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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." Page 16.

For same save units you roll saves, and suffer wounds before allocation.

The save comes from the models in the unit as a whole, as they all have the same value.

If one wound is suffered then any one model in the unit could have failed that armor save.

If all of the models have the swarm rule, then that unsaved wound is doubled into 2 unsaved wounds (Because of vulnerable) and then you allocate those two unsaved wounds, one at a time, and find out you need to remove a whole base for the first ID wound, and a whole base for the second ID wound.

The part I put in italics is true in that the unit has suffered wounds, hence they are in the pool. The unit still does not have Swarm, only models do.

The part in bold does not exist in RAW. The Swarm special rule does not have any qualifier stating 'If all of the models in the unit have the swarm rule, then...(X effect)'. The rule does not state any effect on the unit as a whole unlike other special rules ie. stealth. Therefore the individual models in the unit take double wounds, not the unit as a whole.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." Page 16.

For same save units you roll saves, and suffer wounds before allocation.

The save comes from the models in the unit as a whole, as they all have the same value.

If one wound is suffered then any one model in the unit could have failed that armor save.

If all of the models have the swarm rule, then that unsaved wound is doubled into 2 unsaved wounds (Because of vulnerable) and then you allocate those two unsaved wounds, one at a time, and find out you need to remove a whole base for the first ID wound, and a whole base for the second ID wound.

Does not matter, DR. You "always" allocate and roll saves. The method for same save units is just to save time. The shooting phase rules breakdown (page 12 I think?) shows you the steps that are always taken and the order they are taken.

Even the saving throw rules that you quoted make the statement that you make a saving throw when a wound is allocated to the model.

"To take an armour save, roll a D6 and compare the results to the
Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated
the Wound."

Of course all that has been brought up before literally in this thread and DR denies its validity.

rigeld2 wrote:
Of course all that has been brought up before literally in this thread and DR denies its validity.

I know, but it's fun to ignore this thread for a few days just to find it's in the exact same spot.

This thread reminds me, I should look up the assault rules and go over it in detail to find out if I need to make another long debate over mandatory multi-assaults(disorganized assaults I think they're called now) ;-)

A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, because a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

so assuiming that allocating 2 ID wounds to a model when other models are eligible isnt a good enough reason to interpret the rules differently,

lets work on the basis that this all really is happening at the same time as wounds are "suffered"

there are several things happening,

all at once,

at the "suffered wound" stage,

the swarms rule doubling of the wound, allocation of the wound (and apparently the 2nd one as well, it has to be allocated somewhere), and removal of the model(or reduction of its W's)

since these all happen at the "suffer" stage as some are claiming,

then as per pg 9, the player whose turn it is gets to chose the order

so controlling player can double the wounds, then allocated,

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, becayse a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

You continue to ignore that a wound is not suffered until allocation. You have no backing for this whatsoever, just like you didn't before.

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Not necessarily. Some might be in cover. But for the moment agreed.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

See above.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, becayse a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

And you continue to ignore the fact that a wound is not suffered until it is actually allocated. What happens if 5 of the 10 models are hit, and 5 of the 10 models are completely out of sight?

easysauce wrote:
so assuiming that allocating 2 ID wounds to a model when other models are eligible isnt a good enough reason to interpret the rules differently,

Stop here. No one is allocating 2 wounds at once. Stop lying, you've been corrected too many times.

lets work on the basis that this all really is happening at the same time as wounds are "suffered"

there are several things happening,

O... kay.

all at once,

at the "suffered wound" stage,

the swarms rule doubling of the wound, allocation of the wound (and apparently the 2nd one as well, it has to be allocated somewhere), and removal of the model(or reduction of its W's)

since these all happen at the "suffer" stage as some are claiming,

then as per pg 9, the player whose turn it is gets to chose the order

so controlling player can double the wounds, then allocated,

Well, no.

They don't happen at the same time. The Blast wound is allocated to a model. The model suffers the wound (W is reduced or base removed). Now that a Swarm model has suffered a wound, the wound already on the model is doubled. If the base is removed before doubling there's nothing to double.

Again, you have no basis for doubling wounds prior to allocation. Once allocated, the doubled wound is now on a model. To put it back in the Pool you need permission. You can try to play timing games but they keep ignoring that basic fact.

except page 16 says you "suffer" a wound after you fail a save,

which can happen before, or after allocation, depending on the save process you use

one says allocate, save, suffer,

one says save suffer allocate,

again mixed saves is not normal saves,

now where in the books does it say suffered must beafter alocation,

also if the swarm wound is not allocated, then by your definition it is not suffered, and then is pointless, so why even 2x it anyways, no model has been allocated it, so who do we apply the wound to?
no one apparently, the wound just "disapears" despite there being eligible models who actualy have wounds left
which is wrong, but thats what follows by stating suffered=allocated,

even stating allocation ALWAYS happen before suffering is false,

PG 16 says the model has suffered a wound after failing a save,

pg 15 puts saves before allocation in normal saves,
then for mixed saves says allocate, then save

Page 16 also states that the model has been allocated a wound first so trying to say that it's the save that is causing this cannot be claimed. Find a location where allocation does not happen and the term suffer is used in conjunction with a failed save. I have post several times where the opposite is true, that unsaved wounds require allocation before the wound is considered suffered. Further study of the BRB shows that when a model fails it's Dangerous terrain test it suffers a wound then can take a save.

Show me anything anywhere that states that wounds can never be lost or not allocated. You can't it doesn't exist.

As has also been posted, the same saves method is used to speed up the game that is it. It's a way to help the game go faster by allowing saves to happen all at once then you allocate the wounds.

easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Not necessarily. Some might be in cover. But for the moment agreed.

I meant same armor save, I should have been more clear.

you continue to ignore the fact that a wound is not suffered until it is actually allocated. What happens if 5 of the 10 models are hit, and 5 of the 10 models are completely out of sight?

Page 16 disagrees with that.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

This is before allocation on a unit with the same armor save, as you roll armor saves before wound allocation, therefore wounds are suffered before allocation in this case.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit that consists of 10 Ripper Swarm Bases will all have the same save.

Therefore the save value is the same for every model in the unit.

Any given model has the Swarm rule, therefore any given model, that fails its save creates an unsaved wound and is thusly doubled into two unsaved wounds, because a model with the swarm USR did, in fact, fail its armor save.

You continue to try to ignore this fact, but you have no backing whatsoever.

You continue to ignore that a wound is not suffered until allocation. You have no backing for this whatsoever, just like you didn't before.

Wounds are suffered before allocation, as I have proven.

Again you are quoting part of that section where allocation is part of it. Find a single location where failing a save is referred to as suffering without allocation and you might have a leg to stand on. Your entire argument is based off a section that includes both a failed save and an allocation that could refer to either portion. Since both are present there is no way of telling which has caused this to occur. Looking at both Perils of the Warp and Dangerous Terrain tests they use suffer before you get to take your save. If suffering means failing a save then you could not take a save as it would have already been failed. If it means a wound being allocated or placed onto a model then you do. Which way do you read it as? You get no save or you can take the save?

The rules for same saves direct us to Page 16 where it tells you how to take an armor save.

It applies, and confirms my statements.

Just because it was not allocated (Specific Vs General) does not mean a wound was not suffered.

P.S. you do not get a save Vs. Perils of the warp.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for same saves direct us to Page 16 where it tells you how to take an armor save.

It applies, and confirms my statements.

Just because it was not allocated (Specific Vs General) does not mean a wound was not suffered.

P.S. you do not get a save Vs. Perils of the warp.

DR, seeing as how easysauce hasn't answered my question maybe you will.

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

You are making a false assumption there. You cannot prove that it is the save that causes the wound to be suffered as opposed to the allocation. You have a single instance that is ambiguous while I have shown you multiple other locations where it tells you that only wounds allocated are suffered by a model. By your line of thinking a unit that takes any save other then armour does not suffer a wound as that is the only save that the suffer terminology is used for after a failed save. Invulnerable saves directly counter your argument as they state they are taken after a wound is suffered.

Invuln saves p 17
Determining Assault results pg 26
Dangerous Terrain Tests pg 90
BRB FAQ FNP and Perils pg 4
BRB FAQ challeneges and excess wounds pg 6

All of the above are areas where suffers are used either in the place of allocation or where a wound is directly placed onto a model without allocation, ie forced allocation as opposed to following wound allocation rules.

In the case of Perils why would they even list that you do not get a to take a save if suffered means that a save has been failed?

I still don't see that it matters. Nothing with Swarm has been wounded until an unsaved wound, assigned to a model with the special rule causes it's wound profile to get reduced or in this case, causes ID. You cannot say it was wounded before it was wounded so at the time the model with Swarm takes the wound from the blast weapon, that is when that wound is doubled.

Doubling wounds prior to allocation would only occur if the unit had the Swarm rule, which it does not.

plenty of rules will say suffered by the model,

this one does not,

it simply adds to unsaved wounds caused

easysauce, is there a reason you have not responded to my question (other than perhaps the fact I referred to you as easy)?

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

dont have ork codex in front of me,

but nobs still have 2 wounds each IIRC,

and has suffered 5 entropic strike unsaved wounds,

so two nobs die, one left with one wound and the ES effect

It doesn't have to say suffered by a model, technically none of them do. All USR's are attributes of a model not a unit. The only ones that apply to the whole unit are the ones that say they apply to the whole unit such as stealth. The Swarms USR does specifically state that they are wounds suffered not wounds caused. I know you know the wording of the Swarms USR by this point, therefor I know you know that the word caused does not appear in the USR at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

dont have ork codex in front of me,

but nobs still have 2 wounds each IIRC,

and has suffered 5 entropic strike unsaved wounds,

so two nobs die, one left with one wound and the ES effect

This still does not cover the why of the question. By the above you are applying the ES effect only to the models that are allocated wounds but with swarms you are applying it to the entire unit. Why are you applying nearly identical wording two different ways?

the ES effect does not cause additional wounds,

and while the model may have the swarms rule, so does other models being affected, that does not detract from the models in the unit being eligible to suffer the wounds,

yet those wounds are being "suffered" models that already are at 0 W and cannot suffer further wounds (wounds only "dissapear" when no eligible models exist, IE challenges, or over kill, otherwise they must be allocated until there are none left)

which is why it is different, causing new wounds is a different effect


you do not have rules for allocating ES's like you have rules for allocating wounds

there is also not a conflict with written rules when a model suffers 2x effects of ES (we remove the model at 0 wounds, not at -1), 2xes is in fact the same as 1ES

where as two unsaved wounds, is not the same as one, nothing says to allocate it on to the same model, or that that model suffers it, nor that it is legal for a model to suffer more wounds then are on its profile.


answer these please gravmyr/happyjew:

what leads you to believe the wounds caused by swarms are not created?

Why do those wounds go onto the model the prior wound went on instead of following the normal process for created wounds?

what rule says you make a model suffer more wounds then it is able to suffer, despite there being eligible models to properly suffer that wound?

 Happyjew wrote:

DR, seeing as how easysauce hasn't answered my question maybe you will.

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

Easy enough.

As ES says any model that suffers a wound from ES will lose their armor save, so 5 orks would lose their armor save if they are not killed outright.

Note ES's wording is different than the Swarm rule wording, as Swarm says "If a Swarm suffers..." not "any model that suffers"

The two things are different do not conflate the two rules.

easysauce wrote:
what leads you to believe the wounds caused by swarms are not created?

When has anyone said the extra wounds are not created? They are still created they just get applied to the model that suffers the original wound.

Why do those wounds go onto the model the prior wound went on instead of following the normal process for created wounds?

Because the wound is generated when a model suffers a wound, not a unit.

what rule says you make a model suffer more wounds then it is able to suffer, despite there being eligible models to properly suffer that wound?

The fact that a model has to suffer an unsaved wound before it can be doubled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

DR, seeing as how easysauce hasn't answered my question maybe you will.

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

Easy enough.

As ES says any model that suffers a wound from ES will lose their armor save, so 5 orks would lose their armor save if they are not killed outright.

Note ES's wording is different than the Swarm rule wording, as Swarm says "If a Swarm suffers..." not "any model that suffers"

The two things are different do not conflate the two rules.

At least you are consistent. The wording for ES says "a Swarm" instead of "any model" as it only applies to a model with the swarm special rule.

easysauce wrote:
plenty of rules will say suffered by the model,

this one does not,

it simply adds to unsaved wounds caused

So Swarms are not models? You're looking at the effect of the rule, not the cause. Whats the trigger? Hint - it includes the word "suffer".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules for same saves direct us to Page 16 where it tells you how to take an armor save.

It applies, and confirms my statements.

Just because it was not allocated (Specific Vs General) does not mean a wound was not suffered.

P.S. you do not get a save Vs. Perils of the warp.

The Same Save method is a way to speed up rolling, not a change to the rules on page 12, 15, and 16 that state to allocate and then save.
This has been pointed out before, and ignored. So again - this argument is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
easy, I have a question for you. This has nothing to do with swarms or ID, but with suffering wounds.

Entropic strike says that any model that suffers one or more wounds from ES loses its armour save for the remiander of the battle. Let's say I have a 10 man squad of Nobz. They are all kitted out exactly the same. The unit suffers 5 wounds from ES. How many models lose their armour saves? Why?

dont have ork codex in front of me,

but nobs still have 2 wounds each IIRC,

and has suffered 5 entropic strike unsaved wounds,

so two nobs die, one left with one wound and the ES effect

So - magically - Nobs that suffer wounds prior to allocation don't have their armor save stripped, but Swarms that suffer wounds prior to allocation have incoming wounds doubled?

Ignoring the fact that you don't suffer wounds prior to allocation, that's inconsistent. Please correct my obvious misunderstanding of your statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Note ES's wording is different than the Swarm rule wording, as Swarm says "If a Swarm suffers..." not "any model that suffers"

The two things are different do not conflate the two rules.

Is Swarm a rule that applies to a model, or a unit?
Would you agree with the statement, "If a model with the Swarm rule suffers..." Is functionally equivalent to the correct Swarm rule?

easysauce wrote:
the ES effect does not cause additional wounds,

and while the model may have the swarms rule, so does other models being affected, that does not detract from the models in the unit being eligible to suffer the wounds,

yet those wounds are being "suffered" models that already are at 0 W and cannot suffer further wounds (wounds only "dissapear" when no eligible models exist, IE challenges, or over kill, otherwise they must be allocated until there are none left)

You are still missing the point that wounds are not being created in the pool they are doubling to two on a model. If you had a deal with your bank that said for every dollar deposited, read model, they would post two to your account and I wrote you a check for a dollar they would not take two out of my account, read wound pool. Your account would still have two dollars in it yet the wound pool would still have only been lower by one.

easysauce wrote:
you do not have rules for allocating ES's like you have rules for allocating wounds

The rules for allocating wounds are the rules for allocating ES as any model that has suffered an unsaved wound looses it's armour save. They have nearly identical wording yet you are applying them at two different times by your logic.

easysauce wrote:
there is also not a conflict with written rules when a model suffers 2x effects of ES (we remove the model at 0 wounds, not at -1), 2xes is in fact the same as 1ES

where as two unsaved wounds, is not the same as one, nothing says to allocate it on to the same model, or that that model suffers it, nor that it is legal for a model to suffer more wounds then are on its profile.

As the Swarms USR states that a model that suffers an unsaved wound has that wound doubled to two the wound is not in the pool when it doubles on the model so when you would remove one wound from the model you instead remove two.

easysauce wrote:
answer these please gravmyr/happyjew:

what leads you to believe the wounds caused by swarms are not created?

The fact that the wound is doubled at the model level negates any statement that you would put it back into the wound pool. Show any rule that allows you to take a wound off a model and put it into the wound pool. It's like an amoeba one has become two a second wound does not spontaneously appear in the nether it is already on a model.

easysauce wrote:
Why do those wounds go onto the model the prior wound went on instead of following the normal process for created wounds?

As above the wounds becomes two at the model level not at the unit level.

easysauce wrote:
what rule says you make a model suffer more wounds then it is able to suffer, despite there being eligible models to properly suffer that wound?

There is no rule governing this. The only rule that exists covering wounds and models is one that says you can't allocate more wounds to a model then it has in it's wounds characteristic. Since the second wound is not being allocated it does not break any rule.

deathreaper can you answer my questions?
In the case of Perils why would they even list that you do not get a to take a save if suffered means that a save has been failed?

In the case of Dangerous terrain tests you get to take a save after failing it, how if suffered means failing a save?

In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions only counting the wounds suffered by the character not the unsaved wounds in the pool. How can this be as all the unsaved wounds would be suffered by your definition?

well i guess if you ignore normal saves rule as just a convention,

except its not

mixed saves has stipulations on when it can be used , as it can ONLY be used in units with mixed saves,

its not just a section of rules to be ignored,

I think this one is unclear enough that neither side can really be blamed for either interpretation,

needs a FAQ for sure, and it will be,

so well have to see what GW says, till then ask TO's and opponents

for what its worth here are the last two edition's wording of the swarms/vunerable to blast, where it was FAQ'ed to say "yes ID and swarms do stack, take off two models"

just to shed light on GW's wording, and how these RAI, and how they are also written alsmot identically.

so 40k 4th edition where ID and "vunerable to blast" rule for swarms stacked (at this time there was no UsR for swarms, swarms were a type of unit)

pg 76
vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"


40k 5th edition, also where they stack

"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."


6th edition
"If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds."



4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID

in 6th,
no mention of unit or model, and no not all UsR's mean model level,
sould blaze for instance goes off when the "unit suffers on or more unsaved wounds"

every other UsR specifies model or unit,

Swarm just says Swarms, like the rules makers are referring to a unit type Swarms still like the prev two editions had.


so lets stop talking RAW, since its unclear, and I dont think either side really has a "slam dunk" on this one

what do you think the RAI is?

How can you quote a rule and misquote it at the same time?!

Your quote 4E: "vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"

Your quote 5E:"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."

And after these you go and write "4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID". (!) You either can't even understand what yourself is writing or you have become so desperate to back up your argument that you think we won't notice something so blatantly wrong in your posts.

Anyway that is the big difference from 5E (and 4E) to 6E. The rule has changed from unit based to model based, and thus the mechanics involving how the wounds get doubled have changed accordingly. In 5E (and 4E) the unit suffered 2 wounds instead of 1, in 6E the model suffers 2 wounds instead of 1.