Druchii.net

Dyvim tvar wrote:It would not be unprecedented for an effect to allow rerolls of all to-wound rolls. In the previous version of the Empire book, the Hammer of Sigmar prayer allowed rerolls to wound and it was not limited to close combat. It was a very common tactic to use the prayer on a wizard's unit in order to get rerolls to wound with magic missiles. Although Hammer of Sigmar is now limited to close combat, there was no big controversy when it applied to everything. Nor should there be a controversy with the Cauldron now. Just play it as it's written--reroll all failed to-wound rolls. Powerful? Yes. But that's no reason to ignore the plain meaning of the rules. If that's a valid argument, that means I get to completely rewrite the Skullcannon and Ironblaster since I think they are overpowered. After all, there was no prior precedent for chariot-mounted cannon that can move and shoot, so there is no way GW could have intended for them to be able to do that.

Isn't the steam tank technically a chariot. Or is it Unique?

Dyvim tvar wrote:It would not be unprecedented for an effect to allow rerolls of all to-wound rolls. In the previous version of the Empire book, the Hammer of Sigmar prayer allowed rerolls to wound and it was not limited to close combat. It was a very common tactic to use the prayer on a wizard's unit in order to get rerolls to wound with magic missiles. Although Hammer of Sigmar is now limited to close combat, there was no big controversy when it applied to everything. Nor should there be a controversy with the Cauldron now. Just play it as it's written--reroll all failed to-wound rolls. Powerful? Yes. But that's no reason to ignore the plain meaning of the rules. If that's a valid argument, that means I get to completely rewrite the Skullcannon and Ironblaster since I think they are overpowered. After all, there was no prior precedent for chariot-mounted cannon that can move and shoot, so there is no way GW could have intended for them to be able to do that.

I was not aware that the old Hammer of Sigmar worked that way. That´s one point in favor of having rerolls for spells, even if it was an edition ago.

I´m not arguing for another interpretation because it would be too powerfull, I don´t know what you get that from, but because I don´t think that is the way it´s supposed to work. I think they meant it to be just a buff to Murderous Prowess in melee. The CoB doesn´t feel too strong, it´s good but expensive. About 300p for a 6++ Ward, MR1, impact hits and a short range frenzy spell. Most of the time a DH to give Frenzy with the Witchbrew should be enough, unless you use a LOT of small units of witch elves.

Dyvim tvar wrote:It would not be unprecedented for an effect to allow rerolls of all to-wound rolls. In the previous version of the Empire book, the Hammer of Sigmar prayer allowed rerolls to wound and it was not limited to close combat. It was a very common tactic to use the prayer on a wizard's unit in order to get rerolls to wound with magic missiles. Although Hammer of Sigmar is now limited to close combat, there was no big controversy when it applied to everything. Nor should there be a controversy with the Cauldron now. Just play it as it's written--reroll all failed to-wound rolls. Powerful? Yes. But that's no reason to ignore the plain meaning of the rules. If that's a valid argument, that means I get to completely rewrite the Skullcannon and Ironblaster since I think they are overpowered. After all, there was no prior precedent for chariot-mounted cannon that can move and shoot, so there is no way GW could have intended for them to be able to do that.

You cannot argument like that. GW obviously does mistakes and sometimes they correct them via errata.

Take the Ogre Greedy Fist for example: The plain rules say that an enemy mage loses one level on every hit by the caster. The way the rules are written you can use that item on a death mage to decrease levels just by casting spells targeting the wizard without wounding. Obviously it wasn't meant that way and got erratated so only close combat hits are affected.

We probably will never know if GW intented to design the CoB the way it is. We could see that they realize how powerful it is though and correct their mistake.

But until greedy fist had its errata, it was widely accepted to work as written and ogre mages with death magic ruled.

Until CoB receives a similar errata, the rules are clear.

Agreed. Under RAW it is clearly stated ALL failed to wound rolls are rerolled.

@Calisson KB doesnt transfer, since the rule specifically says KB only affects close combat attacks unless otherwise specified.

@Forumite Hagtree Fetish from the current Beastmen book, specifically allows rerolling to wound rolls in the magic phase.

@ Liquidedust, STank is a chariot.

@ Forumite & Helle, what is written is clear and allows spell/shooting rerolls.
Now, this RAW seems to have by-passed fool-proof reading and an erratum is not unlikely. If you feel confortable to play what you feel is the RAI, go ahead. Just don't be surprised if other people select to play RAW.

@ Scyloc: thanks, KB already corrected.

Chillblade "Attacks made with chillblade wound automatically."

not "Hits made with Chillblade wound automatically"

A friend and I are discussing this, I'm new to warhammer but this seems to mean there is no to-hit roll or to wound roll. Am I wrong?

An attack has several steps:
- to hit
- to wound
- armour save
- ward save.
For chillblade, the 2nd step is automatic. It does not say that to hit is automatic.
And, for 50pts, that's already a very good tool.

Calisson wrote:An attack has several steps:
- to hit
- to wound
- armour save
- ward save.
For chillblade, the 2nd step is automatic. It does not say that to hit is automatic.
And, for 50pts, that's already a very good tool.

Thank you that makes sense, I was just being told I was wrong

RAW, very uncharismatic.
I will not play the COB's Strengt of khaine like that. First it makes no sense, because the basic of murderous power finds its roots in CC attacks.
Then when the erratta arrive's. You don't look like a complete fool.

What this thread should analys is this:

How can assassins ever be worth taking.
A beautifull new assassin model whilst assassins get worser and worder every edition.

With assassins now having access to full set of magic items, I think they can be built to be useful.

I just need to figure something out

ON the RBT, it is my understanding and the RAI that only the crew (not the RBT) get ASF, hatred (HE), and murderous prowess, not the war machine. The unit has a split profile and the profile for the RBT does not include MP. This is very clear on page 94 of the army book where the special rules for the crew are distinct and separate from the special rules for the RBT. I thought this had been discussed elsewhere. In GT's, if you took the position the cauldron gives re-roll to wound to the RBT shooting you'd have a serious issue with sports.

Ironically, it is less so clear on the scroungerunner because the scroungerunner has murderous prowess on the model, not just the crew (which I suspect is an oversight), so the cauldron within 6" triggering re-roll to wound for bolts shot by the scroungerrunner is RAW, even though it surely should be not RAI given the plain language re. MP in combat.

On the cauldron, even thought the witch crew and death hag come with two hand weapons, the BRB (p. 91) is very clear the two hand weapons/AHW cannot be taken by characters on mounts. For example, warlocks have two attacks and not two hand weapons. I think it is clear that on a chariot this should be an exception but probably was an oversight. Does AB override the BRB given the it is in the base profiles for the witch crew and death hag and the BRB simply is there to clarify that a character cannot take the AHW option and also take a mount option?

I really don't see a lot of rules lawyering issues in the book other than above items (which is kind of amazing given Ward is the author in light of some of his prior work like Daemons book or the old War of the Rings book). Most of the rules items/surprises in the first post in this threat make sense and seem RAI and RAW coincide or the issue ca usually be thought through. The Ring of Hotek language about "cast or target on a unit within 6"" takes a bit to work through but reading it seems to clearly intend and to say if attempts to cast within 6" of the bearer or targets a unit within 6" of the bearer. Also, the miscast on double 1's does not require a successful cast (kind of obvious) and applies to any unit (friend or enemy) targetted. Thus, enemy wizards risk a miscast if targetting an augment on one of their own units within 6" of the bearer as well as targetting hexes, direct damage or magic missiles on the dark elf units within 6" of the bearer. The big thing is that the Ring no longer has the effect on all mages, friend or foe, so you friendly mages can cast away with impunity wrt to the Ring.

The clear clarification/ FAQ issues seem to be> 1. the cauldron re-roll to hit for models with MP rule should be FAQd to make clear that occurs only in combat (also, does that exclude impact hits, breath weapon hits? if done by a model with murderous prowess such as a dreadlord with black dragon egg breath weapon attack or the scrougerunner impact hits since the models in each case have murd.p. special rule?). 2. Does the innate or base two hand weapons on death hags and witches over-ride the usual rule that models on mounts cannot have two hand weapons or AHW?

So I suppose if it's the war machine making the shot (which is the argument against MP on the shots) then we should also use the machine's BS... which it has none so will always miss. The crew is using machine to fire the shot. RBT is nothing more than overgrown Repeater. Or will you deny re-rolls to crossbowmen shots because they're firing a weapon without MP rule?
How about Spearmen? Spears don't have MP rule so I guess no reroll?

Models with MP get to re-roll. War Machines are single models with crew as wound markers. Yes, they are single models with split profile and no, the machine is not a mount (which has a specific exception from MP in the rule's description)

Not that I advocate re-rolls on shooting attacks, I think it's just silly. But the argument that it's the machine doing the shooting doesn't hold water.

BRB is clear, you can use two hand weapons when mounted, you just don't get the benefit of +1A. Making two hand weapons on a mount rather pointless. I believe this will see errata as even the crew comes with two hand weapons base... but gets no benefit from them.

Impact hits and breath weapons are actually easy. They can never be affected by any other special rule no matter what (well, unless the special rule *specifically* allows it)

Interesting, I see your point on the crew doing the shooting with the RBT, kind of a technicality really. I don't really care, I just think that the murderous prowess rule itself makes clear the mounts do not get it and it is limited to close combat so I would simply argue it is ambigoous and sloppy rule writing wrt to the cauldron rule and so clearly stretching the rule to allow re-rolls to hit on shooting as to be unacceptable in both competitive and in casual play. I expect the FAQ to take that issue away, but you just never know for sure sometimes with GW (like was eventually done with greedy fist and certain death magic spells), but given the base rule description there is a "spirit" (as Jervis has asserted in White Dwarf) that even goes beyond RAI. I have better things to do then build an army (RBTs and RXBs around a cauldron) around a RAW rule interpretation that invites an argument every round and earns a bad sports vote (without argument) from a passive-aggressive opponent, even if one could argue RAW on the re-rolls. Furthermore, bunker a witch elf unit with cauldron around RBts or RXBs seems a bit of a waste of witches in some battles. Also, thanks for the point on breath weapons and impact hits (had not looked that up yet and had just thouoght of it).

p.47 Strength of Khaine raises many issues. By the way, I summarized the tough rules issues here.

Issue: Does SoK allow rerolls for shooting?
RAW: yes, including scourgerunner's harpoon, except breath attacks (see below) and except RBTs, as RBTs are represented by a different model as their crew, and only the crew has MP. RBT debate here.
Common sense: No way, there is no military prowess in shooting.
What I suggest as Druchii.net official recommendation: A loophole. Consider SoK works only for attacks concerned by Murderous Prowess.

Issue: Does SoK allow rerolls for spells?
RAW: yes.
Common sense: No way, there is no military prowess in spells.
What I suggest as Druchii.net official recommendation: A loophole. Consider SoK works only for attacks concerned by Murderous Prowess.

Issue: Does SoK allow rerolls for mounts?
RAW: yes, as mounts and riders make a single model. In case of a character riding a monster, it works only so long as the character is alive.
However, for stomp/thunderstomp, it does not work, see FAQ about p.76.
It does not work either for breath attacks, see FAQ about p.67.
What I suggest as Druchii.net official recommendation: A loophole. Consider SoK works only for attacks concerned by Murderous Prowess.

Issue: Does SoK allow rerolls for chariot's impacts?
RAW: yes, nothing in BRB p.71 prevents that.
Common sense: No way, there is no skill in impact hits.
What I suggest as Druchii.net official recommendation: A loophole. Consider SoK works only for attacks concerned by Murderous Prowess, not by automatic hits.

For Kouran's armor: Would a model killed by the rebound effect roll to wound? Or does it die and therefore the hit is discounted?

Also, in a unit with the Razor Standard, would the hits from the armor be Armor Piercing? (Or Flaming with the Flaming banner?)

When dealing with models with multiple attacks would it be necessary to roll each model individually? As an example:

'Kouran is in base to base contact with 2 Warriors of Chaos armed with 2 hand weapons. 2 more Warriors are in support. The two models in base make 3 attacks each and the supporting models 1. There is a max possible of 8 possible hits that could strike Kouran and trigger his armor. According to the wording on his armor though, only specific models may be effected, so only the models directing their attacks at him can be effected.'

I think it's pretty straight forward, but if there is a way to make all hits directed at him bounce back, I am all for it!

Rebouded hits would not benefit from the razor banner since AP applies to close combat attacks. Bounced wounds are technically not attacks.

As for rebounding from rank and file, in your example just take however many hit and rebound that many. You may kill the same guy more than once but wounds spill over to the unit. Roll separately for champions and characters.

@Calisson

I agree with those d.net recommendations.

Calisson wrote:Unexpected discovery: if a DH gives witchbrew to a non-frenzied unit, herself does not get any benefit.
Discussion here

Interesting, my local guys have ruled this opposite.
Guess we'll wait and see if it is FAQ'd

I've spotted a strange one:
the COB has no Ld value at all. Strange as it seems, it's servants have no Ld characteristic.
As long as the DH is alive, or the COB is inside a unit, no problem.
But a lone COB having lost its DH? Frenzy at Ld0! Frenzy autofailed test.
Imagine, joining a medusa, that would be the medusa which would lead, with its impressive Ld2!

Please, no hasty conclusion about with elf servants. But if you paint their hair blonde, I would understand.

Well, skaven constructions have no Ld value either. Still test on highest ld in unit (so don't run solo cauldrons)

I would be really worried about spirit leech targetting the cauldron... or treason of tzeentch.

Also, I just realized that a shrine could join a unit of WE, without risking the 1D6 hits for being non-khainite, just because it is not a character.

Wow, so Kouran is better than I had thought even.

Any thoughts on whether or not a roll to wound is made against him?

Another consideration for the Kharibdyss:
It is quite possible to reduce enemy units to WS0 through combinations of Shadow Magic, Dark Magic and even the Black Dragons Breath weapon.

Enemies so reduced are hit automatically, making them a ripe target for the Feast of Bones.

Another one for the bucket:

Using Lokhir Fellheart to stab someone stuck in a challenge.

As far as I can tell there is nothing preventing you from having Fellheart stick his blades into an enemy charactor who is fighting in a challenge.

Let's examine for Lokhir.

The general rule BRB, p.48 (+errata), is: "Normally a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact. The most common exception is if he is making a supporting attack." and "If a model is touching enemies with different characteristic profiles, or two or more characters, it can choose which one to attack...".

Challenges is a special rule, p.102, providing an exception to the general rule: "they cannot be attacked by any other model for that round of close combat".

For Lokhir, the rule says, AB p.58:
Unless he is in a challenge, Lokhir may direct all his melee attacks against any opposing character implied in the same melee, even if he is not in base contact.

This is a special rule, providing obviously an exception to the general rule.
I see not that Lokhir's rule makes an exception for the challenge special rule.
Specifically, Lokhir's rule is not strong enough to make an exception when Lokhir is in challenge. One would expect that if the intention was that Lokhir could hit an opponent in challenge, the rule would take care to specify that here was an exception to the challenge rule.

It could be argued otherwise, but not with good faith. Possibly worth an FAQ, but an erratum seems not necessary.
I'll mention it nevertheless, thanks.

I'm not sure about this, but does Malekith's weapon allow destroying magic items with magic missiles? I don't have the book at hand atm, but if I remember correctly it doesn't say anything about close combat. It does specify this at the destroying wizard levels part though, so that wouldn't work.

Malekith probably still wouldn't be usable, but at least casting doombolts and chillwinds against unkillable Tzeentch characters would be interesting (they don't need to wound, only hit)