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 don't know if this has been covered yet, but I didn't see it anywhere, so I wanted to see what YMDC thought.

"The Hive Tyrant recovers a single lost Wound for each wound inflicted using this power, up to its starting number of wounds."

Does this mean that, whether they save or not, he still recovers the wound? Because first, I roll to hit (although he hits automatically), I roll to wound - and this is where wounds are "inflicted" - and then the roll to save. It says nothing of removing models. It says nothing of models killed. It simply says "Wound inflicted". Inflicted simply means they take a wound, whether they save or not. I think RAI is that he gets the wound if the model is removed, but RAW is that he gets it regardless.

Thoughts?

puma713 wrote:I don't know if this has been covered yet, but I didn't see it anywhere, so I wanted to see what YMDC thought.

"The Hive Tyrant recovers a single lost Wound for each wound inflicted using this power, up to its starting number of wounds."

Does this mean that, whether they save or not, he still recovers the wound? Because first, I roll to hit (although he hits automatically), I roll to wound - and this is where wounds are "inflicted" - and then the roll to save. It says nothing of removing models. It says nothing of models killed. It simply says "Wound inflicted". Inflicted simply means they take a wound, whether they save or not. I think RAI is that he gets the wound if the model is removed, but RAW is that he gets it regardless.

Thoughts?

No. Saved wounds are not ever inflicted.

You dont inflict "wounds" until a save has been failed, you have only inflicted "wounding hits"

An unsaved wound is a wound that ahs been inflicted.

(Oddly enough this is the opposite way to the similar spell from WHFB Death Magic, where even if they pass their ward or regen you still gain a wound)

Interesting, I always thought that wounds were still wounds, just some were fatal, and others were "flesh wounds".

Changed the title of the thread because I had another wording query:

Mawloc

He has the ability to Burrow in the movement phase. Now, the wording is specific: "he can elect to re-burrow". This indicates that he arrived from Deep Strike in the first place.

So, if the Mawloc doesn't arrive from Deep strike (ie., you simple deploy him like a normal unit) is he allowed to burrow turn 1 for a definite deep strike turn 2? RAW would say no, because he didn't burrow in the first place. RAI, I believe yes.

In the Italian version of the Codex is simply written that, in any moment of it's movement fase (if not in enemy-base-contact) it can burrow and be removed from the table. It will can enter again the folloing turn by deep striking.
The only limitation is that obviously it can deep strike and burrow in the same turn.

Toban wrote:In the Italian version of the Codex is simply written that, in any moment of it's movement fase (if not in enemy-base-contact) it can burrow and be removed from the table. It will can enter again the folloing turn by deep striking.
The only limitation is that obviously it can deep strike and burrow in the same turn.

Interesting. Thanks for the translation!

fase is actually spelt phase, before Gwar comes in and gets a headache.

That is a good point, I never thought of that. Since he didn't burrow in the first place how can he re-burrow then? Waiting for Gwar to clear this all up for us now. Lets just make shure our spelling is in proper order

Nothing states he has to have burrowed *that game* either, so if he ever burrows at any point ever, he can be said to have reburrowed.

Seriously, that is serious nitpicking that results in a mishap where you "go back into reserve" doesnt work for GoI librarians.

Ah the english language and GW writing ablilities

But if you never have burrowed, how can you re-burrow then? He does have a point though. From a RAW perspective, I guess if you Run your Mawlock he can't burrow, since it's only allowed if you re-burrow.

They way I read it now, since it was brought to my attention, is you can't do an action unless you have done the action already and or before.

I hope Gwar is feeling ok, I thought he would have answered this part already

Well it's a good case of GW letting fluff writing leech in their rules writing, at no point is the Mawloc's deep strike called a burrow in the rules entry, so RAW it can never 're-burrow' but if we look at the title of the entry it's just 'burrow' so I'd say it's accurate that a 'Loc can burrow turn one to emerge turn two, after all if your second it means they get a whole round of shooting at them (yeah as fair a a round of shooting at BW's with 4+ saves)

RAW a 'Loc can burrow in any movment phases imo.

Lol. I can't decide if the GW rulebooks make my English degree (not to mention the soon to be 3 others) cringe more than all of the attempts to interpret them that show up on the forums or not

Anyways, there is nothing in the rules for the mawloc that states it can only "re-burrow" if it first deploys via Terror from the Depths.

Waaaaghmaster wrote:Lol. I can't decide if the GW rulebooks make my English degree (not to mention the soon to be 3 others) cringe more than all of the attempts to interpret them that show up on the forums or not

Anyways, there is nothing in the rules for the mawloc that states it can only "re-burrow" if it first deploys via Terror from the Depths.

So, if something hasn't been counted, can it be re-counted?

"re- 
a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion: regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/re-)

Not to mention the fact that suggesting you can do something again after you haven't done it in the first place is a logical fallacy. I would have thought with all your degrees, you would have gathered that.

Edit:

To be clear, I agree with everyone here, that it can burrow on turn 1 and re-emerge on turn 2 (I'll be fielding one in an upcoming Team Tourney) and that GW needs to reword much of their rules-writing. I was just pointing out that there are many tricky passages in the Tyranid codex and that this could be another one (Tervigon shooting at its friendly units, Tyranids not carrying close combat weapons, Malantai affecting embarked units, Tyrant being able to leave his retinue, even though he's not an IC, etc.).