PDA

View Full Version : Reverse wardsave question



40kdhs
26-10-2008, 01:41
If you look in a 'wardsave' section of BRB, it states that 1 always fails. If you read DE 'reverse wardsave', a DE player argues that 1 still pass and only 6 fails. I thought it was BS because his character is pretty much invincible.

Is a DE player right about it?

thank you.

Bac5665
26-10-2008, 02:00
Its up in the air. I think the popular consensus is for a 1 passing, but I think that RAW would mean that 1 fails. There was a thread a month or so ago that went for several pages about this topic, with no universal agreement.

Faustburg
26-10-2008, 02:15
You can't call it RAW if you have to make assumptions like that, there is no clear rule to be read.

It is fairly obvious that the "6 fails" is supposed to replace the "1" of the usual ward save mechanic, as is is too big (1/6 or 1/3 fail against high strenght hits?) a deal to be left up to cross referencing and Easter egg hunting.

Bac5665
26-10-2008, 02:21
Good job contradicting yourself. Assuming that "6 fails" replaces "1 fails" is an assumption, much more so than combining "6 fails" with "1 fails" Nothing explicitly says they can't both be true. I agree that its "obvious" that 1s shouldn't fail. But until the FAQ comes out, RAW says they do. I still play that 1s pass. But RAW says they fail.

SolarHammer
26-10-2008, 02:25
Without reading the initial post I'm going to guess this is the same "ROFL! 1's fail!" subject that's been brought up a dozen times since the book came out?

Bac5665
26-10-2008, 02:27
yup

10char

Faustburg
26-10-2008, 02:27
How did I contradict myself?

I just said that you cannot call it "RAW" if you have to go make assumptions and cross-references. I did not say that the obvious other reading of it was RAW.

It was only a reaction to weak understanding of what RAW is.

40kdhs
26-10-2008, 02:32
If 1 is not fail for this 'reverse ward save', this is the BEST wargear for the right 'point' cost. A DE lord is invincible with 1+AS and 'reverse wardsave'.

1 fails to hit, wound, and any save EXCEPT this 'one'. Is this one not a 'ward save'?

GW needs to do a good job at writing stuffs.

BEEGfrog
26-10-2008, 02:38
GW needs to do a good job at writing stuffs.

Wow! Somebody actually used "GW", "good job" and "writing" all in the same sentence, never thought I would see the day!

Faustburg
26-10-2008, 02:41
Yup, the item is way too good no matter how you read it...

Bac5665
26-10-2008, 02:49
My point was that its clear you don't know what RAW is. All ward saves fail on a 1. This item says it is a ward save, AND saves on a roll >= the strength of the attack. It can save as long as it rolls >= the S, AND it can fail on a 1. No rule explicitly denies that possibility; thus RAW says it fails on a 1. You have to make an assumption for 1 to pass. Simply because I have to read the BRB to understand a magic item doesn't make the item work differently.

40kdhs
26-10-2008, 03:01
Wow! Somebody actually used "GW", "good job" and "writing" all in the same sentence, never thought I would see the day!

I know that it's very difficult to say something like this about a company which is in business for 25 + years.

Kamenwati
26-10-2008, 04:38
Here is the simple solution to the problem. Remember the basic rule that army book rules typically trump core rules. So in the very specific instance of this item it clearly states that "sixes" always fail instead of ones.

WLBjork
26-10-2008, 07:34
The problem is that the Army Book doesn't specify that the item has the exception from the rule of "always fail on a 1".

It probably should, but that needs to be clarified by a Q&A/Errata.

40kdhs
26-10-2008, 08:14
The problem is that the Army Book doesn't specify that the item has the exception from the rule of "always fail on a 1".

It probably should, but that needs to be clarified by a Q&A/Errata.

I hope so.

Condottiere
26-10-2008, 09:02
When's the DE FAQ coming out?

TheDarkDaff
26-10-2008, 09:02
Just to clarify everyone arguing that a 1 should fail are of the position that 1 is not lower than 2? It is a situation with a clash of the Army Book and the Rule Book (unless you are certain that 1 is not lower than 2) in which case the Army Book takes precidence. Although an FAQ would be nice just to reinforce the the definition of "higher" and "lower".

DeathlessDraich
26-10-2008, 09:57
1) I think calling it a reverse ward save is the problem.

It should be called - "A strength test ward save" or "A strength test based ward save".

Emphasing the strength test makes a difference.

2) When there is a clash between a magic item and *any* other rules, the magic items rules gains primacy - This is a rule stated in the BRB
i.e. the "1 fails" is superseded by "6 fails".

Faustburg
26-10-2008, 10:41
My point was that its clear you don't know what RAW is. All ward saves fail on a 1. This item says it is a ward save, AND saves on a roll >= the strength of the attack. It can save as long as it rolls >= the S, AND it can fail on a 1. No rule explicitly denies that possibility; thus RAW says it fails on a 1. You have to make an assumption for 1 to pass. Simply because I have to read the BRB to understand a magic item doesn't make the item work differently.


No You don 't. Along with a lot of people on forums who immediately say "Well, by RAW...." to everything...

For something to be Rules as written, there must be a rule written there, not cross-referencing to other rules and easter egg hunting. The classic example is the beastherd ranking up four wide. They do it because their rule says so, even if one would assume they should rank up five to get ranks, as this was what they were intended to do when their rule was written.

I am not saying you are wrong, or, as it is an unclear rule, that it is impossible that your interpretation is the intended, only that it is not RAW.

enyoss
26-10-2008, 14:48
Just to clarify everyone arguing that a 1 should fail are of the position that 1 is not lower than 2? It is a situation with a clash of the Army Book and the Rule Book (unless you are certain that 1 is not lower than 2) in which case the Army Book takes precidence. Although an FAQ would be nice just to reinforce the the definition of "higher" and "lower".

Then again, do the Army Books always reiterate that a 1 always fails an armour save when they provide items or equipment that allow 1+/0+/-1+ saves? Or do we assume that as this isn't explicitly re-stated, the Army Book trumps the BRB ;)?

Although the item implies that the automatic failure of a 6 replaces that of a 1 there is nothing stating that the core rules for ward saves, as outlined in the BRB, are not also in effect.

To be honest, and this might be coming from a slightly jaundiced view, the Pendant would still be incredibly good value for money if rolls of 1 and 6 automatically failed. For the sake of the DE players who have to put up with all the whinging I really hope it gets FAQ'd this way!

Cheers,

enyoss

Count Zero
26-10-2008, 22:38
i wonder how posters who believe the pendant fails on a 1 would act to a DE player using the guiding eye item to re-roll shooting hits in every turn?

item descripton says 1 use only. character and unit may reroll any missed shooting to hit rolls. no mention of duration so it lasts for ever. yay.

EvC
26-10-2008, 22:47
Obviously, once you use it to re-roll those misses, you've used it that one time and it's done. There is no RAW clash there.

Pendant failing on a 1 is very rules lawyer-y which is why I doubt anyone would ever insist it. But it does make a vastly underpriced item fair.

Count Zero
27-10-2008, 07:02
so you have the option to use it after you have rolled it hit? see if its a bad roll the decide to use the gem.

also all of the other DE one use items specifciy time lenght.

adreal
27-10-2008, 08:19
It states clearly that you must roll under the strength of the attack to pass thisward save, and that a roll of 6 will fail. So you don't fail on a 1 and a 6, you just fail on the 6 (or above the strength of the attack).

Is it a good item? Yes, but that's just how it is, it shouldn't need a FaQ, just use your head, if you don't believe the DE player, ask to see the item in his book. I just can't believe that tis causes problems, I mean its a great item, but I can't see how it's a problem other then it may be too cheap (it's fairly crap against low strength attacks for example)

Condottiere
27-10-2008, 08:36
It's too cheap, and when combined with an armour save, you can smell the cheddar. That's the reason it's under intense scrutiny to discover any loopholes.

Templar_Victorious
27-10-2008, 08:58
Is the item close-combat only or does the reverse ward save include missile attacks (magic and normal?) Just curious.

Count Zero
27-10-2008, 09:26
it works vs missles as well as CC.

i am sure i saw a interview tih GavT where he said he meant for it to pass on a 1.
yes it's cheap but elves are squishy. he's still only T3 after all.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 09:26
(it's fairly crap against low strength attacks for example)

Low strength like what? 2? That's still succeeding on a 1 or a 2, which is equivalent to a 5+ Ward Save that passes on a 5 or 6.

Hell, against S3, it's the equivalent to a 4+ ward save - for 35 points.

DeathlessDraich
27-10-2008, 09:32
Creeping Death will destroy the Pendant very easily - 3D6 S1.

Ogres BullGorger is next - 2D6 S2 with no armour saves!

KillbotFactory
27-10-2008, 10:27
Creeping Death will destroy the Pendant very easily - 3D6 S1.


A mighty .48 wounds on average to a mounted DE lord assuming you somehow get it off.




Ogres BullGorger is next - 2D6 S2 with no armour saves!

On average .52 wounds with this whopper of a spell.

You have solved this problem, move along everyone this ward save is nothing to worry about.

Danger Rat
27-10-2008, 10:30
It's too cheap, and when combined with an armour save, you can smell the cheddar. That's the reason it's under intense scrutiny to discover any loopholes.

Especially if you combine it with the armour that gives the wearer regeneration!

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:34
Do people really think that S1 hits would give no ward save?

adreal
27-10-2008, 10:41
Wow a Dark elf lord (one model) is hard to kill.......

Yes it can be combined with regen armour and a cold one, in fact I do tis myself. It's a strong combo for a fighty lord.....considering how fighty vamps can be I need all the protection I can get so my squishy elf lord doesn't just up and die.

40kdhs
27-10-2008, 14:27
Your DE lord can have 1+AS + reverse wardsave and he is untouchable.

If another wardsave fails on 1, why is DE one any different?

Templar_Victorious
27-10-2008, 14:38
Can't he be just CR-ed down and run down by the winning infantry?

Either way, he is just T3, so I guess he would need that one. If I was gonna try magic on him, and My wizard managed to roll for it, I'd go for pit of shades. Sadly though, only the first spell on every list could with certainty be held be the magician, but still. (Except in some rare cases, mostly Special characters)

Embalmed
27-10-2008, 14:53
I'm thinking the FAQ could go either way with this, but probably 1 is a save.

I remember with the Ogre Kindoms Hellheart item, where one of the effects was that enemy casters had to roll on the Gut magic miscast table in case of a miscast. I always figured the rather catastrophic '1' result there would be as bad for the miscasting player as it normally is for the OK player when he miscasts (all Butchers on the table get slapped hard!), but instead the FAQ decided that indeed all Butchers on the table get slapped, even if it isn't the OK player who got the miscast. Sort of counter intuitive for those of us who thought that the effect of forcing a roll on the Gut magic miscast table would be something of an advantage for the item and not a liability.

Vile Druchii
27-10-2008, 16:47
Your DE lord can have 1+AS + reverse wardsave and he is untouchable.

If another wardsave fails on 1, why is DE one any different?

Because the Dark Elf one fails on a 6, whereas other wards don't?

Lord Dan
27-10-2008, 16:56
I can't wait for an FAQ to simply reenforce the obvious fact that "on a roll equal to or under the attack's strength, the hit is ignored" is a clear exception to the normal rules for Ward Saves. Now if in the ward save section of the BRB it said: "Ward save always fail on a 1, regardless of any exceptions noted in any army book" I'd be all for it. It doesn't.

And don't tell me it's not an exception. The words "this gives a ward save, based on the strength of the attack" AUTOMATICALLY means it's not following the normal rules for ward saves. Why, then, would we even consult the BRB on the matter?

When it comes out, I'm going to start a thread in the general discussion section simply titled: "Told you so."

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 17:02
I don't know if I'd go betting my credibility on guessing GW's FAQ answers.

Something about "Let Chaos Reign" or "Muster wither they wilt" (or whatever crappy mistyped failure of olde English allows Skulltaker to join Horrors) springs to mind...

Emeraldw
27-10-2008, 18:12
In general I'd agree that the wardsave only fails on 6's.

I'm just amazed by the stuff you can do with a DE lord. Even though he's T3, a 1+ AS, Reverse ward, Regen and a str 5 AP whip all for under 100? Just wow, Nothing is going to take that elf down, not even Chaos Lords or Greater Daemons. Even if you ignore armor saves, do you stop the regen? Likely not. How about a 3+ ward? I don't know what they were thinking with that item.

adreal
28-10-2008, 01:50
In general I'd agree that the wardsave only fails on 6's.

I'm just amazed by the stuff you can do with a DE lord. Even though he's T3, a 1+ AS, Reverse ward, Regen and a str 5 AP whip all for under 100? Just wow, Nothing is going to take that elf down, not even Chaos Lords or Greater Daemons. Even if you ignore armor saves, do you stop the regen? Likely not. How about a 3+ ward? I don't know what they were thinking with that item.

hehe you just described my lord, he is powerful yes, but thats one model. okay he is in a unit of knights, but in alot of my games those knights go down so fast it's crazy, then mr lord is hard pressed to win a combat, just because he cant be touched doesn't mean he wont go stupid or run from combat


Your DE lord can have 1+AS + reverse wardsave and he is untouchable.

If another wardsave fails on 1, why is DE one any different?

yeah my lord is untouchable, he's unit is not, he can also become stupid, he isn't immune to combat res.

This wardsave is different, it fails on a 6

walkerd
28-10-2008, 01:54
No You don 't. Along with a lot of people on forums who immediately say "Well, by RAW...." to everything...

For something to be Rules as written, there must be a rule written there, not cross-referencing to other rules and easter egg hunting. The classic example is the beastherd ranking up four wide. They do it because their rule says so, even if one would assume they should rank up five to get ranks, as this was what they were intended to do when their rule was written.

I am not saying you are wrong, or, as it is an unclear rule, that it is impossible that your interpretation is the intended, only that it is not RAW.

As the rules are written we have the follow.

* An item that provides a ward save.
* All ward saves fail on a 1.
* This item will allow you to pass the ward save by rolling under the strength of the item. It also expressly states this item fails on a 6.

As the rules state this item automatically fails on a 1 or a 6. Quite clear. Nothing contradicts any other rules. This is too many people a classic example of RAW. It is what the rules are explicitly saying.

For the record I do not think that this what was intended, and I would suggest it only fail on a 6. As a DE player I would suggest it only fail on a 6. However the rules are very clear and if my opponent advises it fails on 1 and a 6 I would have to abide by that decision.

TheDarkDaff
28-10-2008, 03:37
As the rules are written we have the follow.

* An item that provides a ward save.
* All ward saves fail on a 1.
* This item will allow you to pass the ward save by rolling under the strength of the item. It also expressly states this item fails on a 6.

As the rules state this item automatically fails on a 1 or a 6. Quite clear. Nothing contradicts any other rules. This is too many people a classic example of RAW. It is what the rules are explicitly saying.

For the record I do not think that this what was intended, and I would suggest it only fail on a 6. As a DE player I would suggest it only fail on a 6. However the rules are very clear and if my opponent advises it fails on 1 and a 6 I would have to abide by that decision.

Your point 3 is wrong. The item lets any roll equal to or under the strength of the attack be ingnored. So i ask the simple question again.

Is a roll of a 1 equal to or under the strength of the attack?

If yes the items says it saves it while the BRB says it fails to save. It is very simply a contradiction between AB and BRB and we all know that the Armybook trumps BRB in these cases.

Lord Dan
28-10-2008, 16:00
I don't know if I'd go betting my credibility on guessing GW's FAQ answers.

Something about "Let Chaos Reign" or "Muster wither they wilt" (or whatever crappy mistyped failure of olde English allows Skulltaker to join Horrors) springs to mind...

Now, now, it's a safe bet. I'm not all that credible to begin with. ;)

40kdhs
28-10-2008, 17:16
Your point 3 is wrong. The item lets any roll equal to or under the strength of the attack be ingnored. So i ask the simple question again.

Is a roll of a 1 equal to or under the strength of the attack?

If yes the items says it saves it while the BRB says it fails to save. It is very simply a contradiction between AB and BRB and we all know that the Armybook trumps BRB in these cases.

In 'wardsave' section of BRB, it states 'regardless of any modifiers, 1 always fails because nobody is invulnable'.

Lord Dan
28-10-2008, 17:22
In 'wardsave' section of BRB, it states 'regardless of any modifiers, 1 always fails because nobody is invulnable'.

I wouldn't really call it a "modifier". It's a condition.

mattschuur
29-10-2008, 05:13
The Problem with the always fails on a 1 rule is that it also causes problems in other cases. Example, something that makes you take a toughness test says that a 6 always fails, so by RAW a 6 and a 1 fail. is that correct? No, because i believe a characteristic test specifies that you have to roll under your stat, meaning that a 1, being under say 4 means you Do "Not" fail. The same with pendent, its says you have to roll under the Strength of the attack, and since 1 is under practically every attack out there, except that S1 attack in one of the magic lores, he passes on a 1. if you think of the pendent as a type of characteristic check, it makes sense except you aren't using your models Strength but the wounding weapons.

Note, i had a guy once tell me that because 1 of my dice in a casting was a 1, that even though it had enough to go off, i auto failed because a 1 always fails. Or the guy who said that my break test failed, even though i rolled a 3, because i rolled a 1 and a 2 but that 1 always fails. Or that fear test i took once. yeah the one always fails can be rules lawyered from here to eternity.

matt schuur

narrativium
29-10-2008, 10:49
As I see it, it's only a ward save in that it counts as a ward save, so items or rules which ignore ward saves ignore it too, and he can't have another ward save at the same time. 1 passes, 6 fails.

adreal
29-10-2008, 11:40
As I see it, it's only a ward save in that it counts as a ward save, so items or rules which ignore ward saves ignore it too, and he can't have another ward save at the same time. 1 passes, 6 fails.

Which makes sense, but no apparently it has to fail on a one as well.....never mind the rule stating that a roll of 6 always fails....

PARTYCHICORITA
29-10-2008, 12:45
Against S1 wounds the model passes the save on a roll of a 1 only; nothing in the item makes you think otherwise and i believe something like that should be stated in the item. So against S1 or higher a roll of a 1 is a successfull save IMO.

Mireadur
29-10-2008, 13:32
It states clearly that you must roll under the strength of the attack to pass thisward save, and that a roll of 6 will fail. So you don't fail on a 1 and a 6, you just fail on the 6 (or above the strength of the attack).

Is it a good item? Yes, but that's just how it is, it shouldn't need a FaQ, just use your head, if you don't believe the DE player, ask to see the item in his book. I just can't believe that tis causes problems, I mean its a great item, but I can't see how it's a problem other then it may be too cheap (it's fairly crap against low strength attacks for example)

Yes, it doesnt need a FAQ but an errata to tune down the damn item. For how much the item costs the ward save should actually be of 6+ agaisnt S3 and going up from there. So S5 would give a 4+.

The reason for a nerf? it wouldnt matter if the item costed 100 points, it would still be more than worth it as it stands now.

Definitely 1's shouldnt fail on it, as much as id like they did...

Jerrus
29-10-2008, 13:43
Your point 3 is wrong. The item lets any roll equal to or under the strength of the attack be ingnored. So i ask the simple question again.

Is a roll of a 1 equal to or under the strength of the attack?

If yes the items says it saves it while the BRB says it fails to save. It is very simply a contradiction between AB and BRB and we all know that the Armybook trumps BRB in these cases.

With that kind of reasoning, one could claim that since you didn't pass a successful ward save, that you can be "Killing Blowed".

Besides the item says it's a ward save.

BEEGfrog
29-10-2008, 15:45
With that kind of reasoning, one could claim that since you didn't pass a successful ward save, that you can be "Killing Blowed".

Besides the item says it's a ward save.

It is a ward save with a different mechanism, all rules of ward saves apply except where overruled by the special rules of the item.

The special rules of the item change the mechanism and specifically change the auto fail mechanism without including 1 in the new autofail mechanism.

So the item is as cheesy as ever and needs toned down or priced up.

Mireadur
29-10-2008, 21:07
Something i never understood (whats going on Gav? Wake up!) are the items to neglect your army handicaps. DE are specially adept at this. So they have a stupid cavalry? No problem we give you a cheap anti-stupidness banner so your cavalry actually is never stupid and the rule you spent your time creating never gets to actually happen.

It appears, however, that he realized this and he removed the silly banner, while giving a solid LD9 to the cold one knights (a much nicer approach, isnt it?) So why screwed up again by making the pendant and thus negating the main weakness of elves? (something that actually himself and Jack Thorton pushed hard to see it come live in 6th edition and which im sure nobody has ever liked (im talking about the move of turning elven characters T3 for the 6th edition).

I dont know. I guess it is not possible to make a single armybook without something which gets on their nerves the most purist player base :p

TheDarkDaff
30-10-2008, 02:51
In 'wardsave' section of BRB, it states 'regardless of any modifiers, 1 always fails because nobody is invulnable'.

Read my post again. I am not argueing that it isn't a ward save. I am saying that there is a direct contradiction of the BRB by the Armybook (as a 1 is always lower or equal to the S of an attack) and in these cases the Armybook totally overrides the BRB.

Armybook says 1 is a passed ward save
BRB says 1 is a failed ward save
Army book over rules BRB so 1 is a successful save

That simple.

AngelofSorrow
30-10-2008, 04:51
Wow this can of worms has been opened again.
As a Dark Elf Player I believe it fails on a 1 and so does my gaming group.
So until an FAQ comes out telling us otherwise comes out thats the way it will be.

BEEGfrog
30-10-2008, 05:15
Read my post again. I am not argueing that it isn't a ward save. I am saying that there is a direct contradiction of the BRB by the Armybook (as a 1 is always lower or equal to the S of an attack) and in these cases the Armybook totally overrides the BRB.

Armybook says 1 is a passed ward save
BRB says 1 is a failed ward save
Army book over rules BRB so 1 is a successful save

That simple.

And the rule for the pendant passes the "no-one is invulnerable" test because 6 is auto-fail instead of 1 being an auto-fail in the standard rules.

1 passing 6 failing meets the standard requirements for being the rules as written, plus passes the spirit by not allowing total invulnerability, it just fails the cheese test.

Condottiere
30-10-2008, 05:35
While logic tells me a 1 should be a save, I think there's still some room for doubt, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

Lord Dan
30-10-2008, 06:00
Besides the item says it's a ward save.

If a magic item said: "This is a lance that allows no armor saves" would anyone say that the weapon granted +2 strength as well? Probably not, as it doesn't say:

"Lance. No armor saves may be taken."

In the case of the former the word lance was used before being supplemented by a condition, which (though perhaps unintentional) is a clear distinction from the case of the latter.

Likewise you'll note that the Pendant doesn't simply say "Ward save." Rather, it includes the word "ward save" as reference before it goes to explain how the item works.

Count Zero
30-10-2008, 10:38
Something i never understood (whats going on Gav? Wake up!) are the items to neglect your army handicaps.

But the game would be awful if there were no items that cover your hanicaps.

so the dwarves shouldnt have an anvil to allow speedier movement or runes to build up dispel dice, Undead shouldnt be able to heal units etc.

its only fair thats squishy armies get things to help keep them alive a bit longer.

Mireadur
30-10-2008, 13:03
But the game would be awful if there were no items that cover your hanicaps.

so the dwarves shouldnt have an anvil to allow speedier movement or runes to build up dispel dice, Undead shouldnt be able to heal units etc.

its only fair thats squishy armies get things to help keep them alive a bit longer.

No, those are very different things. Your examples are totally unrelated to my points.


edit: what has to do healing undeads with being undead? nm.. Its obvious you cant see the point.

narrativium
30-10-2008, 13:50
Undead models falling against enemy models isn't a handicap, it's a consequence of battle. The equivalent for the purpose of this example would be items which render units immune to Crumbling or allow them to march normally or flee voluntarily.

Atrahasis
30-10-2008, 14:07
Undead models falling against enemy models isn't a handicap, it's a consequence of battle. Having rubbish troops with little or no armour is a handicap.

The Crown and Drakenhof banner reduce those handicaps.


items which render units immune to Crumbling

Crown and Drakenhof - lose combat by less (higher WS, 4+ save), and then take a 4+ regen save against the crumble wounds.


or allow them to march normallyThe Vampire rule.


flee voluntarily.Meh, they can't do that, but never running away ever is better 9 times out of 10.

Count Zero
30-10-2008, 14:23
perhaps my examples werent great but the point stands most armies have handicaps of some kinda that they are then allowed to get around them to some extent, either special rule or magic item.

DE ward saves should imo be cheaper as a DE lord is more likely to suffer a wound than almost any other lord in the game being a base T3 (obviously HE too but they have ASF to help out). i dont know all of the other lords in the game's stats but how many others are T3?

EvC
30-10-2008, 15:04
I see that as a red herring. True, Dak Elves are only T3. However, with Sea Dragon Cloaks as standard, Blood Armour, Regen Armour, Cauldron Wards, etc. they are not fragile. DE Wards should be cheaper I agree, but they should not be predicated on the idea that if someone actually is strong enough to get through the high armour save of a Dreadlord, then they should be even more likely to save the attack.

Count Zero
30-10-2008, 15:29
Cauldron is 200 pts though, ok SDC's are good, but then other armies have access to 4+ base armour etc or other good gizmo's like re-rollable saves. i am sure that i have come up against both brets and dwarfs with 1+ re-rollable saves followed by a ward and thats on top ot T4 & 5.

i agree tho the pendant is a very good item, probably it should be 50pts.

EvC
30-10-2008, 15:42
All true, but only Chaos, Dwarfs and Empire get access to base 4+ armour. If you face Brets with a high re-rollable armour save, then they are limited to a 5+ ward at best; Dwarfs similarly can get great armour and a ward save on top. But there's nothing harder in the game to kill than a Dreadlord with 1+ armour, regen and inverse ward (that I know of).

Mireadur
30-10-2008, 19:17
Having rubbish troops with little or no armour is a handicap.

The Crown and Drakenhof banner reduce those handicaps.



Crown and Drakenhof - lose combat by less (higher WS, 4+ save), and then take a 4+ regen save against the crumble wounds.

The Vampire rule.

Meh, they can't do that, but never running away ever is better 9 times out of 10.

Those examples are different again. Vampires giving marching capacity in a 12'' radius is obviously an army feature just as ITP, unbreakable and crumbling.

Of course magic items have to help soften the normal army burdens, but it is different from totally neglecting them. If i waste my time in making a special rule for a single type of model in the army, whats the point in making an item through which you will never see that weakness? And i say never because they normally make such items so cheap that nobody in their right mind doesnt use them

adreal
31-10-2008, 01:52
how come there is no complants about the 3+ ward save wood elves get? it's cheaper, still freaking good, okay if it fails it's gone, but still can make most Welves bitchs to kill. It also can be combined with regen armour (albiet light), given to a scouting character, or a mv9 character, or a monuted character....

I mean it makes another really hard to kill elf, in an army that's playstyle is stay away and shoot the crap out of you points deniel, atleast the Delf character will come at you.

If something has to happen to the pendant (I personally don't think it should, but....) maybe maybe make it go away on the first fail, although given that it goes off S for how good it gets, that may be abit to harsh.......

SolarHammer
31-10-2008, 02:21
Because a huge portion of the time the Pendant of Khaeleth is a 2+ save.

innerwolf
31-10-2008, 08:57
how come there is no complants about the 3+ ward save wood elves get? it's cheaper, still freaking good, okay if it fails it's gone, but still can make most Welves bitchs to kill. It also can be combined with regen armour (albiet light), given to a scouting character, or a mv9 character, or a monuted character....

I mean it makes another really hard to kill elf, in an army that's playstyle is stay away and shoot the crap out of you points deniel, atleast the Delf character will come at you.

If something has to happen to the pendant (I personally don't think it should, but....) maybe maybe make it go away on the first fail, although given that it goes off S for how good it gets, that may be abit to harsh.......

The Pendant is 5 points more, but it's a 2+ ward 6/10, 3+ 1/6,4+ 1/6, 5+ 1/6 and 6+ 1/6. Taking into account ST 10,9,8,2 and 1 are very rare, you end with a save which is 3/5 2+, 1/5 3+ and 1/5 4+. Only against 1/5 of the most common attacks it's worse. On top of that it doesn't goes with a failed save.

Remember: If you take a wound first turn with your Wood Elf character, you has a 1/3 chance to lose the item for the rest of the game.
In addition, the best save the character you are talking about(with regeneration) could get would be, best case(mounted) 4+. Small strength saturation fire( archers, crossbows, handguns...) cause enough wounds to destroy the ward ( 12 bow hits stadistically do it).

With the DE character, you don't worry about high strength and/or no save attacks, regeneration + ward take care. Small S attacks can't pass through a 1+/0+ save and a regeneration save. Go mathhammer on this if you want, he is nearly invulnerable against any kind of hit except strength 1/2 killing blow hits. Tell me how many of them exist in the game. Strength 3 killing blow attacks are again very rare(if my memory works well,only in the WE army), and they still allow a 4+ ward.
We have only a weakness left: auto-wounds with no save, nor regeneration allowed. I think you can count these with the fingers of 1 hand.

The Pendant of Khaeleth is horribly overpowered. The people who say DE wards have to be cheaper because of their toughness don't realize they are not-paying( getting a discount) for this toughness. If they were toughness 4 with their WS, BS, I, movement and Leadership they would cost quite a bit more. Or I so think.

Mireadur
31-10-2008, 13:02
Basically the only way to kill him is through spells which cause statistics checks.

In all reality this item is just outrageous hehe. I really still cant believe its there.

Embalmed
31-10-2008, 15:13
Your point 3 is wrong. The item lets any roll equal to or under the strength of the attack be ingnored. So i ask the simple question again.

Is a roll of a 1 equal to or under the strength of the attack?

If yes the items says it saves it while the BRB says it fails to save. It is very simply a contradiction between AB and BRB and we all know that the Armybook trumps BRB in these cases.

This same argument could be applied to a hypothetical 1+ ward save item. In the armybook it would say a save is passed on a 1+, a '1' is within the range of 1+, same 'contradiction' as above, so the armybook would trump, right?

narrativium
31-10-2008, 17:24
Yes, your hypothetical item for making the character invulnerable would apply as you say.

Naturally, it will remain hypothetical, as it makes the character invulnerable. The rulebook rules for ward saves say a 1 fails to enforce the idea that no-one is invulnerable; this item instead specifies a fail on a 6 to fulfil the design requirement.

I'm trying to think how the item should've been written to be clear. They could've said "the roll to save is the same as the roll to wound", so a S4 hit (3+ to wound) would've been 3+ to save... which would've been slightly weaker for any character with the Armour of Living Death. It could've been written like the Rule of Burning Iron spell, but there's not a lot of room on the page. It could've been written to say a 1 always passes... but then it would work against attacks which don't have a Strength value.

So, as is... it's a Ward Save, and the rules include a definite chance of it failing... and no-one's been utterly convincing. My read is, 1 succeeds (and I'm not playign Dark Elves), but if a Dark Elf opponent disagrees I'll follow their lead (naturally...). An FAQ would definitely help.

sulla
31-10-2008, 23:44
All true, but only Chaos, Dwarfs and Empire get access to base 4+ armour. If you face Brets with a high re-rollable armour save, then they are limited to a 5+ ward at best; Dwarfs similarly can get great armour and a ward save on top. But there's nothing harder in the game to kill than a Dreadlord with 1+ armour, regen and inverse ward (that I know of).

And there's nothing as ferocious as his 4 strength 4 attacks with a spiky sword either...

I prefer the pendant on my master so I can use him to soak up a lord in combat and use manouverability to keep my dreadlord out of trouble.

TheDarkDaff
01-11-2008, 04:54
This same argument could be applied to a hypothetical 1+ ward save item. In the armybook it would say a save is passed on a 1+, a '1' is within the range of 1+, same 'contradiction' as above, so the armybook would trump, right?

Care to name a single 1+ ward save. They don't exist.

That said i agree with sulla on the usefulness of the Pendant on a Dreadlord. On a Master with Soulrender it is fun or on that Supreme Sorceress it is a nice bit of kit but to actually make the Indrestructable Dreadlord requires having vastly reduced Damage potentual at a minimum cost of 250 points plus a Coldone Knight Bodyguard just to stop him from loosing everycombat he gets into and being run down (which he isn't immune to).

Condottiere
01-11-2008, 05:29
Even if there existed a a 1+ ward item, it would still fail on a 1.

The only really effective way to outright wound this character is to circumvent one of his protections, which complicates things immensely for those of us not having access to the appropriate Magic Weapons or Items.

Jerrus
01-11-2008, 09:07
What about 1+ armour saves, they're supposed to fail on the roll of 1 as well. But since the army book overrules the Rulebook, I guess that anybody wearing the Armour of Meteoric Iron is immune to s3 attacks.....

adreal
01-11-2008, 09:08
Even if there existed a a 1+ ward item, it would still fail on a 1.

The only really effective way to outright wound this character is to circumvent one of his protections, which complicates things immensely for those of us not having access to the appropriate Magic Weapons or Items.


Then don't plan on wounding the character, try and wound his unit, if the dreadlord hits combat without his coldone unit, he might get enough kills to force a draw, if not then he will most likly get broken, and if your luckey enough to run him down, then he isn't all that unstobable.

Yes this isn't a sure thing, cold one knights are pretty hard, but IMHO no hard hten say empire knights led by a fighty character (same toughness, same save, same movement, cold ones just cause fear, and have stupidity) so how do people take out knights?

Elves get bolt throwers, some good combat troops and magic
Empire get cannons, magic, knights of thier own and great swords
Dwarves get cannons and bolt throwers, im not sure about thier infantry, do they have anythning that can take a knight charge on the chin?
Skaven have jezzails, ratling guns, warplightning cannon and magic
Deamons have magic, some hard troops and cav of thier own
Chaos has magic and knights
bretts have knights and magic.....
Orges have.....I'm not sure....
lizardmen have a bolt thrower, magic, thier own cav
Undead have, unbreakable troops that can be healed, hard combat characters, nice flankers (chariots, vargulf), knights of their own....


So using all these things, you can come up with tactics to counter mr 1+sv with reverse ward and regen, and not actually fight this guy, kill his unit and watch him run.....

Jerrus
01-11-2008, 09:21
Or you could put this pendant on a BSB and then challenge with him to negate enemy character attacks.

TheDarkDaff
01-11-2008, 09:33
What about 1+ armour saves, they're supposed to fail on the roll of 1 as well. But since the army book overrules the Rulebook, I guess that anybody wearing the Armour of Meteoric Iron is immune to s3 attacks.....

There is no contradiction here however. The Armybook just tells you you have a 1+ save and the BRB shows you how to apply it and that rolls of 1fails. Having a save does not contradict how it works. To bring up armour saves in the same situation is a red herring. If the Armour told you that rolling under a certain number would save the hit then you would have a contradiction between the BRB and AB.

Jerrus
01-11-2008, 10:01
Armour saves are failed on the roll of 1 as per the Rulebook, same thing with Ward Saves. The Pendant doesn't state any exception to this rule, neither do the 1+ Magic Armours.

Claiming that rolling "equal to or over" is treated differently than "equal to or under" in this case doesn't seem to be based on any rule.

TheDarkDaff
01-11-2008, 10:09
Armour saves are failed on the roll of 1 as per the Rulebook, same thing with Ward Saves. The Pendant doesn't state any exception to this rule, neither do the 1+ Magic Armours.

Claiming that rolling "equal to or over" is treated differently than "equal to or under" in this case doesn't seem to be based on any rule.

So "over" and "under" mean the same thing? That is what your last statement is saying. So when my ward save says to roll equal to or under the strength i can roll any number except a 1 or 6 and it will save?

What i was saying is a 1+ AS is resolved as per the rules in the BRB. An Armybook having a 1+ save does not contradict the rules for Armour save in any way, shape or form. Now the Pendant of Khaleth DOES directly contradict the BRB because of it's roll under function. The only way it doesn't contradict is if 1 is not lower than 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. When the Armybook and BRB contradict each other the AB wins.

WLBjork
01-11-2008, 10:16
Why do people say there is a contradiction?

There isn't.

Both rules can be applied equally, until such time as there is a definitive answer in a Q&A/errata.

narrativium
01-11-2008, 12:10
There's a contradiction because some people claim ward saves fail on a 1, regardless of any specific rules for the item, and some people believe that 1 is less than or equal to any of the numbers between 1 and 10. All these people are correct, and therefore a 1 both passes and fails its ward save against any Strength-based attack.

If you can find rules for applying a passed save and a failed save equally and simultaneously, let us know.

Embalmed
01-11-2008, 13:20
What i was saying is a 1+ AS is resolved as per the rules in the BRB. An Armybook having a 1+ save does not contradict the rules for Armour save in any way, shape or form. Now the Pendant of Khaleth DOES directly contradict the BRB because of it's roll under function. The only way it doesn't contradict is if 1 is not lower than 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. When the Armybook and BRB contradict each other the AB wins.

I disagree. If an item description in an armybook states that it gives a 1+ save and BRB says a '1' always fails that 'contradiction' is IMO identical to the contradiction between how the pendant works and that ward saves always fail on a '1'.

The function of the item implies that a '1' is a successful save (without stating it explicitly), yet the BRB specifically rules that '1' is a failure. Same thing.


There's a contradiction because some people claim ward saves fail on a 1, regardless of any specific rules for the item, and some people believe that 1 is less than or equal to any of the numbers between 1 and 10. All these people are correct, and therefore a 1 both passes and fails its ward save against any Strength-based attack.

If you can find rules for applying a passed save and a failed save equally and simultaneously, let us know.

lol yeah that pretty much sums it up

WLBjork
01-11-2008, 14:58
The function of the item implies that a '1' is a successful save (without stating it explicitly), yet the BRB specifically rules that '1' is a failure.

(Emphasis added).


Item works when rolling equal to or under enemies strength (from the item itself).
Exception 1: A 6 always fails (from the item itself).
Exception 2: A 1 always fails (from the BRB rules on saves).


All these people are correct, and therefore a 1 both passes and fails its ward save against any Strength-based attack.

If you can find rules for applying a passed save and a failed save equally and simultaneously, let us know.

My Dwarf Lord has runes and items which combine to give him a 1+ Armour Save. I'm hit by a S3 attack.

I roll a 1 for my save.

According to you this is now both a pass and a fail. Fair enough.

Which do we apply?

The failure - this is a specific exception.

The same applies to the Pendant - the failure overrides the normal pass.

40kdhs
01-11-2008, 15:49
1 still fails because it's a wardsave.

narrativium
01-11-2008, 16:50
To quote, page 120, "in cases of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules".

1 passes because it's a ward save on a magic item.

Jerrus
01-11-2008, 19:05
But then that should apply to ALL magic 1+ saves as well.

And by the same measure, one could claim that strength modifiers don't affect the save either, as it wouldn't be a 1+ save anymore (and the AB overrules the BRB)

narrativium
01-11-2008, 20:50
Hmm. We could unravel a lot of rules that way (this spell says you don't get a Armour save, this item says you get a 5+ Armour save, you get the save!).

It seems that to make the game work we have to make some assumptions. A magic item which grants an Armour Save, follows the rules of Armour Saves where they don't contradict - other rules which ignore armour saves apply, Strength modifiers apply, unless the item contradicts those rules.

So... an item which grants a Ward Save follows those rules. Items which ignore ward saves ignore this. And it fails on a 1+, unless the item contradicts that rule - which this one does.

Three items and a rune, by my count, specify they're 1+ Armour saves, not magic saves or saves in addition to armour, ward and regen.

I'm still not denying the need for an FAQ, but I think a 1 succeeds.

TheDarkDaff
01-11-2008, 20:53
But then that should apply to ALL magic 1+ saves as well.

And by the same measure, one could claim that strength modifiers don't affect the save either, as it wouldn't be a 1+ save anymore (and the AB overrules the BRB)

You not making sense here.(Embalmed isn't really either)

Armour Saves are bound by the way they work in the BRB. It even has a section on how to deal with 1+ or better saves. How does having a 1+ save contradict the rules for how a 1+ save works? Simple answer is it does not at all!

Also modifiers would still work because you still physically have the 1+ save, it has just been modified to a lesser save for the purposes of that attack.

The reason why it works this way is because the Armybook gives you the Armour Save then you have to refer to the BRB for how to use it. The 1+ Armour does not change any of the basis functions of how Armour works unless it is specifically in the AB. The Pendant does change the basic function and that it why it has the description it does.

adreal
01-11-2008, 23:16
Question, if you take a strength test or toughness test, do you fail on a 1? No you don't, now the pendant say's 'This gives a ward save, based upon the Strength of the hit. Roll a D6 for every wound suffered by the wearer, on a roll equal to or under the attakcs strength, the hit is ignored. Roll of 6 always fail.'

Wait I've read something like that before.....wait I'm sure of it....maybe page 5 of the rulebook?
'In order to past the test, the model has to roll a D6 and score equal to or lower then the value of the characteristic involved. Note that if a 6 is rolle, then the model will atuomatically fail the test reguardless of the characteristic's value and of any other modifier that might apply.'

So what I'm getting at is yes, the item acts like a ward save (as in, can't be moded by strength, takes place after a fialed armour save roll, will be negated by attacks which allow no ward saves (if thier are any)) but in order for it to work, it works like a characteristic test, not a standard ward save. It follow's that rule to the letter, or thier abouts, so yes while it does break the ward save rule 'Rolls of 1's always fail' it has the 'rolls of 6 always fail' rule from characterisic test to balance it out.

KillbotFactory
02-11-2008, 01:38
5 pages.... its time to agree to disagree people. Both sides have arguments and neither is clear enough to win at this point.

Lord Dan
02-11-2008, 02:14
Claiming that rolling "equal to or over" is treated differently than "equal to or under" in this case doesn't seem to be based on any rule.

...except for the fact that the item calls for a strength test, which to pass requires you to roll equal to or under.

WLBjork
02-11-2008, 08:51
To quote, page 120, "in cases of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules".

1 passes because it's a ward save on a magic item.

I ask again, where is the contradiction?

It would be a contradicition if the item specified that it saved on a roll of "1".

narrativium
02-11-2008, 09:08
If the model was wounded by a Strength 1 hit, then the model would roll for its Ward Save. Let's say it rolls a 1. The rules of the magic item specify that the roll of a 1, being a value less than or equal to the Strength of the attack, i.e., 1, is a passed ward save and the model is not wounded. The rules for ward saves say that the roll of a 1, being a 1, fails the ward save. The only way in which this situation is not a contradiction is if you can point out where a model can both pass and fail the same ward save. Otherwise it is a contradiction, the magic item trumps the normal rule and the 1 passes.

The item does not specify that a 1 always passes because there are attacks which are not Strength-based, against which the Pendant is no defence. If the attack is Strength based, and that Strength is greater than or equal to 1, then a roll of a 1 is equal to or under that Strength, and the save passes.

Atrahasis
02-11-2008, 10:30
The rules for armour saves say that rolling equal to or greater than the armour save is a pass, and that a roll of a 1 is always a failure. Are you suggesting there is a contradiction in the rules for armour saves?

This is no different - a 1 is specifically a failure.

narrativium
02-11-2008, 11:26
You're not wrong. The rules do appear to say that a 1+ Armour Save passes on a 1. That's more of an issue for the other magic items than this pendant, though.

Embalmed
03-11-2008, 06:34
You not making sense here.(Embalmed isn't really either)

Armour Saves are bound by the way they work in the BRB. It even has a section on how to deal with 1+ or better saves. How does having a 1+ save contradict the rules for how a 1+ save works? Simple answer is it does not at all!


...and the exact same thing is true for the pendant. Ward saves are also bound by the way they work in the BRB, and there it specifically says that '1' is always a failure. The AB does not change this because it doesn't say that a '1' is a success after all, it merely implies it, in the same way that a 1+ save armour implies that it too will save on a '1'. And we all know that a 1+ armour does not save on a '1'.

Edit: that being said, I think the pendant was intended to work in the way you think, but the rules don't really support that interpretation IMO and the pendant is more balanced by RAW.

narrativium
03-11-2008, 23:00
No, you think the pendant is more balanced by the ward save failing on a 1.

1+ armour doesn't save on a '1' unless it is provided by a magic item, which trumps normal rules in the case of a contradiction, as quoted earlier. If the attack is Strength 4 or higher, the magic armour will not save on a '1'; if the attack is Strength 3 or lower, a '1' passes. Similarly the pendant passes on a '1', as it is a magic item, and so long as the attack's Strength is 1 or higher, this trumps normal ward save rules.

I think magic 1+ armour should fail on a 1 to meet the not-invincible intent of the fail-on-1 rule, just as the pendant already meets that criterion via the fail-on-6 rule, but RAW doesn't support that interpretation any more than it supports yours.

Releaser
04-11-2008, 12:45
That's the reason it's under intense scrutiny to discover any loopholes.

I don't know what they were thinking with that item.

Just take a look to the new Warriors of chaos book (magic items) and you'll understand immediately....


how come there is no complants about the 3+ ward save wood elves get?
And people also forget that mounts (replace the word "mounts" with "dragons") also get the ward save from the Stone of the crystal mere.
To be realistic,most of the time (but not always),when a dragon attacks you have no chance to fight back so ward saves are usually not used by the dragon riders in combat.They are more effective against shooting attacks.So,an old WOC dragon with the golden eye of Tzeench was easier to kill...?
On top of that,there are other sick characters as well.Just take a look at the Runelord and his anvil...1+ArSv with reroll,4+ Ward Save and ST5+ become ST5.He is unbreakable and immune to killing blow (US5 even if the guards die...:wtf:).And seriously,heroes can die from CR.Why do people forget about this...?

EvC
04-11-2008, 15:05
People don't forget about that, rather it's the other way around, Tracks-avatar-guy. You are forgetting - or just choosing to ignore - that if a Runelord wants to buy armour that grants him a 1+ save, and then make it re-rollable, and then add a 4+ ward on top of that, make weapons S5 at most, and then give himself immunity to poison and killing blow, he has to pay for each and every one of those runes. A Dark Elf pays a pittance for his reverse ward save.

And besides, you're comparing the Pendant's ability to two of the most reviled combos in the book- Golden Eye on a Dragon (Now defunct) and the Anvil of Doom. That says it all, really.

Releaser
04-11-2008, 16:39
I'm not ignoring everything,i'm just telling that there are other combos that are equally good.True that the dark elf pays only 35pts but he is limited to 100 pts,not 125+.I also wrote about the Stone of the crystal mere...Anyway,even if he IS the most durable fighter in the game,that doesn't also mean he is also the deadliest.Its an elf lord!!!ST4,T3! And the elven offensive armory (all 3 of them) sucks.If you go against a Dreadlord,try to avoid him like you avoid a Dwarf lord or a Bloodthirster if you are afraid to be hit 4 ST6 attacks that badly.
Anyway,i don't really see the point of bickering to death for a warhammer item,be it the pendant or anything else.Its just a game.

EvC
04-11-2008, 17:24
Of course there are combos that are equally good. That people pay for. The Wood Elf Stone you mention is of course another great item, and especially evil when combined with Annoyance of Netlings. Though they can't get a 1+ save on top of that, mind. I'm not quite sure why pointing out that a 35 point talisman is one of the best items in the game - and certainly better than a hundred points of runes - causes you to enter defensive bicker mode though. It's just a statement of fact, simple as that. Deny it if you like, but you'll just get yourself worked up over nothing.

Releaser
04-11-2008, 19:20
But it is the best ward in the game.Nobody denies that.But there are ways to get past it.
Oh,and you got it wrong.When i wrote "bicker" i was actually referring to all the players that posted here and argue for 6 pages about a game.;) (of course,no offence to the posters)

Condottiere
04-11-2008, 23:50
None taken, I'm sure we all enjoy hashing things out for six plus pages, for the sake of the game.

Dark14
05-11-2008, 04:25
its a special rule a 6 always fails not a one.