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.

I would like to point out that if you double the unsaved wounds in the wound pool because of a rule then you also have to apply all rules like this.

Instant Death: If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness Value or greater, it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty.

Concussive: A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase.

If you apply both of those rules like you are applying the Swarm USR the entire unit is removed by ID and the entire unit is now Initiative 1 in the case of Concussive.... Is this how you think it should run?

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

so you continuously claim, but where's your proof? you can assert all you want that suffering = allocating but we both know you can't prove that, and its never even hinted at in the rules. You also keep ignoring that you allocate a blast wound to a model with the swarm rule so it can make its save. You can see on pg 17 under invuln saves, the model is considered to be suffering a wound before it makes its invuln save. We see under many USR's that models and units will be suffering from unsaved wounds after failing their saves. And all of that is before we even start reducing wounds.

FNP would occur where I showed it would. The wound has already been allocated to a model with FNP, it fails its save and now is suffering an unsaved wound. We noted the unsaved wound and that the model has FNP. He rolls FNP to negate that unsaved wound. Once you get to the step to allocate the unsaved wounds you are reducing a models wounds by 1.

If you allocate a wound to a model then that model is suffering that wound. if it fails its save its now suffering an unsaved wound. We note all the unsaved wounds before we start allocating them. The wounds are allocated at the start of the process on pg 15, but the wounds stay in the pool until we get to the step to start allocating the unsaved wounds. And as you agree about noting the unsaved wounds, it is the number of wounds to be allocated, so 3 blast wounds suffered, 3 failed saved from models with swarm, and we are noting 3 unsaved blast wounds. That triggers their swarm rule and those get doubled to 6 wounds. Then we move on to allocating those unsaved wounds and reducing wounds.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The wounds are allocated at the start of the process on pg 15, but the wounds stay in the pool until we get to the step to start allocating the unsaved wounds. And as you agree about noting the unsaved wounds, it is the number of wounds to be allocated, so 3 blast wounds suffered, 3 failed saved from models with swarm, and we are noting 3 unsaved blast wounds. That triggers their swarm rule and those get doubled to 6 wounds. Then we move on to allocating those unsaved wounds and reducing wounds.

Absolutely ridiculous and false.
Wounds are not allocated until after saves are rolled, per page 15 (for same save units). You note how many unsaved wounds there are, and then allocate them.

Without allocating, how do you know if a model (remember, not unit which is where the Wound Pool is) has the Swarm SR?
If you're asserting that "unsaved wound" effects happen prior to allocation, then FNP would also occur prior to allocation.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The wounds are allocated at the start of the process on pg 15, but the wounds stay in the pool until we get to the step to start allocating the unsaved wounds. And as you agree about noting the unsaved wounds, it is the number of wounds to be allocated, so 3 blast wounds suffered, 3 failed saved from models with swarm, and we are noting 3 unsaved blast wounds. That triggers their swarm rule and those get doubled to 6 wounds. Then we move on to allocating those unsaved wounds and reducing wounds.

Absolutely ridiculous and false.
Wounds are not allocated until after saves are rolled, per page 15 (for same save units). You note how many unsaved wounds there are, and then allocate them.

Without allocating, how do you know if a model (remember, not unit which is where the Wound Pool is) has the Swarm SR?
If you're asserting that "unsaved wound" effects happen prior to allocation, then FNP would also occur prior to allocation.

I don't know where you make this stuff up from.

Did a model with swarm fail a save for a blast weapon?

the wound pool has nothing specifically to do with units. its just the number of wounds and types of wounds caused. ie 3 str 6 blast wounds are in the pool

Yes FNP happens prior to unsaved allocation, because if you make your FNP roll there is no longer an unsaved wound to allocate. (remember, allocating an unsaved wounds reduces the models wounds by 1)

so at the start of pg 15 we allocate the wounds caused and resolve any saving throw the target is allowed. unit's don't have a save value, but the models in the unit do.

Then the models in the unit will make their saves.

note all the unsaved wounds caused. this is where you need to take your blinders off. we are noting unsaved blast wounds models with swarm are suffering, they suffer a wound, they fail their save, they are now suffering an unsaved wound. the noting of unsaved wounds clearly implies the wounds are still in the wound pool. having unsaved wounds being suffered caused by blast weapons leads them to be doubled. As soon as they are unsaved wounds they get doubled.

now we allocate AN unsaved wound to a swarm model.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Did a model with swarm fail a save for a blast weapon?

No.

the wound pool has nothing specifically to do with units. its just the number of wounds and types of wounds caused. ie 3 str 6 blast wounds are in the pool

It's the number of wounds the unit has received.

Yes FNP happens prior to unsaved allocation, because if you make your FNP roll there is no longer an unsaved wound to allocate. (remember, allocating an unsaved wounds reduces the models wounds by 1)

And you've just broken the rules. Congrats!

so at the start of pg 15 we allocate the wounds caused and resolve any saving throw the target is allowed. unit's don't have a save value, but the models in the unit do.

Is that how you read it? Because I see taking saves before allocation.

note all the unsaved wounds caused. this is where you need to take your blinders off. we are noting unsaved blast wounds models with swarm are suffering, they suffer a wound, they fail their save, they are now suffering an unsaved wound. the noting of unsaved wounds clearly implies the wounds are still in the wound pool. having unsaved wounds being suffered caused by blast weapons leads them to be doubled. As soon as they are unsaved wounds they get doubled.

They haven't been allocated at the point you read "take note". Thats the next step.
Since the wounds have not been allocated and a model cannot take a wound during this time without it having allocated, a Swarm did not take a wound.

I have not broken the rules with FNP, you just think that because of the way you are changing the rules.

and again the wound pool does not anywhere reference unit.

who takes the saves before you allocate? the unit? what is the save for a unit? or do the models in the unit make the saves? because the models have a save characteristic.

Yes the unsaved wounds have not been allocated yet, that's why the wounds double, the swarm has suffered unsaved wounds. because models with swarm have failed their saves. They suffered a wound, they failed their save, they suffered unsaved wounds (triggering swarm)

Plus you are just assuming a swarm means a single model. Where a swarm can just as easily and more likely mean the entire unit as they all have the swarm rule. You don't have 6 swarms in a swarm, there is just a swarm.

sirlynchmob wrote:
who takes the saves before you allocate? the unit? what is the save for a unit? or do the models in the unit make the saves? because the models have a save characteristic.

Yes, the unit does - because that's what the same save process says.

Yes the unsaved wounds have not been allocated yet, that's why the wounds double, the swarm has suffered unsaved wounds. because models with swarm have failed their saves. They suffered a wound, they failed their save, they suffered unsaved wounds (triggering swarm)

If the unsaved wounds have not been allocated, how has the swarm taken a wound?

Plus you are just assuming a swarm means a single model. Where a swarm can just as easily and more likely mean the entire unit as they all have the swarm rule. You don't have 6 swarms in a swarm, there is just a swarm.

No, models have the rule. Look at the army list entry for Rippers or Scarabs.

rigeld2 wrote:
Without allocating, how do you know if a model (remember, not unit which is where the Wound Pool is) has the Swarm SR?

Because all models in the unit have the Swarm USR, just like all models in the unit have the same armor save.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Without allocating, how do you know if a model (remember, not unit which is where the Wound Pool is) has the Swarm SR?

Because all models in the unit have the Swarm USR, just like all models in the unit have the same armor save.

While I believe that will be true for all current Swarm units, you cannot guarantee that fact.
Simply making the assumption is not the right way to treat the rules.

No assumption needed.

Do all models in the ripper swarm have the same armor save and the Swarm rule?

Yes? then you double wounds after saves then allocate.

If a different, previously non-existent, unit does not have the swarm rule on every model, then you need to do it differently.

Add an IC to that formula.

Fragile wrote:
Add an IC to that formula.

Read the whole thread, we were talking about a non mixed saves unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No assumption needed.

Do all models in the ripper swarm have the same armor save and the Swarm rule?

Yes? then you double wounds after saves then allocate.

If a different, previously non-existent, unit does not have the swarm rule on every model, then you need to do it differently.

Which means its an assumption.
What rule is giving you permission to change the Wound Pool without causing a Swarm to suffer an unsaved wound? Or are you also going to apply ID and FNP at the Wound Pool level as well?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Add an IC to that formula.

Read the whole thread, we were talking about a non mixed saves unit.

Yet you have come up witha mechanic that cannot work with a mixed save unit - it must radically change, becoming incredibly inconsistent. Does that seem at all correct to you?

There is one consistent approach that does not alter based on unit composition, and that is Rigelds

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Add an IC to that formula.

Read the whole thread, we were talking about a non mixed saves unit.

Yet you have come up with a mechanic that cannot work with a mixed save unit - it must radically change, becoming incredibly inconsistent. Does that seem at all correct to you?

Considering how radically the whole Wounding process changes when moving to mixed save / character unit, I'd say it is artifact of the mixed save system. Remember that even FNP had to be Errata'd to use mixed save because of the wonkyness it could cause in normal units. Note that same was true for LOS! before errata too: It radically changed in mixed save unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is one consistent approach that does not alter based on unit composition, and that is Rigelds

Rigelds approach is consistent, but is it RAW? That is the real question, of which answer I'm not 100% sure. But it does look like the DR is correct that "suffers a wound" happens after making armor save. Which happens at completely different step of the process in same save unit vs mixed save unit.

Personally, I think it is pretty likely GW will FAQ this same way as it was in 5e: Remove two models for each ID wound caused by blast/template. But because my armies don't have swarms, HIWPI is only single model removed per unsaved wound suffered.

Luide wrote:
Rigelds approach is consistent, but is it RAW? That is the real question, of which answer I'm not 100% sure. But it does look like the DR is correct that "suffers a wound" happens after making armor save. Which happens at completely different step of the process in same save unit vs mixed save unit.

Models in a same save unit do not suffer a wound after the unit fails an armor save. If that was the case a single ID wound would remove the entire unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Rigelds approach is consistent, but is it RAW? That is the real question, of which answer I'm not 100% sure. But it does look like the DR is correct that "suffers a wound" happens after making armor save. Which happens at completely different step of the process in same save unit vs mixed save unit.

Models in a same save unit do not suffer a wound after the unit fails an armor save. If that was the case a single ID wound would remove the entire unit.

The underlined is incorrect as per the rules on P. 16

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Rigelds approach is consistent, but is it RAW? That is the real question, of which answer I'm not 100% sure. But it does look like the DR is correct that "suffers a wound" happens after making armor save. Which happens at completely different step of the process in same save unit vs mixed save unit.

Models in a same save unit do not suffer a wound after the unit fails an armor save. If that was the case a single ID wound would remove the entire unit.

The underlined is incorrect as per the rules on P. 16

And the rules on page 16 are less specific than the wound allocation rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Rigelds approach is consistent, but is it RAW? That is the real question, of which answer I'm not 100% sure. But it does look like the DR is correct that "suffers a wound" happens after making armor save. Which happens at completely different step of the process in same save unit vs mixed save unit.

Models in a same save unit do not suffer a wound after the unit fails an armor save. If that was the case a single ID wound would remove the entire unit.

The underlined is incorrect as per the rules on P. 16

And the rules on page 16 are less specific than the wound allocation rules.

Which does not matter, as the wound allocation rules do not say anything about suffering wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Rigelds approach is consistent, but is it RAW? That is the real question, of which answer I'm not 100% sure. But it does look like the DR is correct that "suffers a wound" happens after making armor save. Which happens at completely different step of the process in same save unit vs mixed save unit.

Models in a same save unit do not suffer a wound after the unit fails an armor save. If that was the case a single ID wound would remove the entire unit.

The underlined is incorrect as per the rules on P. 16

And the rules on page 16 are less specific than the wound allocation rules.

Which does not matter, as the wound allocation rules do not say anything about suffering wounds.

How does a model suffer wounds prior to any wound being allocated to a model?

The only way for a model to suffer unsaved wounds in the wound allocation process is to have one allocated.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And the rules on page 16 are less specific than the wound allocation rules.

Which does not matter, as the wound allocation rules do not say anything about suffering wounds.

How does a model suffer wounds prior to any wound being allocated to a model?

The only way for a model to suffer unsaved wounds in the wound allocation process is to have one allocated.

Not true, as the armor save rules tell us that after a failed save is when you suffer an unsaved wound.

Units do not have armor save value's so the value we have to use is from the models in the unit. Since we are rolling and failing the armor save common to every model in the unit and If those models in the unit have the swarm rule then we double the wounds if they came from a blast marker or template weapon after saves but before allocation.

They suffer the wounds because we failed their armor save, and all the armor saves were the same. if they all have the swarm rule we double the wounds before allocation as well.

Im going to side with the fellas that say the wound is doubled after it has become unsaved and is not re-entered to the wound pool but allpied to the model that failed the save.
Its funny when you re-read some thing and relize you have been playing it wrong its quite frustrating. Do we know what the intention of this rule is? "NO" under the current written explanation its pretty clear. Though the reason is to make swarms more vulnerable to templates the wording done in fact make them a little more tolleraable to template fire. I dont know of any high toughness swarms that this wound be detrimental too except nurglings.

Little help here for sure most of the swarms are tough 2 IIRC.

pg 16 Also states that the wound is allocated before the save can be taken. You are ignoring that in 5 places it tells you that wounds are allocated first because in a single area, to save time you save first. Your method of doubling in the wound pool can only be applied in this single instance and causes more inconsistencies then the other method set forth.

You keep equating unit with model. This only works if the unit is made up of a single model, at best you could equate it with Models. Using a USR for a model at the unit level is an inconsistency in itself. All USR's that apply to a unit use the terminology unit or a unit with at least one model...

The Same Save method also never uses the suffered terminology, you are getting that exclusively from the save section, where it states the model suffers an unsaved wound. The best that you could claim would be that an USR that requires an Unsaved wound to be suffered is not triggered when the Same Save method is used as the wounds are not suffered by the model just the unit then allocated. You are claiming instead that a single rule is triggered when the unit fails it's Saves but not all other rules or all models would be killed via ID in the Swarm we are talking about.

@Luide LOS was changed by the FAQ due to people not understanding how it works. The rule itself took into account allocation of Wounds via both methods yet people assumed that the could take saves for the IC then LOS the failed saves to other models. LOS only worked at the point of allocation of the Wound or Unsaved wound not after you allocated it to the IC then failed. This also brought about the change to methods of rolling saves for any unit with a Character to mixed saves at all times.

@Lungpickle The Swarm USR does make swarms more vulnerable as only ~6 of the 22 template weapons in the BRB are Str 6+. It appears most if not all the swarms are Toughness 3 doubling the number of wounds on ~16 of the weapons, those Str 1-5.

Not true, as the armor save rules tell us that after a failed save is when you suffer an unsaved wound.

Who is you? The unit... And because of that, the wound it isnt doubled since no specific swarm model has suffered a wound yet. It is doubled after allocation, because you need to define a specific model suffering the wound (allocate...) before it can suffer the wound.

You can run into same save issues if you use Death Reapers interpretation with current models as well. All you need to have is a blast/template that denies armor saves to a unit of swarms (scarabs) and an IC (destroyer lord). Using the Death Reaper method the Destroyer Lord would take extra wounds just because he's in the same unit as scarabs.

Also according to Death Reaper, you can only suffer wounds if you fail an armor save, therefore swarms only double their wounds (or units can roll for FNP) taken if they take armor saves. Otherwise they would never suffer an unsaved wound.

 Tarrasq wrote:
You can run into same save issues if you use Death Reapers interpretation with current models as well. All you need to have is a blast/template that denies armor saves to a unit of swarms (scarabs) and an IC (destroyer lord). Using the Death Reaper method the Destroyer Lord would take extra wounds just because he's in the same unit as scarabs.

Not true, as the presence of a character makes the unit a mixed save unit.

it is not the same procedure as the same save unit.

In a same save unit you populate the wound pool. then the unit takes a saving throw. any failed save are wounds suffered by the models in the unit, which all have the swarm rule, so the wounds will double at this point.

 Tarrasq wrote:
Also according to Death Reaper, you can only suffer wounds if you fail an armor save, therefore swarms only double their wounds (or units can roll for FNP) taken if they take armor saves. Otherwise they would never suffer an unsaved wound.

I never said that.

If you fail an armor save you suffer an unsaved wound (As per P.15) is what I said.

If you do not have a save you skip the roll armor saves step. P.15 tells you that you suffer an unsaved wound as you try to take the armor save, and automatically fail because the save value is - and the result of the die will always be lower than that. Therefore you take an unsaved wound since you failed your armor save.

"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound." P. 15 a 6 is always lower than a SV - so you will never make an armor save with a unit that has SV - listed as its armor save.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In a same save unit you populate the wound pool. then the unit takes a saving throw. any failed save are wounds suffered by the models in the unit, which all have the swarm rule, so the wounds will double at this point.

A single STR 6 weapon hits a Ripper unit. According to you, the unit fails its save and then the entire unit is wiped out.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In a same save unit you populate the wound pool. then the unit takes a saving throw. any failed save are wounds suffered by the models in the unit, which all have the swarm rule, so the wounds will double at this point.

A single STR 6 weapon hits a Ripper unit. According to you, the unit fails its save and then the entire unit is wiped out.

Since you still have no real argument for not doubling the wounds, you're now resorting to the slippery slope arguments? Nice, this is why I'm sure you're on the wrong end of this.

But since you started us down this road how about you address that since you think suffers=lose 1 wound

then you break invuln saves, because you never suffer a wound to save against.
Units don't have saves so the whole unit takes every wound.
FNP stops working because if you've already lost the wound there's no wound to save against.
in a mixed unit, you probably would also claim that even though swarm doubles the wounds, you still only lose 1 wound, because pg 15 says you "reduce that model's wounds by 1.

A single str 6 wound caused ends up in the wound pool
you take your armor save against it.
we now note you have a str 6 unsaved wound in the wound pool.
Now we allocate that one str 6 unsaved wound to the model, which based on the model may or may not cause ID. Because this is the step we reduce wounds.

for a swarm though
A single str 6 wound caused ends up in the wound pool
you take your armor save against it. You used a swarm models save characteristic.
we now note you have a str 6 unsaved wound in the wound pool. Swarm triggers on unsaved wounds, they double here at first mention of unsaved wounds.
Now we allocate one unsaved str 6 wound to the closest model, which based on the model may or may not cause ID. leaving 1 str 6 unsaved wound in the pool to be allocated to the closest model.

Even with a mixed save unit A lot of stuff happens between "if it fails" and "reduce the models wounds by 1." That comma is where the model now has a unsaved wound, for any unsaved wound effects to occur. ie FNP, swarm, etc. it is in that comma that the wound would get doubled creating 2 unsaved wounds. so you now have the 1 wound with a extra wound being created which is floating at this point. We finish the sentence by reducing the model's wounds by 1 which causes ID then we still have a duplicate wound to resolve. So we move on to the next paragraph

"continue allocating wounds ..", taking saves (the wound has already been saved against, its already an unsaved wound) so you reduce the next models wounds by 1 which causes ID.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In a same save unit you populate the wound pool. then the unit takes a saving throw. any failed save are wounds suffered by the models in the unit, which all have the swarm rule, so the wounds will double at this point.

A single STR 6 weapon hits a Ripper unit. According to you, the unit fails its save and then the entire unit is wiped out.

No, in that case you fail the save, double the one wound to two wounds, then allocate two wounds, and 2 bases die, no more than that.

Why would the whole unit die from one doubled wound?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In a same save unit you populate the wound pool. then the unit takes a saving throw. any failed save are wounds suffered by the models in the unit, which all have the swarm rule, so the wounds will double at this point.

A single STR 6 weapon hits a Ripper unit. According to you, the unit fails its save and then the entire unit is wiped out.

No, in that case you fail the save, double the one wound to two wounds, then allocate two wounds, and 2 bases die, no more than that.

Why would the whole unit die from one doubled wound?

Because you're applying the wound to the models (so you can double it).
Why are you being inconsistent?