Jump to content

Wound allocation


wulfric_1066

Recommended Posts

WYSIWYG.

 

When a model fires its combi-weapon is there a visible cue that allows your opponent to differentiate from the unfired ones? Simple answer is no. Hence his wargear is not altered, and he still counts as the same as his fellows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same weapons and wargear... maybe. That depends on how you interpret the combi-weapon once fired. If you interpret that the weapon is not considered part of the model's wargear once fired, then they are different. If you interpret that the weapon is still part of the wargear (simply unusable), then they are the same (since they fulfill all the criteria given for being "identical in gaming terms"). This is quite different from the tactical marine scenario you have provided as an analogy, where the profile of the unit changed, so the criteria for "identical in gaming terms" are no longer being met.

Why is the title as important as the function?

Where in the BRB does it say to define a weapon by its title as opposed to say.... all aspects, as the word 'same' and 'identical' normally mean?

 

Seriously, I want to know. Because as far as I can tell yall have made this part up. My copy of the BRB lists weapons and wargear as things that must be the same in order to be "Identical in gaming terms". Nowhere does it say I check the name of the items in question and move on.

 

Please, someone point out the chapter and verse on this one for me.

 

Er... this should be blindingly obvious, especially considering you're the one who was previously advocating the application of basic critical thinking to the rules. If two things have the same name, and are not explicitly declared to be different in some way, they are the same. So if we decide that the combi- part is still part of the wargear (which is unclear to me), it's the same unless there is something explicitly declaring it different.

 

As far as the profile goes, I interpreted that bit to mean the profile of the model itself (since profiles of weapons should be lumped into the wargear clause). I see what you mean, though. I think both are legitimate ways to read the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother Valerius:

 

So, let's consider a marine who has fired his combi-weapon, and a marine who has not fired his combi-weapon. Same profile? Check. Same special rules? Check. Same weapons and wargear... maybe. That depends on how you interpret the combi-weapon once fired.

You are right, in some instances we have to interprete which two weapons should be considered identical or not identical. Unfortunately the rules do not explain how weapons are to be compared for such circumstances.

 

One solution would be to simply check from what army list entry the weapon is bought or how it is listed in the Codex. I.e. a Tactical Marine is equipped with a "boltgun", and a Devastator is equipped with a "boltgun". These are probably the same weapon.

 

Another possible solution is to check whether two weapons have the same profile, rules and game relevant properties. I.e. a "lasgun" and an "autogun" have the same stats and rules and are usually used interchangeably in army lists, so they are probably the same weapon in gaming terms.

 

The thing some (including me) have been arguing is that for "models" the rulebook clearly explains that the second method is used to determine whether they are "identical in gaming terms". It does not matter from what army list entry the model is bought, under what title it is listed in the Codex, or how the model is represented on the tabletop. What matters are the model's stats, rules and game relevant properties.

 

It can readily be assumed that the "intent" of the "wound allocation" rule is to have the dice decide which models that work differently during the game are removed, and that a player can not simply have the sergeant with powerfist or the Marine with the meltagun survive until the last moment. It is not left entirely up to the owning player to decide. There is a chance that these special models are removed, if enough wounds are inflicted on the unit and the special models fail their save.

A model with a used combi-melta and an unused combi-melta clearly work different in the game, and it makes a big difference whether the used one or the unused one are lost to the player.

 

Consider this example:

 

4 Marines with boltgun, 1 Marine with meltagun <-- the unit receives 5 wounds

 

2 Marines with boltgun, 2 Marines with used combi-melta, 1 Marine with unused combi-melta <-- the unit receives 5 wounds

 

I propose that the odds for the meltagun and for the unised combi-melta to be removed should be the same, because "in gaming terms" it would amount to the same: the loss of the single model that has a special shot. The meltagun gets one wound allocated to it, and if that save is failed, it has to be removed as a casualty. Of the 2 spent combi-meltas were still counted as the same model group as the unused combi-melta, then the player would have to fail three saves in order for the combi-melta to be removed. The odds should not be different. The 2 used combi-melta Marines work exactly the same as any other boltgun Marine "in gaming terms".

 

WYSIWYG.

 

When a model fires its combi-weapon is there a visible cue that allows your opponent to differentiate from the unfired ones? Simple answer is no. Hence his wargear is not altered, and he still counts as the same as his fellows.

No. Just no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, Legatus. I don't doubt that you have a valid argument, I'm just saying that the other side does as well, depending on how you interpret the "identical in gaming terms" rule. It wouldn't be a grey area if they had worded it slightly differently, but because they say "By this, we mean....", that can be interpreted that the circumstances which follow are exactly what criteria must be met to be "identical". I don't think it is possible for either side to provide a conclusive argument here, because it all comes down to one or two rules which are worded such that they can be interpreted either way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried to read everything, but got stuck at page 3.

Now, I'm not going to say, this group is right, or the other one is.

But lets just look it on the table.

 

5 man squad of 1 boltgun, 2 used combi boltguns, and 2 unused combi boltguns(it were 4 melta's/plasma's/flamers doesn't mater, the same in any case)

5 wounds come in, yes 5, you'll see my point.

 

group of used combi weapon = used combi weapon

5 wounds, so 1 wound each.

player has to roll 1 dice for boltgun guy, see if he makes it

player has to roll 2 dices for used combi boltgun guys, see if they make it

player has to roll 2 dices for unused combi boltgun guys see if they make it

 

scenario 1: boltgun guy dies.

what's left on the table in strenght and rules: 2 models that can fire a special weapon and 2 guys that can fire a boltgun.

scenario 2: 1 used combi boltgun dies

what's left on the table in strenght and rules: 2 models that can fire a special weapon and 2 guys that can fire a boltgun.

 

exacly the same.

 

 

group of used combi boltgun = boltgun

5 wounds, so 1 wound each.

player has to roll 3 dices for boltgun guy+used combi boltguns, see if they make it

player has to roll 2 dices for unused combi boltgun guys see if they make it

 

he failed 1 test of the 3 dices

scenario 1: he removes 1 used combi boltgun model

what's left on the table in strenght and rules: 2 models that can fire a special weapon and 2 guys that can fire a boltgun.

scenario 2: he removes the model with only the boltgun

what's left on the table in strenght and rules: 2 models that can fire a special weapon and 2 guys that can fire a boltgun.

 

 

I'm not trying to point out if there is even a side that is correct. But guys, look at what you're doing

If I want to cross the street, I can cross where I stand

Or I can walk a couple of meters/feet to the left and cross it.

I'll still be a across the street.

The diffrence: It took me more time (not much, but you get the point).

 

Don't try so hard on fighting on wich group is correct. You're trying to fight over a bloody rule where the result of the dice rolling is the same (if you view used combis are not the same as unused combis)

The one takes more time, the other one is faster, the result: the same.

Enjoy the game. It's not fun if your a player that concentrates only on rules rules rules. Relax, enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the point somewhat.

 

If used combi-weapons are treated as different models than unused combi-weapons, then when teh unit of 5 men suffers 5 wounds, the player has to allocate 2 wounds to the unused combi-weapons. Each failed save for those models means that one special weapon is lost.

 

If the unused and the used combi-weapons are all the same model group, then the player allocates 4 wounds to those models, and the first two failed saves allways mean that only the two "boltgun" are lost. The special weapons are only threatened if the player fails 3 or 4 saves fo this group.

 

"not the same weapon"

 

--> 2 wounds are allocated to the empty ones, 2 wounds to the unused ones. There is a high chance that one of the two models with the special weapons will fail its save.

 

 

"the same weapon"

 

--> 4 wounds are allocated to the "combi-weapons". Every tyme 2 or less saves are failed, only teh spent weapons will be removed. Only if 3 or 4 saves are failed will the special weapons be removed.

 

 

If there were only two models, one spent, one unused combi-weapon, suffering two wounds, then treating them as different model types for wound allocation would mean a 33% chance that the Marine with the unused combi-weapon fails his save.

If the two models are treated as the same model type, then there is only a 11% chance that the model is removed, because it will only be removed if both saves are failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Loaded M16 is not an unloaded M16.

 

Putting one of those in the rack will get you in big trouble, the other will not.

 

.... because they are not identical in military terms. ;)

 

Depends on the purpose of the rack. :P

 

Ahhh, the military mind. I gave them absolute :P fits when I had desk duty which required me to be armed. Everyone else shoved the 9mm into the drawer and would get someone to watch it (or carry it around in their hand) if they had to go to the latrine. Stupid! I not only had to instruct them that they should take and clear the weapon every time they took possession of it, but I slapped in the clip, chambered a round, put it on safe and stuck it in the front of my BDUs (did I mention there was no holter provided?). When asked about the last, I mentioned that as my Daddy had taught me as he had learned, that if a man couldn't trust his weapon by his equipment, then he needed to leave his weapon at home.

 

It should also be noted that "one shot" isnt like "blast" or "Ordnance". Its a note on the status of the weapon, and I see no reason it cant be changed to "used".

 

Logically, no reason. RAW, no provision for it to be done, so this would make this logic you are pushing merely a house rule.

 

Why is the title as important as the function?

Where in the BRB does it say to define a weapon by its title as opposed to say.... all aspects, as the word 'same' and 'identical' normally mean?

 

Seriously, I want to know. Because as far as I can tell yall have made this part up. My copy of the BRB lists weapons and wargear as things that must be the same in order to be "Identical in gaming terms". Nowhere does it say I check the name of the items in question and move on.

 

Please, someone point out the chapter and verse on this one for me.

 

Been there, done that, read the posts. BRB, page 27, look back to the post where I laid out every last criteria for "identical in gaming terms" from the rules as written.

 

++ Edited out blatant swear filter dodge. Use the cuss emoticon for expletives. I ++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, Legatus. I don't doubt that you have a valid argument, I'm just saying that the other side does as well, depending on how you interpret the "identical in gaming terms" rule. It wouldn't be a grey area if they had worded it slightly differently, but because they say "By this, we mean....", that can be interpreted that the circumstances which follow are exactly what criteria must be met to be "identical". I don't think it is possible for either side to provide a conclusive argument here, because it all comes down to one or two rules which are worded such that they can be interpreted either way.

 

The problem is that I broke down the entire case for "identical in gaming terms" point by point using the rules. While Legatus "might have a case", he hasn't shown it in the rules other than redefining "identical in gaming terms" into what he wants using anything except referencing the rules.

 

BTW, just because something can be interpreted in more than one way, it doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. Lack of correct context within the rules set is a major flaw in most of the "rules issues" and "grey areas" listed with the other being not understanding how documents are written in English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that I broke down the entire case for "identical in gaming terms" point by point using the rules. While Legatus "might have a case", he hasn't shown it in the rules other than redefining "identical in gaming terms" into what he wants using anything except referencing the rules.

Actually, Legatus is suggesting that one applies the same principles which define a model "in gaming terms" to teh weapon as well.

 

I.e. Models are considered the same for wounding purposes if they are "identical in gaming terms". One of the criteria is that the models have the "same weapon". --> The weapons have to be "identical in gaming terms" for the models to tehn be considered "identical in gaming terms".

 

When are models identical in gaming terms? When the stats, rules and gear are the same. This is RAW.

 

When are weapons identical in gaming terms? When the stats, rules and properties are the same. This is the same principle for how to compare models, applied to the weapon the model is carrying.

 

What army list entry was the model bought from? Or under what title was it listed in the army list? Does not matter for "in gaming terms" purposes. So why shoudl we use this as our guideline for weapons when "gaming terms" are considered?

 

 

In summary:

 

Models --> compared "in gaming terms" (RAW)

 

Weapons --> also compared "in gaming terms" (Interpretation A)

 

 

Models --> army list entry or army list title does not matter for "gaming terms" (RAW)

 

Weapons --> army list entry or army list title is to be used to determine which weapons are identical (Interpretation :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is closed while we work out how to take it forwards. It might end up in the Grey Area topic, it might not. Either way the backwards and forwards sniping, swearing and other generally useless behaviour, stops here.

 

Cheers

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.