PDA

View Full Version : Piranha blade and spells



Dreyer
03-09-2013, 06:22
Any reason why Piranha blade wouldnt give you multiple wounds on your spells?

Mr_Rose
03-09-2013, 06:53
Because its a weapon and you only use weapons in combat.
Ogre Firebellies with great weapons don't cast S6 fireballs either.

Dreyer
03-09-2013, 07:01
Well thats a bit different. Piranha blade isnt worded so it gives you d3 wounds with piranha blade. it just gives you the d3 special rule

Nubl0
03-09-2013, 07:10
even so, why would it pass d3 wounds onto your spells?

bigbiggles
03-09-2013, 10:02
It seems highly against the RAI to play it this way. Issue has been brought up with the steg helm hits too I think

Spiney Norman
03-09-2013, 12:53
Any reason why Piranha blade wouldnt give you multiple wounds on your spells?

Because spells always have their own damage profile, with their own strength and special rules.

I kind of see where this is coming from, if people are applying the AP and multi wounds to impact hits why not spells? Well the very easy answer to that is that you can just about make it fly with impact hits because they are CC attacks, but spells are definitely not CC attacks and so there is absolutely no reason the piranha blade should affect spells at all. Its rather like a beast wizard casting flock of doom when his unit is affected by flaming sword of ruin and claiming that the flock would cause flaming hits, it doesn't because the spell itself does not have the flaming attacks rule.

And for the record, while I think that the rules do currently allow you to combo the blade with the impact hits given by the steg helm I don't think this is how it was intended and expect it to be hit for 6 with the first FAQ.

Dreyer
03-09-2013, 15:24
So if its only attacks that would mean that a Skink chief with the piranha blade would have multiple wounds (d3) on his javelin?

And correct me if im wrong but in my small rulebook on page 43 (roll to wound) a box called "resolving unsual attacks" a spell like fireball is mentioned. so if fireball hits is an attack, and the multiple wounds rule apply to attacks, then surely piranha blade will make fireball do d3 wounds? Kinda hope im wrong here :)

Spiney Norman
03-09-2013, 16:03
So if its only attacks that would mean that a Skink chief with the piranha blade would have multiple wounds (d3) on his javelin?

And correct me if im wrong but in my small rulebook on page 43 (roll to wound) a box called "resolving unsual attacks" a spell like fireball is mentioned. so if fireball hits is an attack, and the multiple wounds rule apply to attacks, then surely piranha blade will make fireball do d3 wounds? Kinda hope im wrong here :)

I'm pretty sure that attacks made with a magical CC weapon should only count for close combat attacks, certainly the Armour Piercing rule clearly states in the BRB that it only applies to CC attacks unless you are making the attack with a weapon that has the AP rule. Since you are not using the Pblade when you are throwing a javelin or fireball it clearly doesn't apply.

With regards to the multiple wounds rule its not as clear cut, but I still don't think you will make a multi wound fireball fly against most opponents. I'm also not really convinced its worth 50pts to give the blade to a Slann just for the sake of getting multi-wound on your spells.

theunwantedbeing
03-09-2013, 16:05
Because reasons.

You only get the benefit of your magical weapon when you are actually using that magical weapon.
When you cast a spell, you aren't using the magical weapon, when you fire a bow, you aren't using that magical weapon, and so on.

It's one of those unwritten rules that nobody bothered to write down or clarify ever because it should be obvious.
(sadly for many it isn't)

Dreyer
03-09-2013, 16:11
would agree if it was still worded the same as in the 7th edition ie "Any unsaved wounds inflicted by the piranha blade is multiplied into two wounds" but in the new book the wording is "The wielder has the Multiple Wounds (d3) and Armor Piercing special rules" so its clearly not only when he uses the blade.

King Arthur
03-09-2013, 17:22
No it is on the weapon so only when you use the weapon do you get its special rules I feel this has been explained thoroughly already- you don't.

bigbiggles
03-09-2013, 18:23
If it really says ''weilder''. Then that only means when he uses it to attack. Has to be ''bearer'' like fencers blades

Blkc57
03-09-2013, 18:58
would agree if it was still worded the same as in the 7th edition ie "Any unsaved wounds inflicted by the piranha blade is multiplied into two wounds" but in the new book the wording is "The wielder has the Multiple Wounds (d3) and Armor Piercing special rules" so its clearly not only when he uses the blade.

Again just for good measure: page 4 of the Errata/FAQ


Q: Does a weapon that gives a bonus to a characteristic only give that bonus when being used to attack a model?(p4) A: Most weapons, including magic weapons, state when the bonus is given. For example, a model with the Fencerís Blades will always have Weapon Skill 10 whilst a model with a great weapon will only have +2 Strength when striking an enemy in close combat. When a weapon does not say when the characteristic bonus applies, then it only applies when striking, or being struck, in close combat.

Fencer's Baldes has the wording so that the "bearer" (aka guy just holding it in his inventory) gets the bonus, most other weapons have the wording that the "wielder" has the bonus. Thus you must actively be swinging the Piranha Blade to get the D3 wounds bonus.

Saldiven
03-09-2013, 20:35
Again just for good measure: page 4 of the Errata/FAQ

Fencer's Baldes has the wording so that the "bearer" (aka guy just holding it in his inventory) gets the bonus, most other weapons have the wording that the "wielder" has the bonus. Thus you must actively be swinging the Piranha Blade to get the D3 wounds bonus.

Well, one thing to keep in mind, that FAQ is in respect specifically to weapons that grant bonuses to characteristics. The examples given are for WS and S buffing weapons.

Multiple Wounds is a Special Rule, not a characteristic, so it is debatable whether or not that FAQ would apply.

Blkc57
03-09-2013, 22:42
Well, one thing to keep in mind, that FAQ is in respect specifically to weapons that grant bonuses to characteristics. The examples given are for WS and S buffing weapons.

Multiple Wounds is a Special Rule, not a characteristic, so it is debatable whether or not that FAQ would apply.

Thats cutting some fine hairs there, Saldiven. A special rule like Multi wound on a weapon is very very similar in structure and wording to characteristic bonuses like WS 10, to say they don't match for the FAQ is to willfully try and ignore a precedent that is just sitting there and is easy to apply.

In other words to ignore it is to just ignore an easy answer to the OP question: only apply special rules and bonuses when they strike with a weapon unless it specifically says otherwise.

Saldiven
04-09-2013, 01:05
Thats cutting some fine hairs there, Saldiven. A special rule like Multi wound on a weapon is very very similar in structure and wording to characteristic bonuses like WS 10, to say they don't match for the FAQ is to willfully try and ignore a precedence that is just sitting there and is easy to apply.

Actually, it's not cutting hairs at all. The FAQ specifically asks about weapons that provide characteristic bonuses and when those bonuses are granted. The answer for the question specifically references characteristic bonuses. To assert that this applies also to special rules is a leap of logic and an assumption. Precedents are not necessarily applicable to a new situation when they originally involved a different matter entirely.

Additionally, making the stretch to apply this FAQ to special rules can lead to some interesting combinations that I think you'd be hard pressed to argue was intended. For example, a Bloodthirster can take a greater and a lesser gift. When rolling on the lesser gift, he can default to the Sword of Swift Striking (I believe that's the name) which gives the "bearer" Always Strikes First (just like the Fencers Blades gives the "bearer" WS10). For the greater gift, he can default to the Axe of Khorne (a magic weapon) which situationally gives +3 attacks, or could take the exalted gift and default to the +d3 WS/S/A/I each turn. The FAQ interpretation would give a Bloodthirster (or another greater daemon) 7-9 WS 10, S7-9, I10, ASF attacks for a combined cost of 75-100 points. This has been argued because of the FAQ interpretation that the GD gains the ability of the ASF sword even if he's actually using a different magic weapon in combat.

byrothegyro
04-09-2013, 03:53
wielder is when using the item, bearer means just carrying it, so if the rule for the piranha blade says "wielder" then it is only when using the sword and it's special rules would not apply all the time.

Blkc57
04-09-2013, 04:49
Additionally, making the stretch to apply this FAQ to special rules can lead to some interesting combinations that I think you'd be hard pressed to argue was intended. For example, a Bloodthirster can take a greater and a lesser gift. When rolling on the lesser gift, he can default to the Sword of Swift Striking (I believe that's the name) which gives the "bearer" Always Strikes First (just like the Fencers Blades gives the "bearer" WS10).


The Sword of Swift Striking doesn't say "bearer" it clearly says that the "wielder" has ASF. The example is a little off track, because I'm not sure who would be arguing that the demon would get the ASF any other time other than striking with the sword since those people would be wrong, also the demon rules state that the Axe of Khorne gives its bonus to the "wielder", in both cases the ASF Sword and Axe of Khorne say "wielder" and the Demon rules state that even if the Demon has more than one weapon he can only wield one of them at a time. So he wouldn't get the benefit of both. There are only three weapons in the BRB with the wording of "bearer" they are the Fencer's Blades, Sword of Anti-Heroes, and Shrieking Blade. The SoAH is the only confusing one, but I think the intention was that the strength bonus would really only come into play when in base contact with an enemy anyway, so they thought screw it just say "bearer".

The example you were probably looking for is where someone buys the Axe of Khorne for 50 points and someone defaults to the Sword of Anti-heroes for 50 points. Both come into effect when in base contact with the enemy, and I would accept that both do in fact stack according to the rules. I mean you really need alot of characters imbedded in that unit to give the model the 10 str 10 attacks people are looking for, all for 100 points so its not something that is super feasible for the point cost (especially since you are paying 50 points for a 30 point sword to complete the combo). On top of that your Greater Demon will probably be cannoned away before you could even use the combo, so I welcome my cheese overlords from the Khorne realm.

To answer your question about precedent, it works in this situation because the idea of a characteristic bonus and other weapons bonuses like special rules is very very similar, it just makes sense to see that GW intends that the words 'bearer" and "wielder" help separate out when said bonus is being applied and give an example of their intentions behind the rules.

Dreyer
04-09-2013, 14:33
Not sure here but doesnt the Daemon book have a lesser gift that gives the multiple wounds special rule but only for close combat attacks? Can any of the characters that can take this gift actually have a shooting attack? if not, why the specific "in close combat only" if its not for ruling out its effect on spells?

theunwantedbeing
04-09-2013, 15:47
Not sure here but doesnt the Daemon book have a lesser gift that gives the multiple wounds special rule but only for close combat attacks? Can any of the characters that can take this gift actually have a shooting attack? if not, why the specific "in close combat only" if its not for ruling out its effect on spells?

All gifts are considered to be enchanted items unless otherwise stated.
As it's not stated to be a close combat weapon, it needs to "close combat only" clause.

This is to allow the daemon to have multiple close combat abilities (as that's what most gifts are for) without having them all be magical weapons and having to choose between them each combat.

In anycase, one item in a book doesn't not make a precedent.
The old Warriors of Chaos item Golden Eye of Tzeentch used to state that the ward it granted didn't apply to it's mount.
Now, would this mean that all ward items do also work for the mount? No.

Blkc57
04-09-2013, 16:57
Not sure here but doesnt the Daemon book have a lesser gift that gives the multiple wounds special rule but only for close combat attacks? Can any of the characters that can take this gift actually have a shooting attack? if not, why the specific "in close combat only" if its not for ruling out its effect on spells?

As Theunwantedbeing has stated Dreyer, that clause is in there because that Demonic gift (cleaving blow) is considered an enchanted item and not a magic weapon, thus Ward wanted to restrict its uses for close combat purposes.

Sineater81
04-09-2013, 18:54
would agree if it was still worded the same as in the 7th edition ie "Any unsaved wounds inflicted by the piranha blade is multiplied into two wounds" but in the new book the wording is "The wielder has the Multiple Wounds (d3) and Armor Piercing special rules" so its clearly not only when he uses the blade. that's like saying a magic banner that gives armor piercing or flaming would also effect spells which we all know is false .

Lord Inquisitor
04-09-2013, 19:01
Not sure here but doesnt the Daemon book have a lesser gift that gives the multiple wounds special rule but only for close combat attacks? Can any of the characters that can take this gift actually have a shooting attack? if not, why the specific "in close combat only" if its not for ruling out its effect on spells?

Yeah, Slaanesh daemons can shoot. I got all excited looking for a combo with the Lash of Slaanesh and the cleaving blow but sadly it was not to be.

I think "wielder" torpedoes any use of the blade with shooting/magic.

The whole issue with magic spells would be so easily solved if GW would just issue an errata "spells do not benefit from any special rules the caster has unless specified in the special rule itself." Boom. Done, no more issues like the whole greedy fist mess.

Blkc57
04-09-2013, 19:24
Yeah, Slaanesh daemons can shoot. I got all excited looking for a combo with the Lash of Slaanesh and the cleaving blow but sadly it was not to be.

I think "wielder" torpedoes any use of the blade with shooting/magic.

The whole issue with magic spells would be so easily solved if GW would just issue an errata "spells do not benefit from any special rules the caster has unless specified in the special rule itself." Boom. Done, no more issues like the whole greedy fist mess.

Its not just the greedy fist mess (which was eventually fixed thanks to an errata), its nonsense like a Witch hunter being able to sniper and killing blow with a Ruby Ring of Ruin or the Ring of Volens (thats some serious witch burning right there).

Dreyer
05-09-2013, 05:15
that's like saying a magic banner that gives armor piercing or flaming would also effect spells which we all know is false .

well armor piercing spell rule states that it only counts for close combat attacks and weapons with that special rule

Dreyer
05-09-2013, 05:16
All gifts are considered to be enchanted items unless otherwise stated.
As it's not stated to be a close combat weapon, it needs to "close combat only" clause.

This is to allow the daemon to have multiple close combat abilities (as that's what most gifts are for) without having them all be magical weapons and having to choose between them each combat.

In anycase, one item in a book doesn't not make a precedent.
The old Warriors of Chaos item Golden Eye of Tzeentch used to state that the ward it granted didn't apply to it's mount.
Now, would this mean that all ward items do also work for the mount? No.

Alright, thanks for the answer

bigbiggles
05-09-2013, 10:03
The eternal blade the daemons have is ''bearer''. (+d3 to WS, s, I, a,), so it could still work with swift slaying. That's my favorite combo

Blkc57
05-09-2013, 20:05
The eternal blade the daemons have is ''bearer''. (+d3 to WS, s, I, a,), so it could still work with swift slaying. That's my favorite combo

You're right! it does say bearer for the Eternal Blade, thats actually a good combo if maybe still a little too light on protection for your Thirster at 100 points. Really though its mostly the strength and Attacks you want with that sword since the Thirster already has spectacular WS and Init. I kinda still like the SoAH Bunker Buster a tad more, since I see character bunkers alot.

Lord Inquisitor
05-09-2013, 20:25
Eternal blade is really good for a LOC or GUO.

herohammer
09-09-2013, 06:25
Make sure to refer to your LoC running that combo as El Pollo Loco though... Request that your opponent do the same
as well.

donaldtroll
10-09-2013, 10:33
no guys you really need wand of whimsy on the LoC, 2x25 and one 50 makes for a really sick LoC!

ASF and Whimsy + a 50 point roll

bigbiggles
14-09-2013, 03:24
Think whimsy is we older though, so unless you get lucky with the asf gift in lesser its not to be

HurrDurr
14-09-2013, 17:52
Because reasons.

You only get the benefit of your magical weapon when you are actually using that magical weapon.
When you cast a spell, you aren't using the magical weapon, when you fire a bow, you aren't using that magical weapon, and so on.

It's one of those unwritten rules that nobody bothered to write down or clarify ever because it should be obvious.
(sadly for many it isn't)

I don't remember where but it actually is a physically written rule. I know I've read that you only have the effects of a magical weapon while using it "this is whether attacking being attacked etc" in close combat, unless the item says you gain whatever stats all the time.