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.

It's debatable mostly because it says "no save allowed". "No saves" would imply they're caused separately, but "no save" implies a single hit.

however, the fact that it states" the target takes 2d6 wounds with no save allowed" indicates that the save/s are made after the wounds, otherwise it would state "the attack deals a wound with no armour save allowed, and if unsaved, causes not 1 but 2d6 wounds." - wich it dosent.

i fail to understand why people are unable to see logic on this... there have been rules quotes and valid backup to my/ this side of the argument, and in return all the counter argument can provide is speculation and interpretation of a rule. no one can site actual rules regarding thier argument, instead comparing to a totally diffrent and unrelated weapon. is it wrong for me to ask for a lock on this to save everyone and myself the continued headache?

You could save yourself from the "continued headache" by not reading the thread anymore. People have quoted the specific attack, (i.e. single hit, and save, *not* save/s as you've written above).

It's not that I don't see the logic in your argument, I just don't agree with it, and find an alternate and overriding logic presented with basis in precedent and rules quoted from the attack itself.

Lock is fine with me, as I think all that can be said about this *has* been said.

RZ

i think the best we can hope for untill FAQ is to agree to agree that im right.... errr... i mean disagree to agree.... or... whatever it is. i blame the janitor-editor... he should have made the amry book far more detailed on this. oh well.... holding furthar opinion untill FAQ. fun debating with ya tho zeke. ; )

Lock is fine. I agree it would be better Darth if the rule had been written as clearly as you want it to be.

But just because it wasn't clearly written doesn't mean that it is played your way. If written clearly, it would be obvious there is one save. Written as is, it is ambiguous and could be interpreted either way.

you roll as one its one hit not 2d6 the impact is just so hard it multiplys to 2d6 so do not roll seperate

The most siginifcant thing I've seen thus far is that it states that a model that fails its Init test "takes" 2d6 wounds. Cannonballs and other multi-wound hits state that they "multiply into" more wounds. But the giant's club is, somehow, different.

It's a mess, to be sure. I'd just say they come after the wounds in this case, because its better for the giant. If a varghulf somehow got into combat with a giant and the giant managed to role "Thump with Club", and the varghulf somehow failed its Init. test, then good job to the giant, I say.

Other than that, I'd have to write "not enough info." if this were on a test. The rule is too open. A roll-off would seem in order.

The intention of the rules is clear. Saves first

Apparently the intention is not so clear. You only take saves after you take wounds.....




Clay

has this been ressurected? Well, i stand by my posistion.... also spoke to some tournament mods people (guys who have been running and ruling on games for a long time) i trust thier opinion and it was of assumption that you save the wounds, after the giant rolls his 2d6, not before. however. that said, i think the camps are still split, and the debate will rage untill a faq clarifies.

I've been going over this one. Even though the intent of the rules is to have multi wound be saved once the giants special rules are worded in their favour. I'm gonna have to change my mind and give it the multiple saves.

Why does it say no "SAVE" allowed then?

wow...this thing is still necrotizing...

anyway, read the entire entry in context.

",,if the target is struck, It takes 2d6 wounds with no armor save allowed"

that simply states if the model is HIT, it takes 2d6 WOUNDS, instead of the normal 1 wound per hit. you still have to make saves if possible against each wound. again ill point out, that the alternate method here is to save the hit with ward/regen, and NOWHERE else in the game is this done or allowed. the examples of saving against cannons etc, those are wounds multipled AFTER saves have failed, hense UNSAVED wounds. the giants attack multiplies before the saves happen, therefore you would have to make a ward and or regen for each wound inflicted.

Think its time for a mod to lock this thread.

We have basically agreed to disagree and until GW releases a FAQ there will be no clear answer.

Agreed....plus this thing has been necrotizing on the porch for about what....3 months now?