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.

Does it cause do double instant kill? If a str6 template deals 4 wounds to a unit of ripper swarms does it inflict 8 instant deaths?

Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates doubles the amount of wounds taken. Each wound causes Instant Death. So yes, you're looking at 8 dead Ripper bases.

wow

There is no Vulnerable to Blasts and Templates USR anymore. It's simply a function of the Swarm USR now.

If the unit is made up of purely models with the Swarm USR and the same save, yes you double the unsaved wounds as you allocate wounds after you make saves.

If the unit has a model with a different save attached to it, then it gets a little funky. The reason is that only unsaved wounds are doubled, and it specifies that "each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds". When dealing with units that have mixed saves, you allocate wounds before you save, so it brings up several questions:

1) Can you put an unsaved wound back into the wound pool, or would the extra wound simply get written off?

2) If so, can you even allocate an unsaved wound in a mixed save unit?

3) If so, does it revert to a normal wound (in other words, would the next model it is applied to get to try and save against it or would it already simply skip the save process as it is already an "unsaved" wound)


For simplicity and consistency, I would put the doubled wounds back into the wound pool, treating them as normal wounds.

Let's say the first two closest models are swarm models. You roll your saves against them and fail. Both wounds are doubled. I would put these doubled wounds back into the wound pool as normal wounds rather than "unsaved wounds". The next closest model is an IC with a different save. I'd then allocate wounds to him and roll saves until either we ran out of wounds either on him or in the pool. If he dies, continue withthe rest of the unit using the same method.

Grand Hierophant Khatep wrote:Does it cause do double instant kill? If a str6 template deals 4 wounds to a unit of ripper swarms does it inflict 8 instant deaths?

whigwam wrote:Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates doubles the amount of wounds taken. Each wound causes Instant Death. So yes, you're looking at 8 dead Ripper bases.

Maelstrom808 wrote:There is no Vulnerable to Blasts and Templates USR anymore. It's simply a function of the Swarm USR now.

If the unit is made up of purely models with the Swarm USR and the same save, yes you double the unsaved wounds as you allocate wounds after you make saves.

If the unit has a model with a different save attached to it, then it gets a little funky. The reason is that only unsaved wounds are doubled, and it specifies that "each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds". When dealing with units that have mixed saves, you allocate wounds before you save, so it brings up several questions:

1) Can you put an unsaved wound back into the wound pool, or would the extra wound simply get written off?

2) If so, can you even allocate an unsaved wound in a mixed save unit?

3) If so, does it revert to a normal wound (in other words, would the next model it is applied to get to try and save against it or would it already simply skip the save process as it is already an "unsaved" wound)


For simplicity and consistency, I would put the doubled wounds back into the wound pool, treating them as normal wounds.

Let's say the first two closest models are swarm models. You roll your saves against them and fail. Both wounds are doubled. I would put these doubled wounds back into the wound pool as normal wounds rather than "unsaved wounds". The next closest model is an IC with a different save. I'd then allocate wounds to him and roll saves until either we ran out of wounds either on him or in the pool. If he dies, continue withthe rest of the unit using the same method.

No, wounds do not go back into the wound pool. You would need specific allowance for that to happen of which there is none. The wound is doubled only AFTER it's allocated, so each base would have two instant death wounds, it would still be only 4 dead bases. Not eight.

p43 Swarms - "each unsaved wound [from X, Y and Z] is multiplied to two unsaved wounds"

p15 Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties - generally first save, then allocate. For Mixed Saves, allocate, then save.

For swarms, I would think it is generally first save, then double, then allocate. For Mixed Saves, allocate, then save, then double

foolishmortal wrote:
p43 Swarms - "each unsaved wound [from X, Y and Z] is multiplied to two unsaved wounds"

p15 Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties - generally first save, then allocate. For Mixed Saves, allocate, then save.

For swarms, I would think it is generally first save, then double, then allocate. For Mixed Saves, allocate, then save, then double

The swarm doesn't suffer the wound until it's allocated. The Swarms rule says it's doubled when they suffer the wound.

Except Unsaved Wounds are doubled.

Unsaved wounds happens before allocation. The wounds are not saved, each wound is doubled to 2 unsaved wounds, each wound caused ID, then wounds are allocated to bases.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except Unsaved Wounds are doubled.

Unsaved wounds happens before allocation. The wounds are not saved, each wound is doubled to 2 unsaved wounds, each wound caused ID, then wounds are allocated to bases.

No, each unsaved wound SUFFERED, not each unsaved wound CAUSED.

 Kevin949 wrote:


No, wounds do not go back into the wound pool. You would need specific allowance for that to happen of which there is none. The wound is doubled only AFTER it's allocated, so each base would have two instant death wounds, it would still be only 4 dead bases. Not eight.

While I generally agree, I have a feeling that it's not RAI (which of course has little bearing on discussions here but that's why I'd play it the way I'd play it). I have no problem playing it where the extra wounds are lost if that's how my opponent wants to play as I do think that's the RAW and it helps me if I choose to take advantage of it.

The whole situation with the rule doesn't sit right with me. There really isn't a reasonable explanation in this situation why a weapon loses half it's effectiveness vs my guys simply because i have one of my characters stand next to them other than just saying "don't think about it too hard, it's an abstraction." It's the same reason I don't like the ID wounds doubling at all as it makes no reasonable sense why one model that was not exposed to effects of the weapon is killed simply because his buddy was killed by it.

TLDR: There is simply too big of a disconnect between rules abstractions and a logical representation of what would happen if this were transposed to a real world event for me to like this rule however it's played.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except Unsaved Wounds are doubled.

Unsaved wounds happens before allocation. The wounds are not saved, each wound is doubled to 2 unsaved wounds, each wound caused ID, then wounds are allocated to bases.

Only in non-mixed save units. Attach a destroyer lord to a unit of scarabs, and it becomes a mixed save unit. At that point you must allocate wounds before you take saves.

 Kevin949 wrote:
The Swarms rule says it's doubled when they suffer the wound.

I disagree sir. p43 is clear, it is unsaved wounds [from 3 specifiic types of weapons] that are doubled.

Since allocation happens after the save in some cases (homogenous units), and before the save in others (mixed saves), you have to be careful about blanket statements.

The weapon isn't losing half it's effectiveness. Not all str 6 weapons are blast/template and not all blast/template weapons are str 6. The swarms rule basically gives a boon to all of those types of weapons but it took away the massively OP properties of them from 5th edition.

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
The Swarms rule says it's doubled when they suffer the wound.

I disagree sir. p43 is clear, it is unsaved wounds [from 3 specifiic types of weapons] that are doubled.

Since allocation happens after the save in some cases (homogenous units), and before the save in others (mixed saves), you have to be careful about blanket statements.

Use the entire sentence in your argument please.

BRB page 43 wrote:If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast,Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds.

Emphasis mine.

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
The Swarms rule says it's doubled when they suffer the wound.

I disagree sir. p43 is clear, it is unsaved wounds [from 3 specifiic types of weapons] that are doubled.

Since allocation happens after the save in some cases (homogenous units), and before the save in others (mixed saves), you have to be careful about blanket statements.

Not really, in either case you still get your save prior to it being unsaved and in both cases the wound is allocated before doubling. I don't see the problem, I only see the way it should be done. But you're welcome to disagree, of course.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
The whole situation with the rule doesn't sit right with me. There really isn't a reasonable explanation in this situation why a weapon loses half it's effectiveness vs my guys simply because i have one of my characters stand next to them

This is exactly the logic of an IC joining a unit and raising its leadership, granting outflank, granting stealth, etc... Maybe the IC is telling the swarm "Hey, keep your head/tentacles/testicles down, spread out, and don't help your buddy catch grenades."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Not really, in either case you still get your save prior to it being unsaved and in both cases the wound is allocated before doubling. I don't see the problem, I only see the way it should be done. But you're welcome to disagree, of course.

Please read 'Allocate Unsaved Wounds' section on p15 and then tell me "in both cases the wound is allocated before doubling."

foolishmortal wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
The whole situation with the rule doesn't sit right with me. There really isn't a reasonable explanation in this situation why a weapon loses half it's effectiveness vs my guys simply because i have one of my characters stand next to them

This is exactly the logic of an IC joining a unit and raising its leadership, granting outflank, granting stealth, etc... Maybe the IC is telling the swarm "Hey, keep your head/tentacles/testicles down, spread out, and don't help your buddy catch grenades."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Not really, in either case you still get your save prior to it being unsaved and in both cases the wound is allocated before doubling. I don't see the problem, I only see the way it should be done. But you're welcome to disagree, of course.

Please read 'Allocate Unsaved Wounds' section on p15 and then tell me "in both cases the wound is allocated before doubling."

Sure...so in a standard same save unit you have your hits, your wounds caused, your saves, then you allocate and double.

In a mixed save unit you have your hits, your wounds, you allocate, you save, then you double.

foolishmortal wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
The whole situation with the rule doesn't sit right with me. There really isn't a reasonable explanation in this situation why a weapon loses half it's effectiveness vs my guys simply because i have one of my characters stand next to them

This is exactly the logic of an IC joining a unit and raising its leadership, granting outflank, granting stealth, etc... Maybe the IC is telling the swarm "Hey, keep your head/tentacles/testicles down, spread out, and don't help your buddy catch grenades."

I understand that angle to it, it's just a bit of a stretch for me in this case.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Not really, in either case you still get your save prior to it being unsaved and in both cases the wound is allocated before doubling. I don't see the problem, I only see the way it should be done. But you're welcome to disagree, of course.

Please read 'Allocate Unsaved Wounds' section on p15 and then tell me "in both cases the wound is allocated before doubling."

His point is that the unit cannot "suffer" an unsaved wound until it's allocated and you have failed a save against it (regardless of the order of those two steps) and it's the suffering of the wound that triggers the doubling of wounds. Since the wounds are doubled after you have already allocated them, there is nothing giving you permission to then allocate again using the excess ID wounds.

Ya know, in 4th people yelled and screamed, no, they don't double ID. GW FAQed it, yes they do. In 5th, people yelled and screamed, no, they don't double ID. GW FAQed it, yes they do. Guess what I'm expecting to happen in 6th......................

And I agree that it's wound, save, doubled unsaved, then allocated.

Whatever, its not like it matters. Its normally enough wounds without the doubling to annhilate the swarms in question.

 don_mondo wrote:
Ya know, in 4th people yelled and screamed, no, they don't double ID. GW FAQed it, yes they do. In 5th, people yelled and screamed, no, they don't double ID. GW FAQed it, yes they do. Guess what I'm expecting to happen in 6th......................

Yes, GW can absolutely feel free to change the rules they wrote - I have no problems with that.

And I agree that it's wound, save, doubled unsaved, then allocated.

Intent vs Written

 don_mondo wrote:
Ya know, in 4th people yelled and screamed, no, they don't double ID. GW FAQed it, yes they do. In 5th, people yelled and screamed, no, they don't double ID. GW FAQed it, yes they do. Guess what I'm expecting to happen in 6th......................

And I agree that it's wound, save, doubled unsaved, then allocated.

How exactly does a model suffer a wound before it's allocated?

Sme way it saves before it's allocated.

And sure, GW just might change the rule for 6th should they ever FAQ this. I doubt it, but I have been wrong before.

 don_mondo wrote:
Sme way it saves before it's allocated.

And sure, GW just might change the rule for 6th should they ever FAQ this. I doubt it, but I have been wrong before.

So even though no wound has been allocated to it, it still suffers the wound?

So if wounds are suffered before they are allocated, how do you handle a unit where everyone has the same saves, but only one or some of the models have FnP, which is triggered at the exact same time as the doubling of wounds from the Swarm USR?

And how do you apply this logic to a unit with mixed saves, where you save after you allocate, and some models have the swarm USR and some do not?

 Kevin949 wrote:
Sure...so in a standard same save unit you have your hits, your wounds caused, your saves, then you allocate and double.

I guess the part I am unclear about is why you are choosing to delay the doubling until after the allocation. p15 gives the order of the steps in the process, p43 modifies one of those steps. Why wait?

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Sure...so in a standard same save unit you have your hits, your wounds caused, your saves, then you allocate and double.

I guess the part I am unclear about is why you are choosing to delay the doubling until after the allocation. p15 gives the order of the steps in the process, p43 modifies one of those steps. Why wait?

Because of the wording on page 43.

Yes... I read p43 recently. What wording are you referring to?

foolishmortal wrote:Yes... I read p43 recently. What wording are you referring to?

I posted it earlier. Perhaps you missed it?

rigeld2 wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
The Swarms rule says it's doubled when they suffer the wound.

I disagree sir. p43 is clear, it is unsaved wounds [from 3 specifiic types of weapons] that are doubled.

Since allocation happens after the save in some cases (homogenous units), and before the save in others (mixed saves), you have to be careful about blanket statements.

Use the entire sentence in your argument please.

BRB page 43 wrote:If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast,Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds.

Emphasis mine.

If the Swarm must suffer the wound first, the wound must be allocated.

Yes... I read that. I just don't see the requirement you seem to see. You seem to be arguing that only a model may suffer a wound, not a unit.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the simplest possible case here. A unit with the Swarm USR. No IC joined, no weird FNP issues, no mixed saves, etc.

foolishmortal wrote:
Yes... I read that. I just don't see the requirement you seem to see. You seem to be arguing that only a model may suffer a wound, not a unit.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the simplest possible case here. A unit with the Swarm USR. No IC joined, no weird FNP issues, no mixed saves, etc.

It doesn't matter as the model still has to suffer the wound, not the unit.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
It doesn't matter as the model still has to suffer the wound, not the unit.

Yes... models must eventually 'suffer' the wounds. That's what the wound allocation step is for. In a case of a homogenous unit, the saves are rolled simultaneously, then the unsaved wounds are allocated. If I am instructed to double the number of unsaved wounds, why would I wait to do this?

The only argument for this I have seen so far is some form of 'the Swarm has not suffered a wound until a model from the Swarm has a wound allocated to it.'

If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast,Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds.

The Swarm rule itself does not say that