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.

gr1m_dan wrote:@Time Wizard - I play this the same as you as it makes more sense IMO. I know GW don't usually make sense but that's the whole point of Dangerous/Difficult terrain. To hinder or stop an assault.

What would be the point in DT if Model A took the wound but Model C was removed STILL allowing Model A to attack?! Totally bloody pointless.

The point would be that your opponent lost models without you having to lift a finger. That's good, right?

The verbage in the section about allocating wound and taking saves and removing casualties is consistent with the DT and GH! rules. They all mention models taking wounds. There is no process provided in the rule book by which we can treat these wounds any differently than "normal" ones. There is one and only one way to remove casualties due to unsaved wounds provided in the BRB, and the DT and GH! rules don't say anything about doing it differently.

ElCheezus wrote:

gr1m_dan wrote: There is one and only one way to remove casualties due to unsaved wounds provided in the BRB, and the DT and GH! rules don't say anything about doing it differently.

Gets Hot!, main rules, page 31, "For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)."
Please show me where in that rule it says the wound can be allocated to another model.

He is trying to claim that wounding a UNIT is the same as wounding a MODEL.

I think.

It's not being allocated to another model, actually. But when you get to the Remove Casualties step, it says you can take any specific model you want, as long as they're identical.

So Gets Hot! makes sure the wound gets allocated to the plasma guns (or what have you), so you can't have a guy without plasma take the wound. But it doesn't mandate which exact model you have to remove.

Going back to DT, if your Sergeant takes a wound, then he's removed; the wound was allocated to him and you can't change that. But if 3 of your 5 identical chumps take wounds, you can remove whichever three of them you want.

So you allow random redshirts to suffer Perils of the Warp despite not being psykers?

Or am I misreading again?

Editing to add:
I misread. The last paragraph helps.

Sort of.

kirsanth wrote:He is trying to claim that wounding a UNIT is the same as wounding a MODEL.

I think.

Not exactly, but close. They both use the same process (the only process we have). Wounding a model dictates what happens during the wound allocation step for Complex Units. After that step, taking saves and removing casualties is done the same in both cases.

ElCheezus wrote:At no point that I'm aware of (other than what you're trying to say now) does the BRB ever have a different method of resolving wounds and casualties than presented on pg. 24. We don't need permission to use that method because that's the only method we have.

Dangerous Terrain, pg 14: On a roll of a 1, the model(not unit) suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed.

DT specifically states the model, not the unit, suffers the wound. So there is no allocation for the wound, because the DT test has already allocated it for you by the wording of its rules.

As for timewizard's assault example, lets flip a few more pages back in the book...

Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.

In timewizard's example, A is the closest model to the unit being assaulted, and the shortest route is through the dangerous terrain. So, Model A must take a dangerous terrain test, and if Model A rolls a one, and then either has no invul save, or fails it if it has one, then Model A is removed, as per the DT rules on pg. 14. Since Model B is not within the 4" that they rolled for the difficult terrain test, then the assault would fail there and the unit could not assault.

ElCheezus wrote: Wounding a model dictates what happens during the wound allocation step for Complex Units. After that step, taking saves and removing casualties is done the same in both cases.

Not exactly true--'Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty"

The examples we discuss have no target unit and perhaps more imporantantly no ability to have 'any model' affected as the rules already define which model is affected.

/shrug

Editing to add:
Plus the page 34 quote, but Galador beat me to that one.

ElCheezus wrote:Going back to DT, if your Sergeant takes a wound, then he's removed; the wound was allocated to him and you can't change that. But if 3 of your 5 identical chumps take wounds, you can remove whichever three of them you want.

That would be true if the rule on page 14 said, "...wounds can be allocated as per the next section..." but it doesn't.

It says, "...(wounds and saves are explained in the next section.)" {emphasis mine}

There's a world of difference between an explaination and a permission.

Nothing in the dangerous terrain or Gets Hot! rules gives specific permission to allocate the wound to any model other than the one suffering it.

kirsanth wrote:So you allow random redshirts to suffer Perils of the Warp despite not being psykers?

Or am I misreading again?

Editing to add:
I misread. The last paragraph helps.

Sort of.

With perils, the wound is assigned to the Psyker. Since the psyker is unique (usually), that specific model would be the one that gets removed. I'm not saying that with Perils or GH! or DT that you can reallocate wounds to save the Psyker or the Plamsa guy. If a guy with a melta is the only guy in the unit to step into DT and rolls a 1, a guy with a melta has to die, but not necessarily that exact model. But if you have multiple models that are identical in game terms, you can choose from among that subset.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:So you allow random redshirts to suffer Perils of the Warp despite not being psykers?

Or am I misreading again?

Editing to add:
I misread. The last paragraph helps.

Sort of.

With perils, the wound is assigned to the Psyker. Since the psyker is unique (usually), that specific model would be the one that gets removed. I'm not saying that with Perils or GH! or DT that you can reallocate wounds to save the Psyker or the Plamsa guy. If a guy with a melta is the only guy in the unit to step into DT and rolls a 1, a guy with a melta has to die, but not necessarily that exact model. But if you have multiple models that are identical in game terms, you can choose from among that subset.

No, that exactly model has to die, this is clearly laid out in the rulebook. The model suffers the wound, just the model, not the group of identically armed models.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:He is trying to claim that wounding a UNIT is the same as wounding a MODEL.

I think.

Not exactly, but close. They both use the same process (the only process we have). Wounding a model dictates what happens during the wound allocation step for Complex Units. After that step, taking saves and removing casualties is done the same in both cases.

But for the removing casualties part, yes, you can choose whatever of the regular guys that you want, but for Dangerous terrain, it tells you exactly who suffers the wound, and if that model suffers the wound, that is the model that must be removed. There is only one wound for a dangerous terrain test, if only one model moves through it, and the Dangerous terrain rules tell you specifically that the model that moved through it is the one that is allocated the wound. You cannot wound one Tactical Space Marine and remove another. What you are referring to is multiple wounds that are shot and or caused by CC attacks against a unit. Then you can remove casualties as you wish from the identical models, but you can't do that if the rules have already told you who takes the wound, which Dangerous Terrain rules tell you just that. Dangerous terrain also tells you who to remove, when they tell you that the model that moved through, entered, or left the terrain takes the test, and on a roll of a 1, that particular model takes the wound. So, in this case, you would actually have to roll them separately to go with RAW, so that you can see which models in the unit would actually be removed.

Galador wrote:Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.

This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote: Wounding a model dictates what happens during the wound allocation step for Complex Units. After that step, taking saves and removing casualties is done the same in both cases.

Not exactly true--'Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty"

The examples we discuss have no target unit and perhaps more imporantantly no ability to have 'any model' affected as the rules already define which model is affected..

The quoted sentence is an attempt an a real-world explanation for why it might work this way. The rule was explained in the first paragraph of the section, and I consider the second paragraph to ultimate have the same weight as fluff. Maybe you disagree, but it feels like an offhand justification from the rules team rather than more rules.

time wizard wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:Going back to DT, if your Sergeant takes a wound, then he's removed; the wound was allocated to him and you can't change that. But if 3 of your 5 identical chumps take wounds, you can remove whichever three of them you want.

That would be true if the rule on page 14 said, "...wounds can be allocated as per the next section..." but it doesn't.

It says, "...(wounds and saves are explained in the next section.)" {emphasis mine}

There's a world of difference between an explaination and a permission.

Nothing in the dangerous terrain or Gets Hot! rules gives specific permission to allocate the wound to any model other than the one suffering it.

Remember, we're not changing the way wound are allocated. The permission to remove any identical model comes from the Remove Casualties section on pg. 24



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:So, in this case, you would actually have to roll them separately to go with RAW, so that you can see which models in the unit would actually be removed.

Actually, there's no specific RAW about which model to remove, only which model is wounded. The only RAW we have in terms of which model to remove comes from pg. 24, which allows us to remove any identical models.

ElCheezus wrote:This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

But that is not what it says.

ElCheezus wrote:The quoted sentence is an attempt an a real-world explanation for why it might work this way. The rule was explained in the first paragraph of the section, and I consider the second paragraph to ultimate have the same weight as fluff. Maybe you disagree, but it feels like an offhand justification from the rules team rather than more rules.

If it was not explaining why a rule works in the game but rather how to describe it in a story I would agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ElCheezus wrote:Actually, there's no specific RAW about which model to remove, only which model is wounded.

And the removal steps you refer to reference a wounded unit.

When a single model is wounded there is no need (or justification) for allocation.

Editing to add:
I think I get why you read it the way you do, but I think you are simply incorrect.
I have never read it that way nor met anyone who played it that way.
I daresay you can say the exact same thing.

Cheers.

Now I have something else to remember to discuss prior to games with new folks.
Thanks!

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

But that is not what it says.

No, it doesn't say that explicitly. No matter which of our interperetations is correct, there would be no need to spell it out again for this section.

ElCheezus wrote:The quoted sentence is an attempt an a real-world explanation for why it might work this way. The rule was explained in the first paragraph of the section, and I consider the second paragraph to ultimate have the same weight as fluff. Maybe you disagree, but it feels like an offhand justification from the rules team rather than more rules.

If it was not explaining why a rule works in the game but rather how to describe it in a story I would agree with you.

Since that paragraph talks explicitly about firing models, can we carry your logic here to it's conclusion and say that in close combat each attack has to be done on a per-model basis?

After seeing your edit: I actually used to play the way you're supporting, but recently was convinced to change. As I said earlier in the post, I would play "my" way by default, but if an opponent wanted to change, I would. I don't consider this to be a critical point, I just like getting to the nitty-gritty of the rules sometimes.

ElCheezus wrote:Since that paragraph talks explicitly about firing models, can we carry your logic here to it's conclusion and say that in close combat each attack has to be done on a per-model basis?

If the rules for CC did not state otherwise it could be argued.
Similar to the mistaken assertion that ONLY cc attacks ignore cover saves (unless specifically called out by the weapon/attack like template weapons).

The CC rules state to refer to the shooting rules for removing casualties. The rules for DT also refer to the "next section" (the shooting phase section) on how to deal with wounding models and so forth.

What the mork, so much controversy. I thought it'd be a unanimous yes or no...

Rules wise it is clear. El Cheezus is ignorong the requirement for the model to take it, and attempting to apply rules for units to models.

terranarc wrote:What the mork, so much controversy. I thought it'd be a unanimous yes or no...

Nope, it's not that easy, unfortunately.

The rules say that model X suffers a wound.

Under the "Remove Casualties" heading, any model identical to the model initially wounded can be removed.

Some take the position that "model x suffers a wound" means that only that model can be removed. Others take the position that the the DT rule doesn't specify how to remove casualties as a result of failing a DT check, and so you should look at the "Remove Casualties" rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rules wise it is clear. El Cheezus is ignorong the requirement for the model to take it, and attempting to apply rules for units to models.

Not that you're biased by your own option at all.

I'm not ignoring the rule that indicated the model takes the wound. I've stated clearly exactly what that means for allocation. I'm just following the rest of the rules, too.

Most people assume that DT doesn't use the regular rules of removing casualties, even though there are no other methods to deal with unsaved wounds, and they unconsciously fill in the gaps with their own method. After careful examination of the BRB and as many applicable rules as I could find, I come to the conclusion that the usual Remove Casualties procedure applies.

ElCheezus wrote:
Most people assume that DT doesn't use the regular rules of removing casualties,

Not quite.
We are saying you do use those rules as they apply to the wounded models--you are applying them to the wounded model's unit.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:
Most people assume that DT doesn't use the regular rules of removing casualties,

Not quite.
We are saying you do use those rules as they apply to the wounded models--you are applying them to the wounded model's unit.

There are no rules that have anything to do with wounding and removing single models, other than calling them units of their own like ICs in close combat.

At least, not that I'm aware of. It's always possible I missed something.

ElCheezus wrote:There are no rules that have anything to do with wounding and removing single models

This is the issue you are missing then.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:There are no rules that have anything to do with wounding and removing single models

This is the issue you are missing then.

If there's a section or explanation that I'm missing, I'd love to have a reference to it.

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:There are no rules that have anything to do with wounding and removing single models

This is the issue you are missing then.

If there's a section or explanation that I'm missing, I'd love to have a reference to it.

The section that you are missing was quoted by myself on the last page. Its under the Dangerous Terrain rules, because it states the model that enters, moves through, or exits, must take the test, and if failed, that model takes the wound. Hence, you already have the wound allocated to a specific model thanks to the Dangerous Terrain rules.

From that point, simple logic tells you that if Marine A went into Dangerous terrain, and failed his test, Marine A is out of the fight. I cannot, as per the DT rules for who takes the wound, say that even though Marine A failed the test, it is actually Marine Z, who never entered the Dangerous Terrain in the first place, dies from Marine A's failed test.

It really cannot be that much clearer.... and the point where it talks about wounds and saves being explained later, thats exactly what it does, it explains them later. Notice nowhere does it state about the removing casualties section. And if you look at it, it spells it out for you in the last sentence of DT rules, but I will break it down more.

Wounds are explained on pg. 19, and saving throws are explained on pgs. 20-24. After saving throws is when it talks about removing casualties, so that is neither part of wounds nor saving throws. So the parts of the next section that apply to dangerous terrain actually come before removing casualties, so it has no reference in the Dangerous Terrain Rules, even if the model only has 1 Wound. If the model only has one wound, and fails a dangerous terrain test, the that model suffers a wound, which will reduce its wound total to 0, which means that model is removed as a casualty.

I really can't see how you are confusing the word model with the word unit, as they dont even have any letters in common. You cannot allocate things that happen to an individual model to an entire unit. If you could, then I could push off Zogwort's curse, or JoTWW onto any model in my unit, not the model that it effects. Or I could let the player controlling a Vindicare allocate the wound, then remove a different model, and none of those things are allowed, and they are under the same basic guideline of Dangerous Terrain, wherein they affect individual models within a unit.

Galador wrote:Wounds are explained on pg. 19, and saving throws are explained on pgs. 20-24. After saving throws is when it talks about removing casualties, so that is neither part of wounds nor saving throws. So the parts of the next section that apply to dangerous terrain actually come before removing casualties, so it has no reference in the Dangerous Terrain Rules, even if the model only has 1 Wound. If the model only has one wound, and fails a dangerous terrain test, the that model suffers a wound, which will reduce its wound total to 0, which means that model is removed as a casualty.

Why does it mean we remove it as a casualty? There's a total of one place where we're told what to do with wounds, and what to do when there are enough of them. (there's no such thing has having your "wound total" be 0, btw) The basic case is under Remove Casualties. It's elaborated upon for when you have complex units and multiple wounds later on. You're telling me that we shouldn't refer to the Remove Casualties section, because it talks about units. Okay, let's pretend it doesn't exist. Give me a reference where it talks about what to do with wounds, and when we remove models from the table. I'll wait.

No? Nowhere else? Then what justification do you have for even taking the model off of the table? In my understanding, models blew up when they took a wound, inflicting a S 3 hit on anything within d6 inches. We remove the model in that case, too, right? Seriously, the only way the game tells us to take the model off of the table when wounds are unsaved is in the exact section you want to tell me doesn't apply.

I really can't see how you are confusing the word model with the word unit, as they dont even have any letters in common. You cannot allocate things that happen to an individual model to an entire unit. If you could, then I could push off Zogwort's curse, or JoTWW onto any model in my unit, not the model that it effects. Or I could let the player controlling a Vindicare allocate the wound, then remove a different model, and none of those things are allowed, and they are under the same basic guideline of Dangerous Terrain, wherein they affect individual models within a unit.

The implications that I'm confused on the difference between a model and a unit are insulting, please stick to constructive comments. Also, I've repeatedly mentioned that I'm not reallocating wounds, just removing casualties as allowed. I'm not familiar with the Curse, but I believe that JotWW specifically tells you to remove the model. In that case we don't have to deal with wounding or the Remove Casualties section at all, so it's not relevant. With the Vindicare, if he shot at one of multiple identical models, yes, you could remove whichever specific model you wanted.

Yeah, I'm done.

You keep wanting to find things that make no sense, either in 40k logic, or real world logic, and no matter what anyone tells you, you are going to continue to argue the wrong thing. The Model is bieng tested individually so removing casualties does not matter, as it refers to the entire unit, not the single model.

But if you wish to continue to be TFG, thats your choice.

But I can guarantee you that if you bring this to any Tournament that you don't organize and run yourself, the TO will look at you like your crazy or trying to cheat. And if it was me across the table from you in a regular game and you tried this, and continued to be obtuse about it when its obvious to everyone else the correct way to do it, that would be the end of the game. I would pack up and leave. Its things like this, when people know how to do it the correct way, but try to rules lawyer their way out of any disadvantage, that makes this game less fun to play in a FLGS.

This went from a debate, to an arguement, to "no matter what you say, I'm going to beat my head against this wall until you give up" TFG rules lawyer thread, so I'm done with it. I know the correct way to play it, along with the extreme majority of all other 40k players, so you have fun with this.

Galador wrote:Yeah, I'm done.

You keep wanting to find things that make no sense, either in 40k logic, or real world logic, and no matter what anyone tells you, you are going to continue to argue the wrong thing. The Model is bieng tested individually so removing casualties does not matter, as it refers to the entire unit, not the single model.

But if you wish to continue to be TFG, thats your choice.

I've said multiple times that on the table I wouldn't really mind switching if it mattered to my opponent, so I really hope I don't qualify for TFG status.

I believe my arguments make sense in 40k logic, but I've never made the same claim for real world logic. This is a simulation game, a set of rules. The real world doesn't dictate how things work. Yes, that means that my stance might not make sense. In the real world, the guy that steps on a landmine is the one that dies, not his buddy carrying the same model of rifle. 40k is not the real world.

But I can guarantee you that if you bring this to any Tournament that you don't organize and run yourself, the TO will look at you like your crazy or trying to cheat. And if it was me across the table from you in a regular game and you tried this, and continued to be obtuse about it when its obvious to everyone else the correct way to do it, that would be the end of the game. I would pack up and leave. Its things like this, when people know how to do it the correct way, but try to rules lawyer their way out of any disadvantage, that makes this game less fun to play in a FLGS.

When it comes to everyone knowing the correct way to do it, at least one group that I play with has always done it the way that I'm advocating. Also, arguments along the lines of "so many people can't be wrong" are fallacy. Being correct isn't decided democratically.

I actualy don't see that this as strictly an advantage. When I apply it to the Gets Hot! rule, it means that I can end up taking more casualties than rolling each person seperately in my 4x plasma CCS. Advantage doesn't figure into my reasoning, and implying that it does insults me, so please don't.

This went from a debate, to an arguement, to "no matter what you say, I'm going to beat my head against this wall until you give up" TFG rules lawyer thread, so I'm done with it. I know the correct way to play it, along with the extreme majority of all other 40k players, so you have fun with this.

So far, it's been me calmly providing counterpoints when I had them. So far I've had them. I don't think I've ignored any specfic arguments, and I know I've answered the same ones more than once. My reading of this thread has been a debte until just now, when you seem to have taken it to heart. Like I said, don't worry, if I played you and you cared enough to ask me to do things differently on this point, I wouldn't mind.

Of course you're welcome to bow out, but don't bother getting angry, this can still be a discussion. I'm willing to be wrong (like I said, I used to play the same way you advocate, but was convinced of "my" way), so don't think I ignore any arguments for either side.