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.

Luckily work hasnt yet caught onto Dakka, and hopefully that will remain.

I understand your point fully - you are trying to use the general removal rules that pertain to units. Trouble is tests are per model, and the FAQ again makes it clear that this means THE model suffers all ill effects from failure.

Yeah Nos, I agree about the work thing... great when slow!

So Nos/Biccat/Elcheesus, I would like to again push for OPTION 3, which combines a bit of both of your arguments.

Pg 25, for dealing with complex units.

"All of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch"

Here we see specific models being called to make a save. Now, keep in mind ONLY the models that have wounds roll saves, and per the next sentences, only the models that have wounds on them can be removed as casualties.

SO. 3 Bolter marines, A, B, and C, walk into dangerous terrain, and all 3 require dangerous terrain rolls. Per mutual agreement, we all understand that model A, B, and C must each roll seperately, as Dangerous terrain happens when the model moves. Only model C rolls a 1. This is the only model that gets a wound, and per removing casualties unsaved wounds must come not only from identical models, but identical WOUNDED models. As Bolter marine A and B were not wounded, they are not in the group of wounded models that must roll a save and be removed as casualties.

However, if Marine A and B and C all rolled a 1 at the exact same time, then all 3 would be in the identical wounded models group, and any of the models can be removed if their saves are failed.

This works the same with the vindicare. You allocate to Marine A a wound with your deadshot sniper rifle. You only get 1 shot, so only one marine is wounded. Even if other marines in his squad are identical in gaming terms, they are NOT wounded models, so they dont roll their saves, and can not be removed as casualties. Only wounded models seem to be able to be removed as casualties per Pg 25.

Finally, on to the OP. In the nob description, it tells us you are not able to allocate UNSAVED wounds to a healthy nob when you could kill a normal nob--since you dont allocate unsaved wounds normally this is a rules change. Thus, for multiwound models, they break the rules for who gets the wounds and how. Thus, if 3 identical raveners roll a 1 in DT, while normally each ravener would gain 1 unsaved wound, GW has made it clear that multiwound models do not follow the same rules, and unsaved wounds, after being put on a model, are MOVED to a different model even if that different model was not the canidate for the wound in the first place, as again per the nob example you are not allowed to do otherwise even though all the other rules would let you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To bring up the plasmagun example. Plasmagun A rolls two 1's, and Plasmagun B rolls no overheats. The model that rolled the 1's takes the wounds. If model A fails both of his saves, model B, an unwounded model, can not become a casualty, as he was not wounded, he never rolled a save, and although identical to A he was not in the group of identical models that were wounded and thus elidgible to become casualties.

As an aside to El in regard to dangerous terrain. Did you ever work out the priority issue, or was it not brought up? What I mean is, models are moved one at a time per the movement rules, right? Models thus enter dangerous terrain one at a time, and I dont remember there being a stipulation that you wait till the very end of the units movement phase to see if your model that moved through dangerous terrain takes a 1. Thus dangerous terrain, and its associated wounds, would seem to be instant effects. So, you would only ever be dealing with 1 model wounded at a time for dangerous terrain, and as per my position above casualties can only be removed from any of the identical WOUNDED models, in this case there would only be 1 wouned model at a time. Just more food for thought.

Just thought I would drop a line in here and say hello, seeing as my favorite debaters all seem to be going at it in this old arguement....

And just for the record, I still agree with Time and Nos, but it is nice to see you having your fun still, Elcheezus!!

Time, Nos, I would contribute, but I dont get anywhere near enough time on the net over here in the 'Ghan to be a useful debate partner!!! Take care of yourselves all and I will see you all when I get done over here, and of course, I will post on here when I get 'net access!!!

No worries, good luck out there!

Ditto, good luck Galador, I owe you a PM!

I know I said I was done here, but I had a question come to mind.
Using the process described by Elcheesus, I have a unit of 3 Zoanthropes, A, B and C.
Zoanthropes have 2 wounds on their profile.

They all take a leadership test to use a psychic power.
A and C fail the test. They then both fail their saves.
Now what?

time wizard wrote:Ditto, good luck Galador, I owe you a PM!

I know I said I was done here, but I had a question come to mind.
Using the process described by Elcheesus, I have a unit of 3 Zoanthropes, A, B and C.
Zoanthropes have 2 wounds on their profile.

They all take a leadership test to use a psychic power.
A and C fail the test. They then both fail their saves.
Now what?

One of them is dead. It's the same process. When you have a group of multi-wound models, there's no process for keeping track of wounds on individual models. The process provided on pg 26 (the only process for dealing with Unsaved Wounds in units of multiple-wound models) keeps track of the Wounds for the whole group. When there are enough, two in this case, a model is removed. Any excess is tracked for the group, not individual models.

And yes, this is in the bit about shooting. And yes, this deals with groups instead of models. And no, you still haven't shown me where it tells you how to deal with this on a per-model basis.

There is one system for dealing with Unsaved Wounds, and in all cases it lets identical models be removed as casualties. Specific vs General can override this in some cases, but DT doesn't say that the specific model is removed, it says it suffers a wound. Suffering a wound is no the process of being removed. Suffering a wound is the process of being allocated the wound. Since DT skips that step and goes right to saves, using the term "suffers the wound" really just tells us that the wound is allocated for us.

Also, in the plasmagun example with GH!, if you tracked the rolls separately, and model A rolled no 1's, and model B rolled two 1's, if both saves were failed, then both A and B would die. Again, this isn't about allocation, it's about casualty removal. There are two Unsaved Wounds on that group of identical models, so two models must be removed.

...and in both cases that isnt what happens.

If plasma gun A overheats twice, then A dies and not B who's weapon functions perfectly fine

RAQ and RAP back this up El

Just got back from weekend trip...

Elcheezus, like nos says here, only 1 model dies in the case of the overheat situation.

There are two unsaved wounds on a single identical WOUNDED model group. If A and B both roll a 1, then there are 2 wounded models in the group, and regardless of who saves what either may be removed as casualties, but if only B rolls two 1's then there is a single wounded model.

You are correct that if 2 zoans perils and fail, one of the 2 will be a casualty.

So again I agree and then disagree with both nos and El I guess and posit my 'Third option'

DevianID wrote:Just got back from weekend trip...

You are correct that if 2 zoans perils and fail, one of the 2 will be a casualty.

The Nid FAQ disagrees. It states the zoen who suffered the perils takes the wound.

Yonush wrote:

DevianID wrote:Just got back from weekend trip...

You are correct that if 2 zoans perils and fail, one of the 2 will be a casualty.

The Nid FAQ disagrees. It states the zoen who suffered the perils takes the wound.

That would be this from the FAQ:

Q: When a Zoanthrope brood uses a psychic power, do
I need to take a Psychic test for each individual
Zoanthrope in the brood, or just one test for the whole
brood?
A: Each Zoanthrope in the brood must take a
separate Psychic test. Note that this means that a
wound caused by Perils of the Warp will be
allocated to the Zoanthrope that suffered the
attack.

Um, actually the nid FAQ agrees with me.

Step 1: Roll 3 psychic checks indicating which zoan is checking. If you perils, you know which zoan is allocated the wound (per FAQ).

Step 2: Make saves for all identical wounded models. For each failed save in the identical wounded model group, remove a model from the wounded group. In the event of multiwound models, like the zoan example, you must group the wounds to remove whole models, and you can not ever allocated a wound to a fresh model when you could allocate it to a wounded model to kill it--A direct rules change from how wounds are normally allocated.

All the Nid faq does is tell you that if the zoan 5 inches away from the enemy fails his test and perils, you cant put that wound on the zoan 7 inches away to preserve your 6 inch charge--unless that zoan 7 inches away is wounded, in which case the multiwound example makes clear that you can not ever allocate the wound to the fresh model when you could kill a wounded model regardless of the previous allocation rules.

Why on earth, would one model suffer 2 additional wounds for his mates having a dodgy landing, no its quite clear that each model, after its individual failed test, takes one wound

removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view

It also doesnt make sense from a rules perspective, either. The specific "suffers a wound" language means no other model can suffer (the effects of) that wound, which would include dying.

Right, I agree the 3 ravenors tripping causing one to die is odd but you can't put those subsequent wounds anywhere else. This is at direct odds with how the rest of the rules work BUT be fair and note that multiwound models in general are at odds with the way the rest of the rules work. Example... a unit with a wounded raven and fresh raven take a wound from any source. You can't ever allocate it despite the rest of the rules because it must go on the wounded model... unless its instant death in which it cant ever go on the wounded model. Very silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a vehicle explodes and wounds all models in 3 inches, causing a raven unit to take 3 unsaved wounds, you kill a single raven in that case too.

Unless they are non-identically equipped, of course.

THe explosion case is still different, as it is not specifying that the model that tripped (for DT) is the one that suffers the wound. Its more a variable sized blast.

well it appears that Games workshop need to have a re jink with the BRB, having one model suffer all wounds for 3 failed terrain tests regarding 3 separate models puts you at a larger disadvantage as you are losing 1 whole model not 3 thirds of 3 models

if it was up to a players discretion i would say logic should surely prevail and the wounds are allocated to to each model that failed the test

WHich is why it doesnt work that way.

ONLY the mdoel the failed the test can suffer (the effects of) the wound. Noone else.

Fairfeldia wrote:removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view

When the psychic alien superbugs rip a hole in reality to shoot lightning at invincibly armored superhumans with chainsaw swords and rocket-guns, I don't think reality has a whole lot to do with the situation.

biccat wrote:

Fairfeldia wrote:removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view

When the psychic alien superbugs rip a hole in reality to shoot lightning at invincibly armored superhumans with chainsaw swords and rocket-guns, I don't think reality has a whole lot to do with the situation.

me, im genuinely shocked that any body on the internet could possibly not understand that post

Fairfeldia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Fairfeldia wrote:removing one whole model just doesn't make sense from a realism view

When the psychic alien superbugs rip a hole in reality to shoot lightning at invincibly armored superhumans with chainsaw swords and rocket-guns, I don't think reality has a whole lot to do with the situation.

me, im genuinely shocked that any body on the internet could possibly not understand that post

Clearly we are shocked by the same things. Great minds and all that.

ONLY the mdoel the failed the test can suffer (the effects of) the wound. Noone else.

Unless the multiwound model rules say they change who gets wounds. And they do change who can get wounds. Several times infact, depending on what kind of wound it is.

If, for example, you have some special terrain that causes instant death, then each rav gets 1 wound. If they cause regular wounds, then regardless of where they would normally go, if one model in the squad has a wound they cant go anywhere but on him, and he collects 3 of them, even if he is not currently in terrain.

Then that means the model that failed the test hasnt suffered the wound, and you have just broken a rule without permission to do so.

But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.

DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.

Incorrect because that rule follows the rule for allocating wounds on a unit.
In general, for every model that fails a save the unit suffers a wound. I know this sentence is going to be quoted out of context, but it's a risk I'll take.
That's the general statement in the "Shooting Phase" section.
We already know from the FAQ that you don't allocate dangerous terrain wounds as per the shooting rules.
But that's not enough for some people. They have taken a hold of the above sentence and want to apply it above all.
It is a the general rule. It is in the shooting section. It even states how any model in the target unit can be hit, reinforcing that it refers to wounds taken in the shooting phase.

So, general rule, a model fails its save, the unit suffers a wound.
First is the failed save, then is the wound.
But in failed dangerous terrain tests, first is the wound, then a possible save.
In this specific exception, the model suffers the wound, not the unit. The model then may attempt to make a save.
Same for Gets Hot!, the firing model suffers the wound, not the unit. The model then may attempt to make a save.
Same for Perils of the Warp, the psyker suffers a wound, not the unit. The model then may attempt to make a save.

Here are 3 very specific exceptions to the general rule.
Here in all 3 cases, the model takes the wound first, then tries to save.
This is backed up by 2 different FAQs, one on dangerous terrain tests in the main rule FAQ and one on units of Zoanthropes suffering perils of the warp in the Tyranid FAQ.

If it is as has been suggested by some here, why didn't the FAQ state that wounds caused by failed dangerous terrain tests and Perils of the Warp are applied as per the rules for removing shooting casualties like the rules for assault? (BRB page 39, first sentence under removing casualties)
Why? Because the wounds the models take are not allocated like the rules for removing shooting casualties, that's why.

Devian - no, it is a less specific rule than either DT or Gets Hot!

A multiwound model suffering a wound is less specific than a multiwound model suffering a wound from DT

DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.

You're improperly calling removing casualties "wound allocation." Wounds are only allocated before saves are taken. Once saves are failed, the wounds are converted into "unsaved wounds." These are then distributed among the unit to remove multi-wound models where possible.

Wound allocation, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, has nothing to do with this problem. It is all about removing casualties.

DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.

Probably already been done, but here is a direct quote from the rule book 1_3 faq:

Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.

Notice, "Each model that fails takes a wound." That wound has already been allocated specifically to the model that failed the test.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thats imho, of course

Right, but if you read the section about nobs, they say you must allocate the UNSAVED wound onto the wounded nob. Because you dont 'allocate' unsaved wounds ever, allocate in this context is a poor choice of words, but the result is clear... wherever the wound was supposed to go, the wound goes somewhere else in the case of multiwound models.

So I agree, the ravener that trips is the one that gets the wound, and as it has no save it becomes an unsaved wound. But then the multiwound rules kick in, because they tell us you cant ever put unsaved wounds on a fresh model when you can put them on a wounded model instead. Multiwound models change the entire process about where wounds go, and this applies to dangerous terrain as much as shooting. Then the multiwound instant death rules FURTHER change where previously allocated unsaved wounds go.

Phiasco II wrote:

DevianID wrote:But the multiwound model rules changed how that works, because they explicitly say that the model that failed the save can not be allocated that unsaved wound if you could instead stack wounds on an already wounded model.

Probably already been done, but here is a direct quote from the rule book 1_3 faq:

Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.

Notice, "Each model that fails takes a wound." That wound has already been allocated specifically to the model that failed the test.

The key here has nothing to do with unsaved or saved wounds, nor single wound or multi wound models. The part that everyone that is arguing against is plain as day in this.... the fact that the DT wounds are NOT allocated in the same way as shooting attacks. Now forgive me, as my rulebook is currently about 3,500 miles away, + or - a couple hundred miles , but the multi wound model part is covered in the Shooting section of the book, isn't it??? Now, the Assault phase tells us to refer to the shooting section for how to deal with wounds, but the FAQ specifically tells us that the Dangerous Terrain wounds do NOT work like the wound allocation in the shooting section, therefore, they work exactly as the FAQ says, and they go on the individual model that took the test. Hence, they have their own way of being resolved, as per the FAQ, no matter how many wounds that particular model or group of models has.

I won't be able to respond as often as others, but thought I would finally contribute my view on this, as I am severly suffering for 40k withdrawals and needed to get regrounded and caught up on stuff.... plus, as time and Elcheezus know, I love a good debate, even if I can't get in them very well right now!!!!

I would say that per that FAQ question alone, that wounds caused by DT tests fall out of the normal realm of shooting (clearly expressed by the FAQ) but also out of the normal realm of multi-wound allocation and instant death allocation.

We are given specific instruction,

On a model by model basis, each model takes a DT test.

On a model by model basis, each model that fails takes a wound.

It cannot get any clearer on how this mechanic works and also cannot get any clearer that it falls outside the realm of every rule for taking saves and allocating wounds, mutli-wound model or not.