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.

PB wrote:

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.

Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

So, if you stick two identcal farseers in a unit, both of them would be able to use their gosthelm against a single perils? By your logic, when they fail their save the group of two suffers a perils of the warp attack, so both of them get to use the helm.

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

Jidmah wrote:So, if you stick two identcal farseers in a unit, both of them would be able to use their gosthelm against a single perils? By your logic, when they fail their save the group of two suffers a perils of the warp attack, so both of them get to use the helm.

What? I have no idea what you're even getting at, here.

If there's a single perils, it's assigned to the model that failed. That model tests on their Ghosthelm. If it fails, they test on their invuln, twice (I think that's the way Eldar work /shrug). If that fails, then the group of farseers has a wound. If there are three wounds assigned to the group of identical Farseers, remove one of them (player's choice) as a casualty.

Jidmah wrote:So, if you stick two identcal farseers in a unit, both of them would be able to use their gosthelm against a single perils? By your logic, when they fail their save the group of two suffers a perils of the warp attack, so both of them get to use the helm.

No, only one peril of the warp happened, it could be allocated to either of them. Since the ghosthelm says that "if a Farseer suffers a perils of the warp attack, his ghosthelm will prevent it on a..." -- if he suffers the peril, only his ghost helm can prevent it. This is assuming, of course, that they both are using the same ability and using it at the same time.

time wizard wrote:

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

time wizard wrote:

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

No one is debating this point. We are talking about what happens next. Taking saving throws and removing casualties.

PB wrote:
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.

Yeah, except that it doesn't actually say that:

Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit has been determined, the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice. Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view.

The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model.

There's nothing in there about distinct models being forced to take certain wounds.

So if you want to ignore the example about the closest assaulting model and its dangerous terrain test, you must also allow your opponent to take off a normal mini when a plasma cannon/gun in his squad melts.

bushido wrote:

PB wrote:
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.

Yeah, except that it doesn't actually say that:

Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit has been determined, the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice. Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view.

The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model.

There's nothing in there about distinct models being forced to take certain wounds.

So if you want to ignore the example about the closest assaulting model and its dangerous terrain test, you must also allow your opponent to take off a normal mini when a plasma cannon/gun in his squad melts.

You are talking about wound allocation, not casualty removal. Once again, this is a different section of the rules.

EDIT TO CLARIFY: We already agree that specific models have been allocated wounds. The point being debated is that after saving throws are taken, if there are any unsaved wounds, which model do you remove? The only rules present for removing the models indicate that you can remove any gaming-identical model from the unit, regardless of which model the unsaved wound landed on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:

So if you want to ignore the example about the closest assaulting model and its dangerous terrain test, you must also allow your opponent to take off a normal mini when a plasma cannon/gun in his squad melts.

And in regards to this, it was answered before. The situation outlined in the rules is to clarify what happens if the lead model would have to be removed, or was chosen to be removed. Here's an example:

A unit of 5 space marines (1 melta, 4 bolters) charge through dangerous terrain toward an enemy unit. The only one close enough to reach the enemy unit is the melta. He takes a wound, he has no save and therefore suffers an unsaved wound. Since (with complex units) when you remove casualties you must remove gaming-identical models and the only model gaming-identical is the melta, he must be removed and the assault fails. If they were 5 bolters, you could start removing from the back and be OK.

Hum, I guess there really is no rule (other than shady ghosthelm hairsplitting) preventing you to remove an identical model, and all "model sniping" abilities I checked so far are worded to still work the way they do now. I guess ElCheetzus and puma do have a point.

time wizard wrote:

puma713 wrote:Exactly. Which is why, if you have two plasma cannons in a unit, you usually (or in my experience) roll two dice and if one of them rolls over a 1, you simply choose which plasma cannon to remove.

This is the same logic.

100% incorrect.
Re-read the gets hot! section on page 31; "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound..." {emphasis mine}
Nowhere in that rule is there permission to allocate that wound to any other model.

That's great. It's the exact same example as the DT test we're talking about. Take out the adjective "firing" and you've got the wording for the DT test. Out of two models, I've got two "firing" models. One of them fails a Gets Hot! roll, so I remove one of the firing models. Unless you want to go back over the Remove Casualties discussion we've been having for 6 pages about when a model fails a save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound.

ElCheezus wrote:Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

I have been following this thread from the beginning.
I have posted numerous times.
I have cited various rules.
I have repeated asked you and other posters sharing your opinion to quote me the rule that says wounds from dangerous terrain test can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has repeatedly been ignored.
I have also asked you to quote the rule that says wounds from gets hot can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has also repeatedly been ignored.
If you bother to look at page 39, removing casualties from assaults, the first sentence says; "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."
That is what gives specific permission to apply those rules for wounds suffered in assaults.
If there is no such permission in the rule for placing wounds on models failing difficult terrain tests, or rolling 1 on gets hot!, then you cannot use that mechanic of allocating wounds as in shooting.

To continue to agrue that you may allocate a wound suffered by a model due to a failed dangerous terrain test as per the shooting rules is fine for a house rule. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no such permission given in that rule.
To continue to argue that page 14 tells you to refer to the next section to figure out how to allocate that wound is ludicrous. The dangerous terrain rule says wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It does not say to allocate them as per the next section. That is what many posters here have been trying to make clear.

Repeatedly asking "How would a new player know how to apply that wound?" does not change the facts of how the wound should be handled.
Wounds and saves are explained as simply as, you fail a save you take a wound. You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed.
Choosing to allocate a wound caused by failing a test when moving through terrain to another model that hasen't even moved into the terrain is a fine way to twist the rules around ffor advantage.
If you and your group choose to play this way, knock yourselves out. But it is a houserule at best. Please accept that fact and we'll all move on.

time wizard wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

I have been following this thread from the beginning.
I have posted numerous times.
I have cited various rules.
I have repeated asked you and other posters sharing your opinion to quote me the rule that says wounds from dangerous terrain test can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has repeatedly been ignored.
I have also asked you to quote the rule that says wounds from gets hot can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has also repeatedly been ignored.
If you bother to look at page 39, removing casualties from assaults, the first sentence says; "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."
That is what gives specific permission to apply those rules for wounds suffered in assaults.
If there is no such permission in the rule for placing wounds on models failing difficult terrain tests, or rolling 1 on gets hot!, then you cannot use that mechanic of allocating wounds as in shooting.

To continue to agrue that you may allocate a wound suffered by a model due to a failed dangerous terrain test as per the shooting rules is fine for a house rule. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no such permission given in that rule.
To continue to argue that page 14 tells you to refer to the next section to figure out how to allocate that wound is ludicrous. The dangerous terrain rule says wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It does not say to allocate them as per the next section. That is what many posters here have been trying to make clear.

Repeatedly asking "How would a new player know how to apply that wound?" does not change the facts of how the wound should be handled.
Wounds and saves are explained as simply as, you fail a save you take a wound. You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed.
Choosing to allocate a wound caused by failing a test when moving through terrain to another model that hasen't even moved into the terrain is a fine way to twist the rules around ffor advantage.
If you and your group choose to play this way, knock yourselves out. But it is a houserule at best. Please accept that fact and we'll all move on.

No one is arguing about allocating wounds! We all agree that whatever model fails the DT test takes the wound, and also takes a save for it. Now what rule tells us to remove it?

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

PB wrote:

And in regards to this, it was answered before. The situation outlined in the rules is to clarify what happens if the lead model would have to be removed, or was chosen to be removed. Here's an example:

A unit of 5 space marines (1 melta, 4 bolters) charge through dangerous terrain toward an enemy unit. The only one close enough to reach the enemy unit is the melta. He takes a wound, he has no save and therefore suffers an unsaved wound. Since (with complex units) when you remove casualties you must remove gaming-identical models and the only model gaming-identical is the melta, he must be removed and the assault fails. If they were 5 bolters, you could start removing from the back and be OK.

This doesn't make sense. Why would you be forced to allocate that wound to the meltagun in the first place? If you're going to use the shooting rules for wound allocation, you can always choose which models to throw wounds on, regardless of range or line of sight. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

pg 25:

If one of these models suffers and unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed.

This is of course in the section about complex units. But since we're pulling apart rules from multiple sections, that should satisfy you.

PB wrote:
No one is arguing about allocating wounds! We all agree that whatever model fails the DT test takes the wound, and also takes a save for it. Now what rule tells us to remove it?

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

Time Wizard (and most other defenders of his position) are suggesting that you remove a casualty without the Remove Casualties part of the rulebook.

Time Wizard: Take out the Remove Casualties part of the rulebook. Take a wound and fail a save. What do you do now? And where in the rulebook does it tell you to do it, if you've removed Remove Casualties?

bushido wrote:

PB wrote:

And in regards to this, it was answered before. The situation outlined in the rules is to clarify what happens if the lead model would have to be removed, or was chosen to be removed. Here's an example:

A unit of 5 space marines (1 melta, 4 bolters) charge through dangerous terrain toward an enemy unit. The only one close enough to reach the enemy unit is the melta. He takes a wound, he has no save and therefore suffers an unsaved wound. Since (with complex units) when you remove casualties you must remove gaming-identical models and the only model gaming-identical is the melta, he must be removed and the assault fails. If they were 5 bolters, you could start removing from the back and be OK.

This doesn't make sense. Why would you be forced to allocate that wound to the meltagun in the first place? If you're going to use the shooting rules for wound allocation, you can always choose which models to throw wounds on, regardless of range or line of sight. You can't have it both ways.

Because DT overrides the allocation, that's why. DT directly states that each model failing the test takes the wound, therefore if the meltagun fails his DT test, he MUST take a wound. He then can try to save, and without a save, a meltagun must be removed from the unit. If there were somehow two meltaguns in that unit, you could remove either, based on the rules for removing casualties.

In essence, DT automatically allocates the wounds for failed DT tests, then you take saves and remove casualties as normal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bushido wrote:

PB wrote:

Edit: Specifically, where does it say this: "You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed. "

pg 25:

If one of these models suffers and unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed.

This is of course in the section about complex units. But since we're pulling apart rules from multiple sections, that should satisfy you.

This is a misquote, ill quote the whole thing here:

"Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed ." (emphasis mine)

Which still supports my argument (this quote is for saving throws after allocating wounds). This basically says that if there is a model that there is only one kind of (a single melta, or whatever), he rolls separately to save. If there were two meltas, they could roll together. Obviously, if there is only one melta and we have to remove a model of identical type, he is the only one to be removed.

You asked where it says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed." I gave you a rule that says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed."

bushido wrote:You asked where it says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed." I gave you a rule that says, "if you take an unsaved wound, you are removed."

That isn't at all what it says, but I agree with everything in the complex units and remove casualties sections. If you agree that that's the rule, then the rest of complex units says that, when taking saving throws (which we are allowed to do for DT) you can roll and remove models that are the same in gaming terms that fail those saves. So, if you agree with the line that you quoted, and you also agree that it applies to DT, then we are on the same page.

time wizard wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Nobody is allocating it to a different model. This has been covered over and over again. If there's still confusion between allocation and removing casualties, please start again at the beginning of the thread.

I have been following this thread from the beginning.
I have posted numerous times.
I have cited various rules.
I have repeated asked you and other posters sharing your opinion to quote me the rule that says wounds from dangerous terrain test can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has repeatedly been ignored.
I have also asked you to quote the rule that says wounds from gets hot can be allocated the same way as shooting attacks.
This request has also repeatedly been ignored.
If you bother to look at page 39, removing casualties from assaults, the first sentence says; "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."
That is what gives specific permission to apply those rules for wounds suffered in assaults.
If there is no such permission in the rule for placing wounds on models failing difficult terrain tests, or rolling 1 on gets hot!, then you cannot use that mechanic of allocating wounds as in shooting.

We aren't trying to use the allocation rules. In shooting (and assault), the sequence goes like this: roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, roll to save, remove casualties. DT (and Gets Hot! and Perils) jump into this process at "allocate wounds." That is, they tell you which model has a wound allocated to it. So next we roll to save, which we're familiar with. Then we get to the "remove casualties" part. The rules for removing casualties, in general, say that we can remove any specific model, as long as it is identical to to the model to which the wound was allocated.

We're not trying to change the allocation rules, which are a specific process that DT and GH! and PotW all skip, becuse they tell you how to allocate. The debate rages around whether or not we can use the general rules for Removing Casualties, and pick any of the models identical to the model to which the wound was assigned.

To continue to agrue that you may allocate a wound suffered by a model due to a failed dangerous terrain test as per the shooting rules is fine for a house rule. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no such permission given in that rule.
To continue to argue that page 14 tells you to refer to the next section to figure out how to allocate that wound is ludicrous. The dangerous terrain rule says wounds and saves are explained in the next section. It does not say to allocate them as per the next section. That is what many posters here have been trying to make clear.

Part of the explanation of wounds is how to handle an unsaved wound, which is covered in the Remove Casualties section if the unit is made up of identical one-wound models. The orther unit variations (complex one-wound, identical multi-wound, and complex multi-wound) all tell us the same process.

Repeatedly asking "How would a new player know how to apply that wound?" does not change the facts of how the wound should be handled.
Wounds and saves are explained as simply as, you fail a save you take a wound. You have only one wound on your profile and take an unsaved wound you are removed.
Choosing to allocate a wound caused by failing a test when moving through terrain to another model that hasen't even moved into the terrain is a fine way to twist the rules around ffor advantage.
If you and your group choose to play this way, knock yourselves out. But it is a houserule at best. Please accept that fact and we'll all move on.

The sentence I bolded is the clincher, really. Where does the BRB tell you that when a model takes an unsaved wound that the model is removed? If all the cases of Remove Casualties that I try to apply don't work, where are the instructions? Without instructions written in the BRB, you have no rules justification for demanding that the same model to which a wound was allocated should be the one removed.

The only time it tells you to remove specific models is when they're single-model units, or when the model stands out in game terms, which is defined four or five times in this thread already. Therefore, those instructions don't apply.

Also, I've addressed before that this isn't about gaining advantage, and that it's an insulting accusation.

The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

bushido wrote:The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

If you don't want to use the shooting rules for removing a casualty, what rules do you want to use?

Edit: Also and unrelated, I took a look at your gallery photo, did you paint that dread? It is wicked.

bushido wrote:The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

You can't just apply common sense to the rules. They don't work that way. You have to be told what to do, right down to removing models from the table.

bushido wrote:The problem is, I don't think you should be using the rules for shooting on things that don't say "this is treated as a shooting attack" in the first place. So there's nothing really more for me to say. I'm not sure why they have to spell out, "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed." It would seem to be common sense, but who knows? *shrug*

The DT rules refer us to the shooting section on how to resolve saves and wounds, which includes removing casualties. That's why we go to the shooting rules, because we're explicitly told to. I also covered this earlier (on pg. 5 of the thread, I believe) when I detailed why it should be considered the general rule.

They have to spell out "if a model takes a wound and has no wounds left, it is removed" because they tell you a different way to handle it. Common sense doesn't apply to games and their rules. Why is tennis scored 15-30-40? And why is 40-40 called "love"? Because the rules of the game tell them to, that's why.

If you're making assumptions on how to treat unsaved wounds without support from the BRB, then you have to admit that. Once you admit that to yourself and investigate, in detail, why we take the stance we do, you'll understand.

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

I also disagree with your assumption.
Gaming terms does include the list you mentioned, but that is not exhaustive.

For example, names affect the game as well.

kirsanth wrote:

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

I also disagree with your assumption.
Gaming terms does include the list you mentioned, but that is not exhaustive.

For example, names affect the game as well.

We either go by the way the rules define gaming terms, or under your assertions, I should separately roll saves for every model on the table because its location makes it different under gaming terms, and then separately remove each model. In any event, we are under a permissive ruleset, and if the ruleset states that gaming identical means X Y and Z, then it means only X Y and Z, not A B or C.

Also, names do not affect gaming-identical at all. I can have a squad of 5 assault terminators, one a sergeant. They are all identical because the statline and weapons (assuming they are all equipped with SS & TH, for example) are the same, even though he is a Terminator Captain and the others are just Terminators.

PB wrote:We either go by the way the rules define gaming terms, or under your assertions, I should separately roll saves for every model on the table because its location makes it different under gaming terms,

When doing DT or GH and whatnot, you are correct.

This is why it says that the model may cause an assault to fail.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:We either go by the way the rules define gaming terms, or under your assertions, I should separately roll saves for every model on the table because its location makes it different under gaming terms,

When doing DT or GH and whatnot, you are correct.

This is why it says that the model may cause an assault to fail.

So I can roll every tactical marine in my army separately if I want to? I don't think so. Again, you don't get to choose what gaming-identical means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:

This is why it says that the model may cause an assault to fail.

This is not correct, the reason a model can cause the assault to fail is that the model was removed because it had to be (it was the only kind in its unit, or all the models of its type in the unit failed their saves). This has been covered countless times before, you must have skipped right over the posts.

PB wrote:This is not correct, the reason a model can cause the assault to fail is that the model was removed because it had to be (it was the only kind in its unit, or all the models of its type in the unit failed their saves). This has been covered countless times before, you must have skipped right over the posts.

This has been asserted before, but requires adding lines to the rules as you just did.

As for the gaming terms. . .your assumption leads to more problems than it solves.
It has been done to death in other threads.

kirsanth wrote:

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

I also disagree with your assumption.
Gaming terms does include the list you mentioned, but that is not exhaustive.

For example, names affect the game as well.

If the very clear definition at the beginning on pg. 25 doesn't satisfy you, please provide, with page references, a full list of what makes models "identical in gaming terms."

I'd like to point out, kirsanth, that most of your posts are made up of very few sentences, usually with no reference or material to back it up. Compared to the exhausive effort we're putting into this side of the discussion, your lack of backup makes it very hard for me to take your arguments seriously.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:This is not correct, the reason a model can cause the assault to fail is that the model was removed because it had to be (it was the only kind in its unit, or all the models of its type in the unit failed their saves). This has been covered countless times before, you must have skipped right over the posts.

This has been asserted before, but requires adding lines to the rules as you just did.

As for the gaming terms. . .your assumption leads to more problems than it solves.
It has been done to death in other threads.

I'm not adding to the rules, I am clarifying what those lines mean in the context of the rules we are talking about. Because the rules you are talking about in assault make sense regardless of how you decide to remove models from the table in DT, we don't need to bother ourselves with referencing them when trying to determine how to remove models in DT.

Edit for clarity: The rules of assault were brought up because people said it wouldn't make sense to clarify that an assault could fail due to the lead assaulter dying, if that weren't possible. My only assertion here is that, regardless of whether you remove DT models individually based on their failed DT rolls, or via the Remove Casualties and Complex Units rules, it is still possible for failed assaults to happen due to the lead member of the assault dying.