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.

I now agree that you could roll all identically armed models together for the purposes of Gets Hot.

Gets Hot, P31"For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"

Complex Units, P25 "Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their savings throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models."

Remove Casualties, P24 "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound... Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."


Basically, Gets Hot does the allocation for you and then tells you to make saves. You then follow 'normal saves apply'. Amusingly enough if you had 4 plasma gunners in a unit and only rapid fired two, all 4 could die.

Devian - no, I did answer the question. I answered by proving your answer to be incorrect when expanded to cover 2 wound models

Given you are forced into an inconsitent situation when expanding this to 2 or more wound models, your answer is wrong by a simple passing of Occam

You can ignore your inconsistency if you wish, it doesnt make your answer any more right

You roll separately as a model suffering a wound, i.e. being removed or having its wounds counter decremented by 1, that ISNT the model that Gets Hot! is breaking a rule.

I think the point is, Nos, that in order to know what to do when you get to the 'Normal Saves Apply' part of Gets Hot, you check the 'Taking Saves' and 'Remove Casualties' bits of the book and that gets you into normal saves and removal procedures (i.e. everyone with the same profile as that plasmagunner is a potential dead guy. And because they are unsaved wounds, if they are 2 wound plasmagunners, you could lose a whole model that way).

...and still you have allowed someone other than the gunner who Got Hot! to suffer the wound. Which breaks the rules.

Being dead is definitely suffering a wound.

How about - this is the same as the prior thread on this; one side is consistent for 1+ wound models, the other only "works" if you ignore the rules for Gets Hot! and fails utterly once you get to 2+ wound models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...and still you have allowed someone other than the gunner who Got Hot! to suffer the wound. Which breaks the rules.

Being dead is definitely suffering a wound.

Ahh, but the rules allow people who didn't suffer the wound to die all the time, as long as they are the same profile and equipment.

How does my version break down for 2+ wound models?

1) 3 Oblits rapid fire plasma.
2) 2 Oblits roll ones.
3) Gets hot says that the models who rolled ones suffer wounds and 'Normal Saves Apply'
4) Take Savings Throws says that if all the models in a unit are the same, they take all their saves together.
5) I roll 2 2+ armor saves and fail both. Remove casualties says that for every model that fails a save, I suffer an unsaved wound.
6) Units of Multi-Wound models says "once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible". I remove one Oblit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're confusing 'Suffers a wound' and 'Removed as a casualty' which are different steps in the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The gunner who fired, still suffered the wound, but he may not be the one removed depending on how the unsaved wounds end up.

Nope, not confusing suffering a wound. Suffering a wound isnt actually a step - it is an all encompassing phrase in this instance

When you have 2W models I can prove conclusively that ading a wound marker to the model that DIDNT suffer the wound DOES mean that you have made a model "suffer a wound" that they didnt require.

Where is 'suffer a wound' defined outside of Gets Hot. 'Suffer an unsaved wound' is described in 'Removing Casualties'. As far as I know, it isn't.

Also, mine works for non-MW units.

1) 3 SWS Troopers rapid fire plasma in a full squad of 6.
2) Those troopers roll 3 ones.
3) Gets hot says that the models who rolled ones suffer wounds and 'Normal Saves Apply'
4) Take Savings Throws says that if all the models in a unit are the same, they take all their saves together. The models are not the same. We go to complex units. Wounds have already been assigned to models by Gets Hot so the wound allocation in complex units is already complete. (Assigned to SWS troopers with PGs)
5) I roll 3 5+ armor saves and fail two. Remove casualties says that for every model that fails a save, I suffer an unsaved wound.
6) Complex Units and Remove Casualties say I remove a model for each unsaved wound. I remove 2 Plasmagun SWS guys.

Hence, ALL encompasing. it isnt a step, but describes the end result - only THAT model can suffer the wound, and only THAT model can be removed as a result of running out of wounds otherwise another model will have suffered it

It only works if you decide "suffers a wound" only means "suffers an unsaved wound" - but you dont have any permission to do that. Which is why it doesnt work - you are making up rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hence, ALL encompasing. it isnt a step, but describes the end result - only THAT model can suffer the wound, and only THAT model can be removed as a result of running out of wounds otherwise another model will have suffered it

It only works if you decide "suffers a wound" only means "suffers an unsaved wound" - but you dont have any permission to do that. Which is why it doesnt work - you are making up rules.

I definitely didn't say SAW meant SAUW. If I did, I wouldn't have taken saves.

According to where does it say that only that model can suffer the wound and only that model can be removed? Gets Hot just says that he suffers a wound and normal saves apply. That says to me that you use the rules for taking saves. Otherwise they would have said 'roll a save and if he fails remove that model'.

Because if someone else loses a wound, then the model that Got Hot! hasnt suffered it - have they? Absolutely everything in that rule talks about the singular model suffering the downside, so why are you removing this context and breaking a rule.

They obviously thought that people would understand what happens when your gun explodes - you possibly die, not your mate 35 feet away

Edit; to save time, nothing about this thread will come to any new conclusion than the previous stupidly long thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because if someone else loses a wound, then the model that Got Hot! hasnt suffered it - have they? Absolutely everything in that rule talks about the singular model suffering the downside, so why are you removing this context and breaking a rule.

They obviously thought that people would understand what happens when your gun explodes - you possibly die, not your mate 35 feet away

Now, wait a minute nos. Don't try to apply logic here; this is 40k, logic has been tossed out the window along with the baby, the bathwater, and a low-yield hydrogen bomb.

They have a point here. You're arguing that 'suffers a wound' and 'suffers an unsaved wound' are different things. Ok, fine; but I don't believe 'suffers a wound' is actually defined in the rules. If I'm wrong, please refer me to the page number.

If I'm NOT wrong, then you have to try and figure out what 'suffers a wound' means in this context; and it isn't unreasonable to decide to follow the precedent of the only other times a unit can suffer wounds, and go to the rules covering such situations.

I've repeatedly stated it is not a formally in game defined term, and that trying to shoe horn it into "unsaved wound" is less than sensible.

I'm not just applying logic, although the designers HAVE used this to justify rules in the past, but applyng the WHOLE of the rule: I can show you that having a 2W model that is NOT the model that Got Hot! have a wound counter added to them IS them suffering the wound, because that is what the language the game is written in TELLS you has occurred.

So, context being everything here - if you have a model die and it wasnt the model whose gun went bang, then you havent followed the whole of the rules.

And, again, this thread will not come to any new decision regarding this rule, as there are no rules supporting your contention. Only a fatal addiction to ignoring the Gets Hot! rule and the all encompassing term "suffer a wound"

Not this again *facepalm* this is the EXACT SAME wound and removal process as anything that bypassess allocation and directly effects a model such as mindwar, Dangerous terrain tests, etc.

Hardheaded RAW the game blows up, you pack up your models as well does you opponent, and can not finish the game. Using even 1% common sense you have wounded the model to is limit of wounds and remove it as a casualty.

BlueDagger, its not the same. Please keep other rules that work differently in their own discussion, so we can discuss the matter at hand. I would also argue that it is YOU applying hard headed RAW by trying to purposely roll each plasma gunner separate, slowing the game down, and unfairly trying to minimize your casualties.

I, and others, have both quoted all the rules and illustrated via logic that this works. Nos, all I have seen you do is go 'Nuh-uh!' and put your head in the sand. You were given 100% true rules that say it work, and your response said that the rules dont apply because of multi-wound models... when we were discussing single wound models.

THEN, the rules for multi-wound models was brought up to you, and you responded

When you have 2W models I can prove conclusively that ading a wound marker to the model that DIDNT suffer the wound DOES mean that you have made a model "suffer a wound" that they didnt require.

Are you going to contribute any rules to this discussion, or are you going to continue saying we are wrong with no proof or explanation and nothing to contribute? Also, for the record, we were talking about single wound models. Your theories that you have not shared with us about multiwound models dont change the rules for single wound models.

PS, when you said

They obviously thought that people would understand what happens when your gun explodes - you possibly die, not your mate 35 feet away

did you not read "Note that any modeI in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange. but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models"

If a model 24 inches from a 12 inch pistol can drop dead from a shot, how is an overheating weapon killing a nearby soldier even a stretch?

DevianID wrote:Are you going to contribute any rules to this discussion, or are you going to continue saying we are wrong with no proof or explanation and nothing to contribute? Also, for the record, we were talking about single wound models. Your theories that you have not shared with us about multiwound models dont change the rules for single wound models.

It's pretty obvious, and he's stated it more than once. Which, by the way, is proof and explanation - you're just ignoring it.

Gets Hot! specifies that the firing model takes the wound.
A 2W model fires and gets 1 GH.
A 2nd 2W model fires and gets 1 GH.
Both saves are failed.
One of the 2W models is removed, and the other takes no wounds.


This breaks the GH rule that specifies that the firing model takes the wound. The only other way to play it is that both 2W models take a wound - which satisfies GH 100%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DevianID wrote:If a model 24 inches from a 12 inch pistol can drop dead from a shot, how is an overheating weapon killing a nearby soldier even a stretch?

Because a single shot is an abstraction, just as is the position of the models.
The weapon exploding/overheating *not* hurting the bearer, but killing that dude over there stretches even that level of abstraction into disbelief.

Rigeld, lets call your 2 wound models obilts for ease here.

If obilt A takes a GH wound, and oblit B takes a GH wound, both oblit A and B need armor saves as normal.

Get's hot is now completely resolved. We are done with Gets Hot, and now move onto armor saves. After we make our armor saves, we will not GO BACK to gets hot, as we did that already.

In armor saves, 2 identical models must roll their saves together.

If the 2 oblits then suffer 2 unsaved wounds, one model is removed as a casualty. You instead said:

The only other way to play it is that both 2W models take a wound - which satisfies GH 100%

However the rules contridict you multiple times. Pg 26, "You must remove whole models...wounds may not be spread around to avoid casualties" pg 31 "the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"

According to your incorrect logic, if you MAKE your armor save, the model that made the save did not suffer a wound, and since GH says you suffer a wound, you may not make armor saves. Do you see where you and Nos missteped in your logic?

DevianID wrote: Do you see where you and Nos missteped in your logic?

I don't think it's a misstep.
I don't see why you are asserting that this is different from DT tests.
Because a save is allowed? The model that suffers GH suffers a wound, and can try and save it.
If the save is failed, that model takes a wound. The unit isn't taking wounds.
Individual models are. That's why you don't follow the wound allocation rules (which is what you're trying to do).

Even using your line of thinking, you have one model that has different special rules from the others - he has Got Hot!
Joel's gun overheats and melts his face off. Sam's didn't, but he dies anyway?

If the save is failed, that model takes a wound. The unit isn't taking wounds.

This is incorrect. The correct rule has been posted. If a model fails a save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. The quoted rule is exactly in contradiction to what you just said.

That's why you don't follow the wound allocation rules (which is what you're trying to do).

Actually I am trying to follow the remove casualty rules, which you must do if you want to remove a model from the table via an unsaved wound.

DevianID wrote:BlueDagger, its not the same. Please keep other rules that work differently in their own discussion, so we can discuss the matter at hand. I would also argue that it is YOU applying hard headed RAW by trying to purposely roll each plasma gunner separate, slowing the game down, and unfairly trying to minimize your casualties.

I'm really not sure if you are trying to troll here or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Gets hot! - "...for each result of 1 rolled on it's to hit rolls the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"
Dangerous Terrain - "Roll a D6... On a roll of 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed"

This is the EXACT same mechanic except that Gets hit is on firing and Dangerous terrain is on moving. Both are on a per model bases which bypasses standard wound allocation. Your entire argument is centered around not knowing what to do when a model has taken a wound instead of the squad, which is rather blatantly obvious. The wound simply doesn't go through the wound allocation rules and is simply forced it's save on that model. If the model fails it takes the wound. If it loses all of it's wounds it dies. The rules DO NOT cover wound on a per model basis, but the rules advise you to do so. It's either you observe the blatantly obvious procedure to take or call the game a wash.

If you cant use lasgun's rolls to count as plasma rolls,
then why are you allowed to do the vice versa by allocating?

:')

Luna hound, if you must roll all your plasma shots and saves together, then why are you allowing a unit to roll them one at a time?

And blue dagger, as before the two are different. Dt, for example, is resolved sequentially, while we are told that a units shooting is simultaneous. Besides, despite how similiar they may be, how dt works or does not work still has no bearing on gets hot, which is the question at hand.

Ps, luna your example is not equivalent to what is happening here at all.

BRB FAQ:

Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No. Each model moving through dangerous terrain
must take a test. Each model that fails takes a Wound.

There is precedent for wounds to be taken by models and not the unit in general.

DevianID wrote:Luna hound, if you must roll all your plasma shots and saves together, then why are you allowing a unit to roll them one at a time?

And blue dagger, as before the two are different. Dt, for example, is resolved sequentially, while we are told that a units shooting is simultaneous. Besides, despite how similiar they may be, how dt works or does not work still has no bearing on gets hot, which is the question at hand.

Ps, luna your example is not equivalent to what is happening here at all.

Of course it isn't, its like reversed.

"For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rools, the firing model suffers a wound.." This is more specific and overides the general rule of how wounds are allocated.

[Edit] Luna do you play League of Legends?

Devian - actually I have repeatedly given you the rules: you are ignoring GH! by making a model suffer a wound that did not roll a "1" on the to hit, breaking GH!

GH! is all encompassing. "Suffer a wound" is NOT a defined step, as you believe it is, and by claiming you have "satisified" GH! by simply taking an armour save you are simply making up rules.

GH! and DT! are *exactly the same rules* in terms of how they apply to single models, yet you are *making up* a difference between them when the GW FAQ tells you you are wrong.

Please, find some actual rules or quit.

Nos, I have posted every single rule I mentioned. You have contributed zero rules.

Seriously, the posts are all still here. Zero rules from you.

Page 24, very first sentence of Removing Casualties section, reads "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers and unsaved wound..." "...for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Page 25, complex units. "Having allocated the wounds, all the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms roll their saves at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owing player from amongst these identical models."

Pg 26, "You must remove whole models...wounds may not be spread around to avoid casualties"

on page 31 get hot reads "the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves apply)"

Ill even finish the multiple wound part for dealing with oblits!

Page 26, "Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models"

Pretre even posted the order!

Now we can go through a game turn if you like.

In the shooting phase, a group of 3 oblits wish to shoot their twin linked plasma at the enemy. Oh no! The oblit player rolled 4 1's, even with twin-linking their weapons! The first oblit rolled two 1's, and the second and third oblit rolled one 1 each. Per page 31, the models suffer wounds with normal armor saves.

So we now turn to page 20, under armor saves. "If the result is lower than the Sv value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and the model suffers a wound."

So the oblits roll 4 dice, and all of them are 1's! How unfortunate! Now what happens that oblit A suffered 2 wounds, and oblit B and C each suffered 1 wound?

We turn to page 24, where removing casualties are located. "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers and unsaved wound..." Now, these oblits have 2 wounds each, so we will ignore the part that says we remove a model from the unit for each unsaved wound, as that is for one wound models.

So we now turn to units of multiple wound models, on page 26, to see the fate of our oblits. "Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models"

So our Oblits have suffered 4 unsaved wounds total, 2 on A, 1 on B, 1 on C. We must remove whole models, so we remove two of our oblits. We can not spread the 4 wounds to keep some of our oblits alive sadly. Per the removing casualties section, any model may be taken off as a casualty, so we remove Oblit A and C, leaving poor oblit B by himself!

DevianID wrote:So our Oblits have suffered 4 unsaved wounds total, 2 on A, 1 on B, 1 on C. We must remove whole models, so we remove two of our oblits. We can not spread the 4 wounds to keep some of our oblits alive sadly. Per the removing casualties section, any model may be taken off as a casualty, so we remove Oblit A and C, leaving poor oblit B by himself!

So if you take Dangerous Terrain tests, and roll 3 ones for a 3 model oblit squad, do you remove a model?

Why is this different?

edit: You are 100% correct if the *unit* receives wounds to save. It isn't. The *model* is receiving wounds.

Rigeld2, I went ahead an listed everything from start to finish for gets hot. How DT is or is not different does nothing to change all the rules I have listed above. If you dont have an issue with the actual rules posted for the actual topic, what are you doing?

Also, you should see that in my example, it was the models receiving the wounds the entire time for gets hot, from start to finish. And the rules speak for themselves.

DevianID wrote:Also, you should see that in my example, it was the models receiving the wounds the entire time for gets hot, from start to finish. And the rules speak for themselves.

No. The individual models did nor receive wounds in your example. The unit received wounds that you auto-allocated. Do you see the difference?

edit: People keep bringing up DT tests because the wording is almost the same - DT just doesnt allow saves.

I'm trying REALLLLY hard not to feed the troll here, but your lack of comprehension is astounding.

Rigeld, lets call your 2 wound models obilts for ease here.

If obilt A takes a GH wound, and oblit B takes a GH wound, both oblit A and B need armor saves as normal.

Get's hot is now completely resolved. We are done with Gets Hot, and now move onto armor saves. After we make our armor saves, we will not GO BACK to gets hot, as we did that already.

In armor saves, 2 identical models must roll their saves together. This is where your logic fails

If the 2 oblits then suffer 2 unsaved wounds, one model is removed as a casualty. You instead said:

The part where your logic breaks down is listed above. Wound allocation which is the portion your are combining you saves is on a unit bases, not a model bases. THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE RULES FOR WOUNDS RESOLVED ON A PER MODEL BASIS.

You can not toss rules quotes past the point where models individually suffer a wound because there IS NOT RULE SECTION THAT COVERS IT. The game halts when this occurs because wound allocation is negated because it's on a unit basis as is removing casualties.

The reason dangerous terrain test is brought up (over and over and over and over and constantly ignored by you) is because it is the EXACT same mechanic. I do not care if one thing is in the movement phase and another is in the shooting phase. I do not care if "shooting rules" tell you to fire everyone at once. GH tells you to fire those weapons for gets hot one at a time.

So at this point you have the choice of having no rules to follow BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE VALID or you use the precedent of a 99% identical mechanic.