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.

Hey gang. I'm noob to these forums but clearly this is a place I'll be highly entertained to come to. I'm a bit of a rules person myself, being a DCI level 1 judge for Magic. Its no small feat as some people might imply. But...on to my question. I'm in a bit of a discussion with another group of forum go'ers on another site about RAW regarding what the FAQ describes as RB.27.01B. The discussion is about RAW, not intent, and not what people 'play by because its fair'. I note that you have the same conclusion that all of them support, that you have to 'build towards removing models' but then I also note its followed by [Rules Change].

My question is...what was the RAW before the [rules change]?

I have no trouble abiding by the change, and I already play it that way myself. But the debate is RAW.

My argument is as follows in this scenario: I have 3 Ripper bases in CC with an IG squad. The IG squad causes one wound in the first round of the combat. Easy enough to complete Step 6 of the Remove Casualties, I take a wound on Model A. Next round I take another SINGLE wound, now lies the concern. I can't remove a model this round by placing that wound on Model A, so that condition is satisfied. RAW says nothing about building towards it being removed, and there is no logical application of 'spreading' a single wound on this round of combat, ergo I place that wound on Model B. Repeat same on round 3 on Model C.

Again, this is purely RAW and I'd like to see if that was the same conclusion here which necessitated the [rules change]

Thanks gang.

I may be out of line 'bumping' this, but 48 views (no, not all me!) and no one has any input to this? Should I rephrase the question?

Nurglitch? Yak? Could either of you weigh in quickly? Even with a 'yes the original version was as you describe' or 'no. You're crazy, shut the hell up already'.

Something?

Normally I'm more patient then this.

First off, I can't directly answer your question because I never recall playing the rule differently than it seems to be intended.

I think Yak put [rules change] to make clear that your RAW could be validly argued but was not the interpretation they were supporting. I am of course not speaking officially for Yak.

That said when the rules grow beardy I always lean towards deference to my opponent. That way there's never a question about the legitimacy of my win. In theory things like this at the intersection of RAW / RAI shouldn't come up often enough that I need any one interpretation to win. Assuming other things go my way... which they often don't.

But anyhow, maybe my reply will inspire others to post their views.

Thank you Dr Phibes, I appreciate the responce and the honesty.

I also have no trouble playing according to the FAQ Yak's put up and his modification of the rule (if that is what it is as I suspect). 40k isn't a 'powergame' for me that I feel the need to win by 'rules lawyering'. But...we're not playing a game right now, so this situation has proved to be a good mental exercise into pure RAW.

By RAW you can indeed do as you described, by RAI as stated by the studio, once you've accumulated enough wounds you remove a model, regardless of where the wounds were placed. That's nearly a direct quote as best as I can recall.

Thanks don_mondo. I was sure of that. Some peopel still strongly disagree with me on RAW however. Not sure what they are missing. Anyone else have anything to add to this? Better examples then I can think of?

Yak or Nurglitch in particular?

The problem with your RAW is you're adding something that isn't in the rules. The mandate to not spread wounds around isn't limited to a single round of model removals. By placing the the wound on Model B, you have spread wounds to avoid removing Model A as a casualty.

I have to say it pretty clearly states WHEN the wounds are placed and have yet to see anyone make an argument succesfully displaying how these wound-tallys carry over between Step-6 to Step-6, even on the same turn.

So your argument on that point is I'm avoiding Removing that model in the future IF the unit another wound by placing it on that wound on another model? Because that doesn't make sense from a rules perspective to me as they are written.

That doesn't explain why Yak had to change it in his FAQ though. If it was RAW as you say Imriel, then there would have been no [rules change] to do exactly as you describe it...neh?

QFT:

Imriel wrote:The problem with your RAW is you're adding something that isn't in the rules. The mandate to not spread wounds around isn't limited to a single round of model removals. By placing the the wound on Model B, you have spread wounds to avoid removing Model A as a casualty.

Any type of wound distribution that doesn't lead to the quickest removal of a model is against RAW.

lifeafter: Sure...in a single instance of Step 6. Nothing says each instance of Step 6 carries over to another THUS Yak's [rules change] to make it so. Probably because everyone was doing that already...

So if you're implying that a single wound step-6 on the Rippers that can NOT remove a model must be placed on an already wounded model according to pure RAW, then I strongly beleive you are incorrect.

I agree with Lifeafter here. Any spreading of wounds in a unit that is made up of more than one multiple wound model is against RAW. Also the common philosophy that is held by tournament players is that the unit receives the wounds and once the wounds amount to a number greater than the number of wounds on a single model that model is removed.

While this might be a slight transition from the Fantasy rules set (yes I know they are different and these are 40K rules), the model removal for multiple wound units is very similar if not identical. The only major difference is the way that characters are treated within the unit.

The rules say that you can't spread wounds around and that you must remove whole models whenever necessary. by assigning more than one model a wound you are breaking the condition of not spreading wounds around.

Alright, define 'spreading of wounds' then. And explain to me directly how 'When the unti takes wounds' implies over the course of the entire game and not the single instance they took the wound. Its pretty clear to me when the wounds are applied, as it should be for anyone looking at Step 6 of shooting (which also is applied in the exact same way for CC). Nothing in the entire sequence of Step 1 to Step 6 is carried over in any subsequent Step 1 to Step 6...so what implies this one does?

"Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models." Allotment of wounds to different models is spreading wounds around to avoid removing models. Distribution of wounds in any manner different than the one that would lead to the quickest removal of a model is spreading around wounds to avoid removing of a model.

There's nothing in the wording on page 27 under the Creatures with More than One Wound entry that limits the "Wounds may not be..." sentence to one turn of shooting. Furthermore, I find no mention that it only applies to "step 6." I find no mention of any numeric steps. What I do find is a sentence with no qualifiers limiting when it is to be used and therefore apply that rule to the whole game, all phases included.

There's nothing in the wording on page 27 under the Creatures with More than One Wound entry that limits the "Wounds may not be..." sentence to one turn of shooting.

There is no mention in the book about me placing already killed models back on the table at will either, so the argument about what it does not say is invalid.

What it DOES state is that when shooting you 'Go through these steps one at at time with a unit, then select the next unit and repeat these steps. Once complete for all units that can shoot, proceede to the assualt phase'(page 18) Thats a pretty clear time frame to me, and both page 27 and Step 6 in no way imply stepping outside that time frame. If anything it helps solidify my position.

The nuemeric steps are listed on page 18 and if you look at the top of page 26 you'll see that Step 6 is labeled right there for you as 'Removing Casualties'.

I don't get it. I'm really trying to. I just can't see why what is said on page 27 is limited to only one turn. I don't see any qualifier in that whole entry.

Thats because you're looking at only page 27 and not the context of the entire shooting phase. The entry doesn't require a direct quote saying 'this only applies this phase' because its already stated earlier on page 18 that you go step by step, then move on to another phase. Its not only limited to one turn, but in fact limited to one instance of steps 1 through 6, just like the previous 5 steps before it. Please, go through all the pages of 18 through 27 and report any instance of any rule that would apply beyond the scope of that series of steps. I have. There is none. The 'Remove Casualties' isn't a whole section by itself, its not a 2 page summery all on its own. It is Step 6 of the shooting phase (also used for CC before anyone jumps on that...) and thats it.

Ok Caedesis according to you then this only applies in the shooting phase and NOT any other time a wound is taken?

How do you then explain when a wound is taken in close combat or movement? How about when a wound is taken during the owning players turn?

By your account this should only apply to the shooting phase because it falls into the range of the "shooting phase" in the rulebook.

That is where your thinking is flawed.

The key words have been stated several times, you are not allowed to spread wounds around to avoid removing models. This effect happens whenever a wound is taken, not just to the turn in which that specific wound is taken.

Also that is an addendum in how to take a wound. So anytime throughout the game you take a wound this is applied, not just during that series of steps. You cannot go through those steps everytime a wound is taken as sometimes you take wounds with attacking or shooting. Explain that.

By RAW you have to apply each wound to the same model until it is dead, even if you only accumulate one wound per round of close combat. As has been pointed out you are trying to use only a section of the rules instead of its entirety (sp?).

- G

Ok Caedesis according to you then this only applies in the shooting phase and NOT any other time a wound is taken?

How do you then explain when a wound is taken in close combat or movement? How about when a wound is taken during the owning players turn?

Fair question. I counter with Page 41 of the Close Combat rules, "All the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat in addition to the following:..."
This means, do the exact same process as you did in shooting. Can you look up any other example where it either doesn't tell you who is wounded or doesn't reference 'take them off as if...' Does that satisfy that argument?

you are not allowed to spread wounds around to avoid removing models

You're right.

This effect happens whenever a wound is taken, not just to the turn in which that specific wound is taken.

There is nothing to support that, yet there IS support under my argument for being 'just when the wound is taken' as I've explained.

Also that is an addendum in how to take a wound. So anytime throughout the game you take a wound this is applied, not just during that series of steps. You cannot go through those steps every time a wound is taken as sometimes you take wounds with attacking or shooting. Explain that.

Sure, I quote that passage with highlights for emphasis: "WHEN a unit contains serveral multiple-Wound models, and those models take WOUNDS(plural), you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible - WOUNDS(pural) may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

Now, first thing is that sentence tells you EXACTLY when you 'must remove whole multi-wound models' Its WHEN they take the wounds. There is NO time break or sentence break between when its applied and the 'spread around' reference. As well, it even implies that the unit has to take WOUNDS (plural) to spread around. Its not splitting hairs here, you can't SPREAD a single wound if you understand my argument about the wounds only applying in Step 6. The pluralized WOUNDS would only support that.

I await your comments and the holes you pick in that argument.

I await your comments and the holes you pick in that argument.

Please, spare us your holier than thou innuendos. You're the noob here with the bone to pick about this. Since the rest of us have started disagreeing with you, you've devolved from the "inquisitive noob" to the "Superior RAW Champion". Don't see where that's necessary in a discussion other than to stroke your ego.

How about when wounds happen in the movement phase smart guy? What about when wounds happen from combat resolution? You don't follow those steps then do ya?

You claim we aren't taking the entire set of rules for the shooting phase into account yet you refuse to take anything BUT those rules into account. You are claiming now that all wounding is a step by step process that must be adhered to in order to successfully complete and that when this is applied you are now allowed to break a rule because, well, because you say so.

You cannot break the rule of spreading wounds, period.

If you wish to await my response to your next reactionary post, you'll find yourself waiting until the day after forever.

I apologies, sometime I forget how 'net tone' comes out as condescending instead of a blank and open statement. I really did mean in a neutral tone "I await your comments and the holes you pick in this argument". Not "I'm better then you and I dont think you can do it". So...again I'm sorry for that.
I'm arguing the argument, not the arguer. Meaning its nothing personal.

Ok, Movement phase then, want to give me an example to look at? Minefields and Booby traps have their own rules as to who takes the wound as each state enemy model. Not unit. I'm not so good at hunting the entire game to find where it'll be possible to take wounds in the movment phase, but I figure thats the most common.

I'll present another application of my argument then. When a model does take a wound it is said to have 'lost a wound'. Page 27 even states that itself. "Place a die or track on a piece of paper how many wounds remain". So, even the game sees not a 'wounded' creature when the next set of hits come in, but a model with one less wound on its profile then its brothers. Its not a 3 wound model with 1 wound on it anymore, its a 2 wound model. If the squad only takes one wound, there is no models removable from that and thus the 2 wound model is no different then the 3 wound ones. If it was further reduced to a 1 wound model later of course it would have to be removed because of the 'remove whole models first' application.

RAW, "All the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat in addition to the following:..." only extends the shooting casualty removal rules, not the wound placement rules.

"I'll present another application of my argument then. When a model does take a wound it is said to have 'lost a wound'. Page 27 even states that itself. "Place a die or track on a piece of paper how many wounds remain". So, even the game sees not a 'wounded' creature when the next set of hits come in, but a model with one less wound on its profile then its brothers. Its not a 3 wound model with 1 wound on it anymore, its a 2 wound model. If the squad only takes one wound, there is no models removable from that and thus the 2 wound model is no different then the 3 wound ones. If it was further reduced to a 1 wound model later of course it would have to be removed because of the 'remove whole models first' application."

The game does not say target reduces its wound value by one, rather that the target is now carrying around a wound counter. A 'wounded' creature is something with a wound. There is nothing in the rules to support the idea of this being a stat reduction, rather than a wound that the creature now has.

The game does not say target reduces its wound value by one, rather that the target is now carrying around a wound counter. A 'wounded' creature is something with a wound. There is nothing in the rules to support the idea of this being a stat reduction, rather than a wound that the creature now has.

I believe I have to disagree from the following rules quotes found on 27, "When a creature like this (multi-wound) suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound." It does not gain that wound. It does not have a wound now. Further quoted on the same page "Keep track of how many wounds a creature has left on a piece of paper or by placing a die next to the model" Again tracking how many it has left, not how many it has taken. Further reinforcing my point that these wounds do no carry over turn to turn or step to step.

Just to clarify:

I did use the [rule change] notation in the FAQ because I had the same RAW interpretation you have Caedesis.


That said, over time I have now flip-flopped my position and I do believe that the RAW commands you to 'build towards' a casualty at all times (so I guess I should change that noation in the FAQ in the next iteration).

The reasoning is this:


There is simply isn't any valid reason why a rule in any given section of the rulebook can't apply as an overarching guideline if it is appropriately worded to do so. And the proviso on page 27 is indeed written in just such a manner. Whole models must be removed "where possible" and "wounds may not be spread around to avoid removing models".

"Where possible" is a pretty general statement which means that you always must attempt to remove whole models whenever you possibly can and that spreading wounds to avoid doing just that (even if it is across multiple turns) is breaking this rule.


I also want to point out that no matter how long anyone wants to argue this point, you should really check out this poll thread I made:

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


It clearly shows that a vast majority of players play the issue that you have to 'build towards' a casualty at all times, which means that unless you like to constantly argue with your opponents its best just to start playing the same way everyone else does, right or wrong.

Hey Caedesis.
I believe you are wrong when it comes to wounded models, and I believe I can refute your arguements in a way that you shouldn't be able to argue against. On page 85 of the BBoR, in the Victory Points Table, it clearly states that Independent Characters may be unwounded, wounded or dead. If what you were arguing on this particular point was correct, this page would instead be wrong. If a model takes a wound, it's wounded.

Yak, thank you for explaining the RAW-[rules change] part. I'm glad to know I wasn't crazy in seeing that now, and I'm not the only one to have seen this particular issue AS an issue.

And yes, I'm clearly aware that how everyone voted in that thread is how everyone plays it. I have no trouble with that, but as Nurglitch once said 'Truth by Agreement' isn't necessarily the truth (he had the latin quote for it which I cant seem to find) As I stated a couple time, I have no trouble playing it this way, and in a tournament I really wouldn't argue about it. This isnt a game of 40k or a tournament, ergo discussion should be fine

As for over-reaching statement, thats clearly what the majority feels, but I just cant escape the fact that the timing restriction included in the very sentence its in seems to be the overriding function. Its in a sentence that clearly defines when something happens and has no time break in between that would imply to me that it has jumped form that specific time to an 'all encompassing' rule. Do you see what I mean by that?

Mordar: Glad to see you came all this way just to continue this debate with me. I feel a little bit honored that you would choose to do so. (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious, thanks for coming over) You know that IS a good point you have there about page 85. I'm not sure how to account specifically for that, though I'm not sure it completely invalidates my argument about 'gains a wound vrs looses a wound'. It would almost seem that at the end of the game it makes that check to see if the model has lost any wounds. It doesn't say they have 'gained' a wound, and if thats the case you're still not able to 'stack wounds' when you're loosing them. Though...I'll admit it is a very interesting point.

If you haven't 'gained' a wound, how can you 'add' more by spreading them over time? Even with 'wounded' status, that implies it has less then its original wounds. Which just means what I said earlier. In my example the 'wounded' ripper only has 2 wounds now, and as it cant be removed by the single wound in that instance, the 'remove whole models where possible' has been fulfilled. Thus the 3 wound models and the 2 wound models are still legitimate 'wound takers'.

Why further discuss when your mind is made up? It is amusing though!

- G

Cause people sometimes bring up good points. When I started, I hadn't though about how wounds were applied in other sections such as Movement and so forth....plus I only found the 'loose a wound vrs gain a wound' argument in the last couple days. My mind is never 'made up' 100% as long as people keep bringing up new points. Rehashing old ones isn't great, and if we've exhasted everything except old points then I'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. In the end, like I said, I play the game the way the majority wants to play it. But...this isnt about the majority.

What's it all about then Alpha?

- G

Caedesis wrote:Mordar: Glad to see you came all this way just to continue this debate with me. I feel a little bit honored that you would choose to do so. (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious, thanks for coming over) You know that IS a good point you have there about page 85. I'm not sure how to account specifically for that, though I'm not sure it completely invalidates my argument about 'gains a wound vrs looses a wound'. It would almost seem that at the end of the game it makes that check to see if the model has lost any wounds. It doesn't say they have 'gained' a wound, and if thats the case you're still not able to 'stack wounds' when you're loosing them. Though...I'll admit it is a very interesting point.

If you haven't 'gained' a wound, how can you 'add' more by spreading them over time? Even with 'wounded' status, that implies it has less then its original wounds. Which just means what I said earlier. In my example the 'wounded' ripper only has 2 wounds now, and as it cant be removed by the single wound in that instance, the 'remove whole models where possible' has been fulfilled. Thus the 3 wound models and the 2 wound models are still legitimate 'wound takers'.

Well... What can I say? I think I've got a bit of rules lawyer blood in me too. Or maybe I'm just bored
Anyways, to continue on the point of wounds; page 12 of the BBoR, Wounds (W):
"Shows how much damage a creature can take before it either dies or is so badly hurt it can't fight any more. Most humans/human-sized creatures have only a single wound. Heroes and large creatures are often able to withstand several wounds that would slay a lesser creature, and so have a Wounds value of 2, 3, 4 or even more." (Emphasis is mine)
I believe this further reinforces the point that models gain wounds. They become wounded. I'm not sure how this affects the arguement as a whole, I haven't had time to get myself into it fully. Cheers.