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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apparetly "take a wound" means something different to Biccat and El than it does to everyone else.

Apparently so. I assume that "take a wound" is defined in the rulebook. You appear to be arguing otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Did another model take the wound? Then you have broken a rule. Simple, easy to understand, and consistent with the last two editions that have worked exactly the same.

Nope, because single-wound models don't take wounds. And individual models in a unit of multi-wound models don't take wounds either. There are no rule mechanics to support this contention.

So apply it to multiwounds first: you are unable to have another model take the wound. Its the only way a unit of identical models can have wounds on more than one model.

Now apply this to single models, ands realise that a model with no wounds left is likely to be dead.

Or are you saying you can avoid the model taking the owund as long it is a single wound model? Given the FAQ doesnt allow this (and neither does the rule in the first place) you are in problems here.

This is one of the few rules that are spelled out step by step. Each model takes a test, if the test is failed, that models takes the wound. the BRB says that rules for wounds and saves are covered in the next section, not wounds, saves and allocation are covered in the next section. The new FAQ even goes further to state that you cannot allocate wounds from dangerous terrain tests like you do in shooting attacks.

biccat wrote:OK, so you give a wound to the model. That model suffers a wound. Whichever way you want to say it.

What now?

What rule tells you how to remove a model that suffers a wound as you have described?

The rules for romoving casualties on page 25 give the general rules for placing wounds on models. It even says that most models have a single wound on their profile and that after suffering a wound they would be removed. It even goes into fluff saying they aren't necessarily dead, just too injured to carry on. The problem with your argument is you want to use this rule in isolation. You want to say that if 1 model fails the dangerous terrain test then the unit has in fact suffered the wound, not the model. This is en error because the FAQ now states that the model suffers the wound. Trying to place that wound on any other model in the unit is what is called allocating wounds and that is also specifically prohibited by the FAQ.

biccat wrote: Page 26 allows you to remove identical models when a unit suffers an unsaved wound.

And as I said in an earlier post, the first sentence under taking saving throws begins with "Having allocated the wounds..." and the FAQ says you can not allocate wounds the same way as shooting attacks. What you keep arguing as the way to place (read allocate) the failed DT test wound is specifically prohibited. You can't allocate the wound, and if your can't allocate it then the model that suffers it is the one that takes it.

biccat wrote: Please provide a page number and quote in your answer.

I did, numerous times. I have cited the FAW that does not allow you to allocate wounds and I also cited the rule that affirms that placing the wound on another model is in fact allocating the wound.
You keep hanging your hat on the same generic rule, attempting to take it in isolation and separate from all the other rules on taking wounds.

I believe I have proved my point by citing the appropriate rules and FAQs, have provided page numbers and quotes, and find that your argument consists of repeating the same opinion without a specific rule or FAQ to prove it or back it up. If you can find a specific rule that proves your point of view, then please provide it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So apply it to multiwounds first: you are unable to have another model take the wound. Its the only way a unit of identical models can have wounds on more than one model.

As posted on page 1:

ElCheezus wrote:pg 26, "Units of Multiple-Wound Models" 4th paragraph.

"Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties when possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

The rules don't allow you to "spread around" wounds in the manner you ar suggesting.

nosteratu1001 wrote:Now apply this to single models, ands realise that a model with no wounds left is likely to be dead.

That's not how the rule works for single wound models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or are you saying you can avoid the model taking the owund as long it is a single wound model? Given the FAQ doesnt allow this (and neither does the rule in the first place) you are in problems here.

I'm not sure what you're argument is here. Obviously the metric for dealing with wounds by single-wound models (remove 1 model for each unsaved wound) are different than for multi wounds (count up unsaved wounds, remove 1 model when you have enough).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

time wizard wrote:Trying to place that wound on any other model in the unit is what is called allocating wounds and that is also specifically prohibited by the FAQ.

This is incorrect. Removing casualties is different from allocating wounds.

This issue seems to have taken a similar direction as in the issue of "death or Glory" and tank shocks and wether the tank shock can avoid models such as a melta gunner within the unit. The issue is in the discussion as to the meaning of "model" and how it pertains to the squad. It was determined that "model" was very spacific in meaning that if the melta gunner could be avoided that the individual "model" could not react and do a DoG even though the whole squad was reacting to the tank shock.

What ive taken from that discussion was that when GW mentions Model.. it means that very spacific game piece and none other.

Biccat - and the page 1 quote is utterly, utterly useless as it has been overridden by the FAQ being more specific.

THE model that failed trhe test TAKES THE WOUND. Noone else. Seriously, NOT difficult.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - and the page 1 quote is utterly, utterly useless as it has been overridden by the FAQ being more specific.

THE model that failed trhe test TAKES THE WOUND. Noone else. Seriously, NOT difficult.

And then what? Do you just leave the model there with a wound on it? Do you light him on fire? Do you pick him up and remove him as a casualty? Smash him with a hammer?

Or do you roll a save (if applicable), and then, assuming he fails or doesn't have an invul. save, proceed to "remove casualties"?

The game breaks, you shake your opponent's had, and you light yourselves on fire.

In all seriousness, you are asking how to handle placing a wound one a model that has one wound when the rest of the games mechanics work in a fashion that if models take a wound and only have one wound they are removed as a casualty. Digging this deep into the rulebook like it is a legal text WILL break the game. There is nothing that states the exact manner in which you are supposed to roll the dice. "Rolling the dice" doesn't give a description of how exactly to handle it since once the die is in your hand and gasp it you can technically "roll" it without the die showing any face value.

I will admit to not having read the entire thread past a few posts past my last post, but lets get this straight.

If a unit of multi-wound models THAT ARE SIMILAR IN GAME TURNS move into, through, or out of dangerous terrain then you will roll one die per model elligible for the test. For each model that fails said test the unit will take 1 wound. Now the 'funneling rule' takes effect. Note that this is AFTER allocation which is laid out by the DT entry in the BRB, and also AFTER the tests are concluded.

While it seems wrong, if you read the BRB in the order stated by the DT entry it will read as follows (which I believe dispells all doubt):

"Read the DT entry, which says:

The Rulebook wrote:
As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed (wounds and saves are explained in the next section).

now go immediately to the section regarding units of multi-wound models:

The Rulebook wrote:
Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple- wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models. Track any excess wounds with a note or a marker as noted above. Multiple-wound models in the unit that are unique are rolled for individually and their unsaved wounds must be recorded separately.


Put it together (more-or-less) and it reads:
"As mentioned previously, some terrain features will be dangerous to move through. This is represented by the dangerous terrain test. Roll a D6 for every model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain during its move. On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed. Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple- wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be ‘spread around’ to avoid removing models.""

The new FAQ now states that the wounds will not be allocated to other models.

If model has one wound on profile and fails its test, this model suffers one wound. This model now has zero wounds, and is removed. No allocation

If model has more then one wound (example 3) on profile and fails its test, this model suffers one wound. This model now has minus one wound (2 wounds remaining). No allocation

biccat - the model takes the wound *after* saves.

Seriously, really isnt as hard as youre making this.

THE model that failed the test is THE model that suffers or TAKES the wound and noone else. If any other model takes the wound, by you attempting to throw it onto another model, then you have broken this simple, unambiguous how many more times can it be said rule.

time wizard wrote:

biccat wrote:OK, so you give a wound to the model. That model suffers a wound. Whichever way you want to say it.

What now?

What rule tells you how to remove a model that suffers a wound as you have described?

The rules for romoving casualties on page 25 give the general rules for placing wounds on models. It even says that most models have a single wound on their profile and that after suffering a wound they would be removed. It even goes into fluff saying they aren't necessarily dead, just too injured to carry on. The problem with your argument is you want to use this rule in isolation. You want to say that if 1 model fails the dangerous terrain test then the unit has in fact suffered the wound, not the model. This is en error because the FAQ now states that the model suffers the wound. Trying to place that wound on any other model in the unit is what is called allocating wounds and that is also specifically prohibited by the FAQ.

biccat wrote: Page 26 allows you to remove identical models when a unit suffers an unsaved wound.

And as I said in an earlier post, the first sentence under taking saving throws begins with "Having allocated the wounds..." and the FAQ says you can not allocate wounds the same way as shooting attacks. What you keep arguing as the way to place (read allocate) the failed DT test wound is specifically prohibited. You can't allocate the wound, and if your can't allocate it then the model that suffers it is the one that takes it.

biccat wrote: Please provide a page number and quote in your answer.

I did, numerous times. I have cited the FAW that does not allow you to allocate wounds and I also cited the rule that affirms that placing the wound on another model is in fact allocating the wound.
You keep hanging your hat on the same generic rule, attempting to take it in isolation and separate from all the other rules on taking wounds.

I believe I have proved my point by citing the appropriate rules and FAQs, have provided page numbers and quotes, and find that your argument consists of repeating the same opinion without a specific rule or FAQ to prove it or back it up. If you can find a specific rule that proves your point of view, then please provide it.

Twice in this post, you use the idea of allocation incorrectly. Merlin is also making this mistake. As I mentioned multiple times in this thread, and probably some in the one that's linked early on, it's very important you don't get the concept of wound allocation confused with the process of removing models.

The model to which a wound is allocated does not have to be the model that is removed as a casualty unless it is unique in gaming terms. This is explicitly stated to be true in every paragraph that tells you how to process Unsaved Wounds in a unit. Dangerous Terrain rules and FAQs have never provided any casualty removal process to replace this.

Really, we cite the entirety of the rules dealing with processing wounds as the rules that prove our view. The process we propose is the universal means of removing casualties. You, however, need to cite where it tells me how to remove a model because of a DT test. DT tells us to reference the shooting section for how to deal with wounds and saves, which is exactly where our references are. If you don't want to use the sections that support our argument, you will be left with no process of casualty removal.

BlueDagger wrote:????

Dangerous Terrain test
1 - Roll to hit - Doesn't exist in DT test
2 - Roll to wound - Dangerous terrain test, a 1 wounds the model as per FAQ
3 - Allocate wounds - Wounds are allocated to the model that failed only as per FAQ
4 - Take Saves - DT test allows for Invulnerable save by the model
5 - Remove casualties - If the model fails and only had one wound it is removed, if not it just takes a wound.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once again you are assuming that the unit is taking a wound, when in this case only the model is taking a wound. There is similar abilities that already exist in the games such as Mindwar where the MODEL takes the wounds, not the unit, so the wounds can not be put on a different model.

In the case of other abilities that have similar wording: either a) they tell you that the particular model is removed, or b) they work the same way, where you can remove any identical model as the casualty.

Also, and this is for nos as well: where in the book does it tell you what happens when a model suffers a wound, as opposed to a unit? I know of two places, and they don't apply. All of this stressing of "the MODEL takes the wounds, not the unit" has no meaning unless you can provide something that overrides the general rule on pg 24 where unsaved wounds suffered by models become unsaved wounds suffered by the unit.

For the people telling us that things are super simple and that we're over-thinking things; that's actually kind of insulting. In effect you're telling us we're too dumb to understand the one sentence on dangerous terrain. We understand your side completely. Heck, Cypher was convinced in this very thread. What's proposed here is that DT doesn't provide any solid reason to except it from the general rules of casualty removal.

I do see what you are talking about, and I agree that the DT does not explicitly talk about casualty removal. But if you have a unit of 10 models and only take 5 dangerous terrain test, and followed the normal process for taking wound like shooting attacks and CC, then you could then allocate those wounds to what ever models you wish. Since the new FAQ clarified that the wound is individual, and does not allow allocation, it is therefore removed from the normal means of wound allocation and model removal. I hope that makes sense.

Except for the FAQ stating you dont get to pick another model to take the wound, only the model that failed the DT check.

It IS that simple. Instead of being able to move the wound to anyone in the unit, you are told TWICE now that the model that failed the test is the one that suffers the penalty. No other.

Nowhere does the FAQ override the part of the section regarding how to process wounds in units with similar multi-wound models which states "Whole models must be removed whenever possible. Wounds cannot be spread around to avoid removing models." (or something to that direct effect; I'm not around my rulebook at the moment).

What, apart from where it says the model that failed the test must take the wound?

If you give the wound to another model you have broken the rule. Utterly unambiguosly you have broken that clear and simple requirement.

-Cypher- wrote:Nowhere does the FAQ override the part of the section regarding how to process wounds in units with similar multi-wound models which states "Whole models must be removed whenever possible. Wounds cannot be spread around to avoid removing models." (or something to that direct effect; I'm not around my rulebook at the moment).

And the paragraph right before the one you quote says, "If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered." (I do have my rulebook open)
And the FAQ says;
Q: Are Wounds from Dangerous Terrain tests allocated
in the same way as shooting attacks? (p14)
A: No.

What do both these quotes have in common? They both mention allocate. One says allocate the wounds sufered, the other says do not allocate the wounds.
You do not allocate failed dangerous terrain test wounds onto dofferent models. Ever.

The 'funneling rule' takes place AFTER saves, which takes place after allocation and applies only to units of similar multi-wound models. Also note that the FAQ does not state "the model that failed the test must take the wound". It only states that each model that fails a test takes a wound. This would be enough explanation to close the matter if said models only had 1 wound (though I believe it enough to close the matter anyway). The FAQ changes nothing and only reinfoces that a player cannot personally allocate wounds to be saved from DT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also understand that the FAQ covers allocation and allocation ONLY. Allocation and the 'funneling rule' are completely and utterly separate. As I have stated before, the nexus of this debate centers on the interpretation that DT means that each model that fails it's test takes it's wound; however, this is an assumption, and although it makes the most sense, it is still NOT a fact, and incorrect according to the RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd.

@time wizard: Not what I have said above. Allocation and the 'funneling rule' are NOT one and the same. They are separate. This is evidenced by the fact that they are covered in separate paragraphs. As we all know one only starts a new paragraph when changing topics. This is a basic rule of writing and something a company like GW would be sure to understand. Therefore it only supports the understanding that allocation and the 'funneling rule' are two separate things. Whether or not the player is the one who allocates the wounds has no bearing on the fact that you cannot spread wounds around on similar models to avoid remving whole models where possible.

Whenever possible... according to the FAQ it is not possible as no model other than the one that tested can be allocated the wound.
The FAQ cleared this up for me.

"Each model that fails takes a Wound."

Did another model than the one that failed takea wound? You've broken the above rule.

Ninja'd.

@time wizard: Not what I have said above. Allocation and the 'funneling rule' are NOT one and the same. They are separate. This is evidenced by the fact that they are covered in separate paragraphs. As we all know one only starts a new paragraph when changing topics. This is a basic rule of writing and something a company like GW would be sure to understand. Therefore it only supports the understanding that allocation and the 'funneling rule' are two separate things. Whether or not the player is the one who allocates the wounds has no bearing on the fact that you cannot spread wounds around on similar models to avoid remving whole models where possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I cannot stress this enough. Allocation takes place BEFORE saves, and the 'funneling rule' takes place AFTER saves clearly showing them to be TW DIFFERENT THINGS. Allocation or the lack there-of has no bearing on the 'funneling rule'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Each model that fails takes a Wound."

Did another model than the one that failed takea wound? You've broken the above rule.

You continue to confuse the idea of wounds and casualties. I'm not sure what else can be said on this subject. The rules are there. You apply them as pointed out in the rulebook.

If you "spread the wounds around" in a unit of multi-wound models to avoid removing whole models, you are breaking the rules, full stop.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Each model that fails takes a Wound."

Did another model than the one that failed takea wound? You've broken the above rule.

'
And what happens when a model takes a Wound?

Please provide some sort of citation or quotation or *something* that indicated models taking wounds is different than units taking wounds. I've shown you where it says in the book that models failing saves and suffering Unsaved Wounds means the same thing as units taking Unsaved Wounds. It all comes down to groups of identical models.

-Cypher- wrote:The 'funneling rule' takes place AFTER saves, which takes place after allocation and applies only to units of similar multi-wound models.

Please quote this 'funneling rule' ffrom the rulebook, as I am unable to find it.
The only thing I find is rules for allocating wounds to models in units.
In the case of the DT test, the model suffers a wound, not the unit, and the FAQ specifies that the wound cannot be allocated as per the shooting rules.
So please find me a rule, outside of wounds that are allocated the same way as shooting attacks, that backs up your point.

Oh, and before you bring up the "Remove Casualties" section on page 24 again, please look at the beginning of the second paragraph in that section.
It states, "Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all the firers."

Unless you are trying to say that dangerous terrain is firing at a model that enters, leaves or moves through it, then this section does indeed cover wounds from shooting attacks, and the FAQ says you cannot allocate wounds in this manner.
I don't care if you want to call it funneling, relegating, moving, oushing, pulling or shoveling, you can't place the wound suffered from a failed DT test onto another model. Myself and other posters have cited rule after rule supporting this.

As I asked earlier, please quote thie 'funneling rule' that you keep referring to.

The 'funneling rule' is the but which states that you cannot spread wounds around to avoid removing whole models. I understand you may not have read the entire thread which would lead to confusion on that term.

I would ask that you go to my previous post on page 3 that has a spoiler box. In the box you will find all my arguments AGAINST my side of the argument. However, in the process of arguing your side I came to realize that I was wrong. If you won't believe me then please open that spoiler box and read the torrent within.

El Cheezus - see time.

The section allowing you to move wounds about requires there to be a target unit

Dangerous terrain has no target, and has nothing to do with the unit but the actual model. Same as Gets Hot!

You are trying to Remove Casualties based on the unit, when you have been told only to deal with that specific model. By not dealing with that specific model you have broken the rule, and no amount of pretending otherwise will make people believe you.

I;d LOVE to see you try this at any UK GT event. Absolutely love it. The look of "what?!" as you are laughed out of the venue would be priceless.

-Cypher- wrote:The 'funneling rule' is the but which states that you cannot spread wounds around to avoid removing whole models. I understand you may not have read the entire thread which would lead to confusion on that term.

I would ask that you go to my previous post on page 3 that has a spoiler box. In the box you will find all my arguments AGAINST my side of the argument. However, in the process of arguing your side I came to realize that I was wrong. If you won't believe me then please open that spoiler box and read the torrent within.

I have followed this entire thread from the beginning. I was in fact the one who re-opened it when the latest main rulebook FAQ update came out.

I also read your spoiler box in its entirity. I was not put off by the length of your post and read all your arguments with an open mind. Any doubts I may have had about my position disappeared when the latest FAQ came out and stated that DT wounds are taken by the model that suffered then. Black and white, cut and dried.

If 3 models with 2 wounds each move into an area of dangerous terrain, and all 3 fail their tests, then each one takes 1 wound.
You are not "spreading the wounds around to avoid removing whole models" as per page 26, as I already quoted that rule says to remove whole models after having allocated the wounds. Please take the time to read the whole rule on page 26 before responding. Then read the FAQ that says you do not allocate wounds as per shooting. Then put the 2 together.

The rule continually being cited on page 24 also refers to shooting attacks. Again, please take the time to read the whole rule before responding.

Mountains and mole hills.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I;d LOVE to see you try this at any UK GT event. Absolutely love it. The look of "what?!" as you are laughed out of the venue would be priceless.

You mean if a unit of identical 2-wound models charged through dangerous terrain and the player removed a whole model (according to the rules)?

Do you really think people would call that beardy/cheesy, as opposed to putting 1 wound on each of 2 separate models?