Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
But, if you have a muilti-wound model in a group of single wound models, you can take one wound on the multi-wound charecter and then remove a whole model. It says you have to remove whole models where possible, it does not say you cannot leave partial models. In other words, you have that shaper and 6 kroot. Now lets say you take a wound, you can give it to the shaper no problem (as long as he has the same armor save and toughness, which in our example he does). Now lets say a different unit causes another wound. You can assign that to the shaper no problem as well. Lets say a third wound comes along, now you can grab a regular kroot since you are infact removing a whole model.

What you can't do is get hit three times by one unit, take two wounds, and assign two to the shaper. This would break the rule about distributing hits across a unit (each model must take one hit before any takes two, ect). This rule about each model having to take one hit is suspended for units made up of multi-wound models (like nobs) but I've not read anywhere where it is suspended for single multi-wound models in single wound units. This is my take anyhow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
don_mondo said:
Warboss Dakka said:
But, if you have a muilti-wound model in a group of single wound models, you can take one wound on the multi-wound charecter and then remove a whole model. It says you have to remove whole models where possible, it does not say you cannot leave partial models. In other words, you have that shaper and 6 kroot. Now lets say you take a wound, you can give it to the shaper no problem (as long as he has the same armor save and toughness, which in our example he does). Now lets say a different unit causes another wound. You can assign that to the shaper no problem as well. Lets say a third wound comes along, now you can grab a regular kroot since you are infact removing a whole model.

What you can't do is get hit three times by one unit, take two wounds, and assign two to the shaper. This would break the rule about distributing hits across a unit (each model must take one hit before any takes two, ect). This rule about each model having to take one hit is suspended for units made up of multi-wound models (like nobs) but I've not read anywhere where it is suspended for single multi-wound models in single wound units. This is my take anyhow.
Except as has already been stated a couple of times, that particular rule only applies to units containing "several multiple-wound" models. So a unit of single wound models with one multiple wound model attached or belonging to it is not affected by the need to remove whole models whenever possible.
That was the crux of my argument... every model in a single wound unit is a whole model so it is immune to that rule (The rule about removing whole models)... if one model of the unit has more than one wound, you can pick him until he's dead or you cna pick anyone else, since they are all whole models. Hope that clears up my meaning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
don_mondo said:
Warboss Dakka said:
don_mondo said:
Warboss Dakka said:
But, if you have a muilti-wound model in a group of single wound models, you can take one wound on the multi-wound charecter and then remove a whole model. It says you have to remove whole models where possible, it does not say you cannot leave partial models. In other words, you have that shaper and 6 kroot. Now lets say you take a wound, you can give it to the shaper no problem (as long as he has the same armor save and toughness, which in our example he does). Now lets say a different unit causes another wound. You can assign that to the shaper no problem as well. Lets say a third wound comes along, now you can grab a regular kroot since you are infact removing a whole model.

What you can't do is get hit three times by one unit, take two wounds, and assign two to the shaper. This would break the rule about distributing hits across a unit (each model must take one hit before any takes two, ect). This rule about each model having to take one hit is suspended for units made up of multi-wound models (like nobs) but I've not read anywhere where it is suspended for single multi-wound models in single wound units. This is my take anyhow.
Except as has already been stated a couple of times, that particular rule only applies to units containing "several multiple-wound" models. So a unit of single wound models with one multiple wound model attached or belonging to it is not affected by the need to remove whole models whenever possible.
That was the crux of my argument... every model in a single wound unit is a whole model so it is immune to that rule (The rule about removing whole models)... if one model of the unit has more than one wound, you can pick him until he's dead or you cna pick anyone else, since they are all whole models. Hope that clears up my meaning.
My point is that you don't have to pick that one multi-wound model until he is dead........
My point is the same as your point. You CAN keep picking him until he's dead but you don't have to since picking any other model removes a whole model and thus the rule does not apply to them. In a single wound unit, you will always get to pick who takes the wound, regardless of a multi-wound model being present (except in the case of volume of fire, los issues or range of course.) I am agreeing with you totally, I think you are just misunderstanding me.

A debate also sprung up regarding my multi-wound nobs squad in a game a few weeks ago. At one point, a nob took a wound and then a turn later, the nobs were wounded again. The problem was the already wounded nob was not in range of the weapon being fired. I argued that he did not have to be removed because it stated "wherever possible" and his being out of range made it impossible for him to take the wound. My opponent believed that the rule about removing whole models would override the range restriction about taking casualties. We rolled off for it and I lost the nob, but I am curious as to what you all think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
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.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top