If I roll a 1-2 at the end of the phase to see if hurts me and I suffer a wound, is that wound multiplied by D6?

I don't have a book in front of me, but IIRC the answer is no, it isn't.

The book clearly states you suffer 1 wound with no armour saves allowed

Yeah, its not like you suffer a wound with the blade's profile. Its separate from the melee profile.

Yes. Otherwise, the Fellblade would fall from arguably the best Big Weapon in the game to The Worst.

But it tells me that Wounds caused by the Fellblade are turned to d6.


Is it not the Fellblade that causes said wound on the roll of 1 or 2 then?

Bloodhorror wrote:
But it tells me that Wounds caused by the Fellblade are turned to d6.


Is it not the Fellblade that causes said wound on the roll of 1 or 2 then?

No, melee attacks made with the Fellblade cause D6 wounds. The Fellblade wasn't used in a melee attack against its wielder.

Unless it has been Errated:

"Any Unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into d6 Wounds."

Says nothing about causing wounds in Melee.

Page 107 – The Fellblade.
Changethefirstsentenceto “Thisfoulsword givesthe bearer
Strength 10,and successful ward savestaken against wounds
inflicted by the bearer in closecombat must bere-rolled.”

Q:If thebearerof the Fellblade inflicts a wound upon himself,
must here-roll successful ward saves? (p107)
A: Yes.

These are the only things that mention the FellBlade in the faq. The second point seems to imply that the bearer is in fact hitting himself with the blade. Perhaps this means it does cause D6 wounds?

There's just no way that's what was intended, but I suppose that, yeah, that's how it works.
Here's a 190pt character with, at most, a 3+ armour save or T5 W4, who stands a remarkably good chance of killing himself in the first two turns of the game.
Oh, but wait! If he can get into combat with a more expensive character or monster, he stands a good chance of making his points back. If his opponent is I7 or less, doesn't have ASF, and doesn't have a Regeneration save.
...stupid.

Skaven stuff kills themselves...

Who da Funked it?

Bloodhorror wrote:
Skaven stuff kills themselves...

Who da Funked it?

Most skaven stuff kills you when you use it. It would be like a guy with the censor testing every turn, even if he isn't in combat.

-Matt

Bloodhorror wrote:
Skaven stuff kills themselves...

Who da Funked it?

You've got a 33% chance of taking D6 Wounds every turn. That goes far beyond Skaven recklessness. Name one Skaven item, spell, or unit that offers even half of that risk. Most of the war machines and weapon teams have 5-8% chance of exploding when fired. Not just for existing.

I play Skaven, and i use this Sword... and this is how my friends think it is Played, and it seems that is how it is meant to be played.

On the off chance that i DO make it in however, i'm gonna make my points back !

Bloodhorror wrote:
I play Skaven, and i use this Sword... and this is how my friends think it is Played, and it seems that is how it is meant to be played.

On the off chance that i DO make it in however, i'm gonna make my points back !

The problem is, turn 1, you're testing.
I know you have it, and I know a 190+ point model will die if I just stall the unit, redirect it, or flee from it.
If the warlord with it died at the end of the game 100% of the time, it would be more useful. At least then you could surprise an opponent with it.
If I could take a lord choice assassin with it, it would be totally worth it.

As is, it's just free points for your opponent.

-Matt

Bloodhorror wrote:
I play Skaven, and i use this Sword... and this is how my friends think it is Played, and it seems that is how it is meant to be played.

I beg to differ. If you have a 1 in 3 chance to take a Wound each turn, the awesomeness of S10, Multiple Wounds (D6), and re-rolling successful Ward saves makes it about as good as the other race's Big Weapons of Awesomeness. But other than that? No way. I'd take a 7th Edition Runefang before this interpretation of the Fellblade.
Still waiting for a response as to why the odds of killing your Lord with a 100pt magic weapon are greater than anything else in the whole book.

Bloodhorror wrote:
On the off chance that i DO make it in however, i'm gonna make my points back !

Make it into combat with what? A goblin tar pit? A unit or two of fast Cavalry or other such speed-bumps?
The only thing that makes your point even remotely viable is that, as Skaven, you probably have more units than your opponent. But seriously, how often does your opponent eff up bad enough that your Warlord is in combat with a character or monster that costs more than him? Chariots, most Monstrous Infantry and Cavalry, and a handful of the more efficient monsters are all ideal targets for the Fellblade, and there's no way you're making your points back on them in one turn (which, with this stupid rule plus the fact that you have zero protection, is all you're going to get).

Warpsolution wrote:
I beg to differ. If you have a 1 in 3 chance to take a Wound each turn, the awesomeness of S10, Multiple Wounds (D6), and re-rolling successful Ward saves makes it about as good as the other race's Big Weapons of Awesomeness. But other than that?

Oh, it's way better. Some SCs might have better stuff, but not a lot. Overtyrant has 10S D3 wounds. TK Destroyer of Eternities is really nice, +2S HKB. What makes the weapon uber is the combination. Rerolling wards is pretty unique and the 10S makes the very low S race effectively +6. The super DoC weapon is +D3 to combat stats. You might be able to make something better using super special Dwarf-Points™ but I don't think anything in 8th is better. The fact it has that gigantic penalty makes it pretty worthless, I agree. But it's so over the top there's not much you can do with it.

I'd rate lizardmen with the best 2.
Blade of Revered Tzunki (+1 strength no armor save)
or
Blade of Realities (Ld test when hit or removed from game)

Tzunki leaves you with enough points for a crown of command, and the Blade of Realities leaves you with enough points for a dawn stone.
I'll give up some hitting power in exchange for staying power.

Forcing opponents to re-roll ward saves is neat, but it's only a 15 point common item.

-Matt

An item is worth what it's worth. You don't get to count the other 3 items you buy along with it. A 4+ ward is by far the best "weapon" in that case.

DukeRustfield wrote:
An item is worth what it's worth. You don't get to count the other 3 items you buy along with it. A 4+ ward is by far the best "weapon" in that case.

Sure you do. Magic items are all about combos. You have to take into account when an item prevents you from buying anything else.
Fellblade is a full allotment. Other items aren't.

I love to run a Vampire Hero with Sword of Swiftness, Potion of Strength and Red Fury. He's a mini-vampire lord for a discounted price.
Should I toss that 25 point sword and get a "better" ogre blade? Hell no. The re-rolls to hit are awesome, and he can punch through walls when he needs to.

-Matt

Do you know what a sword of swiftness is? It's a sword of swiftness, and nothing else. It isn't a Sword of swiftness and potion of strength. There aren't combo deals that come with a free toy.

The statement was made it was as good as any of the other "best" swords out there and you started comparing it to multiple items. It's absolute garbage compared to a 4+ ward and nearly anything--a wooden rocking chair. Because in 90% of the cases, you'll make more points back with the ward. But that isn't what the comparison was.

Almost none of the super big weapons are worth taking because they leave you with nothing and anyone who can afford it is likely a lord and now you just spent phat $ on a weapon and have no protection. We know this. But this is a post about Fellblade.

Hellfire Sword is pretty darn good. Loses out to the Fellblade on chance to wound high toughness models, but no armour save and no regen, which make it a pretty good monster killer. Only D3 wounds too, but then also only 65 points.

For the potential, its damn good.
I allways run it in my list simply because i find it pays off more than it kills my warlord.
Throw him on a bone breaker for even more impact and he tears through dragons and other large monsters with ease.

Also,

Most of the war machines and weapon teams have 5-8% chance of exploding when fired. Not just for existing.

Your dice are fixed.
And working out the chance of an explosion on something like a ratling gun? best of luck.

All skaven weapons are hit or miss.
They will do alot of damage to someone throughout the game.

I swear by my doomrocket, but im not going to stop using it because its blown my own units up a few times.
Same with brass orb.

DukeRustfield wrote:Oh, it's way better. Some SCs might have better stuff, but not a lot...The fact it has that gigantic penalty makes it pretty worthless, I agree. But it's so over the top there's not much you can do with it.

I've already admitted that it's one of the best Big Weapons, if you consider the RAI to be: "take 1 Wound on a 1-2" (and let's just skip the discussion about how we can't assume RAI. I can and I will). But with the way the RAW works, your Warlord stands a 17-20% chance of killing himself. Assuming it takes you 2-3 turns to get into combat, you're almost flipping a coin to see whether or not your 200pt Lord gets to do anything except cripple your army.

DukeRustfield wrote:An item is worth what it's worth. You don't get to count the other 3 items you buy along with it.

Eh, yeah, I mostly agree. But an item that makes your more effective in one way and that takes up your whole allowance is worse than a cheaper one, because you can't do any combos and because it leaves you inflexible. Right?

Jackal wrote:For the potential, its damn good.
I allways run it in my list simply because i find it pays off more than it kills my warlord.
Throw him on a bone breaker for even more impact and he tears through dragons and other large monsters with ease.

Tell me, what is it's potential? Turn 1, I roll a die for my Warlord. If that 17% kicks in, he's dead. If he survives, you now know I have the Fellblade on him, so you can keep your non-ASF I8+ Regenerating characters and monsters away from him. Throw any mediocre unit at him, and you'll grind him down just fine. Even if he happens to get into a combat with multi-wound models like Ogres, he'll almost never make his points back in 1 phase.
Again, I'll admit that Skaven can usually place units better than most, but there's only so much you can do to get him into a point-worthy combat without forgoing all other forms of strategy.

Jackal526707 5641298 null wrote:Also,

Your dice are fixed.
And working out the chance of an explosion on something like a ratling gun? best of luck.

1 in 6 chance of rolling a Misfire, mostly a 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 chance of explosion. (1/6)X(1/3) = .05556, (1/6)(1/2) = .083334

Jackal526707 5641298 null wrote:All skaven weapons are hit or miss.
They will do alot of damage to someone throughout the game.

EXACTLY! So why is the Fellblade, the Sword of Swords, 3 times more likely to kill its wielder than the Warpfire Thrower, most volatile of a volatile bunch of death-dealing apparatuses? And then consider that the Fellblade tests every turn, not every turn you're in combat. If you make it into combat on Turn 2, you've had to hope against that 17% chance twice.

Jackal526707 5641298 null wrote:I swear by my doomrocket, but im not going to stop using it because its blown my own units up a few times.
Same with brass orb.

The Brass Orb has a 1 in 6 chance of a Misfire, and can scatter all over the place, making Skaven take Initiative tests or die; the leas scary test for the army to make. And it costs 50pts. And once again, it'll only kill your guys when you use it.
Don't even talk to me about the Doomrocket. This is the second most reliably Skryre device in the book, coming in right after the Doom Wheel (the odds of losing that in one turn are something like 1/2 X 1/6 X 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2).

If the Fellblade hit you for 1 Wound on a 5+, the odds are your Lord is dead at the end of a standard game, assuming he never got hurt in combat. That's a steep penalty as-is. The only reason I still consider this interpreation of the Fellblade to be better than most other Big Weapons is that, since you're giving up most of your protective gear to carry one, you'll probably be dead anyway.
But a 33% chance at D6 Wounds every turn? Please. I'd take auto-death at the end of the game before that. I'd take S5 hits on all models in base contact with him every turn before that.

The book says, and this is word for word, 'On a roll of 1/2, the wielder suffers 1 wound with no armour saves allowed.

I'm pretty sure that means that it is a single wound with no multipliers. Although that might just be the grammar talking.

It may cause 1 wound, but the FAQ States that you must reroll your ward save if you do take that wound.


Therefore, Via a logical leap, we are assuming that it is the weapon causing the wound and must multiply that wound by D6

Logical leaps are dangerous with GW rules writing. They can lead to game breaking issues if you apply them to other areas.

Its always best to assume a particular FAQ/Errata/written rule applies only to what is specifically mentioned. In this case the wound forces the bearer to reroll any ward saves he makes against it. it is a bad idea to infer that the D6 wounds also applies.

I don't think it's a GOOD rule, but as stated, the only way for the reroll to happen is if the sword itself is causing the wound and not because the Fellblade Fairy is kicking you in the head. If the sword is causing the wound it seems pretty clear it has to be multiplied.

It would be like if a sword was labeled as a great sword. Someone asks in the FAQ if it gives +2S and ASL and the answer is yes. It's reasonable to assume then that it also requires 2 hands because those rules go together even though they didn't explicitly say it.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The book says, and this is word for word, 'On a roll of 1/2, the wielder suffers 1 wound with no armour saves allowed.

I'm pretty sure that means that it is a single wound with no multipliers. Although that might just be the grammar talking.

To be fair, that is the exact trigger for causing Multiple Wounds.
I am certain that is the grammar talking.

No leaps of logic need to be taken at all:

"Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds"

"On a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound..."

What caused the wound? The Fellblade. What do unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade do? Multiply into D6 wounds.

Now, if they had FAQ'd it to say "replace 'any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds' to 'the Fellblade has the Multiple Wounds (D6) special rule'", we could argue this way and that. But as it stands? A little careless wording has rendered this weapon terrible beyond compare.

I don't think it is clear that you take d6. Everywhere that I can think of where multiple wounds are talked about, numerals seem to be avoided. You take a wound or wounds.
If you take a wound from a Fellblade and roll a 1, you take 1 wound. I ealise that there may be examples where numerals have been used, and please share them if there are.
Obviously, the fact that multiple wounds are applied after saves is a counter argument, but the rule is written as I would expect GW to write it if they meant 1 wound instead of d6.

Wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6. It is the Fellblade that is causing the wound to you on the roll of a 1 or 2. Therefore, they must be multiplied to D6.

Warpsolution wrote:
No leaps of logic need to be taken at all:

"Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds"

"On a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound..."

What caused the wound? The Fellblade. What do unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade do? Multiply into D6 wounds.

Now, if they had FAQ'd it to say "replace 'any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds' to 'the Fellblade has the Multiple Wounds (D6) special rule'", we could argue this way and that. But as it stands? A little careless wording has rendered this weapon terrible beyond compare.

The fact is, the fellblade doesn't wound him per se. It inflicts A wound. Not D6. A single wound. If it had stated that the fellblade inflicts the wound, it would be D6. But, as it stands, it is only a single wound off the profile.

HOWEVER, this seems to be a point of contention, so I'd agree it with your opponent at the start of the game. Or in a tournament setting, ask the TO before the event.

Niteware wrote:
Everywhere that I can think of where multiple wounds are talked about, numerals seem to be avoided. You take a wound or wounds.

I see what you're saying, and I think that's how it should work. But RAW doesn't care about sentence structure or symmetry. Wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 Wounds, the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fact is, the fellblade doesn't wound him per se. It inflicts A wound. Not D6. A single wound. If it had stated that the fellblade inflicts the wound, it would be D6. But, as it stands, it is only a single wound off the profile.

Wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 Wounds.

Answer me this: what is causing your Warlord to take the wound? If it is the Fellblade, how then does the previous line not apply?

Again, I want to agree with you. It's the only reasonable way to interpret the rules. But the wording seems pretty cut and dry here.

I see it as shothand for (you roll 1 on the multiple wounds roll). It still did multiple wounds d6, but you rolled a 1.

Warpsolution wrote:


Answer me this: what is causing your Warlord to take the wound? If it is the Fellblade, how then does the previous line not apply?

Again, I want to agree with you. It's the only reasonable way to interpret the rules. But the wording seems pretty cut and dry here.

The wording physically states that you take 1 wound. Singular. With no multipliers or modifiers, except that it ignores armour. And that is because it explicitly states that it ignores armour. It says nothing about multiple wounds.

Yes. And the wording also says if you take any wounds they are multiplied into D6. The Fellblade only does one wound in combat against enemies. Just one. But then it's multiplied into D6. It's a two step process.

If the Fellblade said you took 2 wounds, they would be multiplied by D6 as well. That's just the wording. However many unsaved wounds you take are multiplied by D6. So if they said D6 it would be D6*D6 because that's the way it's written until FAQed.

Did Fellblade cause an unsaved wound? Yes/no. If yes, multiply it by D6 per the rules. The fact that it's singular one against yourself just means you aren't taking 2*D6 or 3*D6. So be thankful for that.

If it were that simple duke, they wouldn't need to quote a selection of the rules, it could just say on a 1-2 the fellblade wounds the bearer OR on 1-2 you take a wound with the usual rules for Fellblade.

Except they wrote it a lot shorter. They also don't say that if you take enough wounds to kill you, you die and are removed from play. Not every rule is written out to every permutation.

The wording states that he suffers a wound. He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source. He suffers and takes a single wound, If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wording states that he suffers a wound. He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source. He suffers and takes a single wound, If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

Just take a look at the 2 FAQ's.

Page 107–The Fellblade.
Change the first sentence to “This foul sword gives the bearer Strength 10, and successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled.”

Q:If the bearer of the Fellblade inflicts a wound upon himself, must he re-roll successful ward saves? (p107)
A:Yes

If he puts a wound on himself, the fellblade is making him re-roll his own ward.
What else would make him re-roll his own ward, if not the fellblade?

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wording states that he suffers a wound. He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source. He suffers and takes a single wound, If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

Just take a look at the 2 FAQ's.

Page 107–The Fellblade.
Change the first sentence to “This foul sword gives the bearer Strength 10, and successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled.”

Q:If the bearer of the Fellblade inflicts a wound upon himself, must he re-roll successful ward saves? (p107)
A:Yes

If he puts a wound on himself, the fellblade is making him re-roll his own ward.
What else would make him re-roll his own ward, if not the fellblade?

-Matt

I will concede that, but I still doubt the legitimacy of the whole D6 wounds to himself argument.

The fellblade makes the bearer s10 and ward saves have to be rerolled , not attacks made with the fellblade have those rules.
Attacks made with the fellblade do d6 wounds.

The bearer is wounding himself, so has to reroll the ward save, but doesn't say that it is with the fellblade.

This also means that for a str test his str would be 10.

The item is the Fellblade. The whole context is the Fellblade. Is there some universal Skaven rule that if they roll 1 they do a wound to themselves? If not, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is unique to the Fellblade and it is the cause.

And guess what happens when the Fellblade does unsaved wounds.

I think we can all agree it's a poopy item. You can house rules it. But it's pretty clear the Fellblade is causing a wound. It has it in the description, it has it in the fluff. You're basically holding onto a cursed radioactive bomb. It states it repeatedly in the fluff. And while fluff != RAW, the rules are already clear.

I think they wanted 1 wound, as your life is supposed to slip away holding it, not explode away in a d6 shower of gore, but that's the way it's written.

Niteware wrote:
I see it as shothand for (you roll 1 on the multiple wounds roll). It still did multiple wounds d6, but you rolled a 1.

What you see it as doesn't matter; your interpretation has zero evidence to support it, as much as I'd like that to be true.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wording physically states that you take 1 wound. Singular. With no multipliers or modifiers, except that it ignores armour. And that is because it explicitly states that it ignores armour. It says nothing about multiple wounds.

You've got this line:

"On a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound..."

And you've got this one before it:

"...unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds"

Unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied. Not unsaved wounds caused in close combat. Unsaved wounds. It doesn't say "on a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound, which is multiplied into D6 wounds" because it says "Unsaved wounds are multiplied into D6 wounds. On a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound".
1 wound means 1 wound. You're right about that.
But you're ignoring one of the other rules: wounds caused multiply into D6. Including this 1 wound.

Niteware wrote:
If it were that simple duke, they wouldn't need to quote a selection of the rules, it could just say on a 1-2 the fellblade wounds the bearer OR on 1-2 you take a wound with the usual rules for Fellblade.

It could. But it doesn't need to. The phrase "unsaved wounds multiply into D6 wounds" applies to the whole text. Every wound. Including the 1 inflicted when you roll a 1-2. The only way for your claim to be true is if the text allows you to ignore part of itself.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source.

If the wound has no source, it didn't happen. Effects must have causes.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

THE FELLBLADE.....................100 points
This is the sword of swords that was created by the Skaven to destroy the greatest Necromancer to ever walk the world. Raw warpstone was smelted into stolen gromil. Incantations of doom were heaped upon the cursed blade. Death itself was bound to its cutting edge and any with eldritch sight can see the aura of power and ruin that surrounds the wicked creation. No foe can stand before it and even the wielder must succumb to its baleful effects.

This foul sword gives the bearer Strength 10 and successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled. Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds. Roll a D6 at the end of each of the wielder's turns; on a 3+ there is no effect. On a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound with no armour save allowed.

--note how the bit "the wielder suffers 1 wound" is under the words "THE FELLBLADE". I'd say that's a pretty damn clear indication that yes, the Fellblade is indeed the cause of this wound. What else would it be?

Niteware wrote:
Attacks made with the fellblade do d6 wounds.

Incorrect. "Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds". See above.

Niteware wrote:
The bearer is wounding himself, so has to reroll the ward save, but doesn't say that it is with the fellblade.

That makes no sense. "Successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled" is part of the Fellblade's rules. The Fellblade gives the wielder S10, turns wounds he causes into D6 wounds each, and forces succesful ward saves against said wounds to be re-rolled. Without the Fellblade, none of these rules apply. So how can you think that, when the Fellblade is the reason he's taking a wound, that this wound follows one of the rules for being wounded by the Fellblade, but not the other?

I ask once more, what, if not the Fellblade, is causing this wound? And what, if the Fellblade turns ANY unsaved wound into D6 wounds, is stopping this wound from being multiplied?

Actually it works this way: No one actually knows whether it does 1 wound period, or 1 wound which becomes 1d6 because no Skaven character would be dumb enough to take it.

Warpsolution wrote:
I ask once more, what, if not the Fellblade, is causing this wound? And what, if the Fellblade turns ANY unsaved wound into D6 wounds, is stopping this wound from being multiplied?

The fellblade may cause the wound, but what stops the multiplier is that it states he takes 1 wound. With NO multipliers. If it did do D6 wounds to himself, it would say, On a roll of 1/2, the bearer suffers 1 wound with the D6 multiplier.

Then it also stops the enemy from taking D6 wounds. Because when you attack someone in close combat (or shooting attacks) you only do one wound if you pass armor, wards, and to-wound. That is specifically in the BRB. A wound, singular, on a successful unsaved attack.

What you're saying is nothing can ever be modified. It says 1 wound and even though it specifically grants that wounds are multiplied, it can't ever be changed. If that were the case there could never be D6 wounds because the BRB says one wound.

In another vein, just what is causing the wound if not the Fellblade? Is the user putting the weapon on the ground, stepping away, and punching himself in the face? Even though the FAQ says he also has to reroll ward saves.

This is a tricky one.
RAW, its not actually D6 wounds on the bearer as it states nowhere that the sword caused the wound.
Yes, it states that wards must be re-rolled, which is a trait of the sword.
But just because it shares a trait from the sword, does not mean it was the sword actually causing the wound as this is not said anywhere.
Its like stating that because something gives +1 attack, its frenzy.

While thats RAW, i do agree it is D6 as it does point towards it by using the trait of the sword, and by thinking about it really.
But human logic is not rules i guess.

However, weapons that damage the wielder usually state that its the weapon causing the damage, so its rules apply.
This time its simply taking a single rule from it, instead of both.

Really does need a FAQ though, as there are arguments for both sides.

Just to be clear, the argument is that the Fellblade's rules cause a wound to the model wielding the Fellblade, but the Fellblade is not being weilded when dealing the wound so only half of its rules apply.
Right?

Im really not sure what to make of it mate.
Naturally, it does not state the fellblade was used to cause the wound, and only goes on to say about re-rolling the ward.
I would have thought it would either add in about the D6 wounds, or just say that the fellblade wounds the user.

So at the moment, im more in the camp of a single wound, since that would be following it word for word.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fellblade may cause the wound, but what stops the multiplier is that it states he takes 1 wound. With NO multipliers. If it did do D6 wounds to himself, it would say, On a roll of 1/2, the bearer suffers 1 wound with the D6 multiplier.

It does say that. It says "any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds".

Step 1. You roll 1-2
Step 2. the Warlord takes 1 wound
Step 3. the wound is unsaved
Step 4. the wound, being both unsaved and caused by the Fellblade, is multiplied into D6 wounds

Seriously. How can anyone argue this point?

Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?
If it stated that, there would be no issue as you would simply use the rules for the weapon when you apply the wound.

However, it simply says: "On a roll of 1-2 the weilder suffers 1 wound with no armour save allowed"

The FAQ then chimes in and says you must re-roll any ward saves, but again, it makes no mention of the sword causing the wound.

 Jackal wrote:
.RAW, its not actually D6 wounds on the bearer as it states nowhere that the sword caused the wound.

What caused the wound then?
The rules.
Of the Fellblade.

 Jackal wrote:
Yes, it states that wards must be re-rolled, which is a trait of the sword.
But just because it shares a trait from the sword, does not mean it was the sword actually causing the wound as this is not said anywhere.

True; two things sharing common traits are not necessarily caused by the same thing.
But in this case, both re-rolling Ward saves and 1 wound = D6 wounds are both traits of the sword. Which is the item that makes you test whether or not you take a wound. So it causes the wound.

 Jackal wrote:
Its like stating that because something gives +1 attack, its frenzy.

No, it's not. The Fellblade has rules. One of those rules says ANY unsaved wounds caused by it are turned into D6 wounds. What causes the Warlord to take a wound? The Fellblade. Spend 100pts, get the Fellblade, roll a 1-2, take a wound that turns into D6 wounds. Don't take the Fellblade, none of the above applies.

 Jackal wrote:
While thats RAW, i do agree it is D6 as it does point towards it by using the trait of the sword, and by thinking about it really.
But human logic is not rules i guess.

How is that human logic? "Here's a radioactive sword. It will slowly drive you mad, poison your blood, and kill you. Which, mathematically, translates to a 20% chance at exploding every few minutes."
Clearly, the RAI is that the sword slowly sucks away your life, dealing 1 wound on the roll of a 1 or 2. The RAW is the opposite.

 Jackal wrote:
However, weapons that damage the wielder usually state that its the weapon causing the damage, so its rules apply.
This time its simply taking a single rule from it, instead of both.

The weapon causes the damage. What else could possibly be causing the damage? Someone answer me that. Go ahead. Try. You can't. The rules of the Fellblade say you might take a wound. The only reason you'd take such a wound is because you have the Fellblade. No Fellblade? No wound. Its rules wound you. They are the cause of the wound. The Fellblade is the cause of the wound.

 Jackal wrote:
Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?

Where does it state the Fellblade is the thing that's causing the wound? Seriously? You guys are essentially asking, "Hey, where--in the Fellblade's description and rules--does it say that the Fellblade is the thing that's wounding you?"
Once again, I ask: if not the Fellblade, then what is causing the wound? It has to be something.

 Jackal wrote:
However, it simply says: "On a roll of 1-2 the weilder suffers 1 wound with no armour save allowed"

...it simply says "on a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound...". In the description. Of the Fellblade.

 Jackal wrote:
The FAQ then chimes in and says you must re-roll any ward saves, but again, it makes no mention of the sword causing the wound.

Because it doesn't need to! Because how in the name of the Horned Rat and all the Daemons of beyond, is anything other than sword, the rule of which is the very thing stating that you take the wound, the cause of said wound?

Wait. I might see the confusion. Are you guys claiming that, when you bonk a dude on the head with the sword, that the wound turns into D6 wounds, but that wounds caused by the sword's venomous, corrupting aura are not, because, in that case, the sword is not being "used", like a sword would normally be?

What caused the wound then?
The rules.
Of the Fellblade.

And where does it say the fellblade caused the wound?

True; two things sharing common traits are not necessarily caused by the same thing.
But in this case, both re-rolling Ward saves and 1 wound = D6 wounds are both traits of the sword. Which is the item that makes you test whether or not you take a wound. So it causes the wound.

You either missed or ignored my point then.
Yes, both are traits of the sword, but the FAQ only asks to apply one of those to the wound.
And still does not say that the sword caused the wound.

No, it's not. The Fellblade has rules. One of those rules says ANY unsaved wounds caused by it are turned into D6 wounds. What causes the Warlord to take a wound? The Fellblade. Spend 100pts, get the Fellblade, roll a 1-2, take a wound that turns into D6 wounds. Don't take the Fellblade, none of the above applies.

Again, where in the RULES does it say the fellblade caused the wound in the first place?

How is that human logic? "Here's a radioactive sword. It will slowly drive you mad, poison your blood, and kill you. Which, mathematically, translates to a 20% chance at exploding every few minutes."
Clearly, the RAI is that the sword slowly sucks away your life, dealing 1 wound on the roll of a 1 or 2. The RAW is the opposite.

Clearly?
Your adding in your own wording at the moment.
You even made up a fluffy effect which isnt in the book, im impressed

The weapon causes the damage. What else could possibly be causing the damage? Someone answer me that. Go ahead. Try. You can't. The rules of the Fellblade say you might take a wound. The only reason you'd take such a wound is because you have the Fellblade. No Fellblade? No wound. Its rules wound you. They are the cause of the wound. The Fellblade is the cause of the wound.

So you want people to find something that does not exist, to disprove your argument based on something that also does not exist?
Quote me where it says the fellblade causes the wound please.
And i mean from the rules, not your own idea of it.
The idea of having rules is to follow them, if your not actually following them, then why play?
See, playing a rule as intended really does not work, as GW FAQ's have changed rulings that people actually agreed on.


Simply put, please show me where it says the fellblade causes the wound.
It does not even say it strikes the weilder, like other such items do (daemon sword for example).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:

Wait. I might see the confusion. Are you guys claiming that, when you bonk a dude on the head with the sword, that the wound turns into D6 wounds, but that wounds caused by the sword's venomous, corrupting aura are not, because, in that case, the sword is not being "used", like a sword would normally be?

That would be a way of putting it, or atleast a way of explaining how it does not kill him outright most of the time.
But alas, that would be fluffy rather than rules worthy.
Try to think along the lines of "gets hot" in 40k.
I know comparing them isnt a good idea, but its a rough example of a weapon hurting its owner, but not being used in its proper way.

 Jackal wrote:
And where does it say the fellblade caused the wound?

Okay. *deep breath*. I'm okay now. Let me try this again:

It says that the Fellblade caused the wound under the description of the Fellblade. Look above for the complete and exact text, from the title and point cost to the descriptive text to the rules. The Fellblade's rules wound you. How can you say that the Fellblade is not the direct cause of the wound?
The Fellblade's rules include the phrase "On a roll of 1-2, the wielder takes a wound".

Can you agree with the following statement:

It is because the Warlord purchased the Fellblade that he takes a wound on a 1-2.

 Jackal wrote:
Your adding in your own wording at the moment.
You even made up a fluffy effect which isnt in the book, im impressed

You want the stuff from the book? Okay:

- p.20 "The weapon would be so lethal that to wield it assured certain death. It mattered not, as the unwitting user would be unaware that his own life was sapping away".
- p.21 "as the human staggered away, already driven to madness or oblivion..."

There. Couple that with what we know about warpstone (magic plutonium) and older books, and we get an imagine of a slow-but-steady, life-draining/twisting force within the sword.

 Jackal wrote:
Quote me where it says the fellblade causes the wound please.

I will. The Fellblade makes you roll a D6 after each Skaven turn. On a 1-2, you take 1 wound.
The Fellblade has this rule. Without it, you would not need to roll the die to see if you take 1 wound. Right?

 Jackal wrote:
So you want people to find something that does not exist, to disprove your argument based on something that also does not exist?

Let me rephrase this: you're asking me to show you where it says the Fellblade causes the wound. I have done so. Or, if you still disagree, I have tried to do so. Can you do the same, and show me what causes the wound, if not the sword?

You have not shown me in the rules where it says the fellblade causes the wound.
I can see where it says the model suffers a wound, but it does not say from the hellblade.
Your whole argument so far is simply based on your idea of it being the blade causing the wound to its weilder.
Nowhere in the book does it say that its the blade that has caused the wound.

On a fluffy note, i forgot about the section on the blade being used against nagash.
So, while on a fluffy note, how would a 50/50 chance of being killed on the spot be the blade "sapping" life?
Sounds far more bloody dangerous than that.

The blade drains the users life, not turns around and stabs him like a daemon weapon does.

Being fluffy, that is exactly what happens. The blade is death itself, but carrying it is radioactive, hence the single wound.
It would be nice to have it clarified, but will needto be house ruled till that elusive point.

On a rough note though, i got work at 5am and its 11 now
If you do find a big turning point in the rules, please PM me as it will be nice to see an end to this one, as its not the 1st time its come up on dakka.

For now though, i think its a case of having to agree to disagree.

 Jackal wrote:
Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?

Um, because if you don't have a Fellblade you don't take a wound. The rule is OWNED by something. It has a source. Because every other model in the game doesn't take a wound randomly for no reason. So at what point does someone start taking wounds? Is it when they have a Fellblade? I'm pretty sure it is. Does the Fellblade say attack, or close combat, or slashing angrily multiplies by D6? Nyope. It says caused by the Fellblade. If the Fellblade made you trip and fall and take a wound, it would still be multiplied by D6 because it caused it. Because you didn't have that rule that caused you to trip without a Fellblade.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?

Um, because if you don't have a Fellblade you don't take a wound. The rule is OWNED by something. It has a source. Because every other model in the game doesn't take a wound randomly for no reason. So at what point does someone start taking wounds? Is it when they have a Fellblade? I'm pretty sure it is. Does the Fellblade say attack, or close combat, or slashing angrily multiplies by D6? Nyope. It says caused by the Fellblade. If the Fellblade made you trip and fall and take a wound, it would still be multiplied by D6 because it caused it. Because you didn't have that rule that caused you to trip without a Fellblade.

If it wasn't caused by the fellblade, high elves could destroy the sword via vauls unmaking, and you would still have to test.
Honestly, it seems like a pretty simple cause and effect to me.
Have a fellblade and roll a 1 or 2, take a wound.
Don't have a fellblade, don't roll & don't take wounds.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?

Um, because if you don't have a Fellblade you don't take a wound. The rule is OWNED by something. It has a source. Because every other model in the game doesn't take a wound randomly for no reason. So at what point does someone start taking wounds? Is it when they have a Fellblade? I'm pretty sure it is. Does the Fellblade say attack, or close combat, or slashing angrily multiplies by D6? Nyope. It says caused by the Fellblade. If the Fellblade made you trip and fall and take a wound, it would still be multiplied by D6 because it caused it. Because you didn't have that rule that caused you to trip without a Fellblade.

If it wasn't caused by the fellblade, high elves could destroy the sword via vauls unmaking, and you would still have to test.
Honestly, it seems like a pretty simple cause and effect to me.
Have a fellblade and roll a 1 or 2, take a wound.
Don't have a fellblade, don't roll & don't take wounds.

-Matt

The fact is, hen you cause wounds with the fellblade, it has the D6 multiple wounds rule. That applies to wounds taken from the fellblade. If it said, on a 1/2 you take a wound, then the D6 penalty would apply. But you don't take a wound. You suffer 1 wound. The difference is subtle, but it is there. The way it is written means that you lose a wound on a 1/2.

 Jackal wrote:
You have not shown me in the rules where it says the fellblade causes the wound.
I can see where it says the model suffers a wound, but it does not say from the hellblade.
Your whole argument so far is simply based on your idea of it being the blade causing the wound to its weilder.
Nowhere in the book does it say that its the blade that has caused the wound.

It says it under the rule of the Fellblade, so the wound is caused by the Fellblade. That's my answer. Do you have a better one?
Things have sources. That's not a rule in Warhammer, that's a law of Reason itself. The wound the Warlord takes is because of something. The reason he takes it is because of the Fellblade.

 Jackal wrote:
So, while on a fluffy note, how would a 50/50 chance of being killed on the spot be the blade "sapping" life?
Sounds far more bloody dangerous than that.

The blade drains the users life, not turns around and stabs him like a daemon weapon does.

I believe that the Fellblade was intended to, on a 1-2, take one of your wounds, but the RAW currently says that any wounds caused by the Fellblade turn into D6 wounds, and doesn't distinguish between close combat or rolling a 1-2.
But yes, you're absolutely right. D6 wounds on a 1-2 is not sapping anything; it's stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fact is, hen you cause wounds with the fellblade, it has the D6 multiple wound rule. That applies to wounds taken from the fellblade. If it said, on a 1/2 you take a wound, then the D6 penalty would apply. But you don't take a wound. You suffer 1 wound. The difference is subtle, but it is there. The way it is written means that you lose a wound on a 1/2.

So, to be clear, your argument hinges upon the difference between the words "take" and "suffer"?

So it now changed to "it is not the Fellblade, it's the Fellblade's rules"?

I think darkavenger's argument hinges on the diffeeence between "a wound" and "1 wound", which is the difference between before and after rolling the d6.

Niteware wrote:
I think darkavenger's argument hinges on the diffeeence between "a wound" and "1 wound", which is the difference between before and after rolling the d6.

That was the old argument. Now he's moved on to take a wound and suffer 1 wound.
I'm giving up. He's grasping now.
When you can't clarify your position, it usually (but not always) means your wrong.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Niteware wrote:
I think darkavenger's argument hinges on the diffeeence between "a wound" and "1 wound", which is the difference between before and after rolling the d6.

That was the old argument. Now he's moved on to take a wound and suffer 1 wound.
I'm giving up. He's grasping now.
When you can't clarify your position, it usually (but not always) means your wrong.

-Matt

My argument was, and still is, based on the fact that the wording indicates the single wound. I have not stated anything different, despite what people may have understood.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
My argument was, and still is, based on the fact that the wording indicates the single wound. I have not stated anything different, despite what people may have understood.

An unsaved wound caused by the Fellblade's rules, but apparently not the Fellblade.
That is the part that I, myself at least, have issue understanding.

Because the Fellblade's rules explain what to do about unsaved wounds that they cause.

It may be worth noting, but as per the BRB. pg.45

"Roll to hit and wound as normal and then take any armor saves and ward saves that apply. Finally for each such wound that is not saved, roll the appropriate dice to determine how many wounds are caused."

As per strict RAW, to achieve multiple wounds, you first have to roll to hit and wound.

The mind boggles.

Editing to add:
Assuming the unlikely, that that was serious, the Fellblade's rules explain how it works sans main rules.

a) the BRB section is in regards to shooting attacks, which is why it's under shooting. It says if you're hit by a weapon that does multi wounds. It doesn't say multi wounds from any source can only happen this way--because they don't. Otherwise, spells and war machines and whatever else would never be able to do multi wounds if they don't need to roll to hit.
b) The Fellblade does not have Multiple Wounds special rule. It was written before the current BRB. It has its own rule, the totality of which is in that section under Fellblade.

Warpsolution wrote:

It says it under the rule of the Fellblade, so the wound is caused by the Fellblade. That's my answer. Do you have a better one?
Things have sources. That's not a rule in Warhammer, that's a law of Reason itself. The wound the Warlord takes is because of something. The reason he takes it is because of the Fellblade.

The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
My argument was, and still is, based on the fact that the wording indicates the single wound. I have not stated anything different, despite what people may have understood.

Okay, so the terms "suffer", "take", and "cause" are not part of your argument? Got it.
In that case, I ask; does "1 wound" fall into the category of "any unsaved wounds"?
If not, I would ask how.

 Mike der Ritter wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

It says it under the rule of the Fellblade, so the wound is caused by the Fellblade. That's my answer. Do you have a better one?
Things have sources. That's not a rule in Warhammer, that's a law of Reason itself. The wound the Warlord takes is because of something. The reason he takes it is because of the Fellblade.

The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

Actually, it works the other way.
The blade has a rule that *ANY* wound caused is multiplied. Lacking a disclaimer, the wound inflicted by rolling a 1-2 falls under "Any" and should be multiplied.

-Matt

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

So you are saying that, because the rules for the Fellblade do not say "on a 1-2, the Fellblade inflicts 1 wound upon the wielder", or something to that effect, that the wound is not multiplied.
Is this correct?

Warpsolution wrote:

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

So you are saying that, because the rules for the Fellblade do not say "on a 1-2, the Fellblade inflicts 1 wound upon the wielder", or something to that effect, that the wound is not multiplied.
Is this correct?

That is the grammatically correct way of interpreting it.

The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

RAW is that any unsaved wounds are multiplied into D6. RAW means all the rules, not stop reading when you get the portion you like. If you read close combat RAW it is quite different if you don't read about panic tests.

the Fellblade inflicts

That is the grammatically correct way of interpreting it.

Then it doesn't multiply against enemies either. Because when you roll on the BRB tables it doesn't say the Fellblade inflicts these wounds. Of course it never would, because that would be silly and illogical. Much like thinking the Fellblade isn't causing the wound you suffer but something else entirely, like the Smellblade, the Fellblade's evil twin brother? And the Smellblade's wounds aren't multiplied by D6 of course.

I still say if it caused D6 wounds to the wielder, it would be in the scrap pile instead of the magic item section. No selfish Skaven lord would EVER take a weapon that was likely - not possibly, LIKELY - to kill him before he ever saw combat.

Skaven lords take risks with OTHER skaven's lives, not their own.

Maybe it was a birthday present?

Actually if i remember the FAQ the sword makes the wielder re-roll his own ward saves which usually only takes effect if you gave it to a grey seer but i don't think anybody would do that with any sort of sanity .

I honestly don't think it causes d6 wounds to the bearer. That'd be a stupidly terrible weapon if that was the case. It'd have 2/3 of a chance of killing its wielder if the sword does it.

It says the wound suffered allows no armor saves. I'm actually thinking this is an effect separate from the other parts of the sword.

One argument for the sword to cause just one wound is that the 'blade of corruption' states if you have a 'to hit' roll of a 1 the wielder automatically suffers a wound that is multiplied to 2 wounds. If this is the case wouldn't they say that for the rules of the fellblade as well without making things so vague. My thought is that they didn't plan for that and didn't want it. So it's just 1 wound.

Saying it sucks isn't an argument. You can say a lot of stuff sucks but that doesn't mean the rules for them don't exist. If you want to make house rules, that's fine, but that's not this forum.

Blade of corruption isn't worth it's points either.

Don't know if it was intentional, but you didn't respond to his point....

DukeRustfield wrote:
Saying it sucks isn't an argument. You can say a lot of stuff sucks but that doesn't mean the rules for them don't exist. If you want to make house rules, that's fine, but that's not this forum.

Blade of corruption isn't worth it's points either.

No my point was 'blade of corruption' specifically says afterwards that if you roll multiple ones you hit yourself and it gets multiplied to 2 wounds. With the fellblade they didn't explain this if you wound yourself.

If you want to make a thread on the blade of corruption, that's cool. But this is on fellblade. Saying they forgot it, because a weapon that is kinda similar has it, is spurious. If you go word by word, they diverge almost instantly and for apparently no good reason.

E.g.,
-Fell grants 10S, Corr is +1S only in close combat
-Fell says any unsaved woundS are multiplied into D6, Corr says any unsaved wound [singular].--which you can take to mean Corr can only do it once
-Fell takes place at the end of turns, Corr takes place during to-hit.


They had to FAQ the corruption 3 times to:

Page 107 – Blade of Corruption.
Changethesecond sentenceto “The bearer is granted +1
Strength to allattacks madein closecombat,and hasthe
Multiple Wounds(2)special rule.”
Q: Does the Strength bonus from the Bladeof Corruption and
Dwarf Bane applyto attacks madeby a Tail Weapon, Rat Hound
orotherbonus attacks? (p107)
A: No.
Q:If a model equipped with the Bladeof Corruption is, for
whateverreason, allowed tore-roll his To Hitrolls, do hisrollsof
a 1 beforeor afterthere-roll count towards whetheror not he
sufers a backlash from the weapon? (p107)
A: After there-roll – when a diceisre-rolled, only the
second resultcounts.

You guys forgot one FAQ for the Fellblade.

Page 107 – The Fellblade.
Changethefirstsentenceto “Thisfoulsword givesthe bearer
Strength 10,and successful ward savestaken against wounds
inflicted by the bearer in closecombat must bere-rolled.”

They had to put that in, because as originally written, the Fellblade made the owner only reroll his ward saves...


The point is, they are both ambiguous weapons, both have FAQs and are both shoddily worded. But the rules for one aren't the rules for the other. They, for whatever reason, didn't rewrite Fellblade to be multi wounds D6. Assuming it was on purpose or a mistake or purposeful negligence is a reach. The only thing we know for sure is what is there. Fellblade is Fellblade, it isn't Blade of Corruption.

Just to get more ridiculous as I browse around, I see Weeping Blade says "Each unsaved wounds is multiplied into D3 wounds." That is a complete sentence. That could have meant that anyone anywhere who owned the sword caused every wound ever caused in the game to go D3. Because it didn't limit it so the blade. That's how poorly the Skaven weapons were written. So they were smart enough to FAQ it. So using the uncorrected Skaven source as a holy template I think is a bade idea. Yes, Fellblade sux. Yes, it should be refaqed. Yes, it would be okay to make a house rule. But as written, it is what it is.

Page 107 – Weeping Blade.
Changeto “A Weeping Blade hasthe Armour Piercing and
Multiple Wounds(D3)special rules.”

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

So you are saying that, because the rules for the Fellblade do not say "on a 1-2, the Fellblade inflicts 1 wound upon the wielder", or something to that effect, that the wound is not multiplied.
Is this correct?

That is the grammatically correct way of interpreting it.

Then what causes the wound that your Warlord takes on a 1-2 at the end of the turn?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@vulcan and flamingkillamajig:

I totally agree; the Fellblade has some potential if it slowly sucks your wounds away, one at a time, and that D6 wounds utterly ruins it. But I am seeking the most absolute grammatical truth I can right now.
In an actual game, I'd ask my opponent if we could forgo the roll at the end of the turns and just count the Warlord as dead at the end of the game.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
...'blade of corruption' specifically says afterwards that if you roll multiple ones you hit yourself and it gets multiplied to 2 wounds. With the fellblade they didn't explain this if you wound yourself.

Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade get multiplied into D6 wounds, and that on a 1-2, you suffer 1 wound.
The simple question is: does the 1 wound you suffer fall into the category of "any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade"?
The answer is: "yes".

I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't based on 'it sucks!'

I was just saying that if there's even a question, no Skaven Lord would even pick one up. Lord knows my skaven won't until the issue is resolved.

 Vulcan wrote:
I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't based on 'it sucks!'

I was just saying that if there's even a question, no Skaven Lord would even pick one up. Lord knows my skaven won't until the issue is resolved.

Yeah, basing YMDC on it would suck otherwise, would produce whole new rules for a lot of weapons... cue beastmen magic items.

-Matt

 Vulcan wrote:
I was just saying that if there's even a question, no Skaven Lord would even pick one up. Lord knows my skaven won't until the issue is resolved.

I understand, and totally agree. When I said that the wound suffered on a 1-2 "ruins" the Fellblade, I meant from a literary standpoint, just as you're describing. But, of course, it's ruined mechanically as well. Unfortunately, none of that matters in the bare bones of the discussion.

As to those who still disagree with my take on this whole thing, my question remains: if the Fellblade is not causing the wound the Warlord takes on a 1-2, then what is causing it?

Think I agree with you now Warp, but " The Rules" is my favourite answer to your question ^.^

Warpsolution wrote:

As to those who still disagree with my take on this whole thing, my question remains: if the Fellblade is not causing the wound the Warlord takes on a 1-2, then what is causing it?

I read this whole thread, and I think the best point made in this regard is the one about "Gets Hot" from 40k. When a guy uses a weapon with the Gets Hot special rule, he might take a wound. The wound is coming FROM the weapon, as without the weapon he wouldn't take the wound (and the weapon possesses the special rule), but it's NOT coming from the weapon in the sense that he's shooting himself WITH the weapon. He's shooting something ELSE with the weapon, and the weapon is getting hot, and that heat is causing damage to the wielder.

Isn't that what's really happening with the Fellblade? It's infused with dark energy. This energy leeches life and damages anyone who wields the blade from which this energy flows. But it's also a sword, which means it has two ways to cause damage - it leeches energy and it stabs things.

These two effects are not the same, in the way that a plasma gun getting hot doesn't cause the wielder to shoot himself. The dark energy of the Fellblade not only does damage, but also has a powerful effect on ward saves, causing them to be rerolled. But in order for d6 wounds to be done, the dark energy must be exposed directly to the bloodstream - the easiest way to do this is to stab someone with it, and the combination of the stabbing and the dark energy causes d6 wounds in a way that exposure to the dark energy, by itself with no open wounds, doesn't.

And I know this is not the best RAW argument, but I still think it's the best argument. And I also think it's a good logic argument for the grammar of the writing. It's fairly clear (to me) from the context that the stabbing does d6 wounds while the dark energy does a single wound to the bearer, and the exact wording actually does reflect that interpretation.

You're plasmagun example would be true, if the description of plasma gun said all wounds caused by the plasmagun are AP2 and cause instant death.

The plasmagun has rules that are used when firing shots, and a universal rule called "get's hot".

The Fellblade has a rule that says all ward saves are re-rolled and ANY wound inflicted is multiple by D6.

Plasmaguns are situation, Fellblade is ALL,

-Matt

40K wording and rules carry as much weight here as Pokemon rules. Which isn't to say Pokemon is bad, it's just irrelevant.

The Fellblade isn't getting hot because it was cooked in some little Skaven girl's lightbulb oven too long. It's a 100pt magical artifact. Magic does what it says it does. Not because it makes sense from a normal human world.

It doesn't make particular logical sense that curses and chunks of a former space portal (which Skaven can snort to give themselves magic powers...) can kill the biggest monster the game in one swing either. But that's why RAW is important. Logic isn't even RAI. It sadly has no place here. Because none of this stuff is remotely logical. If we want, we can spend 30 pages explaining how every single item and unit in the Skaven book is illogical.

To put a counter argument on your logic, for instance, if you give the Fellblade to a unit who becomes multi-cursed with all 1 attributes. And the spell fluff says is blind and crippled and diseased, and can only hold weapons in his feeble mouth. Fellblade still has exactly the same profile even though that unit is incapable of swinging/stabbing with force and can only drop it on people's feet. If the sword was only stabbing/swinging like a barbarian, we would have to take away all it's cool abilities in ^ case. But it's magic. And illogical.

@Tangent: I agree with your opinion. Totally and completely. A cursory glance at the Skaven literature available and with a moderate grasp of game mechanics, the situation of 1-2: take D6 wounds is clearly not the one that was intended to be true.

But, because the Fellblade's rules were written as they currently are, that's exactly what happens.

There are two major hazards when talking about a magically radioactive sword. One is being subject to its qualities as a sword. The other is just being around it.

But the Fellblade isn't a sword. It's a collection of rules that represent a sword within the simulation of the game. So, by RAW, there's no way we can clarify anything.
"all unsaved wounds" means "all". The word "caused" means simply that; "a thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition".
What gives rise to taking a wound on a 1-2? The fact that the Warlord's carrying around the Fellblade. So the Fellblade--meaning its presence, its rules, all that stuff--causes the wound, and so the wound is multiplied into D6 wounds.

I knew you guys would be against me and, really, I'm against me, too. I know it's not really a RAW argument that I made.

But I guess what my overall point is... is that context is everything here. I'm not trying to say that we should take the rules of 40k and use them as a sort-of precedent to clarify another game's rules. I'm basically just saying that the same thing is happening to the 40k dude with a Plasma Rifle as what's happening to the rat with the Fellblade. And the point that THIS is making is one of context.

Yes, I know that the wording of, "wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied to d6" is a clarification on the wording of, "the wielder takes a wound," and so we can't just say that the second wording is all that we should pay attention to. Because this game is full of clarifications and why should we just ignore this one because we want to?

But I think the context is SO IMPORTANT in this case that we actually have a good reason to ignore this clarification. And the context does not, in my opinion, support the ruling that when the wielder of the Fellblade damages himself, that wound is multiplied.

 Tangent wrote:
I knew you guys would be against me and, really, I'm against me, too. I know it's not really a RAW argument that I made.

But I guess what my overall point is... is that context is everything here. I'm not trying to say that we should take the rules of 40k and use them as a sort-of precedent to clarify another game's rules. I'm basically just saying that the same thing is happening to the 40k dude with a Plasma Rifle as what's happening to the rat with the Fellblade. And the point that THIS is making is one of context.

Yes, I know that the wording of, "wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied to d6" is a clarification on the wording of, "the wielder takes a wound," and so we can't just say that the second wording is all that we should pay attention to. Because this game is full of clarifications and why should we just ignore this one because we want to?

But I think the context is SO IMPORTANT in this case that we actually have a good reason to ignore this clarification. And the context does not, in my opinion, support the ruling that when the wielder of the Fellblade damages himself, that wound is multiplied.

You conveniently left out "ALL".
I completely believe that the author meant: "Wounds caused in close combat by the Fellblade must re-roll successful ward saves and are multiplied by 1D6".
But that's not what he wrote.
I'm actually baffled that the FAQ forces the 1-2 result to re-roll wards, since it isn't in close combat.

-Matt

Not on purpose. All of what?

ALL wounds caused by fellblade are multiplied. Your quote excluded all. In a RAW sense, "all" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

Oh, I see what you mean. It's a little silly to even point that out. If it didn't say "all" it would still be implied.

 Tangent wrote:
Oh, I see what you mean. It's a little silly to even point that out. If it didn't say "all" it would still be implied.

But leaving it out strengthens your argument. Which is why I called you on it.
I'm curious about your plasma comparison. Plasma guns have a rule called get's hot. That's a universal rule, not detailed under plasma, but detailed under Universal Special Rules, and applied to many weapons, not just a plasmagun.

You do see the difference in those don't you?

If skaven had a warpstone weapon rule that did a wound on a 1-2 for any "warp stone weapon", and the fellblade was listed as having the WarpStone Weapon rule, then you could strongly argue that it's the army special rule, not the fellblades special rule that is doing the wound. That would be a perfect match to the 40K plasmagun rule.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
Oh, I see what you mean. It's a little silly to even point that out. If it didn't say "all" it would still be implied.

But leaving it out strengthens your argument. Which is why I called you on it.
I'm curious about your plasma comparison. Plasma guns have a rule called get's hot. That's a universal rule, not detailed under plasma, but detailed under Universal Special Rules, and applied to many weapons, not just a plasmagun.

You do see the difference in those don't you?

If skaven had a warpstone weapon rule that did a wound on a 1-2 for any "warp stone weapon", and the fellblade was listed as having the WarpStone Weapon rule, then you could strongly argue that it's the army special rule, not the fellblades special rule that is doing the wound. That would be a perfect match to the 40K plasmagun rule.

-Matt

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

I don't think it strengthens my argument at all.

Yes, I see the difference.

But I think you still aren't really getting my point. I'm not trying to make a rules comparison. I'm trying to make a "what happens" comparison that has little to do with the rules other than that they both exist. And "what happens" provides the context under which the wording of the rules should be read.

 Tangent wrote:
I don't think it strengthens my argument at all.

Yes, I see the difference.

But I think you still aren't really getting my point. I'm not trying to make a rules comparison. I'm trying to make a "what happens" comparison that has little to do with the rules other than that they both exist. And "what happens" provides the context under which the wording of the rules should be read.

Oh, right I get it. We should ignore the rules and just look at a final effect.
So failing a dangerous terrain check is just like rolling a 1-2 with a fellblade, because they both cause a wound.
Does that mean you now have to re-roll ward saves on dangerous terrain tests?

Comparing rules for "What Happens" only works when rules are similar. Otherwise, you get the logic I posted above about dangerous terrain, or any other effect that causes a wound.

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

And you have yet to explain how that is outside of "ANY".

I think it should work your way, I'd agree to play it your way, but if I were running a fellblade in a tournament, RAW says otherwise, and I won't run it your way.

-Matt

Make some space in the "1 wound" camp for me.

It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

I see and fully understand the opposing side's argument, but making the conclusion that since the sword has the USR and the USR causes 1 wound, the wielder automatically suffers d6 wounds is a very logic argument...but it's RAI, not RAW.

See, if the wording was "On a roll of 1, it causes 1 wound to the wielder", we can all agree on it dealing more than 1 wound.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Make some space in the "1 wound" camp for me.

It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

I see and fully understand the opposing side's argument, but making the conclusion that since the sword has the USR and the USR causes 1 wound, the wielder automatically suffers d6 wounds is a very logic argument...but it's RAI, not RAW.

See, if the wording was "On a roll of 1, it causes 1 wound to the wielder", we can all agree on it dealing more than 1 wound.

It's not a Universal Special Rule when the rule is exclusive to a single weapon.

-Matt

No need to start nitpicking, you know what I mean.

USR as in Unique Special Rule.

It's unique special rule(s) also multiplies by D6 and makes you reroll wards. They have already FAQed that the reroll for wards applies to the user.

If the special rule doesn't apply to each other, then none of the rules should stack against the enemy either. It doesn't do D6 to them or force reroll. Cuz those are special rules and you're suddenly saying those don't modify each other. Or is it they only don't modify each other when it's inconvenient? Though the FAQ has already quashed that.

The point is, that entire block of text is ONE rule. It is the Fellblade. You don't pick and choose parts of it. All of it is on and in play.

Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

...and inconvenient? Any nerf to Skaven would be convenient to me. Don't put words in my mouth.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

How do you separate the Fellblade from its rules, Unique, Special, or otherwise?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

It is the absolute definition of RAW. I think just about everyone agrees on that. It's bad RAW, but it's RAW. The Fellblade clearly does cause the wound (since if you don't have it, you don't take a wound, that's what cause means) and the Fellblade multiplies ANY wounds by D6. Any means all. 100%. Everything. I think you're the only person saying it's not RAW. Even detractors say it is, it just makes the sword terrible.

Rerolling wounds on yourself was RAW too. They didn't need to FAQ it. They don't always FAQ things that are highly questionable. At least half the FAQs are pretty obvious.

Warpsolution wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

The fellblade has two effects. 1 being the bearer becomes S10 and each unsaved wound gets multiplied into d6, and causes wounds to be rerolled. And, IN ADDITION, which is a completely different effect, it causes a wound to the bearer on a 1 or a 2.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

How do you separate the Fellblade from its rules, Unique, Special, or otherwise?

The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself. It is like me saying Killing blow does multiple wounds. It doesn't, but it takes off multiple wounds. This is the opposite. The weapon causes multiple wounds, but the special rule only deals 1. NOTE: I AM VERY TIRED, AND THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME RIGHT NOW.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

Again, you're trying to lump together the wounds caused by the fellblade, and the wounds caused by the special rule of the fellblade. They are two different effects.

The in addition, even though it's underlined, is added by you. It is not in the text. It nowhere at any point made a separate statement or condition. Your theory is further decayed by the fact that the ward save, which you describe as being part of one full special rule, also applies to that IN ADDITION. So that's clearly not the case. They can't be merely 2 special rules unless they are:

1. St10, reroll ward, D6 wounds
2. take a wound, reroll ward

And that makes no sense that part of a special rule, which you're going out of your way to say is separate, is shared among both, but the other part isn't.

The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself

That's silly. Then the Fellblade never does D6 because it isn't causing wounds, the model that owns it is. The Fellblade has 0 attacks. It cannot cause a wound EXCEPT to the owning player.

Special Rules are Special Rules, it is a game term. They are in the BRB and have a particular meaning. Or they are listed under units. Scurry Away! is a Special Rule. What is the Special Rule that is doing dmg? It isn't that whole last sentence because that isn't a Special Rule, it is the textual implementation of one. It falls under the heading of...Fellblade. You are trying to take a sentence that occurs under the heading and saying that is a separate rule.

As an example, Strength in Number is a rather large rule. It has ONE sentance that says, "if for any reason a Skaven unit loses its rank bonus, it also loses its Leadership bonus." Well I take that to mean they lose Inspiring Presence and BSB reroll and any other LD bonuses they may have gotten, because I'm going to ignore the rest of the rule like you're doing with Fellblade.

DukeRustfield wrote:
The in addition, even though it's underlined, is added by you. It is not in the text. It nowhere at any point made a separate statement or condition. Your theory is further decayed by the fact that the ward save, which you describe as being part of one full special rule, also applies to that IN ADDITION. So that's clearly not the case. They can't be merely 2 special rules unless they are:

1. St10, reroll ward, D6 wounds
2. take a wound, reroll ward

And that makes no sense that part of a special rule, which you're going out of your way to say is separate, is shared among both, but the other part isn't.

The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself

That's silly. Then the Fellblade never does D6 because it isn't causing wounds, the model that owns it is. The Fellblade has 0 attacks. It cannot cause a wound EXCEPT to the owning player.

Special Rules are Special Rules, it is a game term. They are in the BRB and have a particular meaning. Or they are listed under units. Scurry Away! is a Special Rule. What is the Special Rule that is doing dmg? It isn't that whole last sentence because that isn't a Special Rule, it is the textual implementation of one. It falls under the heading of...Fellblade. You are trying to take a sentence that occurs under the heading and saying that is a separate rule.

As an example, Strength in Number is a rather large rule. It has ONE sentance that says, "if for any reason a Skaven unit loses its rank bonus, it also loses its Leadership bonus." Well I take that to mean they lose Inspiring Presence and BSB reroll and any other LD bonuses they may have gotten, because I'm going to ignore the rest of the rule like you're doing with Fellblade.

The fact that the two rules are completely unrelated is why I wrote in addition. Find a way to prove that they are related without telling me that the wound is caused by the fellblade. Or bringing up the rerolling ward. I'll wait.

The special rule thing as a mistype. And I apologise it. The special rule should in fact be an effect of the weapon. And reading through the fellblade, it has two separate effects.

If it has 2 separate effects, why does one...sub-effect, apply to both and not the other sub-effect (d6).

They reworded the first sentence.

Page 107 – The Fellblade.
Changethefirstsentenceto “Thisfoulsword givesthe bearer
Strength 10,and successful ward saves taken against wounds
inflicted by the bearer in closecombat must bere-rolled.”

+

Q:If the bearer of the Fellblade inflicts a wound upon himself,
must here-roll successful ward saves? (p107)
A: Yes.

It's clear bearer and Fellblade are the same from the FAQ. Since the first FAQ changed it to require rerolls caused by the bearer and the 2nd FAQ talks about wounds caused by the bearer on himself. As I said before, the Fellblade itself has 0 Attacks and thus can never do D6. The Fellblade multiplies any wounds by D6.

If you hold that enemies have to reroll ward saves, then the user takes D6. Because in both cases, the wording is "the bearer" causes those wounds. That is the language of the first and second FAQ. If the bearer is causing wounds to the enemy and those are multiplied by D6 then it stands to reason they are also multiplied by D6 against himself because "the bearer" is causing the wound.

DukeRustfield wrote:
If it has 2 separate effects, why does one...sub-effect, apply to both and not the other sub-effect (d6).

They reworded the first sentence.

Page 107 – The Fellblade.
Changethefirstsentenceto “Thisfoulsword givesthe bearer
Strength 10,and successful ward saves taken against wounds
inflicted by the bearer in closecombat must bere-rolled.”

+

Q:If the bearer of the Fellblade inflicts a wound upon himself,
must here-roll successful ward saves? (p107)
A: Yes.

It's clear bearer and Fellblade are the same from the FAQ. Since the first FAQ changed it to require rerolls caused by the bearer and the 2nd FAQ talks about wounds caused by the bearer on himself. As I said before, the Fellblade itself has 0 Attacks and thus can never do D6. The Fellblade multiplies any wounds by D6.

If you hold that enemies have to reroll ward saves, then the user takes D6. Because in both cases, the wording is "the bearer" causes those wounds. That is the language of the first and second FAQ. If the bearer is causing wounds to the enemy and those are multiplied by D6 then it stands to reason they are also multiplied by D6 against himself because "the bearer" is causing the wound.

Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade. The way it is worded seems like it works like the Other Tricksters' shard, but not applying to friendly models in B2B. However, the bearer taking a wound on a 1/2 is still a different effect to the S10 and D6 wounds.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade.

This is also what I'm saying. The assumption being made is that because a model has a certain weapon, that model possesses only ONE way to do damage (cause wounds), which is WITH the weapon. But models with Thunderstomp will show otherwise - models, wielders, and bearers of weapons can inflict wounds, saved or otherwise, in different ways, often regardless of the equipment they carry. This is one of those cases - the bearer of the Fellblade is not hitting himself with the Fellblade. Instead, the energy of the Fellblade is leeching wounds from the bearer as long as the model remains the bearer. Or whatever. The grammar can be argued but the language (I can't think of a better word for it) seems fairly clear to me: The fluff describes the effect. The rules themselves specifically say "one wound." The FAQ doesn't go out of its way to add the "d6 wounds" part, despite the fact that it DOES go out of its way to add the "reroll ward saves" part.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't. Presumably on purpose. I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

This is the context that I was referring to, that I believe is being ignored.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade.

2 things, first off, yes he does. Because the bearer causes the wound to himself and the fellblade is the source of the wound because it has the rule. Again, there is nothing anywhere that says the fellblade has to be swung vigorously. If you want to say your Lord taps the nose of your enemy with the fellblade and giggles it will have exactly the same effects as written. Second, a bit more obscure, if you have a magic weapon you must use it, per the BRB. There is nothing the bearer could use otherwise. And even if he could, he is forced to use the fellblade because it has a mandatory rule attached to it. No matter how you look at it, when the wound takes effect he is under the influence of the fellblade's rules. He HAS to reroll successful ward saves. If he is wounded they take D6.

I know you want to make some distinction between yelling and screaming and swinging a weapon with great force, but there isn't one. If a weapon is Killing Blow it doesn't matter if it's wielded by a Str 1 gnoblar with arthritis. It will still instantly slay a super high elf lord of awesome if he fails his save.

Put it another way, if it was a Chainsaw of Clumsiness and you had the exact same rules across the board. But instead of the evil blade sapping your soul or whatever, you're dropping it on your foot or otherwise fell on it. In that case you would probably say it's multiplied by D6. But the problem with that is it's just fluff. The rules would be exactly the same. If it helps you, think of the many curses laid on the blade that simply magnify any wound caused around it. The warpstone causes a wound. I mean, that's all fluff. You are arguing that he's not swinging the sword at himself. But that is irrelevant. If he's incapable of attacking at all (spell or somesuch) nothing would change.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't.

The absence of FAQ does not make proof for conjecture. They didn't FAQ tens of thousands of questions that pop up here all the time. RAW is in force if there is no FAQ.

The assumption being made is that because a model has a certain weapon, that model possesses only ONE way to do damage (cause wounds), which is WITH the weapon.

This is really simple. If the Fellblade is destroyed, you don't have to test. If you don't buy the Fellblade, you don't have to test. The Fellblade causes the wound. There can't be any question about that. If you disagree, then every skaven unit will have to take the test because it's something...else doing the wound. Just having the entry in your book? The model can possess 239842398 ways to cause wounds--doesn't matter. None of those other ways cause the Fellblade's test. If you have it, you test. If you don't, you don't. After that point it is immaterial HOW you taking the wound. It is from the Fellblade, if you are kissing it, licking the blade (mmm, chocolate), stabbing yourself in the eye, or absorbing evil evilness, it's still got the same conditions of rerolling wards and D6.

I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

Find anywhere in any rule where that distinction is made. Nowhere does it say you're merely holding the Fellblade instead of striking with it. Those conditions don't exist. If you put the Fellblade down at the end of combat can you escape the roll? Can we make up all kinds of subphases like pre-combat-prep and post-combat-ditch-evil-artifacts?

DukeRustfield wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade.

2 things, first off, yes he does. Because the bearer causes the wound to himself and the fellblade is the source of the wound because it has the rule. Again, there is nothing anywhere that says the fellblade has to be swung vigorously. If you want to say your Lord taps the nose of your enemy with the fellblade and giggles it will have exactly the same effects as written. Second, a bit more obscure, if you have a magic weapon you must use it, per the BRB. There is nothing the bearer could use otherwise. And even if he could, he is forced to use the fellblade because it has a mandatory rule attached to it. No matter how you look at it, when the wound takes effect he is under the influence of the fellblade's rules. He HAS to reroll successful ward saves. If he is wounded they take D6.

I know you want to make some distinction between yelling and screaming and swinging a weapon with great force, but there isn't one. If a weapon is Killing Blow it doesn't matter if it's wielded by a Str 1 gnoblar with arthritis. It will still instantly slay a super high elf lord of awesome if he fails his save.

Put it another way, if it was a Chainsaw of Clumsiness and you had the exact same rules across the board. But instead of the evil blade sapping your soul or whatever, you're dropping it on your foot or otherwise fell on it. In that case you would probably say it's multiplied by D6. But the problem with that is it's just fluff. The rules would be exactly the same. If it helps you, think of the many curses laid on the blade that simply magnify any wound caused around it. The warpstone causes a wound. I mean, that's all fluff. You are arguing that he's not swinging the sword at himself. But that is irrelevant. If he's incapable of attacking at all (spell or somesuch) nothing would change.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't.

The absence of FAQ does not make proof for conjecture. They didn't FAQ tens of thousands of questions that pop up here all the time. RAW is in force if there is no FAQ.

The assumption being made is that because a model has a certain weapon, that model possesses only ONE way to do damage (cause wounds), which is WITH the weapon.

This is really simple. If the Fellblade is destroyed, you don't have to test. If you don't buy the Fellblade, you don't have to test. The Fellblade causes the wound. There can't be any question about that. If you disagree, then every skaven unit will have to take the test because it's something...else doing the wound. Just having the entry in your book? The model can possess 239842398 ways to cause wounds--doesn't matter. None of those other ways cause the Fellblade's test. If you have it, you test. If you don't, you don't. After that point it is immaterial HOW you taking the wound. It is from the Fellblade, if you are kissing it, licking the blade (mmm, chocolate), stabbing yourself in the eye, or absorbing evil evilness, it's still got the same conditions of rerolling wards and D6.

I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

Find anywhere in any rule where that distinction is made. Nowhere does it say you're merely holding the Fellblade instead of striking with it. Those conditions don't exist. If you put the Fellblade down at the end of combat can you escape the roll? Can we make up all kinds of subphases like pre-combat-prep and post-combat-ditch-evil-artifacts?

Using the logic you're applying, the spell flaming sword causes the unit to have flaming attacks, rather than giving them the flaming attacks special rule. Likewise, the sword does not attack the bearer, but confers a rule onto the bearer where he takes a single wound on a roll of 1/2.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fellblade has two effects. 1 being the bearer becomes S10 and each unsaved wound gets multiplied into d6, and causes wounds to be rerolled. And, IN ADDITION, which is a completely different effect, it causes a wound to the bearer on a 1 or a 2.

Can you offer textual evidence that these two rules are separate?

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself.

I ask you, what is the Fellblade?
Several people seem to think that the Fellblade is a sword with rules. And within the narrative aspect of the game, that's true. But in terms of the mechanics, I don't think there's anyway to separate the sword from the rest of its rules. The Fellblade isn't swung around, isn't slowly sapping anyone's life force; it changes the Strength number to a 10, and the wound number to a the result on a six-sided die.
Am I making my point clear? It's kind of tricky; our imaginations fill in a lot of the gaps automatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tangent wrote:
the bearer of the Fellblade is not hitting himself with the Fellblade. Instead, the energy of the Fellblade is leeching wounds from the bearer as long as the model remains the bearer. Or whatever. The grammar can be argued but the language (I can't think of a better word for it) seems fairly clear to me: The fluff describes the effect. The rules themselves specifically say "one wound." The FAQ doesn't go out of its way to add the "d6 wounds" part, despite the fact that it DOES go out of its way to add the "reroll ward saves" part.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't. Presumably on purpose. I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

This is the context that I was referring to, that I believe is being ignored.

How is "...suffers 1 wound..." separate from "any unsaved wounds..."?
I get what you're saying. I just don't think you have any support from the RAW.
Again: there is no difference between "the Fellblade" and "the Fellblade's rules". Not that I can see. Once more, I ask for proof.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Using the logic you're applying, the spell flaming sword causes the unit to have flaming attacks, rather than giving them the flaming attacks special rule. Likewise, the sword does not attack the bearer, but confers a rule onto the bearer where he takes a single wound on a roll of 1/2.

The spell gives the unit flaming attacks. That's quite specific. The point is there is no functional difference between a unit having flaming attacks and a sword having flaming attacks except if the sword is destroyed it loses the special rule. And that's what you guys aren't getting. DoC Bloodletters in the new book have KB on their SWORDS and TK Tomb Guard have KB on themselves. Do you know what the difference is? Functionally, none. If a Bloodletter OR Tomb Guard had to attack itself, it would still be KB.

WoC has a Daemonblade and on a roll of 1 the hit is resolved against himself. ANY special rules that are in play on that model or weapon are in play on that attack against himself. Special Rules are only turned off when they specifically say they are. Like when they FAQed that Stomp/Thunderstomp don't get benefits from magic items, spells, special rules. You see under each unit a collection of special rules. As you buy items, more rules accumulate. They don't turn off and on depending on whether you attack someone (or yourself) unless it explicitly says so. If that wielder of the Daemonblade attacks himself and he has KB somehow, he has the chance of instantly slaying himself. Because you don't get to turn off the special rule when it's inconvenient.

The case of the demon blade is irrelevant here Duke
Because the demonBlade attacks rolls of 1 to hit make the user hit himself, thus applying all the other modifiers/rules

With the Fellblade it could go 2 ways
1) "soft RAW" = unsaved wounds caused by attacks with the Fellblade inflicts d6 wounds instead (ie: weapon has the multiple (d6) wounds rule)
2) "hard RAW" = ALL unsaved wounds on the battlefield -anywhere- instead inflict d6 wounds

As usual, "hard RAW" is completely absurd

Warpsolution wrote:
How is "...suffers 1 wound..." separate from "any unsaved wounds..."?
I get what you're saying. I just don't think you have any support from the RAW.
Again: there is no difference between "the Fellblade" and "the Fellblade's rules". Not that I can see. Once more, I ask for proof.

Well, I'm not saying there IS a difference, but the context of the writing combined with an FAQ for ONE part but not for BOTH strongly suggest that it should be played in a certain way. And I think it is this context that's being largely ignored in favor of grammar-based arguments that still can't get around the fact that it only says one wound in the part of the rules that reference the bearer being hurt by the sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok ok, nevermind, let me reword.

How can the context of what the Fellblade is clearly supposed to do be ignored any more than the "technical" wording of the rules (for lack of a better term)? I feel like we all know how this is supposed to work (he only takes a single wound), and we know this because we all understand the context. That shows that the context is there - we aren't making it up; we're reading it. We're inferring it. We're deducing it. And then we're ignoring it because there's a discrepancy with the grammar?

We all know why they left this part out of the FAQ, but included the "reroll ward saves" part - it's because the wielder is only supposed to take a single wound, not multiplied, and they didn't FAQ it because that's what it already says. How do we know this, and why are you guys ignoring it?

 Tangent wrote:
How can the context of what the Fellblade is clearly supposed to do be ignored any more than the "technical" wording of the rules (for lack of a better term)?

The same could be said for Prince Apophas, but he is still worthless.

TanKoL wrote:
As usual, "hard RAW" is completely absurd

Agreed. Doesn't make it any more (technically) correct, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tangent wrote:
How can the context of what the Fellblade is clearly supposed to do be ignored any more than the "technical" wording of the rules (for lack of a better term)? I feel like we all know how this is supposed to work (he only takes a single wound), and we know this because we all understand the context. That shows that the context is there - we aren't making it up; we're reading it. We're inferring it. We're deducing it. And then we're ignoring it because there's a discrepancy with the grammar?

We all know why they left this part out of the FAQ, but included the "reroll ward saves" part - it's because the wielder is only supposed to take a single wound, not multiplied, and they didn't FAQ it because that's what it already says. How do we know this, and why are you guys ignoring it?

I see what you're saying. And again: I agree with you that the Fellblade was intended to do one wound, and one wound only.

1. Why are we ignoring the context of what the Fellblade is supposed to do, and not the exact wording of the rules? I guess I'd say: because the context isn't part of the rules; it's the concept that the rules are meant to simulate.
We know that because, as I said before, our imagination fills in the gaps between the rules. But this is a discussion about rules. And the rules currently fall short of what they are supposed to represent.

2. "...successful ward saves taken against wounds caused by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled" --this line leaves zero doubt that re-rolling successful ward saves is only for wounds caused in close combat. So they FAQ'd it to apply to the wound the Warlord takes on a 1-2 as well.
The line "any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds" leaves tons of doubt. It's any and all wounds. Not ones used by the sword in combat. All wounds. Context is the purpose of the numbers; it's why we play this game. Context and the RAI should guide us when we play, but I'm talking about being technically right, down to the letter. RAW.

But, once more: I'd never play that way.

2. was FAQed away. But you're right. They changed it to bearer in close combat because of that.

Alright, I can be satisfied with all of those points. I don't disagree with any of it, and I see now why, as relates to this discussion, certain parts of the wording are more important than others.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Logical leaps are dangerous with GW rules writing. They can lead to game breaking issues if you apply them to other areas.

THIS^^^

 caledoneus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Logical leaps are dangerous with GW rules writing. They can lead to game breaking issues if you apply them to other areas.

THIS^^^

...right. So when the Fellblade says "Any unsaved wounds are multiplied into D6 wounds...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound", it would be just such a leap of logic to claim that the first does not affect the second.

trying to apply logic to GW rules should probably be a Vulcan exercise... maybe they could pull it off without going batty!

Vulcans are too busy making rubber to deal with Skaven.

lol