 pages... so I'll just jump in.

Swarm is not a unit type, it's a special rule. As such it is taken into account on a per model basis. Not per unit. So until the wounds are assigned to models with this SR, they are not doubled.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's doubled after allocation as Swarm is a model based rule, therefore you cannot double before a model with Swarm suffers a wound.

Which it has as you roll saves in one go, with models that have the same save, before allocation.

False. Swarm is model based and therefore cannot suffer a wound until after allocation.
The unit has suffered wounds, but models have not.

But units do not suffer wounds, models do...

DeathReaper wrote:For the quoted "units do not suffer wounds, models do"?

The onus is on you to say otherwise, as units do not have a wounds value.

Do you have something that says units can suffer wounds or have a wound characteristic?

DeathReaper wrote:That answer is on P.15
"First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each Wound being resolved. Make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused."

Coupled with P. 16 "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound."

After saves are taken you suffer wounds.

So you roll to hit, roll to wound, take saves and suffer unsaved wounds that have been caused.

Many times RAW says units can suffer wounds. That is what puts them in the wound pool. DoM if I recall correctly places wounds on a unit. Rolling to wounds also puts wounds on a unit(in the pool).

Roll to hit
Roll to wounds(hits become wounds... on the unit)
Take Saves(wounds on the unit become either nothing or unsaved wounds)
Assign unsaved wounds(to models)<---- here is where the special rule comes up and you have no permission to send those wounds back to the pool(the unit). The are multiplied exactly as they are... wounds on the model.

easysauce wrote:
it does say wounds are allocated one at a time, if you simply assume the 2nd wound is allocated on the already dead model, several rules have been broken
such as:
allocating more wounds to a model, after its W characteristic has reached 0
allocating more then one wound at a time
allocating the 2nd wound by assumption, as opposed to following the normal process.
assuming the swarm wound is not allocated at all makes no sense.

The second wound is never allocated.
The second wound is never allocated.
The second wound is never allocated.
Why does that make no sense? The rule clearly says that when he suffers a wound (thus when it is allocated onto a model with the Swarm-rule) that it is multiplied.

the wound pool is made up of wounds "caused" pg 14 brb, that is the only stipulation to be put into the wound pool, is a wound must be caused.

If you want to go RAW, the wound pool is made up of wounds that are rolled for with dice.

normal process:
cause hits,
cause wounds,
wounds you cause go into the wound pool,
make saves,
unsaved wounds are doubled, causing new wounds, that go into the pool,
allocate original wound since you can only resolve one at a time legally.
repeat for the remaining wounds/unsaved wounds

So wounds are doubled before they are allocated to a model with the Swarm rule?
Lol, go break some more rules.

mixed saves
cause hits,
cause wounds,
wounds caused go into wound pool,
allocate one,
make saves, unsaved wounds are doubled, causing additional wounds,
caused wounds go into the wound pool, finish resolving the ONE wound since you can only resolve one at a time,
repeat for the remaining wounds/unsaved wounds

So you put them back in the wound pool without ANY rule that allows you to do so.
And where the hell does it say that you can only resolve one at a time?
And where does it state that you "resolve" this wound? The model that suffers a wound just suffers two wounds instead.. It's that simple! But you are the only one trolling for pages and pages when everyone already agrees.

With every "rule" you make up to allow this to happen, you immediately break another rule or three.
And people keep pointing it out, but you refuse to read it.

follow the order of operations: unit takes a hit(from a blast or template weapon), hit causes a wound, save is failed(an unsaved wound), all unsaved wound from blast or template weapons are doubled (*2 wounds); page 43, swarms. Each unsaved wound that is double toughness is an Instant death(page 16)


More Simplified: Template or Blast weapon causes wound, save is failed, Failed save doubles, each total Unsaved wound causes a base's death.

When a swarm model suffers an unsaved wound then, and only then, that wound gets doubled.

So it comes down to this.

A. If a model suffers unsaved wounds before they are allocated to it, then the wounds get doubled in the wound pool.

B. If a model suffers unsaved wounds after they are allocated to it, then that model suffers 2 wounds instead of 1.

My playing group goes with option B, and I think it's the most reasonable.

As snapshot pointed out -

Let's say I have a unit of 10 scarabs in the open. They get hit with a Flamestorm Cannon but it only covers 1 model.
1 Wound in the pool.
1 Wound gets allocated.
1 Wound gets doubled.
Extra Wound goes back into the Wound pool.
Extra Wound gets allocated.
Extra Wound is an unsaved wound caused by a template and therefore gets doubled.
Extra extra Wound goes into the Wound Pool.
Repeat ad infinitum.
1 Wound kills a 10-man squad.

easysauce wrote:
since after that save, unsaved wounds have been caused, the # of those unsaved wounds on the unit is doubled due to the unit being a swarm. are you interpreting "unsaved wounds have been caused" as unsaved wounds have not been caused? because that is a wrong interpretation.

Perhaps you should re-read the Swarm rule. Cause != Suffer. Since you're in favor of doubling prior to allocation, models are suffering wounds prior to allocation in your example.

one assumes its allocated on the initial model,

That's a lie. You've been corrected plenty if times. Please stop repeating it.

rigeld2 wrote:

If a model is allocated a Wound and fails its save, is the wound an unsaved wound?
I'd say, "Yes, by definition."

so "unsaved wounds" are "wounds" just like "venerable dreadnaughts" are "dreadnaughts" now?

Um... No? Not even remotely the same situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
follow the order of operations: unit takes a hit(from a blast or template weapon), hit causes a wound, save is failed(an unsaved wound), all unsaved wound from blast or template weapons are doubled (*2 wounds); page 43, swarms. Each unsaved wound that is double toughness is an Instant death(page 16)


More Simplified: Template or Blast weapon causes wound, save is failed, Failed save doubles, each total Unsaved wound causes a base's death.

Is Swarms a rule for units or Models?
Are you doubling before a model has suffered an unsaved wound?
If so, why are you breaking the rules on page 43?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
As snapshot pointed out -

Let's say I have a unit of 10 scarabs in the open. They get hit with a Flamestorm Cannon but it only covers 1 model.
1 Wound in the pool.
1 Wound gets allocated.
1 Wound gets doubled.
Extra Wound goes back into the Wound pool.
Extra Wound gets allocated.
Extra Wound is an unsaved wound caused by a template and therefore gets doubled.
Extra extra Wound goes into the Wound Pool.
Repeat ad infinitum.
1 Wound kills a 10-man squad.

I think that's incorrect and unsupported by rules.
Wounds with different special rules are grouped differently in the pool. Wounds caused by a B/T have that special rule. Doubled wounds do not.

.... (delete)

Edit - he deleted so I will too :-)

the rules for normals saves tell you to count caused unsaved wounds BEFORE allocation

why this is ignored by people is beyond me,

here is what the BRB says about normal saves (not me, not rigel, the BRB, this is RAW copied and pasted, in order from pg 15)

first off for normal saves, you take saves.

pg 15 says "first of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw...for each wound being resolved. Make note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused."

<--- rigel this is where unsaved wounds have been caused, noting how many as well, so we already know we have unsaved wounds x2

it then says next, which means next, as in after unsaved wounds have been caused

pg 15 then says "next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit... if the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating wounds to the closest model until there are no wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties"

but you have two save processes, mixed and regular,

regular is 100% allocated after unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted, this whole argueing that suffered=caused is farcical, just like you argue that inflict=suffered in force weapons vs FnP and were FAQ'd to be wrong

words mean what they mean, they are not synonomous because you say they are

attacking models CAUSED wounds, defending ones suffer them, the english language does have synonyms in it, suffered, caused, and inflicted are not synonyms, and mean different things. They have posesive qualities as well.

so if on one hand, you make arguements that words must be taken at face value, 100% literally, as they come in one thread, while arguing that inflict, suffer, caused, all are the same thing, with no proof that they are

you are also 100% ignoring and lying about the normal saves process, about which there is no vauge RAW

the normal saves process is very clear, saves, unsaved wounds are counted, then you allocate

mixed saves is the only one where swarms gets confusing


mixed saves is a farce aparently, but normal saves RAW is 100% that you allocate after unsaved wounds are caused, weather you like it or not thats what the BRB says on 15


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
since after that save, unsaved wounds have been caused, the # of those unsaved wounds on the unit is doubled due to the unit being a swarm. are you interpreting "unsaved wounds have been caused" as unsaved wounds have not been caused? because that is a wrong interpretation.

Perhaps you should re-read the Swarm rule. Cause != Suffer. Since you're in favor of doubling prior to allocation, models are suffering wounds prior to allocation in your example.

one assumes its allocated on the initial model,

That's a lie. You've been corrected plenty if times. Please stop repeating it.

no it is not, you are lieing saying pg 15 does not say that, it does in fact tell you to ake saves, count unsaved wounds, then allocate them for normal saves process,

I quoted the actual rules from pg 15 that tell you to do this,

pg 15 in the BRB says very clearly that unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted before allocation
you are purposefully ignoring normal saves process,


you are ONLY looking at the MIXED saves process which does not apply to a unit made entirely of the same swarm model.

so stop lying/pretending pg 15 does not have both a normal save process, and a mixed saves process for units with mixed saves

they are NOT the same process, and they are NOT worded the same

So what is the argument against this (background, this is the basic argument that was made to me against ID blasts taking out 2 bases):

XXXXXXXXOX E
Where X are swarm models, O is non swarm model with higher toughness and better save, E is the enemy that fired the blast/template weapon.

If 1 hit is caused:

1) How many wounds does it cause?
2) If the first model fails it's save, how many unsaved wounds?
3) If the Str is high enough to ID the first X model and there are wounds left, who do they apply to?
4) Are they unsaved wounds, or does the next model get to make it's save (always, or only if it's better)?
5) (And another question that has seemed to pop-up in this) If this wound was ID for the first model, is it ID for the next, even if it has higher T?

Here is what I think the answers are:
1) 1 wound, 1 hit causes 1 wound.
2) 2 wounds, Swarm rule doubles each unsaved wound.
3) This is where I got confused and conceded the point. Hence my curiosity.
4) I would assume these would still be unsaved wounds, since you can't save twice. (Note: this makes it really dangerous to take an IC with a swarm group. 2+ save on an IC means nothing if you can template the swarm)
5) No, I think you compare Str to T at the time of removing the W from the profile.

What happens if an independent character is in the swarm unit?

easysauce wrote:
the rules for normals saves tell you to count caused unsaved wounds BEFORE allocation

why this is ignored by people is beyond me,

It's not ignored.
A model has not suffered a wound prior to allocation.

here is what the BRB says about normal saves (not me, not rigel, the BRB, this is RAW copied and pasted, in order from pg 15)

It's rigeld2. Not rigel. I'd appreciate you taking the extra time for those 2 characters.

first off for normal saves, you take saves.

pg 15 says "first of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw...for each wound being resolved. Make note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused."

<--- rigel this is where unsaved wounds have been caused, noting how many as well, so we already know we have unsaved wounds x2

So where in that quote does it say wounds are allocated? We know that a model has not suffered a wound in this process until it's been allocated. And the trigger for doubling is a model suffering a wound.

it then says next, which means next, as in after unsaved wounds have been caused

pg 15 then says "next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit... if the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating wounds to the closest model until there are no wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties"

Right - so unsaved wounds are *suffered* after allocation. Which means they aren't in the Wound Pool anymore. Which means they're already on the model. And you're doubling *in the Wound Pool* why?

but you have two save processes, mixed and regular,

regular is 100% allocated after unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted, this whole argueing that suffered=caused is farcical, just like you argue that inflict=suffered in force weapons vs FnP and were FAQ'd to be wrong

Farcical? And that's not even what I'm arguing...
A wound cannot be suffered until after allocation.

attacking models CAUSED wounds, defending ones suffer them, the english language does have synonyms in it, suffered, caused, and inflicted are not synonyms, and mean different things. They have posesive qualities as well.

Pray tell - when does a model suffer wounds?

so if on one hand, you make arguements that words must be taken at face value, 100% literally, as they come in one thread, while arguing that inflict, suffer, caused, all are the same thing, with no proof that they are

Um. I'm not arguing that inflict, suffer, and caused mean the same thing. I'm saying they don't.

you are also 100% ignoring and lying about the normal saves process, about which there is no vauge RAW

Could you quote where I've lied?

the normal saves process is very clear, saves, unsaved wounds are counted, then you allocate

Absolutely correct - I've never, ever, said otherwise.
Now - when does a model suffer a wound? Before or after allocation?

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
since after that save, unsaved wounds have been caused, the # of those unsaved wounds on the unit is doubled due to the unit being a swarm. are you interpreting "unsaved wounds have been caused" as unsaved wounds have not been caused? because that is a wrong interpretation.

Perhaps you should re-read the Swarm rule. Cause != Suffer. Since you're in favor of doubling prior to allocation, models are suffering wounds prior to allocation in your example.

one assumes its allocated on the initial model,

That's a lie. You've been corrected plenty if times. Please stop repeating it.

no it is not, you are lieing saying pg 15 does not say that, it does in fact tell you to ake saves, count unsaved wounds, then allocate them for normal saves process,

I quoted the actual rules from pg 15 that tell you to do this,

pg 15 in the BRB says very clearly that unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted before allocation
you are purposefully ignoring normal saves process,


you are ONLY looking at the MIXED saves process which does not apply to a unit made entirely of the same swarm model.

so stop lying/pretending pg 15 does not have both a normal save process, and a mixed saves process for units with mixed saves

they are NOT the same process, and they are NOT worded the same

That's not true at all. You're not reading what I'm arguing at all.
You are asserting that wounds are doubled prior to allocation, correct?
How does a model suffer a wound (the trigger for doubling) prior to a wound being allocated?

How about this: You get a wound pool and start making saves. If a swarm model dies to instant death you remove 2 swarm models? If you double them before the wound pool then that messes with independent characters?

 Niiai wrote:
How about this: You get a wound pool and start making saves. If a swarm model dies to instant death you remove 2 swarm models? If you double them before the wound pool then that messes with independent characters?

Are you suggesting that as a "house rule" or as RAW?
As a house rule I understand where you're coming from, but that makes Swarms extremely weak (weaker than they really need to be).
It's absolutely not RAW.

You a tyranid prime warrior (IC) and join in to a swarm and let rip with a S6 blast template. What happens?

Sorry, easy thought you were easycheese didn't check and should have. Secondly if we apply your method to all rules written the same then you would roll FNP while wounds are in the pool as well and it is clear that is not what they want.

we are not ignoring it we are talking about different steps and different wording. Populating the wound pool uses caused while suffered is only used in conjunction with allocation. Why you keep ignoring this is beyond me. I showed multiple places in that they equate. The FAQ now has you allocate first then roll save then roll FNP. The Force USR implies that inflict is something else entirely.

Suffers is different from caused which is the largest problem with any interpretation that claims they are the same. The only locations where suffered is used in the BRB is after allocation. I posted earlier all the locations where it is used and every location that indicates timing is after allocation. Stating that they are the same is the same as ignoring terrain rules cause they stop you from doing things the way you want.

Show a single correlation between caused and suffered. No one can do this. The BRB uses them differently and so must we. If we assume they are the same then we need to assume that removed from play and removed from play as casualty are the same.

You keep claiming that people are lying, I have to assume then that you are lying concerning swarms as it does not use the word cause at all. It has been pointed out multiple times in this thread that they are different so it has to be intentional and I have to then assume that you are trolling.

The rule as written is simply this. Mis-written.. The rules goofs at GW prolly wanted it to double after the wound are calculated, however the wording tells us after the save is failed and its doubled and the model failing takes another wound. There is no permission rules wise or logically. That allows you to put it back in the. Wound pool. Though I myself think the wounds should double right out of the gate, after re-reading it with less haste I'm to the conclusion that Gw Goofed here.

We all are in agreement that's prolly the case.

How i have played it is the wounds double and I remove the bases based on the doubled wound total.
How I play it now... I don't use swarms.....

Lungpickle wrote:
The rule as written is simply this. Mis-written.. The rules goofs at GW prolly wanted it to double after the wound are calculated, however the wording tells us after the save is failed and its doubled and the model failing takes another wound. There is no permission rules wise or logically. That allows you to put it back in the. Wound pool. Though I myself think the wounds should double right out of the gate, after re-reading it with less haste I'm to the conclusion that Gw Goofed here.

We all are in agreement that's prolly the case.

How i have played it is the wounds double and I remove the bases based on the doubled wound total.
How I play it now... I don't use swarms.....

the pool is just caused wounds, and is just used to keep track of the wounds. You don't put the wounds back into the pool, new wounds are created and they go into the pool. This whole "you can't put wounds back into the pool" is just nonsense, because that is not what is happening.

When you double a bunch of unsaved wounds, you are creating a bunch of new unsaved wounds. you are causing new wounds. if you start with 4 unsaved wounds, and double it to 8 unsaved wounds, you have caused 4 more unsaved wounds.

so you'd have the original wounds in a group in the pool, and the duplicated wounds in a different group in the pool.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
and for the suffers = allocate people, please explain how a unit of models with only a invuln save can ever take their invuln saves?

the argument used to say the swarm doesn't remove extra bases from ID, also denies a same save unit with just invuln saves available, from ever taking them. As invul saves can only be taken against a suffered wound.

And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

The rules say you have to allocate to take any save so how are you taking any save Mob?

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

So how does a model suffer a wound? That's the requirement to trigger the doubling. You don't know if its a Swarm model until the wound is allocated, so why are the wounds being doubled prior to allocation?

If allocation is only removing a wound from a model then how can you take an armour or cover save as you only remove wounds from models after allocation and saves?

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

So how does a model suffer a wound? That's the requirement to trigger the doubling. You don't know if its a Swarm model until the wound is allocated, so why are the wounds being doubled prior to allocation?

same saves
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
take saves: its here where you have to accept that all your models with swarm, took and failed saves, (even though they roll them all at once)
You now have unsaved wounds being suffered, and swarm triggers for unsaved wounds.
allocate unsaved wound.

different saves:
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
allocate a suffered wound
take saves
and here is where we also point out that both processes specifically state "reduce that model's wounds by 1" so if your side is right about its way of doing it, then even if you double the unsaved wounds to 2, you'd only remove 1 wound. if it was really the intent to cause 2 wounds to one model wouldn't swarm be worded as such? instead of specifying unsaved wounds, they could have just said "remove 2 wounds instead of 1"

so with that in mind, as a swarm model failed its save, it created a duplicate unsaved wound. as a new wound is caused it waits in the pool to be allocated. yes, then we can argue that mixed saves just allocates wounds. And as unsaved wounds have been caused and are thus in the wound pool, after we allocate all the wounds we see the wound pool is not empty. so we either agree to allocate the unsaved wounds or just freeze the game at this point.

so as RAW is debatable, RAI is clearly double the wounds, and remove 2x the bases from ID. based on this logic and the previous editions FAQ.

so I'll see you in a couple weeks when we can go through this all over again, and we can keep going around in circles til its FAQ'd or hopefully made clear in 7th ed

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

So how does a model suffer a wound? That's the requirement to trigger the doubling. You don't know if its a Swarm model until the wound is allocated, so why are the wounds being doubled prior to allocation?

same saves
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
take saves: its here where you have to accept that all your models with swarm, took and failed saves, (even though they roll them all at once)
You now have unsaved wounds being suffered, and swarm triggers for unsaved wounds.
allocate unsaved wound.

different saves:
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
allocate a suffered wound
take saves
and here is where we also point out that both processes specifically state "reduce that model's wounds by 1" so if your side is right about its way of doing it, then even if you double the unsaved wounds to 2, you'd only remove 1 wound. if it was really the intent to cause 2 wounds to one model wouldn't swarm be worded as such? instead of specifying unsaved wounds, they could have just said "remove 2 wounds instead of 1"

so with that in mind, as a swarm model failed its save, it created a duplicate unsaved wound. as a new wound is caused it waits in the pool to be allocated. yes, then we can argue that mixed saves just allocates wounds. And as unsaved wounds have been caused and are thus in the wound pool, after we allocate all the wounds we see the wound pool is not empty. so we either agree to allocate the unsaved wounds or just freeze the game at this point.

so as RAW is debatable, RAI is clearly double the wounds, and remove 2x the bases from ID. based on this logic and the previous editions FAQ.

so I'll see you in a couple weeks when we can go through this all over again, and we can keep going around in circles til its FAQ'd or hopefully made clear in 7th ed

Except the reason you removed 2 models in previous editions is because how wounding worked.

Before - allocate 1 wound to each model. Roll saves (if applicable) for each wound group. Since all the models in a given unit with the swarm special rule are identical they get grouped together. Each wound that is not saved doubles to 2 wounds. In the swarm grouping you now have 2X Wounds that are all ID. Each ID Wound removes a base.

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

If wounds caused are the same as wounds suffered why has the FAQ made clear that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered?

Q: If a character is removed from play as a casualty after fighting in a challenge, are any excess unsaved Wounds counted when determining assault results? (p65) A: No - only the wounds actually suffered in the challenge count.

The book also differentiates between them being in the wound pool and having been allocated to a model.

Edit: In 5th the hits were doubled not suffered wounds.

 Happyjew wrote:

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

well for the same save method, if you have wounds in a pool, you're unit fails its saves, do you not put those unsaved wounds into the pool?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

well for the same save method, if you have wounds in a pool, you're unit fails its saves, do you not put those unsaved wounds into the pool?

No they are already in the pool.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

well for the same save method, if you have wounds in a pool, you're unit fails its saves, do you not put those unsaved wounds into the pool?

No they are already in the pool.

Are the unsaved wounds still in the pool after you have taken saves on a same save unit?

@Gravmyr Nice catch!

Wounds in the pool are not yet wounds on the models.

The unit(that has the wound pool associated with it) does not have the Swarm special rule, models within the unit do.

Remember that special rules are on a per model basis, not for whole units. So when a model with the Swarm special rule suffers an unsaved wound caused a blast weapon, the wound it suffers is doubled. A model cannot be said to have suffered an unsaved wound until one is assigned to it.

Remeber also when reading the rule that 'a swarm' is one model, not a whole unit.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." Page 16.

For same save units you roll saves, and suffer wounds before allocation.

The save comes from the models in the unit as a whole, as they all have the same value.

If one wound is suffered then any one model in the unit could have failed that armor save.

If all of the models have the swarm rule, then that unsaved wound is doubled into 2 unsaved wounds (Because of vulnerable) and then you allocate those two unsaved wounds, one at a time, and find out you need to remove a whole base for the first ID wound, and a whole base for the second ID wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." Page 16.

For same save units you roll saves, and suffer wounds before allocation.

The save comes from the models in the unit as a whole, as they all have the same value.

If one wound is suffered then any one model in the unit could have failed that armor save.

If all of the models have the swarm rule, then that unsaved wound is doubled into 2 unsaved wounds (Because of vulnerable) and then you allocate those two unsaved wounds, one at a time, and find out you need to remove a whole base for the first ID wound, and a whole base for the second ID wound.

The part I put in italics is true in that the unit has suffered wounds, hence they are in the pool. The unit still does not have Swarm, only models do.

The part in bold does not exist in RAW. The Swarm special rule does not have any qualifier stating 'If all of the models in the unit have the swarm rule, then...(X effect)'. The rule does not state any effect on the unit as a whole unlike other special rules ie. stealth. Therefore the individual models in the unit take double wounds, not the unit as a whole.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." Page 16.

For same save units you roll saves, and suffer wounds before allocation.

The save comes from the models in the unit as a whole, as they all have the same value.

If one wound is suffered then any one model in the unit could have failed that armor save.

If all of the models have the swarm rule, then that unsaved wound is doubled into 2 unsaved wounds (Because of vulnerable) and then you allocate those two unsaved wounds, one at a time, and find out you need to remove a whole base for the first ID wound, and a whole base for the second ID wound.

Does not matter, DR. You "always" allocate and roll saves. The method for same save units is just to save time. The shooting phase rules breakdown (page 12 I think?) shows you the steps that are always taken and the order they are taken.

Even the saving throw rules that you quoted make the statement that you make a saving throw when a wound is allocated to the model.

"To take an armour save, roll a D6 and compare the results to the
Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated
the Wound."

Of course all that has been brought up before literally in this thread and DR denies its validity.

rigeld2 wrote:
Of course all that has been brought up before literally in this thread and DR denies its validity.

I know, but it's fun to ignore this thread for a few days just to find it's in the exact same spot.

This thread reminds me, I should look up the assault rules and go over it in detail to find out if I need to make another long debate over mandatory multi-assaults(disorganized assaults I think they're called now) ;-)

A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, because a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

so assuiming that allocating 2 ID wounds to a model when other models are eligible isnt a good enough reason to interpret the rules differently,

lets work on the basis that this all really is happening at the same time as wounds are "suffered"

there are several things happening,

all at once,

at the "suffered wound" stage,

the swarms rule doubling of the wound, allocation of the wound (and apparently the 2nd one as well, it has to be allocated somewhere), and removal of the model(or reduction of its W's)

since these all happen at the "suffer" stage as some are claiming,

then as per pg 9, the player whose turn it is gets to chose the order

so controlling player can double the wounds, then allocated,

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, becayse a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

You continue to ignore that a wound is not suffered until allocation. You have no backing for this whatsoever, just like you didn't before.

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Not necessarily. Some might be in cover. But for the moment agreed.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

See above.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, becayse a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

And you continue to ignore the fact that a wound is not suffered until it is actually allocated. What happens if 5 of the 10 models are hit, and 5 of the 10 models are completely out of sight?

easysauce wrote:
so assuiming that allocating 2 ID wounds to a model when other models are eligible isnt a good enough reason to interpret the rules differently,

Stop here. No one is allocating 2 wounds at once. Stop lying, you've been corrected too many times.

lets work on the basis that this all really is happening at the same time as wounds are "suffered"

there are several things happening,

O... kay.

all at once,

at the "suffered wound" stage,

the swarms rule doubling of the wound, allocation of the wound (and apparently the 2nd one as well, it has to be allocated somewhere), and removal of the model(or reduction of its W's)

since these all happen at the "suffer" stage as some are claiming,

then as per pg 9, the player whose turn it is gets to chose the order

so controlling player can double the wounds, then allocated,

Well, no.

They don't happen at the same time. The Blast wound is allocated to a model. The model suffers the wound (W is reduced or base removed). Now that a Swarm model has suffered a wound, the wound already on the model is doubled. If the base is removed before doubling there's nothing to double.

Again, you have no basis for doubling wounds prior to allocation. Once allocated, the doubled wound is now on a model. To put it back in the Pool you need permission. You can try to play timing games but they keep ignoring that basic fact.

except page 16 says you "suffer" a wound after you fail a save,

which can happen before, or after allocation, depending on the save process you use

one says allocate, save, suffer,

one says save suffer allocate,

again mixed saves is not normal saves,

now where in the books does it say suffered must beafter alocation,

also if the swarm wound is not allocated, then by your definition it is not suffered, and then is pointless, so why even 2x it anyways, no model has been allocated it, so who do we apply the wound to?
no one apparently, the wound just "disapears" despite there being eligible models who actualy have wounds left
which is wrong, but thats what follows by stating suffered=allocated,

even stating allocation ALWAYS happen before suffering is false,

PG 16 says the model has suffered a wound after failing a save,

pg 15 puts saves before allocation in normal saves,
then for mixed saves says allocate, then save

Page 16 also states that the model has been allocated a wound first so trying to say that it's the save that is causing this cannot be claimed. Find a location where allocation does not happen and the term suffer is used in conjunction with a failed save. I have post several times where the opposite is true, that unsaved wounds require allocation before the wound is considered suffered. Further study of the BRB shows that when a model fails it's Dangerous terrain test it suffers a wound then can take a save.

Show me anything anywhere that states that wounds can never be lost or not allocated. You can't it doesn't exist.

As has also been posted, the same saves method is used to speed up the game that is it. It's a way to help the game go faster by allowing saves to happen all at once then you allocate the wounds.

easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Not necessarily. Some might be in cover. But for the moment agreed.

I meant same armor save, I should have been more clear.

you continue to ignore the fact that a wound is not suffered until it is actually allocated. What happens if 5 of the 10 models are hit, and 5 of the 10 models are completely out of sight?

Page 16 disagrees with that.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

This is before allocation on a unit with the same armor save, as you roll armor saves before wound allocation, therefore wounds are suffered before allocation in this case.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, because a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

You continue to ignore that a wound is not suffered until allocation. You have no backing for this whatsoever, just like you didn't before.

Wounds are suffered before allocation, as I have proven.

Again you are quoting part of that section where allocation is part of it. Find a single location where failing a save is referred to as suffering without allocation and you might have a leg to stand on. Your entire argument is based off a section that includes both a failed save and an allocation that could refer to either portion. Since both are present there is no way of telling which has caused this to occur. Looking at both Perils of the Warp and Dangerous Terrain tests they use suffer before you get to take your save. If suffering means failing a save then you could not take a save as it would have already been failed. If it means a wound being allocated or placed onto a model then you do. Which way do you read it as? You get no save or you can take the save?

The rules for same saves direct us to Page 16 where it tells you how to take an armor save.

It applies, and confirms my statements.

Just because it was not allocated (Specific Vs General) does not mean a wound was not suffered.

P.S. you do not get a save Vs. Perils of the warp.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for same saves direct us to Page 16 where it tells you how to take an armor save.

It applies, and confirms my statements.

Just because it was not allocated (Specific Vs General) does not mean a wound was not suffered.

P.S. you do not get a save Vs. Perils of the warp.

DR, seeing as how easysauce hasn't answered my question maybe you will.

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

You are making a false assumption there. You cannot prove that it is the save that causes the wound to be suffered as opposed to the allocation. You have a single instance that is ambiguous while I have shown you multiple other locations where it tells you that only wounds allocated are suffered by a model. By your line of thinking a unit that takes any save other then armour does not suffer a wound as that is the only save that the suffer terminology is used for after a failed save. Invulnerable saves directly counter your argument as they state they are taken after a wound is suffered.

Invuln saves p 17
Determining Assault results pg 26
Dangerous Terrain Tests pg 90
BRB FAQ FNP and Perils pg 4
BRB FAQ challeneges and excess wounds pg 6

All of the above are areas where suffers are used either in the place of allocation or where a wound is directly placed onto a model without allocation, ie forced allocation as opposed to following wound allocation rules.

In the case of Perils why would they even list that you do not get a to take a save if suffered means that a save has been failed?

I still don't see that it matters. Nothing with Swarm has been wounded until an unsaved wound, assigned to a model with the special rule causes it's wound profile to get reduced or in this case, causes ID. You cannot say it was wounded before it was wounded so at the time the model with Swarm takes the wound from the blast weapon, that is when that wound is doubled.

Doubling wounds prior to allocation would only occur if the unit had the Swarm rule, which it does not.

plenty of rules will say suffered by the model,

this one does not,

it simply adds to unsaved wounds caused

easysauce, is there a reason you have not responded to my question (other than perhaps the fact I referred to you as easy)?

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

dont have ork codex in front of me,

but nobs still have 2 wounds each IIRC,

and has suffered 5 entropic strike unsaved wounds,

so two nobs die, one left with one wound and the ES effect

It doesn't have to say suffered by a model, technically none of them do. All USR's are attributes of a model not a unit. The only ones that apply to the whole unit are the ones that say they apply to the whole unit such as stealth. The Swarms USR does specifically state that they are wounds suffered not wounds caused. I know you know the wording of the Swarms USR by this point, therefor I know you know that the word caused does not appear in the USR at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

dont have ork codex in front of me,

but nobs still have 2 wounds each IIRC,

and has suffered 5 entropic strike unsaved wounds,

so two nobs die, one left with one wound and the ES effect

This still does not cover the why of the question. By the above you are applying the ES effect only to the models that are allocated wounds but with swarms you are applying it to the entire unit. Why are you applying nearly identical wording two different ways?

the ES effect does not cause additional wounds,

and while the model may have the swarms rule, so does other models being affected, that does not detract from the models in the unit being eligible to suffer the wounds,

yet those wounds are being "suffered" models that already are at 0 W and cannot suffer further wounds (wounds only "dissapear" when no eligible models exist, IE challenges, or over kill, otherwise they must be allocated until there are none left)

which is why it is different, causing new wounds is a different effect


you do not have rules for allocating ES's like you have rules for allocating wounds

there is also not a conflict with written rules when a model suffers 2x effects of ES (we remove the model at 0 wounds, not at -1), 2xes is in fact the same as 1ES

where as two unsaved wounds, is not the same as one, nothing says to allocate it on to the same model, or that that model suffers it, nor that it is legal for a model to suffer more wounds then are on its profile.


answer these please gravmyr/happyjew:

what leads you to believe the wounds caused by swarms are not created?

Why do those wounds go onto the model the prior wound went on instead of following the normal process for created wounds?

what rule says you make a model suffer more wounds then it is able to suffer, despite there being eligible models to properly suffer that wound?

 Happyjew wrote:

DR, seeing as how easysauce hasn't answered my question maybe you will.

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

Easy enough.

As ES says any model that suffers a wound from ES will lose their armor save, so 5 orks would lose their armor save if they are not killed outright.

Note ES's wording is different than the Swarm rule wording, as Swarm says "If a Swarm suffers..." not "any model that suffers"

The two things are different do not conflate the two rules.

easysauce wrote:
what leads you to believe the wounds caused by swarms are not created?

When has anyone said the extra wounds are not created? They are still created they just get applied to the model that suffers the original wound.

Why do those wounds go onto the model the prior wound went on instead of following the normal process for created wounds?

Because the wound is generated when a model suffers a wound, not a unit.

what rule says you make a model suffer more wounds then it is able to suffer, despite there being eligible models to properly suffer that wound?

The fact that a model has to suffer an unsaved wound before it can be doubled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

DR, seeing as how easysauce hasn't answered my question maybe you will.

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

Easy enough.

As ES says any model that suffers a wound from ES will lose their armor save, so 5 orks would lose their armor save if they are not killed outright.

Note ES's wording is different than the Swarm rule wording, as Swarm says "If a Swarm suffers..." not "any model that suffers"

The two things are different do not conflate the two rules.

At least you are consistent. The wording for ES says "a Swarm" instead of "any model" as it only applies to a model with the swarm special rule.

easysauce wrote:
plenty of rules will say suffered by the model,

this one does not,

it simply adds to unsaved wounds caused

So Swarms are not models? You're looking at the effect of the rule, not the cause. Whats the trigger? Hint - it includes the word "suffer".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for same saves direct us to Page 16 where it tells you how to take an armor save.

It applies, and confirms my statements.

Just because it was not allocated (Specific Vs General) does not mean a wound was not suffered.

P.S. you do not get a save Vs. Perils of the warp.

The Same Save method is a way to speed up rolling, not a change to the rules on page 12, 15, and 16 that state to allocate and then save.
This has been pointed out before, and ignored. So again - this argument is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

dont have ork codex in front of me,

but nobs still have 2 wounds each IIRC,

and has suffered 5 entropic strike unsaved wounds,

so two nobs die, one left with one wound and the ES effect

So - magically - Nobs that suffer wounds prior to allocation don't have their armor save stripped, but Swarms that suffer wounds prior to allocation have incoming wounds doubled?

Ignoring the fact that you don't suffer wounds prior to allocation, that's inconsistent. Please correct my obvious misunderstanding of your statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Note ES's wording is different than the Swarm rule wording, as Swarm says "If a Swarm suffers..." not "any model that suffers"

The two things are different do not conflate the two rules.

Is Swarm a rule that applies to a model, or a unit?
Would you agree with the statement, "If a model with the Swarm rule suffers..." Is functionally equivalent to the correct Swarm rule?

easysauce wrote:
the ES effect does not cause additional wounds,

and while the model may have the swarms rule, so does other models being affected, that does not detract from the models in the unit being eligible to suffer the wounds,

yet those wounds are being "suffered" models that already are at 0 W and cannot suffer further wounds (wounds only "dissapear" when no eligible models exist, IE challenges, or over kill, otherwise they must be allocated until there are none left)

You are still missing the point that wounds are not being created in the pool they are doubling to two on a model. If you had a deal with your bank that said for every dollar deposited, read model, they would post two to your account and I wrote you a check for a dollar they would not take two out of my account, read wound pool. Your account would still have two dollars in it yet the wound pool would still have only been lower by one.

easysauce wrote:
you do not have rules for allocating ES's like you have rules for allocating wounds

The rules for allocating wounds are the rules for allocating ES as any model that has suffered an unsaved wound looses it's armour save. They have nearly identical wording yet you are applying them at two different times by your logic.

easysauce wrote:
there is also not a conflict with written rules when a model suffers 2x effects of ES (we remove the model at 0 wounds, not at -1), 2xes is in fact the same as 1ES

where as two unsaved wounds, is not the same as one, nothing says to allocate it on to the same model, or that that model suffers it, nor that it is legal for a model to suffer more wounds then are on its profile.

As the Swarms USR states that a model that suffers an unsaved wound has that wound doubled to two the wound is not in the pool when it doubles on the model so when you would remove one wound from the model you instead remove two.

easysauce wrote:
answer these please gravmyr/happyjew:

what leads you to believe the wounds caused by swarms are not created?

The fact that the wound is doubled at the model level negates any statement that you would put it back into the wound pool. Show any rule that allows you to take a wound off a model and put it into the wound pool. It's like an amoeba one has become two a second wound does not spontaneously appear in the nether it is already on a model.

easysauce wrote:
Why do those wounds go onto the model the prior wound went on instead of following the normal process for created wounds?

As above the wounds becomes two at the model level not at the unit level.

easysauce wrote:
what rule says you make a model suffer more wounds then it is able to suffer, despite there being eligible models to properly suffer that wound?

There is no rule governing this. The only rule that exists covering wounds and models is one that says you can't allocate more wounds to a model then it has in it's wounds characteristic. Since the second wound is not being allocated it does not break any rule.

deathreaper can you answer my questions?
In the case of Perils why would they even list that you do not get a to take a save if suffered means that a save has been failed?

In the case of Dangerous terrain tests you get to take a save after failing it, how if suffered means failing a save?

In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions only counting the wounds suffered by the character not the unsaved wounds in the pool. How can this be as all the unsaved wounds would be suffered by your definition?

well i guess if you ignore normal saves rule as just a convention,

except its not

mixed saves has stipulations on when it can be used , as it can ONLY be used in units with mixed saves,

its not just a section of rules to be ignored,

I think this one is unclear enough that neither side can really be blamed for either interpretation,

needs a FAQ for sure, and it will be,

so well have to see what GW says, till then ask TO's and opponents

for what its worth here are the last two edition's wording of the swarms/vunerable to blast, where it was FAQ'ed to say "yes ID and swarms do stack, take off two models"

just to shed light on GW's wording, and how these RAI, and how they are also written alsmot identically.

so 40k 4th edition where ID and "vunerable to blast" rule for swarms stacked (at this time there was no UsR for swarms, swarms were a type of unit)

pg 76
vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"


40k 5th edition, also where they stack

"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."


6th edition
"If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds."



4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID

in 6th,
no mention of unit or model, and no not all UsR's mean model level,
sould blaze for instance goes off when the "unit suffers on or more unsaved wounds"

every other UsR specifies model or unit,

Swarm just says Swarms, like the rules makers are referring to a unit type Swarms still like the prev two editions had.


so lets stop talking RAW, since its unclear, and I dont think either side really has a "slam dunk" on this one

what do you think the RAI is?

How can you quote a rule and misquote it at the same time?!

Your quote 4E: "vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"

Your quote 5E:"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."

And after these you go and write "4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID". (!) You either can't even understand what yourself is writing or you have become so desperate to back up your argument that you think we won't notice something so blatantly wrong in your posts.

Anyway that is the big difference from 5E (and 4E) to 6E. The rule has changed from unit based to model based, and thus the mechanics involving how the wounds get doubled have changed accordingly. In 5E (and 4E) the unit suffered 2 wounds instead of 1, in 6E the model suffers 2 wounds instead of 1.

 Gravmyr wrote:

deathreaper can you answer my questions?
In the case of Perils why would they even list that you do not get a to take a save if suffered means that a save has been failed?

Perils does not allow any save at all, therefore it is not the same as the Swarms Rule.

In the case of Dangerous terrain tests you get to take a save after failing it, how if suffered means failing a save?

DT tests are per model not per unit, not sure what you are getting at with this one.

In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions only counting the wounds suffered by the character not the unsaved wounds in the pool. How can this be as all the unsaved wounds would be suffered by your definition?

A unit with a character is a mixed save unit, and has no bearing on same save units.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:

In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions only counting the wounds suffered by the character not the unsaved wounds in the pool. How can this be as all the unsaved wounds would be suffered by your definition?

A unit with a character is a mixed save unit, and has no bearing on same save units.

Wrong. A challenge can be issued even when a character fights alone in CC (not joined in a unit). So it is not a "mixed save unit", which means the FAQ that proves wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated is valid for mixed and same save units.

The unit the character is in, is still a mixed save unit.

Challenges have their own rules, I am not sure what you are getting at.

Wounds in the wound pool are suffered after saves are rolled, which is before allocation for same save units (P. 16 confirms this).

If Mephiston is in a challenge, is he a mixed save unit by himself?! Ofcourse not. So the FAQ stands for mixed and same save units

easysauce wrote:
well i guess if you ignore normal saves rule as just a convention,

except its not

mixed saves has stipulations on when it can be used , as it can ONLY be used in units with mixed saves,

its not just a section of rules to be ignored,

I think this one is unclear enough that neither side can really be blamed for either interpretation,

needs a FAQ for sure, and it will be,

so well have to see what GW says, till then ask TO's and opponents

for what its worth here are the last two edition's wording of the swarms/vunerable to blast, where it was FAQ'ed to say "yes ID and swarms do stack, take off two models"

just to shed light on GW's wording, and how these RAI, and how they are also written alsmot identically.

so 40k 4th edition where ID and "vunerable to blast" rule for swarms stacked (at this time there was no UsR for swarms, swarms were a type of unit)

pg 76
vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"


40k 5th edition, also where they stack

"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."


6th edition
"If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds."



4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID

in 6th,
no mention of unit or model, and no not all UsR's mean model level,
sould blaze for instance goes off when the "unit suffers on or more unsaved wounds"

every other UsR specifies model or unit,

Swarm just says Swarms, like the rules makers are referring to a unit type Swarms still like the prev two editions had.


so lets stop talking RAW, since its unclear, and I dont think either side really has a "slam dunk" on this one

what do you think the RAI is?

But there is no unit type 'swarm'. There are just models with the swarm SR. So it looks to me like they do specify it as a model since that is what a swarm is and as such I believe it is both RAW and RAI.

Every special rule in the BrB that hs an effect on the rest of the unit states it in the rule. Soulblaze is an attack that has an effect on the target unit and says as much. Hit and Run, Out flank, Acute Senses, etc. all say something to the effect of "any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"... (X effect, ability, etc.)

Since no unit type natively is or has 'Swarm' and since the SR does not state any effect on the unit as a whole, you have no permission to apply it's effect to any other part of the unit other than the specific model with the Swarm SR that suffered the unsaved wound.

What order you do your saves in does not matter for this, the unit can take wounds or unsaved wounds(in the pool) and you still have no permission to apply this rule... until you allocate one to a model with it.

copper.talos wrote:
If Mephiston is in a challenge, is he a mixed save unit by himself?! Ofcourse not. So the FAQ stands for mixed and same save units

Right, and he rolls saves before allocation, and suffers wounds before allocation.

Why are you so eager to change the subject?! We were discussing about the FAQ:

Q: If a character is removed from play as a casualty after fighting in a challenge, are any excess unsaved Wounds counted when determining assault results? (p65) A: No - only the wounds actually suffered in the challenge count.

You tried to argue that this faq is not about same save units, but I have just proved that this FAQ is valid for mixed save and same save units. So it is clear that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated.

1) I did not see that FaQ til just now, I was not responding to it in my previous posts.

2) A model can only suffer as many wounds as he has, any extras are lost.

Deleted.

DeathReaper: You still missed the points entirely. All of the occurrences I listed above use the suffer terminology. In the case of any of them by using the word suffer it would imply that they have failed a save by your logic. That is your claim is it not, that wounds are suffered after failed saves? If that is the case then you could never take a save versus perils nor DT. As for the character question the FAQ specifically says that the unsaved wounds in the pool have not been suffered.

That use of the term suffers, in regards to models, only happens in specific instances which is when a model has a wound allocated to it or has a wound forced onto it, such as ways I have listed. The only section you have been able to quote to state other wise is a single section that includes both an allocation and a save. Since both of those things are present there is no way to draw a clear answer from it. Please find a single other instance of the use of suffer in conjunction with failing a save.

If you follow through with the logic that a wound has to be allocated/forced on a model to be suffered then the wording of Invulnerable saves makes perfect sense. As does the FAQ about characters. The changes to FNP makes more sense. The perils wording as well as DT tests also makes sense. You can never take an invulnerable save. If you use that failing a save causes a wound to be suffered then none of the instances listed make any sense.

Yet again the Swarms USR is model based as indicated by the rule not indicating it applies to the entire unit. All USRs are model based per the USR overview. Since the model has not suffered a wound even after a unit it is in has failed a save via the same save method then there is no way to double the wounds in the wound pool. They must be doubled at the model level.

 Gravmyr wrote:
DeathReaper: You still missed the points entirely. All of the occurrences I listed above use the suffer terminology. In the case of any of them by using the word suffer it would imply that they have failed a save by your logic. That is your claim is it not, that wounds are suffered after failed saves?

Actually the rules say that.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." Page 16.

Again and again and again after you have allocated a wound so please find a section that states it without an allocation first.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Again and again and again after you have allocated a wound so please find a section that states it without an allocation first.

Page 15 "First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each Wound being resolved. Make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused."

"Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit." P. 15

copper.talos wrote:
Why are you so eager to change the subject?! We were discussing about the FAQ:

Q: If a character is removed from play as a casualty after fighting in a challenge, are any excess unsaved Wounds counted when determining assault results? (p65) A: No - only the wounds actually suffered in the challenge count.

You tried to argue that this faq is not about same save units, but I have just proved that this FAQ is valid for mixed save and same save units. So it is clear that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated.

this FAQ is not about saves,

the two challengees are considered only to be in base to base, hence why the excess wounds dissapear and are not suffered by the squad, hence not counting towards assault results.

very different from a scenario where wounds have been caused and there ARE eligible models to suffer them

Neither of those quotes state anything about failing a save causing a wound to be suffered. Find me a quote in a section that uses suffer after a failed save that does not include an allocation first. It doesn't exist.

You are also assuming the book is telling to go to page 16 to learn how to take a save not to determine what the save are. See where it says "if it has one (see page 16)" this does not tell you to follow the rules there to take a save iot is telling you to go there to determine the unit's save. if it was to follow the rules presented there it would have said "the target unit gets to make one saving throw (see page 16)," See the difference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are pointing out the use of the term suffered which is what seems to be confusing you easysauce. The FAQ about challenges refers to the wounds in the pool differently then those that have been suffered. See what we are pointing out?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Actually the rules say that.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." Page 16.

Agreed, if a model fails it's armor save it's wearer suffers a wound.

Of course for this to happen the wound needs to be allocated to it, which it was in your in this instance prior to your quote. So if this model was a swarm and the wound came from a blast weapon it would take two wounds.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Neither of those quotes state anything about failing a save causing a wound to be suffered. Find me a quote in a section that uses suffer after a failed save that does not include an allocation first. It doesn't exist.

Page 16 clarifies that a failed armor save = a suffered wound.

Page 15 clarifies that you take armor saves on same save units before allocation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
Neither of those quotes state anything about failing a save causing a wound to be suffered. Find me a quote in a section that uses suffer after a failed save that does not include an allocation first. It doesn't exist.

Page 16 clarifies that a failed armor save = a suffered wound.

Page 15 clarifies that you take armor saves on same save units before allocation.

Here is your page 16 quote:

"To take an armour save, roll a D6 and compare the results to the
Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated
the Wound.
. If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's
Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped.
. If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

As you can see this wound has been allocated already.

Edit: Find an un-allocated wound that a model can suffer from a blast weapon.

And Page 15 tells you to take an armor save (See page 16 for armor saves) and this is clearly before allocation.

Therefore you must use Page 16 even though the wound has not been allocated.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And Page 15 tells you to take an armor save (See page 16 for armor saves) and this is clearly before allocation.

Therefore you must use Page 16 even though the wound has not been allocated.

Page 16 says the model takes a wound after it's been allocated and the save is failed.

Page 15 is more specific, as it only deals with one situation where models need to take armor saves.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Page 15 is more specific, as it only deals with one situation where models need to take armor saves.

That's. a. Lie.

The same save method on page 15 is literally just a method to speed up dice rolling. The paragraph at the top of the page, the rules on page 12, and the rules on page 16 all say that saves come before allocation.

Fast rolling does not mean the rules change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
just to shed light on GW's wording, and how these RAI, and how they are also written alsmot identically.

Identically? Are you insane?

so 40k 4th edition where ID and "vunerable to blast" rule for swarms stacked (at this time there was no UsR for swarms, swarms were a type of unit)

pg 76
vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"

Some units are vulnerable. Are units and models the same thing? And also - what was the method of wound allocation in 4th? Was it identical to 6th? (I know the answer).

40k 5th edition, also where they stack

"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."

Again, some units are vulnerable. And again, the wound allocation method is drastically different.

4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID

I literally can't believe you could quote the rules as accurately as you have and still type that with a straight face. In 4th and 5th they were not model based rules. At all. Not even close. And the wound allocation methods were not even remotely similar to how it works now.

in 6th,
no mention of unit or model, and no not all UsR's mean model level,
sould blaze for instance goes off when the "unit suffers on or more unsaved wounds"

Do units have special rules, or do models? Some weapons do, yes.

every other UsR specifies model or unit,

Swarm just says Swarms, like the rules makers are referring to a unit type Swarms still like the prev two editions had.

So an IC joins a Swarm unit. That means he suffers from double wounds as well according to you.

so lets stop talking RAW, since its unclear, and I dont think either side really has a "slam dunk" on this one

Translation, "I've been proven wrong repeatedly and refuse to admit it."

what do you think the RAI is?

I think it's a purposeful change in a new edition of the rules that some people refuse to accept because they're blinded by how it used to work.

it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until wounds are allocated.

 Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until wounds are allocated there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

So which model was wounded by the blast?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until wounds are allocated there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

Your fix is incorrect, as I've pointed out. Repeatedly.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until wounds are allocated there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

That's not right. According to your logic here failing a save is the only way a model can take a wound. This would make models that don't get saves immortal.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until wounds are allocated there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

Your fix is incorrect, as I've pointed out. Repeatedly.

The rules I have repeatedly quoted support my argument.

 Abandon wrote:
So which model was wounded by the blast?

The closest one, just like all other shooting.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until wounds are allocated there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

Your fix is incorrect, as I've pointed out. Repeatedly.

The rules I have repeatedly quoted support my argument.

 Abandon wrote:
So which model was wounded by the blast?

The closest one, just like all other shooting.

Your only permitted to pick the closest one when you allocate a wounds, just like all the other shooting attacks. Without that process you are not permitted to treat any model as though it was wounded.

I'll make it simple:

"To take an armour save, roll a D6 and compare the results to the
Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated
the Wound.
. If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's
Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped.
. If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

This^^ cannot be done unless the wounds have been allocated already, it's right in there, plain as day.

By your interpretation, this this the always the exact process for making armor saves and the 'same save' method of doing the armor saves before allocation is not just a time saver, it's the proper way... That would mean that 'same save' units would not get to make armor saves at all because wounds have not yet been allocated when that step comes around.

Well that can't be right so you must be looking at it the wrong way.