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.

No. The individual models did nor receive wounds in your example. The unit received wounds that you auto-allocated. Do you see the difference?

Yes the individual models received wounds.
"So we now turn to page 20, under armor saves. "If the result is lower than the Sv value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and the model suffers a wound."

So the oblits roll 4 dice, and all of them are 1's! How unfortunate! Now what happens that oblit A suffered 2 wounds, and oblit B and C each suffered 1 wound?"

Wound allocation which is the portion your are combining you saves is on a unit bases, not a model bases.

I did not use wound allocation once in the example above. The wounds are assigned by Gets Hot, you cant allocate them, though you save as normal.

PS:

i'm trying REALLLLY hard not to feed the troll here, but your lack of comprehension is astounding.

Telling someone they have no comprehension is poor form, especially when I have been providing all the rules in this entire discussion.

So at this point you have the choice of having no rules to follow BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE VALID or you use the precedent of a 99% identical mechanic.

I have posted all the rules you follow, in complete form. The rules flow perfectly from Gets Hot, to Making Saves, to Remove Casualties, to Units of Multiple Wound Models, with no hitch whatsoever. The quoted page is with the quoted rule in the entire example. Wound allocation is not used once.

DevianID wrote:

No. The individual models did nor receive wounds in your example. The unit received wounds that you auto-allocated. Do you see the difference?

Yes the individual models received wounds.

No, they didn't. See how all 3 oblits rolled a GH result, failed saves, and one comes out unscathed? He suffered nothing.

You're treating the group of models as a unit. The GH rule specifies models, exactly like DT. Unless you're arguing that you get to allocate DT wounds to like-geared models, and you must remove whole multi-wound models first from DT wounds.

Why are you avoiding the comparison to DT?

edit: You are factually wounding the unit, not the model, when you include the "roll saves as a group". Since a group is by definition not a model, that breaks the GH rule.

DevianID wrote:I have posted all the rules you follow

You posted the rules YOU follow, for whatever reason.

That involves using rules involving units when the unit was never wounded.

Most folk seem to disagree, including every single person I have played in person.

Anecdotal, certainly, but true nonetheless.

Editing to add:
I get your point. You are not the first to claim it.
I simply think you are mistaken and rather verbose in proving it.

Kirsanth, the remove casualty rules are not unit versus model specific. In all cases, specific models suffer wounds, and the unit removes casualties.

No, they didn't. See how all 3 oblits rolled a GH result, failed saves, and one comes out unscathed? He suffered nothing.

When models suffer wounds, they often come out unscathed. For example, they can make their save. They still suffered a wound, but it gets saved, so no casualties are removed. In addition, some models are not removed as casualties when they suffer a wound and fail a save. This is usually because they have multiple wounds, which require special rules to resolve, or another special rule that steps in and prevents an unsaved wound from causing a casualty, like FnP does.

You are factually wounding the unit, not the model, when you include the "roll saves as a group". Since a group is by definition not a model, that breaks the GH rule.

The reason you roll saves for multiple wound models at the same time is because Gets Hot is a shooting special rule, and shooting is simultaneous within a unit. Thus, while each model suffers wounds individually (which they always do, GH is not different here) all the wounds caused to the unit happen at the same time. In addition, Unit of Multiple Wound models have special rules to explain how they are different from regular models. One such special rule is that they "take all the saves for the unit in one go" per page 26. Another rule is that you can not spread wounds to avoid casualties.

You advocate that GH lets you spread wounds and avoid casualties, do you not? GH does not specifically allow this, and multiple wound models DISALLOWS this.

DevianID wrote:Kirsanth, the remove casualty rules are not unit versus model specific. In all cases, specific models suffer wounds, and the unit removes casualties.

Bolded your error.

There are exceptions.

The only exception is when a unit is shot at, and the unit consists of all identical models. In this case, wounds are not allocated to specific models, as you skip straight to the remove casualties section. Under 'Take Saving Throws' page 20. Again note all models must be identical and have one wound, and furthermore GH will not result in this exception.

Also, it would help if you list your exceptions and page numbers, IF the exceptions are relevant to GH.

No, DT which is worded *exactly* the same also bypasses your attempt at rules.

I have provided rules, you continue to ignore them in favour of your IGNORANCE of the GH! rules. You are simply making up rules and sticking fingers in your ears EVERY time I point this out to you.

Seriously. Go read the other reaaaaally long thread on this, and stop posting here because you have. no. argument.

DevianID wrote:The reason you roll saves for multiple wound models at the same time is because Gets Hot is a shooting special rule, and shooting is simultaneous within a unit. Thus, while each model suffers wounds individually (which they always do, GH is not different here) all the wounds caused to the unit happen at the same time. In addition, Unit of Multiple Wound models have special rules to explain how they are different from regular models. One such special rule is that they "take all the saves for the unit in one go" per page 26. Another rule is that you can not spread wounds to avoid casualties.

Yes. They take all saves for the unit in one go, as you quoted.
These wounds/saves are not wounds to the unit.
The wounds/saves are wounds to the models.

Just like Dangerous Terrain tests.
You're assertion is that the wounds are shooting wounds because they happen in the shooting phase?

You advocate that GH lets you spread wounds and avoid casualties, do you not? GH does not specifically allow this, and multiple wound models DISALLOWS this.

Actually no - you don't spread wounds. The models that generate GH take the wounds. Note the difference.

<simmer down, folks; I don't care if you are REALLY THAT EXCITED about your toy soldiers with plasma guns or not, but tossing around words like "troll" and "ignorance" is only likely to get you in trouble with the moderators, on a poster-by-poster basis>

These wounds/saves are not wounds to the unit.
The wounds/saves are wounds to the models.

Yes, I agree. The model specifically suffers the wound. No, I am not asserting the wounds are made by a shooting attack.

Rigeld2, here is the issue. What steps would you have me take to resolve GH putting a wound on a model. I assume you would go to the rule about making saves first, right?

After you make or fail your save, what rule would YOU apply next. I have already stated I would apply the 'remove casualties' rule. I quoted the remove casualties rule, and the remove casualties rule applies to more than just getting shot at..

In summation, I contend that gets hot, on a failed save, makes you remove casualties. I contend that the rules for removing casualties are fully contained in the "remove casualties" section and subsequent sections.

But, they aren't.

DevianID wrote:In summation, I contend that gets hot, on a failed save, makes you remove casualties. I contend that the rules for removing casualties are fully contained in the "remove casualties" section and subsequent sections.

And a Dangerous Terrain test makes you remove whole models when possible, eh?

No. Wounds to a model can only wound that model, not some other model in the unit.

Devian - so, yet again you are ignoring the GH! rule which requires that the model that got hot suffers the wound. Has another model died / had a wound counter added to the model? Then THAT model has SUFFERED the wound and NOT the model that GH!, meaning you have broken the GH! rule.

Keep on ignoring the same rule, it's helping your argument

SlavetoDorkness, if the rules for removing casualties are not found in the remove casualties section, where are they found?

No. Wounds to a model can only wound that model, not some other model in the unit.

Again Rigeld2, I agree with this. We agree... I have been agreeing this whole time. Now, move on to the next step. What rule resolves what happens when a model has suffered a wound?

DevianID wrote:SlavetoDorkness, if the rules for removing casualties are not found in the remove casualties section, where are they found?

No. Wounds to a model can only wound that model, not some other model in the unit.

Again Rigeld2, I agree with this. We agree... I have been agreeing this whole time. Now, move on to the next step. What rule resolves what happens when a model has suffered a wound?

I'm going to stop feeding you until you respond to my question.

Aside from giving you a save, how is Gets Hot! different from a Dangerous Terrain test?

The reason I dont want to discuss Dangerous Terrain is twofold.

First, there is something called a strawman argument. By definition from Wikipedia

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

So you want to compare Gets Hot with Difficult Terrain. They are superficially similar, as in both cause wounds to models that roll 1's, but they are also different. If I start discussing a separate rule, and you refute that without actually talking about GH, you will have created a logical fallacy. We can completely resolve Gets Hot without comparing it to a superficially similar rule.

Second, if we logically can not compare Dangerous Terrain to Gets Hot, discussing Dangerous Terrain rules are off-topic. Even one difference invalidates the comparative value of the two, such as DT not allowing armor, or triggering differently in any phase of the game such as when assaulting, or happening sequentially instead of simultaneously.

Now that you know why there is no need to discuss Dangerous Terrain in a thread about Gets Hot, its only fair to answer my question.

What rule resolves what happens when a model has suffered a wound from Gets Hot?

Okay, we're done then. Thanks for not listening.

Um, honestly I did listen, and tried to give a well reasoned and constructive answer as to why I am not answering questions about Dangerous Terrain in a thread about Gets Hot.

DevianID wrote:Um, honestly I did listen, and tried to give a well reasoned and constructive answer as to why I am not answering questions about Dangerous Terrain in a thread about Gets Hot.

And your reasoning is ignoring the massive similarities, the fact that there are *zero* rules for when a model takes a wound (only a unit taking wounds). Therefore we must use context and precedent. There is absolute precedent in the DT rules. You choose to ignore them. I refuse to have a discussion with someone who is choosing to ignore something like that.

And your reasoning is ignoring the massive similarities,

It doesnt matter how superficially similar the 2 things are. That is the point of the logical fallicy, and why we avoid them.

the fact that there are *zero* rules for when a model takes a wound (only a unit taking wounds). Therefore we must use context and precedent.

This is not true. I have quoted the rules. Do not forget that every model, even alone, is also a unit or part of a unit, though that shouldn't matter. Gets Hot-->Taking Saves-->removing casualties. All right there. A wound suffered goes to an unsaved wound, which goes to removing a model as a casualty. Gets Hot even tells you that you take saves as normal. Now how do you take saves normally?

There is absolute precedent in the DT rules. You choose to ignore them. I refuse to have a discussion with someone who is choosing to ignore something like that.

its not precedent, is logical fallicy. Comparing the two creates a logical fallacy (a straw man argument) that colors perception of the original issue at hand.

You said there is ZERO rules for when a model takes a wound... Pg 20 "If the result is lower than the Sv value, the armor fails to protect its wearer and the model suffers a wound" Pg 24"For every MODEL that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound"

DevianID wrote:OK Ghaz, I agree with that, the plasmagunner who rolled a 1 suffers a wound.

Then what on earth are there to debate further about?

BGB page 31 wrote:For each result of a 1 rolled on its to hit rolls, the firing model suffers a wound (normal saves applied)

So after the BGB told you to pick the specific model, you are going to ignore the after part because BGB didn't write in every "rinse repeat e.g etc etc" that is pretty much common sense?

Thats so silly!

Devian - DT and GH! are not "superficially" similar - in all pertinent aspects they are the same. And DT does not allow you to take off another model to the one that failed its test.

You also fail, horrendously, as you are ignoring the GH! rule in artifically limiting its effects to a specific instance. this isnt supported in the rules, and is why the rest of your argument is wrong.

So, basically you are saying that any wound a model suffers can be allocated to the unit they are due, regardless of how it happens, DevianID?

Slave, models suffer wounds. Not arguing that. After a model suffers a wound, you use the remove casualties rule.

DevianID wrote:Slave, models suffer wounds. Not arguing that. After a model suffers a wound, you use the remove casualties rule.

So 3 Tyranid Shrikes jump into difficult terrain. All 3 roll ones on the DT test. Do you remove a model, or does each Shrike now have one less wound?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So, basically you are saying that any wound a model suffers can be allocated to the unit they are due, regardless of how it happens, DevianID?

Literally. See:

kirsanth wrote:

DevianID wrote:Kirsanth, the remove casualty rules are not unit versus model specific. In all cases, specific models suffer wounds, and the unit removes casualties.

Bolded your error.

There are exceptions.

What about Perils of the Warp? If the Psyker is in a unit, could it be allocated to "the unit".

SlaveToDorkness wrote:What about Perils of the Warp? If the Psyker is in a unit, could it be allocated to "the unit".

Apparently if 2 Zoanthropes both Peril, and both fail their invul saves, you remove one of them. Who knew?

Little did we know:

- Abbadon and Demon weapon models need not fear their weapon because it justt hurts a unit mate!

- Warlocks hit by mindstrike missile can mere pass their failed Perils to a guardian.

- GW's DT test FAQ is wrong about allocation!

/end sarcasm

*facepalm* this has hit in the top 15 silliest YMDC threads I've seen

No, no this is silly. No, the whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I haven't had a funny line yet. So I'm stopping it. I've done it. The debate is over.