Swarm template instant deaths

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**

Gravmyr wrote:

deathreaper can you answer my questions?
In the case of Perils why would they even list that you do not get a to take a save if suffered means that a save has been failed?

Perils does not allow any save at all, therefore it is not the same as the Swarms Rule.

In the case of Dangerous terrain tests you get to take a save after failing it, how if suffered means failing a save?

DT tests are per model not per unit, not sure what you are getting at with this one.

In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions only counting the wounds suffered by the character not the unsaved wounds in the pool. How can this be as all the unsaved wounds would be suffered by your definition?

A unit with a character is a mixed save unit, and has no bearing on same save units.

**copper.talos**

DeathReaper wrote:
Gravmyr wrote:

In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions only counting the wounds suffered by the character not the unsaved wounds in the pool. How can this be as all the unsaved wounds would be suffered by your definition?

A unit with a character is a mixed save unit, and has no bearing on same save units.

Wrong. A challenge can be issued even when a character fights alone in CC (not joined in a unit). So it is not a "mixed save unit", which means the FAQ that proves wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated is valid for mixed and same save units.

**DeathReaper**

The unit the character is in, is still a mixed save unit.

Challenges have their own rules, I am not sure what you are getting at.

Wounds in the wound pool are suffered after saves are rolled, which is before allocation for same save units (P. 16 confirms this).

**copper.talos**

If Mephiston is in a challenge, is he a mixed save unit by himself?! Ofcourse not. So the FAQ stands for mixed and same save units

**Abandon**

easysauce wrote:
well i guess if you ignore normal saves rule as just a convention,

except its not

mixed saves has stipulations on when it can be used , as it can ONLY be used in units with mixed saves,

its not just a section of rules to be ignored,

I think this one is unclear enough that neither side can really be blamed for either interpretation,

needs a FAQ for sure, and it will be,

so well have to see what GW says, till then ask TO's and opponents

for what its worth here are the last two edition's wording of the swarms/vunerable to blast, where it was FAQ'ed to say "yes ID and swarms do stack, take off two models"

just to shed light on GW's wording, and how these RAI, and how they are also written alsmot identically.

so 40k 4th edition where ID and "vunerable to blast" rule for swarms stacked (at this time there was no UsR for swarms, swarms were a type of unit)

pg 76
vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"

40k 5th edition, also where they stack

"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."

6th edition
"If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds."

4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID

in 6th,
no mention of unit or model, and no not all UsR's mean model level,
sould blaze for instance goes off when the "unit suffers on or more unsaved wounds"

every other UsR specifies model or unit,

Swarm just says Swarms, like the rules makers are referring to a unit type Swarms still like the prev two editions had.

so lets stop talking RAW, since its unclear, and I dont think either side really has a "slam dunk" on this one

what do you think the RAI is?

But there is no unit type 'swarm'. There are just models with the swarm SR. So it looks to me like they do specify it as a model since that is what a swarm is and as such I believe it is both RAW and RAI.

Every special rule in the BrB that hs an effect on the rest of the unit states it in the rule. Soulblaze is an attack that has an effect on the target unit and says as much. Hit and Run, Out flank, Acute Senses, etc. all say something to the effect of "any unit that contains at least one model with this special rule"... (X effect, ability, etc.)

Since no unit type natively is or has 'Swarm' and since the SR does not state any effect on the unit as a whole, you have no permission to apply it's effect to any other part of the unit other than the specific model with the Swarm SR that suffered the unsaved wound.

What order you do your saves in does not matter for this, the unit can take wounds or unsaved wounds(in the pool) and you still have no permission to apply this rule... until you allocate one to a model with it.

**DeathReaper**

copper.talos wrote:
If Mephiston is in a challenge, is he a mixed save unit by himself?! Ofcourse not. So the FAQ stands for mixed and same save units

Right, and he rolls saves before allocation, and suffers wounds before allocation.

**copper.talos**

Why are you so eager to change the subject?! We were discussing about the FAQ:

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.

You tried to argue that this faq is not about same save units, but I have just proved that this FAQ is valid for mixed save and same save units. So it is clear that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated.

**DeathReaper**

1) I did not see that FaQ til just now, I was not responding to it in my previous posts.

2) A model can only suffer as many wounds as he has, any extras are lost.

**Happyjew**

Deleted.

**Gravmyr**

DeathReaper: You still missed the points entirely. All of the occurrences I listed above use the suffer terminology. In the case of any of them by using the word suffer it would imply that they have failed a save by your logic. That is your claim is it not, that wounds are suffered after failed saves? If that is the case then you could never take a save versus perils nor DT. As for the character question the FAQ specifically says that the unsaved wounds in the pool have not been suffered.

That use of the term suffers, in regards to models, only happens in specific instances which is when a model has a wound allocated to it or has a wound forced onto it, such as ways I have listed. The only section you have been able to quote to state other wise is a single section that includes both an allocation and a save. Since both of those things are present there is no way to draw a clear answer from it. Please find a single other instance of the use of suffer in conjunction with failing a save.

If you follow through with the logic that a wound has to be allocated/forced on a model to be suffered then the wording of Invulnerable saves makes perfect sense. As does the FAQ about characters. The changes to FNP makes more sense. The perils wording as well as DT tests also makes sense. You can never take an invulnerable save. If you use that failing a save causes a wound to be suffered then none of the instances listed make any sense.

Yet again the Swarms USR is model based as indicated by the rule not indicating it applies to the entire unit. All USRs are model based per the USR overview. Since the model has not suffered a wound even after a unit it is in has failed a save via the same save method then there is no way to double the wounds in the wound pool. They must be doubled at the model level.

**DeathReaper**

Gravmyr wrote:
DeathReaper: You still missed the points entirely. All of the occurrences I listed above use the suffer terminology. In the case of any of them by using the word suffer it would imply that they have failed a save by your logic. That is your claim is it not, that wounds are suffered after failed saves?

Actually the rules say that.

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

**Gravmyr**

Again and again and again after you have allocated a wound so please find a section that states it without an allocation first.

**DeathReaper**

Gravmyr wrote:
Again and again and again after you have allocated a wound so please find a section that states it without an allocation first.

Page 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. Make a note of how many unsaved Wounds have been caused."

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

**easysauce**

copper.talos wrote:
Why are you so eager to change the subject?! We were discussing about the FAQ:

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.

You tried to argue that this faq is not about same save units, but I have just proved that this FAQ is valid for mixed save and same save units. So it is clear that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated.

this FAQ is not about saves,

the two challengees are considered only to be in base to base, hence why the excess wounds dissapear and are not suffered by the squad, hence not counting towards assault results.

very different from a scenario where wounds have been caused and there ARE eligible models to suffer them

**Gravmyr**

Neither of those quotes state anything about failing a save causing a wound to be suffered. Find me a quote in a section that uses suffer after a failed save that does not include an allocation first. It doesn't exist.

You are also assuming the book is telling to go to page 16 to learn how to take a save not to determine what the save are. See where it says "if it has one (see page 16)" this does not tell you to follow the rules there to take a save iot is telling you to go there to determine the unit's save. if it was to follow the rules presented there it would have said "the target unit gets to make one saving throw (see page 16)," See the difference?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
We are pointing out the use of the term suffered which is what seems to be confusing you easysauce. The FAQ about challenges refers to the wounds in the pool differently then those that have been suffered. See what we are pointing out?

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:

Actually the rules say that.

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

Agreed, if a model fails it's armor save it's wearer suffers a wound.

Of course for this to happen the wound needs to be allocated to it, which it was in your in this instance prior to your quote. So if this model was a swarm and the wound came from a blast weapon it would take two wounds.

**DeathReaper**

Gravmyr wrote:
Neither of those quotes state anything about failing a save causing a wound to be suffered. Find me a quote in a section that uses suffer after a failed save that does not include an allocation first. It doesn't exist.

Page 16 clarifies that a failed armor save = a suffered wound.

Page 15 clarifies that you take armor saves on same save units before allocation.

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
Gravmyr wrote:
Neither of those quotes state anything about failing a save causing a wound to be suffered. Find me a quote in a section that uses suffer after a failed save that does not include an allocation first. It doesn't exist.

Page 16 clarifies that a failed armor save = a suffered wound.

Page 15 clarifies that you take armor saves on same save units before allocation.

Here is your page 16 quote:

"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.
. If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's
Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped.
. If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

As you can see this wound has been allocated already.

Edit: Find an un-allocated wound that a model can suffer from a blast weapon.

**DeathReaper**

And Page 15 tells you to take an armor save (See page 16 for armor saves) and this is clearly before allocation.

Therefore you must use Page 16 even though the wound has not been allocated.

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
And Page 15 tells you to take an armor save (See page 16 for armor saves) and this is clearly before allocation.

Therefore you must use Page 16 even though the wound has not been allocated.

Page 16 says the model takes a wound after it's been allocated and the save is failed.

**DeathReaper**

Page 15 is more specific, as it only deals with one situation where models need to take armor saves.

**rigeld2**

DeathReaper wrote:
Page 15 is more specific, as it only deals with one situation where models need to take armor saves.

That's. a. Lie.

The same save method on page 15 is literally just a method to speed up dice rolling. The paragraph at the top of the page, the rules on page 12, and the rules on page 16 all say that saves come before allocation.

Fast rolling does not mean the rules change.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

easysauce wrote:
just to shed light on GW's wording, and how these RAI, and how they are also written alsmot identically.

Identically? Are you insane?

so 40k 4th edition where ID and "vunerable to blast" rule for swarms stacked (at this time there was no UsR for swarms, swarms were a type of unit)

pg 76
vulnerable to blasts" some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If the unit is a non-vehicle, each unsaved wound counts as two wounds rather then one"

Some units are vulnerable. Are units and models the same thing? And also - what was the method of wound allocation in 4th? Was it identical to 6th? (I know the answer).

40k 5th edition, also where they stack

"some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. if the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."

Again, some units are vulnerable. And again, the wound allocation method is drastically different.

4th and 5th both had the special rule on the model, yet the effect was that two bases were taken off for each wound since it was then doubled and had ID

I literally can't believe you could quote the rules as accurately as you have and still type that with a straight face. In 4th and 5th they were not model based rules. At all. Not even close. And the wound allocation methods were not even remotely similar to how it works now.

in 6th,
no mention of unit or model, and no not all UsR's mean model level,
sould blaze for instance goes off when the "unit suffers on or more unsaved wounds"

Do units have special rules, or do models? Some weapons do, yes.

every other UsR specifies model or unit,

Swarm just says Swarms, like the rules makers are referring to a unit type Swarms still like the prev two editions had.

So an IC joins a Swarm unit. That means he suffers from double wounds as well according to you.

so lets stop talking RAW, since its unclear, and I dont think either side really has a "slam dunk" on this one

Translation, "I've been proven wrong repeatedly and refuse to admit it."

what do you think the RAI is?

I think it's a purposeful change in a new edition of the rules that some people refuse to accept because they're blinded by how it used to work.

**Abandon**

it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until wounds are allocated.

**DeathReaper**

Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until ~~wounds are allocated~~ there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

**Abandon**

So which model was wounded by the blast?

**rigeld2**

DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until ~~wounds are allocated~~ there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

Your fix is incorrect, as I've pointed out. Repeatedly.

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until ~~wounds are allocated~~ there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

That's not right. According to your logic here failing a save is the only way a model can take a wound. This would make models that don't get saves immortal.

**DeathReaper**

rigeld2 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until ~~wounds are allocated~~ there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

Your fix is incorrect, as I've pointed out. Repeatedly.

The rules I have repeatedly quoted support my argument.

Abandon wrote:
So which model was wounded by the blast?

The closest one, just like all other shooting.

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
it hardly matters anyway. At no time is there a model with the swarm rule that you can say has suffered a wound until ~~wounds are allocated~~ there is a failed save.

FTFY with the Orange.

Your fix is incorrect, as I've pointed out. Repeatedly.

The rules I have repeatedly quoted support my argument.

Abandon wrote:
So which model was wounded by the blast?

The closest one, just like all other shooting.

Your only permitted to pick the closest one when you allocate a wounds, just like all the other shooting attacks. Without that process you are not permitted to treat any model as though it was wounded.

I'll make it simple:

"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.
. If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's
Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped.
. If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

This^^ cannot be done unless the wounds have been allocated already, it's right in there, plain as day.

By your interpretation, this this the always the exact process for making armor saves and the 'same save' method of doing the armor saves before allocation is not just a time saver, it's the proper way... That would mean that 'same save' units would not get to make armor saves at all because wounds have not yet been allocated when that step comes around.

Well that can't be right so you must be looking at it the wrong way.

**DeathReaper**

Abandon wrote:
I'll make it simple:

"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.
. If the dice result is equal to or higher than the model's
Armour Save characteristic, the Wound is stopped.
. If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

This^^ cannot be done unless the wounds have been allocated already, it's right in there, plain as day.

Then you can never roll for armor saves on a same save unit. That breaks the game and can not be the correct interpretation.