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.

Given thats how the rules actually work, yes it is cheating to remove one model. Same as wehen you run your powerfist guy through terrain, and hes the ONLY one to go through terrain, atemtping to kill another model in the unit is also cheating.

RAW and RAP are 100% against you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given thats how the rules actually work, yes it is cheating to remove one model. Same as wehen you run your powerfist guy through terrain, and hes the ONLY one to go through terrain, atemtping to kill another model in the unit is also cheating.

No one has ever advocated that position in this thread. Please stop mischaracterizing your opponents and accusing them of cheating.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I;d LOVE to see you try this at any UK GT event. Absolutely love it. The look of "what?!" as you are laughed out of the venue would be priceless.

You mean if a unit of identical 2-wound models charged through dangerous terrain and the player removed a whole model (according to the rules)?

Do you really think people would call that beardy/cheesy, as opposed to putting 1 wound on each of 2 separate models?

Yes, this is not following the rules nor FAQ and would be 100% illegal. Any TO on the face of the Earth would look at the FAQ for half a second and call BS.

Seeing as the DT entry points you to the shooting section to explain how to resolve wounds I fail to see why your having a problem with them being "shooting attacks".

Also I fail to see your distinction between steps in resolving wounds. Allocation is a separate step and the 'funneling rule' (once again) does not in any way rely on allocation or the lack there-of.

Because the FAQ states in black and white that the model that fails the save takes the wound. Not groups of models. There is not "funneling" when they clearly state in the FAQ what model is taking the wound.

Example: The following models exist in a unit. 3 bolter marines, 1 flamer marine, 1 powerfist marine.

2 Bolter marines and 1 flamer marine move into dangerous terrain. Only the 2 bolter marines that move into terrain and the flamer marine roll a die for DT. The flamer marine and a bolter marine roll a 1. The flamer marine takes a wound and the bolter marine take a wound. In this case, they do not have a save to make.

When a model fails a save/has no save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Remove one model from the unit of the type that failed its save for each unsaved wound. One bolter marine and one flamer marine model will be removed.

Now, the above should all be 100% correct. Do we all agree with my above statements so far at the very least? If there is a problem with El's idea it will be found in the above statements, correct?

Els "idea" is that a model other than the one that failed its save can be removed, and this is based on the "unit" and not the "model" level. Which is where it fails down, as the ability to remove any model (of like wargear, etc) relies on the unit having been the subject of the attack - whcih it isnt. Only the individual models take a Dangerous Test.

So, your above situation is not correct: THE bolter that died is THE model that takes the wound and is THE model that is removed. Removing another model is not allowable.

DevianID wrote:Now, the above should all be 100% correct. Do we all agree with my above statements so far at the very least? If there is a problem with El's idea it will be found in the above statements, correct?

Yes, this is 100% correct.

And it's not "El's idea", it's "the rules."

No biccat, it isnt and you have been repeatedly shown why, including the latest FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No biccat, it isnt and you have been repeatedly shown why, including the latest FAQ.

Actually, it is. However, we're not getting anywhere with this conversation.

Mainly because it isnt a conversation.

You have been shown the errors in your argument, you just dont acknowledge them.

OK, so Biccat and Nos both agree my situation is correct, the difference of opinion becomes which of the 3 bolter marines you must remove. Nos says the one that failed the save, Biccat I suppose says any of the 3 identical bolter marines.

So next, tangentially related question. A vindicare using the "deadshot" nominates which model in the unit the wound is allocated to. Use my 3 bolter/flamer/fist squad from above. The vindicare learned from the marines previous shooting phase that only one bolter marine was within 12 inches. Not wanting to risk getting assaulted, the Vindicare shoots, hits and wounds the 5 man marine squad, and per the deadshot rule allocates his attack to the bolter marine that is within 12 inches. The intent is to make assault impossible. The marine player must remove a bolter marine if he fails any available save. Should the marine player remove the single marine that is within 12 inches, that the vindicare player allocated a hit to, or can he remove any of the 3 bolter models, so long as the allocated wound stays on a bolter model.

DevianID wrote:OK, so Biccat and Nos both agree my situation is correct, the difference of opinion becomes which of the 3 bolter marines you must remove. Nos says the one that failed the save, Biccat I suppose says any of the 3 identical bolter marines.

Right. See "Remove Casualties." It tells you that any identical model to the one wounded may be removed as a casualty.

Devian wrote:So next, tangentially related question. A vindicare using the "deadshot" nominates which model in the unit the wound is allocated to. Use my 3 bolter/flamer/fist squad from above. The vindicare learned from the marines previous shooting phase that only one bolter marine was within 12 inches. Not wanting to risk getting assaulted, the Vindicare shoots, hits and wounds the 5 man marine squad, and per the deadshot rule allocates his attack to the bolter marine that is within 12 inches. The intent is to make assault impossible. The marine player must remove a bolter marine if he fails any available save. Should the marine player remove the single marine that is within 12 inches, that the vindicare player allocated a hit to, or can he remove any of the 3 bolter models, so long as the allocated wound stays on a bolter model.

See "Remove Casualties" for how to remove casualties.

So yes, the player can remove any one of the 3 bolter models, because page 24 tells you how to remove casualties.

I believe nos is correct, for DT tests you roll for each model entering the terrain, and that roll is purely for them, not their group. so the bolter marine who fails the test is removed.

To be fair Biccat, pg 24 does not apply. Pg 24 deals with units of identical models only, which is not what my example described. Pg 25 talks about 'having allocated the wounds,' which does apply to the vindicare but does not apply to dangerous terrain, as you never allocate wounds.

Now, if you read 'Having allocated the wounds' differently, perhaps reading it as 'When there are no more wounds that need to be allocated' or just striking it all together, then we are left with the meat "All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch."

So, is 'having allocated the wounds' a prerequisite for rolling their saves together and removing the models you like? If so, then Nos is correct. If not, then El's position would kick in, where the complex unit rule explicitly tell you you can pull what ever model you like, despite it not be the one that suffered a wound.

Ah hah! Eureka! In my example 2 bolter marines walk through dangerous terrain and one did not. Only 1 failed the DT roll. That single bolter model that failed is the ONLY model that can be removed, as that is the only model in his group that suffered an unsaved wound. This also means that the single wound that the vindicare deals always goes on the model it is allocated to.

Pg 25, if we say that the 'having allocated' part doesnt matter.
"All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen from amongst these identical models"

So, my example with the 1 bolter marine. We know which bolter marine rolled the 1, as the DT test tells us this. We have 1 model only that needs to roll, so this is a model that stands out in gaming terms. Sure, he has 2 identical brothers, BUT they didnt get wounds. So, per pg 25, that specific model must be removed.

Now, if BOTH of my bolter marines that went through cover rolled a 1, you would roll both of their saves (if they had an invuln save) together, and you would pick which one dies. However, it could NOT be the bolter marine that is out of cover, as he was not one of the models who needed to roll a save, and per the above quote casualties must be removed from the models that took the save, which is the models in cover!

Anyway, the end result is that Biccat is somewhat incorrect using my example, and Nos would be somewhat incorrect were I to use a different example. I suppose I am trying to add a third option to the 2 way debate now, which tries to remove the 'Having allocated the wounds' from acting as a prerequisite on pg 25.

DevianID wrote:To be fair Biccat, pg 24 does not apply. Pg 24 deals with units of identical models only, which is not what my example described. Pg 25 talks about 'having allocated the wounds,' which does apply to the vindicare but does not apply to dangerous terrain, as you never allocate wounds.

Don't have my rulebook handy, you're probably right.

DevianID wrote:Now, if you read 'Having allocated the wounds' differently, perhaps reading it as 'When there are no more wounds that need to be allocated' or just striking it all together, then we are left with the meat "All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch."

Well, then the next question should be: if two Thousand Sons marines walk through Dangerous Terrain and fail their saves, do they take their saves "in one batch"? According to the position Nos is arguing, the saves must be taken separately. According to the position I've taken (and ElCheezus and others), they are taken in a batch.

DevianID wrote:So, is 'having allocated the wounds' a prerequisite for rolling their saves together and removing the models you like? If so, then Nos is correct. If not, then El's position would kick in, where the complex unit rule explicitly tell you you can pull what ever model you like, despite it not be the one that suffered a wound.

Wound allocation cannot be a prerequisite for removing models because there is no other process for removing casualties in the rules. The only way to get to Nos's position is by arguing that the models are separate from the unit in case of Dangerous Terrain tests. However, this is imputing a rule into the book that isn't there, some method of considering wounds to a model within a unit yet separate from the unit.

DevianID wrote:Ah hah! Eureka! In my example 2 bolter marines walk through dangerous terrain and one did not. Only 1 failed the DT roll. That single bolter model that failed is the ONLY model that can be removed, as that is the only model in his group that suffered an unsaved wound. This also means that the single wound that the vindicare deals always goes on the model it is allocated to.

Unfortunately for your position, "identical" is defined in the rulebook as having the same statline and same wargear.

DevianID wrote:Now, if BOTH of my bolter marines that went through cover rolled a 1, you would roll both of their saves (if they had an invuln save) together, and you would pick which one dies. However, it could NOT be the bolter marine that is out of cover, as he was not one of the models who needed to roll a save, and per the above quote casualties must be removed from the models that took the save, which is the models in cover!

Anyway, the end result is that Biccat is somewhat incorrect using my example, and Nos would be somewhat incorrect were I to use a different example. I suppose I am trying to add a third option to the 2 way debate now, which tries to remove the 'Having allocated the wounds' from acting as a prerequisite on pg 25.

Your third way doesn't work as pointed out above. Identical models are defined by wargear and statline. There's some disagreement about what that includes, but the status of being wounded and location in terrain are pretty universally recognized as not being in that group.

Look, I understand the position that Nos., bluedagger, and time wizard are trying to argue. The problem is that it requires some or all of the following:
1) a new method of removing casualties;
2) treating single wound models as multi-wound models;
3) "spreading around" wounds in units of multi-wound models;
4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or
5) a different requirement for casualties (not wound->unsaved wound->casualty)

But the rules already cover those situations without having to implpy some new rule. The position they articulate is how the rules (probably) should work, but it's not how they do work.

Whereas your method involves talking about the unit when only a model has taken the test. Which is breaking the rules. You keep glossing over this salient fact.

My method involves treatnig the model as the unit; meaning you only ever have one model to remove (a group of 1), which is unique to the test.

I thought that every model in the unit makes a dangerous terrain test, on a roll of a 1 the model takes a wound. If they are multiwound models then on each failed roll of a 1, that specific model takes a wound. Its not that you are intentionally spreading wounds around, you are simply operating through dangerous terrain as anyone would.

Yes, that is how the rules work.

Attempting to spread wounds arround requires you to treat the individual model taking the test as if the unit were taking the test.

gpfunk wrote: I thought that every model in the unit makes a dangerous terrain test,

Not every model in the unit, just "...every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move."

gpfunk wrote:on a roll of a 1 the model takes a wound. If they are multiwound models then on each failed roll of a 1, that specific model takes a wound. Its not that you are intentionally spreading wounds around, you are simply operating through dangerous terrain as anyone would.

Yes, the rest of your post is correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Whereas your method involves talking about the unit when only a model has taken the test. Which is breaking the rules. You keep glossing over this salient fact.

My method involves treatnig the model as the unit; meaning you only ever have one model to remove (a group of 1), which is unique to the test.

The problem with this is that units are specifically defined as being either part of a unit or an independent character. There is no mechanism for separating the model from the unit for the purpose of a wound. I'm not glossing over the fact, it's just that there's no procedure for it.

The position I'm arguing follows all of the rules, including the dangerous terrain rules. The DT rule says that the model suffers a wound. If this is considered to satisfy the "wound allocation" part of the rules (immediately before saving throws), then the situation is resolved.

Even the FAQ backs this up, it says that wounds from dangerous terrain cannot be allocated, which is consistent with the position that dangerous terrain satisfies wound allocation.

Except you cannot be following the rules if you have conflated model as meaning unit.

Tha tis a leap, and not supported by the rules.

So you end up with two situations, one logical and one illogical, and the latter requiring an explicit rules change from "model" to "unit"

The logical is that the guy that tripped and fell to his death did, indeed, trip and fall to his death. Coincidentally this is also RAP

The illogical is that the guy that fell to his death wasnt the guy who actually fell to his death, but poor bob, sat at the back of the unit, wondering why hes now falling despite having not yet moved, and carefully avoided the chasm.

biccat wrote: Look, I understand the position that Nos., bluedagger, and time wizard are trying to argue. The problem is that it requires some or all of the following:
1) a new method of removing casualties;
2) treating single wound models as multi-wound models;
3) "spreading around" wounds in units of multi-wound models;
4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or
5) a different requirement for casualties (not wound->unsaved wound->casualty)

But the rules already cover those situations without having to implpy some new rule. The position they articulate is how the rules (probably) should work, but it's not how they do work.

Two points that you are completely wrong on.

biccat wrote: 1) a new method of removing casualties;

Nothing new here, page 24 on removing casualties (which has been quoted ad naseum) "Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
So we see here the rule on removing a casualty, and it does indeed say if a model has a single wound and suffers a wound, you remove it.
This rule then goes on with the second paragraph, "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit..."
Was the model that failed a dangerous terrain test part of a target unit? Was the unit targetted by the terrain? Was every model in the unit forced to take a dangerous terrain test?
No, no and no. Only the model that "...entered, left or moved through the terrain..." must take the test. If the test is failed, the model takes a wound. The model, that model and no other.

biccat wrote: 4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or

Nothing new here either. We've been doing it for quite some time with Gets Hot! weapons.
To review, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..."
The firing model, not the firing unit, not any model in the firing unit, the firing model, the one that fired, that model takes a wound.
Now go bacK to page 24, your're really going to try to place that wound on another model in the unit? Really?

You are continually trying to take a general rule (remove casualties) and apply it to a specific situation (a failed dangerous terrain test).
This is 100% the wrong way round.
You have to take the specific rule (the model that fails the test takes a wound) and then apply the related part of the general rule (a model that has a single wound on its profile and suffers a wound is removed).

Or, barring that, find me the rule that says wounds suffered from failed dangerous terrain tests may be allocated to any other model in the unit.

You do a great job of asking for specific rules, quotes and page numbers. I have provided them.
Shame you can't or won't do so in return.

time wizard wrote:Two points that you are completely wrong on.

biccat wrote: 1) a new method of removing casualties;

Nothing new here, page 24 on removing casualties (which has been quoted ad naseum) "Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
So we see here the rule on removing a casualty, and it does indeed say if a model has a single wound and suffers a wound, you remove it.

That's not what the rule says, read it again:
"for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty"

It does not have to be the model that suffered the unsaved wound.

time wizard wrote:Only the model that "...entered, left or moved through the terrain..." must take the test. If the test is failed, the model takes a wound. The model, that model and no other.

No disagreement here. However, as I have said before, what do you do once a model has been wounded? You don't simply remove him from the table. Instead, you roll a save. If the save is failed...well, here:
"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

So what do we do with unsaved wounds?
"for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Aha, so one model must be removed. Which model is that?
"As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed."

The above quotes were provided by Page 24. Because the situation works the same whether it is a unit of identical models or a unit of diverse models with part of a group of identical models suffering the DT test.

time wizard wrote:Nothing new here either. We've been doing it for quite some time with Gets Hot! weapons.
To review, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..."
The firing model, not the firing unit, not any model in the firing unit, the firing model, the one that fired, that model takes a wound.
Now go bacK to page 24, your're really going to try to place that wound on another model in the unit? Really?

Gets Hot works the same as Dangerous Terrain. No, you cannot place the wound on another model in the unit, but you can remove another identical model from the unit.

time wizard wrote:You are continually trying to take a general rule (remove casualties) and apply it to a specific situation (a failed dangerous terrain test).
This is 100% the wrong way round.
You have to take the specific rule (the model that fails the test takes a wound) and then apply the related part of the general rule (a model that has a single wound on its profile and suffers a wound is removed).

The dangerous terrain rule does not contradict the general rule (how to remove casualties), and so the general rule applies. Where two rules conflict, use the more specific rule. But where the more specific rule doesn't address an issue, the general rule applies.

time wizard wrote:Or, barring that, find me the rule that says wounds suffered from failed dangerous terrain tests may be allocated to any other model in the unit.

There is no such rule. The FAQ addresses this point. I am not arguing that the dangerous terrain test is allocated, simply that casualty removal governs in this area, not allocation.

time wizard wrote:You do a great job of asking for specific rules, quotes and page numbers. I have provided them.
Shame you can't or won't do so in return.

I have in the past and have done so above. No need to get hostile.

Let's turn it down a notch please people. I know it can be frustrating and annoying, but being rude really won't help move this debate onwards.

Obliged.

My intent was not to be rude.
If I came across as such, my apologies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Els "idea" is that a model other than the one that failed its save can be removed, and this is based on the "unit" and not the "model" level. Which is where it fails down, as the ability to remove any model (of like wargear, etc) relies on the unit having been the subject of the attack - whcih it isnt. Only the individual models take a Dangerous Test.

So, your above situation is not correct: THE bolter that died is THE model that takes the wound and is THE model that is removed. Removing another model is not allowable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Whereas your method involves talking about the unit when only a model has taken the test. Which is breaking the rules. You keep glossing over this salient fact.

My method involves treatnig the model as the unit; meaning you only ever have one model to remove (a group of 1), which is unique to the test.

Nos, let's do an exercise. Let's take your BRB and cut out any section that refers to processing Wounds that have been dealt to units. All of them. Every singe one backs up our position, but you say they don't apply.

Now, cite me an rule that tells us *how* a Wound dealt to just a single model is resolved. I have asked you time and again and again and again and again and . . . and there has been nothing. The process of removing casualties is explicitly explained to us for every type of unit, and it tells us exactly how to remove casualties each time. Obviously if dealing Wounds to individual models within a unit is a different thing, there will be a similarly detailed explanation.

Treating the model "as a unit" has no basis in the book unless the unit is only one model, such as ICs or MCs. In any case, if the unit had one model, this whole discussion wouldn't matter, as there would be only one guy to remove anyway!

time wizard wrote:So we see here the rule on removing a casualty, and it does indeed say if a model has a single wound and suffers a wound, you remove it.

Whoa, hold on there speedy. It tells us that "a" model must be removed. Then it tells us that any model must be removed, because they're all identical. So no, it doesn't tell us what you're claiming at all.

This rule then goes on with the second paragraph, "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit..."
Was the model that failed a dangerous terrain test part of a target unit? Was the unit targetted by the terrain? Was every model in the unit forced to take a dangerous terrain test?
No, no and no. Only the model that "...entered, left or moved through the terrain..." must take the test. If the test is failed, the model takes a wound. The model, that model and no other.

So what about models that are hit and wounded in a vehicle explosion? What about models under a blast marker that scattered off the target unit? How do we remove casualties from untargeted units? You guys keep stripping away rules without realizing that you're leaving us with NO rules for casualty removal. Think before you snip!

biccat wrote: 4) separating models from a unit for purposes of resolving wounds; and/or

Nothing new here either. We've been doing it for quite some time with Gets Hot! weapons.
To review, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..."
The firing model, not the firing unit, not any model in the firing unit, the firing model, the one that fired, that model takes a wound.
Now go bacK to page 24, your're really going to try to place that wound on another model in the unit? Really?

Actually, yes. With Gets Hot!, any identical model can be removed as a result of that wound. If a Plasmagun gets hot, a Plasmagun has to die, but you don't have to track them individually.

You are continually trying to take a general rule (remove casualties) and apply it to a specific situation (a failed dangerous terrain test).
This is 100% the wrong way round.
You have to take the specific rule (the model that fails the test takes a wound) and then apply the related part of the general rule (a model that has a single wound on its profile and suffers a wound is removed).

This last parenthetical part about the single wound model being removed isn't in the rules anywhere. At all.

Or, barring that, find me the rule that says wounds suffered from failed dangerous terrain tests may be allocated to any other model in the unit.

Once again, this doesn't have anything to do with allocation. The fact that you bring it up again shows me that you don't understand that part of the process. How can we take your arguments seriously when you're confused on one of the most fundamental aspects of the game? I'm not saying you're incompetent or an idiot, just that you need to figure this out before progress can really be made.

ElCheezus wrote: Once again, this doesn't have anything to do with allocation. The fact that you bring it up again shows me that you don't understand that part of the process. How can we take your arguments seriously when you're confused on one of the most fundamental aspects of the game? I'm not saying you're incompetent or an idiot, just that you need to figure this out before progress can really be made.

Thank you for not calling me an idiot or incompetant. I don't think you are either of those as well.

As for being confused, one of the most fundamental aspects of the game is that there can be and are specific exceptions to general rule. I think you are having trouble understanding how that fact relates to the question of wounds in dangerous terrain tests.

As for taking my arguments seriously, that is for each reader to decide on their own, your opinion has been noted though.

Rather than have this degenerate any further, I believe I am done with this discussion.

As above.

RAP and RAW back the "only the model that fell in the hole actually fell in the hole", and that is where I will leave it

I'm sad that the recent round of website blocking at work included Dakka, so I couldn't participate in this as much as I would have liked. I'm 100% about "my" interpretation, and while it's slightly counter-intuitive and difficult to explain, I'd love the chance to help others see what I see. I used to play and think the way you guys do, and coming to see it the way I do was an interesting epiphany.

I think the biggest thing about this discussion is that it's much easier to have when you can interact face to face, and use models and dice and counters and such as examples. I know there are a couple lines of reasoning that I'd like to explain, but I don't know if there's a way to type it out in a forum like this without it being overly complicated and difficult to follow. (Not that the concept is difficult or that you guys aren't smart, it would just take too many words and convolutions that I don't know how to make easier in this format)

I'd love it if I ever get a chance to meet some of you guys to pick this up in person.