Helfrost, what's the proper sequence?

[temneb]

I played a game against orks today, I lost horribly, no big deal I was trying things out. But this helfrost question came up.

 

I thought I'd have a crack at the relic frost sword, that causes helfrost on unsaved wounds. My lord got into a blue with a mob of mega nobz, and inflicted 2 unsaved wounds thanks to rending and a very poor save roll. It was at this point I realised that when you apply the helfrost rule is very significant, is it the moment you cause an unsaved wound (better for me) or after all unsaved wounds are resolved (better for the nobz).

 

I couldn't find a rule that specified when to resolve the helfrost effect, so we just removed one nob. Though I couldn't help feeling a little short changed.

 

Thoughts?

[DanPesci]

I would say you take the S test as soon as you cause an unsaved wound, as this way you are allocating it to the correct model each time (ie the one the wound was on), and it should happen at that initiative.

 

If an IC, i would say add in any look out sir attempts before you take the helfrost S test.

[Squark]

... Huh. That's definitely one for the FAQ. Do you roll one wound at a time, and any failures require the strength test before you resume, or do you resolve all the wounds and then any surviving Models who took a wound make one strength test for each wound they took (So, if a captain loses two wounds, he'll have to take two wounds)?

[viddar]

Well it states that if a model takes one or more unsaves wounds it has to take a str test for each one. So I think you did it right.

[DanPesci]

.(So, if a captain loses two wounds, he'll have to take two wounds)?

 

 

 

Well it states that if a model takes one or more unsaves wounds it has to take a str test for each one

 

Cool so a multiwound model taking more than one wound will take more than one strength test, which is nice (hadnt noticed that one).

 

how does fnp count towards unsaved wounds? If you fail a save, but pass FNP, i take it that then doesn't cause a strength test?

[Commander_Moustache]

Nope because it is a saved wound. FnP is an extra save

[DanPesci]

Nope because it is a saved wound. FnP is an extra save

 

thats what i figured ;)

[Brother Amarel]

I believe the correct sequence is to kill the 4 wound, Eternal Warrior model with a single shot first, and *then* to laugh. Doing it the other way round is just rude.

[temneb]

That's what I was hoping for, but I can't back it up with a rules argument. Please help!

[Karack Blackstone]

That's what I was hoping for, but I can't back it up with a rules argument. Please help!

 

Read, and then reread the rule: writing rules is meant to be clear, sadly, it's lack of context that always seems to become the reason for rules clarity issues.

 

The rule for Helfrost seems to favor the SW player, as in, each unsaved wound a model takes means a test versus the target model's strength stat.  Assuming the model has wounds, and takes at least one unsaved wound, test as listed.  If the d6 roll is above the model's S stat, or a 6, the model is removed as a casualty.  It's apparently written as the new JOTWW (Jaws) stlye rule, and is pretty nasty as it bypasses even Eternal Warrior.

[Squark]

Since it does not have instant death, though, you would roll wounds normally; So against a unit of Thunderwolves all with Storm shields, you'd roll all the dice at once, but if you were hitting a thunderwolf first then a Wolf Lord, you'd roll 2 dice at a time and if one of the saves failed, the Thunderwolf would take the S test and then the process would resume, possibly now rolling on the unlucky Wolf Lord.

[Pariah Mk.231]

If all the targets have the same stats/save (mega Nobz in this case) then your opponent would roll all the saves then start assigning unsaved wounds. After each unsaved wound is assigned, the strength test would be made, if failed the model is removed, if passed the next unsaved wound would be assigned and another strength test made. In the case of Nobz, the second unsaved wound would kill it anyway so a further strength test would be moot.

[Reede]

Since it does not have instant death, though, you would roll wounds normally; So against a unit of Thunderwolves all with Storm shields, you'd roll all the dice at once, but if you were hitting a thunderwolf first then a Wolf Lord, you'd roll 2 dice at a time and if one of the saves failed, the Thunderwolf would take the S test and then the process would resume, possibly now rolling on the unlucky Wolf Lord.

 

Would that be it though? Normally you're rolling to wound against majority toughness. So say there's one Thunderwolf, and then one TW Lord, you roll to hit, then for all hits roll to wound against the majority toughness. The hellfrost, since it can have multiple tests appears to be applied once the wound pool is spent.

 

After that the differentiating factor is for armour saves. The Thunderwolf in front (saying it had a stormshield) would begin rolling 3++'s one by one.

 

Edit: Upon further thought, I'm inclined to think it's on a wound by wound basis.

 

Scenario 

The Thunderwolf fails his first saving throw. He has now suffered an unsaved wound and immediate takes a Strength test. If it fails, he is removed as a casualty and the rest of the wounds are allocated to the wolf lord.

 

Reasoning. It's similar as to instant death. If the model is killed instantly, then the remainder of the wounds are then allocated to the rest of the squad. 

 

 

My own interpretation of it.

[temneb]

 

 

That's what I was hoping for, but I can't back it up with a rules argument. Please help!

Read, and then reread the rule: writing rules is meant to be clear, sadly, it's lack of context that always seems to become the reason for rules clarity issues.

 

The rule for Helfrost seems to favor the SW player, as in, each unsaved wound a model takes means a test versus the target model's strength stat. Assuming the model has wounds, and takes at least one unsaved wound, test as listed. If the d6 roll is above the model's S stat, or a 6, the model is removed as a casualty. It's apparently written as the new JOTWW (Jaws) stlye rule, and is pretty nasty as it bypasses even Eternal Warrior.

I have read the rules over and over. There I've not come across a precedent for this situation. Sadly the rules don't state anything about how the rules interact in a combat. With shooting it's simple, the only weapon that can inflict multiple wounds to a single multi wound model is the bolter relic, and is low strength and has crappy AP. In combat you need to know how the rule interacts with wound allocation, do you apply all the wounds to the model first then the hell frost rule or the hell frost rule imediatly after the first unsaved saved wound.

 

If you've got a rules quote to back your position up I'd love to see it, because that is how I instinctively read it also, but I was unable to support that position with rules when pressed.

 

I'm no rules lawyer and I play very casually, but it's a pretty nasty trick if it works for you, so I want to have a very solid rules argument.

[Moonstalker]

 

 

I couldn't find a rule that specified when to resolve the helfrost effect, so we just removed one nob. Though I couldn't help feeling a little short changed.

 

You were.

 

"Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused during that Initiative step.  Keep the dice that have scored Wounds and create a 'pool,' where each dice represents a Wound.

 

If there are Wounds with different Strengths, AP values, or special rules that affect saving throws or the effect of any Wounds they inflict, split them into several pools of Wounds."

 

"To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, you will need to allocate the Wounds caused and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed.  If several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player making the Attacks must decide in which order they are allocated.  All Wounds from a single pool must be allocated before moving on to the next pool of Wounds."

 

So, Helfrost wounds go in their own pools, and are resolved separately from any other wounds.  Easy enough, and you get to choose whether they're resolved first, second, last, etc at whatever initiative step they are inflicted.

 

Now, onto actual allocation.

 

"A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step.  If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to.  Roll the model's saving throw (if it has one) and remove the casualty (if necessary)." (emphasis mine)

 

"...once a model has a Wound allocated to it during an Initiative step, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty.  You can speed this process up by allocating Wounds in groups (see Fast Dice)."

 

So, rules as written you roll saves one at a time, and allocating an entire wound pool/rolling all saves at once per Fast Dice is entirely voluntary.  Now, per the Helfrost rule:

 

"When a model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from this weapon, it must pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered or be removed from play."

 

So, you do your to-hit and to-wound normally.  Then, you've got your wound pools for that initiative step all sorted out.  You choose to begin allocating your helfrost wounds first.  You allocate one to the closest model, and it rolls any applicable saves.  Immediately, when the save is failed and the wound is suffered, the model makes a strength test (assuming it didn't just lose its last wound and get removed from play normally).  If the model lives (either by passing its save, strength test, what have you), you then allocate the next wound in the pool to it and repeat the process, until the model either dies or you run out of wounds in the pool.  This isn't 'at the end of the phase/initiative step/wound pool, take the test,' it is as soon as the save is failed and saves are made individually as wounds are allocated from the pool.

[Ozeryk_Sleipnijr]

Does this count for all models including Tanks or Imperial Knights ? Fail a str test and remove the model

[Moonstalker]

Does this count for all models including Tanks or Imperial Knights ? Fail a str test and remove the model

 

No, because a vehicle cannot suffer an unsaved wound (they take glancing and penetrating hits instead).  A monstrous creature would be susceptible to helfrost, though.

[Haakon_Stormbrow]

Id say you roll to wound as normal, roll saves, once the wounds are totalled say you have 6 for this example,

you allocate the first wound, and he takes a str check, he passes, you allocate a second wound and he dies,

you then move to the next model, allocate a wound, he rolls a str check, he dies,

move to the next model, allocate a wound, he rolls a str check, he fails, he dies,

next model is the lord with 3 wounds, you allocate a wounds, he passes, you allocate another wound, he does a str check, he fails, he dies.

[pedrogzc]

haakon, saving rolls are made just after you allocate the wounds, so your sequence isn't fully correct.

 

I think that after all saving rolls have been made, all miniatures wounded by hellfrost weapons but still standing should make a Str check.

 

I.E. Wolf lord with hellfrost sword manages 4 wounds to ork nobs, Ork player assign 1 wound to each nob and pass just one saving, so 3 nobs are wounded and have to make Str check.

[Pariah Mk.231]

Once a wound is allocated a model, further wounds have to be allocated to the same model until it is removed, so you can't allocate 4 wounds to 4 separate multi-wound models unless the first wound allocated to the first model kills it and the pattern happens to repeat for subsequent models.

 

Example: Wolf Lord with the sword causes 4 unsaved wounds against a unit of Nobz, the first wound is allocated to a Nob and it passes it check, so the second wound has to be allocated to the same Nob, which will kill it anyway so no check is needed. The third wound is the allocated to a new Nob, who fails his check and is removed so the final wound is then allocated to a third Nob, who will also be removed if he fails his check.

[Brother Amarel]

Once a wound is allocated a model, further wounds have to be allocated to the same model until it is removed, so you can't allocate 4 wounds to 4 separate multi-wound models unless the first wound allocated to the first model kills it and the pattern happens to repeat for subsequent models.

 

Example: Wolf Lord with the sword causes 4 unsaved wounds against a unit of Nobz, the first wound is allocated to a Nob and it passes it check, so the second wound has to be allocated to the same Nob, which will kill it anyway so no check is needed. The third wound is the allocated to a new Nob, who fails his check and is removed so the final wound is then allocated to a third Nob, who will also be removed if he fails his check.

 

This is correct. However, be prepared to be considered a little 'gamey' by some people if you use the "fast dice" method for everything else aside from this (although I think the flaw is in the rule, rather than the player executing it, tbh).

[Haakon_Stormbrow]

exactly my method is the fast method, or you can make them roll the saves and helfrost checks individually and waist time, my way is faster, just roll all the wounds, then all the saves then individually roll the helfrost check 1 model at a time.

 

the only time you can't do this is when armour saves are different.

[pedrogzc]

Thank you Pariah, I don't know what the hell was I thinking this morning and I mess the correct mechanism...

Sorry Haakon for telling you were wrong when not.

[temneb]

Thank you guys.

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

I think we have it sorted now and thank you kit wulfen for your excellent rules justification. It seems like we should use the slow dice method to play the rule properly. It functions very much like a unit with mixed armor saves, one has to allocate wounds one at a time (which is how rules officially say to do it anyway, fast dice, as kit wulfen said, is an option to speed things up and whether or not it's used changes during the game) I don't think that is being cheesy or gaming the system it is just how it must be played to use the rule properly.