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.

tom_ep wrote:

col_impact wrote:


What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

The right question would be: what rules are we using to generate wounds and allocating them when generating a Destroyer HIT?

It specifically states the destroyer weapon does not roll to wound. But it creates a vacuum. You can hit something but you don't wound it. So how are we to determine who gets to suffer its effects and on which model (in case you have several hits on a unit with several models eligible to receive its effects, like a multi-char unit all in B2B) if there is no step to allocate the wound somehow?

Clearly a loophole.

Allocation needs to happen normally, and LOS should apply.

See my post above, on the actual rules for creating and allocating wound pools. There is no loophole or gap in the rules. The idea that D Weapons do not create a wound pool to allocate because they don't roll to wound is flawed. The wound pool is created from "the dice that scored wounds". It doesn't matter that you didn't roll to wound, the dice rolled on the D table and did not generate a 1 are still are "the dice that scored wounds". The D table merely change the parameters of the "with each dice representing a Wound", by stating "that causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of one".

It's simple.

1) Roll to hit with the D Weapon.
2) Roll on destroyer table
3) Create Wound Pool from dice that did not roll a 1 on D table (these are the dice that scored wounds)
4) Allocate dice from the wound pool
5) Resolve LoS
6) Once the final allocation of wounds is finished, roll to see how many Wounds the model loses



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't know where people are getting this distinction that "suffers" is some special GW terminology meaning "this model get hit by a wound without it being allocated", when there is absolutely no consistent language I'm the BRB that supports this. In fact, there are numerous cases of this language in the book, specifically referring to wounds that were allocated to the model. See the rules for Concussive, Eternal Warrior, FNP, Instant Death, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strike Down. Every one of them uses the language "when a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds". Shall we assume, then that these rules only apply to D Weapons, because based on the interpretation people are using in this thread, models hit by other weapons had them "allocated" rather than "suffering" them. "Allocate" nor "suffer" are not mutually exclusive game terms. They aren't game terms in general. They are perfectly normal English words being used in plain context.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

tom_ep wrote:

col_impact wrote:


What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

The right question would be: what rules are we using to generate wounds and allocating them when generating a Destroyer HIT?

It specifically states the destroyer weapon does not roll to wound. But it creates a vacuum. You can hit something but you don't wound it. So how are we to determine who gets to suffer its effects and on which model (in case you have several hits on a unit with several models eligible to receive its effects, like a multi-char unit all in B2B) if there is no step to allocate the wound somehow?

Clearly a loophole.

Allocation needs to happen normally, and LOS should apply.

See my post above, on the actual rules for creating and allocating wound pools. There is no loophole or gap in the rules. The idea that D Weapons do not create a wound pool to allocate because they don't roll to wound is flawed. The wound pool is created from "the dice that scored wounds". It doesn't matter that you didn't roll to wound, the dice rolled on the D table and did not generate a 1 are still are "the dice that scored wounds". The D table merely change the parameters of the "with each dice representing a Wound", by stating "that causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of one".

It's simple.

1) Roll to hit with the D Weapon.
2) Roll on destroyer table
3) Create Wound Pool from dice that did not roll a 1 on D table (these are the dice that scored wounds)
4) Allocate dice from the wound pool
5) Resolve LoS
6) Once the final allocation of wounds is finished, roll to see how many Wounds the model loses



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't know where people are getting this distinction that "suffers" is some special GW terminology meaning "this model get hit by a wound without it being allocated", when there is absolutely no consistent language I'm the BRB that supports this. In fact, there are numerous cases of this language in the book, specifically referring to wounds that were allocated to the model. See the rules for Concussive, Eternal Warrior, FNP, Instant Death, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strike Down. Every one of them uses the language "when a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds". Shall we assume, then that these rules only apply to D Weapons, because based on the interpretation people are using in this thread, models hit by other weapons had them "allocated" rather than "suffering" them. "Allocate" nor "suffer" are not mutually exclusive game terms. They aren't game terms in general. They are perfectly normal English words being used in plain context.

That's some cool houserules and all. But you only roll on the Destroyer table for models hit not units. Also until you roll the d3s (or d6s) you don't have a total number of wounds to put into the wound pool.

I'm not saying that your way is bad. I think it is a very good way to handle the broken rules. However the rules here are undeniably broken and your houserule has no more validity than anyone elses.

 FlingitNow wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

tom_ep wrote:

col_impact wrote:


What rules are we using to allocate the Destroyer Wound?

The right question would be: what rules are we using to generate wounds and allocating them when generating a Destroyer HIT?

It specifically states the destroyer weapon does not roll to wound. But it creates a vacuum. You can hit something but you don't wound it. So how are we to determine who gets to suffer its effects and on which model (in case you have several hits on a unit with several models eligible to receive its effects, like a multi-char unit all in B2B) if there is no step to allocate the wound somehow?

Clearly a loophole.

Allocation needs to happen normally, and LOS should apply.

See my post above, on the actual rules for creating and allocating wound pools. There is no loophole or gap in the rules. The idea that D Weapons do not create a wound pool to allocate because they don't roll to wound is flawed. The wound pool is created from "the dice that scored wounds". It doesn't matter that you didn't roll to wound, the dice rolled on the D table and did not generate a 1 are still are "the dice that scored wounds". The D table merely change the parameters of the "with each dice representing a Wound", by stating "that causes it to lose d3/d6+6 Wounds instead of one".

It's simple.

1) Roll to hit with the D Weapon.
2) Roll on destroyer table
3) Create Wound Pool from dice that did not roll a 1 on D table (these are the dice that scored wounds)
4) Allocate dice from the wound pool
5) Resolve LoS
6) Once the final allocation of wounds is finished, roll to see how many Wounds the model loses



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't know where people are getting this distinction that "suffers" is some special GW terminology meaning "this model get hit by a wound without it being allocated", when there is absolutely no consistent language I'm the BRB that supports this. In fact, there are numerous cases of this language in the book, specifically referring to wounds that were allocated to the model. See the rules for Concussive, Eternal Warrior, FNP, Instant Death, Pinning, Soul Blaze, and Strike Down. Every one of them uses the language "when a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds". Shall we assume, then that these rules only apply to D Weapons, because based on the interpretation people are using in this thread, models hit by other weapons had them "allocated" rather than "suffering" them. "Allocate" nor "suffer" are not mutually exclusive game terms. They aren't game terms in general. They are perfectly normal English words being used in plain context.

That's some cool houserules and all. But you only roll on the Destroyer table for models hit not units. Also until you roll the d3s (or d6s) you don't have a total number of wounds to put into the wound pool.

I'm not saying that your way is bad. I think it is a very good way to handle the broken rules. However the rules here are undeniably broken and your houserule has no more validity than anyone elses.

It has nothing to do with house rules, this is simply how it works. Unless you can point me to a specific sentence where it says "a destroyer weapon's hits are not considered allocated, and therefore cannot be benefit from a LoS", the rules apply as previously written. Advanced rules state when they differ from the basic rules, not when they concur. To expect every special rule to state that the basic rules still apply would be ludicrous. The Destroyer rules aren't at all broken (okay, well, they are, but not in this case). If you read all the applicable rules, everything you need to figure out how destroyer weapons allocate is there. And it doesn't matter what the roll is on the d3 or d6, because you don't need to know the total number of Wounds the attack caused until it comes time to resolve damage, because the Wound Pool isn't comprised of the total number of Wounds caused, it is comprises of "the dice that scored wounds".

So say I hit a unit of 10 models 6 times with a Destroyer weapon. What do I do next? Where are those rules found? Resolve it for me.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So say I hit a unit of 10 models 6 times with a Destroyer weapon. What do I do next? Where are those rules found? Resolve it for me.

No problem. You do exactly what you do with any other weapon. Say it's a shooting D attack. You roll six hits/get six models under the template, whatever. Now, you roll six times on the D table, to get the result of your hits (this here is, in essence, your To Wound roll; this is why you don't roll to wound). You roll two 1s, three 3s, and one 5, for two lucky escapes and 4 devastating hits. You set aside the four dice that caused devastating hits, these are the dice that scored wounds. Now, you allocate the first die to the closest model, which is a character model. At this point it may take a LoS, as it has had a Wound Allocated to it. It fails the LoS, and must now take a save. The character has a 4+ invulnerable save, which it passes. The first hit is resolved. The second die is allocated to the same character, as it is still the closest model. This time, it passes its LoS, and so the dice is now allocated to the next model in the unit. This model does not have a save. This is the point at which the D weapon changes the parameters of the wounding process. The model is wounded, but as per the D table, the model loses d3 of its Wounds rather than 1, with any excess being lost. On the third die, the character fails its look out sir, fails its invul save, loses d3 Wounds and is removed from combat. The final die then allocates as usual to the next closest model, who is not a character, does not have a save he can take, and also dies.

You allocate the scoring dice themselves. What the Destroyer rule has done, in essence, if alter the rule of "Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a 'pool', where each dice represents a Wound" to "Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a 'pool' where each dice represents d3/d6+6 Wounds). The actual attack the is still referred to in the singular, though, "A hit that wounds automatically", and is still scored and allocated as one wound-scoring die.

You set aside the four dice that caused devastating hits, these are the dice that scored wounds. 

The issue here is the Destroyer table does wounds to models not units. The wound pool is for wounds caused to units (as to hit and to wound rolls are made against units). The unit has no wounds generated against it so why have you put any into the wound pool?

 FlingitNow wrote:

You set aside the four dice that caused devastating hits, these are the dice that scored wounds. 

The issue here is the Destroyer table does wounds to models not units. The wound pool is for wounds caused to units (as to hit and to wound rolls are made against units). The unit has no wounds generated against it so why have you put any into the wound pool?

Because that's a false distinction. In the end wounds are always done to models. All the wound pool does is organize the wounds scored against a unit, and then allocate which models actually suffer the wounds. You still target a unit, not a particular model, unless the D weapon is also precision shot/strike (and to my knowledge, none of them are; and keep in mind, even precision shot/strike, which target a particular model, still explicitly allow look out sirs). Even with a non D weapon, eventually, once the Wounds have been allocated, a particular model actually suffers the wound. The D table changes how the model that suffers the Wound suffers it, not how you allocate wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hence why, in all of the rules I quoted in a previous post, Concussive, Instant Death, etc., it still reads "when a model suffers and unsaved wound". Units are targeted, but in the end Wounds are always suffered by a single, individual model.

Yes the wound pool is what transfers wounds from units to models. The Destroyer table skips this step but doesn't tell us how to transfer hits from units to models. Hence it is broken.

If you'd t doesn't tell you how to do it, then you don't make up a new way to do something, you do it the way you were taught. In this case, allocating a hit to a character, then letting a grunt go "oh, gak! LOOK OUT, SIR!"

What tells you to allocate hits? Where are those rules found?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes the wound pool is what transfers wounds from units to models. The Destroyer table skips this step but doesn't tell us how to transfer hits from units to models. Hence it is broken.

Destroyer weapons do not skip the wound pool step. That is where your error is. Literally nowhere does the book say that the wound pool is comprised only of wounds generated by rolling To Wound. It is comprised of dice that have scored wounds. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you rolled to wound. All that matter is, did you roll a die, and the result of that roll resulted in a wound being generated. If yes, than that die scored a wound. You roll to hit with a destroyer weapon. Then you roll on the D table, and if you roll anything but a 1, that die wounds. The dice rolled on the D table are the dice scoring wounds. They are the Wound Pool, they are what are allocated, in the normal fashion described in the rules for shooting and assault. The only thing the D table changes is the basic formula of the rules for the wound pool shown on pages 34 and 51. Now, instead of 1 die = 1 wound, it becomes 1 die = d3/d6+6 wounds.

"Total up the number of Wounds you have caused with the weapons that are firing. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds, and create a pool, with each dice representing 1 Wound"

"Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused during that Initiative step. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a pool, with each dice representing 1 Wound"

The problem is, you're creating a requirement for the wound pool that is stated nowhere in the rules. It does not say "Total up the number of Wounds you have caused with each dice that was rolled To Wound, and create a pool, but any other way that a wound is generated other than rolling To Wound somehow magically doesn't create a wound pool, and therefore never allocates to any model, because only Wound pools allocate, yet still somehow hits a particular model out of the unit, which is the definition of being allocated, through a logical impossibility possible only through the Emperor's divine grace". I says to create a pool out of the dice that scored Wounds. The dice that scored wounds are any dice that caused a wound, such as the dice rolled on the D table that results in a hit that wounds automatically. The only thing that the D-table rules change is the amount of lost wounds that dice represents from 1 to d3/d6+6.

There is always a wound pool. The wound pool is not some magical special rule that only applies to certain types of attacks. It is literally nothing more than a tool for organizing the process of distributing damage, when damage has been done by something.

The reason the D table doesn't tell you how to allocate the damage when it doesn't create a Wounds pool is that there is absolutely nothing in the rules that precludes it creating a wounds pool. The reason it doesn't explain how to allocate the wounds is because the rules had already explained how to create a wound pool and how to allocate damage. The reason you think the D table is broken is because you're expecting the designers to explicitly state that the rules they spent the last 163 pages explaining still apply to the game. That's not how it works. You explicitly state when the rules differ from the core rules. Gets Hot differs from the core rules, by not allowing a LoS for a wound allocated during shooting, so it explicitly states that. Blast weapons differ from the core rules on rolling to hit, by rolling for scatter instead, so it explicitly states that. Relentless differs from the normal rules about how movement and shooting certain weapons, or charging and shooting certain weapons, so it explicitly states that.

The problem is, you're expecting the book to explicitly state that the rule still apply as normal, and using as a justification for needing this statement rules that don't actually appear anywhere in the book.

Nice rant please point to where I said the wound pool required a to wound roll? It requires wounds created against a unit so it can allocate those wounds to models. D Weapons never cause wounds to units so the wound pool cannot be used.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nice rant please point to where I said the wound pool required a to wound roll? It requires wounds created against a unit so it can allocate those wounds to models. D Weapons never cause wounds to units so the wound pool cannot be used.

For sake! All wounds are done to individual models! All the wounds pool does is tell you how many total wounds have to be allocated to the individual models. Give me a single instance in the rules in which a entire unit is wounded. Models are wounded. Units do not have a Wounds characteristic. Models do. A unit is targeted. The number of those hits that actually wound are determined through whatever method that weapon uses. For most weapons, that is a To Wound roll, for Destroyer weapons, it is a roll on the D table. Then they are allocated to the individual models. When you attack with a D weapon, you target a unit, not a model, just like every other weapon. Even with a template D weapon, you still target a unit, you just have the possibility to hit more than one unit, just like with every other blast weapon. At some point the attack on the unit must, logically, be converted into attacks on individual models.
This is the same no matter what weapon you are using. In the end, it is always a model that suffers the final effects of the wound, this is not unique to destroyer weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And even if all that "normal attacks wound units, D weapons wound models" codswallop were correct, which it isn't, not of that would change the fact that the rules also never, ever state that the wound pool is only created from wounds against a unit (mainly, because that doesn't even make sense)

I think you need to read the rules again. Wounds are done to units. If they were done to models then the majority toughness rule would never apply as a model only ever has 1 toughness value. How do you even think the wound pool works if you think wounds are done to models?

Lets go back to that ten man unit. Lets call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J & K. We'll call the unit U1. I roll to hit and get 10 hits with a normal weapon. Do I roll to wound against U1 or a model if the later (as you claim who do I roll against give me the letter please).

Now if the answer above is a particular model how can the wound pool assign those wounds to a different model?

If the answer above is U1 then you have wounds against a unit and use the wound pool to allocate those wounds to specific models within that unit. If this is the case then Destroyer Weapons don't work as they take place instead of a to wound roll but do wounds to models not units. Thus the wound pool can't be used and we have no way to determine which models take the wounds (as no models are hit).

If this is the case then Destroyer Weapons don't work as they take place instead of a to wound roll but do wounds to models not units. Thus the wound pool can't be used and we have no way to determine which models take the wounds (as no models are hit).

So what your saying is I can't take a los, but that's okay brcauser my models will never take an allocated wound. Perfect!

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think you need to read the rules again. Wounds are done to units. If they were done to models then the majority toughness rule would never apply as a model only ever has 1 toughness value. How do you even think the wound pool works if you think wounds are done to models?

Lets go back to that ten man unit. Lets call them A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J & K. We'll call the unit U1. I roll to hit and get 10 hits with a normal weapon. Do I roll to wound against U1 or a model if the later (as you claim who do I roll against give me the letter please).

Now if the answer above is a particular model how can the wound pool assign those wounds to a different model?

If the answer above is U1 then you have wounds against a unit and use the wound pool to allocate those wounds to specific models within that unit. If this is the case then Destroyer Weapons don't work as they take place instead of a to wound roll but do wounds to models not units. Thus the wound pool can't be used and we have no way to determine which models take the wounds (as no models are hit).

Yes, the determination of whether or not any wounds are generated are resolved against the majority toughness of the unit, so as to not slow down the game. The Wound itself is resolved against the individual model. Otherwise, why should you get to take your 2+ armor save on the character. The whole unit took the wound, you should have to use the rest of the squad's 6+ t-shirt save. It doesn't work that way because the wound was done to the actual freaking MODEL, who uses his own characteristics.

You're also ignoring numerous other examples that disprove your interpretation of what a wound being done to a model means. Look at Gets Hot.

"the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken) - this wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a wound cause by the Gets Hot special rule". If, by your logic, wounds done to a model don't create a wound pool, and therefore can't be LoS'ed, then why did the game designers feel the need to state that you can't LoS a gets hot result? That should have already been covered by you imaginary rule.

By your logic, next time your T4 eternal warrior Warlord gets hit by a strength 10 weapon, he's dead, because Eternal Warrior states "when a model suffers" a wound, and non-destroyer weapons wound units, not models.

By your logic, FNP is now a waste of points because it doesn't do anything, since it only applies when "A model" suffers a wound, and you can't use it against D weapons. Oh, well.

Next time you're all excited because your thunder hammer just reduced the initiative 8 tyranid to initiative 1, well too bad, because concussive only work when "a model" is wounded by the weapon.

And again, nowhere does it say that the wound pool is comprised only of wounds done "to units" not "to models". I've quoted the exact rule to you, straight out of the book, at least three times. If you can't be arsed to actually read a rule, you shouldn't be playing the game.

What I'm saying is that RaW Destroyer weapons don't work. You have to create rules to make their allocation work. Depending on how you create those rules will determine whether or not you can LoS the rules. So essentially a debate on whether LoS is allowed or not is worthless as it depends on what houserules you've created to make D Weapons work so the disparate opinions on here are due to no common basis on how to resolve D Weapons.

Personally the houserules I use to make D Weapons work do allow LoS. But that is no more or less valid than anyone else's houserules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
What I'm saying is that RaW Destroyer weapons don't work. You have to create rules to make their allocation work. Depending on how you create those rules will determine whether or not you can LoS the rules. So essentially a debate on whether LoS is allowed or not is worthless as it depends on what houserules you've created to make D Weapons work so the disparate opinions on here are due to no common basis on how to resolve D Weapons.

Personally the houserules I use to make D Weapons work do allow LoS. But that is no more or less valid than anyone else's houserules.

That's the thing you don't understand. Nobody is creating house rules here, except you. I have done nothing but present the actual, official rules in the book, and explain to you why the rules you've made up in your head don't invalidate those rules. The problem is, you've created house rules, then used those house rules to attempt to invalidate the actual rules, then deemed the actual rules "house rules" because they don't agree with your actual, genuine house rules.

RaW? I've given you the RaW, numerous times. You've used rules that aren't in the book to then explain why the RaW doesn't work.

Yes, the determination of whether or not any wounds are generated are resolved against the majority toughness of the unit, so as to not slow down the game. The Wound itself is resolved against the individual model. Otherwise, why should you get to take your 2+ armor save on the character. The whole unit took the wound, you should have to use the rest of the squad's 6+ t-shirt save. It doesn't work that way because the wound was done to the actual freaking MODEL, who uses his own characteristics. 

Did you even read my post? Do you speak English? Yes saves are rolled by models. Why because AFTER you take a wound out of the wound pool you apply it to a model. BEFORE then it is a wound on the unit. I don't know how else to explain that to you. You roll to wound against units. You take the wounds caused to a unit and put it in the wound pool you take the UNIT'S WOUND POOL and assign those wounds to MODELS from that UNIT. Understand the difference between units and models yet?

You're also ignoring numerous other examples that disprove your interpretation of what a wound being done to a model means. Look at Gets Hot. 

"the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken) - this wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a wound cause by the Gets Hot special rule". If, by your logic, wounds done to a model don't create a wound pool, and therefore can't be LoS'ed, then why did the game designers feel the need to state that you can't LoS a gets hot result? That should have already been covered by you imaginary rule. 

Yes the rules are full of redundant reminders there to add clarity as evidently many people playing the game don't understand plain English. That example actually supports my position.

By your logic, next time your T4 eternal warrior Warlord gets hit by a strength 10 weapon, he's dead, because Eternal Warrior states "when a model suffers" a wound, and non-destroyer weapons wound units, not models.

By your logic, FNP is now a waste of points because it doesn't do anything, since it only applies when "A model" suffers a wound, and you can't use it against D weapons. Oh, well. 

Next time you're all excited because your thunder hammer just reduced the initiative 8 tyranid to initiative 1, well too bad, because concussive only work when "a model" is wounded by the weapon. 

I never said wounds never get applied to models. The models EW rule is irrelevant until the wound is allocated to him using the wound pool. That is literally what wound allocation is all about allocating wounds on a unit to the models in the unit. Same for the other pointless nonsensical points you've tried to make.

So back to my example please tell me who you roll to wound against? U1 or one of the letters?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes, the determination of whether or not any wounds are generated are resolved against the majority toughness of the unit, so as to not slow down the game. The Wound itself is resolved against the individual model. Otherwise, why should you get to take your 2+ armor save on the character. The whole unit took the wound, you should have to use the rest of the squad's 6+ t-shirt save. It doesn't work that way because the wound was done to the actual freaking MODEL, who uses his own characteristics. 

Did you even read my post? Do you speak English? Yes saves are rolled by models. Why because AFTER you take a wound out of the wound pool you apply it to a model. BEFORE then it is a wound on the unit. I don't know how else to explain that to you. You roll to wound against units. You take the wounds caused to a unit and put it in the wound pool you take the UNIT'S WOUND POOL and assign those wounds to MODELS from that UNIT. Understand the difference between units and models yet?

You're also ignoring numerous other examples that disprove your interpretation of what a wound being done to a model means. Look at Gets Hot. 

"the firing model immediately suffers a wound (armour or invulnerable saves can be taken) - this wound cannot be allocated to any other model in the unit. A character cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt to avoid a wound cause by the Gets Hot special rule". If, by your logic, wounds done to a model don't create a wound pool, and therefore can't be LoS'ed, then why did the game designers feel the need to state that you can't LoS a gets hot result? That should have already been covered by you imaginary rule. 

Yes the rules are full of redundant reminders there to add clarity as evidently many people playing the game don't understand plain English. That example actually supports my position.

By your logic, next time your T4 eternal warrior Warlord gets hit by a strength 10 weapon, he's dead, because Eternal Warrior states "when a model suffers" a wound, and non-destroyer weapons wound units, not models.

By your logic, FNP is now a waste of points because it doesn't do anything, since it only applies when "A model" suffers a wound, and you can't use it against D weapons. Oh, well. 

Next time you're all excited because your thunder hammer just reduced the initiative 8 tyranid to initiative 1, well too bad, because concussive only work when "a model" is wounded by the weapon. 

I never said wounds never get applied to models. The models EW rule is irrelevant until the wound is allocated to him using the wound pool. That is literally what wound allocation is all about allocating wounds on a unit to the models in the unit. Same for the other pointless nonsensical points you've tried to make.

So back to my example please tell me who you roll to wound against? U1 or one of the letters?

It is not a wound on the unit, it is a wound waiting to be allocated to a model. That's the thing, is you don't even extend your absurd logic evenly. You roll to hit a unit, then you roll to see how many of those hits wound (what you are referring to as "wounding a unit"), then you allocate the wounds to individual models based on the rules for wound allocation. What you are referring to as "wounding a unit" is nothing more than the wounds being non-specific until such time as they are allocated. D Weapons are no different. You roll to hit the unit, then you roll to see how many of those hits wound (this is determined differently, but you're still doing the same damn basic thing, determining how many of those hits wound), then you allocate those wound to individual models. Until the wounds have been allocated to a particular unit, they are non-specific (again, what you are referring to as "wounding a unit).

Here's an idea. Actually pick up your damn rule book. Give me an actual quote of a rule that says something to the effect of "you don't create a wound pool unless the wounds are caused to a unit" or "when you roll To Wound, you're wounding the unit, not the models". Find me any rule that establishes a clear difference between wounding a unit and wounding a model. Find me a single example of a redundant repetition of an established rule not phrased as "As a reminder..." or "remember..." or "this does not change x rule". Tell you what give me a quote of a single rule that supports your position. You keep talking about RaW, and accusing me of not reading the rules, and yet I've quoted you numerous rules that support my position, straight out of the rule book that's been in my lap for the last two hours, while you have yet to actually quote a single rule as written, instead just making unsubstantiated, unsupported claims about what the rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, keep in mind, page 156 "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule". Ergo, if it doesn't say it does something differently, then it doesn't. It's a simple as that.

You target units correct? Then you roll to hit against units correct? When you roll to wound do you use a specific models toughness or do you roll to wound against the majority toughness of the unit?

BrB page 34 wrote:To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart

So we roll to wound against a target correct? And what do we target, units or models?

BrB page 35 wrote: To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds from the Wound pool

So casualties are caused by wounds in the wound pool. So can casualties be caused to a unit or a model? So before the wounds in the pool are allocated who were they rolled against and who do they count against?

Closest models goes onto make it clear you are allocating wounds from the wound pool to a unit's models. Thus again proving the wounds are applied to the entire unit so that they can be allocated to any of the models in that unit.

RAW FlingitNow is correct. The only thing D weapons work on at the moment are Vehicles and Vehicle Squadrons, due to how they handle Armor Penetration/Hit Allocation.

Wound pools do not allocate hits, they allocate Wounds (p35). Destroyer hits are not Wounds. Additionally, even the Destroyer hits table results themselves cause hits, not Wounds. This is the basic problem for allocation presented in the thread.

The argument that "Dice that have Scored Wounds" (p34) counts for Destroyer hit table rolls would not apply. Destroyer hits have not scored any Wounds (yet). This would also be ignoring the sentence immediately before, which requires you to "total up the Wounds you have caused with the weapons that you are firing" (p34). You have not caused any Wounds (yet). This directly contradicts AnFéasógMór's ruling that you can make a Wound Pool with Destroyer hits or Destroyer hit table results.

RAI it's clear that there's some sort of allocation that's supposed to happen. Do they want us to roll on the table for all of the hits then allocate these results ('wound pool' method), or allocate one hit then roll on the table for that one and repeat until empty (vehicle squadron method)? It says to roll on the table instead of rolling to-Wound, so I have to assume that they probably want us to allocate the table results. Did anyone even playtest this?

HIWPI Either allocate the Destroyer hits (pre table rolls) as the Vehicle Squadron rules to individual models (and LoS those Hits) OR use AnFéasógMór's method and make "wound pools" of the table roll results (counting rolls of 1, 2-5, and 6 as different pools) then allocating as if they were standard Wounds (and LoS those "Wounds"). There are many ways to play this, but none are RAW.

TL;DR these rules are badly written. If they went on the p163 table and changed the table wording to something like "The unit suffers a hit that wounds automatically and removes d3 Wounds instead of 1 from the wounded model (after failing any saving throws for the single wound)" then we would've been a lot better off.

 Dilt wrote:
RAW FlingitNow is correct. The only thing D weapons work on at the moment are Vehicles and Vehicle Squadrons, due to how they handle Armor Penetration/Hit Allocation.

Wound pools do not allocate hits, they allocate Wounds (p35). Destroyer hits are not Wounds. Additionally, even the Destroyer hits table results themselves cause hits, not Wounds. This is the basic problem for allocation presented in the thread.

The argument that "Dice that have Scored Wounds" (p34) counts for Destroyer hit table rolls would not apply. Destroyer hits have not scored any Wounds (yet). This would also be ignoring the sentence immediately before, which requires you to "total up the Wounds you have caused with the weapons that you are firing" (p34). You have not caused any Wounds (yet). This directly contradicts AnFéasógMór's ruling that you can make a Wound Pool with Destroyer hits or Destroyer hit table results.

The destroyer rolls have caused wounds, what they have no yet done is caused a specific number of wounds. Causing d3 wounds is still causing wounds, because while variable, it is still at a minimum one. And the results do not generate hits, they generate "a hit that automatically wounds". When compared to the way non-D weapons works, you can clearly define a "scored wound" as a successful hit combined with a successful wound, which the terminology on the D table fulfills. All it changes is that you total up the number of d3s or d6s you generate, instead of the number of individual wounds, because the D-table has changed the 1 Wound referenced in the rule on wound pools to d3 or d6+6 wounds. It's a simple equivalency.

RAI it's clear that there's some sort of allocation that's supposed to happen. Do they want us to roll on the table for all of the hits then allocate these results ('wound pool' method), or allocate one hit then roll on the table for that one and repeat until empty (vehicle squadron method)? It says to roll on the table instead of rolling to-Wound, so I have to assume that they probably want us to allocate the table results. Did anyone even playtest this?

HIWPI Either allocate the Destroyer hits (pre table rolls) as the Vehicle Squadron rules to individual models (and LoS those Hits) OR use AnFéasógMór's method and make "wound pools" of the table roll results (counting rolls of 1, 2-5, and 6 as different pools) then allocating as if they were standard Wounds (and LoS those "Wounds"). There are many ways to play this, but none are RAW.

TL;DR these rules are badly written. If they went on the p163 table and changed the table wording to something like "The unit suffers a hit that wounds automatically and removes d3 Wounds instead of 1 from the wounded model (after failing any saving throws for the single wound)" then we would've been a lot better off.

The rule is written just fine when you take into account "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule". Reading through a similar thread on the subject on another 40k forum, someone put it excellently. The destroyer table establishes a special rule which dictates what happens to "the model" that suffers the attack, but it does not specify which model the attack is resolved on; since we are given no special rule dictating how to choose which model the hit is resolved on, then per the above rule, we can assume that the normal rules apply

Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This more or less what I'm saying. Unfortunately, some people need things explained to them in 20 paragraphs that should be explainable in 2 sentences, if they understood the underlying principles of the game. But whatever. I didn't have anything better to do today. Which is a sad thought, but that's life.

Although I still think D is OP'ed, but only because of the "no saves of any kind allowed" on a 6 result.

Except feel no pain! Because it isn't a save.

siege2142 wrote:
Except feel no pain! Because it isn't a save.

Which you can never take against Destroyer Weapons

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

Except that what I posted actually is the rules as written, paraphrased in an ironic manner. Your continued inability to understand paraphrasing or irony is very much on record at this point.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Destroyer Weapon damage works fine when you don't over think it. To Hit is the same, so no worries there. To Wound is replaced by the Destroyer Weapon Damage table. Allocation occurs from closet to furthest, with each successful hit dealing the results of the table on a per model basis with any over-kill lost. Simple.

It is slower than the fast rolling most of us are use to, and it makes D-Weapons more anti-vehicle/anti-monster than anti-horde. Pretty much turns D into a huge nerf-bat.

Over thinking it leads to threads like this where people want to fill wound pools, wipe out 50-man mobs in sweeping splatters of imaginary blood leading to flaming over the non-existent OP-ness of the dreaded D!

SJ

This is not RaW though. This is your houserule made up to be what you think is the rules. A good fit for the intention but not the RaW.

Except that what I posted actually is the rules as written, paraphrased in an ironic manner. Your continued inability to understand paraphrasing or irony is very much on record at this point.

SJ

I'm kind of getting the sense that he doesn't actually understand what RAW and "house rule" actually mean, given that most of his argument is that the rules written in the book (rule as written) don't apply, because rules that aren't in the book (house rules) contradict them.