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.

I think it is a sad day when one has to use a BRB FAQ and a unit of Grot Artillery to possibly solve this issue.

I still laughed at the thought but it speaks to the depths these discussions can reach.

But yeah, the implication of the BRB FAQ as it pertains to a unit of Grot Artillery with more than one artillery piece that moves through Dangerous Terrain and has one of those artillery pieces fail its DT test is that that particular artillery piece is destroyed and no other. Extrapolating from that, in absence of what I would call clear rules on the issue, we can possibly deduce that infantry models are intended to be remove/destroyed/ect. in the same manner.

ElCheezus wrote: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.

No, my arguement, that everyone on your side seems to keep confusing, is that nowhere in the Dangerous Terrain rules does it every say that the dangerous terrain removes casualties. Dangerous terrain simply causes a model that fails its test to suffer a wound, not removed it as a casualty. And because Dangerous terrain never tells us to remove it, that makes it specific to that model in that it causes just that model to have suffered a wound. Now RC does tell us that every model that suffers an unsaved wound is removed as a casualty. However, remember that before you make a save, the wound must be allocated, and then the saves rolled. So, if you have 3 models that get shot, and they are identical, they all suffer a wound if they each fail their save. However, if you only have one wound to give to the unit, and the games rules have already told you which model is suffering that wound, then that model must be removed if it fails its save. Allow me to provide an example:

3 meltagunners are running along, and one tries to be flashy and run through the dangerous terrain, while the other two run around it, not looking to break a leg or their necks. The melta gunner that runs through the Dangerous terrain trips, and a shard of rock goes through his eye and impales him in the brain(he suffers a wound). Now, according to dangerous terrain, it was this model that suffered the wound, because there was only one wound to be allocated, and it was allocated by the Dangerous Terrain rules, so the model it was allocated to by the Dangerous Terrain rules must be the one to die, because the game rules tell us so.

It is once again down to specific overrides general, and dangerous terrain lists exactly which person suffered the wound, so there is no handing the death off to someone else, as Dangerous terrain tells us which one was hurt, so it essentially overrides removing causualties if the model only has one wound.

In reference to your first part of the response to me : We do not have only two specific cases of when a single model can take a wound, we have at least three, the third being the Dangerous terrain test. It still stats that the model with the test suffers the wound.

PB wrote:

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.

however, the assumption made by the OP multiple times in this thread is that the reason the model which is removed is removed is because it is allocated that way or is unique. This is an assumption. The OP even says earlier in the thread that he 'assumes this model is removed because...'. That is a fallacy upon which a large proportion of your side of the debate is based. It is a 'Note' used to clarify the DT rules, you cannot choose to ignore it (as the OP has done) just because you dont want to use it, OR, assume that it is clarifying your point by adding words to it which do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:I think it is a sad day when one has to use a BRB FAQ and a unit of Grot Artillery to possibly solve this issue.

Not Really, it is precedent given by GW, just because it is Grot artillery means nothing.

I still laughed at the thought but it speaks to the depths these discussions can reach.

But yeah, the implication of the BRB FAQ as it pertains to a unit of Grot Artillery with more than one artillery piece that moves through Dangerous Terrain and has one of those artillery pieces fail its DT test is that that particular artillery piece is destroyed and no other. Extrapolating from that, in absence of what I would call clear rules on the issue, we can possibly deduce that infantry models are intended to be remove/destroyed/ect. in the same manner.

And im with you on this, both laughing at intractability (my own included) and agreeing on the extrapolation

Galador wrote:No, my arguement, that everyone on your side seems to keep confusing, is that nowhere in the Dangerous Terrain rules does it every say that the dangerous terrain removes casualties.

DT doesn't say to remove casualies, check.

Dangerous terrain simply causes a model that fails its test to suffer a wound, not removed it as a casualty.

It causes a model that fails it's test to suffer a wound, check.

And because Dangerous terrain never tells us to remove it, that makes it specific to that model in that it causes just that model to have suffered a wound.

Makes it specific to that model? I don't know what this is supposed to mean, since all assigned Wounds are technically specific to a model

Now RC does tell us that every model that suffers an unsaved wound is removed as a casualty.

Incorrect. RC actually tells us that for every model that fails it's save (or can't save at all), the unit suffers an Unsaved Wound. This in turn tells us to remove a model from the unit.

However, remember that before you make a save, the wound must be allocated, and then the saves rolled.

Wounds only have to be allocated if the unit is complex. Also, DT takes care of allocation for us, since it tells us which model is assigned the wound. So in the case of DT, again this is incorrect.

So, if you have 3 models that get shot, and they are identical, they all suffer a wound if they each fail their save. However, if you only have one wound to give to the unit, and the games rules have already told you which model is suffering that wound, then that model must be removed if it fails its save. Allow me to provide an example:

The section bolded by me is unsupported by anything in the BRB. In fact, it's contradicted. When you assign wounds to a model in a complex unit, and the save is failed (or there isn't one), the rules still allow you to pick which model to remove. Since you allocate wounds to individual models in shooting, the game rules have similarly told you which model is suffering that wound, yet still lets you pick the casualty.

I cut out your example because narratives and the logic of "real-world" situations don't apply to game systems.

It is once again down to specific overrides general, and dangerous terrain lists exactly which person suffered the wound, so there is no handing the death off to someone else, as Dangerous terrain tells us which one was hurt, so it essentially overrides removing causualties if the model only has one wound.

If it overrides Removing Casualties, where does it tell you what to do with unsaved wounds? We're requested this multiple times, and it's ultimately a major question your side has to answer.

In reference to your first part of the response to me : We do not have only two specific cases of when a single model can take a wound, we have at least three, the third being the Dangerous terrain test. It still stats that the model with the test suffers the wound.

Those two specific cases that I reference actually tell us to remove the models. DT doesn't tell us anything about removing the model from the table. The closest it tells us is that we find out about wounds in the shooting section. So yes, we still only have two cases of being told what to do when a single model takes a wound.

I'll have to address other points later, as I have a dinner date.

Most of these ridiculous arguments are over by page 3.

I applaud you gentlemen!

Revenent Reiko wrote:however, the assumption made by the OP multiple times in this thread is that the reason the model which is removed is removed is because it is allocated that way or is unique. This is an assumption. The OP even says earlier in the thread that he 'assumes this model is removed because...'. That is a fallacy upon which a large proportion of your side of the debate is based. It is a 'Note' used to clarify the DT rules, you cannot choose to ignore it (as the OP has done) just because you dont want to use it, OR, assume that it is clarifying your point by adding words to it which do so.

I believe that by "OP" you mean me, who is by no means the original poster.

When I said I "assume this model is removed because..." I was providing an example of a situation that followed my interpretation of the DT rules. That example showed how the assault rules quoted by krisanth do not, in any way, conflict my my interpretation at all. In all ways, you can follow both the DT rules and the assault rules at the same time with no added text. Whether that particular assumption is correct or not has no bearing on the discussion, as nothing is built upon it. It is merely an example.

In no way does the wording of those assault rules clarify the DT rules, at all. I don't even have to choose to ignore them, because whether or not I ignore them, they don't come into it. That is, unless people like you and krisanth are so convinced that the key to understanding the DT rules is revealed pages later, in an entirely different section.

Also, no part of my arguments is based on any interpretation of the quoted assault rules. So whether or not you consider it a "fallacy" also has no bearing, and doesn't hurt our case. Claiming our arguments are based on a fallacy means either you don't understand our arguments, or you're flinging wild accusations to discredit us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is my step by step process for a failed dangerous terrain test. In this example, we will have a unit of 10 identical models, one of which walks through dangerous terrain. I choose this because it is the simplest case. By involving the fewest other rules, we can find the specific step where my detractors believe the logic fails. This will let us refocus the discussion to only the relevant rules, without being distracted by other, more complicated examples.

The 10-man unit moves, and one model ends in dangerous terrain. We will assume the model rolls a "1" on a d6 for the dangerous terrain test for this example, so the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed.

"Dangerous Terrain" on pg. 14 tells us that wounds and saves are covered in the next section. Proceed to pg. 19, "Roll to Wound." However, we already know the model is wounded, we can proceed to pg. 20

pg. 20 "Take Saving Throws" The second paragraph tells us that if the models are the same and have one wound each (they are in this example), then we can roll all the saves in one go, and a model of our choice is removed as a casualty for each failure. Technically, at this point, we still need to know how to fail a save. I'll continue in case anyone thinks it necessary. (I'll point out at this point for the folks watching at home that there has been no talk of units vs models suffering wounds. The BRB simply doesn't recognize a difference.)

Further down the page, it tells us that rolling lower than the armor value is considered failing a save. Ah, but we're not allowed to roll armor for this. So now what? Invulnerable saves, that's what. Don't have one though. So no rolling. Does that count as a failure? (common sense tells us yes, but let's investigate to be thorough)

Cover saves (also don't work, per DT rules) continue to pg 24, and then there's the Remove Casualties section. "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (we knew that, but does not rolling count as failure?) "Of course, this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted" So in this case, Common Sense is backed up by the book, and not rolling counts as failing.

We couldn't roll a save, which we now know is the same as failing. pg 20 tells us that a model of our choice is removed as a casualty for each failure.

So there you have it; everything we need to know about DT saves and which model to remove as a casualty is covered on pg. 14, pg. 20, and (to back up Common Sense) pg. 24. There's no need to reference assault rules, there's no need for a FAQ. Clear, solid, understandable answers are right here.

If we want to get into more complicated examples like complex or multi-wound units, we can. But first let's start small and see if anybody has a problem with this process.

Just a question does everybody take a dangerous terrain test when assaulting through dangerous terrian or just the closest model?

Every model that entered, left or moved though the terrain BRB pg. 14

Ok, I may have been a bit off when I said it overrides Removing Casualties. It overrides part of RC. It overrides the unit taking the wound part, because dangerous terrain rules tell us that that specific model suffers the wound, not the unit. Yes, RC tells us that for every model that fails their save, the unit takes a wound. but when a rule tells you a specific model suffers a wound, it overrides the unit portion of removing casualties, because it is more specific. That is what I meant by my earlier post. And you can override parts of a rule while still adhereing to the rest.

Dangerous terrain then overrides the ability to remove an identical in gaming terms model, because it says that the specific model that took the test suffers the wound, so you cannot remove anotehr model due to removing casualties on a one wound model, because of the specificity of the Dangerous Terrain rules.

Does Dangerous Terrain wound allocate? Yes.
Does dangerous terrain specify a particular model? Yes.
Can a specific model in a unit be removed as a casualty? Yes.

Basically let me break down my train of thought:

5 man SM squad moves, with one model moving into the Dangerous Terrain. They are all identical, lets say there were six and ole Sarge is dead.
The one Space Marine that moved through the Dangerous Terrain is given a test, as per the Dangerous terrain rules.
You roll a dice for the SM that is in the dangerous terrain, and you roll a 1, which means you failed the test, and the SM in cover, according to Dangerous terrain, suffers a wound. This is the point where our points of view are splitting, and I think it may be my fault as I have not been precise enough, which is why I am breaking it down like this.
Ok, so the wound has been suffer by the model in Dangerous terrain, as per the Dangerous terrain rules. Now, he has no invulnerable save, because he is an ordinary SM, and Dangerous Terrain denies armor and cover saves, so the SM in the Dangerous Terrain suffers the unsaved wound, as per the Dangerous terrain rules. I state unsaved here because even though Dangerous terrain does not state unsaved wound, seeing as the SM can take no save, it is unsaved.
So the SM now has 0 wounds, so we flip to remove casualties to see how to remove the SM from the board.
While normally any identical model may be removed for every unsaved wound to the unit, this is not an unsaved wound to the unit, it is to the specific model, as per the Dangerous Terrain test rules. This is the point that I have been trying to get across, that even though normally you can choose any like model to be removed, in this case you cannot because the wound with no save has been given to a specific model as per the Dangerous terrain rules, which makes this a specific wound, not a normal wound. So, as dangerous terrain told us exactly who suffered the wound, we must continue down that line with the casualty removal, as the game rules themselves have told us the model in the terrain that failed the test suffered the wound, not the unit.
Now then, RC states that any model in the unit can be targeted, hit, and wounded, even if it can't be seen. However, Dangerous Terrain rules are once again more specific that even this, as the rule is telling you basically "Hey this guy stubbed his toe, he needs to take a break while everyone else goes and fights!"


That basically outlines exactly what I have been trying to get across this whole time, and hopefully you will understand now why I say you cannot take off another model besides the one that took the test.

ElCheezus wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:however, the assumption made by the OP multiple times in this thread is that the reason the model which is removed is removed is because it is allocated that way or is unique. This is an assumption. The OP even says earlier in the thread that he 'assumes this model is removed because...'. That is a fallacy upon which a large proportion of your side of the debate is based. It is a 'Note' used to clarify the DT rules, you cannot choose to ignore it (as the OP has done) just because you dont want to use it, OR, assume that it is clarifying your point by adding words to it which do so.

I believe that by "OP" you mean me, who is by no means the original poster.

When I said I "assume this model is removed because..." I was providing an example of a situation that followed my interpretation of the DT rules. That example showed how the assault rules quoted by krisanth do not, in any way, conflict my my interpretation at all. In all ways, you can follow both the DT rules and the assault rules at the same time with no added text. Whether that particular assumption is correct or not has no bearing on the discussion, as nothing is built upon it. It is merely an example.

In no way does the wording of those assault rules clarify the DT rules, at all. I don't even have to choose to ignore them, because whether or not I ignore them, they don't come into it. That is, unless people like you and krisanth are so convinced that the key to understanding the DT rules is revealed pages later, in an entirely different section.

Also, no part of my arguments is based on any interpretation of the quoted assault rules. So whether or not you consider it a "fallacy" also has no bearing, and doesn't hurt our case. Claiming our arguments are based on a fallacy means either you don't understand our arguments, or you're flinging wild accusations to discredit us.

My apologies for calling you the OP ElCheezus, i had a busy day
the example only doesnt conflict with your interpretation because you choose to see it as complying with your point of view. It was right at the beginning of the thread when you stated that you 'didnt consider it rules' and then something along the lines of (i cant be bothered to look it up) 'i assume it works the way i say..'.
This is the fallacy, and that isnt meant in an offensive way, just that it is a conclusion based upon incorrect reasoning. NOt meant to be a wils accusation or offensive in any way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
i dont beleive the ket to understanding DT is pages later, its given to you in the wording 'the model fails a DT test' etc. Its the model bit that is important and is shown that it is the model which failed the test which gets removed in the example. (apologies for a weird sentence)

Galador wrote:So the SM now has 0 wounds, so we flip to remove casualties to see how to remove the SM from the board.
While normally any identical model may be removed for every unsaved wound to the unit, this is not an unsaved wound to the unit, it is to the specific model, as per the Dangerous Terrain test rules. This is the point that I have been trying to get across, that even though normally you can choose any like model to be removed, in this case you cannot because the wound with no save has been given to a specific model as per the Dangerous terrain rules, which makes this a specific wound, not a normal wound. So, as dangerous terrain told us exactly who suffered the wound, we must continue down that line with the casualty removal, as the game rules themselves have told us the model in the terrain that failed the test suffered the wound, not the unit.
Now then, RC states that any model in the unit can be targeted, hit, and wounded, even if it can't be seen. However, Dangerous Terrain rules are once again more specific that even this, as the rule is telling you basically "Hey this guy stubbed his toe, he needs to take a break while everyone else goes and fights!"

Thanks for laying it out again more clearly.

The idea of having "0 wounds" or removing wounds is only mentioned in one place: the rules for multiple-wound models that are not part of a unit. In every other case, wounds are counted up. That's not the crux of your argument, but I wanted to clear that up since it doesn't apply.

I've mentioned before that there are two places where wounds require a specific model to be removed. On pg. 25 is the bit about models that stand out in gaming terms which say "that specific model must be removed.", and pg. 26 the rules for a multiple-wound model say "it is removed as a casualty." In every other case of casualty removal, we're given the choice.

The DT rules, while specific about where the wound goes, say nothing about who must be required to be removed as a casualty. I haven't found any support for your claim that "suffers a wound" = "removed as a casualty." In fact, I've repeatedly found and quoted paces that say suffering a wound means choosing your casualty.

I understand why you, and others, have been saying this. I'm trying to show you that there is no support for it in the BRB. That's why I kept asking "What happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound?" Because every place you find the answer (except for two specific exceptions), it supports my interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Revenent Reiko wrote: My apologies for calling you the OP ElCheezus, i had a busy day
the example only doesnt conflict with your interpretation because you choose to see it as complying with your point of view. It was right at the beginning of the thread when you stated that you 'didnt consider it rules' and then something along the lines of (i cant be bothered to look it up) 'i assume it works the way i say..'.
This is the fallacy, and that isnt meant in an offensive way, just that it is a conclusion based upon incorrect reasoning. NOt meant to be a wils accusation or offensive in any way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
i dont beleive the ket to understanding DT is pages later, its given to you in the wording 'the model fails a DT test' etc. Its the model bit that is important and is shown that it is the model which failed the test which gets removed in the example. (apologies for a weird sentence)

Ah, I think there's a miscommunication somewhere in here. The paragraph that I don't consider to be rules is the 2nd paragraph of "Remove Casualties," on pg. 24, not the rules about assault that I think we're talking about. I'm fine with the assault rules.

The assault rules in question say, "Roll for difficult or dangerous terrain if necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model." Nowhere in that one sentence is there any support for any interpretation of the DT rules. They just say that if it turns out the model is killed, you can start the assault again. It only tells us what to based on the results of DT, not how to perform DT.

Ultimately, though, I want to refer you back a couple posts to where I laid out a step-by-step process for resolving Dangerous Terrain. It should be clear enough that we don't need to interpret these assault rules. Can you find any contradiction in the BRB?

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:I think it is a sad day when one has to use a BRB FAQ and a unit of Grot Artillery to possibly solve this issue.

I still laughed at the thought but it speaks to the depths these discussions can reach.

But yeah, the implication of the BRB FAQ as it pertains to a unit of Grot Artillery with more than one artillery piece that moves through Dangerous Terrain and has one of those artillery pieces fail its DT test is that that particular artillery piece is destroyed and no other. Extrapolating from that, in absence of what I would call clear rules on the issue, we can possibly deduce that infantry models are intended to be remove/destroyed/ect. in the same manner.

I'm on a streak of posting to this thread now, but I realized now why this situation was bothering me. Artillery guns are treated like vehicles (pg. 55). Unlike infantry, when squadrons of vehicles are assigned penetrating or glancing hits, the model the hit is allocated to suffers all the results. There are no rules, like Remove Casualties, that tell you that Destroyed - Wrecked removes a model other than the one to which the penetrating or glancing hit was assigned; all of their rules are based on the vehicle that was hit. The situation implied in the FAQ, therefore, only supports the rules for DT for vehicles.

Since infantry and vehicles are handled differently both by DT and removing casualties, the FAQ sheds no light on the situation when we're dealing with infantry. Good find, though. It took me a bit to realize what was nagging me about that situation.

One major difference in the two arguments is from Galador's side, you need extra text, inferences, assumptions and omissions (as explained above).

In ElCheezus' examples (and others of us that agree with his logic), he's simply referencing the rulebook. There are no added lines of text or inferences. They are lines from the BRB and associated page numbers.

Brings to mind the Law of Economy (or Occam's Razor): "All thing being equal, the simplest answer is most often the correct one." Or "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." If you have to infer meaning, overlook rules that you're not told to overlook and extrapolate hidden meanings out of a single sentence, you're doing more work than you need to.

In light of ElCheezus's and puma's above posts, I cannot find a RAW argument that contradicts their position. Unless more evidence is brought to light...

With that said, I will still choose to use the Remove Casualties section to choose to remove those models that actually enter or move through Difficult Terrain and fail a DT test.

VoxDei wrote:

Chompy1804 wrote:Because if 1 melta gun armed marine steps on a mine the guy with the missile launcher isn't going to blow up

Don't try to use logic with 40K...in fact i think it's against the rules in YMDC . After all why can i only be able to see one guy in a squad and shoot him 40 times but kill the whole squad?

Good Point

The act of failing the Dangerous Terrain Test makes that model unique in gaming terms. Just because the rule is not listed in the Codex entry doesn't make that model any less temporarily subject to the Dangerous Terrain rule.

I understand the other side of this disagreement, and will make sure to discuss this with future opponents.

ToBeWilly wrote:The act of failing the Dangerous Terrain Test makes that model unique in gaming terms. Just because the rule is not listed in the Codex entry doesn't make that model any less temporarily subject to the Dangerous Terrain rule.

I understand the other side of this disagreement, and will make sure to discuss this with future opponents.

If we're talking about a unit of models that are all identical (as in my step-by-step example), we don't even reach the part of the rules that talks about being identical in gaming terms, or even defining "gaming terms." In order to reach the "unique in gaming terms" reference, the unit has to be complex to begin with.

Use a unit of 10 Eldar Pathfinders, for example. The second paragraph on pg. 20 tells us that if the models are identical and have a single wound each (such as Eldar Pathfinders or Necron Warriros), you roll the saves in one go and remove a model of your choice. Based on the illustrating example of models that are "the same," it's obvious to see they refer to the Codex entry, not where the model is standing on the field.

Again, go back to my step-by-step process and tell me where it goes wrong, then use references to support that.

The problem. as I see it, is that the assault process requires you to go through the entire proceedure with one model, not the unit, before determining whether or not the assault takes place. If you are allowed to remove any similar model then the entire process becomes irrelevant. Move squad, roll dice, remove casualties, chop up opponent.

For example, if you have squad of ten assaulting a unit in dangerous terrain, and all are within reach, how many dice should you roll? Now it should be 10, but in your example it would only be 9. You've effectively moved 10 models in, but only rolled 9 dice. Which I think is wrong. All the other examples I can see and understand the logic, but not the convention.

However, I don't think that they stand up in the assault phase. This is because, as I said, the start of assault encapsulates a single model and not the unit.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:The problem. as I see it, is that the assault process requires you to go through the entire proceedure with one model, not the unit, before determining whether or not the assault takes place. If you are allowed to remove any similar model then the entire process becomes irrelevant. Move squad, roll dice, remove casualties, chop up opponent.

The process is not irrelevant if the leading model is unique. If the Sergeant is the first guy in, you can't remove a different model. Under my interpretation those assault rules aren't relevant every time, but they do still matter.

That's what I've been trying to say about these assault rules the whole time since they've been brought up. They would be written the same way for both interpretations of DT, because both interpretations can cause a situation to occur that would need this clarification.

It took me a minute to understand your 10 vs 9 idea, but I see what you mean now. That is weird, but that's how the assault rules tell us to do it. I could understand arguing that this case is an exception to the usual DT rules: the one time where the individual model is the one that must be removed. But I think that technically falls out of RAW, even though it makes more common sense.

Okay, hand on heart and tell me that if the process is as you say that no-one would ever take advantage of this process to ensure that every assault will suceed?

You say it yourself the process is weird. GW write dumb rules, but it doesn't normally write weird ones, and where it does have strange ones, ie hitting the guy behind the wall out of LoS, they explain why. They haven't in this case.

As a matter of interest I went and looked at the last edition rules to make sure I wasn't getting hung up on old rules. I wasn't, but noticed that the DT rules was 'a' model was wounded not 'that' model, and assaults through cover didn't include the line about casualties and restarting the process.

It still didn't say that a model reduced to 0 wounds is a casualty. Lots of zombies in this game!

Cheers

Andrew

ElCheezus wrote:Again, go back to my step-by-step process and tell me where it goes wrong, then use references to support that.

I have no problem with your step-by-step, until the end, where you stop with the 'Remove Casualties'. 'Remove Casualties' states, "As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed." The example unit has one model that has triggered a special rule, and nine models that have not. So, all models in the unit are not the same, we must use 'Complex Units' on the next page. Which goes on to describe the process of Wound allocation. The Dangerous Terrain rule does this for us, stating that "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound...". Then it goes on to 'Taking Saving Throws'. Which states, "Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models." Since there is only one model, and the Dangerous Terrain rule doesn't allow armour or cover saves, it fails the save and must be the model removed. Repeat for every model that rolled a 1 on its Dangerous Terrain test.

ToBeWilly wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Again, go back to my step-by-step process and tell me where it goes wrong, then use references to support that.

I have no problem with your step-by-step, until the end, where you stop with the 'Remove Casualties'. 'Remove Casualties' states, "As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed." The example unit has one model that has triggered a special rule, and nine models that have not. So, all models in the unit are not the same, we must use 'Complex Units' on the next page. Which goes on to describe the process of Wound allocation. The Dangerous Terrain rule does this for us, stating that "On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound...". Then it goes on to 'Taking Saving Throws'. Which states, "Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models." Since there is only one model, and the Dangerous Terrain rule doesn't allow armour or cover saves, it fails the save and must be the model removed. Repeat for every model that rolled a 1 on its Dangerous Terrain test.

ElCheezus wrote:Use a unit of 10 Eldar Pathfinders, for example. The second paragraph on pg. 20 tells us that if the models are identical and have a single wound each (such as Eldar Pathfinders or Necron Warriros), you roll the saves in one go and remove a model of your choice. Based on the illustrating example of models that are "the same," it's obvious to see they refer to the Codex entry, not where the model is standing on the field.

Special Rules are part of the Codex entry, or are explicitly granted by name by certain effects. For example, Straken's aura says that units within range have the Counter-attack and Furious Charge special rules. There is no similar mention in the DT rules that state they gain a Special Rule. Basically, you have no basis for assuming that DT creates a Special Rule, as those are all well-defined things.

Further, what would that entirely unmentioned special rule even be? "Having triggered a dangerous terrain test", or "Having failed a dangerous terrain test"? What if five models fail the dangerous terrain test, but have invuln saves. If three of them pass the save, do we now get to pick our two casualties since they are all identical, as they all have the same weapons, wargear, etc. plus they all failed the same test. You're trying for a way to get around felxible casualty removal, but have created yet another situation where it can happen.

I'm completely astonished that this debate has gone on this long. The rule for taking the test is on a per model basis, and states the MODEL suffers a wound, not the unit.

AndrewC wrote:Okay, hand on heart and tell me that if the process is as you say that no-one would ever take advantage of this process to ensure that every assault will suceed?

You say it yourself the process is weird. GW write dumb rules, but it doesn't normally write weird ones, and where it does have strange ones, ie hitting the guy behind the wall out of LoS, they explain why. They haven't in this case.

As a matter of interest I went and looked at the last edition rules to make sure I wasn't getting hung up on old rules. I wasn't, but noticed that the DT rules was 'a' model was wounded not 'that' model, and assaults through cover didn't include the line about casualties and restarting the process.

It still didn't say that a model reduced to 0 wounds is a casualty. Lots of zombies in this game!

Cheers

Andrew

I could have sworn I typed up a response to this earlier. . .

Yes, people would take advantage of it. If the ability to bend a rule to your advantage meant that the rule were invalid, we'd have a lot of holes in the book. Hell, wound allocation can punish a player for firing more bullets! They don't explain that. Does it make sense, no, but people accept it, play by it, and use it. Why can't people see DT in the same light? It's nowhere near as abusable.

By the way, interesting idea looking at the old rulebook. From the sound of it, it worked the same way in 4th as my interpretation in this edition. The change from "a model" to "that model" would reflect their change in allocation, since a lot of that is entirely new. Similarly, the addition to the assault rules probably represents a FAQ that they decided to add to head off having to answer it all over again in the new edition. This bit is all conjecture and ultimately doesn't matter because it's a different edition, but it's plausible.

As for having 0 wounds, reducing a model's Wound characteristic only applies to multi-wound models that are a one-model unit: e.g. monstrous creatures. They're removed when they have 0 wounds left. However, all other cases count up with wounds, instead of down, and remove casualties when there are enough wounds. You "track any excess wounds," as mentioned on pg. 26. I honestly wish they handled MCs the same way, because it's a needless comlication.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlueDagger wrote:I'm completely astonished that this debate has gone on this long. The rule for taking the test is on a per model basis, and states the MODEL suffers a wound, not the unit.

lol. What page did you stop reading? We're way past the simple "it says the model" argument.