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.

again there is no sunglar automatic wound.

the model suffers a hit from the table that wounds automatically.

ie you do not roll to wound for the d3, d6+6 wounds.

no mention of a singular automatic wound then you roll on the table, infact as you seem have read the rules for d weapons you would notice that.

the final sentence you stated is not in those rules, and is entirely made up.

you have a hit, you roll on the table, you get a result, you save versus the hit. as per the raw.

."The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically

is a very incomplete quote.

as you know, it is part of the result of rolling on the table for d weapons, which you roll on instead of rolling to wound. the rest of the quote you left out is "the model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose d3 wounds instead of 1."

again from the RAW which you incompletely quoted there is no 1 wound, you take d3 wounds from the hit. You do not suffer a singular wound that becomes something else, you take d3 wounds instead of the normal 1.

much like an earlier sentence in D weapons you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, you don't first roll to wound then roll on the table.

There is no singular unsaved wound.

I've always read it as it automatically wounds D3/D6+6 times, therefore multiple wounds, which are all saved by one invulnerable/cover whatever. The doll is not a save, it just removes the first ID causing wound, so it would activate after the dice roll

blaktoof wrote:
there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

As Happyjew has said, you are incorrect. The rule reads:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

We know there is a hit; that is clear. We know it is a hit that wounds automatically. What does "wound" mean, in the verbal sense? It means to inflict a wound. What does inflict mean? It means to cause. So we have a rule that effectively reads:

"The model suffers a hit that causes a wound automatically..."

If you refute this you're simply trying to refute basic English.

the rules for Destroyer weapons do not tell you that you can make saves versus the Wounds, they say you make saves versus the hits. So rather than follow the RAW you have made up a singular automatic wound the model suffers (which is not in the rules for D weapons anywhere) then are making a save versus that, when it specifically tells you to make saves versus the hit.

In fact the rules for Destroyer weapons state saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. This is poor wording because, taken literally and at face valye, it is impossible then to resolve a wound without going completely and utterly off the path of what the rules say - we cannot take saves as normal against hits, and even if we accept we are given special permission to take saves against hits we have no way to allocate them - so therefore we have no way of reaching the point of making saves.

Alternatively, if we follow the sensible path of assuming the rules meant that we follow on how we would normally take saves against hits where available, i.e. against any resulting successful wounds, then of course we reach a point where we are saving against either the automatic wound from the Destroyer hit, or each of the variable wounds it causes. Obviously we know we cannot save against each of the variable wounds it causes because those wounds are only applied instead of the usual loss of a single wound, which comes after saves.

Yes normally you save versus wounds, and yes normally you allocate wounds and not hits, but the rules for D weapons have you allocate hits and save versus the hit. Normally models are removed as casualties if they fail their save, but FnP(a special rule) specifically gives you a chance under certain circumstances to not do that, often special rules specifically change general rules, and Destroyer Weapons is a special rule.... Nowhere does it give you an option under D weapon to allocate some mythical unsaved wound, nor does it give you the option to make a save other than from the hit. Considering there is no rule for D weapons rolling to wound this obviously makes sense as it supports the rules as written for D weapons, you roll to hit, you then you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, we are told in the rules for D weapons that we may roll to save versus the HITs not the WOUNDS there is no to wound roll, there is no singular allocated unsaved wound. For a roll of 6 we are again told "no saves of any kind are allowed against this hit". No mention of no saves of any kind are allowed against the wounds, notice the singular nature of "hit".

Feel no Pain is a terrible example to attempt to support your argument because it explicitly states when and how it works:

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded"

Your argument for Destroyer weapons requires you to entirely make up a method for allocating hits, which there is no clear rules support for. You are simply making an entire process up, and trying to justify it by claiming the rules say so when they don't. Feel No Pain is no comparable situation to this.

for d weapons you save versus the HIT as that is what the RAW state, not the wounds.

I am not suggesting anything other than the rules as written, you and others are suggesting a possible Rule as intended-however without any rules support to show that intention, but is a house rule that does not coincide with the rules as written. It also requires that you add things to the rule, which are not written in the rule to function.

Again, the rules for Destroyer weapons say that saves may be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. You are conveniently ignoring parts of the rules to support an incorrect interpretation of the rules. How do you normally take saves against hits from any weapon? From any resulting successful and allocated wounds. That is a sensible assumption, supported by the rules, versus making up a concept of hit allocation which we have zero rules support for.

The main thing that really needs to be debated here is not saving against hits or any of the waffle that's been associated, but rather whether D hits inflict multiple wounds, or a single wound that is then multiplied. If a single wound that is multiplied then the doll would save them all, however, if it causes multiple wounds, as I believe the RAW States, then the doll would only remove one of these wounds, potentially allowing a second or third to pass and ID the haemonculus

 statu wrote:
The main thing that really needs to be debated here is not saving against hits or any of the waffle that's been associated, but rather whether D hits inflict multiple wounds, or a single wound that is then multiplied. If a single wound that is multiplied then the doll would save them all, however, if it causes multiple wounds, as I believe the RAW States, then the doll would only remove one of these wounds, potentially allowing a second or third to pass and ID the haemonculus

The rule I believe is actually quite clear about this:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

One hit that causes a wound automatically, and causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1. An automatic wound resulting from a hit, which does not inflict or cause D3 separate wounds, but rather causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1.

If it were intended to cause D3 separate wounds it would say as much, but instead it is a special effect of the wound that instead of reducing the model's wound count by one, it reduces it by the variable number.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

As Happyjew has said, you are incorrect. The rule reads:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

We know there is a hit; that is clear. We know it is a hit that wounds automatically. What does "wound" mean, in the verbal sense? It means to inflict a wound. What does inflict mean? It means to cause. So we have a rule that effectively reads:

"The model suffers a hit that causes a wound automatically..."

If you refute this you're simply trying to refute basic English.

the rules for Destroyer weapons do not tell you that you can make saves versus the Wounds, they say you make saves versus the hits. So rather than follow the RAW you have made up a singular automatic wound the model suffers (which is not in the rules for D weapons anywhere) then are making a save versus that, when it specifically tells you to make saves versus the hit.

In fact the rules for Destroyer weapons state saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. This is poor wording because, taken literally and at face valye, it is impossible then to resolve a wound without going completely and utterly off the path of what the rules say - we cannot take saves as normal against hits, and even if we accept we are given special permission to take saves against hits we have no way to allocate them - so therefore we have no way of reaching the point of making saves.

Alternatively, if we follow the sensible path of assuming the rules meant that we follow on how we would normally take saves against hits where available, i.e. against any resulting successful wounds, then of course we reach a point where we are saving against either the automatic wound from the Destroyer hit, or each of the variable wounds it causes. Obviously we know we cannot save against each of the variable wounds it causes because those wounds are only applied instead of the usual loss of a single wound, which comes after saves.

Yes normally you save versus wounds, and yes normally you allocate wounds and not hits, but the rules for D weapons have you allocate hits and save versus the hit. Normally models are removed as casualties if they fail their save, but FnP(a special rule) specifically gives you a chance under certain circumstances to not do that, often special rules specifically change general rules, and Destroyer Weapons is a special rule.... Nowhere does it give you an option under D weapon to allocate some mythical unsaved wound, nor does it give you the option to make a save other than from the hit. Considering there is no rule for D weapons rolling to wound this obviously makes sense as it supports the rules as written for D weapons, you roll to hit, you then you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, we are told in the rules for D weapons that we may roll to save versus the HITs not the WOUNDS there is no to wound roll, there is no singular allocated unsaved wound. For a roll of 6 we are again told "no saves of any kind are allowed against this hit". No mention of no saves of any kind are allowed against the wounds, notice the singular nature of "hit".

Feel no Pain is a terrible example to attempt to support your argument because it explicitly states when and how it works:

"When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded"

Your argument for Destroyer weapons requires you to entirely make up a method for allocating hits, which there is no clear rules support for. You are simply making an entire process up, and trying to justify it by claiming the rules say so when they don't. Feel No Pain is no comparable situation to this.

for d weapons you save versus the HIT as that is what the RAW state, not the wounds.

I am not suggesting anything other than the rules as written, you and others are suggesting a possible Rule as intended-however without any rules support to show that intention, but is a house rule that does not coincide with the rules as written. It also requires that you add things to the rule, which are not written in the rule to function.

Again, the rules for Destroyer weapons say that saves may be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal. You are conveniently ignoring parts of the rules to support an incorrect interpretation of the rules. How do you normally take saves against hits from any weapon? From any resulting successful and allocated wounds. That is a sensible assumption, supported by the rules, versus making up a concept of hit allocation which we have zero rules support for.

your entire post has no merit.

You completely failed to point out that the RAW states you roll to hit then roll on the table. The "automatic d3 wounds" which you seem think is singular then becomes d3 somehow without the rules stating does not happen until you have hit a model, and are rolling on the table, so yes RAW as I have said there are no directions for allocating hits. However RAW d weapons require you to allocate hits before you can roll on the table and cause a model to suffer no effect, a hit that cause a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds, or a hit that causes a model to suffer d6+6 automatic wounds.

so as much as you want to pretend your method does not require allocating hits, you are completely wrong and have even admitted it does through your description of what happens.

blaktoof wrote:
your entire post has no merit.

You completely failed to point out that the RAW states you roll to hit then roll on the table. The "automatic d3 wounds" which you seem think is singular then becomes d3 somehow without the rules stating does not happen until you have hit a model, and are rolling on the table, so yes RAW as I have said there are no directions for allocating hits. However RAW d weapons require you to allocate hits before you can roll on the table and cause a model to suffer no effect, a hit that cause a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds, or a hit that causes a model to suffer d6+6 automatic wounds.

You're cherry picking again. Yes, we roll to hit and then we roll on the table. The table then tells us the result of that hit:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

We know the model has already suffered the hit. The table result is telling us what happens as a result of the hit, which is that the hit wounds (causes a wound) automatically. Again, if you refute this you are refuting basic English.

If you disagree please explain how the model is not suffering an automatic wound when the rules are clearly saying that is the case.

so as much as you want to pretend your method does not require allocating hits, you are completely wrong and have even admitted it does through your description of what happens.

Burden is on you to explain how the rules tell us to allocate hits so that we may save against them, rather than taking the sensible option of saving against resulting successful, allocated wounds. Please, I'm inviting you to tell us where and how it tells us to allocate hits.

 statu wrote:
I've always read it as it automatically wounds D3/D6+6 times, therefore multiple wounds, which are all saved by one invulnerable/cover whatever. The doll is not a save, it just removes the first ID causing wound, so it would activate after the dice roll

Thing is, it's not that simple, and Doll doesn't just remove a Wound. The actual wording is: "the first unsaved Wound (...) that the bearer suffers"
When do you "suffer" a Wound?
If you look at the Invun. saves paragraph: "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound"
Or Difficult terrain Rules: "On a result of a 1, that model suffers a Wound. The model may take an armour or invulnerable save, but not a cover save, against this Wound."

It looks like Saves might even be after you suffer Wounds, but we're lucky the Doll says "Unsaved" meaning it must be after an attempted save. Just pointing out the "Suffers" Wording is ambiguous at best, so we need to be logical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

The RaW is this: "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
Do you agree that we are replacing one thing: 1 Wound, with another thing: D3 Wounds

Agreed?

blaktoof wrote:
Yes which means there is no initial unsaved wound.

Which is supported by the RAW in that there are no rules for that fabricated concept.

as such the nightmare doll does not negate all the wounds on the roll of d3, or D6+6, and instead suffers d3-1 or d6+5, as the rules for nightmare doll state wounds and not hits, and destroyer weapons cause hits that do x wounds where x= 0,d3, or d6+6 not 1 that becomes some other amount.

if you replace 1 with d3 or d6+6 there was never one. If you treat the rules that there is 1 for other purposes, you have not replaced one with something else. example, if you say that there is 1 unsaved wound[ no rules support in D weapons for this] and treat nightmare doll as stopping the 1, then state there are no other wounds- you did not replace 1 with anything.

for example. I normally meet Blacktalos for coffee, instead today I met Nosferatu for coffee. I have done something instead, and replaced something. Which means there was never me having coffee with you that day.

nothing in the rules for D weapons tell you to cause 1 unsaved wound then replace it with something else, you cause 0,d3, or d6+6 instead of 1. not 1 that later becomes those values.

Let's keep taking this easy and slow. I shall not create any concepts or make any assumptions.... I will just ask you for each fact and use exactly what you reply with to try and explain how the entire thing seems to work, for me anyway....

So, you agreed that "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1". means that the rule is replacing one thing: 1 Wound, with another thing: D3 Wounds

Now, my next easy question is: What is the 1 Wound that is being replaced?

RaW: "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
I will point out that the RaW says "lose" as an indication of when/what this Wound is, but let me know what your (keep it simple) response is?

again you seem unable to talk about the entire rule, despite quoting it

The hit wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1.

there is no singular unsaved wound. it is d3 automatic wounds the model suffers. ignoring this is ignoring basic english, and creates scenarios with the non rule you are making up where a model suffers 1 wound, is removed as a casualty as per the remove as a casualty rules, you roll a 1 on the D chart and the model is unharmed. There is no singular unsaved wound then becoming d3 wounds, there are just d3 automatic wounds, unharmed, or d6+6 automatic wounds with no save allowed for the HIT.

as to cherry picking, me discussing the whole rule is not cherry picking, people stating "automatic wound" then saying it suffers 1 unsaved wound is cherry picking a part of a rule to then make up rules. further, claiming you do not allocate the hit, when there are no rules for generating wounds until you have allocated a hit to a model, is cherry picking.

regardless, there is never a singular automatic wound, unless you roll a 1 on the D3

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
The main thing that really needs to be debated here is not saving against hits or any of the waffle that's been associated, but rather whether D hits inflict multiple wounds, or a single wound that is then multiplied. If a single wound that is multiplied then the doll would save them all, however, if it causes multiple wounds, as I believe the RAW States, then the doll would only remove one of these wounds, potentially allowing a second or third to pass and ID the haemonculus

The rule I believe is actually quite clear about this:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

One hit that causes a wound automatically, and causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1. An automatic wound resulting from a hit, which does not inflict or cause D3 separate wounds, but rather causes the model to lose D3 wounds instead of 1.

If it were intended to cause D3 separate wounds it would say as much, but instead it is a special effect of the wound that instead of reducing the model's wound count by one, it reduces it by the variable number.

For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah. Obviously this is the only place this language makes any difference, but other than common talking, does the rule book use the term automatically wounds in the singular? Only asking as I don't have access to my book right now

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English.

blaktoof wrote:
again you seem unable to talk about the entire rule, despite quoting it

The hit wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1.

there is no singular unsaved wound. it is d3 automatic wounds the model suffers. ignoring this is ignoring basic english, and creates scenarios with the non rule you are making up where a model suffers 1 wound, is removed as a casualty as per the remove as a casualty rules, you roll a 1 on the D chart and the model is unharmed. There is no singular unsaved wound then becoming d3 wounds, there are just d3 automatic wounds, unharmed, or d6+6 automatic wounds with no save allowed for the HIT.

as to cherry picking, me discussing the whole rule is not cherry picking, people stating "automatic wound" then saying it suffers 1 unsaved wound is cherry picking a part of a rule to then make up rules. further, claiming you do not allocate the hit, when there are no rules for generating wounds until you have allocated a hit to a model, is cherry picking.

regardless, there is never a singular automatic wound, unless you roll a 1 on the D3

You are ignoring requests to support your reasoning with RAW and so your argument carries zero weight. Please, I'm more than willing to consider your argument but you are repeatedly ignoring my requests to explain the procedure for allocating hits according to the RAW, and so it is simply impossible to resolve your interpretation.

Until you stop simply repeating yourself and actually substantiate your statements with rules support as requested, it is impossible for your argument to carry any real weight.

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah. Obviously this is the only place this language makes any difference, but other than common talking, does the rule book use the term automatically wounds in the singular? Only asking as I don't have access to my book right now

It's the fact that the phrase is split:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically"

"and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"

So the Hit causes an automatic Wound. It also ("and") creates a situation where, "instead" of loosing 1 Wound (<When does this happen?), the model looses D3.>

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English..

My point was, if it is worded to cause one wound that would multiply out etc then the doll would negate everything, if it's worded as lose multiple wounds then doll only works against one. The didderenxe between automatic wound and wounds automatically becomes important here, as automatic wound would mean it is a single wound that causes the loss of multiple wounds, whereas automatically wounds means it causes multiple wounds. To break it down as you want to, one says 'causes a wound, which results in X wounds being lost' the other 'causes X wounds'. Why bother with this difference? Because it changes the way this specific piece of wargear works, hence why I added more to the comment you quoted, which you quite handily cut out

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English.

blaktoof wrote:
again you seem unable to talk about the entire rule, despite quoting it

The hit wounds automatically and causes d3 wounds instead of 1.

there is no singular unsaved wound. it is d3 automatic wounds the model suffers. ignoring this is ignoring basic english, and creates scenarios with the non rule you are making up where a model suffers 1 wound, is removed as a casualty as per the remove as a casualty rules, you roll a 1 on the D chart and the model is unharmed. There is no singular unsaved wound then becoming d3 wounds, there are just d3 automatic wounds, unharmed, or d6+6 automatic wounds with no save allowed for the HIT.

as to cherry picking, me discussing the whole rule is not cherry picking, people stating "automatic wound" then saying it suffers 1 unsaved wound is cherry picking a part of a rule to then make up rules. further, claiming you do not allocate the hit, when there are no rules for generating wounds until you have allocated a hit to a model, is cherry picking.

regardless, there is never a singular automatic wound, unless you roll a 1 on the D3

You are ignoring requests to support your reasoning with RAW and so your argument carries zero weight. Please, I'm more than willing to consider your argument but you are repeatedly ignoring my requests to explain the procedure for allocating hits according to the RAW, and so it is simply impossible to resolve your interpretation.

Until you stop simply repeating yourself and actually substantiate your statements with rules support as requested, it is impossible for your argument to carry any real weight.

so because the dictionary says wound is to inflict a wound you believe the rules for the game make a hit that causes a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds a singular thing despite never being told to in the rules. fascinating.

do you feel psychic shriek as a power if someone rolled and beat the opponents model by 6 that there is a first wound that becomes 6 wounds?

I am repeating my argument with rules support, you + others are cutting small sections out of the rules and trying to fabricate a mythical unsaved wound that happens prior to rolling to see how many wounds a model takes without supporting it, then ignoring any reason and bringing up things like "there are no general rules for allocating hits" which I also have stated, but have pointed out by your logic you have to also allocate the hit to a model before you can roll on the table. There is no to wound, and you roll on the table instead of wounding, allocation of wounds comes from the result of generating a would pool- which is the result of rolling to wound. Neither of those do you do, or are able to do for destroyer weapons, and we are not told you are counted as doing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 statu wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 statu wrote:
For the sake of argument here, it doesn't say it causes an automatic wound, it says it wounds automatically blah blah blah.

No one is saying the rule is written that way. I am simply stating that is what it means, in simple English. Look at the dictionary definition for the verb, "wound" and it will tell you, "to inflict a wound". Look at the definition for "inflict" and it will tell you, "to cause". It's simple English..

My point was, if it is worded to cause one wound that would multiply out etc then the doll would negate everything, if it's worded as lose multiple wounds then doll only works against one. The didderenxe between automatic wound and wounds automatically becomes important here, as automatic wound would mean it is a single wound that causes the loss of multiple wounds, whereas automatically wounds means it causes multiple wounds. To break it down as you want to, one says 'causes a wound, which results in X wounds being lost' the other 'causes X wounds'. Why bother with this difference? Because it changes the way this specific piece of wargear works, hence why I added more to the comment you quoted, which you quite handily cut out

the rule for rolling a 2-5

The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose d3 wounds instead of 1.

Is the phrase 'wounds automatically' used anywhere else in the rule book to mean 'causes one wound automatically'? Here it seems to read as 'automatically causes X wounds'. Other rules I can think of that may use 'wounds automatically', I believe, also contain the phrase 'a single hit' which limits the number of wounds. I can't see anything here that means there is a single wound that is multiplied, so the doll would only work if one wound was rolled

blaktoof wrote:
so because the dictionary says wound is to inflict a wound you believe the rules for the game make a hit that causes a model to suffer d3 automatic wounds a singular thing despite never being told to in the rules. fascinating.

do you feel psychic shriek as a power if someone rolled and beat the opponents model by 6 that there is a first wound that becomes 6 wounds?

This is what is called a strawman argument. You are misrepresenting my argument and applying that misrepresentation to a completely different circumstance to attempt to discredit my argument as if it were the same.

The model does not "suffer" D3 automatic wounds. The model suffers a hit, which causes a wound automatically, and instead of losing one wound as a result the model loses the variable number of wounds.

Not the same thing as causing or causing the model to suffer D3 wounds, however you wish to word it.

I am repeating my argument with rules support, you + others are cutting small sections out of the rules and trying to fabricate a mythical unsaved wound that happens prior to rolling to see how many wounds a model takes without supporting it, then ignoring any reason and bringing up things like "there are no general rules for allocating hits" which I also have stated, but have pointed out by your logic you have to also allocate the hit to a model before you can roll on the table. There is no to wound, and you roll on the table instead of wounding, allocation of wounds comes from the result of generating a would pool- which is the result of rolling to wound. Neither of those do you do, or are able to do for destroyer weapons, and we are not told you are counted as doing them.

No you're not. You're simply claiming the rules tell you that you may completely replace the wound allocation process and that you may insert a made up hit allocation process at an indeterminate point (for example, is it before or after you roll on the table?).

If you believe we are given permission to allocate hits can you please tell me where it says so (don't just point to where it says saves can be taken against Destroyer hits as normal, because the normal way to take saves is obviously against successful and allocated wounds). Break it down into steps for me, please, like this:

1. Roll to hit.
2. Roll on the Destroyer table.

etc.

blaktoof wrote:
There is no to wound, and you roll on the table instead of wounding, allocation of wounds comes from the result of generating a would pool- which is the result of rolling to wound. Neither of those do you do, or are able to do for destroyer weapons, and we are not told you are counted as doing them.

You seem to be ignoring my posts when i'm trying to explain things in easy terms and RaW....

So 'ill just point out a big problem with what you are saying above:

No To Wound.
No Wound pool.

But No Wound Pool = never allocate Wounds
never allocate Wounds = never remove models.

By your interpretation (No Wound pool), D-Weapons can never kill models


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 statu wrote:
Is the phrase 'wounds automatically' used anywhere else in the rule book to mean 'causes one wound automatically'? Here it seems to read as 'automatically causes X wounds'. Other rules I can think of that may use 'wounds automatically', I believe, also contain the phrase 'a single hit' which limits the number of wounds. I can't see anything here that means there is a single wound that is multiplied, so the doll would only work if one wound was rolled

Are my posts even getting read?

Its not 'automatically causes X wounds' because the Rule is split:

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically"
"and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"

So the Hit causes an automatic Wound. It also ("and") creates a situation where, "instead" of loosing 1 Wound (<When does this happen?), the model looses D3>

Yes I have been reading your posts, the reason I am still saying this is that you are splitting a rule into two parts. If there is another instance of the rule book using 'wounds automatically' to mean causes one wound, with no other piece of wording to limit it to one wound then I will happily shut up and add strength D to the list of things I won't play, as this whole thing is becoming more and more confusing to me and agree that the rule should be split as you have done

I'll have a look for another case, but if you just want a simple breakdown, this is how the RaW works. It's not based on "Wounds automatically" V "Automatic Wound", but the fact the Rule says "lose":

 BlackTalos wrote:

Indeed, just to clarify what has already been said, you must have read this section:

Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1.

The coloured text is a special effect that happens outside of the "Allocate Wound" of the Shooting sequence, which the underlined follows.

Also, in the "normal sequence" we have this:

Take Saves & Remove Casualties
The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

Can you see the underlined above? This is the RaW that D-Weapons modify.

As such, i would modify your summary:

Normal:
Hit
Roll to Wound
Allocate Wounds
Save Wounds
Reduce Wounds by 1
Remove Casualties (Optional)

D-Weapons:
Hit "model suffers a hit"
Roll to Wound "that wounds automatically"
Allocate Wounds Allocate "Seriously Wounded" or "Deathblow" Wounds
Save Wounds Take your save against the "Seriously Wounded" Wound
Reduce Wounds by 1 "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"
Remove Casualties (Optional)

 statu wrote:
Is the phrase 'wounds automatically' used anywhere else in the rule book to mean 'causes one wound automatically'? Here it seems to read as 'automatically causes X wounds'. Other rules I can think of that may use 'wounds automatically', I believe, also contain the phrase 'a single hit' which limits the number of wounds. I can't see anything here that means there is a single wound that is multiplied, so the doll would only work if one wound was rolled

Both Rending and the Telekinesis psychic power Crush use the explicit wording of, "wounds automatically".

I was about to point them out too:
Rending: "the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness"
Purge Soul:"the target model suffers an automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed"
Crush:"a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or,"

 BlackTalos wrote:
I was about to point them out too:
Rending: "the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness"
Purge Soul:"the target model suffers an automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed"
Crush:"a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or,"

I think he was after the specific use of "wounds automatically" rather than similar wording, which I could find only in the shooting portion of Rending, as well as Crush. That was by searching the electronic version for "wouns automatically" and only turned up those two outside of the Destroyer rules.

Crush is the only one of the three that actually changes anything in my head, tending and purge soul both have wording that points out it causes a single wound, which the D chart doesn't.

So going on from this then, at what point does the doll activate? Before the D3/D6 roll, or after the number of wounds has been established?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I was about to point them out too:
Rending: "the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of its Toughness"
Purge Soul:"the target model suffers an automatic Wound with no armour or cover saves allowed"
Crush:"a result of an 11 or 12 wounds automatically or,"

I think he was after the specific use of "wounds automatically" rather than similar wording, which I could find only in the shooting portion of Rending, as well as Crush. That was by searching the electronic version for "wouns automatically" and only turned up those two outside of the Destroyer rules.

Yeah I was, figured if that exact wording wasn't used else where then it would mean that strength D wounds are treated differently

The "as easy as possible":

The RaW: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Fact: Model suffers a Hit.
What does this Hit do?
- "a hit that wounds automatically"
- "a hit that causes it to lose D3 Wounds"

But when do i actually loose those Wounds?

"lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"

When does a model "normaly" loose 1 Wound in the Shooting / Assault sequence?

Take Saves & Remove Casualties
The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

That is the only part of the sequence when a model "looses" 1 Wound.

If you disagree with any of the above, please show me in the Rulebook when a model "looses" 1 Wound. There is no other "time" when this happens.

 statu wrote:
Crush is the only one of the three that actually changes anything in my head, tending and purge soul both have wording that points out it causes a single wound, which the D chart doesn't.

BlackTalos only quoted the wording for the assault portion of the Rending rules - the shooting attack portion does use the explicit phrase, "wounds automatically".

So going on from this then, at what point does the doll activate? Before the D3/D6 roll, or after the number of wounds has been established?

It activates when the model suffers an unsaved wound. If we accept that it is one hit that causes a wound automatically and that this wound causes the model to lose x wounds instead of one then I take that to mean it is a single unsaved wound, which has a unique effect on the model's wound count; it's not x individual unsaved wounds.

 statu wrote:
So going on from this then, at what point does the doll activate? Before the D3/D6 roll, or after the number of wounds has been established?

The doll activates when you "suffer an unsaved wound".

You suffer a Hit that Wounds automatically, which you can save, but if you fail, you reduce your Wounds.

In the phrase above, i'll let you make your own choice of when to apply "suffer" or "unsaved".

So you lose 2 wounds from rolling a 3/4 on the D3 roll. You lose the first, and doll kicks in, so you lose the second and die. Or is it that it wounds, and before you see how many wounds you lose, the doll kicks in and you lose none?

Started trying to reply before the two posts above

 Mr. Shine wrote:
BlackTalos only quoted the wording for the assault portion of the Rending rules - the shooting attack portion does use the explicit phrase, "wounds automatically".

"a To Wound roll of 6 Wounds automatically, regardless of Toughness, and is resolved at AP2."

The "as easy as possible":

The RaW: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Fact: Model suffers a Hit.

How are you ever getting a hit on a model?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
If we accept that it is one hit that causes a wound automatically and that this wound causes the model to lose x wounds instead of one then I take that to mean it is a single unsaved wound, which has a unique effect on the model's wound count; it's not x individual unsaved wounds.

That is also how i see current Destroyer Weapon Rules:

It's an Automatic Wound, with a specific effect that modifies the rules about how many Wounds you "cross out from your profile".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

The "as easy as possible":

The RaW: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

Fact: Model suffers a Hit.

How are you ever getting a hit on a model?

"model suffers a hit" ?

Same as Ramming: "Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted"

What is wrong with "suffering a Hit"?