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.

GW would have you roll different coloured dice, but way 2 is acceptable in all environments.

Dangerous terrain is a good point, there we have the same problem. I have to look it up again, but this may convince me.
I am not sure whether the whole procedure is covered in "dangerous terrain test" rules.

The whole procedure is not covered, but the specific requirement that the firing model takes the wound IS covered there.

If another model takes the wound, you have broken a rule.

If another model takes the wound, you have broken a rule.

But another model hasn't taken a wound it has simply been removed as the casualty. I can see Nazdregs point it is not about wound allocation but about casualty removal.

However if you were to remove a separate model the original model would also have to be removed as it is still now down to 0 wounds...

It has been removed as the casualty because it has taken a wound. That is how the rules work - you dropped its' wound stat to 0, so it gets removed as a casualty.

ANd the only way to drop your wound stat in this was is for you to have taken the wound. And if you are not the model that fired the plasma gun, you have broken a rule.

It is REALLY simple!

That is how the rules work - you dropped its' wound stat to 0, so it gets removed as a casualty.

So we have a difference here between having allocated a wound on a model and a model taking a wound.
If you allocate a wound on a model due to enemy fire or something like that, its wound stat is not 0? So I assume it does not have to be removed... ?

I think you're overthinging this deliberately.

It says the firing model. The Firing model is the one who is wounded. The firing model dies if he fails the save. No-one else is involved, you can't allocate as it only affects the firing model.

The rule is so clear cut its painful, so why are you still arguing it?

Allocating a wound on a model causes it to be wounded, and it can try to save the wound. If it fails its wounds drop to 0, removing it as a casualty.

Your plasgunner fires, screws up, wounds himself and dies if he fails his save. How is this difficult to understand?

Other instances involve a unit taking a wound that is resolved on a model.

so why are you still arguing it?

Because the procedure is either different from the basic procedure how to deal with wounds taken (but this is not described properly in the "gets hot" rule)
Or it is like its done generally in the rulebook (then you are free to remove casualties whereever you like between models identical in gaming terms. And more: you HAVE to remove a model for each unsaved wound)

This is my problem

If the rules for "removing casualties" were not different from what you say here:

Allocating a wound on a model causes it to be wounded, and it can try to save the wound. If it fails its wounds drop to 0, removing it as a casualty.

Then I would understand it. But they are different.

EDIT:

Other instances involve a unit taking a wound that is resolved on a model.

Does "removing casualties" explicitly refer to "units" instead of "models"?
Then we have no procedure how to deal with wounds taken by "models" inside a "unit"....

-Nazdreg- wrote:Then we have no procedure how to deal with wounds taken by "models" inside a "unit"....

No, but you get to that step with the wounded unit in other cases. In this case you get there with a single model. Much akin to an Independent Character in other cases.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

That is how the rules work - you dropped its' wound stat to 0, so it gets removed as a casualty.

So we have a difference here between having allocated a wound on a model and a model taking a wound.
If you allocate a wound on a model due to enemy fire or something like that, its wound stat is not 0? So I assume it does not have to be removed... ?

I have no idea what you're asking here.

The firing model must take the wound, I.E. it's wound stat MUST be lowered by 1. There is NO permission for any other model, anywhere else in the unit, to take this wound, REGARDLESS of identical equipment.

This. Is. Not. Wound. Allocation.

You have yet to explain where you permission to break the "the firing model takes the wound" comes from.

Are you getting mixed up between wounding (hit) and an actual wound? As the rule only requires that the WOUND goes on thje firing model.

Let me just say that what Nazdreg is saying makes sense, perfectly. When it comes to dealing with wounds and taking saves, there's only one section in the rulebook. In this section, you have to allocate wounds, then take saves, then remove casualties. The rule for Gets Hot! tells us how to *allocate* the wound, only. Removing casualties specifically says that the player can remove any model they like, becuase this is the 41st century or whatever.

When you assign wounds, say from shooing, you assign to groups, and you roll the groups together. Since you don't specify which individual model you're rolling for, you end up removing models that didn't have wounds assigned to them.

All this talk of allocating a wound to a model meaning it has to be removed has absolutely no basis in the rulebook. . . that we've found yet in this thread.

I am personally in the camp that individual models should be rolled seperately so if one guy rolls two "1s", then it only burns him, because that feels right. Now, though, I'm looking for a rules basis for this. In fact, now I'm looking for a rules basis for the way people usually insist on playing difficult terrain.

Nos, you say

This. Is. Not. Wound. Allocation.

. So what is it? I'm very interested to find a rules basis for the way I play it, and the way you obviously want to play it, but we'll need pages and references at this point. By the only way to resolve wounds that I've yet found is the way Nazdreg bring us. In fact, when you read Gets Hot!, it specifically refers you to the wound system discussed in the shooting phase section. (Edit: it isn't Gets Hot! that refers to the shooting rules, it's difficult terrain. I got mixed up there for a sec)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This whole discussion reminded me of multiple wound models. If there's an odd model with one wound on it, we usually keep track of it and remove it when enough wounds are taken by that group. Now that I reread all of these rules, it looks like even that "extra" wound isn't really assigned to a specific model, but just to the group as a whole. And when the group takes enough wounds to remove a casualty, it could be any of the models, not just the one the initial wound was assigned to.

Curiouser and curiouser. . .

Because it tells you the firing model takes the wound.

Is any other model allowed to take the wound, i.e. have their wound stat reduced to 0?

NO

Seriously. Simplest rule ever.

I don't recall seeing any wording that refers to reducing a wound stat to 0.

I did see, on p 24 I did see that when a model suffers a wound, the unit removes a casualty. And that this casualty can be any model the player chooses, as long as the group is identical.

I'm trying to agree with you, but in search of thoroughness, I'm literally looking for page and section references. You have to give me more than "Duh!"

The line that says the model that fired the weapon suffers the wound.

How has the model firing suffered the wound if another model has, instead, suffered the wound and been removed as a casualty? You've broken the rules if you let this happen

BTW the entire reason you remove a model as s casualty is because you have suffered a wound and reduced the wound stat to 0.

You're killing me, Smalls.

Well, there's only so many ways to say it - that one line is all you need to prove you cannot allocate to anyone else.
Stating otherwise ignores what happens when you wound a model.

ElCheezus wrote:I don't recall seeing any wording that refers to reducing a wound stat to 0.

I did see, on p 24 I did see that when a model suffers a wound, the unit removes a casualty. And that this casualty can be any model the player chooses, as long as the group is identical.

I'm trying to agree with you, but in search of thoroughness, I'm literally looking for page and section references. You have to give me more than "Duh!"

I'm pretty sure it says "when a unit suffers a wound..."

But no matter, there really is no way to get around "The dude who shot the gun is the dude that takes the test if it blows up." You and nazdreg keep bringing up the general wound allocation and casualty removal rules, neither of which actually apply to this situation considering the specific nature of the outcome of a failure.

Would you argue the same here in a spearhead game where a squadron/unit of tanks/walkers has the archeotech spearhead? The wording is similar and the outcome is the same (all be it for vehicle damage instead of wounds). Would you argue there that if one tank/walker fired and rolled a 1 that you could allocate the penetrating hit to another model in the unit/squadron even though it specifies who takes the penetrating hit?

Kevin949 wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I don't recall seeing any wording that refers to reducing a wound stat to 0.

I did see, on p 24 I did see that when a model suffers a wound, the unit removes a casualty. And that this casualty can be any model the player chooses, as long as the group is identical.

I'm trying to agree with you, but in search of thoroughness, I'm literally looking for page and section references. You have to give me more than "Duh!"

I'm pretty sure it says "when a unit suffers a wound..."

But no matter, there really is no way to get around "The dude who shot the gun is the dude that takes the test if it blows up." You and nazdreg keep bringing up the general wound allocation and casualty removal rules, neither of which actually apply to this situation considering the specific nature of the outcome of a failure.

Would you argue the same here in a spearhead game where a squadron/unit of tanks/walkers has the archeotech spearhead? The wording is similar and the outcome is the same (all be it for vehicle damage instead of wounds). Would you argue there that if one tank/walker fired and rolled a 1 that you could allocate the penetrating hit to another model in the unit/squadron even though it specifies who takes the penetrating hit?

pg 24, first sentence in Remove Casualties: "For ever model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." I try not to quote the book directly, because we all know that could cause troble with the lawyers of Big GW if too much of the rulebook gets posted. I try to do as much homework as I can before posting.

I'm not familiar with spearhead at all, but I think there's a distinction lost here, somewhere. The wording of saying the specific model suffers the wound can easily be meant to indicate that it's the group of identical models that have plasmaguns, and not other weapons or wargears, that are available to be removed. (this is similar to assigning wounds from shooting before you roll saves) This way you can't remove your unit's "chumps" instead of the models holding guns. The "remove casualties" side of things doesn't ignore the way it specifies which model. From the wording of removing casuaties, it doesn't care which specific model is removes, so long as they're identical. So, to go back to the spearhead example that I don't understand at all, really, I'd say the rules apply the same way, as long as whichever model took the pen hit was identical to the model that generated it.

Nos, I say you're killing me because I've asked for references multiple times, but haven't gotten any. I also haven't seen exactly what you're refering to as I've paged through the BRB, so we're not really on the same page, both figuratively and literally. I'm trying to bring this up to a RAW level discussion, not a "how you play it" discussion. I've been playing where each plasmagun rolls seperately, and I like that way, but I want to find if there's a RAW reason for that. Therefore, we need rules references.

We all know that GW describes rules instead of defines them, so I don't see a real problem with playing either way, but now I'm supremely curious to get to the bottom of this. That's just how I roll.

Page 31, "Gets hot" rule.

Sorry, I thought that was fairly implicit given we're discussing the gets hot! rules

This is more specific than the general wound allocation rules, as you are unable to cause a model in the unit that was not the firing mode to "suffer" the wound. If you do so , you have broken the rules.

THis is plain and simple RAW. Believe differently if you want, it is still the actual rules.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I know the Gets Hot! rule, I was looking for clarification on reducing a models wound stat to 0, thinking there might be something in that section that would shed some light.

I still think there's a disconnect in your reasoning that jumps from assigning the wound to removing casualties. However, at this point we've reached a threefold repetition, which is technically a stalemate in chess.

In fact, I think "Threefold Repetition" should be a forum rule. . . No more discussion until new information is brought forth. :-)

Again, the rules are for resolving wounds dealt to a unit.

When the "unit" that was dealt the wound is a single model, only that model can be removed.

ElCheezus wrote:I'm not familiar with spearhead at all, but I think there's a distinction lost here, somewhere. The wording of saying the specific model suffers the wound can easily be meant to indicate that it's the group of identical models that have plasmaguns, and not other weapons or wargears, that are available to be removed. (this is similar to assigning wounds from shooting before you roll saves) This way you can't remove your unit's "chumps" instead of the models holding guns. The "remove casualties" side of things doesn't ignore the way it specifies which model. From the wording of removing casuaties, it doesn't care which specific model is removes, so long as they're identical. So, to go back to the spearhead example that I don't understand at all, really, I'd say the rules apply the same way, as long as whichever model took the pen hit was identical to the model that generated it.

Snipped and bolded by me.

And that right there is wrong. To say "well what they probably meant..." is an incorrect line of thinking, especially in this instance where everything is spelled out for you pretty plainly. It's not meant to indicate anything outside of "the firing model suffers the wound." There is nothing more to it than that. If they meant it any other way they would have said "if a 1 is roll then a wound is suffered and if a save is failed then remove a casualty following the casualty removal rules."

And it absolutely does matter from a strategic standpoint because you don't know and should never know which of the guns is going to blow up.

Kevin949 wrote:If they meant it any other way they would have said "if a 1 is roll then a wound is suffered and if a save is failed then remove a casualty following the casualty removal rules."

If they meant it your way, they would have said "if a 1 is rolled the firing model can make an armor save. If the save is failed, remove the model as a casualty." Without specifically overriding the rules for removing casualties, where is the reason to ignore them? Specific vs General doesn't come into play, because you can follow all the rules (that I've found or have been quoted) by rolling the plasmaguns as a batch.

The point of my interperetation was mainly to show that the "Removing Casualties" method (as I now deem it) doesn't go against the wording of the Gets Hot! rule. The specific model was assigned the wound, and then per the removing casualties rule the player rolls all the dice for the pool of wounds allocated to that group of identical models.

The wording of Gets Hot! definitely means that you can't remove models without Plamsa Guns when they get hot, something I know for sure we all agree on. Past that, everything is interperetation, and the bolded sentence was meant to highlight that fact.

Assigning the wound to a model does not mean that the Removing Casualties method breaks any rules. (at least, not any rules that have been brought up)

I think I'm going to look into some posts about Dangerous Terrain, since the case is so similar, and see if there's anything in those that helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Again, the rules are for resolving wounds dealt to a unit.

When the "unit" that was dealt the wound is a single model, only that model can be removed.

If there were any way to justify calling a model that's already part of a unit, and not an IC, it's own unit at the same time. . . I'd agree.

A model can be a unit, if it's alone, but that doesn't mean it is a unit.

I am wondering what the 'targeted unit' is in your example that would allow removal models other than the one firing.

If a unit is not targeted, other models in the unit cannot be removed.

I think you're refering to the second paragraph in [i]Remove Casualties[b], right?

Honestly, the way I read that paragraph seems to be that it's entirely involved with units being shot, like you suggest. It only explains why models out of LOS can be removed. The whole paragraph is explanatory, and the main rule saying the player removes any model, not necessarily the one to which the wound was assigned is in the previous paragraph.

So, I agree that that paragraph doesnj't apply. That's why I've tried not to use any of that in my reasoning.

ElCheezus wrote:So, I agree that that paragraph doesnj't apply.

I do not agree that parts of the rules should be ignored in order for an opinion to be validated.

My opinion and preference, sirrah, as previously stated is to roll models seperately. In seeking a foundation for my choice, I am investigating, as diligently as possible, the applicable areas and rules. The text in question is clearly explanatory instead of stating policy.

You insult me and show your ignorance a the same time. If you had read the thread, my opinions have been clearly stated. My diligence in my arguments is apparent, even if others do not agree with my conclusions. Furthermore, you do the thread a disservice by distracting from the conversation with a character attack.

Moderator on the case: Where's the character attack? Was it edited out?

Mannahnin wrote:Moderator on the case: Where's the character attack? Was it edited out?

No, it was not.
But "sirrah", especially in context, is hard to read as otherwise.