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.

The part where it says that the unit takes a save for each wound in the pool. It does not say a model takes a wound for each. There is no mention at this point to allocation. You are the one making an assumption that you are allocating before the save. It then tells you to allocate the wounds.

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

you have not backed up your presentation with RAW
'


RAW pg 15 state you only get one save ever be that armour cover or invul

after failing that one save you have unsaved wounds, that is raw, this is where you apply swarm and double those unsaved wounds, even in the mixed save section, it is the same, the # of unsaved wounds doubles, and only one is allocated to the model that suffered it, if that model can only suffer one ID wound. by RAW you cannot allocate allocate more unsaved wounds to a model then it has, unless there are no other models to allocate it to.

You do not need to "move the wound back into the pool" because it never left there in the first place, the unsaved wound was suffered, then doubled, who the original was allocated does not matter, the second unsaved wound has not yet been allocated BY raw,

if you claim it has been allocated, you are now breaking RAW since you cannot allocate more then one wound at a time. RAW is that until allocated a wound at a time, the wound has never left the pool.

by definition you cannot allocated more then one wound at a time in mixed saves, which is what you have done if you allocate both at once to the same model as you would want to do.


and that is the only way you make those extra wounds "disappear" is by making a model suffer more wounds then it has on its profile, by allocating 2 wounds to it at a time.

that is not RAW, RAW are very clear that the # of unsaved wounds double, it does not say anything special in it about breaking normal allocation procedure and allocating two wounds at once, on a model only able to suffer one wound,

ergo the permission to allocate two wounds to a model that cannot suffer them is not RAW.

Actually I have. No one has yet to put forth any rule that contradicts the fact that suffer is allocation. The only place anyone can even attempt to contradict the FAQ, the invuln save use of suffer and the CC use of suffer is where armour saves uses it after allocation. You need to allocate to suffer. I have shown three places as stated above that directly equate suffer to allocation. Please show me an instance where they use suffering a wound without allocation, which is what you would need to back up your idea that failing a save is the same as suffering an unsaved wound. No one is allocating two wounds ever, the single allocated unsaved wound is doubling on the model.

You are doubling an allocated wound plain and simply not doubling the wounds in the pool nor are you doubling the number of hits like it was in 5th.

Reread and parse the entire sentence "if a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound" = is allocated an unsaved wound or fails a save versus a wound.

Edit: The section right there tells you to do it out of order. It tells you to take a save then allocate. It is the only way you can make saves for a unit otherwise you must make saves on an individual basis one at a time with allocation first. pg 15 tells you "First of all...." is it followed by instructions to follow the regular rules of taking saves? It does not. It tells you to make the saves if the entire unit gets one and to look at pg 16 to determine if the unit does. Please show me where it tells you to allocate the saves.

nice assumptions there.

and your assumption denies invuln saves ie you break a rule. As suffer = allocation, you can not suffer a wound to take an invuln save against. And you don't allocate the would til its unsaved.

But keep station your assumptions as fact, maybe someone else will believe you.

I've already had people comment in this thread that they are now following my directions and following the rules.....

@sirlynchmob You have to show some evidence that the rules telling you to take any save without allocation and therefor suffering a wound breaks any rule.

Gravmyr wrote:
I've already had people comment in this thread that they are now following my directions and following the rules.....

@sirlynchmob You have to show some evidence that the rules telling you to take any save without allocation and therefor suffering a wound breaks any rule.

Wait, so now your addressing me wanting me to prove what you keep assuming is true?

that save without allocation is your assumption, so you need to show some rules supporting it.

No I want you to show that the section that tell you to take saves without allocation is wrong. I have shown you where it tells you to take the save without allocation from the section that tells you how to make the saves if they are all the same. What evidence do you have that this is incorrect?

Gravmyr wrote:
No I want you to show that the section that tell you to take saves without allocation is wrong. I have shown you where it tells you to take the save without allocation from the section that tells you how to make the saves if they are all the same. What evidence do you have that this is incorrect?

The fact you have to claim you are not making any assumptions and don't break any other rules when it has been shown by myself and others, that you are making assumption and breaking rules.
The fact you keep adding in "without allocation" (assumption)
The fact you don't allow invuln saves. (broke rule)
The fact it refers you to page 16 to read and follow the save rules.

armor saves =
allocate a wound
roll fails
suffer unsaved wounds

back to page 15, unsaved wounds in the pool (double for swarm, they meet the condition at this point)

Just because you are given permission to take all your saves at the same time, does not in any way say or imply we're not allocating.

Actually it does as it tells you to calculate and roll them it does not tell you to follow the rules on pg 16 and allocate first. It does allow invuln saves as it tells you to take any save they get.

pg 15 "First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has one (see page 16), for each wound being resolved."

Units cannot make saves if you follow the rules on page 16. Your assumption that it tells you to do so is based off of what? It does not tell you to follow the rules on page 16. To tell you to follow the rules on page 16 it would have been placed as such: "First of all, the target unit gets to make one saving throw (see page 16), if it has one, for each wound being resolved."

What it does say is to look at page 16 to see if the unit gets a save, see above. See how if it has one is in a smaller section of the sentence with see page 16? This indicates determining the save is what you look at page 16 to find out.

It does not in any part on page 15 to ever tell you to follow those rules for individual allocation found on page 16. If it did there wouldn't be a point is writing it differently then they did in fast dice on page 16 would it? Therefor you are making an assumption to parse it like the wording in Fast Dice.

For the last time you can never make a save without allocation except in the same save so trying to state that somehow invuln saves are different then Armour or Cover saves tells me the basics of the game may not be clear to you.

Look at the example below it, it does not allocate till after the saves are rolled. If they wanted you to allocate, save, then allocate again wouldn't they do so there? Look at Fast Dice pg 16 one allocation. Saves section pgs 16 - 19, one allocation. Shooting Sequence pg 12, one allocation. Allocating wounds in assault pg 25, one allocation. Shooting phase wound allocation pg 427, one allocation. CC wound wound allocation, pg 429, one allocation. Every section you look at in the entire book there is a single allocation step not multiple. You are rolling the saves all in one go then allocating afterword.

So you are saying if i shoot at a squad of paladins, i allocate ID wounds before they are saved? if that were true you would need to roll for separate models. fails save, 2 wounds caused, ID kills base on first wound, wound left in pool gets allocated to next model. same way if 2 wounds are caused ot the paladins and id kills paladin and then second wound goes to paladin 2 who also dies from ID.

Swarms are bad VS templates/blasts get over it.

The problem people seem to run into is timing. When is a wound suffered. I have actually been able to show that GW intends suffering to equate to allocation.

Paladins don't have the swarm rule so bring them in makes as much sense as mentioning buildings. The Str of the attack and the targets Toughness are checked at the same time as the wound is doubled. they both happen at the same time, when a wound is suffered and a save failed.

Gravmyr wrote:
The problem people seem to run into is timing. When is a wound suffered. I have actually been able to show that GW intends suffering to equate to allocation.

Actually a wound is suffered when a save is failed.

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

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

The wearer refers to the model rolling the save. So the wound is already allocated to that model.

@deathreaper & sirlynhcmob If you look at the start of the operations for taking a an armour save from which you are quoting the text of failing a save is suffering a wound, what does it say has to have happened to take the Armour save? pg 16 "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." This backs up my statement that you need allocation to suffer a wound, not that failing a save is all you need.

I further point to the fact that page 16 does not in it's entirety tell you to allocate a wound. Both cover saves and Armour saves state a wound must have been allocated while Invuln saves states that a wound must be suffered. If suffered is failing a save as you put forth when can any one ever take an invuln save? As you can only take a single save so that would be never.

When doing same save you are rolling saves first without allocation as that is what that section tells you to do. Then you allocate. It's not breaking any rule when the BRB itself tells you to do so. That would be like saying that skimmers break the rules for impassible terrain, they don't as they have their own rule governing it. The same is true in this instance.

@sirlynchmob You say that I am making an assumption that you take the saves without allocation but in same save it tells you to take the saves first then allocate. Page 16 - 19 does not tell you to allocate a wound anywhere. I have also shown that all saves, as a general rule, require allocation but you are told to ignore that in same saves. I have also pointed out it does not tell you to follow the rules on page 16 as if it did you would only be allowed to look at armour saves as that is the only save on that page. Page 16 does not in fact tell you to allocate a wound, it does say what to do after a wound has been allocated, which is the same as Invuln saves and cover saves.

I have also posted 5 places that say there is a single allocation and a save. I have asked multiple times for you to show where you are told to allocate the wounds then make the save then allocate the unsaved wounds. Your response is to follow the rules on page 16. As posted above it does not say to allocate a wound. Please quote the location it tells you to allocate the wound.

Too bad the faq didn't address this, i guess they think it's clear enough... that usually means we are reading too far into it.

@gravmyr more strawmen, and a red herring nice, It's a shame they didn't address this in the latest faq's.

Now if you could address my points, and not more of your assumptions on my points.

Please actually quote where it says to ignore allocation. Then actually read pg 16-19, you do have a BRB right? Are you really saying, it just tells you to see page 16, so you just look at that page but don't do any of it?

If you had read them you'd see that cover and armor saves are the same, but invuln saves are different.

Then using only rules quote, explain to me how your position can take a save against a suffered wound, if no wounds have been suffered yet.

pg 16, second column, Armor saves, second paragraph
You quote the rule, then deny what it says.

the model that has been allocated the Wound."
As posted above it does not say to allocate a wound

Then you state your assumption. And instead of just using the word allocate you should say what you are allocating. You have "wounds" and "unsaved wounds"

you suffer wounds
you fail saves
you suffer unsaved wounds
you allocate unsaved wounds
see the difference?

No one has ever said failing a save is all you need, failing saves makes the wounds an unsaved wound.

As we agree you allocate unsaved wounds, and we agree that swarm doubles unsaved wounds. Did you look at all those models with swarm to figure out what save they had? Yep, and that help us conclude they all have the same save. So we should agree that, once you have unsaved wounds, they double which would be in the pool.

If you want to keep assuming that model SR's don't apply to the unit, (even though every model in the whole unit has that rule) would it also mean that unit SR's don't apply to models? Because stealth improves the units cover save by 1, so its helpful for same save units. For mixed saves, if the unit has stealth, the model allocated the wound does not, so that model doesn't benefit from stealth right?

But I'm sure you can cite some rules that actually say model SR and units SR are two totally separate concepts. or show anywhere it says to check models for any SR's, you assume you have permission to look for a model with stealth, yet just don't look at those same models to see that they have swarm. See the double standard there?

My position is still, all SR's are applicable when they say to apply them. All SR's start with a trigger statement saying when they work.

You can post as many times as you want, it doesn't make you right. or is this really just the one with the most posts wins?

You should at least acknowledge your assumptions.

sirlynchmob wrote:

But I'm sure you can cite some rules that actually say model SR and units SR are two totally separate concepts. or show anywhere it says to check models for any SR's, you assume you have permission to look for a model with stealth, yet just don't look at those same models to see that they have swarm. See the double standard there?

Sure. Read page 32 under "What special rules do I have". It talks about models and models only. Rules that apply to the whole unit specify it in their wording. A fine example is the Stealth rule that you are referring to. It starts as "A unit that contains...". So Stealth applies to units. Swarm does not. It is a model based rule and comes in effect only when an unsaved wound is allocated to a swarm model.

copper.talos wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

But I'm sure you can cite some rules that actually say model SR and units SR are two totally separate concepts. or show anywhere it says to check models for any SR's, you assume you have permission to look for a model with stealth, yet just don't look at those same models to see that they have swarm. See the double standard there?

Sure. Read page 32 under "What special rules do I have". It talks about models and models only. Rules that apply to the whole unit specify it in their wording. A fine example is the Stealth rule that you are referring to. It starts as "A unit that contains...". So Stealth applies to units. Swarm does not. It is a model based rule and comes in effect only when an unsaved wound is allocated to a swarm model.

Odd, I'm not seeing that word allocate anywhere under swarm. It's a nice assumption though.

copper.talos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

The wearer refers to the model rolling the save. So the wound is already allocated to that model.

Not for same save units. you roll saves before allocation.

Please stop quoting fragments to make claims of something I said not making sense. The full line there is instructions on how to make an armour save versus an allocated wound. It does not include any wording instructing you to allocate those wounds. There is no assumption as there is no directive to allocate the wounds.

pg 15 no mention of allocation before the saves. Pg 16 - 19 no mention of allocation, just of having been allocated. That is the difference. pg 16 - 19 tell you what to do after a wound has been allocated. It does not tell you to allocate the wounds. If suffer is not allocation then you can only take invlun saves per your outline above as they are worded differently with Armour and cover saves having stated after a wound is allocated and invuln saves using suffer. You can't show something that isn't there and wound allocation isn't there. Every location in the book other than in same saves tell you to allocate the wounds first before saves, the same saves section does not.

As far as model usr's vs unit usr's they wording of the usr's themselves tell you the difference as talos pointed out. Whenever they want a rule to apply to the entire unit they say so by stating "A unit with at least one model with blahblah..... " Swarms does not state this.

deathreaper has in fact said that failing a save is suffering a wound. It's basically all his posts have broken down into, a quote of part of a rule.

I have not made a single assumption.

It tells you to look at pg 16 to see what says the models have.
Then it tell you to take one save versus each wound.
Then it tells you to allocate the unsaved wounds.
Since the model has now suffered an unsaved wound the wound doubles on the model becoming 2.
You compare the S versus T and the model's wounds characteristic is reduced to 0.

The wordage suffer is not used in the wound pool nor in the the same save section on page 15 you are changing it from wounds caused and unsaved wounds caused to wounds suffered and unsaved wounds suffered. I have shown where GW has equated allocation to suffer in four locations now. You are using suffer outside of the parameters set by GW.

Since GW did not indicate that Swarms USR is a unit based SR it must by their own definition be a model based SR.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Odd, I'm not seeing that word allocate anywhere under swarm. It's a nice assumption though.

This section I provided proves 100% that the swarm rule is model based. The only way for a model to suffer a wound is to have the wound allocated to it. So the doubling comes after allocation.

PS This is my final post on this. I believe the majority has understood how to play the rule correctly.

copper.talos wrote:
The only way for a model to suffer a wound is to have the wound allocated to it.

Again this is not true for models with the same save.

@deathreaper Do you see that the section you are quoting has allocation before the save that you are talking about?

Gravmyr wrote:
@deathreaper Do you see that the section you are quoting has allocation before the save that you are talking about?

Right so one of two things happens Either:

We can not take saves first as they have not been allocated.
Or
We must take saves first and the full rules apply. (This includes creating unsaved wounds)

The rules tell us it is the second one.

SO LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.

1 lonely tac flamer guy walkes up to 10 canoptic scarabs. Lays out a template covers 4 bases.

I roll to wound get 4 wounds, If my opponent has a save he could take he would roll for all of the scarabs at once since they are fought as a group and all have the same save. Alas he can't make a save and is wounded 4 times multiplied by 2 for a grand total of 8 wound due to the swarm rule, which in fact are double tough insta kill wounds.

He would then allocate the unsaved wounds per rullebook page 15.
And according to the new FAq would remove 4 bases only.

Seems pretty simple to me....

Exactly but as I have shown that GW has equated suffering with allocation you cannot suffer an unsaved wound till:

A. an a wound has been allocated and save failed
B. an unsaved wound is allocated

All you have done up to allocation is caused not suffered. In same saves it actually tells you the unsaved wound shave been caused it does not use the wording suffered that is derived from a singular source.

The wounds have still been suffered as per P.16 and the armor save rules.

Only if allocated.

Gravmyr wrote:
Only if allocated.

So We can not take saves first as they have not been allocated? P. 15 disagrees.

No you cannot have a suffered wound without allocation. You keep quoting half of the info on pg 16 which is if a model is allocated a wound and fails it's save the wound is suffered. To say that the wound is suffered without allocation is to ignore the text that sets up taking the save. It's the allocation the allows the use of the suffer text. If you look at page 15 under same save they do not use suffer they use cause.