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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragie = no, there is A test any time a model suffers one or more wounds. Again, what do you think "or more" actually means? You dodge it repeatedly. Your contention makes "or more" irrelevant; when that is your only resort that should give you a clue as to the fallacy in your interpretation.

Ther is only one way to read the sentence, and that is ONE test if you suffer one OR MORE unsaved wounds. The second unsaved wound CANNOT trigger a second test, without breaking the rule.

"1 Or more" means any number, 1, 5, 10. If you take any number of wounds, you would take a test. Now you cannot be allocated 5 wounds. You can only be allocated 1. That one would trigger the test. Then you are allocated another 1. That second wound still meets all the criteria for "1 or more" unsaved wounds. And there is nothing to limit the number of tests, like Pinning, which is worded exactly the same, but needed that exemption to limit the testing to once per attack rather than once per wound.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragie = no, there is A test any time a model suffers one or more wounds. Again, what do you think "or more" actually means? You dodge it repeatedly. Your contention makes "or more" irrelevant; when that is your only resort that should give you a clue as to the fallacy in your interpretation.

Ther is only one way to read the sentence, and that is ONE test if you suffer one OR MORE unsaved wounds. The second unsaved wound CANNOT trigger a second test, without breaking the rule.

"1 Or more" means any number, 1, 5, 10. If you take any number of wounds, you would take a test. Now you cannot be allocated 5 wounds. You can only be allocated 1. That one would trigger the test. Then you are allocated another 1. That second wound still meets all the criteria for "1 or more" unsaved wounds. And there is nothing to limit the number of tests, like Pinning, which is worded exactly the same, but needed that exemption to limit the testing to once per attack rather than once per wound.

You suffer a wound. You take a test.
You suffer another wound. Why is this second wound not part of the one or more? Why is the singular test being ignored?
You haven't yet answered these questions, you've just said it isn't so.

If you take 2 wounds, you've taken one or more.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you take 2 wounds, you've taken one or more.

Yes you have, and therefore that would trigger the "If a model takes 1 or more unsaved wounds it must make an LD test."

It doesnt matter how many the model has previously taken, any wound that is unsaved would apply that trigger. Wounds have no memory of the previous wound, given that allocation is 1 wound at a time. If you could apply all 5 wounds to a model at once, then it would be 1 test. But you cannot. Each instance of taking a wound meets the conditions of "one or more". Taking the 3rd wound still meets "one or more". Again its the same basic application as Force wounds, the special rule is applied to each and every wound.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you take 2 wounds, you've taken one or more.

Yes you have, and therefore that would trigger the "If a model takes 1 or more unsaved wounds it must make an LD test."

It doesnt matter how many the model has previously taken, any wound that is unsaved would apply that trigger. Wounds have no memory of the previous wound, given that allocation is 1 wound at a time. If you could apply all 5 wounds to a model at once, then it would be 1 test. But you cannot. Each instance of taking a wound meets the conditions of "one or more". Taking the 3rd wound still meets "one or more". Again its the same basic application as Force wounds, the special rule is applied to each and every wound.

The trigger is thrown, and the test has already been taken - why are you forcing another one?
Why are you assuming no wound has any "memory" of the other ones? Do you have a rules basis for saying so or is it just convenient?

rigeld2 wrote:
The trigger is thrown, and the test has already been taken - why are you forcing another one?
Why are you assuming no wound has any "memory" of the other ones? Do you have a rules basis for saying so or is it just convenient?

Show me a rule that lets you not take it. Pinning clearly has one, but you have taken an unsaved wound by the trigger, you have no rule that says you dont take the test.

Why am I assuming about the memory... well show me a wound, from the same wound pool, that has any memory (affect on the game/model) when applied subsequent to the previous wound that doesnt have a special rule.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. The Wound has to have a special rule attached, not the model in general

Why is different strength even in the wound pool limitation?
You've already rolled to wound, and unless the strength is high enough to cause instant death, why would it matter?
Instant death would fall in the special rule section anyway.

So why seperation by strength?

Wound poison 2+ be seperate than poison 4+?
Wound poison hits (4+) from a S4 model be seperate from normal hits from a S4 model when striking a T4 opponent?
For all game purposes, they are the same. Yet for some unknown reason, I think GW has decided to seperate the pools.


-Matt

No they need separate pools. My Tyrant can ID a T5 with his Smash attack. My Prime can ID T3 if he has AG and charges. My warriors are only S5 even on the charge so they can't ID T3. As I don't know what the toughness is of the model that will be reciving the wounds until I allocate them they need separate pools.

Gloom, They are separate wound pools, but not because of the smash attack doubling the Str (though this would qualify if you had 2 MC's and one used Smash to double its Str and the other did not), but because the Hive Tyrant has AP2 because of the Smash rule, and the Prime is not AP2.

"If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool" P.15

Fragile wrote:
Show me a rule that lets you not take it. Pinning clearly has one, but you have taken an unsaved wound by the trigger, you have no rule that says you dont take the test.

Why am I assuming about the memory... well show me a wound, from the same wound pool, that has any memory (affect on the game/model) when applied subsequent to the previous wound that doesnt have a special rule.

The rule has been posted:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

One or more wounds = 1 test.

So no matter how many wounds a particular model suffers you only take one test for that modes, as after the first wound that model will be suffering one or more wounds.

DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

Fragile wrote:
DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

How are you not understanding the rule that says if you take one or more?

Premise 1) If you take one wound you take one test.
Do we agree on Premise one? (If no why?)

Premise 2) if that model is allocated a second wound that wound falls under the model taking one or more, as two wounds is one or more.
Do we agree on Premise Two? (If no why?)


P.S.
Compare the 5th ed Tyranid codex to the 5th ed pinning rule (Not the 6th ed language), the 5th ed rules for both are similar.

The 5th ED FaQ clarified pinning was one test per unit, not one per pinning weapon.

Fragile wrote:
DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

Because that is the support. Have you taken one or more wounds? Yes? Then you take ****A***** test. No matter how many times you take a wound, you take *****A***** test. When you take the second wound you have alreaqdy taken the single test you are allowed to take under this rule, so you cannot take any more.

There are only so many ways such a simple parsing of the language can be explained to you.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Absolutely correct. But you cannot have wound2 check in isolation - it is caused to a model that has taken one or more wounds and has already tested. There's no permission to force a second test.

This is Easter egging.

This sounds the most fair for both sides. The first wound on the first model was taken as was the LD test. The next wound shouldn't force the LD test on the first model. If the first model is killed then the next model that takes an unsaved wound should be forced to take the LD test. It makes sense given 6ths allocation and the rules for the bone swords stating that the test is taken on a model by model basis once no matter how many wounds they take. Just means if they die on the first wound you have more wounds to allocate to the rest of the squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
DR you say that but you have given no support for not taking the second test other than to quote the rule that says you take a test for unsaved wounds. Each unsaved wound meets the trigger condition, nothing in the rule prevents multiple tests, unlike Pinning, which has the exact same wording, which restricts the test to once per attack.

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

 Bausk wrote:

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

That is not what it says, and that is why this whole thread is here.

barnowl wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

That is not what it says, and that is why this whole thread is here.

Actually that is what it says just not in so many words.

"it must immediately pass a LD test" a LD test = 1 LD test

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

it states that you take one (and only one)

Actually that is what it says just not in so many words.

And therein lies the rub, without those extra words (the 'and only one' that are not there) it really can read differently.

Not that I disagree with playing the weaker, but your adamant responses that it DOES say that don't really help.

I really do not see how it can read any other way.

If a model suffers one or more wounds he takes a test.

If two, three, four, five, etc are included in the One or more clause, then the model does in fact take a test. (Not a test for each, not multiple tests, a test).

Do you recall Implant Attack from the previous codex?

Combine that with boneswords, and you have the exact scenario that I read as them ruling on.

I do not have any experience with the previous Tyranid codex.

I have only read the current one.

Ah, it basically doubled unsaved wounds.

That would have the model take 2 wounds per failed (or denied) save, thus the 1 or more listed per "a tyranid".

editing to add:
Not that it is all that possible, but GW ruling on impossible situations has happened before.

barnowl wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

Except that the codex and its rules are taken over the BRBs and it states that you take one (and only one) LD test per model that recieves one or more unsaved wounds.

That is not what it says, and that is why this whole thread is here.

Granted it was a paraphrase but it is still what it says. You must take a (singular) LD test if you take one or more unsaved wound (no matter how many wounds you take). Thus I would play as the above. Frankly I'm getting tired of people presuming I have not read the thread if I don't respond to irrelevant posts and only respond to the OP of the point I was addressing or using as an example.

However I will concede that if the first model had made its save against bone sword user A he still need to make a LD against unsaved wounds from bone sword user B and C and so on. But that goes without saying really...