The wording of the Champion of Chaos rule makes me wonder if you can roll on it from shooting.

Consider this situation.

A 5-man CSM squad with a Asp-champ with 2 plasma pistols and a chaos lord with 1-plasma pistol roll up an a rhino (a lot of if's...)

They shoot at a unit of marines on foot with the Sarge in the front (silly marine player). The CSM player gets 3 hits with the plasma pistols and chooses to allocate the plasma wounds first. Dingus Sarge fails his Look out Sir and dies.

Now, do both the champ and the lord roll on the boon table because they killed a character? (check the wording of the rule in the CSM book... I think this might be right)

I searched for "Chaos Boon Shooting" and yielded no results before posting.

I think you have to separate whose shots are whose... same as you would if they had different strengths... I'll leave other people to prove/disprove that though as I'm not near my rulebook.

I will need to review the rules again when I get back to the Library, but there has to be some timing restriction or maybe a restriction on when the rule can be evoked, but again don't exactly know so will have to review later.

There's a special rule attached to those shots so they'd have to be separate.

You can get boons from shooting attacks as they only need to kill an enemy character to get a roll. It must be done immediately.

The Lord should have been rolled separate however, seeing as he is BS5 and the CSM are BS4.

Yes you can but 2 people cant kill on Target because the way you must seperate rolls, Like Precision shots as most people forget they exist.

So say your example the Other 4 CSM shoot first kill1 marine and your asp shoots his pistols rolls sixes to hit and targets the sarge he doesnt make look out sir roll and would then subsequently die granting just the asp champ the roll on the boon table.

Even if he has multiple wounds and say the asp does one and the lord finishes him off, The lord would only be getting he roll.

And Since they Were "gets hot" shots you had to roll them separately.

Plus having additional Special rules that are effected by the outcome of the attacks.

The wounds have the same strength, AP values and special rules, why would each be in it's own pool? Furthermore, the CoC rule even addresses a character being killed by multiple wounds being allocated to it simultaneously.

Wounds are only Simultaneously allocated in CC; Shooting attacks are Sequential other than rolling to hit.

OP, by the rule, both would roll on the table.

 Happyjew wrote:
The wounds have the same strength, AP values and special rules, why would each be in it's own pool? Furthermore, the CoC rule even addresses a character being killed by multiple wounds being allocated to it simultaneously.

I think that since the application of the rules on different models has a big impact on the game it should be two different piles. It's not RAW but HIWPI is that when 2 characters are using the same weapon (doom sirens for example) I'd put them in two sub pools to ensure a clear and trouble free resolution of the COC rule. If I am running Lucius in a squad of noise marines with doom siren champion my opponent would go nuts if I started to claim it was one or the other without making it clear from the get go, especially if I roll spawn and claim it was the champion.

They would not both kill the sergeant. One of the wounds would kill the sergeant, then the other two would kill other models. Only one character would get the boon.

 Spellbound wrote:
They would not both kill the sergeant. One of the wounds would kill the sergeant, then the other two would kill other models. Only one character would get the boon.

If you make one group of wounds for those characters how do you tell which one got the boon?

tell them which one to do a LoS first. First one that fails gets the kill.

TYPICALLY wounds are done in "pools" and they all happen "at the same time" but they really don't. The guy in front dies first, the next guy dies after that, etc. etc. Most of the time, the order doesn't matter but there IS an order. Since there are special rules involved, best to resolve them one at a time (which is a perfectly legal way to do it) rather than group them in pools.

And if they want to throw a fit, then roll a die. 4+ it's the chaos lord, 1-3 it's the champion.

You really didn't read what I said at all did you?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
They would not both kill the sergeant. One of the wounds would kill the sergeant, then the other two would kill other models. Only one character would get the boon.

If you make one group of wounds for those characters how do you tell which one got the boon?

on the other hand how do you know which one will not get the boon? Not rolling them separately can lead to the discussion of 'we know one killed the guy but we can't prove if either killed the guy because it could have been the other shooter' and thus no one gets credit for the kill and no one gets a boon. If I was a piffy chaos god that's how I'd handle it. Best to roll separate and avoid the issue.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
They would not both kill the sergeant. One of the wounds would kill the sergeant, then the other two would kill other models. Only one character would get the boon.

If you make one group of wounds for those characters how do you tell which one got the boon?

By not using the fast dice method.

It is pretty easy to declare which Plasma pistol wound you are having the opposing player roll saves for.

And wound allocation is sequential, so there is that.

If an enemy character dies as a result of multiple Wounds being allocated to it simultaneously, and one or more of those Wounds were caused by the champion, that champion still rolls on the Chaos Boon table

Yep, and the only time Wounds are simultaneously allocated is in the Assault phase, where all of each initiative step is simultaneous.

Shooting lacks the specific wording only stating that to-hit rolls are simultaneous, the rest of shooting(like wound allocation) is sequential

I don't really see where the sequence is...

You roll to hit and then roll to wound.

Even if you have different Strength weapons, it doesn't mean you make them in a different phase or sequence, its just a different results, but they are all made in the Same sequence, the To Wound rolls.

The only way it would'nt work is like you said because the Initiative in CC, but thats it.

We are told exactly which things are Simultaneous(rolling to hit in shooting and the entirety of each Assault Phase Initiative step); anything that is not said to be Simultaneous would default to not Simultaneous, or sequential.

Then you have the wound allocation process in shooting which is absolutely sequential as you allocate each wound from the wound pool until such time as the model you are allocating to is destroyed and then you move on to the next model.

The roll To Hit is itself a sequence:
Each shot generates a single D6 that is rolled and compared against a chart. The first shot generates a result, the second shot generates a result, the third shot... and so forth. The end result of the successes are then moved onto the next step in the larger sequence where they follow a similar process. Within the To Hit rules themselves is hint's that you have permission to roll all Rolls at the same time, which is allowed in other sections and played for the sake of speed throughout the game, as long as you meet one requirement: You separate the results to keep track of weapon Strengths, Special Rules, AP values and other pieces of useful information that could require you to know exactly which shot was which.

If you have no way to tell them apart page 13 has one last thing to say on the matter: roll them separately.

Interestingly enough, the requirement to keep the results separated even if do you have permission to roll the Rolls simultaneously exists for one major purpose: To make it clear which shot is being resolved during the Wound Allocation stage. This brings us back to to the topic at hand; Evoking a Special Rule that requires the champion to remove another character as a casualty, if done during the shooting attack and it is possible to prove the wound came from the champion? Seems like the exact situation all these 'keep the results separate to know which is which' requirements where designed for.

And we are told that all shooting rolls to hit are simultaneous; Are we told that Shooting wounds are simultaneous?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And we are told that all shooting rolls to hit are simultaneous; Are we told that Shooting wounds are simultaneous?

This is a stretch by far.

We are told to group wounds by Strength, AP, and special rules. The plasma pistol wounds are exactly the same and would all go into the same pool. As such there it's no way to know which wound is the one that dealt the final blow.

 Happyjew wrote:
We are told to group wounds by Strength, AP, and special rules. The plasma pistol wounds are exactly the same and would all go into the same pool. As such there it's no way to know which wound is the one that dealt the final blow.

Excepting that there is a special rule in play that requires us to know, and thus you will have 2 separate wound pools, one with the CoC from the Lord, and one with the CoC from the Champion.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then you have the wound allocation process in shooting which is absolutely sequential as you allocate each wound from the wound pool until such time as the model you are allocating to is destroyed and then you move on to the next model.

That's exactly the same in close combat.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
We are told to group wounds by Strength, AP, and special rules. The plasma pistol wounds are exactly the same and would all go into the same pool. As such there it's no way to know which wound is the one that dealt the final blow.

Excepting that there is a special rule in play that requires us to know, and thus you will have 2 separate wound pools, one with the CoC from the Lord, and one with the CoC from the Champion.

There is no RAW to support that. CoC is not different for the Lord or the Champion so there is no special rule that give you permission to have a separate pool, it's a logical and sensible way to play it that you have two groups.

Except shooting isn't really simultaneous or all your shots would just kill the guy in front. The shooter chooses the order in which his shots get saved, so he can have all the Bolter shots go first or the plasma first, or the lords first.

No.

You make the rolls and the wounds, the opponent makes the saves, and then he allocates the unsaved wounds beginning with the closest model.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
No.

You make the rolls and the wounds, the opponent makes the saves, and then he allocates the unsaved wounds beginning with the closest model.

Only if the unit has the same save, there is no character and no model has FNP. Since there is a character in the unit you would have to use mixed saves.

But then its the opponent who makes a separate save for his Character/special weapon/standard bearer, not you.

You have made your rolls has stated in the rules simultaneously, what the opponent do after you have made your rolls isn't of any concerne, in the end if his Character fails his LoS roll and save roll, it was killed at the same time has the other models.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The wounds have the same strength, AP values and special rules, why would each be in it's own pool? Furthermore, the CoC rule even addresses a character being killed by multiple wounds being allocated to it simultaneously.

I think that since the application of the rules on different models has a big impact on the game it should be two different piles. It's not RAW but HIWPI is that when 2 characters are using the same weapon (doom sirens for example) I'd put them in two sub pools to ensure a clear and trouble free resolution of the COC rule. If I am running Lucius in a squad of noise marines with doom siren champion my opponent would go nuts if I started to claim it was one or the other without making it clear from the get go, especially if I roll spawn and claim it was the champion.

Since Doom Sirens don't roll To Hit, you couldn't Precision Shoot an enemy character with them. That would be pretty awesome if it were so though.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The wounds have the same strength, AP values and special rules, why would each be in it's own pool? Furthermore, the CoC rule even addresses a character being killed by multiple wounds being allocated to it simultaneously.

I think that since the application of the rules on different models has a big impact on the game it should be two different piles. It's not RAW but HIWPI is that when 2 characters are using the same weapon (doom sirens for example) I'd put them in two sub pools to ensure a clear and trouble free resolution of the COC rule. If I am running Lucius in a squad of noise marines with doom siren champion my opponent would go nuts if I started to claim it was one or the other without making it clear from the get go, especially if I roll spawn and claim it was the champion.

Since Doom Sirens don't roll To Hit, you couldn't Precision Shoot an enemy character with them. That would be pretty awesome if it were so though.

But wound allocation still applies to them, if the enemy character is the first model to the unit...

Wound pools are not generated by character and so on it's done by ap. rolling to save isn't done all the same time either unless all the models are the same with the same save. Allocating is done from closest to the furthest back. Aside from look out sirs. If both the asp champion, and The Lord are firing plasma, both hit , both wound and the rag dies then I'd say they both get a roll on the boon table. This is not going to happen very often and the rolls are more than likely not game breaking so it's a moot point to argue.

No, one wound pool, groups inside by S, AP, and special rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, one wound pool, groups inside by S, AP, and special rules.

This! So many people don't get that it's one pool.

I would say that if there was a 2 wound character and he takes a plasma pistol wound from each character, then each character gets to roll.

In the case of a sergeant, with 1 wound, he can't actually take more than one wound, so only one character would kill him.

 Spellbound wrote:
I would say that if there was a 2 wound character and he takes a plasma pistol wound from each character, then each character gets to roll.

In the case of a sergeant, with 1 wound, he can't actually take more than one wound, so only one character would kill him.

Ok but let me ask you this. You have two characters. Both fire a single plasma pistol shot, hit and wound. You now have a wound pool with 2 identical wounds in it. The enemy sergeant passes his first "save" (cover, invulnerable, FNP, LOS, what have you), but fails the second one. Which character killed the sarge?

Only one of them gets it as only one of them killed the sgt. If you forgot to declare which shots were which in the spirit of the game I would then allow your Lord, and Champion to fight to the death to settle the argument over who actually killed the sgt.

Otherwise it's very simple. You ask are you rolling for the lords plasma shot, or the champions.

But how do you know? You don't divvy up wounds based on who shot, you separate them based on strength, AP, and special rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
But how do you know? You don't divvy up wounds based on who shot, you separate them based on strength, AP, and special rules.

I'm confused as to how a special rule that cares about who shot who isn't enough to create separate wound pools.

As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Bingo.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

They have the same name. They are not the same rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

They have the same name. They are not the same rule.

Citation please. How is CoC not the same rule? Is FnP 4+ from one piece of wargear/special rule a different rule to FnP 4+ from a different piece of wargear/special rule?
Is a 2+ save not the same as a 2+ save?

If that wargear requires a condition to be met in order to activate then yes they are not the same.

Well if you want to go straight RAW since you cannot determine who's plasma shot killed the sergent neither gets the boon. Which pretty much means in order to get the boon they need to be the only person with plasma, or the only person who shoots.

How can they be the same Rule if they resolve differently?

@Wagguy: That's not RAW either, that's another assumption of how the rule must work.

How do they resolve differently?
Does a psychic power resolve differently when I cast it on X rather than y?
Is a the resolution of a USR on model A different to model B when they have a detailed effect?

Can I have an answer to this other than "No but they are different?"

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

They have the same name. They are not the same rule.

Citation please. How is CoC not the same rule? Is FnP 4+ from one piece of wargear/special rule a different rule to FnP 4+ from a different piece of wargear/special rule?
Is a 2+ save not the same as a 2+ save?

FNP from different wargear doesn't care how it resolves, just that it does.
CoC from different models does care how it resolves. They're different rules because one is on a Lord and one is on an Aspiring Champion.

Nope, not seeing that as a different rule. It's interesting how the rule is now self aware :p
I would also say that Coc doesn't care how it resolves, it just does as per C:CSM

It's the same as any rule that applies to individual models, it doesn't make it a unique rule.

Liturgies of blood,
Allow me to clarify what I mean by 'resolve differently' as I think there is an error in communication here. I am not addressing situations where the final 'answer' is different, for example putting a -1 Toughness on a Fire-warrior will have a different final Toughness then the same -1 on a Marine. I am addressing situations where the equations we use to come to these answers are very different from each other, for example having a Rule requiring us to put a -2 Toughness on a Monstrous Creature but only a -1 on Infantry. In order to properly handle Special Rules that have more then one method of resolution, with the Champion of Chaos having over a dozen, we would need to keep track of each occurrence separately so we know which method to use.

With that in mind, my answer to your question will be more clear:
The examples you gave are all cases of identical Special Rules, unless there is some not yet disclosed detail which changes how the Rule itself is to be resolved.

I don't have to give a RAW example of how the rule should work. I say it is broken RAW. I have said repeatedly how I think it should be played. I am disagreeing with any RAW argument as this is a niche situation not covered by the rules.

The fact a rule can have a different outcome depending on who it's applied to has no change to the fact it's the same rule on all of the character inflicted wounds in this very niche situation. I understand that you're saying the resolution of the rule can have greater effects but it doesn't give permission to create another group in the wound pool RAW.

Liturgies,
We are now reaching the point of personal opinion about a fundamental concept that is the ground work on which Rules as Written are formed, which is not something we can easily debate over. If you wish to continue to believe that all it takes is one factor to be the same, the name of the Special Rule, for it to be considered 'The Same' then you can continue to do so for as long as you wish to. I would rather take a more flexible interpretation that the power must have the same name, contain the same verbiage throughout and guarantee same end result every time for it to be considered 'The Same.' That interpenetration allows for situations like these ones to be resolved easily as grants us permission to, and even requires us to, keep track of each individual Special Rule should it contain verbiage that allows for multiple end results.

After all, that is the basic idea behind all the 'different colored dice' requirements found in simultaneous resolution in the first place:
To ensure we can keep track of each Roll so we can evoke any related Special Rules linked to it.

That's an even bigger reach than different castings are different psychic powers IMO. The same rule on a different model is not a different rule. It's not just a name that's the same it's the mechanism of the rule that is the same. In every single way the rule is the same because it is the same rule printed on the same page of Codex Chaos Space Marines.

You've made a RAI argument and tried to sell it as RAW. I've yet to see a RAW argument as to why they are different rules. I've at least been honest enough to clearly differentiate my RAI/HIWPI from my RAW.

I still disagree,
The rule itself contains a random element within it, a dice roll that you must first do in order to find out exactly what effect you are applying, it is not possible to state that the instructions will always be the same. Thanks to the presence of this randomizing element, we can not even guarantee the same resolution would be applied if we resolved the Special Rule twice on a single model. Given the wide range of conclusions, from doing nothing right through replacing the model with a spawn, it would be very important for us to keep track of each individual Result as they can change the outcome of what occurs next. As simultaneous resolution methods do not allow for us to keep track of this information, within this scenario, how is it the best method to use?

I have always rolled Special Rules with random factors sequentially, as to keep track of which Result is doing what.

Maybe i'm an idiot, but it makes no sens at all...

The fact that there is a randomized roll as a RESULT of the rule, doesn't mean the rule is different for each model that has it...

CoC does the same darn thing, be it that the model is a Lord a Special IC a CHampion or even a Cultist Champion.

Slayer Le Boucher,
+1 to Wound Characteristic is very different then a +1 to the Attack Characteristic, both are possible outcomes from this single Special Rule.

In fact, it becomes more vital to keep two 'shots' with these Special Rules separate as the the order in which they are resolved will effect the outcome. The fact there exists two results, Spawn and Daemon Prince, which involve replacing the model completely makes it very important we know which 'shot' is applied first. This is because we use the Statistic line that comes with the new model, even discarding war-gear and other Special Rules the model might of had prior. Should the result of +1 to a Characteristic occur before the Result to replace the model, then it will produce a completely different outcome then if the order of events was reversed.

This is the core of what I am trying to bring to everyone's attention;
If the instructions we are required to follow are different, how can we honestly argue they are the 'same' Special Rule?

You are mistaking the outcome for the mechanism. It's the mechanism that is named not the outcome.

The mechanism is: Roll 2D6 and apply the result found in the following chart.

As this mechanism uses a random element it becomes impossible to say it is identical, or the same, to every other application of the very same rule. It is not even possible to guarantee the same instructions would be followed if you decide to simply 'undo' the shot and re-attempt it. With no other factors being reviewed then the Special Rule itself, it is still not possible to state that that it will be the same steps you follow throughout executing the Special Rule.

As I said, we are arguing over the meaning of one word here: Same.

As I see it, everything involved in the equation has to be identical before I would consider it the 'Same.' Should you want to have a much lower measuring stick, there is nothing I can really say to convince you that this could be a bad idea. We are talking about a fundamental here, so it is not going to be possible for either you or I to provide any solid evidence to support either conclusion as being correct. All I can do is point out that 'Simultaneous Resolution' in this situation can lead to unforeseen consequences in a handful of rare scenarios that are avoidable by simply applying the Roll sequentially instead.

Example is still: A spawn result, a +1 Wound Characteristic result and the lack of knowledge on which one is applied first.

Jinx, I don't think anyone is arguing that you roll the results on the table at the same time, only that both characters (in this instance) would get to roll.

Your example is really nothing to do with the rule.
If you're spawned you don't take the +1 as you're no longer a character, if you are +1 wound and then take a spawn you're still jsut a spawn.

Have you anything rules based to back up this idea that "the same" is not a rule that is actually the same.

A 10% discount is still a 10% discount no matter how much you spend and is not a different 10% discount to the discount another customer receives.

HappyJew,
Then why so much resistance to the idea that they would be assigned to separate 'wound groupings' and why am I dedicating so much time to trying to get people to realize that the order which wound groupings are resolved is important?

Actually, the situation does have some weight on what I was trying to explain:
Without rolling the dice sequentially, or using different coloured dice to mark which Special Rule is which, how do you know you are applying the result to the correct model?

JinxDragon wrote:
HappyJew,
Then why so much resistance to the idea that they would be assigned to separate 'wound groupings' and why am I dedicating so much time to trying to get people to realize that the order which wound groupings are resolved is important?

Actually, the situation does have some weight on what I was trying to explain:
Without rolling the dice sequentially, or using different coloured dice to mark which Special Rule is which, how do you know you are applying the result to the correct model?

Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

If you're saying this is how it should be played, fine but please read the forum tenants as RAW is the default position for arguments in YMDC.

You do also realise it's a rare situation where you'd have 2 characters with the same weapon both hitting and wounding and that group of wounds being applied to a character and taking it's last wound? It's very likely that it didn't come up in play testing.

Liturgies of Blood,
How rare the situation is does not change a thing as we are asked how to go about resolving this situation. One answer is to group the wounds together, making it impossible to keep track of whom is causing which wound and this does raises a few additional concerns with me. One answer is to resolve the wounds separately, or at least use different colored dice, in the exact same way as you resolve separate Wound Groupings. The debate is dependent on how identical does something need to be before we can consider it 'the same,' required to even have permission to group them together in the first place. The problem with that stems from the fact the definition of 'same' is open to interpenetration.

Now I might be over-looking something, so if you can provide me with a page and paragraph which provides us with a criteria on how to determine sameness then I would appropriate it.

The brb assumes a few things, firstly that you can tell some basic things apart. (Eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0) I think we can use common sense to figure out if the same rule is applied to two wounds. Common sense would generally say that two things are the same when they are totally identical. Coc is a rule applied to all chaos characters, it's not a different rule for each character. If we go by your logic then we need a separate group for every single wound that has any rule with a random element tied to it's resolution, unfortunately this is nothing like the shooting rules.

Is your arguement RAW, RAI or something else?
RAW you have no permission to resolve the wounds in sub-groups for the two characters. If you can show that you have permission please do so.

If it's RAI, that's fine but that cannot be debated against RAW.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

Except, you know, the fact that there's different special rules involved.

You do also realise it's a rare situation where you'd have 2 characters with the same weapon both hitting and wounding and that group of wounds being applied to a character and taking it's last wound? It's very likely that it didn't come up in play testing.

bs. Not like it matters, but if it didn't come up its because they didn't play test. Which is likely.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

Except, you know, the fact that there's different special rules involved.

What is the different special rule? Or are multiple instances of the same rule now different rules?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

Except, you know, the fact that there's different special rules involved.

What is the different special rule? Or are multiple instances of the same rule now different rules?

Same name, different models, different rule.

Can you prove that with something other than an assertion?

If your assertion was true then wounds should be pooled on a basis of which model inflicted them as different models have different rules now.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can you prove that with something other than an assertion?

If your assertion was true then wounds should be pooled on a basis of which model inflicted them as different models have different rules now.

In many cases the difference in rules is irrelevant. With CoC however it's absolutely relevant.

Ah so because the rules don't say what to do... RAW is that you throw in arbitrary extra groups in the wound pool?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Ah so because the rules don't say what to do... RAW is that you throw in arbitrary extra groups in the wound pool?

Arbitrary? Seriously? No, they aren't arbitrary extra groups. They're groups designated by different special rules.

It's almost like I said that...

You've said it, that doesn't make it true.

You've also not shown CoC to be different to CoC(hint, it's not).

Liturgies,
As we are discussing a fundamental concept, how identical does something need to be before it can be considered 'same' as something else, we are clearly in a meta-game discussion. While this meta-game level is vital to how Rules as Written function, they themselves are not written down anywhere in the rule book itself. Therefore, by the definition of what a written rule is, I can not state this debate is in the realm of Rules as Written. One thing is very sure though, the outcome of such a debate will effect how certain rules are handled when we encounter these very few situations on the table. The lack of a criteria informing us how to determine level of 'sameness' does create problems for this rule, as well as a few others throughout the Rule Book, and at this point I think it is very obvious neither of us are going to be able to resolve it to each others satisfaction.

Besides:
Permission based rule-set, so it is up to you to prove to me that these rules are the 'same' in order to group them together in the first place.

Jinx, is not being identical enough to be the same? If I had a unit with Stealth, and attached an IC with Stealth would you allow me to have +2 to my cover saves? After all they are on different models and apparently that is enough of a difference that they are not the same rule.

HappyJew,
It is someone else' assumption that being on a different model makes it a different Special Rule, not my own. This is why I have been trying carefully to state that the factors at question need to be internal to the Special Rule itself, that is the wording inside of the Special Rule is all we should be focusing on. I actually find the idea of external factors, such as which different models evoking the rule, to be flawed because it would invalidate so much of the Rule Book. All the rules granting permission, and explaining how, to carry out Simultaneous Resolutions would now be invalid and impossible to evoke. Not only that, but it makes it impossible for any Special Rule to fall under the restriction you mentioned and it creates a few additional problems with the resolution of a handful of other rules as well.

Therefore this outlook can not be correct.

The issue I have is when internal factors within the rule would change the method used to resolve the rule. I recognize that rules are written without detailing every external factors involved, that it is impossible for a writer to pen down every situation where every rule will conflict, and therefore I limit my scope to match. I am focusing on situations where different methods of resolution are introduced by the body of the rule itself, such requiring us look up a 'randomizing table' or having different instructions depending on the circumstances surrounding how the Special Rule is evoked. I believe the simple fact that we do not know what the instructions will be until we go to resolve them is enough to prevent us from stating outright that this application of the Special Rule is the same as another application of the Special Rule. Because the method we use to resolve these rule, the instructions we go about obeying, changes dramatically between applications we must be extra careful to ensure the Roll is being allocated the correct Special Rule. Should that mean sequential resolution, though different colored dice would be enough in this situation, then I see no problem with it as ensuring the rules are applied correctly should be important enough to forgo a little convenience designed to speed up the game.

So the question is simple:
If the rule contains instructions that change dependent on circumstances outside of our control, is it truly possible to guarantee it is the 'same rule' as one with an identical name?

So I guess that is the next question too:
Would you deny the application of the second result on the grounds the unit will benefit twice from the 'two applications of the same Special Rule' during this Simultaneous Resolution?

Is this a Kafka story? Can anything ever be the same?

If two applications of a rule are not the same rule then why does the USRs limit you to gaining the benefit of a USR only once? As per Happy's example, you've have a 2+ stealth unit because of the IC and the unit having stealth.

 Happyjew wrote:
Jinx, is not being identical enough to be the same? If I had a unit with Stealth, and attached an IC with Stealth would you allow me to have +2 to my cover saves? After all they are on different models and apparently that is enough of a difference that they are not the same rule.

Stealth is worded to prevent this.

No matter how many models in the unit have stealth(1 or all) you only gain +1; so stealth is a bad example.

Choose another one.

Jinx, let me ask you this. Certain Tzeentchian weapons have a special rule that forces the wounded unit to take a toughness test. On a failure the unit takes extra wounds. On a success the unit either gains a special rule, or if they already have it, a bonus to the special rule.
This means that the instructions change based on circumstances outside our control. Does this men they are different rules, and each weapon can force the toughness test?

If you were wondering, HIWPI (regarding chaos boobs) is to treat them differently, but then again I don't play RAW, I play "logically".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kk, according to rigeld, a special rule on an IC is different then the same special rule on a character in a unit. As such the unit is benefiting from two different special rules. They just happen to have the same name, same effect, etc.

Unless we are told it is 1 test per shooting Phase, or 1 Test per unit; it is 1 test per trigger.


Happy: which I agree with; it is 2 Instances of the special rule, which itself need to know which special rule is being invoked(the ICs or the UCs)

Liturgies,
It is not the external factors which make the application of the rule 'different' but internal factors making it impossible for us to state the rule will be identical each time.

HappyJew,
See this example is one that I do like because it does make me think on the situation a lot more. I would need to know the exact wording to see exactly what triggers the toughness test and if there is more to it then seen within the quick summery you put forth here. That summery does lend some strength to the other side of the debate, not so much about the 'Sameness' thing because it is undefinable but because of an issue to do with timing. If the Special Rule has a random element within it, but you test for that element once and apply the results to all rules with this element, does this prevent you from grouping these 'shots' together to resolve Simultaneously prior to knowing the results of this test?

I could honestly just point out that the terminology 'one or more' is very powerful, it is often used to highlight situations where you resolve multiple Special Rules or events through a single action, but I feel that is a dishonor to the line of thought that should be explored.

Jinx, that is nonsense.
If the rule requires you to resolve it in a separate group in the pool that's fine but where is the permission?

There is nothing in the brb to back up your idea, this special class of rule isn't explained in the brb or codex CSM.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Jinx, that is nonsense.
If the rule requires you to resolve it in a separate group in the pool that's fine but where is the permission?

There is nothing in the brb to back up your idea, this special class of rule isn't explained in the brb or codex CSM.

the special rules that do not stack are worded not to stack.

Special rules shopuld default to separate from separate sources because of this.

This is beside the point that this special rule has an effect only on the model that possess the special rule in the event that the models attacks kill an enemy character(so each instance of this special rule only effects the model with this special rule)

Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Jinx, that is nonsense.
If the rule requires you to resolve it in a separate group in the pool that's fine but where is the permission?

There is nothing in the brb to back up your idea, this special class of rule isn't explained in the brb or codex CSM.

the special rules that do not stack are worded not to stack.

Special rules shopuld default to separate from separate sources because of this.

This is beside the point that this special rule has an effect only on the model that possess the special rule in the event that the models attacks kill an enemy character(so each instance of this special rule only effects the model with this special rule)

I agree that the rule points to a need for separate groups for each character but where there permission? Why is this rule different to all others?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes..... they are the exact same rule, the have the same triggers and mechanisms and have the same range of outcomes.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes, it is. Just like Shrouded on a Lord is the same SR as Shrouded on an Asp Champ.

Yes, Because there is NO OTHER OR DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE RULE IN THE CODEX.

You have Champions of Chaos rule in the codex page xx.

In each Lord/Sorceror/Special IC/Aspiring Champion the line that referes to CoC is the EXACT SAME PAGE for each of them.

Just like any other Sm Chapter Master that has say EW, and a IC or Captain that has the EW rule, they both refere to the EW rule in the rulebook on the exact same page, there is no multiple instances of EW in the rulebook, so why would there multiple versions of CoC in CSM book?

My Furious Charge on Kharn is the exact same has the Furious Charge on my Zerkers.

Saying that because its on a IC and a UC, its a different rule, is weirdly and awesomely devious and silly.

Let me see if I have the two sides of the argument right:

Example - Unit including a Character (thus using the Mixed Saves flow) takes 4 wounds from boltguns, one from a Champion with a plasma pistol and one from a Chaos Lord with a plasma pistol.

Side A) The boltgun wounds go in one group of the wound pool, the plasma in another. The order of groups is decided by the shooting player (plasma or bolts first). - in which case would you advocate remembering ownership of the plasma (CoC), or are you saying RAW breaks down here as they are merely grouped by S/AP/Specials?

Side B) Since the plasma wounds have different rules (in a similar vein to the "Are separate castings from different sources of the same Psychic power 'the same' for stacking."), you end up with three groups, potentially in the order of 1 plasma - 4 bolt - 1 plasma.

---

If I am not understanding the arguments, my apologies.

Well A is more that RAW breaks down and they group by S/Ap/Specials.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well A is more that RAW breaks down and they group by S/Ap/Specials.

Would you say that keeping track of which wound is which (in order to correctly allocate the winner of Champions of Chaos), but keeping them in the same wound group (and thus, resolving them one after the other as opposed to option B) is in keeping with the RAW or breaking RAW? (actual question, not trying to put words in your mouth)

I don't see anything that would give you permission to do so, that would mean it's outside RAW.

I think you either need to use different colour dice or a separate wound group to play it properly but RAW and the right way to play something aren't always the same.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't see anything that would give you permission to do so, that would mean it's outside RAW.

I think you either need to use different colour dice or a separate wound group to play it properly but RAW and the right way to play something aren't always the same.

Thank you, I now have a much clearer picture of the argument.

Soo uhhh, guys, what do I do?

On the plus side, I've re-written my list to take a lvl 1 sorcerer (cheaper) and give him smite (no gets hot, and 4 shots instead of 1) (1/6 chance of getting Life Leech, which is cool)

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Yes..... they are the exact same rule, the have the same triggers and mechanisms and have the same range of outcomes.

Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain how an independent character rolling on the chaos boon table is the same outcome as a champion rolling on the chaos boon table?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes, it is. Just like Shrouded on a Lord is the same SR as Shrouded on an Asp Champ.

And this goes for liturgies too:

Each Lord, Sorcerer, Aspiring Champion, or whatever have there own CoC that is specific to them; it is in no way like Stealth or Shrouded, it is more Like relentless.

Relentless on each model is a different instance of relentless than each other model.

The same could be said of Termie Armour granting the Invulnerable save, Each Armour grants its bearer an Invul Save, so a unit of 5 GK Paladins who get shot at with a Vindicare Shield Breaker round will only have the model hit lose his invul save

Again there is no Blanket: "Special rules do not Stack" It is just the wording of most special rules that do not allow for them to stack(A unit that contains at least 1 model with X; effect).

Yes it is different from all the other "Weapon or model with this Special rule" SRs, but then those rules effect the unit attacked, not the model doing the attacking; which is the important part here; The Lord's CoC is different from the Asping Champs CoC because it only effects the Lord(while the Asp Champs only effect the Asp Champ).

 loreweaver wrote:
Soo uhhh, guys, what do I do?

As you can see, the exact RAW is open to debate, so you'll just have to talk to your opponents / gaming group and decide on a method of resolving such shooting in a way that you feel is fair and follows the intent of the rules, even if it strays a little from the exact wording of how to split wounds in a pool.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Yes..... they are the exact same rule, the have the same triggers and mechanisms and have the same range of outcomes.

Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain how an independent character rolling on the chaos boon table is the same outcome as a champion rolling on the chaos boon table?

It's ok, range of outcomes is the phrase I used.
That means that the specific outcome of the rule can be different but they are from a proscribed list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes, it is. Just like Shrouded on a Lord is the same SR as Shrouded on an Asp Champ.

And this goes for liturgies too:

Each Lord, Sorcerer, Aspiring Champion, or whatever have there own CoC that is specific to them; it is in no way like Stealth or Shrouded, it is more Like relentless.

Relentless on each model is a different instance of relentless than each other model.

The same could be said of Termie Armour granting the Invulnerable save, Each Armour grants its bearer an Invul Save, so a unit of 5 GK Paladins who get shot at with a Vindicare Shield Breaker round will only have the model hit lose his invul save

Again there is no Blanket: "Special rules do not Stack" It is just the wording of most special rules that do not allow for them to stack(A unit that contains at least 1 model with X; effect).

Yes it is different from all the other "Weapon or model with this Special rule" SRs, but then those rules effect the unit attacked, not the model doing the attacking; which is the important part here; The Lord's CoC is different from the Asping Champs CoC because it only effects the Lord(while the Asp Champs only effect the Asp Champ).

Is there anything that would back up the idea that USRs are not Universal? The description of USRs in the brb seems to disagree with your entire argument. The wording of CoC would also disagree with you that it's a separate rule for everyone that has it.

Eh Kel, Compendium of special rules, 3rd paragraph 1st page of USRs states that unless otherwise stated special rules don't stack with themselves.
Well then we should group gets hot shots separately as they can only "get hot" on the model that shot them....
The fact a rule is directed at a specific model doesn't make it a different rule. If this was the case than rules and powers that take away SRs would not work because they don't have SR(insert model name here) to remove that version of the rule.

The rule is the same but it has a effects each model differently.

If the Champ kills him he gets a bonus, if the lord kills him he gets a bonus. That separates them right there as per the rules.

Also because the effect is based on the model of origin not the target model.

Example to show what I mean.

Let's say they all have bolt pistols. You fire them and the squad toss all the wounds in 1 pool and kill the sergent. Do they get to both roll on boon because a bolt pistol killed him and they were firing bolt pistols?

No.

You would separate their shots from the rest.

This is complex wound assignment and per the rules you assign wounds 1 at a time not in pools (that is a optional fast dice method and if you do it your opting out of the boon). So you would first allocate the lords plasma, he would make a look out sir, then the champ's plasma, and he would look out sir.

Whichever he failed the look out sir for would get the boon.

HappyJew,
Very nice use of precedent.

While I didn't get a chance to do a complete review of the rules involved, I went off the worse case situations for my side of the debate as it is likely accurate. While I was able to formulate a few counter arguments, none of them could address the core of the precedent case you pushed forth to my satisfaction. There are scenarios where the application of this definition of 'same' will lead to unusual outcome, the one you put forth quite dark a gray at that. My mind simply is not twisted enough to bring that situation into line, the fact I have not reviewed rules doesn't help, so it does put doubt on this definition.

While I am sure I could find a lot of precedent cases that prove the more flexible definition of 'same' also causes gray areas but I lack the time and motivation. After all, it was a question on how to resolve a gray area which led down this long path to begin with. Give that lack of motivation, I will concede that my mind is not twisted enough to work out a definition of 'same' that both fixes existing gray areas and doesn't create new ones of it's own. I will simply take solace in the fact that, when these Gray Areas do occur, people are usually smart enough to solve them without too much blood spilling over the table.

Ok we all agree that the rule is the same, that it can have different effects on models but you're missing the real point here.

The rule is the same and page 14 in the Wound Pool paragraph 3rd sentence tells us what to do. Page 14 doesn't say that the rules you separate by are ones that only apply to the target model.

Liturgies,
People don't agree the rule meets the requirement to be considered 'the same,' that is why the debate has gone on 2 pages without a universally applicable definition of 'same' forth-coming.

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgies,
People don't agree the rule meets the requirement to be considered 'the same,' that is why the debate has gone on 2 pages without a universally applicable definition of 'same' forth-coming.

And if they'd like to offer some substantive to that other than "I feel it must be, so it is." That would be great, especially when the BRB runs on the basis of SRs being the same if they have the same name.

And thats the stupid part of this thread...

Do you own the CSM codex?, if you do, then we must not have the same codex and you must have a 2.8 Icrack version of it, because when i read the Lord, the Sorceror, the Apostle, the Warpsmith, the Aspiring Champiosn entry i see "Champion of Chaos(pg 28)".

You go the the page 28 and Oh shiny Santa balls miracle!, there you have the CoC rule and description of the rule...once...

yes there is no Lord version of CoC, or Dark Apostle version or Chosen or Plaguemarine Version, there is but ONE and ONLY version, where all of those characters entry referes to.

So in what names of, you guys can say with a straigth face" yup its not the same rule"?...

Because then Chapter tactics for Sm CM and Sergeant isn't the same also?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Is there anything that would back up the idea that USRs are not Universal? The description of USRs in the brb seems to disagree with your entire argument. The wording of CoC would also disagree with you that it's a separate rule for everyone that has it.

Eh Kel, Compendium of special rules, 3rd paragraph 1st page of USRs states that unless otherwise stated special rules don't stack with themselves.
Well then we should group gets hot shots separately as they can only "get hot" on the model that shot them....
The fact a rule is directed at a specific model doesn't make it a different rule. If this was the case than rules and powers that take away SRs would not work because they don't have SR(insert model name here) to remove that version of the rule.

Missed that one.

And yes we should fire Gets Hot shots separately; because that is what the rule says to do, Only the model firing the gets hot weapon can take the wound. Take a Captain in a Tactical squad whith the following weapons: Combi plasma on the Captain, Plasma gun on a marine and Plasma Cannon on another marine. They all shoot with their Plasmas in rapid fire range. The Cannon has to roll a d6 before it fires and if it rolls a 1 only the Plasma Cannon takes the wound. When the Captain and the marine fire their Plasma guns you have to roll their to hits separately because even if all 4 dice come up 1s the captain will only have to roll 2 saves(he only fired 2 Gets hot shots), any other combinations of 1s and not-1s need to be clearly delineated between which were the marines shots and which were the captains.

If you were meaning rolling to hit separately and resolving the wounds in different wound pools, then no as there are no longer any special rules in play(the wounds are just S7 ap2, you have already resolved "Gets Hot").

Removing a special rule is removing a special rule, so long as the model has the special rule it gets that special rule removed when under the effects of said removal. Going back to the Paladin and Vindicare situation: the paladin hit by the shield breaker loses his armor generated Invul save, but no other paladins in his unit lose theirs. If a peice of wargear or effect removed the invul saves from the unit then it would removal all the instances of Invul saves in the unit.

We roll to hit with gets hot separately, there is nothing telling us to resolve them in different wound groups.

Which I said.

Ok better example of why this is important and why everyone seems to be getting it wrong.

Wound pooling is the "fast dice" method. It is optional not a rule simply another faster way to resolve shooting.

The proper way per the rules is the shooter allocates wounds 1 at a time, and the opponent makes saves 1 at a time. There is no rule forcing you to allocate all of a certain type of wound, and then all of another.

That is simply for speed when it doesn't matter.
Example:

You'e got your Champ with a plasma pistol, and your shooting at a 5 man combat squad. The order from closest to furthest is...
Bolter
Bolter
Bolter
Sergent
Bolter

You do 1 plasma wound, and 7 bolter wounds. You want that boon right? Of course you do.
So you apply a bolter wound to the first guy, and repeat until either all are saved or you reach the sergent.
At which point you can apply the plasma wound EVEN if you still have bolter wounds left.

Now the fast dice method for this would be since there are 3 guys before the sergent you would simply apply 3 bolter wounds. He fails 1, then you apply 2 more because now there are only 2 bolter guys before the sergent. He fails both, and now you apply the plasma from the champ. He fails his LoS roll and dies your Champ gets the boon.

Sine the rest doesn't matter he then rolls saves for whatever wounds are left. Another example...

10 man tac squad with a plasma, and missle launcher fire at a 20 man Dark Eldar squad with a Haemonculi.

The Haemonculi gives them FnP is T4, and multiple wounds. So you want to cause the most damage right? Right.

So you first apply 2 plasma wounds so the first 2 guys can't FnP, get no save, and die. Then you apply the ML wound the haemonculi can't FnP as it's double toughness, gets no save because it's AP3, and it will instant death him from double toughness.
You then apply the rest of the bolter wounds to the squad. Note since all shooting takes place at the same time the rest of the squad will still get FnP against the bolter wounds. However you prevent them from FnP a few bolter wounds to get to the haemonculi, you've prevent the haemonculi from soaking up multiple plasma or bolter shots before dying.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Wound pooling is the "fast dice" method. It is optional not a rule simply another faster way to resolve shooting.

The wound pool is populated (filled) and grouped (sorted) regardless of the method of emptying it. "Fast Dice" (page 16) modifies the "Allocate Wounds" and "Take Saves & Remove Casualties" part of the Mixed Saves rule (page 15), it does not affect the Mixed Wounds box (bottom right of page 15).

At least, that's how I read Fast Dice.

Hmm re-read you are correct but it still says to allocate 1 wound at a time.

If you failed to specify which plasma wound was from which model then you lost out of the boon. OR you could randomize between potential shooters to see who gets the boon.

So 1 plasma wound, 1 plasma wound, 1 plasma wound, then since the rest are bolters and the same you switch to the fast dice method and roll them all.

I missed the pool because generally my squads are self pooling. You have the bolter pool, the plasma pool from a single guy, and the missle launcher pool.

Except that the Shooter isn't the one who allocates the wounds.

You roll to hit, you roll to wound, your opponent roll its saves, and allocate the unsaved wounds.

if amidts those unsaved wounds there is the wounds of the plasmas and the Character has died, thats it, and that was the real question before all this mess about multiple instance of the exact same rule bs.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Except that the Shooter isn't the one who allocates the wounds.

You roll to hit, you roll to wound, your opponent roll its saves, and allocate the unsaved wounds.

if amidts those unsaved wounds there is the wounds of the plasmas and the Character has died, thats it, and that was the real question before all this mess about multiple instance of the exact same rule bs.

No but the shooter gets to determine the order in which wounds get allocated, "Mixed Wounds" on page 15.

It clearly states you allocate wounds from each pool, and in wound allocation it says you do that one at a time.

Wagguy80 wrote:
It clearly states you allocate wounds from each pool, and in wound allocation it says you do that one at a time.

There is only ever 1 pool, there are many groups in that pool but that's not multiple pools.

Word games. You assign 1 wound at a time unless they're all the same, and all his saves are the same, and then only if a character is not present.

So no debate you would apply 1 wound at a time to the sgt from whatever group you wanted to start with.

So lets say you lump both plasma in the same group. You apply one, he fails his look out sir and dies.
Now who gets the boon? Because you still have 1 plasma wound in that group.

So you either group them seperately, or declare which wounds belongs to which model when assigning. Or your going to wind up rolling a D6 and going high/low Champ/Lord.

It's almost like words matter when we talk about what the rules say....

You still fail to allow for the possibility that the rules don't cover this situation. The rules are not fully checked and often don't use proper grammar or sentence structure. I assume you are now admitting that you're arguing from a HIWPI standpoint?

iirc The codex states "If a character is killed by multiple wounds in a single phase, and the champion of chaos made any of those he receives a boon" or something like that...

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
iirc The codex states "If a character is killed by multiple wounds in a single phase, and the champion of chaos made any of those he receives a boon" or something like that...

It does say something dissimilar to that but it also doesn't apply in this situation. There are not in our examples a number of wounds being allocated simultaneously which is the key word you're missing.

I'm pretty sure you have to get that kill in a challenge guy

 jackflashultra wrote:
I'm pretty sure you have to get that kill in a challenge guy

Nope. Ou must accept and issue challenges.
Getting a Boon is from any any time.
Seperate parts of the rule.