Mortal vs Regular Wounds

[Vextol]

So, this concept is still irking me, so I thought I'd just post my understanding on how this works.

Attacks that make it through to the "Save portion" of a model are considered 'successful attacks'.  The unit being attacked then gets a chance to block these successful attacks with their save.  If they fail, these attacks generate 'regular wounds' that are then determined by the damage characteristic.  They are then 'allocated wounds' once they've passed the units save.  Mortal wounds bypass the save portion and just go into an 'allocated mortal wounds' bucket.  Once these have entered said buckets, they can be saved again with special saves that can either pass these along (necromancer) or remove them (plague bearer) from their said bucket. 

Once you don't have any more ability to shift these buckets around or empty them, you then do the final wound allocation where you give the models these wounds.  Once they are given a wound for real, you have one more chance to remove them in some special situations (Lord Arcannum, incandescent retrices) before you officially 'suffer' them.  Once suffered, they are final and official until healed or the unit is dead (except for the demonic boon endless gift in the nurgle battletome that undoes wounds allocated and not saved in the battleshock phase......which sounds a lot like suffer.) ?

So, if I'm wrong, please let me know. 

If I'm not, does this mean that there IS a distinction between mortal wounds and regular wounds allocated because if there is (and it is very often identified as such) can someone like a necromancer NOT pass mortal wounds because it explicitly states it is just wounds that can be reallocated and not mortal wounds?

My guess is that when a scroll refers to "Wounds" it means all wounds.  My only issue then is why does GW make the distinction in some scrolls, like plague bearers, that they can ignore "Wounds and mortal wounds" and in others like the carmine dragon that can ignore "Mortal wounds" but then still have the term "Wounds" in other places?  Wouldn't the statement "Wounds and Mortal Wounds" be unnecessary if "Wounds" meant the same thing?

[EMMachine]

6 hours ago, Vextol said:

If I'm not, does this mean that there IS a distinction between mortal wounds and regular wounds allocated because if there is (and it is very often identified as such) can someone like a necromancer NOT pass mortal wounds because it explicitly states it is just wounds that can be reallocated and not mortal wounds?

My guess is that when a scroll refers to "Wounds" it means all wounds.  My only issue then is why does GW make the distinction in some scrolls, like plague bearers, that they can ignore "Wounds and mortal wounds" and in others like the carmine dragon that can ignore "Mortal wounds" but then still have the term "Wounds" in other places?  Wouldn't the statement "Wounds and Mortal Wounds" be unnecessary if "Wounds" meant the same thing?

Only if  the rule says "Wounds and mortal wounds" the ignore role works against both. In both other cases it only works agaist the type that is listed in the rule.

For example in the Designer Notes of the Ironjaws, there is a Question about the Shield of the Ardboys with the answer that it only works against normal wounds.

[heywoah_twitch]

EMMachine is right here, but I'd like to add since you mentioned the necromancer that he has been errata'd to say "wound or mortal wound"

[GoosWorkshop]

After they(mortal wound) have been allocated, a mortal wound is treated in the same manner as any other wound for all rules purposes.

 

Core rules, page 7

 

ps: Ardboyz' shield trigger "before" allocate".