Swarm rules and instant death

[MDK]

If a swarm is hit by a weapon that is strong enough to cause instant death are the wounds still doubled? Example: If a heldrake uses balefire on a unit of rippers and wounds 3 would it result in 6 instant death wounds applied to the unit?

[isotope99]

Yes, as far as I can see there is no exemption (except nurglings which are currently eternal warriors). Best way to clear out necron scarabs are S6 blasts/templates.

[Tynskel]

Hmmm... A swarm gets doubled. Hmmmm... Is that referring to the unit or model?

I believe 'a' is singular and hence double wounds applies to singular models. If a swarm is hit by instant death, then it killed regardless of how many wounds, and therefore, double wounds is irrevelant.

Ex.
IC joins swarm unit. The double wounds do not spillover to the IC.
Look out sir- instant death blast. Two models are not removed for one 'look out sir'. There is no spillover.

[Necron2.0]

Except that it is the unit that is a swarm, not the model.

[Tynskel]

not that that matters for this discussion, but you are incorrect. The unit is infantry, beasts, or jump infantry.

Each individual model has the swarm attribute.

[Demonus]

Trynskel is correct. You do not double the amount of models removed, you double the wounds.

A base takes a wound. It is doubled because it is a swarm, hence taking 2 wounds. It is removed due to the strength being double the toughness.

So 3 wounds caused to 10 scarab bases removes 3 bases

[Mystery.Shadow]

Double Toughness Blast/Template (Instant Death) vs Swarms:

The old FAQ said it would be two dead bases. I wonder why it's not in the current rulebook/FAQ

[Tynskel]

probably because it was dumb and didn't make any sense.

[Lord Krungharr]

The correct way to apply this rule is as follows: (for example Heldrake vs Scarabs w 6 bases)
1)Heldrake sprays the template hitting 5 scarab bases (let's say the positioning makes that the max the flame template can hit).
2)Heldrake rolls to wound and inflicts 4 wounds. This gets doubled to 8 wounds on the scarab squad because Swarms are susceptible to blasts/templates.
3)First wound is applied to the closest scarab base. Scarab base is removed due to instant death from the first wound (at AP3 I don't think they get saves from that weapon). Next closest base is removed due to Instant Death, and so on.
4)The entire squad would get erased. Wounds get doubled before saves get applied.

[Nabterayl]

The correct way to apply this rule is as follows: (for example Heldrake vs Scarabs w 6 bases)
1)Heldrake sprays the template hitting 5 scarab bases (let's say the positioning makes that the max the flame template can hit).
2)Heldrake rolls to wound and inflicts 4 wounds. This gets doubled to 8 wounds on the scarab squad because Swarms are susceptible to blasts/templates.
3)First wound is applied to the closest scarab base. Scarab base is removed due to instant death from the first wound (at AP3 I don't think they get saves from that weapon). Next closest base is removed due to Instant Death, and so on.
4)The entire squad would get erased. Wounds get doubled before saves get applied.
That's incorrect. As the Swarm rule says, "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds." You don't double until after saves are taken, and you double not for the wound pool but for the individual swarm that has suffered an unsaved wound. If the Heldrake hits five bases and rolls 4 wounds, the Instant Death wound that each base suffers is doubled, resulting in a total of 4 removed bases.

[dr.insanotron]

The point Tynskel was trying to make was that swarm is a model rule not a unit rule so it would work out as fallows

1)Heldrake sprays the template hitting 4 scarab bases (let's say the positioning makes that the max the flame template can hit.
2)Heldrake rolls to wound and inflicts 4 wounds. You then apply the wound to the first model, that model then takes 2 wound witch cause ID so it is removed. then apply the 2nd and so on until all have bin resolved.

The way you are trying to do it the wounds would carry over to models in the unit that don't have the swarm rule. For example if a Destroyer Lord joined a unit of scarabs like in your example your saying the swarm rule would kill the 6 bases of scarabs and then put 2 wounds on a model that doesn't have the swarm rule

[Lord Krungharr]

I don't have my rulebook with me right now, but I'll check it tomorrow when I play a game. I see your point about the wounds being carried over and causing shenanigans, but it doesn't sit right with how my clubs and attended events have been playing the issue. So the first question we must answer is when are the wounds doubled? Is it before saves are taken?

[Nabterayl]

Is it before saves are taken?
After. See page 43: "If a Swarm suffers an unsaved Wound from a Blast, Large Blast or Template weapon, each unsaved Wound is multiplied to two unsaved Wounds." You can't have an unsaved Wound unless all saves have been taken.

Note that this is the same rule as in 5th edition, but due to differences between the way you removed casualties in 5e vs. 6e, the results are different. That may be why your group has been playing it the way you describe.

EDIT:
To explain that last bit ...

In both editions, each unsaved Wound suffered by a swarm was doubled to two unsaved Wounds. Let's take a unit of 10 scarab bases that suffers 6 S6 AP3 hits, which inflict 5 unsaved S6 wounds. Note the difference the killing procedure makes:

In 5th edition, we divide the unit into buckets of identical models. In this case, there is only one bucket of 10 models. We then assign one wound to each model in the bucket until we are out of wounds. Six bases are each allocated one wound. We then take our saves by bucket, resulting in 5 unsaved wounds. This is now doubled to 10 wounds. We then kill the maximum number of models in each bucket that the nature of the unsaved wounds allow. Since we have 10 S6 (= Instant Death) wounds in our bucket, we kill 10 models.

In 6th edition, we roll to wound, resulting in 5 wounds. We then allocate the first wound to the nearest scarab base, and roll its saves. In this case, it receives no save, so that base suffers an unsaved Wound, which is doubled to two unsaved Wounds. Since each of those wounds inflicts Instant Death, we kill that base twice. Repeat for the next four wounds, resulting in 5 dead models. The critical difference is how we remove models in each edition.

[Lord Krungharr]

Yeah, I got to read that rule last night. I was remembering the Scabiethrax Blade of Decay rule, and thinking it was similar with the Swarms, but it's the opposite. I guess the Bloated One's 777 points gets you some extra perks :)

[Necron2.0]

Whoa, hang on there a moment. Whether or not "Scarab" is a unit or model special rule doesn't really matter here. You need to look at pages 14 and 15 of the rule book, on how wounds are allocated. First, the total number of potential wounds are tallied up (page 14, "The Wound Pool"). Next, the unit (as a whole) saves against the wounds (page 15, "Take Saving Throws"). At this point the wounds are either saved or unsaved, and unsaved wounds are doubled (page 43, "Swarms"). The rule for swarms indicates the wound is doubled at the moment it is unsaved, not at the moment it is allocated. So, in the example bandied about, the wound pool is at 10 instant death wounds prior to wound allocation. It is now that the wounds are allocated (page 15, "Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties").

[Nabterayl]

You know, I so infrequently run into units without characters that I had forgotten that. You're quite right that in a unit with no characters (e.g., a bunch of scarabs) where all the saves are identical (e.g., all the scarabs are out of cover, or all in identical cover), we roll saves and then allocate.

We still end up with only five wounds, though - not ten.

The Swarms rule tells us to double only when a Swarm has actually suffered an unsaved wound - so it actually does matter that the Swarm is the model, not the unit. Even when we roll saves and then allocate, no Swarm has suffered an unsaved wound until it has been allocated to an actual model - so five ID template wounds on a bunch of Swarms is still five ID wounds in 6e, not ten. This is only sensible, as otherwise the result would be radically different the instant we attached a character to the scarab unit, or some of the scarabs were in cover and some were not.

[Necron2.0]

As someone who plays Necrons, honestly I would LOVE to agree with your interpretation ... seriously I would. The only problem is ... I have my doubts. More importantly, however, no one I would ever play against would accept this interpretation. They'd accuse me of "word-smithing," and how could I argue? The word "suffered" isn't a defined game concept. They'd say it is just as valid to say the wound is "suffered" the moment the save is failed (i.e. it is allocated after it has been suffered). The best I'd ever be able to pull off is a "Most important rule" dice-off, and that goes out the window the moment I show up for a tournament. :(

[Nabterayl]

They'd say it is just as valid to say the wound is "suffered" the moment the save is failed (i.e. it is allocated after it has been suffered).
I really can't agree that that's a valid argument (and I know it isn't your argument; you're just anticipating a possible objection), for a couple of reasons.

That argument would have us believe that a model has suffered an unsaved wound before any wounds have been allocated. We don't need to know what "suffered" means to know this is untrue. We only have to know what wounds can be allocated to - viz., models. If a wound has not been allocated, we could conceivably say that the unit has suffered an unsaved wound, but we cannot say that a model has suffered an unsaved wound - and it is models we care about, since the Swarm rule applies only to models, not to units. Never mind what "suffered" means. How can we say that a Swarm (a model) has suffered a wound - whatever "suffered" means - if no wounds have been allocated to models yet?

A less telling (to me) reason to reject that argument is that it would have us believe that, because we don't know what "suffered" means, it is best to favor the interpretation that has the least consistent results. The only reason I can see to do that is if we believe that the Mixed Saves procedure and the "normal" procedure (which actually comes up very infrequently) were intended to give different results. And why should we believe that?

EDIT: Since some people are instinctively put off by "lawyerly" arguments, if somebody believes that 5 ID wounds kills 10 scarabs, you could try presenting the following hypotheticals:

Situation 1. A battle cannon causes five wounds on a group of 10 scarabs. If our interlocutor is correct, this is doubled to 10 wounds, killing 10 scarabs.

Situation 2. A battle cannon causes five wounds on a group of 10 scarabs, the farthest of whom is in 6+ cover. We now apply the Mixed Saves procedure. Since wounds are allocated before saves are taken in this procedure, we can clearly identify the individual model that has "suffered" an unsaved Wound. Five scarabs are wounded and each are Instant Death'd twice.

Situation 3. A battle cannon causes five wounds on a group of 10 scarabs, to whom is attached an overlord. We now apply the Mixed Saves procedure. Same result as above - five wounds, five kills.

So we might ask our hypothetical interlocutor, why should the presence of a single cover save suddenly change the result? Even weirder, why does adding a character to the unit give the same result? That cannot be the right answer. Situation 1 is simply wrong, based on an erroneous understanding of when models "suffer" wounds.