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.

rigeld2 wrote:

It happens after an unsaved wound when a wound is allocated before an armor save.
Which means that the suffering requires allocation. Context my friend.

Except that is not what the rules say.

"Make a note of how many unsaved - Wounds have been caused." P. 15

"Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit." P.15

They say that you suffer a wound when you fail an armor save. Why are you changing when this happens?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It happens after an unsaved wound when a wound is allocated before an armor save.
Which means that the suffering requires allocation. Context my friend.

Except that is not what the rules say.

They say that you suffer a wound when you fail an armor save. Why are you changing when this happens?

Because they say you suffer a wound when you fail an armor save after allocation.
Which means allocation is required to suffer a wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, there's a unsaved wound in the wound pool. Citation that its suffered by a Swarm model?

So if you take an armor save before allocation you never suffer an unsaved wound?

Basically this line can not apply for like save units, as you would never get an armor save if this were the case.

"To take an armour[sic] save, roll a D6 and compare the results to the Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the Wound."P. 16

Therefore we have to ignore this line and use the rules for same save units.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, there's a unsaved wound in the wound pool. Citation that its suffered by a Swarm model?

They use unit and model interchangeably on P. 7 as per my earlier citation.

Therefore the unsaved wound is suffered by a unit/model with the swarms rule, as every model in the unit has that rule.

sirlynchmob wrote:

and I keep pointing out that allocation has nothing to do with it. swarm triggers on unsaved wounds.
so for the same save method are you actually saying to ignore all special rules?
and mixed saves just says to "...make a saving throw... if it fails reduce that models wounds by 1..." so I guess since you have no permissions to look at anything else, no special rules apply here either?
Gw just said you have "two unsaved wounds" and in 2 out of 3 sections you'll have unsaved wounds before they're on a model. in the 3rd you're allocating one, and 1/2 way through a second unsaved wound appears.

so you mean something like;
"to see how many model's bases lie partially or completely underneath"
"a model's base is counted as being part of the model itself"

but I like how you want to restrict it to the one page and ignore all the pages that prove my point.
pg 15 same saves "allocated an unsaved wound..."
We can see the usage of the word suffered all throughout the saves section on pg 16 and pg 17. we can see from invuln that you take it when a model "suffers a wound"
and we can see many usages of the phrase "unsaved wounds" from armor saves, through a bunch of SR's.
If a unsaved wound required allocation we would see a phrase like in instant death "the victims toughness" see victim would imply an allocated unsaved wound that reduced the models wounds by 1.

so we can see you suffer a wound
you fail your save
you're now at "suffers an unsaved wound"
and we haven't even got to reducing the wound characteristic yet.

Look at the Swarms rule the, it says "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound..." not when a swarm fails a saving throw that is the difference. Every page you look at other then pg 15 starts with allocate a Wound. You are the one ignoring half of every rule on that page as well as the others I mentioned previously. You are both saying that the Same Save method has it's own rules but want to apply half rules to make a hodgepodge to double the Unsaved Wounds in the pool. I see in every instance, except Same Save, you allocate first then you make a save. That is how every save is done with allocation first except in the Same Save section. That having been said again and again and again you suffer a wound at allocation normally. It changes once the save is resolved to be negated or suffering an unsaved wound. In the Same Save method you are allocating Unsaved Wounds and thus suffering unsaved wounds. I have posted at least twice all the times it brings up suffering and the wound pool. Each time the only response I received was basically does not.....

I've tried breaking it down that all saves start, in the basics, with allocating a wound. This is true in every section other than Same Save, that being said why would they address it with different wording addressing Same Save if all the rules for Same Save are together? Thus the rules on every other page assume allocation first. In Armour Saves on pg 16 It starts with allocation, go to making a save then suffering a wound. PG 12 Shooting sequence same. pg 15 mixed saves same. pg 25 Allocating wounds in cc. Allocation is an integral part of all those sections before the save and thus to suffer a wound.

To back up the allocation equates suffering we have the FAQ, pg 26 Determining Assault results, pg 17 Invuln Saves. If a model suffering a Wound is not the same as a Wound being allocated to a model a model never gets to take an Invuln save except in Same Save method. In Determining Assault Results and in the FAQ it requires the Wounds to be suffered not in the pool or negated also backing up allocation and saves being directly linked to suffering.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Therefore the unsaved wound is suffered by a unit/model with the swarms rule, as every model in the unit has that rule.

Is that like Feel No Pain in the sense that every model in the unit has a special rule that kicks on an unsaved wound? I ask because your wording sounds similar to explaining FNP except GW clarified that we should treat the unit as mixed saves to resolve the effect on a model by model basis in the FAQ/errata.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Does the Swarms USR reference units or the Wound pool at all?

Yes it references units as per P. 7

"The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in the entry for the unit in their relevant Warhammer 40,000 codex." Page 7 BRB

You're misreading that paragraph. Since they previously defined models as making up a unit on page 3, they're showing that a Special Rule listed in the unit entry applies to models in the unit.

Good thing you're wrong about that - literally breaks the game in hundreds of ways.

Not a misread, that is the actual quote.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
Does the Swarms USR reference units or the Wound pool at all?

Yes it references units as per P. 7

"The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in the entry for the unit in their relevant Warhammer 40,000 codex." Page 7 BRB

P. 55 Tyranid Codex Ripper Swarm Entry "Special rules:... Feed, Fearless, Swarms."

A Ripper Swarms Unit has the Swarms Special Rule.

So Swarms does indeed apply to the unit.

Again they are going to use short hand where ever possible, if they didn't use "unit" there they would have to have say "all models formed into a unit". Which is easier and less space consuming? You have to go out of the rules presented, for Swarms, to bring in part of another section to make that claim. The Swarms USR never references units or the wound pool. When you look at the entirety of the section "Models & Units" they clearly state that the info presented in the unit profile is that of each model in the unit.

You keep claiming that they use model and unit interchangeably but I have yet to see a citation for this. It states on pg 3 as well as pg 32 that the information provided in the unit's breakdown is for the models comprising that unit not that it is applied to the unit as a whole. If you want to claim that the profile provided is for the unit then every unit on your side of the board only gets a single set of wargear for the unit.

You keep claiming that if you use part of the rules on page 16 a failed save is a suffered wound but directly above that it includes allocating a wound. The Same Save method doesn't tell you to follow the rules on pg 16 for taking a save it tells you to look at pg 16 to tell if it has a save at all. pg 15 Same Save method, take saving throws "throw, if it has one (see pg 16), for each... The rules on Same Save have their own set up which is the cruxt of your argument then you keep adding in parts of other rules till it function similar to 5th. It doesn't.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not a misread, that is the actual quote.

Of that single sentence. Taking a single sentence out of context and you can make all kinds of incorrect assumptions.

Gravmyr wrote:
Again they are going to use short hand where ever possible, if they didn't use "unit" there they would have to have say "all models formed into a unit".

Or you know, Models in a unit, or just Models instead of unit.

But they didn't.

You keep claiming that they use model and unit interchangeably but I have yet to see a citation for this.

P.7 is your citation.

Read that graph they use model to start and unit in the end...

Actually they use models and unit not model and unit. Which still does not explain how you apply a model based rule to a unit without permission nor how you are ignoring suffering to equate to allocation. All USR's that affect the unit state they affect the unit as in "A unit with at least one model...." In the Same Save method you have permission to violate a single timing rule which is allocating before saving. It does not say to change anything else about timing application of rules or changes to how you handle anything. There is no permission to alter any other aspect of the game and as you yourself have stated this is a permissive rule set. The Same Save method does not mention the unit suffering wounds. The section in Armour Saves you keep quoting also states model, in this case a model that has had a Wound allocated. The only reason the unit can even take a saving throw is that it the Same Save method it has been given permission to do so. The fact that the unit can even take a saving throw excludes any rule that applies to a model taking a saving throw unless you can get it to an identical state, which in the standard game is allocation and a save. Now that we have returned to that state with the allocation you can then resume normally. At best you can say that the same save method disallows all USR's as they only work if the model is taking a saving throw.

I would also like to point out that just because the unit has that same saving throw does not make it identical. I can create a situation where that isn't the case and in that case doubling at the wound pool can impose the Swarms USR onto a model that is not a Swarm. In the method rigeld2 and I have set forth it doesn't matter what the unit composition is the rule is applied only to those models it would in the Mixed Save method. If you remove ID from the matter your directions can deal additional wounds to non-Swarms models ours cannot, In the end you are choosing to apply a multiplier at a level in which you are not instructed to do so.

Look at the full rule set forth by the Same Save method.
1. Take a save if possible.
2. Allocate an unsaved wound to the closest model
3. Reduce the model's Wounds by one
4. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds remove it as a casualty
5. Continue allocation

Look at the full rules set forth by the Mixed Save method.
1. Allocate the wound to the closest model
2. Take a save if possible
3. Reduce the model's wounds by one
4. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds remove it as a casualty
5. Continue allocation

Notice that they are identical except at one point save and allocation. As I have pointed out allocation is tied to suffering, so to suffer an unsaved wound it must be allocated and a save failed. In mixed saves this happens at the reduce the model's wounds by one step and also in same saves at the same point. You are stating that it should happen after the same step not at the same step

Gravmyr wrote:
to suffer an unsaved wound it must be allocated and a save failed.

Citation needed for a same save unit.

Since the Same Save method is the one that changes the rules I have to say the burden of proof is on you. I have show you where suffering a wound requires allocation and a save you are the one arguing differently.

I have shown that suffering a wound happens after a failed armor save.

So I guess we are both correct.

In this case I think it is best to wait for the FaQ to solidify it. Until then we should take the least advantageous interpretation.

No you reinforced that a wound requires both allocation and a save as the section you keep quoting points to allocation first then a save. A model's wounds cannot be reduced by one without allocation. The section about armour saves specifically speaks about a model failing it's save after allocation you have yet to show a single rule that changes this fact. I have shown where you need to allocate a wound in a challenge for it to be counted as suffered. I have shown in the Same Save method where it depicts the only difference being you have permission to make a save without location and then allocate. The Standard/mixed Save Method is universal in all other areas and the rules you keep trying to use are about that method.

Again there are two rules at work here Blast rules and Swarms and your assertion that Swarms should loose two bases to ID gives a clear bonus to one side. The least advantageous is to run it exactly as I showed as against non-ID wounds you would still take additional Wounds.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have shown that suffering a wound happens after a failed armor save.

No, you haven't.

So I guess we are both correct.

No, you're not.

You haven't responded to the faults I've pointed out.

I'd also like to point out that with the way the Swarms rule is worded, and if you assume that suffering an unsaved wound is a consequence of failing a save (whether you agree or not), in the Same Save scenario if a single wound from a blast/template weapon makes it past the saves ALL unsaved wounds are doubled including those not originating from a blast/template weapon.

That is a good point. It doesn't actually say only the markers or templates are doubled.... Another reason to use the directions rigeld2 and I have put forth.

 Tarrasq wrote:
I'd also like to point out that with the way the Swarms rule is worded, and if you assume that suffering an unsaved wound is a consequence of failing a save (whether you agree or not), in the Same Save scenario if a single wound from a blast/template weapon makes it past the saves ALL unsaved wounds are doubled including those not originating from a blast/template weapon.

That is incorrect. It is only the wounds from the blast/template.

What Tarrasq is saying is that if you are doubling the wounds at the unit level as has been put forth the rule does not actually state that only the markers and template wounds would be doubled. pg 43 Swarms "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Marker or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds." It doesn't actually limit the doubling to the marker or template wounds if you assume that they are doubled at the unit level. So if you include a marker or template weapon into a units weaponry all unsaved wounds are doubled if you assume the doubling happens at the unit level per the Same Save method.

I'm lost, who is winning?

destuctir wrote:
I'm lost, who is winning?

Those who are following this thread for the laughs.

 Happyjew wrote:

destuctir wrote:
I'm lost, who is winning?

Those who are following this thread for the laughs.

Then again that describes every thread over 2 pages in YMDC.

Basically the debate can be boiled down to when something suffers a wound. One side saying after armor saves, the other says after allocation. Both sides are functionally the same for mixed save units, however same save allocation produces different result between the two sides.

However the results don't really matter for a RAW argument as GW is terrible with following through on their thoughts.

I was going to say any argument on the internet is about the laughs.

I think i know how the whole thing works. When you fail all the saves you are allowed because some people can re roll their saves and then you double the wounds. Not when you suffer the wound because it has to have been failed when trying to save it to be unsaved.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 32 "whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule"

so based on that and the creation of a new unsaved wound from a special rule we can either send it to the pool, or just resolve it after the first wound.

Beautiful quote. Now, show me the special rule that says that you can send an Unsaved Wound to the Wound Pool. Next, show me the exact wording that says that when a wound is doubled, you take each one separately, instead of together and doubled, like it implies. Unless a person can show those two rules, you can not do it, because it is not allowed under Rules as Written.

I was going to leave this allone, but show me the quote that says you allocate the wound to the same model. There is no rule telling us what to do with the new as yet handled wound. We have on allocated wound and wound that is in limbo. Your side say to the same model, Sirlynchmob's side says to send it back to the pool and so far neither side has come up with a rule one way or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gravmyr wrote:
What Tarrasq is saying is that if you are doubling the wounds at the unit level as has been put forth the rule does not actually state that only the markers and template wounds would be doubled. pg 43 Swarms "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Marker or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds." It doesn't actually limit the doubling to the marker or template wounds if you assume that they are doubled at the unit level. So if you include a marker or template weapon into a units weaponry all unsaved wounds are doubled if you assume the doubling happens at the unit level per the Same Save method.

No, I believe this prevented by the different wound groups in the wound pool, just like rending wounds, different AP wounds, basicly any wound grouping that has special rules.

The wound pool is calculated after the to-wound rolls. At no other time it is permitted to add new wounds to it.

Except the wound is still in the wound poll when you are told to double it. Therefore Specific > General.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the wound is still in the wound poll when you are told to double it. Therefore Specific > General.

Except that's been proven false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chaos Rising wrote:
I think i know how the whole thing works. When you fail all the saves you are allowed because some people can re roll their saves and then you double the wounds. Not when you suffer the wound because it has to have been failed when trying to save it to be unsaved.

Not when you suffer the wound? Have you read the Swarm SR? See how it says "suffers"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:
I was going to leave this allone, but show me the quote that says you allocate the wound to the same model. There is no rule telling us what to do with the new as yet handled wound. We have on allocated wound and wound that is in limbo. Your side say to the same model, Sirlynchmob's side says to send it back to the pool and so far neither side has come up with a rule one way or the other.

It's not in limbo. A wound is allocated. That allocated wound is doubled. Model now has 2 wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the wound is still in the wound poll when you are told to double it. Therefore Specific > General.

Except that's been proven false.

No it really has not, the wound does not leave the wound pool until it is allocated.

With same save swarms you double the wounds before allocation.