PDA

View Full Version : Scorps: Killing Blow and Poisoned attacks



He Who Is Him
01-09-2007, 21:24
This issued spawned a huge, game ending (because of time, not hurt feelings) discussion. With the scorp's attacks, do you use the poisoned attack rule for all 4 of its attacks, then any that hit on rolls other than 6 get the killing blow rule when rolling to wound? Or do you have to declare which die counts for each kind of special attack (ex: these 2 red dice are my poisoned attacks and these 2 white dice are my killing blow attacks)?
I said it was the 1st option, my bitter opponent said the 2nd option. Who is right? If it is the 2nd option, how many of the attacks are poisoned and how many are killing blow?

theunwantedbeing
01-09-2007, 21:35
If you get a poisoned hit,you cant get a killing blow as the dice roll to generate a killing blow hit simply doesnt happen.
All attacks are poisoned with killing blow.

He Who Is Him
01-09-2007, 21:44
I knew it! That's what I get for listening to someone who hasn't even read my army book. Thanks unwantedbeing, you're a rules OG (original gangster, not ogre or orc and goblin)

Grimtuff
01-09-2007, 22:26
Erm, said rule is spelt out in the army book :eyebrows:

All you had to do was show him it.

He Who Is Him
01-09-2007, 22:47
As with most written work, there is a fair amount of interpretation to be done. Since the poisoned attack rule talks about the scorp's stinger and the killing blow rule talks about the scorp's claws, it isn't crazy to think that they might be different (just like if a warrior wields two different weapons at the same time they don't benefit from the rules of the other). I wasn't having trouble reading the rule, I was having trouble interpreting it, but thanks for being a jerk anyway and pointing out the obvious.

Grimtuff
01-09-2007, 23:02
As with most written work, there is a fair amount of interpretation to be done. Since the poisoned attack rule talks about the scorp's stinger and the killing blow rule talks about the scorp's claws, it isn't crazy to think that they might be different (just like if a warrior wields two different weapons at the same time they don't benefit from the rules of the other). I wasn't having trouble reading the rule, I was having trouble interpreting it, but thanks for being a jerk anyway and pointing out the obvious.

Ummm, what? :wtf:

Your opponent misinterpreted the rule, now although you're correct you've mixed flavour text into a rules discussion.

He Who Is Him
01-09-2007, 23:18
I was merely pointing out that there was evidence on both sides of the argument and that sometimes simply reading the rules isn't enough for someone, because they interpret them differently and what you think is justifying your point is actually convincing them more that their opinion is correct. I think I know what this is really about. Is Grimtuff getting jealous because I complemented theunwantedbeing? It's cool, you can be a rules OG too (this time I mean ogre, not original gangster).

I do apologize for calling you a jerk though, that wasn't needed

Brimstone
02-09-2007, 06:28
I do apologize for calling you a jerk though, that wasn't needed

Well it's a good job you've apologised as insulting other members of the forum breaks the rules and will get you into trouble.

The Warseer Inquisition

Holy Crap! Manticores!
02-09-2007, 12:17
Let's say you roll 4 attacks.
You roll a 1, two 3's, and a 6.
The 1 misses, the 6 hits and automatically wounds (AS may be taken as normal)
The two 3's (for the sake of argument) hit, so you roll to wound. Assuming you need a 3+ to wound.
You roll a 3, a 4, and a 6. The 3 and 4 wound, AS taken as normal, the 6 kills outright due to KB (assuming that model is KB-able)

The Tomb Scorp entry spells this out very well. GW should take note on this book, one of the clearest books rules-wise.

Lorcryst
02-09-2007, 12:49
Let's say you roll 4 attacks.
You roll a 1, two 3's, and a 6.
The 1 misses, the 6 hits and automatically wounds (AS may be taken as normal)
The two 3's (for the sake of argument) hit, so you roll to wound. Assuming you need a 3+ to wound.
You roll a 3, a 4, and a 6. The 3 and 4 wound, AS taken as normal, the 6 kills outright due to KB (assuming that model is KB-able)

The Tomb Scorp entry spells this out very well. GW should take note on this book, one of the clearest books rules-wise.

Erm, your explanation is quite clear (and it's indeed how it works), but you're confusing things with your example (two rolls to wound, but three dice results ?) ...

Festus
02-09-2007, 12:50
Let's say you roll 4 attacks.
You roll a 1, two 3's, and a 6.
The 1 misses, the 6 hits and automatically wounds (AS may be taken as normal)
The two 3's (for the sake of argument) hit, so you roll to wound. Assuming you need a 3+ to wound.
You roll a 3, a 4, and a 6. The 3 and 4 wound, AS taken as normal, the 6 kills outright due to KB (assuming that model is KB-able)
Your example is wrong: You only roll twice for wounding. Not three times. The poisoned hit will not be rolled to wound.

Festus

Tutore
03-09-2007, 09:29
Your example is wrong: You only roll twice for wounding. Not three times. The poisoned hit will not be rolled to wound.

Festus

Exactly. Thus, that poisonous hit/wound doesn't have the killing blow rule, thus saving even the fluff.

soots
04-09-2007, 03:34
"Damn, i rolled autowound"

From a fluff perspective, it should have been only on poison attacks, since its the poison thats killing blows someone :p But alas, it isnt.

Festus
04-09-2007, 06:58
No, from a fluff perspective it is the sting that causes the poisoning wounds, and the shears which cut the head off for the killing blow...

Festus

ZomboCom
04-09-2007, 23:39
Yup, the rules work perfectly from a fluff perspective. The scorpion has 2 weapons, one with killing blow and one with poison, and so it is impossible for a single wound from it to do both.

If the wound is a poisoned wounds, it came from the stinger.

If the wound is a killing blow it came from the claws.

If the wound is neither it comes from... erm... anywhere.

He Who Is Him
06-09-2007, 02:24
The rules don't work perfectly from a fluff perspective because all the attacks have a CHANCE of causing either kind of special attack. If they worked perfectly from a fluff perspective, each of the 4 attacks would only have the chance of causing one kind of special attack, not both. It is understood that an attack can't cause both, but the fact that it has the chance of causing either makes the fluff vs actual game rules not work perfectly

theunwantedbeing
06-09-2007, 03:03
Fluff works fine.
You get a few poisoned hits,they were from the stinger.
You get a few killing blows,they were from the claws.
You get none.....it doesnt matter what happened does it?

That fails to fit the fluff how?
Because if you roll all 6's to hit and get a bunch of poison then the attacks it did with its claws should give poison.

And you know it was attacking with its claws in that sitatuion how?
What do we have that shows how the thing attacked?
The rolls to hit and wound.

And they say it used its stinger as its sole weapon.
So thats what happened in the fluff.

See,fits the fluff fine. ^_^

He Who Is Him
06-09-2007, 22:46
So what you're saying is that if all four of the attacks end up being poisoned, we are to assume that the scorp was able to attack 4 times with it's stinger and none with it's claws, where as if they all end up being killing blow, the claws were able to hit 4 times. So each turn, the scorp has time to make 4 attacks (any combo of stinger or claw to make up that four) and the only way to determine how many of each kind of attack the scorp was able to make (maybe he couldn't make any stinger attacks because his tail was still buried or whatever justifies it in your head) is by the dice rolls.

It makes sense fluff-wise if you think of the attack stat as a general idea of attacks can be made per turn (I could swing either this axe or sword 3 times = 3 attacks) rather than each of the attacks being assigned to a specific weapon (I can swing this axe once and this sword twice = 3 attacks).

theunwantedbeing
06-09-2007, 23:12
Attacks dont equal the number of times you swing your weapon.

Look at lances.
A bretonnian lord charges a lone character.
His lance hits 4 times.

See how your way cant represent that properly?
So he hits that 1 guy,4 times with his lance,while charging....and he does that how exactly?

Have a go at explaining that one please.

He Who Is Him
07-09-2007, 01:11
Anythin for someone who says please (and I mean ANYTHING). Amend my last paragraph to say (changes in red):

It makes sense fluff-wise if you think of the attack stat as a general idea of the number of wounds that can be made per turn (I could swing either this axe really hard once or normally twice) rather than each of the attacks being assigned to a specific weapon (I can swing this axe once and this sword twice = 3 attacks).

I know this isn't perfect either, but it's closer to making the fluff work

Festus
07-09-2007, 05:30
Hi

The easiest way to make the fluff work is to take WHFB as what it is: A tabletop wargame with necessary simplifications in the representation of things.

Basically, it started out as every other wargame: It had a ratio -

1 model equalled about 10 troops, a character was the Hero himself and his retinue. The numbers of attacks, shots, etc. were an approximation, tweaked for game balance. The actions of each unie were just its active part during the battle, eliminatiing the periods of waiting, reloading, etc.

Much of that still is part of the rulessystem of WHFB, without many noticing it.

So the 4 Attacks of the Lord actually started out as all the Attacks, he and his retinue dished out, and for simplicity's sake, it was just one model and this dealt X attacks...

Fluff will never work precisely in a Wagame (and less so in a I-go U-go kind of game).

... but this is not a rules discussion anymore, or is it?

Festus

He Who Is Him
07-09-2007, 19:38
I'd say it stopped being a discussion of the rules by my 2nd post