Lets say you have a squad of 3 single would models. They are attacked in close combat and they are dealt 5 wounds from power weapons. So they are dealt 2 more wounds than needed to wipe the squad. How many unsaved wounds were dealt to the squad? Is it 3 or 5?

The reason this is important is with the Blood Talons. Assuming a multiple assault, how many extra attacks would the Dread get? I can see this going either way.

Deleting my wrong-ness. Other people are right.

You would have caused a total of 3 wounds.

pg. 39 in the BRB under determining assault results:

Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's Wounds Characteristic.

So basically, even though he only wounded two guys twice, he still only counts 3 wounds, as that is the max that you have in the unit.

However, if you ID something with more than one wound, all of the wounds count for the combat resolution, I.E. SM Captain has 3 wounds, dies by ID from 1 wound, you get all 3 wounds toward combat resolution.

He's not asking about combat resolution though. It would count as 5 unsaved wounds for the purposes of Blood Talons, but not for combat res.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:He's not asking about combat resolution though. It would count as 5 unsaved wounds for the purposes of Blood Talons, but not for combat res.

Ah, sorry, don't have a BA codex, so went with how combat res would work.

Brings up an interesting situation about ID and the Blood Talon then..... how many would he get from the situation I described above??? Just the one for the wound, or all three?? And if the Blood Talon isn't strong enough to ID the SM Captain, replace the Captain with an IG Company Commander, or a DE Archon.

I don't think that would add more attacks Galador. It states for every unsaved wound it causes, it only caused one wound even thought it killed a multiwound model.

It's only 3. You didn't cause 5 unsaved wounds, as not all of those wounds actually went through and did anything. He may not have been talking about combat resolution, but it's the same rule either way. "Cause unsaved wounds" is the same as "suffer unsaved wounds" - just a matter of perspective - and you can't suffer more wounds than your wounds characteristic.

Though you could look at it differently. If it dealt 5 wounds, and the three wound unit failed all five armour saves, then it would have dealt 5 unsaved wounds. Though that interpretation depends on wounds being rolled in batches instead of one at a time.

It still only would be dealing 3. If a model fails two saves, but only has 1 wound, it still only took 1 wound.

A unit that suffers 5 wounds from a weapon that doesn't allow armor saves suffers 5 unsaved wounds which are distributed amongst the 3 members of that unit. The unit suffers 3 casualties as a result. Only those 3 casualties are counted for combat res (because the rules state that) but the unit still suffered 5 unsaved wounds, regardless.

I disagree. Only three wounds were lost, and thus only three wounds were caused, even if five wounds had to be allocated and five saves had to be taken.

The BT trigger off unsaved wounds "caused". A wound which did not actually get recorded anywhere (come off a model, matter for CR) is not caused, IMO.

This comes down, I think, to a matter of semantics and order. This is where, and the reason for, people complain about the order of combat, that you take 'wounds' before taking 'armour saves', which suggests that the model is wounded first, and then is miraculously healed by any passed armour or cover saves. If that's true, that wounds are indeed all dealt first, and then save negate wounds, it wouldn't matter (for the Blood Talons anyways) how many wounds the model or unit has.

If, however, we take it more fluff-like, more Rai, then the armour saves would stop the wounds before they were actually dealt. Similarly, it would mean that once a model or unit dropped, it wouldn't be taking more wounds, unless the attacker decided to shred their corpse.

Personally how I see it, in fluff and RAI, is that the Blood Talons, being honkin' great blades on a fist, just start scything through things, and any time they go through a model, and aren't stopped by that model's armour, they continue on into the next one. This would mean that when a model drops after taking three wounds and failing all three saves (a one wound model, that is) the talon just keeps on going with all three wounds worth of momentum, to keep killing. That and the Rage would mean that even if it's a mutilation of a corpse, the extra blood spurting out, the gore, the violence, might spur the Dred on to greater violence.

I'm of the opinion that it is 3. You first assign but do not inflict wounds. Then you roll for saves. Since we generally roll of the like saves at once it gives the illusion that a model has suffered more wounds than it has. That's not the case though. As soon as the last wound is removed from a model it is a casualty. Any additional wounds are lost. Simply put, you can't inflict (i.e., subtract) more wounds that a model has.

-Yad

Agreed, it just doesnt make sense that BT give you more attacks that wounds were in the unit that you just killed.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack." (C:BA p60)

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

The number of unsaved wounds is not necessarily the same as number of wounds inflicted.

In the first example (5 power weapon wounds on a unit of 3 models), 5 unsaved wounds were caused, and the blender-dread would get 5 additional attacks. Only 3 wounds would be inflicted, but that isn't what blood talons look for.

Looks like Forkbanger comes the closes of citing actual rules, but I do agree it can go either way.

Edited due to use of improper word. 1000 apologies.

Quick note, it's 'citing'. Sorry, mum's an English teacher.


And yeah, the way the rules are written, seems like you may actually get that many attacks. Haha! Vindication!

Can you split your attacks so that you deal 5 wounds to squad A, and then allocate those 5 free attacks to squad B?

Yes you can, and that is the reason for the question. Otherwise, the extra attacks would be mute.

"moot"

[/word nazi]

I'm a jerk.

FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.

3 attacks extra only.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.

3 attacks extra only.

But blood talons don't care about inflicted wounds or models removed or saves failed- only the amount of unsaved wounds.
"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack." (C:BA p60)

5 unsaved wounds means 5 extra attacks, regardless of models removed.

Let's say those models had Feel No Pain- if they suffered 5 unsaved wounds (and FNP is applicable), how many Feel No Pain rolls would be made? Three or five?
Both rules use the same wording, looking for 'unsaved wounds', so both answers should be the same.

Some abilities, like Absorb Life, look for wounds inflicted. Blood talons don't.

But if you were doing the saves one by one would you continue to make saves when there were no models left in the unit? FNP keeps a model around so that it is there to fail another saving throw.

You are supposed take all saving throws at once, then the dread attacks again a number of times and can't attack a unit thats has been wiped out. So you'll never roll saves for a dead unit.

kmdl1066 wrote:But if you were doing the saves one by one would you continue to make saves when there were no models left in the unit? FNP keeps a model around so that it is there to fail another saving throw.

You don't roll saves (or attacks, for that matter) one at a time. You roll them all at once. Feel No Pain would also be rolled after all armour saves had been taken.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.

3 attacks extra only.

I think you're wrong on this one. 5 wounds are failed, but only 3 wounds are removed from the unit. Let's look at it this way. I shot a squad and cause 5 wounds (the squad must now make 5 armor saves). The squad rolls 1,1,1,2,2. How many failed saves did the squad have? Here's a hint, the rolled 5 dice.

forkbanger wrote:
You don't roll saves (or attacks, for that matter) one at a time. You roll them all at once. Feel No Pain would also be rolled after all armour saves had been taken.

Oh I know that. The rules tell us to make them in a batch. It was a genuine question about trying to understand how people view "unsaved wounds."

I think the notes in the example on allocating wounds on complex units provides some RAW support for the fact that you can have more unsaved wounds than there are wounds in the unit/group.

FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

nosferatu, in the example for allocating wounds on complex units there is a group of two marines with bolters who suffer "two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armor save."

Which seems to indicate that a group with only two wounds available can in fact have more wounds inflicted than the group has wounds.

Your thoughts?

It suggest s that the rule is unclear (you have implications both ways)

As such you go for the least advantageous route, which would be: if you kill 3 marines, you get 3 extra attacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It suggest s that the rule is unclear (you have implications both ways)

As such you go for the least advantageous route, which would be: if you kill 3 marines, you get 3 extra attacks.

This exactly - what's hard to understand about that? You can't cause 5 wounds on a unit that has 3 wounds in it!

First wound, model dies, 4 wounds remaining to allocate, two wounds left in the squad.

Second wound, model dies, 3 wounds remaining to allocate, one wounds left in the squad

When the third wound is allocated, a third unsaved wound has been caused. The excess wounds are lost.

Imagine a multi assault with the above wounds etc. If you inflict 5 wounds on the squad of 3, you DONT get +5 to combat res, you only get +3. Thats the exact same principle as Blood Talons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

If this were true, it would be impossible to wipe out a unit of at least two multi-wound models (barring ID) with one unit shooting at them, as the rules tell you that they lose a single wound for every unsaved wound. The space marine example/clarification on pg. 25 tells you that a group of two is able to suffer 3 unsaved wounds.

Yes, but thats because the multi-wound unit in your example HAS multiple wounds to lose, and thus more wounds can be caused against them. The unit in the orignal example did not.

liam: combat resolution has no direct connection to unsaved wounds, it has its own way of counting. Also your way of rolling saves is wrong, you have to roll all five at once an then remove casualties for any unsaved wounds.

It still doesnt get around that: the rules are not 100% either way.

If that is the case it is unsafe to take a more advantageous option.

Jidmah wrote:liam: combat resolution has no direct connection to unsaved wounds, it has its own way of counting. Also your way of rolling saves is wrong, you have to roll all five at once an then remove casualties for any unsaved wounds.

Actually I do know how to take saves.

I was working from the assumption, that the blood talon wounds are power weapons and ignored armour in this scenario. I'm just saying that although you do allocate all 5 wounds, you cant physically inflict 5 UNSAVED wounds on a unit that only has 3 wounds to lose.

And also, combat resolution DOES reflect unsaved wounds. How else can you gauge who has won a combat?

And to quote from page 39:

"Total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted on each side by their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

To go back to the example at the beginning of the thread (a unit of three models takes five wounds)-
-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the three models in the squad
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 models are removed

Five wounds were caused and five armour saves were failed. That's five unsaved wounds, the number of models removed doesn't matter.

forkbanger wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

To go back to the example at the beginning of the thread (a unit of three models takes five wounds)-
-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the three models in the squad
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 models are removed

Five wounds were caused and five armour saves were failed. That's five unsaved wounds, the number of models removed doesn't matter.

No, it's 3 unsaved wounds. Excess wounds are allocated, but it is impossible for a unit of 3 models with one wound each to lose 5 wounds in total.

liam0404 wrote:No, it's 3 unsaved wounds. Excess wounds are allocated, but it is impossible for a unit of 3 models with one wound each to lose 5 wounds in total.

It's five unsaved wounds and three inflicted wounds, which is an important difference.

Five wounds are put on a three-man squad with Feel No Pain. They fail all of their saves, making it five unsaved wounds. How many Feel No Pain rolls do you make?

forkbanger wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

To go back to the example at the beginning of the thread (a unit of three models takes five wounds)-
-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the three models in the squad
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 models are removed

Five wounds were caused and five armour saves were failed. That's five unsaved wounds, the number of models removed doesn't matter.

This is a little disingenuous to go from talking about wounds to then talking about models. Let's restate that but with a unit of 2 where one model has 2W.

-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the two models in the squad (3 on the 2W and 2 on the 1W)
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 wounds are taken
-2 models are removed

But you are correct, the number of models removed has no bearing whatsoever.

Why should the exact same term "unsaved wound" mean two different things in two different places?

"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one wound from its profile" (BRB pg. 26)

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes an additional attack." (BA codex pg. 60)

Whenever you fail any save, you suffer an unsaved wound and have to remove wounds/models for each one.

On the other hand combat resolution actually has a whole paragraph on what wounds do count and which do not, it explicitly tells you only to count wounds actually suffered and adds instant death "bonus" wounds So it has no longer any direct connection to failed saves, as the result might be something totaly different. You could get a combat resolution of 9:3 when the unsaved wounds actually were 3:4 but you instant-deathed three tyranid warriors after they overkilled a group of three identical models by one.

You know, it also suggests that any unit that doesn't use armour would not give any extra attacks. No armour, no save, no save, no unsaved.

BRB pg 24 second sentence unter "removing casualties" tells us that wounds against which no saves can be taken are still unsaved wounds.

FB - how many models failed their saves?

3

Therefore 3 unsaved wounds

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Bolded the important part.

So my opponent can not kill a single one of my 10 unwounded, diversified nobz if a burnaweagon drops 160 wounds on them? Each one suffers only a single unsaved wound, so every one loses only one wound from its profile (see quote above).

How many saves did they fail?

3 models cant fail 5 saves, they fail 3 and two are wasted (no models against which they can fail them)

So, 10 models cant fail 160 saves, they fail 10 and 150 wounds are wasted. Horray for 10 alive nobz killing the battleweagon next turn!

nosferatu1001 wrote:How many saves did they fail?

3 models cant fail 5 saves, they fail 3 and two are wasted (no models against which they can fail them)

3 models can definitely fail 5 saves.

5 wounds are inflicted on a unit of 3 models.

5 wounds allocated to 3 single-wound models-
A XX
B XX
C X

All are from power weapons, so 5 saving throws are failed, and 5 unsaved wounds are caused.

Yes, 5 are allocated but only 3 saves are failed. A model can only fail a number of saves equal to its maximum wounds.

Aren't blood talons good enough without this blatant RAW abuse?

liam0404 wrote:A model can only fail a number of saves equal to its maximum wounds.

There is no rule stating this. The only rule stating anything even remotly like this, is the one nos posted, which is worded. If you read it the way he does, it leads to the multi-wound bogus I explained above.

In fact, you have to work out how many unsaved wounds you suffer before removing any models, the clarification in the box on page 25 even makes 2 space marines suffer 3 unsaved wounds, I wonder why no one responded to that.

liam0404 wrote:Yes, 5 are allocated but only 3 saves are failed. A model can only fail a number of saves equal to its maximum wounds.

Aren't blood talons good enough without this blatant RAW abuse?

A model can fail any number of saving throws and suffer any number of wounds, provided they are all inflicted at the same time.
All saving throws caused by a round of attacks from a blender-dread would be taken simultaneously, and each would produce a result (a saved or unsaved wound).

liam0404 wrote:Aren't blood talons good enough without this blatant RAW abuse?

As ork player blood talons probably hit my boyz worse than any other unit in the game. Still, I like to play by the real rules, not the ones that fit my army best.

Ok, combat resolution is 100% comparable to this, as it also discusses unsaved wounds. If I attack a unit with 1 single wound model left in it 6 times, and inflict 6 wounds, does that give me +6 to my combat resolution?

liam0404 wrote:Ok, combat resolution is 100% comparable to this, as it also discusses unsaved wounds. If I attack a unit with 1 single wound model left in it 6 times, and inflict 6 wounds, does that give me +6 to my combat resolution?

Combat resolution is nothing like this.

Blood talons work on the number of unsaved wounds caused.
Combat resolution works on unsaved wounds inflicted.

One is limited by the number of wounds in the unit, affected by rules such as Feels No Pain and Instant Death, the other is not.

5 unsaved wounds on 3 models for Blood Talons=5 unsaved wounds and 5 extra attacks.
5 unsaved wounds on 3 models for combat resolution =5 unsaved wounds and 3 inflicted wounds.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree. I think you've misunderstood the rule on blood talons.

The rule IS ambiguous, as "unsaved wounds" are different in different parts of the rulebook

So, you are left with 2 positions, one which is more favourable than the other. You CANNOT in good faith choose the more powerful interpretation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule IS ambiguous, as "unsaved wounds" are different in different parts of the rulebook

So, you are left with 2 positions, one which is more favourable than the other. You CANNOT in good faith choose the more powerful interpretation.

This x infinity. Spirit of the game yeah?

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule IS ambiguous, as "unsaved wounds" are different in different parts of the rulebook

So, you are left with 2 positions, one which is more favourable than the other. You CANNOT in good faith choose the more powerful interpretation.

Contrarily, you're arguing that unsaved wounds simply disappear if there are more unsaved wounds than wounds in the unit. That's totally different to other 'unsaved wounds', like Feel No Pain. Those wounds don't vanish such that there's a nice neat number that corresponds to the number of wounds in the unit before rolling them- they're all unsaved wounds, and they all have to be rolled with FNP. Blood talons are the same- those wounds don't stop counting for extar attacks because they weren't inflicted.

If blood talons were supposed to work on wounds inflicted, they'd use the more concrete 'wounds inflicted' wording of abilities such as Absorb Life or rules such as combat resolution. They don't use that wording, because they don't use those rules- every unsaved wound leads to an extra attack, inflicted or not.

Well like Nos and I have both said, feel free to play it that way if you wish, but its such a stretch of the rules. It needs FAQd, much like baal predators did to stop this kind of abuse. If I was playing you at a GT, id feel supremely confident of a.TO ruling in my favour.

Yet I disagree and have shown the ambiguity in the wording. So you're choosing the deliberately less safe position.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet I disagree and have shown the ambiguity in the wording. So you're choosing the deliberately less safe position.

You were using Remove Casualties, I believe? "For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Is that right? That was the basis for your claim that each model can only be the source of one unsaved wound?

As was mentioned earlier, say 10 nobs take 120 bolter wounds. If they roll 120 armour saves, that will only produce one unsaved wound per nob and the rest will be discarded?

Armour Saves tells you that models can suffer multiple wounds and make multiple save attempts ("Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire...").
Complex Units shows a direct example of models suffering more unsaved wounds than there are wounds in the group ("He should remove three models (Two unsaved wounds, plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun.").
Determine Assault Results, on the other hand, goes out of it's way to make clear that only wounds inflicted count ("...total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side...").

There's a difference between 'unsaved wounds' and 'wounds inflicted' in the rules, and it's used in several cases. Blood talons are not one of those cases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If that is the case it is unsafe to take a more advantageous option.

What page number is that on?

You can't drink 2L of pop from a 1L bottle mate. There are only three wounds to be caused.

Well thanks to NOS and others the next time my single wound FNP model is shot and fails more than one Armor save, I will only take 1 FNP save, since only 1 has been caused to my model. That is really good for my Completely complex Death Company unit.

I think this works out more in my favor than the blood Talons.

jbunny - obtuse arguments your speciality?

No, it isnt on a page. But if you have two rules interpretations, and one is less advantageous than the other, then you take that rules interpretation. Anything else is an unsupportable position.

You are the one quoting it as if it is a rule. It is nothing more than your opinion. But I assume you do not agree with my FNP argument if we interpret this your way.

Sorry, where did I *quote* it as a rule? I gave no quote, but made a statement that taking the more advantageous of 2 options, when you have no *clear* remit for either, is an unsafe position.

and in certain instances you will find one codex offers an advantageous position on something. That may have to do with the fact that the codex explicitly states that that something happens, contrary to rulebook..... anyway, not what im here on about.

What about looking at this from the opposite perspective, lets say the blendernaught rams its fist into a daemon prince.Exactly enought times to kill it. Its still only one model,but it takes a certain number of wounds. On the other hand, what happens when the blendernaught runs into a squad of tyranid warriors? (or something with two wounds, but low toughness as to be instakilled by the blendernaught) what happens now? Models are still taking a single wound, but they have multiple wounds on the profile. Does the blendernaught cause 10 unsaved wounds or five? Nope, I don't like ruling in the naughts favor, but its a question of first the wounds it causes, less the wounds that are saved. So it does expend a further two attacks slicing the corpses up.

GW has many issues with RAI, and that can be seen from the errata and FAQ releases. Its RAW until GW corrects it in FAQ.... and then then it becomes RAW in the FAQ, and RAI in the 'dexes.

poda - 1) this is not a codex thing and 2) if you have a clear rule allowing the advantageous position you can do so.

the point here is that the rule is *not* clear, so taking an advantageous position is unsafe.

This is quite similar to the tyranid acid blood, which I wasnt sure about. If a nid creature suffers any unsaved wounds the enemy have to take inititive tests, so if it takes 10 unsaved wounds do the enemy take 10 inititive tests or just the number that killed it?

I agree that it's unsafe, but even from the receiving end of all that hugging and love, I'd say its wounds inflicted less armor saves, irrespective of models. Converseley, I dont have the book in reach, i remember something about unsaved wounds causing chaos spawn to leap out or something of the like. I think this is comparable, so whats the ruling/rule on that one? Im really tired so cant be bothered to think or find the rules or the dex it came from, but I cant be bothered to sleep because im so $@#%$@%@# angry right now (about things IRL)

I'd still like you to comment on the multiple-wound-model thing, nos. It's functionally identical with the blood talon one. Also the clarification does inflict three unsaved wounds to two space marines, this has not been commented on either. The entire wounding chapter in the BRB not working correctly using the "no-overkill" interpretation, as opposed to working just fine when using the "overkill" interpretion should be enough to clear up a single sentence that can be read two ways.
"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." can be read as not explicitly preventing a model from taking more than one save. In context and clarification, there is no evidence for excess wounds to disapear.
Also, as I don't own any blood angels (or ever will) the least powerful interpretation for me is allowing it to the other player.

liam: Not going into any opposing agruments and telling someone to agree to disagree is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, where did I *quote* it as a rule? I gave no quote, but made a statement that taking the more advantageous of 2 options, when you have no *clear* remit for either, is an unsafe position.

You did not "quote" it but you have been citing it as gospel. It is the basis of your argument in a RAW discussion, so you can see how one might think it is an actual rule in the BRB.

You also never commented on my complex unit with FNP, if we agree with your ruling on this rule. It seems that no matter how you play this rule (if you are consistent) it creates a more advantage position for someone. So what do you do when no matter the ruling it creates an advantage for someone?

Cottonjaw wrote:You can't drink 2L of pop from a 1L bottle mate. There are only three wounds to be caused.

No, there are only 3 wounds that matter for that squad. You can still apply multiple unsaved wounds to a single wound model, they just don't matter for the sake of the model. If that model were to have FNP, that model would then take its FNP rolls (as an interesting side note, is FNP classified as a save, or is it more like a tough roll in WM? I don't have my book on me at the moment...). Just because it only takes 15 times to stab someone to death doesn't mean you can't inflict 120 knife wounds in the process, yeah?

Point being, there are only 3 wounds to be REMOVED for the sake of making a model dead, if these three wounds are to be among the 5 that go UNSAVED, well, then so be it, my blood talons get 5 extra attacks for being excessively violent McAwesomesuce to your now dead models that just failed too many saves.

You know, what makes me curious, is if the Blood Talons can get extra attacks from unsaved wounds caused by the extra attacks.

Anvildude wrote:You know, what makes me curious, is if the Blood Talons can get extra attacks from unsaved wounds caused by the extra attacks.

Yup.

So there's the potential there that a single Blender Dredd would be able to wipe through hundreds of models in a single turn? Yikes. It's like a Melee version of the Supa Gattla.

Anvildude wrote:So there's the potential there that a single Blender Dredd would be able to wipe through hundreds of models in a single turn? Yikes. It's like a Melee version of the Supa Gattla.

Only if you don't account for the law of diminishing returns. Is the potential there? yes, but much like a single frigate double-critting a pair of battleships in Dystopian Wars, it'll take a lot of luck and the perfect conditions to do it.

Actually, the funniest way to deal with the blend-o-naught is to run it over with a deffrolla. Irony being that it's damage output against orks has the potential to be long-glove amazing, but it's not doing anything against that AV14.

The melta build into the bloodtalons works just fine vs AV14.

Jidmah wrote:The melta build into the bloodtalons works just fine vs AV14.

Shhh.... I'm trying not to remind the BA players that their people-juicer has AT involved....

Lets not forget that once you accumulate 8 casualties without a return hit, you fail morale checks. Then the dreadnought catches up with you and slices itself a few helpings of ham

poda_t wrote:Lets not forget that once you accumulate 8 casualties without a return hit, you fail morale checks. Then the dreadnought catches up with you and slices itself a few helpings of ham

Unless you have stubborn.... then you just have to deal with my Ld10 commissar trying to keep up with your body count.

poda_t wrote:Lets not forget that once you accumulate 8 casualties without a return hit, you fail morale checks. Then the dreadnought catches up with you and slices itself a few helpings of ham

Do what? Not sure what you are talking about on this one.

morale checks after melee. If a unit fails, the winning unit may still catch the fleeing unit and kill it. Hence why the blendernaught will remove whole squads in one go.

you can take 100 wounds and still pass your morale check. Double 1's always pass no matter what the modifiers are. The the dread kills whole units is the never ending chain of attacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.
3 attacks extra only.

Nos has this one correct.

Jidmah wrote:(Snip) "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."(Snip)

If you have a unit of 3, and you take 9 wounds from an attacker, Just how many models can fail their save?

By my count only 3 models from a unit of 3 can fail their saves.

Each model can fail 3 saves in this case, but the fact remains that only 3 models have failed their saves because there were only 3 models left in the unit that could fail their saves.

It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:
For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)
Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

So if I get 5 wounding hits against a unit of 2 Nobs (2 wounds each) which all fail their saves.... I only get combat resolution of 2 because only 2 *models* failed their save ?

nosferatu1001 wrote:jbunny - obtuse arguments your speciality?
No, it isnt on a page... ...Anything else is an unsupportable position.

So it's not on a page, but it's the other things you declare are unsupported?

nosferatu1001 wrote:But if you have two rules interpretations, and one is less advantageous than the other, then you take that rules interpretation.

The thing is... it's an orc/tyrannid player making the arguement..... so in the case of a BA special rule, the less advantageous ruling would be the 5 extra attacks, am I right?

And you still haven't answered the Feel No Pain cross-over


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Nos has this one correct.

Wrong

Karl - 2 models failed 2 saves each. Read the context of the rules quote again

POSITION /= RULE. Is that not clear? In this case you have 2 positions, neither of whcih is fully supported by clear and unambiguous rules. The least advantageous position is the supportable action to take.

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three [single wound] models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three [single wound] models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

Editing to add brackets

Which would leave multiwound units incapable of losing multiple wounds per turn because you're saying they only suffer one wound per model (that fails its save). It also means units with Feel No Pain only have to re-roll one wound each, because you're saying they can only take as many wounds as the number of models.
Obviously it's either written wrong, or you're interpretting it wrong - either way stop harping on about it.

Not really, everyone is going by how many models are removed, you have 5 unsaved wounds, therefore, 5 more attacks. If it had said, for every model removed it would say so.
(The above was from an earlier post, not the recent one, so disreguard)

it's very very simple, How many wounds were not saved, not how many models failed to save their wounds. Yes, only 3 models were there to take saves, but, you had to (if able roll 5 dice).

Insert here say Thousand Sons.. you do 5 wounds, i have 3 models. By the other way of looking at it, I should roll 3 dice as there are more wounds then models... so I roll 3 dice, fail with 2, yet there is still another one.. so I roll again on the single model now right? oh wait now he fails.. and your other wound is lost..WRONG.

You allocate the wounds, take the saves, a model can suffer more wounds then it has, it's just a mute point as it died immediately upon failing one save. But the dice are rolled at the same time, so 3 models, A B and C. A x 1, B x 2, C x 2 .. and then you roll them AT THE SAME TIME!(if at all).. if they all failed, then, C failed 2, B failed 2 and A failed 1.


Also for the feel no pain mentioned, you woudln't get it in such circumstances as power weapon. Not sure if it was related to the particular thread matter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

If 3 models fail 3 saves then you have 3 wounds,

If you roll correctly which means roll all dice possible at the same time, your rolling all of the ALLOCATED wounds (which allocation is done before dice are rolled).

Keep in mind, I play Dark Angels, Thousand Sons, Tzeentch Demons, and Tyranids... One of my buds who I play against frequently uses Blood Angels, and I have no problem letting him Blendernaught me, pending he can get it into combat.

Also, if it was that clear dude, do you think there would be a 4 page discussion?.... It is clear, but people don't want to think its as overpowered as it might be.. which I'm not saying it is, I see it as kind of similar to the Bone Giant in fantasy Tomb Kings. I point you in the direction of the newly released Grey Knights, and you honestly tell me that this wasn't what GW was intending?

Could it of been an oversite by GW, possibly

Was it.. more then likely not. BA have already had a FAQ released recently and nothing was mentioned. Just own up to the fact GW codex creeps will keep adding in one more powerful thing to the next. BA saw the psychic vehicles by having 1 in their army. Grey Knights now have an all vehicle psyker setup.

It's the way it is, deal with it, and if you have no anti tank .. then well your probably screwed anyway but otherwise, blow the damn thing up and don't let it get near you...
It aint easy being the Emperors Daughter Chapter... so let them have some fun. GOGO MENSTRUAL MARINES!

karlosovic wrote:Which would leave multiwound units incapable of losing multiple wounds per turn because you're saying they only suffer one wound per model (that fails its save). It also means units with Feel No Pain only have to re-roll one wound each, because you're saying they can only take as many wounds as the number of models.
Obviously it's either written wrong, or you're interpretting it wrong - either way stop harping on about it.

That is not true, If you look at the wording on blood talons it says 'For every unsaved wound caused'

you look at wounds caused after saves and FNP, at the remove casualties step.

If you have a nid warrior and he is the last one in the unit, and he is at full wounds, the Blood Talon Dread assaults him, the dread can only cause three unsaved wounds, since the Nid warrior only has three wounds to lose.

If you take three saves on this nid warrior and he fails three saves, three unsaved wounds were caused.

If you take three saves on a genestealer and he fails three saves, one unsaved wound was caused.

My previous post's example was for single wound models. Multi wound models can take multiple wounds per turn as noted above.

FNP disrupts this process, so if you fail three saves on the warrior, and he had FNP he rolls three dice to save the wounds through FNP, he fails two and two unsaved wounds are caused.

You can not cause more wounds than a model has.

It is clear to me.

By your logic you can't cause more wounds then a unit has available to it. Meaning a unit with 10 wounds can't take 150 wounds cause its more then the unit has available. And again, wounds are rolled at the same time, how many it takes to kill a model is obvious, how many times it failed its rolls in one round of rolling is also obvious. Which is what is going on here.

You don't know how many wounds will not be saved, therefore you can't just say just cause it has 3 wounds it can fail wounds.

And by the way, FNP doesn't disrupt a thing. It says when it suffers an unsaved wound roll a dice.

WHICH brings up the other side of the argument, guy takes 3 wounds, does he only make one fnp save, or does he make all as they are UNSAVED WOUNDS!!!!!

Face it, you have to pick one or the other, and I think any army with FNP is hoping to rule on the side against the 5 wounds (from OP) so they can only have to take the one FNP roll. Which to me.. is alot worse then a dreadnaught butchering a whole squad.



I'd also like to mention though I know not on the exact same topic, Overkill in a challenge in fantasy... That in itself shows its possible to cause MORE wounds then the model has, though is a mute point I'm sure in this thread as some will blare, WRONG GAME SYSTEM!... Just felt it worth mentioning

Better yet, lets go back to wound allocation for a moment, you can easily allocate a non savable wound, or one that you know you can't save, and an armor save on the same model. Example might be clearer then my words..
Unit of 10 models takes 11 wounds in combat, two of which is an power weapon save that you wont be able to save against, you allocate 9 savable to 9 members in the squad, but then you allocate 2 non savable to the same one... This allows us to make one model to take 2 unsavable wounds. while the other members of the unit get to save as normal.

Again, people may not like it, but there are alot of things I don't like that are allowed. A 5+ obscured on a vehicle sitting still for one thing, but its what they get so I don't complain about it, I just work with what I got.

mpangelu wrote: By your logic you can't cause more wounds then a unit has available to it. Meaning a unit with 10 wounds can't take 150 wounds cause its more then the unit has available. And again, wounds are rolled at the same time, how many it takes to kill a model is obvious, how many times it failed its rolls in one round of rolling is also obvious. Which is what is going on here.

Right you can't cause more wounds than a model has, that does not mean you can not allocate those wounds to him, but any excess wounds are lost.

mpangelu wrote:WHICH brings up the other side of the argument, guy takes 3 wounds, does he only make one fnp save, or does he make all as they are UNSAVED WOUNDS!!!!!

he only takes the wounds after all saves are made, so FNP has to roll for all the potential wounds. if they are all saved he takes no unsaved wounds.

mpangelu wrote:Face it, you have to pick one or the other, and I think any army with FNP is hoping to rule on the side against the 5 wounds (from OP) so they can only have to take the one FNP roll. Which to me.. is alot worse then a dreadnaught butchering a whole squad.
I'd also like to mention though I know not on the exact same topic, Overkill in a challenge in fantasy... That in itself shows its possible to cause MORE wounds then the model has, though is a mute point I'm sure in this thread as some will blare, WRONG GAME SYSTEM!... Just felt it worth mentioning.

Overkill in fantasy is totally different, there is no overkill in 40K the excess wounds, in 40k, are lost.
(and its moot point)

mpangelu wrote:Better yet, lets go back to wound allocation for a moment, you can easily allocate a non savable wound, or one that you know you can't save, and an armor save on the same model. Example might be clearer then my words..
Unit of 10 models takes 11 wounds in combat, two of which is an power weapon save that you wont be able to save against, you allocate 9 savable to 9 members in the squad, but then you allocate 2 non savable to the same one... This allows us to make one model to take 2 unsavable wounds. while the other members of the unit get to save as normal.

Again, people may not like it, but there are alot of things I don't like that are allowed. A 5+ obscured on a vehicle sitting still for one thing, but its what they get so I don't complain about it, I just work with what I got.

While your example is correct, you do not cause the unsaved wounds until you resolve all saves, roll for FNP, and then see how many unsaved wounds have been caused.

If you have a unit of 10, one guy has a flamer the other nine are identical, in your example if you put the unsaveable wound, along with a normal wound on the flamer guy. You roll the save for the flamer guy and fail, You roll for FNP, then you would apply the wounds to the flamer model after the failed rolls. We find that the flamer guy takes one wound, and the second wound is lost, and not caused, since the first wound killed the model.

DeathReaper wrote:Right you can't cause more wounds than a model has, that does not mean you can not allocate those wounds to him, but any excess wounds are lost.

You can cause more wounds than a model has, but you can't inflict more wounds than a model has.
You can cause 7 unsaved wounds to a single-wound model, but you can only inflict 1.

DeathReaper wrote:he only takes the wounds after all saves are made, so FNP has to roll for all the potential wounds. if they are all saved he takes no unsaved wounds.

But there's no difference between the cases- they are all unsaved wounds. Why would they disappear without effect in one case but remain relevant in another?
7 unsaved wounds on a single-wound model with Feel No Pain = 7 unsaved wounds.
7 unsaved wounds on a single-wound model caused by Blood Talons = 7 unsaved wounds.

DeathReaper wrote:Overkill in fantasy is totally different, there is no overkill in 40K the excess wounds, in 40k, are lost.

Excess wounds are not inflicted, but they were still caused. Since Blood Talons make no mention of unsaved wounds inflicted, only unsaved wounds caused, inflicted wounds are irrelevant.

DeathReaper wrote:While your example is correct, you do not cause the unsaved wounds until you resolve all saves, roll for FNP, and then see how many unsaved wounds have been caused.

You cause unsaved wounds at the point when armour saves are rolled and failed. "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Feel No Pain, Acid Blood, Blood Talons and whatever else works off unsaved wounds all happen simultaneously. Some of those triggered effects might reduce the number of wounds, or increase it, or cause wounds to someone else- but they all occur at the same time.

DeathReaper wrote:If you have a unit of 10, one guy has a flamer the other nine are identical, in your example if you put the unsaveable wound, along with a normal wound on the flamer guy. You roll the save for the flamer guy and fail, You roll for FNP, then you would apply the wounds to the flamer model after the failed rolls. We find that the flamer guy takes one wound, and the second wound is lost, and not caused, since the first wound killed the model.

That's not how unsaved wounds work. Armour saves are taken, each failure causes an unsaved wound, then Feel No Pain is rolled, and casualties are removed.
Feel No Pain cannot take effect before unsaved wounds are caused, as it is triggered when a unit suffers unsaved wounds- "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound..."
No unsaved wounds are 'lost' in the process and ignored; the wounds are allocated and saves are attempted, unsaved wounds are caused. They don't stop having been caused because their target doesn't have that many wounds- if they did, models with Feel No Pain could only suffer a number of unsaved wounds equal to the wounds on their profile, and would only have to make that many Feel No Pain rolls.
The fact that they don't, that a single-wound model suffering 7 unsaved wounds has to make 7 Feel No Pain rolls, should make that clear.

How does one cause more wounds than something has, clearly after a one wound model takes one wound, no further wounds can be caused, since the model is dead.

By successfully rolling to wound with more attacks than target unit has wounds.
"Roll to wound.
For each shot that hits, roll again to see if it wounds the target."

You're thinking of the next step in the process
"Take saving throws.
Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw."

DeathReaper wrote:How does one cause more wounds than something has, clearly after a one wound model takes one wound, no further wounds can be caused, since the model is dead.

'Unsaved wounds' is an intemediate step before 'remove casualties'.

You can cause 7 unsaved wounds to a model with a single wound through a unit's shooting or in single initiaitive step in close combat. Only when you come to removing causalties and inflicting wounds do the excess ounds cease having an effect. They are caused independent of a model's wound total, otherwise you would never have more than a single Feel No Pain roll to make for a single-wound model.

No, I am thinking of the after effects.

just like combat resolution, excess wounds above the models profile are wasted.

DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three [single wound] models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three [single wound] models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

Editing to add brackets

Forkbanger really doesn't have an argument after this rules quote to be honest. And DeathReaper is completely correct to compare this to combat resolution, as it works the exact same way - the excess is NOT carried over. Like I said in an earlier post - if anyone tried to pull this on me in a GT match, id be very confident of the TO siding with me. If you pulled it in a pick up game, I guarantee i'd never want to play you again. As Nos sad earlier in the thread - if there is ambiguity (which to be fair here, there isnt - DR has clearly provided a rules quote), you (as the player contesting the rule), should take the weaker option. Its common courtesy to your opponent, and helps keep the game going at the same time.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

Unsaved wounds caused.
Not wounds inflicted. Not causalties removed.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."
"For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

5 models failed their saves.
5 models suffered an unsaved wound.
5 additional attacks are generated.

You can allocate 1000000 wounds to a unit for all I care. The unit only has 3 to lose (and hence become unsaved). Therefore only 3 more additional attacks.

Exactly! five models fail their save they have five wounds caused on them, the unit of five one wound models are now all dead.

you can't cause a wound without the wound characteristic being reduced. That is just simple math/linguistics.

However if there were three models in the target unit, there are only three wounds available to be caused, once you cause three wounds all the models are dead and the excess are wasted.

remember take the less advantageous position if two rules seem to conflict.

Actually here is a question I think you will find impossible to answer. (BRB Pg24)

"Most models have single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So if you can cause more unsaved wounds than exist in a unit, would you care to explain how you can adhere to the above rule? If you inflict 5 wounds on that unit of three, the above rule tells you to remove 5 models does it not?

I can't wait for your counter argument to this one.

Perhaps this could clarify things. The models aren't actually alive, and they're not actually taking wounds. It's all representative. The model represents a being or thing that can take a certain amount of damage before dying. The 'wounds' are a way of quantifying damage in order to rule on it with dice. One 'wound' may be the equivalent of a knife in the gut, but two 'wounds' aren't necessarily two knives in the gut; they could represent a single, more damaging attack like a Powerfist crushing a head, or many many smaller attacks like thousands of monomolecular shuriken flaying a target to the bone.

It's not like the Blender-dredd is evenly poking each model one at a time with each of its talons- it's just swinging away with a bloody great claw, trying to hit squishy stuff.

And the whole 'representative' thing is part of the rules, too, right there in the book. It's why movement and terrain is so esoteric.

liam0404 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three [single wound] models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three [single wound] models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

Editing to add brackets

Forkbanger really doesn't have an argument after this rules quote to be honest. And DeathReaper is completely correct to compare this to combat resolution, as it works the exact same way - the excess is NOT carried over. Like I said in an earlier post - if anyone tried to pull this on me in a GT match, id be very confident of the TO siding with me. If you pulled it in a pick up game, I guarantee i'd never want to play you again. As Nos sad earlier in the thread - if there is ambiguity (which to be fair here, there isnt - DR has clearly provided a rules quote), you (as the player contesting the rule), should take the weaker option. Its common courtesy to your opponent, and helps keep the game going at the same time.

Combat resolution and wounds/armor saves are no the exact same, as has been mentioned before. And if he is able to compare it to that without issue then I bring up the fantasy overkill rule as it is pretty similar.

@ Death, where is the thing saying excess wounds are lost from the wound allocation/armor saves section?

liam0404 wrote:Actually here is a question I think you will find impossible to answer. (BRB Pg24)
"Most models have single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
So if you can cause more unsaved wounds than exist in a unit, would you care to explain how you can adhere to the above rule? If you inflict 5 wounds on that unit of three, the above rule tells you to remove 5 models does it not?
I can't wait for your counter argument to this one.

The diagram on the opposite page (pg25) details some shooting against a unit of space marines.
Last paragraph-
"He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun), but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both."

O
M
G

Would you look at that? If you take 3 wounds but only have 2 models... you just remove 2 models..... fricken amazing!


P.S it doesn't say the extra wound is negated... it just says you remove as many casualties as possible up to the number of unsaved wounds.

Game
Set
Match

now stop cheating


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If one bullet through your brain is enough to kill you, does that mean the laws of physics will prevent more bullets from being shot at you?
No, of course not !!

(tip: this is analogous to your 1 Wound limit scenario)

mpangelu wrote:@ Death, where is the thing saying excess wounds are lost from the wound allocation/armor saves section?

It is not that it says they are lost, the rules do not tell you what happens with them, and we are only allowed to perform actions the rules tell us to perform.

Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

karlosovic wrote:
If one bullet through your brain is enough to kill you, does that mean the laws of physics will prevent more bullets from being shot at you?
No, of course not !!

(tip: this is analogous to your 1 Wound limit scenario)

The laws of physics will not prevent more bullets from being shot at you, but once you are dead you can not have any more wounds caused to you.

But more bullets *will* casuse additional damage to what's left of your body.

DeathReaper wrote:Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

The unsaved wounds were still caused, which is waht triggers bonus attacks from Blood Talons. Casualties and wounds inflicted were, are, and will always be irrelevant to Blood Talons.

5 wounds.
5 failed armour saves.
5 unsaved wounds.
Anything beyond that point doesn't matter- number of casualties, wound negation of some kind, they don't matter in the context of Bloot Talons.
5 unsaved wounds were caused, so Blood Talons generate 5 additional attacks.

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

The unsaved wounds were still caused, which is waht triggers bonus attacks from Blood Talons. Casualties and wounds inflicted were, are, and will always be irrelevant to Blood Talons.

5 wounds.
5 failed armour saves.
5 unsaved wounds.
Anything beyond that point doesn't matter- number of casualties, wound negation of some kind, they don't matter in the context of Bloot Talons.
5 unsaved wounds were caused, so Blood Talons generate 5 additional attacks.

Im absolutely delighted that you brought up that inflicted/caused crapheap of an argument again. Cast your eyes to page 39 of the rulebook, in the determine assault results section. To quote:

"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

Read a little further down:

"Note that wounds which have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's wounds characteristic, only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models (including all of the wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death."

I think that just about wraps this up, unless youre going to spout more cheese. Any further agruments you have about this are only complaints about the rule, not about its interpretation.

liam0404 wrote:Actually here is a question I think you will find impossible to answer. (BRB Pg24)

"Most models have single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So if you can cause more unsaved wounds than exist in a unit, would you care to explain how you can adhere to the above rule? If you inflict 5 wounds on that unit of three, the above rule tells you to remove 5 models does it not?

I can't wait for your counter argument to this one.

So, your Bloodtalon-Dread is in combat with two units of each three single wound models, one with a 5++ save, it gets 5 attacks.

1. Roll five dice to hit against one unit at the dreads initiative. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
2. Roll five dice to wound, reroll as necessary. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
3. Roll five dice in one batch to save on a 5+. Assuming 5 failed. BRB p. 25 "Taking saves" side disallows rolling them one at a time.
4. Five unsafed wounds have been caused, one model immediately has to be removed for each, opponent removes as many as possible as explained on BRB p. 25 "Allocating Wounds to complex units", third paragraph
5. Dread gets another five attacks because it caused 5 unsaved wounds, and may dirrect them to the other unit.
6. Roll five dice to hit against one unit at the dreads initiative. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
7. Roll five dice to wound, reroll as necessary. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
8. No saves can be made. BRB pg. 24 tells us these are unsaved wounds.
9. Five unsafed wounds have been caused, one model immediately has to be removed for each, opponent removes as many as possible.
10. Combat resolution tells you to count wounds actually lost, you win combat by 6:0.

As for your much quoted and only rule that supports your argument AT ALL: "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" mind this:

5 attacks successfully hit and wound on three models
Take 5 armor saves at once(you may not roll them one after another, as you keep implying, see BRB p. 25 "Taking saves").
Model1 failed its save suffer an unsaved wound.
Model1 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model3 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.

This is a valid interpretation, as is yours. The difference is, you got no other rules you back up your interpretation.

You have no rules backup for the following, so please quote any corresponding rules I might have missed:
- combat resolution rules having any meaning anywhere outside of combat resolution.
- models not taking wounds in excess of their wound characteristic.
- you can't cause a wound without the wound characteristic being reduced.

If you do ignore any rules quoted as you usually do, especially the clarification in the BRB that explicitly assignes three unsaved wound to two models, I assume that you are willing to ignore two entire pages of rules in the BRB contradicting or no longer correctly working because of a single sentence, all this for the sake of nerfing BA dreads. This does not mean that I'm not willing to change my viewpoint on this, you are just not bringing any arguments that happen to be written in any rulebooks. Also, DR please refrain from ripping stuff from my posts out of context or simply randomly change stuff. Answer to the whole original post or don't quote it.

Jidmah wrote:
- models not taking wounds in excess of their wound characteristic.

Maybe you want to check out my above post.

liam0404 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
- models not taking wounds in excess of their wound characteristic.

Maybe you want to check out my above post.

- combat resolution rules having any meaning anywhere outside of combat resolution.

So?

Its not so much the combat resolution rule - its the process it uses to arrive at the "resolution score". Because of the wording of this rule, and the blood talon rule (which I have proved in my above post to be equivalent), the mechanic for generating the number of attacks is the same, and therefore you can only ever generate a number of attacks equal to the maximum number of wounds in the unit you target.

Exactly, it generates an abstract score (wounds actually inflicted), which may randomly arrive at the same number of unsaved wounds. I might even agree that "wounds actually suffered" is equal to "unsaved wounds", but pg. 25 tells us otherwise, as the player is forced to remove three models from a group of two marines.

Also common sense tells me that unsaved wounds should be all wounds which have not been saved, that's what the words mean, after all.

But in your example, (the same example), it says that because there are three wounds and only 2 models in that group, only 2 models are removed - the excess wound is "lost".

Yeah, but it never says that it is ignored.
What it does say, that the three wounds are unsaved wounds. If you add that you can only remove models after the unit suffered unsaved wounds, the two bolter marines did suffer three unsaved wounds. So something causes three unsaved wounds to them.

But only 2 actual wounds are inflicted becuase you can only inflict wounds up to the maximum that exist (as in my above post).

I feel we are going in circles here. I feel i've proved my argument, so maybe its time this thread was locked, as it's clear we are not going to agree.

I'm just a bit curious about how many of the people arguing for more wounds are BA players, and how many of the folks arguing against it are Horde players.

Personally, I'm an Ork player, and I'd rule in favor of the talons getting more attacks. Seems like it'd be more fun, and games would be more decisive, that way.

True, only two wounds are actually lost, and if you'd be counting for combat resolution or the number of models lost, this would be correct.

But, before you find out how many models are lost, you have a number of unsaved wounds. These might be ID or regular wounds or any other wounds connected to special rules.

So now anything that triggers of unsaved wounds is resolved now, for example FNP, force weapons or blood talons. We know this has to be done before models are removed or lose wounds, as Feel no Pain would do nothing otherwise.

Now, any unsaved wounds cause casualties, you remove possibly unwounded multi-wound models for any ID, ignoring successfully FNP'ed wounds, resulting in more or less wounds actually caused than the number of failed saves.

While your argument is basicly correct, you are looking at the wrong number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anvildude, this has been said multiply times in this thread, and is still wrong, for example I'm an ork player and DR is afaik a BA player.

(=\ The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can only be on models removed as casualties

liam0404 wrote:
"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

"The side that caused the most (unsaved wounds inflicted) is the winner," is how that sentence should be parsed.

Combat resolution cares about wounds inflicted.
"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."
The side that caused the most unsaved wounds to be inflicted is the winner.
That doesn't mean that unsaved wounds that were not inflicted due to 'overkill' don't exist and never have existed- it means that they have no bearing on combat resolution.

Both of your quotes refer to calculating combat resolution, which is dependent upon the number of unsaved wounds inflicted. Blood Talons are not dependent on unsaved wounds being inflicted, only caused.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

Using your reasoning, Blood Talons can generate multiple additional attacks through instant death ("including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffer instant death") and models with Feel No Pain only have to roll based on the number of wounds they have remaining. Both of those scenarios are incorrect.

Feel No Pain and Blood Talons work solely on the number of unsaved wounds caused, which is in turn based on the number of failed armour saves.
Combat resolution is based upon the number of unsaved wounds inflicted, limited by causualty removal (and so total wounds removed) and possibly increased through instant death.

For RESOLUTION, only the models lost count. FOR UNSAVED WOUNDS, you can do more wounds then the unit has availalbe, its just a matter of how many it takes before they are removed.


If we rolled dice one at a time, I could understand the other side saying it's only based on models. But we don't .. we roll it in batches, which means a model can suffer more then 1 wound, however, it only takes 1 wound before the model is removed. It still took 2 wounds while 1 was enough.

AND AGAIN, stop quoting COMBAT RESOLUTION as that isn't a part of the conversation. Resolution hasn't even come into the equation yet on which side lost combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

Suffered yes. But 5 failed all together.

Jidmah wrote:
As for your much quoted and only rule that supports your argument AT ALL: "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" mind this:

5 attacks successfully hit and wound on three models
Take 5 armor saves at once(you may not roll them one after another, as you keep implying, see BRB p. 25 "Taking saves").
Model1 failed its save suffer an unsaved wound.
Model1 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model3 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.(snip)
Also, DR please refrain from ripping stuff from my posts out of context or simply randomly change stuff. Answer to the whole original post or don't quote it.

#1 I have never changed anything of yours without citing that I have made changes and those changes are in bold or brackets or something to that effect.

#2 I sniped this post because I do not need to answer the whole post, just this one section and I snip out what i am not responding to because reposting it means now we have seen it twice.

#3 This situation above is PERFECT, In your example above how many models failed their save? Well Model1 failed its save, Model2 failed its save, and Model3 failed its save, I count three models that have failed their save. and as we all know for each model that fails its save, in this case three models failed their save, the Blood talon dread will produce three extra attacks, because only three models failed their save. they took five saves, failed five saves, but only three unsaved wounds were caused/inflicted, so only three extra attacks.

However the rules are written poorly as usual, and we need to take the less advantageous position.

and yes I play BA, I have since 2nd ed.

karlosovic wrote:But more bullets *will* casuse additional damage to what's left of your body.

But they will not cause any more wounds. This Off-Topicness has no bearing on the actual rules debate however.

So you still ignore Page 25, or any other rules I quoted anywhere. I'd like to point out, that you "snipped" any argument against you position again. Your disinterest in an actual discussion has been noted.

I do not ignore P.25, it deals with complex units, so lets say we have a complex unit like in the example.

If you look at the example on P.25:
'This unit suffers eleven wounds, ten normal, and one AP1.
You take 'two wounds per model and a single spare wound'

'He goes on to roll the four saves for the SM with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved and one from AP1) but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both'

Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?

The rules do not say what to do with it, so we can not use it, and it is lost.

Editing to add, Please attack my argument, not me.

I didn't mean to attack you, what I meant to say, is discussing with you is very frustrating as you just keep repeating the same argument and never answer to any other arguments brought forth.

But as you did otherwise in your last post:

It does say what to do with the extra unsaved wound: Do not remove a model for it, and it is lost.

But: It does not change the fact that three unsaved wounds were dealt to the marines, as on pg. 24 "Removing casualties", second sentence. The sentence after that says you have to remove a model for every unsaved wound. Back on page 25 it says the SM player has to remove three models, so they actually suffered three wounds, even though they are only two models with one wound each.

DeathReaper wrote:'He goes on to roll the four saves for the SM with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved and one from AP1) but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both'

Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?

The rules do not say what to do with it, so we can not use it, and it is lost.

Two unsaved and one AP1 = three unsaved wounds caused on two models.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."
That is the number that Blood Talon's check for and generate attacks from.

Jidmah wrote:I didn't mean to attack you, what I meant to say, is discussing with you is very frustrating as you just keep repeating the same argument and never answer to any other arguments brought forth.

But as you did otherwise in your last post:

It does say what to do with the extra unsaved wound: Do not remove a model for it, and it is lost.

But: It does not change the fact that three unsaved wounds were dealt to the marines, as on pg. 24 "Removing casualties", second sentence. The sentence after that says you have to remove a model for every unsaved wound. Back on page 25 it says the SM player has to remove three models, so they actually suffered three wounds, even though they are only two models with one wound each.

And there you go: 'It is lost' and as such can not be a wound caused. Okay the book does say what to do with it then, do nothing, it is lost.

Three unsaved wounds may have been dealt, but only two were caused/inflicted.

Editing to add: The number blood talons check for is wounds caused, you can not cause three wounds to a model that only has one to give.

you can not cause a wound to nothing, you have to cause a wound to a models wound characteristic. once that is reduced to zero you can no longer cause any wounds to that models wound characteristic. Caused/inflicted are interchangeable.

No, your comparing models removed ( or REMOVING Casualties) vs taking wounds and saving wounds. Different processes. The excess wounds are ignored for removing models. but not for the other aspects that these topics have been mentioned for, i.e. Blood Talons and FNP

edit for terrible spelling.

DeathReaper wrote:you can not cause a wound to nothing, you have to cause a wound to a models wound characteristic. once that is reduced to zero you can no longer cause any wounds to that models wound characteristic. Caused/inflicted are interchangeable.

They are not.

An unsaved wound is caused for every model that fails it's armour save- "For every model that fails it's armour save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
An unsaved wound is inflicted for every wound lost from a model's profile- "To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted... Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic, only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models."

DeathReaper wrote:
And there you go: 'It is lost' and as such can not be a wound caused. Okay the book does say what to do with it then, do nothing, it is lost.

The book does not say "do nothing". As in a permissive ruleset doing nothing without permission is against the rules.

Three unsaved wounds may have been dealt, but only two were caused/inflicted.

dealt, caused and inflicted are synonyms and used interexchangably throughout the BRB and codices.

I see your point though, but there is no rule causing a diffentiation betweens wounds that remove models and wound that don't remove models.

Editing to add: The number blood talons check for is wounds caused, you can not cause three wounds to a model that only has one to give.

If it were that way, it should call for "actual wounds inflicted" as the combat rule does. Since it doesn't you have to take the regular wounds caused. Note that the explanation of saves (armor/invul) also tell you the model suffers a wound whenever a save is failed, so it is easy for a model to suffer multiple wounds before being removed. An wounds sufferd had to be caused by something.

you can not cause a wound to nothing, you have to cause a wound to a models wound characteristic. once that is reduced to zero you can no longer cause any wounds to that models wound characteristic. Caused/inflicted are interchangeable.

Actually you can't attack nothing, so you can't hit it or wound it.
Single-wound models never get their wound characteristic reduced, so they'd be invincible. Also see "Taking saving throws" on pg. 20, it tells you to roll all saves at once and the models suffer one wound for each failed one.

As for fun RL examples:
One unsaved wounds: A nob slices your arm off with his big choppa.
Two unsaved wounds: A nob slices both your arms off.
Three unsaved wounds: A nob slices both your arms off and disembodies you.
Four unsaved wounds: A nob slices both your arms off, disembodies you splits you in half.

The BRB says casualties are just out of the fight and not necessary dead, but you can go sure

Sorry, but you're just wrong. You unequivocally cannot inflict more wounds on a unit than it has. And before you whine about FNP again, this is a "second save" - you have only inflicted an unsaved wound if this test is also failed.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. There are no rules backing you up. In addition FNP rule says you are wrong, as it only works for unsaved wounds. The BRB disallows more than one save, so FNP is not a save.

liam0404 wrote:Sorry, but you're just wrong. You unequivocally cannot inflict more wounds on a unit than it has. And before you whine about FNP again, this is a "second save" - you have only inflicted an unsaved wound if this test is also failed.

You sir, have no basis for such statement as you have not once used rules from the actual section we are discussing for your side of the argument. The fact that Combat Resolution phase is completely different then wounding and saving phase. The fact is if it was the same it would of said so, as it does when in combat says refer to shooting process for the wounding.

Your opinion of his correctness or incorrectness is not the debate, its a debate on the rules as is. You can't have the rules favor less wounds from BT and then say FNP has to ignore the same process as BT.

I'm not a BA player either, but it is what it is. The people arguing in favor for more BT attacks, and the same equivilant with FNP are actually using rules from the wounding section. The other side is using rules from Combat Resolution and their "opinions, or how they see things, or logic" which has been cited as not relevant to GW universe in any such form...

Jidmah wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
And there you go: 'It is lost' and as such can not be a wound caused. Okay the book does say what to do with it then, do nothing, it is lost.

The book does not say "do nothing". As in a permissive ruleset doing nothing without permission is against the rules.

Doing nothing is not an action, it is lack of an action.

Taking an action without express written consent of the rules is not allowed, This is different than taking no action.

@fork, yes they are interchangeable as liam0404 has pointed out:

liam0404 wrote:"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

Inflicted and caused and suffered are all interchangeable within the context of the rules.

look at P.26 under multiple-wound models:

'When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile.
wounds suffered/lost= wounds caused

If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

But now your changing up on the multiple wound models vs other models. It still removes from the profile, however, if your bringing characteristics into this, it says that you can have something that would reduce a characteristic even blow zero, but you however stop it from doing so to a minimal of one(usually)

DeathReaper wrote:
@fork, yes they are interchangeable as liam0404 has pointed out:

liam0404 wrote:"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Except that the correct parsing is-
"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most (unsaved wounds inflicted) is the winner."

The number of unsaved wounds inflicted is different to the number of unsaved wounds.

Still.

Sorry, are you re-writing the rulebook now? How do you know what the "correct" parsing is? Don't presume to say that the GW guys got the wording wrong - even if they did, how can you say your interpretation is the correct one?

Multiple wound models and Single wound models work the same way, if something causes them wounds equal to their wound characteristic they become a casualty and are removed. No further wounds can be caused to a model that is not on the board.

If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

It seems you think its ambiguous, therefore lets end the debate and take the less advantageous position.

Have a look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

"if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. "

Deathreaper (and earlier Nosferatu) were correct in their interpretation of the rule. I have shown a valid, equivalent mechanic to back up my argument. As I have said many times in this thread, i'd be supremely confident of a TO at a GT backing me on this. You'd be laughed out of the tournament/FLGS for pulling this sort of cheese, and rightfully so.

liam0404 wrote:But in your example, (the same example), it says that because there are three wounds and only 2 models in that group, only 2 models are removed - the excess wound is "lost".

Wrong! Lie!You are falsely using parentheses here to try to add false weight to a word of your own concoction. In fact, the word "lost" does not appear in that rule section AT ALL, EVER. That section of the rules states there were 3 unsaved wounds but only 2 models available to be affected by them. It does not say the number of models reduces the number of wounds caused! (unsaved or otherwise). Additionally, no where does it say that Blood Talons get extra attacks based on the rule section "Determine Assault Results".

Further to your favourite invention of a word - the ONLY occurance of the word "lost" in ANY section of rules so far referenced is "all the wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death" - which is a usage that implies ADDING to the total unsaved wounds caused (but since it is only part of "Determine Assault Results", it is invalid). The only reference to other forms (losing, loser, etc.) relate to the momentum of the assault as a whole, in terms of which side must take a leadership test - there is no further reference to wounds by ANY form of the word "lost", so stop making things up.

DeathReaper wrote:Multiple wound models and Single wound models work the same way, if something causes them wounds equal to their wound characteristic they become a casualty and are removed. No further wounds can be caused to a model that is not on the board.

If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

It seems you think its ambiguous, therefore lets end the debate and take the less advantageous position.

Have a look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

"if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. "

Unfortunately, that's not a very good rules argument. What if not taking a specific action benefited you more than not taking it?

Dreadnought attacks a model with invulnerable saves. The model has 3 wounds, but fails 4 saves. How many unsaved wounds are there?

ChrisCP wrote:(=\ The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can only be on models removed as casualties

100% Wrong. Unsaved wounds can be scored against models with multiple wounds, that are not removed as casualties (in the case they have wounds remaining)

Dreadnought attacks a model with invulnerable saves. The model has 3 wounds, but fails 4 saves. How many unsaved wounds are there?

ID would usually take place (relax, i wont go into that)


If you failed 4 saves then thats 4 unsaved wounds. (hence the whole name of it "unsaved"?)
Nothing caps you with a limit of how many you can take at once.

For crying out loud, you cheesemongers are really begining to get on my nerves now. Say I allocate A MILLION wounds to a single guy. He suffers the first unsaved wound - ok, now he's dead - how can he continue to lose wounds when he has ZERO wounds remaining? The answer is that he cannot.

liam0404 wrote:For crying out loud, you cheesemongers are really begining to get on my nerves now. Say I allocate A MILLION wounds to a single guy. He suffers the first unsaved wound - ok, now he's dead - how can he continue to lose wounds when he has ZERO wounds remaining? The answer is that he cannot.

He cannot continue to lose wounds, but if you rolled a million dice, chances are you would have about half a million unsaved wounds. Any of which wounds would kill the dude.

DeathReaper wrote:... ...Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?... ...

To which the Rules say: "For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Dreadnought attacks a model with invulnerable saves. The model has 3 wounds, but fails 4 saves. How many unsaved wounds are there?

ID would usually take place (relax, i wont go into that)


If you failed 4 saves then thats 4 unsaved wounds. (hence the whole name of it "unsaved"?)
Nothing caps you with a limit of how many you can take at once.

Precisely, so the dreadnought gets 4 more attacks in CC.

Yes, they would kill him - and as he has lost ONE wound, you have thereby inflicted a total, of ONE unsaved wound. You have allocated a million wounds to him, but 999,999 have no effect, because wound number 1 killed the model.

For crying out loud, you cheesemongers are really begining to get on my nerves now. Say I allocate A MILLION wounds to a single guy. He suffers the first unsaved wound - ok, now he's dead - how can he continue to lose wounds when he has ZERO wounds remaining? The answer is that he cannot.

Ahh, the faint sounds of insults, the dying breath of a desperate man in need of something to grasp onto.


If you were to roll 1m dice 1 at a time i would more than likely slap you.
But in any case, you could take up to 1m unsaved wounds.

liam0404 wrote:Sorry, are you re-writing the rulebook now? How do you know what the "correct" parsing is? Don't presume to say that the GW guys got the wording wrong - even if they did, how can you say your interpretation is the correct one?

Here's that quote again-
"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Are you seriously trying to say that "the side that caused the most" is not referring directly to the preceding sentence, which tells you to count "the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side"?
That it refers to some other number?

DeathReaper wrote:"If the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. "

You are taking a specific action- you are ignoring any unsaved wounds caused by failed armour saves in excess of the wounds in those model's unit.

liam0404 wrote:I have shown a valid, equivalent mechanic to back up my argument.

You haven't shown anything. Why not do what several other people have done in the thread, and go through the combat step by step, using references to the rules to indicate the number of hits, wounds, unsaved wounds, etc, and make it clear to the rest of us the ponit at which unsaved wounds are ignored, and why?

liam0404 wrote:Because in the other thread thats cropped up, this apparantly entitles a Dreadnought with Blood Talons to make 5 extra attacks, even if it killed something with only 1 wound. The "overkill" lets it attack 5 times, which surely is not correct since the model lost only one wound.

From the other thread. Once again, Blood Talons do not function based upon wounds lost. They do not work like that. The wargear text, again-
"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."
No reference to wounds lost.
No reference to wounds inflicted.
Only unsaved wounds caused, which are subsequently applied as casualties and inflicted for the prupose of combat resolution.

liam0404 wrote:Deathreaper (and earlier Nosferatu) were correct in their interpretation of the rule. I have shown a valid, equivalent mechanic to back up my argument. As I have said many times in this thread, i'd be supremely confident of a TO at a GT backing me on this. You'd be laughed out of the tournament/FLGS for pulling this sort of cheese, and rightfully so.

And I have shown in an also equivilant mechanic (overkill in fantasy) since your not using the part we are talking about and going on the "mechanics" how it does work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liam0404 wrote:For crying out loud, you cheesemongers are really begining to get on my nerves now. Say I allocate A MILLION wounds to a single guy. He suffers the first unsaved wound - ok, now he's dead - how can he continue to lose wounds when he has ZERO wounds remaining? The answer is that he cannot.

You are being rude. And you don't roll saves one at a time, otherwise your point would be valid.

Also, seeing as I am more then likely to be on the receiving end of this blendernaught situation and I'm on the supporting side for it. I do not appreciate being called cheesemongerer.

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:... ...Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?... ...

To which the Rules say: "For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.

How many wounds can you cause to a one wound model before it dies? Only one, since the rules do not tell us what to do with the overage we cant do anything with them. (though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here. Just like the shooting at vehicles section doesn't tell you how to roll to hit but we already know how to roll to hit.)

DeathReaper wrote:If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

You guys keep sprouting this line like your implied piety lends weight to your false logic. It doesn't even make sense, though. "Less advantageous position" for whom? You're a Blood Angel player and I'm a Space Wolf player - if we were to both take the "less advantageous position" (which in fact, is what most people in this thread seems to be doing) we'd be in the same position in which we are currently.
In reality, it's just a cop-out argument; "Just let me win, because it's the right thing to do".

pff

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.

The rules also dont say that excess wounds are ignored and have no purpose.
They are still unsaved wounds, doesent matter how you spin it, they are unsaved wounds. (since it was a wound you failed to save .... clever naming isnt it?)

Can you please point out a page number and the header for the rule showing that please?

This isnt real life, so for all intensive purposes, logic does not come into it.
You roll all of the dice at once.


Edit:

though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here.

This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same, so the rule cannot be applied here.

DeathReaper wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:... ...Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?... ...

To which the Rules say: "For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.

How many wounds can you cause to a one wound model before it dies? Only one, since the rules do not tell us what to do with the overage we cant do anything with them. (though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here. Just like the shooting at vehicles section doesn't tell you how to roll to hit but we already know how to roll to hit.)

For the first part, it does. when it fails its save it dies. However as multiple dice can be rolled for the save at the same time(as it should be) it can suffer multiple wounds before going to the remove casualty part.

Second part. Again yes you can, because as has been stated, you do not roll the saves one at a time, you roll them together, meaning it can be.

Third part, only one wound need be suffered before it is removed as a casualty, so if you fire one shot at a one wound target and you wound it and it fails its save then it dies and is removed. If you fire multiple shots at the 1 wound model then it can suffer multiple wounds before dying but its overkill as one is needed to have it removed from the game.

Combat resolution is different then wounding/saving/removing casualty process if it wasn't then it would simply state see wounding process for number of resolutions. It doesn't, it has its own section so its different. The wounding process for cc says refer to the shooting process for wounding/saving/casualty.

..

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

You guys keep sprouting this line like your implied piety lends weight to your false logic. It doesn't even make sense, though. "Less advantageous position" for whom? You're a Blood Angel player and I'm a Space Wolf player - if we were to both take the "less advantageous position" (which in fact, is what most people in this thread seems to be doing) we'd be in the same position in which we are currently.
In reality, it's just a cop-out argument; "Just let me win, because it's the right thing to do".

pff

The line is from the link, have a read.

Have a look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

"if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. "

If we might be able to get five attacks, or might not be able to, do not take the five attacks.

DeathReaper wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:... ...Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?... ...

To which the Rules say: "For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

NO ONE BLOODY ASKED WHAT TO DO WITH WOUNDS OVER AND ABOVE A MODELS WOUNDS CHARACTERISTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DeathReaper wrote:you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.

Show me the rule. Show me where it says this!

DeathReaper wrote:How many wounds can you cause to a one wound model before it dies?

How much wood would a Wood-Chuck chuck if a Wood-Chuck could chuck wood?
How long is a piece of string?
Who cares?!
You're confusing
"how many wounds can you cause"
with
"how many wounds must you cause [before it dies]"

The number you can cause it limited by the attributes of the attacking model.
The number you must cause it limited by the attributes of the model attacked.

Once again, no where in the blood angel rule does it reference the relative longevity of the victims. It more a question of how powerful and frenzied your crazy vampiric robot is.

DeathReaper wrote:Only one, since the rules do not tell us what to do with the overage we cant do anything with them. (though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here. Just like the shooting at vehicles section doesn't tell you how to roll to hit but we already know how to roll to hit.)

The shooting at vehicles section says "Roll to hit as normal". The blood talons rule does NOT say "modify the number of unsaved wounds according to the rules limiting Determine Assault Results".
And I already told you what the rules say about the excess wounds caused.

Karl, dont waste your breath mate, he will simply ignore any post that forces him to find a non existant rule.
Kinda like my last post.

karlosovic wrote:chuck wood?
How long is a piece of string?
Who cares?!
You're confusing
"how many wounds can you cause"
with
"how many wounds must you cause [before it dies]"

The number you can cause it limited by the attributes of the attacking model.
The number you must cause it limited by the attributes of the model attacked.

Once again, no where in the blood angel rule does it reference the relative longevity of the victims. It more a question of how powerful and frenzied your crazy vampiric robot is.

DeathReaper wrote:Only one, since the rules do not tell us what to do with the overage we cant do anything with them. (though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here. Just like the shooting at vehicles section doesn't tell you how to roll to hit but we already know how to roll to hit.)

The shooting at vehicles section says "Roll to hit as normal". The blood talons rule does NOT say "modify the number of unsaved wounds according to the rules limiting Determine Assault Results".
And I already told you what the rules say about the excess wounds caused.

I love you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OOh ooh, ask him the one about FNP..

DeathReaper wrote:The line is from the link, have a read.

Have a look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:Written by Centurian99

=not a GW rule

Lets get one thing clear - it's perfectly acceptable to examine similar processes in the rulebook for using mechanics - the assault phase section even discusses how to use the shooting wound chart! It's clear such things are comparable, such as combat resolution.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.

The rules also dont say that excess wounds are ignored and have no purpose.
They are still unsaved wounds, doesent matter how you spin it, they are unsaved wounds. (since it was a wound you failed to save .... clever naming isnt it?)

Can you please point out a page number and the header for the rule showing that please?

This isnt real life, so for all intensive purposes, logic does not come into it.
You roll all of the dice at once.


Edit:

though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here.

This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same, so the rule cannot be applied here.

Therefore, the mechanics for determining wounds and the total inflicted is regulated by the same process as combat resolution.

Lets get one thing clear - it's perfectly acceptable to examine similar processes in the rulebook for using mechanics - the assault phase section even discusses how to use the shooting wound chart! It's clear such things are comparable, such as combat resolution.

Anyone got a large "Wrong!" stamp please?

That would be because it tells you to use the rules from another rule.
You dont just pick a rule and mesh it in with one you want.

doesent matter how similar a rule is to another one, they are seperate.
Details and sequences dont carry from 1 rule to another unless mentioned, like you said to start with.

Lets get one thing clear - it's perfectly acceptable to examine similar processes in the rulebook for using mechanics - the assault phase section even discusses how to use the shooting wound chart! It's clear such things are comparable, such as combat resolution.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.



The rules also dont say that excess wounds are ignored and have no purpose.
They are still unsaved wounds, doesent matter how you spin it, they are unsaved wounds. (since it was a wound you failed to save .... clever naming isnt it?)

Can you please point out a page number and the header for the rule showing that please?

This isnt real life, so for all intensive purposes, logic does not come into it.
You roll all of the dice at once.


Edit:

though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here.



This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same, so the rule cannot be applied here.



Therefore, the mechanics for determining wounds and the total inflicted is regulated by the same process as combat resolution.

again, your mixing 2 rules without the book telling you to.
However, a page number would help on that one please, as i cant seem to see where unsaved wounds point me towards combat res.

liam0404 wrote:A Lie

I'm not bothering to answer this properly AGAIN! as it has already been pointed out to be wrong many times over.
Instead I shall set in stone the opinion I have formed of you

liam0404 wrote:Lets get one thing clear - it's perfectly acceptable to examine similar processes in the rulebook for using mechanics - the assault phase section even discusses how to use the shooting wound chart! It's clear such things are comparable, such as combat resolution.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.

The rules also dont say that excess wounds are ignored and have no purpose.
They are still unsaved wounds, doesent matter how you spin it, they are unsaved wounds. (since it was a wound you failed to save .... clever naming isnt it?)

Can you please point out a page number and the header for the rule showing that please?

This isnt real life, so for all intensive purposes, logic does not come into it.
You roll all of the dice at once.


Edit:

though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here.

This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same, so the rule cannot be applied here.

Therefore, the mechanics for determining wounds and the total inflicted is regulated by the same process as combat resolution.

Since everyone on your side fails to quote a rule, here's one for you. P. 26, multiple wound models: "When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty..." Where does this sentence limit the number of unsaved wounds that can be inflicted? The only thing it says is that the model is lost if the number of wounds inflicted reduces it's wounds attribute to 0. Which logically means unsaved wounds must be >= the wounds attribute to kill a model.

Edit: The point being that losing a wound =/= suffering an unsaved wound. They are two separate actions, but one triggers the other. Not only that, but you can suffer 1Million unsaved wounds, and still be killed. RAW the model would be at -999,999 W.

To quote my post in the other thread....

page 24 of the BRB

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So by your interpretation of the rule, you if you have more unsaved wounds than models /wounds available, you are violating this - if you have excess wounds, (according to your logic), you MUST remove one model for each wound.

Well go on then, start plucking models out of thin air.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

Except that the rules do not say what to do with wounds over and above a models wounds.

you can not cause 3 wounds to a 1 wound model. you can only cause one wound then it dies.

The rules also dont say that excess wounds are ignored and have no purpose.
They are still unsaved wounds, doesent matter how you spin it, they are unsaved wounds. (since it was a wound you failed to save .... clever naming isnt it?)

Can you please point out a page number and the header for the rule showing that please?

This isnt real life, so for all intensive purposes, logic does not come into it.
You roll all of the dice at once.


Edit:

though it mentions the excess is ignored for combat resolution, so it should work the same here.

This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same, so the rule cannot be applied here.

By the logic 'This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same' then vehicles can never take cover saves.
Rules listed in different sections have an effect on other sections.

P.39 tells us how to handle wounds that are in excess of a models characteristic.

wounds that are in excess of a models characteristic do not count for combat resolution, This is how you handle wounds in an assault.

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The line is from the link, have a read.

Have a look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate wrote:Written by Centurian99

=not a GW rule

Right it is from this post:

yakface wrote:Looking to read well thought out treatises dissecting tough rules issues about the game of Warhammer 40,000?


Well, look no further than Dakka's 40K rules discussion articles, including:

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate by Centurian99

YMTC - How YOU Play the Game of 40k, a series of polls dedicated to finding out how players actually *play* some of the trickier situations in the 40k rules.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/209921.page

Have a look, the mods on this board Approve!

We know it gets removed from the table, that is pretty clear by now liam.


so can you quote me a page or a rule that tells you unsaved wounds are ignored if over the models wounds?
As far as i was aware, they have been rolled for and caused, they dont vanish.

liam0404 wrote:To quote my post in the other thread....

page 24 of the BRB

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So by your interpretation of the rule, you if you have more unsaved wounds than models /wounds available, you are violating this - if you have excess wounds, (according to your logic), you MUST remove one model for each wound.

Well go on then, start plucking models out of thin air.

Where does it say that the unsaved wounds are capped at the number of models in a squad? Obviously, if there are more wounds than models, all of the models are removed. However, there were still MORE unsaved wounds than models.

Of course they vanish - otherwise the gane breaks. In my above quote, you are told to remove ONE model for EACH unsaved wound. When you have a hatful of wounds left over, what do you do with them? Do you just wait for time to expire?

Of course not, you say "ok, these were excess, no one can take these wounds, lets move on to something else."

Or at least we do in a sane gaming environment, im not sure what many of you are doing.

liam0404 wrote:Of course they vanish - otherwise the gane breaks. In my above quote, you are told to remove ONE model for EACH unsaved wound. When you have a hatful of wounds left over, what do you do with them? Do you just wait for time to expire?

Of course not, you say "ok, these were excess, no one can take these wounds, lets move on to something else."

Or at least we do in a sane gaming environment, im not sure what many of you are doing.

Yes, that's exactly what happens. The wounds are an excess, but they are never-the-less unsaved wounds.

No they are not - the excess wounds arwe wounds which WOULD be unsaved if there were models surviving to suffer those wounds.

liam0404 wrote:No they are not - the excess wounds arwe wounds which WOULD be unsaved if there were models surviving to suffer those wounds.

What is an unsaved wound?

Its a wound which is caused by failing an armour save, and then suffered by the model to whuch the wound was allocated. If its dead it doesnt matter how many wounds were allocated!

Of course they vanish - otherwise the gane breaks. In my above quote, you are told to remove ONE model for EACH unsaved wound. When you have a hatful of wounds left over, what do you do with them? Do you just wait for time to expire?

But you roll all the dice at once, not 1 at a time.
The odds of overkilling a unit are pretty high and happen very often.

Please refer me to a page where it tells me to removed any excess dice.

No, they are simply unsaved wounds that once the combat is over will have no use.

Basing your entire logic on this rule from the combat res rules holds no weight as they dont apply.

The game only breaks when a point is reached in which nothing can be done, this is not the case here.

No they are not - the excess wounds arwe wounds which WOULD be unsaved if there were models surviving to suffer those wounds.

You have a chance to save against them, which would be a valid save.
Once you fail that save, they are still a valid unsaved wound.
It works both ways liam.

liam0404 wrote:Its a wound which is caused by failing an armour save, and then suffered by the model to whuch the wound was allocated. If its dead it doesnt matter how many wounds were allocated!

Oh, you almost had it.

Unfortunately you added more words than the rules state: P24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted..." Notice the first sentence. It ends in a period, meaning it's a complete sentence. The paragraph goes on to say, "... for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed ... as a casualty." Where does it say you ignore the other unsaved wounds? This is merely the action you take when you suffer an unsaved wound, not a requirement for the wound to be unsaved.

The key word is 'inflicted.'

liam0404 wrote:To quote my post in the other thread....
page 24 of the BRB
"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
So by your interpretation of the rule, you if you have more unsaved wounds than models /wounds available, you are violating this - if you have excess wounds, (according to your logic), you MUST remove one model for each wound.
Well go on then, start plucking models out of thin air.

You already gave that exact arguement in THIS thread and it has been answered.

Albert Einstein wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I'm no longer paying any attention to the mentally infirm.

DeathReaper wrote:By the logic 'This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same' then vehicles can never take cover saves.

BRB Pg 62 - Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets should answer any questions you have there, although I think you'll be disappointed by the amount of weight that section lends to your arguements.

DeathReaper wrote:...wounds that are in excess of a models characteristic do not count for combat resolution...

Yes, we know that's how you handle combat resolution - we read the rules

DeathReaper wrote:This is how you handle wounds in an assault

Er... no

DeathReaper wrote:The line is from the link, have a read.
Have a look, the mods on this board Approve!

I read the first line where it says it's not published by GW - and its relevence ended.
I'm sure the mods here are lovely people and I can attest that they do a great job in keeping discussion civil.
But while I'm sure their opinions on the rules might be interesting to read they are, none-the-less, merely the opinions of interested laymen - and not to be read as gospel.
I play only by GW rules, and/or house-rules agreed apon by my own gaming group.
Only official GW rules have a place in this debate.

Point on the part about cover saves not applying to vehicles.. they have a section for vehicles and cover.... so.. just so you know..

edit, the above post wasn't there when I put this in. But thank you for that, made me laugh

mpangelu wrote:Point on the part about cover saves not applying to vehicles.. they have a section for vehicles and cover.... so.. just so you know..

edit, the above post wasn't there when I put this in. But thank you for that, made me laugh

Yes I meant to say Invuln.

... What vehicle gets an invulnerable save.

Bjorn

More Spacewolf nonsense..

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:By the logic 'This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same' then vehicles can never take cover saves.

BRB Pg 62 - Vehicles and Cover - Obscured Targets should answer any questions you have there, although I think you'll be disappointed by the amount of weight that section lends to your arguements.

That was supposed to say Invuln save.

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:...wounds that are in excess of a models characteristic do not count for combat resolution...

Yes, we know that's how you handle combat resolution - we read the rules

This is how you handle wounds in an assault

Er... no

Page Number that contradicts this please.

DeathReaper wrote:The line is from the link, have a read.
Have a look, the mods on this board Approve!

I read the first line where it says it's not published by GW - and its relevence ended.
I'm sure the mods here are lovely people and I can attest that they do a great job in keeping discussion civil.
But while I'm sure their opinions on the rules might be interesting to read they are, none-the-less, merely the opinions of interested laymen - and not to be read as gospel.
I play only by GW rules, and/or house-rules agreed apon by my own gaming group.
Only official GW rules have a place in this debate.

Isn't there something in those guidelines that these are suggestions and intentions rather then requirements...

Yes those are suggestions and intentions, It serves to make sure no one is taking advantage of the rules, or interpreting vague rules in favor of the people using them.

It is a good rule of thumb to take the less advantageous of the interpretations, that way you will win friends and influence enemies.

DeathReaper wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:...wounds that are in excess of a models characteristic do not count for combat resolution...

Yes, we know that's how you handle combat resolution - we read the rules

This is how you handle wounds in an assault

Er... no

Page Number that contradicts this please.

BRB Pg 1-110
For nowhere in the entirety of the book does it say "combat resolution... is how you handle wounds in an assault" etc

If you're not happy that the asbence of a rule makes it invalid, then:

"Karlosovic automatically wins ALL games of Warhammer 40K, and EVERYTHING he says is true"
unless

DeathReaper wrote:Page Number that contradicts this please.

DeathReaper wrote:Yes those are suggestions and intentions, It serves to make sure no one is taking advantage of the rules, or interpreting vague rules in favor of the people using them.

It is a good rule of thumb to take the less advantageous of the interpretations, that way you will win friends and influence enemies.

It's also a good rule of thumb to play by the rules. 10 wounds against a squad. 5 are saved, 5 are unsaved. It's irrelevant how many models are in the squad, or how many wounds the squad has. There's saved and then there's unsaved and that's it. All unsaved wounds immediately get rerolled as new hits with the blood talons rule.

karlosovic wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:(=\ The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can only be on models removed as casualties

100% Wrong. Unsaved wounds can be scored against models with multiple wounds, that are not removed as casualties (in the case they have wounds remaining)

The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can be on models removed as casualties and models with multiple wounds by reducing their wonds stat by 1.

Better Soo bed time then

ChrisCP wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:(=\ The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can only be on models removed as casualties

100% Wrong. Unsaved wounds can be scored against models with multiple wounds, that are not removed as casualties (in the case they have wounds remaining)

The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can be on models removed as casualties and models with multiple wounds by reducing their wonds stat by 1.

Better Soo bed time then

The units are not gone at this point (you roll all of the dice before the models are removed), there are still the same number of unsaved wounds, even if it is more than the number of models in the squad.

Granting you

DeathReaper wrote:That was supposed to say Invuln save.

we have

DeathReaper wrote:By the logic 'This isnt combat res, so it doesent work the same' then vehicles can never take invulerable saves.

Generally speaking, the game is played as per rules in the BRB, except where a specifix codex says otherwise.
So generally speaking, you're quite correct - vehicles DONT get invulnerable saves - the same as normal troops DONT normally get invulnerable saves. No one normally get invulnerable saves - UNLESS that unit type has access to a piece of wargear mentioned in the codex.
But it has NOTHING to do with any comparison of the rules for causing a wound and the rules for determining combat results.

Just like the specific rule in question from the Blood Angels codex has NOTHING to do with the rules for determining combat results.

The point is, vehicles can never take Invuln saves because the BRB says you use Invuln saves against wounds. but we know we get invuln on vehicles, this is to point out that rules from one section affect other sections of the book.

The attack sequence P.37 goes like this:

step 1. rolling to hit.
step 2. rolling to wound.
step 3. take saves.
step 4. remove casualties.
step 5. determine assault results.

It breaks down to where you apply the BA dread rules, it does not specifically tell us where to apply them, but by the language of the rules we can gather that it is somewhere near the end just above determine assault results.

So for a Dread with Blood Talons the sequence should look like this:

step 1. rolling to hit.
step 2. rolling to wound.
step 3. take saves.
step 4. remove casualties.
step 5. Check for how many wounds were caused on the unit, for each wound caused go to step 1
step 6. determine assault results.

This is most congruent with all the assault rules, including combat resolution, since combat resolution is just another step in the assault phase rules.

DR out!

DeathReaper wrote:The point is, vehicles can never take Invuln saves because the BRB says you use Invuln saves against wounds. but we know we get invuln on vehicles, this is to point out that rules from one section affect other sections of the book.

This is true - except where a relevent codex entry makes an exception

Codex: Space Wolves Pg 49 wrote:Ward of the Primarch
...
Bjorn has a 5+ invulnerable save saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hit inflicted apon him.

So invulnerable saves are only taken against wounds - EXCEPT situations like Bjorn where relevent codex entry says otherwise

DeathReaper wrote:So for a Dread with Blood Talons the sequence should look like this:

step 1. rolling to hit.
step 2. rolling to wound.
step 3. take saves.
step 4. remove casualties.
step 5. Check for how many wounds were caused on the unit, for each wound caused go to step 1
step 6. determine assault results.

This is most congruent with all the assault rules, including combat resolution, since combat resolution is just another step in the assault phase rules.

DR out!

No, no, no, no, no!
The Blood Talons says you get another attack for each 'unsaved wound'. An unsaved wound (or "wound" (step 2) that is not "saved"(step 3)) is determined at step 3. take saves in your sequence above - so that is where the Blood Talons attack again. Why are you removing casualties half way through the process of an individual model making its attacks?
And that is the poignant fact - The dreadnaught has NOT FINISHED making its attacks. You do not move to another step of the combat process until it HAS finished - and the only break to this sequence is that the number of attacks this dreadnaught is allowed is determined by a cyclic process - a cycle that repeats at the step "unsaved wound" (i.e step 3).
To repeat, it has nothing to do with Remove Casualties and certainly nothing to do with Determine Assault Results!

DeathReaper wrote:The point is, vehicles can never take Invuln saves because the BRB says you use Invuln saves against wounds. but we know we get invuln on vehicles, this is to point out that rules from one section affect other sections of the book.

The attack sequence P.37 goes like this:

step 1. rolling to hit.
step 2. rolling to wound.
step 3. take saves.
step 4. remove casualties.
step 5. determine assault results.

It breaks down to where you apply the BA dread rules, it does not specifically tell us where to apply them, but by the language of the rules we can gather that it is somewhere near the end just above determine assault results.

So for a Dread with Blood Talons the sequence should look like this:

step 1. rolling to hit.
step 2. rolling to wound.
step 3. take saves.
step 4. remove casualties.
step 5. Check for how many wounds were caused on the unit, for each wound caused go to step 1
step 6. determine assault results.

This is most congruent with all the assault rules, including combat resolution, since combat resolution is just another step in the assault phase rules.

DR out!

It's actually more like this:
1. roll to hit
2. roll to wound
3. take saves
4. determine how many saves are passed and how many are failed.
5. for every failed save trigger both of these abilities at the same time: blood fist special rule (goto 1 if unsaved wounds, else continue), and remove casualties*
6. determine assault results

*Both the blood talons ability and the remove casualties rule state that they are resolved "immediately". It is therefore prudent to play as if they happen simultaneously. One is not dependent on the other's results, and therefore they do not effect each other.

Hmm, amusingly on page 25 "He goes on to roll the four saves or the Space Marines with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun)" Now this has to be wrong, or no model without an invuln save could generate an unsaved wound.

Main point being is models suffer unsaved wounds, it there isn't a model to take a wound off then one can not be suffering an unsaved one.

ChrisCP wrote:Hmm, amusingly on page 25 "He goes on to roll the four saves or the Space Marines with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun)" Now this has to be wrong, or no model without an invuln save could generate an unsaved wound.

Main point being is models suffer unsaved wounds, it there isn't a model to take a wound off then one can not be suffering an unsaved one.

Actually it pretty much states the opposite. It still says there are 3 unsaved wounds, but only 2 models are removed, because there are only 2 in that wound group. You quoted it yourself, "Two unsaved wounds PLUS one wound with no armour save from the meltagun". P.24, just to the left "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted..."

Relevant p.24 reference highlighted in bold.

So the BRB explicitly states that there are two unsaved wounds PLUS one more unsaved wound from the meltagun. It also states you only remove 2 models for these 3 unsaved wounds, because that's all there is in this wound group.

Thanks for pointing out that little tidbit, it actually goes against what you are saying. This proves you can have more unsaved wounds than you have models to remove. Blood talons immediately get +3 rolls to hit vs this squad.

Okay... where does it say there are '3 unsaved wounds'?
And where does it save to remove only two models?

ChrisCP wrote:Okay... where does it say there are '3 unsaved wounds'?
And where does it save to remove only two models?

1. "Two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save..." (a wound with no armour save allowed is defined on P.24 as an unsaved wound)
2+1=3 (math)

2. "He should remove three models ... but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both."

Anything else you need?

ChrisCP wrote:Okay... where does it say there are '3 unsaved wounds'?
And where does it save to remove only two models?

BRB Pg25 - Boxed example at the bottom of the page.
Nice and neat

ChrisCP wrote:Main point being is models suffer unsaved wounds, it there isn't a model to take a wound off then one can not be suffering an unsaved one.

Blood Talons still don't work because wounds are inflicted, only caused (i.e. an armour save is failed).

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes an additional attack."

Edit- To clarify, every model that fails it's armour save causes the unit to suffer an unsaved wound. Every unsaved wound caused by a blood talon generates an additional attack. What happens when those wounds are applied as casualties is irrelevant to the blood talon effect.

No thanks Rephistorch you're outlining things perfectly.

forkbanger wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Main point being is models suffer unsaved wounds, it there isn't a model to take a wound off then one can not be suffering an unsaved one.

Blood Talons still don't work because wounds are inflicted, only caused (i.e. an armour save is failed).

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes an additional attack."

I don't quite understand what you're saying here? BT don't work because of wording? How's that helpful? =)



But what page 25 shows is that it's possible for a unit/wound group to suffer more unsaved wounds than it has, no?

ChrisCP wrote:No thanks Rephistorch you're outlining things perfectly.

forkbanger wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Main point being is models suffer unsaved wounds, it there isn't a model to take a wound off then one can not be suffering an unsaved one.

Blood Talons still don't work because wounds are inflicted, only caused (i.e. an armour save is failed).

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes an additional attack."

I don't quite understand what you're saying here? BT don't work because of wording? How's that helpful? =)

I had to scratch my head at this, too.

ChrisCP wrote:But what page 25 shows is that it's possible for a unit/wound group to suffer more unsaved wounds than it has, no?

That's the way most of us read it, yes.

ChrisCP wrote:But what page 25 shows is that it's possible for a unit/wound group to suffer more unsaved wounds than it has, no?

It shows that excess unsaved wounds have no effect, but were still caused.
"He goes on to roll the four saves or the Space Marines with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun), but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both."

You're told that that wound group of two models has been caused three unsaved wounds ("two unsaved wounds plus one wound..from the meltagun")- so you can have more unsaved wounds caused to a group than there are wounds within that group.
That amount of unsaved wounds is the effect that triggers additional Blood Talon attacks, not the amount of wounds inflicted.

So the problem is? (As in, what actual argument has anyone formed to the contrary?)

FB, I tihnk this distinction you're drawing between 'inflicted', 'caused', and 'suffered' is confusig a lot of people. I see where you're going with it, but it doesn't seem strictly adhered to in the rules book

ChrisCP wrote:So the problem is? (As in, what actual argument has anyone formed to the contrary?)

DeathReaper and liam0404 are posting things such as-

liam0404 wrote:
You can allocate 1000000 wounds to a unit for all I care. The unit only has 3 to lose (and hence become unsaved). Therefore only 3 more additional attacks.

And contending that unsaved wounds vanish before casualty removal, leaving the amount of wounds remaining in the unit to be applied as casualties.

karlosovic wrote:FB, I tihnk this distinction you're drawing between 'inflicted', 'caused', and 'suffered' is confusig a lot of people. I see where you're going with it, but it doesn't seem strictly adhered to in the rules book

It's been a long thread with a lot of crap in it, so to summarize my position-

The setup-
A blender-dreadnaught is in close combat with two units- a unit of 3 single-wound models, and another unit.
The blender-dreadnaught makes 5 attacks on the unit of 3 single-wound models.
It rolls to hit and produces 5 hits. (p37)
It rolls to wound and produces 5 wounds. (p38)
The argument-
5 saving throws are taken for the wounded unit. (p39, referring to p20)
Blood talons are a power weapon, so all 5 armour saves are failed. (p42)
"For each model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (p24)
The blood talons generate 5 additional attacks having met their trigger effect.
"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes an additional attack." (C:BA)

The counter argument brough inflicted wounds into it (through the use of combat resolution mechanics), which are different- and have no bearing on blood talons.

The counter argument appears to be-
The counter argument-
5 saving throws are taken for the wounded unit. (p39, referring to p20)
Blood talons are a power weapon, so all 5 armour saves are failed. (p42)
Remove casualties- all 3 single-wound models. (p24)
The blood talons generate 3 additional attacks.

Zzz. dumb
what I should have been saying was.
"Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model’s Wounds characteristic, only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models (including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death)." Pg 39
So this quote shows exactly that the unsaved wounds have happened and would be counted for CR in not for this note.

ChrisCP wrote:So the problem is? (As in, what actual argument has anyone formed to the contrary?)

So the problem is that two people simply refuse to accept that this is the case.
The implication is a difference in the number of "Unsaved Wounds" in play - which has an effect on things such as the number of FNP rolls a model would have to take, or the number of extra attacks a Blood Angels dread with Blood Talons would be entitled to.

E.g - 3 space marines with FNP get shot and fail a total of 5 saves.
A FNP roll would need to be made for every instance of "Unsaved Wound"
We're saying this number would be 5 - and by extension the 3 marines would be dead if either 3, 4 or 5 of those rolls were then failed.... and all 5 would need to be passed for all the marines to survive.

The other 2 people claim 3 marines can't suffer 5 wounds - they could only suffer 3 wounds.
So they're magicallly reducing the number of Unsaved Wounds from 5 to 3 (the ammount of models) - and therefore the number of FNP rolls to 3 ..... and by extension would therefore say their 3 marines were still alive if they passed 3 FNP rolls (instead of the 5 that were caused)

And same argument applied to Blood Talons


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:... will lose combat by 6? ...

No, we're NOT talking about combat results

Check the edit, I used the wrong quote.

If we look at P.24, under 'remove casualties' it says '... most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.'

We have two things happening at the same time, we remove one model as a casualty for each unsaved wound, and we have the dread generating extra attacks based off unsaved wounds caused.

Therefore:
How many unsaved wounds caused = how many models are removed as casualties.
If this process is different I will need a Page Number.

Thank you and goodnight.

DeathReaper wrote:
How many unsaved wounds caused = how many models are removed as casualties.
If this process is different I will need a Page Number.

This is blatantly untrue.

One unsaved wound does not remove a multi-wound model.
One unsaved wound does not remove a model that successfully uses the Feel No Pain special rule.

Once again, p25-"He goes on to roll the four saves or the Space Marines with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun), but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both."

Three unsaved wounds remove two single-wound models as casualties.

And unsaved wounds that did not remove a model/wound are only ignored for combat resolution.

DeathReaper wrote:If we look at P.24, under 'remove casualties' it says '... most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.'.

As i said to Liam in the other thread:
The wording "Most models" means this is an example - a particularly generalised and simplified one at that. It is NOT the be-all and end-all of wound allocation. There are many more factors that may come into play in more complex situations. (like FNP and Blood Talons)

DeathReaper wrote:We have two things happening at the same time, we remove one model as a casualty for each unsaved wound, and we have the dread generating extra attacks based off unsaved wounds caused.

No, that's wrong - Remove Casualties is a step after this - in the case of Blood Talons we would now enter a new cycle of "Determine Attacks", and in the case of FNP, we would now be rolling to see which models are saved by the FNP rules. Again, Remove Casualties is a later step in the combat process.

DeathReaper wrote:Therefore:
How many unsaved wounds caused = how many models are removed as casualties.

No... The only rule that mentions creation of an Unsaved Wound says they are caused for each wound against which a successful saving throw is not made. No where does it mention or imply that an Unsaved Wound comes into existence when the Wound Characteristic is reduced or when a model is removed from play.
If you want a page number... it's Pg24.... the 2 sentences containing concrete rules DIRECTLY PRIOR to your much vaunted but merely general and overly simple example about "Most models have a single wound".
I'm really not sure how you missed them, given how often you cite that very paragraph

How can people get this wrong? This is about one of the simplest rules in the game.

forkbanger is exactly correct in this. Models can be assigned and fail more than one save quite happily, it's how you kill multi-wound models. My brain cannot quite comprehend how people do not understand this. Just blatantly making up rules to justify their standpoint.

Though I have to admit this much brain-wrong is funny.

karlosovic has it as well

1) Blood talons roll to hit
2) Blood Talons roll to wound
3) calculate unsaved wounds then, if more than 1 go back to step 1.
4) remove casualties, excess unsaved wounds are lost.

The argument isnt about whetehr you can be assigned more than one wound, but if any unsaved wounds in excess of your wounds characteristic (or wounds left) actually count for anything.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The argument isnt about whetehr you can be assigned more than one wound, but if any unsaved wounds in excess of your wounds characteristic (or wounds left) actually count for anything.

If you have unsaved wounds, you produce that many blood talon attacks. That's what blood talons say.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The argument isnt about whetehr you can be assigned more than one wound, but if any unsaved wounds in excess of your wounds characteristic (or wounds left) actually count for anything.

You're missing the step, excess unsaved wounds count for nothing in Comabt Resolution, but Blood Talons jump in before Combat Resolution and add to the total number of Unsaved wounds, which are then translated into casualties removed, but that all happens after the Blender is turned off.

Wow, the thread exploded over night...

Funny how 5 people are quoting rules and bringing arguments and the one of the only two actually opposing them are quoting a thread on discussions while violating its rule in the same post and the other calling everyone disagreeing names.

I think it has actualy been proven numerous times by RAW, that the number of wounds actually lost is not equal to the number of unsaved wounds.

To the above posters - I didnt argue either way, so responding to the post with the argument one way doesnt achieve anything.

I was correcting the misconception about the assignment of wounding hits ((just to make it clear whereabouts in the process we are!)

nosferatu1001 wrote:To the above posters - I didnt argue either way, so responding to the post with the argument one way doesnt achieve anything.

I was correcting the misconception about the assignment of wounding hits ((just to make it clear whereabouts in the process we are!)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.

3 attacks extra only.

Excuse my confusion then because you did seem to argue one way.

Just to change it up a bit, let's say that the Dred is in a multi-unit with a simgle wound model and a 5 man single wound unit. (neither of which have an invulnerable save)

The Dred allocates all of it's attack on the single model 'unit'. It hits 4 times and wounds with all 4 attacks.

It's been asserted that taken together the following rules mean that the Dred would get another set of 4 attacks to direct against the second unit.

For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack." (C:BA p60)

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

When an unsaved wound is caused/suffered BRB pg.24 directs you to, using the example of a single wound model, immediately remove the model as a casualty.

So which of the 4 unsaved wounds was the one that caused you to immediately remove the model?

The only way that the Blood Talons can register an unsaved wound for the purposes of getting an extra attack is for the unit to suffer a wound. When a unit suffers a wound the models wound profile is reduced by 1. If it reaches 0 the model is immediately removed, preventing any additional 'unsaved wounds' from registering.

You might want to read the thread, as your argument has been answered to multiple times already.

quick summary:
- wound profile is never reduced for single wound models.
- you have to roll all wounds at once, so you can't suffer wounds one at a time and remove your model before all telling wounds have been saved or have become unsaved wounds.
- you have to suffer "unsaved wounds" before removing any casualties. before removing casualties, you don't look at the wound characteristic at all.

See corresponding posts for page references.

"take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch." Page 25

Jidmah wrote:You might want to read the thread, as your argument has been answered to multiple times already.

I have, it was rhetorical

Jidmah wrote:quick summary:
- wound profile is never reduced for single wound models.
- you have to roll all wounds at once, so you can't suffer wounds one at a time and remove your model before all telling wounds have been saved or have become unsaved wounds.
- you have to suffer "unsaved wounds" before removing any casualties. before removing casualties, you don't look at the wound characteristic at all.

See corresponding posts for page references.

As for everything else, other folks have said it much better then me. Suffice to say I disagree, you can't get more attacks than wounds caused.

-Yad

Well, naturally that is true, as one would have great difficulty trying to wind up with more unsaved woulds than wounds inflicted...

Ara - in the quote you posted I did not argue either direction. The point I was making is answering THAT post with an argument, when it was clarifying an apparent misunderstanding on your part, is not relevant.

Yad wrote:As for everything else, other folks have said it much better then me. Suffice to say I disagree, you can't get more attacks than wounds caused.

-Yad

Well this is kind of like "I shoot your LR with a rail gun, rolled six for penetration and six for damage result. It explodes." "I disagree, roll off?"

Jidmah wrote:

Yad wrote:As for everything else, other folks have said it much better then me. Suffice to say I disagree, you can't get more attacks than wounds caused.

-Yad

Well this is kind of like "I shoot your LR with a rail gun, rolled six for penetration and six for damage result. It explodes." "I disagree, roll off?"

Your analogy, while crystal clear, is utterly lacking in similarity and falls well short of proving a point.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ara - in the quote you posted I did not argue either direction. The point I was making is answering THAT post with an argument, when it was clarifying an apparent misunderstanding on your part, is not relevant.

I've read both of your posts a lot now I and I cannot fathom at all what you're talking about, probably a translation problem, so I'll just move on.

Well this is kind of like "I shoot your LR with a rail gun, rolled six for penetration and six for damage result. It explodes." "I disagree, roll off?"

That seems to be exactly the argument presented.

Yad wrote:

Your analogy, while crystal clear, is utterly lacking in similarity and falls well short of proving a point.

-Yad

As you have read the whole thread, you should have read one of the posts explaining why it does not work the way you posted, as there are almost exactly identical posts to yours. There are even two posts going through your example step-by-step.

So what do you want proven? That FNP stops working for almost all units in WH40k with that USR using your interpretation? That there is no rule for ignoring overkill wounds in respect to any special rules? Unsaved wounds being a different number than wounds lost? That actual wounds suffered have no bearing whatsoever outside of combat resolution? It's all there.

Ara - your post, the one I responded to, indicated that you believed the query was about allocating wounds to models. that isnt what the query / argument is about in this thread.

I was not stating anything in that post about which side of the 3 / 5 extra attacks debate I am *currently* on, therefore arguing that point based on those posts is pointless.

Talon dread rolls to hit.
Talon dread rolls to wound.
Model Fails armour saves. (doesent allow any, but keeps it clean and clear)
So, there are your failed saves, attacks are generated again.

Only after that do you conclude the assault by removing casualties. (and res afterwards if thats the end of it)


So its pretty easy to cause more unsaved wounds to a unit than it has total wounds.
Since you dont remove a model straight away (all attacks are made 1st), its worked through the steps 1 by 1.

People (well, 2 of whom i wont name) need to drop the idea that combat res has anything to do with this.
Your mixing 2 different rules when not asked to do so.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Talon dread rolls to hit.
Talon dread rolls to wound.
Model Fails armour saves. (doesent allow any, but keeps it clean and clear)
So, there are your failed saves, attacks are generated again.
Only after that do you conclude the assault by removing casualties. (and res afterwards if thats the end of it)

So its pretty easy to cause more unsaved wounds to a unit than it has total wounds.
Since you dont remove a model straight away (all attacks are made 1st), its worked through the steps 1 by 1.

But here is the problem with that jack, P.24 tells you to for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed as a casualty.

The Blood talon dread says for each unsaved wound caused the dread immediately makes another attack. So these two things happen simultaneously, you remove models as casualties, one for each unsaved wound, as you total up the number of unsaved wounds on the target unit. So for each unsaved wound/model removed you generate an additional attack.

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
How many unsaved wounds caused = how many models are removed as casualties.
If this process is different I will need a Page Number.

This is blatantly untrue.

One unsaved wound does not remove a multi-wound model.
One unsaved wound does not remove a model that successfully uses the Feel No Pain special rule.

Once again, p25-"He goes on to roll the four saves or the Space Marines with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun), but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both."

Three unsaved wounds remove two single-wound models as casualties.

P.25 does not refute my statement, It does not say that you can have more wounds caused than models that are available to be removed. Since it makes no mention of what to do with the extra. since it does not tell us what to do with it, we can not do anything with it.
Permissive ruleset tells us we can not randomly add those extra wounds to our blood talons because we are not told to do so.
and you look at P.25 and it tells you that two models were removed, and two unsaved wounds caused at this point. It does not tell you what happens with that last potential wound since there is no model to remove. But we know that if you do not remove a model you can't have an unsaved wound caused since models removed = unsaved wounds caused as per p.24

Point 1: I reference one wound models, not multi wound models in my post, so not 'blatantly untrue' yet.
Point 2: I make no reference to feel no pain, so not 'blatantly untrue' yet.

P.24 is very specific on this process of immediately removing a model for each unsaved wound.

The reference I cited is not an example, they directly tell us how to handle one wound models. the unit suffering a wound for each failed save is a part of the remove casualties process. so in a unit of three marines, no matter how many failed saves they had they can only remove three models and the excess are ignored, even in the example the "Extra wound" that would remove a model, does not as there is no more wounds that can be caused on that wound group, since all the models are now dead after the two caused wounds. In the case of one wound models there is a direct correlation between unsaved wounds and models removed. They are interchangeable.

Aramoro wrote:1) Blood talons roll to hit
2) Blood Talons roll to wound
3) calculate unsaved wounds then, if more than 1 go back to step 1.
4) remove casualties, excess unsaved wounds are lost.

The above is off, you do not calculate unsaved wounds then go back to one, the rules for removing models and the blood talons extra attacks get calculated simultaneously, so it should look like this:

1) Blood talons roll to hit
2) Blood Talons roll to wound
3) take saves (in this case saves are not allowed)
4) calculate unsaved wounds and remove casualties, excess unsaved wounds are lost., then, if more than 1 go back to step 1.

This is the order of operations in the book on P. 17-24.

karlosovic wrote:No, that's wrong - Remove Casualties is a step after this

Re-read P.24, one wound models are immediately removed when you calculate how many unsaved wounds you have.

@Jidmah your statement is false, it has not been proven "that the number of wounds actually lost is not equal to the number of unsaved wounds." (If it were proven we wound not be discussing it.)

If you find a solid rules reference let me know otherwise I am going to say Thank you for the debate, and good night.

DeathReaper wrote:The above is off, you do not calculate unsaved wounds then go back to one, the rules for removing models and the blood talons extra attacks get calculated simultaneously, so it should look like this:

4) calculate unsaved wounds and remove casualties, excess unsaved wounds are lost., then, if more than 1 go back to step 1.

This isn't simultaneous.

DeathReaper wrote:But here is the problem with that jack, P.24 tells you to for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed as a casualty.

Two sentences before that, the same paragraph tells you that "For every model that fails it's armour save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Then you're told that for each unsaved wound you remove a model as a casualty. A number of unsaved wounds are caused by failing armour saves, and applied subsequently.
The number of unsaved wounds caused by failing armour saves is the number used for Feel No Pain, blood talons, acid blood, and other effects that depend on causing/suffering unsaved wounds.
The number of those unsaved wounds that are subsequently applied is not used for anything except combat resolution.

Yea, notice how that entire section outlines how to remove casualties?

it is all one process. look at the steps on P.15

remove casualties is step 6, everything outlined in that section happens at step 6.

I don't understand how you can say in one post that a model can only ever suffer 1 unsaved wound, but is suppose to take multiple fnp saves.

And in another say that the unsaved wounds are lost over the wound value, for cases like Blood Talons.

Because FNP disrupts the process, wounds can be allocated to that model for FNP, but it can only ever suffer 1 wound, at the outset, as that is all it has to give for its country.

DeathReaper wrote:Because FNP disrupts the process, wounds can be allocated to that model for FNP, but it can only ever suffer 1 wound, at the outset, as that is all it has to give for its country.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the wound process is described in detail in an example on p.25. It clearly states that there are 3 unsaved wounds suffered, and that 3 models should be removed. It also says, because they're are less than three you just remove the two. You don't "ignore" the extra wounds, and it doesn't tell you that the wounds "don't count". Unless you can point to a place in the rules that says explicitly that unsaved wounds in excess of a models W value are ignored, then your assumptions are incorrect.

PS, combat resolution does not count, as we aren't talking about combat resolution, and it makes specific exceptions to the "normal" determinations of what unsaved wounds are.

Rephistorch, your forgetting that you must carry the rules over from the combat res page .................... joking, relax


the example you have cant be ignored as it shows just what everyone has been saying all along.

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because FNP disrupts the process, wounds can be allocated to that model for FNP, but it can only ever suffer 1 wound, at the outset, as that is all it has to give for its country.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the wound process is described in detail in an example on p.25. It clearly states that there are 3 unsaved wounds suffered, and that 3 models should be removed. It also says, because they're are less than three you just remove the two. You don't "ignore" the extra wounds, and it doesn't tell you that the wounds "don't count". Unless you can point to a place in the rules that says explicitly that unsaved wounds in excess of a models W value are ignored, then your assumptions are incorrect.

PS, combat resolution does not count, as we aren't talking about combat resolution, and it makes specific exceptions to the "normal" determinations of what unsaved wounds are.

It does not tell you to count them, so you cant.

Your missing the point death.
The model in question does not have talons, so it wouldnt need to count them.


It shows that you can cause more unsaved wounds than the unit has total wounds, which kills off your argument straight away.

And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Rephistorch, your forgetting that you must carry the rules over from the combat res page .................... joking, relax


the example you have cant be ignored as it shows just what everyone has been saying all along.

Ha-ha, I mean, if you want to give me extra attacks for multi-wound models that I ID, that's cool and all, but I'd rather play by the rules and only use the unsaved wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

It tells you exactly what to do. It says that there are 3 unsaved wounds. The third wound was most definitely caused by something, it doesn't just magically appear. They address the situation very simply by removing all the remaining models.

It says only 2 models are removed, but that there were 3 unsaved wounds, which is what triggers BT's.. Before casualties are removed, same as FNP.

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Well he is saying it for that and the fact that excess wounds are ignored for removing asualties.

Which just shows a limitation on what they can't be used for that particular situation. Doesn't mean that they never happened.

mpangelu wrote:Well he is saying it for that and the fact that excess wounds are ignored for removing asualties.

Which just shows a limitation on what they can't be used for that particular situation. Doesn't mean that they never happened.

I completely understand his position, I'm just wondering if he's up for a friendly mini-debate.

Good luck with that.

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Theoretical is fine if it is based on RaW.

My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds. Since they do not tell you what to do with the overage we simply must choose the less advantageous thing and not use those wounds for anything.

It does not address what to to with the extras, and since a one wound model can only have one wounds caused against it before it dies, in the example on P.25 there is nothing saying you can treat the extra wound as a wound that is caused since it did not remove a model, and we all know you remove one model for each wound caused.

Basically basing it on P.24 that says you need to remove a one wound model for each unsaved wound caused, and the fact that once you run out of models to remove you can not cause anymore wounds because you can not follow this rule. (not based on combat res per say, but combat res happens to say the same thing).

DeathReaper wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Theoretical is fine if it is based on RaW.

My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds. Since they do not tell you what to do with the overage we simply must choose the less advantageous thing and not use those wounds for anything.

It does not address what to to with the extras, and since a one wound model can only have one wounds caused against it before it dies, in the example on P.25 there is nothing saying you can treat the extra wound as a wound that is caused since it did not remove a model, and we all know you remove one model for each wound caused.

Basically basing it on P.24 that says you need to remove a one wound model for each unsaved wound caused, and the fact that once you run out of models to remove you can not cause anymore wounds because you can not follow this rule. (not based on combat res per say, but combat res happens to say the same thing).

You know what, you are right on the part it doesn't say what to do with the wounds. However, lets consider this. Does the Blood Talons care about how many models there are?

Would you agree that a model has to suffer an unsaved wound before it is removed?

If so, then the attacks are made, wounds allocated, saves rolled, unsaved wounds are created.

The Blood Talons are triggered immediately when an unsaved wound is created, just as a FNP roll is created (pending circumstances), and therefore further attacks are generated on number of unsaved wounds created. This is before the removed casualty process. If you rolled (or even unable to roll) 5 saves, and those 5 were failed, then they were unsaved. We aren't even considering at this point in time the wounds on the profile, the wound characteristic, combat resolution, models removed.. none of that.. Simply unsaved wounds caused.

As the Unsaved wounds are created, it triggers blood talons effect, after that continue with resolution of the unsaved wounds. i.e. now remove casualty excess wounds are lost. The attacks have already been sent back into the combat and now are continuing again (pending another target to do so).

The whole reason there are 5 unsaved wounds and not 3, is because we have to roll in a batch and not one at a time. Otherwise I would agree that they are never created. I'd also believe the game would double in length if not more.

DeathReaper wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Theoretical is fine if it is based on RaW.

My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds. Since they do not tell you what to do with the overage we simply must choose the less advantageous thing and not use those wounds for anything.

It does not address what to to with the extras, and since a one wound model can only have one wounds caused against it before it dies, in the example on P.25 there is nothing saying you can treat the extra wound as a wound that is caused since it did not remove a model, and we all know you remove one model for each wound caused.

Basically basing it on P.24 that says you need to remove a one wound model for each unsaved wound caused, and the fact that once you run out of models to remove you can not cause anymore wounds because you can not follow this rule. (not based on combat res per say, but combat res happens to say the same thing).

Darn that's too bad, because I had a good argument if you believed that combat resolution is what we should go by. Unfortunately, I don't have much more for you than I already stated.

However, I will reiterate that just because an action's triggered events can't be performed as stated, it doesn't mean that the action didn't happen. An unsaved wound is an unsaved wound no matter what circumstances are involved.

Just because a duck is dead, doesn't mean that it's not a duck.

Edit: Something else I wanted to say:
You keep saying you can't "cause" more wounds than a model has. Cause in the English language just means "to bring about". If five wounds are caused to 3 models, it doesn't matter if there aren't enough wound characteristics to soak up this damage. The wounds were "Caused" whether or not there are models to remove.

If you argue otherwise, what is "Causing" the wounds?

Rephistorch wrote:Just because a duck is dead, doesn't mean that it's not a duck.

/quack

mpangelu wrote:You know what, you are right on the part it doesn't say what to do with the wounds. However, lets consider this. Does the Blood Talons care about how many models there are?

Would you agree that a model has to suffer an unsaved wound before it is removed?

If so, then the attacks are made, wounds allocated, saves rolled, unsaved wounds are created.

The Blood Talons are triggered immediately when an unsaved wound is created, just as a FNP roll is created (pending circumstances), and therefore further attacks are generated on number of unsaved wounds created. This is before the removed casualty process.

No, The Blood Talons are triggered immediately when an unsaved wound is caused, not created.

Wounds are caused at the remove casualties step, not before, so these two things happen all at step 6 on p.15 (the remove casualties step on P.24 outlines this process.)

Thus the debate.

Rephistorch wrote:Edit:You keep saying you can't "cause" more wounds than a model has. Cause in the English language just means "to bring about". If five wounds are caused to 3 models, it doesn't matter if there aren't enough wound characteristics to soak up this damage. The wounds were "Caused" whether or not there are models to remove.

If you argue otherwise, what is "Causing" the wounds?

The rules use wounds caused, wounds inflicted, and wounds suffered to mean the same thing in the rules. a one wound model can not suffer more than one wound, just as you can not inflict more than one wound to a one wound model, since it dies and is removed from the table after the first wound inflicted.

Though I do not think we are going to agree, so we should probably just let it be.

DeathReaper wrote:
The rules use wounds caused, wounds inflicted, and wounds suffered to mean the same thing in the rules. a one wound model can not suffer more than one wound, just as you can not inflict more than one wound to a one wound model, since it dies and is removed from the table after the first wound inflicted.

Though I do not think we are going to agree, so we should probably just let it be.

I agree that we're not going to agree if you can't tell me what has "caused" the wounds.

Wounds are caused at the remove casualties step, not before, so these two things happen all at step 6 on p.15 (the remove casualties step on P.24 outlines this process.)

Where on earth did you think this is true. A wound is created after hitting a model.... a wound is caused before saves are made. Do you even think about this anymore or are you just blindly following it because you don't want to see beyond your own nose ..

If nothing else. I ask you for a minute to consider the other side of this argument, and ask you to see it from the other sideand then read what you are saying.