View Full Version : Chaos daemonsword

15-07-2009, 23:15

the daemonswords rule: "every roll of a 1 to hit in close combat is resolved against the bearer instead of the enemy"

This can mean 1 of 3 things:

- the roll of a 1 becomes a roll to hit vs the wielder, but since it is a 1 the attack misses (most RaW)

- for every roll of a 1 to hit, the wielder makes a new attack against himself, so rolls to hit and to wound (a middle ground, but little RaW)

- every roll of a 1 to hit makes the wielder suffer a hit as if he was hit by his own weapon (most liekly RaI)

cheers for any (sensible) replies/views on the matter

Nurgling Chieftain
16-07-2009, 00:08
Y'know, I was all set to answer these questions, and then I realized there's nothing remotely reasonable in any of them. :eyebrows:

16-07-2009, 00:13
Ok, it comes down to this: when you're trying to kill something with the sword and roll a 1 to hit the enemy, you hit yourself instead.

You're talking about the daemon sword BTW.

16-07-2009, 00:15
So then how do you play it, every 1 the wielder rolls to hit is an auto hit on himself, or each 1 means you make a new attack on yourself (so you roll to hit again, this time on yourself)?

EDIT: ah, wrong sword, I'll edit that

16-07-2009, 00:15
just curious are you using a non english armybook?
I'm also assuming you mean father of blades and not the chaos runesword
father of blades text is much clearer then the quote you provided 'any 'to-hit' rolls directed against the bearer that result in the roll of a '1' instead hit the attacking model.'

a) text is much clearer only to-hit rolls directed at the bearer of father of blades
b,c) on a 1 the attacker hits himself. he does not attack himself. he would go on to roll to wound using his own S yadayada

16-07-2009, 00:17
I'm using an english one, and I meant the daemonsword, not the father blade. Sorry for that confusion

16-07-2009, 00:19
1s auto-hit yourself.

16-07-2009, 00:21
i'm sure you could make the raw arguement that since the 'hit is resolved against the bearer' a hit roll of 1 is going to be a miss you would end up missing yourself. but i'm guessing they mean you resolve the affects of the hit against the bearer ie rolling to wound etc.

16-07-2009, 00:30
For the chaos daemonsword, 'every roll of a 1 to hit in close combat is resolved against the bearer instead of the enemy'. To me, this raises so many questions.

- Do only the daemonsword's atacks that roll a 1 go at the wielder, or do ALL rolls of a 1 in any closecombat anywhere on the field resolve against him? (RaI will sureley overide this, but may as well post it)

- If the wielder rolls a 1 to hit and that attack is resolved against himself, then surely that roll of a 1 means he misses (as that roll is then the roll to hit against himself)

- On the other hand, if the above is assumed to mean the attack auto hits the wielder, do the opponent's rolls of a 1 to hit auto hit the wielder?


(that's Rules as you bent them out of shape like a strand of spaghetti around your fork)

Try reading with a lick of common sense would ya! Magic items often refer to themselves. If you want a weapon that would really mess with the game try reading Sword of Hoeth with the same perverted sense of RAW. "All hits wound automatically, Armour saves are modified by the strength of the bearer." No rolling to wound for ANYONE until that character dies or the weapon is neutralized, all armour saves are modified based on the strength of the guy holding the sword, even if it's a Dragon Ogre with a Great Weapon.

If you want a fun item for RAW, and there's no mistaking it or massaging of the wording needed look at the Rending Sword and think Sorcerer Lord.

16-07-2009, 00:34
The Daemonsword's text is completely clear... if you roll a 1 to hit with that sword, then the hit hits himself.

16-07-2009, 00:45
Well I essentially got the answer I thought I would (with much less slagging off of me for proposing such ideas than I thought, which I thank you for)

There is a reason I added the last paragraph, I didn't intend to get a different answer than 'you auto hit yourself on a roll of a 1', I just wanted an opinion on some possible interpretations. Heck, 2 of those 3 are DISadvantages, so I'm clearly not trying to bend the rules in my favour, I'm just checking that these arrn't correct as I'm already finding it hard to justify the 75 pt sword of killing myself in 2 turns.

What are people's view on the comprimise of "a 1 means you auto hit yourself" vs "a 1 means you roll a new attack against yourself"?

16-07-2009, 02:24
Why do you keep asking questions if you say you already know the answers? The text is crystal clear.

16-07-2009, 02:30
Yes a roll of 1 is a miss.

But the sword's rules take precedence and it means a succesful HIT against the wielder of that sword.

16-07-2009, 02:42
I just re-read it, you're not as out there as I thought, the text is not, as Witchblade puts it "crystal clear". Just so everyone's on the same page;

"However, every roll of a 1 to hit in close combat is resolved against the bearer instead of the enemy."

What is "resolved" in this case?

1) RAW a 1 to hit is resolved against the bearer, the 1 misses, end of story. Makes no sense from a RAI perspective.

2) The hit is resolved as a new attack, roll to hit as normal. Also a RAW interpretation.

3) The 1 is an auto-hit against the bearer. There is nothing to indicate that this should be the case, by RAW it's a bit of a stretch.

I duonno, I thought he was crazy at first, but 2 makes most sense now.

16-07-2009, 02:51
"roll of 1 to hit" = "roll to hit, of 1". Resolve these rolls to hit against the bearer instead of the enemy.

Absolutely crystal clear.

16-07-2009, 03:02
Are you people simply blind (not you EvC, the others above).

"...resolved against the bearer instead of the enemy."

The his, hits, but it hits the bearer INSTEAD OF THE ENEMY.

This is clear, the sword does the hit on the bearer, no one else around hits the bearer of the sword from rolling a 1 to hit in the same close combat or other combats around.

By RAW, you roll a 1 on your to hit, you get hit instead, simple as that, stop trying to find faults in the wording, play it as its written, roll of 1 is a hit on the bearer.

God damn people around here! And as usual damn GWShop for not bothering to put a few more words in for the folks that need all the words to be convinced.

16-07-2009, 03:53
Kalandros, there's no need to get angry and start attacking people

I'm glad someone understands where I'm coming from that the daemonsword has no indication of actually succesfully hitting the wielder on a roll of a 1

Drachen, if you recon 2 is correct, what would you do if you rolled another 1 when rolling to hit yourself? would this attacks miss but you get ANOTHER attack vs yourself?

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
16-07-2009, 04:16
Kalandros, I'm with you. Sometimes you can't help but get frustrated when you see questions like this. If the OP was using English as a second language, was very (very) young, or had just received a solid blow to the head, then I can understand the confusion. But this is incredibly ridiculous, even by Warseer standards.

You can be a big RAW guy all you want, but you still need to have common sense in order to play the game.

16-07-2009, 04:28
Right, I'll edit the first post because people seem to never reed past the first post before answering questions (in fact people tend to not even get that far before making snide comments about posters)

Personally, I think its great that people will use RaI over RaW, go for it, but for someone like me that wants to go to tornaments with my armies, I'd like to get a hard rulings, and unfortunately the only way of getting a proper ruling in warhammer is by using the words on the page. Thats the only thing that actually has any viability, because I'm sure a lot of people would like to go "I think it works like this and hence it does", but at some point consensuses should be reached, and thats what I'm trying to get, and I'm trying to do it without people making uncalledfor remarks about my inteligence level, age, birth place or linguistic skills


Now if everyone's done being childish I'd like to get more of a view on the current question at hand, as after all thats what this thread is about

16-07-2009, 05:16
Drachen, if you recon 2 is correct, what would you do if you rolled another 1 when rolling to hit yourself? would this attacks miss but you get ANOTHER attack vs yourself?

I suppose you'd have to re-roll it against yourself. I'm not saying that's how it's supposed to be played, but taking that rule on it's own it certainly makes the most sense to go with option 2. Warhammer uses "resolved" a lot, in this case 1 is the closest to the literal meaning but because 1 means nothing happens it's pretty obviously false. 2 Follows the rule without stretching things. 3 however is completely unwarranted even if it is the "right" interpretation. When in Warhammer do you resolve a 1 to hit as an auto-hit? it doesn't make any sense.

Personally I think I'd rather take the Rending Sword on a Sorcerer Lord, I've always found the risk of killing yourself too great with the Daemonsword, especially for a 75 point item. Reading 3 makes it a pretty junk item, reading 1 is just silly reading 2 makes it something that might be worth taking sometimes but not a "must have", so from a power curve perspective 2 is also the correct answer (not that GW ever worried about THAT!).

16-07-2009, 05:18
Eyeolas, you are well within you right to want a specific answer, but you must understand some people's points of view. They feel that you are incorrect, and are trying to explain why.

As I see it, the ruling of the weapon is simple in terms of RAI. The Daemonsword seems to work like a weakened Slayer of Kings, which has more clear rules.

"any rolls of a 1 to hit will strike himself (or a friendly model in base contact)."

That's the way that I'd see it working, and that some others see it. If you follow the RAW (as you seem to be leaning towards), then all rolls of a 1 to hit strike the wielder himself...and then subsequently miss. If that was the intent of the developer, then the weapon is pointless. Therefore, honestly, the first interpretation of the rules that some have mentioned is pointless rules-lawyering. You definately have more of a claim that an attack can be made against the wielder, but that the attack is made against the wielder (and already counts as having rolled a 1) is preposterous.

and that's my two cents. Yes, there's no definite answer there, because I don't have Phil Kelly on speed-dial. :D

16-07-2009, 05:30
"However, every roll of a 1 to hit in close combat is resolved against the bearer instead of the enemy. Furthermore, the character can never re-roll a to-hit roll of a '1' in close combat."

If I was a judge and was asked for a ruling , I would say that rolls of 1 to hit auto hit the bearer of the Chaos Daemonsword.

Mainly because option one is obviously wrong and frankly rather silly. Option 2 is way too lenient for a "penalty". And the followup sentence there is what lends context to the entire paragraph and lends credence to the auto hit scenario in my opinion.


Sergeant Uriel Ventris
16-07-2009, 13:40
Eyeolas, I'm sorry that I offended you with my comments. I had a long day, and often there are folks on this site that seem to stretch the rules or read them in an "interesting" way to gain an advantage. I apologize for my comments.

That being said, I still believe whole-heartedly that If you roll ones with the sword you have hit yourself and must then roll to wound. It seems pretty straightforward.

Gazak Blacktoof
16-07-2009, 14:00
- every roll of a 1 to hit makes the wielder suffer a hit as if he was hit by his own weapon (most liekly RaI)

This ^.

The reasons have already been covered.

16-07-2009, 14:52
You want the best RAW answer for use in tournaments? Try pulling this stuff during a tournament and see what happens. You'll get an abysmal sportmanship score and the judge will rule you're wrong.

16-07-2009, 16:46
I have one final point that "proves" that the RAW option cannot occur. Read the Errata for the BRB, where they say:

"If a friendly model inflicts wounds to itself or
other friendly models during a close combat, (e.g.
a Chaos Lord with the Chaos Daemon Sword..."

If the Daemon Sword was to roll a 1 to hit, count as hitting the wielder, and counts as rolling a 1 to hit themself, then this ruling would not need to exist. So I advise using common sense.

16-07-2009, 19:03
Would it be possible to have a thread where people don't say "use common sense" to easily gloss over any issue that arises?

If you wanted to base the ruling off of precedence I would argue given that there is verbage on other items that specifically states 1s wound the bearer, this item is different.

(shrug) Fortunately/unfortunately most warhammer players just do whatever is easiest/nicest.

16-07-2009, 19:17
I would like to see thid sword against the spiteful shield....