tau broadside and drone wound allocation

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.

**OnceAngel**

the following doubt has come up during a game:

if i have a unit with 2 broadsides and 2 drones and i suffer 1 wound(let's assume no instakill) i can alocate it to the drone and remove it, correct?
or i can allocate it to a broadside suit.the tricky part is if taht unit suffers another wound, am I forced to allocate it to the broadside or can i allocate it to the drone?
the book says i must remove whole multi-wounds model as possible and i can't spread around wounds, so it would seem that i could not allocate that would to the drone, under the light of that rule~.
is taht correct or does the rule only apply if i allocate it to the broadside.. since the rule may only force me to remove the broadside if i allocate the wound to it.

Cheers.

**yakface**

Oy. Try doing a search about this subject. You should find numerous threads.

Read the multi-wound casualty rules carefully. They only apply when multi-wound creatures in the unit suffer wounds.

That means if your unit contains single wound models you are always free to allocate a wound to the single wound creature regardless of whether there is an existing multi-wound model with a wound on it.

It is just that if you do choose to allocate a wound to a multi-wound creature in the unit you MUST do so in a way to avoid spreading wounds around between other multi-wound creatures.

**DaIronGob**

Not too mention I was under the impression that the drones would've been allowed to (if not forced to) be removed instead of the suit?

**Antonin**

I understand the rule to be that you must remove whole models where possible. Would that not mean that you must remove the one-wound models if you only receive one wound in a particular stack of wounds? (i.e. you can't choose to put a wound on the broadside and save the drone)

Interesting effect with the torrent of fire rule, naturally - force a save on the broadside, if it fails, then later wounds must be placed on that broadside to the exclusion of the drones if those wounds would remove the broadside. This is especially powerful when using power weapon attacks - since the broadside does not get a 4+ invul, if you can force one wound onto the broadside, then any following attacks will divert to that model also.

**HellsGuardian316**

You could opt to put the single wound on the broadside if you wanted, bringing him down to a single wound, but because you have to remove whole models, if the squad suffered another wound it would HAVE to be placed on the broadside killing him completely, you wouldn't be able to kill a drone.

**yakface**

Posted By Antonin on 06/27/2007 8:13 AM
I understand the rule to be that you must remove whole models where possible. Would that not mean that you must remove the one-wound models if you only receive one wound in a particular stack of wounds? (i.e. you can't choose to put a wound on the broadside and save the drone)

Interesting effect with the torrent of fire rule, naturally - force a save on the broadside, if it fails, then later wounds must be placed on that broadside to the exclusion of the drones if those wounds would remove the broadside. This is especially powerful when using power weapon attacks - since the broadside does not get a 4+ invul, if you can force one wound onto the broadside, then any following attacks will divert to that model also.

You understand incorrectly and I honestly don't know why this is such a hard concept to grasp. This has to be about the thousandth time I've posted this quote (pag 27):

"When a unit contains several mutiple-Wound models, and those models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible. . ."

So if your unit contains single wound models you are always free to allocate wounds to them. It is only when you allocate wounds to mutiple-wound creatures in the unit that the rules for 'not spreading around wounds' apply.

So if a Broadside in a unit is already wounded and the unit takes another wound, feel free to place it on the Shield Drone. Doing so breaks no rules.

**eghost**

Maybe i misunderstood you, but when i read the rules and if i interpret them to exactly what it means. Once you take a wound on the Broadside you must put all applicable wounds on it till its removal where possible.

For example you take one wound form unit one, you place that wound on the broadside A1. Unit 2 fires at the same unit but cannot draw line of site to the BroadSide A1 because of LOS problems to that particular trooper. IE the defender has the choice to remove a shield drone. Unit three however has LOS on the A1 and causes a wound. The defending player must remove the Broadside.

A unit is still a mulitple wound creature regardless if it has taken or lost a wound.

Hopefully this clears things up.

**yakface**

Posted By eghost on 06/27/2007 1:00 PM
Maybe i misunderstood you, but when i read the rules and if i interpret them to exactly what it means. Once you take a wound on the Broadside you must put all applicable wounds on it till its removal where possible.

For example you take one wound form unit one, you place that wound on the broadside A1. Unit 2 fires at the same unit but cannot draw line of site to the BroadSide A1 because of LOS problems to that particular trooper. IE the defender has the choice to remove a shield drone. Unit three however has LOS on the A1 and causes a wound. The defending player must remove the Broadside.

A unit is still a mulitple wound creature regardless if it has taken or lost a wound.

Hopefully this clears things up.

And you are dead, dead wrong.

A unit is not a mutiple-wound creature. Multiple-wound creatures are individual models. Read the rule I posted above (I even bolded the important part). Only when creatures with mutiple wounds take a wound do you follow those rules.

If a unit is made up of single wound creatures and mutiple-wound creatures you always have the option to allocate wounds to the single wound creatures. It is only when allocating wounds to mutiple-wound creatures that you follow the rules for allocating wounds to multiple-wound creatures.

Reading is fundamental here people; this is not a hard concept.

**Beast**

I completely agree with yak and I don't really see the confusion either. If all the shield drones are killed and the unit takes subsequent wounds, then yes the multi-wound creature rule applies because that is all that is left in the unit at that point. But until then, the owning player may allocate a wound to the drone if he chooses.

**coredump**

Actually Beast, the rules applies even before all the drones are dead. The rule applies anytime one multi-wound creature is injured, and you want to apply another injury to a multi-wound creature. (injury being a wound with failed save)

Unit with 3 broadsides, 4 drones. (I have no idea if that is a legal unit... just go with it)(I also think broadsides have 2 wounds... again, if I am wrong, just go with it...)

Unit A shoots, does 2 wounds.

Put one on drone, one on broadside.

Unit B shoots, does 3 wounds.
You may kill off all three remaining drones.
Or you may kill off the injured broadside, and two drones
You may kill off the injured broadside, and put one wound on the other broadside, and kill off one drone.
You may kill off the injured broadside, and kill off the uninjured broadside.

**Beast**

Posted By coredump on 06/28/2007 5:27 AM
Actually Beast, the rules applies even before all the drones are dead. The rule applies anytime one multi-wound creature is injured, and you want to apply another injury to a multi-wound creature. (injury being a wound with failed save)

Granted. Your answer is more complete than mine.

So long as there is at least one single wound model in a mixed-wound unit, you can choose which to allocate it to. Once the single wound models are all dead, then the multi-wound creature rule becomes compulsory instead of owner's choice. That is what I should have said.

**eghost**

Posted By yakface on 06/27/2007 2:29 PM

Posted By eghost on 06/27/2007 1:00 PM
Maybe i misunderstood you, but when i read the rules and if i interpret them to exactly what it means. Once you take a wound on the Broadside you must put all applicable wounds on it till its removal where possible.

For example you take one wound form unit one, you place that wound on the broadside A1. Unit 2 fires at the same unit but cannot draw line of site to the BroadSide A1 because of LOS problems to that particular trooper. IE the defender has the choice to remove a shield drone. Unit three however has LOS on the A1 and causes a wound. The defending player must remove the Broadside.

A unit is still a mulitple wound creature regardless if it has taken or lost a wound.

Hopefully this clears things up.

And you are dead, dead wrong.

A unit is not a mutiple-wound creature. Multiple-wound creatures are individual models. Read the rule I posted above (I even bolded the important part). Only when creatures with mutiple wounds take a wound do you follow those rules.

If a unit is made up of single wound creatures and mutiple-wound creatures you always have the option to allocate wounds to the single wound creatures. It is only when allocating wounds to mutiple-wound creatures that you follow the rules for allocating wounds to multiple-wound creatures.

Reading is fundamental here people; this is not a hard concept.
Perhaps you should refer to how to have an intelligent conversation. I offered my version and interpretation of the rule and many who agree with me, and when I say many, I refer to oh; basically St Louis area plays this way.

Perhaps we are wrong, and frankly, it would be very interesting if your interpretation were correct. Learning is always exciting and only a fool stops learning.

However your poor choice of words i.e. dead wrong and reading is fundamental comments only leads me to believe that you probably lack the ability to have a conversation without using insults or referring to their ability to read. That leads me to believe that you are very, and let me bold the comment VERY intolerant to other points of view thus damaging your credibility.

I will review the rule again to see if perhaps you are correct, and if so I applaud you in your feverish way of defending your point of view and will endeavor to change we play here in the Midwest (again we do have a hard time reading here, unlike LA and thus may prove neigh impossible). I will try to improve my reading skills; perhaps my second Master's degree will enable my ability to intercept a game to your standards.

However this may take some time, that I do work full time, attend graduate school, spend time with my family, work out and even play 40k with my friends and have fun. I sincerely hope you have picked up on the sarcasm.

If you truly have something to post without reference to anyone's intelligence please do. I will read and possible comment back to you with the respect it deserves.

Thank You
Eghost

**HellsGuardian316**

I can easily understand Yakface's frustration. This topic has been covered many many times in other threads. A new thread didn't need to be made as the answer could have easily been found on another thread by digging a little.

Also bear in mind that despite this, he still did answered the question when he could have simply said, search for it. I think Yakface's response was well justified to be honest.

"Learning is always exciting and only a fool stops learning."
All I can say is I wish there were more poeple who said that, the amount of times I've been corrected on rules in the past hehe. I'm still getting use to the changes from 3rd to 4th edition and learning new tactics.

**Phoenix**

Posted By coredump on 06/28/2007 5:27 AM
Unit with 3 broadsides, 4 drones. (I have no idea if that is a legal unit... just go with it)(I also think broadsides have 2 wounds... again, if I am wrong, just go with it...)

Unit A shoots, does 2 wounds.

Put one on drone, one on broadside.

Unit B shoots, does 3 wounds.
You may kill off all three remaining drones.
Or you may kill off the injured broadside, and two drones
You may kill off the injured broadside, and put one wound on the other broadside, and kill off one drone.
You may kill off the injured broadside, and kill off the uninjured broadside.

That would be correct. Every wound either goes on a single wound model (completely legal) or is applied to a wounded broadside if there is one. You are just not allowed to apply wounds to an unwounded broadside if there is already a wounded one out there.

**Beast**

For eghost-

First, if you are going to quote someone (like you quoted yak in your last post), then you should have the sense to separate your comments from the quoted reference. Your post was typed in the quote box, making it confusing as to what yak had said and what you were responding... I guess your two Master's degrees didn't help you there did they??? (and as an aside, I know PhD's who are dumb as rocks on anything unrelated to their Phd, so don't try to wow us with your stated educational background- it is really immaterial here) Your numerous mis-spelled words and the use of the wrong words ("intercept a game..."??? did you mean interpret a game?) don't help your credibility...

Second, read the rulebook and don't read extra things into the rule that aren't there! I find it very hard to believe that all the Tau players in the St Louis area have failed to read the rulebook and the codex. And I don't think the Missouri education system is so bad that you are all unable to comprehend written English. I will grant you that many of the rules in the rulebook are not well written and open to interpretation, but (IMHO) this really isn't one of those. I feel yak's frustration in situations like this.

And as for yak's credibility... Take a look through the hundreds of threads he has contributed to and read some of his posts (including his FAQ on this site). I think you will find that he is incredibly well versed in the rules of this game. Is he right 100% of the time? Of course not. Who is? He is a moderator on Dakka. You have 8 posts here. Do those facts make you wrong? No. What makes you wrong is your failure to read the rules and comprehend them. Yak has plenty of credibility on Dakka and within the 40K hobby which has been demonstrated numerous times thoughout the years. You paint yourself the fool by suggesting otherwise. (and just to answer the question in your mind- no, I don't know yak other than on this site, and I have never met him personally so I'm not one of his buddies sticking up for him). If you are going to use sarcasm, then perhaps it would be helpful if you were right and yak were patently wrong. But that isn't the case here, so again you paint yourself the fool...

**Antonin**

Posted By Phoenix on 06/28/2007 4:12 PM

Posted By coredump on 06/28/2007 5:27 AM
Unit with 3 broadsides, 4 drones. (I have no idea if that is a legal unit... just go with it)(I also think broadsides have 2 wounds... again, if I am wrong, just go with it...)

Unit A shoots, does 2 wounds.

Put one on drone, one on broadside.

Unit B shoots, does 3 wounds.
You may kill off all three remaining drones.
Or you may kill off the injured broadside, and two drones
You may kill off the injured broadside, and put one wound on the other broadside, and kill off one drone.
You may kill off the injured broadside, and kill off the uninjured broadside.

That would be correct. Every wound either goes on a single wound model (completely legal) or is applied to a wounded broadside if there is one. You are just not allowed to apply wounds to an unwounded broadside if there is already a wounded one out there.

... unless you are causing instant death, in which case you are supposed to put the wound on an uninjured model, and pull that model, leaving the wounded model with its wounds.

That is, unless there has been another change that I missed....

Thanks yak for correcting me with the newer rules cite - I was thinking of the old rule I believe.

**whitedragon**

I would just like to say that I'm from St. Louis and I have never played the way Eghost describes. Yak is correct and reading the rules carefully makes it very clear.

**eghost**

Thank you Beast, your thoughts into the game were provocative.

Sorry about the typo, i didn't know it would offend you.

I have read the rule, on several occasions. Every time I read it, I find something new in the game. However, I only play this game for simple enjoyment. I hope both of you play this game for fun as well.

If I am wrong, then great. When we play next, it will add a new way of playing with and against the Tau. However I will not challenge anyone's ability to read or write. 40k is a game, this is a forum for learning for a game.

Lastly Beast, i understand your respect for Yak. But I do not care if you know him or not, how long you or he have played or how many posts he may have made. However when someone simply offers a different opinion or disagrees with you don't need to be rude.

Please do not waste you time replying tot his message. I have allowed this silly conversation to wonder too far already. Enjoy the game and have fun with your friends.

EGHOST
"I fight my own battles, and i fight to win"
Patton

**Beast**

Posted By eghost on 06/29/2007 7:39 AM
Sorry about the typo, i didn't know it would offend you.

If I am wrong, then great. When we play next, it will add a new way of playing with and against the Tau.

However when someone simply offers a different opinion or disagrees with you don't need to be rude.

Typos don't offend me but they annoy most people (to include all of us when GW doesn't catch numerous type-setter mistakes). Using the wrong word completely is not only annoying but causes confusion and doesn't do your credibility any good.

By "a new way of playing with and against the Tau" I assume you mean actually playing by RAW? The way you and all those other players in St Louis you mentioned paly the rule (except whitedragon of course ...) is not RAW and is basically a house rule.

Different opinions and disagreements are fine if it is a subject that hasn't been beaten to death many times in the past. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. Yak was kind enough to restate the rule, again. If you want to rehash old arguments proven wrong then you must expect people to become further annoyed with you. I don't think he was rude to you, I think he responded to your wrong answer (which had been proven wrong many times before) with the frustrations we all felt. But if you felt his response was rude, you should perhaps read the disclaimer in the link to get into YMTC from the 40K forums page.

I don't mean to be overly harsh with you eghost, but your OTT response to yak was an open invitation to explain to you just how in error you were. Welcome to YMTC... Now go forth and have fun in your games. I always do.

**coredump**

... unless you are causing instant death, in which case you are supposed to put the wound on an uninjured model, and pull that model, leaving the wounded model with its wounds.

I believe that is, at best, a grey area; and not specifically dictated by the rules.

**onlainari**

Posted By eghost on 06/28/2007 11:28 AM

Perhaps you should refer to how to have an intelligent conversation. I offered my version and interpretation of the rule and many who agree with me, and when I say many, I refer to oh; basically St Louis area plays this way.

Perhaps we are wrong, and frankly, it would be very interesting if your interpretation were correct. Learning is always exciting and only a fool stops learning.

However your poor choice of words i.e. dead wrong and reading is fundamental comments only leads me to believe that you probably lack the ability to have a conversation without using insults or referring to their ability to read. That leads me to believe that you are very, and let me bold the comment VERY intolerant to other points of view thus damaging your credibility.

I will review the rule again to see if perhaps you are correct, and if so I applaud you in your feverish way of defending your point of view and will endeavor to change we play here in the Midwest (again we do have a hard time reading here, unlike LA and thus may prove neigh impossible). I will try to improve my reading skills; perhaps my second Master's degree will enable my ability to intercept a game to your standards.

However this may take some time, that I do work full time, attend graduate school, spend time with my family, work out and even play 40k with my friends and have fun. I sincerely hope you have picked up on the sarcasm.

If you truly have something to post without reference to anyone's intelligence please do. I will read and possible comment back to you with the respect it deserves.

Thank You
Eghost

This is madness...

THIS IS DAKKA DAKKA

We correct people who think they're right. It's what we do.

**whitedragon**

I'd like to say that I'm not sure what group eghost represents, but I had a very large gaming group in St. Louis and we never played the way he described, and never encountered anyone else that played that way.

So we're not all backwards in the midwest.

**Xellous**

What if there was only one Hammerhead with 2 shield drones. We now have a unit that has ONE multi-wound model and hence does not follow the rules for units that "contains several multiple-wound models". Would it then allow you to place one wound on a broadside then start placing wounds on the drones? The rule stating "wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" so apparently only for units with more then one model with more then one wound. How would this play out?

**kadun**

Posted By Xellous on 07/04/2007 9:58 PM
What if there was only one Hammerhead with 2 shield drones. We now have a unit that has ONE multi-wound model and hence does not follow the rules for units that "contains several multiple-wound models". Would it then allow you to place one wound on a broadside then start placing wounds on the drones? The rule stating "wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" so apparently only for units with more then one model with more then one wound. How would this play out?

I assume you meant Broadside and two Shield Drones. Why don't you just start by placing wounds on the Drones and end by placing a wound on the Broadside.?

**yakface**

Posted By Xellous on 07/04/2007 9:58 PM
What if there was only one [Broadside] with 2 shield drones. We now have a unit that has ONE multi-wound model and hence does not follow the rules for units that "contains several multiple-wound models". Would it then allow you to place one wound on a broadside then start placing wounds on the drones? The rule stating "wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" so apparently only for units with more then one model with more then one wound. How would this play out?

It ends up working exactly the same. Remeber, even in a unit that contains several multi-wound creatures you are always free to allocate wounds to single wound models in the unit.

So either way you can allocate a single wound to a Broadside and put the other wounds on the Shield drones (assuming the unit hasn't suffered more than 3 wounds).