PDA

View Full Version : Bolt Throwers



BullBuchanan
23-04-2005, 08:43
The following is taken verbatim from The Warhammer Rulebook on page 124 regarding Bolt Throwers.


As saves are not taken, a model with only 1 wound will be slain if it takes damage, there is no need to roll a D3 to decide the number of wounds. Remember that ward saves can be taken as normal against damage from a bolt thower.


I find it amusingly ironic that in the same paragraph GW further complicates a question that arises earlier in said paragraph. I am concerned as to wounds regarding ward saves. If going against bretonnians who have a 5+/6+ ward save respectively, am I allowed to roll for wounds so that multiple ward saves must be taken? For instance if I hit a Grail Knight in The front rank(who has 1 wound and a 5+ armour save) can I then roll a D3 to decide how many ward saves must be taken?

sulla
23-04-2005, 08:53
Irrelevant. Even if the hit did three wounds on the single wound Bret, he would only get one ward save anyway. You get saves per hit, not per wound...

BullBuchanan
23-04-2005, 09:25
"a model may only ever try to make one ward save against each wound it has sufferred" page 64 The Armour Saves section also makes several references to saves vs. wounds but nowhere does it mention "hits"

Not trying to disagree with you, just trying to prove it one way or another. After all if I can't prove it to my opponent then I'm SOL anyway...

Festus
23-04-2005, 11:54
Yeah, right: No more than 1 ward save per wound suffered (even if you have 3 different Wards to choose from), but you can indeed take less.
As soon as the hit wounds, you will take any/all saves.
Multiplication of W is after that.

Greetings
Festus

Sylass
23-04-2005, 11:57
Actually, it's pretty easy.

You hit & wound the Knight and he has to take the ward save for this wounding hit. If he fails his save, he'll suffer D3 wounds.

As he only has 1 wound anyway, you don't need to roll for multiplying (sp?) the wounds.


*edit*
seems Festus was a bit faster...

BullBuchanan
23-04-2005, 20:26
ok guys thanks