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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rulebook does define "inflicted" as prior to making armour saves (etc) - had this come up with the necron power that gives you hits for each wound inflicted.

It's not quite that simple - there are examples of both in the BRB

Assault Results
When determining assault results in a multiple combat, total up the number of wounds inflicted by each side
P41

Allocating wounds
After determining the number of wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative level.
P39

So here we have examples of wounds inflicted meaning both wounds and un-saved wounds.

Brainleech Worms (devourer ammo):- If an enemy unit suffers one or more casualties as a result of a devourer and is required to take a morale check at the end of the phase, it suffers a -1 penalty to its leadership.

@ Scott-S6:
Both of the examples you listed are in the Assault Phase Section of the BRB, not the Shooting Section.

Shooting Section has examples on page 25 of why Wounds are different from Unsaved Wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, just for humorous fluff, even if the wound was saved against, which would need to be a cover or invuln save because of the power being AP2, It wouldnt necessarily have to 'die' to have its essence leeched.
Leeches don't really do a lot of actual killing. Think of it like this : Hive Tyrant has to drink a lot. A Lot. Life is hard for a synapse creature and with all these toxins the Tyrants liver is just plain screwed.

So He's taking a lobe of yours. You don't necessarily die But your essence sure as hell just got leeched.

Doomthumbs wrote: Also, just for humorous fluff, even if the wound was saved against, which would need to be a cover or invuln save because of the power being AP2, It wouldnt necessarily have to 'die' to have its essence leeched.

Leeches don't really do a lot of actual killing.

Think of it like this : Hive Tyrant has to drink a lot. A Lot. Life is hard for a synapse creature and with all these toxins the Tyrants liver is just plain screwed.

So He's taking a lobe of yours. You don't necessarily die But your essence sure as hell just got leeched.

My general rule is if a certain issue is iffy and you have to house rule it, good fluff will RAI me in the right direction.

That sir, was great fluff.

I was thinking the same thing, the Tyrant has taken some life essence, not completely killed, just asborbed some of it.

Isn't that just a lovely mental image? You can also think of it as that the models affected by the wounds are aged ark of the covenant style. Just get real old until the layers of your face start melting away. Some people make a save before the face melts, but they're still old.

If some good fluff is all it takes I'm gonna go back and think of some humorous fluff for my spore shooting thread then.

If only...

No, you wouldn't get more than a -1 to leadership with devs. As soon as you take a single casualty you satisfy the conditions of the rule.

As far as the original question, this has been brought up before, and I could see it played that way, but I tend to agree with Gwar's post in that it's not inflicted if it gets saved and not actually applied to a model.

But the wound has already been inflicted as you save the wound though. If you fail that wound is now a casuality.

A casualty or an unsaved wound, if the model is a multi wound model.

And I believe the wording reads that its per devourer. And since when are Tyranids satisfied?
Its not the unit firing devourers causing the effect, its each devourer. The "one or more casualties' line is there so that each individual gun doesnt cause more than -1.

Say there were three of the luckiest devgaunts ever. Each of the dice they roll for their assault 3 gun hits, and then wounds. No saves are made.
Gaunt1 = 3 hits > 3 wounds > 3 failed saves > 3 Dead > -1 leadership.
Gaunt2 = 3 hits > 3 wounds > 3 failed saves > 3 Dead > -1 leadership.
Gaunt3 = 3 hits > 3 wounds > 3 failed saves > 3 Dead > -1 leadership.
For -3 total.
But if a squad of 20 less lucky gaunts shoots and kills one model each, thats -20 to a leadership score. Hell, that might even scare an orc.

Doomthumbs wrote:@ Scott-S6:
Both of the examples you listed are in the Assault Phase Section of the BRB, not the Shooting Section.

Shooting Section has examples on page 25 of why Wounds are different from Unsaved Wounds.

I'm well aware of the difference between wounds and unsaved wounds. However, use of the term "inflicted" is ambiguous. Furthermore, the BRB uses "wounds" where it actually means "un-saved wounds" in some cases. As shown in the example I gave on P41.

I agree that the usage of "wounds" should be taken to mean all wounds, not just un-saved. However the use of the term "inflicted" does not prove anything either way, contrary to what Nos asserted.

Scott-S6 wrote:I agree that the usage of "wounds" should be taken to mean all wounds, not just un-saved. However the use of the term "inflicted" does not prove anything either way, contrary to what Nos asserted.

Ok, then I agree with you there. Inflicted is just a word, and never linked to mean anything specifically in the BRB ( like the way Turn describes just a players turn on page 9). Its usage varies in the brb, so you'd have to go with the base meaning of just a wound. A die that graduated from Rolling to Hit University. A Wound that the opponent may now try to save against. A wound that the Hive tyrant gets back before any saves are made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 25 of the BRB in the shooting section Further proves our now mutual point, instead of just mine.

Doomthumbs wrote:A casualty or an unsaved wound, if the model is a multi wound model.

And I believe the wording reads that its per devourer. And since when are Tyranids satisfied?
Its not the unit firing devourers causing the effect, its each devourer. The "one or more casualties' line is there so that each individual gun doesnt cause more than -1.

Say there were three of the luckiest devgaunts ever. Each of the dice they roll for their assault 3 gun hits, and then wounds. No saves are made.
Gaunt1 = 3 hits > 3 wounds > 3 failed saves > 3 Dead > -1 leadership.
Gaunt2 = 3 hits > 3 wounds > 3 failed saves > 3 Dead > -1 leadership.
Gaunt3 = 3 hits > 3 wounds > 3 failed saves > 3 Dead > -1 leadership.
For -3 total.
But if a squad of 20 less lucky gaunts shoots and kills one model each, thats -20 to a leadership score. Hell, that might even scare an orc.

It does not say per devourer, and you even quoted as much here:

Doomthumbs wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its way off topic calypso, but I'll post it.
Page 81 Tyranid codex, Under Devourer, the part after the *
"If an enemy unit suffers one or more casualties as a result of a devourer and is required to take a morale check at the end of the phase, it suffers a -1 penalty to its Leadership."

So it does not matter how many devourers inflicted casualties, even by multiple units, as soon as one casualty is taken it satisfies the condition of the rule and there is no provision built into the rule for it to stack more than the single -1 modifier.

And on Leech Essence I know what your point is, but as a Tyranid player, I don't think that was the intent behind it, so I don't play it that way. I do see that it could be read that way so I wouldn't object to it however if someone insisted.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
And on Leech Essence I know what your point is. I do see that it could be read that way so I wouldn't object to it however if someone insisted.

Welcome aboard. Because we insist.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
It does not matter how many devourers inflicted casualties, even by multiple units, as soon as one casualty is taken it satisfies the condition of the rule and there is no provision built into the rule for it to stack more than the single -1 modifier.

Since the rule is triggered by "a devourer", it depends on how the dice are rolled. Surely you will agree there are provisions for me rolling separately for each of my models? In that scenario, each model has a chance to trigger the rule. That it is A devourer that triggers the rule is the provision that allows it to stack.
Even by multiple units you say? I don't know if many or any would agree with that one. If these devgaunts or whatever with a devourer are in separate units... Thats for sure going to stack.

Welcome aboard. Because we insist.

Meh, since I run dual HTs, it serves me just fine.

Since the rule is triggered by "a devourer", it depends on how the dice are rolled. Surely you will agree there are provisions for me rolling separately for each of my models? In that scenario, each model has a chance to trigger the rule. That it is A devourer that triggers the rule is the provision that allows it to stack.
Even by multiple units you say? I don't know if many or any would agree with that one. If these devgaunts or whatever with a devourer are in separate units... Thats for sure going to stack.

Negative Ghost Rider...the rule does not trigger until they have to take a morale test at the end of the phase. Once the test is to be made, then you look to see if the unit had taken one or more casualties from a devourer. It does not matter if you roll everything at once or one at a time or if 3 seperate units of devilgants all caused casualties during the phase. It's the same reason Hive Commander reserve bonuses do not stack from multiple Hive Tyrants and you don't get to outflank two troop units if you have two HTs with HC. Once a single instance of the rule is satisfied, there is no provison in the rule to allow stacking such as the saying per casualty or per devourer.

I was under the impression that the reason hive commander bonuses don't stack is because there is a FAQ, and because it specifies that it is a SINGLE unit that gets to outflank.
Your assertion that the effect does not stack seems to me to be on a 'because you said so' basis instead of how the rules work.
To me, it reads that A devourer is causing A -1 modifier to the leadership. Both are singular articles, so its on an individual basis, and would stack because there isn't anything in place to make it not stack.

Doomthumbs wrote:I was under the impression that the reason hive commander bonuses don't stack is because there is a FAQ, and because it specifies that it is a SINGLE unit that gets to outflank.
Your assertion that the effect does not stack seems to me to be on a 'because you said so' basis instead of how the rules work.
To me, it reads that A devourer is causing A -1 modifier to the leadership. Both are singular articles, so its on an individual basis, and would stack because there isn't anything in place to make it not stack.

You are right, the FAQ does say that. But it didn't work before the FAQ for the same reason as I stated. It's not "because I said so", as I gave an explaination as to how it works. Generally speaking, if you look over the rules, in pretty much every instance that a rule gives a modifier, unless it specificly states that it stacks, or gives a "per" or "for every" qualifier, it will not stack. I have explained it as best as I know how and either I am not able to explain it well enough or you simply choose to interperate it in your own manner. I don't see any point in trying to argue the point further.

See, I think I know what happened here. We drifted dangerously off of Mercers topic, which last I saw everyone was on board with at least begrudgingly admitting to that that is how the rule reads. Hive Tyrants are able to regenerate all hit dice that become wound dice. Saves get made, but the Hive tyrant still regens a wound for every of the potentially 3 dice that also causes a wound against the targets toughness with a str of 3. That everyone seems to agree on for now.
As for our devourer debate, we're at a standstill. We've both got valid points and are unwilling to give ground. I don't see many posts we've generated with this detour saying anything bad about it. I'll happily debate this with you further in another thread if you'd like to make one.
Lets keep this thread about Leech essence please.

The counter argument still stands: The only wounds which are "inflicted" on a model are "unsaved wounds" according to the close combat phase. That means that you can't prove that the wound was inflicted on a model until after a save has been failed.

And that puts any claim that wounds are 'inflicted' after a successful to-wound roll into the "You're making stuff up" and "I want to ignore words in the rules" categories. Why do people keep confusing that for RAW?

And the shooting phase states that wounds are inflicted before you make saves.

So you have two instances where "wound inflicted?" is true: when wounding hit has been scored, and when saves have been failed.

You do not have to prove both as true.

solkan wrote:The counter argument still stands: The only wounds which are "inflicted" on a model are "unsaved wounds" according to the close combat phase. That means that you can't prove that the wound was inflicted on a model until after a save has been failed.

Incorrect. P39 uses "wounds inflicted" as wounds prior to saving throws. See the Allocating Wounds section (or see my quote above).

Inflicted is used both ways.

Page 19 BRB "Roll to wound". Second sentence of the third paragraph.
"...Minimum score on a D6 to convert the hit into a wound."

Its been inflicted as a wound as soon as any of the Str3 Dice you get from the attack are equal to or higher than the Toughness number of the models targeted.
Examples are also all over the place on page 20 and 25 when it talks about wounded models getting to make a save. They're already wounded, and are now making a save.

Doomthumbs wrote:Love it, love everything about it.
It does say for each wound inflicted, not unsaved wound. To me that reads as each of the D3 S3 Ap2 hits that become wounds to be saved against would restore a wound to the hive tyrant. Not just the wounds that cause unsaved wounds or casualties. Wounds inflicted are just the hit dice that made it through, not the result of the opponent making any saves.
The Tyranid codex has a bunch of precedents.
"Hits inflicted by Dessicator larvae wound on a 2+." That reads the exact same way as per the usage of "Inflict". The dice you roll to see if you hit that are successful will trigger this rule.
The devourer which causes -1 Ld to a unit per casualty. Not per wound inflicted or unsaved wound, per casualty.
Venom cannons also say each glancing or penetrating hit inflicted, with similar usage ad meaning.

I hate you and everything you stand for...

Just kidding Doomthumbs.... no but really.... A wound is caused only by assigning it to a model in the wound allocation segment of the round... If any hit allocated is saved or prevented in some fashion, then it is not a wound.

Because my space marine only has one wound... If he saves, it is NOT a wound, otherwise he would be dead and he is not.... Because he still has the ONE WOUND.

Maybe you might be better served if you quit trying to take every semi-colon, comma, and apostrophe in the dang Tyranid codex and OP and already OP army.... Grammarhammer!

Shenaniganz!

The real problem is that GW uses both 'inflicted' and 'wound' sloppily. Others have covered 'inflicted' well, so I'll focus on 'wound'

A regular model starts with one Wound. If he loses it, he's removed. So 'Wound' means something like 'hit point.'

But when the model is hit and a certain value is rolled, it takes a wound. So 'wound' means something like 'injury' (Except it doesn't, because the model can be wounded, then have its armor save the wound. So it's...what? A potential injury? Honestly it would make much more sense to roll for saves before wounds.).

In order for the rules to make any sense at all, we have to distinguish between 'Wound' and 'wound' as I've defined them here, even if GW doesn't always do such a good job keeping them separate.

Surely, when a model is allocated a wound in the wound allocation step, it takes a wound. The wound can get canceled by a save, but it exists before then. Else what are we allocating?

P.S. Deafening lolz at calling Nids, and the HT specifically, overpowered. Dude goes down in one decent Guard volley, and it doesn't even take everything to do it

Hesperus wrote:The real problem is that GW uses both 'inflicted' and 'wound' sloppily. Others have covered 'inflicted' well, so I'll focus on 'wound'

Inflicted is used both ways with some regularity. It means very little.

Wound, un-qualified, is almost always used to mean a potential wound caused by a to-wound roll before saving throws are taken into account.

Nice summary though - it's a good example of how GW's language is insufficiently formal. Ideally, the amount of damage a model can take, a successful to-wound roll and the injury inflicted after saving throws should all have clear and separate terms.

Its not just wound that is defined sloppily... There are several ways to interpret the rules if you want to sit and endlessly look up exceptions to how the game is normally played. And most of the time, they get slapped down by players who've talked about it as the question comes up, long before a TO would make a ruling. Because why play a game thats already lost due to some asshat rule?

But sometimes TOs make rulings that end up affecting the entire flow of a game or Codex.
Seriously, before the Nob biker 'rule' was found, who used that strategem? No one. After it was okayed in a large tournament? Unholy clusterfug of wow thats all I play against for orks now. There are FAQs for a lot of these, but the ones that didn't make it due to space or a GW oversight (although THOSE never happen)? What about those? Are those really still meant to be read that way, because no one asked frequently enough?

Now I mostly collect these errata as a way to ALSO be a huge irritation should the need arise.

Doomthumbs, faced against someone attempting to bend normal play wrote:
Oh, so you're going to interpret that rule like THAT, huh? You're sure? It makes it not fun for me to play you. Still want to use it?
Ok well check these out:
BRB says Monsterous creatures fire two weapons per phase, not turn. (pg 51 brb)
Mycetic Spore is the only general unit in the game that also uses phase instead of turn. (pg 54 Tyranid codex)
A Carnifex with 2xTLDev and bio plasma can fire all three, since the 2xTLDevs fire as one weapon as per pg 295 of the brb.
Whats that? I agree. Lets go back to the rules everyone else plays.

Now, all of those are highly "WTF" material. Thats absurd. Thats how the rulebook reads to me though. And If I'm there armed with the exact phrasings of the rulebook (read with the appropriate words inflected of course) and a particularly nice turn of phrase to go with it? Thats intimidating, and gives pause to their wanting to try and perpetuate similar shennanigans; the guy who says "It doesn't say whether to use the small or large blast marker, sooo.... going with the large." is someone everyone has and probably does play at a LGS. But for tournament play? You don't want that guy to even show up.
Makes your forehead vein throb.
Turns you to drink.
I find its best to have a solution to answer the BS that's most likely going to ensue.

The rulebook also does say that the most important rule is to have fun. Page 2. If both players agree at any point on the rules, thats how it just went down. If its not covered by a BRB rule, FAQ, Tournament data sheet/FAQ, TOs ruling, or player consensus, it comes down to who is more persuasive. Or in some cases the dude is just like Laurence Fishburne level intimidating. The pairings have thrown you into the tiger pit and you have to fight Bruce Lee. Knowing the exact wording of the rules, or having seen them discussed on a forum somewhere (wink) is your best bet in these situations. Its no screaming cross kick to the face with lions watching, but maybe you can get out of there without embarrassing yourself.

Connor McKane wrote:
Maybe you might be better served if you quit trying to take every semi-colon, comma, and apostrophe in the dang Tyranid codex and OP and already OP army.... Grammarhammer!

I also specialize in colons. (Yours). In what I believe to be the parlance on the colloquial youth, "You be leavin' your participles all danglin', yo".
What you've provided here is an invitation to stop all my truthful and accurate readings of the codex, ignoring all that precise verbage and punctuation. Instead, you afford me the opportunity to stop all that and OP and(sic) already OP army. Perhaps you meant:
"...Tyranid codex, trying to OP an already OP army."
That way, it ends on more of a high note for your point instead of serving as refutation of it.

As is, I'm going to use it as your express permission to go out into the world and try and figure out how to OP and already OP army. Because thats how its written.

Doomthumbs wrote:I also specialize in colons. (Yours).

This made me spill my coffee.

DT - expect page 295 of the BRB is NOT a rule applicable to the Tyranid codex, as it is a summary of a rule that does not exist and, according to the rules in the summary section is to be ignored.

Nos, I'd agree with you under normal circumstances. But since it's in the BRB, and NOT in the Tyranid codex (anymore, it was in 4th edition), it still applies to the tyranid codex unless something in the codex overrides it. Since theres nothing in the codex about it any more, the rule book isn't in conflict. As it stands, the current edition rulebook has an extra tyranid rule that the codex does not.

Since the rule for the summary is the same as the BRB vs Codices in general, the rule is the same. Specific (Codex) will always trump general (BRB). If there was an entry in the new Tyranid codex that said any different, we'd use the codex. But the codex doesn't have any conflicting rule.

I call that a 'bonus'.

Sigh.

You are told this is a summary section. Do you know what "summary" is?

The 5th ed codex DOES NOT have the rule. Can you create a summary of a rule that does not exist? No? Then the Codex DOES disagree with the rulebook - by not including the rule it is stating the rule does not exist.

The lack of the rule in the codex invalidates the SUMMARY of the rule ion the BRB, according to the rules for that section. To claim otherwise is to totally ignore the rules.

Well, if you really want to try play it that way, then in reality you'll only get 6 twin linked dev shots and the bioplasma anyway as the 2 TL devs become a single twin linked dev by that rule you are pointing out.