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.

Because FNP disrupts the process, wounds can be allocated to that model for FNP, but it can only ever suffer 1 wound, at the outset, as that is all it has to give for its country.

DeathReaper wrote:Because FNP disrupts the process, wounds can be allocated to that model for FNP, but it can only ever suffer 1 wound, at the outset, as that is all it has to give for its country.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the wound process is described in detail in an example on p.25. It clearly states that there are 3 unsaved wounds suffered, and that 3 models should be removed. It also says, because they're are less than three you just remove the two. You don't "ignore" the extra wounds, and it doesn't tell you that the wounds "don't count". Unless you can point to a place in the rules that says explicitly that unsaved wounds in excess of a models W value are ignored, then your assumptions are incorrect.

PS, combat resolution does not count, as we aren't talking about combat resolution, and it makes specific exceptions to the "normal" determinations of what unsaved wounds are.

Rephistorch, your forgetting that you must carry the rules over from the combat res page .................... joking, relax


the example you have cant be ignored as it shows just what everyone has been saying all along.

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because FNP disrupts the process, wounds can be allocated to that model for FNP, but it can only ever suffer 1 wound, at the outset, as that is all it has to give for its country.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the wound process is described in detail in an example on p.25. It clearly states that there are 3 unsaved wounds suffered, and that 3 models should be removed. It also says, because they're are less than three you just remove the two. You don't "ignore" the extra wounds, and it doesn't tell you that the wounds "don't count". Unless you can point to a place in the rules that says explicitly that unsaved wounds in excess of a models W value are ignored, then your assumptions are incorrect.

PS, combat resolution does not count, as we aren't talking about combat resolution, and it makes specific exceptions to the "normal" determinations of what unsaved wounds are.

It does not tell you to count them, so you cant.

Your missing the point death.
The model in question does not have talons, so it wouldnt need to count them.


It shows that you can cause more unsaved wounds than the unit has total wounds, which kills off your argument straight away.

And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Rephistorch, your forgetting that you must carry the rules over from the combat res page .................... joking, relax


the example you have cant be ignored as it shows just what everyone has been saying all along.

Ha-ha, I mean, if you want to give me extra attacks for multi-wound models that I ID, that's cool and all, but I'd rather play by the rules and only use the unsaved wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

It tells you exactly what to do. It says that there are 3 unsaved wounds. The third wound was most definitely caused by something, it doesn't just magically appear. They address the situation very simply by removing all the remaining models.

It says only 2 models are removed, but that there were 3 unsaved wounds, which is what triggers BT's.. Before casualties are removed, same as FNP.

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Well he is saying it for that and the fact that excess wounds are ignored for removing asualties.

Which just shows a limitation on what they can't be used for that particular situation. Doesn't mean that they never happened.

mpangelu wrote:Well he is saying it for that and the fact that excess wounds are ignored for removing asualties.

Which just shows a limitation on what they can't be used for that particular situation. Doesn't mean that they never happened.

I completely understand his position, I'm just wondering if he's up for a friendly mini-debate.

Good luck with that.

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Theoretical is fine if it is based on RaW.

My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds. Since they do not tell you what to do with the overage we simply must choose the less advantageous thing and not use those wounds for anything.

It does not address what to to with the extras, and since a one wound model can only have one wounds caused against it before it dies, in the example on P.25 there is nothing saying you can treat the extra wound as a wound that is caused since it did not remove a model, and we all know you remove one model for each wound caused.

Basically basing it on P.24 that says you need to remove a one wound model for each unsaved wound caused, and the fact that once you run out of models to remove you can not cause anymore wounds because you can not follow this rule. (not based on combat res per say, but combat res happens to say the same thing).

DeathReaper wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Theoretical is fine if it is based on RaW.

My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds. Since they do not tell you what to do with the overage we simply must choose the less advantageous thing and not use those wounds for anything.

It does not address what to to with the extras, and since a one wound model can only have one wounds caused against it before it dies, in the example on P.25 there is nothing saying you can treat the extra wound as a wound that is caused since it did not remove a model, and we all know you remove one model for each wound caused.

Basically basing it on P.24 that says you need to remove a one wound model for each unsaved wound caused, and the fact that once you run out of models to remove you can not cause anymore wounds because you can not follow this rule. (not based on combat res per say, but combat res happens to say the same thing).

You know what, you are right on the part it doesn't say what to do with the wounds. However, lets consider this. Does the Blood Talons care about how many models there are?

Would you agree that a model has to suffer an unsaved wound before it is removed?

If so, then the attacks are made, wounds allocated, saves rolled, unsaved wounds are created.

The Blood Talons are triggered immediately when an unsaved wound is created, just as a FNP roll is created (pending circumstances), and therefore further attacks are generated on number of unsaved wounds created. This is before the removed casualty process. If you rolled (or even unable to roll) 5 saves, and those 5 were failed, then they were unsaved. We aren't even considering at this point in time the wounds on the profile, the wound characteristic, combat resolution, models removed.. none of that.. Simply unsaved wounds caused.

As the Unsaved wounds are created, it triggers blood talons effect, after that continue with resolution of the unsaved wounds. i.e. now remove casualty excess wounds are lost. The attacks have already been sent back into the combat and now are continuing again (pending another target to do so).

The whole reason there are 5 unsaved wounds and not 3, is because we have to roll in a batch and not one at a time. Otherwise I would agree that they are never created. I'd also believe the game would double in length if not more.

DeathReaper wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And that is why we can not use that example to try and figure out this situation. it does not tell you to count those wounds as wounds caused, so that is where the argument stems from.

Since that third wound was never really caused, since there was no model to remove.

DeathReaper, would you care to have a theoretical exercise?

If so, is it your belief that we should use the "unsaved wounds" rules for combat resolution when we are dealing with wounds caused by blood talons? Combat resolution is your basis for saying the extra wounds are ignored, is it not? (If not, please let me know what rules you are basing this on.)

Theoretical is fine if it is based on RaW.

My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds. Since they do not tell you what to do with the overage we simply must choose the less advantageous thing and not use those wounds for anything.

It does not address what to to with the extras, and since a one wound model can only have one wounds caused against it before it dies, in the example on P.25 there is nothing saying you can treat the extra wound as a wound that is caused since it did not remove a model, and we all know you remove one model for each wound caused.

Basically basing it on P.24 that says you need to remove a one wound model for each unsaved wound caused, and the fact that once you run out of models to remove you can not cause anymore wounds because you can not follow this rule. (not based on combat res per say, but combat res happens to say the same thing).

Darn that's too bad, because I had a good argument if you believed that combat resolution is what we should go by. Unfortunately, I don't have much more for you than I already stated.

However, I will reiterate that just because an action's triggered events can't be performed as stated, it doesn't mean that the action didn't happen. An unsaved wound is an unsaved wound no matter what circumstances are involved.

Just because a duck is dead, doesn't mean that it's not a duck.

Edit: Something else I wanted to say:
You keep saying you can't "cause" more wounds than a model has. Cause in the English language just means "to bring about". If five wounds are caused to 3 models, it doesn't matter if there aren't enough wound characteristics to soak up this damage. The wounds were "Caused" whether or not there are models to remove.

If you argue otherwise, what is "Causing" the wounds?

Rephistorch wrote:Just because a duck is dead, doesn't mean that it's not a duck.

/quack

mpangelu wrote:You know what, you are right on the part it doesn't say what to do with the wounds. However, lets consider this. Does the Blood Talons care about how many models there are?

Would you agree that a model has to suffer an unsaved wound before it is removed?

If so, then the attacks are made, wounds allocated, saves rolled, unsaved wounds are created.

The Blood Talons are triggered immediately when an unsaved wound is created, just as a FNP roll is created (pending circumstances), and therefore further attacks are generated on number of unsaved wounds created. This is before the removed casualty process.

No, The Blood Talons are triggered immediately when an unsaved wound is caused, not created.

Wounds are caused at the remove casualties step, not before, so these two things happen all at step 6 on p.15 (the remove casualties step on P.24 outlines this process.)

Thus the debate.

Rephistorch wrote:Edit:You keep saying you can't "cause" more wounds than a model has. Cause in the English language just means "to bring about". If five wounds are caused to 3 models, it doesn't matter if there aren't enough wound characteristics to soak up this damage. The wounds were "Caused" whether or not there are models to remove.

If you argue otherwise, what is "Causing" the wounds?

The rules use wounds caused, wounds inflicted, and wounds suffered to mean the same thing in the rules. a one wound model can not suffer more than one wound, just as you can not inflict more than one wound to a one wound model, since it dies and is removed from the table after the first wound inflicted.

Though I do not think we are going to agree, so we should probably just let it be.

DeathReaper wrote:
The rules use wounds caused, wounds inflicted, and wounds suffered to mean the same thing in the rules. a one wound model can not suffer more than one wound, just as you can not inflict more than one wound to a one wound model, since it dies and is removed from the table after the first wound inflicted.

Though I do not think we are going to agree, so we should probably just let it be.

I agree that we're not going to agree if you can't tell me what has "caused" the wounds.

Wounds are caused at the remove casualties step, not before, so these two things happen all at step 6 on p.15 (the remove casualties step on P.24 outlines this process.)

Where on earth did you think this is true. A wound is created after hitting a model.... a wound is caused before saves are made. Do you even think about this anymore or are you just blindly following it because you don't want to see beyond your own nose ..

If nothing else. I ask you for a minute to consider the other side of this argument, and ask you to see it from the other sideand then read what you are saying.

mpangelu wrote:

Wounds are caused at the remove casualties step, not before, so these two things happen all at step 6 on p.15 (the remove casualties step on P.24 outlines this process.)

Where on earth did you think this is true. A wound is created after hitting a model.... a wound is caused before saves are made. Do you even think about this anymore or are you just blindly following it because you don't want to see beyond your own nose ..

If nothing else. I ask you for a minute to consider the other side of this argument, and ask you to see it from the other sideand then read what you are saying.

a wound is caused before saves are made, I think we have been generically referring to "unsaved wounds" as "wounds caused", which could be confusing.

DeathReaper wrote:Yea, notice how that entire section outlines how to remove casualties?
it is all one process. look at the steps on P.15
remove casualties is step 6, everything outlined in that section happens at step 6.

The first two sentences deal with what has happened at the "Roll to Wound" and "Take Saving Throws" and the conclusions you come to as a result. Only then does it start talking about removing casualties - and as I have alreayd pointed out several times "Most models...." etc clearly denotes this sentence as simplest-case EXAMPLE!!!!

To remove casualties you MUST FIRST ADD UP THE NUMBER OF UNSAVED WOUNDS !!!!!! you peon
How else will you know how many models to remove if you do not first total up the number of unsaved wounds?

And if you start going on again how you cannot remove more models than you have - when you have already been told many, many times that Pg25 shows HOW TO DO THIS - I put forward a motion you should be banned from this forum


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds.

And that's the ball game. You have declared the basis for your arguement and unless you can show where it says "you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds" then you lose.

Show us the quote - or leave.

I think this thread has run its course. If DeathReaper can give us the quote to validate his position, he should add it - otherwise there is nothing else to be added.

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Yea, notice how that entire section outlines how to remove casualties?
it is all one process. look at the steps on P.15
remove casualties is step 6, everything outlined in that section happens at step 6.

The first two sentences deal with what has happened at the "Roll to Wound" and "Take Saving Throws" and the conclusions you come to as a result. Only then does it start talking about removing casualties - and as I have alreayd pointed out several times "Most models...." etc clearly denotes this sentence as simplest-case EXAMPLE!!!!

To remove casualties you MUST FIRST ADD UP THE NUMBER OF UNSAVED WOUNDS !!!!!! you peon
How else will you know how many models to remove if you do not first total up the number of unsaved wounds?

And if you start going on again how you cannot remove more models than you have - when you have already been told many, many times that Pg25 shows HOW TO DO THIS - I put forward a motion you should be banned from this forum


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:My basis for unsaved wounds caused is that you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds.

And that's the ball game. You have declared the basis for your arguement and unless you can show where it says "you can not cause more wounds to something than it has Wounds" then you lose.

Show us the quote - or leave.

I think this thread has run its course. If DeathReaper can give us the quote to validate his position, he should add it - otherwise there is nothing else to be added.

First off, Please stop with the rude language directed at me, there is no need for it, and it only serves to weaken the rest of your post.

Second, The English language tell us you can not cause/inflict/suffer more wounds than you have on your profile. The rules do not define every single word contained within them, so we have to default to the standard English definitions.
Hypothetical example: If something were to reduce a models leadership by 3 and the model had a leadership of two, and characteristics can never go below zero, then how much have you reduced that models leadership by? (Hint: 2 minus 2 is zero, we can not reduce it further so we reduce it by two and the extra point is ignored)

P.24 'For every model that fails its save the unit suffers an unsaved wound...[for single wound models]for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty'

P.25 never shows what to do with that last wound, since it does not tell us to count it for anything we cant count it since the wound was never successfully inflicted/suffered/caused since there are no more models to cause/inflict/suffer wounds.

It is saying that when you suffer unsaved wounds you immediately (or instantly) remove one model per wound suffered. if you can only remove two models then you have only suffered two wounds even if you failed three saves.

It makes removing models and unsaved wounds mean the same thing in the paragraph on P.24 for each unsaved wound suffered we remove a model, so for each model removed we suffer an unsaved wound.

@Rephistorch I think you are taking cause to mean what caused the wounds, while I am taking the literal book term Unsaved wounds caused, as in how many unsaved wounds were actually caused/inflicted/suffered, as you know these two are very different terms.

DeathReaper wrote:
First off, Please stop with the rude language directed at me, there is no need for it, and it only serves to weaken the rest of your post.

Second, The English language tell us you can not cause/inflict/suffer more wounds than you have on your profile. The rules do not define every single word contained within them, so we have to default to the standard English definitions.
Hypothetical example: If something were to reduce a models leadership by 3 and the model had a leadership of two, and characteristics can never go below zero, then how much have you reduced that models leadership by? (Hint: 2 minus 2 is zero, we can not reduce it further so we reduce it by two and the extra point is ignored)

Uh, english language does not tell us that. I could call on dozens of games where you can cause more damage to something than the maximum amount of damage it can substain before dying, tabletops, tcg, video games and P&P systems. I can think of only a single one or two which ignore overkill, and they do that only on special occasions.

P.24 'For every model that fails its save the unit suffers an unsaved wound...[for single wound models]for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty'

So no more FNP for your BA. You immediatly remove them from the table and then roll for them, doing nothing.

P.25 never shows what to do with that last wound, since it does not tell us to count it for anything we cant count it since the wound was never successfully inflicted/suffered/caused since there are no more models to cause/inflict/suffer wounds.

It does, it says you don't remove a model for it. It says nothing else, so you have to handle it as any other wound.

It is saying that when you suffer unsaved wounds you immediately (or instantly) remove one model per wound suffered. if you can only remove two models then you have only suffered two wounds even if you failed three saves.

It makes removing models and unsaved wounds mean the same thing in the paragraph on P.24 for each unsaved wound suffered we remove a model, so for each model removed we suffer an unsaved wound.

This is wrong. "A results in B" is not equal to "B results in A".That is a violation of basic logic. If you'd look at "wounding models" you'll see that you can inflict as many telling wounds on any models as you wish. Just because you didn't save them doesn't make them magically disappear.

@Rephistorch I think you are taking cause to mean what caused the wounds, while I am taking the literal book term Unsaved wounds caused, as in how many unsaved wounds were actually caused/inflicted/suffered, as you know these two are very different terms.

So causing wounds is something different than causing wounds. Right.

So, let me ask you this:
How many wounds do 5 tyranid warriors suffer from Ghazghull Thrakka hitting and wounding all of his 7 attacks? How many unsaved wounds? How many models do you remove? How many wounds have been lost? What is the combat resolution.
Try going through the BRB step-by-step from "Wounding Models" to combat resolution without skipping a single sentence.

The amount of total brain failure in this thread is hilarious.

Blood Talons interrupt the normal passage of play, as it they're want the devil may care rapscallions that they are.

The normal passage of play is

1) Roll To Hit
2) Roll to Wound
3) Assign Wounds to groups
4) Roll Saves
5) Work out number of unsaved wounds on the group
6) Assign Wounds to models in the group that failed the saves
7) Remove Casualties

That is straight from the rulebook, Page 25, read the Box Out if you have trouble understanding that.

Now lets see what happens if we use Blood Talons

1) Roll To Hit
2) Roll to Wound
3) Assign Wounds to groups
4) Roll Saves
5) Work out number of unsaved wounds on the group
6) Blood Talon leaps in the way and as per it's rules you Immediately resolve extra attacks, you keep doing this till you don't get any new unsaved wounds.
7) Assign Wounds to models in the group that failed the saves
8) Remove Casualties

Those Extra wounds then go away when you're removing casualties but Blood Talons happens before that point.

DeathReaper wrote:Yea, notice how that entire section outlines how to remove casualties?

it is all one process. look at the steps on P.15

remove casualties is step 6, everything outlined in that section happens at step 6.

If it's a single process and everything happens at the same time, Feel No Pain cannot take effect.

DeathReaper wrote:a whole bunch of lies and garbage

Karlosovic wrote:If DeathReaper can give us the quote to validate his position, he should add it - otherwise there is nothing else to be added.

He didn't - he loses - case closed.

[Removed by Moderator]

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:a whole bunch of lies and garbage

Karlosovic wrote:If DeathReaper can give us the quote to validate his position, he should add it - otherwise there is nothing else to be added.

He didn't - he loses - case closed.

Someone please ban that guy? He's either trolling or he's galactically stupid. Either way his contributions are not needed.

Ignore - Congratulations

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:a whole bunch of lies and garbage

Karlosovic wrote:If DeathReaper can give us the quote to validate his position, he should add it - otherwise there is nothing else to be added.

He didn't - he loses - case closed.

Someone please ban that guy? He's either trolling or he's galactically stupid. Either way his contributions are not needed.

First, I would caution you to be more courteous to your fellow board member. The mods don't like it when the rules are broken, and no personal attacks is one of them.

@ deathreaper:
You said earlier "it doesn't tell you to count them so you can't". The blood talons rule says "for each unsaved wound caused by blood talons...". This rule tells us to count EVERY unsaved wound caused by blood talons. There's a big difference between "wounds caused/inflicted/sufferred BY a model" and "all unsaved wounds caused BY a weapon".

since I've pointed out a rule that says to count every unsaved wound, the burden now falls upon you to point out a rule that says, as explicitly as blood talons, not to count certain wounds. hint: only a couple exist, and they are combat resolution, and FNP.

[quote=Rephistorch@ deathreaper:
You said earlier "it doesn't tell you to count them so you can't". The blood talons rule says "for each unsaved wound caused by blood talons...". This rule tells us to count EVERY unsaved wound caused by blood talons. There's a big difference between "wounds caused/inflicted/sufferred BY a model" and "all unsaved wounds caused BY a weapon".

since I've pointed out a rule that says to count every unsaved wound, the burden now falls upon you to point out a rule that says, as explicitly as blood talons, not to count certain wounds. hint: only a couple exist, and they are combat resolution, and FNP.

Rephistorch wrote:

karlosovic wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:[Edited to remove inappropriate quote]

Karlosovic wrote:If DeathReaper can give us the quote to validate his position, he should add it - otherwise there is nothing else to be added.

He didn't - he loses - case closed.

Someone please ban that guy? He's either trolling or he's [Edited to remove inappropriate quote]. Either way his contributions are not needed.

First, I would caution you to be more courteous to your fellow board member. The mods don't like it when the rules are broken, and no personal attacks is one of them.

@ deathreaper:
You said earlier "it doesn't tell you to count them so you can't". The blood talons rule says "for each unsaved wound caused by blood talons...". This rule tells us to count EVERY unsaved wound caused by blood talons. There's a big difference between "wounds caused/inflicted/sufferred BY a model" and "all unsaved wounds caused BY a weapon".

since I've pointed out a rule that says to count every unsaved wound, the burden now falls upon you to point out a rule that says, as explicitly as blood talons, not to count certain wounds. hint: only a couple exist, and they are combat resolution, and FNP.

Right Rep, it tells you to count every unsaved wound, the rules are not clear on just what exactly unsaved wound caused means, and we have two different and valid interpretations of what that is.

karlosovic wrote:I really wish people would stop trying to lawyer on the words "inflict", "cause", "suffer" etc. because GW simply hasn't written the BRB to consistently differentiate between them. There is no difference - subtle or otherwise.

unsaved wound caused, in the rules is equal to unsaved wound suffered, you contend that you can suffer more wound than wounds available, I contend that you can not suffer more wounds than available. To me an unsaved wound suffered means you reduce the models wound characteristic (Or remove a model in the case of one wound models)

@Aramoro you have it slightly off on your 1-8 chart, blood talons only kick in for every unsaved wound caused, which is at the same time as assigning wounds to models and immediately removing them.

@Jidmah The English language tells us that suffering an Unsaved wound would mean there would actually have to be a model to remove for a wound to be suffered, in the example on P.25 the group of models has to remove models for three wounds, yet there are only two models in that wound group, Only two models were removed because they suffered wounds, that third wound went nowhere and was lost, if it is lost it can not be suffered by a model that is not there to suffer that wound.

as for FNP it lets you save models that were otherwise going to die from wounds as noted in its text, Blood talons have no such notation.

Remember it is better to take the less advantageous position when a rule is ambiguous.