Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Really? So your answers "A unit with a character is a mixed save unit, and has no bearing on same save units." and then "The unit the character is in, is still a mixed save unit." was referring to what exactly if not that FAQ? You can't admit that you were wrong even in that?


And then you say that a model can only suffer as many wounds as he has. Yet you advocate that the wounds have been suffered before they are allocated to a model. Don't you see that you contradict yourself? The FAQ says that any excess wounds that have not been suffered by a model are lost and therefore don't count for assault results. You (erroneously) think that the wounds are suffered while still in the wound pool. If the wounds are suffered in the wound pool, then there cannot ever be any excess wounds, so that FAQ wouldn't make sense.

On the other hand, as everybody else is saying, if the wounds are suffered after being allocated to a model, then after removing the last wound of the model it becomes a casualty. And therefore any wounds left in the wound pool are never suffered and so they don't count towards assault result, and the FAQ makes sense.

Your way invalidates a GW faq, everybody else's way works fine with that faq.

easysauce wrote:
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?

RAI I believe it's that only 1 base dies.
In 4th and 5th it was pretty clear, but all of the sudden in 6th they had to change everything.
That's for a reason.
And that reason is that they didn't want it to work like that.

Another reason why it should work like this:

5 out of 10 models under a large blast, 2+ to wound.
Let's say all hits are wounds.
Would you now remove all 10 models? That seems so silly

 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.

The rules you have repeatedly quoting are fast rolling. They speed up the game. They do not change the underlying methodology.

 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.

Note to self, take more Spore Mines. As they do not have an armour save, they can never take a save and thus can never fail a save. Since they never failed a save they can never suffer a wound.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

The rules you have repeatedly quoting are fast rolling. They speed up the game. They do not change the underlying methodology.

Glad you came over to the remove 2x the bases side.

Like you said the underlying methodology for same saves doesn't change:
Every model in the unit (with swarm) is allocated wounds to be saved.
Every model in the unit (with swarm) takes their saves.
Every model in the unit (with swarm) that failed their save is now suffering unsaved wounds.
swarm says, double them up.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

The rules you have repeatedly quoting are fast rolling. They speed up the game. They do not change the underlying methodology.

Glad you came over to the remove 2x the bases side.

Like you said the underlying methodology for same saves doesn't change:
Every model in the unit (with swarm) is allocated wounds to be saved.
Every model in the unit (with swarm) takes their saves.
Every model in the unit (with swarm) that failed their save is now suffering unsaved wounds.
swarm says, double them up.

So... You've allocated wounds, made saves, and removed the IDed models.
The models that suffered wounds were removed - there're no wounds to double.
Your interpretation of my statement is incorrect - I haven't changed sides. Everything I've said is entirely consistent.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

The rules you have repeatedly quoting are fast rolling. They speed up the game. They do not change the underlying methodology.

Glad you came over to the remove 2x the bases side.

Like you said the underlying methodology for same saves doesn't change:
Every model in the unit (with swarm) is allocated wounds to be saved.
Every model in the unit (with swarm) takes their saves.
Every model in the unit (with swarm) that failed their save is now suffering unsaved wounds.
swarm says, double them up.

So... You've allocated wounds, made saves, and removed the IDed models.
The models that suffered wounds were removed - there're no wounds to double.
Your interpretation of my statement is incorrect - I haven't changed sides. Everything I've said is entirely consistent.

the unsaved wounds are still in the pool for same save methods, once you have unsaved wounds, they double. And since, like you said, the methodology stays the same, that means models with swarm were allocated wounds, failed saves, and are now waiting for those unsaved wounds to be allocated.

Why are you doubling wounds prior to allocation?
If you're doubling the wounds post allocation, why are you saying the new wounds are now in the wound pool? They're doubled after the wound is on a model (the one the wound was allocated to).

This is literally what I've been saying for the past however many pages.

@sirlynchmob
Wrong, wrong, wrong., and wrong again. The wounds get doubled when, and only when a swarm model suffers the wound. Wounds in the wound pool are not considered as suffered. This is valid for same save or mixed save units. Gravmyr has posted a FAQ that makes it clear that wounds in the wound pool are suffered after they are being allocated, which is only reasonable...

rigeld2 wrote:
Why are you doubling wounds prior to allocation?
If you're doubling the wounds post allocation, why are you saying the new wounds are now in the wound pool? They're doubled after the wound is on a model (the one the wound was allocated to).

This is literally what I've been saying for the past however many pages.

And I agree with the methodology stays the same, I said as much on one of these pages.

They've been allocated so the models in the unit can take their saves. As you say the methodology doesn't change.

Now that those models failed saves as a unit, the pool is made up of unsaved wounds suffered by models with swarm.

double them up.

allocate unsaved wounds to remove wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
@sirlynchmob
Wrong, wrong, wrong., and wrong again. The wounds get doubled when, and only when a swarm model suffers the wound. Wounds in the wound pool are not considered as suffered. This is valid for same save or mixed save units. Gravmyr has posted a FAQ that makes it clear that wounds in the wound pool are suffered after they are being allocated, which is only reasonable...

And he also made it clear that same save units can never take a invuln save. Which means he may have a point in his logic somewhere, but he's not entirely correct.

And that FAQ addresses a one model vs one model situation for combat resolution. Which is entirely different from this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But on a different, not enough coffee yet thought.

If the target unit gets to makes one save for each wound.
a unit of 10 with 6 wounds in the pool would get to make 60 saves right?

This whole issue came up because some people have the erroneous notion that wounds are suffered while still in the wound pool. The way models suffer wounds is part of the general rules and either they are valid for all cases or none. So once again that FAQ proves that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated. End of story...

copper.talos wrote:
This whole issue came up because some people have the erroneous notion that wounds are suffered while still in the wound pool. The way models suffer wounds is part of the general rules and either they are valid for all cases or none. So once again that FAQ proves that wounds in the wound pool are not suffered until allocated. End of story...

Which denies invuln saves to the unit. Back to the drawing board with you.

Don't go there, cause if what you are saying is true then a model with no armor save can never die. So maybe it's you who should go back to the drawing board...
The fact is that you just can't accept the simple truth, that wounds are suffered only after they are allocated. Rules say so, FAQ says so, common logic says so. Tbh I am glad it's only 2-3 people that think different in dakka. I am used to worse.

In short, it's that simple: 4E/5E the rule was unit based and so the unit suffered 2 wounds instead of 1. In 6E the rule is model based so the model suffers 2 wounds instead of 1. End of story.

copper.talos wrote:
Don't go there, cause if what you are saying is true then a model with no armor save can never die. So maybe it's you who should go back to the drawing board...
The fact is that you just can't accept the simple truth, that wounds are suffered only after they are allocated. Rules say so, FAQ says so, common logic says so. Tbh I am glad it's only 2-3 people that think different in dakka. I am used to worse.

In short, it's that simple: 4E/5E the rule was unit based and so the unit suffered 2 wounds instead of 1. In 6E the rule is model based so the model suffers 2 wounds instead of 1. End of story.

Don't straw man me, my methodology allows for invuln saves, and can accept the part of the phrase "if it has one" to mean if it don't those wounds are unsaved. did you save the wounds? no? therefore they are unsaved right?

This whole suffered=allocated is totally unsupported by any rule. They are two different things.

copper.talos wrote:
Don't go there, cause if what you are saying is true then a model with no armor save can never die.

stop, thats false

100% false,

BRB says you get to make a save, if you have one


models without saves are not invulnerable even in your "hypothetical the rules blow up because ID and swams stack" situation


stacking ID and swarms breaks no rules, it just means swarms have very good counters (like most units) since more models die

not stacking them leads to broken core rules,
such as models being used to soak up extra wounds that they cannot soak up,
all kinds of "schrodingers" type theories about wounds being at the same time allocated and not allocated ect

The book is full of such minor issues, ie only weapons can roll for penetration against vehicles. So what? Everybody uses their common sense and allows non weapon abilities to roll for penetration against vehicles. You on the other hand propose something that changes how all wounds in the game are resolved, and to do that you disregard FAQ, rules and common sense. And all this because of a minor issue in the wording of the inv saves...
Yeah, very convincing, but I think I'll stick to the FAQ, rules and common sense...

copper.talos wrote:
The book is full of such minor issues, ie only weapons can roll for penetration against vehicles. So what? Everybody uses their common sense and allows non weapon abilities to roll for penetration against vehicles. You on the other hand propose something that changes how all wounds in the game are resolved, and to do that you disregard FAQ, rules and common sense. And all this because of a minor issue in the wording of the inv saves...
Yeah, very convincing, but I think I'll stick to the FAQ, rules and common sense...

Just because you agree RAW is flawed, doesn't make your interpretation the common sense way to play.
RAI based on the last 2 editions and very similar wording of the swarm rules would indicate remove 2x the bases.

name one other UsR that refers to itself as the model or unit?

we have no FnP models, we have models with feel no pain, and that rule refers to "a model with feel no pain:"

it doesnt say "when a feel no pain suffers an unsved wound"

because FnP isnt a noun in this case,

swarms is "when a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound"

they worded it with the connotation that they were refering to swarms as a type, not a model,

hence why it does not say model, like in every other UsR

All abilities are about models. BRB pg 32 "what special rules do I have" talks about models only
So all rules are about models unless stated otherwise in the wording of a specific rule. And when a rule affects the whole unit, it is carefully worded to give you the way the rule affects the unit ie stealth requires 1 model to have the rule but fleet requires all the models to have that rule.

Furthermore as someone else stated before there is no unit type "swarm". There are only models with the swarm rule.

copper.talos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Really? So your answers "A unit with a character is a mixed save unit, and has no bearing on same save units." and then "The unit the character is in, is still a mixed save unit." was referring to what exactly if not that FAQ? You can't admit that you were wrong even in that?

I was responding to this question exactly not the FAQ. I did not even see the FaQ when I responded to the question below.

 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?

the FAQ about says to only count the wounds "suffered" by the character in a challenge,

the excess wounds, that dissapear, are not suffered,

hence why when you double the # of "suffered unsaved wounds"

the excess wounds on the character, were not suffered, had no where to be allocated, and disapeared.

in swarms the extra wounds must be suffered, since the original model is dead, it cannot suffer the swarm wound,

since you are told to suffer the wound, it must then actually be suffered, which means it must reduce a models W, as opposed to ignored/discarded/ect

Show a single line in the book that would make a USR anything but model based. The only line that exists is the one for USRs that specifically states that "A unit with at least one model that has X". Swarms does not have this. If you are stating that swarms usr only applies to swarm types then it never works as there is no swarm type.

I have seen multiple people post that somehow is suffering equates allocation then you can't take Invuln saves. Why? Both Armour saves and cover saves tell you a wound must be allocated. You are the ones trying to straw man. The equating of suffering and allocation is the only way you can ever take a Invuln save in mixed saves. If suffers means failing a save you can never take an invuln save as would would have already taken a save and you can only take a single save versus a wound. The same save section tells you to take the saves without allocation and therefor suffering a wound else there is no way for the unit to take any save. Which makes more sense?

Independent Characters is another USR that does not state whether it applies to a model or unit.

Swarms being hit with template/blast weapons are not soaking up extra wounds that they can't soak up. You start with 5 wounds in the wound pool 5 wounds are allocated from the wound pool. You are the one claiming that the swarms usr adds wounds to the wound pool. It never mentions the wound pool. It never mentions the unit. There is no basis from doubling them at the unit level. Could they have changed it just so in the case of ID you don't wipe out an entire unit with a single flamer but still allow them to take extra wounds when ID is not involved?

Claiming that failing a save is the same as suffering excludes the possibility that you can ever take an invulnerable save. While equating allocation with suffering specifically allows it. There are 5 locations in the BRB and FAQ that equate the two, while there is only one location, which includes an allocation, that states suffer in conjunction with failed saves. The allocation in the instructions explains the use of suffer. If the save passes it is not suffered but saved and therefor ignored but the failed save now the model has suffered an unsaved wound.

easysauce wrote:
the FAQ about says to only count the wounds "suffered" by the character in a challenge,

the excess wounds, that dissapear, are not suffered,

hence why when you double the # of "suffered unsaved wounds"

the excess wounds on the character, were not suffered, had no where to be allocated, and disapeared.

in swarms the extra wounds must be suffered, since the original model is dead, it cannot suffer the swarm wound,

since you are told to suffer the wound, it must then actually be suffered, which means it must reduce a models W, as opposed to ignored/discarded/ect

suffered - past tense. which would be the entire process to include removing wounds from a model. combat resolution happens after all 10 initiative steps have been completed.
suffers present tense. no wounds removed yet. you are currently suffering unsaved wounds (so you can take FNP, and swarm can double) ie, current step.

still two totally different situations.

@DeathReaper "In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions... ". "It" being the FAQ. So you responded offhand to a post without even taking the time to read that FAQ. How nice of you. And now that you read the FAQ, what is your opinion?

@easysauce you jump from 1 subject to another. Let's resolve 1 issue at a time. Do you agree that swarm is a model based rule?

copper.talos wrote:
@DeathReaper "In the case of Challenges it specifically mentions... ". "It" being the FAQ. So you responded offhand to a post without even taking the time to read that FAQ. How nice of you. And now that you read the FAQ, what is your opinion?

@easysauce you jump from 1 subject to another. Let's resolve 1 issue at a time. Do you agree that swarm is a model based rule?

Can I play to?

yes swarm is a model based rule.
but can't we, using common sense and proper english agree that: If every model in a unit has swarm, we can truthfully state, that unit has swarm?

But if we really want to split hairs about unit and model abilities, then if a model grants a unit an ability, when it comes to mixed saves that a different model in the unit wouldn't benefit from a unit ability right?
like stealth, the unit has stealth, the current model being shot at in a mixed unit does not.

You actually propose to use "swarm" like "fleet" but their completely different wording means they are nothing alike. So no we cannot say that if every model in a unit has swarm, then that unit has swarm. That is against common sense since rules affecting model are different from rules affecting whole units for a reason, and BRB makes a clear distinction between them.

copper.talos wrote:
No we cannot say that if every model in a unit has swarm, then that unit has swarm. That is against common sense since rules affecting model are different from rules affecting whole unit for a reason and BRB makes a clear distinction between them.

so then mixed save units don't benefit from stealth or shroud then either?
if the unit get's to roll a save, then it can use stealth/shroud, otherwise:
a model has stealth, which grants it to the unit. the other models in the unit don't have the stealth special rule.
so in a mixed save unit where you roll by model, those other models don't benefit from stealth.

I really wonder how you come up with those posts. Stealth says in its wording that if the unit has 1 model with that rule, then the whole unit has better cover saves. Mixed save/same save units have nothing to do with it. You really should read the BRB better...

copper.talos wrote:
I really wonder how you come up with those posts.

Stealth says in its wording that if the unit has 1 model with that rule, then the whole unit has better cover saves. Mixed save/same save units have nothing to do with it.

yes the unit gets the bonus, not the individual models in the unit.

you keep insisting that model SR and unit SR are two totally different things.

so if model A has stealth, the unit has stealth. Model B in the unit does not have the stealth special rule. so if just model B was being shot he doesn't get stealth. From the situation you are presenting.

if all models in a unit have swarm, but the unit does not have swarm, then logically
if a unit has stealth, and only the model in the unit has the stealth SR, and none of the other models have stealth. For same saves when you roll as a unit could you gain the bonus from stealth, or if you shot at the actual model with stealth. if you shoot at any other model in the unit, they don't get the benefit from stealth. right?

sirlynchmob wrote:

you keep insisting that model SR and unit SR are two totally different things.

Yes I am insisting that there are rules that affect models individually and units as a whole. All rules affect only models (BRB pg 32) unless the description of the rule says differently. So if for whatever reason a rule affects a unit as a whole it must either have a wording similar to stealth or fleet. That is the logic behind USRs in 6E. If you disagree then you should go back and read again pg 32 and how stealth and fleet are worded in comparison to rules that are meant to affect only models.