PDA

View Full Version : lizardmen magic item question



soultaker87
06-11-2007, 19:49
ok theres going to be a big tournment coming up, and I have been trying to make a good lizardmen force that could possibly take on anything. the big thing I'm worried aboutis that three players play OK and I always have troulbe with tyrants. so heres the question, can piranha blade and bane head's effects stack together againest heros? me and another guy talked about it but couldn't find anything in both rule book and the lizardmen book that says I couldn't do it. can anyone help?

Atrahasis
06-11-2007, 22:47
Yes, they will work together.

Whether one wound turns into 3 or 4 is a subject of great discussion.

soultaker87
07-11-2007, 18:27
Thats what I'm talking about, do they both double wounds on characters. for example, lets say I do one wound to an Ogre Tyrant which is turned into 2 wounds by the piranha blade, then another two wounds by bane head making it 4 wounds. would this work or not?

Guyver OmegaX
07-11-2007, 18:40
It would work to some extent.

I'm a Lizardmen player, and my interpretation is that both items will double the 'normal' wound. I.E. Cause 1 wound, which is doubled the Piranha Blade (+1), and by the Bane Head (+1), causing a total of 3 wounds.

However, as you say, it could be interpreted as a total of 4 wounds, rather than 3 (1 wound doubled to 2, doubled again to 4).

The two items CAN be combined, but exactly how they work together hasn't been specified anywhere to my knowledge (neither int he army list nor in the Lizardmen FAQ).

soultaker87
07-11-2007, 21:05
ok now that you put it that way, it makes alot fairer for games thanks.

DeathlessDraich
08-11-2007, 09:15
I agree with your interpretation Guyver but I arrive at a different outcome.

Each item doubles only the unsaved wounds caused by the bearer [and not unsaved wounds caused by magical effects thereafter].
If the bearer inflicts one unsaved wound, Bane head will double this to 2 while Piranha blade will double the *original unsaved wounds* to 2 simultaneously, making a total of 4.
This total is the same as doubling and redoubling but the actual mechanism is different. If there were 3 such items, total wounds would be 6 and not 8.

Atrahasis
08-11-2007, 09:58
How can the *original unsaved wounds* be 2 when originally only one was inflicted, and subsequently doubled?

Guyver OmegaX
08-11-2007, 12:53
Thanks Atrahasis, that was exactly what I was going to ask :)

DeathlessDraich , Could you give an example of how it would work with 3 wound doubling items? That may make your explanation clearer.

T10
08-11-2007, 13:42
Yes, they will work together.

Whether one wound turns into 3 or 4 is a subject of great discussion.

It could even just be 2 wounds. :) This satisifes the effect of each item individually...

-T10

DeathlessDraich
08-11-2007, 13:52
How can the *original unsaved wounds* be 2 when originally only one was inflicted, and subsequently doubled?

?? It is one as I've stated.

Menset
08-11-2007, 13:59
I think Deathless' method is correct. the wound would become 2 for Bane head and then the wound would become 2 for Piranha blade. Simple maths says 2+2=4. If I interpret Deathless right this is what he was meaning.

Atrahasis
08-11-2007, 14:01
?? It is one as I've stated.

I think I can see the confusion.

If you double the original wound, and then double the original wound and add those together, you have counted the original wound twice.

In order to correct that, you have to then subtract the original wound, so each wound counts as 3, not 4.

EDIT:


I think Deathless' method is correct. the wound would become 2 for Bane head and then the wound would become 2 for Piranha blade. Simple maths says 2+2=4. If I interpret Deathless right this is what he was meaning.

Exactly what I mean - you've counted the original wound twice when you arrive at 4.

The "doubling effect" of each item adds 1 to the original wound.

DeathlessDraich
08-11-2007, 14:17
Apologies for restarting an old debate - effectively opening old wounds :p


The "doubling effect" of each item adds 1 to the original wound.

That would have been written as causes an additional wound. - (x+1) instead of doubling - 2x.

1) Each item doubles unsaved wounds
2) Do you agree that each item acts independently?

3 is arrived at from 2x+1. Shouldn't it be 2x?

It *seems* similar to a redoubling because adding two numbers togather is the same as doubling them.

Apply your calculation to 3 items each doubling Us Wounds and unsaved wounds =2.
My method yields 6.

What happens with yours?

Atrahasis
08-11-2007, 14:23
My method would yield 4.

Each of your doublings counts the original wound and a "new wound" from the doubling.

ie doubled wounds = (original wound + new wound)

if you double twice by your method you get:

(original wound + new wound) + (original wound + new wound)

As you can see, you have counted the original wound twice. Since there was only one original wound, this is obviously incorrect.

EDIT :

An analogy to help clarify:

You're raising money for charity by running a marathon with sponsorship from the general public.
Your employer says they'll double whatever the original sponsorship.
Your bank says they'll double the original sponsorship.
How much money would you expect from each source if you secured 1000 pounds in sponsorship?

Guyver OmegaX
08-11-2007, 14:52
That would have been written as causes an additional wound. - (x+1) instead of doubling - 2x.

One slight change: That COULD have been written as causes an additional wound. More specifically, probably something like "causes an additional wound for every wound inflicted", allowing for the case when multiple attacks cause multiple wounds in one combat phase.

But then, what if you have the combination we're talking about;

Say 1 attack is successful (hits/wounds/failed save), for easy figures:

1 Wound caused

Apply the Piranha Blade: 1+1 Wounds

Apply the Bane Head...wait...we have 2 wounds. Do we get +1 for each of those wounds (total 4), or +1 for the original wound before we consider the Piranha blade (total 3)?

We would have the same basic problem with that wording, in my opinion.



An analogy to help clarify:

You're raising money for charity by running a marathon with sponsorship from the general public.
Your employer says they'll double whatever the original sponsorship.
Your bank says they'll double the original sponsorship.
How much money would you expect from each source if you secured 1000 pounds in sponsorship?

An excellent analogy, IMO :) You would clearly get 3000 in total.