Chillwind vs Anvil etc

Have a question about the Warhammer rules? Ask them here!

Moderator: The Dread Knights

Post Reply
User avatar
Count zero
Cold One Knight
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Chiswick, London

Chillwind vs Anvil etc

Post by Count zero »

The description for chillwind says any units suffering casulties may not shoot.

So i take it that this doesnt cover actions in the shooting phase like the anvils attacks that arn't shooting.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
User avatar
Linda lobsta defenda
Witch Elf
Witch Elf
Posts: 8090
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Toms River, NJ, USA

Post by Linda lobsta defenda »

That is correct.
User avatar
Silverheimdall
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: Québec, Canucksda.

Post by Silverheimdall »

I'd have to applaud a Chillwind causing a wound on either the 2 Guards or the Runelord.
User avatar
Lethalis
Loremaster
Posts: 4327
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: wow, who says I have a location?

Post by Lethalis »

If the spell description hasn't changed since the 6th, it'd need to kill the Runelord, not merely take a wound off him since it says 'casualties' (in the 6th edition book, anyway).
User avatar
Count zero
Cold One Knight
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:17 am
Location: Chiswick, London

Post by Count zero »

its says casulties not wounds in the description.

i wasnt just talking about the anvil but things in general that work in the shooting phase without actually shooting, that was the 1st thing that came to mind.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
User avatar
Silverheimdall
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: Québec, Canucksda.

Post by Silverheimdall »

It does not say "cannot act in the next shooting phase" but only "cannot shoot in the next turn", so yes the Anvil could still strike your face in but I was merely point out that ..

1-4 hits the anvil - hits are discarded
5-6 hits the crew

1-4 hits the guards - T4, 3+ armour against shooting, 4+ ward against missiles
5-6 hits the runelord - T5, usually with a super armour save and of course the 4+ ward against missiles.

~_~
User avatar
Bad beast
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:46 am

Post by Bad beast »

SilverHeimdall wrote:It does not say "cannot act in the next shooting phase" but only "cannot shoot in the next turn", so yes the Anvil could still strike your face in but I was merely point out that ..

1-4 hits the anvil - hits are discarded
5-6 hits the crew

1-4 hits the guards - T4, 3+ armour against shooting, 4+ ward against missiles
5-6 hits the runelord - T5, usually with a super armour save and of course the 4+ ward against missiles.

~_~


actually as per the dwarf FAQ, you do not randomize between the anvil and the crew, the 4+ ward save vs shooting is the only protection that the anvil gives
User avatar
Dggrj
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:20 am
Location: Reporting live from the battlefield!

Post by Dggrj »

And the definition of a casualty is one killed or injured, as per your local dictionary ;)
Linda Lobsta Defenda wrote:dggrj is correct
Woot! If it's only ever said once, I couldn't ask for a better person to say it.
User avatar
Furiouscado
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:16 pm
Location: Penn State

Post by Furiouscado »

dggrj wrote:And the definition of a casualty is one killed or injured, as per your local dictionary ;)


That may be, but the character could be wounded, but just because he is injured does not mean he is a casualty of war yet. When you "remove casualties" the model isn't necessarily dead, but could be incapacitated.
User avatar
Dggrj
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 813
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:20 am
Location: Reporting live from the battlefield!

Post by Dggrj »

I'm playing devil's advocate because I think their wording technically allows wounds and they didn't mean it. What a surprise. Casualty's definition says wounded, not wounded-so-badly-as-to-be-out-of-action.
Linda Lobsta Defenda wrote:dggrj is correct
Woot! If it's only ever said once, I couldn't ask for a better person to say it.
Post Reply