Switch Theme:

How does 'the bearer suffers a mortal wound' work?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Nasty Nob






Some weapons, such as kustom mega-blastas, can cause the 'bearer' to 'suffer a mortal wound'. If a model in a unit has already suffered some wounds, the rules for allocating wounds require that wounds be allocated to that model.

What happens when you have a unit of multi-wound models armed with such weapons (say, a unit of killa kans with KMBs) and one model has already been wounded? Do you roll for each model's attacks individually and allocate wounds to the models which trigger the mortal wounds or do you ignore the part about 'the bearer' and just allocate wounds as normal?

If you can end up inflicting mortal wounds on multiple models in a unit and end up with a unit where several models have lost wounds, how does allocating wounds work then? Can any wounded model be chosen to have new wounds allocated to it? Can you choose to switch which model you are assigning wounds to at any time?

   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Perfect Organism wrote:
Some weapons, such as kustom mega-blastas, can cause the 'bearer' to 'suffer a mortal wound'. If a model in a unit has already suffered some wounds, the rules for allocating wounds require that wounds be allocated to that model.

What happens when you have a unit of multi-wound models armed with such weapons (say, a unit of killa kans with KMBs) and one model has already been wounded? Do you roll for each model's attacks individually and allocate wounds to the models which trigger the mortal wounds or do you ignore the part about 'the bearer' and just allocate wounds as normal?

If you can end up inflicting mortal wounds on multiple models in a unit and end up with a unit where several models have lost wounds, how does allocating wounds work then? Can any wounded model be chosen to have new wounds allocated to it? Can you choose to switch which model you are assigning wounds to at any time?
You've come across a problem that GW only noticed recently. They fixed this for Tau but not for orks (or SoB for that matter).

In short, the game breaks. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/735625.page

All the rules say is "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

So basically we have a rule saying we "must" allocate to two different models.

RaW everything breaks and a singularity is formed and we all die.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/03 23:10:49


 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





To not completely complicate things needlessly ignore the 'bearer' part and the wounded model takes the wound.

And yes that means Jimmy can die because Carl shot his plasma gun.

edited by moderator

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/04 00:13:56


 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Ordana wrote:
To not completely complicate things needlessly ignore the 'bearer' part and the wounded model takes the wound.

And yes that means Jimmy can die because Carl shot his plasma gun.

edited by moderator


That's how pretty much everybody I see plays it. Good thing as otherwise it's all too easy to end up in situation where rules don't tell how to proceed so barring coming up with a rule on spot game ends up in eternal stalemate(or eternal until GW says something about it either) and if you have to do that might just as well do it earlier to make it cleaner by not having multiple models marked with wounds ;-)

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Specific trumps general, so the kustom mega-blasta would indeed allocate to the 'bearer' and not the other wounded model in the unit.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

It’s easy enough to handle multiple wounded models. The next time said unit takes a wound apply it to one wounded model of the owning player’s choice, then keep applying to that one til they’re dead. The pick the next wounded model and repeat. Do this til all wounded models are dead and then go back to core rules. That’s HIWPI, in keeping with regular rules but solving the problem on the fly.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/04 15:51:01


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Twisting Tzeentch Horror






Pretty sure it says in ghe core rules 'weapons and abilities take precedence over the core rules'

 insaniak wrote:

You can choose to focus on the parts of a hobby that make you unhappy, or you can choose to focus on the parts that you enjoy.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Pretty sure it says in ghe core rules 'weapons and abilities take precedence over the core rules'
The rulebook says no such thing. The word "precedence" isn't even in the rulebook.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Pretty sure it says in ghe core rules 'weapons and abilities take precedence over the core rules'


You are thinking of 7th. Thats not in 8th.

Also, what happens when 2 models in a 5 model unit have each suffered wounds and more wounds are needing to be allocated? Who do you allocate these new wounds to? RAW says you HAVE to allocate wounds to the injured model first until it is dead but multiple models fit this criteria. We have no RAW answer for how to proceed.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Pretty sure it says in ghe core rules 'weapons and abilities take precedence over the core rules'


You are thinking of 7th. Thats not in 8th.

Also, what happens when 2 models in a 5 model unit have each suffered wounds and more wounds are needing to be allocated? Who do you allocate these new wounds to? RAW says you HAVE to allocate wounds to the injured model first until it is dead but multiple models fit this criteria. We have no RAW answer for how to proceed.


Either one fits RAW perfectly. There is no exclusion because more than one model has a wound on it.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Fragile wrote:
Either one fits RAW perfectly. There is no exclusion because more than one model has a wound on it.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. </PrincessBride>

You MUST allocate it to the wounded model. If you have two wounded models, A and B, and allocate it to model A, you are breaking the rule that you must allocate it to model B. It says "the damage must be allocated to that model", not "the damage must be allocated to that model unless there is also another wounded model, or it's not Thursday, or if you don't particularly feel like it."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/05 22:34:23


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It was allocated to the wounded model.



   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Fragile wrote:
It was allocated to the wounded model.
No it wasn't. Model B is wounded and was not allocated the wound. Do you see now why the RAW is broken?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/06 00:22:28


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Its not broken, your limited view of the game is broken. I bet you flip out when you face an Ork player who can combine units with 2 or even more wounded models in it. Apply the wound to a wounded model per the rules and continue on. Simple.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Fragile wrote:
Its not broken, your limited view of the game is broken. I bet you flip out when you face an Ork player who can combine units with 2 or even more wounded models in it. Apply the wound to a wounded model per the rules and continue on. Simple.
You're not following the rules though. The rules say you MUST allocate to THE wounded model. Must. Not Optional. Compulsory. If you allocate it to model A, you are breaking the rules by not allocating it to model B, and if you allocate to model B, you're breaking the rules by not allocating A.

I play by the rules as the rulebook says, not the rules as I want them to be. I mean, unless you're ok with my Guardman having 40 wounds each.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/06 00:30:33


 
   
Made in gb
Incorporating Wet-Blending




U.k

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Its not broken, your limited view of the game is broken. I bet you flip out when you face an Ork player who can combine units with 2 or even more wounded models in it. Apply the wound to a wounded model per the rules and continue on. Simple.
You're not following the rules though. The rules say you MUST allocate to THE wounded model. Must. Not Optional. Compulsory. If you allocate it to model A, you are breaking the rules by not allocating it to model B, and if you allocate to model B, you're breaking the rules by not allocating A.

I play by the rules as the rulebook says, not the rules as I want them to be. I mean, unless you're ok with my Guardman having 40 wounds each.


There is a contradiction in the rules but it’s a simple one to overcome, in different ways so just agree on one and move on. No need to quit because you can’t play the rules! Nothing breaks and the GAME can continue. I would play it that the firer takes the wound. So you can have two wounded models in the one squad. Ideal, no. Workable, yes. This is a situation You have to use common sense and carry on. They’re rules, not laws. No one will punish you if you don’t do it perfectly.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/06 00:41:58


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Its not broken, your limited view of the game is broken. I bet you flip out when you face an Ork player who can combine units with 2 or even more wounded models in it. Apply the wound to a wounded model per the rules and continue on. Simple.
You're not following the rules though. The rules say you MUST allocate to THE wounded model. Must. Not Optional. Compulsory. If you allocate it to model A, you are breaking the rules by not allocating it to model B, and if you allocate to model B, you're breaking the rules by not allocating A.



And your brain locked into BCB mode again. Give you a hint, those basic rules are just that, basic. They simply do not (nor should they) try to take into account every possible combo of rules / codex / factions. You apply wounds to previously wounded models to avoid wound shenanigans, like GK Paladins of old. You have followed the rule that you apply the wound to the wounded model.


I play by the rules as the rulebook says, not the rules as I want them to be.


As you always say, but doubt you do

I mean, unless you're ok with my Guardman having 40 wounds each.


Yet another fantasy example you try to pull out of your arguments. The auto hitting SM will be next ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/06 00:44:22


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Andykp wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Its not broken, your limited view of the game is broken. I bet you flip out when you face an Ork player who can combine units with 2 or even more wounded models in it. Apply the wound to a wounded model per the rules and continue on. Simple.
You're not following the rules though. The rules say you MUST allocate to THE wounded model. Must. Not Optional. Compulsory. If you allocate it to model A, you are breaking the rules by not allocating it to model B, and if you allocate to model B, you're breaking the rules by not allocating A.

I play by the rules as the rulebook says, not the rules as I want them to be. I mean, unless you're ok with my Guardman having 40 wounds each.
There is a contradiction in the rules but it’s a simple one to overcome, in different ways so just agree on one and move on. No need to quit because you can’t play the rules! Nothing breaks and the GAME can continue. I would play it that the firer takes the wound. So you can have two wounded models in the one squad. Ideal, no. Workable, yes. This is a situation You have to use common sense and carry on. They’re rules, not laws. No one will punish you if you don’t do it perfectly.
That is not an excuse for sloppy writing.
Fragile wrote:
And your brain locked into BCB mode again. Give you a hint, those basic rules are just that, basic. They simply do not (nor should they) try to take into account every possible combo of rules / codex / factions. You apply wounds to previously wounded models to avoid wound shenanigans, like GK Paladins of old. You have followed the rule that you apply the wound to the wounded model.
By that logic, why have rules at all? The rules are so basic they forgot to let my Marines automatically hit! That's the level your argument is on. The rule doesn't say "apply it to a wounded model" it says you MUST apply it to THE wounded model. The rules only work when one model is wounded, and stop working when multiple models are wounded. You're free to make up a house rule to cover it, but as it stands the game breaks if you play by the rules as I do.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/06 01:12:14


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sloppy writing? Go play Tic Tac Toe then. Its about the only game that will fit your version of adequate rules.
Your ultra legalistic use of definitions of single words in rules makes it apparent you're simply trying to twist rules to your own version of how it should be and not what the reasonable person would interpret. Your signature simply reinforces that.

Mortal wounds and Orks are two easy, yet uncommon, ways to have multiple wounded models in the unit. The rules are clear. Apply future wounds to the wounded models. In this case we have two. Either one satisfies RAW.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






The rules are literally the opposite. Like I said, it's fine to make up house rules, but don't try to claim it's RaW when it's not.

Speaking of Tic-Tac-Toe: https://pics.me.me/try-hard-hey-man-wanna-play-tic-tac-toe-lol-dude-its-14992990.png

Anyway, question has been answered, this is my final word on the matter.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/06 01:28:18


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Andykp wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Its not broken, your limited view of the game is broken. I bet you flip out when you face an Ork player who can combine units with 2 or even more wounded models in it. Apply the wound to a wounded model per the rules and continue on. Simple.
You're not following the rules though. The rules say you MUST allocate to THE wounded model. Must. Not Optional. Compulsory. If you allocate it to model A, you are breaking the rules by not allocating it to model B, and if you allocate to model B, you're breaking the rules by not allocating A.

I play by the rules as the rulebook says, not the rules as I want them to be. I mean, unless you're ok with my Guardman having 40 wounds each.


There is a contradiction in the rules but it’s a simple one to overcome, in different ways so just agree on one and move on. No need to quit because you can’t play the rules! Nothing breaks and the GAME can continue. I would play it that the firer takes the wound. So you can have two wounded models in the one squad. Ideal, no. Workable, yes. This is a situation You have to use common sense and carry on. They’re rules, not laws. No one will punish you if you don’t do it perfectly.


It is simple to overcome. I dont think BCB is arguing that there is not a simple answer that most everyone will agree to and then everyone can move on. The issue is that we shouldnt be making up simple answers to questions that come up because the rule doesnt exist to tell us what to do.

The game should be written in such a way that it just works. The fact that it doesnt is a problem. Its all good enough when the descrepency is small and easy and clear enough like this. But this is indicitive of a bigger problem where these same kinds of issues happen in bigger ways that have less clear answers.

Hand waving it away and claiming BCB is having some kind of a breakdown because others refuse to recognize the scope of the issue is both unproductive and idiotic.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Lance845 wrote:
It is simple to overcome. I dont think BCB is arguing that there is not a simple answer that most everyone will agree to and then everyone can move on. The issue is that we shouldnt be making up simple answers to questions that come up because the rule doesnt exist to tell us what to do.

The game should be written in such a way that it just works. The fact that it doesnt is a problem. Its all good enough when the descrepency is small and easy and clear enough like this. But this is indicitive of a bigger problem where these same kinds of issues happen in bigger ways that have less clear answers.

Hand waving it away and claiming BCB is having some kind of a breakdown because others refuse to recognize the scope of the issue is both unproductive and idiotic.
Thank you for understanding something most people refuse to. Having an easy house rule fix is not an excuse for sloppy writing.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s easy enough to handle multiple wounded models. The next time said unit takes a wound apply it to one wounded model of the owning player’s choice, then keep applying to that one til they’re dead. The pick the next wounded model and repeat. Do this til all wounded models are dead and then go back to core rules. That’s HIWPI, in keeping with regular rules but solving the problem on the fly.


That approach works well enough for units of 2W models but would let you distribute wounds to keep models alive for units with more than 2 (are there any that have this issue?)
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Scott-S6 wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s easy enough to handle multiple wounded models. The next time said unit takes a wound apply it to one wounded model of the owning player’s choice, then keep applying to that one til they’re dead. The pick the next wounded model and repeat. Do this til all wounded models are dead and then go back to core rules. That’s HIWPI, in keeping with regular rules but solving the problem on the fly.


That approach works well enough for units of 2W models but would let you distribute wounds to keep models alive for units with more than 2 (are there any that have this issue?)
Deffkoptas are 4 wounds apeace and each can take a Kustom mega-blasta, so it's a theoretical problem because Deffkoptas are utter trash.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




"...the bearer suffers a mortal wound."

There is no ambiguity. The unit does not suffer a mortal wound, the target does not suffer a mortal wound, another model in the unit does not suffer a mortal wound; the model rolling to hit with the weapon suffers a mortal wound, done. The wound is allocated by the Kustom Mega-Blasta's ability.



   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 Scott-S6 wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s easy enough to handle multiple wounded models. The next time said unit takes a wound apply it to one wounded model of the owning player’s choice, then keep applying to that one til they’re dead. The pick the next wounded model and repeat. Do this til all wounded models are dead and then go back to core rules. That’s HIWPI, in keeping with regular rules but solving the problem on the fly.


That approach works well enough for units of 2W models but would let you distribute wounds to keep models alive for units with more than 2 (are there any that have this issue?)


The idea is you keep applying damage to the one you chose til it is dead, regardless of its W stat. That way you can’t distribute.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'd have to double check the codex as I dont have it to hand but Crisis suits weapons specifically CIB I'm fairly sure are worded wierdly to prevent this happening. So I assume it will be addressed in the ork codex.

But if you have multiple wounded models you allocate wounds untill the most wounded model (least wounds remaining) is slain then move to the next one. If 2 models are equal the owning player can decied but must continue with that model untill it is removed.
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting






A post Brexit Wasteland

Ice_can wrote:
I'd have to double check the codex as I dont have it to hand but Crisis suits weapons specifically CIB I'm fairly sure are worded wierdly to prevent this happening. So I assume it will be addressed in the ork codex.

But if you have multiple wounded models you allocate wounds untill the most wounded model (least wounds remaining) is slain then move to the next one. If 2 models are equal the owning player can decied but must continue with that model untill it is removed.


Tau Codex wrote:
If you roll one or more hit rolls of 1, the bearer's unit suffers a mortal wound after all of this weapon's shots have been resolved.


As you said, The tau codex fixes this issue, and I'd Expect the Ork book is awaiting FAQ.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s easy enough to handle multiple wounded models. The next time said unit takes a wound apply it to one wounded model of the owning player’s choice, then keep applying to that one til they’re dead. The pick the next wounded model and repeat. Do this til all wounded models are dead and then go back to core rules. That’s HIWPI, in keeping with regular rules but solving the problem on the fly.


That approach works well enough for units of 2W models but would let you distribute wounds to keep models alive for units with more than 2 (are there any that have this issue?)
Deffkoptas are 4 wounds apeace and each can take a Kustom mega-blasta, so it's a theoretical problem because Deffkoptas are utter trash.


@BaconCatBug, I absolutely love your ability to spot inconsistencies / contradictions. But there are times I find your tendency to escalate these problems to the level of 'game breaking' to be hyperbolic and extreme.

The rules around wound allocation are clearly premised on the idea that one and only one model in a unit is taking wounds at a time. Rules that affect the bearer create a situation where more than one model has taken a wound.

Additional wounds to the unit would need to be allocated to the wounded models. The only real question is do the rules tell us which one would take the wound first.

The answer is no. In the case, the best the rules can do is offer us guidance about putting wounds on models who have already taken some. Most reasonable people would take that to mean the controlling player chooses what model takes the wounds, so long as that model has already been wounded.

The fact a rules system doesn't explicitly address every possible eventuality doesn't make it flawed or defective. Feels like claiming this specific inconsistency must be spelled out in exact language or the game is completely broken is overly pedantic.

   
Made in gb
Incorporating Wet-Blending




U.k

The game is massive. Hundreds of unit all with strange rules. I forgive sloppy rules writing when it’s easily overcome. I’d prefer that to strict inflexible rules. Impossible to break a game with bendable rules.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: