40K: The Ogryn Bodyguard Wound Hyperloop

Move over Imperial Assassins (and Elon Musk) – there is a new Hero of Hive World Woundus Shenaniganus: The Ogyrn Bodyguard!

What’s big, tough, dumb, and (most importantly) loyal? The humble Imperial Ogyrn of course! Love’em or Hate’em Ogyrns haven’t had a lot of time to shine in the last couple editions…but all that is changing with the arrival of the Ogryn Bodyguard! Let’s take a look at what this behemoth of beef can do:

For 55 points (plus wargear) you get a pretty tough Character with 6 wounds to chew through. The Ogryn is a decent shot at closer range and a solid melee combatant as well. Depending on how you load this wall-o-beef out, the Ogryn probably won’t be going anywhere without some dedicated fire/assaulting action. But what really makes this guy tick is the Bodyguard ability:

I’ve made my case why I dislike this rule’s design before. Mechanically, I get it. But thematically, I don’t like how this model can “absorb” a lost wound from another model. That model some how regrows the lost wound and the poor bodyguard just magically takes a mortal wound. It never takes the attack, just feels the damage. But that’s not the point of this one – Oh no, the problem is really how this rule is worded.

The issue comes from the keyword Astra Militarum Character in the ability. You know who is ALSO an Astra Militarum Character? The Ogryn Bodyguard. Now, being a Character has it’s own unique advantages and …well advantages. We’ve talked about them before and offered a suggestion to tweak them. The Ogryn Bodyguard is poised to take advantage of a whole new class of Wound Shenanigans thanks to the ability to shuffle wounds around the table.

Let’s say you have Knight Commander Pask in a Leman Russ – because, hey, it’s cool and thematic and good. And behind him you have, oh I don’t know, 4 Ogryn Bodyguards. And let’s say they are all strung out in such a way they are each within 3″ of each other and/or Knight Commander Pask. Let’s say that Pask gets shot with a Lascannon and is wounded and takes 4 Wounds thanks to a good damage roll. Ouch! But never fear – the Bodyguards are here:

The Bodyguards can simply absorb one shot each – which is working as intended, right? Except they are each characters. And what if you failed one of those 3+ rolls? That’s okay – you could just have one of the other Ogryns attempt to take a wound and then have one of the OTHER Ogryns absorb that wound as well…

This is all totally viable and working as intended, right? An Ogryn Bodyguard should be able to take a wound intended for one target. But should that damage be allowed to pass on to another Ogryn down the line? RAW – yep!

Now, this all relies on your ability to roll a 3+ which for some folks is genuinely a problem. At the same time, if you have all 4 Ogryns within 3″ of Pask, you’ve got 4 chances to roll that 3+, and then more changes to shuffle that wound where you want it. And, because this is all based on the target player getting to determine when this chain of mortal wounds stops you could keep attempting to shuffle wound around all day long.

 

The “best” part is that each one of these guys are Characters so your opponent can’t even target the one that’s wounded to finish the job. And if they COULD, hey, just go all hyper loop on them and pass that wound around until you get bored or fail all your 3+ attempts.

At best players can use this to shuffle wounds around to a more advantageous model. At worst, this is a stall tactic that more unscrupulous players will use to run down a game clock during a tournament. Please don’t try this at home.

 

We gave the Ogryns the technology. This is what they did with it…

  • Rainthezangoose

  • SilentPony

    This is an insulting wasteful article and I demand my time and brain-cells back!
    Also you can’t do more than one shuffle as the bodyguard steps in when a character suffers a Wound. Not a Mortal Wound, a normal Wound.
    The bodyguard then suffers a Mortal Wound. The rules don’t say the bodyguard can absorb Mortal Wounds, just Wounds.
    So they can’t absorb other bodyguard’s Mortal Wounds, nor can they absorb Smite Mortal Wounds.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Well you’ve saved me 2 mins of writing. Amazes me how much of the rules these guys don’t know….

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        I agreed with SilentPony, but it does have the same wording as Disgustingly Resilient, which has been established to work on Mortal Wounds.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Difference is that Disgusting Resilience (and the like) are not armour or invulnerable saves, which Mortal Wounds ignore. It is just an ability that says you can ignore a wound on X+ dice roll; it does not care whether that wound is a standard one or a mortal one

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            I… I don’t believe that is a difference at all.

            Bodyguard: “roll a d6 each time a friendly character loses a wound; on a 3+ the character does not lose a wound.”

            Disgustingly Resilient: “Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.”

            I initially thought the wording was different, but upon checking it, it is the same.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Yup. its the same ability. The AM character is just shoving the wound off on a Bodyguard

          • SilentPony

            I don’t get it, they’re not the same ability. Disgustingly Resilient is…that. A unique rule with an FAQ.
            Bodyguard is a similar ability. Without an FAQ.
            Ogryns don’t have Resilience, they have Bodyguard. The rules are capitalized. Meaning proper names. Meaning something very specific.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Right, but the content is the exact same. “Roll a dice, on a #+, does not lose that wound”. It would be weird if there was extra subtext that you needed to read into that.

          • SilentPony

            Not really. Some weapon profiles have the same stats. But they’re separate weapons.
            until an FAQ comes out and says that Bodyguard applies to Mortal Wounds, and that both Wounds and Mortal Wounds can be shifted multiple times, its bunk.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Sorry but you are just wrong.

          • SilentPony

            you honestly think GW intended for a endless loop? honestly? seriously? Bull

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            No, GW did not intend that but that is easy to fix by adding a line that says makes an exception for Ogryn Bodyguards. Like, “This ability cannot be used to prevent wounds that are lost by other Ogryn Bodyguards”.

          • Matt Halkos

            it doesn’t matter. Use some common sense. No you can’t pitch wounds backward forever. BG takes the wound from the initial target. end of story. Articles and players using tactics and rules not as intended are why we can’t have nice things

          • Richard Mitchell

            Playing by the rules and mind reading are not the same.

          • Muninwing

            while i agree, it is within the rules to do so until it is FAQed. that’s the problem with GW adopting this new system. with USRs, there would be more qualifications on Mortal Wounds and other things, and this wouldn’t have ever been an issue.

          • Gorsameth

            No, they didnt intend to. But GW makes a lot of rule interactions that they didn’t intent to.

          • Richard Mitchell

            Everyone beware we have a mind reader in the group.

          • Muninwing

            if the rule (regardless of name) works in a given pattern, then every time that exact pattern is used, the earlier one is a precedent.

            tying to claim “well, it doesn;t work because that specific version hasn’t been FAQed” is not only factually wrong, logically obtuse, and pedantically tedious, it is also a horrible precedent to set in creation of a game. that means that every single aspect of the game must be spelled out each time it is used.

            ain’t nobody got time for that.

            if mortal wounds are able to be affected by rules, then they are able to be affected by rules. doesn’t matter what that rule is — the FAQ proves that the mortal wound is able to be affected. what ability it is attached to is irrelevant.

          • Marcet

            That’s where you are mistaken, the FAQ for DR affects ALL similar abilities:

            Q: Can abilities such as Disgustingly Resilient be used to ignore
            wounds if they were inflicted by mortal wounds?
            A: Yes.

            It does not only affect DR. As long as the wording is ‘roll x+ to ignore wounds on y’ you’re golden. (or similar)

          • SilentPony

            “It does not only affect DR. As long as the wording is ‘roll x+ to ignore wounds on y’ you’re golden.”

            Is that in the FAQ? ’cause unless that’s a direct quote, all you have is Yes. And Yes doesn’t apply to other rules.

          • Marcet

            I provided you with the direct quote from the FAQ, the one that matters, the one that says that all abilities, such as DR, that allow you to ignore wounds work on mortal wounds. Bodyguard allows you to ignore wounds on a character model within 3″. Bodyguard works against mortal wounds.

          • SilentPony

            No. Here’s the thing, that requires a literal interpretation of the Bodyguard rule, taking is specifically at word value.
            AND an extrapolation of a Death Guard FAQ to apply to alternate armies.
            And you can’t have it both ways. Either the rules are literal, as written, or extrapolation to apply meaning elsewhere.
            and in fact if we are saying extrapolation is what GW intended, then we don’t need multiple bodyguards to create a loop. 1 Ogryn is enough.
            He suffers a wound. Bodyguard has no May, so it comes into effect, seeings how he’s within 3″ of himself. So roll a die to see if he shuffles the wound off off himself, and onto himself. And if he does, he suffers a mortal wound, in which case roll a die. And if he doesn’t, he suffers a wound. In which case roll a die.
            Its an endless loop with no wounds ever actually applying since he keeps rolling to shuffle them off.

          • Marcet

            Seriously?

            Firstly, that quote is from the general FAQ:

            https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/40K_8th_ed_Update_Rulebook_ver_1.1.pdf

            page 4, second column, 4th question.

            Secondly, ‘abilities SUCH AS,…’ that shows that similar abilities work in the same way, if it was specific to DR it would have said: ‘Does the DR ability…’

            We can go in circles as long as you want but that’s what the words ‘such as’ mean.

          • LankTank

            This discussion should have ended with your comment. Irrefutable.
            Additionally, who cares? If my opponent wants to spend 220 points standing some Ogryns in the backfield, more power to him.

          • Muninwing

            yes. mortal wounds can be affected by other rules.

            thus, applicable here.

          • SeagullSickSteve

            Sorry but you’re basing your interpretation on the wording of the Disgustingly Resilient and Bodyguard rules being the same, which they are not:

            DG: “Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound”

            BG: “Roll a D6 each time an AM Character loses a wound whilst they are within 3″ of this a model; On a 3+ the character does not take a would but this model suffers a mortal wound”

            Sorry but you can’t just change the wording of the rule to suit your own interpretation – it’s unarguably a different rule.

            Even if, as you say further down, the mechanics at the most basic level (roll a d6, on x the model doesn’t suffer a wound) are the same the rest of the mechanics are different:
            1). DG applies to the model itself losing a wound while BG is when a different model loses a wound
            2). Unlike DG, the BG rule does not end with the initial model not taking a wound, the wound is reallocated to another model.

            They are entirely different rules and this would have to have YET ANOTHER FAQ to say whether this works against mortal wounds -_-. Why GW can’t write rules unambiguously so this crap doesn’t happen we’ll never know.

          • Muninwing

            no.

            look at it as if it’s not the DR or BG rule that are being affected by the ruling, it’s the Mortal Wound mechanic.

            can MW be affected by [x ability]?
            yes.

            show why it cannot. where in the rules does it state that a mortal wound cannot be subject to affect by another rule?

            mortal wounds are wounds. they bypass saves and wounding rolls, but they are wounds. why, then, does it matter that it is a mortal wound?

            wound is caused — either via traditional channels or the speedy bypass of a mortal wound. then ability kicks in — either DR gets rolled for and ignores said wound, or BG becomes an option. the roll is made, and the wound is either ignored or passed on.

            the new wound is inflicted upon the Ogryn. it is a new wound. mechanics start over. that it is a mortal wound doesn’t actually interact with the other rules.

            this entire thread is based on an assumption that has no basis in any written rule, and is disproven by other rules’ FAQs.

          • SeagullSickSteve

            Oh I’m not saying that mortal wounds shouldn’t trigger it. As written there’s absolutely nothing to say it doesn’t trigger on mortal wounds, there’s nothing to say it shouldn’t be played as described.

            I’m just disputing the claim that the DR and BG rules are worded the same, and the conclusion that BG triggers on mortal wounds because of the FAQ question on DR. In my view it needs it’s own FAQ to rule one way or the other and clear up the interaction as it is not a similar rule to DR, which seemed to be the argument here.

            I couldn’t give a rats arse if someone played it the way described, but it would be bloody time consuming!

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            I have to disagree with your first sentence. The wording is the same for the relevant section. “loses a wound” is the only part that matters here. GW says that “loses a wound” applies to mortal wounds. They didn’t errata Disgustingly Resilient to say “loses a wound or receives a mortal wound”, they clarified that “loses a wound” means both wounds and mortal wounds.

            Yes, absolutely, the triggered abilities are different. But we are arguing about the trigger of the abilities, which has the exact same wording.

          • SeagullSickSteve

            I see your point, for sure. Personally I feel that the rule works sufficiently different to Disgustingly Resilient for it to warrant it’s own clarification rather than being lumped together, that’s my only bugbear on it – trivial I know!

            If I played Guard I would totally play it that it works for mortal wounds, it’s how the rule is written!

            Totally agree with your point that the rule should stipulate that you “may” do it. Without that you end up in the rather amusing situation of taking 4 Ogryn BGs and having to roll for a mortal wound on each 4 of them for every wound the IG officer takes, then spreading all 4 of them in a constant loop. I can’t imagine anyone would actually go to those lengths!

          • Muninwing

            it does not make a difference whether the wound is mortal or not. you suffer a mortal wound, which causes you to lose a wound.

            you do not have a separate “mortal wounds” characteristic on your datasheet.

            if you take a mortal wound, you skip all the normal saves… then you take a wound.

            page 181 backs this up.

            first “mortal wounds” says “inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above.”

            assigning a mortal wound means that you ignore all the normal wounding mechanics — to wound, save, etc, and just assign one point of damage.

            but what does that mean?

            same page: “Inflict Damage: The damage
            inflicted is equal to the Damage
            characteristic of the weapon used
            in the attack. A model loses one wound for each point of damage
            it suffers.”

            so it assigns a point of damage, which then becomes a wound.

            so it does not lose a wound until the next part of the movement. after which, it is not “a mortal wound” anymore, since that mechanic has been used, and turned into a point of damage, which is then turned into a wound.

            too many people who don’t bother to look it up trying to be clever here instead of reading the rules. it’s very clear once you bother to do due diligence.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            See my reasoning points further below (or above, always get confused where post end up).

            FYI. I do read the rules, and all use correct comprehension of English to words to understand them . 😉

          • Muninwing

            a hit turns into a wound when you roll for it, and before it can be saved. the progression — right from the rules — is as follows:

            after you do a wound (S vs T) *to the unit*
            – allocate where that wound is going to go
            – roll save
            – assign damage (not the same as a wound… it uses “points of damage” instead)
            – remove wound from model
            if that kills the model, remove it. any leftovers are lost.

            if a Mortal Wound is done, the progression is as follows”
            – auto-wounds
            – no save
            – allocate point of damage
            – remove wound from model. if that kills the model, remove it. any leftovers carry to the rest of the unit.

            so the Mortal Wound becomes a point of damage, just like any other wound, before it is lost from the model.

            there are no types of points of damage. one is the same as another. all distinctions are cleared up before this point. mortal and regular become the same.

            then a wound is removed from a model. that’s when the Ogryn ability is used.

            there is a desire for us to think that things are a certain way, even when there is no indication that this is true. the ways that Mortal Wounds are different from regular wounds is specific and delineated in the rules. they are not anything more than they are indicated. a process does not need to explicitly name Mortal Wounds in the above chain of events for them to matter.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            You’ve got your opinion and I’ve got mine. We both feel we are correct. All that is fine. Just have sit and wait for some FAQ’s

          • I_am_Alpharius

            You’ve got your opinion and I’ve got mine. We both feel we are correct. All that is fine. Just have sit and wait for some FAQ’s

          • Muninwing

            opinion is irrelevant. it’s actually right there in the rules.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Well now you let slip you worked for GW, I know understand where the sense of “I’m right” comes from.

          • Muninwing

            no, it’s actually because your argument is based on bad reading. you literally have no basis. the rules say otherwise. yet you’re still sticking with an impression you got that is not supportable within the rules.

            you are inserting a personal opinion in an issue that is logical, and somehow you want people to respect your reading comprehension fail.

            i’m sorry. your recent comments have shown that you’re a bit too sensitive for this kind of good natured free spirited argument, and that you’re taking this way too personally. it might be easier if i just don’t comment on your posts for fear that you will have your ego bruised.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            You seem flustered….but hey ho if you say it, it must be true…

      • Karru

        Like you?

        Q: If a model has two rules that allow it to ignore wounds, such as the Disgustingly Resilient ability and the Tenacious Survivor Warlord Trait, can I use them both?
        A: Unless stated otherwise, yes.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          see my comment to. There is a difference. @YetAnotherFacelessMan:disqus

          • Karru

            Did, but again, the wording 100% the same. It does not dictate if the model suffers a wound or a Mortal Wound, it just loses a wound.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            It would be better if GW used a different word to describe being hurt and a model’s hit points.

          • Karru

            Yeah, it would also help if GW actually read their own rules and not just throw something together that sounds neat to the guy doing it while on a bathroom break and then just adding it to the main rules without actually checking if it causes conflicts.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Its the same wording as Tyrant Guard and “Feel No Pain” abilities.

          • Karru

            I mostly meant that since these guys are characters too, this bs happens because GW completely overlooked the fact that it would also affect these guys.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            I think they made them characters with the intent of avoiding the body guards getting lascannoned down preemptively. They’re single models, so Character is fine. If I were to fix it, I’d include the word “may” or even the phrase “Non-Ogryn”.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Just say, “Non-Ogryn Bodyguard” model”

          • penguinhunterd

            Or limited them to one per army.

          • penguinhunterd

            The more I think about it lascanning them down would make it more balanced. You’d still have to knock them out before trying to snipe a character. Make it a 1-3 unit.

          • Matt Halkos

            yes but if they released the game as it was meant to be played aka beer and pretzels then they honestly don’t think that there are people who act like this to exploit some loophole. This is not an actual rule and no one should pretend it is. BG can take the wound form the initial target. In addition if anyone did this in an actual competitive setting. Not only would they lose out on sportmanship points, but shuffling wounds around like this could disqualify them based on them intentially delaying the game.

          • Koen Diepen Van

            I think the problem is that none of the game writers at gw has a logical or mathematical background they all are classically educated creative ppl. Good for coming up whit creative and thematically grounded idea’s not so great for competent game mechanics.

          • Muninwing

            yeah… “do a wound” becomes “a point of damage” becomes “remove a wound” in a different part of the chain of events. very confusing.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Not sure if that is entirely accurate since abilities like Disgustingly Resilient can be used to save against Wounds and Mortal Wounds.

      Disgustingly Resilient only uses the word “Wound” in its description, just like this bodyguard.

    • Iggynous

      Ofcourse it applies to mortal wounds. This ability triggers when a “character looses a wound”; i.e. it’s wound characteristic is reduced by 1. Does suffering a mortal wound reduce the wound characteristic by 1?

  • Gorsameth

    Here is a better one. There is no ‘May’ in the rules so you must use it if the condition is met (a character within 3″ takes a wound).

    When and how are things checked?
    If 3 bodyguard are within range of another character taking a wound, do all 3 take the test? so long as one passes the character does not suffer a wound but all bodyguard who pass do suffer a wound? (meaning 1 wound turns into multiple wounds on the different bodyguard).

    Additionally if a bodyguard takes a wound all bodyguards within range must test again because there is no May clause.

    If 2 bodyguards are within range of eachother and 1 suffers a wound for any reason then the wound will bounce around until one fails to roll a 3+ because there is no May clause.

    Ofc none of this effects the normal player because most are not complete idiots but still, its a weird situation.

    • SilentPony

      Doesn’t work like that. It says they absorb Wounds, not Mortal Wounds. And the Bodyguards suffer Mortal Wounds. Rules don’t say those can be bounced.

      • Gorsameth

        Nope, that subtle distinction does not exist in the rules.

        “Loses a wound” is when your W statistic goes down by 1. See Disgusting Resilience and other such rules which work against Mortal Wounds and use the exact same wording.

        Therefor the bodyguard ability will trigger when a character within 3″ suffers a Mortal Wound.

        • penguinhunterd

          Oh God, you’re right, it’s automatic. If you’re following the rules you’d have to shuffle the wounds around in a tournament setting. That said by removing the optional aspect of it it would lose the beardy advantage described in the article and just be a nuisance to everyone.

        • penguinhunterd

          Actually now that I’m thinking about it the rules auto triggers for all four Ogryns in the described scenario. If all four passed the 3+ they’d all take mortal wounds. Since it doesn’t specify closest etc. Then they’d roll for THOSE wounds. Depending on how they’re arrayed and how you roll you could theoretically end up basically wiping the Ogryns from one wound being inflicted.

  • Karru

    8th edition in a nutshell right here!

    • ToLiveIsToDie

      I feel like they said they tested these rules. Didn’t they say that? I keep wondering who they did that with.

      • Marcet

        I’ve said it before but the amount of games used to test for 8th are insignificant compared to the amount of games played in the first week of release, for the simple reason: the testign was done with a limited amount of people, when it hit the general populace the amount of testers grew by orders of magnitude.

        As a games developer you cannot foresee every situation, mistakes and oversights will happen.

        We are in essence beta testing.

        • LankTank

          Yuppp. Also when someone was writing the rules, thinking of play, theme and style I’m sure they did not think “what if some twit sits 4 of them behind a Leman Russ trying to protect the armored chassis with their face?”. Who would do that? Who would spend 220pts to do that even now?

  • el_tigre

    I only made it half way through the article, but that’s my limit on murdered brain cells for one day. I swear these things are making me dummer.

    • Aurion Shidhe

      I see what you did there.

  • YetAnotherFacelessMan

    While I don’t want to be as harsh as SilentPony, I do agree with his bottom line; there is no hyperloop. Games Workshop has made “Wounds” distinct from “Mortal Wounds”. Whenever an ability applies to both, it references both.

    Good diagrams, though. Please continue liking/enjoying/writing about 40k.

    • Marcet

      While there is a distinction between ‘Wounds’ and Mortal Wounds’, there is precedent that a rule does not have to specify that distinction: Disgustingly Resilient and other similar rules. These rules do not always include ‘Mortal Wounds’ but often just ‘Wounds’, yet they work against both types of wounds.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        I stand corrected. I just checked Disgustingly Resilient, and it does say “Whenever a character loses a wound.”

        I withdraw my point.

    • Karru

      As Marcet mentioned, in the FAQ it clearly states that unless otherwise stated, rules that refer to losing a wound counts towards both Regular and Mortal Wounds.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        I know. I read Marcet’s post. Hi, Karru. Welcome to the thread. The comment you replied to has nothing to do with the content of your reply. You’ve become a non sequitur via ninja edit. ^_^

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Difference is that Disgusting Resilience (and the like) are not armour or invulnerable saves, which Mortal Wounds ignore. It is just an ability that says you can ignore a wound on X+ dice roll; it does not care whether that wound is a standard one or a mortal one.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        You… you copied it over here? Okay…

        “I… I don’t believe that is a difference at all.

        Bodyguard: “roll a d6 each time a friendly character loses a wound; on a 3+ the character does not lose a wound.”

        Disgustingly Resilient: “Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.”

        I initially thought the wording was different, but upon checking it, it is the same.”

      • Richard Mitchell

        Makes sense to me. But are you encouraging people playing the RAW, where everyone plays by standard and consistent rules, or rules as intended where you need a doctorate in literary analysis to come conjure up a standard for playing and where a game of 40k in one town is completely different from the next because every person playing is a mind reader.

  • Calgar

    I still say my ideas fixes all the character problems. Characters don’t prevent you from shooting other characters, only units do that. Then bodyguard type characters simply have the rule that you cannot target other characters if this guy is closer. Boom, all problems solved.

    Oh and wounds should only transfer once in your example.

    • LankTank

      I like characters blocking for other characters. Makes Arjac Rockfist leading the charge with Ragnar behind him so awesome to see. The ony problem with that rule was when it was an Assassin being the target, in which case the more simple rule is to limit the amount of assassins. Otherwise it’s weird when a frantic gun line ignores Abaddon who is about to charge to instead snipe some warpsmith in the backfield talking to chaos trees

  • TB0N3

    The real problem is the precedent created by Disgunstingy Resilent, stating that “Wounds” include “Mortal Wounds”. See the AoS Phoenix Guard wording, it’s specified W and MW are different things.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Difference is that Disgusting Resilience (and the like) are not armour or invulnerable saves, which Mortal Wounds ignore. It is just an ability that says you can ignore a wound on X+ dice roll; it does not care whether that wound is a standard one or a mortal one.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        The Bodyguard doesn’t care either. He only looks to see if the AM Character suffered a wound

      • Marcet

        From the FAQ:

        Q: Can abilities such as Disgustingly Resilient be used to ignore
        wounds if they were inflicted by mortal wounds?
        A: Yes.

        Nowhere does it say that the ability to ignore wounds must come from the model which is about to lose wounds. In other words if the ability is external it should work. So a bodyguard should work.

        • Karru

          It does. I couldn’t find anything that would differentiate the two when it comes to actually losing a wound. The Bodyguard rule is very clear when it comes to it, it activates as soon as a character loses a wound. You are not losing a Mortal Wound, as such thing doesn’t exist, you are losing a wound as that is the only characteristic Mortal Wounds affect.

      • LankTank

        It doesn’t state when the character fails a save. It states when it suffers a wound.

  • Aurion Shidhe

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    **opponent begins pulling this sort of @z$-hattery in a game**
    http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c13f4121dfd1ec2b7ec9c8e6b3108d31f88a21e149918f6d542be16450f9d2f3.jpg

  • thelichenking

    Isnt the flaw with this that you cannot choose not to? If pask suffered a wound wouldnt every bodyguard have to jump in the way? Potentionally all taking a wound? All trigger at the same time and no option to not jump in yhe way

  • Kitane

    And it’s likely to happen during the opponent’s turn, giving the opponent the right to choose who of your bodyguards is going to block next (multiple rules activating at onces = the player whose turn it is decides the order). This thing is just messed up. I am not even sure if it can realistically stop before someone fails 3+…

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      My opponent does not get to dictate the order in which my models hyperloop their wounds.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        Close the thread everyone. We’ve found the winning comment.

  • Kitane

    That reminds me of the current issue with GSC Unquestioned loyalty that is also forced and thus broken. When a GSC character loses a wound, on 4+ a friendly GSC Infantry model within range takes it instead and is removed from play (even a multiwound model).

    Sounds fluffy for cultists.

    But it can also force a character to tank wounds for another character, a Patriarch can be instakilled in order to save a wound on Iconward, etc….

    And if there is no friendly GSC infantry model within range at all, a GSC character is actually forced to kill himself on 4+ on every suffered wound, because he’s also a friendly GSC infantry within range.

    • mgdavey

      But you’re not forced to make the Unquestioned Loyalty roll are you? Doesn’t it say “you may roll a d6”?

      • Kitane

        No, you are forced. That’s the problem 🙁

  • mgdavey

    None of this makes any sense to me. If you have four body gaurds within three inches of each other then the wound could keep moving around, but eventually you’re gonna roll a 1 or 2. So what’s the problem? And I don’t see the point of including Pask in the example either.

    • becizzle

      Because Pask is a character and already in a super tough platform. You basically get 24 extra wounds to his tank before it starts degrading. That’s broken sir.

      • mgdavey

        You only get the extra wound if you roll 3+. So you get avg 16 extra wounds for 210 pts. I’d think you could find better uses for those points. Is Pask so good that it’s worth that much to give him those extra wounds?

        • mgdavey

          I stand corrected, with 4 Ogr BG your odds would be much better than .66 to tank a wound. But even if the 210 pts made Pask indestructible, it still seems expensive.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Right let’s get this in one place….

    Whats the difference between “Wounds” and “Mortal Wounds”, because there is a difference?

    – “Wounds” are caused when you succeed in your To Wound roll (whatever that may be). At this point your model has, in effect lost a Wound; even though you have not subtracted it from the model Wound statistic.

    – “Mortal Wounds” are NOT wounds in the same sense as “Wound”. You do not roll to wound, take armour or invulnerable save. A model hit by a weapon/ability that causes “Mortal Wounds” simply does a straight one point of damage.

    Now the Bodyguard rules allows the Ogre to jump in front of an attack that causes a “Wound”. Since as soon as you roll “To Wound” you have, for all intensive purposes, “lost a wound”.
    the “wound” can be transferred to the Ogrn. However as a “Mortal Wound” skips this stage entirely and causes a straight single point of damage, the Ogrn cannot use the Bodyguard rule to stop it.

    The actual wounds removed from a models W statistic is due is due to the “Damage” roll NOT the “To Wound”. That why abilities, such as Disgusting Resilience can be used against both “normal and Mortal” wounds.

    The headache comes in working out the order of operation with various abilities because of the way GW tosses-around /interchanges the word “wound” in connection to several very different situations. It is certainly something that needs at look at.

    • Marcet

      That’s all nice and dandy, but you’re wrong, the wording on bodyguard is the same as the wording on DR.

      Both take effect on losing a wound. The FAQ has made it sufficiently clear that losing a wound is the moment damage is inflicted. If you had been right DR would not have worked against Mortal wounds either.

      I’m really sorry but you are just plain wrong and I play CSM before you try to say I’m just wanting to cheese.

    • Karru

      Would you be kind enough then to explain this:

      “Roll a D6 each time friendly Astra Militarum Character loses a wound whilst within 3″ of this model; on a 3+ Astra Militarum character does not lose a wound.”

      “Each time this model loses a wound, roll a D6; on a roll of 5 or a 6, it does not lose that wound.”

      There is literally no difference in the wording when it comes to what wound is being suffered.

      “Q: Can abilities such as Disgustingly Resilient be used to ignore wounds if they were inflicted by mortal wounds?
      A: Yes.”

      If your argument was correct, you wouldn’t be able to get Disgustingly Resilient “save” either against Mortal Wounds. Unfortunately for you, GW has said that Mortal Wounds and normal wounds are the same when it comes to these types of “saves but not”.

      • I_am_Alpharius

        Sure, the rules are worded the same. Its a question of when the rule is intended to come into effect; and for sure, they could be far clearer. As I said its the huge headache cause by the way in which the writer through around the word “wound”. Admittedly that intent is it certainly not clear and is very confusing.

        The Body Guard rule is intended to take the initial “Wound” not the “damage” (and subsequence inflict multiply wounds) caused by a weapon. Where as, Disgusting Resilience (and the such) is intended to be used against the final “damage”;as indicated in the design commentary FAQ:

        “Q: When rolling for abilities such as ‘Disgustingly Resilient’ or ‘Tenacious Survivor’ against attacks which inflict multiple wounds, do you roll to ignore each individual wound inflicted by the attack, or do you roll only once to ignore all the wounds inflicted by the attack?
        A: Roll to avoid each wound lost separately. For example, if a model with Disgustingly Resilient fails its saving throw against an attack made by a thunder hammer (Damage 3), you would roll three dice and for each result of 5+ you would ignore a single wound.”

        • Gorsameth

          Now your drawing in a lot of intent.

          The Bodyguard rule as it is written now applies after damage has been rolled (taking 3 wounds from a lascannon would trigger 3 bodyguard rolls to transfer the wounds).

          All these effects trigger on “losing a wound”

          • I_am_Alpharius

            I did say the intent is very unclear and needs to be far better. But its is there and hiding when you look and read carefully – which of course hobbyist should not have to do.

          • Bootneck

            If someone plays this which might be legal, its quite poor and i wouldn’t give them the time of day.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            No matter which way you cut it; its not an effective or points efficient tactic for sure.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            I think this, with no wound bouncing, is how this rule is supposed to work. Thematically, 1 ogryn tanking shots for their charge at a time makes the most sense.

        • Karru

          That’s not how it works. You can’t just say “Yeah, the wordings are same, but since I think they work differently, the meaning changes completely.”

          It still works for Mortal Wounds, just like the Disgustingly Resilient, as the wording is exact same, the only difference is that it moves from one guy to another. It is just the case of GW being very, very bad at rule writing and just massively f*cked up with the rule.

    • LankTank

      If it was supposed to be more thematic in terms of jumping in front of a wound then it would be the Deathshroud rule.
      I still wonder why they have those separate….

  • Iggynous

    What dumb idea. Spending 220pts, which itself has barely any output, to keep an AM character alive. None of the AM characters are that important.

    Just buy another Leman Russ and a Techpriest.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      Shhhh shhhh! We’re being hyperbolic and exploring corner cases! Don’t shatter the illusion!

      Seriously, though. I think one Ogryn Bodyguard is a good idea, but yeah, there’s no reason to have 4 piled onto an HQ… even Pask.

  • ZeeLobby

    Looks like the GW defense force is back in full blast, haha. Looks like a poorly written rule destined to be FAQed to me.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      its not even that poorly worded. Its just missing a sentence that prevents other Bodyguards from absorbing wounds. Not a big deal

      • ZeeLobby

        Oh. It’s worded fine. Just poorly written. The inclusion or not of Bodyguard transfers should have probably been in there. Not a huge deal, but pretty endemic of GW rules.

  • wibbling

    For goodness sake. Please stop trying to twist the rules. Play them as the spirit and ask intended. On 3+ the ogryn takes the wound. Leave it at that.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      I agree with your sentiment, but this is really more “playing the rules straight” than it is “twisting them”. You’re right, though. A single ogryn bodyguard isn’t really an issue, and if you have two, four, or 87, one of them is going to end up with the wound anyways. Drawing focus from the game to play a quick subgame of “Hot Potato” isn’t productive.

  • Matt Halkos

    no

  • Camisa

    Lololololololololol so mutch stupidity….

  • David

    each time a friendly astra militarum character loses a wound
    1) doesn’t matter if mortal or non mortal still loses a wound
    2) regardless of thematic’s “each time” so in the above scenario Pask loses a wound then all 4 check simultaneously if any are successful they take a wound so the other 3 check simultaneously etc etc and if multiple succeed well multiple suffer wounds but only the original wound is negated repeat until or 4 ogryn are most likely dead. Single ogryn possibly two works more than that suicide

    • Watcherzero

      Yeah its non optional if a character is wounded the bodyguard has to make the save.

    • Simon Bates

      Yep, the way the rule is written, there is very little advantage to having more than one bodyguard in range unless you really really don’t want your guarded character taking wounds. Even with just 2 Ogryns, they’re going to be both rolling for every wound and so while your character is pretty safe, nearly half the time (4/9) *both* Ogryns will be wounded. If they’re within 3 inches of each other as well then it just gets silly and we keep regressing until we stop rolling 3+s.
      More than 2 Ogryns within 3 inches of each other and the guarded character only makes those odds worse (and while the character is increasingly safe from that first wound, the odds of the first wound wiping all of the Ogryns in range out get higher the more Ogryns there are).
      Most of this could be prevented by stopping Ogryns taking wounds for other Ogryns, and by wording the rule so that it only applies to the Ogryn closest to the said character.

  • Murrue

    Even if it works that way, useless combo, given how much points it will cost, as an ogryn bodyguard is 55 pts + stuff and Pask easily reach 260+ points…

  • Ravenmonk

    If you are the kind of gamer that uses this kind of tactic, you are the kind of person that kills the game. You will force old player and new to quit the hobby because you are so focused on being an A hole you take all the fun out the game and you deserve to have no friends or joy in your life. And let’s be honest if your thinking of using this tactic you properly don’t have any friends so fill your boots! Can’t imagine you’ll get any invites for a second game though! You may require an ogryn bodyguard yourself as well and good luck “shuffling the hard objects throw at you head”!

  • Troy Dean

    Rules interpreted exactly as written? Okay, I see where you’re coming from. If you did that on the table in a game against me it’d be a case of finishing up the game, a gentlemanly handshake across the table and never, ever bothering to put models on the battlefield opposite yours again. So many of these problems seem to exist purely by stretching things past their logical limit for the sake of it.

  • Hamidreza Mohammadi Khabbazan

    Don’t you take off wounded models first. IE if the bodyguards are all in 1 unit the first wounded model takes the next wound.

    • Mike Woodsman

      This would be the case if bodyguards were a unit. They’re not. 8th edition has no concept of character units. There are units, and there are characters. Ogryn Bodyguards are the latter.

  • Eric Even

    The way this is worded makes the hyperloop diagram above absolute garbage. If they are all within 3″ of Pask and he takes a wound, they ALL trigger at once. So, you multiply each wound Pask took in to potentially four wounds spread across your ogryns. And if they are all within 3″ of each other? Then they all trigger. This is a good way to waste time during a turn and points in a list. It would be more cost effective to just take another tank commander and let Pask boss it around so they are both putting out an absurd number or shots every turn.

  • Logan Miller

    Miniature strategy games are supposed to simulate real combat. Bodyguards don’t jump in front of each other in circles to try and catch a bullet. If anyone even started doing something like this, or any other stupid rule min/maxing I would immediately pack my minis up and leave. I don’t play to do math or diagrams, I play to imaging the battle actually happening in real life. Don’t be stupid people. Everyone knows what was intended. And I don’t play tournaments so I don’t care how they handle stupid people moving wounds around the table like the ogryns are passing a blunt.

  • Marco Marantz

    Is there a research institute which just looks for rules exploits?

  • drinniol

    A lot of people not seeing the forest for the trees. Eventually a roll will fail, all it does is change which ogryn gets the damage.

  • The14th

    Rules intent is obvious, this is just a waste of web space.

  • Azatoth

    How do you wound a character inside a tank? I also doubt the tank itself is a character?

    • Marcet

      The tank is a character, the whole model has the keyword.

  • mgdavey

    This is one of those cases where the people who object to the rule are just as deranged and the people who want to exploit it. It’s not really game-changing in either way.

  • How many times have they spelt it “Ogyrn” in this article?