What constitutes a "wound inflicted" on a target? If I hit a 1w model with a D-charge and the model fails 3 saves - have I inflicted 3 wounds (number of saves failed), or have I inflicted 2 (1w conscious + Unconscious state)? Relevant for wounded Sheskiin and Umbra, who could potentially heal a wound and they top up to Power-Up 2 - or for simultaneous damage against Berserk troops. The below references wounds dropping "below 0", which implies no limit on how low it can go beyond 0.
The model has one wound before going unconcious and then another is necessary to kill it off completely.
And per the quoted damage rules above... a model moves to dead when it "goes below 0 wounds" - there is no listed maximum begative value below 0, nor does it say "when it suffers 1 more wound", so it makes sense to me that I can inflict 3 wounds to a 1w, or even an unconscious, model.
A model goes unconscious when they lose the last Wound on their profile and they are removed from the table if they lose another Wound while unconscious. So a 1W model shouldn't be able to lose more than 2W total.
You’ve inflicted two. Out of curiosity, why is this an issue now, but it wasn’t for the entire time Protheion existed in N3?
Well; A) I wasn't running anything that could use it and it never came up in a game B) N4 rules shouldn't work "the way N3 rules did", they should be explained by the edition they belong to C) Protheion could only inflict max 2 damage in N2 (Proth Lvl4 using burst 2) (Edit - outside of some hyper edge case multiple model cc scenario) D) We're getting some hyper literal justifications for rules questions, and I feel that the literal rules explanation here justifies that you can inflict any number of wounds... because moving from Unconscious to Dead isn't explained as suffering 1 wound, it's suffering any amount of damage that puts you below 0. Given that could be any numeric value of -1 or lower, I think it's perfectly justified to assume 3 wounds takes a 1w model to -2 wounds and kills it, due to it now being below 0 wounds, *by inflicting 3 wounds*
B) Could you explain this? I don't understand what point you're making, as the only change in the rules text involved is that 'immediately' has been removed. N3: http://wiki.infinitythegame.com/en/Unconsciousness_and_Death N4: https://infinitythewiki.com/index.php?title=Dead C) 2 Damage was already enough for it to matter, but a Samaritan with additional Burst was pretty common if Samaritans were being used. D) That's not my take on things.
Enough changes have been made across editions that things need to be revisited and questioned. There are certainly already a myriad of gaps in the N4 ruleset that are needing to be patched and that mustn't have been picked up by play testers or proof readers before now... Responding to any query on the rules by drawing comparison to the previous edition, if that wasn't already raised by the person asking, is kinda... dismissive? And draws away from the fact that the rules, as they are now, are not clear - because the question is being asked. I don't know if this issue was ever queried during N3... certainly the likelihood of inflicting 3+ saves is much higher now under N4, given a number of Protheion troops have D-charges. If it was ever picked up by FAQ or raised in the rules forum, I would have hoped a new edition would remove said ambiguity and clearly spelled out the correct function of the rule... but here we are. Edit - I'm not trying to have a go or anything, I just think that any kind of reflexive push back like "You didn't have a problem last edition" is just a defensive/confrontational response and unhelpful; and one being used waaaaay too frequently across forums/facebook in response to good faith queries atm.
Re. B. Generally a lot of players are approaching N4 as a tabula rasa so we're not reliant on "that's how it was done in N3 so it's the same as N4" as an explanation for why something is the way it is for new players. This also provides an opportunity to revisit rules interpretations in the context of the new edition. TBF when the wording is unchanged most people are taking that as a strong hint.
Even if the rule wording is the same as N3, the context in which it operates may have changed. We shouldn't be told 'you know how it works, it's the same as in N3', it shouldn't be assumed to be a fact by players. Also, we have new players who came in with C1/N4 and they do not know old rulings and old context.
My apologies to @paraelix for the dismissive tone, we've smoothed things out via PM. A general note on my references to N3 - at no point am I saying 'you know how it works, it's the same as N3' or 'that's how it was done in N3 so it's the same in N4' - my point* is that this came up (from memory) one single time in the old N3 forum, and everyone immediately said 'no you can't get extra Wounds that don't exist'. Which means that it didn't get flagged as needing fixing/changing because it was not a Frequently Asked Question, most players didn't find it confusing, and it didn't break any fundamental part of the game even if read differently. So N4 uses the same wording. Arguably, the wording for Protheion is too similar, as the example no longer works properly due to changes in how Coup de Grâce works... *EDIT and my apologies to everyone for not explaining the point properly in my first reply!