PDA

View Full Version : Poisoned attacks



Tormentor of Slaanesh
09-09-2005, 20:29
Two questions.
1: Do poisoned attacks work on chariots? with the crew and mounts..
2: What happens if they are combined with killing blow?

Porksta
09-09-2005, 20:33
As stated in the rulebook, you cannot poison chariots. You can however, poison the guy riding the chariot as long as it is a character.

There should be no questions for poison and KB. When you poison, you have to roll a 6 to hit. When you KB, you roll a 6 to wound. 2 different rolls.

Tormentor of Slaanesh
09-09-2005, 20:47
so if u poison u can't killing blow?

Festus
09-09-2005, 20:54
Hi

Right: A hit that poisoned doesn't roll ro wound, thus no KB possible.

Greetings
Festus

Gazak Blacktoof
09-09-2005, 23:28
Just to clarify on what Porksta said about chariots.

Poison works on anything that isn't "unliving". People originally confused this with undead and daemons however it was latter clarified that poison afects those models too. Any chariot can be poisoned because it has steeds and crew, not just a character riding in one. The only models that count as "unliving" are warmachines ie bolt throwers, rock lobbers, cannons etc. This applies only to the machine itself and not the crew.

On KB and poison the answers so far are spot on. No roll to wound means no KB this is in one of annuals but I'm too lazy/ its too late to get you a quote.

Izram
10-09-2005, 02:16
The crew and steeds dont have wounds characteristics, you are not wounding them. You may not allocate attacks to them, you may only strike the chariot. Which is unliving.

Has there been a clarification?

EDIT-
Q. Are Chariots immune to poison?

A. Yes, as they have many parts that are wood or metal (i.e.
unliving). Note that Undead Chariots are also immune to poison.
S. Warhammer Chronicles 2004 page 117 / Anthony Reynolds -
Warhammer Design Team

MarcoPollo
10-09-2005, 02:32
I know it sounds silly not to be able to kill parts of the chariot. Only if there is a character can you allocate attacks against the chariot or the character. This was put in in order to speed up the play and to eliminate all different sorts of crazy tactics that can cause problems with the wording or rules.

Flame
10-09-2005, 08:41
Indeed, it first cropped up in the first annual that you cannot poison chariots.

evenar
19-09-2005, 21:43
you cannot poison a war machine and a chariot is treated as a war machine therefore you cannot poison it even if the crew are living

Atrahasis
20-09-2005, 11:46
The ONLY support for a chariot being immune to poison is found in the answer to the question "Are Undead immune to poison?"

The rulebook is very clear - only Warmachines and things which expressly state in their description that they are Unliving or otherwise Immune to Poison are immune to Poison. Chariots carry no such description, and have a living component.

The Q&A answer is erroneous.

T10
20-09-2005, 12:44
As a hybrid model such as this it is generally appropriate that it retains it component vulnerabilities rather than immunities.

However, that is a "should have, would have, could have..."

-T10

peteratwar
20-09-2005, 13:24
If the rule book were that clear there would be no queries.

The Q&A are not deemed to be erroneous.

Chariots are immune to poison. There is no separate targetting of components as in 5th ED

Latro
20-09-2005, 14:43
The ONLY support for a chariot being immune to poison is found in the answer to the question "Are Undead immune to poison?"

The rulebook is very clear - only Warmachines and things which expressly state in their description that they are Unliving or otherwise Immune to Poison are immune to Poison. Chariots carry no such description, and have a living component.

The Q&A answer is erroneous.

... you did note that that particular answer mentions chariots by name as an example of those unliving targets the rulebook refers to?

Seems pretty clear to me.

Atrahasis
21-09-2005, 10:07
... you did note that that particular answer mentions chariots by name as an example of those unliving targets the rulebook refers to?

Seems pretty clear to me.

The rulebook is extremely clear that War Machines are immune, and anything else that is immune will have a note in its description. Chariots are not war machines, and nor do they carry a note in their description.

They are also not "Unliving" (incidentally a word that GW seem to have invented in this context) in the common sense interpretation of the word as they have living crew and draught.

Where a Q&A contradicts the rulebook, especially where the question was concerning a different matter, I will believe the rulebook every time.

The protection granted to teh crew by the chariot is already represented by heightened toughness and an armour save.
The Q&A's assertion is supported neither by the rules nor by common sense, and leads to the frankly awful prospect that crew of chariots are immune, but their heroic character chums are not.

Its counterintuitive, baseless in the rules, and it came from the pen of Anthony Reynolds. Three reasons to disbelieve and ignore it.

Flame
21-09-2005, 10:21
...but is still in an official GW publication, whether you like it or not.

peteratwar
21-09-2005, 11:04
Werll, I agree the Q&A was very clear. It is how it is played now.

Have noted certain parties have had their own quaint interpretations before :D

Latro
21-09-2005, 11:59
The rulebook is extremely clear that War Machines are immune, and anything else that is immune will have a note in its description. Chariots are not war machines, and nor do they carry a note in their description.

They are also not "Unliving" (incidentally a word that GW seem to have invented in this context) in the common sense interpretation of the word as they have living crew and draught.

Where a Q&A contradicts the rulebook, especially where the question was concerning a different matter, I will believe the rulebook every time.

The protection granted to teh crew by the chariot is already represented by heightened toughness and an armour save.
The Q&A's assertion is supported neither by the rules nor by common sense, and leads to the frankly awful prospect that crew of chariots are immune, but their heroic character chums are not.

Its counterintuitive, baseless in the rules, and it came from the pen of Anthony Reynolds. Three reasons to disbelieve and ignore it.


One reason to believe it:

"This section contains our definitive list of questions and answers, rules corrections, updates and clarifications. These are official and replace any previously published errata, frequently asked questions and the like. As with all articles in Warhammer Chronicles, it is worthwhile taking time to read over them againbecause subtle changes my have been made in comparison to previous versions. The clarifications and corrections have been laid out to match the diagrams and paragraphs they replace, so feel free to photocopy these pages and stick the updated rules into your rulesbooks"

Quote from the Question and Answers section from Warhammer Chronicles. Could you please point out where is says we can disregard any of these "official rules corrections, updates and clarifications" if we do not like the outcome (or the person who wrote it)?

Feel free to disregard, bend, invent any rule you like when playing among friends, but please don't try to argue that this point of view is somehow better than the official thing.


I'll just stick to the rules if you don't mind.

:cool: