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.

Ghaz wrote:Why are you removing a healthy model and leaving the wounded model on the table?

BRB p25 tells you how to remove models after taking "normal saves".

To clarify what Nazdreg and Grakmar are saying:

Lets say you have two identically models with weapons that have the Gets Hot rule.

They both fire and model A rolls a 1. Model B does not.

1) The wound is allocated to the model that rolled the 1. - it suffers the wound.
2) Normal saves apply, use the save of model A to see if the wound is saved.

If failed here is where BRB p 25 "Taking Savings Throws" tells you how to remove casualties for failed saves in the case of identical models.

"Casualties can be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models." So the owning player may remove A or B.

As much as I dislike it, this seems to be truly RAW.

In this case, the owning player gets to pick which of his identical plasma firing models gets removed.

"suffer a wound" tells you the end result - that only the model who Gets Hot! gets to suffer the wound that results from it.

Removing another model, or adding a wound marker to another model, means another model has "suffered a wound", breaking the rule

It isnt a procedure - its telling you the requirement when you follow the usual rules. Meaning that while normally you could remove any model similarly equipped, you no longer can.

Given that the only way to come to another conclusion is based on ignoring the Gets Hot! rule AND DT ruling, youre on very unsafe ground

"suffer a wound" tells you the end result - that only the model who Gets Hot! gets to suffer the wound that results from it.

This is your interpretation.

OK lets define a "wound". What is a wound? We have to distinguish between "wounds" and "Wounds" here.

"Wound" is a synonyme to Hitpoint and therefore "Wounds" is a profile characteristic, that can be changed by "losing Wounds" -> this is what you want "suffering a wound" to be.

"wound" is a step normally occuring in the shooting or close combat process: The result of a successful "to wound"-roll. This "wound" can normally be allocated in a certain way and results in a saving throw. -> this is what I claim "suffering a wound" to be.

I think there are no other definitions of this word in the rules. Remember that the RB clearly makes a distinction between those two words by capitalizing the first term. In "gets hot" the word isnt capitalized. So I can only conclude, that definition 2 is correct, which has to result in a saving throw procedure according to the rules. This is also supported by the gets hot rule.

Apart from that, again, Nos: Explain to me,why do you break the Gets Hot rule by denying the normal saving throw procedure? You are on a damn unsafe ground too. I dont think I ignore anything.

I cant help it, that this rule is badly written.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Apart from that, again, Nos: Explain to me,why do you break the Gets Hot rule by denying the normal saving throw procedure? You are on a damn unsafe ground too. I dont think I ignore anything.

Perhaps the idea is that you are not using it because that procedure is for dealing with wounded units.

So "normal saves apply" is to be ignored?

OK, learned that one. Rule wording seems to be irrelevant...

Even then, we have a permissive ruleset. Where is written, what I do instead? Give me a page.

You're on unsafe ground because you are ignoring the FAQ for DT, which has the exact same idea behind it.

Causing a model to suffer the effects of GH! who did not roll GH! is ignoring the "suffer the wound" requirement

-Nazdreg- wrote:So "normal saves apply" is to be ignored?

OK, learned that one. Rule wording seems to be irrelevant...

Even then, we have a permissive ruleset. Where is written, what I do instead? Give me a page.

No, that model gets its normal saves.

How is that confusing?

editing to add:
I get most of what you are saying, but I really do not see taking a save as confusing anything.

Maybe i'm dumbing this down but gets hot seems pretty simple.

Example - unit of CSM with 2 plasma guns shooting at max range of 24"


Roll to hit (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh!
Roll 2 Armour saves (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh again!
Remove 2 members of the offending unit (you would think it would be the plasma guys but since the owning player can choose i will take 2 stadard marines)

Done.

Praxiss wrote:Maybe i'm dumbing this down but gets hot seems pretty simple.

Example - unit of CSM with 2 plasma guns shooting at max range of 24"


Roll to hit (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh!
Roll 2 Armour saves (need 3s) - roll 2 1s. Doh again!
Remove 2 members of the offending unit (you would think it would be the plasma guys but since the owning player can choose i will take 2 stadard marines)

Done.

False.

The owning player can't choose - even if you subscribe to the idea that the wounds get allocated, the Plasma gunners took the wounds, so you can only allocate to Plasma gunners.
And the wounds don't go to the unit - which is where you're given permission to allocate - they're suffered by the gunner who rolled a 1.

Fair enough, makes more sense that way. Wound allocation always seems a little dodgy to me anyway.

If a shell lands on a unit, surely the models under the marker shoudl be the ones removed? Anyway - that's for a different thread.

rigeld2 wrote:The owning player can't choose - even if you subscribe to the idea that the wounds get allocated, the Plasma gunners took the wounds, so you can only allocate to Plasma gunners.
And the wounds don't go to the unit - which is where you're given permission to allocate - they're suffered by the gunner who rolled a 1.

But the wounds don't get allocated. You're not allowed to allocate wounds from a Gets Hot!, just as you're not allowed to allocate wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests.

That doesn't, however, address removing casualties.

No, that model gets its normal saves.

How is that confusing?

It is not confusing. It is just not how saves are done in general. The rulebook should have a section about saving throws for model based wounds and I would be with you. But unfortunately the model based wounds are nevertheless summed up and rolled for together.
So it would be inventing a rule if you are strict.
Again in a normal game, I dont care, but this is YMDC famous for exact RAW. And then I do care.

@Nos

You're on unsafe ground because you are ignoring the FAQ for DT, which has the exact same idea behind it.

Yes, I do ignore the idea behind it. That is true. But rules are not used based on the "idea how it should work", they are used based on what is actually written without second thoughts and without interpretation.

Causing a model to suffer the effects of GH! who did not roll GH! is ignoring the "suffer the wound" requirement

What is the effect of GH? A model suffering a wound. Did I ignore that? No.
What is "suffering a wound"? Put a wound on that model. Not anything more.
What is the next step, that you constantly ignore and also ignore to refer to: Taking saving throws. Voilà...

Is it pride or why are you RAW-fanatic insisting on a subjective idea?

-Nazdreg- wrote:

No, that model gets its normal saves.

How is that confusing?

It is not confusing. It is just not how saves are done in general. The rulebook should have a section about saving throws for model based wounds and I would be with you. But unfortunately the model based wounds are nevertheless summed up and rolled for together.
So it would be inventing a rule if you are strict.
Again in a normal game, I dont care, but this is YMDC famous for exact RAW. And then I do care.

Makes some sense, I guess, but in general units are wounded and that is dealt with by wounding a model.

I have always read this as simply going bout it in the other order.

Here's something. Flash Gits. They each have 2 Wounds, but are all equipped identically. They can have Gets Hot! guns that are Assault 2.

You must roll each Git seperately. Say you have 3. One rolls a and a , one rolls two s, one rolls a :five: and a . Now, that's enough potential wounds to remove one and half Gits, if all the armour saves are failed. BUT! it could easily be that one of them fails both, and one of them saves it's one, or that Blagh.

Forget the above, it's a bad example. Here's a better one.

4 Gits, all four roll a single and a single Hit. Now, if you were able to allocate, and you failed all the tests, you'd lose 2 Gits. However, because Gets Hot! is model specific, you will never lose any of the Gits in this situation, because each will at most take a single Wound.

4 Gits, all four roll a single 1 and a single Hit. Now, if you were able to allocate, and you failed all the tests, you'd lose 2 Gits. However, because Gets Hot! is model specific, you will never lose any of the Gits in this situation, because each will at most take a single Wound.

This also isnt true because it would break the rule for removing whole models. You indeed lose 2 Gitz (given that they are identical of course).

@Kirsanth

in general units are wounded and that is dealt with by wounding a model.

Yes the section for taking saving throws of course refers to units. But then I need another RB section dealing with saving throws for wounds on models if I want to distinguish. And there is none. So I have to stick to the unit based section for all saving throws.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Yes the section for taking saving throws of course refers to units. But then I need another RB section dealing with saving throws for wounds on models if I want to distinguish. And there is none. So I have to stick to the unit based section for all saving throws.

What we've come to is the fact that this is a hole in the rules. There is no RAW to play this because if the model that rolls a one does not suffer a wound (given saves don't work) you've broken the Gets Hot! rule.
If you don't follow wound allocation procedures, and remove-whole-model procedures, you've broken those rules.

The easiest way to handle it is by handling it the way Dangerous Terrain tests are handled.
There, done - no confusion.

@rigeld

There is no RAW to play this because if the model that rolls a one does not suffer a wound (given saves don't work) you've broken the Gets Hot! rule.

But why is "suffering a wound" identical to "losing a Wound"? This simply does not get into my head. The only time a "wound" is mentioned is, when a roll "to wound" is successful.
So a "wound" is only a possible, not an actual "unsaved wound" and "suffering a wound" only refers to the step before taking saving throws.

I would not take "wound" literally (like damage or Hitpoint (which is in Fact Wound and not wound)), you have to stick to the terms the rules use.

Also I am not tired to quote "removing casualties" which seems to deal with wounded models, because it says p24: "For every model that failed its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound"
In my opinion, this is the way to go. You can even make saving throws for the specific model (although this doesnt exist) and the unit still suffers the unsaved wound after the model suffered the wound.

Where is the problem? Imho thats RAW.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Where is the problem? Imho thats RAW.

"Suffering the wound" must mean to actually take the wound - IE subtract one from that models profile.
Dangerous Terrain tests use the exact same wording - "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound" (BRB page 14).

Dangerous Terrain and Gets Hot! both lie outside the rules - they cause wounds to models instead of to units. Allocating them to units breaks the rules.

"Suffering the wound" must mean to actually take the wound - IE subtract one from that models profile.

Wait... When you take a wound, you subtract a wound? If you have 2 apples and you take an apple, then you get one apple removed? Is that how English works?

Again the profile characteristic is Wounds. Capital letter at the beginning. Throughout the rulebook. Therefore on purpose.
the allocated thing that can be saved is called wound. Not a capital letter at the beginning.

These are two completely different things.

Allocating them to units breaks the rules.

I allocate the wound to the model inside the unit. What is the problem? And again page 24 refers to wounded models. There indeed is a transfer from a model being wounded to the unit suffering the unsaved wound. This is in the RB, you can read or ignore it, but then you ignore the rules.

Even the allocation process refers to models, as you allocate your wounds from shooting to specific models. You are not permitted to allocate a second wound to a specific model before you have allocated a wound to each model in the squad. Same applies to assaults.

Gets Hot and Dangerous Terrain are different in the following way:

They allocate the wound on the firing model or the model that failed the test.

But this is the same wound as a wound from shooting or assault that has been allocated quite freely.

-Nazdreg- wrote:But this is the same wound as a wound from shooting or assault that has been allocated quite freely.

No, it's not. First of all, please stop saying that I'm ignoring the rules.
Second, Dangerous Terrain explicitly must wound the model that failed the test. You have another situation with the exact same wording and you're trying to allocate the wounds away? Are you serious?

And yes, that's how English works - context matters.
You keep referring to rules that talk about saves based on units - that's not how this rule works. It is not unit based.

rigeld, the same issue applies to dangerous terrain.

Yes, the model in question suffers the wound. But, the model that suffers a wound isn't necessarily the one that is removed as a casualty. As long as you remove a model from the unit that's identical in gaming terms, you're fulfilled every requirement.

Grakmar wrote:rigeld, the same issue applies to dangerous terrain.

Yes, the model in question suffers the wound. But, the model that suffers a wound isn't necessarily the one that is removed as a casualty. As long as you remove a model from the unit that's identical in gaming terms, you're fulfilled every requirement.

BRB FAQ page 2 wrote: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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:rigeld, the same issue applies to dangerous terrain.

Yes, the model in question suffers the wound. But, the model that suffers a wound isn't necessarily the one that is removed as a casualty. As long as you remove a model from the unit that's identical in gaming terms, you're fulfilled every requirement.

BRB FAQ page 2 wrote: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.

I agree with Rigeld2's interpretation. The Gets Hot is by model per the Gets Hot rule and would be allocated and resolved as he's saying.

Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

Grakmar wrote:Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

"Allocate" is a poor word to use when referring to casualties.

Grakmar wrote:Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

Then you've broken the rule - because Dangerous Terrain requires the model that failed to suffer a Wound. By making some other model suffer it, you're not adhering to the rules.

No, it's not. First of all, please stop saying that I'm ignoring the rules.

OK I will.

OK what is this wound then? Give me a page that defines the kind of "wound" you are referring to.

Second, Dangerous Terrain explicitly must wound the model that failed the test. You have another situation with the exact same wording and you're trying to allocate the wounds away? Are you serious?

No I dont allocate the wound "away". Gets Hot does not permit me to do so. The wound has to be allocated on the firing model.

You keep referring to rules that talk about saves based on units - that's not how this rule works. It is not unit based

Not only, but yes, basically you are right, I refer to rules that talks about saves based on units.
If this rule is model based, then please refer to a rule for saves based on models. We have a permissive ruleset. And specific vs general of course too, but the specification must be like a manual. And this manual is not complete as there is no way to deal with those wounds if they are different. So using unit based rules is in my opinion better than inventing model based ones. Especially as it is not clearly said that Gets Hot has to be treated as a model based rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Yes, each model takes a Wound. But, the next step is Remove Casualties, where you then allocate the casualties among the same wound group.

Then you've broken the rule - because Dangerous Terrain requires the model that failed to suffer a Wound. By making some other model suffer it, you're not adhering to the rules.

Just because a model suffers a wound doesn't mean he actually dies. His identical friend can die.

This is just another gameplay abstraction. Just like a model standing out in the open getting shot can cause all his friends who are in complete hiding to die while he remains unharmed, a model's weapon overheating or falling into a lava flow means that he could be totally fine but his friend who didn't get hurt dies.

-Nazdreg- wrote:If this rule is model based, then please refer to a rule for saves based on models.

There isn't one. That's my point.
The rule is model based - read the rule. The model suffers a wound.

Also - the Dangerous Terrain FAQ clarifies Wound, not wound. Interesting, aint it?

The problem is that the FAQ is misread.

Units get a wound when a model in it fails a save, in most cases, via Remove Casualties.

In these cases, the model suffers the wound - RAW and FAQ.