Swarms, double strength, & ID

[maturin]

This came up in another forum, and I wanted to get OR's interpretation on this:

 

In 5th, if a swarm got hit with a double strength blast/template it would lose 2 bases per wound (assuming no armor saves). But now in 6th, the rule states a swarm takes two wounds for each one inflicted by a blast/template.

 

One interpretation of this is that the swarm is the model, so they just get ID'd and the extra wound is wasted.

 

The other is that the swarm is the whole unit, and extra wounds get passed on to other bases, ID'ing them as well.

 

Which one is correct?

[dswanick]

This came up in another forum, and I wanted to get OR's interpretation on this:

 

In 5th, if a swarm got hit with a double strength blast/template it would lose 2 bases per wound (assuming no armor saves). But now in 6th, the rule states a swarm takes two wounds for each one inflicted by a blast/template.

 

One interpretation of this is that the swarm is the model, so they just get ID'd and the extra wound is wasted.

 

The other is that the swarm is the whole unit, and extra wounds get passed on to other bases, ID'ing them as well.

 

Which one is correct?

"

If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast, or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds.

"

As unsaved Wounds are "suffered" when they are applied from the Wound pool to a model, the Wound multiplication happens after the Allocate Wounds step.

"

If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.

"

As "Instant Death" occurs after Wound Allocation also, each Swarm model would suffer a Wound, which would then be doubled due to Blast, and would then be removed as a casualty if it were not already at 0 wounds due to Instant Death.

[Jacinda]

It does not matter if you want to call a swarm the whole unit or not. The new swarm rules do not double the wounds until AFTER the saves have been made.

The basic process is:

Layout the template and count hits.

Roll to wound and add any successful roll to the wound pool.

Allocate ONE wound to the closest model.

Roll for any saves allowed.

If the save fails, remove two wounds from the model.

If there are still wounds left, remove from Instant Death.

 

The doubled wounds go to the model that failed to make its save. It DOES NOT add anything to the wound pool.

[Seahawk]

It doesn't work like this?

 

1. Template causes 1 unsaved wound.

2. This is multiplied into 2 unsaved wounds. (p.43)

3. All of these unsaved wounds are Instant Death wounds. (p.16)

4. Follow the rules for allocating unsaved wounds and remove 2 swarms as casualties. (p.15)

 

Then a complicated example:

 

If a unit of 6 scarabs and a Destroyer Lord gets hit (3 scarab swarms (SS) in front and back, Destroyer Lord in the middle) and suffers 3 wounds from the S6, AP4 flamage, I think it'd go like this:

 

1. Suffer three S6, AP4 wounds.

2. Allocate wounds one at a time.

3. Take sav- awww.

4. SS1 takes an unsaved template wound, produces another, and dies to the first via ID.

5. SS2 takes the leftover unsaved wound from SS1 and dies via ID.

6. SS3 takes an unsaved template wound, produces another, and dies to the first via ID.

 

So now we are still sitting on 1 original wound, plus 1 leftover unsaved wound from the swarm. The Destroyer Lord suffers an unsaved wound then rolls an armor save because AP4 doesn't beat 3+ AS, and passes.

 

 

 

 

...or is it now simply that Blast/Template weapons that cause Instant Death to Swarms still only kill one base for each original wound caused, as the others suggest? So a S5 template is now more killy than a S6 one...ridiculous!

 

So in my Necron example, only two swarms would actually die:

 

1. SS1 takes an unsaved template wound, produces another, and takes a second template wound, producing a wasted one, then dies because it's reduced to 0 wounds and because of ID.

2. SS2 takes the third template would, produces another, suffers ID and dies.

[dswanick]

It doesn't work like this?

 

1. Template causes 1 unsaved wound.

2. This is multiplied into 2 unsaved wounds. (p.43)

3. All of these unsaved wounds are Instant Death wounds. (p.16)

4. Follow the rules for allocating unsaved wounds and remove 2 swarms as casualties. (p.15)

No, it doesn't work like that. A template causes one unsaved wound, but that unsaved wound is not doubled nor Instant Death until it is assigned to a Swarm model, which is after the Wound Allocation step. It definitely won't work in your example because the wound caused isn't even an "unsaved Wound" until after it is Allocated thanks to the rules for units with multiple saves.

[greatcrusade08]

i thought the whole point to a wound pool is that wounds are no longer wasted/lost in the ether.

if a blast causes a second wound or whatever, then surely that wound wouldnt be lost it would go into the wound pool no?

 

in the example above the first scarab swarm would die to an instant death wound, however it generates another when its suffered..

what happens to this wound? im thinking it goes back into the wound pool, its the only way that makes sense

[Jacinda]

I looked at it as if each swarm were a separate model in a mixed unit and looked to see where the rules would break.

 

Assume you had Swarm_A with IC_B behind it together in a unit. Lay the template out and get 2 hits. Now assume you cause 1 wound. This wound goes against the closest model, being Swarm_A. He has no save so he takes an unsaved wound; because it is a template this becomes two unsaved wounds. Instant Death kicks in and Swarm_A is removed.

Do you then apply the swarm doubled wound to the IC? The IC is not a swarm and is not subject to the extra wounds. The IC may also have a save which he could not take if he were given the second unsaved wound. The wound pool is also empty as soon as the one wound caused is allocated to the swarm. This method causes the rules to break in several ways.

 

On the other hand, if the one unsaved wound is doubled causing two wounds to the swarm, the swarm is removed and Instant Death is not needed just like what happens any time an ID weapon is used against a single wound model. Nothing breaks and all rules are applied.

[Azulz]

Ugh, I have been arguing this since early on in 5th actually, could never get anyone to agree with anyone else. Glad to see the issue has arrisen again. Maybe the community can finally see this one through, as it was left to TO ruling in 5th. Think of this, some people even argued that 5th, said every "unsaved" wound generates a second wound, and that these generated wounds are ALSO ID. Now I don't have the BRB on me at work, but if 6th is worded this way also, then there is a big problem because lets say 1x S6 AP4 wound by a template was inflicted, A 3xW base takes it and dies via ID, then the other 2xW are "unsaved" which would kill 2x bases , now there are 4x "unsaved wounds......etc.

This is clearly ridculous. THEN you throw another character in the unit and it gets to be even more of a headache.

I commend anyone who approaches this subject and hope some sensible ruling comes from it. Goodluck.

[Seahawk]

Azulz, it was fixed in the FAQ in early/mid 5th edition. Too bad your opponents didn't read them I guess? It's now been reborken with this edition, and yes I spelled that right. :huh:

 

Just so we're clear, dswanick and Jacinda, am I correct in your approach with this example:

 

1. S6, AP4 hit causes 1 wound on a Swarm unit.

2. Swarm model takes 1 unsaved wound.

3. Wound is doubled, first Swarm now has taken 2nd wound.

4. Wound is Instant Death, killing the first Swarm.

 

...and if it was four Swarms that suffered two unsaved wounds, then it'd be:

 

1. S6, AP4 hit causes 2 wounds on a Swarm unit.

2. First Swarm model takes 2 unsaved wounds.

3. Wounds are doubled, first Swarm now has taken 4 unsaved wounds.

4. Wounds are Instant Death (for S&G at this point) and the first Swarm dies in many horrible ways.

 

 

So, where in 5th, this situation would have destroyed 4 Swarms, in 6th, only 1 gets destroyed. That's TERRIBLE.

[stephane4985]

You cannot really apply what is written in the brb for that case, because if you really do what is written in the allocating wound section of the book, here is what you must do:

 

blast hit 3 swarms and wounds 3 time.

Wound pool contains 3 wounds

 

1)Take first wounds

2)apply to first swarm.

3)That 1 wound becomes 2 wounds.

4)Allocating wound rules says to remove 1 wounds from the model.

5)Does that cause ID, yes, remove model.

6)Take another unsaved wounds (the one that was generated by the swarm rule), apply to next model

7)Next model is a swarm, that 1 wounds become 2 wounds.

8)Allocating wound rules says to remove 1 wounds from the model.

9)Does that cause ID, yes, remove model.

10)Take anoter unsaved wounds (the one that was again generated by the swarm rule), apply to next model

11)Next model is a swram, that 1 wounds become 2 wounds.

 

Rinse, repeat, you just kill all the swarm unit with only 1 wound. NICE!!

 

All that because of 2 things.

 

1) The wound allocation rule does not specify the unsaved wounds must come from the wound pool

2) the swarm rule does not specify that this generated wounds most be apply to this model

 

 

 

So the rule doesn't make much sense.

[puffin]

1. S6, AP4 hit causes 2 wounds on a Swarm unit.

2. First Swarm model takes 2 unsaved wounds. <---

 

I'm not going to comment on when the doubling occurs but point 2 looks wrong to me. Wounds are allocated one by one, so if the first wound is unsaved and causes instant death then the second wound would then be allocated to a different model.

[dswanick]

Azulz, it was fixed in the FAQ in early/mid 5th edition. Too bad your opponents didn't read them I guess? It's now been reborken with this edition, and yes I spelled that right. :huh:

 

Just so we're clear, dswanick and Jacinda, am I correct in your approach with this example:

 

1. S6, AP4 hit causes 1 wound on a Swarm unit.

2. Swarm model takes 1 unsaved wound.

3. Wound is doubled, first Swarm now has taken 2nd wound.

4. Wound is Instant Death, killing the first Swarm.

 

...and if it was four Swarms that suffered two unsaved wounds, then it'd be:

 

1. S6, AP4 hit causes 2 wounds on a Swarm unit.

2. First Swarm model takes 2 unsaved wounds.

3. Wounds are doubled, first Swarm now has taken 4 unsaved wounds.

4. Wounds are Instant Death (for S&G at this point) and the first Swarm dies in many horrible ways.

 

 

So, where in 5th, this situation would have destroyed 4 Swarms, in 6th, only 1 gets destroyed. That's TERRIBLE.

No. Because wounds are allocated from the Wound Pool one-at-a-time. So in your second example:

 

- Four Swarm models, 2 S6 AP4, Blast Wounds.

- Allocate one Wound from the Wound Pool to the nearest model.

|- That model loses 1W for the allocated Wound.

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule.

|- That model suffers Instant Death due to the S6/T3.

- Allocate another Wound from the Wound Pool to the nearest model, rinse/repeat.

-Net result, 2 dead Swarm models.

 

-or-

- Four Swarm models, 2 S6 AP4, Blast Wounds.

- Allocate one Wound from the Wound Pool to the nearest model.

|- That model loses 1W for the allocated Wound.

|- That model suffers Instant Death due to the S6/T3.

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule. But since there is no mechanic for putting Wounds back in the Wound Pool, this Wound is "wasted" on a dead model.

- Allocate another Wound from the Wound Pool to the nearest model, rinse/repeat.

 

-Net result, 2 dead Swarm models.

[stephane4985]

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule. But since there is no mechanic for putting Wounds back in the Wound Pool, this Wound is "wasted" on a dead model.

 

 

But it doesn't have to be in the wound pool to be allocated. At first I agreed with that but re-reading Brb Pg 12, they just say "Continue allocating unsaved wounds...."

[dswanick]

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule. But since there is no mechanic for putting Wounds back in the Wound Pool, this Wound is "wasted" on a dead model.

 

 

But it doesn't have to be in the wound pool to be allocated. At first I agreed with that but re-reading Brb Pg 12, they just say "Continue allocating unsaved wounds...."

BRB, Pg.15:

"Allocate Wounds

First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

[stephane4985]

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule. But since there is no mechanic for putting Wounds back in the Wound Pool, this Wound is "wasted" on a dead model.

 

 

But it doesn't have to be in the wound pool to be allocated. At first I agreed with that but re-reading Brb Pg 12, they just say "Continue allocating unsaved wounds...."

BRB, Pg.15:

"Allocate Wounds

First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

 

 

That's in the Mixed saves part of the rule. So if I have a unit of only swarms model, I can't apply that part. If you look at the third paragraph of page 15, Allocate unsaved wounds and remove casualties, which I won't quote but you can look it up, they never mentioned the wound pool.

 

Read my post at no #10, I mentioned that.

[dswanick]

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule. But since there is no mechanic for putting Wounds back in the Wound Pool, this Wound is "wasted" on a dead model.

 

 

But it doesn't have to be in the wound pool to be allocated. At first I agreed with that but re-reading Brb Pg 12, they just say "Continue allocating unsaved wounds...."

BRB, Pg.15:

"Allocate Wounds

First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

 

 

That's in the Mixed saves part of the rule. So if I have a unit of only swarms model, I can't apply that part. If you look at the third paragraph of page 15, Allocate unsaved wounds and remove casualties, which I won't quote but you can look it up, they never mentioned the wound pool.

Because the Wound pool is defined on Pg.14. And at the end of the single save procedure it tells you what happens when the Wound pool is empty. It's not rocket surgery to figure out that the procedure that starts with the definition of the Wound pool and ends with the section entitled "Emptied Wound Pool" is telling you that that procedure is Allocating Wounds from the Wound pool. Especially in light of the added clarity given by the quoted part above.

[Jacinda]

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule. But since there is no mechanic for putting Wounds back in the Wound Pool, this Wound is "wasted" on a dead model.

 

 

But it doesn't have to be in the wound pool to be allocated. At first I agreed with that but re-reading Brb Pg 12, they just say "Continue allocating unsaved wounds...."

BRB, Pg.15:

"Allocate Wounds

First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

 

 

That's in the Mixed saves part of the rule. So if I have a unit of only swarms model, I can't apply that part. If you look at the third paragraph of page 15, Allocate unsaved wounds and remove casualties, which I won't quote but you can look it up, they never mentioned the wound pool.

 

Read my post at no #10, I mentioned that.

 

 

Sooo ... we have a rule that says to add wounds to a pool. We have a rule that says to take allocate wounds from the pool. So you are saying you do not allocate from the pool because it is only infered the first time it is mentioned? That seems to be grasping.

 

OK, mixed saves ...

The initial wound is subject to any armor or invulnerable save. The doubled wound may not be saved in any manner. Therefore we have mixed saves. Roll them one at a time. From the pool.

[stephane4985]

|- That model loses an additional Wound due to the Swarm rule. But since there is no mechanic for putting Wounds back in the Wound Pool, this Wound is "wasted" on a dead model.

 

 

But it doesn't have to be in the wound pool to be allocated. At first I agreed with that but re-reading Brb Pg 12, they just say "Continue allocating unsaved wounds...."

BRB, Pg.15:

"Allocate Wounds

First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit."

 

 

That's in the Mixed saves part of the rule. So if I have a unit of only swarms model, I can't apply that part. If you look at the third paragraph of page 15, Allocate unsaved wounds and remove casualties, which I won't quote but you can look it up, they never mentioned the wound pool.

Because the Wound pool is defined on Pg.14. And at the end of the single save procedure it tells you what happens when the Wound pool is empty. It's not rocket surgery to figure out that the procedure that starts with the definition of the Wound pool and ends with the section entitled "Emptied Wound Pool" is telling you that that procedure is Allocating Wounds from the Wound pool. Especially in light of the added clarity given by the quoted part above.

 

What you don't get is that we are talking about what we should do the way it is written. It is a swarm, each unsaved wounds becomes 2, you take 1, put it to a model, remove it, take another, do the same.

 

It doesn't change anything the fact that they tell us what to do when the pool is empty, or they tell us we do the wound poll in step 4, not in step 5. All I see is that the swarm generate another unsaved wounds and by the allocation rules, I take all the unsaved wounds and put them one by one on the closest model.

 

We both know it doesn't make any sense and that it is not what was intended, but that is not the point. They forgot to specify "from the wound pool" in the third paragraph of pg 12 and specify in the swarm rule to whom this duplicate wounds is apply.

 

So it is a mess, and the only thing to do is the more logical one, the one you describes. I agree with that. Still it doesn't change the fact that it is not what it written.

[stephane4985]

Sooo ... we have a rule that says to add wounds to a pool. We have a rule that says to take allocate wounds from the pool. So you are saying you do not allocate from the pool because it is only infered the first time it is mentioned? That seems to be grasping.

 

 

Swarm rule= generated another unsaved wounds.

Allocating unsaved wounds paragraph = "take another unsaved wounds, apply to closest model"....

 

Can't be more straightforward than that.

 

Like I said, they should have put, "from the wound pool" but they didn't.

 

Again, I will add that you should play the way dswanick explained it, because that it the most logical thing to do, but don't try to find the absolute answer in the book, because it is not clear in the book how it works, the way it is written.

[Dam13n]

The way I see it, it only becomes complicated if the swarm unit is joined by a character without the swarm special rule.

 

A unit of Scarabs (all have the same save/stats) are hit by an Incinerator (S6, AP4):

- Template/Blast hits the unit and causes 'x' wounds

- As all models in the unit are the same, were they to have saves they would take them using fast-dice. In this case no saves are allowed so 'x' unsaved wounds are caused each of which is then doubled due to the swarm special rule resulting in '2x' wounds to be allocated.

- Wound 1 is allocated and inflicts instant death so a whole base is removed.

- Wound 2 etc then follow.

 

A unit of Scarabs joined by a Lord (majority T still 3, but now mixed saves apply) are hit by the same Incinerator:

- Template/Blast hits the unit and causes 'x' wounds as before

- Wound allocation occurs, first wound applied to a scarab base, no save allowed, this unsaved wound is then doubled however the first wound also inflicts instant death so 1 base is definitely removed. Now you have a problem, because each unsaved wound 'should' remove 1 whole base due to instant death. You could argue that the best way to resolve this is to have a separate pool made up of the extra wounds which can only be applied to swarm bases, you could also argue that those wounds are lost. There hasn't been a ruling as yet hence this is currently something that'll need a house-rule (or a roll off).

 

I suspect that G-dub will probably give one of these 2 FAQ responses:

1 - remove 2 swarm bases for each ID template wound following normal wound allocation procedure, should there be a character in the allocation order that would be affected by one of the wounds caused by the doubling effect, bypass the character and apply the extra wound to the next swarm base in the unit. If there are no more swarm bases remaining in the unit, this extra wound is lost.

2 - (errata) a unit with the swarm special rule may not be joined by a character unless that character also has the swarm special rule.

 

Just my 2p anyway.

[Jacinda]

This is what I said earlier. If you play it the way that breaks no rules it becomes simple, elegant and logically consistant with all cases.

[dswanick]

The way I see it, it only becomes complicated if the swarm unit is joined by a character without the swarm special rule.

 

...

 

A unit of Scarabs joined by a Lord (majority T still 3, but now mixed saves apply) are hit by the same Incinerator:

- Template/Blast hits the unit and causes 'x' wounds as before

- Wound allocation occurs, first wound applied to a scarab base, no save allowed, this unsaved wound is then doubled however the first wound also inflicts instant death so 1 base is definitely removed. Now you have a problem, because each unsaved wound 'should' remove 1 whole base due to instant death. You could argue that the best way to resolve this is to have a separate pool made up of the extra wounds which can only be applied to swarm bases, you could also argue that those wounds are lost. There hasn't been a ruling as yet hence this is currently something that'll need a house-rule (or a roll off).

This is not a problem either. Per the BRB, you allocate one wound from the Wound pool to a model - the X2 Wounds/Instant Death kill that scarab base. There is no provision for returning excess Wounds back to the Wound pool. The next Wound from the Wound pool will be applied to the next closest model, either Lord (as normal for a non-Swarm/non-Instant Death causing wound) or another scarab base (same effect as above)..

[maturin]

Gentlemen, thank you for the discussion and clarification. It has been most enlightening!

[Hymirl]

So unsaved wounds cause instant death, and double wounds but there is no order given on which happens first. Except there is.

 

40k RB, pg 9, bottom left, "Exceptions". Paraphrasing, it says that when things don't have a distinct order, such as when two things happen at the same time, "The player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur."

 

So as the player doing the shooting at the swarm makes the choice...

[dswanick]

So unsaved wounds cause instant death, and double wounds but there is no order given on which happens first. Except there is.

 

40k RB, pg 9, bottom left, "Exceptions". Paraphrasing, it says that when things don't have a distinct order, such as when two things happen at the same time, "The player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur."

 

So as the player doing the shooting at the swarm makes the choice...

True, and also irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the Wound Allocated to a model is doubled and then causes Instant Death, or causes Instant Death and then is doubled. Either way the base is dead, and there is no mechanic to transfer the Wound Allocated to the dead model onto another model.