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.

foolishmortal wrote:
Yes... I read that. I just don't see the requirement you seem to see. You seem to be arguing that only a model may suffer a wound, not a unit.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the simplest possible case here. A unit with the Swarm USR. No IC joined, no weird FNP issues, no mixed saves, etc.

It's interesting that you're making that distinction here, when in the Blast and Large Blast thread you were against the idea of the unit being wounded. In that thread, you required a wound to be allocated to count as wounding the unit or suffering a wound. Here you're for counting the unit as wounded before allocation.
(http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/463917.page#4564499)

edit: quoted wrong post originally

"a Swarm" can only refer to a model, not the unit as it is a USR that is applied to a model, not a unit.

So you can rewrite the rule as:

If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast,Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's interesting that you're making that distinction here, when in the Blast and Large Blast thread you were against the idea of the unit being wounded. In that thread, you required a wound to be allocated to count as wounding the unit or suffering a wound. Here you're for counting the unit as wounded before allocation.
(http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/463917.page#4564499)

Ok. I looked at p5 of the thread you linked. I posted twice on it saying....

foolishmortal wrote:p33 give categorical permission to wound Units out of LoS with scattering blast weapons.

Your example gives a statistical possibility, not a permission or denial of permission.

foolishmortal wrote:Not quite the same, unless you think "can wound" and "will wound" are the same.

The first quote mentions giving permission to wound units - more or less the opposite of me being "against the idea of the unit being wounded". The second seems contextual, and I would have to re-read a bit for it.

Are you talking about my overall opinion on the thread or one of these two posts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
"a Swarm" can only refer to a model, not the unit as it is a USR that is applied to a model, not a unit.

Cite your source, please.

foolishmortal wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's interesting that you're making that distinction here, when in the Blast and Large Blast thread you were against the idea of the unit being wounded. In that thread, you required a wound to be allocated to count as wounding the unit or suffering a wound. Here you're for counting the unit as wounded before allocation.
(http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/463917.page#4564499)

Ok. I looked at p5 of the thread you linked. I posted twice on it saying....

foolishmortal wrote:p33 give categorical permission to wound Units out of LoS with scattering blast weapons.

Your example gives a statistical possibility, not a permission or denial of permission.

foolishmortal wrote:Not quite the same, unless you think "can wound" and "will wound" are the same.

The first quote mentions giving permission to wound units - more or less the opposite of me being "against the idea of the unit being wounded". The second seems contextual, and I would have to re-read a bit for it.

Are you talking about my overall opinion on the thread or one of these two posts?

Overall opinion - you were not satisfied that the B&LB rule worked as written because, with my reading, no wounds were caused when page 33 gives permission. Page 33 gives permission to wound the unit - the unit takes wounds, the wound pool is populated, and is then emptied - you were advocating that allocation was required to satisfy page 33.

In this thread, the unit is wounded, the wound pool is populated, you're advocating for a doubling of wounds, and then allocation - when the word "suffers" is used.
It just seems contradictory.

we will assume we are rolling with a blast weapon capable of causing ID against a swarm unit.

for a unit with all swarm models
starting with pg 12, the shooting sequence step 4, roll to wound.

We can see from this step the target has been wounded with a blast weapon.

pg 14, the wound pool, (say 6 wounds)

we then go to pg 15, take saving throws. for each wound being resolved. make a note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused. (we'll say they made 3 saves, so 3 wounds left in the pool)

This is where I'd say the wounds get doubled. We've already established it was a swarm model that was hit, and now after failing its saving throws, it has unsaved wounds in the wound pool to be doubled. (now 6 ID wounds in the pool)

6 models are removed.



For the swarms with a IC attached it would start with the question of who is making the save? assuming 1 IC and 1 swarm model in a unit. 1 str 6 blast wound is in the pool.
If the IC is allocated the wound, he either saves or he takes the wound.
if the swarm model is allocated the wound, if he fails the save attempt, the wounds are doubled, then the swarm model dies and the IC takes the remaining wound.

You can only assign 1 wound at a time, so if the wound doubles the duplicated wound would go into the pool to be allocated to any remaining models.

I see. I will go back and look.

As far as this thread, I am mostly just reading the Swarm USR and the Wound Allocation rules and responding with off the cuff logic. I may, or may not have taken a contrary position previously.

As far as this thread, do you agree that a Unit may have the Swarm USR?

foolishmortal wrote:
I see. I will go back and look.

As far as this thread, I am mostly just reading the Swarm USR and the Wound Allocation rules and responding with off the cuff logic. I may, or may not have taken a contrary position previously.

As far as this thread, do you agree that a Unit may have the Swarm USR?

Only if you agree that Fearless, Move Through Cover, Fleet, Bounding Leap, and many others are also Unit wide and not model specific.

I say that because Swarm is listed in the same place as all other Special Rules in the (for my example) Tyranid Army list. For one to be unit based and the rest to be model based is nothing but cherry-picking.

@rigeld2 - Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by "you were against the idea of the unit being wounded." I was pretty firmly arguing the PRO position, not the NO position. Check p4 and 5 of the thread.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can only assign 1 wound at a time, so if the wound doubles the duplicated wound would go into the pool to be allocated to any remaining models.

Citation required.

foolishmortal wrote:
Cite your source, please.

Because almost every single reference at the beginning and throughout the USR section always refers to a model having the special rule. Even in cases where a special rule effects an entire unit, it's worded to the effect of "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule". The only case that I know of that has a USR originating on a unit rather than a model is the brotherhood USR.

foolishmortal wrote:
@rigeld2 - Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by "you were against the idea of the unit being wounded." I was pretty firmly arguing the PRO position, not the NO position. Check p4 and 5 of the thread.

Right - you were for the allocation of wounds, based on the rules on page 33.

The rules on page 33 allow the unit to be wounded. They mention nothing of allocation.
My argument was that wounding the unit was satisfied when the wound pool was populated.
You were saying that allocation was required to satisfy the rules on page 33.

rigeld2 wrote:
You were saying that allocation was required to satisfy the rules on page 33.

No... I said "p33 give categorical permission to wound Units out of LoS with scattering blast weapons." I went on to say that can does not mean must. I do not recall saying allocation was required, just that it was allowed.

If I did say any such foolish thing, I apologize. Perhaps it was my uninformed and ill-mannered twin brother. Back to the topic at hand...

The idea that only a model may have the Swarm rule is interesting, and possibly quite persuasive. A quick look in the 1.0a update did not find the faq entry I thought was there. I will look, but if true, that seems like a very good reason for non-doubling of ID deaths under pretty much any scenario.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can only assign 1 wound at a time, so if the wound doubles the duplicated wound would go into the pool to be allocated to any remaining models.

Citation required.

pg 15, allocate wounds, First, allocate A wound.

A = as in one.

Take saves & remove casualties
reduce that models wounds by 1.

Which leads me to my conclusion that you allocate one wound, and the duplicate gets placed into the pool til it can be allocated.

The problem is RAW breaks both ways. If you have a basic S5 blast and it causes 2 wounds to a unit of 3W rippers. You double the suffered wounds, causing 4 wounds to a 3 wound model. The third wound would remove the model leaving 1 wound floating in the pool that could never be allocated.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can only assign 1 wound at a time, so if the wound doubles the duplicated wound would go into the pool to be allocated to any remaining models.

Citation required.

pg 15, allocate wounds, First, allocate A wound.

A = as in one.

Take saves & remove casualties
reduce that models wounds by 1.

Which leads me to my conclusion that you allocate one wound, and the duplicate gets placed into the pool til it can be allocated.

That's what I wanted the citation for. I'll presume it doesn't exist because you didn't provide it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
we will assume we are rolling with a blast weapon capable of causing ID against a swarm unit.

for a unit with all swarm models
starting with pg 12, the shooting sequence step 4, roll to wound.

We can see from this step the target has been wounded with a blast weapon.

pg 14, the wound pool, (say 6 wounds)

we then go to pg 15, take saving throws. for each wound being resolved. make a note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused. (we'll say they made 3 saves, so 3 wounds left in the pool)

This is where I'd say the wounds get doubled. We've already established it was a swarm model that was hit, and now after failing its saving throws, it has unsaved wounds in the wound pool to be doubled. (now 6 ID wounds in the pool)

6 models are removed.

Again, this is assuming that the Swarm USR is applied to the unit rather than the models of the unit, which is unlikely at best, imo. When applying the Swarm USR to the models rather than the unit, you have to allocate a wound to a model before it has "suffered" that wound otherwise the following situation breaks:

For the swarms with a IC attached it would start with the question of who is making the save? assuming 1 IC and 1 swarm model in a unit. 1 str 6 blast wound is in the pool.
If the IC is allocated the wound, he either saves or he takes the wound.
if the swarm model is allocated the wound, if he fails the save attempt, the wounds are doubled, then the swarm model dies and the IC takes the remaining wound.

You can only assign 1 wound at a time, so if the wound doubles the duplicated wound would go into the pool to be allocated to any remaining models.

Now even if you say you can suffer the wound against the entire unit and have it count for the Swarm USR in the first example, and have individual models suffer it in the second example, you still don't have permission to put wounds back into the wound pool on the second example.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You can only assign 1 wound at a time, so if the wound doubles the duplicated wound would go into the pool to be allocated to any remaining models.

Citation required.

pg 15, allocate wounds, First, allocate A wound.

A = as in one.

Take saves & remove casualties
reduce that models wounds by 1.

Which leads me to my conclusion that you allocate one wound, and the duplicate gets placed into the pool til it can be allocated.

That's what I wanted the citation for. I'll presume it doesn't exist because you didn't provide it.

also pg 12, the shooting sequence #5. any wounds ... one at a time.
if any model is reduced to 0 wounds (say from ID) it is removed as a casualty. wounds are then allocated to the next closest model.

So still nothing that even implies the doubled wound goes back into the wound pool?

rigeld2 wrote:
So still nothing that even implies the doubled wound goes back into the wound pool?

It doesn't need to, the wound goes to a base and the wound is doubled, and the base is removed due to ID, you then allocate the duplicated wound.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So still nothing that even implies the doubled wound goes back into the wound pool?

It doesn't need to, the wound goes to a base and the wound is doubled, and the base is removed due to ID, you then allocate the duplicated wound.

So you're moving the doubled wound to the wound pool - why?

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So still nothing that even implies the doubled wound goes back into the wound pool?

It doesn't need to, the wound goes to a base and the wound is doubled, and the base is removed due to ID, you then allocate the duplicated wound.

So you're moving the doubled wound to the wound pool - why?

please provide citations on how you deal 2 wounds to 1 model simultaneously.

please provide citations on the definition of "suffers"

Or just actually state your case on why you think ID wounds are not doubled.


A unit of models, all with swarm will suffer wounds from the time the roll to wounds is made against them.

Those wounds then go into the wound pool. "number of wounds you have caused" ie the number of wounds the Models with swarm suffers

Models with swarm will make any saving throws due. "note unsaved wounds caused" ie the number of wounds the Models with swarm suffers

models with swarm now have a number of unsaved wounds it is suffering in the pool. Which is now doubled

unsaved wounds are then allocated.

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

So what do you do with that extra wound ?

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

So what do you do with that extra wound ?

It was applied to the base that just died. Because you have no permission to put it back in the pool and its not doubled until after its allocated.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

So what do you do with that extra wound ?

It was applied to the base that just died. Because you have no permission to put it back in the pool and its not doubled until after its allocated.

So RAW that rule does nothing?

Interesting.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

So what do you do with that extra wound ?

It was applied to the base that just died. Because you have no permission to put it back in the pool and its not doubled until after its allocated.

So RAW that rule does nothing?

Interesting.

No, it does things if the wound isn't ID.

Right but if the wounds do cause ID, they do not cause ID.

Interesting.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

So what do you do with that extra wound ?

It was applied to the base that just died. Because you have no permission to put it back in the pool and its not doubled until after its allocated.

Instant death is also applied after the wound is allocated. It then reduces the wounds to 0 and removes it as a casualty. So are we saying that both the ID and doubling of the wounds happen simultaneously? In which case is pointless unless the model has 3 wounds?

I only ask, because this will be a useful thing to figure out for some of the meta I play against.

I don't see a huge problem here, RAW or just making sense. 4 wounds caused by a Str 5 weapon would have killed 1 base and hurt another. 4 wounds caused by a Str 5 blast weapon would have killed 2 bases and hurt another. 4 wounds caused by the Str 6 blast kills 4 bases.

Each increase in str or in weapon type yields a significant improvement.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
unsaved wounds are then allocated.

How is a model suffering the wound before its allocated? The unit has suffered some number of wounds, but models don't until allocation.

Model suffers a wound. Wound is doubled. Wound(s) are ID and therefore model dies regardless of how many wounds are left.

So what do you do with that extra wound ?

It was applied to the base that just died. Because you have no permission to put it back in the pool and its not doubled until after its allocated.

Can you cite a rule that lets you apply more wounds to a model than it has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:
4 wounds caused by a Str 5 blast weapon would have killed 2 bases and hurt another.

Not by the doubling of unsaved. It would only kill 2 without hurting another.