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.

I said there are specific rules to distinguish units between same save/mixed save on specific conditions. Can you find similar specific rules to create a wound characteristic for units? Or you are now trying to apply rules for saves to wound characteristics?! I don't know of NO-NO scale big enough for this...

sirlynchmob wrote:
4 ID wounds cause 8 bases to be removed.

We start on pg 14 the wound pool. All wounds caused go here.

pg 15. take saving throws, make a note of how many unsaved wounds have been caused (in the pool)
pg 19. models with moire than one save. (the unit might take the wounds, but saves are model by model)
the unit consisting of models all with the swarm rule take their saves and fail 4. Because its here where you work out what model is making the save. The closest model makes A save based on what saves it has available, ie cover or armor. So the model with swarm has been allocated a wound it now gets to save against. The wounds are still in the pool, and get doubled. in other words a swarm model has been allocated a wounds, then failed its save so its suffered an unsaved wound.

short version: The unit now has 4 unsaved wounds in the pool which get doubled to 8.

Allocate unsaved wounds & remove casualties.

If this is what you are talking about you might want to look at the rules the models are not taking the save like you are stating here. Allocation happens after the saves in the same save method you are allocating the wounds twice I even highlighted this for you. There is no rule telling you to allocate the wounds twice nor to put the wounds back into the pool after allocation.

sirlynchmob wrote:

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.

Citation required for what? And you act like I haven't admitted invul saves are broken RAW.

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.

So you're assuming that suffer is the process without any rules backing just because "it fits". That's interesting.

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.

So your method requires more rules to be made up or issues to be dealt with.

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.

My method has one issue - that invul saves are broken if you fast roll (note that by the actual rules nothing is wrong).

Yeah, yours must be RAW.

and based on the last 2 editions and the remarkable similar wording of the rules

Remarkably similar wording? Are you insane?
What in the wounding process is "remarkably similar"?
What in the Swarms rule is "remarkably similar"?

We covered this on the last page in case you weren't paying attention. They aren't similar.
GW may very well FAQ this to double before allocation. I refuse to assume that.

citiation for this:

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.

rigeld2 wrote:So you're assuming that suffer is the process without any rules backing just because "it fits". That's interesting.

And your assuming you need allocation to suffer without any rules backing it up, while admitting you're not allowing invuln saves. oh but that's just a minor issue, It couldn't possible mean that your whole premise is wrong.

and I love how you cut the part where I said "I'll admit RAW its unclear"
and go with:

rigeld2 wrote: Yeah, yours must be RAW.

4th, 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"
5th, "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, "If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds

/sarcasm ya not similar at all. Now if you could only show RAW how you need to allocate to suffer, or where it says unit abilities transfer to models.

sirlynchmob wrote:
citiation for this:

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.

It's a logical fact. If you address the whole, then everything inside the whole is addressed.
If you address a part of something you cannot guarantee that you've addressed the entirety of that thing.

rigeld2 wrote:So you're assuming that suffer is the process without any rules backing just because "it fits". That's interesting.

And your assuming you need allocation to suffer without any rules backing it up, while admitting you're not allowing invuln saves. oh but that's just a minor issue, It couldn't possible mean that your whole premise is wrong.

Except I've cited rules that support my statement.

and I love how you cut the part where I said "I'll admit RAW its unclear"
and go with:

rigeld2 wrote: Yeah, yours must be RAW.

You said it was unclear after you essentially come off as asserting that it's clear in your opinion. Admitting that it's unclear after saying "Yours cannot be right" doesn't give you any credibility. It looked to me you were saying "I can't find any rules basis for saying your interpretation is wrong so instead of conceding I'll just pretend it's vague."

4th, 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"
5th, "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, "If a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from a blast, large blast, or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds

/sarcasm ya not similar at all. Now if you could only show RAW how you need to allocate to suffer, or where it says unit abilities transfer to models.

I bolded the sections that exists in 4th and 5th but does not exist in 6th. The rule has changed significantly. Pretending they're similar is ... a bad idea in the best of terms.
You also completely ignored the fact that wound allocation is nothing like previous editions. May I ask why you declined to address that?

It's a logical fact eh? Where is that RAW? there you go assuming again. you assume its the unit making the save, not the models. so you are logically creating a dichotomy between model and unit.

rigeld2 wrote Except I've cited rules that support my statement.

isn't that just saying:

rigeld2 wrote you're assuming because "it fits".

rigeld2 wrote You said it was unclear after you essentially come off as asserting that it's clear in your opinion. Admitting that it's unclear after saying "Yours cannot be right" doesn't give you any credibility. It looked to me you were saying "I can't find any rules basis for saying your interpretation is wrong so instead of conceding I'll just pretend it's vague."

If you'd quite cherry picking you'd have seen I started with this:

so I still say, suffer is the process (my presupposition)

definition: 1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.

and this sounds to me like you're projecting your flaws. I never said "Yours cannot be right" I stated my POV on the subject. And yes IMO its clear to me. you've only convinced yourself you need to allocate to suffer, You have no rules to support this and again have failed to show them.

you come off as having some axe to grind in this, especially with statements like:

GW may very well FAQ this to double before allocation. I refuse to assume that.

and the same save method from 6th is very similar to the way saves worked in 5th, just because they changed how models should be removed doesn't mean we should assume that they changed their mind after 2 previous editions on how swarm and ID work together.

also, again, the rules do specifically say models can suffer wounds before allocation,

this happens in normal saves on pg 15, as quoted
first off for normal saves, the process is saves, then allocate wounds

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."

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"

pg 16, bottom left corner, ALSO says you can suffer wounds before allocation, and is a specific example of gameplay where wounds, even in mixed saves, are suffered before allocation.

pg 16 brb

even in units with mixed saves, it is not always necessary to allocate wounds one at a time. You can instead allocatie them in groups equal to however models with the same, best save are nearest to the fireing unit.

For example, a unit of 17 ork boyz (6+save) includes and ork nob (4+save) comes under attack from a unit of imperial guard. They suffer a total of 8 wounds from the massed lasgun fire . Rather then allocate the wounds one at a time..."

the underlined in blue is word for word what the BRB says, yet again, that wounds can be suffered before allocation., they apparently can suffer wound before saves too.

so in both mixed and normal saves we have examples of suffering before allocation.

OK, let me ask you a few questions.

One lone meganob gets assaulted by a tactical squad of 5 space marines(A) and a tactical squad of 2 Space marines (B). Both fail to do any wounds on the meganob. The meganob concentrates his attacks on B and scores 3 wounds against it that cannot be saved (power klaw). How many unsaved wounds are there in the wound pool?

copper.talos wrote:
OK, let me ask you a few questions.

One lone meganob gets assaulted by a tactical squad of 5 space marines(A) and a tactical squad of 2 Space marines (B). Both fail to do any wounds on the meganob. The meganob concentrates his attacks on B and scores 3 wounds against it that cannot be saved (power klaw). How many unsaved wounds are there in the wound pool?

this scenario has 2 different units,

its totally unrelated to swarms,

when you attack one unit in CC, you can only hit that unit, since the nob wounded the 2 man unit 3 times, there are 3 wounds in the wound pool, only two end up being resolved as there are no eligible models to after the first two die, marines lose combat by two since you dont count wounds that were not suffered.

in swarms, there is only one unit, and there ARE eligible models to take the wound, your example is nothing like that.

the only situation where wounds are not counted, or thrown away, is when there are no eligible models left because
they are all dead already,
or they are ineligible due to being in a nother unit, or being outside of a challenge


above I have quoted RAW in both mixed and regular saves where allocation happens after the wounds would be 2x, your example is not written by GW
first off for normal saves, the process is saves, then allocate wounds

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."

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"

pg 16, bottom left corner, ALSO says you can suffer wounds before allocation, and is a specific example of gameplay where wounds, even in mixed saves, are suffered before allocation.

pg 16 brb

even in units with mixed saves, it is not always necessary to allocate wounds one at a time. You can instead allocatie them in groups equal to however models with the same, best save are nearest to the fireing unit.

For example, a unit of 17 ork boyz (6+save) includes and ork nob (4+save) comes under attack from a unit of imperial guard. They suffer a total of 8 wounds from the massed lasgun fire . Rather then allocate the wounds one at a time..."

GW's own example in mixed saves says that the orks have suffered 8 wounds. they then get get to make their save after allocation,

GW's example trumps yours,

and people are still missing that wounds are allocated, saves made, then unsaved wounds allocated.

otherwise only the front model ever dies, because all unsaved wounds are already on the front model.

regular saves

if you have X hits, you roll X # of times to wound, on the units toughness,

you get Y # of wounds. opponent makes Y # of saving throws

he fails Z causing Z # of unsaved wounds.

the unit then suffers Z unsaved wounds,

which are then allocated to the closest model and so on


mixed saves is slightly different
if you have X hits, you roll X # of times to wound, on the units toughness,

you get Y # of wounds. opponent makes a number of saving throws "in groups equal to however many models with the same, best save are nearest to the firing unit" pg 16 bottom left

he then makes that number of saves as specified

he fails Z causing Z # of unsaved wounds.

the unit then suffers Z unsaved wounds,

which are then allocated to the closest model and so on

easysauce wrote:

the only situation where wounds are not counted, or thrown away, is when there are no eligible models left because
they are all dead already,

First of all how wounds are resolved is a general rule, and it's the same for 1 or 2 or 10 units. Ruleswise it makes no difference whatsoever.

And regarding your response how do you know if there are no more eligible models left, before you start removing causalties? Is there a rule that says that although you caused 3 unsaved wounds, that unit should suffer only 2 before you start allocation? I would like a quote and a page number, because everybody else is just removing 1 wound from the wound pool at a time to allocate to models and "Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no rnore wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties" (BRB pg 15). As far as I know that is the only time you get to disregard any wounds in the wound pool, when "the the whole unit has been removed as casualties". So either you come up with a page number that says differently or just admit that the notion of wounds being suffered by models before allocation it's just wrong...

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's a logical fact eh? Where is that RAW? there you go assuming again. you assume its the unit making the save, not the models. so you are logically creating a dichotomy between model and unit.

No, actually, I'm not assuming anything. The rules have proven that models make saves.
And the rules don't have to prove factual logic. It's an understanding of life. Similar to how the BRB doesn't define "one" but we understand it to be singular.

rigeld2 wrote Except I've cited rules that support my statement.

isn't that just saying:

rigeld2 wrote you're assuming because "it fits".

Not at all. Rules supporting my statements mean I'm assuming nothing.

rigeld2 wrote You said it was unclear after you essentially come off as asserting that it's clear in your opinion. Admitting that it's unclear after saying "Yours cannot be right" doesn't give you any credibility. It looked to me you were saying "I can't find any rules basis for saying your interpretation is wrong so instead of conceding I'll just pretend it's vague."

If you'd quite cherry picking you'd have seen I started with this:

so I still say, suffer is the process (my presupposition)

definition: 1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.

and this sounds to me like you're projecting your flaws. I never said "Yours cannot be right" I stated my POV on the subject. And yes IMO its clear to me. you've only convinced yourself you need to allocate to suffer, You have no rules to support this and again have failed to show them.

Pages 12, 15, and 16 prove that allocation must come before making saves. In all cases.
Can a unit suffer a wound? Please cite rules support showing that.
I'm asking you to prove it because you're making the extraordinary claim.

you come off as having some axe to grind in this, especially with statements like:

GW may very well FAQ this to double before allocation. I refuse to assume that.

and the same save method from 6th is very similar to the way saves worked in 5th, just because they changed how models should be removed doesn't mean we should assume that they changed their mind after 2 previous editions on how swarm and ID work together.

If I come off that way it's because this thread has gone on for way too long with people insulting my intelligence, claiming that factual logic has to be proven from the BRB, etc. I may be projecting that frustration and for that I apologize.

copper.talos wrote:

easysauce wrote:

the only situation where wounds are not counted, or thrown away, is when there are no eligible models left because
they are all dead already,

First of all how wounds are resolved is a general rule, and it's the same for 1 or 2 or 10 units. Ruleswise it makes no difference whatsoever.

And regarding your response how do you know if there are no more eligible models left, before you start removing causalties? Is there a rule that says that although you caused 3 unsaved wounds, that unit should suffer only 2 before you start allocation? I would like a quote and a page number, because everybody else is just removing 1 wound from the wound pool at a time to allocate to models and "Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no rnore wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties" (BRB pg 15). As far as I know that is the only time you get to disregard any wounds in the wound pool, when "the the whole unit has been removed as casualties". So either you come up with a page number that says differently or just admit that the notion of wounds being suffered by models, before allocation it's just wrong...

thats not what I said...

all I said was once the unit is dead, the rest of the unsaved wounds are wasted, which is true, I was stating in my words what GW says,

here is what they say
from FAQ

Q: In a multiple combat, if one of the two enemy units is wiped
out, are any excess unsaved Wounds transferred to the second
unit? (p28)
A: No.

so no you cannot put wounds on the other unit, like I said, why you disagree with me, and then almost repeat what I said back to me as if i said something contrary is beyond me, a unit of two dudes who suffers 3 wounds, dies, and only 2 wounds count for combat resolution.
dont tell me thats not true,

Q: In a multiple combat, if one of the two enemy units is wiped
out, are any excess unsaved Wounds counted when determining
assault results? (p28)
A: No.

"Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no more wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties" (BRB pg 15)
that is why you lose two bases,

unsaved wounds are Allocated as well, suffering can and does happen before allocation, not always, but it does in this case, where it is not, it is specified in that rules entry. as I have quoted in the rules. (pg 16 bottom left, the orks suffer the total # of wounds before the are allocated or they make saves, this is in mixed saves example)

the # of unsaved wounds is doubled, and allocated "to the closest model until there are no more wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties" (BRB pg 15)
you break the rule on pg 15 if you allocate wounds to the closest model after they have no mote wounds left
suffered does not mean allocated, and does happen before models are removed.


for challenges
GW FAQ

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

gw allocates wounds in FAQ

Q: When making a Shooting attack against a unit, can Wounds
from the Wound Pool be allocated to models that were not within
range any of the shooting models when To Hit rolls were made (i.e.
half the targeted model are in the shooting models’ range, and half
are not)? (p15)
A: No.

GW allocates unsaved wounds
pg 15 brb

allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. reduce that models wounds by 1. if that model is reduced to 0 wounds remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no more wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties.

Wounds are suffered when they are counted
pg 16 brb

even in units with mixed saves, it is not always necessary to allocate wounds one at a time. You can instead allocatie them in groups equal to however models with the same, best save are nearest to the fireing unit.

For example, a unit of 17 ork boyz (6+save) includes and ork nob (4+save) comes under attack from a unit of imperial guard. They suffer a total of 8 wounds from the massed lasgun fire . Rather then allocate the wounds one at a time..."

\

I have yet to see a people actually link rules that back up what they are saying, in a way that doesn't ignore most of pg 15 and some of pg 16, they are also equating allocation of wounds, as allocation of unsaved wounds, which is false

I have a FAQ behind each one of my statements,

I expect something substantial to justify not allocating unsaved wounds properly,



we have GW counting wounds, allocating wounds, then doing saves, counting unsaved wounds, then allocating unsaved wounds, removing bases when their W reaches 0 (not at -1)
both their examples of game play put the "suffer" stage at the time when wounds, or unsaved wounds, are counted.

the only quotes I see from the side that doesnt want swarms to die, are of other people, not of GW, almost my whole post is from GW
take the fact that you allocate WOUNDS before saves, to mean you dont allocate unsaved wounds,

easysauce wrote:
also, again, the rules do specifically say models can suffer wounds before allocation,

That's a lie, please stop repeating it.

this happens in normal saves on pg 15, as quoted
first off for normal saves, the process is saves, then allocate wounds

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."

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"

Oh look, the fast rolling method. The rules on page 12, 15, and 16 directly contradict your assertion. Continuing to ignore this doesn't make you correct.

pg 16, bottom left corner, ALSO says you can suffer wounds before allocation, and is a specific example of gameplay where wounds, even in mixed saves, are suffered before allocation.

pg 16 brb

even in units with mixed saves, it is not always necessary to allocate wounds one at a time. You can instead allocatie them in groups equal to however models with the same, best save are nearest to the fireing unit.

For example, a unit of 17 ork boyz (6+save) includes and ork nob (4+save) comes under attack from a unit of imperial guard. They suffer a total of 8 wounds from the massed lasgun fire . Rather then allocate the wounds one at a time..."

the underlined in blue is word for word what the BRB says, yet again, that wounds can be suffered before allocation., they apparently can suffer wound before saves too.

so in both mixed and normal saves we have examples of suffering before allocation.

Yeah, because examples are stellar and flawless in GW books.

again, you just put me down, call me a liar, quote no rules to contradict the rules I quoted,

GW does in fact allocate wounds, count them, make saves, count unsaved wounds, then allocated them,

I linked an FAQ for each statement, you linked nothing

easysauce wrote:
again, you just put me down, call me a liar, quote no rules to contradict the rules I quoted,

GW does in fact allocate wounds, count them, make saves, count unsaved wounds, then allocated them,

I linked an FAQ for each statement, you linked nothing

I've cited pages 12, 15, and 16 multiple times. They literally directly contradict your assertions.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
also, again, the rules do specifically say models can suffer wounds before allocation,

That's a lie, please stop repeating it.

Ill stop repeating it when GW takes it out of their rule book

pg 16:

"a unit of 17 ork boyz (6+save) includes and ork nob (4+save) comes under attack from a unit of imperial guard. They suffer a total of 8 wounds from the massed lasgun fire . Rather then allocate the wounds one at a time..."

again, YOUR word vs GW,

pg 16 allocated WOUNDS not UNSAVED wounds, GW allocates both as I have shown with rules quotes rigel2d stop ignoring pg 15, and stop falsely saying pg 16 allocating unsaved wounds, it only allocated Wounds

you cannot have actual written rules in the book quoted, and they just say to ignore them because, well, you think its just a non rule rule, its just fluff, in the book for no reason whatsoever.

why would an example of how to play, be an example of how to play right? Its easy enough to copy and paste the quotes, why bother to post without it? you quotes are ALWAYS on the last post or page, your proof is always somewhere else

Much of the confusion here is centered around the term 'suffers a wound' so I will attempt to address it before moving on further.

It seems to get used quite vaguely and not so specific as some seem to think.

It is used before saves are made:
"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because
they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a
Wound"

"To take a Dangerous Terrain test, roll a D6. On a result of a
1, that model suffers a wound. the model may take an armour
or invulnerable save, but not a cover save, against this wound."

After saves are made:
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

Before allocation:
"the target unit suffers a number of
wounds equal to the result" PSYCHIC SHRIEK, pg 423

After allocation:
"compare the results to the
Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the wound...the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

It stands to reason therefore that it is a general term, not a specific one. It can be used any time anything is taking a wound in any capacity. In that light, a unit can be said to have 'suffered wounds' immediately after the roll to wound is made and any successes are counted. 'Suffering unsaved wounds' by it's very wording indicates wounds left after any available saves have been made but still does not specify allocation and as such can still be either before or after.

It would only make sense then, as units have no wound attribute, that when units 'suffer wounds' they go into the pool to be divided among its models.
"Finally, total up the number of wounds you have caused.
Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a pool" pg 14

In a same save scenario you can then cancel the wounds directly out of the pool
"For now, we're going to assume that all the
models in the target unit have the same saving throw ...
unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has
one (see page l5), for each wound being resolved. Make a note
of how many unsaved -wounds have been caused"

Bear in mind the unit has, at this point, 'suffered unsaved wounds' but models have not as they are still in the pool and no permission has yet been given to assign them.
Next step is to Allocate Unsaved Wounds
"Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to
the firing unit..."

This^^ is IMO the proper view of the term. It follows all the rules, leave nothing broken and just seems to make sense... agreed?

and pg 33 blasts, `the unit suffers one hit for each model...`

so here we are suffering hits now, before we even get to wounds or allocation.

 Abandon wrote:
Much of the confusion here is centered around the term 'suffers a wound' so I will attempt to address it before moving on further.

It seems to get used quite vaguely and not so specific as some seem to think.

It is used before saves are made:
"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because
they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a
Wound"

"To take a Dangerous Terrain test, roll a D6. On a result of a
1, that model suffers a wound. the model may take an armour
or invulnerable save, but not a cover save, against this wound."

After saves are made:
"If the result is lower than the Armour Save value, the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

Before allocation:
"the target unit suffers a number of
wounds equal to the result" PSYCHIC SHRIEK, pg 423

After allocation:
"compare the results to the
Armour Save characteristic of the model that has been allocated the wound...the
armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a wound."

It stands to reason therefore that it is a general term, not a specific one. It can be used any time anything is taking a wound in any capacity. In that light, a unit can be said to have 'suffered wounds' immediately after the roll to wound is made and any successes are counted. 'Suffering unsaved wounds' by it's very wording indicates wounds left after any available saves have been made but still does not specify allocation and as such can still be either before or after.

It would only make sense then, as units have no wound attribute, that when units 'suffer wounds' they go into the pool to be divided among its models.
"Finally, total up the number of wounds you have caused.
Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a pool" pg 14

In a same save scenario you can then cancel the wounds directly out of the pool
"For now, we're going to assume that all the
models in the target unit have the same saving throw ...
unit gets to make one saving throw, if it has
one (see page l5), for each wound being resolved. Make a note
of how many unsaved -wounds have been caused"

Bear in mind the unit has, at this point, 'suffered unsaved wounds' but models have not as they are still in the pool and no permission has yet been given to assign them.
Next step is to Allocate Unsaved Wounds
"Next, allocate an unsaved wound to the enemy model closest to
the firing unit..."

This^^ is IMO the proper view of the term. It follows all the rules, leave nothing broken and just seems to make sense... agreed?

exactly, when ALL the rules are looked at together, instead of just one at a time individually, it becomes very apparent that they suffer MANY things besides wounds and unsaved wounds, and at various times


but specifically they suffer wounds/unsaved wounds at various stages, at that in both mixed saves and regular saves, you allocate unsaved wounds after they are counted,

so when you have one unsaved wound, you allocate it,
when you have two unsaved wounds, you allocate them as well,

wounds being allocated, is not unsaved wounds being allocated

easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
also, again, the rules do specifically say models can suffer wounds before allocation,

That's a lie, please stop repeating it.

Ill stop repeating it when GW takes it out of their rule book

pg 16:

"a unit of 17 ork boyz (6+save) includes and ork nob (4+save) comes under attack from a unit of imperial guard. They suffer a total of 8 wounds from the massed lasgun fire . Rather then allocate the wounds one at a time..."

again, YOUR word vs GW,

Please read page 12 step 5. Are those my words or GWs? Or perhaps the first paragraph on the top of page 15 - are those my words or GWs?

pg 16 allocated WOUNDS not UNSAVED wounds, GW allocates both as I have shown with rules quotes rigel2d stop ignoring pg 15, and stop falsely saying pg 16 allocating unsaved wounds, it only allocated Wounds

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

Yes, the wound is not unsaved until after the save is failed. Pretty much by definition.

you cannot have actual written rules in the book quoted, and they just say to ignore them because, well, you think its just a non rule rule, its just fluff, in the book for no reason whatsoever.

No, I'm saying the example is incorrect. It's hardly the only time that's happened.

Its easy enough to copy and paste the quotes, why bother to post without it? you quotes are ALWAYS on the last post or page, your proof is always somewhere else

No, they are not always somewhere else - please don't insult me.
I can't copy/paste out of my rule book - it's not digital. Any digital one you own is technically illegal (I believe - iirc the copyright rules in Canada are similar to the ones in the US).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
and pg 33 blasts, `the unit suffers one hit for each model...`

so here we are suffering hits now, before we even get to wounds or allocation.

Because suffering hits is exactly like suffering wounds. Isn't it?

sirlynchmob wrote:and pg 33 blasts, `the unit suffers one hit for each model...`

so here we are suffering hits now, before we even get to wounds or allocation.

Yes it seems quite vague. Akin to the the term 'takes a hit' or 'takes a wound' though grammatically somewhat different.

easysauce wrote:
exactly, when ALL the rules are looked at together, instead of just one at a time individually, it becomes very apparent that they suffer MANY things besides wounds and unsaved wounds


but specifically they suffer wounds/unsaved wounds at various stages, at that in both mixed saves and regular saves, you allocate unsaved wounds after they are caused/suffered

Agreed

rigeld2 wrote:

Its easy enough to copy and paste the quotes, why bother to post without it? you quotes are ALWAYS on the last post or page, your proof is always somewhere else

No, they are not always somewhere else - please don't insult me.
I can't copy/paste out of my rule book - it's not digital. Any digital one you own is technically illegal (I believe - iirc the copyright rules in Canada are similar to the ones in the US).

copy and paste from the past post where the proof already is rigel, why would I tell you to copy and paste from the BRB and why would you NEED to if the "proof" was only a few clicks away in your recent post?

now you insinuate I have an illegal copy?
so im a lying theif now?

seriously man relax, and actually link more then one isolated rule, because several people have many rules that follow a logical sequence and have quoted them, while you have not

lets keep it to debating as opposed to arguing or take a break

easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Its easy enough to copy and paste the quotes, why bother to post without it? you quotes are ALWAYS on the last post or page, your proof is always somewhere else

No, they are not always somewhere else - please don't insult me.
I can't copy/paste out of my rule book - it's not digital. Any digital one you own is technically illegal (I believe - iirc the copyright rules in Canada are similar to the ones in the US).

copy and paste from the past post where the proof already is rigel, why would I tell you to copy and paste from the BRB and why would you NEED to if the "proof" was only a few clicks away in your recent post?

See, I've been assuming you were actually reading all the posts in the thread. I posted quotes and references. You don't feel like responding to them?

now you insinuate I have an illegal copy?
so im a lying theif now?

I haven't called you a liar and I obviously misunderstood your copy/paste reference.

seriously man relax, and actually link more then one isolated rule, because several people have many rules that follow a logical sequence and have quoted them, while you have not

"one isolated rule"? You're hanging on a flawed example while I've cited at least 3 places multiple times and you're accusing me of using "one isolated rule"?

OK, so barring any further dispute over the term 'suffer' we can address the topic once again.

Since Swarm states no effect on the unit as a whole it is not permitted to be used to double unsaved wounds that a unit has suffered that are in the pool awaiting allocation. Agreed?

 Abandon wrote:
OK, so barring any further dispute over the term 'suffer' we can address the topic once again.

Since Swarm states no effect on the unit as a whole it is not permitted to be used to double unsaved wounds that a unit has suffered that are in the pool awaiting allocation. Agreed?

Agreed.

 Abandon wrote:
OK, so barring any further dispute over the term 'suffer' we can address the topic once again.

Since Swarm states no effect on the unit as a whole it is not permitted to be used to double unsaved wounds that a unit has suffered that are in the pool awaiting allocation. Agreed?

No, those models with swarm, took and failed their saves to have unsaved wounds in the pool.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
OK, so barring any further dispute over the term 'suffer' we can address the topic once again.

Since Swarm states no effect on the unit as a whole it is not permitted to be used to double unsaved wounds that a unit has suffered that are in the pool awaiting allocation. Agreed?

No, those models with swarm, took and failed their saves to have unsaved wounds in the pool.

How can models make a save prior to allocation?

As I posted earlier this page lynch seems to think you allocate wounds take save then allocate unsaved wounds. He believes that the wording in same saves that tells you that the unit takes saves means that you allocate the wounds then the models take the saves per the normal saves rules as it references pg 16 to determine what the unit's save would be.

rigeld2 wrote:

I haven't called you a liar and I obviously misunderstood your copy/paste reference.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
also, again, the rules do specifically say models can suffer wounds before allocation,

That's a lie, please stop repeating it.

pg 16

pg 16 brb

even in units with mixed saves, it is not always necessary to allocate wounds one at a time. You can instead allocatie them in groups equal to however models with the same, best save are nearest to the fireing unit.

For example, a unit of 17 ork boyz (6+save) includes and ork nob (4+save) comes under attack from a unit of imperial guard. They suffer a total of 8 wounds from the massed lasgun fire . Rather then allocate the wounds one at a time..."

ok so what the BRB says on pg 16 of my book is only in my book, not everyone elses, riiiiiight.

cant randomly declare what parts of the rules are rules, and what examples are examples to be followed and which are to be ignored,

well, actually you can its a game, we call that making house rules when you ignore the ones you dont like,

nothing wrong with that

but once you have to start ignoring examples of how a rule works when figuring out how that rules works, you are not playing RAW, you are playing your house rules

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
OK, so barring any further dispute over the term 'suffer' we can address the topic once again.

Since Swarm states no effect on the unit as a whole it is not permitted to be used to double unsaved wounds that a unit has suffered that are in the pool awaiting allocation. Agreed?

No, those models with swarm, took and failed their saves to have unsaved wounds in the pool.

Their save values were used to determine the save. That does not mean the models have yet taken an unsaved wound. Those wounds have been suffered by the unit and are still in the pool waiting to be allocated to the models.