Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Results 5,6,8,9 all mention rolling a d6 for each enemy unit and each friendly unit that contains demonic mark ...

When I read this, I assumed you were rolling for each unit that had the demonic mark of BLANK

My friend read this once and immediately wanted me to roll for each of his units as well (he was playing Brettonia). I had never read it like that but could easily see that translation.

If each enemy unit is affected on a 6, and units marked with Khorne asin the no. 8 on the table, the warp storm table just got really good as it will affect his army ore than mine. Has there been any consensus as to how this should be played?

It affects:
1) All enemy units.
2) All friendly units of $God

It's all enemies and all units the god in the entry.

I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted any other way.

You could parse it (enemy and friendly) with mark, or enemy and (friendly with mark). The latter seems more sensible.

buckero0 wrote:
Results 5,6,8,9 all mention rolling a d6 for each enemy unit and each friendly unit that contains demonic mark ...

When I read this, I assumed you were rolling for each unit that had the demonic mark of BLANK

My friend read this once and immediately wanted me to roll for each of his units as well (he was playing Brettonia). I had never read it like that but could easily see that translation.

If each enemy unit is affected on a 6, and units marked with Khorne asin the no. 8 on the table, the warp storm table just got really good as it will affect his army ore than mine. Has there been any consensus as to how this should be played?

There is no consensus. If you're playing in a tournament, check with the organizer.
The debate is based on the lack of comma.

-Matt

Here's how it would be written if it applied like your Brettonnian said.

Roll a D6 for ALL enemy unitS and each friendly unit that contains one or more...

The each and lack of comma or semicolon (or more clearly a period) says the following modifiers (has to have marks/daemonic) applies that condition to both enemy and friendly.

And frankly, praying to roll horrible on winds of magic so you can blast to pieces every single MSU your enemy has is extremely counter-intuitive and pretty powerful. All the unit size 1 guys are going to get creamed.

It just means that if you are playing Daemons vs Daemons both rolls will effect both armies.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It just means that if you are playing Daemons vs Daemons both rolls will effect both armies.

Or warriors of chaos, I hear they get marks too.

-Matt

O'right, it includes marks as well

... I will admit I thought this stuff only affected enemies of [insert god / mark here] too

Side comment: the DoC book(s) are so in need of FAQ-ing, hope GeeDub makes some decisions and lets us know how to play these things. Or at the least lets me know if my Tizz army of 'warpflame' attaks are 'flaming' by the time I get it to the table

- Salvage

They clearly state warpflame isn't flaming. And the name of something is irrelevant anyway. The "Killing Blow monster of Heroics" doesn't have any special rules other than what his profile says he has, regardless of name. But from DoC pg. 39:

This is not fire in the truest sense, but a roiling cloud of Chaos energy. It does not burn, but warps reality.

That's the FLAMER entry who has WarpFLAME special rule. If anything should be flaming it's them. But they aren't.

DukeRustfield wrote:
That's the FLAMER entry who has WarpFLAME special rule. If anything should be flaming it's them. But they aren't.

Yet

I do know how RAW works Duke, so chillax. Warpflame not being flaming is just such an abrupt change from precedent that it suggests some kind of FAQ is inevitable - either we'll be (snarkily) told that warpflame is obviously flaming, or (snarkily) that if they had meant the attaks to be flaming they would have written such.

Cheers for that bit of fluff though, that's the first thing I've read that leads me to believe warpflame may well stay un-flaming. (Besides the current rules - or lack there of )

- Salvage

Each book is stand-alone. What came before doesn't really matter. Recycle your old DoC book or use it as firewood. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to continually be FAQing new stuff to the old stuff as that can be more confusing because you're restating rules you've already written and presenting old rules to people they might not even be aware existed in the past. We shouldn't even be looking at the old stuff. Like I haven't a clue what DoC was like in 5th edition. If the FAQ had lots of rules about 1-7th editions, I think it would be a total mess.

What I can see being FAQed is something like Burning Charriot. Which "uses the rules for fire throwers" but specifically replaces the special rules. One of the special rules for fire throwers is...flaming. But I'm guessing burning charriots aren't. In fact, unless I'm mistaken a Soul Grinder using Baleful Torrent, and the new Khorne cannon are the only Flaming attack DoC has access to. Not counting any hero item you take from the BRB.

Out of curiosity and not having read the book... if it has the flaming special rule (pun intended) then why do you think it is not flaming?

I agree that they will FAQ warpflame, but not because of old books, just because of the name. WoC have it too without the "not really flaming" fluff.

 curran12 wrote:

I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted any other way.

I can absolutely see how reasonable people could conclude it works either way. I expect it will have a chance of affecting the entire enemy army. I think it will by and large have little impact on any given game, though most folks will have anecdotes of "that one time" when the dice made it game-deciding.

Red_Zeke wrote:I can absolutely see how reasonable people could conclude it works either way.

I myself figured it was more a mechanic to make life difficult for DoC players (pendulums swinging and so on), particularly Skittles players. Though I suppose that latter bit is still true. Speaking of dice madness, was reading a report over on Daemonic Legion that gripped about the new daemons basically being for people who love whacky dice and lots of them. I was nodding so hard it hurt

Niteware wrote:Out of curiosity and not having read the book... if it has the flaming special rule (pun intended) then why do you think it is not flaming?

As Duke has said, the issue is that the flaming special rule (i.e. 'Flaming Attaks') is unexpectedly and virtually absent from the DoC book, limited solely to the Skull Kannon's cannon. The Soul Grinder's Baleful Torrent is also flaming due to being a fire thrower, while the Burning Chariot's Pink Fire enters into a possible grey area due to firing as a fire thrower yet also having the Warpflame special rule (though does RAW not allow it to be a flaming fire thrower that also has the warpflame special rule?) Beyond that, there's the Banner of Eternal Flame (for those daemons without magical weapons), some Lore of Metal spells ... and nothing else.

- Salvage

Niteware wrote:
You could parse it (enemy and friendly) with mark, or enemy and (friendly with mark). The latter seems more sensible.

Which means it should have been phrased as either:
1) All units with a mark of ____, friend or foe, are affected.
OR
2) Every enemy unit, but only friendly units with a mark of _____ are affected.

For lols, I just noticed last night that WoC Spawns that have marks of Tz have a S3 flaming breath weapon. So you can take that multiple ways.

A Spawn is repeatedly stated to be kind of a messed-up pile of gifts and attention. Maybe Tz doesn't get flaming until it goes way overboard and daemons never simply get into that category--the lowliest horror is still a spellcasting, ward-saving mofo, not a gibbering, random movement/attacks slimeball. Or you could look at it that WoC gets good stuff and someone somewhere thought Tz=flaming.

Ok, so a friend of mine pointed me towards this discussion so I figure I will put my 2 cents worth in. Before I get into my reasoning for the way I rule it, be advised, I understand each side of the argument and can see how it could go either way. However, the wording on the chart says "Roll a D6 for each enemy unit AND each friendly that contains one or more Daemons of X, or models with the Mark of X, on the board." The "AND" is your divisor there between the two entities. If you were to say otherwise, please explain to me why everywhere else in the book it combines them, then says friendly or enemy? For example, if you look at page 36 in the DoC book, Skarbrand states "While Skarbrand is alive, all units on the table (friendly or enemy) are subject to the rules for Hatred." Then next, I would point out page 48 in the same book. This is the Epidemius entry, that I now refer to "The Tally of Pestilence." Again, it says while he is alive, keep a count of all unsaved Wounds caused by Daemons of Nurgle (friend or foe) and by spells from the Lore of Nurgle. Furthermore, on the actual chart, each tier says "All Daemons of Nurgle (friend or foe) gain Y"

With those examples given, I would like someone to please give me their explanation on why every other entry is written out with (friend or foe) or (friendly or enemy) after it, yet GW just felt the need to write out the "Reign of Chaos" table long form and intended it to be all units with Mark X (friend or foe), which they had done in all previous entries yet managed to forget how to do that for this table? I am of the opinion this is "Each enemy unit and each friendly unit with Mark of X or are Daemon of X" and not "All units (friend or foe) with Mark of X or Daemon of X on the board."

 Taz0103 wrote:
Ok, so a friend of mine pointed me towards this discussion so I figure I will put my 2 cents worth in. Before I get into my reasoning for the way I rule it, be advised, I understand each side of the argument and can see how it could go either way. However, the wording on the chart says "Roll a D6 for each enemy unit AND each friendly that contains one or more Daemons of X, or models with the Mark of X, on the board." The "AND" is your divisor there between the two entities. If you were to say otherwise, please explain to me why everywhere else in the book it combines them, then says friendly or enemy? For example, if you look at page 36 in the DoC book, Skarbrand states "While Skarbrand is alive, all units on the table (friendly or enemy) are subject to the rules for Hatred." Then next, I would point out page 48 in the same book. This is the Epidemius entry, that I now refer to "The Tally of Pestilence." Again, it says while he is alive, keep a count of all unsaved Wounds caused by Daemons of Nurgle (friend or foe) and by spells from the Lore of Nurgle. Furthermore, on the actual chart, each tier says "All Daemons of Nurgle (friend or foe) gain Y"

With those examples given, I would like someone to please give me their explanation on why every other entry is written out with (friend or foe) or (friendly or enemy) after it, yet GW just felt the need to write out the "Reign of Chaos" table long form and intended it to be all units with Mark X (friend or foe), which they had done in all previous entries yet managed to forget how to do that for this table? I am of the opinion this is "Each enemy unit and each friendly unit with Mark of X or are Daemon of X" and not "All units (friend or foe) with Mark of X or Daemon of X on the board."

While it's a good point, GW isn't consistent in terminology within their own rule books.

-Matt

Agreed Matt however, as previously stated, this argument is based on a period, semi-colon, or comma, or the lack there of in this case. So we can admit they are not consistent in their own terminology, and other things as well, yet we expect them to remember every single punctuation mark throughout the entire book or else the rule gets abused? I personally just think the argument of the lack of punctuation is a petty one, made by TFG, which probably doesn't play daemons and is just trying to find another way to bend the rules to his advantage. As you said previously, it will most likely come down to the event organizer to make the final call, at least until the FAQ comes out (if one ever does, seeing as how Tau already have one).

It actually makes DoC a lot better. Because every time you roll bad on the winds, every single unit the enemy has a chance of getting attacked while only ones with opposition models of yours would get attacked.

Like, "gee, sucks I only have 5 power dice, good thing Tzeentch has taken a person interest in my lack of magic and has decided to drop a flaming template on 1/6th of the units the enemy posses."

I find it curious that this 'hey, we could get the enemy with this' interpretation appears to have just surfaced among Fantasy Daemon players, while over on the 40k side of things I'm fairly sure we've been using the Winds to affect our opponent the whole time...

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I find it curious that this 'hey, we could get the enemy with this' interpretation appears to have just surfaced among Fantasy Daemon players, while over on the 40k side of things I'm fairly sure we've been using the Winds to affect our opponent the whole time...

I'm told the language in the 40K book is clearer, and thus there isn't the same debate. Can't speak to that first-hand though.

 Red_Zeke wrote:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I find it curious that this 'hey, we could get the enemy with this' interpretation appears to have just surfaced among Fantasy Daemon players, while over on the 40k side of things I'm fairly sure we've been using the Winds to affect our opponent the whole time...

I'm told the language in the 40K book is clearer, and thus there isn't the same debate. Can't speak to that first-hand though.

I'm also told that every single version of the Fantasy book besides the English says "Units containing Mark/Daemon of X and enemy units". So only in the English is there any ambiguity.

 Red_Zeke wrote:

I'm told the language in the 40K book is clearer, and thus there isn't the same debate. Can't speak to that first-hand though.

Ah, having a quick check shows that it is quite a bit clearer at our end. So, I would say definitely what the rules are meant to convey. However, I can't stand RAW discussions, so I will bow out here.

DukeRustfield wrote:
It actually makes DoC a lot better. Because every time you roll bad on the winds, every single unit the enemy has a chance of getting attacked while only ones with opposition models of yours would get attacked.

Like, "gee, sucks I only have 5 power dice, good thing Tzeentch has taken a person interest in my lack of magic and has decided to drop a flaming template on 1/6th of the units the enemy posses."

"It actually makes DoC a lot better?" Excuse me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes. Do you even play DoC, I mean seriously? I have been playing them since the new book came out and let me tell you, it tends to do just as much damage to the Daemon player as it does the opponent. It affects you every time I roll bad for winds of magic? Again, you must not have looked at the chart. Results 5,6,8, and 9 are the only ones that have these effects. Furthermore, it is only on a roll of a 6 and you only get to roll for each "unengaged" enemy unit, not every enemy unit. So for every unengaged enemy unit you have a 16.67% chance of actually dealing any damage. Then on a result of 2,3, and 4 it is a negative towards your own army as the Daemon player. A 7, which may I remind you is the average on 2D6, does absolutely nothing. So please give me some statistics and proof on how this chart makes DoC a lot better? Personally I fail to see it on paper, and from experience of playing the army, it tends to be my luck to roll a 6 on my own unit but not a single 6 for any of my opponents units.

 Taz0103 wrote:
it tends to do just as much damage to the Daemon player as it does the opponent

That is impossible. First, I think you're in the wrong thread. This thread is about Warp Storm. Not Winds of Magic in general. Hence the title and all the content that people are debating. New Winds of Magic suck. This thread is about whether or not 5, 6, 8, 9 hurt every unit of the enemy. If they do, they most certainly hurt the enemy more than you. That's just math.

So for every unengaged enemy unit you have a 16.67% chance of actually dealing any damage. Then on a result of 2,3, and 4 it is a negative towards your own army as the Daemon player.

No one is debating 2, 3, 4.

Warpstorm is negative towards you IF YOU HAVE MODELS OF THE OPPOSING TYPE. The enemy is 16.67% no matter what--if Khorne attacks and the enemy is carrying banners of Khorne it doesn't matter, if you go by that one interpretation. You are 16.67 * .25 (assuming an even spread of gods) or about 4.1% per unit. Even if you are mono god it works out the same, because 3/4ths of the time you will not even be eligible for dmg.

-Duke

Ok first off, "in the wrong thread"? Really, I think my first post was spot on for this thread. Secondly, never once did I ever say anybody was debating the 2,3, or 4 results. I was simply stating my response on your comment that the "Warp Storm" table makes DoC a lot better. Also on that note, in fantasy it is not the "Warp Storm" chart, it is the "Reign of Chaos" chart. Also to your comment on "That is just math", would you please explain to me how if all of my opponents units are "engaged" and I roll for my winds of magic with the result being "Enemy units, and friendly units that are Daemon of Khorne" while I have 3 Khorne units unengaged? Please give me your algorithm that proves math says my opponent would take more damage there. Being pretty far along in a math/probability/statistics degree, I cannot recall such a formula for that. So lets look at some math/probability.

First you have to roll the 5, 6, 8, or 9 on the chart. You have a 50% chance of rolling one of these 4 numbers (or a 18/36 probability). So out of 6 game turns you would roll one of these results 3 times. Then lets figure the number of units, for this discussion we will just use 12 units per side (figuring for a larger game, 2500-3000) and because it comes down to simple math. So out of three turns, 12 units on the board, and only hitting on 6's, this equates out to you will only have 6 units get hit the entire game. This is assuming the game play that would give the "Reign of Chaos" table the best results (that none of your units ever get engaged in combat and none of them ever die either, basically you sit across the board looking at each other for 6 turns). These 6 units that do get hit, still have to be wounded which that is an entirely new formula with a multitude of variables you really can't account for without getting numerous solutions and produce, what would be most effective, a spreadsheet or chart to visually give the results.

So going back to your original argument, with the math presented, please explain to me (including your own algorithm) on how the chart makes the DoC a LOT better. I never said it didn't help the Daemons, but I will not agree that it makes them a LOT better. But if you are expecting stuff in the book to not make daemons better, then you should call Matt Ward, as I hear he never ever ever ever makes an over powered armybook or codex. Your arguments have done nothing more than make you TFG in my opinion. Better yet, since I am not here to argue this, just originally intended to present my view on the matter and why I rule it a specific way for others to consider, I will leave you to argue your own points on this matter. I was just posting here to offer another way to look at it. I have no reason to argue or prove my point to another person behind a keyboard since you aren't in my local group.

Whatever badness DoC experiences, if the enemy experiences it NO MATTER WHAT, that is worse. See how that works? If you don't have models of the enemy gods, you cannot be hurt by that particular attack. The enemy can (if that interpretation holds).

-Doc chance of badness: .167/4 (or about .04)
-Enemy chance of badness: .167

Your mono-Khorne army will never ever ever ever be hurt by a TZ attack. The enemy still has to face the 1 in 6 roll. As a DoC player, that is good for you. Because the only other possible alternative is they face the same results as you and probably don't have any Khorne (or other daemon) units, because they're like Dwarfs or something.

So your choice is every single enemy unit gets a potential attack when about 25% of your units get attacked or (probably) none of the enemy units get attacked. It is clearly very advantageous to have the first interpretation as opposed to the 2nd.

Though to me it seems unlikely that was the intention. It's very detrimental to MSU and units like archers, redirectors, war machines, etc that don't particularly want to enter combat.