Cycle of the Storm is incredibly strong because of 14.2

[Liquidsteel]

25 minutes ago, PJetski said:

No, I don't think that's correct.

The FAQ specifies a situation where you are removing models that are wounded but not slain. Cycle of the Storm does not fall under this situation, since it activates when you are removing slain models.

Sure, as I said it's addressing a different but similar scenario, where the game cannot proceed due to a breakdown of the rules.

Ultimately, in this case the rules also get stuck and you can't proceed with the game if you try to follow them literally as you are suggesting.

 

 

[yukishiro1]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

Having two wounded models doesn't cause any sort of contradiction with the rules. You can't get to that state in a normal attack sequence, but special rules mess with standard core rules all the time.

Yes it does. 14.1 says once a wound is allocated to a model, you cannot allocate wounds to any other model in that unit until that model is slain. If you have two wounded models, you cannot allocate wounds to model 1 because wounds must be allocated to model 2 until it is slain, but you cannot allocate wounds to model 2 until model 1 is slain. Hence you cannot allocate wounds to either model. A unit with two wounded models therefore accumulates wounds that are never allocated, making it immune to damage and causing a breakdown in the rules. This is obviously a contradiction in that it leads to an unresolvable game state because the game's rules cannot handle two models in a unit being wounded. The rules literally don't function when this happens.

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[PJetski]

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yes it does. 14.1 says once a wound is allocated to a model, you cannot allocate wounds to any other model in that unit until that model is slain. If you have two wounded models, you cannot allocate wounds to model 1 because wounds must be allocated to model 2 until it is slain, but you cannot allocate wounds to model 2 until model 1 is slain. Hence you cannot allocate wounds to either model. A unit with two wounded models therefore accumulates wounds that are never allocated, making it immune to damage and causing a breakdown in the rules. This is obviously game-breaking. 

The rules do not explicitly state that a unit can only have one wounded model at a time.

The rules create a sequence of actions that must be followed which usually results in a situation that only one model can be wounded at a time, but they still don't explicitly forbid that state. You are inferring that state to be a rule because of the sequence of actions outlined in 14.1, but inference is not the same thing as a rule. 

Similarly, the rules do not forbid units being out of cohesion. You can't set up a unit out of cohesion, or move a unit in such a way that it does not end in cohesion, and if you are out of cohesion at the end of a turn you must remove models until the unit is back in cohesion, but you can remove models from a unit and break cohesion. The game doesn't stop when you remove slain models and result in a unit out of cohesion because the game does not require all units to be in cohesion at all times. In the same vein, the game does not require maximum one wounded model per unit at all times. 

Once a model is slain you cannot allocate wounds to it any more. However, Cycle of the Storm says the model is "not counted as slain" and therefore you can allocate wounds to it again later in the game. Since Cycle happens when you remove models, which is after all wounds are allocated (as per 14.2) there is no violation of section 14.1

The paradox built into the 3rd edition core rules that I outlined earlier in this thread breaks the game (and it should be fixed) but it is not related to Cycle of the Storm reviving models. Cycle of the Storm does not break the game and is perfectly consistent with the rules as written.

[yukishiro1]

44 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Once a model is slain you cannot allocate wounds to it any more. However, Cycle of the Storm says the model is "not counted as slain" and therefore you can allocate wounds to it again later in the game. Since Cycle happens when you remove models, which is after all wounds are allocated (as per 14.2) there is no violation of section 14.1.

I feel like you're not reading what I'm writing. The problem is what comes next. If you end up with a unit with two wounded models, per the game rules, that unit can no longer be allocated wounds in the future, ever, as long as both wounded models continue to exist. It becomes invulnerable unless you can out-right slay one of the wounded models using something like hand of dust or a gargant bag. 

Your argument for CotS leads to this result: the creation of units that can no longer be allocated wounds. This cannot possibly be intended. To say it's not CotS that leads this but the interaction of CotS with the core rues is the whole point - your argument for what CotS does does not work with the core rules. It leads to invulnerable units because the core rules cannot accommodate a unit with more than one wounded model. There's no safety valve like there is for coherency. Once you have a unit with two wounded models, the damage sequence breaks. To say it isn't explicitly prohibited is to miss the point that if it ever happens, the game doesn't work any more. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

I feel like you're not reading what I'm writing. The problem is what comes next. If you end up with a unit with two wounded models, per the game rules, that unit can no longer be allocated wounds in the future, ever, as long as both wounded models continue to exist. It becomes invulnerable unless you can out-right slay one of the wounded models using something like hand of dust or a gargant bag. 

Your argument for CotS leads to this result: the creation of units that can no longer be allocated wounds. This cannot possibly be intended. To say it's not CotS that leads this but the interaction of CotS with the core rues is the whole point - your argument for what CotS does does not work with the core rules. It leads to invulnerable units because the core rules cannot accommodate a unit with more than one wounded model. There's no safety valve like there is for coherency. Once you have a unit with two wounded models, the damage sequence breaks. To say it isn't explicitly prohibited is to miss the point that if it ever happens, the game doesn't work. 

 

A state where

a. more than one model in a unit has a wound; and

b. the wounded models are not slain; and

c. there are more wounds to be allocated

would break the game. However, that situation does not exist, and no combination of abilities can currently create that situation.

Cycle of the Storm can create a state with two wounded models, but as I already proved this does not break the rules because the rules do not require all units to only have a maximum of one wounded model at a time.

Cycle does not create a situation where you cannot allocate wounds. The model revived by Cycle is "counted as not slain" and therefore you can allocate wounds to it.

Where is the problem?

[The Red King]

You seem pretty convinced about your correctness so what is the point of this thread? Hope that enough people would agree with you so you could browbeat some poor newbie into accepting your obviously unintended end goal? 

 

You're arguing a theoretical because absolutely nobody is going to play this the way you want them to so what's the goal here? If you want to be told "you are right you found a contradiction in the rules" then Congratulations, you are right you found a contradiction in the rules.

 

Anything beyond that is a moot point because games are played in the real world and no tournament or game with anyone that refuses to be browbeaten is going to use your interpretation of the rule so what are you actually hoping to achieve?

Edited September 29, 2021 by The Red King

[yukishiro1]

13 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Cycle of the Storm can create a state with two wounded models, but as I already proved this does not break the rules because the rules do not require all units to only have a maximum of one wounded model at a time.

I guess I don't understand what your point is here because you haven't been clear on what you think the consequences of this are. Maybe we can deal with it this way:

1. Suppose CotS creates a unit with two wounded models using your approach. The unit then takes another point of damage, in a later phase (or from a different unit in the same phase). How can this wound be allocated consistent with 14.1? Which model takes the wound, and how do they do so consistent with 14.1? Or do you agree with me that neither model can, and so the wounds cannot be allocated? 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[PJetski]

15 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I guess I don't understand what your point is here because you haven't been clear on what you think the consequences of this are. Maybe we can deal with it this way:

1. Suppose CotS creates a unit with two wounded models using your approach. The unit then takes another point of damage, in a later phase (or from a different unit in the same phase). How can this wound be allocated consistent with 14.1? Which model takes the wound, and how do they do so consistent with 14.1? Or do you agree with me that neither model can, and so the wounds cannot be allocated? 

Cycle is basically a revival mechanic but the model comes back with 1 wound remaining instead of full wounds. 

Lets say you have 2 models in a unit. Model #1 suffers enough wounds to be slain, and enough wounds are left to be allocated that model #2 suffers a wound but is not slain. This satisfies the condition of 14.1 since wounds were allocated.

As per 14.2 you remove the slain model after allocating wounds, not immediately when the unit is slain. At this point Cycle of the Storm activates, healing #1 for 1 wound and removes the slain status from the model. Now you have #1 and #2 both wounded. Nothing in the rules prevents this state.

The next time this unit is allocated wounds model #2 must be allocated the wounds until it is slain, as per 14.1.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest you must allocate wounds to revived models first, so after #2 is slain you can allocate wounds to #1 as normal (or any other model in the unit, presumably)

It's not the typical state but it's also not inconsistent with the rules. GW writes rules that break the norm all the time (eg. Aetherwings "blocking charges" in 2nd edition).

Edited September 29, 2021 by PJetski

[yukishiro1]

5 minutes ago, PJetski said:

The next time this unit is allocated wounds model #2 must be allocated the wounds until it is slain, as per 14.1.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest you must allocate wounds to revived models first, so after #2 is slain you can allocate wounds to #1 as normal (or any other model in the unit, presumably)

No, that's the bit where you're wrong. I explained this in detail before and you glossed over it and didn't read it so please read carefully what 14.1 says this time:

Quote

14.1 ALLOCATING WOUNDS
Wounds are allocated to the models in a unit 1 wound
at a time. You can allocate the wounds caused to your
units as you see fit. However, once you have allocated
a wound to a model, you cannot allocate wounds to
other models in the unit until that model is slain (see
14.2).

If two models in a unit are both allocated wounds, you cannot allocate further wounds to model 1, because there is another model in the unit that has been allocated wounds - model 2. But you cannot allocate to model 2, because there is another model in the unit that has been allocated a wound - model 1. Therefore, the wound cannot be allocated, but there's no safety valve, so they just keep piling up. The game breaks. 

You seem to be reading 14.1 as you cannot allocate to unwounded models if there's a wounded model. But that's not what 14.1 says. 14.1 says you cannot allocate to any other models in the unit if a model is wounded. If two models are wounded, this means you cannot allocate to either of them. 

 

 

[PJetski]

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

No, that's the bit where you're wrong. I explained this in detail before and you glossed over it and didn't read it so please read carefully what 14.1 says this time:

If two models in a unit are both allocated wounds, you cannot allocate further wounds to model 1, because there is another model in the unit that has been allocated wounds - model 2. But you cannot allocate to model 2, because there is another model in the unit that has been allocated a wound - model 1. Therefore, the wound cannot be allocated, but there's no safety valve, so they just keep piling up. The game breaks. 

You seem to be reading 14.1 as you cannot allocate to unwounded models if there's a wounded model. But that's not what 14.1 says. 14.1 says you cannot allocate to any other models in the unit if a model is wounded. If two models are wounded, this means you cannot allocate to either of them. 

 

 

"Until that model is slain"

The model was slain, fulfilling that condition

Then cycle activates and says its not slain any more, so you can allocate wounds to it again later

No problems here, it works exactly like returning a slain model to a unit

Im repeating myself at this point so Im gonna stop replying

Edited September 29, 2021 by PJetski

[yukishiro1]

You're repeating yourself because you're not reading what I'm writing. You keep talking about CotS unslaying someone. That's not the issue. The issue is what happens after that when you end up with a unit with two wounded models, and then that unit is dealt new damage from a new source that isn't part of the same attack sequence. CotS is the only thing in the game that can cause that situation, but if any other effect led to two models in the same unit being wounded, the result would be the same. 

Please just read what I'm saying, I don't think it's too much to ask. This isn't a problem with me expressing myself, it's a problem with you continuing to misread what I've written because you assume I'm saying something that I'm not.

Take CotS out of it completely. Just consider a unit that somehow has two wounded models - we don't care how it got to that state. You can't allocate wounds to it per 14.1. The wound allocation rules don't work when two models in the same unit are wounded. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[NinthMusketeer]

16 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Well, actually, we all know how it's supposed to work, but the core rules don't allow that any more. It's broken no matter how you look at it, there's no way to actually make it work within 3.0 rules except the way that's been posited in this thread. Which does feel unintended. It's just a mess all around. 

Yup, the RAW is broken. Not the first time, won't be the last. There are plenty of points in AoS' history where the RAW has been overlooked because there was no doubt as to how something was supposed to work. Many of those times people often didn't realize there was a conflict because only a detailed inspection of RAW would reveal the issue.

And that's what this is. Send a message to GW so we can get it FAQ'd, in the meantime we all know how it should be played. This is something that happens from time to time, the best thing is to chuckle and play on! There's no need to put this amount of effort into a debate for something we all agree needs an eratta, and all agree on how it is supposed to work.

[NinthMusketeer]

16 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Well, actually, we all know how it's supposed to work, but the core rules don't allow that any more. It's broken no matter how you look at it, there's no way to actually make it work within 3.0 rules except the way that's been posited in this thread. Which does feel unintended. It's just a mess all around. 

Yup, the RAW is broken. Not the first time, won't be the last. There are plenty of points in AoS' history where the RAW has been overlooked because there was no doubt as to how something was supposed to work. Many of those times people often didn't realize there was a conflict because only a detailed inspection of RAW would reveal the issue.

And that's what this is. Send a message to GW so we can get it FAQ'd, in the meantime we all know how it should be played. This is something that happens from time to time, the best thing is to chuckle and play on! There's no need to put this amount of effort into a debate for something we all agree needs an eratta, and all agree on how it is supposed to work.

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

You're repeating yourself because you're not reading what I'm writing. You keep talking about CotS unslaying someone. That's not the issue. The issue is what happens after that when you end up with a unit with two wounded models, and then that unit is dealt new damage. CotS is the only thing in the game that can cause that situation, but if any other effect led to two models in the same unit being wounded, the result would be the same. 

Please just read what I'm saying, I don't think it's too much to ask. This isn't a problem with me expressing myself, it's a problem with you continuing to misread what I've written. Take CotS out of it completely. Just consider a unit that has two wounded models - we don't care how it got to that state. You can't allocate wounds to it per 14.1. 

 

Having two wounded models is not inherently game-breaking because the rules don't forbid that state. Since you can't get to that point through normal process of allocating wounds, what matters is how you would get to the point of having two wounded models.

14.1 does not say "you must allocate wounds to a wounded model", it says: "You can allocate the wounds caused to your unit as you see fit. However, once you have allocated a wound to a model, you cannot allocate wounds to other models in the unit until that model is slain". 

At no point does 14.1 reference the number of wounds suffered on a model, just that you must allocate to the same model until that model is slain. If you somehow just conjured two models in a single unit both with wounds suffered, you could allocate a wound to either one. 

Cycle reviving the model is what this entire discussion hinges on because 14.1 is fulfilled when the model is slain - once the model is slain it no longer requires the next wound to be allocated to it. If that model is revived later, then nothing in the rules says you must allocate wounds to it first.

When Cycle changes the model from "slain" to "not slain" it acts like normal again but with 1 wound remaining. 

42 minutes ago, The Red King said:

You seem pretty convinced about your correctness so what is the point of this thread? Hope that enough people would agree with you so you could browbeat some poor newbie into accepting your obviously unintended end goal? 

 

You're arguing a theoretical because absolutely nobody is going to play this the way you want them to so what's the goal here? If you want to be told "you are right you found a contradiction in the rules" then Congratulations, you are right you found a contradiction in the rules.

 

Anything beyond that is a moot point because games are played in the real world and no tournament or game with anyone that refuses to be browbeaten is going to use your interpretation of the rule so what are you actually hoping to achieve?

The purpose of this thread is to discuss a rules interaction that is complex, not intuitive, requires a thorough understanding of the rules as written by the games designers, is contrary to how the game used to work only a few months ago, and has huge implications on how units interact and the value judgements players make when crafting lists.

If all you can add to the conversation is petty insults and appeals to authority, then perhaps we would all be better served if you chose not contribute anything at all.

[yukishiro1]

11 minutes ago, PJetski said:

If you somehow just conjured two models in a single unit both with wounds suffered, you could allocate a wound to either one. 

Nope, this is what is wrong. You can't allocate to model 1 because model 2 has wounds allocated to it and therefore you must allocate to model 2. But you can't allocate to model 2 because model 1 has wounds allocated and therefore you must allocate to model 1. You don't get to choose, you can't do either. Read 14.1 carefully - if a model has a wound allocated you cannot allocate to any other models in that unit. Not any other unwounded models in the unit, any other models in that unit. Model 1 is another model in the unit aside from model 2; model 2 is another model in the unit aside from model 1. 

The rules don't work with multiple wounded models in a unit. You can't allocate to either wounded model if there is another wounded model. 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[PJetski]

6 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Read 14.1 carefully - if a model has a wound allocated you cannot allocate to any other models in that unit. Not any other unwounded models in the unit, any other models in that unit. 

The rules don't work with multiple wounded models in a unit. You can't allocate to either wounded model if there is another wounded model. 

 

 

No, you are wrong.

Here is 14.1 straight from the rules pdf

You are misquoting the rule and ignoring the very important context.

The devil is in the details.

Edited September 29, 2021 by PJetski

[yukishiro1]

I quoted the exact words of the rule multiple times in the thread. It's right there in what you quoted:

Quote

However, once you have allocated a wound to a model, you cannot allocate wounds to other models in the unit until that model is slain (see 14.2.).

It doesn't say "you cannot allocate wounds to other unwounded models in the unit," it says you cannot allocate to other models in the unit, period. This works fine as long as there can only ever be one model allocated wounds at a time; it doesn't work if there are two models allocated wounds. You can't allocate to model 1 because model 2 has a wound allocated and therefore model 1 is one of the "other models in the unit" that you cannot allocate to, and you can't allocate to model 2 because model 1 has a wound allocated and is therefore model 2 is one of the "other models in the unit" that you cannot allocate to. 

You said in that case you an allocate to either wounded model. But that's not what 14.1 says. You just quoted it, and it disproves your claim. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[The Red King]

Tell you what. Show me a tournament that will let you play by your technically correct Interpretation and I'll concede this isn't a massive waste of time. If not then what's the point of arguing theoreticals?

 

This reads like D&D threads where people argue they should be able to conjure water inside someone's lungs. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong if it has no application to the game.

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

I quoted the exact words of the rule multiple times in the thread. It's right there in what you quoted:

It doesn't say "you cannot allocate wounds to other unwounded models in the unit," it says you cannot allocate to other models in the unit, period. This works fine as long as there can only ever be one model allocated wounds at a time; it doesn't work if there are two models allocated wounds. You can't allocate to model 1 because model 2 has a wound allocated and therefore model 1 is one of the "other models in the unit" that you cannot allocate to, and you can't allocate to model 2 because model 1 has a wound allocated and is therefore model 2 is one of the "other models in the unit" that you cannot allocate to. 

You said in that case you an allocate to either wounded model. But that's not what 14.1 says. You just quoted it, and it disproves your claim. 

 

It says once you allocate to a model you can't allocate to other models.

14.1 does not care how many wounds are currently allocated to a model, it just tells you that when you allocate a wound you must keep allocating to the same one. If a model is revived with 1 wound you have not allocated and wounds to it yet.

In this hypothetical scenario where two models are conjured with wounds suffered, you have not allocated wounds to either of them yet so they are both valid targets as per 14.1.

[yukishiro1]

8 minutes ago, PJetski said:

14.1 does not care how many wounds are currently allocated to a model, it just tells you that when you allocate a wound you must keep allocating to the same one. If a model is revived with 1 wound you have not allocated and wounds to it yet.

In this hypothetical scenario where two models are conjured with wounds suffered, you have not allocated wounds to either of them yet so they are both valid targets as per 14.1.

Yeah, see, all these statements are just flat-out wrong. If a model is revived with one wound, that means it has a number of wounds allocated to it equal to its wounds characteristic minus 1. That's what being revived with one wound means. Look at the language of CotS - it doesn't say the model is "revived with 1 wound," it says you can heal 1 wound allocated to it. There's no such thing as "having 1 wound" in the game rules.

I see what your problem is now - you just don't understand what an allocated wound is in the first place. Once a model has  wound allocated, that wound stays allocated throughout the rest of the game until it's slain. Having a wound suffered is the same thing as having a wound allocated - in fact, the rules don't use the terms suffer a wound.

You're way more confused than I thought you were. You think that if you have a unit with a wound allocated to one model and other models that don't have wounds allocated, and then that unit takes further damage from a new attack, you can choose to start allocating wounds to the unwounded model, because it's a new application of damage. That's just not how the rules work. Once a model has wounds allocated to it, you have to keep allocating to it until it's slain - not just for this particular allocation of damage, but for every future allocation too. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

Oh, ok, I see what your problem is - you just don't understand what an allocated wound is in the first place. Once a model has  wound allocated, that wound stays allocated throughout the rest of the game until it's slain. Having a wound suffered is the same thing as having a wound allocated - in fact, the rules don't use the terms suffer a wound.

You're way more confused than I thought you were. You think that if you have a unit with a wound allocated to one model and other models that don't have wounds allocated, and then that unit takes further damage from a new attack, you can choose to start allocating wounds to the unwounded model, because it's a new application of damage. That's just not how the rules work. Once a model has wounds allocated to it, you have to keep allocating to it until it's slain - not just for this particular allocation of damage, but for every future allocation too. 

Yes, there is a difference between allocating a wound (a verb) and allocated wound (a noun), sometimes referred to as wounds suffered by the rules (such as in 14.0 and section 22).

14.1 only governs the process of allocating wounds (a verb). It specifies that if you allocate a wound (a verb) to a model, you must continue allocating wounds (a verb) to that same model; at no point does it specify you must allocate them to a model with a wound suffered. I think you are inferring more from 14.1 more than what it actually says.

If you could somehow conjure two models in a unit each with a suffered wound then as per 14.1 you could allocate a wound to either of them because neither has been allocated a wound yet. There is no way to currently have a model exist in this way (Cycle does not do this).

[The Red King]

14 minutes ago, PJetski said:

at no point does it specify you must allocate them to a model with a wound suffered.

 

Saying you cannot allocate wounds [this way] Is the same thing as saying you must allocate wounds [that way].

 

Pardon me if this is too America centric but if I come to a 3 way stop while driving where I can turn left or right and there is a sign that says "one way - no left turn" then by extension I must turn right or else sit there not progressing.

 

If you want to argue that not progressing is a valid option and therefore we cant infer that the inverse or something we're not allowed to do is, by extension, something we must do by virtue of it being the only option to progress the game then I would genuinely like to hear what you think should happen to the unit in question when you go to allocate the wound.

[PJetski]

12 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

Saying you cannot allocate wounds [this way] Is the same thing as saying you must allocate wounds [that way].

[the rest of this post is irrelevant]

You missed the very important context of the first part of that statement which says "once you have allocated a wound to that model". You are inferring that you must allocate to a wounded model, but that is not what the rule says. All it says is that once you allocate to a model you must keep allocating to that model until it is slain.

Interestingly, the 2nd edition rules had a clause that said you could not have two wounded models:

They specifically removed this in 3rd edition.

[yukishiro1]

43 minutes ago, PJetski said:

14.1 only governs the process of allocating wounds (a verb). It specifies that if you allocate a wound (a verb) to a model, you must continue allocating wounds (a verb) to that same model; at no point does it specify you must allocate them to a model with a wound suffered. I think you are inferring more from 14.1 more than what it actually says.

Yeah, this is just wrong. Once a model has a wound allocated to it, it has a wound allocated to it, and you have to keep allocating any future wounds to it too, no matter when those wounds occur. You're just wrong here. If you have a unit of two models with 2 wounds each, with one model with a wound allocated to it and one without a wound allocated to it at the start of your turn, and then your opponent does a point of damage to it, you have to pull the model with the wound allocated, you can't say "no I'm going to allocate this wound to the unwounded one so neither dies because 14.1 only applies once I start allocating a given set of wounds." The game just doesn't work that way. What 14.1 says in clear English is that if a model has wounds allocated to it, you need to continue allocating to it. Your attempt to say that allocating a wound is different from a model having a wound allocated because one is a verb and one is a noun is, frankly, just silly. It isn't possible for a model to suffer a wound without a wound being allocated to it, and once a wound is allocated to it, you cannot allocate to any other model in the unit. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1

[yukishiro1]

5 minutes ago, PJetski said:

They specifically removed this in 3rd edition.

They removed it because it didn't actually add anything rules-wise. Note the use of the explanatory dash. The bit after the dash here isn't adding any new information, it's just making clear what the prior sentence means.

Why they removed it I don't know, but it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence at all. Just like removing the parenthetical about being able to allocate to models not within range or visible doesn't mean you have to allocate to visible models in range now. 

I mean feel free to try to convince the people you play with that you can pick unwounded models in the unit to allocate wounds to from a given attack sequence, even if there's a model with a wound allocated from a previous sequence, if you want. But you aren't going to have any luck convincing people. A model with a wound allocated to it has been allocated a wound. That's what words mean. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by yukishiro1