Quick Rules Querry

[Brother Dakath]

So I'm currently playing in a small escalation campagin in order to motivate us lazy folks in my LGG to paint up stuff, and I know one fellow is playing Necrons and bringing Scarabs....so my question is, if a Str 6 flame template hits only 3 out of 5 bases but wounds with all of those, that's 3 wounds, which would normally mean 4 dead bases, but if memory serves, scarabs are T3 and so it would be instant death and the vulnerable to templates rule says for each wound inflicted, it inflicts 2 instead. So as per my example would I wipe all the scarabs out?

[JamesI]

A template/blast wound on anything with vulnerable to blasts/templates (like a swarm) is doubled. So each wound caused actually deals 2 wounds.

 

So now, after doubling, you've inflicted 6 wounds, s6 versus T3. So each wound causes instant death. 6 bases are removed, or in the example the whole unit as there are not enough bases to survive the wounds.

[Brother Dakath]

First off! Doh! My brain completely spaced that there was an actual rules forum. That's what I get for working a long shift I suppose....but anyway..

 

Alright, that sounds good. Means that my Redeemer won't have as hard of a time dealing with you pesky Scarabs as I thought, thanks James.

[greatcrusade08]

two words for you... thunderfire cannons :tu:

[Jacinda]

Well, you would need to roll to see if the hits actually wound first, but otherwise, just like James said. On average, 3 hits would yield 2.5 wounds which turn into 5 wounds on a swarm and 5 ID casualties on the unit.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Dont forget they still get to take any aplicable saves. Less important for the flamestrome (templet ignors cover and i am pretty sure scarab armor is worse than flamestrom AP), but when you start throwing blasts around (thunderfire cannons, demolishers and the such) its a consideration you need to take.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

A template/blast wound on anything with vulnerable to blasts/templates (like a swarm) is doubled. So each wound caused actually deals 2 wounds.

 

So now, after doubling, you've inflicted 6 wounds, s6 versus T3. So each wound causes instant death. 6 bases are removed, or in the example the whole unit as there are not enough bases to survive the wounds.

 

Is that how it works in 40K?

 

In Warhammer they have rules stating that models can't suffer (after saves) more wounds than they have. Meaning extra wounds don't carry over. In that case it would be 3 hits -> 3 ID wounds -> remove 3 bases. Perhaps this is just due to the larger number of "Multiple Wound" attacks in Warhammer.

[timmytool]

A template/blast wound on anything with vulnerable to blasts/templates (like a swarm) is doubled. So each wound caused actually deals 2 wounds.

 

So now, after doubling, you've inflicted 6 wounds, s6 versus T3. So each wound causes instant death. 6 bases are removed, or in the example the whole unit as there are not enough bases to survive the wounds.

 

Is that how it works in 40K?

 

In Warhammer they have rules stating that models can't suffer (after saves) more wounds than they have. Meaning extra wounds don't carry over. In that case it would be 3 hits -> 3 ID wounds -> remove 3 bases. Perhaps this is just due to the larger number of "Multiple Wound" attacks in Warhammer.

 

TL:DR 40k, each unsaved wound is *2 then the wounds are resolved in the group of identical models while in WH the hits are always individual to each model then multiplied last with no bleed over with groups of identical models in a unit.

 

In WH (non 40k) the wounds are multiplied on the model after wound allocation and the saves are taken (WHF RB p45). In this scenario wounds are multiplied after would allocation and saves(BRB P76) but "wounds suffered by a group of identical multiple-wound models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible" (BRB p26) so instant death results will remove undamaged models in the would allocation group first then so on till the most damaged model is removed last.... the distinction is wounds on identical models in the squad are grouped and rolled with no distinction to which wounds are for which model then the maximum amount of models removed, and over kills in the "identical group" do not carry over to models differently equipped but do inside the "identical models".

 

BRB p26,76 WHFRB p 45

[Azulz]

This doesn't make sense to me. I'll try to use the BRB to see if anyone can see what I see here.

 

Imagine, this. (All "swarm" bases reffered to form here on out are necron scarabs)

A unit of 5 base takes 1 str 6 AP 5 wound.

That "unsaved"(due to AP 5 which beats out the scarabs 5+ save) wound is applied to 1 base, which causes ID.

There are now 2 wounds from that scarab base that were "unsaved", now making 4 wounds...which,(being ID wounds) being allocated to 4 more bases,creates 8 MORE wounds...

Doesn't anyone else see a problem here? 1 wound being able to chain react to insta gib an entire group... Doesn't seem to be how this is supposed to work.

 

Are the wounds created by the "swarms" rule, the same str and ap as the initial wound inflicted?

 

According to the BRB I think this is how it is supposed to go.

 

-The extra wound inflicted by the swarms rule (I believe) is to take 1 extra wound off of another model in the unit(or multi wound model that was affected) WHICH CANNOT be saved at all, since this wound is after an unsaved wound PG 76, it would not have a value at all from a specific weapon, its just an extra wound allocated. so, you would not take a armor save for this wound , nor would it inflict ID all over again.

 

-So in the scenario up above, 1 base is hit and wounded, then killed via ID, there are 2 "unsaved" wounds left over (or 3 if you count the original wound?) as described in the "remove casualties" section on pg 24 of the BRB. those wounds are immediatley either,

A. allocated to 2 different bases.(2 bases reduced to 2 wounds ea) Or,

B. allocated on the same base (1 base reduced to 1 wound) Or,

C. I've got this all wrong and this wound would not bleed over because the extra wound is to be allocated to the original model/base the first wound was inflicted upon.

 

On the other hand, I know that you roll all like models "wounds" rolls in one go. Pg 26 UNITS OF MULTIPILE WOUND MODELS.

-"If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have mutliple wounds, then take all the saves for the unit in one go."

This is before wounds have been unsaved. But scarabs dont get to take a save at this point , due to the AP value.

-"Once you have determined the number of UNSAVED wounds suffered by a group of identical models, you must remove whole models as casualties where possible. Wounds may not be 'spread around' to avoid removing models."

Why wound they then be able to be 'spread around' to kill more models?

THESE wounds created by the swarms rule are created AFTER "unsaved" wounds...How can you allocate a "swarms rule" wound created by a wound that was already allocated , and "unsaved" to other models? If there are no more wounds to take away from the initial model then thats just too bad? How can something(unsaved wound) that affected a certain model create another something ("swarms" wound) , then be placed on another model?<---Question , not a statement.

-"If amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first , if possilbe, 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 mutliple-wound models)."

In the scenario above only 1 wound inflicted was a ID wound.

If you read the example on that same page you are left with 1 full health nob, 1 half health nob, and 1 half health upgraded nob. If this unit had the "swarms" rule could you see how it would not make sense to add an unsavable extra wound to the now wounded upgraded nob? It isn't rolled for with the same unit of un-upgraded nobs, but when allocating separate wounds( which a wound created by a "swarms" rule wound would be in this scenario)it must first go to a model already wounded. Correct?

 

Sorry I have made a debacle of this,and have totally contradicted myself at certain points, but I think this is how it works in the short and simple form.

Said unit takes 1 wound from STR 6 AP 5 Template weapon.

1 dice would be allocated , but no need to , its an ID wound,

1 base is removed due to ID,

1 base is removed , that is all, the 2 more wounds created via the "swarms" rule have no where to go because they are applied to model affected by ID, which is now gone(who suffered that "unsaved" wound, oh that guy, well he isn't here anymore) and the "allocating phase" if you will, has already been passed.

[Gentlemanloser]

Imagine, this. (All "swarm" bases reffered to form here on out are necron scarabs)

A unit of 5 base takes 1 str 6 AP 5 wound.

That "unsaved"(due to AP 5 which beats out the scarabs 5+ save) wound is applied to 1 base, which causes ID.

There are now 2 wounds from that scarab base that were "unsaved", now making 4 wounds...which,(being ID wounds) being allocated to 4 more bases,creates 8 MORE wounds...

Doesn't anyone else see a problem here? 1 wound being able to chain react to insta gib an entire group... Doesn't seem to be how this is supposed to work.

 

 

1: The unit takes 1 x S6 wound, as they get no save.

 

2: Due to the 'Swarm' rule, each unsaved wound equals 2.

 

3: The unit suffers 2 x S6 wounds.

 

4: You apply 1 x S6 Wound to a base. This casues ID, so you remove the base.

 

5: You apply the next S6 Wound to another base. This causes ID, so you remove the base.

 

 

You can't stack ID casuing wounds onto a single base in a multi-wound unit. And ID doesn't cuase extra unsaved wounds.

[Azulz]

Imagine, this. (All "swarm" bases reffered to form here on out are necron scarabs)

A unit of 5 base takes 1 str 6 AP 5 wound.

That "unsaved"(due to AP 5 which beats out the scarabs 5+ save) wound is applied to 1 base, which causes ID.

There are now 2 wounds from that scarab base that were "unsaved", now making 4 wounds...which,(being ID wounds) being allocated to 4 more bases,creates 8 MORE wounds...

Doesn't anyone else see a problem here? 1 wound being able to chain react to insta gib an entire group... Doesn't seem to be how this is supposed to work.

 

 

1: The unit takes 1 x S6 wound, as they get no save.

 

2: Due to the 'Swarm' rule, each unsaved wound equals 2.

 

3: The unit suffers 2 x S6 wounds.

 

4: You apply 1 x S6 Wound to a base. This casues ID, so you remove the base.

 

5: You apply the next S6 Wound to another base. This causes ID, so you remove the base.

 

You can't stack ID casuing wounds onto a single base in a multi-wound unit. And ID doesn't cuase extra unsaved wounds.

 

 

1. Agreed

 

2. Agreed

 

3. Where does the BRB say the extra wound caused by the "swarms" rule , has the same str and/or ap as the initial wound?

Also Pg, 24 REMOVE CASUALTIES states, "Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted,..." So according to your ruling there would actually be 3x unsaved wounds which would be doubled to 6x wounds.

How can you allocate a wound after already allocating the initial wound? If there are more wounds left on that particular model that suffered the first wound, you could , but in this scenario it is dead, How can you allocate a wound after already allocating the initial wound that just so happend to ID that particular model? I know I'm repeating my self, but this is how the book is running circles in my mind.

If the initial wound does not indeed creat more unsaved wounds, and the book says nothing about the "swarms" wound being the same STR and AP as the initial, then there would be jsut 1 more automatic wound to allocate to what? The same model that doesn't exist or another like model that wasn't allocated a wound in the first place?

 

4.Agreed. Then stop

 

5.#3 again , why and how?

 

"You can't stack ID casuing wounds onto a single base in a multi-wound unit" Agreed

 

"And ID doesn't cuase extra unsaved wounds." Am I misinterpreting the sentence on page 24 describing "unsaved wounds"?

 

Just trying to figure this one out with RAW.

[Saiisil]

Personally I am having trouble coming to grips with the idea of 2 IDs per hit, the reason for this is if you broke it down into a step by step process both the extra wound and the ID happen in the same step with the way I understand it.

[Azulz]

Personally I am having trouble coming to grips with the idea of 2 IDs per hit, the reason for this is if you broke it down into a step by step process both the extra wound and the ID happen in the same step with the way I understand it.

 

 

Therefore the "swarms" wound being inflicted at the same time as ID , only affecting the model suffering ID???????

[dswanick]

This doesn't make sense to me. I'll try to use the BRB to see if anyone can see what I see here.

 

snip

 

a debacle of this,and have totally contradicted myself at certain points, but I think this is how it works in the short and simple form.

Said unit takes 1 wound from STR 6 AP 5 Template weapon.

1 dice would be allocated , but no need to , its an ID wound,

1 base is removed due to ID,

1 base is removed , that is all, the 2 more wounds created via the "swarms" rule have no where to go because they are applied to model affected by ID, which is now gone(who suffered that "unsaved" wound, oh that guy, well he isn't here anymore) and the "allocating phase" if you will, has already been passed.

Personally I am having trouble coming to grips with the idea of 2 IDs per hit, the reason for this is if you broke it down into a step by step process both the extra wound and the ID happen in the same step with the way I understand it.

INSTANT DEATH

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.

VULNERABLE TO BLASTS/TEMPLATES

Some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. If the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds.

The part that you are missing is that Vulnerable to Blast is a unit rule while Insatnt Death affects models.

After the Roll to hit the unit and Roll to wound the unit, and skipping the Take saving throws steps (because the Scarabs Save is negated by the weapons AP) you are left with a number of unsaved wounds against the unit. Before you can allocate the wounds to the models you first have to double the number of wounds as per the Vulnerable to Blast rule which affects the unit. You now take those 2X wounds and apply them, one per model per the BRB Pg.26, and then each of these wounds is now evaluated for its Instant Death capability against the model to which it is assigned.

[Saiisil]

The part that you are missing is that Vulnerable to Blast is a unit rule while Insatnt Death affects models.

After the Roll to hit the unit and Roll to wound the unit, and skipping the Take saving throws steps (because the Scarabs Save is negated by the weapons AP) you are left with a number of unsaved wounds against the unit. Before you can allocate the wounds to the models you first have to double the number of wounds as per the Vulnerable to Blast rule which affects the unit. You now take those 2X wounds and apply them, one per model per the BRB Pg.26, and then each of these wounds is now evaluated for its Instant Death capability against the model to which it is assigned.

 

Following that logic we apply those 2x wounds to models before evaluating Instant Death and if we are talking about a unit of identical models the rules tell us to take all wounds from one model till it has no wounds left so on models with 3 wounds that would be 3 Instant Deaths on 1 base, effectively 1 model dies for 3 Instant Death wounds.

[Seahawk]

Not at all. dswanick's order of wounding follows the book rules, though it's slightly off. You "first, if possible, remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes instant death, and then proceed as normal." Basically, you check for which wounds cause instant death before allocating them.

 

Here's the order:

 

1. Roll to hit.

2. Roll to wound.

3. Allocate wounds (they're all identical anyway so it doesn't matter)

4. Roll to save (ignored due to AP)

5. Count up unsaved wounds (all of them).

6. Double that as per VTB/T (all of them times two).

7. Remove one model, starting with unwounded models, for each unsaved wound that causes instant death.

8. Resolve remaining normal wounds, if any.

 

It doesn't matter who the wounds are allocated to. You simply remove as many models as there are unsaved instant death wounds. It's the only case where wounds "carry over" to different models.

 

On a side note, this was answered in the BRB FAQ...but not any more for some reason.

[dswanick]

The part that you are missing is that Vulnerable to Blast is a unit rule while Insatnt Death affects models.

After the Roll to hit the unit and Roll to wound the unit, and skipping the Take saving throws steps (because the Scarabs Save is negated by the weapons AP) you are left with a number of unsaved wounds against the unit. Before you can allocate the wounds to the models you first have to double the number of wounds as per the Vulnerable to Blast rule which affects the unit. You now take those 2X wounds and apply them, one per model per the BRB Pg.26, and then each of these wounds is now evaluated for its Instant Death capability against the model to which it is assigned.

 

Following that logic we apply those 2x wounds to models before evaluating Instant Death and if we are talking about a unit of identical models the rules tell us to take all wounds from one model till it has no wounds left so on models with 3 wounds that would be 3 Instant Deaths on 1 base, effectively 1 model dies for 3 Instant Death wounds.

No, re-read Pg.26, second to last paragraph - were it says that if some of the unsaved waounds cause Instant Death you must remove one whole model per ID wound.

 

And I'm not sure how you came up with three from one? Take, for example, a Battle Cannon - Strength 8, AP 3, Large Blast:

> You roll to-hit, and for arguments sake hit a three Scarabs in a unit of five. (BRB, Pgs.17 & 58)

> You roll to-wound three times (once for each model in the unit under the template), scoring three wounds. (BRB, Pg. 19)

> Because all models in the unit are identical, you do not have to allocate the wounds to specific models. (BRB, Pg.20)

> The Scarabs are not allowed any save, unless the player chose to Go to Ground (AP beats Armor Save and their not in terrain to benefit from Cover). (BRB, Pgs. 20-22)

> The Scarab unit now has suffered 3 unsaved wounds. Per the Vulnerable to Blast USR these 3 wounds are doubled to 6.

> The Scarab unit now has 6 unsaved Str 6 wounds on a unit of five identical models with Toughness 3. Per the Units of Multiple-wound Models, Instant Death, and Removing Casualties rules you must now remove 6 bases of identical models from the unit (however you can only remove all five).

If, instead, the player had chosen to Go to Ground and against the three wounds and made one of his Cover saves he would have been left with 2 unsaved wounds which would have been doubled to four due to Vulnerable, removing four models due to Instant Death, leaving one model in from the unit.

[Gentlemanloser]

Sai is saying that if you ID a mini with 3 wounds. you've just cuased three unsaved wounds.

 

 

But removing mini's due to ID doesn't cause the unit to take more unsaved wounds.

[Saiisil]

Actually no, what I am saying is the extra wound for Vulnerable to Blasts is checked by the BBB at the same time as the strength for Instant Death, they both say if when unsaved wound is suffered. You don't apply one before unsaved wounds so in the case of AP or ignoring Armour you would still allocate wounds in a complex unit before the save is bypassed.

 

I may be wrong in the way I understood what dswanick was posting but it doesn't change what I was trying to say. Personally I would flip the process make in dswanick's post, check for ID first then check for Vulnerable, why because there is no rules that specifically state which comes first and if you have ID come before Vulnerable it makes for a more entertaining game. As I have said, both Vulnerable and ID are checked at the same time so I still don't think that 3 wounds would kill 6 bases in this case.

[Seahawk]

Well, you go through all of your wounds that cause Instant Death. If you still need to double them, that's not "all the wounds" now is it.

[Gentlemanloser]

Ah, sorry, It was Azu. :lol:

 

There are now 2 wounds from that scarab base that were "unsaved", now making 4 wounds...which,(being ID wounds) being allocated to 4 more bases,creates 8 MORE wounds...

Doesn't anyone else see a problem here? 1 wound being able to chain react to insta gib an entire group... Doesn't seem to be how this is supposed to work.

[dswanick]

Actually no, what I am saying is the extra wound for Vulnerable to Blasts is checked by the BBB at the same time as the strength for Instant Death, they both say if when unsaved wound is suffered. You don't apply one before unsaved wounds so in the case of AP or ignoring Armour you would still allocate wounds in a complex unit before the save is bypassed.

 

I may be wrong in the way I understood what dswanick was posting but it doesn't change what I was trying to say. Personally I would flip the process make in dswanick's post, check for ID first then check for Vulnerable, why because there is no rules that specifically state which comes first and if you have ID come before Vulnerable it makes for a more entertaining game. As I have said, both Vulnerable and ID are checked at the same time so I still don't think that 3 wounds would kill 6 bases in this case.

Which still doesn't change anything as Scarabs are not a complex unit. The unsaved wounds still have to be doubled, and whole models still have to be removed for each Instant Death wound, and in my example above the three unsaved wounds caused to the unit still will remove six models. That is clearly stated in the RAW for Instant Death wounds caused to Multiple-wound models.

[Jacinda]

I may be wrong in the way I understood what dswanick was posting but it doesn't change what I was trying to say. Personally I would flip the process make in dswanick's post, check for ID first then check for Vulnerable, why because there is no rules that specifically state which comes first and if you have ID come before Vulnerable it makes for a more entertaining game. As I have said, both Vulnerable and ID are checked at the same time so I still don't think that 3 wounds would kill 6 bases in this case.

Don't we have to find the total number of wounds before removing casualties?

And even if you pull off the model from ID first, do they not still fall into the idea that it all happens at once? What ever was there at the start of the shooting is there for the whole shooting. You may have removed the model but you have not removed the vulnerability the unit had when the shot was made.

[Azulz]

I'm still a bit confused here. The vulnerable wounds can't come into play until after unsaved wounds are inflicted...even if those are ID,that's what the books says isn't it?

And I'm still not seeing any proof or reference in any way shape or form that the vulnerable wounds are the same STR & AP as the initial wound.

I'll make make more sense when I can get home and try to apply what you have all said.

[Gentlemanloser]

And I'm still not seeing any proof or reference in any way shape or form that the vulnerable wounds are the same STR & AP as the initial wound

 

If that's the case, they are all S10, AP1 'wounds'.

 

You'll have to show me where the BRB says they're not.