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.

And again the unit is suffering the wounds not the models. We are still waiting for a way to use a model's USRs at the unit level.

easysauce wrote:

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.

The rules never specifically say that, so saying they do is a lie.
I'm sure you're not a liar by habit, so I would never call you a liar.

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

So a sentence that starts with "For example," - is that rules or an example?
And your quote from 16 reinforces that saves come after allocation. Which is - wait for it - what I've been saying.

the unit suffers the wounds yes,
then you allocate the wounds
then make saves, failures mean MODELs then suffer unsaved wounds
unsaved wounds are allocated to closest model,



in both cases

the difference in mixed saves is that you roll a group of dices for the best save closest to the fire-er

You do not allocate before the save in the same save method of resolving shooting. Hence why it states the unit takes a save for each wound and does not have the same first step as mixed saves where you allocate.

easysauce wrote:
the unit suffers the wounds yes,
then you allocate the wounds
then make saves, failures mean MODELs then suffer unsaved wounds
unsaved wounds are allocated to closest model,



in both cases

the difference in mixed saves is that you roll a group of dices for the best save closest to the fire-er

Was going on the 'same save' method since that is a point of contention here where saves are made before allocation. While wounds have been suffered by the unit at that point they are not yet suffered by the models even after the save is failed.

The next step would be allocation at which point it can be said the swarm(model) suffers an unsaved wound.... agreed?

 Gravmyr wrote:
You do not allocate before the save in the same save method of resolving shooting. Hence why it states the unit takes a save for each wound and does not have the same first step as mixed saves where you allocate.

Even Rigeld2 agrees the methodology between the two remain the same on pg 18.

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

In any case, wounds/unsaved wounds suffered by the unit, waiting in the pool have not yet been suffered by the models... agreed?

Fast rolling states you are allocating to the models then removing the closest models as soon as the saves are failed. There is no basis for allocating twice.

 Abandon wrote:


Was going on the 'same save' method since that is a point of contention here where saves are made before allocation. While wounds have been suffered by the unit at that point they are not yet suffered by the models even after the save is failed.

The next step would be allocation at which point it can be said the swarm(model) suffers an unsaved wound.... agreed?

No, and how can you start with

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

Then seem to think that it can be agreed to, when in the last 21 pages it has been another key point of contention.

You can also quite easily say after models with swarm in a unit fail their saves, they are now suffering unsaved wounds, while those wounds are still in the pool

easysauce wrote:
the unit suffers the wounds yes,
then you allocate the wounds
then make saves, failures mean MODELs then suffer unsaved wounds
unsaved wounds are allocated to closest model,

And what's the trigger to double for Swarm?

You have yet the show any proof that you allocate then save then allocate and yes I know your argument is that is what pg 16 tells you to do but that is not what pg 15 is telling you to do. Under same save the steps are stated as first the unit takes a save and goes on to tell you to look at pg 16 to see if it get one by looking at each model individually and calculate each then roll the saves for the unit. Then to allocate all wounds not saved to the models in the unit.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Abandon wrote:


Was going on the 'same save' method since that is a point of contention here where saves are made before allocation. While wounds have been suffered by the unit at that point they are not yet suffered by the models even after the save is failed.

The next step would be allocation at which point it can be said the swarm(model) suffers an unsaved wound.... agreed?

No, and how can you start with

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

Then seem to think that it can be agreed to, when in the last 21 pages it has been another key point of contention.

You can also quite easily say after models with swarm in a unit fail their saves, they are now suffering unsaved wounds, while those wounds are still in the pool

Because it is used vaguely and non specifically throughout the book.

On what page does it state that models suffer wounds still in the pool?

 Abandon wrote:
[quote=sirlynchmob 497144 5353870 null

Because it is used vaguely and non specifically throughout the book.

On what page does it state that models suffer wounds still in the pool?

On what page does it equate model, suffering and allocation? on what page are those terms defined?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gravmyr wrote:
You have yet the show any proof that you allocate then save then allocate and yes I know your argument is that is what pg 16 tells you to do but that is not what pg 15 is telling you to do. Under same save the steps are stated as first the unit takes a save and goes on to tell you to look at pg 16 to see if it get one by looking at each model individually and calculate each then roll the saves for the unit. Then to allocate all wounds not saved to the models in the unit.

I'll let rigeld2 handle this one:

How can models make a save prior to allocation?

trimmed the tree

sirlynchmob wrote:


On what page does it equate model, suffering and allocation? on what page are those terms defined?

Allocation is a process described on page 15

'Suffer' we can define only by context and everyone seems to have agreed to it's meaning aside from you.

If you don't know what a model is I don't believe anyone here can help you.

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the unit suffers the wounds yes,
then you allocate the wounds
then make saves, failures mean MODELs then suffer unsaved wounds
unsaved wounds are allocated to closest model,

And what's the trigger to double for Swarm?

suffers unsaved wouds, after failing an armour save

so we now have 2x unsaved wounds,

we then allocate unsaved wounds, per normal rules

you yourself will agree that the model suffers an unsaved wound when it fails a save,

models fail saves in normal save procedure, before allocation, and at the same time wounds are caused, and counted. unless you want to say that failed saves dont make them suffer wounds

 Abandon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


On what page does it equate model, suffering and allocation? on what page are those terms defined?

Allocation is a process described on page 15

'Suffer' we can define only by context and everyone seems to have agreed to it's meaning aside from you.

If you don't know what a model is I don't believe anyone here can help you.

we all agreed that suffer is vague, its up to you to show a direct link to allocation.

we can see units suffering hits
we can see wounds are suffered
we can see unsaved wounds are suffered

suffering has nothing to do with allocation.

easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the unit suffers the wounds yes,
then you allocate the wounds
then make saves, failures mean MODELs then suffer unsaved wounds
unsaved wounds are allocated to closest model,

And what's the trigger to double for Swarm?

suffers unsaved wouds,

so we now have 2x unsaved wounds,

we then allocate unsaved wounds, per normal rules

I missed that you allocated twice. That's directly contradicted by the actual rules - your flawed example is just that.

easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the unit suffers the wounds yes,
then you allocate the wounds
then make saves, failures mean MODELs then suffer unsaved wounds
unsaved wounds are allocated to closest model,

And what's the trigger to double for Swarm?

suffers unsaved wouds,

so we now have 2x unsaved wounds,

we then allocate unsaved wounds, per normal rules

Placed in bold where you allocated wounds twice. Page 15 only permits you to allocate wounds once.

Note also that the rule...

"If a Swarm suffers an unsaved wound
from a Blast, Large Blast or Template
weapon, each unsaved wound is
multiplied to two unsaved wounds"

...is used in the singular, as in, a swarm suffers a unsaved wound. This indicates you are looking only at a per model basis.
Also, if you multiply a wound allocated to a model by two, you get two wounds allocated to that model. Adding a multiplier does not, without permission, allow you to change anything about the base value already set as 'unsaved wound allocated to that model'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


On what page does it equate model, suffering and allocation? on what page are those terms defined?

Allocation is a process described on page 15

'Suffer' we can define only by context and everyone seems to have agreed to it's meaning aside from you.

If you don't know what a model is I don't believe anyone here can help you.

we all agreed that suffer is vague, its up to you to show a direct link to allocation.

we can see units suffering hits
we can see wounds are suffered
we can see unsaved wounds are suffered

suffering has nothing to do with allocation.

You are allocating wounds/unsaved wounds to models in the unit quite clearly on page 15. This leads to striking wounds off the models profile and also seems to clearly fall under the vague notion of 'suffering wounds'

this faq clearly states that wounds can be allocated to models within LOS from the wound pool (before saves)

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 as well
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.

and rule book examples do trump people on the internet saying "that example in the rule book for mixed saves is wrong"

in the example given on pg 16 for mixed saves,

the orks first suffer 8 wounds, before saves and allocation,
there are 6 orks before the nob,
we allocate 6 of the 8 wounds to the first 6 orcs before the nob, 4 fail their save causing unsaved wounds, 4 models are removed closest to firer as they have been allocated unsaved wounds
the next two wounds are now allocated on the remaining 2 orcs, one fails the save so an unsaved wound is suffered, the closest model is allocated it and removed.

if we dont allocate the unsaved wounds, because wounds are already allocated, then its possible for the back model to fail its save and be removed instead of the front model

so thats how the example goes, on pg 16

your way we have to allocate EVERY wound to a model, pre save and roll it separately, because we cannot allocated unsaved wounds, meaning particular models are already allocated wounds, and are removed by them, despite them not necessarily being the closest model.

easysauce wrote:
this faq clearly states that wounds can be allocated to models within LOS from the wound pool (before saves)

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.

Okay, yes. That doesn't say you allocate twice.

GW allocates unsaved wounds as well
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.

Quite correct if you're speed rolling.

and rule book examples do trump people on the internet saying "that example in the rule book for mixed saves is wrong"

So you agree it's an example and not rules now, right?

in the example given on pg 16 for mixed saves,

the orks first suffer 8 wounds, before saves and allocation,
there are 6 orks before the nob,
we allocate 6 of the 8 wounds to the first 6 orcs before the nob, 4 fail their save causing unsaved wounds, 4 models are removed closest to firer as they have been allocated unsaved wounds
the next two wounds are now allocated on the remaining 2 orcs, one fails the save so an unsaved wound is suffered, the closest model is allocated it and removed.

if we dont allocate the unsaved wounds, because wounds are already allocated, then its possible for the back model to fail its save and be removed instead of the front model

... How? You allocate the wounds once, they roll a save. If it has been failed the wound has already been allocated and that model suffers the wound.

so thats how the example goes, on pg 16

your way we have to allocate EVERY wound to a model, pre save and roll it separately, because we cannot allocated unsaved wounds, meaning particular models are already allocated wounds, and are removed by them, despite them not necessarily being the closest model.

... No. You're not understanding at all. Wounds are only ever resolved one at a time unless you're fast rolling.
So allocate a wound, roll save, suffer unsaved wound. A single allocation, no funky farthest model dying, and absolutely 100% by the book.

The BRB separates wounds and unsaved wounds one having failed a save against it, unsaved wounds, and the other not having a save rolled for it, a wound.

If they had meant for "Suffering a wound" to be pre-allocation (I'm not getting into the difference of same/mixed save units, the "shooting sequence" is what I'm referencing) then they would have left the wording for the shooting phase breakdown the same as it was in 5th edition (as the breakdown is near identical to 6th edition). However they removed all mention of "suffers a wound" from the breakdown in 6th edition even though it's presence was there in 5th.