Unit of 5 Shrikes(JI). 3 wounds each. Due to Codex limitation all must be equipped the same. They jump and land in difficult terrian and fail 3 tests. Do three take 1 wound or does 1 take 3 wounds.
The way I read it, the model takes the wound so it would be 3 take 1 wound.
pg 26, "Units of Multiple-Wound Models" 4th paragraph.
"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties when possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."
The process of keeping track of an individual model's wounds only applies to multiple-wound models that are in a one-model unit, or ICs. (pg. 26) In all other cases of multiple-wound models, you cound the wounds up and remove a model when there are enough to casue a casualty. Dangerous Terrain does not override this.
ElCheezus wrote:The process of keeping track of an individual model's wounds only applies to multiple-wound models that are in a one-model unit, or ICs. (pg. 26) In all other cases of multiple-wound models, you cound the wounds up and remove a model when there are enough to casue a casualty. Dangerous Terrain does not override this.
Well first of all this is incorrect; units of multi-wound models wherein the models are not all the same in gaming terms(complex units) also need to be individually tracked.
Second of all, there is no wound allocation in Dangerous terrain tests; the individual models failing(and yes you must test for each model separately) suffer the wound(unless they have an invulnerable save and pass it).
I hold to a seemingly unpopular reading of the rules. The last discussion went on for 8 pages, so there's not real need to go through it *all* over again.
Dangerous Terrain tests allocates the wound to the model that triggered it, then everything else follows the same rules as shooting from there.
And yes, I still believe that my solid and extensively researched take on this is correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kommissar Kel wrote:
ElCheezus wrote:The process of keeping track of an individual model's wounds only applies to multiple-wound models that are in a one-model unit, or ICs. (pg. 26) In all other cases of multiple-wound models, you cound the wounds up and remove a model when there are enough to casue a casualty. Dangerous Terrain does not override this.
Well first of all this is incorrect; units of multi-wound models wherein the models are not all the same in gaming terms(complex units) also need to be individually tracked.
Second of all, there is no wound allocation in Dangerous terrain tests; the individual models failing(and yes you must test for each model separately) suffer the wound(unless they have an invulnerable save and pass it).
There's no separate treatment of unsaved wound for simple and complex multi-wound units. In both cases you keep track of the number of wounds per group of identical models, not per individual model.
This isn't about wound allocation, it's about how to process unsaved wounds.
"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."
I'm seeing two arguments, and after checking the rule-book I am still slightly confused.
--Argument 1 [For Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. Each model take its test one-at-a-time. 3 fail. Therefore 3 models take 1 wound each.
--Argument 2 [Against Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. They are all equipped the same and therefore can take all the tests together. 3 fail. Because they have 3 wounds each, and the rulebook states "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.", and they have taken 3 wounds, one model is removed, and all other models take no wounds.
So it seems to me that Argument 2 is correct because the units are equipped the exact same.
But Kommissar Kel states "and yes you must test for each model separately". So does that mean that each model tests separately, 3 fail, but because the number of individual failed tests equals the number of wounds of one of the models the wounds are taken from 3 individual models with 1 wound to 1 model with 3 wounds resulting in the removal of a casualty?
It seems the crux of the 2 arguments are thus:
--Allocation: Each model only takes 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only take 1 wound. It is illogical to think that 1 model can fail a test 3 times, or can be given the consequences of failed tests made by other models.
--No Allocation: The rule-book states "wounds cannot be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" in the section 'Units of Multiple-Wound Models' (which directly applies to this situation). Also, there is no wording in the 'Dangerous Terrain' section to support that dangerous terrain tests override this.
The more I think about it, the more I begin to think that each argument is valid.
Sigh; BRB page 14 Dangerous terrain: "Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left, or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed(wounds and saves are explained in the next section)."
You are never allocating these wounds, the individual models suffer them, and only invulnerable saves will prevent these wounds, and only the model taking the test will suffer it.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Solid, excpet it ignores the subject, which is the one that must suffer the wound.
Apparently that doesnt mean actually suffering the wound, i.e. dying from it.
The rule does refer to models who "suffer" the wound:
"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."
How many "unsaved wounds" were "suffered" by the "group of identical multi-wound models"? Answer: 3.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Solid, excpet it ignores the subject, which is the one that must suffer the wound.
Apparently that doesnt mean actually suffering the wound, i.e. dying from it.
Actually, no, it doesn't. I've explained it a few times in the other thread.
I'd also point out that the DT rules specifically tell us to handle wounds as described in the next section, i.e. the one about the shooting phase from where I draw my references. So really your interpretation of suffering ignores the DT rules, not mine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Cypher- wrote:I'm not following this conversation...
I'm seeing two arguments, and after checking the rule-book I am still slightly confused.
--Argument 1 [For Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. Each model take its test one-at-a-time. 3 fail. Therefore 3 models take 1 wound each.
--Argument 2 [Against Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. They are all equipped the same and therefore can take all the tests together. 3 fail. Because they have 3 wounds each, and the rulebook states "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.", and they have taken 3 wounds, one model is removed, and all other models take no wounds.
So it seems to me that Argument 2 is correct because the units are equipped the exact same.
But Kommissar Kel states "and yes you must test for each model separately". So does that mean that each model tests separately, 3 fail, but because the number of individual failed tests equals the number of wounds of one of the models the wounds are taken from 3 individual models with 1 wound to 1 model with 3 wounds resulting in the removal of a casualty?
It seems the crux of the 2 arguments are thus:
--Allocation: Each model only takes 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only take 1 wound. It is illogical to think that 1 model can fail a test 3 times, or can be given the consequences of failed tests made by other models.
--No Allocation: The rule-book states "wounds cannot be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" in the section 'Units of Multiple-Wound Models' (which directly applies to this situation). Also, there is no wording in the 'Dangerous Terrain' section to support that dangerous terrain tests override this.
The more I think about it, the more I begin to think that each argument is valid.
That's a pretty clear analysis of the discussion, actually. I will, however, nitpick on one important thing: it's not about allocation. Allocation is something you do with shooting, after wounds have been confirmed and before taking saves. This is about unsaved wounds and how they process to become casualty removal. I bring this up because talking about allocation can cause a lot of confusion. You can't do any allocation with failed DT checks before taking saves, but you can still follow the rules on casualty removal.
My challenge to interpretation #1 is that there is no rulebook support at all for processing wounds suffered by individual models except for 1) models unique in game terms (game terms is defined on pg. 25 first paragraph) and 2) multi-wound models that are in a single-model unit (and ICs). Neither of those cases apply in this example. In fact, unsaved wounds suffered by models are processed into unsaved wounds suffered by the unit as per Remove Casualties on pg. 24. However, mentioning that usually opens up a whole other can of worms from my detractors.
I would think that each model suffers one wound. DT seems to cleary indicate that you roll your DT test for each model and it is not distributed as per shooting. I didn't read the other thread (I will do so now), but that seems the most logical to me at this time.
ElCheezus, Since this came up again I thought you might be interested to know:
After discussing this point with people I play with, I found that four of the ten of them play the way you interpreted DT the rules, and the other six play(ed) the other way. We now all play with your interpretation; it is much easier to present the argument when discussing it face to face, it seems to (after going through it in person) "click" much easier.
Kurce wrote:I would think that each model suffers one wound. DT seems to cleary indicate that you roll your DT test for each model and it is not distributed as per shooting. I didn't read the other thread (I will do so now), but that seems the most logical to me at this time.
Correct, DT isn't distributed as per shooting, but DT uses the same system as shooting when it comes to resolving unsaved wounds and removing casualties. I agree with the fact that it seems logical to do it the way you mention. It's much more intuitive to do it that way. But sadly the rules for a simulation game don't always refelct "real word" situations.
PB wrote:ElCheezus, Since this came up again I thought you might be interested to know:
After discussing this point with people I play with, I found that four of the ten of them play the way you interpreted DT the rules, and the other six play(ed) the other way. We now all play with your interpretation; it is much easier to present the argument when discussing it face to face, it seems to (after going through it in person) "click" much easier.
That's actually good to know. Based on responses to the other thread, it feels like there were maybe two or three people total who didn't think I was insane. I'm not surprised that the internet makes things hard to communicate sometimes, but I'm glad it worked out for you guys better in person.
My group feels that the game does not want the complexity of having individual wounds on identical models from DT as that would make them dissimilar to wounds from other sources.
We determined this by following the same logic as the Cheese.
Elcheezus: by your logic then a unit of 7 shrikes could jump having 3 land in 4+ area terrain fail 3 tests. Kill one of the models outside of terrian and then benifit from cover...
Yonush wrote:Elcheezus: by your logic then a unit of 7 shrikes could jump having 3 land in 4+ area terrain fail 3 tests. Kill one of the models outside of terrian and then benifit from cover...
Yes, that is one of the consequences of the rules as I read them. I didn't write them, and I don't claim they're fair, balanced, or make real-world sense. But yes, that's allowed by the rules.
DarknessEternal wrote:My group feels that the game does not want the complexity of having individual wounds on identical models from DT as that would make them dissimilar to wounds from other sources.
This statement is inaccurate. Suffering a wound does not make them different in game terms. I deepstruck a unit of Fiends into terrain the other day, I failed 3 dangerous terrain tests and 3 models took a single wound each. I then took 3 more wounds from shooting and removed 3 whole models because they remain the same in game terms even if they have a wound and another identically equipped model does not.
I also did not know the game had wants, what it does have is a specific reference to models to resolve DT tests. I understand the argument made towards removing whole models, but I disagree with the idea that wounds suffered on a specific per model basis can be allocated.
If two identical Librarians are in a single unit and one suffers Perils of the Warp, do I allocate that wound? The model in that suffered the attack (or in this case failed the terrain tests) intuitively should take the wound, that is why it is specified on a model basis.
DarknessEternal wrote:My group feels that the game does not want the complexity of having individual wounds on identical models from DT as that would make them dissimilar to wounds from other sources.
This statement is inaccurate. Suffering a wound does not make them different in game terms. I deepstruck a unit of Fiends into terrain the other day, I failed 3 dangerous terrain tests and 3 models took a single wound each. I then took 3 more wounds from shooting and removed 3 whole models because they remain the same in game terms even if they have a wound and another identically equipped model does not.
I also did not know the game had wants, what it does have is a specific reference to models to resolve DT tests. I understand the argument made towards removing whole models, but I disagree with the idea that wounds suffered on a specific per model basis can be allocated.
If two identical Librarians are in a single unit and one suffers Perils of the Warp, do I allocate that wound? The model in that suffered the attack (or in this case failed the terrain tests) intuitively should take the wound, that is why it is specified on a model basis.
I think you misunderstood what he is saying here. I also don't think you understand the original argument (there is a link to the whole thread above) as it has nothing to do with wound allocation.
"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."
That's the general rule. DT states that the model must suffer the wound. Specific>general, the poor chap takes a wound.
"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."
That's the general rule. DT states that the model must suffer the wound. Specific>general, the poor chap takes a wound.
DT states the model suffers a wound. It is important to distinguish that this is a wound, not an unsaved wound. Once the model rolls to save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound, then models are removed. The reference here on page 26 is AFTER wound allocation, AFTER saves. All DT does is allocate the wounds for you.
Yonush wrote:As librianians are ic and individule units that's not a good example..
Not when they are in the same unit together, they are not.
If 2 libbys are in the same unit and Identical in gaming terms and the unit takes shooting attacks, then they would be lumped into the same wound group, and one of them would die if they take the requisite 2 wounds to kill one of them; then 1 would die. it is only in close combat during the combat itself that they are 2 individual units and can each take a single separate wound.
Perils, Dangerous Terrain, Death or Glory, Attacks that single out specific models(Vindicare, various GK-anti-psyker stuff, etc) will all wound only the specific models that they wound.
I think I completely understand the argument perfectly - it really is not that complex an idea. Since the DT wounds are assigned to a model and saves are rolled by groups of like models, the requirement to 'remove whole models' from an allocation group once you have X unsaved wounds kicks in under that particular argument.
The librarians in my example are, as Komissar pointed out, a single allocation group when identically equipped in the same unit. Zoathropes work as an example that is less confusing to most players I would imagine.
[ ]
So if we all agree than tests for Dangerous Terrain must be taken one-by-one in this situation, then the only thing to debate is whether or not once you reach the total amount of wounds on a models statistics (remember that in this scenario all models in the unit are exactly the same) does that mean that you then apply the allocation (read the whole post before you get hung on that word, it's used for lack of a more fitting one at the moment) rules, even though the wounds taken from Dangerous Terrain do not follow the rules for wounds taken in shooting in earlier stages (this meaning they are taken test-by-test, which is an obvious deviation from how a unit with identical models would handle wounds taken in the shooting phase).
So it seems to me that no, this "wounds cannot be allocated in such a way as to avoid removing models" will not apply because if you agree that Dangerous Terrain rules do not follow shooting phase allocation rules, then it follows that they will not follow shooting phase wound rules throughout the entire process.
Once those 3 separate tests are failed, then those 3 individual models will take their wound as a result of their failed test. I believe that is the correct way to do it for two reasons:
1- a model that takes 1 test can only take 1 wound. Therefore a model that fails one test (as specified in this situation because Dangerous Terrain specifies that the tests are taken "for each model") can only take 1 wound.
2- if you agree that wounds resulting from failed Dangerous Terrain tests do not follow the steps for wounds taken in the shooting phase when they are rolled for, then it follows logically that they will not follow rules for wounds taken in the shooting phase at any point in the process (excluding the basic principles of any and all wounds of course). To say that they start of by deviating from the rules, and then come back to adhering to them later in the process stretches the boundaries of rule interpretation too far when the only basis for the debate is lack of further explanation. You either have it one way or the other.
After reading this entire thread up to this point, I think that in this situation, when all is said and done, you will have 3 models with one wound apiece and no casualties. However, I will say, as I did in my previous post, that this is an interesting topic for debate as it has two convincing sides of argument if you dig deep enough.
[/ ]
I apologize for the many edits. I was on my phone and after a series of goofs I found that the post lacked its second half. Subsequent edits failed to fix the problem so I had to move to my computer.
-Cypher- wrote:So it seems to me that no, this "wounds cannot be allocated in such a way as to avoid removing models" will not apply because if you agree that Dangerous Terrain rules do not follow shooting phase allocation rules, then it follows that they will not follow shooting phase wound rules throughout the entire process.
pg. 14, last line under Dangerous Terrain: "(wounds and saves are explained in the next section)"
It tells us to refer to the shooting rules for specific parts of the process. Specifically: how to roll saves and what to do about wounds. So no, it doesn't follow that we wouldn't use the shooting phase rules.
If you don't use the rules for dealing with unsaved wounds in the Shooting Phase, where do you find your rules about what to do about unsaved wounds?
Cheezus, we can extend that to differently armed models then, and apply Wound allocation to a Dangerous terain tests(hooray Mooks taking my Sgt, Special, and Heavies wounds!) After all, as you say wound allocation is part of the wounding process, and it is wound allocation to the unit of same multi-wound models that makes you remove whole ones.
I think that the term 'wound allocation' is confusing the issue too much. You already have all the wounds allocated when you roll the dice, it is like taking one 2+ save with every model. The point is that if you fail multiple rolls from a similarly armed group of models, wounds are consolidated onto one model for ease of record keeping. It seems the best way of doing it to me, as having multiple models with half their wounds gone is annoying.
Q: When a Zoanthrope brood uses a psychic power, do I need to take a Psychic test for each individual Zoanthrope in the brood, or just one test for the whole brood?
A: Each Zoanthrope in the brood must take a separate Psychic test. Note that this means that a wound caused by Perils of the Warp will be allocated to the Zoanthrope that suffered the attack.
completely fails to answer the issue that they are addressing. It appears to support the "remove 1 whole model" argument ("model" tests are the same as wound allocation). However, it could also be read as meaning that Games Workshop has no idea what "allocation" means within the context of their own rules.
biccat, that both answers the question they were asking(how many tests for a Zoanthrope brood? 1/model.) and tells us that each individual Zoanthrope takes it's own perils wound(goes back to exactly what I said earlier: a wound that is auto-allocated to a model can only ever effect that model)
Kommissar Kel wrote:biccat, that both answers the question they were asking(how many tests for a Zoanthrope brood? 1/model.) and tells us that each individual Zoanthrope takes it's own perils wound(goes back to exactly what I said earlier: a wound that is auto-allocated to a model can only ever effect that model)
It answers the question asked (1/model), but doesn't satisfy the issue of how to deal with multiple wounds.
The response only says that the wound is "allocated" to the Zoanthrope that suffered the Perils attack (as in wound allocation). But it doesn't tell us how to deal with removing models, or how that wound is dealt with once it is (presuming zoanthropes have an invul.) unsaved.
I like all this. It works very well for units assaulting as well! Look how simple it makes the process.
I assault a unit in dangerous terrain with 5 models that have 2 wounds each.
The first model (the one closest to the enemy) moves into the terrain, gets into base contact with the enemy, fails the dangerous terrain test and suffers a wound.
Now the next model moves into the terrain, but it can't move far enough to get into base contact with the enemy but it is in base contact with the first model so it is engaged. It also take a dangerous terrain test and passes it.
Now the next model moves into the terrain. It also cannot make it into base contact with the enemy but is within 2" of the first model so it is engaged. It now takes a dangerous terrain test but fails it so it takes a wound.
But you say we have to remove multi-mound models where possible so we have to now removed the first model.
Well, now there are no models in base contact with the enemy unit, so the assault fails.
The last 2 models that moved now have to be moved back to their original starting positions because the assault has failed.
Now where exactly were they again?
IMO, it would be far easier to just follow the rules.
Like the one on page 34 under moving assaulting models, 2nd paragraph about halfway down, "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult or dangerous terrain if necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model."
Now of course you are going to counter argue by saying that the way you choose to place the wounds on the models, according to page 24, is you will move the entire multi-wound unit into assault, take as many dangerous terrain tests as necessary, allocate the wounds as you wish, and in the above scenario with 5 models, 2 wounds each, even if you failed 5 difficult terrain tests, you would never have to remove the closest model and the assault could never fail, so the rule as written is unnecessary because even in a unit with all 1 wound models, unless you moved them all through dangerous terrain, and they all failed, your assault would never fail. Interesting.
I was siding with Cheez until this thought struck me:
The allocation of wounds from shooting is made AFTER you have made your saves. (i.e. 6 wounds, 4 saves made, 2 wounds applied - in this case, one model removed.)
In the case of DT, no save is allowed, you just take a wound. The rulles of DT tell you where to allocate the wounds (i.e. to the model that failed the DT test).
As I understand it (and I fully admit I may be wrong), I have a unit of 6 models enter DT, but only 2 actually enter. I point to the first model and roll a 4, "he is good," I point to the 2nd model and roll a 1, "he is dead, wounded, etc." I pull him off the board, assign a wound, whatever. Extrapolating that to multi-wound models, I do the same. I do not roll them collectively and assign wounds to the ones I fail.
Yes, this makes record keeping a pain, but such is life.
Green is Best! wrote:
In the case of DT, no save is allowed, you just take a wound. The rulles of DT tell you where to allocate the wounds (i.e. to the model that failed the DT test).
Just to clarify, invulnerable saves can be taken against wounds caused by dangerous terrain.
time wizard wrote:Now of course you are going to counter argue by saying that the way you choose to place the wounds on the models, according to page 24, is you will move the entire multi-wound unit into assault, take as many dangerous terrain tests as necessary, allocate the wounds as you wish, and in the above scenario with 5 models, 2 wounds each, even if you failed 5 difficult terrain tests, you would never have to remove the closest model and the assault could never fail, so the rule as written is unnecessary because even in a unit with all 1 wound models, unless you moved them all through dangerous terrain, and they all failed, your assault would never fail. Interesting.
That's correct, the RAW mean that a unit of multi wound models (that have taken no wounds) that assault through dangerous terrain can't fail the assault (unless by choice). This doesn't make the point unnecessary, though, because there are plenty of other units that CAN fail the assault and it needs to be specified what happens if the lead model dies.
A unit of 5 exactly the same models would have to fail all 5 DTs to fail assault, but a unit with 4 bolters and 1 melta with the melta the only one close enough to lead the assault could easily fail. If the melta takes a DT wound and fails its save, the wound would need to be assigned to that melta, because there are no other meltas in the unit.
And this procedure would have to work equally well with vehicles, correct?
I have a squadron of vehicles.
The lead vehicle enters difficult terrain, so it takes a dangerous terrain test.
It fails the test and is immobilized.
But in squadrons an immoblilzed result is treated as destroyed-wrecked, so one of the vehicles in the squadron is wrecked and I can choose which one, even if it is not the one that moved into the terrain.
Correct?
{EDIT} Ah, sorry, right you can't because dangerous terrain tests take about wounds and vehicles can't be wounded, but they can still be immobilized, so you can't put the immobilized result on a diffferent vehicle (model) because it isn't a model (vehicle) it is a vehicle (model) so you would have to apply the result to the vehicle (model) that was immobilized you couldn't put it on a different model (vehicle) and now my head is starting to hurt!
time wizard wrote:And this procedure would have to work equally well with vehicles, correct?
I have a squadron of vehicles.
The lead vehicle enters difficult terrain, so it takes a dangerous terrain test.
It fails the test and is immobilized.
But in squadrons an immoblilzed result is treated as destroyed-wrecked, so one of the vehicles in the squadron is wrecked and I can choose which one, even if it is not the one that moved into the terrain.
Correct?
{EDIT} Ah, sorry, right you can't because dangerous terrain tests take about wounds and vehicles can't be wounded, but they can still be immobilized, so you can't put the immobilized result on a diffferent vehicle (model) because it isn't a model (vehicle) it is a vehicle (model) so you would have to apply the result to the vehicle (model) that was immobilized you couldn't put it on a different model (vehicle) and now my head is starting to hurt!
Yeah, I haven't really delved into this with vehicles at all since they work differently and don't take wounds. Unless someone has a compelling argument against it, for any vehicle I would say it goes to the vehicle taking the test since I don't see anywhere where a squadron of vehicles can apply damage results to different vehicles, but I haven't really researched it.
Green is Best! wrote:I was siding with Cheez until this thought struck me:
The allocation of wounds from shooting is made AFTER you have made your saves. (i.e. 6 wounds, 4 saves made, 2 wounds applied - in this case, one model removed.)
In the case of DT, no save is allowed, you just take a wound. The rulles of DT tell you where to allocate the wounds (i.e. to the model that failed the DT test).
As I understand it (and I fully admit I may be wrong), I have a unit of 6 models enter DT, but only 2 actually enter. I point to the first model and roll a 4, "he is good," I point to the 2nd model and roll a 1, "he is dead, wounded, etc." I pull him off the board, assign a wound, whatever. Extrapolating that to multi-wound models, I do the same. I do not roll them collectively and assign wounds to the ones I fail.
Yes, this makes record keeping a pain, but such is life.
this is incorrect
model removal is after saves wounds are allocated to the groups before saves are taken.
you should remove 1 model taking 3 wounds, not 1 wound to 3 models exaclty as the multi wound model rules specify.
I agree the argument is not in the idea of allocation.
It is in the idea that the word allocation as it pertains to Perils of the Warp or Dangerous Terrain is specifying that only a specific model is affected by the test and that model must be assigned the wound if it fails its save.
I do not have the BRB with me but I seem to recall something related to assaults through Dangerous Terrain that suggested if the first model moving in the assault fails its test, you then move to the next closest model to attempt the assault...(or maybe I am making up rules, if someone has a BRB and can check that would be good).
calypso2ts wrote:I agree the argument is not in the idea of allocation.
It is in the idea that the word allocation as it pertains to Perils of the Warp or Dangerous Terrain is specifying that only a specific model is affected by the test and that model must be assigned the wound if it fails its save.
I do not have the BRB with me but I seem to recall something related to assaults through Dangerous Terrain that suggested if the first model moving in the assault fails its test, you then move to the next closest model to attempt the assault...(or maybe I am making up rules, if someone has a BRB and can check that would be good).
This point along with the rule has been gone over earlier in this thread and more comprehensively in the thread linked above regarding dangerous terrain tests and model removal; I would check the thread linked earlier first.
calypso2ts wrote:I agree the argument is not in the idea of allocation.
It is in the idea that the word allocation as it pertains to Perils of the Warp or Dangerous Terrain is specifying that only a specific model is affected by the test and that model must be assigned the wound if it fails its save.
I do not have the BRB with me but I seem to recall something related to assaults through Dangerous Terrain that suggested if the first model moving in the assault fails its test, you then move to the next closest model to attempt the assault...(or maybe I am making up rules, if someone has a BRB and can check that would be good).
That would be this one I cited from a few posts back.
time wizard wrote:Like the one on page 34 under moving assaulting models, 2nd paragraph about halfway down, "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult or dangerous terrain if necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model."
Pardon me for not reading all 8 pages of a bloated thread? It is on the second page of the thread and the BRB reference is page 34 for the record, which strongly implies my point from the previous post.
Hey Calypso, easy there!
I just answered your question. You wanted to know where it was in the BRB and I had cited the rule a few posts in this thread before your question, so I re-posted it for you.
I wasn't trying to be rude, condescending or anything of the sort.
If it was perceived by you that way, I apologize. Was not the intent!
Just trying to give you the info you requested, nothing more, nothing less.
Time Wizard
calypso2ts wrote:Pardon me for not reading all 8 pages of a bloated thread? It is on the second page of the thread and the BRB reference is page 34 for the record, which strongly implies my point from the previous post.
I wasn't trying to offend you; The questions you are asking, and the road you are about to go down making your point have been addressed and re-addressed multiple times in the 8 page thread. Going over it again in this thread will only cause another 8 page thread, without any substance being added to either side of the DT wound/model removal arguments.
EDIT: To keep this mostly on topic, the answer to the original poster's question depends on which method of model removal you prefer for DT tests.
If you prefer that a model who takes a wound from DT and fails his saves must also be the model that is removed (or not removed for multiple wound models) then the multi-wound model rules make no difference, each model that fails its save takes one wound. Multiple wound models do not have to stack wounds on a single model until it dies.
If you prefer that a model who takes a wound from DT fails his saves incurs an unsaved wound on the unit, then normal model removal rules apply and you will need to apply the wounds to the mutli-wound models that are identical in gaming terms in such a way that the maximum number of models are removed.
To determine which side of the fence you fall on for this issue, it is best to consult the 8 page thread regarding DT wounds and model remove linked earlier.
time wizard wrote:Now of course you are going to counter argue by saying that the way you choose to place the wounds on the models, according to page 24, is you will move the entire multi-wound unit into assault, take as many dangerous terrain tests as necessary, allocate the wounds as you wish, and in the above scenario with 5 models, 2 wounds each, even if you failed 5 difficult terrain tests, you would never have to remove the closest model and the assault could never fail, so the rule as written is unnecessary because even in a unit with all 1 wound models, unless you moved them all through dangerous terrain, and they all failed, your assault would never fail. Interesting.
Your assumption here is that the rulebook wants us to fail assaults. With assault being as over-powered as it is due to sweeping advances and leadership modifiers, it's clear that GW loves the assault phase. The rule in assault about getting to restart the charge is reinforcement that assaults can continue even if the lead model dies. It seems to me that they *didn't* want anyone to fail assaults becuse of DT, so I don't see why your stuck on it.
Green is Best! wrote:The allocation of wounds from shooting is made AFTER you have made your saves. (i.e. 6 wounds, 4 saves made, 2 wounds applied - in this case, one model removed.)
What you're talking about isn't allocation, it's casualty removal. Allocation is a part of shooting and assault phases, not Dangerous Terrain. In fact, Dangerous Terrain specifically allocates the wound to the model that triggered the test. Ultimately what this means by my interpretation is that if a guy with a plasmagun goes into DT and fails the test, it has to be a guy with a plasmagun that dies, but not necessarily that exact model. For multi-wound, we follow the rules that tell us to remove a casualty when enough wounds are taken by the group of identical models.
time wizard wrote:And this procedure would have to work equally well with vehicles, correct?
Vehicles don't have the same "casualty removal" rules as other models. Specifically, penetrating or glancing hits generate damage results that are appplied to the specific model to which the hit was allocated. Basically, vehicles work the way you guys want other models to, in that you don't get to choose the casualty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
calypso2ts wrote:Pardon me for not reading all 8 pages of a bloated thread? It is on the second page of the thread and the BRB reference is page 34 for the record, which strongly implies my point from the previous post.
PB has a point that if we don't do the research on other posts, we'll just end up going in the same circles again. Although if you just want the cliff notes version: I'm right they're wrong!
(joking, of course. There is no cliff notes version)
In the other thread, the assault rules referenced from pg. 34 were addressed at least twice, maybe three times. I pointed out multiple times that no matter which interpretation was correct about how to treat DT rules, the assault rules would be written the same way. This is because the issue they are addressing (the lead model dying due to DT) can occur under both interpretations.
I have a torrented copy of the rulebook so I didn't see that bit (im not doubting it's there though), but I would say 'how to handle unsaved wounds' would be tossed in with "basic principles of wounds", which you'll notice I excluded in my previous post from 'ignoring'.
-Cypher- wrote:I have a torrented copy of the rulebook so I didn't see that bit (im not doubting it's there though), but I would say 'how to handle unsaved wounds' would be tossed in with "basic principles of wounds", which you'll notice I excluded in my previous post from 'ignoring'.
Edit: @El Cheezus btw.
You're right, I totally missed that the first time through.
-Cypher- wrote:it follows logically that they will not follow rules for wounds taken in the shooting phase at any point in the process (excluding the basic principles of any and all wounds of course). To say that they start of by deviating from the rules, and then come back to adhering to them later in the process stretches the boundaries of rule interpretation too far when the only basis for the debate is lack of further explanation. You either have it one way or the other.
After reading this entire thread up to this point, I think that in this situation, when all is said and done, you will have 3 models with one wound apiece and no casualties.
So it looks like you admit we need to go to the Shooting Phase for the rules for resolving wounds (and therefore removing casualties), but your conclusion contradicts those rules.
Okay. This is such an intricate conversation that word choice is paramount, so I'm trying to be very careful in explaining ho I think about the interpretation here. It's gonna be difficult, so bare with me.
We agree the crux of the argument is past DT itself and founded in whether or not unsaved wounds are funneled into one mini if the total amount of wounds reaches the max number of wounds on the mini's stats (which is only possible because all the minis in the unit are exactly the same).
This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.
That is my take, and hopefully I worded it specifically enough, and explanatorily enough so as not to be any more confusing than the discussion already makes it.
Edit: I apologize for my phone's double-posting issues.
-Cypher- wrote:Okay. This is such an intricate conversation that word choice is paramount, so I'm trying to be very careful in explaining ho I think about the interpretation here. It's gonna be difficult, so bare with me.
We agree the crux of the argument is past DT itself and founded in whether or not unsaved wounds are funneled into one mini if the total amount of wounds reaches the max number of wounds on the mini's stats (which is only possible because all the minis in the unit are exactly the same).
This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.
That is my take, and hopefully I worded it specifically enough, and explanatorily enough so as not to be any more confusing than the discussion already makes it.
DT never specifies that it deviates from the Wounding rules. It just tells us the model suffers the wound, which is the same verbage as allocation (pg. 20 paragraph 3) "The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models. . ." i.e. unit suffering becomes model suffering through allocation.
Also, we have to follow the 'funneling rule', becasue that's the only process we have for dealing with wounds in units of multiple-wound models. Any other treatment of unsaved wounds in this case would be based on 'assumed' rules and not RAW. If you have a reference that contradicts this, I'd love to see it.
-Cypher- wrote:This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.[/quote]
This is what I was trying to convey in my previous posting. While I understand the logic behind Cheez's post, I have to agree with cypher.
An example that came up (not here) was that an objective was in dangerous terrain. Now, in order to contest, you have to send a unit into dangerous terrain. The application of this DT can dramatically impact how you try to claim this objective.
If we use the Cheez theory (any similar model will do), you only need to send in one model to contest and the casualty can come from somewhere else.
If we use the Cypher theory (model by model), if a model goes in and takes a wound, that specific model dies.
Once you have decided on which theory above, the same thing then applies to multi-wound models.
-Cypher- wrote:This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.
This is what I was trying to convey in my previous posting. While I understand the logic behind Cheez's post, I have to agree with cypher.
Where in the book does it tell you how to process unsaved wounds on individual models? I know the two answers to this, and they don't apply. Give me a reference if you find one that does.
An example that came up (not here) was that an objective was in dangerous terrain. Now, in order to contest, you have to send a unit into dangerous terrain. The application of this DT can dramatically impact how you try to claim this objective.
I take no ownership of the consequences of playing by the rules, as I didn't design the game. The only reason you bring this up is because it's a change from what you're used to considering as "right." Any changes that would occur in the way you play as a result of using my interpretation don't really support an argument; they just illustrate the consequences. Just like "common sense" doesn't always come in to how a simulation game's rules are defined, being uhappy about the consequences also doesn't have an effect: they're just part of the game.
I was responding to PB, not you Time it was just unfortunate timing on my post.
The problem really stems from how specific you want to hold GW to the wording of their rules across different sections of the BRB. There are numerous cases where the text is inconsistent and when interpreting the BRB there is a general caveat of 'Does this make sense?'
This is after all a 'simulation' and while some rules exist because it is an abstraction from reality, there are plenty of examples where a 'legal paradigm' of interpretation lead to untenable occurrences in this 'simulation.' What is important is that wounds that occur as a result of a 'model' taking a wound are applied consistently. It would be inconsistent to apply DT in this manner and not PotW for example.
Given the tenets of consistency and 'does this make sense,' it is a logical conclusion to apply unsaved wounds to individual models regardless of whether similarly equipped models have already suffered a wound and to remove the specific model that failed the test as appropriate.
calypso2ts wrote:I was responding to PB, not you Time it was just unfortunate timing on my post.
The problem really stems from how specific you want to hold GW to the wording of their rules across different sections of the BRB. There are numerous cases where the text is inconsistent and when interpreting the BRB there is a general caveat of 'Does this make sense?'
I agree that GW's writing is crap, and that there are many cases where the rules leave room for interpretation. I don't think this is one of those times. Most people want it to be, becuase their interpretation is more intuitive.
In the other thread, I lay out detailed steps supported by references to the BRB for every step of triggering and failing a DT test through to casualty removal. It's for the simple case of one-wound models, but if you want to go through and apply the same rigor and research, you can come to the same conclusion I have for multi-wound models.
The steps are all there. The rules are clear enough to not need interpretation.
(Disclaimer: I know this is a horrifyingly long post, but do please read it all if you are going to discuss any part of it. It tool a LONG time to write and cite, so it would be much appreciated if you would be kind enough to read it and not scan for bits to pick out. I would give you the same courtesy. Thank you [and that is not just at ElCheezus])
ElCheezus wrote:
The steps are all there. The rules are clear enough to not need interpretation.
Cheezus, I feel that the fact the fact that this topic cannot be easily and convincingly answered indicative that the rules are not clear, and therefore do need interpretation (or at the very least intricate dissection). However, the problem with interpretation is that it is not uniform. You are perfectly welcome to interpret the rules in whichever way you wish, so long as that interpretation has convincing basis in the rulebook. You obviously feel that your interpretation does, so by all means do it your (and no doubt many other's) way. But since you asked for further evidence for my interpretation I will provide it. (I apologize if my over-siting and direct manner in this post is offensive, defensive, combative, or otherwise upsetting. Know now that none of these are my intent. I still view this a good-natured, healthy debate.)
[ ]
--Dangerous Terrain wording
ElCheezus wrote:
DT never specifies that it deviates from the Wounding rules. It just tells us the model suffers the wound,...
Page 14, 1st paragraph under Dangerous Terrain:
The Rulebook wrote:"Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left, or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move." It then, in the same paragraph, goes on to say the following: "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed (wounds and saves are explained in the next section)."
Note that is states "the model suffers a wound". Not the unit. This is important, and is the single word on which my interpretation hinges. Also, this is how DT specifies that it varies from how wounds on a unit of multi-wound models would normally be resolved.
I believe the distinction in the wording here can be cited because it is stated many times in the rulebook "units of models". They say it this way because units are made of a group of models. So if you are talking about something applying to the whole group it is written as 'unit', but if you are talking about something applying to only one mini in that unit your write 'model'.
--Reference for how to handle unsaved wounds on individual models
ElCheezus wrote:Where in the book does it tell you how to process unsaved wounds on individual models? I know the two answers to this, and they don't apply. Give me a reference if you find one that does.
The section that specifically covers the rules for how to handle wounds taken on models with multiple-wounds tells you how to process unsaved wounds on individual models.
Page 26, section titled 'Multiple-Wound Models':
The Rulebook wrote:"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). Keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or marker next to them."
This section will directly apply because DT works on a model-by-model basis, which this section specifically covers.
--Allocation and why it doesn't apply
ElCheezus wrote:It just tells us the model suffers the wound, which is the same verbage as allocation (pg. 20 paragraph 3) "The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models. . ." i.e. unit suffering becomes model suffering through allocation.
As to the verbage, "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed." is not the same as "In these cases, we need to know exactly who has been wounded, and this requires an extra step in the shooting process. The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws are taken." Also, what you said would be true if we were handling "unit suffering", but we are not. We start at model suffering.
As for 'allocation':
Page 15, in the box listing the steps of the shooting phase (we go here because we are directed to in the Dangerous Terrain paragraph):
The Rulebook wrote:"If the target unit includes different types of models, you will first have to allocate the wounds onto specific models."
In this situation the target unit does not include different types of models. Therefore, there will be no allocation.
I have shown in the previous point that allocation will not apply, but in the interest of fully covering all points of the debate here is the bit you are referring to (as you say, Page 20, paragraph 3 under 'Take Saving Throws'):
The Rulebook wrote:"On the other hand, it is common for units to include models with different weapons or wargear and characters with different profiles (and sometimes even different armour). In these cases we need to know exactly who has been wounded, and this requires an extra step in the shooting process. The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws are taken. This extra step is explained after the basic rules (see page 25)."
Difficult Terrain has already stated that you must roll a D6 for every model, and that (in less words) the model that fails its test takes its wound. Allocation refers to how wounds are allocated throughout a unit after they have been wounded (in the case of a DT test on a 1), but before they are saved for. However, DT specifically states that a wound suffered by a failed test will be put on the model that failed the test, thereby stating specific 'allocation'. Besides, because DT is handled on a model basis only 1 wound is dealt with at a time. Even if allocation became an issue you cannot choose how to allocate one wound if you only have 1 target (which is the case in DT because you resolve each test one-at-a-time and model-by-model).
Also, remember that this bit applies to wounds the unit has suffered. For DT, this is not the case.
--Following the rules step-by-step
To continue step-by-step, you would then go to page 25 to the section labeled 'Complex Units'. It states:
The Rulebook wrote:"The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit 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.
Of course many units include different models, and when this is the case an extra step is needed to determine which warriors have been hit by which weapons."(referring to allocation)
This section will not apply because of the bolded bit. Because all models in the unit are the same in game-terms, we are forced to assume that they follow the regular wounding process, except where DT specifically changes it (shown above).
--Why specifically the 'Funneling Clause' does not apply.
ElCheezus wrote:
Also, we have to follow the 'funneling rule', because that's the only process we have for dealing with wounds in units of multiple-wound models. Any other treatment of unsaved wounds in this case would be based on 'assumed' rules and not RAW. If you have a reference that contradicts this, I'd love to see it.
First, (I know this is getting old, but...) the 'funneling rule', by your own admission (and in the rulebook as cited below) is for dealing with wounds in units. This is not the case for DT. So...
We do NOT use the 'funneling rule' because it is in the section (also on Page 25) titled 'Units of Multiple-Wound Models'. However, because it is the crux of the debate, I will give my points as to why I believe it is not used. It states:
The Rulebook wrote:"Units consisting of models with multiple wounds on their profile, such as Tyranid Warriors and Ork Nobz, are quite rare. Working out how to allocate wounds and remove casualties from such units can be quite complex, so if you don’t have any in your army, feel free not to finish reading this page!
If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds, then take all the saves for the unit in one go. [this sentence can't really be used as evidence though unless the models have an invulnerable save, but then by that train of though this entire section cannot be used as evidence because it doesn't apply in the first place, but I digress...]
If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal. [this sentence especially won't apply since the models in question are not 'different models']
[Finally! Here is the 'funneling rule' (or clause?)] 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, first this section will not apply as I said earlier. But secondly the 'funneling rule' will especially not apply because it specifically uses a very specific word: group. DT tests are not taken as a group, but instead are completely resolved (excluding invulnerable saves for like models) individualy.
[/ ] again.
I don't think I can get any more in-depth than that, so I really hope I've given the most conclusive 'arguments' for why I play the way I play.
First off, I absolutely appreciate that you want people to read your whole post, and that you've put a lot of work into it. I've done much the same thing, so I'm all on board with well thought-out responses.
-Cypher- wrote:Note that is states "the model suffers a wound". Not the unit. This is important, and is the single word on which my interpretation hinges. Also, this is how DT specifies that it varies from how wounds on a unit of multi-wound models would normally be resolved.
In order to address the model vs. unit argument, we have to go back to a simpler example. This goes back to the other thread, actually. When we have a unit of single-wound models, we have to conclude that there's no functional difference between a model and a unit taking a wound, and that carries through to this discussion.
The reason we have to conclude that: there's no definition of how to handle wounds on single models. In the case of multi-wound models, the pg. 26 reference deals only with multi-wound models, so we can't use it for single-wound models. If we can't use it for single wound models, then we're left with the "unit" rules for removing casualties. In order to be consistent between single and multi wound models, we have to treat models suffering wounds the same way we would handle units suffering wounds.
My earlier challenge to find a place where it tells us how to handle "models" taking wounds was mainly left over from the previous thread. I forgot that since we're dealing with multi-wound models, there actually is a way to do it. However, we can't use these methods without creating inconsistency between the treatment of single- and multi- wound models.
--Allocation and why it doesn't apply
ElCheezus wrote:It just tells us the model suffers the wound, which is the same verbage as allocation (pg. 20 paragraph 3) "The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models. . ." i.e. unit suffering becomes model suffering through allocation.
As to the verbage, "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed." is not the same as "In these cases, we need to know exactly who has been wounded, and this requires an extra step in the shooting process. The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws are taken." Also, what you said would be true if we were handling "unit suffering", but we are not. We start at model suffering.
I guess I left something out here, too. Unit suffering wounds becomes models suffering wounds through allocation. After saves are failed (or not taken), they become unit wounds again. This is mentioned on pg. 24 under "Remove Casualties": "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
I meant to illustrate that allocation transitions "unit" wound to "model" wounds. I equate DT's wording of "the model suffers a wound" to the process of allocating. In shooting, we need allocation to determine who makes the save against the wound. DT specifies the model, so we don't use allocation. So the step after allocation, making saves, is where DT wounds start. From there, when the saves are failed (or not allowed), they become "unit" wounds again, going on to the processes for removing casualties.
So I agree that we start at model suffering, I'm mainly attempting that both DT and regular allocation use the process of "models" taking wounds, which therefore transitions out of models back to units. This similarity and parallel in the process is part of why I think we keep following the same process for the treatment of unsaved wounds.
As for 'allocation':
We don't need allocation for DT at all, since it basically takes care of that for us. I think we're basically on the same page that we don't need to do any allocation.
We do NOT use the 'funneling rule' because it is in the section (also on Page 25) titled 'Units of Multiple-Wound Models'. However, because it is the crux of the debate, I will give my points as to why I believe it is not used. It states:
The Rulebook wrote:"Units consisting of models with multiple wounds on their profile, such as Tyranid Warriors and Ork Nobz, are quite rare. Working out how to allocate wounds and remove casualties from such units can be quite complex, so if you don’t have any in your army, feel free not to finish reading this page!
If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds, then take all the saves for the unit in one go. [this sentence can't really be used as evidence though unless the models have an invulnerable save, but then by that train of though this entire section cannot be used as evidence because it doesn't apply in the first place, but I digress...]
If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal. [this sentence especially won't apply since the models in question are not 'different models']
[Finally! Here is the 'funneling rule' (or clause?)] 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, first this section will not apply as I said earlier. But secondly the 'funneling rule' will especially not apply because it specifically uses a very specific word: group. DT tests are not taken as a group, but instead are completely resolved (excluding invulnerable saves for like models) individualy.
So, I've addressed the part about why "unit" applies, so I'll move on.
It sounds like you're starting to make a case that since we're denied armour and cover saves, that any part about grouping identical models doesn't doesn't apply. I really don't think this makes sense. First off, that makes things work entirely different dependent on whether there's an invulnerable save involved. If a unit of Zoanthropes fails enough DT tests and Invuln saves, do we remove models for them, but not for models without a save?
In order for that inconsistency to be resolved, I consider taking an unsaved wound because you have no applicable save to be part of "taking a save." This not only resolves the inconsistency, but realizing that you have no save is covered within the section on saves.
DT tests are not taken as a group, but saves by identical models are, even if they have no saves to take. So, the unsaved (or unsavable) wounds from DT are still suffered by the group. The part about not spreading wounds around still applies.
So, of the three sections in this reply, the first shows why "models" and "units" suffering wounds should be treated the same. The second is just an example of the parallels between the process in the shooting phase post-allocation and the process after failing a DT test. The third describes why the grouping of identical models still applies even if there are no saves to take. I hope they make sense.
I dont have the rulebook in front of me, but im pretty sure that in the Dangerous Terrain section right at the end it says to refer to the next section for wound allocations. The next section of the book covers allocating wounds on single wound models then covers allocating wounds on multiple wound models. So you would have to remove whole models ASAP. This actually came up in our local shop when an ork player tried to argue that his Nobz shouldnt die from assaulting my Venomthropes. He took 6 wounds so i understand why he was upset.
Warning: If you open this spoiler, an explosion of contradicting statements will greet you, not to mention a terrifyingly long wall of text. It is best not to do so, and instead simply read this:
I find this to be a broken rule because a model in effect failing more tests than it attempts to pass is just silly, but I will admit that according to the RAW I am wrong. Thanks ElCheezus.
I'll be continuing to play with RAIntended in this case, and after talking with my FLGS group it seems I won't find anyone objecting to that (considering they all do the same thing). However, once again, according to the RAW, this is wrong.
Also, after hours of working this over (that's just the kind of person I am, and though it drove me bonkers at times, it was also kind of enjoyable) I am forced to conclude that if you interpret the DT entry to mean "because you roll 1 D6 per model eligible that exactly translates to 'each model takes one wound'", then at best this seems to be an interpretation and not irrefutable fact.
Spoiler:
@ElCheezus: You, sir, are very good at this. Once again you present fact-based arguments for your side that are very compelling. I honestly believe that if you and I made our separate spills to an independent third party who had no references it would be a toss-up as to who they would say is correct.
The thought-line:
However, there are a couple things I want to point out:
First you say:
ElCheezus wrote:In order to address the model vs. unit argument, we have to go back to a simpler example. This goes back to the other thread, actually. When we have a unit of single-wound models, we have to conclude that there's no functional difference between a model and a unit taking a wound, and that carries through to this discussion.
then you say:
ElCheezus wrote:My earlier challenge to find a place where it tells us how to handle "models" taking wounds was mainly left over from the previous thread. I forgot that since we're dealing with multi-wound models, there actually is a way to do it.
I've read these bits carefully, and in my opinion they could be seen to contradict each other. The first seems to say that the previous example is directly applicable to this example, while the second quote seems to say that there is a distinct separate way to handle wounds for multi-wound models.
As for:
ElCheezus wrote:we have to conclude that there's no functional difference between a model and a unit taking a wound...
I disagree. The very difference between how models and units take wounds is the thing being debated here.
I believe that because the Dangerous Terrain entry specifically states that it is handled on a model basis, then for the time in which you are you resolving the Dangerous Terrains tests the models in this example would in effect be 5 different units of 1. This seems odd, but if you say that DT states how to allocate its wounds by saying that the model that fails the test is the model which takes the wound then that is the end of the discussion. The reference to the next section made at the end of the DT entry is (IMHO) simply because they are introducing actually resolving taking a wound for the first time. It is not because DT will then directly follow the next section's guidelines. I believe this because everywhere else, if I am told specifically in an entry that said entry will act a certain way, then that is the way it will act regardless of how whatever that entry is talking about would normally happen.
Another bit of encouraging evidence for this way of thinking is that a model cannot fail more tests than it takes. For instance, in any situation in which you would use the 'funneling rule', the unsaved wounds you would be redistributing to kill off a whole model would have been rolled in one go. This is not the case for DT. It specifically states that the model suffers the wound.
You also say:
ElCheezus wrote:I guess I left something out here, too. Unit suffering wounds becomes models suffering wounds through allocation. After saves are failed (or not taken), they become unit wounds again. This is mentioned on pg. 24 under "Remove Casualties": "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
and you go on to say:
ElCheezus wrote:We don't need allocation for DT at all, since it basically takes care of that for us. I think we're basically on the same page that we don't need to do any allocation.
To look at the paragraph you reference:
ElCheezus wrote: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, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty. As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed.
Notice that the first sentence would be used for units, and for my side of the debate the models in the example are singular. Also note the last sentence. It refers to wound allocation, something that I have said, and you have kinda said, is not applied at all. And remember, DT wounds are allocated by DT itself and not the player, so for the player to then use a general (albeit a specific general rule [yes, the debate just reached that level of word specificality ]) rule (the 'funneling rule', which applies to multi-wound models that share the same characteristics in a unit) over a specific rule (the paragraph in which DT is specifically lined out) seems incorrect.
ElCheezus wrote:It sounds like you're starting to make a case that since we're denied armour and cover saves, that any part about grouping identical models doesn't apply.
That is exactly the case I'm making, but not because of denied saves. I'm saying that "any part about grouping identical models doesn't apply" because we aren't grouping identical models.
ElCheezus wrote:First off, that makes things work entirely different dependent on whether there's an invulnerable save involved. If a unit of Zoanthropes fails enough DT tests and Invuln saves, do we remove models for them, but not for models without a save?
It would go like this: 3 Zoanthropes are 2 inches away from DT. They move into the DT. You then assign (for expediency purposes) one D6 to each Zoanthrope using different-colored die. Let's say Z-1 is green, Z-2 is red, and Z-3 is blue. You now roll the 3 D6. If the green die is a 4, but the red and blue die are 1s the of course Z-1 is safe and left alone. Z-2 and Z-3 will then take their invulnerable save. If both fail that then they both take one wound each. The wounds will not be funneled into any one model in the unit that the player wishes to remove because DT states that the model that fails the test (and in this case also its invuln) will suffer the wound.
Now lets say that the unit from the OP's example does the exact same thing (only there are five). Aside from needing more colors and not taking invulnerability saves, the same thing would happen. 3 Shrikes will end up with 1 wound apiece, not 4 un-wounded models and 1 casualty.
So I'm not really understanding how there is inconsistency between models with or without an invulnerability save.
The 'epiphany':
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING JUST CLICKED! I will not be deleting what I have written above because it may be the very thought-line that led me to the 'epiphany'.
To dispel all debate do this: Read the DT entry, which says:
The Rulebook wrote:As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed (wounds and saves are explained in the next section).
now go immediately to the section regarding units of multi-wound models:
The Rulebook wrote: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. Track any excess wounds with a note or a marker as noted above. Multiple-wound models in the unit that are unique are rolled for individually and their unsaved wounds must be recorded separately.
Put it together (more-or-less) and it reads: "As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed. 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."
I find this to be a broken rule because a model in effect failing more tests than it attempts to pass is just silly, but I will admit that according to the RAW I am wrong. Thanks ElCheezus.
I'll be continuing to play with RAInterpreted in this case, and after talking with my FLGS group it seems I won't find anyone objecting to that (considering they all do the same thing). However, once again, according to the RAW, this is wrong.
But now...?:
The question then moves to whether you think that the 'funneling rule' takes precedence over the fact that DT allocates its wounds on its own. Which is to say that DT states that you roll 1 D6 per model eligible for the DT test. In effect that means that each model is allocated one wound. According to allocation a model can only suffer wounds that are allocated against it prior to taking any saves. Now normally all potential wounds would be resolved for an all similar multi-wound-model unit at once with the potential wounds going into an ambiguous pool (meaning you don't know what happened to who until you interpret the dice rolls). However with DT, even though the models are similar, you know that there is only 1 wound allocated to each model.
If OP's example in the shooting phase then it would go like this: (to make this analogy fit, lets assume that whatever is shooting at him auto-hits, and wounds on a 6, so starting from the rolls to wound: )he would roll 5 dice. If he rolled 3 6s then one model would be removed and that would be that (because those 5 potential wounds are not assigned to individual models until after the die are rolled and read).
For DT though it goes like this: he rolls 5 dice for the test's potential wounds with the understanding that each model is allocated only 1 wound. If he rolls 3 1s then 3 individual models would then at that point be understood to have 1 wound each. Can you now use a rule (the 'funneling rule') that applies to ambiguous wounds on wounds that are specifically allocated? We seem to have 2 distinctly different rules for allocating these wounds. In the DT entry we are told that each model takes 1 wound. In the Multi-Wound section we are told that wounds must be allocated to remove whole models.
For the Zoanthropes (of which there are 3), if they took a DT test and rolled 2 1s then according to strict DT interpretation, 2 Zoanthropes would take one wound and then attempt to save it. If they fail they take the wound, if they pass then they don't.
The key: We seem to have 2 distinctly different rules for determining where to place DT wounds. In the DT entry we are told that each model takes 1 wound (via "Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move."). In the Multi-Wound section we are told that wounds must be placed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible (via "Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models.").
So which takes preference? Just looking at the RAW one might think the 'funneling rule' because DT refers the reader to the next section. However, following that line then models can take wounds that were allocated to other models, which is not possible.
However, that may not be true seeing as there is nothing anywhere covering how to resolve individual wounds taken on equal multi-wound models.
But then all of that is only true if you interpret the DT entry to mean that because you roll 1 D6 per model eligible that exactly translates to "each model takes one wound". At best this seems to be an interpretation and not irrefutable fact.
seems to have settled this issue once and for all;
Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.
I'll point out right away that this FAQ changes nothing about my interpretation of the way casualties are removed from DT. It is, however, nice that they reinforce the fact that you can't allocate the wound.
I agree with ElCheezus. Allocating the wound wasn't really where the issue stems from. Its whether or not those wounds (if taken on models that are equal in game terms) are then subject to being 'funneled' so as to remove whole models where possible.
-Cypher- wrote:I agree with ElCheezus. Allocating the wound wasn't really where the issue stems from. Its whether or not those wounds (if taken on models that are equal in game terms) are then subject to being 'funneled' so as to remove whole models where possible.
If you are "funneling" wounds to remove whole models, then you are indeed allocating wounds as per the shooting rules.
The FAQ is very clear.
Each model that moves through the terrain takes a test.
Each model that fails takes a wound.
If you put that wound on any other model, you are allocating wounds instead of applying them.
And the FAQ starts by saying you do not allocate wounds from dangerous terrain tests.
Allocation is a very specific term for a very specific process. Allocation happens after the number of wounds have been determined, before saves are taken. My interpretation has never wanted to allocate wounds. "Funelling" (or whatever you want to call it) takes place after allocation, after saves have been taken.
The wording of the FAQ is the same as the wording in the BRB. Nothing has changed since the initial postings on this thread. All of the arguments on both sides stand as they are. There's no point in starting into this all over again as if the FAQ changed anything. It didn't.
If there are new arguments, however, I'm game. This is one of my favourite discussions. :-D
ElCheezus wrote:The wording of the FAQ is the same as the wording in the BRB. Nothing has changed since the initial postings on this thread. All of the arguments on both sides stand as they are. There's no point in starting into this all over again as if the FAQ changed anything. It didn't.
I can't fathom which part of "Each model that fails takes a Wound." you are failing to understand.
Allocating wounds After determining the number of wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular Initiative value, the unit takes saves and casualties are removed as detailed below , Just like in the Shooting phase, if all the models in the unit are the same in gaming terms, you can carry straight on and roll all the saves in one batch, Otherwise, wounds are allocated against the target unit by the controlling player, exactly like the fire of a single enemy unit during the Shooting phase
So the Assault Phase references the Shooting Phase to help know how and when to allocated, apply wounds. The DT section does not reference the Shooting Phase or any other similar section.
And the one section that really hits home that it is per model basis is the following:
ASSAULTING THROUGH COVER If, following the rules for moving assaulting models (see page 25), any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through difficult or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant terrain test before moving. This has two disadvantages. The first and most obvious is that such tests might cause the assault to fail altogether if the closest model cannot make it into contact with the enemy. Note that if a model stopped 1" away from the enemy in the Movement or Shooting phase, it can Assault even if its unit rolls a double 1 on its difficult terrain test.
So if you have to move closest-to-closest when declaring an assault, and you happen to be moving through dangerous terrain to do so. If your closest model ends up getting a roll of 1 then that particular model dies. Hence you may not get the assault range with the models you have left.
*Some might say that it refers to the unit taking the relevant terrain test, and that it is unclear which tests are keeping the unit from making the assault, but that's how I read it, and I have to agree with the per model folks.
Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.
I really can't see how this gets more black and white. If a model moves through dangerous terrain, it rolls a D6 on a 1 it takes a wound with no armor save allowed. The wound doesn't go to any other model since it can't be allocated.
When you have a unit of identical models (as in the original example), you never use any allocation. Allocation is simply a means of determining which models take the saves. If you're not extremely familiar with the allocation rules, you'll need to read up. This discussion is really detailed, and distinctions between allocation, taking saves, removing casualties, and keeping track of wounds are important.
So, allocation has you determine which model makes a save. You get shot at, take a Wound. Then you say "one of my chumps takes the save" and roll the die. DT doesn't let you say it's a chump that takes the save, DT says the guy that stepped in the river makes the save. That's what the FAQ is saying about allocation. DT skips the allocation step and does that work for you.
Now, after allocation, we take the save. When a model fails a save (or doesn't get to save at all), the unit suffers an unsaved wound. pg 24. Model fail save -> unit suffer wound.
For each unsaved wound, a model is removed from the table. This doesn't have to be the model that failed the save. pg 24.
Those are the basics. For units of multi-wound models, we look to pg. 26. "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." Track any excess wounds that are assigned to the group of identical models.
So, that's the only way we're given to deal with Unsaved Wounds. There's no other place in the book that tells you what to do if a model fails a save or can't take one. That's what the book means by "suffering a wound"; the whole process. Whether the Wounds came from shooting or not, you remove whole models when possible.
Also, there's no method of tracking wounds on individual models if they're in a group with other, identical, models. The wounds are tracked for the whole group at once, not individually.
So, in 2 am I'm-far-too-tired-for-this rambling, that's the basis of my arguments. Never in the process does allocation fall into play, so the FAQ reference provided changes nothing, and all of my old reasoning still stands. It's very, very, very important that you fully 100% understand exactly what allocation is and is not. If we want to start all of this back up again, like I said, I'm game. I'm 100% confident in my interpretation, and can reference anything you desire to help this make sense. However I'll be slow in posting, so it won't turn into 8 pages in a week like the last time.
Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you're hung up on "allocation", when I'm pointing you to "the model takes the wound", which further clarifies what they meant by "suffers"
If another model takes the wound, for any reason you can possibly think up, you have broken this utterly clear and 100% unambiguous rule.
This guy HERE, THIS guy and this guy ONLY failed his DT. He MUST take the wound from it. Noone else can.
Your analysis doesn't address how to deal with unsaved wounds.
I think even ElCheezus would agree that a model that fails a DT test takes a wound, since that's how the rule is written.
What you're not addressing is how the rules deal with unsaved wounds that is addressed on page 26, and only addressed on page 26 (for single wound models). Nowhere else is "removing casualties" addressed or even hinted at.
If the authors had wanted the model who fails a DT test to be removed as a casualty, they would have said "any model that fails its test is removed as a casualty."
biccat wrote:
If the authors had wanted the model who fails a DT test to be removed as a casualty, they would have said "any model that fails its test is removed as a casualty."
If they said that, then a model with more than 1 wound would be removed if it failed a dangerous terrain test. It does not.
Anymodel that fails the dangerous terrain test takes a wound.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you're hung up on "allocation", when I'm pointing you to "the model takes the wound", which further clarifies what they meant by "suffers"
If another model takes the wound, for any reason you can possibly think up, you have broken this utterly clear and 100% unambiguous rule.
This guy HERE, THIS guy and this guy ONLY failed his DT. He MUST take the wound from it. Noone else can.
Your analysis doesn't address how to deal with unsaved wounds.
I think even ElCheezus would agree that a model that fails a DT test takes a wound, since that's how the rule is written.
What you're not addressing is how the rules deal with unsaved wounds that is addressed on page 26, and only addressed on page 26 (for single wound models). Nowhere else is "removing casualties" addressed or even hinted at.
If the authors had wanted the model who fails a DT test to be removed as a casualty, they would have said "any model that fails its test is removed as a casualty."
This
You are trying to dig WAAAAAAAY too deep here. EACH MODEL that fails takes a WOUND. You touch dangerous terrain the MODEL takes a test and if it fail the MODEL takes a WOUND. There is nothing about the unit, groups of similar models, etc. You simply place a wound on the model that failed the test.
BlueDagger wrote:You are trying to dig WAAAAAAAY too deep here. EACH MODEL that fails takes a WOUND. You touch dangerous terrain the MODEL takes a test and if it fail the MODEL takes a WOUND. There is nothing about the unit, groups of similar models, etc. You simply place a wound on the model that failed the test.
I'm not "digging" deep, I'm simply applying the rules.
Model takes a wound.
Model makes a save (or the wound is unsaveable).
For every model that failed its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound.
For every unsaved wound one identical model must be removed.
This is how the rules work. It's not terribly complicated.
BlueDagger wrote:That is standard wound allocation.
This is not standard wound allocation.
This is the model takes a wound, not the unit.
Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No.
That's not wound allocation.
Standard wound allocation is as follows:
Unit suffers N wounds.
Each model is allocated 1 wound.
Once each model is allocated 1 wound, each model may be allocated another wound.
Repeat until you reach N.
Take saves in groups of identical wound models.
As has been pointed out many times before, the standard method of resolving hits & wounds is as follows:
1 - Roll to hit
2 - Roll to wound
3 - Allocate wounds
4 - Take Saves
5 - Remove casualties
Everyone agrees that steps 1-3 are supplanted by the Dangerous Terrain rules. Steps 4 & 5 remain.
Unless there is some other method of removing casualties that hasn't been raised, the only way to resolve the situation (consistent with the rules) is that a model identical (in game terms) to the model that failed the DT test may be removed as a casualty.
Dangerous Terrain test
1 - Roll to hit - Doesn't exist in DT test
2 - Roll to wound - Dangerous terrain test, a 1 wounds the model as per FAQ 3 - Allocate wounds - Wounds are allocated to the model that failed only as per FAQ 4 - Take Saves - DT test allows for Invulnerable save by the model
5 - Remove casualties - If the model fails and only had one wound it is removed, if not it just takes a wound.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Once again you are assuming that the unit is taking a wound, when in this case only the model is taking a wound. There is similar abilities that already exist in the games such as Mindwar where the MODEL takes the wounds, not the unit, so the wounds can not be put on a different model.
Everyone agrees that steps 1-3 are supplanted by the Dangerous Terrain rules. Steps 4 & 5 remain.
Unless there is some other method of removing casualties that hasn't been raised, the only way to resolve the situation (consistent with the rules) is that a model identical (in game terms) to the model that failed the DT test may be removed as a casualty.
4 - Take Saves
Look at page 25 BRB, under Taking Saving Throws, the stage you say we are at after failing the dangerous terrain test, first and second sentence, "Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models." {emphasis mine}
The FAQ states in clear and simple language,
"Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No."
So you cannot allocate the wounds. Only the model that fails the test suffers a wound. Only that model can now take a saving throw if it has one. If it fails that, then only that model can take a wound, as per the FAQ and backed up by the rule on page 25.
Since you cannot allocate the wound as per the FAQ, you cannot place that wound on any other identical model in the unit as per page 25 because it is only after you allocate wounds, "...only then..." can you choose casualties from amongst identical models. And you cannot get to that point by failing dangerous terrain tests because the FAQ affirms that you cannot allocate wounds the same way as shooting attacks.
Agree to time wizard, without allocation, wound groups are never formed, so you can never remove models from that group. The FAQ actually did change something.
time wizard wrote:Since you cannot allocate the wound as per the FAQ, you cannot place that wound on any other identical model in the unit as per page 25 because it is only after you allocate wounds, "...only then..." can you choose casualties from amongst identical models. And you cannot get to that point by failing dangerous terrain tests because the FAQ affirms that you cannot allocate wounds the same way as shooting attacks.
OK, so you give a wound to the model. That model suffers a wound. Whichever way you want to say it.
What now?
What rule tells you how to remove a model that suffers a wound as you have described? Page 26 allows you to remove identical models when a unit suffers an unsaved wound.
Please provide a page number and quote in your answer.
Didn't we just do this one a while ago? It's pretty clear that it targets individual models. The fact that it's multi-wound makes no difference.
Suppose you had 3 single wound models out of a 5 model unit enter DT and fail their tests. Those are the 3 that die, you can't allocate onto the ones that didn't enter. Likewise you can't move around wounds suffered from DT in a unit of multi wound models.
On top of all that, specific beats general rules in case of conflict ya? This is a specific type of wounding, and the multi wound rules are general purpose.
Apparetly "take a wound" means something different to Biccat and El than it does to everyone else.
Did another model take the wound? Then you have broken a rule. Simple, easy to understand, and consistent with the last two editions that have worked exactly the same.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Apparetly "take a wound" means something different to Biccat and El than it does to everyone else.
Apparently so. I assume that "take a wound" is defined in the rulebook. You appear to be arguing otherwise.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Did another model take the wound? Then you have broken a rule. Simple, easy to understand, and consistent with the last two editions that have worked exactly the same.
Nope, because single-wound models don't take wounds. And individual models in a unit of multi-wound models don't take wounds either. There are no rule mechanics to support this contention.
So apply it to multiwounds first: you are unable to have another model take the wound. Its the only way a unit of identical models can have wounds on more than one model.
Now apply this to single models, ands realise that a model with no wounds left is likely to be dead.
Or are you saying you can avoid the model taking the owund as long it is a single wound model? Given the FAQ doesnt allow this (and neither does the rule in the first place) you are in problems here.
This is one of the few rules that are spelled out step by step. Each model takes a test, if the test is failed, that models takes the wound. the BRB says that rules for wounds and saves are covered in the next section, not wounds, saves and allocation are covered in the next section. The new FAQ even goes further to state that you cannot allocate wounds from dangerous terrain tests like you do in shooting attacks.
biccat wrote:OK, so you give a wound to the model. That model suffers a wound. Whichever way you want to say it.
What now?
What rule tells you how to remove a model that suffers a wound as you have described?
The rules for romoving casualties on page 25 give the general rules for placing wounds on models. It even says that most models have a single wound on their profile and that after suffering a wound they would be removed. It even goes into fluff saying they aren't necessarily dead, just too injured to carry on. The problem with your argument is you want to use this rule in isolation. You want to say that if 1 model fails the dangerous terrain test then the unit has in fact suffered the wound, not the model. This is en error because the FAQ now states that the model suffers the wound. Trying to place that wound on any other model in the unit is what is called allocating wounds and that is also specifically prohibited by the FAQ.
biccat wrote: Page 26 allows you to remove identical models when a unit suffers an unsaved wound.
And as I said in an earlier post, the first sentence under taking saving throws begins with "Having allocated the wounds..." and the FAQ says you can not allocate wounds the same way as shooting attacks. What you keep arguing as the way to place (read allocate) the failed DT test wound is specifically prohibited. You can't allocate the wound, and if your can't allocate it then the model that suffers it is the one that takes it.
biccat wrote: Please provide a page number and quote in your answer.
I did, numerous times. I have cited the FAW that does not allow you to allocate wounds and I also cited the rule that affirms that placing the wound on another model is in fact allocating the wound.
You keep hanging your hat on the same generic rule, attempting to take it in isolation and separate from all the other rules on taking wounds.
I believe I have proved my point by citing the appropriate rules and FAQs, have provided page numbers and quotes, and find that your argument consists of repeating the same opinion without a specific rule or FAQ to prove it or back it up. If you can find a specific rule that proves your point of view, then please provide it.
nosferatu1001 wrote:So apply it to multiwounds first: you are unable to have another model take the wound. Its the only way a unit of identical models can have wounds on more than one model.
As posted on page 1:
ElCheezus wrote:pg 26, "Units of Multiple-Wound Models" 4th paragraph.
"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties when possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."
The rules don't allow you to "spread around" wounds in the manner you ar suggesting.
nosteratu1001 wrote:Now apply this to single models, ands realise that a model with no wounds left is likely to be dead.
That's not how the rule works for single wound models.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Or are you saying you can avoid the model taking the owund as long it is a single wound model? Given the FAQ doesnt allow this (and neither does the rule in the first place) you are in problems here.
I'm not sure what you're argument is here. Obviously the metric for dealing with wounds by single-wound models (remove 1 model for each unsaved wound) are different than for multi wounds (count up unsaved wounds, remove 1 model when you have enough).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
time wizard wrote:Trying to place that wound on any other model in the unit is what is called allocating wounds and that is also specifically prohibited by the FAQ.
This is incorrect. Removing casualties is different from allocating wounds.
This issue seems to have taken a similar direction as in the issue of "death or Glory" and tank shocks and wether the tank shock can avoid models such as a melta gunner within the unit. The issue is in the discussion as to the meaning of "model" and how it pertains to the squad. It was determined that "model" was very spacific in meaning that if the melta gunner could be avoided that the individual "model" could not react and do a DoG even though the whole squad was reacting to the tank shock.
What ive taken from that discussion was that when GW mentions Model.. it means that very spacific game piece and none other.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - and the page 1 quote is utterly, utterly useless as it has been overridden by the FAQ being more specific.
THE model that failed trhe test TAKES THE WOUND. Noone else. Seriously, NOT difficult.
And then what? Do you just leave the model there with a wound on it? Do you light him on fire? Do you pick him up and remove him as a casualty? Smash him with a hammer?
Or do you roll a save (if applicable), and then, assuming he fails or doesn't have an invul. save, proceed to "remove casualties"?
The game breaks, you shake your opponent's had, and you light yourselves on fire.
In all seriousness, you are asking how to handle placing a wound one a model that has one wound when the rest of the games mechanics work in a fashion that if models take a wound and only have one wound they are removed as a casualty. Digging this deep into the rulebook like it is a legal text WILL break the game. There is nothing that states the exact manner in which you are supposed to roll the dice. "Rolling the dice" doesn't give a description of how exactly to handle it since once the die is in your hand and gasp it you can technically "roll" it without the die showing any face value.
I will admit to not having read the entire thread past a few posts past my last post, but lets get this straight.
If a unit of multi-wound models THAT ARE SIMILAR IN GAME TURNS move into, through, or out of dangerous terrain then you will roll one die per model elligible for the test. For each model that fails said test the unit will take 1 wound. Now the 'funneling rule' takes effect. Note that this is AFTER allocation which is laid out by the DT entry in the BRB, and also AFTER the tests are concluded.
While it seems wrong, if you read the BRB in the order stated by the DT entry it will read as follows (which I believe dispells all doubt):
"Read the DT entry, which says:
The Rulebook wrote:
As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed (wounds and saves are explained in the next section).
now go immediately to the section regarding units of multi-wound models:
The Rulebook wrote:
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. Track any excess wounds with a note or a marker as noted above. Multiple-wound models in the unit that are unique are rolled for individually and their unsaved wounds must be recorded separately.
Put it together (more-or-less) and it reads:
"As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed. 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.""
The new FAQ now states that the wounds will not be allocated to other models.
If model has one wound on profile and fails its test, this model suffers one wound. This model now has zero wounds, and is removed. No allocation
If model has more then one wound (example 3) on profile and fails its test, this model suffers one wound. This model now has minus one wound (2 wounds remaining). No allocation
Seriously, really isnt as hard as youre making this.
THE model that failed the test is THE model that suffers or TAKES the wound and noone else. If any other model takes the wound, by you attempting to throw it onto another model, then you have broken this simple, unambiguous how many more times can it be said rule.
biccat wrote:OK, so you give a wound to the model. That model suffers a wound. Whichever way you want to say it.
What now?
What rule tells you how to remove a model that suffers a wound as you have described?
The rules for romoving casualties on page 25 give the general rules for placing wounds on models. It even says that most models have a single wound on their profile and that after suffering a wound they would be removed. It even goes into fluff saying they aren't necessarily dead, just too injured to carry on. The problem with your argument is you want to use this rule in isolation. You want to say that if 1 model fails the dangerous terrain test then the unit has in fact suffered the wound, not the model. This is en error because the FAQ now states that the model suffers the wound. Trying to place that wound on any other model in the unit is what is called allocating wounds and that is also specifically prohibited by the FAQ.
biccat wrote: Page 26 allows you to remove identical models when a unit suffers an unsaved wound.
And as I said in an earlier post, the first sentence under taking saving throws begins with "Having allocated the wounds..." and the FAQ says you can not allocate wounds the same way as shooting attacks. What you keep arguing as the way to place (read allocate) the failed DT test wound is specifically prohibited. You can't allocate the wound, and if your can't allocate it then the model that suffers it is the one that takes it.
biccat wrote: Please provide a page number and quote in your answer.
I did, numerous times. I have cited the FAW that does not allow you to allocate wounds and I also cited the rule that affirms that placing the wound on another model is in fact allocating the wound.
You keep hanging your hat on the same generic rule, attempting to take it in isolation and separate from all the other rules on taking wounds.
I believe I have proved my point by citing the appropriate rules and FAQs, have provided page numbers and quotes, and find that your argument consists of repeating the same opinion without a specific rule or FAQ to prove it or back it up. If you can find a specific rule that proves your point of view, then please provide it.
Twice in this post, you use the idea of allocation incorrectly. Merlin is also making this mistake. As I mentioned multiple times in this thread, and probably some in the one that's linked early on, it's very important you don't get the concept of wound allocation confused with the process of removing models.
The model to which a wound is allocated does not have to be the model that is removed as a casualty unless it is unique in gaming terms. This is explicitly stated to be true in every paragraph that tells you how to process Unsaved Wounds in a unit. Dangerous Terrain rules and FAQs have never provided any casualty removal process to replace this.
Really, we cite the entirety of the rules dealing with processing wounds as the rules that prove our view. The process we propose is the universal means of removing casualties. You, however, need to cite where it tells me how to remove a model because of a DT test. DT tells us to reference the shooting section for how to deal with wounds and saves, which is exactly where our references are. If you don't want to use the sections that support our argument, you will be left with no process of casualty removal.
BlueDagger wrote:????
Dangerous Terrain test
1 - Roll to hit - Doesn't exist in DT test
2 - Roll to wound - Dangerous terrain test, a 1 wounds the model as per FAQ 3 - Allocate wounds - Wounds are allocated to the model that failed only as per FAQ 4 - Take Saves - DT test allows for Invulnerable save by the model
5 - Remove casualties - If the model fails and only had one wound it is removed, if not it just takes a wound.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Once again you are assuming that the unit is taking a wound, when in this case only the model is taking a wound. There is similar abilities that already exist in the games such as Mindwar where the MODEL takes the wounds, not the unit, so the wounds can not be put on a different model.
In the case of other abilities that have similar wording: either a) they tell you that the particular model is removed, or b) they work the same way, where you can remove any identical model as the casualty.
Also, and this is for nos as well: where in the book does it tell you what happens when a model suffers a wound, as opposed to a unit? I know of two places, and they don't apply. All of this stressing of "the MODEL takes the wounds, not the unit" has no meaning unless you can provide something that overrides the general rule on pg 24 where unsaved wounds suffered by models become unsaved wounds suffered by the unit.
For the people telling us that things are super simple and that we're over-thinking things; that's actually kind of insulting. In effect you're telling us we're too dumb to understand the one sentence on dangerous terrain. We understand your side completely. Heck, Cypher was convinced in this very thread. What's proposed here is that DT doesn't provide any solid reason to except it from the general rules of casualty removal.
I do see what you are talking about, and I agree that the DT does not explicitly talk about casualty removal. But if you have a unit of 10 models and only take 5 dangerous terrain test, and followed the normal process for taking wound like shooting attacks and CC, then you could then allocate those wounds to what ever models you wish. Since the new FAQ clarified that the wound is individual, and does not allow allocation, it is therefore removed from the normal means of wound allocation and model removal. I hope that makes sense.
Except for the FAQ stating you dont get to pick another model to take the wound, only the model that failed the DT check.
It IS that simple. Instead of being able to move the wound to anyone in the unit, you are told TWICE now that the model that failed the test is the one that suffers the penalty. No other.
Nowhere does the FAQ override the part of the section regarding how to process wounds in units with similar multi-wound models which states "Whole models must be removed whenever possible. Wounds cannot be spread around to avoid removing models." (or something to that direct effect; I'm not around my rulebook at the moment).
-Cypher- wrote:Nowhere does the FAQ override the part of the section regarding how to process wounds in units with similar multi-wound models which states "Whole models must be removed whenever possible. Wounds cannot be spread around to avoid removing models." (or something to that direct effect; I'm not around my rulebook at the moment).
And the paragraph right before the one you quote says, "If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered." (I do have my rulebook open)
And the FAQ says;
Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No.
What do both these quotes have in common? They both mention allocate. One says allocate the wounds sufered, the other says do not allocate the wounds.
You do not allocate failed dangerous terrain test wounds onto dofferent models. Ever.
The 'funneling rule' takes place AFTER saves, which takes place after allocation and applies only to units of similar multi-wound models. Also note that the FAQ does not state "the model that failed the test must take the wound". It only states that each model that fails a test takes a wound. This would be enough explanation to close the matter if said models only had 1 wound (though I believe it enough to close the matter anyway). The FAQ changes nothing and only reinfoces that a player cannot personally allocate wounds to be saved from DT.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also understand that the FAQ covers allocation and allocation ONLY. Allocation and the 'funneling rule' are completely and utterly separate. As I have stated before, the nexus of this debate centers on the interpretation that DT means that each model that fails it's test takes it's wound; however, this is an assumption, and although it makes the most sense, it is still NOT a fact, and incorrect according to the RAW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ninja'd.
@time wizard: Not what I have said above. Allocation and the 'funneling rule' are NOT one and the same. They are separate. This is evidenced by the fact that they are covered in separate paragraphs. As we all know one only starts a new paragraph when changing topics. This is a basic rule of writing and something a company like GW would be sure to understand. Therefore it only supports the understanding that allocation and the 'funneling rule' are two separate things. Whether or not the player is the one who allocates the wounds has no bearing on the fact that you cannot spread wounds around on similar models to avoid remving whole models where possible.
Whenever possible... according to the FAQ it is not possible as no model other than the one that tested can be allocated the wound.
The FAQ cleared this up for me.
@time wizard: Not what I have said above. Allocation and the 'funneling rule' are NOT one and the same. They are separate. This is evidenced by the fact that they are covered in separate paragraphs. As we all know one only starts a new paragraph when changing topics. This is a basic rule of writing and something a company like GW would be sure to understand. Therefore it only supports the understanding that allocation and the 'funneling rule' are two separate things. Whether or not the player is the one who allocates the wounds has no bearing on the fact that you cannot spread wounds around on similar models to avoid remving whole models where possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I cannot stress this enough. Allocation takes place BEFORE saves, and the 'funneling rule' takes place AFTER saves clearly showing them to be TW DIFFERENT THINGS. Allocation or the lack there-of has no bearing on the 'funneling rule'.
nosferatu1001 wrote:"Each model that fails takes a Wound."
Did another model than the one that failed takea wound? You've broken the above rule.
You continue to confuse the idea of wounds and casualties. I'm not sure what else can be said on this subject. The rules are there. You apply them as pointed out in the rulebook.
If you "spread the wounds around" in a unit of multi-wound models to avoid removing whole models, you are breaking the rules, full stop.
nosferatu1001 wrote:"Each model that fails takes a Wound."
Did another model than the one that failed takea wound? You've broken the above rule.
'
And what happens when a model takes a Wound?
Please provide some sort of citation or quotation or *something* that indicated models taking wounds is different than units taking wounds. I've shown you where it says in the book that models failing saves and suffering Unsaved Wounds means the same thing as units taking Unsaved Wounds. It all comes down to groups of identical models.
-Cypher- wrote:The 'funneling rule' takes place AFTER saves, which takes place after allocation and applies only to units of similar multi-wound models.
Please quote this 'funneling rule' ffrom the rulebook, as I am unable to find it.
The only thing I find is rules for allocating wounds to models in units.
In the case of the DT test, the model suffers a wound, not the unit, and the FAQ specifies that the wound cannot be allocated as per the shooting rules.
So please find me a rule, outside of wounds that are allocated the same way as shooting attacks, that backs up your point.
Oh, and before you bring up the "Remove Casualties" section on page 24 again, please look at the beginning of the second paragraph in that section.
It states, "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all the firers."
Unless you are trying to say that dangerous terrain is firing at a model that enters, leaves or moves through it, then this section does indeed cover wounds from shooting attacks, and the FAQ says you cannot allocate wounds in this manner.
I don't care if you want to call it funneling, relegating, moving, oushing, pulling or shoveling, you can't place the wound suffered from a failed DT test onto another model. Myself and other posters have cited rule after rule supporting this.
As I asked earlier, please quote thie 'funneling rule' that you keep referring to.
The 'funneling rule' is the but which states that you cannot spread wounds around to avoid removing whole models. I understand you may not have read the entire thread which would lead to confusion on that term.
I would ask that you go to my previous post on page 3 that has a spoiler box. In the box you will find all my arguments AGAINST my side of the argument. However, in the process of arguing your side I came to realize that I was wrong. If you won't believe me then please open that spoiler box and read the torrent within.
The section allowing you to move wounds about requires there to be a target unit
Dangerous terrain has no target, and has nothing to do with the unit but the actual model. Same as Gets Hot!
You are trying to Remove Casualties based on the unit, when you have been told only to deal with that specific model. By not dealing with that specific model you have broken the rule, and no amount of pretending otherwise will make people believe you.
I;d LOVE to see you try this at any UKGT event. Absolutely love it. The look of "what?!" as you are laughed out of the venue would be priceless.
-Cypher- wrote:The 'funneling rule' is the but which states that you cannot spread wounds around to avoid removing whole models. I understand you may not have read the entire thread which would lead to confusion on that term.
I would ask that you go to my previous post on page 3 that has a spoiler box. In the box you will find all my arguments AGAINST my side of the argument. However, in the process of arguing your side I came to realize that I was wrong. If you won't believe me then please open that spoiler box and read the torrent within.
I have followed this entire thread from the beginning. I was in fact the one who re-opened it when the latest main rulebook FAQ update came out.
I also read your spoiler box in its entirity. I was not put off by the length of your post and read all your arguments with an open mind. Any doubts I may have had about my position disappeared when the latest FAQ came out and stated that DT wounds are taken by the model that suffered then. Black and white, cut and dried.
If 3 models with 2 wounds each move into an area of dangerous terrain, and all 3 fail their tests, then each one takes 1 wound.
You are not "spreading the wounds around to avoid removing whole models" as per page 26, as I already quoted that rule says to remove whole models after having allocated the wounds. Please take the time to read the whole rule on page 26 before responding. Then read the FAQ that says you do not allocate wounds as per shooting. Then put the 2 together.
The rule continually being cited on page 24 also refers to shooting attacks. Again, please take the time to read the whole rule before responding.
nosferatu1001 wrote:I;d LOVE to see you try this at any UKGT event. Absolutely love it. The look of "what?!" as you are laughed out of the venue would be priceless.
You mean if a unit of identical 2-wound models charged through dangerous terrain and the player removed a whole model (according to the rules)?
Do you really think people would call that beardy/cheesy, as opposed to putting 1 wound on each of 2 separate models?
Given thats how the rules actually work, yes it is cheating to remove one model. Same as wehen you run your powerfist guy through terrain, and hes the ONLY one to go through terrain, atemtping to kill another model in the unit is also cheating.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Given thats how the rules actually work, yes it is cheating to remove one model. Same as wehen you run your powerfist guy through terrain, and hes the ONLY one to go through terrain, atemtping to kill another model in the unit is also cheating.
No one has ever advocated that position in this thread. Please stop mischaracterizing your opponents and accusing them of cheating.
nosferatu1001 wrote:I;d LOVE to see you try this at any UKGT event. Absolutely love it. The look of "what?!" as you are laughed out of the venue would be priceless.
You mean if a unit of identical 2-wound models charged through dangerous terrain and the player removed a whole model (according to the rules)?
Do you really think people would call that beardy/cheesy, as opposed to putting 1 wound on each of 2 separate models?
Yes, this is not following the rules nor FAQ and would be 100% illegal. Any TO on the face of the Earth would look at the FAQ for half a second and call BS.
Seeing as the DT entry points you to the shooting section to explain how to resolve wounds I fail to see why your having a problem with them being "shooting attacks".
Also I fail to see your distinction between steps in resolving wounds. Allocation is a separate step and the 'funneling rule' (once again) does not in any way rely on allocation or the lack there-of.
Because the FAQ states in black and white that the model that fails the save takes the wound. Not groups of models. There is not "funneling" when they clearly state in the FAQ what model is taking the wound.
Example: The following models exist in a unit. 3 bolter marines, 1 flamer marine, 1 powerfist marine.
2 Bolter marines and 1 flamer marine move into dangerous terrain. Only the 2 bolter marines that move into terrain and the flamer marine roll a die for DT. The flamer marine and a bolter marine roll a 1. The flamer marine takes a wound and the bolter marine take a wound. In this case, they do not have a save to make.
When a model fails a save/has no save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Remove one model from the unit of the type that failed its save for each unsaved wound. One bolter marine and one flamer marine model will be removed.
Now, the above should all be 100% correct. Do we all agree with my above statements so far at the very least? If there is a problem with El's idea it will be found in the above statements, correct?
Els "idea" is that a model other than the one that failed its save can be removed, and this is based on the "unit" and not the "model" level. Which is where it fails down, as the ability to remove any model (of like wargear, etc) relies on the unit having been the subject of the attack - whcih it isnt. Only the individual models take a Dangerous Test.
So, your above situation is not correct: THE bolter that died is THE model that takes the wound and is THE model that is removed. Removing another model is not allowable.
DevianID wrote:Now, the above should all be 100% correct. Do we all agree with my above statements so far at the very least? If there is a problem with El's idea it will be found in the above statements, correct?
OK, so Biccat and Nos both agree my situation is correct, the difference of opinion becomes which of the 3 bolter marines you must remove. Nos says the one that failed the save, Biccat I suppose says any of the 3 identical bolter marines.
So next, tangentially related question. A vindicare using the "deadshot" nominates which model in the unit the wound is allocated to. Use my 3 bolter/flamer/fist squad from above. The vindicare learned from the marines previous shooting phase that only one bolter marine was within 12 inches. Not wanting to risk getting assaulted, the Vindicare shoots, hits and wounds the 5 man marine squad, and per the deadshot rule allocates his attack to the bolter marine that is within 12 inches. The intent is to make assault impossible. The marine player must remove a bolter marine if he fails any available save. Should the marine player remove the single marine that is within 12 inches, that the vindicare player allocated a hit to, or can he remove any of the 3 bolter models, so long as the allocated wound stays on a bolter model.
DevianID wrote:OK, so Biccat and Nos both agree my situation is correct, the difference of opinion becomes which of the 3 bolter marines you must remove. Nos says the one that failed the save, Biccat I suppose says any of the 3 identical bolter marines.
Right. See "Remove Casualties." It tells you that any identical model to the one wounded may be removed as a casualty.
Devian wrote:So next, tangentially related question. A vindicare using the "deadshot" nominates which model in the unit the wound is allocated to. Use my 3 bolter/flamer/fist squad from above. The vindicare learned from the marines previous shooting phase that only one bolter marine was within 12 inches. Not wanting to risk getting assaulted, the Vindicare shoots, hits and wounds the 5 man marine squad, and per the deadshot rule allocates his attack to the bolter marine that is within 12 inches. The intent is to make assault impossible. The marine player must remove a bolter marine if he fails any available save. Should the marine player remove the single marine that is within 12 inches, that the vindicare player allocated a hit to, or can he remove any of the 3 bolter models, so long as the allocated wound stays on a bolter model.
See "Remove Casualties" for how to remove casualties.
So yes, the player can remove any one of the 3 bolter models, because page 24 tells you how to remove casualties.
I believe nos is correct, for DT tests you roll for each model entering the terrain, and that roll is purely for them, not their group. so the bolter marine who fails the test is removed.
To be fair Biccat, pg 24 does not apply. Pg 24 deals with units of identical models only, which is not what my example described. Pg 25 talks about 'having allocated the wounds,' which does apply to the vindicare but does not apply to dangerous terrain, as you never allocate wounds.
Now, if you read 'Having allocated the wounds' differently, perhaps reading it as 'When there are no more wounds that need to be allocated' or just striking it all together, then we are left with the meat "All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch."
So, is 'having allocated the wounds' a prerequisite for rolling their saves together and removing the models you like? If so, then Nos is correct. If not, then El's position would kick in, where the complex unit rule explicitly tell you you can pull what ever model you like, despite it not be the one that suffered a wound.
Ah hah! Eureka! In my example 2 bolter marines walk through dangerous terrain and one did not. Only 1 failed the DT roll. That single bolter model that failed is the ONLY model that can be removed, as that is the only model in his group that suffered an unsaved wound. This also means that the single wound that the vindicare deals always goes on the model it is allocated to.
Pg 25, if we say that the 'having allocated' part doesnt matter.
"All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen from amongst these identical models"
So, my example with the 1 bolter marine. We know which bolter marine rolled the 1, as the DT test tells us this. We have 1 model only that needs to roll, so this is a model that stands out in gaming terms. Sure, he has 2 identical brothers, BUT they didnt get wounds. So, per pg 25, that specific model must be removed.
Now, if BOTH of my bolter marines that went through cover rolled a 1, you would roll both of their saves (if they had an invuln save) together, and you would pick which one dies. However, it could NOT be the bolter marine that is out of cover, as he was not one of the models who needed to roll a save, and per the above quote casualties must be removed from the models that took the save, which is the models in cover!
Anyway, the end result is that Biccat is somewhat incorrect using my example, and Nos would be somewhat incorrect were I to use a different example. I suppose I am trying to add a third option to the 2 way debate now, which tries to remove the 'Having allocated the wounds' from acting as a prerequisite on pg 25.
DevianID wrote:To be fair Biccat, pg 24 does not apply. Pg 24 deals with units of identical models only, which is not what my example described. Pg 25 talks about 'having allocated the wounds,' which does apply to the vindicare but does not apply to dangerous terrain, as you never allocate wounds.
Don't have my rulebook handy, you're probably right.
DevianID wrote:Now, if you read 'Having allocated the wounds' differently, perhaps reading it as 'When there are no more wounds that need to be allocated' or just striking it all together, then we are left with the meat "All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch."
Well, then the next question should be: if two Thousand Sons marines walk through Dangerous Terrain and fail their saves, do they take their saves "in one batch"? According to the position Nos is arguing, the saves must be taken separately. According to the position I've taken (and ElCheezus and others), they are taken in a batch.
DevianID wrote:So, is 'having allocated the wounds' a prerequisite for rolling their saves together and removing the models you like? If so, then Nos is correct. If not, then El's position would kick in, where the complex unit rule explicitly tell you you can pull what ever model you like, despite it not be the one that suffered a wound.
Wound allocation cannot be a prerequisite for removing models because there is no other process for removing casualties in the rules. The only way to get to Nos's position is by arguing that the models are separate from the unit in case of Dangerous Terrain tests. However, this is imputing a rule into the book that isn't there, some method of considering wounds to a model within a unit yet separate from the unit.
DevianID wrote:Ah hah! Eureka! In my example 2 bolter marines walk through dangerous terrain and one did not. Only 1 failed the DT roll. That single bolter model that failed is the ONLY model that can be removed, as that is the only model in his group that suffered an unsaved wound. This also means that the single wound that the vindicare deals always goes on the model it is allocated to.
Unfortunately for your position, "identical" is defined in the rulebook as having the same statline and same wargear.
DevianID wrote:Now, if BOTH of my bolter marines that went through cover rolled a 1, you would roll both of their saves (if they had an invuln save) together, and you would pick which one dies. However, it could NOT be the bolter marine that is out of cover, as he was not one of the models who needed to roll a save, and per the above quote casualties must be removed from the models that took the save, which is the models in cover!
Anyway, the end result is that Biccat is somewhat incorrect using my example, and Nos would be somewhat incorrect were I to use a different example. I suppose I am trying to add a third option to the 2 way debate now, which tries to remove the 'Having allocated the wounds' from acting as a prerequisite on pg 25.
Your third way doesn't work as pointed out above. Identical models are defined by wargear and statline. There's some disagreement about what that includes, but the status of being wounded and location in terrain are pretty universally recognized as not being in that group.
Look, I understand the position that Nos., bluedagger, and time wizard are trying to argue. The problem is that it requires some or all of the following: 1) a new method of removing casualties; 2) treating single wound models as multi-wound models; 3) "spreading around" wounds in units of multi-wound models; 4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or 5) a different requirement for casualties (not wound->unsaved wound->casualty)
But the rules already cover those situations without having to implpy some new rule. The position they articulate is how the rules (probably) should work, but it's not how they do work.
Whereas your method involves talking about the unit when only a model has taken the test. Which is breaking the rules. You keep glossing over this salient fact.
My method involves treatnig the model as the unit; meaning you only ever have one model to remove (a group of 1), which is unique to the test.
I thought that every model in the unit makes a dangerous terrain test, on a roll of a 1 the model takes a wound. If they are multiwound models then on each failed roll of a 1, that specific model takes a wound. Its not that you are intentionally spreading wounds around, you are simply operating through dangerous terrain as anyone would.
gpfunk wrote: I thought that every model in the unit makes a dangerous terrain test,
Not every model in the unit, just "...every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move."
gpfunk wrote:on a roll of a 1 the model takes a wound. If they are multiwound models then on each failed roll of a 1, that specific model takes a wound. Its not that you are intentionally spreading wounds around, you are simply operating through dangerous terrain as anyone would.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Whereas your method involves talking about the unit when only a model has taken the test. Which is breaking the rules. You keep glossing over this salient fact.
My method involves treatnig the model as the unit; meaning you only ever have one model to remove (a group of 1), which is unique to the test.
The problem with this is that units are specifically defined as being either part of a unit or an independent character. There is no mechanism for separating the model from the unit for the purpose of a wound. I'm not glossing over the fact, it's just that there's no procedure for it.
The position I'm arguing follows all of the rules, including the dangerous terrain rules. The DT rule says that the model suffers a wound. If this is considered to satisfy the "wound allocation" part of the rules (immediately before saving throws), then the situation is resolved.
Even the FAQ backs this up, it says that wounds from dangerous terrain cannot be allocated, which is consistent with the position that dangerous terrain satisfies wound allocation.
Except you cannot be following the rules if you have conflated model as meaning unit.
Tha tis a leap, and not supported by the rules.
So you end up with two situations, one logical and one illogical, and the latter requiring an explicit rules change from "model" to "unit"
The logical is that the guy that tripped and fell to his death did, indeed, trip and fall to his death. Coincidentally this is also RAP
The illogical is that the guy that fell to his death wasnt the guy who actually fell to his death, but poor bob, sat at the back of the unit, wondering why hes now falling despite having not yet moved, and carefully avoided the chasm.
biccat wrote: Look, I understand the position that Nos., bluedagger, and time wizard are trying to argue. The problem is that it requires some or all of the following:
1) a new method of removing casualties;
2) treating single wound models as multi-wound models;
3) "spreading around" wounds in units of multi-wound models;
4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or
5) a different requirement for casualties (not wound->unsaved wound->casualty)
But the rules already cover those situations without having to implpy some new rule. The position they articulate is how the rules (probably) should work, but it's not how they do work.
Two points that you are completely wrong on.
biccat wrote: 1) a new method of removing casualties;
Nothing new here, page 24 on removing casualties (which has been quoted ad naseum) "Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
So we see here the rule on removing a casualty, and it does indeed say if a model has a single wound and suffers a wound, you remove it.
This rule then goes on with the second paragraph, "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit..."
Was the model that failed a dangerous terrain test part of a target unit? Was the unit targetted by the terrain? Was every model in the unit forced to take a dangerous terrain test?
No, no and no. Only the model that "...entered, left or moved through the terrain..." must take the test. If the test is failed, the model takes a wound. The model, that model and no other.
biccat wrote: 4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or
Nothing new here either. We've been doing it for quite some time with Gets Hot! weapons.
To review, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..."
The firing model, not the firing unit, notany model in the firing unit, the firing model, the one that fired, that model takes a wound.
Now go bacK to page 24, your're really going to try to place that wound on another model in the unit? Really?
You are continually trying to take a general rule (remove casualties) and apply it to a specific situation (a failed dangerous terrain test).
This is 100% the wrong way round.
You have to take the specific rule (the model that fails the test takes a wound) and then apply the related part of the general rule (a model that has a single wound on its profile and suffers a wound is removed).
Or, barring that, find me the rule that says wounds suffered from failed dangerous terrain tests may be allocated to any other model in the unit.
You do a great job of asking for specific rules, quotes and page numbers. I have provided them.
Shame you can't or won't do so in return.
time wizard wrote:Two points that you are completely wrong on.
biccat wrote: 1) a new method of removing casualties;
Nothing new here, page 24 on removing casualties (which has been quoted ad naseum) "Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
So we see here the rule on removing a casualty, and it does indeed say if a model has a single wound and suffers a wound, you remove it.
That's not what the rule says, read it again:
"for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty"
It does not have to be the model that suffered the unsaved wound.
time wizard wrote:Only the model that "...entered, left or moved through the terrain..." must take the test. If the test is failed, the model takes a wound. The model, that model and no other.
No disagreement here. However, as I have said before, what do you do once a model has been wounded? You don't simply remove him from the table. Instead, you roll a save. If the save is failed...well, here:
"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
So what do we do with unsaved wounds?
"for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
Aha, so one model must be removed. Which model is that?
"As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed."
The above quotes were provided by Page 24. Because the situation works the same whether it is a unit of identical models or a unit of diverse models with part of a group of identical models suffering the DT test.
time wizard wrote:Nothing new here either. We've been doing it for quite some time with Gets Hot! weapons.
To review, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..."
The firing model, not the firing unit, notany model in the firing unit, the firing model, the one that fired, that model takes a wound.
Now go bacK to page 24, your're really going to try to place that wound on another model in the unit? Really?
Gets Hot works the same as Dangerous Terrain. No, you cannot place the wound on another model in the unit, but you can remove another identical model from the unit.
time wizard wrote:You are continually trying to take a general rule (remove casualties) and apply it to a specific situation (a failed dangerous terrain test).
This is 100% the wrong way round.
You have to take the specific rule (the model that fails the test takes a wound) and then apply the related part of the general rule (a model that has a single wound on its profile and suffers a wound is removed).
The dangerous terrain rule does not contradict the general rule (how to remove casualties), and so the general rule applies. Where two rules conflict, use the more specific rule. But where the more specific rule doesn't address an issue, the general rule applies.
time wizard wrote:Or, barring that, find me the rule that says wounds suffered from failed dangerous terrain tests may be allocated to any other model in the unit.
There is no such rule. The FAQ addresses this point. I am not arguing that the dangerous terrain test is allocated, simply that casualty removal governs in this area, not allocation.
time wizard wrote:You do a great job of asking for specific rules, quotes and page numbers. I have provided them.
Shame you can't or won't do so in return.
I have in the past and have done so above. No need to get hostile.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Els "idea" is that a model other than the one that failed its save can be removed, and this is based on the "unit" and not the "model" level. Which is where it fails down, as the ability to remove any model (of like wargear, etc) relies on the unit having been the subject of the attack - whcih it isnt. Only the individual models take a Dangerous Test.
So, your above situation is not correct: THE bolter that died is THE model that takes the wound and is THE model that is removed. Removing another model is not allowable.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Whereas your method involves talking about the unit when only a model has taken the test. Which is breaking the rules. You keep glossing over this salient fact.
My method involves treatnig the model as the unit; meaning you only ever have one model to remove (a group of 1), which is unique to the test.
Nos, let's do an exercise. Let's take your BRB and cut out any section that refers to processing Wounds that have been dealt to units. All of them. Every singe one backs up our position, but you say they don't apply.
Now, cite me an rule that tells us *how* a Wound dealt to just a single model is resolved. I have asked you time and again and again and again and again and . . . and there has been nothing. The process of removing casualties is explicitly explained to us for every type of unit, and it tells us exactly how to remove casualties each time. Obviously if dealing Wounds to individual models within a unit is a different thing, there will be a similarly detailed explanation.
Treating the model "as a unit" has no basis in the book unless the unit is only one model, such as ICs or MCs. In any case, if the unit had one model, this whole discussion wouldn't matter, as there would be only one guy to remove anyway!
time wizard wrote:So we see here the rule on removing a casualty, and it does indeed say if a model has a single wound and suffers a wound, you remove it.
Whoa, hold on there speedy. It tells us that "a" model must be removed. Then it tells us that any model must be removed, because they're all identical. So no, it doesn't tell us what you're claiming at all.
This rule then goes on with the second paragraph, "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit..."
Was the model that failed a dangerous terrain test part of a target unit? Was the unit targetted by the terrain? Was every model in the unit forced to take a dangerous terrain test?
No, no and no. Only the model that "...entered, left or moved through the terrain..." must take the test. If the test is failed, the model takes a wound. The model, that model and no other.
So what about models that are hit and wounded in a vehicle explosion? What about models under a blast marker that scattered off the target unit? How do we remove casualties from untargeted units? You guys keep stripping away rules without realizing that you're leaving us with NO rules for casualty removal. Think before you snip!
biccat wrote: 4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or
Nothing new here either. We've been doing it for quite some time with Gets Hot! weapons.
To review, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..."
The firing model, not the firing unit, notany model in the firing unit, the firing model, the one that fired, that model takes a wound.
Now go bacK to page 24, your're really going to try to place that wound on another model in the unit? Really?
Actually, yes. With Gets Hot!, any identical model can be removed as a result of that wound. If a Plasmagun gets hot, a Plasmagun has to die, but you don't have to track them individually.
You are continually trying to take a general rule (remove casualties) and apply it to a specific situation (a failed dangerous terrain test).
This is 100% the wrong way round.
You have to take the specific rule (the model that fails the test takes a wound) and then apply the related part of the general rule (a model that has a single wound on its profile and suffers a wound is removed).
This last parenthetical part about the single wound model being removed isn't in the rules anywhere. At all.
Or, barring that, find me the rule that says wounds suffered from failed dangerous terrain tests may be allocated to any other model in the unit.
Once again, this doesn't have anything to do with allocation. The fact that you bring it up again shows me that you don't understand that part of the process. How can we take your arguments seriously when you're confused on one of the most fundamental aspects of the game? I'm not saying you're incompetent or an idiot, just that you need to figure this out before progress can really be made.
ElCheezus wrote: Once again, this doesn't have anything to do with allocation. The fact that you bring it up again shows me that you don't understand that part of the process. How can we take your arguments seriously when you're confused on one of the most fundamental aspects of the game? I'm not saying you're incompetent or an idiot, just that you need to figure this out before progress can really be made.
Thank you for not calling me an idiot or incompetant. I don't think you are either of those as well.
As for being confused, one of the most fundamental aspects of the game is that there can be and are specific exceptions to general rule. I think you are having trouble understanding how that fact relates to the question of wounds in dangerous terrain tests.
As for taking my arguments seriously, that is for each reader to decide on their own, your opinion has been noted though.
Rather than have this degenerate any further, I believe I am done with this discussion.
I'm sad that the recent round of website blocking at work included Dakka, so I couldn't participate in this as much as I would have liked. I'm 100% about "my" interpretation, and while it's slightly counter-intuitive and difficult to explain, I'd love the chance to help others see what I see. I used to play and think the way you guys do, and coming to see it the way I do was an interesting epiphany.
I think the biggest thing about this discussion is that it's much easier to have when you can interact face to face, and use models and dice and counters and such as examples. I know there are a couple lines of reasoning that I'd like to explain, but I don't know if there's a way to type it out in a forum like this without it being overly complicated and difficult to follow. (Not that the concept is difficult or that you guys aren't smart, it would just take too many words and convolutions that I don't know how to make easier in this format)
I'd love it if I ever get a chance to meet some of you guys to pick this up in person.
Luckily work hasnt yet caught onto Dakka, and hopefully that will remain.
I understand your point fully - you are trying to use the general removal rules that pertain to units. Trouble is tests are per model, and the FAQ again makes it clear that this means THE model suffers all ill effects from failure.
Yeah Nos, I agree about the work thing... great when slow!
So Nos/Biccat/Elcheesus, I would like to again push for OPTION 3, which combines a bit of both of your arguments.
Pg 25, for dealing with complex units.
"All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch"
Here we see specific models being called to make a save. Now, keep in mind ONLY the models that have wounds roll saves, and per the next sentences, only the models that have wounds on them can be removed as casualties.
SO. 3 Bolter marines, A, B, and C, walk into dangerous terrain, and all 3 require dangerous terrain rolls. Per mutual agreement, we all understand that model A, B, and C must each roll seperately, as Dangerous terrain happens when the model moves. Only model C rolls a 1. This is the only model that gets a wound, and per removing casualties unsaved wounds must come not only from identical models, but identical WOUNDED models. As Bolter marine A and B were not wounded, they are not in the group of wounded models that must roll a save and be removed as casualties.
However, if Marine A and B and C all rolled a 1 at the exact same time, then all 3 would be in the identical wounded models group, and any of the models can be removed if their saves are failed.
This works the same with the vindicare. You allocate to Marine A a wound with your deadshot sniper rifle. You only get 1 shot, so only one marine is wounded. Even if other marines in his squad are identical in gaming terms, they are NOT wounded models, so they dont roll their saves, and can not be removed as casualties. Only wounded models seem to be able to be removed as casualties per Pg 25.
Finally, on to the OP. In the nob description, it tells us you are not able to allocate UNSAVED wounds to a healthy nob when you could kill a normal nob--since you dont allocate unsaved wounds normally this is a rules change. Thus, for multiwound models, they break the rules for who gets the wounds and how. Thus, if 3 identical raveners roll a 1 in DT, while normally each ravener would gain 1 unsaved wound, GW has made it clear that multiwound models do not follow the same rules, and unsaved wounds, after being put on a model, are MOVED to a different model even if that different model was not the canidate for the wound in the first place, as again per the nob example you are not allowed to do otherwise even though all the other rules would let you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To bring up the plasmagun example. Plasmagun A rolls two 1's, and Plasmagun B rolls no overheats. The model that rolled the 1's takes the wounds. If model A fails both of his saves, model B, an unwounded model, can not become a casualty, as he was not wounded, he never rolled a save, and although identical to A he was not in the group of identical models that were wounded and thus elidgible to become casualties.
As an aside to El in regard to dangerous terrain. Did you ever work out the priority issue, or was it not brought up? What I mean is, models are moved one at a time per the movement rules, right? Models thus enter dangerous terrain one at a time, and I dont remember there being a stipulation that you wait till the very end of the units movement phase to see if your model that moved through dangerous terrain takes a 1. Thus dangerous terrain, and its associated wounds, would seem to be instant effects. So, you would only ever be dealing with 1 model wounded at a time for dangerous terrain, and as per my position above casualties can only be removed from any of the identical WOUNDED models, in this case there would only be 1 wouned model at a time. Just more food for thought.
Just thought I would drop a line in here and say hello, seeing as my favorite debaters all seem to be going at it in this old arguement....
And just for the record, I still agree with Time and Nos, but it is nice to see you having your fun still, Elcheezus!!
Time, Nos, I would contribute, but I dont get anywhere near enough time on the net over here in the 'Ghan to be a useful debate partner!!! Take care of yourselves all and I will see you all when I get done over here, and of course, I will post on here when I get 'net access!!!
I know I said I was done here, but I had a question come to mind.
Using the process described by Elcheesus, I have a unit of 3 Zoanthropes, A, B and C.
Zoanthropes have 2 wounds on their profile.
They all take a leadership test to use a psychic power.
A and C fail the test. They then both fail their saves.
Now what?
time wizard wrote:Ditto, good luck Galador, I owe you a PM!
I know I said I was done here, but I had a question come to mind.
Using the process described by Elcheesus, I have a unit of 3 Zoanthropes, A, B and C.
Zoanthropes have 2 wounds on their profile.
They all take a leadership test to use a psychic power.
A and C fail the test. They then both fail their saves.
Now what?
One of them is dead. It's the same process. When you have a group of multi-wound models, there's no process for keeping track of wounds on individual models. The process provided on pg 26 (the only process for dealing with Unsaved Wounds in units of multiple-wound models) keeps track of the Wounds for the whole group. When there are enough, two in this case, a model is removed. Any excess is tracked for the group, not individual models.
And yes, this is in the bit about shooting. And yes, this deals with groups instead of models. And no, you still haven't shown me where it tells you how to deal with this on a per-model basis.
There is one system for dealing with Unsaved Wounds, and in all cases it lets identical models be removed as casualties. Specific vs General can override this in some cases, but DT doesn't say that the specific model is removed, it says it suffers a wound. Suffering a wound is no the process of being removed. Suffering a wound is the process of being allocated the wound. Since DT skips that step and goes right to saves, using the term "suffers the wound" really just tells us that the wound is allocated for us.
Also, in the plasmagun example with GH!, if you tracked the rolls separately, and model A rolled no 1's, and model B rolled two 1's, if both saves were failed, then both A and B would die. Again, this isn't about allocation, it's about casualty removal. There are two Unsaved Wounds on that group of identical models, so two models must be removed.
Elcheezus, like nos says here, only 1 model dies in the case of the overheat situation.
There are two unsaved wounds on a single identical WOUNDED model group. If A and B both roll a 1, then there are 2 wounded models in the group, and regardless of who saves what either may be removed as casualties, but if only B rolls two 1's then there is a single wounded model.
You are correct that if 2 zoans perils and fail, one of the 2 will be a casualty.
So again I agree and then disagree with both nos and El I guess and posit my 'Third option'
You are correct that if 2 zoans perils and fail, one of the 2 will be a casualty.
The Nid FAQ disagrees. It states the zoen who suffered the perils takes the wound.
That would be this from the FAQ:
Q: When a Zoanthrope brood uses a psychic power, do
I need to take a Psychic test for each individual
Zoanthrope in the brood, or just one test for the whole
brood?
A: Each Zoanthrope in the brood must take a
separate Psychic test. Note that this means that a
wound caused by Perils of the Warp will be
allocated to the Zoanthrope that suffered the
attack.
Step 1: Roll 3 psychic checks indicating which zoan is checking. If you perils, you know which zoan is allocated the wound (per FAQ).
Step 2: Make saves for all identical wounded models. For each failed save in the identical wounded model group, remove a model from the wounded group. In the event of multiwound models, like the zoan example, you must group the wounds to remove whole models, and you can not ever allocated a wound to a fresh model when you could allocate it to a wounded model to kill it--A direct rules change from how wounds are normally allocated.
All the Nid faq does is tell you that if the zoan 5 inches away from the enemy fails his test and perils, you cant put that wound on the zoan 7 inches away to preserve your 6 inch charge--unless that zoan 7 inches away is wounded, in which case the multiwound example makes clear that you can not ever allocate the wound to the fresh model when you could kill a wounded model regardless of the previous allocation rules.
Why on earth, would one model suffer 2 additional wounds for his mates having a dodgy landing, no its quite clear that each model, after its individual failed test, takes one wound
removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view
It also doesnt make sense from a rules perspective, either. The specific "suffers a wound" language means no other model can suffer (the effects of) that wound, which would include dying.
Right, I agree the 3 ravenors tripping causing one to die is odd but you can't put those subsequent wounds anywhere else. This is at direct odds with how the rest of the rules work BUT be fair and note that multiwound models in general are at odds with the way the rest of the rules work. Example... a unit with a wounded raven and fresh raven take a wound from any source. You can't ever allocate it despite the rest of the rules because it must go on the wounded model... unless its instant death in which it cant ever go on the wounded model. Very silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If a vehicle explodes and wounds all models in 3 inches, causing a raven unit to take 3 unsaved wounds, you kill a single raven in that case too.
Unless they are non-identically equipped, of course.
THe explosion case is still different, as it is not specifying that the model that tripped (for DT) is the one that suffers the wound. Its more a variable sized blast.
well it appears that Games workshop need to have a re jink with the BRB, having one model suffer all wounds for 3 failed terrain tests regarding 3 separate models puts you at a larger disadvantage as you are losing 1 whole model not 3 thirds of 3 models
if it was up to a players discretion i would say logic should surely prevail and the wounds are allocated to to each model that failed the test
Fairfeldia wrote:removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view
When the psychic alien superbugs rip a hole in reality to shoot lightning at invincibly armored superhumans with chainsaw swords and rocket-guns, I don't think reality has a whole lot to do with the situation.
Fairfeldia wrote:removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view
When the psychic alien superbugs rip a hole in reality to shoot lightning at invincibly armored superhumans with chainsaw swords and rocket-guns, I don't think reality has a whole lot to do with the situation.
me, im genuinely shocked that any body on the internet could possibly not understand that post
Fairfeldia wrote:removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view
When the psychic alien superbugs rip a hole in reality to shoot lightning at invincibly armored superhumans with chainsaw swords and rocket-guns, I don't think reality has a whole lot to do with the situation.
me, im genuinely shocked that any body on the internet could possibly not understand that post
Clearly we are shocked by the same things. Great minds and all that.
ONLY the mdoel the failed the test can suffer (the effects of) the wound. Noone else.
Unless the multiwound model rules say they change who gets wounds. And they do change who can get wounds. Several times infact, depending on what kind of wound it is.
If, for example, you have some special terrain that causes instant death, then each rav gets 1 wound. If they cause regular wounds, then regardless of where they would normally go, if one model in the squad has a wound they cant go anywhere but on him, and he collects 3 of them, even if he is not currently in terrain.
But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.
DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.
Incorrect because that rule follows the rule for allocating wounds on a unit.
In general, for every model that fails a save the unit suffers a wound. I know this sentence is going to be quoted out of context, but it's a risk I'll take.
That's the general statement in the "Shooting Phase" section.
We already know from the FAQ that you don't allocate dangerous terrain wounds as per the shooting rules.
But that's not enough for some people. They have taken a hold of the above sentence and want to apply it above all.
It is a the general rule. It is in the shooting section. It even states how any model in the target unit can be hit, reinforcing that it refers to wounds taken in the shooting phase.
So, general rule, a model fails its save, the unit suffers a wound.
First is the failed save, then is the wound.
But in failed dangerous terrain tests, first is the wound, then a possible save.
In this specific exception, the model suffers the wound, not the unit. The model then may attempt to make a save.
Same for Gets Hot!, the firing model suffers the wound, not the unit. The model then may attempt to make a save.
Same for Perils of the Warp, the psyker suffers a wound, not the unit. The model then may attempt to make a save.
Here are 3 very specific exceptions to the general rule.
Here in all 3 cases, the model takes the wound first, then tries to save.
This is backed up by 2 different FAQs, one on dangerous terrain tests in the main rule FAQ and one on units of Zoanthropes suffering perils of the warp in the Tyranid FAQ.
If it is as has been suggested by some here, why didn't the FAQ state that wounds caused by failed dangerous terrain tests and Perils of the Warp are applied as per the rules for removing shooting casualties like the rules for assault? (BRB page 39, first sentence under removing casualties)
Why? Because the wounds the models take are not allocated like the rules for removing shooting casualties, that's why.
DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.
You're improperly calling removing casualties "wound allocation." Wounds are only allocated before saves are taken. Once saves are failed, the wounds are converted into "unsaved wounds." These are then distributed among the unit to remove multi-wound models where possible.
Wound allocation, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, has nothing to do with this problem. It is all about removing casualties.
DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.
Probably already been done, but here is a direct quote from the rule book 1_3 faq:
Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.
Notice, "Each model that fails takes a wound." That wound has already been allocated specifically to the model that failed the test.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thats imho, of course
Right, but if you read the section about nobs, they say you must allocate the UNSAVED wound onto the wounded nob. Because you dont 'allocate' unsaved wounds ever, allocate in this context is a poor choice of words, but the result is clear... wherever the wound was supposed to go, the wound goes somewhere else in the case of multiwound models.
So I agree, the ravener that trips is the one that gets the wound, and as it has no save it becomes an unsaved wound. But then the multiwound rules kick in, because they tell us you cant ever put unsaved wounds on a fresh model when you can put them on a wounded model instead. Multiwound models change the entire process about where wounds go, and this applies to dangerous terrain as much as shooting. Then the multiwound instant death rules FURTHER change where previously allocated unsaved wounds go.
DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.
Probably already been done, but here is a direct quote from the rule book 1_3 faq:
Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.
Notice, "Each model that fails takes a wound." That wound has already been allocated specifically to the model that failed the test.
The key here has nothing to do with unsaved or saved wounds, nor single wound or multi wound models. The part that everyone that is arguing against is plain as day in this.... the fact that the DT wounds are NOT allocated in the same way as shooting attacks. Now forgive me, as my rulebook is currently about 3,500 miles away, + or - a couple hundred miles , but the multi wound model part is covered in the Shooting section of the book, isn't it??? Now, the Assault phase tells us to refer to the shooting section for how to deal with wounds, but the FAQ specifically tells us that the Dangerous Terrain wounds do NOT work like the wound allocation in the shooting section, therefore, they work exactly as the FAQ says, and they go on the individual model that took the test. Hence, they have their own way of being resolved, as per the FAQ, no matter how many wounds that particular model or group of models has.
I won't be able to respond as often as others, but thought I would finally contribute my view on this, as I am severly suffering for 40k withdrawals and needed to get regrounded and caught up on stuff.... plus, as time and Elcheezus know, I love a good debate, even if I can't get in them very well right now!!!!
I would say that per that FAQ question alone, that wounds caused by DT tests fall out of the normal realm of shooting (clearly expressed by the FAQ) but also out of the normal realm of multi-wound allocation and instant death allocation.
We are given specific instruction,
On a model by model basis, each model takes a DT test.
On a model by model basis, each model that fails takes a wound.
It cannot get any clearer on how this mechanic works and also cannot get any clearer that it falls outside the realm of every rule for taking saves and allocating wounds, mutli-wound model or not.
Brother Ramses wrote:I would say that per that FAQ question alone, that wounds caused by DT tests fall out of the normal realm of shooting (clearly expressed by the FAQ) but also out of the normal realm of multi-wound allocation and instant death allocation.
We are given specific instruction,
On a model by model basis, each model takes a DT test.
On a model by model basis, each model that fails takes a wound.
It cannot get any clearer on how this mechanic works and also cannot get any clearer that it falls outside the realm of every rule for taking saves and allocating wounds, mutli-wound model or not.
I agree completely with this list of operations.
However: What do you do after these steps? You've failed a DT test and taken a wound, what next? It is this next step where disagreement lies.
Brother Ramses wrote:I would say that per that FAQ question alone, that wounds caused by DT tests fall out of the normal realm of shooting (clearly expressed by the FAQ) but also out of the normal realm of multi-wound allocation and instant death allocation.
We are given specific instruction,
On a model by model basis, each model takes a DT test.
On a model by model basis, each model that fails takes a wound.
It cannot get any clearer on how this mechanic works and also cannot get any clearer that it falls outside the realm of every rule for taking saves and allocating wounds, mutli-wound model or not.
I agree completely with this list of operations.
However: What do you do after these steps? You've failed a DT test and taken a wound, what next? It is this next step where disagreement lies.
"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
Brother Ramses wrote:I would say that per that FAQ question alone, that wounds caused by DT tests fall out of the normal realm of shooting (clearly expressed by the FAQ) but also out of the normal realm of multi-wound allocation and instant death allocation.
We are given specific instruction,
On a model by model basis, each model takes a DT test.
On a model by model basis, each model that fails takes a wound.
It cannot get any clearer on how this mechanic works and also cannot get any clearer that it falls outside the realm of every rule for taking saves and allocating wounds, mutli-wound model or not.
I agree completely with this list of operations.
However: What do you do after these steps? You've failed a DT test and taken a wound, what next? It is this next step where disagreement lies.
"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
First, you missed a step. Second, your quote is completely out of context.
First, you missed a step. Second, your quote is completely out of context.
Like saying that all wounds follow the "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
Which is consistantly taken out of context and bent to apply to wounds suffered from failine a dangerous terrain test, wounds from a weapon that Gets Hot! and wounds suffered by Perils of the Warp.
Even though this sentence is in the Shooting phase section and the FAQ says the wounds are not allocated as per shooting.
So what was asked was "You've failed a DT test and taken a wound, what next?"
Well next you can roll for an invulnerable save if you have one.
Then if you fail that, the model suffers a wound.
And the rule said that most models have only 1 wound on their profile so when they suffer a wound they are removed.
Paraphrased here I know, but I think even the most noob player will know this.
Applying 1 sentence or 1 part of the multi wound model rule to a failed DT test when you are specifically told in the FAQ that wounds suffered by failed dangerous terrain tests are not applied as per the shooting rules, is taking something out of context.
time wizard wrote:Like saying that all wounds follow the "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
The whole rule you cited is as follows:
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, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty. As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed.
If you're going to argue that the whole rule doesn't apply, then you need to explain why it doesn't apply.
time wizard wrote:Which is consistantly taken out of context and bent to apply to wounds suffered from failine a dangerous terrain test, wounds from a weapon that Gets Hot! and wounds suffered by Perils of the Warp.
I'm not taking it out of context, I'm applying the whole rule, not just one sentence.
time wizard wrote:Even though this sentence is in the Shooting phase section and the FAQ says the wounds are not allocated as per shooting.
If this section doesn't apply, then 1) why did you quote it; and 2) what rule should you use for removing casualties?
time wizard wrote:So what was asked was "You've failed a DT test and taken a wound, what next?"
Well next you can roll for an invulnerable save if you have one.
Then if you fail that, the model suffers a wound.
And the rule said that most models have only 1 wound on their profile so when they suffer a wound they are removed.
Paraphrased here I know, but I think even the most noob player will know this.
See above. I quoted the exact rule for removing casualties that you cited. This is not how the rule works.
time wizard wrote:Applying 1 sentence or 1 part of the multi wound model rule to a failed DT test when you are specifically told in the FAQ that wounds suffered by failed dangerous terrain tests are not applied as per the shooting rules, is taking something out of context.
I think that it has been explained often enough how the FAQ doesn't address the issue. I'm not sure which page it is on, so I can make the argument again if you want.
Brother Ramses wrote:I would say that per that FAQ question alone, that wounds caused by DT tests fall out of the normal realm of shooting (clearly expressed by the FAQ) but also out of the normal realm of multi-wound allocation and instant death allocation.
We are given specific instruction,
On a model by model basis, each model takes a DT test.
On a model by model basis, each model that fails takes a wound.
It cannot get any clearer on how this mechanic works and also cannot get any clearer that it falls outside the realm of every rule for taking saves and allocating wounds, mutli-wound model or not.
I agree completely with this list of operations.
However: What do you do after these steps? You've failed a DT test and taken a wound, what next? It is this next step where disagreement lies.
What would you normally do with wound? It isn't rocket science here despite the attempts to over complicate the situation to an advantage.
The model that fails the DT test takes the wound. You have directions right there to not only who takes the test but to also who the specific DT test caused wound is allocated to.
Are you trying to insert a step that says after you have allocated the wound to the model that failed the DT test you re-allocate it? That is not what the rule or FAQ says.
Are you trying to allocate the resultant unsaved wound if the model does not have an inv save that he passes? You do not allocate unsaved wounds.
Brother Ramses wrote:What would you normally do with wound?
Whatever the rules say you normally do with a wound.
Brother Ramses wrote:The model that fails the DT test takes the wound. You have directions right there to not only who takes the test but to also who the specific DT test caused wound is allocated to.
Right.
Brother Ramses wrote:Are you trying to insert a step that says after you have allocated the wound to the model that failed the DT test you re-allocate it? That is not what the rule or FAQ says.
No, there is no "reallocation." "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." You failed a save (or couldn't take one), so the unit takes an unsaved wound. Then you remove a model from the unit. No allocation involved.
Brother Ramses wrote:Are you trying to allocate the resultant unsaved wound if the model does not have an inv save that he passes? You do not allocate unsaved wounds.
Agreed. You allocate wounds then take saves. The DT rule says you don't allocate wounds, but you are allowed to take a save. Absent some other rule, the opportunity to take a save brings the DT situation back within the purvue of the normal wounding rules.
It brings it back into the purvue of the normal wounding rules as far as it tells you to in the initial set of rules that the individual model that fails the test is the one that takes the wound.
See, that is where you are stumbling. You try to bring in that for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers and unsaved wound, but nothing about the DT rules specify that the unit takes the unsaved wound per the normal ruleset. In fact it is reinforced that the unit does not take wounds because you would not group wounds on identical models. Each individual model takes the test, each individual model takes a wound. As each individual model that fails the DT test takes a wound (not grouping wounds on identical models) where do you get the instruction to then group the unsanved wounds on the unit?
Simply put, you don't.
The individual model takes the test, the individual model takes the wound, the individual model takes the unsaved wound. I see no other reason (other then personal gain) to think that despite all aspects of the DT test being done on the individual model level, that it suddenly shifts to the unit at the last step.
You are assuming that because the model takes a save as normal, that suddenly the ruleset shifts back to the normal rules for everything else.
Brother Ramses wrote:See, that is where you are stumbling.
You're mistaken in assuming that I'm stumbling. I completely understand the argument for removing the model when it fails a DT test. I just think it's wrong and that the ability to remove any model is correct by RAW.
Brother Ramses wrote:You try to bring in that for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers and unsaved wound, but nothing about the DT rules specify that the unit takes the unsaved wound per the normal ruleset.
More importantly, the DT rules specify which model suffers the wound but do not deal with removing the model that suffered the wound (if it fails a save). Because this part of the general rules isn't contradicted by the DT rules, we must apply the general rules.
Brother Ramses wrote:In fact it is reinforced that the unit does not take wounds because you would not group wounds on identical models. Each individual model takes the test, each individual model takes a wound. As each individual model that fails the DT test takes a wound (not grouping wounds on identical models) where do you get the instruction to then group the unsanved wounds on the unit?
The allocation rules are distinct from casualty removal, so there's no need for additional instruction. The DT rules say X suffers a wound, but don't address how to deal with that wound. So we have to fall back on the general rules. Barring any contrary instruction from the special rule, wounds from DT are dealt with in the same way as wounds from shooting attacks.
Brother Ramses wrote:The individual model takes the test, the individual model takes the wound, the individual model takes the unsaved wound. I see no other reason (other then personal gain) to think that despite all aspects of the DT test being done on the individual model level, that it suddenly shifts to the unit at the last step.
Apart from that's how the rules read, you're correct. On the personal gain side, people use casualty removal "shenanigans" all the time. Shoot a mob of 10 orks that are 5" away and you can be sure that he will remove the nearest orks, even if he allocated wounds to the orks in the back of the mob.
Brother Ramses wrote:You are assuming that because the model takes a save as normal, that suddenly the ruleset shifts back to the normal rules for everything else.
I'm not assuming, this is simply a case where the specific rule fails to address the issue, so we default to the general rules.
There simply isn't a rules mechanism to deal with the wounds in the manner you, or others, have suggested. The idea of "spreading around" wounds on a unit of multi-wound models is particularly interesting since the rules in that section specifically prohibit this behavior.
The FAQ specficially tells you that you do not follow the rules for shooting, so I am failing to see how you keep falling back on the general rules for shooting wounds being allocated to DT test wounds taken.
If the individual model takes the wound, how are you then going to allocate unsaved wounds to the unit?
You do not allocate unsaved wounds in the first place and the FAQ is specific in tell you that you do not treat them as wounds from shooting attacks. So where are you getting the express permission to fall back on the general rules?
I seriously don't understand how this thread made it to 7 pages AFTER the FAQ clearly stated what happened. No, that wasn't hyperbole, it WAS clearly stated.
Brother Ramses wrote:The FAQ specficially tells you that you do not follow the rules for shooting, so I am failing to see how you keep falling back on the general rules for shooting wounds being allocated to DT test wounds taken.
I keep falling back on those rules because they're the only ones that deal with casualty removal. There really aren't any others you can use.
Brother Ramses wrote:If the individual model takes the wound, how are you then going to allocate unsaved wounds to the unit?
There's a difference between wound allocation and removing casualties. The FAQ dealt with the former, which isn't relevent.
Brother Ramses wrote:You do not allocate unsaved wounds in the first place and the FAQ is specific in tell you that you do not treat them as wounds from shooting attacks. So where are you getting the express permission to fall back on the general rules?
Like I said, you have to look at how to remove casualties in this section because it is the only section that deals with removing casualties.
If you read through the rules with a view to understanding the game without your experience, you will see the six-step process described earlier in this thread. Don't do anything the rules don't specifically allow and you'll see that the DT rules require application of this section.
]
]) rule (the 'funneling rule', which applies to multi-wound models that share the same characteristics in a unit) over a specific rule (the paragraph in which 
me, im genuinely shocked that any body on the internet could possibly not understand that post
