ElCheezus wrote:
The steps are all there. The rules are clear enough to not need interpretation.

ElCheezus wrote:
DT never specifies that it deviates from the Wounding rules. It just tells us the model suffers the wound,...

The Rulebook wrote:"Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left, or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move." It then, in the same paragraph, goes on to say the following: "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed (wounds and saves are explained in the next section)."

ElCheezus wrote:Where in the book does it tell you how to process unsaved wounds on individual models? I know the two answers to this, and they don't apply. Give me a reference if you find one that does.

The Rulebook wrote:"When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or marker next to them."

ElCheezus wrote:It just tells us the model suffers the wound, which is the same verbage as allocation (pg. 20 paragraph 3) "The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models. . ." i.e. unit suffering becomes model suffering through allocation.

The Rulebook wrote:"If the target unit includes different types of models, you will first have to allocate the wounds onto specific models."

The Rulebook wrote:"On the other hand, it is common for units to include models with different weapons or wargear and characters with different profiles (and sometimes even different armour). In these cases we need to know exactly who has been wounded, and this requires an extra step in the shooting process. The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws are taken. This extra step is explained after the basic rules (see page 25)."

The Rulebook wrote:"The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.
Of course many units include different models, and when this is the case an extra step is needed to determine which warriors have been hit by which weapons."(referring to allocation)

ElCheezus wrote:
Also, we have to follow the 'funneling rule', because that's the only process we have for dealing with wounds in units of multiple-wound models. Any other treatment of unsaved wounds in this case would be based on 'assumed' rules and not RAW. If you have a reference that contradicts this, I'd love to see it.

The Rulebook wrote:"Units consisting of models with multiple wounds on their profile, such as Tyranid Warriors and Ork Nobz, are quite rare. Working out how to allocate wounds and remove casualties from such units can be quite complex, so if you don’t have any in your army, feel free not to finish reading this page!
If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds, then take all the saves for the unit in one go. [this sentence can't really be used as evidence though unless the models have an invulnerable save, but then by that train of though this entire section cannot be used as evidence because it doesn't apply in the first place, but I digress...]
If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal. [this sentence especially won't apply since the models in question are not 'different models']
[Finally! Here is the 'funneling rule' (or clause?)] Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple- wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models."

-Cypher- wrote:Note that is states "the model suffers a wound". Not the unit. This is important, and is the single word on which my interpretation hinges. Also, this is how DT specifies that it varies from how wounds on a unit of multi-wound models would normally be resolved.

--Allocation and why it doesn't apply

ElCheezus wrote:It just tells us the model suffers the wound, which is the same verbage as allocation (pg. 20 paragraph 3) "The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models. . ." i.e. unit suffering becomes model suffering through allocation.

As to the verbage, "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed." is not the same as "In these cases, we need to know exactly who has been wounded, and this requires an extra step in the shooting process. The wounds the unit has suffered must be allocated onto specific models before saving throws are taken." Also, what you said would be true if we were handling "unit suffering", but we are not. We start at model suffering.

As for 'allocation':

We do NOT use the 'funneling rule' because it is in the section (also on Page 25) titled 'Units of Multiple-Wound Models'. However, because it is the crux of the debate, I will give my points as to why I believe it is not used. It states:

The Rulebook wrote:"Units consisting of models with multiple wounds on their profile, such as Tyranid Warriors and Ork Nobz, are quite rare. Working out how to allocate wounds and remove casualties from such units can be quite complex, so if you don’t have any in your army, feel free not to finish reading this page!
If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds, then take all the saves for the unit in one go. [this sentence can't really be used as evidence though unless the models have an invulnerable save, but then by that train of though this entire section cannot be used as evidence because it doesn't apply in the first place, but I digress...]
If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal. [this sentence especially won't apply since the models in question are not 'different models']
[Finally! Here is the 'funneling rule' (or clause?)] Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple- wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models."

So, first this section will not apply as I said earlier. But secondly the 'funneling rule' will especially not apply because it specifically uses a very specific word: group. DT tests are not taken as a group, but instead are completely resolved (excluding invulnerable saves for like models) individualy.

I find this to be a broken rule because a model in effect failing more tests than it attempts to pass is just silly, but I will admit that according to the RAW I am wrong. Thanks ElCheezus.

I'll be continuing to play with RAIntended in this case, and after talking with my FLGS group it seems I won't find anyone objecting to that (considering they all do the same thing). However, once again, according to the RAW, this is wrong.

Spoiler:

@ElCheezus:
You, sir, are very good at this. Once again you present fact-based arguments for your side that are very compelling. I honestly believe that if you and I made our separate spills to an independent third party who had no references it would be a toss-up as to who they would say is correct.


The thought-line:

However, there are a couple things I want to point out:

First you say:

ElCheezus wrote:In order to address the model vs. unit argument, we have to go back to a simpler example. This goes back to the other thread, actually. When we have a unit of single-wound models, we have to conclude that there's no functional difference between a model and a unit taking a wound, and that carries through to this discussion.

then you say:

ElCheezus wrote:My earlier challenge to find a place where it tells us how to handle "models" taking wounds was mainly left over from the previous thread. I forgot that since we're dealing with multi-wound models, there actually is a way to do it.

I've read these bits carefully, and in my opinion they could be seen to contradict each other. The first seems to say that the previous example is directly applicable to this example, while the second quote seems to say that there is a distinct separate way to handle wounds for multi-wound models.

As for:

ElCheezus wrote:we have to conclude that there's no functional difference between a model and a unit taking a wound...

I disagree. The very difference between how models and units take wounds is the thing being debated here.

I believe that because the Dangerous Terrain entry specifically states that it is handled on a model basis, then for the time in which you are you resolving the Dangerous Terrains tests the models in this example would in effect be 5 different units of 1. This seems odd, but if you say that DT states how to allocate its wounds by saying that the model that fails the test is the model which takes the wound then that is the end of the discussion. The reference to the next section made at the end of the DT entry is (IMHO) simply because they are introducing actually resolving taking a wound for the first time. It is not because DT will then directly follow the next section's guidelines. I believe this because everywhere else, if I am told specifically in an entry that said entry will act a certain way, then that is the way it will act regardless of how whatever that entry is talking about would normally happen.

Another bit of encouraging evidence for this way of thinking is that a model cannot fail more tests than it takes. For instance, in any situation in which you would use the 'funneling rule', the unsaved wounds you would be redistributing to kill off a whole model would have been rolled in one go. This is not the case for DT. It specifically states that the model suffers the wound.

You also say:

ElCheezus wrote:I guess I left something out here, too. Unit suffering wounds becomes models suffering wounds through allocation. After saves are failed (or not taken), they become unit wounds again. This is mentioned on pg. 24 under "Remove Casualties": "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

and you go on to say:

ElCheezus wrote:We don't need allocation for DT at all, since it basically takes care of that for us. I think we're basically on the same page that we don't need to do any allocation.

To look at the paragraph you reference:

ElCheezus wrote:For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty. As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed.

Notice that the first sentence would be used for units, and for my side of the debate the models in the example are singular. Also note the last sentence. It refers to wound allocation, something that I have said, and you have kinda said, is not applied at all. And remember, DT wounds are allocated by DT itself and not the player, so for the player to then use a general (albeit a specific general rule [yes, the debate just reached that level of word specificality ]) rule (the 'funneling rule', which applies to multi-wound models that share the same characteristics in a unit) over a specific rule (the paragraph in which DT is specifically lined out) seems incorrect.

ElCheezus wrote:It sounds like you're starting to make a case that since we're denied armour and cover saves, that any part about grouping identical models doesn't apply.

That is exactly the case I'm making, but not because of denied saves. I'm saying that "any part about grouping identical models doesn't apply" because we aren't grouping identical models.

ElCheezus wrote:First off, that makes things work entirely different dependent on whether there's an invulnerable save involved. If a unit of Zoanthropes fails enough DT tests and Invuln saves, do we remove models for them, but not for models without a save?

It would go like this:
3 Zoanthropes are 2 inches away from DT. They move into the DT. You then assign (for expediency purposes) one D6 to each Zoanthrope using different-colored die. Let's say Z-1 is green, Z-2 is red, and Z-3 is blue. You now roll the 3 D6. If the green die is a 4, but the red and blue die are 1s the of course Z-1 is safe and left alone. Z-2 and Z-3 will then take their invulnerable save. If both fail that then they both take one wound each. The wounds will not be funneled into any one model in the unit that the player wishes to remove because DT states that the model that fails the test (and in this case also its invuln) will suffer the wound.

Now lets say that the unit from the OP's example does the exact same thing (only there are five). Aside from needing more colors and not taking invulnerability saves, the same thing would happen. 3 Shrikes will end up with 1 wound apiece, not 4 un-wounded models and 1 casualty.

So I'm not really understanding how there is inconsistency between models with or without an invulnerability save.


The 'epiphany':

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING JUST CLICKED! I will not be deleting what I have written above because it may be the very thought-line that led me to the 'epiphany'.

To dispel all debate do this:
Read the DT entry, which says:

The Rulebook wrote:As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed (wounds and saves are explained in the next section).

now go immediately to the section regarding units of multi-wound models:

The Rulebook wrote:Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple- wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models. Track any excess wounds with a note or a marker as noted above. Multiple-wound models in the unit that are unique are rolled for individually and their unsaved wounds must be recorded separately.

Put it together (more-or-less) and it reads:
"As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed. Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple- wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models."

I find this to be a broken rule because a model in effect failing more tests than it attempts to pass is just silly, but I will admit that according to the RAW I am wrong. Thanks ElCheezus.

I'll be continuing to play with RAInterpreted in this case, and after talking with my FLGS group it seems I won't find anyone objecting to that (considering they all do the same thing). However, once again, according to the RAW, this is wrong.

But now...?:

The question then moves to whether you think that the 'funneling rule' takes precedence over the fact that DT allocates its wounds on its own. Which is to say that DT states that you roll 1 D6 per model eligible for the DT test. In effect that means that each model is allocated one wound. According to allocation a model can only suffer wounds that are allocated against it prior to taking any saves. Now normally all potential wounds would be resolved for an all similar multi-wound-model unit at once with the potential wounds going into an ambiguous pool (meaning you don't know what happened to who until you interpret the dice rolls). However with DT, even though the models are similar, you know that there is only 1 wound allocated to each model.

If OP's example in the shooting phase then it would go like this: (to make this analogy fit, lets assume that whatever is shooting at him auto-hits, and wounds on a 6, so starting from the rolls to wound: )he would roll 5 dice. If he rolled 3 6s then one model would be removed and that would be that (because those 5 potential wounds are not assigned to individual models until after the die are rolled and read).

For DT though it goes like this: he rolls 5 dice for the test's potential wounds with the understanding that each model is allocated only 1 wound. If he rolls 3 1s then 3 individual models would then at that point be understood to have 1 wound each. Can you now use a rule (the 'funneling rule') that applies to ambiguous wounds on wounds that are specifically allocated? We seem to have 2 distinctly different rules for allocating these wounds. In the DT entry we are told that each model takes 1 wound. In the Multi-Wound section we are told that wounds must be allocated to remove whole models.

For the Zoanthropes (of which there are 3), if they took a DT test and rolled 2 1s then according to strict DT interpretation, 2 Zoanthropes would take one wound and then attempt to save it. If they fail they take the wound, if they pass then they don't.

The key:
We seem to have 2 distinctly different rules for determining where to place DT wounds. In the DT entry we are told that each model takes 1 wound (via "Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move."). In the Multi-Wound section we are told that wounds must be placed in such a way as to remove whole models whenever possible (via "Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models.").

So which takes preference? Just looking at the RAW one might think the 'funneling rule' because DT refers the reader to the next section. However, following that line then models can take wounds that were allocated to other models, which is not possible.

However, that may not be true seeing as there is nothing anywhere covering how to resolve individual wounds taken on equal multi-wound models.

But then all of that is only true if you interpret the DT entry to mean that because you roll 1 D6 per model eligible that exactly translates to "each model takes one wound". At best this seems to be an interpretation and not irrefutable fact.

-Cypher- wrote:I agree with ElCheezus. Allocating the wound wasn't really where the issue stems from. Its whether or not those wounds (if taken on models that are equal in game terms) are then subject to being 'funneled' so as to remove whole models where possible.

ElCheezus wrote:The wording of the FAQ is the same as the wording in the BRB. Nothing has changed since the initial postings on this thread. All of the arguments on both sides stand as they are. There's no point in starting into this all over again as if the FAQ changed anything. It didn't.

Allocating wounds
After determining the number of wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular Initiative value, the unit takes saves and casualties are removed as detailed below , Just like in the Shooting phase, if all the models in the unit are the same in gaming terms, you can carry straight on and roll all the saves in one batch, Otherwise, wounds are allocated against the target unit by the controlling player, exactly like the fire of a single enemy unit during the Shooting phase

ASSAULTING THROUGH COVER
If, following the rules for moving assaulting models (see page 25), any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through difficult or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant terrain test before moving. This has two disadvantages. The first and most obvious is that such tests might cause the assault to fail altogether if the closest model cannot make it into contact with the enemy. Note that if a model stopped 1" away from the enemy in the Movement or Shooting phase, it can Assault even if its unit rolls a double 1 on its difficult terrain test.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you're hung up on "allocation", when I'm pointing you to "the model takes the wound", which further clarifies what they meant by "suffers"

If another model takes the wound, for any reason you can possibly think up, you have broken this utterly clear and 100% unambiguous rule.

This guy HERE, THIS guy and this guy ONLY failed his DT. He MUST take the wound from it. Noone else can.

biccat wrote:
If the authors had wanted the model who fails a DT test to be removed as a casualty, they would have said "any model that fails its test is removed as a casualty."

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you're hung up on "allocation", when I'm pointing you to "the model takes the wound", which further clarifies what they meant by "suffers"

If another model takes the wound, for any reason you can possibly think up, you have broken this utterly clear and 100% unambiguous rule.

This guy HERE, THIS guy and this guy ONLY failed his DT. He MUST take the wound from it. Noone else can.

Your analysis doesn't address how to deal with unsaved wounds.

I think even ElCheezus would agree that a model that fails a DT test takes a wound, since that's how the rule is written.

What you're not addressing is how the rules deal with unsaved wounds that is addressed on page 26, and only addressed on page 26 (for single wound models). Nowhere else is "removing casualties" addressed or even hinted at.

If the authors had wanted the model who fails a DT test to be removed as a casualty, they would have said "any model that fails its test is removed as a casualty."

BlueDagger wrote:You are trying to dig WAAAAAAAY too deep here. EACH MODEL that fails takes a WOUND. You touch dangerous terrain the MODEL takes a test and if it fail the MODEL takes a WOUND. There is nothing about the unit, groups of similar models, etc. You simply place a wound on the model that failed the test.

BlueDagger wrote:That is standard wound allocation.

This is not standard wound allocation.

This is the model takes a wound, not the unit.

Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No.

biccat wrote:4 - Take Saves
5 - Remove casualties

Everyone agrees that steps 1-3 are supplanted by the Dangerous Terrain rules. Steps 4 & 5 remain.

Unless there is some other method of removing casualties that hasn't been raised, the only way to resolve the situation (consistent with the rules) is that a model identical (in game terms) to the model that failed the DT test may be removed as a casualty.

time wizard wrote:Since you cannot allocate the wound as per the FAQ, you cannot place that wound on any other identical model in the unit as per page 25 because it is only after you allocate wounds, "...only then..." can you choose casualties from amongst identical models. And you cannot get to that point by failing dangerous terrain tests because the FAQ affirms that you cannot allocate wounds the same way as shooting attacks.