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.

liam0404 wrote:Thats right. You can cause 100 wounds on a 3 wound unit for all I care - the unt ittself has only 3 wounds to lose (and save), therefore there can only ever be three more attacks.

Forkbanger: DR has clearly provided rules quotes to you on this. Unless you can refute what's written in the rulebook, its time to back down on this.

Yeah, and I quoted three rules contradicting this, which was answered by nothing more than"*snip*" and "we agree to disagree". Either you get some more attacks from Blendernaughts or all FNP Models become near-invicible. I'd also like to point out that everyone on this thread disagreed to your interpretation to what "suffer an unsaved wound" means.

Actually Jidmah ive found the answer to this, and posted it in the other thread. For your clarification, ill repost it here.

liam0404 wrote:

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

The unsaved wounds were still caused, which is waht triggers bonus attacks from Blood Talons. Casualties and wounds inflicted were, are, and will always be irrelevant to Blood Talons.

5 wounds.
5 failed armour saves.
5 unsaved wounds.
Anything beyond that point doesn't matter- number of casualties, wound negation of some kind, they don't matter in the context of Bloot Talons.
5 unsaved wounds were caused, so Blood Talons generate 5 additional attacks.

Im absolutely delighted that you brought up that inflicted/caused crapheap of an argument again. Cast your eyes to page 39 of the rulebook, in the determine assault results section. To quote:

"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

Read a little further down:

"Note that wounds which have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's wounds characteristic, only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models (including all of the wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death."

I think that just about wraps this up, unless youre going to spout more cheese. Any further agruments you have about this are only complaints about the rule, not about its interpretation.

DeathReaper wrote:Right, you can't cause a wound without the wound characteristic being reduced. That is just simple math/linguistics.

four wounds allocated to a one wound model = one wound caused.

OK, so then the single FNP model only needs to every make 1 FNP roll, as he can only ever lose 1 wound. Thanks I like this rule.

Or you could just ignore my above post.

You do realize that you are quoting a paragraph that tells you how to count the scores to figure out who won combat?

I gave an example on the other thread, that this can lead to numbers that are not even close to the number of bonus attacks the dread can make, using either interpretation.

Yes, but there is a direct interchange of the terms "caused" and "inflicted", which is the crux of forkbanger's argument, therefore rendering his argument obsolete.

I agree on that, still not on your point as its no part on my argument - sorry for editing on you, you're too fast

liam0404 wrote:Actually Jidmah ive found the answer to this, and posted it in the other thread. For your clarification, ill repost it here.

liam0404 wrote:

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

The unsaved wounds were still caused, which is waht triggers bonus attacks from Blood Talons. Casualties and wounds inflicted were, are, and will always be irrelevant to Blood Talons.

5 wounds.
5 failed armour saves.
5 unsaved wounds.
Anything beyond that point doesn't matter- number of casualties, wound negation of some kind, they don't matter in the context of Bloot Talons.
5 unsaved wounds were caused, so Blood Talons generate 5 additional attacks.

Im absolutely delighted that you brought up that inflicted/caused crapheap of an argument again. Cast your eyes to page 39 of the rulebook, in the determine assault results section. To quote:

"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

Read a little further down:

"Note that wounds which have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's wounds characteristic, only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models (including all of the wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death."

I think that just about wraps this up, unless youre going to spout more cheese. Any further agruments you have about this are only complaints about the rule, not about its interpretation.

And again, your quoting combat resolution, nothing to do with wounds, unsaved wounds, and fnp, stop trying to equate the two as if it is the rule in question.

DeathReaper wrote:One can't cause more wounds than something has to give.

Where does it say that in any rulebook?

In real life, I can take a shot gun, blow a hole through someone's chest with it, then blow their head to pieces... 2 mortal wounds "unsaved" but only one was needed to get the job done.

(hmm.. that was kinda graphic.)

#1: real life scenarios do not have any bearing on the game rules.

#2: It is not that it says they are lost, the rules do not tell you what happens with them, and we are only allowed to perform actions the rules tell us to perform.

Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

and since there is a direct interchange of the terms "caused" and "inflicted" any wounds caused mean any wounds inflicted, and you can not inflict more wounds that something has, because the rules do not tell us that we can.

Do they tell us that we can't?

So does what you're saying mean that if my Ork boy (one wound model) gets slammed with a barrage of bullets and takes several "wounds" I only have to roll one dice on him?

edit: More content

The rulebook tells us what to do with excess wounds, see BRB page 25, third paragraph of "Allocating wounds to complex units".

Does it tell us that I can't use a wind machine and claim the battlefield is affected by a tornado and that any of your models that end up on the floor are now dead?

The rules are permissive you can only perform actions that the rules allow us to perform.

Rottooth wrote:Do they tell us that we can't?

Is not a valid argument.

The rules never teill you to ignore overkill unsaved wounds.

Jidmah wrote:The rules never teill you to ignore overkill unsaved wounds.

The rules are permissive you can only perform actions that the rules allow us to perform.

Do they tell you what to do with the extra wounds? No.

so we can not do anything with them.

DeathReaper wrote:Does it tell us that I can't use a wind machine and claim the battlefield is affected by a tornado and that any of your models that end up on the floor are now dead?

The rules are permissive you can only perform actions that the rules allow us to perform.

Rottooth wrote:Do they tell us that we can't?

Is not a valid argument.

I know I was vague. I was suggesting there are RAI, vs. RAW. That's why I edited my last post.

My argument is that, yes a model CAN take more wounds than it has to give.

A models can be hit and hit with 5 lethal blows. Only 1 is needed to do him in, but if those 5 ring true, then they count (unless your resolving combat results, which is different than this thread's original topic.)

or

A Tau warrior can only take one punch to the face, but that doesn't mean he can't be pummeled a dozen times before he falls over. Those pummeling blows might be in excess, but they still count.

DeathReaper wrote:The rules are permissive you can only perform actions that the rules allow us to perform.

Do they tell you what to do with the extra wounds? No.

They do. They tell us not to remove model from other groups for them. Otherwise they may not be treated differently as any other wounds, as there is no rule permitting that.

so we can not do anything with them.

Nothing more or less than with any other wound. An overkill wound is still a wound, since there are no rules for or against overkill, you just have to stick with the less specific rules of a regular wound.

DeathReaper wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The rules never teill you to ignore overkill unsaved wounds.

The rules are permissive you can only perform actions that the rules allow us to perform.

Do they tell you what to do with the extra wounds? No.

so we can not do anything with them.

Yes. it does actually.

Wounding, model a suffers x wounds.
Saving, model a rolls y saves.
Unsaved wounds = x - y. (insert FNP here if you wish)
Wounds on model = 1 (supposing).
Models removed = 1, excess wounds do not carry over into other models and are lost. for purposes of REMOVING CASUALTIES. The unsaved wounds were still unsaved wounds for other purposes. i.e. Blood Talons, FNP, or what have you.

"If a model suffers an unsaved wound" (p. 75)

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound . . . for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table" (p. 25)

Models don't suffer wounds, units do. However, multiple wound models (p. 27) can suffer an unsaved wound.

Therefore, FNP only works for multiple wound models.

In the above example, the model would make no Feel No Pain saves and should be immediately removed from the table.

That would be realy funny as 2/3 of all models benefitting from FNP are single-wound models.

biccat wrote:

Therefore, FNP only works for multiple wound models.

so what happens if a single marine takes a round of bolter fire from another squad of marines? squad A shoots single marine, hitting 8 times. wounding 4 times. does the marine only make a single armor save to negate all those wounds? or does he make 4 saves? now, since FNP is a chance to save a failed armor save.... what if that marine happens to have fnp?

i would contend that he must make his 4 armor saves, then any that fail have a FNP chance. should any of those fail, the model is removed as a casulty. (if he fails 3 of the 4 hes still done, but it counts as inflicting a single wound, if that matters)

close combat works sort of the same way, with rolling to hit, sucsessful hits roll wounds, saves are made if applicable, and casulties removed if applicable. the general structure is:

determine # of attacks (by checking profile of attacking model, either his ranged weapon or his A value
roll those attacks to hit the enemy (hit roll determined by attacker BS or opposed WS)
any hits must now roll to cause wounds <check for special rule> (determine wound score by comparing str of attack vrs toughness of defender)
any wounds scored must now be saved. <check armor - none then check invun/cover - roll applicable save - if failed check FNP or simaler, if none = unsaved wound - total unsaved wounds if applicbale = special rule) - remove casulties. if in combat casualties are used for combat results totaling number of wounds removed.

seems pretty clear for me. the dread would generate 5 additonal attacks. however the combat score for that dread is only 3 (at the point prior to his adtl attacks). if a model with fnp takes 4 wounds, fails them and has fnp, he gets 4 fnp rolls. if they fail it reduced his wounds value acvcordingly. if his wounds value reachs 0 = removed.


edited for clarity and becuase i accidently hit send early.>

DarthSpader wrote:so what happens if a single marine takes a round of bolter fire from another squad of marines? squad A shoots single marine, hitting 8 times. wounding 4 times. does the marine only make a single armor save to negate all those wounds? or does he make 4 saves? since FNP is a chance to save a failed armor save.... if that marine happens to have fnp?

i would contend that he must make his 4 armor saves, then any that fail have a FNP chance. should any of those fail, the model is removed as a casulty. (if he fails 3 of the 4 hes still done, but it counts as inflicting a single wound, if that matters)

Thats the crux of this whole debate right there Darth. You've got it spot on, wheras some on this thread don't.

DarthSpader wrote:so what happens if a single marine takes a round of bolter fire from another squad of marines? squad A shoots single marine, hitting 8 times. wounding 4 times. does the marine only make a single armor save to negate all those wounds? or does he make 4 saves? since FNP is a chance to save a failed armor save.... if that marine happens to have fnp?

i would contend that he must make his 4 armor saves, then any that fail have a FNP chance. should any of those fail, the model is removed as a casulty. (if he fails 3 of the 4 hes still done, but it counts as inflicting a single wound, if that matters)

The argument is that a single wound model can only ever have one wound, as it only has one wound. Since the wording of FNP states, (If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved WOUND, roll a dice.)

According to some peoples arguments, when a model fails multiple armor saves it can only receive a number of unsaved wounds equal to it's wounds. At this point FNP comes into play. If a model has to make multiple FNP rolls, then it has therefore received multiple unsaved wounds.

No, it can only LOSE wounds equal to the number it has. You can inflict 100000 wounds on it, but the model has only ONE wound to lose.

jbunny wrote:
According to some peoples arguments, when a model fails multiple armor saves it can only receive a number of unsaved wounds equal to it's wounds. At this point FNP comes into play. If a model has to make multiple FNP rolls, then it has therefore received multiple unsaved wounds.

And those people's arguments would be wrong. Unless you'd like to take your FNP saves after you've removed your casualties. Which is fine by me, not that there'd be much point in doing it.

liam0404 wrote:No, it can only LOSE wounds equal to the number it has. You can inflict 100000 wounds on it, but the model has only ONE wound to lose.

And - BAM. "For every unsaved wound caused..." Dreadnought with blood talons gets to re-roll all 100000.

the thing is, the wound is not unsaved prior to FNP.
consider the following examples on a marine with fnp.

attack hits
attack wounds
armor saved
no unsaved wound.

attack hits.
attack wounds.
armor save - fail
fnp pass
no unsaved wound

attack hits
attack wounds
armor save - fail
fnp fail -
unsaved wound.

because FNP removes the wound as if it did not happen, therby "saving" the wound. it otherwise functions exactly like an armor save. whats happing in this debate is people are confusing the specfic of combat resoultion, with a general situation of wound allocation. if you contend that a model can only ever suffer wounds equal to his profile, then my previous example of a single marine taking 5 bolter wounds would make a single armor save to negate all 5 bolter wounds.

additonally to clarify combat rez, you keep the models removed noted. at the end of combat each side totals them up. 8 marines dead = 8 wounds, 4 nobs dead = 8 wounds, etc. how many you caused and how many saves failed to get those 8 dosent matter. but this has no bearing on anything other then combat resloution. else if it did, the entire game would break, because now your making a blanket statment, and single wound single model units would be nigh un killable.

Since when did the rulebook get re-done?

Unsaved wounds are unsaved wounds, they dont just vanish since they are in essence, overkill.


Same with the saves bit from earlier.
A single wound model take 5 wounds, he must then make 5 saves (not a single save against all 5)
If one of those goes unsaved, he is dead, if all 5 go unsaved, he is really dead, but there were 5 unsaved wounds caused.



Why do people seem to pick arguments with rules and wording that have been fine for soo long?

Because in the other thread thats cropped up, this apparantly entitles a Dreadnought with Blood Talons to make 5 extra attacks, even if it killed something with only 1 wound. The "overkill" lets it attack 5 times, which surely is not correct since the model lost only one wound.