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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

No, you don't. Or would you like to actually respond to my posts proving you wrong?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

No, you don't. Or would you like to actually respond to my posts proving you wrong?

I responded pages ago, and you still have not proven it incorrect.

you only said something about specific vs general which does not apply in this situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

No, you don't. Or would you like to actually respond to my posts proving you wrong?

I responded pages ago, and you still have not proven it incorrect.

you only said something about specific vs general which does not apply in this situation.

How does it not apply? Are the same save rules less specific than the armor save rules?

rigeld2 wrote:
How does it not apply? Are the same save rules less specific than the armor save rules?

They are not in conflict.

One governs taking saving throws as a process for same save units (This process is different for mixed save units) and even tells you to "(see page 16)".

One tells you what happens when you pass or fail an armor save and how to find the SV Value.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

See, here is were you keep making the assumption that it is a second allocated wound. The rules don't tell use that itis allocated yet. As you keep pointing out that is different than a suffered wound. Not saying is it a wrong assumption just not a backed up one.

barnowl wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

See, here is were you keep making the assumption that it is a second allocated wound. The rules don't tell use that itis allocated yet. As you keep pointing out that is different than a suffered wound. Not saying is it a wrong assumption just not a backed up one.

No, you're making the assumption that all wounds to a model must be allocated. This is demonstrably untrue.
There's no guidance implying the new wound goes to the wound pool. Therefore it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How does it not apply? Are the same save rules less specific than the armor save rules?

They are not in conflict.

One governs taking saving throws as a process for same save units (This process is different for mixed save units) and even tells you to "(see page 16)".

One tells you what happens when you pass or fail an armor save and how to find the SV Value.

And what happens when you pass or fail an armor save is different between same save units vs the armor save rules. How is that not a conflict?

pg 43 "each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds"
pg 15 "allocate unsaved wounds and remove casualties: next, allocate an unsaved wound"

so the swarm suffers one ID wound from template/blast weapon, fails a save, therefore has one unsaved ID wound, which is multiplied by two to two unsaved ID wounds via swarms rule, then both unsaved ID wounds are allocated, and two casualties removed

There's one unsaved wound in the wound pool.
Cite the rule showing a Swarm has suffered a wound.
Allocate a Blast wound to a Swarm model.
The wound is doubled. Cite permission to move a wound back to the Wound Pool.
Str 6 vs T3 means that all remaining wounds are removed, model is RFPaaC.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How does it not apply? Are the same save rules less specific than the armor save rules?

They are not in conflict.

One governs taking saving throws as a process for same save units (This process is different for mixed save units) and even tells you to "(see page 16)".

One tells you what happens when you pass or fail an armor save and how to find the SV Value.

And what happens when you pass or fail an armor save is different between same save units vs the armor save rules. How is that not a conflict?

Because one governs when you take a save for a unit, and the other tells you how to take saving throws. No conflict.

rigeld2 wrote:
There's one unsaved wound in the wound pool.
Cite the rule showing a Swarm has suffered a wound.
Allocate a Blast wound to a Swarm model.
The wound is doubled. Cite permission to move a wound back to the Wound Pool.
Str 6 vs T3 means that all remaining wounds are removed, model is RFPaaC.

you are reading the rules wrong, the wound pool is before unsaved wounds, which are before allocation, wound pool is on pg 14 BRB and pools all the different types of wounds, so all the str 8 blast wounds would be in one wound pool, according to pg 14,
pg 15 then says "first of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each wound being resovled. make a not of how many unsaved wounds have been caused" note there is 0 mention of wound allocation at this point
it does not mention wound allocation until the next part entitles "allocate unsaved wounds & remove casualties"
then it says "next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model" pg 15

you do not need to move any wounds back to the pool, why would you, there is nothing in the BRB that would say you have to put any wounds back into the pool, since saves have already been taken at this point, all you are left with is unsaved wounds from the various pools, in this case the str 8 blast wound pool. so the # of unsaved wounds from that pool is then doubled, and allocated as normal.

the swarms special rule specifically doubles the # of unsaved wounds from that weapon, RAW do not say to allocate unsaved wounds and then double them, it says to double unsaved wounds and then allocate as normal

You should read the Swarm rule and then tell me why you're applying it before allocating a wound to a model.

Hint - what does "suffering" a wound mean?

rigeld2 wrote:
You should read the Swarm rule and then tell me why you're applying it before allocating a wound to a model.

Hint - what does "suffering" a wound mean?

Suffering a wound means failing an 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. 16

"If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound" P.43

So if every model in the same save unit has the Swarms rule then once you fail an armor save they clearly have suffered an unsaved wound as you got the armor save from the models in the unit, and the same models have the swarm rule, thus a swarm has suffered an unsaved wound.

Again DeathReaper you are trying to apply half the rules in that section, it also states that the wound was already allocated. It is a single place mentioning it where every place that it states that wounds have not been allocated they have not been suffered. If you want to use that as your proof you need to show that you are allowed to do that out of order. Same saves gives you a single permission, to take saves before allocation. If you quote any rule outside of the section you are quoting a rule that uses allocation first.

Gravmyr wrote:
Again DeathReaper you are trying to apply half the rules in that section, it also states that the wound was already allocated. It is a single place mentioning it where every place that it states that wounds have not been allocated they have not been suffered. If you want to use that as your proof you need to show that you are allowed to do that out of order. Same saves gives you a single permission, to take saves before allocation. If you quote any rule outside of the section you are quoting a rule that uses allocation first.

Ya deathreaper how dare you quote rules from the section that it directly tells you to check, when it tells you to take saving throws.

I'm still waiting for Gravmy to show where allocating has anything to do with suffering. How exactly does a unit make a save if you never get permission to see what saves it has available, or figure out if the unit has the same saves or mixed saves. But apparently you're ok with checking for that, but don't you dare look to see if models have any SR's. Because obviously the rules on pg 16 are not relevant right?

so lets work in that first allocation under armor saves. same save tells you to check pg 16 then we follow the armor save procedure.
You allocate wounds to models
they can make one saving throw as a unit, save or fail.
Each wound failed to save against is now an unsaved wound.
Those unsaved wounds now get allocated to models.


Its either that or same save units can never make saves, Or I suppose no matter how many wounds a unit takes, it only gets to make ONE save, so at best it can save one wound?

OK you may need to look at pg 15 again. Same saves does not tell you to look at pg 16 to see how to take a save but to determine if the saves in the unit are the same and if it has one. Secondly, Same Saves gives you permission, and it is the only place in the entire book that does so, to take the saves first. Third, I have shown multiple times that GW considers allocation and suffering to be the same with multiple locations belaboring the point. You two are the ones that are telling people to read every section different in this case. You are adding an entire step that is not outlined anywhere but in your head. You want to make it more difficult then it needs to be. It is very simple you save first then allocate. There are not two allocation steps.

I ask you again, if suffering does not equal allocation how can you ever take an Invulnerable Save?

If you are trying to work in two allocation steps please show me in any section there are two allocation steps listed.

Gravmyr wrote:
OK you may need to look at pg 15 again. Same saves does not tell you to look at pg 16 to see how to take a save but to determine if the saves in the unit are the same and if it has one. Secondly, Same Saves gives you permission, and it is the only place in the entire book that does so, to take the saves first. Third, I have shown multiple times that GW considers allocation and suffering to be the same with multiple locations belaboring the point. You two are the ones that are telling people to read every section different in this case. You are adding an entire step that is not outlined anywhere but in your head. You want to make it more difficult then it needs to be. It is very simple you save first then allocate. There are not two allocation steps.

I ask you again, if suffering does not equal allocation how can you ever take an Invulnerable Save?

If you are trying to work in two allocation steps please show me in any section there are two allocation steps listed.

I'd love to hear how you account for invuln saves. Because it seems to me you are saying the unit has suffered no wounds until allocation, so they would never get a invuln save. Then you just skip their invuln saves and go right to allocating unsaved wounds.

Thus it is another rule you're side is breaking. well not breaking so much, but denying invuln saves to any unit that just gets invuln saves.

1st allocation
pg 15 1st paragraph "you will need to allocate the wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed"

2nd allocation
pg 15 3rd paragraph "allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model"

Gravmyr wrote:
Again DeathReaper you are trying to apply half the rules in that section, it also states that the wound was already allocated. It is a single place mentioning it where every place that it states that wounds have not been allocated they have not been suffered. If you want to use that as your proof you need to show that you are allowed to do that out of order. Same saves gives you a single permission, to take saves before allocation. If you quote any rule outside of the section you are quoting a rule that uses allocation first.

Then how does one, without using the rule I cited, take an armor save? Page and Graph please.

The Same Save rule gives you permission to take the save first which is the one and only thing that this rule does.

@sirlynchmob I have already accounted for all the rules. The same save method gives you permission to look at the units save, and only it's saves, and take them before allocation. It's states as much when it tell you to first determine the unit's save, where to look to determine it, and take them. If you are stating that the overview paragraph is telling you to allocate first, then in the case of mixed saves you should be fine with me taking two saves as it says to allocate first then save there as well. It is an overview paragraph telling you what is following then breaks it down into the two ways you make the saves. The Same Save rule gives you direct permission to break the standard rule of allocation then save. Looking at the beginning of the shooting phase section it also tells you that you must allocate first so by the rules you can never use the same save method ever.

If we are going by your reading I would actually get 2 saves versus as the beginning of the shooting phase pg 12 states you allocate and save there as well. Is that what you are saying? Getting real technical it actually states the entirety of the shooting phase twice so you have to roll once to hit,once to wound, then allocate and save the roll again to hit, again to wound, allocate again, take your save again......

@deathreaper If you actually quoted an entire rule I could actually show you something as it is you are taking part of a rule out of a section and saying that it is the only part of that section that applies..... You have pg 15 Same Save telling you directly to not use the standard method of allocation first. Notice how the Same Save section tells you to save for the unit first... not allocate? You are then saying that because in the Standard rules the wound is suffered after it was allocated and unsaved all it takes is for the wound to not be saved to be suffered. To use your own way of quoting and application of rules: p17 left side 5th block of text word 3 "no". See how not having all the text for it renders it entirely useless?

To answer your question how you take an armour save is covered on pg 16 right half 3rd paragraph "To take an armour save, roll a d6 and compare the results to the Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the wound." That is how you take an Armour Save and it doesn't have the text you keep citing.

Can you show me how you can ever take an Invulnerable Save if suffering does not equal allocation?

Gravmyr wrote:
The Same Save rule gives you permission to take the save first which is the one and only thing that this rule does.

Can you show me how you can ever take an Invulnerable Save if suffering does not equal allocation?

Please tell me how, if suffering equals allocation ,can you take a invuln save when a "model suffers a wound" If you do not suffer until allocated, same save units can never ake a invuln save by your logic

The part you missed under invuln saves, they can only be taken against wounds suffered.

You mean the overview paragraph stating the general rules on how to handle same save units.

General rule allocate wounds and resolve saves

next paragraph tells us how the resolve saves part works, more specific. and after allocating the wounds.

The overview is not just for same saves but mixed saves as well as there is not a heading the same size as Allocate Wounds & remove Casualties between same saves and mixed saves, and it talks about both mixed saves and same saves in it. Secondly you can take a saving throw without allocation specifically because the same save section tells you that you can otherwise you get no save at all.


Addendum: If you are allocating the wounds first and claiming that is what is allowing you a save then there are no wounds left to reallocate as per the general rules when the wounds are allocated the model immediately suffers the wound after the save or the wound is stopped and no where does it say to change that part of the process.

Gravmyr wrote:
The overview is not just for same saves but mixed saves as well as there is not a heading the same size as Allocate Wounds & remove Casualties between same saves and mixed saves, and it talks about both mixed saves and same saves in it. Secondly you can take a saving throw without allocation specifically because the same save section tells you that you can otherwise you get no save at all.


Addendum: If you are allocating the wounds first and claiming that is what is allowing you a save then there are no wounds left to reallocate as per the general rules when the wounds are allocated the model immediately suffers the wound after the save or the wound is stopped and no where does it say to change that part of the process.

You claim that just lets UNITS take saves, nothing to do with models. And surely you have a rules quote saying you ignore all references to allocation at this point? are models making the save or are units?

now you just have to explain why you think its ok for a MODEL to make a invuln save against a wound suffered, without a would actually being suffered at this point according to you. You keep claiming suffer = allocate so a model with invuln can not ever make its save as its not suffering any wounds, nor is the model allocated to until you allocate a unsaved wound. or can you suffer wounds without allocation is what it sounds like you are trying to say.

Invuln saves are model based right? because they only reference models can take them. Just like swarm references a model has the rule.

Then you need to explain how that doesn't conflict with your idea that you can't check for a model with swarm until the unsaved wound is allocated to it, when you ignore allocating to models with invuln saves..

Addendum: and what magical general rule are you referring to without actually citing?

Gravmyr wrote:
The Same Save rule gives you permission to take the save first which is the one and only thing that this rule does.

@sirlynchmob I have already accounted for all the rules. The same save method gives you permission to look at the units save, and only it's saves, and take them before allocation. It's states as much when it tell you to first determine the unit's save, where to look to determine it, and take them. If you are stating that the overview paragraph is telling you to allocate first, then in the case of mixed saves you should be fine with me taking two saves as it says to allocate first then save there as well. It is an overview paragraph telling you what is following then breaks it down into the two ways you make the saves. The Same Save rule gives you direct permission to break the standard rule of allocation then save. Looking at the beginning of the shooting phase section it also tells you that you must allocate first so by the rules you can never use the same save method ever.

If we are going by your reading I would actually get 2 saves versus as the beginning of the shooting phase pg 12 states you allocate and save there as well. Is that what you are saying? Getting real technical it actually states the entirety of the shooting phase twice so you have to roll once to hit,once to wound, then allocate and save the roll again to hit, again to wound, allocate again, take your save again......

@deathreaper If you actually quoted an entire rule I could actually show you something as it is you are taking part of a rule out of a section and saying that it is the only part of that section that applies..... You have pg 15 Same Save telling you directly to not use the standard method of allocation first. Notice how the Same Save section tells you to save for the unit first... not allocate? You are then saying that because in the Standard rules the wound is suffered after it was allocated and unsaved all it takes is for the wound to not be saved to be suffered. To use your own way of quoting and application of rules: p17 left side 5th block of text word 3 "no". See how not having all the text for it renders it entirely useless?

To answer your question how you take an armour save is covered on pg 16 right half 3rd paragraph "To take an armour save, roll a d6 and compare the results to the Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the wound." That is how you take an Armour Save and it doesn't have the text you keep citing.

Can you show me how you can ever take an Invulnerable Save if suffering does not equal allocation?

and you keep ignoring the aforementioned area where it says take saves, then allocate wounds... but i do agree page right after says what you say it does, however, it does not mean what you think it means, and neither proves your point.

regardless, if we do it your way, and allocate wounds to specific models, and THEN double unsaved wounds, then template weapons that do not inflict ID still would also "waste" wounds.

for example: a swarm model with 3 wounds has two template wounds allocated to them through your reasoning, which doubles to four, so the model is killed, and one wound disappears into thin air because by your logic, all four wounds were allocated to a 3 wound model.
however, four wounds cannot be allocated to a 3 wound model, since as as soon as "the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty. continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model" pg 15 and we had 4 wounds, not 3, so 1 is still left to be allocated.

so now with ID the reason why you must allocate the wounds to another model, is because the model that just suffered ID from the first ID template wound, is now dead and has 0 more wounds to use for allocation of the remaining ID wound.
as soon as one unsaved ID wound is allocated to the swarm model, it has 0 wounds, is removed as a casualty, leaving another unsaved id wound to be allocated.

your premise is based on the (wrong) idea that you CAN allocate more wounds to a model, then that model posses', which is 100% false in RAW

Gravmyr wrote:


@deathreaper If you actually quoted an entire rule I could actually show you something as it is you are taking part of a rule out of a section and saying that it is the only part of that section that applies..... You have pg 15 Same Save telling you directly to not use the standard method of allocation first. Notice how the Same Save section tells you to save for the unit first... not allocate? You are then saying that because in the Standard rules the wound is suffered after it was allocated and unsaved all it takes is for the wound to not be saved to be suffered. To use your own way of quoting and application of rules: p17 left side 5th block of text word 3 "no". See how not having all the text for it renders it entirely useless?

To answer your question how you take an armour save is covered on pg 16 right half 3rd paragraph "To take an armour save, roll a d6 and compare the results to the Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the wound." That is how you take an Armour Save and it doesn't have the text you keep citing.

So if you do not allocate the wound you can not take a save?

Wait, the rules on p.15 say differently.

So using both rules you take armor saved for the models in the unit, as they have the same save. Next, since a Swarm has suffered an unsaved wound you must double the wounds.

We also know they have suffered a wound since they have taken an armor save, and as you cited P.16 tells us how to take armor saves and tells us that if you fail a save aWound is suffered.
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound."

@easysauce I'm not ignoring it I'm saying that you are simply changing the order of operations. Yes they would "waste" wounds but so does anything that generates more wounds then the unit has wounds. I'm not seeing any rule that states that can never happen, but I do see where every rule dealing with wounds in the pool has a way of dealing with it so clearly it is common enough to be addressed. You are not allocating the second wound, the first wound is doubling to two wounds. Look at mixed save units and compare that is exactly what would happen, wounds would be wasted. Whether it be because extra wounds are created after the allocation or because there aren't enough wounds to cover the whole pool "wasted" wounds have been established and dealt with. By adding ID you simply speed up the process it doesn't change anything but by doubling in the pool you are can fact be forcing models that do not have the Swarms USR to suffer wounds created by the USR possibly forcing additional wounds from Swarms to unto non-Swarms. Does that make any sense to apply wounds from a special rule onto a model without the special rule?

@sirlynchmob You seem to miss the point of the Same Save method entirely, you are specifically allowed to make a save for each wound without allocation. That same wording is what allows you to make any save, period. Without it there are no saves allowed. Under your reading of suffer = a failed save you can never make an invulnerable save at all as you can only suffer a wound after a failed save but you can't take a more than a single save per wound. All saves are model based, hell the entire game is model based. The general Shooting Sequence on pg 12, that whole side bar is the general rules for the shooting phase.

@deathreaper Look above. You have specific permission to make a save for each wound without allocation. Except they have not suffered a wound as you have not allocated the wound. The Same Save only changes a single timing issue saves before allocation. I have in fact put forth the locations that specifically tell you that suffering = allocation. You keep stating that if you ignore the allocation part of the general saves rules you are still suffering the wound after the failed save. Quote the rule from a section that does not say you allocate first that failing the save is suffering and I would at least consider your position but it doesn't exist. The only section that saves without allocation exists in is the Same Save section and it does not say anything about suffering the wound after the failed save. I again refer you to above, if failing a a save is what causes a wound to be suffered when can you ever take an invulnerable save as it requires a wound to be suffered first. I pointed out for at least the 5th time that that section also tells us the wounds are allocated first so stating that it tells you the wound is suffered after the failed save without taking into account that the wound was in fact already allocated in that section does not prove anything except that you are ignoring chunks of text.


Timing people that is what this breaks down to. The directs that rigeld2 and I have put forth work in all situations with all rules. Yours only works in this situation with a specific unit makeup. Someone earlier pointed out the argument breaks down to when is a wound suffered. Your proof is in a section where a wound has already been allocated and then the save is failed so your assumption is that the same is what makes a wound suffered. The two sections and the FAQ back up my stand that it is allocation that causes a wound to be suffered with the timing of the save irrelevent.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easysauce I'm not ignoring it I'm saying that you are simply changing the order of operations. Yes they would "waste" wounds but so does anything that generates more wounds then the unit has wounds..

no, absolutely, 100% false, you are quoting the order on save VS model for timing, then saying wounds vs unit, which is it?
pg 15 says take saves, then allocate,
pg 16 says take saves on allocated wounds,

neither gives you permission to allocate more unsaved wounds to a model then are on its profile, or to waste wounds while the unit still has eligible models for allocation

unit and model are not interchangeable, yes a unit can take more wounds then it has (ie is wiped out and hten some) but a model may never be allocated more unsaved wounds then on its profile

your logic would allow a two wound IC in front with a better save then the unit, to take say 10 saves, fail 4, and not have the wounds go to the unit,

@easysauce Sorry you seem to not be following the overall order of this, have you read the entire thread? Again the second wound is not up for allocation it is created after a save and allocation. My logic does not allow an IC to soak wounds, what it does allow is a wound to become two after an allocation and a save. Please go back an look at it I have posted several times why the second wound is not in the pool but already on a model. You still haven't covered how or why you would be allowing a model without Swarms to take Wounds that are specifically created to eliminate Swarms faster..... This all applies to same save and I have shown how it would work with all unit types and save types and that it works exactly the same in all occurrences.
My logic is simple a wound is not suffered till after allocation. An unsaved wound is not suffered till after a save and allocation. It is the idea that you can doubled unsaved wounds in the pool that allows wounds to carry over onto models that do not have the Swarms USR that makes doubling in the pool make no sense.

You are right unit and model are not interchangeable so why would you allow a model USR to affect a unit?

@Gravmyr No my point has always been, first you suffer a wound, then you take your save, now you're suffering an unsaved wound.

And at the point you have unsaved wounds, they double due to swarm.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easysauce Sorry you seem to not be following the overall order of this, have you read the entire thread? Again the second wound is not up for allocation it is created after a save and allocation. My logic does not allow an IC to soak wounds, what it does allow is a wound to become two after an allocation and a save. Please go back an look at it I have posted several times why the second wound is not in the pool but already on a model. You still haven't covered how or why you would be allowing a model without Swarms to take Wounds that are specifically created to eliminate Swarms faster..... This all applies to same save and I have shown how it would work with all unit types and save types and that it works exactly the same in all occurrences.
My logic is simple a wound is not suffered till after allocation. An unsaved wound is not suffered till after a save and allocation. It is the idea that you can doubled unsaved wounds in the pool that allows wounds to carry over onto models that do not have the Swarms USR that makes doubling in the pool make no sense.

You are right unit and model are not interchangeable so why would you allow a model USR to affect a unit?

again, you are ignoring page 15, which goes save, then allocate the unsaved wounds (the # of which is doubled by swarms)

pg 15 says "first of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw...for each wound being resolved. Make note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused."

since after that save, unsaved wounds have been caused, the # of those unsaved wounds on the unit is doubled due to the unit being a swarm. are you interpreting "unsaved wounds have been caused" as unsaved wounds have not been caused? because that is a wrong interpretation.
the next rule, immediately follows the above one i have quoted, setting an ACTUAL order of operation, instead of the single, solitary line you quote to back up your theory that a model may be allocated more wounds then are on its profile.

pg 15 then says "next, allocate an unsaved wound (not two, one) to the enemy model closest to the firing unit... if the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating wounds to the closest model until there are no wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties"

you can only come to the conclusion that the excess wounds are all put on one model, and wasted, if you ignore everything on pg 15

so if you actually read pg 15 it says make a wound pool, take saves, which result in unsaved wounds (which are doubled due to swarm rule) then allocate them one at a time till you are out of wounds, or models.

quote me the rule that says a model may be allocated more unsaved wounds then it has on its profile, because you have to do that to prove yourself right. otherwise you are just saying you are right, with no proof

the single line on pg 16 you quote "roll a d6 and compare the results to the armour save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the wound" does not prevent the resulting unsaved wound from doubling, nor does it grant an extra save after, since the wound is already unsaved, and therefore doubled due to the swarm rule. Nor does it prevent the extra wound from being allocated, nor does it say you discard any excess wounds, nor does it give you permission to have a one wound model suffer more then one unsaved wound.

the rules on pg 15, about taking saves, and allocating wounds, describe the process for taking saves, and allocating unsaved wounds,

the single rule on pg 16, and how to roll a save, is only about how to roll a save, it does not say how wounds are allocated after

@easycheese You are the one missing the part that says when "a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound", at the pool level that have not been suffered so you can't double them yet. It requires both allocation and a failed save. Quote me a rule that says you can apply all model based rules to the entire unit, which is what you have to do for a Swarm(a model based rule) to allow you to double the wounds of a pool belonging to a unit not a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@sirlynchmob You haven't suffered a wound before you take a save in the Same Save method as that first step is to determine the save and take the saves for the unit. There is no allocation there so no suffering.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easycheese You are the one missing the part that says when "a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound", at the pool level that have not been suffered so you can't double them yet. It requires both allocation and a failed save. Quote me a rule that says you can apply all model based rules to the entire unit, which is what you have to do for a Swarm(a model based rule) to allow you to double the wounds of a pool belonging to a unit not a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@sirlynchmob You haven't suffered a wound before you take a save in the Same Save method as that first step is to determine the save and take the saves for the unit. There is no allocation there so no suffering.

And that is why you are not allowing invuln saves. If you don't suffer a wound you can't take a invuln save. To take a invuln save the requirement is "whenever this model suffers a wound"

The pool never in any way implies it only applies to a unit, (lets see a rules quote on that one) I know you like ignoring this part but, every model in the unit has swarm. the wounds double upon having unsaved wounds. You're allowing invuln saves (model based rules) to apply to the entire unit, why not swarm? Then if you're going to say something about permission for saves and not swarm, then just quote anywhere that you are given permission to check for models having special rules.