Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 16:22:27


Post by: Bludbaff


My veteran squad with 3 plasma guns fires on a target within 12". How do I handle this for Gets Hot?

A. Roll 6 dice, apply all wounds to different models
B. For each plasma gunner, roll two dice and apply resulting wounds to that model

Apologies if this is addressed in the BRB. Don't have one handy.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 16:23:03


Post by: rigeld2


B. You don't get to allocate GH - it goes to the model that fired the gun.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 16:29:34


Post by: GreyChaos


You typically declare which model is firing then roll 2 dice at a time if you're within 12" or 1 at a time if you're outside of that (you can roll all 6 at once if you have three different colors of dice). This eliminates any confusion as to which gunner(s) need to take saves.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 16:35:40


Post by: nosferatu1001


Only the model that suffered Gets Hot! can suffer the wound. NO allocaiton


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 17:14:22


Post by: tdwg83


BGB page 31 wrote:For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves applied)


You do not roll to hit then roll GH. One roll, only have to worry about the 1s. Must be pretty unluck if you roll 6 ones for your hit. . Roll hits for one model at a time for the ones that pop up roll your saves.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 17:30:20


Post by: HawaiiMatt


Since get's hot doesn't get allocated, you have to process shooting 1 model at a time.

When vets rapid fire with the S4 AP3 gets hot, you should roll dice two at a time, vet by vet.
Why? Because if you roll a pair of 1's, a single vet is taking 2 get's hot saves.

My Lamenters run a ton of plasma, because I think it's fluffy to have the cursed chapter die in misfires. When my honor guard rapid fires (4 plasmaguns); I make sure to do it in pairs.

-Matt


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 17:41:25


Post by: DevianID


While it is true that the model doing the shooting takes the wounds, if there are like copies of that model in the unit then the removing casualties section has you pull one like model per failed save.

So, with 3 plasma gunners, First rolls 2 1's, he gets allocated 2 wounds. Second rolls a 1, gets allocated 1 wound. Third does not roll any 1's.

3 total wounds were allocated to the same model type, roll all 3 saves at once and pull a model per save failed.

Page 25, complex units. "Having allocated the wounds, all the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms roll their saves at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owing player from amongst these identical models."

Edit: to Hawaiimat, you are supposed to roll all a units shooting at once, as it is simultaneous. Just clarifying what you meant, as you do not process shooting one model at a time, as that would mean you could choose not to shoot later weapons if the first ones hit in the unit, like combiguns.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 17:48:14


Post by: nosferatu1001


No, this is not correct. If another model is rmeoved, then the model that Gets Hot! has NOT suffered the wound, breaking the rule.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:11:01


Post by: Ghaz


As has already been posted:

BGB page 31 wrote:For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves applied)

Its more than abundantly clear that you can't allocate the wound to another model.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:11:31


Post by: DevianID


Nos, we have clear precedent of models not being wounded being removed as casualties. IE, a scarab unit suffers 1 s6 blast wound. 2 Bases are removed, despite only one of them being allocated a wound.

Ghaz, you are not moving a wound from one model to another. I quoted the rule. You remove 1 model from a like model group for each save that is failed. That comes after wounds are allocated.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:14:46


Post by: Ghaz


Yes, you are moving the wound. The rule very specifically states that it is the firing model that takes the wound.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:26:51


Post by: DevianID


OK Ghaz, I agree with that, the plasmagunner who rolled a 1 suffers a wound.

Then read the rule I quoted. After the model takes a wound, you then roll saves. If you fail the save, you remove one model of that model type from the board. If you have multiple saves, you remove one like model per failed save.

Removing models is not the same as suffering wounds


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:28:57


Post by: kirsanth


"After determining wounds against a particular unit. . ."

This is regarding wounds to a particular model.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:44:53


Post by: DevianID


Kirsanth, I am sorry but I dont know what that quote you mention is at all... I reread the entire remove casualties section and didnt find it. Can you be more clear?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:52:36


Post by: kirsanth


First sentence on page 39, under "Allocating Wounds."

Editing to add:
Remove Casualties lets you know that wounded models* are removed. It never mentions units.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:54:47


Post by: mrwhoop


I believe Gets Hot says specifiaclly that model. Like a DTT it's only that testng model that's affected not like/similar models in that unit.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 18:58:08


Post by: DevianID


Kirsanth, you are looking at the initiative step based close combat rules for allocating attack. I am reading the remove casualties rules, that both shooting and close combat reference.

Mrwhoop, you are correct, on page 31 get hot reads "the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"

However, when a model suffers a wound, and then fails its save, the UNIT then suffers an unsaved wound. Page 24, very first sentence of Removing Casualties section, reads "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers and unsaved wound..." "...for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Also, DTT follows some different rules, and as such its best to keep DTT in a separate discussion. Otherwise it becomes very easy to start confusing the two.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:04:13


Post by: pretre


You have to allocate before taking the save and getting to the unsaved wounds part. Allocation is done for you, i.e. it is assigned to the plasma gunner. Technically if you have more than one identically armed plasma gunner you could take a different one, but that's just silly.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:12:45


Post by: DevianID


Pretre, its funny you mention that it is silly--the designers think so too.

"This may seem slightly strange. but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our model"


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:15:07


Post by: kirsanth


DevianID wrote: I am reading the remove casualties rules, that both shooting and close combat reference.
If you have every member of a unit with identical gear (including GH), this almost matters.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:15:52


Post by: pretre


DevianID wrote:Pretre, its funny you mention that it is silly--the designers think so too.

What can I say? When me and the boys hang out and play poker, we're always discussing what they really meant when they wrote the rules and it must have stuck.



Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:18:43


Post by: Saldiven


DevianID wrote:Also, DTT follows some different rules, and as such its best to keep DTT in a separate discussion. Otherwise it becomes very easy to start confusing the two.


I think that this sentence most succinctly summarizes the position opposite to yours, D. Those like Nos and Kirsanth are contending that the GH rules for which models are removed are different from the normal rules for wound allocation, just like the rules for Dangerous Terrain Tests are different from the standard rules for wound allocation.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:23:16


Post by: nosferatu1001


Devian - have you caused the Wound to be suffered by another individual? Yes? Then you have broken the Gets Hot! rule


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:37:18


Post by: DevianID


No I have not nos. So fortunately, no rule is broken. Yay me!

To Saldiven, the rules for how models suffer wounds and how casualties are removed are two seperate issues. Wounds being allocated via enemy shooting versus wounds done to a model via GH both use the removing casualties rules.

kirsanth, again I dont understand your point? The first rule I quoted was for complex units and removing casualties, as the OP mentioned 3 plasmagunners in a vet squad. I have also quoted gets hot, and the basic removing casualties rules. How a unit is equipped makes zero difference here. And your quote about close combat I still dont follow, as it is completely unrelated... perhaps you quoted the wrong section?

Pretre
What can I say? When me and the boys hang out and play poker, we're always discussing what they really meant when they wrote the rules and it must have stuck.
Hey I wouldnt let on that you and Matt Ward hang out... unless you are just there to take his money lol.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 19:58:22


Post by: nosferatu1001


Ah, so when you removed a model that was NOT the model that rolled a "1", you are claiming this means the model who suffered from Gets Hot! suffered the wound?

Rules disagree with you. Boo to you!


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 20:29:27


Post by: Bludbaff


The quoted rule answers my question. It says "the firing model," not "a model with the Gets Hot rule." Since it specifies it that way I'll be playing it as requiring a separate roll for each gunner.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 20:33:26


Post by: nosferatu1001


Which is the correct way to play it, handily


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 20:39:41


Post by: DevianID


you are claiming this means the model who suffered from Gets Hot! suffered the wound
Yes, I am absolutely claiming that a model that rolled a 1 suffers from gets hot and suffers a wound. Why are you disagreeing with me?

The quoted rule answers my question. It says "the firing model," not "a model with the Gets Hot rule." Since it specifies it that way I'll be playing it as requiring a separate roll for each gunner.Which is the correct way to play it, handily

Except, that would gloss over how casualties are removed.

Walk me though what you expect happens.

You roll a 1. That model takes a wound, but gets normal saves.

How are saves taken?

What happens with a MODEL that fails its save?

If you can answer WITHOUT the 'removing casualty' rules, that I quoted for us already, then I will concede, as you will have pointed me to a new rule.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 20:44:50


Post by: nosferatu1001


Now apply this to 2 wound models with gets hot weapons, and realise you are still mistaken


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 20:45:30


Post by: DevianID


You did not answer the question.
Walk me though what you expect happens.

You roll a 1. That model takes a wound, but gets normal saves.

How are saves taken?

What happens with a MODEL that fails its save?

If you can answer WITHOUT the 'removing casualty' rules, that I quoted for us already, then I will concede, as you will have pointed me to a new rule.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 21:04:35


Post by: pretre


I now agree that you could roll all identically armed models together for the purposes of Gets Hot.

Gets Hot, P31"For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"

Complex Units, P25 "Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their savings throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models."

Remove Casualties, P24 "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... 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."


Basically, Gets Hot does the allocation for you and then tells you to make saves. You then follow 'normal saves apply'. Amusingly enough if you had 4 plasma gunners in a unit and only rapid fired two, all 4 could die.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:21:42


Post by: nosferatu1001


Devian - no, I did answer the question. I answered by proving your answer to be incorrect when expanded to cover 2 wound models

Given you are forced into an inconsitent situation when expanding this to 2 or more wound models, your answer is wrong by a simple passing of Occam

You can ignore your inconsistency if you wish, it doesnt make your answer any more right

You roll separately as a model suffering a wound, i.e. being removed or having its wounds counter decremented by 1, that ISNT the model that Gets Hot! is breaking a rule.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:26:25


Post by: pretre


I think the point is, Nos, that in order to know what to do when you get to the 'Normal Saves Apply' part of Gets Hot, you check the 'Taking Saves' and 'Remove Casualties' bits of the book and that gets you into normal saves and removal procedures (i.e. everyone with the same profile as that plasmagunner is a potential dead guy. And because they are unsaved wounds, if they are 2 wound plasmagunners, you could lose a whole model that way).


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:35:39


Post by: nosferatu1001


...and still you have allowed someone other than the gunner who Got Hot! to suffer the wound. Which breaks the rules.

Being dead is definitely suffering a wound.

How about - this is the same as the prior thread on this; one side is consistent for 1+ wound models, the other only "works" if you ignore the rules for Gets Hot! and fails utterly once you get to 2+ wound models.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:46:04


Post by: pretre


nosferatu1001 wrote:...and still you have allowed someone other than the gunner who Got Hot! to suffer the wound. Which breaks the rules.

Being dead is definitely suffering a wound.

Ahh, but the rules allow people who didn't suffer the wound to die all the time, as long as they are the same profile and equipment.

How does my version break down for 2+ wound models?

1) 3 Oblits rapid fire plasma.
2) 2 Oblits roll ones.
3) Gets hot says that the models who rolled ones suffer wounds and 'Normal Saves Apply'
4) Take Savings Throws says that if all the models in a unit are the same, they take all their saves together.
5) I roll 2 2+ armor saves and fail both. Remove casualties says that for every model that fails a save, I suffer an unsaved wound.
6) Units of Multi-Wound models says "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". I remove one Oblit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're confusing 'Suffers a wound' and 'Removed as a casualty' which are different steps in the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The gunner who fired, still suffered the wound, but he may not be the one removed depending on how the unsaved wounds end up.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:48:15


Post by: nosferatu1001


Nope, not confusing suffering a wound. Suffering a wound isnt actually a step - it is an all encompassing phrase in this instance

When you have 2W models I can prove conclusively that ading a wound marker to the model that DIDNT suffer the wound DOES mean that you have made a model "suffer a wound" that they didnt require.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:52:15


Post by: pretre


Where is 'suffer a wound' defined outside of Gets Hot. 'Suffer an unsaved wound' is described in 'Removing Casualties'. As far as I know, it isn't.

Also, mine works for non-MW units.

1) 3 SWS Troopers rapid fire plasma in a full squad of 6.
2) Those troopers roll 3 ones.
3) Gets hot says that the models who rolled ones suffer wounds and 'Normal Saves Apply'
4) Take Savings Throws says that if all the models in a unit are the same, they take all their saves together. The models are not the same. We go to complex units. Wounds have already been assigned to models by Gets Hot so the wound allocation in complex units is already complete. (Assigned to SWS troopers with PGs)
5) I roll 3 5+ armor saves and fail two. Remove casualties says that for every model that fails a save, I suffer an unsaved wound.
6) Complex Units and Remove Casualties say I remove a model for each unsaved wound. I remove 2 Plasmagun SWS guys.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:54:31


Post by: nosferatu1001


Hence, ALL encompasing. it isnt a step, but describes the end result - only THAT model can suffer the wound, and only THAT model can be removed as a result of running out of wounds otherwise another model will have suffered it

It only works if you decide "suffers a wound" only means "suffers an unsaved wound" - but you dont have any permission to do that. Which is why it doesnt work - you are making up rules.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 22:57:14


Post by: pretre


nosferatu1001 wrote:Hence, ALL encompasing. it isnt a step, but describes the end result - only THAT model can suffer the wound, and only THAT model can be removed as a result of running out of wounds otherwise another model will have suffered it

It only works if you decide "suffers a wound" only means "suffers an unsaved wound" - but you dont have any permission to do that. Which is why it doesnt work - you are making up rules.

I definitely didn't say SAW meant SAUW. If I did, I wouldn't have taken saves.

According to where does it say that only that model can suffer the wound and only that model can be removed? Gets Hot just says that he suffers a wound and normal saves apply. That says to me that you use the rules for taking saves. Otherwise they would have said 'roll a save and if he fails remove that model'.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 23:07:51


Post by: nosferatu1001


Because if someone else loses a wound, then the model that Got Hot! hasnt suffered it - have they? Absolutely everything in that rule talks about the singular model suffering the downside, so why are you removing this context and breaking a rule.

They obviously thought that people would understand what happens when your gun explodes - you possibly die, not your mate 35 feet away

Edit; to save time, nothing about this thread will come to any new conclusion than the previous stupidly long thread.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 23:29:34


Post by: BeRzErKeR


nosferatu1001 wrote:Because if someone else loses a wound, then the model that Got Hot! hasnt suffered it - have they? Absolutely everything in that rule talks about the singular model suffering the downside, so why are you removing this context and breaking a rule.

They obviously thought that people would understand what happens when your gun explodes - you possibly die, not your mate 35 feet away


Now, wait a minute nos. Don't try to apply logic here; this is 40k, logic has been tossed out the window along with the baby, the bathwater, and a low-yield hydrogen bomb.

They have a point here. You're arguing that 'suffers a wound' and 'suffers an unsaved wound' are different things. Ok, fine; but I don't believe 'suffers a wound' is actually defined in the rules. If I'm wrong, please refer me to the page number.

If I'm NOT wrong, then you have to try and figure out what 'suffers a wound' means in this context; and it isn't unreasonable to decide to follow the precedent of the only other times a unit can suffer wounds, and go to the rules covering such situations.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 23:40:48


Post by: nosferatu1001


I've repeatedly stated it is not a formally in game defined term, and that trying to shoe horn it into "unsaved wound" is less than sensible.

I'm not just applying logic, although the designers HAVE used this to justify rules in the past, but applyng the WHOLE of the rule: I can show you that having a 2W model that is NOT the model that Got Hot! have a wound counter added to them IS them suffering the wound, because that is what the language the game is written in TELLS you has occurred.

So, context being everything here - if you have a model die and it wasnt the model whose gun went bang, then you havent followed the whole of the rules.

And, again, this thread will not come to any new decision regarding this rule, as there are no rules supporting your contention. Only a fatal addiction to ignoring the Gets Hot! rule and the all encompassing term "suffer a wound"


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/03 23:56:15


Post by: BlueDagger


Not this again *facepalm* this is the EXACT SAME wound and removal process as anything that bypassess allocation and directly effects a model such as mindwar, Dangerous terrain tests, etc.

Hardheaded RAW the game blows up, you pack up your models as well does you opponent, and can not finish the game. Using even 1% common sense you have wounded the model to is limit of wounds and remove it as a casualty.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 04:20:08


Post by: DevianID


BlueDagger, its not the same. Please keep other rules that work differently in their own discussion, so we can discuss the matter at hand. I would also argue that it is YOU applying hard headed RAW by trying to purposely roll each plasma gunner separate, slowing the game down, and unfairly trying to minimize your casualties.

I, and others, have both quoted all the rules and illustrated via logic that this works. Nos, all I have seen you do is go 'Nuh-uh!' and put your head in the sand. You were given 100% true rules that say it work, and your response said that the rules dont apply because of multi-wound models... when we were discussing single wound models.

THEN, the rules for multi-wound models was brought up to you, and you responded
When you have 2W models I can prove conclusively that ading a wound marker to the model that DIDNT suffer the wound DOES mean that you have made a model "suffer a wound" that they didnt require.


Are you going to contribute any rules to this discussion, or are you going to continue saying we are wrong with no proof or explanation and nothing to contribute? Also, for the record, we were talking about single wound models. Your theories that you have not shared with us about multiwound models dont change the rules for single wound models.

PS, when you said
They obviously thought that people would understand what happens when your gun explodes - you possibly die, not your mate 35 feet away
did you not read "Note that any modeI 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 of the firers. This may seem slightly strange. but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models"

If a model 24 inches from a 12 inch pistol can drop dead from a shot, how is an overheating weapon killing a nearby soldier even a stretch?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 04:48:35


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:Are you going to contribute any rules to this discussion, or are you going to continue saying we are wrong with no proof or explanation and nothing to contribute? Also, for the record, we were talking about single wound models. Your theories that you have not shared with us about multiwound models dont change the rules for single wound models.

It's pretty obvious, and he's stated it more than once. Which, by the way, is proof and explanation - you're just ignoring it.

Gets Hot! specifies that the firing model takes the wound.
A 2W model fires and gets 1 GH.
A 2nd 2W model fires and gets 1 GH.
Both saves are failed.
One of the 2W models is removed, and the other takes no wounds.


This breaks the GH rule that specifies that the firing model takes the wound. The only other way to play it is that both 2W models take a wound - which satisfies GH 100%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DevianID wrote:If a model 24 inches from a 12 inch pistol can drop dead from a shot, how is an overheating weapon killing a nearby soldier even a stretch?

Because a single shot is an abstraction, just as is the position of the models.
The weapon exploding/overheating *not* hurting the bearer, but killing that dude over there stretches even that level of abstraction into disbelief.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 05:36:54


Post by: DevianID


Rigeld, lets call your 2 wound models obilts for ease here.

If obilt A takes a GH wound, and oblit B takes a GH wound, both oblit A and B need armor saves as normal.

Get's hot is now completely resolved. We are done with Gets Hot, and now move onto armor saves. After we make our armor saves, we will not GO BACK to gets hot, as we did that already.

In armor saves, 2 identical models must roll their saves together.

If the 2 oblits then suffer 2 unsaved wounds, one model is removed as a casualty. You instead said:

The only other way to play it is that both 2W models take a wound - which satisfies GH 100%


However the rules contridict you multiple times. Pg 26, "You must remove whole models...wounds may not be spread around to avoid casualties" pg 31 "the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"

According to your incorrect logic, if you MAKE your armor save, the model that made the save did not suffer a wound, and since GH says you suffer a wound, you may not make armor saves. Do you see where you and Nos missteped in your logic?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 05:54:54


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote: Do you see where you and Nos missteped in your logic?

I don't think it's a misstep.
I don't see why you are asserting that this is different from DT tests.
Because a save is allowed? The model that suffers GH suffers a wound, and can try and save it.
If the save is failed, that model takes a wound. The unit isn't taking wounds.
Individual models are. That's why you don't follow the wound allocation rules (which is what you're trying to do).

Even using your line of thinking, you have one model that has different special rules from the others - he has Got Hot!
Joel's gun overheats and melts his face off. Sam's didn't, but he dies anyway?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 05:59:51


Post by: DevianID


If the save is failed, that model takes a wound. The unit isn't taking wounds.


This is incorrect. The correct rule has been posted. If a model fails a save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. The quoted rule is exactly in contradiction to what you just said.

That's why you don't follow the wound allocation rules (which is what you're trying to do).
Actually I am trying to follow the remove casualty rules, which you must do if you want to remove a model from the table via an unsaved wound.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 07:04:38


Post by: BlueDagger


DevianID wrote:BlueDagger, its not the same. Please keep other rules that work differently in their own discussion, so we can discuss the matter at hand. I would also argue that it is YOU applying hard headed RAW by trying to purposely roll each plasma gunner separate, slowing the game down, and unfairly trying to minimize your casualties.


I'm really not sure if you are trying to troll here or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Gets hot! - "...for each result of 1 rolled on it's to hit rolls the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"
Dangerous Terrain - "Roll a D6... On a roll of 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed"

This is the EXACT same mechanic except that Gets hit is on firing and Dangerous terrain is on moving. Both are on a per model bases which bypasses standard wound allocation. Your entire argument is centered around not knowing what to do when a model has taken a wound instead of the squad, which is rather blatantly obvious. The wound simply doesn't go through the wound allocation rules and is simply forced it's save on that model. If the model fails it takes the wound. If it loses all of it's wounds it dies. The rules DO NOT cover wound on a per model basis, but the rules advise you to do so. It's either you observe the blatantly obvious procedure to take or call the game a wash.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 07:07:40


Post by: LunaHound


If you cant use lasgun's rolls to count as plasma rolls,
then why are you allowed to do the vice versa by allocating?

:')


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 07:47:53


Post by: DevianID


Luna hound, if you must roll all your plasma shots and saves together, then why are you allowing a unit to roll them one at a time?

And blue dagger, as before the two are different. Dt, for example, is resolved sequentially, while we are told that a units shooting is simultaneous. Besides, despite how similiar they may be, how dt works or does not work still has no bearing on gets hot, which is the question at hand.

Ps, luna your example is not equivalent to what is happening here at all.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 08:07:04


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


BRB 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.



There is precedent for wounds to be taken by models and not the unit in general.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 08:08:00


Post by: LunaHound


DevianID wrote:Luna hound, if you must roll all your plasma shots and saves together, then why are you allowing a unit to roll them one at a time?

And blue dagger, as before the two are different. Dt, for example, is resolved sequentially, while we are told that a units shooting is simultaneous. Besides, despite how similiar they may be, how dt works or does not work still has no bearing on gets hot, which is the question at hand.

Ps, luna your example is not equivalent to what is happening here at all.

Of course it isn't, its like reversed.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 08:30:02


Post by: Sigmatron


"For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rools, the firing model suffers a wound.." This is more specific and overides the general rule of how wounds are allocated.

[Edit] Luna do you play League of Legends?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 09:58:49


Post by: nosferatu1001


Devian - actually I have repeatedly given you the rules: you are ignoring GH! by making a model suffer a wound that did not roll a "1" on the to hit, breaking GH!

GH! is all encompassing. "Suffer a wound" is NOT a defined step, as you believe it is, and by claiming you have "satisified" GH! by simply taking an armour save you are simply making up rules.

GH! and DT! are *exactly the same rules* in terms of how they apply to single models, yet you are *making up* a difference between them when the GW FAQ tells you you are wrong.

Please, find some actual rules or quit.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 22:21:09


Post by: DevianID


Nos, I have posted every single rule I mentioned. You have contributed zero rules.

Seriously, the posts are all still here. Zero rules from you.

Page 24, very first sentence of Removing Casualties section, reads "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers and unsaved wound..." "...for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Page 25, complex units. "Having allocated the wounds, all the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms roll their saves at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owing player from amongst these identical models."

Pg 26, "You must remove whole models...wounds may not be spread around to avoid casualties"

on page 31 get hot reads "the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"


Ill even finish the multiple wound part for dealing with oblits!

Page 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. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models"

Pretre even posted the order!

Now we can go through a game turn if you like.

In the shooting phase, a group of 3 oblits wish to shoot their twin linked plasma at the enemy. Oh no! The oblit player rolled 4 1's, even with twin-linking their weapons! The first oblit rolled two 1's, and the second and third oblit rolled one 1 each. Per page 31, the models suffer wounds with normal armor saves.

So we now turn to page 20, under armor saves. "If the result is lower than the Sv value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and the model suffers a wound."

So the oblits roll 4 dice, and all of them are 1's! How unfortunate! Now what happens that oblit A suffered 2 wounds, and oblit B and C each suffered 1 wound?

We turn to page 24, where removing casualties are located. "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers and unsaved wound..." Now, these oblits have 2 wounds each, so we will ignore the part that says we remove a model from the unit for each unsaved wound, as that is for one wound models.

So we now turn to units of multiple wound models, on page 26, to see the fate of our oblits. "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 our Oblits have suffered 4 unsaved wounds total, 2 on A, 1 on B, 1 on C. We must remove whole models, so we remove two of our oblits. We can not spread the 4 wounds to keep some of our oblits alive sadly. Per the removing casualties section, any model may be taken off as a casualty, so we remove Oblit A and C, leaving poor oblit B by himself!


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 22:35:33


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:So our Oblits have suffered 4 unsaved wounds total, 2 on A, 1 on B, 1 on C. We must remove whole models, so we remove two of our oblits. We can not spread the 4 wounds to keep some of our oblits alive sadly. Per the removing casualties section, any model may be taken off as a casualty, so we remove Oblit A and C, leaving poor oblit B by himself!

So if you take Dangerous Terrain tests, and roll 3 ones for a 3 model oblit squad, do you remove a model?

Why is this different?

edit: You are 100% correct if the *unit* receives wounds to save. It isn't. The *model* is receiving wounds.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 23:01:24


Post by: DevianID


Rigeld2, I went ahead an listed everything from start to finish for gets hot. How DT is or is not different does nothing to change all the rules I have listed above. If you dont have an issue with the actual rules posted for the actual topic, what are you doing?

Also, you should see that in my example, it was the models receiving the wounds the entire time for gets hot, from start to finish. And the rules speak for themselves.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 23:35:34


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:Also, you should see that in my example, it was the models receiving the wounds the entire time for gets hot, from start to finish. And the rules speak for themselves.

No. The individual models did nor receive wounds in your example. The unit received wounds that you auto-allocated. Do you see the difference?

edit: People keep bringing up DT tests because the wording is almost the same - DT just doesnt allow saves.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 23:38:36


Post by: BlueDagger


I'm trying REALLLLY hard not to feed the troll here, but your lack of comprehension is astounding.


Rigeld, lets call your 2 wound models obilts for ease here.

If obilt A takes a GH wound, and oblit B takes a GH wound, both oblit A and B need armor saves as normal.

Get's hot is now completely resolved. We are done with Gets Hot, and now move onto armor saves. After we make our armor saves, we will not GO BACK to gets hot, as we did that already.

In armor saves, 2 identical models must roll their saves together. This is where your logic fails

If the 2 oblits then suffer 2 unsaved wounds, one model is removed as a casualty. You instead said:


The part where your logic breaks down is listed above. Wound allocation which is the portion your are combining you saves is on a unit bases, not a model bases. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE RULES FOR WOUNDS RESOLVED ON A PER MODEL BASIS.

You can not toss rules quotes past the point where models individually suffer a wound because there IS NOT RULE SECTION THAT COVERS IT. The game halts when this occurs because wound allocation is negated because it's on a unit basis as is removing casualties.

The reason dangerous terrain test is brought up (over and over and over and over and constantly ignored by you) is because it is the EXACT same mechanic. I do not care if one thing is in the movement phase and another is in the shooting phase. I do not care if "shooting rules" tell you to fire everyone at once. GH tells you to fire those weapons for gets hot one at a time.

So at this point you have the choice of having no rules to follow BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE VALID or you use the precedent of a 99% identical mechanic.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/04 23:57:47


Post by: DevianID


No. The individual models did nor receive wounds in your example. The unit received wounds that you auto-allocated. Do you see the difference?
Yes the individual models received wounds.
"So we now turn to page 20, under armor saves. "If the result is lower than the Sv value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and the model suffers a wound."

So the oblits roll 4 dice, and all of them are 1's! How unfortunate! Now what happens that oblit A suffered 2 wounds, and oblit B and C each suffered 1 wound?"

Wound allocation which is the portion your are combining you saves is on a unit bases, not a model bases.

I did not use wound allocation once in the example above. The wounds are assigned by Gets Hot, you cant allocate them, though you save as normal.

PS:
i'm trying REALLLLY hard not to feed the troll here, but your lack of comprehension is astounding.
Telling someone they have no comprehension is poor form, especially when I have been providing all the rules in this entire discussion.
So at this point you have the choice of having no rules to follow BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE VALID or you use the precedent of a 99% identical mechanic.
I have posted all the rules you follow, in complete form. The rules flow perfectly from Gets Hot, to Making Saves, to Remove Casualties, to Units of Multiple Wound Models, with no hitch whatsoever. The quoted page is with the quoted rule in the entire example. Wound allocation is not used once.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 00:14:44


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:
No. The individual models did nor receive wounds in your example. The unit received wounds that you auto-allocated. Do you see the difference?
Yes the individual models received wounds.

No, they didn't. See how all 3 oblits rolled a GH result, failed saves, and one comes out unscathed? He suffered nothing.

You're treating the group of models as a unit. The GH rule specifies models, exactly like DT. Unless you're arguing that you get to allocate DT wounds to like-geared models, and you must remove whole multi-wound models first from DT wounds.

Why are you avoiding the comparison to DT?

edit: You are factually wounding the unit, not the model, when you include the "roll saves as a group". Since a group is by definition not a model, that breaks the GH rule.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 00:17:48


Post by: kirsanth


DevianID wrote:I have posted all the rules you follow
You posted the rules YOU follow, for whatever reason.

That involves using rules involving units when the unit was never wounded.

Most folk seem to disagree, including every single person I have played in person.

Anecdotal, certainly, but true nonetheless.

Editing to add:
I get your point. You are not the first to claim it.
I simply think you are mistaken and rather verbose in proving it.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 00:35:48


Post by: DevianID


Kirsanth, the remove casualty rules are not unit versus model specific. In all cases, specific models suffer wounds, and the unit removes casualties.

No, they didn't. See how all 3 oblits rolled a GH result, failed saves, and one comes out unscathed? He suffered nothing.
When models suffer wounds, they often come out unscathed. For example, they can make their save. They still suffered a wound, but it gets saved, so no casualties are removed. In addition, some models are not removed as casualties when they suffer a wound and fail a save. This is usually because they have multiple wounds, which require special rules to resolve, or another special rule that steps in and prevents an unsaved wound from causing a casualty, like FnP does.

You are factually wounding the unit, not the model, when you include the "roll saves as a group". Since a group is by definition not a model, that breaks the GH rule.


The reason you roll saves for multiple wound models at the same time is because Gets Hot is a shooting special rule, and shooting is simultaneous within a unit. Thus, while each model suffers wounds individually (which they always do, GH is not different here) all the wounds caused to the unit happen at the same time. In addition, Unit of Multiple Wound models have special rules to explain how they are different from regular models. One such special rule is that they "take all the saves for the unit in one go" per page 26. Another rule is that you can not spread wounds to avoid casualties.

You advocate that GH lets you spread wounds and avoid casualties, do you not? GH does not specifically allow this, and multiple wound models DISALLOWS this.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 00:42:02


Post by: kirsanth


DevianID wrote:Kirsanth, the remove casualty rules are not unit versus model specific. In all cases, specific models suffer wounds, and the unit removes casualties.
Bolded your error.

There are exceptions.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 00:50:08


Post by: DevianID


The only exception is when a unit is shot at, and the unit consists of all identical models. In this case, wounds are not allocated to specific models, as you skip straight to the remove casualties section. Under 'Take Saving Throws' page 20. Again note all models must be identical and have one wound, and furthermore GH will not result in this exception.

Also, it would help if you list your exceptions and page numbers, IF the exceptions are relevant to GH.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 01:36:16


Post by: nosferatu1001


No, DT which is worded *exactly* the same also bypasses your attempt at rules.

I have provided rules, you continue to ignore them in favour of your IGNORANCE of the GH! rules. You are simply making up rules and sticking fingers in your ears EVERY time I point this out to you.

Seriously. Go read the other reaaaaally long thread on this, and stop posting here because you have. no. argument.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 01:36:50


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:The reason you roll saves for multiple wound models at the same time is because Gets Hot is a shooting special rule, and shooting is simultaneous within a unit. Thus, while each model suffers wounds individually (which they always do, GH is not different here) all the wounds caused to the unit happen at the same time. In addition, Unit of Multiple Wound models have special rules to explain how they are different from regular models. One such special rule is that they "take all the saves for the unit in one go" per page 26. Another rule is that you can not spread wounds to avoid casualties.

Yes. They take all saves for the unit in one go, as you quoted.
These wounds/saves are not wounds to the unit.
The wounds/saves are wounds to the models.

Just like Dangerous Terrain tests.
You're assertion is that the wounds are shooting wounds because they happen in the shooting phase?


You advocate that GH lets you spread wounds and avoid casualties, do you not? GH does not specifically allow this, and multiple wound models DISALLOWS this.

Actually no - you don't spread wounds. The models that generate GH take the wounds. Note the difference.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 01:40:48


Post by: Janthkin


<simmer down, folks; I don't care if you are REALLY THAT EXCITED about your toy soldiers with plasma guns or not, but tossing around words like "troll" and "ignorance" is only likely to get you in trouble with the moderators, on a poster-by-poster basis>


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 02:15:12


Post by: DevianID


These wounds/saves are not wounds to the unit.
The wounds/saves are wounds to the models.

Yes, I agree. The model specifically suffers the wound. No, I am not asserting the wounds are made by a shooting attack.

Rigeld2, here is the issue. What steps would you have me take to resolve GH putting a wound on a model. I assume you would go to the rule about making saves first, right?

After you make or fail your save, what rule would YOU apply next. I have already stated I would apply the 'remove casualties' rule. I quoted the remove casualties rule, and the remove casualties rule applies to more than just getting shot at..

In summation, I contend that gets hot, on a failed save, makes you remove casualties. I contend that the rules for removing casualties are fully contained in the "remove casualties" section and subsequent sections.



Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 02:17:25


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


But, they aren't.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 02:19:26


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:In summation, I contend that gets hot, on a failed save, makes you remove casualties. I contend that the rules for removing casualties are fully contained in the "remove casualties" section and subsequent sections.

And a Dangerous Terrain test makes you remove whole models when possible, eh?

No. Wounds to a model can only wound that model, not some other model in the unit.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 02:26:45


Post by: nosferatu1001


Devian - so, yet again you are ignoring the GH! rule which requires that the model that got hot suffers the wound. Has another model died / had a wound counter added to the model? Then THAT model has SUFFERED the wound and NOT the model that GH!, meaning you have broken the GH! rule.

Keep on ignoring the same rule, it's helping your argument


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 02:39:40


Post by: DevianID


SlavetoDorkness, if the rules for removing casualties are not found in the remove casualties section, where are they found?
No. Wounds to a model can only wound that model, not some other model in the unit.

Again Rigeld2, I agree with this. We agree... I have been agreeing this whole time. Now, move on to the next step. What rule resolves what happens when a model has suffered a wound?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 04:01:35


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:SlavetoDorkness, if the rules for removing casualties are not found in the remove casualties section, where are they found?
No. Wounds to a model can only wound that model, not some other model in the unit.

Again Rigeld2, I agree with this. We agree... I have been agreeing this whole time. Now, move on to the next step. What rule resolves what happens when a model has suffered a wound?

I'm going to stop feeding you until you respond to my question.

Aside from giving you a save, how is Gets Hot! different from a Dangerous Terrain test?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 04:43:34


Post by: DevianID


The reason I dont want to discuss Dangerous Terrain is twofold.

First, there is something called a strawman argument. By definition from Wikipedia
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
So you want to compare Gets Hot with Difficult Terrain. They are superficially similar, as in both cause wounds to models that roll 1's, but they are also different. If I start discussing a separate rule, and you refute that without actually talking about GH, you will have created a logical fallacy. We can completely resolve Gets Hot without comparing it to a superficially similar rule.

Second, if we logically can not compare Dangerous Terrain to Gets Hot, discussing Dangerous Terrain rules are off-topic. Even one difference invalidates the comparative value of the two, such as DT not allowing armor, or triggering differently in any phase of the game such as when assaulting, or happening sequentially instead of simultaneously.

Now that you know why there is no need to discuss Dangerous Terrain in a thread about Gets Hot, its only fair to answer my question.

What rule resolves what happens when a model has suffered a wound from Gets Hot?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 04:45:11


Post by: rigeld2


Okay, we're done then. Thanks for not listening.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 04:46:31


Post by: DevianID


Um, honestly I did listen, and tried to give a well reasoned and constructive answer as to why I am not answering questions about Dangerous Terrain in a thread about Gets Hot.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 04:51:40


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:Um, honestly I did listen, and tried to give a well reasoned and constructive answer as to why I am not answering questions about Dangerous Terrain in a thread about Gets Hot.

And your reasoning is ignoring the massive similarities, the fact that there are *zero* rules for when a model takes a wound (only a unit taking wounds). Therefore we must use context and precedent. There is absolute precedent in the DT rules. You choose to ignore them. I refuse to have a discussion with someone who is choosing to ignore something like that.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 05:34:20


Post by: DevianID


And your reasoning is ignoring the massive similarities,
It doesnt matter how superficially similar the 2 things are. That is the point of the logical fallicy, and why we avoid them.
the fact that there are *zero* rules for when a model takes a wound (only a unit taking wounds). Therefore we must use context and precedent.
This is not true. I have quoted the rules. Do not forget that every model, even alone, is also a unit or part of a unit, though that shouldn't matter. Gets Hot-->Taking Saves-->removing casualties. All right there. A wound suffered goes to an unsaved wound, which goes to removing a model as a casualty. Gets Hot even tells you that you take saves as normal. Now how do you take saves normally?

There is absolute precedent in the DT rules. You choose to ignore them. I refuse to have a discussion with someone who is choosing to ignore something like that.
its not precedent, is logical fallicy. Comparing the two creates a logical fallacy (a straw man argument) that colors perception of the original issue at hand.

You said there is ZERO rules for when a model takes a wound... Pg 20 "If the result is lower than the Sv value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and the model suffers a wound" Pg 24"For every MODEL that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound"


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 07:16:51


Post by: LunaHound


DevianID wrote:OK Ghaz, I agree with that, the plasmagunner who rolled a 1 suffers a wound.


Then what on earth are there to debate further about?
BGB page 31 wrote:For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves applied)

So after the BGB told you to pick the specific model, you are going to ignore the after part because BGB didn't write in every "rinse repeat e.g etc etc" that is pretty much common sense?

Thats so silly!


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 11:11:03


Post by: nosferatu1001


Devian - DT and GH! are not "superficially" similar - in all pertinent aspects they are the same. And DT does not allow you to take off another model to the one that failed its test.

You also fail, horrendously, as you are ignoring the GH! rule in artifically limiting its effects to a specific instance. this isnt supported in the rules, and is why the rest of your argument is wrong.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 13:33:35


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


So, basically you are saying that any wound a model suffers can be allocated to the unit they are due, regardless of how it happens, DevianID?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 20:26:38


Post by: DevianID


Slave, models suffer wounds. Not arguing that. After a model suffers a wound, you use the remove casualties rule.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 20:27:51


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:Slave, models suffer wounds. Not arguing that. After a model suffers a wound, you use the remove casualties rule.

So 3 Tyranid Shrikes jump into difficult terrain. All 3 roll ones on the DT test. Do you remove a model, or does each Shrike now have one less wound?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 20:28:16


Post by: kirsanth


SlaveToDorkness wrote:So, basically you are saying that any wound a model suffers can be allocated to the unit they are due, regardless of how it happens, DevianID?

Literally. See:
kirsanth wrote:
DevianID wrote:Kirsanth, the remove casualty rules are not unit versus model specific. In all cases, specific models suffer wounds, and the unit removes casualties.
Bolded your error.

There are exceptions.



Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 21:35:33


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


What about Perils of the Warp? If the Psyker is in a unit, could it be allocated to "the unit".


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 21:38:10


Post by: rigeld2


SlaveToDorkness wrote:What about Perils of the Warp? If the Psyker is in a unit, could it be allocated to "the unit".

Apparently if 2 Zoanthropes both Peril, and both fail their invul saves, you remove one of them. Who knew?


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/05 22:17:54


Post by: BlueDagger


Little did we know:

- Abbadon and Demon weapon models need not fear their weapon because it justt hurts a unit mate!

- Warlocks hit by mindstrike missile can mere pass their failed Perils to a guardian.

- GW's DT test FAQ is wrong about allocation!

/end sarcasm

*facepalm* this has hit in the top 15 silliest YMDC threads I've seen


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/06 00:22:41


Post by: Happyjew


No, no this is silly. No, the whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I haven't had a funny line yet. So I'm stopping it. I've done it. The debate is over.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/06 00:38:42


Post by: nosferatu1001


DevianID wrote:Slave, models suffer wounds. Not arguing that. After a model suffers a wound, you use the remove casualties rule.


...and ignore the GH! rule in doing so.

Breaking a rule

Keep on breaking rules, and your argument will continue to be irrelevant.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/06 23:15:09


Post by: DevianID


Bluedagger, all those examples are flawed, and dont come close to what I am saying.

If 3 plasmaguns, 6 ig vets, and a sarge are in a unit, and the plasma guns over heat, the plasma guns take wounds.

In the remove casualties section it tells us that for every model that fails a save, we remove a casualty from that model group. no bluedagger, you can not put those wounds on a different model, and no model type other than plasmaguns can be removed as a casualty.

Now, someone.mentioned zoanthropes suffering 2 wounds. If you did not remove whole models in the remove casualties section, then you instead spread wounds around and avoided removing a casualty, which is not what the rules say for dealing with units of identical multiple wound models.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/06 23:18:10


Post by: kirsanth


DevianID wrote:which is not what the rules say for dealing with units
Which would matter if we were discussing units.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/06 23:34:16


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


DevianID wrote:Bluedagger, all those examples are flawed, and dont come close to what I am saying.

If 3 plasmaguns, 6 ig vets, and a sarge are in a unit, and the plasma guns over heat, the plasma guns take wounds.

In the remove casualties section it tells us that for every model that fails a save, we remove a casualty from that model group. no bluedagger, you can not put those wounds on a different model, and no model type other than plasmaguns can be removed as a casualty.


So what happens if those 3 plasmagunners suffer 6 wounds? Do you remove them and 3 other models from the unit or only the 3 gunners? If the former then you violate the Gets Hot rule. If the latter then you violate the wound allocation rules that you are advocating using.
Take your choice as to which rule you want to ignore. But logic would say that you violate the more general rule (remove 6 models) and use the more specific rule (just remove the gunners and ignore the extra wounds) since in this ruleset specific overrides general.


Gets Hot allocation @ 2012/01/06 23:47:57


Post by: rigeld2


DevianID wrote:Now, someone.mentioned zoanthropes suffering 2 wounds. If you did not remove whole models in the remove casualties section, then you instead spread wounds around and avoided removing a casualty, which is not what the rules say for dealing with units of identical multiple wound models.


So DT tests are allocated to like models, and not the one that failed the test.
Perils gets allocated to like models, and not the one that fails the test.

I'm sure there's others I'm missing.

You cannot have it both ways - putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring DT is not the proper way to have a discussion. The unit is not taking wounds, so applying unit rules to this situation will fail.
The model is taking wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
DevianID wrote:Bluedagger, all those examples are flawed, and dont come close to what I am saying.

If 3 plasmaguns, 6 ig vets, and a sarge are in a unit, and the plasma guns over heat, the plasma guns take wounds.

In the remove casualties section it tells us that for every model that fails a save, we remove a casualty from that model group. no bluedagger, you can not put those wounds on a different model, and no model type other than plasmaguns can be removed as a casualty.


So what happens if those 3 plasmagunners suffer 6 wounds? Do you remove them and 3 other models from the unit or only the 3 gunners? If the former then you violate the Gets Hot rule. If the latter then you violate the wound allocation rules that you are advocating using.
Take your choice as to which rule you want to ignore. But logic would say that you violate the more general rule (remove 6 models) and use the more specific rule (just remove the gunners and ignore the extra wounds) since in this ruleset specific overrides general.

I'm 90% sure you're wrong on this. If you allocate 5 wounds to a wound group that only has 3 wounds, and fail all 5 saves, the 3 wounds are removed and the other two just disappear. Which is why it's a bad idea to fire Meltas and lasguns at paladins - stack all the meltas on one paladin, everyone else takes (and likely saves) the lasgun hits, and you lose one paladin.