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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

The Creatures With More Than One Wound rules on page 27 of the rulebook say: "When a unit contains several multiple-Wound models, and those models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-Wound models from the unit as casualties where possible -- wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

QUESTION: When a unit that contains several multiple Wound models suffers wounding hits, but not enough to actually remove a casualty, how do you play that those wounds have to be allocated?

SAMPLE SITUATION: A unit of 5 unwounded Ogryn (T4, 3W) takes two Shiruken Catapult (S4) wounds. Which models may/must the owning player allocate the wounds to?

OPTION A. The owning player must always allocate wounds to be "building towards" removing a casualty, even if the player cannot currently remove a casualty. In the above example, both wounds would have to be allocated to a single Ogryn.

OPTION B. Since a casualty cannot be removed from the current enemy unit's shooting, the owning player is free to allocate the wounds as he sees fit. In the example above the owning player is free to place one wound on two seperate Ogryns.

OPTION C. Something else entirely: reply exactly what it is below.

I tend to allocate wounds to units, rather than models. Makes it easier to keep track of rather than working out which models have 2 wounds left, and which ones have 1. In the example above, the unit would just suffer 2 wounds, and it would have 13 left. As soon as another wound was suffered I would remove another Ogryn - no messing around with what Ogryn is wounded and which one isn't.

BYE

If you allocate them to models, I've found torrent of fire is quite usefull in getting rid of heavy weapon Tyranid warriors...

I do exactly the same as HMBC.

It prevents the situation where you assign 2 wounds from shooting to your left-most swarm, but then that one doesn't get engaged in combat where you suffer one more wound. If the wounds are allocated to models, then you technically would be unable to remove a model, violating the rule quoted above.

By allocating to units instead, that issue evaporates.


People still put heavy weapons on their Nid Warriors?

Hey,


"It's Unit vs Unit" has been repeated so many times in QnAs

I'm surprised this is still a question.


Playa

Posted By Playa on 10/08/2006 9:58 PM


Hey,


"It's Unit vs Unit" has been repeated so many times in QnAs

I'm surprised this is still a question.


Playa

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your reply, but if you're trying to implicate that the multi-wound casualty removal rules are calculated only on a unit basis (rather than on a model basis) there is absolutely *nothing* in the 4th edition rules to support this position.

 

Additionally this debate has never really been settled. I've played A and B, really its up to my opponent how they want to play. Generally however, I would say you have to remove whole wound models first, meaning that A should be more appropriate. however, this is one of those things that the debate gods will have until it gets FAQ'd.

While the rules as written support B, I play A.

Just to clarify: there is nothing in the rules which requires a player taking wounds to optimize model removal in the future.  The "must remove whole models" phrase only comes in to play when it is possible to remove whole models.

True true i got ahead of myself. Let me be more clear, I believe personally that wounds need to be spread across the entire unit before you can have wounds circle around and cause more than one wound to a model (Instant Death notwithstanding) However. I see validity for A as well in the rules because you have to attempt to remove whole wound models, i don't see that rule as being only active when it is possible to remove whole wound models. To me whole wound models means you build up towards removing a whole model. On the other hand there are recent FAQ's that ellude that a model can't suffer more than one wound until the entire unit has suffered one wound (look in the recent BGB faq update the meltagun lascannon question. The Answer states that you can't allocate more than one wound to a model in that scenario meaning that you have to cycle first before allocating two wounds).

Posted By Lowinor on 10/11/2006 2:21 PM
While the rules as written support B, I play A.

Just to clarify: there is nothing in the rules which requires a player taking wounds to optimize model removal in the future.  The "must remove whole models" phrase only comes in to play when it is possible to remove whole models.

Then again, there is nothing in the rules to indicate that the guideline applies only to a single enemy unit's shooting. Is is possible to not avoid taking casualties by always placing extra wounds onto a single model (even if it won't immediately result in a casualty being removed)? You bet.

So "where possible" can simply mean: you must always attempt to be removing models as casualties whenever possible, which naturally means you must place remaining wounds onto the same (generally already wounded) model.

Where it is not "possible" is when the situation dictates where a wound is placed, either through mixed armor, range sniping, torrent of fire, CC kill zones, etc. All of these situations can cause a wounds to be "spread around" the unit.

 

Posted By ATI on 10/11/2006 2:36 PM
True true i got ahead of myself. Let me be more clear, I believe personally that wounds need to be spread across the entire unit before you can have wounds circle around and cause more than one wound to a model (Instant Death notwithstanding) However. I see validity for A as well in the rules because you have to attempt to remove whole wound models, i don't see that rule as being only active when it is possible to remove whole wound models. To me whole wound models means you build up towards removing a whole model. On the other hand there are recent FAQ's that ellude that a model can't suffer more than one wound until the entire unit has suffered one wound (look in the recent BGB faq update the meltagun lascannon question. The Answer states that you can't allocate more than one wound to a model in that scenario meaning that you have to cycle first before allocating two wounds).

You read the FAQ wrong.  It was regarding range and casualty removal, not wound allocation by itself.

The point was that you caused two wounds, but if you allocated the lascannon wound to the model within range of the melta gun you could effectively remove the melta gun's potential chance to kill while leaving a model in the lascannon's range unscathed, and they did not want that. They were saying to avoid pulling casualties to nullify weapons that have less range.

Furthermore your opinion that "wounds need to be spread across the entire unit before you can have wounds circle around and cause more than one wound to a model" directly contradicts the above rule, which states that the rule is there to prevent spreading of wounds to remove casualties: " wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models".

You hit the nail right on the head snoogums. Top of page 26 clearly states my argument word for word the rule says "When a unit suffers wounds each will affect a different model, you can not claim all the wounds hit a single model" this furthers my argument that was also stated in the faq, you can't allocate two shots (even if one has more range than the other) on the same model (Again this is backed up by the reading on the top of page 26). The FAQ goes further and simply states that the gun with less range MUST target units within its range first then use the longer range weaponry.

You are right there is a contradiction in rules here. Whereas in the multiple wound models section it says you can not use the rule I just stated. HOwever, in its abscence we have this discussion up above, Option A or Option B. When you are killing single wound models this resolution follows page 26. When but there is no clarity with regard to how wound allocation works on multi wound models. You must remove whole wound models is a very ambiguous term in my mind. It can mean A, meaning you work towards killing a model first, rather than spreading wounds around. (Keep in mind I agree with A)

Then again a different interpretation can go on the where possible part and argue that if there is no possible method to remove a whole wound model (as in example B) thus you don't have to worry about the second clause that states "you may not spread out wounds to avoid removing models" because in this situation there is no way for you to actually lose a model, thus you aren't technically spreading wounds to avoid removing a model (with only two wounds dealt you aren't in danger of losing a model with ogryns thus you aren't avoiding removing a model).

Now if the example where three wounds this would be simple in my mind, kill one ogryn and done and done.

Hey,


Yakface said:


>FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME,

> NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY


Then, Yakface said:


> there is absolutely *nothing* in the 4th edition rules to support this position


LOL! Virtually everything in the RB supports the UvU position. *Everything*!


Almost every page tells us how *Units* Move, Shoot and resolve Combat.


But if just one little word or phrase contradicts this metarule, it's not a typo -


I t ' s a c are i s i s ! 8 - 0


Okay, maybe I'm not properly appreciative of the sanctity of rules lawyering.


I enjoy 40k more than debate, so I first invoke the 'metarule' in any dispute.


It's just how I choose to play the game, but it's pretty firm moral high-ground, imo.


Playa


--


"A good person strives to uphold justice, lesser people scheme to gain advantage."

- Kung Fu Tzu, 500 B.C.

Well, unless your opponent chooses to agree, you have a problem.

This is one of those grey areas presented in the rules. It seems to bring out the best and worst of most players. Because of ambiguities with any rule structure, it is impossible to have complete concreteness on what all the rules mean. Thus the practice of having to argue for certain rules interpretations is a necessity in a game like 40k. These kinds of forums tend to be for players who need these disputes solved for when the situation invariably comes up again.

The key is to remember that it is a game about having fun, and to come up with something your local gaming group can agree with. In many of the situations described in YMTC rules can go both ways with neither side being absolutely correct. Some agree with things one way others the opposite way. Until an official ruling happens from GW theres not much we can do but speculate.

The two rules being quoted do NOT contradict each other. The reference on page 26 assumes the models in the unit have one wound each (read the previous paragraph). Don't use it to justify your treatment of multiple wound creatures, there's a reason multiple wound creatures are described in their own separate section. Regarding single wound models: "..each [wound] will affect a different model--You cannot claim all the wounds hit a single model" means that if 36 wounds are delivered in shooting phase the Player is not allowed to say that all 36 wounds were taken by a single model, and turned him into paste. ...A single brave, heroic, and noble model who saved the rest of his unit from 35 other wounds. Nope. That is not allowed. Hence, "you cannot claim all the wounds hit a single model."

It follows that an individual multiple wound model cannot take all 36 wounds either. I agree with ATI's assessment of "where possible" as being ambiguous. I suggest that "to avoid removing models" be struck from the text.

If you follow option B, it is possible to end up with a five-man unit in which all five models are wounded. Take an extreme example:  five models with three wounds each.  In a shooting phase they take two wounds, which are allocated to two different models.  Next shooting phase they only take one wound...  which could then go to a third model.  Now you have three wounded models when you SHOULD/COULD have a casualty.  This process could theoretically continue until all five models have two wounds each.  That's a lot of markers to keep track of and it's obviously cheating. Further, it states to "track any excess wounds [PLOURAL] with a marker [SINGULAR, not PLOURAL]." One marker means one model is wounded.

Resolution:
When there ARE multiple wound models involved, you are not allowed to "spread the wounds around (p. 27)." Regardless of how many wounds a model has (and within LOS and range), the wounds build on a model of your choice until that model is dead, then remaining wounds build on the next model of your choice until that model is dead, repeat until no more models can die. If a wounded model remains, the rules instruct you to track it with a marker next to the model (p. 27).

Resolving this way works for single wound units, multiple wound units, or any combination thereof.
Needless to say, I'm for option A.

Furthermore, the Mixed Armour section (p. 76) is very confusing and is often cited as justification to spread wounds around (see #5). The verbage is poorly chosen, but if you read the example under #5 it become clear that it is describing how to allocate saves, not wounds.

Respectfully, --Ferro