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.

Yes, they can withstand several wounds. That makes sense Mordar, but in the 'Remove Casualties' it shows what to do when they are wounded and how it is tracked. Put it this way, in DnD or other similar games, when you take damage your HP goes down til you reach 0. You dont 'gain damage'. A fighter with 50 hp looses 10 of those HP when he takes 10 damage. The description of 'track remaining wounds' and 'they loose a wound' would be very similar. A creature with 2 out of an original 3 wounds could be counted as a 'wounded creature' but you dont say they 'gained a wound'. When you spread wounds around, its a better way to think of it as spreading damage around. I'd say its a bit of bad word usage on GW's part, but thats just my opinion. When you 'take 6 unsaved wounds' that means you remove 6 wounds worth on the squad, not 'add 6 wound counters' to the squad (regardless of removing models and the like) So, yes, they are 'able to withstand several wounds' I wouldn't say that means when they 'take a wound' that you still add a wound counter to them, but remove one. The Term 'Wounded' would only apply if they have LESS wounds then when they started, right?

This affects the argument because if they are LOOSING wounds, then the next time they are taking a single wound, there is no difference between a model with 2 wounds remaining and a model with 3. Both would not be removed by the single wound, therefor negating the 'spreading wounds' around argument.

So what do other people think? Do you 'gain' wounds or do you 'loose' wounds when wounded?

Both. You gain a wound when you lose a wound, take a wound, or get wounded, or suffer a wound.

It's like the silly old saw about cups being half-full or half-empty: If you're losing a wound then you're counting down from a total; you start with wounds and lose them, 0 is dead. If you're gaining/taking/suffering/getting/etc wounds then you're counting up from zero; you start without wounds and gain them, W is dead.

Either way the "Creatures With More Than One Wound" rule in the rulebook describes a situation every numerate person on this site should recognize: [and the name of which completely escapes me...]. Like decimal notation there's a column for units, then a column for sets of units (10 for decimal notation), then a column for sets of sets, etc.

A 10 strong unit of W3 models would thus be treated just like a 1 strong unit of a W3 model. Wounds are tracked in the units or model column. Models are tracked in the sets of units or unit column (just to confuse things).

If you are counting up then the units column is wounds gained and the sets column is casualties gained.

22 would be two casualties and two wounds on the 10 strong unit of W3 models. Another wound and: 30. Two more wounds and 32, five more wounds and 51.

If you are counting down then the units column is wounds lost and the sets column is models lost.

71 would be two casualties and two wounds on the 10 strong unit of W3 models. Another wound and: 70. Two more wounds and 61, five more wounds and 50.

Of course, everyone knows the cup being half-empty is better because you just sucked back a half-pint of beer...

Caedesis wrote:Put it this way, in DnD or other similar games, when you take damage your HP goes down til you reach 0. You dont 'gain damage'. A fighter with 50 hp looses 10 of those HP when he takes 10 damage.

We are playing Warhammer not DnD, Magic, or anything else. Similarities are not something that ports over into completely different games systems.

Caedesis wrote:
The description of 'track remaining wounds' and 'they loose a wound' would be very similar. A creature with 2 out of an original 3 wounds could be counted as a 'wounded creature' but you dont say they 'gained a wound'. When you spread wounds around, its a better way to think of it as spreading damage around. I'd say its a bit of bad word usage on GW's part, but thats just my opinion. When you 'take 6 unsaved wounds' that means you remove 6 wounds worth on the squad, not 'add 6 wound counters' to the squad (regardless of removing models and the like) So, yes, they are 'able to withstand several wounds' I wouldn't say that means when they 'take a wound' that you still add a wound counter to them, but remove one. The Term 'Wounded' would only apply if they have LESS wounds then when they started, right?

When a model receives a wound from any source it does not reduce his wounds by 1 or however many. He now has a wound allocated to him, this means that he can only take X number of more wounds which is equal to the number of wounds it has received subtracted from the starting number of wounds on his profile (after any wargear bonus if there are any). This leads to the interpretation that the wounds listed on his profile is the amount of wounds that can be allocated to the model before he is removed as a casualty.

Caedesis wrote:
This affects the argument because if they are LOOSING wounds, then the next time they are taking a single wound, there is no difference between a model with 2 wounds remaining and a model with 3. Both would not be removed by the single wound, therefor negating the 'spreading wounds' around argument.

When a unit charges into HtH does he not gain an attack? In this case does his attack on his profile increase by 1? I don't think so. This is the same in the case of wounds. The Number of wounds on his profile will never change after the model has been deployed. When a model becomes wounded he will not loose a wound from his profile. Rather he will have a marker or counter placed near him to indicated how many more wounds he can sustain before being removed as a casualty or, how many wounds he currently has sustained. Either way he will always be considered to be a X wound model where X is the starting number of wounds on his profile.

Also in order to satisfy the "you many not spread wounds around" Condition of the rules you cannot have more than one model in a squad assigned a wound until all other wounded models have been removed as a casualty.

Yes Nurglitch it can be viewed in such a manor except page 27 describes the wounding action as an action of 'loosing' a wound, and 'track the REMAINING' wounds, does it not? The wording on it is pretty straightforward on that regard.

I agree with Mordar that the model in question most certainly is a 'Wounded' model, but the rules don't ask you to wound an already wounded model, it asks you to remove whole models when possible and not 'spread wounds' around at the time of models taking unsaved wounds.

I'll post a summery of my arguments and examples later today at work. Hopefully those joining late will be educated on my position and the examples, as well I'll try to list the counter-arguments that people have brought up. Stay tuned, you wont want to miss it. *Does the Smokey Bear and points out to the screen, completely breaking the 4th wall.*

Caedesis:

The rules in question do not require the player to allocate wounds to models. It says:

"When a creature like this suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound."

Okay. So a model with W3 has two wounds left after it suffers a wounding hit with no save.

"Once a creature has lost all of its wounds it is removed as a casualty, so a creature with 3 wounds would only be killed after it had been wounded threes times."

Okay. So a unit consisting of a model with W3 suffers three wounding hits with no save and is removed from the board.

"Keep track of how many wounds a creature has left on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or marker next to the model."

Okay. Keep track of the wounds on a unit by some tracking method. If a unit consisting of a model with W3 suffers two wounding hits with no save, then a marker noting 2 should be attached to the unit model.

"When a unit contains several multiple-Wound models, and those models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible - wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

This seems to be the point of contention, and I can imagine why it is because it says "models take wounds" when the rules covering rolling for wounds refer to units ("target").

"Track any excess wounds with a marker as noted above."

This is where the rules implicitly state the information that you subtract wounds from wounded models in the advent of unsaved wounding hits. We know that wounds are inflicted on units, and in the case of single model units with multiple Wounds we know that we keep a track of those wounds on a marker. Likewise, in the case of multiple model units with multiple wounds we keep a track of those wounds on the unit on a single marker for the whole unit.

Here's the situation in a diagram.

Unit A, W1, Models 4: [O][O][O][O]
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [O][O]

Unit B, W1 and W3, Models 5: [O][O][OOO][O]
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [OOO][O]
Or
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [O][OO][O]

Unit C, W3, Models 4: [OOO][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [O][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes two more such hits: [OO][OOO][OOO]
Takes three more such hits: [OO][OOO]

Multiple Wound Creatures: A summery of the discussion

In an atempt to bring everyone back on to the same page and make sure we're all still talking about the same thing, here is a summery of the discussion so far. I'll try to include my point of view as the primary voice in this summery because...well...I'm the one writting it. However I'll also try to add in the points made by others in order to keep everyone up to speed and stay fair. A few notes before I leap into the fray once more, this is a discussion purly regarding Rules As Written. Not what 'everyone' plays. Not what people agree upon to make things simpler. Its an excersize in pure 'rules lawyering' if you wish to call it that way. I have no trouble playing the game the way the majority would like to, so please dont think I'm on a crusade to change the way you play the game at your local store.

Premise: When a unit consisting of multiple-wound models take a single wound from a single source either in close combat or from shooting, and there is no possible way to remove a model from that single wound, there is no requirements to which model takes the wound, even if the unit has a model that has been wounded previously.

Practicle Example: A unit of 3 rippers, labled Rip A, Rip B, and Rip C, is fired upon by a unit of Eldar Gaurdians. The Gaurdians score one unsaved wounds (they cant shoot well today for some reason) and the Rippers owner takes one wond on Rip A. The Eldar player then fires at the same Ripper unit with another Gaurdian unit (again with the bad shooting) and scores another single wound. The Rippers owner consults his squad and the requirments for that wound. According to the premise and supporting rules he takes that wound on Rip B, not Rip A. Later that turn the same Ripper unit is charged by a brave Dire Avenger, who manages to once again do exactly one unsaved wound. The Ripper unit owner once again can not remove a model by that single wound and thus is capable of choosing Rip C as the model that takese that wound. The next turn the same unit is fired at again and takes another single wound. Rip A, B, and C all have 2 wounds remaining so the Ripper owner elects to take a wound off Rip A. Later that turn once again the unit takes a single wound, and now Rip A is capable of being removed as a model from the board by that wound and must be. Rip B and C at this point are not legtitimate targets for that wound.

Supporting Evidence: There is two key elements to my argument ragarding why the premise I proposed is Rules As Written. First is the timing of the wording of 'when the unit takes wounds' and 'a model looses wounds, it does not gain a wound'. I'll break them into seperate sections for clarity. Dont worry, I'll adress the objections and arguments against in the next section, for now just bear with the evidence.

First, so that we're on the same page here is the applicable text from the BBoR/BGB/Rules. Emphasis is mine to help describe my points later.

RULES QUOTES:
From page 27: "When a unit contains serveral multiple-Wound models, and those models take wounds(plural), you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible - wounds(pural) may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."
Further: "When a creature like this (multi-wound) suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound. Keep track of how many wounds a creature has left on a piece of paper or by placing a die next to the model"

1) 'When' describes when the action of taking wounds is done. It states the time that you take the action and does not make any break in the single sentence between when it applies and when 'spreading wounds' applies. Under this context this is not seen as carrying over through multiple instances of taking wounds. It happens once and then proceedes with the game. If a single wound is applied, with the exception of removing whole models if possible, there is no provision that says you must place the wound on a model that has lost a wound already. Meaning you cant 'spread' a 1, but 2 wounds you could not spread to 2 models if taking those 2 wounds on a single model would have removed it. If ask this question: 'If I wanted to break the rules and spread wounds around, when would that happen?' The rules would reply 'When a unit takes the wounds' as listed above. As the 'when' is defined by the sentence and there is no time break in it, so is the 'when' you attempt to spread the wounds.

2) Wounds are lost, not gained, when a model takes a wound. A model that takes a wound during the "Remove Casualties" section of the shooting step (also followed during CC) is said to have lost that wound, not 'gained a wound'. It can be considered a wounded model, and in fact this is a distinction that is required for scoring purposes. However the fact that it is wounded or not is not a condition of if its eligable or required to take a further loss of wounds later. In a later instance of taking wounds, a model with 2 out of 3 remaining wounds has the same priority to be wounded as a model with 3 out of 3 remaining wounds if that unit takes only a single wound. It can not be said to 'have a wound on it'(though it is wounded) or '+1 wounds' that is required to be increased by it gaining another wound (if you're ignoring my argument spelled out in 1) This distinction further enforces that spreading wounds can only happen during the instance the unit takes multiple wounds at a single time. If they take wounds later, there isn't a tally keeping track of which model has plus wounds and thus has to be allocated due to avoid 'spreading wounds' but instead the tally of wounds remaining is covered by the 'remove whole models if possible' phrase.

Arguments against the Premise:

A) The first and most quoted argument is that the 'wounds may not be spread around' is applied over the entirety of the game. While taken in the context of only that exact phrase, it could be interpreted that way, however that does not consider the context of the entire sentence. As stated in point 1, the 'When' is clearly defined and does not imply being carried over to any other time period. Nor is there a break between that 'when' and the part of the sentance describeing 'wounds being spread'. Even if this was the case, point 2 also refutes this because there are no wounds on a model. It IS a wounded creature, but there is no distuction between a wounded model and an unwounded one when the provision for 'remove whole models when possible' if neither can be removed.

B) The second argument is that wounds must be 'built up' to remove a model in the future if possible. This ignores both points 1 and 2 completley and needs to defeat both of those points entirley to be correct. Yes this IS the method the majority of 40k players use in their games, and there is nothing wrong with this. Please recall this is a discussion of RAW purley. If you feel it is unbalanced or 'should be' some other way, thats a differn't topic for another thread. Thanks.

C) Another argument is that the rules I've quoted only apply in the Shooting Phase and as quoted in the Close Combat phase. This was a good point that paused me for a second while I considered it, however...the most common reason to remove models in the Movement phase involve mines or booby traps. Both those instances describe which models take the wound(s) in their description and bypass the whole argument that way. As of yet, there has been no other examples of models taking wounds that are not in the Shooting or Close Combat phase that do not already have provisions explaining which model takes the wound or says it defaults to a shooting attack. If there are examples out there that fit the description of doing wounds outside shooting and close combat that do not fall into this catagory, please point them out. I'm not saying I've scoured the entire 40k universe trying to find them, so there may be evidence still left here to explore.

D) Am I missing any major counter-points here?

Conclusion:

My argument as spelled out in points 1 and 2 based on the rules quotes are as well defined as I feel they can be. I do not feel that I am wrong in my premise, and as of yet there has not been an argument that persuaded me to abbandon either point completley. I welcome further input and discussion from everyone. The discussion has been rather heated in the past, but I hold no grudges towards anyone, not is any of my discussions or points ever ment to be personal. Argue the argument, not the arguer. In the end, if you're not willing to discuss it with us or just dont care anymore, that ok too. These types of discussions are not for everyone and I can understand and respect that. Thanks again for your time reading this.
-Caedesis

I think the best bet is to call it a day on this one. As you've pointed out you don't play it this way, and as it appears 5th edition (from the PDF) will make this a moot point anyway (in roughly 5-6 months likely).


And FYI, in the PDF they are very clear that wounds always stack onto one model until it is dead.

Unit B, W1 and W3, Models 5: [O][O][OOO][O]
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [OOO][O]
Or
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [O][OO][O]

The secnds example on that would be illegle, it ignores the 'Remove whole models if possible' provision. You would have to use the first example only.

Unit C, W3, Models 4: [OOO][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [O][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes two more such hits: [OO][OOO][OOO]
Takes three more such hits: [OO][OOO]

As displayed you are exactly correct, but this doesn't adress the situation I'm describing. Take that same example, but in each case display only ONE unsaved wounding hit each time.

Yak: You're probably right. I'm annoyed a little that they have to make a whole new eddition instead of errata-ing their old stuff properly. Its not like they dont have the distribution capability for it...but whatever. If anyone else wants to pick through my novel of a post and continue discussing it, great. I am still game. If not, thats cool too. As Yak mentioned, it wont matter in a while anyways.

Caedesis wrote:The seconds example on that would be illegle, it ignores the 'Remove whole models if possible' provision. You would have to use the first example only.

Nope, it is quite correct. Removing whole models applies to units of multiple-wound models, not to units including multiple-wound models.

Caedesis wrote:As displayed you are exactly correct, but this doesn't adress the situation I'm describing. Take that same example, but in each case display only ONE unsaved wounding hit each time.

It does indeed address the the situation you're describing, the number of the wounds is variable in that situation and thus can be one unsaved wounding hit or two unsaved wounding hits, or three or four or five, etc.

Unit D, W3, Models 4: [OOO][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes one unsaved wounding hit: [OO][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes one more such hit: [O][OOO][OOO]
Takes one more such hit: [OOO][OOO]

Unit D, W3, Models 4: [OOO][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes one unsaved wounding hit: [OO][OOO][OOO][OOO]
Takes one more such hit: [O][OOO][OOO]
Takes one more such hit: [OOO][OOO]

That is the visual representation of what I'm arguing against. The first instance is no issue, any takes it. The second, what forces that already wounded model to take it?
Why can it not be: [OO][OO][OOO] instead? The second wound on the first model does not fulfill 'remove models as possible' and nothing further forces the wound upon it. What you describe is the 'building towards removing' scenario if I'm not mistaken.

Caedesis wrote:

Unit B, W1 and W3, Models 5: [O][O][OOO][O]
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [OOO][O]
Or
Takes two unsaved wounding hits: [O][OO][O]

The secnds example on that would be illegle, it ignores the 'Remove whole models if possible' provision. You would have to use the first example only.

Not at all. The section that you are arguing about refers to a unit with more than one multiple wound models. In this case it is fine to allocate wounds to the one model as the rules that govern multiple wound model units do not apply to this instance.


Also your notion that because it says wounds means that it must be more than one wound. While you might have had something there your logic is flawed. If I say that model receives one ore more wounds that would be the correct way of saying. In the grand scheme of things you must abide by playing it the way it is written and that is to remove whole models where ever possible and not to spread wounds through the unit.

Caedesis wrote:That is the visual representation of what I'm arguing against. The first instance is no issue, any takes it. The second, what forces that already wounded model to take it?

Because a more accurate diagram would be, now that I check my work:

Unit D, Models OOOO, Wounds [][][]
Takes one unsaved wounding hit: OOOO[][]
Takes one more such hit: OOOO[]
Takes one more such hit: OOO[][][]

I mislead you. The diagram originally posted is indeed misleading because it allocates wounds to models rather than to the unit and tracked with the marker. This diagram is less inaccurate.

Caedesis wrote:Why can it not be: [OO][OO][OOO] instead? The second wound on the first model does not fulfill 'remove models as possible' and nothing further forces the wound upon it. What you describe is the 'building towards removing' scenario if I'm not mistaken.

It can not be [OO][OO][OOO] because wounds are not tracked in units of mult-Wound models by the model, they are tracked on a single marker for the unit as I described and not as I diagrammed. In fact diagramming it in that misleading way in ours heads is probably what leads to the confusion (as well as the misleading expression in the rule itself that suggests the incorrect diagram).

Nurg: "When a creature like this (multi-wound) suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound. Keep track of how many wounds a creature has left on a piece of paper or by placing a die next to the model"

This clearly states the wounds are tracked 'per model' not 'per unit'.

Negative:

In the grand scheme of things you must abide by playing it the way it is written and that is to remove whole models where ever possible and not to spread wounds through the unit.

Sure, I can and do abide by that, but then again you havn't adressed point 1 with that statement. How does that apply over multiple instances of wounds? My argument is that it does not. Not over the turn break, not over the break between one unit shooting and the next. 'When' is a pretty strong definition of time and as I said, nothing breaks the time up from that declaration and when it states you can't spread the wounds. One would have to view that as being at the same time logically.

When is an instantaneous description as in the moment the model looses a wound. There is no other way to look at that. However that statement refers not only to the immediate phase but rather to the status of the unit at any given time. By this I mean that a model with multiple wounds has 3 states it can be in and at any given time it can only exist in one of those 3 states they are wounded unwounded and casualty. Wounded can mean either one or two wounds remaining on a 3 wound model. At no point does the stat line for the model change from what it originally was (there is no rule to support that the actual state line changes). With this being said the moment you have 2 models in a multi-wound model unit with a wound on them you have broken the rule that prohibits the spreading of wounds. This is By RAW! the term 'When' refers to the instance that the model is wounded not to the phase or anything else. However at that time you must abide by the other rules indicated to Remove whole models and not to spread wounds. There really is no other way to look at this.

The "When" IS clearly defined.

When a unit contains serveral multiple-Wound models, and those models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible - wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models.

That whole sentace is stated as this:
When do I remove casualties? When they take wounds.
When do they take wound? When they fail to save.
When do they save? When they are hit.
And so far back to the start of the shooting step against them.
Please expand on how you see this as any other time. I dont understand how you feel it applies other then the time its stated.

And again, the models are said to have lost a wound. You can define them as gained the 'wounded status' but thats not neumeric. Its a state. A wounded model can have any number wounds less then its original up untill it has none and is removed, and in the case of only a single wound against the unit, that one model isn't required to be taken off unless it only has one wound left.

When a creature like this (multi-wound) suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound

I read this statement as

When <Description of unit formation> models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible (if that is not possible) wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models (allocate wounds to models that have less than their starting number of wounds remaining).

That is how I read that statement, the 'When' refers to the model taking a wound that is within a unit of multi wound models. The '-' between the remove whole models and no spreading wounds around is an explanation on how to assign wounds to a unit to allow for maximum casualty removal.

I don't see how it can be read any other way.

Because thet "-" isn't a time break. Not in the english language. The sentance is kept going and not stopped so that WHEN hasn't changed. Granted the english language doesn't really use "-" very often in its formal grammer, but even when it is it doesnt define a time difference. 'When' is still defeined as 'at that time they take wounds' So when they take wounds I can't spread. But what about the next time? Well thats not the same 'when' as the last time.

Caedesis wrote:This clearly states the wounds are tracked 'per model' not 'per unit'.

You know what I always find amusing? People pointing at something and saying: "This clearly says that..." or "Obviously..." If it is clear, show how it is clear. If it is obvious, show that it is obvious. Otherwise you're just saying: "This clearly states to me the..." and the point is not to share your entirely valid and no doubt special opinion, but to determine which opinions are correct.

When there is only one model with W1+ in the unit, then the wounds in the rest of the unit are tracked by the removal of models, or they are not tracked at all because the model is all of the unit there is.

When there is more than one model with W1+ in the unit, then the wounds in the rest of the unit are tracked by the removal of models and a marker "as noted above" when wounds do not translate directly into casualties.

My point is that if you're going to read this rule, you need to go back and 'bring down' or reiterate all of the relevant information about the relation of units to their component models, and you need to situate the scope of the rule which lies within the scope of casualty removal.

Take the example of a unit of Rippers. If this unit of Rippers has been attacked by a unit of Space Marines such that ten unsaved wounding hits were caused on the unit, and three bases removed as casualties, then the unit has a remainder of one wound on it which is not distributed to or "spread around" the models in the unit.

Of course one might think that if a single unsaved wounding hit were caused on the unit, having suffered ten previously, and being six unharmed bases prior to that, that because the wound would not require the removal of a casualties that it could be apply to any of them. However, if by applying the wound to an unharmed base, supposing of course that the wound already held over was appended to some particular base in the unit, there came to be the situation in which the unit consisted of two bases with only two wounds left and one base unharmed, then a third wound caused on the unit could be applied to the unit such that the entire unit has three wounds but had avoided losing a base.

Caedesis wrote:Because thet "-" isn't a time break. Not in the english language. The sentance is kept going and not stopped so that WHEN hasn't changed. Granted the english language doesn't really use "-" very often in its formal grammer, but even when it is it doesnt define a time difference. 'When' is still defeined as 'at that time they take wounds' So when they take wounds I can't spread. But what about the next time? Well thats not the same 'when' as the last time.

If you are going to bring the vagaries of the English language into this, I suggest you proofread your posts a little more closely. A 'summery' of the topics, 'sentance' analysis, and anything 'defeined' in such a careless manner robs a linguistic argument of any power.

We also need to define the figure '-' as a hyphen, or a dash if this discussion is going to get that technical. A dash signifies a nested clause. A hyphen is just a stylized pause which doesn't really have any impact on the sentence's meaning.

Your point of using the phrase 'clearly' is well taken. I'll avoid it in the future and try to stick to more neutral tones.

Ok....your method of 'tracking wounds to the unit by removing W1 models' is flawed. It works for the W1 scenario because there is no other factors to stop it from showing up the same was as the method of 'each unsaved wound causes a model to loose a wound. In the case of a 1 wound model, it is removed from the table'. I'll have to find the page number and direct quote again, but I beleive page 26 expresses it in that way, not the way yours works. The distinction is further proved by page 27's "When a creature like this (multi-wound) suffers a wounding hit that it does not save against, it loses one wound. Keep track of how many wounds a creature has left on a piece of paper or by placing a die next to the mode". How does your method of counting wounds against a unit, instead of per model, handle the direct referance to the modals wounds being left over, not the units? The method I've put forward handles it.

And yes my spelling is horrible. I dont have my spell-checking Firefox at work :S Your point is ironic, but taken Gitz

The method in the rulebook references models rather than units because otherwise it would not cohere with the torrent of fire rule describe on P. 26. Likewise the method in the rulebook references units for hits, wounds, armour saves and cover saves. Models may make saves on an individual basis when they are hit according to the torrent of fire rule, or they have an invulnerable save.

The method you have put forward may result in wounds spread around a unit of multiple wound models ("creatures") in contradiction to the rules stated, as I describe in my previous post.

Um...yes it results in 'spreading' wounds in instances were removing whole models is impossible...thats is the whole premise of my argument.

So...I'm going to have to gather direct quotes when I get home, but your point that the book references units at some times then models at others does lead to some confusion. It doesn't really negate the issue with the quoted rule about 'multiple multiple-wound models' because when it comes time to wound those models, the rules state at taht time it is models we talk about, not the unit. One model does have to be nominated to take a single wound (or in the Rippers case taking 4 wounds would remove one entirely and leave 1 wound remaining) and the quoted rules text shows its that model that has lost those wounds, not the unit as a whole. So the next instance of wounding would attempt to remove it if possible, but if not...again, its a model that would take the excess wound.

No, that's the conclusion of your argument. Your premises are that (1) models take wounds, and that (2) Spreading wounds around models in a unit is only impossible when done instead of removing whole models.

Now, the relation of models to units in Warhammer 40k is one of membership. Units are made of models. Units do not have things like wounds and saving throws apart from the models that constitute them. How a unit is composed of models depends on the rule under consideration. A unit's Leadership, for example, is that of the model with the highest Leadership rating in the unit. A unit's toughness, for example, is either that of the majority, or the lowest in the absence of a majority.

Where wounds are concerned units take wounds and these wounds are paid off by removing models from the unit as casualties. The "Creatures With More Than One Wound" rules comes into effect within the scope of removing casualties, when the unsaved wounding hits are paid out in casualties - models are assigned wounds and removed as the wounds taken as assigned exceed the W capacity of the model. Excess wounds, wounds not assigned to a model within the casualty conditions, are kept track of according to the unit.

The particular expression of the "Creatures With More Than One Wound" rule uses models as the receivers of wounds because that is what they are in the interaction discussed in that section of the rules. The unit already took the wounds when the wounding hits were unsaved.

The two paragraphs express two situations:

1. Where one model with W1+ is in the unit. In which case the excess wounds tracked for the unit will always be the same as the excess wounds on the W1+ model. Whether a unit is reduced to a single W1+ model, or just starts that way, the wounds kept track of are effectively those of the model.

This allows situations where an Ork Mob is reduced to an Ork Nob and his last remaining retainer Boy, where we can say "The Nob has one wound left" and "The Mob has one wound left" are equally true because they express the same statement: one wound is in excess with regard to that unit.

2. Where more than one model with W1+ is in the unit. In which case the excess wounds tracked for the unit will not be the same as the excess wounds on the W1+ models. Before a unit is reduced to a single W1+ model the wounds kept track of are those of the unit, and as shown if the wounds kept track of were those of the models then situations would arise where wounds would be spread around the unit such that a player could avoid taking casualties.

This disallows situations where each model in a Ripper Brood has one wound but the total number of those unsaved wounding hits is greater than the W rating of a base of Rippers. Wounds cannot be spread around like that.