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 take extreme offense at the implication that I would dismiss relevant rules just to push my opinion. I've repeatedly tried to get to the bottom of this, rather than try to simply convince people of one way or another. The accusation of ignoring rules to validate myself is quite rude, and takes the discussion in an entirely different direction.

Of course, I waned to get back to discussion, and seem to have managed the opposite. That is my own failure, and you have my apologies on that count.

I don't think he was accusing you, Elcheezus; I think he was saying he disagreed that it was appropriate to ignore or disregard that section, regardless of whether the motive for doing so was pure or not.

Kirsanth, I don't think "sirrah" should be taken as an insult either. His dudgeon was up a little bit, and to me it read that he was attempting to inject a little bit of formality instead of getting insulting.

Both of you seem (to my read) to be trying to figure this situation out in earnest and sincerity. Shake hands, relax, take a few minutes' time off and grab a beer if you need to. When I get too wrapped up in these discussions I always try to remind myself: "It's only toy soldiers."

Mannahnin wrote:Kirsanth, I don't think "sirrah" should be taken as an insult either.

Not that I am actually insulted, but rather am curious how else to take "a term of address used to inferiors or children to express impatience, contempt, etc."?

Or are insults acceptable so long as they are archaic?

ElCheezus wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:If they meant it any other way they would have said "if a 1 is roll then a wound is suffered and if a save is failed then remove a casualty following the casualty removal rules."

If they meant it your way, they would have said "if a 1 is rolled the firing model can make an armor save. If the save is failed, remove the model as a casualty." Without specifically overriding the rules for removing casualties, where is the reason to ignore them? Specific vs General doesn't come into play, because you can follow all the rules (that I've found or have been quoted) by rolling the plasmaguns as a batch.

The point of my interperetation was mainly to show that the "Removing Casualties" method (as I now deem it) doesn't go against the wording of the Gets Hot! rule. The specific model was assigned the wound, and then per the removing casualties rule the player rolls all the dice for the pool of wounds allocated to that group of identical models.

The wording of Gets Hot! definitely means that you can't remove models without Plamsa Guns when they get hot, something I know for sure we all agree on. Past that, everything is interperetation, and the bolded sentence was meant to highlight that fact.

Assigning the wound to a model does not mean that the Removing Casualties method breaks any rules. (at least, not any rules that have been brought up)

I think I'm going to look into some posts about Dangerous Terrain, since the case is so similar, and see if there's anything in those that helps.

Ah, but they DID state it that way, just not with those same words. You just choose not to see it from what I can tell.

I understand full well what your interpretation is trying to show, it doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect. Specific vs. general always comes into play.

It's not breaking any casualty removing rules but it IS breaking the gets hot! rule.

If memory serves for dangerous terrain you take as many tests as models that entered the terrain and no saves are allowed and you remove however many models rolled a 1 on the test. Unfortunately the situation is very different and the wording will be very different as well so personally I don't really think it's applicable at all.

I'll write the relevant wording from the archeotech spearhead (it should be ok to post here since it's free to download from GW site anyway) - "A single D6 must be rolled after the vehicle fires its weapons in the shooting phase. On a roll of a 1 the vehicle suffers a penetrating hit. On a 2 the vehicle suffers a glancing hit..." To reference my earlier post, if this vehicle was in a squadron/unit of all identically equipped models, would you argue that the failed result could be allocated to anyone in the unit even though it specifies the firing vehicle?

kirsanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Kirsanth, I don't think "sirrah" should be taken as an insult either.

Not that I am actually insulted, but rather am curious how else to take "a term of address used to inferiors or children to express impatience, contempt, etc."?

Or are insults acceptable so long as they are archaic?

I have never heard or read the term used toward a child; in the context of my reading it has always been a word used toward a peer one is impatient with but attempting to remain polite toward.

Checking www.onelook.com, it appears to uphold your definition better, but I suspect he meant it in the sense I thought. Still, we can ask him to clarify his intent.

I remain of the opinion that both of you seem to me to be attempting to participate honestly and in sincerity in this discussion, and that I don't think either of you intended to insult the other. If I am mistaken I will be disappointed, but I'd appreciate it if either one of you extended an olive branch and you both proceeded in gentlemanly fashion going forward.

Specific vs. general always comes into play.

But there is actually no VS at all.

I dont see the point where it is a problem to have a wound put on a specific model and still follow the general rules for removing casualties.
Particularly because I don't see a written alternative.
I would also call for a quotation here beside "the firing model takes a wound".
Everything else is just interpretation, and therefore RAI.
What I accept is the fact, that "gets hot" refers to models, and allocation to "units".

But "removing casualties" does not explicitly refer only to "units" as far as I know.
So it has to be referred to in all cases where a wound is taken.

Of course JAWS ignores it, because the model is just removed. There we have a different procedure which is clarifiied in the JAWS text.
but as long as there is a wound allocated on a model inside a unit, we have to work out the casualties like it is said in the rules for "removing casualties". Unless we are told to do it differently, which is clearly not the case in the "gets hot" rule.

Cheers.

As I said, I was not insulted.
I also did not mean insult. I read the quoted post as agreeing with something I did not mean to imply.

Apologies for the confusion.

I didn't mention JAWS at all.

Anywho, we agree to disagree. Immovable object vs. unstoppable force. We're simply looping at this point.

Try a different way of lookjng at it:

Group of 2W, plasma gun toting models.

Now, I assume we all agree that if you "suffer a wound" that means your wound stat is reduced by 1?

So model A suffers a gets hot!, and fails their armour save. Now, the gets hot! rule tells you the firing model must suffer the wound - but instead you want that wound to be suffered by model B (also a plasma gunner)

That makes no sense, and directly contradicts the rule, as another model OTHER than the firing model has "suffered" the wound. Simple English comprehension tells you this - you cannot have "suffered" a wound if, in fact, someone else takes the wound for you.

This applies equally to 1 wound models as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:That makes no sense, and directly contradicts the rule, as another model OTHER than the firing model has "suffered" the wound. Simple English comprehension tells you this - you cannot have "suffered" a wound if, in fact, someone else takes the wound for you.

I was just about to say something along the same lines:

Let me see if my two cents counts for anything. Or even if I am understanding both sides of this.

1)So then, we have agreed, that the "Gets Hot" wound is allocated to the model shooting the plasma gun.
2)Now for "removing casualties", some other model with an unfired plasma gun is removed instead.

Does that mean the guy who actually shot the gun is running around the battlefield for the rest of the game with 0 Wound Characteristic? His friend just died from S.T.S.D.S. (Sudden Toy Soldier Death Syndrome) even though the shooter was allocated the wound that "Gets Hot" wouldn't let us allocate anywhere else... So what happens to the guy who did the shooting? Is he now a plasma scorched zombie?

Anywho, we agree to disagree

Actually it is not my intention to press a certain interpretation through your resistance.
If I have a quotation, that leads directly to your interpretation, I will be glad to support it.
And I am also willing to play with the individual interpretation (as I am a guard player, your interpretation would be in my favour)

My logic is:

As long as I have no alternative way to deal with a certain situation, I will stick to what is written in general to deal with a situation like that.

Now, I assume we all agree that if you "suffer a wound" that means your wound stat is reduced by 1?

Negative.
"suffers a wound" in my opinion means "a wound is allocated to it"
I really cannot support the argumentation, that "suffering a wound" should include the procedure of rolling saves and removing casualties in the contrary to the rulebooks procedure.

I know, that "suffering" includes failing the save and what awaits you after it.
Therefore the rulebook is more precise.
It says the firing model takes a wound. This is the wording that can describe an allocating process.

But this is not my point (it wouldnt be RAW but RAI).

My point is:

Where is a precise quotation that describes that exactly that model must be removed as a casualty particularly in the contratry of the normal removing process?

As long as we dont have it, we dont know how to deal with it. (Speaking of RAW)
RAI in my opinion your interpretation would be more logical of course. But unfortunately RAI is subjective.

EDIT:

In germany we sometimes have problems distinguishing between wounds and Wounds.

wounds mean hits that would reduce a models Wound number if it fails its saves (procedure described in the rulebook during "saves" and "removing casualties"), correct?
Wounds is a characteristic in the models profile which describes how often it must suffer from an unsaved wound to die. Correct?

And in this case we are dealing with wounds, correct?

If that is the way it is suppose to be played, then what is to stop people from: giving their HQ/IC a plasma weapon; joining the HQ/IC to a unit full of plasma weapons; then only removing and killing off the regular plasma troops when ever the HQ/IC's gun gets hot?

MY Gitz would apprecaiate that ruling, but it's still total bunk to try and play it that way..

Psyker_9er wrote:If that is the way it is suppose to be played, then what is to stop people from: giving their HQ/IC a plasma weapon; joining the HQ/IC to a unit full of plasma weapons; then only removing and killing off the regular plasma troops when ever the HQ/IC's gun gets hot?

The models would have to be identical. i.e. same stats, same wargear, same weapons. Just like wound allocation from shooting. So in your example, no, you couldn't have a random other dude with plasma take the hit for the HQ. As an IG player, I see this applying to Vet squads with 3x Plasma, or CCS with 4x Plasma, because each of those guys are identical. If the Company Commander took a Plasma Pistol, he'd definitely have to be rolled separately from the other guys.

Also, where is everybody getting this talk of reducing a model's wound characteristic to 0? I don't recall seeing that in the BRB anywhere, and I don't think I've gotten a reference when I've asked so far. Maybe this is a way to interpret what happens, but not an actual game mechanic?

I think I'm starting to see where Nos is coming from with the "suffering" a wound. Do we have a definition that indicates what suffering a wound is, if it's different from allocating a wound, or is the English definition what we're looking at? I hate when rules arguments come down to semantics instead of game-provided definitions. Again with the GW describing the rules instead of defining them.

I also like the multi-wound model approach/argument, it makes sense. But we're not talking about "making sense" we're talking about the rules in a game system.

-Nazdreg- wrote:My logic is:

As long as I have no alternative way to deal with a certain situation, I will stick to what is written in general to deal with a situation like that.

I think I've been trying to say this for a few pages now, but haven't been able to put it quite so simply. Thank you.

We can talk about making sense, and say "how can the guy next to me take the hit when my gun overheats," but ultimately we have to be told by the rules to do it differently.


(p.s. "sirrah" is a derogatory term, used in anger. I used it purposely in place of "sir" to make sure my polite tone was understood as barely restrained. Feel free to take offense if you really want; I sure did, but am more interested with getting back to discussion than making nice)

I don't see how intentionally using a derogetory term of address could possibly ever be the preface to a polite reply, Sir

Instead of plasma guns, lets try doing this with plasma pistols. I have two assault marines with plasma pistols, one marine's plasma pistol blows up in his face. It clearly states in the BRB that the model takes the wound, it is not shared across the model class, model type, etc. This has nothing to do with wound allocation. Wound allocation happens in the assault phase and when you get shot at. It does not happen when things blow up in your face. Same thing with plasma cannons, why would a model whose weapon did not suffer a critical failure confer a wound onto a nearby model in the same squad whose weapon did not malfunction? You do not allocate these wounds, they happen automatically.

What happens when you have a lone plasma gunner firing on his own? He takes both wounds on himself. Notice how under wound allocation rules you would be required to put one on the other squadmates, but since it does not apply, the other squadmates are FINE. Just like if there were two plasma gunners, and one had it blow up in his face twice. The guy whose gun blows up in his face twice sucks both wounds. They are after all subject to a saving test, both of which could be passed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

so why are you still arguing it?

Because the procedure is either different from the basic procedure how to deal with wounds taken (but this is not described properly in the "gets hot" rule)
Or it is like its done generally in the rulebook (then you are free to remove casualties whereever you like between models identical in gaming terms. And more: you HAVE to remove a model for each unsaved wound)

This is my problem

If the rules for "removing casualties" were not different from what you say here:

Allocating a wound on a model causes it to be wounded, and it can try to save the wound. If it fails its wounds drop to 0, removing it as a casualty.

Then I would understand it. But they are different.

EDIT:

Other instances involve a unit taking a wound that is resolved on a model.

Does "removing casualties" explicitly refer to "units" instead of "models"?
Then we have no procedure how to deal with wounds taken by "models" inside a "unit"....

YES!!!! The procedure is different. Is tehre a problem with it being different?
casualties are removed. Period. They are removed at the end of every phase in which a casualty was taken. In the typical shooting phase, I point my guns at you, and blast away. Then you decide who is hit, allocating wounds, fail your saves for me, and your models are then removed as casualties. You will note that there are some weapons which do NOT permit the allocation of wounds--I as the shooter decide who gets hit. In the atypical shooting phase, I blast away at you with three plasma guns, one of which blows up twice. That unfortunate squad member is required to go through the pain of surviving a plasma gun melt-down twice over. Why? The wound is not allocated. The model simply takes the wound. Period. All i need to ensure is that I specify which gunner is firing when I roll, or which set of dice represent which gunner.

"suffers a wound" has a very simple English usage - no need for it to be internally defined.

If someone else dies on your behalf, can you honestly state you have "suffered" the wound?

No

then the other person cannot suffer the wound on your behalf, otherwise you have broken the rule.

It's that straight forward.

The problem with "suffers a wound" is that 40k has a spefic definition of a wound. And that is different from an unsaved wound.

Page 31 tells you how to deal out wounds, page 25 under "take saving throws" tells you what to do with unsaved wouds.

Besides, the 'gets hot' rule does say 'normal saves apply'.

It doesn't make sense, but I can't see how the rules support the alternative any better.

YES!!!! The procedure is different. Is tehre a problem with it being different?
casualties are removed. Period.

Easy, man...

Exactly, casualties are removed. But how do we do it? *winks with a Rulebook*...

I have no problem with a different procedure. But then I have to have a written procedure, and not an idea how the procedure "should be made in case of such a situation to cover it properly", especially not contradicting the general rules.

"suffers a wound" has a very simple English usage - no need for it to be internally defined.

And the "very simple english usage" should mean, my Wound stat is reduced by 1?
I dont think so. At least I dont se a reference leading to that in the Rulebook.
Like biccat points out we have a difference between a "wound" and an "unsaved wound". And the real suffering occurs having an "unsaved wound" put on a model.
But still (!) another model can be removed as a casualty as long as it is identical in gaming terms.

@all

I would be really glad to have some written evidence for your interpretation. But like ElCheezus I just can not find it. And before I play it like I think it should have been done, I want to play it like the rules say I have to, to make it clear for both sides without a discussion before each game. Again, as a guard player the way I read the rules in this case is not in my favour. Trusting the game mechanic, I support my way, trusting the GMV I trust your way. So I can understand you pretty well, but as long as there is no clear way how to deal with a situation from A to Z, there is NO way to deal with it.

No, it means that the firing model is the one that has a wound applied.

Did you apply the wound to another model? Yes? then you have broken a rule

At this point you are unwilling to accept that the specific case of Gets Hot! does not allow you to invoke wound allocation, as doing so violates the rule, and I'm repeating myself now for the last 3 pages with you no closer to an understanding.

OK so lets make this clearer.

What you do is, you say things about "suffering", "applying", "taking" a wound.

There is no direct order how this "suffering", "applying" and "taking" actually has to be made.
Of course the word itself implys a possible way how to deal with it (which is exactly what you say how it is done).
But I cannot rely on a possible or probable way, unless I have the clear wording.

At this point you are unwilling to accept that the specific case of Gets Hot! does not allow you to invoke wound allocation

I accepted it from my first post on. If you would have read me properly, than you should know, that I m talking about removing casualties and NOT wound allocation.
You dont seem to understand, that the procedure you are proposing has no written (not implied) evidence in the rulebook at all.

Again, in times of a difference between being "killed outright" and "losing all Wounds" we should leave no room for any interpretation.

Nosferatu: by that logic, wound allocation rules wouldn't work. You apply wounds to individual models, not groups.

Identical Mooks A, B, and C all get allocated 3 wounds. The rules say that if Mooks A and B allocated wounds are saved, they still die if all 3 of Mook C's wounds are failed.

You seem to be saying that applying wounds allocated to Mook C to A or B violates the rule on wound allocation.

The gets hot rule is wound allocation, and doesn't affect which models are removed.

Identical Mooks A, B, and C all get allocated 3 wounds. The rules say that if Mooks A and B allocated wounds are saved, they still die if all 3 of Mook C's wounds are failed.

You seem to be saying that applying wounds allocated to Mook C to A or B violates the rule on wound allocation.

The gets hot rule is wound allocation, and doesn't affect which models are removed.

+1

biccat wrote:Nosferatu: by that logic, wound allocation rules wouldn't work. You apply wounds to individual models, not groups.

Identical Mooks A, B, and C all get allocated 3 wounds. The rules say that if Mooks A and B allocated wounds are saved, they still die if all 3 of Mook C's wounds are failed.

You seem to be saying that applying wounds allocated to Mook C to A or B violates the rule on wound allocation.

The gets hot rule is wound allocation, and doesn't affect which models are removed.

No, you dont understand the part where you GROUP wounding hits on LIKE models and remove wounds when saves are failed from within the GROUP. Mook A and B no longer have any wounds applied to them, only the group containing Mook {A, B, C} does.

Gets Hot! does not interact with this in any way

Nazdreg - you may want to remove the "+1" as it belies the fact neither of you understand casualty removal

No, you dont understand the part where you GROUP wounding hits on LIKE models and remove wounds when saves are failed from within the GROUP. Mook A and B no longer have any wounds applied to them, only the group containing Mook {A, B, C} does.

Gets Hot! does not interact with this in any way

Read page 25. Wounds are "allocate[d] ... to each model". This is during wound allocation.

It is in the "taking saving throws" section where wounds are grouped.

Since "gets hot!" tells us "normal saves apply," what section should we use, if not p. 25?

Then why did you mix the two sections together?

You talked about models being removed, which is after saving throws.

Normal situation: Mooks A, B and C can end up dying based on a shared pool of wounds, removed from play as you want

This situation: only the FIRING model can suffer the wound. As in, suffer the effects of the wound, such as taking saves and comparing wounds taken to wound stat. Being removed from play means you have suffered a wound.

In the shooting process one actually selects which models of the are firing, as such one is meant to keep track of the origin of each shot initally. This means that, in theory, one should never be any confusion as to which model suffers which Gets hot! result.


"Check line of sight & pick a target.
All models in the unit that can see at least one enemy model in
the target unit may open fire" Pg 15

"All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit can fire. A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example)....all of the models in the unit fire at the same time." Pg 16

" FAST ROLLING WITH DIFFERENT WEAPONS
...Sometimes there will be different weapons firing, or firers with different BS in the same unit, in which case we find it easiest to use different coloured dice...so that those shots can be picked out.
...Alternatively, you can simply make separate dice rolls
for different weapons or shooters, as long as it is clear
which dice rolls represent which shots." Pg 18


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also; "Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit
has been determined, the player controlling the target
unit must decide which models have been wounded,
allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice." Pg 25

"Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed." Pg 25

All this is from the shooting phase chapter incidently.

Being removed from play means you have suffered a wound

But I just gave you an example where a model who is not wounded is removed from play. How is this different? The rules clearly anticipate that non-wounded models may still be removed as a casualty.

I think we can all agree that wound allocation doesn't apply, the issue is how to apply unsaved wounds, would you agree?

Using your reading of the rules, could you please cite which section of the rules is referred to by "normal saves apply"?

A page number is sufficient.

How is this different?

FIrst because p25 doesnt apply; as Chris showed this only applies to the target unit, not the originating unit

Secondly you have a restrction that the FIRING model must suffer the wound(s). Page 20/21 tells you how to take saves, which has to be the model that fired the weapn, and then page 24

Show how you can remove a non-firing model when Gets Hot!, a more specific rule, requires that only the firing model "suffers a wound", and you will be golden. A page number, please?

OK, we have a problem.

According to p.20, starting from the top, we first decide if the unit has all of the same models or not. If so, roll all the saves. If not, see page 25. This takes us to the "taking saving throws" section I discuss above. Only one result that way.

But if we assume p.25 only covers allocating wounds (and we ignore that page 20 only applies when all models in a unit are the same), and if wounds are pre-allocated, we can skip ahead on p.20 to "armour saves."

This section indicates that if a model fails its armor save, it "suffers a wound." This doesn't help, because it implies that plasma guns are insta-death.

Page 24 describes removing casualties, but applies a model-by-model approach. It does not say "for every failed save...", but "for every model that fails its save."

I am going to stick to the intro to page 20 and avoid all this nastyness:
Simple unit, roll all saves together.
Complex unit, apply page 25.