Swarms, double strength, & ID

[PaganLinuxGeek]

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?

 

Ok I was mistaken. Thanks.

[Naminé]

So I've had a good thorough read through the respective rules and have come up with the following conclusions:

 

1. A wound is caused by a plasma cannon on a Scarab swarm unit.

 

2. This Wound is placed into a wound pool as normal. In this case the wound pool is only 1 dice. pg.14 BGB

 

3. The saving throw is taken by the Scarab player (or it doesn't get one due to AP2). Those wounds that are not saved now become Unsaved Wounds.

 

4. Take a record of the number of unsaved wounds caused (in this case, just the one). pg.15 BGB

 

5. Units with the Swarms Universal Special Rule have any unsaved wounds caused by Blast and Template weapons multiplied by 2. pg.43 BGB

NOTE: This occurs when the unit suffers an unsaved wound (see steps 3&4), not when an unsaved wound is allocated, which is a completely seperate step. (pg.15 BGB)

 

6. Allocate the unsaved wounds recorded in step 4. This would now include the Additional wound caused by the Swarm special rule for our Example, meaning that 2 wounds now need to be allocated. pg.15 BGB

An unsaved wound is allocated to the closest model to the firer.

 

7. The Plasma Cannon's strength is 7, which is more then double the Scarab's toughness value of 3. This means that the Instant Death rule comes into effect. The model now suffers from an allocated unsaved wound and this causes Instant Death; the nearest Scarab base is removed as a casualty. pg.16 BGB

 

8. Continue Allocating unsaved wounds ONE WOUND AT A TIME until finished. in our example this means that one more Unsaved wound will be allocated on the next model, and yet again trigger the Instant Death rule.

 

9. The shooting attack has been fully resolved, and a total of 2 Scarab swarms have been removed as casualties.

 

 

Important things to remember:

 

The instant death rule only requires one wound to be allocated to a model in order to take effect. It must be resolved and cannot be ignored, which means that Instant Death will always occur before a second Unsaved wound can be allocated to the model.

 

The Swarms special rule states that the number of unsaved wounds are multiplied by 2. Unsaved wound numbers are recorded before they are allocated. (see step 4)

 

The Swarms special rule never states that it concerns a single model, or any model at all. It is in fact, a unit special rule. The models themselves are not even referred to as 'Swarms'; instead they are called 'bases'. pg.94 Necron Codex

 

Wounds should not simply 'dissapear'; this is illogical and likely not intended by the game developers.

 

 

 

I must say I am surprised to see the majority of my B&C fellows interpret this in any other way; it seems very clear to me. It really needs a FAQ though!

:rolleyes:

 

Hope this helps.

[dswanick]

5. Units with the Swarms Universal Special Rule have any unsaved wounds caused by Blast and Template weapons multiplied by 2. pg.43 BGB

NOTE: This occurs when the unit suffers an unsaved wound (see steps 3&4), not when an unsaved wound is allocated, which is a completely seperate step. (pg.15 BGB)

Please quote or cite the rule or page where it indicates that Swarm units suffering unsaved wounds casuse the doubling, and not Swarm models.

The Swarms special rule never states that it concerns a single model, or any model at all. It is in fact, a unit special rule. The models themselves are not even referred to as 'Swarms'; instead they are called 'bases'. pg.94 Necron Codex

Take a look at Pinning for an example of a rule which triggers on a unit suffering wounds, then re-read Swarms. It's no so clear-cut as you would wish. As for Codex: Necrons - that's nice and also irrelevant. How a 5th Ed codex references a model doesn't mean much when debating a 6th Ed BRB rule.

 

But you are correct - this needs an FAQ.

[Naminé]

Please quote or cite the rule or page where it indicates that Swarm units suffering unsaved wounds casuse the doubling, and not Swarm models.

 

Right back at ya :) Please quote or cite the rule or page where it indicates that Swarm models suffering unsaved wounds cause the doubling, and not the units.

 

My reasoning comes from the fact that the models are never mentioned, where in cases of allocation they always are. I'll admit there is some ambiguity here, but no more then assuming it refers to models and not units. In such cases common sense and logic tend work well on interpretation.

 

Take a look at Pinning for an example of a rule which triggers on a unit suffering wounds, then re-read Swarms. It's no so clear-cut as you would wish. As for Codex: Necrons - that's nice and also irrelevant. How a 5th Ed codex references a model doesn't mean much when debating a 6th Ed BRB rule.

 

Isn't it a widely held belief that the Necron Codex was written with 6th in mind?

 

Regardless, the unit type has not changed, nor the referencing through the BGB or the FAQ's. Scarabs are only referred to as 'Beasts' or 'bases'. It would be unusual to refer to Space Marines as Combat Tactics wouldn't it?

 

The point being that swarms is a rule that is always held by a unit, never a term for an individual model!

 

As for referencing the Pinning special rule; it reinforces my point.

'When a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds' says the pinning entry.

 

But as we know a unit cannot be allocated a wound, only a model. Thus suffer cannot refer to wound allocation of any form, which is what many people on this thread seemed to determine. Instead the entry in the pinning rule strongly indicates that the term 'suffer' simply refers to when an unsaved wound is created (at step 3 of my original post).

 

The FAQ should read: 'when a unit with the swarms special rule suffers an unsaved wound.' It's amazing what a few missing words can do to interpretation!

[greatcrusade08]

im still very uncomfortable with the assumption that the doubled wounds are lost to the 'ether'.. just becuase there is no RAW to show they would be carried over doesnt mean they are just ignored

[puffin]

As for referencing the Pinning special rule; it reinforces my point.

'When a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds' says the pinning entry.

 

But as we know a unit cannot be allocated a wound, only a model. Thus suffer cannot refer to wound allocation of any form, which is what many people on this thread seemed to determine. Instead the entry in the pinning rule strongly indicates that the term 'suffer' simply refers to when an unsaved wound is created (at step 3 of my original post).

 

The pinning rule is a clear parallel and should be used as guidance to the use of the term "suffers an unsaved wound".

 

In the case of pinning a pinning test is only taken when a model fails to save an allocated wound that has the pinning special rule.

 

It follows, therefore, that an unsaved wound is a wound for which either a saving throw has been taken or no saves are available. In the case of a mixed-saves model it is apparent that this can only happen after wound allocation and therefore you would expect the model that failed its save would then remove 2 wounds instead of the normal 1. The fact that the first one is also instant death is kind of irrelevant in my opinion - the wounds occur simultaneously and both instantly kill the model.

 

The spanner in the works for me is the case where the unit does not have mixed saves. In this case we are told to roll saves then allocate unsaved wounds to models. However, now we have double the number of unsaved wounds to allocate!

 

Ultimately, I don't believe that GW intended this rule to work differently against mixed saves vs equal saves but I also don't believe we have enough information to decide which is the intended method. For my money, I believe that the doubling after allocation to a model is the one that makes the most sense to me (and it's just bad luck if you're wasting ID rounds on them, too).

 

Roll-off with your opponent until an FAQ comes out if you can't agree.

[dswanick]

Ultimately, I don't believe that GW intended this rule to work differently against mixed saves vs equal saves but I also don't believe we have enough information to decide which is the intended method. For my money, I believe that the doubling after allocation to a model is the one that makes the most sense to me (and it's just bad luck if you're wasting ID rounds on them, too).

Pretty much this - +1 puffin.