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.

If the swarm lord gets hit by a lascannon and is wounded for 6 damage, how many tyrant guard die (tyrant guard have 3 wounds)who are in range-assuming of course that 2 plus saves have been passed? Also do i take 1 2 plus to intercept the wound with the shieldwall ability?

A successful 'To Wound' roll does not directly cause a model to lose wounds. The successful 'To Wound' roll inflicts damage, and it is that inflicted damage which causes a model to lose wounds.

RAW the ability triggers when the Swarmlord (or HT) looses a wound (which means it gets it's save first) then the Tyrant Guard intercepts the HIT and Swarmlord does not loose any wounds.

So on a 2+ it would intercept all the damage from a single hit and convert it into a single MW. 1 Hive Guard would take a single MW.

NOTE: I think this is out of line with other protector units rules. Might need to be FAQed.

From Index Xenos 2:

Shieldwall: Roll a dice each time a friendly <HIVE FLEET> HIVE TYRANT loses a wound whilst they are within 3" of this unit; on a 2+ a model from this unit can intercept that hit – the Hive Tyrant does not lose a wound but this unit suffers a mortal wound.

"... a model from this unit can intercept that hit..." is just fluff. If the Hive Tyrant loses a wound while within 3" of the unit, on a 2+ the Hive Tyrant does not lose a wound but the unit suffers a mortal wound. So if the lascannon inflicts 6 points of damage, you would make 6 rolls and each 2+ would see the unit suffer a mortal wound.

 Ghaz wrote:
From Index Xenos 2:

Shieldwall: Roll a dice each time a friendly <HIVE FLEET> HIVE TYRANT loses a wound whilst they are within 3" of this unit; on a 2+ a model from this unit can intercept that hit – the Hive Tyrant does not lose a wound but this unit suffers a mortal wound.

"... a model from this unit can intercept that hit..." is just fluff. If the Hive Tyrant loses a wound while within 3" of the unit, on a 2+ the Hive Tyrant does not lose a wound but the unit suffers a mortal wound. So if the lascannon inflicts 6 points of damage, you would make 6 rolls and each 2+ would see the unit suffer a mortal wound.

That's nonsense. A hit is a mechanical entity in the rules. It's not "just fluff" to specifically call out the "hit". They could have worded it ANY other way. But GW is terrible at writing rules and according to the way it's written the Tyrant Guard eats the hit and any damage associated with it.

No, it's not nonsense. You're trying to make a fluff passage into rules, or do you have a rule that tells us what 'intercept' means?

The fact it triggers on the loss of wounds means it's too late to take the hit for him.

Lascannon hit wounds Swarmlord. He fails the save. They roll a 6 for damage. Nids player rolls 6 dice. One ends up a 1. Swarmlord takes 1 wound Guards take 5 MW.

Catalyst on the Guards would seem wise to make the most of the bodyguard potential.

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not nonsense. You're trying to make a fluff passage into rules, or do you have a rule that tells us what 'intercept' means?

Do you have any evidence to prove it's a "fluff passage" inside of a rule?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not nonsense. You're trying to make a fluff passage into rules, or do you have a rule that tells us what 'intercept' means?

Do you have any evidence to prove it's a "fluff passage" inside of a rule?

Do you have any evidence otherwise? Can you explain why you're claiming that the Tyrant is not hit when the rule says the Tyrant does not lose a wound (singular)?

 Eldarain wrote:
The fact it triggers on the loss of wounds means it's too late to take the hit for him.

Lascannon hit wounds Swarmlord. He fails the save. They roll a 6 for damage. Nids player rolls 6 dice. One ends up a 1. Swarmlord takes 1 wound Guards take 5 MW.

Catalyst on the Guards would seem wise to make the most of the bodyguard potential.

I agree it triggers on the loss of wounds. By the same logic that it's too late to transfer the hit, it's also too late to transfer the damage. The effect triggers on the loss of a wound. Damage would already have to be applied. You retroactively apply the damage elsewhere. Except it doesn't say it intercepts the damage that caused the loss of the wound. It says it intercepts the HIT that caused the damage that caused the loss of the wound. Which would transfer all of the effects of the hit and convert them into a Mortal Wound. Automatically wounding, causing 1 damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No, it's not nonsense. You're trying to make a fluff passage into rules, or do you have a rule that tells us what 'intercept' means?

Do you have any evidence to prove it's a "fluff passage" inside of a rule?

Do you have any evidence otherwise? Can you explain why you're claiming that the Tyrant is not hit when the rule says the Tyrant does not lose a wound (singular)?

Yeah, It's in a rule on a datasheet made of rules.

So you don't have any evidence, nor can you support your claims that the Tyrant is not hit when the rule actually says he doesn't lose a wound. I think we're done here.

Im not saying it's not stupid. I am saying that is what it says RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
So you don't have any evidence, nor can you support your claims that the Tyrant is not hit when the rule actually says he doesn't lose a wound. I think we're done here.

So to be clear, you have no evidence that it's a fluff statement, and the fact that a rule is written on a sheet of rules means that the rule is made up of fluff statements even when referencing rule entities by name. Gotcha. Good to know.

Explain the rule "intercepts the hit"
Page and para pls.

It seems to be oddly written. Given its in the same book and FAQ as Savior Protocols I am surprised its any different/an issue

It would be good to see in the FAQ but rules as written seem to be that it only triggers when the Tyrant loses the wound - not losing a save, or "when an enemy attack successfully wounds," etc.

So, the Tyrant would make any saves, Catalyst, etc. and at the end of that shtick, the Bodyguard could still take the wounds on a 2+

So yeah, unfortunately you have to take 6d6 for this and 6 mortal wounds effectively.

Strongly recommend that if your opponent is bringing the rain, you cast catalyst on your bodyguards/the Tyrant itself.

So your dice rolls would be

1x 3+/5+(4+ melee)
1x 5+ Cata
6x 2+
6x 5+ Cata

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Explain the rule "intercepts the hit"
Page and para pls.

It's on the datasheet.

Explain why it doesn't say "Intercepts the damage", please? If it said "Intercepts the damage" then it would absolutely work like you guys are saying. No question. The models looses a wound, roll 2+ intercept the damage, becomes 1 MW and the HT would not loose a wound.

But it doesn't. It says hit.

It's probably written wrong. GW very likley just fethed this up like they feth up everything.

Or, alternatively, lets look at a similar rule for another protector unit that has been recently FAQed to a new wording.

Pages 53, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73
a nd 74 – Saviour Protocols Change this rule to read:

‘Saviour Protocols:
If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.’

So, instead of all the normal damage, the entire wound gets turned into a single MW.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it more likely that GW wrote things poorly but meant for all protector units to work basically the same as old "look out sir" taking entire hits for their charges, or Tyrant Guard are meant to be different from other protector units and need to roll for each individual damage?

"
Is it more likely that GW wrote things poorly but meant for all protector units to work basically the same as old "look out sir" taking entire hits for their charges, or Tyrant Guard are meant to be different from other protector units and need to roll for each individual damage?"

The latter.

Tyranids and T'au are even in the same book; the rules team had to spend a decent amount of time clarifying/amending the functionality of Savior Protocols in the FAQ, as well as how Shield Drones function. So it would be exceptionally negligent of them to have not at the same time written Shieldwall to be semantically identical if it was meant to be identical to Savior Protocols.

RAW functions as per my previous post.

 Overheal wrote:
"
Is it more likely that GW wrote things poorly but meant for all protector units to work basically the same as old "look out sir" taking entire hits for their charges, or Tyrant Guard are meant to be different from other protector units and need to roll for each individual damage?"

The latter.

Tyranids and T'au are even in the same book; the rules team had to spend a decent amount of time clarifying/amending the functionality of Savior Protocols in the FAQ, as well as how Shield Drones function. So it would be exceptionally negligent of them to have not at the same time written Shieldwall to be semantically identical if it was meant to be identical to Savior Protocols.

RAW functions as per my previous post.

Exceptional negligence is GWs m.o. When they released all the codex faqs towards the end of 7th they didnt even mention pyrovores blows-up-the-entire-table volatile rule. Right now, faqs and all, raw, its still not possible to use assault weapons when advancing or pistols in melee. If we are talking gw and rules writing you can always bet on exceptional negligence.

I'm also curious about this.

SM Honor Guard/Company Vets have an identically-worded rule.

I actually agree that RAW...it's 1 wound to 1 mortal wound.

But I don't believe that RAI that is what is supposed to happen. If you shoot a lascannon at a group of marines and do 6 damage, you still only kill one marine. Not 6. Why would an ostensible "look out sir" ability only be good for one wound, rather than all of the damage?

If the Lascannon causes 6 Wounds you roll a die for each to see if the Guard take a MW instead. If it caused 2 Wounds you'd roll twice, etc. Taking damage is not the trigger, the number of Wounds lost to the damage is.

Other rules for other units aren't relevant in a bespoke world.

 Lance845 wrote:
I agree it triggers on the loss of wounds. By the same logic that it's too late to transfer the hit, it's also too late to transfer the damage. The effect triggers on the loss of a wound. Damage would already have to be applied. You retroactively apply the damage elsewhere. Except it doesn't say it intercepts the damage that caused the loss of the wound. It says it intercepts the HIT that caused the damage that caused the loss of the wound. Which would transfer all of the effects of the hit and convert them into a Mortal Wound. Automatically wounding, causing 1 damage.

Its not 'too late'. When the model loses a wound, it triggers the ability which, if successful, transfers the wound over to the other unit as a mortal wound. The rule is clear what a successful use of the ability is: 'the Hive Tyrant does not lose a wound but this unit suffers a mortal wound.'

There is NOTHING in that wording which would allow previous damage (beyond the one lost wound you're rolling against) to be ignored/transferred.


There are like a billion abilities in 8th edition that trigger when a model 'loses a wound'. Beyond T'au Savior protocols (which worked differently from all the other bodyguard rules even BEFORE they were changed via errata), the rest of these abilities are simply like a 'Feel No Pain' effect that are rolled against each individual wound the model suffers.

To clarify, so what we are saying is if the swarmlord failed 5 armor saves from a Las cannon doing 6 damage, and if said swarmlord only had 3 wounds left, the guard would need to make 5 "look out"rolls for the 5 damage and those become mortal wounds on the hive guard squad making the "save". This makes since to me, and since they are mortal wounds they carry over to each member of the squad as members die. My question is if the squad only had 4 wounds left and using this ability took 5 " mortal" wounds is that last wound is ignored? I would say yes myself.

Azuza001 wrote:
To clarify, so what we are saying is if the swarmlord failed 5 armor saves from a Las cannon doing 6 damage, and if said swarmlord only had 3 wounds left, the guard would need to make 5 "look out"rolls for the 5 damage and those become mortal wounds on the hive guard squad making the "save". This makes since to me, and since they are mortal wounds they carry over to each member of the squad as members die. My question is if the squad only had 4 wounds left and using this ability took 5 " mortal" wounds is that last wound is ignored? I would say yes myself.

Wounds are allocated and saves are taken one at a time (check the rulebook, fast dice rolling is only for hit & wound rolls, nothing else).

So you'd allocate a wound to the Swarmlord, take its save, if it fails you'd then get to roll for the Tyrant Guard's ability. If you pass the roll, then the wound gets transferred over to the Tyrant Guard as a mortal wound. You'd keep doing this, one at a time. Once all the Tyrant Guard are dead, you could no longer use their ability (as they're dead), so there's no possible way to pull more wounds off the Tyrant than there are wounds in the Tyrant Guard unit.

Azuza001 wrote:
... if the swarmlord failed 5 armor saves from a Las cannon doing 6 damage...

You only take a single save against a lascannon since it's an Heavy 1 weapon. If that single save is failed, then it takes D6 damage.

Right, sorry about that. Late night and all lol.

OK that all makes perfect sense. Thanks Ghaz and Yakface.

i just want to make sure that i understand what is the true meaning of ..."the Hive Tyrant does not lose a wound but this unit suffers a mortal wound."

Does it mean the guards suffer a mortal wound for each wound they take from the Swarmlord ( wich would make total sense)
OR
They simply take 1 mortal wounds total?

For example they roll 5 2+ so are they loosing 5 mortal wounds or just one?

EDIT *** Sorry Yakface explain it clairly earlier on ***

 Ghaz wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
... if the swarmlord failed 5 armor saves from a Las cannon doing 6 damage...

You only take a single save against a lascannon since it's an Heavy 1 weapon. If that single save is failed, then it takes D6 damage.

Yeah, sorry about that. Most of what I posted is inaccurate, but the point about the Tyrant Guard ability rolls still stand (they're done one at a time), so there's no way to pull more wounds onto the Tyrant Guard then they have.

ohmagoo wrote:
I'm also curious about this.

SM Honor Guard/Company Vets have an identically-worded rule.

I actually agree that RAW...it's 1 wound to 1 mortal wound.

But I don't believe that RAI that is what is supposed to happen. If you shoot a lascannon at a group of marines and do 6 damage, you still only kill one marine. Not 6. Why would an ostensible "look out sir" ability only be good for one wound, rather than all of the damage?

Maybe they all jump in front of the lascannon shot to protect their commander and it vaporizes all 6? Does it matter really? I read it as a transfer of damage per wound. so on a lascannon shot doing 6 damage, you roll 6d6 and for every 2+ the hive guard takes 1 wound.

 Ghaz wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
... if the swarmlord failed 5 armor saves from a Las cannon doing 6 damage...

You only take a single save against a lascannon since it's an Heavy 1 weapon. If that single save is failed, then it takes D6 damage.

Or is transferred to Bodyguard, doing 1 mortal wound.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Overheal wrote:
"
Is it more likely that GW wrote things poorly but meant for all protector units to work basically the same as old "look out sir" taking entire hits for their charges, or Tyrant Guard are meant to be different from other protector units and need to roll for each individual damage?"

The latter.

Tyranids and T'au are even in the same book; the rules team had to spend a decent amount of time clarifying/amending the functionality of Savior Protocols in the FAQ, as well as how Shield Drones function. So it would be exceptionally negligent of them to have not at the same time written Shieldwall to be semantically identical if it was meant to be identical to Savior Protocols.

RAW functions as per my previous post.

Exceptional negligence is GWs m.o. When they released all the codex faqs towards the end of 7th they didnt even mention pyrovores blows-up-the-entire-table volatile rule. Right now, faqs and all, raw, its still not possible to use assault weapons when advancing or pistols in melee. If we are talking gw and rules writing you can always bet on exceptional negligence.

Which still doesn't mean that Shieldwall == Savior Protocols. While Savior Protocols takes the wound and any subsequent damage before the Character makes any Saves, Shieldwall does not trigger until after the Character has failed their save, and thats the stage that could do with clarification: it's a question of whether after that Lascannon wound is not saved against, whether the next thing to happen is the resolution of Damage or Shieldwall. I'm definitely seeing the argument for Shieldwall then applying before the damage, but it's as clear as mud. I guess all things considered I would HYWPI that Shieldwall functions similarly to Savior Protocols on a 2+ check.

Malachon wrote:


Maybe they all jump in front of the lascannon shot to protect their commander and it vaporizes all 6? Does it matter really? I read it as a transfer of damage per wound. so on a lascannon shot doing 6 damage, you roll 6d6 and for every 2+ the hive guard takes 1 wound.

It does matter. Because the (likely) RAI interpretation makes sense, is in line with other implementations of the rules, and makes the ability useful; the RAW interpretation is contrary to other implementations, and makes bodyguards essentially pointless.