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.

rbacus wrote:


pg 29 21-22 Spawnhood, 3rd Sentence: "The champion only counts as killed once the Chaos Spawn is removed from play, or it cannot be placed on the board"

.

Surely the Spawn/Daemon Prince can't be placed on the board then, as there would be nothing for him to replace?

Iranna.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
NO, the three events do NOT occur at the same time

The nob being removed as a casualty is the TRIGGER for you rolling on the table. It HAS to occur first

The champion was removed at the same time as the nob

Therefore before you roll on the table the champion is removed as a casualty. No roll

True the rule says when you (kill) you roll on the table. A model is not killed until it is RaaC.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except 2 things happening simultaniously results in the player whose turn it is deciding the order.

Only when they conflict. There is no conflict in removing both models at the same time.

Normally yes, however I would say this situation creates a conflict.

No, it does not. There is no conflict because of the removal.

There's a lot of rule-quoting in the thread, but I don't see where the rules for fighting simultaneously are quoted, and I can't seem to find them in my rulebook. Could someone quote the exact wording of those rules, so they can be compared to how Champion of Chaos works?

That's absurd. So the Chaos player decides the Nob dies first. Then he immediately has to roll on the table, say he gets Dark Apotheosis. Then the other event in queue occurs, i.e. the champion dies. So there's no difference whatsoever. No roll necessary.

And if the Chaos player opts for the order of events Nob dies-Champion dies-Boon roll, then as Iranna has stated, there is nothing to replace, so again, no coming back from the dead.

Hmmm. This is interesting. As much as I would like it to work, I don't think it does. The reason for it is thus. The boon table is not triggered until the Nob is removed as a casualty. So, when both models are killed, no conflict exists until after they have both been removed, so it happens at the same time. So, what happens is:
1. Nob and Champion reduced to 0 wounds.
2. Nob and Champion both removed from table.
3. Champion of Chaos rule triggered.
4. Roll, but no model to affect, so no effect.

This is assuming that what Nos says about determining order only when in conflict is correct, I don't have my book with me to check.

kaisshau wrote:
Hmmm. This is interesting. As much as I would like it to work, I don't think it does. The reason for it is thus. The boon table is not triggered until the Nob is removed as a casualty. So, when both models are killed, no conflict exists until after they have both been removed, so it happens at the same time. So, what happens is:
1. Nob and Champion reduced to 0 wounds.
2. Nob and Champion both removed from table.
3. Champion of Chaos rule triggered.
4. Roll, but no model to affect, so no effect.

This is assuming that what Nos says about determining order only when in conflict is correct, I don't have my book with me to check.

It comes down to when is a model considered killed.

That said though, I'm in the can't do it camp. Killed to me is removed from the table.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

kaisshau wrote:
Hmmm. This is interesting. As much as I would like it to work, I don't think it does. The reason for it is thus. The boon table is not triggered until the Nob is removed as a casualty. So, when both models are killed, no conflict exists until after they have both been removed, so it happens at the same time. So, what happens is:
1. Nob and Champion reduced to 0 wounds.
2. Nob and Champion both removed from table.
3. Champion of Chaos rule triggered.
4. Roll, but no model to affect, so no effect.

This is assuming that what Nos says about determining order only when in conflict is correct, I don't have my book with me to check.

It comes down to when is a model considered killed.

That said though, I'm in the can't do it camp. Killed to me is removed from the table.

p3
If at any point a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

It only becomes a "casualty' when it's removed from the table. So neither model would be on the table for the "killed" trigger from Boon

paidinfull wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

kaisshau wrote:
Hmmm. This is interesting. As much as I would like it to work, I don't think it does. The reason for it is thus. The boon table is not triggered until the Nob is removed as a casualty. So, when both models are killed, no conflict exists until after they have both been removed, so it happens at the same time. So, what happens is:
1. Nob and Champion reduced to 0 wounds.
2. Nob and Champion both removed from table.
3. Champion of Chaos rule triggered.
4. Roll, but no model to affect, so no effect.

This is assuming that what Nos says about determining order only when in conflict is correct, I don't have my book with me to check.

It comes down to when is a model considered killed.

That said though, I'm in the can't do it camp. Killed to me is removed from the table.

p3
If at any point a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

It only becomes a "casualty' when it's removed from the table. So neither model would be on the table for the "killed" trigger from Boon

Killed is the word used in C:CSM IIRC, BGB doesn't state when killed takes place. Hence the confusion people have.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

paidinfull wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

kaisshau wrote:
Hmmm. This is interesting. As much as I would like it to work, I don't think it does. The reason for it is thus. The boon table is not triggered until the Nob is removed as a casualty. So, when both models are killed, no conflict exists until after they have both been removed, so it happens at the same time. So, what happens is:
1. Nob and Champion reduced to 0 wounds.
2. Nob and Champion both removed from table.
3. Champion of Chaos rule triggered.
4. Roll, but no model to affect, so no effect.

This is assuming that what Nos says about determining order only when in conflict is correct, I don't have my book with me to check.

It comes down to when is a model considered killed.

That said though, I'm in the can't do it camp. Killed to me is removed from the table.

p3
If at any point a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

It only becomes a "casualty' when it's removed from the table. So neither model would be on the table for the "killed" trigger from Boon

Killed is the word used in C:CSM IIRC, BGB doesn't state when killed takes place. Hence the confusion people have.

True dat.
I was insinuating that "killed" is a part of the definition of "casualty". He'd have to have been killed to be a casualty, and in game terms in order to be "killed" he'd have to be a casualty.

We need the MTG system of checking for state-based actions etc.

Its all sillyness why would they reward him if he was killed. Do we really need the rule to state only alive models can roll. Its a reward for winning not tying. However, it would be wacky cool, but not going to happen.

Lungpickle wrote:
Its all sillyness why would they reward him if he was killed. Do we really need the rule to state only alive models can roll. Its a reward for winning not tying. However, it would be wacky cool, but not going to happen.

There are numerous instances in 40K of the Gods reviving dead/mortally wounded champions. Kharn and Huron are two examples I can think of off the top of my head. Furthermore, in game terms, a model being removed as a casualty is not necessarily dead.

Keeper of Skulls wrote:
There's a lot of rule-quoting in the thread, but I don't see where the rules for fighting simultaneously are quoted, and I can't seem to find them in my rulebook. Could someone quote the exact wording of those rules, so they can be compared to how Champion of Chaos works?

If its in the 6th edition rulebook, I can't find it.

Page 23 speaks of fighting simultaneously when the initiative value is the same.

Page 26 states "if both sides suffer the same number of wounds, the combat is drawn..." (tie)

Page 26 also covers "Dead before Striking" - when striking blows simultaneously... it basically says don't forget to resolve each attacker's attacks. Implying that you go through all the rules, even if they're "dead".

But as others have stated...

1. Nob dies, trigger boon
2. Boon mutates (already dead, but still executing rules) Champion into Daemon Prince
3. Now transformed Champion is removed as he took enough wound to kill him.

However.... Since Daemon Prince's get 4 wounds, I think you could argue that the Daemon Prince is spawned with 1 wound left (assuming the Nob caused a max of 3 wounds against the Champion) and remains on the table.

I just found the line that states that player who turn it is decides what happens first in instances where things happen at the same time.

Page 9 of the BRB.

When there is a conflict. There is no conflict in the two events, just in a following rule that happens after the casualty.

It doesnt state when there is a conflict (like codex v. BRB). It states when both players have something to do at the same time.

Fragile wrote:
It doesnt state when there is a conflict (like codex v. BRB). It states when both players have something to do at the same time.

This is true. I'd like page reference for "when there is a conflict".

If the player whose turn it is chooses then on Chaos player's turn the Nob dies first, on Ork's turn the Champion.

The same would happen with the Vampiric Inquisitor. If it is the Inquisitor's turn the enemy gets the wound first -> wound up. If it is the opponent's turn the Inquisitor would die before regaining his wounds.

The point is moot. The codex is poorly written, there are other examples of vague and ambiguous wording in the codex like the noise marine entry regarding blastmasters: one model per ten can have a shootier gun. this is totally different wording to the standard for every ten models one may replace for a shootier gun. the whole book needs a damn FaQ, never mind the daemon prince/spawn after dead scenario which only exists because players are desperate for their craptastic chaos codex to do something remotely cool. Sorry i'm going to have to sign out before i go berserk just thinking about this abortive chaos codex!

As stated, in a friendly game i would let you roll on the table. Afterall, there are only 3 possible rolls that will save you.

And it would be awesome if it worked!

Imagine your opponents face.

fursphere wrote:

However.... Since Daemon Prince's get 4 wounds, I think you could argue that the Daemon Prince is spawned with 1 wound left (assuming the Nob caused a max of 3 wounds against the Champion) and remains on the table.

The newly created DP or Spawn has its full complement of wounds. By RAW I think that you would get a roll on the table even if the Chaos character is 'dead', it also makes sense from a fluff point of view.

Its not very clear though due to GW's typically lax terminology.

Palindrome wrote:

fursphere wrote:

However.... Since Daemon Prince's get 4 wounds, I think you could argue that the Daemon Prince is spawned with 1 wound left (assuming the Nob caused a max of 3 wounds against the Champion) and remains on the table.

The newly created DP or Spawn has its full complement of wounds. By RAW I think that you would get a roll on the table even if the Chaos character is 'dead', it also makes sense from a fluff point of view.

Its not very clear though due to GW's typically lax terminology.

What page is that stated on?