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.

Zeus wrote:Eternal Warrior wouldn't help you against a Force weapons ID.

Okay then, explain how Force Weapon ID is dissimilar from the ID explained on page 26, bar the ignoring of toughness (which is an explicity stated exception).

Force Weapons, pg 50:

"...If the test is passed, the enemy model suffers instant death, regardless of its toughness value. This power has no effect against vehicles, models that are immune to instant death and any other model that does not have a wound value."

Emphasis mine.

Eternal Warrior, pg 74:

"The model is immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule."

You cannot get any more clear cut than that. Force Weapon ID has no effect against models immune to instant death, and Eternal Warrior confers immunity to instant death; please point out the Force Weapon exception.

I don't care how many 10-year olds you conned into following your flawed logic across the US, you have provided no argument that displays how instant death from a force weapon kills you differently from instant death via any other means.

Stop polluting this board with your nonsensical 'logic'.

Back to the OP.

4 Force kills at I4 and 2 more at I1

EDIT: Option C

Right so I6 no wound ....

I4 causes 4 wound.

so then you allocate 1 wound to each guy and if they all have the same weapons roll them together, if they all have different weapons roll seperately.

If you save the wound, move on to the next guy and so on. if you roll an unsaved wound, GK player takes a psychic test.

If he passes then the model who have taken the unsaved wound dies.

then anymore wounds that are unsaved causes the thunderwolves to ID.

So 5 dead wolf

Mathike - right result, bad working out.

You allocate wounding hits to models, evenly
You then GROUP those wounding hits into groups of models that are identical, giving you a POOL of wounding hits

You then take saves, etc.

You are then free to remove ANY model from within that group for every save failed, as the pool of wounding hits was just that - a pool.

This is why allocation is not the same as remove casualties.

You had the right result, but had missed out the pooling of wounding hits (to make clear that theyve yet to be an unsaved wound) amongst all "like" models.

to save problems my GK test before dice are rolled to see if the weapons activate or not. it saves us hassle later of dealing with allocation and whatnot. this is a house rule, and an interpretation of RAI simply because the RAW is too poorly worded to make legitimate sense from. we house ruled it, and this is how it plays (for all force weapons now, not just GK. roll your test before blows are struck)

Huh? The rules work perfectly well.

You do realise that wounding hit allocation -> group wounding hits-> take saves -> remove casualties is the correct order, and the GK and ANY FW fit perfectly well between the "take saves" and "remove casualties" step?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mathike - right result, bad working out.

You allocate wounding hits to models, evenly
You then GROUP those wounding hits into groups of models that are identical, giving you a POOL of wounding hits

You then take saves, etc.

You are then free to remove ANY model from within that group for every save failed, as the pool of wounding hits was just that - a pool.

This is why allocation is not the same as remove casualties.

You had the right result, but had missed out the pooling of wounding hits (to make clear that theyve yet to be an unsaved wound) amongst all "like" models.

I was doing it as if all 5 models had different weapons. I am so used to my Gk since they all have different set ups so I almost always roll seperately

But yeah I do know the other rule too. I just wanted to make it simple explanation. explaning what you just said is a bit more confusing.

Well, it isnt more confusing - you always group wounds, even in the simple case (unit of all identical models), so you are always following the same procedure.

Short cutting, by having all unique models, can lead people to thinking you work it out differently - you dont. You always group into a pool of wounds with a group of identical models.