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.

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds"
Right there.

Suffer one, that is a test.

Suffer more than one, still only one test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"in close combat" specifies time, as they talk about suffering unsaved wounds, and that only happens in the CC phase.

Plus it does not say it lasts longer than the CC phase.

Models are not suffering wounds in CC in the shooting phase, so that has no bearing. They are still locked in combat, as per the rules.

Time would be either the assault phase (which starts with assault moves) or the fight sub-phase. 6th edition doesn't have a close combat phase.
Close combat ends when an enemy is wiped out, broken, or two units are so far apart after losses that the pile-in doesn't bring them into contact in which case they consolidate.
The bearing that being in combat during a shooting phase has, is it shows combat is still in progress, which means that "in close combat" cannot be used as a metric of time since is spans both players turns and several phases.


-Matt

close combat= fight sub-phase, as that is when wounds are caused. (They talk about suffering unsaved wounds and the Context tells us that is in the fight sub-phase).

There is your time metric.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that subsequent wounds have no additional effect if the test is passed for that model.

Where? I don't see where it says only 1 test is required for each wound allocated.

What, precisely, do you think "one OR MORE" means?

If you allocate 1 wound to the model, you take a test
If you allocate another wound, "a" model has ALREADY SUFFERED "one or more" so you cannot test again

The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The line that says "If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword" tells us that subsequent wounds have no additional effect if the test is passed for that model.

Where? I don't see where it says only 1 test is required for each wound allocated.

What, precisely, do you think "one OR MORE" means?

If you allocate 1 wound to the model, you take a test
If you allocate another wound, "a" model has ALREADY SUFFERED "one or more" so you cannot test again

The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

As nos pointed out:

What, precisely, do you think "one OR MORE" means?

Basically if a model suffers one or more you have to take a test.

so if a model suffers:

1 wound, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

2 Wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

3 wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

etc...

With 6th allocation the "or more" doesnt mean much. All wounds are allocated singly and any special rules that are attached to those wounds are resolved before applying the next wound. Anything that triggers off the unsaved wound, ID, FNP, etc. is resolved. The LD test is resolved.

This process is repeated for the second wound, with no changes. There is nothing in the rule that says "Once per..... (any time frame)". Therefore each subsequent wound tests for LD, just like it would apply any other effect with an "unsaved wound " for a trigger, FNP, ID, hexrifles, etc.

so if a model suffers:

1 wound, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

2 Wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

3 wounds, that is one or more so that model takes a test.

etc...

For a total of 3 tests, you are correct

A test means one test, not three.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The special rule is the same for ALL bonesword wounds, so there is a single wound pool for *all* boneswqord wounds - double or single.

Not true.

Hypothetical scenario.
Tyranid Prime with 2 BS, and 1 Warrior with BS/LW in base to base contact with a Necron Overlord (with phase shifter) and are also in base contact with 1 Wraith (with whip coils).

Each Tyranid deals 1 Wounds. The Necron player decides to start with allocation to the Overlord. He rolls 2 LOS all at once, failing both. He then rolls 2 Invun saves, failing 1. The Overlord has now taken 1 or more wounds from boneswords. What is the test taken on? Remember, According to you, they are all from the same Wound pool.

Fragile wrote:
With 6th allocation the "or more" doesnt mean much. All wounds are allocated singly and any special rules that are attached to those wounds are resolved before applying the next wound. Anything that triggers off the unsaved wound, ID, FNP, etc. is resolved. The LD test is resolved.

This process is repeated for the second wound, with no changes. There is nothing in the rule that says "Once per..... (any time frame)". Therefore each subsequent wound tests for LD, just like it would apply any other effect with an "unsaved wound " for a trigger, FNP, ID, hexrifles, etc.

So why does the second wound not count for "or more"?

Fragile wrote:

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

Wrong. Try again

"A" test

A is singular.

If you suffer one or more wounds, you take A test

If you take two tests you have NOT taken A test. So you have broken a rule

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

Wrong. Try again

"A" test

A is singular.

If you suffer one or more wounds, you take A test

If you take two tests you have NOT taken A test. So you have broken a rule

That's called plain English. Claiming "A test" is singular has no weight, it just simply agrees with the rest of the sentence structure. You wont find many ways to write that sentence that doesn't use "A test" since there is only 1 test for each wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

The bold is the context your making up. Nowhere does it say that there will be no second test. If you allocate a second wound to a model, then it has "suffered one or more Wounds" again. And it has to make that LD test again. Your taking the "or more" as an exception in this case. It is not.

Wrong. Try again

"A" test

A is singular.

If you suffer one or more wounds, you take A test

If you take two tests you have NOT taken A test. So you have broken a rule

In that case:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

If "A" test is singular, so is "A" tyranid. So by your reading, wouldn't you test for EACH tyranid model?
Looks like to me you can't have it both ways. Each warrior is A model with bonesword, so each would cause A test.

-Matt

How many leadership tests are taken for Pinning? One per shot or one per unit that is attacking? Because the wording looks about identical to me. I know no one who plays with a pinning test for every single wound that is caused by a unit of snipers, only at the end when one or more unsaved wounds occur.

For comparison, Pinning, "If a non-vehicle unit suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with the Pinning special rule, it must immediately take a Leadership test. This is called a Pinning test......As long as the test is passed, a unit can be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn, but only once for each unit shooting at them."

HawaiiMatt wrote:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

If "A" test is singular, so is "A" tyranid. So by your reading, wouldn't you test for EACH tyranid model?
Looks like to me you can't have it both ways. Each warrior is A model with bonesword, so each would cause A test.

-Matt

No, because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

The Pinning example clinches it, as the wording is identical.

 DeathReaper wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

"If a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid with a bonesword, it must immediately pass a LD test or suffer instant death"

If "A" test is singular, so is "A" tyranid. So by your reading, wouldn't you test for EACH tyranid model?
Looks like to me you can't have it both ways. Each warrior is A model with bonesword, so each would cause A test.

-Matt

No, because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

The Pinning example clinches it, as the wording is identical.

The pinning example hardly clinches. Pinning rules felt the need to specifically say, only one test per unit, multiple tests per phase. If anything, the pinning rules show that the bonesword rule needs further clarification. As I have often said, it's not a good idea to compare current edition rules with previous edition rules when looking for examples. Of course the bonesword rules are going to be messy, they were writen for the previous editions close combat phase.

-Matt

Pinning rules felt the need to specifically say, only one test per unit, because Pinning was re-written for 6th ed and it did not say that in 5th until the FaQ came out.

Pinning in 5th ed had very similar wording to Boneswords, and the FaQ said one test per unit with pinning weapons.

Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Pinning rules felt the need to specifically say, only one test per unit, because Pinning was re-written for 6th ed and it did not say that in 5th until the FaQ came out.

Pinning in 5th ed had very similar wording to Boneswords, and the FaQ said one test per unit with pinning weapons.

Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

Boneswords were written for 5th edition.
If 6th edition added the additional restriction to pinning, but the 6th edition Bonesword FAQ didn't add it to Boneswords, you've got a pretty strong arguement that it isn't clear.

-Matt

Or Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

And we should take the least advantageous interpretation when things are not 100% clear.

6e changed them for the better.
Literally.

Fragie = no, there is A test any time a model suffers one or more wounds. Again, what do you think "or more" actually means? You dodge it repeatedly. Your contention makes "or more" irrelevant; when that is your only resort that should give you a clue as to the fallacy in your interpretation.

Ther is only one way to read the sentence, and that is ONE test if you suffer one OR MORE unsaved wounds. The second unsaved wound CANNOT trigger a second test, without breaking the rule.

"or more" matter mostly for multi-wound attacks or somesuch, as I have read it. Once you get to another step of checking "1" is as important as "or more."

The fact that there aren't any atm is somewhat irrelevant.

It is pretty clear if we're going by "A Test", that we must say "A Tyranid" means if 2 nids wound with bone swords, there are 2 tests.

You dont know what wound came from waht nid, as it forms a single pool

So you're going to go with "A" meaning "A" sometimes but not other times......

If you wanna go with each would being different I'm gonna go with a test each time up to the amount of Boneswords.

Its called "context", and is vital to an understanding of the written language. Try it.

"Context" is called reading into something in this case. I'm reading into the rules, which says "A Tyranid". It doesn't say for each unit with a Bonesword in it.

"A" test is singular, but"A" tyranid is not because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"A" test is singular, but"A" tyranid is not because of the way the sentence reads.

If you suffer one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a Tyranid, tells us that if any Tyranid causes one or more wounds you have to take a (Single) Test.

This is an "assumptive" argument, which sounds convincing, but I don't agree. "A Tyranid" means 1, simple as that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Or Comparing 5th ed pining to 5th ed Tyranid codex boneswords shows how it is supposed to work.

And we should take the least advantageous interpretation when things are not 100% clear.

Ok, so now we agree.
It isn't 100% clear.

I don't think you guys have an unreasonable way to play it, I just don't think the wording on the rule is nearly as concrete as you pretend it is.

Oh, the prime's hits do go in it's own wound pool. I don't even have to make a case for 2 boneswords having a different special rule than a single bone sword. One of the qualifications listed under wound pool is differing strengths. The Prime is S5 the Warriors are S4, that alone means different wound pools (page 14).

-Matt