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 am getting into a debate on the Hive, but I think I am on the losing end of it.

Per RAW how many leadership tests must a model take against a model with a bone sword.
Rules just for refrence:
"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

The issue:
The issue is that wounds are not allocated like they were in 5th when the Nid Codex was writen. Wounds were allocated and saved all at once. In 6th there is now a pool.

So the arguement goes:

Nid player with 2 warriors charges a unit of multiwound models without FNP or Invuln (to make it easier).
Lets say each warrior causes two wounds.
Now the rules in 6th say to allocate the wound to the closest model. As the models are all multiwound and we have a weapon that can cause ID we need to allocate one at a time.
No armor save so that model takes a wound.
The model then makes an Ld check for ID. Lets say he passes it.
The next wound is then allocated to the closest model (the one that just took a wound).

Now this is where it gets sticky...
He has now just taken an unsaved wound from a model with a bone sword. That means that it forces anouther LD check for ID. The rule does not say one test per model or anything like that. The changes in allocating wounds make it required.

I didn't think it would work that way, but it looks like RAW will force an ID test for each wound allocated to a multiwound model from a model with a bone sword.

No, only one check. The first wound caused forces the check. The second wound would be a "or more" and not force another check.

Since the Bone Sword entry specifically states, "... one or more unsaved wounds...." and doesn't say that a leadership test is required for each wound suffered on a single model, I think this would be played as a single leadership test is taken per model.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, only one check. The first wound caused forces the check. The second wound would be a "or more" and not force another check.

This 100%

one or more means just that. you take a LD test for one or more wounds.

so 1 wound = 1 test, 2 wounds (This equals one or more) so you take 1 test.

The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Fragile wrote:
The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Absolutely correct. But you cannot have wound2 check in isolation - it is caused to a model that has taken one or more wounds and has already tested. There's no permission to force a second test.

This is Easter egging.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The problem is the switch from 5th to 6th and the wound pool. In 5th the wounds were allocated all at once. Now they are allocated 1 at a time. So if you have 4 wounds from a bonesword, you would allocate the first wound to the model. Since that model has taken an unsaved wound, it now much test for ID. You resolve that and then allocate a second wound and repeat the process.

Absolutely correct. But you cannot have wound2 check in isolation - it is caused to a model that has taken one or more wounds and has already tested. There's no permission to force a second test.

This is Easter egging.

I would not go that far. How it is supposed to play under 6th, very much effects how the value of the upgrade. Also prompts the question of, does the LD test take place on the first wound or the last wound? If you check on the first wound, 4 successful wounds to a group of 4 2 wound models could kill all 4, were a check on the last wound would be wasted as the 4th wound already kills the model. It really is a timing issue, and the nid codex, does not really word it well to match with the change in wound allocation. I know I would have played it a check on each wound becuase of the way it is worded and the change in wound allocation till I saw this thread. Now I has to think about it.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

A model suffers one or more wounds, that model only makes A(1) test.

so a 3 wound model is chosen to take the first of two wounds, no armor save and he fails his invuln save, takes 1 wound and makes a test, if he passes he takes a second wound and that does not force a test as the model has already taken a test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

A model suffers one or more wounds, that model only makes A(1) test.

so a 3 wound model is chosen to take the first of two wounds, no armor save and he fails his invuln save, takes 1 wound and makes a test, if he passes he takes a second wound and that does not force a test as the model has already taken a test.

That is correct under 5th edition rules. The rule set allowed for wounds to be assigned in groups. If a Warrior with bonesword did 3 wounds to a Tervigon (6 wounds), those wounds were allocated at 1 group.

In 6th you cannot allocate a "group" of wounds. The first wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds. It must then "immediately" test for LD. If it succeeds the wound allocation process continues. The second wound is assigned to the Tervigon. That wound has no memory of the first wound or anything that happened previous. The second wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met again. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds and takes another LD test.

This is resulting from the change in how wounds are allocated in groups in 5th, and singly in 6th.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

A model suffers one or more wounds, that model only makes A(1) test.

so a 3 wound model is chosen to take the first of two wounds, no armor save and he fails his invuln save, takes 1 wound and makes a test, if he passes he takes a second wound and that does not force a test as the model has already taken a test.

That is correct under 5th edition rules. The rule set allowed for wounds to be assigned in groups. If a Warrior with bonesword did 3 wounds to a Tervigon (6 wounds), those wounds were allocated at 1 group.

In 6th you cannot allocate a "group" of wounds. The first wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds. It must then "immediately" test for LD. If it succeeds the wound allocation process continues. The second wound is assigned to the Tervigon. That wound has no memory of the first wound or anything that happened previous. The second wound is assigned and unsaved. The trigger condition is met again. The model took "one or more" unsaved wounds and takes another LD test.

This is resulting from the change in how wounds are allocated in groups in 5th, and singly in 6th.

The underlined is not true, as the model already had a wound and made a test, the next wound is the Or More, as it has now suffered one or more wounds.

One LD test per model.

OK. Lets do a follow up question to help make this clearer.

Same example as above with 2 warriors with dual bone swords attacking a unit of W4 models with no Invuln or FNP.

The warriors score 2 wounds each. The first model hit makes his Ld check to avoid ID.

How would you say the rest of the combat gets resolved:

1) The second wound goes to the first model again and needs to make a LD check to avoid ID. If he passes that too then he needs to make anouther ID for the 1st hit from the second warrior.

2) The second wound goes to the first model again and there is no need for a Ld check. He needs to make anouther ID check for the 1st hit from the second warrior as he has not made an ID check for the second model.

3)The second wound goes to the first model again and there is no need for a Ld check. He does not need to make anouther ID check for the 1st hit from the second warrior as he has already passes a Ld check for Bone Sword hits.

Clearly Boneswords say one or more, so it is 3

If you suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid with a bonesword then you take 1, and only one, test. This is true if you have 4 different Tyranids with boneswords that all caused wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Clearly Boneswords say one or more, so it is 3

If you suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid with a bonesword then you take 1, and only one, test. This is true if you have 4 different Tyranids with boneswords that all caused wounds.

Then how would you resolve a Prime with bone sword and lashwhip in with a unit of dual sword warriors? (This really matters as I actully run warriors like this).

If a model passes the 2D6 Ld from being hit with the Prime's single bone sword he can ignore the 3D6 test that would be required for the dual sword warriors?

I say that the answer is #2 for the record. The rule does not say a unit of Tyranids with bone swords, it says a Tyranid with a bone sword. Each Tyranid with a bone sword can cause a test.

 Gloomfang wrote:
If a model passes the 2D6 Ld from being hit with the Prime's single bone sword he can ignore the 3D6 test that would be required for the dual sword warriors?

Correct.
You're trying to treat every wound as a separate event. You have no permission to do so.

I believe the proper order would be as follows.


Tyrant with Boneswords is in combat with a squad of Meganobs.

The Tyrant causes 4 wounds that are now allocated.

The first wound is allocated to a Nob, who must now take a test.

Lets say he passes it. So now he gets allocated the next wound. he's already passed the test so he doesn't test again, but he dies of natural wounds.

2 wounds down, next wound to go.

The wound is allocated to another Meganob. he must pass a test.

This time the test is failed. The Meganob dies.

We have one more wound left. It can't be allocated to the Nob who just got ID'd so it goes to another Nob.

This Nob also fails the Ld test and bites the dust.

So in the end 3 Nobs die from 4 wounds caused.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
If a model passes the 2D6 Ld from being hit with the Prime's single bone sword he can ignore the 3D6 test that would be required for the dual sword warriors?

Correct.
You're trying to treat every wound as a separate event. You have no permission to do so.

Rig is correct.

You have no permission to apply the effects of the second wound as the test has already been taken and passed.

and as we know the Bonesword says one or more wounds.

has the model suffered one or more wounds and taken a test for the boneswords?

If the answer is yes, you can not force another test on that model.

Can someone point out in the rule where it states that "only 1" test is allowed?

The rule is a simple "If X, then Y" statement. There is nothing stating that "Y" can only happen once, there is nothing stating that "X" can only happen once.

The Trigger condition (X) is: when a "model suffers one or more unsaved wound"

So, if the model suffers one wound, it triggers.
Or, if the model suffers 3 wounds, it triggers.

Lets also note, there is no time limit here; it does not say "per phase" or "per init step" or "per game".

Lets also note: the result action (Ld roll) happens *immediately*, not at the end of the phase, or end of init step; immediately.

In 5th Ed, it was the rule to allocate all wounds at once. So you might allocate 1 wound, or 3 wounds, or 6 wounds, or.....whatever.
And of those, would trigger the result action.

In 6th edition, you always allocate wounds one at a time, thus you always suffer a wound one at a time.

So lets look at a combat in 6th edition.

Warriors attack a Trygon, get 14 hits and 4 wounds.

Allocate one wound, the Trygon fails the save.
At this point, you have met the Trigger condition. (Suffer one or more wounds) , thus the result action must occur. (Ld test or ID.)
Assume passed.
Now another wound is allocated, Trygon fails the save.
At this point, the trigger condition has been met again, thus the result action must occur again.

*Every* time the trigger condition is met, the result action must occur. To put some arbitrary time limit is to create rules. What if the two wounds happened at different Init steps? What if at different turns?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're trying to treat every wound as a separate event. You have no permission to do so.

The rules say they are allocated one at a time. What rule are you using to treat them as simultaneous??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:


You have no permission to apply the effects of the second wound as the test has already been taken and passed.

What rule says the test can only be taken once?

What rule allows you to retroactively 'add' the second wound to the first trigger condition?

coredump wrote:
Can someone point out in the rule where it states that "only 1" test is allowed?

What rule says the test can only be taken once?

What rule allows you to retroactively 'add' the second wound to the first trigger condition?

The tyranid book has the rule that says this:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

one or more means just that. if you take one, or more [so one, two, three, four etc] pass a LD test...

A (A meaning not multiple, just one) LD test if they suffer one, two, three, four etc wounds.

I'm wondering; what do Force Weapons do in this situation? Or other instant-death causing weapons. Surely, if they have clearer descriptions, we can assume that theirs is the correct one.

 DeathReaper wrote:


The tyranid book has the rule that says this:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

one or more means just that. if you take one, or more [so one, two, three, four etc] pass a LD test...

A (A meaning not multiple, just one) LD test if they suffer one, two, three, four etc wounds.

I do question your reading of that.
In my example there are 2 warriors doing 2 wounds each. So I would agree that the two wounds from one model would only need to save the first wound. However the other two wounds from the next warrior would be another test as the rule states "One or more unsaved... from A Tyranid". Not any, Tyranid, a Tyranid. A Tyranid that is causing one or more wounds with a bone sword.

Again DR, your using 5th rules, (which would be correct) but the allocation in 6th changed how those wounds work.

Every wound generated creates a pool. Each wound in those pools can have certain aspects, pg 14.

"Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused. Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a 'pool',where each dice represents a
Wound. If there are Wounds with different Strengths AP values or special rules,keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool. If all the Wounds are the same the 'Wound pool will consist of only one group."

Every wound in the pool from a single bonesword will have the rule ""If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death". Every wound from a double bonesword will have the 3d6 rule.

Each wound will be allocated and saved. Each wound will trigger the effect of an unsaved wound and cause either 2d6 or 3d6 LD check.

And if you've suffered one wound and taken the attached test, and you suffer another wound, you've suffered one or more wounds. Meaning you've satisfied the rule.

Where's your permission to ignore the "one or more" clause?

I could agree that additional wounds from one model would not trigger an additional test, but I would see each separate model as causing a test on its own for each enemy it hits. This will definitely need an adjustment in a FAQ

It definitely needs a FAQ, mostly because the dynamic of it changed with the edition change and not with a codex change or FAQ. The intent under 5th was clear with 1 check per group of wounds assigned to the model, however RAW under 6th changed it to being more lethal. Which is typically a sign something will be FAQ'd

No one is ignoring it. Anytime it suffers "one or more" it triggers.

You are making the assumption that it can only be triggered once. Yet have still not provided a rule to back that up.

If the model had 3 wounds allocated to it, and failed all 3 saves, therefore suffered 3 unsaved wounds; that would trigger *1* Ld test. The trigger is 'if one or more, then...'

But in 6th you always allocate wounds 1 at a time, thus you always suffer wounds one at a time. Each time you suffer "one or more wounds" you trigger the test. Otherwise you are arbitrarily putting a time limit not listed in the rule.

The model suffers a wound, does that meet the trigger criteria? (one or more) Yes, so the result action occurs.

Now, that rule has resolved. It is over. Time to move onto whatever happens next...

That same model suffers another 'one or more wounds' then it triggers *again*. Every time it meets the trigger criteria, it must cause the result action. There is nothing that allows you to go back and retroactively apply the current wound to a past trigger action.

Otherwise, what about if it suffers one or more in a different init phase? What about a different turn? How do you arbitrarily make that determination?


The trigger is "one or more", but that means every time the model suffers 'one or more' it triggers; there is no rule saying you can go back and combine those wounds into one occurence. There is no rule saying you are limited to one test a turn.

Am I missing something....the affect of the bonesword is checked AFTER the wounds have been allocated and saved.

"...if a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death" (page 83, Tyranids Codex)

There is no way a model could suffer "...or more unsaved..." wounds otherwise. Also, the rule DOESN'T state each unsaved wound much check.

So the steps go as follows:
1) Bonesword wielder does its attacks
2) Wounds are allocated
3) Saves taken
4) Any model that has suffered at least one unsaved wound must make a leadership test.

It's that simple....

coredump wrote:
No one is ignoring it. Anytime it suffers "one or more" it triggers.

Right, and if you have already suffered one wound, and made your test, then you suffer more you do not have to test, because you have already tested for one or more.

Two is one or more.

Three is one or more Etc...

You allocate the wounds at the same time (even though you do it sequentially, It is all happening at the same initiative step) so you assess if the model has suffered one or more wounds, and if it has already tested it fulfills the condition of suffering one or more wounds from boneswords.

It really does not need an FAQ, stop making it so complicated.

coredump wrote:
The model suffers a wound, does that meet the trigger criteria? (one or more) Yes, so the result action occurs.

Now, that rule has resolved. It is over. Time to move onto whatever happens next...

and if it suffers more wounds, you have already suffered one and now you are suffering more, so you no longer need to test.

@DR when does "one or more" end in your opinion?

One per Init Step.
Once per aussault phase.
Once per player tur.
Once per game turn.
Once per game?

They really should have a better FAQ for this.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat..."
Clearly they mean the current turn's Close Combat phase.

Prime is a higher initiative.
I'd resolve the primes attacks first, then start fresh with the next set of attacks.

Yes, the rule does say 1 or more wounds. Would you say that if I took a wound on turn 1 from a bonesword and passed, that I am not immune for the rest of the game? Of course not.

-Matt