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.

I was playing a game and I hit an enemy squad with a frag missile. It didn't scatter, and three models were under the template. I can't remember exactly what the unit was, but as I recall it was made up of standard troops with no wargear added and one squad leader model with some extra wargear. When the missile hit, two normal troops and the leader were under it, so I rolled three dice to wound and they all got through. My opponent rolled the saving throws for his two normal models under the template and they passed. I thought that you should next roll a saving throw for the squad leader. However, he took the save against another normal troop who was standing outside the template, who then failed and died.

So, is it always OK to resolve the wounds against the entire squad rather than just the ones under the template, or does this only apply in some cases?

Fezman wrote:I aksed if it was OK to do that, as the killed model was outside the template, but he told me you resolve the wounds against the entire squad rather than just the ones under the template. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the template?

The purpose of the template is to hit more enemies with one shot. Your opponent is quite correct in that he can allocate the wounds anywhere in the unit (unless some special rule says otherwise ofc). What he did wrong was even care about rolling for two, then one. He can just put all three wounds on the "normal" rank-and-file, roll three dice and remove as many models as he failed saves.

Wound allocation, pg 20 and complex units pg 25. Templates pg 29 and Blasts pg 30 also both restate that the casualties do not have to be from under the markers.

First up: Minor nitpick: Frag Missiles use a blast marker. Aside from the occasional slip-up, where GW's rules refer to 'templates' they usually mean the teardrop-shaped template used for flamers and the like.


On the actual question, blast markers and templates replace the normal hit roll with their own rules. This doesn't change the normal process for wound allocation, though... it just tells you how many models are hit. Your opponent is free to distribute those wounds exactly as he would for any other ranged attack.

I see, well that's certainly worth remembering. Usually I take the saves only on the models in the blast, which with hindsight probably makes me seem unusally generous when wargear-carrying models have been caught in it. The amount of times I've lost expensive models because I thought the wounds had to go on those caught in the blast...

Spetulhu: thanks for the page references.

Insaniak: re marker/template: when I was a complete newb I started calling anything placed on the table to mark explosions, flame weapons etc "templates" and now it's stuck in my head. It would indeed make more sense to stick to the proper terms for clarity when discussing it online.

Thanks all.

No worries and happy gaming.

Monkey Wrench:
There is a Dark Eldar toy called a ShatterShard (see my sig). Its text states that each model 'hit' by the (tear-drop shaped) template must take a Toughness test.

Since these characteristic tests are not wounds, they are not subject to Wound Allocation rules, but that the player has to point to each model as he rolls a single dice.
"Okay, first bolter marine, good. Second bolter, dang- he's dead. Sarge? Good." Points to the meltagun marine. "The melta. Dang, he's dead. Next bolter ... "

And so forth. This is one that a lot of opponents raise their eye-brows at. But it is only 'one-use' per game.

The Template(and Blast marker) rules on pages 29 and 30 both specifically state that models under the Template/marker are hit, and that the wounds caused by said weapons may be allocated to any models in the unit, not just the ones under the Template/marker.

these rules give us explanation on how to use all Blast/template weapons that have additional effects to those models "hit" by them(You can gain additional kills beyond the number of models under the template/marker through certain special effects)

Eh actually it depends on how the rules is worded. This wouldn't be normal wound allocation as the recent GK FAQ ruling has show us with Mindstrike missiles. If it indeed says something to the nature of "models hit must pass a T test or be removed from play" then it would indeed be those models and not ones outside the template since there is not standard wound allocations.

That is how it is worded.

Hence why I used the Quotation marks around the word Hit.

Brothererekose wrote:Monkey Wrench:
There is a Dark Eldar toy called a ShatterShard (see my sig). Its text states that each model 'hit' by the (tear-drop shaped) template must take a Toughness test.

Since these characteristic tests are not wounds, they are not subject to Wound Allocation rules, but that the player has to point to each model as he rolls a single dice.
"Okay, first bolter marine, good. Second bolter, dang- he's dead. Sarge? Good." Points to the meltagun marine. "The melta. Dang, he's dead. Next bolter ... "

And so forth. This is one that a lot of opponents raise their eye-brows at. But it is only 'one-use' per game.

And, of course, GW couldn't make it that simple.

The Implosion Missile uses pretty much the same wording as the Shattershard for determining models hit, who takes the characteristic test, and how the models are removed.

Then, GW had to FAQ the Implosion Missile and say that regular allocation rules were followed.

Q: When an implosion missile hits a complex unit (one where all the models are not identical in gaming terms) how do you work out what rolls are needed to wound and how do you distribute these wounds? (p47)

A: Although the implosion missile causes wounds in an unusual way it should be treated the same as any other blast weapon. A unit will suffer a number of hits equal to the number of models underneath the blast marker. Using the majority Wounds value of the unit roll to see how many wounds are caused and then allocate these in the usual manner.

BlueDagger wrote:Eh actually it depends on how the rules is worded. This wouldn't be normal wound allocation as the recent GK FAQ ruling has show us with Mindstrike missiles. If it indeed says something to the nature of "models hit must pass a T test or be removed from play" then it would indeed be those models and not ones outside the template since there is not standard wound allocations.

Yes if it's "Removed from play" if they suffer instan death or any other effect of suffering a wound then wounds are being delt and one could allocate away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Slaviden: This is why it is possible to snipe with the Shattershard but not the implosion missile; shard says 'remove', implosion 'suffers instant death'.

One follows the wound process the other does not.

Actually, neither follow the wound process.

Both of them require a characteristic test and give the result of a failed test. Neither one causes wounds, and only wounds can be allocated. The only difference between the two mechanics is that one ignores Eternal Warrior and the other doesn't. There is nothing at all to support your assertion that "removes from play" doesn't follow the to wound process. In fact, the Hexrifle also "removes from play," but only after the model hit suffers an unsaved wound; thus, the "removed from play" mechanic caused by the Hexrifle can be allocated. "Removes from play" is the result of a few, specific weapons and wargear, and each has their own explanation for how it happens. Instant Death is the same thing; some instances require a wound to be suffered, others do not. For example, the Crucible of Malediction is another instance of a model being forced to take a characteristic test or suffer Instant Death regardless of the model's Toughness; once again, the model suffers no wound that might be allocated and still suffers ID.

Personally, I believe the FAQ writers flubbed it on the Implosion Missile, as only wounds and successful armor penetration rolls can be allocated, and at no point do the rules for the IM state that the models failing their test suffer any wounds. (And it doesn't affect vehicle squadrons, so the other option for allocation doesn't apply.)

Saldiven wrote:Actually, neither follow the wound process.

Both of them require a characteristic test and give the result of a failed test. Neither one causes wounds, and only wounds can be allocated. The only difference between the two mechanics is that one ignores Eternal Warrior and the other doesn't. There is nothing at all to support your assertion that "removes from play" doesn't follow the to wound process. In fact, the Hexrifle also "removes from play," but only after the model hit suffers an unsaved wound; thus, the "removed from play" mechanic caused by the Hexrifle can be allocated. "Removes from play" is the result of a few, specific weapons and wargear, and each has their own explanation for how it happens. Instant Death is the same thing; some instances require a wound to be suffered, others do not. For example, the Crucible of Malediction is another instance of a model being forced to take a characteristic test or suffer Instant Death regardless of the model's Toughness; once again, the model suffers no wound that might be allocated and still suffers ID.

Personally, I believe the FAQ writers flubbed it on the Implosion Missile, as only wounds and successful armor penetration rolls can be allocated, and at no point do the rules for the IM state that the models failing their test suffer any wounds. (And it doesn't affect vehicle squadrons, so the other option for allocation doesn't apply.)

Ah actually "Q: When an implosion missile hits a complex unit (one where all the models are not identical in gaming terms) how do you work out what rolls are needed to wound and how do you distribute these wounds? (p47)
A: Although the implosion missile causes wounds in an unusual way it should be treated the same as any other blast weapon. A unit will suffer a number of hits equal to the number of models underneath the blast marker. Using the majority Wounds value of the unit roll to see how many wounds are caused and then allocate these in the usual manner."

The FAQ was just clarifying that because Implosion missile uses the term 'instant death', it uses that wounding process (this is how one suffers instant death but taking an unsaved wound).
What implosion missile does is replace the to wound roll with a Characteristic test based on wounds. It even goes as far as to save that cover and Armour saves can be taken as normal, just like against other instant death causing wounds, indicating that a wound is being inflicted and therefor allocatable.
One can not suffer instant death without being wounded.

Shattershard uses the term "Removed from play" and because of this by-passes the wounding process.

That's the difference.
That's why Implosion was FAQ'd - one could allocate with it because it causes wounds in order to inflict instant death.
Your incorrect in your recollection of Crucibles wording, it also says "Remove from play" - same as the unallocatable shatter shard.

"Instant death" is not the same as being "Removed from play"
For an evidence, Ghaz has EW, He can not suffer instant death but he can be 'removed from play'

You managed to miss the point of everything I wrote.

There is nothing about "Instant Death" that requires a wound to be suffered. To support that, I pointed out an example of a weapon that causes Instant Death when no wound has been suffered and states that no saves of any type can be taken.

There is nothing about "Removed from play" that is independent from wounds being suffered. To support this, I pointed out an example of a weapon that requires a wound to be suffered before a model is "removed from play." This existed in the prior Grey Knights codex where their Force Weapons would remove models from play after an unsaved wound.

Your position that ID is directly related to the "wounding" process and "removed from play" is not related to the "wounding" process is one completely made up and not supported by the rules. Please show me in where the "removed from play" mechanic is stated to be independent from the wounding process; one such DE item requires an unsaved wound while the other requires a characteristic test. Also, please show me where, in the two items in the DE codex where a characteristic test can result in ID where there is any assertion that any wounds are caused. Yes, one allows for saves but the other doesn't, so this doesn't give any support to the idea that ID is specifically and only tied to the wounding process.

The only real difference between the ID and Removed from Play mechanics is the fact that some models are immune to ID while none are immune to Removed from Play.

I think the big RAW vs RAI argument regarding wound allocation can be fixed with a simple bit of logic (scary, I know).

Of course the bolter guy doesn't step in front of the melta guy and take the bullet for them.

But if I'm charging towards an enemy tank, and the melta guy gets his head blown open, I'm going to pick up his melta gun and keep on chugging.

Once you start thinking about it that way, it will bother you a lot less. Then you just let the healing begin....

Saldiven wrote:You managed to miss the point of everything I wrote.

There is nothing about "Instant Death" that requires a wound to be suffered. To support that, I pointed out an example of a weapon that causes Instant Death when no wound has been suffered and states that no saves of any type can be taken.

There is nothing about "Removed from play" that is independent from wounds being suffered. To support this, I pointed out an example of a weapon that requires a wound to be suffered before a model is "removed from play." This existed in the prior Grey Knights codex where their Force Weapons would remove models from play after an unsaved wound.

Your position that ID is directly related to the "wounding" process and "removed from play" is not related to the "wounding" process is one completely made up and not supported by the rules. Please show me in where the "removed from play" mechanic is stated to be independent from the wounding process; one such DE item requires an unsaved wound while the other requires a characteristic test. Also, please show me where, in the two items in the DE codex where a characteristic test can result in ID where there is any assertion that any wounds are caused. Yes, one allows for saves but the other doesn't, so this doesn't give any support to the idea that ID is specifically and only tied to the wounding process.

The only real difference between the ID and Removed from Play mechanics is the fact that some models are immune to ID while none are immune to Removed from Play.

I'll go further in, I've already actually shown how Instant Death (ID) is cause by wounding and Removed from play/table (RFP) is an effect of property belonging to game which does not need definition .

Instant death.
"If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty." Page 26
To suffer ID a wound must be dealt. Now, I can appreciate a line of argument similar to 'these attacks didn't have a str value so they do not cause wounds.' But it would be incorrect as we are told 'suffers instant death' is a result of wound being double some things toughness, these attack by merit of inflicting instant death meet that requirement. I could also see 'So why aren't vehicle suffering str 6 hit from str3-ID-PSAs?' and it's because vehicle do no have a toughness, nor do they take wounds, making it 'impossible' to be removed by instant death effects. Regardless one can not suffer instant death without a wound.

The 'removed from play' (RFP) or table mechanic is just that, removed from play. There is no wounds suffered. Instant death is an effect that happens when a model suffers an unsaved wound, removed from play doesn't involve wounding of any kind - other than an effect of having no wounds remaining - it happens when the rules instructs us to perform the action, . This differs from ID in that a ID wound is only a single wound and would otherwise not remove multiple wound models.
For clarification on the mechanic; a model is either deployed (in play), embarked (vehicle/building), or 'held in reserve'. Occupying any other position without a rule allowing one to do so is impossible.
Look at the SAG, it removes models from play. Any transport hit by this would be removed from play, it's contents being also removed from play would be lost. The only chance to save the contents come from the automatic penetrating hit inflicted on the vehicle, giving a chance for explodes or wrecked allow the unit to disembark. Otherwise they have no legal way back onto the table.

It's in this fashion that removed from play and instant death are different. Instant death comes about as a specific result of suffering a wound. Removed from play is an action performed by the player when the rules instruct one too - it may involve a model which has lost it's last wound, but not suffered instant death, it could involve a vehicle something with no wounds or it may be a marker placed for a shot fired. They are inherently different actions in the rules and the many FAQ quotes used so far reflects this understanding of these two mechanics, "A: Although the implosion missile causes wounds in an unusual way it should be treated the same as any other blast weapon.".

ChrisCP wrote:They are inherently different actions in the rules and the many FAQ quotes used so far reflects this understanding of these two mechanics, "A: Although the implosion missile causes wounds in an unusual way it should be treated the same as any other blast weapon.".

But this is my big complaint with the whole FAQ position. There is no place in the rules for the IM where a wound is inflicted. Wounds are never mentioned in the entry for the IM. It is merely an assumption that ID must occur from a wound. This does not have to be the case. The main rulebook quote you mention from pg 26 only states the result of suffering a specific kind of wound. The rule states that if you suffer wound type X, then you suffer Instant Death.

The rule does not say: Instant Death is defined as suffering this type of wound.

There in an incredibly important difference between the two. The way the rule is written in the BRB leaves plenty of room for other mechanics that result in ID. The BRB rule shows a specific instance and states the result; it never even implies that this is the only instance that can give that result.

Personally, IMO, I don't think that GW's rules writers are so sophisticated that they differentiate between ID and RfP because some things they want to use wound allocation and others they don't. I personally believe that the reason they differentiate between ID and RfP is that they want some things able to get past Eternal Warrior and other things not to get past EW.