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.

nos I'm still waiting for you to answer my question I posted. As of yet, everyone saying only 1 test regardless, have not answered.

Happyjew wrote:

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.

They're actually different STR so different wound pools. If they were the same STR (adrenal glands on the warriors because you're on crack or something) the rules are unclear. I'd randomize it (HIWPI).

Stormbreed wrote:

 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.

It can not be one tyranid, because there is no unit or model called "Tyranid"

So if you do not agree, you are reading the rule incorrectly.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 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.
-Matt

Even if you think it is not clear, the end result is the same.

Take the least advantageous interpretation which is only one test.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

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.

They're actually different STR so different wound pools. If they were the same STR (adrenal glands on the warriors because you're on crack or something) the rules are unclear. I'd randomize it (HIWPI).

Unless you treat it as 2 different Wound pools since 1 test is on a 2D6 and the other test is on a 3D6. This makes both wounds different and would have to be separate Wound pools. I agree that it is not 1 test per Wound per Tyranid. I do not agree that 2x BS and BS/LW would be a single Wound pool.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 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.

It can not be one tyranid, because there is no unit or model called "Tyranid"

So if you do not agree, you are reading the rule incorrectly.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 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.
-Matt

Even if you think it is not clear, the end result is the same.

Take the least advantageous interpretation which is only one test.

Once again, if you are playing it as 1 test, you are breaking the rules. Every single model in our Codex is classified as a "Tyranid".
once again with "A Tyranid" is 1 Model, not 1 Unit. You can "say" this is not the case because you are "reading into" the rules, but you can not prove this as the case. The tyranid codex refers OVER AND OVER again to "a tyranid". So once more, if you want to say "A Wound" then I counter with "A Tyranid"

From a "fluff" stand point this gets worse for your case.

Except that a model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds only need to take A test...

so if they suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid (A Tyranid ,in the context of the sentence, means Any Tyranid, not every Tyranid) then they take a test. (Case Proven if you understand how the English language works). 1 test as per the RAW.

it really is that simple.

"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"

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that a model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds only need to take A test...

so if they suffer one or more wounds from a Tyranid (A Tyranid ,in the context of the sentence, means Any Tyranid, not every Tyranid) then they take a test. (Case Proven if you understand how the English language works). 1 test as per the RAW.

it really is that simple.

"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"

DR perhaps you can answer my hypothetical scenario then? rigeld said he would randomise, but if 2 models (1 with 2 BS, 1 with 1 BS) attack at the same initiative and deal a wound, and 1 wound is saved, how many dice is the test taken on?

And please back up your answer with rules.

text removed.
Reds8n



The next line refers to if a model has 2 bone swords use 3d6, whats the plan here then? Do we use 3 because its 1 wound pool?
But all the other warriors only have 1 bone sword.

So wait, how can that work?

Stormbreed, they are two different wound pools...

The test would be taken on whatever D6 was for that particular wound pool.

Because "If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool"

I would say that 2 Tyranids (1 with 2 BS, 1 with 1 BS) creating wounds would each have their own wound pool, as the special rules that govern those wounds are different.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Stormbreed, they are two different wound pools...

The test would be taken on whatever D6 was for that particular wound pool.

Because "If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool"

I would say that 2 Tyranids (1 with 2 BS, 1 with 1 BS) creating wounds would each have their own wound pool, as the special rules that govern those wounds are different.

So if a Prime with a lash whip and 1 BS, along with a Hive Tyrant with 1 bone sword, and 2 Warriors with dual BS's all attack the same unit, things just get really crazy???

We just do 1 test for the units that have 1 sword, and another test for the units that have 2? 1 Model dies of the terminators so the rest don't have to worry about the other bone swords?

But how can the prime and the hive tyrant give the same test? Seems weird being different models all together. Their weapon? But based on the pinning argument earlier, if it were shooting, there would be 2 tests.

Basically I have to believe that from a "Fluff" and truth standpoint, each unit with a bone sword causes its own tests. We can argue about how many based on how you read the rules.

You would have 3 Wound pools due to different Strengths and Inits. I agree that each Wound pool would trigger 1 test, but not that it would be 1 test overall and you are done.

Happyjew wrote:
You would have 3 Wound pools due to different Strengths and Inits. I agree that each Wound pool would trigger 1 test, but not that it would be 1 test overall and you are done.

Right, but only 1 test per model that had unsaved Wounds (One or more) allocated to it.

And that is where we disagree. As it is I don't think either side is going to budge, and we will just have to wait for GW to address this.

You can disagree all you want, but the language about a model that suffers one or more wounds is clear.

In 6th Ed, since we allocate wounds one at a time, the first wound suffered triggers the test for that particular model. Then that model has fulfilled the requirement about taking one or more wounds, and taking a test. Any subsequent wounds fall into the 'One or more' part of the rule, as two is one or more, as is three, and four, and five etc...

Happyjew wrote:
And that is where we disagree. As it is I don't think either side is going to budge, and we will just have to wait for GW to address this.

Agreed. To me "one or more" is clear enough - you have suffered one or more wounds

Additionally the special rule is the same, so you can definitely argue you only take one wound pool if the strength, init etc are the same between single and dual lashwhip models. The criteria for taking the test become different, but the special rule governing them are the same.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Pilau Rice wrote:


So that's 6 Attacks from the the 'Nids, all hit and all wound and the Terminators fail their Invulnerable saves.

Do you

1. take one Leadership test for all 3 Terminators and they all die if failed.
2. take a leadership test for each, those failing being removed as casualties.

Since it's a case of each model needing to suffer a wound this example is useless, they suffer a wound and die. If they pass their save, nothing happens.

Yes, I believe it is. Perhaps I should have said 2 wound terminators to make it clearer?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
And that is where we disagree. As it is I don't think either side is going to budge, and we will just have to wait for GW to address this.

Agreed. To me "one or more" is clear enough - you have suffered one or more wounds

Additionally the special rule is the same, so you can definitely argue you only take one wound pool if the strength, init etc are the same between single and dual lashwhip models. The criteria for taking the test become different, but the special rule governing them are the same.

nos since you are adamant that 2 warriors (one with 1 BS, one with 2 BS) would populate the same wound pool, how many dice is the test taken on?

By "adamant" you mean "no rule saying you would separate them"

What rule are you using to separate into two wound pools? I'd like to hear it

Go from rules first, then work out the issues.

You are claiming they would be a single Wound pool. I'm waiting for you to tell me how many dice the test would be on. As of yet you have not answered the question.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Go from rules first, then work out the issues.

He's going with you that there'd be one wound pool.
Now address how many dice would be used.

I'd like to amend my answer - I see a 2d6 bonesword as a different special rule from a 3d6 bonesword and therefore a separate wound pool even if the STR of the attack is the same.

Yes, I am claiming so, because there is no rules support to say otherwise - after all, the special rule is the same (bonesword), just the criteria used in taking the test is different

So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

I'm asking *rules* first, to make sure we are in agreement on the basis. I guess you are not from a purely functional perspective - what value do you take the test on - but from a *rules* perspective ONLY what is your take?

Once you have answered this question the answer to yours wil be clear.

Yes I agree that as the rules are written there would be one wound pool. That still does not answer how many dice the test is taken on.

The answer is: rules wise you have no way of knowing how many to take the test on

there is no rules answer. Personally if I were running nids i would play it as 2D6, and for my opponent playing nids i would take it on 3D6. Or agree that we would separate the pools.

This is, of course, not RAW. This is a genuine gap in the rules caused by the way wound allocation has altered in 6th

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

Aside from the fact that a Prime has a different STR from a normal Warrior (but you could have two Primes, or a Prime with a unit of Adrenal Gland Warriors on the charge).

BRB page 14 wrote:If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool.

Passing a test on 2d6 vs 3d6 sounds like a different special rule to me.

No, it is the same special rule - the rule given in the Bonesowrds entry changes the test criteria, but it is the SAME special rule in both cases

Again, look at the nid codex. do you see a differently named rule depending on whether you have 1 or 2 swords? If not the rule is the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

Aside from the fact that a Prime has a different STR from a normal Warrior (but you could have two Primes, or a Prime with a unit of Adrenal Gland Warriors on the charge).

BRB page 14 wrote:If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool.

Passing a test on 2d6 vs 3d6 sounds like a different special rule to me.

Prime is S5, he has his own pool.
If warriors become strength 5 due to furious charge, they have different special rules (furious charge).
Hive Tyrant is S6, so again different wound pool.
Regardless of the weapon, each of these units (warrior, prime, tyrant) should have their own wound pool for allocation and model removal.

Two groups of warriors, one with bonesword/lash, and the other with 2 swords generate different wound pools because they are different units.

Ignoring the bonesword issue, I think it's impossible to generate a single wound pool from any mix of tyranid units that could mix bonesword(s) and lash whip.
So, it doesn't matter if you think 2D6/3D6 is or isn't the same rule, you have no way to combine them into a single pool.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to start, do you agree there is no rules support to separate the pool?

Aside from the fact that a Prime has a different STR from a normal Warrior (but you could have two Primes, or a Prime with a unit of Adrenal Gland Warriors on the charge).

BRB page 14 wrote:If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values or special rules, keep them separated into groups of Wounds in the pool.

Passing a test on 2d6 vs 3d6 sounds like a different special rule to me.

Prime is S5, he has his own pool.
If warriors become strength 5 due to furious charge, they have different special rules (furious charge).
Hive Tyrant is S6, so again different wound pool.
Regardless of the weapon, each of these units (warrior, prime, tyrant) should have their own wound pool for allocation and model removal.

Two groups of warriors, one with bonesword/lash, and the other with 2 swords generate different wound pools because they are different units.

Ignoring the bonesword issue, I think it's impossible to generate a single wound pool from any mix of tyranid units that could mix bonesword(s) and lash whip.
So, it doesn't matter if you think 2D6/3D6 is or isn't the same rule, you have no way to combine them into a single pool.

Furious Charge only changes the STR of the attack - it doesn't attach a special rule to the Wound, which is what a second Wound pool would require.

So a Prime with Furious Warriors would be one wound pool - even if they were all Scything Talons.

As above. The Wound has to have a special rule attached, not the model in general

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is a genuine gap in the rules caused by the way wound allocation has altered in 6th

(Sic.)

Nos is correct, I had not realized that they would be the same wound pool, and there is no way to know if you take the test on 2 or 3 D6

I like Nos's solution to separate them into two different wound pools, that seems like a good patch for the hole, at least for now.

Edit, the quote says "gap in t e h rules" (Without the spaces in t e h) when I quote it, but not when I post it, that is odd. Does Dakka have an Auto-correct function?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. The Wound has to have a special rule attached, not the model in general

Why is different strength even in the wound pool limitation?
You've already rolled to wound, and unless the strength is high enough to cause instant death, why would it matter?
Instant death would fall in the special rule section anyway.

So why seperation by strength?

Wound poison 2+ be seperate than poison 4+?
Wound poison hits (4+) from a S4 model be seperate from normal hits from a S4 model when striking a T4 opponent?
For all game purposes, they are the same. Yet for some unknown reason, I think GW has decided to seperate the pools.


-Matt