Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not sure if this was covered before, but after reading the Lychguard 'Guardian Protocols"
Roll a d6 each time a friendly <Dynasty> Character loses a wound whilst they are within 3" of this unit. On a 2+ a model from this unit can intercept that hit - the character does not lose a wound but the unit suffers a mortal wound.

I cant help but notice some key wording here.
'Roll a d6 each time a character loses a wound' - this seems to imply after failed saves/ invul saves, because a character technically hasn't suffered a wound until they fail to save against it.
Also most importantly "loses a wound" there's nothing about amount of damage so this particular roll is made before damage is applied.

Assuming you make the 2+ roll:

"the character does not lose a wound but the unit suffers a mortal wound."
1 Mortal wound is absorbed by they Lycheguard, meaning the amount of damage from the original wound is ignored.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but this is fairly powerful in the right circumstance, say a unit of 5 lycheguard and a overlord are in CC with a greater Demon/ Girlyman/ etc. The enemy manages to inflict 4-5 wounds on the overlord/ hero, he fails 2 of his saves, but each of those wounds was meant to cause damage 2, 3, d3, d6 etc.
But instead the lycheguard come over and promptly take 2 mortal wounds instead aka 1 dead lycheguard who will no doubt get back up next turn.

Am I wrong here?

damage causes multiple wounds even if there was a single roll that was failed. It isn't when a character fails a save but when they lose a wound, if the damage was 2 then the character loses 2 wounds.

Indeed, Resolve Attack, sub-step 5 reads:
A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers.

I, personally, do not like any of the BodyGuard type Special Rules as they poorly embrace the concept of a Body Guard jumping in front of the shot. They all require you to do resolve something against the Target Hit before shunting a single Mortal Wound off onto the Bodyguard Unit. Why shouldn't the whole of the attack be resolved against the Unit containing Models intercepting the shot in the first place? It can't be that difficult to write a Rule that simply states all attacks to be resolved against a Keyword Unit within X inches of a Model with this special Rule may (not must) be resolved against this Unit instead. That way we would have Models that actually jump in front of the shot, not ones that magically wait to see if their commander is spouting blood from the hole in his helm before they decide to magically transfer the bullet wound to their own heads....

That really is how I picture it you know:
Oh Frag, the commander's head just went missing again... I'm down to my last wound as well, but he is more important then me... he has the Aura ability after all
*Rrrrrrip, Plop, Dead... commander gets up*
She was a brave soldier, we must make su....
*Pop*
We are running out of heads here, guys!

I am a firm believer in, and really like all of the 'bodyguard' type rules, whether T'au, Nid, Necron, etc.
To me it has always been that these events take place once it has been determined that the model has suffered the wound, but before the damage from the wound has been applied.
I think that where GW has messed up on this, is that they should have worded differently, and made a much better and more clear distinction, between wounds and damage. If they are going to give weapons a characteristic called "D" (which they have, then they should better have defined that characteristic on models as perhaps "D" also and called it damage capacity rather than wounds. It would make sense then and we would not have to be constantly re-visiting just what a wound really is now.
IMHO, and only to me, it has always seemed clear what they meant to happen, but I cannot argue that their written intent can be, oh, somewhat ambiguous at times. I also think that much of the confusion comes from the way the application has changed from what it what previously, It is much more like 2nd edition and prior now, and that is not what the vast majority of 40K players are used to.

You roll a dice per wound suffered.

eg. if hit by a lascannon that causes 4 damage to you, your character would lose 4 wounds. So roll 4 dice and each result of +2 becomes a mortal wound on your lychgaurd instead.

Note is says per wound suffered not per failed save so a model will suffer a wound for each point of damage suffered.

In a sense it works exactly the same as a disgusting resilience roll or any of the other secondary saves....you roll a dice per damage taken.

Think of it in extreme cases...your boss takes a direct hit from a titans plasma destroyer....its going to take more than one bodyguard to absorb that hit.

- Once saves are done, if any are failed check/roll damage. Let's say a Lascannon shot causes four wounds.
- Once you know the number of wounds cause, make one 'bodyguard rule' roll per wound (not per failed save). So you'd make four rolls against the Lascannon above, not 1.
- For each successful roll apply the damage as a Mortal Wound on the bodyguard. For each failed roll the original boss dude loses a wound.

Of course this may vary with differently worded bodyguard rules due to the bespoke nature of the system, but thisbis how the OP should be playing it.

One key point to this discussion,, the rules on the Lychguard state that on the 2+, the model from the unit can incept the HIT.
Both shooting and close combat attacks first require a model to be hit, then wounded, then saves, then damage allocated, in that order.
By the wording of the Lychguard rule, they circumvent the normal order and go back to the first step and affect the HIT, with that, there would not be any multiple wounds to save as the model has now intercepted that HIT, and by the further wording, the damage is now resolved as a single mortal wound.

 ah64pilot5 wrote:
One key point to this discussion,, the rules on the Lychguard state that on the 2+, the model from the unit can incept the HIT.
Both shooting and close combat attacks first require a model to be hit, then wounded, then saves, then damage allocated, in that order.
By the wording of the Lychguard rule, they circumvent the normal order and go back to the first step and affect the HIT, with that, there would not be any multiple wounds to save as the model has now intercepted that HIT, and by the further wording, the damage is now resolved as a single mortal wound.

We've been over this before in regards to the Swarmlord. 'Intercept the hit' is nothing more that fluff.

Followed the discussion in the Swarmlord thread, but still respectfully disagree with the 'fluff' determination, both there and here. But that is one of the nice things about YMDC, we can discuss and agree or disagree, but still have good conversation.

Since this is YMDC, please refer to the Tenets of this discussion forum, specifically #3 and #6. Those are why Ghaz is saying that portion is fluff only; "hit" is being interpreted as though it was written like a rule when it's referencing an action the lychguard is taking.

The wording of intercepting the hit doesn't matter anyway as their own rule specifies that they roll a D6 each time a character loses a wound and a 2+ they suffer a mortal wound instead.

So lascannon hits, rolls to wound, save is failed, takes 4 wounds. Lychguard would then roll 4D6 and for each 2+ take a mortal wound.

IE There is no discussion here just do exactly what the rules say to do.

I'm with Wagguy80 on this,
The Rule explains what it means by 'intercept the hit' when it informs us how to proceed past the trigger of 'wounds lost.'

Thanks Guys, some of the wording is quite confusing, I was imaging the guard to act in a similar fashion to tau Drones, which in theory makes more sense.
Cheers all, hopefully when the codex is released thing will be more clear and less Monolith hist on 4+ (before faq) because ..'reason"

Tarrell wrote:
Thanks Guys, some of the wording is quite confusing, I was imaging the guard to act in a similar fashion to tau Drones, which in theory makes more sense.
Cheers all, hopefully when the codex is released thing will be more clear and less Monolith hist on 4+ (before faq) because ..'reason"

Tau Drone Savior Protocols rules *always* worked differently than the standard bodyguard rules that quite a few bodyguard units in the game have (including Tau bodyguards), even before they changed them via errata.

So there's really no chance that it is just some mistake that all the bodyguard rules work one way and the Drones Savior Protocols work differently (because, like I said the Crisis Bodyguard units have the standard bodyguard rule).