PDA

View Full Version : Glaive of Putrefaction vs Hell Pit Abomb



Tayrod
17-07-2011, 20:10
Hey!
Some time ago I was in a game with a friend of mine who plays skaven. Knowing the Abomb was bound to show up, I gave one of my chaos charachters the "Glaive of Putrefaction" which in essence, turns anything it wounds into a strength & toughness 2 weakling for the rest of the game (this is a good strategy for monster hunting in your basic storm of magic game, I find).

Anyway, I got my charachter into combat with a Hell pit, wounded it, and reduced it toughness and strength to 2. However, the abomb has special attacks (you roll each turn, sort of like the giant) and two of these attacks are described as str.6. in the ruleset. This brought up the following two questions:

1) Should all the Abombs special attacks also be used at Str.2 (feed and avalance of flesh)? Or is the str.2 only used for characteristic tests and the "flailing fists" attack?
2) If the Abomb dies, and comes back to life, should it still be t2 s2?

IMO:
1) Fluffwise: yes, Rulewise: No.
2) Yes.

Looking forward to your opinions/clearifications :)

Bodysnatcher
17-07-2011, 21:14
1) As it doesn't say 'At the ambomination's strength' then the rules are against you, he hits at S6.

2) For the rest of the game means for the rest of the game, pretty clear.

decker_cky
17-07-2011, 21:31
If you boost the abomination's strength when it misfires and gains +1 S, then you drop it's strength with the glaive. Depends how you're playing it.

semper_fi
17-07-2011, 22:16
1) Should all the Abombs special attacks also be used at Str.2 (feed and avalance of flesh)? Or is the str.2 only used for characteristic tests and the "flailing fists" attack?
this is an interesting one, since avalance of flesh hits with str6 -which is his base stat- but is reduced to str2 -base stat- im inclined to say he just hits with a puny str2 hit

2) If the Abomb dies, and comes back to life, should it still be t2 s2?
dies comes back alive, plainly means he gets back with the originial stats minus the D6 wounds else it would have stated it on the too horrible to die chart

shakedown47
18-07-2011, 01:52
this is an interesting one, since avalance of flesh hits with str6 -which is his base stat- but is reduced to str2 -base stat- im inclined to say he just hits with a puny str2 hit. If he dies comes back alive, plainly means he gets back with the originial stats minus the D6 wounds else it would have stated it on the too horrible to die chart

There is no mention of Feed or Avalanche of Flesh attacks being made at the HPA's current strength. As near as I can tell, there is no rules-supported way to lower the strength value of these attacks in the course of a game outside of something oddball like Valkia's armour. Additionally, there is no provision that I can see under the Too Horrible To Die Heading for a resurrected HPA to ignore stat modifiers incurred earlier in the game. Since the rules for the Glaive of Putrefaction declare that the stat change to a model is effective "for the rest of the game" and the Too Horrible to Die section makes it clear that the HPA is only one model (and therefore the same model, even if temporarily removed from the table) it is quite clear that even if it does come back to life, it will be at S and T 2.

This is one case where the rules aren't in the slightest bit ambiguous, and a cursory reading of the relevant sections is all that is needed to find the answer.

semper_fi
18-07-2011, 13:00
still i do not agree with it, since it dies and is removed from play -thus cancelling out the "for the rest of the game" - its essentially a new HPA imo

shakedown47
18-07-2011, 13:12
still i do not agree with it, since it dies and is removed from play -thus cancelling out the "for the rest of the game" - its essentially a new HPA imo

So putting aside any sense of RAW written for a moment, let's talk about the "realistic" version of events.

OK so the HPA takes one or more wounds from the glaive of putrefaction and then, later in the game, loses it's last wound. It's laying there, thrashing on the ground in its would-be death throes and then, miraculously, it doesn't die. The pumps circulating it's vital fluids renew their efforts, it's hearts begin beating strong again, and it's unnatural metabolism regenerates the masses of bleeding wounds. It rises up, having never died, and fights on.

I mean the rule is called Too Horrible to Die, suggesting that it never actually DIES when you remove the model from the table. In fact, it doesn't die unless and until you roll a 1-5. Also it only says to remove the model from the table and place a marker in its spot; it doesn't say to remove the HPA from the game altogether. If it comes back with a few wounds left, it is the SAME abomination coming back not a new one sprouting out of the old one's body.

I just don't see any passage or reading of the rules to suggest that the HPA losing it's last wound "washes" it of any battlefield effects.

Tregar
18-07-2011, 13:19
I think it is still the same Hellpit Abomination: if it were a new one, the death of its predecessor would award VPs even if a new one gets up.

As for strength effects changing the HPA's Feed strength, it's a case of how RAW do you want to play it: by RAW, the attacks are at S6, but the GW FAQ indicates that if its strength is increased, then the Feed strength is increased too. This could only really be the case if we are meant to play it that strength modifications affect the Feed attacks. I'm sure most reasonable Skaven players would be happy to play it like this for positive and negative effects. I'm just glad that whenever my Night Goblins "net" an Abomination, it doesn't matter if the coming attacks are S5 or S6- they still kill on 2+!

Odin
18-07-2011, 22:49
So putting aside any sense of RAW written for a moment, let's talk about the "realistic" version of events.

OK so the HPA takes one or more wounds from the glaive of putrefaction and then, later in the game, loses it's last wound. It's laying there, thrashing on the ground in its would-be death throes and then, miraculously, it doesn't die. The pumps circulating it's vital fluids renew their efforts, it's hearts begin beating strong again, and it's unnatural metabolism regenerates the masses of bleeding wounds. It rises up, having never died, and fights on.

I mean the rule is called Too Horrible to Die, suggesting that it never actually DIES when you remove the model from the table. In fact, it doesn't die unless and until you roll a 1-5. Also it only says to remove the model from the table and place a marker in its spot; it doesn't say to remove the HPA from the game altogether. If it comes back with a few wounds left, it is the SAME abomination coming back not a new one sprouting out of the old one's body.

I just don't see any passage or reading of the rules to suggest that the HPA losing it's last wound "washes" it of any battlefield effects.

QFT. Any other interpretation is pure fantasy (and not the good kind).

decker_cky
18-07-2011, 23:04
The rule says "for the remainder of the game," not "until the abomination dies." It lasts past death.

GodlessM
19-07-2011, 00:38
For Christ sake, are people really going to argue that the most broken unit in the game should keep it's attacks at S6 when its strength is reduced to 2 just because the wording is bad? The intention is painfully clear, it is like this with all such models (Doomwheel, Giant and War Mammoth all have their attacks listed as at a certain strength also and it always just happens to be the model's base strength value). People really need to stop with this sort of thing in games; fact is if we played every rule as straight up RAW then the game simply wouldn't work.

shakedown47
19-07-2011, 01:38
...fact is if we played every rule as straight up RAW then the game simply wouldn't work.

And if everyone just played RAI it wouldn't work either. My personal feeling on the matter is, in cases where RAW doesn't give a clear ruling (such as two side-by-side units pursuing an enemy that has broken from combat) it is best to agree on a RAI interpretation. However, in cases where there is zero ambiguity about how to resolve a problem, such as the questions at hand, go with RAW. It works for our play group. It might not for yours.

Tregar
19-07-2011, 13:00
There IS ambiguity, because the "Fluid Injected" ability of the HPA gives it +1S, and this is FAQed to carry over to the Feed attack. This is only possible if strength modification is interpreted as affecting the HPA's attacks. Perhaps instead of a cursory reading, you go for an in-depth one instead? As GodlessM says, the intention is painfully clear. Since this ambiguity exists, it's only fair to treat every other similar effect in the same manner. Unless, you know, you feel the HPA deserves some special consideration, for some reason. How many do you own again? ;)

shakedown47
20-07-2011, 00:24
There IS ambiguity, because the "Fluid Injected" ability of the HPA gives it +1S, and this is FAQed to carry over to the Feed attack. This is only possible if strength modification is interpreted as affecting the HPA's attacks. Perhaps instead of a cursory reading, you go for an in-depth one instead? As GodlessM says, the intention is painfully clear. Since this ambiguity exists, it's only fair to treat every other similar effect in the same manner. Unless, you know, you feel the HPA deserves some special consideration, for some reason. How many do you own again? ;)

And that's my problem with the FAQs and erratas. As much as I loathe to join in on GW bashing, I have to say that whoever is writing those things is confused about the difference between an errata and an FAQ.

See, I personally have to wonder how and why it was ever a "frequently asked question," or even a question at all, whether or not the Fluid Injected result added to the strength of Feed and Avalanche hits. After all, Feed and Avalanche are written with a specific strength value as opposed to just saying "does D6 hits" (basically one of the things this thread is arguing about.) So why was it ever a question? It's unambiguous and clearly written, I don't get it.

So they decided to let Fluid Injected to add to the strength of Feed and Avalanche attacks, which is obviously an impossible conclusion to arrive at using the rules as written in the book. Since the ruling goes against the words on the page, effectively calling for a change in the wording, that's an errata, not an FAQ. It's not the only example of the ruling of an FAQ flying in the face of the logical resolution of RAW, and I just don't understand why they don't errata it instead of answering it with an FAQ.

So I guess it comes down to how you feel about the FAQs. I see them on a case by case basis, because that is a way to avoid all argument. If they later FAQ (cough...errata...cough) the Glaive of Putrefaction and like items/effects to modify the strength of Feed and Avalanche hits then I will happily agree that that's how it works. As it stands, there is no cut and dry ruling or wording that leads me to believe that to be the case. If you think that because one situation adds to the strength of Feed and Avalanche then the opposite must necessarily also be true, regardless of what the rules say, well then I've said all I can and we'll have to agree to disagree. Also, it should be noted that my only current army is WoC

GodlessM
20-07-2011, 10:51
After all, Feed and Avalanche are written with a specific strength value as opposed to just saying "does D6 hits" (basically one of the things this thread is arguing about.) So why was it ever a question? It's unambiguous and clearly written, I don't get it.

I think they're selling common sense on ebay; that should help you get it.

Tregar
20-07-2011, 14:57
See, I personally have to wonder how and why it was ever a "frequently asked question," or even a question at all, whether or not the Fluid Injected result added to the strength of Feed and Avalanche hits. After all, Feed and Avalanche are written with a specific strength value as opposed to just saying "does D6 hits" (basically one of the things this thread is arguing about.) So why was it ever a question? It's unambiguous and clearly written, I don't get it.

Because GW wanted us to think that the strength of the HPA's attacks in close combat are linked to it's Strength value, but they're not very good at stating these things. This MO of GW is observed elsewhere, e.g. when a model has the fly ability, it can move 10", but effects that decrease movement also decrease this value.

You're right under RAW, I don't disagree at all, and before the FAQ I'd have played it exactly this way too. But the FAQ answer is enough to inject ambiguity. And where there's ambiguity, common sense isn't a bad thing.

GodlessM
21-07-2011, 13:18
Funny thing is I would be inclined to think the guy who insists on bettering his already broken unit is more a dick than the sarcastic guy having a bit of a laugh on the internet. Who knew? :rolleyes:

warplock
21-07-2011, 19:04
RAW the Glaive does not affect the HPA. Case closed. However it's pretty obvious that it should affect the HPA, as should strength-sapping spells. Why should the HPA be immune? Wouldn't they have mentioned this in its rules somewhere? I'd always agree with an opponent before the battle to house-rule it and use common sense so that the HPA is affected, and if they did not agree to that I'd be very disappointed.

stripsteak
21-07-2011, 19:59
Some possible fluff reasoning for why strength modifier things shouldn't affect those attacks is that they aren't based off the amount of muscle (S) just the sheer bulk of the abomination.

AmaroK
22-07-2011, 23:48
Some possible fluff reasoning for why strength modifier things shouldn't affect those attacks is that they aren't based off the amount of muscle (S) just the sheer bulk of the abomination.

So the strengh is lowered to 2, but the attacks are still strengh 6? and why is used the strengh stat in the game if is not for attacks? (and strengh tests :p) It is not like they are using it for bodybuilding and muscling :)

It really makes no sense in that way. I have used the glaive as a counter to the HPA with my WoC, and I never got this version. My rival, even if competitive, never even intended to say his HPA attacks were more than str 2, which, to be honest, sounds as the most logical interpretation. But if people want to go to the strict RAW, itīs up to them. :)

OldMaster
23-07-2011, 20:49
Ah yes, it's the special attack argument.

I had quite a discussion about this back when I was reading the Giant's rules for the first time.
And I mean really, this one is a bit of a pain to go through by RAI. Take "Swing with Club" for example. The club doesn't really get smaller, does it? And if the Giant in question becomes really weak, wouldn't he be unable to swing the club at all? And what about Jump Up and Down? While he gets very old and frowny (Glaives fluff explanation of the S/T debuff), I doubt he gets smaller or otherwise loses mass that he uses to inflict the S6 hits. So would all those hits still be resolved at S2 or S6?

Point is, I do feel what GodlessM is saying and I guess if I played Skaven I would consider to be lenient with the rules and not denying my opponent the chance of finally bringing down that one single model that already munched through 800+ points of his fearsome Chaos Warriors. x)
Then again if I was a Skaven player I would instead giggle at my opponents futile attempts and tell him that his mother "resolves Feed and Avalanche of Flesh at Strength 2".

shakedown47
25-07-2011, 02:31
I'm all for houseruling things among your home play group and I'm all for "realistic" interpretations. If it was up to me the Glaive's effects would make the Feed attacks Strength 2 and leave the Avalanche of Flesh attacks at Strength 6 (as already stated, it's not like it gets lighter, right?) However, it's not up to me. The reason I like to play RAW is that we often go to tournaments and we routinely go out of town to play other gaming clubs and likewise host gaming clubs a few times a year. Playing things strictly RAW is a big help in avoiding rules arguments such as these. If everyone just plays RAW, then everyone will be playing by the same rules. It's just simpler that way, that's all.

So like I said, houserule anything you want; it's your game, after all. However, it was my view that the OP was asking about the actual rules, the rules as written, so I gave my answer with that in mind. If anyone disagrees with the rules or thinks they're unrealistic or thinks that the FAQ implies a certain ruling that is certainly their right and their own business, but it's simply not RAW.

Surgency
25-07-2011, 02:45
So the strengh is lowered to 2, but the attacks are still strengh 6? and why is used the strengh stat in the game if is not for attacks? (and strengh tests :p) It is not like they are using it for bodybuilding and muscling :)

It really makes no sense in that way. I have used the glaive as a counter to the HPA with my WoC, and I never got this version. My rival, even if competitive, never even intended to say his HPA attacks were more than str 2, which, to be honest, sounds as the most logical interpretation. But if people want to go to the strict RAW, itīs up to them. :)

Where are people getting that all the attacks are at strength 6? I really don't see the issue, the Glaive lowers the HPA's statline to Str 2. So the Avalanche result would give you potential attacks against B2B models at Strength 6, and then it does 2D6 automatic hits at the models current strength. The Initiative based Str 6 hits are models being crushed by the massive bulk of the Abom, not hits from its fists, etc.

Its not like EVERY attack would be made at Str 6, only the special hits are at that strength, everything else is at the models strength

shakedown47
25-07-2011, 03:03
Where are people getting that all the attacks are at strength 6? I really don't see the issue, the Glaive lowers the HPA's statline to Str 2. So the Avalanche result would give you potential attacks against B2B models at Strength 6, and then it does 2D6 automatic hits at the models current strength. The Initiative based Str 6 hits are models being crushed by the massive bulk of the Abom, not hits from its fists, etc.

Its not like EVERY attack would be made at Str 6, only the special hits are at that strength, everything else is at the models strength

I don't think people are suggesting that the 2D6 hits from Avalanche wouldn't be affected by by a strength stat reduction. The issue is that some people prefer that any wound inflicted by the HPA be resolved at it's current strength value, regardless of the wording in the book. To be more specific, Feed hits and hits caused from failed initiative tests forced by an Avalanche of Flesh result are resolved at strength 6 (strength 7 if the HPA has benefitted from a Fluid Injected result) and any other attack the monster makes, from Flailing Fists to the 2d6 portion of Avalanche of Flesh to Thunderstomp, are resolved at its current strength value. In the course of discussion it was just easier to say "Feed and Avalanche of Flesh attacks" however, assuming that people realized it was only the portion with a named strength value that was being debated.

Surgency
25-07-2011, 03:19
Ah, that makes more sense. It seemed like the people arguing against Feed and Avalanche attacks were under the impression that the rule is that all attacks are at str 6.

popisdead
27-07-2011, 21:27
still i do not agree with it, since it dies and is removed from play -thus cancelling out the "for the rest of the game" - its essentially a new HPA imo

Oh man,.. skaven players,..