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.

DukeRustfield wrote:

 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.

If it wasn't caused by the fellblade, high elves could destroy the sword via vauls unmaking, and you would still have to test.
Honestly, it seems like a pretty simple cause and effect to me.
Have a fellblade and roll a 1 or 2, take a wound.
Don't have a fellblade, don't roll & don't take wounds.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

 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.

If it wasn't caused by the fellblade, high elves could destroy the sword via vauls unmaking, and you would still have to test.
Honestly, it seems like a pretty simple cause and effect to me.
Have a fellblade and roll a 1 or 2, take a wound.
Don't have a fellblade, don't roll & don't take wounds.

-Matt

The fact is, hen you cause wounds with the fellblade, it has the D6 multiple wounds rule. That applies to wounds taken from the fellblade. If it said, on a 1/2 you take a wound, then the D6 penalty would apply. But you don't take a wound. You suffer 1 wound. The difference is subtle, but it is there. The way it is written means that you lose a wound on a 1/2.

 Jackal wrote:
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.

It says it under the rule of the Fellblade, so the wound is caused by the Fellblade. That's my answer. Do you have a better one?
Things have sources. That's not a rule in Warhammer, that's a law of Reason itself. The wound the Warlord takes is because of something. The reason he takes it is because of the Fellblade.

 Jackal wrote:
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.

I believe that the Fellblade was intended to, on a 1-2, take one of your wounds, but the RAW currently says that any wounds caused by the Fellblade turn into D6 wounds, and doesn't distinguish between close combat or rolling a 1-2.
But yes, you're absolutely right. D6 wounds on a 1-2 is not sapping anything; it's stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fact is, hen you cause wounds with the fellblade, it has the D6 multiple wound rule. That applies to wounds taken from the fellblade. If it said, on a 1/2 you take a wound, then the D6 penalty would apply. But you don't take a wound. You suffer 1 wound. The difference is subtle, but it is there. The way it is written means that you lose a wound on a 1/2.

So, to be clear, your argument hinges upon the difference between the words "take" and "suffer"?

So it now changed to "it is not the Fellblade, it's the Fellblade's rules"?

I think darkavenger's argument hinges on the diffeeence between "a wound" and "1 wound", which is the difference between before and after rolling the d6.

Niteware wrote:
I think darkavenger's argument hinges on the diffeeence between "a wound" and "1 wound", which is the difference between before and after rolling the d6.

That was the old argument. Now he's moved on to take a wound and suffer 1 wound.
I'm giving up. He's grasping now.
When you can't clarify your position, it usually (but not always) means your wrong.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Niteware wrote:
I think darkavenger's argument hinges on the diffeeence between "a wound" and "1 wound", which is the difference between before and after rolling the d6.

That was the old argument. Now he's moved on to take a wound and suffer 1 wound.
I'm giving up. He's grasping now.
When you can't clarify your position, it usually (but not always) means your wrong.

-Matt

My argument was, and still is, based on the fact that the wording indicates the single wound. I have not stated anything different, despite what people may have understood.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
My argument was, and still is, based on the fact that the wording indicates the single wound. I have not stated anything different, despite what people may have understood.

An unsaved wound caused by the Fellblade's rules, but apparently not the Fellblade.
That is the part that I, myself at least, have issue understanding.

Because the Fellblade's rules explain what to do about unsaved wounds that they cause.

It may be worth noting, but as per the BRB. pg.45

"Roll to hit and wound as normal and then take any armor saves and ward saves that apply. Finally for each such wound that is not saved, roll the appropriate dice to determine how many wounds are caused."

As per strict RAW, to achieve multiple wounds, you first have to roll to hit and wound.

The mind boggles.

Editing to add:
Assuming the unlikely, that that was serious, the Fellblade's rules explain how it works sans main rules.

a) the BRB section is in regards to shooting attacks, which is why it's under shooting. It says if you're hit by a weapon that does multi wounds. It doesn't say multi wounds from any source can only happen this way--because they don't. Otherwise, spells and war machines and whatever else would never be able to do multi wounds if they don't need to roll to hit.
b) The Fellblade does not have Multiple Wounds special rule. It was written before the current BRB. It has its own rule, the totality of which is in that section under Fellblade.

Warpsolution wrote:

It says it under the rule of the Fellblade, so the wound is caused by the Fellblade. That's my answer. Do you have a better one?
Things have sources. That's not a rule in Warhammer, that's a law of Reason itself. The wound the Warlord takes is because of something. The reason he takes it is because of the Fellblade.

The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
My argument was, and still is, based on the fact that the wording indicates the single wound. I have not stated anything different, despite what people may have understood.

Okay, so the terms "suffer", "take", and "cause" are not part of your argument? Got it.
In that case, I ask; does "1 wound" fall into the category of "any unsaved wounds"?
If not, I would ask how.

 Mike der Ritter wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

It says it under the rule of the Fellblade, so the wound is caused by the Fellblade. That's my answer. Do you have a better one?
Things have sources. That's not a rule in Warhammer, that's a law of Reason itself. The wound the Warlord takes is because of something. The reason he takes it is because of the Fellblade.

The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

Actually, it works the other way.
The blade has a rule that *ANY* wound caused is multiplied. Lacking a disclaimer, the wound inflicted by rolling a 1-2 falls under "Any" and should be multiplied.

-Matt

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

So you are saying that, because the rules for the Fellblade do not say "on a 1-2, the Fellblade inflicts 1 wound upon the wielder", or something to that effect, that the wound is not multiplied.
Is this correct?

Warpsolution wrote:

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

So you are saying that, because the rules for the Fellblade do not say "on a 1-2, the Fellblade inflicts 1 wound upon the wielder", or something to that effect, that the wound is not multiplied.
Is this correct?

That is the grammatically correct way of interpreting it.

The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

RAW is that any unsaved wounds are multiplied into D6. RAW means all the rules, not stop reading when you get the portion you like. If you read close combat RAW it is quite different if you don't read about panic tests.

the Fellblade inflicts

That is the grammatically correct way of interpreting it.

Then it doesn't multiply against enemies either. Because when you roll on the BRB tables it doesn't say the Fellblade inflicts these wounds. Of course it never would, because that would be silly and illogical. Much like thinking the Fellblade isn't causing the wound you suffer but something else entirely, like the Smellblade, the Fellblade's evil twin brother? And the Smellblade's wounds aren't multiplied by D6 of course.

I still say if it caused D6 wounds to the wielder, it would be in the scrap pile instead of the magic item section. No selfish Skaven lord would EVER take a weapon that was likely - not possibly, LIKELY - to kill him before he ever saw combat.

Skaven lords take risks with OTHER skaven's lives, not their own.

Maybe it was a birthday present?

Actually if i remember the FAQ the sword makes the wielder re-roll his own ward saves which usually only takes effect if you gave it to a grey seer but i don't think anybody would do that with any sort of sanity .

I honestly don't think it causes d6 wounds to the bearer. That'd be a stupidly terrible weapon if that was the case. It'd have 2/3 of a chance of killing its wielder if the sword does it.

It says the wound suffered allows no armor saves. I'm actually thinking this is an effect separate from the other parts of the sword.

One argument for the sword to cause just one wound is that the 'blade of corruption' states if you have a 'to hit' roll of a 1 the wielder automatically suffers a wound that is multiplied to 2 wounds. If this is the case wouldn't they say that for the rules of the fellblade as well without making things so vague. My thought is that they didn't plan for that and didn't want it. So it's just 1 wound.

Saying it sucks isn't an argument. You can say a lot of stuff sucks but that doesn't mean the rules for them don't exist. If you want to make house rules, that's fine, but that's not this forum.

Blade of corruption isn't worth it's points either.

Don't know if it was intentional, but you didn't respond to his point....

DukeRustfield wrote:
Saying it sucks isn't an argument. You can say a lot of stuff sucks but that doesn't mean the rules for them don't exist. If you want to make house rules, that's fine, but that's not this forum.

Blade of corruption isn't worth it's points either.

No my point was 'blade of corruption' specifically says afterwards that if you roll multiple ones you hit yourself and it gets multiplied to 2 wounds. With the fellblade they didn't explain this if you wound yourself.

If you want to make a thread on the blade of corruption, that's cool. But this is on fellblade. Saying they forgot it, because a weapon that is kinda similar has it, is spurious. If you go word by word, they diverge almost instantly and for apparently no good reason.

E.g.,
-Fell grants 10S, Corr is +1S only in close combat
-Fell says any unsaved woundS are multiplied into D6, Corr says any unsaved wound [singular].--which you can take to mean Corr can only do it once
-Fell takes place at the end of turns, Corr takes place during to-hit.


They had to FAQ the corruption 3 times to:

Page 107 – Blade of Corruption.
Changethesecond sentenceto “The bearer is granted +1
Strength to allattacks madein closecombat,and hasthe
Multiple Wounds(2)special rule.”
Q: Does the Strength bonus from the Bladeof Corruption and
Dwarf Bane applyto attacks madeby a Tail Weapon, Rat Hound
orotherbonus attacks? (p107)
A: No.
Q:If a model equipped with the Bladeof Corruption is, for
whateverreason, allowed tore-roll his To Hitrolls, do hisrollsof
a 1 beforeor afterthere-roll count towards whetheror not he
sufers a backlash from the weapon? (p107)
A: After there-roll – when a diceisre-rolled, only the
second resultcounts.

You guys forgot one FAQ for the Fellblade.

Page 107 – The Fellblade.
Changethefirstsentenceto “Thisfoulsword givesthe bearer
Strength 10,and successful ward savestaken against wounds
inflicted by the bearer in closecombat must bere-rolled.”

They had to put that in, because as originally written, the Fellblade made the owner only reroll his ward saves...


The point is, they are both ambiguous weapons, both have FAQs and are both shoddily worded. But the rules for one aren't the rules for the other. They, for whatever reason, didn't rewrite Fellblade to be multi wounds D6. Assuming it was on purpose or a mistake or purposeful negligence is a reach. The only thing we know for sure is what is there. Fellblade is Fellblade, it isn't Blade of Corruption.

Just to get more ridiculous as I browse around, I see Weeping Blade says "Each unsaved wounds is multiplied into D3 wounds." That is a complete sentence. That could have meant that anyone anywhere who owned the sword caused every wound ever caused in the game to go D3. Because it didn't limit it so the blade. That's how poorly the Skaven weapons were written. So they were smart enough to FAQ it. So using the uncorrected Skaven source as a holy template I think is a bade idea. Yes, Fellblade sux. Yes, it should be refaqed. Yes, it would be okay to make a house rule. But as written, it is what it is.

Page 107 – Weeping Blade.
Changeto “A Weeping Blade hasthe Armour Piercing and
Multiple Wounds(D3)special rules.”

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
The reason is that a rule says so. He suffers one wound, RAW, not D6. The Blade is not mentioned, ergo it is not applied.

So you are saying that, because the rules for the Fellblade do not say "on a 1-2, the Fellblade inflicts 1 wound upon the wielder", or something to that effect, that the wound is not multiplied.
Is this correct?

That is the grammatically correct way of interpreting it.

Then what causes the wound that your Warlord takes on a 1-2 at the end of the turn?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@vulcan and flamingkillamajig:

I totally agree; the Fellblade has some potential if it slowly sucks your wounds away, one at a time, and that D6 wounds utterly ruins it. But I am seeking the most absolute grammatical truth I can right now.
In an actual game, I'd ask my opponent if we could forgo the roll at the end of the turns and just count the Warlord as dead at the end of the game.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
...'blade of corruption' specifically says afterwards that if you roll multiple ones you hit yourself and it gets multiplied to 2 wounds. With the fellblade they didn't explain this if you wound yourself.

Any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade get multiplied into D6 wounds, and that on a 1-2, you suffer 1 wound.
The simple question is: does the 1 wound you suffer fall into the category of "any unsaved wounds caused by the Fellblade"?
The answer is: "yes".

I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't based on 'it sucks!'

I was just saying that if there's even a question, no Skaven Lord would even pick one up. Lord knows my skaven won't until the issue is resolved.

 Vulcan wrote:
I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't based on 'it sucks!'

I was just saying that if there's even a question, no Skaven Lord would even pick one up. Lord knows my skaven won't until the issue is resolved.

Yeah, basing YMDC on it would suck otherwise, would produce whole new rules for a lot of weapons... cue beastmen magic items.

-Matt

 Vulcan wrote:
I was just saying that if there's even a question, no Skaven Lord would even pick one up. Lord knows my skaven won't until the issue is resolved.

I understand, and totally agree. When I said that the wound suffered on a 1-2 "ruins" the Fellblade, I meant from a literary standpoint, just as you're describing. But, of course, it's ruined mechanically as well. Unfortunately, none of that matters in the bare bones of the discussion.

As to those who still disagree with my take on this whole thing, my question remains: if the Fellblade is not causing the wound the Warlord takes on a 1-2, then what is causing it?

Think I agree with you now Warp, but " The Rules" is my favourite answer to your question ^.^

Warpsolution wrote:

As to those who still disagree with my take on this whole thing, my question remains: if the Fellblade is not causing the wound the Warlord takes on a 1-2, then what is causing it?

I read this whole thread, and I think the best point made in this regard is the one about "Gets Hot" from 40k. When a guy uses a weapon with the Gets Hot special rule, he might take a wound. The wound is coming FROM the weapon, as without the weapon he wouldn't take the wound (and the weapon possesses the special rule), but it's NOT coming from the weapon in the sense that he's shooting himself WITH the weapon. He's shooting something ELSE with the weapon, and the weapon is getting hot, and that heat is causing damage to the wielder.

Isn't that what's really happening with the Fellblade? It's infused with dark energy. This energy leeches life and damages anyone who wields the blade from which this energy flows. But it's also a sword, which means it has two ways to cause damage - it leeches energy and it stabs things.

These two effects are not the same, in the way that a plasma gun getting hot doesn't cause the wielder to shoot himself. The dark energy of the Fellblade not only does damage, but also has a powerful effect on ward saves, causing them to be rerolled. But in order for d6 wounds to be done, the dark energy must be exposed directly to the bloodstream - the easiest way to do this is to stab someone with it, and the combination of the stabbing and the dark energy causes d6 wounds in a way that exposure to the dark energy, by itself with no open wounds, doesn't.

And I know this is not the best RAW argument, but I still think it's the best argument. And I also think it's a good logic argument for the grammar of the writing. It's fairly clear (to me) from the context that the stabbing does d6 wounds while the dark energy does a single wound to the bearer, and the exact wording actually does reflect that interpretation.