PDA

View Full Version : New Vampire Counts Magic Weapons - The Black Axe of Krell



Sigmar
01-03-2008, 13:26
This can only be used by a Wight King (Hero). It counts as a great weapon and causes D3 wounds.

It says...

Any model wounded by the axe but not killed will suffer an extra wound every turn if it does not pass a toughness test. Not bad heh ?!

Anyway, what I want to know is...

Is the wounded model allowed to take a ward save ? It says nothing about saves. I'm sure no armour save is allowed and assume no ward save.

Does anyone know for sure ? Are there any GW experts here ?

Thanks,
Sigmar

avoidconfusion
01-03-2008, 14:20
Well looking at the description it sounds to me like the Axe does some sort of corruption, disease or poison damage which will keep on damaging wounded units until they die.

I wouldn't see how ward or armor saves should be eligible here as the unit does not get hit again, it is merely an effect from the first wound.

theunwantedbeing
01-03-2008, 16:32
If it says "no saves allowed" then you ignore saves.
If it doesnt say that, you get your saves.

T10
01-03-2008, 17:25
You always apply saves to wounds unless otherwise specified, so your opponent may take his (unmodified) armour saves and his ward saves against the Axe's continuous effect.

-T10

Sigmar
01-03-2008, 18:16
I haven't seen it say anywhere that you always take saves unless otherwise specified (can you point me in the right direction if you've seen otherwise please ?)

Also, once the wound has been inflicted I cannot see a reason for taking armour saves.

Ward saves are a little different because they can be due to all sorts of things even divine protection. If I was a Games Master / rules adjudicator I certainly would not allow armour saves because armour could not protect against a wound already inflicted.

I am not sure about ward saves though.

I hope we see an errata to clear this up.

In fact does anyone know who to email at Games Workshop with questions of this sort ?

Thanks for your comments everyone,
Sigmar

T10
01-03-2008, 18:49
The function of the saves is to negate damage. A model with an armour save is as entitled to use it as a model with the Regeneration rule is entitled to it's... uh, regeneration save.

I am sure you have noticed that the norm is for exceptions to be noted and only rarely is the ability to take saves reaffirmed.

-T10

juample
01-03-2008, 18:56
I haven't seen it say anywhere that you always take saves unless otherwise specified (can you point me in the right direction if you've seen otherwise please ?)

Also, once the wound has been inflicted I cannot see a reason for taking armour saves.

Ward saves are a little different because they can be due to all sorts of things even divine protection. If I was a Games Master / rules adjudicator I certainly would not allow armour saves because armour could not protect against a wound already inflicted.

I am not sure about ward saves though.

I hope we see an errata to clear this up.

In fact does anyone know who to email at Games Workshop with questions of this sort ?

Thanks for your comments everyone,
Sigmar

What army do you play?

Do you think casualities due Combat result can be saved with armour save?? and with ward save? and regeneration?

TAKING ARMOUR SAVES pag. 29.

T10
01-03-2008, 19:02
Interestingly, the new Undead Break Test rules now only disallow armour saves. Other saves can thus be taken as normal.

Unbreakable swarms are permitted no saves against wounds caused through combat resolution.

-T10

Sigmar
01-03-2008, 19:08
What army do you play?

Do you think casualities due Combat result can be saved with armour save?? and with ward save? and regeneration?

TAKING ARMOUR SAVES pag. 29.

I think you may have misunderstood my question. I know how armour saves work.

The magic item in question specifically causes wounds after the combat round is over in subsequent turns (and after armour ward saves have already been taken for that turn). Here's a quote..."...any model wounded by the Black Axe but not slain must pass a Toughness test at the start of each of it's subsequent turns or suffer an additional Wound." (note: at the start of each subsequent turn (not combat phase). There is no way in my opinion that he can use his armour save, I am almost certain of that. Can he use his ward save though ?

Why would a model take armour saves against a non-combat or missile fire attack in subsequent rounds. This is, in effect a type of undead "poisoning" which only refers to the model having to take a toughness test each turn. This is not combat related. It's on page 84 of the new Vampire Counts book.

PS. I have 6 armies but usually play High Elves.

Sigmar
01-03-2008, 19:11
Interestingly, the new Undead Break Test rules now only disallow armour saves. Other saves can thus be taken as normal.

Unbreakable swarms are permitted no saves against wounds caused through combat resolution.

-T10


Re: the Undead Break test, I noticed the same. It makes for a good example of the different treatment of armour and ward saves.

I'm already looking forward to the Errata for the Vampires ! :)

juample
01-03-2008, 19:27
Ok Sigmar. Why you cant make armour saves against wounds due CR?

Sigmar
01-03-2008, 19:31
I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you clarify your question please ?

Apologies for any confusion. I might have to reply tomorrow because I am going out now.

Regards,
Sigmar

avoidconfusion
01-03-2008, 19:33
I think you may have misunderstood my question. I know how armour saves work.

The magic item in question specifically causes wounds after the combat round is over in subsequent turns (and after armour ward saves have already been taken for that turn). Here's a quote..."...any model wounded by the Black Axe but not slain must pass a Toughness test at the start of each of it's subsequent turns or suffer an additional Wound." (note: at the start of each subsequent turn (not combat phase). There is no way in my opinion that he can use his armour save, I am almost certain of that. Can he use his ward save though ?

Why would a model take armour saves against a non-combat or missile fire attack in subsequent rounds. This is, in effect a type of undead "poisoning" which only refers to the model having to take a toughness test each turn. This is not combat related. It's on page 84 of the new Vampire Counts book.

PS. I have 6 armies but usually play High Elves.

Exactly. The 'save' in this case is the Toughness test. It makes absolutely no sense to allow the wounded Unit to make armor or ward saves against the effects of a wound that has already been inflicted.

The rule states "any model wounded by the Black Axe but not slain must pass a Toughness test at the start of each of it's subsequent turns or suffer an additional Wound" .

To me that is pretty clear, you roll a toughness test, if you fail you get another wound, no armor or ward saves.

juample
01-03-2008, 19:43
Wounds caused by comat result: Why cant they be saved by normal armour saves Sigmar?

T10
01-03-2008, 20:10
Wounds caused by comat result: Why cant they be saved by normal armour saves Sigmar?

Because it clearly states that armour saves cannot be taken.

Please notice that this is merely one of many situations where "you may not take a save of type X" is added as an exception. Mr. sigmar is well aware that such exeptions exist.

Oh, and incidently, I'm heading out as well. It turns out I *do* have plans for tonight. It's just that I need rely on others to make them for me. :|

-T10

Falkman
01-03-2008, 20:24
To me that is pretty clear, you roll a toughness test, if you fail you get another wound, no armor or ward saves.
Every time you take a wound you get a chance to save it, unless otherwise specified.
The Black axe of Krell does NOT specify that you don't get saves, and thus you do get your save.

grishnakh99
01-03-2008, 21:24
That wounding effect of the Axe is just garbage then...

avoidconfusion
01-03-2008, 22:49
Every time you take a wound you get a chance to save it, unless otherwise specified.
The Black axe of Krell does NOT specify that you don't get saves, and thus you do get your save.

Well I disagree in this case. What is the point of this item then if the opponent can make a Toughness Test, an armor save and possibly a ward save.

Imho this clearly is just a case of bad wording, if you think about it logically I am sure you will agree that you should not be able to make an armor save for the effect of a wound already inflicted.

The subsequent wounds caused in the following rounds are not the result of another attack which could force an armor save.

Would be interesting to get an official response on that topic though.

MountainMammoth
01-03-2008, 23:35
I am pretty sure the Axe of Krell functions as a multi-wound weapon. If your bretonnian hero took a cannon ball to the gut, he would take only one save, even if that wound is worth more than one wound (ie if you rolled five wounds from the great cannon ball the knight would get one 5+ save for all five wounds not five 5+ saves). By the same token, once the wight has gotten though the paladin's armor and ward save, the Axe of Krell does the 1 wound as normal and causes additional wounds (without saves for additional wounds just like those of a cannon ball or sword of heroes or Konrad's special ability etc would not get additional saves) if the knight fails his toughness test.

Of course GW can make any errata they want but as long as it deals 'additional' wounds, those wounds are connected to the first one and don't get saves unless stated otherwise.

avoidconfusion
01-03-2008, 23:37
I am pretty sure the Axe of Krell functions as a multi-wound weapon. If your bretonnian hero took a cannon ball to the gut, he would take only one save, even if that wound is worth more than one wound (ie if you rolled five wounds from the great cannon ball the knight would get one 5+ save for all five wounds not five 5+ saves). By the same token, once the wight has gotten though the paladin's armor and ward save, the Axe of Krell does the 1 wound as normal and causes additional wounds (without saves for additional wounds just like those of a cannon ball or sword of heroes or Konrad's special ability etc would not get additional saves) if the knight fails his toughness test.

Of course GW can make any errata they want but as long as it deals 'additional' wounds, those wounds are connected to the first one and don't get saves unless stated otherwise.

Concurrance with the above.

Gromdal
02-03-2008, 07:49
"Every time you take a wound you get a chance to save it, unless otherwise specified.
The Black axe of Krell does NOT specify that you don't get saves, and thus you do get your save"

this is true

Sigmar
02-03-2008, 09:05
Concurrance with the above.


Me too.

avoidconfusion and MountainMammoth have both put forward logical arguments which I agree with.

I will therefore assume from now on that no armour or ward saves can be made at the start of a wounded character's subsequent turns (following an unsaved injury in a previous combat round). They can of course continue to make normal armour & ward saves in the combat round but not at the start of their turn to ward off the lasting effect of the Black Axe of Krell.

Thanks for your comments everyone,
Sigmar

T10
02-03-2008, 09:38
Well, I guess you could use that as a house-rule. I suggest that you do not try to convince others that those are in fact the rules. Point out the flaw and suggest the "no save" as a house rule.

-T10

Latro
02-03-2008, 10:40
Well, I guess you could use that as a house-rule. I suggest that you do not try to convince others that those are in fact the rules. Point out the flaw and suggest the "no save" as a house rule.

-T10

Out of curiousity, what makes your interpretation (based on an example) "the rules" and their interpretation (based on an equally valid example) just "a house-rule"?


:cool:

juample
02-03-2008, 14:34
Wounds caused by combat result: Why cant they be saved by normal armour saves Sigmar?

Sigmar when you answer to yourself this question (we alredy know the answer), you have the half of the way walked, to understand why wounds done by failing the T test can be saved by the normal, and usually, armour save.

(I asked you which armie you play becose it seems this axe can be only a normal magic weapon, you want to turn it the ultimate magic weapon and for any reason... there are a lot of crap magic items in all armie books....)


T10 I know you have the answer thanks for trying to convince him (you convinced me! :D).

grishnakh99
02-03-2008, 14:36
Anytime you take a wound you get your saves, unless it specifies otherwise.

I do believe the intent of the Black Axe was to avoid this, but it's not stated. Multi wound models generally have a high T, and generally an AS, so to have an item with a power this useless I don't believe is the intent.

I'll be playing with the house rule.

GodHead
02-03-2008, 16:51
T10 has the reading right. And bear in mind that if we ever see any FAQs again, that Alessio has taken the position that if the rule is understandable and playable it will not be changed even if it's stupid, so enemies would get their saves against this weapon if it was FAQed.

MountainMammoth
02-03-2008, 19:21
Well, T10, you are absolutely correct that the rules are unclear. When the rules are unclear where I play, you clarify them with your opponent, try to reach a balanced consensus and play on. If an agreement based on the fluff and other clear examples (precedents) can't be reached you dice it off if it is something that will happen only once and you get an outside arbitration in the form of a 'house ruling' (this comes either from your gaming group in the free game setting or the whim of the tournament organizer/ judge in the competitive setting) if it is something that is likely to repeat and play it that way. Any arbitration of an unclear rule (outside of an official FAQ) would be a 'house rule'.

The Black Axe is hardly an ultimate weapon anyway. It is only really useful against monsters and monstrous characters, and those tend to have high toughness so it really a wash. Against normal characters i would much rather have the wight king's normal killing blow anyway. Given the trade offs i would say 30+ points for a magic great ax (for a character whose normal great axe has killing blow and counts as magic) that can do extra wounds on failed toughness tests is not that 'ultimate' and if those wound are allowed saves (which begs the question what str would you use for the armor saves/lady blessing you supposedly get if the wounds aren't considered to be linked to the original one, but please lets leave that can of worms buried) it would make that magic weapon expensive and just plain stupid (most of the other crap items have at least something they can do properly).

Just one final thing, just because the rules don't say 'you don't get something' doesn't necessarily mean you always do. Leastwise that is a dangerous precedent to set.

scatterlaser
02-03-2008, 19:47
Well, T10, you are absolutely correct that the rules are unclear.
I wouldn't say the rules are unclear. They don't make that much sense, but they're clear enough. Nothing in the rules really suggests that you wouldn't get saves against wounds inflicted in later turns by the Black Axe. Unless a FAQ specified otherwise, I won't be trying to convince my opponents that they don't get saves against 'shard' wounds from the Axe - there isn't really anything except flavor text to go on.

To be fair to the Axe, though, it's a magic great weapon that does d3 wounds per hit - I'd still take it even if it didn't do wounds in later rounds at all. Given that it'll be on a T5 W3 character who's very easy to heal, I definitely wouldn't call it useless if its wounds in later rounds can be saved with armour.

InquisitorMatticus
04-03-2008, 13:56
Well, the rules do say "wounds", not "hits". Like the flaming chaos mortal sword, you take d6 extra "wounds". I dont think it specifies that you dont get ward saves or anything from it, you just take the wounds.

Anyways, that just the way i read it .. .

EvC
04-03-2008, 14:38
Unbreakable swarms are permitted no saves against wounds caused through combat resolution.

Thank goodness there is no way I can think of to allow an unbreakable swarm a ward/ regeneration save..!

SuperBeast
04-03-2008, 15:42
By way of example to how where I'm coming from, undead crumble wounds;
rulebook says you don't get armour saves.
In addition, in the new UK WD VC batrep, one of the boxouts explicitly states that means you get regeneration and ward saves against them.

Special rules overall list only exceptions or additions to the normal rules.

So, much as I'd like it to be otherwise, in my view the Black axe's victim gets saves. If it gets FAQ'd, then great.

GodHead
04-03-2008, 15:48
If that's the stance that GW is taking, should I comfortably allow no saves of any kind against Queen Bess?

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130642

Tarian
04-03-2008, 21:33
Ok here's my opinions, take them as you may.

1) I believe that you *do* get any saves you may have against the "additional wound."
ex. The Slaaneshi spell "Luxurious Torment" does continuing damage in each Magic Phase, but normal saves (including armor!) are allowed against it. In my opinion, this negates the "it's ongoing so you can't save it" argument, again, in my opinion.
Multiplied wounds are not the same as additional wounds, in my opinion.

2) GW is usually pretty decent about telling you what you can't save.
ex. A cannonball clearly negates armor saves, but allows ward and regeneration saves. Pit of Shades clearly negates any saves you may possibly have, even armor, ward or regeneration.

Note: I do not have the VC book, as I do not play VC. I am merely basing my opinions on the quotes, etc found in this thread.

3) Taking a stat-line test does *not* automatically mean you fail additional saves.
ex. Pit of Shades would not have to specifically mention that it negates tests if this was true.

4) @Godhead: That's how I would read the rules, and I would not allow any saves of any kind against Queen Bess.

So, to sum my post up: The weapon does *not* say it doesn't allow saves against the additional wounds, armor or otherwise, so I would allow the player to take any saves they may or may not have against it.

5) @EvC: Ally with High Elves and have them cast their little 5+ ward save spell on the swarm. :angel:

Warhammerrox
04-03-2008, 22:32
You...

DO NOT...

Get an armour save from the extra wounds from the Axe of Krell...

The Black Axe has been around since before 5th edition warhammer, the axe leaves fragments of evily enchanted metal behind in the wound, it continues to hurt you after its initial damage, but you have to fail a T test to be hurt, so tougher enemies can handle it, weaker can't, and it's NOT a given that it will hurt you every turn you are required to take it as you will pass your T test a lot of the time...

Deal with it, or go and play 40k.....

GodHead
04-03-2008, 22:33
Read the rules. Quit telling us what to do, especially when it's the wrong thing.

Porksta
04-03-2008, 22:34
What strength is the Toughness test wound? If I fail the Toughness test then at what strength is my AS tested against? It can't be at the strength of the initial wound, because you already made the save against that weapon. Since you haven't been re-wounded by the weapon, what st is it considered at? Since there is none, you do not get a save. As posted before, it's like a cannon. Sorry you got wounded originally, but now you're ****ed.

Lord Inquisitor
04-03-2008, 22:38
I agree with MountainMammoth too. That seems to very much be the right train of thought. Now, can we wrangle a strict RAW interpretation to apply to the Black Axe from that?

(Edit... I just skipped a whole page ... I was referring to his logic at the bottom of page 1... :rolleyes:)

Nedar
05-03-2008, 00:37
Actually, I would argue that you don't get any saves against the axe effect via the rules (excluding any lore or common sense since it matters not). Here you go Lord Inquisitor.

The rule states you:

A.) Pass a Toughness test

or

B.) Suffer a Wound

The effect does not inflict any wounds on the character to be saved. It simply forces a character to do two things. Pass a Toughness test, or suffer (probably meant to be "Lose") a wound. That's it.

You are not being wounded again, thus getting saves. You are suffering a wound to fulfill a condition put upon your character by the Black Axe. Suffering and Inflicting are different words, and rightfully so.

SuperBeast
05-03-2008, 00:46
What strength is the Toughness test wound? If I fail the Toughness test then at what strength is my AS tested against? It can't be at the strength of the initial wound, because you already made the save against that weapon. Since you haven't been re-wounded by the weapon, what st is it considered at? Since there is none, you do not get a save. As posted before, it's like a cannon. Sorry you got wounded originally, but now you're ****ed.
No beans, comrade.
I see the logic, but it's flawed.
You get your normal armour save.
Why?
Well, as there is no save modifier for the wound because it doesn't have a strength characteristic, which is in effect S0.
BRB, page 30.
Unless the attack is modified by strength (which it isn't), you get your save.
You seem to be assuming that you only get a save if you get hit by an attack with a strength characteristic. Which is just mad.

I still believe that no save was the intent, but that argument won't cut it.

Spirit
05-03-2008, 01:01
Just to add something to the argument, what are the rules for the skaven pestilence boys?

Do they state you get an armour save from their T test, do you not get one? does it state that?

Just to see what a similar unit does in this case.

Tarian
05-03-2008, 01:10
You...

DO NOT...

Get an armour save from the extra wounds from the Axe of Krell...

The Black Axe has been around since before 5th edition warhammer, the axe leaves fragments of evily enchanted metal behind in the wound, it continues to hurt you after its initial damage, but you have to fail a T test to be hurt, so tougher enemies can handle it, weaker can't, and it's NOT a given that it will hurt you every turn you are required to take it as you will pass your T test a lot of the time...

Deal with it, or go and play 40k.....

Personally, I find your post to be rude. We're not arguing logic or fluff. If there was a *clear* answer, people would not be arguing about it. The debate is how should the rule be played. Previous editions, logic, the Great Pumpkin all mean *nothing* once a new edition comes out.

UltimateNagash
05-03-2008, 12:41
If they take a wound, saves allowed
If it reduces wounds by one, removes it etc (I know it says somewhere in the VC that something like this happens), then they don't get a save, as you're not damaging them in a sense...

or something

Lord Inquisitor
05-03-2008, 13:52
Okay, let's try and dissect this properly. Bear in mind that the "sensible" answer is that you don't get armour saves against the Black Axe's effects at least - the axe has already penetrated the armour and left shards in the victim's flesh. All the armour in the world (except, perhaps, the Cadaverous Cuirass :rolleyes:) isn't going to protect you from something already in your flesh.

Great Weapon. Simple enough so far.

The Black Axe does D3 Wounds. Presumably this means that after inflicting a Wound (after saves, etc), it is magnified to D3 Wounds - which don't get independent saves. We're agreed on this, right? We aren't going to be multiplying the Wounds and saving each one independently.

Any model wounded by the Black Axe but not slain must pass a Toughness test at the start of each ... turn or suffer an additional Wound.. So, put another way, after inflicting a Wound (after saves, etc), it is increased to a Wound every turn unless they pass a Toughness test.

How is the second part anything more than a delayed version of the first part? The original Wound has been inflicted, just as you don't save for additional wounds caused by the D3 multiplier (or Konrad's sword for that matter), you wouldn't get a save against the Black Axe's additional wounds later in the game.

GodHead
05-03-2008, 14:25
Because they're additional, not multiplied, and are not part of the initial attack that was inflicted in the first place.

Porksta
05-03-2008, 14:36
Because they're additional, not multiplied, and are not part of the initial attack that was inflicted in the first place.

Then let's look at a different weapon. I know there exists a weapon that when wounded, you take a toughness/initiative test or die. So let's say that weapon wounds me and I fail my armor save. Oh what's that? Even though I then fail my toughness/initiative test I get another armor save? Sweet.:rolleyes:

GodHead
05-03-2008, 14:42
There are no saves for auto-death things because they don't inflict wounds.

If something inflicts wounds, those wounds can be saved by armour, ward or regeneration.

If something automatically kills or destroys something, there are no saves of any kind because that's not what saves prevent.

Also, though unnecessary, these items, as far as I remember always say that no saves of any kind apply. They would function exactly the same if they didn't.

You're grasping at straws here.

Tarian
05-03-2008, 15:09
Then let's look at a different weapon. I know there exists a weapon that when wounded, you take a toughness/initiative test or die. So let's say that weapon wounds me and I fail my armor save. Oh what's that? Even though I then fail my toughness/initiative test I get another armor save? Sweet.:rolleyes:

You'd have already failed the AS against the initial wound. You can't take 2 AS against the same wound, since the test *only* tests whether or not you automatically die. It doesn't inflict an additional wound... you're just dead.

Bleakwood
05-03-2008, 15:11
It seems perfectly obvious that a wounded model who fails a To test would get any and all saves he might have, including from armour.

It seems equally obvious that this is an oversight in the book, since it 1) makes not a shred of sense at all, fluff wise and 2) breaks with the tradition that all other items that inflict secondary wounds share: NEVER any armour save, although other saves usually applies.

blurred
05-03-2008, 15:34
The answer is: yes, you do get your armour and ward saves as normal. Fluff is not a very good argument when rules are considered.

Skaven censer bearers specifically state that the target gets no armour saves, same with giant's thump with club: neither of these have strength value just like the axe's special effect doesn't have it. Characteristic tests do not intrinsically cancel armour and ward saves.

Taylor
05-03-2008, 16:14
Okay.. quick question..
A friend and I are arguing about the Axe of Krell.. but it's about the 1d3 wounds. Are the wounds caused before the wounds are saved, or after? He believes that it is before the saves... I am under the impression it is like every other multi-wound weapon. Can I get a concensus here?

Thanks!
T.

The Clairvoyant
05-03-2008, 16:36
Okay.. quick question..
A friend and I are arguing about the Axe of Krell.. but it's about the 1d3 wounds. Are the wounds caused before the wounds are saved, or after? He believes that it is before the saves... I am under the impression it is like every other multi-wound weapon. Can I get a concensus here?

Thanks!
T.

consensus says your friend is wrong. I'm sure someone will quote a page number or something but basically multiplied wounds happen after saves.

Count de Monet
05-03-2008, 17:02
Ok...don't have rulebook on me...but what's the actual terminology around 'wound'?

Are you termed to have 'wounded' the enemy before you check to see if they get saves? Or have you just made a to-wound roll?

Bleakwood
05-03-2008, 17:04
Okay.. quick question..
A friend and I are arguing about the Axe of Krell.. but it's about the 1d3 wounds. Are the wounds caused before the wounds are saved, or after? He believes that it is before the saves... I am under the impression it is like every other multi-wound weapon. Can I get a concensus here?

Thanks!
T.

I would strongly advice that you make a bet(preferably about cash) with your friend before any official documentation can be found.

Bleakwood
05-03-2008, 17:10
Ok...don't have rulebook on me...but what's the actual terminology around 'wound'?

Are you termed to have 'wounded' the enemy before you check to see if they get saves? Or have you just made a to-wound roll?

Cant remember exact wording, but since saves are taken before wounds are multiplied(if appliable) then the save is taken before the original wound is inflicted in the first place(since such weapons/items multiply the wounds the instant they are inflicted).

xragg
05-03-2008, 18:46
Plague Censers require you to take a Toughness test or take a wound and specifically state no armor saves allowed.

After it does an unsaved wound, Blade of Corruption does a wound at the begining of each of the players following turns unless they roll 4+ to avoid it. It also specifically states that no armor saves are allowed.

By looking at these 2 items, you can connect that:
1) toughness test does not disallow armor saves, or else why would they specifically disallow them in the same line.
2) continued wounds in following round do not disallow armor saves, again as it specifically disallows them in the same line.

This isnt concrete proof, just a correlation. Writers are obviously allowed to restate rules for reinforcement, but this is usually after it has been stated clearly at one point. The BRB doesnt state stat checks or continued wounds disallow saves anywhere, and 2 equipment examples state instances where they are ignored, it can be assumed these are the exceptions and not the norms.


*To the person asking about the pestilence spell, it also specifically disallows armor saves after the Toughness test.

Porksta
05-03-2008, 18:55
Plague Censers require you to take a Toughness test or take a wound and specifically state no armor saves allowed.

After it does an unsaved wound, Blade of Corruption does a wound at the begining of each of the players following turns unless they roll 4+ to avoid it. It also specifically states that no armor saves are allowed.

By looking at these 2 items, you can connect that:
1) toughness test does not disallow armor saves, or else why would they specifically disallow them in the same line.
2) continued wounds in following round do not disallow armor saves, again as it specifically disallows them in the same line.

This isnt concrete proof, just a correlation. Writers are obviously allowed to restate rules for reinforcement, but this is usually after it has been stated clearly at one point. The BRB doesnt state stat checks or continued wounds disallow saves anywhere, and 2 equipment examples state instances where they are ignored, it can be assumed these are the exceptions and not the norms.


*To the person asking about the pestilence spell, it also specifically disallows armor saves after the Toughness test.


Of course, using that correlation implies Salamander shooting is not flaming, but there seems to be a world of people that disagree with correlations... Not bashing, just stating the general mood of the forum.

Gazak Blacktoof
05-03-2008, 19:47
I still believe that no save was the intent, but that argument won't cut it.

It will if you play with reasonable people.

GodHead
05-03-2008, 20:02
It will if you play with reasonable people.

That belief is based on nothing.

I can just as easily say "I still believe that allowing a save was the intent" and there's no way to prove one of them the better hypothesis, except the rules, which clearly support my statement.

To be reasonable is to be open to influence based on reason. Gut beliefs or psychic mind-readings of the games designers is in no way a form of reason and is in no way reasonable.

avoidconfusion
05-03-2008, 20:11
There are no saves for auto-death things because they don't inflict wounds.

If something inflicts wounds, those wounds can be saved by armour, ward or regeneration.

If something automatically kills or destroys something, there are no saves of any kind because that's not what saves prevent.

Also, though unnecessary, these items, as far as I remember always say that no saves of any kind apply. They would function exactly the same if they didn't.

You're grasping at straws here.

Read the rule again, it says the unit "suffers a wound" not that a wound is inflicted.

GodHead
05-03-2008, 20:36
:cries::wtf:

Bleakwood
05-03-2008, 21:40
If the history of Krell's Black Axe, general fluff and the workings of all previous items with even remotely similar abilities means absolutely NOTHING and only the exact wording, understood in the most isolated and pedantic way, has any bearing on how to apply the effects of the Black Axe, then the model is allowed any and all saves. Thats the rules.

On a more personal note, if I ever played against someone who claimed that he could take an armour save against the secondary effects of the Axe(if, of course, he knows what we know about the subject), then I would laugh in his face. I would still allow it, because its the rules, but I would still laugh at him, and I would NOT feel bad about it, not even later.

Claiming that the effect can be saved with armour, while legal, is tantamount to exploitation and anyone who dosnt wiew it as such need to take a step back and look at the big picture.

GodHead
05-03-2008, 21:56
Well I would say that makes you not a very nice person, but it has no bearing on the rules.

I guess if this was a "laugh in someone's face" contest you might win, but it's not so you won't.

It is quite a telling indicator of your personality and thanks for it. I now know to decline any personal involvement with you in the future.

As an aside, this "discussion" seems over. Perhaps a lock is in order before more mature and topical "face laughing" comments are made?

The "no save" side has conceded that the rules allow the save, even if they want to get in a huff about it.

The Clairvoyant
05-03-2008, 21:59
If the history of Krell's Black Axe, general fluff and the workings of all previous items with even remotely similar abilities means absolutely NOTHING and only the exact wording, understood in the most isolated and pedantic way, has any bearing on how to apply the effects of the Black Axe, then the model is allowed any and all saves. Thats the rules.

On a more personal note, if I ever played against someone who claimed that he could take an armour save against the secondary effects of the Axe(if, of course, he knows what we know about the subject), then I would laugh in his face. I would still allow it, because its the rules, but I would still laugh at him, and I would NOT feel bad about it, not even later.

Claiming that the effect can be saved with armour, while legal, is tantamount to exploitation and anyone who dosnt wiew it as such need to take a step back and look at the big picture.

Yep, me too. I'd much rather get on with the game than stand around for 15 minutes arguing over intent/fluff/RAW/prior versions et al.

Bleakwood
05-03-2008, 22:27
Well I would say that makes you not a very nice person, but it has no bearing on the rules.

I guess if this was a "laugh in someone's face" contest you might win, but it's not so you won't.

It is quite a telling indicator of your personality and thanks for it. I now know to decline any personal involvement with you in the future.

As an aside, this "discussion" seems over. Perhaps a lock is in order before more mature and topical "face laughing" comments are made?

The "no save" side has conceded that the rules allow the save, even if they want to get in a huff about it.

Please try not to make personal insults on these forums, it is a slippery slope.
That aside, I do agree that a consencus has been reached.

grishnakh99
06-03-2008, 00:28
Hi,

I'm the guy with arguing with Taylor. By RAW I think it does d3 wounds before saves, but I do not think this was the intention of the item. Everyone's posts to discredit models don't get a As/WS/Regen against the wounding effects is the same leverage that can be used against the d3 Wounds.


If the history of Krell's Black Axe, general Fluff and the workings of all previous items with even remotely similar abilities means absolutely NOTHING and only the exact wording, understood in the most isolated and pedantic way, has any bearing on how to apply the effects of the Black Axe, then the model is allowed any and all saves. Thats the rules.

It seems equally obvious that this is an oversight in the book, since it 1) makes not a shred of sense at all, Fluff wise and 2) breaks with the tradition that all other items that inflict secondary wounds share: NEVER any armour save, although other saves usually applies.
I completely agree with this. However, fluff and tradition of other weapons is not a rule is it?


Plague Censers require you to take a Toughness test or take a wound and specifically state no armor saves allowed.

After it does an unsaved wound, Blade of Corruption does a wound at the begining of each of the players following turns unless they roll 4+ to avoid it. It also specifically states that no armor saves are allowed.

By looking at these 2 items, you can connect that:
1) toughness test does not disallow armor saves, or else why would they specifically disallow them in the same line.
2) continued wounds in following round do not disallow armor saves, again as it specifically disallows them in the same line.

This isnt concrete proof, just a correlation. Writers are obviously allowed to restate rules for reinforcement, but this is usually after it has been stated clearly at one point. The BRB doesnt state stat checks or continued wounds disallow saves anywhere, and 2 equipment examples state instances where they are ignored, it can be assumed these are the exceptions and not the norms.

*To the person asking about the pestilence spell, it also specifically disallows armor saves after the Toughness test.
This is the exact same argument that can be applied to the D3 wounds. Every single other multiwound item states clearly it's after saves and that it's multiplied, also saying no saves can be taken against them. Why not this one? If, after writing up 10+ items that multiply wounds, did they all of a sudden do it differently?


consensus says your friend is wrong. I'm sure someone will quote a page number or something but basically multiplied wounds happen after saves.
It says the Black Axe, and I quote, "Great Weapon. Does D3 wounds." If you are saying this "Does D3 Wounds" is after saves, how does the "suffer an Additional Wound" allow a save? Wouldn't they both fall into the same category?

Now, I'm not saying how I think it should be, or how they meant it, I'm saying what the rules are on the paper and trying to decipher what they meant. When any other item says it "does a wound" you DO get armour and ward saves against them. This item says it "Does d3 wounds." Would not the exact same logic apply?

My argument is that either you don't get AS/WS against the wounding effect OR the D3 wounds take effect before saves. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Where's T10 when you need him, I think this guy does this for a living. He's always has really good insight on how the rules are and how they should be interpreted.

WLBjork
06-03-2008, 08:36
This is the exact same argument that can be applied to the D3 wounds. Every single other multiwound item states clearly it's after saves and that it's multiplied, also saying no saves can be taken against them. Why not this one? If, after writing up 10+ items that multiply wounds, did they all of a sudden do it differently?

On the grounds that the "Hits Inflicting Multiple Wounds" rule on rule on page 31 of the BRB explains that, in all cases, you roll to hit, wound and all armour saves are taken before the dice are rolled.

avoidconfusion
06-03-2008, 09:48
Well I would say that makes you not a very nice person, but it has no bearing on the rules.

I guess if this was a "laugh in someone's face" contest you might win, but it's not so you won't.

It is quite a telling indicator of your personality and thanks for it. I now know to decline any personal involvement with you in the future.

As an aside, this "discussion" seems over. Perhaps a lock is in order before more mature and topical "face laughing" comments are made?

The "no save" side has conceded that the rules allow the save, even if they want to get in a huff about it.

You remind of me of a little kid that is stomping his feet on the ground, putting his fingers into his ears because he/she just don't want to hear it.

No idea why you are displaying such a patronizing attitude, but it surely does not impress me.

The matter of fact is that whilst a dissection of the rules might currently lead to the conclusion that armor and ward saves are allowed, it does not make any sense, and anyone using a logical approach can see this.

I do not play Vampire Counts myself but even I , using an objective, logical approach, can see that there shouldn't be any armor or ward saves allowed because it simply does not make any sense if one considers the way these wounds are suffered , them being merely a consequence of a wound that had already been inflicted in a previous round for which all armor and save wards have already been applied.

lordkull
06-03-2008, 10:08
I haven't seen it say anywhere that you always take saves unless otherwise specified (can you point me in the right direction if you've seen otherwise please ?)

Also, once the wound has been inflicted I cannot see a reason for taking armour saves.

Ward saves are a little different because they can be due to all sorts of things even divine protection. If I was a Games Master / rules adjudicator I certainly would not allow armour saves because armour could not protect against a wound already inflicted.

I am not sure about ward saves though.

I hope we see an errata to clear this up.

In fact does anyone know who to email at Games Workshop with questions of this sort ?

Thanks for your comments everyone,
Sigmar

There is a F.A.Q developement thread on the warhammer forum by Mi_warhammer when its complete it will be sent to Allessio to be added to the update .

The Clairvoyant
06-03-2008, 11:53
If an opponent wants to argue as to whether you get a save after the T test, then let them have it and then apply their same logic if they fail the save. Roll a D3 and get loads more wounds. Afterall, it does say the axe causes D3 wounds...

intellectawe
06-03-2008, 12:30
If an opponent wants to argue as to whether you get a save after the T test, then let them have it and then apply their same logic if they fail the save. Roll a D3 and get loads more wounds. Afterall, it does say the axe causes D3 wounds...

That makes no sense. You don't have to resort to inventing rules to 'get even' with some one who is right.

The pro-armor save side has presented factual rules and evidence that a toughness test does not bypass armor/ward saves.

The con-armor save side is only flailing their fists around, citing fluff explanations, and throwing feces around like its a pre school play ground.

The only thing I see keeping VC players from listening to the truth is their WANT for a super powerful over hyped army, while keeping hot dogs in their ears, not wanting to hear the truth.

It has been shown and proven flatly that toughness tests in this game require armor saves unless they are forbidden. What rule can con-armor people show that contradicts this?

GodHead
06-03-2008, 14:17
You remind of me of a little kid that is stomping his feet on the ground, putting his fingers into his ears because he/she just don't want to hear it.

No idea why you are displaying such a patronizing attitude, but it surely does not impress me.

The only thing I don't want to hear about is players who will willingly laugh in another's face for following the rules. The only thing I am being patronizing towards is players who have a total lack of respect for other players.



The matter of fact is that whilst a dissection of the rules might currently lead to the conclusion that armor and ward saves are allowed, it does not make any sense, and anyone using a logical approach can see this.

Oh really? It doesn't make sense? According to whom? Anyone using a logical approach can see this? Who is being patronizing now?

I think it makes perfect sense and you've just reduced my position to nonsense and reduced my argument to an illogical approach. Of course this means your position nothing more than ad hominem attacks.

It's not as clear cut as you and the other "no saves" people are arguing, and yet your side keeps trying to reduce the discussion to "we make sense, we're reasonable, everyone else is being unreasonable, illogical, childish and stupid." Quit it.


I do not play Vampire Counts myself but even I , using an objective, logical approach, can see that there shouldn't be any armor or ward saves allowed because it simply does not make any sense if one considers the way these wounds are suffered , them being merely a consequence of a wound that had already been inflicted in a previous round for which all armor and save wards have already been applied.

There you go again. You're the logical one, you're the rational one, you're the reasonable one. That makes anyone who disagrees with you, unreasonable, irrational and illogical. Can you see how that makes you look incredibly condescending and impossible to continue a discussion with?

You can't really think you're trying to have a discussion when you're implicitly calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid, can you?

Just because you think something doesn't make it right. Your position is not "clear and logical and rational and reasonable." So please quit saying it is.

avoidconfusion
06-03-2008, 14:21
The only thing I see keeping VC players from listening to the truth is their WANT for a super powerful over hyped army, while keeping hot dogs in their ears, not wanting to hear the truth.


First of all I don't even play VC. Second of all, the point is not that the item should be "super powerful over hyped" but actually useful which it isn't if the target is allowed a toughness, armor and ward save. It is quite the opposite really especially considering its cost.

avoidconfusion
06-03-2008, 14:32
@ GodHead

I am not even going to go through your barrage of exaggerations and twists of words (I didn't call anyone stupid, neither explicitely nor implicitely):

Instead I will ask you again to consider this:

It is known that the axe leaves splinters in your skin/ flesh which are the cause of the subsequent wounds.

Now, bear with me for just this moment, if you have something sticking in your flesh/skin and it hurts, how is your plate armor, which was already penetrated by whatever left those things in your skin, going to protect you against that?

How is a ward, which I understand to be some sort of Magical bubble or perimeter around your Flesh/skin, going to protect you from that?

Just using common sense and logic, please provide me with an explanation. Thank you.

Bleakwood
06-03-2008, 14:57
@ GodHead

I am not even going to go through your barrage of exaggerations and twists of words (I didn't call anyone stupid, neither explicitely nor implicitely):

Instead I will ask you again to consider this:

It is known that the axe leaves splinters in your skin/ flesh which are the cause of the subsequent wounds.

Now, bear with me for just this moment, if you have something sticking in your flesh/skin and it hurts, how is your plate armor, which was already penetrated by whatever left those things in your skin, going to protect you against that?

How is a ward, which I understand to be some sort of Magical bubble or perimeter around your Flesh/skin, going to protect you from that?

Just using common sense and logic, please provide me with an explanation. Thank you.

You know thats never going to happen, so dont antagonize him into going on another spin plz :D.

@ Godhead

Your point has been proven, no-one is denying that the rules state that an armor save is allowed.
I really cant see what you are trying to prove now.
That not following the rules to the letter is wrong?
That basing rule-related decisions on fluff and precedence is stupid?

You are insulting and are twisting everyones words so as to make it look like they are insulting too. To call this trolling is certaintly not an exaggeration and it is against forum policy.

SuperBeast
06-03-2008, 15:27
I play VC's.
I also believe (that's the important word) that the black axe does not allow saves.

However, I cannot justify that argument based on the rules.

So I don't.

The black is still a +2S weapon that does D3 wounds.
Okay, so it's DoT effect isn't uber, but it's still capable of inflicting wounds.

Until an FAQ comes along and sorts the issue, I'll play RAW. Why should I expect my opponents to display sportsmanship by allowing it when I'm not by asking them to?

Even if you don't agree, Godhead is right.

philbrad2
06-03-2008, 16:34
Action has been taken against those who devolved this thread into a series of personal attacks. I'm reopening the thread. Keep the thread on topic or it will be closed and removed.

PhilB
:chrome:
+ WarSeer Mod Team +

intellectawe
06-03-2008, 18:11
First of all I don't even play VC. Second of all, the point is not that the item should be "super powerful over hyped" but actually useful which it isn't if the target is allowed a toughness, armor and ward save. It is quite the opposite really especially considering its cost.

A weapon's usefulness is very subjective. What is useful for you may not be for me, so that means the rules for the weapon are wrong?

No where in the entirety of Warhammer Fantasy does it say Tests such as Toughness tests ignore saves for inflicting wounds. As I have said multiple times, and I will say again ( remove those hot dogs please :angel: ) armies that do Toughness tests say that they ignore saves. So...

1) No where is there a rule saying Toughness tests ignore armor in the BRB for inflicting wounds. Getting wounded always allows saves normally.

2) Where ever there are Toughness tests to be made in army books, they include the line "ignores armor saves"

Put them together, and it is quit clear and obvious what the answer is.

The axe is cheap for what it does. 25 points for wounding a guy 3 times ( example ) therefore doing 9 possible wounds. The toughness test is a bonus, not the end all be all of why the axe exists.

avoidconfusion
06-03-2008, 18:18
A weapon's usefulness is very subjective. What is useful for you may not be for me, so that means the rules for the weapon are wrong?

No where in the entirety of Warhammer Fantasy does it say Tests such as Toughness tests ignore saves for inflicting wounds. As I have said multiple times, and I will say again ( remove those hot dogs please :angel: ) armies that do Toughness tests say that they ignore saves. So...

1) No where is there a rule saying Toughness tests ignore armor in the BRB for inflicting wounds. Getting wounded always allows saves normally.

2) Where ever there are Toughness tests to be made in army books, they include the line "ignores armor saves"

Put them together, and it is quit clear and obvious what the answer is.

The axe is cheap for what it does. 25 points for wounding a guy 3 times ( example ) therefore doing 9 possible wounds. The toughness test is a bonus, not the end all be all of why the axe exists.

You completely ignored my last post. I know what the rules say, it still does not make sense. Please answer my last post without repearing what many people before you already posted. :)

intellectawe
06-03-2008, 18:22
You provided a fluff reason to support your claim. This is a RULES forum, not a BACKGROUND forum.

Welcome to the evil, seedy, nasty underbelly of Warhammer knows as Rules Lawyering....

Gazak Blacktoof
06-03-2008, 18:30
That belief is based on nothing.

I can just as easily say "I still believe that allowing a save was the intent" and there's no way to prove one of them the better hypothesis, except the rules, which clearly support my statement.

To be reasonable is to be open to influence based on reason. Gut beliefs or psychic mind-readings of the games designers is in no way a form of reason and is in no way reasonable.


I agree with what the exact wording of the rule is, and that it probably indicates a save is allowed. However if somebody wanted it to not allow a save I'd certainly let them do so. If it allows a save its certainly not worth the points it costs.

My point was that reasonable people will understand its a bit crappy if it allows a save and will say "hey, that's a bit crappy lets change the wording slightly."

The game is about having fun. You can establish exactly what a rule says but beyond that its up to the players involved to make sure the game stays fun, if that means fudging a badly worded rule then they should feel free to do so. I wasn't suggesting any mind-reading, simply indicating that a lot of people might accept a workable solution rather than rendering the item useless until the book is FAQ'ed or re-done, which ever comes sooner.

intellectawe
06-03-2008, 18:38
The game is about having fun? I agree... So lets start bending the rules because we simply don't like them right?

You can have your no-save Toughness Test as long as my Archers can fire arrows which automatically hit and remove models from the game that are hit.

What might sound like a nice house rule for you, might not be so nice for your opponent.


My point was that reasonable people will understand its a bit crappy if it allows a save and will say "hey, that's a bit crappy lets change the wording slightly."


I see what you did there. So you are saying because I follow the rules, I am unreasonable? That makes no sense... to reasonable players :)

avoidconfusion
06-03-2008, 18:45
So if there was a page in the Warhammer Rules book which shows a red triangle but the text would say, this is a black square. What would you do?

xragg
06-03-2008, 18:49
A weapon's usefulness is very subjective. ]The axe is cheap for what it does. 25 points for wounding a guy 3 times ( example ) therefore doing 9 possible wounds. The toughness test is a bonus, not the end all be all of why the axe exists.

Exactly, for almost exactly double the points, Weeping Blade is +1 str and does d3 wounds, no other effect at all. I can understand why the weeping blade costs more since it isnt a great weapon (strike last) and still allows the character to use a shield, but add in the DoT effect with no armor saves and the axe starts to become rediculously cheap.

On a side, why the big fuss over the DoT anyway? If you didnt kill it with the d3 wounds, then once in a blue moon is the crappy DoT going to save your game. Any weapon that does a DoT or lowers an attribute after a wound is rather useless, since most stuff will die in one round against it. Lords have 3 wounds, heros 2 wounds for the most part...

intellectawe
06-03-2008, 18:50
So if there was a page in the Warhammer Rules book which shows a red triangle but the text would say, this is a black square. What would you do?

I would say it is a black square. The game says the axe does d3 wounds and puts splinter into the armor of the defender. I only see a piece of plastic, I see no wounding on a unliving object, and I see no splinters on the defending model.

We also play on a table top with trees. I see no trees on the table. They are outside my store. I see plastic that we call trees.

Should I keep going, or do you get my point?

The game rules tell you what to imagine ( it isnt a real axe, but we pretend it is ) and how to use that imagination in a fair environment ( pretend the axe can hurt enemy models, the axe follows these rules ). Understand?


On a side, why the big fuss over the DoT anyway? If you didnt kill it with the d3 wounds, then once in a blue moon is the crappy DoT going to save your game. Any weapon that does a DoT or lowers an attribute after a wound is rather useless, since most stuff will die in one round against it. Lords have 3 wounds, heros 2 wounds for the most part...

"They" won't admit it... but honestly? Some form of power gaming varying from poster to poster. A 25 point multy wounding axe is powerful as is. Flail of Skulls is nearly double the points than the Axe, and 'all' it does is 2 wounds per hit. Thats it. I could nearly take two axes for that one flail. If I could take multiples :)

HellRaid
07-03-2008, 01:31
You always apply saves to wounds unless otherwise specified, so your opponent may take his (unmodified) armour saves and his ward saves against the Axe's continuous effect.

-T10

Lies!

Allow me to elaborate...


Take a look at the shooting phase of the rulebook. It tells you to hit, wound, and then make saves, in a very precise order.

The close combat phase, as written, tells you pretty much the same: hit, wound, make saves.

Magic is slightly vaguer. However it does state on page 110 that all spell hits and wounds follow much the same rules as normal shooting, so also allow saves.

As you can see, the rulebook actually follows a very precise order - specifically (for the case of our arguement) that saves are allowed for wounds suffered in the three phases mentioned above, when following the normal rules for shooting, CC and magic. Obviously certain magical items or effects may alter this order.


Now, the Axe of Krell's effect is done at the start of the turn. This means it it not in the Magic, Shooting or Close Combat phase (rather the Movement Phase, which makes no mention of saves at all!). The Start Of The Turn, does not tell you that you are allowed saves at any point - therefore we can conclude that the only 'save' you recieve from the Axe's effect is the Toughness Test mentioned in the item's description.

intellectawe
07-03-2008, 02:01
Nifty idea...

Maybe you'll find a pro player in real life that will fall for it. If you do, kudos to you!

MountainMammoth
07-03-2008, 02:03
Lets do this another way.

It has been stated as a fundiment core point of the 'pro save' reasoning that if you take a wound you 'always' receive a save. Why? I have looked over the armor rules on page 29-31 and no where does it say you always get a save. Nor does it specify this on 36, where it describes how wounds are saved from close combat (it says they are saved in the same manner as shooting). P 53 under unbreakable swarms it specifies negatively, but in the VC army book you only get regen and ward because the rules says so. On 87, in the cannon rules, you only get your ward save because it says you do. On 95 (killing blow) you get your ward save again because the rules say you do (not because they don't clarify or only say you don't get armor or regen saves), etc. Where exactly are you getting the basis of your arguement, that saves are always taken? I have read the book cover to cover, but still am surprized by things more often than I aught to be (for example in a side box on p 43 where it says units which come back on the table after pursueing can't march, been doing that wrong for years), so if a plausible explaination (RAW without the words 'may' or 'have a chance') besides 'habit' can be found for why an item entry which say nothing about str values or save should suddenly allow saves automatically (every other save instance i can think of mentions saves) I would love to see it.

As to being a VC player with hot dogs in my ears, I don't really like hot dogs, neither in my ears or elsewhere. I am proud enough to believe I am right, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary to argue my beliefs. If I used this ax, uncertain as the rules are I would probably hash the rules out with my opponent first. If they refused to play with it as I understand the rules to work, I would get an outside opinion or more likely in this case would just allow them their saves (not worth fighting over in a liesure setting really). Still, not a problem I am personally going to have as I don't find the axe of krell to be super weapon and my WK will be using the sword of kings.

It has been asked where in the rule book multi wound weapons are listed and that would be at the end of the armor save section in the shooting chapter, p 31

avoidconfusion
07-03-2008, 12:50
Thank you HellRaid and MountainMammoth.

T10
07-03-2008, 15:57
Lies!

Allow me to elaborate...



It may appear that we do not speak the same language here. What you call "lies" I call "reasonable certain". Simply put: It is not stated that you by default get your saves, but neither is there a statement to the contrary. However, not being allowed a save is universally listed as an exception.

Furthermore, what you call "elaboration" I call something else. You suggest the blanket rule that spells allow armour saves and justify this by refering to how wounds caused by spells are distributed. And the notion that saves are not permitted in the Movement phase raises questions regarding your intellectual capacity.

It is bleedin' obvious to everybody that the "no save" clause has been ommitted by mistake. Correct it with a house-rule, don't try to twist the games basic rules to some-how make it right.

-T10

MalusCalibur
07-03-2008, 18:20
Actually, I would argue that you don't get any saves against the axe effect via the rules (excluding any lore or common sense since it matters not). Here you go Lord Inquisitor.

The rule states you:

A.) Pass a Toughness test

or

B.) Suffer a Wound

The effect does not inflict any wounds on the character to be saved. It simply forces a character to do two things. Pass a Toughness test, or suffer (probably meant to be "Lose") a wound. That's it.

You are not being wounded again, thus getting saves. You are suffering a wound to fulfill a condition put upon your character by the Black Axe. Suffering and Inflicting are different words, and rightfully so.

This post makes the most sense to me.

Also, although using fluff and previous incarnations of the weapon to determine how it should work now is wrong, strictly speaking, both of these would point to the axe working this way.

As far as RaW goes, you get a save, but I would play it with no save.

Just my humble opinion.


MalusCalibur

HellRaid
08-03-2008, 00:55
It may appear that we do not speak the same language here. What you call "lies" I call "reasonable certain". Simply put: It is not stated that you by default get your saves, but neither is there a statement to the contrary. However, not being allowed a save is universally listed as an exception.

Simply put: If it doesn't say you get saves by default, you don't get saves by default. You pretty much said it yourself.


Furthermore, what you call "elaboration" I call something else. You suggest the blanket rule that spells allow armour saves and justify this by refering to how wounds caused by spells are distributed. And the notion that saves are not permitted in the Movement phase raises questions regarding your intellectual capacity.

In the magic phase, wounds are distributed as shooting, therefore allow saves (in essence, the unit has been "shot at" by a spell). The way I read it, it means that spells disregard "to hit" rolls and shooting targeting restrictions (as these are specified per spell), but otherwise follow the same rules as written for shooting, disregarding individual spell effects of course.

Incidentally, if you can point out any reason why in a Fantasy game you would actually take saves in the Movement Phase - that doesn't specify with its individual effect that saves may be taken - I will bow my knee to you.
I see no rule regarding saves in this phase, therefore saves may not be taken in that phase unless prior specified by an effect. My intellectual capacity, I assure you, is quite fine; though I appreciate your concern.


It is bleedin' obvious to everybody that the "no save" clause has been ommitted by mistake. Correct it with a house-rule, don't try to twist the games basic rules to some-how make it right.

No twisting has been done, and I agree that it's bleedin' obvious ;)

I also agree that saying "Lies!" was a bit strong (though it was not intended to read that way). "Accidentally misleading information" is probably more appropriate.

Spirit
08-03-2008, 01:27
Simply put: If it doesn't say you get saves by default, you don't get saves by default. You pretty much said it yourself.



He ALSO said that there was nothing to the contrary either, BUT, "ignoring armour saves" is (almost always) a separate rule, where as "Allows armour saves" is (almost always) an accepted rule everywhere. Thus you go with the accepted rule that is not written there because the separate rule that should be there, is not.

HellRaid, your fighting a losing battle with your logic here.

avoidconfusion
08-03-2008, 09:08
He ALSO said that there was nothing to the contrary either, BUT, "ignoring armour saves" is (almost always) a separate rule, where as "Allows armour saves" is (almost always) an accepted rule everywhere. Thus you go with the accepted rule that is not written there because the separate rule that should be there, is not.

HellRaid, your fighting a losing battle with your logic here.

How is he fighting a losing battle?

I think he hit the nail on the head.

WLBjork
08-03-2008, 09:50
Simply put: If it doesn't say you get saves by default, you don't get saves by default. You pretty much said it yourself.

Oh, right.

So that means that the Sword of Might ignores armour saves, on the grounds that it doesn't say armour saves are allowed? :rolleyes:

Armour saves are allowed unless otherwise stated.

In the case of the Black Axe of Krell, the item looks priced correctly for an item that does D3 wounds. For it to have a chance of doing additional wounds on top is a bonus. Denying any saves is pushing it towards the "too good to be true" category.

T10
08-03-2008, 10:22
In the magic phase, wounds are distributed as shooting, therefore allow saves (in essence, the unit has been "shot at" by a spell). The way I read it, it means that spells disregard "to hit" rolls and shooting targeting restrictions (as these are specified per spell), but otherwise follow the same rules as written for shooting, disregarding individual spell effects of course.


Well, while I agree that a unit does indeed get its armour saves and ward saves against a Fireball, I heartily disagree with your "reasoning".

We resolve the damage from Fireballs by rolling to wound and taking the modified armour save, not because this process is laid town in detail in the spell description (nor in the magic section), but because we are already familiar with the process from shooting and close combat.

-T10

Masque
08-03-2008, 10:25
I know this wasn't directed at me but i'm just gonna jump in here...


Simply put: If it doesn't say you get saves by default, you don't get saves by default. You pretty much said it yourself.

The rules for Taking Armour Saves on page 29 of the BRB are located in the Shooting section of the book, but the rules themselves make absolutely no mention of shooting. They do say "Models that are wounded still have a chance to avoid damage if they are wearing armour...". This would seem to apply to any wound for any reason, unless stated otherwise, of course.


In the magic phase, wounds are distributed as shooting, therefore allow saves (in essence, the unit has been "shot at" by a spell). The way I read it, it means that spells disregard "to hit" rolls and shooting targeting restrictions (as these are specified per spell), but otherwise follow the same rules as written for shooting, disregarding individual spell effects of course.

How hits and wounds are distributed has absolutely no bearing on saving throws of any kind. For example, an item or abilty that gave a ward save against shooting would not offer protection against impact hits even though they are distributed as shooting.


Incidentally, if you can point out any reason why in a Fantasy game you would actually take saves in the Movement Phase - that doesn't specify with its individual effect that saves may be taken - I will bow my knee to you.
I see no rule regarding saves in this phase, therefore saves may not be taken in that phase unless prior specified by an effect. My intellectual capacity, I assure you, is quite fine; though I appreciate your concern.

I can think of two examples: Wall of Fire and Goblin Fanatics. Neither specifically allow armour saves though the Fanatic rules do mention the armour save modifier.

Xirathnix
08-03-2008, 14:37
The Axe of Krell costs 50 points not 25.

Considering you have to pay all of your item points for it, the axe removes your killing blow, AND there is a better weapon for half its price, makes this weapon useless IMO regardless of whether you get a save on the extra wound or not. I would rather have a BSB, or take one of the armors (3 wounds, toughness 5, 1+ save, 5+ ward save anyone?).

That being said I see a strong argument that this is actually a multi wound weapon effect and therefore you have already had your chance to save and there are no further saves allowed.

It needs a FAQ and until then house rules or roll offs will prevail. (well not really cuz I wouldnt waste 50 points for it as previously said).

The Clairvoyant
08-03-2008, 22:08
I still don't quite get how you can get a save from it. I know you're all being logicy in your own bizarre ways and quoting random bits of text, but look at it this way: You failed your armour save originally and took d3 wounds (we'll assume 1 to make it easier). Next turn you take your toughness test and fail it. Now, the way i see it, you are just suffering an additional wound as though you weapon originally did 2 wounds damage and one of them was on time-delay. An armour save just makes no sense, regardless of what p26, p91, p246 and p987624536 says.

At the end of the day, we are forced to use the Most Important Rule. If you can't decide, roll a 4+, which incidentally may well be better than a saving throw! :P

Draconian77
09-03-2008, 01:35
Completely off topic but this this entire thread+contents made me laugh so hard.

Thanks everyone!













I love wargames, I really do.

Caboose123
09-03-2008, 03:36
Your right that was off topic....

Anyway, having read every post here (and not being a VC player) I would say that HellRaid has the best notion.

It seems many people have the wrong idea, the sword of Str adds to your characteristic, but you still fight in the combat phase, and in the combat phase it tells you you get your save.

Next, in the shooting rules, someone said that the save rules say they stop a wound, not specifically shooting, but as HellRaid has said, in the shooting rules it says you roll to hit, roll to wound and take armour saves. The ambiguity is left in the actual wording as the combat phase follows the same rules for shooting conecerning saves. If it said "any shooting wounds can be saved against..." or something along that lines, you would get people arguing no saves at all in combat!

Anyway, I think HellRaid has the right idea, it says nowhere you can get a save, where EVERYTHING else tells you you can get a save. This logic coincidentally follows fluff and tradition....

HellRaid FTW!!!

soots
09-03-2008, 10:21
IMO,

you get ward saves but no armor saves.

Out of curiousity, do you people who take the rules word for word complain about people fielding Stank or SAD armies?

intellectawe
09-03-2008, 15:59
Your right that was off topic....

Anyway, having read every post here (and not being a VC player) I would say that HellRaid has the best notion.

It seems many people have the wrong idea, the sword of Str adds to your characteristic, but you still fight in the combat phase, and in the combat phase it tells you you get your save.

Next, in the shooting rules, someone said that the save rules say they stop a wound, not specifically shooting, but as HellRaid has said, in the shooting rules it says you roll to hit, roll to wound and take armour saves. The ambiguity is left in the actual wording as the combat phase follows the same rules for shooting conecerning saves. If it said "any shooting wounds can be saved against..." or something along that lines, you would get people arguing no saves at all in combat!

Anyway, I think HellRaid has the right idea, it says nowhere you can get a save, where EVERYTHING else tells you you can get a save. This logic coincidentally follows fluff and tradition....

HellRaid FTW!!!

So according to your logic then, Fireball doesn't allow saves at then right? Because there is nothing in the Magic section that gives you rules on taking saves against spells like this.

Draconian77
09-03-2008, 16:50
Doesn't it say to treat magic missiles as shooting at the start of the magic section? Don't have the book on me but I remember something vaguely worded like that...

HellRaid
09-03-2008, 21:57
Anyway, I think HellRaid has the right idea, it says nowhere you can get a save, where EVERYTHING else tells you you can get a save. This logic coincidentally follows fluff and tradition....

HellRaid FTW!!!

I love this guy! :P



On topic:

The rules for Taking Armour Saves on page 29 of the BRB are located in the Shooting section of the book, but the rules themselves make absolutely no mention of shooting. They do say "Models that are wounded still have a chance to avoid damage if they are wearing armour...". This would seem to apply to any wound for any reason, unless stated otherwise, of course.
This is because there is a paragraph on taking saves in the close combat phase - telling you should look at the shooting phase to see how it works. If it's referred to later in the book, the armour saves paragraph would have to remain ambiguous.



How hits and wounds are distributed has absolutely no bearing on saving throws of any kind. For example, an item or abilty that gave a ward save against shooting would not offer protection against impact hits even though they are distributed as shooting.

True. And you don't actually such protection for spells either (except for magic missiles, which are generally added in such protection's descriptions).
It's still magic, it just follows the same rules as distributing wounds for shooting because they didn't want to copy and paste the five or six paragraphs it would take - which would almost certainly include the 'Take Saves' paragraph.



Wall of Fire and Goblin Fanatics.
*Bow*
I could argue, however, that Wall of Fire is a Remains in Play Spell and follows the rules for spells (which follow the rules for shooting) and hence allows saves.



In the case of the Black Axe of Krell, the item looks priced correctly for an item that does D3 wounds. For it to have a chance of doing additional wounds on top is a bonus. Denying any saves is pushing it towards the "too good to be true" category.
Agreed, the axe would have to be renamed "The Black Axe of Awesome" if it ignored armour saves. But we're not talking about its attacks in close combat, which fairly obviously use the normal rules for close combat. We're talking about it's DoT (Damage over Time) effect.



Out of curiousity, do you people who take the rules word for word complain about people fielding Stank or SAD armies?
On the contrary, I find them a challenge. I find Stanks are best introduced to the Lore of Metal.

Draconian77
10-03-2008, 01:07
Arg, the Lore of Metal be a harsh mistress...

DoT?
Did you just make that up? ;)

T10
10-03-2008, 09:50
Here's a pop quiz:

Can you take saves against a wound caused by the "crumble" effect that the Vampire Counts Undead suffer due to combat resolution? It is a similar effect to the Black Axe in that the wound is not the result of a regular attack.

Answer:

Yes, you may take ward saves against these wounds, and you may regenerate as well. You always get your saves against wounds unless otherwise is specified. In this case you are denied only your armour saves.

Bleakwood
10-03-2008, 20:53
In the case of the Black Axe of Krell, the item looks priced correctly for an item that does D3 wounds. For it to have a chance of doing additional wounds on top is a bonus. Denying any saves is pushing it towards the "too good to be true" category.

I certaintly wouldnt say that the Axe is cheap for what it does, considering that the WK loses KB.

QUOTE=Draconian77;2424736]DoT?
Did you just make that up? ;)[/QUOTE]

Its a common term in various arenas of nerdhood.