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.

ToBeWilly wrote:@ Lone Dragoon: If you are able to spread the unsaved wounds around like you say, are you not creating new wound groups? Would not the models who now have a different Wound characteristic be a new wound group?

No, as you have not changed the base statistics nor have you changed the equipment of the model. Nothing has been changed to make it a new group, one model simply has a wound allocated to it. It still has 3 base wounds, but only 2 remaining.

kirsanth wrote:This may be my new favorite thread.

My initial reaction was "No, because. . .err. . .time to read!"

Those are always the best threads, and usually their the threads that show people that something has been played wrong, even though it's how most everyone plays it.

Kevin949 wrote:Since some of you seem to be under the impression that you mark how many wounds the wound group has and not how many wounds a model has, I wanted to point these two things out to you. You allocate unsaved wounds to models, you must remove whole models where possible.

It doesn't seem that many of us are under that impression. You have to lump like models together (the term most used in this is wound group) when allocating wounds to save against. Any unsaved wounds must go to that group of models that rolled armor saves. It's like how in a 10 man unit a single plasma gun that fires 2 shots, both gets hot and the model fails two armor saves. You only remove the one model, because it is the only model in the unit that has the plasma gun, hence it is the only one that takes wounds from the gets hot! rule.

Yes Kevin949 you allocate unsaved wounds to models, and you must remove whole models where possible. Is it possible to remove a whole warrior model in a squad of warriors with only 2 wounds? No it is not, then we must allocate those unsaved wounds to models in that wound group. Nothing states it must be the same model however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:OT (slightly) question: What is the "convention" for this rule?

You guys sound like this comes up pretty regularly. How is it "normally" played?

Generally, that wounded models in a wound group must take the next wound, regardless.

Again as I pointed out before (Because they use a 2 wound unit as the example) the nobz in the example fall prey to the "must remove whole models" clause in the rule. There is no rule that says wounded models must take the wounds, there IS a rule that we must remove whole models. Since most of those units are 2 wound models, wounds must be allocated to the already wounded model to fulfill that clause of the rule.

I think what happens is we all fall prey to what I'm terming "two wound model syndrome." That means we are forced to take the next wound on a wounded target to remove a whole model, but when it comes to 3 wound models it's a different story. However most everyone tends to play it that way, that they have to allocate the next wound to a wounded model since 2 wound units are everywhere, but 3 wound (Or 4 in the case of carnifexes) units are more rare and nothing in the rules states all wounds must go on the same model, only that whole models must be removed where possible. That's where we fall into the trap, when we take a wound on a model, we MUST remove a whole model if possible. With two wounds we get one for free, then we have to remove that wounded model on the next unsaved wound.

Kevin949 wrote:Since you cannot spread them around to avoid removing models (whether it is now or later) you must get as close as to removing whole models as possible every time you roll saves.

My bolding there.

I don't see that in the rules. I agree - that's how I learned it, and that's how I've always played it - but I don't see something that indicates that.

Leave aside the RAW on multi-wound monster allocation for a minute - is there anything in the "instant death" rules that implies spreading in general is illegal?

We know that if we get an ID wound and a "normal" wound, we can't take the "normal" wound on the same model, we have to take the "ID" wounds first. That sorta implies that we have to allocate wounds in such a manner that future wounds will kill a model sooner. (maybe?) The wording of that rule at the bottom of pp. 26 simply says that you must remove one unwounded model per instant death wound before applying the rest of the wounds as normal. It doesn't seem to have implications on "applying the rest of the wounds as normal". But it also sort of implies that the writer expected we would have unwounded models in the normal case. <shrug>

I'm realizing that this is a bigger deal than I originally thought, and that I haven't been playing it this way at all. And I have to be careful because it will help models commonly taken in my own codex, which I also didn't initially realize.

Rigeld is correct, though it doesn't help either side.
It can be interpreted 'avoid removing movels [NOW]" or "avoid removing models [NOW OR LATER]".

But one can very much argue that putting 1 W to two different 3 W models is 'spreading wounds around to avoid removing models'.

But one thing you do have to take into account is this
"Multiple-wound models in the unit that are unique are rolled for individually and their unsaved wounds must be recorded separately."
does imply that wounds for identical multi-wound models are NOT recorded separately for each model, but for the wound group.

For me, this was also a case "You must be wrong because, because... I need to read the rules again" too. Argument is very much valid, but what is answer by RAW? I'm not sure. Both interpretations seem to be equally valid.

(RAI is pretty obvious though)

Randall Turner wrote:OT (slightly) question: What is the "convention" for this rule?

You guys sound like this comes up pretty regularly. How is it "normally" played?

I track excess wounds on a unit with a dice or marker of some sort. When the dice equals the number of wounds for a model, remove a model.

ToBeWilly wrote:@ Lone Dragoon: If you are able to spread the unsaved wounds around like you say, are you not creating new wound groups? Would not the models who now have a different Wound characteristic be a new wound group?

"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile." This changes its profile, and therefore it constitutes a new wound group. At least, that appears to be RAW.

If it's a separate wound group, then you can absolutely have multiple models with a single (or more) wounds.

Randall Turner wrote:

kev - Think about scarabs in this instance as well, with tomb spyders creating a ton of them every turn they would be nigh unkillable by non-blast/template str5 or lower weapons.

Actually, Kev, if this came up I'd have thought about this rule before. Fact is scarabs get wounds in bunches in real-world situations.

Oh, I know it, that's why I made sure to put in the quasi-disclaimer of the items that don't ID / Double wound them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lone Dragoon wrote:It doesn't seem that many of us are under that impression. You have to lump like models together (the term most used in this is wound group) when allocating wounds to save against. Any unsaved wounds must go to that group of models that rolled armor saves. It's like how in a 10 man unit a single plasma gun that fires 2 shots, both gets hot and the model fails two armor saves. You only remove the one model, because it is the only model in the unit that has the plasma gun, hence it is the only one that takes wounds from the gets hot! rule.

Yes Kevin949 you allocate unsaved wounds to models, and you must remove whole models where possible. Is it possible to remove a whole warrior model in a squad of warriors with only 2 wounds? No it is not, then we must allocate those unsaved wounds to models in that wound group. Nothing states it must be the same model however.

Yes, you're somewhat correct that nothing says that in black and white. Nothing says to put 1 wound [at a time] on any model until you can remove a whole model either. My point though is that a model with 1 wound is closer to being removed than a model with no wounds and in practically no situation should you have a group of multiple wound models that are all identically equipped with 1 or 2 wounds to each of them (unless they're IC's that received those wounds separate from each other prior to joining, of course).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Since you cannot spread them around to avoid removing models (whether it is now or later) you must get as close as to removing whole models as possible every time you roll saves.

My bolding there.

I don't see that in the rules. I agree - that's how I learned it, and that's how I've always played it - but I don't see something that indicates that.

Yes, you're correct here, that was my interpretation. Sorry.


*edit*
Anyway, I'm personally going to continue playing it the way I was taught to and how my group plays it.

Kevin949 wrote:Anyway, I'm personally going to continue playing it the way I was taught to and how my group plays it.

Me too, actually. Too much risk of getting yelled at. Besides, two months it'll all be changed again.

Randall Turner wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Anyway, I'm personally going to continue playing it the way I was taught to and how my group plays it.

Me too, actually. Too much risk of getting yelled at. Besides, two months it'll all be changed again.

Agreed. Interesting theory though.

And this is why I like this forum:

Rule says this!
No it doesn't, it says this.
Actually, the rules says this, but nobody actually plays that way, since we are all sporting chaps. Cheerio.