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.

This was an issue raised in the other wound allocation thread that raises an entirely different issue than the core issue in that thread.

Scenario:

A unit of 10 Orks are joined by two Warbosses with identical load-outs. Same wargear, same special rules, etc. Neither IC has suffered any wounds.

The unit is shot by an enemy and receives 12 wounds. 10 are allocated to the Orks and 2 to the Warbosses. Like wounds must be grouped together and rolled together. 7 Orks die (leaving 3) and the two dice for the Warbosses both result in unsaved wounds.

If the Warbosses choose to leave the unit, how should the wounds be allocated? Should both be allocated to one Warboss or should each Warboss receive 1 wound?

AFAIK, this is not covered by the rules. Thoughts?

Models with identical stats and wargear are grouped into the same wound group.

Models in a wound group with multiple wounds have to assign wounds to already wounded models.

So, you'd end up with 1 Warboss who has taken 2 wounds and 1 Warboss that is unwounded.

And, they can't choose to leave the unit right then. They have to wait until their movement phase.

What is clear to me in the rules for this scenario is that the warbosses roll their wounds together.

What is not so clear is what happens with the 2 wounds. For the record, warbosses have 3 wounds and in this scenario there were 2 unsaved.

The rules for units of multiple-wound models on page 26 states that you must remove whole models as casualties where possible and wound may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models.

So in your example the warbosses have not suffered enough unsaved wounds to result in a casualty. Therefore, it is up to the player of the orks to decide if they want to give 2 unsaved wounds to one warboss or 1 to each.

Grakmar wrote:Models with identical stats and wargear are grouped into the same wound group.

Models in a wound group with multiple wounds have to assign wounds to already wounded models.

So, you'd end up with 1 Warboss who has taken 2 wounds and 1 Warboss that is unwounded.

And, they can't choose to leave the unit right then. They have to wait until their movement phase.

Entirely correct. Note that during assault, the warbosses don't form a wound group, as they do not count as a single unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

haendas wrote:What is clear to me in the rules for this scenario is that the warbosses roll their wounds together.

What is not so clear is what happens with the 2 wounds. For the record, warbosses have 3 wounds and in this scenario there were 2 unsaved.

The rules for units of multiple-wound models on page 26 states that you must remove whole models as casualties where possible and wound may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models.

So in your example the warbosses have not suffered enough unsaved wounds to result in a casualty. Therefore, it is up to the player of the orks to decide if they want to give 2 unsaved wounds to one warboss or 1 to each.

The rules also say that you must wound already wounded models if possible. So you can put the second wound on the unwounded warboss.

Jidmah wrote:
The rules also say that you must wound already wounded models if possible. So you can put the second wound on the unwounded warboss.

I'm assuming you meant to say "can't". While that makes sense, I can't seem to find where it says that in the rulebook. A little help please? Thanks.

Yeah "can't". I'll look it up at home, right now I'm at work, so no BRB at hand.

Jidmah wrote:Yeah "can't". I'll look it up at home, right now I'm at work, so no BRB at hand.

Copy that. Thanks, Jidmah.

There is an example on page 26 that could be interpreted to mean that wounds must first go to wounded models, and I can understand that interpretation. The problem is that it doesn't say that explicitly. It is a situation with 2 wound nobs when 1 nob has already suffered a wound. The example forces the player to take the wound on the nob. This goes back to you can't 'spread around' wounds to avoid removing models.

The problem I am getting hung up on with the original example, is that there is no casualty. It is probably safe to say that Jidmah is correct, because if the unit takes a 3rd unsaved wound from a different set of shots, and if you are permitted to split the wounds up as I thought possible, then you would have 2 warbosses that have suffered a total of 3 wounds, yet both are still alive. One with 1 wound remaining and the other with 2. That would go against spreading wounds around to avoid removing models, even though it did occur during two separate instances of shots and wounds.

I guess my gut thinks that Jidmah is correct and the wounds must be allocated on already wounded models. I just haven't seen it put forth so cut and dry in the rules yet.

Edit: What is absolutely clear to me in the rules and so far undisputed is that the warbosses in this example roll their wounds together as a wound group.

This isnt fantasy. Wounds dont hang around waiting to be applied until enough have accrued to kill a model - they are applied there and then.

1 warboss is left on 1 wound, as the wound group of "2 warbosses" has suffered 2 wounds, and you CANNOT place a wound on an unwounded model when the same wound group has a wounded model in it.

ENtirely, 100% completely covered in the rules for complex units and multiple wound models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:you CANNOT place a wound on an unwounded model when the same wound group has a wounded model in it.

I still can't find where it says that in the rule book. It says that you can't spread around wounds to avoid removing a model as a casualty, but I can't find where it says what I quoted above.

"Wounds may not be "spread around" to...." is the important bit

You may not spread wounds around, with one effect being "to remove models". You dont get a different wound-removal just because you have caused less wounds than the model has left.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This isnt fantasy. Wounds dont hang around waiting to be applied until enough have accrued to kill a model - they are applied there and then.

Yes, actually they are:

Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models. Track any excess wounds with a note or a marker as noted above.

(above)

Keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered . . . by placing a dice or marker next to them

(or writing it down, but I don't think it changes the calculus to remove that bit)

Unless you receive enough wounds to kill one of the Warbosses outright, you are to "track any excess wounds . . . by placing a dice or marker next to them [such multiple-wound models]."

I understand your stance, nos, and a large part of me agrees.

The exact wording of the rule book that we are talking about is in reference to wounds resulting in casualties though. This doesn't apply exactly in the scenario above since there is no chance of a casualty in this situation.

Pg. 26
"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

That is all of the RAW that I can find to govern this debate. Like I said, I see where you are coming from, and agree to an extent, but I don't think it is as clear cut as people are making it out to be.

"He cannot put a single wound on each Nob, but must remove one model as well as recording that one normal Nob has suffered a wound.[...] The unit is then fired upon by another enemy and suffers a single wound. This will automatically kill the wounded Nob and cannot be allocated to the remaining healthy Nob."(BRB. pg 26)

Note that the wounded Nob is a specific model picked from the wound group, so no floating wounds. In addition, if you split up the two wounds and suffer a third one, you are not removing models whenever possible.

I kind of hate to debate this, but I read the example pretty closely and it is also dealing with a scenario of wound allocation that prohibits a player from spreading wounds around in order to avoid removing a casualty. Clearly you are forced allocate wounds that will result in a casualty, no debate here. It just doesn't apply exactly to this situation since there is no possibility of a casualty. For what it is worth, my gut still agrees with nos and jidmah. I just think I would have a hard time proving it against an opponent who could be as stubborn with the interpretation as I am trying to be in this thread.

Biccat - read the WHOLE paragraph ext time:

"When such a multiple wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile"

SO, it DOES lose a wound from its profile, and the "marker" simply indicates that this has occured

Wounds do not just float around, waiting to be applied, unlike in fantasy.

Haendas - "you may not spread wounds around" is the rule.

"If the Warbosses choose to leave the unit, how should the wounds be allocated?"

That is the key issue. In short, the Warbosses can not "choose to leave the unit" until his next movement phase. They are part of the unit until the entire unit (the 10 Boyz and the 2 bosses) is either killed off or his next movement phase where he can split the bosses of by moving outside of 2" from the Boyz. Even if the Ork player removes models closest to the bosses to get them 2" away from the remaining boyz, they are then treated as a unit out of coherency (although as ICs in the movemnt phase they can then split off rather than having to move to regain coherency).
The bosses have to take the saves IAW the BRB regarding wound allocation on like models (ie: 1 boss has to take both wounds since they are like models in a single unit).

No, the point is that the instant they suffer an unsaved wound, their profile of Wounds is altered. Thats it. It doesnt matter what they do after that - their profile has already been altered.

The question seems to indicate that the poster believes wounds are left "floating" until enough exist to kill a model. This is not true.

nosferatu1001 wrote: "you may not spread wounds around" is the rule.

Not quite. "Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models" is the rule.

The rule is: Wounds may not be spread around

"to avoid removing models" is a consequence of that rule, not a condition.

"wounds may not be spread around" is an absolute condition.

Ultimately, my opinion of the intent agrees with how you interpret the rule, nos. While I don't think it would convince a stubborn opponent, I like the thought process you laid out in your last post. I also play it the way you interpret it so I'm going to leave it at that. Thank you for talking that over.

No worries - i think it comes down to not reading it as a required whole, but as a requirement -> result statement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - read the WHOLE paragraph ext time:

I did. Implying that I'm deliberately misquoting or engaging in deception violates at least Rule #1. I assume you argue in good faith, I would appreciate (although maybe not expect) the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"When such a multiple wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile"

The section you're quoting doesn't apply because it is for single models with multiple wounds. Units of multiple wound models (or groups of multiple-wound models in a unit) is handled in the next section.

That section simply tells you to track the wounds as described in the paragraph you're quoting, which has no other relevance to the current debate.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SO, it DOES lose a wound from its profile, and the "marker" simply indicates that this has occured

Again, incorrect, see above. The section on groups of multiple-wound models tells you to track the changes 'as above', not to follow all of those rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wounds do not just float around, waiting to be applied, unlike in fantasy.

According to the rules they do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"wounds may not be spread around" is an absolute condition.

We've already seen that there exist cases where you don't believe this is an "absolute condition," so I'm finding this argument not persuasive.

And they relate back to the basic rules for multiwound models. Same as usual - simple case -> complex case.
Making a note of "those wounds" is to show that the model HAS lost wounds - else what does the unsaved wound marker represent?

Its meaningless otherwise. Your argument is bunk

nosferatu1001 wrote:Making a note of "those wounds" is to show that the model HAS lost wounds - else what does the unsaved wound marker represent?

It represents wounds that the group of identical multi-wound models has lost, a "floating wound" if you prefer. Once you have enough you remove a whole model.

Except the rules keep referring back up to the multi wound model wounds. The note refers to THE wounds THE model that took them has lost. Nothing else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the rules keep referring back up to the multi wound model wounds. The note refers to THE wounds THE model that took them has lost. Nothing else.

No, the rules don't refer back to the multi-wound model section:

Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models. Track any excess wounds with a note or a marker as noted above

Determine number of unsaved wounds.
Remove whole models where possible.
Track excess wounds.

As has been explained a number of times in this forum, except where there's a single model with multiple wounds, models do not suffer unsaved wounds, units (or groups of multiple-wound models) do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the point is that the instant they suffer an unsaved wound, their profile of Wounds is altered. Thats it. It doesnt matter what they do after that - their profile has already been altered.

Umm...

What are you smoking? Their profile has been altered? Where in the world are you coming up with this? There is nothing in the rules to support this and some examples that don't.

As for your 'interpretation' of the 'Wounds may not be spread around to avoid removing models'...

Well, I obviously need some of what you are smoking. You usually make solid arguments, but this is the first time I can recall where you are only quoting part of a rule to make your argument.

biccat - and where does "as noted above" actually refer back to?

"keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered on a piece of scarp paper...." (Multiple Wound models, p26, 2nd para, 3rd sentence)

and what is that referencing?

"When such a multiple wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile" (Multiple wound models, p26, 2nd para, 1st sentence. As in, the actual part which tells yuo WHAT "noting this on a piece of paper" is representing - an alteration to the models Profile)

So yes, it DOES reference the standard Multiple wound rules. Unless you can please, for once, actually find a rule to back up your assertion that it doesnt? SOmewhere between para1 and para4, 3rd sentence (where "as noted above" is contained) I assume you will be able to find *any* sentence which talks about "note or a marker as noted above", as you have claimed in your assertion?

Anything?

No, because it doesnt exist. The only time the use of a marker is reference is where I have posted - meaning you argument is disproven, again.

Just like the wound allocation on identically equipped sergeants, there are cogent arguments on both sides of the fence.

They guy I talked to at GW said same time, another poster says he talked to James there and was told separately.

There's no FAQ, and the rules can be interpreted either way and need clarification.

I say, play it the way you've been playing it with your gaming circle, and wait for the FAQ.

My two cents, anyway.

Only if you ignore the rules on p26, which states clearly that models lose wounds from their profile, not that wounds hang around.

Also the rule is you cannot spread wounds around - arguably no matter what, if you spread wounds around you ARE avoiding casualties, even if you dont pass sufficient wounds around at that point you are avoiding a future casualty.