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.

Except that the poll shows a significant silent minority.

The margin of error means the numbers here aren't clear enough to assume that any given opponent (or club) will want it done that way.

Polls tend to be like that; it's altogether too easy for people to simply click their opinion without needing to support it, but of course take the results as you will - it's your thread after all

The point of the poll is to try to gauge the community opinion. Most of the time there is at least a 3-1 split (a general agreement, or consensus) to do it one way over the next most popular interpretation

This poll is almost 50-50 between the two primary choices, which means there is almost no consensus. To my mind, this is a question every HC player should add to the short-list they send to TOs before paying to play in any event, since there seems to be a marked disagreement over how to interpret it.

A related question: how does one take a Nightmare Doll at all?
It is avaiable for models in Covens' detachment or formation that have access to Dark Eldar artefacts in main dark eldar codex, that is to no unit at all.

Well, at least it seems that way - hemunculus has no access to artefacts, as far as i can see

 Jimsolo wrote:
This poll is almost 50-50 between the two primary choices, which means there is almost no consensus. To my mind, this is a question every HC player should add to the short-list they send to TOs before paying to play in any event, since there seems to be a marked disagreement over how to interpret it.

That would be because 50% of readers vote the way they play:

D weapons inflict D6+6 Wounds that all have to be saved. They probably also know that this is incorrect in terms of rule lawyering, but do not want to get into an argument about it.



TL: DR: The issue is not with "Nightmare Doll", but with the basic resolution of "D Weapons".

New to this edition, thus often worked out incorrectly until GW streamline the Rule over Editions.

D weapons functional work as a variable multiwound weapon does from Fantasy; you save, then unsaved wounds multiply out but at a different rate based on a D6 roll that was taken before you saved.

I have never seen anyone play that you have to save each, individually. This is a horrible way to play as LOS! can result in many models being killed from a single D weapon hit

nosferatu1001 wrote:
D weapons functional work as a variable multiwound weapon does from Fantasy; you save, then unsaved wounds multiply out but at a different rate based on a D6 roll that was taken before you saved.

I have never seen anyone play that you have to save each, individually. This is a horrible way to play as LOS! can result in many models being killed from a single D weapon hit

I agree. I'd like to hear from the "Option B" voters who disagrees with this?
(If not, problem solved?)

Its likely to just be blaktoof, who glosses over important sections and pretends an unsaved wound is never generated. Those with a real argument that wtihstands scrutiny it would be good to hear from

nosferatu1001 wrote:
D weapons functional work as a variable multiwound weapon does from Fantasy; you save, then unsaved wounds multiply out but at a different rate based on a D6 roll that was taken before you saved.

I have never seen anyone play that you have to save each, individually. This is a horrible way to play as LOS! can result in many models being killed from a single D weapon hit

To be fair that is not how D Weapons work RaW (as they don't), so confusion is not surprising.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its likely to just be blaktoof, who glosses over important sections and pretends an unsaved wound is never generated. Those with a real argument that wtihstands scrutiny it would be good to hear from

I doubt he's made 20 accounts to Vote 20 times, so that sounds a bit like a personal barb

At least he's made it clear of his position, even if it could do with a good discussion.

My post was rather aimed at the 19 other voters, whom i'd like to hear from rather than having the 23 "Group A" all agreeing on the rule....

I see it as, and this is generally HIWPI, as I'm not entirely certain of the rules for both D and the doll, but I would see it as the model with the doll doesn't suffer a wound until after the roll to see how many it takes. Eg, you hit the model, and roll a 3 to see what happens, they take their invulnerable save to see if they survive it, which they fail, so you then roll a D3, getting a two, meaning model suffers two wounds, so doll kicks in and negates the first wound, leaving the second to go through. Again I can't be certain of the rules, but that's how I think the order of events goes

It would indeed be good to hear from the others; I just dont see how you can possibly save hits, with no rules telling you how to do so, and how you avoid the issue that wounds must be alloccated (as this is the only way you can hurt a model, without a rule otherwise such as Gets Hot!) meaning LOS! gets in the way.

 statu wrote:
I see it as, and this is generally HIWPI, as I'm not entirely certain of the rules for both D and the doll, but I would see it as the model with the doll doesn't suffer a wound until after the roll to see how many it takes. Eg, you hit the model, and roll a 3 to see what happens, they take their invulnerable save to see if they survive it, which they fail, so you then roll a D3, getting a two, meaning model suffers two wounds, so doll kicks in and negates the first wound, leaving the second to go through. Again I can't be certain of the rules, but that's how I think the order of events goes

It's actually the interaction between D-Weapons Rules and Shooting/Assault rules that create an issue with the above:

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

Shooting Rules ("Take Saves & Remove Casualties"):
"The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

So the Destroyer Weapon rule modifies how many Wounds you "reduce" from the model after it fails its save. This is after the model suffers the Wound and thus becomes unsaved and you used the Nightmare Doll: before you reduce the 1 Wound (or D3, D6+6 in the Destroyer case).

If, as you are saying, the Nightmare Doll takes effect after you reduce the model's Wounds by 1 (or D3), then the Nightmare Doll would never save any Wounds (as the model has already been "reduced")
Therefore it must be before you reduce the Wounds, and before you roll the D3 or D6+6. (Even if the actual roll has to be earlier: when you've rolled To Hit)

I must ask my question again: how does one take Nightmare doll? haemunculus cannot take artefacts, hence they cannot take the doll, same goes for Wracks and other things that cn be taken in Coven formation or detachment.

Survivor19 wrote:
I must ask my question again: how does one take Nightmare doll? haemunculus cannot take artefacts, hence they cannot take the doll, same goes for Wracks and other things that cn be taken in Coven formation or detachment.

RaW you can't. But the rules are clear that Haemonculus can take the HC relics. It is unclear weather or characters can take them, most people play that they can't.

Except they can take them. The hardback book lists the relics as an option for the haemonculus in both the DE and Coven books...

So, if i have bought a proper codex, i wouldn't be asking this question. Got it: Haemuncuuli can take artefacts.
I would ask you for a profof, but i believe you unconditionally.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 statu wrote:
I see it as, and this is generally HIWPI, as I'm not entirely certain of the rules for both D and the doll, but I would see it as the model with the doll doesn't suffer a wound until after the roll to see how many it takes. Eg, you hit the model, and roll a 3 to see what happens, they take their invulnerable save to see if they survive it, which they fail, so you then roll a D3, getting a two, meaning model suffers two wounds, so doll kicks in and negates the first wound, leaving the second to go through. Again I can't be certain of the rules, but that's how I think the order of events goes

It's actually the interaction between D-Weapons Rules and Shooting/Assault rules that create an issue with the above:

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

Shooting Rules ("Take Saves & Remove Casualties"):
"The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

So the Destroyer Weapon rule modifies how many Wounds you "reduce" from the model after it fails its save. This is after the model suffers the Wound and thus becomes unsaved and you used the Nightmare Doll: before you reduce the 1 Wound (or D3, D6+6 in the Destroyer case).

If, as you are saying, the Nightmare Doll takes effect after you reduce the model's Wounds by 1 (or D3), then the Nightmare Doll would never save any Wounds (as the model has already been "reduced")
Therefore it must be before you reduce the Wounds, and before you roll the D3 or D6+6. (Even if the actual roll has to be earlier: when you've rolled To Hit)

If you quote the rest of allocating wounds and removing casualties you will see some problems with the above.

1- "first allocate wounds from the wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit" to generate a wound pool you have to roll to wound. There is no to wound roll for D weapons. The roll of how many wounds a hit is caused by a D weapon is not a to wound roll, and we are not told it is one. We are told they are a hit the generates automatic wounds. "However in the shooting section we are told when rolling to wound there is no such thing as an automatic wound and a roll of 1 always fails". As we are not rolling to wound with the D weapon, there is no to wound roll, and then there is no wound pool. If there is no wound pool you cannot follow the rules for "allocating wounds" as it requires you to have roll to wound and generated a wound pool. Therefore the rule to reduce a models wounds by 1 for a hit are not a valid arguement for creating this made up initial wound that becomes x other wounds, where x can be 0, d3, or d6+6.

2- Destroyer weapons call out specificaly you roll to save versus the HIT not the WOUND. Yes this is not the normal shooting process, but D weapons are not normal ranged weapons. We know that specific rules can modify general rules, and the general method of rolling a save comes after rolling to wound, but there is no to wound roll for D weapons, and D weapons tell us to roll our saves normally, during the to hit step.

3- we are told on Destroyer weapons to roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, therefore there is no to wound roll, and therefore there is no wound pool generated.

4- As there is no to wound roll, there is no initial loss of 1 wound that multiplies to some other amount. Which is a ridiculous concept for anyone to support as there are no rules for it in the book, and applying rules from another game system (WFB) makes no sense at all.

5- If you believe that somehow there is a to wound step (completely unsupported in the rules and in this thread..) then you have created a scenario where a roll of 1 on the destroyer chart causes a wound, but the model is unharmed. There is no initial wound, the wounds come from the result of the D-chart. d3 wounds is not 1 that becomes d3, it is not 1 wound x d3, it is d3 wounds instead of normally taking one. Because normally models take one wound from one hit, and now instead they take d3 wounds from the 1 hit.

6- Yes RAW in the general rules you cannot allocate hits, this does not give us permission to create a rule that we have an unsaved wound we allocate to models then roll on the hit table, these are not real rules people are stating.

and lastly no I did not vote more than once on the poll... lol seriously? However I can see from posts in the thread why people would not want to state why they voted a certain way.

blaktoof wrote:
"However in the shooting section we are told when rolling to wound there is no such thing as an automatic wound and a roll of 1 always fails"

1. The above does not exist in my rulebook, please check you are Quoting it correctly. Automatic Wounds do indeed exist.
There is a Wound pool in the Destroyer weapons rule: "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
You have a Wound pool of Automatic Wounds.

blaktoof wrote:
2- Destroyer weapons call out specifically you roll to save versus the HIT not the WOUND.

I do not agree, the exact wording is this:
"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D6+6 Wounds instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit."
If the Rule says 'Las-canons do not allow cover saves against this hit.' You still run through the normal To Hit, To Wound process, but when you get to armour/cover saves, then this happens.

blaktoof wrote:
3- we are told on Destroyer weapons to roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, therefore there is no to wound roll, and therefore there is no wound pool generated.

Yes, the entire "Auto Wound > allocate Wound > roll Saves > remove models" replaces a normal To Wound roll.
It does not mean that it can break all the other methods of Wounding and casualties, otherwise you would never be able to kill enemies with D-Weapons....

blaktoof wrote:
4- As there is no to wound roll, there is no initial loss of 1 wound that multiplies to some other amount. Which is a ridiculous concept for anyone to support as there are no rules for it in the book, and applying rules from another game system (WFB) makes no sense at all.

"The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".

In the rule quoted above, what do you think "Instead" means? If there is nothing to compare to, what is "Instead" replacing?

blaktoof wrote:
5- If you believe that somehow there is a to wound step (completely unsupported in the rules and in this thread..) then you have created a scenario where a roll of 1 on the destroyer chart causes a wound, but the model is unharmed. There is no initial wound, the wounds come from the result of the D-chart. d3 wounds is not 1 that becomes d3, it is not 1 wound x d3, it is d3 wounds instead of normally taking one. Because normally models take one wound from one hit, and now instead they take d3 wounds from the 1 hit.

Okay, you are contradicting yourself here (Underlined):
There is no initial wound <-> it is d3 wounds instead of normally taking one
Which one is it? Is there an original Wound that you "instead" or is there none?

I would say I am in the camp of one save, multiple wounds. However, I can see the aguement for the other, even if I disagree with it. Possibly a HIWPI answer, but hey, watcha want from me.

by the use of english in any country that speaks english instead does not mean multiply, it means you replace one thing with another.

there is no 1 wound that becomes d3, there is d3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

Models generally lose 1 wound, instead if they are hit by a destroyer weapon they lose 0, d3, or d6+6. Not 1 wound that becomes those wounds.

so you do not reduce a model by 1 wound then roll on the chart and say "oh its d3 wounds, I rolled a 3 so 1 multiplied to 3.

You roll on the chart and that is the wound reduction. D3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

You save versus the HIT

therefore the nightmare doll ignores the first wound with ID, which would be 1 of the D3 wounds, not the made up 1 wound that becomes d3 magically without any rules telling us we had 1 wound that is multiplied to something else.

blaktoof wrote:
by the use of english in any country that speaks english instead does not mean multiply, it means you replace one thing with another.

there is no 1 wound that becomes d3, there is d3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

Models generally lose 1 wound, instead if they are hit by a destroyer weapon they lose 0, d3, or d6+6. Not 1 wound that becomes those wounds.

so you do not reduce a model by 1 wound then roll on the chart and say "oh its d3 wounds, I rolled a 3 so 1 multiplied to 3.

You roll on the chart and that is the wound reduction. D3 wounds instead of 1 wound.

This make very little sense. It is completely contradictory. I will try to ask in an easier way:

When you say that "instead" means: "it means you replace one thing with another"

What is "one thing"? And what is "another" (thing)?

replacing does not equal a mathematical function.

D weapon hits cause 0,d3,d6+6 wounds to the model not 1 wound that is later somehow replaced with other wounds.

If you cause 1 wound and then replace it with other wounds, when you roll the result of 1 you would have caused 1 wound replaced with 0 wounds- which makes no sense. Also in order to cause 1 wound in the way you suggest you first need to roll to wound as standard- which D weapons do not do.

You are creating a rule that D weapon Hits cause 1 wound, then sometime later replace that wound with 0,D3, or D^+6 which is not stated or suggested anywhere.

D weapons cause hits, the hits are allocated to models, and you roll on the chart (yes there is no rule for allocating hits but this is what we are told to do with D weapons..) the models suffer the result on the chart instead of normally suffering 1 wound from being hit by something that wounds.

The models do not suffer 1 wound that becomes something else, because if they suffered 1 wound they would reduce their wounds by 1, this would trigger casualty removal for anything reduced to 0 wounds. You cannot then instead suffer some other amount, other than the rules never ever saying to do this you end up with a situation where any models with 1 wound taking a D weapon hit are removed as casualties on the result of rolling a 1 (unharmed). And of course the RAW never tell you to do what you are suggesting.

blaktoof wrote:
replacing does not equal a mathematical function.

D weapon hits cause 0,d3,d6+6 wounds to the model not 1 wound that is later somehow replaced with other wounds.

If you cause 1 wound and then replace it with other wounds, when you roll the result of 1 you would have caused 1 wound replaced with 0 wounds- which makes no sense. Also in order to cause 1 wound in the way you suggest you first need to roll to wound as standard- which D weapons do not do.

You are creating a rule that D weapon Hits cause 1 wound, then sometime later replace that wound with 0,D3, or D^+6 which is not stated or suggested anywhere.

D weapons cause hits, the hits are allocated to models, and you roll on the chart (yes there is no rule for allocating hits but this is what we are told to do with D weapons..) the models suffer the result on the chart instead of normally suffering 1 wound from being hit by something that wounds.

The models do not suffer 1 wound that becomes something else, because if they suffered 1 wound they would reduce their wounds by 1, this would trigger casualty removal for anything reduced to 0 wounds. You cannot then instead suffer some other amount, other than the rules never ever saying to do this you end up with a situation where any models with 1 wound taking a D weapon hit are removed as casualties on the result of rolling a 1 (unharmed). And of course the RAW never tell you to do what you are suggesting.

The thing is you are making an easy question into something much more difficult. I will return to my easy question:

When you say that "instead" means: "it means you replace one thing with another"
What is "one thing"? And what is "another" (thing)?

The RaW is this: "causes it to lose D3 Wounds instead of 1".
Do you agree that we are replacing one thing: 1 Wound, with another thing: D3 Wounds

Agreed?

Yes which means there is no initial unsaved wound.

Which is supported by the RAW in that there are no rules for that fabricated concept.

as such the nightmare doll does not negate all the wounds on the roll of d3, or D6+6, and instead suffers d3-1 or d6+5, as the rules for nightmare doll state wounds and not hits, and destroyer weapons cause hits that do x wounds where x= 0,d3, or d6+6 not 1 that becomes some other amount.

if you replace 1 with d3 or d6+6 there was never one. If you treat the rules that there is 1 for other purposes, you have not replaced one with something else. example, if you say that there is 1 unsaved wound[ no rules support in D weapons for this] and treat nightmare doll as stopping the 1, then state there are no other wounds- you did not replace 1 with anything.

for example. I normally meet Blacktalos for coffee, instead today I met Nosferatu for coffee. I have done something instead, and replaced something. Which means there was never me having coffee with you that day.

nothing in the rules for D weapons tell you to cause 1 unsaved wound then replace it with something else, you cause 0,d3, or d6+6 instead of 1. not 1 that later becomes those values.

The way I look at it, is that the model doesn't suffer a wound until the full amount has been generated. If I remember correctly we are told to make a save before generating the full amount. However as the model is yet to suffer a wound until after the roll to determine the number of wounds it is to take, then the doll would only activate after the roll, meaning you take one less wound than rolled

The way i see it is you only have to roll 1 save against a D weapon hit as its only 1 hit that causes more damage than a normal hit so how i play it is:-


roll to hit, get 1 hit
roll on the D table, the result being how many wounds the target will take if your opponent fails their cover/invul save
roll 1 save, if failed the target suffers x amount of wounds from the D table roll
remove casualty, if the hit goes through and sufficient wounds are caused

But thats just how i play it, makes more sense to me

And too answer the original question my take on it is that D weapons don't have the ID "special rule" they just cause ID due to their high strength unlike for example Illic Nightspear's rifle which has ID on a 6 so i'd have to say Option C, but again that just how i would play it

blaktoof, it seems you initially argued for a method which required allocating hits and taking saves from that allocation and represented that as the correct way to play it RAW, and now you're admitting that in fact it is not supported by RAW and requires inventing an entirely additional step the rules offer no support for.

In contrast, what we are suggesting requires only an (entirely sensible) assumption on what the rules mean when they say saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal, i.e. from the resulting automatic wound.

What you are suggesting is that one save can be taken against a single hit which is impossible to allocate and thus impossible to determine which model takes any save or suffers any unsaved wounds, and that the hit being unsaved results in D3 wounds (unsaved) rather than one. By your reckoning it is impossible for the model to even actually suffer the D3 unsaved wounds for the Nightmare Doll to take effect because it simply cannot have them allocated to it.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
blaktoof, it seems you initially argued for a method which required allocating hits and taking saves from that allocation and represented that as the correct way to play it RAW, and now you're admitting that in fact it is not supported by RAW and requires inventing an entirely additional step the rules offer no support for.

In contrast, what we are suggesting requires only an (entirely sensible) assumption on what the rules mean when they say saves can be taken against hits from Destroyer weapons as normal, i.e. from the resulting automatic wound.

What you are suggesting is that one save can be taken against a single hit which is impossible to allocate and thus impossible to determine which model takes any save or suffers any unsaved wounds, and that the hit being unsaved results in D3 wounds (unsaved) rather than one. By your reckoning it is impossible for the model to even actually suffer the D3 unsaved wounds for the Nightmare Doll to take effect because it simply cannot have them allocated to it.

there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

the rules for Destroyer weapons do not tell you that you can make saves versus the Wounds, they say you make saves versus the hits. So rather than follow the RAW you have made up a singular automatic wound the model suffers (which is not in the rules for D weapons anywhere) then are making a save versus that, when it specifically tells you to make saves versus the hit.

Yes normally you save versus wounds, and yes normally you allocate wounds and not hits, but the rules for D weapons have you allocate hits and save versus the hit. Normally models are removed as casualties if they fail their save, but FnP(a special rule) specifically gives you a chance under certain circumstances to not do that, often special rules specifically change general rules, and Destroyer Weapons is a special rule.... Nowhere does it give you an option under D weapon to allocate some mythical unsaved wound, nor does it give you the option to make a save other than from the hit. Considering there is no rule for D weapons rolling to wound this obviously makes sense as it supports the rules as written for D weapons, you roll to hit, you then you roll on the table instead of rolling to wound, we are told in the rules for D weapons that we may roll to save versus the HITs not the WOUNDS there is no to wound roll, there is no singular allocated unsaved wound. For a roll of 6 we are again told "no saves of any kind are allowed against this hit". No mention of no saves of any kind are allowed against the wounds, notice the singular nature of "hit".

Hits =/= wounds

for d weapons you save versus the HIT as that is what the RAW state, not the wounds.

I am not suggesting anything other than the rules as written, you and others are suggesting a possible Rule as intended-however without any rules support to show that intention, but is a house rule that does not coincide with the rules as written. It also requires that you add things to the rule, which are not written in the rule to function.

blaktoof wrote:


there is no resulting automatic wound(singular), this is made up.

Sure there is. I'm assuming you've read the rules for Destroyer weapons which includes the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table.

If you haven't, I'll help."The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically". In other words, you have a hit, and it automatically causes a Wound. When you resolve that Wound (read reduce the model's Wound characteristic by 1), you instead reduce by a variable amount.