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.

PB wrote:Edit for clarity: The rules of assault were brought up because people said it wouldn't make sense to clarify that an assault could fail due to the lead assaulter dying, if that weren't possible. My only assertion here is that, regardless of whether you remove DT models individually based on their failed DT rolls, or via the Remove Casualties and Complex Units rules, it is still possible for failed assaults to happen due to the lead member of the assault dying.

I think this is the third time he's been told that, without any response.

PB wrote:I'm not adding to the rules, I am clarifying what those lines mean in the context of the rules we are talking about.

Which the rules do not do, your clarification is an excuse to let your logic work. And it DOES add rules and restriction to what is written.

My logic works without adding anything or needing clarification that the game designers thought unnecessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:I think this is the third time he's been told that, without any response.

Because the statement itself is false.

Generally my response was covered in my 5th post here.

Nothing you have written since has changed a thing, so I did not deign to respond.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:I'm not adding to the rules, I am clarifying what those lines mean in the context of the rules we are talking about.

Which the rules do not do, your clarification is an excuse to let your logic work. And it DOES add rules and restriction to what is written.

My logic works without adding anything or needing clarification that the game designers thought unnecessary.

Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

PB wrote:Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

My thoughts precisely. Cheers.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

My thoughts precisely. Cheers.

If you agree the debate is past this point, why argue it?

PB wrote:If you agree the debate is past this point, why argue it?

Mostly because I disagree with you about the resolution.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:If you agree the debate is past this point, why argue it?

Mostly because I disagree with you about the resolution.

Then you don't agree that the debate is past that point.

PB wrote:Then you don't agree that the debate is past that point.

No, I think it is past that point and your assertion that the point is resolved in your favor is mistaken.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Then you don't agree that the debate is past that point.

No, I think it is past that point and your assertion that the point is resolved in your favor is mistaken.

If you think that it was resolved in your favor, I agree, there is no reason for you to continue posting in this thread. Everyone else here who is still debating is way past this point.

The fact that I was quoted by someone that is incorrect is why I posted in this thread again.

The fact that you keep asking me (personally) questions is why I continue to post.

Stop directing posts to me in this thread and I will stop responding to them in this thread .

Editing to add:
Which is exactly what this post meant:

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Unless you can cite specific examples of your claims, I am going to be unable to respond to you -- everything you are talking about has been gone over before with resolution, the debate is already way past this point.

My thoughts precisely. Cheers.

Despite your misinterpretation.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I think this is the third time he's been told that, without any response.

Because the statement itself is false.

Generally my response was covered in my 5th post here.

Nothing you have written since has changed a thing, so I did not deign to respond.

Your 5th post in it's entirety:

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

But that is not what it says.

ElCheezus wrote:The quoted sentence is an attempt an a real-world explanation for why it might work this way. The rule was explained in the first paragraph of the section, and I consider the second paragraph to ultimate have the same weight as fluff. Maybe you disagree, but it feels like an offhand justification from the rules team rather than more rules.

If it was not explaining why a rule works in the game but rather how to describe it in a story I would agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:Actually, there's no specific RAW about which model to remove, only which model is wounded.

And the removal steps you refer to reference a wounded unit.

When a single model is wounded there is no need (or justification) for allocation.

Editing to add:
I think I get why you read it the way you do, but I think you are simply incorrect.
I have never read it that way nor met anyone who played it that way.
I daresay you can say the exact same thing.

Cheers.

Now I have something else to remember to discuss prior to games with new folks.
Thanks!

My unadressed point was that no matter who is right, there's no need for any interpretation or alteration of the assault rules you repeatedly reference. They are entirely neutral to the discussion, support neither side, and wouldn't be changed either way. No matter how many times you bring them up, they still have absolutely no bearing. None of our arguments to that effect have ever been refuted, or even addressed, by you or anyone else.

I looked a few posts forward and backward, for good measure, and didn't find anything. You have completely ignored our explanation of why the passage in the assault rules has no bearing. Yet you keep repeating it as if it might someday mean something.

This was the part I refered to:

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Editing to add:
I think I get why you read it the way you do, but I think you are simply incorrect.
I have never read it that way nor met anyone who played it that way.
I daresay you can say the exact same thing.

Cheers.

Now I have something else to remember to discuss prior to games with new folks.
Thanks!

as for the rest. . .
Your assertion that it is there for unique models is not in the rules.
My assertion that it applies only to the model that takes the wound is.

/shrug

kirsanth wrote:This was the part I refered to:

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Editing to add:
I think I get why you read it the way you do, but I think you are simply incorrect.
I have never read it that way nor met anyone who played it that way.
I daresay you can say the exact same thing.

Cheers.

Now I have something else to remember to discuss prior to games with new folks.
Thanks!

as for the rest. . .
Your assertion that it is there for unique models is not in the rules.
My assertion that it applies only to the model that takes the wound is.

/shrug

Neither your nor our assertions change the rules at all in that section, which seems to be the part you don't understand.

PB wrote:Neither your nor our assertions change the rules at all in that section, which seems to be the part you don't understand.

If that were true there would be no debate. Which seems to be the part you don't understand.

An issue is assuming extra words, not changing the ones that are there.

kirsanth wrote:

PB wrote:Neither your nor our assertions change the rules at all in that section, which seems to be the part you don't understand.

If that were true there would be no debate. Which seems to be the part you don't understand.

An issue is assuming extra words, not changing the ones that are there.

I don't make any assumptions about the words that are written in the rule, they can be followed to the letter regardless of your subscription to one side of this debate or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.


Those are the rules. In either situation (removing models that failed the DT specifically, or by using the Removing Casualties and Complex Units rules) it is possible for a model to be killed by a dangerous terrain test and fail an assault. Given that it is possible under both sets of circumstances, I don't see how that rule can be used to determine which set of rules to use to remove casualties.

ElCheezus wrote:Also, I've addressed before that this isn't about gaining advantage, and that it's an insulting accusation.

I wasn't making an accusation, and I certainly was not trying to be insulting. If it came across that way, my aplolgies, that was not my intent.
As for gaining an advantage, consider the following.

I have a unit of 7 boys, all identical, in 2 rows, 3 across the front and 4 across the back.
The front rank is a bit over 5" away from area terrain that is difficult and dangerous. I roll a '6' and '4' on difficult terrain test so I can move forward 6".

After I move forward 5", I have 3 boys in the terrain, and 4 out. The majority the unit is not in the terrain so the unit does not get a cover save.
Of the 3 boys that moved into the dangerous terrain, 2 passed the dangerous terrain test, and 1 failed it.

By my interpretation, by the rules, the boy that failed the dangerous terrain test is removed. Now there are 2 boys in the cover, and 4 boys not in cover.
Now the majority of the unit is still out of cover and gets no cover save.

By your interpretation, I can remove a boy from the back rank. Now there are 3 boys in cover, and 3 boys not in cover.
Oh! Now half of the unit is in cover and gets a cover save.

So the penalty for failing the dangerous terrain test has been turned into the advantage of getting a cover save.

And that is specifically twisting the rules to gain an advantage.

time wizard wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Also, I've addressed before that this isn't about gaining advantage, and that it's an insulting accusation.

I wasn't making an accusation, and I certainly was not trying to be insulting. If it came across that way, my aplolgies, that was not my intent.
As for gaining an advantage, consider the following.

I have a unit of 7 boys, all identical, in 2 rows, 3 across the front and 4 across the back.
The front rank is a bit over 5" away from area terrain that is difficult and dangerous. I roll a '6' and '4' on difficult terrain test so I can move forward 6".

After I move forward 5", I have 3 boys in the terrain, and 4 out. The majority the unit is not in the terrain so the unit does not get a cover save.
Of the 3 boys that moved into the dangerous terrain, 2 passed the dangerous terrain test, and 1 failed it.

By my interpretation, by the rules, the boy that failed the dangerous terrain test is removed. Now there are 2 boys in the cover, and 4 boys not in cover.
Now the majority of the unit is still out of cover and gets no cover save.

By your interpretation, I can remove a boy from the back rank. Now there are 3 boys in cover, and 3 boys not in cover.
Oh! Now half of the unit is in cover and gets a cover save.

So the penalty for failing the dangerous terrain test has been turned into the advantage of getting a cover save.

And that is specifically twisting the rules to gain an advantage.

It's not twisting the rules to gain an advantage if those are the rules.

If my buddy has a group of 10 necron warriors in two rows exactly 6 inches away and I shoot and kill 5 of them, if he removes the front warriors so I can no longer assault, that's not abusing the rules to gain an advantage, its just following the rules. Here, the penalty for getting shot by my unit has been turned into an advantage, because now I won't get to charge him to assault and wipe him out.

The rules for removing models confer advantages in certain situations.

time wizard wrote:Post about twisting the rules to your advantage

You're right, that's a way to get advantage out of it. You can also get advantage out of the wound allocation rules in the shooting phase by taking high-AP shots on an already doomed model in a complex unit. That's not exactly my point, though.

What I mean is that, if you apply my interpretation here to Gets Hot!, then my chances at casualties in my 4x Plasma CCS for my IG army goes up. If we rolled each model seperately, then rolling double 1's would still only kill one model. If we roll them all together, I could roll 5 1's, save one, and still lose all four Plasmas. Heck, if only one guy fires and rolls snakeyes, I could lose two models from one gun. While this doesn't "make sense," it follows the rules.

You method for gets hot! does not follow the rules for gets hot! weapons and rolls.

Be that as it may, at this point, all I can do is extend my hand, say "Nice game, you win", pack up my stuff, and leave.

time wizard wrote:You method for gets hot! does not follow the rules for gets hot! weapons and rolls.

Be that as it may, at this point, all I can do is extend my hand, say "Nice game, you win", pack up my stuff, and leave.

Just saying something doesn't follow the rules doesn't mean it isn't following the rules. In a forum about debating rules, it is necessary to cite the rulebook.

I'm sorry we could convince you. Maybe if I get time I'll type everything out at once, with examples and full references to make it clear. I think using Galador's example works pretty well, except he stopped juuuuuust short of coming to the same conclusions we do.

But you're right. This last page or two have just been going back and forth without any change to the arguments presented, so there's no poing in going on unless someone has something new, which I'll be happy to address.

ElCheezus wrote:Get's Hot is the same situation as DT tests, in my book. I know that seems like a whole other can of worms, but in both cases the rules tell you how to allocate the wound, not how to resolve casualties. It was a rules threat about Gets Hot!, actually, that changed my mind about all this from the way I used to play it (the way you're advocating).

Having taken the time to read the entire thread so far, I have come to understand a few things:

1. I and my FLGS interpret and play the way time wizard, kirsanth, and others advocate.

2. I think I understand the position of ElCheezus and company that, as both sides have said and agree, normal wound allocation doesn't apply, however, and this appears to be one of the many cruxes of the issue, that normal casualty removal does apply.

While I don't agree with your position, ElCheezus, I am rather curious about the thread you mentioned reading about Gets Hot! that changed your mind in the first place. I think possibly reading what is written in that thread could give either further insight to either side and would satisfy my own personal curiosity. So with that said, ElCheezus, would you be so kind to provide a link to the thread in question that caused you to change your mind, and would perhaps allow others to understand your point of view better and why you did change your mind as it seems to me that you used to think and play the way I and others still do.

Edit: Spelling fail, causality, casualty, same difference, right?

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Get's Hot is the same situation as DT tests, in my book. I know that seems like a whole other can of worms, but in both cases the rules tell you how to allocate the wound, not how to resolve casualties. It was a rules threat about Gets Hot!, actually, that changed my mind about all this from the way I used to play it (the way you're advocating).

Having taken the time to read the entire thread so far, I have come to understand a few things:

1. I and my FLGS interpret and play the way time wizard, kirsanth, and others advocate.

2. I think I understand the position of ElCheezus and company that, as both sides have said and agree, normal wound allocation doesn't apply, however, and this appears to be one of the many cruxes of the issue, that normal causality removal does apply.

While I don't agree with your position, ElCheezus, I am rather curious about the thread you mentioned reading about Gets Hot! that changed your mind in the first place. I think possibly reading what is written in that thread could give either further insight to either side and would satisfy my own personal curiosity. So with that said, ElCheezus, would you be so kind to provide a link to the thread in question that caused you to change your mind, and would perhaps allow others to understand your point of view better and why you did change your mind as it seems to me that you used to think and play the way I and others still do.

Yeah, I'll dig for it. It was a while ago, though, few months maybe? Ultimately, that was the first time I realized the wording of the Remove Casualties section, and reread all of the rules to see if there was a reason they wouldn't apply. Honestly, on pg. 5 of this thread Galador's step-by-step process is pretty good, except where I say he stops short. I suggest following along with that post, and my response, with the BRB open to see if you agree with each step. (and of course, if you agree with my conclusion)

I'll look for a link in the meantime.

Here it is, I was disagreeing on pg 1. It was -Nazdreg-'s arguments that convinced me (which doesn't happen often [/snark])
(http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/345312.page)

terranarc wrote:Is dangerous terrain test done per model or is it allocatable? Like say I have a squad of 10 with a sarge and they ALL walk in to a minefield. Do I roll for the sarge separately or do I just roll 10d6 and allocated the DT 1 results?

Thanks in advance.

While I know that this will cause howls in some/most quarters, I would refer you to the 'Fast Rolling' on page 18.

I know that this refers to shooting weapons, but then shooting also asks you to roll to hit for each shot, and I don't see anyone here advocating that you have to roll individually for every identical shot.

In your example above, using 9 bolter armed marines and 1 sarge, you would roll 9d6 and 1d6. If the sarge rolls a 1 he's gone. Remove X number bolters to meet whatever number of 1s you rolled on the 9d6.

Assault is where I think the rules diverge.

Because you must check to see if you are in range to assault, you must test individually until such time as the assault succeeds at which point use the fast rolling method.

That initial model is unique because it is the only one subject to the DT rule at that point. The assault rules calls it out as the 'test' model if you like. And as such will not be subject to the normal wound/casualty removal discussion going on here.

YMMV

Cheers

Andrew

ElCheezus wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Truth is not democratic.

Nothing to do with democracy. It's called Common Sense. Oh, well.

ElCheezus wrote:Edit: "Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative." Wiki has a decent article on it.

Read it, a while back. You've got the definition well enough, but you still don't know what one is. This following is a fallacy of "appeal to authority":
"I've been an Audi mechanic for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

The following is *not* a fallacy:
"I've been an oncologist for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

Understand the difference? Anyway, I bow out. Pull you models as you see fit, and see how the guy across the table reacts.

Brothererekose wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:ElCheezus, the majority of posters here are arguing against you. That ought to tell you that you've got it wrong.

Truth is not democratic.

Nothing to do with democracy. It's called Common Sense. Oh, well.

ElCheezus wrote:Edit: "Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative." Wiki has a decent article on it.

Read it, a while back. You've got the definition well enough, but you still don't know what one is. This following is a fallacy of "appeal to authority":
"I've been an Audi mechanic for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

The following is *not* a fallacy:
"I've been an oncologist for 28 years, and after looking at your X-ray and MRI, I can definitely say you've got cancer."

Understand the difference? Anyway, I bow out. Pull you models as you see fit, and see how the guy across the table reacts.

It appears you don't understand formal logic.

In this case, Common Sense is wrong. That happens, too, and more often than most people realize (which is an obvious statement, now that I think about it, funny).

The point is that we have the tools to make a decision for ourselves. If you have two oranges and two apples and understand addition, you don't need to call your grade school teacher to tell you there are four pieces of fruit. If you call for an answer, and then play it that way, your only reason is "because Jim said so." If you figure the answer, then you can explain it when someone asks you. That's why the "call GW" answer doesn't satisfy me.

Of course, there are a ton of gray areas in GW's crappy rules writing, so sometimes the answer is "wait for a FAQ." In that case, the authority is all we have. I don't think this is one of those, though.

Ok, I've walked away, I've calmed down, and rethought a few things, so back to put a new spin on this, maybe....

I asked a few pages back, and even cited examples on this, of which rule was more specific, the Dangerous Terrain or the Remove Casualties rule. Still haven't received an answer on this, so please, answer this first. I cited many more areas that the Remove Casualties rule is used than the dangerous terrain test rule, so I think that it is more specific, but lets see what you come up with.

Specific overrules general, that one we all know. So, if the Dangerous Terrain is more specific, we must follow it, and it says that the model that failed the test suffers the wound, so the model that was wounded is removed. IF a rule cites a specific model, which Dangerous terrain does, then you must follow that rule. Now, I understand where you are coming from with the Remove Casualties section, however, Dangerous terrain removes your ability to take another model off the board because it says that the specific model that failed the test suffered the wound, and while RC says that any model that is identical may be removed, it states that for a unit's wounds, not a model's wounds. When a rule targets a specific model for something, you must have the effects target that model also, not another one in the squad.




I also stated a few pages back that Dangerous terrain is a special rule, and it is, because it is a special rule in the movement phase, because only individual models must take the test, and not whole units. My example for reference here is Difficult terrain, where if even one model enters, moves through, or exits difficult terrain, the whole unit must test. So if you must do that for difficult terrain, why doesn't the entire unit have to take a test for Dangerous terrain if only one model enters, moves through, or exits?? Because the rules tell us that it is only the model that moved in the Dangerous Terrain that might be wounded by it, not the entire unit. Hence, it is a special rule for certain types of terrain, and thus, the model moving through it has just become unique in gaming terms! Whether dangerous terrain is specifically listed as a special rule or not is irrelevant. Due to the way it works differently than regular movement, that makes it special, just as difficult terrain is a special rule for movement, as it works differently than normal movement.

Eagerly awaiting your responses.

First of all, thank you ElCheezus for posting the link, that thread was a good read as well. Secondly, I think I found a new argument that has not yet been presented that might shed some light on this issue.

From the BRB FAQ 1.2:

"Q: If a gun from an artillery unit fails a dangerous terrain
test, what happens to it? (p55)
A: As this is comparable to suffering a result from the
Vehicle Damage chart (and to preserve our sanity if I
answer otherwise), the gun is destroyed."

From the reading of this answer from the BRB FAQ, I come to the conclusion that even in a squadron of Artillery units, the specific gun that fails the Dangerous Terrain test is the one to be destroyed and one is not given permission to remove one with the same stats from the same unit. I know it is not much, but it seems to show some inkling of intent on GW's part of how DT is, dare I say, supposed to work.

I'll keep looking for what more I can find, but at least it is something new to discuss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For fun: Remind me next time that I let someone else play using my models, that I, as the owning player of said models, can choose which of my models are removed per Remove Casualties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More craziness: Searching the BRB for 'wound' and then for 'suffer' I have come to a few conclusions:

1. What happens when a singular specific model that "suffers" a wound that is also not a unit on its own does not appear to be defined at all in the BRB.

2. Sad as it is, "suffering a wound" or any like phrasing is, for my tastes and this thread, is not adequately defined in the BRB.

3. For all those looking for the whole unsaved wound subtracting from a model's Wound Characteristic, it is under Multiple-Wound Models BRB page 26:

"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved
wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the
model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a
casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be
killed after it had been wounded three times)"

By strictest reading of that, the whole "loses one Wound from its profile" business only applies to multiple Wound models, as silly as that seems.

I'll keep looking to see what else I can find.

Re: Galador

Your argument is that dangerous terrain is more specific, and tells us to remove the model that triggered the test: RC doesn't apply because it's about "units" wound instead of "models" wounds. My argument in return is that a model's unsaved wound becomes the unit's (or group of identical models') unsaved wounds. This is because we only have two specific cases where a single model can take a wound: a single model unit, and a model that stands out in game terms. Obviously, I also argue that neither of those apply.

Which leads to your next argument, that "suffering a dangerous terrain test" makes a model unique in game terms, as it is a Special Rule. I also disagree here. My view is that, in every unit's entry in a codex, "Special Rules" is a specific section, where the unit's Special Rules are listed. For example, from the IG codex entry for Lord Commissar:

Special Rules:
Independent Character
Stubborn
Summary Execution
Aura of Discipline

Since all of the other determining factors for whether a model is unique are based off of its codex entry, I find it perfectly logical to look there for the Special Rules. Whenever a character gains a special rule during the game, it's specifically announced. Again, from the IG codex, this time for Straken, "Friendly units within 12" of Straken have the Counter-attack and Furious Charge universal special rules." I can't think of any time the gaining of a Special Rule isn't announced, and DT doesn't mention that they gain any rules.

If Special Rules were more vague instead of having a section in every entry in every codex, your argument would have more traction.

Evil Lamp 6: Can there ever be two guns in an artillery unit? If not, then the gun is always unique in gaming terms, so I'm not sure this bit from the FAQ sheds any light.

Yes, grot artillery units can have up to 3

It kind of proves the point that the model that managed to trip over and kill themselves did, actually, kill themselves and not the guy further back in the unit who didnt have a problem