The Nightmare Doll (Haemonculus Covens) negates the first unsaved wound that causes Instant Death that would be allocated to the bearer.

A question has cropped up on a DE website I frequent as to whether or not this would prevent a Destroyer weapon from killing the bearer.


Here are the order of operations: Get hit by D weapon. Roll on Destroyer chart. If 2-6 rolled, take saves (if applicable).

From there, here are the options as I see them:

A) The Nightmare Doll negates the wound which would be caused by the Destroyer weapon before it multiplies out, preventing the character from dying.

B) The Nightmare Doll negates the first of the dx+x wounds, leaving the character to face the rest of the wounds (and thus to still die).

C) The Nightmare Doll does not prevent any of the wounds.

D) Other/confused/no opinion (please specify)

How do you think it works?

Successful destroyer hits wound automatically and cause a model to lose however many wounds instead of one. Effectively a model takes one unsaved wound, but that wound causes the model to lose a number of wounds instead of 1.

So the first option, unless it's against a D-Scythe which is only S4 for Instant Death purposes, or unless the model somehow gains T6 or higher to avoid Instant Death from a destroyer weapon's usual S10 for Instant Death purposes.

What is the wording for the effect?

Oberron wrote:
What is the wording for the effect?

"Furthermore, the Nightmare Doll automatically negates the first unsaved Wound with the Instant Death special rule that the bearer suffers, though as soon as it does so, the Nightmare Doll will immediately cease to work for the rest of the battle."

For destroyer weapons you take a save on the hit not the wounds so you only make the one save. You don't save the hit (it's unsaved) so you negate it with the doll? That's the way I would do it I think.

 HANZERtank wrote:
For destroyer weapons you take a save on the hit not the wounds so you only make the one save. You don't save the hit (it's unsaved) so you negate it with the doll? That's the way I would do it I think.

This isn't correct. Destroyer states:

"Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

No to-wound roll is made because the hit wounds automatically, but a wound is still caused, which is what (as normal) is saved against.

It is of course a single unsaved wound, albeit a wound that inflicts the loss of D3 wounds on a model rather than one. So the Nightmare Doll still works against it, provided the wound carries the Instant Death rule.

Are the autohits allocated or not allocated?

I thought a argument about D-weapons a few weeks ago hinged on them being allocated (LOS maybe?).

However you play them, consistently. If a wound in allocated (so, you would be able to make a save, LOS etc) then yes. If not, then no. If you play a save on the first hit to cause no wounds, then the same for the doll; Functionally like a one time save. I believe the most popular then is option A.




Reading through D weapons I though the hits are allocated, removing the need for the wound pool (and there is never a roll to wound that is able to populate one ) and therefore no allocation from it. It is a bit out of the way though.

They are still allocated. They are not autohits, they are autowounds.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They are still allocated. They are not autohits, they are autowounds.

This.

1)You roll To Hit.
2)assert "D result"
3)You resolve an auto-Wound (saves). (<Failed save = suffer "unsaved Wound")
4)Instead of reducing wounds by 1, as usual, you remove D3.

(In the case of 2-5, of course)
During step (3), the Nightmare doll would stop the progression and "suppress" the Auto-Wound that you did not save.

My own question though: Is it Instant Death? D = S10?

>

From memory D counts as S10 for the purposes of instant death. Hence the scythes having "only" S4.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
From memory D counts as S10 for the purposes of instant death. Hence the scythes having "only" S4.

My inference by that question was also:

That means that some D-Weapons (rolling a 2-5) might remove 3 Wounds from a model with a Nightmare Doll, and the model would not be able to use the Nightmare Doll as these "S4 D-weapons" are not Instant Death Wounds. Is that possible?

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
From memory D counts as S10 for the purposes of instant death. Hence the scythes having "only" S4.

My inference by that question was also:

That means that some D-Weapons (rolling a 2-5) might remove 3 Wounds from a model with a Nightmare Doll, and the model would not be able to use the Nightmare Doll as these "S4 D-weapons" are not Instant Death Wounds. Is that possible?

Exactly. It isn't instant death, so the Nightmare doll doesn't kick in, but it is still Strength D, so you don't get to take a feel no pain.

One more way eldar screw dark eldar. From the fluff, it should be the other way around.

Ah thanks! Somehow i managed to miss MR Shine's clear explanation:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
So the first option, unless it's against a D-Scythe which is only S4 for Instant Death purposes, or unless the model somehow gains T6 or higher to avoid Instant Death from a destroyer weapon's usual S10 for Instant Death purposes.

Derp

There is not an initial wound that multiplies out.

We are just told it causes d3 wounds instead of 1, not that it causes 1 wound that becomes d3.

if the d3 result is a 2 or 3 you would negate the first wound and still have unsaved wounds to suffer.

therefore the answer by the RAW cannot be A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HANZERtank wrote:
For destroyer weapons you take a save on the hit not the wounds so you only make the one save. You don't save the hit (it's unsaved) so you negate it with the doll? That's the way I would do it I think.

and this is correct as per Destroyer weapons you are told to take the save on the hit from the rules for destroyer weapons, not the wound.

"Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapon as normal, unless a devastating hit or deathblow result is rolled."

the thing in that statement that is weird of course is "as normal" as normally you take saves versus wounds not hits...yay GW :(

Apart from the actual rules stating otherwise, you would be correct. There is indeed an initial,wound. It's been proven n

This might help anyone to understand:

 BlackTalos wrote:
As such, i would modify your summary:

Normal:
Hit
Roll to Wound
Allocate Wounds
Save Wounds
Reduce Wounds by 1
Remove Casualties (Optional)

D-Weapons:
Hit "model suffers a hit"
Roll to Wound "that wounds automatically"
Allocate Wounds Allocate "Seriously Wounded" or "Deathblow" Wounds
Save Wounds Take your save against the "Seriously Wounded" Wound
Reduce Wounds by 1 "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"
Remove Casualties (Optional)

From: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/645363.page

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apart from the actual rules stating otherwise, you would be correct. There is indeed an initial,wound. It's been proven n

I find your statement lacking in any rules support, as well as being non constructive.

The rules for Destroyer weapons do not state the model suffers an unsaved wound, then it becomes D3. The rules state the model suffers D3 wounds instead of 1.

Normal hit= 1 wound

Destroyer hit= 0, D3, or D6+6 wounds

not 1 wound that magically becomes d3, or X wounds, this is not stated anywhere. If it were the case, which it is not, the d3 roll of 1 would be the model suffers 1 wound that becomes 1 wound. Or if you roll on the table a 1, the model suffers 1 wound that becomes 0 wounds.

The model suffers a hit that is d3 wounds instead of 1.

Not the model suffers a hit that is 1 wound, that becomes d3.

Unless you can quote a relavent rule that shows the model suffers a singular wound, and after that is suffered it becomes d3 your statement has no merit in the rules.

D weapons
Roll to hit-as normal
roll to wound- there is no roll to wound, instead roll on table.
Saves- roll saves if allowed
allocate wounds- model suffers no wounds, d3 wounds, or d6+6 wounds
reduce wounds
remove casualties.

There is no to wound roll, we are told in the rules for destroyer weapons that there is no to wound roll because of instead of rolling to wound you roll on the table. The table does not tell us there is an initial unsaved wound, it tells us models suffer 0 wounds, d3 wounds INSTEAD of 1, or d6+6 wounds INSTEAD of 1. These wounds wound automatically and have no to wound roll.

not 1 wound that becomes x wounds. That is made up.

No, it did not contain rules. They've already been given, so I foolishly assumed you had already read them.

Wounds automatically. Causes d3 wounds instead of 1. Wounds automatically is where the wound is generated, and is the part of the shooting sequence wher you roll saves.

Your argument is refuted. Mark it hywpi.

I like how you broke up a sentence into two parts and put the latter half in front as a separate sentence to change the rules.

your argument is refuted, put it in the proposed rules section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it did not contain rules. They've already been given, so I foolishly assumed you had already read them.

Wounds automatically. Causes d3 wounds instead of 1. Wounds automatically is where the wound is generated, and is the part of the shooting sequence wher you roll saves.

Your argument is refuted. Mark it hywpi.

if wounds automatically is where the wound is generated you just changed the rules, so that now people have to roll to wound for the d3 wounds and they do not wound automatically[despite the RAW stating they do-because you cut that piece of the rule out and moved it somewhere else, well done!], which would be individually as there is no permission in destroyer to not roll individually. Or we could not break up the rules and rearrange them into something they are not. Also the rules for destroyer specifically state the save is taken at the hit step, not after wounds, so again you are fabricating rules.

No, it states you save against "as normal", which you choose to break up

However I have again remembered the futility of attempting honest debate with you, so I won't participate further. It's not worth the time to convince a poster such as yourself.

Everyone else knows the correct rules, which is all that matters. Your house rules can be played wherever you can convince people you're right.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it states you save against "as normal", which you choose to break up

However I have again remembered the futility of attempting honest debate with you, so I won't participate further. It's not worth the time to convince a poster such as yourself.

Everyone else knows the correct rules, which is all that matters. Your house rules can be played wherever you can convince people you're right.

"Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapon as normal, unless a devastating hit or deathblow result is rolled."

quoting the actual RAW again for you, you can note that it is not broken up. Of course you won't because you are you however.

you take saves against hits for destroyer weapons, it states so plainly. Does it say 'hits' or 'wounds' ? I see hits. I see it also in my rulebook. Not wounds.

you can make a RAI statement about "as normal" but considering it plainly says hits, the as normal would have to reference the normal way you roll saves, not the normal time you roll saves as the RAW clearly states its against the hit, and does not state against wounds taken.

TBH put me on ignore, it would be nothing but a benefit if you stopped replying to anything I post. Ever. When most of your posts contain zero rules and say things like Your argument is refuted. Mark it hywpi. or "concede concede" to any one who you disagree with.

How do you save against hits as normal? By saving against the wounds those hits generate.

I won't put you on ignore. Some of your more constructive rewrites of basic rules are quite amusing to read.

To me this makes sense, maybe it won't to you:

First a quote from above:

"Furthermore, the Nightmare Doll automatically negates the first unsaved Wound with the Instant Death special rule that the bearer suffers, though as soon as it does so, the Nightmare Doll will immediately cease to work for the rest of the battle."

this isn't a quote but an unsaved wound from a d-weapon on a 2-5 multiplies into d3 unsaved wounds.

So if the result was a 1 then the bearer of the doll is safe, I'm fairly sure that is undisputed.
If the result is a 2, then the bearer dies because the doll only protects him from one of the unsaved wounds. However if the bearer had eternal warrior as well as the doll (which may not be possible but bear with me) then he would only suffer 1 wound because the doll stops one wound with the instant death special rule and the second wound wound with the instant death special rule only does 1 wound.
I believe everyone is smart enough to extend this concept to a d3 result of 3

yes normally you save against wounds, but it doesn't say to save against wounds from destroyer weapons as normal.

it saves to take saves against hits from a destroyer weapon as normal.

so obviously the part where you save has specifically been modified, but you are told you make a normal save against it there unless it is a deathblow/deathstrike.

referencing the general rule and then claiming how a specific rule that modifies part of the general rule is invalid because general rule is present is not how specific rules work.

blaktoof wrote:
you can make a RAI statement about "as normal" but considering it plainly says hits, the as normal would have to reference the normal way you roll saves, not the normal time you roll saves as the RAW clearly states its against the hit, and does not state against wounds taken.

This doesn't make sense. How do you propose we roll saves before wounds have been allocated? Do we make a further assumption that we're allowed to allocate hits instead of wounds? If so that's quite a leap from the RAW.

What does make sense and complies with RAW is it meaning that we roll saves against hits that successfully wound, as normal.

Well the Nightmare Doll specifically says "with the Instant Death" special rule. So unless the D-weapon has the "Instant Death" USR, then RaW, the nightmare Doll would have no effect.

HOWEVER. I would play this that the nightmare doll would indeed work and save the model. But only because I hate D weapons, and think they should be taken out of the game.

D-weapons do not inherently have ID. However, for the purpose of ID they are Strength 10 (scythes being an exception). This means that against T5 or less, unless the model has EW, on a 2+ if they fail their save (if allowed) they are dead.

Blaktoof, I posted a reply to you about this in another thread, and i thought no answer meant you might have agreed...

This is with rules support (Italics are RaW):

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The wounds from the D weapon are an affect applied to the model hit, so the total wounds aren't distributed to the unit, but the hits are.

That is slightly wrong by method, but correct in resolution. Please play this way it makes things very easy.

Hits can never be allocated, only Wounds can. So the method is this:

- Roll To Hit
D weapon causes 3 Hits.
- Roll To Wound
2 Hits roll 2-5: Seriously wounded. Automatic Wound with a D3 "Cause".
one Hit rolls 6: Deathblow. Automatic Wound with a D6+6 "Cause".

You have a Wound Pool: 2 "and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1." and 1 "and causes it to lose D6+6 Wounds instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit.".

So, you now assign 1 "and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1." Auto-Wound to the closest (or enemys choice) Carnifex. He gets(maybe) a Save (Invun?). If he fails, you roll a D3, that Carnifex looses that many wounds.
Then, you assign 1 "and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1." Auto-Wound to the same Carnifex, or the next one if the first has died. Save again, if he fails, you roll a D3, that Carnifex looses that many wounds.

You may then assign the last Auto-wound, that ignores saves and therefore simply removes D6+6 Wounds.

Notice that you may
A) Assign the D6+6 Auto-wound first, before the other 2
B) You cannot roll the D3 until after it has been assigned and the enemy has rolled a save. So you can't "find out before" what the result is.
C) Likely not kill all 3 Carnifexes. If they have Cover/Invun saves, Roll 1 on the D3, you may have to also use the D6+6 on the Carnifex that has 1 Wound left... ("once a model has a Wound allocated to it during an Initiative step, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty.")

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the line needs further clarification:

"Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

The model suffers a hit (To Hit)

that wounds automatically (To Wound)

and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1. (Reduce Wounds, in the Rulebook in the "Reduce Wounds and remove casualties" section)

There doesn't seem to be a clear community consensus at all.

Unless I'm much mistaken, the overwhelming majority (i.e. all but one) in this thread have come to the same conclusion, with so far as I can tell sensibly-supported rules backing.

blaktoof has yet to explain with RAW support how we are to save against a hit when we are unable to allocate hits and saves are taken on a per-model basis once allocated, but either way, a consensus is the majority opinion, so you seem to have that much

Except that the poll shows a significant silent minority.

The margin of error means the numbers here aren't clear enough to assume that any given opponent (or club) will want it done that way.

Polls tend to be like that; it's altogether too easy for people to simply click their opinion without needing to support it, but of course take the results as you will - it's your thread after all

The point of the poll is to try to gauge the community opinion. Most of the time there is at least a 3-1 split (a general agreement, or consensus) to do it one way over the next most popular interpretation

This poll is almost 50-50 between the two primary choices, which means there is almost no consensus. To my mind, this is a question every HC player should add to the short-list they send to TOs before paying to play in any event, since there seems to be a marked disagreement over how to interpret it.

A related question: how does one take a Nightmare Doll at all?
It is avaiable for models in Covens' detachment or formation that have access to Dark Eldar artefacts in main dark eldar codex, that is to no unit at all.

Well, at least it seems that way - hemunculus has no access to artefacts, as far as i can see

 Jimsolo wrote:
This poll is almost 50-50 between the two primary choices, which means there is almost no consensus. To my mind, this is a question every HC player should add to the short-list they send to TOs before paying to play in any event, since there seems to be a marked disagreement over how to interpret it.

That would be because 50% of readers vote the way they play:

D weapons inflict D6+6 Wounds that all have to be saved. They probably also know that this is incorrect in terms of rule lawyering, but do not want to get into an argument about it.



TL: DR: The issue is not with "Nightmare Doll", but with the basic resolution of "D Weapons".

New to this edition, thus often worked out incorrectly until GW streamline the Rule over Editions.

D weapons functional work as a variable multiwound weapon does from Fantasy; you save, then unsaved wounds multiply out but at a different rate based on a D6 roll that was taken before you saved.

I have never seen anyone play that you have to save each, individually. This is a horrible way to play as LOS! can result in many models being killed from a single D weapon hit

nosferatu1001 wrote:
D weapons functional work as a variable multiwound weapon does from Fantasy; you save, then unsaved wounds multiply out but at a different rate based on a D6 roll that was taken before you saved.

I have never seen anyone play that you have to save each, individually. This is a horrible way to play as LOS! can result in many models being killed from a single D weapon hit

I agree. I'd like to hear from the "Option B" voters who disagrees with this?
(If not, problem solved?)

Its likely to just be blaktoof, who glosses over important sections and pretends an unsaved wound is never generated. Those with a real argument that wtihstands scrutiny it would be good to hear from

nosferatu1001 wrote:
D weapons functional work as a variable multiwound weapon does from Fantasy; you save, then unsaved wounds multiply out but at a different rate based on a D6 roll that was taken before you saved.

I have never seen anyone play that you have to save each, individually. This is a horrible way to play as LOS! can result in many models being killed from a single D weapon hit

To be fair that is not how D Weapons work RaW (as they don't), so confusion is not surprising.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its likely to just be blaktoof, who glosses over important sections and pretends an unsaved wound is never generated. Those with a real argument that wtihstands scrutiny it would be good to hear from

I doubt he's made 20 accounts to Vote 20 times, so that sounds a bit like a personal barb

At least he's made it clear of his position, even if it could do with a good discussion.

My post was rather aimed at the 19 other voters, whom i'd like to hear from rather than having the 23 "Group A" all agreeing on the rule....

I see it as, and this is generally HIWPI, as I'm not entirely certain of the rules for both D and the doll, but I would see it as the model with the doll doesn't suffer a wound until after the roll to see how many it takes. Eg, you hit the model, and roll a 3 to see what happens, they take their invulnerable save to see if they survive it, which they fail, so you then roll a D3, getting a two, meaning model suffers two wounds, so doll kicks in and negates the first wound, leaving the second to go through. Again I can't be certain of the rules, but that's how I think the order of events goes

It would indeed be good to hear from the others; I just dont see how you can possibly save hits, with no rules telling you how to do so, and how you avoid the issue that wounds must be alloccated (as this is the only way you can hurt a model, without a rule otherwise such as Gets Hot!) meaning LOS! gets in the way.

 statu wrote:
I see it as, and this is generally HIWPI, as I'm not entirely certain of the rules for both D and the doll, but I would see it as the model with the doll doesn't suffer a wound until after the roll to see how many it takes. Eg, you hit the model, and roll a 3 to see what happens, they take their invulnerable save to see if they survive it, which they fail, so you then roll a D3, getting a two, meaning model suffers two wounds, so doll kicks in and negates the first wound, leaving the second to go through. Again I can't be certain of the rules, but that's how I think the order of events goes

It's actually the interaction between D-Weapons Rules and Shooting/Assault rules that create an issue with the above:

Destroyer states:
"Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Shooting Rules ("Take Saves & Remove Casualties"):
"The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

So the Destroyer Weapon rule modifies how many Wounds you "reduce" from the model after it fails its save. This is after the model suffers the Wound and thus becomes unsaved and you used the Nightmare Doll: before you reduce the 1 Wound (or D3, D6+6 in the Destroyer case).

If, as you are saying, the Nightmare Doll takes effect after you reduce the model's Wounds by 1 (or D3), then the Nightmare Doll would never save any Wounds (as the model has already been "reduced")
Therefore it must be before you reduce the Wounds, and before you roll the D3 or D6+6. (Even if the actual roll has to be earlier: when you've rolled To Hit)

I must ask my question again: how does one take Nightmare doll? haemunculus cannot take artefacts, hence they cannot take the doll, same goes for Wracks and other things that cn be taken in Coven formation or detachment.

Survivor19 wrote:
I must ask my question again: how does one take Nightmare doll? haemunculus cannot take artefacts, hence they cannot take the doll, same goes for Wracks and other things that cn be taken in Coven formation or detachment.

RaW you can't. But the rules are clear that Haemonculus can take the HC relics. It is unclear weather or characters can take them, most people play that they can't.

Except they can take them. The hardback book lists the relics as an option for the haemonculus in both the DE and Coven books...

So, if i have bought a proper codex, i wouldn't be asking this question. Got it: Haemuncuuli can take artefacts.
I would ask you for a profof, but i believe you unconditionally.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 statu wrote:
I see it as, and this is generally HIWPI, as I'm not entirely certain of the rules for both D and the doll, but I would see it as the model with the doll doesn't suffer a wound until after the roll to see how many it takes. Eg, you hit the model, and roll a 3 to see what happens, they take their invulnerable save to see if they survive it, which they fail, so you then roll a D3, getting a two, meaning model suffers two wounds, so doll kicks in and negates the first wound, leaving the second to go through. Again I can't be certain of the rules, but that's how I think the order of events goes

It's actually the interaction between D-Weapons Rules and Shooting/Assault rules that create an issue with the above:

Destroyer states:
"Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Shooting Rules ("Take Saves & Remove Casualties"):
"The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

So the Destroyer Weapon rule modifies how many Wounds you "reduce" from the model after it fails its save. This is after the model suffers the Wound and thus becomes unsaved and you used the Nightmare Doll: before you reduce the 1 Wound (or D3, D6+6 in the Destroyer case).

If, as you are saying, the Nightmare Doll takes effect after you reduce the model's Wounds by 1 (or D3), then the Nightmare Doll would never save any Wounds (as the model has already been "reduced")
Therefore it must be before you reduce the Wounds, and before you roll the D3 or D6+6. (Even if the actual roll has to be earlier: when you've rolled To Hit)

If you quote the rest of allocating wounds and removing casualties you will see some problems with the above.

1- "first allocate wounds from the wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit" to generate a wound pool you have to roll to wound. There is no to wound roll for D weapons. The roll of how many wounds a hit is caused by a D weapon is not a to wound roll, and we are not told it is one. We are told they are a hit the generates automatic wounds. "However in the shooting section we are told when rolling to wound there is no such thing as an automatic wound and a roll of 1 always fails". As we are not rolling to wound with the D weapon, there is no to wound roll, and then there is no wound pool. If there is no wound pool you cannot follow the rules for "allocating wounds" as it requires you to have roll to wound and generated a wound pool. Therefore the rule to reduce a models wounds by 1 for a hit are not a valid arguement for creating this made up initial wound that becomes x other wounds, where x can be 0, d3, or d6+6.

2- Destroyer weapons call out specificaly you roll to save versus the HIT not the WOUND. Yes this is not the normal shooting process, but D weapons are not normal ranged weapons. We know that specific rules can modify general rules, and the general method of rolling a save comes after rolling to wound, but there is no to wound roll for D weapons, and D weapons tell us to roll our saves normally, during the to hit step.

3- we are told on Destroyer weapons to roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, therefore there is no to wound roll, and therefore there is no wound pool generated.

4- As there is no to wound roll, there is no initial loss of 1 wound that multiplies to some other amount. Which is a ridiculous concept for anyone to support as there are no rules for it in the book, and applying rules from another game system (WFB) makes no sense at all.

5- If you believe that somehow there is a to wound step (completely unsupported in the rules and in this thread..) then you have created a scenario where a roll of 1 on the destroyer chart causes a wound, but the model is unharmed. There is no initial wound, the wounds come from the result of the D-chart. d3 wounds is not 1 that becomes d3, it is not 1 wound x d3, it is d3 wounds instead of normally taking one. Because normally models take one wound from one hit, and now instead they take d3 wounds from the 1 hit.

6- Yes RAW in the general rules you cannot allocate hits, this does not give us permission to create a rule that we have an unsaved wound we allocate to models then roll on the hit table, these are not real rules people are stating.

and lastly no I did not vote more than once on the poll... lol seriously? However I can see from posts in the thread why people would not want to state why they voted a certain way.

blaktoof wrote:
"However in the shooting section we are told when rolling to wound there is no such thing as an automatic wound and a roll of 1 always fails"

1. The above does not exist in my rulebook, please check you are Quoting it correctly. Automatic Wounds do indeed exist.
There is a Wound pool in the Destroyer weapons rule: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
You have a Wound pool of Automatic Wounds.

blaktoof wrote:
2- Destroyer weapons call out specifically you roll to save versus the HIT not the WOUND.

I do not agree, the exact wording is this:
"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D6+6 Wounds instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit."
If the Rule says 'Las-canons do not allow cover saves against this hit.' You still run through the normal To Hit, To Wound process, but when you get to armour/cover saves, then this happens.

blaktoof wrote:
3- we are told on Destroyer weapons to roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, therefore there is no to wound roll, and therefore there is no wound pool generated.

Yes, the entire "Auto Wound > allocate Wound > roll Saves > remove models" replaces a normal To Wound roll.
It does not mean that it can break all the other methods of Wounding and casualties, otherwise you would never be able to kill enemies with D-Weapons....

blaktoof wrote:
4- As there is no to wound roll, there is no initial loss of 1 wound that multiplies to some other amount. Which is a ridiculous concept for anyone to support as there are no rules for it in the book, and applying rules from another game system (WFB) makes no sense at all.

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".

In the rule quoted above, what do you think "Instead" means? If there is nothing to compare to, what is "Instead" replacing?

blaktoof wrote:
5- If you believe that somehow there is a to wound step (completely unsupported in the rules and in this thread..) then you have created a scenario where a roll of 1 on the destroyer chart causes a wound, but the model is unharmed. There is no initial wound, the wounds come from the result of the D-chart. d3 wounds is not 1 that becomes d3, it is not 1 wound x d3, it is d3 wounds instead of normally taking one. Because normally models take one wound from one hit, and now instead they take d3 wounds from the 1 hit.

Okay, you are contradicting yourself here (Underlined):
There is no initial wound <-> it is d3 wounds instead of normally taking one
Which one is it? Is there an original Wound that you "instead" or is there none?

I would say I am in the camp of one save, multiple wounds. However, I can see the aguement for the other, even if I disagree with it. Possibly a HIWPI answer, but hey, watcha want from me.

by the use of english in any country that speaks english instead does not mean multiply, it means you replace one thing with another.

there is no 1 wound that becomes d3, there is d3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

Models generally lose 1 wound, instead if they are hit by a destroyer weapon they lose 0, d3, or d6+6. Not 1 wound that becomes those wounds.

so you do not reduce a model by 1 wound then roll on the chart and say "oh its d3 wounds, I rolled a 3 so 1 multiplied to 3.

You roll on the chart and that is the wound reduction. D3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

You save versus the HIT

therefore the nightmare doll ignores the first wound with ID, which would be 1 of the D3 wounds, not the made up 1 wound that becomes d3 magically without any rules telling us we had 1 wound that is multiplied to something else.

blaktoof wrote:
by the use of english in any country that speaks english instead does not mean multiply, it means you replace one thing with another.

there is no 1 wound that becomes d3, there is d3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

Models generally lose 1 wound, instead if they are hit by a destroyer weapon they lose 0, d3, or d6+6. Not 1 wound that becomes those wounds.

so you do not reduce a model by 1 wound then roll on the chart and say "oh its d3 wounds, I rolled a 3 so 1 multiplied to 3.

You roll on the chart and that is the wound reduction. D3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

This make very little sense. It is completely contradictory. I will try to ask in an easier way:

When you say that "instead" means: "it means you replace one thing with another"

What is "one thing"? And what is "another" (thing)?

replacing does not equal a mathematical function.

D weapon hits cause 0,d3,d6+6 wounds to the model not 1 wound that is later somehow replaced with other wounds.

If you cause 1 wound and then replace it with other wounds, when you roll the result of 1 you would have caused 1 wound replaced with 0 wounds- which makes no sense. Also in order to cause 1 wound in the way you suggest you first need to roll to wound as standard- which D weapons do not do.

You are creating a rule that D weapon Hits cause 1 wound, then sometime later replace that wound with 0,D3, or D^+6 which is not stated or suggested anywhere.

D weapons cause hits, the hits are allocated to models, and you roll on the chart (yes there is no rule for allocating hits but this is what we are told to do with D weapons..) the models suffer the result on the chart instead of normally suffering 1 wound from being hit by something that wounds.

The models do not suffer 1 wound that becomes something else, because if they suffered 1 wound they would reduce their wounds by 1, this would trigger casualty removal for anything reduced to 0 wounds. You cannot then instead suffer some other amount, other than the rules never ever saying to do this you end up with a situation where any models with 1 wound taking a D weapon hit are removed as casualties on the result of rolling a 1 (unharmed). And of course the RAW never tell you to do what you are suggesting.

blaktoof wrote:
replacing does not equal a mathematical function.

D weapon hits cause 0,d3,d6+6 wounds to the model not 1 wound that is later somehow replaced with other wounds.

If you cause 1 wound and then replace it with other wounds, when you roll the result of 1 you would have caused 1 wound replaced with 0 wounds- which makes no sense. Also in order to cause 1 wound in the way you suggest you first need to roll to wound as standard- which D weapons do not do.

You are creating a rule that D weapon Hits cause 1 wound, then sometime later replace that wound with 0,D3, or D^+6 which is not stated or suggested anywhere.

D weapons cause hits, the hits are allocated to models, and you roll on the chart (yes there is no rule for allocating hits but this is what we are told to do with D weapons..) the models suffer the result on the chart instead of normally suffering 1 wound from being hit by something that wounds.

The models do not suffer 1 wound that becomes something else, because if they suffered 1 wound they would reduce their wounds by 1, this would trigger casualty removal for anything reduced to 0 wounds. You cannot then instead suffer some other amount, other than the rules never ever saying to do this you end up with a situation where any models with 1 wound taking a D weapon hit are removed as casualties on the result of rolling a 1 (unharmed). And of course the RAW never tell you to do what you are suggesting.

The thing is you are making an easy question into something much more difficult. I will return to my easy question:

When you say that "instead" means: "it means you replace one thing with another"
What is "one thing"? And what is "another" (thing)?

The RaW is this: "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
Do you agree that we are replacing one thing: 1 Wound, with another thing: D3 Wounds

Agreed?

Yes which means there is no initial unsaved wound.

Which is supported by the RAW in that there are no rules for that fabricated concept.

as such the nightmare doll does not negate all the wounds on the roll of d3, or D6+6, and instead suffers d3-1 or d6+5, as the rules for nightmare doll state wounds and not hits, and destroyer weapons cause hits that do x wounds where x= 0,d3, or d6+6 not 1 that becomes some other amount.

if you replace 1 with d3 or d6+6 there was never one. If you treat the rules that there is 1 for other purposes, you have not replaced one with something else. example, if you say that there is 1 unsaved wound[ no rules support in D weapons for this] and treat nightmare doll as stopping the 1, then state there are no other wounds- you did not replace 1 with anything.

for example. I normally meet Blacktalos for coffee, instead today I met Nosferatu for coffee. I have done something instead, and replaced something. Which means there was never me having coffee with you that day.

nothing in the rules for D weapons tell you to cause 1 unsaved wound then replace it with something else, you cause 0,d3, or d6+6 instead of 1. not 1 that later becomes those values.

The way I look at it, is that the model doesn't suffer a wound until the full amount has been generated. If I remember correctly we are told to make a save before generating the full amount. However as the model is yet to suffer a wound until after the roll to determine the number of wounds it is to take, then the doll would only activate after the roll, meaning you take one less wound than rolled

The way i see it is you only have to roll 1 save against a D weapon hit as its only 1 hit that causes more damage than a normal hit so how i play it is:-


roll to hit, get 1 hit
roll on the D table, the result being how many wounds the target will take if your opponent fails their cover/invul save
roll 1 save, if failed the target suffers x amount of wounds from the D table roll
remove casualty, if the hit goes through and sufficient wounds are caused

But thats just how i play it, makes more sense to me

And too answer the original question my take on it is that D weapons don't have the ID "special rule" they just cause ID due to their high strength unlike for example Illic Nightspear's rifle which has ID on a 6 so i'd have to say Option C, but again that just how i would play it

blaktoof, it seems you initially argued for a method which required allocating hits and taking saves from that allocation and represented that as the correct way to play it RAW, and now you're admitting that in fact it is not supported by RAW and requires inventing an entirely additional step the rules offer no support for.

In contrast, what we are suggesting requires only an (entirely sensible) assumption on what the rules mean when they say saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal, i.e. from the resulting automatic wound.

What you are suggesting is that one save can be taken against a single hit which is impossible to allocate and thus impossible to determine which model takes any save or suffers any unsaved wounds, and that the hit being unsaved results in D3 wounds (unsaved) rather than one. By your reckoning it is impossible for the model to even actually suffer the D3 unsaved wounds for the Nightmare Doll to take effect because it simply cannot have them allocated to it.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
blaktoof, it seems you initially argued for a method which required allocating hits and taking saves from that allocation and represented that as the correct way to play it RAW, and now you're admitting that in fact it is not supported by RAW and requires inventing an entirely additional step the rules offer no support for.

In contrast, what we are suggesting requires only an (entirely sensible) assumption on what the rules mean when they say saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal, i.e. from the resulting automatic wound.

What you are suggesting is that one save can be taken against a single hit which is impossible to allocate and thus impossible to determine which model takes any save or suffers any unsaved wounds, and that the hit being unsaved results in D3 wounds (unsaved) rather than one. By your reckoning it is impossible for the model to even actually suffer the D3 unsaved wounds for the Nightmare Doll to take effect because it simply cannot have them allocated to it.

there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

the rules for Destroyer weapons do not tell you that you can make saves versus the Wounds, they say you make saves versus the hits. So rather than follow the RAW you have made up a singular automatic wound the model suffers (which is not in the rules for D weapons anywhere) then are making a save versus that, when it specifically tells you to make saves versus the hit.

Yes normally you save versus wounds, and yes normally you allocate wounds and not hits, but the rules for D weapons have you allocate hits and save versus the hit. Normally models are removed as casualties if they fail their save, but FnP(a special rule) specifically gives you a chance under certain circumstances to not do that, often special rules specifically change general rules, and Destroyer Weapons is a special rule.... Nowhere does it give you an option under D weapon to allocate some mythical unsaved wound, nor does it give you the option to make a save other than from the hit. Considering there is no rule for D weapons rolling to wound this obviously makes sense as it supports the rules as written for D weapons, you roll to hit, you then you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, we are told in the rules for D weapons that we may roll to save versus the HITs not the WOUNDS there is no to wound roll, there is no singular allocated unsaved wound. For a roll of 6 we are again told "no saves of any kind are allowed against this hit". No mention of no saves of any kind are allowed against the wounds, notice the singular nature of "hit".

Hits =/= wounds

for d weapons you save versus the HIT as that is what the RAW state, not the wounds.

I am not suggesting anything other than the rules as written, you and others are suggesting a possible Rule as intended-however without any rules support to show that intention, but is a house rule that does not coincide with the rules as written. It also requires that you add things to the rule, which are not written in the rule to function.

blaktoof wrote:


there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

Sure there is. I'm assuming you've read the rules for Destroyer weapons which includes the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table.

If you haven't, I'll help."The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically". In other words, you have a hit, and it automatically causes a Wound. When you resolve that Wound (read reduce the model's Wound characteristic by 1), you instead reduce by a variable amount.

again there is no sunglar automatic wound.

the model suffers a hit from the table that wounds automatically.

ie you do not roll to wound for the d3, d6+6 wounds.

no mention of a singular automatic wound then you roll on the table, infact as you seem have read the rules for d weapons you would notice that.

the final sentence you stated is not in those rules, and is entirely made up.

you have a hit, you roll on the table, you get a result, you save versus the hit. as per the raw.

."The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically

is a very incomplete quote.

as you know, it is part of the result of rolling on the table for d weapons, which you roll on instead of rolling to wound. the rest of the quote you left out is "the model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose d3 wounds instead of 1."

again from the RAW which you incompletely quoted there is no 1 wound, you take d3 wounds from the hit. You do not suffer a singular wound that becomes something else, you take d3 wounds instead of the normal 1.

much like an earlier sentence in D weapons you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, you don't first roll to wound then roll on the table.

There is no singular unsaved wound.

I've always read it as it automatically wounds D3/D6+6 times, therefore multiple wounds, which are all saved by one invulnerable/cover whatever. The doll is not a save, it just removes the first ID causing wound, so it would activate after the dice roll

blaktoof wrote:
there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

As Happyjew has said, you are incorrect. The rule reads:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

We know there is a hit; that is clear. We know it is a hit that wounds automatically. What does "wound" mean, in the verbal sense? It means to inflict a wound. What does inflict mean? It means to cause. So we have a rule that effectively reads:

"The model suffers a hit that causes a wound automatically..."

If you refute this you're simply trying to refute basic English.

the rules for Destroyer weapons do not tell you that you can make saves versus the Wounds, they say you make saves versus the hits. So rather than follow the RAW you have made up a singular automatic wound the model suffers (which is not in the rules for D weapons anywhere) then are making a save versus that, when it specifically tells you to make saves versus the hit.

In fact the rules for Destroyer weapons state saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. This is poor wording because, taken literally and at face valye, it is impossible then to resolve a wound without going completely and utterly off the path of what the rules say - we cannot take saves as normal against hits, and even if we accept we are given special permission to take saves against hits we have no way to allocate them - so therefore we have no way of reaching the point of making saves.

Alternatively, if we follow the sensible path of assuming the rules meant that we follow on how we would normally take saves against hits where available, i.e. against any resulting successful wounds, then of course we reach a point where we are saving against either the automatic wound from the Destroyer hit, or each of the variable wounds it causes. Obviously we know we cannot save against each of the variable wounds it causes because those wounds are only applied instead of the usual loss of a single wound, which comes after saves.

Yes normally you save versus wounds, and yes normally you allocate wounds and not hits, but the rules for D weapons have you allocate hits and save versus the hit. Normally models are removed as casualties if they fail their save, but FnP(a special rule) specifically gives you a chance under certain circumstances to not do that, often special rules specifically change general rules, and Destroyer Weapons is a special rule.... Nowhere does it give you an option under D weapon to allocate some mythical unsaved wound, nor does it give you the option to make a save other than from the hit. Considering there is no rule for D weapons rolling to wound this obviously makes sense as it supports the rules as written for D weapons, you roll to hit, you then you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, we are told in the rules for D weapons that we may roll to save versus the HITs not the WOUNDS there is no to wound roll, there is no singular allocated unsaved wound. For a roll of 6 we are again told "no saves of any kind are allowed against this hit". No mention of no saves of any kind are allowed against the wounds, notice the singular nature of "hit".

Feel no Pain is a terrible example to attempt to support your argument because it explicitly states when and how it works:

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded"

Your argument for Destroyer weapons requires you to entirely make up a method for allocating hits, which there is no clear rules support for. You are simply making an entire process up, and trying to justify it by claiming the rules say so when they don't. Feel No Pain is no comparable situation to this.

for d weapons you save versus the HIT as that is what the RAW state, not the wounds.

I am not suggesting anything other than the rules as written, you and others are suggesting a possible Rule as intended-however without any rules support to show that intention, but is a house rule that does not coincide with the rules as written. It also requires that you add things to the rule, which are not written in the rule to function.

Again, the rules for Destroyer weapons say that saves may be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. You are conveniently ignoring parts of the rules to support an incorrect interpretation of the rules. How do you normally take saves against hits from any weapon? From any resulting successful and allocated wounds. That is a sensible assumption, supported by the rules, versus making up a concept of hit allocation which we have zero rules support for.

The main thing that really needs to be debated here is not saving against hits or any of the waffle that's been associated, but rather whether D hits inflict multiple wounds, or a single wound that is then multiplied. If a single wound that is multiplied then the doll would save them all, however, if it causes multiple wounds, as I believe the RAW States, then the doll would only remove one of these wounds, potentially allowing a second or third to pass and ID the haemonculus

 statu wrote:
The main thing that really needs to be debated here is not saving against hits or any of the waffle that's been associated, but rather whether D hits inflict multiple wounds, or a single wound that is then multiplied. If a single wound that is multiplied then the doll would save them all, however, if it causes multiple wounds, as I believe the RAW States, then the doll would only remove one of these wounds, potentially allowing a second or third to pass and ID the haemonculus

The rule I believe is actually quite clear about this:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

One hit that causes a wound automatically, and causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1. An automatic wound resulting from a hit, which does not inflict or cause D3 separate wounds, but rather causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1.

If it were intended to cause D3 separate wounds it would say as much, but instead it is a special effect of the wound that instead of reducing the model's wound count by one, it reduces it by the variable number.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

As Happyjew has said, you are incorrect. The rule reads:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

We know there is a hit; that is clear. We know it is a hit that wounds automatically. What does "wound" mean, in the verbal sense? It means to inflict a wound. What does inflict mean? It means to cause. So we have a rule that effectively reads:

"The model suffers a hit that causes a wound automatically..."

If you refute this you're simply trying to refute basic English.

the rules for Destroyer weapons do not tell you that you can make saves versus the Wounds, they say you make saves versus the hits. So rather than follow the RAW you have made up a singular automatic wound the model suffers (which is not in the rules for D weapons anywhere) then are making a save versus that, when it specifically tells you to make saves versus the hit.

In fact the rules for Destroyer weapons state saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. This is poor wording because, taken literally and at face valye, it is impossible then to resolve a wound without going completely and utterly off the path of what the rules say - we cannot take saves as normal against hits, and even if we accept we are given special permission to take saves against hits we have no way to allocate them - so therefore we have no way of reaching the point of making saves.

Alternatively, if we follow the sensible path of assuming the rules meant that we follow on how we would normally take saves against hits where available, i.e. against any resulting successful wounds, then of course we reach a point where we are saving against either the automatic wound from the Destroyer hit, or each of the variable wounds it causes. Obviously we know we cannot save against each of the variable wounds it causes because those wounds are only applied instead of the usual loss of a single wound, which comes after saves.

Yes normally you save versus wounds, and yes normally you allocate wounds and not hits, but the rules for D weapons have you allocate hits and save versus the hit. Normally models are removed as casualties if they fail their save, but FnP(a special rule) specifically gives you a chance under certain circumstances to not do that, often special rules specifically change general rules, and Destroyer Weapons is a special rule.... Nowhere does it give you an option under D weapon to allocate some mythical unsaved wound, nor does it give you the option to make a save other than from the hit. Considering there is no rule for D weapons rolling to wound this obviously makes sense as it supports the rules as written for D weapons, you roll to hit, you then you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, we are told in the rules for D weapons that we may roll to save versus the HITs not the WOUNDS there is no to wound roll, there is no singular allocated unsaved wound. For a roll of 6 we are again told "no saves of any kind are allowed against this hit". No mention of no saves of any kind are allowed against the wounds, notice the singular nature of "hit".

Feel no Pain is a terrible example to attempt to support your argument because it explicitly states when and how it works:

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded"

Your argument for Destroyer weapons requires you to entirely make up a method for allocating hits, which there is no clear rules support for. You are simply making an entire process up, and trying to justify it by claiming the rules say so when they don't. Feel No Pain is no comparable situation to this.

for d weapons you save versus the HIT as that is what the RAW state, not the wounds.

I am not suggesting anything other than the rules as written, you and others are suggesting a possible Rule as intended-however without any rules support to show that intention, but is a house rule that does not coincide with the rules as written. It also requires that you add things to the rule, which are not written in the rule to function.

Again, the rules for Destroyer weapons say that saves may be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. You are conveniently ignoring parts of the rules to support an incorrect interpretation of the rules. How do you normally take saves against hits from any weapon? From any resulting successful and allocated wounds. That is a sensible assumption, supported by the rules, versus making up a concept of hit allocation which we have zero rules support for.

your entire post has no merit.

You completely failed to point out that the RAW states you roll to hit then roll on the table. The "automatic d3 wounds" which you seem think is singular then becomes d3 somehow without the rules stating does not happen until you have hit a model, and are rolling on the table, so yes RAW as I have said there are no directions for allocating hits. However RAW d weapons require you to allocate hits before you can roll on the table and cause a model to suffer no effect, a hit that cause a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds, or a hit that causes a model to suffer d6+6 automatic wounds.

so as much as you want to pretend your method does not require allocating hits, you are completely wrong and have even admitted it does through your description of what happens.

blaktoof wrote:
your entire post has no merit.

You completely failed to point out that the RAW states you roll to hit then roll on the table. The "automatic d3 wounds" which you seem think is singular then becomes d3 somehow without the rules stating does not happen until you have hit a model, and are rolling on the table, so yes RAW as I have said there are no directions for allocating hits. However RAW d weapons require you to allocate hits before you can roll on the table and cause a model to suffer no effect, a hit that cause a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds, or a hit that causes a model to suffer d6+6 automatic wounds.

You're cherry picking again. Yes, we roll to hit and then we roll on the table. The table then tells us the result of that hit:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

We know the model has already suffered the hit. The table result is telling us what happens as a result of the hit, which is that the hit wounds (causes a wound) automatically. Again, if you refute this you are refuting basic English.

If you disagree please explain how the model is not suffering an automatic wound when the rules are clearly saying that is the case.

so as much as you want to pretend your method does not require allocating hits, you are completely wrong and have even admitted it does through your description of what happens.

Burden is on you to explain how the rules tell us to allocate hits so that we may save against them, rather than taking the sensible option of saving against resulting successful, allocated wounds. Please, I'm inviting you to tell us where and how it tells us to allocate hits.

 statu wrote:
I've always read it as it automatically wounds D3/D6+6 times, therefore multiple wounds, which are all saved by one invulnerable/cover whatever. The doll is not a save, it just removes the first ID causing wound, so it would activate after the dice roll

Thing is, it's not that simple, and Doll doesn't just remove a Wound. The actual wording is: "the first unsaved Wound (...) that the bearer suffers"
When do you "suffer" a Wound?
If you look at the Invun. saves paragraph: "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound"
Or Difficult terrain Rules: "On a result of a 1, that model suffers a Wound. The model may take an armour or invulnerable save, but not a cover save, against this Wound."

It looks like Saves might even be after you suffer Wounds, but we're lucky the Doll says "Unsaved" meaning it must be after an attempted save. Just pointing out the "Suffers" Wording is ambiguous at best, so we need to be logical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

The RaW is this: "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
Do you agree that we are replacing one thing: 1 Wound, with another thing: D3 Wounds

Agreed?

blaktoof wrote:
Yes which means there is no initial unsaved wound.

Which is supported by the RAW in that there are no rules for that fabricated concept.

as such the nightmare doll does not negate all the wounds on the roll of d3, or D6+6, and instead suffers d3-1 or d6+5, as the rules for nightmare doll state wounds and not hits, and destroyer weapons cause hits that do x wounds where x= 0,d3, or d6+6 not 1 that becomes some other amount.

if you replace 1 with d3 or d6+6 there was never one. If you treat the rules that there is 1 for other purposes, you have not replaced one with something else. example, if you say that there is 1 unsaved wound[ no rules support in D weapons for this] and treat nightmare doll as stopping the 1, then state there are no other wounds- you did not replace 1 with anything.

for example. I normally meet Blacktalos for coffee, instead today I met Nosferatu for coffee. I have done something instead, and replaced something. Which means there was never me having coffee with you that day.

nothing in the rules for D weapons tell you to cause 1 unsaved wound then replace it with something else, you cause 0,d3, or d6+6 instead of 1. not 1 that later becomes those values.

Let's keep taking this easy and slow. I shall not create any concepts or make any assumptions.... I will just ask you for each fact and use exactly what you reply with to try and explain how the entire thing seems to work, for me anyway....

So, you agreed that "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1". means that the rule is replacing one thing: 1 Wound, with another thing: D3 Wounds

Now, my next easy question is: What is the 1 Wound that is being replaced?

RaW: "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
I will point out that the RaW says "lose" as an indication of when/what this Wound is, but let me know what your (keep it simple) response is?

again you seem unable to talk about the entire rule, despite quoting it

The hit wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1.

there is no singular unsaved wound. it is d3 automatic wounds the model suffers. ignoring this is ignoring basic english, and creates scenarios with the non rule you are making up where a model suffers 1 wound, is removed as a casualty as per the remove as a casualty rules, you roll a 1 on the D chart and the model is unharmed. There is no singular unsaved wound then becoming d3 wounds, there are just d3 automatic wounds, unharmed, or d6+6 automatic wounds with no save allowed for the HIT.

as to cherry picking, me discussing the whole rule is not cherry picking, people stating "automatic wound" then saying it suffers 1 unsaved wound is cherry picking a part of a rule to then make up rules. further, claiming you do not allocate the hit, when there are no rules for generating wounds until you have allocated a hit to a model, is cherry picking.

regardless, there is never a singular automatic wound, unless you roll a 1 on the D3

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
The main thing that really needs to be debated here is not saving against hits or any of the waffle that's been associated, but rather whether D hits inflict multiple wounds, or a single wound that is then multiplied. If a single wound that is multiplied then the doll would save them all, however, if it causes multiple wounds, as I believe the RAW States, then the doll would only remove one of these wounds, potentially allowing a second or third to pass and ID the haemonculus

The rule I believe is actually quite clear about this:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

One hit that causes a wound automatically, and causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1. An automatic wound resulting from a hit, which does not inflict or cause D3 separate wounds, but rather causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1.

If it were intended to cause D3 separate wounds it would say as much, but instead it is a special effect of the wound that instead of reducing the model's wound count by one, it reduces it by the variable number.

For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah. Obviously this is the only place this language makes any difference, but other than common talking, does the rule book use the term automatically wounds in the singular? Only asking as I don't have access to my book right now

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English.

blaktoof wrote:
again you seem unable to talk about the entire rule, despite quoting it

The hit wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1.

there is no singular unsaved wound. it is d3 automatic wounds the model suffers. ignoring this is ignoring basic english, and creates scenarios with the non rule you are making up where a model suffers 1 wound, is removed as a casualty as per the remove as a casualty rules, you roll a 1 on the D chart and the model is unharmed. There is no singular unsaved wound then becoming d3 wounds, there are just d3 automatic wounds, unharmed, or d6+6 automatic wounds with no save allowed for the HIT.

as to cherry picking, me discussing the whole rule is not cherry picking, people stating "automatic wound" then saying it suffers 1 unsaved wound is cherry picking a part of a rule to then make up rules. further, claiming you do not allocate the hit, when there are no rules for generating wounds until you have allocated a hit to a model, is cherry picking.

regardless, there is never a singular automatic wound, unless you roll a 1 on the D3

You are ignoring requests to support your reasoning with RAW and so your argument carries zero weight. Please, I'm more than willing to consider your argument but you are repeatedly ignoring my requests to explain the procedure for allocating hits according to the RAW, and so it is simply impossible to resolve your interpretation.

Until you stop simply repeating yourself and actually substantiate your statements with rules support as requested, it is impossible for your argument to carry any real weight.

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah. Obviously this is the only place this language makes any difference, but other than common talking, does the rule book use the term automatically wounds in the singular? Only asking as I don't have access to my book right now

It's the fact that the phrase is split:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically"

"and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"

So the Hit causes an automatic Wound. It also ("and") creates a situation where, "instead" of loosing 1 Wound (<When does this happen?), the model looses D3.>

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English..

My point was, if it is worded to cause one wound that would multiply out etc then the doll would negate everything, if it's worded as lose multiple wounds then doll only works against one. The didderenxe between automatic wound and wounds automatically becomes important here, as automatic wound would mean it is a single wound that causes the loss of multiple wounds, whereas automatically wounds means it causes multiple wounds. To break it down as you want to, one says 'causes a wound, which results in X wounds being lost' the other 'causes X wounds'. Why bother with this difference? Because it changes the way this specific piece of wargear works, hence why I added more to the comment you quoted, which you quite handily cut out

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English.

blaktoof wrote:
again you seem unable to talk about the entire rule, despite quoting it

The hit wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1.

there is no singular unsaved wound. it is d3 automatic wounds the model suffers. ignoring this is ignoring basic english, and creates scenarios with the non rule you are making up where a model suffers 1 wound, is removed as a casualty as per the remove as a casualty rules, you roll a 1 on the D chart and the model is unharmed. There is no singular unsaved wound then becoming d3 wounds, there are just d3 automatic wounds, unharmed, or d6+6 automatic wounds with no save allowed for the HIT.

as to cherry picking, me discussing the whole rule is not cherry picking, people stating "automatic wound" then saying it suffers 1 unsaved wound is cherry picking a part of a rule to then make up rules. further, claiming you do not allocate the hit, when there are no rules for generating wounds until you have allocated a hit to a model, is cherry picking.

regardless, there is never a singular automatic wound, unless you roll a 1 on the D3

You are ignoring requests to support your reasoning with RAW and so your argument carries zero weight. Please, I'm more than willing to consider your argument but you are repeatedly ignoring my requests to explain the procedure for allocating hits according to the RAW, and so it is simply impossible to resolve your interpretation.

Until you stop simply repeating yourself and actually substantiate your statements with rules support as requested, it is impossible for your argument to carry any real weight.

so because the dictionary says wound is to inflict a wound you believe the rules for the game make a hit that causes a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds a singular thing despite never being told to in the rules. fascinating.

do you feel psychic shriek as a power if someone rolled and beat the opponents model by 6 that there is a first wound that becomes 6 wounds?

I am repeating my argument with rules support, you + others are cutting small sections out of the rules and trying to fabricate a mythical unsaved wound that happens prior to rolling to see how many wounds a model takes without supporting it, then ignoring any reason and bringing up things like "there are no general rules for allocating hits" which I also have stated, but have pointed out by your logic you have to also allocate the hit to a model before you can roll on the table. There is no to wound, and you roll on the table instead of wounding, allocation of wounds comes from the result of generating a would pool- which is the result of rolling to wound. Neither of those do you do, or are able to do for destroyer weapons, and we are not told you are counted as doing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 statu wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English..

My point was, if it is worded to cause one wound that would multiply out etc then the doll would negate everything, if it's worded as lose multiple wounds then doll only works against one. The didderenxe between automatic wound and wounds automatically becomes important here, as automatic wound would mean it is a single wound that causes the loss of multiple wounds, whereas automatically wounds means it causes multiple wounds. To break it down as you want to, one says 'causes a wound, which results in X wounds being lost' the other 'causes X wounds'. Why bother with this difference? Because it changes the way this specific piece of wargear works, hence why I added more to the comment you quoted, which you quite handily cut out

the rule for rolling a 2-5

The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose d3 wounds instead of 1.

Is the phrase 'wounds automatically' used anywhere else in the rule book to mean 'causes one wound automatically'? Here it seems to read as 'automatically causes X wounds'. Other rules I can think of that may use 'wounds automatically', I believe, also contain the phrase 'a single hit' which limits the number of wounds. I can't see anything here that means there is a single wound that is multiplied, so the doll would only work if one wound was rolled

blaktoof wrote:
so because the dictionary says wound is to inflict a wound you believe the rules for the game make a hit that causes a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds a singular thing despite never being told to in the rules. fascinating.

do you feel psychic shriek as a power if someone rolled and beat the opponents model by 6 that there is a first wound that becomes 6 wounds?

This is what is called a strawman argument. You are misrepresenting my argument and applying that misrepresentation to a completely different circumstance to attempt to discredit my argument as if it were the same.

The model does not "suffer" D3 automatic wounds. The model suffers a hit, which causes a wound automatically, and instead of losing one wound as a result the model loses the variable number of wounds.

Not the same thing as causing or causing the model to suffer D3 wounds, however you wish to word it.

I am repeating my argument with rules support, you + others are cutting small sections out of the rules and trying to fabricate a mythical unsaved wound that happens prior to rolling to see how many wounds a model takes without supporting it, then ignoring any reason and bringing up things like "there are no general rules for allocating hits" which I also have stated, but have pointed out by your logic you have to also allocate the hit to a model before you can roll on the table. There is no to wound, and you roll on the table instead of wounding, allocation of wounds comes from the result of generating a would pool- which is the result of rolling to wound. Neither of those do you do, or are able to do for destroyer weapons, and we are not told you are counted as doing them.

No you're not. You're simply claiming the rules tell you that you may completely replace the wound allocation process and that you may insert a made up hit allocation process at an indeterminate point (for example, is it before or after you roll on the table?).

If you believe we are given permission to allocate hits can you please tell me where it says so (don't just point to where it says saves can be taken against Destroyer hits as normal, because the normal way to take saves is obviously against successful and allocated wounds). Break it down into steps for me, please, like this:

1. Roll to hit.
2. Roll on the Destroyer table.

etc.

blaktoof wrote:
There is no to wound, and you roll on the table instead of wounding, allocation of wounds comes from the result of generating a would pool- which is the result of rolling to wound. Neither of those do you do, or are able to do for destroyer weapons, and we are not told you are counted as doing them.

You seem to be ignoring my posts when i'm trying to explain things in easy terms and RaW....

So 'ill just point out a big problem with what you are saying above:

No To Wound.
No Wound pool.

But No Wound Pool = never allocate Wounds
never allocate Wounds = never remove models.

By your interpretation (No Wound pool), D-Weapons can never kill models


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 statu wrote:
Is the phrase 'wounds automatically' used anywhere else in the rule book to mean 'causes one wound automatically'? Here it seems to read as 'automatically causes X wounds'. Other rules I can think of that may use 'wounds automatically', I believe, also contain the phrase 'a single hit' which limits the number of wounds. I can't see anything here that means there is a single wound that is multiplied, so the doll would only work if one wound was rolled

Are my posts even getting read?

Its not 'automatically causes X wounds' because the Rule is split:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically"
"and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"

So the Hit causes an automatic Wound. It also ("and") creates a situation where, "instead" of loosing 1 Wound (<When does this happen?), the model looses D3>

Yes I have been reading your posts, the reason I am still saying this is that you are splitting a rule into two parts. If there is another instance of the rule book using 'wounds automatically' to mean causes one wound, with no other piece of wording to limit it to one wound then I will happily shut up and add strength D to the list of things I won't play, as this whole thing is becoming more and more confusing to me and agree that the rule should be split as you have done

I'll have a look for another case, but if you just want a simple breakdown, this is how the RaW works. It's not based on "Wounds automatically" V "Automatic Wound", but the fact the Rule says "lose":

 BlackTalos wrote:

Indeed, just to clarify what has already been said, you must have read this section:

Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1.

The coloured text is a special effect that happens outside of the "Allocate Wound" of the Shooting sequence, which the underlined follows.

Also, in the "normal sequence" we have this:

Take Saves & Remove Casualties
The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

Can you see the underlined above? This is the RaW that D-Weapons modify.

As such, i would modify your summary:

Normal:
Hit
Roll to Wound
Allocate Wounds
Save Wounds
Reduce Wounds by 1
Remove Casualties (Optional)

D-Weapons:
Hit "model suffers a hit"
Roll to Wound "that wounds automatically"
Allocate Wounds Allocate "Seriously Wounded" or "Deathblow" Wounds
Save Wounds Take your save against the "Seriously Wounded" Wound
Reduce Wounds by 1 "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"
Remove Casualties (Optional)

 statu wrote:
Is the phrase 'wounds automatically' used anywhere else in the rule book to mean 'causes one wound automatically'? Here it seems to read as 'automatically causes X wounds'. Other rules I can think of that may use 'wounds automatically', I believe, also contain the phrase 'a single hit' which limits the number of wounds. I can't see anything here that means there is a single wound that is multiplied, so the doll would only work if one wound was rolled

Both Rending and the Telekinesis psychic power Crush use the explicit wording of, "wounds automatically".

I was about to point them out too:
Rending: "the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness"
Purge Soul:"the target model suffers an automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed"
Crush:"a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or,"

 BlackTalos wrote:
I was about to point them out too:
Rending: "the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness"
Purge Soul:"the target model suffers an automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed"
Crush:"a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or,"

I think he was after the specific use of "wounds automatically" rather than similar wording, which I could find only in the shooting portion of Rending, as well as Crush. That was by searching the electronic version for "wouns automatically" and only turned up those two outside of the Destroyer rules.

Crush is the only one of the three that actually changes anything in my head, tending and purge soul both have wording that points out it causes a single wound, which the D chart doesn't.

So going on from this then, at what point does the doll activate? Before the D3/D6 roll, or after the number of wounds has been established?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I was about to point them out too:
Rending: "the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness"
Purge Soul:"the target model suffers an automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed"
Crush:"a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or,"

I think he was after the specific use of "wounds automatically" rather than similar wording, which I could find only in the shooting portion of Rending, as well as Crush. That was by searching the electronic version for "wouns automatically" and only turned up those two outside of the Destroyer rules.

Yeah I was, figured if that exact wording wasn't used else where then it would mean that strength D wounds are treated differently

The "as easy as possible":

The RaW: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Fact: Model suffers a Hit.
What does this Hit do?
- "a hit that wounds automatically"
- "a hit that causes it to lose D3 Wounds"

But when do i actually loose those Wounds?

"lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"

When does a model "normaly" loose 1 Wound in the Shooting / Assault sequence?

Take Saves & Remove Casualties
The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

That is the only part of the sequence when a model "looses" 1 Wound.

If you disagree with any of the above, please show me in the Rulebook when a model "looses" 1 Wound. There is no other "time" when this happens.

 statu wrote:
Crush is the only one of the three that actually changes anything in my head, tending and purge soul both have wording that points out it causes a single wound, which the D chart doesn't.

BlackTalos only quoted the wording for the assault portion of the Rending rules - the shooting attack portion does use the explicit phrase, "wounds automatically".

So going on from this then, at what point does the doll activate? Before the D3/D6 roll, or after the number of wounds has been established?

It activates when the model suffers an unsaved wound. If we accept that it is one hit that causes a wound automatically and that this wound causes the model to lose x wounds instead of one then I take that to mean it is a single unsaved wound, which has a unique effect on the model's wound count; it's not x individual unsaved wounds.

 statu wrote:
So going on from this then, at what point does the doll activate? Before the D3/D6 roll, or after the number of wounds has been established?

The doll activates when you "suffer an unsaved wound".

You suffer a Hit that Wounds automatically, which you can save, but if you fail, you reduce your Wounds.

In the phrase above, i'll let you make your own choice of when to apply "suffer" or "unsaved".

So you lose 2 wounds from rolling a 3/4 on the D3 roll. You lose the first, and doll kicks in, so you lose the second and die. Or is it that it wounds, and before you see how many wounds you lose, the doll kicks in and you lose none?

Started trying to reply before the two posts above

 Mr. Shine wrote:
BlackTalos only quoted the wording for the assault portion of the Rending rules - the shooting attack portion does use the explicit phrase, "wounds automatically".

"a To Wound roll of 6 Wounds automatically, regardless of Toughness, and is resolved at AP2."

The "as easy as possible":

The RaW: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Fact: Model suffers a Hit.

How are you ever getting a hit on a model?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
If we accept that it is one hit that causes a wound automatically and that this wound causes the model to lose x wounds instead of one then I take that to mean it is a single unsaved wound, which has a unique effect on the model's wound count; it's not x individual unsaved wounds.

That is also how i see current Destroyer Weapon Rules:

It's an Automatic Wound, with a specific effect that modifies the rules about how many Wounds you "cross out from your profile".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

The "as easy as possible":

The RaW: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Fact: Model suffers a Hit.

How are you ever getting a hit on a model?

"model suffers a hit" ?

Same as Ramming: "Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted"

What is wrong with "suffering a Hit"?

Units get hit - not models - in most cases anyway

How are you getting a hit onthe model what process are you using?

 FlingitNow wrote:
How are you getting a hit onthe model what process are you using?

Why don't you state the point you're trying to make instead of trying to vaguely tease it out?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
How are you getting a hit onthe model what process are you using?

Why don't you state the point you're trying to make instead of trying to vaguely tease it out?

With both shooting and assault you only ever hit units not models.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
How are you getting a hit onthe model what process are you using?

Why don't you state the point you're trying to make instead of trying to vaguely tease it out?

With both shooting and assault you only ever hit units not models.

Strictly speaking you roll to hit units, not models. In this case we're specifically told after rolling to hit against the unit that the model "suffers a hit" which wounds automatically/causes an automatic wound. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to raise in furthering the discussion though.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
How are you getting a hit onthe model what process are you using?

Why don't you state the point you're trying to make instead of trying to vaguely tease it out?

With both shooting and assault you only ever hit units not models.

Strictly speaking you roll to hit units, not models. In this case we're specifically told after rolling to hit against the unit that the model "suffers a hit" which wounds automatically/causes an automatic wound. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to raise in furthering the discussion though.

I still find it amusing you think wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1 means there is 1 made up wound somewhere even though the RAW specifically tells you there is no 1 wound it is d3 wounds.

regardless of how you "feel" the rule should be 30/55 people who have voted do not agree with option A. 25/55 do. Not a clear majority but people believing the made up singular wound that somehow becomes d3 wounds without us being told "1 wound that becomes d3" and rather the rules actually stating "d3 wounds instead of one wound" are definitely the non majority of the votes.

tldr- the model never suffers one wound, and later that wound becomes some other amount of wounds.

also your examples of things that automatically wound deal with things that have an effect on the wound roll, and do not cause results from hits that generate automatic wounds. at the point they automatically wound they have already only caused 1 wound, not d3 or d6+6 wounds instead of that 1 wound. None of them are a valid comparison to an attack that generates more than one wound from a hit roll, not the to wound roll which we are told in destroyer weapons does not happen.

And once again you decline my request to provide an order of events with rules support for how your resolve hits against models to enable you to make saves against them.

blaktoof wrote:
I still find it amusing you think wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1 means there is 1 made up wound somewhere even though the RAW specifically tells you there is no 1 wound it is d3 wounds.

The rules don't even say the model takes D3 wounds; "a hit which wounds automatically and causes the model to lose x wounds instead of 1."

And you're telling me I'm ignoring the rules.

regardless of how you "feel" the rule should be 30/55 people who have voted do not agree with option A. 25/55 do. Not a clear majority but people believing the made up singular wound that somehow becomes d3 wounds without us being told "1 wound that becomes d3" and rather the rules actually stating "d3 wounds instead of one wound" are definitely the non majority of the votes.

And everyone used to believe the world was flat, too. Appeals to popularity don't make a solid argument.

tldr- the model never suffers one wound, and later that wound becomes some other amount of wounds.

"The model suffers a hit which wounds automatically and causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1."

Okay, whatever you say. Still have yet to see any rules support, letalone the step by step breakdown I asked for, for how you have hits allocated so that models can save against them.

also your examples of things that automatically wound deal with things that have an effect on the wound roll, and do not cause results from hits that generate automatic wounds. at the point they automatically wound they have already only caused 1 wound, not d3 or d6+6 wounds instead of that 1 wound. None of them are a valid comparison to an attack that generates more than one wound from a hit roll, not the to wound roll which we are told in destroyer weapons does not happen.

Destroyer hits don't cause D3 or D6+6 wounds; they cause hits which, one way or another, cause a model to lose said number of wounds instead of 1. Different kettle of fish, but you appear not to grasp that across repeated posts, preferring to ignore the request to support your position with the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me do it for you, then. What you're suggest blaktoof is this:

1. Roll to hit.
2. Generate hit pool?
3. Allocate hit to closest model in line of sight?
4. Roll on Destroyer table.
5. Roll and fail saves against hit.
6. Model suffers D3/D6+6 unsaved wounds instead of 1.

The problem you don't seem to understand is that "saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal" simply does not give you permission to run off and imagine step 2 onwards.

There is zero RAW support for what you're suggesting; you cannot generate a hit pool and then allocate hits against the nearest model in range and line of sight because you have no permission to. We only have a process for allocating successful wounds resulting from successful hits, so how are we supposed to allocate hits to a model?

Your interpretation is a complete and fantastical departure from what the rules say.

The (correct) alternative is this:

1. Roll to hit.
2. Roll on Destroyer table.
3. Generate wound pool(s) of Destroyer table results.
4. Allocate automatic wound to closest model in line of sight.
5. Roll and fail saves against automatic wound.
6. Model suffers automatic unsaved wound and loses D3/D6+6 wounds instead of 1.

We don't always play by what the rules SAY, Shine. No one plays Jink vs Immobilized results RAW, nor do people play Assault Vehicle by strict RAW.

The genesis for this thread was to find out how people were interpreting this issue so I can just play it the popular way, without making waves and being called a cheater.

It seems like a dead split, though.

 Jimsolo wrote:
We don't always play by what the rules SAY, Shine. No one plays Jink vs Immobilized results RAW, nor do people play Assault Vehicle by strict RAW.

The genesis for this thread was to find out how people were interpreting this issue so I can just play it the popular way, without making waves and being called a cheater.

It seems like a dead split, though.

While I completely agree that RAW is not necessarily how games are or should be played, respectfully the debate we (those within the involved discussion in this thread) are having is on the basis of what the rules say.

Your original post asked for how people think it should be played, which in turn has lead to either side stating their reasoning, which makes obvious sense. Otherwise I could say I think it should be played that the Dark Eldar player automatically loses because "the Dark Elves are poop" or some such nonsense, but it would not be much help unless I were able to support it with decent reasoning

EDIT: If you want a non-RAW answer (because as per the Tenets of You Make Da Call I need to say so if I'm arguing for something not-RAW if it is the case), then I suggest you should look at the rules and/or the arguments and reasoning you can find on the subject online, and decide for yourself what you think makes the most sense, and discuss it with your opponent before the game if both Destroyer weapons and the Nightmare Doll are apparently going to cross paths.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
We don't always play by what the rules SAY, Shine. No one plays Jink vs Immobilized results RAW, nor do people play Assault Vehicle by strict RAW.

The genesis for this thread was to find out how people were interpreting this issue so I can just play it the popular way, without making waves and being called a cheater.

It seems like a dead split, though.

While I completely agree that RAW is not necessarily how games are or should be played, respectfully the debate we (those within the involved discussion in this thread) are having is on the basis of what the rules say.

Your original post asked for how people think it should be played, which in turn has lead to either side stating their reasoning, which makes obvious sense. Otherwise I could say I think it should be played that the Dark Eldar player automatically loses because "the Dark Elves are poop" or some such nonsense, but it would not be much help unless I were able to support it with decent reasoning

EDIT: If you want a non-RAW answer (because as per the Tenets of You Make Da Call I need to say so if I'm arguing for something not-RAW if it is the case), then I suggest you should look at the rules and/or the arguments and reasoning you can find on the subject online, and decide for yourself what you think makes the most sense, and discuss it with your opponent before the game if both Destroyer weapons and the Nightmare Doll are apparently going to cross paths.

To be fair, he did title the Poll "the correct way of playing" which is asking HYWPI

I suppose we got carried away and started RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
How are you getting a hit onthe model what process are you using?

Why don't you state the point you're trying to make instead of trying to vaguely tease it out?

With both shooting and assault you only ever hit units not models.

As for this, the thread is long gone. Any answer may be a derailment here though it still seems within the subject.

What about "Hallucination"?

Randomly select one character in the target unit. That model suffers a single Strength 3 hit for every other model in the target unit.

Is that a Unit taking a Hit from the very same Unit? explain...

Maybe "Focussed Witchfires"?

The target model suffers a Strength 6 AP3 hit

How do they Hit specific model? I mean you seem certain that "you only ever hit units not models"

It seems like there is a definite possibility that Special rules Hit models, and not Units.
Or did i miss the part where Destroyer weapons is not a special Rule that takes precedence over the general principles (of Hitting Units only) ?

You never save against hits when it comes to models with wounds - we are even told that the hit auto wounds.

The hit reference in the D weapon rules continues on to say saves may be taken as normal... how do you normally take saves? against wounds that have been allocated. You have given no method of allocating how to take the saves against hits - because there is no way to do it.

The multiplier only happens when you LOSE wounds - its in the d weapon rules. LOSE - not suffer - LOSE

When do you lose wounds? after being allocated a wound and failing a save. When does the NMD kick in - when you suffer an unsaved wound that inflicts ID...

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
How are you getting a hit onthe model what process are you using?

Why don't you state the point you're trying to make instead of trying to vaguely tease it out?

With both shooting and assault you only ever hit units not models.

Strictly speaking you roll to hit units, not models. In this case we're specifically told after rolling to hit against the unit that the model "suffers a hit" which wounds automatically/causes an automatic wound. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to raise in furthering the discussion though.

You're missing a step. When do you roll on the D Weapon table?

 FlingitNow wrote:
You're missing a step. When do you roll on the D Weapon table?

Err, I don't think so:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
In this case we're specifically told after rolling to hit against the unit that the model "suffers a hit" which wounds automatically/causes an automatic wound. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to raise in furthering the discussion though.

You roll on the Destroyer table after rolling to hit, as I stated, instead of rolling to wound. Your point?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You're missing a step. When do you roll on the D Weapon table?

Err, I don't think so:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
In this case we're specifically told after rolling to hit against the unit that the model "suffers a hit" which wounds automatically/causes an automatic wound. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to raise in furthering the discussion though.

You roll on the Destroyer table after rolling to hit, as I stated, instead of rolling to wound. Your point?

No you're still missing a step what triggers a roll on the D weapon table? A roll to hit? A hit on a unit? Or a hit on a model? What do the rules say?

 FlingitNow wrote:
No you're still missing a step what triggers a roll on the D weapon table? A roll to hit? A hit on a unit? Or a hit on a model? What do the rules say?

No, I'm not.

I'll quote myself again:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
after rolling to hit against the unit

The fact that it should be a successful roll to hit is the only missing component, but that should be implicitly clear.

Why don't you state the point you're trying to make?

No it is not a successful hit that triggers a roll on the D chart. But a hit on a model. Which you'll never have. Then you roll and "the model suffers a hit that..." well the model is the model that was hit. But models aren't hit units are. So the point is D Weapons are irrevocably broken RaW. Both prior to getting to the table and then again the line in question on the table. Thus for D weapons to work we have to houserule what this wording does. Therefore both you and Blaktoof are arguing your own houserules against each other which is a pointless activity. The difference is that you have a full defined process that you've explained and fits in with as much wording as possible (and thus matches my houserule too) where blaktoof refuses to tell us the detail of his houserule and just poking RaW holes in your houserule. The point being that you're not going get anywhere until you accept that you are using a houserule.

 FlingitNow wrote:
No it is not a successful hit that triggers a roll on the D chart. But a hit on a model. Which you'll never have. Then you roll and "the model suffers a hit that..." well the model is the model that was hit. But models aren't hit units are. So the point is D Weapons are irrevocably broken RaW.

I disagree with "completely broken by RaW". Tricky to navigate, but not broken.

Before the Destroyer W. Special rule, we have the normal shooting rules.
Midway through applying the Destroyer W. special rule, the model "must be" (this is not explicit) selected. If you have trouble with implicit rules, it's going to be hard to explain.

It is not "a hit on a model" that triggers D chart rolls, the RaW is:
1)"roll To Hit as you would for a standard attack"
No probs there.

2) "If the attack hits, roll on the table above instead of rolling To Wound"
Not really an issue, replace To Wound step with a "roll on table" step.

3)"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."
Tricky section.
We are thrown right into "the model". But (1) and (2) were about Units, how are we making this jump?
Because "the model" is not yet defined.
Until we select "a model" to allocate the Auto-Wound to, we just know that "The model suffers" is referring to the effect on whichever model will be chosen.

When is the model chosen?
"that wounds automatically" refers to a Wound pool of automatic Wounds. Which you assign, per standard shooting rules, to the models in the Unit. The full effect: "and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1" is now about "The model" as a defined term.

Once you have parsed through the method, do you deny that:
[Kroot N*3] suffered a hit (yeah his Unit did) that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1?
He suffered a Hit (though he himself was not allocated a Hit) that wounded automatically and reduced his Wounds. That is a fact. Which means that implicitly this method did happen.



Method, by RaW. Implicitly functions as follows:

State 1: Normal shooting Rules
-Pick target [Unit-based]
-Select weapon [Unit-based]
-Roll To Hit [Unit-based]
-Roll To Wound [Stop] replace by: [Unit-based]

State 2: Destroyer Rules, equivalent to a normal shooting sequence, partial section of
-Roll on table [Unit-based]
-Hits [Unit-based]
-Automatic Wound [Unit-based]
-Allocate Automatic Wound [Standard allocation Rules](Fully implicit)[Model-based]
-Take save [Model-based](Implicit in this RaW, but explicitly explained in the previous paragraph)
-Lose Wounds [Model-based]
-Remove Casualties (Optional)
-Continue allocating Wounds [Model-based](Fully implicit)

I would think your HYWPI matches up with most of this, but i'm definitely going for RaW.

how do you normally take saves?

You normally take saves by comparing your Invuln, Armor, and cover saves, taking which ever one has the lowest number (provided nothing in the attack negates that save type) then rolling higher then that number.

That is what as normally means. It does not mean to roll saves normally versus wounds despite the fact it is telling you to roll it versus the single hit.

No, you normally roll saves against wounds. If you disagree, and are saying you save agaisnt a hit, please show where the hit is allocated toa model - as until a model is involved, I cannot tell you what armour, cover or inv. save I am looking at comparing.

no you normally take saves by rolling a d6 and comparing it to your highest available save.

usually this is the result of a wound pool generated by rolling to wound. D weapons do not have a roll to wound step- you are told to not do it and instead do something else, and therefore do not generate a wound pool.

blaktoof wrote:
no you normally take saves by rolling a d6 and comparing it to your highest available save.

usually this is the result of a wound pool generated by rolling to wound. D weapons do not have a roll to wound step- you are told to not do it and instead do something else, and therefore do not generate a wound pool.

"Something else" = A Hit (To Hit), that Wounds automatically (To Wound), for which you can take a save and remove a model if Wounds = 0 ("Take Saves & Remove Casualties")

As Nos says, you can only save against a Wound suffered:
"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds from the Wound pool and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."

If you disagree with this last statement, please quote anything in the Rulebook that describes how you remove models after Saves.


PS: Assault Rules:
"To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."
(Same thing)

blaktoof wrote:
no you normally take saves by rolling a d6 and comparing it to your highest available save.

usually this is the result of a wound pool generated by rolling to wound. D weapons do not have a roll to wound step- you are told to not do it and instead do something else, and therefore do not generate a wound pool.

You only get permission to take saves against wounds. Please show a real rule stating permission to make an extraordinary abnormal saving throw against a hit.

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
no you normally take saves by rolling a d6 and comparing it to your highest available save.

usually this is the result of a wound pool generated by rolling to wound. D weapons do not have a roll to wound step- you are told to not do it and instead do something else, and therefore do not generate a wound pool.

"Something else" = A Hit (To Hit), that Wounds automatically (To Wound), for which you can take a save and remove a model if Wounds = 0 ("Take Saves & Remove Casualties")

As Nos says, you can only save against a Wound suffered:
"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds from the Wound pool and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."

If you disagree with this last statement, please quote anything in the Rulebook that describes how you remove models after Saves.


PS: Assault Rules:
"To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."
(Same thing)

so you believe an attack that does not have a to wound step, has a to wound step result, and generates a wound pool- despite it specifically stating it does not roll to wound(required to generate a wound pool) and does not generate a wound pool(the wound pool it does not have, there are no rules for generating a wound pool that do not involve rolling to wound) It even mentions in the rules for D weapon excess wounds do not carry over to other models (a function of a wound pool, something it does not have) rolling saves as you describe are a general rule that happens as a result of models being allocated a wound from a wound pool.

so either models can suffer wounds and take saves if available/allowed, or as you state any attack that does not generate a wound pool ( D Weapons, many psychic powers that do not have a to wound step (psychic shriek etc))

can you quote a rule that says you may only save versus a wound suffered?

do vehicles not get cover saves, since they do not suffer wounds? iirc vehicles save against hits.

d weapons do not state anywhere you save versus wounds, and in the roll chart results it says you save versus the HIT(singular) not against wounds suffered from the hit. Why do you think the RAW tells us to save versus hits in the rules for D weapons, and against the HIT in the results for d weapon and they mean WOUNDS. Are hits and wounds interchangeable in your mind, because if they are surely you can save versus HITS suffered instead of WOUNDS suffered. Or are they only interchangeable within the text for D weapons, and if that is the case where is the rule that tells us that?

blaktoof wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
no you normally take saves by rolling a d6 and comparing it to your highest available save.

usually this is the result of a wound pool generated by rolling to wound. D weapons do not have a roll to wound step- you are told to not do it and instead do something else, and therefore do not generate a wound pool.

"Something else" = A Hit (To Hit), that Wounds automatically (To Wound), for which you can take a save and remove a model if Wounds = 0 ("Take Saves & Remove Casualties")

As Nos says, you can only save against a Wound suffered:
"To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds from the Wound pool and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."

If you disagree with this last statement, please quote anything in the Rulebook that describes how you remove models after Saves.


PS: Assault Rules:
"To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed."
(Same thing)

so you believe an attack that does not have a to wound step, has a to wound step result, and generates a wound pool- despite it specifically stating it does not roll to wound(required to generate a wound pool) and does not generate a wound pool(the wound pool it does not have, there are no rules for generating a wound pool that do not involve rolling to wound) It even mentions in the rules for D weapon excess wounds do not carry over to other models (a function of a wound pool, something it does not have) rolling saves as you describe are a general rule that happens as a result of models being allocated a wound from a wound pool.

so either models can suffer wounds and take saves if available/allowed, or as you state any attack that does not generate a wound pool ( D Weapons, many psychic powers that do not have a to wound step (psychic shriek etc))

can you quote a rule that says you may only save versus a wound suffered?

do vehicles not get cover saves, since they do not suffer wounds? iirc vehicles save against hits.

d weapons do not state anywhere you save versus wounds, and in the roll chart results it says you save versus the HIT(singular) not against wounds suffered from the hit. Why do you think the RAW tells us to save versus hits in the rules for D weapons, and against the HIT in the results for d weapon and they mean WOUNDS. Are hits and wounds interchangeable in your mind, because if they are surely you can save versus HITS suffered instead of WOUNDS suffered. Or are they only interchangeable within the text for D weapons, and if that is the case where is the rule that tells us that?

If you want my personal opinion, nothing in the game can ever remove models from the board unless:
A) It is a shooting Attack
B) It is a CC Attack
C) a rule says "remove from play".
There are no other ways of removing models from the board than those 3.

But more specifically to the point we are currently discussing:
Here is RaW on saves:
"To take an armour save, roll a D6 and compare the result to the Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the Wound."
= You must have a Wound allocated to take a Save.

"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit"
= You must suffer a Wound or a Penetrating or Glancing hit to take an invun
(here is the answer to "vehicles")

"Wounds allocated to that model receive a cover save."
= You must have a Wound allocated to take a cover Save.

Same for vehicles:
"suffers a glancing hit, a penetrating hit, or is otherwise hit by an enemy shooting attack that inflicts damage upon it (...), it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound"

Now, permissive Ruleset: I have (all example above) RaW that says i can "save versus a wound suffered".

You need to find permission to save "with no Wounds". Otherwise the permission does not exists: - you can only save versus a wound suffered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
many psychic powers that do not have a to wound step (psychic shriek etc)

Psychic shriek does not roll To Wound, but there is a To Wound step:
"the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result"

You suffer Wounds = you can take saves = you can remove models from the Board

so as you have demonstrated you can take saves versus hits when you are given permission to do so.

in the shooting section it shows you how to take saves versus wounds allocated to a model from a wound pool which is genereated during the to wound step- the result of rolling str versus toughness. [ D weapons have no to wound step, we are told this in the rules for D weapons, and there is no str versus toughness roll]

under the vehicle section we are given permission to take saves versus hits. Therefore we have permission to take saves versus hits for vehicles.

under D weapons we are told to take saves versus hits[as some D weapons can generate more than one hit on an unit], and again told under the results for the D weapon rolls that we take a save versus the HIT[singular].

Not only are we given permission to take saves versus the Hit, we are told to do so in the rule for D weapons, as well as the table results.

How do you normally take a save?

You roll a d6 and compare it to the best save the model has available. Generally this is done for wounds, but specifically we are told for vehicles and D weapons this is done for a step that is not a to wound step[again D weapons by their own rules specifically do not roll to wound and have no to wound step]

and psychic shriek can cause a model to suffer wounds, but it has no to wound step. the to wound step is a roll of str versus toughness that has no auto success by the general rules.

I think i get what he's trying to say.

I think he believes that the hits generated by rolling to hit are different to the hits as defined in the destroyer table.

Say you roll to hit with a reaper chainsword, and roll 3 × 4+. You have generated 3 hits.
Then roll on the destroyer table 3 times, and roll 2-6 for all.
The table then (if read in a way) generates 3 more hits.
You COULD ( i don't) resolve that by considering the table hits to have a separate definition, which are what the saves are taken against, as per ONLY the Destroyer rules

Fyi, i disagree. I believe the "hit" defined in the table refers to each hit already generated and is therefore not allocated


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or maybe not......

Point to note - blaktoof just conflated penetrating or glancing hits, a compound noun with a proper meaning, with "hits", to attempt to make the argument that you can save against hits sound credible.

blaktoof wrote:
so as you have demonstrated you can take saves versus hits when you are given permission to do so.

in the shooting section it shows you how to take saves versus wounds allocated to a model from a wound pool which is genereated during the to wound step- the result of rolling str versus toughness. [ D weapons have no to wound step, we are told this in the rules for D weapons, and there is no str versus toughness roll]

under the vehicle section we are given permission to take saves versus hits. Therefore we have permission to take saves versus hits for vehicles.

under D weapons we are told to take saves versus hits[as some D weapons can generate more than one hit on an unit], and again told under the results for the D weapon rolls that we take a save versus the HIT[singular].

Not only are we given permission to take saves versus the Hit, we are told to do so in the rule for D weapons, as well as the table results.

How do you normally take a save?

You roll a d6 and compare it to the best save the model has available. Generally this is done for wounds, but specifically we are told for vehicles and D weapons this is done for a step that is not a to wound step[again D weapons by their own rules specifically do not roll to wound and have no to wound step]

and psychic shriek can cause a model to suffer wounds, but it has no to wound step. the to wound step is a roll of str versus toughness that has no auto success by the general rules.

And how do you propose we allocate the hits to determine what saves can be made by which models?

Other instances where saves can be taken against hits (such as glancing or penetrating hits) are instances where the unit being targeted is for example a vehicle or vehicle squadron with rules for allocating such hits and does not need a wound allocation step (which I don't accept the lack of a to wound roll should make disappear).

The interpretation you've come up with is a complete leap off the cliff away from RAW, without even trying to emulate the existing standard process. Claiming it's following RAW is, frankly, ludicrously false.

blaktoof wrote:
so as you have demonstrated you can take saves versus hits when you are given permission to do so.

in the shooting section it shows you how to take saves versus wounds allocated to a model from a wound pool which is genereated during the to wound step- the result of rolling str versus toughness. [ D weapons have no to wound step, we are told this in the rules for D weapons, and there is no str versus toughness roll]

under the vehicle section we are given permission to take saves versus hits. Therefore we have permission to take saves versus hits for vehicles.

under D weapons we are told to take saves versus hits[as some D weapons can generate more than one hit on an unit], and again told under the results for the D weapon rolls that we take a save versus the HIT[singular].

Not only are we given permission to take saves versus the Hit, we are told to do so in the rule for D weapons, as well as the table results.

How do you normally take a save?

You roll a d6 and compare it to the best save the model has available. Generally this is done for wounds, but specifically we are told for vehicles and D weapons this is done for a step that is not a to wound step[again D weapons by their own rules specifically do not roll to wound and have no to wound step]

and psychic shriek can cause a model to suffer wounds, but it has no to wound step. the to wound step is a roll of str versus toughness that has no auto success by the general rules.

Okay, i disagree, but let's accept we can take saves against (D) Hits.

What rules do you follow to remove models?

Breakdown:
-Take a "D" Hit
-roll save
-reduce Wounds by D6+6

I now have a model with 0 Wounds on the table. Which RaW are you using to remove the model from the table? Can he still play with with 0 Wounds?

(In my interpretation, D Hit are a shooting sub-sequence, so i follow the shooting rules: Take save & remove casualties)

But you say you are not following a shooting sequence, as there is no To Wound or no wound allocation. So what RaW remove the model?

my 2 cents....

RAW: D weapons don't allow for 'unsaved wounds' as on a 2-5 you save versus the hit. These wound be 'unsaved hits' so the Doll is never applicable.
RAI/HIWPI: The Doll is meant to negate the 1st failed save versus an attack with the instant death rule. It is worded to say wound because GW forgets sometimes we don't save versus a wound. It should negate the 'unsaved hit' from the D weapon.