PDA

View Full Version : Black Horror and ward saves



Hashulaman
08-10-2013, 02:37
Okay I didn't see this anywhere else so I thought I would bring it up. I hear alot of bitching about this spell vs Banner of the world Dragon with the biggest argument being since it doesn't cause wounds you cant take the save. By that logic no ward could be taken since ward saves only work against wounds. Ive never seen a ward save taken for any other reason.

Then you got the other side, if it says a ward save may be taken if you have it, then what about the dragonbane gem? That grants a ward save. Ward didnt specify he said "A ward save if he has one" a pretty big blanket of a caveat. If a character has a 2+ ward from flaming attacks, he is still in possession of a ward save that theoretically could be taken against Black Horror given the very vague wording of the spell.

Does anyone else find this wording troublesome?

SVKBaki
08-10-2013, 09:43
In my opinion,something is slain when its wounds are reduced to zero, either by combat,spell, or by failed characteristics test,so taking ward save should be completely fine.
The wording of dragonbane gem is completely understandable to me. Is the attack against the model flaming? Yes - then 2+ ward from gem. No? Then armour save (or different ward if possible, like savage orc shaman with such gem.)

Symrivven
08-10-2013, 13:03
Well I think there are actually two ways to remove a model, one is reducing the wounds to 0 but the other is "removes from play" effects that simply remove a model (without stripping wounds, sometimes very specifically).

Duke_Corwin
08-10-2013, 13:21
Read the saving throw section on page 43 of the rule book. It states that armor saves and WARD saves are taken against wounds (just like the ward save from the BotWD). So if a regular ward save, which the rule book says works against wounds, can be taken it stands to reason that so could the ward save from the banner.

Chain
08-10-2013, 20:28
just sad they turned this rather cool spell into a game breaker.
destroying an entire army with 1 spell is a bad norm of 8'th

Chain
08-10-2013, 20:29
just sad they turned this rather cool spell into a game breaker.
destroying an entire army with 1 spell is a bad norm of 8'th

Lord Zarkov
08-10-2013, 21:15
? against one wound models it'll cause no more damage then before. At least you get Ward Saves which is an improvement on most death spells.

sulla
11-10-2013, 05:26
just sad they turned this rather cool spell into a game breaker.
destroying an entire army with 1 spell is a bad norm of 8'thLucky you haven't seen purple sun yet...No MR or ward saves allowed, and it tests vs a far lower stat in most cases.. Plus, on Elves, they rarely fear the effects of a misfire on their own troops. Plus it likely generates a whole new magic phase for you afterwards...

Chain
11-10-2013, 09:15
Lucky you haven't seen purple sun yet...No MR or ward saves allowed, and it tests vs a far lower stat in most cases.. Plus, on Elves, they rarely fear the effects of a misfire on their own troops. Plus it likely generates a whole new magic phase for you afterwards...

Unfortunatly I have seen it and I'm not a fan, LEss powerful magic and old misscast is more my thing

Dark Side Duke
14-10-2013, 15:11
Read the saving throw section on page 43 of the rule book. It states that armor saves and WARD saves are taken against wounds (just like the ward save from the BotWD). So if a regular ward save, which the rule book says works against wounds, can be taken it stands to reason that so could the ward save from the banner.

Your right that you do get ward saves against wounds caused. That is clear. However, the spell doesn't cause wounds. Also it says that you would get a ward if you were normally allowed one, which you would only get if you were caused wounds by a spell in the case of the BothWD. With no wounds being caused, the unit wouldn't have a ward save normally and would not get the save.

the_picto
14-10-2013, 19:21
Your right that you do get ward saves against wounds caused. That is clear. However, the spell doesn't cause wounds. Also it says that you would get a ward if you were normally allowed one, which you would only get if you were caused wounds by a spell in the case of the BothWD. With no wounds being caused, the unit wouldn't have a ward save normally and would not get the save.

The counter argument is that normal ward saves are only tiggered by wounds. You only get a BotWD ward save when a wound is caused, but you only get any ward save when a wound is caused.

Dark Side Duke
15-10-2013, 12:25
The counter argument is that normal ward saves are only tiggered by wounds. You only get a BotWD ward save when a wound is caused, but you only get any ward save when a wound is caused.

I won't argue that but there is no reason for the BRB to word the ward save section any differently. The only spells, before black horror, that ignored ward saves specifically said so. Those spells also don't cause wounds but rather remove whole models. If I accepted your argument then I would give someone their 2+ ward from the dragonbane gem just because they have a ward save they could possibly take. If black horror caused a wound or a number of wounds equal to what is remaining on the model then I would say that the BotWD would work.

I haven't had the chance to read the section on ward saves yet from the BRB but if it says that you only get ward saves against wounds, then I would argue you wouldn't get ward saves period (Which is ridiculous) as the spell does not cause wounds. Just another poorly worded rule by GW.

Ludaman
17-10-2013, 01:20
Is this really worth arguing about? Black horror allows ward saves. Period. Banner of the world dragon gives a ward save against magical attacks. Is black horror a magical attack? Yup. Dragonbane gem gives a ward save against flaming attacks. Is black horror a flaming attack? Nope, no ward save against black horror then.

I mean I understand how people get to these arguments, but seriously if you're having a hard time with High Elves using the BoTWD, just take lore of life and dwellers below, or lore of death and purple sun. It'll have the effect you want, but no argument to go with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Maoriboy007
17-10-2013, 19:40
I won't argue that but there is no reason for the BRB to word the ward save section any differently. The only spells, before black horror, that ignored ward saves specifically said so. Those spells also don't cause wounds but rather remove whole models. If I accepted your argument then I would give someone their 2+ ward from the dragonbane gem just because they have a ward save they could possibly take. If black horror caused a wound or a number of wounds equal to what is remaining on the model then I would say that the BotWD would work.

I haven't had the chance to read the section on ward saves yet from the BRB but if it says that you only get ward saves against wounds, then I would argue you wouldn't get ward saves period (Which is ridiculous) as the spell does not cause wounds. Just another poorly worded rule by GW.The problem always the utterly stupid "remove model as a casualty" phrase. Why oh Why do they insist on continuing the stupidity of this particular rule. Does Bad Moon simply remove entire models as casualties? Does Skull storm or Wind of Undeath? No , they are perfectly serviceable spells without the need for going over the top and all allow ward saves, did they really need to resort to the "remove as casualty" when multiple wounds would have been fine, in fact my personal favourite is the Maw spell which has that perfect balance between real threat and barely survivable.

Maoriboy007
17-10-2013, 19:43
I won't argue that but there is no reason for the BRB to word the ward save section any differently. The only spells, before black horror, that ignored ward saves specifically said so. Those spells also don't cause wounds but rather remove whole models. If I accepted your argument then I would give someone their 2+ ward from the dragonbane gem just because they have a ward save they could possibly take. If black horror caused a wound or a number of wounds equal to what is remaining on the model then I would say that the BotWD would work.

I haven't had the chance to read the section on ward saves yet from the BRB but if it says that you only get ward saves against wounds, then I would argue you wouldn't get ward saves period (Which is ridiculous) as the spell does not cause wounds. Just another poorly worded rule by GW.The problem is always the utterly stupid "remove model as a casualty" phrase. Why oh Why do they insist on continuing the stupidity of this particular rule. Does Bad Moon simply remove entire models as casualties? Does Skull storm or Wind of Undeath? No , they are perfectly serviceable spells without this lazy rule and all allow ward saves, did they really need to resort to the "remove as casualty" when multiple wounds would have been fine, in fact my personal favourite is the Maw spell which has that perfect balance between real threat and barely survivable.

hellharlequin
17-10-2013, 23:22
Is this really worth arguing about? Black horror allows ward saves. Period. Banner of the world dragon gives a ward save against magical attacks. Is black horror a magical attack? Yup. Dragonbane gem gives a ward save against flaming attacks. Is black horror a flaming attack? Nope, no ward save against black horror then.

I mean I understand how people get to these arguments, but seriously if you're having a hard time with High Elves using the BoTWD, just take lore of life and dwellers below, or lore of death and purple sun. It'll have the effect you want, but no argument to go with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

or use repeater crossbows

Saldiven
19-10-2013, 01:23
Is this really worth arguing about? Black horror allows ward saves. Period.now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Actually, it's not "period."

The BotWD allows saves against wounds suffered from magical attacks. If the magical attack doesn't cause wounds, the Banner doesn't grant a save.

Ludaman
19-10-2013, 04:10
I get your logic. Here are your options as a dark elf player in game:
1. Play the rules as intended. High elves get the save.
2. Argue the "ward save can only be taken against a wound" thing(all ward saves are this way, not just BoTWD) in which case you'd have to disallow all ward saves to be taken by Black Horror, which specifically goes against the wording of that particular spell... Roll off for it each time? Be a royal pain in the bum? Up to you.
3. Don't take Dark magic because you want to rape the unit with the stupid BoTWD, and you want to have a fun game and not argue, and take Death or Life magic instead.

I choose either 1 or 3 obviously, and I stopped playing in Hobby stores and tournaments years ago, so I don't have to worry about this kind of rules lawyering, thank god :)

If you really want to be "that guy" by all means, you are allowed, but in my world, the rules are sooooooo clearly intended to allow the ward save that it serves as RAW to me. There are lots of situations in this game where RAI are pretty confusing and deserve a discussion, I don't feel this is one of them. Hence the "Period".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

sulla
22-10-2013, 03:39
Actually, it's not "period."

The BotWD allows saves against wounds suffered from magical attacks. If the magical attack doesn't cause wounds, the Banner doesn't grant a save.
And which ward saves work against hits that don't cause wounds? Is there any in the game right now?

Ludaman
22-10-2013, 04:09
There aren't. The whole section of the BrB that discusses armor and ward saves makes it clear that they are against wounds. There's even a little bubble that discusses instant kills/ remove from the board effects which says "no saves of any kind are allowed against these effects unless they specifically mention otherwise" how much more cut and dry could this be...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Rake
22-10-2013, 12:21
Except that Army book rules always overrule basic rules. So the ward should be allowed despite it not being clear that slain = wounded until dead (which is supported indirectly by rulings).

Ludaman
22-10-2013, 19:13
Oh no I agree with you. Black horror makes it clear you get a ward save.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)