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:It suggest s that the rule is unclear (you have implications both ways)

As such you go for the least advantageous route, which would be: if you kill 3 marines, you get 3 extra attacks.

This exactly - what's hard to understand about that? You can't cause 5 wounds on a unit that has 3 wounds in it!

First wound, model dies, 4 wounds remaining to allocate, two wounds left in the squad.

Second wound, model dies, 3 wounds remaining to allocate, one wounds left in the squad

When the third wound is allocated, a third unsaved wound has been caused. The excess wounds are lost.

Imagine a multi assault with the above wounds etc. If you inflict 5 wounds on the squad of 3, you DONT get +5 to combat res, you only get +3. Thats the exact same principle as Blood Talons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

If this were true, it would be impossible to wipe out a unit of at least two multi-wound models (barring ID) with one unit shooting at them, as the rules tell you that they lose a single wound for every unsaved wound. The space marine example/clarification on pg. 25 tells you that a group of two is able to suffer 3 unsaved wounds.

Yes, but thats because the multi-wound unit in your example HAS multiple wounds to lose, and thus more wounds can be caused against them. The unit in the orignal example did not.

liam: combat resolution has no direct connection to unsaved wounds, it has its own way of counting. Also your way of rolling saves is wrong, you have to roll all five at once an then remove casualties for any unsaved wounds.

It still doesnt get around that: the rules are not 100% either way.

If that is the case it is unsafe to take a more advantageous option.

Jidmah wrote:liam: combat resolution has no direct connection to unsaved wounds, it has its own way of counting. Also your way of rolling saves is wrong, you have to roll all five at once an then remove casualties for any unsaved wounds.

Actually I do know how to take saves.

I was working from the assumption, that the blood talon wounds are power weapons and ignored armour in this scenario. I'm just saying that although you do allocate all 5 wounds, you cant physically inflict 5 UNSAVED wounds on a unit that only has 3 wounds to lose.

And also, combat resolution DOES reflect unsaved wounds. How else can you gauge who has won a combat?

And to quote from page 39:

"Total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted on each side by their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

To go back to the example at the beginning of the thread (a unit of three models takes five wounds)-
-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the three models in the squad
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 models are removed

Five wounds were caused and five armour saves were failed. That's five unsaved wounds, the number of models removed doesn't matter.

forkbanger wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

To go back to the example at the beginning of the thread (a unit of three models takes five wounds)-
-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the three models in the squad
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 models are removed

Five wounds were caused and five armour saves were failed. That's five unsaved wounds, the number of models removed doesn't matter.

No, it's 3 unsaved wounds. Excess wounds are allocated, but it is impossible for a unit of 3 models with one wound each to lose 5 wounds in total.

liam0404 wrote:No, it's 3 unsaved wounds. Excess wounds are allocated, but it is impossible for a unit of 3 models with one wound each to lose 5 wounds in total.

It's five unsaved wounds and three inflicted wounds, which is an important difference.

Five wounds are put on a three-man squad with Feel No Pain. They fail all of their saves, making it five unsaved wounds. How many Feel No Pain rolls do you make?

forkbanger wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

To go back to the example at the beginning of the thread (a unit of three models takes five wounds)-
-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the three models in the squad
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 models are removed

Five wounds were caused and five armour saves were failed. That's five unsaved wounds, the number of models removed doesn't matter.

This is a little disingenuous to go from talking about wounds to then talking about models. Let's restate that but with a unit of 2 where one model has 2W.

-5 wounds are inflicted
-5 wounds are allocated to the two models in the squad (3 on the 2W and 2 on the 1W)
-5 saving throws are attempted
-5 saving throws are failed (thanks to the power weapons)
-3 wounds are taken
-2 models are removed

But you are correct, the number of models removed has no bearing whatsoever.

Why should the exact same term "unsaved wound" mean two different things in two different places?

"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one wound from its profile" (BRB pg. 26)

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes an additional attack." (BA codex pg. 60)

Whenever you fail any save, you suffer an unsaved wound and have to remove wounds/models for each one.

On the other hand combat resolution actually has a whole paragraph on what wounds do count and which do not, it explicitly tells you only to count wounds actually suffered and adds instant death "bonus" wounds So it has no longer any direct connection to failed saves, as the result might be something totaly different. You could get a combat resolution of 9:3 when the unsaved wounds actually were 3:4 but you instant-deathed three tyranid warriors after they overkilled a group of three identical models by one.

You know, it also suggests that any unit that doesn't use armour would not give any extra attacks. No armour, no save, no save, no unsaved.

BRB pg 24 second sentence unter "removing casualties" tells us that wounds against which no saves can be taken are still unsaved wounds.

FB - how many models failed their saves?

3

Therefore 3 unsaved wounds

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Bolded the important part.

So my opponent can not kill a single one of my 10 unwounded, diversified nobz if a burnaweagon drops 160 wounds on them? Each one suffers only a single unsaved wound, so every one loses only one wound from its profile (see quote above).

How many saves did they fail?

3 models cant fail 5 saves, they fail 3 and two are wasted (no models against which they can fail them)

So, 10 models cant fail 160 saves, they fail 10 and 150 wounds are wasted. Horray for 10 alive nobz killing the battleweagon next turn!

nosferatu1001 wrote:How many saves did they fail?

3 models cant fail 5 saves, they fail 3 and two are wasted (no models against which they can fail them)

3 models can definitely fail 5 saves.

5 wounds are inflicted on a unit of 3 models.

5 wounds allocated to 3 single-wound models-
A XX
B XX
C X

All are from power weapons, so 5 saving throws are failed, and 5 unsaved wounds are caused.

Yes, 5 are allocated but only 3 saves are failed. A model can only fail a number of saves equal to its maximum wounds.

Aren't blood talons good enough without this blatant RAW abuse?

liam0404 wrote:A model can only fail a number of saves equal to its maximum wounds.

There is no rule stating this. The only rule stating anything even remotly like this, is the one nos posted, which is worded. If you read it the way he does, it leads to the multi-wound bogus I explained above.

In fact, you have to work out how many unsaved wounds you suffer before removing any models, the clarification in the box on page 25 even makes 2 space marines suffer 3 unsaved wounds, I wonder why no one responded to that.

liam0404 wrote:Yes, 5 are allocated but only 3 saves are failed. A model can only fail a number of saves equal to its maximum wounds.

Aren't blood talons good enough without this blatant RAW abuse?

A model can fail any number of saving throws and suffer any number of wounds, provided they are all inflicted at the same time.
All saving throws caused by a round of attacks from a blender-dread would be taken simultaneously, and each would produce a result (a saved or unsaved wound).

liam0404 wrote:Aren't blood talons good enough without this blatant RAW abuse?

As ork player blood talons probably hit my boyz worse than any other unit in the game. Still, I like to play by the real rules, not the ones that fit my army best.

Ok, combat resolution is 100% comparable to this, as it also discusses unsaved wounds. If I attack a unit with 1 single wound model left in it 6 times, and inflict 6 wounds, does that give me +6 to my combat resolution?

liam0404 wrote:Ok, combat resolution is 100% comparable to this, as it also discusses unsaved wounds. If I attack a unit with 1 single wound model left in it 6 times, and inflict 6 wounds, does that give me +6 to my combat resolution?

Combat resolution is nothing like this.

Blood talons work on the number of unsaved wounds caused.
Combat resolution works on unsaved wounds inflicted.

One is limited by the number of wounds in the unit, affected by rules such as Feels No Pain and Instant Death, the other is not.

5 unsaved wounds on 3 models for Blood Talons=5 unsaved wounds and 5 extra attacks.
5 unsaved wounds on 3 models for combat resolution =5 unsaved wounds and 3 inflicted wounds.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree. I think you've misunderstood the rule on blood talons.

The rule IS ambiguous, as "unsaved wounds" are different in different parts of the rulebook

So, you are left with 2 positions, one which is more favourable than the other. You CANNOT in good faith choose the more powerful interpretation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule IS ambiguous, as "unsaved wounds" are different in different parts of the rulebook

So, you are left with 2 positions, one which is more favourable than the other. You CANNOT in good faith choose the more powerful interpretation.

This x infinity. Spirit of the game yeah?

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule IS ambiguous, as "unsaved wounds" are different in different parts of the rulebook

So, you are left with 2 positions, one which is more favourable than the other. You CANNOT in good faith choose the more powerful interpretation.

Contrarily, you're arguing that unsaved wounds simply disappear if there are more unsaved wounds than wounds in the unit. That's totally different to other 'unsaved wounds', like Feel No Pain. Those wounds don't vanish such that there's a nice neat number that corresponds to the number of wounds in the unit before rolling them- they're all unsaved wounds, and they all have to be rolled with FNP. Blood talons are the same- those wounds don't stop counting for extar attacks because they weren't inflicted.

If blood talons were supposed to work on wounds inflicted, they'd use the more concrete 'wounds inflicted' wording of abilities such as Absorb Life or rules such as combat resolution. They don't use that wording, because they don't use those rules- every unsaved wound leads to an extra attack, inflicted or not.

Well like Nos and I have both said, feel free to play it that way if you wish, but its such a stretch of the rules. It needs FAQd, much like baal predators did to stop this kind of abuse. If I was playing you at a GT, id feel supremely confident of a.TO ruling in my favour.

Yet I disagree and have shown the ambiguity in the wording. So you're choosing the deliberately less safe position.