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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes, it is. Just like Shrouded on a Lord is the same SR as Shrouded on an Asp Champ.

Yes, Because there is NO OTHER OR DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE RULE IN THE CODEX.

You have Champions of Chaos rule in the codex page xx.

In each Lord/Sorceror/Special IC/Aspiring Champion the line that referes to CoC is the EXACT SAME PAGE for each of them.

Just like any other Sm Chapter Master that has say EW, and a IC or Captain that has the EW rule, they both refere to the EW rule in the rulebook on the exact same page, there is no multiple instances of EW in the rulebook, so why would there multiple versions of CoC in CSM book?

My Furious Charge on Kharn is the exact same has the Furious Charge on my Zerkers.

Saying that because its on a IC and a UC, its a different rule, is weirdly and awesomely devious and silly.

Let me see if I have the two sides of the argument right:

Example - Unit including a Character (thus using the Mixed Saves flow) takes 4 wounds from boltguns, one from a Champion with a plasma pistol and one from a Chaos Lord with a plasma pistol.

Side A) The boltgun wounds go in one group of the wound pool, the plasma in another. The order of groups is decided by the shooting player (plasma or bolts first). - in which case would you advocate remembering ownership of the plasma (CoC), or are you saying RAW breaks down here as they are merely grouped by S/AP/Specials?

Side B) Since the plasma wounds have different rules (in a similar vein to the "Are separate castings from different sources of the same Psychic power 'the same' for stacking."), you end up with three groups, potentially in the order of 1 plasma - 4 bolt - 1 plasma.

---

If I am not understanding the arguments, my apologies.

Well A is more that RAW breaks down and they group by S/Ap/Specials.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well A is more that RAW breaks down and they group by S/Ap/Specials.

Would you say that keeping track of which wound is which (in order to correctly allocate the winner of Champions of Chaos), but keeping them in the same wound group (and thus, resolving them one after the other as opposed to option B) is in keeping with the RAW or breaking RAW? (actual question, not trying to put words in your mouth)

I don't see anything that would give you permission to do so, that would mean it's outside RAW.

I think you either need to use different colour dice or a separate wound group to play it properly but RAW and the right way to play something aren't always the same.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't see anything that would give you permission to do so, that would mean it's outside RAW.

I think you either need to use different colour dice or a separate wound group to play it properly but RAW and the right way to play something aren't always the same.

Thank you, I now have a much clearer picture of the argument.

Soo uhhh, guys, what do I do?

On the plus side, I've re-written my list to take a lvl 1 sorcerer (cheaper) and give him smite (no gets hot, and 4 shots instead of 1) (1/6 chance of getting Life Leech, which is cool)

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Yes..... they are the exact same rule, the have the same triggers and mechanisms and have the same range of outcomes.

Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain how an independent character rolling on the chaos boon table is the same outcome as a champion rolling on the chaos boon table?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes, it is. Just like Shrouded on a Lord is the same SR as Shrouded on an Asp Champ.

And this goes for liturgies too:

Each Lord, Sorcerer, Aspiring Champion, or whatever have there own CoC that is specific to them; it is in no way like Stealth or Shrouded, it is more Like relentless.

Relentless on each model is a different instance of relentless than each other model.

The same could be said of Termie Armour granting the Invulnerable save, Each Armour grants its bearer an Invul Save, so a unit of 5 GK Paladins who get shot at with a Vindicare Shield Breaker round will only have the model hit lose his invul save

Again there is no Blanket: "Special rules do not Stack" It is just the wording of most special rules that do not allow for them to stack(A unit that contains at least 1 model with X; effect).

Yes it is different from all the other "Weapon or model with this Special rule" SRs, but then those rules effect the unit attacked, not the model doing the attacking; which is the important part here; The Lord's CoC is different from the Asping Champs CoC because it only effects the Lord(while the Asp Champs only effect the Asp Champ).

 loreweaver wrote:
Soo uhhh, guys, what do I do?

As you can see, the exact RAW is open to debate, so you'll just have to talk to your opponents / gaming group and decide on a method of resolving such shooting in a way that you feel is fair and follows the intent of the rules, even if it strays a little from the exact wording of how to split wounds in a pool.

Schrodingers_Kitty wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Yes..... they are the exact same rule, the have the same triggers and mechanisms and have the same range of outcomes.

Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain how an independent character rolling on the chaos boon table is the same outcome as a champion rolling on the chaos boon table?

It's ok, range of outcomes is the phrase I used.
That means that the specific outcome of the rule can be different but they are from a proscribed list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes, it is. Just like Shrouded on a Lord is the same SR as Shrouded on an Asp Champ.

And this goes for liturgies too:

Each Lord, Sorcerer, Aspiring Champion, or whatever have there own CoC that is specific to them; it is in no way like Stealth or Shrouded, it is more Like relentless.

Relentless on each model is a different instance of relentless than each other model.

The same could be said of Termie Armour granting the Invulnerable save, Each Armour grants its bearer an Invul Save, so a unit of 5 GK Paladins who get shot at with a Vindicare Shield Breaker round will only have the model hit lose his invul save

Again there is no Blanket: "Special rules do not Stack" It is just the wording of most special rules that do not allow for them to stack(A unit that contains at least 1 model with X; effect).

Yes it is different from all the other "Weapon or model with this Special rule" SRs, but then those rules effect the unit attacked, not the model doing the attacking; which is the important part here; The Lord's CoC is different from the Asping Champs CoC because it only effects the Lord(while the Asp Champs only effect the Asp Champ).

Is there anything that would back up the idea that USRs are not Universal? The description of USRs in the brb seems to disagree with your entire argument. The wording of CoC would also disagree with you that it's a separate rule for everyone that has it.

Eh Kel, Compendium of special rules, 3rd paragraph 1st page of USRs states that unless otherwise stated special rules don't stack with themselves.
Well then we should group gets hot shots separately as they can only "get hot" on the model that shot them....
The fact a rule is directed at a specific model doesn't make it a different rule. If this was the case than rules and powers that take away SRs would not work because they don't have SR(insert model name here) to remove that version of the rule.

The rule is the same but it has a effects each model differently.

If the Champ kills him he gets a bonus, if the lord kills him he gets a bonus. That separates them right there as per the rules.

Also because the effect is based on the model of origin not the target model.

Example to show what I mean.

Let's say they all have bolt pistols. You fire them and the squad toss all the wounds in 1 pool and kill the sergent. Do they get to both roll on boon because a bolt pistol killed him and they were firing bolt pistols?

No.

You would separate their shots from the rest.

This is complex wound assignment and per the rules you assign wounds 1 at a time not in pools (that is a optional fast dice method and if you do it your opting out of the boon). So you would first allocate the lords plasma, he would make a look out sir, then the champ's plasma, and he would look out sir.

Whichever he failed the look out sir for would get the boon.

HappyJew,
Very nice use of precedent.

While I didn't get a chance to do a complete review of the rules involved, I went off the worse case situations for my side of the debate as it is likely accurate. While I was able to formulate a few counter arguments, none of them could address the core of the precedent case you pushed forth to my satisfaction. There are scenarios where the application of this definition of 'same' will lead to unusual outcome, the one you put forth quite dark a gray at that. My mind simply is not twisted enough to bring that situation into line, the fact I have not reviewed rules doesn't help, so it does put doubt on this definition.

While I am sure I could find a lot of precedent cases that prove the more flexible definition of 'same' also causes gray areas but I lack the time and motivation. After all, it was a question on how to resolve a gray area which led down this long path to begin with. Give that lack of motivation, I will concede that my mind is not twisted enough to work out a definition of 'same' that both fixes existing gray areas and doesn't create new ones of it's own. I will simply take solace in the fact that, when these Gray Areas do occur, people are usually smart enough to solve them without too much blood spilling over the table.

Ok we all agree that the rule is the same, that it can have different effects on models but you're missing the real point here.

The rule is the same and page 14 in the Wound Pool paragraph 3rd sentence tells us what to do. Page 14 doesn't say that the rules you separate by are ones that only apply to the target model.

Liturgies,
People don't agree the rule meets the requirement to be considered 'the same,' that is why the debate has gone on 2 pages without a universally applicable definition of 'same' forth-coming.

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgies,
People don't agree the rule meets the requirement to be considered 'the same,' that is why the debate has gone on 2 pages without a universally applicable definition of 'same' forth-coming.

And if they'd like to offer some substantive to that other than "I feel it must be, so it is." That would be great, especially when the BRB runs on the basis of SRs being the same if they have the same name.

And thats the stupid part of this thread...

Do you own the CSM codex?, if you do, then we must not have the same codex and you must have a 2.8 Icrack version of it, because when i read the Lord, the Sorceror, the Apostle, the Warpsmith, the Aspiring Champiosn entry i see "Champion of Chaos(pg 28)".

You go the the page 28 and Oh shiny Santa balls miracle!, there you have the CoC rule and description of the rule...once...

yes there is no Lord version of CoC, or Dark Apostle version or Chosen or Plaguemarine Version, there is but ONE and ONLY version, where all of those characters entry referes to.

So in what names of, you guys can say with a straigth face" yup its not the same rule"?...

Because then Chapter tactics for Sm CM and Sergeant isn't the same also?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Is there anything that would back up the idea that USRs are not Universal? The description of USRs in the brb seems to disagree with your entire argument. The wording of CoC would also disagree with you that it's a separate rule for everyone that has it.

Eh Kel, Compendium of special rules, 3rd paragraph 1st page of USRs states that unless otherwise stated special rules don't stack with themselves.
Well then we should group gets hot shots separately as they can only "get hot" on the model that shot them....
The fact a rule is directed at a specific model doesn't make it a different rule. If this was the case than rules and powers that take away SRs would not work because they don't have SR(insert model name here) to remove that version of the rule.

Missed that one.

And yes we should fire Gets Hot shots separately; because that is what the rule says to do, Only the model firing the gets hot weapon can take the wound. Take a Captain in a Tactical squad whith the following weapons: Combi plasma on the Captain, Plasma gun on a marine and Plasma Cannon on another marine. They all shoot with their Plasmas in rapid fire range. The Cannon has to roll a d6 before it fires and if it rolls a 1 only the Plasma Cannon takes the wound. When the Captain and the marine fire their Plasma guns you have to roll their to hits separately because even if all 4 dice come up 1s the captain will only have to roll 2 saves(he only fired 2 Gets hot shots), any other combinations of 1s and not-1s need to be clearly delineated between which were the marines shots and which were the captains.

If you were meaning rolling to hit separately and resolving the wounds in different wound pools, then no as there are no longer any special rules in play(the wounds are just S7 ap2, you have already resolved "Gets Hot").

Removing a special rule is removing a special rule, so long as the model has the special rule it gets that special rule removed when under the effects of said removal. Going back to the Paladin and Vindicare situation: the paladin hit by the shield breaker loses his armor generated Invul save, but no other paladins in his unit lose theirs. If a peice of wargear or effect removed the invul saves from the unit then it would removal all the instances of Invul saves in the unit.

We roll to hit with gets hot separately, there is nothing telling us to resolve them in different wound groups.

Which I said.

Ok better example of why this is important and why everyone seems to be getting it wrong.

Wound pooling is the "fast dice" method. It is optional not a rule simply another faster way to resolve shooting.

The proper way per the rules is the shooter allocates wounds 1 at a time, and the opponent makes saves 1 at a time. There is no rule forcing you to allocate all of a certain type of wound, and then all of another.

That is simply for speed when it doesn't matter.
Example:

You'e got your Champ with a plasma pistol, and your shooting at a 5 man combat squad. The order from closest to furthest is...
Bolter
Bolter
Bolter
Sergent
Bolter

You do 1 plasma wound, and 7 bolter wounds. You want that boon right? Of course you do.
So you apply a bolter wound to the first guy, and repeat until either all are saved or you reach the sergent.
At which point you can apply the plasma wound EVEN if you still have bolter wounds left.

Now the fast dice method for this would be since there are 3 guys before the sergent you would simply apply 3 bolter wounds. He fails 1, then you apply 2 more because now there are only 2 bolter guys before the sergent. He fails both, and now you apply the plasma from the champ. He fails his LoS roll and dies your Champ gets the boon.

Sine the rest doesn't matter he then rolls saves for whatever wounds are left. Another example...

10 man tac squad with a plasma, and missle launcher fire at a 20 man Dark Eldar squad with a Haemonculi.

The Haemonculi gives them FnP is T4, and multiple wounds. So you want to cause the most damage right? Right.

So you first apply 2 plasma wounds so the first 2 guys can't FnP, get no save, and die. Then you apply the ML wound the haemonculi can't FnP as it's double toughness, gets no save because it's AP3, and it will instant death him from double toughness.
You then apply the rest of the bolter wounds to the squad. Note since all shooting takes place at the same time the rest of the squad will still get FnP against the bolter wounds. However you prevent them from FnP a few bolter wounds to get to the haemonculi, you've prevent the haemonculi from soaking up multiple plasma or bolter shots before dying.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Wound pooling is the "fast dice" method. It is optional not a rule simply another faster way to resolve shooting.

The wound pool is populated (filled) and grouped (sorted) regardless of the method of emptying it. "Fast Dice" (page 16) modifies the "Allocate Wounds" and "Take Saves & Remove Casualties" part of the Mixed Saves rule (page 15), it does not affect the Mixed Wounds box (bottom right of page 15).

At least, that's how I read Fast Dice.

Hmm re-read you are correct but it still says to allocate 1 wound at a time.

If you failed to specify which plasma wound was from which model then you lost out of the boon. OR you could randomize between potential shooters to see who gets the boon.

So 1 plasma wound, 1 plasma wound, 1 plasma wound, then since the rest are bolters and the same you switch to the fast dice method and roll them all.

I missed the pool because generally my squads are self pooling. You have the bolter pool, the plasma pool from a single guy, and the missle launcher pool.

Except that the Shooter isn't the one who allocates the wounds.

You roll to hit, you roll to wound, your opponent roll its saves, and allocate the unsaved wounds.

if amidts those unsaved wounds there is the wounds of the plasmas and the Character has died, thats it, and that was the real question before all this mess about multiple instance of the exact same rule bs.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Except that the Shooter isn't the one who allocates the wounds.

You roll to hit, you roll to wound, your opponent roll its saves, and allocate the unsaved wounds.

if amidts those unsaved wounds there is the wounds of the plasmas and the Character has died, thats it, and that was the real question before all this mess about multiple instance of the exact same rule bs.

No but the shooter gets to determine the order in which wounds get allocated, "Mixed Wounds" on page 15.

It clearly states you allocate wounds from each pool, and in wound allocation it says you do that one at a time.

Wagguy80 wrote:
It clearly states you allocate wounds from each pool, and in wound allocation it says you do that one at a time.

There is only ever 1 pool, there are many groups in that pool but that's not multiple pools.

Word games. You assign 1 wound at a time unless they're all the same, and all his saves are the same, and then only if a character is not present.

So no debate you would apply 1 wound at a time to the sgt from whatever group you wanted to start with.

So lets say you lump both plasma in the same group. You apply one, he fails his look out sir and dies.
Now who gets the boon? Because you still have 1 plasma wound in that group.

So you either group them seperately, or declare which wounds belongs to which model when assigning. Or your going to wind up rolling a D6 and going high/low Champ/Lord.

It's almost like words matter when we talk about what the rules say....

You still fail to allow for the possibility that the rules don't cover this situation. The rules are not fully checked and often don't use proper grammar or sentence structure. I assume you are now admitting that you're arguing from a HIWPI standpoint?