Multiple Bloodshield

[Sarkazim]

(Sorry if I've brought this up again)
Couldn't find any definite resolution, but I was watching a game and I got a little confused.

What I think I have right:
The 'Bloodshield' ability grants a 6+/5+ Witch save for units in range.
It's possible for multiple Shields to provide multiple attempts if the target unit is in range of both.
ex: A unit of Witches is sitting between 2 Cauldrons, so it would get 2 chances to save against each wound suffered.

I don't have an issue with any of this, but what tripped me up was how the Witch player resolved multiple shields.

Witch unit was in range of 2 Cauldrons of Blood.
Witch unit takes 10 wounds.
Player then rolls 10 Dice and saves 3, leaving 7 still wounded. *Nothing out of the ordinary up to this point.
Player then rolls 10 Dice, not 7, for the second Bloodshield.

Is this really how the rule works?  

[Squirrelmaster]

No.

[Sarkazim]

Thanks @heywoah_twitch

I did read those at the beginning of this discussion, but now that I've got a better understanding of the mechanics they make much more sense.

[heywoah_twitch]

This seems mostly cleared up, but I thought I could add some FAQ quotes anyway, mostly as the reference to what they're saying above.

"In the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules, the term ‘suffered’ refers to a wound that has been allocated to a model and has not been negated." -AoS Rules FAQ pg. 7

And

"Q: When a model/unit has a special saving throw arising from an ability that can be used whenever they suffer a wound or mortal wound, is it taken after normal saves but before damage is determined (i.e. between steps 3 and 4 of the attack sequence)?

A: No, such special saving throws are taken after damage is determined and as each individual wound is allocated to a model that has such a save (see ‘Inflicting Damage’ on the rules sheet)." -AoS Rules FAQ pg. 5

[Squirrelmaster]

8 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

Did you miss this?

Yes, I did.

I agree that the Orruk Shield is oddly worded, and by RAW you could arguably use the shield and then allocate to a different model on failure. I don't agree with that interpretation, but I feel that's a separate discussion.

I was focussed on how the cauldron is worded, and I'm still convinced that you need to know which model the wound is allocated to before you can know whether or not you can use the Bloodshield.

8 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

I've yet to see support for this and you're switching the definition of what a 'Suffered Wound' is.
Unsaved Wound = Suffered Wound  - then you change it to Allocated Wound = Suffered Wound.

A model does not suffer a wound until after it has been allocated. Otherwise, there's no way to know which model has suffered the wound. You cannot point to a model and say "this model has suffered a wound" if the wound hasn't been allocated yet (unless it's a one-model unit, which make allocation irrelevant).

You seem to be suggesting that the model has already suffered the wound, before we allocate it? Like some sort of Schrödinger's cat that is wounded and not wounded at the same time, until we allocate, then we discover that it was wounded all along? Or not wounded, if the wound was allocated to a different model?

Personally, I'm saying that a unit suffering a wound is different from a model suffering a wound. A "Suffered Wound" does not exist on its own, without context. It is either a wound suffered by a unit or a wound suffered by a model, and those are two different things.

So, I would say that a unit suffers wounds after damage has been determined, but before allocation, while a model suffers wounds after allocation. However, if you insist on models and units suffering wounds at the same time, it has to be after allocation, because as stated, a model cannot suffer a wound that hasn't been allocated. If that's the case, I won't argue that point because it's irrelevant — it would just mean that all "wards" are technically made after allocation, but can be rolled before allocation as a convenience in cases where it doesn't matter which model the wound is allocated to.

Either way, it's logically impossible for us to use a ward that applied to some models and not others before the ward has been allocated to a model. That would mean that the ward does not actually apply to some models and not others, but to the entire unit, which would be a contradiction.

8 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

The only evidence that you've been able to state is that it is 'implied'.

I didn't mean "implied" as in "subtly suggested, open to interpretation". I meant "implied" as in "A is true if B is true, B is true, therefore A is true". A logical implication.

8 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

We simply check to see how many models are in range of how many Bloodshields, and work our way down.  We could have 10 in range of both Cauldrons, 5 in range of the one on the left, 5 in range of the one on the right   We just gotta remember to count which ones we're rolling for first, and remove casualties from their respective ranges first.  After that, it's business as usual.  So the player could decide which group to roll for, then reach a total number of wounds the unit suffered prior to allocation.

Exactly. But the controlling player will have to decide whether they want to allocate wounds to models that are in range of the shield — in which case they get the save, but have to remove models from those that are in range — or if they, for some reason, would like to allocate wounds to models outside of the shield's range first.

Strict RAW you allocate one wound at a time, but it's fairly obvious we can, as a convenience, say "the first 5 wounds will be allocated to those 5 models". Then if you pass 2 saves, you can say "the next two wounds will be allocated to the two that passed", and keep going until all the wounds are saved or all the models in range of the shield are dead.

That's what "wards after allocation" means. Taking wards before allocation would mean "hey, one guys's in range of the shield so I'm gonna use his ward for all ten wounds, then allocate the failures to models that are out of range".

[Sarkazim]

On 11/23/2017 at 3:47 PM, Squirrelmaster said:

There are no rules (that I know of) that say "Before the model is Allocated a Wound". 
Both the Orruk shield...

Did you miss this?

On 11/23/2017 at 2:51 AM, EMMachine said:

(Orruk-forged Shields): Roll a dice before allocating a wound to a model with an Orruk-forged Shield. On a roll of 6 the wound is ignored.

So forgive me if I don't agree with you that a model must be allocated a wound before it can trigger.  Allocation happens here after the damage is worked out, but before it's applied to the model.  If a model has this particular wargear, then doesn't he get to make his save before the wound is allocated to him?  I agree that if he takes this save, then the wound has to go onto a model with the shield, but it still doesn't get allocated until after the roll.  The bit about assigning to a different model if it was a mixed unit was me just trying to figure out why this rule would possibly be worded to include 'before allocation to a specific geared model'.
 

On 11/23/2017 at 3:47 PM, Squirrelmaster said:

If it says "when a model suffers a wound", then you need to know which model is suffering the wound before you can know whether or not you get the save. Both the Orruk shield and the Cauldron are worded this way — they only apply to the models with the shield, or in range of the Cauldron, so you can only use these abilities against wounds that have been allocated to those models, after you have decided which model to allocate them to. That means if you fail the save, you can't choose to change your mind and allocate to a different model.

The Bloodshield is worded differently than the Orruk Shield, but that could also be due to the fact tat the Bloodshield isn't sourced by the model being affected.  Yes, we haven't really discussed whether those models outside of the range of the Bloodshield even qualify for the save.  I don't think we need to cover it because no one has an issue with this.  We simply check to see how many models are in range of how many Bloodshields, and work our way down.  We could have 10 in range of both Cauldrons, 5 in range of the one on the left, 5 in range of the one on the right   We just gotta remember to count which ones we're rolling for first, and remove casualties from their respective ranges first.  After that, it's business as usual.  So the player could decide which group to roll for, then reach a total number of wounds the unit suffered prior to allocation.

If we follow the Orruk shield though, then we still determine the number of models in range of the Bloodshield (just like we determine the number of models with an Orruk Shield), then make the additional roll.  This still happens before any actual allocation of wounds, which is how I'm still reading the rule. 

 

On 11/23/2017 at 3:47 PM, Squirrelmaster said:

Therefore:

• "if/when a unit suffers a wound" = before allocation
• "if/when a model suffers a wound" = after allocation

I've yet to see support for this and you're switching the definition of what a 'Suffered Wound' is.
Unsaved Wound = Suffered Wound  - then you change it to Allocated Wound = Suffered Wound.

If you follow this then it becomes difficult to tell when any of these 'Ward-like' abilties apply, because you've created TWO different points when wounds are suffered, instead of just one.  We determine the number of wounds suffered by the total damage.  It changes from Damage Inflicted to Damage Suffered between the two steps.  I see no indication that a unit or models are treated any differently at this step.  We we get to the 'Allocating Damage' step, the only instructions here are to assign 1 damage to a model.  Once the damage suffered is equal to the models wound score, the model is slain.  Again, no distinction that a model 'suffers wounds' at this point, but that it has already 'suffered them'.  

It's difficult to convey the subtle difference.  The only evidence that you've been able to state is that it is 'implied'.  I actually don't have an issue if that's how you've chosen to resolve it.  As I've said above, it's unnecessarily complicating a mechanic to achieve the same result.  I'm afraid for me,  you're going to need some other reference to state that the unit suffers wounds when damage is determined, but a model doesn't.  Then switch to a model that has 'suffers a wound' when it has already 'suffered the wound' at this point.  

Simplified:  We have a 'break' in the rules where 'Ward-like' abilities fit in nicely.  After Damage has been determined, but before Allocation.  It's simply much easier to take it at this stage and not disrupt the flow of play, come up with a total number of wounds a unit will suffer before allocation.  Then pull from a pool of 'suffered wounds' at the Allocation step.

[Squirrelmaster]

5 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

So there are multiple situations when and where these 'Ward' saves apply.  I'm using the term 'Ward' to represent anything other than the standard Save.

- When the unit fails a save .
This would be re-rolling the individual hit, before determining damage.  Most basic shields work at this level with the re-rolls.  Not sure if there are any other units with rules that work at this point.  I've seen generic re-rolls used here as well, since each save would prevent multi-damage weapons from landing.

- Before the model is Allocated a Wound.  Pretty self explanatory, the rule will state in this specific case that it will trigger prior to allocation, like the shield.  While I do think this is odd, I think it would only come into play in a mixed unit.  Like some of the models would have those shields you listed, while others wouldn't.  Since it happens prior to allocation, you could take any of the failed saves and apply them to the non-shielded guys.  Not an element of either of my current armies so I'll easily admit I'd be way off. 

- When the unit suffers a wound.
This is where I think I'm getting confused.  From what I'm reading, the rules determine this independently from allocation.  

How I'm reading this is that we determine the number of wounds inflicted/suffered by a unit at the end of the 'Making Attacks' portion of combat.  If a unit has different weapon types, we repeat the steps for all the weapons in the unit to total up the combined damage.  This lines up with what @Nicosaid above.   Weapon 1 (Hit/Wound/Save/Damage), Weapon 2 (Hit/Wound/Save/Damage), Repeat. 

The Impression that I'm getting from @Squirrelmaster and @EMMachine, are that a unit doesn't actually suffer any wounds until it actually gets allocated to the model.  The only evidence that I see to support anything like that is in the 'Inflicting Damage' portion.  Unless you're operating under the assumption that they must be allocated first because rules like the bloodshield omit the specific timing, like the Orruk shield.

As this is the only place that even mentions the word suffered I can kind of see how it could be read as Allocation=Suffered, instead of at the Determine Damage step.  Although in this case I still don't see the supporting case for that order of operations.  This just tells us that when the allocated wounds equals the wounds characteristic of a model, to remove it from the game.  It's specific to the result of the wounds suffered, not the application of it.

Otherwise we'd end up into a huge time-sink scenario mentioned above.  Common sense would kick in and determine that the outcome would be the same regardless of the resolution method chosen.

------
That aside, I've had my main question answered in that when Multiple Abilities are triggered, like the Bloodshield, each use is triggered after the results of the previous one, and not the initial one.  In the original scenario, I was concerned that should there have been a 3rd or more Cauldrons around, he'd get the full 10 rolls for each, instead of diminishing them for each saved Bloodshield.
 

I think you're getting this backwards. There are no rules (that I know of) that say "Before the model is Allocated a Wound". They either say something to the effect of "when a model suffers a wound", or "when a unit suffers a wound".

If it says "when a model suffers a wound", then you need to know which model is suffering the wound before you can know whether or not you get the save. Both the Orruk shield and the Cauldron are worded this way — they only apply to the models with the shield, or in range of the Cauldron, so you can only use these abilities against wounds that have been allocated to those models, after you have decided which model to allocate them to. That means if you fail the save, you can't choose to change your mind and allocate to a different model.

If it says "when a unit suffers a wound", then it can (and should) be applied as soon as you've determined the damage caused by an unsaved attack. You must determine how many wounds the unit suffers, in total, before you allocate any of them.

In other words, first the unit suffers wounds, then you allocate them, then the models suffer wounds.

Therefore:

• "if/when a unit suffers a wound" = before allocation
• "if/when a model suffers a wound" = after allocation

[Sarkazim]

So there are multiple situations when and where these 'Ward' saves apply.  I'm using the term 'Ward' to represent anything other than the standard Save.

- When the unit fails a save .
This would be re-rolling the individual hit, before determining damage.  Most basic shields work at this level with the re-rolls.  Not sure if there are any other units with rules that work at this point.  I've seen generic re-rolls used here as well, since each save would prevent multi-damage weapons from landing.

- Before the model is Allocated a Wound.  Pretty self explanatory, the rule will state in this specific case that it will trigger prior to allocation, like the shield.  While I do think this is odd, I think it would only come into play in a mixed unit.  Like some of the models would have those shields you listed, while others wouldn't.  Since it happens prior to allocation, you could take any of the failed saves and apply them to the non-shielded guys.  Not an element of either of my current armies so I'll easily admit I'd be way off. 

- When the unit suffers a wound.
This is where I think I'm getting confused.  From what I'm reading, the rules determine this independently from allocation.  

Quote

4. Determine Damage: Once all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, each successful attack inflicts a number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon. Most weapons have a Damage characteristic of 1, but some can inflict 2 or more wounds, allowing them to cause grievous injuries to even the mightiest foe, or to cleave through more than one opponent with but a single blow!

How I'm reading this is that we determine the number of wounds inflicted/suffered by a unit at the end of the 'Making Attacks' portion of combat.  If a unit has different weapon types, we repeat the steps for all the weapons in the unit to total up the combined damage.  This lines up with what @Nicosaid above.   Weapon 1 (Hit/Wound/Save/Damage), Weapon 2 (Hit/Wound/Save/Damage), Repeat. 

The Impression that I'm getting from @Squirrelmaster and @EMMachine, are that a unit doesn't actually suffer any wounds until it actually gets allocated to the model.  The only evidence that I see to support anything like that is in the 'Inflicting Damage' portion.  Unless you're operating under the assumption that they must be allocated first because rules like the bloodshield omit the specific timing, like the Orruk shield.

Quote

Once the number of wounds suffered by a model during the battle equals its Wounds characteristic, the model is slain.

As this is the only place that even mentions the word suffered I can kind of see how it could be read as Allocation=Suffered, instead of at the Determine Damage step.  Although in this case I still don't see the supporting case for that order of operations.  This just tells us that when the allocated wounds equals the wounds characteristic of a model, to remove it from the game.  It's specific to the result of the wounds suffered, not the application of it.

Otherwise we'd end up into a huge time-sink scenario mentioned above.  Common sense would kick in and determine that the outcome would be the same regardless of the resolution method chosen.

------
That aside, I've had my main question answered in that when Multiple Abilities are triggered, like the Bloodshield, each use is triggered after the results of the previous one, and not the initial one.  In the original scenario, I was concerned that should there have been a 3rd or more Cauldrons around, he'd get the full 10 rolls for each, instead of diminishing them for each saved Bloodshield.

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, Sarkazim said:

Wouldn’t it be Saves -> Calculate Damage -> Ward Saves -> Total Up -> Allocate -> Remove?

Genuninely making sure I’ve got the mechanic correct.  It’s my understanding that Saves are made against Hits that Wound.  When the save fails then the Damage determines the actual number of Wounds.  In this this particular scenario, the Bloodshield triggers forcing a separate Ward save for each Wound the unit suffers.  

I believe ‘Deathless Minions’ also works like this.

The 'Wardsave' or 'Feel no Pain' takes part while allocating the wounds. The Point is, that there are Abilites that can only trigger when the models has some sort of wargear.

Like Orruk Ardboys with Orruk-forged Shields.

Quote

Roll a dice before allocating a wound to a model with an Orruk-forged Shield. On a roll of 6 the wound is ignored

If you fail the test you have to give the wound to a Model with shield, after they are the only once who get the save.

This should be the same in case of the Bloodshield because only models in range get the special save.

[Squirrelmaster]

11 hours ago, Nico said:

You're reading it wrong. Unit's first weapon - Saves, Ward saves, second weapon of same unit, saves, ward saves, add up total number of wounds inflicted by unit, allocate wounds to the unit by removing casualties. The exception might be a rule like the Wight King banner which kicks in when a model is slain, but that's different to a vanilla ward save/feel no pain.

Reading what wrong? The core rules make no mention of "ward" saves. There is no rule for a "vanilla ward", just a bunch of similarly-worded abilities that we loosely refer to as such.

Please quote me the rule I'm supposedly mis-reading.

[Nico]

Yes - you multiply out damage before the Ward saves.

[Sarkazim]

10 hours ago, Nico said:

Unit's first weapon - Saves, Ward saves, second weapon of same unit, saves, ward saves, add up total number of wounds inflicted by unit, allocate wounds to the unit by removing casualties.

Wouldn’t it be Saves -> Calculate Damage -> Ward Saves -> Total Up -> Allocate -> Remove?

Genuninely making sure I’ve got the mechanic correct.  It’s my understanding that Saves are made against Hits that Wound.  When the save fails then the Damage determines the actual number of Wounds.  In this this particular scenario, the Bloodshield triggers forcing a separate Ward save for each Wound the unit suffers.  

I believe ‘Deathless Minions’ also works like this.

[Nico]

You're reading it wrong. Unit's first weapon - Saves, Ward saves, second weapon of same unit, saves, ward saves, add up total number of wounds inflicted by unit, allocate wounds to the unit by removing casualties. The exception might be a rule like the Wight King banner which kicks in when a model is slain, but that's different to a vanilla ward save/feel no pain.

[Squirrelmaster]

4 hours ago, Nico said:

You wouldn't rewrite the way damage is allocated and casualties removed on the basis of this. You might say that the casualties should be removed from the models within range (but you wouldn't go back and redo the process once the models in range were all dead).  It is a significant problem in any rules which are expressed as models within a distance . I've suggested that all (or nearly all) abilities refer to "units within x" rather than "models within x" for this reason. They also become timesinks (e.g. a unit of Grots attacking a unit of Grots with netters was a massive time sink).

There's nothing to rewrite. Nothing in the core rules states that "special saves" are always resolved before wound allocation, it's down to each special rule to tell you how and when to apply it. The rules tell us that you determine how many wounds the unit suffers in total before allocating any of them, and then you allocate them to specific models one-at-a-time. Some abilities apply whenever a unit suffers a wound, so that occurs before allocation, some occur whenever a model suffers a wound, so that occurs after allocation.

[Nico]

Quote

whenever a model within range suffers a wound — which implies it happens after the wound has been allocated. That could get quite messy if played as written.

You wouldn't rewrite the way damage is allocated and casualties removed on the basis of this. You might say that the casualties should be removed from the models within range (but you wouldn't go back and redo the process once the models in range were all dead).  It is a significant problem in any rules which are expressed as models within a distance . I've suggested that all (or nearly all) abilities refer to "units within x" rather than "models within x" for this reason. They also become timesinks (e.g. a unit of Grots attacking a unit of Grots with netters was a massive time sink).

[Squirrelmaster]

3 hours ago, Nico said:

Actually he wouldn’t have to work out if second one was still in range. You work out the total damage inflicted by all attacks of a unit (after all saves and wards) before you remove a single casualty.

I think it depends on how the "ward" is worded. If it triggers whenever the unit suffers a wound, it would be resolved before wound allocation and casualty removal. IIRC, the cauldron triggers whenever a model within range suffers a wound — which implies it happens after the wound has been allocated. That could get quite messy if played as written.

[Sarkazim]

2 hours ago, Nico said:

Actually he wouldn’t have to work out if second one was still in range. You work out the total damage inflicted by all attacks of a unit (after all saves and wards) before you remove a single casualty.

I completely derp’d on this.  Makes sense.  Thank You.

[Chris Tomlin]

I liked the way @James Ramsay played this at BLACKOUT. Very clear and efficient.

[Nico]

Actually he wouldn’t have to work out if second one was still in range. You work out the total damage inflicted by all attacks of a unit (after all saves and wards) before you remove a single casualty.

[Sarkazim]

I got it when you said no.

It wasn’t my opponent, just a game where I was an observer.  Since it wasn’t my game, I didn’t feel the need to say anything and Never saw the end of it.  Just came here, and saw that players were using different sets of dice for each Cauldron, or something like that.  Couldn’t think of any reason to do that unless this guy was right.  

I just couldn’t follow the resolution process behind it was all.  Like he was somehow keeping the original number of failed saves after each shield.  If he was right then I’d like to know how it was pulled off.

So in the above scenario, he’d first have to check to see if the second Cauldron was still range. Which unlikely, could have happened from careless casualty removal.  I’m okay with this because he’d probably have to take them from models closest to me or make it harder to benefit from multi Shields the following turn.  After that, then he’d roll for the remaining unsaved Wounds.

Thanks for the response. 

 

[Squirrelmaster]

To clarify further: It seems like maybe your opponent is trying to apply a magic-the-gathering-style "stack" mechanic, with all the abilities triggering at the same time, then resolving separately afterwards. AoS doesn't have that — your opponent can apply these abilities in any order, but each one is applied in full, including checking the "trigger" condition, one-at-a-time. That means if one cauldron is applied first and negates a wound, the other cauldron can no longer trigger, because the wound is negated.

Even if AoS did have a "stack" mechanic, each dice roll is associated with a specific wound. You can roll them all together if the wounds are all the same* and it doesn't matter which one you save against, but by the time you come to the second cauldron, that's no longer the case. Three of the wounds have already been negated by the first cauldron, so even if you were going to roll for them, you'd have to roll for those three separately — and the outcome of those three rolls would be irrelevant. Even if you got a "6", you would only be negating a wound that has already been negated. That doesn't allow you to negate one of the other nine wounds that occurred at the same time, it would just be totally redundant.

* by strict rules-as-written, you must roll them one-at-a-time. The rules for rolling dice together only cover making attacks, not special rules like this. Pretty much everyone will let you roll all the dice together if the end result is the same (i.e. if all the wounds are "the same"), but that's only a convention. If need-be, you can insist that your opponent resolves each wound individually.