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.

Lets say you have a squad of 3 single would models. They are attacked in close combat and they are dealt 5 wounds from power weapons. So they are dealt 2 more wounds than needed to wipe the squad. How many unsaved wounds were dealt to the squad? Is it 3 or 5?

The reason this is important is with the Blood Talons. Assuming a multiple assault, how many extra attacks would the Dread get? I can see this going either way.

Deleting my wrong-ness. Other people are right.

You would have caused a total of 3 wounds.

pg. 39 in the BRB under determining assault results:

Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's Wounds Characteristic.

So basically, even though he only wounded two guys twice, he still only counts 3 wounds, as that is the max that you have in the unit.

However, if you ID something with more than one wound, all of the wounds count for the combat resolution, I.E. SM Captain has 3 wounds, dies by ID from 1 wound, you get all 3 wounds toward combat resolution.

He's not asking about combat resolution though. It would count as 5 unsaved wounds for the purposes of Blood Talons, but not for combat res.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:He's not asking about combat resolution though. It would count as 5 unsaved wounds for the purposes of Blood Talons, but not for combat res.

Ah, sorry, don't have a BA codex, so went with how combat res would work.

Brings up an interesting situation about ID and the Blood Talon then..... how many would he get from the situation I described above??? Just the one for the wound, or all three?? And if the Blood Talon isn't strong enough to ID the SM Captain, replace the Captain with an IG Company Commander, or a DE Archon.

I don't think that would add more attacks Galador. It states for every unsaved wound it causes, it only caused one wound even thought it killed a multiwound model.

It's only 3. You didn't cause 5 unsaved wounds, as not all of those wounds actually went through and did anything. He may not have been talking about combat resolution, but it's the same rule either way. "Cause unsaved wounds" is the same as "suffer unsaved wounds" - just a matter of perspective - and you can't suffer more wounds than your wounds characteristic.

Though you could look at it differently. If it dealt 5 wounds, and the three wound unit failed all five armour saves, then it would have dealt 5 unsaved wounds. Though that interpretation depends on wounds being rolled in batches instead of one at a time.

It still only would be dealing 3. If a model fails two saves, but only has 1 wound, it still only took 1 wound.

A unit that suffers 5 wounds from a weapon that doesn't allow armor saves suffers 5 unsaved wounds which are distributed amongst the 3 members of that unit. The unit suffers 3 casualties as a result. Only those 3 casualties are counted for combat res (because the rules state that) but the unit still suffered 5 unsaved wounds, regardless.

I disagree. Only three wounds were lost, and thus only three wounds were caused, even if five wounds had to be allocated and five saves had to be taken.

The BT trigger off unsaved wounds "caused". A wound which did not actually get recorded anywhere (come off a model, matter for CR) is not caused, IMO.

This comes down, I think, to a matter of semantics and order. This is where, and the reason for, people complain about the order of combat, that you take 'wounds' before taking 'armour saves', which suggests that the model is wounded first, and then is miraculously healed by any passed armour or cover saves. If that's true, that wounds are indeed all dealt first, and then save negate wounds, it wouldn't matter (for the Blood Talons anyways) how many wounds the model or unit has.

If, however, we take it more fluff-like, more Rai, then the armour saves would stop the wounds before they were actually dealt. Similarly, it would mean that once a model or unit dropped, it wouldn't be taking more wounds, unless the attacker decided to shred their corpse.

Personally how I see it, in fluff and RAI, is that the Blood Talons, being honkin' great blades on a fist, just start scything through things, and any time they go through a model, and aren't stopped by that model's armour, they continue on into the next one. This would mean that when a model drops after taking three wounds and failing all three saves (a one wound model, that is) the talon just keeps on going with all three wounds worth of momentum, to keep killing. That and the Rage would mean that even if it's a mutilation of a corpse, the extra blood spurting out, the gore, the violence, might spur the Dred on to greater violence.

I'm of the opinion that it is 3. You first assign but do not inflict wounds. Then you roll for saves. Since we generally roll of the like saves at once it gives the illusion that a model has suffered more wounds than it has. That's not the case though. As soon as the last wound is removed from a model it is a casualty. Any additional wounds are lost. Simply put, you can't inflict (i.e., subtract) more wounds that a model has.

-Yad

Agreed, it just doesnt make sense that BT give you more attacks that wounds were in the unit that you just killed.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack." (C:BA p60)

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

The number of unsaved wounds is not necessarily the same as number of wounds inflicted.

In the first example (5 power weapon wounds on a unit of 3 models), 5 unsaved wounds were caused, and the blender-dread would get 5 additional attacks. Only 3 wounds would be inflicted, but that isn't what blood talons look for.

Looks like Forkbanger comes the closes of citing actual rules, but I do agree it can go either way.

Edited due to use of improper word. 1000 apologies.

Quick note, it's 'citing'. Sorry, mum's an English teacher.


And yeah, the way the rules are written, seems like you may actually get that many attacks. Haha! Vindication!

Can you split your attacks so that you deal 5 wounds to squad A, and then allocate those 5 free attacks to squad B?

Yes you can, and that is the reason for the question. Otherwise, the extra attacks would be mute.

"moot"

[/word nazi]

I'm a jerk.

FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.

3 attacks extra only.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.

3 attacks extra only.

But blood talons don't care about inflicted wounds or models removed or saves failed- only the amount of unsaved wounds.
"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack." (C:BA p60)

5 unsaved wounds means 5 extra attacks, regardless of models removed.

Let's say those models had Feel No Pain- if they suffered 5 unsaved wounds (and FNP is applicable), how many Feel No Pain rolls would be made? Three or five?
Both rules use the same wording, looking for 'unsaved wounds', so both answers should be the same.

Some abilities, like Absorb Life, look for wounds inflicted. Blood talons don't.

But if you were doing the saves one by one would you continue to make saves when there were no models left in the unit? FNP keeps a model around so that it is there to fail another saving throw.

You are supposed take all saving throws at once, then the dread attacks again a number of times and can't attack a unit thats has been wiped out. So you'll never roll saves for a dead unit.

kmdl1066 wrote:But if you were doing the saves one by one would you continue to make saves when there were no models left in the unit? FNP keeps a model around so that it is there to fail another saving throw.

You don't roll saves (or attacks, for that matter) one at a time. You roll them all at once. Feel No Pain would also be rolled after all armour saves had been taken.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.

3 attacks extra only.

I think you're wrong on this one. 5 wounds are failed, but only 3 wounds are removed from the unit. Let's look at it this way. I shot a squad and cause 5 wounds (the squad must now make 5 armor saves). The squad rolls 1,1,1,2,2. How many failed saves did the squad have? Here's a hint, the rolled 5 dice.

forkbanger wrote:
You don't roll saves (or attacks, for that matter) one at a time. You roll them all at once. Feel No Pain would also be rolled after all armour saves had been taken.

Oh I know that. The rules tell us to make them in a batch. It was a genuine question about trying to understand how people view "unsaved wounds."

I think the notes in the example on allocating wounds on complex units provides some RAW support for the fact that you can have more unsaved wounds than there are wounds in the unit/group.

FB - the quote is:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

nosferatu, in the example for allocating wounds on complex units there is a group of two marines with bolters who suffer "two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armor save."

Which seems to indicate that a group with only two wounds available can in fact have more wounds inflicted than the group has wounds.

Your thoughts?

It suggest s that the rule is unclear (you have implications both ways)

As such you go for the least advantageous route, which would be: if you kill 3 marines, you get 3 extra attacks.