I am getting into a debate on the Hive, but I think I am on the losing end of it.

Per RAW how many leadership tests must a model take against a model with a bone sword.
Rules just for refrence:
"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

The issue:
The issue is that wounds are not allocated like they were in 5th when the Nid Codex was writen. Wounds were allocated and saved all at once. In 6th there is now a pool.

So the arguement goes:

Nid player with 2 warriors charges a unit of multiwound models without FNP or Invuln (to make it easier).
Lets say each warrior causes two wounds.
Now the rules in 6th say to allocate the wound to the closest model. As the models are all multiwound and we have a weapon that can cause ID we need to allocate one at a time.
No armor save so that model takes a wound.
The model then makes an Ld check for ID. Lets say he passes it.
The next wound is then allocated to the closest model (the one that just took a wound).

Now this is where it gets sticky...
He has now just taken an unsaved wound from a model with a bone sword. That means that it forces anouther LD check for ID. The rule does not say one test per model or anything like that. The changes in allocating wounds make it required.

I didn't think it would work that way, but it looks like RAW will force an ID test for each wound allocated to a multiwound model from a model with a bone sword.

No, only one check. The first wound caused forces the check. The second wound would be a "or more" and not force another check.

Since the Bone Sword entry specifically states, "... one or more unsaved wounds...." and doesn't say that a leadership test is required for each wound suffered on a single model, I think this would be played as a single leadership test is taken per model.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, only one check. The first wound caused forces the check. The second wound would be a "or more" and not force another check.

This 100%

one or more means just that. you take a LD test for one or more wounds.

so 1 wound = 1 test, 2 wounds (This equals one or more) so you take 1 test.

The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Fragile wrote:
The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Absolutely correct. But you cannot have wound2 check in isolation - it is caused to a model that has taken one or more wounds and has already tested. There's no permission to force a second test.

This is Easter egging.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Absolutely correct. But you cannot have wound2 check in isolation - it is caused to a model that has taken one or more wounds and has already tested. There's no permission to force a second test.

This is Easter egging.

I would not go that far. How it is supposed to play under 6th, very much effects how the value of the upgrade. Also prompts the question of, does the LD test take place on the first wound or the last wound? If you check on the first wound, 4 successful wounds to a group of 4 2 wound models could kill all 4, were a check on the last wound would be wasted as the 4th wound already kills the model. It really is a timing issue, and the nid codex, does not really word it well to match with the change in wound allocation. I know I would have played it a check on each wound becuase of the way it is worded and the change in wound allocation till I saw this thread. Now I has to think about it.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

A model suffers one or more wounds, that model only makes A(1) test.

so a 3 wound model is chosen to take the first of two wounds, no armor save and he fails his invuln save, takes 1 wound and makes a test, if he passes he takes a second wound and that does not force a test as the model has already taken a test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

A model suffers one or more wounds, that model only makes A(1) test.

so a 3 wound model is chosen to take the first of two wounds, no armor save and he fails his invuln save, takes 1 wound and makes a test, if he passes he takes a second wound and that does not force a test as the model has already taken a test.

That is correct under 5th edition rules. The rule set allowed for wounds to be assigned in groups. If a Warrior with bonesword did 3 wounds to a Tervigon (6 wounds), those wounds were allocated at 1 group.

In 6th you cannot allocate a "group" of wounds. The first wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds. It must then "immediately" test for LD. If it succeeds the wound allocation process continues. The second wound is assigned to the Tervigon. That wound has no memory of the first wound or anything that happened previous. The second wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met again. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds and takes another LD test.

This is resulting from the change in how wounds are allocated in groups in 5th, and singly in 6th.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

A model suffers one or more wounds, that model only makes A(1) test.

so a 3 wound model is chosen to take the first of two wounds, no armor save and he fails his invuln save, takes 1 wound and makes a test, if he passes he takes a second wound and that does not force a test as the model has already taken a test.

That is correct under 5th edition rules. The rule set allowed for wounds to be assigned in groups. If a Warrior with bonesword did 3 wounds to a Tervigon (6 wounds), those wounds were allocated at 1 group.

In 6th you cannot allocate a "group" of wounds. The first wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds. It must then "immediately" test for LD. If it succeeds the wound allocation process continues. The second wound is assigned to the Tervigon. That wound has no memory of the first wound or anything that happened previous. The second wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met again. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds and takes another LD test.

This is resulting from the change in how wounds are allocated in groups in 5th, and singly in 6th.

The underlined is not true, as the model already had a wound and made a test, the next wound is the Or More, as it has now suffered one or more wounds.

One LD test per model.

OK. Lets do a follow up question to help make this clearer.

Same example as above with 2 warriors with dual bone swords attacking a unit of W4 models with no Invuln or FNP.

The warriors score 2 wounds each. The first model hit makes his Ld check to avoid ID.

How would you say the rest of the combat gets resolved:

1) The second wound goes to the first model again and needs to make a LD check to avoid ID. If he passes that too then he needs to make anouther ID for the 1st hit from the second warrior.

2) The second wound goes to the first model again and there is no need for a Ld check. He needs to make anouther ID check for the 1st hit from the second warrior as he has not made an ID check for the second model.

3)The second wound goes to the first model again and there is no need for a Ld check. He does not need to make anouther ID check for the 1st hit from the second warrior as he has already passes a Ld check for Bone Sword hits.

Clearly Boneswords say one or more, so it is 3

If you suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid with a bonesword then you take 1, and only one, test. This is true if you have 4 different Tyranids with boneswords that all caused wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Clearly Boneswords say one or more, so it is 3

If you suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid with a bonesword then you take 1, and only one, test. This is true if you have 4 different Tyranids with boneswords that all caused wounds.

Then how would you resolve a Prime with bone sword and lashwhip in with a unit of dual sword warriors? (This really matters as I actully run warriors like this).

If a model passes the 2D6 Ld from being hit with the Prime's single bone sword he can ignore the 3D6 test that would be required for the dual sword warriors?

I say that the answer is #2 for the record. The rule does not say a unit of Tyranids with bone swords, it says a Tyranid with a bone sword. Each Tyranid with a bone sword can cause a test.

 Gloomfang wrote:
If a model passes the 2D6 Ld from being hit with the Prime's single bone sword he can ignore the 3D6 test that would be required for the dual sword warriors?

Correct.
You're trying to treat every wound as a separate event. You have no permission to do so.

I believe the proper order would be as follows.


Tyrant with Boneswords is in combat with a squad of Meganobs.

The Tyrant causes 4 wounds that are now allocated.

The first wound is allocated to a Nob, who must now take a test.

Lets say he passes it. So now he gets allocated the next wound. he's already passed the test so he doesn't test again, but he dies of natural wounds.

2 wounds down, next wound to go.

The wound is allocated to another Meganob. he must pass a test.

This time the test is failed. The Meganob dies.

We have one more wound left. It can't be allocated to the Nob who just got ID'd so it goes to another Nob.

This Nob also fails the Ld test and bites the dust.

So in the end 3 Nobs die from 4 wounds caused.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
If a model passes the 2D6 Ld from being hit with the Prime's single bone sword he can ignore the 3D6 test that would be required for the dual sword warriors?

Correct.
You're trying to treat every wound as a separate event. You have no permission to do so.

Rig is correct.

You have no permission to apply the effects of the second wound as the test has already been taken and passed.

and as we know the Bonesword says one or more wounds.

has the model suffered one or more wounds and taken a test for the boneswords?

If the answer is yes, you can not force another test on that model.

Can someone point out in the rule where it states that "only 1" test is allowed?

The rule is a simple "If X, then Y" statement. There is nothing stating that "Y" can only happen once, there is nothing stating that "X" can only happen once.

The Trigger condition (X) is: when a "model suffers one or more unsaved wound"

So, if the model suffers one wound, it triggers.
Or, if the model suffers 3 wounds, it triggers.

Lets also note, there is no time limit here; it does not say "per phase" or "per init step" or "per game".

Lets also note: the result action (Ld roll) happens *immediately*, not at the end of the phase, or end of init step; immediately.

In 5th Ed, it was the rule to allocate all wounds at once. So you might allocate 1 wound, or 3 wounds, or 6 wounds, or.....whatever.
And of those, would trigger the result action.

In 6th edition, you always allocate wounds one at a time, thus you always suffer a wound one at a time.

So lets look at a combat in 6th edition.

Warriors attack a Trygon, get 14 hits and 4 wounds.

Allocate one wound, the Trygon fails the save.
At this point, you have met the Trigger condition. (Suffer one or more wounds) , thus the result action must occur. (Ld test or ID.)
Assume passed.
Now another wound is allocated, Trygon fails the save.
At this point, the trigger condition has been met again, thus the result action must occur again.

*Every* time the trigger condition is met, the result action must occur. To put some arbitrary time limit is to create rules. What if the two wounds happened at different Init steps? What if at different turns?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're trying to treat every wound as a separate event. You have no permission to do so.

The rules say they are allocated one at a time. What rule are you using to treat them as simultaneous??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:


You have no permission to apply the effects of the second wound as the test has already been taken and passed.

What rule says the test can only be taken once?

What rule allows you to retroactively 'add' the second wound to the first trigger condition?

coredump wrote:
Can someone point out in the rule where it states that "only 1" test is allowed?

What rule says the test can only be taken once?

What rule allows you to retroactively 'add' the second wound to the first trigger condition?

The tyranid book has the rule that says this:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

one or more means just that. if you take one, or more [so one, two, three, four etc] pass a LD test...

A (A meaning not multiple, just one) LD test if they suffer one, two, three, four etc wounds.

I'm wondering; what do Force Weapons do in this situation? Or other instant-death causing weapons. Surely, if they have clearer descriptions, we can assume that theirs is the correct one.

 DeathReaper wrote:


The tyranid book has the rule that says this:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

one or more means just that. if you take one, or more [so one, two, three, four etc] pass a LD test...

A (A meaning not multiple, just one) LD test if they suffer one, two, three, four etc wounds.

I do question your reading of that.
In my example there are 2 warriors doing 2 wounds each. So I would agree that the two wounds from one model would only need to save the first wound. However the other two wounds from the next warrior would be another test as the rule states "One or more unsaved... from A Tyranid". Not any, Tyranid, a Tyranid. A Tyranid that is causing one or more wounds with a bone sword.

Again DR, your using 5th rules, (which would be correct) but the allocation in 6th changed how those wounds work.

Every wound generated creates a pool. Each wound in those pools can have certain aspects, pg 14.

"Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a 'pool',where each dice represents a
Wound. If there are Wounds with different Strengths AP values or special rules,keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool. If all the Wounds are the same the 'Wound pool will consist of only one group."

Every wound in the pool from a single bonesword will have the rule ""If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death". Every wound from a double bonesword will have the 3d6 rule.

Each wound will be allocated and saved. Each wound will trigger the effect of an unsaved wound and cause either 2d6 or 3d6 LD check.

And if you've suffered one wound and taken the attached test, and you suffer another wound, you've suffered one or more wounds. Meaning you've satisfied the rule.

Where's your permission to ignore the "one or more" clause?

I could agree that additional wounds from one model would not trigger an additional test, but I would see each separate model as causing a test on its own for each enemy it hits. This will definitely need an adjustment in a FAQ

It definitely needs a FAQ, mostly because the dynamic of it changed with the edition change and not with a codex change or FAQ. The intent under 5th was clear with 1 check per group of wounds assigned to the model, however RAW under 6th changed it to being more lethal. Which is typically a sign something will be FAQ'd

No one is ignoring it. Anytime it suffers "one or more" it triggers.

You are making the assumption that it can only be triggered once. Yet have still not provided a rule to back that up.

If the model had 3 wounds allocated to it, and failed all 3 saves, therefore suffered 3 unsaved wounds; that would trigger *1* Ld test. The trigger is 'if one or more, then...'

But in 6th you always allocate wounds 1 at a time, thus you always suffer wounds one at a time. Each time you suffer "one or more wounds" you trigger the test. Otherwise you are arbitrarily putting a time limit not listed in the rule.

The model suffers a wound, does that meet the trigger criteria? (one or more) Yes, so the result action occurs.

Now, that rule has resolved. It is over. Time to move onto whatever happens next...

That same model suffers another 'one or more wounds' then it triggers *again*. Every time it meets the trigger criteria, it must cause the result action. There is nothing that allows you to go back and retroactively apply the current wound to a past trigger action.

Otherwise, what about if it suffers one or more in a different init phase? What about a different turn? How do you arbitrarily make that determination?


The trigger is "one or more", but that means every time the model suffers 'one or more' it triggers; there is no rule saying you can go back and combine those wounds into one occurence. There is no rule saying you are limited to one test a turn.

Am I missing something....the affect of the bonesword is checked AFTER the wounds have been allocated and saved.

"...if a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death" (page 83, Tyranids Codex)

There is no way a model could suffer "...or more unsaved..." wounds otherwise. Also, the rule DOESN'T state each unsaved wound much check.

So the steps go as follows:
1) Bonesword wielder does its attacks
2) Wounds are allocated
3) Saves taken
4) Any model that has suffered at least one unsaved wound must make a leadership test.

It's that simple....

coredump wrote:
No one is ignoring it. Anytime it suffers "one or more" it triggers.

Right, and if you have already suffered one wound, and made your test, then you suffer more you do not have to test, because you have already tested for one or more.

Two is one or more.

Three is one or more Etc...

You allocate the wounds at the same time (even though you do it sequentially, It is all happening at the same initiative step) so you assess if the model has suffered one or more wounds, and if it has already tested it fulfills the condition of suffering one or more wounds from boneswords.

It really does not need an FAQ, stop making it so complicated.

coredump wrote:
The model suffers a wound, does that meet the trigger criteria? (one or more) Yes, so the result action occurs.

Now, that rule has resolved. It is over. Time to move onto whatever happens next...

and if it suffers more wounds, you have already suffered one and now you are suffering more, so you no longer need to test.

@DR when does "one or more" end in your opinion?

One per Init Step.
Once per aussault phase.
Once per player tur.
Once per game turn.
Once per game?

They really should have a better FAQ for this.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat..."
Clearly they mean the current turn's Close Combat phase.

Prime is a higher initiative.
I'd resolve the primes attacks first, then start fresh with the next set of attacks.

Yes, the rule does say 1 or more wounds. Would you say that if I took a wound on turn 1 from a bonesword and passed, that I am not immune for the rest of the game? Of course not.

-Matt

Not the game, just from that CC phase.

 Gloomfang wrote:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

Does that mean that you can only attack one model at a time with boneswords as it doesn't specify unit

I guess this is wrong?

3 Tyranids all with boneswords

1st: Hits wounds once and doesn't save - 1 LD check
2nd: Hits wounds once saves - no LD check
3rd Hits Wounds twice and doesn't save either - 1 LD test

So you would take 2 LD checks for the three unsaved wounds or would you take 1 LD and if failed you would lose both?

 Gloomfang wrote:
@DR when does "one or more" end in your opinion?

One per Init Step.
Once per aussault phase.
Once per player tur.
Once per game turn.
Once per game?

They really should have a better FAQ for this.

I would go with one per init step. Yes, it does say in close combat, but IMO that is letting you know that if a tyrant with a bone sword shoots me, the bonesword effects don't trigger.

-Matt

 Pilau Rice wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

Does that mean that you can only attack one model at a time with boneswords as it doesn't specify unit

I guess this is wrong?

3 Tyranids all with boneswords

1st: Hits wounds once and doesn't save - 1 LD check
2nd: Hits wounds once saves - no LD check
3rd Hits Wounds twice and doesn't save either - 1 LD test

I think Rice's 3 options makes the most sense.
What if two 'nids in different "I" steps both hit with bone swords? Would the first one be the only one to cause the LD check then? A tyranid prime at I5 and a warrior at I4 both wound the same model for example. Only one test? Doesn't make any sense then as the basic warriors sword becomes useless (well still no armor saves of course).
Or what if model with twin boneswords hits and one with only one sword? The test taken is differently so would they both affect in that case?
And the wording in the codex does say from "a Tyranid with a bonesword", not tyranids with boneswords, so that seems to call for a model by model basis for testing. (Would that not be an example of Codex specific vs. BRB?)

ah64pilot5 wrote:
I think Rice's 3 options makes the most sense.

I should have been clearer here, say all are just run of the mill Warriors with boneswords, so all hitting at the same initiative.

It would seem rather pointless to only have 1 effect for 3 separate weapons or if it is for all 3, not very fair on the defending persons side. I guess it doesn't make much difference for single wounded models but for a unit of multiple wounds I guess it makes the difference.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You allocate the wounds at the same time (even though you do it sequentially, It is all happening at the same initiative step) so you assess if the model has suffered one or more wounds, and if it has already tested it fulfills the condition of suffering one or more wounds from boneswords.

Now, that rule has resolved. It is over. Time to move onto whatever happens next...
and if it suffers more wounds, you have already suffered one and now you are suffering more, so you no longer need to test.

This process is untrue. If you take this logic and apply it to other rules you will see that it is. The bonesword rule does not put a limit (per turn, this phase, etc) on the LD tests.

Did the model suffer "one or more" wounds. Yes.. then it tests.. You can effectively remove the "or more" from the rule because there is no way to assign a group of wounds at once to a model, other than maybe swarm/blasts.

But a model can be assigned one or more wounds in a round of CC.

So if the model has already tested for one or more wounds, they would not need to test again, as there are no rules that make them test twice, the rule only makes them test once.

So the process is true.

You actually allocate the wounds at the same time (even though you do it sequentially, It is all happening at the same initiative step)

same Initiative step = same time for wounds assigned. all the wounds are allocated at the Initiative (4 or whatever) step.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But a model can be assigned one or more wounds in a round of CC.

So if the model has already tested for one or more wounds, they would not need to test again, as there are no rules that make them test twice, the rule only makes them test once.

So the process is true.

You actually allocate the wounds at the same time (even though you do it sequentially, It is all happening at the same initiative step)

same Initiative step = same time for wounds assigned. all the wounds are allocated at the Initiative (4 or whatever) step.

So under your rules. If 3 BS wound one target from different warriors ther is only 1 test?

 DeathReaper wrote:
But a model can be assigned one or more wounds in a round of CC.

So if the model has already tested for one or more wounds, they would not need to test again, as there are no rules that make them test twice, the rule only makes them test once.

The rule states that the trigger is taking an unsaved wound. Since they are allocated singly then every allocation activates the trigger. There is nothing in the rule that states they only take 1 per phase, ini, etc.

So the process is true.

You actually allocate the wounds at the same time (even though you do it sequentially, It is all happening at the same initiative step)

same Initiative step = same time for wounds assigned. all the wounds are allocated at the Initiative (4 or whatever) step.

Again that logic doesn't apply in 6th. Otherwise I can soak multiple ID wounds (say from a GK force weapon) on 1 model before applying the ID rule.

Force Weapons are a different animal, and work a bit differently.

Stormbreed wrote:
So under your rules. If 3 BS wound one target from different warriors ther is only 1 test?

The actual rules say this, as the model has suffered one or more wounds, he takes one test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But a model can be assigned one or more wounds in a round of CC.

A model can be assigned more than 1 wound over 5 rounds of combat too.
I don't see why you choose to draw the line at a single close combat phase.


-Matt

Because "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword..."

They are clearly talking about the CC in which the wounds were suffered.

The Context tells us this.

Ehhh, not to sure on that one DR. Context requires interpertation, which is subjective and thus out in a RAW discussion.

I may have to think that the Bonesword thing only works once in each combat(per enemy model effected)

Logistical nightmare for sure, but it appears to be RAW.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ehhh, not to sure on that one DR. Context requires interpertation, which is subjective and thus out in a RAW discussion.

I may have to think that the Bonesword thing only works once in each combat(per enemy model effected)

Logistical nightmare for sure, but it appears to be RAW.

Yes, Once test per model per CC, as a model can suffer one or more wounds from a tyranid with a bonesword per CC phase.

Force Weapons are a different animal, and work a bit differently.

The both trigger off of the unsaved wound and are resolved after that trigger. Neither wait until the end of combat like you suggest to resolve.

Because "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword..."

They are clearly talking about the CC in which the wounds were suffered.

The Context tells us this.

In 5th you are 100% correct. However, now you would have to make up rules to fit your explanation as it would apply with multiple swords.

Yes, Once test per model per CC, as a model can suffer one or more wounds from a tyranid with a bonesword per CC phase.

If you take 1 wound have you taken "1 or more wounds"? Then you would take a test.

When you take the second wound, have you taken "1 or more" wounds? Then you would take a test.

The wounds carry the special rule and it applies each time the trigger condition is met.

If you take the second wound you've still taken 1 or more wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat..."
Clearly they mean the current turn's Close Combat phase.

Clearly? Why not per init phase? Why not per wound pool? Per unit? Per model? Per weapon type?

If you are making up limitations not listed in the rule, why arbitrarily pick 'per combat'?


It X happens, the effect triggers. If X happens *again*, then the effect triggers *again*

"one or more" is the trigger..... there is no rule that allows you to retroactively combine multiple occurences into a single occurence.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you take the second wound you've still taken 1 or more wounds.

And if the Ld test was at the end of the phase, or end of the init step, or end of the wound pool... you would have a point.

But the trigger is 'one or more', and the trigger happens *immediately*. If you get hit by a second wound, then the trigger criteria is met *again*, so the result happens *again*. Once the Ld Test is made, that occurence is over, it has been completely resolved and the game moves on. There is *not rule* that says that a second occurance is to be retroactively combined with a previous occurance.

Can you please point out a rule saying the trigger can only happen once a phase? Or once a init stage? or once a wound pool? or anything else?


If you suffer 1 wound... it triggers.

If you suffer 3 wounds, it triggers.

If you suffer 8 wounds, it triggers.

But once it triggers, it is over.... if it triggers a second time, the test happens a second time.

Except on the second trigger, you've still suffered "or more".

On the second trigger, you suffered "1 or more wounds" which triggers the LD test.

Why is the second wound not part of the "or more" from the first trigger?

You're making a leap I don't think you have permission to.

Fragile wrote:

Force Weapons are a different animal, and work a bit differently.

The both trigger off of the unsaved wound and are resolved after that trigger. Neither wait until the end of combat like you suggest to resolve.

I never suggested waiting til the end of combat.

Fragile wrote:
If you take 1 wound have you taken "1 or more wounds"? Then you would take a test.

When you take the second wound, have you taken "1 or more" wounds? Then you would take a test.

The wounds carry the special rule and it applies each time the trigger condition is met.

The underlined is where you are incorrect.

The second wound taken is "or more" as two wounds is one or more, and since you have already tested there is no need to test again. Condition already fulfilled.

If a GK with an activated Force weapon deals 2 wounds to a brood of 3 Carnifex how many die ?

Fragile wrote:
If a GK with an activated Force weapon deals 2 wounds to a brood of 3 Carnifex how many die ?

What does this have to do with Boneswords?

Because it is the exact same application.

Fragile wrote:
Because it is the exact same application.

It is?
I've read the Force rule a few times and I don't recall the words "or more" in it. I could be wrong though.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword..."

They are clearly talking about the CC in which the wounds were suffered.

The Context tells us this.

Ah, no it doesn't. All it tells us is if you suffer wound(s) in close combat, take a test. Taking 1 hit at Initiative 10 and another at Initiative 1 is just as unrestricted as taking one hit this phase, and another next close combat phase.

Please point out the context that forces grouping into a single combat phase, while excluding both multiple combat phases and excluding multiple groupings at different initiative steps.
I don't see how you can say, "oh, I already took a wound a little while ago, so I don't have to test again", but a little while longer (next close combat phase) is too long and now we start testing all over again.

Once per phase, once per init step, once per combat, once per game. They all work, and none of them are specified in the rules.

"If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved 'Wounds with a Force Weapon, he can immediately choose to activate it by expending a Warp Charge point and taking a Psychic test"

Pg 37.

Right, "If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds" Vs. "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"

Two different things.

Fragile wrote:
"If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved 'Wounds with a Force Weapon, he can immediately choose to activate it by expending a Warp Charge point and taking a Psychic test"

Pg 37.

You're right, those words are there. Sorry.
Completely different context and therefore decidedly not the exact same application.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Because it is the exact same application.

It is?
I've read the Force rule a few times and I don't recall the words "or more" in it. I could be wrong though.

Nemesis Force Weapons are also different from normal Force Weapons.

Normal force weapons make 1 wound cause instant death. Nemesis Weapons make ALL the wounds cause Instant Death, including those that follow at a later inititive step.

The diffrence between bone swords and force weapons is huge. With a force weapon once it is activated causes ID for every hit that model does for all of its attacks. A bone sword does it once per model only. If you hit with a force sword and don't trigger ID, and it then hits anouther model, you don't get to retest like you do with a bone sword.
Two totally diffrent sets of rules. Can't infer how one opperates fron the other.

I am still sticking to a second Nid with swords causes anouther test. The "a tyrinid" part still makes it once per model with bone sword

 Grey Templar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Because it is the exact same application.

It is?
I've read the Force rule a few times and I don't recall the words "or more" in it. I could be wrong though.

Nemesis Force Weapons are also different from normal Force Weapons.

Normal force weapons make 1 wound cause instant death. Nemesis Weapons make ALL the wounds cause Instant Death, including those that follow at a later inititive step.

Force Weapon... If the test is passed, all unsaved Wounds inflicted by the Force weapon that turn have the Instant Death special rule......

Right, "If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds" Vs. "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"

So, then answer the original question. How many would die ?

 Gloomfang wrote:

I am still sticking to a second Nid with swords causes anouther test. The "a tyrinid" part still makes it once per model with bone sword

This is how I am reading it also.

Lets try an example here. Lets say 2 Tyranids with boneswords against 3 single wound Terminators.

So that's 6 Attacks from the the 'Nids, all hit and all wound and the Terminators fail all their Invulnerable saves.

Do you

1. take one Leadership test for all 3 Terminators and they all die if failed.
2. take a leadership test for each, those failing being removed as casualties.

 Pilau Rice wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:

I am still sticking to a second Nid with swords causes anouther test. The "a tyrinid" part still makes it once per model with bone sword

This is how I am reading it also.

Lets try an example here. Lets say 2 Tyranids with boneswords against 3 single wound Terminators.

So that's 6 Attacks from the the 'Nids, all hit and all wound and the Terminators fail all their Invulnerable saves.

Do you

1. take one Leadership test for all 3 Terminators and they all die if failed.
2. take a leadership test for each, those failing being removed as casualties.

Since it's a case of each model needing to suffer a wound this example is useless, they suffer a wound and die. If they pass their save, nothing happens.

Fragile wrote:

Right, "If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds" Vs. "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"

So, then answer the original question. How many would die ?

Force weapons are not worded the same as Boneswords, so that example has no bearing.

What are you getting at?

But we can all agree that if you had X wounds from a BS/LW and Y Wounds from 2x BS, you would take two tests, right?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Right, "If a Psyker inflicts one or more unsaved Wounds" Vs. "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"

So, then answer the original question. How many would die ?

Force weapons are not worded the same as Boneswords, so that example has no bearing.

What are you getting at?

Because your answer to that question will disprove your application of Boneswords because it uses the same mechanic.

They are different, as in one it is the psyker inflicting the wounds, and the other it is the model that is suffering the wounds.

One has no bearing on the other.

Happyjew wrote:
But we can all agree that if you had X wounds from a BS/LW and Y Wounds from 2x BS, you would take two tests, right?

No, one test per model. as one or more wounds suffered by a model with boneswords triggers the test, and you only take one test per Tyranid with boneswords.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
But we can all agree that if you had X wounds from a BS/LW and Y Wounds from 2x BS, you would take two tests, right?

No, one test per model. as one or more wounds suffered by a model with boneswords triggers the test, and you only take one test per Tyranid with boneswords.

Despite the fact they are two different Wound Pools from two different models?

Yes, because any particular model can only "suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" once.

The second time he suffers wounds from a Tyranid with a bonesword he falls into the "one or more unsaved wounds" category, and since his test is already take he needs not test again, as he has fulfilled the requirements already.

And a nid with 2 swords is still a nid with a bonesword.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And a nid with 2 swords is still a nid with a bonesword.

But the 'nid with the two swords forces a different test, different number of dice.

Nope, it still forces the same test, just on a different number of dice.

Just like the ID test when a Psyker inflicts "one or more" wounds with a Force weapon, the ID rule is applied to ALL of the wounds. When a model suffers "one or more" wounds from a bonesword, the LD test is applied to ALL of the wounds.

Each wound carries the LD test, either 2d6 or 3d6 and must be applied after each wound. There is no exception to say otherwise and the rule does not say once per turn/phase etc.

You're right which means after passing the test you are good for the rest of the game, since any wounds after are "or more" wounds.

Fragile wrote:
Just like the ID test when a Psyker inflicts "one or more" wounds with a Force weapon, the ID rule is applied to ALL of the wounds. When a model suffers "one or more" wounds from a bonesword, the LD test is applied to ALL of the wounds.

Each wound carries the LD test, either 2d6 or 3d6 and must be applied after each wound. There is no exception to say otherwise and the rule does not say once per turn/phase etc.

Yes, the single LD test is applied to all of the wounds. Exactly as you said.
Your second paragraph is incorrect, however.

The rule only works "In close combat" so once you are no longer in the CC phase the models need to take additional tests for the next CC phase.

P.S. the force Weapon comparison has no bearing, as the two rules are worded differently.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule only works "In close combat" so once you are no longer in the CC phase the models need to take additional tests for the next CC phase.

P.S. the force Weapon comparison has no bearing, as the two rules are worded differently.

Got a page number to back that up?

-Matt

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Just like the ID test when a Psyker inflicts "one or more" wounds with a Force weapon, the ID rule is applied to ALL of the wounds. When a model suffers "one or more" wounds from a bonesword, the LD test is applied to ALL of the wounds.

Each wound carries the LD test, either 2d6 or 3d6 and must be applied after each wound. There is no exception to say otherwise and the rule does not say once per turn/phase etc.

Yes, the single LD test is applied to all of the wounds. Exactly as you said.
Your second paragraph is incorrect, however.

The second paragraph is RAW, everyone here has argued RAI, even as far as create timing to explain how it works. Wounds from a bonesword carry a special rule, and are their own pool. Every time one of those wounds is allocated that rule applies. Same as with Force weapons, every wound is ID. There is nothing in text that says you dont take a second LD test for each wound applied to the model.

So you're contradicting yourself? The bold section is the opposite of the second paragraph. The bold section is correct.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule only works "In close combat" so once you are no longer in the CC phase the models need to take additional tests for the next CC phase.

P.S. the force Weapon comparison has no bearing, as the two rules are worded differently.

Got a page number to back that up?

-Matt

"...If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"
P83. Tyranid Codex

No, I'm not. The rule is applied to ALL the wounds that turn, same as the ID rule is applied to all the wounds from a Force weapon. That rule is " If a model takes one or more wounds it must make a LD test." Each case where the wound is allocated to a model, the trigger condition is met and must be resolved.

Just like a Force weapon from the Psyker who inflicted "one or more wounds", the ID rule is applied to each wound that is allocated.

You allocate the wound to a model. The model has sufffered "one or more unsaved wounds" and therefore must make a LD test. The second wound is allocated to the same model and it must make an LD test again because the rule is applied to every wound.

Its the same rule as the ID from Force weapons. The first unsaved wound is allocated, the ID rule is resolved. Then the second wound is allocated and the ID rule is applied again. Wounds have no memory of the prevoius wound. There is nothing in the Bonesword rule that states "At the end of the phase, IF a model took an unsaved wound, it must take an LD test...." You are trying to add that context to the wound allocation process, which it does not have.

Everyone is just focusing on the "or more". Every wound applied meets the "one or more" trigger. Therefore every wound's special rule must be resolved before moving on.
Did this wound cause "1 or more unsaved wounds"? Yes... test applies.

The rule is applied to all the wounds, but since the model has suffered one or more wounds, he needs to take a test.

Not a Test for each wound caused to that model.

One 1 test max per model.

Each time a model is allocated an unsaved wound we need to ask the question in the rule: Has this model that has suffered one or more wounds taken the required test?

If No: Take the test

If Yes: Do not take the test.

Your trying to apply it as a whole.

One 1 test max per model.

One test per wound, nothing states its only 1 test per CC as you suggest.

Each time a model is allocated an unsaved wound we need to ask the question in the rule: Has this model that has suffered one or more wounds taken the required test?

If No: Take the test

If Yes: Do not take the test.

Nothing in the rule suggests that it is only 1 test. Has a model that has taken a 2nd wound taken "1 or more". Yes. The wound will resolve with a test, since nothing in the bonesword rule limits it to once per CC/phase etc.

Its the same mechanic as the Psyker/Force Weapon. Each wound triggers an event, and nothing in RAW says that it is only once.

The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that it is one test per model, as every wound after the first has already fulfilled that condition.

if a model takes a second wound, he has already tested and fulfilled the condition of needing a test for suffering one or more wounds.

If you suffer 5 wounds you need to make 1 test, as you have suffered one or more wounds in Close Combat.

Simple as that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule only works "In close combat" so once you are no longer in the CC phase the models need to take additional tests for the next CC phase.

P.S. the force Weapon comparison has no bearing, as the two rules are worded differently.

Got a page number to back that up?

-Matt

"...If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"
P83. Tyranid Codex

And that doesn't specify time at all. Please bold out the part about In The Same Phase.
Or are you claiming that models are not in close combat at the end of the close combat phase?

Let me shoot that down with a rule:
Page 28 says you cannot shoot into or out of close combat. That kind of tells you that in the shooting phase, those models are still in "close combat".

Claiming that the tyranid bonesword rule effect cycles every combat phase is reading more into the bonesword rule that what RAW would support.


That said, we are left with a rule that doesn't mention when "... or more" takes place in reference to "Immediately pass a Ld test..."
Needs a FAQ.


-Matt

"in close combat" specifies time, as they talk about suffering unsaved wounds, and that only happens in the CC phase.

Plus it does not say it lasts longer than the CC phase.

Models are not suffering wounds in CC in the shooting phase, so that has no bearing. They are still locked in combat, as per the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that it is one test per model, as every wound after the first has already fulfilled that condition.

if a model takes a second wound, he has already tested and fulfilled the condition of needing a test for suffering one or more wounds.

If you suffer 5 wounds you need to make 1 test, as you have suffered one or more wounds in Close Combat.

Simple as that.

Again your stuck in 5th. You have no support for not resolving the test from suffering a 2nd wound.

"in close combat" is not a timing issue. Its clarifying that a model with a bonesword and a devourer, doesnt cause an ID test on a shooting attack.

The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that subsequent wounds have no additional effect if the test is passed for that model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that subsequent wounds have no additional effect if the test is passed for that model.

Where? I don't see where it says only 1 test is required for each wound allocated.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"
Right there.

Suffer one, that is a test.

Suffer more than one, still only one test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"in close combat" specifies time, as they talk about suffering unsaved wounds, and that only happens in the CC phase.

Plus it does not say it lasts longer than the CC phase.

Models are not suffering wounds in CC in the shooting phase, so that has no bearing. They are still locked in combat, as per the rules.

Time would be either the assault phase (which starts with assault moves) or the fight sub-phase. 6th edition doesn't have a close combat phase.
Close combat ends when an enemy is wiped out, broken, or two units are so far apart after losses that the pile-in doesn't bring them into contact in which case they consolidate.
The bearing that being in combat during a shooting phase has, is it shows combat is still in progress, which means that "in close combat" cannot be used as a metric of time since is spans both players turns and several phases.


-Matt

close combat= fight sub-phase, as that is when wounds are caused. (They talk about suffering unsaved wounds and the Context tells us that is in the fight sub-phase).

There is your time metric.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that subsequent wounds have no additional effect if the test is passed for that model.

Where? I don't see where it says only 1 test is required for each wound allocated.

What, precisely, do you think "one OR MORE" means?

If you allocate 1 wound to the model, you take a test
If you allocate another wound, "a" model has ALREADY SUFFERED "one or more" so you cannot test again

The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that subsequent wounds have no additional effect if the test is passed for that model.

Where? I don't see where it says only 1 test is required for each wound allocated.

What, precisely, do you think "one OR MORE" means?

If you allocate 1 wound to the model, you take a test
If you allocate another wound, "a" model has ALREADY SUFFERED "one or more" so you cannot test again

The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

As nos pointed out:

What, precisely, do you think "one OR MORE" means?

Basically if a model suffers one or more you have to take a test.

so if a model suffers:

1 wound, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

2 Wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

3 wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

etc...

With 6th allocation the "or more" doesnt mean much. All wounds are allocated singly and any special rules that are attached to those wounds are resolved before applying the next wound. Anything that triggers off the unsaved wound, ID, FNP, etc. is resolved. The LD test is resolved.

This process is repeated for the second wound, with no changes. There is nothing in the rule that says "Once per..... (any time frame)". Therefore each subsequent wound tests for LD, just like it would apply any other effect with an "unsaved wound " for a trigger, FNP, ID, hexrifles, etc.

so if a model suffers:

1 wound, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

2 Wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

3 wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

etc...

For a total of 3 tests, you are correct

A test means one test, not three.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

Not true.

Hypothetical scenario.
Tyranid Prime with 2 BS, and 1 Warrior with BS/LW in base to base contact with a Necron Overlord (with phase shifter) and are also in base contact with 1 Wraith (with whip coils).

Each Tyranid deals 1 Wounds. The Necron player decides to start with allocation to the Overlord. He rolls 2 LOS all at once, failing both. He then rolls 2 Invun saves, failing 1. The Overlord has now taken 1 or more wounds from boneswords. What is the test taken on? Remember, According to you, they are all from the same Wound pool.

Fragile wrote:
With 6th allocation the "or more" doesnt mean much. All wounds are allocated singly and any special rules that are attached to those wounds are resolved before applying the next wound. Anything that triggers off the unsaved wound, ID, FNP, etc. is resolved. The LD test is resolved.

This process is repeated for the second wound, with no changes. There is nothing in the rule that says "Once per..... (any time frame)". Therefore each subsequent wound tests for LD, just like it would apply any other effect with an "unsaved wound " for a trigger, FNP, ID, hexrifles, etc.

So why does the second wound not count for "or more"?

Fragile wrote:

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

Wrong. Try again

"A" test

A is singular.

If you suffer one or more wounds, you take A test

If you take two tests you have NOT taken A test. So you have broken a rule

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

Wrong. Try again

"A" test

A is singular.

If you suffer one or more wounds, you take A test

If you take two tests you have NOT taken A test. So you have broken a rule

That's called plain English. Claiming "A test" is singular has no weight, it just simply agrees with the rest of the sentence structure. You wont find many ways to write that sentence that doesn't use "A test" since there is only 1 test for each wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

Wrong. Try again

"A" test

A is singular.

If you suffer one or more wounds, you take A test

If you take two tests you have NOT taken A test. So you have broken a rule

In that case:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

If "A" test is singular, so is "A" tyranid. So by your reading, wouldn't you test for EACH tyranid model?
Looks like to me you can't have it both ways. Each warrior is A model with bonesword, so each would cause A test.

-Matt

How many leadership tests are taken for Pinning? One per shot or one per unit that is attacking? Because the wording looks about identical to me. I know no one who plays with a pinning test for every single wound that is caused by a unit of snipers, only at the end when one or more unsaved wounds occur.

For comparison, Pinning, "If a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must immediately take a Leadership test. This is called a Pinning test......As long as the test is passed, a unit can be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn, but only once for each unit shooting at them."

HawaiiMatt wrote:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

If "A" test is singular, so is "A" tyranid. So by your reading, wouldn't you test for EACH tyranid model?
Looks like to me you can't have it both ways. Each warrior is A model with bonesword, so each would cause A test.

-Matt

No, because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

The Pinning example clinches it, as the wording is identical.

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

If "A" test is singular, so is "A" tyranid. So by your reading, wouldn't you test for EACH tyranid model?
Looks like to me you can't have it both ways. Each warrior is A model with bonesword, so each would cause A test.

-Matt

No, because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

The Pinning example clinches it, as the wording is identical.

The pinning example hardly clinches. Pinning rules felt the need to specifically say, only one test per unit, multiple tests per phase. If anything, the pinning rules show that the bonesword rule needs further clarification. As I have often said, it's not a good idea to compare current edition rules with previous edition rules when looking for examples. Of course the bonesword rules are going to be messy, they were writen for the previous editions close combat phase.

-Matt

Pinning rules felt the need to specifically say, only one test per unit, because Pinning was re-written for 6th ed and it did not say that in 5th until the FaQ came out.

Pinning in 5th ed had very similar wording to Boneswords, and the FaQ said one test per unit with pinning weapons.

Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Pinning rules felt the need to specifically say, only one test per unit, because Pinning was re-written for 6th ed and it did not say that in 5th until the FaQ came out.

Pinning in 5th ed had very similar wording to Boneswords, and the FaQ said one test per unit with pinning weapons.

Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

Boneswords were written for 5th edition.
If 6th edition added the additional restriction to pinning, but the 6th edition Bonesword FAQ didn't add it to Boneswords, you've got a pretty strong arguement that it isn't clear.

-Matt

Or Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

And we should take the least advantageous interpretation when things are not 100% clear.

6e changed them for the better.
Literally.

Fragie = no, there is A test any time a model suffers one or more wounds. Again, what do you think "or more" actually means? You dodge it repeatedly. Your contention makes "or more" irrelevant; when that is your only resort that should give you a clue as to the fallacy in your interpretation.

Ther is only one way to read the sentence, and that is ONE test if you suffer one OR MORE unsaved wounds. The second unsaved wound CANNOT trigger a second test, without breaking the rule.

"or more" matter mostly for multi-wound attacks or somesuch, as I have read it. Once you get to another step of checking "1" is as important as "or more."

The fact that there aren't any atm is somewhat irrelevant.

It is pretty clear if we're going by "A Test", that we must say "A Tyranid" means if 2 nids wound with bone swords, there are 2 tests.

You dont know what wound came from waht nid, as it forms a single pool

So you're going to go with "A" meaning "A" sometimes but not other times......

If you wanna go with each would being different I'm gonna go with a test each time up to the amount of Boneswords.

Its called "context", and is vital to an understanding of the written language. Try it.

"Context" is called reading into something in this case. I'm reading into the rules, which says "A Tyranid". It doesn't say for each unit with a Bonesword in it.

"A" test is singular, but"A" tyranid is not because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A" test is singular, but"A" tyranid is not because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

This is an "assumptive" argument, which sounds convincing, but I don't agree. "A Tyranid" means 1, simple as that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Or Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

And we should take the least advantageous interpretation when things are not 100% clear.

Ok, so now we agree.
It isn't 100% clear.

I don't think you guys have an unreasonable way to play it, I just don't think the wording on the rule is nearly as concrete as you pretend it is.

Oh, the prime's hits do go in it's own wound pool. I don't even have to make a case for 2 boneswords having a different special rule than a single bone sword. One of the qualifications listed under wound pool is differing strengths. The Prime is S5 the Warriors are S4, that alone means different wound pools (page 14).

-Matt

nos I'm still waiting for you to answer my question I posted. As of yet, everyone saying only 1 test regardless, have not answered.

Happyjew wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

Not true.

Hypothetical scenario.
Tyranid Prime with 2 BS, and 1 Warrior with BS/LW in base to base contact with a Necron Overlord (with phase shifter) and are also in base contact with 1 Wraith (with whip coils).

Each Tyranid deals 1 Wounds. The Necron player decides to start with allocation to the Overlord. He rolls 2 LOS all at once, failing both. He then rolls 2 Invun saves, failing 1. The Overlord has now taken 1 or more wounds from boneswords. What is the test taken on? Remember, According to you, they are all from the same Wound pool.

They're actually different STR so different wound pools. If they were the same STR (adrenal glands on the warriors because you're on crack or something) the rules are unclear. I'd randomize it (HIWPI).

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A" test is singular, but"A" tyranid is not because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

This is an "assumptive" argument, which sounds convincing, but I don't agree. "A Tyranid" means 1, simple as that.

It can not be one tyranid, because there is no unit or model called "Tyranid"

So if you do not agree, you are reading the rule incorrectly.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Or Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

And we should take the least advantageous interpretation when things are not 100% clear.

Ok, so now we agree.
It isn't 100% clear.
-Matt

Even if you think it is not clear, the end result is the same.

Take the least advantageous interpretation which is only one test.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

Not true.

Hypothetical scenario.
Tyranid Prime with 2 BS, and 1 Warrior with BS/LW in base to base contact with a Necron Overlord (with phase shifter) and are also in base contact with 1 Wraith (with whip coils).

Each Tyranid deals 1 Wounds. The Necron player decides to start with allocation to the Overlord. He rolls 2 LOS all at once, failing both. He then rolls 2 Invun saves, failing 1. The Overlord has now taken 1 or more wounds from boneswords. What is the test taken on? Remember, According to you, they are all from the same Wound pool.

They're actually different STR so different wound pools. If they were the same STR (adrenal glands on the warriors because you're on crack or something) the rules are unclear. I'd randomize it (HIWPI).

Unless you treat it as 2 different Wound pools since 1 test is on a 2D6 and the other test is on a 3D6. This makes both wounds different and would have to be separate Wound pools. I agree that it is not 1 test per Wound per Tyranid. I do not agree that 2x BS and BS/LW would be a single Wound pool.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A" test is singular, but"A" tyranid is not because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

This is an "assumptive" argument, which sounds convincing, but I don't agree. "A Tyranid" means 1, simple as that.

It can not be one tyranid, because there is no unit or model called "Tyranid"

So if you do not agree, you are reading the rule incorrectly.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Or Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

And we should take the least advantageous interpretation when things are not 100% clear.

Ok, so now we agree.
It isn't 100% clear.
-Matt

Even if you think it is not clear, the end result is the same.

Take the least advantageous interpretation which is only one test.

Once again, if you are playing it as 1 test, you are breaking the rules. Every single model in our Codex is classified as a "Tyranid".
once again with "A Tyranid" is 1 Model, not 1 Unit. You can "say" this is not the case because you are "reading into" the rules, but you can not prove this as the case. The tyranid codex refers OVER AND OVER again to "a tyranid". So once more, if you want to say "A Wound" then I counter with "A Tyranid"

From a "fluff" stand point this gets worse for your case.

Except that a model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds only need to take A test...

so if they suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid (A Tyranid ,in the context of the sentence, means Any Tyranid, not every Tyranid) then they take a test. (Case Proven if you understand how the English language works). 1 test as per the RAW.

it really is that simple.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that a model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds only need to take A test...

so if they suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid (A Tyranid ,in the context of the sentence, means Any Tyranid, not every Tyranid) then they take a test. (Case Proven if you understand how the English language works). 1 test as per the RAW.

it really is that simple.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

DR perhaps you can answer my hypothetical scenario then? rigeld said he would randomise, but if 2 models (1 with 2 BS, 1 with 1 BS) attack at the same initiative and deal a wound, and 1 wound is saved, how many dice is the test taken on?

And please back up your answer with rules.

text removed.
Reds8n



The next line refers to if a model has 2 bone swords use 3d6, whats the plan here then? Do we use 3 because its 1 wound pool?
But all the other warriors only have 1 bone sword.

So wait, how can that work?

Stormbreed, they are two different wound pools...

The test would be taken on whatever D6 was for that particular wound pool.

Because "If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool"

I would say that 2 Tyranids (1 with 2 BS, 1 with 1 BS) creating wounds would each have their own wound pool, as the special rules that govern those wounds are different.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Stormbreed, they are two different wound pools...

The test would be taken on whatever D6 was for that particular wound pool.

Because "If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool"

I would say that 2 Tyranids (1 with 2 BS, 1 with 1 BS) creating wounds would each have their own wound pool, as the special rules that govern those wounds are different.

So if a Prime with a lash whip and 1 BS, along with a Hive Tyrant with 1 bone sword, and 2 Warriors with dual BS's all attack the same unit, things just get really crazy???

We just do 1 test for the units that have 1 sword, and another test for the units that have 2? 1 Model dies of the terminators so the rest don't have to worry about the other bone swords?

But how can the prime and the hive tyrant give the same test? Seems weird being different models all together. Their weapon? But based on the pinning argument earlier, if it were shooting, there would be 2 tests.

Basically I have to believe that from a "Fluff" and truth standpoint, each unit with a bone sword causes its own tests. We can argue about how many based on how you read the rules.

You would have 3 Wound pools due to different Strengths and Inits. I agree that each Wound pool would trigger 1 test, but not that it would be 1 test overall and you are done.

Happyjew wrote:
You would have 3 Wound pools due to different Strengths and Inits. I agree that each Wound pool would trigger 1 test, but not that it would be 1 test overall and you are done.

Right, but only 1 test per model that had unsaved Wounds (One or more) allocated to it.

And that is where we disagree. As it is I don't think either side is going to budge, and we will just have to wait for GW to address this.

You can disagree all you want, but the language about a model that suffers one or more wounds is clear.

In 6th Ed, since we allocate wounds one at a time, the first wound suffered triggers the test for that particular model. Then that model has fulfilled the requirement about taking one or more wounds, and taking a test. Any subsequent wounds fall into the 'One or more' part of the rule, as two is one or more, as is three, and four, and five etc...

Happyjew wrote:
And that is where we disagree. As it is I don't think either side is going to budge, and we will just have to wait for GW to address this.

Agreed. To me "one or more" is clear enough - you have suffered one or more wounds

Additionally the special rule is the same, so you can definitely argue you only take one wound pool if the strength, init etc are the same between single and dual lashwhip models. The criteria for taking the test become different, but the special rule governing them are the same.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:


So that's 6 Attacks from the the 'Nids, all hit and all wound and the Terminators fail their Invulnerable saves.

Do you

1. take one Leadership test for all 3 Terminators and they all die if failed.
2. take a leadership test for each, those failing being removed as casualties.

Since it's a case of each model needing to suffer a wound this example is useless, they suffer a wound and die. If they pass their save, nothing happens.

Yes, I believe it is. Perhaps I should have said 2 wound terminators to make it clearer?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
And that is where we disagree. As it is I don't think either side is going to budge, and we will just have to wait for GW to address this.

Agreed. To me "one or more" is clear enough - you have suffered one or more wounds

Additionally the special rule is the same, so you can definitely argue you only take one wound pool if the strength, init etc are the same between single and dual lashwhip models. The criteria for taking the test become different, but the special rule governing them are the same.

nos since you are adamant that 2 warriors (one with 1 BS, one with 2 BS) would populate the same wound pool, how many dice is the test taken on?

By "adamant" you mean "no rule saying you would separate them"

What rule are you using to separate into two wound pools? I'd like to hear it

Go from rules first, then work out the issues.

You are claiming they would be a single Wound pool. I'm waiting for you to tell me how many dice the test would be on. As of yet you have not answered the question.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Go from rules first, then work out the issues.

He's going with you that there'd be one wound pool.
Now address how many dice would be used.

I'd like to amend my answer - I see a 2d6 bonesword as a different special rule from a 3d6 bonesword and therefore a separate wound pool even if the STR of the attack is the same.

Yes, I am claiming so, because there is no rules support to say otherwise - after all, the special rule is the same (bonesword), just the criteria used in taking the test is different

So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

I'm asking *rules* first, to make sure we are in agreement on the basis. I guess you are not from a purely functional perspective - what value do you take the test on - but from a *rules* perspective ONLY what is your take?

Once you have answered this question the answer to yours wil be clear.

Yes I agree that as the rules are written there would be one wound pool. That still does not answer how many dice the test is taken on.

The answer is: rules wise you have no way of knowing how many to take the test on

there is no rules answer. Personally if I were running nids i would play it as 2D6, and for my opponent playing nids i would take it on 3D6. Or agree that we would separate the pools.

This is, of course, not RAW. This is a genuine gap in the rules caused by the way wound allocation has altered in 6th

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

Aside from the fact that a Prime has a different STR from a normal Warrior (but you could have two Primes, or a Prime with a unit of Adrenal Gland Warriors on the charge).

BRB page 14 wrote:If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool.

Passing a test on 2d6 vs 3d6 sounds like a different special rule to me.

No, it is the same special rule - the rule given in the Bonesowrds entry changes the test criteria, but it is the SAME special rule in both cases

Again, look at the nid codex. do you see a differently named rule depending on whether you have 1 or 2 swords? If not the rule is the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

Aside from the fact that a Prime has a different STR from a normal Warrior (but you could have two Primes, or a Prime with a unit of Adrenal Gland Warriors on the charge).

BRB page 14 wrote:If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool.

Passing a test on 2d6 vs 3d6 sounds like a different special rule to me.

Prime is S5, he has his own pool.
If warriors become strength 5 due to furious charge, they have different special rules (furious charge).
Hive Tyrant is S6, so again different wound pool.
Regardless of the weapon, each of these units (warrior, prime, tyrant) should have their own wound pool for allocation and model removal.

Two groups of warriors, one with bonesword/lash, and the other with 2 swords generate different wound pools because they are different units.

Ignoring the bonesword issue, I think it's impossible to generate a single wound pool from any mix of tyranid units that could mix bonesword(s) and lash whip.
So, it doesn't matter if you think 2D6/3D6 is or isn't the same rule, you have no way to combine them into a single pool.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

Aside from the fact that a Prime has a different STR from a normal Warrior (but you could have two Primes, or a Prime with a unit of Adrenal Gland Warriors on the charge).

BRB page 14 wrote:If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool.

Passing a test on 2d6 vs 3d6 sounds like a different special rule to me.

Prime is S5, he has his own pool.
If warriors become strength 5 due to furious charge, they have different special rules (furious charge).
Hive Tyrant is S6, so again different wound pool.
Regardless of the weapon, each of these units (warrior, prime, tyrant) should have their own wound pool for allocation and model removal.

Two groups of warriors, one with bonesword/lash, and the other with 2 swords generate different wound pools because they are different units.

Ignoring the bonesword issue, I think it's impossible to generate a single wound pool from any mix of tyranid units that could mix bonesword(s) and lash whip.
So, it doesn't matter if you think 2D6/3D6 is or isn't the same rule, you have no way to combine them into a single pool.

Furious Charge only changes the STR of the attack - it doesn't attach a special rule to the Wound, which is what a second Wound pool would require.

So a Prime with Furious Warriors would be one wound pool - even if they were all Scything Talons.

As above. The Wound has to have a special rule attached, not the model in general

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is a genuine gap in the rules caused by the way wound allocation has altered in 6th

(Sic.)

Nos is correct, I had not realized that they would be the same wound pool, and there is no way to know if you take the test on 2 or 3 D6

I like Nos's solution to separate them into two different wound pools, that seems like a good patch for the hole, at least for now.

Edit, the quote says "gap in t e h rules" (Without the spaces in t e h) when I quote it, but not when I post it, that is odd. Does Dakka have an Auto-correct function?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. The Wound has to have a special rule attached, not the model in general

Why is different strength even in the wound pool limitation?
You've already rolled to wound, and unless the strength is high enough to cause instant death, why would it matter?
Instant death would fall in the special rule section anyway.

So why seperation by strength?

Wound poison 2+ be seperate than poison 4+?
Wound poison hits (4+) from a S4 model be seperate from normal hits from a S4 model when striking a T4 opponent?
For all game purposes, they are the same. Yet for some unknown reason, I think GW has decided to seperate the pools.


-Matt

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragie = no, there is A test any time a model suffers one or more wounds. Again, what do you think "or more" actually means? You dodge it repeatedly. Your contention makes "or more" irrelevant; when that is your only resort that should give you a clue as to the fallacy in your interpretation.

Ther is only one way to read the sentence, and that is ONE test if you suffer one OR MORE unsaved wounds. The second unsaved wound CANNOT trigger a second test, without breaking the rule.

"1 Or more" means any number, 1, 5, 10. If you take any number of wounds, you would take a test. Now you cannot be allocated 5 wounds. You can only be allocated 1. That one would trigger the test. Then you are allocated another 1. That second wound still meets all the criteria for "1 or more" unsaved wounds. And there is nothing to limit the number of tests, like Pinning, which is worded exactly the same, but needed that exemption to limit the testing to once per attack rather than once per wound.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragie = no, there is A test any time a model suffers one or more wounds. Again, what do you think "or more" actually means? You dodge it repeatedly. Your contention makes "or more" irrelevant; when that is your only resort that should give you a clue as to the fallacy in your interpretation.

Ther is only one way to read the sentence, and that is ONE test if you suffer one OR MORE unsaved wounds. The second unsaved wound CANNOT trigger a second test, without breaking the rule.

"1 Or more" means any number, 1, 5, 10. If you take any number of wounds, you would take a test. Now you cannot be allocated 5 wounds. You can only be allocated 1. That one would trigger the test. Then you are allocated another 1. That second wound still meets all the criteria for "1 or more" unsaved wounds. And there is nothing to limit the number of tests, like Pinning, which is worded exactly the same, but needed that exemption to limit the testing to once per attack rather than once per wound.

You suffer a wound. You take a test.
You suffer another wound. Why is this second wound not part of the one or more? Why is the singular test being ignored?
You haven't yet answered these questions, you've just said it isn't so.

If you take 2 wounds, you've taken one or more.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you take 2 wounds, you've taken one or more.

Yes you have, and therefore that would trigger the "If a model takes 1 or more unsaved wounds it must make an LD test."

It doesnt matter how many the model has previously taken, any wound that is unsaved would apply that trigger. Wounds have no memory of the previous wound, given that allocation is 1 wound at a time. If you could apply all 5 wounds to a model at once, then it would be 1 test. But you cannot. Each instance of taking a wound meets the conditions of "one or more". Taking the 3rd wound still meets "one or more". Again its the same basic application as Force wounds, the special rule is applied to each and every wound.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you take 2 wounds, you've taken one or more.

Yes you have, and therefore that would trigger the "If a model takes 1 or more unsaved wounds it must make an LD test."

It doesnt matter how many the model has previously taken, any wound that is unsaved would apply that trigger. Wounds have no memory of the previous wound, given that allocation is 1 wound at a time. If you could apply all 5 wounds to a model at once, then it would be 1 test. But you cannot. Each instance of taking a wound meets the conditions of "one or more". Taking the 3rd wound still meets "one or more". Again its the same basic application as Force wounds, the special rule is applied to each and every wound.

The trigger is thrown, and the test has already been taken - why are you forcing another one?
Why are you assuming no wound has any "memory" of the other ones? Do you have a rules basis for saying so or is it just convenient?

rigeld2 wrote:
The trigger is thrown, and the test has already been taken - why are you forcing another one?
Why are you assuming no wound has any "memory" of the other ones? Do you have a rules basis for saying so or is it just convenient?

Show me a rule that lets you not take it. Pinning clearly has one, but you have taken an unsaved wound by the trigger, you have no rule that says you dont take the test.

Why am I assuming about the memory... well show me a wound, from the same wound pool, that has any memory (affect on the game/model) when applied subsequent to the previous wound that doesnt have a special rule.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. The Wound has to have a special rule attached, not the model in general

Why is different strength even in the wound pool limitation?
You've already rolled to wound, and unless the strength is high enough to cause instant death, why would it matter?
Instant death would fall in the special rule section anyway.

So why seperation by strength?

Wound poison 2+ be seperate than poison 4+?
Wound poison hits (4+) from a S4 model be seperate from normal hits from a S4 model when striking a T4 opponent?
For all game purposes, they are the same. Yet for some unknown reason, I think GW has decided to seperate the pools.


-Matt

No they need separate pools. My Tyrant can ID a T5 with his Smash attack. My Prime can ID T3 if he has AG and charges. My warriors are only S5 even on the charge so they can't ID T3. As I don't know what the toughness is of the model that will be reciving the wounds until I allocate them they need separate pools.

Gloom, They are separate wound pools, but not because of the smash attack doubling the Str (though this would qualify if you had 2 MC's and one used Smash to double its Str and the other did not), but because the Hive Tyrant has AP2 because of the Smash rule, and the Prime is not AP2.

"If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool" P.15

Fragile wrote:
Show me a rule that lets you not take it. Pinning clearly has one, but you have taken an unsaved wound by the trigger, you have no rule that says you dont take the test.

Why am I assuming about the memory... well show me a wound, from the same wound pool, that has any memory (affect on the game/model) when applied subsequent to the previous wound that doesnt have a special rule.

The rule has been posted:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

One or more wounds = 1 test.

So no matter how many wounds a particular model suffers you only take one test for that modes, as after the first wound that model will be suffering one or more wounds.

DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

Fragile wrote:
DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

How are you not understanding the rule that says if you take one or more?

Premise 1) If you take one wound you take one test.
Do we agree on Premise one? (If no why?)

Premise 2) if that model is allocated a second wound that wound falls under the model taking one or more, as two wounds is one or more.
Do we agree on Premise Two? (If no why?)


P.S.
Compare the 5th ed Tyranid codex to the 5th ed pinning rule (Not the 6th ed language), the 5th ed rules for both are similar.

The 5th ED FaQ clarified pinning was one test per unit, not one per pinning weapon.

Fragile wrote:
DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

Because that is the support. Have you taken one or more wounds? Yes? Then you take ****A***** test. No matter how many times you take a wound, you take *****A***** test. When you take the second wound you have alreaqdy taken the single test you are allowed to take under this rule, so you cannot take any more.

There are only so many ways such a simple parsing of the language can be explained to you.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Absolutely correct. But you cannot have wound2 check in isolation - it is caused to a model that has taken one or more wounds and has already tested. There's no permission to force a second test.

This is Easter egging.

This sounds the most fair for both sides. The first wound on the first model was taken as was the LD test. The next wound shouldn't force the LD test on the first model. If the first model is killed then the next model that takes an unsaved wound should be forced to take the LD test. It makes sense given 6ths allocation and the rules for the bone swords stating that the test is taken on a model by model basis once no matter how many wounds they take. Just means if they die on the first wound you have more wounds to allocate to the rest of the squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

 Bausk wrote:

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

That is not what it says, and that is why this whole thread is here.

barnowl wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

That is not what it says, and that is why this whole thread is here.

Actually that is what it says just not in so many words.

"it must immediately pass a LD test" a LD test = 1 LD test

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

it states that you take one (and only one)

Actually that is what it says just not in so many words.

And therein lies the rub, without those extra words (the 'and only one' that are not there) it really can read differently.

Not that I disagree with playing the weaker, but your adamant responses that it DOES say that don't really help.

I really do not see how it can read any other way.

If a model suffers one or more wounds he takes a test.

If two, three, four, five, etc are included in the One or more clause, then the model does in fact take a test. (Not a test for each, not multiple tests, a test).

Do you recall Implant Attack from the previous codex?

Combine that with boneswords, and you have the exact scenario that I read as them ruling on.

I do not have any experience with the previous Tyranid codex.

I have only read the current one.

Ah, it basically doubled unsaved wounds.

That would have the model take 2 wounds per failed (or denied) save, thus the 1 or more listed per "a tyranid".

editing to add:
Not that it is all that possible, but GW ruling on impossible situations has happened before.

barnowl wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

That is not what it says, and that is why this whole thread is here.

Granted it was a paraphrase but it is still what it says. You must take a (singular) LD test if you take one or more unsaved wound (no matter how many wounds you take). Thus I would play as the above. Frankly I'm getting tired of people presuming I have not read the thread if I don't respond to irrelevant posts and only respond to the OP of the point I was addressing or using as an example.

However I will concede that if the first model had made its save against bone sword user A he still need to make a LD against unsaved wounds from bone sword user B and C and so on. But that goes without saying really...