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.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easycheese You are the one missing the part that says when "a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound", .

again, you are completely ignoring the underlined part below that states "UNSAVED WOUNDS HAVE BEEN CAUSED" hence are doubled,


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"

RAW if a T3 swarm suffers 4 unsaved S6 hits, they lose 8 bases

The swarm rule states:

If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds.

The Instant death rule states:

If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a strength value of double its toughness or greater, it is reduced to 0 wounds, and removed as a casualty.

The blast rules state:

..Once the number of hits inflicted on the unit has been worked outm roll to wound and save as normal. Any unsaved wounds are then allocated on the unit as for a normal shooting attack. pg 16

The turn sequence is as follows:

1) Roll to wound
2) Take saves
3) Allocate unsaved wounds & remove casualties

So, in the example given by the OP: a swarm has just been hit by a S6 blast, and suffered 4 hits

1) the to wound rolls are taken now, and we can assume that 4 wounds are inflicted
2) Roll to save now and we can assume the saves are either failed, or the AP is sufficient to negate the save entirely. wounds now become 'unsaved wounds'

At this point the unit has taken 4 unsaved wounds, and the swarm rule kicks in, doubling the number of unsaved wounds from 4 to 8 (each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds.)

3) Allocating unsaved wounds comes next, and follows the rules on pg 15, allocating to the model nearest the firer if a normal blast, and from the center of the blast marker if a barrage weapon. wounds are allocated one by one. since each wound is S6 it causes instant death, and so a single base is removed for each unsaved wound caused, which is 8 (not withstanding LOS and any focus firing that may have occured)

That is my interpretation, following the BRB to the letter. I'm not a rules lawyer, and i'm not about to disect every word and phrase individually, i just read the question, some of the discussion that is ongoing, and then referenced the relevant rules in the BRB, which took me 5 minutes. My initial reaction was 'that can't be right, they should only lose 4 bases' but i applied the rules, step by step, as indicated by the rules, and hey, it sucks, but thems the rules

@easycheese Again a Swarm, a model based rule, has not suffered a wound at the unsaved wound pool the unit has. Once the Wound has been allocated that is when the wound is suffered and as such doubled at the model level. You are doubling before allocation and therefor the wounds have not been suffered. Suffered and caused are not the same thing. I have spent multiple posts showing exactly why suffering unsaved wounds requires a save and allocation.

@sirlynchmob Again all saves require allocation except in the Same Save method which allows you to take any save you have without allocation. You have specific permission to do so. the entire section of Take Saving Throws in the same save method talks about the unit and not model, so how wound the pool apply to anything but the unit? Depends on the specific rule you are talking about but I say the same to you there is a specific section allowing the saves do you have permission to check for for and apply any rule that models have to the entire unit except at the rule itself? Since cover saves cannot be calculated without looking at terrain and any USR's affecting their save how do you calculate the cover save without taking into account some USR's? Some Invuln saves are the same they can have an Invuln save without wargear and so can have one that requires you to look in their special abilities for such a rule. You have special permission to look for these things it does not tell you to apply all rules across the board.


In a single instance your interpretation at least has fewer discrepancies but as soon as anything changes in the least your way piles up problems left and right. My interpretation applies uniformly and within the special circumstances you put forth as well as all other save methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok listen go back and at least try to read the thread this has in fact been covered multiples times: suffered=allocation. A model has not suffered a wound until it is allocated as I have shown 3 locations where this is true and the only place anyone can try to quote to say otherwise includes and allocation as part of it it does not prove that failing a save is the same suffering. Causing wounds is also not the same as suffering wounds. people keep trying to equate it with no proof in the least yet I have shown numerous times that it is true. In the end you have to read the Swarms USR as applying to the model not to a unit.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easycheese Again a Swarm, a model based rule, (no it is not, it does not say model or unit in the swarms rule, it simply says when a swarm) has not suffered a wound at the unsaved wound pool the unit has. Once the Wound has been allocated that is when the wound is suffered (this is incorrect, again read pg 15 nothing you are saying undoes page 15 which says unsaved wounds are caused after saving throws and before allocation) and as such doubled at the model level. You are doubling before allocation (this is the only thing you are saying that is correct, you do in fact double before allocation, but this is no way means wounds have not been suffered, again you ignore what the BRB actually says on pg 15 "unsaved wounds have been caused" that sentence, whether you believe it or not, means unsaved wounds have been caused) and therefor the wounds have not been suffered. Suffered and caused are not the same thing. I have spent multiple posts showing exactly why suffering unsaved wounds requires a save and allocation. (you have spent multiple posts, but you still have yet to quote rules that back up your statements, multiple people have however posted rules that completely contradict what you say, and the rule book specifically says pg 15"unsaved wounds have been caused" then tells you to allocate those unsaved wounds, which means, surprise, wounds have been caused, and you must then allocate them)

you draw several incorrect conclusions from a single line on pg 16 the most noteworthy, and rule breaking being that it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then that model has

even in the mixed saves, you allocate the single wound, and then make the save, on the model, which if it is a swarm, will cause two unsaved ID wounds, the first of which reduces the first models wounds to 0 since it has been allocated to that model, removing it, the 2nd is still in the wound pool, since no model has yet to be allocated it (the rules only state that the first wound is allocated, not the second one, by definition, you allocate wounds one at a time, so while the initial wound is allocated to the model, the bonus wound created from an unsaved wound in this case, has not yet been allocated). you then continue with mixed saves rule until the wound pool is empty

you need to prove that the extra wounds are discarded from the wound pool,

Gravmyr wrote:
@easycheese Again a Swarm, a model based rule, has not suffered a wound at the unsaved wound pool the unit has. Once the Wound has been allocated that is when the wound is suffered and as such doubled at the model level. You are doubling before allocation and therefor the wounds have not been suffered. Suffered and caused are not the same thing. I have spent multiple posts showing exactly why suffering unsaved wounds requires a save and allocation.

@sirlynchmob Again all saves require allocation except in the Same Save method which allows you to take any save you have without allocation. You have specific permission to do so. the entire section of Take Saving Throws in the same save method talks about the unit and not model, so how wound the pool apply to anything but the unit? Depends on the specific rule you are talking about but I say the same to you there is a specific section allowing the saves do you have permission to check for for and apply any rule that models have to the entire unit except at the rule itself? Since cover saves cannot be calculated without looking at terrain and any USR's affecting their save how do you calculate the cover save without taking into account some USR's? Some Invuln saves are the same they can have an Invuln save without wargear and so can have one that requires you to look in their special abilities for such a rule. You have special permission to look for these things it does not tell you to apply all rules across the board.


In a single instance your interpretation at least has fewer discrepancies but as soon as anything changes in the least your way piles up problems left and right. My interpretation applies uniformly and within the special circumstances you put forth as well as all other save methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok listen go back and at least try to read the thread this has in fact been covered multiples times: suffered=allocation. A model has not suffered a wound until it is allocated as I have shown 3 locations where this is true and the only place anyone can try to quote to say otherwise includes and allocation as part of it it does not prove that failing a save is the same suffering. Causing wounds is also not the same as suffering wounds. people keep trying to equate it with no proof in the least yet I have shown numerous times that it is true. In the end you have to read the Swarms USR as applying to the model not to a unit.

one last try, the SR's all state what triggers those rules. When those conditions are met, you follow the SR. You don't need permission to go looking for them, they are rules, and those rules are always in affect. and pg 3 says "other important information" "it's enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model" there you go, blanket permission to look for SR's so you know when they apply.

Swarms trigger is unsaved wounds
FNP's trigger is unsaved wounds
Invuln saves trigger is a suffered wound.

suffered =/= allocate it keeps being said, but it is not RAW. And it disallows invuln saves 1/3 of the time so its not really uniform. I'd say you're side creates many more rules conflict than mine. Read back through all the pages and count them up if you wish.

you cause wounds and they go into the pool
allocate to models to determine saves and any rules that may or may not have an effect.
you now have suffered wounds
take saves (models have a sv characteristic, units do not) You might roll as a unit to save time, but it is the models making the saves. armor: IF a model, Invuln "models with" cover "model will be entitled"
failed saves = you now have suffered unsaved wounds. Any SR trigger on unsaved wounds, trigger here.
allocate unsaved wounds as required.

there is plenty of evidence to support this, read pages 14 - 19.

I assert multiplying an unsaved wound to get Two unsaved wounds is causing a new wound. From that point of view, all blast ID wounds remove two bases no matter the method of resolving the wounds. As its created another unsaved wound it can not be saved again and then gets allocated. pg 32 allows for breaking or bending main game rules, like slipping another unsaved wound caused into the pool to be allocated, or I'd say, just resolved after the wound that created a second wound. Whichever way you'd like to do it, the end result is the same.

Then A swarm could either mean "a model" or "a unit of models with swarm" Dictionary would imply that a swarm is all models making up the swarm. You only have a swarm, not 10 swarms within a swarm. So whether its a model or unit SR is debatable as well.

Now the only thing really debated (for 11 pages now) is the second newly created wound and how to handle it, but my method does not create any new paradoxes, it is truly uniform. All SR's get checked and used as required, invuln saves can be taken, and a ID wound does not kill off the entire unit, see word victim. FNP & swarm both trigger on unsaved wounds, but that seems to be a different debate so lets not get into it here.I'm in favor of active player, because apparently the exception rule contains all the information to resolve it.

If you'd like to continue this you need to show where under cover saves you get permission to check for SR's that may improve your cover save. Then explain how a unit gets a save since you want to separate models & units. and actually prove allocate = suffers and why that doesn't disallow a invuln save for same save units.

Neither side can really show 100% RAW so it really comes down to RAI, and in 5th ed it was faq'd 1 blast ID wound removes 2 bases. evidence for intent.

til it comes up again or I see something new to respond to, Peace.

easysauce wrote:


you draw several incorrect conclusions from a single line on pg 16 the most noteworthy, and rule breaking being that it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then that model has

even in the mixed saves, you allocate the single wound, and then make the save, on the model, which if it is a swarm, will cause two unsaved ID wounds, the first of which reduces the first models wounds to 0 since it has been allocated to that model, removing it, the 2nd is still in the wound pool, since no model has yet to be allocated it (the rules only state that the first wound is allocated, not the second one, by definition, you allocate wounds one at a time, so while the initial wound is allocated to the model, the bonus wound created from an unsaved wound in this case, has not yet been allocated). you then continue with mixed saves rule until the wound pool is empty

you need to prove that the extra wounds are discarded from the wound pool,

Nowhere in Gravmyr's method is he allocating more wounds to a model than a model has. He is saying that you must allocate a wound before it can be suffered. If you allocate a wound that wound comes out of the wound poll. If you start with 4 wounds in the pool and you allocate 1 you have 3 more wounds in the pool. Now if you assume a model suffers a wound after allocation, you can't double a wound with the swarm rule until after the original wound has been allocated. Once you allocate the original wound then you double it, and now both wounds are on the same model and in a normal scenario that model would take -2 to it's wound characteristic. You can't allocate, double the wounds, and put one of those wounds back in the pool to be allocated. This all of course assumes you consider suffering an unsaved wound must happen after allocation and saves.

You're dead wrong on the mixed save portion even with DeathReaper's "after failed armor save" reading of suffering a wound. Again you can't put a wound back in the pool after allocation without a specific rule saying you can. In the mixed save scenario, after rolling to wound from a blast causing 1 wound:

1) You allocate the wound to the closest model (in this case the model has the swarm rule). The wound pool is now at zero.
2) You make a save for the model if it has one.
3) Before you reduce the Wounds characteristic you double the amount of unsaved wounds caused. The model now reduces its Wounds characteristic by 2. If the Wounds characteristic of that model is 0 or less remove it. If the wound would cause ID you reduce the Wounds characteristic of the model to 0 and remove the model, in this case doubling the wound does not matter.
4) Check the wound pool for more wounds. There are none
5) Move on to shooting with the next unit or to the next phase.

If at any point with the mixed save scenario you are doubling wounds in the wound pool you are doing it wrong. Mostly because the wounds aren't unsaved yet, also because you could potentially make a model without the swarm rule suffer the doubling because of the swarm rule.

for units with one save, the answer is plain and clear

pg 15 specifically states to take save throws, that unsaved wounds are caused, and then allocated,

that part is 100% RAW,

as for mixed saves, it is a totally separate scenario from the above,

even mixed saves says to allocate ONE wound at a time, so if in mixed saves the wound is allocated to the closest model, only if that model has a different save, then rolled for save, causing an unsaved wound, which is doubled, where does it say to allocate that 2nd wound to the same, now dead , model? even if you can lawyer that both wounds go on the same model, how can a 1 wound model suffer two wounds? find a rule saying it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then it actually has, or its breaking the rule.

if it did it would also contradict even the mixed saves rule as you have now allocated two wounds at once,

if he is not allocating more wounds to a model then it has, where does the extra wound go then? if its not on the initial model, where is it? it must be allocated somewhere.

At first glance, I agreed that 2 unsaved wound with ID would kill 4 swarms.

But then a friend of mine suggested me to put an IC in the mix, so I did:


reductio ad absurdum:
If we suppose that [1] and [2] get hit and miss their save, we have 2 unsaved wounds, then they are multiplied by 2.
It will then be allocated on the IC

So end of the conversation, 2 ID unsaved wound on swarms, will only kill 2 swarms.

Unfortunately a few (thank god) people in this forum think that the same save method can alter the shooting attack rules.

The rules sequence for a shooting attack is on page 12. The same save is just a method on how to resolve the shooting attack more efficiently in a specific situation. The other method is mixed saves. Since both methods are based on the same rules, it is absurd to suggest that in any situation these 2 methods will give 2 different results. And in any case if there is a doubt about any result between the 2 methods, revert back to the actual rules on page 12.

@easysauce What it boils down to is you seem to think that allocating a wound onto a model and then doubling it is somehow allocating two wounds... it isn't. You are doubling a wound that has been allocated that is all. I even posted an easier explination in the thread but you seem to think that somehow you are allocating that second wound when it is simply the first wound twice. Until you can come up with something to disprove the three spots that I have pointed out that allocation=suffering that does not include allocation first you have no leg to stand on in the discussion. Unsaved wounds caused are not the same as unsaved wounds suffered if that were the case FNP wound be taken before allocation and as GW has demonstrated that is not their intent. I have quoted the rules that state it 4 times now that allocation=suffering I have yet to see a single quote from you that says that caused=suffered.

@sirlynchmob Kinda try to stay the actual wording of the rules. Swarms and FNP both trigger on suffering unsaved wounds, both suffering and unsaved are the key words there. State what you would like I have shown the three places that suffer=allocate and the only spot anyone can even try to claim otherwise has allocation as part of it. I have shown RAW multiple times where the only claims I have seen against it are basically I want swarms gone sooner. RAW the Swarms USR is a model based rule end of discussion. As soon as you claim that it applies to the unit then it alters the rule from "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound...' to "If a unit with at least on model with Swarm suffers an unsaved wound...." You also claim that despite the fact it states that you take saves first then allocate you somehow magically think there are two allocation steps.... I have shown why you take any save that is best for you and why you can do so without allocation.

Gravmyr wrote:
@easysauce What it boils down to is you seem to think that allocating a wound onto a model and then doubling it is somehow allocating two wounds... it isn't. You are doubling a wound that has been allocated that is all. I even posted an easier explination in the thread but you seem to think that somehow you are allocating that second wound when it is simply the first wound twice. Until you can come up with something to disprove the three spots that I have pointed out that allocation=suffering that does not include allocation first you have no leg to stand on in the discussion. Unsaved wounds caused are not the same as unsaved wounds suffered if that were the case FNP wound be taken before allocation and as GW has demonstrated that is not their intent. I have quoted the rules that state it 4 times now that allocation=suffering I have yet to see a single quote from you that says that caused=suffered.

@sirlynchmob Kinda try to stay the actual wording of the rules. Swarms and FNP both trigger on suffering unsaved wounds, both suffering and unsaved are the key words there. State what you would like I have shown the three places that suffer=allocate and the only spot anyone can even try to claim otherwise has allocation as part of it. I have shown RAW multiple times where the only claims I have seen against it are basically I want swarms gone sooner. RAW the Swarms USR is a model based rule end of discussion. As soon as you claim that it applies to the unit then it alters the rule from "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound...' to "If a unit with at least on model with Swarm suffers an unsaved wound...." You also claim that despite the fact it states that you take saves first then allocate you somehow magically think there are two allocation steps.... I have shown why you take any save that is best for you and why you can do so without allocation.

you mean this gem from page 2 you are claiming is RAW?

What if allocation and suffered are being used interchangeably?

What if you're just wrong about this?
since your entire premise is wrong and not RAW and your argument disallows invuln saves, while picking and choosing which SR's to use and when. I don't think you have a rule to stand on.

easysauce wrote:
for units with one save, the answer is plain and clear

pg 15 specifically states to take save throws, that unsaved wounds are caused, and then allocated,

that part is 100% RAW,

as for mixed saves, it is a totally separate scenario from the above,

even mixed saves says to allocate ONE wound at a time, so if in mixed saves the wound is allocated to the closest model, only if that model has a different save, then rolled for save, causing an unsaved wound, which is doubled, where does it say to allocate that 2nd wound to the same, now dead , model? even if you can lawyer that both wounds go on the same model, how can a 1 wound model suffer two wounds? find a rule saying it is ok to allocate more wounds to a model then it actually has, or its breaking the rule.

if it did it would also contradict even the mixed saves rule as you have now allocated two wounds at once,

if he is not allocating more wounds to a model then it has, where does the extra wound go then? if its not on the initial model, where is it? it must be allocated somewhere.

No, it's actually the same either way. Technically whether it's mixed or same saves you're *always* allocating wounds one at a time. It really does not matter if you roll saves before or after allocating the wound because you only suffer a wound when allocated it, not before.
Read "The Shooting Sequence" on page 12. Step 5, specifically.

The resolution methods provided later in the book are to help speed up gameplay, but they do not change the core rule that all wounds are allocated one at a time.

You also seem to forget that generally swarms are multi-wound models. I personally can't think of a single wound swarm anyway.

@sirlynchmob I have in fact shown you three locations where GW has in fact used allocation to mean suffering. The only thing anyone has pointed out is in armour saves, where allocation is done first, that states it was suffered. To me that is exactly what RAW is, when GW writes a rule. My premise allows all rules to work as written. Following your setup there is two allocation steps and as long as a unit has a USR you can apply it at any time without regard for the wording of the USR or the fact that all USR's are model based rules.

Gravmyr wrote:
@sirlynchmob I have in fact shown you three locations where GW has in fact used allocation to mean suffering. The only thing anyone has pointed out is in armour saves, where allocation is done first, that states it was suffered. To me that is exactly what RAW is, when GW writes a rule. My premise allows all rules to work as written. Following your setup there is two allocation steps and as long as a unit has a USR you can apply it at any time without regard for the wording of the USR or the fact that all USR's are model based rules.

starting with "what if" does not make RAW, and when you follow up with a appeal to authority, I can just safely write you off as wrong. And if you want to play that way, then you are disallowing invuln saves in same save units. Because nothing is allocated until wounds are unsaved. so you never have a suffered wound to take a invuln save against. And the fact you can present a argument and apply it two different ways also leads me to believe you to be wrong.

@sirlynchmob Actually if you read it you get no saves under normal circumstances without allocation. You have still yet to show a single location that allows two allocations. Yes I asked a question first before I proved it correct. I didn't start with the assumption that I could not be wrong. Believe what you will but in the end if they faq it to follow my setup and prove your assumptions false then will you at least then look at what I put forth instead of assuming they could in no way allow saves without allocation? I am in fact presenting the argument and showing that it does apply two different ways as in same saves you do not allocate first and in mixed saves you do. Your presentation shows two allocations which is not backed by any rules. Your assumption that it adds a wound to the wound pool is not backed, it says a wound that is allocated and save failed is multiplied to two which is different. I want you to look back at the precursor section to the same save section which states that there is allocation and resolution. Both sections then tell you when to resolve and when to allocate. Neither actually tell you to look at pg 16 to see how to take a save but same save does tell you to look there to determine if and what save the unit is allowed.

Ok people here seem to think that the swarm special rule is for the unit, its not. The swarm special rule is model specific just like all the special rules are. So in the rules where it states that the swarm's unsaved wounds are multiplied by 2 its talking about the models unsaved wounds are multiplied by 2. No where does it make any mention to the swarm's unit. The wounds are not added back into the wound pool they are given to the model that is triggering the effect. So an instant death blast would inflict 2 ID wounds on the MODEL not on the unit. Just because all models in a unit have the same special rule does not mean that the special rule affects all models in the unit every time it procs.

Four S6 wounds go out to T3 models with the Swarms Special Rule.

All four wounds go unsaved.

We now assign the (currently) four unsaved wounds to the group of eight models.

First model takes one unsaved wound, due to its Special Rule, it now takes two. Due to the Instant Death rule, that model now dies. The extra wound goes with the model assigned that first unsaved wound.

Continue removing wounds from the pool until it is empty.


The reason you dont double the unsaved wounds to eight before you start assigning them is written within the Swarms Special rule itself. When the model is assigned the wound, if it has the special rule, you apply what that rule en-tales. If it doesnt, then you dont. Should an IC be in the group you wouldnt be allowed to double the wounds in the pool before assignment. Thus, doubling the wounds -before- assignment is an incorrect assessment, even if you remove the IC from the equation.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

So you have just said that:
A: The wounds are not allocated to the model
B:The wound does not go to the pool

So were does it go? Limbo. I see no rule that lets you assign the second wound to the model or the pool. You have not provide one, so RAW the wound sits in limbo.

No, that's not what I've said at all.
A wound is on a model. That wound is doubled. Since the first wound was on the model, the second wound is as well.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's not what I've said at all.
A wound is on a model. That wound is doubled. Since the first wound was on the model, the second wound is as well.

And I am pointing out that this is an assumption on your part based on how you think the rules should be read. There is no, to use your favorite point , permission to assign the new wound to the model, nor to the pool. So either is an assumption and this is really I think were the biggest sticking point over how this rule should be read is occuring.

If the correct method is to return it to the pool, then I.D. blasts against a swarm take out 2 bases per wound.
If the correct method is to apply the second wound to the same model, the I.D. blasts only take out one base per wound.

Does this make sense why I am grinding on this point now? And want to see an actual rule either way? Otherwise the best you can do is make an assumption and wait for it to one day get FAQed.

If a dollar is put in your bank account and then doubled, do you have one dollar in your bank account and another one floating around in limbo? Or so you have 2 dollars in your bank account?

It's not that you have permission to do anything with the wound - indeed that's exactly why it's applied to the model that suffered the wound in the first place.

Actually barnowl I think I have shown more then enough evidence for most people to agree that the directions that rigeld2 myself and Tarrasq have put forth are the only way to apply the rules without breaking some rule. For a model to suffer a wound it has to be allocated and the save failed. The wound that is already allocated then becomes 2 wounds. We are not allocating another wound nor are we creating another wound. There are no assumptions being made on our side.

The side that is stating you double the wounds in the pool or allocate a second wound are making assumptions. Either that as long as unit has a rule it can be applied at any time the unit is referenced or that the new wound somehow reenters the pool. If you look back to my posts you can see that I have shown the areas in the BRB that back our standing.

Gravmyr wrote:
Actually barnowl I think I have shown more then enough evidence for most people to agree that the directions that rigeld2 myself and Tarrasq have put forth are the only way to apply the rules without breaking some rule. For a model to suffer a wound it has to be allocated and the save failed. The wound that is already allocated then becomes 2 wounds. We are not allocating another wound nor are we creating another wound. There are no assumptions being made on our side.

The side that is stating you double the wounds in the pool or allocate a second wound are making assumptions. Either that as long as unit has a rule it can be applied at any time the unit is referenced or that the new wound somehow reenters the pool. If you look back to my posts you can see that I have shown the areas in the BRB that back our standing.

seeing how your summary is still wrong, you have not provided enough evidence for anything. And your reasoning just denies invuln saves to same save units, but I guess that's not breaking any rules for you.

We are not allocating another wound nor are we creating another wound

swarm creates another unsaved wound. "wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds" You had one wound, now you have two wounds. a new wound was created.

As I pointed out earlier you actually have permission to take any save....

There is no new wound the originally allocated wound becomes two like an amoeba splitting.

Gravmyr wrote:
As I pointed out earlier you actually have permission to take any save....

There is no new wound the originally allocated wound becomes two like an amoeba splitting.

yet you ignore the wording for invuln saves, they can only be taken when "a model suffers a wound" if there is no suffering until allocation then same save units can not take invuln saves. as they don't get allocated/suffered until they are unsaved wounds.

Yet you ignore you are told to save without allocation which is required for all saves....

Gravmyr wrote:
Yet you ignore you are told to save without allocation which is required for all saves....

citation please. This is one of your assumptions your side is making

armor and cover save against wounds

invul is against suffered wounds

so do you suffer wounds without allocation or not?

Seriously? pg 15 the first sentence under Take Saving Throws.......

Gravmyr wrote:
Seriously? pg 15 the first sentence under Take Saving Throws.......

general rule:
"the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each wound being resolved."

now what is the procedure for taking the saving throws?

more specific rules:
page 16
"to take an armor save, roll a d6 and compare the results to the armor save characteristic of that MODEL that has been ALLOCATED the wound."
or page 17
"invulnerable saves are DIFFERENT to armor saves because they may always be taken whenever the MODEL SUFFERS a wound"

The only thing that general rule is allowing for is to roll all the saves at once, nothing more, nothing less. then you look at the specific rule to see how it is done.

Yet you ignore you are told to save without allocation which is required for all saves....

Now where on page 15 does it say you can save without allocation?

rigeld2 wrote:
If a dollar is put in your bank account and then doubled, do you have one dollar in your bank account and another one floating around in limbo? Or so you have 2 dollars in your bank account?

It's not that you have permission to do anything with the wound - indeed that's exactly why it's applied to the model that suffered the wound in the first place.

Bad analogy as it doe snot accurately reflect the situation. Second since you have to reach for analogy on a vague rule, as it obviously is seeing as how this debate has raged for at least 2 editions, you must be making an assumption about the status of the wound. Neither one breaks rules, the case of a swarm wound rolling over on to an IC, has an analogous case in the fact that because the IC is a minority model it is wounded on the swarms toughness.

Till either side can but forth a clear rule on the were the multiplied wound goes to the best you got are good or bad arguments either way.