PDA

View Full Version : Glaive of Putrefaction + Bloodskull pendant



yoshimo
28-10-2008, 16:59
the Glaive states:
any model suffering an unsaved wound from this weapon suffersetc.
the pendant states:
instead of making his normal attacks for that round, the wielder may choose to inflict a S8 hit on each enemy in base contact
Am I right in assuming that wounds caused in this way are subject to the effects of the weapon the character is carrying? (i.e the Glaive in this case)

Lordsaradain
28-10-2008, 17:09
any model suffering an unsaved wound from this weapon suffers



Am I right in assuming that wounds caused in this way are subject to the effects of the weapon the character is carrying? (i.e the Glaive in this case)

Pretty obvious that is not the case.

yoshimo
28-10-2008, 17:26
I don't feel it's pretty obvious, in the flavour text for the pendant it implies that the character tastes the blood contained within the khorne icon and then erupts in a maelstrom of violence.
during which it's doubtful the character is going to flail about wildly with his pendant to whack everyone for str 8, isn't it more likely that he's going to be hitting with his glaive but with more force?

SolarHammer
28-10-2008, 17:34
What do you think he is hitting them with?
If he had no magic weapon he would be hitting them with his close combat weapon, just at S8 and without rolling to hit.

Unless you're saying he hits them with a pendant... Which is frankly silly and has no rules support.

theunwantedbeing
28-10-2008, 23:19
It says instead of his normal attacks....normal attacks being those made with the magic weapon he's holding.

It's very clear.
You do not get the benefits of both.

Does he do st9 hits if he has the sword of might? or a great weapon for strength 10?
No, thats not what the item says, so it doesnt work like that.

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 04:35
The strength of the hit can't be altered because that's stated, but what do you think the hit is made with?

There's no precedent in the game for hitting him with something that isn't a weapon. He doesn't use his normal attacks, but he still uses whatever weapon he is equipped with.


At the start of the first turn of combat, each such unit can choose which of their weapons to use, (the entire unit must use the same weapon, but characters can always choose separately). Whichever weapon they use must then be used for the entire combat.Rulebook p.54

So they get an automatic hit at S8. But they're still using whatever weapon they have chosen to use.

Braad
29-10-2008, 07:57
Maybe the hit is made with magic power. It is a magic item after all.

And armybook rules override the BRB, so if an item states 'instead of normal attacks' than that overrides that rule and they don't attack with the weapon but do something fancy with the pendant, like freeze them, burn them, eat them. I don't know. But it has got to be scary.

As an example, the bretonnia book also allows something like that with lances on the charge and then magic weapons, so it is possible to stray from the rule of always using the same weapon.

Also, you don't need a precedent. There is always something/someone that is the first. Otherwise nothing could ever happen.

---EDIT---

Just thought of another example. We used to have (maybe still, dunno) things like warrior familiars making something like a S5 hit. So is this hit also made with the added power of some weapon you got? Its the same situation, only now you don't get 'additional' but 'instead'.

Atrahasis
29-10-2008, 11:08
And armybook rules override the BRB,No they don't.

yoshimo
29-10-2008, 11:38
---EDIT---

Just thought of another example. We used to have (maybe still, dunno) things like warrior familiars making something like a S5 hit. So is this hit also made with the added power of some weapon you got? Its the same situation, only now you don't get 'additional' but 'instead'.

yes but in that case it's made clear that the attack is seperate from the normal user, it doesn't even follow the turn sequence as it happens at the start of close combat before blows are struck/challenges etc are issued

it could also be interpreted that "instead of his normal attacks" could be referring to the characteristic, thus his W attacks are replaced with X attacks and his Y strength is replaced with Z strength

Griefbringer
29-10-2008, 11:55
I think by RAW S8 hit is just that - S8 hit.

If it would state "an automatic hit with the weapon they are wielding, but S8 instead of normal S" then it would be different.

yoshimo
29-10-2008, 12:18
So what is the character hitting with in your opinion?

Nilhouse
29-10-2008, 13:32
The magic power within the pendant.

Bac5665
29-10-2008, 13:36
Think of it as an aura from the pendant, boiling the blood of the foe, or whatever.

yoshimo
29-10-2008, 14:04
The bearer wears around his neck a tiny brass skull filled with the blood of a Daemon Prince of Khorne. When the Bloodskull's contents are tasted, the bearer becomes a maelstrom of violence.

so no, they are not magically getting hurt, the bearer is hurting them, with what? doubtful it's the "tiny brass skull"

skank
29-10-2008, 14:24
The bit of fluff above the rules for magic items are of no importance.

Anyway fluffwise he could be effected similarly to 'bears anger', you can make up anything with the fluff.

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 14:33
Except Bears Anger, Flaming Sword and other effects like that specifically state that they replace any weapon the bearer is using. If anything that's a precedent for requiring language like that, which the Pendant lacks...

skank
29-10-2008, 14:40
Language like 'instead of making his normal attacks for that round'?
I would say he would not get poison whilst in the leechlords unit (or whatever gives you poison/killing blow etc. l don't have the book) or use his magic weapon. All the bonuses he gets with his regular attacks are lost, or maybe those hits are S9 with SOM?

yoshimo
29-10-2008, 14:56
'instead of making attacks with his normal weapon for that round'
would have been far better language if that is what they intended

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 14:58
No. Something like:

He cannot wield a weapon whilst using this spell.
Pha's Illumination, p.117

He cannot wield a weapon nor use a shield whilst using this spell.
The Bear's Anger, p.115

Whilst he has the Flaming Sword, the Wizard must use it as his sole weapon - he cannot combine it with other weapons.
Flaming Sword of Rhuin, p.112

So the Bloodskull Pendant is nothing like any of those.

He wouldn't gain any benefit from poison, as he has no roll to hit, so has no possibility of scoring poison.

The magic weapons that increase strength refer to the bearers strength, while the automatic hit granted by the Pendant is at a set strength unrelated to the bearers strength, so that doesn't fly either.

But he's still hitting them with something. They are automatic hits, and in place of his regular attacks, but they're still hits which are made with his weapon. So any magic weapon effects that take place on successful wounds (Glaive, Hellfire Sword, Sword of Change, Rapier of Ecstasy, Aethersword, Filth Mace) would still take effect.

BEEGfrog
29-10-2008, 15:23
This the usual example of GW's sloppy rule writing and even sloppier play testing (and I am not blaming the play testers for this it is the design/production team that specify testing specification, goals and thoroughness).

The rules stated above (don't have the book to check) aren't specific enough to differentiate between the following four options.

1) All aspects of original attacks, bonusses etc. are replaced by the pendant's attack through magical forces rather than any equipment on the model. Issue to be decided if using HW&Sh whether you get AS bonus (I would say yes as attacks are replaced, not necessarily defences)

2) The attacks on the model's profile and other relevant general rules, e.g. frenzy, are replaced by the pendant's attack but bonusses from weapons used are allowed (probable exception here would be bonusses that affect number of attacks, strength or number of hits).

3) As the pendant replaces normal attacks only, it either cannot be used with magical attacks as it cannot replace them, this could even be stretched to say that the magical attacks are additional.

4) The "can't use two magical weapons" rule applies and you can't use the glaive at the same time as the pendant. (there is still the issue of non magical bonusses).

Option 1) is the unarguable minimum interpretation and probable intended outcome of the magic item. Option 2) is not supported by anything in the rules for either item but also nothing in their rules specifically rules against it.

Options 3) and 4) are less likely 3) because it is such a twisting of logic and 4) because the pendant is probably not defined as a magic weapon under the rules.

The friendly option is to not take the two items together because if allowed to be combined it is an example of WAAC power-gamer cheese. The power sportsmans option is to include using the two together in a list of interpretations to be used during the game: it is still cheesy but will avoid argument and bad feeling.

Braad
29-10-2008, 15:36
@ Atrahasis
Really? For example, please explain then how the thing I mentioned about the bretonnia book can happen than? Since the special rule given for bretonnians using their lance vs magic weapons cannot override the BRB rule, that rule is in fact useless?

About this pendant thing again... It is indeed not made clear that the attack is not made with the weapon, I won't deny that. But it is also not made clear that it is and the rule talks about 'not making his normal attacks', where it is easy to argue that this implies they are not made with his weapon. For example, when a troll vomits he doesn't use his normal attacks but instead makes a S5 autohit. He doesn't vomit clubs/axes, does he, so any weapon rules he might have would not be used for this attack, or should it? The special attack is something completely different.
I do know trolls don't have any special weapon rules, but if anyone wants to use that argument, please also explain what would happen if they did.

It surprises me that some people always have such a clear cut opinion on things that to me and many others don't seem so obvious.

Hurting with what, but not his weapon? Fists maybe? A big stick? Headbutt? Dunno, could be anything. Thing is, it is not mentioned. Neither way.

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 15:40
He doesn't roll to hit. The hits are at S8. He gets one on each enemy. They have Killing Blow.

Nothing else is changed because it doesn't say that anything else is changed.

If he would normally be using a magic weapon (because he is required to do so) then he continues to do so as it doesn't say ANYTHING that would change it.

Braad
29-10-2008, 15:50
It says he doesn't make his normal attacks. For me that is enough to say he doesn't get the bonusses he would get from his normal attacks (with magic weapon) but only those stated for his special attack. The special attack doesn't say 'killing blow' or 'whatever'.

Special attacks have special rules. If you would in this case apply both the rules for special and normal attacks, there are plenty other situations that would become really weird.

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 15:53
He's still making hits.

All the item does is give him X number of hits at S8 with Killing Blow.

It does not specify that he does not make those hits with his weapon, regardless of whether it is a special attack or not. You are right. Special attacks do have special rules, but none of the rules for the attack granted by the Pendant preclude using his regular weapon.

Every other ability in the game that does preclude the use of regular or magic weapons specifically state that they do so.

jrodrag
29-10-2008, 16:11
@Solar I understand that you believe that way as does everyone here. Your last few posts have added nothing new to your stance. If we play a game you are obviously going to feel strongly enough about this that we'll play it your way. However, the differing opinions of people on this board that all have valid points can not be dismissed by your beliefs.

As to the question, the 4 points brought up by BEEGfrog are still the four possibilities it could be. (Except that I agree that options 3 and 4 are pretty far fetched) Each gamer will have to figure out the way they want to play it in thier groups, and call tournament organizers beforehand if they are going to center thier strategery arond this mechanic.

I personally tend to flow towards the least powerful of options so would suggest to my opponent that we use option 1 and the hit is seperate from normal attacks and weapons. My opinion anyway.

BEEGfrog
29-10-2008, 16:11
He doesn't roll to hit. The hits are at S8. He gets one on each enemy. They have Killing Blow.

Nothing else is changed because it doesn't say that anything else is changed.

If he would normally be using a magic weapon (because he is required to do so) then he continues to do so as it doesn't say ANYTHING that would change it.

"Replaces" is something that could imply that the previous weapon is, er, replaced by the pendant's attacks, so "doesn't say ANYTHING" is a bit strong.

This is a grey area between interpretations, i.e. does the replaces normal attacks mean replaces all aspects of the normal attacks (it doesn't have any limits on what is replaced so it could easily be all aspects); or does it mean just the number of attacks and the option to specify targets (it doesn't limit itself to just the number).

The item rules go on to specify the strength of the hit, the only thing required to work out wounds and AS, without any allowance for weapons bonusses. Ths increases the likelyhood that the intention was to not allow weapons bonusses. However, intentions are meaningless if ruling on RAW and RAW allows either option depending if you count "replaces" as meaning "everything but exceptions" or "nothing but exceptions".

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 16:14
"Replaces" is something that could imply that the previous weapon is, er, replaced by the pendant's attacks, so "doesn't say ANYTHING" is a bit strong.

His attacks are replaced, not his weapon.

That said, the text of the rule never uses the word "replaced" or the word "replaces."


Instead of making his normal attacks for that round, the wielder of the Bloodskull Pendant may choose to inflict a S8 hit on every enemy model in base contact. These hits have the Killing Blow special rule.

Allow me to higlight:
"the wielder... may choose to inflict"

The wielder is inflicting hits.
The wielder inflicts hits with a weapon.

Nothing in the text would prevent, override or in any way modify this.

Braad
29-10-2008, 16:26
I'll correct myself about the killing blow thing. The OP didn't mention that one.

The wielder inflicts. So, he chooses not to use his normal attacks/weapon, and instead does something fancy with the pendant. Hits are not always caused by a weapon, there are plenty of examples for that, so you can't assume it. A chariot inflicts (impact) hits, but it doesn't use a sword for that. If a wizard casts a spell and inflicts hits on something, he also doesn't use a weapon for that. A weapon is not necessary for hits.

The rule for the item says: do S8 hit with killing blow. That's it.
It doens't say "and add bonusses for other weapons".
Since he does not make normal attacks, I think it is quite important that the rule would have included that if it was so.

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 16:31
he chooses not to use his normal attacks/weapon

You're making that up.

If it said "instead of making his normal attacks with his weapon" then you would have a point, but it doesn't, so you're just confabulating things.

Any hits a model inflicts are done with some weapon, any weapon.
Doubly so when that model has a magic weapon, as he is required to use it.

As an aside, not related to the rules, but to an earlier comment of "WAAC Cheesiness":

This pendant is !45! bloody points. You can't even combine it with any really useful weapons so if someone wants to spend 70 points to combine the two I will certainly let them.

Hell, a Chaos Lord gets more hits (at admittedly less Strength) by just taking the weapon on its own. It will only be useful on a Sorceror Lord, and 3 S8 hits or not, I'm still going to kill him when he has 70 points of attacking gear. Especially since he will be on foot, and I will be charging him.

This little combo is as many points than the Destroyer of Eternities, and that inflicts TWICE as many hits. So would the pathetic magic weapon effects be worth half as many hits? I think yes. It's not WAAC at all...

BEEGfrog
29-10-2008, 16:44
His attacks are replaced, not his weapon.

That said, the text of the rule never uses the word "replaced" or the word "replaces."

Allow me to higlight:
"the wielder... may choose to inflict"

The wielder is inflicting hits.
The wielder inflicts hits with a weapon. I understand and accept everything but this, the wielder is wielding the pendant, anything else he could or could not be wielding at the same time is open to interpretation

Nothing in the text would prevent, override or in any way modify this.
It is always a problem getting into a debate without the full set of texts in front of you.

I would still argue that it is still at least ambiguous as "instead" has the same alternatives as "replaces" and the user is now "wielding" the pendant. This can be read as wielding the pendant instead of whatever weapons or attacks the user could otherwise use. It may even make it the slightly more likely interpretation than wielding the pendant as well as another weapon, as the text of the description does use "instead".

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 16:49
There is no rule or precedent in the game which would allow a character to make an attack or resolve a hit with an Enchanted Item rather than with his equipped Magic Item.

"Now I hit you with my shiny bauble!"

It's crap. The pendant makes him swing at everyone and automatically hit and makes those hits really strong. They don't make him hit the enemy with the pendant. He's still hitting them with whatever he is wielding as a weapon.

You guys are grasping at straws here from a rules, fluff and even a gameplay point of view.

I'll re-quote the notable weapon and magic weapon rules again:

At the start of the first turn of a combat, each such unit can choose which of their weapons to use (the entire unit must use the same weapon, but characters can always choose separately). Whichever weapon they use must then be used for the entire combat.p.54


A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapons, although it can carry a shield as normal.p.121

BEEGfrog
29-10-2008, 17:17
I do see your point but I also think it isn't as cut and dried as you think.

i.e. I see nothing in the rules that conclusively overrules your interpretation.

However, nothing you have quoted conclusively overrules the interpretation of the pendant as a non-weapon based magical attack that replaces the character's normal weapon based attacks.

Therefore ending up with two interpretations needing a FAQ or errata to be conclusive.

FigureFour
29-10-2008, 17:35
It is always a problem getting into a debate without the full set of texts in front of you.
Agreed.


I would still argue that it is still at least ambiguous as "instead" has the same alternatives as "replaces" and the user is now "wielding" the pendant. This can be read as wielding the pendant instead of whatever weapons or attacks the user could otherwise use. It may even make it the slightly more likely interpretation than wielding the pendant as well as another weapon, as the text of the description does use "instead".
No. This makes no sense. The pendant isn't a weapon and therefore cannot be wielded as one.

This is a tricky one. I think it could mean that instead of the normal process for rolling to hit for each attack on the profile and dividing attacks you replace the normal attacking process with one hit per model and the strength of the attack with 8. This does not preclude using a weapon (or its effects) and seems to be the most logical ruling. Not to mention it makes sense concerning the fluff.

The other interpertation is that the effect of the pendant replaces making attacks in close combat entirely and the hits are therefore not made with the weapon. Since presumably the hits are still made at the bearers initiative, it seems odd to say "These hits are not attacks and ignore all the close comabt rules except for one that we didn't mention but you have to assume we implied."

As far as RAW goes, they're both valid, but I think the first one holds more weight.

yoshimo
29-10-2008, 19:32
I'll correct myself about the killing blow thing. The OP didn't mention that one.

I didn't include the entire rules for both items because 90% of it isn't relevant and because GW has issues with people paraphrasing large portions of their IP

Gaftra
29-10-2008, 20:26
Instead of making his normal attacks for that round, the wielder of the Blood Pendant may choose to inflict a str 8 hit on every enemy model in base contact. These hits have the killing blow special rule.

the way i interpret it, when you replace your normal attacks it means you are no longer using the weapon you were holding and are instead inflicting automatic str 8 hits. i can see the gray area though but i personally wouldnt play it with the double dip there.

Braad
29-10-2008, 21:33
You're making that up.

Making what up? I just mentioned that in my point of view, normal attacks are made with the weapon you wield, special attacks not necessarily.

Anyway, I made my opinion clear, so I'll leave it at this.

Now I do understand that the statement I make is open to interpretation, because the rules are not completely 'closed' (dunno the right phrase here). So is yours, and personally I don't think any of us can give a satisfactory answer. Let's bash GW instead of each other :D

SolarHammer
29-10-2008, 21:59
Ok deal.

I think GW needs someone (maybe 2 someones so they can have a discussion like this) on their staff like us. Someone who will rip the rules to shreds before they are published.

yoshimo
29-10-2008, 23:18
but where is the cost effectiveness of paying 2 dudes minimum wage for 5 hours a week to avoid putting 100's of paying customers off the game because of poorly worded rules?

Valtiel
29-10-2008, 23:45
Can't someone use the Chewbacca defense and get on with this? I find it funny that people are discussing things like this. Reminds me of the WoC faq over at the Warhammer Forum.

yoshimo
29-10-2008, 23:51
it should do, i made this very same point over there today too. it's been added to the FAQ

Goruax
30-10-2008, 01:51
A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapons, although it can carry a shield as normal.
p.121

If he has no other close combat weapon, what are his 'normal attacks' considered to be?

The normal mode of attack for the character is now to use his magical weapon.
They use the Bloodskull Pendant, which removes his 'normal attacks' and they make Auto-hit S8 attacks with Killing Blow.

You pointed out the logical flaw in your own argument, because they norm for the character is the magical weapon (because they cannot use other close combat weapons) is replaced.

SolarHammer
30-10-2008, 02:45
With what? What is he making those attacks with?

HE IS NOT HITTING THEM WITH THE PENDANT.

Goruax
30-10-2008, 03:27
You're focusing on fluff to justify game-mechanics, which is certainly not the case in many cases of the game.
It's more than probable, fluff-wise, the pendant makes him drop his glaive and beat the living tar out of them with his hands.

The point isn't what he's attacking with, it's what he's not attacking with - and he certainly isn't using his magic weapon.

SolarHammer
30-10-2008, 04:23
No, I'm not focusing on "fluff," I am focusing on the fact that the rules don't say he doesn't use his weapon.

Condottiere
30-10-2008, 05:44
If you can use an item directly in combat, it's a weapon. Otherwise, it's only creating an effect that applies in combat.

sulla
30-10-2008, 07:44
No, I'm not focusing on "fluff," I am focusing on the fact that the rules don't say he doesn't use his weapon.

The rules don't say he doesn't fly either... Seems like you're looking for easter eggs.

skank
30-10-2008, 09:00
Solarhammer: You are focusing on fluff, your talking about a game mechanic like it needs some basis in 'reality'.

Braad
30-10-2008, 09:15
Ow, come on. No-one can actually win this.
You can argue: the rule doesn't say he uses his weapon so he doesn't, or it doesn't say he puts down his weapon, so he does.

I believe someone submitted this to the list that will be sent to GW. I would say, keep it at that, hope they will keeping FAQ'ing this stuff, and that they will learn a lesson.

Maybe some could print this and a few other threads, put it in an envelope and sent it to GW. Maybe then they'll understand what they are putting us through?

Atrahasis
30-10-2008, 09:28
@ Atrahasis
Really? For example, please explain then how the thing I mentioned about the bretonnia book can happen than? Since the special rule given for bretonnians using their lance vs magic weapons cannot override the BRB rule, that rule is in fact useless?That is a case of a specific rule overruling a specific rule. There is no default position that army book rules somehow hold more weight than rulebook rules.

Where there is no contradiction, both rules apply. The armybook only ignores or overrules the rulebook where it specifically says so.

In this case, there is no contradiction : the pendant guarantees a number of hits, without changing anything else. It may or may not be the intent (the FAQ will tell us that) but as the rules stand the hits are made with whatever weapon the character is using.

yoshimo
30-10-2008, 10:33
I believe someone submitted this to the list that will be sent to GW. I would say, keep it at that, hope they will keeping FAQ'ing this stuff, and that they will learn a lesson.

yes, the OP...me... had this added to the FAQ shortly after i realized that there wouldn't be a "well the obvious answer is:....." reply here

blurred
30-10-2008, 12:35
IMO it is very clearly stated that the Pendant inflicts those hits and the character does not hit them with his weapon. If we would consider the Glaive's effect to be added into the mix, we would also have to add Sword of Might's +1S etc. And that's just silly.

yoshimo
30-10-2008, 12:42
well no, because the strength of the hit and number of attacks have been replaced, thus you can't increase the static number of attacks and strength which are there now, the effect of the ability on whether or not the character is hitting with his weapon or the pendant seems to be the only debate now

xragg
30-10-2008, 13:32
So by your argument, a skaven warlord equiped with Warpstone Armor (each successful save causes the attacker to take a S4 hit) and a Weeping Blade (+1S, d3 wounds) would reflect attacks he saves that now cause d3 wounds to his attacker. Just because an item causes a hit doesnt mean it originates from the weapon they are wielding.

You are reading the fluff (not rules) and trying to argue that he is drinking a potion that causes the spirit of Khorne to fill him. The "story" doesnt go on to say how those hits actually occur. You are filling in the blanks and at the same time "filling in" rules. I could just as easily fill in the story that the demon's spirit radiates from within him harming enemies near him. You cant use fluff to justify what you feel is a missing line in the rules. That is opening a pandora's box of trouble.

yoshimo
30-10-2008, 14:06
in that case there the origin of the str 4 hit is clearly defined to be the warpstone armor as it is not in the correct turn sequence for the skaven warlord to be hitting the enemy. however the hits caused by the glaive would be in the correct turn sequence for the chaos lord to be rolling to hit his enemy.

FigureFour
30-10-2008, 14:44
Can't someone use the Chewbacca defense and get on with this? I find it funny that people are discussing things like this. Reminds me of the WoC faq over at the Warhammer Forum.

What's funny about it? There is a point of ambiguity in the rules, some people would like to see how other people think it should be handled and why.

Just because we can't come up with an answer doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

xragg
30-10-2008, 14:49
in that case there the origin of the str 4 hit is clearly defined to be the warpstone armor as it is not in the correct turn sequence for the skaven warlord to be hitting the enemy. however the hits caused by the glaive would be in the correct turn sequence for the chaos lord to be rolling to hit his enemy.

Many items have a similar effect. I could have just as easy used Acid Ichor (which doesnt state a source) of chaos and Hellfire Sword. What in the world does turn sequence have to do with anything, its still close combat. The point is, just because an item doesnt specifically state the source of the damage, does it mean you can choose the damage to come from a secondary source to gain an additional effect.

Atrahasis
30-10-2008, 14:52
The Warpstone Armour and Acide Ichor are very different, in that they state that the item inflicts the hits. The Bloodskull Pendant has the model inflicting the hits instead of his normal CC attacks. The only way we have of resolving hits from a model (rather than from his equipment) in close combat is with their weapon.

SolarHammer
30-10-2008, 16:32
Agreed.

It doesn't say:
1.) that the Pendant inflicts the hits
2.) that the character does not use his regularly equipped weapon