Multi-Wound and sharing the load? - Page 3 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Rules Discussion Post any Warhammer 40k rules queries and discussions here.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-03-07, 11:27 AM Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 33

Beginning to feel bad about posting this now...... :D
Black Mage 257 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #22 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-03-07, 02:50 PM
Porn King!!!
The Wraithlord's Avatar
The Wraithlord's Flag is: Canada
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,137
Reputation: 5

If the Nob was not in range of the weapon, he did not have to be removed. According to the rules, no matter how many shots you are firing if said shots can only reach the front row of models in your unit, then ONLY those models may be hit. Anything else is wasted shots. If you do 15 hits and then roll 5 total wounds, all those wounds come from the models actually within range. If there are only 3 models within range of the weapon, then all 5 wounds are applied to those 3 models and do not carry over into the rest of the squad. Same thing applies even if the Nob is the only model that is out of range, if such is the case, he cannot hit even, never mind wounded. BRB pg 22, subheading Check Range.

one thing I want is the ability to split my fire everywhere, it makes no sense that a squad of 10 guard or marines or whatever all have to fire at 1 target with everything, is the guy with the lascannon not smart enough to realize maybe he would be better off firing at the massive tank looming overhead instead of the little man no bigger than a squat running at him, or is that far too complex for the 10yr olds?

My Thousand Sons Project Log
My Warriors of Chaos Project Log
My Cryx Project Log
My Necron Project Log
The Wraithlord is offline  
post #23 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-03-07, 10:31 PM
Senior Member
Warboss Dakka's Flag is: USA
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 359

It's good to start a stirring debate Black Mage. No language is perfect and GW sort of made a mistake by forcing RAW. You can't really expect players to follow RAW if you have a problem with simple things like proof reading. I love GW, but sometimes their wording is far too amubiguous. What happens when RAW conflicts with RAW and there is no FAQ? A d6 roll usually, but many tournament players would really love to not have to rely on a d6 to decide something as important as the rules of the game they are currently playing the third turn of. Starting threads like this can help one argue a valid point, hopefully making the d6 roll an endangered animal.

That's what I read too Wraithlord, but while it makes the most sense, GW does not say which rule overrides which. Both rules are in direct conflict and neither has more sway from a RAW perspective. I could quote the rules for shooting, wounding and removing casualties till I'm blue in the face and he'll just keep pointing back to the rules about multi-wound models. Until GW specifically says which is the rule applied, I am at a loss. Maybe someone sees something difinitive that I do not however.

Warboss Dakka is offline  
post #24 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-04-07, 12:46 AM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 801

Pure logic, the most ignored and belittled force in the universe, would imply that the range consideration is paramount. Just because somebody's hurt doesn't mean you can shoot an extra ten metres.
uberschveinen is offline  
post #25 of 25 (permalink) Old 02-28-07, 01:43 PM
Senior Member
mattjgilbert's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 138
Reputation: 1

The "remove whole models" rule only kicks in when:
1. The unit contains more than one model with multiple wounds
2. Those models take wounds*

*this is the bit everyone skips over

This means that an IC in a squad who is the only model with more than one wound cannot be subjected to this rule.

If for example, you had two multi-wound ICs in a unit both with a 2+ armour save and the rest of the squad (single wound models) had 3+ armour saves, you would be using the mixed armour rules to assign wounds to each group when hit. The wounds affecting the IC group (2+ armour saves) could not be spread between the two ICs but should remove one of them first. If the 3+ armour group was in the majority they would be taking the wounds first anyway and you may never trigger the "and those models take wounds" clause.

Make sense?
mattjgilbert is offline  

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Rules Discussion

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome