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.

I don't think it is clear that you take d6. Everywhere that I can think of where multiple wounds are talked about, numerals seem to be avoided. You take a wound or wounds.
If you take a wound from a Fellblade and roll a 1, you take 1 wound. I ealise that there may be examples where numerals have been used, and please share them if there are.
Obviously, the fact that multiple wounds are applied after saves is a counter argument, but the rule is written as I would expect GW to write it if they meant 1 wound instead of d6.

Wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6. It is the Fellblade that is causing the wound to you on the roll of a 1 or 2. Therefore, they must be multiplied to D6.

Warpsolution wrote:
No leaps of logic need to be taken at all:

"Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds"

"On a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound..."

What caused the wound? The Fellblade. What do unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade do? Multiply into D6 wounds.

Now, if they had FAQ'd it to say "replace 'any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds' to 'the Fellblade has the Multiple Wounds (D6) special rule'", we could argue this way and that. But as it stands? A little careless wording has rendered this weapon terrible beyond compare.

The fact is, the fellblade doesn't wound him per se. It inflicts A wound. Not D6. A single wound. If it had stated that the fellblade inflicts the wound, it would be D6. But, as it stands, it is only a single wound off the profile.

HOWEVER, this seems to be a point of contention, so I'd agree it with your opponent at the start of the game. Or in a tournament setting, ask the TO before the event.

Niteware wrote:
Everywhere that I can think of where multiple wounds are talked about, numerals seem to be avoided. You take a wound or wounds.

I see what you're saying, and I think that's how it should work. But RAW doesn't care about sentence structure or symmetry. Wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 Wounds, the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fact is, the fellblade doesn't wound him per se. It inflicts A wound. Not D6. A single wound. If it had stated that the fellblade inflicts the wound, it would be D6. But, as it stands, it is only a single wound off the profile.

Wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 Wounds.

Answer me this: what is causing your Warlord to take the wound? If it is the Fellblade, how then does the previous line not apply?

Again, I want to agree with you. It's the only reasonable way to interpret the rules. But the wording seems pretty cut and dry here.

I see it as shothand for (you roll 1 on the multiple wounds roll). It still did multiple wounds d6, but you rolled a 1.

Warpsolution wrote:


Answer me this: what is causing your Warlord to take the wound? If it is the Fellblade, how then does the previous line not apply?

Again, I want to agree with you. It's the only reasonable way to interpret the rules. But the wording seems pretty cut and dry here.

The wording physically states that you take 1 wound. Singular. With no multipliers or modifiers, except that it ignores armour. And that is because it explicitly states that it ignores armour. It says nothing about multiple wounds.

Yes. And the wording also says if you take any wounds they are multiplied into D6. The Fellblade only does one wound in combat against enemies. Just one. But then it's multiplied into D6. It's a two step process.

If the Fellblade said you took 2 wounds, they would be multiplied by D6 as well. That's just the wording. However many unsaved wounds you take are multiplied by D6. So if they said D6 it would be D6*D6 because that's the way it's written until FAQed.

Did Fellblade cause an unsaved wound? Yes/no. If yes, multiply it by D6 per the rules. The fact that it's singular one against yourself just means you aren't taking 2*D6 or 3*D6. So be thankful for that.

If it were that simple duke, they wouldn't need to quote a selection of the rules, it could just say on a 1-2 the fellblade wounds the bearer OR on 1-2 you take a wound with the usual rules for Fellblade.

Except they wrote it a lot shorter. They also don't say that if you take enough wounds to kill you, you die and are removed from play. Not every rule is written out to every permutation.

The wording states that he suffers a wound. He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source. He suffers and takes a single wound, If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wording states that he suffers a wound. He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source. He suffers and takes a single wound, If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

Just take a look at the 2 FAQ's.

Page 107–The Fellblade.
Change the first sentence to “This foul sword gives the bearer Strength 10, and successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled.”

Q:If the bearer of the Fellblade inflicts a wound upon himself, must he re-roll successful ward saves? (p107)
A:Yes

If he puts a wound on himself, the fellblade is making him re-roll his own ward.
What else would make him re-roll his own ward, if not the fellblade?

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wording states that he suffers a wound. He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source. He suffers and takes a single wound, If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

Just take a look at the 2 FAQ's.

Page 107–The Fellblade.
Change the first sentence to “This foul sword gives the bearer Strength 10, and successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled.”

Q:If the bearer of the Fellblade inflicts a wound upon himself, must he re-roll successful ward saves? (p107)
A:Yes

If he puts a wound on himself, the fellblade is making him re-roll his own ward.
What else would make him re-roll his own ward, if not the fellblade?

-Matt

I will concede that, but I still doubt the legitimacy of the whole D6 wounds to himself argument.

The fellblade makes the bearer s10 and ward saves have to be rerolled , not attacks made with the fellblade have those rules.
Attacks made with the fellblade do d6 wounds.

The bearer is wounding himself, so has to reroll the ward save, but doesn't say that it is with the fellblade.

This also means that for a str test his str would be 10.

The item is the Fellblade. The whole context is the Fellblade. Is there some universal Skaven rule that if they roll 1 they do a wound to themselves? If not, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is unique to the Fellblade and it is the cause.

And guess what happens when the Fellblade does unsaved wounds.

I think we can all agree it's a poopy item. You can house rules it. But it's pretty clear the Fellblade is causing a wound. It has it in the description, it has it in the fluff. You're basically holding onto a cursed radioactive bomb. It states it repeatedly in the fluff. And while fluff != RAW, the rules are already clear.

I think they wanted 1 wound, as your life is supposed to slip away holding it, not explode away in a d6 shower of gore, but that's the way it's written.

Niteware wrote:
I see it as shothand for (you roll 1 on the multiple wounds roll). It still did multiple wounds d6, but you rolled a 1.

What you see it as doesn't matter; your interpretation has zero evidence to support it, as much as I'd like that to be true.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wording physically states that you take 1 wound. Singular. With no multipliers or modifiers, except that it ignores armour. And that is because it explicitly states that it ignores armour. It says nothing about multiple wounds.

You've got this line:

"On a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound..."

And you've got this one before it:

"...unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds"

Unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied. Not unsaved wounds caused in close combat. Unsaved wounds. It doesn't say "on a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound, which is multiplied into D6 wounds" because it says "Unsaved wounds are multiplied into D6 wounds. On a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound".
1 wound means 1 wound. You're right about that.
But you're ignoring one of the other rules: wounds caused multiply into D6. Including this 1 wound.

Niteware wrote:
If it were that simple duke, they wouldn't need to quote a selection of the rules, it could just say on a 1-2 the fellblade wounds the bearer OR on 1-2 you take a wound with the usual rules for Fellblade.

It could. But it doesn't need to. The phrase "unsaved wounds multiply into D6 wounds" applies to the whole text. Every wound. Including the 1 inflicted when you roll a 1-2. The only way for your claim to be true is if the text allows you to ignore part of itself.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
He doesn't take one from the sword, or any other source.

If the wound has no source, it didn't happen. Effects must have causes.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
If you could point out where it states that that wound is explicitly caused by the fellblade, then I will concede your point.

THE FELLBLADE.....................100 points
This is the sword of swords that was created by the Skaven to destroy the greatest Necromancer to ever walk the world. Raw warpstone was smelted into stolen gromil. Incantations of doom were heaped upon the cursed blade. Death itself was bound to its cutting edge and any with eldritch sight can see the aura of power and ruin that surrounds the wicked creation. No foe can stand before it and even the wielder must succumb to its baleful effects.

This foul sword gives the bearer Strength 10 and successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled. Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds. Roll a D6 at the end of each of the wielder's turns; on a 3+ there is no effect. On a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound with no armour save allowed.

--note how the bit "the wielder suffers 1 wound" is under the words "THE FELLBLADE". I'd say that's a pretty damn clear indication that yes, the Fellblade is indeed the cause of this wound. What else would it be?

Niteware wrote:
Attacks made with the fellblade do d6 wounds.

Incorrect. "Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds". See above.

Niteware wrote:
The bearer is wounding himself, so has to reroll the ward save, but doesn't say that it is with the fellblade.

That makes no sense. "Successful ward saves taken against wounds inflicted by the bearer in close combat must be re-rolled" is part of the Fellblade's rules. The Fellblade gives the wielder S10, turns wounds he causes into D6 wounds each, and forces succesful ward saves against said wounds to be re-rolled. Without the Fellblade, none of these rules apply. So how can you think that, when the Fellblade is the reason he's taking a wound, that this wound follows one of the rules for being wounded by the Fellblade, but not the other?

I ask once more, what, if not the Fellblade, is causing this wound? And what, if the Fellblade turns ANY unsaved wound into D6 wounds, is stopping this wound from being multiplied?

Actually it works this way: No one actually knows whether it does 1 wound period, or 1 wound which becomes 1d6 because no Skaven character would be dumb enough to take it.

Warpsolution wrote:
I ask once more, what, if not the Fellblade, is causing this wound? And what, if the Fellblade turns ANY unsaved wound into D6 wounds, is stopping this wound from being multiplied?

The fellblade may cause the wound, but what stops the multiplier is that it states he takes 1 wound. With NO multipliers. If it did do D6 wounds to himself, it would say, On a roll of 1/2, the bearer suffers 1 wound with the D6 multiplier.

Then it also stops the enemy from taking D6 wounds. Because when you attack someone in close combat (or shooting attacks) you only do one wound if you pass armor, wards, and to-wound. That is specifically in the BRB. A wound, singular, on a successful unsaved attack.

What you're saying is nothing can ever be modified. It says 1 wound and even though it specifically grants that wounds are multiplied, it can't ever be changed. If that were the case there could never be D6 wounds because the BRB says one wound.

In another vein, just what is causing the wound if not the Fellblade? Is the user putting the weapon on the ground, stepping away, and punching himself in the face? Even though the FAQ says he also has to reroll ward saves.

This is a tricky one.
RAW, its not actually D6 wounds on the bearer as it states nowhere that the sword caused the wound.
Yes, it states that wards must be re-rolled, which is a trait of the sword.
But just because it shares a trait from the sword, does not mean it was the sword actually causing the wound as this is not said anywhere.
Its like stating that because something gives +1 attack, its frenzy.

While thats RAW, i do agree it is D6 as it does point towards it by using the trait of the sword, and by thinking about it really.
But human logic is not rules i guess.

However, weapons that damage the wielder usually state that its the weapon causing the damage, so its rules apply.
This time its simply taking a single rule from it, instead of both.

Really does need a FAQ though, as there are arguments for both sides.

Just to be clear, the argument is that the Fellblade's rules cause a wound to the model wielding the Fellblade, but the Fellblade is not being weilded when dealing the wound so only half of its rules apply.
Right?

Im really not sure what to make of it mate.
Naturally, it does not state the fellblade was used to cause the wound, and only goes on to say about re-rolling the ward.
I would have thought it would either add in about the D6 wounds, or just say that the fellblade wounds the user.

So at the moment, im more in the camp of a single wound, since that would be following it word for word.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fellblade may cause the wound, but what stops the multiplier is that it states he takes 1 wound. With NO multipliers. If it did do D6 wounds to himself, it would say, On a roll of 1/2, the bearer suffers 1 wound with the D6 multiplier.

It does say that. It says "any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied into D6 wounds".

Step 1. You roll 1-2
Step 2. the Warlord takes 1 wound
Step 3. the wound is unsaved
Step 4. the wound, being both unsaved and caused by the Fellblade, is multiplied into D6 wounds

Seriously. How can anyone argue this point?

Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?
If it stated that, there would be no issue as you would simply use the rules for the weapon when you apply the wound.

However, it simply says: "On a roll of 1-2 the weilder suffers 1 wound with no armour save allowed"

The FAQ then chimes in and says you must re-roll any ward saves, but again, it makes no mention of the sword causing the wound.

 Jackal wrote:
.RAW, its not actually D6 wounds on the bearer as it states nowhere that the sword caused the wound.

What caused the wound then?
The rules.
Of the Fellblade.

 Jackal wrote:
Yes, it states that wards must be re-rolled, which is a trait of the sword.
But just because it shares a trait from the sword, does not mean it was the sword actually causing the wound as this is not said anywhere.

True; two things sharing common traits are not necessarily caused by the same thing.
But in this case, both re-rolling Ward saves and 1 wound = D6 wounds are both traits of the sword. Which is the item that makes you test whether or not you take a wound. So it causes the wound.

 Jackal wrote:
Its like stating that because something gives +1 attack, its frenzy.

No, it's not. The Fellblade has rules. One of those rules says ANY unsaved wounds caused by it are turned into D6 wounds. What causes the Warlord to take a wound? The Fellblade. Spend 100pts, get the Fellblade, roll a 1-2, take a wound that turns into D6 wounds. Don't take the Fellblade, none of the above applies.

 Jackal wrote:
While thats RAW, i do agree it is D6 as it does point towards it by using the trait of the sword, and by thinking about it really.
But human logic is not rules i guess.

How is that human logic? "Here's a radioactive sword. It will slowly drive you mad, poison your blood, and kill you. Which, mathematically, translates to a 20% chance at exploding every few minutes."
Clearly, the RAI is that the sword slowly sucks away your life, dealing 1 wound on the roll of a 1 or 2. The RAW is the opposite.

 Jackal wrote:
However, weapons that damage the wielder usually state that its the weapon causing the damage, so its rules apply.
This time its simply taking a single rule from it, instead of both.

The weapon causes the damage. What else could possibly be causing the damage? Someone answer me that. Go ahead. Try. You can't. The rules of the Fellblade say you might take a wound. The only reason you'd take such a wound is because you have the Fellblade. No Fellblade? No wound. Its rules wound you. They are the cause of the wound. The Fellblade is the cause of the wound.

 Jackal wrote:
Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?

Where does it state the Fellblade is the thing that's causing the wound? Seriously? You guys are essentially asking, "Hey, where--in the Fellblade's description and rules--does it say that the Fellblade is the thing that's wounding you?"
Once again, I ask: if not the Fellblade, then what is causing the wound? It has to be something.

 Jackal wrote:
However, it simply says: "On a roll of 1-2 the weilder suffers 1 wound with no armour save allowed"

...it simply says "on a roll of 1-2 the wielder suffers 1 wound...". In the description. Of the Fellblade.

 Jackal wrote:
The FAQ then chimes in and says you must re-roll any ward saves, but again, it makes no mention of the sword causing the wound.

Because it doesn't need to! Because how in the name of the Horned Rat and all the Daemons of beyond, is anything other than sword, the rule of which is the very thing stating that you take the wound, the cause of said wound?

Wait. I might see the confusion. Are you guys claiming that, when you bonk a dude on the head with the sword, that the wound turns into D6 wounds, but that wounds caused by the sword's venomous, corrupting aura are not, because, in that case, the sword is not being "used", like a sword would normally be?

What caused the wound then?
The rules.
Of the Fellblade.

And where does it say the fellblade caused the wound?

True; two things sharing common traits are not necessarily caused by the same thing.
But in this case, both re-rolling Ward saves and 1 wound = D6 wounds are both traits of the sword. Which is the item that makes you test whether or not you take a wound. So it causes the wound.

You either missed or ignored my point then.
Yes, both are traits of the sword, but the FAQ only asks to apply one of those to the wound.
And still does not say that the sword caused the wound.

No, it's not. The Fellblade has rules. One of those rules says ANY unsaved wounds caused by it are turned into D6 wounds. What causes the Warlord to take a wound? The Fellblade. Spend 100pts, get the Fellblade, roll a 1-2, take a wound that turns into D6 wounds. Don't take the Fellblade, none of the above applies.

Again, where in the RULES does it say the fellblade caused the wound in the first place?

How is that human logic? "Here's a radioactive sword. It will slowly drive you mad, poison your blood, and kill you. Which, mathematically, translates to a 20% chance at exploding every few minutes."
Clearly, the RAI is that the sword slowly sucks away your life, dealing 1 wound on the roll of a 1 or 2. The RAW is the opposite.

Clearly?
Your adding in your own wording at the moment.
You even made up a fluffy effect which isnt in the book, im impressed

The weapon causes the damage. What else could possibly be causing the damage? Someone answer me that. Go ahead. Try. You can't. The rules of the Fellblade say you might take a wound. The only reason you'd take such a wound is because you have the Fellblade. No Fellblade? No wound. Its rules wound you. They are the cause of the wound. The Fellblade is the cause of the wound.

So you want people to find something that does not exist, to disprove your argument based on something that also does not exist?
Quote me where it says the fellblade causes the wound please.
And i mean from the rules, not your own idea of it.
The idea of having rules is to follow them, if your not actually following them, then why play?
See, playing a rule as intended really does not work, as GW FAQ's have changed rulings that people actually agreed on.


Simply put, please show me where it says the fellblade causes the wound.
It does not even say it strikes the weilder, like other such items do (daemon sword for example).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:

Wait. I might see the confusion. Are you guys claiming that, when you bonk a dude on the head with the sword, that the wound turns into D6 wounds, but that wounds caused by the sword's venomous, corrupting aura are not, because, in that case, the sword is not being "used", like a sword would normally be?

That would be a way of putting it, or atleast a way of explaining how it does not kill him outright most of the time.
But alas, that would be fluffy rather than rules worthy.
Try to think along the lines of "gets hot" in 40k.
I know comparing them isnt a good idea, but its a rough example of a weapon hurting its owner, but not being used in its proper way.

 Jackal wrote:
And where does it say the fellblade caused the wound?

Okay. *deep breath*. I'm okay now. Let me try this again:

It says that the Fellblade caused the wound under the description of the Fellblade. Look above for the complete and exact text, from the title and point cost to the descriptive text to the rules. The Fellblade's rules wound you. How can you say that the Fellblade is not the direct cause of the wound?
The Fellblade's rules include the phrase "On a roll of 1-2, the wielder takes a wound".

Can you agree with the following statement:

It is because the Warlord purchased the Fellblade that he takes a wound on a 1-2.

 Jackal wrote:
Your adding in your own wording at the moment.
You even made up a fluffy effect which isnt in the book, im impressed

You want the stuff from the book? Okay:

- p.20 "The weapon would be so lethal that to wield it assured certain death. It mattered not, as the unwitting user would be unaware that his own life was sapping away".
- p.21 "as the human staggered away, already driven to madness or oblivion..."

There. Couple that with what we know about warpstone (magic plutonium) and older books, and we get an imagine of a slow-but-steady, life-draining/twisting force within the sword.

 Jackal wrote:
Quote me where it says the fellblade causes the wound please.

I will. The Fellblade makes you roll a D6 after each Skaven turn. On a 1-2, you take 1 wound.
The Fellblade has this rule. Without it, you would not need to roll the die to see if you take 1 wound. Right?

 Jackal wrote:
So you want people to find something that does not exist, to disprove your argument based on something that also does not exist?

Let me rephrase this: you're asking me to show you where it says the Fellblade causes the wound. I have done so. Or, if you still disagree, I have tried to do so. Can you do the same, and show me what causes the wound, if not the sword?

You have not shown me in the rules where it says the fellblade causes the wound.
I can see where it says the model suffers a wound, but it does not say from the hellblade.
Your whole argument so far is simply based on your idea of it being the blade causing the wound to its weilder.
Nowhere in the book does it say that its the blade that has caused the wound.

On a fluffy note, i forgot about the section on the blade being used against nagash.
So, while on a fluffy note, how would a 50/50 chance of being killed on the spot be the blade "sapping" life?
Sounds far more bloody dangerous than that.

The blade drains the users life, not turns around and stabs him like a daemon weapon does.

Being fluffy, that is exactly what happens. The blade is death itself, but carrying it is radioactive, hence the single wound.
It would be nice to have it clarified, but will needto be house ruled till that elusive point.

On a rough note though, i got work at 5am and its 11 now
If you do find a big turning point in the rules, please PM me as it will be nice to see an end to this one, as its not the 1st time its come up on dakka.

For now though, i think its a case of having to agree to disagree.

 Jackal wrote:
Simple warp.
Where does it state it was the fellblade that caused the wound in the first place?

Um, because if you don't have a Fellblade you don't take a wound. The rule is OWNED by something. It has a source. Because every other model in the game doesn't take a wound randomly for no reason. So at what point does someone start taking wounds? Is it when they have a Fellblade? I'm pretty sure it is. Does the Fellblade say attack, or close combat, or slashing angrily multiplies by D6? Nyope. It says caused by the Fellblade. If the Fellblade made you trip and fall and take a wound, it would still be multiplied by D6 because it caused it. Because you didn't have that rule that caused you to trip without a Fellblade.