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.

Page 25 is a double, Gets Hot! specifies the model suffers a wound, this step also exists in wound allocation (Edit: 'COMPLEX UNITS' also in the shooting phase chapter, Pgae 25~!) Gets Hot! doesn't specify that the wound happens instantly (or similar woding used in 40k rules)
"the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded," 25 again
"Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed." 25...

The last sentence here, Chris, specifies models that stand out in game terms. Models that have the same stat line, wargear, and weapons are considered identical.

At this point I could see firing vs not firing coming into play, though it might be a little bit of a stretch.

The Gets Hot! rule makes a distinction of the model that suffered the Gets Hot! has to "suffer" the wound. AS in, THIS model is marked for burny - burny

No other. Nothing else in the unit is allowed to take the wound, as it was not the firing model.

Again: really, relaly, REALLY simple.

To make stuff clear, wounds are not grouped while you make saving throws. Not a single word refers to a "group".

The saves of models that took a wound are made "in one go" if these models are identical. Still the wounds have been specifically allocated to each MODEL before (or in case of gets hot assigned to the respective firing models). This status does not change.

So saying "the firing model suffers (takes, receives, whatever) a wound" simply means "a wound is allocated to the firing model".
We dont know how this "suffering, taking or receiving" mean (ruleswise), because it implies a procedure. But there is none given.
Instead the rulebook says: "normal saves apply"
So we have a direct reference to p25. Normal means basic, means general procedure.

Unfortunately gets hot does not refer to any way how to remove the casualties, so we have a little problem there. Because gets hot does not present an alternative way to use it (if you cannot remove casualties like it is said in the general rules, you cannot remove a single model differently before it is specifically stated how you do it differently)

So we have the following situation:

We skip allocation, because gets hot dictates us how to do it (the firing model takes the wound).
We do saving throws like it is done in the general rules (normal saves apply, so p 25 leads us the way)
Now we have to remove casualties. We have no reference to that in the "gets hot" rule.
So we stick to the general rules. Otherwise we could do nothing, because the removing itself (which is described in the general rules) is also negated.

I may have missed it in the discussion earlier, but if I have two plasma-gunners, each with two wounds (Obliterators, for instance), and one had already taken a wound and the other has a "Gets Hot!", do the wounds not remove a whole model then?

Also, during any other instance where saves are taken, models are designated to have specific wounds resolved against them. The only difference is that the player does the designating in shooting/assaulting against the unit (using allocation rules) as opposed to the rules, which do it in this case. If I have a unit of three similarly armed models, and one of them takess two power weapon attacks and the other two only take one normal attack and make their saves, how many models are removed? I'm having a hard time seeing how this is any different (other than the wound allocation step which as has been stated MANY times is not relevant and would not change the outcome), but then again I am away from any rules document at the moment, and I'm probably forgetting something key.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's a straight line and gets hot kicks in ~3/4s the way through - a model can't 'suffer a wound' without it being assigned to it.
Very simple.
I've provided various quotes, explained their intereaction and effects in game terms, please try to justify your position on "At this point I could see firing vs not firing coming into play, though it might be a little bit of a stretch." as as the Firing or not happens at the start and as suh a non-fiing model could in no way suffer a wound from GH!

It's hardly a stretch to read the rules and notice that wounds are suffed by specific models, if one takes awouns,one may attempt a save - not pass it along "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)." Pg 20, hence 'firing model suffers a wound' is the allocation.

Nazdreg - "in one batch" == "in a group"

Normal saves means you can take any save available to you. It does not prefer to a procedure

Remember that the rulebook uses "wound" to mean both a wounding hit and an unsaved wound; thus, to "suffer a wound" you must not only have a wounding-hit applied to you but you must also have the unsaved wound applied to you as well.

ChrisCP wrote:
It's a straight line and gets hot kicks in ~3/4s the way through - a model can't 'suffer a wound' without it being assigned to it.
Very simple.
I've provided various quotes, explained their intereaction and effects in game terms, please try to justify your position on "At this point I could see firing vs not firing coming into play, though it might be a little bit of a stretch." as as the Firing or not happens at the start and as suh a non-fiing model could in no way suffer a wound from GH!

It's hardly a stretch to read the rules and notice that wounds are suffed by specific models, if one takes awouns,one may attempt a save - not pass it along "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)." Pg 20, hence 'firing model suffers a wound' is the allocation.

Firing models vs not firing models, I say, because you might be able to argue that they "stand out in gaming terms" even though they're identical.

What your last paragraph is missing is the jump to which casualties to remove. Yes, model x is assigned the wound, model x rolls a save. When every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. (p 24, Removing Casualties). At this step, after saves, wounds are converted from a model back to a unit basis. Or, if the unit is complex, its moved to the group of identical models. When you choose which model to remove, wounds are no longer dealt with on a per-model basis, they're applied to the group of identical models.

Except in this case you have the additional stipulation: the firing model must suffer the wound

If another model is removed (or has it's wound stat altered) then the firing model has not suffered the wound.

Nazdreg - "in one batch" == "in a group"

Normal saves means you can take any save available to you. It does not prefer to a procedure

Remember that the rulebook uses "wound" to mean both a wounding hit and an unsaved wound; thus, to "suffer a wound" you must not only have a wounding-hit applied to you but you must also have the unsaved wound applied to you as well.

1.) nope, in one go means simultaneously, but this does not change the individual status of the allocated wounds. It does not refer to wounds but to the roll. It is not far away from a group though.

2.) Your first and your second sentence contradict here. If you can take saves then you should take the saves, which is a procedure described in the basic rules...

3.) then the basic rules would contradict themselves, concerning wound allocation and removing casualties (dealing with unsaved wounds). So it is better to speak of "wounds" and "unsaved wounds" instead of "wounds" and unsaved "wounds".

1) In one batch == in a group. That is the actual words.

Edit: Note that the final sentence of the same paragraph talks about "if there is another group of identical models" which again reinforces that they are a group. Trying to pretend they are different directly contradicts the rules.

2) No it does not contradict. You can take any normal saves allowed, such as armour or invulnerable saves. Not, you follow the "normal" procedure for taking saves as that does not tell you what saves you are allowed to take (as no AP value is given)

3) They dont contradict themselves; it relies on context which you are ignoring.

Suffering a wound has nothing to do with being removed as a casualty. Under remove casualties, p.24, this is made clear.

If a model fails a save, the unit suffers a wound, and then a model is removed. There is no other rule for removing a casualty (except p. 25 which you've determined doesn't apply)

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

How? What rule says this?

Models who 'suffer a wound' do not need to be removed under 'remove casualties.'

Models who don't 'suffer a wound' can be removed as casualties (even being out of LOS or range isn't safe!)

So how do you get from 'suffer a wound' == 'removed as a casualty'?

There are no like models for the single wounded model to be grouped with, the unit was not targeted any more than it was affected.

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

If you have been removed as a casualty, you have been removed as a casualty...
Jaws does not inflict any wounds, some powers do similar things that force a model to be removed without being wounded at all. (i.e. sweeping advance)

So it is not necessary that a model has suffered a wound.

"if there is another group of identical models" which again reinforces that they are a group. Trying to pretend they are different directly contradicts the rules.

Touché. I did not talk about a difference though.

No it does not contradict. You can take any normal saves allowed, such as armour or invulnerable saves. Not, you follow the "normal" procedure for taking saves as that does not tell you what saves you are allowed to take (as no AP value is given)

But if you say: "You are allowed to make saves" then there is a certain hint that you should look after "how" the saves are actually made. This refers to the procedure.
If I dont follow this procedure, I only have the save number and the kind of save (cover, armour, invul). I dont know what to do with it.

They dont contradict themselves; it relies on context which you are ignoring.

No I dont ignore it. If you want me to refer to an unsaved wound in the same way as I do to a wound with the same status, then I would force you to roll for every single model with your argumentation, that "this model has been a wound allocated to", so "this model suffers a wound" and "this model will be removed"...

What I want to say is: "The model suffers a wound" means "A wound is allocated to a model" Suffering does NOT include explicitly that after a failed save, this certain model must be removed as a casualty. It only includes it in our mind. Not in the text.

EDIT:

no like models for the single wounded model to be grouped with, the unit was not targeted any more than it was affected

"removing casualties" do not refer only to units as a whole. It talks about MODELS that have suffered an unsaved wound. Which is basically the status you are claiming the whole thread...

-Nazdreg- wrote:["removing casualties" do not refer only to units as a whole. It talks about MODELS that have suffered an unsaved wound. Which is basically the status you are claiming the whole thread...

From "Removing Casualties" on page 24: "Note that any model in the target unit. . . ."

The whole thing is written assuming the unit is the target of shooting.

If this step is arrived at without a target unit, only the models affected are used.

biccat wrote:

If you have been removed as a casualty you have "suffered" a wound.

How? What rule says this?
Models who 'suffer a wound' do not need to be removed under 'remove casualties.'
Models who don't 'suffer a wound' can be removed as casualties (even being out of LOS or range isn't safe!)
So how do you get from 'suffer a wound' == 'removed as a casualty'?

The Gets Hot wound has to go somewhere. The rules allocate it to the trooper who fired the gun and state that he is the trooper who will suffer the wound if unsaved. So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct? It obviously isn't adding to his Wound characteristic, and it is not regenerating anything because it is blowing up in his hands, so we agree he has suffered, or taken, been allocated, or received an unsaved wound...

Now removing casualties... Some one with an unfired plasma gun on the other side of the squad is removed instead.

What happens to the first guy?!?!?!?!?! Does he still walk around with 0 Wound characteristic? He started with 1 in his Wound characteristic, a gun blew up in his hands and reduced it by 1....

Gets Hot stats the one who fired must take the wound reduced from his Wound Characteristic... Is he some sort of super plasma drinking vampire now? (yes the pun was intended...vampires drink blood; blood has plasma in it, just not the super hot exploding type....unless you drink too much Vodka)

If this step is arrived at without a target unit, only the models affected are used.

And what do we do with them, how do we "use" the models affected...? No we dont remove them as a casualty. This is described in the section you are denying us. So we have to think of something else. Ah we have none, well, so we should refer to "removing casualties" or give me a written alternative.

Use page 24--"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table"

You know which model was wounded. Remove it.

Psyker_9er wrote:So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct?

. . .

What happens to the first guy?!?!?!?!?! Does he still walk around with 0 Wound characteristic? He started with 1 in his Wound characteristic, a gun blew up in his hands and reduced it by 1....

Gets Hot stats the one who fired must take the wound reduced from his Wound Characteristic... Is he some sort of super plasma drinking vampire now? (yes the pun was intended...vampires drink blood; blood has plasma in it, just not the super hot exploding type....unless you drink too much Vodka)

Where, oh where, please for the love of all that is holy is there any mention in the BRB of reducing the Wound characteristic? If I sound exasperated it's because this has been mentioned multiple times, and multiple times I have beseeched a reference, to no avail. Is there no balm in Gilead? Are there rules in the book? Then why can't we have a reference?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Use page 24--"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table"

You know which model was wounded. Remove it.

When I hit models in cover with a flamer, I know which models were hit. Why, then, aren't they removed?

The Gets Hot wound has to go somewhere. The rules allocate it to the trooper who fired the gun

Totally true.

So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct?

Would you be so kind to give me a quotation that supports this assumption? I have never read anything about "suffering a wound" (which is actually not an expression that has any concrete practical reference) has necessarily anything to do with "reducing the Wound characteristic by 1".

It obviously isn't adding to his Wound characteristic

Ehm actually, why not?
Unfortunately you did not say "takes a wound", so I would argue it takes +1 on his Wound characteristic, so he GAINS a Wound. A lone wolf would suffer from it...
Ah, no the damn Wounds and wounds problem...

Whatever, If it said he LOSES a Wound, then I would be d'accord. But it does not.

ElCheezus wrote:Where, oh where, please for the love of all that is holy is there any mention in the BRB of reducing the Wound characteristic?

I dont have a copy of the BRB with me right now, but what else are we doing when things explode other than reducing the Wound characteristic?
Why would they even have the Wound characteristic if it didn't mean things die when it reaches zero? 1 unsaved wound = minus 1 from Wound Characteristic. Regeneration = plus 1 to Wound Characteristic; not exploding.

The whole basis of Wound characteristic is to have at least 1, meaning you are alive (or activated if Necron). If you have none, you are dead (deactivated). That is what is implied, since I dont have the book with me right now, the implication will have to do for now. If a trooper has 0 Ballistics Skill, do they get to shoot? If a model has 0 Weapon Skill or 0 Attack, do they get to fight back in close combat? If a model has 0 Wound Characteristic, they die... They dont get to live any more.

The unsaved wounds have to go somewhere, Gets Hot says the model who fired must suffer. I'll go track down my big red book, and get back to you on actual quotes.

ElCheezus wrote:When I hit models in cover with a flamer, I know which models were hit. Why, then, aren't they removed?

You have a targeted unit in that one, feel free to use the rules that apply to them.

And if I target a vehicle, but the template also hits models in between?

Okay, so I just got updated on this. It seems the issue here is that once you roll for armor saves in a complex squad, the wounds de-allocate for members of the sub-squads, and are then re-allocated once you see how many were failed.

Assuming this is true, then what about mind war? After all, the eldar codex says...

The Eldar player may choose any unengaged model within 18" of the Farseer and within his line of sight... For each point the Farseer wins by, the target loses a wound, with no armour saves allowed.

Now, let's say that a farseer uses mind war on a group of conscripts. He passes the psychic test and rolls a 6, for a total of 16. The conscripts roll a 1 for a total of 6. Does that mean that the farseer just kill 10 guardsmen?

Clearly, Mind War intends for you to kill just the one guy that you're mind warring, even though it doesn't explicitly say so. Likewise, what about a vindicare? If wounds de-allocate once you start rolling savings throws, then you could always remove a model of the same class instead of the one which the vindicare actually pointed at, which CLEARLY runs against what was intended.

On the one hand, there isn't yet a reason for me to see using wound allocation differently, using wound allocation only in this way also breaks other special rules.

I'd also like to note that taking armor saves is not mandatory. Remember that the de-allocation and re-allocation only happens when you're making armor saves, so if you choose not to take them, then there's nothing going on with the allocation. In this case, you have to roll the plasma guns separately because if you have one guy who picks up two wounds, you can always just choose for him to die, rather than spread the contagion.

Likewise, what about a vindicare? If wounds de-allocate once you start rolling savings throws, then you could always remove a model of the same class instead of the one which the vindicare actually pointed at, which CLEARLY runs against what was intended.

The vindicare EXPLICITY states, that models of his choice are wounded (like Telion) as far as I know. So we have the shooting player allocating. If the shooting player allocates on a regular, the receiving player is of course free to remove is casualties elsewhere unless differently stated. Its the players problem if a weapon like a vindicare is used to shoot into undefined masses...

On the one hand, there isn't yet a reason for me to see using wound allocation differently, using wound allocation only in this way also breaks other special rules.

quod erat demonstrandum.

I'd also like to note that taking armor saves is not mandatory.

Is that so? If you say "normal saves apply" you are allowed to not roll for your saves?

Remember that the de-allocation and re-allocation only happens when you're making armor saves, so if you choose not to take them, then there's nothing going on with the allocation. In this case, you have to roll the plasma guns separately because if you have one guy who picks up two wounds, you can always just choose for him to die, rather than spread the contagion.

Negative. "Removing casualties" states, that every unsaved wound (which we would have in this case) has to be put on an identical model as long as it exists.

Procedure is, again:

1. allocate to specific models
2. roll saves for identical models in one go
3. every unsaved wound has to be taken by the unit as a whole and each model that is identical with the wounded one can be affected and therefore removed

The "de-allocation" and "re-allocation" you are pointing out takes place during the "removing casualties" part. There is the point where the wound status changes explicitly from being model based to unit based.

"for each model that failed its save THE UNIT suffers an unsaved wound"

and where you choose your victims.

So it is unimportant whether a unit or a model has been targetted before.

Now to Mind War:

Yes that would actually be my way to play it. Because we have no alternative given. A sentence like the following would be sufficient:

"Remember that only the targetted model may be removed as a casualty"

That would explicitly contradict the rules for "removing casualties and would therefore take precedence.

Psyker_9er wrote:The Gets Hot wound has to go somewhere. The rules allocate it to the trooper who fired the gun

Right.

Psyker_9er wrote:and state that he is the trooper who will suffer the wound if unsaved.

Actually it says he suffers a wound, and saves may be taken as normal.

Similarly, if you are shot with a bunch of bolters, you allocate 2 wounds to each model, and then take the saves in bunches/groups/whatever. Even tho Mook A may be ALLOCATED a wound, he doesn't necessarily have to be removed as a casualty if he fails his save.

Psyker_9er wrote:So since the trooper suffered the wound that means his Wound characteristic is now reduced by one correct?

Nope. Nothing in the rules ever says you reduce his wound by 1 (at least, not that I've seen). If it's a unit of single-wound models, you remove a model for each failed save. If there are multiple-wound models, THEN you reduce wounds by 1.

There's a difference (although I don't think it matters here): models with 1 wound do NOT get reduced to 0, then removed as a casualty. Models with 1 wound are simply removed as a casualty.

Psyker_9er wrote:It obviously isn't adding to his Wound characteristic, and it is not regenerating anything because it is blowing up in his hands, so we agree he has suffered, or taken, been allocated, or received an unsaved wound...

No disagreement here.

Psyker_9er wrote:Now removing casualties... Some one with an unfired plasma gun on the other side of the squad is removed instead.

I think you could argue (although it's another discussion) that the guy with an unfired plasma gun is different from the shooting guy, and therefore can't be removed.

But then again, if you change the facts, you can get whatever result you want.

Read the OP, this is about 3 plasma gunners all rapid-firing.

Psyker_9er wrote:What happens to the first guy?!?!?!?!?! Does he still walk around with 0 Wound characteristic? He started with 1 in his Wound characteristic, a gun blew up in his hands and reduced it by 1....

Like I said above, there's no metric to reduce a 1-wound model by 1 wound. He takes a wound, then makes a save. If it is unsaved, then the unit suffers an unsaved wound. An identical model to the model that suffered the wound must be removed.

Psyker_9er wrote:Gets Hot stats the one who fired must take the wound reduced from his Wound Characteristic... Is he some sort of super plasma drinking vampire now? (yes the pun was intended...vampires drink blood; blood has plasma in it, just not the super hot exploding type....unless you drink too much Vodka)

Yes. He is now a super-hot plasma-exploding nigh-unkillable power armored space vampire who breaks all of the rules and puts other power-armored models to shame.

Or as I like to call them, Blood Angels.

As an aside, after doing some math, I realized that this situation will only have a 50% chance of occurring after 250 rapid-firing plasma guns. As such, I'm not really concerned. If an opponent rapidfires, takes 2 unsaved wounds, and only takes 1 model, that's cool. If he takes 2, that's cool. If I do it and he insists I take either 1 or 2, fine.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

I'd also like to note that taking armor saves is not mandatory.

Is that so? If you say "normal saves apply" you are allowed to not roll for your saves?

Of course. In the rules for armor saves, the rule clearly uses words like "can" and "allows" and not words like "must". Using the regular rules for armor saves (which applies to this particular circumstance), you don't need to roll any dice if you don't care to, much less any particular model's wounds.

-Nazdreg- wrote:"for each model that failed its save THE UNIT suffers an unsaved wound"

Exactly, for each model that FAILED ITS SAVE. If you don't take a save in the first place, there's nothing failed, ergo the whole part about units taking UNSAVED wounds doesn't apply.

Yeah, but if you aren't forced to roll saves, then you never have an unsaved wound, and the game breaks, because you don't have to take casualties. As much as I like strict reading, the "can" in terms of saving causes crazy crazy crazy problems.

Sometimes I hate GW's writing. Wait, that's every time there's a rules discrepancy. . .