Swarms, ID, Blasts, Same as 5th?

[The_Klobb_Maniac]

So; the rules breakdown is:
-UNSAVED WOUNDS are doubled for blasts/templates
-Wounds that are double toughness cause ID (duh)

And... wound allocation.

In 5th when someone hit 2 (let's say) scarab bases with an S6 blast/template you'd lose 4 bases (assuming you failed saves yadda yadda.)

In 6th, I can't tell by the wording if the base takes two ID wounds and dies, or if that second ID wound propagates to another model. It says the UNSAVED wound is doubled. Before you can remove the model it seems it just absorbs the second wound (if it has one to give) then goes *pop.*



Please help clarify how the rule works and why it works that way; the usage of the word Unsaved (and the manner in which you take saved in this edition) has utterly confused me.

[Kalandros]

You get 3 hits, which all wound, on 6 Scarabs and you then allocate those wounds:
First Scarab takes one unsaved wound which becomes 2 due to the Swarms special rule. Its a S6 hit which is x2 its T3, so remove it
Second Scarab takes one unsaved wound, etc


So yep, you no longer remove twice as many bases, so ID + Swarms no longer interact to multiply casualties.

[archanfel]

kalandros thats how it worked in 5th too

[Kalandros]

I wouldn't know as I never played 5th.
But by the wording there's nothing to indicate the first wound goes instant death first and then doubled to another base, thats not supported by the rules.

[Taureus]

I wouldn't know as I never played 5th.
But by the wording there's nothing to indicate the first wound goes instant death first and then doubled to another base, thats not supported by the rules.

Wouldn't the order of allocation go: Double wounds for blast/template -> ID if double toughness?

Which would kill multiple bases rather quickly...Unless I am mistaken, being away from my copy of the rulebook at the moment.

[The_Klobb_Maniac]

@arch
no it's not...

In 5th you HAD to allocate wounds before taking saves, weapons caused double wounds, not double unsaved wounds (iirc.) In 5th that means that each failed ID save (since you rolled as a group) killed entire bases.

I'm screwing it up slightly, but that's how it used to work; hence I avoided any swarms like the plague because I hate blasts enough without that.

[Sami]

In 6th edition, you allocate unsaved wounds. So for each wound from a blast/template weapon that the Swarm unit fails to save, it has 2 unsaved wounds to allocate on to models. Then you apply ID as normal. So if, for example a Scarab unit is hit twice by a S6 template and fails both saves, you will have 4 wounds to allocate. As those wounds will cause ID, you will remove 4 bases. Note that it worked this way in 5th edition (except the doubled wounds were limited to the wound group, which for Scarabs would be the entire unit as the models are all identical) and 4th edition (which even had a FAQ entry to confirm it worked this way).

The situation is slightly wonky for Swarm units that have mixed saves (think cover + armour/invul) though.

[El_Machinae]

So, how does it work if my D.Lord is in the front of the swarm (attached to the unit)?

[MasterDecoy]

In 6th edition, you allocate unsaved wounds. So for each wound from a blast/template weapon that the Swarm unit fails to save, it has 2 unsaved wounds to allocate on to models. Then you apply ID as normal. So if, for example a Scarab unit is hit twice by a S6 template and fails both saves, you will have 4 wounds to allocate. As those wounds will cause ID, you will remove 4 bases. Note that it worked this way in 5th edition (except the doubled wounds were limited to the wound group, which for Scarabs would be the entire unit as the models are all identical) and 4th edition (which even had a FAQ entry to confirm it worked this way).

The situation is slightly wonky for Swarm units that have mixed saves (think cover + armour/invul) though.

no, because the wound isnt doubled untill its actually suffered, so swarms get wounded twice by s6 template, allocate first wound, apply vunerable to blasts, apply instant death.

[Alsiaie]

all this swarm stuff

Ok so here's a long written interpretation of what klobb is trying to say.

So in 5^th ed, swarms had the vulunerable to blast special rule. Guns like battle cannons would eliminate two bases per wound. This is due to wounds always being allocated to models before armor saves. Vulunerable to blasts doubled wounds before armor saves which caused double the wounds to be allocated to models.

6^th edition works differently. Let’s look at the basic rules in question. They have changed. Swarms USR now has the blast rule built in. It multiplies UNSAVED wounds to two UNSAVED wounds. That means, doubling cannot happen until a swarm receives an unsaved wound. Instant death is the same deal. It is now triggered when a model receives an UNSAVED wound. (Page 16). So let’s look at proper allocation in 6^th ed with same saves. A battle cannon causes 5 wounds on 10 swarm bases. The player must first roll saves before allocating wounds. The 5 wounds are placed in a pool. Cover and AP aside, let’s assume the player fails all 5 saves. You now have a pool of 5 unsaved wounds that much be allocated. But hold on… Swarms and ID USR do not apply yet. Both state that they are triggered when a swarm/model receives an unsaved wound. One unsaved wound from the pool gets allocated to a swarm. Swarm’s blast USR and ID USR are then applied simultaneously as it now received an unsaved wound. The swarm dies from ID but the wound that has been doubled has already been allocated to a swarm.Essentially an allocated unsaved wound becomes multiplied as is. Two allocated unsaved wounds. You cannot re-allocate a wound that has already been allocated without Look Out Sir!. The doubled wound remains allocated to the original model and is then void since both cause ID. A single base is removed. There are 4 unsaved wounds remaining to be allocated. Rinse and repeat. 5 swarm bases should die, not 10.

The same applies with reverse allocation when you’re looking at mixed armor saves. Swarm’s blast USR and ID are never applied until after the swarm receives an unsaved wound. Seems dumb? Think about this. Hypothetically let’s say wounds were doubled before ID was applied and were put back in the unsaved wound pool. Add a character to the unit with a different save and that all swarms are the closest model. Let’s say all 10 bases died to blast causing ID. (10 original wounds in the wound pool.)That means that 10 additional unsaved wounds would re-enter the pool. The 10 original killed the 10 swarms. The wounds were then duplicated back into the pool. All that’s left is the character. The character would be given the 10 unsaved from the doubling of the Swarms special rule and die. This would be idiotic. But thankfully that's not how it works. It breaks the mixed armor allocation rules in that the character is receiving unsaved wounds without letting him make his own save. In reality and by RAW, 10 swarms die and there are no additional wounds left in the pool. The character (as the furthest model in this hypothetical example) is safe.

In conclusion, Swarm’s blast USR and ID are a conflict. Doubling of wounds is voided due to the allocation rules in 6^th ed and the intervention of Instant Death. The hypothetical opposite causes even larger problems than the actual change from 5^th’s allocation rules. So blasts and templates that cause ID on a swarm should not kill double bases.

[Bubble Ghost]

You only have to worry about the effects of a wound once you know what model the wound has been allocated to. And wounds are only ever allocated one at a time, one after the other. You completely resolve one wound before allocating the next. Keep that in mind, and this gets a lot clearer.

So, say you have a pool of Strength 8 wounds inflicted by a template. You allocate one of them to the nearest swarm base. It immediately suffers both an extra wound and Instant Death (so in other words, the extra wound effect does absolutely nothing in this case, Instant Death makes it irrelevant). Then you allocate the next wound to whichever the new nearest model is. And so on.

[DoctorTom]

You only have to worry about the effects of a wound once you know what model the wound has been allocated to. And wounds are only ever allocated one at a time, one after the other. You completely resolve one wound before allocating the next. Keep that in mind, and this gets a lot clearer.

So, say you have a pool of Strength 8 wounds inflicted by a template. You allocate one of them to the nearest swarm base. It immediately suffers both an extra wound and Instant Death (so in other words, the extra wound effect does absolutely nothing in this case, Instant Death makes it irrelevant). Then you allocate the next wound to whichever the new nearest model is. And so on.

To play devil's advocate, though, the swarm rule states "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast or Teplate weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds" Note that it states Swarm, not model with the Swarm rule. It suggests that it's treating swarms as a unit.

Also, following your example, one unsaved wound becomes 2, but you resolve the wounds one at a time. The first unsaved wound becomes 2 unsaved wounds, but you still only allocate wounds one at a time. You'd resolve the first wound before considering the second.

To be honest, I suspect that they weren't thinking of the ID rules when they wrote this, and they'll need to FAQ it. No surprise there, as this won't be the first time they've had to FAQ the interaction of ID and Swarm (in spirit, it was called Vulnerable to Blasts in the earlier editions - they just combined the benefit and the negative of swarm and put them together).

[CrownAxe]

It says the wound is doubled, but the initial wound was already allocated to a swarm. in order for the extra wound to be allocated to a different base, it would have to be added to the wound pool which the rule doesn't say it does.

[Bubble Ghost]

To play devil's advocate, though, the swarm rule states "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast or Teplate weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds" Note that it states Swarm, not model with the Swarm rule. It suggests that it's treating swarms as a unit.

Makes no difference what it treats the word Swarm as, because units don't ever suffer wounds, only models do. A wound has not been "suffered" until it has been allocated to someone to suffer it, i.e have their wounds stat reduced. It doesn't matter whether you generate your wound pool, take all the saves, then allocate the unsaved wounds; or generate your wound pool, allocate each one and save against it afterwards. The end result is the same, the wound must have been allocated to a model to have been "suffered."

And the Swarm rule references the wound doubling once it has been suffered. So you allocate the wound to a swarm base, the model suffers it, and so in fact suffers two instead. Then you allocate the next wound.

If the wound inflicts Instant Death, the wound doubling is irrelevant because the base is destroyed instantly anyway. The second wound it suffers doesn't carry over to another model. Why would it? This isn't a conflict or a problem, it's just a case of one rule having an effect so strong that another is irrelevant.

Also, following your example, one unsaved wound becomes 2, but you resolve the wounds one at a time. The first unsaved wound becomes 2 unsaved wounds, but you still only allocate wounds one at a time. You'd resolve the first wound before considering the second.

You ALLOCATE wounds one at a time. There's no reason a wound that is suffered cannot double up as part of the process of resolving it before you then allocate the next one - you don't "allocate" the doubled wound independently. See above.

No FAQ needed.

[Cheeslord]

To play devil's advocate, though, the swarm rule states "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast or Teplate weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds" Note that it states Swarm, not model with the Swarm rule. It suggests that it's treating swarms as a unit.

Is it not more reasonable to interpret "Swarm" as "model with the swarm special rule" rather than "unit"? If it was any other descriptor, such as "jetbike", you would certainly apply that interpretation.

Amusingly, we are in all likelihood analysing this in far more depth than the rules designers did or will do in future. May be FAQ'd either way or ignored...

Mark.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

May be FAQ'd either way or ignored...

My guess would be that it will be FAQ'd to spread out instead of being lost, just like it was twice before. I mean, look at Bubble Ghost's argument. None of it would be different in 5th edition, or 4th for that matter. I know because I made the exact same argument when "vulnerable to blasts" was first introduced ~8 years ago. The same argument gets made for three editions in a row, and GW eventually gets around to slapping it down each time. You'd think they'd learn to re-word it.

[Dwane Diblie]

There is a big diference between when a wound is allocated and when a wound is suffered. There are rules that trigger off of both points. It is as follows:

Your Unit is Hit.
Your Unit is Wounded.
Your Unit takes Saves if it has all the same save.
You Allocate a Wound to a Model in the Unit. <--- Look Out Sir is trigered here.
Your Model takes its save if the Unit has mixed saves.
Your Model Sufferes the Wound. <--- Instant Death, Vulnerable to Blast, and Feel No Pain are trigered here.

I hope you can see the diference there.

Now as to if that was what was intended and what we will get when the FAQ hit, I have no idea. Wait and see. (It's taking too long already)

[Bubble Ghost]

I mean, look at Bubble Ghost's argument

It wasn't an "argument" - an argument would mean there was ambiguity! What I said there was just the rules. It is the only possible way that the wound allocation rules permit this to be resolved.

5th ed was different, because back then, wounds could be inflicted on groups of models - now, they can only be inflicted on single models. There is literally no way for that doubled wound to carry over onto a different model. As things stand, it's completely clear, and it does not require an FAQ unless they want to actually change how it works.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

It wasn't an "argument" - an argument would mean there was ambiguity! What I said there was just the rules. It is the only possible way that the wound allocation rules permit this to be resolved.

Dude, just because you're right doesn't mean you're not making an argument.

5th ed was different, because back then, wounds could be inflicted on groups of models - now, they can only be inflicted on single models.

I'm amused that you'd make such a distinction, since it occurs entirely before the "wound is suffered" stage your previous argument absolutely relies upon. A typical swarm consists entirely of identical models, whereupon the difference between 5th and 6th is whether you start applying unsaved wounds to the model of your choice or to the closest model. Are you now saying that for swarms to benefit from overkill-protection, it has to be a mixed save unit?

[Bubble Ghost]

Dude, just because you're right doesn't mean you're not making an argument.

I get that, I just was responding to the way you phrased it, which seemed to me to imply that there was debate to be had on the topic, i.e. that the solution isn't certain. And it is. That's what I meant there. I just got the wrong end of the stick I guess.

re. 5th, it's entirely possible I'm misremembering it, but let me see if I've got this: in 5th, you allocated the wounds to individual models, then took saves for groups of identical models - and once you failed saves for a group, those unsaved wounds were "suffered" by the whole group. You then distributed the wounds to models only after it had been established how many unsaved wounds the group as a whole had suffered. So for template vs. swarm, which crucially doubled the number of wounds "suffered", you would double the wounds suffered by the group before you started distributing them to models and removing casualties - making it clear that the doubled wounds effectively carried over between models (although not particularly clear how that affects instant death).

But in 6th, there's no such thing as a group of models - only individual models can suffer wounds. So it's impossible for the doubled wound to carry over. And that makes it completely clear that the instant death effect is also confined to the same model.

That was my thinking when I made the comparison, anyway. I could be completely wrong because I never once encountered a swarm in a game of 5th, and I'm not familiar with how the Vulnerable to Blasts debate went down at the time, or what the difficulty with it was thought to be. But that doesn't really affect how this is worked out in 6th - that was just a bit of a tangent based on your remark that it's been the same in every edition. Maybe you were right and I'm just a big dunce on that one, in which case fair enough. But even if so, that doesn't alter the fact that there is a completely unambiguous solution in 6th ed.