PDA

View Full Version : How does the Other Trickster's Shard work against units with Ward?



Lord Inquisitor
14-02-2011, 18:07
I've been developing a love for the Other Trickster's Shard. It's a beautiful item for only 15 points and really puts a dent in models with those annoying 4+ wards that are all over the place now. It's great for character assassination.

However, I'm a little perplexed as to how to apply it's effects on units with Ward saves. Those irksome 3+ Ward save Chosen, or Daemonic units.

"Models in base contact with the bearer... must re-roll successful ward saves"

So how does the OTS work?

I was assuming you could allocate attacks against specific rank-and-file models in base contact (that's how it would have worked in 7th). I can't really find any evidence for hitting specific rank-and-file in the book though. The rule for dividing attacks doesn't account for wanting to hit certain rank-and-file from a single unit. "Remove Casualties" states that casualties are removed from the back, but also the line "It can happen that a model causes more casualties than it has enemies in base contact," implying that the ones in base contact are whacked first.

So for example I have an Ogre Bruiser with the OTS (with 4 attacks) in base contact with 3 Chosen out of a unit 5-wide, which have a 3+ ward save. How are the attacks resolved?

feeder
14-02-2011, 22:07
I play it as all of the bearer's attacks re-roll Ward Save successes. However, if you are in BtB with a character and a RnF, and you choose to slaughter RnF then the character gets his Ward as is. Bear in mind that my group and I are reasonable players, who want a fun and fair game for both sides. Not sure how the WAACs would play it.

smithers
14-02-2011, 22:12
I too have wondered about this.

The relevant bit from BRB seems to be:

In the Close Combat phase, enemy models in
base contact with both the character and one or
more models from the character's unit can
choose to attack the character or the unit, or
split their attacks between them. You need to
declare where attacks are being allocated before
they are rolled.

I think the way it should be played is to allow attacks to be allocated towards a specific RnF model. No reason why this should be disallowed as it seems the rule was just written with the incorrect assumption that RnF equals RnF in all cases. If someone demanded that the hits be randomized I'd grumble and ask for a rollof I guess since the rules are just not clear.

As far as removing casualties from the back I don't think this is a factor. The description makes it clear that this is based on the idea that they step up into combat, so non one actually ever gets hit while being out of B2B.

Palatine Katinka
15-02-2011, 00:19
I would expect it to work the same way as when fighting a unit with two different types of rank and file such as squig herds or rat packs. Each model has to allocate attacks against the different types of opponent available. I am right in thinking that aren't I? In which case the few models in base to base with the shard carrier are effectively a separate type of opponent as their save is different.

feeder
15-02-2011, 01:59
So a character with 4 attacks and three RnF in BtB would roll two sets of attacks, three dice with the re-roll and one without? That's absurd.

Masque
15-02-2011, 03:22
I believe the way it's being played around my LGS is that at each initiative step the first X wounds inflicted on the unit are forced to re-roll wards and the rest do not, where X is the number of models touching the Shard.

Lord Inquisitor
18-02-2011, 21:48
I would expect it to work the same way as when fighting a unit with two different types of rank and file such as squig herds or rat packs. Each model has to allocate attacks against the different types of opponent available. I am right in thinking that aren't I? In which case the few models in base to base with the shard carrier are effectively a separate type of opponent as their save is different.
That... seems reasonable... So wounds/kills on one kind wouldn't be expected to spill over?


So a character with 4 attacks and three RnF in BtB would roll two sets of attacks, three dice with the re-roll and one without? That's absurd.
No, he's saying that the bearer (and anyone in contact with both models with and without OTS influence) can divide their attacks any way they want.


I believe the way it's being played around my LGS is that at each initiative step the first X wounds inflicted on the unit are forced to re-roll wards and the rest do not, where X is the number of models touching the Shard.
That could have weird side-effects though. For example, if my Ogres are fighting 5 Chosen, 3 of which are in contact with the OTS bearer. I attack and get 10 wounds. So 3 go against the three affected by the OTS and 7 go against the remaining two guys? That doesn't seem right.

Edit:

I checked the rulebook FAQ and there is the following errata to dividing attacks:

Change

"If a model is touching enemies with different characteristic profiles, it can choose which one to attack when its turn to strike comes"

To

"If a model is touching enemies with different characteristic profiles, or two or more characters or units with the same characteristic profiles, it can choose which one to attack when its turn to strike comes"

I don't think it resolves the OTS issue (unless we regard models under its influence as having different profiles).

Masque
19-02-2011, 05:19
Another spin on this problem: I had a Paladin on a Pegasus with the Shard fighting a unit of Bloodletters. I then cast Shield of Thorns on the Paladin.

Pointy Headed Elven Paladin
19-02-2011, 06:21
The OTS states all models (which would include rank & file figures, friend or foe) must re-roll successful wards saves regardless of the source as long as they remain in base to base contact with the bearer.

So for the physical attacks I think that would apply to the RnF that the bearer is in base to base contact in (which would include models that are "stepping up" to replace fallen RnF figures). This might only be an issue if there are no figures that can't replace the RnF via the steeping up rule which then means that any remaining wounds would probably not have to re-roll any successful wards saves when the rest of the wounds are distributed to the unit.

The same wound be the same for the Shield of Thorns spell (only apply to those in BTB and those that fill the RnF spaces that are BTB to the OTS bearer).

However I can also see the arguement that it will only apply to those first initial figures that are in BTB with the bearer at the start of any actions.

I guess it's "roll a D6" type of thing? :eyebrows:

Haravikk
19-02-2011, 09:00
I'd err towards re-roll all wards inflicted on rank and file models (if you're attacking rank and file), since step-up means that each time a model is killed another will move to replace it, which means that it too will enter base contact with the wielder of the Other Trickster's Shard.

Remember that technically speaking each attack should be resolved one-at-time, rolling to-hit, then to-wound, then to-save, if failed remove model and replace with another. Of course this would be unbearable, which is why the rules try to help you learn how to roll in batches in order to resolve things more quickly.

Masque
19-02-2011, 09:21
emember that technically speaking each attack should be resolved one-at-time, rolling to-hit, then to-wound, then to-save, if failed remove model and replace with another. Of course this would be unbearable, which is why the rules try to help you learn how to roll in batches in order to resolve things more quickly.

I really do not believe this is correct. It would cause so many problems.

Haravikk
19-02-2011, 11:46
I really do not believe this is correct. It would cause so many problems.
I don't believe so, remember that attack allocation comes first, which prevents any problem of someone rolling only as many attacks as they need to kill a unit before focusing the rest on a character.
This is the reason that items that grant a Ward save when you reach one wound work against additional wounds, for example, first two wounds caused are against armour, remaining three against triggered Ward save.

yabbadabba
19-02-2011, 14:03
"Models in base contact with the bearer... must re-roll successful ward saves" I have just read this item's description and, in the strictest forms of RAW et al, it says that models in btb must reroll successful ward saves and thats it. It has nothing to to do with the models the bearer attacks.

This means unfortunately needing a little bit of admin, as although models are removed from the rear they are actually dead at the front and all combat is technically simulataneous. Therefore, if you have 3 models in btb you would technically have to reroll each ward save for each model with each successive initiative decided set of attacks until 3 models have died in front of the bearer. Then start again next combat round.

Personally, I would say 1 set of rerolls per combat phase equal to the number of models in btb. If there is a character in there, the it would be number of models - number of characters, with the character rerolling each needed ward save.

Don't forget it affects your side too!

Kalandros
19-02-2011, 20:01
~~[O][O][O][O][O][O]
~~[O][O][O][O][O][O]
~~[O][O][O][O][O][O]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]

quick graphic

Horde of Ogres vs Horde of Bloodletters

Red Ogre is a character with the trickster's other shard.
All 8 Green Ogres + the Red Ogre who can attack models in base to base with the Red Ogre will force the Daemon player to reroll succesful ward saves because he has to remove slain models from behind and the Ogre selects to throw all ogre attacks against the models in base to base with Red Ogre.

Once you reach the point where too few models are left standing, then you have to go with logic, rerolls are forced until there are no models in base to base with the Shard Ogre.

RMacDeezy
20-02-2011, 15:17
~~[O][O][O][O][O][O]
~~[O][O][O][O][O][O]
~~[O][O][O][O][O][O]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]

quick graphic

Horde of Ogres vs Horde of Bloodletters

Red Ogre is a character with the trickster's other shard.
All 8 Green Ogres + the Red Ogre who can attack models in base to base with the Red Ogre will force the Daemon player to reroll succesful ward saves because he has to remove slain models from behind and the Ogre selects to throw all ogre attacks against the models in base to base with Red Ogre.

Once you reach the point where too few models are left standing, then you have to go with logic, rerolls are forced until there are no models in base to base with the Shard Ogre.

this is how i play it was well, unfortunately, RAW only allows you to allocate attacks against a) models with different profiles or b) models in different units. the bloodletters in the above example are neither, so RAW, only the character and the ogres making supporting attacks through him can benefit from the OTS. makes no sense but until an errata allows models to allocate attacks to other models with the same profile but under different effects, there is no solid legal standing for our interpretation, just sportsmanship and logic.

Lord Inquisitor
21-02-2011, 19:31
Red Ogre is a character with the trickster's other shard.
All 8 Green Ogres + the Red Ogre who can attack models in base to base with the Red Ogre will force the Daemon player to reroll succesful ward saves because he has to remove slain models from behind and the Ogre selects to throw all ogre attacks against the models in base to base with Red Ogre.

Once you reach the point where too few models are left standing, then you have to go with logic, rerolls are forced until there are no models in base to base with the Shard Ogre.
I like the sound of this (unless I'm the one playing daemons! ;)) but it presumes that all 9 ogres can allocate against those three who have to re-roll, but have their wounds carry through the unit.



this is how i play it was well, unfortunately, RAW only allows you to allocate attacks against a) models with different profiles or b) models in different units.
Okay...

the bloodletters in the above example are neither, so RAW, only the character and the ogres making supporting attacks through him can benefit from the OTS.
Hmm? I don't follow why the OTS works for the bearer and not anyone else in contact with those in contact. The OTS doesn't work by saying targets attacked by the bearer re-roll Ward saves (that'd be easy!), but the targets in base contact. So if it were three characters in base contact, they'd re-roll wards if any of the 9 ogres in contact with one or more of those three attack. They might be limited in which character they can allocate onto by their position.

If they're rank and file as you point out, they can't be allocated against UNLESS we consider a model under OTS influence to be different in their profile. But then what?

decker_cky
21-02-2011, 21:54
this is how i play it was well, unfortunately, RAW only allows you to allocate attacks against a) models with different profiles or b) models in different units. the bloodletters in the above example are neither, so RAW, only the character and the ogres making supporting attacks through him can benefit from the OTS. makes no sense but until an errata allows models to allocate attacks to other models with the same profile but under different effects, there is no solid legal standing for our interpretation, just sportsmanship and logic.

Incorrect. The rules do have those limitations, but is it limiting you to only rerolling wards or non-rerolling wards? Either way it's played, you're breaking the allocation rules.

I'd say the Cygor ruling on attacking a magic standard bearer shows the intent, where the Cygor can allocate attacks and get rerolls to hit against a standard bearer with a magic banner. The green ogres can all attack bloodletters with rerolled ward saves.