PDA

View Full Version : Mark Of Nurgle vs Zombies



Nicha11
20-11-2008, 06:36
Zombies have WS1 right?

and Mark of Nurgle reduces WS by 1

So Zombies then have WS0

Do they still get attacks but 0% chance to hit?
(Effectively 0 attacks)

Thurizdan
20-11-2008, 06:48
I believe you can not make a roll to hit if you have WS 0.

In the current rules if your S, T, A, or obviously W fall below 1 then you die. Used to be that mules and stuff had A0.

Necromancy Black
20-11-2008, 07:02
I believe you can not make a roll to hit if you have WS 0.

In the current rules if your S, T, A, or obviously W fall below 1 then you die. Used to be that mules and stuff had A0.

No, it only applies to S, T and W. Anything else can be 0 without killing the model. Lord Kroak and most warmachines all have 0 or - attacks.

In the rule book, page 5, it says that "If any creature or object has a WS of 0 then it is unable to defend itself in close combat, and any blows struck against it will automatically hit."

That's the only specific part I can find in the book. The bit above it does state that this usually means they have no ability whatsoever in that skill, so you can use that to say they can't attack, but there isn't any direct ruling, only that they are hit automatically.

Personally I say they can fight back. Nothing saying they can't attack, only can't defend so are autohit. If you can't kill zombies without you might as pack up and go home :p

Latro
20-11-2008, 07:38
Still nice to have though. Zombie units tend to grow fast during the magic phase so auto-hitting instead of on a 3+ will give you a much better chance to burn through that tarpit very fast.


:cool:

nosferatu1001
20-11-2008, 10:50
I would imagine they can't hit you, as I don't believe the WS comparison chart includes WS0 - if it doesnt then you have no way of knowing what score you need. As such the zombies would sit there, just getting hit....

Gazak Blacktoof
20-11-2008, 10:51
Personally I say they can fight back. Nothing saying they can't attack, only can't defend so are autohit.



But how?

What would they hit on? There's no indication in the rules as to how to make them hit, Weapon Skill zero is off the bottom of the chart.

Necromancy Black
20-11-2008, 11:09
Well without clear saying they can't attack we're either left with that they can attack or they can't. I say they still can, and I'd say on a 5+. As with any other WS, if your opponants is more then double your WS you hit on 5+.

Unless someone can get some rules to say they definitly can't attack, your not going to answer this. If you are using the mark of nurgle against VC, might be worth discussing it with your opponant before hand. Not ideal, but the rules seems to be the same at times :(

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
20-11-2008, 11:11
Does the rule book say anything about not reducing WS below 1?

If not, I'd say those zombies are out of luck... well, no matter what the book says I think zombies are pretty much screwed.

Necromancy Black
20-11-2008, 11:17
No, it says nothing about not reducing the WS below 1, cause it says that if this is the case then they are autohit.

My reason for saying they can attack is simply because I've yet to have a clear rule saying they can not attack back, so I personally will give them the doubt and let them attack.

But as stated above, either way those zombies are going to get ripped apart, espicially being autohit!

Lordmonkey
20-11-2008, 11:48
My reason for saying they can attack is simply because I've yet to have a clear rule saying they can not attack back

Where in the "To hit" table is there a row/column for "Ws 0"?

devolutionary
20-11-2008, 12:13
Indeed, with no comparison or ruleset present to allow for 1 attack and WS 0, I'd have to say no attack occurs.

nosferatu1001
20-11-2008, 13:28
Agreed - as I said, WS0 does NOT have an entry on the WS comparison chart, and therefore there is no way for you to make a comparison.

Don't forgot, the "hit on 5+ when the enemy WS is >2x your WS" is the conditional algorithm used to generate that chart, however you cannot use it - you are only given permission to use the chart, nothing else. Necromancy, if you want them to hit you back on a 5+, feel free to however you're being generous ;)

EvC
20-11-2008, 16:55
This is probably the best question I've ever seen asked in this forum, nice one. Well, Zombies hit automatically by models with Mark of Nurgle is nice, gotta love the irony that the filthiest and most disgusting models in the game are those that are affected the most by the Mark of Nurgle :D

Nurgling Chieftain
20-11-2008, 17:18
The zombies with WS0 would still be able to attack because no rule says they cannot. They would hit on a 5+, as their opponent would have a WS of more than twice theirs (i.e. more than 0!). Note that while the chart doesn't include WS0, its description does; see the third paragraph under "Hitting the Enemy" in the BRB, page 34.

splat
20-11-2008, 17:33
I thought the rule was nothing could be modified over 10 or below 1

things can still start with a 0 in a stat but it can't be modified down to a 0

Atrahasis
20-11-2008, 17:36
If that were the case, models could never be killed by shooting or combat attacks.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-11-2008, 17:40
As you say that's a description of the chart rather than a rule unto itself. I must admit I've not really looked at that page, as I'm sure is the case with most players the "to hit" and "to wound" charts all get memorised very quickly (sometime around 1995 for me).

Having had a read of that page I'd be inclined to go with 6's to hit, this situation is something other than normal but its probably better to be generous than not allow them to attack, even though I think that's probably what the rules say.

This needs an FAQ or house rule as this really isn't covered by the existing rules.

EDIT: Ordinarily stat reductions indicate if the characteristic can be dropped to zero, usually the enemy dies if any of them get to zero. For example Morathi's dark sword kills an enemy if their S, T or A vaules get to zero, normally attacks aren't included in the "death" stats.

Latro
20-11-2008, 17:47
I don't think people using zombies will be too upset if their undead minions can't attack Warriors of Nurgle ... it's not as if their strategy relies on them actually making any kills.


:cool:

Nurgling Chieftain
20-11-2008, 20:39
The fact that the zombies are automatically hit does mean that the chances of them striking back are pretty slim. :p


...I'd be inclined to go with 6's to hit...Yeah, just make up a random answer instead of going with what's in the book.


...even though I think that's probably what the rules say.There is no rule which states that they do not attack, nor is there a rule stating that they cannot hit. There is, however, a rule (and yes it is a rule) which describes them as hitting on a 5+, and with nothing to contradict that, I don't see any reason to reach any other conclusion.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-11-2008, 21:18
As I said I don't think this is covered by the rules. If you're confident that your interpretation is correct that's great. I don't think its very clear which of the potential three options (hit on 6, hit on 5, unable to hit) is correct.

theunwantedbeing
20-11-2008, 21:43
Combat rules.
1. Compare weaponskills
2. Consult the chart
3. Attempt to roll result on the chart

WS0 isnt on the chart, so you dont get any further than point 2.

They would not hit on a 5+ despite any number being more than double 0 because that's not a rule. Merely an observation about how the to-hit chart works to make it easy to remember it.

If they did hit on a 5+, any frenzied chariot would get a single attack at their base strength. As they too have ws0 and with frenzy would get an attack.

Nurgling Chieftain
20-11-2008, 22:19
I don't think its very clear which of the potential three options (hit on 6, hit on 5, unable to hit) is correct.Your "potential three options" include one thing that's in the rules, one thing that's technically not in the rules at all, and one thing you pulled straight out of your own over-active imagination. As far as I'm concerned, there is only ONE "potential option" that has any rules-basis whatsoever. While I agree that that rules basis is not the strongest, as it's the ONLY ONE, I'm going to go with it.


WS0 isnt on the chart, so you dont get any further than point 2.If you want to end the game right there with the tabletop equivalent of a General Protection Fault, I suppose that's fine. If you're going to come to any conclusion, I recommend the one in the rulebook over any of the ones you guys are inventing out of whole cloth.


They would not hit on a 5+ despite any number being more than double 0 because that's not a rule. Merely an observation about how the to-hit chart works to make it easy to remember it.Your alternate conclusion is not strictly speaking a rule, either, but mine has the advantage of being described in a rule in the rulebook. The part about it being "merely" there to "make it easy to remember", however, is not in the rulebook.


If they did hit on a 5+, any frenzied chariot would get a single attack at their base strength. As they too have ws0 and with frenzy would get an attack.I don't have any books handy, but aren't they dashes rather than zeroes for WS and A?

theunwantedbeing
20-11-2008, 22:41
The rule is consult the table.

It then says "you'll notice that" and says about double or more hits on a 5+, same on a 4+ and if yours is higher you hit on a 3+.
These arent the rules, these are just observations about the chart helping you more easily understand the chart.

Otherwise I get my chariot with attacks.
Dashes mean 0, says so on page 5 in the characteristics section.

Nurgling Chieftain
20-11-2008, 22:58
The rule is consult the table....Which does not include a zero. Note that this is not the same thing as including a zero and stating that it cannot hit.


It then says "you'll notice that"...
These arent the rules...Being in the rules makes them rules; the preamble does not actually exclude them from being rules. (Such a preamble could exist, but "you'll notice that" is not a preamble which in any way suggests that the following text is incorrect.) Anyway, I'm not claiming it's a strong argument, I'm claiming it's the only argument, as none others really exist. I'd be happy to accept an argument that they do not hit if there were rules suggesting that that is the case, but what I'm seeing is an attack on my argument (okay) without any counter-argument (not so great). You can formulate statements that my interpretation may not be correct, but you apparently cannot formulate statements to the effect that YOUR interpretation IS correct.


Otherwise I get my chariot with attacks.I don't really care. I am curious, though: are you going to make the same argument if your frenzied chariot acquires a positive WS by some spell or effect which increases or sets it to a particular value?

Gazak Blacktoof
20-11-2008, 23:42
...Which does not include a zero.

I think that's the point being made :rolleyes:. At least its the one I was trying to make right before I said it needs an FAQ or house rule.

This thread isn't going anywhere constructive so I'll leave you to it.

TheDarkDaff
21-11-2008, 03:29
At work so can't check but the older editions of the BRB had a bit in them about "0 characteristics" and how they indicate the model in question has "no ability with that stat at all" and is "unable to use it" (with BS0 given as an example - the model not being able to shoot at all).

@ Nurgling Chieftain - You can argue that having the text is rules but it falls done when you try to apply it to 0. There is no such thing as "double 0" and "half 0". 0 is just (mathematically speaking) an imaginary place holder.

Nicha11
21-11-2008, 03:43
Well if BS 0 means it cannot shoot.

Then surely WS 0 means it cannot fight.

Lordmonkey
21-11-2008, 09:28
Anyway, I'm not claiming it's a strong argument, I'm claiming it's the only argument, as none others really exist.

What about the argument that there is no row/coloumn for WS0 on the chart? The rules state that you must refer to the chart in order to work out what you need to roll in order to hit - that is a pretty strong argument in my opinion. Or, does the table not count as a "rule"?

The statement in the rulebook of "more than double" is, in my opinion, intended as an aid to the player so that they do not need to constantly refer to the "to-hit" table.

I wouildn't even be arguing this, but i've seen a zombie take down a chaos knight of khorne before :p

nosferatu1001
21-11-2008, 11:00
Agreed - for once I have to disagree with Nurgling CHieftan. You are told to look at the chart, therefore if there is no entry you do not have permission to hit - you are not told what value the "to hit" roll wil be succesful at, therefore it can never be succesful.

Again, you are ONLY told to look at the chart - not the explanation of how the chart was generated.

BEEGfrog
21-11-2008, 11:23
Agreed - for once I have to disagree with Nurgling CHieftan. You are told to look at the chart, therefore if there is no entry you do not have permission to hit - you are not told what value the "to hit" roll wil be succesful at, therefore it can never be succesful.

Again, you are ONLY told to look at the chart - not the explanation of how the chart was generated.

It is more sensible to regard attacks against WS0 as an auto hit, they have become so easy to hit that a roll is no longer needed. The defensive part of their WS has disappeared, i.e. it is zero, so they cannot defend and force a roll to hit, so you don't need to look at the table as all attacks hit, so the table doesn't need a zero column.

Likewise with WS0 they cannot attack back, so no roll to hit either.

ajay29
21-11-2008, 11:58
Good question, best answer is probs a dice-off or just agree with your opponent beforehand surely....

Plus, to the people who are off the mind that "any weapon skill is double or more of 0, and therefore the zombies hit on a 5+".... double 0 is still 0, check the math....

yoshimo
21-11-2008, 14:42
WS0 At X being attacked:
"If any creature or object has a WS of 0 then it is unable to defend itself in close combat, and any blows struck against it will hit automatically" - BRB pg 5
fairly simple resolution.

BS0:
It is clear from the rules that BS0 models may not shoot.
By RAW this has no bearing on WS rules, But is slightly indicative.

WS0 At!=0 attacking:
steam tanks have WS 0 but can make attacks in combat.
however these are categorized as special attacks which is indicative that the only way it can make attacks with WS 0 is with special attacks. this is the only example of a WS 0 model with attacks.

WS 0 At 0:
chariots and war machines are the main precedence here, they both have WS:"-"
according to BRB page 5 "-"="0",
chariots and war machines cannot fight back vs enemies,
however this could arguably be due to their A also being "-"(0)
There are no precedents in any rules/army book/errata for a model which has a WS of 0 but a constant >0 attacks.

"if a model has to take a test for a characteristic which has a value of 0 on it's profile, it will automatically fail the test" BRB pg 5
this is in reference to characteristic tests but could be relevant.

There’s no to hit entry on the to hit chart for WS 0
an accidental omission? or one left intentionally because it should be assumed from all the above that a model with WS 0 cannot make attacks?

There is a LOT of evidence pointing towards the latter but nothing which is 100% concrete.
In accordance with the rules precedence chart given in the errata section of the GW website a call to the rule boyz would be required for total clarification. It's a near certainty that based on the above they would rule against the models attacking

BigbyWolf
21-11-2008, 17:36
I came up against Zombies with a War Boss with the Effigy of Mork, as we weren't sure of what to do I let him hit on 6's followed by 4+. This seemed the sporting thing to do, as they still had attacks, but were highly unlikely to hit with them.

FigureFour
21-11-2008, 17:48
Being in the rules makes them rules; the preamble does not actually exclude them from being rules. (Such a preamble could exist, but "you'll notice that" is not a preamble which in any way suggests that the following text is incorrect.)

So if it's "in the rules" it's a rule. Does that mean my Glade Guard are illegal because I didn't follow the painting guide? I mean, it's in the rule book, it must be a rule.

Seriously, there's obviously stuff included in the rules all over the place that aren't actually intended as rules.

nosferatu1001
21-11-2008, 22:17
It is more sensible to regard attacks against WS0 as an auto hit, they have become so easy to hit that a roll is no longer needed. The defensive part of their WS has disappeared, i.e. it is zero, so they cannot defend and force a roll to hit, so you don't need to look at the table as all attacks hit, so the table doesn't need a zero column.

Likewise with WS0 they cannot attack back, so no roll to hit either.

BEEGfrog - I'd already agreed with the autohit (given as it states so in the BRB ;) ) I was just responding to Nurgling chieftan stating you should use the explanatory text about the chart (telling you the algorithm) rather than the combat resolution you are actually told to do, whcih is to use the chart ONLY.

As the chart lists nothing for WS0, you cannot make a to hit roll. Not 6+, 5+ or anything else....you cannot hit. Otherwise Savage Orc chariots would have an attack each - WS"-" == WS0 and frenzy giving them one more attack.....

Carpet
21-11-2008, 22:37
It may just be that I often try to relate things back to Maths, but I would conclude that the logical inverse of the rule "Attacks vs WS0 auto hit" would be "Attacks with WS0 auto miss".

I don't think you can use the greater than double rule to say you need 5s, as this way of thinking would imply that to hit something with WS0 you'd still need 3s (general rule is if your WS is greater you need 3s)

Deacon Bane
22-11-2008, 14:36
No where, that I can find, says you can not attack with a WS0. If your attacks were reduced to 0 then no attacks. They still have an attack, under hitting opponents, "normally unmodified rolls of 6 always hit." I don't play Zombies, but I do face them and I would allow my opponent to hit on Unmodified 6's in this case.

Horus38
22-11-2008, 16:04
After a read through of the thread I concur the rules do not support a clear answer.

But I will point out from pg. 34 of the BRB that it does state: "Sometimes modifiers apply to these rolls, but normally an unmodified roll of a 6 always hits and an unmodified roll of a 1 always misses."

If this situation came up with an opponent of mine I would lean towards this resolution.

Carpet
22-11-2008, 17:46
However I would argue that the modifier is not applying to the roll, but to the statistic itself, rendering that statement as not applicable in this instance.

The strongest argument for me for saying that they get no attacks is on pg. 5 under the "Characteristics of 0" section. It states:

"This usually applies to creatures unable to use missile weapons, so they have BS0, but it might equally well apply to other characteristics too."

I would infer this to mean a WS of 0 means the creature is unable to use melee weapons, therefore unable to attack.

Horus38
23-11-2008, 03:01
However I would argue that the modifier is not applying to the roll, but to the statistic itself, rendering that statement as not applicable in this instance.

The strongest argument for me for saying that they get no attacks is on pg. 5 under the "Characteristics of 0" section. It states:

"This usually applies to creatures unable to use missile weapons, so they have BS0, but it might equally well apply to other characteristics too."

I would infer this to mean a WS of 0 means the creature is unable to use melee weapons, therefore unable to attack.

Then why on page 5 of the BRB when it says that models with a WS of 0 are hit automatically does it not also say they are unable to attack?

nosferatu1001
23-11-2008, 07:15
Horus38 - look at the WS comparison table. Does it have an entry for WS0? If it doesn't, how can you know on what value your attacks will be succesful at?

Note you are ONLY allowed to use the table, according to the rules as printed. You cannot use the explanatory "here's how the table was generated" text.

AS a conclusion - it is not that they are unable to attack, just that no dice roll will ever succeed as no value of success can be found.

Carpet
23-11-2008, 09:32
Then why on page 5 of the BRB when it says that models with a WS of 0 are hit automatically does it not also say they are unable to attack?

If you're not convinced then use your own interpretation, but personally I would play that they can't hit anything, as there is no direct rule saying anything either way, but an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that they can't. (ie no entry in To Hit table, they get hit automatically, BS 0 means unable to shoot)

Deacon Bane
23-11-2008, 12:46
The only rule that actually comes close to resolving this is " but normally an unmodified roll of 6 always hits...". You don't even have to check the charts.
No where does it say you can't attack with a WS0. The BS0 reference is to creature unable to use missile weapons. The Attack profile cannot be ignored, if you have a value in the attack characteristic, then you get an attack. Chariots have no attacks, therefor can't attack, has nothing to do with WS.

Tokamak
23-11-2008, 13:48
I still think it's weird though. Dropping from '3's' to hit (I'm using the sixth edition and assuming the 7th hasn't changed the table, correct me if I'm wrong), to not being able to hit at all.

nosferatu1001
24-11-2008, 00:19
Deacon Bane - in that case frenzied chariots (which have been defined as a mount in the BRB and therefore inherit riders psychology) will get to make an attack. Frenzy turns their "A-" characteristic into "A1" and their "WS-" stat means they get to make an attack that hits on a 6, according to your logic.

So which is it? Do savage orc / khornate chariots now get to attack, or do WS0 objects not attack?

Deacon Bane
24-11-2008, 01:00
Frenzy gives you an extra attack, you have to have an attack in the first place to get an extra one. Can someone give me the page # that states a chariot is a mount? Page 62 states for a chariot model ,"some characteristics are not included as they are never used." IE a chariot does not use an Attack profile.It does not attack in CC.

Lord Dan
24-11-2008, 01:31
I'm baffled as to why so many people are using "It doesn't say you can't attack" as justification for being able to attack. Would you say they also can take GW and handguns simply because the rulebook doesn't say they can't? Obviously this is an exaggerated example, but this kind of logic begs the question of when do you stop.

In addition, simply saying: "they can attack" leaves us even more answerless. Even assuming they can, there's nothing in the rules explaining how.

I'd say the fact that they are hit automatically due to them being "unable to defend themselves" means they don't attack either.

Harwammer
24-11-2008, 13:38
It seems to me, purely going by the table we are told to reference, that even though you must roll your attacks (you may never chose not to try to attack an enemy in combat), there is no value that can actually score a hit.

However, even though (going purely by the table) a hit is impossible, one must still roll because 1) we are told to and 2) some effects are triggered by the roll to hit dice, such as damage shields being triggered when a 1 is rolled to hit.

Unless WS0 in combat is comparable to BS0 in shooting, what this debate must resolve is not whether a ws 0 model must roll to hit or not, but we must resolve if there is a value that can actually be used to score a hit using ws 0, e.g. whether the explanation of how the chart was generated can be applied to values that are not present in the chart.

BEEGfrog
24-11-2008, 14:04
It seems to me, purely going by the table we are told to reference, that even though you must roll your attacks (you may never chose not to try to attack an enemy in combat), there is no value that can actually score a hit.

However, even though (going purely by the table) a hit is impossible, one must still roll because 1) we are told to and 2) some effects are triggered by the roll to hit dice, such as damage shields being triggered when a 1 is rolled to hit.

Unless WS0 in combat is comparable to BS0 in shooting, what this debate must resolve is not whether a ws 0 model must roll to hit or not, but we must resolve if there is a value that can actually be used to score a hit using ws 0, e.g. whether the explanation of how the chart was generated can be applied to values that are not present in the chart.

The auto-hit rule bypasses the mechanism for how you calculate if you have hit, you have auto hit you don't need to roll, things that need a roll to be activated don't have a chance to activate as there isn't a roll you just have as many hits as you had attacks (e.g. auto hits can't poison). You have no choice in this (although I was not aware you couldn't chose to not attack - wow 3 negatives in a row!)

The rule that explains why BS0 can't shoot does apply as it also allows for other characteristics to fall into the same category, i.e. if you are WS0 you can't attack in melee just like you can't shoot with a BS0. This means that since you can't attack there is no need to roll so always failing on a 1 and always hitting on a 6 do not apply as you don't roll because you can't attack.

When you are WS0 your opponent doesn't need to roll to hit as he auto hits without rolling and you don't roll to hit because your zero WS prevents you from attacking. So no rolls either way.

nosferatu1001
24-11-2008, 16:14
Frenzy gives you an extra attack, you have to have an attack in the first place to get an extra one. Can someone give me the page # that states a chariot is a mount? Page 62 states for a chariot model ,"some characteristics are not included as they are never used." IE a chariot does not use an Attack profile.It does not attack in CC.

If I have 0 attacks and gain 1, I have gained an "extra" attack. littleRB page 52 "Frenzied models fight with +1 extra attack" - it then lists models with 1 attack fighting with 2, however nothing prevents this being extended to 0 attacks

It states that chariots count as mounts, littleRB page 55 "...and the other referring to mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)"

Some characteristics are "-", which we are told in the BRB = 0, so while they wouldn't "normally" attack, by your own logic their WS"-" means they CAN attack succesfully on a 6, if they ever recieve a source of attacks.

Therefore;

- Chariots count as mounts
- Mounts are subject to the psychology of their rider, therefore are affected by frenzy
- A model with A"-" is == to A0 therefore gain +1 extra attacks to a total of 1 for a chariot
- and by YOUR logic a model with WS"-" == WS0 can make a succesful attack roll on a to hit of a 6.

So, you have a quandery - either WS0 zombies now have a characteristic that cannot be used, ie there is NOTHING in the WS comparison chart that tells you the score they need to hit on, or frenzied chariots get to make an attack that is succesful on a 6.

So which is it?

Or you just take the more sensible, consistent route, which is that NOTHING tells you the successful "to hit" roll required according to the charts in the BRB, therefore zombies cannot make an attack. They are hit automatically and make no attacks back - kind of makes sense, no?

Deacon Bane
24-11-2008, 17:50
Characters on chariots are considered mounted(verb), however a Chariot is not a Mount(noun). A Demon Prince can fly(verb), but is not a fly(noun). And if we want to go RAW, Frenzy only goes to the rider and his STEED. Sorry for Frienzied characters on Boars etc., because steed in the dictionary is defined as a "Horse".
As for " extra", it means in addition to, if you don't have an attack you can't get an additional one. You can't order extra cheese on your pizza and skip the base cheese:D.

Any way that's how I see it, won't make a diff to me. I will give my Zombie opponents an attack that hits on 6s, until the FAQ.

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 09:02
No where does it say you can't attack with a WS0.

If this argument is true then my Steam Tank can fly.

DeathlessDraich
25-11-2008, 10:25
Just taking a quick look to see why this debate is still going on.:p

There is a rule to cover WS0

- pg 5 "Any creature with a WS 0 is unable to defend itself and any blows struck against it is automatically hit"

Atrahasis
25-11-2008, 10:33
Is attacking someone defending yourself?

I think you've missed the point.

nosferatu1001
25-11-2008, 11:36
Exactly - there is nothing which tells you the score required for WS0 to hit anything, therefore you cannot hit.

The "usually an unmodified......" does not apply as this is not a "usual" case - if there is no value that can suceed, then an unmodified 6 would not apply.

Deacon Bane
25-11-2008, 13:29
This thread has gone way over time. But just for the sake of fun, the whole Flying Goblin thing is silly. Pg 68 Small RB, "If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule "Fly" in it's entry....! Does the Steamtank have the special Fly rule????? No, so it is not capable of Flight.

DeathlessDraich
25-11-2008, 13:41
Is attacking someone defending yourself?

I think you've missed the point.

You've misread my post once again.
I wasn't addressing a point in particular but merely stating there is a rule for WS0.

Considering the many auto hit objections in the previous posts, it is very relevant.


Exactly - there is nothing which tells you the score required for WS0 to hit anything, therefore you cannot hit.

The "usually an unmodified......" does not apply as this is not a "usual" case - if there is no value that can suceed, then an unmodified 6 would not apply.

?? Not sure what your point is. :)

Attacking a model which has WS0 - autohit

A model with WS0's turn to attack -
Rules are incomplete -

1) Can the model with WS0 attack? - Yes it has Attacks (A) so it can.
There is 1 other model with WS0 which can attack in close combat but the rules governing its attacks are clearly outlined fortunately.

2) How are the attacks of WS0 resolved? - All attacks which roll to hit must use the To Hit table.

There is no column for WS0 but none for > WS10 (I'm not sure whether that can ever be achieved).
Not being listed in the table is not a sound criterion to determine which WS values can or cannot 'hit'.

But there is a rule to provide a solution:
-"an unmodified roll of 6 *always* hits" - pg 34

My suggestion for WS0 is that it can successfully hit on 6s.

Atrahasis
25-11-2008, 14:18
You've misread my post once again.
I wasn't addressing a point in particular but merely stating there is a rule for WS0.

Considering the many auto hit objections in the previous posts, it is very relevant.Oh, sorry. I assumed you weren't actively trying to be redundant. That rule has been quoted multiple times in the thread.

I didn't misread your post - you just didn't make it anywhere clear what you were trying to say, and now that you have it's clear that it was basically contentless.

No one has objected to them being autohit. Perhaps you misread the thread "once again"?

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 15:03
This thread has gone way over time. But just for the sake of fun, the whole Flying Goblin thing is silly. Pg 68 Small RB, "If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule "Fly" in it's entry....! Does the Steamtank have the special Fly rule????? No, so it is not capable of Flight.

My point was that there is no rule (read: rule, not interpretation) that states how to deal with WS0 attacks.

Some facts:

You can't perform an attack without referring to the "To Hit" table.

There do exist known exceptions, such as when you have failed a fear test, in which case you then hit on 6's, but this are explicitly described in the rules.

This is an exception that is not covered in the rules. Since the only choice you have, therefore, is to use the table as normal, you cannot actually determine what is needed for the zombies to hit the enemy, because there is no WS0 in the table!

The implications of this are worse than they seem. Since no trooper is allowed to choose to not attack, and there is no clear way to attack with the zombies, the game grinds to a halt. There is no RAW solution.

As a result, this is always going to come down to RAI, short of an FAQ (ha!).

I would play it that the zombies do not attack, but this doesn't make me correct.

Deacon Bane
25-11-2008, 16:09
Well my reasoning, and it may not be correct, under Hitting the Enemy, Pg 34 of the small rb. You roll a D6 for each Attack, WS does not come into play yet. So you have to Attack, that is a rule. Then compare the Chart, there is no listing for WS0 to hit, however you go further and it states that normally unmodified 6s always hit. One exception is if the opponent has an item that does not allow it to be hit in CC, ie Etheral, Folariath's Robe etc. Once you roll an unmodified 6 to hit, you do not have to check the charts, because there are no results that need a 6 to hit. Another point made earlier, if a Character was to Buff up to WS11, not sure how, would this disallow them from attacking? "Sorry Mr. Ultimate Warrior, you cannot hit this poor Goblin, you are too skilled!":wtf:

Lordmonkey
25-11-2008, 16:23
Another point made earlier, if a Character was to Buff up to WS11, not sure how, would this disallow them from attacking? "Sorry Mr. Ultimate Warrior, you cannot hit this poor Goblin, you are too skilled!":wtf:

Isn't WS capped at 10?

Anyway, by your logic, The WS11 guy can only ever hit on 6's!

Too busy waving his sword around, obviously :D

SeanGannon
25-11-2008, 17:36
You've misread my post once again.
I wasn't addressing a point in particular but merely stating there is a rule for WS0.

Considering the many auto hit objections in the previous posts, it is very relevant.



?? Not sure what your point is. :)

Attacking a model which has WS0 - autohit

A model with WS0's turn to attack -
Rules are incomplete -

1) Can the model with WS0 attack? - Yes it has Attacks (A) so it can.
There is 1 other model with WS0 which can attack in close combat but the rules governing its attacks are clearly outlined fortunately.

2) How are the attacks of WS0 resolved? - All attacks which roll to hit must use the To Hit table.

There is no column for WS0 but none for > WS10 (I'm not sure whether that can ever be achieved).
Not being listed in the table is not a sound criterion to determine which WS values can or cannot 'hit'.

But there is a rule to provide a solution:
-"an unmodified roll of 6 *always* hits" - pg 34

My suggestion for WS0 is that it can successfully hit on 6s.

good find. IIRC the Zombie Pirates cited a similar rule for their zombies with pistols, stating that even at BS 0, 6 was still an autohit.

nosferatu1001
25-11-2008, 18:02
Except BS0 has a specific rule saying it can never hit....

yoshimo
25-11-2008, 18:13
-"an unmodified roll of 6 *always* hits" - pg 34

conveniently, the preceding word "normally" is missing from this rule. Are you now implying that a WS0 model making attacks is a normal situation and consequently subject to this ruling?

Harwammer
25-11-2008, 18:55
you don't roll to hit because your zero WS prevents you from attacking.

I'm confused; I thought having an attack value compelled you to roll to hit. I don't see any exceptions to this rule for models with WS<1.

Indeed, as I argueed, the 'to hit' roll is still important even if scoring a hit is actually impossible; you still may roll a 1 which triggers special damage effects such as father of blades.


good find. IIRC the Zombie Pirates cited a similar rule for their zombies with pistols, stating that even at BS 0, 6 was still an autohit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these rules were written for 6th edition, which had a rather different ballistics to hit system ( I don't think rolls of 7+ were even possible then, were they?)

Gazak Blacktoof
25-11-2008, 19:34
I believe you could hit on a 7+ in 6th edition. I think the 7+ to hit rule was introduced in 5th edition.

DeathlessDraich
26-11-2008, 10:26
good find. IIRC the Zombie Pirates cited a similar rule for their zombies with pistols, stating that even at BS 0, 6 was still an autohit.

Hello and welcome and thank you.


conveniently, the preceding word "normally" is missing from this rule. Are you now implying that a WS0 model making attacks is a normal situation and consequently subject to this ruling?

If you read my previous post again you would notice I used the phrase, My suggestion.

1) WS 0 resolved as hitting on 6s is not a specified rule

However

2) Would you not still apply this rule (always hit on 6s) to a -1WS penalty? (N.B. not a -1 to hit)
If a - 1WS penalty is regarded as 'normal', then so would a WS0.
And

This begs the question - what exactly would be deemed to be normal or more specifically which *rule* specifies what is or is not 'normal'.

In the absence of specific rules, I do think WS0 = hitting on 6s , is fair and at least has *some* rule support.