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.

 JinxDragon wrote:
Lark,
It is one of the reasons I keep questioning it as well... just what else could they be talking about?

Exactly. I'm not convinced it's iron-clad. Though I just can't find any basis in the rules to ignore the potential excess MWs. Unlike Grey Knights, Rubric Marines don't specify anything about how to handle Perils of the Warp - so we're forced to just follow the letter of the rules.

I do assume we're all in agreement that regardless of the Psyker's MW allocation, that the unit would indeed still suffer it's further D3 MW, being within 6" of itself when the Psyker dies, yeah?

Anyway, like I mentioned at the outset, HIWPI: Psyker suffers Perils and immediately dies - no need to roll, and the unit (and any others within 6") takes D3 MW. Seems fair enough until a FAQ clarifies it as necessary.

Larks wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, it doesn't matter if the psyker is in a unit or not. The rule is clear. The psyker suffers the wounds and not the unit, yet you're still trying to have the unit suffer the wounds. It's not telling us who was targeted. It's as clear as day that it's telling us that the psyker suffers the wounds, not the unit.

It's telling us the Psyker suffers mortal wounds, how is that not identifying a target?

It is identifying a target. The target is the psyker. It does not say the psyker's unit is the target.

Larks wrote:
We also know mortal wounds continue to spill over in the target unit (per the rules for mortal wounds).

Only when moral wounds are allocated to a unit. These are allocated only to the psyker. Mortal wounds are allocated one at a time. Once the pysker is gone, there is no more psyker to allocate them to, and since you have not been told that the psyker's unit is the target, they would not spread to any body else in the unit.

Quick question for those of us who do not have access to the Rubric Marines' datasheet, is any model in the unit identified as a Psyker, or is is just a Keyword for the entire unit?

First step of the Psychic Phase in the Primer is:

1. Choose Psyker and Power
Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet.

I underlined a word which is being associated with "Psyker".

Now, unless Rubric Marines is proclaiming ALL of the models in the unit are Psykers, any attribution of ANY type of Wounds being suffered by anything that is NOT a Psyker by Perils is under the label of:

each unit within 6" immediately suffers 3D mortal wounds

and not part of:

They psyker suffers D3 mortalwounds

 doctortom wrote:

Larks wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, it doesn't matter if the psyker is in a unit or not. The rule is clear. The psyker suffers the wounds and not the unit, yet you're still trying to have the unit suffer the wounds. It's not telling us who was targeted. It's as clear as day that it's telling us that the psyker suffers the wounds, not the unit.

It's telling us the Psyker suffers mortal wounds, how is that not identifying a target?

It is identifying a target. The target is the psyker. It does not say the psyker's unit is the target.

Larks wrote:
We also know mortal wounds continue to spill over in the target unit (per the rules for mortal wounds).

Only when moral wounds are allocated to a unit. These are allocated only to the psyker. Mortal wounds are allocated one at a time. Once the pysker is gone, there is no more psyker to allocate them to, and since you have not been told that the psyker's unit is the target, they would not spread to any body else in the unit.

That's a very fair response. I don't see the Sorcerer in any way separate from the Rubric Marines though - indeed they together are one unit - so I still see an argument to be made for the normal MW rules to apply.

Just to reiterate, I'm just saying I see the basis for the argument, and thus giving it a voice to be properly debated. HIWPI: Sorcerer Perils, dies, squad just takes the D3 MW for being within 6" of a slain-by-Perils Psyker. If GW FAQ's it any other way well then I'll enforce their ruling.

Larks wrote:
That's a very fair response. I don't see the Sorcerer in any way separate from the Rubric Marines though - indeed they together are one unit - so I still see an argument to be made for the normal MW rules to apply.

I guess different model names and one being called a Psyker and the other not are not enough ways to separate them?

If you think those things do not separate them, Awesome, then there is no way to separate Sergeants and Marines, and Tactical Marines can all carry Power Swords in to Battle, right?

I think the intent is abundantly clear. Because 95% of the psykers in the game are not included in a multi-model unit, this small nit-pick was obviously overlooked. The rule states that the Psyker suffers mortal wounds, full stop. Not the psyker's unit, just him. Much as if we had a psychic power which let you pick out an enemy Psyker, etc.

It's pretty obvious that any tournament organizer would rule it this way, and when you need to push this deep to try to justify why the unit would take additional mortal wounds - you're probably in the wrong. GW will have to FAQ it though because it will continue to come up.

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
That's a very fair response. I don't see the Sorcerer in any way separate from the Rubric Marines though - indeed they together are one unit - so I still see an argument to be made for the normal MW rules to apply.

I guess different model names and one being called a Psyker and the other not are not enough ways to separate them?

If you think those things do not separate them, Awesome, then there is no way to separate Sergeants and Marines, and Tactical Marines can all carry Power Swords in to Battle, right?

The difference is the Datasheet clearly tells you who can take what. Mortal Wounds are a mechanic that again, is very clear.

No permission is given to alter the MW mechanic.

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
That's a very fair response. I don't see the Sorcerer in any way separate from the Rubric Marines though - indeed they together are one unit - so I still see an argument to be made for the normal MW rules to apply.

I guess different model names and one being called a Psyker and the other not are not enough ways to separate them?

If you think those things do not separate them, Awesome, then there is no way to separate Sergeants and Marines, and Tactical Marines can all carry Power Swords in to Battle, right?

The difference is the Datasheet clearly tells you who can take what. Mortal Wounds are a mechanic that again, is very clear.

No permission is given to alter the MW mechanic.

The 'Perils of the Warp' rule gives permission.

 Charistoph wrote:
Quick question for those of us who do not have access to the Rubric Marines' datasheet, is any model in the unit identified as a Psyker, or is is just a Keyword for the entire unit?

The Rubric Marines have a "Psyker" keyword as a whole.

I see another interpretation now. If the entire unit is "Psyker", according to the rules, if they suffer "perils", the entire unit would suffer them. So instead of only the aspiring sorcerer being slain, the entire squad would suffer D3 mortal wounds and as long as there is one model left (the sorcerer), then the perils effect of aura MW would not be applied, because the "psyker" (the squad) would be still 'in game'. Or is this wrong?

If the unit is marked as "psyker" and not only the aspiring sorcerer, i think this would be another way of doing it, don't know if a bit legal-hammer extreme

 Ghaz wrote:

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
That's a very fair response. I don't see the Sorcerer in any way separate from the Rubric Marines though - indeed they together are one unit - so I still see an argument to be made for the normal MW rules to apply.

I guess different model names and one being called a Psyker and the other not are not enough ways to separate them?

If you think those things do not separate them, Awesome, then there is no way to separate Sergeants and Marines, and Tactical Marines can all carry Power Swords in to Battle, right?

The difference is the Datasheet clearly tells you who can take what. Mortal Wounds are a mechanic that again, is very clear.

No permission is given to alter the MW mechanic.

The 'Perils of the Warp' rule gives permission.

Oh! It says, "Unlike regular MW, MW suffered by Perils do not spill over if the Psyker is in a unit." ? Excellent!

Oh wait. It doesn't say that at all...

Edit - apologies for the snarkiness, but nothing about identifying the Psyker as taking D3 MW says that the core MW mechanic is altered. Unless we are provided with exceptions we have to follow the rules. The line "the Psyker suffers D3 mortal wounds" provides no such exception.

Yes, it says Psyker and not Psyker Unit, but I find it far more likely that they merely wrote Perils without thinking of all possibilities rather than intended an exception to the MW mechanic without explicitly saying so.

I am with Larks and Elbows on this,
I think it is far more likely this very unique Psyker slipped through the gaps, and the intent for the first part of Perils is to inflict damage only on the Aspiring Sorcerer.


However, I did have a very nasty thought while I was parsing this line:-
Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another
model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed.
- Mortal Wounds

A T'au Solid-shot Railgun rolls a 6 on the Wounds and the amount of Damage
As it rolled a 6 on the To Wound stage, the Attack is now inflicting some additional Wounds... Mortal Wounds
The Model fails to save against the normal Wound and a single point of damage is enough to Remove it from play
What happens to the 5 points of excessive Damage on this Wound?


I really, really, am trying to figure out what the hell the Authors could have meant by 'excessive damage' because it would solve this problem and a few others that have now started to form because of the terrible wording used within Mortal Wounds. The Author had to write these additional sentences, explaining how damage bleeds over from a slain Model to the rest of the Unit, after knowingly providing us with instructions telling us that Mortal Wounds inflict 1 point of damage each. If that Author had intended for Mortal Wounds to kill only a single Model, by discarding any Wounds waiting to be allocated to the removed Model, then these two sentences shouldn't have been written at all. If that Author intended for individual Mortal Wounds to be able to inflict X point of damage, then penning a Rule informing us that Mortal wounds inflict 1 point of damage becomes the bizarre point.

Either way, the reference to 'excessive damage' makes no... god... damn... sense.

 JinxDragon wrote:
However, I did have a very nasty thought while I was parsing this line:-
Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another
model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed.
- Mortal Wounds

A T'au Solid-shot Railgun rolls a 6 on the Wounds and the amount of Damage
As it rolled a 6 on the To Wound stage, the Attack is now inflicting some additional Wounds... Mortal Wounds
The Model fails to save against the normal Wound and a single point of damage is enough to Remove it from play
What happens to the 5 points of excessive Damage on this Wound?

Yes, this is from Facebook, but the fact that they gave a somewhat clear answer (they should have said 'damage' instead of 'wounds') makes it worthwhile. And how they answered it is priceless...



As for the wording that excess damage from mortal wounds is not lost, I just see that as a relic from an ealier version of the rules that was not caught when they changed the rules. Unless there's some future special rule, there will never be excess damage from a mortal wound.

 JinxDragon wrote:
I am with Larks and Elbows on this,
I think it is far more likely this very unique Psyker slipped through the gaps, and the intent for the first part of Perils is to inflict damage only on the Aspiring Sorcerer.


However, I did have a very nasty thought while I was parsing this line:-
Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another
model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed.
- Mortal Wounds

A T'au Solid-shot Railgun rolls a 6 on the Wounds and the amount of Damage
As it rolled a 6 on the To Wound stage, the Attack is now inflicting some additional Wounds... Mortal Wounds
The Model fails to save against the normal Wound and a single point of damage is enough to Remove it from play
What happens to the 5 points of excessive Damage on this Wound?


I really, really, am trying to figure out what the hell the Authors could have meant by 'excessive damage' because it would solve this problem and a few others that have now started to form because of the terrible wording used within Mortal Wounds. The Author had to write these additional sentences, explaining how damage bleeds over from a slain Model to the rest of the Unit, after knowingly providing us with instructions telling us that Mortal Wounds inflict 1 point of damage each. If that Author had intended for Mortal Wounds to kill only a single Model, by discarding any Wounds waiting to be allocated to the removed Model, then these two sentences shouldn't have been written at all. If that Author intended for individual Mortal Wounds to be able to inflict X point of damage, then penning a Rule informing us that Mortal wounds inflict 1 point of damage becomes the bizarre point.

Either way, the reference to 'excessive damage' makes no... god... damn... sense.

In the example of the Solid-Shot railgun, I think the answer is found in the sequencing of attacks section. As your opponent is the one to allocate the unsaved wounds, and the MW is caused by the roll of 6 for Damage, the MW would kill the poor guy before he takes the 6 "standard" Damage from the attack.

Though in typing that something came to mind - in context of that type of attack that does a MW in addition to normal damage, AFTER the roll to save the Wound has failed - which happens first? Or does the "Sequencing" rules come in to play and the player whose turn it is picks the order?

Warpspy wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Quick question for those of us who do not have access to the Rubric Marines' datasheet, is any model in the unit identified as a Psyker, or is is just a Keyword for the entire unit?

The Rubric Marines have a "Psyker" keyword as a whole.

I see another interpretation now. If the entire unit is "Psyker", according to the rules, if they suffer "perils", the entire unit would suffer them. So instead of only the aspiring sorcerer being slain, the entire squad would suffer D3 mortal wounds and as long as there is one model left (the sorcerer), then the perils effect of aura MW would not be applied, because the "psyker" (the squad) would be still 'in game'. Or is this wrong?

If the unit is marked as "psyker" and not only the aspiring sorcerer, i think this would be another way of doing it, don't know if a bit legal-hammer extreme

And which model can manifest Psychic Powers? Just the Sorcerer, or can any of the Rubric Marines manifest?

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
That's a very fair response. I don't see the Sorcerer in any way separate from the Rubric Marines though - indeed they together are one unit - so I still see an argument to be made for the normal MW rules to apply.

I guess different model names and one being called a Psyker and the other not are not enough ways to separate them?

If you think those things do not separate them, Awesome, then there is no way to separate Sergeants and Marines, and Tactical Marines can all carry Power Swords in to Battle, right?

The difference is the Datasheet clearly tells you who can take what. Mortal Wounds are a mechanic that again, is very clear.

No permission is given to alter the MW mechanic.

Way to miss the point of what you quoted. If you cannot differentiate between Sorcerer and Rubric, then you can't differentiate between Sergeant and Marine. If you cannot differentiate, then they all have the same options.

Furthermore, read how the Psychic Phase works. It focuses on one manifesting model. If Perils happens, it does not allocate Mortal Wounds to the Psyker, the Psyker just suffers the damage. The only time Perils mentions anything other than a model is after the manifesting model is dead.

No, it very much says he takes Mortal Wounds, not simply "damage".

Larks wrote:
No, it very much says he takes Mortal Wounds, not simply "damage".

Right, THE MODEL takes the Mortal Wounds, it never allocates any Mortal Wounds at this point. In normal cases, Mortal Wounds are allocated, and never more than one damage. The reason why Mortal Wounds are not normally lost is because they are only 1 Damage Wounds, unlike the potential 6 Damage a Wound from a Lascannon can provide. But that section from Mortal Wounds that has been quoted is also talking about "attacks" which provide Mortal Wounds. Perils is not an "attack", though. It is a consequence that is suffered by a model.

It doesn't say "model". It says "Psyker". And even if it did, identifying whom is to take the Mortal Wounds does not include any instruction to not apply the core rules for the MW mechanic.The Psyker in question is in a unit, and MW says that you do not discard MW's after the model in question is dead, but instead continue to allocate to the unit.

Nothing on the Rubric Marine datasheet or the Perils of the Warp rule alters this core mechanic.

Larks wrote:
It doesn't say "model". It says "Psyker". And even if it did, identifying whom is to take the Mortal Wounds does not include any instruction to not apply the core rules for the MW mechanic.The Psyker in question is in a unit, and MW says that you do not discard MW's after the model in question is dead, but instead continue to allocate to the unit.

Nothing on the Rubric Marine datasheet or the Perils of the Warp rule alters this core mechanic.

It's called simplifying the language to identify the principles using the language provided.

Some models are noted as being a PSYKER on their datasheet.

A Psyker is a model, and only a model, and never a unit.

Mortal Wounds talk about Attacks which inflict Mortal Wounds. Perils of the Warp is not an Attack. Attacks are made against units. Wounds from Attacks on a unit are allocated to models within the unit. Mortal Wounds even talk about allocating these Wounds Perils is inflicted on a model (before the D3 spread), not a unit.

Normal Wounds can inflict multiple amounts of damage, Mortal Wounds only inflict 1 Damage. If an Attack inflicts D6 Mortal Wounds, it would be the same as an Attack dealing D6 1-Damage Wounds that cannot be Saved. In this manner, a Flamer's Wounds no more "disappear" when a model dies than a series of Mortal Wounds. All of which are immaterial, as the initial Wounds from Perils ARE NOT ALLOCATED, just suffered. If you never allocated in the first place, how do you continue to allocate?

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
It doesn't say "model". It says "Psyker". And even if it did, identifying whom is to take the Mortal Wounds does not include any instruction to not apply the core rules for the MW mechanic.The Psyker in question is in a unit, and MW says that you do not discard MW's after the model in question is dead, but instead continue to allocate to the unit.

Nothing on the Rubric Marine datasheet or the Perils of the Warp rule alters this core mechanic.

It's called simplifying the language to identify the principles using the language provided.

Some models are noted as being a PSYKER on their datasheet.

A Psyker is a model, and only a model, and never a unit.

Mortal Wounds talk about Attacks which inflict Mortal Wounds. Perils of the Warp is not an Attack. Attacks are made against units. Wounds from Attacks on a unit are allocated to models within the unit. Mortal Wounds even talk about allocating these Wounds Perils is inflicted on a model (before the D3 spread), not a unit.

Normal Wounds can inflict multiple amounts of damage, Mortal Wounds only inflict 1 Damage. If an Attack inflicts D6 Mortal Wounds, it would be the same as an Attack dealing D6 1-Damage Wounds that cannot be Saved. In this manner, a Flamer's Wounds no more "disappear" when a model dies than a series of Mortal Wounds. All of which are immaterial, as the initial Wounds from Perils ARE NOT ALLOCATED, just suffered. If you never allocated in the first place, how do you continue to allocate?

I'm done reposting the same thing. There is no permission to alter the core mechanic of MWs.

One question though; if Perils is not an attack (and as you said, MW only talks about "attacks") - so how does a unit suffer multiple MW from an Explodes! roll? By your logic, it isn't an attack, the unit just "suffers" the MW. So unless it's an "attack" you don't have to continue allocating MW from an Explodes!, right?

And to touch back on to Ghaz's "psyker isn't targeted so you don't spill over the MW" - well in an Explodes the unit isn't "target unit", it's just an affected unit, right?

Now, if you come back saying "nah, explodes doesn't carry over MW either", then I'll respectfully withdraw from this conversation. Neither you or anyone else has yet provided a rules basis for modifying the MW rules IMO, and I don't want to flood this thread with any more bickering.

Larks wrote:
So it's just simplified language when Perils doesn't specify "model" vs "psyker", but the fact that it mentions "allocates" is a purely ironclad statement that means it only ever spills over if caused singularly by an ability called an "attack". Ok.

I'm done reposting the same thing. There is no permission to alter the core mechanic of MWs.

Because "a Psyker" is "a model". It states it right there. I can use "a model" when talking about "a Psyker", because that is all "a Psyker" is. It is never a unit, and that is an important level of organization to be considering when processing the rules.

Just because a model suffers Wounds does not mean that those Wounds were Allocated. In most cases the damage was allocated because the Unit has been Attacked or received damage. But when a model is Wounded without it going through the process of allocation from the unit, then we do not use the allocation process and the damage does not get to spread. We simply do not have permission to spread unallocated damage (the result of the Wound) to the rest of the unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
So it's just simplified language when Perils doesn't specify "model" vs "psyker", but the fact that it mentions "allocates" is a purely ironclad statement that means it only ever spills over if caused singularly by an ability called an "attack". Ok.

I'm done reposting the same thing. There is no permission to alter the core mechanic of MWs.

Because "a Psyker" is "a model". It states it right there. I can use "a model" when talking about "a Psyker", because that is all "a Psyker" is. It is never a unit, and that is an important level of organization to be considering when processing the rules.

Just because a model suffers Wounds does not mean that those Wounds were Allocated. In most cases the damage was allocated because the Unit has been Attacked or received damage. But when a model is Wounded without it going through the process of allocation from the unit, then we do not use the allocation process and the damage does not get to spread. We simply do not have permission to spread unallocated damage (the result of the Wound) to the rest of the unit.

So Explodes causing D3 MW on a unit of 1-wound models can only kill at most one model?

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
So it's just simplified language when Perils doesn't specify "model" vs "psyker", but the fact that it mentions "allocates" is a purely ironclad statement that means it only ever spills over if caused singularly by an ability called an "attack". Ok.

I'm done reposting the same thing. There is no permission to alter the core mechanic of MWs.

Because "a Psyker" is "a model". It states it right there. I can use "a model" when talking about "a Psyker", because that is all "a Psyker" is. It is never a unit, and that is an important level of organization to be considering when processing the rules.

Just because a model suffers Wounds does not mean that those Wounds were Allocated. In most cases the damage was allocated because the Unit has been Attacked or received damage. But when a model is Wounded without it going through the process of allocation from the unit, then we do not use the allocation process and the damage does not get to spread. We simply do not have permission to spread unallocated damage (the result of the Wound) to the rest of the unit.

So Explodes causing D3 MW on a unit of 1-wound models can only kill at most one model?

Not the same comparison as a unit is not a model. Units do not have Wounds to be damaged. It has to be allocated to the individual models within the unit which do have Wounds to be damaged.

This lack of recognition of the differences between model and unit has long been an issue in this forum. Why perpetuate it?

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
So it's just simplified language when Perils doesn't specify "model" vs "psyker", but the fact that it mentions "allocates" is a purely ironclad statement that means it only ever spills over if caused singularly by an ability called an "attack". Ok.

I'm done reposting the same thing. There is no permission to alter the core mechanic of MWs.

Because "a Psyker" is "a model". It states it right there. I can use "a model" when talking about "a Psyker", because that is all "a Psyker" is. It is never a unit, and that is an important level of organization to be considering when processing the rules.

Just because a model suffers Wounds does not mean that those Wounds were Allocated. In most cases the damage was allocated because the Unit has been Attacked or received damage. But when a model is Wounded without it going through the process of allocation from the unit, then we do not use the allocation process and the damage does not get to spread. We simply do not have permission to spread unallocated damage (the result of the Wound) to the rest of the unit.

So Explodes causing D3 MW on a unit of 1-wound models can only kill at most one model?

Not the same comparison as a unit is not a model. Units do not have Wounds to be damaged. It has to be allocated to the individual models within the unit which do have Wounds to be damaged.

This lack of recognition of the differences between model and unit has long been an issue in this forum. Why perpetuate it?

How are you coming to the conclusion that such a unit has to have MW allocated to it, since it wasn't an "attack"?

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Units do not have Wounds to be damaged. Wounds have to be allocated to the individual models within the unit which do have Wounds to be damaged.

How are you coming to the conclusion that such a unit has to have MW allocated to it, since it wasn't an "attack"?

Highlighted in green.

Keep in mind, that Mortal Wounds is considering the fact that MW to a unit are being allocated, as they are continued to be allocated to the rest of the unit. How do you continue something that you are not doing?

Wound allocation only occurs when a UNIT is Wounded. Perils Wounds the model directly.

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Larks wrote:
So it's just simplified language when Perils doesn't specify "model" vs "psyker", but the fact that it mentions "allocates" is a purely ironclad statement that means it only ever spills over if caused singularly by an ability called an "attack". Ok.

I'm done reposting the same thing. There is no permission to alter the core mechanic of MWs.

Because "a Psyker" is "a model". It states it right there. I can use "a model" when talking about "a Psyker", because that is all "a Psyker" is. It is never a unit, and that is an important level of organization to be considering when processing the rules.

Just because a model suffers Wounds does not mean that those Wounds were Allocated. In most cases the damage was allocated because the Unit has been Attacked or received damage. But when a model is Wounded without it going through the process of allocation from the unit, then we do not use the allocation process and the damage does not get to spread. We simply do not have permission to spread unallocated damage (the result of the Wound) to the rest of the unit.

So Explodes causing D3 MW on a unit of 1-wound models can only kill at most one model?

Not the same comparison as a unit is not a model. Units do not have Wounds to be damaged. It has to be allocated to the individual models within the unit which do have Wounds to be damaged.

This lack of recognition of the differences between model and unit has long been an issue in this forum. Why perpetuate it?

How are you coming to the conclusion that such a unit has to have MW allocated to it, since it wasn't an "attack"?

It doesn't really matter. The key thing is Explodes clearly states the unit takes wounds, so it follows the normal wound allocation process. Perils of the Warp specifies the psyker manifesting the power - a model, not a unit. You are never told that the unit suffers Perils of the Warp. Since the pysker himself is the target, all the mortal wounds go on to him, and since you are never told that the unit suffers Perils of the Warp, none of the excess mortal wounds are transferred to other members in the unit.

So from what I am reading here is the issue.
The Aspirig Sorcerer is stated as the one who casts the powers but the entire Rubric squad has the Psyker keyword. The rules state that the Psyker takes d3 mortal wounds on a perils. Mortal wounds officially say that wounds roll over to the squad but some are arguing that the mortal wounds from a perils specifically target the Psyker. In this case the Sorcerer is part of a squad collectively tagged as Psyker but is stated simultaneously as the caster.
This gives us four specific options.
1) Harsh RAW: Following the rules exactly word for word. The squad perils taking d3 mortal wounds and as written each is a Psyker that died to Mortal wounds from perils of the warp thus each Rubric marine that dies also explodes as a Psyker meaning that it is possible using rules exactly as written that it is possible for the squad to take 2d3 to 4d3 MW and exploding 1d3 to 3d3 MW to squads in 6”.
2) Hard Compromise: This reads in the assumption that only the casting Psyker explodes. The squad perils taking d3 mortal wounds from the perils and then the Sorcerer explodes for an additional d3. So the rubrics take 2d3 MW and everyone in 6” takes 1d3 MW.
3) Soft Compromise: This reads in the assumption that only the casting Psyker explodes and being the caster takes the full brunt of the perils himself. The Sorcerer perils taking 1 mortal wound from the perils and then explodes for an additional d3. So the rubrics take 1+1d3 MW and everyone in 6” takes 1d3 MW.
4) Soft RAW: The squad as a whole sharing the Psyker keyword takes the Perils as a group. So the squad takes d3 mortal wounds which can be applied to any member of the squad and only if the Psyker is fully removed/killed in this case the last squad member does it explode.

So following the rules exactly as written we have to go with options 1 or 4. For 2 or 3 we have to read in some additional conditions that are not stated anywhere or rely on interpreting them in a specific way through careful language.

Just personal assumption then they cannot intend for the squad to go supernova like the Hard RAW so the remaining option seems to be 4. It’s the most generous toward the TS player but it is also how all other SQUADS with Psyker operate. The only difference here being that if the enemy is able to snipe the sorcerer out of the squad then they cannot cast powers without him.

Peril targets the psyker model, these are mortal wounds which are very specific on how they roll over in the unit

the psyker model in this case is part of a UNIT. So the psyker dies to perils and the excess mortal wounds (if any) are allocated to the squad.

Then the squad takes D3 more mortal wounds as the backlash kicks in.

Remember, the aspiring socerer in this case is a MODEL in a UNIT, Perils target the MODEL with MORTAL WOUNDS, which leak over into a UNIT.

Simple

also note that is refers to if the psyker is slain, so following the context of the rule it's meaning the model itself. So it will still blow up

^ it would be Option 2

mchammadad wrote:
Peril targets the psyker model, these are mortal wounds which are very specific on how they roll over in the unit

the psyker model in this case is part of a UNIT. So the psyker dies to perils and the excess mortal wounds (if any) are allocated to the squad.

Then the squad takes D3 more mortal wounds as the backlash kicks in.

Remember, the aspiring socerer in this case is a MODEL in a UNIT, Perils target the MODEL with MORTAL WOUNDS, which leak over into a UNIT.

Simple

Agreed.

That is where the reading in or interpretation comes in. In perils it states that “the psyker” takes the wounds, in this case the squad shares the Psyker keyword. It never states “the model” takes the wound. The only reference anywhere to “the model” is in the opening step (step 1) where it explains that models with the Psyker keyword are psykers. The base rules don’t have wording to account for psychic squads. In this case the entire unit is a Psyker, having the keyword, and even if the sorcerer is killed all the rubrics are still counted as psykers for all other purposes.

So if that’s how you play it all power to you but it is not quite right and seems a unfairly harsh punishment given how all the other psychic squads seem to operate.

 Brometheus wrote:
Kinda like Gift of Chaos- You can't say the 3+d3 mortal wounds on a model pours over to the unit because it says that particular model takes the wounds.

but that is explicitly not how it works. Mortals wounds do spill over, even if you targetted a single model in a unit. If you cast gift of chaos on a squad of guarsdman and deal 3+3 mortal wounds, 6 guardsman will die from that. They explain how mortal wounds works in the rulebook for that.