Whenever i've run a unit with plasma guns i've rolled each shot separately in order to be sure which model is effected by Gets Hot! Now for models shooting 24" it seems simple enough that since each model gets only 1 shot then you can roll all the plasma guns together. However, for units inside of rapid fire range, are you supposed to roll all the dice together? or roll 2 at a time (for each plasma gun)? I ask this because if you roll all the dice together you have a better chance of killing more of your models than if you rolled 2 dice for the first shooter (any 1's make a gets hot save), 2 dice for the next, etc....

Hopefully this will clarify if i'm not making sense

Way #1

Unit with 3 plasma guns in rapid fire range:

I roll 6 dice, come up with two (1)'s, allocate to two models, can potentially take wounds to 2 models with failed save

Way #2

Unit with 3 plasma guns in rapid fire range:

I roll 2 dice, No 1's, no Gets Hot!
I roll 2 dice, come up with two (1)'s, and can take 2 wounds to just 1 model (taking 2 gets hot wounds)
I roll 2 dice, No 1's, no Gets Hot!

Which way is correct?

Simply... Way #2.
It also works this way for things like multiple master crafted weapons within a unit that has multiple shots/attacks.

As above. Roll 2 dice for each model firing plasmaguns.

This is an exception to the normal allocation rules, as it tells you the specific *model* firing the gun takes the test; you have no ability to group the shots together.

An easy way to speed this up is to use 3 different colored dice and roll them all at once.

This is what i figured, but i was playing on vassal the other day and the person i was playing against suggested it the other way....Good to know i was actually playing something correctly.

How is this different from wound allocation during the shooting phase? That's the way I usually play it (limited to plasma gunners).

Each model is allocated wounds. If a like group suffers two wounds, then two models die, regardless of which exact models had the wounds allocated.

"The firing model suffers a wound" is important if models fire more than one shot each.

If one model rolls two ones, that is different than two models rolling a one each.

Allocation would allow the third model with the Gets Hot! weapon to be removed. . .despite the rules saying it is the firing model.

somerandomdude wrote:How is this different from wound allocation during the shooting phase? That's the way I usually play it (limited to plasma gunners).

Each model is allocated wounds. If a like group suffers two wounds, then two models die, regardless of which exact models had the wounds allocated.

Because it specifies the FIRING MODEL is the one that takes the wound. Thus, there can be no allocation, otherwise you could allocate the plasma wound to a model not holding a plasma gun....

skarousis wrote: However, for units inside of rapid fire range,...

I'm going to jump in here with the usual disclaimer that there is no such thing as 'rapid fire range'... 'Rapid Fire' is a class of weapon, not a mode of fire. Firing a plasma cannon is not 'Heavying'... neither is firing a plasma gun 'rapid firing'...


It may seem like a nitpick, but it does cause a certain amount of confusion. Most commonly with the fact that referring to it as a mode of firing leads people to believe that it is a choice that is required when you fire the weapon, which leads to confusion over how and when to 'declare it', when to measure, and so on.

'"The firing model suffers a wound" is important if models fire more than one shot each.

If one model rolls two ones, that is different than two models rolling a one each.

Allocation would allow the third model with the Gets Hot! weapon to be removed. . .despite the rules saying it is the firing model.'

Agreed on this. The rule is clear-cut. It would be interestingly fluffy for the gun to misfire and fry poor old private jenks over on the other side of the squad, but the emphasis on it being the 'firing model' means that the poor schlub with the imperial built foom-cannon (or ork KMB for that matter) is the one reduced to vapor

I wasn't suggesting that a non-plasmagun-wielding model could suffer the wound. I was suggesting that, if one plasmagun-wielding model suffered two wounds, you'd have to remove two plasmagun-fielding models (assuming both failed to save). I thought that was clear when I mentioned "like groups" and "limited to plasma gunners".

You are forced to allocate the wound to a model wielding a plasmagun, just like in all instances of shooting/assault wounds you are forced to allocate a wound to a model (although you are not limited to certain wargear).

If I allocate two "no-save" wounds in an assault phase to a bolter marine, and one wound (with a save allowed) to the only other bolter marine, they'd still both die. It doesn't matter which model I actually allocated the wound to, or which model "suffered" the wound, as long as there are other models with the same wargear in the unit.

If it is supposed to be played the way you suggest, then wouldn't you also have to distinguish which exact model is rolling which die/dice, and only roll to save on that model? If two models (or perhaps three or four or ten) suffered from Gets Hot!, wouldn't you have to roll each one, one at a time, for their saves?

I look at it as being similar to other cases of allocation, where you can take any plasmagun-wielder (but where they're all affected equally).

No you are not. Because it specifies the FIRING MODEL takes thed wound.

If you allocate to another model, you break this rule. Which is bad.

Yes, this means you need to know which model fired which shots. Not tricky, and posts 3 and 4 cover this.

OK what I simply do not understand following this interpretation is:

In my opinion it doesnt matter whether you allocate a wound on plasmagunner 1 or plasmagunner 2 or whether it is allocated by the gets hot rule in any way.
Because rules for "removing casualties" state that for any unsaved wound a model identical in gaming terms has to be removed.
Where does it specify that a prior allocation made by the player had to take place?

So if we have differently equipped models of course we have to roll separately, but for equal models it makes no difference in my opinion.

But if you play it this way (which I would accept of course, but I want to know why ), I would expect the opponent to specify the specific model before rolling (the position of the model can be important...) not plasmagun 1, roll, plasmagun 2, roll, plasmagun 3, rol and then remove just somewhere...l

As only the model that rolls the 1 takes the wound (as the firing model) there is no allocation. If the text saying that the firing model takes the hit wasn't there i would be ok with allocation, but it is. It's a more specific rule than the general removal of casualties rules, dealing only with weapons that Get Hot.

I would roll each person with a Gets Hot weapon one at a time, so that my opponent can see which model might blow himself to kingdom come. I find it annoying when its ALWAYS the least advantageously placed plasmagun/KMB that gets removed, not necessarily the one who did the shooting. If the gun is rapid fire this gets particularly important, because which model gets removed affects next round's ranges...

It's a more specific rule than the general removal of casualties rules

Where does it contradict the "removing casualties" rule? (And a contradiction has to be there in order to "overwrite" a BRB procedure)
It refers to the "wound allocation" rule which is a different story.
So instead of the player allocating, the gets hot rule allocates for you, but this does not prevent you from removing a model identical in gaming terms due to the unaffected procedure stated in "removing casualties", does it?

No because the firing model takes the wound, not anyone else even if they are identical because that doesn't make them the firing model. If plasmagunner 1 rolls 2 ones he takes 2 gets hot saves.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

It's a more specific rule than the general removal of casualties rules

Where does it contradict the "removing casualties" rule? (And a contradiction has to be there in order to "overwrite" a BRB procedure)
It refers to the "wound allocation" rule which is a different story.
So instead of the player allocating, the gets hot rule allocates for you, but this does not prevent you from removing a model identical in gaming terms due to the unaffected procedure stated in "removing casualties", does it?

It still says "firing model" takes the wound. It doesn't matter how you spin it, and it does matter on the dice rolls when firing twice with a rapid fire weapon. If you rolled all of them at once and rolled 4 ones (god forbid), was that one to each and a second on one or two on two? Would the model that did die be the one that put you out of assault range in your opponents turn? Or put that unit out of range of getting hit by rapid fire weapons? You don't know unless you play it by the rule that is stated.

No because the firing model takes the wound

For removing casualties it is unimportant which model took the wound unless it is different "in gaming terms" considering wound allocation (I dont have to remove space marine X with a boltgun, because I allocated a wound to him (or in other words: he took the wound), I could also remove space marine Y with a boltgun, but I can not remove the sergeant)
so why is it important using the gets hot rule?

How are you allocating when the rules state that the FIRING MODEL took the wound? Kevin949's post shows why it's important.

I do not allocate, I dont get the choice to allocate.
What I want to express is the difference between allocation and removing actual models.

Why are you assuming the models that get the wound have to be the models that are actually removed as a casualty?
I just compare it to the procedure of wound allocation and in both cases we have the same status with the exception that the wound allocation is replaced by the procedure of the gets hot rule.

To make this clear:

I have 3 plasmaguns.

I roll for first one: two 1s.
I roll for second one: no 1
I rolled for 3rd one: one 1

Wound allocation would be one wound on each model. Correct?
Gets hot means 2 wounds on first one, 1 wound on 3rd one

so gets hot is superior to wound allocation. Until that we agree. And "the firing model takes a wound"-wording should be used correctly and sufficiently. Is that so?

So now comes removing casualties, where it is specifically stated, that all saves for wounds taken on models identical in gaming terms have to be made in one go and for each unsaved wound one model of these has to be removed. So I save all in one go, pass one of them and remove 2 models as I like.

What is the problem with the last step?

The last step is the problem for sure. The thing is you are still allocating which you shouldn't be doing.

The problem is that wound allocation doesn't apply to the situation.

Wound allocation applies when a unit suffers a number of wounds, and you need to determine which models are actually removed as casualties.

Get's Hot doesn't inflict wounds on the unit. It inflicts wounds on specific models within the unit. So it bypasses the wound allocation process.

This is my fault for mentioning Wound Allocation earlier in the thread, as I couldn't think of a better way to describe what I meant.

He's not talking about Wound Allocation, he's talking about Removing Casualties. These are two separate rules.

And as Insaniak said it inflicts wounds on specific models. Kind of like JotWW in that respect.

It's not at all like JotWW, because JotWW does not inflict any wounds. It causes a test on specific models, and failures get removed from play.

Oops, I meant it affects individual models.

Oops, I meant it affects individual models.

No you were right, it inflict wounds on (let me replace "individual" by "specific") models.
And here is my problem:

Where does it state specifically that there is a difference in status between a wound suffered by a model due to wound allocation and a wound suffered by a model due to shooting a gets hot weapon?
As I see it, "gets hot" does not individualise the models for "removing casualties" rules, it just specify the model in terms of "wound allocation" which is as I said before a totally different rule.

No, it specifies the model must take the wound.

Has another model taken the wound, in other words has had their wounds stat been reduced by 1? If so you have broken a rule.

Yup. If you play it as subject to the usual Remove Casualties process, you'd also wind up with a single plasmagun in a squad being able to kill both himself and a squadmate with two 1s.

PGs just wound the individual model carrying them.

This is a situation pretty similar to Dangerous Terrain. It's pretty much agreed that dangerous terrain affects model by model, so I don't see why Plasmaguns would be different.

I understand where Nazdreg is coming from, but I think the wording specifying it's the model that takes the wound overrides the rules for removing models from units. You could probably try to make the argument that the removing casualties rules are in the shooting rules, as well as their explanation for why you can remove any model you choose.

Similar to Mannahnin's statement about only having one plasmagun, what if you have multiple Plasmaguns, but only one model fires? You could then theoretically lose models that didn't even fire by the remove casualties interperetation. I see where there's room for that interperetation, but there are cases where it seems a bit weak.

If you took the time to seaparate the dice and indicate which models fired, I can't see an opponent who would call a judge over it.

GW would have you roll different coloured dice, but way 2 is acceptable in all environments.

Dangerous terrain is a good point, there we have the same problem. I have to look it up again, but this may convince me.
I am not sure whether the whole procedure is covered in "dangerous terrain test" rules.

The whole procedure is not covered, but the specific requirement that the firing model takes the wound IS covered there.

If another model takes the wound, you have broken a rule.

If another model takes the wound, you have broken a rule.

But another model hasn't taken a wound it has simply been removed as the casualty. I can see Nazdregs point it is not about wound allocation but about casualty removal.

However if you were to remove a separate model the original model would also have to be removed as it is still now down to 0 wounds...

It has been removed as the casualty because it has taken a wound. That is how the rules work - you dropped its' wound stat to 0, so it gets removed as a casualty.

ANd the only way to drop your wound stat in this was is for you to have taken the wound. And if you are not the model that fired the plasma gun, you have broken a rule.

It is REALLY simple!

That is how the rules work - you dropped its' wound stat to 0, so it gets removed as a casualty.

So we have a difference here between having allocated a wound on a model and a model taking a wound.
If you allocate a wound on a model due to enemy fire or something like that, its wound stat is not 0? So I assume it does not have to be removed... ?

I think you're overthinging this deliberately.

It says the firing model. The Firing model is the one who is wounded. The firing model dies if he fails the save. No-one else is involved, you can't allocate as it only affects the firing model.

The rule is so clear cut its painful, so why are you still arguing it?

Allocating a wound on a model causes it to be wounded, and it can try to save the wound. If it fails its wounds drop to 0, removing it as a casualty.

Your plasgunner fires, screws up, wounds himself and dies if he fails his save. How is this difficult to understand?

Other instances involve a unit taking a wound that is resolved on a model.

so why are you still arguing it?

Because the procedure is either different from the basic procedure how to deal with wounds taken (but this is not described properly in the "gets hot" rule)
Or it is like its done generally in the rulebook (then you are free to remove casualties whereever you like between models identical in gaming terms. And more: you HAVE to remove a model for each unsaved wound)

This is my problem

If the rules for "removing casualties" were not different from what you say here:

Allocating a wound on a model causes it to be wounded, and it can try to save the wound. If it fails its wounds drop to 0, removing it as a casualty.

Then I would understand it. But they are different.

EDIT:

Other instances involve a unit taking a wound that is resolved on a model.

Does "removing casualties" explicitly refer to "units" instead of "models"?
Then we have no procedure how to deal with wounds taken by "models" inside a "unit"....

-Nazdreg- wrote:Then we have no procedure how to deal with wounds taken by "models" inside a "unit"....

No, but you get to that step with the wounded unit in other cases. In this case you get there with a single model. Much akin to an Independent Character in other cases.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

That is how the rules work - you dropped its' wound stat to 0, so it gets removed as a casualty.

So we have a difference here between having allocated a wound on a model and a model taking a wound.
If you allocate a wound on a model due to enemy fire or something like that, its wound stat is not 0? So I assume it does not have to be removed... ?

I have no idea what you're asking here.

The firing model must take the wound, I.E. it's wound stat MUST be lowered by 1. There is NO permission for any other model, anywhere else in the unit, to take this wound, REGARDLESS of identical equipment.

This. Is. Not. Wound. Allocation.

You have yet to explain where you permission to break the "the firing model takes the wound" comes from.

Are you getting mixed up between wounding (hit) and an actual wound? As the rule only requires that the WOUND goes on thje firing model.

Let me just say that what Nazdreg is saying makes sense, perfectly. When it comes to dealing with wounds and taking saves, there's only one section in the rulebook. In this section, you have to allocate wounds, then take saves, then remove casualties. The rule for Gets Hot! tells us how to *allocate* the wound, only. Removing casualties specifically says that the player can remove any model they like, becuase this is the 41st century or whatever.

When you assign wounds, say from shooing, you assign to groups, and you roll the groups together. Since you don't specify which individual model you're rolling for, you end up removing models that didn't have wounds assigned to them.

All this talk of allocating a wound to a model meaning it has to be removed has absolutely no basis in the rulebook. . . that we've found yet in this thread.

I am personally in the camp that individual models should be rolled seperately so if one guy rolls two "1s", then it only burns him, because that feels right. Now, though, I'm looking for a rules basis for this. In fact, now I'm looking for a rules basis for the way people usually insist on playing difficult terrain.

Nos, you say

This. Is. Not. Wound. Allocation.

. So what is it? I'm very interested to find a rules basis for the way I play it, and the way you obviously want to play it, but we'll need pages and references at this point. By the only way to resolve wounds that I've yet found is the way Nazdreg bring us. In fact, when you read Gets Hot!, it specifically refers you to the wound system discussed in the shooting phase section. (Edit: it isn't Gets Hot! that refers to the shooting rules, it's difficult terrain. I got mixed up there for a sec)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This whole discussion reminded me of multiple wound models. If there's an odd model with one wound on it, we usually keep track of it and remove it when enough wounds are taken by that group. Now that I reread all of these rules, it looks like even that "extra" wound isn't really assigned to a specific model, but just to the group as a whole. And when the group takes enough wounds to remove a casualty, it could be any of the models, not just the one the initial wound was assigned to.

Curiouser and curiouser. . .

Because it tells you the firing model takes the wound.

Is any other model allowed to take the wound, i.e. have their wound stat reduced to 0?

NO

Seriously. Simplest rule ever.

I don't recall seeing any wording that refers to reducing a wound stat to 0.

I did see, on p 24 I did see that when a model suffers a wound, the unit removes a casualty. And that this casualty can be any model the player chooses, as long as the group is identical.

I'm trying to agree with you, but in search of thoroughness, I'm literally looking for page and section references. You have to give me more than "Duh!"

The line that says the model that fired the weapon suffers the wound.

How has the model firing suffered the wound if another model has, instead, suffered the wound and been removed as a casualty? You've broken the rules if you let this happen

BTW the entire reason you remove a model as s casualty is because you have suffered a wound and reduced the wound stat to 0.

You're killing me, Smalls.

Well, there's only so many ways to say it - that one line is all you need to prove you cannot allocate to anyone else.
Stating otherwise ignores what happens when you wound a model.

ElCheezus wrote:I don't recall seeing any wording that refers to reducing a wound stat to 0.

I did see, on p 24 I did see that when a model suffers a wound, the unit removes a casualty. And that this casualty can be any model the player chooses, as long as the group is identical.

I'm trying to agree with you, but in search of thoroughness, I'm literally looking for page and section references. You have to give me more than "Duh!"

I'm pretty sure it says "when a unit suffers a wound..."

But no matter, there really is no way to get around "The dude who shot the gun is the dude that takes the test if it blows up." You and nazdreg keep bringing up the general wound allocation and casualty removal rules, neither of which actually apply to this situation considering the specific nature of the outcome of a failure.

Would you argue the same here in a spearhead game where a squadron/unit of tanks/walkers has the archeotech spearhead? The wording is similar and the outcome is the same (all be it for vehicle damage instead of wounds). Would you argue there that if one tank/walker fired and rolled a 1 that you could allocate the penetrating hit to another model in the unit/squadron even though it specifies who takes the penetrating hit?

Kevin949 wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I don't recall seeing any wording that refers to reducing a wound stat to 0.

I did see, on p 24 I did see that when a model suffers a wound, the unit removes a casualty. And that this casualty can be any model the player chooses, as long as the group is identical.

I'm trying to agree with you, but in search of thoroughness, I'm literally looking for page and section references. You have to give me more than "Duh!"

I'm pretty sure it says "when a unit suffers a wound..."

But no matter, there really is no way to get around "The dude who shot the gun is the dude that takes the test if it blows up." You and nazdreg keep bringing up the general wound allocation and casualty removal rules, neither of which actually apply to this situation considering the specific nature of the outcome of a failure.

Would you argue the same here in a spearhead game where a squadron/unit of tanks/walkers has the archeotech spearhead? The wording is similar and the outcome is the same (all be it for vehicle damage instead of wounds). Would you argue there that if one tank/walker fired and rolled a 1 that you could allocate the penetrating hit to another model in the unit/squadron even though it specifies who takes the penetrating hit?

pg 24, first sentence in Remove Casualties: "For ever model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." I try not to quote the book directly, because we all know that could cause troble with the lawyers of Big GW if too much of the rulebook gets posted. I try to do as much homework as I can before posting.

I'm not familiar with spearhead at all, but I think there's a distinction lost here, somewhere. The wording of saying the specific model suffers the wound can easily be meant to indicate that it's the group of identical models that have plasmaguns, and not other weapons or wargears, that are available to be removed. (this is similar to assigning wounds from shooting before you roll saves) This way you can't remove your unit's "chumps" instead of the models holding guns. The "remove casualties" side of things doesn't ignore the way it specifies which model. From the wording of removing casuaties, it doesn't care which specific model is removes, so long as they're identical. So, to go back to the spearhead example that I don't understand at all, really, I'd say the rules apply the same way, as long as whichever model took the pen hit was identical to the model that generated it.

Nos, I say you're killing me because I've asked for references multiple times, but haven't gotten any. I also haven't seen exactly what you're refering to as I've paged through the BRB, so we're not really on the same page, both figuratively and literally. I'm trying to bring this up to a RAW level discussion, not a "how you play it" discussion. I've been playing where each plasmagun rolls seperately, and I like that way, but I want to find if there's a RAW reason for that. Therefore, we need rules references.

We all know that GW describes rules instead of defines them, so I don't see a real problem with playing either way, but now I'm supremely curious to get to the bottom of this. That's just how I roll.

Page 31, "Gets hot" rule.

Sorry, I thought that was fairly implicit given we're discussing the gets hot! rules

This is more specific than the general wound allocation rules, as you are unable to cause a model in the unit that was not the firing mode to "suffer" the wound. If you do so , you have broken the rules.

THis is plain and simple RAW. Believe differently if you want, it is still the actual rules.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I know the Gets Hot! rule, I was looking for clarification on reducing a models wound stat to 0, thinking there might be something in that section that would shed some light.

I still think there's a disconnect in your reasoning that jumps from assigning the wound to removing casualties. However, at this point we've reached a threefold repetition, which is technically a stalemate in chess.

In fact, I think "Threefold Repetition" should be a forum rule. . . No more discussion until new information is brought forth. :-)

Again, the rules are for resolving wounds dealt to a unit.

When the "unit" that was dealt the wound is a single model, only that model can be removed.

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not familiar with spearhead at all, but I think there's a distinction lost here, somewhere. The wording of saying the specific model suffers the wound can easily be meant to indicate that it's the group of identical models that have plasmaguns, and not other weapons or wargears, that are available to be removed. (this is similar to assigning wounds from shooting before you roll saves) This way you can't remove your unit's "chumps" instead of the models holding guns. The "remove casualties" side of things doesn't ignore the way it specifies which model. From the wording of removing casuaties, it doesn't care which specific model is removes, so long as they're identical. So, to go back to the spearhead example that I don't understand at all, really, I'd say the rules apply the same way, as long as whichever model took the pen hit was identical to the model that generated it.

Snipped and bolded by me.

And that right there is wrong. To say "well what they probably meant..." is an incorrect line of thinking, especially in this instance where everything is spelled out for you pretty plainly. It's not meant to indicate anything outside of "the firing model suffers the wound." There is nothing more to it than that. If they meant it any other way they would have said "if a 1 is roll then a wound is suffered and if a save is failed then remove a casualty following the casualty removal rules."

And it absolutely does matter from a strategic standpoint because you don't know and should never know which of the guns is going to blow up.

Kevin949 wrote:If they meant it any other way they would have said "if a 1 is roll then a wound is suffered and if a save is failed then remove a casualty following the casualty removal rules."

If they meant it your way, they would have said "if a 1 is rolled the firing model can make an armor save. If the save is failed, remove the model as a casualty." Without specifically overriding the rules for removing casualties, where is the reason to ignore them? Specific vs General doesn't come into play, because you can follow all the rules (that I've found or have been quoted) by rolling the plasmaguns as a batch.

The point of my interperetation was mainly to show that the "Removing Casualties" method (as I now deem it) doesn't go against the wording of the Gets Hot! rule. The specific model was assigned the wound, and then per the removing casualties rule the player rolls all the dice for the pool of wounds allocated to that group of identical models.

The wording of Gets Hot! definitely means that you can't remove models without Plamsa Guns when they get hot, something I know for sure we all agree on. Past that, everything is interperetation, and the bolded sentence was meant to highlight that fact.

Assigning the wound to a model does not mean that the Removing Casualties method breaks any rules. (at least, not any rules that have been brought up)

I think I'm going to look into some posts about Dangerous Terrain, since the case is so similar, and see if there's anything in those that helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Again, the rules are for resolving wounds dealt to a unit.

When the "unit" that was dealt the wound is a single model, only that model can be removed.

If there were any way to justify calling a model that's already part of a unit, and not an IC, it's own unit at the same time. . . I'd agree.

A model can be a unit, if it's alone, but that doesn't mean it is a unit.

I am wondering what the 'targeted unit' is in your example that would allow removal models other than the one firing.

If a unit is not targeted, other models in the unit cannot be removed.

I think you're refering to the second paragraph in [i]Remove Casualties[b], right?

Honestly, the way I read that paragraph seems to be that it's entirely involved with units being shot, like you suggest. It only explains why models out of LOS can be removed. The whole paragraph is explanatory, and the main rule saying the player removes any model, not necessarily the one to which the wound was assigned is in the previous paragraph.

So, I agree that that paragraph doesnj't apply. That's why I've tried not to use any of that in my reasoning.

ElCheezus wrote:So, I agree that that paragraph doesnj't apply.

I do not agree that parts of the rules should be ignored in order for an opinion to be validated.

My opinion and preference, sirrah, as previously stated is to roll models seperately. In seeking a foundation for my choice, I am investigating, as diligently as possible, the applicable areas and rules. The text in question is clearly explanatory instead of stating policy.

You insult me and show your ignorance a the same time. If you had read the thread, my opinions have been clearly stated. My diligence in my arguments is apparent, even if others do not agree with my conclusions. Furthermore, you do the thread a disservice by distracting from the conversation with a character attack.

Moderator on the case: Where's the character attack? Was it edited out?

Mannahnin wrote:Moderator on the case: Where's the character attack? Was it edited out?

No, it was not.
But "sirrah", especially in context, is hard to read as otherwise.

I take extreme offense at the implication that I would dismiss relevant rules just to push my opinion. I've repeatedly tried to get to the bottom of this, rather than try to simply convince people of one way or another. The accusation of ignoring rules to validate myself is quite rude, and takes the discussion in an entirely different direction.

Of course, I waned to get back to discussion, and seem to have managed the opposite. That is my own failure, and you have my apologies on that count.

I don't think he was accusing you, Elcheezus; I think he was saying he disagreed that it was appropriate to ignore or disregard that section, regardless of whether the motive for doing so was pure or not.

Kirsanth, I don't think "sirrah" should be taken as an insult either. His dudgeon was up a little bit, and to me it read that he was attempting to inject a little bit of formality instead of getting insulting.

Both of you seem (to my read) to be trying to figure this situation out in earnest and sincerity. Shake hands, relax, take a few minutes' time off and grab a beer if you need to. When I get too wrapped up in these discussions I always try to remind myself: "It's only toy soldiers."

Mannahnin wrote:Kirsanth, I don't think "sirrah" should be taken as an insult either.

Not that I am actually insulted, but rather am curious how else to take "a term of address used to inferiors or children to express impatience, contempt, etc."?

Or are insults acceptable so long as they are archaic?

ElCheezus wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:If they meant it any other way they would have said "if a 1 is roll then a wound is suffered and if a save is failed then remove a casualty following the casualty removal rules."

If they meant it your way, they would have said "if a 1 is rolled the firing model can make an armor save. If the save is failed, remove the model as a casualty." Without specifically overriding the rules for removing casualties, where is the reason to ignore them? Specific vs General doesn't come into play, because you can follow all the rules (that I've found or have been quoted) by rolling the plasmaguns as a batch.

The point of my interperetation was mainly to show that the "Removing Casualties" method (as I now deem it) doesn't go against the wording of the Gets Hot! rule. The specific model was assigned the wound, and then per the removing casualties rule the player rolls all the dice for the pool of wounds allocated to that group of identical models.

The wording of Gets Hot! definitely means that you can't remove models without Plamsa Guns when they get hot, something I know for sure we all agree on. Past that, everything is interperetation, and the bolded sentence was meant to highlight that fact.

Assigning the wound to a model does not mean that the Removing Casualties method breaks any rules. (at least, not any rules that have been brought up)

I think I'm going to look into some posts about Dangerous Terrain, since the case is so similar, and see if there's anything in those that helps.

Ah, but they DID state it that way, just not with those same words. You just choose not to see it from what I can tell.

I understand full well what your interpretation is trying to show, it doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect. Specific vs. general always comes into play.

It's not breaking any casualty removing rules but it IS breaking the gets hot! rule.

If memory serves for dangerous terrain you take as many tests as models that entered the terrain and no saves are allowed and you remove however many models rolled a 1 on the test. Unfortunately the situation is very different and the wording will be very different as well so personally I don't really think it's applicable at all.

I'll write the relevant wording from the archeotech spearhead (it should be ok to post here since it's free to download from GW site anyway) - "A single D6 must be rolled after the vehicle fires its weapons in the shooting phase. On a roll of a 1 the vehicle suffers a penetrating hit. On a 2 the vehicle suffers a glancing hit..." To reference my earlier post, if this vehicle was in a squadron/unit of all identically equipped models, would you argue that the failed result could be allocated to anyone in the unit even though it specifies the firing vehicle?

kirsanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Kirsanth, I don't think "sirrah" should be taken as an insult either.

Not that I am actually insulted, but rather am curious how else to take "a term of address used to inferiors or children to express impatience, contempt, etc."?

Or are insults acceptable so long as they are archaic?

I have never heard or read the term used toward a child; in the context of my reading it has always been a word used toward a peer one is impatient with but attempting to remain polite toward.

Checking www.onelook.com, it appears to uphold your definition better, but I suspect he meant it in the sense I thought. Still, we can ask him to clarify his intent.

I remain of the opinion that both of you seem to me to be attempting to participate honestly and in sincerity in this discussion, and that I don't think either of you intended to insult the other. If I am mistaken I will be disappointed, but I'd appreciate it if either one of you extended an olive branch and you both proceeded in gentlemanly fashion going forward.

Specific vs. general always comes into play.

But there is actually no VS at all.

I dont see the point where it is a problem to have a wound put on a specific model and still follow the general rules for removing casualties.
Particularly because I don't see a written alternative.
I would also call for a quotation here beside "the firing model takes a wound".
Everything else is just interpretation, and therefore RAI.
What I accept is the fact, that "gets hot" refers to models, and allocation to "units".

But "removing casualties" does not explicitly refer only to "units" as far as I know.
So it has to be referred to in all cases where a wound is taken.

Of course JAWS ignores it, because the model is just removed. There we have a different procedure which is clarifiied in the JAWS text.
but as long as there is a wound allocated on a model inside a unit, we have to work out the casualties like it is said in the rules for "removing casualties". Unless we are told to do it differently, which is clearly not the case in the "gets hot" rule.

Cheers.

As I said, I was not insulted.
I also did not mean insult. I read the quoted post as agreeing with something I did not mean to imply.

Apologies for the confusion.

I didn't mention JAWS at all.

Anywho, we agree to disagree. Immovable object vs. unstoppable force. We're simply looping at this point.

Try a different way of lookjng at it:

Group of 2W, plasma gun toting models.

Now, I assume we all agree that if you "suffer a wound" that means your wound stat is reduced by 1?

So model A suffers a gets hot!, and fails their armour save. Now, the gets hot! rule tells you the firing model must suffer the wound - but instead you want that wound to be suffered by model B (also a plasma gunner)

That makes no sense, and directly contradicts the rule, as another model OTHER than the firing model has "suffered" the wound. Simple English comprehension tells you this - you cannot have "suffered" a wound if, in fact, someone else takes the wound for you.

This applies equally to 1 wound models as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That makes no sense, and directly contradicts the rule, as another model OTHER than the firing model has "suffered" the wound. Simple English comprehension tells you this - you cannot have "suffered" a wound if, in fact, someone else takes the wound for you.

I was just about to say something along the same lines:

Let me see if my two cents counts for anything. Or even if I am understanding both sides of this.

1)So then, we have agreed, that the "Gets Hot" wound is allocated to the model shooting the plasma gun.
2)Now for "removing casualties", some other model with an unfired plasma gun is removed instead.

Does that mean the guy who actually shot the gun is running around the battlefield for the rest of the game with 0 Wound Characteristic? His friend just died from S.T.S.D.S. (Sudden Toy Soldier Death Syndrome) even though the shooter was allocated the wound that "Gets Hot" wouldn't let us allocate anywhere else... So what happens to the guy who did the shooting? Is he now a plasma scorched zombie?

Anywho, we agree to disagree

Actually it is not my intention to press a certain interpretation through your resistance.
If I have a quotation, that leads directly to your interpretation, I will be glad to support it.
And I am also willing to play with the individual interpretation (as I am a guard player, your interpretation would be in my favour)

My logic is:

As long as I have no alternative way to deal with a certain situation, I will stick to what is written in general to deal with a situation like that.

Now, I assume we all agree that if you "suffer a wound" that means your wound stat is reduced by 1?

Negative.
"suffers a wound" in my opinion means "a wound is allocated to it"
I really cannot support the argumentation, that "suffering a wound" should include the procedure of rolling saves and removing casualties in the contrary to the rulebooks procedure.

I know, that "suffering" includes failing the save and what awaits you after it.
Therefore the rulebook is more precise.
It says the firing model takes a wound. This is the wording that can describe an allocating process.

But this is not my point (it wouldnt be RAW but RAI).

My point is:

Where is a precise quotation that describes that exactly that model must be removed as a casualty particularly in the contratry of the normal removing process?

As long as we dont have it, we dont know how to deal with it. (Speaking of RAW)
RAI in my opinion your interpretation would be more logical of course. But unfortunately RAI is subjective.

EDIT:

In germany we sometimes have problems distinguishing between wounds and Wounds.

wounds mean hits that would reduce a models Wound number if it fails its saves (procedure described in the rulebook during "saves" and "removing casualties"), correct?
Wounds is a characteristic in the models profile which describes how often it must suffer from an unsaved wound to die. Correct?

And in this case we are dealing with wounds, correct?

If that is the way it is suppose to be played, then what is to stop people from: giving their HQ/IC a plasma weapon; joining the HQ/IC to a unit full of plasma weapons; then only removing and killing off the regular plasma troops when ever the HQ/IC's gun gets hot?

MY Gitz would apprecaiate that ruling, but it's still total bunk to try and play it that way..

Psyker_9er wrote:If that is the way it is suppose to be played, then what is to stop people from: giving their HQ/IC a plasma weapon; joining the HQ/IC to a unit full of plasma weapons; then only removing and killing off the regular plasma troops when ever the HQ/IC's gun gets hot?

The models would have to be identical. i.e. same stats, same wargear, same weapons. Just like wound allocation from shooting. So in your example, no, you couldn't have a random other dude with plasma take the hit for the HQ. As an IG player, I see this applying to Vet squads with 3x Plasma, or CCS with 4x Plasma, because each of those guys are identical. If the Company Commander took a Plasma Pistol, he'd definitely have to be rolled separately from the other guys.

Also, where is everybody getting this talk of reducing a model's wound characteristic to 0? I don't recall seeing that in the BRB anywhere, and I don't think I've gotten a reference when I've asked so far. Maybe this is a way to interpret what happens, but not an actual game mechanic?

I think I'm starting to see where Nos is coming from with the "suffering" a wound. Do we have a definition that indicates what suffering a wound is, if it's different from allocating a wound, or is the English definition what we're looking at? I hate when rules arguments come down to semantics instead of game-provided definitions. Again with the GW describing the rules instead of defining them.

I also like the multi-wound model approach/argument, it makes sense. But we're not talking about "making sense" we're talking about the rules in a game system.

-Nazdreg- wrote:My logic is:

As long as I have no alternative way to deal with a certain situation, I will stick to what is written in general to deal with a situation like that.

I think I've been trying to say this for a few pages now, but haven't been able to put it quite so simply. Thank you.

We can talk about making sense, and say "how can the guy next to me take the hit when my gun overheats," but ultimately we have to be told by the rules to do it differently.


(p.s. "sirrah" is a derogatory term, used in anger. I used it purposely in place of "sir" to make sure my polite tone was understood as barely restrained. Feel free to take offense if you really want; I sure did, but am more interested with getting back to discussion than making nice)

I don't see how intentionally using a derogetory term of address could possibly ever be the preface to a polite reply, Sir

Instead of plasma guns, lets try doing this with plasma pistols. I have two assault marines with plasma pistols, one marine's plasma pistol blows up in his face. It clearly states in the BRB that the model takes the wound, it is not shared across the model class, model type, etc. This has nothing to do with wound allocation. Wound allocation happens in the assault phase and when you get shot at. It does not happen when things blow up in your face. Same thing with plasma cannons, why would a model whose weapon did not suffer a critical failure confer a wound onto a nearby model in the same squad whose weapon did not malfunction? You do not allocate these wounds, they happen automatically.

What happens when you have a lone plasma gunner firing on his own? He takes both wounds on himself. Notice how under wound allocation rules you would be required to put one on the other squadmates, but since it does not apply, the other squadmates are FINE. Just like if there were two plasma gunners, and one had it blow up in his face twice. The guy whose gun blows up in his face twice sucks both wounds. They are after all subject to a saving test, both of which could be passed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

so why are you still arguing it?

Because the procedure is either different from the basic procedure how to deal with wounds taken (but this is not described properly in the "gets hot" rule)
Or it is like its done generally in the rulebook (then you are free to remove casualties whereever you like between models identical in gaming terms. And more: you HAVE to remove a model for each unsaved wound)

This is my problem

If the rules for "removing casualties" were not different from what you say here:

Allocating a wound on a model causes it to be wounded, and it can try to save the wound. If it fails its wounds drop to 0, removing it as a casualty.

Then I would understand it. But they are different.

EDIT:

Other instances involve a unit taking a wound that is resolved on a model.

Does "removing casualties" explicitly refer to "units" instead of "models"?
Then we have no procedure how to deal with wounds taken by "models" inside a "unit"....

YES!!!! The procedure is different. Is tehre a problem with it being different?
casualties are removed. Period. They are removed at the end of every phase in which a casualty was taken. In the typical shooting phase, I point my guns at you, and blast away. Then you decide who is hit, allocating wounds, fail your saves for me, and your models are then removed as casualties. You will note that there are some weapons which do NOT permit the allocation of wounds--I as the shooter decide who gets hit. In the atypical shooting phase, I blast away at you with three plasma guns, one of which blows up twice. That unfortunate squad member is required to go through the pain of surviving a plasma gun melt-down twice over. Why? The wound is not allocated. The model simply takes the wound. Period. All i need to ensure is that I specify which gunner is firing when I roll, or which set of dice represent which gunner.

"suffers a wound" has a very simple English usage - no need for it to be internally defined.

If someone else dies on your behalf, can you honestly state you have "suffered" the wound?

No

then the other person cannot suffer the wound on your behalf, otherwise you have broken the rule.

It's that straight forward.

The problem with "suffers a wound" is that 40k has a spefic definition of a wound. And that is different from an unsaved wound.

Page 31 tells you how to deal out wounds, page 25 under "take saving throws" tells you what to do with unsaved wouds.

Besides, the 'gets hot' rule does say 'normal saves apply'.

It doesn't make sense, but I can't see how the rules support the alternative any better.

YES!!!! The procedure is different. Is tehre a problem with it being different?
casualties are removed. Period.

Easy, man...

Exactly, casualties are removed. But how do we do it? *winks with a Rulebook*...

I have no problem with a different procedure. But then I have to have a written procedure, and not an idea how the procedure "should be made in case of such a situation to cover it properly", especially not contradicting the general rules.

"suffers a wound" has a very simple English usage - no need for it to be internally defined.

And the "very simple english usage" should mean, my Wound stat is reduced by 1?
I dont think so. At least I dont se a reference leading to that in the Rulebook.
Like biccat points out we have a difference between a "wound" and an "unsaved wound". And the real suffering occurs having an "unsaved wound" put on a model.
But still (!) another model can be removed as a casualty as long as it is identical in gaming terms.

@all

I would be really glad to have some written evidence for your interpretation. But like ElCheezus I just can not find it. And before I play it like I think it should have been done, I want to play it like the rules say I have to, to make it clear for both sides without a discussion before each game. Again, as a guard player the way I read the rules in this case is not in my favour. Trusting the game mechanic, I support my way, trusting the GMV I trust your way. So I can understand you pretty well, but as long as there is no clear way how to deal with a situation from A to Z, there is NO way to deal with it.

No, it means that the firing model is the one that has a wound applied.

Did you apply the wound to another model? Yes? then you have broken a rule

At this point you are unwilling to accept that the specific case of Gets Hot! does not allow you to invoke wound allocation, as doing so violates the rule, and I'm repeating myself now for the last 3 pages with you no closer to an understanding.

OK so lets make this clearer.

What you do is, you say things about "suffering", "applying", "taking" a wound.

There is no direct order how this "suffering", "applying" and "taking" actually has to be made.
Of course the word itself implys a possible way how to deal with it (which is exactly what you say how it is done).
But I cannot rely on a possible or probable way, unless I have the clear wording.

At this point you are unwilling to accept that the specific case of Gets Hot! does not allow you to invoke wound allocation

I accepted it from my first post on. If you would have read me properly, than you should know, that I m talking about removing casualties and NOT wound allocation.
You dont seem to understand, that the procedure you are proposing has no written (not implied) evidence in the rulebook at all.

Again, in times of a difference between being "killed outright" and "losing all Wounds" we should leave no room for any interpretation.

Nosferatu: by that logic, wound allocation rules wouldn't work. You apply wounds to individual models, not groups.

Identical Mooks A, B, and C all get allocated 3 wounds. The rules say that if Mooks A and B allocated wounds are saved, they still die if all 3 of Mook C's wounds are failed.

You seem to be saying that applying wounds allocated to Mook C to A or B violates the rule on wound allocation.

The gets hot rule is wound allocation, and doesn't affect which models are removed.

Identical Mooks A, B, and C all get allocated 3 wounds. The rules say that if Mooks A and B allocated wounds are saved, they still die if all 3 of Mook C's wounds are failed.

You seem to be saying that applying wounds allocated to Mook C to A or B violates the rule on wound allocation.

The gets hot rule is wound allocation, and doesn't affect which models are removed.

+1

biccat wrote:Nosferatu: by that logic, wound allocation rules wouldn't work. You apply wounds to individual models, not groups.

Identical Mooks A, B, and C all get allocated 3 wounds. The rules say that if Mooks A and B allocated wounds are saved, they still die if all 3 of Mook C's wounds are failed.

You seem to be saying that applying wounds allocated to Mook C to A or B violates the rule on wound allocation.

The gets hot rule is wound allocation, and doesn't affect which models are removed.

No, you dont understand the part where you GROUP wounding hits on LIKE models and remove wounds when saves are failed from within the GROUP. Mook A and B no longer have any wounds applied to them, only the group containing Mook {A, B, C} does.

Gets Hot! does not interact with this in any way

Nazdreg - you may want to remove the "+1" as it belies the fact neither of you understand casualty removal

No, you dont understand the part where you GROUP wounding hits on LIKE models and remove wounds when saves are failed from within the GROUP. Mook A and B no longer have any wounds applied to them, only the group containing Mook {A, B, C} does.

Gets Hot! does not interact with this in any way

Read page 25. Wounds are "allocate[d] ... to each model". This is during wound allocation.

It is in the "taking saving throws" section where wounds are grouped.

Since "gets hot!" tells us "normal saves apply," what section should we use, if not p. 25?

Then why did you mix the two sections together?

You talked about models being removed, which is after saving throws.

Normal situation: Mooks A, B and C can end up dying based on a shared pool of wounds, removed from play as you want

This situation: only the FIRING model can suffer the wound. As in, suffer the effects of the wound, such as taking saves and comparing wounds taken to wound stat. Being removed from play means you have suffered a wound.

In the shooting process one actually selects which models of the are firing, as such one is meant to keep track of the origin of each shot initally. This means that, in theory, one should never be any confusion as to which model suffers which Gets hot! result.


"Check line of sight & pick a target.
All models in the unit that can see at least one enemy model in
the target unit may open fire" Pg 15

"All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit can fire. A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example)....all of the models in the unit fire at the same time." Pg 16

" FAST ROLLING WITH DIFFERENT WEAPONS
...Sometimes there will be different weapons firing, or firers with different BS in the same unit, in which case we find it easiest to use different coloured dice...so that those shots can be picked out.
...Alternatively, you can simply make separate dice rolls
for different weapons or shooters, as long as it is clear
which dice rolls represent which shots." Pg 18


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also; "Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit
has been determined, the player controlling the target
unit must decide which models have been wounded,
allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice." Pg 25

"Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed." Pg 25

All this is from the shooting phase chapter incidently.

Being removed from play means you have suffered a wound

But I just gave you an example where a model who is not wounded is removed from play. How is this different? The rules clearly anticipate that non-wounded models may still be removed as a casualty.

I think we can all agree that wound allocation doesn't apply, the issue is how to apply unsaved wounds, would you agree?

Using your reading of the rules, could you please cite which section of the rules is referred to by "normal saves apply"?

A page number is sufficient.

How is this different?

FIrst because p25 doesnt apply; as Chris showed this only applies to the target unit, not the originating unit

Secondly you have a restrction that the FIRING model must suffer the wound(s). Page 20/21 tells you how to take saves, which has to be the model that fired the weapn, and then page 24

Show how you can remove a non-firing model when Gets Hot!, a more specific rule, requires that only the firing model "suffers a wound", and you will be golden. A page number, please?

OK, we have a problem.

According to p.20, starting from the top, we first decide if the unit has all of the same models or not. If so, roll all the saves. If not, see page 25. This takes us to the "taking saving throws" section I discuss above. Only one result that way.

But if we assume p.25 only covers allocating wounds (and we ignore that page 20 only applies when all models in a unit are the same), and if wounds are pre-allocated, we can skip ahead on p.20 to "armour saves."

This section indicates that if a model fails its armor save, it "suffers a wound." This doesn't help, because it implies that plasma guns are insta-death.

Page 24 describes removing casualties, but applies a model-by-model approach. It does not say "for every failed save...", but "for every model that fails its save."

I am going to stick to the intro to page 20 and avoid all this nastyness:
Simple unit, roll all saves together.
Complex unit, apply page 25.

Page 25 is a double, Gets Hot! specifies the model suffers a wound, this step also exists in wound allocation (Edit: 'COMPLEX UNITS' also in the shooting phase chapter, Pgae 25~!) Gets Hot! doesn't specify that the wound happens instantly (or similar woding used in 40k rules)
"the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded," 25 again
"Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed." 25...

The last sentence here, Chris, specifies models that stand out in game terms. Models that have the same stat line, wargear, and weapons are considered identical.

At this point I could see firing vs not firing coming into play, though it might be a little bit of a stretch.

The Gets Hot! rule makes a distinction of the model that suffered the Gets Hot! has to "suffer" the wound. AS in, THIS model is marked for burny - burny

No other. Nothing else in the unit is allowed to take the wound, as it was not the firing model.

Again: really, relaly, REALLY simple.

To make stuff clear, wounds are not grouped while you make saving throws. Not a single word refers to a "group".

The saves of models that took a wound are made "in one go" if these models are identical. Still the wounds have been specifically allocated to each MODEL before (or in case of gets hot assigned to the respective firing models). This status does not change.

So saying "the firing model suffers (takes, receives, whatever) a wound" simply means "a wound is allocated to the firing model".
We dont know how this "suffering, taking or receiving" mean (ruleswise), because it implies a procedure. But there is none given.
Instead the rulebook says: "normal saves apply"
So we have a direct reference to p25. Normal means basic, means general procedure.

Unfortunately gets hot does not refer to any way how to remove the casualties, so we have a little problem there. Because gets hot does not present an alternative way to use it (if you cannot remove casualties like it is said in the general rules, you cannot remove a single model differently before it is specifically stated how you do it differently)

So we have the following situation:

We skip allocation, because gets hot dictates us how to do it (the firing model takes the wound).
We do saving throws like it is done in the general rules (normal saves apply, so p 25 leads us the way)
Now we have to remove casualties. We have no reference to that in the "gets hot" rule.
So we stick to the general rules. Otherwise we could do nothing, because the removing itself (which is described in the general rules) is also negated.

I may have missed it in the discussion earlier, but if I have two plasma-gunners, each with two wounds (Obliterators, for instance), and one had already taken a wound and the other has a "Gets Hot!", do the wounds not remove a whole model then?

Also, during any other instance where saves are taken, models are designated to have specific wounds resolved against them. The only difference is that the player does the designating in shooting/assaulting against the unit (using allocation rules) as opposed to the rules, which do it in this case. If I have a unit of three similarly armed models, and one of them takess two power weapon attacks and the other two only take one normal attack and make their saves, how many models are removed? I'm having a hard time seeing how this is any different (other than the wound allocation step which as has been stated MANY times is not relevant and would not change the outcome), but then again I am away from any rules document at the moment, and I'm probably forgetting something key.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's a straight line and gets hot kicks in ~3/4s the way through - a model can't 'suffer a wound' without it being assigned to it.
Very simple.
I've provided various quotes, explained their intereaction and effects in game terms, please try to justify your position on "At this point I could see firing vs not firing coming into play, though it might be a little bit of a stretch." as as the Firing or not happens at the start and as suh a non-fiing model could in no way suffer a wound from GH!

It's hardly a stretch to read the rules and notice that wounds are suffed by specific models, if one takes awouns,one may attempt a save - not pass it along "The wounds the unit
has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws are taken. This extra step is explained after the basic rules (see page 25)." Pg 20, hence 'firing model suffers a wound' is the allocation.

Nazdreg - "in one batch" == "in a group"

Normal saves means you can take any save available to you. It does not prefer to a procedure

Remember that the rulebook uses "wound" to mean both a wounding hit and an unsaved wound; thus, to "suffer a wound" you must not only have a wounding-hit applied to you but you must also have the unsaved wound applied to you as well.

ChrisCP wrote:
It's a straight line and gets hot kicks in ~3/4s the way through - a model can't 'suffer a wound' without it being assigned to it.
Very simple.
I've provided various quotes, explained their intereaction and effects in game terms, please try to justify your position on "At this point I could see firing vs not firing coming into play, though it might be a little bit of a stretch." as as the Firing or not happens at the start and as suh a non-fiing model could in no way suffer a wound from GH!

It's hardly a stretch to read the rules and notice that wounds are suffed by specific models, if one takes awouns,one may attempt a save - not pass it along "The wounds the unit
has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws are taken. This extra step is explained after the basic rules (see page 25)." Pg 20, hence 'firing model suffers a wound' is the allocation.

Firing models vs not firing models, I say, because you might be able to argue that they "stand out in gaming terms" even though they're identical.

What your last paragraph is missing is the jump to which casualties to remove. Yes, model x is assigned the wound, model x rolls a save. When every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. (p 24, Removing Casualties). At this step, after saves, wounds are converted from a model back to a unit basis. Or, if the unit is complex, its moved to the group of identical models. When you choose which model to remove, wounds are no longer dealt with on a per-model basis, they're applied to the group of identical models.

Except in this case you have the additional stipulation: the firing model must suffer the wound

If another model is removed (or has it's wound stat altered) then the firing model has not suffered the wound.

Nazdreg - "in one batch" == "in a group"

Normal saves means you can take any save available to you. It does not prefer to a procedure

Remember that the rulebook uses "wound" to mean both a wounding hit and an unsaved wound; thus, to "suffer a wound" you must not only have a wounding-hit applied to you but you must also have the unsaved wound applied to you as well.

1.) nope, in one go means simultaneously, but this does not change the individual status of the allocated wounds. It does not refer to wounds but to the roll. It is not far away from a group though.

2.) Your first and your second sentence contradict here. If you can take saves then you should take the saves, which is a procedure described in the basic rules...

3.) then the basic rules would contradict themselves, concerning wound allocation and removing casualties (dealing with unsaved wounds). So it is better to speak of "wounds" and "unsaved wounds" instead of "wounds" and unsaved "wounds".

1) In one batch == in a group. That is the actual words.

Edit: Note that the final sentence of the same paragraph talks about "if there is another group of identical models" which again reinforces that they are a group. Trying to pretend they are different directly contradicts the rules.

2) No it does not contradict. You can take any normal saves allowed, such as armour or invulnerable saves. Not, you follow the "normal" procedure for taking saves as that does not tell you what saves you are allowed to take (as no AP value is given)

3) They dont contradict themselves; it relies on context which you are ignoring.

Suffering a wound has nothing to do with being removed as a casualty. Under remove casualties, p.24, this is made clear.

If a model fails a save, the unit suffers a wound, and then a model is removed. There is no other rule for removing a casualty (except p. 25 which you've determined doesn't apply)

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

How? What rule says this?

Models who 'suffer a wound' do not need to be removed under 'remove casualties.'

Models who don't 'suffer a wound' can be removed as casualties (even being out of LOS or range isn't safe!)

So how do you get from 'suffer a wound' == 'removed as a casualty'?

There are no like models for the single wounded model to be grouped with, the unit was not targeted any more than it was affected.

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

If you have been removed as a casualty, you have been removed as a casualty...
Jaws does not inflict any wounds, some powers do similar things that force a model to be removed without being wounded at all. (i.e. sweeping advance)

So it is not necessary that a model has suffered a wound.

"if there is another group of identical models" which again reinforces that they are a group. Trying to pretend they are different directly contradicts the rules.

Touché. I did not talk about a difference though.

No it does not contradict. You can take any normal saves allowed, such as armour or invulnerable saves. Not, you follow the "normal" procedure for taking saves as that does not tell you what saves you are allowed to take (as no AP value is given)

But if you say: "You are allowed to make saves" then there is a certain hint that you should look after "how" the saves are actually made. This refers to the procedure.
If I dont follow this procedure, I only have the save number and the kind of save (cover, armour, invul). I dont know what to do with it.

They dont contradict themselves; it relies on context which you are ignoring.

No I dont ignore it. If you want me to refer to an unsaved wound in the same way as I do to a wound with the same status, then I would force you to roll for every single model with your argumentation, that "this model has been a wound allocated to", so "this model suffers a wound" and "this model will be removed"...

What I want to say is: "The model suffers a wound" means "A wound is allocated to a model" Suffering does NOT include explicitly that after a failed save, this certain model must be removed as a casualty. It only includes it in our mind. Not in the text.

EDIT:

no like models for the single wounded model to be grouped with, the unit was not targeted any more than it was affected

"removing casualties" do not refer only to units as a whole. It talks about MODELS that have suffered an unsaved wound. Which is basically the status you are claiming the whole thread...

-Nazdreg- wrote:["removing casualties" do not refer only to units as a whole. It talks about MODELS that have suffered an unsaved wound. Which is basically the status you are claiming the whole thread...

From "Removing Casualties" on page 24: "Note that any model in the target unit. . . ."

The whole thing is written assuming the unit is the target of shooting.

If this step is arrived at without a target unit, only the models affected are used.

biccat wrote:

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

How? What rule says this?
Models who 'suffer a wound' do not need to be removed under 'remove casualties.'
Models who don't 'suffer a wound' can be removed as casualties (even being out of LOS or range isn't safe!)
So how do you get from 'suffer a wound' == 'removed as a casualty'?

The Gets Hot wound has to go somewhere. The rules allocate it to the trooper who fired the gun and state that he is the trooper who will suffer the wound if unsaved. So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct? It obviously isn't adding to his Wound characteristic, and it is not regenerating anything because it is blowing up in his hands, so we agree he has suffered, or taken, been allocated, or received an unsaved wound...

Now removing casualties... Some one with an unfired plasma gun on the other side of the squad is removed instead.

What happens to the first guy?!?!?!?!?! Does he still walk around with 0 Wound characteristic? He started with 1 in his Wound characteristic, a gun blew up in his hands and reduced it by 1....

Gets Hot stats the one who fired must take the wound reduced from his Wound Characteristic... Is he some sort of super plasma drinking vampire now? (yes the pun was intended...vampires drink blood; blood has plasma in it, just not the super hot exploding type....unless you drink too much Vodka)

If this step is arrived at without a target unit, only the models affected are used.

And what do we do with them, how do we "use" the models affected...? No we dont remove them as a casualty. This is described in the section you are denying us. So we have to think of something else. Ah we have none, well, so we should refer to "removing casualties" or give me a written alternative.

Use page 24--"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table"

You know which model was wounded. Remove it.

Psyker_9er wrote:So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct?

. . .

What happens to the first guy?!?!?!?!?! Does he still walk around with 0 Wound characteristic? He started with 1 in his Wound characteristic, a gun blew up in his hands and reduced it by 1....

Gets Hot stats the one who fired must take the wound reduced from his Wound Characteristic... Is he some sort of super plasma drinking vampire now? (yes the pun was intended...vampires drink blood; blood has plasma in it, just not the super hot exploding type....unless you drink too much Vodka)

Where, oh where, please for the love of all that is holy is there any mention in the BRB of reducing the Wound characteristic? If I sound exasperated it's because this has been mentioned multiple times, and multiple times I have beseeched a reference, to no avail. Is there no balm in Gilead? Are there rules in the book? Then why can't we have a reference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Use page 24--"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table"

You know which model was wounded. Remove it.

When I hit models in cover with a flamer, I know which models were hit. Why, then, aren't they removed?

The Gets Hot wound has to go somewhere. The rules allocate it to the trooper who fired the gun

Totally true.

So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct?

Would you be so kind to give me a quotation that supports this assumption? I have never read anything about "suffering a wound" (which is actually not an expression that has any concrete practical reference) has necessarily anything to do with "reducing the Wound characteristic by 1".

It obviously isn't adding to his Wound characteristic

Ehm actually, why not?
Unfortunately you did not say "takes a wound", so I would argue it takes +1 on his Wound characteristic, so he GAINS a Wound. A lone wolf would suffer from it...
Ah, no the damn Wounds and wounds problem...

Whatever, If it said he LOSES a Wound, then I would be d'accord. But it does not.

ElCheezus wrote:Where, oh where, please for the love of all that is holy is there any mention in the BRB of reducing the Wound characteristic?

I dont have a copy of the BRB with me right now, but what else are we doing when things explode other than reducing the Wound characteristic?
Why would they even have the Wound characteristic if it didn't mean things die when it reaches zero? 1 unsaved wound = minus 1 from Wound Characteristic. Regeneration = plus 1 to Wound Characteristic; not exploding.

The whole basis of Wound characteristic is to have at least 1, meaning you are alive (or activated if Necron). If you have none, you are dead (deactivated). That is what is implied, since I dont have the book with me right now, the implication will have to do for now. If a trooper has 0 Ballistics Skill, do they get to shoot? If a model has 0 Weapon Skill or 0 Attack, do they get to fight back in close combat? If a model has 0 Wound Characteristic, they die... They dont get to live any more.

The unsaved wounds have to go somewhere, Gets Hot says the model who fired must suffer. I'll go track down my big red book, and get back to you on actual quotes.

ElCheezus wrote:When I hit models in cover with a flamer, I know which models were hit. Why, then, aren't they removed?

You have a targeted unit in that one, feel free to use the rules that apply to them.

And if I target a vehicle, but the template also hits models in between?

Okay, so I just got updated on this. It seems the issue here is that once you roll for armor saves in a complex squad, the wounds de-allocate for members of the sub-squads, and are then re-allocated once you see how many were failed.

Assuming this is true, then what about mind war? After all, the eldar codex says...

The Eldar player may choose any unengaged model within 18" of the Farseer and within his line of sight... For each point the Farseer wins by, the target loses a wound, with no armour saves allowed.

Now, let's say that a farseer uses mind war on a group of conscripts. He passes the psychic test and rolls a 6, for a total of 16. The conscripts roll a 1 for a total of 6. Does that mean that the farseer just kill 10 guardsmen?

Clearly, Mind War intends for you to kill just the one guy that you're mind warring, even though it doesn't explicitly say so. Likewise, what about a vindicare? If wounds de-allocate once you start rolling savings throws, then you could always remove a model of the same class instead of the one which the vindicare actually pointed at, which CLEARLY runs against what was intended.

On the one hand, there isn't yet a reason for me to see using wound allocation differently, using wound allocation only in this way also breaks other special rules.

I'd also like to note that taking armor saves is not mandatory. Remember that the de-allocation and re-allocation only happens when you're making armor saves, so if you choose not to take them, then there's nothing going on with the allocation. In this case, you have to roll the plasma guns separately because if you have one guy who picks up two wounds, you can always just choose for him to die, rather than spread the contagion.

Likewise, what about a vindicare? If wounds de-allocate once you start rolling savings throws, then you could always remove a model of the same class instead of the one which the vindicare actually pointed at, which CLEARLY runs against what was intended.

The vindicare EXPLICITY states, that models of his choice are wounded (like Telion) as far as I know. So we have the shooting player allocating. If the shooting player allocates on a regular, the receiving player is of course free to remove is casualties elsewhere unless differently stated. Its the players problem if a weapon like a vindicare is used to shoot into undefined masses...

On the one hand, there isn't yet a reason for me to see using wound allocation differently, using wound allocation only in this way also breaks other special rules.

quod erat demonstrandum.

I'd also like to note that taking armor saves is not mandatory.

Is that so? If you say "normal saves apply" you are allowed to not roll for your saves?

Remember that the de-allocation and re-allocation only happens when you're making armor saves, so if you choose not to take them, then there's nothing going on with the allocation. In this case, you have to roll the plasma guns separately because if you have one guy who picks up two wounds, you can always just choose for him to die, rather than spread the contagion.

Negative. "Removing casualties" states, that every unsaved wound (which we would have in this case) has to be put on an identical model as long as it exists.

Procedure is, again:

1. allocate to specific models
2. roll saves for identical models in one go
3. every unsaved wound has to be taken by the unit as a whole and each model that is identical with the wounded one can be affected and therefore removed

The "de-allocation" and "re-allocation" you are pointing out takes place during the "removing casualties" part. There is the point where the wound status changes explicitly from being model based to unit based.

"for each model that failed its save THE UNIT suffers an unsaved wound"

and where you choose your victims.

So it is unimportant whether a unit or a model has been targetted before.

Now to Mind War:

Yes that would actually be my way to play it. Because we have no alternative given. A sentence like the following would be sufficient:

"Remember that only the targetted model may be removed as a casualty"

That would explicitly contradict the rules for "removing casualties and would therefore take precedence.

Psyker_9er wrote:The Gets Hot wound has to go somewhere. The rules allocate it to the trooper who fired the gun

Right.

Psyker_9er wrote:and state that he is the trooper who will suffer the wound if unsaved.

Actually it says he suffers a wound, and saves may be taken as normal.

Similarly, if you are shot with a bunch of bolters, you allocate 2 wounds to each model, and then take the saves in bunches/groups/whatever. Even tho Mook A may be ALLOCATED a wound, he doesn't necessarily have to be removed as a casualty if he fails his save.

Psyker_9er wrote:So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct?

Nope. Nothing in the rules ever says you reduce his wound by 1 (at least, not that I've seen). If it's a unit of single-wound models, you remove a model for each failed save. If there are multiple-wound models, THEN you reduce wounds by 1.

There's a difference (although I don't think it matters here): models with 1 wound do NOT get reduced to 0, then removed as a casualty. Models with 1 wound are simply removed as a casualty.

Psyker_9er wrote:It obviously isn't adding to his Wound characteristic, and it is not regenerating anything because it is blowing up in his hands, so we agree he has suffered, or taken, been allocated, or received an unsaved wound...

No disagreement here.

Psyker_9er wrote:Now removing casualties... Some one with an unfired plasma gun on the other side of the squad is removed instead.

I think you could argue (although it's another discussion) that the guy with an unfired plasma gun is different from the shooting guy, and therefore can't be removed.

But then again, if you change the facts, you can get whatever result you want.

Read the OP, this is about 3 plasma gunners all rapid-firing.

Psyker_9er wrote:What happens to the first guy?!?!?!?!?! Does he still walk around with 0 Wound characteristic? He started with 1 in his Wound characteristic, a gun blew up in his hands and reduced it by 1....

Like I said above, there's no metric to reduce a 1-wound model by 1 wound. He takes a wound, then makes a save. If it is unsaved, then the unit suffers an unsaved wound. An identical model to the model that suffered the wound must be removed.

Psyker_9er wrote:Gets Hot stats the one who fired must take the wound reduced from his Wound Characteristic... Is he some sort of super plasma drinking vampire now? (yes the pun was intended...vampires drink blood; blood has plasma in it, just not the super hot exploding type....unless you drink too much Vodka)

Yes. He is now a super-hot plasma-exploding nigh-unkillable power armored space vampire who breaks all of the rules and puts other power-armored models to shame.

Or as I like to call them, Blood Angels.

As an aside, after doing some math, I realized that this situation will only have a 50% chance of occurring after 250 rapid-firing plasma guns. As such, I'm not really concerned. If an opponent rapidfires, takes 2 unsaved wounds, and only takes 1 model, that's cool. If he takes 2, that's cool. If I do it and he insists I take either 1 or 2, fine.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

I'd also like to note that taking armor saves is not mandatory.

Is that so? If you say "normal saves apply" you are allowed to not roll for your saves?

Of course. In the rules for armor saves, the rule clearly uses words like "can" and "allows" and not words like "must". Using the regular rules for armor saves (which applies to this particular circumstance), you don't need to roll any dice if you don't care to, much less any particular model's wounds.

-Nazdreg- wrote:"for each model that failed its save THE UNIT suffers an unsaved wound"

Exactly, for each model that FAILED ITS SAVE. If you don't take a save in the first place, there's nothing failed, ergo the whole part about units taking UNSAVED wounds doesn't apply.

Yeah, but if you aren't forced to roll saves, then you never have an unsaved wound, and the game breaks, because you don't have to take casualties. As much as I like strict reading, the "can" in terms of saving causes crazy crazy crazy problems.

Sometimes I hate GW's writing. Wait, that's every time there's a rules discrepancy. . .

ElCheezus wrote:Yeah, but if you aren't forced to roll saves, then you never have an unsaved wound, and the game breaks, because you don't have to take casualties.

Ah, but not true. If a model has a wound, and you don't make an armor save, it's the same as when a model has a wound and doesn't make an armor save because it doesn't have armor. An armor save "allows you to roll to see if it stops the model from being wounded". If you don't make a save, you don't get a chance to prevent the wound from sticking. Wounds that stick remove models (assuming a 1-wound model), whether it's because of failing an armor save, failing an invul save, failing an armor save, or not taking a save in the first place.

Actually, and if you look at the wording in the rules for weapon Ap, it says that no model may make an armor save against weapons whose Ap beats them. In the case of guardsmen getting hosed by a heavy bolter, they don't get to make armor saves by force, rather than by choice, and they're still removed as casualties normally.

In the case of guardsmen getting hosed by a heavy bolter, they don't get to make armor saves by force, rather than by choice, and they're still removed as casualties normally.

so we conclude it makes no difference for "gets hot".

Agreed. If you choose not to make armor saves against "gets hot" wounds, the same result for any model thus wounded is the same as if a model was assigned a wound against which it could not make an armor save.

So, to review...

Bob and Joe both shoot plasma guns. Joe hits twice. Bob overheats twice.

2 wounds are applied to Bob. Zero wounds are applied to Joe.

Bob decides to be nice and not endanger Joe. He decides not to take any armor saves against his two wounds.

As he is not taking armor saves, none of the rules in the armor saves section applies to him. Instead, as was mentioned earlier in the rule book, he takes the wounds and perishes nobly.

Joe is now left to make armor saves against zero wounds if he so chooses, but he doesn't, as that would be silly.

If you choose not to make armor saves against "gets hot" wounds, the same result for any model thus wounded is the same as if a model was assigned a wound against which it could not make an armor save.

Then let me throw in a thought that may be a bit awkward, but still:

If you choose a model to autofail its save, it is also a failed save isnt it?
At least he did not make it...

But I still would argue that a wound caused like this is still an unsaved wound and therefore must be taken into the unit due to the removing casualties rules.

But your point is not bad.

It's not that you're choosing to fail a save, it's that you're not choosing to make a save in the first place.

If you're not making armor saves, then the rules you use aren't the ones in the armor saves section.

ok, I'm back... Had to take some time off due to a Tyranid Battle Force invasion/purchase

So any way, let me see if I have this correct:

Every one was right all along?!?!?!

You can divide the gets hot wounds out to every one who fired OR give them all to one guy who fired.

No, that wasnt the question.

Each model MUST suffer the Gets Hot! wound resulting from firing their own gun themselves, they CANNOT be given to another model