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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The unit takes the hits not the models blast weapon RaW.

The D weapon table proves otherwise.
This is exactly like the Swarms vs Blast debate. Models take a bunch of wounds, no permission to return the wounds to the wound pool.

So who suffers the wounds? Remember you litter ally nothing tying those wounds to the models under the template (unlike the swarms debate). The models are simply counted to determine the hits the UNIT takes.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The unit takes the hits not the models blast weapon RaW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
Do D-weapons even use the normal wound pool + allocation anyways? Since they roll on a completely separate table.

Only instead of rolling to wound. Everything else is normal shooting rules.

Escalation Page 17: Seriously Wounded: The Model loses d3+1 wounds.

The Model, not the unit; excess wounds do not transfer to the unit.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So who suffers the wounds? Remember you litter ally nothing tying those wounds to the models under the template (unlike the swarms debate). The models are simply counted to determine the hits the UNIT takes.

The models closest to the firer of course.

rigeld2 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So who suffers the wounds? Remember you litter ally nothing tying those wounds to the models under the template (unlike the swarms debate). The models are simply counted to determine the hits the UNIT takes.

The models closest to the firer of course.

And how is that done without using wound allocation?

A more complete quote should make it clear (now that I have the Escalation book in hand at home):

Page 17:

If a weapon has a D instead of a Strength value. <snip>..roll To Hit as you would for a standard attack. If the attack hits, roll on the table below instead of rolling To Wound or for armour penetration.

(It also mentions on page 19 for the various blasts that they obey the rules for blast weapons but use different templates)

This tells us quite clearly you do not make any To Wound roll hence we're not following the standard wound pool + allocation format from the Shooting Phase but merely a roll a D6 for a model and resolve the effect.

This tells us quite clearly you do not make any To Wound roll hence we're not following the standard wound pool + allocation format from the Shooting Phase but merely a roll a D6 for a model and resolve the effect.

We are not making a to wound roll agreed. But wounds generated at that step have no permission to be resolved without wound allocation and the wound pool. It is only the to wound rolls that are replaced all other parts of the shooting process remain.

 FlingitNow wrote:

This tells us quite clearly you do not make any To Wound roll hence we're not following the standard wound pool + allocation format from the Shooting Phase but merely a roll a D6 for a model and resolve the effect.

We are not making a to wound roll agreed. But wounds generated at that step have no permission to be resolved without wound allocation and the wound pool. It is only the to wound rolls that are replaced all other parts of the shooting process remain.

Wrong. Damage caused by destroyer hits has no permission to be resolved *with* wound allocation. The Apocalypse book is very clear that the model, not the unit, takes the damage.

Remember there are many effects which cause wounds to models that are not using standard wound allocation so it's not so odd.

E.g: Perils of the Warp, Dangerous Terrain Tests, etc..

Unless you are saying we should resolve these with a wound pool as well?

 FlingitNow wrote:

This tells us quite clearly you do not make any To Wound roll hence we're not following the standard wound pool + allocation format from the Shooting Phase but merely a roll a D6 for a model and resolve the effect.

We are not making a to wound roll agreed. But wounds generated at that step have no permission to be resolved without wound allocation and the wound pool. It is only the to wound rolls that are replaced all other parts of the shooting process remain.

Wouldnt that mean that when a model that rolls snakeeyes for its rapid firing plasma gun fails both armor saves you'd also had to remove 2 models?

That cant be right. Gets hot has the same wording and is resolved on a per model basis too. Nobody would argue that those wounds somehow get into a wound pool for the unit containing it.

 Shandara wrote:
Remember there are many effects which cause wounds to models that are not using standard wound allocation so it's not so odd.

E.g: Perils of the Warp, Dangerous Terrain Tests, etc..

Unless you are saying we should resolve these with a wound pool as well?

Those aren't shooting attacks those don't do hits on a unit (same as with the gets hot weapons). That is the issue here we have a shooting attack to resolve and hits on a unit.

A shooting attack doesn't automatically mean it uses wound pools and normal allocation.

In this case it specifically says it uses a different mechanism of resolving...

Looks like we may be seeing a FAQ on it soon. If it says wounds dont to the model, they go away when the models die without going into a wound pool. The purpose of that is to deal greater damage to the actual models hit, for example a tyranid monster bug would normally shrug off a wound. This represents that hit dealing a greater amount of damage to the actual model hit. Had they ever intended for it to "go into a pool" it would say to the unit hit rather than to the model hit.
methinks, they wrote it as intended, to the model, so that RAW and RAI actually match. If they intended it to go to the unit, they will put out a FAQ telling us

A shooting attack doesn't automatically mean it uses wound pools and normal allocation.

The shooting rules disagree with this statement.

In this case it specifically says it uses a different mechanism of resolving...

Only for the rolling to wound part of the process no other part of the process is changed.

After reading Escalation D weapon rules again today. I would have to agree that the wounds caused from either a 2-5 roll or a 6 roll are in fact only on a single model. As it says "THE MODEL looses D3+1 wounds or D6+6 wounds.

I now see it this way.

You follow the shooting rules, You roll for scatter of the blast. Then you roll an amount of dice equal to that of the number of models under the blast, this is basically the to wound roll. On a 1 nothing happens, But on a 2-6 the model takes a wound. and that ends the to hit and to wound rolls. You then have the special rule of generating extra wounds for each model the D3+3 and D6+6 then come into it. But these cannot be put into a wound pool and used against the entire unit. as you have allready resolved how many wounds the UNIT took previously. and so the extra wounds generated by those wound rolls are some what wasted if the models being shot only have a single wound. if that makes any sence at all lol.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
After reading Escalation D weapon rules again today. I would have to agree that the wounds caused from either a 2-5 roll or a 6 roll are in fact only on a single model. As it says "THE MODEL looses D3+1 wounds or D6+6 wounds.

I now see it this way.

You follow the shooting rules, You roll for scatter of the blast. Then you roll an amount of dice equal to that of the number of models under the blast, this is basically the to wound roll. On a 1 nothing happens, But on a 2-6 the model takes a wound. and that ends the to hit and to wound rolls. You then have the special rule of generating extra wounds for each model the D3+3 and D6+6 then come into it. But these cannot be put into a wound pool and used against the entire unit. as you have allready resolved how many wounds the UNIT took previously. and so the extra wounds generated by those wound rolls are some what wasted if the models being shot only have a single wound. if that makes any sence at all lol.

Another way to think about it is that SD treats each model as a separate "unit" and that each one model "unit" gets that amount of wounds.

But on a 2-6 the model takes a wound. and that ends the to hit and to wound rolls.

This has no rules support. Which breaks the rest of your method as you have no models to apply wounds to.

As RAW stands, D blasts are completely broken. There is simply no way to allocate the wounds generated.

As such, I would suggest two possible HIWPI solutions:

1. Only the models under the template are hit, so roll for each model under the template individually.

2. Determine the number of hits caused by the template and allocate those as if they were wounds. Once a hit has been allocated, roll on the table.

This rule really is a mess and has been needing a FAQ since Apoc came out last year. I was really hoping that Escalation would include updated Destroyer rules when it came out (like the updated building rules in SA), but that sadly didn't happen.

I need to review the exact wording but I want to point something out:
Wounds are a characteristic found on a models profile.

It would be possible for a special rule to tell us to reduce the Wound characteristic of an individual model without it meaning for us to generate a 'wound pool' so we can allocate them. Unfortunately, thanks to the Duel Terminology phenomenon that plagues Game Workshop, the term Wound Characteristic can also be written as "Wound" in any of the Rules addressing this characteristic. At least this Duel Terminology does follow some logic, when you assign the Wound Pool your really applying -1 Wound Characteristic to the model in question, but it leave us with the word Wound meaning either 'Wound to be allocated via the pool' or 'Wound Characteristic.

In this case I am leaning to it being a command to reduce an individual models Wound Characteristics, as it is the only way it would be applied to a single model.*

With how Special Rules work, pretty much a bank check to change sequences around or inject secondary instructions into existing sequences, it may be possible to have a Special Rule telling us to reduce a models wound characteristic during a sequence that also generates a wound pool. If that is the case here, then as soon as the model is 'hit' by the D-weapon we would need to pause the sequence currently unfolding, reduce the Wound characteristic of that model by the amount found within the D-weapon Special Rule, then continue the original sequence of events. That would make D-weapons extremely terrifying, as it would mean it is possible to wipe an entire unit before you even get to the 'wound allocation' section of the sequence.

*Of course, I need to review the exact word but it could be a case of 'poor editing' coupled with 'duel terminology.'

The issue Jinx is that models don't take hits units do and we have no way of applying those wounds to models without using the wound pool as there is no interaction with models until that point.

2. Determine the number of hits caused by the template and allocate those as if they were wounds. Once a hit has been allocated, roll on the table.

This seems like a great method to use

that would work unless the rules say "models' hit. than the rules would be clear cut and specifically say models.

 FlingitNow wrote:

But on a 2-6 the model takes a wound. and that ends the to hit and to wound rolls.

This has no rules support. Which breaks the rest of your method as you have no models to apply wounds to.

It has plenty of common sense support, if you have common sense.

The d6 roll to determine the effects of the hit is the to wound roll, even if its not specifically stated to be so.

Here's a tack on to this. If hits only apply to models under the template, what happens to characters?

You normally LOS wounds, but in this case we have to allocate hits. Disallow LOS? House rule to LOS the hit? What happens if you roll d6+6 wounds? Transfer d6+6 wounds? What if the transfer model has only 1 wound? Do you just transfer 1 wound and call it done since you're essentially ignoring d3+1 or higher results on 1 wound models otherwise? Transfer the number of wounds equal to the remaining wounds of the character?

What happens when you LOS a Sergeant who only has 1 wound to an IC w/ 3 wounds? Transfer 1 wound, the hit and then roll or roll then transfer all wounds after you see what you roll?

The D weapons are broken in the context of 6th edition rules. You can't play them without making a bunch of house rules. There really is no RAW way to resolve it.

Model suffers 12 wounds (from the D6+6). If there are enough people around, LOS! them all away. If not, just let him die and none of the extra wounds go anywhere.

Or is LOS! denied by the D weapon rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

Or is LOS! denied by the D weapon rules?

Would seem this is the case if you're treating it like Get's Hot, Dangerous Terrain, Perils, crashing Flyers, etc.

you odn't look out sir wounds you look out sir hits, as per the FAQ

Page 16
– Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Delete “(or unsaved Wounds)” from the first paragraph.
Page 16
– Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character,
and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

Clicky

 nutty_nutter wrote:
you odn't look out sir wounds you look out sir hits, as per the FAQ

Page 16
– Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Delete “(or unsaved Wounds)” from the first paragraph.
Page 16
– Shooting Phase, Look Out, Sir
Change the second sentence of the second bullet point to:
“Determine which model in the unit is closest to the character,
and resolve the Wound against that model instead.”

Clicky

Incorrect. It is wounds. The paragraph used to say "...wounds (or unsaved wounds)..." It now says "...wounds..."

The question is "Is LOS a special rule that 'saves' a model?"

If so, them it is not allowed.

 Happyjew wrote:
The question is "Is LOS a special rule that 'saves' a model?"

If so, them it is not allowed.

Hard to classify it as a save when at least one model still dies.

Yet it 'saves'the character.