PDA

View Full Version : Sword of Realities and Banehead



Griffin
09-07-2008, 08:33
OK, How many wounds would a Saurus oldblood inflict if You wound a Greater Daemon once, that you nominated with the Bane Head in the beginning of the game ? The Saurus is wielding a Blade of Realities and the Banehead.

Would you inflict 4 ? Blade deals 1 Wound that becomes 2, and those 2 each become another 2 due to Bane head ?

Or does it inflict 3 ?

Can somebody please help ?

Loopstah
09-07-2008, 09:41
The Bane Head doubles unsaved wounds.
The Sword of Realities turns each unsaved wound into two.

You cause 1 unsaved wound with the sword.

The Bane Head double the unsaved wound to two wounds (1 original + 1 extra).
The Sword of Realities adds another wound to the original unsaved wound caused (1 original + 1 extra).

You cause 3 wounds (1 original + 1 extra + 1 extra).

Jerrus
09-07-2008, 09:46
Why not 4 wounds?

The Sword of Realities does 2 wounds, which the Bane Head doubles...

T10
09-07-2008, 10:01
Why not 2 wounds?

The Sword of Realities and the Bane Head both introduce the effect that the wound caused is doubled. Applying that statement twice only reaffirms that 1 wound becomes 2 wounds.

-T10

blueon462
09-07-2008, 11:21
Most rulings that I've seen on this states it becomes 3, once doubled (the doubling happens on the original wound) for each item.

kroq'gar
09-07-2008, 11:39
2 times two is four.

Blade inflicts two wounds, then the item takes it to four.

Otherwise banehead + paranablade would equal d3+1 wounds... which is stupid.

Loopstah
09-07-2008, 12:07
2 times two is four.

Blade inflicts two wounds, then the item takes it to four.

Otherwise banehead + paranablade would equal d3+1 wounds... which is stupid.

How it works:
Oringinal unsaved wound (A) = 1 wound
Blade = Original unsaved wound (A) is multiplied into 2 wounds = 2 wounds (Oringinal unsaved wound (A) + extra multiplied wound (B))
Bane Head = Original unsaved wound (A) is doubled = 2 wounds (Original unsaved wound (A) + extra wound from doubling (C))

A + B + C= 3 wounds

You're trying to do:

(A + B) + (A + C)

Which is wrong as you only count the original wound once, as both items only multiply the original unsaved wound not extra wounds from other items.

The Pirahna Blade isn't D3 wounds anyway, it's the same as the Blade of Realities except it works on all enemies (i.e. doubles each unsaved wound)

So the Pirahna Blade would cause 3 wounds for each wound when used with the Bane Head.

theunwantedbeing
09-07-2008, 12:19
It's 4 per wound caused.
1 x 2 (the blade of realities vs daemons) = 2
2 x 2 (the bane head) = 4
So 4 wounds caused.

Loopstah
09-07-2008, 12:50
The Bane Head:

"All unsaved wounds caused by the bearer"

Notice "unsaved wounds" and not just "wounds", i.e. wounds that you failed to save, rather than all wounds you can cause.

You fail to save one wound, this wound is doubled to 2 wounds.

The blade doubles wounds after saves. "(after armour saves etc.)"

Wounds caused by the blade are not "unsaved wounds" they are additional wounds that can not be saved against. Therefore the Bane Head does not work on them.

kroq'gar
10-07-2008, 02:02
Loopstah that makes no sense.

"against deamons each unsaved wound inflicts two wounds"

"each unsaved wound caused by the bearer is doubled"

Blade causes a wound. This becomes two. These cannot be saved, thus are unsaved wounds, multiplying under banehead. Otherwise under your logic it would never multiply, as deamons cannot take their ward against it, or any save most the time)

TheDarkDaff
10-07-2008, 07:12
Loopstah, you seem to be making a small error in your logic. An "unsaved wound" is completely independant of the chance to save. It just means it wasn't saved, not that you had the chance to save it in the frist place.

Jerrus
10-07-2008, 09:07
...
A + B + C= 3 wounds

You're trying to do:

(A + B) + (A + C)

But both the items multiply the wounds caused, they don't add an extra wound.

So it wound be:

1 x 2 x 2 = 4

If the items added an extra an extra wound per wound caused it would be:

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

Loopstah
10-07-2008, 09:20
Loopstah that makes no sense.

"against deamons each unsaved wound inflicts two wounds"

"each unsaved wound caused by the bearer is doubled"


You're probably correct, I was going off what I'd read on the Pyramid Vault when I first started my Lizardmen.

They said GW had said it would cause 3 wounds, but I can't seem to find anywhere GW have actually said that, so I'll go with 4 instead. :D

Lordsaradain
10-07-2008, 09:39
...isn't there any official ruling on this? :P

DeathlessDraich
10-07-2008, 10:43
Another old chestnut!:p

Bane Head plus Piranha Blade or Blade of Realities:

The key phrase is "unsaved wound is multiplied"

Only *unsaved* wounds can be multiplied and not *any other* type of wound.

Therefore *multiplied wounds* cannot be multiplied.
i.e. the effects of Bane Head and either of the Blades are not cumulative.

BUT
Each item doubles the unsaved wounds caused by the bearer. If the bearer inflicts two unsaved wounds, Bane head will double this to four while Piranha blade will double the original unsaved wounds to four simultaneously, making a total of eight.
This total is the same as doubling and redoubling but the actual mechanism is different. If there were 3 such items, total wounds would be 12 and not 16.

Jerrus
10-07-2008, 13:46
Any wound you take is an unsaved wound, unless of course you saved it...

blueon462
10-07-2008, 14:50
There is no official word from GW about this...but at large tournaments ex. grand tournaments and adepticon, it results in 3 wounds and not four. The logic being that they both happen simultaneously so they can only ever effect the original amount of wounds caused.

Lijacote
10-07-2008, 18:34
Wasn't this FAQ'd, stating that doubling wounds doesn't effect doubled wounds (applies to other doubling as well)?

Loopstah
10-07-2008, 18:45
Another old chestnut!:p
BUT
Each item doubles the unsaved wounds caused by the bearer. If the bearer inflicts two unsaved wounds, Bane head will double this to four while Piranha blade will double the original unsaved wounds to four simultaneously, making a total of eight.
This total is the same as doubling and redoubling but the actual mechanism is different. If there were 3 such items, total wounds would be 12 and not 16.

Actually in that case it would be 6 wounds not 8.

The two wounds that are doubled in each case are the same wounds, so you can't count them twice.


Wasn't this FAQ'd, stating that doubling wounds doesn't effect doubled wounds (applies to other doubling as well)?

It's not in the Lizardmen FAQ anyway, so unless another army has similar items.

DeathlessDraich
10-07-2008, 19:12
I'm aware of this interpretation which some players use but I've never agreed with it since it chooses to treat each magical item differently.

Lord Aries
10-07-2008, 19:23
I choose to ignore all the rules and have my lizardmen do 45d6 worth of wounds to anything they look at....


Because it makes as much sense as any other answer we have on here.

Loopstah
10-07-2008, 20:01
I'm aware of this interpretation which some players use but I've never agreed with it since it chooses to treat each magical item differently.

In your example though the mechanisms are different and so are the results.

You cause 2 wounds (W1 and W2)

The Blade doubles the two wounds so now you have (W1/ W1B/ W2/ W2B)

The Head doubles the two wounds so now you have (W1/ W1H/ W2/ W2H)

Total wounds: W1, W2, W1B, W2B, W1H, W2H (6 wounds)


The only way to get 8 wounds is to class it as one item doubles the wounds of the other.

You cause 2 wounds (W1 and W2)

The Blade doubles the two wound so now you have (W1/ W1B/ W2/ W2B)

The Head doubles the 4 wounds so now you have (W1/ W1H/ W1B/ W1BH/ W2/ W2H/ W2B/ W2BH)

Total wounds: W1, W2, W1B, W2B, W1H, W2H, W1BH, W2BH (8 wounds)


One of the above mechanisms is correct it all depends on what you view as being an "unsaved wound" and/ or if you think both items effects occur simultaneously or concurrently, and/ or if you can double a doubled wound.

Revlid
10-07-2008, 20:26
Whatever the actual mathematics of the items, Games Workshop has stated that, when doubling Wounds twice, you should just add the 2 extra Wounds, resulting in 3 Wounds.

There's no question here on how to play it. It's also a helpful compromise between 2 and 4, the extremes.

Loopstah
10-07-2008, 20:31
Whatever the actual mathematics of the items, Games Workshop has stated that, when doubling Wounds twice, you should just add the 2 extra Wounds, resulting in 3 Wounds.

There's no question here on how to play it. It's also a helpful compromise between 2 and 4, the extremes.

Where have they said it though? That's what we need, it written somewhere.

kroq'gar
11-07-2008, 05:54
I choose to ignore all the rules and have my lizardmen do 45d6 worth of wounds to anything they look at....


Because it makes as much sense as any other answer we have on here.

Thanks, thats very constructive. I'm sure we'll take that onboard as we move along...


Irrespective of any FAQ (which i havent seen), my gaming group plays 4 wounds, because the weapon and the item are different items, thus seperate from each other. 1 x 2 x 2 = 4.

In effect were it to be the otherway then the following example would make no sense.

say with a chaos dwarf:
Sword of might.
Gauntlets of + 1 st

Suddenly two items give +1 st. They stack to +2 st, not +1 or +1.5