PDA

View Full Version : Daemons and Break tests: 7th edition answer in 8th edition FAQ



EDMM
10-11-2010, 12:40
There is a throwback question in the Daemon FAQ that is wholly inapplicable.

I speak of the following:

Q. Is the maximum number of wounds that can be inflicted by a failed Instability test limited to 10 (a roll of ‘12’ compared to a Leadership 2)? (p30)
A. No. Remember that combat resolution adds to the dice roll, rather than being subtracted from Leadership.
In 7th edition, this was true. Combat resolution was not a leadership modifier, but was added to the dice roll.

In 8th edition, this is plainly a lie.

The rules for break tests are clear on page 54:

However, before rolling the dice, the difference between the winner's combat result score and the loser's is applied as a penalty to the defeated unit's Leadership. If the total is less than or equal to the loser's modified Leadership, the unit stands its ground and settles in for another round of fighting - this close combat has finished for the turn. If the total is greater than the unit's modified Leadership value then the unit has broken and will flee. Note that this modified Leadership is used only for the Break test and any subsequent attempt to make a combat reform - see the next page.

Now, as we all know from page 3, "All characteristics are rated on a scale from 0 to 10 - they cannot go below 0 or rise above 10," so the FAQ answer is clearly in error and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. As it has no application in the current rules, and is in fact directly contradictory to them, its removal is unnecessary. Simply ignoring it will be sufficient.

Little Joe
10-11-2010, 13:16
Army book trumps rulebook. DoC page 30 under instability. FAQ is still valid.

EDMM
10-11-2010, 13:24
The rule says:

1. Calculate combat resolution as normal and roll 2D6.
2. Compare the dice roll to the Daemons' Leadership value taking into account any modifiers for combat resolution.

The only modifiers for combat resolution in 8th edition are made to the Leadership value. There is nothing in the Daemon rules that suggest to continue using the old 7th edition rules. They indicate, for all intents and purposes, to apply the regular rules for Break tests.

In 7th edition Daemons used the 7th edition rules for modifiers for combat resolution, and added them to the dice, like everyone else. In 8th edition Daemons use the 8th edition rules for modifiers for combat resolution and subtract them from Leadership, like everyone else. The Daemon Instability rules don't define any special modifier for combat resolution, so the only thing to do is follow the rules.

Lex
10-11-2010, 14:31
That question in the Daemon FAQ didn't make sense to me either in the context of 8th ed. rules. EDMM is right, nothing in the instability rules contradicts the core rules of 8th.

Edit: It does seem a bit like the Pit of Shades question in regards to the Steam Tank. An incorrect copy and paste left over from previous FAQ's.

theunwantedbeing
10-11-2010, 14:42
Cut, although isn't there somewhere stating that certain states reduced to 0 or less slay a model.

Thus allowing a modifier to lower a stat below 0.

EDMM
10-11-2010, 14:57
If that's the case than modifiers could take attacks above 10.

But it is not, because the statement "if reduced to 0 or less" doesn't actually allow you to reduce the stat to less than 0. It does not provide permission.

But if you had permission, which is explicitly lacking, then the model would die.

The rule on page 5 is clear. It does not say "natural stats" it does not say they can't "start higher than 10 or below 0" it says they can't "go below 0."

A modifier therefore can't take a stat below 0. If something could take a model's T, S or W below 0 then that model would die, but that can't happen. Superfluous rule. Nothing more.

Lex
10-11-2010, 14:59
Cut, although isn't there somewhere stating that certain states reduced to 0 or less slay a model.

Thus allowing a modifier to lower a stat below 0.

Yes, but if a model is reduced to Ld 0, it auto-fails the test, i.e. Screaming Bell and Blade of Realities.

AMWOOD co
10-11-2010, 17:07
Ld test rules state that a natural snake eyes is always a pass (p10, 2nd paragraph from the bottom on the left, last sentence).

T10
11-11-2010, 14:44
Modifiers to the test do not reduce the base characteristic value.

If a rule called for a Toughness test at -5, models with a Toughness value of 5 or less wouldn't instantly die.

-T10

PurpleSun
11-11-2010, 14:52
So how do deamon players handle this? Leadership bottoms out at 0 so the most casualties you can take is 12 when you roll boxcars on the leadership test?

Lex
11-11-2010, 15:03
Modifiers to the test do not reduce the base characteristic value.

If a rule called for a Toughness test at -5, models with a Toughness value of 5 or less wouldn't instantly die.

-T10

Very true.


So how do deamon players handle this? Leadership bottoms out at 0 so the most casualties you can take is 12 when you roll boxcars on the leadership test?

As T10 said, a test with a penalty doesn't reduce the stat itself. So, negative numbers are theoretically possible even though stats themselves can't go below 0. It's analogous to caps of 10. Modifiers can take it higher even the the stat itself is capped at 10. So, boxcars on Ld 9 with a -12 means you take 15 wounds.

EDMM
11-11-2010, 16:41
Modifiers to the test do not reduce the base characteristic value.

If a rule called for a Toughness test at -5, models with a Toughness value of 5 or less wouldn't instantly die.

-T10

I have to respectfully disagree with this. I don't think there is any precedent that establishes your conclusion. Indeed, I propose that if there were a Toughness test described with rules analogous to how the Break Test rules are written, the T5 model WOULD instantly die, if it weren't for the last sentence in the Break test rules..

Please have regard to the following:

However, before rolling the dice, the difference between the winner's combat result score and the loser's is applied as a penalty to the defeated unit's Toughness. If the total is less than or equal to the loser's modified Toughness, the unit stands its ground and settles in for another round of fighting - this close combat has finished for the turn. If the total is greater than the unit's modified Toughness value then the unit has broken and will flee. Note that this modified Toughness is used only for the Break test and any subsequent attempt to make a combat reform - see the next page.

It is my interpretation that the rules make sufficient reference to a "modified" value that the modifier is indeed to the base stat. If you remove the underlined portion from the modified Toughness based Break test above, I am of the opinion that it would kill models in the unit.

That said, I do not believe that the distinction you are trying to draw is relevant. As I have previously stated, the rules on page 3 do not say that a "base stat" can't be greater than 10 or less than 0, they simply state that "they cannot go below 0 or rise above 10." That is incredibly strong language.

"Going" and "rising" are active verbs. Their inclusion explicitly covers modification of the values during the game - whether it's the "modifiers" imposed by a break test, or the -5 of your hypothetical Toughness test.

To summarize, it is my interpretation that the rule on page 3 prevents any statistic in the game from, at any time and for any reason, being greater than 10 or lower than 0. It has already been shown repeatedly that a model cannot have greater than 10 in any stat, including any modifiers for Extra Attack, spells, magic weapons and the like, so there is no reason to suspect that the minimum is any more open to violation through modification.

theunwantedbeing
11-11-2010, 16:45
A stat being reduced is different to one with a modifier.
The reduced stat would auto-fail when it hit 0, the reduced one still has that chance of success.

DeathlessDraich
11-11-2010, 17:10
To summarize, it is my interpretation that the rule on page 3 prevents any statistic in the game from, at any time and for any reason, being greater than 10 or lower than 0. It has already been shown repeatedly that a model cannot have greater than 10 in any stat, including any modifiers for Extra Attack, spells, magic weapons and the like, so there is no reason to suspect that the minimum is any more open to violation through modification.

Seems as if you're unwilling to consider opposing views?:)

But for those who are interested in the rules (already mentioned by T10 and unwanted):

1) The rules state:
pg 3 "they (characteristics) cannot go below 0"
AND

pg 10 "if the model has a characteristic of 0 or - "
N.B: zero or negative characteristic

A clear acquiescence that characteristics could somehow go below zero.

To obviate that contradiction, the reasonable assumption ** has to be that 'characteristic' on pg 10 refers to 'modified characteristic' while 'characteristic' on pg 3 refers to 'base characteristic'

2) The FAQ states that there is no maximum limit to Daemonic Instability tests.
That is now an official rule.
Yes, it is badly written but so are many Warhammer rules let alone the FAQs.

**Failing to agree on that reasonable assumption results in GW paltry 'get out clause' of "The most important rule" - aka how we cover our shameless mistakes :D

stripsteak
11-11-2010, 18:00
pg 10 "if the model has a characteristic of 0 or - "
N.B: zero or negative characteristic

that "-" doesn't mean negative characteristic it means an actual "-" pg 4 'some creatures have been given a value of '0' (often shown as a dash: "-")"

DeathlessDraich
11-11-2010, 18:30
Yes you're right so bang goes my reasoning :)

EDMM
11-11-2010, 19:46
The Daemon FAQ answer tells us to apply the combat resolution as a positive modifier to the dice score.

This is wrong. The correct procedure is to apply the combat resolution difference as a negative modifier to the unit's Leadership.

This business about autofailing or dying is a red herring, because the Break test rules, through their repeated use of consistent terms, are crystal clear. Modify the unit's Leadership. Get a modified Leadership value.

Leadership, being a statistic, can't "go below" 0.

It is different from before because the Break test rules fundamentally changed.

Little Joe
12-11-2010, 07:49
Call me stupid, but why are the rules for break tests relevant? Daemons take an instability test, no break test, simular to undead crumbling.

Second it is a modifier aplied to the roll of 2D6 as per army book(no breaktest). This has nothing to do with any basic stats whatsoever. Again my reference is crumbling where the modifier is done without the roll of 2D6.

And it is still a FAQ, not rules, just a clearification.

Fubar
12-11-2010, 08:44
Call me stupid, but why are the rules for break tests relevant? Daemons take an instability test, no break test, simular to undead crumbling.

Second it is a modifier aplied to the roll of 2D6 as per army book(no breaktest). This has nothing to do with any basic stats whatsoever. Again my reference is crumbling where the modifier is done without the roll of 2D6.

And it is still a FAQ, not rules, just a clearification.



This^^

Move along to another thread now this one is done.

solkan
12-11-2010, 09:32
The FAQ question needs revision because the explanation is incorrect, even though the answer is still that there is no limit to how badly one can fail the break test. It's still the same because there is no lower limit to the modified Leadership value for the break test.

See Insane Courage example on page 55, in which a unit of Goblins has a modified leadership value of -5.

P.S. Per request by Little Joe to call him stupid:
Little Joe, you are stupid.
:wtf:

The rules for Break Tests are relevant because the army book describes the Instability Test as a "special kind of Break test" and makes necessary reference to the rules on page 54 of the main rulebook.

Little Joe
12-11-2010, 11:05
Quote: "When daemons lose a CC they must take a special break test called a daemonic instability test. In multiple combats each unit must test seperately. Use the following procedure to take a daemonic instability test: " page 30 army book.

A special kind of test for which name and the rules follow right after and there is no reference whatsoever to using the rules for break tests. You are expanding rules, an actual reference would inculde a rulebook page.

The best reference in the rulebook is unstable on page 78 of the rulebook for a simular rule. Daemonic instability works the same, you just add the combat result to 2D6 and subtract the Ld that you have. Only modifications are stubborn, steadfast, general and so on.

EDMM
12-11-2010, 15:24
How do you perform an instability test then? Using only the rules in the Daemon book, how does combat resolution modify the result?

The only thing the Daemon rule say is "taking into account any modifiers for combat resolution."

The only way to figure out what that means is to read the rules for Break tests.

However even the example in italics in page 30 of the Daemon army book subtract from Leadership, so even without recourse to the Rulebook the result is the same:

Because combat resolution modifiers count for Daemonic Instability, their Leadership is reduced to 3 for the test.

Everything in the Daemon army book and the main rulebook point to combat resolution being a modifier to Leadership. No modifier can take a stat above 10 or below 0.

If that's not the case then certain magic items/spells just got a whole lot better.

If it was a modifier to the dice or the test, then there might be an argument that it could go below 0 or something, kind of like the ridiculous answer for how Queek can autowound. But it's not anymore. That's how it was in 7th. The Daemon army book didn't even get the rules right! They wrote their example for how Break tests DIDN'T work in 7th, but how they DO work in 8th.

DaemonReign
13-11-2010, 13:39
They wrote their example for how Break tests DIDN'T work in 7th, but how they DO work in 8th.

Yeah and that fact in itself is pretty damn hilarious. I mean, sheesh, they must really have monkeys working around the clock over at GW HQ.

Anyway, I must concur to your conclusion.. It's pretty obvious even.

Lord_Elric
13-11-2010, 15:15
Yeah and that fact in itself is pretty damn hilarious. I mean, sheesh, they must really have monkeys working around the clock over at GW HQ.

Anyway, I must concur to your conclusion.. It's pretty obvious even.

Um why is that hilarious???? were you not aware that the DoC army book is one of the few that was written with 8th in mind. when the DoC army book was written most of 8th was likly finished...

decker_cky
13-11-2010, 16:12
Might've been early concepts, but the first armies you can really credit as having 8th edition influence are warriors of chaos and lizardmen, and even though have some real incongruities with the ruleset. Even beastmen were written when the ruleset obviously wasn't nailed down.

DaemonReign
13-11-2010, 17:28
Um why is that hilarious???? were you not aware that the DoC army book is one of the few that was written with 8th in mind. when the DoC army book was written most of 8th was likly finished...

I very much doubt this.

I very much hope it's not the case, too.

´Cause I want a new Army Book within the next century!:eyebrows:

R-Love
14-11-2010, 05:54
Um why is that hilarious???? were you not aware that the DoC army book is one of the few that was written with 8th in mind. when the DoC army book was written most of 8th was likly finished...

Ummm, No. Army books have approximately a two year lead time between when they are started and when they are published. They are finished about six months beforehand. Assuming that the Rulebook was begun earlier than an army book would have been (which is debatable, as most of that time is to produce the miniatures), then the design team would have still been at the very early stages of production (probably just brainstorming, if that).

Pil
14-11-2010, 20:08
I am a DoC player, and I don't understand the confusion here on how they take their special kind of break test, or rather Daemonic Instability. Honestly it is no different then it was in seventh.

In 7th ed. we simply calculated the difference in combat resolution then added it to the roll. Say you beat me by 3 and my leadership is 7. In order to not lose any more Daemons I need to roll a 4. So 4 + 3 = 7 I would be safe, but I rolled an 8. Oops I lose 4 Daemons to Daemonic Instability.

Now in 8th ed. it is actually no different. You beat me by 3 so I subtract 3 from my leadership of 7, and need a 4 to pass my Daemonic Instability. Oops I roll an 8 I lose 4 Daemons.

I don't see any confusion no matter how you calculate it the result is the exact same. As far as being able to exceed 10 loses due to combat resolution, well to be honest I have never had the situation arise. Probably because I am almost always stubborn with Chaos Glory, and now thanks to 8th ed. steadfast. The only weird thing I ever got from the faq statement was it seems like they are saying Daemons don't pass Daemonic Instability on a roll of double ones for insane courage, which still isn't an issue I have ever had come up. Also this would explain the ability to lose more then 10 Daemons because you could lose by 10 in which case you would need to roll a -3 in order to not exceed leadership 7. This is impossible so even with double ones you would still lose 5 Daemons since you failed your Daemonic Instability by 5.

Lex
15-11-2010, 00:18
This is impossible so even with double ones you would still lose 5 Daemons since you failed your Daemonic Instability by 5.

Incorrect. Double ones is an automatic success on any Leadership test. Instability is a Leadership test. Success on Instability means no additional casualties are suffered.

Pil
15-11-2010, 01:29
Incorrect. Double ones is an automatic success on any Leadership test. Instability is a Leadership test. Success on Instability means no additional casualties are suffered.

Yea I know that, and play it that way. I just could never make since of that faq, and honestly I have never had an issue myself or with an opponent with determining how many Daemons I lose after failing a Daemonic Instability test. I personally have never lost 10+ because of a failed roll. But maybe I just have not rolled that badly yet.

Satan
22-05-2011, 07:54
Ok, some threadomancy here but this came up when I was playing daemon's yesterday and I seriously don't get this rule.

Pil say's this:

In 7th ed. we simply calculated the difference in combat resolution then added it to the roll. Say you beat me by 3 and my leadership is 7. In order to not lose any more Daemons I need to roll a 4. So 4 + 3 = 7 I would be safe, but I rolled an 8. Oops I lose 4 Daemons to Daemonic Instability.

That's not how I understand it from the FAQ - the FAQ says to add to the dice roll. Meaning that if you rolled an 8 you would in fact lose 8+3-4?

Do you BOTH subtract to reach a modified leadership, then roll the dice AND add the difference in scores? It makes no sense to me... What's the use of an item like the Ecstasy if you don't?

Just wondering since I clearly can't get my head around this.

Avian
22-05-2011, 12:40
That's not how I understand it from the FAQ - the FAQ says to add to the dice roll. Meaning that if you rolled an 8 you would in fact lose 8+3-4?Don't subtract 4, subtract 7 (the Leadership).

Roll the dice and if you don't roll double ones, add the amount you lost by and subtract your Leadership.



Sent from my E15i using Tapatalk

Satan
22-05-2011, 13:09
Don't subtract 4, subtract 7 (the Leadership).

Roll the dice and if you don't roll double ones, add the amount you lost by and subtract your Leadership.



Sent from my E15i using Tapatalk

But if so, what's the point of the Icon of Ecstasy in 8th?

Bodysnatcher
22-05-2011, 14:00
It's basically to cover the double 1 result (lose no daemons regardless).

Icon of ecstacy is one use only stubborn right? And steadfast, banner of the gods etc.
In those cases it's 2D6-Ld wounds as you ignore the combat res.

Satan
22-05-2011, 16:27
It's basically to cover the double 1 result (lose no daemons regardless).

Icon of ecstacy is one use only stubborn right? And steadfast, banner of the gods etc.
In those cases it's 2D6-Ld wounds as you ignore the combat res.

Can you support it with RAW?

The way I played it yesterday (and as I understood it explained to me) was to subtract the combat res from my LD, giving me a negative score of say X and then to roll the dice, removing the number of daemons differing from X or none on a roll of double 1.

I frankly don't understand how it's intended to play out in 8th? Why didn't they just give them normal instability instead?

theunwantedbeing
22-05-2011, 16:35
I frankly don't understand how it's intended to play out in 8th? Why didn't they just give them normal instability instead?

There is no "normal" instability...there's the unstable rule, but thats a bit different.

Instability follows the rules in the Daemons of Chaos book.
(as its a Daemons of Chaos rule)

So, you calculate the modifer as normal and subtract this amount from the daemons leadership.
You then roll 2D6, aiming to roll lower than that score.
For each point you roll above that score, you suffer a wound.
Although if you roll a double 1, you get "insane courage" and suffer no wounds.

So a ld7 daemon unit losing by say...4 has to roll a 3 or less to suffer no wounds. As 7 -4 is 3.
They roll a 5, so suffer 2 wounds.
As 5 -3 is 2.

That's how it works.
No different from 7th edition as the Instability rule hasn't changed at all.

Being steadfast/stubborn just ignores the combat modifier.
Meaning that ld7 unit would suffer no wounds rolling a 5 for their test, but would suffer 3 wounds rolling a 10. (10 -7 being 3)

Satan
22-05-2011, 16:42
Instability follows the rules in the Daemons of Chaos book.
(as its a Daemons of Chaos rule)

So, you calculate the modifer as normal and subtract this amount from the daemons leadership.
You then roll 2D6, aiming to roll lower than that score.
For each point you roll above that score, you suffer a wound.
Although if you roll a double 1, you get "insane courage" and suffer no wounds.

So a ld7 daemon unit losing by say...4 has to roll a 3 or less to suffer no wounds. As 7 -4 is 3.
They roll a 5, so suffer 2 wounds.
As 5 -3 is 2.

That's how it works.
No different from 7th edition as the Instability rule hasn't changed at all.

Being steadfast/stubborn just ignores the combat modifier.
Meaning that ld7 unit would suffer no wounds rolling a 5 for their test, but would suffer 3 wounds rolling a 10. (10 -7 being 3)

Sorry, I mean the Unstable rule. Though in that case they'd just lose 4 wounds instead, so I suppose Daemonic Instability is better in that regard...

They way I understand it ought to work though is that you DON'T subtract anything other than your leadership from the combined score of 2d6 and the amount you lost the combat by.

Of course, that ends up being the same number no matter how you calculate it, but still...

theunwantedbeing
22-05-2011, 16:48
They way I understand it ought to work though is that you DON'T subtract anything other than your leadership from the combined score of 2d6 and the amount you lost the combat by.

It just works like that when you are steadfast/stubborn.
Otherwise you include the modifier.

Satan
22-05-2011, 16:50
It just works like that when you are steadfast/stubborn.
Otherwise you include the modifier.

No, that's how it works normally as far as I can tell. In any case it adds up to the same end result.

theunwantedbeing
22-05-2011, 16:54
No, that's how it works normally as far as I can tell. In any case it adds up to the same end result.

You'll have to explain what you mean.
I dont follow at all.

Satan
22-05-2011, 17:06
You'll have to explain what you mean.
I dont follow at all.

I mean, as opposed to deducting the combat score like you do, I'd do it like this according to your example:

Roll 2d6, score 5.

Add the amount you lost the combat by (4).

End result 9.

Subtract your LD (7).

You lose 2 wounds.

In the case of Stubborn/Steadfast don't add the combat score, just roll 2d6 (I think that's what Bodysnatcher's saying too).

Bodysnatcher
22-05-2011, 17:13
I mean, as opposed to deducting the combat score like you do, I'd do it like this according to your example:

Roll 2d6, score 5.

Add the amount you lost the combat by (4).

End result 9.

Subtract your LD (7).

You lose 2 wounds.

In the case of Stubborn/Steadfast don't add the combat score, just roll 2d6 (I think that's what Bodysnatcher's saying too).

Basically that's how it works. But change the roll 2D6 line to: Roll 2D6, if you roll a double 1, no wounds are suffered, otherwise continue.

Dragoon999
22-05-2011, 18:06
Ok you guys have gotten me confused.

1.Q. you are all saying that stubborn or steadfast (same thing in 8th) allows you an unmodified instability test? How are you guys coming up with that?

1.A. Steadfast rule (stubborn):Any unit on the losing side can use its UNMODIFIED LEADERSHIP for break tests.
1.B. Instability per FAQ :Leadership is not modified, combat result is added to dice roll.

This means stubborn, steadfast is useless for negating combat result. If you lose by 15, if your stubborn or steadfast does not matter you still add 15 to your 2d6 roll-leadership because steadfast only keeps your leadership from being modified.

No where can I find anything that states steadfast or stubborn negates combat resolution.

All units lose by 8 and have ldr 7

steadfast (stubborn)/ 2d6+8-7

normal unit/ 2d6+8-7

As far as I can find, with the FAQ, basically stubborn and steadfast are useless now as the FAQ replaces the -modifier to leadership for instability tests since it is now added to the 2d6 roll instead of being removed from the leadership.

If this is not the case then please show me where you are coming up with stubborn (steadfast) negating combat rez-thanks.:confused:

Avian
22-05-2011, 18:11
1.Q. you are all saying that stubborn or steadfast (same thing in 8th) allows you an unmodified instability test? How are you guys coming up with that?
It is part of the Daemonic Instability rule on page 30 of the Daemons of Chaos army book. Right-hand column, about half way down the page.
:shifty:

Dragoon999
23-05-2011, 01:01
:o
Found it...right after the BSB reroll mention.:D

I skimmed right over it-:angel:

Yrrdead
23-05-2011, 04:27
Honestly I think the issue with this is that the FAQ Q&A is misleading.

A. No. Remember that combat resolution adds to the dice roll, rather than being subtracted from Leadership. -emphasis mine.

That statement as far as I can tell is false. It is contrary to the rulebook on combat results and break tests. And isn't in the DoC book either. It is an error on the part of GW. And as it isn't an errata or amendment, should have no bearing on how it is played.

Of course I could be wrong.

Tarian
23-05-2011, 04:47
Actually, that's how it's supposed to work exactly, just for simplicity, people tend to subtract from Ld, just like AS modifiers subtract from the Dice Roll, not the AS (technically).

Yrrdead
23-05-2011, 07:16
Actually, that's how it's supposed to work exactly, just for simplicity, people tend to subtract from Ld, just like AS modifiers subtract from the Dice Roll, not the AS (technically).

Hmm not according to what I'm reading on page 34. Am I missing something?

The difference between combat results is a modifier to leadership not the dice roll. You compare the dice roll to the modified leadership.

Satan
23-05-2011, 07:33
Think I've got it now. Thanks for clarifying that for me. How kids are supposed to manage to interpret the rules in this game I'll never understand...

Avian
23-05-2011, 17:56
This is one of those cases where the answer is correct, but the justification is wrong.

Sent from my E15i using Tapatalk

EDMM
23-05-2011, 18:11
I still think that, going by the rules, the answer is completely and utterly incorrect.

The rules, contained in the main rulebook and the Daemons army book, do not support the answer in the FAQ in any way, shape or form, whatsoever.

Avian
23-05-2011, 18:35
So, by your reasoning why WOULD wounds from Instability be limited to 10?

EDMM
24-05-2011, 03:49
Page 54 - Combat Resolution is a modifier to the Ld Statistic.
Page 3 - Statistics can't go above 10 or below 0.

They could take 12 wounds. Reduce Ld to 0, roll a 12.

Every other option, including the awful FAQ answer is making up rules or relying on old rules that don't exist any more. There is literally no rules support in any book for adding combat resolution to the Ld score. There was in 7th. Now we're in 8th.

Avian
24-05-2011, 07:48
Second sentence under Taking a Break test on p.54, combine with example on p.55

Sent from my E15i using Tapatalk

EDMM
24-05-2011, 14:30
Riiiiiight...


However, before rolling the dice, the difference between the winner's combat result score and the loser's is applied as a penalty to the defeated units Leadership

Just like I said.

A modifier that you subtract from Leadership. Not a modifier that you add to the dice results.

I'd say they got the example on page 55 wrong. The rules on page 3 are crystal clear:

all characteristics are rated on a scale from 0 to 10 - they cannot go below 0 or rise above 10.

Avian
24-05-2011, 15:24
So you hold that both the rulebook AND the faq is wrong and they haven't spotted either in the ten months they've been out?
Good luck in trying to convince anyone of that.

Sent from my E15i using Tapatalk

EDMM
24-05-2011, 15:28
The FAQ is obviously wrong. Even you admit that.

The rulebook has an incorrect example based on the rules. Unless you can explain to me how the rule on page 3 and the example on page 55 can both be right?

Kalandros
24-05-2011, 16:03
Riiiiiight...



Just like I said.

A modifier that you subtract from Leadership. Not a modifier that you add to the dice results.

I'd say they got the example on page 55 wrong. The rules on page 3 are crystal clear:

Chaos Daemon army book's rules trump the core rulebook - page 3 is invalid in this case, Instability takes over the characteristic limit rule.

How's that?

EDMM
24-05-2011, 16:05
Daemon army book does not specify how to take the test or mention anything about adding or subtracting in any way whatsoever...

So... that's impossible?

If you can show me a rule in the Daemon army book that explains how to resolve instability, then please quote it. I obviously can't find it.

It just says that it is a special kind of break test in my book.

Kalandros
24-05-2011, 16:06
Daemon army book does not specify how to take the test or mention anything about adding or subtracting in any way whatsoever...

So... that's impossible?

FAQs a part of it.

EDMM
24-05-2011, 16:12
FAQs a part of it.

Nope. Not when the FAQ answer is totally inconsitent with the rules.

That's the problem we are trying to solve.

Kalandros
24-05-2011, 16:13
I see you like going in circles on straight road.

Satan
24-05-2011, 16:13
I see you like going in circles on straight road.

I wouldn't say that. The rules is entirely confusing...

EDMM
24-05-2011, 16:24
Imagine the following in a FAQ:

Q: Does a To Hit roll of a 1 always fail to Hit? (pXX)
A: No. Though it is very rare for a model to be able to Hit on a 1+.

This would be wrong. The rules are clear that to Hit rolls of 1 fail - unlike to Wound rolls of 1.

The fact that it's a FAQ answer does not make it any less wrong. It contradicts the written rules. End of story.

Just like the answer in the Daemon FAQ.

theunwantedbeing
24-05-2011, 16:28
The answer in the daemon FAQ is simply wrong on how you work it out.
Although it doesn't matter as either choice given gets the same answer.

The No it gives to the maximum amount of wounds sufferable is still correct though.
As the rulebook clearly shows an example of a unit losing by enough to need a negative number.

EDMM
24-05-2011, 16:37
An example is not a rule, is it?

For that example to be correct wouldn't the break test rule have to read as follows:

However, before rolling the dice, the difference between the winner's combat result score and the loser's is applied as a penalty to the defeated units Leadership. This is an exception to the normal rule that a statistic cannot go below 0 or rise above 10.

Gabacho Mk.II
24-05-2011, 16:44
Honestly, has this been a continuing issue for us in 8th ed???


:eyebrows:

theunwantedbeing
24-05-2011, 16:47
An example is not a rule, is it?


It's still there in the rulebook.
Surely they'de have clarified that the leadership can't go below 0.

Similarly with the FAQ, its the 4th iteration and its still there.
Is the limit of wounds capped at 10?
No.

EDMM
24-05-2011, 16:54
It's still there in the rulebook.
Surely they'de have clarified that the leadership can't go below 0.

Similarly with the FAQ, its the 4th iteration and its still there.
Is the limit of wounds capped at 10?
No.

I think those are both non-sequiturs.

GW gets it wrong in their own materials often enough that I can believe there is a bad example in the rule book.

Similarly I can believe that they have left a bad answer in a FAQ for years at a time.

You must know this if you've played the game for longer than a year?

What we have are two rules:
1. Combat resolution is subtracted from Ld; and
2. Ld, being a statistic, cannot go below 0.

We also have an example - which is inconsistent with the above rules and a FAQ answer - which is inconsistent with the above rules AND the inconsistent example.

I'd rather follow the rules.

theunwantedbeing
24-05-2011, 17:02
I'd rather follow the rules.

Each to their own I guess.
I just don't like the idea of daemons being capped at suffering at worst 10 wounds from combat res.....and the FAQ and rules generally support that intent.

EDMM
24-05-2011, 17:22
12.

Capped at 12 wounds.

Ld can go to 0.

2d6 can go to 12.

You don't get any benefit from beating a regular unit by 15, 25 or 200 points of combat resolution, so why should Daemons suffer extra?

(Yes, I know. They're Daemons. Aside from that.)

Edit: I just now noticed that the question even gets the "Leadership 2" part wrong - making a mistaken assumption that Ld can be reduced to 2 not 0. Damn, that thing's all over the place.

Avian
24-05-2011, 18:15
You don't get any benefit from beating a regular unit by 15, 25 or 200 points of combat resolution, so why should Daemons suffer extra?
*shrugs*
It's two variants of doing break tests, so the suffering will vary. Daemons suffer comparably little when losing by little, whereas a normal unit can fluff its break test and get destroyed outright.

GodlessM
24-05-2011, 18:18
You don't get any benefit from beating a regular unit by 15, 25 or 200 points of combat resolution, so why should Daemons suffer extra?

Because the rules say they should. Just in case you haven't noticed, not every unit in the game is the same just as the armies they are part of are not the same, so there's not whole lot of logic in your sentence.

EDMM
24-05-2011, 18:35
Because the rules say they should.

*facepalm*

The rules don't.

An example and a FAQ answer do.

Edit: Note that the portion of my reply that Avian and GodlessM are responding to was only in response to theunwantedbeing's statement that he doesn't like "the idea of daemons being capped."

I'm in no way trying to rely on my personal preference as justification for my position.

The logic of my position continues to be:

What we have are two rules:
1. Combat resolution is subtracted from Ld; and
2. Ld, being a statistic, cannot go below 0.

We also have an example - which is inconsistent with the above rules and a FAQ answer - which is inconsistent with the above rules AND the inconsistent example.

theunwantedbeing
24-05-2011, 18:52
I'm in no way trying to rely on my personal preference as justification for my position.

So what is your personal opinion on the matter?

In anycase, I did say that the FAQ and rules examples do support my preference.

Seeing as the FAQ answer does state that the amount isnt capped.
Similarly the example exists of needing to roll less than a 0 for a leadership test.

Given you feel the rules are faliable, it's not outside the realms of possibility that it is simply that characteristic limit for leadership that is at fault.
As that would support what is written in the FAQ and the rules.

One rule is wrong?
Or lots of rules?

Avian
24-05-2011, 18:55
Even IF anyone else thought the "The rulebook shouldn't be saying that, and neither should the FAQ!" argument was particularly good, the procedure given in the DoC book for taking an Instability test DOESN'T say that you subtract the amount you lost by from the Leadership value, it just says to take the amount "into account". You can do that by adding the amount to the dice roll (which the FAQ suggests and which is also the way break tests were done at the time the DoC book was written), which neatly avoids any problems of lowering the LD below 0.

You have decided on an interpretation that conflicts both with the rulebook and the FAQ, when there is really no reason for that other than wanting the Instability test to be closer to an 8th edition break test than the DoC book requires or expects.

EDMM
24-05-2011, 19:05
One rule is wrong?
Or lots of rules?

No rules are wrong.

1 example is wrong.
1 FAQ answer is wrong.

They aren't even wrong in the same way! If the FAQ answer was consistent with the example, then you guys might have scraped together an argument. But they contradict EACH OTHER, so can't possibly be used together to support a coherent position. The FAQ says to add the combat results to dice result - there is no support ANYWHERE for this. The example in the rulebook says to subtract combat results from Leadership, which then goes below 0 - there is nothing to justify this exception to the rules on page 3.

Adding combat result to the dice (as the FAQ would have you do) and subtracting the combat result from Ld to go below 0 (as the example would have you do) ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

One of them HAS to be wrong. Once you admit that one of them is wrong, it's easy to see how they BOTH are, in light of the actual rules.

Just because you guys want to have more Daemons die and both the example and the FAQ would result in more Daemons dying doesn't mean that your argument is coherent. It makes no sense.

The Daemon book says it is a special type of break test.

Break tests say to subtract combat results from Ld. Whatever the Daemon army book doesn't say to change from the normal break test rules, leave unchanged.

Avian
24-05-2011, 21:47
Well, have fun with your "Everything else is Wrong" national tour. Drop me a note if you stop by my city. :)

RanaldLoec
24-05-2011, 21:48
The faq just provides a mechanic that allows demons to take more than 10 casualties from losing combat.

You may not like, agree with, or even want to admit the faq exists but it does.

I don't like part of my Empire faq's but I abide by them.

oldWitheredCorpse
24-05-2011, 22:47
I think the stem of this debate is that GW made it possible to misinterpret a modifier to a test (combat resolution) with other more lasting modifications to characteristics. Combat resolution is completely different beast than spell-casting or inspiring presence. Daemonic instability is a simple enough concept (and much nicer than the unstable rule, especially with steadfast), but the choice of GW to word the test as "taken on a modified Ld" confuses the matter.

GodlessM
24-05-2011, 23:00
I think the stem of this debate is that EDMM thinks his word is God; because he doesn't like a rule it is apparently wrong. In his mind, he can read two words in a rule, and then ignore the rest to satisfy what he wants from it, and call it correct. There's a word used for such situations; pants. So can we lock up this thread and end the one man power struggle.

stripsteak
25-05-2011, 18:04
Adding combat result to the dice (as the FAQ would have you do) and subtracting the combat result from Ld to go below 0 (as the example would have you do) ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

The process is different but the result is the same
ld: 8
lost by: 10
roll: 6

adding combat result to dice:
(6+10)-8 = 16-8 = 8
subtracting from ld:
6-(8-10) = 6--2 = 6+2 = 8

would a proof go something like
(x+y)-z = x-(z-y)
x+y-z = x-z+y (distributive property)
x+y-z = x+y-z (commutative property)

Yrrdead
25-05-2011, 18:23
Well the issue with applying combat results to leadership is that it is a leadership modifier. Which means that Leadership can't be modified below zero.

So in your example it would be 6-(8-10) reduced to 6 - 0 = 6.

Not saying that is right or wrong , but that is the issue which brought about the FAQ question in the first place.

hamsterwheel
25-05-2011, 18:41
Page 55 of the rulebook

INSANE COURAGE

"For example, a unit of Night Goblins is charged in the flank by a unit of Chaos Knights. The combat is resolved and the Chaos Knights win the fight by 10 points. The Night Goblins' Leadership of 5 means that they would need to roll -5 or less (assuming, of course, that they are not Steadfast), which is obviously impossible. There still is a point in rolling the dice for the Night Goblins though, because there is a remote chance of rolling a natural, unmodified, double 1, meaning that the Night Goblins would brace the onslaught and heroically (or foolishly!) stand their ground."

Page 4 of the rulebook

Characteristics of Zero

"If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic or a special rule, it is slain and removed from play"

/thread

Yrrdead
25-05-2011, 18:43
Awesome you posted an example. Which I suppose means that you win the interwebz and thus can end threads whenever you want.

hamsterwheel
25-05-2011, 19:27
Awesome you posted an example. Which I suppose means that you win the interwebz and thus can end threads whenever you want.

My post shows an example from the rulebook where a break test is taken at a negative modifier, but due to the insane heroism rule a natural 2 still passes the test. The second quote basically says that a characteristic can go below 0 with a modifier. So, I guess you're right, I do win.

Yrrdead
25-05-2011, 19:47
Yeah I know the example you posted. It was posted previously and was already discussed in this thread. As far as your second point , that doesn't apply to this case.

sulla
25-05-2011, 20:02
Yeah I know the example you posted. It was posted previously and was already discussed in this thread. As far as your second point , that doesn't apply to this case.(Not sure why you didn't just say that in the first place? :p)

hamsterwheel
25-05-2011, 20:05
Yeah I know the example you posted. It was posted previously and was already discussed in this thread. As far as your second point , that doesn't apply to this case.

It seems somewhat relevant to this quote from below which is on page 4 of this thread.


What we have are two rules:
1. Combat resolution is subtracted from Ld; and
2. Ld, being a statistic, cannot go below 0.:

I've read your argument concerning how the FAQ answer's explanation is not how Ld tests are performed, however since a characteristic can go below 0, then the "No" portion of the FAQ is still correct.

Q. Is the maximum number of wounds that can be inflicted by a
failed Instability test limited to 10 (a roll of ‘12’ compared to a
Leadership 2)? (p30)
A. No. Remember that combat resolution adds to the dice roll,
rather than being subtracted from Leadership.

EDMM
25-05-2011, 20:18
But that isn't mentioned anywhere in the RULES for break tests.

GW can provide all the fallacious examples they want until they are blue in the face. You can repeatedly post them ad nauseum. But if the examples don't follow the rules, then they're meaningless. Just like FAQ answers that don't follow the rules.

RanaldLoec
25-05-2011, 20:34
Other than theres an official faq which provides a rule in exceptions to the brb rules.

Allowing demons to take more than 10 casualties.

Denial or not its their in black and white, and you not accepting it means nothing.

The majority here seems to.

EDMM
25-05-2011, 20:41
FAQs don't change rules.

Errata do.

The FAQ isn't even the same as the spurious example!

Satan
26-05-2011, 07:46
FAQs don't change rules.

Errata do.

The FAQ isn't even the same as the spurious example!

To summarize: They need to correct the FAQ because it doesn't make any sense.

Frosty_TK
26-05-2011, 08:47
Or in other words: Why write FAQs at all?

EDMM few, if any, agree with your point of view, and you don't want to agree with them. So let it rest, there's simply no point. And anybody else who will encounter the problem will have ample stuff to make up his mind.

Satan
26-05-2011, 09:20
Or in other words: Why write FAQs at all?

EDMM few, if any, agree with your point of view, and you don't want to agree with them. So let it rest, there's simply no point. And anybody else who will encounter the problem will have ample stuff to make up his mind.

Well, that's the problem - I didn't when I encountered it. And going by the army book and FAQ was really just confusing and left me with no answers.

Frosty_TK
26-05-2011, 09:52
Yeah, I get that. But the thread has been going around in circles for more posts than I care to count, rehearsing each position.

It seems that you were able to make up your mind in the course of this discussion, and I guess most others can one way or another. I have a personal oppinion as well, but stating it won't add or detract anything new. Hence I chimed in, trying to mediate.