Was wondering how the comunity handles Gets Hot! and how they should be treatet RAW.
Do you roll one and one die seeing if you get a one? Or is it model by model? Or the entire squad at the same time?
Example: My veteransquad is in rapid fire range, so gets 6 shots. let's say I roll Yatzee and gets 6x1's... I presume i only lose 3 guys, as it's the model fireing that takes the wound.(if i remember correctly).
Question then is what if I rolled 3 x1's? Seems smarter to roll 1 and 1 die then...reduces risk of Wounds as I can get 2 1's on one model.

Then it's the question of speeding the game up. Seems to slow it down quite abit if I need to roll one and one die. So, how do you handle it?

If you're rapid firing, 2 dice per model at a time (or all at once using different colored sets).

If you're firing single shots, one die per model at a time (or all at once using different colored dice).

In your example, i usually roll per gun, as the way i interpret the rules is that if your plasma gun overheats, you take the wound instead of shooting, so if i roll a 6 and a 1, no hits except to myself. 'Course, this slows it down a bit unless you have different coloured dice...and it means my plasma gunners usually die as soon as they rapid fire.

Yeah, i read the rules that way too...the guy with the plasma gun is the only one that gets hurt if it overheats.

This↑ - You have to either roll one at a time or use different dice.

Wounds from Gets Hot! do not carry over and cannot be allocated to other models in the squad.

What about Strakens plasmapistol if he got bodyguards?
Must he give his wound to the bodyguard? His 3+ save is better than the bodyguards, but I guess you don't have a choice.

Would look weird I think hehe Pistol going hot, so he throws it to his bodyguard

If I have multiple models in a squad that a using a weapon that Gets Hot!, I roll to hit for each individual model and then roll to wound all together. It allows you to see who's weapon over heats and take save accordingly.

No, Sproot, you don't have a choice.

Do re-rolls have any effect on the gets hot rule?

Yes, because the first roll never happened. If you roll a 1 on your second roll (the reroll) you will Gets Hot

You CANNOT allocate the wound away - you are breaking the GH! rule if you do.

IG-Sqroot wrote:What about Strakens plasmapistol if he got bodyguards?
Must he give his wound to the bodyguard? His 3+ save is better than the bodyguards, but I guess you don't have a choice.

Would look weird I think hehe Pistol going hot, so he throws it to his bodyguard

The "Look Out - Arghh!" rule specifically says that the wounds need to be caused by the enemy. So, it doesn't apply to things like Gets Hot or Dangerous Terrain or Perils or even your own blast weapons scattering onto your unit.

papathrax wrote: you take the wound instead of shooting, so if i roll a 6 and a 1, no hits except to myself.

I coud be wrong but the way I and everyone I play with would say if I roll a 6 and a 1 then i take a ound on the gunner but he still scores a hit. its basically that I think is. I am firing two shots the first one goes off fine the second one blows up. If I rolled two ones I would take two wounds. As I would think the model has pulled the trigger twice without realiseing the first one as overheated and this causes thesecond one to overheat also causing the model to take 2 saves.

redkeyboard wrote:

papathrax wrote: you take the wound instead of shooting, so if i roll a 6 and a 1, no hits except to myself.

I coud be wrong but the way I and everyone I play with would say if I roll a 6 and a 1 then i take a ound on the gunner but he still scores a hit. its basically that I think is. I am firing two shots the first one goes off fine the second one blows up. If I rolled two ones I would take two wounds. As I would think the model has pulled the trigger twice without realiseing the first one as overheated and this causes thesecond one to overheat also causing the model to take 2 saves.

You are correct. For every 'one' that is rolled the firer takes a Wound. If you rolled two 'ones', then the firer takes two Wounds. If you rolled one 'one' and a hit, the firer takes one Wound and scores one hit.

If they're all shooting just one shot each (i.e. plasma guns at >12" then you don't need to use different dice at all. Just roll all three, then roll armour saves for any 1s you got and remove that many plasma gun models.
Obviously if you're rapid firing you need to roll two at a time, for each dude.

Joey wrote:If they're all shooting just one shot each (i.e. plasma guns at >12" then you don't need to use different dice at all. Just roll all three, then roll armour saves for any 1s you got and remove that many plasma gun models.
Obviously if you're rapid firing you need to roll two at a time, for each dude.

You technically still need to use different dice as the model that rolls the one must take the wound. This could affect the game as it could leave your unit too far away to be assaulted. Although i've rairly seen this enforced in friendly games and i don't to tournys.

Actually...

I still don't see the proof that you have to remove exactly the same model that took the wound, because the rules for removing casualties state, that you always have to remove an identical model as a casualty for each unsaved wound. That would mean, you would have to roll separately because you have to keep the wounds allocated to the firing and overheating model, but practical it would make no difference, because gets hot does not refer to a different kind of removing casualties (which has nothing to do with wound allocation, just to make that clear... ). You can/must still remove any identical model for each failed save.

My problem is: "gets a wound" or "suffers a wound" does not mean "loses a Wound". It means "a wound is allocated to it". So gets hot only makes you skip a "to wound"-roll and wound allocation. Saves are still made normally as stated in the gets hot rule. And saves are made only in two different ways:

1. If all models are identical (i.e. 3 plasma guns on their own): all in one go -> freedom concerning removal of casualties within the squad
2. If some models are different (i.e. one plasmapistol 2 plasmaguns one combiplasma or as well plasmaguns in a healthy squad): every different group of identical models make their saves separately and casualties have to be taken amongst each group. so if the combiplasma in example 1 rolls two 1s, you cant remove a plasmagun or a plasmapistol. Or if a plasmagun from example 2 rolls one or more 1s you cant remove a guy without plasmagun.

What identical in gaming terms means is of course also explained and does not refer to the gets hot rule.

I would be glad, if you could clarify that. It would be even nicer if that clarification would go beyond "only the MODEL is wounded so shut up", which neither clarifies anything nor does it help. It is just an unnecessary expression of a mixture of insult and ignorance.

Maybe you have some quotes for me how you intend to make your saves or remove casualties different from the standard procedure:

How? (with some reference to the rulebook)
Why? (also with reference)

The same also applies of course to dangerous terrain tests even after the faq which is unfortunately very unprecise.

Thank you very much in advance.

-Nazdreg- wrote:
I still don't see the proof that you have to remove exactly the same model that took the wound, because the rules for removing casualties state, that you always have to remove an identical model as a casualty for each unsaved wound.
What identical in gaming terms means is of course also explained and does not refer to the gets hot rule.

There have been at least a couple of different threads arguing your points and questions. It is true that what is explained as identical in gaming terms does not mention the Gets Hot! rule. It doesn't have to. Quite the opposite. The Gets Hot! rule would have to mention that the wounds from Gets Hot! are (or may be) allocated exactly wounds from shooting. This, in fact, is what is stated in allocating wounds from assault.

-Nazdreg- wrote:
I would be glad, if you could clarify that. It would be even nicer if that clarification would go beyond "only the MODEL is wounded so shut up", which neither clarifies anything nor does it help. It is just an unnecessary expression of a mixture of insult and ignorance.

Okay, here's a clarification. First, look at page 27 of the main rulebook, right hand column under Additional Characteristics. You'll notice the first sentences say, "In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast'."

So here we see 2 important notes. First that the additional characteristics are defined in the weapon's profile and second that this is where a 'gets hot!' weapon is specifically mentioned.

Now if you look at page 31 where 'Gets Hot!' weapons are listed, you can see the additional characteristics of the weapon. One of these noted characteristics is that, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound...". Nowhere does it say that the wound may be allocated as normal, or that the wound may be allocated to similar models, or to identical models or even that the wound may be allocated the same as wounds from shooting or from enemy units firing. Therefore, as the rule states, "...the firing model..." is the one that suffers the wound.

-Nazdreg- wrote:
Maybe you have some quotes for me how you intend to make your saves or remove casualties different from the standard procedure:

How? (with some reference to the rulebook)
Why? (also with reference)

The saves are the same as the standard procedure, again as per rule. Still in the same rule as above, still the same quote, but at the end of the sentence, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)." Here the characteristic of the weapon says that normal saves apply, so if the firing model takes a wound, it can apply armor or invulnerable saves as normal.

-Nazdreg- wrote:
The same also applies of course to dangerous terrain tests even after the faq which is unfortunately very unprecise.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what is imprecise about it.

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.

The FAQ clearly states you don't allocate the wound the same as for shooting attacks. That means that you cannot place the wound on an identical model, because that is how you allocate a wound from a shooting attack.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Thank you very much in advance.

You're welcome, hope this all helps.

OK this is quite about the same in a courteous form. Thank you for your kindness.

There have been at least a couple of different threads arguing your points and questions.

I know about that. I know that the common way to play it is not the way I would do. But the only argument I can see is in my opinion RAI. I do believe GW wanted it the way you describe it. However I can't see a written base for the theory that only the wounded model can take the save.

And as well your argumentation does not fit into my question in my opinion.

What I am talking about is, that the procedure of allocating wounds and the procedure of taking saving throws which leads to removing casualties are two completely different things.

So even if I have a determined wound allocation (as I do if we talk about gets hot, I don't question this with a single word), only just before taking saving throws the groups of identical models become relevant. They are not when you allocate wounds.

So we have the situation: You allocate the wounds as gets hot dictates (only the firing model), after that, normal saves apply. This indicates, that taking saving throws should be made exactly as if the unit were shot at and you would have allocated the wounds to the specific models you now had to allocate them to due to gets hot. (damn sentence, germans like to have them long, I apologise...).

Now if you look at page 31 where 'Gets Hot!' weapons are listed, you can see the additional characteristics of the weapon. One of these noted characteristics is that, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound...". Nowhere does it say that the wound may be allocated as normal, or that the wound may be allocated to similar models, or to identical models or even that the wound may be allocated the same as wounds from shooting or from enemy units firing. Therefore, as the rule states, "...the firing model..." is the one that suffers the wound.

I did not question this with a single word. In my given procedure the wounds are in fact taken by the respective firing models.

if the firing model takes a wound, it can apply armor or invulnerable saves as normal.

Now we get into it. At which point in the rulebook can a specific model take a save from a wound allocated to it without the permission to remove another identical model during the normal procedure of taking saving throws? Again the only two ways I see written in the rulebook, are the two I already mentioned. A reference for you: page 20 "Taking saving throws" second paragraph for units consisting of identical models, page 25 "taking saving throws" first and second paragraph for units consisting of different models or "complex units".

Is there a reference on how you take saving throws on individual models that do not stand out in gaming terms?

In addition I have to refer to page 24 "remove casualties" first paragraph, first sentence this is also very important, because it states: For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Looking further down the paragraph again it is described how remove casualties work and that you are free to remove between identical models and that you even have to remove one for each unsaved wound.

@dangerous terrain tests

The FAQ clearly states you don't allocate the wound the same as for shooting attacks. That means that you cannot place the wound on an identical model, because that is how you allocate a wound from a shooting attack.

Again, wound allocation has nothing to do with groups of identical models in my opinion. They start to get relevant during the process of taking saving throws. This is the misunderstanding I try to get out of the way, because it is the only thing that is between us at the moment.

-Nazdreg- wrote: Now we get into it. At which point in the rulebook can a specific model take a save from a wound allocated to it without the permission to remove another identical model during the normal procedure of taking saving throws? Again the only two ways I see written in the rulebook, are the two I already mentioned. A reference for you: page 20 "Taking saving throws" second paragraph for units consisting of identical models, page 25 "taking saving throws" first and second paragraph for units consisting of different models or "complex units".

Is there a reference on how you take saving throws on individual models that do not stand out in gaming terms?

Absloutely, and that is the first paragraph on page 20. "Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw."

This is why, if a particular model takes a wound from a dangerous terrain test or from a 1 on gets hot!, the model, that model, is allowed to make a saving throw.

-Nazdreg- wrote:In addition I have to refer to page 24 "remove casualties" first paragraph, first sentence this is also very important, because it states: For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Looking further down the paragraph again it is described how remove casualties work and that you are free to remove between identical models and that you even have to remove one for each unsaved wound.

Ah, yes, but continue on to the second paragraph. it starts with, "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."

When a model fails a dangerous terrain test, where are "...all the firers."? There aren't any, so you can't use this mechanic to remove casualties, it only applies to wounds that a target unit takes from a firing unit. It is the same for wounds from gets hot! in that the wound is not inflicted by enemy fire, but instead, if you will, by 'friendly fire'. It is the special attribute or characteristic of the gets hot! weapon and rule that causes the wound on "...the firing model".

-Nazdreg- wrote:I still don't see the proof that you have to remove exactly the same model that took the wound, because the rules for removing casualties state, that you always have to remove an identical model as a casualty for each unsaved wound. That would mean, you would have to roll separately because you have to keep the wounds allocated to the firing and overheating model, but practical it would make no difference, because gets hot does not refer to a different kind of removing casualties (which has nothing to do with wound allocation, just to make that clear... ). You can/must still remove any identical model for each failed save.

Yes, this is correct. If A, B, and C rapidfire at X, and A rolls (failing armor saves), you need to remove two plasma gunners.

Nobody plays it this way, so it's pointless to argue.

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.

This is, as usual, a clear answer from the FAQ that doesn't actually answer the question. Or, more precisely, it answers the question and then contradicts that answer.

GW doesn't know how to play their own game.

The better answer would be: "No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain must take a test. Only models that failed that test may be removed from play or, in the case of multi-wound models, suffer a wound. These wounds must be tracked separately for each multi-wound model."

Actually, I'm going to reverse my long-standing belief.

Get's Hot does cause a wound to a specific model. The wound cannot be allocated as per normal allocation rules. However, during the remove casualties step, you are free to remove a model from any member of that wound group.

So, if two plasma gunners fire 2 shots each. One gunner hits with both, but the other rolls snake eyes, they can both be killed if you fail 2 armor saves.

This is not how I've played it before, but it's how the rules do actually read...

Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw.

Where do you imply that? so "testing to see whether my troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw" automatically implies that if I have a wound allocated to a model that model must die and no one else can if also a second wound is allocated to it? Extremely weird idea. And to what do you refer with the word "troops"? It is not connected with any procedure in the RB. And "by making a saving throw" again clearly refers to the two given possible procedures.

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

This is not the sentence I was refering to. I was refering to the last sentence of the paragraph above. Your quote does also refer to hits and wounds. So it is a more general statement, not as specific as the sentence above. The second part are just examples where you make the implication saving throws are only taken against shooting. That is why Get's hot has to state that normal saves apply because otherwise the wound could not be saved at all.

Also if you question this statement in relationship with dangerous terrain tests, I have to assume that no model at all can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty because no model is out of range, because there is no range? This quote is extremely out of context imho.

@biccat and Grakmar:

You got it.

@Grakmar

Very precise summary.

@biccat

Nobody plays it this way, so it's pointless to argue.

Which way do you mean?
unfortunately here in germany the so called GRC (german rules council) created a modelwise approach to taking saving throws using no arguments at all. So here I will have to play it like that (removing only 1 plasmagun even with a double 1). And in dakka as well as in this thread the consensus was the same.

@dangerous terrain:

Exactly that is the answer I would like to see in the FAQ. Precise and clear.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Nobody plays it this way, so it's pointless to argue.

Which way do you mean?
unfortunately here in germany the so called GRC (german rules council) created a modelwise approach to taking saving throws using no arguments at all. So here I will have to play it like that (removing only 1 plasmagun even with a double 1). And in dakka as well as in this thread the consensus was the same.

Everyone plays by the model-by-model approach. If A rolls , only A dies.

I'm not going to say that the interpretation is wrong, because that's clearly what GW intended (see the FAQ). But it's certainly at odds with a careful and literal reading of the rules.

If I had plasmaguns in my army, I would remove 2 guys (the firing model and another...). If my opponent has plasmaguns, I don't care. Because explaining the small difference is obviously not easy. And I want a game not an argueing festival.

Yep after the FAQ it seems clear what GW intended. But you know GW, they could also write "of course you have to remove a second plasmagunner. Plasma is really dangerous!"...
So you dont really know their intentions. I personally try to stick with clear RAW as long as possible.

I'm glad that you mentioned specific versus general rules. That is exactly what makes both failed dangerous terrain tests and gets hot! wounds to work the way they do.

We know from the Shooting phase section the mechanics for allocating hits and wounds throughout a unit. We also have the mechanics for applying those unsaved wounds. This is the general way to apply hits and wounds and is the same for hits and wounds in both the Shooting and Assault phases. In these, the mechanic is the same, roll to hit, roll to wound, take saving throws and then remove casulaties.

But then we get into specific exceptions. If you roll a '1' with a gets hot weapon, you take a wound. You can make a saving throw "as normal" but it specifically states "the firing model" takes the wound. The upside is that if a model with a gets hot! rolls a pair of '1's, only that firing model is removed, not any others.

It is the same with dangerous terrain tests. A model enters or moves through dangerous terrain, that model takes a test. If it fails the test, it is removed (invulnerable save can be taken though). This is a specific result of a specific situation in a specific rule.

-Nazdreg- wrote: Also if you question this statement in relationship with dangerous terrain tests, I have to assume that no model at all can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty because no model is out of range, because there is no range? This quote is extremely out of context imho.

If you move into a piece of dangerous terrain, your range to the terrain is zero, because you are in it. But this has no bearing at all because the terrrain never had to roll to hit, you moving into the terrain forces you to take a test, a pass / fail test, with the consequenes of failing being very clearly spelled out.

time wizard wrote:But then we get into specific exceptions. If you roll a '1' with a gets hot weapon, you take a wound. You can make a saving throw "as normal" but it specifically states "the firing model" takes the wound.

Agreed. The specific model that fired the weapon that got hot takes a wound. However, you do not actually have to remove the model that takes a wound. You can choose to remove any gameplay equivalent model from the unit.

The model that failed the save must "suffer the wound"

Another model suffering the wound, by being remove, contradicts this rule.

@nos

The model that failed the save must "suffer the wound"

And where is that written? In "get's hot" it isn't. Neither in the RB.

Another model suffering the wound, by being removed, contradicts this rule.

so you are removed when you suffer a wound? Bad luck for multiple wound models then... Interesting interpretation though.
Removing another model however does not contradict the rule, it only contradicts the logic of some people as well as the intention of the rule (At least I think it does).
Nevertheless RAW you have to remove a second model if you roll snake eyes. Every unsaved wound causes a removed model amongst those identical if they have 1 Wound each.

And also to you, Nos, we had this discussion earlier:

If you question that the normal rules for taking saving throws apply (which is basically what get's hot says), then give me a page in the rulebook that tells me, what I have to do instead. If the basic rules can't be used for some reason, there has to be an alternative procedure.

At the moment saves are never ever taken by individual models that have identical comrades. This is a damn fact. If not, prove me wrong and give me the page.

My main problem is: There is no RB-procedure about "suffering a wound". So we have to guess a little bit. If saves can be taken after the firing model "suffered a wound", this can only mean, that "suffering a wound" is another word for "a wound is allocated to the firing model". Because you always take saving throws against wounds allocated to specific models btw.

@time wizard

We know from the Shooting phase section the mechanics for allocating hits and wounds throughout a unit. We also have the mechanics for applying those unsaved wounds.

Now you are imprecise. You never allocate hits and allocated wounds are never unsaved wounds. This is the problem, we have to be very true to the exact wording if we want to have this clear.

But then we get into specific exceptions. If you roll a '1' with a gets hot weapon, you take a wound. You can make a saving throw "as normal" but it specifically states "the firing model" takes the wound.

Yes. Exactly. And where is it written how you take saving throws as normal? Page 20 for units consisting of only identical models and page 25 for complex units. Is there a word about a save for an individual model in a group of identical models? No.

It is the same with dangerous terrain tests. A model enters or moves through dangerous terrain, that model takes a test. If it fails the test, it is removed (invulnerable save can be taken though)

Wow poor healthy Trygon with 6 Wounds... A 1 in dangerous terrain and he is removed. Too bad... A little precision would be nice.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@nos

The model that failed the save must "suffer the wound"

And where is that written? In "get's hot" it isn't. Neither in the RB.

P.31 left column 'Gets Hot' section, 3rd sentence- "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound."

It says it right there. So the firing model must make the save, and if he fails the firing model is removed.

Agree with Timewizard, DR, Nos. The firing model is the only one which can suffer the wound. The model moving through Dangerous Terrain is the only one which can suffer the wound.

For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound.

Yes what does that prove? Nothing. Because "suffers a wound" is not a procedure. So what can I do with this statement? I need things written in the rules what I can do. Otherwise I can do nothing. Permissive ruleset.

Now what am I supposed to do if a model "suffers a wound" (if I can not take saving throws according to the standard procedure of the rules page 20 and 25)? Its that simple question.
"The model takes a save and if failed is removed" - this procedure doesnt exist.

So we have 2 possibilities here:

1. break the get's hot rule by denying that normal saves apply and just do nothing at all or even break the rules a second time by inventing a different procedure and take individual saving throws.
2. take the saving throws with all identical models that rolled a 1 (and are therefore wounded specifically) in one batch, remove one (1 wound-) model of the owners choice per unsaved wound, as the rulebook dictates.

There is just no other method of taking saving throws, I am sorry but "the firing model suffers a wound" has no value at all due to that fact.

Of course the same applies to dangerous terrain tests. There is a hint, where you can see what GW could have intended:

page 34 moving assaulting models: "roll for difficult and dangerous terrain if necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model"

but still there is no clear text about "how" this model is killed. It could be a sergeant or another model existing only once in the squad (and is therefore the only one that can be removed). But it is still perfectly legal if it is a regular, to remove another regular instead.

Why are you removing a healthy model and leaving the wounded model on the table?

Ghaz wrote:Why are you removing a healthy model and leaving the wounded model on the table?

BRB p25 tells you how to remove models after taking "normal saves".

To clarify what Nazdreg and Grakmar are saying:

Lets say you have two identically models with weapons that have the Gets Hot rule.

They both fire and model A rolls a 1. Model B does not.

1) The wound is allocated to the model that rolled the 1. - it suffers the wound.
2) Normal saves apply, use the save of model A to see if the wound is saved.

If failed here is where BRB p 25 "Taking Savings Throws" tells you how to remove casualties for failed saves in the case of identical models.

"Casualties can be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models." So the owning player may remove A or B.

As much as I dislike it, this seems to be truly RAW.

In this case, the owning player gets to pick which of his identical plasma firing models gets removed.

"suffer a wound" tells you the end result - that only the model who Gets Hot! gets to suffer the wound that results from it.

Removing another model, or adding a wound marker to another model, means another model has "suffered a wound", breaking the rule

It isnt a procedure - its telling you the requirement when you follow the usual rules. Meaning that while normally you could remove any model similarly equipped, you no longer can.

Given that the only way to come to another conclusion is based on ignoring the Gets Hot! rule AND DT ruling, youre on very unsafe ground

"suffer a wound" tells you the end result - that only the model who Gets Hot! gets to suffer the wound that results from it.

This is your interpretation.

OK lets define a "wound". What is a wound? We have to distinguish between "wounds" and "Wounds" here.

"Wound" is a synonyme to Hitpoint and therefore "Wounds" is a profile characteristic, that can be changed by "losing Wounds" -> this is what you want "suffering a wound" to be.

"wound" is a step normally occuring in the shooting or close combat process: The result of a successful "to wound"-roll. This "wound" can normally be allocated in a certain way and results in a saving throw. -> this is what I claim "suffering a wound" to be.

I think there are no other definitions of this word in the rules. Remember that the RB clearly makes a distinction between those two words by capitalizing the first term. In "gets hot" the word isnt capitalized. So I can only conclude, that definition 2 is correct, which has to result in a saving throw procedure according to the rules. This is also supported by the gets hot rule.

Apart from that, again, Nos: Explain to me,why do you break the Gets Hot rule by denying the normal saving throw procedure? You are on a damn unsafe ground too. I dont think I ignore anything.

I cant help it, that this rule is badly written.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Apart from that, again, Nos: Explain to me,why do you break the Gets Hot rule by denying the normal saving throw procedure? You are on a damn unsafe ground too. I dont think I ignore anything.

Perhaps the idea is that you are not using it because that procedure is for dealing with wounded units.

So "normal saves apply" is to be ignored?

OK, learned that one. Rule wording seems to be irrelevant...

Even then, we have a permissive ruleset. Where is written, what I do instead? Give me a page.

You're on unsafe ground because you are ignoring the FAQ for DT, which has the exact same idea behind it.

Causing a model to suffer the effects of GH! who did not roll GH! is ignoring the "suffer the wound" requirement

-Nazdreg- wrote:So "normal saves apply" is to be ignored?

OK, learned that one. Rule wording seems to be irrelevant...

Even then, we have a permissive ruleset. Where is written, what I do instead? Give me a page.

No, that model gets its normal saves.

How is that confusing?

editing to add:
I get most of what you are saying, but I really do not see taking a save as confusing anything.

Maybe i'm dumbing this down but gets hot seems pretty simple.

Example - unit of CSM with 2 plasma guns shooting at max range of 24"


Roll to hit (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh!
Roll 2 Armour saves (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh again!
Remove 2 members of the offending unit (you would think it would be the plasma guys but since the owning player can choose i will take 2 stadard marines)

Done.

Praxiss wrote:Maybe i'm dumbing this down but gets hot seems pretty simple.

Example - unit of CSM with 2 plasma guns shooting at max range of 24"


Roll to hit (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh!
Roll 2 Armour saves (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh again!
Remove 2 members of the offending unit (you would think it would be the plasma guys but since the owning player can choose i will take 2 stadard marines)

Done.

False.

The owning player can't choose - even if you subscribe to the idea that the wounds get allocated, the Plasma gunners took the wounds, so you can only allocate to Plasma gunners.
And the wounds don't go to the unit - which is where you're given permission to allocate - they're suffered by the gunner who rolled a 1.

Fair enough, makes more sense that way. Wound allocation always seems a little dodgy to me anyway.

If a shell lands on a unit, surely the models under the marker shoudl be the ones removed? Anyway - that's for a different thread.

rigeld2 wrote:The owning player can't choose - even if you subscribe to the idea that the wounds get allocated, the Plasma gunners took the wounds, so you can only allocate to Plasma gunners.
And the wounds don't go to the unit - which is where you're given permission to allocate - they're suffered by the gunner who rolled a 1.

But the wounds don't get allocated. You're not allowed to allocate wounds from a Gets Hot!, just as you're not allowed to allocate wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests.

That doesn't, however, address removing casualties.

No, that model gets its normal saves.

How is that confusing?

It is not confusing. It is just not how saves are done in general. The rulebook should have a section about saving throws for model based wounds and I would be with you. But unfortunately the model based wounds are nevertheless summed up and rolled for together.
So it would be inventing a rule if you are strict.
Again in a normal game, I dont care, but this is YMDC famous for exact RAW. And then I do care.

@Nos

You're on unsafe ground because you are ignoring the FAQ for DT, which has the exact same idea behind it.

Yes, I do ignore the idea behind it. That is true. But rules are not used based on the "idea how it should work", they are used based on what is actually written without second thoughts and without interpretation.

Causing a model to suffer the effects of GH! who did not roll GH! is ignoring the "suffer the wound" requirement

What is the effect of GH? A model suffering a wound. Did I ignore that? No.
What is "suffering a wound"? Put a wound on that model. Not anything more.
What is the next step, that you constantly ignore and also ignore to refer to: Taking saving throws. Voilà...

Is it pride or why are you RAW-fanatic insisting on a subjective idea?

-Nazdreg- wrote:

No, that model gets its normal saves.

How is that confusing?

It is not confusing. It is just not how saves are done in general. The rulebook should have a section about saving throws for model based wounds and I would be with you. But unfortunately the model based wounds are nevertheless summed up and rolled for together.
So it would be inventing a rule if you are strict.
Again in a normal game, I dont care, but this is YMDC famous for exact RAW. And then I do care.

Makes some sense, I guess, but in general units are wounded and that is dealt with by wounding a model.

I have always read this as simply going bout it in the other order.

Here's something. Flash Gits. They each have 2 Wounds, but are all equipped identically. They can have Gets Hot! guns that are Assault 2.

You must roll each Git seperately. Say you have 3. One rolls a and a , one rolls two s, one rolls a :five: and a . Now, that's enough potential wounds to remove one and half Gits, if all the armour saves are failed. BUT! it could easily be that one of them fails both, and one of them saves it's one, or that Blagh.

Forget the above, it's a bad example. Here's a better one.

4 Gits, all four roll a single and a single Hit. Now, if you were able to allocate, and you failed all the tests, you'd lose 2 Gits. However, because Gets Hot! is model specific, you will never lose any of the Gits in this situation, because each will at most take a single Wound.

4 Gits, all four roll a single 1 and a single Hit. Now, if you were able to allocate, and you failed all the tests, you'd lose 2 Gits. However, because Gets Hot! is model specific, you will never lose any of the Gits in this situation, because each will at most take a single Wound.

This also isnt true because it would break the rule for removing whole models. You indeed lose 2 Gitz (given that they are identical of course).

@Kirsanth

in general units are wounded and that is dealt with by wounding a model.

Yes the section for taking saving throws of course refers to units. But then I need another RB section dealing with saving throws for wounds on models if I want to distinguish. And there is none. So I have to stick to the unit based section for all saving throws.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Yes the section for taking saving throws of course refers to units. But then I need another RB section dealing with saving throws for wounds on models if I want to distinguish. And there is none. So I have to stick to the unit based section for all saving throws.

What we've come to is the fact that this is a hole in the rules. There is no RAW to play this because if the model that rolls a one does not suffer a wound (given saves don't work) you've broken the Gets Hot! rule.
If you don't follow wound allocation procedures, and remove-whole-model procedures, you've broken those rules.

The easiest way to handle it is by handling it the way Dangerous Terrain tests are handled.
There, done - no confusion.

@rigeld

There is no RAW to play this because if the model that rolls a one does not suffer a wound (given saves don't work) you've broken the Gets Hot! rule.

But why is "suffering a wound" identical to "losing a Wound"? This simply does not get into my head. The only time a "wound" is mentioned is, when a roll "to wound" is successful.
So a "wound" is only a possible, not an actual "unsaved wound" and "suffering a wound" only refers to the step before taking saving throws.

I would not take "wound" literally (like damage or Hitpoint (which is in Fact Wound and not wound)), you have to stick to the terms the rules use.

Also I am not tired to quote "removing casualties" which seems to deal with wounded models, because it says p24: "For every model that failed its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound"
In my opinion, this is the way to go. You can even make saving throws for the specific model (although this doesnt exist) and the unit still suffers the unsaved wound after the model suffered the wound.

Where is the problem? Imho thats RAW.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Where is the problem? Imho thats RAW.

"Suffering the wound" must mean to actually take the wound - IE subtract one from that models profile.
Dangerous Terrain tests use the exact same wording - "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound" (BRB page 14).

Dangerous Terrain and Gets Hot! both lie outside the rules - they cause wounds to models instead of to units. Allocating them to units breaks the rules.

"Suffering the wound" must mean to actually take the wound - IE subtract one from that models profile.

Wait... When you take a wound, you subtract a wound? If you have 2 apples and you take an apple, then you get one apple removed? Is that how English works?

Again the profile characteristic is Wounds. Capital letter at the beginning. Throughout the rulebook. Therefore on purpose.
the allocated thing that can be saved is called wound. Not a capital letter at the beginning.

These are two completely different things.

Allocating them to units breaks the rules.

I allocate the wound to the model inside the unit. What is the problem? And again page 24 refers to wounded models. There indeed is a transfer from a model being wounded to the unit suffering the unsaved wound. This is in the RB, you can read or ignore it, but then you ignore the rules.

Even the allocation process refers to models, as you allocate your wounds from shooting to specific models. You are not permitted to allocate a second wound to a specific model before you have allocated a wound to each model in the squad. Same applies to assaults.

Gets Hot and Dangerous Terrain are different in the following way:

They allocate the wound on the firing model or the model that failed the test.

But this is the same wound as a wound from shooting or assault that has been allocated quite freely.

-Nazdreg- wrote:But this is the same wound as a wound from shooting or assault that has been allocated quite freely.

No, it's not. First of all, please stop saying that I'm ignoring the rules.
Second, Dangerous Terrain explicitly must wound the model that failed the test. You have another situation with the exact same wording and you're trying to allocate the wounds away? Are you serious?

And yes, that's how English works - context matters.
You keep referring to rules that talk about saves based on units - that's not how this rule works. It is not unit based.

rigeld, the same issue applies to dangerous terrain.

Yes, the model in question suffers the wound. But, the model that suffers a wound isn't necessarily the one that is removed as a casualty. As long as you remove a model from the unit that's identical in gaming terms, you're fulfilled every requirement.

Grakmar wrote:rigeld, the same issue applies to dangerous terrain.

Yes, the model in question suffers the wound. But, the model that suffers a wound isn't necessarily the one that is removed as a casualty. As long as you remove a model from the unit that's identical in gaming terms, you're fulfilled every requirement.

BRB FAQ page 2 wrote: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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:rigeld, the same issue applies to dangerous terrain.

Yes, the model in question suffers the wound. But, the model that suffers a wound isn't necessarily the one that is removed as a casualty. As long as you remove a model from the unit that's identical in gaming terms, you're fulfilled every requirement.

BRB FAQ page 2 wrote: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 agree with Rigeld2's interpretation. The Gets Hot is by model per the Gets Hot rule and would be allocated and resolved as he's saying.

Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

Grakmar wrote:Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

"Allocate" is a poor word to use when referring to casualties.

Grakmar wrote:Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

Then you've broken the rule - because Dangerous Terrain requires the model that failed to suffer a Wound. By making some other model suffer it, you're not adhering to the rules.

No, it's not. First of all, please stop saying that I'm ignoring the rules.

OK I will.

OK what is this wound then? Give me a page that defines the kind of "wound" you are referring to.

Second, Dangerous Terrain explicitly must wound the model that failed the test. You have another situation with the exact same wording and you're trying to allocate the wounds away? Are you serious?

No I dont allocate the wound "away". Gets Hot does not permit me to do so. The wound has to be allocated on the firing model.

You keep referring to rules that talk about saves based on units - that's not how this rule works. It is not unit based

Not only, but yes, basically you are right, I refer to rules that talks about saves based on units.
If this rule is model based, then please refer to a rule for saves based on models. We have a permissive ruleset. And specific vs general of course too, but the specification must be like a manual. And this manual is not complete as there is no way to deal with those wounds if they are different. So using unit based rules is in my opinion better than inventing model based ones. Especially as it is not clearly said that Gets Hot has to be treated as a model based rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

Then you've broken the rule - because Dangerous Terrain requires the model that failed to suffer a Wound. By making some other model suffer it, you're not adhering to the rules.

Just because a model suffers a wound doesn't mean he actually dies. His identical friend can die.

This is just another gameplay abstraction. Just like a model standing out in the open getting shot can cause all his friends who are in complete hiding to die while he remains unharmed, a model's weapon overheating or falling into a lava flow means that he could be totally fine but his friend who didn't get hurt dies.

-Nazdreg- wrote:If this rule is model based, then please refer to a rule for saves based on models.

There isn't one. That's my point.
The rule is model based - read the rule. The model suffers a wound.

Also - the Dangerous Terrain FAQ clarifies Wound, not wound. Interesting, aint it?

The problem is that the FAQ is misread.

Units get a wound when a model in it fails a save, in most cases, via Remove Casualties.

In these cases, the model suffers the wound - RAW and FAQ.

So in a simple example:

Unit of 5 with 2 plasma guns (all members have a single Wound).
One Plasma gun rolls double one (armour saves are taken and both failed)

The current debate is that:

a). One plasma gunner is removed
b). Two plasma gunners are removed
c). Members of the squad without plasma guns are removed

That about right? Personaly I've been playing with b). as my interpretation.

Yep, that is the debate.

And, as per the requirement in GH!, the FAQ ruling for DT, the answer is a)

c). is not the debate

GH and Dangerous Terrain requirements forbid that.

If I have to put the wound on the firing model/the model failing the test, I cannot remove a model different in gaming terms.

and b.) is the correct answer, due to no alternative concerning saving throws.

@Kirsanth

Units get a wound when a model in it fails a save, in most cases, via Remove Casualties.

In these cases, the model suffers the wound

And how do you get to the conclusion, that you remove a casualty at all?
Because when you remove casualties, you do it as the rules say. Everything else is invented.
And the correct wording is: For every MODEL that failed ITS save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... Not the units save, but the models own save. How do you interpret a unit based rule there?

You can draw a beautiful reference from the Gets Hot rule to that line in the book.

1. The firing model suffers a wound.
2. The firing model makes its save (although the rules dont cover that step)
3. The firing model fails its save (Attention: go to page 24 for every model that fails its save...)
4. The unit suffers an unsaved wound and as described in the whole section, casualties can be (and must be) taken freely amongst those identical.

So far I've been using b).

Otherwise every roll to hit with a plasma gun would have to be done separately. A royal pain if you have many in a unit.

The example of ten Ork Flashgitz with blasta upgrade, rolling to hit for each individual Ork would really slow the game down.

-Nazdreg- wrote:And the correct wording is: For every MODEL that failed ITS save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound...

How do you interpret a unit based rule there?

The bold part of your quote is my answer.

The rules in question say the model suffers the wound if it fails.

rigeld2 wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:If this rule is model based, then please refer to a rule for saves based on models.

There isn't one. That's my point.
The rule is model based - read the rule. The model suffers a wound.

Also - the Dangerous Terrain FAQ clarifies Wound, not wound. Interesting, aint it?

In case it got missed.

There are no rules covering this. Therefore we look at the next closest thing - a rule with the exact same wording, except it denies saves.
Oh look - you are forbidden from using the shooting rules to allocate wounds.

Therefore a) above is the right answer. Yes, if you have a ton of plasma guns it can slow the game down.
That doesn't mean it's the wrong answer.

Oh look - you are forbidden from using the shooting rules to allocate wounds.

Yes I am and I always was. I never denied that.

Also - the Dangerous Terrain FAQ clarifies Wound, not wound. Interesting, aint it?

The Wounds part indeed is interesting, because Wounds are never allocated, I admit, I didnt read it originally (our german translation is a bit imprecise), it was always written with a "w" if quoted.
That makes me change my opinion about dangerous terrain. It is clear, that "wound" isnt meant there. So it is indeed answered correctly. Although there is no reference to invulnerable saves. Do I have to conclude that you cant take any saves against Dangerous Terrain failure? Because I have never taken a save after taking a Wound. This is against everything...

But gets hot still refers to "wounds". And the reference to saving throws is also clear. That makes the wording different.

It's Model by Model.

And I quote:

pg 31 of the Mini Rulebook:

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


Nothing about units, nothing about allocation. If a model rolls a 1, it suffers a wound that it can take an armour save against.

So sorry, Guard players (and other Flash Git users). You're gonna have to start rolling each model seperately.

Anvildude wrote:It's Model by Model.

And I quote:

pg 31 of the Mini Rulebook:

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


Nothing about units, nothing about allocation. If a model rolls a 1, it suffers a wound that it can take an armour save against.

So sorry, Guard players (and other Flash Git users). You're gonna have to start rolling each model seperately.

Its the section on Normal Saves that indicates you may decide which model to remove. That is how failed saves are normally done. In the order of events described in the BRB, you put the wound on the model, take its saves, and then according to the "normal saves" rule you choose which model you want to remove. This is where the confusion lies and it appears you may remove any of the "indentical models" in the unit.

Not quite sure how this isn't clearly shown in the BRB.

Roll separately or with a different color of dice. Any ones will result in Gets Hot! being triggered...

Pretty simple...

rigeld2 wrote:There are no rules covering this. Therefore we look at the next closest thing - a rule with the exact same wording, except it denies saves.
Oh look - you are forbidden from using the shooting rules to allocate wounds.

Therefore a) above is the right answer. Yes, if you have a ton of plasma guns it can slow the game down.
That doesn't mean it's the wrong answer.

Yes, you are forbidden from using the shooting rules to allocate wounds. That means you can't put a Get's Hot wound on a different model.

But, the rulebook and the FAQ does nothing to override the Remove Casualties instructions that have you take Casualties from anyone in the wound group.



I think we're going around in circles here. Can someone clearly explain why Dangerous Terrain or Get's Hot requires you to have the model in question be the Casualty and not just the model that is Wounded?

Grakmar wrote:But, the rulebook and the FAQ does nothing to override the Remove Casualties instructions that have you take Casualties from anyone in the wound group.

You're still putting the wound on the unit. The rule is model based.

Grakmar wrote: But, the rulebook and the FAQ does nothing to override the Remove Casualties instructions that have you take Casualties from anyone in the wound group.

Using those rules it would have to be an identical model removed (same profile, same equipment), so if a plasma gunner suffers the result, a plasma gunner must be removed (and not someone in the unit without a plasma gun).

Because it's by model. Not by unit. When firing Gets Hot! weapons, they're basically little Units of 1.

Look, are people arguing this to be clever, or because they think it'll give some sort of advantage? Because the advantage lies in rolling for individual models. That way, if a single model rolls 2 s, only one of them dies.

The rule states "The Model" takes a wound. Then you can take Normal Saves. I doubt Normal Saves have anything to do with Casualties. In fact, there is no "Normal Saves" section. That pair of words simply means that you can take Armour or Invulnerable saves against the wound/s.

Anvildude wrote:Because it's by model. Not by unit. When firing Gets Hot! weapons, they're basically little Units of 1.

Look, are people arguing this to be clever, or because they think it'll give some sort of advantage? Because the advantage lies in rolling for individual models. That way, if a single model rolls 2 s, only one of them dies.

The rule states "The Model" takes a wound. Then you can take Normal Saves. I doubt Normal Saves have anything to do with Casualties. In fact, there is no "Normal Saves" section. That pair of words simply means that you can take Armour or Invulnerable saves against the wound/s.

The tenets of this forum are to argue what is written in the rules.

In this case, the section on Saves tells you how to roll on them. It also tells you how to remove casualties.

If you can find a different section that tells you how to remove casualties from failed saves I for one would like to see it. As it stands, the section on saves lets you pick from identical models.

Grakmar wrote:I think we're going around in circles here. Can someone clearly explain why Dangerous Terrain or Get's Hot requires you to have the model in question be the Casualty and not just the model that is Wounded?

Because on page 27, the rules for weapons show their characteristics; range, strength, AP, type and "Additional Characteristics" (qv.) which says, "...a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work."

Characteristics like; shooting with rapid fire weapons means you can't assault, template weapons ignore cover saves, a unit can't move and fire heavey weapons, and this one from gets hot!, "For each result ot a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)."

It doesn't say that the wound can be allocated, placed or suffered by an identical model, or one armed the same, or even that the wound is allocated to the unit like a shooting attack. The additional characteristic of the weapon includes the sentence that defines how the weapon works.

And in the case of gets hot! weapons, the way it works is that if the firing model rolls a 1, it suffers a wound. If it rolls two 1s, the firing model suffers 2 wounds. If the firing model only has 1 Wound on its profile, it suffers the wounds and is removed. This of course is providing the model fails any applicable saving throw it might be able to make.

Nemesor Dave wrote:In this case, the section on Saves tells you how to roll on them. It also tells you how to remove casualties.

If you can find a different section that tells you how to remove casualties from failed saves I for one would like to see it. As it stands, the section on saves lets you pick from identical models.

There isn't one. The section on saves deals with wounds caused to a unit. Gets Hot! causes wounds to a model.

There are no rules governing this.

grendel083 wrote:So far I've been using b).

Otherwise every roll to hit with a plasma gun would have to be done separately. A royal pain if you have many in a unit.

The example of ten Ork Flashgitz with blasta upgrade, rolling to hit for each individual Ork would really slow the game down.

Unfortunately, the slower way is exactly how you're supposed to do it.

Gets Hot, by rule, is resolved by model.

This debate has gotten silly, IMHO.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:In this case, the section on Saves tells you how to roll on them. It also tells you how to remove casualties.

If you can find a different section that tells you how to remove casualties from failed saves I for one would like to see it. As it stands, the section on saves lets you pick from identical models.

There isn't one. The section on saves deals with wounds caused to a unit. Gets Hot! causes wounds to a model.

There are no rules governing this.

Once you allocate wounds as the first step, you are applying wounds to models. This is no different.

I'm not saying you allocate the wound. The wound HAS to go on the firing model.

But, re-read the section on Remove Casualties (p24) and Taking Saves in the Complex Unit section (p25).

BGB wrote:Having allocated the wounds, meaning putting them all on the guy that had Gets Hot all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms meaning ALL of the plasma gunners, 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. meaning you can remove any of the plasma gunners, not just the one that had Gets Hot

(My comments in red)

As much as I would like to say it is applied to the model that rolled the 1, I cannot find any reason the owning player doesn't get to choose from 'identical models'.

Grakmar wrote:Taking Saves in the Complex Unit section (p25).

Gets Hot! is a wound on the model. It is not a wound on the unit that gets auto-allocated to the model.
Therefore you can't use unit based rules for this.

Why does no one care about the Dangerous Terrain ruling - or are you all asserting that you remove whole models there as well?

rigeld2 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Taking Saves in the Complex Unit section (p25).

Gets Hot! is a wound on the model. It is not a wound on the unit that gets auto-allocated to the model.
Therefore you can't use unit based rules for this.

Why does no one care about the Dangerous Terrain ruling - or are you all asserting that you remove whole models there as well?

I am asserting that Dangerous Terrain works in the same way as Gets Hot. The individual model that rolled poorly takes the Wound, but he is not necessarily the Casualty. Any model in the unit that is identical in gaming terms can be the Casualty.

I think I understand Grakmar's argument. He's saying that (for single wound models) A and B are identical models in all respects. They both fire their plasma guns. "A" rolls two 1's (and fails 1 save). B rolls two 6's. One of the models suffer a wound, however, since they are identical, either A or B can be removed.

rigeld2 wrote:Why does no one care about the Dangerous Terrain ruling - or are you all asserting that you remove whole models there as well?

Because the dangerous terrain rule doesn't say to remove models, it says that models who fail their test are wounded, but take saves as normally.

Nobody disputes this.

The dispute lies in what happens after you fail an armor save. The rules are clear: for each model that failed its armor save, the unit suffers 1 wound. For each wound in a unit of single-wound models, you remove 1 identical model.

There is no other way to deal with failed armor saves.

time wizard wrote:And in the case of gets hot! weapons, the way it works is that if the firing model rolls a 1, it suffers a wound. If it rolls two 1s, the firing model suffers 2 wounds. If the firing model only has 1 Wound on its profile, it suffers the wounds and is removed. This of course is providing the model fails any applicable saving throw it might be able to make.

What rule are you using to remove models who fail their saving throw?

I would like to point out page 25, BRB, under "Taking Saving Throws", second paragraph,
"Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that
stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different
models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific
model must be removed..."

Isn't a model that rolls a 'one' to hit with a Gets Hot weapon or fails it's Dangerous Terrain test now stand out in gaming terms? I think it does. It is subject to a special rule that the rest of the unit is not.

Isn't a model that rolls a 'one' to hit with a Gets Hot weapon or fails it's Dangerous Terrain test now stand out in gaming terms? I think it does. It is subject to a special rule that the rest of the unit is not.

Nope, because the model's special rules are taken into account, not the SR of the weapon. So the model has still the same weapon, SR, profile and wargear.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Nope, because the model's special rules are taken into account, not the SR of the weapon. So the model has still the same weapon, SR, profile and wargear.

Of course they are different in gaming terms. Only the models that rolled a 'one' can be subject to the rule (Dangerous Terrain or Gets Hot). That makes them different.

Of course they are different in gaming terms.

No they are not according to the rules. The rules have a clear definition what "identical in gaming terms" means. p25 complex units first paragraph. Unfortunately being subject to the gets hot rule is not part of the definition.

-Nazdreg- wrote:No they are not according to the rules. The rules have a clear definition what "identical in gaming terms" means. p25 complex units first paragraph. Unfortunately being subject to the gets hot rule is not part of the definition.

Gets Hot is an additional characteristic of a weapon (as defined on page 29), and weapons are part of the definition of "identical in gaming terms" (which is like you said, defined on page 25). So, Gets Hot must be taken into account when determining if models are "identical in gaming terms".

ToBeWilly wrote:Gets Hot is an additional characteristic of a weapon (as defined on page 29), and weapons are part of the definition of "identical in gaming terms" (which is like you said, defined on page 25). So, Gets Hot must be taken into account when determining if models are "identical in gaming terms".

All models with plasma guns have the "Gets Hot" special rule, so all models with plasma guns are "identical in gaming terms."

biccat wrote:

time wizard wrote:And in the case of gets hot! weapons, the way it works is that if the firing model rolls a 1, it suffers a wound. If it rolls two 1s, the firing model suffers 2 wounds. If the firing model only has 1 Wound on its profile, it suffers the wounds and is removed. This of course is providing the model fails any applicable saving throw it might be able to make.

What rule are you using to remove models who fail their saving throw?

Gee, I aplolgize here, I was thinking of models with only one wound on their profile, but I thought everyone would get the idea.

In any event, if you look at the rules for shooting, here is where you find the manner of allocating wounds throughout models in a unit.

If you look in the assault section, you find that the rules say to apply all the rules for removing shooting casualties for close combat.

So once again, neither the rule for a failed dangerous terrain test, nor the rule for a gets hot! weapon say that the rules for removing shooting casualties apply for either of those special rules. What they do say is that the model that fails the test or rolls the 1 will suffer a wound. Doesn't get much more specific than that.

time wizard wrote:So once again, neither the rule for a failed dangerous terrain test, nor the rule for a gets hot! weapon say that the rules for removing shooting casualties apply for either of those special rules. What they do say is that the model that fails the test or rolls the 1 will suffer a wound. Doesn't get much more specific than that.

What rules, other than the shooting rules, tell you how to remove models from play?

For single-wound models, for each model that fails its save the unit suffers a wound, and so you remove an identical model. The "model suffers a wound" language preempts allocation (by explaining how the wounds are allocated - to the firing model), it doesn't preempt removing casualties (there are no additional rules to tell you how to remove a model that fails its "Gets Hot" save, so you have to go back to the default rule).

If a unit of 2-wound models move through Dangerous Terrain and 4 fail their saves, do you track wounds individually or remove 2 models?

biccat wrote:All models with plasma guns have the "Gets Hot" special rule, so all models with plasma guns are "identical in gaming terms."

Only the models that roll a 'one' on their To Hit roll are effected by it. So, they are affected my a rule the others are not, which now makes them not "identical in gaming terms".

biccat wrote:If a unit of 2-wound models move through Dangerous Terrain and 4 fail their saves, do you track wounds individually or remove 2 models?

You track the wounds individually.

Each model that fails the dangerous terrain test suffers a (1) wound.

Only the models that roll a 'one' on their To Hit roll are effected by it. So, they are affected my a rule the others are not, which now makes them not "identical in gaming terms".

A plasmagun that gets hot is still the same plasmagun as it was before it got hot. The weapon is "plasmagun". The definition talks about the weapon, the special rules of the model, the profile of characteristics and the wargear.

Does the model have a different weapon? No. Does the model have different special rules? No. Does the model have a different profile? No. Does it have different wargear? No.

So where is the difference according to the given definition?

They are different, indeed. But so is the tyranid warrior that lost a wound to the healthy tyranid warrior. Still they are treated identical in gaming terms according to the rules.

@dangerous terrain

I have changed my opinion here. But am I the only one who is reading, that you are not longer permitted to have a saving throw at all against dangerous terrain (which would be consistent, because the rules for taking saving throws are not taken into account then and therefore we have indeed a different procedure, however still lacking of an alternative for removing casualties...)?

Because the FAQ doesnt refer to saving throws and talks about suffering (losing) Wounds. This is the last step in the normal procedure and comes after saving throws. So according to the FAQ I am not permitted to roll any saves at all for the unit in which a model failed a dangerous terrain test.

@Gets Hot

I honour your stubbornness.

BTW. a little extra (using the "no rules for shooting can be used" - logic): Armour saves can only be taken against wounds caused by incoming fire. Quote page 20 Armour saves: "Roll a d6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic" Assault rules also specify that armour saves can be taken. And (watch closely) refer to Models... page 39 taking saves: "Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves to avoid becoming casualties".

So how do you think you get an armour save for a gets hot wound? Normal saves apply seems irrelevant because "normal saves" refers to shooting and armour saves specifically to wounds caused (or suffered...) by incoming fire.

-Nazdreg- wrote: @dangerous terrain

I have changed my opinion here. But am I the only one who is reading, that you are not longer permitted to have a saving throw at all against dangerous terrain (which would be consistent, because the rules for taking saving throws are not taken into account then and therefore we have indeed a different procedure, however still lacking of an alternative for removing casualties...)?

Because the FAQ doesnt refer to saving throws and talks about suffering (losing) Wounds. This is the last step in the normal procedure and comes after saving throws. So according to the FAQ I am not permitted to roll any saves at all for the unit in which a model failed a dangerous terrain test.

Okay, two good points you made here, so now to counter.

Point one that you are not allowed a save against difficult terrain. The DT rule on page 14 says that after the roll of '1', the model suffers a wound with no armour or cover save allowed.

On page 20 under Invulnerable Saves, the last sentence reads, "Even if a wound normally ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw may still be taken." So that's how you get a saving throw from a failed dangerous terrain test.

Point two about suffering wounds being the last step in the procedure and that it comes after saving throws, on page 15, "the Shooting Sequence" (qv) step 4 is roll to wound, step 5 is take saving throws. It even starts with "Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw."

So you take a dangerous terrain test, your model fails the test and "...suffers a wound...", and now, the wound that was suffered "...may be cancelled by making a saving throw." Which of course is what is meant by an "unsaved wound".

So taking a saving throw comes after suffering a wound, and is not the last step anyway. The last step is to remove casualties.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@Gets Hot

I honour your stubbornness.

If that is directed at me, thank you! I honor yours as well. I like a good, gentlemanly argument!

-Nazdreg- wrote:So how do you think you get an armour save for a gets hot wound? Normal saves apply seems irrelevant because "normal saves" refers to shooting and armour saves specifically to wounds caused (or suffered...) by incoming fire.

Again, as per page 15, "Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw." Not will be, but may be. This would be how one would take a saving throw as normal.

This would be the general rule for saving throws, that they may be taken to cancel a wound.

What types of wounds can be cancelled?

Wounds from enemy fire, wounds from close combat, wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests, wounds from gets hot! weapons, wounds from vehicles exploding and wounds from a units transport getting "Destroyed - explodes!" and both the rules for wounds from assaults and wounds from destroyed - explodes transports specify that you are to treat those wounds just like hits from shooting.

There is no such provision, restriction or specification on wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests or wounds from gets hot!, so you would have to fall back on taking a saving throw as normal, as found on page 15, and make a saving throw to see if the wound is cancelled.

And making a Saving Throw is not part of "Removing Casualties", but part of "Saving Throws".

If that is directed at me, thank you! I honor yours as well. I like a good, gentlemanly argument!

It wasnt only to you but to you as well. Thank you in return then.

Okay, two good points you made here, so now to counter.

Point one that you are not allowed a save against difficult terrain. The DT rule on page 14 says that after the roll of '1', the model suffers a wound with no armour or cover save allowed.

On page 20 under Invulnerable Saves, the last sentence reads, "Even if a wound normally ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw may still be taken." So that's how you get a saving throw from a failed dangerous terrain test.

Point two about suffering wounds being the last step in the procedure and that it comes after saving throws, on page 15, "the Shooting Sequence" (qv) step 4 is roll to wound, step 5 is take saving throws. It even starts with "Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw."

So you take a dangerous terrain test, your model fails the test and "...suffers a wound...", and now, the wound that was suffered "...may be cancelled by making a saving throw." Which of course is what is meant by an "unsaved wound".

So taking a saving throw comes after suffering a wound, and is not the last step anyway. The last step is to remove casualties.

The problem is (I know that procedure quite well by now... ), the dangerous terrain FAQ, not the rules, talk about suffering a Wound, not about suffering a wound.

1. Suffering a wound means a wound is allocated to the model, which can be saved by a saving throw in the way the rules describe it. (All in one batch, removing casualties anywhere amongst identical models)

This is not the case if we talk about dangerous terrain.

2. If I suffer a Wound, I could translate that into losing a Wound, against which no save can be attempted, because saves are done against wounds.

But if you take saves, you take them according to the rules.

@Gets hot:

What types of wounds can be cancelled?

Wounds from enemy fire, wounds from close combat, wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests, wounds from gets hot! weapons, wounds from vehicles exploding and wounds from a units transport getting "Destroyed - explodes!" and both the rules for wounds from assaults and wounds from destroyed - explodes transports specify that you are to treat those wounds just like hits from shooting.

When I talked about saving throws, some guys claimed the opposite... Interesting.

Talking about saving throws, you are correct, but armour saves are only a part of saving throws. So it can happen, that you can take a save, but not an armour save. In "Gets Hot" it is not specified, that those wounds are treated like wounds from shooting (otherwise we wouldnt have a debate here), I treat them as such because there is no other reference to the word "wound" in the rules.

So we have three possibilities here:

1. Those wounds are the same as allocated wounds from shooting: Then I can have armour saves and I make my saves for identical models in one batch. (my preferred version)

2. Those wounds are somehow special (in which way seems to be open to creativity...) then I won't have an armour save, and if you are free to invent new definitions of a "wound" then you are free to invent a model based saving procedure. But armour saves shouldnt be taken into account there.

3. Gets Hot refers to Wounds. So suffering a Wound would mean losing a Wound. Then I would claim no saves at all (which breaks the gets hot rule actually). But saving throws are not made after losing a Wound.

Another option is that the guy described as having to take the wound does so.

Another option is that the guy described as having to take the wound does so.

Well then... quite logical, isn't it?

Then he "takes the wound" and nothing happens. Also a solution, yep, I forgot, sorry.

What you describe is option 1.

Naz, as you seem to be located in Germany, I'll guess you're not a native English speaker?

IN any event, the sheer number of homophones, homonyms, synonyms and other -nyms means that often, what might be clearly written in a different language can have 2, 3, or even 4 equally valid meanings in English. For example, the way the wording for the Death Ray of the Doomscythe for the Necrons was written in the English book clearly allowed for two interpretations of the rule- one nicely balanced, and one incredibly overpowerful. However, the Spanish translation of the book clearly allowed for only one interpretation.

It's not so much that any of the opinions we have here aren't valid, it's which one is the most valid.

Naz, as you seem to be located in Germany, I'll guess you're not a native English speaker?

No I am not. Your guess was right.

IN any event, the sheer number of homophones, homonyms, synonyms and other -nyms means that often, what might be clearly written in a different language can have 2, 3, or even 4 equally valid meanings in English.

Yes of course. But in times of "loses all Wounds" vs "killed outright" (4th edition forceweapons...) and "removed as a casualty" vs. "removed from play" (JotWW) this doesn't seem to be valid. Exact wording seems to be the only relevant.

For example, the way the wording for the Death Ray of the Doomscythe for the Necrons was written in the English book clearly allowed for two interpretations of the rule

The death ray rule is indeed not very well written. We don't know which armour facing is used and we don't know anything about cover saves for vehicles. The rest is clear imho.

However, the Spanish translation of the book clearly allowed for only one interpretation.

Yes in german translation we had a similar case. But we had also awful translations. (i.e. immobilized vehicles could still pivot on the spot, passengers couldnt fire if they disembarked from a shaken transport) before an FAQ cleared almost everything up which lasted actually a long time...

So here in germany we only accept the english version in tournaments as translations are always misguiding.

It's not so much that any of the opinions we have here aren't valid, it's which one is the most valid.

What I was looking for, is a solution, that is "waterproof" (if you know what I mean?). It has to be done in that way and in no other way, so we all can play with the same assumptions.
But it doesnt seem to be a problem of the language as still the opinions stay apart even between you natives.

Concerning language and the topic:

The profile characteristic "Wounds" in german is rather similar to "Hitpoints" and the step in the shooting-process after the successful to wound roll is the exact translation of "wound". So we have a quite clear distinction here.

And the german version of the FAQ about "Dangerous Terrain" uses an even different word but very close to "wound", while "gets hot" refers to the exact same word, that is used describing a successful "to wound" roll. Thats why I was quite stunned reading that the FAQ in English indeed refers to "Wounds" which is a direct link to the characteristic.

Now I wonder if you native english speakers actually separate the two words or if you just use them as synonyme. If the latter is correct, then I wasted my efforts and the rules are less clear than I thought...

so speaking of normal saves applying, if the model is in area terrain would that include a 4+ cover save?

After reading all 4 pages, I'm thinking "B" that you could end up losing multiple models from get hot.

-Nazdreg- wrote: So we have three possibilities here:

1. Those wounds are the same as allocated wounds from shooting: Then I can have armour saves and I make my saves for identical models in one batch. (my preferred version)

Okay, but if you are going to allocate the gets hot! wound the same as wounds from shooting, then since a plasma gun is AP2, no model that rolls a '1' on a gets hot! roll would ever get an armour save.

-Nazdreg- wrote:2. Those wounds are somehow special (in which way seems to be open to creativity...) then I won't have an armour save, and if you are free to invent new definitions of a "wound" then you are free to invent a model based saving procedure. But armour saves shouldnt be taken into account there.

I don't have to invent a new definition of a "wound". It is already defined as how much damage a creature can take. A wound from rolling a '1' with a gets hot! weapon is indeed special. Not because it is a special type of 'wound' but because of the way it is inflicted and suffered according to the characteristics of the weapon itself. You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple. If you fire a rapid fire gets hot! weapons and roll two '1's, the firing model would suffer 2 wounds, and would again take saving throws for both of them. If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple. Nothing in the rule says the wounds are allocated the same as wounds from shooting so they aren't.

-Nazdreg- wrote:3. Gets Hot refers to Wounds. So suffering a Wound would mean losing a Wound. Then I would claim no saves at all (which breaks the gets hot rule actually). But saving throws are not made after losing a Wound.

I can find nothing in the rulebook about "losing a wound". I can find suffering a wound, saved wounds, unsaved wounds, wounds against which a save can't be taken, but nothing about losing a wound. Gets hot! simply says for each '1' rolled, the ffiring model suffers a wound. The rules for saving throws says if a model suffers a wound it may take a saving throw to see if it avoids the damage. That would be taking a saving throw as normal.

@sirlynchmob - Whether or not a cover save could be taken for a gets hot! wound was debated on another thread. I personally would neither take on nor allow one, but that is stricktly personal opinion. YMMV.

@time wizard

Now it is a bit absurd my friend.

Okay, but if you are going to allocate the gets hot! wound the same as wounds from shooting, then since a plasma gun is AP2, no model that rolls a '1' on a gets hot! roll would ever get an armour save.

I never said that the gets hot wound counts as a shot from the plasmagun. And again from my first post on I think, I am saying I always allocate the wound on the firing model. This will result in a circle.

It is already defined as how much damage a creature can take.

Is it? Show me the page then.

You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple. If you fire a rapid fire gets hot! weapons and roll two '1's, the firing model would suffer 2 wounds, and would again take saving throws for both of them. If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple. Nothing in the rule says the wounds are allocated the same as wounds from shooting so they aren't.

OK this is what I call inventing. And by inventing I mean personal interpretation. Lets split it apart:

You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple.

simple? Fire the weapon, roll the 1, suffer the wound. This is what gets hot precisely states. Make the saving throw: Now its interesting. To what does gets hot refer here? To the normal rules for taking saving throws. You know the rest....
If you say the model specifically makes a saving throw this is not according to the rules, because in the rules such a thing does not exist. So it is personal interpretation.

If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple.

And for that sentence I need a single proof where in the rules this can happen. Give me a quote that has this specific wording. Then I am quiet until the end of my life about the topic.

I can find nothing in the rulebook about "losing a wound". I can find suffering a wound, saved wounds, unsaved wounds, wounds against which a save can't be taken, but nothing about losing a wound. Gets hot! simply says for each '1' rolled, the ffiring model suffers a wound. The rules for saving throws says if a model suffers a wound it may take a saving throw to see if it avoids the damage. That would be taking a saving throw as normal.

This leads me to the conclusion, that you indeed do not separate between the word "Wound" and the word "wound". If that is the case, and if that is representative then I have to shut my mouth too, because then we have an extremely unclear rule. What I dont understand then, is that my interpretation is considered completely wrong.

Whether or not a cover save could be taken for a gets hot! wound was debated on another thread. I personally would neither take on nor allow one, but that is stricktly personal opinion.

Wait now its completely absurd... You get a cover save for a wound not caused by shooting, but if you take the save, you take it not according to the procedure actually described in these rules? I would call this cherry-picking...

The Cover Save thing is odd, but again, from our English viewpoint, there's actually nothing saying that's not possible.

Here's another thing that I know is a difference between Deutsch and Englisch.

The difference between "Wound" and "wound" is 0. Nothing. Nicht, nada. Null. In English the only words that are required to be capitolized are the first word of a sentence, and proper names, like Tom or Microsoft. Any other use of a capitol letter is merely for emphasis, like doch(I believe that's right).

I find it very interesting that the German translation has multiple words where the English has 'Wound' (or 'wound'). This might actually cast some light on the subject, if you could give the specifics.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

It is already defined as how much damage a creature can take.

Is it? Show me the page then.

Gladly, page 6, right hand column, paragraph 5 (qv), "WOUNDS (W) Wounds show how much damage a creature can take before it either dies or is so badly hurt it can't fight anymore."

-Nazdreg- wrote:

You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple. If you fire a rapid fire gets hot! weapons and roll two '1's, the firing model would suffer 2 wounds, and would again take saving throws for both of them. If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple. Nothing in the rule says the wounds are allocated the same as wounds from shooting so they aren't.

OK this is what I call inventing. And by inventing I mean personal interpretation.

Okay, you call it inventing, I call it following the rules.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Simple? Fire the weapon, roll the 1, suffer the wound. This is what gets hot precisely states. Make the saving throw: Now its interesting. To what does gets hot refer here? To the normal rules for taking saving throws. You know the rest....
If you say the model specifically makes a saving throw this is not according to the rules, because in the rules such a thing does not exist. So it is personal interpretation.

So a single model can never make a saving throw? Interesting interpretation.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

I can find nothing in the rulebook about "losing a wound". I can find suffering a wound, saved wounds, unsaved wounds, wounds against which a save can't be taken, but nothing about losing a wound. Gets hot! simply says for each '1' rolled, the ffiring model suffers a wound. The rules for saving throws says if a model suffers a wound it may take a saving throw to see if it avoids the damage. That would be taking a saving throw as normal.

This leads me to the conclusion, that you indeed do not separate between the word "Wound" and the word "wound". If that is the case, and if that is representative then I have to shut my mouth too, because then we have an extremely unclear rule. What I dont understand then, is that my interpretation is considered completely wrong.

Whether 'Wound' or 'wound' it makes no difference. Capitalization does not alter the fact that it is the wound characteristic.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Whether or not a cover save could be taken for a gets hot! wound was debated on another thread. I personally would neither take on nor allow one, but that is stricktly personal opinion.

Wait now its completely absurd... You get a cover save for a wound not caused by shooting, but if you take the save, you take it not according to the procedure actually described in these rules? I would call this cherry-picking...

Just wanted to highlight that part of your quote, because it is in error.

Page 14, Dangerous Terrain, last sentence, "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed..." {emphasis mine}
So here we have a wound not caused by shooting that does not allow a cover save.

Now that I provided some of the rules quotes you requested, please provide me with the quote that says wounds cause by failed dangerous terrain tests and wounds caused by firing a gets hot! weapon are treated exactly like wounds from shooting.

time wizard wrote:


Page 14, Dangerous Terrain, last sentence, "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed..." {emphasis mine}
So here we have a wound not caused by shooting that does not allow a cover save.

Now that I provided some of the rules quotes you requested, please provide me with the quote that says wounds cause by failed dangerous terrain tests and wounds caused by firing a gets hot! weapon are treated exactly like wounds from shooting.

the only reason a dangerous terrain test does not allow a cover save is that it explicitly says you can't take one. But it also implies that if they hadn't denied it in the rules you would be able to take a cover save. Then it really depends on what "normal saves" are. does normal mean armor, cover, and invulns?

I didn't mean to derail the ongoing topic, I didn't realize my question fell into such a gray area.

See, this is the issue- is that "Tak(ing) saves as normal" could mean Armour and Invuln only, or Armour, Cover, Invuln, or only what saves are allowed by the weapon's profile, or any number of things. Gets Hot! is not Dangerous Terrain, it's only similar, in that it mentions specific models as opposed to units.

@timewizard

Whether 'Wound' or 'wound' it makes no difference. Capitalization does not alter the fact that it is the wound characteristic.

Ok if you dont separate between those two things, then I understand your point. Then you are indeed able to cherry-pick which definition suits you.
The problem is, the RB indeed makes a difference (maybe not clear enough) because it capitalizes the profile characteristic also in the middle of a sentence (which in my opinion is not correct normally) so I conclude that it is used on purpose to separate those two things.

If there is no difference then the word "wound" is very widely used and therefore imprecisely definable. And it is od course not only the Wound characteristic.

So a single model can never make a saving throw? Interesting interpretation.

Yes if I read "taking saving throws" I don't see a part, where it is described how a specific model identical to other models in the unit can take a saving throw on his own. This forces me to that conclusion. A unit consisting of a single model of course can still take saving throws.

Just wanted to highlight that part of your quote, because it is in error.

Yep I see that now. Cover saves are not limited to wounds from enemy fire. Then of course gets hot wounds can be saved by cover saves.
Although your Dangerous Terrain quote doesnt fit in that part because we were dealing with Gets Hot!. And Dangerous Terrain wounds can not be saved with a cover save only because the rules for Dangerous Terrain state that no cover saves are allowed, not because they are not caused by shooting.

Now that I provided some of the rules quotes you requested, please provide me with the quote that says wounds cause by failed dangerous terrain tests and wounds caused by firing a gets hot! weapon are treated exactly like wounds from shooting.

Sorry where was the quote I requested again? You only showed me what the profile characteristic "Wounds" represents and that armour and cover saves cant be taken against dangerous terrain wounds. maybe I didnt get you right.
Ok concerning dangerous terrain I changed my position already. Although I am willing to change it backwards again if "Wounds" can be defined the same way as "wounds".

but I still have a quote here: page 14, Dangerous Terrain: "(wounds and saves are explained in the next section)"

That means that the next section has to be used in order to deal with those wounds and how you take your saving throws. In that section however is no part that deals with wounds that are directed on specific models. So I have to assume that the unit based rules have to be taken. See my quotes below for further reference.

concerning gets hot!: Here is the main quote: page 31, get's hot: "(normal saves apply)"

Again this is basically the same as dangerous terrain. It means, that the basic rules for saving throws must be used. Here are they:


This refers to page 20 and page 25. Here are my specific quotes:

page 20 take saving throws: "Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw. This could be because of the target's armour, some other protective device or ability, or intervening models or terrain.

if all the models in a unit are the same, and have a single Wound each, [...] then, this is a very simple process. You roll all the saves for the unit in one go (as described below), and a model of your choice is removed as a casualty for each failure."


page 25 complex units: "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."


page 25 taking saving throws: "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 be chosen by the owning player from amongst those identical models. If there is another group of identical models in the unit, the player then takes all of their saves in one batch, and so on.

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


Now I quoted the whole part how saving throws are done. I must emphasize also the capitalization of the word Wound in my quote of page 20. Now I ask again: Where do you read a model based saving procedure?

@Anvildude

it's only similar, in that it mentions specific models as opposed to units.

This is, what I doubt. It means specific models, yes. But "as opposed to units" is written nowhere. Specific models are of course also part of a unit. So unit based rules are not completely wrong as long as they aren't replaced by model specific rules that show an alternative. (Specific vs. general)

I wasn't talking about that- I was saying that the rules for Dangerous Terrain and the rules for Gets Hot! can only be compared because they are similar- they cannot be used to support rules interpretations between each other.

@Anvildude

The difference between "Wound" and "wound" is 0. Nothing. Nicht, nada. Null. In English the only words that are required to be capitolized are the first word of a sentence, and proper names, like Tom or Microsoft. Any other use of a capitol letter is merely for emphasis, like doch(I believe that's right).

I find it very interesting that the German translation has multiple words where the English has 'Wound' (or 'wound'). This might actually cast some light on the subject, if you could give the specifics.

Ok I can try that. Although I don't own a german rulebook because we use the english one here.

The characteristic "Wounds" is called "Lebenspunkte" in german. Leben = life, punkte = points. So "Hitpoints" would be the better translation than wounds.
So if the rulebook talks about "losing a Wound", it is translated accordingly: "einen Lebenspunkt verlieren." Translation backwards: losing one hitpoint.

so "roll to wound" is translated like that: "Schadenswurf", which would be "damage roll" in a literal translation.

if I roll "to wound" and have achieved a success, it is called "Verwundung" which can be translated literally as "injury" or "wound".

And the term "suffers a wound" is translated like that: "erleidet eine Verwundung". This is a good translation.

So if the rulebook uses the capitalized word "Wound" then the german version uses the word "Lebenspunkt". If the rulebook uses the non-capitalized word "wound" (or the capitalized word "Wound" at the start of the sentence) the german version uses the word "Verwundung".

So if I translate back I have "injury" vs "hitpoint". Those are two completely different meanings.
Maybe you understand my confusion that you dont make a difference there.

That is a major difference, and that is an example of information that can be used to make a ruling.

I think we can all agree that if the wording for Gets Hot! mentions "injury" auf Deutsch, it means the model(s) are hit, but aren't immediately killed/lose a Wound/"Hitpoint", and thus take their Saves, following the normal rules for Units taking hits.

If it mentions a Lebenspunkte, a "Hitpoint", that means it bypasses the Saves part, and it's the model specifically that is hit- however, the rule goes on to say that you can make a Save to avoid the injury.

This sound good to everyone?

I am sorry why does it matter that german has more then one word for wound? I am sure every language bar some of the invented ones has multiple synonyms for the concept. I don't understand what relevance this has to the OP or any questions of RAW when the rules are written in English. The original document always has primacy as translated works can loose the context if not translated correctly.

"suffers a wound" is a concept that is clear within the context of the rulebook, I don't see why there is confusion over that.

@anvildude

I think we can all agree that if the wording for Gets Hot! mentions "injury" auf Deutsch, it means the model(s) are hit, but aren't immediately killed/lose a Wound/"Hitpoint", and thus take their Saves, following the normal rules for Units taking hits.

Exactly. That was my version.

If it mentions a Lebenspunkte, a "Hitpoint", that means it bypasses the Saves part, and it's the model specifically that is hit- however, the rule goes on to say that you can make a Save to avoid the injury.

That is how I understand your version. But ruleswise I only understand the first part, which is clear. The second part (you can make a save) however is not. Interesting is, that you use the word "injury" there together with saves. This is my main conflict with your interpretation.

In the german version you take saves against "injuries" not against "lost hitpoints" (I will use my different translation here to avoid confusion). So if the rulebook allows me to take saving throws, I have no rule about how to take saving throws against "lost hitpoints" because the rules for saving throws refer to "injuries". This is a game breaking situation, because the rulebook allows something (or forces something) that doesnt exist.

Now to the facts:

The german get's hot rule talks about the "injury". So its the thing that can be allocated, the thing you make saving throws against.
The german dangerous terrain rulebook rule as well as the FAQ also talks about "injury".

Compared to the english version, the english rules for get's hot are consistent. Non capitalized.
However the dangerous terrain rulebook rule uses the non capitalized word, but the FAQ uses the capitalized word. So that would be in german: "hitpoint". However in german FAQ it is still translated "injury".

so it is somehow weird. It can be a translator's fault, or it can be a type error in the english version. Or the german main translator makes a difference when there is actually none. But there has to be one in my opinion, because otherwise it would lead to a discrepancy:

losing a Wound = taking a wound -> confusing (if I have 3 wounds and I take one wound, I lose one wound? That would be 3+1 = 3-1 )

@liturgies of blood

Yes this is why we use the english rules in germany. Although there are some guys who say "We are in germany so we use the german version". But in tournaments always the english rules are used. But:

If you talk about RAW, in the book there IS actually a difference. "wound" and "Wound" (in the middle of a sentence) are in fact different. Normally you don't capitalize in the middle of a sentence in English if it is a generic noun (as you would in german...), so if you do, you do it on purpose. This is what I think about it.

And the German version merely clarifies this. My previous post wasn't actually based on fact (well, part of it was) but on conjecture and a hope that we here at this forum might reach a peaceful conclusion to our debate, with a definitive answer.

Yeah. Ok but now we need the clarification for the english rules because these are the important ones.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@anvildude
If you talk about RAW, in the book there IS actually a difference. "wound" and "Wound" (in the middle of a sentence) are in fact different. Normally you don't capitalize in the middle of a sentence in English if it is a generic noun (as you would in german...), so if you do, you do it on purpose. This is what I think about it.

I see what you mean, I just don't see how that changes any of the readings of Gets Hot! or the allocation of wounds or taking armour saves.
- Wound is the statline
- wound refers to an indivual wound that has been caused
- unsaved wounds are wounds that no saves can be taken against or a saving through has been failed on

I see what you mean, I just don't see how that changes any of the readings of Gets Hot! or the allocation of wounds or taking armour saves.
- Wound is the statline
- wound refers to an indivual wound that has been caused
- unsaved wounds are wounds that no saves can be taken against or a saving through has been failed on

So how do you read the connection between those two sentences "the firing model suffers a wound" and "normal saves apply"?

and can "suffers a wound" be replaced by "loses a Wound" then?

Because otherwise I don't see the point, why a specific model "suffering a wound" automatically means that this specific model also "loses a Wound".

So in wound allocation process you actually allocate wounds on specific models, so there is the same given situation. Wounds suffered by specific models are still saved putting all dice together in groups of wounds suffered by identical models. Gets Hot only specifies the allocation on the firing model (the firing model suffers a wound). This does not alter the saving process. To the contrary it forces you to take the saving throws as described in the basic rules (normal saves apply). So they have to be taken unit based.

Pg 20 "The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws can be taken."
The wounds have been allocated for you by Gets Hot! and you can make your saves for that model. That is why it says the firing model suffers a wound.
As far as I can remember Gets Hot! rules haven't changed since the 90's and the advent of 3rd ed.

Suffers a wound = no roll to wound is needed and the model can take saves. If it said unsaved wound then the model would automatically lose a wound.

Normal save apply = you can take your available saves for the model.

The wounds have been allocated for you by Gets Hot! and you can make your saves for that model. That is why it says the firing model suffers a wound.

If you subtract the little part "for that model" from your words, I am completely with you. Or how do you make saves for a specific model? Unfortunately this is not part of the normal saving procedure.

Normal saves apply = you can take your available saves for the model.

Is this the normal saving process? No. I would recommend a closer look on "taking saving throws" page 20 and 25.

I don't see any conflict with those pages and what I said.
The normal saving process is roll a dice per wound on a model that you can make a save for unless there is some ambiguity as to which models are wounded. That is the process you keep talking about get's hot doesn't require that.

Where in gets hot do you get the need for wound allocation? Do perils of the warp need allocation? Does dangerous terrain require wound allocation?

If it's not allocated to the model that fired then why does gets hot say for every 1 rolled the firing model suffers a wound?

The normal saving process is roll a dice per wound on a model that you can make a save for unless there is some ambiguity as to which models are wounded.

The saving process according to those pages (1 Wound-models) is:

1. collect all wounds allocated on specific models before and divide them into groups separating between models not identical in gaming terms (as defined page 25).

2. roll each group of saves together in one batch

3. remove casualties amongst identical model as you like (1 for each unsaved wound)

There is no place there for a model based saving procedure.

Where in gets hot do you get the need for wound allocation? Do perils of the warp need allocation? Does dangerous terrain require wound allocation?

Nowhere. Gets Hot allocates the wound automatically for me ("the firing model suffers a wound") but that doesn't affect my saviong throws in any way. The wounds from normal shooting are allocated on specific models too.

If it's not allocated to the model that fired then why does gets hot say for every 1 rolled the firing model suffers a wound?

It is allocated on the firing model. But does it have any influence on which model loses a Wound? Or do you use "suffering a wound" and "losing a Wound" as synonymes? Again: a "wound" is the step in the normal shooting process: a successful "to wound"-roll. It can be allocated and saving throws are taken against it. After that it has no value at all because it transfers to an unsaved wound, which results in a model of your choice (amongst those identical in gaming terms) losing a Wound.

Ok, losing a wound is the end result of 1 being wounded and 2 failing any available saves. Suffering a wound is just being wounded.
Loosing a wound is where a model goes from 2 wounds to 1 wound. While for example my wolf lord suffers 30 wounds in cc and manages to save them all.

The normal shooting process does not apply in this situation, that as the rules say how you solve which models are wounded or "suffer wounds" in a unit. The gets hot rule solves that for you, the model that rolled a 1 suffers a wound. Saves are explained before the shooting phase so the rules for saves come from page 20 but the rules for the allocation of wounds to a unit from shooting and cc are dealt with on page 25.

Since 40k is a permissive rule set, gets hot says the model suffers the wound that roles the 1, you need to find a justification in a more specific rule then the general to override the specific gets hot rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually look at it this way, either Get Hot works the way I say it does because "normal saves" is what is on page 20 or Gets Hot works the way I say it does because it works due the the wound allocation process on page 25 but overrules the process as Gets Hot is a more specific rule.

Saves are explained before the shooting phase so the rules for saves come from page 20 but the rules for the allocation of wounds to a unit from shooting and cc are dealt with on page 25.

To be precise: page 20 deals with units consisting of only identical models, page 25 deals with complex units. There is no reference on a certain chronology. Page 20 doesnt refer to allocation because it is irrelevant due to all models being identical anyways.

Since 40k is a permissive rule set, gets hot says the model suffers the wound that roles the 1, you need to find a justification in a more specific rule then the general to override the specific gets hot rule.

Since I do follow this rule "the firing model suffers a wound" I don't have to find a justification. But you actually need a justification in the rules why this wording automatically inflicts a model based saving procedure more specific than (or different from) the normal saving process. Then you need a clarification on HOW this actually works.
If this is fulfilled, then we can talk about an overriding of the general saving procedure. But you need a procedure that overrides the general rules, it is not me who has to prove, the normal rules apply.

Actually look at it this way, either Get Hot works the way I say it does because "normal saves" is what is on page 20

Well does page 20 contain a section for model based saving throws?

Gets Hot works the way I say it does because it works due the the wound allocation process on page 25 but overrules the process as Gets Hot is a more specific rule.

What does wound allocation have to do with saving throws? Wound allocation of course is overridden. But this doesnt affect saving throws at all.

EDIT - Just never mind.

@time wizard

"...the firing model suffers a wound...".

To put it in other words: "a wound is allocated to the firing model". And now? It forces the same situation as if you were fired at and you would have suffered one wound and have allocated it on that exact same specific model. The only difference is, that in the second example you are free to allocate that wound suffered on another model. In the first example you are restricted to allocate it on the firing model.

But in the saving throws-section you will find out, that the model based allocation is irrelevant from that point on. Only the groups of identical models are important now.

so I can counter easily saying that it also can't be clearer than that: "normal saves apply".

It is actually mandatory to use the saving throw section in the rulebook. So it is mandatory (in case we have 1 Wound-models) to remove a casualty between identcal models for each unsaved wound.

@Nazdreg - You answered what I posted probably just as I was deleting it.

I did that because at this point we are arguing in circles.

You say that you can allocate a gets hot! wound exactly like a wound from shooting.

I say you cannot.

I don't believe you have proved your point, and you apparantly don't believe I have proven mine.

So we will have to agree to disagree until a FAQ or rule change says otherwise.

But at least our argument was kept civil, as it should be.

I am out, this thread has become a black hole.

I will say that I have never had anyone play gets hot in the same way you describe but the world is full of unique opinions.

I've been following this thread for a while, and am torn between two possible outcomes. Would be nice to see it cleared up as I have a fondness for IG special weapon squads with plasma guns.

The first way i see it...

p31 Gets Hot! wrote:For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply).

p25 Taking Saving Throws wrote:Having allocated 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 identical models.

In the example of a unit with 2 plasma guns, one rolls double 1's, the other no 1's. The Gets Hot! allocates the wounds for us (both on the model that rolled double 1) we then take our saves (assume both fail for this example) and finaly remove casulties (2 wounds suffered) from identical models. This would point at 2 plasma gunners being removed.

Models with wounds allocated to them arn't always the ones removed at the end of the day.

The other way I can see it is...

p25 Taking Saving Throws wrote:...the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed.

2 troopers with plasma guns, identical in equipment. One rolls double 1, the other no 1's. It could be argued that a trooper with an overheating plasma gun stands out in gaming terms to one that doesn't.

@liturgies of blood

Actually I don't play it like that as well (at least I don't expect that of my opponents) I personally play it like that because otherwise I would feel bad.

but that doesn't change the opinion

@grendel

It could be argued that a trooper with an overheating plasma gun stands out in gaming terms to one that doesn't.

The problam is what "gaming terms" means is clearly defined in the paragraph "complex units" so this argument would be wrong.

@timewizard

OK intentionally I can follow your way. "Suffers a wound" does automatically mean the wound is allocated on the model + the resulting unsaved wound must also be allocated on the model (<- and this is somehow connected due to the wording of get's hot in contrast to the normal process) so the model must be removed. Is that your argument?
so you expand the word "wound" to the meanings of "wound", "Wound", and "unsaved wound"?
If thats the case then my argument has of course no value to you and it is all a matter of definition.
Otherwise I don't understand it, this is my problem.


The problem is:

You say that you can allocate a gets hot! wound exactly like a wound from shooting.

I don't say this. Taking saving throws and removing casualties is not part of wound allocation, it has nothing to do with that all.
The only thing I do say is, that you treat a get's hot wound exactly the same as a wound allocated on the model before. This does not (and can not) mean, that I allocate anything.

And I only think that the wound is treated like a wound from shooting that was allocated on the model, because I see no alternative explicit procedure. You say you can't treat the wound like a wound from shooting, so where is written, what I do with this wound if the shooting section is blocked from access?

But at least our argument was kept civil, as it should be.

I highly appreciate that.

So the procedure being:
1). Allocate wounds (allocated already by Gets Hot!)
2). Armour saves
3). Remove casualties (owning players choice from identical models)

@grendel

at least that is what I am saying.

Although there are different meanings about this topic.
I don't seem to understand them though, because I don't see an alternative procedure.

See, that' makes perfect sense. I think we can all agree that Gets Hot! allocates wounds to the model that 'fired' the weapon?

However, the rules for removing casualties mention allocation to groups of identical models, not individual models themselves. This is where Gets Hot! would remove one Plasmagunner with 2 s instead of two.

Naz. I can understand some of your confusion expecialy due to the translation process.
The first thing you need to remember is that Specific and special rules supercede standard rules. Let me give you an example.
A vehical moving at combat speed may only fire a single weapon(not including defensive weapons). That is a standard rule.
But the "Fast" rule supercedes this rule. So a "Fast" vehical may fire all of their weapons if they move at combat speed.
So now we have a "Special" rule that overrules the standard rules.
So using these rules and the special rules lets look at a couple of tanks.

A Space Marine Laz/Plaz Razorback is a standard vehical. It moves 6", so therefore it can only fire a single weapon.
A Blood Angels Laz/Plaz Razorback, that has "Fast" special rule can move 6" and fire both of its weapons.
This is how a "special rule " supercedes a standard rule.

So when we read the "Gets Hot" rule its is a special rule dealing with special weapons that takes a spesific circumstance to trigger. (IE rolling a 1)
So now lets use that rule keeping in mind that special rules supercede standard rules.

2 marines are shooting their plasma guns at some orks 10 inches away. The Marine player decides for safty sake to only rapid fire one of these models. So picking 3 dice of 2 diffrent colors (or just rolling speratly for each shot), he rolls to hit. The rolls come up as 1, 1 and a 6. Since we rolled 2 color dice(or separatly) we know that each marine model got a roll of one and one also got a roll of 6. Now the "Gets Hot" rule takes effect supercededing the standard wound allocation and saving throw and removing casualtys rules. Since the "Gets Hot" rule states spesificly that the model fireing the "GH" weapon takes a wound ( through out the rules "Takes" and "Suffers" are used as interchangable, meaning the same thing). Now the firing models may make a basic saving throw aginst this "GH" wound. Since they are marines they get a 3+ save. You roll 2 diffrent colored dice or spepratly for these savings throws, so you will know whitch specific model will be removed as a casualty if a svings throw is failed. So now we roll we get a 2 and a 5, and since we rolled multi color dice, declairing whitch color was for whitch model we know whitch one to remove as the other made his save. We also finish with the rolls to wound on the enemy target models along with any other shooting attacks we may have made returing to the standard rules now that the "Special rules" are no longer in effect.

Please dont read this as if I am speeking down to you. I am not. I am just trying to be as precice as I can.

Nicorex wrote:Naz. I can understand some of your confusion expecialy due to the translation process.
The first thing you need to remember is that Specific and special rules supercede standard rules. Let me give you an example.
A vehical moving at combat speed may only fire a single weapon(not including defensive weapons). That is a standard rule.
But the "Fast" rule supercedes this rule. So a "Fast" vehical may fire all of their weapons if they move at combat speed.
So now we have a "Special" rule that overrules the standard rules.
So using these rules and the special rules lets look at a couple of tanks.

A Space Marine Laz/Plaz Razorback is a standard vehical. It moves 6", so therefore it can only fire a single weapon.
A Blood Angels Laz/Plaz Razorback, that has "Fast" special rule can move 6" and fire both of its weapons.
This is how a "special rule " supercedes a standard rule.

So when we read the "Gets Hot" rule its is a special rule dealing with special weapons that takes a spesific circumstance to trigger. (IE rolling a 1)
So now lets use that rule keeping in mind that special rules supercede standard rules.

2 marines are shooting their plasma guns at some orks 10 inches away. The Marine player decides for safty sake to only rapid fire one of these models. So picking 3 dice of 2 diffrent colors (or just rolling speratly for each shot), he rolls to hit. The rolls come up as 1, 1 and a 6. Since we rolled 2 color dice(or separatly) we know that each marine model got a roll of one and one also got a roll of 6. Now the "Gets Hot" rule takes effect supercededing the standard wound allocation and saving throw and removing casualtys rules. Since the "Gets Hot" rule states spesificly that the model fireing the "GH" weapon takes a wound ( through out the rules "Takes" and "Suffers" are used as interchangable, meaning the same thing). Now the firing models may make a basic saving throw aginst this "GH" wound. Since they are marines they get a 3+ save. You roll 2 diffrent colored dice or spepratly for these savings throws, so you will know whitch specific model will be removed as a casualty if a svings throw is failed. So now we roll we get a 2 and a 5, and since we rolled multi color dice, declairing whitch color was for whitch model we know whitch one to remove as the other made his save. We also finish with the rolls to wound on the enemy target models along with any other shooting attacks we may have made returing to the standard rules now that the "Special rules" are no longer in effect.

Please dont read this as if I am speeking down to you. I am not. I am just trying to be as precice as I can.

But then you don't concur with the part that says "normal saves apply" it doesn't supersede that part, you didn't take normal saves, the rule forces you to allocate the wound to the model but when you go and follow the saves process you don't necessarily have to remove the model the wound has been allocated to.

This is how it's played in Spain, anyway.

A model normally takes a save in the same way as a unit, it just has only one possible option for wound removal if it fails.

Absolutley right that special rules overrules standard rules.

The problem with the Gets Hot! rule is that it states you use the normal rules for taking saving throws.

And it's the rules for Taking Saving Throws (p25) that determins which models are ultimatly removed.

Nicorex's explanation is probably how it was intended, but not how it was written. The whole rule should have been written better, but going by the strict RAW this is the mess we're left with.

jgehunter wrote:

Nicorex wrote:stuff i said.

But then you don't concur with the part that says "normal saves apply" it doesn't supersede that part, you didn't take normal saves, the rule forces you to allocate the wound to the model but when you go and follow the saves process you don't necessarily have to remove the model the wound has been allocated to.

This is how it's played in Spain, anyway.

I see your point JGE. Agin I think this is partly due to translation diffrences. What you are missing is GW's assumption that you will finish a sentance that they dont feel needs to be typed out. IE: (normal saves apply) Really should read "Normal saves apply to this wound for this model.". The reason they dont write out that whole sentance is because they felt the players understand that the first part of the sentance ("the firing model suffers a wound") is very spesific about the model being refered too. Since they were VERY spesific at the begining of the sentance they feel they dont have to be at the end. Unfourtantly for us their lazyness leads to these kinds of rules debates. So you see the GH Special rule supercedes the entire wounding and allocating parts of the standard rules by placing a wound directly on the "Firing model" forcing the "Firing Model" to take a standard save. Not until that is done do you return to the standard rules.

This is YMDC, assumption has no place in these debates

grendel083 wrote:This is YMDC, assumption has no place in these debates

I know Grendel but I am not making the assumption.. GW is. I would prefer a rule book that is 15 pages thicker that sorted out all these interpritations.

Nicorex wrote:

grendel083 wrote:This is YMDC, assumption has no place in these debates

I know Grendel but I am not making the assumption.. GW is. I would prefer a rule book that is 15 pages thicker that sorted out all these interpritations.

That would be great. Currently I'd settle for 2 sentences in an FAQ on this one.

But a "save" is not only the process of rolling dice or a die and checking if it's over a number it's a whole process that involves other things.
If we were talking out of YMDC I would however agree that GW's intent is quite clear.

grendel083 wrote:

Nicorex wrote:

grendel083 wrote:This is YMDC, assumption has no place in these debates

I know Grendel but I am not making the assumption.. GW is. I would prefer a rule book that is 15 pages thicker that sorted out all these interpritations.

That would be great. Currently I'd settle for 2 sentences in an FAQ on this one.

How about a FAQ on a similarly worded rule?

Dangerous terrain tests - "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound..."

Gets Hot! - "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..."

And then the dangerous terrain 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.

Do we really need a FAQ for wounds from a result of a 1 on gets hot! weapons?

The FAQ for failed dangerous terrain tests confirms that in cetain situations saves may have to be taken on model by model basis, and not allocated to a model's unit.

Plus, wounds from failed dangerous terrain test may be cancelled out by an invulnerable save, but neither the rule or FAQ specifically mentions this. It is instead found in the section on Invulnerable saves.

While that helps it doesn't solve much. Wound allocation isn't the issue.

Gets Hot! states you use the normal rules for taking saving throws (DT doesn't). And it's the Taking Saving Trows rule (p25) that covers which models are removed.

Also the added problem of Gets Hot! when a single model rolls a double 1.

grendel083 wrote:Gets Hot! states you use the normal rules for taking saving throws

It actually says TAKE them as normal, not to use (all of) the normal rules.
Taking a saving throw is rolling a dice and comparing it to the save value of a model.

I see this as being the same question about double wounds and scarab swarms. If you have 1 ID wound, you end up losing 2 models. just like if you have a model getting two get hot rolls, you could lose 2 models.

you allocate to the one model, make saves, remove models based on wound groupings. pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound"

my 2 cents

grendel083 wrote: Gets Hot! states you use the normal rules for taking saving throws (DT doesn't). And it's the Taking Saving Trows rule (p25) that covers which models are removed.

Actually, the 'Remove Casualties' rule covers which models are removed.
And that rule even states that "...any model in the target unit can be hit..." so now, in the case of a model rolling a 1 with a gets hot! weapon, what is the target unit?
Are we actually going to say that I roll a '1' with a gets hot! weapon, so now any model in the unit that I fired the gets hot! weapon at can now be hit?

Or would it be more correct to say that the roll of a '1' with a gets hot! weapon inflicts a wound on the model that fired the weapon, and as such that wound was neither caused by or to any "target unit"?

grendel083 wrote: Also the added problem of Gets Hot! when a single model rolls a double 1.

This one is actually pretty easy. Gets Hot! says that for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. So if a unit with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds.

jgehunter wrote:But a "save" is not only the process of rolling dice or a die and checking if it's over a number it's a whole process that involves other things.
If we were talking out of YMDC I would however agree that GW's intent is quite clear.

JGE if you agree that the intent is clear and the intent says ignore all other rules untill you finish with this special rule, then the first part of your sentance is wrong. Special rules ignore, supercede, overrule, punch in the face and kick in the nads standard rules. So the special rule we are using now "Gets Hot" says if you roll a 1, while firing this weapon the model who fired it takes a wound, then that same model may attemp to make a save vs that wound, if he does you move on back to standard rules, if he doesent he is removed as a casualty and then you go back to standard rules. You cant quit using the special rule in the middle of the action. you must complet the special rule before you move on.

I know they worded it strangely. I know they are assuming you and I will get their intent. This is why things get FAQed or errated. Even still you cant just stop using a rule when you dont like it, Say the "RAGE" USR, we know ways to get around it. Keep that unit embarked untill you get it close to the thing you want to attack with it. But if I kill that rhino ful of Death company guys before you get it in place and I drop/move/ whatever to get it in place a 40 point spawn close to them, you have to attack that spawn.. not my troop squad holding the objective since they are farther away. You are forced to use that special rule all the way through. You cant say well I dont want to attack the spawn I want them to attack the troops so they are going that way since "Rage" says they must go after the spawn. Now after they get to it and kill it you can go back to standard rules to consolidate closer to my troops. Then standard game play resumes, until we get to the next special rule. Do you see what I mean now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grendel083 wrote:Also the added problem of Gets Hot! when a single model rolls a double 1.

No it dosent.. Agin. the "Gets Hot" rule is talking about a spesific model "the model that fired the weapon" if HE rolls 2 ones He will have to make 2 saves. He may make both, fail one or fail both. So in two of those he will be removed as a casualty since normal marines have 1 wound.

time wizard wrote:

grendel083 wrote: Gets Hot! states you use the normal rules for taking saving throws (DT doesn't). And it's the Taking Saving Trows rule (p25) that covers which models are removed.

Actually, the 'Remove Casualties' rule covers which models are removed.
And that rule even states that "...any model in the target unit can be hit..." so now, in the case of a model rolling a 1 with a gets hot! weapon, what is the target unit?
Are we actually going to say that I roll a '1' with a gets hot! weapon, so now any model in the unit that I fired the gets hot! weapon at can now be hit?

Or would it be more correct to say that the roll of a '1' with a gets hot! weapon inflicts a wound on the model that fired the weapon, and as such that wound was neither caused by or to any "target unit"?

Both rules cover the removal of models, and both say the same thing (I was just using complex units rules as this seemed appropriate).

What i'm saying is that when it comes to removing the model, any plasma gunner is fair game for removal (not just the one that Got Hot!), as they're identical models. Both rules support this.

time wizard wrote:

grendel083 wrote: Also the added problem of Gets Hot! when a single model rolls a double 1.

This one is actually pretty easy. Gets Hot! says that for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. So if a unit with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds.

I'm inclinded to agree here, as much as it saddens me to loose 2 plasma gunners.

If both of these points are correct, it also removes the need to roll for each plasma gun seperatly.

grendel083 wrote:

time wizard wrote:

grendel083 wrote: Also the added problem of Gets Hot! when a single model rolls a double 1.

This one is actually pretty easy. Gets Hot! says that for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. So if a unit with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds.

I'm inclinded to agree here, as much as it saddens me to loose 2 plasma gunners.

If both of these points are correct, it also removes the need to roll for each plasma gun seperatly.

Sorry, have to correct myself here. I meant to say "So if a model with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds." but I wrote "unit" in error.

The gets hot! rule is clear in that "the firing model" is the one that suffers the wound, no other. Just like wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests.

@nicorex

For myself I don't dare thinking that I knew what GW intended with a rule.

This has 2 reasons:

1. I am not part of GW, so I don't know their thoughts behind it.
2. Their intentions caught me by surprise many times in the past.

So from that perspective your specific vs. general approach seems a bit over the top for me.

My understanding is:

In order to override the general rule, the special rule needs to substitute the general wording with something that tells me, what I have to do instead. Otherwise the general rule is replaced by a black hole procedure-wise. So the game crashes.

So what do we have here:

general rules: 1. Allocate wounds, 2. take saving throws 3. remove casualties

gets hot: 1. substituted (the firing model suffers a wound) 2. explicitly not substituted (normal saves apply) 3. not even mentioned

so how do you conclude, that the special rule has to kill everything else in the general rules? Maybe we should guess a bit into the blue. How about... I shoot without LOS with my next gets hot weapons. Yep, thats an idea... *sry for kidding*

I believe that we would have that game crash now, because get's hot stops being special after wound allocation.
So if I say "the firing model suffers a wound" the wound is allocated on the model. Then nothing happens after that. "Normal saves apply" is a reference to the general rules for saving throws, which can either be used or not used. If they are used, then they should be used completely (where again in get's hot it is stated which part of the normal rules for saving throws apply and which not?). If they aren't used, the game stalls because that wound can not be resolved at all.

@time wizard

That again?

Actually, the 'Remove Casualties' rule covers which models are removed.
And that rule even states that "...any model in the target unit can be hit..." so now, in the case of a model rolling a 1 with a gets hot! weapon, what is the target unit?
Are we actually going to say that I roll a '1' with a gets hot! weapon, so now any model in the unit that I fired the gets hot! weapon at can now be hit?

Or would it be more correct to say that the roll of a '1' with a gets hot! weapon inflicts a wound on the model that fired the weapon, and as such that wound was neither caused by or to any "target unit"?

OK fine. Lets say the rules for removing casualties cannot be used. Then I would very much appreciate that. Not a single plasmagunner will be removed as a casualty then. The saves are failed and nothing happens. You don't really want that, do you?

Because now that you have finished Remove Casualties, the model in question did not receive a Wound - because you choose to remove a different model than the one Gets Hot! specifies to be wounded.

Regardless of the timing, the removed model needs to be the wounded one.

"Any model can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty"

But specifically Gets Hot! tells you otherwise.

Editing to add:
The Oxford comma (definitively British) implies that "wounded and taken off as a casualty" is separated from "hit."

-Nazdreg- wrote:
OK fine. Lets say the rules for removing casualties cannot be used. Then I would very much appreciate that. Not a single plasmagunner will be removed as a casualty then. The saves are failed and nothing happens. You don't really want that, do you?

Okay, lets take a different tack here then.

Let's allocate the wounds just like shooting as you propose.

A model armed with a gets hot! weapon rolls a 1. The rules tell us that the firing model suffers a wound.

This firing model becomes the target unit from the gets hot! result because the rule speciically says that "the firing model" suffers the wound.

This model is now the target unit, a unit of 1 model that fired that weapon. We take a saving throw as normal for that target unit.

If the model fails its saving throw, and has but 1 remaining wound on its profile, the wound is placed on it and it is removed.

We have now had a target unit, it suffered a wound, took its saving throw, and suffered an unsaved wound reducing it to 0 wounds wereupon it has been removed.

If we have 2 models armed with gets hot! weapons, and both roll one or more 1s to hit when firing, then each of those firing models suffers the requisite number of wounds as per the gets hot! rule.

They are now each a separate 'target unit' from the weapon that they fired. The rest is resolved as above.

time wizard wrote:They are now each a separate 'target unit' from the weapon that they fired. The rest is resolved as above.

Wait.. What?

I think there's a confusion between RAW and RAI here. What i just read isn't anywhere in the rulebook.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@nicorex

For myself I don't dare thinking that I knew what GW intended with a rule.

This has 2 reasons:

1. I am not part of GW, so I don't know their thoughts behind it.

I used to be part of GW. I have also been dealing with their way of writing rules for about 24 years now. I feel that gives me a decent idea what they are thinking and trying to say.

-Nazdreg- wrote:2. Their intentions caught me by surprise many times in the past.

As they have caught us all.

-Nazdreg- wrote:So from that perspective your specific vs. general approach seems a bit over the top for me.

My understanding is:

In order to override the general rule, the special rule needs to substitute the general wording with something that tells me, what I have to do instead. Otherwise the general rule is replaced by a black hole procedure-wise. So the game crashes.

So what do we have here:

general rules: 1. Allocate wounds, 2. take saving throws 3. remove casualties

gets hot: 1. substituted (the firing model suffers a wound) 2. explicitly not substituted (normal saves apply) 3. not even mentioned

See your problem here is you want to STOP using the "Gets Hot" Special Rule before it is completed.

You are trying to break down the "Gets Hot" special rule into the standard, shooting at, allocating wounds, make saves and remove casualty rules. This is wrong. The "Gets Hot" special rule supercedes the first 4 parts of those standard rules. GW did not write out a full and complete sentance when they wrote this rule because they thought you and I would understand that the specific model mentioned in the beginning of the sentance "the model firing the weapon" is the same model that is infered at the end of the sentance.

So your #2 point here is a misunderstanding, they are telling you that the "Model firing the weapon" that suffered a "Gets Hot" wound may take a normal armor save. They are not saying to allocate wounds as normal.

If a single wound model fires a "Gets Hot" weapon and incures a wound because of the "Gets Hot" rule, He "the model firing the weapon" suffers/takes a wound. At no time do they add any other models into this equation. They are refrencing a specific model, "the model that fired the weapon" the whole time.
So the model "Firing the weapon" activates "Gets Hot" by rolling a 1 or two 1's if he "the model firing the weapon" rapid fired. He takes/suffers a wound or two wounds if he rolled two 1's. This wound can then be saved by His "the model firing the weapon" normal armor save.
If he rapid fired and rolled two 1's he will incure 2 wounds and be forced to make 2 saves.
You then roll for these saves.
The Model "that fired the weapon" will either fail or save these wounds. If he "the model that fired the weapon" failed any one of these saves he is removed as a casualty if he only had a single wound or if he had two wounds and fails both the normal armor saves, if he has more than two wounds he subtracts 1 or 2 wounds from his starting wound caracteristic depending on how many failed armor saves he incured due to the "Gets Hot" rule, if he had more than two wounds but had previously incured a wound or wounds from some other action and these "Gets Hot" incured wound bring him to zero He "the model firing the weapon" would then be removed as a casualty.. If these incidents occure and meet these requirements, you would then either remove the model "that fired the weapon" and suffered the "Gets Hot" wounds as a casualty or you continue play as normal.

As to #3 GW wrote the rule assuming that you and I would have the basic understanding of what happens to a model after it incured a wound and then failed or made an armor save, so they agin were not specific about this, because they didnt feel they needed too be. They assumed you and I would know what to do. Because we all know when you suffer/take a wound (from anything that allows you an armor save), you get to attempt to make that armor save. If you fail this armor save (or multiples incase you incured more than one "Gets Hot" and have equal to or less wounds than you incured and failed saves for) the model "firing the weapon" is removed as a casualty. After all this is complete, Then we all go back to standard rules of play, untill the next special rule pops up.

-Nazdreg- wrote:OK fine. Lets say the rules for removing casualties cannot be used. Then I would very much appreciate that. Not a single plasmagunner will be removed as a casualty then. The saves are failed and nothing happens. You don't really want that, do you?

I know you are trying to be silly, but it comes off as TFG rules lawyering.
Mabye Time Wizards explanation works bettter for you. I dont think I can be any clearer.

Nicorex wrote:
So your #2 point here is a misunderstanding, they are telling you that the "Model firing the weapon" that suffered a "Gets Hot" wound may take a normal armor save. They are not saying to allocate wounds as normal.

If a single wound model fires a "Gets Hot" weapon and incures a wound because of the "Gets Hot" rule, He "the model firing the weapon" suffers/takes a wound. At no time do they add any other models into this equation. They are refrencing a specific model, "the model that fired the weapon" the whole time.
So the model "Firing the weapon" activates "Gets Hot" by rolling a 1 or two 1's if he "the model firing the weapon" rapid fired. He takes/suffers a wound or two wounds if he rolled two 1's. This wound can then be saved by His "the model firing the weapon" normal armor save.
If he rapid fired and rolled two 1's he will incure 2 wounds and be forced to make 2 saves.
You then roll for these saves.
The Model "that fired the weapon" will either fail or save these wounds. If he "the model that fired the weapon" failed any one of these saves he is removed as a casualty if he only had a single wound or if he had two wounds and fails both the normal armor saves, if he has more than two wounds he subtracts 1 or 2 wounds from his starting wound caracteristic depending on how many failed armor saves he incured due to the "Gets Hot" rule, if he had more than two wounds but had previously incured a wound or wounds from some other action and these "Gets Hot" incured wound bring him to zero He "the model firing the weapon" would then be removed as a casualty.. If these incidents occure and meet these requirements, you would then either remove the model "that fired the weapon" and suffered the "Gets Hot" wounds as a casualty or you continue play as normal.

As to #3 GW wrote the rule assuming that you and I would have the basic understanding of what happens to a model after it incured a wound and then failed or made an armor save, so they agin were not specific about this, because they didnt feel they needed too be. They assumed you and I would know what to do. Because we all know when you suffer/take a wound (from anything that allows you an armor save), you get to attempt to make that armor save. If you fail this armor save (or multiples incase you incured more than one "Gets Hot" and have equal to or less wounds than you incured and failed saves for) the model "firing the weapon" is removed as a casualty. After all this is complete, Then we all go back to standard rules of play, untill the next special rule pops up.

the only part I see differently is: assuming 2 ones from one model, you allocate to the one model, make saves, pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" if the one model fails both saves, you assign 2 wounds to your unit and distribute them amongst all similar wargear & profile models.

sirlynchmob wrote: the only part I see differently is: assuming 2 ones from one model, you allocate to the one model, make saves, pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" if the one model fails both saves, you assign 2 wounds to your unit and distribute them amongst all similar wargear & profile models.

But doing so ignores the specifics of the gets hot! rule.

The rules build on one another and you can't apply a rule from a previous page ignoring subsequent rules.

For example, on page 25 under 'Taking Saving Throws', second paragraph, second sentence says, "If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed."

If I decided to take that sentence on its own, then I could say that if you have a unit of ork boys with a nob, and the nob suffered a single unsaved wound, it would be removed regardless of the number of wounds on its profile. But of course this would be incorrect. All we need do is turn the page and we find specific rules about multiple-wound models. That section specifically modifies the general rule about removing a model that suffered an unsaved wound, in that if it is a model with multiple-wounds and it suffers a single wound it loses one wound on its profile. But this rule builds on the previous one, giving us specific instructions for other than the standard one-wound model.

This is no different than the gets hot! rule. There is a specific characteristic of a gets hot! weapon that says for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. If you had 2 models equipped with gets hot! weapons, and only 1 of them fires and rolls two 1s, and fails both saves, placing one of those wounds on the other model breaks the gets hot! rule because the other model did not fire at all.

Only the firing model can suffer the wounds from rolling a 1 to hit. And it further suffers a wound from each 1 that is rolled. but nothing changes the fact that those wounds are only sufferd by that firing model. That model can take saves as normal, which would be either an armor, cover or invulnerable save, taking the best possible save, as normal.

time wizard wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote: the only part I see differently is: assuming 2 ones from one model, you allocate to the one model, make saves, pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" if the one model fails both saves, you assign 2 wounds to your unit and distribute them amongst all similar wargear & profile models.

But doing so ignores the specifics of the gets hot! rule.

The rules build on one another and you can't apply a rule from a previous page ignoring subsequent rules.

For example, on page 25 under 'Taking Saving Throws', second paragraph, second sentence says, "If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed."

If I decided to take that sentence on its own, then I could say that if you have a unit of ork boys with a nob, and the nob suffered a single unsaved wound, it would be removed regardless of the number of wounds on its profile. But of course this would be incorrect. All we need do is turn the page and we find specific rules about multiple-wound models. That section specifically modifies the general rule about removing a model that suffered an unsaved wound, in that if it is a model with multiple-wounds and it suffers a single wound it loses one wound on its profile. But this rule builds on the previous one, giving us specific instructions for other than the standard one-wound model.

This is no different than the gets hot! rule. There is a specific characteristic of a gets hot! weapon that says for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. If you had 2 models equipped with gets hot! weapons, and only 1 of them fires and rolls two 1s, and fails both saves, placing one of those wounds on the other model breaks the gets hot! rule because the other model did not fire at all.

Only the firing model can suffer the wounds from rolling a 1 to hit. And it further suffers a wound from each 1 that is rolled. but nothing changes the fact that those wounds are only sufferd by that firing model. That model can take saves as normal, which would be either an armor, cover or invulnerable save, taking the best possible save, as normal.

that sentence builds on having 1 unique model that stands out in gaming terms. If there was only 1 plasma gunner I'd agree 100%. But if there is more than 1 plasma gunner, you take their saving throws at the same time, removing casualties based on identical models. pg 25 first paragraph.

And the sentence on page 31 sixth paragraph that "...the firing model suffers a wound..." builds on having the firing model suffer the wound(s).

time wizard wrote:Sorry, have to correct myself here. I meant to say "So if a model with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds." but I wrote "unit" in error.

The gets hot! rule is clear in that "the firing model" is the one that suffers the wound, no other. Just like wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests.

And just like shooting, after you allocate wounds, a single model may have more than one wound allocated to him. If he fails more than 1 of his armor saves, you don't ignore the other unsaved wounds, you deal with them as set forth in the "remove casualties" section.

Nicorex wrote: You are trying to break down the "Gets Hot" special rule into the standard, shooting at, allocating wounds, make saves and remove casualty rules. This is wrong. The "Gets Hot" special rule supercedes the first 4 parts of those standard rules. GW did not write out a full and complete sentance when they wrote this rule because they thought you and I would understand that the specific model mentioned in the beginning of the sentance "the model firing the weapon" is the same model that is infered at the end of the sentance.

If "Gets Hot" is meant to supercede allocating wounds, making saves, and removing casualties, can you explain what rules you're using to make armor saves and remove casualties?

Nicorex wrote: So your #2 point here is a misunderstanding, they are telling you that the "Model firing the weapon" that suffered a "Gets Hot" wound may take a normal armor save. They are not saying to allocate wounds as normal.

Nobody is arguing that you allocate wounds with Gets Hot (nor has anyone argued you allocate wounds with Dangerous Terrain). What is being argued is that the rules for armor saves and removing casualties are not superceded by either GH or DT.

In order to supercede a rule, the superceding rule must explain how to resolve any issues that it supercedes. Since Gets Hot doesn't explain how to take armor saves or remove casualties, we must assume that the standard rules apply.

Nicorex wrote: So the model "Firing the weapon" activates "Gets Hot" by rolling a 1 or two 1's if he "the model firing the weapon" rapid fired. He takes/suffers a wound or two wounds if he rolled two 1's. This wound can then be saved by His "the model firing the weapon" normal armor save.
If he rapid fired and rolled two 1's he will incure 2 wounds and be forced to make 2 saves.
You then roll for these saves.
The Model "that fired the weapon" will either fail or save these wounds.

No problem up until here.

Nicorex wrote: If he "the model that fired the weapon" failed any one of these saves he is removed as a casualty if he only had a single wound

(Leaving out the rest, concerned about single-wound models right now)

What rule are you using to remove the model as a casualty? The rule for removing casualties says that for each failed armor save the unit suffers an unsaved wound, and then you remove a whole model that is identical to the model that failed the armor save.

Ok here's how I'm seeing it. You have a squad of 4 identical plasma gunners ABCD and a sgt E in a unit.

they go to shoot, and A & B get double 1's, C & D hit. C&D snicker and tell A&B "told ya, you guys should have helped at the soup kitchen last night and worked on your karma"

A&B each suffer 2 wounds, C&D snicker. pg 31 gets hot.

pg 25, having allocated the wounds (to A&B) all models identical ABCD take their saving throws at the same time.

A&B both fail their 2 saves, C&D snicker.

A&B both try feel no pain rolls if they were allowed one (it's a normal save isn't it?) failing both, C&D snicker

pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save the unit suffers...."

pg 25, casualties (ABCD) can then be chosen by the owning player. C&D "Hey what, why you dragging us into this"

Sgt E upon seeing his own squad just blow them selves to pieces says "noobs" and "damn I failed my leadership roll, I'm outta here."

All gets hot does is start the process by assigning a wound to the firing model, with no statements after that to change any of the other steps that follow.

Except C&D did not incure the "Gets Hot" rule. A&B did and as the rule states "The Model Firing the Weapon" suffers/incures/takes/has to deal with/is screwed over by/Man WTF did I do to diserve this? the "Gets Hot" wounds. A&B are now singled out not only from the rest of the unit of A&B&C&D and the Sarge, but they are also singled out from each other. Basicly they become units of one untill such time as the "Gets Hot" rule is no longer in effect. SO A&B now must make saves as normal and may be removed as casualtys as normal, if they failed their saves. It is at this point that the "Gets Hot" rule ends and you go back to the standard rules, since A&B failed their saves, C&D and the Sarge then go Man WTF is wrong with those guys?? Dont they know you have to work the soup kitchen the night before a battle so your own guns wont blow up in your face.. What Morons..Lets ditch this lame scene and go hit the Clubs I hear some of those sexy Sisters are putting on a show tonight.

Nicorex wrote:Except C&D did not incure the "Gets Hot" rule. A&B did and as the rule states "The Model Firing the Weapon" suffers/incures/takes/has to deal with/is screwed over by/Man WTF did I do to diserve this? the "Gets Hot" wounds. A&B are now singled out not only from the rest of the unit of A&B&C&D and the Sarge, but they are also singled out from each other. Basicly they become units of one untill such time as the "Gets Hot" rule is no longer in effect. SO A&B now must make saves as normal and may be removed as casualtys as normal, if they failed their saves. C&D and the Sarge then go Man WTF is wrong with those guys?? Dont they know you have to work the soup kitchen the night before a battle so your own guns wont blow up in your face.. What Morons..Lets ditch this lame scene and go hit the Clubs I hear some of those sexy Sisters are putting on a show tonight.

ROFL! Thanks for lightening up this thread, nicely done.

And FWIW, I agree 100%.

Just trying to not pull out my own hair...

@Nicorex

You were part of GW? Maybe you could be so kind and tell them, if they intend something they should write it down in the rules actually. Because it is GWs own idea that RAW>RAI. Or did they worded that one wrong too...?

What you are argueing is RAI at its best. "GW didnt think they had to write the whole sentence, which should be like that:...." is no objective rule-argument.

Gets Hot supercedes specifically all of the shooting section? Ah well:

1. Where is that written, that Gets Hot supercedes it?
2. In which way it supercedes is part of our imagination I guess?

I cannot help but reiterating that sentence: "normal saves apply". Is this what you call superceding the rules for normal saves?

If so: Why?
If not: Why do you create model based saving throws out of nothing then?

I know you are trying to be silly, but it comes off as TFG rules lawyering.

Well I take that if its the price for argueing RAW. At least here in YMDC.
I am serious. If you ignore the normal rules for removing casualties, there are none left. So there is no way left how casualties can be removed. Or do you have a hint there in Get's Hot?

As to #3 GW wrote the rule assuming that you and I would have the basic understanding of what happens to a model after it incured a wound and then failed or made an armor save, so they agin were not specific about this, because they didnt feel they needed too be. They assumed you and I would know what to do. Because we all know when you suffer/take a wound (from anything that allows you an armor save), you get to attempt to make that armor save. If you fail this armor save (or multiples incase you incured more than one "Gets Hot" and have equal to or less wounds than you incured and failed saves for) the model "firing the weapon" is removed as a casualty. After all this is complete, Then we all go back to standard rules of play, untill the next special rule pops up.

This is complete interpretation of yours. It is not based on anything written. You expand the sentence "the firing model suffers a wound" into dimensions it doesn't have. If GW isn't specific, I have to assume that they intend to keep that one general. That is the reason for them not being specific. So why do you create a specification, when there is none written? Because they wanted us to play it like that? RAI...

@timewizard

Wait.. What?

I think there's a confusion between RAW and RAI here. What i just read isn't anywhere in the rulebook.

+1.

A Model becoming suddenly a unit inside another unit? An identical model suddenly stands out in gaming terms out of no reason? Sorry, you can do better.

The issue I'm seeing everyone coming back to is the "take saves as normal" part.

Thing is, "Taking Saving Throws" is a different rule to "Remove Casualties", hence them having seperate headings. It may come again to the mutability of English (and the fact that we don't always write things in order) but "The model (firing) takes a Wound/wound" supercedes the Allocation rule- and in Remove Casualties, the rules talking about "Identically equipped models" is a UNIT based rule, not a MODEL based rule- while Saving Throws is a MODEL based rule.

Again, SAVING THROWS are a seperate rule to REMOVE CASUALTIES, where one is based on the UNIT, and one is based on the MODEL.

As Gets Hot! specifies the Model takes the Wound/wound, you don't need to confer with any rule- don't need to look at Allocating Wounds, don't need to look at Remove Casualties. It's that model. Then, it says Normal Saves Apply, where you go to the rules on Saving Throws- which talk about the Wounds/wounds an individual Model suffers, and how they can be 'ignored' with the proper dice roll. It's pages after that that we get to Remove Casualties, which is an entirely different rule to the Saving Throws rule, dealing with units. By that time, the model has either passed or failed its own saving throws, and is either still on the table at its starting health, or down one (or two) Wounds, which would mean it would be removed.

Even in the event that you want to use the Removes Casualties rule (which deals with Groups, not models) it's imminently possible that, through allocation shenanigans, you can get to 'ignore' wounds, because they've been allocated to models that have already died. If I have 3 Nobs with different Wargear, and I take 12 'injuries' (small 'w' wounds) from shooting, I allocate 4 to each Nob. Nobs 1, 2, and 3 pass all of their saves (miraculously) while Nob 4 fails all of his. Does this mean those 2 'extra' unsaved wounds go to the rest of the squad? No. They're lost with the Nob that took them.

You don't allocate to Models, normally- you allocate to Armour and Wargear Groups. But when you do allocate to Models, it's entirely possible to 'ignore' extra wounds dealt and taken and not saved- and the Gets Hot! rule specifically allocates to Models.

Anvildude wrote:You don't allocate to Models, normally- you allocate to Armour and Wargear Groups. But when you do allocate to Models, it's entirely possible to 'ignore' extra wounds dealt and taken and not saved- and the Gets Hot! rule specifically allocates to Models.

Not true, normally you DO allocate wounds to models. Then you roll saves for different wound groups.

Ok, so I'm gonna break this down into what the rulebook actually says, to the best of my ability.

If "normal saves apply" we should go to the "take saving throws" section of the rulebook to determine what happens.

We have two cases to start:
1. Complex units (Imperial Guard)
2. Non-complex units (Flash Gitz, potentially)

Let's see what happens if we have a complex unit first. We are told to go to page 25. First off, we can't deal with any rules referring to the target unit, so that eliminates paragraph one, and anything following paragraph two requires "to hit" rolls to have been made, so we move on to the TAKING SAVING THROWS heading. Here we see that we have to have allocated saves in order to remove casualties, and we obviously haven't done that, so we ignore this part. Paragraph two under this heading finally gives some insight as to what we are supposed to do:

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

The only question to me, after reading that paragraph, is whether or not "stands out in gaming terms" applies to a squad with similarly equipped models. The definition of standing out in gaming terms is on the same page, thankfully, and so we can determine the following:

If there are any unique models in the unit (in gaming terms), they must take their saves, but none of the non-unique units are ever required to take saves from the wounds that they have suffered.

Now that we have determined so save can even be attempted for the majority of the models in a Guardsman squad, we must determine what happens when a model suffers a wound but cannot take a save against such a wound. Therefore, we turn back a page to remove casualties where it says that if no save could be taken, the wound is still suffered and casualties must still be removed, though these casualties can be any member of the unit.

Therefore, the process for removing gets hot casualties from complex units is:
The unique models to take their saves individually. Should they fail any of these saves, they are removed as casualties.
The non-unique models take a wound with no saving throw allowed, though this wound can be used to remove any model in the squad as a casualty (as long as it isn't one of the unique models already removed by the first part).

For normal, non-complex units, we must return to the "take saving throws" section.
Gets Hot! is not incoming fire, so no armor save can be taken against it (not only that, but the AP of most gets hot! weapons ignores most armor saves anyway). The cover rules also require the firing model to be obscured as a part of their operation, so they cannot be taken either (as in this case, the firing model is never going to be obscured from itself). The only saves that can be taken are invulnerable saves.

Barring any invulnerable saves, the rest of the wounds are suffered according to the remove casualties section, where (as stated before) we are told to remove casualties from the unit based on wounds, and not on individual model count. This is because the remove casualties rule relies on a model-based wounding system that merely references the unit in regards to the models it contains.

In summation, the rules for gets hot! wounds on non-complex units require wounds (and usually models) to be removed from the unit for each failed save.

Whether this is intentional or not, it is the RaW. Extremely narrow RaW, but RaW nonetheless.

Edit: @Anvildude:
Yes, the remove casualties heading is a separate entity from the take saving throws heading. But it is most assuredly a model-based system of removal. The models that suffered wounds determine how many wounds the unit has suffered. Without wounded models, on an individual basis, the rule would not function. It is because this model-based system requires the unit to lose generalized casualties that your argument does not succeed.

Where do you get to say that Gets hot doesn't allow armour saves?

I am sorry but I cannot follow that post, it may just be me but it is very difficult to keep with your train of thought.

Kitzz wrote:For normal, non-complex units, we must return to the "take saving throws" section.
Gets Hot! is not incoming fire, so no armor save can be taken against it (not only that, but the AP of most gets hot! weapons ignores most armor saves anyway). The cover rules also require the firing model to be obscured as a part of their operation, so they cannot be taken either (as in this case, the firing model is never going to be obscured from itself). The only saves that can be taken are invulnerable saves.

So much wrong with this section, I had to stop here.

No armour saves because it isn't incoming fire? Armour saves are not just against shooting, armour saves are allowed in this case. Also you don't use the AP of the weapon that misfired. You're not shooting yourself.

Also if the model is in area terrain there's nothing to stop them gaining a cover save.

Look I think the question we are trying to answer is:
In the is setup I have 2 plasmaguns in a squad of 10 space wolves, one of the plasma gunners rolls two and gets hot applies.

The two saves are taken, if both are failed do I take out both plasma gun models as casualties?

Some of us think the gets hot rule means no because the wound is allocated on the model and the model can take it's normal saves (armour, invulnerable and cover as normal) but it's only that models problem and even if he gets two unsaved wounds only one model is removed.

Others think the normal wound allocation and saving process applies so after the two failed saves you remove both plasma gun weilding models.

That is where the argument lies, does gets hot's specific rule that process null and take it in a model specific mannor as per difficult terrain or is it applied in a more general mannor.

Yep, that sums up where the debate is at.

Personally I'm with the more general manor, the Gets Hot! allocates wounds for us, then when it says Normal Saves Apply we're back to the normal rules, leading to both being removed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The model that failed the save must "suffer the wound"

Another model suffering the wound, by being remove, contradicts this rule.

Yes! I have know some people who fail the save and then take out a different model.

Oh, my Plasma Pistol exploded in my face? Kill the guy with the flamer!

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Yes! I have know some people who fail the save and then take out a different model.

Oh, my Plasma Pistol exploded in my face? Kill the guy with the flamer!

I think we can all agree that guy is taking liberties with everything and should find a brb upside of his head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grendel083 wrote:Yep, that sums up where the debate is at.

Personally I'm with the more general manor, the Gets Hot! allocates wounds for us, then when it says Normal Saves Apply we're back to the normal rules, leading to both being removed.

And my reading is that it has said that model(not the unit or a subtype of models in a unit) suffers the wound but saves are allowed to be taken against it. I can see where that side is coming from, the point of it and I would prefer an faq to make it clear. I don't usually run plasma in my army atm but I can see a time when I will fast approaching, 6th ed and if they clear it up now they will take it as a concern to cover the next editions rules.