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.

This came up in a game this weekend. Maybe you guys could point out the correct way to do things with a page and paragraph so I can get my buddy to shut up about it. Or I can eat crow.

I was shooting at a unit of 2 Obliterators with my 6 man Las/Plas Space marine squad. I rolled for the bolters first and scored two wounds which he saved. I next rolled for the Plasma rifle, scored a hit and wound, he failed his save. He put a wound on one of his Obliterators. I last fired with the Lascannon, scoring a hit and wound, he failed his save.
He proceeds to take the model with the 1 remaining wound off the table. I objected, stating that you have to spread wounds around unit before you can put a second one on a model. He then shows me the multiple wound model rule, where it says they are the exception, and you must remove whole models where possible.

So basically, because I shot my plasma rifle before my Las cannon, did I screw myself out of a wound?!

Again paragraphs/page numbers in any answer would be most helpful.

Thank you in advance.

Basically, yes, to my understanding. As for page refs, the rules for multiple wound models pretty much covers it.

BGB, page 27, under 'Creatures With More Than One Wound'

Only 90% sure since the rule book is at my mates but I think your main problem was that you are meant to roll all the Bolter, plasma and lascannon shots and wounds before he makes any saves. They are all shot at the same time so you don't actually shoot your plasma before your lascannon. This probably won't change the outcome as he can just say the two bolter shots hit guy A and the other weapons hit guy B.

But if I'm wrong and you play it one after the other, my only suggestion would be do the big guns first.

you are correct Jeebus: all shots and wounding rolls should be made first before any saves are made.

Models in mutiwound units don't take individual wounds at all. The wound floats until you rack up enough to remove a whole model.

Indeed he should have pulled a model and there still would be a wound on the other.

The only way that works is if the shots come from different units. If a unit with a plasma gun causes an unsaved wound, then a unit with a lascannon causes an unsaved wound, the other player can assign the lascannon hit to the model wounded by the previous unit's shooting. But if a single unit's shooting causes both wounds, the other player has to remove a model from the lascannon shot, and then assign the remaining wound to another model.

Falls under "you can't spread wounds around to avoid removing casualties."

mauleed wrote:Models in mutiwound units don't take individual wounds at all. The wound floats until you rack up enough to remove a whole model.

Indeed he should have pulled a model and there still would be a wound on the other.

there is no such thing as floating wounds, Multi-wound models take wounds just like any other model other then the fact that you have to apply to one model till it dies before applying wounds to another multi-wound model.

The GW stance is that whole equals unwounded, so your opponent was wrong. This is one of the few items that the UK GT FAQ got right.

mauleed wrote:Models in mutiwound units don't take individual wounds at all. The wound floats until you rack up enough to remove a whole model.

Indeed he should have pulled a model and there still would be a wound on the other.

I think you're thinking back to 3rd edition, where such a concept was true. There is nothing in the 4th edition rules to support the idea of floating wounds.

don_mondo wrote:The GW stance is that whole equals unwounded, so your opponent was wrong. This is one of the few items that the UK GT FAQ got right.

GW doesn't support any such stance and the UK GT FAQ is a set of house rules written by the event organizer with no officiality whatsoever.


As for the answer to the original question, it is a very muddy issue that is played differently by many people. That said, it is highly, highly uncommon for someone, from a single enemy unit's shooting to be allowed to allocate a wound to a multi-wound model and then allocate another wound to the same model that would cause instant death.

I suggest checking out these polls I ran to get an idea of the spread of different opinions on the issue:


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/110701.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/110704.page

yakface wrote:

don_mondo wrote:The GW stance is that whole equals unwounded, so your opponent was wrong. This is one of the few items that the UK GT FAQ got right.

GW doesn't support any such stance and the UK GT FAQ is a set of house rules written by the event organizer with no officiality whatsoever.

I have quotes/emails from Andy Hoare that say otherwise, along with personal conversations with Jervis.................. I'll rephrase, the FAQ actually got one right, based on the studio's stance re this particular rule.

Basically when they rewrote the rule for 4th, they based it off of the 3rd ed rule which does very specifically state that whole = unwounded, they didn't think it needed further clarification and 'tightened' it up. So now we suffer for it.

don_mondo wrote:

I have quotes/emails from Andy Hoare that say otherwise, along with personal conversations with Jervis.................. I'll rephrase, the FAQ actually got one right, based on the studio's stance re this particular rule.

Basically when they rewrote the rule for 4th, they based it off of the 3rd ed rule which does very specifically state that whole = unwounded, they didn't think it needed further clarification and 'tightened' it up. So now we suffer for it.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you don't check for instant death until after a model is wounded by something that causes instant death. Technically speaking it is impossible to cause instant death to an unwounded (whole) model by the normal instant death rules.

yakface wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

I have quotes/emails from Andy Hoare that say otherwise, along with personal conversations with Jervis.................. I'll rephrase, the FAQ actually got one right, based on the studio's stance re this particular rule.

Basically when they rewrote the rule for 4th, they based it off of the 3rd ed rule which does very specifically state that whole = unwounded, they didn't think it needed further clarification and 'tightened' it up. So now we suffer for it.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you don't check for instant death until after a model is wounded by something that causes instant death. Technically speaking it is impossible to cause instant death to an unwounded (whole) model by the normal instant death rules.

Not sure I follow your line of reasoning. The three applicable steps in the shooting process are:
4. Roll to Wound
5. Make saving throws
6. Remove casualties

4. you're going to differentiate somehow if there are different strength weapons, so you know if the instant death hit causes a wound, good so far.
5. knowing that the wound can cause Instant Death, again, you differentiate the die from the others. Still good.
6. Once the number of hits and wounds is determined, you remove casualties. OK, let's say that the previous steps gave us one wound that causes ID and one that doesn't, now we remove casualties based on those wounds. Following the multiple wounds section, we have to assign the ID wound to a whole model and then apply the non_ID wound to another model )a previously wounded one, if possible). Seems rather simple and straightforward to me.

don_mondo wrote:

Not sure I follow your line of reasoning. The three applicable steps in the shooting process are:
4. Roll to Wound
5. Make saving throws
6. Remove casualties

4. you're going to differentiate somehow if there are different strength weapons, so you know if the instant death hit causes a wound, good so far.
5. knowing that the wound can cause Instant Death, again, you differentiate the die from the others. Still good.
6. Once the number of hits and wounds is determined, you remove casualties. OK, let's say that the previous steps gave us one wound that causes ID and one that doesn't, now we remove casualties based on those wounds. Following the multiple wounds section, we have to assign the ID wound to a whole model and then apply the non_ID wound to another model )a previously wounded one, if possible). Seems rather simple and straightforward to me.

Just to prove my point, I'll use an extreme example:

Tomb Spyders with Scarabs. In reality, they have different armor saves which invokes the majority armor save rule, but for the sake of argument, let's imagine they have the same armor save.

The unit (with a Tomb Spyder and a Scarab) has a previously wounded Scarab in it (with 2 wounds left), and it takes a Lascannon wound. Allocated against the Tomb Spyder, it will cause only a single wound, but allocated against the Scarabs it would cause instant death. Which model must receive the Lascannon wound and why? And would this change if the unit also suffered two Bolter wounds from the same enemy unit?

In short, is the owning player always forced to inflict the maximum amount of damage on his unit, no matter what? And if that is indeed the case, then the rules are woefully inadequate in describing that restriction.

Interesting. I was in the "whole" model line of thinking as well.

Not much of a big deal. I guess I will just shoot my instant death weapons at multiple wound units first from now on to be sure.

Thanks.

Now, I don't have my rulebook handy, so this MAY be a house rule.
I've never seen it IN the book but, then again, I've never looked for it.

It's my understanding, however, that you have to ASSIGN all shots. The defending player gets to CHOOSE which model gets which shot, with every model in the unit being targeted before you can double up on any others. Additionally, you have to allocate these shots based on wounds... in other words, a 3 wound model gets 3 saves before you can double up on any others in his unit (let's assume it's an HQ with a command squad or an IC thats joined the unit)

That being the case, this is simple.
The wounds are all coming from the same unit, so are assumed to be inflicted at the same time, regardless of what order they're rolled in.
You have 2 bolter wounds, one las wound, one plas wound... Allocate & roll saves.

IMO, a smarter player will allocate the Las & Plas to the same model, since the chances of him making those saves is minimal. Give both bolter saves to the other guy since he'll likely MAKE both of his saves (at 2+).

The end result is the same as how it turned out in your game... but run differently.

Eric

yakface wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

Not sure I follow your line of reasoning. The three applicable steps in the shooting process are:
4. Roll to Wound
5. Make saving throws
6. Remove casualties

4. you're going to differentiate somehow if there are different strength weapons, so you know if the instant death hit causes a wound, good so far.
5. knowing that the wound can cause Instant Death, again, you differentiate the die from the others. Still good.
6. Once the number of hits and wounds is determined, you remove casualties. OK, let's say that the previous steps gave us one wound that causes ID and one that doesn't, now we remove casualties based on those wounds. Following the multiple wounds section, we have to assign the ID wound to a whole model and then apply the non_ID wound to another model )a previously wounded one, if possible). Seems rather simple and straightforward to me.

Just to prove my point, I'll use an extreme example:

Tomb Spyders with Scarabs. In reality, they have different armor saves which invokes the majority armor save rule, but for the sake of argument, let's imagine they have the same armor save.

The unit (with a Tomb Spyder and a Scarab) has a previously wounded Scarab in it (with 2 wounds left), and it takes a Lascannon wound. Allocated against the Tomb Spyder, it will cause only a single wound, but allocated against the Scarabs it would cause instant death. Which model must receive the Lascannon wound and why? And would this change if the unit also suffered two Bolter wounds from the same enemy unit?

In short, is the owning player always forced to inflict the maximum amount of damage on his unit, no matter what? And if that is indeed the case, then the rules are woefully inadequate in describing that restriction.

Sure, there will always be some possible example for any given rule to prove that it doesn't work. Can't think of a real example that meets the necessary criteria, ie different toughness but same armor save. Anyways, that's where the phrase "whenever possible" comes in. Under the circumstances you have laid out, it's not possible to remove a whole (ie unwounded) model. So at that point the rule basically becomes moot as you are unable to follow it. Now I personally would indeed take the wounds so as to maximize casualties, as that's what I perceive the intent to be. But under your example, I would not insist that my opponent do so and allow him to assign the wounding hits as he desires, basically falling back on standard rules since we are unable to follow the special rule.

Just thought of an example, an Independent Commissar attached to an Ogryn squad, hit by a ST 6 or 7 weapon.

And MagickalMemories, that's not in the rules any more, but was back in 3rd ed.......... The example using Orks on page 24 under Armour Piercing Weapons merely says to remove models that get no save first and then roll your armor saves (assuming single armor value) and remove one model for each failed save. Then repeats the example with Marines on page 26 under Remove Casualties Torrent of Fire explanation and says the same thing.

don_mondo wrote:

Sure, there will always be some possible example for any given rule to prove that it doesn't work. Can't think of a real example that meets the necessary criteria, ie different toughness but same armor save. Anyways, that's where the phrase "whenever possible" comes in. Under the circumstances you have laid out, it's not possible to remove a whole (ie unwounded) model. So at that point the rule basically becomes moot as you are unable to follow it. Now I personally would indeed take the wounds so as to maximize casualties, as that's what I perceive the intent to be. But under your example, I would not insist that my opponent do so and allow him to assign the wounding hits as he desires, basically falling back on standard rules since we are unable to follow the special rule.

Just thought of an example, an Independent Commissar attached to an Ogryn squad, hit by a ST 6 or 7 weapon.

And MagickalMemories, that's not in the rules any more, but was back in 3rd ed.......... The example using Orks on page 24 under Armour Piercing Weapons merely says to remove models that get no save first and then roll your armor saves (assuming single armor value) and remove one model for each failed save. Then repeats the example with Marines on page 26 under Remove Casualties Torrent of Fire explanation and says the same thing.

The thing is, you've seemed to miss my main point. Instant Death is a special rule that only occurs when certain criteria are met. The rules for assigning wounds to multi-wound creatures are rules for just that: assigning wounds to models in order to remove casualties. Whehter or not a wound will cause instant death shouldn't have any affect on the casualty removal rules because they are not written in a way that even takes instant death into account.

If our goal is always to maximize the absolute potential casualties, when someone like Typhus comes along (who can use a special ability to kill any multi-wound creature he wounds but doesn't kill) would we be mandated to spread his wounds around the multi-wound unit in the hopes that he kills each and every multi-wound model in the unit?

No? Is that because the effect isn't a sure-thing? But ultimately, what is the difference between Typhus's special rule and the normal rule for instant death? Both are checked for after wounds have been assigned to models.

But you would claim that we have to use the foresight to include the effects of special rules (in this case, instant death) into the restrictions for casualty removal, something that is not called for in the rules.


The Ogryn with Commissar exmample is perfect. If the unit was hit by a S6 weapon, by your claims we would be compelled to put that wound on the Commissar in order to cause instant death. However this course of action is not mandated by the rules, only that WOUNDS not be spread around to avoid taking casualties. Whether or not those wounds happen to cause instant death are immaterial based on the RAW.

And from a gampelay (intent) perspective:

a) The owning player is supposed to generally have the choice as to which models are removed as casualties in his unit, not be mandated to kill off a model just because the unit happened to be hit by a weapon with the perfect strength to kill him and not other models in the unit.

b) Playing the game this way makes multi-wound creatures who are susceptible to instant death even worse than they already are (and GW already over-inflates the point costs of such models to an absurd level already).

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I see the multiwound Instant Death as part of the casualty removal, you don't. So be it.

don_mondo wrote:We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I see the multiwound Instant Death as part of the casualty removal, you don't. So be it.

But with something like Typhus's instant death ability I assume you wouldn't push for the maximum amount of damage and spread his wounds around the unit trying to kill every model?

So ultimately what is the difference between Typhus's instant death ability and regular instant death? The fact that regular instant death doesn't have a roll involved? Because there really shouldn't be a difference between the two when it comes to assigning wounds.

Either you are forced to assign wounds based upon maximum damage or you assign wounds based solely upon wounds without special rules being factored in.

yakface wrote:

don_mondo wrote:We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I see the multiwound Instant Death as part of the casualty removal, you don't. So be it.

But with something like Typhus's instant death ability I assume you wouldn't push for the maximum amount of damage and spread his wounds around the unit trying to kill every model?

So ultimately what is the difference between Typhus's instant death ability and regular instant death? The fact that regular instant death doesn't have a roll involved? Because there really shouldn't be a difference between the two when it comes to assigning wounds.

Either you are forced to assign wounds based upon maximum damage or you assign wounds based solely upon wounds without special rules being factored in.

Have to wait until I get home and actually read Typhus' rules before I can respond............... Have the main rulebook here at work but not the codexes.

don_mondo wrote:

Have to wait until I get home and actually read Typhus' rules before I can respond............... Have the main rulebook here at work but not the codexes.

Typhus basically has a force weapon that he can (apparently) use against every model he wounds:

"any model wounded but not killed by the Manreaper can be killed by Typhus with a successful Psychic test, following all the rules for a normal force weapon. Typhus may take the test even if he has used one of his psychic powers in the same turn."


But the point I'm trying to make isn't centered around Typhus but rather the flaw in the idea that a special rule which removes models affects the basic casualty removal rules.


Another example:

Say a unit of Ogryns has a model with one wound lost and it then suffers a Lascannon wound and two plasmagun wounds.

In example A: The player places the two plasmagun wounds onto the wounded model and then places the Lascannon onto an unwounded model causing instant death. Two Ogryns are lost.

In example B: The player places the Lascannon blast on the wounded model (killing him due to instant death) and then places the two plasmagun wounds onto a previously unwounded model (leaving the model with one wound). One Ogryn is lost.


My argument is simple:

The casualty removal rules only stipulate that WOUNDS are not spread around to avoid removing casualties. Whether or not any of those wounds have the ability to cause instant death (like a Lascannon shot vs. a T4 model does, or like Typhus's attacks do against any non-vehicle model) have no bearing on how this rule functions, because nothing in the casualty removal rules states that they do.

In both examples, wounds have not been spread around in order to avoid removing casualties just that in example B the wounds were allocated in a way that less damage was inflicted. The wounds themselves weren't spread differently (all the wounds still went on the same two models).

The wounds themselves must not be spread around, but whether or not those wounds have special potential to cause additional damage cannot be included in this computation. Otherwise you run into a situation like with Typhus, where you have a model that has the potential to kill every model he wounds.

Following the formula of removing whole models wherever possible, why wouldn't the mandate be to spread those wounds to every model in the unit in an attempt to kill them all?


Do you see the flaw?

yakface wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

Have to wait until I get home and actually read Typhus' rules before I can respond............... Have the main rulebook here at work but not the codexes.

Typhus basically has a force weapon that he can (apparently) use against every model he wounds:

"any model wounded but not killed by the Manreaper can be killed by Typhus with a successful Psychic test, following all the rules for a normal force weapon. Typhus may take the test even if he has used one of his psychic powers in the same turn."


But the point I'm trying to make isn't centered around Typhus but rather the flaw in the idea that a special rule which removes models affects the basic casualty removal rules.


Another example:

Say a unit of Ogryns has a model with one wound lost and it then suffers a Lascannon wound and two plasmagun wounds.

In example A: The player places the two plasmagun wounds onto the wounded model and then places the Lascannon onto an unwounded model causing instant death. Two Ogryns are lost.

In example B: The player places the Lascannon blast on the wounded model (killing him due to instant death) and then places the two plasmagun wounds onto a previously unwounded model (leaving the model with one wound). One Ogryn is lost.


My argument is simple:

The casualty removal rules only stipulate that WOUNDS are not spread around to avoid removing casualties. Whether or not any of those wounds have the ability to cause instant death (like a Lascannon shot vs. a T4 model does, or like Typhus's attacks do against any non-vehicle model) have no bearing on how this rule functions, because nothing in the casualty removal rules states that they do.

In both examples, wounds have not been spread around in order to avoid removing casualties just that in example B the wounds were allocated in a way that less damage was inflicted. The wounds themselves weren't spread differently (all the wounds still went on the same two models).

The wounds themselves must not be spread around, but whether or not those wounds have special potential to cause additional damage cannot be included in this computation. Otherwise you run into a situation like with Typhus, where you have a model that has the potential to kill every model he wounds.

Following the formula of removing whole models wherever possible, why wouldn't the mandate be to spread those wounds to every model in the unit in an attempt to kill them all?


Do you see the flaw?

I do see what you saying. However, IMO, the casualty removal rules are modified by the requirement in the multi wound section (which IS part of the Remove Casuaties rules) to remove whole (unwounded) models whenever possible. This necessitates the allocation of the Instant Death wound onto an unwounded model whenever possible. It's really no different than range and/or LOS issues which can also modify which models the owning player is able to allocate wounds to and/or remove as casualties. So example A for the Ogryns is the correct way to do it, otherwise you ARE allocating wounds in such a fashion so as to minimize casualties.

Here's the thread from our local forum that includes Andy hoare's response:

First Poster:
My interpretation of this rule is as follows:

If you have a unit that is made up of several multi wound models you would place wounds given on one model until it is remove than continue the same way until all wounds are distributed.

With that being said, it has been brought up that if you have a situation were 2 different types of weapons inflict wounds (1 double the T of unit, 1 not double the T of unit) that the opponent may place the weaker wound on a model and than place the strong wound on the same model to remove it, in essence saving himself removing a model and giving another 1 wound.

After re-reading the rule on this on page 27 of the main rule book, I believe that this practice in not accurate. The rule states "you must remove whole multi-wound models as casualties where possible". To me this means that if it is possible for a model to be removed from a weapon that would insta-kill a model that model would have to be removed, and then the second wound would be place on another model.

What do you guys think? Am I right or wrong in my interpretation?

Second Poster:
On IFL, they didn't come to a conclusion (as far as I know). The way I played it the other day was the same way I tell everyone else to play it. I took 2 wounds, one from a S8 and one from a S3. I took the S3 wound on a model, then followed up with the S8 wound on the same model.

I tell all of my opponents to do the same. It is my understanding, that if you take multiple wounding hits, you can assign where the wounds go, and assign the non-insta kill wound first.

Also, if you have a multi-wound unit with one model already having a wound, you would instakill the model with a wound already on it, not a "fresh" model.

All of that being said, the rules as written are unclear (at least to me). If the club as a whole prefers to play it that an instakill type wound removes an unwounded model, I'm cool with that. I'd love to kill scarabs faster.

Andy's response:
Hi mate

It is a tricky passage of the rules, but the first poster is essentially correct. The second poster is on shaky moral ground, and whether he gets away with his interpretation will largely depend on his opponent’s patience

Cheers

Andy

I then followed this up with a conversation with Jervis where we went more into it and he agreed with Andy's response. This conversation is also where I confirmed that whole = unwounded ( I already believed that but others seemed to think it meant a model missing an arm or something, anyways, they disagreed that whole = unwounded). We can keep going round and round on this, but you're not going to change my mind on it and I'm not going to change your mind on it. I'll agree it could use an FAQ similar to the one from 3rd ed, ie the whole floating wound description or some sort of clarification as it keeps coming up over and over.

So, have we beat it to death yet?

I assume that this is only referring to wounds that are applied in a single phase. For instance:

A Force commander and chappie are all that is left of a command squad. The FC has not lost any wounds the chappie only has one left, neither has a mantle and the unit is hit by a missile causing instant death. This could still be put on the wounded chaplain and does not have to go on the FC. Currently the unit, is just that, a unit. So how would these wounds apply.

Or say a unit of ogryns has one wounded model and 3 unwounded models at the start of the shooting turn. Only one weapon is found to be in range and that is a missile launcher which wounds. Does the wound have to go on a new unwounded model or can the already wounded model be removed?

Orion

Orion_44 wrote:I assume that this is only referring to wounds that are applied in a single phase. For instance:

A Force commander and chappie are all that is left of a command squad. The FC has not lost any wounds the chappie only has one left, neither has a mantle and the unit is hit by a missile causing instant death. This could still be put on the wounded chaplain and does not have to go on the FC. Currently the unit, is just that, a unit. So how would these wounds apply.

The commander and chappie revert to full ICs when the command squad dies, they are no longer one unit.

Then assume they are Black Templars and the Chappie is part of the squad.

Orion

Orion_44 wrote:Then assume they are Black Templars and the Chappie is part of the squad.

Orion

In that case the multiple wound model rule does not apply as you do not have "several multiple wound models" in the unit. So put it where you want it.