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.

ElCheezus wrote:*snip*
So far, it's been me calmly providing counterpoints when I had them. So far I've had them. I don't think I've ignored any specfic arguments, and I know I've answered the same ones more than once.

apart from the fact that 'models taking wounds' is not the same as 'units taking wounds'
thats the argument you have ignored.
its pretty simple, DT test is on a model by model basis and if that model fails its test and has in Inv save (or fails it) they take a wound. THAT MODEL takes a wound, not allocated anywhere else and not bumped off onto anybody else because THAT MODEL has taken a wound.

Why doesn't this logic apply to exploding transports, Cleansing Flames, and Nurgle's Rot then?

DarknessEternal wrote:Why doesn't this logic apply to exploding transports, Cleansing Flames, and Nurgle's Rot then?

If by this you mean why aren't the individual models taking the wounds, because it states in the exploding transports rules that the unit takes the hits, and consequently the wounds, not the individual models. It also states that the hitting and wounding from the explosion is treated exactly like a shooting attack.

Nurgle's rot does work on a model by model basis, as it states any model that is within 6" of a model with Nurgle's rot will take a wound on a D6 roll of a 6, and that you can't take cover saves against it.

Unless you are asking why his logic doesn't work, at which point I will let him explain.

If El Cheezus is right, then Vindicares just got a lot worse.

Veteran squad with 3 meltas, only one within 6 of GKLR.

Vindicare shoots the obvious target.

Melta at rear of squad dies.

Next turn, GKLR explodes.

Hilarity ensues.

Galador wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Why doesn't this logic apply to exploding transports, Cleansing Flames, and Nurgle's Rot then?

If by this you mean why aren't the individual models taking the wounds, because it states in the exploding transports rules that the unit takes the hits,

That isn't what Destroyed - Explodes says.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Galador wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Why doesn't this logic apply to exploding transports, Cleansing Flames, and Nurgle's Rot then?

If by this you mean why aren't the individual models taking the wounds, because it states in the exploding transports rules that the unit takes the hits,

That isn't what Destroyed - Explodes says.

You might want to go reread the first sentence.

Pg. 67 Damage results on passengers:

Destroyed-Explodes!
The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, ap - hits equal to the number of models embarked, treated just like hits from shooting. (Emphasis mine)

As per the BRB, that is *exactly* what Destroyed, Explodes says for damage results on passengers.

As per just a regular Destroyed - Explodes or for the models outside the transport (which is what I think you were actually talking about), every model within range suffers a strength 3, AP - hit, not wound. Hence, you roll to wound, and that is where wound allocation kicks in because it is not wounding a single model, it is hitting them. Now, honestly, not having paid much attention to it, I guess you would have to say that specific model, especially if it was a special character or an upgrade or different wargear, is the one that takes the hit, but then again, wound allocation would kick in if it wounded, as it is a hit, not a wound.

And just because I missed it in the last post, Cleansing flame would also work on a model by model basis, as it states all enemy models take a wound on a 4+. However, since it is happening in the Assault phase, unless specified otherwise, it would follow the rules of assault, so unless its an independent character, you could then wound allocate as per normal.

Revenent Reiko wrote:apart from the fact that 'models taking wounds' is not the same as 'units taking wounds'
thats the argument you have ignored.
its pretty simple, DT test is on a model by model basis and if that model fails its test and has in Inv save (or fails it) they take a wound. THAT MODEL takes a wound, not allocated anywhere else and not bumped off onto anybody else because THAT MODEL has taken a wound.

I mention "models taking wounds" here:

ElCheezus wrote:The verbage in the section about allocating wound and taking saves and removing casualties is consistent with the DT and GH! rules. They all mention models taking wounds. There is no process provided in the rule book by which we can treat these wounds any differently than "normal" ones. There is one and only one way to remove casualties due to unsaved wounds provided in the BRB, and the DT and GH! rules don't say anything about doing it differently.

The BRB provides one and only one general way to deal with unsaved wounds in a unit, and that is the Remove Casualties section on pg. 24. Any exceptions are very specific. For example: pg. 25 is about Complex Units. In the second paragraph it tells you to roll for any models that stand out in "gaming terms" (which is defined earlier as the stat line and wargear), and remove it if it fails. However, this doesn't apply to the argument; if the model that failed a DT is unique in the unit, Remove Casualties still only lets you take him. If he's not unique, then he doesn't stand out in "gaming terms."

Since DT doesn't tell us to remove the specific model that triggered the test, we refer to the general rules for unsaved wounds, which lets us remove any of the identical models.

Galador wrote:And just because I missed it in the last post, Cleansing flame would also work on a model by model basis, as it states all enemy models take a wound on a 4+. However, since it is happening in the Assault phase, unless specified otherwise, it would follow the rules of assault, so unless its an independent character, you could then wound allocate as per normal.

Cleansing flame is a good point, actually. It's telling us each model is wounded, which is the same as DT. By your interpretation you have to roll for each model individually to determine which ones to remove. I don't know why you mention the assault phase here, actually, as wound allocation is skipped by defining which model is wounded, and the rules for the assault phase tell you removing casualties works the same way as in the shooting phase.

If you wanted Cleansing Flame to work the way you say, it would be worded the same was as Destroyed - Exploded!, which you helpfully referenced for us.

Ok, I will try this again, using the same section that you quote.

Removing casualties: Yes, it does state that for every model that fails a save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. That is the first sentence of the first paragraph. It then goes on to talk about if they are all the same, the owning player chooses which ones are removed.

But then you have to read the first line of the second paragraph and pay attention to one specific word, which I will highlight.

"Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded, and taken off as a casualty."

The unit is never targeted by anything. The model is forced to take a test, and if it fails, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed. So, in the removing casualties section, you have to target the unit in order to remove whichever model you want if they are identical, but if a specific model within the unit is taking a test, that is not targeting the unit, that is the singular model taking the test.

Galador wrote:Ok, I will try this again, using the same section that you quote.

Removing casualties: Yes, it does state that for every model that fails a save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. That is the first sentence of the first paragraph. It then goes on to talk about if they are all the same, the owning player chooses which ones are removed.

But then you have to read the first line of the second paragraph and pay attention to one specific word, which I will highlight.

"Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded, and taken off as a casualty."

The unit is never targeted by anything. The model is forced to take a test, and if it fails, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed. So, in the removing casualties section, you have to target the unit in order to remove whichever model you want if they are identical, but if a specific model within the unit is taking a test, that is not targeting the unit, that is the singular model taking the test.

krisanth brought this up on page 2 of this thread, actually.

I don't consider that paragraph to be rules, as much as I consider it to be off-hand justification of the rules. It doesn't actually tell you anything the previous paragraph didn't, except that it mentioned the word "target." You probably disagree, or you wouldn't have brought it up. krisanth didn't agree either.

What about a flamer template that targets one unit behind another? The unit in the middle doesn't get targeted, but it gets hit. Same with blast markers that scatter. Using the "targeted" requirement causes other areas to act in ways that are inconsistent.

Galador wrote: a few more pages back in the book...

Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.

In timewizard's example, A is the closest model to the unit being assaulted, and the shortest route is through the dangerous terrain. So, Model A must take a dangerous terrain test, and if Model A rolls a one, and then either has no invul save, or fails it if it has one, then Model A is removed, as per the DT rules on pg. 14. Since Model B is not within the 4" that they rolled for the difficult terrain test, then the assault would fail there and the unit could not assault.

+1 this. Galador, you hit the nail on the head with this citation.

For ElCheezus to ignore this ... sorry, ElCheezus, you have ostrich syndrome. There's no going to page 24's Wound Allocation process with the line in red above. Oy, vay.

ElCheezus, the part of the remove casualties section tells you to remove one model form a group of identical models. Those groups are formed if the unit is wounded, after you distribute wounds along all models. Then you roll all saves for them in a single go, and remove a casualty from that group for every failed save. Multiple wound rules go more into detail about this, might want to check there.
If a single model suffers a wound, you'd never form such a group, so you can't remove another model.

As above.

Plus, El Cheezus group cant "always" have done this, as wound allocation is new to 5th, whereas Dang Terrain and Gets Hot! have remained exactly the same.

Neither of them trigger wound allocation, as neither targets a unit. Ignoring this, or pretending you can conflate model = unit, is unsafe, and is why El Cheezus argument falls down.

What's more frustrating is him not being able to see the wood through the slightly dangerous horrible trees!

I would try to reiterate what everyone else has said but I can't really put it any better than they have.

Heh this is one of those thread which shows why people just come to dakka to start hilarious rules arguments and troll people. Not as bad a warseer but bad. I assume El Chezzus is a Goon, well played Goon well played.

Jidmah wrote:ElCheezus, the part of the remove casualties section tells you to remove one model form a group of identical models. Those groups are formed if the unit is wounded, after you distribute wounds along all models. Then you roll all saves for them in a single go, and remove a casualty from that group for every failed save. Multiple wound rules go more into detail about this, might want to check there.
If a single model suffers a wound, you'd never form such a group, so you can't remove another model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

Plus, El Cheezus group cant "always" have done this, as wound allocation is new to 5th, whereas Dang Terrain and Gets Hot! have remained exactly the same.

Neither of them trigger wound allocation, as neither targets a unit. Ignoring this, or pretending you can conflate model = unit, is unsafe, and is why El Cheezus argument falls down.

This. Simple as that

I agree with all the people doing it properly.

I don't understand the obsession with wound allocation rules. Gets Hot and Dangerous Terrain tests never call for wound allocation, so that part of the rules is irrelevant to the current discussion.

GH and DT say that the model takes a wound (and assuming the save is failed)

Remove Casualties says that for every model that fails its save, the unit takes an unsaved wound. Then you must remove a model identical to the model that actually failed its save.

Wound allocation has nothing to do with it.

The entire section on remove casualties deals with wounds in a unit. You havent wounded a unit, you have caused a model to suffer a wound.

Atempting to kill another model than the one that tripped up violates the rules of the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The entire section on remove casualties deals with wounds in a unit. You havent wounded a unit, you have caused a model to suffer a wound.

What section deals with removing casualties suffered by a model?

WHeres the section within Removing Casualties that lets you apply the wound suffered by a specific model to another member, when the unit has never been the subject of the attack?

nosferatu1001 wrote:WHeres the section within Removing Casualties that lets you apply the wound suffered by a specific model to another member, when the unit has never been the subject of the attack?

That would be the "Removing Casualties" section. If a model fails a save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. A model from the unit that is identical in game terms to the model that failed the save must be removed.

Is there a different section in the rulebook that tells you how to remove models individually? If not, then you must use the "Removing Casualties" section.

The exact same ones. You just never get to chose any other model but the one that actually failed the test, as all occurrences of allocation are refering to wounds suffered by a unit, and anything allowing you to freely remove casualties is talking about groups or units. If a unit is wounded, the owner gets to decide which model suffers the wound. In the case of "Get's Hot!" and dangerous terrain the game decides instead of you.

Jidmah wrote:The exact same ones. You just never get to chose any other model but the one that actually failed the test, as all occurrences of allocation are refering to wounds suffered by a unit, and anything allowing you to freely remove casualties is talking about groups or units. If a unit is wounded, the owner gets to decide which model suffers the wound. In the case of "Get's Hot!" and dangerous terrain the game decides instead of you.

I agree that the game decides which model gets a wound, and that you do not get to allocate the wound within the unit.

However, the "Removing Casualties" section pretty clearly spells out how to deal with "unsaved wounds" by a model.

Basically specific beats general. GH and DT are both more specific than regular wounding rules, which allow a player to have another model suffer the wound, the specific ones don't.

biccat wrote:I agree that the game decides which model gets a wound, and that you do not get to allocate the wound within the unit.

However, the "Removing Casualties" section pretty clearly spells out how to deal with "unsaved wounds" by a model.

And the second paragraph of that section pretty clearly spells out what the section refers to, "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty..." {emphasis mine}

When your model entered the dangerous terrain, was the unit targetted? Of course not. It is not an attack, it is a test. The model fails the test, the model suffers a wound.

And what a lot of people fail to grasp is that the model is not necessarily removed, it simply take a wound.

A meganob from a unit of 3 identically equipped models fails a dangerous terrain test, that nob suffers a wound. You can't place that wound on another nob like allocating wounds because allocating wounds as per page 24 only refers to units that were targetted.

Says it right there. Target unit. A model failing a difficult terrain test or a Gets Hot! roll has failed a test, not been targetted, and neither has a unit it is a part of.

Jidmah wrote:Basically specific beats general. GH and DT are both more specific than regular wounding rules, which allow a player to have another model suffer the wound, the specific ones don't.

Well, I disagree that this is a case of "specific beats general". The rules aren't contradictory, DT tells you how to allocate the wounds, Remove Casualties tells you what to do when you have an unsaved wound.

If the "Remove Casualties" section only applies when a unit is targetted, how do you remove casualties for dangerous terrain?

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Basically specific beats general. GH and DT are both more specific than regular wounding rules, which allow a player to have another model suffer the wound, the specific ones don't.

Well, I disagree that this is a case of "specific beats general". The rules aren't contradictory, DT tells you how to allocate the wounds, Remove Casualties tells you what to do when you have an unsaved wound.

If the "Remove Casualties" section only applies when a unit is targetted, how do you remove casualties for dangerous terrain?

pick them up off the table and put them in your case. its not rocket science.

Characteristic test rules tell you it apply to that specific model.

Attemting to conflate unit with model is the flaw in the argument, and one that is consistently glossed over.

I think ElCheezus' point is that if the 'Remove Casualties' step was removed altogether from the rulebook, then you'd have no mention of how to remove models from the table. They'd take wounds, that's it.

People keep bringing up unit versus model, but that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you're removing - without the 'Remove Casualties' step, you've got no reference with how to deal with wounds, allocated or not.

Galador wrote:
But if you wish to continue to be TFG, thats your choice.

Aramoro wrote:Heh this is one of those thread which shows why people just come to dakka to start hilarious rules arguments and troll people. Not as bad a warseer but bad. I assume El Chezzus is a Goon, well played Goon well played.

And posts like this ^^ are unnecessary. You may not agree with him, but it doesn't make him TFG or a "Goon".

There are close to two pages written on how to remove casualties. You should investigate who stole those pages from your BRB.