View Full Version : Black Axe and Wounds Caused

10-11-2008, 05:42
As I recently had an opportunity to quote the revised Black Axe of Krell rules from the VC FAQ, an idea lodged itself in my head.

Great Weapon. Each unsaved wound caused by the Black Axe is multiplied into D3 wounds. Any model wounded but not slain by the Black Axe must pass a Toughness test at the start of each of its subsequent turns or suffer an additional wound (no armour saves allowed).

The red part is actually red in the VC FAQ. So each unsaved wound is multiplied into D3.

If a model fails a toughness test at the start of its turn, it suffers an additional wound. Obviously this wound is caused by the Black Axe of Krell. If this wound, which is caused by the Black Axe, is unsaved it should be multiplied into D3 wounds.

Basically there is nothing to differentiate causing a wound with the axe in the combat phase by making close combat attacks, and causing a wound via a Toughness test at the start of each subsequent turn. Both would be multiplied into D3 wounds by the red part they added.

Any objections?

Jack of Blades
10-11-2008, 06:33
I agree with your point of view.

10-11-2008, 07:31
Except that the next part talks about taking only one wound. You have quoted both effects of the axe already, there's no need to read too much into the first part as the second is already there too. One wound if the victim fails his test, no d3 wounds.

10-11-2008, 07:50
It is the differance between rules as written and rules as intended.

I believe they meant D3 wounds in initial combat phase and a single wound per friendly turn if that turn's toughness test is failed.

It can be interpreted as D3 wounds in initial combat phase and a further D3 wounds per friendly turn if that turn's toughness test is failed. It would not use this option as it is clearly against intent and the rule can be interpreted as intended although the intended interpretation isn't the stongest one.

The D3 plus 1/turn is supported by a bit of stretched logic that goes: because only the original wound is "unsaved" as the subsequent wounds are "unsavable", no armour save test is made so they cannot fail their tests to become "unsaved".

Another thing that needs to have a FAQ/errata.

10-11-2008, 08:33
It IS a FAQ...

Agreed. It is likely that they intended what BEEGfrog said, but well, a wound is a wound, and the red part says "each unsaved wound", and not "each unsaved wound in the intial CC phase". It also doesn't say something like "directly caused" and the lather is only caused by an effect, and not directly". I cannot deny this claim, I think.

But I have to say, if I just read it, this idea would not pop into mind.

Gazak Blacktoof
10-11-2008, 09:30
If they had intended the wounds in successive turns to also be multiplied by D3 I'm sure they would have been explicit and tacked on, "this additional wound is also multiplied by D3" or "suffers D3 additional wouds" instead. They haven't done this so I don't believe you should multiply that one wound into D3..

10-11-2008, 10:41
"...caused by the Black Axe..."

RAW seems to indicate it could be interpreted as multiplied. How much does this item cost again?

10-11-2008, 12:31
5/7*cost of Dwarf Master Rune of 1D6 wounds.

10-11-2008, 17:43
In other words it is 50 points and can only be taken by Wight Kings (using their entire magic item allowance).

10-11-2008, 19:29
There's an ambiguity there, in the word "caused", but if it did as you suggest, I'd expect "an additional wound" (which is specifically singular) to be explicitly multiplied to D3 as well.

Lord Dan
11-11-2008, 05:41
It would be sad if they had to FAQ their FAQ.

I completely agree with Solarhammer. It doesn't say: "Caused by the Black Axe in close combat". To argue that the effect of losing a wound isn't "caused by the black axe" is somewhat misguided, as it is quite literally a result of the Black Axe.

I want this to be wrong so badly, but I'm not seeing any way around it. Nice find, Solar.