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.

copper.talos wrote:

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.

I have, have you? you logic and common sense seem to be coming up short.

I would say that if all models have swarm, then the unit has swarm, and inversely if a unit has stealth, then all models in that unit have stealth.

You seem ok with if a unit has stealth, then all models in that unit have stealth, but not the inverse.

so do unit abilities confer onto individual models in the unit? you keep claiming the inverse is untrue. And if you say all models having swarm does not mean the unit has swarm, then inversely you are denying any unit ability to models in the unit when it comes to mixed save units. so models without the ability would lose: Stealth, shroud, FNP, and a few others, even though a different model in the unit is granting them.
,

sirlynchmob wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

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.

I have, have you? you logic and common sense seem to be coming up short.

I would say that if all models have swarm, then the unit has swarm, and inversely if a unit has stealth, then all models in that unit have stealth.

You seem ok with if a unit has stealth, then all models in that unit have stealth, but not the inverse.

so do unit abilities confer onto individual models in the unit? you keep claiming the inverse is untrue. And if you say all models having swarm does not mean the unit has swarm, then inversely you are denying any unit ability to models in the unit when it comes to mixed save units. so models without the ability would lose: Stealth, shroud, FNP, and a few others, even though a different model in the unit is granting them.
,

Except in the case of Stealth not all models have Stealth. They just get the benefits of Stealth.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

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.

I have, have you? you logic and common sense seem to be coming up short.

I would say that if all models have swarm, then the unit has swarm, and inversely if a unit has stealth, then all models in that unit have stealth.

You seem ok with if a unit has stealth, then all models in that unit have stealth, but not the inverse.

so do unit abilities confer onto individual models in the unit? you keep claiming the inverse is untrue. And if you say all models having swarm does not mean the unit has swarm, then inversely you are denying any unit ability to models in the unit when it comes to mixed save units. so models without the ability would lose: Stealth, shroud, FNP, and a few others, even though a different model in the unit is granting them.
,

Except in the case of Stealth not all models have Stealth. They just get the benefits of Stealth.

I agree,
but if CT is correct on how swarm works, then it stealth doesn't work that way.
A unit counts its save as being better, so for the same save method you improve the cover save
the model with stealth gets a 6+
no mention of any other model in the unit, so if you shoot at any other model in the open, they wouldn't get stealth as its a unit ability and not granted to the other models.

How can a USR that affects only the model that has it, make any difference to a USR that affects the whole unit if 1 model has it? You don't make any sense...

copper.talos wrote:
How can a USR that affects only the model that has it, make any difference to a USR that affects the whole unit if 1 model has it? You don't make any sense...

Yes I am insisting that there are rules that affect models individually and units as a whole.

so if a rule affects a unit, how could it affect a single model?

I still can't find any resemblance to the Swarm rule. To indulge you, cover saves can be granted either to whole units ie kustom force field, or to specific models, but in the end it's models that roll them. This has nothing to do to a USR that affects models only.

copper.talos wrote:
I still can't find any resemblance to the Swarm rule. To indulge you, cover saves can be granted either to whole units ie kustom force field, or to specific models, but in the end it's models that roll them. This has nothing to do to a USR that affects models only.

It goes to the heart of this issue, you can't claim that since every model in a unit has an ability, you should ignore that ability when using the same save method.

If you want to separate unit abilities from model abilities, then any ability that affects a unit, only affects the same save method (as they roll as a unit) while having nothing to do with the mixed save method (as they roll by model).

so if a Unit has stealth, just the unit has stealth, and you only roll for saves as a unit during the same save method.

You can't take a Unit ability and apply it to the other models in a unit, as you have no permission to do so strictly speaking.
so if we agree that a unit ability applies to all the models in a unit, then inversely if all models in a unit have an ability, we can say the unit has the ability.
or if A=B, then it should follow that B=A

Is having a cover save an ability?

copper.talos wrote:
Is having a cover save an ability?

That's your take away? I thought we were talking about stealth.

Fine, take FNP then, your unit has FNP, the models don't. Same thing

so if a Unit has FNP, just the unit has FNP, and you only roll for saves as a unit during the same save method.

You can't take a Unit ability and apply it to the other models in a unit, as you have no permission to do so strictly speaking.
so if we agree that a unit ability applies to all the models in a unit, then inversely if all models in a unit have an ability, we can say the unit has the ability.
or if A=B, then it should follow that B=A

Except FNP says its a model based ability... "When a model..."

rigeld2 wrote:
Except FNP says its a model based ability... "When a model..."

but the model does not have that ability, the unit does.

Not even a painboy has the FNP SR, he just grants it to his unit.

If a unit has A, all models in the unit must have A.
That does not mean that if a model in a unit has B, that the unit has B.

If I join a model with FNP to a unit where none of the models do, does the unit have FNP? No.

And it's irrelevant anyway because as has been said repeatedly, a unit does not suffer wounds. Even if you could say a Unit has Swarm it wouldn't change anything.

"If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule..." It seems that the rule itself takes into consideration that a unit can have FNP.

But I am really bored of these cat and mouse games. To the point, you think that if a unit has rule A (that affects only models) then each model has rule A, Cool, I'll go along.

You try to use this the opposite way, that if all models in unit have a rule B (that affects only models) then that unit has rule B (and apparently now rule B affects units). These 2 cases are not necessarily interchangeable. So if you try to prove your point this way you need to provide an example of the 2nd case not the 1st.

And while you are at it, what suffer wounds, models or units? Because in the end, that is what this dispute is all about.

This seems pretty clear to me.

1. Unit consisting of Swarm models is hit by a template weapon and suffers 4 wounds (arbitrary number for arguments sake).

2. Wounds are then allocated starting with the model closest to the firing unit.

3. That model may then take any armor save it is entitled to for the first wound inflicted.

4. For every failed save the model may attempt to make a FnP roll if said model has the FnP special rule.

5. Every failed save is then multiplied by two, the model has now taken two wounds for every one inflicted.

6. Those weapons that have a strength equal to exceeding double the Toughness of the model will inflict instant death.

7. So the model which has suffered two unsaved wounds is also removed via Instant Death after the first of the two wounds is suffered.

8. If the model survives the first wound the second is resolved on the same model, which was closest to the firing unit, until all 4 wounds have been resolved.

9. The largest number of swarm bases an attacker can hope to remove is 4, the same number of wounds inflicted.

Exactly correct. It's a change from previous editions and evidently one many refuse to accept for some unknown reason.

rigeld2 wrote:
If a unit has A, all models in the unit must have A.
That does not mean that if a model in a unit has B, that the unit has B.

If I join a model with FNP to a unit where none of the models do, does the unit have FNP? No.

And it's irrelevant anyway because as has been said repeatedly, a unit does not suffer wounds. Even if you could say a Unit has Swarm it wouldn't change anything.

yes the unit has FNP, But when you get to the splitting hairs of RAW, FNP also talks about "if a unit has ..." and "when a model with..."

so if you save by unit you'd get it, or if you save with mixed saves only the model with it would have it.

Where do you get permission to assign a unit SR to all models in the unit?

Because like you keep pointing out, models have swarm not the unit. so in this case, the Unit has FNP, not the models.

By addressing a unit, everything in that unit must be addressed. This means that by giving a unit FNP all models in the unit must have FNP.

The reverse is not guaranteed to be true.

Edit: And again, its irrelevant. Pretend the unit has Swarm. Can a unit ever suffer wounds?

It's actually fairly easy to look at. If a family, read unit, is given money then all members, read models, are getting money. Now just because all members, read models, are getting money does not mean the family, read unit, is getting money. A rule that governs all members, such as stealth, is different from one the all members have. Stealth specifically states all cover saves of the unit and therefor all cover saves of the models that are part of the unit. The Swarms rule says nothing about the unit so therefor can only be triggered by things that are affecting the model that has it. For further proof of this fact you cannot take FNP rolls at the same save level and they even called it out so you can't even use that method in units with FNP models. They did the same with characters due to a logical fallacy with LoS and wound allocation. If they FAQ it I would expect to see a similar resolution with mixed saves being forced.

As a further example look at family last names. If Grampa Ralph of the Smith family dies and leaves money to members born into the Smith family then Harriet Johnson who married Joe Smith would not get money as she married into the Smith family. In the above being born into the Smith family is a unit but only the member born into the Smith family has swarms. Now assuming aunt Harriet had died before Grampa Ralph then is the family getting the money or is it the members? The only way to tell is to look at the members individually as having the name, being in the unit, is not the same as being born into the family, having Swarms USR. Second example. If Grampa Ralph gives money to be split a certain way between all members of the Smith family each year then Harriet would get money. In this case the Smith family is the unit while the money is stealth. Here Harriet gets stealth even though she is not a born member of the Smiths.

rigeld2 wrote:
By addressing a unit, everything in that unit must be addressed. This means that by giving a unit FNP all models in the unit must have FNP.

The reverse is not guaranteed to be true.

Edit: And again, its irrelevant. Pretend the unit has Swarm. Can a unit ever suffer wounds?

Citation please.
This is also where you're denying invuln saves to same save units.

so I still say, suffer is the process (my presupposition). yes, your unit suffers wounds once they're in the pool, you take saves (including invulns), you now suffer unsaved wounds, once the wound is removed from a model you have suffered a wound.

the worse thing this creates in a mixed save unit, is what to do with the newly created unsaved wound when they double. It could be 1 of 3 things,
A) once you allocate to a model with swarm it doubles, leaving the doubled wound in the pool. or it causes a new wound which would go into the pool. Its not putting a wound back into the pool as the wound didn't exist until it was caused by the doubling.
B) you allocate to a model, it doubles, and the newly caused wound either gets assigned to a new model.
C) you allocate to a model, it doubles, and the newly caused wound just goes poof.

which IMO is no where near as bad as creating a method caused from your presupposition (you need to allocate to suffer) that denies an entire save catagory to a same save unit. Nor does it lead to a method where you can make a case for unit rules not applying to models.

Because of option C, I'll admit RAW its unclear, so we go with RAI, and based on the last 2 editions and the remarkable similar wording of the rules, I'd be willing to bet once FAQ'd you'll still lose 2 bases. Then when 7th comes around and it remains unclear we can go through it all over again

Again I ask how the view that suffer=allocation denies invuln saves when both armour saves and cover saves state the model must be allocated a wound?

 Gravmyr wrote:
Again I ask how the view that suffer=allocation denies invuln saves when both armour saves and cover saves state the model must be allocated a wound?

invuln states "taken when the model suffers a wound"

You don't allocate in a same save unit til after wounds are suffered, thus skipping the use of invuln saves.

Then you would be skipping it for armour saves and cover saves as well, would you not, as it does in fact say to a model that is allocated a wound for both of them. Yet you are not advocating skipping them are you?

How can you advocate that units suffer wounds and still expect us to take you seriously? Of course I can be totally wrong if you can show me the wound characteristic of a 10 man tactical squad. So where is that wound characteristic?

And again invu's are a minor technicality. What you propose goes against rules, faqs and now apparently creates wound characteristics for units. Every time it gets worse and worse...

 Gravmyr wrote:
Then you would be skipping it for armour saves and cover saves as well, would you not, as it does in fact say to a model that is allocated a wound for both of them. Yet you are not advocating skipping them are you?

it's been agreed on many times through out these pages already.

for armor you allocate a wound, then save, then suffer a wound pg 15 allows for armor saves & cover by giving permission to take a save for wounds being resolved.
so if you need to allocate to suffer, you can't allocate a wound suffered to a model to take an invuln save. You don't allocate for same saves, til after the wounds are unsaved. invuln specifically only works against suffered wounds.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
How can you advocate that units suffer wounds and still expect us to take you seriously? Of course I can be totally wrong if you can show me the wound characteristic of a 10 man tactical squad. So where is that wound characteristic?.

welcome to my side, how do you determine what save a unit has unless you look at all the models in the unit, to figure out the save they have and see what special rules they have that might come into play. so if you look at a unit with all swarm models to see what save they have available, and they all fail their saves, those swarm models now have unsaved wounds in the pool to be doubled right?

Saves are not abilities! Quit confusing these 2 things!

Some abilities may modify saves, but that is not a reason to make USRs follow save's rules, or saves to follow USRs' rules.

First off as has been pointed out again and again and again same saves tells you to take a save if it has one. Since it does not limit it to just armour saves or cover saves we have to assume that invulnerable saves are included. Exactly what takes out invulnerable saves from the list. Nothing on page 15 changes the wording of either armour saves nor cover saves. Secondly the opposite is true, if a model suffers a wound only by failing a save then you can never take them correct? DT tests also uses suffer and yet armour saves are allowed, are they not, where the wound was not allocated. On the other hand if you equate suffer and allocation then there is no issue is there?

 Gravmyr wrote:
First off as has been pointed out again and again and again same saves tells you to take a save if it has one. Since it does not limit it to just armour saves or cover saves we have to assume that invulnerable saves are included. Exactly what takes out invulnerable saves from the list. Nothing on page 15 changes the wording of either armour saves nor cover saves. Secondly the opposite is true, if a model suffers a wound only by failing a save then you can never take them correct? DT tests also uses suffer and yet armour saves are allowed, are they not, where the wound was not allocated. On the other hand if you equate suffer and allocation then there is no issue is there?

what removes invuln from the list is the assertion you have to allocate to suffer.

DT also goes with my assertion that suffering is the process and allocation has nothing to do with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
Saves are not abilities! Quit confusing these 2 things!

Some abilities may modify saves, but that is not a reason to make USRs follow save's rules, or saves to follow USRs' rules.

I'm not, what is the armor save characteristic for a unit? who's making the saves, the models or the unit?

In what way?

There is a section in the BRB to distinguish units between mixed save and same save units and how should they be handled in specific conditions. Again, there are rules for this. You try to apply rules for saves to a USR. A big NO-NO! And not only that, you still have to invent wound characteristics for units, which is a titanic NO-NO!!!

you two just need to read through these 19 pages, you're questions have already been answered.

and copper, you're the one giving a save characteristic to a unit. again is it the model or the unit making the saves? take your time, go read through the BRB after you've read through these 19 pages.