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.

 p5freak wrote:
How can that model (singular) be both ?

because when it says "the attack must be allocated to that model" it is referring to the model in the target unit that has already lost any wounds.

Since there are two models in the target unit that have already lost wounds, then "that model" is referring to two different models because they have both lost wounds.

That model cannot refer to both models, because its singular.

Except it does, because the sentence was written assuming that the set of all models "that model" can be referring to would only ever be {0,1} and not more than one, which it does here.

Agree with P5freak.

"Allocate attack: Player commanding target unit selects one model in that unit. If a model in the unit has already lost wounds, or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, they must select that model."

I am going to allocate an attack. I look at the unit. It clearly even states that "Player commanding target unit selects one model" In this case you have two with wounds, so I select either of them and that one continues loosing wounds.

The rule prohibits you from choosing a model without wounds if you already have a model with wounds. If you have no wounds --> you can choose. If you have multiple with wounds --> you can choose (but the choice must be for one that already has wounds).

If A model
Is where your interpretation fails.

There isn't A model. There are two.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except it does, because the sentence was written assuming that the set of all models "that model" can be referring to would only ever be {0,1} and not more than one, which it does here.

Then GW needs to write better rules. It is possible to end up with multiple wounded models in a unit. The silent king is not the only case.

Which others are there? I thought the issues with multiple "overheats" weapons applying a wound to the bearer had been removed?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If A model
Is where your interpretation fails.

There isn't A model. There are two.

If there is two, there are two 'A's', you choose which one.

Look out the window, is there 'A' car in the street? Are you gonna say no when there are two or more?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which others are there? I thought the issues with multiple "overheats" weapons applying a wound to the bearer had been removed?

There is a psychic power called Sacrifice, where i select a model which is within 2" of the psyker, that model suffers 1MW. If a model in that unit already had lost any wounds, and i position the psyker within 2" of another model which hasnt lost any wounds i end up with two models who have lost wounds.

If manifested, choose any model within 2" of the psyker; that model suffers a mortal wound. Then, choose a friendly <LEGION> DAEMON model within 18" of the psyker. That model regains D3 lost wounds. If that <LEGION> DAEMON model is a DAEMON ENGINE and the model you chose to inflict the mortal wound on was a friendly <LEGION> WARPSMITH, the DAEMON ENGINE regains 3 lost wounds instead.

So for those saying “tHe GaMe BrEaKs!” it is patently clear it’s only doing so because you broke it.

The spirit of the rules is hyper clear even if you think you’ve found some clever loophole. You can’t have more than one damaged model in a unit, and the Menhirs are supposed to soak up damage before the Big Lad takes any. Sooooo, is it that hard to just follow that?

HIWPI allocate all damage from any sources to Menhirs before Silent King to satisfy all rules and avoid manufacturing edge cases you shouldn’t even arrive at.

Simples. Avoids internet posturing and bickering, follows fluff and rules and no one needs to get salty or have a 30 minute Argument Phase.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

The spirit of the rules is hyper clear even if you think you’ve found some clever loophole. You can’t have more than one damaged model in a unit, and the Menhirs are supposed to soak up damage before the Big Lad takes any. Sooooo, is it that hard to just follow that?

Please explain how the silent king can ever be killed before the menhirs are dead, when the menhirs are supposed to soak up damage ? GW has written that sentence because there must be ways how that can happen.

Triarchal Menhir:
While this unit contains any Triarchal Menhirs models, it does not count as a CHARACTER for the purposes of the Look Out, Sir rule and each time an attack successfully wounds this unit, that attack must be allocated to one of those models. The destruction of Triarchal Menhirs is ignored for the purposes of Morale tests. If Szarekh is ever destroyed, any remaining Triarchal Menhirs in this unit are also destroyed.

Stick to answering one question and don’t try to whatabout and distract with a second. It’s typically poor and disingenuous form from you.

FWIW that text is not permission to have multiple wounded models in a unit. It’s simply a “mop up weird scenarios” rule. But, back to the topic, not your sidebar…

I have no idea what you are talking about, what question ?

Oh good grief.

So in absence of a clear rule, you're going by the "spirit" of a rule ... sure.
The actual clear rule lets you have two wounded models, because gw write an "intercept" rule withiut thinking about it.

 p5freak wrote:
Please explain how the silent king can ever be killed before the menhirs are dead, when the menhirs are supposed to soak up damage ? GW has written that sentence because there must be ways how that can happen.

Triarchal Menhir:
While this unit contains any Triarchal Menhirs models, it does not count as a CHARACTER for the purposes of the Look Out, Sir rule and each time an attack successfully wounds this unit, that attack must be allocated to one of those models. The destruction of Triarchal Menhirs is ignored for the purposes of Morale tests. If Szarekh is ever destroyed, any remaining Triarchal Menhirs in this unit are also destroyed.

This is a rule to avoid unintended effects of any rule that might happen. It may currently be impossible to destroy Szarekh before the Menhirs, but how knows what unintended interaction may happen from some future rule. This rule prevents those interactions from causing an unwanted result.

For example, Celestine has this exact same verbiage in her rules. The difference is there are actual ways to return models to her unit, which might result in a damaged Celestine and undamaged GS. That would cause Celestine to die first, destroying her unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So in absence of a clear rule, you're going by the "spirit" of a rule ... sure.
The actual clear rule lets you have two wounded models, because gw write an "intercept" rule withiut thinking about it.

Does it hell. See post above. And yeah, spirit is super important lest you want every game to become YMDC Live… <shudder>

At some point, GW needs to either define Mortal Wounds as an attack for assigning Wounds or that any rule that tells you to assign wounds from attacks to a specific model(s) apply to Mortal Wounds as well. That would get rid of corner cases like this.

 alextroy wrote:
This is a rule to avoid unintended effects of any rule that might happen. It may currently be impossible to destroy Szarekh before the Menhirs, but how knows what unintended interaction may happen from some future rule. This rule prevents those interactions from causing an unwanted result.

Why did they even write a successful wound must go on the menhirs in the first place ? It would have been easier to write that all damage (this would include MW) must go on the menhirs first, irrespective of anything else saying otherwise.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So in absence of a clear rule, you're going by the "spirit" of a rule ... sure.
The actual clear rule lets you have two wounded models, because gw write an "intercept" rule withiut thinking about it.

Does it hell. See post above. And yeah, spirit is super important lest you want every game to become YMDC Live… <shudder>

Except it does. You can legitimately end up with two wounded models, following all applicable rules. GW is perfectly awar of the difference between an attack and not - see necrons RP for returning models to a unit - they just didn't think through the consequence of making the SKs intercept rule work only on attacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So in absence of a clear rule, you're going by the "spirit" of a rule ... sure.
The actual clear rule lets you have two wounded models, because gw write an "intercept" rule withiut thinking about it.

Does it hell. See post above. And yeah, spirit is super important lest you want every game to become YMDC Live… <shudder>

Except it does. You can legitimately end up with two wounded models, following all applicable rules. GW is perfectly awar of the difference between an attack and not - see necrons RP for returning models to a unit - they just didn't think through the consequence of making the SKs intercept rule work only on attacks.

So make a choice that doesn’t “break the game”. Breaking it is on you.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So in absence of a clear rule, you're going by the "spirit" of a rule ... sure.
The actual clear rule lets you have two wounded models, because gw write an "intercept" rule withiut thinking about it.

Does it hell. See post above. And yeah, spirit is super important lest you want every game to become YMDC Live… <shudder>

Except it does. You can legitimately end up with two wounded models, following all applicable rules. GW is perfectly awar of the difference between an attack and not - see necrons RP for returning models to a unit - they just didn't think through the consequence of making the SKs intercept rule work only on attacks.

So make a choice that doesn’t “break the game”. Breaking it is on you.

KMK and their version of overheating plasma. No player choice there.

Change the situation change the answer. Next distraction? Jeez, this forum…

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Change the situation change the answer. Next distraction? Jeez, this forum…

So, what do you do when you have two wounded models in one unit?

You can avoid that with the Silent King by choosing to allocate all damage to Menhirs first.
You cannot with KMK.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Change the situation change the answer. Next distraction? Jeez, this forum…

Same result, so your answer is shown to be wholly inadequate

If you don't like it, don't post. You're not compelled to. Just log out and go.

Honestly folks, you shouldn’t end up in a two-wounded models situation. As was posted a long time ago in threads about such things, should you happen to (via error, confusion, extreme edge case or sheer malice on the rules writers’ part) you can common sense your way out and agree to pick one model and apply all wounds to that, then the other wounded, then back to normal. That doesn’t take a lot of time to hash out as a reasonable solution to get out of a place you shouldn’t have been able to get to.

Yet here we are with people saying they want to choose to be in a “oh noes rules broke” position voluntarily, I suspect primarily to have an online shouting match. Yet I’m the one who should “log out and go”? Sure, sure.

(For the record I’ve no idea what a KMK is because no context was provided and it is Not The Topic. Assuming Orks and something Kustom but it is Not The Topic so if it warrants one someone should start a thread if it is an extreme edge case worth nattering about)

I think perhaps the rules of this forum are inadequate. What's the point of RAW? In the tournament scene and I just looked it up, at least 8 months ago this was covered .. you may not allocate even mortal wounds to the Silent King before the Menhirs are dead. "Because they ruled it that way." Because they wanted a playable environment, but RAW in this forum is almost never the way its actually played in friendly or competitive environments.

No, it's just you seem to dislike "this forum", so just don't bother with it. No one forces you to do so. But constantly complaining that "this forum' isn't doing what you want it to do, that gets annoying.

Kustom Mega Kannon. Doesn't nee to be another thread as yiu could end up in the same position as wuth the SK, making your decision to just "spirit of" it away doesn't work.

Sazzle x who ruled this?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it's just you seem to dislike "this forum", so just don't bother with it. No one forces you to do so. But constantly complaining that "this forum' isn't doing what you want it to do, that gets annoying.

Kustom Mega Kannon. Doesn't nee to be another thread as yiu could end up in the same position as wuth the SK, making your decision to just "spirit of" it away doesn't work.

Sazzle x who ruled this?

Hey Nos,

Its from both WTC and ACO bout 8 months ago. Here's the FAQ the WTC published "14. When The Silent King is wounded before any Menhirs are (this can happen for example when being targeted by psychic powers
that deal mortal wounds), ignore the wounds incurred and allocate all applicable attacks to the Menhirs instead following the Triarchal Menhir ability."

Here's the link to the FAQ

http://worldteamchampionship.com/wtc-rules/

Its not RAW, but, tournaments need streamlined rulings, so I guess this question has come up more than a few times in the past.

It's also failing to differentiate between attacks and non attacks, which is just plain wrong.