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.

Which would leave multiwound units incapable of losing multiple wounds per turn because you're saying they only suffer one wound per model (that fails its save). It also means units with Feel No Pain only have to re-roll one wound each, because you're saying they can only take as many wounds as the number of models.
Obviously it's either written wrong, or you're interpretting it wrong - either way stop harping on about it.

Not really, everyone is going by how many models are removed, you have 5 unsaved wounds, therefore, 5 more attacks. If it had said, for every model removed it would say so.
(The above was from an earlier post, not the recent one, so disreguard)

it's very very simple, How many wounds were not saved, not how many models failed to save their wounds. Yes, only 3 models were there to take saves, but, you had to (if able roll 5 dice).

Insert here say Thousand Sons.. you do 5 wounds, i have 3 models. By the other way of looking at it, I should roll 3 dice as there are more wounds then models... so I roll 3 dice, fail with 2, yet there is still another one.. so I roll again on the single model now right? oh wait now he fails.. and your other wound is lost..WRONG.

You allocate the wounds, take the saves, a model can suffer more wounds then it has, it's just a mute point as it died immediately upon failing one save. But the dice are rolled at the same time, so 3 models, A B and C. A x 1, B x 2, C x 2 .. and then you roll them AT THE SAME TIME!(if at all).. if they all failed, then, C failed 2, B failed 2 and A failed 1.


Also for the feel no pain mentioned, you woudln't get it in such circumstances as power weapon. Not sure if it was related to the particular thread matter...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

If 3 models fail 3 saves then you have 3 wounds,

If you roll correctly which means roll all dice possible at the same time, your rolling all of the ALLOCATED wounds (which allocation is done before dice are rolled).

Keep in mind, I play Dark Angels, Thousand Sons, Tzeentch Demons, and Tyranids... One of my buds who I play against frequently uses Blood Angels, and I have no problem letting him Blendernaught me, pending he can get it into combat.

Also, if it was that clear dude, do you think there would be a 4 page discussion?.... It is clear, but people don't want to think its as overpowered as it might be.. which I'm not saying it is, I see it as kind of similar to the Bone Giant in fantasy Tomb Kings. I point you in the direction of the newly released Grey Knights, and you honestly tell me that this wasn't what GW was intending?

Could it of been an oversite by GW, possibly

Was it.. more then likely not. BA have already had a FAQ released recently and nothing was mentioned. Just own up to the fact GW codex creeps will keep adding in one more powerful thing to the next. BA saw the psychic vehicles by having 1 in their army. Grey Knights now have an all vehicle psyker setup.

It's the way it is, deal with it, and if you have no anti tank .. then well your probably screwed anyway but otherwise, blow the damn thing up and don't let it get near you...
It aint easy being the Emperors Daughter Chapter... so let them have some fun. GOGO MENSTRUAL MARINES!

karlosovic wrote:Which would leave multiwound units incapable of losing multiple wounds per turn because you're saying they only suffer one wound per model (that fails its save). It also means units with Feel No Pain only have to re-roll one wound each, because you're saying they can only take as many wounds as the number of models.
Obviously it's either written wrong, or you're interpretting it wrong - either way stop harping on about it.

That is not true, If you look at the wording on blood talons it says 'For every unsaved wound caused'

you look at wounds caused after saves and FNP, at the remove casualties step.

If you have a nid warrior and he is the last one in the unit, and he is at full wounds, the Blood Talon Dread assaults him, the dread can only cause three unsaved wounds, since the Nid warrior only has three wounds to lose.

If you take three saves on this nid warrior and he fails three saves, three unsaved wounds were caused.

If you take three saves on a genestealer and he fails three saves, one unsaved wound was caused.

My previous post's example was for single wound models. Multi wound models can take multiple wounds per turn as noted above.

FNP disrupts this process, so if you fail three saves on the warrior, and he had FNP he rolls three dice to save the wounds through FNP, he fails two and two unsaved wounds are caused.

You can not cause more wounds than a model has.

It is clear to me.

By your logic you can't cause more wounds then a unit has available to it. Meaning a unit with 10 wounds can't take 150 wounds cause its more then the unit has available. And again, wounds are rolled at the same time, how many it takes to kill a model is obvious, how many times it failed its rolls in one round of rolling is also obvious. Which is what is going on here.

You don't know how many wounds will not be saved, therefore you can't just say just cause it has 3 wounds it can fail wounds.

And by the way, FNP doesn't disrupt a thing. It says when it suffers an unsaved wound roll a dice.

WHICH brings up the other side of the argument, guy takes 3 wounds, does he only make one fnp save, or does he make all as they are UNSAVED WOUNDS!!!!!

Face it, you have to pick one or the other, and I think any army with FNP is hoping to rule on the side against the 5 wounds (from OP) so they can only have to take the one FNP roll. Which to me.. is alot worse then a dreadnaught butchering a whole squad.



I'd also like to mention though I know not on the exact same topic, Overkill in a challenge in fantasy... That in itself shows its possible to cause MORE wounds then the model has, though is a mute point I'm sure in this thread as some will blare, WRONG GAME SYSTEM!... Just felt it worth mentioning

Better yet, lets go back to wound allocation for a moment, you can easily allocate a non savable wound, or one that you know you can't save, and an armor save on the same model. Example might be clearer then my words..
Unit of 10 models takes 11 wounds in combat, two of which is an power weapon save that you wont be able to save against, you allocate 9 savable to 9 members in the squad, but then you allocate 2 non savable to the same one... This allows us to make one model to take 2 unsavable wounds. while the other members of the unit get to save as normal.

Again, people may not like it, but there are alot of things I don't like that are allowed. A 5+ obscured on a vehicle sitting still for one thing, but its what they get so I don't complain about it, I just work with what I got.

mpangelu wrote: By your logic you can't cause more wounds then a unit has available to it. Meaning a unit with 10 wounds can't take 150 wounds cause its more then the unit has available. And again, wounds are rolled at the same time, how many it takes to kill a model is obvious, how many times it failed its rolls in one round of rolling is also obvious. Which is what is going on here.

Right you can't cause more wounds than a model has, that does not mean you can not allocate those wounds to him, but any excess wounds are lost.

mpangelu wrote:WHICH brings up the other side of the argument, guy takes 3 wounds, does he only make one fnp save, or does he make all as they are UNSAVED WOUNDS!!!!!

he only takes the wounds after all saves are made, so FNP has to roll for all the potential wounds. if they are all saved he takes no unsaved wounds.

mpangelu wrote:Face it, you have to pick one or the other, and I think any army with FNP is hoping to rule on the side against the 5 wounds (from OP) so they can only have to take the one FNP roll. Which to me.. is alot worse then a dreadnaught butchering a whole squad.
I'd also like to mention though I know not on the exact same topic, Overkill in a challenge in fantasy... That in itself shows its possible to cause MORE wounds then the model has, though is a mute point I'm sure in this thread as some will blare, WRONG GAME SYSTEM!... Just felt it worth mentioning.

Overkill in fantasy is totally different, there is no overkill in 40K the excess wounds, in 40k, are lost.
(and its moot point)

mpangelu wrote:Better yet, lets go back to wound allocation for a moment, you can easily allocate a non savable wound, or one that you know you can't save, and an armor save on the same model. Example might be clearer then my words..
Unit of 10 models takes 11 wounds in combat, two of which is an power weapon save that you wont be able to save against, you allocate 9 savable to 9 members in the squad, but then you allocate 2 non savable to the same one... This allows us to make one model to take 2 unsavable wounds. while the other members of the unit get to save as normal.

Again, people may not like it, but there are alot of things I don't like that are allowed. A 5+ obscured on a vehicle sitting still for one thing, but its what they get so I don't complain about it, I just work with what I got.

While your example is correct, you do not cause the unsaved wounds until you resolve all saves, roll for FNP, and then see how many unsaved wounds have been caused.

If you have a unit of 10, one guy has a flamer the other nine are identical, in your example if you put the unsaveable wound, along with a normal wound on the flamer guy. You roll the save for the flamer guy and fail, You roll for FNP, then you would apply the wounds to the flamer model after the failed rolls. We find that the flamer guy takes one wound, and the second wound is lost, and not caused, since the first wound killed the model.

DeathReaper wrote:Right you can't cause more wounds than a model has, that does not mean you can not allocate those wounds to him, but any excess wounds are lost.

You can cause more wounds than a model has, but you can't inflict more wounds than a model has.
You can cause 7 unsaved wounds to a single-wound model, but you can only inflict 1.

DeathReaper wrote:he only takes the wounds after all saves are made, so FNP has to roll for all the potential wounds. if they are all saved he takes no unsaved wounds.

But there's no difference between the cases- they are all unsaved wounds. Why would they disappear without effect in one case but remain relevant in another?
7 unsaved wounds on a single-wound model with Feel No Pain = 7 unsaved wounds.
7 unsaved wounds on a single-wound model caused by Blood Talons = 7 unsaved wounds.

DeathReaper wrote:Overkill in fantasy is totally different, there is no overkill in 40K the excess wounds, in 40k, are lost.

Excess wounds are not inflicted, but they were still caused. Since Blood Talons make no mention of unsaved wounds inflicted, only unsaved wounds caused, inflicted wounds are irrelevant.

DeathReaper wrote:While your example is correct, you do not cause the unsaved wounds until you resolve all saves, roll for FNP, and then see how many unsaved wounds have been caused.

You cause unsaved wounds at the point when armour saves are rolled and failed. "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." Feel No Pain, Acid Blood, Blood Talons and whatever else works off unsaved wounds all happen simultaneously. Some of those triggered effects might reduce the number of wounds, or increase it, or cause wounds to someone else- but they all occur at the same time.

DeathReaper wrote:If you have a unit of 10, one guy has a flamer the other nine are identical, in your example if you put the unsaveable wound, along with a normal wound on the flamer guy. You roll the save for the flamer guy and fail, You roll for FNP, then you would apply the wounds to the flamer model after the failed rolls. We find that the flamer guy takes one wound, and the second wound is lost, and not caused, since the first wound killed the model.

That's not how unsaved wounds work. Armour saves are taken, each failure causes an unsaved wound, then Feel No Pain is rolled, and casualties are removed.
Feel No Pain cannot take effect before unsaved wounds are caused, as it is triggered when a unit suffers unsaved wounds- "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound..."
No unsaved wounds are 'lost' in the process and ignored; the wounds are allocated and saves are attempted, unsaved wounds are caused. They don't stop having been caused because their target doesn't have that many wounds- if they did, models with Feel No Pain could only suffer a number of unsaved wounds equal to the wounds on their profile, and would only have to make that many Feel No Pain rolls.
The fact that they don't, that a single-wound model suffering 7 unsaved wounds has to make 7 Feel No Pain rolls, should make that clear.

How does one cause more wounds than something has, clearly after a one wound model takes one wound, no further wounds can be caused, since the model is dead.

By successfully rolling to wound with more attacks than target unit has wounds.
"Roll to wound.
For each shot that hits, roll again to see if it wounds the target."

You're thinking of the next step in the process
"Take saving throws.
Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw."

DeathReaper wrote:How does one cause more wounds than something has, clearly after a one wound model takes one wound, no further wounds can be caused, since the model is dead.

'Unsaved wounds' is an intemediate step before 'remove casualties'.

You can cause 7 unsaved wounds to a model with a single wound through a unit's shooting or in single initiaitive step in close combat. Only when you come to removing causalties and inflicting wounds do the excess ounds cease having an effect. They are caused independent of a model's wound total, otherwise you would never have more than a single Feel No Pain roll to make for a single-wound model.

No, I am thinking of the after effects.

just like combat resolution, excess wounds above the models profile are wasted.

DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three [single wound] models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three [single wound] models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

Editing to add brackets

Forkbanger really doesn't have an argument after this rules quote to be honest. And DeathReaper is completely correct to compare this to combat resolution, as it works the exact same way - the excess is NOT carried over. Like I said in an earlier post - if anyone tried to pull this on me in a GT match, id be very confident of the TO siding with me. If you pulled it in a pick up game, I guarantee i'd never want to play you again. As Nos sad earlier in the thread - if there is ambiguity (which to be fair here, there isnt - DR has clearly provided a rules quote), you (as the player contesting the rule), should take the weaker option. Its common courtesy to your opponent, and helps keep the game going at the same time.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."

Unsaved wounds caused.
Not wounds inflicted. Not causalties removed.

"For every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in close combat, the Dreadnaught immediately makes another attack."
"For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound."

5 models failed their saves.
5 models suffered an unsaved wound.
5 additional attacks are generated.

You can allocate 1000000 wounds to a unit for all I care. The unit only has 3 to lose (and hence become unsaved). Therefore only 3 more additional attacks.

Exactly! five models fail their save they have five wounds caused on them, the unit of five one wound models are now all dead.

you can't cause a wound without the wound characteristic being reduced. That is just simple math/linguistics.

However if there were three models in the target unit, there are only three wounds available to be caused, once you cause three wounds all the models are dead and the excess are wasted.

remember take the less advantageous position if two rules seem to conflict.

Actually here is a question I think you will find impossible to answer. (BRB Pg24)

"Most models have single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So if you can cause more unsaved wounds than exist in a unit, would you care to explain how you can adhere to the above rule? If you inflict 5 wounds on that unit of three, the above rule tells you to remove 5 models does it not?

I can't wait for your counter argument to this one.

Perhaps this could clarify things. The models aren't actually alive, and they're not actually taking wounds. It's all representative. The model represents a being or thing that can take a certain amount of damage before dying. The 'wounds' are a way of quantifying damage in order to rule on it with dice. One 'wound' may be the equivalent of a knife in the gut, but two 'wounds' aren't necessarily two knives in the gut; they could represent a single, more damaging attack like a Powerfist crushing a head, or many many smaller attacks like thousands of monomolecular shuriken flaying a target to the bone.

It's not like the Blender-dredd is evenly poking each model one at a time with each of its talons- it's just swinging away with a bloody great claw, trying to hit squishy stuff.

And the whole 'representative' thing is part of the rules, too, right there in the book. It's why movement and terrain is so esoteric.

liam0404 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

jbunny wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
It does not ask for how many saves you failed. It asks for how many models failed its save.

Seems clear to me

Actually Blood Talons says for each unsaved wound cause, and nothing about models. Please reread the war gear again.

Right and how do we determine what an unsaved wound is?

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound." (BRB p24)

Which clears it up.

So if three [single wound] models fail three saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

If three [single wound] models fail nine armor saves, how many unsaved wounds do you have?

the answer to both of these questions is three.

Editing to add brackets

Forkbanger really doesn't have an argument after this rules quote to be honest. And DeathReaper is completely correct to compare this to combat resolution, as it works the exact same way - the excess is NOT carried over. Like I said in an earlier post - if anyone tried to pull this on me in a GT match, id be very confident of the TO siding with me. If you pulled it in a pick up game, I guarantee i'd never want to play you again. As Nos sad earlier in the thread - if there is ambiguity (which to be fair here, there isnt - DR has clearly provided a rules quote), you (as the player contesting the rule), should take the weaker option. Its common courtesy to your opponent, and helps keep the game going at the same time.

Combat resolution and wounds/armor saves are no the exact same, as has been mentioned before. And if he is able to compare it to that without issue then I bring up the fantasy overkill rule as it is pretty similar.

@ Death, where is the thing saying excess wounds are lost from the wound allocation/armor saves section?

liam0404 wrote:Actually here is a question I think you will find impossible to answer. (BRB Pg24)
"Most models have single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."
So if you can cause more unsaved wounds than exist in a unit, would you care to explain how you can adhere to the above rule? If you inflict 5 wounds on that unit of three, the above rule tells you to remove 5 models does it not?
I can't wait for your counter argument to this one.

The diagram on the opposite page (pg25) details some shooting against a unit of space marines.
Last paragraph-
"He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armour save from the meltagun), but as there are only two models in this group of identical models, he just removes them both."

O
M
G

Would you look at that? If you take 3 wounds but only have 2 models... you just remove 2 models..... fricken amazing!


P.S it doesn't say the extra wound is negated... it just says you remove as many casualties as possible up to the number of unsaved wounds.

Game
Set
Match

now stop cheating


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If one bullet through your brain is enough to kill you, does that mean the laws of physics will prevent more bullets from being shot at you?
No, of course not !!

(tip: this is analogous to your 1 Wound limit scenario)

mpangelu wrote:@ Death, where is the thing saying excess wounds are lost from the wound allocation/armor saves section?

It is not that it says they are lost, the rules do not tell you what happens with them, and we are only allowed to perform actions the rules tell us to perform.

Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

karlosovic wrote:
If one bullet through your brain is enough to kill you, does that mean the laws of physics will prevent more bullets from being shot at you?
No, of course not !!

(tip: this is analogous to your 1 Wound limit scenario)

The laws of physics will not prevent more bullets from being shot at you, but once you are dead you can not have any more wounds caused to you.

But more bullets *will* casuse additional damage to what's left of your body.

DeathReaper wrote:Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

The unsaved wounds were still caused, which is waht triggers bonus attacks from Blood Talons. Casualties and wounds inflicted were, are, and will always be irrelevant to Blood Talons.

5 wounds.
5 failed armour saves.
5 unsaved wounds.
Anything beyond that point doesn't matter- number of casualties, wound negation of some kind, they don't matter in the context of Bloot Talons.
5 unsaved wounds were caused, so Blood Talons generate 5 additional attacks.

forkbanger wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Once you remove casualties any extra wounds are not covered by the rules, so we can not do anything with them, since we are not told what to do with them.

The unsaved wounds were still caused, which is waht triggers bonus attacks from Blood Talons. Casualties and wounds inflicted were, are, and will always be irrelevant to Blood Talons.

5 wounds.
5 failed armour saves.
5 unsaved wounds.
Anything beyond that point doesn't matter- number of casualties, wound negation of some kind, they don't matter in the context of Bloot Talons.
5 unsaved wounds were caused, so Blood Talons generate 5 additional attacks.

Im absolutely delighted that you brought up that inflicted/caused crapheap of an argument again. Cast your eyes to page 39 of the rulebook, in the determine assault results section. To quote:

"To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner."

Ok, so now we have established that the term inflicted and caused is interchangeable in the context of determining how many unsaved wounds have been caused, and because of this, Blood Talons and combat resolution become 100% comparable to each other.

Read a little further down:

"Note that wounds which have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do wounds in excess of a model's wounds characteristic, only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models (including all of the wounds lost by models that have suffered instant death."

I think that just about wraps this up, unless youre going to spout more cheese. Any further agruments you have about this are only complaints about the rule, not about its interpretation.

liam0404 wrote:Actually here is a question I think you will find impossible to answer. (BRB Pg24)

"Most models have single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So if you can cause more unsaved wounds than exist in a unit, would you care to explain how you can adhere to the above rule? If you inflict 5 wounds on that unit of three, the above rule tells you to remove 5 models does it not?

I can't wait for your counter argument to this one.

So, your Bloodtalon-Dread is in combat with two units of each three single wound models, one with a 5++ save, it gets 5 attacks.

1. Roll five dice to hit against one unit at the dreads initiative. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
2. Roll five dice to wound, reroll as necessary. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
3. Roll five dice in one batch to save on a 5+. Assuming 5 failed. BRB p. 25 "Taking saves" side disallows rolling them one at a time.
4. Five unsafed wounds have been caused, one model immediately has to be removed for each, opponent removes as many as possible as explained on BRB p. 25 "Allocating Wounds to complex units", third paragraph
5. Dread gets another five attacks because it caused 5 unsaved wounds, and may dirrect them to the other unit.
6. Roll five dice to hit against one unit at the dreads initiative. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
7. Roll five dice to wound, reroll as necessary. Assuming 5 successful rolls.
8. No saves can be made. BRB pg. 24 tells us these are unsaved wounds.
9. Five unsafed wounds have been caused, one model immediately has to be removed for each, opponent removes as many as possible.
10. Combat resolution tells you to count wounds actually lost, you win combat by 6:0.

As for your much quoted and only rule that supports your argument AT ALL: "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound" mind this:

5 attacks successfully hit and wound on three models
Take 5 armor saves at once(you may not roll them one after another, as you keep implying, see BRB p. 25 "Taking saves").
Model1 failed its save suffer an unsaved wound.
Model1 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model2 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.
Model3 failed its save, suffer an unsaved wound.

This is a valid interpretation, as is yours. The difference is, you got no other rules you back up your interpretation.

You have no rules backup for the following, so please quote any corresponding rules I might have missed:
- combat resolution rules having any meaning anywhere outside of combat resolution.
- models not taking wounds in excess of their wound characteristic.
- you can't cause a wound without the wound characteristic being reduced.

If you do ignore any rules quoted as you usually do, especially the clarification in the BRB that explicitly assignes three unsaved wound to two models, I assume that you are willing to ignore two entire pages of rules in the BRB contradicting or no longer correctly working because of a single sentence, all this for the sake of nerfing BA dreads. This does not mean that I'm not willing to change my viewpoint on this, you are just not bringing any arguments that happen to be written in any rulebooks. Also, DR please refrain from ripping stuff from my posts out of context or simply randomly change stuff. Answer to the whole original post or don't quote it.

Jidmah wrote:
- models not taking wounds in excess of their wound characteristic.

Maybe you want to check out my above post.

liam0404 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:
- models not taking wounds in excess of their wound characteristic.

Maybe you want to check out my above post.

- combat resolution rules having any meaning anywhere outside of combat resolution.

So?

Its not so much the combat resolution rule - its the process it uses to arrive at the "resolution score". Because of the wording of this rule, and the blood talon rule (which I have proved in my above post to be equivalent), the mechanic for generating the number of attacks is the same, and therefore you can only ever generate a number of attacks equal to the maximum number of wounds in the unit you target.

Exactly, it generates an abstract score (wounds actually inflicted), which may randomly arrive at the same number of unsaved wounds. I might even agree that "wounds actually suffered" is equal to "unsaved wounds", but pg. 25 tells us otherwise, as the player is forced to remove three models from a group of two marines.

Also common sense tells me that unsaved wounds should be all wounds which have not been saved, that's what the words mean, after all.

But in your example, (the same example), it says that because there are three wounds and only 2 models in that group, only 2 models are removed - the excess wound is "lost".

Yeah, but it never says that it is ignored.
What it does say, that the three wounds are unsaved wounds. If you add that you can only remove models after the unit suffered unsaved wounds, the two bolter marines did suffer three unsaved wounds. So something causes three unsaved wounds to them.

But only 2 actual wounds are inflicted becuase you can only inflict wounds up to the maximum that exist (as in my above post).

I feel we are going in circles here. I feel i've proved my argument, so maybe its time this thread was locked, as it's clear we are not going to agree.