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.

ToBeWilly wrote:Gets Hot is an additional characteristic of a weapon (as defined on page 29), and weapons are part of the definition of "identical in gaming terms" (which is like you said, defined on page 25). So, Gets Hot must be taken into account when determining if models are "identical in gaming terms".

All models with plasma guns have the "Gets Hot" special rule, so all models with plasma guns are "identical in gaming terms."

biccat wrote:

time wizard wrote:And in the case of gets hot! weapons, the way it works is that if the firing model rolls a 1, it suffers a wound. If it rolls two 1s, the firing model suffers 2 wounds. If the firing model only has 1 Wound on its profile, it suffers the wounds and is removed. This of course is providing the model fails any applicable saving throw it might be able to make.

What rule are you using to remove models who fail their saving throw?

Gee, I aplolgize here, I was thinking of models with only one wound on their profile, but I thought everyone would get the idea.

In any event, if you look at the rules for shooting, here is where you find the manner of allocating wounds throughout models in a unit.

If you look in the assault section, you find that the rules say to apply all the rules for removing shooting casualties for close combat.

So once again, neither the rule for a failed dangerous terrain test, nor the rule for a gets hot! weapon say that the rules for removing shooting casualties apply for either of those special rules. What they do say is that the model that fails the test or rolls the 1 will suffer a wound. Doesn't get much more specific than that.

time wizard wrote:So once again, neither the rule for a failed dangerous terrain test, nor the rule for a gets hot! weapon say that the rules for removing shooting casualties apply for either of those special rules. What they do say is that the model that fails the test or rolls the 1 will suffer a wound. Doesn't get much more specific than that.

What rules, other than the shooting rules, tell you how to remove models from play?

For single-wound models, for each model that fails its save the unit suffers a wound, and so you remove an identical model. The "model suffers a wound" language preempts allocation (by explaining how the wounds are allocated - to the firing model), it doesn't preempt removing casualties (there are no additional rules to tell you how to remove a model that fails its "Gets Hot" save, so you have to go back to the default rule).

If a unit of 2-wound models move through Dangerous Terrain and 4 fail their saves, do you track wounds individually or remove 2 models?

biccat wrote:All models with plasma guns have the "Gets Hot" special rule, so all models with plasma guns are "identical in gaming terms."

Only the models that roll a 'one' on their To Hit roll are effected by it. So, they are affected my a rule the others are not, which now makes them not "identical in gaming terms".

biccat wrote:If a unit of 2-wound models move through Dangerous Terrain and 4 fail their saves, do you track wounds individually or remove 2 models?

You track the wounds individually.

Each model that fails the dangerous terrain test suffers a (1) wound.

Only the models that roll a 'one' on their To Hit roll are effected by it. So, they are affected my a rule the others are not, which now makes them not "identical in gaming terms".

A plasmagun that gets hot is still the same plasmagun as it was before it got hot. The weapon is "plasmagun". The definition talks about the weapon, the special rules of the model, the profile of characteristics and the wargear.

Does the model have a different weapon? No. Does the model have different special rules? No. Does the model have a different profile? No. Does it have different wargear? No.

So where is the difference according to the given definition?

They are different, indeed. But so is the tyranid warrior that lost a wound to the healthy tyranid warrior. Still they are treated identical in gaming terms according to the rules.

@dangerous terrain

I have changed my opinion here. But am I the only one who is reading, that you are not longer permitted to have a saving throw at all against dangerous terrain (which would be consistent, because the rules for taking saving throws are not taken into account then and therefore we have indeed a different procedure, however still lacking of an alternative for removing casualties...)?

Because the FAQ doesnt refer to saving throws and talks about suffering (losing) Wounds. This is the last step in the normal procedure and comes after saving throws. So according to the FAQ I am not permitted to roll any saves at all for the unit in which a model failed a dangerous terrain test.

@Gets Hot

I honour your stubbornness.

BTW. a little extra (using the "no rules for shooting can be used" - logic): Armour saves can only be taken against wounds caused by incoming fire. Quote page 20 Armour saves: "Roll a d6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic" Assault rules also specify that armour saves can be taken. And (watch closely) refer to Models... page 39 taking saves: "Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves to avoid becoming casualties".

So how do you think you get an armour save for a gets hot wound? Normal saves apply seems irrelevant because "normal saves" refers to shooting and armour saves specifically to wounds caused (or suffered...) by incoming fire.

-Nazdreg- wrote: @dangerous terrain

I have changed my opinion here. But am I the only one who is reading, that you are not longer permitted to have a saving throw at all against dangerous terrain (which would be consistent, because the rules for taking saving throws are not taken into account then and therefore we have indeed a different procedure, however still lacking of an alternative for removing casualties...)?

Because the FAQ doesnt refer to saving throws and talks about suffering (losing) Wounds. This is the last step in the normal procedure and comes after saving throws. So according to the FAQ I am not permitted to roll any saves at all for the unit in which a model failed a dangerous terrain test.

Okay, two good points you made here, so now to counter.

Point one that you are not allowed a save against difficult terrain. The DT rule on page 14 says that after the roll of '1', the model suffers a wound with no armour or cover save allowed.

On page 20 under Invulnerable Saves, the last sentence reads, "Even if a wound normally ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw may still be taken." So that's how you get a saving throw from a failed dangerous terrain test.

Point two about suffering wounds being the last step in the procedure and that it comes after saving throws, on page 15, "the Shooting Sequence" (qv) step 4 is roll to wound, step 5 is take saving throws. It even starts with "Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw."

So you take a dangerous terrain test, your model fails the test and "...suffers a wound...", and now, the wound that was suffered "...may be cancelled by making a saving throw." Which of course is what is meant by an "unsaved wound".

So taking a saving throw comes after suffering a wound, and is not the last step anyway. The last step is to remove casualties.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@Gets Hot

I honour your stubbornness.

If that is directed at me, thank you! I honor yours as well. I like a good, gentlemanly argument!

-Nazdreg- wrote:So how do you think you get an armour save for a gets hot wound? Normal saves apply seems irrelevant because "normal saves" refers to shooting and armour saves specifically to wounds caused (or suffered...) by incoming fire.

Again, as per page 15, "Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw." Not will be, but may be. This would be how one would take a saving throw as normal.

This would be the general rule for saving throws, that they may be taken to cancel a wound.

What types of wounds can be cancelled?

Wounds from enemy fire, wounds from close combat, wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests, wounds from gets hot! weapons, wounds from vehicles exploding and wounds from a units transport getting "Destroyed - explodes!" and both the rules for wounds from assaults and wounds from destroyed - explodes transports specify that you are to treat those wounds just like hits from shooting.

There is no such provision, restriction or specification on wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests or wounds from gets hot!, so you would have to fall back on taking a saving throw as normal, as found on page 15, and make a saving throw to see if the wound is cancelled.

And making a Saving Throw is not part of "Removing Casualties", but part of "Saving Throws".

If that is directed at me, thank you! I honor yours as well. I like a good, gentlemanly argument!

It wasnt only to you but to you as well. Thank you in return then.

Okay, two good points you made here, so now to counter.

Point one that you are not allowed a save against difficult terrain. The DT rule on page 14 says that after the roll of '1', the model suffers a wound with no armour or cover save allowed.

On page 20 under Invulnerable Saves, the last sentence reads, "Even if a wound normally ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw may still be taken." So that's how you get a saving throw from a failed dangerous terrain test.

Point two about suffering wounds being the last step in the procedure and that it comes after saving throws, on page 15, "the Shooting Sequence" (qv) step 4 is roll to wound, step 5 is take saving throws. It even starts with "Each wound suffered may be cancelled by making a saving throw."

So you take a dangerous terrain test, your model fails the test and "...suffers a wound...", and now, the wound that was suffered "...may be cancelled by making a saving throw." Which of course is what is meant by an "unsaved wound".

So taking a saving throw comes after suffering a wound, and is not the last step anyway. The last step is to remove casualties.

The problem is (I know that procedure quite well by now... ), the dangerous terrain FAQ, not the rules, talk about suffering a Wound, not about suffering a wound.

1. Suffering a wound means a wound is allocated to the model, which can be saved by a saving throw in the way the rules describe it. (All in one batch, removing casualties anywhere amongst identical models)

This is not the case if we talk about dangerous terrain.

2. If I suffer a Wound, I could translate that into losing a Wound, against which no save can be attempted, because saves are done against wounds.

But if you take saves, you take them according to the rules.

@Gets hot:

What types of wounds can be cancelled?

Wounds from enemy fire, wounds from close combat, wounds from failed dangerous terrain tests, wounds from gets hot! weapons, wounds from vehicles exploding and wounds from a units transport getting "Destroyed - explodes!" and both the rules for wounds from assaults and wounds from destroyed - explodes transports specify that you are to treat those wounds just like hits from shooting.

When I talked about saving throws, some guys claimed the opposite... Interesting.

Talking about saving throws, you are correct, but armour saves are only a part of saving throws. So it can happen, that you can take a save, but not an armour save. In "Gets Hot" it is not specified, that those wounds are treated like wounds from shooting (otherwise we wouldnt have a debate here), I treat them as such because there is no other reference to the word "wound" in the rules.

So we have three possibilities here:

1. Those wounds are the same as allocated wounds from shooting: Then I can have armour saves and I make my saves for identical models in one batch. (my preferred version)

2. Those wounds are somehow special (in which way seems to be open to creativity...) then I won't have an armour save, and if you are free to invent new definitions of a "wound" then you are free to invent a model based saving procedure. But armour saves shouldnt be taken into account there.

3. Gets Hot refers to Wounds. So suffering a Wound would mean losing a Wound. Then I would claim no saves at all (which breaks the gets hot rule actually). But saving throws are not made after losing a Wound.

Another option is that the guy described as having to take the wound does so.

Another option is that the guy described as having to take the wound does so.

Well then... quite logical, isn't it?

Then he "takes the wound" and nothing happens. Also a solution, yep, I forgot, sorry.

What you describe is option 1.

Naz, as you seem to be located in Germany, I'll guess you're not a native English speaker?

IN any event, the sheer number of homophones, homonyms, synonyms and other -nyms means that often, what might be clearly written in a different language can have 2, 3, or even 4 equally valid meanings in English. For example, the way the wording for the Death Ray of the Doomscythe for the Necrons was written in the English book clearly allowed for two interpretations of the rule- one nicely balanced, and one incredibly overpowerful. However, the Spanish translation of the book clearly allowed for only one interpretation.

It's not so much that any of the opinions we have here aren't valid, it's which one is the most valid.

Naz, as you seem to be located in Germany, I'll guess you're not a native English speaker?

No I am not. Your guess was right.

IN any event, the sheer number of homophones, homonyms, synonyms and other -nyms means that often, what might be clearly written in a different language can have 2, 3, or even 4 equally valid meanings in English.

Yes of course. But in times of "loses all Wounds" vs "killed outright" (4th edition forceweapons...) and "removed as a casualty" vs. "removed from play" (JotWW) this doesn't seem to be valid. Exact wording seems to be the only relevant.

For example, the way the wording for the Death Ray of the Doomscythe for the Necrons was written in the English book clearly allowed for two interpretations of the rule

The death ray rule is indeed not very well written. We don't know which armour facing is used and we don't know anything about cover saves for vehicles. The rest is clear imho.

However, the Spanish translation of the book clearly allowed for only one interpretation.

Yes in german translation we had a similar case. But we had also awful translations. (i.e. immobilized vehicles could still pivot on the spot, passengers couldnt fire if they disembarked from a shaken transport) before an FAQ cleared almost everything up which lasted actually a long time...

So here in germany we only accept the english version in tournaments as translations are always misguiding.

It's not so much that any of the opinions we have here aren't valid, it's which one is the most valid.

What I was looking for, is a solution, that is "waterproof" (if you know what I mean?). It has to be done in that way and in no other way, so we all can play with the same assumptions.
But it doesnt seem to be a problem of the language as still the opinions stay apart even between you natives.

Concerning language and the topic:

The profile characteristic "Wounds" in german is rather similar to "Hitpoints" and the step in the shooting-process after the successful to wound roll is the exact translation of "wound". So we have a quite clear distinction here.

And the german version of the FAQ about "Dangerous Terrain" uses an even different word but very close to "wound", while "gets hot" refers to the exact same word, that is used describing a successful "to wound" roll. Thats why I was quite stunned reading that the FAQ in English indeed refers to "Wounds" which is a direct link to the characteristic.

Now I wonder if you native english speakers actually separate the two words or if you just use them as synonyme. If the latter is correct, then I wasted my efforts and the rules are less clear than I thought...

so speaking of normal saves applying, if the model is in area terrain would that include a 4+ cover save?

After reading all 4 pages, I'm thinking "B" that you could end up losing multiple models from get hot.

-Nazdreg- wrote: So we have three possibilities here:

1. Those wounds are the same as allocated wounds from shooting: Then I can have armour saves and I make my saves for identical models in one batch. (my preferred version)

Okay, but if you are going to allocate the gets hot! wound the same as wounds from shooting, then since a plasma gun is AP2, no model that rolls a '1' on a gets hot! roll would ever get an armour save.

-Nazdreg- wrote:2. Those wounds are somehow special (in which way seems to be open to creativity...) then I won't have an armour save, and if you are free to invent new definitions of a "wound" then you are free to invent a model based saving procedure. But armour saves shouldnt be taken into account there.

I don't have to invent a new definition of a "wound". It is already defined as how much damage a creature can take. A wound from rolling a '1' with a gets hot! weapon is indeed special. Not because it is a special type of 'wound' but because of the way it is inflicted and suffered according to the characteristics of the weapon itself. You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple. If you fire a rapid fire gets hot! weapons and roll two '1's, the firing model would suffer 2 wounds, and would again take saving throws for both of them. If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple. Nothing in the rule says the wounds are allocated the same as wounds from shooting so they aren't.

-Nazdreg- wrote:3. Gets Hot refers to Wounds. So suffering a Wound would mean losing a Wound. Then I would claim no saves at all (which breaks the gets hot rule actually). But saving throws are not made after losing a Wound.

I can find nothing in the rulebook about "losing a wound". I can find suffering a wound, saved wounds, unsaved wounds, wounds against which a save can't be taken, but nothing about losing a wound. Gets hot! simply says for each '1' rolled, the ffiring model suffers a wound. The rules for saving throws says if a model suffers a wound it may take a saving throw to see if it avoids the damage. That would be taking a saving throw as normal.

@sirlynchmob - Whether or not a cover save could be taken for a gets hot! wound was debated on another thread. I personally would neither take on nor allow one, but that is stricktly personal opinion. YMMV.

@time wizard

Now it is a bit absurd my friend.

Okay, but if you are going to allocate the gets hot! wound the same as wounds from shooting, then since a plasma gun is AP2, no model that rolls a '1' on a gets hot! roll would ever get an armour save.

I never said that the gets hot wound counts as a shot from the plasmagun. And again from my first post on I think, I am saying I always allocate the wound on the firing model. This will result in a circle.

It is already defined as how much damage a creature can take.

Is it? Show me the page then.

You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple. If you fire a rapid fire gets hot! weapons and roll two '1's, the firing model would suffer 2 wounds, and would again take saving throws for both of them. If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple. Nothing in the rule says the wounds are allocated the same as wounds from shooting so they aren't.

OK this is what I call inventing. And by inventing I mean personal interpretation. Lets split it apart:

You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple.

simple? Fire the weapon, roll the 1, suffer the wound. This is what gets hot precisely states. Make the saving throw: Now its interesting. To what does gets hot refer here? To the normal rules for taking saving throws. You know the rest....
If you say the model specifically makes a saving throw this is not according to the rules, because in the rules such a thing does not exist. So it is personal interpretation.

If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple.

And for that sentence I need a single proof where in the rules this can happen. Give me a quote that has this specific wording. Then I am quiet until the end of my life about the topic.

I can find nothing in the rulebook about "losing a wound". I can find suffering a wound, saved wounds, unsaved wounds, wounds against which a save can't be taken, but nothing about losing a wound. Gets hot! simply says for each '1' rolled, the ffiring model suffers a wound. The rules for saving throws says if a model suffers a wound it may take a saving throw to see if it avoids the damage. That would be taking a saving throw as normal.

This leads me to the conclusion, that you indeed do not separate between the word "Wound" and the word "wound". If that is the case, and if that is representative then I have to shut my mouth too, because then we have an extremely unclear rule. What I dont understand then, is that my interpretation is considered completely wrong.

Whether or not a cover save could be taken for a gets hot! wound was debated on another thread. I personally would neither take on nor allow one, but that is stricktly personal opinion.

Wait now its completely absurd... You get a cover save for a wound not caused by shooting, but if you take the save, you take it not according to the procedure actually described in these rules? I would call this cherry-picking...

The Cover Save thing is odd, but again, from our English viewpoint, there's actually nothing saying that's not possible.

Here's another thing that I know is a difference between Deutsch and Englisch.

The difference between "Wound" and "wound" is 0. Nothing. Nicht, nada. Null. In English the only words that are required to be capitolized are the first word of a sentence, and proper names, like Tom or Microsoft. Any other use of a capitol letter is merely for emphasis, like doch(I believe that's right).

I find it very interesting that the German translation has multiple words where the English has 'Wound' (or 'wound'). This might actually cast some light on the subject, if you could give the specifics.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

It is already defined as how much damage a creature can take.

Is it? Show me the page then.

Gladly, page 6, right hand column, paragraph 5 (qv), "WOUNDS (W) Wounds show how much damage a creature can take before it either dies or is so badly hurt it can't fight anymore."

-Nazdreg- wrote:

You fire the weapon, you roll a '1', you suffer a wound, you make a saving throw. Simple. If you fire a rapid fire gets hot! weapons and roll two '1's, the firing model would suffer 2 wounds, and would again take saving throws for both of them. If that model fails both saves, and only has 1 Wound on its profile, it is removed. Again, simple. Nothing in the rule says the wounds are allocated the same as wounds from shooting so they aren't.

OK this is what I call inventing. And by inventing I mean personal interpretation.

Okay, you call it inventing, I call it following the rules.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Simple? Fire the weapon, roll the 1, suffer the wound. This is what gets hot precisely states. Make the saving throw: Now its interesting. To what does gets hot refer here? To the normal rules for taking saving throws. You know the rest....
If you say the model specifically makes a saving throw this is not according to the rules, because in the rules such a thing does not exist. So it is personal interpretation.

So a single model can never make a saving throw? Interesting interpretation.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

I can find nothing in the rulebook about "losing a wound". I can find suffering a wound, saved wounds, unsaved wounds, wounds against which a save can't be taken, but nothing about losing a wound. Gets hot! simply says for each '1' rolled, the ffiring model suffers a wound. The rules for saving throws says if a model suffers a wound it may take a saving throw to see if it avoids the damage. That would be taking a saving throw as normal.

This leads me to the conclusion, that you indeed do not separate between the word "Wound" and the word "wound". If that is the case, and if that is representative then I have to shut my mouth too, because then we have an extremely unclear rule. What I dont understand then, is that my interpretation is considered completely wrong.

Whether 'Wound' or 'wound' it makes no difference. Capitalization does not alter the fact that it is the wound characteristic.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Whether or not a cover save could be taken for a gets hot! wound was debated on another thread. I personally would neither take on nor allow one, but that is stricktly personal opinion.

Wait now its completely absurd... You get a cover save for a wound not caused by shooting, but if you take the save, you take it not according to the procedure actually described in these rules? I would call this cherry-picking...

Just wanted to highlight that part of your quote, because it is in error.

Page 14, Dangerous Terrain, last sentence, "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed..." {emphasis mine}
So here we have a wound not caused by shooting that does not allow a cover save.

Now that I provided some of the rules quotes you requested, please provide me with the quote that says wounds cause by failed dangerous terrain tests and wounds caused by firing a gets hot! weapon are treated exactly like wounds from shooting.

time wizard wrote:


Page 14, Dangerous Terrain, last sentence, "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed..." {emphasis mine}
So here we have a wound not caused by shooting that does not allow a cover save.

Now that I provided some of the rules quotes you requested, please provide me with the quote that says wounds cause by failed dangerous terrain tests and wounds caused by firing a gets hot! weapon are treated exactly like wounds from shooting.

the only reason a dangerous terrain test does not allow a cover save is that it explicitly says you can't take one. But it also implies that if they hadn't denied it in the rules you would be able to take a cover save. Then it really depends on what "normal saves" are. does normal mean armor, cover, and invulns?

I didn't mean to derail the ongoing topic, I didn't realize my question fell into such a gray area.

See, this is the issue- is that "Tak(ing) saves as normal" could mean Armour and Invuln only, or Armour, Cover, Invuln, or only what saves are allowed by the weapon's profile, or any number of things. Gets Hot! is not Dangerous Terrain, it's only similar, in that it mentions specific models as opposed to units.

@timewizard

Whether 'Wound' or 'wound' it makes no difference. Capitalization does not alter the fact that it is the wound characteristic.

Ok if you dont separate between those two things, then I understand your point. Then you are indeed able to cherry-pick which definition suits you.
The problem is, the RB indeed makes a difference (maybe not clear enough) because it capitalizes the profile characteristic also in the middle of a sentence (which in my opinion is not correct normally) so I conclude that it is used on purpose to separate those two things.

If there is no difference then the word "wound" is very widely used and therefore imprecisely definable. And it is od course not only the Wound characteristic.

So a single model can never make a saving throw? Interesting interpretation.

Yes if I read "taking saving throws" I don't see a part, where it is described how a specific model identical to other models in the unit can take a saving throw on his own. This forces me to that conclusion. A unit consisting of a single model of course can still take saving throws.

Just wanted to highlight that part of your quote, because it is in error.

Yep I see that now. Cover saves are not limited to wounds from enemy fire. Then of course gets hot wounds can be saved by cover saves.
Although your Dangerous Terrain quote doesnt fit in that part because we were dealing with Gets Hot!. And Dangerous Terrain wounds can not be saved with a cover save only because the rules for Dangerous Terrain state that no cover saves are allowed, not because they are not caused by shooting.

Now that I provided some of the rules quotes you requested, please provide me with the quote that says wounds cause by failed dangerous terrain tests and wounds caused by firing a gets hot! weapon are treated exactly like wounds from shooting.

Sorry where was the quote I requested again? You only showed me what the profile characteristic "Wounds" represents and that armour and cover saves cant be taken against dangerous terrain wounds. maybe I didnt get you right.
Ok concerning dangerous terrain I changed my position already. Although I am willing to change it backwards again if "Wounds" can be defined the same way as "wounds".

but I still have a quote here: page 14, Dangerous Terrain: "(wounds and saves are explained in the next section)"

That means that the next section has to be used in order to deal with those wounds and how you take your saving throws. In that section however is no part that deals with wounds that are directed on specific models. So I have to assume that the unit based rules have to be taken. See my quotes below for further reference.

concerning gets hot!: Here is the main quote: page 31, get's hot: "(normal saves apply)"

Again this is basically the same as dangerous terrain. It means, that the basic rules for saving throws must be used. Here are they:


This refers to page 20 and page 25. Here are my specific quotes:

page 20 take saving throws: "Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw. This could be because of the target's armour, some other protective device or ability, or intervening models or terrain.

if all the models in a unit are the same, and have a single Wound each, [...] then, this is a very simple process. You roll all the saves for the unit in one go (as described below), and a model of your choice is removed as a casualty for each failure."


page 25 complex units: "The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume, that all the models in the target unit are identical in gaming terms. By this we mean, they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."


page 25 taking saving throws: "Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can be chosen by the owning player from amongst those identical models. If there is another group of identical models in the unit, the player then takes all of their saves in one batch, and so on.

Finally the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed."


Now I quoted the whole part how saving throws are done. I must emphasize also the capitalization of the word Wound in my quote of page 20. Now I ask again: Where do you read a model based saving procedure?

@Anvildude

it's only similar, in that it mentions specific models as opposed to units.

This is, what I doubt. It means specific models, yes. But "as opposed to units" is written nowhere. Specific models are of course also part of a unit. So unit based rules are not completely wrong as long as they aren't replaced by model specific rules that show an alternative. (Specific vs. general)

I wasn't talking about that- I was saying that the rules for Dangerous Terrain and the rules for Gets Hot! can only be compared because they are similar- they cannot be used to support rules interpretations between each other.

@Anvildude

The difference between "Wound" and "wound" is 0. Nothing. Nicht, nada. Null. In English the only words that are required to be capitolized are the first word of a sentence, and proper names, like Tom or Microsoft. Any other use of a capitol letter is merely for emphasis, like doch(I believe that's right).

I find it very interesting that the German translation has multiple words where the English has 'Wound' (or 'wound'). This might actually cast some light on the subject, if you could give the specifics.

Ok I can try that. Although I don't own a german rulebook because we use the english one here.

The characteristic "Wounds" is called "Lebenspunkte" in german. Leben = life, punkte = points. So "Hitpoints" would be the better translation than wounds.
So if the rulebook talks about "losing a Wound", it is translated accordingly: "einen Lebenspunkt verlieren." Translation backwards: losing one hitpoint.

so "roll to wound" is translated like that: "Schadenswurf", which would be "damage roll" in a literal translation.

if I roll "to wound" and have achieved a success, it is called "Verwundung" which can be translated literally as "injury" or "wound".

And the term "suffers a wound" is translated like that: "erleidet eine Verwundung". This is a good translation.

So if the rulebook uses the capitalized word "Wound" then the german version uses the word "Lebenspunkt". If the rulebook uses the non-capitalized word "wound" (or the capitalized word "Wound" at the start of the sentence) the german version uses the word "Verwundung".

So if I translate back I have "injury" vs "hitpoint". Those are two completely different meanings.
Maybe you understand my confusion that you dont make a difference there.

That is a major difference, and that is an example of information that can be used to make a ruling.

I think we can all agree that if the wording for Gets Hot! mentions "injury" auf Deutsch, it means the model(s) are hit, but aren't immediately killed/lose a Wound/"Hitpoint", and thus take their Saves, following the normal rules for Units taking hits.

If it mentions a Lebenspunkte, a "Hitpoint", that means it bypasses the Saves part, and it's the model specifically that is hit- however, the rule goes on to say that you can make a Save to avoid the injury.

This sound good to everyone?

I am sorry why does it matter that german has more then one word for wound? I am sure every language bar some of the invented ones has multiple synonyms for the concept. I don't understand what relevance this has to the OP or any questions of RAW when the rules are written in English. The original document always has primacy as translated works can loose the context if not translated correctly.

"suffers a wound" is a concept that is clear within the context of the rulebook, I don't see why there is confusion over that.

@anvildude

I think we can all agree that if the wording for Gets Hot! mentions "injury" auf Deutsch, it means the model(s) are hit, but aren't immediately killed/lose a Wound/"Hitpoint", and thus take their Saves, following the normal rules for Units taking hits.

Exactly. That was my version.

If it mentions a Lebenspunkte, a "Hitpoint", that means it bypasses the Saves part, and it's the model specifically that is hit- however, the rule goes on to say that you can make a Save to avoid the injury.

That is how I understand your version. But ruleswise I only understand the first part, which is clear. The second part (you can make a save) however is not. Interesting is, that you use the word "injury" there together with saves. This is my main conflict with your interpretation.

In the german version you take saves against "injuries" not against "lost hitpoints" (I will use my different translation here to avoid confusion). So if the rulebook allows me to take saving throws, I have no rule about how to take saving throws against "lost hitpoints" because the rules for saving throws refer to "injuries". This is a game breaking situation, because the rulebook allows something (or forces something) that doesnt exist.

Now to the facts:

The german get's hot rule talks about the "injury". So its the thing that can be allocated, the thing you make saving throws against.
The german dangerous terrain rulebook rule as well as the FAQ also talks about "injury".

Compared to the english version, the english rules for get's hot are consistent. Non capitalized.
However the dangerous terrain rulebook rule uses the non capitalized word, but the FAQ uses the capitalized word. So that would be in german: "hitpoint". However in german FAQ it is still translated "injury".

so it is somehow weird. It can be a translator's fault, or it can be a type error in the english version. Or the german main translator makes a difference when there is actually none. But there has to be one in my opinion, because otherwise it would lead to a discrepancy:

losing a Wound = taking a wound -> confusing (if I have 3 wounds and I take one wound, I lose one wound? That would be 3+1 = 3-1 )

@liturgies of blood

Yes this is why we use the english rules in germany. Although there are some guys who say "We are in germany so we use the german version". But in tournaments always the english rules are used. But:

If you talk about RAW, in the book there IS actually a difference. "wound" and "Wound" (in the middle of a sentence) are in fact different. Normally you don't capitalize in the middle of a sentence in English if it is a generic noun (as you would in german...), so if you do, you do it on purpose. This is what I think about it.

And the German version merely clarifies this. My previous post wasn't actually based on fact (well, part of it was) but on conjecture and a hope that we here at this forum might reach a peaceful conclusion to our debate, with a definitive answer.

Yeah. Ok but now we need the clarification for the english rules because these are the important ones.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@anvildude
If you talk about RAW, in the book there IS actually a difference. "wound" and "Wound" (in the middle of a sentence) are in fact different. Normally you don't capitalize in the middle of a sentence in English if it is a generic noun (as you would in german...), so if you do, you do it on purpose. This is what I think about it.

I see what you mean, I just don't see how that changes any of the readings of Gets Hot! or the allocation of wounds or taking armour saves.
- Wound is the statline
- wound refers to an indivual wound that has been caused
- unsaved wounds are wounds that no saves can be taken against or a saving through has been failed on

I see what you mean, I just don't see how that changes any of the readings of Gets Hot! or the allocation of wounds or taking armour saves.
- Wound is the statline
- wound refers to an indivual wound that has been caused
- unsaved wounds are wounds that no saves can be taken against or a saving through has been failed on

So how do you read the connection between those two sentences "the firing model suffers a wound" and "normal saves apply"?

and can "suffers a wound" be replaced by "loses a Wound" then?

Because otherwise I don't see the point, why a specific model "suffering a wound" automatically means that this specific model also "loses a Wound".

So in wound allocation process you actually allocate wounds on specific models, so there is the same given situation. Wounds suffered by specific models are still saved putting all dice together in groups of wounds suffered by identical models. Gets Hot only specifies the allocation on the firing model (the firing model suffers a wound). This does not alter the saving process. To the contrary it forces you to take the saving throws as described in the basic rules (normal saves apply). So they have to be taken unit based.