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.

follow the order of operations: unit takes a hit(from a blast or template weapon), hit causes a wound, save is failed(an unsaved wound), all unsaved wound from blast or template weapons are doubled (*2 wounds); page 43, swarms. Each unsaved wound that is double toughness is an Instant death(page 16)


More Simplified: Template or Blast weapon causes wound, save is failed, Failed save doubles, each total Unsaved wound causes a base's death.

When a swarm model suffers an unsaved wound then, and only then, that wound gets doubled.

So it comes down to this.

A. If a model suffers unsaved wounds before they are allocated to it, then the wounds get doubled in the wound pool.

B. If a model suffers unsaved wounds after they are allocated to it, then that model suffers 2 wounds instead of 1.

My playing group goes with option B, and I think it's the most reasonable.

As snapshot pointed out -

Let's say I have a unit of 10 scarabs in the open. They get hit with a Flamestorm Cannon but it only covers 1 model.
1 Wound in the pool.
1 Wound gets allocated.
1 Wound gets doubled.
Extra Wound goes back into the Wound pool.
Extra Wound gets allocated.
Extra Wound is an unsaved wound caused by a template and therefore gets doubled.
Extra extra Wound goes into the Wound Pool.
Repeat ad infinitum.
1 Wound kills a 10-man squad.

easysauce wrote:
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.

Perhaps you should re-read the Swarm rule. Cause != Suffer. Since you're in favor of doubling prior to allocation, models are suffering wounds prior to allocation in your example.

one assumes its allocated on the initial model,

That's a lie. You've been corrected plenty if times. Please stop repeating it.

rigeld2 wrote:

If a model is allocated a Wound and fails its save, is the wound an unsaved wound?
I'd say, "Yes, by definition."

so "unsaved wounds" are "wounds" just like "venerable dreadnaughts" are "dreadnaughts" now?

Um... No? Not even remotely the same situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
follow the order of operations: unit takes a hit(from a blast or template weapon), hit causes a wound, save is failed(an unsaved wound), all unsaved wound from blast or template weapons are doubled (*2 wounds); page 43, swarms. Each unsaved wound that is double toughness is an Instant death(page 16)


More Simplified: Template or Blast weapon causes wound, save is failed, Failed save doubles, each total Unsaved wound causes a base's death.

Is Swarms a rule for units or Models?
Are you doubling before a model has suffered an unsaved wound?
If so, why are you breaking the rules on page 43?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
As snapshot pointed out -

Let's say I have a unit of 10 scarabs in the open. They get hit with a Flamestorm Cannon but it only covers 1 model.
1 Wound in the pool.
1 Wound gets allocated.
1 Wound gets doubled.
Extra Wound goes back into the Wound pool.
Extra Wound gets allocated.
Extra Wound is an unsaved wound caused by a template and therefore gets doubled.
Extra extra Wound goes into the Wound Pool.
Repeat ad infinitum.
1 Wound kills a 10-man squad.

I think that's incorrect and unsupported by rules.
Wounds with different special rules are grouped differently in the pool. Wounds caused by a B/T have that special rule. Doubled wounds do not.

.... (delete)

Edit - he deleted so I will too :-)

the rules for normals saves tell you to count caused unsaved wounds BEFORE allocation

why this is ignored by people is beyond me,

here is what the BRB says about normal saves (not me, not rigel, the BRB, this is RAW copied and pasted, in order from pg 15)

first off for normal saves, you take saves.

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."

<--- rigel this is where unsaved wounds have been caused, noting how many as well, so we already know we have unsaved wounds x2

it then says next, which means next, as in after unsaved wounds have been caused

pg 15 then says "next, allocate an unsaved wound 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"

but you have two save processes, mixed and regular,

regular is 100% allocated after unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted, this whole argueing that suffered=caused is farcical, just like you argue that inflict=suffered in force weapons vs FnP and were FAQ'd to be wrong

words mean what they mean, they are not synonomous because you say they are

attacking models CAUSED wounds, defending ones suffer them, the english language does have synonyms in it, suffered, caused, and inflicted are not synonyms, and mean different things. They have posesive qualities as well.

so if on one hand, you make arguements that words must be taken at face value, 100% literally, as they come in one thread, while arguing that inflict, suffer, caused, all are the same thing, with no proof that they are

you are also 100% ignoring and lying about the normal saves process, about which there is no vauge RAW

the normal saves process is very clear, saves, unsaved wounds are counted, then you allocate

mixed saves is the only one where swarms gets confusing


mixed saves is a farce aparently, but normal saves RAW is 100% that you allocate after unsaved wounds are caused, weather you like it or not thats what the BRB says on 15


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
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.

Perhaps you should re-read the Swarm rule. Cause != Suffer. Since you're in favor of doubling prior to allocation, models are suffering wounds prior to allocation in your example.

one assumes its allocated on the initial model,

That's a lie. You've been corrected plenty if times. Please stop repeating it.

no it is not, you are lieing saying pg 15 does not say that, it does in fact tell you to ake saves, count unsaved wounds, then allocate them for normal saves process,

I quoted the actual rules from pg 15 that tell you to do this,

pg 15 in the BRB says very clearly that unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted before allocation
you are purposefully ignoring normal saves process,


you are ONLY looking at the MIXED saves process which does not apply to a unit made entirely of the same swarm model.

so stop lying/pretending pg 15 does not have both a normal save process, and a mixed saves process for units with mixed saves

they are NOT the same process, and they are NOT worded the same

So what is the argument against this (background, this is the basic argument that was made to me against ID blasts taking out 2 bases):

XXXXXXXXOX E
Where X are swarm models, O is non swarm model with higher toughness and better save, E is the enemy that fired the blast/template weapon.

If 1 hit is caused:

1) How many wounds does it cause?
2) If the first model fails it's save, how many unsaved wounds?
3) If the Str is high enough to ID the first X model and there are wounds left, who do they apply to?
4) Are they unsaved wounds, or does the next model get to make it's save (always, or only if it's better)?
5) (And another question that has seemed to pop-up in this) If this wound was ID for the first model, is it ID for the next, even if it has higher T?

Here is what I think the answers are:
1) 1 wound, 1 hit causes 1 wound.
2) 2 wounds, Swarm rule doubles each unsaved wound.
3) This is where I got confused and conceded the point. Hence my curiosity.
4) I would assume these would still be unsaved wounds, since you can't save twice. (Note: this makes it really dangerous to take an IC with a swarm group. 2+ save on an IC means nothing if you can template the swarm)
5) No, I think you compare Str to T at the time of removing the W from the profile.

What happens if an independent character is in the swarm unit?

easysauce wrote:
the rules for normals saves tell you to count caused unsaved wounds BEFORE allocation

why this is ignored by people is beyond me,

It's not ignored.
A model has not suffered a wound prior to allocation.

here is what the BRB says about normal saves (not me, not rigel, the BRB, this is RAW copied and pasted, in order from pg 15)

It's rigeld2. Not rigel. I'd appreciate you taking the extra time for those 2 characters.

first off for normal saves, you take saves.

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."

<--- rigel this is where unsaved wounds have been caused, noting how many as well, so we already know we have unsaved wounds x2

So where in that quote does it say wounds are allocated? We know that a model has not suffered a wound in this process until it's been allocated. And the trigger for doubling is a model suffering a wound.

it then says next, which means next, as in after unsaved wounds have been caused

pg 15 then says "next, allocate an unsaved wound 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"

Right - so unsaved wounds are *suffered* after allocation. Which means they aren't in the Wound Pool anymore. Which means they're already on the model. And you're doubling *in the Wound Pool* why?

but you have two save processes, mixed and regular,

regular is 100% allocated after unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted, this whole argueing that suffered=caused is farcical, just like you argue that inflict=suffered in force weapons vs FnP and were FAQ'd to be wrong

Farcical? And that's not even what I'm arguing...
A wound cannot be suffered until after allocation.

attacking models CAUSED wounds, defending ones suffer them, the english language does have synonyms in it, suffered, caused, and inflicted are not synonyms, and mean different things. They have posesive qualities as well.

Pray tell - when does a model suffer wounds?

so if on one hand, you make arguements that words must be taken at face value, 100% literally, as they come in one thread, while arguing that inflict, suffer, caused, all are the same thing, with no proof that they are

Um. I'm not arguing that inflict, suffer, and caused mean the same thing. I'm saying they don't.

you are also 100% ignoring and lying about the normal saves process, about which there is no vauge RAW

Could you quote where I've lied?

the normal saves process is very clear, saves, unsaved wounds are counted, then you allocate

Absolutely correct - I've never, ever, said otherwise.
Now - when does a model suffer a wound? Before or after allocation?

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
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.

Perhaps you should re-read the Swarm rule. Cause != Suffer. Since you're in favor of doubling prior to allocation, models are suffering wounds prior to allocation in your example.

one assumes its allocated on the initial model,

That's a lie. You've been corrected plenty if times. Please stop repeating it.

no it is not, you are lieing saying pg 15 does not say that, it does in fact tell you to ake saves, count unsaved wounds, then allocate them for normal saves process,

I quoted the actual rules from pg 15 that tell you to do this,

pg 15 in the BRB says very clearly that unsaved wounds are CAUSED and counted before allocation
you are purposefully ignoring normal saves process,


you are ONLY looking at the MIXED saves process which does not apply to a unit made entirely of the same swarm model.

so stop lying/pretending pg 15 does not have both a normal save process, and a mixed saves process for units with mixed saves

they are NOT the same process, and they are NOT worded the same

That's not true at all. You're not reading what I'm arguing at all.
You are asserting that wounds are doubled prior to allocation, correct?
How does a model suffer a wound (the trigger for doubling) prior to a wound being allocated?

How about this: You get a wound pool and start making saves. If a swarm model dies to instant death you remove 2 swarm models? If you double them before the wound pool then that messes with independent characters?

 Niiai wrote:
How about this: You get a wound pool and start making saves. If a swarm model dies to instant death you remove 2 swarm models? If you double them before the wound pool then that messes with independent characters?

Are you suggesting that as a "house rule" or as RAW?
As a house rule I understand where you're coming from, but that makes Swarms extremely weak (weaker than they really need to be).
It's absolutely not RAW.

You a tyranid prime warrior (IC) and join in to a swarm and let rip with a S6 blast template. What happens?

Sorry, easy thought you were easycheese didn't check and should have. Secondly if we apply your method to all rules written the same then you would roll FNP while wounds are in the pool as well and it is clear that is not what they want.

we are not ignoring it we are talking about different steps and different wording. Populating the wound pool uses caused while suffered is only used in conjunction with allocation. Why you keep ignoring this is beyond me. I showed multiple places in that they equate. The FAQ now has you allocate first then roll save then roll FNP. The Force USR implies that inflict is something else entirely.

Suffers is different from caused which is the largest problem with any interpretation that claims they are the same. The only locations where suffered is used in the BRB is after allocation. I posted earlier all the locations where it is used and every location that indicates timing is after allocation. Stating that they are the same is the same as ignoring terrain rules cause they stop you from doing things the way you want.

Show a single correlation between caused and suffered. No one can do this. The BRB uses them differently and so must we. If we assume they are the same then we need to assume that removed from play and removed from play as casualty are the same.

You keep claiming that people are lying, I have to assume then that you are lying concerning swarms as it does not use the word cause at all. It has been pointed out multiple times in this thread that they are different so it has to be intentional and I have to then assume that you are trolling.

The rule as written is simply this. Mis-written.. The rules goofs at GW prolly wanted it to double after the wound are calculated, however the wording tells us after the save is failed and its doubled and the model failing takes another wound. There is no permission rules wise or logically. That allows you to put it back in the. Wound pool. Though I myself think the wounds should double right out of the gate, after re-reading it with less haste I'm to the conclusion that Gw Goofed here.

We all are in agreement that's prolly the case.

How i have played it is the wounds double and I remove the bases based on the doubled wound total.
How I play it now... I don't use swarms.....

Lungpickle wrote:
The rule as written is simply this. Mis-written.. The rules goofs at GW prolly wanted it to double after the wound are calculated, however the wording tells us after the save is failed and its doubled and the model failing takes another wound. There is no permission rules wise or logically. That allows you to put it back in the. Wound pool. Though I myself think the wounds should double right out of the gate, after re-reading it with less haste I'm to the conclusion that Gw Goofed here.

We all are in agreement that's prolly the case.

How i have played it is the wounds double and I remove the bases based on the doubled wound total.
How I play it now... I don't use swarms.....

the pool is just caused wounds, and is just used to keep track of the wounds. You don't put the wounds back into the pool, new wounds are created and they go into the pool. This whole "you can't put wounds back into the pool" is just nonsense, because that is not what is happening.

When you double a bunch of unsaved wounds, you are creating a bunch of new unsaved wounds. you are causing new wounds. if you start with 4 unsaved wounds, and double it to 8 unsaved wounds, you have caused 4 more unsaved wounds.

so you'd have the original wounds in a group in the pool, and the duplicated wounds in a different group in the pool.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
and for the suffers = allocate people, please explain how a unit of models with only a invuln save can ever take their invuln saves?

the argument used to say the swarm doesn't remove extra bases from ID, also denies a same save unit with just invuln saves available, from ever taking them. As invul saves can only be taken against a suffered wound.

And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

The rules say you have to allocate to take any save so how are you taking any save Mob?

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

So how does a model suffer a wound? That's the requirement to trigger the doubling. You don't know if its a Swarm model until the wound is allocated, so why are the wounds being doubled prior to allocation?

If allocation is only removing a wound from a model then how can you take an armour or cover save as you only remove wounds from models after allocation and saves?

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

So how does a model suffer a wound? That's the requirement to trigger the doubling. You don't know if its a Swarm model until the wound is allocated, so why are the wounds being doubled prior to allocation?

same saves
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
take saves: its here where you have to accept that all your models with swarm, took and failed saves, (even though they roll them all at once)
You now have unsaved wounds being suffered, and swarm triggers for unsaved wounds.
allocate unsaved wound.

different saves:
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
allocate a suffered wound
take saves
and here is where we also point out that both processes specifically state "reduce that model's wounds by 1" so if your side is right about its way of doing it, then even if you double the unsaved wounds to 2, you'd only remove 1 wound. if it was really the intent to cause 2 wounds to one model wouldn't swarm be worded as such? instead of specifying unsaved wounds, they could have just said "remove 2 wounds instead of 1"

so with that in mind, as a swarm model failed its save, it created a duplicate unsaved wound. as a new wound is caused it waits in the pool to be allocated. yes, then we can argue that mixed saves just allocates wounds. And as unsaved wounds have been caused and are thus in the wound pool, after we allocate all the wounds we see the wound pool is not empty. so we either agree to allocate the unsaved wounds or just freeze the game at this point.

so as RAW is debatable, RAI is clearly double the wounds, and remove 2x the bases from ID. based on this logic and the previous editions FAQ.

so I'll see you in a couple weeks when we can go through this all over again, and we can keep going around in circles til its FAQ'd or hopefully made clear in 7th ed

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And I've agreed - Invul saves are broken RAW. Fortunately it's obvious what is intended for them.

Swarms is less so.

not if you think of suffering as the entire wounding process, and allocating is just removing a wound from a model.

So how does a model suffer a wound? That's the requirement to trigger the doubling. You don't know if its a Swarm model until the wound is allocated, so why are the wounds being doubled prior to allocation?

same saves
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
take saves: its here where you have to accept that all your models with swarm, took and failed saves, (even though they roll them all at once)
You now have unsaved wounds being suffered, and swarm triggers for unsaved wounds.
allocate unsaved wound.

different saves:
when wounds are caused, they are being suffered
allocate a suffered wound
take saves
and here is where we also point out that both processes specifically state "reduce that model's wounds by 1" so if your side is right about its way of doing it, then even if you double the unsaved wounds to 2, you'd only remove 1 wound. if it was really the intent to cause 2 wounds to one model wouldn't swarm be worded as such? instead of specifying unsaved wounds, they could have just said "remove 2 wounds instead of 1"

so with that in mind, as a swarm model failed its save, it created a duplicate unsaved wound. as a new wound is caused it waits in the pool to be allocated. yes, then we can argue that mixed saves just allocates wounds. And as unsaved wounds have been caused and are thus in the wound pool, after we allocate all the wounds we see the wound pool is not empty. so we either agree to allocate the unsaved wounds or just freeze the game at this point.

so as RAW is debatable, RAI is clearly double the wounds, and remove 2x the bases from ID. based on this logic and the previous editions FAQ.

so I'll see you in a couple weeks when we can go through this all over again, and we can keep going around in circles til its FAQ'd or hopefully made clear in 7th ed

Except the reason you removed 2 models in previous editions is because how wounding worked.

Before - allocate 1 wound to each model. Roll saves (if applicable) for each wound group. Since all the models in a given unit with the swarm special rule are identical they get grouped together. Each wound that is not saved doubles to 2 wounds. In the swarm grouping you now have 2X Wounds that are all ID. Each ID Wound removes a base.

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

If wounds caused are the same as wounds suffered why has the FAQ made clear that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered?

Q: If a character is removed from play as a casualty after fighting in a challenge, are any excess unsaved Wounds counted when determining assault results? (p65) A: No - only the wounds actually suffered in the challenge count.

The book also differentiates between them being in the wound pool and having been allocated to a model.

Edit: In 5th the hits were doubled not suffered wounds.

 Happyjew wrote:

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

well for the same save method, if you have wounds in a pool, you're unit fails its saves, do you not put those unsaved wounds into the pool?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

well for the same save method, if you have wounds in a pool, you're unit fails its saves, do you not put those unsaved wounds into the pool?

No they are already in the pool.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Now - you don't suffer a wound until you allocate it. as it is I've yet to see permission to put an unsaved Wound into a Wound pool.

well for the same save method, if you have wounds in a pool, you're unit fails its saves, do you not put those unsaved wounds into the pool?

No they are already in the pool.

Are the unsaved wounds still in the pool after you have taken saves on a same save unit?

@Gravmyr Nice catch!

Wounds in the pool are not yet wounds on the models.

The unit(that has the wound pool associated with it) does not have the Swarm special rule, models within the unit do.

Remember that special rules are on a per model basis, not for whole units. So when a model with the Swarm special rule suffers an unsaved wound caused a blast weapon, the wound it suffers is doubled. A model cannot be said to have suffered an unsaved wound until one is assigned to it.

Remeber also when reading the rule that 'a swarm' is one model, not a whole unit.

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

For same save units you roll saves, and suffer wounds before allocation.

The save comes from the models in the unit as a whole, as they all have the same value.

If one wound is suffered then any one model in the unit could have failed that armor save.

If all of the models have the swarm rule, then that unsaved wound is doubled into 2 unsaved wounds (Because of vulnerable) and then you allocate those two unsaved wounds, one at a time, and find out you need to remove a whole base for the first ID wound, and a whole base for the second ID wound.