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.

edited

Jidmah wrote:There are close to two pages written on how to remove casualties. You should investigate who stole those pages from your BRB.

And they tell you that you don't have to remove the model that was wounded, only one who is identical in game terms

puma713 wrote:I think ElCheezus' point is that if the 'Remove Casualties' step was removed altogether from the rulebook, then you'd have no mention of how to remove models from the table. They'd take wounds, that's it.

People keep bringing up unit versus model, but that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you're removing - without the 'Remove Casualties' step, you've got no reference with how to deal with wounds, allocated or not.

But the part about allocating wounds are mentioned where there is as uncirtainty of which model was wounded i.e. if a unit has a number of unsaved wounds that need allocating. In a DT test the model as been specified, so there is no need to allocate wounds anywhere but the to the specifeid model.

Its obvious that if wounds are reduced to 0 your model is a casulty. you don't need a specific section to tell you that. The DT test section is enough for you grasp whats just happened imo.

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:There are close to two pages written on how to remove casualties. You should investigate who stole those pages from your BRB.

And they tell you that you don't have to remove the model that was wounded, only one who is identical in game terms

Only if you choose to read single sentences out of context. Context always refers to the entire unit being wounded.

Busy thread overnight.

Brothererekose wrote:

Galador wrote: a few more pages back in the book...

Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.

In timewizard's example, A is the closest model to the unit being assaulted, and the shortest route is through the dangerous terrain. So, Model A must take a dangerous terrain test, and if Model A rolls a one, and then either has no invul save, or fails it if it has one, then Model A is removed, as per the DT rules on pg. 14. Since Model B is not within the 4" that they rolled for the difficult terrain test, then the assault would fail there and the unit could not assault.

+1 this. Galador, you hit the nail on the head with this citation.

For ElCheezus to ignore this ... sorry, ElCheezus, you have ostrich syndrome. There's no going to page 24's Wound Allocation process with the line in red above. Oy, vay.

This has been discussed on pg 2 of this thread, actually:

ElCheezus wrote:

Galador wrote:Pg 34, Moving Assaulting models: Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy. Move the enemy into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route. Roll for difficult and dangerous terrain as necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model.

This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

This section of the rulebook isn't going to provide any information for either side of this discussion. No matter who is right, the wording here wouldn't change. It assume you know how to do DT by this point.

Jidmah wrote:ElCheezus, the part of the remove casualties section tells you to remove one model form a group of identical models. Those groups are formed if the unit is wounded, after you distribute wounds along all models. Then you roll all saves for them in a single go, and remove a casualty from that group for every failed save. Multiple wound rules go more into detail about this, might want to check there.
If a single model suffers a wound, you'd never form such a group, so you can't remove another model.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, that if we don't use wound allocation we can't consider the models identical?

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above.

Plus, El Cheezus group cant "always" have done this, as wound allocation is new to 5th, whereas Dang Terrain and Gets Hot! have remained exactly the same.

Neither of them trigger wound allocation, as neither targets a unit. Ignoring this, or pretending you can conflate model = unit, is unsafe, and is why El Cheezus argument falls down.

I started (again) after 5th, so yeah, they've "always" done it as far as I'm concerned. You're trying to pick apart more than just the arguments, now?

I already explained why focusing on the word "target" (in an explanatory paragraph, no less) has bad consequences beyond these tests, and should probably be ignored unless you want to make flamers and blast templates do funky things. Also note that the Vindicare assassin does target a unit, so the defending player could still remove whichever model he wanted. I don't think these results are what you want.

Jidmah wrote:Basically specific beats general. GH and DT are both more specific than regular wounding rules, which allow a player to have another model suffer the wound, the specific ones don't.

As biccat said, these rules don't get in each other's way. You can follow both of them.

Coyotebreaks wrote:

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Basically specific beats general. GH and DT are both more specific than regular wounding rules, which allow a player to have another model suffer the wound, the specific ones don't.

Well, I disagree that this is a case of "specific beats general". The rules aren't contradictory, DT tells you how to allocate the wounds, Remove Casualties tells you what to do when you have an unsaved wound.

If the "Remove Casualties" section only applies when a unit is targetted, how do you remove casualties for dangerous terrain?

pick them up off the table and put them in your case. its not rocket science.

But the game doesn't tell us that. I've played a number of games where injured units don't just get removed, but have other effects. Unless we're instructed how to handle it specifically, we fall back to the general case. If you say the general case doesn't apply, then we can't remove the model at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Characteristic test rules tell you it apply to that specific model.

Attemting to conflate unit with model is the flaw in the argument, and one that is consistently glossed over.

All characteristic tests that I'm familiar with also specifically tell you to remove that model as a casualty in each of their entries, so we're given "specific vs general" instructions.

Look at complex units for dealing with single models suffering a wound.

"If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed."(BRB pg. 25)

If the unit does not suffer a wound you may not allocate it.
If you do not allocate wounds, yo do not form groups of similar models. If you don't form groups, you may not remove any other than the wounded model.

ElCheezus wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Basically specific beats general. GH and DT are both more specific than regular wounding rules, which allow a player to have another model suffer the wound, the specific ones don't.

Well, I disagree that this is a case of "specific beats general". The rules aren't contradictory, DT tells you how to allocate the wounds, Remove Casualties tells you what to do when you have an unsaved wound.

If the "Remove Casualties" section only applies when a unit is targetted, how do you remove casualties for dangerous terrain?

pick them up off the table and put them in your case. its not rocket science.

But the game doesn't tell us that. I've played a number of games where injured units don't just get removed, but have other effects. Unless we're instructed how to handle it specifically, we fall back to the general case. If you say the general case doesn't apply, then we can't remove the model at all.

You remove casulties after wounds have been allocated though. So you are told to take them off the table. The DT rule allocates the wounds for you and you remove the casualties.

You only do would allocation in a multile wound situation. This is not a multiple wound situation.

Jidmah wrote:
If the unit does not suffer a wound you may not allocate it.

lolwut?

Page 24, BRB:

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted. . ."

Since the model failed a save from a DT test (since no saves can be attempted), the unit suffers an unsaved wound.

The order of operations, according to the rulebook is:

Model takes a DT test and suffers a wound. (Roll to Wound step)
Model cannot take a save. (Take Saving Throws step)
You can choose which model to remove. (Remove Casualties step).

Note, the last step doesn't have anything to do with Complex Units in this instance, but the complex units rules point you to the Remove Casualties and Taking Saving Throws rules.

In ElCheezus' example, he's saying that if you have 3 meltagunners and 1 fails a DT test that you can take the wound on any of the meltagunners only, not any of the unit. I don't see any flaw in his logic. Not that I necessarily agree or would play it the way he is suggesting, but there's nothing to say that that is incorrect.

Coyotebreaks wrote:

puma713 wrote:I think ElCheezus' point is that if the 'Remove Casualties' step was removed altogether from the rulebook, then you'd have no mention of how to remove models from the table. They'd take wounds, that's it.

People keep bringing up unit versus model, but that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you're removing - without the 'Remove Casualties' step, you've got no reference with how to deal with wounds, allocated or not.

But the part about allocating wounds are mentioned where there is as uncirtainty of which model was wounded i.e. if a unit has a number of unsaved wounds that need allocating. In a DT test the model as been specified, so there is no need to allocate wounds anywhere but the to the specifeid model.

Its obvious that if wounds are reduced to 0 your model is a casulty. you don't need a specific section to tell you that. The DT test section is enough for you grasp whats just happened imo.

The only time the brb talks about "removing" wounds is when you have a multi-wound model that is not in a unit (or is it's own unit). Also, the assumption that we all "know" what to do via real world logic when a model takes an unsaved wound doesn't carry any weight. This is a game system, and real world assumptions don't play in. We have to do what the game tells us. If we ignore Remove Casualties because a model isn't a unit, then we have no instruction on what happens with wounds. Therefore we *have* to follow it's instructions or just stand there after a DT test looking at the models, wondering what to do.

Jidmah wrote:Look at complex units for dealing with single models suffering a wound.

"If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed."(BRB pg. 25)

If the unit does not suffer a wound you may not allocate it.
If you do not allocate wounds, yo do not form groups of similar models. If you don't form groups, you may not remove any other than the wounded model.

This quotation is specifically in reference to a model that stand out in "gaming terms". It's preceded by the sentence "Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms." I've mentioned this before, actually, in an attempt to prevent anyone from wasting time on this argument. The first paragraph of the page defines "gaming terms" as ". . . have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." If the model stand out in this way, then yes, you can't remove any other models but that one. Of course, I've agreed with that the whole time. . .

Coyotebreaks wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

Coyotebreaks wrote:

biccat wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Basically specific beats general. GH and DT are both more specific than regular wounding rules, which allow a player to have another model suffer the wound, the specific ones don't.

Well, I disagree that this is a case of "specific beats general". The rules aren't contradictory, DT tells you how to allocate the wounds, Remove Casualties tells you what to do when you have an unsaved wound.

If the "Remove Casualties" section only applies when a unit is targetted, how do you remove casualties for dangerous terrain?

pick them up off the table and put them in your case. its not rocket science.

But the game doesn't tell us that. I've played a number of games where injured units don't just get removed, but have other effects. Unless we're instructed how to handle it specifically, we fall back to the general case. If you say the general case doesn't apply, then we can't remove the model at all.

You remove casulties after wounds have been allocated though. So you are told to take them off the table. The DT rule allocates the wounds for you and you remove the casualties.

You only do would allocation in a multile wound situation. This is not a multiple wound situation.

You always allocate wounds, actually, even if there's just one. In the DT case, though, it tells you where to allocate them.

I'm not sure what your first few sentences are getting at, honestly. Sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:In ElCheezus' example, he's saying that if you have 3 meltagunners and 1 fails a DT test that you can take the wound on any of the meltagunners only, not any of the unit. I don't see any flaw in his logic. Not that I necessarily agree or would play it the way he is suggesting, but there's nothing to say that that is incorrect.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Both the first and second part. If a special weapon fails, a special weapon gets removed. I'm not trying to advocate that you can make your nameless chumps do all the dying.

If my opponent wants to remove their specific model that failed the test, that's fully under their power through the Remove Casualties section. I'll remove whichever identical model I want by default. If my opponent stops and cares enough to ask me to remove the specific model that failed the DT test, I'll calmly tell him I believe it's supposed to work a different way. If he wants to hear it, I'll explain. If not (because he's read this, or other, threads or maybe just because of time), then I'll play his way until I can try to explain things.

I know that if you approach this from a certain angle it's counterintuitive. If you want rationalization, the BRB says "This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models." This is from the "explanation" paragraph on pg. 24 that has spawned the "targeted" argument.

I understand why people might not agree, but the whole reason I switched to this point of view on the subject is that, like puma, I couldn't find anything that showed it was incorrect. I also happen to think that it makes the game simpler and more elegant from a design point of view. If a 30 large boyz mob is hit with a Deathspinner (or just happens across a really large bit of dangerous terrain), it slows down the game a heck of a lot to point at each one and roll one die at a time. With my perspective, you can roll 29 at once, and then roll the Nob alone. Much friendlier.

ElCheezus wrote:This quotation is specifically in reference to a model that stand out in "gaming terms". It's preceded by the sentence "Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms." I've mentioned this before, actually, in an attempt to prevent anyone from wasting time on this argument. The first paragraph of the page defines "gaming terms" as ". . . have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." If the model stand out in this way, then yes, you can't remove any other models but that one. Of course, I've agreed with that the whole time. . .

You also just answered your own argument. Yes, normally, these models would be identical, but in the case of DT they are not, because in this case, DT is the special rule that separates the model from the rest of the unit. Since only the model that moved through the Dangerous terrain was effected by the rule for it in the BRB, that makes the model different "in gaming terms", so only that model may take the wound, as there are no other models taking a dangerous terrain test at that time.

puma713 wrote:And posts like this ^^ are unnecessary. You may not agree with him, but it doesn't make him TFG or a "Goon".

Oh come on Goons troll this forum to cause hilarious unholy threadstorms about pointless rules all the time. I don't think that's a bad thing, it's funny.

ElCheezus wrote:I don't consider that paragraph to be rules.

One cannot debate rules with people who willfully ignore some of them.

Galador wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This quotation is specifically in reference to a model that stand out in "gaming terms". It's preceded by the sentence "Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms." I've mentioned this before, actually, in an attempt to prevent anyone from wasting time on this argument. The first paragraph of the page defines "gaming terms" as ". . . have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." If the model stand out in this way, then yes, you can't remove any other models but that one. Of course, I've agreed with that the whole time. . .

You also just answered your own argument. Yes, normally, these models would be identical, but in the case of DT they are not, because in this case, DT is the special rule that separates the model from the rest of the unit. Since only the model that moved through the Dangerous terrain was effected by the rule for it in the BRB, that makes the model different "in gaming terms", so only that model may take the wound, as there are no other models taking a dangerous terrain test at that time.

Special Rules are listed under the unit's entry in their Codex. It includes things like the USRs and special things like, "He's Right Behind You!" for Marbo. DT doesn't add a line to a unit's entry in their Codex.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I don't consider that paragraph to be rules.

One cannot debate rules with people who willfully ignore some of them.

I've explained twice now why I think that treating that paragraph as rules is a bad idea. If you fully investigate the scope of the calims you make based on that paragraph, it does Bad Things to the game. Also, if you want that to be rules, it mentions that models are moving around more than our models. (the section I quoted a little earlier) If that's the case, does that mean I get to shift my models around whenever I want?

I willfully ignore that section, yes, but only after specific consideration for it's ramifications. We could even go into the tone conveyed by a paragraph that starts with "Note that. . . " being explanatory, further supporting that it's profiding rationalization for the rules rather than providing more rules.

Aramoro wrote:

puma713 wrote:And posts like this ^^ are unnecessary. You may not agree with him, but it doesn't make him TFG or a "Goon".

Oh come on Goons troll this forum to cause hilarious unholy threadstorms about pointless rules all the time. I don't think that's a bad thing, it's funny.

That doesn't make it less insulting. I argue the rules in order to gain a greater understanding of the game. Implying that I do this just to make an "unholy threatstorm" undermines the
attempt at thoughtful discussion.

Galador wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This quotation is specifically in reference to a model that stand out in "gaming terms". It's preceded by the sentence "Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms." I've mentioned this before, actually, in an attempt to prevent anyone from wasting time on this argument. The first paragraph of the page defines "gaming terms" as ". . . have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." If the model stand out in this way, then yes, you can't remove any other models but that one. Of course, I've agreed with that the whole time. . .

You also just answered your own argument. Yes, normally, these models would be identical, but in the case of DT they are not, because in this case, DT is the special rule that separates the model from the rest of the unit. Since only the model that moved through the Dangerous terrain was effected by the rule for it in the BRB, that makes the model different "in gaming terms", so only that model may take the wound, as there are no other models taking a dangerous terrain test at that time.

Thanks for bringing a new argument to the table Galador. But I don't think it works, because the 40k book defines "identical in gaming terms" to mean that the models have the same statline. The model in DT and the model outside of DT have the same statline, just different positions on the board.

biccat wrote:

Galador wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This quotation is specifically in reference to a model that stand out in "gaming terms". It's preceded by the sentence "Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms." I've mentioned this before, actually, in an attempt to prevent anyone from wasting time on this argument. The first paragraph of the page defines "gaming terms" as ". . . have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear." If the model stand out in this way, then yes, you can't remove any other models but that one. Of course, I've agreed with that the whole time. . .

You also just answered your own argument. Yes, normally, these models would be identical, but in the case of DT they are not, because in this case, DT is the special rule that separates the model from the rest of the unit. Since only the model that moved through the Dangerous terrain was effected by the rule for it in the BRB, that makes the model different "in gaming terms", so only that model may take the wound, as there are no other models taking a dangerous terrain test at that time.

Thanks for bringing a new argument to the table Galador. But I don't think it works, because the 40k book defines "identical in gaming terms" to mean that the models have the same statline. The model in DT and the model outside of DT have the same statline, just different positions on the board.

but that varying position on the board, and the effect of DT, combine to make them unique in this instance.
As is shown in the example given in the BGB

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I don't consider that paragraph to be rules.

One cannot debate rules with people who willfully ignore some of them.

I willfully ignore that section, yes, but only after specific consideration for it's ramifications.

And this one?

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

But that is not what it says.

No, it doesn't say that explicitly.

Saying it "was discussed on page 2" previously made me re-look.

That was the discussion. Your saying the rules do not ACTUALLY back you.

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:I don't consider that paragraph to be rules.

One cannot debate rules with people who willfully ignore some of them.

I willfully ignore that section, yes, but only after specific consideration for it's ramifications.

And this one?

ElCheezus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.

But that is not what it says.

No, it doesn't say that explicitly.

Saying it "was discussed on page 2" previously made me re-look.

That was the discussion. Your saying the rules do not ACTUALLY back you.

kirsanth wrote:
ElCheezus wrote:
This is interesting information, to be sure. In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case where the lead model is unique and therefore had to be the one removed, or that he was chosen to be removed by the player for whatever reason.
But that is not what it says.


No, it doesn't say that explicitly. No matter which of our interperetations is correct, there would be no need to spell it out again for this section.

You cut a line out, which is just making me repeat everything. No matter which interperetation of DT is correct, the section on assaulting wouldn't bother clarifying either position. It doesn't explicitly say anything to support your view, either. That's because it's an entirely unrelated section of the book. The reason there's no support for my view, and it doesn't explicitly say WHY the model leading assault is the one removed because there's no need to. It's assumed we know how to handle DT at this point.

If the case mentioned in that section were impossible under my interperetation, then I'd admit it were relevant. However, I provided a case where my interperetation would still require that blurb in the assult rules, rendering it a neutral passage in this discussion.

Yes, I took your unfounded assumptions out.

I did have elipsis in there originally, apologies for their lack.

Editing to add:
Now I realize why I took them out, they were unnecessary.
There are no unrelated section of rules.
They all apply to games of 40k.

Revenent Reiko wrote:

biccat wrote:Thanks for bringing a new argument to the table Galador. But I don't think it works, because the 40k book defines "identical in gaming terms" to mean that the models have the same statline. The model in DT and the model outside of DT have the same statline, just different positions on the board.

but that varying position on the board, and the effect of DT, combine to make them unique in this instance.
As is shown in the example given in the BGB

I agree that for all practical purposes they are unique, but the rule book specifies what makes a model "unique," and location in dangerous terrain isn't sufficient.

kirsanth wrote:Yes, I took your unfounded assumptions out.

I did have elipsis in there originally, apologies for their lack.

It's not enough to call my reasoning unfounded, you have to show why they are.

As you said earlier about the rules in that section:

Your saying the rules do not ACTUALLY back you.

Well, they don't ACTUALLY back you, either. And they don't oppose me. And they don't oppose you. I don't see how, in that case, they have any impact.

For your edit: Does that mean you want each section to restate what each other section talks about? We'd have an infinitely regressing BRB. . .

ElCheezus wrote:For your edit: Does that mean you want each section to restate what each other section talks about? We'd have an infinitely regressing BRB. . .

Not at all, quite the opposite. You cannot take a rule in a vacuum and asert it intelligently.

Assaulting through cover is one example of the top of my head.
Those rules affect assaults that are not through cover as well.

Editing to add:
Interestingly enough, they also are the reason you say that models wounded use the rules for units wounded--unless I miss something.

Your assertion that we have to go look up why there could possibly be a way for a model to INDIVIDUALLY fail a DT test does this too, since the rules do not mention that this is even relevant--you do.

You're getting confusing. I'm not ignoring the section in assaulting that you've brought up. I'm just saying that there's nothing there to support either side of the discussion. If it had something that contradicted my position, I'd acknoledge it.

Further, if we went on to admit (which I'm not) that the section under discussion meant that the leading model in an assault *had* to be removed from his own DT test, there's plenty of room to argue that this is an exception to the normal process of resolving DT. This would be a case of "specific > general" not "specific becomes general."

ElCheezus wrote:It's not enough to call my reasoning unfounded, you have to show why they are.

OK.

ElCheezus wrote: In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case. . .

kirsanth wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:It's not enough to call my reasoning unfounded, you have to show why they are.

OK.

ElCheezus wrote: In this case I can only assume they're illustrating the case. . .

What? I'm illustrating a case where the section in assaulting moves applies with that statement. Why would my admitting it's an assumption make it unfounded? You, in turn, are assuming that the passage indirectly tells us how to resolve all DT tests. That's not only also an assumption, it's a much larger one. And I've actually given detailed reason why I consider your assumption is invalid.

No, I am saying DT tells you how to resolve DT, and that note is a reminder (which is what notes are for) that reminds you that it is done per model.

The large assumption that you claim I am making is not the case. I do not assume the reminder of how DT works is extra rules--the bit about how to re-assault if the removed model IS new rules however.
And those rules make no mention of unit types, unique models, allocation, or anything you say must occur.

kirsanth wrote:No, I am saying DT tells you how to resolve DT, and that note is a reminder (which is what notes are for) that reminds you that it is done per model.

The large assumption that you claim I am making is not the case. I do not assume the reminder of how DT works is extra rules--the bit about how to re-assault if the removed model IS new rules however.
And those rules make no mention of unit types, unique models, allocation, or anything you say must occur.

Okay, to restate: DT tells us how to allocate the wound, but does not tell us what that means. Instead it reffers to the Shooting section.

The note you refer to is on pg 34, right? Under Moving Assaulting Models, 2nd paragraph, "and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model." Is that the one? (for those following at home, that is the entirety of that passages mention about DT, I'm not leaving anything out)

That has no information about how to resolve DT. It just says that if, in the course of resolving DT, the model leading the assault is killed you don't automatically fail the charge and you can start with the next model. To reiterate: it says nothing about how precisely to resolve DT, it only tells you what to happen if it resolves a certain way.

It doesn't mention anything about unit types etc. because this section is about assaulting. Why would it elaborate on another sections material when we should already understand that at this point in the book?

ElCheezus wrote:
Special Rules are listed under the unit's entry in their Codex. It includes things like the USRs and special things like, "He's Right Behind You!" for Marbo. DT doesn't add a line to a unit's entry in their Codex.

Wrong. If special rules were only listed in codexes, why would they have a section in the BRB called Universal special rules? and why would all of the codexes refer you to the rulebook for the special rules if they were only for that army? Hence, special rules are not only in the codexes. Also, in just about every codex I have ever looked at, it tells you to refer to the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for clarification of special rules if they are not army specific.

Dangerous terrain doesn't need to add a line, as it has its own rule set in the terrain section. We all know that almost everything in the 40k universe must take a dangerous terrain test, unless they have a rule stating they ignore it.

Also, you keep saying that if the model is in the unit, and asking to be shown where you can't place the wound elsewhere, so I give you back a question and a comment. Show me where it states that if an individual model must take a test, that it can pass off the consequences of that test to another model? And the comment: 40k is a permissive rules set, it tells you what you can do, not what you can't do. In this case, it tells you that you can move that one model from the squad through that dangerous terrain, but if that model moves through it, that model must take the test. if that model fails the test, then that model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed. if it specifically tells you that that model suffers the wound, then where does it tell you that you have to remove that model as a casualty? It doesn't. Dangerous terrain does not cause the model to die, it causes it to lose a wound. Now in most cases, this makes the model go to 0 wounds, and this is when you go to the removing casualties section to see that if the model has one wound, and the model takes one unsaved wound, it is immediately removed from the board as a casualty.

You also can't use the part about this including wounds from which you can take no save, because a wound from dangerous terrain does allow saves. It allows invulnerable saves, but it doesn't allow armor or cover saves. The example given about the no save wounds talks about a weapon with a very high AP. A wound from dangerous terrain doesn't have a very high ap, it just doesn't allow an armor save or a cover save. But you still get that invul save. But what if your model doesn't have an invulnerable save? Well then, you suffer an unsaved wound on that model, however, you didn't suffer it from failing a save, because you didn't get one, and you didn't suffer it from a wound that no save can ever be attempted against, because you can attempt invulnerable saves against Dangerous Terrain wounds. So the wound from Dangerous terrain fits into neither of the wound types listed for removing casualties, does it? So you skip that part, because you know you have still suffered a wound, just not an unsaved or no save one, and you move down to the part about most models! It states in that line that most models have a single wound on their profile, in which case the model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.

You also have to read the first sentence of removing casualties. It states that for every model that fails its save, the unit takes a wound.

But unless you have an invul, you don't fail a save, so the unit doesn't take the wound. But Dangerous terrain does tell you that the model suffers a wound.

Failing a save, I understand that part that you can ten remove who you want. Not failing a save? Nope the model that the wound was allocated to, in this case the model moving through the Dangerous Terrain, as per the Dangerous terrain rules, takes the wound, and if that removes his only wound, that model is removed from the table as a casualty.

@biccat, you might want to relook in your BRB, as it lists more than statline. Or you could just read what ElCheezus posted, as he quoted it near verbatim.

Galador wrote:

ElCheezus wrote:
Special Rules are listed under the unit's entry in their Codex. It includes things like the USRs and special things like, "He's Right Behind You!" for Marbo. DT doesn't add a line to a unit's entry in their Codex.

Wrong. If special rules were only listed in codexes, why would they have a section in the BRB called Universal special rules? and why would all of the codexes refer you to the rulebook for the special rules if they were only for that army? Hence, special rules are not only in the codexes. Also, in just about every codex I have ever looked at, it tells you to refer to the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for clarification of special rules if they are not army specific.

In a unit's entry in their codex, there are a number of areas: Unit Composition, Unit Type, Wargear, Psychic Powers, and Special Rules. This lists any USRs the unit has, as well as any Special Rules unique to the codex. "I triggered a dangerous terrain test" is not a Special Rule.

Show me where it states that if an individual model must take a test, that it can pass off the consequences of that test to another model? And the comment: 40k is a permissive rules set, it tells you what you can do, not what you can't do. In this case, it tells you that you can move that one model from the squad through that dangerous terrain, but if that model moves through it, that model must take the test. if that model fails the test, then that model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed. if it specifically tells you that that model suffers the wound, then where does it tell you that you have to remove that model as a casualty? It doesn't. Dangerous terrain does not cause the model to die, it causes it to lose a wound. Now in most cases, this makes the model go to 0 wounds, and this is when you go to the removing casualties section to see that if the model has one wound, and the model takes one unsaved wound, it is immediately removed from the board as a casualty.

The area letting me take any model is the Remove Casualties section, where it tells us how to resolve unsaved wounds.

You mention a model going to 0 wounds. The only time that is mentioned in the BRB is when you have a multi-wound model that is not part of a unit. Its pg. 26, top section. Otherwise, you actually count up with wounds, which is mentioned also on pg. 26, in the second column, 4th paragraph. It mentions tracking any excess wounds. Units of multiple-wound models don't assign wounds to specific models, but keep track of how many wounds a group has taken, and then removes a model when there are enough wounds.

You also can't use the part about this including wounds from which you can take no save, because a wound from dangerous terrain does allow saves. It allows invulnerable saves, but it doesn't allow armor or cover saves. The example given about the no save wounds talks about a weapon with a very high AP. A wound from dangerous terrain doesn't have a very high ap, it just doesn't allow an armor save or a cover save. But you still get that invul save. But what if your model doesn't have an invulnerable save? Well then, you suffer an unsaved wound on that model, however, you didn't suffer it from failing a save, because you didn't get one, and you didn't suffer it from a wound that no save can ever be attempted against, because you can attempt invulnerable saves against Dangerous Terrain wounds. So the wound from Dangerous terrain fits into neither of the wound types listed for removing casualties, does it? So you skip that part, because you know you have still suffered a wound, just not an unsaved or no save one, and you move down to the part about most models! It states in that line that most models have a single wound on their profile, in which case the model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.

You also have to read the first sentence of removing casualties. It states that for every model that fails its save, the unit takes a wound.

But unless you have an invul, you don't fail a save, so the unit doesn't take the wound. But Dangerous terrain does tell you that the model suffers a wound.

Failing a save, I understand that part that you can ten remove who you want. Not failing a save? Nope the model that the wound was allocated to, in this case the model moving through the Dangerous Terrain, as per the Dangerous terrain rules, takes the wound, and if that removes his only wound, that model is removed from the table as a casualty.

This whole bit revolves around non-savable wounds being different than unsaved wounds, and also uses bits about multi-wound models that aren't part of a unit when you talk about removing it's wounds. If we're talking about a single model unit, the whole discussion is moot, and if we're talking about multiple model units, you're referencing the incorrect section.

Where's the justification for non-savable wounds being different than unsaved wounds? I looked a little but can't find it. Again this is a case where if we're not given specific directions that they're resolved differently, we have to fall back to the general directions.

The section you reference about:

the part about most models! It states in that line that most models have a single wound on their profile, in which case the model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.

Actually reads: "Most models have a single Wound in their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty." Note it doesn't that "the" model or "that" model, which you seem to be implying.

Galador wrote:You also have to read the first sentence of removing casualties. It states that for every model that fails its save, the unit takes a wound.

But unless you have an invul, you don't fail a save, so the unit doesn't take the wound. But Dangerous terrain does tell you that the model suffers a wound.

Failing a save, I understand that part that you can ten remove who you want. Not failing a save? Nope the model that the wound was allocated to, in this case the model moving through the Dangerous Terrain, as per the Dangerous terrain rules, takes the wound, and if that removes his only wound, that model is removed from the table as a casualty.

So if I allocate a power weapon wound to a model, I have to take away that model, I can't use normal wound allocation rules? After all, it doesn't allow "no saves," it only disallowes armor saves.

Further, if I do have an invul. save and I fail that, then I am allowed to allocate the wound elsewhere (e.g. Thousand Sons).

I'm not sure that this argument is taking you where you want to go.

Galador wrote:@biccat, you might want to relook in your BRB, as it lists more than statline. Or you could just read what ElCheezus posted, as he quoted it near verbatim.

Nothing else that is relevant, however. "Failing a dangerous terrain test" doesn't make a model non-identical to his squadmates.

Galador wrote:
You also have to read the first sentence of removing casualties. It states that for every model that fails its save, the unit takes a wound.

But unless you have an invul, you don't fail a save, so the unit doesn't take the wound. But Dangerous terrain does tell you that the model suffers a wound.

Failing a save, I understand that part that you can ten remove who you want. Not failing a save? Nope the model that the wound was allocated to, in this case the model moving through the Dangerous Terrain, as per the Dangerous terrain rules, takes the wound, and if that removes his only wound, that model is removed from the table as a casualty.

Except that the rule includes "including, of course, those wounds from which saves may never be taken." You seem to have omitted that part. And, as biccat pointed out - so, you hit one of my ten models with a power weapon, I can't allocate because there is no "save to fail"?

That is incorrect. You have a save, you just cannot take it. And there is a caveat for that in the first sentence of Remove Casualties.

Galador, your argument is losing traction.