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.

BRB pg. 33 and 35 states that after defenders react, models become locked in combat, not any sooner. "Combat" is even carefully avoided in the steps before. So any perils suffered before that step can neither be saved by the 2+ nor do they count towards combat resolution.

If the unit is locked in combat from the turn before, 2+ can be made and perils will count towards combat resolution, as "combat continues next turn" (BRB pg. 39).

Blaktoof - can you reference rules?

There is no mention of "close combat wounds", only "in close combat"

Can the staff be used if the wielder is locked in close combat and wounded by a scattering blast maker?

You're certainly "in close combat" when it happens - by the English definition anyway.

Its the old wytch invulnerable save debate again.

I still dont think its worth it. You have to reroll a sucessful save because of the rules of POTW. A 2++ rolled twice fails 30% of the time. And if you fail it then you dont have it to save against powerfists and the like. Wounds caused by your opponent are more important as they could cause you to break, get caught and then take even more wounds. I would put my wardingstaff on a normal trooper.

Artemo wrote:

BladeWalker wrote:I believe the difference in wording pointed out by jy2 shows that there was a different intent for the Staff powers as opposed to the Sword. The Sword blocks CC attacks, the Staff protects against all wounds while you are in CC. I believe the points cost of the Staff reflects this ability as well.

Assuming the difference in wording is deliberate and not merely carelessness on GW's part (perhaps an unwise assumption...), then I'd agree.

In all honesty though, GW are slipshod enough in their phrasing that I don't think one can automatically assume that variations in wording are in fact carefully chosen for specific variation in effect. In this specific case the high points cost does indicate that it is perhaps intentional, but against that common snese would suggest that if the staff can protect vs explosions etc close up, it should do so at range too. On the other hand again, GW is not famous for thinking things like that through so...

Although my own inclination is that it should only protect against wounds inflicted by cc weapons, like the sword. and bear in mind I play GK, I'm convinced enough that the counter-view is valid and very possibly what was intended.

You have no way of knowing whether their wording is intentional or just carelessness. The only thing you do know is that it is worded differently, and that's the only thing you can go on - the evidence at hand and not what were they thinking when they made this rule.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. that we should attempt to interpret the rules as literally as possible and assume that what is written is exactly what was meant until and if GW correct or clarify in a FAQ. If it were the case that GW were generally clear in their expression, then that would be the best way of proceeding. But they aren't, and so the alternative way, which is to interpret is actually valid too.

My personal belief is that if a strict interpretation of a rule where slackness of lanfuage may well have resulted in a different outcome to the one intended would benefit one's own army, then one should give the opponent the benefit of the doubt if he feels that the strict interpretation is wrong. I understand that other people will wish for the rules to be interpreted exactly as written, no matter what depths of rules-digging one must plough through to make a case that the other person will still probably not accept as convincing, and that's actually fine. the problem is that the two camps are irreconcilable on threads such as this. But please don't tell me that the only method oI can follow is your one, because it isn't. You just have to look at the knots people tie themselves in trying to prove or disprove a strict interpretation of the rules to realise that in many cases the evidence is entirely insufficient to be certain either way.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Wounds caused in CC could be from a vehicle exploding etc, it's quite different from CC attacks. That why it matters, there are thing which cause wounds in CC that are close combat attacks. Se BRB for an example pg2 from memory left hand side.

By the same token I'm fairly sure one can take Cover saves from CF wounds.

It isn't a (psychic) shooting attack, thus no cover saves.

Things don't need to be a 'shooting attack' to allow cover saves, it just needs to cause wounds (see Spirit Leech). But it turns out that's beside the point - I thought the denial of cover saves in CC was that 'one can't take cover saves againt CC attacks', but it's actually "This means that models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat" Pg 39
So one can't take cover against a vehicle blowing up while one's in CC, but it's okay during shooting =P