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.

I'm just a bit curious about how many of the people arguing for more wounds are BA players, and how many of the folks arguing against it are Horde players.

Personally, I'm an Ork player, and I'd rule in favor of the talons getting more attacks. Seems like it'd be more fun, and games would be more decisive, that way.

True, only two wounds are actually lost, and if you'd be counting for combat resolution or the number of models lost, this would be correct.

But, before you find out how many models are lost, you have a number of unsaved wounds. These might be ID or regular wounds or any other wounds connected to special rules.

So now anything that triggers of unsaved wounds is resolved now, for example FNP, force weapons or blood talons. We know this has to be done before models are removed or lose wounds, as Feel no Pain would do nothing otherwise.

Now, any unsaved wounds cause casualties, you remove possibly unwounded multi-wound models for any ID, ignoring successfully FNP'ed wounds, resulting in more or less wounds actually caused than the number of failed saves.

While your argument is basicly correct, you are looking at the wrong number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anvildude, this has been said multiply times in this thread, and is still wrong, for example I'm an ork player and DR is afaik a BA player.

(=\ The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can only be on models removed as casualties

liam0404 wrote:
"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

"The side that caused the most (unsaved wounds inflicted) is the winner," is how that sentence should be parsed.

Combat resolution cares about wounds inflicted.
"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."
The side that caused the most unsaved wounds to be inflicted is the winner.
That doesn't mean that unsaved wounds that were not inflicted due to 'overkill' don't exist and never have existed- it means that they have no bearing on combat resolution.

Both of your quotes refer to calculating combat resolution, which is dependent upon the number of unsaved wounds inflicted. Blood Talons are not dependent on unsaved wounds being inflicted, only caused.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

Using your reasoning, Blood Talons can generate multiple additional attacks through instant death ("including all of the Wounds lost by models that have suffer instant death") and models with Feel No Pain only have to roll based on the number of wounds they have remaining. Both of those scenarios are incorrect.

Feel No Pain and Blood Talons work solely on the number of unsaved wounds caused, which is in turn based on the number of failed armour saves.
Combat resolution is based upon the number of unsaved wounds inflicted, limited by causualty removal (and so total wounds removed) and possibly increased through instant death.

For RESOLUTION, only the models lost count. FOR UNSAVED WOUNDS, you can do more wounds then the unit has availalbe, its just a matter of how many it takes before they are removed.


If we rolled dice one at a time, I could understand the other side saying it's only based on models. But we don't .. we roll it in batches, which means a model can suffer more then 1 wound, however, it only takes 1 wound before the model is removed. It still took 2 wounds while 1 was enough.

AND AGAIN, stop quoting COMBAT RESOLUTION as that isn't a part of the conversation. Resolution hasn't even come into the equation yet on which side lost combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

Suffered yes. But 5 failed all together.

Jidmah wrote:
As for your much quoted and only rule that supports your argument AT ALL: "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" mind this:

5 attacks successfully hit and wound on three models
Take 5 armor saves at once(you may not roll them one after another, as you keep implying, see BRB p. 25 "Taking saves").
Model1 failed its save suffer an unsaved wound.
Model1 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model3 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.(snip)
Also, DR please refrain from ripping stuff from my posts out of context or simply randomly change stuff. Answer to the whole original post or don't quote it.

#1 I have never changed anything of yours without citing that I have made changes and those changes are in bold or brackets or something to that effect.

#2 I sniped this post because I do not need to answer the whole post, just this one section and I snip out what i am not responding to because reposting it means now we have seen it twice.

#3 This situation above is PERFECT, In your example above how many models failed their save? Well Model1 failed its save, Model2 failed its save, and Model3 failed its save, I count three models that have failed their save. and as we all know for each model that fails its save, in this case three models failed their save, the Blood talon dread will produce three extra attacks, because only three models failed their save. they took five saves, failed five saves, but only three unsaved wounds were caused/inflicted, so only three extra attacks.

However the rules are written poorly as usual, and we need to take the less advantageous position.

and yes I play BA, I have since 2nd ed.

karlosovic wrote:But more bullets *will* casuse additional damage to what's left of your body.

But they will not cause any more wounds. This Off-Topicness has no bearing on the actual rules debate however.

So you still ignore Page 25, or any other rules I quoted anywhere. I'd like to point out, that you "snipped" any argument against you position again. Your disinterest in an actual discussion has been noted.

I do not ignore P.25, it deals with complex units, so lets say we have a complex unit like in the example.

If you look at the example on P.25:
'This unit suffers eleven wounds, ten normal, and one AP1.
You take 'two wounds per model and a single spare wound'

'He goes on to roll the four saves for the SM with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved and one from AP1) but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both'

Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?

The rules do not say what to do with it, so we can not use it, and it is lost.

Editing to add, Please attack my argument, not me.

I didn't mean to attack you, what I meant to say, is discussing with you is very frustrating as you just keep repeating the same argument and never answer to any other arguments brought forth.

But as you did otherwise in your last post:

It does say what to do with the extra unsaved wound: Do not remove a model for it, and it is lost.

But: It does not change the fact that three unsaved wounds were dealt to the marines, as on pg. 24 "Removing casualties", second sentence. The sentence after that says you have to remove a model for every unsaved wound. Back on page 25 it says the SM player has to remove three models, so they actually suffered three wounds, even though they are only two models with one wound each.

DeathReaper wrote:'He goes on to roll the four saves for the SM with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved and one from AP1) but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both'

Now we have an extra wound, what do the rules say to do with this extra wound?

The rules do not say what to do with it, so we can not use it, and it is lost.

Two unsaved and one AP1 = three unsaved wounds caused on two models.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."
That is the number that Blood Talon's check for and generate attacks from.

Jidmah wrote:I didn't mean to attack you, what I meant to say, is discussing with you is very frustrating as you just keep repeating the same argument and never answer to any other arguments brought forth.

But as you did otherwise in your last post:

It does say what to do with the extra unsaved wound: Do not remove a model for it, and it is lost.

But: It does not change the fact that three unsaved wounds were dealt to the marines, as on pg. 24 "Removing casualties", second sentence. The sentence after that says you have to remove a model for every unsaved wound. Back on page 25 it says the SM player has to remove three models, so they actually suffered three wounds, even though they are only two models with one wound each.

And there you go: 'It is lost' and as such can not be a wound caused. Okay the book does say what to do with it then, do nothing, it is lost.

Three unsaved wounds may have been dealt, but only two were caused/inflicted.

Editing to add: The number blood talons check for is wounds caused, you can not cause three wounds to a model that only has one to give.

you can not cause a wound to nothing, you have to cause a wound to a models wound characteristic. once that is reduced to zero you can no longer cause any wounds to that models wound characteristic. Caused/inflicted are interchangeable.

No, your comparing models removed ( or REMOVING Casualties) vs taking wounds and saving wounds. Different processes. The excess wounds are ignored for removing models. but not for the other aspects that these topics have been mentioned for, i.e. Blood Talons and FNP

edit for terrible spelling.

DeathReaper wrote:you can not cause a wound to nothing, you have to cause a wound to a models wound characteristic. once that is reduced to zero you can no longer cause any wounds to that models wound characteristic. Caused/inflicted are interchangeable.

They are not.

An unsaved wound is caused for every model that fails it's armour save- "For every model that fails it's armour save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."
An unsaved wound is inflicted for every wound lost from a model's profile- "To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted... Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic, only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models."

DeathReaper wrote:
And there you go: 'It is lost' and as such can not be a wound caused. Okay the book does say what to do with it then, do nothing, it is lost.

The book does not say "do nothing". As in a permissive ruleset doing nothing without permission is against the rules.

Three unsaved wounds may have been dealt, but only two were caused/inflicted.

dealt, caused and inflicted are synonyms and used interexchangably throughout the BRB and codices.

I see your point though, but there is no rule causing a diffentiation betweens wounds that remove models and wound that don't remove models.

Editing to add: The number blood talons check for is wounds caused, you can not cause three wounds to a model that only has one to give.

If it were that way, it should call for "actual wounds inflicted" as the combat rule does. Since it doesn't you have to take the regular wounds caused. Note that the explanation of saves (armor/invul) also tell you the model suffers a wound whenever a save is failed, so it is easy for a model to suffer multiple wounds before being removed. An wounds sufferd had to be caused by something.

you can not cause a wound to nothing, you have to cause a wound to a models wound characteristic. once that is reduced to zero you can no longer cause any wounds to that models wound characteristic. Caused/inflicted are interchangeable.

Actually you can't attack nothing, so you can't hit it or wound it.
Single-wound models never get their wound characteristic reduced, so they'd be invincible. Also see "Taking saving throws" on pg. 20, it tells you to roll all saves at once and the models suffer one wound for each failed one.

As for fun RL examples:
One unsaved wounds: A nob slices your arm off with his big choppa.
Two unsaved wounds: A nob slices both your arms off.
Three unsaved wounds: A nob slices both your arms off and disembodies you.
Four unsaved wounds: A nob slices both your arms off, disembodies you splits you in half.

The BRB says casualties are just out of the fight and not necessary dead, but you can go sure

Sorry, but you're just wrong. You unequivocally cannot inflict more wounds on a unit than it has. And before you whine about FNP again, this is a "second save" - you have only inflicted an unsaved wound if this test is also failed.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. There are no rules backing you up. In addition FNP rule says you are wrong, as it only works for unsaved wounds. The BRB disallows more than one save, so FNP is not a save.

liam0404 wrote:Sorry, but you're just wrong. You unequivocally cannot inflict more wounds on a unit than it has. And before you whine about FNP again, this is a "second save" - you have only inflicted an unsaved wound if this test is also failed.

You sir, have no basis for such statement as you have not once used rules from the actual section we are discussing for your side of the argument. The fact that Combat Resolution phase is completely different then wounding and saving phase. The fact is if it was the same it would of said so, as it does when in combat says refer to shooting process for the wounding.

Your opinion of his correctness or incorrectness is not the debate, its a debate on the rules as is. You can't have the rules favor less wounds from BT and then say FNP has to ignore the same process as BT.

I'm not a BA player either, but it is what it is. The people arguing in favor for more BT attacks, and the same equivilant with FNP are actually using rules from the wounding section. The other side is using rules from Combat Resolution and their "opinions, or how they see things, or logic" which has been cited as not relevant to GW universe in any such form...

Jidmah wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
And there you go: 'It is lost' and as such can not be a wound caused. Okay the book does say what to do with it then, do nothing, it is lost.

The book does not say "do nothing". As in a permissive ruleset doing nothing without permission is against the rules.

Doing nothing is not an action, it is lack of an action.

Taking an action without express written consent of the rules is not allowed, This is different than taking no action.

@fork, yes they are interchangeable as liam0404 has pointed out:

liam0404 wrote:"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

Inflicted and caused and suffered are all interchangeable within the context of the rules.

look at P.26 under multiple-wound models:

'When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile.
wounds suffered/lost= wounds caused

If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

But now your changing up on the multiple wound models vs other models. It still removes from the profile, however, if your bringing characteristics into this, it says that you can have something that would reduce a characteristic even blow zero, but you however stop it from doing so to a minimal of one(usually)

DeathReaper wrote:
@fork, yes they are interchangeable as liam0404 has pointed out:

liam0404 wrote:"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Except that the correct parsing is-
"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most (unsaved wounds inflicted) is the winner."

The number of unsaved wounds inflicted is different to the number of unsaved wounds.

Still.

Sorry, are you re-writing the rulebook now? How do you know what the "correct" parsing is? Don't presume to say that the GW guys got the wording wrong - even if they did, how can you say your interpretation is the correct one?

Multiple wound models and Single wound models work the same way, if something causes them wounds equal to their wound characteristic they become a casualty and are removed. No further wounds can be caused to a model that is not on the board.

If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

It seems you think its ambiguous, therefore lets end the debate and take the less advantageous position.

Have a look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

"if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. "

Deathreaper (and earlier Nosferatu) were correct in their interpretation of the rule. I have shown a valid, equivalent mechanic to back up my argument. As I have said many times in this thread, i'd be supremely confident of a TO at a GT backing me on this. You'd be laughed out of the tournament/FLGS for pulling this sort of cheese, and rightfully so.

liam0404 wrote:But in your example, (the same example), it says that because there are three wounds and only 2 models in that group, only 2 models are removed - the excess wound is "lost".

Wrong! Lie!You are falsely using parentheses here to try to add false weight to a word of your own concoction. In fact, the word "lost" does not appear in that rule section AT ALL, EVER. That section of the rules states there were 3 unsaved wounds but only 2 models available to be affected by them. It does not say the number of models reduces the number of wounds caused! (unsaved or otherwise). Additionally, no where does it say that Blood Talons get extra attacks based on the rule section "Determine Assault Results".

Further to your favourite invention of a word - the ONLY occurance of the word "lost" in ANY section of rules so far referenced is "all the wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death" - which is a usage that implies ADDING to the total unsaved wounds caused (but since it is only part of "Determine Assault Results", it is invalid). The only reference to other forms (losing, loser, etc.) relate to the momentum of the assault as a whole, in terms of which side must take a leadership test - there is no further reference to wounds by ANY form of the word "lost", so stop making things up.

DeathReaper wrote:Multiple wound models and Single wound models work the same way, if something causes them wounds equal to their wound characteristic they become a casualty and are removed. No further wounds can be caused to a model that is not on the board.

If is ambiguous you should take the less advantageous position.

It seems you think its ambiguous, therefore lets end the debate and take the less advantageous position.

Have a look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

"if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. "

Unfortunately, that's not a very good rules argument. What if not taking a specific action benefited you more than not taking it?

Dreadnought attacks a model with invulnerable saves. The model has 3 wounds, but fails 4 saves. How many unsaved wounds are there?

ChrisCP wrote:(=\ The guys in the unit are already gone anyway as unsaved wounds can only be on models removed as casualties

100% Wrong. Unsaved wounds can be scored against models with multiple wounds, that are not removed as casualties (in the case they have wounds remaining)

Dreadnought attacks a model with invulnerable saves. The model has 3 wounds, but fails 4 saves. How many unsaved wounds are there?

ID would usually take place (relax, i wont go into that)


If you failed 4 saves then thats 4 unsaved wounds. (hence the whole name of it "unsaved"?)
Nothing caps you with a limit of how many you can take at once.

For crying out loud, you cheesemongers are really begining to get on my nerves now. Say I allocate A MILLION wounds to a single guy. He suffers the first unsaved wound - ok, now he's dead - how can he continue to lose wounds when he has ZERO wounds remaining? The answer is that he cannot.

liam0404 wrote:For crying out loud, you cheesemongers are really begining to get on my nerves now. Say I allocate A MILLION wounds to a single guy. He suffers the first unsaved wound - ok, now he's dead - how can he continue to lose wounds when he has ZERO wounds remaining? The answer is that he cannot.

He cannot continue to lose wounds, but if you rolled a million dice, chances are you would have about half a million unsaved wounds. Any of which wounds would kill the dude.