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 cannot recall if I have seen this caveat before (maybe I just invented it), but if you join two of the exact same Independent Character (for example two Herald of Khorne on Bloodcrusher):

Do they count as a single wound allocation group?

i.e. A unit of 3 BloodCrushers with 2 identical Heralds of Khorne take 10 wounds. Do you roll the Herald's 4 saves together as a single allocation group and remove casualties from that group?

Edit: Whoops, left the priests in the example from my original question!

Short answer, Yes.

Yes.

Just don't try to leave the unit, otherwise you'll have to figure out what to do with the wounds.

biccat wrote:Yes.

Just don't try to leave the unit, otherwise you'll have to figure out what to do with the wounds.

That wouldn't matter, they're identically equipped which means all wounds have to go on one model until it is dead, so even if you split them off you'd still have 1 unharmed and 1 with two wounds (or whatever).

Kevin949 wrote:

biccat wrote:Yes.

Just don't try to leave the unit, otherwise you'll have to figure out what to do with the wounds.

That wouldn't matter, they're identically equipped which means all wounds have to go on one model until it is dead, so even if you split them off you'd still have 1 unharmed and 1 with two wounds (or whatever).

Actually that's not a problem biccat, once the armor save is failed the wound is put on a specific model of the two. There will be no floating wounds.

Kevin, your statement is wrong in this instance. You do not have to allocate all wounds received by that wound group to one model. The only time that the "you must remove whole models as casualties where possible" clause kicks in is if there are enough unsaved wounds to remove one of the models in a single phase, or an instant death causing attack. If two wounds come into that group in one turn, it is perfectly okay to place one wound on each of the two identical models.

Lone Dragoon wrote:If two wounds come into that group in one turn, it is perfectly okay to place one wound on each of the two identical models.

False. If you're confused by the wording of the rules on page 26, the example should sort you out.

I should clarify that I was talking about a pair of identical 3 wound independent characters. If the wound group fails 2 wounds, the wounds may be allocated to two different models as there have not been enough wounds to remove a full model. You need not allocate both wounds to a single model in an identical wound group. There is nothing in the rules that specifically states that wounds in an identical group must be allocated all to a single model until it is dead. So long as it is not enough wounds to remove a full model, it may be allocated amongst the models in the unit.

Lone Dragoon wrote:I should clarify that I was talking about a pair of identical 3 wound independent characters. If the wound group fails 2 wounds, the wounds may be allocated to two different models as there have not been enough wounds to remove a full model. You need not allocate both wounds to a single model in an identical wound group. There is nothing in the rules that specifically states that wounds in an identical group must be allocated all to a single model until it is dead. So long as it is not enough wounds to remove a full model, it may be allocated amongst the models in the unit.

Ex. (Pg. 26) "If the unit suffers nine wounds, the player
must allocate two on each model, leaving a spare
wound that he will allocate on a normal Nob. The
player then takes seven saves for the three normal
Nobz, failing three. 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."

That example begs to differ with what you said. Considering it says you cannot "spread wounds around" that leads to understand that wounds are given to one model at a time until they overflow to the next eligible model in the wound group.

Kevin949 wrote:That example begs to differ with what you said. Considering it says you cannot "spread wounds around" that leads to understand that wounds are given to one model at a time until they overflow to the next eligible model in the wound group.

And I read it differently. You don't give a wound to a "normal Nob", you record "that one normal Nob" has suffered a wound. Later, if you get enough wounds, you take out a whole Nob. But you don't have to designate which Nob has lost a wound.

Lone Dragoon wrote:I should clarify that I was talking about a pair of identical 3 wound independent characters. If the wound group fails 2 wounds, the wounds may be allocated to two different models as there have not been enough wounds to remove a full model. You need not allocate both wounds to a single model in an identical wound group. There is nothing in the rules that specifically states that wounds in an identical group must be allocated all to a single model until it is dead. So long as it is not enough wounds to remove a full model, it may be allocated amongst the models in the unit.

I'm afraid this is an incorrect reading of the rule.

If two ICs with multiplewounds and identical wargear/statlines/names are in the same unit, they are treated as a single wound group and will receive wounds on a single model until that model has lost all of its wounds and is removed. Then the second model will receive wounds as normal. This occurs exactly the same way if there are 2 identical, multi-wound models or if there are 10.

This is the very reason why people give Paladins/Nobs/Wraiths different wargear wherever possible. If this wasn't the case, there would be no reason nor benefit to differentiating wargear for wound allocation purposes.

However, the rules for assaulting are a more complicated issue. Each IC is still an IC and treated as a single unit for the purposes of hits in melee combat so they would not count as a single wound allocation group.

DoW

biccat wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:That example begs to differ with what you said. Considering it says you cannot "spread wounds around" that leads to understand that wounds are given to one model at a time until they overflow to the next eligible model in the wound group.

And I read it differently. You don't give a wound to a "normal Nob", you record "that one normal Nob" has suffered a wound. Later, if you get enough wounds, you take out a whole Nob. But you don't have to designate which Nob has lost a wound.

Maybe not in the instance of the Nobs but you certainly would in the case of two identical IC's being joined to one another as one wound group, or joined to the same unit. While they may be temporarily one unit, they are still two separate units in the army. But the purposes of wound allocation from shooting, all wounds would be on one model in that wound group until a whole model is removed (or if inflicted by ID).

They are only two separate units for: KP, DoW deployment, and FOC slots, as well as briefly in CC (unless I missed something). While they are together they are for all intents and purposes 1 unit.

To Calypso's original question, they're the same wound group, but I *think* you guys are interpreting the "spread wounds" phraseology incorrectly. The rule doesn't state that you can't distribute the wounds evenly - it states you can't do so if the alternative would kill a model.

This can only possibly apply to 3w or more models, and for the first two wounds only. The example on pp. 26 doesn't clarify this at all. Wraiths are irrelevant, Nobs are irrelevant - both are 2w models, for both the rule kicks in when receiving only 2 wounds. it's what Dragoon said, I think - if you take two wounds on a unit of two 3w models, you can apply one to each. I can quote the appropriate sentences on the fourth paragraph of the second column on pp. 26...

"...you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

It doesn't say wounds absolutely may not be 'spread around' - it says they can't be to avoid removing models. In the case of a unit of 3w models receiving two wounds, there's no chance of removing a model.

That's interesting. So as long as Tyranid Warriors only suffer one wound at a time, they'll stick around for a significant amount of time.

I'm not sure I buy it, but it's interesting. I think I'll just watch the discussion.

rigeld, I agree. I like it, and my army lists may need to add a lot more Warriors and carnifexes.

Kevin949 wrote:While they may be temporarily one unit, they are still two separate units in the army.

No, they're still considered one unit.

rigeld2 wrote:That's interesting. So as long as Tyranid Warriors only suffer one wound at a time, they'll stick around for a significant amount of time.

Unless you "record[] that one normal [Warrior] has suffered a wound" separately, and don't assign it to an individual model.

Happyjew wrote:rigeld, I agree. I like it, and my army lists may need to add a lot more Warriors and carnifexes.

You mean there's a practical application to this? Hunh. I was actually thinking, "not that it matters..."

DogOfWar wrote: ...they are treated as a single wound group and will receive wounds on a single model until that model has lost all of its wounds and is removed.

It's key to note that the rule specifically does NOT say this.

Randall Turner wrote:

Happyjew wrote:rigeld, I agree. I like it, and my army lists may need to add a lot more Warriors and carnifexes.

You mean there's a practical application to this? Hunh. I was actually thinking, "not that it matters..."

It doesn't REALLY matter, because as soon as you receive a 2 wound hit (or 3 wounds on Carnifexes) to that wound group after already receiving one, you have to remove a model. But it'll help some.

This is actually in response to a comment I made on an army list. I suggested differentiating slightly (use the Heralds as an example, give one an instrument) the IC's attached to a unit to provide an additional wound allocation group.

The response I received was IC always count as their own group, which I did not think was correct and I wanted to verify.

Isn't spreading the wounds across several 3W models the same thing as this: "Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

Why are you spreading the wounds? To prevent having to remove whole models - maybe not in this shooting phase, but in the next one for sure. I will checkup again when I have the BRB nearby.

calypso2ts wrote:Isn't spreading the wounds across several 3W models the same thing as this: "Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

Why are you spreading the wounds? To prevent having to remove whole models - maybe not in this shooting phase, but in the next one for sure. I will checkup again when I have the BRB nearby.

My interpretation is that "to avoid removing models" means, "NOW", ie, does not include "to lower the probability of having to remove models from hypothetical wounds received in a subsequent round". Check the FAQ's too, though, no wording on the pp26 original rule semes to address this.

Edit: I can't be arsed, supposed to be working here...

Randall was able to make my point for me, about if you do not deal enough wounds to actually kill a model you may spread the wounds around.

And actually it can (and sometimes does) matter. Tyranid warriors are a good example in which it matters (yeah they're not IC), but with two wounds done to the unit, you can spread it out on 2 models. If a single wound comes in, it can go on a third warrior. You have managed to take 3 wounds at different times during a turn, and still haven't lost a model. It's a perfectly legal thing to do according to the rules. The whole quote of, "Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models" is only from a single attack, such as being shot by an enemy unit. To show that, if the unit has 3 wounds from being shot that have failed saves, then those three wounds must be allocated to a single model because the rules tell us they must. With my example previously given, those three wounds if caused over 2 enemy units shooting at the Warriors, may be allocated to different members of the squad. If something comes up that would force two unsaved wounds, then one of those one wound models must be removed. However, so long as you are receiving a single wound at a time in these examples you are free to allocate them to different members of the squad. Nothing prevents this, and it is following all the rules laid out under allocation of wounds.

Page 26, second column, 5th paragraph, the last two sentences..

Here it shows that if a unit is attacked by a different unit that causes a single unsaved wound, this must be applied to the already wounded model, and not a healthy model.

So if the 3 wounds are caused at different times they must still be applied to a single model, and not 'spread around' as suggested.

Lone Dragoon wrote:However, so long as you are receiving a single wound at a time in these examples you are free to allocate them to different members of the squad. Nothing prevents this, and it is following all the rules laid out under allocation of wounds.

So sadly this is prevented.

grendel083 wrote:Page 26, second column, 5th paragraph, the last two sentences..

Here it shows that if a unit is attacked by a different unit that causes a single unsaved wound, this must be applied to the already wounded model, and not a healthy model.

The assertion here is because in the example, that wound causes a death which you cannot prevent by spreading around.

The the example model had 3 wounds, would the second wound be forced onto the wounded model, leaving it with one wound?
If so, why?

grendel083 wrote:Page 26, second column, 5th paragraph, the last two sentences..

Here it shows that if a unit is attacked by a different unit that causes a single unsaved wound, this must be applied to the already wounded model, and not a healthy model.

So if the 3 wounds are caused at different times they must still be applied to a single model, and not 'spread around' as suggested.

Lone Dragoon wrote:However, so long as you are receiving a single wound at a time in these examples you are free to allocate them to different members of the squad. Nothing prevents this, and it is following all the rules laid out under allocation of wounds.

So sadly this is prevented.

The problem you're running into is that the Nob unit is a 2 wound unit, not a 3 wound unit. You are forced to remove a model if that single wound will kill it, however as the warriors in my example are a 3 wound unit there is nothing that forces someone to allocate two wounds directly to a single model. Then when I receive a single wound (Which in the example you are pointing out will kill the nob), since I am not losing enough wounds to kill a model it gets allocated to yet another model in the unit.

I'll break it down step by step using the rules;

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.

Two wounds are done to the warrior unit. I cannot remove a whole model because not enough wounds are done. Model 1 and Model 2 in the unit have a wound allocated to them because they are both in the wound group that suffered 2 wounds.

Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models. Track any excess wounds with a note or a marker as noted above.

Were the wounds "spread around" to avoid removing a whole model? No, there were not enough wounds done to that wound group to force removal of a model. As such wounds are allocated to models in that group as one has not been removed. Note- nothing in the rules forces these wounds to be allocated to a single model.

In the example they give there are 4 nobz total, 3 of which are identical. They have suffered 3 wounds, because there is a rule that tells us to remove a whole model, we cannot spread those wounds one to each nob as that falls under the "spread around" rule which we cannot do. So we remove one full model and leave a wound on an additional model. Now the Nob with a power klaw (It says upgraded weapon just making it easy) takes one wound, and has a wound remaining. Now they talk about the next shooting attack inflicting a wound, and thus the rule to remove a whole model kicks in. That is why the example doesn't work, warriors have more wounds. If the Nobz take an odd number of wounds, the next shot will always be allocated to the already wounded model to fulfill the "you must remove whole models as casualties where possible" clause.

Take shooting at a unit of warriors as an example. It gets shot by 3 separate enemy units, and each time a single unsaved wound is inflicted, are you forced to remove a model? The answer is no you are not. The reason is there is nothing in the rules that state all wounds in a like wound group must be allocated to the same model. So long as the wound group has taken a wound, you have fulfilled that obligation to the rules. By giving the unsaved wound to a different model in the group you are still fulfilling the rules. However if a time where two wounds make it through comes up (when there is a single wound on one model), then you are forced to remove a whole model to fulfill the other clause in the rules.

@ Lone Dragoon: If you are able to spread the unsaved wounds around like you say, are you not creating new wound groups? Would not the models who now have a different Wound characteristic be a new wound group?

OT (slightly) question: What is the "convention" for this rule?

You guys sound like this comes up pretty regularly. How is it "normally" played?

This may be my new favorite thread.

My initial reaction was "No, because. . .err. . .time to read!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:OT (slightly) question: What is the "convention" for this rule?

You guys sound like this comes up pretty regularly. How is it "normally" played?

Generally, that wounded models in a wound group must take the next wound, regardless.

Pg 26.
"Once you have determined the number of unsaved
wounds suffered by a group of identical multiplewound
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.
Multiple-wound models in the unit that are unique are
rolled for individually and their unsaved wounds must
be recorded separately."

Earlier on page 26
"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved
wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the
model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a
casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be
killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep
track of how many wounds such models have suffered
on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or
marker next to them."

Since some of you seem to be under the impression that you mark how many wounds the wound group has and not how many wounds a model has, I wanted to point these two things out to you. You allocate unsaved wounds to models, you must remove whole models where possible.

Even though the example given is for nobz, they mention tyranid warriors earlier at the beginning of the "Units of Multiple-Wound models" section so this also applies to them in the same manner.

To remove whole models where possible it's a viable conclusion that a model with 1 wound on it is closer to being removed as a whole model than a model with no wounds on it. Since you cannot spread them around to avoid removing models (whether it is now or later) you must get as close as to removing whole models as possible every time you roll saves.

Think about scarabs in this instance as well, with tomb spyders creating a ton of them every turn they would be nigh unkillable by non-blast/template str5 or lower weapons.

How I normally Play It, each wound in a wound group goes to a wounded model (with the exception of ID Wounds oc). However, it appears (RAW) there is a slight loophole with groups of 3+ Wound models.

kirsanth wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:OT (slightly) question: What is the "convention" for this rule?

You guys sound like this comes up pretty regularly. How is it "normally" played?

Generally, that wounded models in a wound group must take the next wound, regardless.

Hmm.. but i think we got the RAW right here, to read the rule as "wounded must take the next wound" may match intent, but the only way it matches RAW is if you interpret "...to avoid removing models" in the very general, "...or cause a situation where models will tend not to be removed as soon by later attacks", which seems a bit of a stretch.

OTOH, breaking convention is also "bad".

kev - Think about scarabs in this instance as well, with tomb spyders creating a ton of them every turn they would be nigh unkillable by non-blast/template str5 or lower weapons.

Actually, Kev, if this came up I'd have thought about this rule before. Fact is scarabs get wounds in bunches in real-world situations.