Swarms, double strength, & ID

[Seahawk]

The end result is that such weapons are now half as effective as they were before, or no better than a regular weapon.

[greatcrusade08]

i agree it doesnt look right to me.

the highlight is that "theres nothing in the rules to tell us what to do with the second wounds.. so we ignore them"

it doesnt sit right with me..

[ShinyRhino]

I have to agree with dswanick. There is no mechanic for returning "doubled" wounds to the wound pool, and doubling and instant death are not mutually exclusive. As mentioned, if you transfer doubled unsaved wounds to another Swarm base, you can kill an entire Swarm with one Instant Death Blast/Template wound. The doubled wound will repeatedly double every time it is allocated, leading to a chain effect that wipes out an entire unit.

It would look like this:

 

S6, AP4 hit from a Blast Weapon wounds a unit of 5 Scarab bases one time.

That wound is allocated to Scarab One, and doubled, creating Wound Two.

Scarab One is removed due to ID from Wound One.

Wound Two is allocated to Scarab Two, and doubled, creating Wound Three.

Scarab Two is removed due to ID from Wound Two.

Wound Three is allocated to Scarab Three, and doubled, creating Wound Four.

Scarab Three is removed due to ID from Wound Three.

Wound Four is allocated to Scarab Four, and doubled, creating Wound Five.

Scarab Four is removed due to ID from Wound Four.

Wound Five is allocated to Scarab Five, and doubled, creating Wound Six.

Scarab Five is removed due to ID from Wound Five.

Wound Six is lost, as all models have been removed.

 

That's just a little outrageous.

 

Nothing in the rules tell us that the doubled wounds go into the wound pool, just that they're doubled. If we apply that, it looks more like this:

 

S6, AP4 hit from a Blast Weapon wounds a unit of 5 Scarab bases one time.

That wound is allocated to Scarab One, and doubled.

Scarab One remves two wounds from its profile, and is then removed due to ID.

Four Scarabs remain.

 

You have to keep in mind that just because a wound causes Instant Death, doesn't mean it jumps the allocation process.

Compare it to a S5, AP4 Heavy Flamer template that hits that same unit of Scarabs, and wound three times:

 

Wound One is allocated to Scarab One, and doubled.

Scarab One removes two wounds from its profile.

Wound Two is allocated to Scarab Two, and doubled.

Scarab one removes two more wounds from its profile, and is removed.

Wound Three is allocated to Scarab Two, and doubled.

Scarab Two removes two wounds from its profile.

The wound pool is empty, leaving three undamaged Scarabs and Scarab Two down two wounds.

[Seahawk]

The big thing is that they removed the "must remove whole models where possible", because of the revamped wounding process. That's why it works the way it does.

[Morollan]

I have to say, the way it works now actually seems okay to me. Double wounds and Instant Death was extremely powerful. Removing two whole bases for a single wound seems excessive and this way seems more balanced. So it will probably be FAQd shortly to screw it up again!

[dswanick]

Yeah, I don't see how 1 Wound killing 1 multi-Wound model is "underpowered". Although 1 Wound killing an entire unit of multi-Wound models is clearly ^_^.

[Seahawk]

With the fluff, blasts and flames are supposed to mean certain death for swarms, where in the rules world, more bullets means more effective. *shrug*

[Dam13n]

One of the things that cause the problem IMHO is that the swarm special rule is so badly worded.

 

"if a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from blast, large blast or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds."

 

It doesn't say "a model with the swarm special rule" just "a swarm" now a unit in which every model has the swarm special rule is still a swarm (albeit a large one made up of multiple bases). Therefore if a unit with the swarm special rule is hit by any of the above weapon types then any unsaved wound is doubled. You would therefore double the number of wounds to be allocated in the "wound pool" prior to wounds being allocated to each individual base.

 

For me where this all falls down is where you have to apply "mixed saves" where the allocation of wounds is done before armour saves in a 1 at a time fashion, because as dswanick says (correctly I might add) there is no way to transfer these extra wounds either to another model or back into the wound pool, they must therefore by RAW be allocated to the same model. This effectively nullifies the "wound doubling" when instant death is a factor resulting in effectively half the number of casualties caused even if the attached character doesn't end up having a wound allocated to him/her/it at all. This seems somewhat unrealistic, after all the swarm around him/her/it and the weapon used are still the same, so the effect 'should' be the same when applied to the models in the unit with the swarm special rule.

 

I suspect the easiest way to undo the whole mess would be to say that instant death trumps the doubling of wounds, therefore one base is removed (usually 3 wounds worth) for every unsaved wound caused. You then apply this logic to both same-save and mixed-saves mechanics. This is the simplest solution, but it isn't RAW so easily disputable. The other way is to add "swarms may not be joined by independent characters unless they too have the swarm special rule" to the swarm special rule, but this will require an errata from GW.

 

Laterz...

[dswanick]

One of the things that cause the problem IMHO is that the swarm special rule is so badly worded.

 

"if a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from blast, large blast or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds."

 

It doesn't say "a model with the swarm special rule" just "a swarm" now a unit in which every model has the swarm special rule is still a swarm (albeit a large one made up of multiple bases). Therefore if a unit with the swarm special rule is hit by any of the above weapon types then any unsaved wound is doubled. You would therefore double the number of wounds to be allocated in the "wound pool" prior to wounds being allocated to each individual base.

While I don't disagree with the bulk of what you are saying, I would take issue with the highlighted part. It does, in a roundabout sort of way, say what you are wishing it said. A "suffered wound" is one which has been allocated to a model. That's why a Gets Hot! or Dangerous Terrain wound is "suffered" by the firing/triggering model and can't be Allocated to a different model. You don't Allocate Wounds to units, only to models. So a swarm which suffers an unsaved wound is a swarm model which has had a wound allocated to it.

[Jacinda]

It doesn't say "a model with the swarm special rule" just "a swarm" now a unit in which every model has the swarm special rule is still a swarm (albeit a large one made up of multiple bases).

Swarm is just a special rule. You could name that rule anything. Call it Wizealfutz. You get to be a Wizealfutz by having the special rule "Wizealfutz." If you have a unit of 5 Wizealfutz all together, do you have A Wizealfutz? No, you have a group of 5 Wizealfutz.

 

"A swarm" and "a model with the swarm rule" are identical. You can not have a swarm without having a model with teh swarm special rule and you can not have a model with the swarm special rule that is not a swarm. Don't get hung up on the dictionary definition of "swarm" because it does not matter when talking about the special rule "Swarm" which has its own definition.

 

Independent Character is another special rule that is applied to model. You can have a group of IC all joined together in a group. Yet they are all still separate characters and each one makes its own saves and loses its own wounds even if you pass the hits around with Look Out, Sir.

 

We all know what the word Independent means. It means alone and autonomous. Yet a model needs to have the rule Independent Character to join a unit so that it is not Independent. If the model just has the rule Character then it has to run independently because it is not an Independent Character. This is the same thing with swarm. Any dictionary will tell you that a swarm is plural by its very definition but we still have one swarm at a time. If the unit has 5 models each with the swarm special rule then you have 5 swarms.

 

But really all this is completely superfluous because it does not matter one bit if a swarm is one model or not because you are applying wounds to one model at a time now. 5th edition and unit allocation is gone. We deal with one model at a time now. The closest model, by itself. Everything that happens to that model ... well, it happens to that model. The process does not break down at any point if you can clear your assumed knowledge based on old rules because that old process no longer applies. One S6 template wound does two things to the T3 swarm model it is allocated to; it doubles the wounds and causes Instant Death. It does both of these things to the model it is allocated to. It also does Instant Death to a T3 W1 model but no one ever questions why the Instant Death is not carried over to a different model. Because Instant Death affects the model it hits. Double wounds also affect the swarm it hits. We are dealing with one wound and one model at a time. Unit allocation shenanigans died with 5th edition; it took a double hit with Instant Death when 6th edition came out.

[Dam13n]

True enough, but what I was primarily noting was that the rule was so poorly worded that it is easy to interpret the rule that way.

 

The other thing is the difference between suffer and alocate. The unit suffers the unsaved wounds, if all the models in the unit have the swarm special rule then the total number of unsaved wounds suffered is doubled. Those unsaved wounds are then allocated. This is using the standard Allocate Wounds procedure on page 15 of the brb.

 

Now I'm not saying this is necessarily correct as RAI (as numerous people here do seem to differ on what the rules are intended to be) but it is just as valid an interpretation of the rule as the "1 base removed per ID template wound" interpretation.

 

My LGS still uses the 2 bases per ID template wound interpretation, and there have been no dissenting opinions even from the people (necron players) who regularly run swarms, it's just seen as the swarms' achilles heel. Thankfully nobody has thought to attach a character to a swarm yet, so that scenario has yet to play out on a table.

 

At the end of the day, this needs an official FAQ answer to finalise the rule and I'll happily abide by whichever interpretation is confirmed. Until then I'll discuss it with my opponents on the few rare occasions that this does happen and use the most important rule if we don't agree.

 

Laterz...

 

[edit - I have emailed GWFAQs about this today so hopefully it should appear in the next FAQ]

[dswanick]

The other thing is the difference between suffer and alocate. The unit suffers the unsaved wounds, if all the models in the unit have the swarm special rule then the total number of unsaved wounds suffered is doubled. Those unsaved wounds are then allocated. This is using the standard Allocate Wounds procedure on page 15 of the brb.

Again, no. "Suffer"ing a Wound is how GW defines a Wound that directly affects a model. Allocation precedes suffering, if it applies at all.

- A unit does not suffer a Gets Hot! Wound which is then Allocated to a model with a Plasma weapon.

The Model with the Plasma Weapon suffers the Gets Hot! Wound, bypassing the Allocation altogether and thereby preventing the re-Allocation of the Wound (even by such rules as Look Out, Sir!).

- A unit does not suffer a Dangerous Terrain Wound which must then be Allocated to a model which failed its Difficult Terrain test.

The Model which failed its Difficult Terrain test suffers the Difficult Terrain Wounds, same as for Gets Hot!.

The flaw in your view is that the unit of Swarm models is suffering Blast/Template Wounds which are then doubled and then Allocated. Instead, a Swarm (model) only suffers a Blast/Template Wound after the Blast/Template Wound is Allocated to it. Only then is it doubled and checked for its ID ability.

[greatcrusade08]

in a unit of duplicate models and saving throws arent saving throws taken (and failed) before allocation??

 

i would argue those claiming a single wound kills a whole unit are intentionally being obtuse to misdirect from the point.. it really doesnt help the discussion.

nowhere does it state wounds already doubled are doubled again and again.

[dswanick]

in a unit of duplicate models and saving throws arent saving throws taken (and failed) before allocation??

Yes. And that is entirely irrelevant.

 

i would argue those claiming a single wound kills a whole unit are intentionally being obtuse to misdirect from the point.. it really doesnt help the discussion.

nowhere does it state wounds already doubled are doubled again and again.

That is exactly what would happen if the RAW is applied with the theory that Wounds can be redirected from model to model. Thus demonstrating the absurdity of this theory.

[greatcrusade08]

in a unit of duplicate models and saving throws arent saving throws taken (and failed) before allocation??

Yes. And that is entirely irrelevant.

 

i would argue those claiming a single wound kills a whole unit are intentionally being obtuse to misdirect from the point.. it really doesnt help the discussion.

nowhere does it state wounds already doubled are doubled again and again.

That is exactly what would happen if the RAW is applied with the theory that Wounds can be redirected from model to model. Thus demonstrating the absurdity of this theory.

 

both points are wrong if you consider the wounds affecting the unit as a whole as opposed to this notion that the wounds are affecting single models.

 

the first point shows that wounds are inflicted/suffered before allocation, therefore the wounds would be doubled before allocation

 

the second point is absurd, you cant claim that a wound that is doubled would be doubled again, GW have set a precedent with the whole cant re-roll a re-roll.. cant get multiple benefits from furios charge etc.

these things only happen once..

also when point one is taken into account the mechanics by which your argument works would be null and void.

 

heres an example.

grey knights shooting incinerators at scarabs.. cover 6 bases, wound 5 times

those 5 wounds are doubled to ten.

those ten wounds are then allocated one at a time due to being ID wounds...

kills ten bases

[dswanick]

both points are wrong if you consider the wounds affecting the unit as a whole as opposed to this notion that the wounds are affecting single models.

 

the first point shows that wounds are inflicted/suffered before allocation, therefore the wounds would be doubled before allocation

Q: How many Wounds does a "unit" have? A: "Units" don't have Wounds, only "Models" have Wounds.

A unit can't "suffer" wounds, only models can suffer wounds. And unless a rule directly identifies a particular model as suffering a Wound (a la Gets Hot!, or Dangerous Terrain), then a model can only suffer a Wound after the Wound is Allocated to that model.

the second point is absurd, you cant claim that a wound that is doubled would be doubled again, GW have set a precedent with the whole cant re-roll a re-roll.. cant get multiple benefits from furios charge etc.

these things only happen once..

also when point one is taken into account the mechanics by which your argument works would be null and void.

Please show me in RAW where a wound can be suffered by a unit, or is suffered before it is Allocated. Until then, your "point one" is invalid and invalidates your argument. Until then, the only logical interpretation is that a Wound would be doubled when Allocated, as the first ID Wound would kill the base the doubled Wound would then be Allocated to the next closest model, IDing it and generating another Wound which would then "walk" to the next model - as described in the earlier example of one wound killing an entire unit of Swarm models (thank you ShinyRhino for the excellent example).

heres an example.

grey knights shooting incinerators at scarabs.. cover 6 bases, wound 5 times

those 5 wounds are doubled to ten.

those ten wounds are then allocated one at a time due to being ID wounds...

kills ten bases

Until you can show that a unit can suffer wounds, or that wounds are suffered before being allocated to a model, you have no basis to argue that the wounds can be doubled while still in the wound pool (pre-Allocation).

[greatcrusade08]

im willing to accept that units dont have wounds as such, but there is more to this than your claiming IMO

 

Until then, the only logical interpretation is that a Wound would be doubled when Allocated, as the first ID Wound would kill the base the doubled Wound would then be Allocated to the next closest model, IDing it and generating another Wound which would then "walk" to the next model - as described in the earlier example of one wound killing an entire unit of Swarm models (thank you ShinyRhino for the excellent example).

 

there is no precedent for allowing a bonus to apply more than once without it specifically saying so in the rules.. anyone care to quote where it says that for this instance?

 

heres more for you RAW types

"if a swarm suffers an unsaved wound from blast, large blast or template weapon, each unsaved wound is multiplied to two unsaved wounds."

 

ok so shiny rhinos example a swarm base gets hit with a S6 template weapon, its IDs and the second wound is generated..

this wound passes to the next closest and it also IDs.. but why does it generate another wound?

you guys havent answered that, the rule says nothing about it allowing for further wounds to be generated, this is an assumption and one that isnt supported by precedents within the rules.

 

im not trying to get too deep into a rules discussion becuase i often struggle to get the words out right.. wordsmiths win arguments often not becuase they are right, just because they can often find cracks in people wording, ignoring the point they are trying to make... but IMO this issue hasnt been looked at properly and is skewing the outcome.

 

again an example: GK shooting causes 2 unsaved wounds.. according to the rules this is multiplied to 4.. so why then according to you guys is it possible to kill ten scarab bases with only 4 wounds?

this leaves me a little confused. the only logical explanation are that people are misinterpreting the RAW.

 

Until you can show that a unit can suffer wounds, or that wounds are suffered before being allocated to a model, you have no basis to argue that the wounds can be doubled while still in the wound pool (pre-Allocation).

actually i wasnt, but i skipped the saves so i can understand the confusion.. i apologise for that.

 

saves would come before allocation, but wounds would be taken from the wound pool in order to make saves.

 

in my mind this is how i see the events when shooting at a unit of all scarab bases for example

1: placing flame templates

2: wounds rolls.

3: saves (if applicable)

4: doubling of unsaved wounds

5: wound allocation

 

tbh i think you guys are being overly attached to this "wounds suffered" issues.. those rules were written in a different edition.. wound allocation works differently now and we have to apply them correctly.

in a unit of identical bases with swarm the above mechanic is spot on.. if a wound is unsaved its doubled, saves are made before allocation, therefore its most logical to double them right after saving throws.

 

if you wanted to stick to the "unsaved wounds suffered by model" approach then its not much different to shinys example, only the 'doubling' can only happen once

if you wish to argue that, please show where the rules allow for this, or at least show a set precedence.

 

Q: if scarab base one suffers a single wound from a template or large blast and the unsaved wound kills the base and is then doubled.. what does the second scarab base suffer a wound from.. the initial template or not?

 

edit: people have put forwards two interpretations here, that a S6 template can kill only 1 base, or that a single wound will kill all the bases in a unit due to a domino effect.. the argument is then that common sense/logic means it most likely to be the former.

i would reject that logic and replace it with my own.. if a wound is both Id causing and doubling, then the net result would be two Id wounds.. its really that simple

[dswanick]

ok so shiny rhinos example a swarm base gets hit with a S6 template weapon, its IDs and the second wound is generated..

this wound passes to the next closest and it also IDs.. but why does it generate another wound?

Because of the Wound Allocation rules. As a Blast/Template Wound is Allocated to the Swarm Model it triggers the Swarm rule, doubling. If you then allow the excess Wound to re-Allocate(despite no RAW allowing you to do this) it then will re-trigger the rule when Allocated to the next Swarm Model, doubling again, and again, and again...

in my mind this is how i see the events when shooting at a unit of all scarab bases for example

1: placing flame templates

2: wounds rolls.

3: saves (if applicable)

4: doubling of unsaved wounds

5: wound allocation

But that is exactly the problem. You can't, by RAW, double the Wounds at step 4 because those Wounds haven't been suffered. The Wounds are suffered after step 5, at which point they are Allocated and can not be re-Allocated. And if you double the Wounds after step 5, and allow re-Allocation then you have just allowed SRs example to work.

 

tbh i think you guys are being overly attached to this "wounds suffered" issues.. those rules were written in a different edition.. wound allocation works differently now and we have to apply them correctly.

All rules being quoted and debated here are 6th Ed rules taken from the 6th Ed BRB.

in a unit of identical bases with swarm the above mechanic is spot on.. if a wound is unsaved its doubled, saves are made before allocation, therefore its most logical to double them right after saving throws.

Once again, it's not just about "unsaved Wounds", it's about "unsaved Wounds suffered".

if you wanted to stick to the "unsaved wounds suffered by model" approach then its not much different to shinys example, only the 'doubling' can only happen once

if you wish to argue that, please show where the rules allow for this, or at least show a set precedence.

ShinyRhino did show where/how the rules for this allow it - if you first break RAW by allowing Allocated and suffered wounds to be re-Allocated to a model that did not have the initial Wound Allocated to it (suffered it).

[greatcrusade08]

i can go with shinys example, if your not happy with my own method, thats cool with me

 

ShinyRhino did show where/how the rules for this allow it - if you first break RAW by allowing Allocated and suffered wounds to be re-Allocated to a model that did not have the initial Wound Allocated to it (suffered it).

 

again no this isnt correct, if a S6 AP4 template cause only 1 wound and it IDs scarab base 1, then what kills scarab base 2 is infact not caused by the S6 AP4 template but by a S6 AP4 wound casued by the doubling effect of the swarms rule.

thats my point and as such the wound scarab base 2 suffered wouldnt generate another becuase it wasnt caused by a template or blast

 

im not trying to stick to one RAW point tbh, becuase RAW seems muddled to me either way, i admit a preconcieved notion, which tbh ill stick to regardless of the outcome.

but if theres no RAW telling us what to do with doubled wounds what do we do.. theres no RAW allowing us to completely disregard wounds, infact the wound allocation system is set up in 6th so we cant make wounds dissapear..

common sense tells me that ignoring wounds is not correct

[Loher]

Well guys I read this post and I went straight to my LGS. tbh I made the same question to 3 different GW official GS personnel (which is like 10 people) and the answer was always the same: "Just like in 5th edition an area which cause 1 wound ID will instead cause 2 wounds and 2 IDs, and so on". Just sharing it, use it as you wish :).

[Grey Mage]

The end result is that such weapons are now half as effective as they were before, or no better than a regular weapon.

Thats a bit silly I think- templates will still get you multiple hits by covering multiple bases. Compared to most infantry weapons theyll have a higher potential damage than they would otherwise. They are certainly better than a regular weapon in this regard.

 

As for GW employees- unless you talked to one of the developers it doesnt hold much water. Theyre notorious for having many opinions about a single idea and changing their minds several times in an afternoon. Though sure, it never hurts to ask.

[Seahawk]

Casting the variables aside, I meant that, wound for wound, an ID-causing template weapon is no different from an ID-causing straight shooter. One wound from either only kills a single base, where previously it was not the case. That's all! ;)

[Jacinda]

Well guys I read this post and I went straight to my LGS. tbh I made the same question to 3 different GW official GS personnel (which is like 10 people) and the answer was always the same: "Just like in 5th edition an area which cause 1 wound ID will instead cause 2 wounds and 2 IDs, and so on". Just sharing it, use it as you wish ^_^.

 

hehe

 

If someone starts a statement with "Just like in 5th" when talking about units then you may want to reconsider their advice.

[PaganLinuxGeek]

Ok So bear with me here as I'm new...

I hit scarab bases with a blast template weapon (missile or demolisher cannon).

It automatically hits and I roll for wounds.

Lets say I get 3 wounds on two bases.

I allocate 1st wound to a base. Being that it's a template or blast weapon against a swarm I double that wound to 2.

2 wounds on same base means it causes instant death. The WHOLE BASE is removed then?

I would repeat process for other two wounds right?

[Seahawk]

Almost. Two wounds by itself does not cause Instant Death. ID is caused by the weapon's strength being double or more than the target's toughness, which is what our discussion is about. So, expanding your example:

 

E.1:

A frag missile (Strength 4) hits two out of five swarms and causes two wounds.

- The 1st wound from the wound pool is allocated to a swarm, it fails its save or gets no save, and suffers an unsaved wound.

- This unsaved wound is doubled, so now the swarm has taken two wounds.

- It's then allocated the 2nd wound from the wound pool, fails its save or gets no save, and dies. This wound isn't doubled because the model is already dead, and doubled wounds aren't retroactively put into the wound pool to carry on to the next model.

- All told, 1 swarm gets killed.

 

E.2:

A demolisher cannon (Strength 10) hits two out of five swarms and causes two wounds.

- The 1st wound from the wound pool is allocated to a swarm, it fails its save or gets no save, and suffers an unsaved wound.

- This unsaved wound is doubled, so now the swarm has taken two wounds.

- This unsaved wound also causes Instant Death because S10 is more than double the swarm's toughness of 3, so the swarm dies.

- The 2nd wound from the wound pool is allocated to a swarm, it fails its save or gets no save, and suffers an unsaved wound.

- This unsaved wound is doubled, so now the swarm has taken two wounds.

- This unsaved wound also causes Instant Death because S10 is more than double the swarm's toughness of 3, so the second swarm dies.

- All told, 2 swarms get killed.

 

 

Make sense now?