|
Post by strutsagget on Aug 21, 2021 16:44:18 GMT
Let’s make it interesting 🧐 What about if the 3rd model is a champion takin 2 wounds, now we have problems.
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Aug 21, 2021 18:37:40 GMT
No, no problems the champ is always the last to be removed. So as Fvon said allocate the wounds accordingly, normal troops first then musician then standard then finally the champion. So with 4 ogres taking 10 wounds total from the mutliple wounds the champ would be left and with 2 wound remaining.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 21, 2021 20:49:26 GMT
Champions are an exception, though, because they can be targeted separately e.g. by templates or in CC. Similarly, a champion who is raised from the dead (e.g. by Regrowth) may not have all wounds restored.
The BRB does not address the issue, but we may have a potential conflict between two rules:
1. "Should such a unit suffer wounds, you must remove as many whole models as possible. You are not allowed to spread the wounds throughout the unit to avoid suffering casualties, tempting though it may be to do so" (BRB p. 45). 2. "In essence, wounds inflicted on the unit can overflow onto the champion, but wounds inflicted on the champion cannot overflow onto the unit" (BRB p. 93).
Let us take the following example: an Ogre unit including a champion with one wound left suffers two additional wounds on normal R&F models. The conflict can easily be resolved by removing the champion, since wounds inflicted on the unit can overflow onto the champion. However, this creates another conflict, with the rule specifying that "he can only be removed as a casualty if there are no other rank-and-file members of his unit left (not even the standard bearer or musician)."
I would argue, therefore, that rule 2 is an advanced and rule 1 a basic rule, and that in cases where the champion has been specifically targeted (to kill or to revive), you need to keep a separate tab for the champion.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Aug 22, 2021 0:39:06 GMT
Which doesn't sound right at all.
2, 2, 6, 5 wounds, in that order, yes?
First hit does two wounds to an 3 wound critter.
Second hit does two more wounds, overkilling. Overkill wound is lost.
Third hit overkills
Fourth hit overkills.
So three dead, no wounds carry over.
Or am I overthinking it?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 22, 2021 7:36:47 GMT
Once again: you "divide the number of [wounds caused] by the Wounds characteristic of the models in the target unit, removing this number of models from the rear-most rank. Any leftover wounds that were not enough to remove a model are carried over and will be added to the wounds inflicted by any subsequent attacks." [N.B. You have to read here divide..by, not caused by.]
"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, noting any spare wounds on the unit."
Remember that you do not actually attack individual models (with the possible exception of the champion), but the unit as a whole. Spare wounds are not on any specific model, but on the unit as a whole. The method for multi-wound models is the same as for single-wound models, except that there is a cap for multi-wounds caused.
|
|