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.

time wizard wrote:

grendel083 wrote: Gets Hot! states you use the normal rules for taking saving throws (DT doesn't). And it's the Taking Saving Trows rule (p25) that covers which models are removed.

Actually, the 'Remove Casualties' rule covers which models are removed.
And that rule even states that "...any model in the target unit can be hit..." so now, in the case of a model rolling a 1 with a gets hot! weapon, what is the target unit?
Are we actually going to say that I roll a '1' with a gets hot! weapon, so now any model in the unit that I fired the gets hot! weapon at can now be hit?

Or would it be more correct to say that the roll of a '1' with a gets hot! weapon inflicts a wound on the model that fired the weapon, and as such that wound was neither caused by or to any "target unit"?

Both rules cover the removal of models, and both say the same thing (I was just using complex units rules as this seemed appropriate).

What i'm saying is that when it comes to removing the model, any plasma gunner is fair game for removal (not just the one that Got Hot!), as they're identical models. Both rules support this.

time wizard wrote:

grendel083 wrote: Also the added problem of Gets Hot! when a single model rolls a double 1.

This one is actually pretty easy. Gets Hot! says that for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. So if a unit with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds.

I'm inclinded to agree here, as much as it saddens me to loose 2 plasma gunners.

If both of these points are correct, it also removes the need to roll for each plasma gun seperatly.

grendel083 wrote:

time wizard wrote:

grendel083 wrote: Also the added problem of Gets Hot! when a single model rolls a double 1.

This one is actually pretty easy. Gets Hot! says that for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. So if a unit with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds.

I'm inclinded to agree here, as much as it saddens me to loose 2 plasma gunners.

If both of these points are correct, it also removes the need to roll for each plasma gun seperatly.

Sorry, have to correct myself here. I meant to say "So if a model with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds." but I wrote "unit" in error.

The gets hot! rule is clear in that "the firing model" is the one that suffers the wound, no other. Just like wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests.

@nicorex

For myself I don't dare thinking that I knew what GW intended with a rule.

This has 2 reasons:

1. I am not part of GW, so I don't know their thoughts behind it.
2. Their intentions caught me by surprise many times in the past.

So from that perspective your specific vs. general approach seems a bit over the top for me.

My understanding is:

In order to override the general rule, the special rule needs to substitute the general wording with something that tells me, what I have to do instead. Otherwise the general rule is replaced by a black hole procedure-wise. So the game crashes.

So what do we have here:

general rules: 1. Allocate wounds, 2. take saving throws 3. remove casualties

gets hot: 1. substituted (the firing model suffers a wound) 2. explicitly not substituted (normal saves apply) 3. not even mentioned

so how do you conclude, that the special rule has to kill everything else in the general rules? Maybe we should guess a bit into the blue. How about... I shoot without LOS with my next gets hot weapons. Yep, thats an idea... *sry for kidding*

I believe that we would have that game crash now, because get's hot stops being special after wound allocation.
So if I say "the firing model suffers a wound" the wound is allocated on the model. Then nothing happens after that. "Normal saves apply" is a reference to the general rules for saving throws, which can either be used or not used. If they are used, then they should be used completely (where again in get's hot it is stated which part of the normal rules for saving throws apply and which not?). If they aren't used, the game stalls because that wound can not be resolved at all.

@time wizard

That again?

Actually, the 'Remove Casualties' rule covers which models are removed.
And that rule even states that "...any model in the target unit can be hit..." so now, in the case of a model rolling a 1 with a gets hot! weapon, what is the target unit?
Are we actually going to say that I roll a '1' with a gets hot! weapon, so now any model in the unit that I fired the gets hot! weapon at can now be hit?

Or would it be more correct to say that the roll of a '1' with a gets hot! weapon inflicts a wound on the model that fired the weapon, and as such that wound was neither caused by or to any "target unit"?

OK fine. Lets say the rules for removing casualties cannot be used. Then I would very much appreciate that. Not a single plasmagunner will be removed as a casualty then. The saves are failed and nothing happens. You don't really want that, do you?

Because now that you have finished Remove Casualties, the model in question did not receive a Wound - because you choose to remove a different model than the one Gets Hot! specifies to be wounded.

Regardless of the timing, the removed model needs to be the wounded one.

"Any model can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty"

But specifically Gets Hot! tells you otherwise.

Editing to add:
The Oxford comma (definitively British) implies that "wounded and taken off as a casualty" is separated from "hit."

-Nazdreg- wrote:
OK fine. Lets say the rules for removing casualties cannot be used. Then I would very much appreciate that. Not a single plasmagunner will be removed as a casualty then. The saves are failed and nothing happens. You don't really want that, do you?

Okay, lets take a different tack here then.

Let's allocate the wounds just like shooting as you propose.

A model armed with a gets hot! weapon rolls a 1. The rules tell us that the firing model suffers a wound.

This firing model becomes the target unit from the gets hot! result because the rule speciically says that "the firing model" suffers the wound.

This model is now the target unit, a unit of 1 model that fired that weapon. We take a saving throw as normal for that target unit.

If the model fails its saving throw, and has but 1 remaining wound on its profile, the wound is placed on it and it is removed.

We have now had a target unit, it suffered a wound, took its saving throw, and suffered an unsaved wound reducing it to 0 wounds wereupon it has been removed.

If we have 2 models armed with gets hot! weapons, and both roll one or more 1s to hit when firing, then each of those firing models suffers the requisite number of wounds as per the gets hot! rule.

They are now each a separate 'target unit' from the weapon that they fired. The rest is resolved as above.

time wizard wrote:They are now each a separate 'target unit' from the weapon that they fired. The rest is resolved as above.

Wait.. What?

I think there's a confusion between RAW and RAI here. What i just read isn't anywhere in the rulebook.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@nicorex

For myself I don't dare thinking that I knew what GW intended with a rule.

This has 2 reasons:

1. I am not part of GW, so I don't know their thoughts behind it.

I used to be part of GW. I have also been dealing with their way of writing rules for about 24 years now. I feel that gives me a decent idea what they are thinking and trying to say.

-Nazdreg- wrote:2. Their intentions caught me by surprise many times in the past.

As they have caught us all.

-Nazdreg- wrote:So from that perspective your specific vs. general approach seems a bit over the top for me.

My understanding is:

In order to override the general rule, the special rule needs to substitute the general wording with something that tells me, what I have to do instead. Otherwise the general rule is replaced by a black hole procedure-wise. So the game crashes.

So what do we have here:

general rules: 1. Allocate wounds, 2. take saving throws 3. remove casualties

gets hot: 1. substituted (the firing model suffers a wound) 2. explicitly not substituted (normal saves apply) 3. not even mentioned

See your problem here is you want to STOP using the "Gets Hot" Special Rule before it is completed.

You are trying to break down the "Gets Hot" special rule into the standard, shooting at, allocating wounds, make saves and remove casualty rules. This is wrong. The "Gets Hot" special rule supercedes the first 4 parts of those standard rules. GW did not write out a full and complete sentance when they wrote this rule because they thought you and I would understand that the specific model mentioned in the beginning of the sentance "the model firing the weapon" is the same model that is infered at the end of the sentance.

So your #2 point here is a misunderstanding, they are telling you that the "Model firing the weapon" that suffered a "Gets Hot" wound may take a normal armor save. They are not saying to allocate wounds as normal.

If a single wound model fires a "Gets Hot" weapon and incures a wound because of the "Gets Hot" rule, He "the model firing the weapon" suffers/takes a wound. At no time do they add any other models into this equation. They are refrencing a specific model, "the model that fired the weapon" the whole time.
So the model "Firing the weapon" activates "Gets Hot" by rolling a 1 or two 1's if he "the model firing the weapon" rapid fired. He takes/suffers a wound or two wounds if he rolled two 1's. This wound can then be saved by His "the model firing the weapon" normal armor save.
If he rapid fired and rolled two 1's he will incure 2 wounds and be forced to make 2 saves.
You then roll for these saves.
The Model "that fired the weapon" will either fail or save these wounds. If he "the model that fired the weapon" failed any one of these saves he is removed as a casualty if he only had a single wound or if he had two wounds and fails both the normal armor saves, if he has more than two wounds he subtracts 1 or 2 wounds from his starting wound caracteristic depending on how many failed armor saves he incured due to the "Gets Hot" rule, if he had more than two wounds but had previously incured a wound or wounds from some other action and these "Gets Hot" incured wound bring him to zero He "the model firing the weapon" would then be removed as a casualty.. If these incidents occure and meet these requirements, you would then either remove the model "that fired the weapon" and suffered the "Gets Hot" wounds as a casualty or you continue play as normal.

As to #3 GW wrote the rule assuming that you and I would have the basic understanding of what happens to a model after it incured a wound and then failed or made an armor save, so they agin were not specific about this, because they didnt feel they needed too be. They assumed you and I would know what to do. Because we all know when you suffer/take a wound (from anything that allows you an armor save), you get to attempt to make that armor save. If you fail this armor save (or multiples incase you incured more than one "Gets Hot" and have equal to or less wounds than you incured and failed saves for) the model "firing the weapon" is removed as a casualty. After all this is complete, Then we all go back to standard rules of play, untill the next special rule pops up.

-Nazdreg- wrote:OK fine. Lets say the rules for removing casualties cannot be used. Then I would very much appreciate that. Not a single plasmagunner will be removed as a casualty then. The saves are failed and nothing happens. You don't really want that, do you?

I know you are trying to be silly, but it comes off as TFG rules lawyering.
Mabye Time Wizards explanation works bettter for you. I dont think I can be any clearer.

Nicorex wrote:
So your #2 point here is a misunderstanding, they are telling you that the "Model firing the weapon" that suffered a "Gets Hot" wound may take a normal armor save. They are not saying to allocate wounds as normal.

If a single wound model fires a "Gets Hot" weapon and incures a wound because of the "Gets Hot" rule, He "the model firing the weapon" suffers/takes a wound. At no time do they add any other models into this equation. They are refrencing a specific model, "the model that fired the weapon" the whole time.
So the model "Firing the weapon" activates "Gets Hot" by rolling a 1 or two 1's if he "the model firing the weapon" rapid fired. He takes/suffers a wound or two wounds if he rolled two 1's. This wound can then be saved by His "the model firing the weapon" normal armor save.
If he rapid fired and rolled two 1's he will incure 2 wounds and be forced to make 2 saves.
You then roll for these saves.
The Model "that fired the weapon" will either fail or save these wounds. If he "the model that fired the weapon" failed any one of these saves he is removed as a casualty if he only had a single wound or if he had two wounds and fails both the normal armor saves, if he has more than two wounds he subtracts 1 or 2 wounds from his starting wound caracteristic depending on how many failed armor saves he incured due to the "Gets Hot" rule, if he had more than two wounds but had previously incured a wound or wounds from some other action and these "Gets Hot" incured wound bring him to zero He "the model firing the weapon" would then be removed as a casualty.. If these incidents occure and meet these requirements, you would then either remove the model "that fired the weapon" and suffered the "Gets Hot" wounds as a casualty or you continue play as normal.

As to #3 GW wrote the rule assuming that you and I would have the basic understanding of what happens to a model after it incured a wound and then failed or made an armor save, so they agin were not specific about this, because they didnt feel they needed too be. They assumed you and I would know what to do. Because we all know when you suffer/take a wound (from anything that allows you an armor save), you get to attempt to make that armor save. If you fail this armor save (or multiples incase you incured more than one "Gets Hot" and have equal to or less wounds than you incured and failed saves for) the model "firing the weapon" is removed as a casualty. After all this is complete, Then we all go back to standard rules of play, untill the next special rule pops up.

the only part I see differently is: assuming 2 ones from one model, you allocate to the one model, make saves, pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" if the one model fails both saves, you assign 2 wounds to your unit and distribute them amongst all similar wargear & profile models.

sirlynchmob wrote: the only part I see differently is: assuming 2 ones from one model, you allocate to the one model, make saves, pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" if the one model fails both saves, you assign 2 wounds to your unit and distribute them amongst all similar wargear & profile models.

But doing so ignores the specifics of the gets hot! rule.

The rules build on one another and you can't apply a rule from a previous page ignoring subsequent rules.

For example, on page 25 under 'Taking Saving Throws', second paragraph, second sentence says, "If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed."

If I decided to take that sentence on its own, then I could say that if you have a unit of ork boys with a nob, and the nob suffered a single unsaved wound, it would be removed regardless of the number of wounds on its profile. But of course this would be incorrect. All we need do is turn the page and we find specific rules about multiple-wound models. That section specifically modifies the general rule about removing a model that suffered an unsaved wound, in that if it is a model with multiple-wounds and it suffers a single wound it loses one wound on its profile. But this rule builds on the previous one, giving us specific instructions for other than the standard one-wound model.

This is no different than the gets hot! rule. There is a specific characteristic of a gets hot! weapon that says for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. If you had 2 models equipped with gets hot! weapons, and only 1 of them fires and rolls two 1s, and fails both saves, placing one of those wounds on the other model breaks the gets hot! rule because the other model did not fire at all.

Only the firing model can suffer the wounds from rolling a 1 to hit. And it further suffers a wound from each 1 that is rolled. but nothing changes the fact that those wounds are only sufferd by that firing model. That model can take saves as normal, which would be either an armor, cover or invulnerable save, taking the best possible save, as normal.

time wizard wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote: the only part I see differently is: assuming 2 ones from one model, you allocate to the one model, make saves, pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" if the one model fails both saves, you assign 2 wounds to your unit and distribute them amongst all similar wargear & profile models.

But doing so ignores the specifics of the gets hot! rule.

The rules build on one another and you can't apply a rule from a previous page ignoring subsequent rules.

For example, on page 25 under 'Taking Saving Throws', second paragraph, second sentence says, "If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed."

If I decided to take that sentence on its own, then I could say that if you have a unit of ork boys with a nob, and the nob suffered a single unsaved wound, it would be removed regardless of the number of wounds on its profile. But of course this would be incorrect. All we need do is turn the page and we find specific rules about multiple-wound models. That section specifically modifies the general rule about removing a model that suffered an unsaved wound, in that if it is a model with multiple-wounds and it suffers a single wound it loses one wound on its profile. But this rule builds on the previous one, giving us specific instructions for other than the standard one-wound model.

This is no different than the gets hot! rule. There is a specific characteristic of a gets hot! weapon that says for each 1 rolled, the firing model suffers a wound. If you had 2 models equipped with gets hot! weapons, and only 1 of them fires and rolls two 1s, and fails both saves, placing one of those wounds on the other model breaks the gets hot! rule because the other model did not fire at all.

Only the firing model can suffer the wounds from rolling a 1 to hit. And it further suffers a wound from each 1 that is rolled. but nothing changes the fact that those wounds are only sufferd by that firing model. That model can take saves as normal, which would be either an armor, cover or invulnerable save, taking the best possible save, as normal.

that sentence builds on having 1 unique model that stands out in gaming terms. If there was only 1 plasma gunner I'd agree 100%. But if there is more than 1 plasma gunner, you take their saving throws at the same time, removing casualties based on identical models. pg 25 first paragraph.

And the sentence on page 31 sixth paragraph that "...the firing model suffers a wound..." builds on having the firing model suffer the wound(s).

time wizard wrote:Sorry, have to correct myself here. I meant to say "So if a model with a gets hot! weapon rolls two 1s, it suffers 2 wounds." but I wrote "unit" in error.

The gets hot! rule is clear in that "the firing model" is the one that suffers the wound, no other. Just like wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests.

And just like shooting, after you allocate wounds, a single model may have more than one wound allocated to him. If he fails more than 1 of his armor saves, you don't ignore the other unsaved wounds, you deal with them as set forth in the "remove casualties" section.

Nicorex wrote: You are trying to break down the "Gets Hot" special rule into the standard, shooting at, allocating wounds, make saves and remove casualty rules. This is wrong. The "Gets Hot" special rule supercedes the first 4 parts of those standard rules. GW did not write out a full and complete sentance when they wrote this rule because they thought you and I would understand that the specific model mentioned in the beginning of the sentance "the model firing the weapon" is the same model that is infered at the end of the sentance.

If "Gets Hot" is meant to supercede allocating wounds, making saves, and removing casualties, can you explain what rules you're using to make armor saves and remove casualties?

Nicorex wrote: So your #2 point here is a misunderstanding, they are telling you that the "Model firing the weapon" that suffered a "Gets Hot" wound may take a normal armor save. They are not saying to allocate wounds as normal.

Nobody is arguing that you allocate wounds with Gets Hot (nor has anyone argued you allocate wounds with Dangerous Terrain). What is being argued is that the rules for armor saves and removing casualties are not superceded by either GH or DT.

In order to supercede a rule, the superceding rule must explain how to resolve any issues that it supercedes. Since Gets Hot doesn't explain how to take armor saves or remove casualties, we must assume that the standard rules apply.

Nicorex wrote: So the model "Firing the weapon" activates "Gets Hot" by rolling a 1 or two 1's if he "the model firing the weapon" rapid fired. He takes/suffers a wound or two wounds if he rolled two 1's. This wound can then be saved by His "the model firing the weapon" normal armor save.
If he rapid fired and rolled two 1's he will incure 2 wounds and be forced to make 2 saves.
You then roll for these saves.
The Model "that fired the weapon" will either fail or save these wounds.

No problem up until here.

Nicorex wrote: If he "the model that fired the weapon" failed any one of these saves he is removed as a casualty if he only had a single wound

(Leaving out the rest, concerned about single-wound models right now)

What rule are you using to remove the model as a casualty? The rule for removing casualties says that for each failed armor save the unit suffers an unsaved wound, and then you remove a whole model that is identical to the model that failed the armor save.

Ok here's how I'm seeing it. You have a squad of 4 identical plasma gunners ABCD and a sgt E in a unit.

they go to shoot, and A & B get double 1's, C & D hit. C&D snicker and tell A&B "told ya, you guys should have helped at the soup kitchen last night and worked on your karma"

A&B each suffer 2 wounds, C&D snicker. pg 31 gets hot.

pg 25, having allocated the wounds (to A&B) all models identical ABCD take their saving throws at the same time.

A&B both fail their 2 saves, C&D snicker.

A&B both try feel no pain rolls if they were allowed one (it's a normal save isn't it?) failing both, C&D snicker

pg 24 remove casualties, "for every model that fails its save the unit suffers...."

pg 25, casualties (ABCD) can then be chosen by the owning player. C&D "Hey what, why you dragging us into this"

Sgt E upon seeing his own squad just blow them selves to pieces says "noobs" and "damn I failed my leadership roll, I'm outta here."

All gets hot does is start the process by assigning a wound to the firing model, with no statements after that to change any of the other steps that follow.

Except C&D did not incure the "Gets Hot" rule. A&B did and as the rule states "The Model Firing the Weapon" suffers/incures/takes/has to deal with/is screwed over by/Man WTF did I do to diserve this? the "Gets Hot" wounds. A&B are now singled out not only from the rest of the unit of A&B&C&D and the Sarge, but they are also singled out from each other. Basicly they become units of one untill such time as the "Gets Hot" rule is no longer in effect. SO A&B now must make saves as normal and may be removed as casualtys as normal, if they failed their saves. It is at this point that the "Gets Hot" rule ends and you go back to the standard rules, since A&B failed their saves, C&D and the Sarge then go Man WTF is wrong with those guys?? Dont they know you have to work the soup kitchen the night before a battle so your own guns wont blow up in your face.. What Morons..Lets ditch this lame scene and go hit the Clubs I hear some of those sexy Sisters are putting on a show tonight.

Nicorex wrote:Except C&D did not incure the "Gets Hot" rule. A&B did and as the rule states "The Model Firing the Weapon" suffers/incures/takes/has to deal with/is screwed over by/Man WTF did I do to diserve this? the "Gets Hot" wounds. A&B are now singled out not only from the rest of the unit of A&B&C&D and the Sarge, but they are also singled out from each other. Basicly they become units of one untill such time as the "Gets Hot" rule is no longer in effect. SO A&B now must make saves as normal and may be removed as casualtys as normal, if they failed their saves. C&D and the Sarge then go Man WTF is wrong with those guys?? Dont they know you have to work the soup kitchen the night before a battle so your own guns wont blow up in your face.. What Morons..Lets ditch this lame scene and go hit the Clubs I hear some of those sexy Sisters are putting on a show tonight.

ROFL! Thanks for lightening up this thread, nicely done.

And FWIW, I agree 100%.

Just trying to not pull out my own hair...

@Nicorex

You were part of GW? Maybe you could be so kind and tell them, if they intend something they should write it down in the rules actually. Because it is GWs own idea that RAW>RAI. Or did they worded that one wrong too...?

What you are argueing is RAI at its best. "GW didnt think they had to write the whole sentence, which should be like that:...." is no objective rule-argument.

Gets Hot supercedes specifically all of the shooting section? Ah well:

1. Where is that written, that Gets Hot supercedes it?
2. In which way it supercedes is part of our imagination I guess?

I cannot help but reiterating that sentence: "normal saves apply". Is this what you call superceding the rules for normal saves?

If so: Why?
If not: Why do you create model based saving throws out of nothing then?

I know you are trying to be silly, but it comes off as TFG rules lawyering.

Well I take that if its the price for argueing RAW. At least here in YMDC.
I am serious. If you ignore the normal rules for removing casualties, there are none left. So there is no way left how casualties can be removed. Or do you have a hint there in Get's Hot?

As to #3 GW wrote the rule assuming that you and I would have the basic understanding of what happens to a model after it incured a wound and then failed or made an armor save, so they agin were not specific about this, because they didnt feel they needed too be. They assumed you and I would know what to do. Because we all know when you suffer/take a wound (from anything that allows you an armor save), you get to attempt to make that armor save. If you fail this armor save (or multiples incase you incured more than one "Gets Hot" and have equal to or less wounds than you incured and failed saves for) the model "firing the weapon" is removed as a casualty. After all this is complete, Then we all go back to standard rules of play, untill the next special rule pops up.

This is complete interpretation of yours. It is not based on anything written. You expand the sentence "the firing model suffers a wound" into dimensions it doesn't have. If GW isn't specific, I have to assume that they intend to keep that one general. That is the reason for them not being specific. So why do you create a specification, when there is none written? Because they wanted us to play it like that? RAI...

@timewizard

Wait.. What?

I think there's a confusion between RAW and RAI here. What i just read isn't anywhere in the rulebook.

+1.

A Model becoming suddenly a unit inside another unit? An identical model suddenly stands out in gaming terms out of no reason? Sorry, you can do better.

The issue I'm seeing everyone coming back to is the "take saves as normal" part.

Thing is, "Taking Saving Throws" is a different rule to "Remove Casualties", hence them having seperate headings. It may come again to the mutability of English (and the fact that we don't always write things in order) but "The model (firing) takes a Wound/wound" supercedes the Allocation rule- and in Remove Casualties, the rules talking about "Identically equipped models" is a UNIT based rule, not a MODEL based rule- while Saving Throws is a MODEL based rule.

Again, SAVING THROWS are a seperate rule to REMOVE CASUALTIES, where one is based on the UNIT, and one is based on the MODEL.

As Gets Hot! specifies the Model takes the Wound/wound, you don't need to confer with any rule- don't need to look at Allocating Wounds, don't need to look at Remove Casualties. It's that model. Then, it says Normal Saves Apply, where you go to the rules on Saving Throws- which talk about the Wounds/wounds an individual Model suffers, and how they can be 'ignored' with the proper dice roll. It's pages after that that we get to Remove Casualties, which is an entirely different rule to the Saving Throws rule, dealing with units. By that time, the model has either passed or failed its own saving throws, and is either still on the table at its starting health, or down one (or two) Wounds, which would mean it would be removed.

Even in the event that you want to use the Removes Casualties rule (which deals with Groups, not models) it's imminently possible that, through allocation shenanigans, you can get to 'ignore' wounds, because they've been allocated to models that have already died. If I have 3 Nobs with different Wargear, and I take 12 'injuries' (small 'w' wounds) from shooting, I allocate 4 to each Nob. Nobs 1, 2, and 3 pass all of their saves (miraculously) while Nob 4 fails all of his. Does this mean those 2 'extra' unsaved wounds go to the rest of the squad? No. They're lost with the Nob that took them.

You don't allocate to Models, normally- you allocate to Armour and Wargear Groups. But when you do allocate to Models, it's entirely possible to 'ignore' extra wounds dealt and taken and not saved- and the Gets Hot! rule specifically allocates to Models.

Anvildude wrote:You don't allocate to Models, normally- you allocate to Armour and Wargear Groups. But when you do allocate to Models, it's entirely possible to 'ignore' extra wounds dealt and taken and not saved- and the Gets Hot! rule specifically allocates to Models.

Not true, normally you DO allocate wounds to models. Then you roll saves for different wound groups.

Ok, so I'm gonna break this down into what the rulebook actually says, to the best of my ability.

If "normal saves apply" we should go to the "take saving throws" section of the rulebook to determine what happens.

We have two cases to start:
1. Complex units (Imperial Guard)
2. Non-complex units (Flash Gitz, potentially)

Let's see what happens if we have a complex unit first. We are told to go to page 25. First off, we can't deal with any rules referring to the target unit, so that eliminates paragraph one, and anything following paragraph two requires "to hit" rolls to have been made, so we move on to the TAKING SAVING THROWS heading. Here we see that we have to have allocated saves in order to remove casualties, and we obviously haven't done that, so we ignore this part. Paragraph two under this heading finally gives some insight as to what we are supposed to do:

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.

The only question to me, after reading that paragraph, is whether or not "stands out in gaming terms" applies to a squad with similarly equipped models. The definition of standing out in gaming terms is on the same page, thankfully, and so we can determine the following:

If there are any unique models in the unit (in gaming terms), they must take their saves, but none of the non-unique units are ever required to take saves from the wounds that they have suffered.

Now that we have determined so save can even be attempted for the majority of the models in a Guardsman squad, we must determine what happens when a model suffers a wound but cannot take a save against such a wound. Therefore, we turn back a page to remove casualties where it says that if no save could be taken, the wound is still suffered and casualties must still be removed, though these casualties can be any member of the unit.

Therefore, the process for removing gets hot casualties from complex units is:
The unique models to take their saves individually. Should they fail any of these saves, they are removed as casualties.
The non-unique models take a wound with no saving throw allowed, though this wound can be used to remove any model in the squad as a casualty (as long as it isn't one of the unique models already removed by the first part).

For normal, non-complex units, we must return to the "take saving throws" section.
Gets Hot! is not incoming fire, so no armor save can be taken against it (not only that, but the AP of most gets hot! weapons ignores most armor saves anyway). The cover rules also require the firing model to be obscured as a part of their operation, so they cannot be taken either (as in this case, the firing model is never going to be obscured from itself). The only saves that can be taken are invulnerable saves.

Barring any invulnerable saves, the rest of the wounds are suffered according to the remove casualties section, where (as stated before) we are told to remove casualties from the unit based on wounds, and not on individual model count. This is because the remove casualties rule relies on a model-based wounding system that merely references the unit in regards to the models it contains.

In summation, the rules for gets hot! wounds on non-complex units require wounds (and usually models) to be removed from the unit for each failed save.

Whether this is intentional or not, it is the RaW. Extremely narrow RaW, but RaW nonetheless.

Edit: @Anvildude:
Yes, the remove casualties heading is a separate entity from the take saving throws heading. But it is most assuredly a model-based system of removal. The models that suffered wounds determine how many wounds the unit has suffered. Without wounded models, on an individual basis, the rule would not function. It is because this model-based system requires the unit to lose generalized casualties that your argument does not succeed.

Where do you get to say that Gets hot doesn't allow armour saves?

I am sorry but I cannot follow that post, it may just be me but it is very difficult to keep with your train of thought.

Kitzz wrote:For normal, non-complex units, we must return to the "take saving throws" section.
Gets Hot! is not incoming fire, so no armor save can be taken against it (not only that, but the AP of most gets hot! weapons ignores most armor saves anyway). The cover rules also require the firing model to be obscured as a part of their operation, so they cannot be taken either (as in this case, the firing model is never going to be obscured from itself). The only saves that can be taken are invulnerable saves.

So much wrong with this section, I had to stop here.

No armour saves because it isn't incoming fire? Armour saves are not just against shooting, armour saves are allowed in this case. Also you don't use the AP of the weapon that misfired. You're not shooting yourself.

Also if the model is in area terrain there's nothing to stop them gaining a cover save.

Look I think the question we are trying to answer is:
In the is setup I have 2 plasmaguns in a squad of 10 space wolves, one of the plasma gunners rolls two and gets hot applies.

The two saves are taken, if both are failed do I take out both plasma gun models as casualties?

Some of us think the gets hot rule means no because the wound is allocated on the model and the model can take it's normal saves (armour, invulnerable and cover as normal) but it's only that models problem and even if he gets two unsaved wounds only one model is removed.

Others think the normal wound allocation and saving process applies so after the two failed saves you remove both plasma gun weilding models.

That is where the argument lies, does gets hot's specific rule that process null and take it in a model specific mannor as per difficult terrain or is it applied in a more general mannor.

Yep, that sums up where the debate is at.

Personally I'm with the more general manor, the Gets Hot! allocates wounds for us, then when it says Normal Saves Apply we're back to the normal rules, leading to both being removed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The model that failed the save must "suffer the wound"

Another model suffering the wound, by being remove, contradicts this rule.

Yes! I have know some people who fail the save and then take out a different model.

Oh, my Plasma Pistol exploded in my face? Kill the guy with the flamer!

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Yes! I have know some people who fail the save and then take out a different model.

Oh, my Plasma Pistol exploded in my face? Kill the guy with the flamer!

I think we can all agree that guy is taking liberties with everything and should find a brb upside of his head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grendel083 wrote:Yep, that sums up where the debate is at.

Personally I'm with the more general manor, the Gets Hot! allocates wounds for us, then when it says Normal Saves Apply we're back to the normal rules, leading to both being removed.

And my reading is that it has said that model(not the unit or a subtype of models in a unit) suffers the wound but saves are allowed to be taken against it. I can see where that side is coming from, the point of it and I would prefer an faq to make it clear. I don't usually run plasma in my army atm but I can see a time when I will fast approaching, 6th ed and if they clear it up now they will take it as a concern to cover the next editions rules.