Does a Str 6 Template/Blast kill 1 or 2 bases?

[maugrim]

This is a discussion for anybody who actually uses Rippers, as well as the new Necrons.

Because from reading the rules, I'm going against the common response of "2" and saying "1".

My reasoning, and the process as RAW (assuming T3 unit which is "Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates"):

1) Roll to Hit: Unit gets hit with Blast, and for ease of argument, has only 1 hit.

2) Roll to Wound: 1 roll of 2+ to wound, assumed successful.

3) Take Saving Throws: Wound gets assigned to a specific model, which fails its save.

4) Remove Casualties: It has now suffered an Unsaved Wound. According to VtBT every unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds. So the extra Strength 6 wound is doubled on that model.

Because VtBT doubles unsaved wounds, which occur in Step 4, Removing Casualties - you can not go back to Step 3, Saving Throws, in order to re-allocate the ID wounds to other models (as per the ID rules) and make saves for these extra wounds.

So - Str 6+ Blasts/Templates are not twice as effective at IDing Swarms.

[zephoid]

The model has now taken 2 ID wounds on it in a unit with no distinction between models. By rule the excess wound is distributed to another model.

Example: if i have 5 marines that are all the same. I take 20 wounds. 4 are allocated to each model. BUT, if 5 total fail between all the marines, they all die. This is why wound allocation tricks are so useful for things like nob bikers and paladins.

So yes, templated do ID two bases

[yoritomo]

Blast weapons that are S6+ kill two bases of rippers.

The first thing that jumps to mind is the 4th ed FAQ that clearly stated that you double wounds before checking for instant death. I know we don't play 4th ed, but it does set a presidence and until I see something new I'm inclined to go with it.

The second thing that jumps to mind (and I don't have my rulebook with me, so this may not be accruate) is that VtBT say that each hit causes two wounds. And if it is hits cat cause double wounds then you'd get a to wound roll for each of those double wounds. Clearly if you fail the wound rolls you will suffer instant death.

But as I said, I don't have my rulebook with me, so I'll have to look it up when I get home.

[yoritomo]

Ok, I've got my rulebook and can do a bit more delving into the subject.

VtBT states that you get double hits against vehicles and double wounds on unsaved wounds. So unless you have selective reading disorder (like I apparently do) that's no help.

Still, I find it helpful to re-read the rules in these situations to make sure we haven't missed anything.

Under Units of Multiple-Wound Models on page 26 is says:

"If a unit consists entirely of models that are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds then take all the saves for the unit in one go.

If the unit includes different models, first allocate the wounds suffered."

So for rippers it appears that you don't allocate wounds until you have unsaved wounds. In that case two rippers would die to every wound caused by a template.

[coredump]

You remove 2 bases. Maugrims assertion comes from a common misunderstanding.

When you 'allocate wounds' for saving throws, that is *not* the same as determining which models get damaged with each unsaved wound.

For example, lets say normal wounds on rippers. 5 wounds "allocated" onto 5 rippers, so one each. Fail 3 saves. the wounds are now unsaved and *are* rearranged to all be on one model. The only thing that allocation does, is determine how many 'buckets' of like models are involved, and allocated a number of wounds to that entire bucket. You don't roll for each model, you roll for the entire bucket at once.

2 warriors get hit with 2 krak missile wounds and 2 bolter wounds. the rules allow me to allocate the 2 krak wounds on warrior A and the bolter wounds on warrior B. (Really, check it if you want.)
Then I roll saves, but I roll them together, and if I fail the 2 krak wounds, they don't stay on warrior A.

Allocating wounds for saves, and determing which model (within a bucket) takes damage from any unsaved wounds are *NOT* the same thing. I can give plenty of examples of this.

VtBT says when the *unit* gets an unsaved wound, it is doubled. ID says when that unsaved wound is put onto a specific *model* it causes ID.

[maugrim]

Alright, that's the common logical progression - which I can understand/see plainly, which is why most everybody has been playing it that way. Although it kind of breaks the normal progression of Hit/Wound/Allocate/Save/Unsaved Wound/Dead order of things, the Multi-wound section mentions spreading the wounds around again afterwards... so yeah.

Frankly, I'm hoping/expecting that 6th Ed will be altering the rules on this so it won't make much difference in a bit.



If you have template/blast hits which you can take saves for, any 1 failed save deals 2 wounds. Because you've got 1 wound, which you fail the save for, which doubles to 2 wounds... so effectively, each failed save is 2 Unsaved Wounds dealt.

[coredump]

But there is no 'normal progression'. The 'norm' in the rules is for a single unit with all the models the same. Then you don't allocate wounds at all, that only happens for Complex Units.

And even then there is nothing stating that the *model* you allocate the wound to actually takes damage from that wound.
Following the system used in the book, if I put the only 'krak missile die' next to genestealer A, and put bolter dice by the other genestealers. Even if I fail the Krak save (assume in cover), that doesn't mean stealer A dies. I can still pull off *any* stealer in that brood.

There is no direct correlation between which model a wound/die has allocated, and which model gets pulled from the board. There is only an indirect correlation based on what 'bucket' the model is in.