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.

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.

Guys, if you have a genuine complaint about another user's behaviour, use the Yellow Alert button so that moderators will come in and look at the situation.

Just moaning will not resolve the situation and will only annoy the other user. This is wrong whatever he may or may not have done.

DeathReaper wrote: 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.

Because the wounds are allocated, and then saves made at the same time, aunit suffers more wounds then it has to take. You admit there are eexcess wounds, and the rulebook does nothing wtih them, it doesn't say you do nothing with them. Other special rules apparently utilize them.

Blood Talons state, when an UNSAVED WOUND is CAUSED, not model removed, not wounds removed from profile, none of htat.

Also, you keep saying how the rulebook says the model is no longer there.. it actually says, the model may not in fact be dead but may be just knocked uncounscious or too grieveously wounded to continue. Meaning he can still be there, but takes no further part. so there you have a model to allocate the wounds too, they just wont have further effect on a model

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Guys, if you have a genuine complaint about another user's behaviour, use the Yellow Alert button so that moderators will come in and look at the situation.

Just moaning will not resolve the situation and will only annoy the other user. This is wrong whatever he may or may not have done.

Further, this thread has mutliple reports due to untoward posting. Futher postings that violate RUle #1 will lead to suspensions.

mpangelu wrote:

DeathReaper wrote: 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.

Because the wounds are allocated, and then saves made at the same time, a unit suffers more wounds then it has to take...

That is the whole point, the wounds are allocated then saves made, then wounds are applied to the unit. You can not suffer more wounds than you have models in the unit (in the case of one wound models), since once you suffer as many wounds on your profile you are immediately removed and once all the models are removed you can not suffer any more wounds, since there is no one left to cause wounds to.

Neither side has concrete evidence, I suggest we all E-Mail GW and bombard them with questions until they get a valid rules writing team, and put this discussion to rest.

I concede. There is no way to talk a man out of walking off a cliff, if he insist on a bridge being there.

Unbelievable.

Slogged through several pages, then skimmed quickly over a few pages, then slogged some more.

The arguement is basically all about a dread in combat with more than one unit, yes?

The problem being that the dread attacks a small unit and causes more wounds than the unit actually has then leads to....discussion.



Im having a little trouble with the scenario here. If the dread is in combat with more than one unit, why not allocate 3 of the inital attacks against one unit and two attacks against the second unit to begin with? The dread can choose how many attacks it makes against each unit......


As a rules arguement it might have some merit to discus, but why go 10 pages on a discussion of an event that really shouldnt ever happen in the first place?



Sliggoth

DeathReaper wrote:I suggest we all E-Mail GW and bombard them with questions until they get a valid rules writing team, and put this discussion to rest.

Anyone know the email address to write to GW about rules? I looked a few weeks ago but couldn't seem to find one

Sliggoth wrote:Slogged through several pages, then skimmed quickly over a few pages, then slogged some more.

The arguement is basically all about a dread in combat with more than one unit, yes?

The problem being that the dread attacks a small unit and causes more wounds than the unit actually has then leads to....discussion.



Im having a little trouble with the scenario here. If the dread is in combat with more than one unit, why not allocate 3 of the inital attacks against one unit and two attacks against the second unit to begin with? The dread can choose how many attacks it makes against each unit......


As a rules arguement it might have some merit to discus, but why go 10 pages on a discussion of an event that really shouldnt ever happen in the first place?



Sliggoth

It actually might be more advantageous to allocate to the first group, if for instance, the first group had a lower WS, and T so that you were more likely to kill them and generate more attacks to go to the second group.

Secondly @DeathReaper, it's not "unsaved wounds caused/inflicted/sufferred" that phrase in the rulebook (page 24) is talking about unsaved wounds taken by a unit. Blood talons does not say "how many wounds did that squad lose?". Blood talons specifically says, unsaved wounds caused by a model with bloodtalons. Unfortunately, if you can't see the difference, then there is no reason to argue further.

If you generate 5 FnP rolls (which are not saves) on 3 marines that all failed their save, then the same 3 man marine squad would, when suffering 5 unsaved wounds from a death company bloodclaw dread, generate 5 more bloodclaw attacks. The logic is identical, but the outlook is that the bloodclaw is broken while the FnP is fine.

The number of times this will happen is minimal, as the dread by itself cant even assault 2 units at the same time, and it only comes up when killing one whole squad and moving on to the next. Yet people will rattle the sabers over this kind of stuff all day long.

blah

DevianID wrote:as the dread by itself cant even assault 2 units at the same time

Is there a reason the dread can't assault 2 units?

Edit: for clarity

Because the dread must assault the closest unit. It was shown to me that only subsequent models in an assaulting unit can make base contact with a second unit, even if the dreads closest route may in fact let it touch the bases of 2 units at the same time, because the dread has no subsequent models in his unit the second unit is not a valid assault target.

What if they assault the dread?

Alternately: There could be an IC in the unit the dread assaulted - or a mix of models with different weapons or whatever

Your dread could be joining a combat between multiple units, and the defenders react into it.

A unit of 2 IC's, models close enough tha thte base can contact, IC's in a unit. Vehicle and unit outside of it. And then multiple enemy units assualting... there are alot of ways, and reasons are obvious. and mentioned