BSB Speculation

[CaptainMarsh]

When you have look at the section titled "Performing An Act of Faith", it references multiple times multiple dice being used. If the only time you actually get to use multiple dice is for a charge roll, they have many chances to state it throughout the rule, and will have gone out of their way to misword it in a way many times to imply otherwise. 

When they say how many dice you can use, they could have easily just said a single miracle dice (unless it is a Charge roll). When they list off the rolls that can be made using Miracle Dice, they could have had a notation next to Charge Roll saying it is the only time two miracle dice may be used in a test or roll.

And when they list how many dice can be used, they don't say one or two, but one or more. Hard to imagine a scenario where you could use, say, 3 if the only time you can even use 2 is in a charge roll? After all, each shot from a multi-shot gun is an individual attack.
And why say that after you remove the dice that have been replaced, roll any other dice that are left unsubstituted? Is it really just for that one edge case of Charge rolls?

Heck, the entire meat of the rule is reworded with plurality in mind. Faith and Fury Stratagem is 2 CP that, if the interpretation of one dice is accurate, means a single attack roll and a single wound roll can use the same Miracle Dice. It is hard to fathom a situation that is not so corner-case and silly that it would be worth 2 CP. Even at 1 CP it would be bad more often than not.

I really don't think that the intent of Miracle Dice is to create a mechanic that is functionally worse than Beta Acts of Faith were, especially considering that was the first thing they noted in their feedback. 

I've read the rule. I've re-read the rule. I've shown it and I've discussed it online and offline. While I understand what people are saying when they say you can only use one die, I don't believe that is RAI or RAW. The RAI seems crystal clear as does the RAW (there, at least IMHO)- multiple dice can be substituted using Miracle Dice when it comes to Attack rolls, wound rolls, damage rolls, etc.

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by CaptainMarsh

[Slasher956]

I really don't think that the intent of Miracle Dice is to create a mechanic that is functionally worse than Beta Acts of Faith were, especially considering that was the first thing they noted in their feedback. 

 

 

 

I havent read the codex yet so cant really say, but RAW does lean to there not being the opotunity to use multiple MD at a time (wouldnt be the first time that rules designers write a cool rule only to find that RAW doesnt support how they play it).

 

.. However on the subject on intent....they also mentioned that the Celestians were awful... and what did they get, better re-rolls if in 6" of a canoness?  And the 3rd unit they said needed improving was Exorcists.. ok improved the number of shots just at the expense of AP & they've gone up in cost....so neither of those are a flat out improvements!

[CaptainMarsh]

 

I really don't think that the intent of Miracle Dice is to create a mechanic that is functionally worse than Beta Acts of Faith were, especially considering that was the first thing they noted in their feedback. 

 

 

 

I havent read the codex yet so cant really say, but RAW does lean to there not being the opotunity to use multiple MD at a time (wouldnt be the first time that rules designers write a cool rule only to find that RAW doesnt support how they play it).

 

.. However on the subject on intent....they also mentioned that the Celestians were awful... and what did they get, better re-rolls if in 6" of a canoness?  And the 3rd unit they said needed improving was Exorcists.. ok improved the number of shots just at the expense of AP & they've gone up in cost....so neither of those are a flat out improvements!

 

You can find the Miracle Dice and Act of Faith page online. Bell of Lost Souls has it up and available for view. I've read it and shared it so many times now I think I coud recite the paragraphs off the top of my head. And the more I read it, the more I believe it is what I think it is.

 

Celestians went down a point, makes a Canoness act like a Chapter Master for them, and have a 2 CP Strategem to re-roll hits and wounds. Whether that makes them good enough? Eh, I don't think so. But they are improved flat out, regardless.

Exorcists benefit from Convictions, Acts of Faith, and Sacred Rites, improved their shots, can access a good number of the Strategems(a few of which are good with'm), have two unique stratagems, and gained another weapon profile that can tear through infantry hordes. Whether that is worth the loss of an AP and going up 45 points wit the Exorcist Missile Launcher remains to be seen in play, but it hasn't become functionally worse.

 

The MD/new AoF system if it works as interpreted by some others -only one dice per AoF- is functionally and mechanically worse than beta AoF.

 

Edit: I am bedding now but before I leave, a small note. I am usually someone who plays these rules very close to the chest, especially when I think there is honest controversy or something that needs a clear nerf (I didn't bother to use Self Sacrifice because I knew they would hit it hard in the Salamanders FAQ). I am not arguing from a position of desperately wanting my faction to have some OP super rule (since even in what I believe is RAI and even RAW I don't see it as tremendously disruptive), but rather an honest assessment of what I believe this rule is saying. Since there seems to be debate on it I expect an FAQ- but while I'm normally very conservative on such matters, I know for a fact I will be playing it this way, and will be ruling as such during our store tournaments unless an FAQ comes out and says otherwise (which I rather honestly sincerely doubt would happen).

Edited November 21, 2019 by CaptainMarsh

[MoshJason]

I am liking the Celestians. I think they will prove to be solid skirmishers and good for pushing people off objectives. Especially with some support.

[Montford]

I am looking forward to trying out some Zephyrim. I have two sets of Geminae (got the second set along with another Celestine for $10 at a swap meet!) so with those four models and a Seraphim Superior fielded as a Zephyrim Superior I'm planning to field a minimum squad in my first game after the Codex comes out next week.

[ERJAK]

 

 

 

 

 

So there's a debate on dakka about how miracle dice work.

 

Is it: Exorcists rolls 3d3 shots for 6, hits 5 times, wounds 4 times, 4 failed saves, use a 6,6,4,5 to do 21 damage

 

Or is it: Exorcist rolls 3d3 shots for 6, hits 5 times, wounds 4 times, 4 failed save, Use a 6 for damage and then roll 3 1s for 9 damage. Your 6, 4, and 5 remain in the pool.

 

The second assumes that the 'or more' section of the miracle dice paragraph only applies to charges and anything that would use multiple dice in a single 'roll'(i.e. 2d6 damage on a single shot weapon)

You can substitute any dice you are about to roll for dice from your pool. So if like in your example you have 4 damage dice you are about to roll, you can substitute 1, 2, 3 or all 4 of them.

This is how I read it also.

 

However, their contention is that because each shot is technically performed as a seperate roll (as per the core rules) when the rule states 'before you make A dice roll you may choose to use one or more dice from the dice pool instead. For each individual dice that is being rolled as part of that dice roll, you may substitute one miracle dice' it can only be referring to a single 'attack', save, etc.

Problem with the Rod of Office is that you must equip your Canoness with a bolt gun and power sword to take a Rod of Office. No pistols, chainsword, or blessed blade (or index options if you're using those).

Isn't this like that weird thing space marines have where you would equip it with BP powersword, give it a rod of office, and then replace the bolt pistol and powersword with other wargear?

Your belief and what Valorous said is how I read it as well.

The opposite is accurate. It's the same logic behind how Tau markerlights work. You can benefit from effects as you manage to hit, but not if you consider them together as one big chunk. In 40k attacks are resolved one at a time. This is explained in a variety of places. In many cases it's more beneficial to do it this way and avoid using fast rolling, and we can get to those scenarios if you need, but as far as Sisters are concerned a damage roll is one dice roll. There is no need for an FAQ - this is very clear in the rules.

 

The attack sequence in the core rules is based on attacks being made one at a time. This is why rules that trigger "when resolving an attack" can and do apply to all

 

Since miracle dice replace a single roll in the attack sequence, and attacks are resolved one at a time, then I can't really see how you would be able to replace multiple damage dice. Or multiple hit and wound dice for that matter.

This is incorrect, attacks are resolved one at a time UNLESS you choose to use fast dice.

 

Fast dice, per RAW, is NOT a convenient method of speeding up dice rolls(as it is in AoS) but a full replacement of the attack sequence, as illustrated by the wording of the paragraph describing resolving attacks in the shooting phase: " Attacks can be made one at a time OR IN SOME CASES YOU MAY ROLL MULTIPLE TOGETHER." At least up to the allocation step.

 

As long as the attack sequence qualifies for fast dice, you may resolve all attacks at one time, so RAW there's no reason you couldn't at least replace all hits and wounds, even if damage gets a bit murky.

 

ALSO it doesn't expressly state that the dice replaces a single roll in the attack sequence, it says it replaces a 'roll' which is an undefined term as GW refers to 'rolls' as both singular dice and muliple dice all the time.

 

The biggest thing though is that the rule would be piss if it only worked on 1 dice per phase.

Edited November 21, 2019 by ERJAK

[Slasher956]

Can GW please write a book that doesnt have arguments between RAW, persevered RAI, the phraseology they use and just some sheer stupid errors.....

 

I mean the books not even out yet and we're already finding errors with it!

 

MD, just how do they work

Mortifiers, how many in a squad due to differences between datasheet & points table

multiple units, wording on how many extra models units can have

 

These should be picked up by proof readers before being sent to the printers :(  If they think its not a 100% clear then put examples of use is the codex...

 

GW need to remember that the codexs are read by people from different walks of life* and countries** and not all of them have English*** as a 1st Language

 

*The difference between how someone in IT and a builder reads a sentance is noticable

** Colloquial language usage

*** A phrase that makes sense to people who are used to English might not to some one who mainly speaks French for example

[Lemondish]

*Snip*

Except for all the places where attacks are clarified as being made one at a time. Like in the FAQ clarifying what the words "when resolving an attack" means. "The attack sequence in the core rules is based on attacks being made one at a time."

 

So no, I don't think you're right.

 

I retract my initial comment about this not needing an FAQ. It certainly does so that we can move on. Until then, I'm not sure there's really anything at all left to say about this.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Lemondish

[taikishi]

I am liking the Celestians. I think they will prove to be solid skirmishers and good for pushing people off objectives. Especially with some support.

 

That same support can be done more cheaply with Battle Sister squads. If we assume Hordes is now the way to go (and I don't know if it is or not), a unit of ten Celestians with two storm bolters within 6" of a Canoness and in rapid fire range has a 76.25% chance of killing between 2-5 MEQ, or a 44.67% chance of killing 3-4 MEQ for 149 points.

 

A unit of 10 Battle Sisters in rapid fire range within 6" of a Canoness is 139 points and has a 75.18% chance of killing between 2-5 MEQ, or a 42.33% chance of killing between 3-4 MEQ for 139 points.

 

None of this includes the Canoness' shots.

 

The Celestian squad is almost 11% more expensive than he BSS (104 pts vs 94 pts), but is only 1-2% more effective once you factor in their ability to re-roll 1s and 2s while within 6" of a Canoness. Also bear in mind the Rod of Office doesn't benefit Celestians the same way it benefits BSSs. The Rod of Office only increases the Canoness' re-roll aura, while the ability to re-roll all misses is an ability of the Celestian squad.

Edited November 21, 2019 by taikishi

[MoshJason]

 

I am liking the Celestians. I think they will prove to be solid skirmishers and good for pushing people off objectives. Especially with some support.

 

 

That same support can be done more cheaply with Battle Sister squads. If we assume Hordes is now the way to go (and I don't know if it is or not), a unit of ten Celestians with two storm bolters within 6" of a Canoness and in rapid fire range has a 76.25% chance of killing between 2-5 MEQ, or a 44.67% chance of killing 3-4 MEQ for 149 points.

 

A unit of 10 Battle Sisters in rapid fire range within 6" of a Canoness is 139 points and has a 75.18% chance of killing between 2-5 MEQ, or a 42.33% chance of killing between 3-4 MEQ for 139 points.

 

None of this includes the Canoness' shots.

 

The Celestian squad is almost 11% more expensive than he BSS (104 pts vs 94 pts), but is only 1-2% more effective once you factor in their ability to re-roll 1s and 2s while within 6" of a Canoness. Also bear in mind the Rod of Office doesn't benefit Celestians the same way it benefits BSSs. The Rod of Office only increases the Canoness' re-roll aura, while the ability to re-roll all misses is an ability of the Celestian squad.

Celestians do better in melee though, and are likely to storm in and push people off objectives?

 

Move 6" and charge with a miracle dice to make it if you have to, and then 31 attacks at we 3 Str 4 from an Imagifier so -1 rerolling all hits? That will kill more than a BSS in melee. Plus, they are cool, and can tank for your Canoness?

[Lemondish]

 

 

I am liking the Celestians. I think they will prove to be solid skirmishers and good for pushing people off objectives. Especially with some support.

That same support can be done more cheaply with Battle Sister squads. If we assume Hordes is now the way to go (and I don't know if it is or not), a unit of ten Celestians with two storm bolters within 6" of a Canoness and in rapid fire range has a 76.25% chance of killing between 2-5 MEQ, or a 44.67% chance of killing 3-4 MEQ for 149 points.

 

A unit of 10 Battle Sisters in rapid fire range within 6" of a Canoness is 139 points and has a 75.18% chance of killing between 2-5 MEQ, or a 42.33% chance of killing between 3-4 MEQ for 139 points.

 

None of this includes the Canoness' shots.

 

The Celestian squad is almost 11% more expensive than he BSS (104 pts vs 94 pts), but is only 1-2% more effective once you factor in their ability to re-roll 1s and 2s while within 6" of a Canoness. Also bear in mind the Rod of Office doesn't benefit Celestians the same way it benefits BSSs. The Rod of Office only increases the Canoness' re-roll aura, while the ability to re-roll all misses is an ability of the Celestian squad.

I think the real question is how valuable is it to have that Canoness survive sniper fire with those ablative wounds to call upon while maintaining a tad more killing power.

[taikishi]

It's only a 2+ chance to intercept the wound. And if I remember the rule correctly (not somewhere I can access atm), if the weapon does multiple wounds you have to intercept each wound individually, taking a Mortal Wound to do so. Short answer is no, I don't believe those ablative wounds are going to help much, if at all. Outside of shield drones, how often are bodyguard units actually taken?

 

As for the numbers:

 

10 Blood Rose Celestians with Passion Sacred Rite, superior equipped with chainsword:

* 80.23% chance of killing 4-9 MEQ.

* 60.51% chance of killing 5-8 MEQ.

* Mean: 6 (16.83%)

 

100 points + cost of characters

 

This assumes you don't gamble with your 3s and try to get more 6s with them -- the end result winds up with lower percentages.

 

15 Bloody Rose Battle Sisters, same buffs and equipment:

* 78.88% chance of killing 4-9 MEQ

* 57.81% chance of killing 5-8 MEQ

* Mean: 5

 

10 Bloody Rose Battle Sisters, buffs same:

* 79.35% chance of killing 2-6 MEQ

* 55.22% chance of killing between 3-5 MEQ

* Mean: 4

Edited November 21, 2019 by taikishi

[MoshJason]

It's only a 2+ chance to intercept the wound. And if I remember the rule correctly (not somewhere I can access atm), if the weapon does multiple wounds you have to intercept each wound individually, taking a Mortal Wound to do so. Short answer is no, I don't believe those ablative wounds are going to help much, if at all. Outside of shield drones, how often are bodyguard units actually taken?

 

As for the numbers:

 

10 Blood Rose Celestians with Passion Sacred Rite, superior equipped with chainsword:

* 80.23% chance of killing 4-9 MEQ.

* 60.51% chance of killing 5-8 MEQ.

* Mean: 6 (16.83%)

 

100 points + cost of characters

 

This assumes you don't gamble with your 3s and try to get more 6s with them -- the end result winds up with lower percentages.

 

15 Bloody Rose Battle Sisters, same buffs and equipment:

* 78.88% chance of killing 4-9 MEQ

* 57.81% chance of killing 5-8 MEQ

* Mean: 5

 

10 Bloody Rose Battle Sisters, buffs same:

* 79.35% chance of killing 2-6 MEQ

* 55.22% chance of killing between 3-5 MEQ

* Mean: 4

So, our numbers are different --

 

I have 30 attacks from Celestians, rerolling all, with the passion, wounding on 4s killing a mode of 4 intercessors

 

I have 20 attacks from BSS rerolloing 1s, with the passion, wounding on 4s, killing a mode of 1 and 2.

 

The +1 Str from the imagifier.

 

Are you considering the bonus attacks from bloody rose, +1 WS, the ap-1 in melee, and the 6s adding a hit and a new roll?

 

Buffed with a priest and the +1 to wound strat, I am seeing a max mode of 8 intercessors killed -- 40 attacks at ws 3, with sixes proccing an additional hit the first time and rerolling hits giving a mode of 43 hits (only 1/9 fails to hit, 1/6 + (1/6 of 1/3) generate new hits, and then 1/3 wound (Str 4 vs tough 4, with +1 to wound being wounding on 3+) and having AP -1 means 50% go through.

 

I am running a program to do it 10,000 times and taking it as a slightly grainny salt, but it should be mostly accurate?

Edited November 21, 2019 by MoshJason

[taikishi]

I meant modes when I listed means. I including the +1WS, +1 St, +1A and AP -1 in all of the rolls. Did not include a priest or any stratagems. I'm also simulating 10,000 results -- through Excel using ifs, countifs, and randbetweens

 

1st sheet: randbetween(1,6) for hits (32 columns - 28 from Celestians, 4 from superior including chainsword)

2nd sheet: if value in 1st sheet is less than 3, re-roll, otherwise take the value in sheet 1

3rd sheet: If sheet 2's value >=3, randbetween(1,6) to wound, otherwise 0. Second set of columns that check for 6s on sheet 2. If any result is a 6, randbetween(1,6), otherwise 0.

4th sheet: If sheet 3's value >=4, randbetween(1,6) to save, otherwise 0. Run for all 64 columns

5th sheet:

a. count every result of 1-3 in sheet 4 to determine number of unsaved wounds.

b. count every result in column A compared to a fixed value (0-64). Sum total to verify 10,000

c. Divide b by 100 to determine percentages. Sum total to verify 100%

d. Find where C has the most percentage (ex if there's an 80% chance between 2-6, then sum those percentages) to find where your greatest probability of kills are

e. Find where C is closest to mode. Sum those percentages to determine greatest chance of results (ex 65% chance of 3-5)

f. determine mode from most results of a single item in B

 

 

 

For Battle Sister squads, I change sheet 2 to only look for 1s and sheet 3 to look for 4+. For 10-model squads, the attacks also got lowered after running the numbers for 15-model squads.

Edited November 21, 2019 by taikishi

[MoshJason]

I meant modes when I listed means. I including the +1WS, +1 St, +1A and AP -1 in all of the rolls. Did not include a priest or any stratagems. I'm also simulating 10,000 results -- through Excel using ifs, countifs, and randbetweens

Huh. Our battle sisters are basically the same, but our Celestians are off by about 2 wounds.

 

So -- I think we can check our work by quickly doing some averages...

 

30 attacks hitting 66% is 19.8, wounding 50 is 9.9, saving 50 is 4.95

 

30 times 1-(1/9) is 26.66667, wounding 50 is 13.34 saving 50 is 6.67

 

So without the passion they should still be averaging around 6 wounds?

 

And the passion adds slightly more than 1/6 more hits, so that should bring you up to about 31 hits, which should bring you up to 7.75 unsaved wounds on average?

 

 

Either way, I don't really play that competitively and just want to use Celestians because they are cool, and I like to punch stuff.

Edited November 21, 2019 by MoshJason

[Lemondish]

It's only a 2+ chance to intercept the wound. And if I remember the rule correctly (not somewhere I can access atm), if the weapon does multiple wounds you have to intercept each wound individually, taking a Mortal Wound to do so. Short answer is no, I don't believe those ablative wounds are going to help much, if at all. Outside of shield drones, how often are bodyguard units actually taken?

 

 

So they act exactly like ablative wounds we use literally everywhere else? I don't quite understand the point here. They're still ablative wounds whether they're as powerful as Tau shield drones or as similar to simply adding expendable models as a gateway to damaging important targets.

 

I really don't quite understand this perspective. Can you maybe try and reword it? I don't want to outright dismiss the position but I'm having a hard time understanding how adding wounds snipers need to contend with is a bad thing.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Lemondish

[Purifying Tempest]

 

It's only a 2+ chance to intercept the wound. And if I remember the rule correctly (not somewhere I can access atm), if the weapon does multiple wounds you have to intercept each wound individually, taking a Mortal Wound to do so. Short answer is no, I don't believe those ablative wounds are going to help much, if at all. Outside of shield drones, how often are bodyguard units actually taken?

 

So they act exactly like ablative wounds we use literally everywhere else? I don't quite understand the point here. They're still ablative wounds whether they're as powerful as Tau shield drones or as similar to simply adding expendable models as a gateway to damaging important targets.

 

 

I think the way Celestians are worded is they take 1 wound per intercept.

I think other body guards work as they intercept 1 full failed save per intercept.

 

Aka: Hit my canoness with a lascannon and she takes 6 wounds.  If I intercept the failed invul save, I lose 1 model on a 2+ and it takes 6 wounds (or 1 mortal wound to intercept the attack) and then dies.  With the way Celestians works... I need to cough up 60+ points of Celestians to save a 45 point Canoness.

 

Edit: fwiw, I don't think the bodyguards rule would be useful for shielding anything outside of the Triumph, it may be worthwhile hiding a cheap Celestian squad or two around there to function as extra wounds if you really get attached to it.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Purifying Tempest

[taikishi]

The point was the bodyguard rule, outside of shield drones, is bad game-wide and I feel that taking Celestians for the bodyguard rule when I can get more of something else that does every other job Celestians do is a better investment of points.

[taikishi]

 

 

It's only a 2+ chance to intercept the wound. And if I remember the rule correctly (not somewhere I can access atm), if the weapon does multiple wounds you have to intercept each wound individually, taking a Mortal Wound to do so. Short answer is no, I don't believe those ablative wounds are going to help much, if at all. Outside of shield drones, how often are bodyguard units actually taken?

 

So they act exactly like ablative wounds we use literally everywhere else? I don't quite understand the point here. They're still ablative wounds whether they're as powerful as Tau shield drones or as similar to simply adding expendable models as a gateway to damaging important targets.

 

 

I think the way Celestians are worded is they take 1 wound per intercept.

I think other body guards work as they intercept 1 full failed save per intercept.

 

Aka: Hit my canoness with a lascannon and she takes 6 wounds.  If I intercept the failed invul save, I lose 1 model on a 2+ and it takes 6 wounds (or 1 mortal wound to intercept the attack) and then dies.  With the way Celestians works... I need to cough up 60+ points of Celestians to save a 45 point Canoness.

 

Edit: fwiw, I don't think the bodyguards rule would be useful for shielding anything outside of the Triumph, it may be worthwhile hiding a cheap Celestian squad or two around there to function as extra wounds if you really get attached to it.

 

 

 

 

It's only a 2+ chance to intercept the wound. And if I remember the rule correctly (not somewhere I can access atm), if the weapon does multiple wounds you have to intercept each wound individually, taking a Mortal Wound to do so. Short answer is no, I don't believe those ablative wounds are going to help much, if at all. Outside of shield drones, how often are bodyguard units actually taken?

 

So they act exactly like ablative wounds we use literally everywhere else? I don't quite understand the point here. They're still ablative wounds whether they're as powerful as Tau shield drones or as similar to simply adding expendable models as a gateway to damaging important targets.

 

 

I think the way Celestians are worded is they take 1 wound per intercept.

I think other body guards work as they intercept 1 full failed save per intercept.

 

Aka: Hit my canoness with a lascannon and she takes 6 wounds.  If I intercept the failed invul save, I lose 1 model on a 2+ and it takes 6 wounds (or 1 mortal wound to intercept the attack) and then dies.  With the way Celestians works... I need to cough up 60+ points of Celestians to save a 45 point Canoness.

 

Edit: fwiw, I don't think the bodyguards rule would be useful for shielding anything outside of the Triumph, it may be worthwhile hiding a cheap Celestian squad or two around there to function as extra wounds if you really get attached to it.

 

 

Celestians can't bodyguard the Triumph of St. Katherine - it doesn't have an Order trait at all, just like Celestine, and the bodyguard trait only affects friendly characters from the same order. In fact, I think the only characters it can protect are Canoness, Judith if Martyred Lady, and Repentia Superior.

 

And you're remembering the rule wrong. If that lascannon does 6 wounds, on a 2+ the Celestians take 6 mortal wounds in place of the canoness.

[MoshJason]

Did they change it? Because my index says

You can roll a D6 each time a friendly <ORDER> CHARACTER loses a wound whilst they are within 3" of this unit; on a 2+ a model from this unit intercepts that hit – the character does not lose a wound but this unit suffers 1 mortal wound.

 

Which means you can choose to do that or not? But also, why would you be letting your opponent hit a Canoness with a lascannon? It seems to be a more useful ability for melee or snipers.

 

Plus, with the miracle dice and what not, we should be able to save a 3+/4+ for anything that hits her that looks that scary.

Edited November 21, 2019 by MoshJason

[taikishi]

It was just an example. That example could have been inferno pistols and the same situation applies.

 

Also believe it's a timing issue. We've had this debate before, and I seem to recall that you rolled to see if the character was wounded, rolled for bodyguard, then rolled for number of wounds inflicted.

 

Will admit my memory is a little sketchy here, but I also recall this debate being part of why Celestians (and Geminae) are bad in their beta-dex iterations, along with a list of other problems for Geminae.

Edited November 21, 2019 by taikishi

[Lemondish]

 

 

It's only a 2+ chance to intercept the wound. And if I remember the rule correctly (not somewhere I can access atm), if the weapon does multiple wounds you have to intercept each wound individually, taking a Mortal Wound to do so. Short answer is no, I don't believe those ablative wounds are going to help much, if at all. Outside of shield drones, how often are bodyguard units actually taken?

 

So they act exactly like ablative wounds we use literally everywhere else? I don't quite understand the point here. They're still ablative wounds whether they're as powerful as Tau shield drones or as similar to simply adding expendable models as a gateway to damaging important targets.

 

 

I think the way Celestians are worded is they take 1 wound per intercept.

I think other body guards work as they intercept 1 full failed save per intercept.

 

Aka: Hit my canoness with a lascannon and she takes 6 wounds.  If I intercept the failed invul save, I lose 1 model on a 2+ and it takes 6 wounds (or 1 mortal wound to intercept the attack) and then dies.  With the way Celestians works... I need to cough up 60+ points of Celestians to save a 45 point Canoness.

 

Edit: fwiw, I don't think the bodyguards rule would be useful for shielding anything outside of the Triumph, it may be worthwhile hiding a cheap Celestian squad or two around there to function as extra wounds if you really get attached to it.

 

 

I understand how other bodyguards work, but that is irrelevant if Celestians do not work that way. What they do work as is exactly like ablative wounds added to a T3 3+ save character. I am surprised nobody is seeing value in this simply because "other bodyguards act differently". 

 

What I'm saying is that if somebody is going to be encouraged to shoot my Canoness with a bloody lascannon then I want to be picking the units that make them want to do something that braindead, you get me?

Edited November 21, 2019 by Lemondish

[Purifying Tempest]

You suffer damage in one lump go, but you remove wounds one at a time until the model is destroyed, at which point the rest of the wounds are ignored... unless they are mortal wounds.

 

As worded by MoshJason's quote: if I suffer 3 damage from 1 attack from a smash captain's hammer I have to roll 3d6, one for each wound, and each 2+ I roll means my Celestian unit suffers 1 mortal wound.  So, normally, 1 Thunder Hammer swing kills 3 Celestians (assuming you roll no 1s).

 

I genuinely missed the <Order> requirement, I literally have no books in front of me right now and the rule is rather obscure/useless, so it is not committed to memory.  So that means Celestians are really just a trap to throw away a lot of points, or a security blanket to shield a character from 1D sniper fire or something.  I just don't think our Canoness models are worth the unit, and there are no characters big enough WITH <Order> to make that trait desirable.  I guess if you deck her out with WL traits and Relics and wargear... but... still, now you're bloating the point cost of that unit by tossing 10+ pt Wounds at the problem.

[MoshJason]

I would like to point out the "can" and "may"

 

I think that means you do not have to intercept, you have the option if say, you are fighting a smash captain and you have the blade of admonition and 1 wound left, and know your Celestians won't beat him.

 

You can also choose not to, it you get hit with 2 inferno pistols and go, well, maybe I need my Celestians more ? Plus I can always Rez her with the command points.

[ERJAK]

 

*Snip*

Except for all the places where attacks are clarified as being made one at a time. Like in the FAQ clarifying what the words "when resolving an attack" means. "The attack sequence in the core rules is based on attacks being made one at a time."

 

So no, I don't think you're right.

 

I retract my initial comment about this not needing an FAQ. It certainly does so that we can move on. Until then, I'm not sure there's really anything at all left to say about this.

Except those FAQs don't explicity state anything that makes my interpretation incorrect AND still doesn't address the fact that the word 'roll' is never defined anywhere in the rules.

 

Sorry dude, with the way GW writes rules your interpretation is just that, an interpretarion, same as mine. It doesn't need an FAQ 'to move on' no matter how much (unearned) confidence you have that you're correct.

 

It needs an FAQ because it's unclear.