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.

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