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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet I disagree and have shown the ambiguity in the wording. So you're choosing the deliberately less safe position.

You were using Remove Casualties, I believe? "For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Is that right? That was the basis for your claim that each model can only be the source of one unsaved wound?

As was mentioned earlier, say 10 nobs take 120 bolter wounds. If they roll 120 armour saves, that will only produce one unsaved wound per nob and the rest will be discarded?

Armour Saves tells you that models can suffer multiple wounds and make multiple save attempts ("Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire...").
Complex Units shows a direct example of models suffering more unsaved wounds than there are wounds in the group ("He should remove three models (Two unsaved wounds, plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun.").
Determine Assault Results, on the other hand, goes out of it's way to make clear that only wounds inflicted count ("...total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side...").

There's a difference between 'unsaved wounds' and 'wounds inflicted' in the rules, and it's used in several cases. Blood talons are not one of those cases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If that is the case it is unsafe to take a more advantageous option.

What page number is that on?

You can't drink 2L of pop from a 1L bottle mate. There are only three wounds to be caused.

Well thanks to NOS and others the next time my single wound FNP model is shot and fails more than one Armor save, I will only take 1 FNP save, since only 1 has been caused to my model. That is really good for my Completely complex Death Company unit.

I think this works out more in my favor than the blood Talons.

jbunny - obtuse arguments your speciality?

No, it isnt on a page. But if you have two rules interpretations, and one is less advantageous than the other, then you take that rules interpretation. Anything else is an unsupportable position.

You are the one quoting it as if it is a rule. It is nothing more than your opinion. But I assume you do not agree with my FNP argument if we interpret this your way.

Sorry, where did I *quote* it as a rule? I gave no quote, but made a statement that taking the more advantageous of 2 options, when you have no *clear* remit for either, is an unsafe position.

and in certain instances you will find one codex offers an advantageous position on something. That may have to do with the fact that the codex explicitly states that that something happens, contrary to rulebook..... anyway, not what im here on about.

What about looking at this from the opposite perspective, lets say the blendernaught rams its fist into a daemon prince.Exactly enought times to kill it. Its still only one model,but it takes a certain number of wounds. On the other hand, what happens when the blendernaught runs into a squad of tyranid warriors? (or something with two wounds, but low toughness as to be instakilled by the blendernaught) what happens now? Models are still taking a single wound, but they have multiple wounds on the profile. Does the blendernaught cause 10 unsaved wounds or five? Nope, I don't like ruling in the naughts favor, but its a question of first the wounds it causes, less the wounds that are saved. So it does expend a further two attacks slicing the corpses up.

GW has many issues with RAI, and that can be seen from the errata and FAQ releases. Its RAW until GW corrects it in FAQ.... and then then it becomes RAW in the FAQ, and RAI in the 'dexes.

poda - 1) this is not a codex thing and 2) if you have a clear rule allowing the advantageous position you can do so.

the point here is that the rule is *not* clear, so taking an advantageous position is unsafe.

This is quite similar to the tyranid acid blood, which I wasnt sure about. If a nid creature suffers any unsaved wounds the enemy have to take inititive tests, so if it takes 10 unsaved wounds do the enemy take 10 inititive tests or just the number that killed it?

I agree that it's unsafe, but even from the receiving end of all that hugging and love, I'd say its wounds inflicted less armor saves, irrespective of models. Converseley, I dont have the book in reach, i remember something about unsaved wounds causing chaos spawn to leap out or something of the like. I think this is comparable, so whats the ruling/rule on that one? Im really tired so cant be bothered to think or find the rules or the dex it came from, but I cant be bothered to sleep because im so $@#%$@%@# angry right now (about things IRL)

I'd still like you to comment on the multiple-wound-model thing, nos. It's functionally identical with the blood talon one. Also the clarification does inflict three unsaved wounds to two space marines, this has not been commented on either. The entire wounding chapter in the BRB not working correctly using the "no-overkill" interpretation, as opposed to working just fine when using the "overkill" interpretion should be enough to clear up a single sentence that can be read two ways.
"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." can be read as not explicitly preventing a model from taking more than one save. In context and clarification, there is no evidence for excess wounds to disapear.
Also, as I don't own any blood angels (or ever will) the least powerful interpretation for me is allowing it to the other player.

liam: Not going into any opposing agruments and telling someone to agree to disagree is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, where did I *quote* it as a rule? I gave no quote, but made a statement that taking the more advantageous of 2 options, when you have no *clear* remit for either, is an unsafe position.

You did not "quote" it but you have been citing it as gospel. It is the basis of your argument in a RAW discussion, so you can see how one might think it is an actual rule in the BRB.

You also never commented on my complex unit with FNP, if we agree with your ruling on this rule. It seems that no matter how you play this rule (if you are consistent) it creates a more advantage position for someone. So what do you do when no matter the ruling it creates an advantage for someone?

Cottonjaw wrote:You can't drink 2L of pop from a 1L bottle mate. There are only three wounds to be caused.

No, there are only 3 wounds that matter for that squad. You can still apply multiple unsaved wounds to a single wound model, they just don't matter for the sake of the model. If that model were to have FNP, that model would then take its FNP rolls (as an interesting side note, is FNP classified as a save, or is it more like a tough roll in WM? I don't have my book on me at the moment...). Just because it only takes 15 times to stab someone to death doesn't mean you can't inflict 120 knife wounds in the process, yeah?

Point being, there are only 3 wounds to be REMOVED for the sake of making a model dead, if these three wounds are to be among the 5 that go UNSAVED, well, then so be it, my blood talons get 5 extra attacks for being excessively violent McAwesomesuce to your now dead models that just failed too many saves.

You know, what makes me curious, is if the Blood Talons can get extra attacks from unsaved wounds caused by the extra attacks.

Anvildude wrote:You know, what makes me curious, is if the Blood Talons can get extra attacks from unsaved wounds caused by the extra attacks.

Yup.

So there's the potential there that a single Blender Dredd would be able to wipe through hundreds of models in a single turn? Yikes. It's like a Melee version of the Supa Gattla.

Anvildude wrote:So there's the potential there that a single Blender Dredd would be able to wipe through hundreds of models in a single turn? Yikes. It's like a Melee version of the Supa Gattla.

Only if you don't account for the law of diminishing returns. Is the potential there? yes, but much like a single frigate double-critting a pair of battleships in Dystopian Wars, it'll take a lot of luck and the perfect conditions to do it.

Actually, the funniest way to deal with the blend-o-naught is to run it over with a deffrolla. Irony being that it's damage output against orks has the potential to be long-glove amazing, but it's not doing anything against that AV14.

The melta build into the bloodtalons works just fine vs AV14.

Jidmah wrote:The melta build into the bloodtalons works just fine vs AV14.

Shhh.... I'm trying not to remind the BA players that their people-juicer has AT involved....

Lets not forget that once you accumulate 8 casualties without a return hit, you fail morale checks. Then the dreadnought catches up with you and slices itself a few helpings of ham

poda_t wrote:Lets not forget that once you accumulate 8 casualties without a return hit, you fail morale checks. Then the dreadnought catches up with you and slices itself a few helpings of ham

Unless you have stubborn.... then you just have to deal with my Ld10 commissar trying to keep up with your body count.

poda_t wrote:Lets not forget that once you accumulate 8 casualties without a return hit, you fail morale checks. Then the dreadnought catches up with you and slices itself a few helpings of ham

Do what? Not sure what you are talking about on this one.

morale checks after melee. If a unit fails, the winning unit may still catch the fleeing unit and kill it. Hence why the blendernaught will remove whole squads in one go.

you can take 100 wounds and still pass your morale check. Double 1's always pass no matter what the modifiers are. The the dread kills whole units is the never ending chain of attacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - only *3* models failed their save, so only *3* unsaved wounds were caused. The other two wounds were not "failed" by any model.
3 attacks extra only.

Nos has this one correct.

Jidmah wrote:(Snip) "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."(Snip)

If you have a unit of 3, and you take 9 wounds from an attacker, Just how many models can fail their save?

By my count only 3 models from a unit of 3 can fail their saves.

Each model can fail 3 saves in this case, but the fact remains that only 3 models have failed their saves because there were only 3 models left in the unit that could fail their saves.

It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

nosferatu1001 wrote:FB - the quote is:
For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)
Only *3* models can have failed their saves, so only *3* wounds were suffered.

So if I get 5 wounding hits against a unit of 2 Nobs (2 wounds each) which all fail their saves.... I only get combat resolution of 2 because only 2 *models* failed their save ?

nosferatu1001 wrote:jbunny - obtuse arguments your speciality?
No, it isnt on a page... ...Anything else is an unsupportable position.

So it's not on a page, but it's the other things you declare are unsupported?

nosferatu1001 wrote:But if you have two rules interpretations, and one is less advantageous than the other, then you take that rules interpretation.

The thing is... it's an orc/tyrannid player making the arguement..... so in the case of a BA special rule, the less advantageous ruling would be the 5 extra attacks, am I right?

And you still haven't answered the Feel No Pain cross-over


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Nos has this one correct.

Wrong

Karl - 2 models failed 2 saves each. Read the context of the rules quote again

POSITION /= RULE. Is that not clear? In this case you have 2 positions, neither of whcih is fully supported by clear and unambiguous rules. The least advantageous position is the supportable action to take.

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three [single wound] models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three [single wound] models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

Editing to add brackets