Multiple Wound Creatures/Characters/Wound Allocation

I am VERY confused regarding wound allocation on Ogres. I am a new player so please go easy on me. I have read and re-read the BRB entries on this but there is a lot of confusion in my Warhammer group. I came to the source in the hopes of gaining clarification and answers once and for all.

"Simple Question": How are hits and wounds allocated to Multiple Wound models and Units of models in the Shooting and Close Combat phases?

"Complicated Questions":

1. I have one unit of 2 Iron Guts and 1 Butcher. The Butcher has 1 previous wound from spell casting, the Iron Guts have no wounds. The unit comes under fire and is randomly assigned 6 hits (2 to each model). It takes 5 wounds, saving against no wounds. How are the wounds assigned and how many Ogre models are removed?

2. Since the Character is in a Unit of less then 5 RnF models it gets no benefit from Look Out Sir. Do the wounds inflicted by the randomly assigned hits count towards the TOTAL number of wounds available for the Unit (including the Character/Butcher)?

How does this information relate to this!?

Q. The Brutish Hordes special rules state under “reminders and clarifications” that wounds on rank and file Ogres and Ogre champions need to be kept track of separately, as wounds are not carried over to one another. Does the phrase “as wounds are not carried over to one another” also apply to the situation where excess wounds are caused on the rank and file Ogres and the excess would normally be applied to the champion (as he is also still considered a rank and file model for this purpose)? A. No, it does not – wounds are carried over in this case. S. Official Ogre Kingdoms FAQ

1) Change your freaking avatar image.

1a) If the 2 Ironguts are R&F (ie: not champs) then I believe you would randomize 1-2, 3-4 on the 2xR&F, 5-6 on the butcher. Wounds are then alocated (up to a max of 3 per model). Any unsaved wounds to the rank and file are then summed up, and applied as usual.

So in your case, assuming IG1 takes 2 wounds, IG2 takes 2 wounds, and B1 takes 1 wound, there would be 1 wound applied to the butcher, and 4 wounds applied to the rank and file. IG1 would be removed, and IG2 would be marked indicating 1 wound.

P31 in the rule book gives some really good Ogre examples.

2) The Look Out Sir! benefit only effect artillary/warmachines that do no apply balistic attacks against the unit. They apply to stone throwers, cannons, dragon's breath, etc... where the shooter may be attempting a character assasination. But against regular shooting at a unit with less than 5 R&F troops gets standard distribution with randomizing any uneven hits. Any excess wounds to any single model are ignored.  See P74 in the Rule Book for the full write up.

-Rick

Sorry about the avatar, didn't mean to offend.

My confusion on this issue stems mostly from the rules as outlined in the pages you referenced in the BRB. The examples given for the Ogres can be taken a couple of different ways and they conflict with the rules for shotting at Characters.

My take on the rules matches what you have stated in both cases. The folks I play with see it another way. They believe the Unit of Ogre takes the wounds, not the individual models (regardless of a Character being in the Unit or not). Thus 5 wounds on a unit with 1 wound (the Butcher with the casting wound) would equal two dead Ogre models (1 IG and the Butcher).

The reason I mentioned the Look Out Sir! rule is the ballistic fire was from a Dwarf Organ Gun, but this issue has come up numerous times when dealing with the shooting phase.

situation:

a unit of 2 ironguts and a butcher that has already taken a single wound comes under fire taking 6 hits

fact: the butcher currently has 3 wounds left as he started with 4

fact: the hits are spread evenly across all the models as there are not enough RnF ogres in the unit to prevent the butcher taking hits (there would need to be 5 - BRB p.74)

fact: the ironguts will take 4 hits and the butcher will take 2

idea: its now easiest to roll the dice for the butcher and the dice for the ironguts seperatly  as wounds do not carry from one to the other and the models have differnet toughnesses

situation: all the hits wound and no saves are made

fact: the butcher takes 2 wounds (and is left with 1 remaining now)
fact: the ironguts take 4 wounds, killing 1 and taking 1 wound from the other as you have to take off as many whole ogres as possible from the rank and file (p. 31 BRB)


this is how it works - I see no contradiction in the BRB for ogre characters/untis compared to normal ones, but would be happy to elucidate further

Thanks for the clarification Wildcard. I copied and pasted your response to my fellow players but they can't seem to agree and keep throwing the rulebook at me! I think the problem comes from me trying to show the wounds on the individual models representing the total wounds applied to that Unit. The keep insisting the wounds are applied to THE UNIT and thus cannot sit on an individual model. I am still removing the casualties as outlined in both CC and Shooting, I just sit a wound die on one model to represent the wounds taken by that Unit of RnF troops.

This is how I have always seen it played ... is that not the standard?

I think their confusion comes about because there is a character present in the unit. If the unit consisted simply of rank and file ogres, so no champions or characters, then the wounds accumulate for the unit, and every time 3 wounds accumulate, a model is removed.

Example:
3 Bulls with no champion or character receive 2 wounds in the shooting phase. You make a not of these on the unit, be it on a specific model or just the unit as a whole. If they then suffer a further 4 wounds in Close Combat, the total number of wounds inflicted is 6, meaning 2 models are removed, with no excess wounds left over.

If a character is accompanying the unit, it has its own wound 'pool' in effect. Shooting hits are evenly distributed between all models, then any remaining are randomised to see whether they hit the character or rank and file models. Wounds are then calculated separately for the unit and character within it due to their different toughness, armour. For every 3 wounds inflicted upon the rank and file models, a single ogre is removed. The character's wounds accumulate separately, so when they reach the number of wounds specified in the character profile, it is removed as a casualty.

Yes! That is how I am applying the wounds ... maybe they think I am trying to cheat them by min/maxing the wounds on separate models?

This is how the wounds/casualties are applied in CC as well correct?

In CC, each enemy will allocate their attacks to a model in BTB(base to base) with them.

Take this image as an example. The green is your character.
When they attack you, 2 models can allocate attacks against your character, while the other 3 must allocate against the R&F ogres. These sets of dice are rolled to hit and to wound separately. Assume 2 of the attacks against the R&F wound, while both against the character wound. In total, 4 wounds have been inflicted, but because they were split between the character and the R&F, neither model dies. The character will now have 2 wounds against it, while the unit of R&F have 2 wounds against them. If an additional wound is caused against any of the 3 R&F ogres, 1 ogre will be removed as a casualty. If 2(I think 4 wounds for characters?) wounds are inflicted against the character, it will be removed as a casualty. These two occurances though are separate, and the character taking wounds cannot kill a R&F ogre, nor can R&F ogres taking wounds kill a character.

Yes! That is how I am applying the wounds ... maybe they think I am trying to cheat them by min/maxing the wounds on separate models?

This is how the wounds/casualties are applied in CC as well correct?

There is a slight difference though. Lets say you have 2 IGs and a Butcher again. If you take a whole lot of arrows coming in, say like 30 (you just stepped into the WE kill zone.) And 23 of them hit. All of the evenly divisible hits are distributed equally. So each model would take 7 hits. The remaining 2 hits would be assigned randomly (1-2 on IG1, 3-4 on IG2, 5-6 on Butcher). If IG1 takes no wounds, but IG2 takes 5 wounds, the two extra wounds do not carry over; the extra wounds would be ignored. Each model in this case can only take wounds up to their individual maximum. However, once the total number of wounds done is known, you would apply those wounds to the unit.

So to play out an example, you have:
IG1 - 1 wound
IG2 - 0 wounds
IG3 - 0 wounds
IG4 - 0 wounds
Butcher - 1 wound

Someone shoots 30 arrows at you. 22 hit.
Each model takes 4 hits. The 2 additional hits are randomized (1-5 indicate model, re-roll on 6's)
IG1 and IG4 take the randomized hits.
IG1 takes 5 hits, 4 of which wound, he fails his saves. He only has 2 wounds though, so 2 of the wounds are ignored. (2 wounds done)
IG2 takes 4 hits, 1 of which wounds, he saves
IG3 takes 4 hits, 2 of which wound, he saves 1 (1 wound done)
IG4 takes 5 hits, 3 of which wound, he saves 1 (2 wounds done)
Butcher takes 4 hits, 2 of which wound, he saves both.

IG1 and IG2 are removed. All other models remain at the same number of wounds as they started with.

The R&F has taken 5 wounds, so the partially injured IG is removed, and one of the healthy IG is removed. The two extra wounds are entirely ignored. And even though the wounds were distributed across models, you still remove 2 models to account for the wounds.

-Rick

Dont you only need 3 RnF ogres rather than 3 for look out below to work?

Dont you only need 3 RnF ogres rather than 3 for look out below to work?

If you have a Look-out Gnoblar, you only need 3 R&F for Look Out Sir! With out the Look-out Gnoblar, you need 5.

But it still doesn't apply to traditional ranged attacks or melee. Only attacks like Stone throwers and cannons where the shooter can say "I'm aiming for this point" and point his finger at the bald spot on top of your Butcher's head.

-Rick

Oh right i didnt realise it worked normaly i just thought look out gnoblar was our version of it.

If IG1 takes no wounds, but IG2 takes 5 wounds, the two extra wounds do not carry over; the extra wounds would be ignored. Each model in this case can only take wounds up to their individual maximum. However, once the total number of wounds done is known, you would apply those wounds to the unit.

So to play out an example, you have:
IG1 - 1 wound
IG2 - 0 wounds
IG3 - 0 wounds
IG4 - 0 wounds
Butcher - 1 wound

Someone shoots 30 arrows at you. 22 hit.
Each model takes 4 hits. The 2 additional hits are randomized (1-5 indicate model, re-roll on 6's)
IG1 and IG4 take the randomized hits.
IG1 takes 5 hits, 4 of which wound, he fails his saves. He only has 2 wounds though, so 2 of the wounds are ignored. (2 wounds done)
IG2 takes 4 hits, 1 of which wounds, he saves
IG3 takes 4 hits, 2 of which wound, he saves 1 (1 wound done)
IG4 takes 5 hits, 3 of which wound, he saves 1 (2 wounds done)
Butcher takes 4 hits, 2 of which wound, he saves both.

IG1 and IG2 are removed. All other models remain at the same number of wounds as they started with.

The R&F has taken 5 wounds, so the partially injured IG is removed, and one of the healthy IG is removed. The two extra wounds are entirely ignored. And even though the wounds were distributed across models, you still remove 2 models to account for the wounds.

-Rick

Well I thought I understood but now I am just as confused as before. Why do the excess wounds not apply to the unit? Wouldn't it be 7 wounds total that the Unit of IG must account for? Or are those excess wound truly written off since they were assigned to a model who can't take them all? Thus the 2 wounds fall off, 5 wounds are done to the unit, killing 2 IG?

How did IG1 suffer his 1 starting wound if wounds are assigned to Units (not models) of RnF troops?

I think it is starting to make sense ... but I don't know if I will be able to convince my fellow players this is the way it works!

Or are those excess wound truly written off since they were assigned to a model who can't take them all? Thus the 2 wounds fall off, 5 wounds are done to the unit, killing 2 IG?

Exactly!

The two extra wounds are arrows sticking out of a corpse. There is a clear example of this in the rule book (I can't remember the page) discussing a cannon ball hitting an Ogre. Even though the cannon ball can score 10 wounds or what ever, the model can only suffer 3, so only 3 wounds can actually be "done". The rule book says it in much more elegant terms. But any time you are doing damage to a specific target, you can not do more damage than the target has wounds (except in the case of a challenge). That is why the extra 2 wounds are ignored. They can't wound that one ogre anymore since he's already dead.

How did IG1 suffer his 1 starting wound if wounds are assigned to Units (not models) of RnF troops?

When you are tracking wounds, all wounds are tracked on 1 model until that model is dead, then the wounds are tracked on the next. So for this situation, before the "ZOMG FIRING LINE OF DOOOOOOM!" turn, lets say that same ogre unit had charged some opposing unit. While in combat, the opponent survived the charge and gets attacks back, they don't allocate those attacks, so the default to the R&F models. They do some wounds, but our unit saves all but one. To represent this, we would put a die behind one of the models with the 1-side up, to indicate that he has taken 1 wound. If the unit's R&F takes 2 more wounds, IG1 would be removed. If they take another wound after that, IG2 would get the die indicating he has taken a wound. When removing R&F models from a single rank unit, you always remove from the sides. In this case, since IG4 is standing next to a character, you would always remove from the IG1 side.

So long as the attacks are unallocated, or allocated just to the R&F (you can not target a specific R&F model), you will always track the wounds on the outermost model, and remove that model from play when it runs out of wounds. Although, you have to remember that that model is only acting as a representative for the wounds, and that you do not get attacks back with a model that was in base contact. We do this so that we don't have to reorganize troops every time someone dies. That would make life suck a lot for O&G and Skaven

I think it is starting to make sense ... but I don't know if I will be able to convince my fellow players this is the way it works!

See if you can find the cannon ball example. It clearly and flat out states that a model can not take more wounds in damage than it has.

-Rick

i have a question to make matters more difficult.

Example: a unit of 3 yhetees (one of them is a champion) charges something.
I challenge and he excepts and does 1 wound (i kill em)
the other yhetees suffer 2 wounds.
I break them and overrun.

Do I
A: Keep my two models and track the wound on the champion
B: Lose 1 model and have no wounds on the chamion

I don't really know how to handle it so halp would be great

Track it on the champ 'cause it was a challenge.

i have a question to make matters more difficult.

Example: a unit of 3 yhetees (one of them is a champion) charges something.
I challenge and he excepts and does 1 wound (i kill em)
the other yhetees suffer 2 wounds.
I break them and overrun.

Do I
A: Keep my two models and track the wound on the champion
B: Lose 1 model and have no wounds on the chamion

I don't really know how to handle it so halp would be great

A - following the details mentioned at the start of the ogre army boo (p.16 I think)

i have a question to make matters more difficult.

Example: a unit of 3 yhetees (one of them is a champion) charges something.
I challenge and he excepts and does 1 wound (i kill em)
the other yhetees suffer 2 wounds.
I break them and overrun.

Do I
A: Keep my two models and track the wound on the champion
B: Lose 1 model and have no wounds on the chamion

I don't really know how to handle it so halp would be great

The Champ is not R&F, so you track his wounds separately. He would have a die, 1-side up behind him.
Yetties have 3 wounds each and are R&F, so the other 2 wounds would both be tracked on a single Yettie, indicated by a die, 2-side up behind him, the other Yettie would be considered full health.

-Rick

Exactly!

The two extra wounds are arrows sticking out of a corpse. There is a clear example of this in the rule book (I can't remember the page) discussing a cannon ball hitting an Ogre.

Ah! I thought we were talking about CC for some reason ... ok. Yes. In shooting I understand this. In CC this does not apply as RnF troops cannot be targeted specifically (yes!?). 

When you are tracking wounds, all wounds are tracked on 1 model until that model is dead, then the wounds are tracked on the next.

This is really the whole argument from my fellow players. Where does it say this in the BRB? 

Thanks again for all the help and quick responses! It is very much appreciated!

Ah! I thought we were talking about CC for some reason ... ok. Yes. In shooting I understand this. In CC this does not apply as RnF troops cannot be targeted specifically (yes!?). 

Exactly. When in Close Combat, the battle line is assumed to blur such that even if all models in base contact die, and you do additional wounds, those wounds are continued into the next rank, even though that rank can't attack back.

Unless... if the attacker has a multi-wound weapon, such as the Tenderizer, and is attacking a unit with multiple wound R&F (say like the Ogres) the attacker must declare how many attacks are going to each model (ie: I'm going to use my 4 attacks against 4 different R&F models). This is because it is entirely possible for 2 attacks with the tenderizer to do 6 wounds, but if they were not declared against individual targets, all 6 wounds would go to the same target. In the case of an Ogre, the first 3 wounds would kill them, and the second 3 wounds would be entirely ignored. In the case of single wound R&F, you would just assume that each attack is going at a different model. In any case, with a multiple wound weapon, you can not kill more models than you have attacks.

This is really the whole argument from my fellow players. Where does it say this in the BRB? 

Page 31 again. Top right corner. 5 wounds due to arrow fire (which would fall across the entire unit) is represented by 1 dead Ogre, and 2 more wounds. When ever possible, whole models are removed.

Page 31 really covers all of this, it gives an example specificly for Ogres. If anyone has a problem with this, tell them to re-read the "Multiple Wound Casualties" section on page 31 over and over and over.

And if they still don't buy it, tell them that you'll track wounds per model and let them know that even if they do 6 wounds to 3 bulls, that you'll still have all 3 bulls attacking back since they would each take 2 wounds doing it their way. As opposed to losing 2 bulls and only having 1 to return attacks using the book rules

-Rick

But nowhere does it say to represent the wounds on a unit as a die on a model .... which is what they are complaining about.

Anyway ... it is all semantics and I really do appreciate the help. Hopefully I can convince them they are applying the rules wrong and we can move on with life and the game!

Ok, I'm pretty sure ThatRickGuy has slightly confused the issue with your shooting example.

So to play out an example, you have:
IG1 - 1 wound
IG2 - 0 wounds
IG3 - 0 wounds
IG4 - 0 wounds
Butcher - 1 wound

Someone shoots 30 arrows at you. 22 hit.
Each model takes 4 hits. The 2 additional hits are randomized (1-5 indicate model, re-roll on 6's)
IG1 and IG4 take the randomized hits.
IG1 takes 5 hits, 4 of which wound, he fails his saves. He only has 2 wounds though, so 2 of the wounds are ignored. (2 wounds done)
IG2 takes 4 hits, 1 of which wounds, he saves
IG3 takes 4 hits, 2 of which wound, he saves 1 (1 wound done)
IG4 takes 5 hits, 3 of which wound, he saves 1 (2 wounds done)
Butcher takes 4 hits, 2 of which wound, he saves both.

IG1 and IG2 are removed. All other models remain at the same number of wounds as they started with.

The R&F has taken 5 wounds, so the partially injured IG is removed, and one of the healthy IG is removed. The two extra wounds are entirely ignored. And even though the wounds were distributed across models, you still remove 2 models to account for the wounds.

You seem to be getting confused between multi-wound attacks and multi-wound models here. Shooting from bowfire does not target specific models, except in the case of characters. The hits would be effectively a 'pool' for the R&F models, and a separate 'pool' for the character. The wounds from each pool are calculated separately. Thus in your example, 7 wounds should be inflicted upon the IG, removing 2 models and leaving 2 wounds inflicted upon the unit.

The 1 wound that is on the IG before the shooting does not represent a wound to that specific model, rather the fact that the wound exists on that unit. It could just as easily be recorded upon the army list as 1 wound against the unit, and would be just as valid.

When you refer to discarding excess wounds, this is for the case of a multiwound hit, so Bolt Thrower or cannon. From these, each hit is calculated for a separate model as it penetrates the ranks, going through subsequent models. For each hit, a single wound roll is taken. If a wound is suffered, this is multiplied into D3 or D6 wounds as appropriate. This is why no more than 3 wounds can be inflicted upon a single ogre model from these attacks, as you are simply multiplying the effect of the single wound that was inflicted upon each ogre.

You seem to be getting confused between multi-wound attacks and multi-wound models here. Shooting from bowfire does not target specific models, except in the case of characters.

Correct, which is what we are talkng about here. A Character in a unit with less than 5 R&F models. See Page 74, Characters inside units.  "... if the unit contains less than five rank-and-file models when a ranged attack is targeted at it, then hits are allocated before rolling to wound. First, divide the number of hits evenly between all the members of the unit (including characters)..."

So in this case, 4 IG R&F, plus a butcher, as soon as hits are established you would divide them equally and randomize the remainder. At that point you have dedicated attacks to each model. As stated on page 31 and "...each model cannot sugger more wounds than it has on its profile"

So in this case the hits would be allocated, and they would be limited to the model's current health. All extra wounds would be ignored.

The two samples on page 31 and 74 seem pretty clear, I would recommend re-reading them in full. If you know of any other references on the subject that I'm missing, I'll gladly read them as well. I'd much rather be proven wrong on the forums then drag out a game trying to debate the same issue

But nowhere does it say to represent the wounds on a unit as a die on a model .... which is what they are complaining about.

True, some people use the GW brand wound markers as well. I find a mis-colored die is easier to move with the unit though

-Rick

AS Rick said about the dice.
I use big red dice for rolling and the smaller white dice I got from skullpass as wound markers.

It is very annoying to have the same dice for wounds and rolling.
Especially as I'm always clearing the space of dice between units .

You seem to be getting confused between multi-wound attacks and multi-wound models here. Shooting from bowfire does not target specific models, except in the case of characters.

Correct, which is what we are talkng about here. A Character in a unit with less than 5 R&F models. See Page 74, Characters inside units.  "... if the unit contains less than five rank-and-file models when a ranged attack is targeted at it, then hits are allocated before rolling to wound. First, divide the number of hits evenly between all the members of the unit (including characters)..."

So in this case, 4 IG R&F, plus a butcher, as soon as hits are established you would divide them equally and randomize the remainder. At that point you have dedicated attacks to each model. As stated on page 31 and "...each model cannot sugger more wounds than it has on its profile"

So in this case the hits would be allocated, and they would be limited to the model's current health. All extra wounds would be ignored.

The two samples on page 31 and 74 seem pretty clear, I would recommend re-reading them in full. If you know of any other references on the subject that I'm missing, I'll gladly read them as well. I'd much rather be proven wrong on the forums then drag out a game trying to debate the same issue


-Rick

Ok, but what happens in the situation when there are no characters in the unit? As there are no characters, there is no need to allocate or randomise hits as they all fall on R&F models anyway. Using your example, would this not result in all 7 wounds being inflicted upon the ogres, rather than the 5 that were inflicted due to the character being present?

you lose 3 wounds of bulls (or one full bull) as that is the maximum that a bull can suffer from one attack.

You always attack healthy models first*. So your 6 wounds would hit the healthy Bull, he is capped at 3 wounds, the other 3 are ignored. You apply 3 wounds to the unit and you should be left with 1 bull who has lost 2 wounds.

-Rick

*I don't know of any rule that specifies this, but it appears to be the intent.

Okay so my basic idea was correct except for the execution of it.

Now to make it abit more interesting the same Lord hits home with 2 attacks and rolls 6's for both (just to make sure) giving him a wooping 12 wounds. I would assume that each attack hits home on a different Ogre thus killing them both off, right?

Yes, using the 1-at-a-time reading of 'individual', you would attack with the first hit, doing six wounds to the healthy Ogre, he is capped to 3, the rest of the wounds are ignored, you would apply 3 wounds to the unit, removing 1 model and leaving the other with 2 wounds. The second attack would hit the remaining (wounded) Ogre, he has 1 wound remaining, so he would take 1 wound, and the other 5 wounds would be ignored.

-Rick

Thanks everyone for clearing this out.

The unit took six wounds. It only had 4 left. It was wiped out. Ignore aiming at individual Bulls as they are Rank and File models.

The unit took six wounds. It only had 4 left. It was wiped out. Ignore aiming at individual Bulls as they are Rank and File models.

Which is to say: Ignore the rules.

-Rick

The unit took six wounds. It only had 4 left. It was wiped out. Ignore aiming at individual Bulls as they are Rank and File models.

Well not exactly because if we ignore aiming at seperate Bulls my first example where the lord only struck home once but made 6 wounds due to a runed up weapon (compare it with Tenderiser for Ogres) it would have killed them both which isn't the case...

The unit took six wounds. It only had 4 left. It was wiped out. Ignore aiming at individual Bulls as they are Rank and File models.

Which is to say: Ignore the rules.

-Rick

No... which is to say follow the rules instead of making up "aiming at" ideas. You don't aim at RnF models but you also can't do more in one "hit" than the RnF models have Wounds on their profile.

The unit took six wounds. It only had 4 left. It was wiped out. Ignore aiming at individual Bulls as they are Rank and File models.

Well not exactly because if we ignore aiming at seperate Bulls my first example where the lord only struck home once but made 6 wounds due to a runed up weapon (compare it with Tenderiser for Ogres) it would have killed them both which isn't the case...

You still don't "aim" at particular Bulls as they are RnF models. You just can't do more than than 3 wounds in one "hit" because you limit the damage to whatever their Wounds is on their Profile. Not remaining wounds, wound on the profile.

Forget this "aim" concept it will only cause you grief.

No... which is to say follow the rules instead of making up "aiming at" ideas. You don't aim at RnF models but you also can't do more in one "hit" than the RnF models have Wounds on their profile.

When given the choice between the rule book explicitly stating that wounds are applied to individual models, and you saying that wounds are not applied to individual models, I'll follow the rule book's answer.

Not remaining wounds, wound on the profile.

1 + 1 is still 2. The rules explicitly stat that a model can not take more wounds than it has on its profile. If it has 3 wounds on its profile and it suffers 1 wound, it can only suffer 2 more wounds. Even if you did 3 wounds to it, after the first 2 wounds were applied, it would be removed. You have been unable to present a single rule, FAQ, or judgment that stands contrary to that statement thus far. If you have anything other than your opinion to back up that statement, please, post it. As I've stated before, my mind is easily convinced, just show me the facts.

Forget this "aim" concept it will only cause you grief.

No, it really wont. Given the 1-at-a-time reading of the word individual, the 5x2 vs 4x3 situation results in 10 wounds, the same as you were stating. In the 2x6 vs 2x3(wounded) situation, the 1-at-a-time reading results in 2 dead Ogres and your "apply more wounds than the model/unit has" reading also results in 2 dead Ogres. Dead is dead, everything else is ignored. And if I came across this situation and disagreement, we would roll it off, winner picks, and life would go on.

-Rick

No... which is to say follow the rules instead of making up "aiming at" ideas. You don't aim at RnF models but you also can't do more in one "hit" than the RnF models have Wounds on their profile.

When given the choice between the rule book explicitly stating that wounds are applied to individual models, and you saying that wounds are not applied to individual models, I'll follow the rule book's answer.

Except it doesn't state what you state... Two examples where it explicitly doesn't state that.

"The arrows would fall randomly among the unit, possibly wounding several creatures, but for our purposes we shall remove whole models where possible. So, 5 wounds equals one model dead (3 wounds) with 2 wounds left over. The wounds left over are not enough to remove another model, so the player must make a note that 2 wounds have been suffered by the unit."

This sort of supports my argument, doesn't it? It just happens to be under the Multiple Wound Casualties rules. Odd that.

Here is the second and most important one.

"If a unit of creatures with more than 1 Wound on their profile is hit by a weapon that causes multiple wounds, determine how many wounds are caused on each model individually (remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile). Add up all wounds caused on the unit and then remove the appropriate number of models, leaving any spare wounds on the unit."

Yes, you determine the wounds caused on each model individually, but then those wounds are all lumped together and applied to the UNIT, not the models. Why this language? Not because you individually wound the models, but because if you were hit by a template that does multiple wounds you would have to figure out which models fell under the template to be hit and possibly wounded, figure out how many wounds hit those models, and then lump it all together and removed the appropriate number of models.

You don't dip into the box... How much clearer can "Add up all wounds cause on the unit and then remove the appropriate number of models, leaving any spare wounds on the unit." be?

Not remaining wounds, wound on the profile.

1 + 1 is still 2. The rules explicitly stat that a model can not take more wounds than it has on its profile. If it has 3 wounds on its profile and it suffers 1 wound, it can only suffer 2 more wounds. Even if you did 3 wounds to it, after the first 2 wounds were applied, it would be removed. You have been unable to present a single rule, FAQ, or judgment that stands contrary to that statement thus far. If you have anything other than your opinion to back up that statement, please, post it. As I've stated before, my mind is easily convinced, just show me the facts.

There is a big difference between the words suffer and caused. You can cause three wounds to the model but it will only be able to suffer 2 of them. Notice the order.
1. Figure out how many are caused, limited by Wound profile.
2. Add wounds up.
3. Apply to unit to find out how many are suffered.

By the time you worry about how many wounds a model can suffer you have already lumped them up into one big bag and the full possible 3 count.

Forget this "aim" concept it will only cause you grief.

No, it really wont. Given the 1-at-a-time reading of the word individual, the 5x2 vs 4x3 situation results in 10 wounds, the same as you were stating. In the 2x6 vs 2x3(wounded) situation, the 1-at-a-time reading results in 2 dead Ogres and your "apply more wounds than the model/unit has" reading also results in 2 dead Ogres. Dead is dead, everything else is ignored. And if I came across this situation and disagreement, we would roll it off, winner picks, and life would go on.

-Rick

Or... you could play by the rules and not have it change from game to game.

Except it doesn't state what you state... Two examples where it explicitly doesn't state that.

"The arrows would fall randomly among the unit, possibly wounding several creatures, but for our purposes we shall remove whole models where possible. So, 5 wounds equals one model dead (3 wounds) with 2 wounds left over. The wounds left over are not enough to remove another model, so the player must make a note that 2 wounds have been suffered by the unit."

This sort of supports my argument, doesn't it? It just happens to be under the Multiple Wound Casualties rules. Odd that.

This applies to arrow fire. Arrows are not multi-wound weapons. This example backs up nothing.

Yes, you determine the wounds caused on each model individually

Yes, thank you.

You don't dip into the box... How much clearer can "Add up all wounds cause on the unit and then remove the appropriate number of models, leaving any spare wounds on the unit." be?

That is perfectly clear to me. I am not disagreeing with adding up wounds and applying to the unit. If 10 wounds were done, 10 wounds would be applied to the unit. That is not up for debate so far as I know. If it is, I believe we are on the same side of that one.

There is a big difference between the words suffer and caused. You can cause three wounds to the model but it will only be able to suffer 2 of them. Notice the order.
1. Figure out how many are caused, limited by Wound profile.
2. Add wounds up.
3. Apply to unit to find out how many are suffered.

Except the rules don't state that. They state: "Add up all wounds cause on the unit and then remove the appropriate number of models, leaving any spare wounds on the unit." How much clearer can that be? First you add up all of the wounds, then you remove. It doesn't say Add up, test for ward, then apply to unit, it says Add then Remove.

By the time you worry about how many wounds a model can suffer you have already lumped them up into one big bag and the full possible 3 count.

Hmm, that statement is an exact contradiction to the rule: "determine how many wounds are caused on each model individually (remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)"

The rule is explicitly saying that a Model cannot suffer more wounds than on its profile. That rule is further reinforced by rules (I believe) on P30 which infer that a model can not suffer more wounds in Total than on its profile. So again, we find your opinion to be in opposition with the rules.

I appreciate the debate, but if your stance is based off a rule that you are directly contradicting in defense of your point, I see no reason to continue.

-Rick

Except it doesn't state what you state... Two examples where it explicitly doesn't state that.

"The arrows would fall randomly among the unit, possibly wounding several creatures, but for our purposes we shall remove whole models where possible. So, 5 wounds equals one model dead (3 wounds) with 2 wounds left over. The wounds left over are not enough to remove another model, so the player must make a note that 2 wounds have been suffered by the unit."

This sort of supports my argument, doesn't it? It just happens to be under the Multiple Wound Casualties rules. Odd that.

This applies to arrow fire. Arrows are not multi-wound weapons. This example backs up nothing.

You can't throw these rules out. They denote the basics for applying wounds to multi-wound models which is further clarified in the rules for doing so with weapons that cause multiple wounds. Read the whole rules for multi-wound creatures, not just the ones you wish to.

Yes, you determine the wounds caused on each model individually

Yes, thank you.

You can take part of an argument out of context to make it appear to state what you wish... [sarcasm] what a novel and original and totally valid means of defeating an argument.[/sarcasm] It is better to be intelligent than clever.

You don't dip into the box... How much clearer can "Add up all wounds cause on the unit and then remove the appropriate number of models, leaving any spare wounds on the unit." be?

That is perfectly clear to me. I am not disagreeing with adding up wounds and applying to the unit. If 10 wounds were done, 10 wounds would be applied to the unit. That is not up for debate so far as I know. If it is, I believe we are on the same side of that one.

Except for the fact that you are trying to apply them to separate models and not the unit which precludes the adding them up part.

There is a big difference between the words suffer and caused. You can cause three wounds to the model but it will only be able to suffer 2 of them. Notice the order.
1. Figure out how many are caused, limited by Wound profile.
2. Add wounds up.
3. Apply to unit to find out how many are suffered.

Except the rules don't state that. They state: "Add up all wounds cause on the unit and then remove the appropriate number of models, leaving any spare wounds on the unit." How much clearer can that be? First you add up all of the wounds, then you remove. It doesn't say Add up, test for ward, then apply to unit, it says Add then Remove.

Why are you bringing a Ward save into this? That happens LONG before the sequence I listed. How is this even an argument refuting what I stated? Did you have a point? You are trying to say that you:
1. Figure out how many wounds are caused, limited by how many they can suffer.
2. Add the wounds up.
3. Apply to unit to find out how many are suffered.

The rules don't state that, they say it is limited by Wounds on profile and reminding you that you can't suffer more than you have. You can still cause up to Wounds on profile but can't suffer more than you have.

By the time you worry about how many wounds a model can suffer you have already lumped them up into one big bag and the full possible 3 count.

Hmm, that statement is an exact contradiction to the rule: "determine how many wounds are caused on each model individually (remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)"

The rule is explicitly saying that a Model cannot suffer more wounds than on its profile. That rule is further reinforced by rules (I believe) on P30 which infer that a model can not suffer more wounds in Total than on its profile. So again, we find your opinion to be in opposition with the rules.

Again you ignore the fact that causing, and suffering are two distinct things, that is why it is using two different words with different meanings.

I appreciate the debate, but if your stance is based off a rule that you are directly contradicting in defense of your point, I see no reason to continue.

-Rick

No... you are basing your argument off what you believe to be implied between the lines instead of the exact wording. I am then trying to explain it in layman's terms since that seems to fit with your implied meaning instead of the Read As Written that seems to be a standard in interpreting Warhammer rules. As written if there are three wounds on the profile you can cause 3 wounds to that model no matter how many previous wounds it has.

The number of wounds a model can sustain before it dies is indicated by its Wounds value or 'W' on its profile.

IOW, if a model is reduced* to 0 wounds, it is dead. It is removed from play. *reduced implying you track wounds remaining while in battle, some people track wounds taken, in either case when W - #W = 0, the model is dead.

(remember that each model cannot suffer more wounds than it has on its profile)

IOW, a model can not be reduced* to less than 0 wounds. When it hits 0 wounds*, it is dead and any other hits that are allocated to that model are ignored. *again, replace the word reduced with your preference of wound tracking terms

For example, 4 man sized targets hit a R&F Ogre, the last of his unit. Each of the 4 attacks hits, wounds, and the Ogre fails his save and ward. The attackers have Caused 4 wounds. The model can only suffer/sustain 3 wounds. The Ogre suffers 3 wounds, the 4th wound is ignored. 3 wounds are then Applied to the unit.

Can we agree on that much?

Next example, 4 man sized targets hit a R&F Ogre, the last of his unit, who has already lost 2 wounds. Each of the 4 attacks hits, wounds, and the Ogre fails his save and ward. The attackers have again Caused 4 wounds. The model, having already Suffered 2 wounds, can only Sustain 1 more wound. The Ogre suffers 1 wound, 3 wounds are ignored. 1 wound is then Applied to the unit.

You can't throw these rules out. They denote the basics for applying wounds to multi-wound models which is further clarified in the rules for doing so with weapons that cause multiple wounds. Read the whole rules for multi-wound creatures, not just the ones you wish to.

The excerpt you posted has nothing to do with the situation at hand. We agree that when you are NOT allocating attacks that all wounds spill over and all wounds are applied straight to the unit. Using this as an argument is like me presenting factual evidence that water is wet. Sure, it's good to know, and you would probably agree with my argument, but it offers nothing to the current debate.

Except for the fact that you are trying to apply them to separate models and not the unit which precludes the adding them up part.

Incorrect. I am determining how many wounds are done to each model, then applying the sum of those to the unit. Man, that sounds familiar, where have I heard that before... Oh yeah, on P31 under the instructions for hitting multi-wound R&F with a multi-wound weapon, and I quote: "determine how many wounds are caused on each model individually. Add up all the wounds caused on the unit an then removed the number of models..."

Why are you bringing a Ward save into this? That happens LONG before the sequence I listed. How is this even an argument refuting what I stated?

Sorry, that was an editing mistake. Disregard

1. Figure out how many wounds are caused, limited by how many they can suffer.
2. Add the wounds up.
3. Apply to unit.

That's it. Just like it says in the book. Models suffer wounds, not units. As per P6 BSPRB, "Each model is an individual playing piece with its own capabilities and characteristics." Units represent those wounds as stated in the rule book (and as we have agreed upon), by removing full models as possible so that we only ever have to track the wounds of a single R&F model instead of every single model, which would be absurdly difficult.

Please, do me a favor, take a breath, step away from the computer, get a good night's sleep, play some WH, get some air, then take a glance at the rule book. The goal here is not to be the one who is right, but to find the correct answer.

-Rick

IOW, a model can not be reduced* to less than 0 wounds. When it hits 0 wounds*, it is dead and any other hits that are allocated to that model are ignored. *again, replace the word reduced with your preference of wound tracking terms

For example, 4 man sized targets hit a R&F Ogre, the last of his unit. Each of the 4 attacks hits, wounds, and the Ogre fails his save and ward. The attackers have Caused 4 wounds. The model can only suffer/sustain 3 wounds. The Ogre suffers 3 wounds, the 4th wound is ignored. 3 wounds are then Applied to the unit.

Can we agree on that much?

This only applies to attacks that are made at a model in the Unit. This only occurs with randomized hits (shooting), etc. In normal combat this is not the case as RnF models cannot be individually targeted.

Assuming you are still discussing the multi-wound weapon ... carry on. If not, then no I don't agree and the Wounds are totaled to the Unit of RnF troops, including any carried over wounds.

Assuming you are still discussing the multi-wound weapon ... carry on. If not, then no I don't agree and the Wounds are totaled to the Unit of RnF troops, including any carried over wounds.

My above statements were to be directed at the scope of multi-wound models and multi-wound weapons. I probably should have explicitly said so since we've wondered through a few topics in here

-Rick

Incorrect. I am determining how many wounds are done to each model, then applying the sum of those to the unit. Man, that sounds familiar, where have I heard that before... Oh yeah, on P31 under the instructions for hitting multi-wound R&F with a multi-wound weapon, and I quote: "determine how many wounds are caused on each model individually. Add up all the wounds caused on the unit an then removed the number of models..."

Yes, this is correct. You hit with an attack, wound the model and they fail any relevant saves. This wound inflicted is then multiplied according to the multi-wound rule of the relevant weapon.

Unfortunately, the last part that you failed to quote is also significant.

...leaving any spare wounds on the unit

To my reading, your argument seems to be that a particular model holds these remaining wounds, which is in direct contradiction with the rule you were just quoting, albeit the part you neglected to mention.



We all seem to agree that for an individual attack, if the bulls are unwounded, the maximum number of wounds that can be inflicted from that attack is the number on the bulls profile, 3 wounds.

There are 2 other possible situations that I can foresee.



same representation as above, except that 2 wounds have been inflicted upon the unit.
If there is a single attack against the unit that inflicts an unsaved wound, your interpretation seems to be that the maximum number of wounds the unit can suffer is 1, as that is all that the model has left.



In this situation, you would argue that 3 wounds can be inflicted upon the unit, as that is how many the model taking the hit has.

My problem with this is that the wounds are stored on the unit as a whole, rather than an individual model, so both of the above situations are exactly the same, and could be as accurately represented by marking the wounds against the unit entry in your army list, as they are by using a dice on a particular model's base.

With wounds not stored on any individual model, for both the above situations 3 wounds could be inflicted from a single attack, killing 1 bull and leaving 2 wounds still on the unit.

If any of my interpretations of your stance are wrong, then I apologise, but that is the way they seem to read.

Unfortunately, the last part that you failed to quote is also significant.

...leaving any spare wounds on the unit

I failed to quote it because I assumed we were all in agreement with how wounds were applied to a unit. A unit is defined in the book P6 as consisting of a number of models that have banded together. Since we remove casualties as full models when ever possible, and we remove models from the back rank and edges for ease of game play, it doesn't matter which model in the unit has the spare wounds, heck, you could put 1 wound on each model so long as there weren't enough wounds to kill another model, but it would be a pain in the ass to do, so we just put the wound markers behind the unit, even though 1 of the models has suffered those wounds.

To my reading, your argument seems to be that a particular model holds these remaining wounds, which is in direct contradiction with the rule you were just quoting, albeit the part you neglected to mention.

I see where you are coming from here, and I would agree that there is some ambiguity in it as a Model is defined as having wounds and a Unit is defined as having models, but no where in the book is the unit defined as having wounds so far as I can find. Reading the rule as it is written would imply that wounds would be applied to the unit, but a unit has no wounds per its definition, so the wounds would be allocated to the models with in the unit. But that is a debatable point which would be a great focus for a FAQ question to GW! (Woowho! We found a good question!)

We all seem to agree that for an individual attack, if the bulls are unwounded, the maximum number of wounds that can be inflicted from that attack is the number on the bulls profile, 3 wounds.

Correct, a single attack is limited by the max number of wounds the model can sustain.

same representation as above, except that 2 wounds have been inflicted upon the unit.
If there is a single attack against the unit that inflicts an unsaved wound, your interpretation seems to be that the maximum number of wounds the unit can suffer is 1, as that is all that the model has left.

Negative, combat lines are not static, if you can hit R&F, you can hit any R&F, and you would always assume to be hitting a healthy model first (because it would be dumb to hit the wounded model). So in that situation, you would still be able to do 3 wounds on a single hit.

In this situation, you would argue that 3 wounds can be inflicted upon the unit, as that is how many the model taking the hit has.

Again, you would always target the healthy models first, so you would be able to do 3 wounds.

Anyway, while these 3 samples are great for clearing up any confusion, they don't apply to the situation. When attacking R&F with a single multi-wound weapon attack, you hit a healthy one and resolve as we all are agreeing on. It is when you are attacking with n+1 multi-wound weapon attacks where n is the number of R&F models in the enemy's unit that you have allocated attacks. That is where the disagreement starts.

My problem with this is that the wounds are stored on the unit as a whole, rather than an individual model,

I like this statement, it is simple, clear, concise, and factual in nature. Now if you can cite a page number, FAQ, or judgment to back it up, I will gladly accept it and it will largely put the debate to rest. I can cite rules that state the opposite, that models have wounds, I can site rules that state units are collections of models, but I can not find anything in the book, other than the ambiguous 'left over' statement above, that directly links units to wounds.

With wounds not stored on any individual model, for both the above situations 3 wounds could be inflicted from a single attack, killing 1 bull and leaving 2 wounds still on the unit.

Even with storing wounds on individual models, the Excess Casualties rule on P36, and the other references on non-static combat lines (I don't have the p# handy) would allow a single attack to hit a healthy model.

-Rick

Negative, combat lines are not static, if you can hit R&F, you can hit any R&F, and you would always assume to be hitting a healthy model first (because it would be dumb to hit the wounded model). So in that situation, you would still be able to do 3 wounds on a single hit.

Huh? The wounds don't belong to a model, they belong to the Unit. You apply the hits, then wounds, to each model. You total the wounds on the Unit, adding any existing wounds, and remove casualties with whole models first (leaving extra wounds on the Unit of models).

Huh? The wounds don't belong to a model, they belong to the Unit.

Again, I like this statement, but I can not find anything to back it up in the rule book. If you know of a reference, please post it. But the only things that have wounds, so far as I can find, is Models. A unit is a collection of Models, but the BSPRB specifically states that each model has its own characteristics, and one of those characteristics is Wounds. There are some rules that allow us to use the values at the unit level for ease of game play, but I have not found reference to any such rule stating that units have wounds instead of models.

-Rick

Huh? The wounds don't belong to a model, they belong to the Unit.

Again, I like this statement, but I can not find anything to back it up in the rule book. If you know of a reference, please post it. But the only things that have wounds, so far as I can find, is Models. A unit is a collection of Models, but the BSPRB specifically states that each model has its own characteristics, and one of those characteristics is Wounds. There are some rules that allow us to use the values at the unit level for ease of game play, but I have not found reference to any such rule stating that units have wounds instead of models.

-Rick

Pg. 76

"As with combat between ordinary warriors, casualties inflicted by a character can extend beyond the models the character is touching. If a character has say, 4 Attacks and is facing two enemy troopers then his attacks are worked out against these. However, if the character scores sufficient wounds to slay three or four models, the enemy unit looses three or four troopers, not just two.

Don't be fooled by the fact that models are static and the battle lines rigid and straight. What is represented is the hectic swirl of real combat!"

Pg. 31

"Where troops have only a single Wound, casualties are removed as follows. If a unit of troops is hit and suffers wounds that it does not save, then for each wound suffered, one model is removed as a 'kill'. Individual warriors are not necessarily dead, they may just be too badly wounded to fight on. For our purposes, the result is the same so we treat all casualties as if they were killed and remove them."

Pg. 76

"As with combat between ordinary warriors, casualties inflicted by a character can extend beyond the models the character is touching. If a character has say, 4 Attacks and is facing two enemy troopers then his attacks are worked out against these. However, if the character scores sufficient wounds to slay three or four models, the enemy unit looses three or four troopers, not just two.

Don't be fooled by the fact that models are static and the battle lines rigid and straight. What is represented is the hectic swirl of real combat!"

Yup, this is a reiteration of the Excess Casualties rule on P36. But this still doesn't say that Units have wounds, it is still one model attacking other models, and when those models take wounds, they are represented in the unit by removing whole models as possible. In the case of single wound models, each wound is a model removed from the unit.

Pg. 31

"Where troops have only a single Wound, casualties are removed as follows. If a unit of troops is hit and suffers wounds that it does not save, then for each wound suffered, one model is removed as a 'kill'. Individual warriors are not necessarily dead, they may just be too badly wounded to fight on. For our purposes, the result is the same so we treat all casualties as if they were killed and remove them."

The wording here still seams ambiguous to me, especially when contrasted with the explicit definition of Models, Wounds, and Units. Specifically, the use of the phrase "Unit of troops" instead of just the word "Unit". The words "of troops" seems to imply that the effect is taking place on the troops who are in a unit, which matches the definition presented on P6 for a Unit. If it said "If a unit is hit..." I would be much more inclined to read it as having the meaning you are inferring.

-Rick