Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Unit of 5 Shrikes(JI). 3 wounds each. Due to Codex limitation all must be equipped the same. They jump and land in difficult terrian and fail 3 tests. Do three take 1 wound or does 1 take 3 wounds.

The way I read it, the model takes the wound so it would be 3 take 1 wound.

The model takes the wound, or more appropriately *sufers* the wound. No other model can take it...

pg 26, "Units of Multiple-Wound Models" 4th paragraph.

"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties when possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

The process of keeping track of an individual model's wounds only applies to multiple-wound models that are in a one-model unit, or ICs. (pg. 26) In all other cases of multiple-wound models, you cound the wounds up and remove a model when there are enough to casue a casualty. Dangerous Terrain does not override this.

So you still posit that another model gets to suffer the wound?

Sigh.

ElCheezus wrote:The process of keeping track of an individual model's wounds only applies to multiple-wound models that are in a one-model unit, or ICs. (pg. 26) In all other cases of multiple-wound models, you cound the wounds up and remove a model when there are enough to casue a casualty. Dangerous Terrain does not override this.

Well first of all this is incorrect; units of multi-wound models wherein the models are not all the same in gaming terms(complex units) also need to be individually tracked.

Second of all, there is no wound allocation in Dangerous terrain tests; the individual models failing(and yes you must test for each model separately) suffer the wound(unless they have an invulnerable save and pass it).

This is just El C attempting the "you still get to allocate" argument again.

SOmeone else suffering the wound, ie. suffering the result of the wound (dying) is not following the rules for DT tests.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you still posit that another model gets to suffer the wound?

Sigh.

For the OP: He's refering to this thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/362583.page)

I hold to a seemingly unpopular reading of the rules. The last discussion went on for 8 pages, so there's not real need to go through it *all* over again.

Dangerous Terrain tests allocates the wound to the model that triggered it, then everything else follows the same rules as shooting from there.

And yes, I still believe that my solid and extensively researched take on this is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:The process of keeping track of an individual model's wounds only applies to multiple-wound models that are in a one-model unit, or ICs. (pg. 26) In all other cases of multiple-wound models, you cound the wounds up and remove a model when there are enough to casue a casualty. Dangerous Terrain does not override this.

Well first of all this is incorrect; units of multi-wound models wherein the models are not all the same in gaming terms(complex units) also need to be individually tracked.

Second of all, there is no wound allocation in Dangerous terrain tests; the individual models failing(and yes you must test for each model separately) suffer the wound(unless they have an invulnerable save and pass it).

There's no separate treatment of unsaved wound for simple and complex multi-wound units. In both cases you keep track of the number of wounds per group of identical models, not per individual model.

This isn't about wound allocation, it's about how to process unsaved wounds.

See page 26:

"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

Solid, excpet it ignores the subject, which is the one that must suffer the wound.

Apparently that doesnt mean actually suffering the wound, i.e. dying from it.

I'm not following this conversation...

I'm seeing two arguments, and after checking the rule-book I am still slightly confused.

--Argument 1 [For Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. Each model take its test one-at-a-time. 3 fail. Therefore 3 models take 1 wound each.

--Argument 2 [Against Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. They are all equipped the same and therefore can take all the tests together. 3 fail. Because they have 3 wounds each, and the rulebook states "Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible.", and they have taken 3 wounds, one model is removed, and all other models take no wounds.

So it seems to me that Argument 2 is correct because the units are equipped the exact same.

But Kommissar Kel states "and yes you must test for each model separately". So does that mean that each model tests separately, 3 fail, but because the number of individual failed tests equals the number of wounds of one of the models the wounds are taken from 3 individual models with 1 wound to 1 model with 3 wounds resulting in the removal of a casualty?

It seems the crux of the 2 arguments are thus:

--Allocation: Each model only takes 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only take 1 wound. It is illogical to think that 1 model can fail a test 3 times, or can be given the consequences of failed tests made by other models.

--No Allocation: The rule-book states "wounds cannot be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" in the section 'Units of Multiple-Wound Models' (which directly applies to this situation). Also, there is no wording in the 'Dangerous Terrain' section to support that dangerous terrain tests override this.

The more I think about it, the more I begin to think that each argument is valid.

DT requires that the model that failed the test suffers the wound

If someone else suffers the wound, i.e. dies, as a result, you have not followed the precise DT test rules.

Sigh; BRB page 14 Dangerous terrain: "Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left, or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during it's move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed(wounds and saves are explained in the next section)."

You are never allocating these wounds, the individual models suffer them, and only invulnerable saves will prevent these wounds, and only the model taking the test will suffer it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Solid, excpet it ignores the subject, which is the one that must suffer the wound.

Apparently that doesnt mean actually suffering the wound, i.e. dying from it.

The rule does refer to models who "suffer" the wound:

"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

How many "unsaved wounds" were "suffered" by the "group of identical multi-wound models"? Answer: 3.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Solid, excpet it ignores the subject, which is the one that must suffer the wound.

Apparently that doesnt mean actually suffering the wound, i.e. dying from it.

Actually, no, it doesn't. I've explained it a few times in the other thread.

I'd also point out that the DT rules specifically tell us to handle wounds as described in the next section, i.e. the one about the shooting phase from where I draw my references. So really your interpretation of suffering ignores the DT rules, not mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Cypher- wrote:I'm not following this conversation...

I'm seeing two arguments, and after checking the rule-book I am still slightly confused.

--Argument 1 [For Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. Each model take its test one-at-a-time. 3 fail. Therefore 3 models take 1 wound each.

--Argument 2 [Against Allocation]: 5 Shrikes land in difficult terrain. They are all equipped the same and therefore can take all the tests together. 3 fail. Because they have 3 wounds each, and the rulebook states "Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible.", and they have taken 3 wounds, one model is removed, and all other models take no wounds.

So it seems to me that Argument 2 is correct because the units are equipped the exact same.

But Kommissar Kel states "and yes you must test for each model separately". So does that mean that each model tests separately, 3 fail, but because the number of individual failed tests equals the number of wounds of one of the models the wounds are taken from 3 individual models with 1 wound to 1 model with 3 wounds resulting in the removal of a casualty?

It seems the crux of the 2 arguments are thus:

--Allocation: Each model only takes 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only take 1 wound. It is illogical to think that 1 model can fail a test 3 times, or can be given the consequences of failed tests made by other models.

--No Allocation: The rule-book states "wounds cannot be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" in the section 'Units of Multiple-Wound Models' (which directly applies to this situation). Also, there is no wording in the 'Dangerous Terrain' section to support that dangerous terrain tests override this.

The more I think about it, the more I begin to think that each argument is valid.

That's a pretty clear analysis of the discussion, actually. I will, however, nitpick on one important thing: it's not about allocation. Allocation is something you do with shooting, after wounds have been confirmed and before taking saves. This is about unsaved wounds and how they process to become casualty removal. I bring this up because talking about allocation can cause a lot of confusion. You can't do any allocation with failed DT checks before taking saves, but you can still follow the rules on casualty removal.

My challenge to interpretation #1 is that there is no rulebook support at all for processing wounds suffered by individual models except for 1) models unique in game terms (game terms is defined on pg. 25 first paragraph) and 2) multi-wound models that are in a single-model unit (and ICs). Neither of those cases apply in this example. In fact, unsaved wounds suffered by models are processed into unsaved wounds suffered by the unit as per Remove Casualties on pg. 24. However, mentioning that usually opens up a whole other can of worms from my detractors.

I would think that each model suffers one wound. DT seems to cleary indicate that you roll your DT test for each model and it is not distributed as per shooting. I didn't read the other thread (I will do so now), but that seems the most logical to me at this time.

ElCheezus, Since this came up again I thought you might be interested to know:

After discussing this point with people I play with, I found that four of the ten of them play the way you interpreted DT the rules, and the other six play(ed) the other way. We now all play with your interpretation; it is much easier to present the argument when discussing it face to face, it seems to (after going through it in person) "click" much easier.

Kurce wrote:I would think that each model suffers one wound. DT seems to cleary indicate that you roll your DT test for each model and it is not distributed as per shooting. I didn't read the other thread (I will do so now), but that seems the most logical to me at this time.

Correct, DT isn't distributed as per shooting, but DT uses the same system as shooting when it comes to resolving unsaved wounds and removing casualties. I agree with the fact that it seems logical to do it the way you mention. It's much more intuitive to do it that way. But sadly the rules for a simulation game don't always refelct "real word" situations.

PB wrote:ElCheezus, Since this came up again I thought you might be interested to know:

After discussing this point with people I play with, I found that four of the ten of them play the way you interpreted DT the rules, and the other six play(ed) the other way. We now all play with your interpretation; it is much easier to present the argument when discussing it face to face, it seems to (after going through it in person) "click" much easier.

That's actually good to know. Based on responses to the other thread, it feels like there were maybe two or three people total who didn't think I was insane. I'm not surprised that the internet makes things hard to communicate sometimes, but I'm glad it worked out for you guys better in person.

ElCheezus wrote: Based on responses to the other thread, it feels like there were maybe two or three people total who didn't think I was insane.

Agree in a debate or not, I hope you include me in that list.

My group feels that the game does not want the complexity of having individual wounds on identical models from DT as that would make them dissimilar to wounds from other sources.

We determined this by following the same logic as the Cheese.

Elcheezus: by your logic then a unit of 7 shrikes could jump having 3 land in 4+ area terrain fail 3 tests. Kill one of the models outside of terrian and then benifit from cover...

Yonush wrote:Elcheezus: by your logic then a unit of 7 shrikes could jump having 3 land in 4+ area terrain fail 3 tests. Kill one of the models outside of terrian and then benifit from cover...

Yes, that is one of the consequences of the rules as I read them. I didn't write them, and I don't claim they're fair, balanced, or make real-world sense. But yes, that's allowed by the rules.

DarknessEternal wrote:My group feels that the game does not want the complexity of having individual wounds on identical models from DT as that would make them dissimilar to wounds from other sources.

This statement is inaccurate. Suffering a wound does not make them different in game terms. I deepstruck a unit of Fiends into terrain the other day, I failed 3 dangerous terrain tests and 3 models took a single wound each. I then took 3 more wounds from shooting and removed 3 whole models because they remain the same in game terms even if they have a wound and another identically equipped model does not.

I also did not know the game had wants, what it does have is a specific reference to models to resolve DT tests. I understand the argument made towards removing whole models, but I disagree with the idea that wounds suffered on a specific per model basis can be allocated.

If two identical Librarians are in a single unit and one suffers Perils of the Warp, do I allocate that wound? The model in that suffered the attack (or in this case failed the terrain tests) intuitively should take the wound, that is why it is specified on a model basis.

calypso2ts wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:My group feels that the game does not want the complexity of having individual wounds on identical models from DT as that would make them dissimilar to wounds from other sources.

This statement is inaccurate. Suffering a wound does not make them different in game terms. I deepstruck a unit of Fiends into terrain the other day, I failed 3 dangerous terrain tests and 3 models took a single wound each. I then took 3 more wounds from shooting and removed 3 whole models because they remain the same in game terms even if they have a wound and another identically equipped model does not.


I also did not know the game had wants, what it does have is a specific reference to models to resolve DT tests. I understand the argument made towards removing whole models, but I disagree with the idea that wounds suffered on a specific per model basis can be allocated.

If two identical Librarians are in a single unit and one suffers Perils of the Warp, do I allocate that wound? The model in that suffered the attack (or in this case failed the terrain tests) intuitively should take the wound, that is why it is specified on a model basis.

I think you misunderstood what he is saying here. I also don't think you understand the original argument (there is a link to the whole thread above) as it has nothing to do with wound allocation.

As librianians are ic and individule units that's not a good example.. a better one is zoenthropes psyker with 2 wounds.

Unit of 3 zoenthropes 2 suffer from perils and fail the saves. IIRC there was a faq that said each take 1 wound so there is presendence.

biccat wrote:See page 26:

"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

That's the general rule. DT states that the model must suffer the wound. Specific>general, the poor chap takes a wound.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

biccat wrote:See page 26:

"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

That's the general rule. DT states that the model must suffer the wound. Specific>general, the poor chap takes a wound.

DT states the model suffers a wound. It is important to distinguish that this is a wound, not an unsaved wound. Once the model rolls to save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound, then models are removed. The reference here on page 26 is AFTER wound allocation, AFTER saves. All DT does is allocate the wounds for you.

Yonush wrote:As librianians are ic and individule units that's not a good example..

Not when they are in the same unit together, they are not.

If 2 libbys are in the same unit and Identical in gaming terms and the unit takes shooting attacks, then they would be lumped into the same wound group, and one of them would die if they take the requisite 2 wounds to kill one of them; then 1 would die. it is only in close combat during the combat itself that they are 2 individual units and can each take a single separate wound.

Perils, Dangerous Terrain, Death or Glory, Attacks that single out specific models(Vindicare, various GK-anti-psyker stuff, etc) will all wound only the specific models that they wound.

I think I completely understand the argument perfectly - it really is not that complex an idea. Since the DT wounds are assigned to a model and saves are rolled by groups of like models, the requirement to 'remove whole models' from an allocation group once you have X unsaved wounds kicks in under that particular argument.

The librarians in my example are, as Komissar pointed out, a single allocation group when identically equipped in the same unit. Zoathropes work as an example that is less confusing to most players I would imagine.

[ ]
So if we all agree than tests for Dangerous Terrain must be taken one-by-one in this situation, then the only thing to debate is whether or not once you reach the total amount of wounds on a models statistics (remember that in this scenario all models in the unit are exactly the same) does that mean that you then apply the allocation (read the whole post before you get hung on that word, it's used for lack of a more fitting one at the moment) rules, even though the wounds taken from Dangerous Terrain do not follow the rules for wounds taken in shooting in earlier stages (this meaning they are taken test-by-test, which is an obvious deviation from how a unit with identical models would handle wounds taken in the shooting phase).

So it seems to me that no, this "wounds cannot be allocated in such a way as to avoid removing models" will not apply because if you agree that Dangerous Terrain rules do not follow shooting phase allocation rules, then it follows that they will not follow shooting phase wound rules throughout the entire process.

Once those 3 separate tests are failed, then those 3 individual models will take their wound as a result of their failed test. I believe that is the correct way to do it for two reasons:
1- a model that takes 1 test can only take 1 wound. Therefore a model that fails one test (as specified in this situation because Dangerous Terrain specifies that the tests are taken "for each model") can only take 1 wound.

2- if you agree that wounds resulting from failed Dangerous Terrain tests do not follow the steps for wounds taken in the shooting phase when they are rolled for, then it follows logically that they will not follow rules for wounds taken in the shooting phase at any point in the process (excluding the basic principles of any and all wounds of course). To say that they start of by deviating from the rules, and then come back to adhering to them later in the process stretches the boundaries of rule interpretation too far when the only basis for the debate is lack of further explanation. You either have it one way or the other.

After reading this entire thread up to this point, I think that in this situation, when all is said and done, you will have 3 models with one wound apiece and no casualties. However, I will say, as I did in my previous post, that this is an interesting topic for debate as it has two convincing sides of argument if you dig deep enough.

[/ ]

I apologize for the many edits. I was on my phone and after a series of goofs I found that the post lacked its second half. Subsequent edits failed to fix the problem so I had to move to my computer.

-Cypher- wrote:So it seems to me that no, this "wounds cannot be allocated in such a way as to avoid removing models" will not apply because if you agree that Dangerous Terrain rules do not follow shooting phase allocation rules, then it follows that they will not follow shooting phase wound rules throughout the entire process.

pg. 14, last line under Dangerous Terrain: "(wounds and saves are explained in the next section)"

It tells us to refer to the shooting rules for specific parts of the process. Specifically: how to roll saves and what to do about wounds. So no, it doesn't follow that we wouldn't use the shooting phase rules.

If you don't use the rules for dealing with unsaved wounds in the Shooting Phase, where do you find your rules about what to do about unsaved wounds?