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.

That is not true, as the wounds are still doubled if it is a template or marker that inflicts ID.

The wounds are in the wound pool, a save is taken, you double the wound into two wounds then allocate the wounds to the models.

The wound is in the wound pool, if it becomes 2 wounds they are still in the wound pool by virtue of the first wound being in the wound pool.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is not true, as the wounds are still doubled if it is a template or marker that inflicts ID.

So we've agreed that T&B kill swarms faster than "normal", right? How can you kill faster than ID?

The wounds are in the wound pool, a save is taken, you double the wound into two wounds then allocate the wounds to the models.

This has been shown to be incorrect.

The wound is in the wound pool, if it becomes 2 wounds they are still in the wound pool by virtue of the first wound being in the wound pool.

A wound must be allocated before it is doubled. If it is allocated it is no longer in the wound pool.

rigeld2 wrote:
This has been shown to be incorrect.

It is not incorrect. you take a save and have an unsaved wound that is 2 unsaved wounds through doubling, then you apply one to a swarm he dies, and apply the next one to a swarm and he dies as well, since the wounds cause ID.

rigeld2 wrote:
A wound must be allocated before it is doubled. If it is allocated it is no longer in the wound pool.

Citation needed.

Allocation must remove a wound from the pool - otherwise the pool would never empty, and once we have rules for an Emptied Wound Pool on page 15 we know that a normal shooting attack would empty the pool.

It also makes sense if the "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." removes the wound from the wound pool.

rigeld2 wrote:
Allocation must remove a wound from the pool - otherwise the pool would never empty, and once we have rules for an Emptied Wound Pool on page 15 we know that a normal shooting attack would empty the pool.

Then the swarm rule would say, when allocated an unsaved wound.

It doesn't.

You suffer unsaved wounds, and those unsaved wounds are in the pool until allocated. As the swarm has suffered unsaved blast wounds, they double in the pool,"each unsaved wound is multiplied by 2". Then you can allocated an unsaved wound, and remove one from the pool. So you allocate one ID wound and there is still one ID wound in the pool.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It also makes sense if the "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." removes the wound from the wound pool.

Except that would mean that in a mixed save unit the wound pool would not empty until you failed every save. Also, the 1st paragraph of the Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties section has a sentence, "Continue allocating unsaved Wounds ... until there are no more wounds left".
Clearly allocation depletes the wound pool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Allocation must remove a wound from the pool - otherwise the pool would never empty, and once we have rules for an Emptied Wound Pool on page 15 we know that a normal shooting attack would empty the pool.

Then the swarm rule would say, when allocated an unsaved wound.

It doesn't.

You suffer unsaved wounds, and those unsaved wounds are in the pool until allocated. As the swarm has suffered unsaved blast wounds, they double in the pool,"each unsaved wound is multiplied by 2". Then you can allocated an unsaved wound, and remove one from the pool. So you allocate one ID wound and there is still one ID wound in the pool.

A Swarm cannot suffer unsaved wounds until they are allocated. Wounds in the pool have not been allocated

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It also makes sense if the "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." removes the wound from the wound pool.

Except that would mean that in a mixed save unit the wound pool would not empty until you failed every save.

Or made every save.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It also makes sense if the "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." removes the wound from the wound pool.

Except that would mean that in a mixed save unit the wound pool would not empty until you failed every save.

Or made every save.

If your assertion is that the only way to deplete the wound pool is "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." As you said above (ie - allocation does not deplete the pool) then making a save would have no effect on the pool.

Actually the saves are made before allocation so allocation can not be the only thing that depletes the wound pool.

Failing an armor save is what makes you suffer a wound.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

So you fail saves, the wounds are doubled, then you allocate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the saves are made before allocation so allocation can not be the only thing that depletes the wound pool.

In same save units, the bolded is correct. The second half of the sentence is false. Allocation is the only way a Wound moves from the pool to a model.

Failing an armor save is what makes you suffer a wound.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

While that seems to support your statement, it is generally how armor saves are handled. Specifically, when it comes to shooting, a model cannot suffer a wound until it is allocated.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the saves are made before allocation so allocation can not be the only thing that depletes the wound pool.

In same save units, the bolded is correct. The second half of the sentence is false. Allocation is the only way a Wound moves from the pool to a model.

We were and are talking about same save units :-)
The second half of the sentence can not be false because the wound pool is populated after to wound rolls are made, but before saves are taken. Allocation is not the only way the wound pool becomes depletes.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Failing an armor save is what makes you suffer a wound.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

While that seems to support your statement, it is generally how armor saves are handled. Specifically, when it comes to shooting, a model cannot suffer a wound until it is allocated.

Citation needed, as the passage I quoted is within the rules for the shooting phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the saves are made before allocation so allocation can not be the only thing that depletes the wound pool.

In same save units, the bolded is correct. The second half of the sentence is false. Allocation is the only way a Wound moves from the pool to a model.

We were and are talking about same save units :-)
The second half of the sentence can not be false because the wound pool is populated after to wound rolls are made, but before saves are taken. Allocation is not the only way the wound pool becomes depletes.

You misread the line I italicized.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Failing an armor save is what makes you suffer a wound.
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

While that seems to support your statement, it is generally how armor saves are handled. Specifically, when it comes to shooting, a model cannot suffer a wound until it is allocated.

Citation needed, as the passage I quoted is within the rules for the shooting phase.

It's within the rules for Armor Saves - the general rules. This happens to be explained in the Shooting Phase, but allocation and how to handle wounds is more specific.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the saves are made before allocation so allocation can not be the only thing that depletes the wound pool.

In same save units, the bolded is correct. The second half of the sentence is false. Allocation is the only way a Wound moves from the pool to a model.

We were and are talking about same save units :-)
The second half of the sentence can not be false because the wound pool is populated after to wound rolls are made, but before saves are taken. Allocation is not the only way the wound pool becomes depletes.

You misread the line I italicized.

No i did not, you said that "The second half of the sentence is false"

My sentence was " allocation can not be the only thing that depletes the wound pool."

Indeed allocation is not the only thing that depletes the wound pool. so the second half of the sentence is not false.

I agree that Allocation is the only way a Wound moves from the pool to a model, but it is not the only thing that depletes the wound pool.

In same save units the saves are made before allocation. Failing an armor save is what makes you suffer a wound.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

Therefore if you fail a save you suffer a wound, which in the case of swarms doubles that wound into two wounds. Then you allocate those wounds to the models.

You keep citing that like the general rule for armor saves can override the specific rules for distributing wounds to a unit.

When you cause a wound, it creates a pool. There is nothing to say that a pool can only be created by the shooting. A pool can be created by the application of wounds to a unit. An unsaved wound doubles, thereby creating a new pool of wounds that would be applied to the unit.

Fragile wrote:
When you cause a wound, it creates a pool. There is nothing to say that a pool can only be created by the shooting. A pool can be created by the application of wounds to a unit. An unsaved wound doubles, thereby creating a new pool of wounds that would be applied to the unit.

But the created wound isn't in a pool to begin with - its already on a model.

This is an important scenario to figure out properly in case my Heldrake every needs to erase some Canoptek Scarabs.

I haven't seen anyone cite the Swarms rule so here it is:

page 43 "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds."

In a case where my Baleflamer hits 4 Scarab bases in a unit of 8 Scarab bases, let's say I roll to cause 4 Wounds. There are now 4 Wounds in the Wound Pool.

Next the Scarabs gets to make one saving throw for each Wound being resolved. However, with the Baleflamer being AP3, the Scarabs get no saving throw. So there are 4 unsaved Wounds to be allocated.

Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the Scarab model closest to the firing Heldrake. Reduce that Scarab's Wounds by 1.

Next, two things happen immediately after that Scarab has been allocated the unsaved wound, It would have the unsaved Wound doubled to 2 Wounds upon it, and the first unsaved Wound would cause Instant Death.

The main question here is does the unit SUFFER the unsaved Wounds before they have been allocated to models closest to the firing Heldrake?

The answer is NO, the unsaved Wounds are not suffered until allocated to a model. It doesn't say anywhere on page 14 or 15 of the BRB that the unit suffers the unsaved Wounds before allocation.

The Swarms rule applies on a model basis, not a unit basis, The Swarms rule says the MODEL must SUFFER an unsaved Wound from a blast/template weapon for it to be doubled. We also know the Wound Pool is only created by Hits which roll successfully to Wound. Therefore any unsaved Wounds created by Swarms blast-doubling after the Wound Pool is created will not carry over to other models if the first multi-wound Scarab base is killed with Instant Death from a S6 Baleflamer.

I would love it to be the other way around, like with Scabiethrax's Blad of Decay, but unfortunately it's not that way (lucky for Necrons with Scarabs).

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
The answer is NO, the unsaved Wounds are not suffered until allocated to a model. It doesn't say anywhere on page 14 or 15 of the BRB that the unit suffers the unsaved Wounds before allocation.

Incorrect. Reread Page 15 and 16.

You take saving throws before allocation on same save units. (P. 15 'Take Saving Throws' section).

Armor saves section says "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

So you do indeed suffer wounds before allocation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Incorrect. Reread Page 15 and 16.

You take saving throws before allocation on same save units. (P. 15 'Take Saving Throws' section).

Armor saves section says "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

So you do indeed suffer wounds before allocation.

It does not however say that it suffers an "unsaved wound" only a Wound in the general sense. This part of the text is to demonstrate how the Armor Save roll works, in other words what passes and what fails. It contains fluff.

"Suffering an unsaved wound" is required for the Swarm rule and the Instant Death rule.

The Instant Death rule is another rule that requires "a model to suffer an unsaved wound". Instead of reducing the model's Wounds by one, it reduces a models Wounds to 0, this part can't happen until the wound has been allocated.

Basically the swarm rule really boils down to, instead of -1 to a Swarms Wounds, its -2 Wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
The answer is NO, the unsaved Wounds are not suffered until allocated to a model. It doesn't say anywhere on page 14 or 15 of the BRB that the unit suffers the unsaved Wounds before allocation.

Incorrect. Reread Page 15 and 16.

You take saving throws before allocation on same save units. (P. 15 'Take Saving Throws' section).

Armor saves section says "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

So you do indeed suffer wounds before allocation.

General < Specific.
And since you haven't allocated to a model before allocation a Swarm has not suffered wounds yet, so you cannot double wounds before allocation.

The rules are all about timing.

Eternal warrior activates upon an unsaved wound. So does the double rainbow effect of templates on swarms. They activate simultaneously, so the person who's turn it is chooses which applies first. You also roll all saves at the same time in a non-mixed unit, so all wounds are rolled simultaneously, unless they are mixed str and ap value shots, which the shooting player chooses which set of shots hit and resolve first.

There are 4 scarab bases. I wound 3 with baleflamer hits. I choose ID to apply first. I kill 3 models.

If I chose double wounds, I would have 6 wounds, and each base has 3 wounds. I kill 2 bases, with no spill-over to the other 2 bases, so ID applies to no model. I kill only 2 bases.

I hit and wound with a bolter and 3 wounds from a baleflamer. I apply the bolter first, remove 1 wound, double the wounds to 6 first, then apply instant death. 1 wound spills over to the other base and I kill 3 scarabs. Had I applied instant death first, the same amount of models would have died, because the bolter left 2 wounds open for ID to stick to.


In a mixed unit, it's more complex. You must allocate wounds on a model-by-model basis. You would have to roll each save separately, and then upon a failure, resolve the double wound/ID order, which would mean that either order would do nothing for you in my example.

4 scarab bases and 1 lord attached. Scarabs are up front, but the unit is mixed. I can, therefore, assign wounds on a model-by-model basis, RAW.

"First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit." If there is no save or a failed save, then you choose to apply the template or the ID effect first, MODEL-BY-MODEL per RAW. I can elect to use the fast dice rule as the defender. "You can instead allocate them in groups equal to however many models with the same, best save are nearest to the firing unit."

3 scarabs, 1 lord w/ phase shifter. 4 baleflamer wounds. I apply 3 wounds only, per mixed saves.

If shooter doubles first: 6 wounds, 2 dead scarabs, 1 leftover flamer wound to other scarab base. Lord takes no wound.

If shooter IDs first: 3 ID wounds, 3 dead scarabs, 1 leftover flamer to the lord.

Work complete!

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
The answer is NO, the unsaved Wounds are not suffered until allocated to a model. It doesn't say anywhere on page 14 or 15 of the BRB that the unit suffers the unsaved Wounds before allocation.

Incorrect. Reread Page 15 and 16.

You take saving throws before allocation on same save units. (P. 15 'Take Saving Throws' section).

Armor saves section says "If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

So you do indeed suffer wounds before allocation.

General < Specific.
And since you haven't allocated to a model before allocation a Swarm has not suffered wounds yet, so you cannot double wounds before allocation.

But where do the armor saves come from?

They must come from the models that are going to be allocated the wounds after saves are attempted.

Why are you allowing saves before allocation, when saves are a model rule and not a unit rule, but not allowing doubling of said wounds when Swarm is a model rule and not a unit rule? It is inconsistent.

If you allow saves before allocation you have to allow doubling before allocation.

If you do not allow doubling before allocation you can not allow saves before allocation, and that breaks the rule that tells us to take saves before allocation.

Clearly if they all have the same save, "The unit" has an armor save of 4+ and all models have the swarm rule so if you allow armor saves you have to allow the swarm rule as well.

I'm allowing armor saves because the same save rules require it.
Can you cite a rule requiring all model based rules to apply to a unit? I haven't seen one.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm allowing armor saves because the same save rules require it.
Can you cite a rule requiring all model based rules to apply to a unit? I haven't seen one.

Consistency.

If you allow units to take armor saves, you have to allow units with the swarm rule to double wounds at the time unsaved wounds are suffered.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm allowing armor saves because the same save rules require it.
Can you cite a rule requiring all model based rules to apply to a unit? I haven't seen one.

Consistency.

If you allow units to take armor saves, you have to allow units with the swarm rule to double wounds at the time unsaved wounds are suffered.

I'm allowing it because that's how the same save rules demand it. Cite the rule requiring model based rules to apply to the unit level.
You've cited a general over a more specific one. Even when corrected.
You're trying to apply a model based rule at the unit level - this is demonstrably incorrect.
The Wound Pool cannot ever be model based, and therefore applying model based rules to it cannot be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the saves are made before allocation so allocation can not be the only thing that depletes the wound pool.

In same save units, the bolded is correct. The second half of the sentence is false. Allocation is the only way a Wound moves from the pool to a model.

Failing an armor save is what makes you suffer a wound.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 16

While that seems to support your statement, it is generally how armor saves are handled. Specifically, when it comes to shooting, a model cannot suffer a wound until it is allocated.

Citation please. where does suffer equate to allocate?

The swarm rule never states to double allocated wounds. It states to double unsaved wounds. You have unsaved wounds from swarm models that failed their saves in the wound pool as soon as they fail their saves. You make all your saves at the same time before you allocate any wounds.

See that, your swarm models failed their saves against blast weapons. The wounds are still in the pool because we haven't got to allocating and removing casualties yet.

Those unsaved wounds get doubled in the pool.

Now you go on to the allocating wounds.

You're applying a model's rule to something happening to the unit (the Wound Pool). You have no permission to double anything until a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound (which is what the Swarm rule actually says, not what you incorrectly cited above).

Show how a model can suffer a wound before allocation. I've waited for that this whole thread and not a single person has shown that.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're applying a model's rule to something happening to the unit (the Wound Pool). You have no permission to double anything until a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound (which is what the Swarm rule actually says, not what you incorrectly cited above).

Show how a model can suffer a wound before allocation. I've waited for that this whole thread and not a single person has shown that.

The swarm models are suffering wounds for each failed save.

note on pg 15 "make a note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused."

Now what do you think this is for? clearly this is where you look at all the wounds caused and handle any actions that trigger on unsaved wounds.

Hey look a swarm model suffered a wound, a swarm model failed its save and is now suffering an unsaved wound. (pg 16 the armor fails ... and it suffers a wound) So at this point in time a swarm model fails its save it is suffering an unsaved wound.

so again on pg 15 noting how many unsaved wounds have been caused we note they were caused by a blast template and double the wounds.

Next part on pg 15 leads to allocating those unsaved wounds. Clearly the swarm models have unsaved wounds which we can now begin to allocate.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're applying a model's rule to something happening to the unit (the Wound Pool). You have no permission to double anything until a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound (which is what the Swarm rule actually says, not what you incorrectly cited above).

Show how a model can suffer a wound before allocation. I've waited for that this whole thread and not a single person has shown that.

The swarm models are suffering wounds for each failed save.

note on pg 15 "make a note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused."

Now what do you think this is for? clearly this is where you look at all the wounds caused and handle any actions that trigger on unsaved wounds.

No, this is simply the number of wounds that will be allocated. According to you, Feel No Pain would also occur prior to allocation which we know is false.

Hey look a swarm model suffered a wound, a swarm model failed its save and is now suffering an unsaved wound. (pg 16 the armor fails ... and it suffers a wound) So at this point in time a swarm model fails its save it is suffering an unsaved wound.

Hey, look! You're making the same mistake DeathReaper did! You're trying to use the general Armor Save rules instead of the specific Wound Allocation rules.

Next part on pg 15 leads to allocating those unsaved wounds. Clearly the swarm models have unsaved wounds which we can now begin to allocate.

A model cannot suffer a wound prior to it being allocated. Until they're allocated, Wounds are in the Wound Pool.