WHFB Hydra sword
Peter Verhoye
Hi,
I'm sure this question has been asked several time, but ... not yet by
me :)
I had a mounted vampire with the hydra sword, armour of brilliance,
carstein ring and jade amulet. I used him as a champion in a unit of
horsemen but he ended up killing several units of the two players I was
playing against. I must say that I gave him Dark Magic (which meant then
Witch Flight and Malediction of Nagash).
The thing is, was this cheesy? I mean, he killed a unit of at least 12
wood elf bowmen with champion, two mounted wood elf mages, two wood elf
eagles, a dwarf lord and his entire unit (consisting of 20 dwarfs) -
allied with the elves, two lizardmen units with champion, and an entire
stegadon with a crew of 5... all on his own.
Is this because of the hydra sword - which in MHO is very powerfull - or
not?
I'm asking because me and my friends are not playing that long and we do
not know if I used the sword correctly: The hydra sword causes 1D6 hits
for each hit. Four attacks means 4D6 possible hits. When I killed a
member of a unit, we let the surplus of wounds left over from the first
kill count towards the other members of the unit. Thus, if I had 10
wounds, the skink unit would have to remove 10 skinks not just the first
one attacked (and if they did not save).
I know that attacks - and their resulting hits directed towards the
champion of a unit may not end up killing the rest of the unit, i.e.
those inflicted wounds would not pass on to the rest, but we were not
sure about the other thing...
Thanks for any help, and wishing all a happy ending of the year,
Kris.
Bruce Vidler
Peter Verhoye wrote in message <34A30A...@skynet.be>...
>Hi,
>
>I'm sure this question has been asked several time, but ... not yet by
>me :)
>
>I had a mounted vampire with the hydra sword, armour of brilliance,
>carstein ring and jade amulet. I used him as a champion in a unit of
>horsemen but he ended up killing several units of the two players I was
>playing against. I must say that I gave him Dark Magic (which meant then
>Witch Flight and Malediction of Nagash).
>The thing is, was this cheesy?
<SNIP>
As an Empire player, I consider all undead cheesy, but this no more than any
other. ;-)
>I'm asking because me and my friends are not playing that long and we do
>not know if I used the sword correctly: The hydra sword causes 1D6 hits
>for each hit. Four attacks means 4D6 possible hits. When I killed a
>member of a unit, we let the surplus of wounds left over from the first
>kill count towards the other members of the unit. Thus, if I had 10
>wounds, the skink unit would have to remove 10 skinks not just the first
>one attacked (and if they did not save).
One of the many "wording" problems.
Your Vampire gets 4 "Attacks" which can be distributed onto 4 "targets".
Let's assume you're attacking Rank and File.
Each time you attack a target, and you hit a "target", you do D6 "hits".
This is the key: You are ADDING HITS, not ATTACKS. It does NOT say to add
attacks or distribute these hits onto other targets.
Therefore, I take this to mean that if you are adding the number of
potential wounds to your attack against the single target. Assuming your
first dice roll is a hit and you roll a 6 on number of hits, you've hit the
figure 6 times and have to roll to wound 6 times. Then, depending on your
die rolling, you may wound the SINGLE rank and file figure up to 6 times,
and that figure would have to save ALL those wounds to survive the attack.
In this case, it's obvious that the rank and file are going to have a hard
time saving against an attack like this. But you are only going to wound a
maximum of 4 figures.
Where this figure REALLY comes to play is attacking multi-wound creatures,
such as the Stegadon (6 wounds). Normally, a figure with 4 attacks wouldn't
have a hope of killing a creature with that many wounds (there are always 2
wounds more he can attack) in a single turn. With a multi-hit weapon like
the Hydra Sword, the potential of 24 wounds exist. You COULD conceivable
attack and kill the beast before it can retaliate.
Multi-wound weapons work the same way. You get 4 attacks (with your
Vampire), but the wounds are so terrible, they count as more than one wound.
If you're fighting Rank and File with one wound, there's no point in rolling
to see who many wounds. If they fail their save, the figure is already
dead. (Remember: Roll for number of wounds AFTER saving roll has been
made.) This bonus is really against a multi-wound creature or character.
The only way to kill "more" figures is to get more ATTACKS, such as the
Blade of Leaping Gold (+3 Attacks)
Don't feel bad. I think we've all done this one at least once before we've
re-read the rules for the 5th or 6th time!
Good Hunting!
Bruce
Loric
Are group called GW concerning the Hydra Blade and how it works. They did
inform us that you do roll your attack dice and for every hit you make you
then roll 1d6. We played this way for awhile but we all considered it very
cheesy. Soon all the armies had the sword it just became a game of who
could charge who first. The sword has since been removed from play by our
group, every one agreed not to use it any more. I hope some more people
will pipe in on this subject I would really like to know how the rest of you
feel about the Hydra Blade.
Doug
In hand to hand a model cannot kill more figures that it has attacks. If
your vampire has 4 attacks on his characteristics list he can kill only
four of the enemy no matter how many hits the hydra sword inflicts. All
the hits caused by the Hydra Sword hit the model attacked by the vampire.
Here is how it should be played:
Vampire attacks a dwarf unit. He has 4 attacks and rolls three hits.
These hits then go against Dwarf #1, #2 and #3. Now you roll to see how
many hits the Hydra Sword causes on each of the dwarves hit by the vampire.
You roll a 6, 3, 4. This means that Dwarf #1 takes 6 hits, #2 takes 3,
and #3 takes 4. You then roll for wounds for these three poor unfortunate
fellows. Even if all 13 hits wound only three dwarves are killed the
wounds do not spill over to the rest of the unit. The Hydra Sword would be
too powerful if it did. All that the H.S. does is magnify the effect of a
hit of the user, it does not increase the number of attacks.
This rationale is used with 4th Ed rules and magic.
Doug Crabb
cra...@erols.com
Peter Verhoye <sen...@skynet.be> wrote in article
<34A30A...@skynet.be>...
> Hi,
>
> I'm sure this question has been asked several time, but ... not yet by
> me :)
>
> I had a mounted vampire with the hydra sword, armour of brilliance,
> carstein ring and jade amulet. I used him as a champion in a unit of
> horsemen but he ended up killing several units of the two players I was
> playing against. I must say that I gave him Dark Magic (which meant then
> Witch Flight and Malediction of Nagash).
> The thing is, was this cheesy?
Extremely cheezy. I play 4th Ed can anyone wear the Armor of Brilliance?
I thought it was only for Brettonians.
Mauro Mazzieri
You are wrong. The D6 hits the Hydra Sword inflicts are all against the same
opponent, so if this sword is used against a unit of men or the like, you
have D6 tries to wound for each hit, but the maximum number of men you can
kill is 4 (I.E. the number of attacks a Vampire Lord have in his profile).
The only magic items useful to kill more men-like creatures are the Swords
of Leaping Metal (Copper, Bronze, Gold) or a additional hand weapon; they
actually improve the number of attacks you made, and the max. number of men
you can kill.
Peter Verhoye has wrote
in the message <34A30A...@skynet.be>...
>Hi,
>
>I'm sure this question has been asked several time, but ... not yet by
>me :)
>
>I had a mounted vampire with the hydra sword, armour of brilliance,
>carstein ring and jade amulet. I used him as a champion in a unit of
>horsemen but he ended up killing several units of the two players I was
> [...]
>I'm asking because me and my friends are not playing that long and we do
>not know if I used the sword correctly: The hydra sword causes 1D6 hits
>for each hit. Four attacks means 4D6 possible hits. When I killed a
>member of a unit, we let the surplus of wounds left over from the first
>kill count towards the other members of the unit. Thus, if I had 10
>wounds, the skink unit would have to remove 10 skinks not just the first
>one attacked (and if they did not save).
Loric
This is just another example of GW screwing up. When we called the customer
service line they told us we were dong it right and that you could kill a
entire unit, it sure seemed like a cheap magic item for what it could do.
Thanks for the clarification.
Tim Hallman
Doug wrote:
>
> In hand to hand a model cannot kill more figures that it has attacks. If
> your vampire has 4 attacks on his characteristics list he can kill only
> four of the enemy no matter how many hits the hydra sword inflicts. All
> the hits caused by the Hydra Sword hit the model attacked by the vampire.
>
> Here is how it should be played:
>
> Vampire attacks a dwarf unit. He has 4 attacks and rolls three hits.
> These hits then go against Dwarf #1, #2 and #3. Now you roll to see how
> many hits the Hydra Sword causes on each of the dwarves hit by the vampire.
> You roll a 6, 3, 4. This means that Dwarf #1 takes 6 hits, #2 takes 3,
> and #3 takes 4. You then roll for wounds for these three poor unfortunate
> fellows. Even if all 13 hits wound only three dwarves are killed the
> wounds do not spill over to the rest of the unit. The Hydra Sword would be
> too powerful if it did. All that the H.S. does is magnify the effect of a
> hit of the user, it does not increase the number of attacks.
>
> This rationale is used with 4th Ed rules and magic.
>
> Doug Crabb
> cra...@erols.com
>
> Peter Verhoye <sen...@skynet.be> wrote in article
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm sure this question has been asked several time, but ... not yet by
> > me :)
> >
> > I had a mounted vampire with the hydra sword, armour of brilliance,
> > carstein ring and jade amulet. I used him as a champion in a unit of
> > horsemen but he ended up killing several units of the two players I was
> > Witch Flight and Malediction of Nagash).
> > The thing is, was this cheesy?
>
> Extremely cheezy. I play 4th Ed can anyone wear the Armor of Brilliance?
> I thought it was only for Brettonians.
It can be worn by any army.
tim
Tim Hallman
Peter Verhoye wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm sure this question has been asked several time, but ... not yet by
> me :)
>
> I had a mounted vampire with the hydra sword, armour of brilliance,
> carstein ring and jade amulet. I used him as a champion in a unit of
> horsemen but he ended up killing several units of the two players I was
> playing against. I must say that I gave him Dark Magic (which meant then
> Witch Flight and Malediction of Nagash).
> wood elf bowmen with champion, two mounted wood elf mages, two wood elf
> eagles, a dwarf lord and his entire unit (consisting of 20 dwarfs) -
> allied with the elves, two lizardmen units with champion, and an entire
> stegadon with a crew of 5... all on his own.
> Is this because of the hydra sword - which in MHO is very powerfull - or
> not?
> not know if I used the sword correctly: The hydra sword causes 1D6 hits
> for each hit. Four attacks means 4D6 possible hits. When I killed a
> member of a unit, we let the surplus of wounds left over from the first
> kill count towards the other members of the unit. Thus, if I had 10
> wounds, the skink unit would have to remove 10 skinks not just the first
> one attacked (and if they did not save).
> I know that attacks - and their resulting hits directed towards the
> champion of a unit may not end up killing the rest of the unit, i.e.
> those inflicted wounds would not pass on to the rest, but we were not
> sure about the other thing...
>
> Thanks for any help, and wishing all a happy ending of the year,
>
> Kris.
Just so you know, even if it's magic armor, a wizard cannot cast spells
wearing it, unless there is a specific rules provision allowing it. In
the cas of the Armor of Brilliance and for vampires, there is no
existing rule allowing this.
tim
violatre
Your vampire was cheesed out. You cannot cast spells if you use armour
of any kind, let alone stuff restricted to the bret army. The hydra
sword multiplies the hits against each model you have originally hit.
So, if you call you are dividing between
two enemy models, all those extra hits affect only those two models, not
the unit.
Joël
Hi,
1. Your Vampire seems to have "a lot" of magical items....Armour of
Brilliance, Ring of Carstein, Jade Amulet, Hydra sword.....
2. Dark Magic : Your Vampire is very "lucky" to receice these spells each
time.....Don't forget, in Dark Magic, you can NOT choose your spells.....
Hydra sword, it works as you have done it.
Hope I help
Joėl
pannkaiser
. I hope some more people
>will pipe in on this subject I would really like to know how the rest of you
>feel about the Hydra Blade.
Don't dump it, just use it like it's supposed to be used. I asked the
roolzboyz about the same thing and they explained it the same way as
discussed in some of the earlier posts.
>
>
pannkaiser
----------*$#!resist spam!#$*----------
remove "?" from e-mail address to reply
Bruce Vidler
pannkaiser wrote in message <34a4843...@208.25.63.251>...
>. I hope some more people
>>will pipe in on this subject I would really like to know how the rest of
you
>>feel about the Hydra Blade.
>
>
>
>Don't dump it, just use it like it's supposed to be used. I asked the
>roolzboyz about the same thing and they explained it the same way as
>discussed in some of the earlier posts.
Which brings up the question: "Which Roolzboyz did YOU ask?" (Both of
you!)
This is a pet peeve of mine. Everybody claims to have talked to "someone at
GW and they say..." yet when you compare the results, they're ALL
contradictory.
My opinion: RE-READ the RULES CAREFULLY!!! discuss any problems
before/during/after a game with SEVERAL players. Then make a GROUP decision
if everyone cannot agree.
Reason?
Some "Official" rulings I've come across:
1) Lizards CAN survive a direct cannon hit on a six (re: unmodified
saving!) (Rules clearly state that "no save permitted" weapons cannot be
saved this way in the Lizard army book).
2) You CAN/CANNOT shoot from a chariot/tank/other war machine if it moves.
(Depends on who you last talked to.)
Plus Epic, Plus 40k, plus any other game they've made.
We (usually) are mature enough to work out agreements or roll for it.
Genocide
Doug wrote in message <01bd12f0$9c3df8c0$0e53...@crabbd.erols.com>...
>
>In hand to hand a model cannot kill more figures that it has attacks. If
>your vampire has 4 attacks on his characteristics list he can kill only
>four of the enemy no matter how many hits the hydra sword inflicts. All
>the hits caused by the Hydra Sword hit the model attacked by the vampire.
>
>Here is how it should be played:
>
> Vampire attacks a dwarf unit. He has 4 attacks and rolls three hits.
>These hits then go against Dwarf #1, #2 and #3. Now you roll to see how
>many hits the Hydra Sword causes on each of the dwarves hit by the vampire.
> You roll a 6, 3, 4. This means that Dwarf #1 takes 6 hits, #2 takes 3,
>and #3 takes 4. You then roll for wounds for these three poor unfortunate
>fellows. Even if all 13 hits wound only three dwarves are killed the
>wounds do not spill over to the rest of the unit. The Hydra Sword would be
>too powerful if it did. All that the H.S. does is magnify the effect of a
>hit of the user, it does not increase the number of attacks.
OK guys heres another poser for you. You have the leader of each unit in
front, can you single out the leader? Because not much can withstand as
many hits as the hydra sword can dish out. OK say my black Orc general wipes
out the leader of an enemy unit, does the unit automatically take a break
test if they aren't within 12' of the army general?
"Pain is weakness, leaving the body..."
http://www.ecsis.net/~cyberj
Orcs and Goblins Army
http://www.ecsis.net/~cyberj/orcs/
Genocide
Reaver9474
<<OK guys heres another poser for you. You have the leader of each unit in
front, can you single out the leader? Because not much can withstand as many
hits as the hydra sword can dish out. OK say my black Orc general wipes out the
leader of an enemy unit, does the unit automatically take a break test if they
aren't within 12' of the army general?>>
No,i don't know where you got this idea because there is no such rule as this.
At least not that i've ever seen. The "leader" model is just the same as a
regular rnf member. No different stats, equipment, etc. Unless you have a
unit champion as the "leader". But regardless of who you kill you only take a
break test unless you lose combat.
Brad
webpage: http://members.aol.com/Reaver9474/index.html
"If we deny love that is giving to us, if we refuse to give love because we
fear the pain of loss, then our lives will be empty, our loss greater"
-Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickmen
Billabong
Ok.....scary thought here - Chaos Lord Of Khorne with Hydra Sword!!
(!!Shiver!!)
S5 and can take that Khorne gift that trebles Attacks if i remember
correctly.........Cheesy!!
--
--------------------------------------------------
Ive got a lovely bunch of coconuts.....
James Terry Shipman
Use some common sense to figure it out yourself. Should a 75pt. magic
weapon enable your Vamp to kill "unit of at least 12 wood elf bowmen with
champion, two mounted wood elf mages, two wood elf eagles, a dwarf lord and
lizardmen units with champion, and an entire
have asked the question in the first place.
For all it's tendency to be totally inconsistent, GW has been pretty
consistent when ruling on this one. You cannot kill more models in hth than
you have attacks. Each __model__ hit by the Hydra Sword receives 1d6 hits.
If that is more than is required to kill the model, then the excess hits are
wasted.
Cthulu 999
>For all it's tendency to be totally inconsistent, GW has been pretty
>consistent when ruling on this one. You cannot kill more models in hth than
>you have attacks. Each __model__ hit by the Hydra Sword receives 1d6 hits.
>If that is more than is required to kill the model, then the excess hits are
>wasted.
Ok, this is the problem with this ruling. In WHFB fifth edition, I don't hit
models, I hit units. Therefore, each hit against the unit does 1d6 hits. The
fact of the matter is, GW changed this rule from fourth to fifth edition, they
had to change 3 rulings in the book and card to do so, and did.
Dan
PS. Don't call me a powergamer, we play 60 point max. magic item costs in our
group, but the fact of the matter is this item changed how it works and is
still less powerful than the forbidden rod.
Reaver9474
<<Ok, this is the problem with this ruling. In WHFB fifth edition, I don't hit
models, I hit units. Therefore, each hit against the unit does 1d6 hits. The
fact of the matter is, GW changed this rule from fourth to fifth edition, they
had to change 3 rulings in the book and card to do so, and did.>>
I'm sorry but where do you get this from? Please quote where you think this is
the new rule that you attack units, because i've not seen this. You shoot at
units but you still attack models.
Cthulu 999
>I'm sorry but where do you get this from? Please quote where you think this
>is
>the new rule that you attack units, because i've not seen this. You shoot at
>units but you still attack models.
>
>
Page 38 of the rulebook - "Removing Casualties - Close combat casualties are
removed in the same way as shooting casualties..." and furthur on "Excess
casualties - It can sometimes happen that a unit causes more casualties than
there are enemy models in base contact. When this happens the excess
casualties are removed as normal. " If you choose to attack a character with
the hydra sword, then the overkill rule applies that the excess wound apply to
the combat result but no other models are killed, but if you attack a unit, any
wounds caused are removed as casualties, period.
Dan
James Terry Shipman
Cthulu 999 wrote:
> Ok, this is the problem with this ruling. In WHFB fifth edition, I don't hit
> models, I hit units. Therefore, each hit against the unit does 1d6 hits. The
> fact of the matter is, GW changed this rule from fourth to fifth edition, they
> had to change 3 rulings in the book and card to do so, and did.
>
> Dan
>
> PS. Don't call me a powergamer, we play 60 point max. magic item costs in our
> group, but the fact of the matter is this item changed how it works and is
> still less powerful than the forbidden rod.
Where did you get this idea: "In WHFB fifth edition, I don't hit models, I hit
units."? That is so far out in left field that I cannot even begin to comprehend
how you think that it is true.
Combat is, for the most part, conducted EXACTLY the same in the 5th Ed. as in the
4th Ed. The close combat section in the Rulebook (pg.32-45) is explicit. Your
"models" attack the enemy "models". You may divide your attack between two
different enemy "models". You must state which "models" you are attacking prior
to rolling to hit. Each "model's" armor save is based on the armor the "model"
is wearing and the S of your "model's" attack. It goes on and on. The damage you
do to his "models" may affect his entire unit, but that was true in 4th Ed. also.
Any time that you hit something in hth combat, you are hitting one single model.
For instance, say your guy with the Hydra Sword and A4 is attacking a unit that
has already been whittled down to a Champ and 4 RNF. According to the Rulebook,
you've got to state exactly how many hits you are putting on RNF and how many you
are putting on the Champ. If you are not in base contact with either a RNF model
or the Champ, then you cannot attack that type of model. If you are in base
contact with RNF and attack them, a fresh RNF "model" is assumed to step up into
the gap you create, allowing you to attack a new "model". If you put all 4
attacks on the Champ (absent a challenge) and the 1st attack kills him, then the
additional attacks are wasted.
Show me anything in the Rulebooks that contradicts this (as a general rule, not as
a one-time exception), then I'll concede that you fight with "units" and not
individual "models" in hth combat. I'd also be interested in seeing exactly what
rule changes you are talking about from 4th to 5th Ed. I have both Rulebooks, so
feel free to give me page numbers of the corresponding rules in both if they are
available to you. If not, please describe the rule well enough so I can locate
it in both Ed.
I imagine that they changed the wording on the Hydra Sword card because they felt
that it was unnecessary to explain that any excess wounds on an individual model
are wasted, since that fact is already explicitly stated in more than one place in
the the main Rulebook and in the Magic supplement. Since the Hydra Sword only
multiplies the hits done to an individual model (because that is what you were
swinging at on that particular attack, not an entire unit!), that rule (excess
wounds) takes care of the problem totally. Obviously they were wrong to omit the
totally redundant clarification from the card, because there are people like you
out there.
Finally, used by your interpretation, THE HYDRA SWORD IS FAR MORE POWERFUL than
the Forbidden Rod. Show me one spell in the Waaaugh Deck that can be used to kill
a Dwarven Lord and his entire 20+ retinue of Dwarves in one turn, even with the
Forbidden Rod. Yet a Savage Orc Hero with your Hydra Sword could easily do it.
In fact, there are __no__ spells that, even when cast with the Forbidden Rod, can
destroy a large unit as fast as a frenzied Khorne Lord with your Hydra Sword
could. Under your skewed interpretation of the Hydra Sword's abilities, such a
Chaos Lord could possibly attack up to 60 different models in a single combat turn
and would attack an average of 35 models per turn. Take a reality check if you
think that is less powerful than the Forbidden Rod.
Reaver9474
<<Page 38 of the rulebook - "Removing Casualties - Close combat casualties are
removed in the same way as shooting casualties..." and furthur on "Excess
casualties - It can sometimes happen that a unit causes more casualties than
there are enemy models in base contact. When this happens the excess
casualties are removed as normal. " If you choose to attack a character with
the hydra sword, then the overkill rule applies that the excess wound apply to
the combat result but no other models are killed, but if you attack a unit,
any wounds caused are removed as casualties, period.>>
Sorry i think you are wrong. The quoted passage just means you can wade in
with multiple attacks IMO. It doesn't say a model can kill more attacks...
There is no way the hydra sword is fair at 75 if you play it your way, khorne
lords would average 20kills against most empire infanry (that's an average, not
the max). You are also wrong about the overkill... that ONLY applies in
challenges, not every time you attack a character. Sorry i still think you are
wrong you can only kill as many models as you have attacks.
Cthulu 999
Ok, lets run through a round of combat and see how it runs according to the
rules and see if my ruling is wrong. Let's take a chaos lord of Khorne, 'cause
that's the nastiest combination. I charge a unit of RNF. I declare all of my
attacks on the RNF. I roll to hit for 10 attacks, needing 3+. I hit 1-10
times, averaging 6.66. Now, the Hydra Blade says every hit is 1d6 hits. I
roll the hits, getting 6-60 hits, averaging 24, rounding. Now, I roll to
wound, assuming S5 on T3, I wound 20 times. Now, the RNF make their armor
save, and casualties are removed from the back, wading in allows me to kill the
number of RNF that I do wounds.
Now, if someone can give me a specific 5th edition rule that makes the above
incorrect, please let me know, but I have read the rules multiple times, as
have much of my gaming group and we have been unable to find a flaw. Now, is
this too powerful, yes. Is it unbeatable, no. Crown of Command on a
character, and that unit rolls a break test on a 10 and stays. Black Gem of
Gnar on a character, and that 376+ point character is mostly useless. Etc,
etc, etc. Of course, my group has eliminated the possibility of this by
playing 60 points max - no Black Gem. It really eliminates the cheesiness, as
do the basic campaign rules, IMHO. I hate to keep this thread going on and on,
but the wading rule is the reason that this item gained so much power, and why
they changed the item card, description, and clarification paragraph that deals
w/ multiple 'wound' swords to not say the sword only kills the number of models
you attack.
Dan
Terry O'Brien
OK, we'lll do this one more time...
> Ok, lets run through a round of combat and see how it runs according to
the
> rules and see if my ruling is wrong. Let's take a chaos lord of Khorne,
'cause
> that's the nastiest combination. I charge a unit of RNF. I declare all
of my
> attacks on the RNF. I roll to hit for 10 attacks, needing 3+. I hit
1-10
> times, averaging 6.66.
STOP HERE!!! NOW those hits are allocated to models. We'll call them RNF
A-F. NOW multiply the hits ON THE MODELS, not on the unit. RNF A-F are hit
1d6 times each.
Now continue with your wounds etc., but notice that, though you may kill
some models REALLY dead (wounding a poor RNF 6 times will do that) you only
kill 6 of them max.
Now whether all those additional wounds count towards combat resolution is
debatable, but under 5th edition rules I think they are. This is VERY bad,
as I discovered to my dismay this weekend, when my unit of 15 Questing
Knights were broken while suffering NO wounds. They inflicted 5 wounds on
the enemy, but unfortunately the Vampire leading the opposing unit totally
destroyed a poor Knight champion (inflicting 9 wounds on him) and the
battle-hardened Questing knights were quite distraught, fleeing
momentarily, before being trod under the iron-shod hooves of the wight
cavalry. Very bad.
Terry
--
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb."
-Dark Helmet, SPACEBALLS
Reaver9474
<<Now whether all those additional wounds count towards combat resolution is
debatable, but under 5th edition rules I think they are. This is VERY bad, as I
discovered to my dismay this weekend, when my unit of 15 Questing Knights were
broken while suffering NO wounds. They inflicted 5 wounds on the enemy, but
unfortunately the Vampire leading the opposing unit totally
destroyed a poor Knight champion (inflicting 9 wounds on him) and the
battle-hardened Questing knights were quite distraught, fleeing
momentarily>>
Actually you played it wrong. Ecess wounds ONLY apply in challenges. So in
this case the vampire did 1 wound to your champion (because that's all he had)
the other 8 were wasted. So you should've won combat by 4 not lost it by 4.
If the vampire and your champion had fought a challenge then yes the extra
wounds DO count. But only if a challenge is fought. Otherwise any wounds you
do to a model past the number needed to kill it are wasted.
Cthulu 999
>STOP HERE!!! NOW those hits are allocated to models. We'll call them RNF
>A-F. NOW multiply the hits ON THE MODELS, not on the unit. RNF A-F are hit
>1d6 times each.
OK, tell me the rule book and page number where you get this interpretation.
It doesn't exist in 5th edition. I would gladly concede that you are right if
you can tell where this is. If the Hydra Blade did 1d6 wounds per hit it
would, but there is no rule that gives the interpretation you've given.
Dan
pannkaiser
You aren't allowed to reallocate the hits after you originally strike.
We were playing the way you mention and we found it terribly abusive.
I asked the roolzbooyz what should be done and they responded with
this:
From: Roolzboyz <Rool...@Games-Workshop.com>
To: kai...@jps.net
Subject: RE: Hydra Sword
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:53:53 -0500
Joe Sleboda
Games Workshop USA Customer Service
Give us a call! 1-800-492-8820
And visit the Games Workshop Web Site:
http://www.games-workshop.com
Note: please send Rules Questions to
rool...@games-workshop.com
And all other mail to:
cust...@games-workshop.com
Disclaimer: All answers are *unofficial* until they appear in White
Dwarf,
etc!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kai...@jps.net [SMTP:kai...@jps.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 1997 2:02 AM
> To: Roolzboyz
> Subject: Hydra Sword
>
> This question should be on the Q&A page in WD.
> Can a hydra sword's multiplied hits kill multiple targets or can each
> d6
> only be applied to one target? With the way it's currently written and
> character with a number of attacks (Witch elf hero, Slann, Necromancer
> Lord, Plague priest etc.) can kill an entire regiment in a turn with
> 15-30
> hits. It used to only be able to kill on troop per original hit. Which
> way
> is it?
===> Each hit becomes d6 hits. That does not mean you get to
re-allocate the hits. If A model gets hit twice THAT model takes 2d6
hits instead. The hits do not go out to other models. This is better
than attacks which do d6 wounds because each hit must be saved,
whereas
one save will negate all the d6 wounds on the latter type of weapon.
>>>>>NOw I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation of the
actual print but it's insane to use it the other way. It's just too
damn powerful. Maybe if it was 150 pts. but we'll just stick with the
roolzboyz version for fairness sake.
James Terry Shipman
Cthulu 999 wrote:
>>If you are in base contact with RNF and attack them, a fresh RNF "model"
"model".<<
>>From this text right here, my interpretation is correct ect. >>snip
irrelevant verbiage<< Then, I roll my d6 per hit and average 23.3
hits. Now I have to wound, with a S5 lord, T3 unit, that is 19.4 wounds,
minus the saves. At this point in the combat, the wounds are applied to the
unit.<<
No, this is exactly where we differ. You claim that the "extra" hits from
the Hydra Sword are spread about the unit. I claim that the "extra" hits
from the Hydra Sword, just like the extra wounds from a multiple wound
weapon, all go on the model that you strike. I think that not only logic,
but the Rulebook supports my claim:
#1. Note carefully what the Rule on "wading in" on page 63 of the 5th
Edition Rulebook says: "... if a character has, say, 4 attacks and is only
facing 2 enemy models then his attacks are worked out against the 2 models
he is facing...".
The rule doesn't even mention "hits" or "wounds", just "attacks". In other
words, you are only allowed wade in if you have more "attacks" than you have
opponents in base-to base contact. If you only have 2 "attacks", it does
not matter if you can cause 4000 "hits" or "wounds" with each one of those
"attacks", you can only kill those 2 models
that are in base contact because you cannot wade in.
#2. The Rulebook goes on to say: "...if the character scores sufficient
wounds to slay 3 or 4 models then the enemy loses 3 or 4 models, not just
2...".
Note that it does not say "...if the character scores sufficient wounds to
kill more than 2 enemy models, then the enemy loses as many models as
wounds were scored..." Why did it just say 3 or 4 models are killed?
Because the character given in the example had only 4 attacks, so he could
only possibly "wade in" enough to attack and kill 4 figures. Period.
#3. Note that page 63 also specifically says that the attacks are worked
out against specific models, not against the unit as a whole. This is the
entire reason that hits multiple wound weapons used on RNF do not, in 4th of
5th Edition, kill more models than the weilder has attacks. Since each
"attack" is worked out against a single specific
model, all "hits" or "wounds" from that attack only go against that specific
model.
#4. Look at the description given for multiple wound/multiple hit weapons
given on page 32 of the Warhammer Magic book. It describes multiple
wound/multiple hit weapons as the flip-sides of the same coin. The only
difference described between the two is that the armor save is taken after
the hit on the model is multiplied with the Hydra Sword (so several must be
made), rather than prior to multiplying the wounds as with the multiple
wound weapons (so only 1 must be made). That is the only distinction made in
the description! The multiple hits from the Hydra Sword are inflicted only
on the "model" attacked: just like with normal attacks, just like with
multiple wound weapons.
I agree that the item is way too powerful, but playing w/o limits on magic
item costs, it is easy to get around. Black Gem of Gnar, Forbidden Rod w/
just about any spell deck and a good draw can hold up the character to
reduce his damage.
Oh please!!! First you say that the Forbidden Rod is horrible cheese, then
you say that it can be used to counter the Hydra Sword. I guess you're
advocating fighting cheese with cheese. Boy, that sounds like a lot of fun!
(NOT)
Besides, magic items are kept secret at the beginning of the game. By the
time you find out which one of the Khorne characters, or Witch Elf
characters, or Savage Orc characters, or Brettonian characters (with the
Tress of Isoulde) has the Hydra Sword, it will be too late to stop it with
the Black Gem or to throw a spell on it with the Forbidden Rod. It'll take
dumb, blind luck for you to get the right character prior to your first
large unit dying a horrible death. Then it'll take more dumb luck for your
Black Gem bearer to be unengaged or your Forbidden Rod bearer to be in spell
range when you finally figure out whose got the Hydra Sword.
Finally, this is all utterly irrelevant, since it's simply your
overenthusiastic interpretation of the powers of the Hydra Sword that makes
it so powerful in the first place. Use it correctly, and you can save that
Black Gem bearer to take out Dragons and Slann Mage Priests like the good
Lord intended!!! ;-)
Please tell me where the logic in my above reading of how combat works is
wrong if you can, but it isn't.
So why even try? I answered your post originally because I thought you were
sincerely asking for commentary on your interpretation. Now you state that,
in your opinion (make that, "your definately flawed opinion"), there is no
possibility that your interpretation is wrong!!! Why the hell did you
bother asking in the first place?
Finally, even if your interpretation was correct (which it isn't), you're
still entirely wrong when you imply that the only way that anyone could
possibly answer the interpretation is by pointing out rules that contradict
it. Page 112 of the Rulebook states: "Warhammer lends itself to adaption
very well, and players should feel free to change, remove, or add to the
rules if they wish." If, as you previously stated, you and your group feel
that the Hydra Sword is too powerful as it is, THEN CHANGE IT!!! The rules
give you explicit permission to do so.
I agree it may be overpriced, but the fact of the matter is the change in
combat allowing 'wading' is the reason the clarification was removed. In
4th ed., you couldn't wade, and therefore you could only kill the number of
models you were touching.
You base your entire argument on this statement (over and over, in post
after post), yet you are TOTALLY wrong about the "wading in" rule in the 4th
Edition. Characters could always "wade in" in 4th Edition. Page 66 of the
4th Edition Rulebook said:
"Note that if a character has, say, 4 attacks and is only facing 2 enemy
models then his attacks are worked out against the 2 models he is facing.
However, if the character scores sufficient wounds to slay 3 or 4 models
then the enemy loses 3 or 4 models, not just 2.
Don't be fooled by the fact that models are static and the battle lines
rigid and straight, what we are representing is real combat! Heroes strike
to their left and right, stepping forward to deliver fresh attacks, cutting
down foes who step forward to block a gap, and driving down those who
confront them."
See, it's EXACTLY the same rule and same wording for characters as 5th
Edition (see page 63 of the 5th Edition Rulebook)! To say that the Hydra
Sword is different now than it was in the 4th Edition because the "wading
in" rule has changed is a totally bogus argument because the "wading in" has
not changed.
James Terry Shipman
Don't know why this screwed up the first time, let me try again.
Cthulu 999 wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>If you are in base contact with RNF and attack them, a fresh RNF "model"
is assumedto step up into the gap you create, allowing you to attack a new
"model".<<
>>From this text right here, my interpretation is correct ect. >>snip
irrelevant verbiage<< Then, I roll my d6 per hit and average 23.3
hits. Now I have to wound, with a S5 lord, T3 unit, that is 19.4 wounds,
minus the saves. At this point in the combat, the wounds are applied to the
unit.<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I agree that the item is way too powerful, but playing w/o limits on magic
item costs, it is easy to get around. Black Gem of Gnar, Forbidden Rod w/
just about any spell deck and a good draw can hold up the character to
reduce his damage.<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh please!!! First you say that the Forbidden Rod is horrible cheese, then
you say that it can be used to counter the Hydra Sword. I guess you're
advocating fighting cheese with cheese. Boy, that sounds like a lot of fun!
(NOT)
Besides, magic items are kept secret at the beginning of the game. By the
time you find out which one of the Khorne characters, or Witch Elf
characters, or Savage Orc characters, or Brettonian characters (with the
Tress of Isoulde) has the Hydra Sword, it will be too late to stop it with
the Black Gem or to throw a spell on it with the Forbidden Rod. It'll take
dumb, blind luck for you to get the right character prior to your first
large unit dying a horrible death. Then it'll take more dumb luck for your
Black Gem bearer to be unengaged or your Forbidden Rod bearer to be in spell
range when you finally figure out whose got the Hydra Sword.
Finally, this is all utterly irrelevant, since it's simply your
overenthusiastic interpretation of the powers of the Hydra Sword that makes
it so powerful in the first place. Use it correctly, and you can save that
Black Gem bearer to take out Dragons and Slann Mage Priests like the good
Lord intended!!! ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Please tell me where the logic in my above reading of how combat works is
wrong if you can, but it isn't.<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why even try? I answered your post originally because I thought you were
sincerely asking for commentary on your interpretation. Now you state that,
in your opinion (make that, "your definately flawed opinion"), there is no
possibility that your interpretation is wrong!!! Why the hell did you
bother asking in the first place?
Finally, even if your interpretation was correct (which it isn't), you're
still entirely wrong when you imply that the only way that anyone could
possibly answer the interpretation is by pointing out rules that contradict
it. Page 112 of the Rulebook states: "Warhammer lends itself to adaption
very well, and players should feel free to change, remove, or add to the
rules if they wish." If, as you previously stated, you and your group feel
that the Hydra Sword is too powerful as it is, THEN CHANGE IT!!! The rules
give you explicit permission to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I agree it may be overpriced, but the fact of the matter is the change in
combat allowing 'wading' is the reason the clarification was removed. In
4th ed., you couldn't wade, and therefore you could only kill the number of
models you were touching.<<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan D Kohler
>No, this is exactly where we differ. You claim that the "extra" hits from
>the Hydra Sword are spread about the unit. I claim that the "extra" hits
>from the Hydra Sword, just like the extra wounds from a multiple wound
>weapon, all go on the model that you strike. I think that not only logic,
>but the Rulebook supports my claim:
>
>#1. Note carefully what the Rule on "wading in" on page 63 of the 5th
>Edition Rulebook says: "... if a character has, say, 4 attacks and is only
>facing 2 enemy models then his attacks are worked out against the 2 models
>he is facing...".
(snip)
>#2. The Rulebook goes on to say: "...if the character scores sufficient
>wounds to slay 3 or 4 models then the enemy loses 3 or 4 models, not just
>2...".
>Note that it does not say "...if the character scores sufficient wounds to
>kill more than 2 enemy models, then the enemy loses as many models as
>wounds were scored..." Why did it just say 3 or 4 models are killed?
>Because the character given in the example had only 4 attacks, so he could
>only possibly "wade in" enough to attack and kill 4 figures. Period.
Whoa... I think that the quoted rule assumes the normal situation,
i.e., 1 hit per attack. If anything, the quoted rule section implies
that the hydra sword WOULD inflict wounds on additional models.
(Snip section 4 - no idea what you are referring to.)
>#4. Look at the description given for multiple wound/multiple hit weapons
>given on page 32 of the Warhammer Magic book. It describes multiple
>wound/multiple hit weapons as the flip-sides of the same coin.
The referred to section quite specifically mentions the hydra sword
and states that the hits are resolved seperately. By that, it seems to
me that pg. 63 of the 5E rules would easily allow those hits to fall
where they may. The only case that hits and wounds do not spill over
is, as stated on said page, is if the attacks are on an individual
model such as a character or monster.
>Finally, this is all utterly irrelevant, since it's simply your
>overenthusiastic interpretation of the powers of the Hydra Sword that makes
>it so powerful in the first place.
Sorry, gotta disagree wholeheartedly. By the letter of the law, the
Hydra sword is just that nasty. This is a case of a hole in the rules
or an underpriced item, NOT a case of a rules misenterperetation. It
wouldn't be the first time a magic item is just priced wrond. Tell me,
would you rather have a) the War Crown of Saphery or b) the Forbidden
Rod? Don't know about you, but there are very few situations in which
I would rather take a.
Now, if this came in our group, we would probably use your
interperetation of the rules, just because it is more fair that way.
However, it is not strictly correct.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
New on my RPG Pages: The swashbuckling South Seas campaign!
General: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
Planescape: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/Plnscp.html
World of Trinalia: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/Trinalia.html
James Terry Shipman
Alan D Kohler wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:39:59 -0600, James Terry Shipman
> <tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Whoa... I think that the quoted rule assumes the normal situation,
> i.e., 1 hit per attack. If anything, the quoted rule section implies
> that the hydra sword WOULD inflict wounds on additional models.
> (Snip section 4 - no idea what you are referring to.)
> >#4. Look at the description given for multiple wound/multiple hit weapons
> >given on page 32 of the Warhammer Magic book. It describes multiple
> >wound/multiple hit weapons as the flip-sides of the same coin.
>
> The referred to section quite specifically mentions the hydra sword
> and states that the hits are resolved seperately. By that, it seems to
> me that pg. 63 of the 5E rules would easily allow those hits to fall
> where they may. The only case that hits and wounds do not spill over
> is, as stated on said page, is if the attacks are on an individual
> model such as a character or monster.
What I don't understand is how you guys claim that I am reading something into
the rules that is not there, and yet cannot see that you are doing exactly the
same thing. There is absolutely NO provision in the rules for a character
killing more models than he is in base-to-base contact with unless he has more
attacks than models to attack. You say that you "think" that GW "intended" this
to apply only to "normal situations of 1 hit per attack": well, until you can
show me your Psychic Friend's Network Master Psychic diploma, I will stick with
what the rules actually say, not what you think that that GW meant to say.
You are also totally ignoring the issue of nmultiwound weapons. If the "wading
in" rule is interpreted as you say, absolutely nothing in the Rulebook prevents
single hits from multiwound weapons from killing multiple models either. There
is no difference in the way that they are resolved other than the location of
the armor save.
Alan D Kohler
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 07:02:50 -0600, James Terry Shipman
<tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
>Alan D Kohler wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:39:59 -0600, James Terry Shipman
>> <tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> Whoa... I think that the quoted rule assumes the normal situation,
>> i.e., 1 hit per attack. If anything, the quoted rule section implies
>> that the hydra sword WOULD inflict wounds on additional models.
>> (Snip section 4 - no idea what you are referring to.)
>> >#4. Look at the description given for multiple wound/multiple hit weapons
>> >given on page 32 of the Warhammer Magic book. It describes multiple
>> >wound/multiple hit weapons as the flip-sides of the same coin.
>>
>> The referred to section quite specifically mentions the hydra sword
>> and states that the hits are resolved seperately. By that, it seems to
>> me that pg. 63 of the 5E rules would easily allow those hits to fall
>> where they may. The only case that hits and wounds do not spill over
>> is, as stated on said page, is if the attacks are on an individual
>> model such as a character or monster.
>
>What I don't understand is how you guys claim that I am reading something into
>the rules that is not there, and yet cannot see that you are doing exactly the
>same thing. There is absolutely NO provision in the rules for a character
>killing more models than he is in base-to-base contact with unless he has more
>attacks than models to attack. You say that you "think" that GW "intended" this
>to apply only to "normal situations of 1 hit per attack":
No, I say that beasue that is in the section of the 5th edition rules
that precede any of the advanced rules... no rules which allow a
character to inflict multiple wounds (and much less multiple HITS)
have been introduced yet. Assuming that the author meant 1 wound per
attack is NOT a huge leap.
And yes, there is a provision in the rules for a character to kill
more models than he is in base to base contact with - the very section
than you quoted.
Yes, the issue is very muddy at best. but if anyone is reading into
the rules, it is you trying to imply that the rules on page 63 state
that a character cannot kill more models than number of attacks. The
first paragraph there does not state "if you do not have enough
attacks, you cannot wound more models than your attacks." It states
that if you inflict more wounds than models you are in base-to-base
contact with that you can inflict enough wounds than creatures you are
in base to base contact with, then that is what happens.
Of course, feel free to play the game the way you want. We will
probably interperet it the same way as a convention for fairness sake.
But by the letter of the law, that is just wrong. In a tournament,
were I a judge, I think I would have to rule against you. (Of course
since a hydra sword is over 50 points, this would never come up in a
tournament, so there you go...)
Has someone wrote for an official interpetation of this?
ste...@airmail.net
>On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 07:02:50 -0600, James Terry Shipman
><tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
>
>>Alan D Kohler wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:39:59 -0600, James Terry Shipman
>>> <tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> Whoa... I think that the quoted rule assumes the normal situation,
>>> i.e., 1 hit per attack. If anything, the quoted rule section implies
>>> that the hydra sword WOULD inflict wounds on additional models.
>>> (Snip section 4 - no idea what you are referring to.)
>>> >#4. Look at the description given for multiple wound/multiple hit weapons
>>> >given on page 32 of the Warhammer Magic book. It describes multiple
>>> >wound/multiple hit weapons as the flip-sides of the same coin.
>>>
We've wriiten to the rules boyz many times with this question. Each
answer was the same, which in itself is a rarity.
The Hydra Sword is a character killer, not a unit killer. ie, the rule
is that a character cannot kill more models than he has attacks. But
he CAN inflict a mess of hits on a single MODEL.
Example
-------------
Vampire Lord with the Hydra Sword, 4 attacks. He swings against normal
RnF troops. He hits 3 times. Now, each 'hit' is multiplied out, BUT
each total multi-hit is still against 1 model. As RnF usually only
have one W each, the effect of the Sword here is pretty useless, only
giving a greater chance to wound each model. He could only kill a max
of 4 models per turn.
3 attacks
--------------
1 - Roll is a 3, now resolve 3 attacks against ONE troop.
2 - Roll is a 1, resolve as normal
3 Roll is a 6, resolve as 6 attacks against that ONE model.
Now, as a character killer, this weapon is great. Take again the Vamp
against any other character, say a Slann (because I hate those fat
toads!...:)
Vamp hits again 3 times, with the above results. Now you can resolve
3+1+6=10 wounds against the Toad, not a measly 3. Of course, the damn
toad will still save half of those due to his mind shield......
The total result of the sword? Any character CAN kill more troops than
he is in base to base contact with (max 2 for a 20mm base), but NEVER
more than the number of ATTACKS he has. For a rank and file killer, go
with the Sword of Leaping Gold, +3A....
-stealth
Alan D Kohler
On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 18:49:20 GMT, ste...@airmail.net wrote:
>>Has someone wrote for an official interpetation of this?
>>
>
>We've wriiten to the rules boyz many times with this question. Each
>answer was the same, which in itself is a rarity.
>
>The Hydra Sword is a character killer, not a unit killer. ie, the rule
>is that a character cannot kill more models than he has attacks. But
>he CAN inflict a mess of hits on a single MODEL.
Well, then, there you have it... but that is not the interperetation I
would make from the rules, rather, what GW calls a "Convention": "A
rule... [whose] object is to enable a game to flow smoothly where a
strict interperetation of the rules would produce an unsatisfactory
result for whatever reason."
Good enough for me.
James Terry Shipman
Alan D Kohler wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 07:02:50 -0600, James Terry Shipman
> <tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
>
> >Alan D Kohler wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:39:59 -0600, James Terry Shipman
> >> <tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >What I don't understand is how you guys claim that I am reading something into
> >the rules that is not there, and yet cannot see that you are doing exactly the
> >same thing. There is absolutely NO provision in the rules for a character
> >killing more models than he is in base-to-base contact with unless he has more
> >attacks than models to attack. You say that you "think" that GW "intended" this
> >to apply only to "normal situations of 1 hit per attack":
>
> No, I say that beasue that is in the section of the 5th edition rules
> that precede any of the advanced rules... no rules which allow a
> character to inflict multiple wounds (and much less multiple HITS)
> have been introduced yet. Assuming that the author meant 1 wound per
> attack is NOT a huge leap.
>
But it is a leap, huge or not -- by your own admission you are reading something into
it that is simply not there. You are also choosing, for some reason, to totally
ignore a statement that is there. The example, and the rule, states that two things
have to occur before excess damage carries over onto additional models. The
character has more attacks than models in base conact ___and___ does more wounds than
necessary to kill those models. Your interpretation entirely ignores the first
requirement, thereby ripping the second requirement totally out of context to make
your point.
You're also guilty of some pretty bizarre reasoning here. You are saying that the
hits/wounds should be spread about because this section precedes the section that
introduces multiple hits/wounds. Of course, it would be just as logical to say that
since those multihit/multiwound weapons are added later in the rules with no mention
of affecting the normal way that excess wounds are resolved is reason to believe that
they do __not__ affect the "wading in" rule. If we are going to guess GW's
intentions based on the "order" that 2 "seemingly" unrelated rules are presented in 2
different books, then my guess is as good as yours (unless you can produce those
psychic credentials I requested, that is).
> And yes, there is a provision in the rules for a character to kill
> more models than he is in base to base contact with - the very section
> than you quoted.
>
Only given the circumstances described above -- more attacks than models in base
contact and more wounds than the models in base contact can take.
> Yes, the issue is very muddy at best....>>snip<<...We will probably interperet it
> the same way as a convention for fairness sake. But by the letter of the law, that
> is just wrong. In a tournament, were I a judge, I think I would have to rule
> against you.
So you should pick the interpretation that you admit is unfair and inferior?
Especially when other people have posted e-mail responses from the Roolzboys
(pannkaiser), e-mail responsces from Tyranid (myself), and answers from the 5th Ed.
FAQ (again, myself), all saying that GW interprets this as meaning "you cannot kill
more models than you have attacks." Sorry, but that is one of the silliest
statements I have ever heard anyone make. Listen to it rephrased: "Well, I don't
think that the answer is clear, but clearly the answer is to do it the way that
wouldn't be fair." Sounds really logical, doesn't it?
James Terry Shipman
What? Both sets of wounds (from multiwound and multi hit) are considered
"unsaved" at exactly the same time - after you have determined that the wounds are
inflicted and the armor save has been failed. Multiple wound weapon's wounds are
multiplied after the save is failed. By you interpretation of the wading in rule,
every single wound my character does is, even "multiplied" wounds, would be
removed from the unit as a casualty.
Since you are so keen on demanding rule quotes, why don't you provide us with a
rule quote that specifies that the "multiplied wounds" from multiwound weapons
aren't applied to killing more figures in the unit?
Cthulu 999 wrote:
> >You are also totally ignoring the issue of nmultiwound weapons. If the
> >"wading
> >in" rule is interpreted as you say, absolutely nothing in the Rulebook
> >prevents
> >single hits from multiwound weapons from killing multiple models either.
> >There
> >is no difference in the way that they are resolved other than the location of
> >the armor save.
>
> That is the key difference. Unsaved wounds are removed as casualties. There
> is a specific provision for multiple wound weapons that the wounds are applied
> after a save is failed. The multiple hits are rolled up, saved for and then
> applied to the unit.
>
> Dan
Cthulu 999
K G Gan
James Terry Shipman wrote:
> Alan D Kohler wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Jan 1998 22:39:59 -0600, James Terry Shipman
> > <tshi...@p-c-net.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > Whoa... I think that the quoted rule assumes the normal situation,
> > i.e., 1 hit per attack. If anything, the quoted rule section implies
>
<snip>
> > is, as stated on said page, is if the attacks are on an individual
> > model such as a character or monster.
>
> What I don't understand is how you guys claim that I am reading something into
> the rules that is not there, and yet cannot see that you are doing exactly the
> same thing. There is absolutely NO provision in the rules for a character
> killing more models than he is in base-to-base contact with unless he has more
> attacks than models to attack. You say that you "think" that GW "intended" this
> to apply only to "normal situations of 1 hit per attack": well, until you can
> show me your Psychic Friend's Network Master Psychic diploma, I will stick with
> what the rules actually say, not what you think that that GW meant to say.
>
> You are also totally ignoring the issue of nmultiwound weapons. If the "wading
> in" rule is interpreted as you say, absolutely nothing in the Rulebook prevents
> single hits from multiwound weapons from killing multiple models either. There
> is no difference in the way that they are resolved other than the location of
> the armor save.
I'm sorry to butttttt in, but, there is a HUGE difference between multiple hit
weapons, and multiple wound weapons, in that with the multi wound, you have already
rolled "To Wound", and "To Save". I'd say just make up a house rule, to what you
and your group can agree on, and it is fairer if all hits (before the multi hits),
are treated seperately. 75 points to allow a Khorne general to eat through one unit
at a time, is a LIIiiittle bit too cheap..
See ya
Kuzman
WHITENUPE
Don't get me wrong--I agree with the interpretation that a Hydra Sword -
bearing character can only kill as many RnF models as he has attacks
(especially since this interpretation is backed up by the Rulezboyz, as pointed
out more than once in this thread). However, I have to disagree with the
statement that there is *no* spell that, when combined with the Forbidden Rod
is more of a unit-killer than the Hydra Sword. Just the thought of a Grey Seer
with the Forbidden Rod and the Plague spell in hand gives me the willies.
Entire unit? This combination can wipe out an ENTIRE ARMY if the units are
sufficiently close together. No armour saves, 2d6-T in wounds to a model, then
jumping to another model within 4" until there are no other models in range or
someone survives? Say goodbye to that lovely Bretonnian army you spent all
that time painting...
Chris
Try a high elf with the forbidden rod and assault of stone. I literally
had a dwarven army destroyed (2000pts) in two game turns. We had lots of
hills in deployment zones and dwarves move too slow to get away.
c.taylor
WHITENUPE <whit...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980108070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
James Terry Shipman
Nope, the Forbidden Rod/Plague combo doesn't even come close to the Hydra Sword
(using the other interpretation - called the Super Hydra Sword from here on out).
There are several reasons:
#1. Under the best circumstances possible, the Grey Seer with the Forbidden Rod
has less than a 1 in 3 chance of drawing the Plague Spell. So if someone tries to
use the combo, it's not gonna happen 2 out of 3 times. The Super Hydra Sword will
be available 100% of the time, guaranteed.
#2. 2D6-T wounds is bad, but chances are the guy is only gonna kill 8-10 models
before he screws up a roll. That's horrible against Brett Knights, but it won't
even reduce most decent sized units in the game by 50%. Sure, the guy could get
really lucky, but it's not gonna happen that often. The Super Hydra Sword, on the
other hand, only has to kill 5 or 6 models to entirely destroy a unit (no matter
how large the unit is) since it's used in hth and can cause break tests. Against
most opponents, its gonna kill 8-12 models. Backed up by other items (Strength
Potion, etc.) it can kill huge numbers of models. And it's gonna do it
consistently, against almost any unit, in almost every game,
#3. How often do you pack your army in so tight that every unit is within 4" of
another unit, especially against Skaven? If you do that a lot, I'll go so far as
to suggest that you need to have your entire army destroyed once or twice just to
teach you to use elementary precaution when deploying!