How does the LOA spiteshield work?

[Andreas]

The legion of azgorh spiteshield is worded that on a save roll of 6 the attacking unit suffers a wound, what does that mean?

Does it mean a wound ie you remove a model with one wound? Mortal wound would have made this intention clearer.

Or does it mean the same as a successfull wound roll where the opponent needs to make a save roll and then you apply damage and this generates the wounds lost. In this case what is the rend and damage, is it - and 1 or do you use the attacking units rend and damage?

This rule is really confusing for me.

[Nico]

Quote

Just to be clear, no save roll in your opinion?

That's what he means - no armour save. Interesting - since it would mean that Settra or a Plaguebearer would get their special save/Ward save, since that kicks in after armour saves (and after damage is multiplied out incidentally) and works on wounds and mortal wounds, However, Nagash wouldn't get his 4+ Morrikhane special save, since that only works on mortal wounds, but would get his 6+ Death Ward save (Deathless Minions).

If you don't interpret it as 6 or more, then probably makes sense to rule it that a natural 6 will trigger the rule (i.e. even if you actually fail the save due to the rend) - then it's not awful. It's a bit ungenerous if it only works on a 6 vs no rend; only works on a 5 in cover vs no rend; and doesn't work at all vs -1 rend.

[Nico]

Since I'm generous I would say it's a clear typo and they meant to say mortal wound. It would be a anomalous ability otherwise for no good reason (and my interpretation isn't overpowered - they are a second tier army). There's another typo in the same rule in that it should say 6 or more and yet another one in the Fireglaives which should say 6 or more also. 

[Andreas]

Was this the way it was played at warlords, does anyone know?

[Dan.Ford]

I think it a wound not a Mortal wound.

if it intended to be mortal wound, GW can faq it. Simple.

[Andreas]

46 minutes ago, Dan.Ford said:

I think it a wound not a Mortal wound.

if it intended to be mortal wound, GW can faq it. Simple.

Yes but does that mean. A wound roll does not cause wounds, it causes damage according to the four page rules. And then the opponent player must make a save roll. The actual wounds is determend by the damage characteristics of the weapon (after he has tried to save the damage) so what is really the differens (other than being confusing)?

[Kaleb Daark]

Andreas,

The Spiteshields basically have magic runes worked into them and work as follows,

Say for example a unit of blood reavers attacks your Ironsworn or Bull centaurs, and does for argument sakes 12 wounds.  You roll 12 saves.

Lets say for example 8 of those saves are made, and so you take 4 casualties as a result.

 

Of those 8 saves, lets say that the dice rolls were such that four of them were a six.

 

The unit of reavers now takes six wounds - yes he has to save vs the damage, but that's six wounds that you have landed on him for free.

 

It's not a to wound roll.  It's a number of wounds that the unit MUST take, and therefore they can only save against them.

The wording is very explicit - "...the unit that struck the blow immediately suffers 1 wound"  so they automatically take a wound and the only thing they can do is hope they make their saving throw.

And don't forget that the the wording is also important for the saving throw - "If you pass a save roll for a model equipped with a spite shield with a roll of six or more..." so if you had a buff that gave you +1 to saves (mystic shield) , then you're doing it on a dice roll of 5+

Aaaand... if you really wanted to be annoying, it doesn't say melee attack. So, it is in effect active against missile fire troops too.

[Andreas]

50 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

It's not a to wound roll.  It's a number of wounds that the unit MUST take, and therefore they can only save against them.

The wording is very explicit - "...the unit that struck the blow immediately suffers 1 wound"  so they automatically take a wound and the only thing they can do is hope they make their saving throw.

Yes but the problem with the wording is that wounds only manifest itself after the save roll and the damage roll.

Lets look at it from another way, the Black Amulet (Death artifact), it also causes wounds not mortal wounds and the only difference (from mortal wounds) I have heard anyone say is that it ignores mortal wound saves not that anyone makes "normal" save rolls against it. It might be so but I now believe for all intent and purposes a wound is equal to a mortal wound, the difference being non strigent rules writing. Or mortal wound saves might be the only difference hmmm that might be the reason for it if it is not a typo.

[Kaleb Daark]

2 minutes ago, Andreas said:

Yes but the problem with the wording is that wounds only manifest itself after the save roll and the damage roll.

Lets look at it from another way, the Black Amulet (Death artifact), it also causes wounds not mortal wounds and the only difference (from mortal wounds) I have heard anyone say is that it ignores mortal wound saves not that anyone make save roll against it. It might be so but I now believe for all intention and purposes a wound is equal to a mortal wound, the difference being non strigent rules writing.

 

A mortal wound cannot be saved against.

A standard wound can be saved against.

Quote

Yes but the problem with the wording is that wounds only manifest itself after the save roll and the damage roll.

Actually no.

He must first roll to wound you before rolling to damage.

he hits you. he wounds you.  you make a saving throw to avoid that damage.  if your ironsworn roll a 4+ (not including rends) then you don't take a wound.

However, if that same roll is a six or 5(+1 with mystic shield) then not only do you not take a wound, but he takes one in return, and must roll a save of his own.

 

This is very different to the black amulet.

The amulet is held by one hero and The black amulet works once per battle.

I have forty Infernal Ironsworn and their spite shields work the whole battle.

The amulet lets you pick one enemy unit and that unit suffers a number of wounds equel to the battle round.

Because they are NOT mortal wounds, the unit is allowed a saving roll against them.

 

I respectfully have to disagree with your thoughts about stringent rules writing.  They are wounds. Had they been mortal wounds they would have been written as such - the death incarnate command trait on page 164 of the GhB being a prime example.  It specifically states mortal wound.

In the case of your informant on the amulet, unfortunately I think you were misinformed for their own advantage.

The gem like the spite shield only does wounds - you do not need to roll to see if you wound, that is the automatic bit, but the victim can save against those wounds. Were they mortal wounds - unless in very rare circumstances he would not be able to save against them.

The benefit of both items is that the wound is a free wound, you don't have to work for it, and you don't have to roll to see if you wound. The wound is automatic and the only thing that can stop it is a successful armour save.

 

So back to our theoretical combat...

a unit of 20 ungor raiders fire a volley of arrows at my chaos dwarf ironsworn.

15 arrows hit and 12 manage to wound.

I now must make 12 saving throws.  

I roll  6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2  - so the rolls of 5 and 6 pass and so does the 3 due to mystic shield giving me +1 to save rolls.

of the eight passed saves, five of those are a dice roll of 5 and two are a six.  because the unit has mystic shield on it, I can use the 6's and also the 5's to give me 7 wounds which are automatically inflicted on the ungors.  He must make 7 armour saves of 6+ or lose models. - he fails all but one and loses 6 models.

So you will ask what's the benefit?

The benefit is that all he could do was make saving throws, I did not have to roll to wound for the attacks.  in the example above the ungor player took six casualties which now force him to take battle shock test, and also which he was not expecting to lose.

If the shields inflicted mortal wounds, then he would have no saves at all, automatically losing seven models.

I hope this helps.

 

 

[Andreas]

Ok we read the rules differently. So you actually make save rolls against the black amulet?

I could play it either way since in practice the difference is very smal but I have found that the most common way to read it where I play is that wounds is generated after the damage roll so no save roll. Black amulet being more common than spiteshields.

[Ben]

It says suffer a wound. Not cause a successful to wound roll. 

This is clear in the 4 page rules attack and damage sequence. 

[Andreas]

35 minutes ago, Ben said:

It says suffer a wound. Not cause a successful to wound roll. 

This is clear in the 4 page rules attack and damage sequence. 

Just to be clear, no save roll in your opinion?

[Kaleb Daark]

5 hours ago, Ben said:

It says suffer a wound. Not cause a successful to wound roll. 

This is clear in the 4 page rules attack and damage sequence. 

OK, I stand corrected. Andreas, apologies.

@Ben, how does this differ from taking a mortal wound then?

You see, I read this as the wound is automatic but since its not mortal can be saved against.

I'll admit that I'm pretty new to AoS so your insight would be much appreciated.

@Andreas if you don't need to make save rolls against it even better!

OR, is the differentiating factor the fact that some units ignore anything but a mortal wound?

now i'm confused as well!

[Nico]

Quote

OR, is the differentiating factor the fact that some units ignore anything but a mortal wound?

Maybe this is the point, e.g. Nagash.

[Kaleb Daark]

In which case nico, that's brilliant as I've been giving opponents a save roll.

andreas, sorry for the misinformation.

[Andreas]

1 hour ago, Kaleb Daark said:

 

@Andreas if you don't need to make save rolls against it even better!

OR, is the differentiating factor the fact that some units ignore anything but a mortal wound?

now i'm confused as well!

Yes it is better but for me it's more that I dont want the discussion every time it occures. I dont think it really matters that much, a wound or two that could have been saved if you go the other way.