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.

Cheezus, we can extend that to differently armed models then, and apply Wound allocation to a Dangerous terain tests(hooray Mooks taking my Sgt, Special, and Heavies wounds!) After all, as you say wound allocation is part of the wounding process, and it is wound allocation to the unit of same multi-wound models that makes you remove whole ones.

I think that the term 'wound allocation' is confusing the issue too much. You already have all the wounds allocated when you roll the dice, it is like taking one 2+ save with every model. The point is that if you fail multiple rolls from a similarly armed group of models, wounds are consolidated onto one model for ease of record keeping. It seems the best way of doing it to me, as having multiple models with half their wounds gone is annoying.

Yonush wrote:As librianians are ic and individule units that's not a good example.. a better one is zoenthropes psyker with 2 wounds.

Unit of 3 zoenthropes 2 suffer from perils and fail the saves. IIRC there was a faq that said each take 1 wound so there is presendence.

Here's the FAQ in question.

And this quote:

Q: When a Zoanthrope brood uses a psychic power, do I need to take a Psychic test for each individual Zoanthrope in the brood, or just one test for the whole brood?

A: Each Zoanthrope in the brood must take a separate Psychic test. Note that this means that a wound caused by Perils of the Warp will be allocated to the Zoanthrope that suffered the attack.

completely fails to answer the issue that they are addressing. It appears to support the "remove 1 whole model" argument ("model" tests are the same as wound allocation). However, it could also be read as meaning that Games Workshop has no idea what "allocation" means within the context of their own rules.

biccat, that both answers the question they were asking(how many tests for a Zoanthrope brood? 1/model.) and tells us that each individual Zoanthrope takes it's own perils wound(goes back to exactly what I said earlier: a wound that is auto-allocated to a model can only ever effect that model)

Kommissar Kel wrote:biccat, that both answers the question they were asking(how many tests for a Zoanthrope brood? 1/model.) and tells us that each individual Zoanthrope takes it's own perils wound(goes back to exactly what I said earlier: a wound that is auto-allocated to a model can only ever effect that model)

It answers the question asked (1/model), but doesn't satisfy the issue of how to deal with multiple wounds.

The response only says that the wound is "allocated" to the Zoanthrope that suffered the Perils attack (as in wound allocation). But it doesn't tell us how to deal with removing models, or how that wound is dealt with once it is (presuming zoanthropes have an invul.) unsaved.

I like all this. It works very well for units assaulting as well! Look how simple it makes the process.

I assault a unit in dangerous terrain with 5 models that have 2 wounds each.
The first model (the one closest to the enemy) moves into the terrain, gets into base contact with the enemy, fails the dangerous terrain test and suffers a wound.
Now the next model moves into the terrain, but it can't move far enough to get into base contact with the enemy but it is in base contact with the first model so it is engaged. It also take a dangerous terrain test and passes it.
Now the next model moves into the terrain. It also cannot make it into base contact with the enemy but is within 2" of the first model so it is engaged. It now takes a dangerous terrain test but fails it so it takes a wound.
But you say we have to remove multi-mound models where possible so we have to now removed the first model.
Well, now there are no models in base contact with the enemy unit, so the assault fails.
The last 2 models that moved now have to be moved back to their original starting positions because the assault has failed.
Now where exactly were they again?

IMO, it would be far easier to just follow the rules.
Like the one on page 34 under moving assaulting models, 2nd paragraph about halfway down, "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult or dangerous terrain if necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model."

Now of course you are going to counter argue by saying that the way you choose to place the wounds on the models, according to page 24, is you will move the entire multi-wound unit into assault, take as many dangerous terrain tests as necessary, allocate the wounds as you wish, and in the above scenario with 5 models, 2 wounds each, even if you failed 5 difficult terrain tests, you would never have to remove the closest model and the assault could never fail, so the rule as written is unnecessary because even in a unit with all 1 wound models, unless you moved them all through dangerous terrain, and they all failed, your assault would never fail. Interesting.

I was siding with Cheez until this thought struck me:

The allocation of wounds from shooting is made AFTER you have made your saves. (i.e. 6 wounds, 4 saves made, 2 wounds applied - in this case, one model removed.)

In the case of DT, no save is allowed, you just take a wound. The rulles of DT tell you where to allocate the wounds (i.e. to the model that failed the DT test).

As I understand it (and I fully admit I may be wrong), I have a unit of 6 models enter DT, but only 2 actually enter. I point to the first model and roll a 4, "he is good," I point to the 2nd model and roll a 1, "he is dead, wounded, etc." I pull him off the board, assign a wound, whatever. Extrapolating that to multi-wound models, I do the same. I do not roll them collectively and assign wounds to the ones I fail.

Yes, this makes record keeping a pain, but such is life.

Green is Best! wrote:
In the case of DT, no save is allowed, you just take a wound. The rulles of DT tell you where to allocate the wounds (i.e. to the model that failed the DT test).

Just to clarify, invulnerable saves can be taken against wounds caused by dangerous terrain.

Green is Best! wrote:
In the case of DT, no save is allowed,

Not true. No armor saves are allowed. Every other kind is. Just like a power weapon wound.

time wizard wrote:Now of course you are going to counter argue by saying that the way you choose to place the wounds on the models, according to page 24, is you will move the entire multi-wound unit into assault, take as many dangerous terrain tests as necessary, allocate the wounds as you wish, and in the above scenario with 5 models, 2 wounds each, even if you failed 5 difficult terrain tests, you would never have to remove the closest model and the assault could never fail, so the rule as written is unnecessary because even in a unit with all 1 wound models, unless you moved them all through dangerous terrain, and they all failed, your assault would never fail. Interesting.

That's correct, the RAW mean that a unit of multi wound models (that have taken no wounds) that assault through dangerous terrain can't fail the assault (unless by choice). This doesn't make the point unnecessary, though, because there are plenty of other units that CAN fail the assault and it needs to be specified what happens if the lead model dies.

A unit of 5 exactly the same models would have to fail all 5 DTs to fail assault, but a unit with 4 bolters and 1 melta with the melta the only one close enough to lead the assault could easily fail. If the melta takes a DT wound and fails its save, the wound would need to be assigned to that melta, because there are no other meltas in the unit.

And this procedure would have to work equally well with vehicles, correct?
I have a squadron of vehicles.
The lead vehicle enters difficult terrain, so it takes a dangerous terrain test.
It fails the test and is immobilized.
But in squadrons an immoblilzed result is treated as destroyed-wrecked, so one of the vehicles in the squadron is wrecked and I can choose which one, even if it is not the one that moved into the terrain.
Correct?

{EDIT} Ah, sorry, right you can't because dangerous terrain tests take about wounds and vehicles can't be wounded, but they can still be immobilized, so you can't put the immobilized result on a diffferent vehicle (model) because it isn't a model (vehicle) it is a vehicle (model) so you would have to apply the result to the vehicle (model) that was immobilized you couldn't put it on a different model (vehicle) and now my head is starting to hurt!

time wizard wrote:And this procedure would have to work equally well with vehicles, correct?
I have a squadron of vehicles.
The lead vehicle enters difficult terrain, so it takes a dangerous terrain test.
It fails the test and is immobilized.
But in squadrons an immoblilzed result is treated as destroyed-wrecked, so one of the vehicles in the squadron is wrecked and I can choose which one, even if it is not the one that moved into the terrain.
Correct?

{EDIT} Ah, sorry, right you can't because dangerous terrain tests take about wounds and vehicles can't be wounded, but they can still be immobilized, so you can't put the immobilized result on a diffferent vehicle (model) because it isn't a model (vehicle) it is a vehicle (model) so you would have to apply the result to the vehicle (model) that was immobilized you couldn't put it on a different model (vehicle) and now my head is starting to hurt!

Yeah, I haven't really delved into this with vehicles at all since they work differently and don't take wounds. Unless someone has a compelling argument against it, for any vehicle I would say it goes to the vehicle taking the test since I don't see anywhere where a squadron of vehicles can apply damage results to different vehicles, but I haven't really researched it.

Green is Best! wrote:I was siding with Cheez until this thought struck me:

The allocation of wounds from shooting is made AFTER you have made your saves. (i.e. 6 wounds, 4 saves made, 2 wounds applied - in this case, one model removed.)

In the case of DT, no save is allowed, you just take a wound. The rulles of DT tell you where to allocate the wounds (i.e. to the model that failed the DT test).

As I understand it (and I fully admit I may be wrong), I have a unit of 6 models enter DT, but only 2 actually enter. I point to the first model and roll a 4, "he is good," I point to the 2nd model and roll a 1, "he is dead, wounded, etc." I pull him off the board, assign a wound, whatever. Extrapolating that to multi-wound models, I do the same. I do not roll them collectively and assign wounds to the ones I fail.

Yes, this makes record keeping a pain, but such is life.

this is incorrect

model removal is after saves wounds are allocated to the groups before saves are taken.

you should remove 1 model taking 3 wounds, not 1 wound to 3 models exaclty as the multi wound model rules specify.

I agree the argument is not in the idea of allocation.

It is in the idea that the word allocation as it pertains to Perils of the Warp or Dangerous Terrain is specifying that only a specific model is affected by the test and that model must be assigned the wound if it fails its save.

I do not have the BRB with me but I seem to recall something related to assaults through Dangerous Terrain that suggested if the first model moving in the assault fails its test, you then move to the next closest model to attempt the assault...(or maybe I am making up rules, if someone has a BRB and can check that would be good).

calypso2ts wrote:I agree the argument is not in the idea of allocation.

It is in the idea that the word allocation as it pertains to Perils of the Warp or Dangerous Terrain is specifying that only a specific model is affected by the test and that model must be assigned the wound if it fails its save.

I do not have the BRB with me but I seem to recall something related to assaults through Dangerous Terrain that suggested if the first model moving in the assault fails its test, you then move to the next closest model to attempt the assault...(or maybe I am making up rules, if someone has a BRB and can check that would be good).

This point along with the rule has been gone over earlier in this thread and more comprehensively in the thread linked above regarding dangerous terrain tests and model removal; I would check the thread linked earlier first.

calypso2ts wrote:I agree the argument is not in the idea of allocation.

It is in the idea that the word allocation as it pertains to Perils of the Warp or Dangerous Terrain is specifying that only a specific model is affected by the test and that model must be assigned the wound if it fails its save.

I do not have the BRB with me but I seem to recall something related to assaults through Dangerous Terrain that suggested if the first model moving in the assault fails its test, you then move to the next closest model to attempt the assault...(or maybe I am making up rules, if someone has a BRB and can check that would be good).

That would be this one I cited from a few posts back.

time wizard wrote:Like the one on page 34 under moving assaulting models, 2nd paragraph about halfway down, "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult or dangerous terrain if necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model."

Pardon me for not reading all 8 pages of a bloated thread? It is on the second page of the thread and the BRB reference is page 34 for the record, which strongly implies my point from the previous post.

Hey Calypso, easy there!
I just answered your question. You wanted to know where it was in the BRB and I had cited the rule a few posts in this thread before your question, so I re-posted it for you.
I wasn't trying to be rude, condescending or anything of the sort.
If it was perceived by you that way, I apologize. Was not the intent!
Just trying to give you the info you requested, nothing more, nothing less.
Time Wizard

calypso2ts wrote:Pardon me for not reading all 8 pages of a bloated thread? It is on the second page of the thread and the BRB reference is page 34 for the record, which strongly implies my point from the previous post.

I wasn't trying to offend you; The questions you are asking, and the road you are about to go down making your point have been addressed and re-addressed multiple times in the 8 page thread. Going over it again in this thread will only cause another 8 page thread, without any substance being added to either side of the DT wound/model removal arguments.


EDIT: To keep this mostly on topic, the answer to the original poster's question depends on which method of model removal you prefer for DT tests.

If you prefer that a model who takes a wound from DT and fails his saves must also be the model that is removed (or not removed for multiple wound models) then the multi-wound model rules make no difference, each model that fails its save takes one wound. Multiple wound models do not have to stack wounds on a single model until it dies.

If you prefer that a model who takes a wound from DT fails his saves incurs an unsaved wound on the unit, then normal model removal rules apply and you will need to apply the wounds to the mutli-wound models that are identical in gaming terms in such a way that the maximum number of models are removed.

To determine which side of the fence you fall on for this issue, it is best to consult the 8 page thread regarding DT wounds and model remove linked earlier.

EDIT 2: Here's the thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/362583.page

time wizard wrote:Now of course you are going to counter argue by saying that the way you choose to place the wounds on the models, according to page 24, is you will move the entire multi-wound unit into assault, take as many dangerous terrain tests as necessary, allocate the wounds as you wish, and in the above scenario with 5 models, 2 wounds each, even if you failed 5 difficult terrain tests, you would never have to remove the closest model and the assault could never fail, so the rule as written is unnecessary because even in a unit with all 1 wound models, unless you moved them all through dangerous terrain, and they all failed, your assault would never fail. Interesting.

Your assumption here is that the rulebook wants us to fail assaults. With assault being as over-powered as it is due to sweeping advances and leadership modifiers, it's clear that GW loves the assault phase. The rule in assault about getting to restart the charge is reinforcement that assaults can continue even if the lead model dies. It seems to me that they *didn't* want anyone to fail assaults becuse of DT, so I don't see why your stuck on it.

Green is Best! wrote:The allocation of wounds from shooting is made AFTER you have made your saves. (i.e. 6 wounds, 4 saves made, 2 wounds applied - in this case, one model removed.)

What you're talking about isn't allocation, it's casualty removal. Allocation is a part of shooting and assault phases, not Dangerous Terrain. In fact, Dangerous Terrain specifically allocates the wound to the model that triggered the test. Ultimately what this means by my interpretation is that if a guy with a plasmagun goes into DT and fails the test, it has to be a guy with a plasmagun that dies, but not necessarily that exact model. For multi-wound, we follow the rules that tell us to remove a casualty when enough wounds are taken by the group of identical models.

time wizard wrote:And this procedure would have to work equally well with vehicles, correct?

Vehicles don't have the same "casualty removal" rules as other models. Specifically, penetrating or glancing hits generate damage results that are appplied to the specific model to which the hit was allocated. Basically, vehicles work the way you guys want other models to, in that you don't get to choose the casualty.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

calypso2ts wrote:Pardon me for not reading all 8 pages of a bloated thread? It is on the second page of the thread and the BRB reference is page 34 for the record, which strongly implies my point from the previous post.

PB has a point that if we don't do the research on other posts, we'll just end up going in the same circles again. Although if you just want the cliff notes version: I'm right they're wrong!

(joking, of course. There is no cliff notes version)

In the other thread, the assault rules referenced from pg. 34 were addressed at least twice, maybe three times. I pointed out multiple times that no matter which interpretation was correct about how to treat DT rules, the assault rules would be written the same way. This is because the issue they are addressing (the lead model dying due to DT) can occur under both interpretations.

I have a torrented copy of the rulebook so I didn't see that bit (im not doubting it's there though), but I would say 'how to handle unsaved wounds' would be tossed in with "basic principles of wounds", which you'll notice I excluded in my previous post from 'ignoring'.

Edit: @El Cheezus btw.

-Cypher- wrote:I have a torrented copy of the rulebook so I didn't see that bit (im not doubting it's there though), but I would say 'how to handle unsaved wounds' would be tossed in with "basic principles of wounds", which you'll notice I excluded in my previous post from 'ignoring'.

Edit: @El Cheezus btw.

You're right, I totally missed that the first time through.

-Cypher- wrote:it follows logically that they will not follow rules for wounds taken in the shooting phase at any point in the process (excluding the basic principles of any and all wounds of course). To say that they start of by deviating from the rules, and then come back to adhering to them later in the process stretches the boundaries of rule interpretation too far when the only basis for the debate is lack of further explanation. You either have it one way or the other.

After reading this entire thread up to this point, I think that in this situation, when all is said and done, you will have 3 models with one wound apiece and no casualties.

So it looks like you admit we need to go to the Shooting Phase for the rules for resolving wounds (and therefore removing casualties), but your conclusion contradicts those rules.

Okay. This is such an intricate conversation that word choice is paramount, so I'm trying to be very careful in explaining ho I think about the interpretation here. It's gonna be difficult, so bare with me.

We agree the crux of the argument is past DT itself and founded in whether or not unsaved wounds are funneled into one mini if the total amount of wounds reaches the max number of wounds on the mini's stats (which is only possible because all the minis in the unit are exactly the same).

This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.

That is my take, and hopefully I worded it specifically enough, and explanatorily enough so as not to be any more confusing than the discussion already makes it.


Edit: I apologize for my phone's double-posting issues.

-Cypher- wrote:Okay. This is such an intricate conversation that word choice is paramount, so I'm trying to be very careful in explaining ho I think about the interpretation here. It's gonna be difficult, so bare with me.

We agree the crux of the argument is past DT itself and founded in whether or not unsaved wounds are funneled into one mini if the total amount of wounds reaches the max number of wounds on the mini's stats (which is only possible because all the minis in the unit are exactly the same).

This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.

That is my take, and hopefully I worded it specifically enough, and explanatorily enough so as not to be any more confusing than the discussion already makes it.

DT never specifies that it deviates from the Wounding rules. It just tells us the model suffers the wound, which is the same verbage as allocation (pg. 20 paragraph 3) "The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models. . ." i.e. unit suffering becomes model suffering through allocation.

Also, we have to follow the 'funneling rule', becasue that's the only process we have for dealing with wounds in units of multiple-wound models. Any other treatment of unsaved wounds in this case would be based on 'assumed' rules and not RAW. If you have a reference that contradicts this, I'd love to see it.

-Cypher- wrote:This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.[/quote]

This is what I was trying to convey in my previous posting. While I understand the logic behind Cheez's post, I have to agree with cypher.

An example that came up (not here) was that an objective was in dangerous terrain. Now, in order to contest, you have to send a unit into dangerous terrain. The application of this DT can dramatically impact how you try to claim this objective.

If we use the Cheez theory (any similar model will do), you only need to send in one model to contest and the casualty can come from somewhere else.
If we use the Cypher theory (model by model), if a model goes in and takes a wound, that specific model dies.

Once you have decided on which theory above, the same thing then applies to multi-wound models.

Green is Best! wrote:

-Cypher- wrote:This is the way I see it: follow the shooting phase rules for unsaved wounds except where Dangerous Terrain specificaly states that it deviates. I believe that because DT states that tests are taken one-by-one on a model-by-model bases, and this directly and unequivically deviates from how it would be done in the shooting phase (where-in all the wounds would be rolled for in one go, and the distributed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible [in this case being every 3 unsaved wounds]) then unsaved wound taken from DT will NOT follow the 'funneling rule'. I believe this because a model is specifically told it will take 1 test and can therefore only fail 1 test and can therefore only sustain one wound. In the shooting phase, the wounds are resolved on a UNIT basis, but for DT they are resolved on a MODEL basis. The 'funneling rule' pertains to units, not individual models.

This is what I was trying to convey in my previous posting. While I understand the logic behind Cheez's post, I have to agree with cypher.

Where in the book does it tell you how to process unsaved wounds on individual models? I know the two answers to this, and they don't apply. Give me a reference if you find one that does.

An example that came up (not here) was that an objective was in dangerous terrain. Now, in order to contest, you have to send a unit into dangerous terrain. The application of this DT can dramatically impact how you try to claim this objective.

I take no ownership of the consequences of playing by the rules, as I didn't design the game. The only reason you bring this up is because it's a change from what you're used to considering as "right." Any changes that would occur in the way you play as a result of using my interpretation don't really support an argument; they just illustrate the consequences. Just like "common sense" doesn't always come in to how a simulation game's rules are defined, being uhappy about the consequences also doesn't have an effect: they're just part of the game.

I was responding to PB, not you Time it was just unfortunate timing on my post.

The problem really stems from how specific you want to hold GW to the wording of their rules across different sections of the BRB. There are numerous cases where the text is inconsistent and when interpreting the BRB there is a general caveat of 'Does this make sense?'

This is after all a 'simulation' and while some rules exist because it is an abstraction from reality, there are plenty of examples where a 'legal paradigm' of interpretation lead to untenable occurrences in this 'simulation.' What is important is that wounds that occur as a result of a 'model' taking a wound are applied consistently. It would be inconsistent to apply DT in this manner and not PotW for example.

Given the tenets of consistency and 'does this make sense,' it is a logical conclusion to apply unsaved wounds to individual models regardless of whether similarly equipped models have already suffered a wound and to remove the specific model that failed the test as appropriate.

calypso2ts wrote:
Given the tenets of consistency and 'does this make sense,' it is a logical conclusion to apply unsaved wounds to individual models.

This is a fine way to play the game, but if you are trying to make "does this make sense" arguments in YMDC, you might be in the wrong forum

EDIT: and as a side note, I do play Perils and Gets Hot! in the same fashion, in the rare instance that it applies.

calypso2ts wrote:I was responding to PB, not you Time it was just unfortunate timing on my post.

Not a problem.

calypso2ts wrote:I was responding to PB, not you Time it was just unfortunate timing on my post.

The problem really stems from how specific you want to hold GW to the wording of their rules across different sections of the BRB. There are numerous cases where the text is inconsistent and when interpreting the BRB there is a general caveat of 'Does this make sense?'

I agree that GW's writing is crap, and that there are many cases where the rules leave room for interpretation. I don't think this is one of those times. Most people want it to be, becuase their interpretation is more intuitive.

In the other thread, I lay out detailed steps supported by references to the BRB for every step of triggering and failing a DT test through to casualty removal. It's for the simple case of one-wound models, but if you want to go through and apply the same rigor and research, you can come to the same conclusion I have for multi-wound models.

The steps are all there. The rules are clear enough to not need interpretation.