Some Clarification and a Page Ref.

Hi guys

Last night at my local gaming club a person who shall henceforth be known as "That guy" rather than the 4 lettered word I used for him last night was trying to argue a rule I am 99.9% certain is correct but he came up with that classic BS excuse "Prove it, show me in the rulebook" line. I was so frustrated and in a rush to leave to pick up the Mrs that I couldn't find a page to slap him with. All my friends agree with me but he and a few others were adamant we were wrong purely because I couldn't find the correct page in the rule book. So... here is the issue.

Example (Purely hypothetical)

There is a unit of 19 Spearmen with Full Command and a Lord (3 wounds) sitting in the front rank who are engaged with a unit of 10 Ironguts with Full Command. The Ironguts take some damage then deal 24 wounds to the unit (all the attacks were directed onto the unit and NOT the Lord himself). This in turn creates a situation where the Ironguts have dealt more damage than the unit can physically take meaning all 19 Spearmen are instantly dead (Duh! It's Ironguts!  )

It is at this point the argument arose and "That guy" starting being an ass. He claimed the excess 5 wounds that should have been dealt to the unit spill over onto the Lord as he was technically part of the unit whereas I believe they are wasted because the attacks were directed onto the Unit and not the Lord. Additionally the RnF all effectively share their wounds whereas the Lord is an independant character with a seperate wounds profile from the unit. Still he raged on about how if it wasn't in the rules it wasn't true but this BS argument is easily countered by me saying "Show me that it isn't in the rules" or "prove me your rules are right" which he wasn't prepared to do.

I have never heard of people playing combat rules the way he describes neither has anybody I've ever played or asked (including GW staff). He got me so utterly frustrated I couldn't focus to find anything in the rules to back up my argument and thus prove him wrong. Everybody I've asked outside of the club agreed I was right but couldn't provide a page reference in the rules for it due to being at work etc. Please somebody help me wipe the smug smile of "That guy's" face.... PLEEEEAASE!!!!

So, can anybody firstly...

1) Confirm which is the correct ruling
2) Provide page references

Thanks in advance and sorry for being a tad ranty 

I agree with you that the excess wounds will not flow over, you can't wound a character if you do not locate attacks to it. That way you could bypass higher stats, magic weapons and armour/wardsaves.

I am at work atm so I don't have my BRB with me. But this forumpost explains it pretty good.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?278104-Excess-wounds!

I gave it my best shot. All I could find was a blurb saying that excess wounds on a character do not flow into the unit (page 99). I did not see anything stating the opposite.

I even scanned the errata document, but didnt see anything.

But think of it this way. What if "That Guy's" character had completely different characteristics than the rest of his unit? You're ironguts would have had completely different numbers to roll against him. That is why you are supposed to allocate the attacks before you roll them! Ergo, I dont think those excess wounds could flow over.

Hope that helps.

Thanks guys. I know I am right. It's obvious however he who shall be known as "That guy" just didn't agree and wanted concrete proof. I've been ALL over the rulebook and can't find official rules for it. I'll take a look at the Warseer page, see if there is anything there to go on.

Thanks guys, that Warseer page cleared things up, there is a snippet in the FAQ that pretty much puts this one to bed. See below



This seems to be fairly clear cut to me. As soon as the last RnF model or Command model is dead all the characters in the unit form a brand new one and therefor as attacks were not allocated to this particular unit the excess wounds physically cannot be put onto the characters in the original unit.

It's common sense though really, if you don't direct attacks to the character who clearly has a different profile (WS, T, Armour etc) he cannot be hit, therefor cannot be wounded and thus cannot be killed.

Ha, glad that link helped. Was really bothering me that I did not know the answer or page. Hopefully that guy will be silenced now. Really weird to think you could kill characters with excess wounds from the unit.

Justice shall prevail

Oh yes! Thanks for the help with that. I can already taste the satisfaction of knowing I'm right. I'll take great pleasure in thrusting the 13 Page FAQ in his face with the relevent section highlighted in bright yellow. Awww it's gonna be guuud! 

Nothing and I mean NOTHING is better than proving "That guy" kind of people wrong. The wierd thing was I wasn't even playing Warhammer. I was on a different table running a game of Malifaux for 2 beginners. They asked for my help then when "That guy" disagreed with my response he got all arsey and argumentative. That'll teach me to help others when they ask politely 

I wonder if "That Guy" is getting the rules confused with the Undead "crumbling" rules. That's the only point that I know of when the wounds would go into the character from the unit.

However, normally as a 'devil's advocate' I'd look into both sides of the scenario, but honestly, there's nothing that says that the wounds wouldn't go into the character, but it makes more logical sense that the character and the unit are different entities, i.e. if you're attacking the unit, you're focusing on the rank-and-file dudes, otherwise you'd focus on attacking the character(s) instead. I agree with this thread's statements.

And hey, we've all probably been "that guy" at one point or another ;P I've probably been that more than once, unfortunately, but hey, rules-monkeys like rules

Yeah we have all been "That guy" to a certain extent, it's the nature of wargamers to argue about rules and often the designers aren't 100% clear. The defining factor is how much of an ass you are about it.

I can see where their confusion comes from, the rulebook itself isn't particularly clear on the matter but they should also probably keep up to date with the FAQ as well to avoid any rules disputes such as this one. To be fair I've not played a game of Warhammer in a while. I've been dabbling with other systems but I still try to keep an eye on any rules updates and the FAQ / Errata for when I do grab the fatties and hit the tables.

Depends also if "That Guy" plays more 40K than Fantasy, where the Wounds do spill over to characters. But I don't know either him or you, so I might be wrong on that.

My friends get that wrong all the Time, as I am their only friend that plays Fantasy on a normal basis.

Depends also if "That Guy" plays more 40K than Fantasy, where the Wounds do spill over to characters. But I don't know either him or you, so I might be wrong on that.

My friends get that wrong all the Time, as I am their only friend that plays Fantasy on a normal basis.

Gotta admit, I don't know if he plays 40k. Perhaps that is were their confusion stems from but it's nice to know I was right. After a while you start to doubt yourself and question if you've been misplaying the rules for years.