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.

If the player is free to allocate the wounds as they wish, what prevents them from allocating the example seven wounds to a single two wound model?

 solkan wrote:
If the player is free to allocate the wounds as they wish, what prevents them from allocating the example seven wounds to a single two wound model?

When allocating unsavable wounds, as in this case, you give them to a 2W model. Now two wounds are "used", meaning there are five wounds left. ....I think I learned this in 2nd grade

I'm not sure your question has any more depth than that. You cannot allocate wounds to dead models, and once the model's two wounds are used, it's dead.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 solkan wrote:
If the player is free to allocate the wounds as they wish, what prevents them from allocating the example seven wounds to a single two wound model?

When allocating unsavable wounds, as in this case, you give them to a 2W model. Now two wounds are "used", meaning there are five wounds left. ....I think I learned this in 2nd grade

I'm not sure your question has any more depth than that. You cannot allocate wounds to dead models, and once the model's two wounds are used, it's dead.

Care to prove the bolded?

Page 3 says if your wounds are reduced to zero the model is removed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 3 says if your wounds are reduced to zero the model is removed.

So the two wound model gets allocated seven wounds, and removed. Resulting in the rest of the unit taking none.

Right?

 solkan wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 3 says if your wounds are reduced to zero the model is removed.

So the two wound model gets allocated seven wounds, and removed. Resulting in the rest of the unit taking none.

Right?

No. You have permission to allocate 2 wounds. Cite permission to allocate more.
It's almost like you're inventing something to cause a problem.

I think he is trying to lead you to say that we look at the shooting/assaulting wound allocation rules for an answer.

And unfortunately, these wound allocations are unrelated to CC or Shooting as it is a further, different way of removing wounds, from the available wounds of the squad.

And this additional Rule for removing wounds unfortunately specifies they are removed at the owning player's discretion. And therefore completely adequately removed from a different model alternatively.

 solkan wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 3 says if your wounds are reduced to zero the model is removed.

So the two wound model gets allocated seven wounds, and removed. Resulting in the rest of the unit taking none.

Right?

Unless specified otherwise, all actions are sequential

 hisdudeness wrote:
I think he is trying to lead you to say that we look at the shooting/assaulting wound allocation rules for an answer.

I'm sure he is.
There's no reason to, however.

I just want someone to point out the rules for allocating wounds when not using the shooting or close combat rules.

And no one seems to have responded with the rule which prevents a player from allocating all seven wounds (all seven wounds at the same time, so there's no question about "sequential" wounds) at the same time to one model. It is, after all, one Instability result.

 solkan wrote:
I just want someone to point out the rules for allocating wounds when not using the shooting or close combat rules.

You should re-read the thread. I've pointed them out twice, as have others.

And no one seems to have responded with the rule which prevents a player from allocating all seven wounds (all seven wounds at the same time, so there's no question about "sequential" wounds) at the same time to one model. It is, after all, one Instability result.

The fact that a model is removed when it's wounds equals zero prevents more wounds being allocated to it.

RIgeld2,
Solkan is making the argument that all wounds can be allocated simultaneously because the restriction is no longer present if the only requirement is 'choose the model to Allocate too.' Personally, I need to see some proof that individual Wounds can be allotted simultaneously before I will accept the argument that 7 Wounds can be put on a 2 Wound model. I consider anything short of that a violate page... 7 I believe, which forces all 'simultaneous' rules to be resolved sequentially. Given that the rule in discussion is nothing more then 'players choice' I see nothing preventing that player from choosing... each Wound at a time.

Obviously you can't put seven wounds on a two wound model... It can have two allocated then spread the rest. This can be done simultaneously too. No reason to make hard.

 solkan wrote:
I just want someone to point out the rules for allocating wounds when not using the shooting or close combat rules.

And no one seems to have responded with the rule which prevents a player from allocating all seven wounds (all seven wounds at the same time, so there's no question about "sequential" wounds) at the same time to one model. It is, after all, one Instability result.

Found proof that they are simultaneous yet? Without that we don't need to prove your conjecture false...

It seems that both sides have interesting arguments. The controlling player does get to allocate, but the argument that is presented that you can put 7 wounds on 1 model makes things interesting.

The problem is that in shooting and HTH, this is covered very explicitly, and DI does not cover it.

This hole leaves the issue with a problem and 2 possible outcomes. Outcome #1 is that the Demon player can spread 7 wounds around on 7 different multi-wound models to reduce the amount of casualties or #2, the Demon player selects a model of his choice to be the "closest" and starts from there.

Neither side in this argument can provide the rules to support their side 100%. Both sides leave this hole. The pro side leaves the hole on stacking wounds, and the anti side leaves a hole on allocating wounds.

Basically, RAW alone can not answer this question. It is obvious that you can not stack 7 wounds on one model, so RAI comes in, and then the question is, remove whole models first or spread wounds? RAI supports both, so it comes down to either a dice roll, a TO FAQ, or a predetermined agreement from the players.,

 Darkness wrote:
It seems that both sides have interesting arguments. The controlling player does get to allocate, but the argument that is presented that you can put 7 wounds on 1 model makes things interesting.

You mean the argument that has zero basis in actual rules and is someone just throwing out straw men because they can't actually defend their position? That argument?

RAW alone does answer this question - you can allocate the wounds as you see fit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Darkness wrote:
It seems that both sides have interesting arguments. The controlling player does get to allocate, but the argument that is presented that you can put 7 wounds on 1 model makes things interesting.

You mean the argument that has zero basis in actual rules and is someone just throwing out straw men because they can't actually defend their position? That argument?

Similar to the argument that cannot create a wound pool, allocate wounds, etc, without trying to refer to sections of the BRB that dont really apply ?

RAW alone does answer this question - you can allocate the wounds as you see fit.

The underlined is not in the rule anywhere.

We are still waiting for evidence that wounds are allocated simultaneously in this scenario. The baseline is that all Rolls/Rules/Events and any such things are all resolved sequentially unless permission otherwise is granted. The ability to do fast dice, as a big example of doing things simultaneously, is one Rule informing you when and how you go about changing this normal sequence of events. From my experience, everything granting you permission to make multiple Rolls at the same time have huge exceptions forcing the player to keep track of 'groups' of different results. I have yet to see any evidence that Demonic Stability grants such permission, and I doubt it will be forth coming as the two 'non-special rule generated' methods do not contain permission to allocate all wounds at once.

As for creating wounds and allocating them?
The rule is self-contained and allows you to do so by granting you permission to do so....

Jinx the entirety of this humorous little discussion, is the attempt to bypass the wound allocation rules as laid out in CC and Shooting for multiwound models. Those rules sufficiently cover how to handle the situation.

The "baseline" is that wounds are allocated and resolved sequentially is found where ?

Well, seeing you are asking me to explain a fundamental seeing I am saying sequential is the default resolution state:
Page 9, Turn and in particular exceptions, informs us that there are sequences of events laid out in the following sections: Movement, Shooting, Assault. Without including the pre/after-game sections of the book, where this page does not apply, this will incorporate everything that occurs within the entire game. It is not surprising as page 9, again exceptions in particular, is a fundamental concept allowing conflicts within the time line to resolve without breaking the game. It informs us that the sequence of a turn may be broken by all sorts of things, which Special Rules (Daemonic Instability anyone?) are highlighted as a key offender. This page informs us that these rules will contain all the information that you need to resolve it, which can also be evoked as proof that any ability to resolve Daemonic Instability without referring to outside help is "more" correct response, and even gives us permission to choose the order of resolution should we be left with no other way to resolve multiple 'simultaneous' events.

Without a way to resolve 'simultaneous' rules the game becomes... messy... so I need to read any rule which grants permission to get around page 9 whenever someone argues the event is 'simultaneous,' this situation being no different. The reason for this is not just to enforce a fundamental concept of a time line, that is an added bonus, but because page 9 does have something very correct. It states these rules contain the answer on how to clean up the mess they create*. This really makes it hard to give consideration to a 'simultaneous' argument if it leads to a conclusion which is clearly on the 'black' side of the equation over one that resolves without conflict.

After-all:-
Even if we accept the argument of 'not mentioning this single restriction means all restrictions are removed' to be correct all it does is grant the player permission to do one thing: Make a choice. That player can choose not to Allocate more then a model's Wound characteristic or they can chose to jump head first into 'that ******* guy territory' and claim they can lose a single model through this 'loop' hole. I even consider that second action to be so gray it nears on black for a very interesting reason, you would never be able to 'kill' the model after this point. Page 3 states a model is removed at 0 Wounds, not at 0 or below....

* Not 100% accurate, but claims it falls into 'that group' requires even more evidence then proving it is simultaneous in the first place.

Holy crap...Y'all need to stop trying to be right and use some damn logic. And apply proper rules, instead of stretching.

Fragile, there is nothing to even insinuate that DI is considered a shooting or CC attack, so why in God's name would you claim those rules apply, while at the same time claiming someone else is misquoting because you are somehow "right" with no actual evidence? If something is considered a CC or shooting attack, it specifically says so.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Darkness wrote:
It seems that both sides have interesting arguments. The controlling player does get to allocate, but the argument that is presented that you can put 7 wounds on 1 model makes things interesting.

You mean the argument that has zero basis in actual rules and is someone just throwing out straw men because they can't actually defend their position? That argument?

Similar to the argument that cannot create a wound pool, allocate wounds, etc, without trying to refer to sections of the BRB that dont really apply ?

I've cited permission and method to allocate wounds without referring to the shooting or CC sections. You keep inserting rules without citing permission to do so. One of these arguments has rule support. It's not yours.

RAW alone does answer this question - you can allocate the wounds as you see fit.

The underlined is not in the rule anywhere.

The rule gives permission for the controlling player to allocate wounds. That would be as he sees fit. Perhaps you'd like to cite rules support for your stance? You've failed to so far.

How were multi wound models removed in 5th edition from fearless units? Considering DI is essentially the old fearless rules that seems to be a good place to start.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Darkness wrote:
It seems that both sides have interesting arguments. The controlling player does get to allocate, but the argument that is presented that you can put 7 wounds on 1 model makes things interesting.

You mean the argument that has zero basis in actual rules and is someone just throwing out straw men because they can't actually defend their position? That argument?

Similar to the argument that cannot create a wound pool, allocate wounds, etc, without trying to refer to sections of the BRB that dont really apply ?

RAW alone does answer this question - you can allocate the wounds as you see fit.

The underlined is not in the rule anywhere.

Yet it is a consequence of the allocation being decided by the player, without any restrictions

Any chance you can back up your position with rules support? You have failed to do so so far in this thread. Further refusal to do so will be noted as concession you are arguing hywpi

JinxDragon wrote:
Well, seeing you are asking me to explain a fundamental seeing I am saying sequential is the default resolution state:
Page 9, Turn and in particular exceptions, informs us that there are sequences of events laid out in the following sections: Movement, Shooting, Assault. Without including the pre/after-game sections of the book, where this page does not apply, this will incorporate everything that occurs within the entire game. It is not surprising as page 9, again exceptions in particular, is a fundamental concept allowing conflicts within the time line to resolve without breaking the game. It informs us that the sequence of a turn may be broken by all sorts of things, which Special Rules (Daemonic Instability anyone?) are highlighted as a key offender. This page informs us that these rules will contain all the information that you need to resolve it, which can also be evoked as proof that any ability to resolve Daemonic Instability without referring to outside help is "more" correct response, and even gives us permission to choose the order of resolution should we be left with no other way to resolve multiple 'simultaneous' events.

This section has no application to the question at hand. It is relating the actions of two players. There is no exception to the turn sequence in the wound allocation sequence.

Any chance you can back up your position with rules support? You have failed to do so so far in this thread. Further refusal to do so will be noted as concession you are arguing hywpi

My position has complete rules support. pg 15&25. Your side is saying you do not follow the normal rules for allocating to multiwound models. Where is your rule support? You keep stating that the one line. Perhaps you require GW to repost the entire wounding sequence in every special rule like that?

Fragile, there is nothing to even insinuate that DI is considered a shooting or CC attack, so why in God's name would you claim those rules apply, while at the same time claiming someone else is misquoting because you are somehow "right" with no actual evidence? If something is considered a CC or shooting attack, it specifically says so.

Its name is functionally irrelevant. The process is the same regardless CC or Shooting. That you have another named way to cause wounds to a unit does not matter. Perhaps you think you can allocate the wounds from a VS by spreading them out too ?

No, VS specifies Random Allocation.
Your position of inserting CC or shooting rules (you've never specified which) has no basis in rules.
We've cited permission to allocate wounds without referencing those rules. Please cite the requirement to use them. Cite actual relevant rules, not 15 and 25 as your challenge is to prove those rules are relevant.

I see they did FAQ the VS issue.

We've cited permission to allocate wounds without referencing those rules

You havent. You just keep saying that over and over.

Cite actual relevant rules, not 15 and 25 as your challenge is to prove those rules are relevant.

The only rules for wound allocation and casualty removal in the game. Interesting you find them not relevant.

Fragile wrote:

Cite actual relevant rules, not 15 and 25 as your challenge is to prove those rules are relevant.

The only rules for wound allocation and casualty removal in the game. Interesting you find them not relevant.

So which ones do we use; they are different after all.

Oh, wait i know what rules we use, the DI rules that tells the player to allocate the wounds.

I always thought this made sense.

http://strictlyaverage.blogspot.com/2013/03/daemon-prince-of-slaanesh-and-bols-draft.html

Are people claiming the wounds you allocate are not from a wound pool?