1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

8th Ed. Piranha Blade/Sacred Stegadon Helm of Itza

Discussion in 'Rules Help' started by Ixt, Oct 15, 2014.

  1. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Was this discussion ever resolved?

    They seem to be intended to work in unison (even leaving enough points for a Dragonbane Gem & Potion of Foolhardiness/Speed) per wording, but are there any conflicting rules?

    I looked through some old posts, but I didn't find much conclusive info.

    Any help would be appreciated, as this is pretty much the last of the Lizardy stuff I've yet to field!
     
  2. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stillllll waiting on that elusive FAQ..... :depressed:
     
  3. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Is an FAQ necessary though?

    I could see an FAQ ruling being issued as to whether a model with the Armor Piercing special rule should apply Armor Piercing to both shooting & close combat attacks... that is certainly unclear.

    However, I look at weapons like Fencer's Blades & Berserker Sword... and it seems clear.
     
  4. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look up impact hits in the BRB.
    I believe they are not alloud any bonues.
     
  5. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't see any limitations of that kind placed on Impact Hits in the special rules section of the BRB...
     
  6. Rettile
    Ripperdactil

    Rettile Active Member

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    28
    we already have something which causes D3 wounds with impact hits ;)
     
  7. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    True! However, each unit is significantly different.

    If these two items can have their effects combined, it'd shake up my lists -- and my opponents! ;)
     
  8. Putzfrau
    Skar-Veteran

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They do not apply to impact hits. Allowing it to apply to impact hits is akin to allowing it to apply to wounds caused by spells.

    There have been faqs in the past that basically state magical weapon rules apply when striking with that weapon.

    Basically, the answer is no. If someone wanted to play that way with me, i'd probably give it to them just to avoid the argument, but i think you have to do some considerable linguistic gymnastics to claim this is RAW.
     
  9. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is the RAW:

    'The wielder has the Armor Piercing and Multiple Wounds (D3) special rules.'

    Right now, there are several weapons which grant the wielder special rules that affect the wielder outside of combat. Other weapons are specifically worded so that their effects are limited to the weapon's usage (such as the Blade of Realities).

    Think of it this way:

    If my Oldblood wore the Sacred Stegadon Helm of Itza, joined a BSB Scar Vet with the Razor Banner, and they charged into something... wouldn't his Impact Hits be Armor Piercing? If it were the Banner of Eternal Flame, then wouldn't they be flaming Impact Hits? The Razor/Flaming Banners and the Piranha Blade are worded the same way, so why not apply the same affect?

    I'll go read the Errata. Having gone through the book, however, RAW indicates that it's legal. RAI is that it's illegal.

    edit: read the errata, found little evidence to contradict these two being used together... found supporting evidence, too.

    One section (I'm paraphrasing) said that 'the Fencer's Blades give the character WS10, even outside of combat.' So, if your character is WS3, and gets targeted by Bladewind, you're screwed. If your character is WS3, but it's WS10 (thanks to Fencer's Blades), then you're probably fine, as the weapon makes you WS10...
     
  10. Madrck
    Temple Guard

    Madrck Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Technically RAW you get D3 wounds. Which means you give it to your slann w/WD and magic armies of the table with a few dice. Like so many things it's poorly worded and should be immediately FAQ'd but this is GW and they don't "do" anything to help fantasy players with rules. No tourney would lets this through for obvious reasons, if it's against friends it's fine as long as they are WC(cause screw that book in general) and agree to let you play something that is clearly strong as almost anything you could think of or field.

    TLDR the character gets D3 wounds, but it should be FAQ'd (no tourney allows it) and only used against people you like arguing with.
     
  11. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I mean, yeah, it's BS that a Slann's spellpower would be directly influenced by any special rules at all... That specific instance should be banned/errata'd/never used, period. Totally agree.

    Also questionable is whether the Piranha Blade wielder's 'D3 wounds' should be applied to ranged attacks made by the Skink Chief -- I wouldn't.

    However, I don't see the big deal with a Piranha Blade/Steg Helm combo... and I still see nothing saying that it's illegal/rules lawyering/stretching interpretation.
     
  12. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yea I don't rember what the controversy was to begin with...
    probaly like you said, the raw shenagans with d3 damage from spells and what not.
     
  13. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gotcha.

    Well, all that said...

    What do you guys think about the 10 pts for magic stuff left over?

    I figured Dragonbane Gem and Potion of Speed (or Foolhardiness, but probably speed), but are any other items worth a look?

    A Luckstone, or maybe even the Torc? Flying monsters seem to be the next big thing...
     
  14. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Luckstone is allways good,
    (don't forget to add light armor and a shield)
    probaly drop him on a Cold one for extra
    armor and attacks, and 5 pts left for whatever.
     
  15. Putzfrau
    Skar-Veteran

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's a thread on here that talks about spells/multiple wounds and an faq was linked that specifically lays it out

    It is not RAW. RAW dictates the exact opposite consider the Faq specifies this.

    It's the same reason impact hits don't receive plus 2 Strength from great weapons. The language is identical.

    If piranha blade applies to impact hits why doesn't great weapon strength?
     
  16. Putzfrau
    Skar-Veteran

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.lustria-online.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14268&start=10&hilit=multiple+wounds
     
  17. Putzfrau
    Skar-Veteran

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basically impact hits don't qualify as close combat attacks. The are an unusual attack distributed as shooting that happens to take place during the combat phase.


    So no, it would not apply, since another faq (also referenced in that thread) specifies that special rules apply when striking with the weapon if the text doesn't explicitly state when it applies.

    Honestly tho, all you need to know is that impact hits (just like breath and stomps) are qualified as an unusual attack that gets no benefits from special rules unless specifically stated (sharpened horns for example).
     
  18. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Impact Hits & Great Weapons are a question of the model's characteristic bonuses. Here is the errata item, which emphasizes the point:

    "Q: Does a weapon that gives a bonus to a characteristic only give that bonus when being used to attack a model?(p4)
    A: Most weapons, including magic weapons, state when the bonus is given. For example, a model with the Fencer’s Blades will always have Weapon Skill 10 whilst a model with a great weapon will only have +2 Strength when striking an enemy in close combat. When a weapon does not say when the characteristic bonus applies, then it only applies when striking, or being struck, in close combat."

    This is an answer to a question of characteristics, not special rules. If you want to extend that logic to special rules, fine. However, to do so is to assume intent, and that results in interpretation.

    "Finally, as Impact Hits are close combat attacks (albeit of an unusual type)... stuff about combat resolution."

    I saw this on the FAQ,
    "Q: Do special rules that can inflict hits in close combat, such as Stomp or Breath Weapon, count as close combat attacks? (p42)
    A: No they count as an unusual attack and will be distributed as a shooting attack."

    This, too, doesn't seem relevant.

    If you read the 'Resolving Unusual Attacks' dialogue box, the section finishes with,

    'Such hits ((from spells & Impact Hits)) are resolved using steps 4, 5 and 6 of the rules for shooting attacks.

    The only exceptions are hits caused by close combat attacks - these are discussed in the Close Combat chapter (page 46).'

    I think that this is simply asking how to handle Breath Weapons/Stomps (as, up to this page in the BRB, these are totally unmentioned) when using them.

    "Do I use rules 1 through 6 for Stomps and Breath Weapons? Can I single out models in base contact? Are these also exceptions?
    No. Just like our other examples, you use rules 4-6."

    I don't see the connection when looking at this in context, but I guess the loose wording could have it go either way.

    I e-mailed Black Library, so hopefully I'll have a definitive answer soon.
     
  19. Putzfrau
    Skar-Veteran

    Putzfrau Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay. Trying to allow Piranha Blade to apply to Stegadon helm is akin to allowing it to apply to spells. The wording is literally identical. If you dont think piranha blade should apply to spells theres no logical way it can apply to impact hits.

    Both are gamey, IMO not supported by any solid rules, nor allowed within any tournament pack in existence.

    I believe the relevant listed FAQs give more than enough information to allow an extremely reasonable conclusion.

    I pulled the following from one of the several threads on a different forum that discuss (basically) the same thing. IMO, its one of the most reasonable statements.

    "P. 73 Multiple Wounds

    "Each unsaved wound inflicted by an attack with the Multiple Wounds special rule is multiplied into more than one wound. The exact number of wounds caused will vary from model to model and weapon to weapon, but will normally be shown in brackets as part of the special rule."

    So, in order for the Multiple Wounds rule to apply, it is the ATTACK that must carry the special rule. The attack can come from two sources: The MODEL or the WEAPON. Thus, both criteria must be met. The model 1) must be making an attack and 2) either the model itself or the weapon used must have the special rule for Multiple Wounds.

    The proposed "dirty trick" fails to meet this criteria on several levels. When casting a spell (magic missile, direct damage, or even a vortex), the model casting the spell is not making an attack--it is NOT using the number in its Attack profile when casting a spell. Does any spell EVER ask you to use the profile of the model that cast it (WS, BS, S, T, I, A, etc.) when determining whether or not a model is affected by the spell? No. A spell inflicts a random number of hits or wounds, or requires the model to take a characteristic test. No attack is made by the model itself. It is the SPELL that is causing the hits and wounds, not the model--the SPELL would have to have the Multiple Wounds special rule for it to apply here. Criteria 1 above is clearly not met.

    And it is very obvious that it isn't the weapon itself that is involved when determining if the spell wounds or not, so the latter part of criteria 2) above is not met. But even if you do believe that the Slaan has the Multiple Wounds (d3) special rule just by carrying the sword (dubious if you ask me but still meeting the first part of criteria 2 above), criteria 1 is still not met. "

    The armor piercing special rule clarifies the attack must be made by the weapon in the rule itself.


    That pretty much eliminates both of them. On top of the piranha blade wording clarifies "wielder" which the character is not doing while making impact hits.



    If you would like to continue to argue your case that's completely within your right, but I'm respectfully removing myself from the discussion. I absolutely do not think this "combo" works, Nothing like it has ever worked in any edition of warhammer (there have been a lot of random examples), and if an opponent tried to pull this on me i'd be unhappy and unlikely to engage in anymore games with that particular opponent.

    But maybe more than anything is just I don't know what more can be said about it. For me the answer is extremely definitive, but obviously not everyone agrees and thats totally fine :D

    Like a lot of things in this game theres nothing explicitly stating one way or the other. If you'd like to play it this way its completely within your right.

    Edit: Just one more quick thing. There is also this -> "By strictly literal RAW, the Piranha Blade is useless (apart from granting armour piercing and magical attacks) because the multiple wounds rule applies to attacks, not models."
     
  20. Ixt
    Troglodon

    Ixt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    353
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Could care less about the tournament scene's preferences, as I don't game with their bylaws. I game with the BRB and my armybook.

    The BRB openly states that Impact Hits are close combat attacks. The Piranha Blade specifically grants two special rules to the character. Is it weird for a sword to give a special rule to a character? Yeah. Pretty weird, much like other rules (cannons).

    Yet, we have the 'Berserker Sword,' which Frenzies its wielder. *shrug*

    Seems like spells have some wording that ought to be cleared up... but I don't see how this proves anything about close combat attacks.

    My roommate (Tomb Kings) is telling me that their Impact Hits can receive Killing Blow, per FAQ.

    The BRB also explicitly states that Impact Hits are close combat attacks.

    The Carnosaur has the 'Multiple Wounds (D3)' special rule. So... it doesn't do Multiple Wounds (D3) because it doesn't have weapons that do Multiple Wounds (D3)?

    I haven't found any explicit wording stating that Impact Hits are not close combat attacks/ineligible to receive special rules. They amended one excerpt within the Impact Hits section to make a wording change, yet left the 'close combat attacks' part in there. Why? Oversight? Maybe. Intended? Maybe.

    In any case, they had the opportunity to address it there - it's where all wording changes are addressed. Yet, the closest ruling that could potentially rule Impact Hits ineligible, doesn't. To assume that it does without even considering the context of that ruling, to me, is a stretch.

    That section establishes that they are close combat attacks, but they're unusual in that they are atypical from standard close combat attacks (hit automatically, cannot focus attacks/distributed to the unit as for shooting, ignores initiative order, only applies on the charge, etc.). The FAQ ruling simply defines Stomps/Breath Weapons as also being unusual attacks. That's it.

    The rulings about unsual attacks receiving benefits from special rules also ignores Impact Hits, which has you in the position of trying to prove a negative.

    There is NOTHING in that FAQ that explicitly states that they don't receive this benefit, and, given that, I fail to see why I should assume that they do not receive these benefits.

    *shrug* I'll play on with this combo. Applying it to close combat doesn't seem like a dirty trick at all. The spells, yeah... it seems like it's legal, but it's crap and should be FAQ'd.

    I'll do the decency of discussing it with the opponents in my group, but, frankly, we've all played this way anyway. Impact Hits receiving Armor Piercing, Killing Blow, Flaming, etc... that's all regular.

    The Black Library could e-mail me back, saying, 'Nope.' too. We'll see!
     

Share This Page