Witchbrew Question

[Archamedius]

So this came up this past weekend in a tournament, and I thought I would run it by the fine crew here.

Say you have a unit of witch elves joined by a Death Hag on the Cauldron of Blood with Witchbrew. Say in a round of combat that unit is beaten. How does the witchbrew interact with the unit (if at all) in subsequent turns?

According to the rules for Frenzy when the witches lose, they lose frenzy as well. The rules for witchbrew state that it gives the unit with the death hag frenzy, or if they already have frenzy, their frenzy gives +2 attacks instead of +1.

The argument my opponent had was that since they lost frenzy, they also lost any benefit from witchbrew. My argument was that witchbrew is like many other items and its something you check for at the beginning of the round, etc. So in rounds subsequent to being beaten, the unit would not have frenzy from its' profile and would therefore be granted it from the witchbrew. I ended up playing it his way to avoid getting a judge (since whenever you get a judge they always rule against you anyways) and beat him soundly without it, but for future reference I am curious if my logic is sound.

Thanks.

Arch

[Calisson]

The rules tell that frenzy is lost by losing combat, however no rule tells that witchbrew is lost.
Therefore, after losing combat (and losing frenzy), the unit keeps the benefits from witchbrew and receives simple frenzy from witchbrew.
Note that witchbrew frenzy cannot ever be lost, because as soon as you lose it, you regain it.

[Liquidedust]

The rules tell that frenzy is lost by losing combat, however no rule tells that witchbrew is lost.
Therefore, after losing combat (and losing frenzy), the unit keeps the benefits from witchbrew and receives simple frenzy from witchbrew.
Note that witchbrew frenzy cannot ever be lost, because as soon as you lose it, you regain it.

Ulthuan.net disagrees with you strongly on this Calisson

[Enkiel]

The rules tell that frenzy is lost by losing combat, however no rule tells that witchbrew is lost.
Therefore, after losing combat (and losing frenzy), the unit keeps the benefits from witchbrew and receives simple frenzy from witchbrew.
Note that witchbrew frenzy cannot ever be lost, because as soon as you lose it, you regain it.

Ulthuan.net disagrees with you strongly on this Calisson

Just like empire player strongly disagree on line of sight for cannon!

[Thraundil]

Of course Ulthuan.net disagrees. They are meak, stupid, narrowminded high elves there.

However, the subject can actually be discussed.

RAW witchbrew:

"This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy special rule. If they already have the frenzy special rule, that frenzy grants +2 attacks instead of just +1, but the unit suffers a -3 penalty to leadership when testing not to declare a charge."

The model with witchbrew has the frenzy special rule. Note that a comparison can be found in the BRB with berserker sword which specifically gives permanent frenzy. So you could actually argue that if a model with witchbrew is beaten in combat, she loses the frenzy special rule offered by the witchbrew. And, at the same time, "all models in the same unit have the frenzy special rule". If for example executioners are beaten in combat (somehow), I would honestly argue that the frenzy bestowed by the witchbrew is gone.

The item grants frenzy special rule, and if a model with frenzy special rule loses a combat, frenzy special rule ceases to be in effect. If the item said "has permanent frenzy" or a variation thereof, I'd be sold on the permanency thing... But as written, I'd probably say that the frenzy is lost if the combat is lost.

But the alternative argument is also there. In the next combat round, the death hag still has witchbrew. And it bestows upon her the frenzy special rule. Which in turn bestows it onto her unit.

The ruling here is not clear, and I suspect a FAQ might clear it up as it can be read both ways, and of course you will lean towards the interpretation that favours you

[Calisson]

Generally speaking, I usually do not seek to maximize or minimize the power of a rule. I try to read what is written and to understand what it implies.
When RAW seems very unreasonable, I advocate reason.

Personally, I would like to see rules or FAQ like below:
1- witchbrew gives frenzy to the unit in which the DH is, and if 100% of the unit has already frenzy, it gets super-frenzy (+2A, -3Ld for frenzy tests)
2- the DH has the same state of frenziness than the unit she has joined
3- when the DH leaves the unit, the unit loses the benefits it had received from the witchbrew
4- witchbrew gives no benefit to a unit which has lost combat previously.

But it is not what I read.
1- is not clear for mixed units where some models already have frenzy and some have not;
- some people don't understand that the unit still can use the unmodified general's Ld. It is the unit's Ld which is reduced, not necessarily the test result.
2- is not clear. I provide my understanding, but other people have understood differently.
3- is written nowhere, and left to educated readers to understand. That's a shame, because RAW lawyers can argue otherwise. Normal players will not object that.
4- is written nowhere and is not supported by rules. That's probably bad writing, but I can only quote what I read.

-=-=-

Let's imagine, for example, that an assassin is hiding inside a unit of WE joined by a DH with brew.
Games starts, the unit has obviously superfrenzy.
Suddenly, the assassin is revealed (rulewise, I consider him to have just joined the unit). According to my interpretation, everybody in the unit loses instantaneously superfrenzy, and the witchbrew effect is now limited to giving frenzy to the assassin.
Next round, the assassin is killed. Suddenly, the whole unit regains superfrenzy.
Next round, the unit loses combat (and frenzy). But the DH has still the witchbrew, which effect is to give frenzy again to the unit (in the same way as the Altar of Khaine would, see BRB p.124).
Next round, the DH dies. But the unit keeps frenzy because it has not lost combat, and will keep it until it loses combat. Bad writing, but that's what I read.

[Kargan daemonclaw]

Calisson

I don't agree with your analysis.
Key quote from earlier in the thread
RAW witchbrew:

"This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy special rule. If they already have the frenzy special rule, that frenzy grants +2 attacks instead of just +1, but the unit suffers a -3 penalty to leadership when testing not to declare a charge."

To me this means
1) all models in the unit have the frenzy special rule
2) models in the unit that already have frenzy get super frenzy
3) models in the unit get -3 to LD tests not to charge, yes they can use the generals leadership but then this is -3 to the test, this is exactly like the errantry banner.
4) since whitchbrew grants frenzy (or super frenzy) if the unit loses combat it loses all frenzy effects. again this is exactly like the skavenbew potion with the Frenzy effect the only possible outcome.

I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that whitchbrew grants perpetual frenzy.

[Archamedius]

I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that whitchbrew grants perpetual frenzy.

Witchbrew is not a one use item. It does not say "At the beginning of the game check to see if the unit has frenzy, etc." If a Death Hag with Witch brew joins a unit mid way through the game, she grants that unit Frenzy or improves the effects of their existing frenzy. so what if she leaves a unit that is beaten in combat and then returns to that unit? How is that different than leaving one unit for another? Which then leads to why does she have to leave the unit and rejoin it for the effects to continue or reapply? How does that help streamline the game? No where does it say that it is a one use item, like a potion of strength. I read it as an aura that is always on enhancing her unit.

If what you are suggesting is true, then witchbrew introduces a tremendous amount of paperwork as each unit on the Dark Elf player's list would have to be tracked for if they are beaten in combat, etc. thus tallying throughout the game which units are valid targets for witchbrew and which are not.

[Dalamar]

I think the crux lies in the word "have" as opposed to "gain"
"have" would mean that while the death hag is with the unit, they have frenzy, and while she's not, they do not
"gain" would mean that once death hag joins the unit the gain frenzy and it is theirs now regardless of presence of absence of the death hag.

This is just to stir the pot a little as I'm still myself undecided about the whole thing. One thing I know for sure (and disagree with Calisson here) The frenzy or double frenzy is gained on a "per model" basis, I'm basing this on this reading of english language:

"This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy special rule. If they (the models in the same unit, not the unit since the word used here is "they" and not "it") already have the frenzy special rule, that frenzy grants +2 attacks instead of just +1, but the unit suffers a -3 penalty to leadership when testing not to declare a charge. (the entire unit, not each model separately, so one model with double frenzy is enough to put the -3Ld penalty on the entire unit.)" (Bolded my interpretation)

Now here comes the part I'm having some issues wrapping my head around and my logic leads me to conclude that in fact, the frenzy granted by witchbrew can't be lost:

"This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy special rule. [...]"

Think about it for a moment. Witchbrew can only be carried by the Death Hag who already has frenzy, so why would there be a necessity to put "This model, [...], have the frenzy special rule" Instead of "Any unit joined by the model carrying Witchbrew has the frenzy special rule [...]"?
This situation can only happen if the Death Hag has lost a round of combat and therefore lost her natural frenzy. Does that mean that as soon as "this model" doesn't have frenzy anymore, it regains it? I'm not sure.

[Thraundil]

Oh Dalamar, nice spot. The wording actually clears it up pretty nicely now, in my head anyway. The DH and any unit she joins have the frenzy special rule. End of story

[Calisson]

First of all, I'd like to stress out that I believe that RAI was just to make frenzy more widespread, and to create a stronger frenzy.
I believe that RAI was that witchbrew would work only in the unit where the DH is present at the beginning of the movement phase (for test) and during combat phase (for +1 attack).
I cannot guess what RAI was in case the DH was killed before the unit could strike.
I believe that RAI was that in a mixed unit, each model would gain either frenzy or superfrenzy according to its previous frenzied state.
However, it is not what I read, and while I can suggest to play RAI, in rules discussions, we need to stick to what is written.

-=-=-

Back to RAW interpretation.

"This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy special rule.
If they already have the frenzy special rule, that frenzy grants +2 attacks instead of just +1,
but the unit suffers a -3 penalty to leadership when testing not to declare a charge."

They are several key words in there.


1. Who gets superfrenzy?
"If they" & "all"
The word "they" refers obviously to "This model, and all models in the same unit".
In case of a unit made by WE and one revealed assassin, joined by a WB DH, let's examine the condition in the second sentence:
Condition: If this model, and all models in the same unit, already have the frenzy special rule
Do all models in the same unit have frenzy? No, the assassin does not.
Some people (including me) conclude that the condition not being met, the consequence is not obtained, which means that the DH loses her previous superfrenzy in order for the assassin to gain frenzy.
Some people (including Dalamar) interpret that the condition must be checked individually for each model, and the consequence is obtained individually for each model, save the -3Ld which is specifically obtained by the unit.
Even not being a native English speaker, my knowledge of English makes me wonder how possibly Dalamar and others could go around "all", in the condition.


2. How long lasts frenzy?
Once the models have frenzy, how do they lose it?
Here, the RAW ambiguity comes from the BRB:
For Frenzy, and contrary to any other special rule AFAIK, there is one additional rule:
BRB p.70: Losing Frenzy. (...) Models retain their Frenzy for the entire game (...)
Once frenzied, => entire game frenzied... unless another rule specifically overrides that.
This small sentence makes Frenzy a very specific special rule, with "start/stop" buttons instead of the usual "is/isn't".
The end of that sentence is a "stop" button, and there are many other stop buttons in addition to that sentence.

But killing the DH, or having her leave the unit, is not listed anywhere among the "stop" buttons. Therefore, the BRB sentence p.70 remains valid (frenzied entire game).
Myself, I would like to consider that if the DH leaves the unit or is killed, the witchbrew effect is lost instantaneously for the unit. But a detailed analysis of RAW can lead effectively to conclude differently (and to make no friend in the process).
With this RAW in mind, people can effectively argue that a DH hopping from one unit to another one could give progressively frenzy to the whole army. A couple of smokes & mirrors? Done!

Full debate here: Witch Brew duration


3. Does witchbrew, as DH upgrade, survive the loss of a combat?
RAW: yes, witchbrew is not destroyed as long as the DH survives.
By losing a combat, the unit loses frenzy (BRB). By having witchbrew, the unit has frenzy (AB). Conflicting effects, and AB>BRB.
I see not how to argue with RAW that witchbrew effect survives the loss of a combat.

By comparison, BRB p.124: Monuments. All units within 6" of an Altar of Khaine are Frenzied - as soon as unit moves out of range, the Frenzy is lost.
Here, the "stop" button is described. For witchbrew, there is no ending condition.


4. Frenzy test at which Ld?
For this one, I've seen people making all kind of interpretations, whereas the rule is clear and straightforward.
First of all, note that it is the unit's Ld which is lowered, not the test result. If the general is around, use the general's Ld, as usual.

Second, note that it is the unit's Ld which is lowered as a whole (but only for frenzy tests, not for anything else).
With my interpretation that either everyone is frenzy or everyone is superfrenzy, it doesn't matter.
But when mixing in same unit superfrenzy and frenzy, some people play that only the superfrenzied models get -3Ld, which is expressely not what AB tells.
In same situation, some people want the DH to test at -3Ld to solo-charge, which is plain wrong:
not only she is entitled to get the best Ld around rather than her own (either the unit's or the general's),
but in addition, as the whole unit is frenzied, the rest of the unit would have to test, too, so let's just make a single test for the combined unit - at best Ld available.

-=-=-

For the end, a scenario made just to mess up your minds .

WE with DH/WB combo charge along with Execs a horde of orcs.
The orc warboss is in base contact with Execs and challenges. DH answers the challenge.
BRB p.102, she has to be moved in base contact with the challenger. By doing so, she leaves the unit of WE and joins the unit of Execs (we play RAW).
Who gets witchbrew effects?

[Kargan daemonclaw]

Calisson
You can't make a logical argument by picking parts of two distinct sentences and putting them together to make a new sentence, that changes the meaning of the sentence. SO you are rewriting the rules to make them say what you want.

I'm in agreement with Dalmar.

In you example, can't a chracter only leave or join units in the movement phase page 97, so in your example the DH can't move into contact so the challanger has to move into contact with the DH or the models engage without moving.

[Calisson]

@ Kargan: disagree. Let me explain why:
In the sentence "If they already have the frenzy special rule...", who are "they"?
If "they" are "This model, and all models in the same unit", then the new sentence made by replacing "they" by its value does NOT change the meaning.
If "they" are not "This model, and all models in the same unit", then who in the world are "they", according to you? Please argument.


In the example, there is no rule restricting a character to join/leave a unit during movement phase, by the way "smoke & mirrors" allows that and it is not in the movement phase.

[Dalamar]

Nobody's going around the "all" Calisson. You need to read the sentence as a whole.
The first sentence has no requirements at all. It just says:
"This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy special rule."
That's it, sentence complete. If this was the entirety of the witchbrew rule, it clearly means thaf this entire unit now has frenzy. Then the rule goes on (totally different sentence) to say what happens of a model (not the unit, individual model) aoready had frenzy before. It's sloppy writing I agree, but that's how english language works ("they" is a gramatically corect way to describe a singular person if their gender is unknown)

Second point (duration of frenzy) I'm leaning towards agreeing with you. If frenzy was meant to be attached to the hag it would simply say "while this model is in a unit, the unit gains frenzy" giving it a clear exception to the "off" switch.

For the third point its essentially the same. I'm leaning towards your interpretation while I believe the opposite was intended.

As gor general's ld. Keep in mind that the -3 will affect the inspiring presence as well because in essence inspiring presence allows you to replace ld of any unit with the ld of the general (just like a unit affected by doom and darkness)

As for your scenario Calisson, the death hag can't leave witch elves and join execs. In this situation you move the orc into base contact with her.

[Sevekai]

I see what you are saying Callisson, but I am not sure that you can make the assertion that "they" includes the logical ALL of the previous sentence. Sorry it has been a LONG time since I took a formal logic class in my undergrad days. The problem is that the rule is written horribly, which we can all agree.

Too bad it will be after the new edition when we get an FAQ.

[Sevekai]

I know that it is an arbitrary ruling, but for what it is worth here is what the US Masters Tourney FAQ says on the subject.

16.2  Witchbrew
If more than one model with witchbrew (or whichbrew + Tullaris) is in the same unit, the effects are not
cumulative (i.e. only +1 A).  The effect provided by Witchbrew only applies to the unit that a model with
this rule is currently in and the effect is lost permanently if the unit is beaten in combat.

[Calisson]

Then the rule goes on (totally different sentence) to say what happens of a model (not the unit, individual model) already had frenzy before. It's sloppy writing I agree, but that's how english language works ("they" is a gramatically correct way to describe a singular person if their gender is unknown)

Sloppy writing indeed.
That makes the interpretation "they" = "any of these models" a valid one.
That does not make the interpretation "they" = "all of these models" a wrong one, does it?
I will change the D.net FAQ to reflect that both interpretations can be argued for.

Second point (duration of frenzy) I'm leaning towards agreeing with you. If frenzy was meant to be attached to the hag it would simply say "while this model is in a unit, the unit gains frenzy" giving it a clear exception to the "off" switch.
For the third point its essentially the same. I'm leaning towards your interpretation while I believe the opposite was intended.

My point was RAW. I will mention the FAQ that Sevekai provided, wishing that GW FAQes in the same way.

As gor general's ld. Keep in mind that the -3 will affect the inspiring presence as well because in essence inspiring presence allows you to replace ld of any unit with the ld of the general (just like a unit affected by doom and darkness).

So what?
The unit's Ld is decreased, not the general's.

As for your scenario Calisson, the death hag can't leave witch elves and join execs. In this situation you move the orc into base contact with her.

While I agree with you, from a RAI point of view, I was wondering what would be the RAW answer to that scenario, which you do not provide.

[Dalamar]

No, I'd say both interpretations are equally valid but the one where you look at each individual model having more merit due to causing less issues.
I think we can make it an official d.net ruling that frenzy and double frenzy is granted on a by-model basis.

What do you mean so what Calisson?
Model using inspiring presence replaces its own LD with that of the general, but it's still under effect of any modifiers it was under before hand. This is already explained a couple times in the brb FAQ (with doom and darkness example specifically).

While I'm at work and can't give a specific quote, characters can't leav or join units that are in combat. Smoke and mirrors is a specific exception from that rule.

[Blackphantom]

may i suggest sending a mail to the GW FAQ e-mailadress...
because honestly, after reading this, i'd be tempted not taking witchbrew just to avoid any argument on to what the rules just mean...

[Dalamar]

it's been tried and tested. Send the same question 3 times, you're likely to get 3 different answers.

[Calisson]

My mistake indeed, the general's Ld would be decreased by -3 indeed.
Q. If an enemy unit is afected by the Doom and Darknessspell,
and the unit is within the general’s Inspiring Presence radius, does
the Leadership value conferred by Inspiring Presence sufer the
modifier even if the General is not afected? (Reference)
A: Yes.

-=-=-

Also, found indeed the restriction p.97 that characters cannot join units in combat, so my exemple with challenge was not a good one.
Let's change the example:

A sorceress in a unit of Execs gets in melee.
With smoke & mirrors, a DH with witchbrew swaps position with the sorc, from a unit of WE.
Are the WE still double-frenzied? Are Execs now frenzied?

[Dalamar]

My interpretation:
Witch elves are no longer double frenzied because there is no such rule without the death hag present.

Execs gain frenzy (and can't lose it by being beat in combat as long as death hag stars with them)

[Kargan daemonclaw]

Calison

the rule is set up in two parts

This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy special rule.

This defines the extent of the frenzy

Then there is a test to see if models are eligable to recieve double frenzy or not.
If they already have the frenzy special rule, that frenzy grants +2 attacks instead of just +1,
but the unit suffers a -3 penalty to leadership when testing not to declare a charge."

In this situation I read they = models.

I see a death hag with witch brew that joins a unit of executioners.
the death hag has frenzy (unless she had previosly lost a combat) and so gains double frenzy from witchbrew. The executioners gain Frenzy,
because the death hag has double frenzy the unit tests to restrain at -3.

[Calisson]

Thanks for clarifications, guys (/girls if applicable).
I slightly edited our sticky FAQ and Druchii.net recommendations.
Actually, I had barely to change anything, the recommendation was already common sense.

[Ilderoth]

I cannot help but think that we are overlooking something important here. The first part of the Witchbrew rule is: “This model, and all models in the same unit, have the frenzy rule special rule.” Suppose a unit including a model with this lovely potion looses a round of combat. Some of you say that this unit, since it has the frenzy rule, would immediately regain their frenzy or (depending on the way you wish to frame the argument) would never lose it. I disagree. If a frenzied unit loses combat then it still has the frenzy special rule; it only loses its effects. This is perfectly compatible with what the Witchbrew rule says. It specifically refers to the frenzy special rule. So, I honestly think that a defeated unit of witch elves (including a death hag with witchbrew) will not immediately (re)gain an additional attack because of witchbrew – they (still) have the frenzy special rule which is consistent with their losing its effects.