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.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
No.

You make the rolls and the wounds, the opponent makes the saves, and then he allocates the unsaved wounds beginning with the closest model.

Only if the unit has the same save, there is no character and no model has FNP. Since there is a character in the unit you would have to use mixed saves.

But then its the opponent who makes a separate save for his Character/special weapon/standard bearer, not you.

You have made your rolls has stated in the rules simultaneously, what the opponent do after you have made your rolls isn't of any concerne, in the end if his Character fails his LoS roll and save roll, it was killed at the same time has the other models.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The wounds have the same strength, AP values and special rules, why would each be in it's own pool? Furthermore, the CoC rule even addresses a character being killed by multiple wounds being allocated to it simultaneously.

I think that since the application of the rules on different models has a big impact on the game it should be two different piles. It's not RAW but HIWPI is that when 2 characters are using the same weapon (doom sirens for example) I'd put them in two sub pools to ensure a clear and trouble free resolution of the COC rule. If I am running Lucius in a squad of noise marines with doom siren champion my opponent would go nuts if I started to claim it was one or the other without making it clear from the get go, especially if I roll spawn and claim it was the champion.

Since Doom Sirens don't roll To Hit, you couldn't Precision Shoot an enemy character with them. That would be pretty awesome if it were so though.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The wounds have the same strength, AP values and special rules, why would each be in it's own pool? Furthermore, the CoC rule even addresses a character being killed by multiple wounds being allocated to it simultaneously.

I think that since the application of the rules on different models has a big impact on the game it should be two different piles. It's not RAW but HIWPI is that when 2 characters are using the same weapon (doom sirens for example) I'd put them in two sub pools to ensure a clear and trouble free resolution of the COC rule. If I am running Lucius in a squad of noise marines with doom siren champion my opponent would go nuts if I started to claim it was one or the other without making it clear from the get go, especially if I roll spawn and claim it was the champion.

Since Doom Sirens don't roll To Hit, you couldn't Precision Shoot an enemy character with them. That would be pretty awesome if it were so though.

But wound allocation still applies to them, if the enemy character is the first model to the unit...

Wound pools are not generated by character and so on it's done by ap. rolling to save isn't done all the same time either unless all the models are the same with the same save. Allocating is done from closest to the furthest back. Aside from look out sirs. If both the asp champion, and The Lord are firing plasma, both hit , both wound and the rag dies then I'd say they both get a roll on the boon table. This is not going to happen very often and the rolls are more than likely not game breaking so it's a moot point to argue.

No, one wound pool, groups inside by S, AP, and special rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, one wound pool, groups inside by S, AP, and special rules.

This! So many people don't get that it's one pool.

I would say that if there was a 2 wound character and he takes a plasma pistol wound from each character, then each character gets to roll.

In the case of a sergeant, with 1 wound, he can't actually take more than one wound, so only one character would kill him.

 Spellbound wrote:
I would say that if there was a 2 wound character and he takes a plasma pistol wound from each character, then each character gets to roll.

In the case of a sergeant, with 1 wound, he can't actually take more than one wound, so only one character would kill him.

Ok but let me ask you this. You have two characters. Both fire a single plasma pistol shot, hit and wound. You now have a wound pool with 2 identical wounds in it. The enemy sergeant passes his first "save" (cover, invulnerable, FNP, LOS, what have you), but fails the second one. Which character killed the sarge?

Only one of them gets it as only one of them killed the sgt. If you forgot to declare which shots were which in the spirit of the game I would then allow your Lord, and Champion to fight to the death to settle the argument over who actually killed the sgt.

Otherwise it's very simple. You ask are you rolling for the lords plasma shot, or the champions.

But how do you know? You don't divvy up wounds based on who shot, you separate them based on strength, AP, and special rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
But how do you know? You don't divvy up wounds based on who shot, you separate them based on strength, AP, and special rules.

I'm confused as to how a special rule that cares about who shot who isn't enough to create separate wound pools.

As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Bingo.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

They have the same name. They are not the same rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

They have the same name. They are not the same rule.

Citation please. How is CoC not the same rule? Is FnP 4+ from one piece of wargear/special rule a different rule to FnP 4+ from a different piece of wargear/special rule?
Is a 2+ save not the same as a 2+ save?

If that wargear requires a condition to be met in order to activate then yes they are not the same.

Well if you want to go straight RAW since you cannot determine who's plasma shot killed the sergent neither gets the boon. Which pretty much means in order to get the boon they need to be the only person with plasma, or the only person who shoots.

How can they be the same Rule if they resolve differently?

@Wagguy: That's not RAW either, that's another assumption of how the rule must work.

How do they resolve differently?
Does a psychic power resolve differently when I cast it on X rather than y?
Is a the resolution of a USR on model A different to model B when they have a detailed effect?

Can I have an answer to this other than "No but they are different?"

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
As both of the character's shots have the rule so there is no RAW basis to create two separate groups in the pool. Both of the characters's shots (if they are armed the same) have the same rules (assuming no boons have been rolled to change that) so they should be in the same group.

Except the rules aren't the same. CoC Lord and CoC Champ actually care about what wound does what so treating them the same is incorrect.

Except there aren't two different rules. There is only CoC, that the rules have other effects is irrelevant to the reasons to why you separate wounds into groups. Is there a different rule? No.

While it is HIWPI, I don't see any reason RAW to do it.

They have the same name. They are not the same rule.

Citation please. How is CoC not the same rule? Is FnP 4+ from one piece of wargear/special rule a different rule to FnP 4+ from a different piece of wargear/special rule?
Is a 2+ save not the same as a 2+ save?

FNP from different wargear doesn't care how it resolves, just that it does.
CoC from different models does care how it resolves. They're different rules because one is on a Lord and one is on an Aspiring Champion.

Nope, not seeing that as a different rule. It's interesting how the rule is now self aware :p
I would also say that Coc doesn't care how it resolves, it just does as per C:CSM

It's the same as any rule that applies to individual models, it doesn't make it a unique rule.

Liturgies of blood,
Allow me to clarify what I mean by 'resolve differently' as I think there is an error in communication here. I am not addressing situations where the final 'answer' is different, for example putting a -1 Toughness on a Fire-warrior will have a different final Toughness then the same -1 on a Marine. I am addressing situations where the equations we use to come to these answers are very different from each other, for example having a Rule requiring us to put a -2 Toughness on a Monstrous Creature but only a -1 on Infantry. In order to properly handle Special Rules that have more then one method of resolution, with the Champion of Chaos having over a dozen, we would need to keep track of each occurrence separately so we know which method to use.

With that in mind, my answer to your question will be more clear:
The examples you gave are all cases of identical Special Rules, unless there is some not yet disclosed detail which changes how the Rule itself is to be resolved.

I don't have to give a RAW example of how the rule should work. I say it is broken RAW. I have said repeatedly how I think it should be played. I am disagreeing with any RAW argument as this is a niche situation not covered by the rules.

The fact a rule can have a different outcome depending on who it's applied to has no change to the fact it's the same rule on all of the character inflicted wounds in this very niche situation. I understand that you're saying the resolution of the rule can have greater effects but it doesn't give permission to create another group in the wound pool RAW.

Liturgies,
We are now reaching the point of personal opinion about a fundamental concept that is the ground work on which Rules as Written are formed, which is not something we can easily debate over. If you wish to continue to believe that all it takes is one factor to be the same, the name of the Special Rule, for it to be considered 'The Same' then you can continue to do so for as long as you wish to. I would rather take a more flexible interpretation that the power must have the same name, contain the same verbiage throughout and guarantee same end result every time for it to be considered 'The Same.' That interpenetration allows for situations like these ones to be resolved easily as grants us permission to, and even requires us to, keep track of each individual Special Rule should it contain verbiage that allows for multiple end results.

After all, that is the basic idea behind all the 'different colored dice' requirements found in simultaneous resolution in the first place:
To ensure we can keep track of each Roll so we can evoke any related Special Rules linked to it.

That's an even bigger reach than different castings are different psychic powers IMO. The same rule on a different model is not a different rule. It's not just a name that's the same it's the mechanism of the rule that is the same. In every single way the rule is the same because it is the same rule printed on the same page of Codex Chaos Space Marines.

You've made a RAI argument and tried to sell it as RAW. I've yet to see a RAW argument as to why they are different rules. I've at least been honest enough to clearly differentiate my RAI/HIWPI from my RAW.

I still disagree,
The rule itself contains a random element within it, a dice roll that you must first do in order to find out exactly what effect you are applying, it is not possible to state that the instructions will always be the same. Thanks to the presence of this randomizing element, we can not even guarantee the same resolution would be applied if we resolved the Special Rule twice on a single model. Given the wide range of conclusions, from doing nothing right through replacing the model with a spawn, it would be very important for us to keep track of each individual Result as they can change the outcome of what occurs next. As simultaneous resolution methods do not allow for us to keep track of this information, within this scenario, how is it the best method to use?

I have always rolled Special Rules with random factors sequentially, as to keep track of which Result is doing what.

Maybe i'm an idiot, but it makes no sens at all...

The fact that there is a randomized roll as a RESULT of the rule, doesn't mean the rule is different for each model that has it...

CoC does the same darn thing, be it that the model is a Lord a Special IC a CHampion or even a Cultist Champion.

Slayer Le Boucher,
+1 to Wound Characteristic is very different then a +1 to the Attack Characteristic, both are possible outcomes from this single Special Rule.

In fact, it becomes more vital to keep two 'shots' with these Special Rules separate as the the order in which they are resolved will effect the outcome. The fact there exists two results, Spawn and Daemon Prince, which involve replacing the model completely makes it very important we know which 'shot' is applied first. This is because we use the Statistic line that comes with the new model, even discarding war-gear and other Special Rules the model might of had prior. Should the result of +1 to a Characteristic occur before the Result to replace the model, then it will produce a completely different outcome then if the order of events was reversed.

This is the core of what I am trying to bring to everyone's attention;
If the instructions we are required to follow are different, how can we honestly argue they are the 'same' Special Rule?