Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

A review of Rules of Engagement from earlier encounters.
User avatar
Lyi'ot
Por'O
Posts: 2730

Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#1 » Aug 03 2008 01:11

+++

Shas'la Mon'shase squinted into the dark, just making out a string of advancing figures. Within his cadre, Mon'shase's superb night vision was legendary - so well known, in fact, that it had earned him the given name of "Black Sun," just like the xor'vesa's night-fighting filter.

His night vision was about to earn him another commendation.

With a mental nudge, Mon'shase activated the squad-comm. "La'rua, we have incoming! Ten, make that fifteen hostile, one hundred tor'leks out." A breath later, the night dark was torn asunder with a dozen blue-white bursts.

In the gue'la's advancing ranks, he could just make out two, maybe three special weapons. Probably flame throwers, trying to get in under the cover of night. A kai'rotaa ago, they probably could have done it, too - for some reason, it was always those thrice-Aun-damned flamers - and plasma rifles! - that stayed alive till the bloody end.

But, within the past few rotaa, things had changed. As if accentuating the point, the night was temporarily illuminated by a second sun; even from seventy-five tor'leks away, the Fire Warriors could hear the unfortunate gue'la's death scream. They've stopped trying to recover their comrades' special weapons, Mon'shase thought. It's almost like they're playing by a different set of rules...

+++


A lot has been said about the new shooting wound allocation system, and it seems that for every player, there's a different interpretation. I've sat down with the rulebook and thought long and hard about what it all meant. Here is the fruit of my labor - an attempt to explain the new system's intricacies. And yes, I stole White Knight's "awesome fluff hook" idea; it's just so much fun! Hopefully I can steal some of his, and eiglepulper's, humor.

+++


Shooting Casualties – Because we can't "just all be friends."

Before you go any further, I want you to pull out your 5th edition rulebook and read through page 25, "Complex Units." That includes the example at the bottom. Think about what you've read, read it one more time, then come back to this thread.

If you haven't read page 25 (or have read it in the past but don't have a copy of the rulebook but you're pretty sure you kinda understand the rules) then please don't post here. I don't like to be an elitist prick, but in this one case - I'm being one. It'll make the conversation friendlier for everyone if all the posts are educated.


"Cannon in front of them/Volley'd and thunder'd"
Right off the bat, I should point out that...
p. 18, Fast Rolling With Different Weapons wrote:When a unit fires, all of its weapons are fire simultaneously.
and
p. 19, Roll to Wound wrote:Just like rolling To Hit, roll all the dice together...
This means that the player controlling the target unit goes into the Wound Allocation phase knowing just how many, and what type, of wounds he is dealing with. In the event of mixed Toughness, the majority Toughness is used; if none exists, the higher Toughness value is used.





Taking Saving Throws - A Perfectly Homogenous Unit
The 5th Edition rulebook treats a perfectly homogenous unit, like a squad of Necron warriors, in a hassle-free way:
p. 20, Taking Saving Throws wrote:You roll all of the saves for the unit in one go, and a model of your choice is removed as a casualty for each failure."
This is really easy, and I don't think there is any ground for arguments here.





Heterogeneous is the Spice of Life
But, well, homogenous units are the exception, rather than the rule. We now turn to page 25, "Complex Units", for further insight. To begin...
p. 25, Complex Units wrote:The player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice... The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model.
Alright, pretty straight forward - we're allocating wounds to individual models. I should be able to use this to eat up a bunch of plasma hits, am i rite?
Well, not really.
p. 25, Taking Saving Throws wrote:Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch.
There is not some caveat that says "hey, you can actually roll each and every individual model separately." It doesn't work like that. Models that are perfectly identical in gaming terms roll their saving throws as a set, at the same time, period.


But Elliott, what does "identical in gaming terms" mean? Come on, Space Marines have the same stat line, how does carrying a special weapon make them unique?
5th edition defines this well, right at the beginning of this section:
p. 25, Complex Units wrote:By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.


Well fine, whatever. But a normal marine getting hit with an AP2 weapon isn't getting that armor save - can't I just remove him and all the wounds allocated to that one model?
Nope. Look at the example at the bottom of page 25. Specifically, notice the batch of Space Marines with bolters.
p. 25, Allocating Wounds on Complex Units wrote:He goes on to roll the four saves for the Space Marines with bolters in one go, failing two. He should remove three models (two unsaved wounds plus one wound with no armor save from the meltagun), but as there are only two models in the group of identical models, he just removes them both.
All unsaved wounds are applied to all members of the same identical batch at the same time; even if two meltagun hits had gone on one of the Marines with bolters, it would have resulted in two - not one - dead marine, because those wounds are applied toward the "batch".


So great, I can't use this nifty new wound system to eat up any of those "assured death" wounds?
Wrong again. Since completely unique models are rolled individually, you can use them to absorb wounds. That is to say, if a squad of five Space Marines - with a Veteran Sergeant, a flame thrower, and three bolter Marines - was hit by four lasgun shots (no armor penetration value) and two meltagun shots (AP2), you could throw both melta hits on the flame thrower.





Multiple-wound Models
This is actually pretty straight forward: all the same rules about homogenous/heterogeneous models apply:
p. 26, Units of Multiple-Wound Models wrote:If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds, then take all the saves for the unit in one go.
p. 26, Units of Multiple-Wound Models wrote:If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal.
However, there is one additional caveat:
p. 26, Units of Multiple-Wound Models wrote:Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must removed whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models.
The examples given clearly illustrate this point: wounds are allocated such that whole models are removed first, starting with models that have already lost a wound, then working through unwounded models.

For example, let's say we have a unit of three identical Crisis Suits that have yet to be wounded. In one unfortunate shooting phase, this unit fails three armor saves. One suit would take two wounds, and die, and another suit would take one wound, placing it at half-life. If this unit later takes another unsaved wound from shooting, this would be applied to the previously wounded Crisis Suit.

However, if each Crisis Suit were unique (different wargear or rank from the other suits), then before saving throws are taken, one wound would be distributed to each of the Crisis Suits; then, each suit would role independent of the others. We could have three suits that have each taken one wound, but are still fighting! The benefits of diversity should be obvious.





Instant Death
'Instant Death' refers to the instantaneous death of a multiple-wound model from an unsaved wound inflicted by an attack with a Strength double or greater the Toughness of the defending model.
p. 26, Instant Death wrote:If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty.
For instance, our multiple-wound Crisis Suits will die outright if hit with a weapon of Strength 8 or greater.

When it comes to applying unsaved wounds that causes Instant Death, there is an additional rule:
p. 25, Units of Multiple-Wound Models wrote:If amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes instant death, and then proceed as normal (this is done for each group of identical multiple-wound models). This rule is designed to stop players avoiding single wounds by putting them on a model that has suffered instant death anyways.
For example, we have a homogenous, two-man Crisis Suit Team. One of the suits has already taken one wound. Unfortunately for them, they take two more unsaved wounds from shooting: a Strength 9 lascannon shot (which will inflict Instant Death), and a regular bolter shot. Both Crisis Suits die: the unwounded Crisis Suit is removed first, a casualty of the Instant Death weapon; the second suit them succumbs to the bolter shot. This is to prevent us from placing the bolter wound on the unwounded Crisis Suit, and then taking it as the Instant Death casualty.





To Clarify
The above two points - Multiple-wound Models and Instant Death - can be a bit tricky. P'Shar's Rifles wrote up an excellent summation:
P'Shar's Rifles wrote:To clarify, you must remove a wounded model if the shot is not instant death and the model has only one remaining wound, but you must instead remove an unwounded model if it is an instant-death wound. However, this rule still only applies within each group of "identical" models. It is possible, therefore, to have an instant-death wound remove an already wounded suit, if that suit constitutes a "group" by himself to which the instant-death hit was assigned.





Conclusion: What does this mean for the Tau?

Offensively:
This helps us out greatly. It is now possible to kill high-profile targets - like special weapons, or squad leaders - without chewing through rest of the squad first. However, there could be problems with mixing high-volume weapons with low-AP weapons (I'm looking at you, Firestorm!): give the enemy too many high-AP wounds, and he can easily perform the trick I explained above - put all of the low-AP shots on a useless individual.

Defensively:
We're in great shape here, too. Our Fire Warrior teams don't carry heavy weapons - they're very homogenous. Granted, our Shas'ui can now be called upon to take a save all by themselves, but 4th edition's Torrent of Fire put them in the exact same position (assuming that the squad doesn't take twice as many wounds as it has models). Unfortunately, these rules hurt the Vespid - if you run them in smaller squad sizes, there's a good chance that the Strain Leader will have to take a save. 'Course, given their fragility, they probably aren't getting saves anyway! :P

As for our heavy hitters: diversity is our friend. XV8 teams composed of unique Crisis Suits are effectively "compartmentalized", each taking their saving throws independent of another. This is good because two unsaved wounds on two identical Crisis Suits results in one dead suit, not two suits at half life.

This didn't occur to me at first glance, but our stealth suits can also benefit from compartmentalization. Check out this unit:

Elite: 3 Stealths (175 Pts)
- [2 Stealths with Burst Cannons]
- [Teamleader; Markerlight, HW Multitracker; HWDC + 2 Marker Drones, Bonding Knife]

We have three batches of models here: one teamleader, two marker drones, and two burst cannon stealths. For a few points, we could have four batches:

Elite: 3 Stealths (178 Pts)
- [Stealth with Burst Cannon; DC + 1 Marker Drones]
- [Stealth with Burst Cannon; Blacksun Filter]
- [Teamleader; Markerlight, HW Multitracker; DC + 1 Marker Drones, Bonding Knife]

Not only that, but not all of your drone-eggs are in one basket. One of the DC units could go down, and not take both drones with him.

Anyways, let me know what you guys think, and... good hunting!
Last edited by Lyi'ot on Aug 03 2008 03:14, edited 2 times in total.
++TFTD: He who promises peace, promises damnation.++

User avatar
Hindsight
Shas
Posts: 43
Contact:

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#2 » Aug 03 2008 01:19

Wow. I am unable to add anything to this whatsoever, you did an amazing job. It really needed to be posted, I hope this clears up some confusion.
Ever drill a hole in something... just to drill a hole?

Vyce
Shas
Posts: 74

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#3 » Aug 03 2008 06:18

This is an excellent summation of how the wound allocation rules affect us. Thanks Elliot.

Question though... is it wise to quote rule blocks like that?

User avatar
Lyi'ot
Por'O
Posts: 2730

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#4 » Aug 03 2008 12:01

Well, thank you both for your kind compliments! Feel free to print if off/refer to it/post it elsewhere - I'm just trying to increase the understanding of the game, not gain personal glory. Though as I said, I do enjoy the nice comments. :D

nalanthi wrote:Question though... is it wise to quote rule blocks like that?
I certainly hope it's ok. I didn't do anything that wasn't already done in the stickied rule FAQ.
++TFTD: He who promises peace, promises damnation.++

Vyce
Shas
Posts: 74

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#5 » Aug 03 2008 12:47

Rgr that.

User avatar
P'Shar's Rifles
Kor'O
Posts: 2041

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#6 » Aug 03 2008 01:30

Stellar work, Elliott. More detailed and broadly applicable than my original FAQ entry, though we seem to have come to the same conclusions. Would you be interested in having this vetted as a replacement for the entry in our FAQ, fully credited to you, of course. I think you did a better job of clarifying the fact that you assign the hits to individual models in a mixed unit, but the saves for each unique group are taken together and then distributed within that group, and the casual tone and detailed examples are great.

I do want to make sure I correctly understand your reading of the multi-wound model section, though. To clarify, you must remove a wounded model if the shot is not instant death and the model has only one remaining wound, but you must instead remove an unwounded model if it is an instant-death wound. However, this rule still only applies within each group of "identical" models. It is possible, therefore, to have an instant-death wound remove an already wounded suit, if that suit constitutes a "group" by himself to which the instant-death hit was assigned. I think you may have taken this as a given based on your initial explanation of the "compartmentalization" of wounds, but it may trip up folks who are used to the old debate about "whole multi-wound models", and so bears repeating in the section on instant death. Are we on the same page, or have I overlooked something in the rule interaction or your analysis?

For reference, here's my FAQ entry written just after I got my hands on 5th Ed. I think we're a match, but if I've missed an important difference, let's discuss! :)

In the Rules FAQ, P'Shar's wrote:Q: How do the wound allocation rules in the main rulebook apply to Crisis Battlesuit teams containing a mix of drones and suits (single- and multi-wound models in the same unit, different wargear, etc)?

A: This situation is much less complicated than it was in 4th edition. With a combination of the rules on pages 25 and 26 of the 5th edition rulebook, you should be able to sort it out step by step. However, there are a few ways that you can build units to take advantage of these new rules. The biggest confusion with wounding these mixed units in 4th edition was over whether or not it was possible to do the following:

1) Take a drone as a casualty, when a suit had already been wounded.
2) Distribute wounds across the team, to prevent having to remove a model.

The wording was ambiguous and subject to interpretation. I wrote out a detailed explanation on this site of the situations in which you could and could not do these things. In the new system, you assign the wounds to individual models if there are statline and wargear differences: "all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch... [then] the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these models suffers and unsaved wound, then that specific model [is wounded]."

Take a moment to let that sink in, as it is a crucial change from 4th edition. In a unit where statlines and differ between models, you MUST assign wounding hits on a model by model basis. This means that in a unit of crisis suits and drones, it is no longer a matter of "the drones are taking wounds" and "the suits are taking wounds". Now, if there is a wargear or statline difference between the suits, those suits must each have wounds allocated separately, must make their own saving throws, and can only be wounded by those wounds they failed to save against.

Let's look at some common situations:

1) A single battlesuit with two shield drones takes two lascannon shots and a three bolter shots. The battlesuit has already been wounded in the previous turn. Because the suit and the drones are "different in game terms", the incoming fire is specifically assigned to each model in the unit, and can only be wounded by those wounding hits allocated to it. As the controlling player, I will take rotate through the unit in the following order: drone->drone->suit. Thus, my optimal wound allocation is:
  • Drone #1 - lascannon, bolter,
  • Drone #2 - bolter
  • Suit - bolter


Now, since the drones are identical "in game terms", I roll two 3+ saves and one 4+ save for the drones, and one 3+ save for the suit. The suit cannot be wounded by any "carryover" wounds from the drone saves. If the drones fail all three saves, the extra wound is lost. Even though the suit is already wounded, and therefore seems like it must be the next casualty because of page 26's "wounds may not be spread around to avoid taking casualties", the wound allocation rules take precedence and protect him from all but his own wounding hit. Neat, huh?

Now, in a unit of mixed suits with identical loadouts, wounds that are allocated to those suits do carry over across the suits, and whole multiple wound models must be removed where possible. So that already-wounded suit is your next casualty if any of the suits fail to save. The beauty of Tau battlesuits in this situation is that every member of the team can be kitted out with subtle differences. In a unit of two deathrain suits, you can make use of that "extra" hard-point to "force" you to do model-based wound allocation, simply because the suits are "different in game terms". In addition, a team leader can tack on a cheap hard-wired system to stand out from the other members of his team. Minimal cost, but it puts YOU in control of how your team is wounded, allowing you a good chance to soak wounds for a few turns before you must actually remove a suit.

Really, the rules are so straightforward now that it hardly bears continuing in detail. Give it some thought and you'll see there are multiple unit combinations which will allow you to make full use of the new wound allocation system.

User avatar
Eiglepulper
Shas'O
Posts: 5380

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#7 » Aug 03 2008 02:04

Super article, Elliott.

One question springs to mind, and it's a "what happens if.." rather than any cricitism or correction of what you've posted, since there really isn't any that can be levelled at that article!

Ok, on to the "what if". I have a unit of four Space Marines, all of whom are differently equipped and one of them has a powerfist. These guys take a wound from a multimelta, a lascannon, 3 wounds from heavy bolters and a single one from a boltgun. I really want to save the powerfist.

As this equals 6 wounds and there are four models: is it permissible through the RAW to allocate both of the AP2 and AP1 hits onto one single model in oder to save the squad from losing two models to the wounds caused by low-AP Instant Kill weapons? The reason I ask is because in the section for Multiple Wound models on P.26 BRB this is not permitted, as the ruling is designed to stop players avoiding single wounds by putting them on a model which has suffered Instant Death anyway. The same ruling does not seem to appear in the other section which deals with single wound models.

Now while I understand the reasoning behind this denial of permission being included in the Multiple Wound models section, is not giving two I-K wounds to a single wound model not actually doing the same thing and avoiding putting the second I-K wound on another model?

Also, how would this allocating of the two I-K wounds onto a single Terminator in a similar grouping of four different models be dealt with? My take on it in that situation is that it would be all right to place two I-K wounds on a single Terminator, since they have access to an Invulnerable Save which would allow them to attempt a save against these two low-AP wounds.

I can't make up my mind about either of these situations, so input would be very much appreciated. The one about the Terminators actually occurred in a game I was observing.

E.

User avatar
Lyi'ot
Por'O
Posts: 2730

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#8 » Aug 03 2008 04:00

P'Shar's Rifles:
P'Shar's Rifles wrote:Stellar work, Elliott. More detailed and broadly applicable than my original FAQ entry, though we seem to have come to the same conclusions. Would you be interested in having this vetted as a replacement for the entry in our FAQ, fully credited to you, of course.
Oh man, I'd be honored! Thank you so much for the really kind words.

You assign the hits to individual models in a mixed unit, but the saves for each unique group are taken together and then distributed within that group...
A perfect summation.

I do want to make sure I correctly understand your reading of the multi-wound model section, though. To clarify... are we on the same page, or have I overlooked something in the rule interaction or your analysis?
We're absolutely on the same page! I went ahead and expanded the Multiple-wound section of the post, and then added a part on Instant Death, and then included your clarification - it was very well-written and got right to the heart of the matter!

P'Shar's Awesome FAQ
Don't be so hard on yourself! You did a great job writing your piece, especially on how it relates to the Tau. However, one small thing...
In the Rules FAQ, P'Shar's wrote:In addition, a team leader can tack on a cheap hard-wired system to stand out from the other members of his team.
Tacking on an extra piece of hard-wired gear may not be necessary. The Team Leader's statline does not vary from the other suits in the team, but as a team leader, different rules apply to him - he may access the Battlesuit Wargear List. In addition, he costs a few points more - I think this qualifies as not being perfectly identical.





eiglepulper:
Thank you for the compliment - and also thank you for creating a challenging scenario to test this FAQ!

I think the problem here is that we're confusing "Instant Death" wounds (Strength twice the Toughness of target) with "wounds that will cause assured death" - as in, an AP2 against a Space Marine standing in the open with no Invulnerable save to call on.

Instant Death is a very unique situation where a multiple-wound model succumbs to a very powerful attack. In the examples you gave, neither the Marines nor the Terminators are multiple-wound models; therefore, Instant Death does not apply to them.

Yes, it is permissible to place both the AP1 and AP2 unsaved wounds on the same model. What makes the difference is if that model is completely unique or not: if he is not unique, then both of those wounds are applied to the "batch" he belongs to. If he is unique, then he dies twice over, and no one else need take an armor-penetrating round.

In your example, feel free to place both the AP1 and AP2 shots on the same Marine. Since every Marine is completely unique, that unlucky Marine will take his save separate from the others (as every Marine will, because every model is unique). In turn, he will die twice over.

Your example of the Terminator: again, we're confusing Instant Death with "assured death." Furthermore, the fact that he has invulnerable saves doesn't particularly matter: a wound that cannot be saved against (low AP value) is the same as a wound inflicted from a failed save - both are unsaved wounds. It doesn't matter that the Terminator has a "way" of dealing with the wound.

I only emphasize this because realizing this makes understanding the wound allocation of "batches" a bit easier, especially when you introduce the idea of mixed saves in the same "batch." For example, if a "batch" of three identical Marines are in cover, but have been hit by an AP2 weapon and two bolter rounds, they can take the cover save against the former and armor saves against the latter. If they are out of cover, it's unfortunate, but doesn't fundamentally alter the game mechanics - they are taking no save against the first, and two armor saves against the latter.

Does that, errr, all make sense?
Last edited by Lyi'ot on Aug 03 2008 04:46, edited 1 time in total.
++TFTD: He who promises peace, promises damnation.++

User avatar
Hindsight
Shas
Posts: 43
Contact:

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#9 » Aug 03 2008 04:27

Elliott wrote:Your example of the Terminator: again, we're confusing Instant Death with insta-gib. Also, the fact that he has invulnerable saves doesn't particularly matter: a wound that cannot be saved against (low AP value) is the same as a wound inflicted from a failed save - both are unsaved wounds. I only emphasize this because realizing this makes understanding the wound allocation of "batches" a bit easier.

Does that, errr, all make sense?
100%. Instant Death occurs when the Strength of the Weapon is double the Toughness of the target. So if a Strength 6 wound lands on a Crisis Suit, with a Toughness 4, he just takes the wound if he missed the save. If a Strength 8 AP 4 hit lands on a Toughness 4 model (Our Crisis Suit) he still gets his normal save, but if he fails, he is Instantly Killed.

If the Strength of the Weapon is double the targets toughness, and the AP is equal to or lower than the models basic armor save, that model is killed outright, unless they have an invulnerable save. Then, only if the save is made, do they survive. Taking a single Strength 8 wound, instantly kills a Battlesuit if you cannot roll an armor save of some kind to prevent it.

I'm not sure of an example of this, but a Strength 5, Ap 2 weapon, only ignores the armor save of our Suit. So he'd get an Invulnerable Save if he had one, otherwise it auto wounds, but does not auto kill. This comes up a lot, where people think their AP1 or AP2 weapon is auto-kill. Often times it is, on single wound models, but that is simply because they take a normal wound, that they cannot throw a save for, and not by definition of "Instant Kill".

Please correct me if I am wrong about the above, I am fairly certain I wrote it up correctly.

Lastly, isn't Insta-gib the same thing as Instant Kill? Something that can kill in one shot?
Ever drill a hole in something... just to drill a hole?

hailstop
Shas
Posts: 58

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#10 » Aug 03 2008 04:31

nalanthi wrote:This is an excellent summation of how the wound allocation rules affect us. Thanks Elliot.

Question though... is it wise to quote rule blocks like that?


It should be. He's quoting them to make commentary on the text, which should be covered by fair use.

User avatar
Lyi'ot
Por'O
Posts: 2730

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#11 » Aug 03 2008 04:45

Hindsight:
You've realized the distinction I was trying to make. "Instant Death" is a concept, a rule in the game, and as such is not the same thing as an "assured wound." When I used the phrase "insta-gib", I was trying to humorously make a distinction between them. I've changed the wording accordingly.
++TFTD: He who promises peace, promises damnation.++

User avatar
P'Shar's Rifles
Kor'O
Posts: 2041

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#12 » Aug 03 2008 05:09

Elliott wrote:one small thing...
In the Rules FAQ, P'Shar's wrote:In addition, a team leader can tack on a cheap hard-wired system to stand out from the other members of his team.
Tacking on an extra piece of hard-wired gear may not be necessary. The Team Leader's statline does not vary from the other suits in the team, but as a team leader, different rules apply to him - he may access the Battlesuit Wargear List. In addition, he costs a few points more - I think this qualifies as not being perfectly identical.


*chuckle* I think in my mind it was a question of whether or not the "cost" of a model is part of it's stats. But you're right, of course, if you have been "upgraded to a team leader", you are not identical to a suit which has not been. Sneaky, that.

User avatar
Lyi'ot
Por'O
Posts: 2730

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#13 » Aug 03 2008 05:16

P'Shar, I completely agree: I don't know - and don't believe - that a different cost is necessarily proof of a non-identical model. But it usefully helps quantify the fact that different rules apply to him.

But in this one case, the point is in all actuality probably moot - people take Team Leaders for a reason, and that reason is hard-wired.
++TFTD: He who promises peace, promises damnation.++

User avatar
Sa'cea Mont'yr
Shas'El
Posts: 1275
Contact:

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#14 » Aug 03 2008 06:15

Elliot wrote:
p. 25, Complex Units wrote:By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear.

Elliot actually has the answer himself, in the original post. Team leaders have different special rules than regular crisis team members, ergo, they are different, and must be rolled for separately.

EDIT: With your permission, I'd like to take this article over to an Alaska-only forum and post it up for discussion. It'll be linked back to here and give credit to you, obviously.
Shas'el Sa'cea Cal'Ka Mon'tyr

User avatar
Eiglepulper
Shas'O
Posts: 5380

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#15 » Aug 03 2008 06:24

@Elliott: The differentiating between Instant Kill and Assured Wound helped enormously, and solves my question. Oh, and it was a genuine in-game situation which sparked off this query - well, at least the Terminator bit was. I used Marines as the initial example since they have no inherent Invulnerable Save and I wanted to clarify whether the Terminators having one made any difference.

Thank you for your clear answering skills.

E.

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 579

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#16 » Mar 17 2009 01:10

I actually have a question that came up in a game on Sunday that wasn't explicitly covered in the rules above, as far as I know, if it is an exception.

Ogryns are models with more than 2 wounds. Shooting at an unwounded squad of 3, I inflicted 2 wounds which he failed his cover save against. He had allocated them to the 2 ogryns that were not the Bonehead, and thus homogenous.

The rules for multiwound models states only that you must remove whole models as casualties if possible. He wanted to allocate 1 wound to each Ogryn.

Is this permissible, or is the wording in the multi-wound section stronger than I read it and actually requires as many unsaved wounds as possible on a single model until it is dead?

User avatar
Kharnv'Vor
Shas'Ui
Posts: 68

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#17 » Mar 17 2009 02:37

Unusualsuspect wrote:Is this permissible, or is the wording in the multi-wound section stronger than I read it and actually requires as many unsaved wounds as possible on a single model until it is dead?


Holy Necromancy! :P This is actually specifically covered in the first post in relation to our Crisis teams, but it works exactly the same for any units of multi-wound models.

Multiple-wound Models
This is actually pretty straight forward: all the same rules about homogenous/heterogeneous models apply:

p. 26, Units of Multiple-Wound Models wrote:If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds, then take all the saves for the unit in one go.

p. 26, Units of Multiple-Wound Models wrote:If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered. Then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal.

However, there is one additional caveat:

p. 26, Units of Multiple-Wound Models wrote:Once you have determined the number of unsaved wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must removed whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models.

The examples given clearly illustrate this point: wounds are allocated such that whole models are removed first, starting with models that have already lost a wound, then working through unwounded models.

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 579

Re: Shooting Casualties: An Explanation and Discussion

Post#18 » Mar 17 2009 03:09

It being a sticky, it seemed like a much better place to put the question than a new thread.

And the question is answered, thanks.

My question was: By putting a wound on each Ogryn, does he violate any of the rules for unsaved wound allocation?

1. "You must remove whole models if possible."

During that wound allocation, no method of wound placement would remove a model.

2. "Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models"

Here is where I was confused, I suppose. I considered that as a reiteration of "you must remove whole models", and applied the restriction to within that round of unsaved wound allocations, rather than all unsaved wound allocations that have occurred or will occur.

Since they both seem to be valid interpretations, but one follows the intentions of avoiding deaths through wonky wound allocation, I think it's pretty clear which interpretation is best here.

Sorry for the thread necromancy.

Return to “Archival Datacore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest