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 if a multi-wound model such as a destroyer is brought back with RP, does it come back with full wounds or just one wound?

What is it about the RP rule that GW just can't nail down. This is the third or fourth version that doesn't seem to work fully...

You are bringing back lost models, so they have full wounds. I think it's pretty clear cut. There is nothing about them coming back with less wounds. It makes sense because you roll on models now, not wounds.

I'd say with full wounds. if only because the way you assign wounds now.

I have a 3 man Destroyer unit. 2 die and the 3rd lost 1 wound. I manage to get back both Destroyers lost earlier. If they both come back with less wounds then how do you assign wounds when the unit takes damage?

Full wounds, you are replacing previously slain models with new models. I would imagine it would indicate like it did in sixth briefly if they only returned with 1 wound. (Chariots returning with 1 Hull Point etc)

 Whacked wrote:
Full wounds, you are replacing previously slain models with new models. I would imagine it would indicate like it did in sixth briefly if they only returned with 1 wound. (Chariots returning with 1 Hull Point etc)

It's not a 'new model' according to the rules:

On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to the unit...

While I agree there is nothing stating only a single wound, but it sure seems rather...potent for a unit special rule when dealing with multi-wound units like destroyers. Especially given how you have to pay for blue and brimstone horrors in order to have them replace pink horrors.

It's not really any more potent. A 20 warrior blob has to roll for each individual model. With this, you just get less dice so it's more swingy. The chance of getting a certain % of things back is exactly the same. If anything it's worse for destroyers because you can't roll on lost wounds until a model is dead.

Something to consider, what is the Power Level and Price Point of these units? Do they seem ridiculously high or seem normal to the normal of Wounds?

It isn't a RAW definition, but it could help determine any RAI that you way want to look at.

The problem is that Wounds are not defined at all, one or full, and if the model is returned as is, it is being returned with zero Wounds. Not very well written, either way.

 Charistoph wrote:
Something to consider, what is the Power Level and Price Point of these units? Do they seem ridiculously high or seem normal to the normal of Wounds?

Destroyers certainly seem very expensive if they only come back with 1 wound. Since last edition, they gained a wound (3 from 2), but their price shot up from 40pts to 63pts.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Something to consider, what is the Power Level and Price Point of these units? Do they seem ridiculously high or seem normal to the normal of Wounds?

Destroyers certainly seem very expensive if they only come back with 1 wound. Since last edition, they gained a wound (3 from 2), but their price shot up from 40pts to 63pts.

Well, they gained a 50% increase in wounds, so a 50% increase in cost is appropriate.

I think it has to be full wounds. No other multi-wound unit is allowed to have more than 1 "wounded" model, as wounds MUST go to the same model until it dies.

By bringing them back with any sort of partial wounds would mean the multiple Destroyers could have wounds on them.
Then what happens? Re-distribute the wounds until only 1 has partial wounds, and "empties" the models you just brought back, killing them again?
That's just silly

-

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Well, they gained a 50% increase in wounds, so a 50% increase in cost is appropriate.

That logic doesn't hold at all.

A ton of other models also gained extra wounds in this edition - often far more than the Destroyers. However, few if any went up by the same % in points (some even went down).

Hence, no, an additional wound alone is nowhere near enough to justify a 50% increase in cost. Especially in an edition where inflicting multiple wounds on high-toughness models is easier than ever.

 Galef wrote:
I think it has to be full wounds. No other multi-wound unit is allowed to have more than 1 "wounded" model, as wounds MUST go to the same model until it dies.

By bringing them back with any sort of partial wounds would mean the multiple Destroyers could have wounds on them.
Then what happens? Re-distribute the wounds until only 1 has partial wounds, and "empties" the models you just brought back, killing them again?
That's just silly

You are using a step in one process to define everything else.

You would be in that situation, any way, full Wounds or 1 Wound. Those models have already been Wounded, so Wounds would still have to be distributed to them before any of the non-Wounded models have a chance to be Wounded.

If you need a reference as to why they come back at full wounds, check the Surrogate Hosts rule under Trazyn.

If they intended multi-wound models come back with less than full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule.

 Draco765 wrote:
If you need a reference as to why they come back at full wounds, check the Surrogate Hosts rule under Trazyn.

How does Trazyn's 'Surrogate Hosts' rule (which only allows him to come back with D3 wounds) mean that Reanimation Protocols allows a model to come back with full wounds? If anything, it implies that they would come back with a random number of wounds.

 Draco765 wrote:
If they intended multi-wound models come back with less than full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule.

Or "If they intended multi-wound models come back with their full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule". Either way has the same amount of support in the written rules (i.e., none).

 Ghaz wrote:

 Draco765 wrote:
If you need a reference as to why they come back at full wounds, check the Surrogate Hosts rule under Trazyn.

How does Trazyn's 'Surrogate Hosts' rule (which only allows him to come back with D3 wounds) mean that Reanimation Protocols allows a model to come back with full wounds? If anything, it implies that they would come back with a random number of wounds.

 Draco765 wrote:
If they intended multi-wound models come back with less than full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule.

Or "If they intended multi-wound models come back with their full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule". Either way has the same amount of support in the written rules (i.e., none).

When the rules want something to comeback with less than full wounds, they say it. Which is why I pointed out the Trazyn rule.

You are trying to add complexity that is unneeded.

And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.

From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.

From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.

And where can someone find that rule at?

 Ghaz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.

From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.

And where can someone find that rule at?

*sighs*

 djones520 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.

From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.

And where can someone find that rule at?

*sighs*

So is that a "no, you can't find it" or a "no, that rule does not exist"?

That sigh was "your being obtuse".

Its a parallel example that your choosing to ignore.

Fragile wrote:
That sigh was "your being obtuse".

Its a parallel example that your choosing to ignore.

Except it's not a 'parallel example' . Its a different rule. So far, I've not seen any support for either position. Its that simple.

Fragile wrote:
That sigh was "your being obtuse".

So, it's an ad hominim, gotcha.

Fragile wrote:
Its a parallel example that your choosing to ignore.

Not entirely. Its a case that has similar mechanics, but it is not establishing anything one way or another. Does the "D3" go beyond the 1 Wound that is needed to bring the model back on the board, or is it a limitation from the full Wounds the model normally is initially deployed with?

Ghaz has pointed out that there is no baseline to actually work from in this system since it is 100% brand new, so we don't know if Trazyn is getting a bonus or is restriction.

Understand?

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
That sigh was "your being obtuse".

So, it's an ad hominim, gotcha.

Fragile wrote:
Its a parallel example that your choosing to ignore.

Not entirely. Its a case that has similar mechanics, but it is not establishing anything one way or another. Does the "D3" go beyond the 1 Wound that is needed to bring the model back on the board, or is it a limitation from the full Wounds the model normally is initially deployed with?

Ghaz has pointed out that there is no baseline to actually work from in this system since it is 100% brand new, so we don't know if Trazyn is getting a bonus or is restriction.

Understand?

Answer these questions:

When a model is placed on the table how do you determine the number of wounds it has?

What makes you think a multi-wound model being placed on the table lets you change it's wound characteristic below or above it's profile?

Trazyn sets the precedent. Where is there a similar rule in Reanimation protocol?

(This is sounding just like the "is it a spider or is it a unit of spyders")

So when I remove the Yncarne from the battlefield and set her up again using her special rules, she has full wounds? Neat.

 Draco765 wrote:
When a model is placed on the table how do you determine the number of wounds it has?

When Deployed, as many as on its statline. When Disembarking, however many it had when it got on, minus any lost from the Wreck. When being brought on by Reanimation Protocols, unknown as it is not stated. Case of one does not mean case for another.

 Draco765 wrote:
What makes you think a multi-wound model being placed on the table lets you change it's wound characteristic below or above it's profile?

The model has lost all its Wounds and is being returned to the table. What tells me to place it on the table with more Wounds than it had when it left the table?

 Draco765 wrote:
Trazyn sets the precedent. Where is there a similar rule in Reanimation protocol?

Trazyn sets no precedent as it is a different rule and specifically states what should be done. Should we roll a D3 for every Multi-Wound RP and apply it then? This is laughable as we have no instruction in any form to do that in RP.

Should we apply it with full Wounds? We have no instruction to do that. On one hand, we think we would be bringing Warriors and Immortals back with full Wounds, but they only have 1 Wound to begin with.

Should have it be 1 Wound? We have no instruction to do that, but we think we would be doing that with every Warrior and Immortal.

Should it be 0 Wounds? Ridiculous, as it would require removing the model as soon as you put it back on the table.

Yeah, I'm not seeing how Trazyn is precedent when there is no "similar rule" involved.

Does it matter that all the healing abilities on Apothecaries and the like specifically say that they resurrect models with 1 wound remaining?

It's full wounds. There is room to make an argument if you want to but it's a stretch. If a destroyer doesn't come back with the wound stat shown on it's profile how do you decide between coming back with 1 wound or 2?