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

If you do get a reply please, please post it here. But to my knowledge nobody has ever received a reply.

One of the fun facts I've seen is in the ogre book it was never intended for ogre mages be aloud to wear heavy armour. But thanks to the book saying one thing and gw going "eh fuck it" you can armour of destiny up your mage.

 

"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)?"

Strictly by RAW... yes, this is 100% true.



I mean the wording of multiple wounds pretty much explicitly eliminates the steg helm from assuming the multiple wounds special rule.

"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."

The impact hits don't have the special rule "multiple wounds." The bearer does when using the piranha sword. It's why sharpened horns are worded the way they are.

All of this is directly from the BRB. By your own admission this is all that matters. If you're looking for an extremely strict RAW standpoint, there it is. If we aren't looking at intent, there's nothing else that is relevant. Anything else is looking into intent, and if we are using intent, the intention of the various FAQs seems to invalidate the combo even if you dismiss this strict RAW reading for whatever reason.

Unless you can show me where impact hits under steg helm have the multiple wounds special rule, they get neither of the bonuses granted by the sword. Or if you can show me how a model special rule can be attributed to impact hits when the rule explicitly states "attacks with..." and not "models with..."

The sword granting the bonuses to the model is irrelevant when you look at the actual wording of the special rules. If you play with the combo, as i said, its 100% your prerogative, but you'd be applying a RAI reading as well.

Edit: after reading the armor piercing special rule that honestly might have more argument than the multiple wounds. I'd still say no because of the whole "wielder" aspect of the piranha blade but /shrug. I'd be much more likely to let that go without argument. Multiple wounds is pretty straight forward. It either doesnt apply because of the "wielding" vocabulary on the sword, or the model does get the special rule but its irrelevant anyways because the attacks need it, not the model, which is clearly stated within the multiple wounds special rule.

 

Yet, nobody plays it that way... So in a sense, the Carnosaur (simply by existing) would FAQ the Multiple Wounds special rule?

Or, do we now have a model that's incapable of dealing multiple wounds, despite having the special rule?

Does the Carnosaur gets it Multiple Wounds special rule in tournaments?

Hell of an inconsistency, here - if you accept that the Carnosaur model has the special rule all the time, then you'd dually accept that the Oldblood in question/anything else in this situation does as well, right?

Still new to this debate - could you produce the argument?

Again, I get the wording of the rule, but it's clear via Carnosaur that its function has changed.

About Sharpened Horns, I reread the rule. I don't think that's a suitable example, as it's worded that way to confine the D3 Multiple Wounds to its Impact Hits so that the model's regular attacks don't also cause D3 wounds.

Impact Hits, declared close combat attack in its section & unchanged in the errata. Plus, TK Impact Hits benefit from Killing Blow...
Multiple Wounds rule/Carnosaur model possessing the rule.
Errata saying nothing otherwise...

 

The wielding argument is basically the argument behind why something like Fencers blade grants 10 ws all the time and something like sword of bloodshed only grants +3 attacks when making those attacks in close combat with the weapon. (which is further clarified by the FAQ)

Fencers blade uses the terminology "bearer" to indicate that you only need to have the sword to receive its effects.

Sword of bloodshed uses the word "wielder" to indicate that you need to "wield" or be using the weapon in question to get the effects.

Piranha blade uses the term "wielder" to, at least in my opinion, indicate the model uses those special rules when specifically "wielding" or using the blade in close combat. This wouldn't allow things like impact hits or spells to take the effect of these special rules as the weapon is not used when making those attacks. Otherwise the previously mentioned and established "bearer" would have been used.

A carnosaur existing is not in and of itself an FAQ. If anything its an example of a poorly written model, in the same sense that tiktaqto can not join flying units but has a special rule that seems to indicate he should be allowed to. But you wanted RAW and RAW dictates that an attack requires the multiple wounds special rule NOT a model. If you are going strictly by RAW, no, a carnosaur does not get multiple wounds.

However, you are correct in stating no one plays it this way. Just as a vast vast vast majority of people do not play the piranha blade in the way you described. At this point though we'd be talking about intent. if the intent was for the carnosaur to allow his attacks to do multiple wounds, clearly the intent of all relevant FAQs, and terminology dictates the intent of the piranha blade is to allow its attacks (and only its attacks) to benefit from the special rules.

Otherwise why wouldn't this be clarified? Why wouldn't the rules/weapon specifically state "allowed for all attacks" or "grants the BEARER these special rules for all attacks" etc etc etc.


IMO any way you slice it there isn't a whole lot of argument behind allowing steg helm to benefit from either armor piercing or multiple wounds granted by the piranha blade.

If you choose to play it that way then you are very clearly using a RAI reasoning, and by it's very definition that is not fully grounded in the actual written rules.

Nothing you've described here would explain why you would attribute this. There is nothing written in the rules to explain how this attribution would be made. The first and last thing you list are irrelevant and the carnosaur "existing" does nothing to invalidate the existing multiple wounds rule just as our terradon special character does nothing to invalidate the BRB ruling that you can't join flying units.

TK benefiting from killing blow is irrelevant in terms of multiple wounds as the killing blow special rule is worded differently. TK benefiting from killing blow WOULD apply to allowing armor piercing to applying to steg impact hits if the relevant "wielding" vocabulary wasn't used in the wording of piranha blade.

However, as i said, i would have a much easier time allowing armor piercing without argument than multiple wounds. There is literally no interpretation, whether it be RAI or RAW that would allow multiple wounds to apply to a steg helms impact hits.

At this point it just seems like you really really want this combo to work. As i've stated, if you want to play this way there is nothing stopping you. There just isn't a whole lot within a RAW reading that supports this interpretation, and IMO a RAI interpretation doesnt do much better.

 

I have a couple of problems, then:

1. Does GW ever directly state a difference between bearers & wielders in the book/FAQ, or is this all a result of the reader's inference? Is it possible that the writers picked the Fencer's Blades merely for the sake of example? ("For example, the Fencer's Blades...") No mention of bearers/wielders... but there's something else behind their statement:

2. Isn't it also worth noting that the answer was to a question of characteristics, which, as stated on page 4, are separate from special rules (and saves, weapons, etc.)? Is this answer even applicable towards special rules? To apply it to special rules seems erroneous, as the question has nothing at all to do with the application of special rules, and only characteristics. If it is applicable-though-unrelated, then doesn't it cease to become RAW?

3. What about the Sword of Anti-Heroes? If 'bearer vs. wielder' is even a thing (and not a device used to avoid redundant rule entries), then how could the effects of a 'bearer' sword only take effect when 'wielding?' Doesn't that sort of throw the presence of the word 'bearer' into tumult?

Sorry if I'm dragging this on, but I have never once heard a word about this (even having read the errata), and now I'm intrigued.

If you choose not to allow it, then aren't you also using RAI reasoning that lacks any substantiated basis? I mean no offense, but having reread this thread, all of the counter-arguments are based on the heavy, heavy interpretation of two answers in the errata. There is nothing which conclusively states (one way or the other) anything about whether special rules apply to Impact Hits.

Now, aren't Impact Hits close combat attacks, per the BRB? Even if they are unusual, aren't they still close combat attacks? Is there anything in the Errata which clearly states that 'unusual attacks' may not, under any circumstance, benefit from special rules? I understand that certain types of 'unusual attacks' may not (Stomp), yet Impact Hits are never identified as one of these specific attacks, nor are the Stomp/Breath Weapon 'unusual attacks' denied the usage of special rules solely because of their abnormality.

Given that, I don't see any reason to assume that Impact Hits are not aided by special rules. Do they benefit from the characteristics of weaponry? No, certainly not. That much is clear.

Except that the TK ruling identifies Impact Hits as close combat attacks (as Killing Blow only works in close combat via close combat attacks), the Piranha Blade grants the model Multiple Wounds (D3) that apply in close combat (which the Carnosaur also has), and the Stegadon Helm confers Impact Hits to its wearer...

Are we disallowing this, but accepting the Carnosaur's D3 Wounds special rule? Will the tournament scene strip the Carnosaur of that rule? If not, then are we going to accept that the rule has fundamentally changed?

 

You seem to be mistaken as to why I think it doesn't apply.

My reasoning, in terms of RAW is two fold. Wielding v bearer. These definitions are common and available in every dictionary. GW does not need to lay out the definition of every word.

Multiple wounds specifically states "attacks with this special rule" in no situation is the special rule "multiple wounds" ever attached to the stegadon helm.

You are erroneously assuming the since the carnosaur is also poorly written it gives some kind of allowance to all previous situations. This is not true, and has never been the case.

The alternative argument is a RAI. In this situation a carnosaur is allowed multiple wounds because duh, but at the same time (since we are looking at intent) the intent of various Faqs and the actual writing of the item seems to strongly imply the special rules are to apply to the model when wielding the weapon. This could also be stated as when using the weapoj, attacks made with this weapon, etc.

You need to figure out if you're trying to go for a very strict RAW reading, which is extremely self explanator, or a RAI reading. If this is the case you need to argue why you think the intent of the author was to allow this combo using the specific language if the item, similar items and "common sense"

 

I understand the real-world definitions, but I'm still not convinced. Sorry, man. Even those seem to conflict with gaming terms.

I'm not sure what to think, I'm just baffled by the inconsistency within the rules. I think that we're on two different wavelengths.

To me, the Carnosaur having the Multiple Wounds (D3) special rule isn't so much poor writing as it is the 'Duh' that establishes the rule as being applicable toward models (especially since armybook rules override the BRB rules), just as the Piranha Blade grants it to its model.

So, that in mind, the Oldblood now has Multiple Wounds (D3), Impact Hits and Armor Piercing. As such, its Impact Hits (confirmed to be close combat attacks via TK) receive Multiple Wounds (D3).

But, yeah, the wording of Multiple Wounds & its applications don't exactly match up.

Not much point in going further. This one's up in the air.

 

I'll try to elaborate a little on why I think the intent is so clear.

For me it boils down to two major things.

1) all instances similar to this in the past have been faq'd. Special rules/characteristic bonuses apply when using the weapon unless otherwise stated.

2) the chosen language. In exceptions the language is exceedingly clear. "All attacks" or "all close combat attacks" would have been used if the intent was to have these special rules apply universally to all attacks or all close combat attacks. The language used in piranha blade makes no attempt to make this clear while other items do. Why would this be the case unless the intent was to have it only apply to attacks made with the sword.

Either way I agree. There's not a concrete resolution, if that's what you are looking for.

"especially since armybook rules override the BRB rules"

This only applies in the case of a contradiction. There is no contradiction with carnosaur.

It's just like the terradon special character. Just poorly written.

 

I love this kind of civilized debate!

Just thought I could just summarize the discussion so far.

1. Is impact hits close combat attacks?
No
BRB p71, FAQ p42
No they count as an unusual attack and will be distributed as a shooting attacke

2. Can Impact hits take benefit of other special rules?
Yes, from some special rules
BRB p67(AP), p69(Flaming), p72 (KB), p73 (Multiple wounds)
Neither of the instances tells us that Impact hits can't benefit from special rules. Some of the rules only applies to "wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule" (AP), "... wound in close combat ... " (KB). KB also has the wording "applies only to close combat attacks, thus KB doesn't combine with stomp, breath and impact, since they are NOT close combat attacks". But multiple wounds and AP can combine with Impact hits, since they cause wounds in close combat.

3. Can Stegadon Helm combine with Piranha blade?
Maybe
BRB p173 (magic weapons), FAQ p4 (about characteristic bonuses from weapon), LM p62
This is not an easy question. The FAQ answer is mostly irrelevant, since it only speaks of characteristics, but I included it anyway, because it's usually cited.
If you read the entries for ALL the magic weapons in the BRB, there is 3 different wordings.
1. "Close combat attacks made with this/the XX sword have/are +2S/AP/some other effect. They are ALL specific to apply ONLY when using this specific weapon.
2. The wielder of the ... have +2A/ASF. This is where Piranha blade fits.
3. The bearer of the ... have WS10/fear/frenzy
The first is straightforward, you only get the bonus when striking with the sword.
The second is trickier, using the FAQ it only gives the answers to the weapons that alters characteristics (ie the extra attack-swords), but not the special rules swords (ASF, and Piranha blade)
The third is just as tricky as the second, no real difference between them


Probably doesn't help, but RAW I'm leaning towards yes, it does work, because there is really nothing that contradicts it. Except for RAI, of course.
If the Old Blood would have had the following entry in the book:
Stats
Special rules:
Cold blooded
Predatory fighter
Scaly skin (4+)
Impact hits (d3)
Multiple woulds (d3)
Armour piercing.

How would that model behave on the battlefield? Because that is what the entry should look like if he's equipped with Piranha blade and Stegadon helm.

 

Since multiple wounds have to be specifically attributed to attacks, by the strictest definition of RAW there would be no multiple wounds on anything.

I love the rules for this game.

 

Would you argue I could put it on my slann and cast banishment at D3 wounds on my Daemon friend's skull crushers? He'd love that! Can I combine it with the egg and go blow up a Daemon prince? Tell me the egg is a close combat attack! That would be funny, but I really hope, and assume, that is untrue.

 

I think that most of that is legal, unfortunately.

Meh. Looking forward to 9th! Hopefully they clear up the 'Multiple Wounds' rule's wording.

It seems like the Piranha Blade/Sacred Stegadom combo ought to work, but Multi-Wounds' bad implementation holds it up (despite our oddball Carnosaur's special rules o.0).

Screamer, I think that Impact Hits are still close combat attacks.. it looks like that part of the Errata was taken way, way out of its original context. I think that it was only meant to answer a question of how to resolve the unlisted unusual attacks.

For what it's worth, GW didn't amemd the Impact Hits section to strike the 'close combat attacks' bit. Nor do they make any declaration concerning 'unusual attacks.'

 

I am looking forward to 9th as well. I started playing at the start of 8th and can't believe the amount of inconstancy and unclear wording. Since I am relatively new and see this as a huge unacceptable issue with groves of unsolvable debates on the simplest and straight forward rules i can't see how they can't make the simple change of clarity in 9th. Being new, unlike many others, my hopes for future editions haven't be snuffed out yet.

In just about every warhammer rule disagreement, you are arguing interpretation and intent, wording means almost nothing. IMO, I am going to stay away from trying to stretch that rule to anything more than profile attacks on the carno and attacks made with the piranha blade. I like constancy in my own interpretations of the rules and can't allow what the alternative opens up. I feel clearly, it wasn't their intent to apply to spells etc. BUT I do feel like "the wielder has the Multiple Wounds" text is not there by mistake and implies that there was intent for it to go further in some way. And I can only assume that it must be the Steg Helm. The only other thing I can think that it may be intended for is the egg, which seems out of place. Also I feel like the version where the Piranha Blade is restricted to only attacks from the blade is doing the blade and army an injustice and I hope if/when an official ruling is made, that is not it. But in the mean time I am not going to imply the writers intent to anything further than common basic attacks, because the line has to be drawn, and pushing it to even one thing is too much opinion and speculation, I prefer to imply nothing at all. (Other than since the text is there it MUST at least be for the basic attacks. That much at least is clear*)

I like to think, and believe at least a little bit, that this rule being attached to a model isn't a stupid mistake but a direction change in 9th where all special rules are put in the models profile for constancy, but are done in such a way that is clear and wont spark any debate. ::fingers crossed::

* as clear as warhammer issues get

 

I still feel like their is a wild amount of assumption and wish fulfillment apply the multiple wounds to anything but the weapons attacks.

There is literally no part of any wording that would allow this. If anything the RAW doesn't allow it on ANY attacks if the "model" has the special rule due to the very specific wording of the multi wounds special rule.

Does this by extension mean the carnosaur also doesn't have multiple wounds? Possible. However I think this is a much less controversial position so I don't see much argument about it.


Speaking for myself, I would absolutely not he cool if someone pulled the multi wounds on impact hits, spells, etc. It isn't supported by any rules and if someone wanted to then challenge my carno having multi wounds that's fine. They would be 100 percent backed by the rules to do so.

 

Would be pretty funny if they do go and amend the rules, but in a way that ends up with a slann carrying the blade (They are finally stirring and going to war after all). And I can see Kroak or Maz having no problem holding a sword that allows their magic to tear (D3) through ranks and ranks of demons.
We all say this couldn't mean what we think it means, that would be bonkers. But seriously, skullcannons? plaguebearers? Trolls? Throgg? Demon Princes? the list goes on and on about he endless broken as sin stuff in other armies. This would just turn a Slann into "the" preeminent caster again. No question, ranking or otherwise. Slann w/Blade is just boss!

 

Does spells counts as attacks? They counts as hits, yes, but attacks? I can't remember that I read that.
And that would be an argument not to allow slann with blade, but allow stegadon helm.

Why didn't they just use the common phrasing "attacks made with the Piranha blade has the Multiple wounds (d3) and armour-piercing special rules"? It would have been so easy, so straight-forward.

Damn writers and their use of different words to say the same thing just to make the text more varied and interesting to read!

 

Or alternatively why didn't they just say "grants armor piercing and multiple wounds special rule for all attacks" or even "all close combat attacks"



There's no black and white conclusion to be made based on the writing. The only definitive thing you can say is technically the weapon doesn't apply multiple wounds at all, because the "model" having the special rule is irrelevant and useless as the multiple wounds special rule has to be delegated specifically to attacks.

 

That would also be straight forward, especially the second variant. The first one would still give the slann priest problem.