PJetski

Ah, I understand. It's weird that the german version has so many errors. It does not specify melee or shooting, so it gives +1 to save rolls works against all attacks.

Exactly what it says... it adds 1 to save rolls if half the unit (or more) are using Glaives.

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).

Yes Crossbow Judicators effectively have 4 shots each 15x Judicators are our highest damage output shooting unit. Even against 3+ saves they do more than 6 Longstrikes or 15 Bow Judicators (yes that includes the mortal wounds)

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.

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.

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. 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.

"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

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).

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?

It probably should be errata'd to "A damage characteristic other than 1"

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.

At this point I don't think Whitefang was suggesting Fyreslayer vs Idoneth, but rather some kind of Fire vs Water theme for the new Warcry season

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.

Kinda stings that they are bringing Thunderquake back, and it'll probably suck like all the other Core battalions we've seen so far. Its like "hey remember that rule you love? that we took away from you 2 months ago? here's a garbage version of it... if you give us $10"

The practical result of the rules is that you usually don't have two wounded models in a unit, but there is no rule prohibiting that state. 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. The FAQ is not consistent with how the 3rd edition rules work, though. You don't remove slain models instantly. The 2nd edition FAQ is so obviously irrelevant that it's baffling to me that anyone would prop it up as valid authority.

As per 14.1 you must allocate wounds to a model in a unit until it is slain. Though it's not possible for the scenario to exist as a result of a standard attack sequence, I don't see anything that explicitly forbids more than one model being wounded at a time in a unit. I could be wrong... can you reference a section that states it is not possible to have two wounded models?

You guys are conflating "how I think it is supposed to work" with "how it used to work". The rules have changed. If the definition of Destroyed is changed to "all models in a unit are slain" then everything works fine. Not the way you seem to think it works, though.

If you keep comparing the Tauralon to what it used to be then you'll never be able to see it's current value

WarCry 2 in Ulgu featuring lava spiders and zombie pirates?

If you have 6 raptors and Translocation you dont really have to care if you go first or second. If they force you to go first you can take a strong defensive position, score some easy battle tactics, and prepare for a double turn while still sniping down key units with Raptors. If they make you go second you should be able to weather their turn 1 damage and counterattack. If you keep your hammer units (raptors + dracoths/paladins) alive and get a double turn then you will probably win. I would only care about 1 drop deployments if I needed to guarantee going first for some reason, like Translocating 9 Grandhammers/15 Protectors for an alpha strike

It is a contradiction 1. You can't allocate wounds to a slain model 2. Slain models are removed after all wounds are allocated 3. Damage is negated when the unit is destroyed 4. A unit is destroyed when all models are removed All of these statements cannot be true at the same time. In order to remove a model you have to allocate all the wounds first, but you can't finish allocating wounds because you haven't removed all the models. It's a paradox.

Yes, but what happens to "overkill" wounds? Damage done to a destroyed unit is negated (14.1), and a unit is destroyed when the last model is removed from play (1.3). However, models are not removed from play until after all wounds have been allocated (14.2). There seems to be a direct contradiction within the core rules.

Allocating Wounds is part of the attack sequence... section 13.3 and 13.3.1 are clear about this.