on page 26 of the 5th edition rulebook (not mini) 2nd column 2nd paragraph from bottom "if amongst the unsaved wounds there are some that inflict instant death, the player must first, if possible remove one unwounded model for each unsaved wound that causes instant death, and then proceed as normal (this is done for each group of identical multiple-wound models). this rule is designed to stop players avoiding single wounds by putting them on a model that has suffered instant death anyway."
str 6 blast hits 4 scarab. 3 unsaved wounds. 6 models are removed as there are 6 str 6 wounds.
to those that may argue that the extra wounds have no str i refer to the vul to blasts rule itself
"if the unit is a vehicle then each hit counts as two hits" a second hit at -str even with rend cannot glance any vehicle. a second hit at - str is meaningless and would exclude vehicles.
(note: im basing this off the vehicle characteristics i have in the 40k rulebook and assuming that the wave serpent front armor is not really 2, but 12 like its sides. if there is a vehicle with any armor of 9 or less feel free to share and i will laugh at your codex.)
"if it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds." doubling the wounds implies it shares the same stats.
if they just wanted extra wounds it would read as this "unit suffers a number of wounds equal to the number of unsaved wounds" this is a quote (modified) from the no retreat! for extra wounds due to fearless (which are strength-less)
I dont believe there are any loopholes left but feel free to try and punch holes in my logic and the rules ive posted.
ok, so i found a post by favoredctan where he starts out with the same rules as i did but stubbles near the end and confuses himself. he start allocating wound to an identical unit.
here's the way it works:
template/blast hits X number of scarabs. X number of dice are rolled for wounding, Y number are successful wounds. scarab unit receives Y wounds; and, if applicable, attempts Y number of saves. If template/blast is S6+, its an Instant Death Wound. You are still allocating Y number of wounds, but because they're instant death, you have to stick them on Y number of Scarab bases. now here is one point of contention; whether the extra wounds are added before or after the models are removed as casualties. It looks pretty clear that the wounds are piled on before models are removed. Now since you've technically allocated only a single wound to each model (albeit instant death wounds). As it is stated that you double all wounds received, each model that received one wound now receives two (important: this is because the model has more than one wound).
When dealing with non-instant death wounds, it goes how you'd think. you take 5 wounds, you've put 3 on one base, 2 on another; then double it. So the second guy takes his last wound, another base takes 3, and the last one takes 1.
Now if the Vulnerable entry simply stated that it doubled wounds caused, it'd be pretty clear that you'd double how many models were killed by instant death, but I think the language as such allows it to circumvent the part at the bottom of the Instant Death on Multi-wound models about "this rule is designed...", as it appears to take place AFTER wound allocation but BEFORE removing casualties.
Wow, you're right, its not as clear as crystal, now that I've effectively overthought it and second-guessed.
not his entire post but close enough. however it pg 26 2nd column
units of multiple-wound models " 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." NO ALLOCATION.
hence you are not doubling wounds on a specific model but on the unit itself.
now hold up sweetcheeks. All of us have read that. the problem is that you DONT DOUBLE WOUNDS BEFORE ALLOCATION. you said yourself with the quote that you must allocate a single ID wound to each multiple-wound model.
there is no wound allocation in a unit of identical models. you only allocate wounds to take saving throws when a unit has different stat lines/war gear/ etc., but not including multiple wound models. with no wound allocation there is no such thing as doubling the wounds on a model, because it isnt allocated.
the allocation of wounds is to force a player to take some saves on special models like the heavy weapons of a dev squad or an ic and ONLY occurs it it is a complex unit as defined on pg 25.
on pg 26 units of multiple-wound models once more
"if a unit consists entirely of models taht are identical in gaming terms and have multiple wounds then take all the saves for the unit in one go. if a unit includes different models, first ALLOCATE the wounds suffered. then take saves for identical models at the same time as normal."
no allocation, therefore no issues with doubling wounds on a model.
You are not doubling instant death wounds, you are doubling wounds after instant death has been applied, therefore you are doubling nine wounds to eighteen wounds. What happens when you take eighteen unsaved wounds on a unit of identical models? You deduct eighteen wounds from the model, and remove models equal to the number of wounds divided by the number of wounds per base or in this case six bases.
There's no mystery about it, C'tan has just been doing his best to extort every last little bit out of the new codex, and so has been throwing up meaningless rants to try and confuse people.
how do you figure that your not doubling instant death wounds? you are doubling the template/blast wounds, which are str6+, you dont remove models until the remove casualty step, which is after the determine wounds step, when they are doubled....
once again, you must remove whole, unwounded models for each instant death wound. no stacking instant death wounds on one model in an identical unit.
im confused cheif, in previous posts you too point out that there is no wound allocation in non-complex units (identical units). if you wait to double the wounds until after models have been removed (not the lack of word allocation? it is misused to refer to stacking wounds on models in this unit), then there would be no wounds left to double.
or are you suggesting that the wounds are not str 6 but strength-less? what rule do you base that on? ive already posted why i would be the same strength based on their wording and the wording for wounds with no strength.
i would also like to point out that templates are more effective against swarms. it is the weapon causing the extra wounds.
which is totally different than no retreat! which are for the unit being too dumb to fall back and suffering strategically for not falling back when losing AFTER even remove casualties. unsaved wounds to a unit from a specific weapon doubling before remove casualties have the weapons stats, because it is the weapon causing them, not a game mechanic.
Damn, I've been being stupid. As the doubling comes before the instant death - I guess I must have gotten myself a bit confused there. Anyways, beyond that slight change in order (dealing 9 wounds as opposed to 3 instant death wounds), we have basically been saying the same thing.
For the doubling of wounds, let us do a very simple problem:
I will ask you to double of each letter:
A A A B B B B B
Odds are, you will come up with this:
A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B
Now, let us substitute "wounds" for "A", and "instant death wounds" for "B". By doubling 3 wounds, we now have taken 6 wounds, and by doubling 5 instant death wounds, we now have 10 instant death wounds.
does the mwg staff ever reply to the forums? Id like to see matt post here, because i started this post because he seemed really wishy washy on whether or not there were rules on it.
i understand that it is somewhat confusing because people have been misusing allocate, and you have to look at 3 different sections of rules, but there are rules clearly written about this with little to no inference needed.
i have yet to see an actual rule or page or wording that could murk this up. please share people. i would really like to try and reach a consensus or at least see the other sides arguments.
anyways once again, i would like to see what the staff think about swarms, in particular matt because it is not clear from his video which side he is on despite the title of the recast "i might have to change my mind" (paraphrased).