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.

OIIIIIIIO,
Unfortunately, inflicting Wounds on a model is very different beast then inflicting Hull Point loss on a vehicle, so the two are not comparable here.

Honestly, it brings me back to the point I made earlier about hating the fact we have a 'Process of Wounding' and a 'Wound Characteristic,' both of which are then shortened to just 'Wound.' Because Vehicles use a Method for determining Penetration/Glancing Results and have Hull Points, neither of which are then shortened to Terminology that can be confused for each other, it is very easy to tell them apart. If we are told that it looses 1d3 Hull Points, we know for a fact that the Rule is talking about reducing the Hull Point Characteristic. If it states that the additional damage is applied as 'Glancing Hits,' which many Rules do, we know that this damage triggers any Rule related to a vehicle getting a Glance Result through the normal default methods.

This is important as Vehicles only get Saves against Glancing / Penetration Results by the default method, not the actual loss of Hull Points themselves.

Then you have Specific Instructions within the Rule themselves which might further change this, which Ion Shield is a very good example:
The facing being chosen gains a X+ invulnerability save to all Hits against that facing, meaning that it actually forces you to make Saves before you even get to know the Result of those Penetration / Glances.
These additional Hull Point loss do not trigger a Rule related to the Facing being Hit, as they do not Hit any facing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My current conclusion:

Rule As Written: Broken
A literal reading raises all sorts of questions and not just the 'Does this rule mean Wounds as in Wound Characteristic or Wounding process' element, which is what needs to be confirmed in order to determine if Saving Throws are allowed.

Follow up questions include:-
How do we determine if an attack normally inflicts instant death?
Is this Rule ignored completely by weapons which do not normally inflict Instant Death, but have been granted that through situation conditions?
Does the OR in that sentence mean we read 'remove as casualty' as 'normally remove as casualty' as well, could be important for some Rule we have not considered?
What happens to the original Wound, is it discarded or resolved completely prior to the 1d3 Wounds being inflicted?

Hell, the most literal 'that ******* Guy' reading even raises this question, as it states an Attack which do X and not a Wound which does X:
Do I even Roll To Hit and To Wound, or just jump straight to 1d3 Wounds being allocated to the Creature?
Not to mention this ridiculous Loop that occurs from a pure Rule as written reading:
Last Wound is lost - Remove as Casualty - Trigger this Rule - Reduce another 1d3 Wounds, flooring at 0 - Remove as Casualty - Trigger this Rule .....

How I believed the Authors intended it:
Whenever a Special Rule would be trigger, which removes the Model as a Casualty as a result, then you reduce the Wound Characteristic by 1d3 instead of applying that Special Rule.
The original Wound still triggers it's own reduction in the Wound Characteristic because it is resolved separately, and sometimes even prior, to the Special Rule triggering this Rule... just it normally wouldn't matter as -1 then Set to 0 is still 0.

How I will Play it:
I won't ever see this situation for it to matter.

JinxDragon, where are these rules you claim as written that tell us to save every wound removed by an Instant Death attack? According to your above statements, if you ID a 6 Wound model, that model can roll 5 additional saves after the first one fails, completely ignoring the actual rules as written telling us to simply remove the model.

We are informed in the ID rules that a model being dealt an unsaved wound has its Wound characteristic reduced to 0 within a curtain set of conditions. Force Weapons gain the ID rule when activated, activation occurs after an unsaved wound is dealt. Unstoppable changes the "reduce to 0 Wounds" portion of ID to remove D3 Wounds.

Versus a Gargantuan Creature, a Force Weapon that deals an unsaved wound will also deal 0-2 additional unsaved wounds rather than remove all of the GC's wounds due to being Unstoppable. The difference between 1-3 Wounds and all of the Wounds is a single Special Rule. At no point are we informed that an ID weapon deals 0-2 more attacks which require 0-2 more saves to be failed; that is your assumption, not an artifact of the rules as written.

SJ

Jeffersonian000,
Already has been addressed several times by other posters, so I will simply repeat what has been said prior: Instant Death does not generate any additional wounds but simply Sets the Wound Characteristic to 0. As it is the process of resolving Wounds which allows Saving Throws to occur, by addressing the Wound Characteristic directly it completely by-passes the ability to Save. Inflicting 1d3 Wounds is not Reducing the Wound Characteristic, well it might be but thanks to the duel terminology it is impossible to tell without more precise instructions and what is provided leans towards 'inflicting Wounds' instead of 'Reducing Wound Characteristics', we have to use the default method for Resolving Wounds.

Unless you have found a Restriction to counter all the quoted Rules granting permission for a Save to occur?

JinxDragon wrote:
Jeffersonian000,
Already has been addressed several times by other posters, so I will simply repeat what has been said prior: Instant Death does not generate any additional wounds but simply Sets the Wound Characteristic to 0. As it is the process of resolving Wounds which allows Saving Throws to occur, by addressing the Wound Characteristic directly it completely by-passes the ability to Save. Inflicting 1d3 Wounds is not Reducing the Wound Characteristic, well it might be but thanks to the duel terminology it is impossible to tell without more precise instructions and what is provided leans towards 'inflicting Wounds' instead of 'Reducing Wound Characteristics', we have to use the default method for Resolving Wounds.

Unless you have found a Restriction to counter all the quoted Rules granting permission for a Save to occur?

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that instead of reducing a GC's Wound to "0", you reduce its Wounds to "Current Value minus D3"? That is what the rules tell you. What is missing is any language indicating that instead of removing all wounds, you deal D3 more attacks that require saving.

There are no restrictions to counter your flawed assumption, because your assumption is not supported in the rules.

SJ

If the Rule actually stated to Reduce the Wound Characteristic by 1d3 then I would be able to accept it, but unfortunately it states that this Special Rule inflicts 1d3 Wounds which I can not accept as being the same thing.

Unless you believe every time we come across 'Wounds Inflicted' we are to go straight to reducing the Wound Characteristic with no Saving Throws allowed?

JinxDragon wrote:
If the Rule actually stated to Reduce the Wound Characteristic by 1d3 then I would be able to accept it, but unfortunately it states that this Special Rule inflicts 1d3 Wounds which I can not accept as being the same thing.

Unless you believe every time we come across 'Wounds Inflicted' we are to go straight to reducing the Wound Characteristic with no Saving Throws allowed?

This isnt 'every time' though, this is a specific set of wound circumstances that can only happen if the model being wounded had already failed saves and taken wounds that would allow the ID to trigger

What rule allows you to save again after you already failed wounds?

WrentheFaceless,
Where is the Rule as Written support for such a concept?

It is all well and good to state this is an exceptional situation, and therefore has to be resolved differently then normal, but we need two things in order to accept that conclusion as Supported by the Rules. The first is solid evidence that the situation is meant to be an exception to the normal process, simply being an unusual situation or having unusual Timing concerns are not enough to meet this criteria without all 'unusual situations' becoming Black Holes of lawlessness. The Second is a method in order to proceed, if the default method is to be ignored then we need Written Rule to provide us with precise instructions on how to continue or else we are in yet another Black Hole of lawlessness. If we have one but not the other, the best conclusion we can come up with is 'The Rule as Written is Broken, here are some House Rules that might be used to fix it.'

Honestly I feel that is the only reason I have been pulled into this debate by the way:
It is well and good to state that this Rule is broken, I would concur, and therefore needs to be House Ruled in order to function as we believed it was meant to function.
It is a completely different thing to state that the proposed House Rule is the only one supported by the Rules as Written.

Particularly when both sides point to the same Sentence as their 'Rule Support!'

JinxDragon wrote:
If the Rule actually stated to Reduce the Wound Characteristic by 1d3 then I would be able to accept it, but unfortunately it states that this Special Rule inflicts 1d3 Wounds which I can not accept as being the same thing.

Unless you believe every time we come across 'Wounds Inflicted' we are to go straight to reducing the Wound Characteristic with no Saving Throws allowed?

Can you provide an example where "Inflict Wounds" is used where we do not go straight to reducing the Wound Characteristic with no additional Saving Throws?

SJ

First one that comes to mind:
Page 24, Rolling To Wound, states that we use a d6 and consult the table to verify if we have inflicted a Wound.
Oh, it also goes on to state 'just like the Shooting phase section.'

Therefore every Roll made against a To Wound table is a Roll to Inflict a Wound....

JinxDragon wrote:
First one that comes to mind:
Page 24, Rolling To Wound, states that we use a d6 and consult the table to verify if we have inflicted a Wound.
Oh, it also goes on to state 'just like the Shooting phase section.'

Therefore every Roll made against a To Wound table is a Roll to Inflict a Wound....

Okay. Now please tell us all what table you are rolling on to determine ID or Remove from Play?

SJ

Aside from 'moving the goal posts' I need to ask why you think "Rolling on a Table" is relevant at all to the discussion at hand?

You asked me to quote a page and paragraph where a Wound is inflicted but in such a way that it allows a Saving Throw. I have gone ahead and done so, not just with a small Rule either but one that is found in the core element of how To Wound Rolls function and would lead to all Wounds bypassing Armour Saves. You clearly asked this question because you where wise enough, or just lucky in your attempt to cloud the issue, to see that my question was completely loaded as they often are. Your challenge to produce a Written Rule was clearly an attempt to either spring the trap to see what the payload would be before it could make a fool of you, or hoped that no Rule would be forth-common so you could point to the fact the term 'inflicting a Wound' was only ever used in Rules that skipped straight to the Wound Characteristic to strengthen your claim even further.

Now that you see the payload, I can only conclude this completely senseless follow up question is an attempt to hide the fact page 24 completely shattered your concept to thousands of pieces....

So to answer this unusual, and I do hope equally loaded as mine because then it would have a point, follow up question of yours:
Instant Death does not require rolling on a table to see if it Triggers, it has a self contained Trigger which allows it to occur whenever a Weapon/Model with this Rule inflicts a Unsaved Wound
It is further altered by this situation thanks to a poorly worded Secondary Special Rule, informing us that it inflicts 1d3 Wounds instead
These Wounds which do not have instructions stating that they deny Saves of any kind, or are applied directly to the Wound Characteristic itself, so they therefore follow the normal process for resolving Wounds.

But they're triggered on Unsaved Wounds as well, what rule allows you to repeat the save process after its already been done?

WrentheFaceless,
Those Rules have been quoted in the past, please feel free to go back a page or two and see what PrinceRaven has posted as he has documented more then any other poster here on how the Wound Resolution process works. Personally I am still fond of page 15, Taking Saving Throws, which states that each Wound being resolved grants a Saving Throw. As Rules granting overall permission to take saving throws against Wounds Inflicted have been provided, we have permission to make a Saving Throw against any Wound regardless of when or how it occurs. The only thing that can prevent that Rule from being evoked would be more precise restrictions, such as 'can not make a Saving Throw of any kind' which is popular with many Rules that generate secondary wounds at some point in the Wound Resolution process. I would also accept a good argument that proves these Wounds bypass the entire Resolution process. However, that argument has come down to simply 'because I say so' as no one has provided any Rule support for it.

I will simply request that you do something no one has done to this point:
Quote a page and paragraph which informs us that Wounds inflicted by Secondary Rules are applied straight to the Wound Characteristics or automatically come with the Restriction that No Saving Throws are allowed.
That simple, if I can read that in the Rule Books I have then I will conclude a Restriction is in place that prevents page 15 and a great deal of other Pages that have been Quoted.

The thing is this:
If a GC is wounded by a Libby and fails one save and the libby uses a WC to attach ID to said wound that already failed its save, you are then instructed to not remove it from the game ( as you would normally for ID ) but to suffer d3 wounds. I am not seeing a problem here. It has already failed the save and now you want to go back in time IF the libby gets it up to 3 wounds instead of just the one that it failed the save for? That is cool ... if you want another go at saves and fail one more, I want another go at using ID again from the force weapon if I have another charge.

I understand the timing issue you are trying to create, but as I pointed out:
The quoted Rules do not care when the Wound is generated, they grant permission to make a Saving Throw for each Wound being Resolved.
Resolving the any of the 1d3 Wounds, without allowing a Saving Throw, is breaking this Rule.

Personally, I have already stated that I am part of a group that doesn't believe that the original unsaved wound suddenly poofs into non-existence, it reduces the Wound Characteristic by 1 and then or simultaneously at best is the Instant Death Rule triggered to inflict 1d3 Wounds instead of Set to 0. The problem, from a Rule as Written stance, has always been the lack of a 'No Saves Allowed' clause which would then prevent Page 15 and every other Saving Throw related permission from being evoked. A Restriction I believe this Rule did intend to have, but let us stop pretending the Rule as currently Written comes to the same conclusion that these Wounds somehow have a 'No Saves Allowed' or 'Apply straight to the Wound Characteristic' clause....

Your argument still falls apart with swarms and blasts, which you have ignored.

The ID rule is the same basic effect vs GC's.

Which was addressed also:
Blasts on swarms generate additional Unsaved wounds, as in Wounds which are denied a Saving Throw.
Therefore a Restriction exists to prevent the additional Wounds generated from triggering anything related to Saving Throws.

Jinx, my point is order of operation. You seem to be under the impression that we can go back and re-do saves after wounds are assign due to failed saves. I get your point about wanting to roll saves on assigned wounds, I just can't understand why you are missing the point on how ID and "Remove from Play" are triggered effects that occur after you have moved past saving. Your walls of text aside, you have in no way shown a legal chain of logic to allow saves against an already dealt ID wound.

Rules as written, you do not ID a GC, the GC loses D3 Wounds. Rules as written, the point the GC was able to save against that ID Wound was when the wound was first dealt. Failing to save against that ID nets a loss of D3 wounds, as seen in the Unstoppable special rule. Unstoppable does not convert an ID Wound into D3 attacks you get to save against.

Let me go through the order of operation:

Attack with FW hits > wounds > save fails > activates FW > remove model > remove D3 wounds instead of removing model

You seem to want it to go like this:

Attack with FW > wounds > save fails > activates FW > wounds again > more saves > wounds again > more saves > etc.

Now, doing it your way means that for every additional save failed, that Wound explodes into an addition D3 Wounds until either all saves are passed or the model runs out of Wounds.

Doing it per RaW, the model's Wounds are reduced by D3 instead of being reduced to 0.

While your way seems more dynamic, I'll stick to the boring RaW way.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Jinx, my point is order of operation. You seem to be under the impression that we can go back and re-do saves after wounds are assign due to failed saves. I get your point about wanting to roll saves on assigned wounds, I just can't understand why you are missing the point on how ID and "Remove from Play" are triggered effects that occur after you have moved past saving. Your walls of text aside, you have in no way shown a legal chain of logic to allow saves against an already dealt ID wound
SJ

We are not allowing saves against an already dealt wound, we are allowing saves against completely new wounds that have never had a save taken against them. In much the same way that if you wound a target in a more conventional way, say you inflict 5 wounds via bolter fire against a Tau Pathfinder squad. You allocate the first wound wound and resolve it, then you go on the next wound and resolve it, etc. There is no going back to before saves were rolled for the first wound, just following the order of operations as set out on page 15.

As for your exploding wounds, you seem to be ignoring that these new Wounds do not have the Instant Death special rule, they are dealt instead of the Instant Death wound.

Against Ordinary ID weapons, you would do the d3 wounds instead of the ID wound immediately after the wound is allocated to the Gargantuan Creature, Force Weapons are unique in the the very first wound of a Force Weapon doesn't gain the Instant Death rule until after saves.

So what I am getting here is that it is entirely possible for a libby with a force-axe (or whathaveyou) wounding a critter, inflicting ID, and then the critter saving all the saves it gets against the d3 wounds.

Meaning you would've been better off not inflicting ID, because at least that way you would've gotten 1 wound instead of zero.

derp

that is what prince raven is apparently arguing for, and what jinx is regrettably interpreting from the rules as written.

It is however not true and probably not how anyone would ever play it.

the ID wound, that has already been inflicted after a failed saving throw, is merely being changed into d3 wounds instead of removing the model.

That is the RAW, although i will admit that it could have been worded more clearly.

Eihnlazer wrote:
that is what prince raven is apparently arguing for, and what jinx is regrettably interpreting from the rules as written.

It is however not true and probably not how anyone would ever play it.

the ID wound, that has already been inflicted after a failed saving throw, is merely being changed into d3 wounds instead of removing the model.

That is the RAW, although i will admit that it could have been worded more clearly.

This is correct, but I'm wondering why you think that somehow means you don't take saves against these new wounds that have never had saves taken against them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So what I am getting here is that it is entirely possible for a libby with a force-axe (or whathaveyou) wounding a critter, inflicting ID, and then the critter saving all the saves it gets against the d3 wounds.

Meaning you would've been better off not inflicting ID, because at least that way you would've gotten 1 wound instead of zero.

derp

Entirely possible but mathematically you're still much better of going activating you Force Weapon.

Also keep in mind that doing so means that all the other now Instant Death wounds you allocate afterwards get multiplied by d3 before saves.
Personally, I would just house rule that you try to activate the Force Weapon before the save is rolled to prevent the whole mess entirely.

Eihnlazer wrote:
that is what prince raven is apparently arguing for, and what jinx is regrettably interpreting from the rules as written.

It is however not true and probably not how anyone would ever play it.

the ID wound, that has already been inflicted after a failed saving throw, is merely being changed into d3 wounds instead of removing the model.

That is the RAW, although i will admit that it could have been worded more clearly.

This.

There is no permission allowing you to go back to save against these new wounds that can only be generated off of a failed wound.

And not one has yet to answer what kind of save would be permitted if you believe saves are allowed. What is the Str/AP profile of these wounds?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
that is what prince raven is apparently arguing for, and what jinx is regrettably interpreting from the rules as written.

It is however not true and probably not how anyone would ever play it.

the ID wound, that has already been inflicted after a failed saving throw, is merely being changed into d3 wounds instead of removing the model.

That is the RAW, although i will admit that it could have been worded more clearly.

This.

There is no permission allowing you to go back to save against these new wounds that can only be generated off of a failed wound.

And not one has yet to answer what kind of save would be permitted if you believe saves are allowed. What is the Str/AP profile of these wounds?

You mean apart from the rule on page 15 that explicitly states each wound gets a sive prior to reducing the Wounds characteristic?

What is the Strength and AP of an unsaved wound generated by the Swarms special rule?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
that is what prince raven is apparently arguing for, and what jinx is regrettably interpreting from the rules as written.

It is however not true and probably not how anyone would ever play it.

the ID wound, that has already been inflicted after a failed saving throw, is merely being changed into d3 wounds instead of removing the model.

That is the RAW, although i will admit that it could have been worded more clearly.

This.

There is no permission allowing you to go back to save against these new wounds that can only be generated off of a failed wound.

And not one has yet to answer what kind of save would be permitted if you believe saves are allowed. What is the Str/AP profile of these wounds?

You mean apart from the rule on page 15 that explicitly states each wound gets a sive prior to reducing the Wounds characteristic?

What is the Strength and AP of an unsaved wound generated by the Swarms special rule?

These wounds arent generated out of the normal combat phase, they're the result of a Secondary rule taking affect, why would page 15 apply to these wounds

And this isnt a "Swarms" attack, why would that even matter?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
that is what prince raven is apparently arguing for, and what jinx is regrettably interpreting from the rules as written.

It is however not true and probably not how anyone would ever play it.

the ID wound, that has already been inflicted after a failed saving throw, is merely being changed into d3 wounds instead of removing the model.

That is the RAW, although i will admit that it could have been worded more clearly.

This.

There is no permission allowing you to go back to save against these new wounds that can only be generated off of a failed wound.

And not one has yet to answer what kind of save would be permitted if you believe saves are allowed. What is the Str/AP profile of these wounds?

You mean apart from the rule on page 15 that explicitly states each wound gets a sive prior to reducing the Wounds characteristic?

What is the Strength and AP of an unsaved wound generated by the Swarms special rule?

These wounds arent generated out of the normal combat phase, they're the result of a Secondary rule taking affect, why would page 15 apply to these wounds

And this isnt a "Swarms" attack, why would that even matter?

Because page 15 is the only way to resolve Wounds in the book, so you either resolve them using that rule or you don't resolve them at all.

Because the answer to one is the answer to the other. Both are wounds generated from a special rule that relies on a preceding attack to determine their profile.

Except Force Weapon doesnt rely on the preceeding attack, it relies on a leadership test to activate the weapon

Its more like a reverse-perils than a Swarm attack, In this case it activates the rule if you pass instead of failing

And can you save a perils wound?

Unstoppable is the rule I'm talking about, not Force.

No, because unlike the wounds from Unstoppable, Perils of the Warp states "no saves allowed".