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.

BTW: scarabs have three wounds and T3.
a plasma gun has S7 (enough to instant death a scarab)

So, my CSM fires his plasma gun at a scarab swarm.
The swarm has a model with two wounds on it (scarabs have three wounds).
The shot hit and instant deathed the wounded scarab.
My question is: would the two wounds that the scarab already sustained be carried onto another scarab?
In other words, would the plasma shot instant death one scarab, leaving another scarab with two wounds, or would the plasma shot just instant death the first scarab?

General summary of how I understand multiple wound units (of the same type):

You award all wounds suffered in the fasion that would eliminate as many models as possible. In this case no matter how you allocate wounds a scarab swarm is dead.

I think the owner gets to pick because your not supposed to 'spread the wounds around'. If there was a 2nd unsaved lower strength wound, then 2 scarabs would die. In this case I think the one with 2 wounds dies...


Edit: Anybody have the instant death section handy? Without reading it I can't know if it needs to try and kill a fresh model.

You have to try to remove unwounded models when you have an unsaved ID-causing wound. In your eample, an unwounded scarab would die, leaving the one with two wounds already on it alive.

You can allocate wounds to models with different statlines/equipment before applying Instant Death.

However, as the scarab swarms don't have different statlines/equipment, I believe you must remove a whole model.

Thanx Rustyknight.
that makes alot of sense

RustyKnight wrote:You have to try to remove unwounded models when you have an unsaved ID-causing wound. In your eample, an unwounded scarab would die, leaving the one with two wounds already on it alive.

This isnt true.

The owning player can allocate wounds to models any way he likes.

Saves are then rolled collectively for the batches of models that are equipped identically.

Wounds cannot carry over between models.

In the example given, a single wound from a S7 hit can be allocated to the model with two wounds remaining, which would then suffer instant death and lose all its remaining wounds.

The rules for removing whole models only applies when identically equipped models are suffer multiple wounds (remember that instant death applies only after saves are failed), in which case whole models must lose wounds and be removed if possible.

lolwut?

Regwon wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:You have to try to remove unwounded models when you have an unsaved ID-causing wound.

This isnt true.

The owning player can allocate wounds to models any way he likes

Actually it is true in 5th edition. BRB page 26 - units of multiple-wound models.

No, Spethulu. One scarab has a wound already, making it a different type of model for the purposes of wound allocation. The intelligent player will allocate the single wound to the scarab with only 2 wounds left, rather than any of those with 3, and thus the one with two wounds left would be removed.

But it states that for instant death you need to remove full models whenever possible, not wounded models

Irdiumstern wrote:But it states that for instant death you need to remove full models whenever possible, not wounded models

The BGB does NOT say that on p.26 in the instant death section....

It says that in the section about wound allocation...... CORRECTION... after actually opening my BGB it DOES say that... on page 26... not under instant death but in the last two paragraphs under Units of multiple-wounds! It does talk about instant death and that you MUST take unwounded models if you can.

*bow* I come to correct you, and correct myself.

Lookup location
BGB p.26 Paragraph starting "If amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death....."

That is unsaved wounds. Meaning the saves would have been taken. Meaning it happens after allocation.

Kitzz wrote:No, Spethulu. One scarab has a wound already, making it a different type of model for the purposes of wound allocation. The intelligent player will allocate the single wound to the scarab with only 2 wounds left, rather than any of those with 3, and thus the one with two wounds left would be removed.

No, the rulebook is quite clear regarding what "Identical in gaming terms" means, it's models that "have the same profile of chatacteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." This is precisely what the scarabs are, one of them has already lost a wound but they still have the same stat line, All the scarabs are identical and as such, even if you applied the wound to the pre-wounded scarab, you would then have to remove whole models where possible and take of an unwounded scarab.

Just to weigh in, remove an unwounded model, per page 26. And hHaving already taken a wound does NOT make a model different from the others within it's 'like group'.

I stand corrected. An unwounded scarab would be removed.

Righto

Drunkspleen wrote:

Kitzz wrote:No, Spethulu. One scarab has a wound already, making it a different type of model for the purposes of wound allocation. The intelligent player will allocate the single wound to the scarab with only 2 wounds left, rather than any of those with 3, and thus the one with two wounds left would be removed.

No, the rulebook is quite clear regarding what "Identical in gaming terms" means, it's models that "have the same profile of chatacteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." This is precisely what the scarabs are, one of them has already lost a wound but they still have the same stat line, All the scarabs are identical and as such, even if you applied the wound to the pre-wounded scarab, you would then have to remove whole models where possible and take of an unwounded scarab.

Yes, the rulebook is quite clear when it comes to this question. Models that "have the same profile of characteristics" are to be removed at the same time. Unfortunately for your argument, there is another line on p26 I'd like to point you to, the first line of the second paragraph, "When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile." Thus, by the definition you recognized, the scarabs do not have the same profile of characteristics, and the wounds can be distributed accordingly.

Kitzz wrote:Thus, by the definition you recognized, the scarabs do not have the same profile of characteristics, and the wounds can be distributed accordingly.

Funny enough the guy that wrote the rest of page 26 sees no difference between wounded and unwounded. Check the example with nobs getting shot at again after taking casualties.

You know what's funny .. I feel angry and frustrated just looking at this argument and I'm not even a part of it.

Suffice to say, This is why I wish they'd either post online or update in the rulebook a whole slew of pictures, graphs, and in this case-- theoretical situations and outcomes-- so that the points can be hammered home.

BTW, Spetulhu-- you're completely right. The little theoretical at the bottom rightp.26 completely spells this out.

jeezus...

You guys want to really get into the whole wound allocation argument? Try a unit of nobs getting punked by genestealers with impact claws.

For those busters it says, basically, whenever the model suffers an unsaved wound it takes an extra wound.

Instant death says "if amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes death, and then proceed as normal"

The problem here is that say you've got a total of 5 nobs with one nob with special gear and the rest are the same.

Take 10 wounds with 2 of them being rending.

Since, TECHNICALLY, they're not instant death, you don't have to pre-allocate them for saves as if they were and even then there's lee-way since technically you don't HAVE to allocate those to give the enemy the best bang for the buck anyway. In fact, DON'T

P.26 "if the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal"

So in this case, and since I don't KNOW they're unsaved I could put the two rending on the unique, and dump the rest on the normals. That way 4 wounds disapear into the one unique once those damn impact claw rules come into effect. Then again, 8 saves which can theoretically blossom into 16 wounds in the worse case scenario on 4 other models isn't good--I'm just saying procedurally it's legal.

The others way this is import is if the same unit of 5 suffered 10 wounds with 2 being from las-cannons and the rest being bolter-fire. Technically, you can allocate those onto the unfortunate unique character and have the other save from nothing but bolters.

As I see it, the only times instant kill really just... decimates is when the unit is mono-format and lets instant kills just roll through the models.

I'm not sure why there's an argument here, ZeroOP is right:

If amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes instant death

So if your swarm is ID'd by a Plasma gun, you have to remove unwounded models first. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Spetulhu wrote:

Kitzz wrote:Thus, by the definition you recognized, the scarabs do not have the same profile of characteristics, and the wounds can be distributed accordingly.

Funny enough the guy that wrote the rest of page 26 sees no difference between wounded and unwounded. Check the example with nobs getting shot at again after taking casualties.

Ah, yes but we are not using the example from the book. We are using scarabs (or at least the OP was). As you will read, again, "Multiple-wound models in the unit that are unique are rolled for individually and their unsaved wounds must be recorded separately."

Emphasis mine. The nob in the example is, as you correctly deduced, a single-wound model. Thus it does not fit in the category. However, a scarab, on the other hand, as long as it has 2 wounds, is in fact a "multiple-wound model that [is] unique." The nob in the example is a single-wound model. The guy that wrote the rest of the page distinguished multiple wound models and models that do not have multiple wounds, not wounded and unwounded models (except during the instant death section, which this discussion doesn't really have anything to do with).

While the example on page 26 does fly in the face of what is said earlier on the same page, I will grant that the example is more specific than the earlier statement, and thus overrules it. It (rather poorly) modifies what is said earlier, changing the definition of "identical models" from those that have the same profile to those that have the same profile except have only one wound. The important difference being that scarabs ignore this distinction if they have but one wound removed from their profile.

nobs have 2 wounds

Scarabs have three wounds. Was there some sort of point you were making about an above post, or were you just stating a random fact?

I thought you were saying that nobs only had one wound, had to reread the thread.

Regardless you're completely wrong about wounded models being unique. I don't see how you can read page 26 and think that wounded scarabs would be unique and at the same time think that wounded nobs are not.

The whole point of my post was wounded /= one wound remaining.

random comment---

I love the blanka pic, lol

Kitzz wrote:Emphasis mine. The nob in the example is, as you correctly deduced, a single-wound model. Thus it does not fit in the category. However, a scarab, on the other hand, as long as it has 2 wounds, is in fact a "multiple-wound model that [is] unique." The nob in the example is a single-wound model. The guy that wrote the rest of the page distinguished multiple wound models and models that do not have multiple wounds, not wounded and unwounded models (except during the instant death section, which this discussion doesn't really have anything to do with).

This is what he was referring to, which undermines your whole argument. Remaining wounds is NOT a characteristic which defines models as being unique.

BGB pg. 25 wrote: .....By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules,and the same weapons and wargear.

Emphasis mine.

Note the italicised words. A MW (multiple wound) model which has taken a wound does not change it's profile.

So you think that:

1. Models with two wounds and a model with two wounds that took a single wound are of the same type for wound allocation purposes.

and

2. Models with three wounds and a model with three wounds that took a single wound are not of the same type for wound allocation purposes.

Can you post the rules that lead you believe both statments are true? Statement one is obviously true, but there is no valid way to support statement two and not contradict statement one.

The Dragon wrote:random comment---

I love the blanka pic, lol

he's in awe of all the great posts I make

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I thought you were saying that nobs only had one wound, had to reread the thread.

Regardless you're completely wrong about wounded models being unique. I don't see how you can read page 26 and think that wounded scarabs would be unique and at the same time think that wounded nobs are not.

Kitzz wrote:The whole point of my post was wounded /= one wound remaining.

Hmmm I think you might have been better able to word what you said, Kitzz. Appears I wasn't the only person who misunderstood you. :-)

Lordhat wrote:This is what he was referring to, which undermines your whole argument. Remaining wounds is NOT a characteristic which defines models as being unique.

Then what is this about here:

BGB pg. 26 wrote:When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one wound from its profile.

Lordhat wrote:

BGB pg. 25 wrote: .....By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules,and the same weapons and wargear.

Emphasis mine.

Note the italicised words. A MW (multiple wound) model which has taken a wound does not change it's profile.

Am I missing something? It certainly is late at night, and I'm sorry for any confusion caused by my poor wording. But those two passages seem to me to support my claim. Maybe I'm just losing it...zzzzzzz