Warp rift and wound allocation

[Gentlemanloser]

This doesn't even state that the model failing the test has to be the one which is removed! If they wanted the specific models under the template to be removed, they could have easily worded this differently: "For each test that is failed, that model is removed..." or something similar.

 

Agreed, it's badly worded. Like a lot of the GK dex...

 

But this works like the DE Template, and DE Implosion Missiles. You have to take the characteristic test on the specific mini, as you need it's wounds/I/S/T score.

 

This isn't a Majroity Stat roll for ease of play, where you distribute the results after. You use the specific minis characteristic, and that mini has to be removed.

 

Otherwise, you could (for example with Implosion Missiles), use a 4W IC to take the test, then remove a 1W mini if the test is failed.

[Something Wycked]

That's not how it works, Gentleman. The rule does not provide the test be taken on particular minis.

 

The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed.

The unit takes initiative tests for each each model hit; the hit models do not themselves make the test. For every failed roll, one model is removed as a casualty. 5th edition teaches us that the owning player chooses the casualties out of his own unit unless wound allocation or attacker special rules would dictate otherwise. Therefore;

 

The unit is hit with the template, the number of models affected are counted, the unit takes the required number of initiative tests and the owning player chooses which model(s) are removed. This does not allow him to roll with the IC's higher initiative unless the unit consists of one model and the IC; he must use the unit's majority initiative. The majority rule may not be written explicitly in the BRB, but the precedent does exist for a unit with mixed toughness being wounded by shooting.

 

This can be detrimental; if there are enough hits to cover every model in the unit and there are more models in the unit than there are IC's, then the unit's initiative is used for every model's roll, including the IC's. If every roll fails, the IC's would be removed as well, having taken (and failed) the test on the unit's initiative.

[Grey Mage]

So when units are within 6" of a sanguinairy priest nothing happens eh?

 

Because after all, the unit has furious charge, and feel no pain. Sadly, only models can use feel no pain, not units... since units dont fail saving throws. Units also dont have any way to use furious charge, since its also 'models with....'

[Angelis Mortis]

Not when he said exactly what we think Einstein. (I'll tell you what you can do with your face palm)

 

Wow, way to miss the point. I don't care if you agree exactly. Chiming only to state you agree is bad enough (adds nothing to the discussion at all), but quoting a giant block of text as well is even worse. I am utterly flabbergasted how you can defend your action. Remember, like I said above, if we accept this kind of thing, then many threads will be filled with useless "agree" or "disagree" posts. And no reasonable person would want that.

 

 

In any case, back to the thread, KnowThyEnemy summed it up very well. The use of the word "unit" in the Warp Rift rule certainly makes things unclear, which to me is pretty obvious, but some people ignore it to rush to their preferred opinion it seems.

 

It adds the weight of two more people who agree exactly with his interpretation. When more agree, it carries more weight. Its not that hard to figure out.

[Something Wycked]

Usually you're spot on, Grey, but that is RAW monkeying at its worst. Do they really have to explicitly tell you that every model in the unit has Furious Charge and Feel No Pain when the unit is given those rules? Do they really have to tell you specifically which side of the die to read?

 

The rule even differentiates between unit and model. I'll put it simply with a concise restatement.

The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed.

"If the Warp Rift template touches any models' bases, the unit that the Librarian targeted with Warp Rift will, as a whole, take a number of initiative tests equal to the number of non vehicle model bases touched by the template. Every test that the unit fails results in one model being removed as a casualty with no saves allowed."

[CheezeFezt]

Usually you're spot on, Grey, but that is RAW monkeying at its worst. Do they really have to explicitly tell you that every model in the unit has Furious Charge and Feel No Pain when the unit is given those rules? Do they really have to tell you specifically which side of the die to read?

 

The rule even differentiates between unit and model. I'll put it simply with a concise restatement.

The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed.

"If the Warp Rift template touches any models' bases, the unit that the Librarian targeted with Warp Rift will, as a whole, take a number of initiative tests equal to the number of non vehicle model bases touched by the template. Every test that the unit fails results in one model being removed as a casualty with no saves allowed."

 

So every GK rule questions just go round and round and round in circle, 10 pages later, still round and round and round???

 

It's a big leap from the dex rule 'unit must take an initiative test' to 'model must take an initiative test'. Also, part of the 5th ed rule dna is no sniping. Rule that allows sniper raises many alarm.

 

Since there are no rule for how a unit take initiative test, there is no end to this argument. Play it however you want to play it. Remember the golden rule--be a sport.

[DeathKorpsman]

That's not how it works, Gentleman. The rule does not provide the test be taken on particular minis.

 

The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed.

The unit takes initiative tests for each each model hit; the hit models do not themselves make the test. For every failed roll, one model is removed as a casualty. 5th edition teaches us that the owning player chooses the casualties out of his own unit unless wound allocation or attacker special rules would dictate otherwise. Therefore;

 

The unit is hit with the template, the number of models affected are counted, the unit takes the required number of initiative tests and the owning player chooses which model(s) are removed. This does not allow him to roll with the IC's higher initiative unless the unit consists of one model and the IC; he must use the unit's majority initiative. The majority rule may not be written explicitly in the BRB, but the precedent does exist for a unit with mixed toughness being wounded by shooting.

 

This can be detrimental; if there are enough hits to cover every model in the unit and there are more models in the unit than there are IC's, then the unit's initiative is used for every model's roll, including the IC's. If every roll fails, the IC's would be removed as well, having taken (and failed) the test on the unit's initiative.

 

There is no provision that I know of in the BRB for units to take characteristics tests. If anyone knows of one, please cite a page number. There are, however, provisions for models to take characteristic tests on pg. 8. Model, model, no mention of units. This is also not wound allocation, as no wounds are caused. Models can be removed from the game without having wounds inflicted. Deep Strike Mishaps are one example, chasing off the board, any number of ways.

 

Sniping is also not unheard of in 40k, just rare. It doesn't surprise me that one power in the GK codex would be capable of it, after JotWW was allowed to snipe in the SW FAQ. Seems like it might become a more regular occurance. This power doesn't seem like it has the capability to snipe, however, as the opposing player gets to choose which models take the characteristic tests. If that player wanted to risk a character because said character had a higher Initiative value, that is their business but it seems highly ill advised.

 

It seems accurate based on the wording of the ability and the wording of the BRB that a unit affected by this power makes a number of tests equal to the number of covered models, but those models that take the test are those that are removed if they fail and their specific characteristic values are used. The models that take the test need not be the ones originally covered by the template. Other wounds caused by stormbolters and such would be simultaneous and follow the normal rules for allocation, since wounds are allocated prior to removing casualties. This means regular wounds can definitely be placed on models that fail their tests against the Warp Rift, saving the rest of the unit from a few more armor saves.

[Gentlemanloser]

OK, I'd like to take back my;

 

The exact mini/s hit by the template take the I test. That can't be distributed.

 

DK explained it much better above;

 

The models that take the test need not be the ones originally covered by the template.

 

Warp Rift hits a unit and touches 8 minis. You get to choose out of the unit (including any attached ICs) *which* of those 8 take the I test. They use thier own I scores (which might be varied across the unit), and if they fail, they specifically are removed.

 

This also happens at exactly the same time as any other shooting from the Warp Rift unit, and wounds taken can be assigned to the same groups that are losing minis to Warp Rift, as per the usual Wound Allocation rules.

 

That means some wounds could be assigned to minis being removed.

 

The unit is hit with the template, the number of models affected are counted, the unit takes the required number of initiative tests and the owning player chooses which model(s) are removed. This does not allow him to roll with the IC's higher initiative unless the unit consists of one model and the IC; he must use the unit's majority initiative. The majority rule may not be written explicitly in the BRB, but the precedent does exist for a unit with mixed toughness being wounded by shooting.

 

This I don't agree with. B) There isn't any 'majority' rules for characteristic tests. These have to be taken by each individual mini.

[KnowThyEnemy]

are you sure gentlemen? why are we choosing to ignore LD tests? they are a very specific example of characteristic tests taken as a unit. i see i shall have put in the leg work to smite the unbelievers ;) . page numbers to follow when im done with work.

[Ashe Darke]

See now Gentleman Loser seems to have what I thought it was in my head. The first thing I saw when I saw 'unit' was 'ahhh so they're stopping you from sniping' because why else would you put unit?

[Gentlemanloser]

are you sure gentlemen? why are we choosing to ignore LD tests? they are a very specific example of characteristic tests taken as a unit. i see i shall have put in the leg work to smite the unbelievers . page numbers to follow when im done with work.

 

:angry:

 

I'd have to read the BRB to be sure, but my gut is leaning towards Leadership tests being a varient of Moral tests. Or something specifically Squad based and not mini based.

 

Unlike Characteristic tests.

[KnowThyEnemy]

well i can tell you that youve got that one backwards. moral tests are a variant of LD tests. for example, fearless models ignore moral and pinning tests because, well, they're fearless. however, they dont ignore the wider leadership checks (unless stated of course). LD tests are the forest, moral and pinning tests are the trees :angry:. and LD is a characteristc, so why would it not be a characteristic test?

[Gentlemanloser]

Again, I'd have to check the main book, but probably something like, it's not a charcateristic test, as those are something individual minis have to take. Whereas Leadership (and Moral! :angry:) tests are squad based (altohugh can be taken by squads of a single mini).

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

It adds the weight of two more people who agree exactly with his interpretation. When more agree, it carries more weight. Its not that hard to figure out.

 

This is the THIRD time you said nothing about the topic at hand, and decided instead to defend your awful decision to quote a giant block of text to only state that you agree. Please do try to actually contribute to this here thread. I will reiterate my point again - we don't want half the posts in the forum to be long block quotes with the word "agree" or "disagree" after them, which would occur if everyone followed your scheme. If you really think strength in numbers matter (rather than the validity of the argument itself) then polls are what you are looking for. Not useless posts.

 

The first thing I saw when I saw 'unit' was 'ahhh so they're stopping you from sniping' because why else would you put unit?

 

My thoughts as well. But as others have pointed out, like usual, GW has made a mess of things rules-wise and there is no clear definitive answer here. Let's hope this thread won't keep going 'round and round and round like the falchions ones....

[Angelis Mortis]

Again, I'd have to check the main book, but probably something like, it's not a charcateristic test, as those are something individual minis have to take. Whereas Leadership (and Moral! :woot:) tests are squad based (altohugh can be taken by squads of a single mini).

 

Page 8 of the BRB goes over the characteristic tests and doesn't leave much room for interpretation IMHO. It specifically says the "model" takes the test.

 

It adds the weight of two more people who agree exactly with his interpretation. When more agree, it carries more weight. Its not that hard to figure out.

 

This is the THIRD time you said nothing about the topic at hand, and decided instead to defend your awful decision to quote a giant block of text to only state that you agree. Please do try to actually contribute to this here thread. I will reiterate my point again - we don't want half the posts in the forum to be long block quotes with the word "agree" or "disagree" after them, which would occur if everyone followed your scheme. If you really think strength in numbers matter (rather than the validity of the argument itself) then polls are what you are looking for. Not useless posts.

 

The first thing I saw when I saw 'unit' was 'ahhh so they're stopping you from sniping' because why else would you put unit?

 

My thoughts as well. But as others have pointed out, like usual, GW has made a mess of things rules-wise and there is no clear definitive answer here. Let's hope this thread won't keep going 'round and round and round like the falchions ones....

 

 

Sounds to me like your just having a fit because more people agree with him than you.

[KnowThyEnemy]

Ill have to read when i get home. Thank you for the pg name as reference though. My only issue with that statement (until i read) is its context. early in the book is generic, with more specific rules coming later. could it not simply be trying to illustrate what the characteristics are and how you "test" against them?

 

and fred's right, if you want to say "i agree" or "i disagree", just say that and go about your business. quoting a long entry just to say i agree is annoying for those of us who actually take the time to read the previous entries :woot:. and angelis, this isn't about "I'm right, your wrong and this is how many people agree with me", its about trying to swim through a murky rule with little precedant in the hopes we get it right. until the FAQ comes out and says everyone's wrong : B)

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Sounds to me like your just having a fit because more people agree with him than you.

 

:D And now with the personal attacks. Oh dear, how disappointing that common sense advice is met with this kind of thing. Futhermore your ridiculous remark here is not even correct. I recognize the answer is unclear and have said so (which if you read my last post carefully you would have noticed this). I also have taken enough mathematics and statistics courses in elementary school and high school, and have used the internet for more than 5 minutes of my life to come to the conclusion that unscientific online polls are meaningless. And this wasn't even a poll. Your remark, while cute, bears no rational relationship to reality.

 

This will be my last off topic remark to you in here, I suggest you drop this, otherwise the mods will have to step in.

[DeathKorpsman]

well i can tell you that youve got that one backwards. moral tests are a variant of LD tests. for example, fearless models ignore moral and pinning tests because, well, they're fearless. however, they dont ignore the wider leadership checks (unless stated of course). LD tests are the forest, moral and pinning tests are the trees :sick:. and LD is a characteristc, so why would it not be a characteristic test?

Pg. 8 talks about Characteristic Tests and then makes specific mention of Leadership Tests being different than other sorts of tests. The information on pg. 8 doesn't seem to be generic, aside from a little flavor texts, but specifically outlines exactly how to do Characteristic Tests. If someone can find an entry elsewhere in the book that talks about how do do Characteristic Tests for a unit, it would be new to me.

[CheezeFezt]

well i can tell you that youve got that one backwards. moral tests are a variant of LD tests. for example, fearless models ignore moral and pinning tests because, well, they're fearless. however, they dont ignore the wider leadership checks (unless stated of course). LD tests are the forest, moral and pinning tests are the trees :). and LD is a characteristc, so why would it not be a characteristic test?

Pg. 8 talks about Characteristic Tests and then makes specific mention of Leadership Tests being different than other sorts of tests. The information on pg. 8 doesn't seem to be generic, aside from a little flavor texts, but specifically outlines exactly how to do Characteristic Tests. If someone can find an entry elsewhere in the book that talks about how do do Characteristic Tests for a unit, it would be new to me.

 

There are no rule detailing how a unit take characteristic test. So what.

 

BRB pg 8 said "During a battle, a model might have to take a test on one of its characteristics..." All this say is if a model take a characteristic test, do these. It doesn't say only model take characteristic test.

 

Codex GK said "target unit must take an initiative test". So you have the dex saying unit must take initiative test. There are no rule for unit taking initiative test.

 

One can read warp rift as a whole to gleam how a "unit" take init test. As Fred explained, a unit take a test for each non-vehicle hit. Very different than for each non-vehicle model under the template take an initiative test. Furthermore, the dex said for each failed test, remove a model; not remove each model that failed the initiative test.

 

Read as a whole, the unit taking init test play similarly to rolling to wound.

 

Yes, there are no rule in the BRB detailing how a unit take characteristic test. Neither does the BRB state only model take characteristic test.

 

Even if you go by the interpretation that only model can take initiative test, the 2nd sentence of warp rift is pretty clear how the result is applied. "For every test that is failed, remove one model as casualty." Great, the IC take the initiative test and failed. The 2nd sentence of warp rift said remove one model as casualty. So I remove that peon in the same target unit. There are no requirement that the model that failed the test is removed. The dex said "For every test that is failed, remove one model." Removing the peon satisfy this.

[Grey Mage]

Usually you're spot on, Grey, but that is RAW monkeying at its worst. Do they really have to explicitly tell you that every model in the unit has Furious Charge and Feel No Pain when the unit is given those rules? Do they really have to tell you specifically which side of the die to read?

 

The rule even differentiates between unit and model. I'll put it simply with a concise restatement.

The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed.

"If the Warp Rift template touches any models' bases, the unit that the Librarian targeted with Warp Rift will, as a whole, take a number of initiative tests equal to the number of non vehicle model bases touched by the template. Every test that the unit fails results in one model being removed as a casualty with no saves allowed."

Its the same thing here- do they really need to tell you that models take the test? Do they really need to tell one to remove the models that failed specificly? Because following the logic that since unit is used in the target of the effect it must be resolved on the unit we find we have BAs who dont get furious charge or FNP- because the rules dont provide for units to use it, only models. Just like how they dont cover unit-wide initiative tests.

 

Its the same basic format. The unit is affected but the effect is resolved on each model on its own merits. This happens all the time. Armor saves being a great example- the unit takes X wounds, and then each model makes its own save. Furious Charge and FNP being others.

 

So- the unit is hit X times, and so X models in the unit are going to need to test. Whats so odd about that? This way we dont have to make up any rules about rolling initiative tests for units, or how to allocate any casualties caused by it. KISS eh?

[DeathKorpsman]

Well put Grey Mage. I'd also point out that the only reference in the power to Unit is the reference to Target Unit, then it says take a test for each model hit. The fact that they are used in the same sentence is what confuses the issue. The way it is worded means it can still be used in exactly the way that Characteristics Tests are spelled out without a conflict, as was pointed out above. If they can work in concert, why would it be necessary to use an entirely unrelated mechanic (i.e. Wound Allocation) to make the power work? No wounds are mentioned, only a characteristic (Initiative) and a test. There is only one way to do said test and it is listed in the BRB. Warp Rift simply spells out how to choose which models in a target unit take the test and lists the result if they fail, which is that they are removed (not wounded) with no saves.

 

Seems pretty cut and dry to use the rules in the BRB unless a codex specifically says not to or specifically works in a different way, but it has been shown that Warp Rift doesn't have to work differently and still abide by both sets of rules. I can see where the contentions lie, but I think the way that has been outlined using both rules is truest to the RAW.

[Something Wycked]

.... Okay, I rest my case. Thanks for proving my point, Grey. lol... If you were in agreement from the beginning, why didn't you just say so? What you said is exactly what I was arguing for.

[KnowThyEnemy]

Grey, you'll have to explain what your on about when it comes to Blood Angels, im not familiar with there specific rule set. Hard to rebudle if you dont provide specific examples :)

 

I'd also point out that the only reference in the power to Unit is the reference to Target Unit, then it says take a test for each model hit. The fact that they are used in the same sentence is what confuses the issue.

 

That is actually an erroneous statement. the rule says, and has been stated several times now, "The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed". it is not two sentences. it does not say 1 thing then go on to say the 2nd. it is 1 complete sentence and should be treated as such. it does NOT say to take a test for each model hit. it says the UNIT must take a test for each model hit. that is a very specific difference. your way infers that each model hit by the template is taking the test, while the rule says the unit as a whole takes the test, the number of times a model is hit (X tests for X models). it also says "one model is removed " not "that model is removed" or "the model who failed the test is removed" or "models under the template are removed"

 

this is not a new way of doing things, this same principle applies for wounding and armour saves, as you have said yourself Grey. Your forgetting the fact that this is a template attack, the rules of which are very specific. the owning player does NOT have to remove the models under the template when removing casualties, they may pick any model in the unit. where in Warp Rift does it say anything about removing models under the template? if it doesn't you are infering a rule that currently does not exist, that also is in violation of a rule that does.

 

as has been stated, there is currently no rule specificly for units taking characteristics tests in general. therefore you must use the basic rules and the rules in the codex to figure out what happens. adding words or interpreting what you think should happen isn't the way to go about it. until someone can show me a specific example of unit-wide characteristic tests preferably, relating to templates, that says you take the tests for models under the template, you are simply creating a new rule. o and if you want to say that you have to assign the I test to individual models as if they were wounds, thats fine. the rules of the template state the owning player may assign the wounds to ANYONE in the unit hit by the template, not just those under it. Game, Blouses :)

[CheezeFezt]

Usually you're spot on, Grey, but that is RAW monkeying at its worst. Do they really have to explicitly tell you that every model in the unit has Furious Charge and Feel No Pain when the unit is given those rules? Do they really have to tell you specifically which side of the die to read?

 

The rule even differentiates between unit and model. I'll put it simply with a concise restatement.

The target unit must take an initiative test for each non vehicle model hit. For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty with no saves allowed.

"If the Warp Rift template touches any models' bases, the unit that the Librarian targeted with Warp Rift will, as a whole, take a number of initiative tests equal to the number of non vehicle model bases touched by the template. Every test that the unit fails results in one model being removed as a casualty with no saves allowed."

Its the same thing here- do they really need to tell you that models take the test? Do they really need to tell one to remove the models that failed specificly? Because following the logic that since unit is used in the target of the effect it must be resolved on the unit we find we have BAs who dont get furious charge or FNP- because the rules dont provide for units to use it, only models. Just like how they dont cover unit-wide initiative tests.

 

Its the same basic format. The unit is affected but the effect is resolved on each model on its own merits. This happens all the time. Armor saves being a great example- the unit takes X wounds, and then each model makes its own save. Furious Charge and FNP being others.

 

 

 

Furious Charge is a unit rule. BRB p 74 "Universal Special Rule: Many units ..." Feel No Pain is a unit rule.

 

If you're referring to special rule that say "for unit within x distance, they get blah", it's well established through the FAQ that it meant for "a unit with any model within x distance, they get blah." That's true of shrouding, the SW shroulding (whatever it's called), the blood angel priest power, the dark angel IC granting fearless, etc.

 

For KnowThyEnemy, Grey is referring to the priest special rule Blood Chalice "All friendly units within 6" are subject to the Furious Charge and Feel No Pain special rules." Not really sure what's he going on about. If he is saying these should be applied per model, then only the model within 6" of the priest gain Furious Charge/FNP, no the whole unit.

 

Armor saves is a great example -- the unit takes X wounds, the owner allocate those wounds, then the wound roll together for same "gaming" models. So if they're all vanilla marine with the same wargears, you roll for them all at once. Not per model. Furious Charge bonus are applied to the entire unit. FNP roll is rolled together for the same "gaming" models. So if you have same wargear death company, they all roll their FNP at the same time. Not per model.

 

So- the unit is hit X times, and so X models in the unit are going to need to test. Whats so odd about that? This way we dont have to make up any rules about rolling initiative tests for units, or how to allocate any casualties caused by it. KISS eh?

 

KISS. Rule explicitly say "For each initiative test failed, remove one model." What's simpler than removing a model. Why insert more into this statement (remove model that failed the test)--it sure doesn't say that. KISS.

[Gentlemanloser]

Becuase there's no rules for that way. Or ratter it's inconsistent, and illogical to, for exmaple, take an I test on an I6 DCA, but when that fails, rmeove an I3 Warrior instead.

 

Armour saves are a *great* example. Even if grouped together, you make a 2+ armour save, if it fails, you remove a mini from that exact 2+ armour save group.

 

You don't remve a 5+ save IC instead.

 

A I6 DCA fails a Warp Rift I6 characterist test, you remove an I6 DCA.

 

That's KISS. ;)