PDA

View Full Version : daemons double 1s on break



Lance Tankmen
23-03-2013, 19:32
so any deamons players know if rolling double 1's means the unit gets every wound back, or just those in that combat phase?

decker_cky
23-03-2013, 19:55
Get back all the wounds suffered in that combat phase, then apply CR to the unit to take a bunch off.

Lance Tankmen
23-03-2013, 19:56
AH LOL! that kind of makes it suck

the_picto
23-03-2013, 20:30
Not really. If you didn't lose by enough to drop your ld to 2, then you get all the wounds back and pass the test. Eg. You kill 20, the enemy kills 23, you lost by 3 dropping your ld to 4, snake eyes passes the ld test and gets you your 23 dudes back.

Also, as the rules are written your ld can't drop below 0. So there's a limit ob how many you can lose.

Iraf
23-03-2013, 20:48
AH LOL! that kind of makes it suck

::sarcasm on:: Yes, getting models back for free without your opponent being able to do anything about it really sucks. ::sarcasm off::

Just because its not totally broken, like returning all wounds dealt this game would be, doesn't make it suck.

DaemonReign
23-03-2013, 20:49
Yeah Rolling snake-eyes is pretty good. It would of course have been much more elegant to just say that you get "Insane Courage" because the difference would have been neglible and the resolution much simpler.

Lance Tankmen
23-03-2013, 21:12
::sarcasm on:: Yes, getting models back for free without your opponent being able to do anything about it really sucks. ::sarcasm off::

Just because its not totally broken, like returning all wounds dealt this game would be, doesn't make it suck. what i ment was it kind of sucks as in lose by so much combat rez that even double 1's wipes the unit out, at least thats what i pictured when he said that

Iraf
23-03-2013, 21:47
Yeah Rolling snake-eyes is pretty good. It would of course have been much more elegant to just say that you get "Insane Courage" because the difference would have been neglible and the resolution much simpler.

It will make a huge difference for Stubborn or Steadfast units that roll double 1s. Unless I'm missing something or misunderstanding.

DaemonReign
24-03-2013, 01:21
It just seems very unnecessary to have to do all this 'math', adding slain models back on a double 1 and then removing one or two models due to whatever CR-difference is still there..
At least the guys in my gg immediately suggested we should just count double 1's as "Insane Courage" and then replenish the slain troops/wounds from that phase.
Then again, these same people also suggested to completely ignore the Reign of Chaos table as well as tweaking point-costs in the book to make the internal balance less ridiculous.. So they're a creative bunch I suppose.

For stubborn/steadfast daemons it doesn't matter if they get "insane courage" or not, of course.. Oh I think I see your question now; You thought I was suggesting that the "insane courage" should replace the replenished wounds.. And honestly I would prefer that but in that case you'd have to remove the popping on boxcars - i.e. bringing us back to how Instability worked with the last book. ;)

Kalandros
24-03-2013, 03:35
Snake eyes means you get every model you lost that phase, including characters in the combat, to the count they were at before CC, then MAYBE lose some more.

If you lose by 4 and have LD9, a 2 is a success, you lose nothing more but get everything lost that phase.
If you lose by 10 and have LD9, a 2 is a fail by 1, you lose 1 model after getting back all those you lost that phase.
If you lose by 20 and have LD9, a 2 is a fail by 2 (Minimum LD 0, can't go below) you lose 2 models after getting back all those you lost that phase.

DaemonReign
24-03-2013, 04:15
If you lose by 4 and have LD9, a 2 is a success, you lose nothing more but get everything lost that phase.
If you lose by 10 and have LD9, a 2 is a fail by 1, you lose 1 model after getting back all those you lost that phase.
If you lose by 20 and have LD9, a 2 is a fail by 2 (Minimum LD 0, can't go below) you lose 2 models after getting back all those you lost that phase.

That's how it reads and if it turns out to be intent then it would have made even more sense to simply say that you get slain models/wounds back and get "Insane Courage" as far as the rest is concerned.
Ward probably screwed up the wording though so at the end of the day it will be possible to go below failing by 2 when rolling snake-eyes - but even then it's just not big enough of a deal to make the adding and subtracting worthwhile.
This is yet another multi-layered blooper.

Lance Tankmen
24-03-2013, 10:35
That's how it reads and if it turns out to be intent then it would have made even more sense to simply say that you get slain models/wounds back and get "Insane Courage" as far as the rest is concerned.
Ward probably screwed up the wording though so at the end of the day it will be possible to go below failing by 2 when rolling snake-eyes - but even then it's just not big enough of a deal to make the adding and subtracting worthwhile.
This is yet another multi-layered blooper.

dont see hows its a blooper... seems how it was intended, else they lose more than undead from combat rez

theunwantedbeing
24-03-2013, 10:59
dont see hows its a blooper... seems how it was intended, else they lose more than undead from combat rez

It's people like you who are doing the playtesting and proof reading for GW and everyone else suffers for it.

underscore
24-03-2013, 11:46
What an odd response....

DaemonReign
24-03-2013, 12:04
Yeah a bit harsh. But I had to chuckle a Little bit too.
As badly written as the new book is it's rather startling every time anyone tries to actually defend it.

underscore
24-03-2013, 12:17
Well, that is kinda your 'thing', so that's to be expected. :)

DaemonReign
24-03-2013, 15:24
Right. We're drowning in contradictive inelegant rules ripe with loop-holes and flagrant question-marks with FAQ-wishlists already a mile long but reflecting that this book doesn't meet that standards of this Edition is my 'thing'. (?)

Lance Tankmen
24-03-2013, 20:33
It's people like you who are doing the playtesting and proof reading for GW and everyone else suffers for it.

lol. or maybe you just want daemons to suffer more because of your hatred of them? honestly this whole lose by 20 thing doesnt sound like something that happens to daemons often,nor to i think its being read wrong. As im sure we both agree no stat can go into the negative, and its not roll 2D6 add the combat rez its minus the combat rez from the daemons LD unless they are Steadfast then they test on an unmodified. So unit of blood letters for example lose by 443657(who cares) they are steadfast and there fore test on a 7 roll a 12 and lose 5 models. GASP! thats hows its written, thats how its read. good day sir

Lorcryst
24-03-2013, 21:45
lol. or maybe you just want daemons to suffer more because of your hatred of them? honestly this whole lose by 20 thing doesnt sound like something that happens to daemons often,nor to i think its being read wrong. As im sure we both agree no stat can go into the negative, and its not roll 2D6 add the combat rez its minus the combat rez from the daemons LD unless they are Steadfast then they test on an unmodified. So unit of blood letters for example lose by 443657(who cares) they are steadfast and there fore test on a 7 roll a 12 and lose 5 models. GASP! thats hows its written, thats how its read. good day sir

Just to nitpick a bit, if they roll as "12" as in your example, the whole unit (including eventual Heralds) goes *POOF* :p

But yes, as it is written now, Ld cannot go below 0, and Steadfast kicks in if you have more ranks than the enemy (tricky with 11~14 pts models), so a roll of "2" means every model slain that phase comes back, and then you lose 2 to CR ... silly, but my Plaguebearers have been beaten by 11+ by GW-wielding Dwarves last game, and I lost bunches of them anyway ... not "2" roll for me, but lotza "12" :shifty:

underscore
24-03-2013, 22:32
reflecting that this book doesn't meet that standards of this Edition is my 'thing'. (?)
More that you're a little... incessant about it is what I meant. So being startled when someone doesn't join in seemed obvious.

Lance Tankmen
24-03-2013, 23:04
lol total forgot double 6's...