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.

MiscDebris wrote:I understand your point but I don't think I'm making anything up. I'm just choosing not to ignore the part about "allies" which is in the paragraph about the rule.

I do not think these rules break the BRB rules, they simply supersede them which happens all the time.

But there is no rule to supersede...

The codex EXPLICITLY states that the hits are dealt to the unit. There is no more explicit wording, and as such you then fall to the BRB on how to allocate those wounds, which CLEARLY states that you roll all the saves at once and then remove a model for each failed save, as it is a simple unit.

Warhammer is a permissive ruleset, if it does not state that you can do something, you may not do it. That's all there is to it.

While I appreciate your underlining and color coded words, I don't think they added the word "allies" in the rule section for giggles. If you choose to ignore it because you think it's fluff because its not an "approved" term, that is your choice.

What I was getting at is that you've absolutely failed to provide any rule backing to your argument outside of one word. That one word appears nowhere in the core rulebook, and as such has absolutely no precedent for its use. Any meaning given to it is completely irrelevant since it has no basis in the rest of the rules.

You're out-right ignoring part of the codex, which (and this is why i made it red because you keep failing to see it) clearly states that the wounds are allocated to the unit as a whole. It does not explicitly state to do something different, as such you use the normal wound allocation rules for when wounds are dealt to a unit.

You've still yet to provide any backing in the form of a similar rule, example, or FAQ entry that contradicts the obvious explanation. You've simply restated over and over that the word 'allies' happens to fall in the same paragraph as the rest of the rules.

"strikes out at his own allies" is vague. It does not stand by itself. Thus, the codex elaborates on what it means by this in the next sentence that explains, explicitly, what 'strikes out at its allies' actually means. Specifically, it means dealing d3 hits to that UNIT with the models strength and any bonuses/penalties of that models CCWs.

I'd like you to explain to me how to properly play the scarabs if the sentence "deals d3 hits to its own unit" was omitted from the codex.

I can certainly tell you how to do it if "strikes out at his own allies" was omitted. Ergo, the phrase is superficial to the rules, and as such is fluff.

It's obvious that we won't agree on this, but you are adding words that aren't there.

WanderingFox wrote:clearly states that the wounds are allocated to the unit as a whole

It does not say "unit as a whole".

"If the test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit when it is his turn to attack."

As I've stated before, you believe the first sentence is irrelevant because it does not include proper language from the BRB book and it is vague. I believe it helps explain who is being attacked when coupled with the next sentence.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the FAQ. If we ever have to play each other I'll be happy to roll for it.

MiscDebris wrote:It's obvious that we won't agree on this, but you are adding words that aren't there.

WanderingFox wrote:clearly states that the wounds are allocated to the unit as a whole

It does not say "unit as a whole".

"If the test is failed, the victim strikes out at his allies. Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit when it is his turn to attack."

As I've stated before, you believe the first sentence is irrelevant because it does not include proper language from the BRB book and it is vague. I believe it helps explain who is being attacked when coupled with the next sentence.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the FAQ. If we ever have to play each other I'll be happy to roll for it.

But unit is defined by the rulebook, as was stated. So a unit of one (Independent characters, monstrous creatures, last man standing of his squad, etc) will strike it's unit, in other words, himself. I really don't think that part of the description is up for debate, as it's pretty clear what defines a unit, and the rule is clear that they strike themselves. It doesn't state that they can't strike themselves (As it is with the Psychotroke grenades from the Grey Knight book, written by the same person). While that is not the best reference point, as GW isn't the most consistent when it comes to rulings, but it's a good start.

MiscDebris wrote:I understand your point but I don't think I'm making anything up. I'm just choosing not to ignore the part about "allies" which is in the paragraph about the rule.

I do not think these rules break the BRB rules, they simply supersede them which happens all the time.

Agreed, "allies" or "ally" does not appear in the BRB rules, but that does not mean that all approved terminology can appear only in the BRB. The BRB does not specifically cover a situation in which a model attacks it's own unit.

In the rule "allies" is mentioned first: general term, models on its own side, not including itself
Then it mentions the unit: specific term, not only models on its own side but models in the unit it is attached to

Dictionary definitions do not mean anything, and the section you are referring to is descriptive text, not the actual rule of what Mindshackle Scarabs actually do. GW is notorious for prefacing actual rules with descriptive fluff in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence, and in this case the section about the model "attacking its allies" has no bearing on how it's actually worked out. What matters is that the model scores d3 hits against its own unit. If the model is in a unit or more than one model then any wounds it causes will be spread out amongst the unit evenly, including on the affected model. A single model is its own unit, and thus it will score d3 hits against itself.

As to the main question, a model that is under the effects of Mindshackle Scarabs does not attack normally, and thus the Daemon Weapon (which requires the model to be attacking to actually use the ability) does not function. The model scores d3 hits against its own unit, and these hits benefit from the abilities of the weapon. Now if the weapon had some ability that caused 3 wounds for each unsaved wound against the target, this would function normally as long as it did not require the bearer to actually be "attacking".

The intention I feel would be that the chaos player wouldnt have to do an additional d6 attacks. However the way its worded the 'special rule' of the weapon is to gain additional attacks. Other than it not feeling right there is no reason to view this otherwise. Daemon weapons have more abilities than most weapons, one of them just happen to be +d6 attacks with the possibility of the model stunning itself of a round.

lazarian wrote:The intention I feel would be that the chaos player wouldnt have to do an additional d6 attacks. However the way its worded the 'special rule' of the weapon is to gain additional attacks. Other than it not feeling right there is no reason to view this otherwise. Daemon weapons have more abilities than most weapons, one of them just happen to be +d6 attacks with the possibility of the model stunning itself of a round.

Yes but extra attacks do nothing in this case as the model does not make attacks. It causes d3 hits on its own unit. An ability that grants extra attacks has no effect here because the model makes precisely 0 attacks during its round. In fact, the Daemon Weapon specifically requires that the model be attacking for the extra d6 attacks to work (see the wording of Daemon Weapons in the original post. "...when the bearer is about to attack...") Since models under the effects of Mindshackle Scarabs do not attack normally (again, see the wording of Minshackle Scarabs. "....instead of attacking normally...."), the weapon has no additional effect.

It does not say "when the bearer is about to attack normally" just attack. The scarabs say its attacking differently, but it is still attacking. It has reached it's point in the initiative and is causing wounds.

I suppose the question boils down to does "about to attack" reference reaching the models spot in the initiative order, or does it mean "just before to-hit dice are rolled" That said, in either cases this point is still passed when mindshackle scarabs are used. The real question is are the shackles in effect when it happens? That is to say is the model under the effect of the scarabs when the 'about to attack' step is reached. If so, then I'd argue that it gets the D6 attacks since scarabs are in effect when the ability from the sword needs to be used. Otherwise, and as I stated a few posts back this is my opinion RAI, the sword does not function because scarabs have yet to take effect, and thus when they do take effect it's already past the point where the extra attacks from the sword would be generated.

WanderingFox wrote:It does not say "when the bearer is about to attack normally" just attack. The scarabs say its attacking differently, but it is still attacking. It has reached it's point in the initiative and is causing wounds.

I suppose the question boils down to does "about to attack" reference reaching the models spot in the initiative order, or does it mean "just before to-hit dice are rolled" That said, in either cases this point is still passed when mindshackle scarabs are used. The real question is are the shackles in effect when it happens? That is to say is the model under the effect of the scarabs when the 'about to attack' step is reached. If so, then I'd argue that it gets the D6 attacks since scarabs are in effect when the ability from the sword needs to be used. Otherwise, and as I stated a few posts back this is my opinion RAI, the sword does not function because scarabs have yet to take effect, and thus when they do take effect it's already past the point where the extra attacks from the sword would be generated.

"About to attack" refers to the models initiative step. Remember that the Chaos codex was written for 4th edition, so terminology might not be 100% consistent with 5th edition. Unless otherwise stated, when a model is about to attack, it is about to "attack normally". A model under the effects of Mindshackle Scarabs scored d3 hits instead of attacking normally. It does not make attacks, it scores hits. This is similar wording to what we see with abilities like Murderous Hurricane. Murderous Hurricane does not roll to hit because upon a successful psychic test it scored 3d6 hits, not 3d6 shots. There is no need for a to-hit roll because the power scores hits. In this situation, the model scored d3 hits, not d3 attacks. These hits benefit from abilities of the weapon, but as another poster pointed out, hits cannot benefit from d6 attacks. They can benefit from an increase to strength, or from ignoring armor, but not d6 attacks.

Bottom line, the ability doesn't work. The model scored d3 hits and nothing more.