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.

So this was an interesting problem that came up. My Nob Bikers with a Warboss (HQ) got barraged and I failed to look out sir one hit and he took one wound. As my bikes went streaking across the table they took a lot of fire. Because my Boss has a wound, Does he or the closest model take the wounds? Basically do I have to 'look out sir' everything until he is removed.

If it is all HQ, do they roll to hit/wound on his stats or the units average?

Because this is a problem for Psykers if the take a burn from double 1's or double 6's. Or when one of my nobs rolls a 6 and I can target the boss eventually they will take a wound and then all the wounds they must 'look out sir'.

Having wounded models in the unit doesn't change how wounds are allocated. It's always closest model.

Wound allocation would follow the same rules for mixed wounds as outlined in the rule book. Closest models until it hits a character in which case you choose to do LoS or not prior to rolling for the saves (or there are no other models to LoS to).

That's what I thought. Just got into a debate and ended up having to 'look out sir' everything which was just a lot of rolling for nothing. I'm going to use the always closest model defence from p25 in the small rulebook.

Sounds like someone is confusing the close combat wound allocation.. Which states that during an initiative step once a wound has been allocated to a model, wounds continue to be allocated to it until either there are no more wounds in the wound pool or it dies.

That only applies in close combat, and only lasts for the duration of one initiative step.

I couldn't agree more. Thank you, I thought I was going crazy for a moment during the game. I still did the furious rolling and survived, but I was confused, when I had 3 other models in the unit, that I could have just allocated the wounds to and made the saves, skipping the million (exaggerating, only 12) Look out sir rolls per turn.
Also, we had a whole wound pool allocation mess. When the wounds should have just been allocated to any Base-to-Base model first, with my opponent choosing the BtB models taking the wounds, until they were all resolved (not pooling per unit)

Breng77 wrote:
Sounds like someone is confusing the close combat wound allocation.. Which states that during an initiative step once a wound has been allocated to a model, wounds continue to be allocated to it until either there are no more wounds in the wound pool or it dies.

That only applies in close combat, and only lasts for the duration of one initiative step.

Got a page for that? I don't recall seeing it, and probably need to read up on that one.

Page 25 of the basic rule book, allotting wound section, last paragraph.

barnowl wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Sounds like someone is confusing the close combat wound allocation.. Which states that during an initiative step once a wound has been allocated to a model, wounds continue to be allocated to it until either there are no more wounds in the wound pool or it dies.

That only applies in close combat, and only lasts for the duration of one initiative step.

Got a page for that? I don't recall seeing it, and probably need to read up on that one.

This is not how it reads in the BRB.

(pg 25)
Allocating Wounds
After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative step. Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed. Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the shooting phase.
--------
It goes on to say other things and small idiosyncrasies such as mutliple base contacted models and those wounds against such models are allocated by the woundee rather than the wounder.
--------
The above is true though about wounds begetting wounds, but it does not have anything to do with Initiative steps.

It does right there in the sentence before you bolded.

rigeld2 wrote:
It does right there in the sentence before you bolded.

the book has it bolded that way. and he made it sound like a model wounded per initiative step had to continue to take wounds for only the step.

if a model PREVIOUSLY had a wound on it from 3 turns ago, it takes a wound again in close combat rules. regardless.

meaning wounds beget wounds, regardless of initiative steps.

initiative steps are only for wound pooling, which is not tied to the topic imho.

 Awfeel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It does right there in the sentence before you bolded.

the book has it bolded that way. and he made it sound like a model wounded per initiative step had to continue to take wounds for only the step.

A model allocated a wound has to continue to take wounds for that init step.

if a model PREVIOUSLY had a wound on it from 3 turns ago, it takes a wound again in close combat rules. regardless.

No, that's not what it means. At all.

Rigeld2 is correct in this matter,

The paragraph I mentioned above is the one informing you that a model selected for the initial wound continues to take the following wounds. There are two interesting conditions set forth in this section, both granting you permission to select a different model for wounds to be allotted to. One of these two is when the wound pool is emptied, something that occurs at the end of each initiative stage. Therefore, if a model is wounded during one initiative stage you have permission to allot wounds to a different model during the next initiative stage.

You allocate wounds to the models in base-to-base first, though. If a model is not touching BtB you can not allocate wounds to that model until all of the BtB models are removed and it is the next closest model. I don't have my book on me, but I believe if a model is 2" or more away it can not be affected by wounds nor can it attack that turn.

Incorrect, any model in the unit can be wounded during close combat, starting with the closest.

Remember Sleg there is a pile in at each I step someone fights in, which can bring more models into btb at each I step.

It can't attack if it is not engaged, it is not restricted from being killed though.

So if for example, a group of Raveners charges a conga line of Termagants, they can kill them all no matter how long that conga line is.

right, but I thought it was only the models that took the IN step pile in or is it everyone? I got to get my book out. for example, Termagants go on 4 if there were two units of 20 engaged in melee with 20 Ork boys(a nob with power claw and warboss power claw). Their turn they manage to kill 6 (they pile in and 'custard's last stand' the orks) which would. The Boys go on In 3 They kill 10 and only the Boy's pile in. Leaving the Nob and Warboss where they are. On in 1 the Nob and Warboss attack but the closest Termaguants are 1 unit not the other (because it is 2" or more away). The wound pool only effects the 1 unit, right? If it wipes out the unit left over wounds in the pool are wasted. Then they pile in.

You pile in at the I step you attack at

You pile in THEN you make your attacks

Ork boyz are not I3, they are I2 even on the charge. (Change from 5th)

Sorry math is wrong, because a Nob and warboss can only remove 8 in a turn. lets increase the number of termmies removed by Boyz to 15. The Nid player smartly removes them from the closest unit to the Warboss and Nob. They deliver 8 wounds, but if the other unit is 2" or more away, the first unit is wiped out and the 3 wounds are gone. Then they pile in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right In 2 - sorry but after INT 4 the Termies don't pile in. Boys Pile in and attack. Leaving Nob and Warboss were they were. on one they Pile in and attack. same senerio if the 2 unit of termies is still more than 2" away from the Nob and Warboss.

Point of order - the ork player decides which unit he's attacking with which models, not the Tyranid player.

I have completely missed that initiative step part...this makes my GK warding staves that much more annoying now.

in Melee closest model first starting with BtB. If Tyranid attacked, Ork player designates the wounds to the Orks. If Ork Player attacked Tyranid designates the wounds to the nids. But has to only choose between BtB first. The attacker does not choose who they are hitting. Multiple units only matter if the attacker is 2" or more away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
2" or more away from the nearest model in the unit. If that model is removed the wound pool still affects the rest if that Model's unit. (or at least that's what is being said)

rigeld2 wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It does right there in the sentence before you bolded.

the book has it bolded that way. and he made it sound like a model wounded per initiative step had to continue to take wounds for only the step.

A model allocated a wound has to continue to take wounds for that init step.

if a model PREVIOUSLY had a wound on it from 3 turns ago, it takes a wound again in close combat rules. regardless.

No, that's not what it means. At all.

RAI vs RAW

Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty.


The wounding order for allocation as reads on pg 25 is
Wounded Models in the Unit (Regardless of Positioning)
Models that are in btb contact
Closest models to the opposing unit

This is how it is written whether it is intended this way or not, especially since this does not apply to shooting attacks in any fashion.

I think they are trying to simulate weakness in combat do to wounds via the rules.

There is no section on page 25 which state that wounded models are selected first for wound allotment.

There is two bullet points informing you how you go about selecting which model gets allotted which wound. Neither bullet point states you allot wounds to previously wounded models before all others. In fact, the first bullet point states that you must initially target the models in base to base contact first, which a model with a wound may or may not be. If you do not allot the wounds to a base to base model, when there is one, then you have broken the rules as stated on page 25.

There is a paragraph below them but it does not state that you must allot wounds to previous wounded models either. All it states is that you need to continue to allot wounds to the model you initially selected until one of two conditions are met. It even starts by stating 'Once a model has a wound allocating to it...' which goes back to the two bullet points telling you how you go about allocating wounds. It follows with two conditions that would grant the defending player permission to allocate wounds to a different model. Should either of these conditions be met, the player has permission to select another model for the next wound to be allotted to, even if the initial model has been wounded and is still standing at this time.

I would also like to take this moment to inform you, if you plan to carry on using this paragraph to back your argument that wounded units are targeted first, that suffering from an unsaved wound and having a wound allocated to you are two completely different things. As wound allocation happens prior to saving throws, it is very possible for an unwounded model to also meet the standards of your argument simply because they passed the save. They still had a previous wound allocated to them, after all, and good luck keeping track of which models have had wounds allotted to them in which order. The model which took the very first wound allocation at the start of the game might still be standing when it comes to the first bout of close combat three turns later with no easy way to keep track of the fact his armour soaked the very first shot.

Besides the second clause invalidates it anyway, as soon as a wound pool is emptied the defending player has permission to select another model for the next batch of wounds regardless of whom is wounded previously.

 Awfeel wrote:
RAI vs RAW

You're making an argument for intent? Do you have any evidence of intent that supports your argument?

The wounding order for allocation as reads on pg 25 is
Wounded Models in the Unit (Regardless of Positioning)
Models that are in btb contact
Closest models to the opposing unit

The bolded statement does not exist.

This is how it is written whether it is intended this way or not, especially since this does not apply to shooting attacks in any fashion.

It's not written that way. Mind actually quoting rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Awfeel wrote:
RAI vs RAW

You're making an argument for intent? Do you have any evidence of intent that supports your argument?

The wounding order for allocation as reads on pg 25 is
Wounded Models in the Unit (Regardless of Positioning)
Models that are in btb contact
Closest models to the opposing unit

The bolded statement does not exist.

This is how it is written whether it is intended this way or not, especially since this does not apply to shooting attacks in any fashion.

It's not written that way. Mind actually quoting rules?

\

The first "sentence" in my post is a DIRECT QUOTE from the BRB.

edit--

you guys are arguing that wounded models have not had a wound allocated to them. js

"Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty." (25)

Once the wound pool it empty the restriction no longer applies.

We are arguing that wound allocation and unsaved wounds are two different things.

Wound allocation is a period that occurs after the To Wounds have generated a wound pool and ends when the wound pool is emptied. You are not required to keep track of whom was allocated what wound past this point, as it would be a headache to say the least. In the course of a standard game there can be hundreds of wound allotments and the majority of them may end in successful saves. You would need to keep track of every wound that was allocated and in what order the models where allocated, just to meet your 'first model allocated a wound takes the next wound, stretching back to the start of the game' interpretation.

Even the line you keep quoting as 'evidence that wounded models are targeted first' states this rule stops once the wound pool has been emptied.

It also begins by stating once a wound has been allocated, which is what everything else in this section prior to this point has been detailing. Those rules detailing how you go about allocating wounds are those found in the bullet points above this sentence, and set contains clauses such as 'must' and 'closest model' which might not relate to the wounded model in question. Neither point contains anything about targeting wounded models first, so you can not simply chose to do so as that could be against the before mentioned rules.

It also gives permission to the defending player to chose which model is allotted the first wound from the pool in case of ties. Only once this initial wound from the new wound pool has been allocated does the quoted line come into play, preventing the defending player from selecting another model until the first one is dead or the wound pool is emptied. At that point permission has been granted for the process to start a new, which likely means the defending player may chose an unwounded model without being in violation of any existing regulation. Even in situations where a previously wounded model is still standing, and if that model is no longer in base to base contact he couldn't even chose it if he wanted to!

Even the line you keep quoting as 'evidence that wounded models are targeted first' states this rule stops once the wound pool has been emptied.

I read it like this...

Once a model is wounded, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until dies or until Wound pool that you are allocating from is empty. (ie you have no more wounds to "continue to allocate" even though this rule says MUST)

If that wasn't there you would continue to allocate wounds until it was a dead model, regardless of the wound pool.

It would read....

Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is removed as a casualty.

So you MUST do so until it died.

Using the logic set forth by the above.
----

How I read it is that the wound pool restriction is to let you know that you are not to allocate lethal wounds, disregarding the number in the wound pool.



EDIT ---- Unsaved wounds are allocated wounds that were previously unsaved no?

 Awfeel wrote:
EDIT ---- Unsaved wounds are allocated wounds that were previously unsaved no?

Yes, but that does not matter at all, as once the wound pool is empty the restriction no longer applies, and the next time you populate the wound pool you follow the process all over again, including choosing the closest model and allocating wounds to it until the model is dead or wound pool is empty.