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.

The Nightmare Doll (Haemonculus Covens) negates the first unsaved wound that causes Instant Death that would be allocated to the bearer.

A question has cropped up on a DE website I frequent as to whether or not this would prevent a Destroyer weapon from killing the bearer.


Here are the order of operations: Get hit by D weapon. Roll on Destroyer chart. If 2-6 rolled, take saves (if applicable).

From there, here are the options as I see them:

A) The Nightmare Doll negates the wound which would be caused by the Destroyer weapon before it multiplies out, preventing the character from dying.

B) The Nightmare Doll negates the first of the dx+x wounds, leaving the character to face the rest of the wounds (and thus to still die).

C) The Nightmare Doll does not prevent any of the wounds.

D) Other/confused/no opinion (please specify)

How do you think it works?

Successful destroyer hits wound automatically and cause a model to lose however many wounds instead of one. Effectively a model takes one unsaved wound, but that wound causes the model to lose a number of wounds instead of 1.

So the first option, unless it's against a D-Scythe which is only S4 for Instant Death purposes, or unless the model somehow gains T6 or higher to avoid Instant Death from a destroyer weapon's usual S10 for Instant Death purposes.

What is the wording for the effect?

Oberron wrote:
What is the wording for the effect?

"Furthermore, the Nightmare Doll automatically negates the first unsaved Wound with the Instant Death special rule that the bearer suffers, though as soon as it does so, the Nightmare Doll will immediately cease to work for the rest of the battle."

For destroyer weapons you take a save on the hit not the wounds so you only make the one save. You don't save the hit (it's unsaved) so you negate it with the doll? That's the way I would do it I think.

 HANZERtank wrote:
For destroyer weapons you take a save on the hit not the wounds so you only make the one save. You don't save the hit (it's unsaved) so you negate it with the doll? That's the way I would do it I think.

This isn't correct. Destroyer states:

"Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

No to-wound roll is made because the hit wounds automatically, but a wound is still caused, which is what (as normal) is saved against.

It is of course a single unsaved wound, albeit a wound that inflicts the loss of D3 wounds on a model rather than one. So the Nightmare Doll still works against it, provided the wound carries the Instant Death rule.

Are the autohits allocated or not allocated?

I thought a argument about D-weapons a few weeks ago hinged on them being allocated (LOS maybe?).

However you play them, consistently. If a wound in allocated (so, you would be able to make a save, LOS etc) then yes. If not, then no. If you play a save on the first hit to cause no wounds, then the same for the doll; Functionally like a one time save. I believe the most popular then is option A.




Reading through D weapons I though the hits are allocated, removing the need for the wound pool (and there is never a roll to wound that is able to populate one ) and therefore no allocation from it. It is a bit out of the way though.

They are still allocated. They are not autohits, they are autowounds.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They are still allocated. They are not autohits, they are autowounds.

This.

1)You roll To Hit.
2)assert "D result"
3)You resolve an auto-Wound (saves). (<Failed save = suffer "unsaved Wound")
4)Instead of reducing wounds by 1, as usual, you remove D3.

(In the case of 2-5, of course)
During step (3), the Nightmare doll would stop the progression and "suppress" the Auto-Wound that you did not save.

My own question though: Is it Instant Death? D = S10?

>

From memory D counts as S10 for the purposes of instant death. Hence the scythes having "only" S4.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
From memory D counts as S10 for the purposes of instant death. Hence the scythes having "only" S4.

My inference by that question was also:

That means that some D-Weapons (rolling a 2-5) might remove 3 Wounds from a model with a Nightmare Doll, and the model would not be able to use the Nightmare Doll as these "S4 D-weapons" are not Instant Death Wounds. Is that possible?

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
From memory D counts as S10 for the purposes of instant death. Hence the scythes having "only" S4.

My inference by that question was also:

That means that some D-Weapons (rolling a 2-5) might remove 3 Wounds from a model with a Nightmare Doll, and the model would not be able to use the Nightmare Doll as these "S4 D-weapons" are not Instant Death Wounds. Is that possible?

Exactly. It isn't instant death, so the Nightmare doll doesn't kick in, but it is still Strength D, so you don't get to take a feel no pain.

One more way eldar screw dark eldar. From the fluff, it should be the other way around.

Ah thanks! Somehow i managed to miss MR Shine's clear explanation:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
So the first option, unless it's against a D-Scythe which is only S4 for Instant Death purposes, or unless the model somehow gains T6 or higher to avoid Instant Death from a destroyer weapon's usual S10 for Instant Death purposes.

Derp

There is not an initial wound that multiplies out.

We are just told it causes d3 wounds instead of 1, not that it causes 1 wound that becomes d3.

if the d3 result is a 2 or 3 you would negate the first wound and still have unsaved wounds to suffer.

therefore the answer by the RAW cannot be A.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HANZERtank wrote:
For destroyer weapons you take a save on the hit not the wounds so you only make the one save. You don't save the hit (it's unsaved) so you negate it with the doll? That's the way I would do it I think.

and this is correct as per Destroyer weapons you are told to take the save on the hit from the rules for destroyer weapons, not the wound.

"Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapon as normal, unless a devastating hit or deathblow result is rolled."

the thing in that statement that is weird of course is "as normal" as normally you take saves versus wounds not hits...yay GW :(

Apart from the actual rules stating otherwise, you would be correct. There is indeed an initial,wound. It's been proven n

This might help anyone to understand:

 BlackTalos wrote:
As such, i would modify your summary:

Normal:
Hit
Roll to Wound
Allocate Wounds
Save Wounds
Reduce Wounds by 1
Remove Casualties (Optional)

D-Weapons:
Hit "model suffers a hit"
Roll to Wound "that wounds automatically"
Allocate Wounds Allocate "Seriously Wounded" or "Deathblow" Wounds
Save Wounds Take your save against the "Seriously Wounded" Wound
Reduce Wounds by 1 "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1"
Remove Casualties (Optional)

From: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/645363.page

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apart from the actual rules stating otherwise, you would be correct. There is indeed an initial,wound. It's been proven n

I find your statement lacking in any rules support, as well as being non constructive.

The rules for Destroyer weapons do not state the model suffers an unsaved wound, then it becomes D3. The rules state the model suffers D3 wounds instead of 1.

Normal hit= 1 wound

Destroyer hit= 0, D3, or D6+6 wounds

not 1 wound that magically becomes d3, or X wounds, this is not stated anywhere. If it were the case, which it is not, the d3 roll of 1 would be the model suffers 1 wound that becomes 1 wound. Or if you roll on the table a 1, the model suffers 1 wound that becomes 0 wounds.

The model suffers a hit that is d3 wounds instead of 1.

Not the model suffers a hit that is 1 wound, that becomes d3.

Unless you can quote a relavent rule that shows the model suffers a singular wound, and after that is suffered it becomes d3 your statement has no merit in the rules.

D weapons
Roll to hit-as normal
roll to wound- there is no roll to wound, instead roll on table.
Saves- roll saves if allowed
allocate wounds- model suffers no wounds, d3 wounds, or d6+6 wounds
reduce wounds
remove casualties.

There is no to wound roll, we are told in the rules for destroyer weapons that there is no to wound roll because of instead of rolling to wound you roll on the table. The table does not tell us there is an initial unsaved wound, it tells us models suffer 0 wounds, d3 wounds INSTEAD of 1, or d6+6 wounds INSTEAD of 1. These wounds wound automatically and have no to wound roll.

not 1 wound that becomes x wounds. That is made up.

No, it did not contain rules. They've already been given, so I foolishly assumed you had already read them.

Wounds automatically. Causes d3 wounds instead of 1. Wounds automatically is where the wound is generated, and is the part of the shooting sequence wher you roll saves.

Your argument is refuted. Mark it hywpi.

I like how you broke up a sentence into two parts and put the latter half in front as a separate sentence to change the rules.

your argument is refuted, put it in the proposed rules section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it did not contain rules. They've already been given, so I foolishly assumed you had already read them.

Wounds automatically. Causes d3 wounds instead of 1. Wounds automatically is where the wound is generated, and is the part of the shooting sequence wher you roll saves.

Your argument is refuted. Mark it hywpi.

if wounds automatically is where the wound is generated you just changed the rules, so that now people have to roll to wound for the d3 wounds and they do not wound automatically[despite the RAW stating they do-because you cut that piece of the rule out and moved it somewhere else, well done!], which would be individually as there is no permission in destroyer to not roll individually. Or we could not break up the rules and rearrange them into something they are not. Also the rules for destroyer specifically state the save is taken at the hit step, not after wounds, so again you are fabricating rules.

No, it states you save against "as normal", which you choose to break up

However I have again remembered the futility of attempting honest debate with you, so I won't participate further. It's not worth the time to convince a poster such as yourself.

Everyone else knows the correct rules, which is all that matters. Your house rules can be played wherever you can convince people you're right.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it states you save against "as normal", which you choose to break up

However I have again remembered the futility of attempting honest debate with you, so I won't participate further. It's not worth the time to convince a poster such as yourself.

Everyone else knows the correct rules, which is all that matters. Your house rules can be played wherever you can convince people you're right.

"Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapon as normal, unless a devastating hit or deathblow result is rolled."

quoting the actual RAW again for you, you can note that it is not broken up. Of course you won't because you are you however.

you take saves against hits for destroyer weapons, it states so plainly. Does it say 'hits' or 'wounds' ? I see hits. I see it also in my rulebook. Not wounds.

you can make a RAI statement about "as normal" but considering it plainly says hits, the as normal would have to reference the normal way you roll saves, not the normal time you roll saves as the RAW clearly states its against the hit, and does not state against wounds taken.

TBH put me on ignore, it would be nothing but a benefit if you stopped replying to anything I post. Ever. When most of your posts contain zero rules and say things like Your argument is refuted. Mark it hywpi. or "concede concede" to any one who you disagree with.

How do you save against hits as normal? By saving against the wounds those hits generate.

I won't put you on ignore. Some of your more constructive rewrites of basic rules are quite amusing to read.

To me this makes sense, maybe it won't to you:

First a quote from above:

"Furthermore, the Nightmare Doll automatically negates the first unsaved Wound with the Instant Death special rule that the bearer suffers, though as soon as it does so, the Nightmare Doll will immediately cease to work for the rest of the battle."

this isn't a quote but an unsaved wound from a d-weapon on a 2-5 multiplies into d3 unsaved wounds.

So if the result was a 1 then the bearer of the doll is safe, I'm fairly sure that is undisputed.
If the result is a 2, then the bearer dies because the doll only protects him from one of the unsaved wounds. However if the bearer had eternal warrior as well as the doll (which may not be possible but bear with me) then he would only suffer 1 wound because the doll stops one wound with the instant death special rule and the second wound wound with the instant death special rule only does 1 wound.
I believe everyone is smart enough to extend this concept to a d3 result of 3

yes normally you save against wounds, but it doesn't say to save against wounds from destroyer weapons as normal.

it saves to take saves against hits from a destroyer weapon as normal.

so obviously the part where you save has specifically been modified, but you are told you make a normal save against it there unless it is a deathblow/deathstrike.

referencing the general rule and then claiming how a specific rule that modifies part of the general rule is invalid because general rule is present is not how specific rules work.

blaktoof wrote:
you can make a RAI statement about "as normal" but considering it plainly says hits, the as normal would have to reference the normal way you roll saves, not the normal time you roll saves as the RAW clearly states its against the hit, and does not state against wounds taken.

This doesn't make sense. How do you propose we roll saves before wounds have been allocated? Do we make a further assumption that we're allowed to allocate hits instead of wounds? If so that's quite a leap from the RAW.

What does make sense and complies with RAW is it meaning that we roll saves against hits that successfully wound, as normal.

Well the Nightmare Doll specifically says "with the Instant Death" special rule. So unless the D-weapon has the "Instant Death" USR, then RaW, the nightmare Doll would have no effect.

HOWEVER. I would play this that the nightmare doll would indeed work and save the model. But only because I hate D weapons, and think they should be taken out of the game.

D-weapons do not inherently have ID. However, for the purpose of ID they are Strength 10 (scythes being an exception). This means that against T5 or less, unless the model has EW, on a 2+ if they fail their save (if allowed) they are dead.

Blaktoof, I posted a reply to you about this in another thread, and i thought no answer meant you might have agreed...

This is with rules support (Italics are RaW):

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The wounds from the D weapon are an affect applied to the model hit, so the total wounds aren't distributed to the unit, but the hits are.

That is slightly wrong by method, but correct in resolution. Please play this way it makes things very easy.

Hits can never be allocated, only Wounds can. So the method is this:

- Roll To Hit
D weapon causes 3 Hits.
- Roll To Wound
2 Hits roll 2-5: Seriously wounded. Automatic Wound with a D3 "Cause".
one Hit rolls 6: Deathblow. Automatic Wound with a D6+6 "Cause".

You have a Wound Pool: 2 "and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1." and 1 "and causes it to lose D6+6 Wounds instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit.".

So, you now assign 1 "and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1." Auto-Wound to the closest (or enemys choice) Carnifex. He gets(maybe) a Save (Invun?). If he fails, you roll a D3, that Carnifex looses that many wounds.
Then, you assign 1 "and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1." Auto-Wound to the same Carnifex, or the next one if the first has died. Save again, if he fails, you roll a D3, that Carnifex looses that many wounds.

You may then assign the last Auto-wound, that ignores saves and therefore simply removes D6+6 Wounds.

Notice that you may
A) Assign the D6+6 Auto-wound first, before the other 2
B) You cannot roll the D3 until after it has been assigned and the enemy has rolled a save. So you can't "find out before" what the result is.
C) Likely not kill all 3 Carnifexes. If they have Cover/Invun saves, Roll 1 on the D3, you may have to also use the D6+6 on the Carnifex that has 1 Wound left... ("once a model has a Wound allocated to it during an Initiative step, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty.")

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the line needs further clarification:

"Non-vehicle - Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1."

The model suffers a hit (To Hit)

that wounds automatically (To Wound)

and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1. (Reduce Wounds, in the Rulebook in the "Reduce Wounds and remove casualties" section)

There doesn't seem to be a clear community consensus at all.

Unless I'm much mistaken, the overwhelming majority (i.e. all but one) in this thread have come to the same conclusion, with so far as I can tell sensibly-supported rules backing.

blaktoof has yet to explain with RAW support how we are to save against a hit when we are unable to allocate hits and saves are taken on a per-model basis once allocated, but either way, a consensus is the majority opinion, so you seem to have that much