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.

puma713 wrote:

Galador wrote:
Galador, your argument is losing traction.

My argument is losing traction simply because I am tired of pointing out the same things, and getting the same answers in return, which then once again lead to the same things, and the same answers, etc., etc., etc. My case, along with all the others that agree with it, has been stated multiple times. Dangerous terrain specifically affects a model, not a unit. Units are made up of models, as per the BRB. But if it doesn't say unit, then it doesn't mean unit. And even though the rules are not the most well written ruleset ever, I have yet to see where a model is a unit, unless it specifically states that it is its own unit, i.e. Independent characters or Lone Wolves, to simply give two examples.

I should have followed my own words earlier when I said I'm done, but I decided to try again, and of course, to no avail. I have yet to be shown where a unit is effected by a single model's (that is part of said unit) test for dangerous terrain, but I have been shown over and over again where a unit's removing of casualties can affect a single model within it.

So fine, lets try something new. Show me anywhere in the BRB where it tells you that a model making a test can allocate the test to another model. Notice I said the test, not the effects. If you cannot test on another model, you cannot have the effects happen to another model. I cannot take a Psychic test on one Librarian attached to a unit, roll boxcars for a perils of the Warp, and then put the effects of said test onto another model within the unit. And that is not because the Librarian is an IC, nor is it because he is unique, it is simply because the Librarian is the model that took the test and failed it, so he suffers the consequences.

Galador wrote:So fine, lets try something new. Show me anywhere in the BRB where it tells you that a model making a test can allocate the test to another model. Notice I said the test, not the effects. If you cannot test on another model, you cannot have the effects happen to another model.

First, what kind of test? Atribute tests that clearly define their own rules for failue? They don't apply here, as they're not part of the wound/casualty system. DT is. Second, what would this prove?

Your last sentence here is very specifically false. The first sentence under Remove Casualties (we all know it's pg. 24 by now, right?) states that a failed save made by a model becomes an unsaved wound for the unit. In turn, you can remove any model as long as it's identical. That's a clear-cut case where the effects can happen to another model. If you want DT to not work this way, you have to show me where it provides an exception.

I think that's ultimately the problem with this discussion. The burden here is for people to show that the exact model must be removed, as this is an exception to the general rule. If there is no exception, then we fall back to the general rule. Showing the general rule is written for shooting or targeted units or anything else honestly isn't enough unless you can provide the alternate method, as well. The burden is on you guys to find an exception and thoroughly investigate it instead of bringing it here right away to be shot down, usually for a second or third time.

If you want an analogy: When something falls, it hits the floor. That's the general rule. The only way this doesn't happen is if it lands on something else. That's the exception. Now, if I tell you that something fell, and don't tell you what it landed on, we can assume it landed on the floor. You have to show me why DT doesn't land on the "floor" (the Remove Casualties section). You could alternately show that there's a different general case, but nobody's even found anything close so far.

I cannot take a Psychic test on one Librarian attached to a unit, roll boxcars for a perils of the Warp, and then put the effects of said test onto another model within the unit. And that is not because the Librarian is an IC, nor is it because he is unique, it is simply because the Librarian is the model that took the test and failed it, so he suffers the consequences.

Now that I think about it, you could theoretically have something similar to this happen. Take Zoanthropes, for example. They're a unit of multiple models with multiple wounds, right? Two, I think. Say two of them both Perils and fail their saves. There are now two unsaved wounds allocated to the group of identical models. Per pg. 26 under Units of Multiple-Wound Models, paragraph 4, "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." So I guess you'd have to remove a Zoanthrope. I had considered that a case like this was possible, but I didn't think it actually existed in the game. That's all slightly off-topic, but interesting.

And yes, the reason you can't do this with two identical Librairans is that they're ICs, and thus subject to the counting down of wounds described at the beginning of pg. 26.

Who said anything about two librarians?? I said a Librarian and a unit he is attached to, I said nothing about a second Librarian. You can't attribute the wound from a PotW to a non Psychic model. It states the psyker, which is the model that took the test (in this case, the librarian). If you want to attribute it to different models, such as your zoanthropes, you can't do that either, because each Zoan takes a seperate Psychic test, and it states the psyker takes the wound if he fails the test, once again with no armor or cover saves (sound familiar?). So there are two instances of tests that I have given you that state the specific model takes the results of its test, even in a unit with two of the same models. (your Zoanthropes). Under PotW, it says nothing about the unit can have the wound allocated, it straight says that the psyker suffers the wound if rolls the PotW on his Psychic test.

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

You want to talk about specific vs. general, and you tell me that Dangerous Terrain is more general than Removing Casualties... lets break that down to what each one of these rules deals with in the game, shall we?

Lets start with yours...

Places where removing casualties is used within the game:
When shot at by another unit.
When a blast marker scatters onto them
when a flamer is targeted at another unit but they are between the firer and the target
No Retreat! Rule
When a vehicle explodes and they are within the range
When a transport explodes and they are embarked
Units occupying a building hit by a template weapon
Units occupying a building that explodes
Units within range when a building explodes

Ok, now lets see where Dangerous Terrain is used in the game:
When a model moves into, through, or out of Dangerous Terrain



So, which one is more specific now???

And the example of showing where you put the wound from the dangerous terrain test, as you asked for, has been shown to you multiple times, but I will state it once more, and remember, as I stated above, NOWHERE in the Dangerous Terrain rules does it state unit, but it only states model, hence it is the more specific rule, as it breaks it down to individual models, as model is defined on pg. 3 of the BRB. On this page it states that each model is an individual playing piece with its own capabilities. It then goes on to state under the explanation for units, also on pg. 3, that units are made up of models, which once again specifies even further down that a unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but can also be a single, very large or very powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature, or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as "units".

Now then, onto the specific example you wanted:

Stated for at least the third time verbatim by me, and I'm pretty sure by a few others as well, in the rules for Dangerous Terrain, pg. 14: on a roll of a one, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed.

Seems quite specific right there that it is broken down to the individual model that moved into, through, or out of the Dangerous terrain and failed its test is the one that suffers the wound.

Back to you, now show me where it states in the dangerous terrain rules that the wound goes on a unit, and not an individual model.

Galador wrote:

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

It really doesn't have to show that the unit suffers a wound. Based on the RAW, it sounds to me like dangerous terrain happens just like getting shot and wounded, except the wounds are automatically allocated to individual model, just like if your unit were shot at, you take the wounds and allocate them, then take saving throws. DT on a roll of a 1 jumps straight to the "take saving throws" part, only allowing invulnerable saves. If the model making the save fails, then, per page BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

PB wrote:

Galador wrote:

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

It really doesn't have to show that the unit suffers a wound. Based on the RAW, it sounds to me like dangerous terrain happens just like getting shot and wounded, except the wounds are automatically allocated to individual model, just like if your unit were shot at, you take the wounds and allocate them, then take saving throws. DT on a roll of a 1 jumps straight to the "take saving throws" part, only allowing invulnerable saves. If the model making the save fails, then, per page BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

No, it doesn't need to show that the unit suffers the wound, because it already went even more specific and stated the model that failed the test suffered the wound. There is no allocation, as it has already been allocated for you, its even been allocated down to a single, individual model. Since the rule allocates *exactly* who takes the wound, there is no allocation, and the rest of the unit never deals with this wound, only the specific model that failed the test. It is nothing like getting shot at, because there is no checking range, there is no rolling to hit, there is no rolling to wound. The only thing you do is take a test, and if you fail the test, you suffer a wound. Dangerous terrain has no strength, no AP, nothing whatsoever that has to do with shooting, so you can't begin to compare it to shooting.

Galador wrote:

PB wrote:

Galador wrote:

Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

It really doesn't have to show that the unit suffers a wound. Based on the RAW, it sounds to me like dangerous terrain happens just like getting shot and wounded, except the wounds are automatically allocated to individual model, just like if your unit were shot at, you take the wounds and allocate them, then take saving throws. DT on a roll of a 1 jumps straight to the "take saving throws" part, only allowing invulnerable saves. If the model making the save fails, then, per BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

No, it doesn't need to show that the unit suffers the wound, because it already went even more specific and stated the model that failed the test suffered the wound. There is no allocation, as it has already been allocated for you, its even been allocated down to a single, individual model. Since the rule allocates *exactly* who takes the wound, there is no allocation, and the rest of the unit never deals with this wound, only the specific model that failed the test. It is nothing like getting shot at, because there is no checking range, there is no rolling to hit, there is no rolling to wound. The only thing you do is take a test, and if you fail the test, you suffer a wound. Dangerous terrain has no strength, no AP, nothing whatsoever that has to do with shooting, so you can't begin to compare it to shooting.

That's exactly what I just said, there is no allocation, it has already been allocated for you. The only thing DT is overriding here is how wounds are allocated, not how models are removed from the board. Since DT says that wounding and removing models is explained in the next section, we can very easily turn to that section to determine what happens after a model takes a wound. They roll saves, then (again) per page BRB pg. 24, "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (emphasis mine)

Galador wrote:
Now lets go back to DT and compare, shall we? It states: On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound. Now show me where it states that the unit is suffering the wound from the dangerous terrain test. Don't show me in remove casualties, don't show me anywhere else. Show me, in the rules governing Dangerous Terrain, that the unit suffers a wound. You can't because the unit doesn't suffer the wound, the model does.

Here is where your argument completely breaks down. You want to resolve wounds without the rules for resolving wounds. The only reason you can do this is because you know how to resolve wounds. Let's say you're a new player that has never played 40K before - you've only read up to Dangerous Terrain - you haven't read any of the wound/save/casualties rules yet.

Then you read the rules for Dangerous Terrain and it tells you that if you roll a 1, the model suffers a wound.

Big deal. Without the rest of the rules (Take Saving Throws and Remove Casualities) that means jack and squat. Who cares if he takes 1 wound, who cares if he takes 100 wounds. If you don't know what "being wounded" means, you can't proceed with the DT rules.

You keep referring back to the DT rules as if they're in a vaccuum and they're not. They rely on the shooting rules (as does Close Combat) to tell you how to resolve wounds. If you had never played 40K in your life, you'd have no idea what to do next after reading the DT rules unless the Remove Casualites rules explained it to you.

Galador wrote:Who said anything about two librarians?? (+ a lot more)

Sadly, I don't have time to respond to all of this right now, I'm about to go play a game. I'll take a more thorough look at it tonight, though.

My first response to all of this is: What happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound?

My answer to that is, unless otherwise specified, we follow the steps on pg. 24 "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted . . ." It then tells us the player who own the unit can choose which model is removed, as long as they're identical. If they're not, there are more instructions later on. (sorry again for my brevity)

You want me to tell you where in DT it says that the unit suffers a wound. It actually refers us to the rules in the next section, which is the shooting phase, which is where Removing Casualties. So the DT rules actually end up pointing us to Remove Casualties.

If all of that doesn't convince you, which it hasn't so far, we'll ignore Remove Casualties. Now: What happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound?

I'll tell you right now that any answer without a page reference and a quotation won't be good enough. The rules have to actually tell us what to do. Be thorough, precise, and clear. Find a place where it tells you what happens when an individual model within a unit of identical models suffers a wound. I'll go on to warn you that the first two paragraphs on pg 26 about Multiple-Wound Models deals with lone models, not units (and also requires multiple wounds to be applicable).

Also, we really should be working under the assumption that we have a unit of identical models with one wound, for simplicity's sake. Can we at least agree on that and then go up from there?

Ok, so lets go step by step with this and I will show you where the remove casualties rule is completely skipped over in the Dangerous Terrain...

Nowhere in the the rules for dangerous terrain tests does it cause the odel to be a casualty. It only causes the model that rolls a 1 on the Dangerous Terrain test to suffer a wound. It then says that wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It says nothing about removing casualties.

So lets head to the next section, shall we?? Ah, the shooting phase... Let's see what the first relevant page to Dangerous Terrain is..... hmm... no line of sight needed... no range check needed... no rolling to hit....no rolling to wound....AHHA!! Here we go, page 20, taking saving throws. That is the first of the two references that we need, as we didn't roll to wound for the Dangerous terrain, we just simply caused a wound. So then, lets read a bit, shall we?

So it states that if all the models in the unit are the same, roll all the saves together. So if we have a 10 man Tactical squad, do we roll them all together??? Why, no we don't, because there are different models in there. So lets read on a bit more.... the next paragraph then states that we need to know exactly who was wounded (emphasis mine, but words are exact from BRB), and this requires an extra step. The wounds the unit (had to highlight that to you so that you can tell me it says unit in your next reply) has suffered must be allocated onto SPECIFIC MODELS before saving throws are taken. (Wow, so it does say specific models, not just the group that are the exact same in the unit.....)
This extra step is explained after the basic rules (see page 25).

So, if we have a unit with more than one different model, we head to page 25. Which has been your example almost the entire time, so lets head on over there. And before you tell me otherwise, the majority of your examples have been 3 melta gunners in a squad, so that says to me that the squad is bigger than the three melta gunners, hence you would have to jump to page 25.

Well, would you look at that, we skipped right on over the Removing Casualties section! And now we are in the complex units section.

And look, the complex units section still tells us that you have to decide which models must be wounded! But we already know that part, as it was allocated to the model that took the test by the Dangerous Terrain rules. It then tells you that you have to allocate one wound to each model before any can take a second one, but our one wound has already been allocated, and we don't have anymore, so it once again falls on the specific model that failed the test! So then we go on to the saving throws section of complex units. It then says that once all the wounds have been allocated, which Dangerous terrain did for us, all identical models in gaming terms can be rolled for their saves at once. But we don't get armor saves, so can't roll for that. We don't get cover saves, so can't roll for that. We don't have a invul save, so we don't get to roll for any saves!

So on the page before Removing casualties, and on page 25 for complex units, it tells us that we must know exactly which specific model has been wounded, which we already know thanks to the Dangerous Terrain rules!!!

Try looking beyond the one spot in the rulebook that tells you what you want to see, i.e. that any model can be targeted, hit, wounded, and removed as a casualty, and also, try to remember that the remove casualties section was written for the shooting phase, and is then referenced in the Assault phase. Nowhere in this is dangerous terrain, because as stated above, a dangerous terrain test does not remove casualties, nor does it cause a model to be a casualty, it simply causes the model to suffer a wound.

I really don't think I can stomach going much more in depth than that. If you need any where else inthe rules for taking saving throws, or allocating wounds, or whatever, that defeats Removing casualties as it is the step prior, and the fact that the BRB itself tells you that you must know the exact and specific model that has been wounded, then I can't help you. So, now the ball is back in your court, to dig into the rules even further than I did, and show me where I made a typographical error, or where my perception of a word is different than yours. But seeing as this thread has gone from amusing to annoying to downright stupidity, I don't think I will be posting again.

And no, I did not call anyone stupid, before you go off on telling me I am insulting you, I simply said the thread has devolved into stupidity as per nitpicking the rules apart well beyond what is needed. If your perception shows you that I called you stupid, well, nothing I can do about that, now is there?

Take my sarcasm and humor as you wish.

ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Fly this at your LGS. The players and then the local TO. Try BoLS, B&CS, Warseer. I'm betting you'll find you will be in the minority every time. Give your local Battle Bunker a call. Just off the 355 Fwy, right? It's a bit of a drive, but an easy phone call for you. 630-426-0120

Since you are not swayed by the clear DT rules citations presented here, maybe by simple majority of players' calls, you'll accept that you've got it wrong.

And hey, if the BB in Chicago calls it wrong, then cool for you in Illinois. And no, I'm not saying asking the first register monkey that answers the phone. Ask who their TO is, and get a hold of *that* guy.
--------------------------------------------
Before everyone else shouts me down for trying to Cite an Authority on this (not a fallacy) and how poorly that can go; Yes, I know "Jimmy" used to managed the BB in Los Angeles, and that guy didn't know a bolter from a railgun.

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Out of all the flawed logic in this thread, no matter the side of the argument, this is the biggest example. ^^

Galador wrote: *snip*

I stopped reading after you said that you skip Remove Casualites even after it says that the extra step is explained. .(wait. . since you're so fond of colors and fonts. . .)AFTER THE BASIC RULES. Remove Casualties is not a special part of the rules that you magically skip over. It is a part of the basic rules where Complex Units are explained directly after. It doesn't even tell you to skip Remove Casualties, as you're claiming.

But, better yet - let's make it simpler for you: Let's say it's not even a complex unit. Let's say it's 9 tactical marines, all identically armed. You have no reason to even look at Complex Units. Now do you suddenly "skip" Remove Casualties from a DT test as you're claiming?

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Fly this at your LGS. The players and then the local TO. Try BoLS, B&CS, Warseer. I'm betting you'll find you will be in the minority every time. Give your local Battle Bunker a call. Just off the 355 Fwy, right? It's a bit of a drive, but an easy phone call for you. 630-426-0120

Since you are not swayed by the clear DT rules citations presented here, maybe by simple majority of players' calls, you'll accept that you've got it wrong.

And hey, if the BB in Chicago calls it wrong, then cool for you in Illinois. And no, I'm not saying asking the first register monkey that answers the phone. Ask who their TO is, and get a hold of *that* guy.
--------------------------------------------
Before everyone else shouts me down for trying to Cite an Authority on this (not a fallacy) and how poorly that can go; Yes, I know "Jimmy" used to managed the BB in Los Angeles, and that guy didn't know a bolter from a railgun.

Truth is not democratic.

A TO can rule however he wants in his tournaments, and that's the law there. That still doesn't make him right outside of his domain.

Edit: "Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative." Wiki has a decent article on it.

Galador wrote:And look, the complex units section still tells us that you have to decide which models must be wounded! But we already know that part, as it was allocated to the model that took the test by the Dangerous Terrain rules. It then tells you that you have to allocate one wound to each model before any can take a second one, but our one wound has already been allocated, and we don't have anymore, so it once again falls on the specific model that failed the test! So then we go on to the saving throws section of complex units. It then says that once all the wounds have been allocated, which Dangerous terrain did for us, all identical models in gaming terms can be rolled for their saves at once. But we don't get armor saves, so can't roll for that. We don't get cover saves, so can't roll for that. We don't have a invul save, so we don't get to roll for any saves!

So on the page before Removing casualties, and on page 25 for complex units, it tells us that we must know exactly which specific model has been wounded, which we already know thanks to the Dangerous Terrain rules!!!

I follow you and agree with your step-by-step analysis up to this point. It's actually very good, despite the tone and all that. I don't stop following you because you're wrong, I just stop following you because you stopped short. What happens after we don't get to roll any saves? I think you're trying to say that since we can't roll any saves, we can't group the wounds together. And since we can't group everybody, we can't choose our casualties from that group. Is this correct? If it is, then what? The next bit tells us that models that stand out in "game terms" are removed as casualties if they suffer an unsaved wound. Well, our meltagunner doesn't stand out, he has two identical friends. And then. . . that's it. No more instructions. Which means you've never answered the question:

What happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound?

You got to a point where your only two options were a) the model is part of a group and the casualty can be chosen from any of them or b) he's unique in game terms and that specific model must be removed. He's not b), and your choice was "not a)" leaving you with no answer.

That means either the game breaks every time a DT test is failed, or you can group identical models even if you don't roll saves.

Try looking beyond the one spot in the rulebook that tells you what you want to see, i.e. that any model can be targeted, hit, wounded, and removed as a casualty, and also, try to remember that the remove casualties section was written for the shooting phase, and is then referenced in the Assault phase. Nowhere in this is dangerous terrain, because as stated above, a dangerous terrain test does not remove casualties, nor does it cause a model to be a casualty, it simply causes the model to suffer a wound.

I really don't think I can stomach going much more in depth than that. If you need any where else inthe rules for taking saving throws, or allocating wounds, or whatever, that defeats Removing casualties as it is the step prior, and the fact that the BRB itself tells you that you must know the exact and specific model that has been wounded, then I can't help you. So, now the ball is back in your court, to dig into the rules even further than I did, and show me where I made a typographical error, or where my perception of a word is different than yours. But seeing as this thread has gone from amusing to annoying to downright stupidity, I don't think I will be posting again.

And no, I did not call anyone stupid, before you go off on telling me I am insulting you, I simply said the thread has devolved into stupidity as per nitpicking the rules apart well beyond what is needed. If your perception shows you that I called you stupid, well, nothing I can do about that, now is there?

Take my sarcasm and humor as you wish.

The term for you tone and all that is "patronizing," and it sure doesn't mean you're nice. If you do come back to the discussion, please don't continue in that manner. You've shown that you can have a very detailed and clear line of thought, so you're definitely contributing to the discussion, but the talking down was unnecessary.

p.s. Your step-by-step example ignored what would happen if the unit was all identical, or if there was an invuln save. Either one of those would have led you right back to my position on the matter.

It doesn't say to treat these wounds as if they are from shooting attacks, so I'm not sure why we're trying to use the shooting rules to resolve them.

The DT rule is fairly early in the rulebook, so a completely new player might not even know what a "saving throw" is, hence the mention of those rules in "the next section."

bushido wrote:It doesn't say to treat these wounds as if they are from shooting attacks, so I'm not sure why we're trying to use the shooting rules to resolve them.

The DT rule is fairly early in the rulebook, so a completely new player might not even know what a "saving throw" is, hence the mention of those rules in "the next section."

Yes, and let's say you fail that saving throw. What happens next? Let's consider that you are a new player and have no knowledge of rules. What is the next step after you fail a saving throw?

The BRB never tells us clearly what to do if a model suffers a wound(same wording on Perils, DT and "Get's Hot!"), other than what saves to roll. All rules concerned to wounding have units suffer wounds. Simply because you are allowed to take saving throws like units, does not mean you continue on to "removing casualties" for units. You'd have to finde a rule for removing casualties for models.
As you claimed that there is no rule for removing a single model wounded, I quoted compex units, to show there is one, even if it is used in a different context. So now we have rules for rolling saves for single models and rules for removing single models failing their save.

The RAI is pretty obvious, as Get's Hot!" talks about "their user", "the firing model", perils refers to "the psyker" [failing the test], and movement does not care about the existance of units for allmost all purposes.

ElCheezuz: I appreciate your posts (even if I don't agree), but those quote-pyramids are pain to read, you might want to remove any interlaced quotes when quoting.

Jidmah wrote:The BRB never tells us clearly what to do if a model suffers a wound(same wording on Perils, DT and "Get's Hot!"), other than what saves to roll. All rules concerned to wounding have units suffer wounds. Simply because you are allowed to take saving throws like units, does not mean you continue on to "removing casualties" for units. You'd have to finde a rule for removing casualties for models.
As you claimed that there is no rule for removing a single model wounded, I quoted compex units, to show there is one, even if it is used in a different context. So now we have rules for rolling saves for single models and rules for removing single models failing their save.

The RAI is pretty obvious, as Get's Hot!" talks about "their user", "the firing model", perils refers to "the psyker" [failing the test], and movement does not care about the existance of units for allmost all purposes.

ElCheezuz: I appreciate your posts (even if I don't agree), but those quote-pyramids are pain to read, you might want to remove any interlaced quotes when quoting.

The rules actually do have a section to tell us how to remove models that have failed their saves. Page 24 says (repeating again) "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." DT tells us to check this section for dealing with wounds and saves, and save resolution is dealt with in "Removing Casualties." The wound on the model referenced in DT is not an unsaved wound, it is simply a wound. It becomes unsaved when the model fails his saving throw (if he has one).

Uh please quote? Because DT does not tell us to check the "Remove Casualties" section, but explicitly only the two sections before that.

Also "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." is taken out of context. It refers to unit saves that are never taken by those three instances. Plus, the unit does not suffer a wound. The model suffers a wound.

@ Elcheezus

There’s a point where common sense must come into play here. No matter what the rules lawyering is...

Example::
4 space maries are running along , the lascannon being the cocky guy that he is, enters dangerous terrain (trying to jump a gap in a lava pit), his comrades being smarter than him, do not attempt such a foolish act. And of course, he slips and falls in the lava to his death. So according to your argument, why does the guy with the bolter always have to be the one to die.??

You'd get a "Com'on man" if you tried pulling this in a game.

Cheers

Jidmah wrote:The BRB never tells us clearly what to do if a model suffers a wound(same wording on Perils, DT and "Get's Hot!"), other than what saves to roll. All rules concerned to wounding have units suffer wounds. Simply because you are allowed to take saving throws like units, does not mean you continue on to "removing casualties" for units. You'd have to finde a rule for removing casualties for models.
As you claimed that there is no rule for removing a single model wounded, I quoted compex units, to show there is one, even if it is used in a different context. So now we have rules for rolling saves for single models and rules for removing single models failing their save.

The RAI is pretty obvious, as Get's Hot!" talks about "their user", "the firing model", perils refers to "the psyker" [failing the test], and movement does not care about the existance of units for allmost all purposes.

ElCheezuz: I appreciate your posts (even if I don't agree), but those quote-pyramids are pain to read, you might want to remove any interlaced quotes when quoting.

The rule you quoted in complex units tells us when to remove a specific model. What if it's not a complex unit? What if the model isn't identical in gaming terms?

Instead of answering, you might ask me why I use the shooting rules when the model isn't being shot at. There are two answers:
1: The DT rules tells us to refer to the shooting section about saves and wounds.
2: The rules for units of identical one-wound models tells us we can choose from among the identical models. The rules for complex units tells us we can choose from the group of identical models. The rules for multi-wound units tells us we can choose from among the identical models. The rules for complex multi-wound units tells us we can choose from among the identical models. The assault rules tell us to refer back to the procedures they laid out in the shooting phase for how to deal with wouds. This is very clearly the general case of how to deal with wounds.

At this point I actually think all of these questions have been answered at least once. Galador actually did a great job at outlining the process from start to just before the finish. If he had, as I pointed out, taken it one step further he would have come to the exact conclusion I had.

As for the quote-pyramids, I find it very important to convey exactly what I'm responding to. It's all too easy for people to misunderstand each other in a long and complicated thread, and I don't want to waste a page or five where it's unclear what people are saying. Also, while I don't think anyone here would do it, quoting someone prevents them from being able to edit a previous post to undermine an argument.

Jidmah wrote:Uh please quote? Because DT does not tell us to check the "Remove Casualties" section, but explicitly only the two sections before that.

Also "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." is taken out of context. It refers to unit saves that are never taken by those three instances. Plus, the unit does not suffer a wound. The model suffers a wound.

Okay, then what do we do after the model fails the save?

Jidmah wrote:Uh please quote? Because DT does not tell us to check the "Remove Casualties" section, but explicitly only the two sections before that.

Also "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." is taken out of context. It refers to unit saves that are never taken by those three instances. Plus, the unit does not suffer a wound. The model suffers a wound.

DT tells us that "wounds and saves are explained in the next section", pg. 14. Since the wound from DT is already allocated on a specific model, and we know that the model takes a wound, we can just skip the wound section and jump straight to "Take saving throws," which explains all the saves, and how to roll for them. Since DT doesn't tell us anything else about how to resolve those saves, where should you go to figure out what to do with an unsaved wound? How about the first line of the next subsection, directly after "Take saving throws", which reads as previously quoted. Where else would you decide what to do with an unsaved wound?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Camarodragon wrote:@ Elcheezus

There’s a point where common sense must come into play here. No matter what the rules lawyering is...

Example::
4 space maries are running along , the lascannon being the cocky guy that he is, enters dangerous terrain (trying to jump a gap in a lava pit), his comrades being smarter than him, do not attempt such a foolish act. And of course, he slips and falls in the lava to his death. So according to your argument, why does the guy with the bolter always have to be the one to die.??

You'd get a "Com'on man" if you tried pulling this in a game.

Cheers

This is a poor argument, because what if all of my 10 man space marine unit is behind a wall, except for one, and suffers 10 unsaved wounds because the one space marine standing in LoS? How could it be that all 10 marines can die when only one was visible? Common sense has no place here EDIT: Also, in your example, the lasgunner would have to die unless there was a second identical model in the unit.

Camarodragon wrote:@ Elcheezus

There’s a point where common sense must come into play here. No matter what the rules lawyering is...

Example::
4 space maries are running along , the lascannon being the cocky guy that he is, enters dangerous terrain (trying to jump a gap in a lava pit), his comrades being smarter than him, do not attempt such a foolish act. And of course, he slips and falls in the lava to his death. So according to your argument, why does the guy with the bolter always have to be the one to die.??

You'd get a "Com'on man" if you tried pulling this in a game.

Cheers

You have entirely misunderstood the argument. If the Lascannon guy is unique, he would be the one to die.

My position: 4 marines running ane, one moves through dangerous terrain. If the dangerous terrain test fails, you can remove any one of the 4 marines as the casualty, not necessarily the one who stepped into the terrain.

I'm not trying to get around wound allocation, I'm just asserting that casualty removal works as normal.

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not trying to get around wound allocation, I'm just asserting that casualty removal works as normal.

Normally you remove the wounded model.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not trying to get around wound allocation, I'm just asserting that casualty removal works as normal.

Normally you remove the wounded model.

Where in the BRB does it tell you to remove the model, in DT rules or otherwise?

I do not assume they are all identical in gaming terms, there is even a part that explicitly says they are different in that the difference can cause assaults to fail.

So it's five pages of one sided rules debate because the rulebook never explicitly states: When a one wound model suffers a wound, remove it from play as a casualty?

kirsanth wrote:I do not assume they are all identical in gaming terms, there is even a part that explicitly says they are different in that the difference can cause assaults to fail.

Actually, the section you are referring to is just a clarification as to what happens if the lead model in the assault HAS to be taken off or is CHOSEN to be taken off. It doesn't mean he is different. In fact, "identical in gaming terms" is specifically defined on page 25:

"...are identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics. the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

We don't really get to decide what is or isn't identical in gaming terms, it is already spelled out for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:So it's five pages of one sided rules debate because the rulebook never explicitly states: When a one wound model suffers a wound, remove it from play as a casualty?

More or less, but the real kicker here is that normal casualty removal doesn't remove a specific model of a non-complex unit. Why would DT be any different unless it says so?

solkan wrote:So it's five pages of one sided rules debate because the rulebook never explicitly states: When a one wound model suffers a wound, remove it from play as a casualty?

I think we agree that it's one-sided, but we disagree on which side.

The same logic being applied here can also be used to cheese your way into removing a marine with a bolter because his brother's plasma cannon just blew up.

The wording is the same: "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound."

bushido wrote:The same logic being applied here can also be used to cheese your way into removing a marine with a bolter because his brother's plasma cannon just blew up.

The wording is the same: "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound."

Incorrect, since the removal of unsaved wounds dictates that the models removed must be identical in gaming terms, you would have to remove another plasma cannon marine in the same unit, but not necessarily the one that failed the gets hot roll.

bushido wrote:The same logic being applied here can also be used to cheese your way into removing a marine with a bolter because his brother's plasma cannon just blew up.

The wording is the same: "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound."

No, No. No. NO NO NO NO. No. This is not about wound allocation, which is what you're talking about. This has been brought up and answered many times in the thread.