Galador wrote:So fine, lets try something new. Show me anywhere in the BRB where it tells you that a model making a test can allocate the test to another model. Notice I said the test, not the effects. If you cannot test on another model, you cannot have the effects happen to another model.

First, what kind of test? Atribute tests that clearly define their own rules for failue? They don't apply here, as they're not part of the wound/casualty system. DT is. Second, what would this prove?

Your last sentence here is very specifically false. The first sentence under Remove Casualties (we all know it's pg. 24 by now, right?) states that a failed save made by a model becomes an unsaved wound for the unit. In turn, you can remove any model as long as it's identical. That's a clear-cut case where the effects can happen to another model. If you want DT to not work this way, you have to show me where it provides an exception.

I think that's ultimately the problem with this discussion. The burden here is for people to show that the exact model must be removed, as this is an exception to the general rule. If there is no exception, then we fall back to the general rule. Showing the general rule is written for shooting or targeted units or anything else honestly isn't enough unless you can provide the alternate method, as well. The burden is on you guys to find an exception and thoroughly investigate it instead of bringing it here right away to be shot down, usually for a second or third time.

If you want an analogy: When something falls, it hits the floor. That's the general rule. The only way this doesn't happen is if it lands on something else. That's the exception. Now, if I tell you that something fell, and don't tell you what it landed on, we can assume it landed on the floor. You have to show me why DT doesn't land on the "floor" (the Remove Casualties section). You could alternately show that there's a different general case, but nobody's even found anything close so far.

I cannot take a Psychic test on one Librarian attached to a unit, roll boxcars for a perils of the Warp, and then put the effects of said test onto another model within the unit. And that is not because the Librarian is an IC, nor is it because he is unique, it is simply because the Librarian is the model that took the test and failed it, so he suffers the consequences.

Now that I think about it, you could theoretically have something similar to this happen. Take Zoanthropes, for example. They're a unit of multiple models with multiple wounds, right? Two, I think. Say two of them both Perils and fail their saves. There are now two unsaved wounds allocated to the group of identical models. Per pg. 26 under Units of Multiple-Wound Models, paragraph 4, "Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models." So I guess you'd have to remove a Zoanthrope. I had considered that a case like this was possible, but I didn't think it actually existed in the game. That's all slightly off-topic, but interesting.

And yes, the reason you can't do this with two identical Librairans is that they're ICs, and thus subject to the counting down of wounds described at the beginning of pg. 26.

Who said anything about two librarians?? I said a Librarian and a unit he is attached to, I said nothing about a second Librarian. You can't attribute the wound from a PotW to a non Psychic model. It states the psyker, which is the model that took the test (in this case, the librarian). If you want to attribute it to different models, such as your zoanthropes, you can't do that either, because each Zoan takes a seperate Psychic test, and it states the psyker takes the wound if he fails the test, once again with no armor or cover saves (sound familiar?). So there are two instances of tests that I have given you that state the specific model takes the results of its test, even in a unit with two of the same models. (your Zoanthropes). Under PotW, it says nothing about the unit can have the wound allocated, it straight says that the psyker suffers the wound if rolls the PotW on his Psychic test.

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

You want to talk about specific vs. general, and you tell me that Dangerous Terrain is more general than Removing Casualties... lets break that down to what each one of these rules deals with in the game, shall we?

Lets start with yours...

Places where removing casualties is used within the game:
When shot at by another unit.
When a blast marker scatters onto them
when a flamer is targeted at another unit but they are between the firer and the target
No Retreat! Rule
When a vehicle explodes and they are within the range
When a transport explodes and they are embarked
Units occupying a building hit by a template weapon
Units occupying a building that explodes
Units within range when a building explodes

Ok, now lets see where Dangerous Terrain is used in the game:
When a model moves into, through, or out of Dangerous Terrain



So, which one is more specific now???

And the example of showing where you put the wound from the dangerous terrain test, as you asked for, has been shown to you multiple times, but I will state it once more, and remember, as I stated above, NOWHERE in the Dangerous Terrain rules does it state unit, but it only states model, hence it is the more specific rule, as it breaks it down to individual models, as model is defined on pg. 3 of the BRB. On this page it states that each model is an individual playing piece with its own capabilities. It then goes on to state under the explanation for units, also on pg. 3, that units are made up of models, which once again specifies even further down that a unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but can also be a single, very large or very powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature, or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as "units".

Now then, onto the specific example you wanted:

Stated for at least the third time verbatim by me, and I'm pretty sure by a few others as well, in the rules for Dangerous Terrain, pg. 14: on a roll of a one, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed.

Seems quite specific right there that it is broken down to the individual model that moved into, through, or out of the Dangerous terrain and failed its test is the one that suffers the wound.

Back to you, now show me where it states in the dangerous terrain rules that the wound goes on a unit, and not an individual model.

Galador wrote:

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

It really doesn't have to show that the unit suffers a wound. Based on the RAW, it sounds to me like dangerous terrain happens just like getting shot and wounded, except the wounds are automatically allocated to individual model, just like if your unit were shot at, you take the wounds and allocate them, then take saving throws. DT on a roll of a 1 jumps straight to the "take saving throws" part, only allowing invulnerable saves. If the model making the save fails, then, per page BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

PB wrote:

Galador wrote:

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

It really doesn't have to show that the unit suffers a wound. Based on the RAW, it sounds to me like dangerous terrain happens just like getting shot and wounded, except the wounds are automatically allocated to individual model, just like if your unit were shot at, you take the wounds and allocate them, then take saving throws. DT on a roll of a 1 jumps straight to the "take saving throws" part, only allowing invulnerable saves. If the model making the save fails, then, per page BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

No, it doesn't need to show that the unit suffers the wound, because it already went even more specific and stated the model that failed the test suffered the wound. There is no allocation, as it has already been allocated for you, its even been allocated down to a single, individual model. Since the rule allocates *exactly* who takes the wound, there is no allocation, and the rest of the unit never deals with this wound, only the specific model that failed the test. It is nothing like getting shot at, because there is no checking range, there is no rolling to hit, there is no rolling to wound. The only thing you do is take a test, and if you fail the test, you suffer a wound. Dangerous terrain has no strength, no AP, nothing whatsoever that has to do with shooting, so you can't begin to compare it to shooting.

Galador wrote:

PB wrote:

Galador wrote:

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

It really doesn't have to show that the unit suffers a wound. Based on the RAW, it sounds to me like dangerous terrain happens just like getting shot and wounded, except the wounds are automatically allocated to individual model, just like if your unit were shot at, you take the wounds and allocate them, then take saving throws. DT on a roll of a 1 jumps straight to the "take saving throws" part, only allowing invulnerable saves. If the model making the save fails, then, per BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

No, it doesn't need to show that the unit suffers the wound, because it already went even more specific and stated the model that failed the test suffered the wound. There is no allocation, as it has already been allocated for you, its even been allocated down to a single, individual model. Since the rule allocates *exactly* who takes the wound, there is no allocation, and the rest of the unit never deals with this wound, only the specific model that failed the test. It is nothing like getting shot at, because there is no checking range, there is no rolling to hit, there is no rolling to wound. The only thing you do is take a test, and if you fail the test, you suffer a wound. Dangerous terrain has no strength, no AP, nothing whatsoever that has to do with shooting, so you can't begin to compare it to shooting.

That's exactly what I just said, there is no allocation, it has already been allocated for you. The only thing DT is overriding here is how wounds are allocated, not how models are removed from the board. Since DT says that wounding and removing models is explained in the next section, we can very easily turn to that section to determine what happens after a model takes a wound. They roll saves, then (again) per page BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

Galador wrote:
Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

Here is where your argument completely breaks down. You want to resolve wounds without the rules for resolving wounds. The only reason you can do this is because you know how to resolve wounds. Let's say you're a new player that has never played 40K before - you've only read up to Dangerous Terrain - you haven't read any of the wound/save/casualties rules yet.

Then you read the rules for Dangerous Terrain and it tells you that if you roll a 1, the model suffers a wound.

Big deal. Without the rest of the rules (Take Saving Throws and Remove Casualities) that means jack and squat. Who cares if he takes 1 wound, who cares if he takes 100 wounds. If you don't know what "being wounded" means, you can't proceed with the DT rules.

You keep referring back to the DT rules as if they're in a vaccuum and they're not. They rely on the shooting rules (as does Close Combat) to tell you how to resolve wounds. If you had never played 40K in your life, you'd have no idea what to do next after reading the DT rules unless the Remove Casualites rules explained it to you.

Galador wrote:Who said anything about two librarians?? (+ a lot more)

Sadly, I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, I'm about to go play a game. I'll take a more thorough look at it tonight, though.

My first response to all of this is: What happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound?

My answer to that is, unless otherwise specified, we follow the steps on pg. 24 "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 . . ." It then tells us the player who own the unit can choose which model is removed, as long as they're identical. If they're not, there are more instructions later on. (sorry again for my brevity)

You want me to tell you where in DT it says that the unit suffers a wound. It actually refers us to the rules in the next section, which is the shooting phase, which is where Removing Casualties. So the DT rules actually end up pointing us to Remove Casualties.

If all of that doesn't convince you, which it hasn't so far, we'll ignore Remove Casualties. Now: What happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound?

I'll tell you right now that any answer without a page reference and a quotation won't be good enough. The rules have to actually tell us what to do. Be thorough, precise, and clear. Find a place where it tells you what happens when an individual model within a unit of identical models suffers a wound. I'll go on to warn you that the first two paragraphs on pg 26 about Multiple-Wound Models deals with lone models, not units (and also requires multiple wounds to be applicable).

Also, we really should be working under the assumption that we have a unit of identical models with one wound, for simplicity's sake. Can we at least agree on that and then go up from there?

Ok, so lets go step by step with this and I will show you where the remove casualties rule is completely skipped over in the Dangerous Terrain...

Nowhere in the the rules for dangerous terrain tests does it cause the odel to be a casualty. It only causes the model that rolls a 1 on the Dangerous Terrain test to suffer a wound. It then says that wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It says nothing about removing casualties.

So lets head to the next section, shall we?? Ah, the shooting phase... Let's see what the first relevant page to Dangerous Terrain is..... hmm... no line of sight needed... no range check needed... no rolling to hit....no rolling to wound....AHHA!! Here we go, page 20, taking saving throws. That is the first of the two references that we need, as we didn't roll to wound for the Dangerous terrain, we just simply caused a wound. So then, lets read a bit, shall we?

So it states that if all the models in the unit are the same, roll all the saves together. So if we have a 10 man Tactical squad, do we roll them all together??? Why, no we don't, because there are different models in there. So lets read on a bit more.... the next paragraph then states that we need to know exactly who was wounded (emphasis mine, but words are exact from BRB), and this requires an extra step. The wounds the unit (had to highlight that to you so that you can tell me it says unit in your next reply) has suffered must be allocated onto SPECIFIC MODELS before saving throws are taken. (Wow, so it does say specific models, not just the group that are the exact same in the unit.....)
This extra step is explained after the basic rules (see page 25).

So, if we have a unit with more than one different model, we head to page 25. Which has been your example almost the entire time, so lets head on over there. And before you tell me otherwise, the majority of your examples have been 3 melta gunners in a squad, so that says to me that the squad is bigger than the three melta gunners, hence you would have to jump to page 25.

Well, would you look at that, we skipped right on over the Removing Casualties section! And now we are in the complex units section.

And look, the complex units section still tells us that you have to decide which models must be wounded! But we already know that part, as it was allocated to the model that took the test by the Dangerous Terrain rules. It then tells you that you have to allocate one wound to each model before any can take a second one, but our one wound has already been allocated, and we don't have anymore, so it once again falls on the specific model that failed the test! So then we go on to the saving throws section of complex units. It then says that once all the wounds have been allocated, which Dangerous terrain did for us, all identical models in gaming terms can be rolled for their saves at once. But we don't get armor saves, so can't roll for that. We don't get cover saves, so can't roll for that. We don't have a invul save, so we don't get to roll for any saves!

So on the page before Removing casualties, and on page 25 for complex units, it tells us that we must know exactly which specific model has been wounded, which we already know thanks to the Dangerous Terrain rules!!!

Try looking beyond the one spot in the rulebook that tells you what you want to see, i.e. that any model can be targeted, hit, wounded, and removed as a casualty, and also, try to remember that the remove casualties section was written for the shooting phase, and is then referenced in the Assault phase. Nowhere in this is dangerous terrain, because as stated above, a dangerous terrain test does not remove casualties, nor does it cause a model to be a casualty, it simply causes the model to suffer a wound.

I really don't think I can stomach going much more in depth than that. If you need any where else inthe rules for taking saving throws, or allocating wounds, or whatever, that defeats Removing casualties as it is the step prior, and the fact that the BRB itself tells you that you must know the exact and specific model that has been wounded, then I can't help you. So, now the ball is back in your court, to dig into the rules even further than I did, and show me where I made a typographical error, or where my perception of a word is different than yours. But seeing as this thread has gone from amusing to annoying to downright stupidity, I don't think I will be posting again.

And no, I did not call anyone stupid, before you go off on telling me I am insulting you, I simply said the thread has devolved into stupidity as per nitpicking the rules apart well beyond what is needed. If your perception shows you that I called you stupid, well, nothing I can do about that, now is there?

Take my sarcasm and humor as you wish.

ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Fly this at your LGS. The players and then the local TO. Try BoLS, B&CS, Warseer. I'm betting you'll find you will be in the minority every time. Give your local Battle Bunker a call. Just off the 355 Fwy, right? It's a bit of a drive, but an easy phone call for you. 630-426-0120

Since you are not swayed by the clear DT rules citations presented here, maybe by simple majority of players' calls, you'll accept that you've got it wrong.

And hey, if the BB in Chicago calls it wrong, then cool for you in Illinois. And no, I'm not saying asking the first register monkey that answers the phone. Ask who their TO is, and get a hold of *that* guy.
--------------------------------------------
Before everyone else shouts me down for trying to Cite an Authority on this (not a fallacy) and how poorly that can go; Yes, I know "Jimmy" used to managed the BB in Los Angeles, and that guy didn't know a bolter from a railgun.

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Out of all the flawed logic in this thread, no matter the side of the argument, this is the biggest example. ^^

Galador wrote: *snip*

I stopped reading after you said that you skip Remove Casualites even after it says that the extra step is explained. .(wait. . since you're so fond of colors and fonts. . .)AFTER THE BASIC RULES. Remove Casualties is not a special part of the rules that you magically skip over. It is a part of the basic rules where Complex Units are explained directly after. It doesn't even tell you to skip Remove Casualties, as you're claiming.

But, better yet - let's make it simpler for you: Let's say it's not even a complex unit. Let's say it's 9 tactical marines, all identically armed. You have no reason to even look at Complex Units. Now do you suddenly "skip" Remove Casualties from a DT test as you're claiming?

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Fly this at your LGS. The players and then the local TO. Try BoLS, B&CS, Warseer. I'm betting you'll find you will be in the minority every time. Give your local Battle Bunker a call. Just off the 355 Fwy, right? It's a bit of a drive, but an easy phone call for you. 630-426-0120

Since you are not swayed by the clear DT rules citations presented here, maybe by simple majority of players' calls, you'll accept that you've got it wrong.

And hey, if the BB in Chicago calls it wrong, then cool for you in Illinois. And no, I'm not saying asking the first register monkey that answers the phone. Ask who their TO is, and get a hold of *that* guy.
--------------------------------------------
Before everyone else shouts me down for trying to Cite an Authority on this (not a fallacy) and how poorly that can go; Yes, I know "Jimmy" used to managed the BB in Los Angeles, and that guy didn't know a bolter from a railgun.

Truth is not democratic.

A TO can rule however he wants in his tournaments, and that's the law there. That still doesn't make him right outside of his domain.

Edit: "Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative." Wiki has a decent article on it.

Galador wrote:And look, the complex units section still tells us that you have to decide which models must be wounded! But we already know that part, as it was allocated to the model that took the test by the Dangerous Terrain rules. It then tells you that you have to allocate one wound to each model before any can take a second one, but our one wound has already been allocated, and we don't have anymore, so it once again falls on the specific model that failed the test! So then we go on to the saving throws section of complex units. It then says that once all the wounds have been allocated, which Dangerous terrain did for us, all identical models in gaming terms can be rolled for their saves at once. But we don't get armor saves, so can't roll for that. We don't get cover saves, so can't roll for that. We don't have a invul save, so we don't get to roll for any saves!

So on the page before Removing casualties, and on page 25 for complex units, it tells us that we must know exactly which specific model has been wounded, which we already know thanks to the Dangerous Terrain rules!!!

I follow you and agree with your step-by-step analysis up to this point. It's actually very good, despite the tone and all that. I don't stop following you because you're wrong, I just stop following you because you stopped short. What happens after we don't get to roll any saves? I think you're trying to say that since we can't roll any saves, we can't group the wounds together. And since we can't group everybody, we can't choose our casualties from that group. Is this correct? If it is, then what? The next bit tells us that models that stand out in "game terms" are removed as casualties if they suffer an unsaved wound. Well, our meltagunner doesn't stand out, he has two identical friends. And then. . . that's it. No more instructions. Which means you've never answered the question:

What happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound?

You got to a point where your only two options were a) the model is part of a group and the casualty can be chosen from any of them or b) he's unique in game terms and that specific model must be removed. He's not b), and your choice was "not a)" leaving you with no answer.

That means either the game breaks every time a DT test is failed, or you can group identical models even if you don't roll saves.

Try looking beyond the one spot in the rulebook that tells you what you want to see, i.e. that any model can be targeted, hit, wounded, and removed as a casualty, and also, try to remember that the remove casualties section was written for the shooting phase, and is then referenced in the Assault phase. Nowhere in this is dangerous terrain, because as stated above, a dangerous terrain test does not remove casualties, nor does it cause a model to be a casualty, it simply causes the model to suffer a wound.

I really don't think I can stomach going much more in depth than that. If you need any where else inthe rules for taking saving throws, or allocating wounds, or whatever, that defeats Removing casualties as it is the step prior, and the fact that the BRB itself tells you that you must know the exact and specific model that has been wounded, then I can't help you. So, now the ball is back in your court, to dig into the rules even further than I did, and show me where I made a typographical error, or where my perception of a word is different than yours. But seeing as this thread has gone from amusing to annoying to downright stupidity, I don't think I will be posting again.

And no, I did not call anyone stupid, before you go off on telling me I am insulting you, I simply said the thread has devolved into stupidity as per nitpicking the rules apart well beyond what is needed. If your perception shows you that I called you stupid, well, nothing I can do about that, now is there?

Take my sarcasm and humor as you wish.

The term for you tone and all that is "patronizing," and it sure doesn't mean you're nice. If you do come back to the discussion, please don't continue in that manner. You've shown that you can have a very detailed and clear line of thought, so you're definitely contributing to the discussion, but the talking down was unnecessary.

p.s. Your step-by-step example ignored what would happen if the unit was all identical, or if there was an invuln save. Either one of those would have led you right back to my position on the matter.

It doesn't say to treat these wounds as if they are from shooting attacks, so I'm not sure why we're trying to use the shooting rules to resolve them.

The DT rule is fairly early in the rulebook, so a completely new player might not even know what a "saving throw" is, hence the mention of those rules in "the next section."

bushido wrote:It doesn't say to treat these wounds as if they are from shooting attacks, so I'm not sure why we're trying to use the shooting rules to resolve them.

The DT rule is fairly early in the rulebook, so a completely new player might not even know what a "saving throw" is, hence the mention of those rules in "the next section."

Yes, and let's say you fail that saving throw. What happens next? Let's consider that you are a new player and have no knowledge of rules. What is the next step after you fail a saving throw?

The BRB never tells us clearly what to do if a model suffers a wound(same wording on Perils, DT and "Get's Hot!"), other than what saves to roll. All rules concerned to wounding have units suffer wounds. Simply because you are allowed to take saving throws like units, does not mean you continue on to "removing casualties" for units. You'd have to finde a rule for removing casualties for models.
As you claimed that there is no rule for removing a single model wounded, I quoted compex units, to show there is one, even if it is used in a different context. So now we have rules for rolling saves for single models and rules for removing single models failing their save.

The RAI is pretty obvious, as Get's Hot!" talks about "their user", "the firing model", perils refers to "the psyker" [failing the test], and movement does not care about the existance of units for allmost all purposes.

ElCheezuz: I appreciate your posts (even if I don't agree), but those quote-pyramids are pain to read, you might want to remove any interlaced quotes when quoting.

Jidmah wrote:The BRB never tells us clearly what to do if a model suffers a wound(same wording on Perils, DT and "Get's Hot!"), other than what saves to roll. All rules concerned to wounding have units suffer wounds. Simply because you are allowed to take saving throws like units, does not mean you continue on to "removing casualties" for units. You'd have to finde a rule for removing casualties for models.
As you claimed that there is no rule for removing a single model wounded, I quoted compex units, to show there is one, even if it is used in a different context. So now we have rules for rolling saves for single models and rules for removing single models failing their save.

The RAI is pretty obvious, as Get's Hot!" talks about "their user", "the firing model", perils refers to "the psyker" [failing the test], and movement does not care about the existance of units for allmost all purposes.

ElCheezuz: I appreciate your posts (even if I don't agree), but those quote-pyramids are pain to read, you might want to remove any interlaced quotes when quoting.

The rules actually do have a section to tell us how to remove models that have failed their saves. Page 24 says (repeating again) "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." DT tells us to check this section for dealing with wounds and saves, and save resolution is dealt with in "Removing Casualties." The wound on the model referenced in DT is not an unsaved wound, it is simply a wound. It becomes unsaved when the model fails his saving throw (if he has one).

Uh please quote? Because DT does not tell us to check the "Remove Casualties" section, but explicitly only the two sections before that.

Also "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." is taken out of context. It refers to unit saves that are never taken by those three instances. Plus, the unit does not suffer a wound. The model suffers a wound.

@ Elcheezus

There’s a point where common sense must come into play here. No matter what the rules lawyering is...

Example::
4 space maries are running along , the lascannon being the cocky guy that he is, enters dangerous terrain (trying to jump a gap in a lava pit), his comrades being smarter than him, do not attempt such a foolish act. And of course, he slips and falls in the lava to his death. So according to your argument, why does the guy with the bolter always have to be the one to die.??

You'd get a "Com'on man" if you tried pulling this in a game.

Cheers

Jidmah wrote:The BRB never tells us clearly what to do if a model suffers a wound(same wording on Perils, DT and "Get's Hot!"), other than what saves to roll. All rules concerned to wounding have units suffer wounds. Simply because you are allowed to take saving throws like units, does not mean you continue on to "removing casualties" for units. You'd have to finde a rule for removing casualties for models.
As you claimed that there is no rule for removing a single model wounded, I quoted compex units, to show there is one, even if it is used in a different context. So now we have rules for rolling saves for single models and rules for removing single models failing their save.

The RAI is pretty obvious, as Get's Hot!" talks about "their user", "the firing model", perils refers to "the psyker" [failing the test], and movement does not care about the existance of units for allmost all purposes.

ElCheezuz: I appreciate your posts (even if I don't agree), but those quote-pyramids are pain to read, you might want to remove any interlaced quotes when quoting.

The rule you quoted in complex units tells us when to remove a specific model. What if it's not a complex unit? What if the model isn't identical in gaming terms?

Instead of answering, you might ask me why I use the shooting rules when the model isn't being shot at. There are two answers:
1: The DT rules tells us to refer to the shooting section about saves and wounds.
2: The rules for units of identical one-wound models tells us we can choose from among the identical models. The rules for complex units tells us we can choose from the group of identical models. The rules for multi-wound units tells us we can choose from among the identical models. The rules for complex multi-wound units tells us we can choose from among the identical models. The assault rules tell us to refer back to the procedures they laid out in the shooting phase for how to deal with wouds. This is very clearly the general case of how to deal with wounds.

At this point I actually think all of these questions have been answered at least once. Galador actually did a great job at outlining the process from start to just before the finish. If he had, as I pointed out, taken it one step further he would have come to the exact conclusion I had.

As for the quote-pyramids, I find it very important to convey exactly what I'm responding to. It's all too easy for people to misunderstand each other in a long and complicated thread, and I don't want to waste a page or five where it's unclear what people are saying. Also, while I don't think anyone here would do it, quoting someone prevents them from being able to edit a previous post to undermine an argument.

Jidmah wrote:Uh please quote? Because DT does not tell us to check the "Remove Casualties" section, but explicitly only the two sections before that.

Also "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." is taken out of context. It refers to unit saves that are never taken by those three instances. Plus, the unit does not suffer a wound. The model suffers a wound.

Okay, then what do we do after the model fails the save?

Jidmah wrote:Uh please quote? Because DT does not tell us to check the "Remove Casualties" section, but explicitly only the two sections before that.

Also "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." is taken out of context. It refers to unit saves that are never taken by those three instances. Plus, the unit does not suffer a wound. The model suffers a wound.

DT tells us that "wounds and saves are explained in the next section", pg. 14. Since the wound from DT is already allocated on a specific model, and we know that the model takes a wound, we can just skip the wound section and jump straight to "Take saving throws," which explains all the saves, and how to roll for them. Since DT doesn't tell us anything else about how to resolve those saves, where should you go to figure out what to do with an unsaved wound? How about the first line of the next subsection, directly after "Take saving throws", which reads as previously quoted. Where else would you decide what to do with an unsaved wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Camarodragon wrote:@ Elcheezus

There’s a point where common sense must come into play here. No matter what the rules lawyering is...

Example::
4 space maries are running along , the lascannon being the cocky guy that he is, enters dangerous terrain (trying to jump a gap in a lava pit), his comrades being smarter than him, do not attempt such a foolish act. And of course, he slips and falls in the lava to his death. So according to your argument, why does the guy with the bolter always have to be the one to die.??

You'd get a "Com'on man" if you tried pulling this in a game.

Cheers

This is a poor argument, because what if all of my 10 man space marine unit is behind a wall, except for one, and suffers 10 unsaved wounds because the one space marine standing in LoS? How could it be that all 10 marines can die when only one was visible? Common sense has no place here EDIT: Also, in your example, the lasgunner would have to die unless there was a second identical model in the unit.

Camarodragon wrote:@ Elcheezus

There’s a point where common sense must come into play here. No matter what the rules lawyering is...

Example::
4 space maries are running along , the lascannon being the cocky guy that he is, enters dangerous terrain (trying to jump a gap in a lava pit), his comrades being smarter than him, do not attempt such a foolish act. And of course, he slips and falls in the lava to his death. So according to your argument, why does the guy with the bolter always have to be the one to die.??

You'd get a "Com'on man" if you tried pulling this in a game.

Cheers

You have entirely misunderstood the argument. If the Lascannon guy is unique, he would be the one to die.

My position: 4 marines running ane, one moves through dangerous terrain. If the dangerous terrain test fails, you can remove any one of the 4 marines as the casualty, not necessarily the one who stepped into the terrain.

I'm not trying to get around wound allocation, I'm just asserting that casualty removal works as normal.

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not trying to get around wound allocation, I'm just asserting that casualty removal works as normal.

Normally you remove the wounded model.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not trying to get around wound allocation, I'm just asserting that casualty removal works as normal.

Normally you remove the wounded model.

Where in the BRB does it tell you to remove the model, in DT rules or otherwise?

I do not assume they are all identical in gaming terms, there is even a part that explicitly says they are different in that the difference can cause assaults to fail.

So it's five pages of one sided rules debate because the rulebook never explicitly states: When a one wound model suffers a wound, remove it from play as a casualty?

kirsanth wrote:I do not assume they are all identical in gaming terms, there is even a part that explicitly says they are different in that the difference can cause assaults to fail.

Actually, the section you are referring to is just a clarification as to what happens if the lead model in the assault HAS to be taken off or is CHOSEN to be taken off. It doesn't mean he is different. In fact, "identical in gaming terms" is specifically defined on page 25:

"...are identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics. the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

We don't really get to decide what is or isn't identical in gaming terms, it is already spelled out for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:So it's five pages of one sided rules debate because the rulebook never explicitly states: When a one wound model suffers a wound, remove it from play as a casualty?

More or less, but the real kicker here is that normal casualty removal doesn't remove a specific model of a non-complex unit. Why would DT be any different unless it says so?

solkan wrote:So it's five pages of one sided rules debate because the rulebook never explicitly states: When a one wound model suffers a wound, remove it from play as a casualty?

I think we agree that it's one-sided, but we disagree on which side.

The same logic being applied here can also be used to cheese your way into removing a marine with a bolter because his brother's plasma cannon just blew up.

The wording is the same: "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound."

bushido wrote:The same logic being applied here can also be used to cheese your way into removing a marine with a bolter because his brother's plasma cannon just blew up.

The wording is the same: "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound."

Incorrect, since the removal of unsaved wounds dictates that the models removed must be identical in gaming terms, you would have to remove another plasma cannon marine in the same unit, but not necessarily the one that failed the gets hot roll.

bushido wrote:The same logic being applied here can also be used to cheese your way into removing a marine with a bolter because his brother's plasma cannon just blew up.

The wording is the same: "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound."

No, No. No. NO NO NO NO. No. This is not about wound allocation, which is what you're talking about. This has been brought up and answered many times in the thread.

PB wrote:

bushido wrote:The same logic being applied here can also be used to cheese your way into removing a marine with a bolter because his brother's plasma cannon just blew up.

The wording is the same: "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound."

Incorrect, since the removal of unsaved wounds dictates that the models removed must be identical in gaming terms, you would have to remove another plasma cannon marine in the same unit, but not necessarily the one that failed the gets hot roll.

Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

So, if you stick two identcal farseers in a unit, both of them would be able to use their gosthelm against a single perils? By your logic, when they fail their save the group of two suffers a perils of the warp attack, so both of them get to use the helm.

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

Jidmah wrote:So, if you stick two identcal farseers in a unit, both of them would be able to use their gosthelm against a single perils? By your logic, when they fail their save the group of two suffers a perils of the warp attack, so both of them get to use the helm.

What? I have no idea what you're even getting at, here.

If there's a single perils, it's assigned to the model that failed. That model tests on their Ghosthelm. If it fails, they test on their invuln, twice (I think that's the way Eldar work /shrug). If that fails, then the group of farseers has a wound. If there are three wounds assigned to the group of identical Farseers, remove one of them (player's choice) as a casualty.

Jidmah wrote:So, if you stick two identcal farseers in a unit, both of them would be able to use their gosthelm against a single perils? By your logic, when they fail their save the group of two suffers a perils of the warp attack, so both of them get to use the helm.

No, only one peril of the warp happened, it could be allocated to either of them. Since the ghosthelm says that "if a Farseer suffers a perils of the warp attack, his ghosthelm will prevent it on a..." -- if he suffers the peril, only his ghost helm can prevent it. This is assuming, of course, that they both are using the same ability and using it at the same time.

time wizard wrote:

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

time wizard wrote:

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

No one is debating this point. We are talking about what happens next. Taking saving throws and removing casualties.

PB wrote:
Incorrect, since the removal of unsaved wounds dictates that the models removed must be identical in gaming terms, you would have to remove another plasma cannon marine in the same unit, but not necessarily the one that failed the gets hot roll.

Yeah, except that it doesn't actually say that:

Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit has been determined, the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice. Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view.

The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model.

There's nothing in there about distinct models being forced to take certain wounds.

So if you want to ignore the example about the closest assaulting model and its dangerous terrain test, you must also allow your opponent to take off a normal mini when a plasma cannon/gun in his squad melts.

bushido wrote:

PB wrote:
Incorrect, since the removal of unsaved wounds dictates that the models removed must be identical in gaming terms, you would have to remove another plasma cannon marine in the same unit, but not necessarily the one that failed the gets hot roll.

Yeah, except that it doesn't actually say that:

Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit has been determined, the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice. Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view.

The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model.

There's nothing in there about distinct models being forced to take certain wounds.

So if you want to ignore the example about the closest assaulting model and its dangerous terrain test, you must also allow your opponent to take off a normal mini when a plasma cannon/gun in his squad melts.

You are talking about wound allocation, not casualty removal. Once again, this is a different section of the rules.

EDIT TO CLARIFY: We already agree that specific models have been allocated wounds. The point being debated is that after saving throws are taken, if there are any unsaved wounds, which model do you remove? The only rules present for removing the models indicate that you can remove any gaming-identical model from the unit, regardless of which model the unsaved wound landed on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:

So if you want to ignore the example about the closest assaulting model and its dangerous terrain test, you must also allow your opponent to take off a normal mini when a plasma cannon/gun in his squad melts.

And in regards to this, it was answered before. The situation outlined in the rules is to clarify what happens if the lead model would have to be removed, or was chosen to be removed. Here's an example:

A unit of 5 space marines (1 melta, 4 bolters) charge through dangerous terrain toward an enemy unit. The only one close enough to reach the enemy unit is the melta. He takes a wound, he has no save and therefore suffers an unsaved wound. Since (with complex units) when you remove casualties you must remove gaming-identical models and the only model gaming-identical is the melta, he must be removed and the assault fails. If they were 5 bolters, you could start removing from the back and be OK.

Hum, I guess there really is no rule (other than shady ghosthelm hairsplitting) preventing you to remove an identical model, and all "model sniping" abilities I checked so far are worded to still work the way they do now. I guess ElCheetzus and puma do have a point.

time wizard wrote:

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

That's great. It's the exact same example as the DT test we're talking about. Take out the adjective "firing" and you've got the wording for the DT test. Out of two models, I've got two "firing" models. One of them fails a Gets Hot! roll, so I remove one of the firing models. Unless you want to go back over the Remove Casualties discussion we've been having for 6 pages about when a model fails a save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound.

ElCheezus wrote:Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

I have been following this thread from the beginning.
I have posted numerous times.
I have cited various rules.
I have repeated asked you and other posters sharing your opinion to quote me the rule that says wounds from dangerous terrain test can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has repeatedly been ignored.
I have also asked you to quote the rule that says wounds from gets hot can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has also repeatedly been ignored.
If you bother to look at page 39, removing casualties from assaults, the first sentence says; "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."
That is what gives specific permission to apply those rules for wounds suffered in assaults.
If there is no such permission in the rule for placing wounds on models failing difficult terrain tests, or rolling 1 on gets hot!, then you cannot use that mechanic of allocating wounds as in shooting.

To continue to agrue that you may allocate a wound suffered by a model due to a failed dangerous terrain test as per the shooting rules is fine for a house rule. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no such permission given in that rule.
To continue to argue that page 14 tells you to refer to the next section to figure out how to allocate that wound is ludicrous. The dangerous terrain rule says wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It does not say to allocate them as per the next section. That is what many posters here have been trying to make clear.

Repeatedly asking "How would a new player know how to apply that wound?" does not change the facts of how the wound should be handled.
Wounds and saves are explained as simply as, you fail a save you take a wound. You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed.
Choosing to allocate a wound caused by failing a test when moving through terrain to another model that hasen't even moved into the terrain is a fine way to twist the rules around ffor advantage.
If you and your group choose to play this way, knock yourselves out. But it is a houserule at best. Please accept that fact and we'll all move on.

time wizard wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

I have been following this thread from the beginning.
I have posted numerous times.
I have cited various rules.
I have repeated asked you and other posters sharing your opinion to quote me the rule that says wounds from dangerous terrain test can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has repeatedly been ignored.
I have also asked you to quote the rule that says wounds from gets hot can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has also repeatedly been ignored.
If you bother to look at page 39, removing casualties from assaults, the first sentence says; "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."
That is what gives specific permission to apply those rules for wounds suffered in assaults.
If there is no such permission in the rule for placing wounds on models failing difficult terrain tests, or rolling 1 on gets hot!, then you cannot use that mechanic of allocating wounds as in shooting.

To continue to agrue that you may allocate a wound suffered by a model due to a failed dangerous terrain test as per the shooting rules is fine for a house rule. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no such permission given in that rule.
To continue to argue that page 14 tells you to refer to the next section to figure out how to allocate that wound is ludicrous. The dangerous terrain rule says wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It does not say to allocate them as per the next section. That is what many posters here have been trying to make clear.

Repeatedly asking "How would a new player know how to apply that wound?" does not change the facts of how the wound should be handled.
Wounds and saves are explained as simply as, you fail a save you take a wound. You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed.
Choosing to allocate a wound caused by failing a test when moving through terrain to another model that hasen't even moved into the terrain is a fine way to twist the rules around ffor advantage.
If you and your group choose to play this way, knock yourselves out. But it is a houserule at best. Please accept that fact and we'll all move on.

No one is arguing about allocating wounds! We all agree that whatever model fails the DT test takes the wound, and also takes a save for it. Now what rule tells us to remove it?

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

PB wrote:

And in regards to this, it was answered before. The situation outlined in the rules is to clarify what happens if the lead model would have to be removed, or was chosen to be removed. Here's an example:

A unit of 5 space marines (1 melta, 4 bolters) charge through dangerous terrain toward an enemy unit. The only one close enough to reach the enemy unit is the melta. He takes a wound, he has no save and therefore suffers an unsaved wound. Since (with complex units) when you remove casualties you must remove gaming-identical models and the only model gaming-identical is the melta, he must be removed and the assault fails. If they were 5 bolters, you could start removing from the back and be OK.

This doesn't make sense. Why would you be forced to allocate that wound to the meltagun in the first place? If you're going to use the shooting rules for wound allocation, you can always choose which models to throw wounds on, regardless of range or line of sight. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

pg 25:

If one of these models suffers and unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed.

This is of course in the section about complex units. But since we're pulling apart rules from multiple sections, that should satisfy you.

PB wrote:
No one is arguing about allocating wounds! We all agree that whatever model fails the DT test takes the wound, and also takes a save for it. Now what rule tells us to remove it?

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

Time Wizard (and most other defenders of his position) are suggesting that you remove a casualty without the Remove Casualties part of the rulebook.

Time Wizard: Take out the Remove Casualties part of the rulebook. Take a wound and fail a save. What do you do now? And where in the rulebook does it tell you to do it, if you've removed Remove Casualties?

bushido wrote:

PB wrote:

And in regards to this, it was answered before. The situation outlined in the rules is to clarify what happens if the lead model would have to be removed, or was chosen to be removed. Here's an example:

A unit of 5 space marines (1 melta, 4 bolters) charge through dangerous terrain toward an enemy unit. The only one close enough to reach the enemy unit is the melta. He takes a wound, he has no save and therefore suffers an unsaved wound. Since (with complex units) when you remove casualties you must remove gaming-identical models and the only model gaming-identical is the melta, he must be removed and the assault fails. If they were 5 bolters, you could start removing from the back and be OK.

This doesn't make sense. Why would you be forced to allocate that wound to the meltagun in the first place? If you're going to use the shooting rules for wound allocation, you can always choose which models to throw wounds on, regardless of range or line of sight. You can't have it both ways.

Because DT overrides the allocation, that's why. DT directly states that each model failing the test takes the wound, therefore if the meltagun fails his DT test, he MUST take a wound. He then can try to save, and without a save, a meltagun must be removed from the unit. If there were somehow two meltaguns in that unit, you could remove either, based on the rules for removing casualties.

In essence, DT automatically allocates the wounds for failed DT tests, then you take saves and remove casualties as normal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:

PB wrote:

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

pg 25:

If one of these models suffers and unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed.

This is of course in the section about complex units. But since we're pulling apart rules from multiple sections, that should satisfy you.

This is a misquote, ill quote the whole thing here:

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

Which still supports my argument (this quote is for saving throws after allocating wounds). This basically says that if there is a model that there is only one kind of (a single melta, or whatever), he rolls separately to save. If there were two meltas, they could roll together. Obviously, if there is only one melta and we have to remove a model of identical type, he is the only one to be removed.

You asked where it says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed." I gave you a rule that says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed."

bushido wrote:You asked where it says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed." I gave you a rule that says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed."

That isn't at all what it says, but I agree with everything in the complex units and remove casualties sections. If you agree that that's the rule, then the rest of complex units says that, when taking saving throws (which we are allowed to do for DT) you can roll and remove models that are the same in gaming terms that fail those saves. So, if you agree with the line that you quoted, and you also agree that it applies to DT, then we are on the same page.

time wizard wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

I have been following this thread from the beginning.
I have posted numerous times.
I have cited various rules.
I have repeated asked you and other posters sharing your opinion to quote me the rule that says wounds from dangerous terrain test can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has repeatedly been ignored.
I have also asked you to quote the rule that says wounds from gets hot can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has also repeatedly been ignored.
If you bother to look at page 39, removing casualties from assaults, the first sentence says; "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."
That is what gives specific permission to apply those rules for wounds suffered in assaults.
If there is no such permission in the rule for placing wounds on models failing difficult terrain tests, or rolling 1 on gets hot!, then you cannot use that mechanic of allocating wounds as in shooting.

We aren't trying to use the allocation rules. In shooting (and assault), the sequence goes like this: roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, roll to save, remove casualties. DT (and Gets Hot! and Perils) jump into this process at "allocate wounds." That is, they tell you which model has a wound allocated to it. So next we roll to save, which we're familiar with. Then we get to the "remove casualties" part. The rules for removing casualties, in general, say that we can remove any specific model, as long as it is identical to to the model to which the wound was allocated.

We're not trying to change the allocation rules, which are a specific process that DT and GH! and PotW all skip, becuse they tell you how to allocate. The debate rages around whether or not we can use the general rules for Removing Casualties, and pick any of the models identical to the model to which the wound was assigned.

To continue to agrue that you may allocate a wound suffered by a model due to a failed dangerous terrain test as per the shooting rules is fine for a house rule. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no such permission given in that rule.
To continue to argue that page 14 tells you to refer to the next section to figure out how to allocate that wound is ludicrous. The dangerous terrain rule says wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It does not say to allocate them as per the next section. That is what many posters here have been trying to make clear.

Part of the explanation of wounds is how to handle an unsaved wound, which is covered in the Remove Casualties section if the unit is made up of identical one-wound models. The orther unit variations (complex one-wound, identical multi-wound, and complex multi-wound) all tell us the same process.

Repeatedly asking "How would a new player know how to apply that wound?" does not change the facts of how the wound should be handled.
Wounds and saves are explained as simply as, you fail a save you take a wound. You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed.
Choosing to allocate a wound caused by failing a test when moving through terrain to another model that hasen't even moved into the terrain is a fine way to twist the rules around ffor advantage.
If you and your group choose to play this way, knock yourselves out. But it is a houserule at best. Please accept that fact and we'll all move on.

The sentence I bolded is the clincher, really. Where does the BRB tell you that when a model takes an unsaved wound that the model is removed? If all the cases of Remove Casualties that I try to apply don't work, where are the instructions? Without instructions written in the BRB, you have no rules justification for demanding that the same model to which a wound was allocated should be the one removed.

The only time it tells you to remove specific models is when they're single-model units, or when the model stands out in game terms, which is defined four or five times in this thread already. Therefore, those instructions don't apply.

Also, I've addressed before that this isn't about gaining advantage, and that it's an insulting accusation.

The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

bushido wrote:The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

If you don't want to use the shooting rules for removing a casualty, what rules do you want to use?

Edit: Also and unrelated, I took a look at your gallery photo, did you paint that dread? It is wicked.

bushido wrote:The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

You can't just apply common sense to the rules. They don't work that way. You have to be told what to do, right down to removing models from the table.

bushido wrote:The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

The DT rules refer us to the shooting section on how to resolve saves and wounds, which includes removing casualties. That's why we go to the shooting rules, because we're explicitly told to. I also covered this earlier (on pg. 5 of the thread, I believe) when I detailed why it should be considered the general rule.

They have to spell out "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed" because they tell you a different way to handle it. Common sense doesn't apply to games and their rules. Why is tennis scored 15-30-40? And why is 40-40 called "love"? Because the rules of the game tell them to, that's why.

If you're making assumptions on how to treat unsaved wounds without support from the BRB, then you have to admit that. Once you admit that to yourself and investigate, in detail, why we take the stance we do, you'll understand.

PB wrote:We don't really get to decide what is or isn't identical in gaming terms, it is already spelled out for us.

I also disagree with your assumption.
Gaming terms does include the list you mentioned, but that is not exhaustive.

For example, names affect the game as well.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:We don't really get to decide what is or isn't identical in gaming terms, it is already spelled out for us.

I also disagree with your assumption.
Gaming terms does include the list you mentioned, but that is not exhaustive.

For example, names affect the game as well.

We either go by the way the rules define gaming terms, or under your assertions, I should separately roll saves for every model on the table because its location makes it different under gaming terms, and then separately remove each model. In any event, we are under a permissive ruleset, and if the ruleset states that gaming identical means X Y and Z, then it means only X Y and Z, not A B or C.

Also, names do not affect gaming-identical at all. I can have a squad of 5 assault terminators, one a sergeant. They are all identical because the statline and weapons (assuming they are all equipped with SS & TH, for example) are the same, even though he is a Terminator Captain and the others are just Terminators.

PB wrote:We either go by the way the rules define gaming terms, or under your assertions, I should separately roll saves for every model on the table because its location makes it different under gaming terms,

When doing DT or GH and whatnot, you are correct.

This is why it says that the model may cause an assault to fail.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:We either go by the way the rules define gaming terms, or under your assertions, I should separately roll saves for every model on the table because its location makes it different under gaming terms,

When doing DT or GH and whatnot, you are correct.

This is why it says that the model may cause an assault to fail.

So I can roll every tactical marine in my army separately if I want to? I don't think so. Again, you don't get to choose what gaming-identical means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:

This is why it says that the model may cause an assault to fail.

This is not correct, the reason a model can cause the assault to fail is that the model was removed because it had to be (it was the only kind in its unit, or all the models of its type in the unit failed their saves). This has been covered countless times before, you must have skipped right over the posts.

PB wrote:This is not correct, the reason a model can cause the assault to fail is that the model was removed because it had to be (it was the only kind in its unit, or all the models of its type in the unit failed their saves). This has been covered countless times before, you must have skipped right over the posts.

This has been asserted before, but requires adding lines to the rules as you just did.

As for the gaming terms. . .your assumption leads to more problems than it solves.
It has been done to death in other threads.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:We don't really get to decide what is or isn't identical in gaming terms, it is already spelled out for us.

I also disagree with your assumption.
Gaming terms does include the list you mentioned, but that is not exhaustive.

For example, names affect the game as well.

If the very clear definition at the beginning on pg. 25 doesn't satisfy you, please provide, with page references, a full list of what makes models "identical in gaming terms."

I'd like to point out, kirsanth, that most of your posts are made up of very few sentences, usually with no reference or material to back it up. Compared to the exhausive effort we're putting into this side of the discussion, your lack of backup makes it very hard for me to take your arguments seriously.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:This is not correct, the reason a model can cause the assault to fail is that the model was removed because it had to be (it was the only kind in its unit, or all the models of its type in the unit failed their saves). This has been covered countless times before, you must have skipped right over the posts.

This has been asserted before, but requires adding lines to the rules as you just did.

As for the gaming terms. . .your assumption leads to more problems than it solves.
It has been done to death in other threads.

I'm not adding to the rules, I am clarifying what those lines mean in the context of the rules we are talking about. Because the rules you are talking about in assault make sense regardless of how you decide to remove models from the table in DT, we don't need to bother ourselves with referencing them when trying to determine how to remove models in DT.

Edit for clarity: The rules of assault were brought up because people said it wouldn't make sense to clarify that an assault could fail due to the lead assaulter dying, if that weren't possible. My only assertion here is that, regardless of whether you remove DT models individually based on their failed DT rolls, or via the Remove Casualties and Complex Units rules, it is still possible for failed assaults to happen due to the lead member of the assault dying.

PB wrote:Edit for clarity: The rules of assault were brought up because people said it wouldn't make sense to clarify that an assault could fail due to the lead assaulter dying, if that weren't possible. My only assertion here is that, regardless of whether you remove DT models individually based on their failed DT rolls, or via the Remove Casualties and Complex Units rules, it is still possible for failed assaults to happen due to the lead member of the assault dying.

I think this is the third time he's been told that, without any response.

PB wrote:I'm not adding to the rules, I am clarifying what those lines mean in the context of the rules we are talking about.

Which the rules do not do, your clarification is an excuse to let your logic work. And it DOES add rules and restriction to what is written.

My logic works without adding anything or needing clarification that the game designers thought unnecessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:I think this is the third time he's been told that, without any response.

Because the statement itself is false.

Generally my response was covered in my 5th post here.

Nothing you have written since has changed a thing, so I did not deign to respond.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:I'm not adding to the rules, I am clarifying what those lines mean in the context of the rules we are talking about.

Which the rules do not do, your clarification is an excuse to let your logic work. And it DOES add rules and restriction to what is written.

My logic works without adding anything or needing clarification that the game designers thought unnecessary.

Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

PB wrote:Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

My thoughts precisely. Cheers.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

My thoughts precisely. Cheers.

If you agree the debate is past this point, why argue it?

PB wrote:If you agree the debate is past this point, why argue it?

Mostly because I disagree with you about the resolution.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:If you agree the debate is past this point, why argue it?

Mostly because I disagree with you about the resolution.

Then you don't agree that the debate is past that point.

PB wrote:Then you don't agree that the debate is past that point.

No, I think it is past that point and your assertion that the point is resolved in your favor is mistaken.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Then you don't agree that the debate is past that point.

No, I think it is past that point and your assertion that the point is resolved in your favor is mistaken.

If you think that it was resolved in your favor, I agree, there is no reason for you to continue posting in this thread. Everyone else here who is still debating is way past this point.

The fact that I was quoted by someone that is incorrect is why I posted in this thread again.

The fact that you keep asking me (personally) questions is why I continue to post.

Stop directing posts to me in this thread and I will stop responding to them in this thread .

Editing to add:
Which is exactly what this post meant:

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

My thoughts precisely. Cheers.

Despite your misinterpretation.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I think this is the third time he's been told that, without any response.

Because the statement itself is false.

Generally my response was covered in my 5th post here.

Nothing you have written since has changed a thing, so I did not deign to respond.

Your 5th post in it's entirety:

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

But that is not what it says.

ElCheezus wrote:The quoted sentence is an attempt an a real-world explanation for why it might work this way. The rule was explained in the first paragraph of the section, and I consider the second paragraph to ultimate have the same weight as fluff. Maybe you disagree, but it feels like an offhand justification from the rules team rather than more rules.

If it was not explaining why a rule works in the game but rather how to describe it in a story I would agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:Actually, there's no specific RAW about which model to remove, only which model is wounded.

And the removal steps you refer to reference a wounded unit.

When a single model is wounded there is no need (or justification) for allocation.

Editing to add:
I think I get why you read it the way you do, but I think you are simply incorrect.
I have never read it that way nor met anyone who played it that way.
I daresay you can say the exact same thing.

Cheers.

Now I have something else to remember to discuss prior to games with new folks.
Thanks!

My unadressed point was that no matter who is right, there's no need for any interpretation or alteration of the assault rules you repeatedly reference. They are entirely neutral to the discussion, support neither side, and wouldn't be changed either way. No matter how many times you bring them up, they still have absolutely no bearing. None of our arguments to that effect have ever been refuted, or even addressed, by you or anyone else.

I looked a few posts forward and backward, for good measure, and didn't find anything. You have completely ignored our explanation of why the passage in the assault rules has no bearing. Yet you keep repeating it as if it might someday mean something.

This was the part I refered to:

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Editing to add:
I think I get why you read it the way you do, but I think you are simply incorrect.
I have never read it that way nor met anyone who played it that way.
I daresay you can say the exact same thing.

Cheers.

Now I have something else to remember to discuss prior to games with new folks.
Thanks!

as for the rest. . .
Your assertion that it is there for unique models is not in the rules.
My assertion that it applies only to the model that takes the wound is.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:This was the part I refered to:

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Editing to add:
I think I get why you read it the way you do, but I think you are simply incorrect.
I have never read it that way nor met anyone who played it that way.
I daresay you can say the exact same thing.

Cheers.

Now I have something else to remember to discuss prior to games with new folks.
Thanks!

as for the rest. . .
Your assertion that it is there for unique models is not in the rules.
My assertion that it applies only to the model that takes the wound is.

/shrug

Neither your nor our assertions change the rules at all in that section, which seems to be the part you don't understand.

PB wrote:Neither your nor our assertions change the rules at all in that section, which seems to be the part you don't understand.

If that were true there would be no debate. Which seems to be the part you don't understand.

An issue is assuming extra words, not changing the ones that are there.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Neither your nor our assertions change the rules at all in that section, which seems to be the part you don't understand.

If that were true there would be no debate. Which seems to be the part you don't understand.

An issue is assuming extra words, not changing the ones that are there.

I don't make any assumptions about the words that are written in the rule, they can be followed to the letter regardless of your subscription to one side of this debate or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.


Those are the rules. In either situation (removing models that failed the DT specifically, or by using the Removing Casualties and Complex Units rules) it is possible for a model to be killed by a dangerous terrain test and fail an assault. Given that it is possible under both sets of circumstances, I don't see how that rule can be used to determine which set of rules to use to remove casualties.

ElCheezus wrote:Also, I've addressed before that this isn't about gaining advantage, and that it's an insulting accusation.

I wasn't making an accusation, and I certainly was not trying to be insulting. If it came across that way, my aplolgies, that was not my intent.
As for gaining an advantage, consider the following.

I have a unit of 7 boys, all identical, in 2 rows, 3 across the front and 4 across the back.
The front rank is a bit over 5" away from area terrain that is difficult and dangerous. I roll a '6' and '4' on difficult terrain test so I can move forward 6".

After I move forward 5", I have 3 boys in the terrain, and 4 out. The majority the unit is not in the terrain so the unit does not get a cover save.
Of the 3 boys that moved into the dangerous terrain, 2 passed the dangerous terrain test, and 1 failed it.

By my interpretation, by the rules, the boy that failed the dangerous terrain test is removed. Now there are 2 boys in the cover, and 4 boys not in cover.
Now the majority of the unit is still out of cover and gets no cover save.

By your interpretation, I can remove a boy from the back rank. Now there are 3 boys in cover, and 3 boys not in cover.
Oh! Now half of the unit is in cover and gets a cover save.

So the penalty for failing the dangerous terrain test has been turned into the advantage of getting a cover save.

And that is specifically twisting the rules to gain an advantage.

time wizard wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Also, I've addressed before that this isn't about gaining advantage, and that it's an insulting accusation.

I wasn't making an accusation, and I certainly was not trying to be insulting. If it came across that way, my aplolgies, that was not my intent.
As for gaining an advantage, consider the following.

I have a unit of 7 boys, all identical, in 2 rows, 3 across the front and 4 across the back.
The front rank is a bit over 5" away from area terrain that is difficult and dangerous. I roll a '6' and '4' on difficult terrain test so I can move forward 6".

After I move forward 5", I have 3 boys in the terrain, and 4 out. The majority the unit is not in the terrain so the unit does not get a cover save.
Of the 3 boys that moved into the dangerous terrain, 2 passed the dangerous terrain test, and 1 failed it.

By my interpretation, by the rules, the boy that failed the dangerous terrain test is removed. Now there are 2 boys in the cover, and 4 boys not in cover.
Now the majority of the unit is still out of cover and gets no cover save.

By your interpretation, I can remove a boy from the back rank. Now there are 3 boys in cover, and 3 boys not in cover.
Oh! Now half of the unit is in cover and gets a cover save.

So the penalty for failing the dangerous terrain test has been turned into the advantage of getting a cover save.

And that is specifically twisting the rules to gain an advantage.

It's not twisting the rules to gain an advantage if those are the rules.

If my buddy has a group of 10 necron warriors in two rows exactly 6 inches away and I shoot and kill 5 of them, if he removes the front warriors so I can no longer assault, that's not abusing the rules to gain an advantage, its just following the rules. Here, the penalty for getting shot by my unit has been turned into an advantage, because now I won't get to charge him to assault and wipe him out.

The rules for removing models confer advantages in certain situations.

time wizard wrote:Post about twisting the rules to your advantage

You're right, that's a way to get advantage out of it. You can also get advantage out of the wound allocation rules in the shooting phase by taking high-AP shots on an already doomed model in a complex unit. That's not exactly my point, though.

What I mean is that, if you apply my interpretation here to Gets Hot!, then my chances at casualties in my 4x Plasma CCS for my IG army goes up. If we rolled each model seperately, then rolling double 1's would still only kill one model. If we roll them all together, I could roll 5 1's, save one, and still lose all four Plasmas. Heck, if only one guy fires and rolls snakeyes, I could lose two models from one gun. While this doesn't "make sense," it follows the rules.

You method for gets hot! does not follow the rules for gets hot! weapons and rolls.

Be that as it may, at this point, all I can do is extend my hand, say "Nice game, you win", pack up my stuff, and leave.

time wizard wrote:You method for gets hot! does not follow the rules for gets hot! weapons and rolls.

Be that as it may, at this point, all I can do is extend my hand, say "Nice game, you win", pack up my stuff, and leave.

Just saying something doesn't follow the rules doesn't mean it isn't following the rules. In a forum about debating rules, it is necessary to cite the rulebook.

I'm sorry we could convince you. Maybe if I get time I'll type everything out at once, with examples and full references to make it clear. I think using Galador's example works pretty well, except he stopped juuuuuust short of coming to the same conclusions we do.

But you're right. This last page or two have just been going back and forth without any change to the arguments presented, so there's no poing in going on unless someone has something new, which I'll be happy to address.

ElCheezus wrote:Get's Hot is the same situation as DT tests, in my book. I know that seems like a whole other can of worms, but in both cases the rules tell you how to allocate the wound, not how to resolve casualties. It was a rules threat about Gets Hot!, actually, that changed my mind about all this from the way I used to play it (the way you're advocating).

Having taken the time to read the entire thread so far, I have come to understand a few things:

1. I and my FLGS interpret and play the way time wizard, kirsanth, and others advocate.

2. I think I understand the position of ElCheezus and company that, as both sides have said and agree, normal wound allocation doesn't apply, however, and this appears to be one of the many cruxes of the issue, that normal casualty removal does apply.

While I don't agree with your position, ElCheezus, I am rather curious about the thread you mentioned reading about Gets Hot! that changed your mind in the first place. I think possibly reading what is written in that thread could give either further insight to either side and would satisfy my own personal curiosity. So with that said, ElCheezus, would you be so kind to provide a link to the thread in question that caused you to change your mind, and would perhaps allow others to understand your point of view better and why you did change your mind as it seems to me that you used to think and play the way I and others still do.

Edit: Spelling fail, causality, casualty, same difference, right?

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Get's Hot is the same situation as DT tests, in my book. I know that seems like a whole other can of worms, but in both cases the rules tell you how to allocate the wound, not how to resolve casualties. It was a rules threat about Gets Hot!, actually, that changed my mind about all this from the way I used to play it (the way you're advocating).

Having taken the time to read the entire thread so far, I have come to understand a few things:

1. I and my FLGS interpret and play the way time wizard, kirsanth, and others advocate.

2. I think I understand the position of ElCheezus and company that, as both sides have said and agree, normal wound allocation doesn't apply, however, and this appears to be one of the many cruxes of the issue, that normal causality removal does apply.

While I don't agree with your position, ElCheezus, I am rather curious about the thread you mentioned reading about Gets Hot! that changed your mind in the first place. I think possibly reading what is written in that thread could give either further insight to either side and would satisfy my own personal curiosity. So with that said, ElCheezus, would you be so kind to provide a link to the thread in question that caused you to change your mind, and would perhaps allow others to understand your point of view better and why you did change your mind as it seems to me that you used to think and play the way I and others still do.

Yeah, I'll dig for it. It was a while ago, though, few months maybe? Ultimately, that was the first time I realized the wording of the Remove Casualties section, and reread all of the rules to see if there was a reason they wouldn't apply. Honestly, on pg. 5 of this thread Galador's step-by-step process is pretty good, except where I say he stops short. I suggest following along with that post, and my response, with the BRB open to see if you agree with each step. (and of course, if you agree with my conclusion)

I'll look for a link in the meantime.

Here it is, I was disagreeing on pg 1. It was -Nazdreg-'s arguments that convinced me (which doesn't happen often [/snark])
(http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/345312.page)

terranarc wrote:Is dangerous terrain test done per model or is it allocatable? Like say I have a squad of 10 with a sarge and they ALL walk in to a minefield. Do I roll for the sarge separately or do I just roll 10d6 and allocated the DT 1 results?

Thanks in advance.

While I know that this will cause howls in some/most quarters, I would refer you to the 'Fast Rolling' on page 18.

I know that this refers to shooting weapons, but then shooting also asks you to roll to hit for each shot, and I don't see anyone here advocating that you have to roll individually for every identical shot.

In your example above, using 9 bolter armed marines and 1 sarge, you would roll 9d6 and 1d6. If the sarge rolls a 1 he's gone. Remove X number bolters to meet whatever number of 1s you rolled on the 9d6.

Assault is where I think the rules diverge.

Because you must check to see if you are in range to assault, you must test individually until such time as the assault succeeds at which point use the fast rolling method.

That initial model is unique because it is the only one subject to the DT rule at that point. The assault rules calls it out as the 'test' model if you like. And as such will not be subject to the normal wound/casualty removal discussion going on here.

YMMV

Cheers

Andrew

ElCheezus wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Truth is not democratic.

Nothing to do with democracy. It's called Common Sense. Oh, well.

ElCheezus wrote:Edit: "Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative." Wiki has a decent article on it.

Read it, a while back. You've got the definition well enough, but you still don't know what one is. This following is a fallacy of "appeal to authority":
"I've been an Audi mechanic for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

The following is *not* a fallacy:
"I've been an oncologist for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

Understand the difference? Anyway, I bow out. Pull you models as you see fit, and see how the guy across the table reacts.

Brothererekose wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Truth is not democratic.

Nothing to do with democracy. It's called Common Sense. Oh, well.

ElCheezus wrote:Edit: "Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative." Wiki has a decent article on it.

Read it, a while back. You've got the definition well enough, but you still don't know what one is. This following is a fallacy of "appeal to authority":
"I've been an Audi mechanic for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

The following is *not* a fallacy:
"I've been an oncologist for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

Understand the difference? Anyway, I bow out. Pull you models as you see fit, and see how the guy across the table reacts.

It appears you don't understand formal logic.

In this case, Common Sense is wrong. That happens, too, and more often than most people realize (which is an obvious statement, now that I think about it, funny).

The point is that we have the tools to make a decision for ourselves. If you have two oranges and two apples and understand addition, you don't need to call your grade school teacher to tell you there are four pieces of fruit. If you call for an answer, and then play it that way, your only reason is "because Jim said so." If you figure the answer, then you can explain it when someone asks you. That's why the "call GW" answer doesn't satisfy me.

Of course, there are a ton of gray areas in GW's crappy rules writing, so sometimes the answer is "wait for a FAQ." In that case, the authority is all we have. I don't think this is one of those, though.

Ok, I've walked away, I've calmed down, and rethought a few things, so back to put a new spin on this, maybe....

I asked a few pages back, and even cited examples on this, of which rule was more specific, the Dangerous Terrain or the Remove Casualties rule. Still haven't received an answer on this, so please, answer this first. I cited many more areas that the Remove Casualties rule is used than the dangerous terrain test rule, so I think that it is more specific, but lets see what you come up with.

Specific overrules general, that one we all know. So, if the Dangerous Terrain is more specific, we must follow it, and it says that the model that failed the test suffers the wound, so the model that was wounded is removed. IF a rule cites a specific model, which Dangerous terrain does, then you must follow that rule. Now, I understand where you are coming from with the Remove Casualties section, however, Dangerous terrain removes your ability to take another model off the board because it says that the specific model that failed the test suffered the wound, and while RC says that any model that is identical may be removed, it states that for a unit's wounds, not a model's wounds. When a rule targets a specific model for something, you must have the effects target that model also, not another one in the squad.




I also stated a few pages back that Dangerous terrain is a special rule, and it is, because it is a special rule in the movement phase, because only individual models must take the test, and not whole units. My example for reference here is Difficult terrain, where if even one model enters, moves through, or exits difficult terrain, the whole unit must test. So if you must do that for difficult terrain, why doesn't the entire unit have to take a test for Dangerous terrain if only one model enters, moves through, or exits?? Because the rules tell us that it is only the model that moved in the Dangerous Terrain that might be wounded by it, not the entire unit. Hence, it is a special rule for certain types of terrain, and thus, the model moving through it has just become unique in gaming terms! Whether dangerous terrain is specifically listed as a special rule or not is irrelevant. Due to the way it works differently than regular movement, that makes it special, just as difficult terrain is a special rule for movement, as it works differently than normal movement.

Eagerly awaiting your responses.

First of all, thank you ElCheezus for posting the link, that thread was a good read as well. Secondly, I think I found a new argument that has not yet been presented that might shed some light on this issue.

From the BRB FAQ 1.2:

"Q: If a gun from an artillery unit fails a dangerous terrain
test, what happens to it? (p55)
A: As this is comparable to suffering a result from the
Vehicle Damage chart (and to preserve our sanity if I
answer otherwise), the gun is destroyed."

From the reading of this answer from the BRB FAQ, I come to the conclusion that even in a squadron of Artillery units, the specific gun that fails the Dangerous Terrain test is the one to be destroyed and one is not given permission to remove one with the same stats from the same unit. I know it is not much, but it seems to show some inkling of intent on GW's part of how DT is, dare I say, supposed to work.

I'll keep looking for what more I can find, but at least it is something new to discuss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For fun: Remind me next time that I let someone else play using my models, that I, as the owning player of said models, can choose which of my models are removed per Remove Casualties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More craziness: Searching the BRB for 'wound' and then for 'suffer' I have come to a few conclusions:

1. What happens when a singular specific model that "suffers" a wound that is also not a unit on its own does not appear to be defined at all in the BRB.

2. Sad as it is, "suffering a wound" or any like phrasing is, for my tastes and this thread, is not adequately defined in the BRB.

3. For all those looking for the whole unsaved wound subtracting from a model's Wound Characteristic, it is under Multiple-Wound Models BRB page 26:

"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 (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be
killed after it had been wounded three times)"

By strictest reading of that, the whole "loses one Wound from its profile" business only applies to multiple Wound models, as silly as that seems.

I'll keep looking to see what else I can find.

Re: Galador

Your argument is that dangerous terrain is more specific, and tells us to remove the model that triggered the test: RC doesn't apply because it's about "units" wound instead of "models" wounds. My argument in return is that a model's unsaved wound becomes the unit's (or group of identical models') unsaved wounds. This is because we only have two specific cases where a single model can take a wound: a single model unit, and a model that stands out in game terms. Obviously, I also argue that neither of those apply.

Which leads to your next argument, that "suffering a dangerous terrain test" makes a model unique in game terms, as it is a Special Rule. I also disagree here. My view is that, in every unit's entry in a codex, "Special Rules" is a specific section, where the unit's Special Rules are listed. For example, from the IG codex entry for Lord Commissar:

Special Rules:
Independent Character
Stubborn
Summary Execution
Aura of Discipline

Since all of the other determining factors for whether a model is unique are based off of its codex entry, I find it perfectly logical to look there for the Special Rules. Whenever a character gains a special rule during the game, it's specifically announced. Again, from the IG codex, this time for Straken, "Friendly units within 12" of Straken have the Counter-attack and Furious Charge universal special rules." I can't think of any time the gaining of a Special Rule isn't announced, and DT doesn't mention that they gain any rules.

If Special Rules were more vague instead of having a section in every entry in every codex, your argument would have more traction.

Evil Lamp 6: Can there ever be two guns in an artillery unit? If not, then the gun is always unique in gaming terms, so I'm not sure this bit from the FAQ sheds any light.

Yes, grot artillery units can have up to 3

It kind of proves the point that the model that managed to trip over and kill themselves did, actually, kill themselves and not the guy further back in the unit who didnt have a problem

I think it is a sad day when one has to use a BRB FAQ and a unit of Grot Artillery to possibly solve this issue.

I still laughed at the thought but it speaks to the depths these discussions can reach.

But yeah, the implication of the BRB FAQ as it pertains to a unit of Grot Artillery with more than one artillery piece that moves through Dangerous Terrain and has one of those artillery pieces fail its DT test is that that particular artillery piece is destroyed and no other. Extrapolating from that, in absence of what I would call clear rules on the issue, we can possibly deduce that infantry models are intended to be remove/destroyed/ect. in the same manner.

ElCheezus wrote:Re: Galador

Your argument is that dangerous terrain is more specific, and tells us to remove the model that triggered the test: RC doesn't apply because it's about "units" wound instead of "models" wounds. My argument in return is that a model's unsaved wound becomes the unit's (or group of identical models') unsaved wounds. This is because we only have two specific cases where a single model can take a wound: a single model unit, and a model that stands out in game terms. Obviously, I also argue that neither of those apply.

No, my arguement, that everyone on your side seems to keep confusing, is that nowhere in the Dangerous Terrain rules does it every say that the dangerous terrain removes casualties. Dangerous terrain simply causes a model that fails its test to suffer a wound, not removed it as a casualty. And because Dangerous terrain never tells us to remove it, that makes it specific to that model in that it causes just that model to have suffered a wound. Now RC does tell us that every model that suffers an unsaved wound is removed as a casualty. However, remember that before you make a save, the wound must be allocated, and then the saves rolled. So, if you have 3 models that get shot, and they are identical, they all suffer a wound if they each fail their save. However, if you only have one wound to give to the unit, and the games rules have already told you which model is suffering that wound, then that model must be removed if it fails its save. Allow me to provide an example:

3 meltagunners are running along, and one tries to be flashy and run through the dangerous terrain, while the other two run around it, not looking to break a leg or their necks. The melta gunner that runs through the Dangerous terrain trips, and a shard of rock goes through his eye and impales him in the brain(he suffers a wound). Now, according to dangerous terrain, it was this model that suffered the wound, because there was only one wound to be allocated, and it was allocated by the Dangerous Terrain rules, so the model it was allocated to by the Dangerous Terrain rules must be the one to die, because the game rules tell us so.

It is once again down to specific overrides general, and dangerous terrain lists exactly which person suffered the wound, so there is no handing the death off to someone else, as Dangerous terrain tells us which one was hurt, so it essentially overrides removing causualties if the model only has one wound.

In reference to your first part of the response to me : We do not have only two specific cases of when a single model can take a wound, we have at least three, the third being the Dangerous terrain test. It still stats that the model with the test suffers the wound.

PB wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Neither your nor our assertions change the rules at all in that section, which seems to be the part you don't understand.

If that were true there would be no debate. Which seems to be the part you don't understand.

An issue is assuming extra words, not changing the ones that are there.

I don't make any assumptions about the words that are written in the rule, they can be followed to the letter regardless of your subscription to one side of this debate or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.


Those are the rules. In either situation (removing models that failed the DT specifically, or by using the Removing Casualties and Complex Units rules) it is possible for a model to be killed by a dangerous terrain test and fail an assault. Given that it is possible under both sets of circumstances, I don't see how that rule can be used to determine which set of rules to use to remove casualties.

however, the assumption made by the OP multiple times in this thread is that the reason the model which is removed is removed is because it is allocated that way or is unique. This is an assumption. The OP even says earlier in the thread that he 'assumes this model is removed because...'. That is a fallacy upon which a large proportion of your side of the debate is based. It is a 'Note' used to clarify the DT rules, you cannot choose to ignore it (as the OP has done) just because you dont want to use it, OR, assume that it is clarifying your point by adding words to it which do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:I think it is a sad day when one has to use a BRB FAQ and a unit of Grot Artillery to possibly solve this issue.

Not Really, it is precedent given by GW, just because it is Grot artillery means nothing.

I still laughed at the thought but it speaks to the depths these discussions can reach.

But yeah, the implication of the BRB FAQ as it pertains to a unit of Grot Artillery with more than one artillery piece that moves through Dangerous Terrain and has one of those artillery pieces fail its DT test is that that particular artillery piece is destroyed and no other. Extrapolating from that, in absence of what I would call clear rules on the issue, we can possibly deduce that infantry models are intended to be remove/destroyed/ect. in the same manner.

And im with you on this, both laughing at intractability (my own included) and agreeing on the extrapolation

Galador wrote:No, my arguement, that everyone on your side seems to keep confusing, is that nowhere in the Dangerous Terrain rules does it every say that the dangerous terrain removes casualties.

DT doesn't say to remove casualies, check.

Dangerous terrain simply causes a model that fails its test to suffer a wound, not removed it as a casualty.

It causes a model that fails it's test to suffer a wound, check.

And because Dangerous terrain never tells us to remove it, that makes it specific to that model in that it causes just that model to have suffered a wound.

Makes it specific to that model? I don't know what this is supposed to mean, since all assigned Wounds are technically specific to a model

Now RC does tell us that every model that suffers an unsaved wound is removed as a casualty.

Incorrect. RC actually tells us that for every model that fails it's save (or can't save at all), the unit suffers an Unsaved Wound. This in turn tells us to remove a model from the unit.

However, remember that before you make a save, the wound must be allocated, and then the saves rolled.

Wounds only have to be allocated if the unit is complex. Also, DT takes care of allocation for us, since it tells us which model is assigned the wound. So in the case of DT, again this is incorrect.

So, if you have 3 models that get shot, and they are identical, they all suffer a wound if they each fail their save. However, if you only have one wound to give to the unit, and the games rules have already told you which model is suffering that wound, then that model must be removed if it fails its save. Allow me to provide an example:

The section bolded by me is unsupported by anything in the BRB. In fact, it's contradicted. When you assign wounds to a model in a complex unit, and the save is failed (or there isn't one), the rules still allow you to pick which model to remove. Since you allocate wounds to individual models in shooting, the game rules have similarly told you which model is suffering that wound, yet still lets you pick the casualty.

I cut out your example because narratives and the logic of "real-world" situations don't apply to game systems.

It is once again down to specific overrides general, and dangerous terrain lists exactly which person suffered the wound, so there is no handing the death off to someone else, as Dangerous terrain tells us which one was hurt, so it essentially overrides removing causualties if the model only has one wound.

If it overrides Removing Casualties, where does it tell you what to do with unsaved wounds? We're requested this multiple times, and it's ultimately a major question your side has to answer.

In reference to your first part of the response to me : We do not have only two specific cases of when a single model can take a wound, we have at least three, the third being the Dangerous terrain test. It still stats that the model with the test suffers the wound.

Those two specific cases that I reference actually tell us to remove the models. DT doesn't tell us anything about removing the model from the table. The closest it tells us is that we find out about wounds in the shooting section. So yes, we still only have two cases of being told what to do when a single model takes a wound.

I'll have to address other points later, as I have a dinner date.

Most of these ridiculous arguments are over by page 3.

I applaud you gentlemen!

Revenent Reiko wrote:however, the assumption made by the OP multiple times in this thread is that the reason the model which is removed is removed is because it is allocated that way or is unique. This is an assumption. The OP even says earlier in the thread that he 'assumes this model is removed because...'. That is a fallacy upon which a large proportion of your side of the debate is based. It is a 'Note' used to clarify the DT rules, you cannot choose to ignore it (as the OP has done) just because you dont want to use it, OR, assume that it is clarifying your point by adding words to it which do so.

I believe that by "OP" you mean me, who is by no means the original poster.

When I said I "assume this model is removed because..." I was providing an example of a situation that followed my interpretation of the DT rules. That example showed how the assault rules quoted by krisanth do not, in any way, conflict my my interpretation at all. In all ways, you can follow both the DT rules and the assault rules at the same time with no added text. Whether that particular assumption is correct or not has no bearing on the discussion, as nothing is built upon it. It is merely an example.

In no way does the wording of those assault rules clarify the DT rules, at all. I don't even have to choose to ignore them, because whether or not I ignore them, they don't come into it. That is, unless people like you and krisanth are so convinced that the key to understanding the DT rules is revealed pages later, in an entirely different section.

Also, no part of my arguments is based on any interpretation of the quoted assault rules. So whether or not you consider it a "fallacy" also has no bearing, and doesn't hurt our case. Claiming our arguments are based on a fallacy means either you don't understand our arguments, or you're flinging wild accusations to discredit us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is my step by step process for a failed dangerous terrain test. In this example, we will have a unit of 10 identical models, one of which walks through dangerous terrain. I choose this because it is the simplest case. By involving the fewest other rules, we can find the specific step where my detractors believe the logic fails. This will let us refocus the discussion to only the relevant rules, without being distracted by other, more complicated examples.

The 10-man unit moves, and one model ends in dangerous terrain. We will assume the model rolls a "1" on a d6 for the dangerous terrain test for this example, so the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed.

"Dangerous Terrain" on pg. 14 tells us that wounds and saves are covered in the next section. Proceed to pg. 19, "Roll to Wound." However, we already know the model is wounded, we can proceed to pg. 20

pg. 20 "Take Saving Throws" The second paragraph tells us that if the models are the same and have one wound each (they are in this example), then we can roll all the saves in one go, and a model of our choice is removed as a casualty for each failure. Technically, at this point, we still need to know how to fail a save. I'll continue in case anyone thinks it necessary. (I'll point out at this point for the folks watching at home that there has been no talk of units vs models suffering wounds. The BRB simply doesn't recognize a difference.)

Further down the page, it tells us that rolling lower than the armor value is considered failing a save. Ah, but we're not allowed to roll armor for this. So now what? Invulnerable saves, that's what. Don't have one though. So no rolling. Does that count as a failure? (common sense tells us yes, but let's investigate to be thorough)

Cover saves (also don't work, per DT rules) continue to pg 24, and then there's the Remove Casualties section. "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (we knew that, but does not rolling count as failure?) "Of course, this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted" So in this case, Common Sense is backed up by the book, and not rolling counts as failing.

We couldn't roll a save, which we now know is the same as failing. pg 20 tells us that a model of our choice is removed as a casualty for each failure.

So there you have it; everything we need to know about DT saves and which model to remove as a casualty is covered on pg. 14, pg. 20, and (to back up Common Sense) pg. 24. There's no need to reference assault rules, there's no need for a FAQ. Clear, solid, understandable answers are right here.

If we want to get into more complicated examples like complex or multi-wound units, we can. But first let's start small and see if anybody has a problem with this process.

Just a question does everybody take a dangerous terrain test when assaulting through dangerous terrian or just the closest model?

Every model that entered, left or moved though the terrain BRB pg. 14

Ok, I may have been a bit off when I said it overrides Removing Casualties. It overrides part of RC. It overrides the unit taking the wound part, because dangerous terrain rules tell us that that specific model suffers the wound, not the unit. Yes, RC tells us that for every model that fails their save, the unit takes a wound. but when a rule tells you a specific model suffers a wound, it overrides the unit portion of removing casualties, because it is more specific. That is what I meant by my earlier post. And you can override parts of a rule while still adhereing to the rest.

Dangerous terrain then overrides the ability to remove an identical in gaming terms model, because it says that the specific model that took the test suffers the wound, so you cannot remove anotehr model due to removing casualties on a one wound model, because of the specificity of the Dangerous Terrain rules.

Does Dangerous Terrain wound allocate? Yes.
Does dangerous terrain specify a particular model? Yes.
Can a specific model in a unit be removed as a casualty? Yes.

Basically let me break down my train of thought:

5 man SM squad moves, with one model moving into the Dangerous Terrain. They are all identical, lets say there were six and ole Sarge is dead.
The one Space Marine that moved through the Dangerous Terrain is given a test, as per the Dangerous terrain rules.
You roll a dice for the SM that is in the dangerous terrain, and you roll a 1, which means you failed the test, and the SM in cover, according to Dangerous terrain, suffers a wound. This is the point where our points of view are splitting, and I think it may be my fault as I have not been precise enough, which is why I am breaking it down like this.
Ok, so the wound has been suffer by the model in Dangerous terrain, as per the Dangerous terrain rules. Now, he has no invulnerable save, because he is an ordinary SM, and Dangerous Terrain denies armor and cover saves, so the SM in the Dangerous Terrain suffers the unsaved wound, as per the Dangerous terrain rules. I state unsaved here because even though Dangerous terrain does not state unsaved wound, seeing as the SM can take no save, it is unsaved.
So the SM now has 0 wounds, so we flip to remove casualties to see how to remove the SM from the board.
While normally any identical model may be removed for every unsaved wound to the unit, this is not an unsaved wound to the unit, it is to the specific model, as per the Dangerous Terrain test rules. This is the point that I have been trying to get across, that even though normally you can choose any like model to be removed, in this case you cannot because the wound with no save has been given to a specific model as per the Dangerous terrain rules, which makes this a specific wound, not a normal wound. So, as dangerous terrain told us exactly who suffered the wound, we must continue down that line with the casualty removal, as the game rules themselves have told us the model in the terrain that failed the test suffered the wound, not the unit.
Now then, RC states that any model in the unit can be targeted, hit, and wounded, even if it can't be seen. However, Dangerous Terrain rules are once again more specific that even this, as the rule is telling you basically "Hey this guy stubbed his toe, he needs to take a break while everyone else goes and fights!"


That basically outlines exactly what I have been trying to get across this whole time, and hopefully you will understand now why I say you cannot take off another model besides the one that took the test.

ElCheezus wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:however, the assumption made by the OP multiple times in this thread is that the reason the model which is removed is removed is because it is allocated that way or is unique. This is an assumption. The OP even says earlier in the thread that he 'assumes this model is removed because...'. That is a fallacy upon which a large proportion of your side of the debate is based. It is a 'Note' used to clarify the DT rules, you cannot choose to ignore it (as the OP has done) just because you dont want to use it, OR, assume that it is clarifying your point by adding words to it which do so.

I believe that by "OP" you mean me, who is by no means the original poster.

When I said I "assume this model is removed because..." I was providing an example of a situation that followed my interpretation of the DT rules. That example showed how the assault rules quoted by krisanth do not, in any way, conflict my my interpretation at all. In all ways, you can follow both the DT rules and the assault rules at the same time with no added text. Whether that particular assumption is correct or not has no bearing on the discussion, as nothing is built upon it. It is merely an example.

In no way does the wording of those assault rules clarify the DT rules, at all. I don't even have to choose to ignore them, because whether or not I ignore them, they don't come into it. That is, unless people like you and krisanth are so convinced that the key to understanding the DT rules is revealed pages later, in an entirely different section.

Also, no part of my arguments is based on any interpretation of the quoted assault rules. So whether or not you consider it a "fallacy" also has no bearing, and doesn't hurt our case. Claiming our arguments are based on a fallacy means either you don't understand our arguments, or you're flinging wild accusations to discredit us.

My apologies for calling you the OP ElCheezus, i had a busy day
the example only doesnt conflict with your interpretation because you choose to see it as complying with your point of view. It was right at the beginning of the thread when you stated that you 'didnt consider it rules' and then something along the lines of (i cant be bothered to look it up) 'i assume it works the way i say..'.
This is the fallacy, and that isnt meant in an offensive way, just that it is a conclusion based upon incorrect reasoning. NOt meant to be a wils accusation or offensive in any way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
i dont beleive the ket to understanding DT is pages later, its given to you in the wording 'the model fails a DT test' etc. Its the model bit that is important and is shown that it is the model which failed the test which gets removed in the example. (apologies for a weird sentence)