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.

Say I have a multiple wound(2) weapon and I'm fighting some ogres (bulls with 3 wounds). If I have 3 attacks that all hit and wound (and I'm directing my attacks against the unit) how many wounds am I doing in total? Is it a total of 6 wounds against the unit and thus 2 dead ogres? Or does it just mean that it only takes 2 multiple wound(2) wounds to kill an ogre and thus it would do a total of 5 wounds?

In this case you are correct. You count up the wounds at the end and apply them a the end.

If you had a weapon that did d6 wounds say, each hit could only do a max of 3 wounds to ogres as it is limited by the number on their profile.

 John Rainbow wrote:
In this case you are correct. You count up the wounds at the end and apply them a the end.

aha help me out here man what am I correct about?

You hit three times and cause six wound. You do this because each wound is equal to two wounds, therefore the wound pool has six wounds in it, which is two ogres.

However, lets say you have a sword which does D6 wounds and you hit three times. For arguements sake lets say you rolled three sixes for how many wounds you do. You wouldn't have eighteen wounds in the wound pool (3x6 worth) you'd only have 9 (3 x 3's worth). Because no matter how hard you hit an ogre, you can't cause more than three wounds to it, therefore it caps out.

In other words, one hit cannot kill two things simultaneously.

 welshhoppo wrote:
You hit three times and cause six wound. You do this because each wound is equal to two wounds, therefore the wound pool has six wounds in it, which is two ogres.

Incorrect

BRB page 45, subheading Multi-Wound models and Multi-Wound Weapons wrote:
If a unit of creatures with more than 1 Wound on their profile is hit by a weapon that causes multiple wounds, determine how many wounds are caused on each model indiviudally (remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile). Add up all the wounds caused by the unit and remove the appropriate number of models, noting any spare wounds on the unit.

This method is also applied if such a unit is attacked by a spell or weapon that causes a hit on every model on the unit.

This means the first ogre takes two wounds from the first hit.

Then it takes one wound from the second hit and dies (because it only has 3 wounds)

The second ogre then takes two wounds from the third and final attack, surviving on wound.

This assumes all wounds end up being unsaved ofc.

Hearing both sides. I made a poll at the top so anyone not posting can still weigh in

 Krellnus wrote:

BRB page 45, subheading Multi-Wound models and Multi-Wound Weapons wrote:
If a unit of creatures with more than 1 Wound on their profile is hit by a weapon that causes multiple wounds, determine how many wounds are caused on each model indiviudally (remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile). Add up all the wounds caused by the unit and remove the appropriate number of models, noting any spare wounds on the unit.
This method is also applied if such a unit is attacked by a spell or weapon that causes a hit on every model on the unit.

This means the first ogre takes two wounds from the first hit.
Then it takes one wound from the second hit and dies (because it only has 3 wounds)
The second ogre then takes two wounds from the third and final attack, surviving on wound.
This assumes all wounds end up being unsaved ofc.

Can't suffer more than on it's profile. Add a wound marker to a unit doesn't change a models profile.
First hit does 2 (profile is 3).
2nd hit does 2 (profile on the ogre is still 3). As per the rule, you note the spare wound on the unit.
Third hit does 2, and the wound marker on the unit allows this to kill a 2nd ogre.

 Krellnus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
You hit three times and cause six wound. You do this because each wound is equal to two wounds, therefore the wound pool has six wounds in it, which is two ogres.

Incorrect

BRB page 45, subheading Multi-Wound models and Multi-Wound Weapons wrote:
If a unit of creatures with more than 1 Wound on their profile is hit by a weapon that causes multiple wounds, determine how many wounds are caused on each model indiviudally (remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile). Add up all the wounds caused by the unit and remove the appropriate number of models, noting any spare wounds on the unit.

This method is also applied if such a unit is attacked by a spell or weapon that causes a hit on every model on the unit.

This means the first ogre takes two wounds from the first hit.

Then it takes one wound from the second hit and dies (because it only has 3 wounds)

The second ogre then takes two wounds from the third and final attack, surviving on wound.

This assumes all wounds end up being unsaved ofc.

Nope, youre incorrect, but have made a common mistake.

You only work out how many models have died at the end. Note that it states "spare wounds on the unit" - no ogre ever has two wounds on it; the unit has 2, the next wound in the pool of wounds on the unit will kill the next ogre.

That's what I thought, from what is in the BRB it says what I say. You can only do up to three wounds in one hit. But the all the wounds the unit caused are removed at the end.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
You hit three times and cause six wound. You do this because each wound is equal to two wounds, therefore the wound pool has six wounds in it, which is two ogres.

Incorrect

BRB page 45, subheading Multi-Wound models and Multi-Wound Weapons wrote:
If a unit of creatures with more than 1 Wound on their profile is hit by a weapon that causes multiple wounds, determine how many wounds are caused on each model indiviudally (remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile). Add up all the wounds caused by the unit and remove the appropriate number of models, noting any spare wounds on the unit.

This method is also applied if such a unit is attacked by a spell or weapon that causes a hit on every model on the unit.

This means the first ogre takes two wounds from the first hit.

Then it takes one wound from the second hit and dies (because it only has 3 wounds)

The second ogre then takes two wounds from the third and final attack, surviving on wound.

This assumes all wounds end up being unsaved ofc.

Nope, youre incorrect, but have made a common mistake.

You only work out how many models have died at the end. Note that it states "spare wounds on the unit" - no ogre ever has two wounds on it; the unit has 2, the next wound in the pool of wounds on the unit will kill the next ogre.

It says work out the wounds on models individually, which means you look at each unsaved wound on a model, then multiply it by however many wounds you do. Not other way around. I'm not seeing how the rule works any other way then what it says it does.

 Krellnus wrote:

It says work out the wounds on models individually, which means you look at each unsaved wound on a model, then multiply it by however many wounds you do. Not other way around. I'm not seeing how the rule works any other way then what it says it does.

Because you're misinterpreting the "individually". The context of the second sentence in the rules you quoted gives it away.

Add up all the wounds caused on the unit and remove the appropriate number of models, noting any spare wounds on the unit.

It's saying to do WOUNDS individually, not the MODELS. With Multi-wound 2, it's not an issue; but take Karl Franz Ascendant with his D3+1, or a Great Cannon with D6. You have to do them up individually, ie don't roll one and use that result for all of them. Then there's the reminder that you can't do more wounds than a model has- as others have pointed out, if you have Multi-Wound D6, you can never do more than 3 wounds to a normal Ogre. The second sentence then says to add up all of the wounds, and remove the corresponding number of models.

If it worked the way you are saying (that individually is modifying "models" rather than "wounds"), then the second sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You would have already allocated the wounds to individual models, so why would it tell you to add them up and allocate them to the unit?

So in the OP's example, two full ogres die. Each wound is inflicted individually- each does 2 wounds. Then, per the second sentence, you total them up and apply them to the unit, meaning you have to remove 2 full models, with no remainder.

Let's say Karl Franz Ascendant is the one doing the hits, and gets three just like the OP's example. You would roll 3D3, add +1 to each (but would be capped at 3 per die, per the reminder). If KFA rolls a 1, 2, 3 (inflicting 2, 3, 3), then you would add those for a total of 8 wounds, meaning you remove 2 full models, with 2 more wounds inflicted on the unit.

if you do not do is this way you can end up with odd results.

Lets say you attack 4 times with a mw (d3) weapon.

you roll 1,1,2,2, now all there dice are rolled at the same time in close combat, you take your saves and the unsaved wounds are multiplied to d3. there is no order to the rolls you roll them at same time. now if you where to apply the one at a time stopping when a model dies you will have different results depending on what order your apply the wounds.

if you do it 2+2+1+1 or 1+1+2+2 then only 1 ogre dies
But if you do it 1+2+1+2 then 2 whole model dies.

Therefore you must add op all the multiple wound before removing any models

 DarthBinky wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

It says work out the wounds on models individually, which means you look at each unsaved wound on a model, then multiply it by however many wounds you do. Not other way around. I'm not seeing how the rule works any other way then what it says it does.

Because you're misinterpreting the "individually". The context of the second sentence in the rules you quoted gives it away.

Add up all the wounds caused on the unit and remove the appropriate number of models, noting any spare wounds on the unit.

It's saying to do WOUNDS individually, not the MODELS. With Multi-wound 2, it's not an issue; but take Karl Franz Ascendant with his D3+1, or a Great Cannon with D6. You have to do them up individually, ie don't roll one and use that result for all of them. Then there's the reminder that you can't do more wounds than a model has- as others have pointed out, if you have Multi-Wound D6, you can never do more than 3 wounds to a normal Ogre. The second sentence then says to add up all of the wounds, and remove the corresponding number of models.

It is saying resolve the wounds individually, not the unsaved wounds invidiually, you only multiply wounds when it has been fully resolved, i.e. has become an unsaved wound, So I've hit however many times, and wound 3 times, now you must indivually take your saves (if applicable), then and only then, do you multiply it into a second wound, you do not have permission to do more unsaved wounds than a model has total wounds (except in challenges) so there is no excess to spill over onto the unit, making the second sentence unnecessary, unless there is some rule I am unaware of that does let you cause more unsaved wounds than a model has on its profile, in which case the second sentence tells you what to do with them.

Units of multi-wound have a unit wound pool
The only cases where you still use the individual wound value is to:
1) calculate the total unit wound pool
2) cap the multiple wound rolls

This question arises every other week, and people still get it wrong :/

Krel - no, again, wounds are caused on the unit, the "model" cap is to make it s you cannot cause more wounds than are on the profile. Not on the profile AT THAT TIME - i.e. after deductions - but on their actual writetn profile.

Again, nothing allows you to sequentially resolve wounds, they are resolved en masse.

 Krellnus wrote:
It is saying resolve the wounds individually, not the unsaved wounds invidiually, .

It has to be resolve unsaved wounds individually- it's in the "Remove casualties" section of the rules. The "Saving Throws" step has already been passed.

you only multiply wounds when it has been fully resolved, i.e. has become an unsaved wound,

Exactly. As above, you're already at that step. It's now an unsaved wound, and it's telling you how to resolve it. They don't need to re-specify that it's an unsaved wound.

making the second sentence unnecessary, unless there is some rule I am unaware of that does let you cause more unsaved wounds than a model has on its profile, in which case the second sentence tells you what to do with them

Again, you're missing the point. The second sentence is giving you the context for the first; they wouldn't have thrown in an extra sentence that completely contradicts the first sentence just for S&G's- GW writes sloppy rules, but they're generally not that sloppy. That sentence is there for a reason and this is why.

The unit is a pool of wounds. You never inflict wounds on a single given model in a unit, except in a few specific instances (such as picking out the champion or a character, or it's the last model in the unit). The process for inflicting the wounds works as I stated in my last post- you resolve each unsaved wound individually, total up the wounds, and allocate them to the unit, not models. Your method isn't "resolving the wounds individually"- you're stacking them on a given model, which is what the rules are specifically telling you not to do. The second sentence isn't worded as a conditional statement, as you say- it's an explicit command (of sorts), saying "do this, then this". There's no implication of it requiring some condition to have been met first.