PDA

View Full Version : Nauxious Vapors No effect on Chargers?



Ender Shadowkin
03-07-2008, 16:37
Let me see if I get this right.
The Nauxious Vapors daemonic gift removes ASF and says models in base contact always strike last. So they Always have the "strikes last" rule. Under the strikes last rule in the BRB it says strikes last does not apply to charges. So Models Charging a Daemon with Nauxios Vapors would still go first? Alternatly you could read that the "always strikes last statement" is not referencing the strikes last rule, mearly ensuring that the Daemon will get their hits in first. This is in contrast to the similar VC item, the Cadaverous Corpse, which also removes ASF, but then sets the attackers I to 0 and says it removes all charge bonuses (with striking first being a charge bonus), so charges do not get to strike first in that case.

So is that right? Chargers attack Nauxios Vapors = First Strike, Chargers attackeing Cadaverous corpse = last strike?

Malorian
03-07-2008, 16:39
This always first/always last is turning into a real headache...

Lord Aries
03-07-2008, 16:44
ALways strikes last is not the same as strikes last. There is a wood elf item with the same ability, it makes models always strike last, and GW FAQ made a ruling that always strikes last means, THEY ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS strike last with no exceptions.

Ender Shadowkin
03-07-2008, 17:35
ALways strikes last is not the same as strikes last. There is a wood elf item with the same ability, it makes models always strike last, and GW FAQ made a ruling that always strikes last means, THEY ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS strike last with no exceptions.

Actually the WE amber pendant is very specific and explicity states that models strikes last even if they charged or have some other ability allowing to strike first they strike last. That item clearly trumps all others, and the nauxious vapors is nowhere near as explicit . . .seams intentional.

Loopstah
03-07-2008, 18:22
Let me see if I get this right.
The Nauxious Vapors daemonic gift removes ASF and says models in base contact always strike last. So they Always have the "strikes last" rule. Under the strikes last rule in the BRB it says strikes last does not apply to charges. So Models Charging a Daemon with Nauxios Vapors would still go first? Alternatly you could read that the "always strikes last statement" is not referencing the strikes last rule, mearly ensuring that the Daemon will get their hits in first. This is in contrast to the similar VC item, the Cadaverous Corpse, which also removes ASF, but then sets the attackers I to 0 and says it removes all charge bonuses (with striking first being a charge bonus), so charges do not get to strike first in that case.

So is that right? Chargers attack Nauxios Vapors = First Strike, Chargers attackeing Cadaverous corpse = last strike?

Strikes Last is a specific rule that is different from a unit being forced to strike last.

If an item says it gives a unit/ model the Strikes Last rule then you would be right that chargers ignore it, however an item that just makes the unit/model strike last does just that, strikes last (but does not gain the Strikes Last rule.)

Andrew Luke
03-07-2008, 18:30
In these situations always go with the interpretation that is less open to abuse/closer to the normal ruleset, so chargers still go first :D Beleive me, the daemon player has plenty more beardy headaches up his sleeve. And isn't this gift like 10 points anyway?

Belerophon709
03-07-2008, 18:34
It's 25 points.

Loopstah is correct on the interpretation. The chargers don't gain the strikes last rule. They simply strike last. That means that they will lose their ability to strike first due to charging. The reason that they didn't word it like they did with Nightshroud from the VC book is that there is more to 'charging bonuses' than just striking first. Chargers up against Noxious Vapours don't lose impact hits, strength bonus from lances and so on. They just don't strike first.

Simple really.

Ender Shadowkin
03-07-2008, 18:39
Strikes Last is a specific rule that is different from a unit being forced to strike last.

If an item says it gives a unit/ model the Strikes Last rule then you would be right that chargers ignore it, however an item that just makes the unit/model strike last does just that, strikes last (but does not gain the Strikes Last rule.)


Of course that is the way to go, but how can you tell when they are simply stating the phrase "strikes last" or invoking the rule "strikes last"? Neither Always Strikes first (which is a clear rule invocation) or strikes last are italicized or inforced in any way. To me using the some wording as a rule is pretty much a rules invocation, as they clearly could have used other phrasing/clarifying text, as they did with the Vampire and wood elf items.

Andrew Luke
03-07-2008, 18:46
Wait, 'charging bonus' isn't italicized or capitalized in the Nightshroud description either, so I don't think it comes down to that either. Prolly best just to do what it says, which in this case is strikes last. Are impact hits distinctly identified as a 'charging bonus'? I mean as far as I can tell they just happen when a chariot charges, but aren't defined. Man it is a said day that i'd wish fantasy was more like 40k, but would some BOLD print for USR's really kill them?

Loopstah
03-07-2008, 18:50
Are impact hits distinctly identified as a 'charging bonus'? I mean as far as I can tell they just happen when a chariot charges, but aren't defined.

Impact Hits only occur when a chariot charges, so are a charging bonus.

Plus the Brettonian book classifies them as charging bonuses in the rules for Defensive Stakes.

woytek
03-07-2008, 19:19
They are not a charge bonus, they are simply impact hits that occur before any model gets to fight.

Belerophon709
03-07-2008, 19:31
They are not a charge bonus, they are simply impact hits that occur before any model gets to fight.

Do impact hits require a chariot to be charging? Yes, they do. Therefore they are a bonus that chariots receive when charging.

In other words: a charging bonus.

Lord Aries
03-07-2008, 19:32
Its not "strikes last" its ALWAYS STRIKES LAST.... little bit different.

Ender Shadowkin
03-07-2008, 20:35
Do impact hits require a chariot to be charging? Yes, they do. Therefore they are a bonus that chariots receive when charging.

In other words: a charging bonus.

Hmm, I've never heard of anyone trying to claim impact hits as a charge bonus . . .nor could I see a fancy coat stopping a rampaging chariot. That seams pretty tenuous. Bonuses are generally things you get in addition to what you have, such as +1 to your strength, or another attack, imapact hits seam outside of the norm, a simple mechanics of the charging process with a chariot not a "bonus". Would you argue that models could not overrun either becuase that was a charge bonus too, which they lost as soon as they decided to attack the vampire? But you do have a valid logical view point. Luckly its a pretty unusall situation where a lone vampire would get hit by a chariot.


Its not "strikes last" its ALWAYS STRIKES LAST.... little bit different.

Sure but . . They always strike last, but "strikes last" never affects charging ;). It would not have been hard for them to add text similar to the amber pendant, or not use words consistent with an existing rule ("Models in Contact strike after all other models. . . .), and always can be interpreted to mean they have "strikes last" every turn. I guess at this point I'm not saying one way or the other is right, just that it is ambiguous. I do hope they issue a FAQ for this.

Loopstah
03-07-2008, 20:52
Hmm, I've never heard of anyone trying to claim impact hits as a charge bonus . . .nor could I see a fancy coat stopping a rampaging chariot. That seams pretty tenuous. Bonuses are generally things you get in addition to what you have, such as +1 to your strength, or another attack, imapact hits seam outside of the norm, a simple mechanics of the charging process with a chariot not a "bonus".

Warhammer Bretonnia: pg54
"No unit gains any charge bonus when they charge the unit's front.
For example......chariots will not inflict any impact hits."

Together with the fact Impact Hits only occur when a chariot charges it's pretty clear that Impact Hits are a charge bonus.

Belerophon709
03-07-2008, 21:02
@Ender Shadowkin: While I understand what you are saying, impact hits are indeed a charge bonus. You have to be charging in order to inflict impact hits, just as you need to be charging to get the +2S bonus from a lance. It's not something that will never happen in subsequent rounds. As for overrunning, it's not a part of the charge itself, it occurs if you wipe out the enemy "on the turn you charge", so it's not a direct result of charging. This is not something I'm "trying to claim". I've had this discussion before.

The problematic part comes in when a chariot charges a unit consisting of say 2 ghouls and a vampire with nightshroud. Imagine the chariot rolls a 5 for impact hits. At least one of the hits would then be allocated to the Nightshroud-bearing vampire, since chariot hits are distributed as shooting hits. What then? Are all the impact hits negated since the Nightshroud takes effect? Oddball stuff.

While it may seem an unusual that a lone vampire would get hit by a chariot, I have actually used that on purpose, propping my vampire with Nightshroud and avatar of death (Great Weapon) in the direct path of a Lion Chariot. The look on his face when he found out I had Nightshroud was classic. S7 from the Great Weapon meant the chariot was gone a moment later.

Anyways, to play devil's advocate for a moment: If impact hits are not considered a charging bonus, how would you define a charging bonus? I'm certain that one could argue the point that striking first and +2S from lances aren't charging bonuses either then.

Ender Shadowkin
03-07-2008, 21:02
Warhammer Bretonnia: pg54
"No unit gains any charge bonus when they charge the unit's front.
For example......chariots will not inflict any impact hits."

Together with the fact Impact Hits only occur when a chariot charges it's pretty clear that Impact Hits are a charge bonus.

Well you got me there, not that I would agree with it, but there is nowhere to stand after that quote . . .:cries:


@Ender Shadowkin: While I understand what you are saying, impact hits are indeed a charge bonus. You have to be charging in order to inflict impact hits, just as you need to be charging to get the +2S bonus from a lance. It's not something that will never happen in subsequent rounds. As for overrunning, it's not a part of the charge itself, it occurs if you wipe out the enemy "on the turn you charge", so it's not a direct result of charging. This is not something I'm "trying to claim". I've had this discussion before.

.

I think your arguments a bit circular there, if it only occurs "on the turn you charge" then it is a bonus for charging. The condition of wiping out a unit is not necessarily relavent. A lances strength bonus is only applicable if you hit . . . having the opportunity for an overrun is only available if your are charging, the opportunity is the bonus, and yes odd stuff ;) I was think of the impact hit distribution myself.

And your opponent should have been a little suspicous about the vampire aimless wandering around in front of the chariot, just a little. :)

Belerophon709
03-07-2008, 21:24
I think a destinction has to be made between the results of a charge (impact hits, lances and so forth) and what happens after a charge has been completed (overrun f.ex.).

But I would accept a ruling against an overrun in this case. It's a bit fuzzy...

lparigi34
03-07-2008, 23:14
Its not "strikes last" its ALWAYS STRIKES LAST.... little bit different.

It would be fun if two units having the ALWAYS STRIKES LAST rule face each other... the game will immediately en with while they keep arguing:

Unit 1 - C'mon, please hit me, I cannot hit you back until you do.-

Unit 2 - nononono, wait, you HIT ME, please, I want to go home before down, but I have the same problem, I have to wait until you do hit me first since I ALWAYS STRIKE LAST-

:rolleyes:

decker_cky
03-07-2008, 23:48
Well....good thing there's a rule in the book for situations just like that: the most important rule.

Ender Shadowkin
03-07-2008, 23:58
Well....good thing there's a rule in the book for situations just like that: the most important rule.


Keep drinking? :angel:

Condottiere
04-07-2008, 01:41
Well....good thing there's a rule in the book for situations just like that: the most important rule.


Keep drinking? :angel:Keep drinking, but away from your carefully painted models, in case of over exuberance.:eek:

DeathlessDraich
04-07-2008, 09:58
Of course that is the way to go, but how can you tell when they are simply stating the phrase "strikes last" or invoking the rule "strikes last"? Neither Always Strikes first (which is a clear rule invocation) or strikes last are italicized or inforced in any way. To me using the some wording as a rule is pretty much a rules invocation, as they clearly could have used other phrasing/clarifying text, as they did with the Vampire and wood elf items.

The difference as pointed out by the others is the inclusion of the word "always".


It would be fun if two units having the ALWAYS STRIKES LAST rule face each other... the game will immediately en with while they keep arguing:

Unit 1 - C'mon, please hit me, I cannot hit you back until you do.-

Unit 2 - nononono, wait, you HIT ME, please, I want to go home before down, but I have the same problem, I have to wait until you do hit me first since I ALWAYS STRIKE LAST-

:rolleyes:

LOL! Presumably this is best resolved in the same way as ASF vsv ASF.


On Impact hits:

This has been discussed before and is by no means clearcut.

1) Defensive stakes is a *specific rule/ability* in Brets which was written *before* the release of 7th ed.
Using a special ability or army book rule to form a generalisation for the BRB sets a dangerous precedent which will render many rules unworkable especially an army book which pre-dates the 7th ed.

At best this rule may only serve as an indicator of how an FAQ will interpret this but then again FAQs have not always been consistent with existing rules.

**If a player uses this rule to explain charge bonuses, then he could also use the Bret rule on magic weapons.
I'm sure many will find this unacceptable.

2) The Defensive Stakes rules themselves are uncertain about charging bonuses
e.g. Striking first is deemed to be a charge bonus in 1 sentence ["great weapon"] and then immediately implied as not in the next - ["*In addition* [to losing charge bonuses], the charging unit does not count as charging to determine who fights first".

3) Only a specific type of Impact hits is mentioned.
*Chariots* do not get Impact hits but Ogre Bull charge will!
The Steam Tank's Impact hits are also obviously unaffected.

4) It really is up to the BRB to define/explain charge bonuses and all general rules can only be taken from the BRB because of ** above.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-07-2008, 11:48
LOL! Presumably this is best resolved in the same way as ASF vsv ASF.

Unfortunately there still appears to be some contention over this too.

Belerophon709
04-07-2008, 12:41
Unfortunately there still appears to be some contention over this too.

Only by those unable to grasp the meaning of the HE Q&A.

Atrahasis
04-07-2008, 13:07
3) Only a specific type of Impact hits is mentioned.
*Chariots* do not get Impact hits but Ogre Bull charge will!
The Steam Tank's Impact hits are also obviously unaffected.

No. The Bret quote is offered as supporting evidence, not as the only evidence.

Ogres would not get their bull charge, as it is a charging bonus (an extra effect that only applies on the charge).

The Steam Tank would not get the +D3 impact hits for charging, or any of those generated for the steam points expended on the charge. It would, however, be able to grind with any remaining steam points.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-07-2008, 14:15
Only by those unable to grasp the meaning of the HE Q&A.

Well not knowing which side of the argument you come down on it would be wrong of me to comment any further, which was exactly my point.

DeathlessDraich
04-07-2008, 14:25
No. The Bret quote is offered as supporting evidence, not as the only evidence.

Ogres would not get their bull charge, as it is a charging bonus (an extra effect that only applies on the charge).

The Steam Tank would not get the +D3 impact hits for charging, or any of those generated for the steam points expended on the charge. It would, however, be able to grind with any remaining steam points.

You're completely wrong about the Steam Tank.

What other evidence do you have to offer?:D

Atrahasis
04-07-2008, 15:10
How am I completely wrong?

The charging-steam-point and +D3 are a charging bonus, a bonus that arises explicitly from charging.

Jerrus
04-07-2008, 15:54
I was not aware that there was an "always strike last" rule. Which page can I find it on in the rulebook?

Atrahasis
04-07-2008, 16:05
There isn't. There's a "Strikes Last" rule, found on page 54. It has nothing to do with Noxious Vapours though.

Fulgrim's-Chosen
04-07-2008, 19:07
I wonder if, in the 8th Edition Rulebook, there WILL be a "Universal Special Rule" called "Always Strikes Last" - a counter to ASF, which will be fully explained and detailed, and be what the effects of Noxious Vapors, Amber Pendant, or any other new army-book items/spells/etc. have it between now and then ?

;)

Tuch
04-07-2008, 20:15
I wonder if, in the 8th Edition Rulebook, there WILL be a "Universal Special Rule" called "Always Strikes Last" - a counter to ASF, which will be fully explained and detailed, and be what the effects of Noxious Vapors, Amber Pendant, or any other new army-book items/spells/etc. have it between now and then ?

Come on now, that would require GW to clarify the confusion they so often create. They can't do that or the world would stop turning.

Loopstah
04-07-2008, 21:37
Come on now, that would require GW to clarify the confusion they so often create. They can't do that or the world would stop turning.

I thought that part of the fun of the hobby was deciding what GW actually mean when they use the same term for 4 different things, or 4 different terms for the same thing.

Dalamyr the Fleetmaster
05-07-2008, 04:36
Come on now, that would require GW to clarify the confusion they so often create. They can't do that or the world would stop turning.


LOL that made me giggle

1st steam tanks chariots ogres etc don't get impact hits when charge bonuses are negated as they are bonuses

2'nd noxious vapours mean that the opponent always strikes last no matter what

BloodiedSword
06-07-2008, 11:15
...so what happens when a Wood Elf with the Amber Pendant attacks a model with Noxious Vapours? Is the Pendant's "Always" more "Always" than the Vapours' "Always"?

This is starting to get a little ridiculous.

Gazak Blacktoof
06-07-2008, 11:28
Roll off, or they "effectively" cancel out, take your pick.

Absolutes like these should be unecessary in a game that already includes mechanics to determine an order of striking.

Condottiere
06-07-2008, 12:32
They probably cancel each other out.

Loopstah
06-07-2008, 14:02
...so what happens when a Wood Elf with the Amber Pendant attacks a model with Noxious Vapours? Is the Pendant's "Always" more "Always" than the Vapours' "Always"?

Actually the Amber Pendant's "Always" is more always than Noxious Vapours' "Always", the rules for the Amber Pendant make that clear, as does the Wood Elf FAQ.

Lord Aries
06-07-2008, 22:19
You are quite wrong, the amber pendant is not more ALWAYS... I've proven it before, and it looks like i have to do it again.


both grant always strikes last and have the same wording along the effect that EVERYONE strikes last against them. The WE FAQ did NOT change the wording of the item, and rather gave a ruling as to how to interpret how ASL works. In the FAQ, they can choose to give a ruling, or change the text. When they give a ruling clarification it applies to all other versions of that rule. When they change the text, it does just that....


The WE FAQ was a rules clarification/ruling that plainly says... ASL= ALWAYS FREAKING STRIKE LAST.


However none of that matters, as any model with Vapours will have less Initiative than one with the amber pendant... and when you have two people with ASL, you resolve it in the same manner as the ASF rule, and use Initiative. The WE model will strike first because of Initiative, but not because his item is more powerful than the other.

Loopstah
07-07-2008, 10:04
You are quite wrong, the amber pendant is not more ALWAYS... I've proven it before, and it looks like i have to do it again.


both grant always strikes last and have the same wording along the effect that EVERYONE strikes last against them. The WE FAQ did NOT change the wording of the item, and rather gave a ruling as to how to interpret how ASL works. In the FAQ, they can choose to give a ruling, or change the text. When they give a ruling clarification it applies to all other versions of that rule. When they change the text, it does just that....


The WE FAQ was a rules clarification/ruling that plainly says... ASL= ALWAYS FREAKING STRIKE LAST.


However none of that matters, as any model with Vapours will have less Initiative than one with the amber pendant... and when you have two people with ASL, you resolve it in the same manner as the ASF rule, and use Initiative. The WE model will strike first because of Initiative, but not because his item is more powerful than the other.

Erm, no. Always Strikes Last is not a rule, so can not be clarified in a FAQ.

The Wood Elf FAQ states that for the Amber Pendant an enemy model "always goes last". This means they always go last, not always strike last, always go last. So no matter what rules, items, spells, initiative etc that enemy has in regards to the Amber Pendant's bearer, they go last, always, "no exceptions".

So even if they had an item that made the Wood Elf strike last and had higher initiative than the Wood Elf, they still go last, because their are "no exceptions" and they "go" last.

Using a FAQ answer for one item, for a different item in a different army, is not something that's normally encouraged. The answer applies solely to the Amber Pendant until they do a similar FAQ answer for vapours or in the BRB in regards to striking last.

DeathlessDraich
07-07-2008, 10:18
How am I completely wrong?

The charging-steam-point and +D3 are a charging bonus, a bonus that arises explicitly from charging.

If you re-read my post which you commented on I'm sure you'll agree that your comments about my comments on the ST are obviously wrong.:)

sulla
07-07-2008, 14:10
If you re-read my post which you commented on I'm sure you'll agree that your comments about my comments on the ST are obviously wrong.:)

:DGeez DD, get a thesaurus please. I forbid you using the word 'comment' in your next 10 posts due to overuse in this one...;):p

DeathlessDraich
07-07-2008, 15:46
No comment sulla:D

Lordmonkey
07-07-2008, 16:26
Of course that is the way to go, but how can you tell when they are simply stating the phrase "strikes last" or invoking the rule "strikes last"? Neither Always Strikes first (which is a clear rule invocation) or strikes last are italicized or inforced in any way. To me using the some wording as a rule is pretty much a rules invocation, as they clearly could have used other phrasing/clarifying text, as they did with the Vampire and wood elf items.

Could, but didn't. Don't fall into the common trap of assuming that this means they are different though - inconsistency in the rules is commonplace, especially in a system that feels like it gets a new edition every other week :eyebrows:

What GW need to do, as many have said previously, is hire a proofreader. Someone who has had experience writing legal contracts, etc. I know it's only a game and all, but properly nailing down exactly what is intended by the rules would save players a lot of headaches.

Ender Shadowkin
07-07-2008, 17:06
However none of that matters, as any model with Vapours will have less Initiative than one with the amber pendant... and when you have two people with ASL, you resolve it in the same manner as the ASF rule, and use Initiative. The WE model will strike first because of Initiative, but not because his item is more powerful than the other.

Except of course that the WE usually has a great weapon, The double ASF rules resolution regarding comparing initiative is only in the HE book under speed of Assuryan. Plus the WE item description is differnt, give it a read. It talkes about attackers striking last even if they have some other ability indicating others, which you could argue (perhaps tenuously) noxious vapors gives to the daemon, thus the Amber pendant has an additional trump statement, the noxious vapors description (other than always strikes last) just says models loose ASF, which does not affect a WE. While it is reasonable what you suggest (comparing initiative), it is primarily your interpretation. I would be more including to use the old irresistable force verse immovable object and just dice it off.

Luckily the Vampire item, is described differntly so we only have two things in such a direct conflict . . . so far.

I wish GW would just put out a striking Order FAQ that just lists all of the situations and how they feel like they should be resolved, would be a good guide even if we didn't agree with the way they lay it out, which is highly likely :D

Zilverug
12-04-2009, 12:21
As Always Strikes First allows units to strike first even when being charged, it's logical when the Noxious Vapours' Always Strikes Last also cancels the charger's first strike. On the other hand, giving the charger Always Stikes Last would then mean the same as giving the model being charged Always Strikes First, which might not be the intention.

Has this already been resolved by a GW ruling?

xragg
12-04-2009, 20:03
However none of that matters, as any model with Vapours will have less Initiative than one with the amber pendant... and when you have two people with ASL, you resolve it in the same manner as the ASF rule, and use Initiative. The WE model will strike first because of Initiative, but not because his item is more powerful than the other.

Not always. A character with the amber pendant can be beside a treeman for example.

edit: Also, as far as nightshroud, dont the attacks have to target the vampire to lose charging bonuses?