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.

Discussion came up over the weekend as I was called in on a rules dispute:

Thousand Sons player has taken a wound on his squad.

Space Wolves player shoots squad with krak missile, causing a wounding hit which would cause instant death.

Does the Thousand Son player remove the wounded model (net effect: squad loses one wound), or does he remove an unwounded model, leaving the wounded model (net effect, squad loses two wounds)?

I had a vague idea that a 'whole' model was removed, and sure enough, that's what the rules said. However, the Thousand Sons player argued that the wounded model was a 'whole' model (i.e. he wasn't spreading the wounds around), while the Space Wolves player argued that he was a wounded (and hence not 'whole') model.

After a little discussion, they ended up rolling for it.

Can anyone explain the correct situation, and why?

I have heard it argued both ways.  I do not believe there exists a definitive answer to this one.

The Thousand Sons player is correct. There is nothing in the rulebook which says that a model with a wound is not "whole" and it is true that he is not "spreading around" wounds to avoid taking out models. In fact...he is following the letter of the rule. When there is already a wounded model, the next wound must go on that model.

Instant death does not cause multiple wounds. It simply kills you no matter how many wounds you have.

The rule cannot be resolved as written. The detailed account of the issues surrounding this rule are in the Dakka FAQ in section RB.27.01

The basic conflict that this particular part of the issue boils down to is a lack of clarity in the meaning of the word "whole."
1. whole can mean "entire"
2. whole can also mean "unwounded"

Both meaning are equally valid, equally likely, but the rules don't give enough information to know which one is meant. Depending on which meaning you assume, you get a different outcome on casualty removal.

I disagree.

The simple fact is...Instant death only causes a single wound. The wound profile of a krak missle is the same as a bolter...a single wound. one wound....one.

If I wound a fire warrior, or a gaunt with a bolter, 1 model is removed. If I wound the same squad with a krak missle, 1 model is removed.

The difference is that the krak missle kills the model no matter how many wounds it has...but it is still only a single-wound causing weapon.

Instand death is just that...instand death. it is NOT multiple wounds. Read the definition of Instant Death. It says the model is removed no matter how many wounds it has. It does NOT say that the weapon causes wounds equal to the number of wounds the model has.

You know, the rule has a clarifier added to it. "to avoid spreading wounds around". If you read the rule in context there should be no confusion.

Given a unit that has several multi-wound models, one of which is already wounded.
Given a group of wounds inflicted upon it, one of which causes instant death.
They player who owns the targeted unit chooses where to apply which wounds. If hes wants he can take the insta kill wound on the wounded model or on a fresh one, but the latter would probably be kind of dumb.

In the case you described, the wound is applied to the wounded model first, causing insta-death which is irrelevant as hes going to die anyway due to only having one wound left. The phrase "to avoid spreading wounds" was put in there to clarify the statement before it. It would be nice to cherry pick portions of rules, but unfortunately, you have to read them in their entirety for context.

Seriously, this question comes up every six months or so and usually turns into a huge thread with all the same arguments over and over.

Please take a look at the DakkaFAQ section RB.27.01, read it carefully, and decide if you really have something new to add. It's stickied at the top of this forum.

i say that we follow the letter of the rules and remove wounded models from multi wound units where ever possible.
this should stop you having to keep track of umpteen wound markers.
just because an instant death shot has the potential to remove an unwounded multi wound model does not mean that it should always do maximum damage and remove a previously unwounded model.
this could lead to potential problems when dealing with things like plague swords.

example: nurgle player has 2 plague swords in the squad and insists on trying to make them do maximum damage. he causes 6 wounds with the plague swords and because they have the potential to remove unwounded multi wound models he inflicts 1 wound on each model in his kill zone. he rolls badly and only gets 1 4+ result for the plague swords effects. the enemy squad only loses 1 model and takes 1 wound on each of the other 5.
this is a direct contradiction of the rules as there are now 5 wounds spread through out a multi wound squad.

then again this raises more questions.
say i have a nob squad with a kustom forcefield (gives them a 5+cover save).
they take 6 rocket launcha wounds (each would cause instant death)
do i:
1. roll all the saves at once and remove one nob for each failed save (taking maximum damage from the instant death rule)?
2. allocate 2 wounds to each model till i run out of wounds then roll the saves separately for each model removing any models that fail a save?
3. roll all the saves together and allocate the wounds in pairs to the models (taking minimum damage from the instant death rule as only the model that takes a single wound will effectively suffer from instant death)?

Unless this is what the rules are telling you to do. In this case we don't know for sure what the rules mean, but if you're advocating ignoring the rules then you probably won't find a lot of agreement on the rules forum.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 03/06/2007 2:27 PM
 In this case we don't know for sure what the rules mean, but if you're advocating ignoring the rules then you probably won't find a lot of agreement on the rules forum.

Who is we? You got a mouse in your pocket? I know what they mean, as well as several others that replied here. Just because some people have no idea what context is in the English language does not infer that "we" can not figure it out. Some of us do understand context.

What the hell was a SW player doing shooting at the thousand sons anyway> the shame of it, this argument should never have arisen if the SW player played like a real SW and just assualted them instead

Posted By beef on 03/07/2007 2:54 AM
What the hell was a SW player doing shooting at the thousand sons anyway> the shame of it, this argument should never have arisen if the SW player played like a real SW and just assualted them instead

QFT!!!

Some of us understand the meaning of supercilious, too.

Thanks to all with your constructive comments and help.

Context, eh? I don't remember them mentioning that concept when I was getting my Ph.D. in English. That must be why I don't understand it.

But seriously, Mortis, context is what tells us (that is, the mouse in my pocket and me) that there can be more than one possible reading here. The only way you can get a single meaning out of this context is by disregarding the half of the context that you don't agree with.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 03/07/2007 6:06 AM

Just because some people have no idea what context is in the English language does not infer that "we" can not figure it out. Some of us do understand context.

Context, eh? I don't remember them mentioning that concept when I was getting my Ph.D. in English. That must be why I don't understand it.

But seriously, Mortis, context is what tells us (that is, the mouse in my pocket and me) that there can be more than one possible reading here. The only way you can get a single meaning out of this context is by disregarding the half of the context that you don't agree with.

Right. And my PH.D. in Psychology/Nuclear Physics/Gardening is telling me the crap is getting deep. If you did have a PH.D. in English, which you don't need to infer the context of that rule (plain old 4th grade English would do it), then you would see that there is only one way to read it.

Okay, then, let's go step by step.



Now in the DakkaFAQ it says this:



In other words, do you try to avoid spreading wounds around for just that volley, just that shooting phase, or the entire battle across shooting phases? The rule doesn't specify, and the context doesn't say.

Depending on whether you assume the "no-spreading" rule applies just for that volley or across volleys/turns, you get a different outcome from the same rule.

So, Mortis, when you say this:



...you are assuming that the rule only applies to particular volleys, regardless of what happens later. You have answered the question by making an arbitrary choice on a fundamental assumption. This might be called "cherry picking" particular interpretations and ignoring viable alternative interpretations of the same rule.

There is nothing in the rule that infers that different volleys of fire are treated differently. It plainly states you cannot spread around wounds. That infers you apply the wounds to the unit in a specific method which they explained as removing whole models (and not spreading around wounds). It in no way says this only applies to that volley of fire, or this turn.

You know, heres the major issue with rules lawyering and debating meanings of words that are obvious in their meaning. The problem I see when I see debates can be cleared up simply by using this very simple rule. "If the rule makes sense in reading it does not require any further interpretation". By trying to infer a different meaning into it, which was clarified by adding the "so as to not spread wounds" sentence, makes you start to second guess all the rules. Then the game ceses to be fun. Its exploitive and abusive of the rules and really ruins the game.

The vast majority of players who read that rule will interpret it the same way I did and this debate will never arise. All this pulling out the magnifying glass and going over the text looking for a loophole or an exploit is really silly.

"I know the rule sounds like it means this, but what if he really meant the opposite?" You really want to interpret rules using this style of rules lawyering then go read the rules regarding moving units on page 15. You will note that by using your method of interpretation, that nowhere does it say you can not move your opponents units. So, by RAW, after I move one of my units then I can go ahead an move all of my opponents. Thats just plain silly.

So, I refer you back to this handy little tool "If the rule makes sense in reading it does not require any further interpretation".

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 03/07/2007 10:26 AM
In other words, do you try to avoid spreading wounds around for just that volley, just that shooting phase, or the entire battle across shooting phases? The rule doesn't specify, and the context doesn't say.

The rule does not specify how long the rule is in effect?  Sure it does.  By not adding any qualifying statement it means it is valid all the time.  You can't say "this might only be from one shooting phaze to the next becuase it does not specify"  Becuase by not specifiying, it means it is in effect all the time, for the entire battle.  Otherwise you open up stuff like "well, I have to remove a model as a casualty, but it does not say WHEN I have to remove it"

I will readily agree that this can be a confusing issue.  But, unlike a lot of GW rules, it's fairly simple once you look at things properly.  And it's important to not read more into the rule then is there.

The fact is, all weapons work exactly the same way.  You shoot them, you roll to wound, opponent gets an armor save, and they all cause a single wound.  Weapons can have different characterists that define how each of those steps work, but they steps are the same.  And the wound characteristics for all weapons are the same.  I'm fairly certain there is no weapon that is listed as causeing more then 1 wound in its profile.

You have to understand that a weapon that causes Instand Death still only causes a single wound...in fact, it does not cause Instant Death until AFTER that wound is caused.  Meaning a model only gets a single saving throw, and you don't check for "Instant Death" until AFTER he is wounded.

Again, Instant Death says you remove the model now matter how many wounds he has, it does NOT say that it causes multiple wounds.

By "infer" here and later I'll assume you mean "imply" since a rule can't infer anything. I'm also going to assume (from context) that this sentence is actually intending to say "There is nothing in the rules that implies that the 'no spreading' restriction applies to different volleys of fire.

The answer to that is, there is nothing in the rules that implies that it doesn't either. That's the source of the problem. The rules don't say one way or the other.



True.



Not sure, but this sentence appears to be saying "That implies that you remove whole models and can't spread wounds." If that's a correct, then it's true and I agree.



This appears to be a restatement of the first sentence in the paragraph.

So to summarize, this argument appears to say:
1. the rules don't say that the 'no-spreading' restriction applies to multiple volleys
2. so you have to remove whole models and not spread wounds around

The premises are true, but the second one doesn't follow from the first.

I think the conclusion maybe you were driving toward, but didn't quite reach, is this one:
3. therefore, the 'no-spreading' restriction applies only to single volleys.

If your only support for this argument is the premise that the rules don't say anything about it, then the argument is unsound because it's based on an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because the rules don't say it doesn't spread doesn't mean that it doesn't. The absence of evidence is not evidence.



I agree. Good thing we're not actually playing the game and choosing to have a discussion in a rules forum instead. If we ever play a game, I'll do what I actually do in gameplay and let you play it whichever way you want. Btw, the house rule at the place where I play is "whole" = "unwounded."



If this rule made sense to everybody with a simple reading, then it wouldn't come up on this board every few months and cause a huge long thread. Even within this thread there are multiple interpretations of what the rule says. Sinjin appears to be trying to back you up, Mortis (correct me if I'm wrong) but half of what he says leads to the opposite result of what you are arguing.



I agree. It's a good thing that my purpose of pulling out the magnifying glass and going over rules here is not to find loopholes, but to find problems with the rules so that maybe someday word will get back to GW and the problems might get fixed. I know it's a small hope, but you never know. But disregarding problems with unclear rules by insisting that they are arbitrarily clear doesn't help solve the problem.



Yep, I agree on all counts. By RAW you can do this, and it is silly, and it ought to be fixed.



It's amazing how much we totally agree. And, when we are talking about a rule that makes sense in reading (rather than the nonsensical multi-wound casualty removal rules) then I won't attempt any further interpretation either.

If it helps, I've always played where if you have an instant death shot it goes to an unwounded model. I also play it where if you have multiwound models and single wound models you can put one wound on the multiwound model (aka the floating wound) but the next single wound either kills a single wound model in that unit or you pull off a multiwound model (assuming the multiwound models are the two wound type)... When I played Tau this was very common (i.e. crisis suits and drones), I've never had anyone have any issue with it.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 03/07/2007 3:01 PM
By "infer" here and later I'll assume you mean "imply" since a rule can't infer anything. I'm also going to assume (from context) that this sentence is actually intending to say "There is nothing in the rules that implies that the 'no spreading' restriction applies to different volleys of fire.

I've already made my point, anything further would be beating a dead horse. I just wanted to comment on this part here then I'm going to leave it alone.

in·fer      /?n?f?r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fur] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.

Forget what I said about accreditation, then. Please, judge my arguments on their own merits.

And in your cut/paste from dictionary.com, you forgot to include the usage note:



So I concede that, by the RAW of the word "infer," your usage is correct. I guess I've read too many usage guides.

Thanks, Sazzle--more evidence that supports my experience that the number of different interpretations of this rule floating around in the 40K community suggests that it is ambiguous and unclear.

Angelus,

Flavius has shown time and time again on these forums that he has a pretty solid grasp on both the English language and how to construct (and de-construct) logical arguments.

He isn't trying to 'rules lawyer' some situation to gain an advantage; just that the rules are unclear, which they are.

If you check out the 'How do YOU play 40k' thread stickied at the top of this forum, you'll find a couple of polls on how people actually play the multi-wound casualty removal issue. Although the sample sizes of the polls are relatively small, I still think the data they reveal is very telling.

On whether or not you always 'build towards' a casualty across multiple volleys (the 'Part 1' poll) almost everyone plays the same: You must always be 'building towards' a casualty, even when taking wounds from different units.

However, when you introduce an instant death wound (and a previously wounded model) into the mix (the 'Part 2' poll), all of a sudden you see that players are split pretty much 50/50% on how they play it.

Half force the instant death wound onto an unwounded model, while the other half allocate it to the previously wounded model in the unit (but do this before placing any of the non-instant death wounds).

Anytime half of the players play one way and half play the other, I think we can all safely agree (or at least we all should agree) that the rules are not clearly written.

Posted By yakface on 03/07/2007 7:00 PM

Angelus,

Flavius has shown time and time again on these forums that he has a pretty solid grasp on both the English language and how to construct (and de-construct) logical arguments.

I apologize if it appears I was being argumentative. I just got the impression that I was being treated in a condecending way and was criticized on my use of English language which I knew to be an unjust criticism. I was simply defending my own grasp on the English language since it was challenged.

That being said, I do agree with his statement that the term "whole model" could have several meanings, I do not agree with his conclusion due to the authors clarifying statement "so as to not spread wounds". Again, I defer back to my own statement "if the reading makes sense, then it requires no further interpretation". We don't need to break down every rule where the intent of said rule is pretty obvious.

I say his intent is obvious based on two things.

1)His clarifying statement.

2)It would not make sense interpreted the way flavius is claiming.

IMHO, these two deductions make for a very strong argument.

Peace, Mortis. No harm, no foul.

Maybe I misread your intent earlier in the thread. I only shove back on this forum when I feel like someone is trying to bully me (or others). Sorry if that's just your argument style and I misunderstood it.

And seriously, I really don't care about people's use of standard English. I work with a lot of people who make a moral crusade out of good grammer; I'm not one of those people. As long as the meaning is clear to the audience, I could care less.

And just to clarify my position.

I'm not arguing at all about how wounds are distributed across a multi-wound unit. Becuase you are all right...there are many different interpretations of how this is done. And it needs to be clarified by GW.

I was simply saying that Instant Death is a single wound. Period. And all wounds should be treated the same. However you, or your group deals with the above...a wound that causes Instant Death should not change it.

Either way my brothers. As long as its done the same way for both sides does it really matter?

I prefer to see an unwounded model removed personally. Than the next single wound can be taken against the wounded model. JMHO.

When it comes to multi wound models pointswise you count the number of wounds remaining so thats why i say remove a unwounded model first. For who wins/looses combat its also who takes the most wounds so again the unwounded model being pulled makes sense there.

Of course, since they got rid of that FAQ about the aspiring champion not having to be pulled first, a single wound on a squad is a very bad thing for Tzeentch players. (or does the fourth Chaos printing address that?)

Posted By Antonin on 03/08/2007 8:34 AM
Of course, since they got rid of that FAQ about the aspiring champion not having to be pulled first, a single wound on a squad is a very bad thing for Tzeentch players. (or does the fourth Chaos printing address that?)

That's actually in the basic rulebook for casualty removal.

The rules about taking casualties on multi-wound creatures clearly states "when those creatures take wounds".

Meaning: In a unit with several multiple-wound creatures and at least one single wound creature, you always have the option to either allocate the wound to a single-wound creature or a multi-wound creature in the unit. However, if you do allocate the wound to a multi-wound creature, then it has to go on an already wounded model (if applicable).