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.

You're plasmagun example would be true, if the description of plasma gun said all wounds caused by the plasmagun are AP2 and cause instant death.

The plasmagun has rules that are used when firing shots, and a universal rule called "get's hot".

The Fellblade has a rule that says all ward saves are re-rolled and ANY wound inflicted is multiple by D6.

Plasmaguns are situation, Fellblade is ALL,

-Matt

40K wording and rules carry as much weight here as Pokemon rules. Which isn't to say Pokemon is bad, it's just irrelevant.

The Fellblade isn't getting hot because it was cooked in some little Skaven girl's lightbulb oven too long. It's a 100pt magical artifact. Magic does what it says it does. Not because it makes sense from a normal human world.

It doesn't make particular logical sense that curses and chunks of a former space portal (which Skaven can snort to give themselves magic powers...) can kill the biggest monster the game in one swing either. But that's why RAW is important. Logic isn't even RAI. It sadly has no place here. Because none of this stuff is remotely logical. If we want, we can spend 30 pages explaining how every single item and unit in the Skaven book is illogical.

To put a counter argument on your logic, for instance, if you give the Fellblade to a unit who becomes multi-cursed with all 1 attributes. And the spell fluff says is blind and crippled and diseased, and can only hold weapons in his feeble mouth. Fellblade still has exactly the same profile even though that unit is incapable of swinging/stabbing with force and can only drop it on people's feet. If the sword was only stabbing/swinging like a barbarian, we would have to take away all it's cool abilities in ^ case. But it's magic. And illogical.

@Tangent: I agree with your opinion. Totally and completely. A cursory glance at the Skaven literature available and with a moderate grasp of game mechanics, the situation of 1-2: take D6 wounds is clearly not the one that was intended to be true.

But, because the Fellblade's rules were written as they currently are, that's exactly what happens.

There are two major hazards when talking about a magically radioactive sword. One is being subject to its qualities as a sword. The other is just being around it.

But the Fellblade isn't a sword. It's a collection of rules that represent a sword within the simulation of the game. So, by RAW, there's no way we can clarify anything.
"all unsaved wounds" means "all". The word "caused" means simply that; "a thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition".
What gives rise to taking a wound on a 1-2? The fact that the Warlord's carrying around the Fellblade. So the Fellblade--meaning its presence, its rules, all that stuff--causes the wound, and so the wound is multiplied into D6 wounds.

I knew you guys would be against me and, really, I'm against me, too. I know it's not really a RAW argument that I made.

But I guess what my overall point is... is that context is everything here. I'm not trying to say that we should take the rules of 40k and use them as a sort-of precedent to clarify another game's rules. I'm basically just saying that the same thing is happening to the 40k dude with a Plasma Rifle as what's happening to the rat with the Fellblade. And the point that THIS is making is one of context.

Yes, I know that the wording of, "wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied to d6" is a clarification on the wording of, "the wielder takes a wound," and so we can't just say that the second wording is all that we should pay attention to. Because this game is full of clarifications and why should we just ignore this one because we want to?

But I think the context is SO IMPORTANT in this case that we actually have a good reason to ignore this clarification. And the context does not, in my opinion, support the ruling that when the wielder of the Fellblade damages himself, that wound is multiplied.

 Tangent wrote:
I knew you guys would be against me and, really, I'm against me, too. I know it's not really a RAW argument that I made.

But I guess what my overall point is... is that context is everything here. I'm not trying to say that we should take the rules of 40k and use them as a sort-of precedent to clarify another game's rules. I'm basically just saying that the same thing is happening to the 40k dude with a Plasma Rifle as what's happening to the rat with the Fellblade. And the point that THIS is making is one of context.

Yes, I know that the wording of, "wounds caused by the Fellblade are multiplied to d6" is a clarification on the wording of, "the wielder takes a wound," and so we can't just say that the second wording is all that we should pay attention to. Because this game is full of clarifications and why should we just ignore this one because we want to?

But I think the context is SO IMPORTANT in this case that we actually have a good reason to ignore this clarification. And the context does not, in my opinion, support the ruling that when the wielder of the Fellblade damages himself, that wound is multiplied.

You conveniently left out "ALL".
I completely believe that the author meant: "Wounds caused in close combat by the Fellblade must re-roll successful ward saves and are multiplied by 1D6".
But that's not what he wrote.
I'm actually baffled that the FAQ forces the 1-2 result to re-roll wards, since it isn't in close combat.

-Matt

Not on purpose. All of what?

ALL wounds caused by fellblade are multiplied. Your quote excluded all. In a RAW sense, "all" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

Oh, I see what you mean. It's a little silly to even point that out. If it didn't say "all" it would still be implied.

 Tangent wrote:
Oh, I see what you mean. It's a little silly to even point that out. If it didn't say "all" it would still be implied.

But leaving it out strengthens your argument. Which is why I called you on it.
I'm curious about your plasma comparison. Plasma guns have a rule called get's hot. That's a universal rule, not detailed under plasma, but detailed under Universal Special Rules, and applied to many weapons, not just a plasmagun.

You do see the difference in those don't you?

If skaven had a warpstone weapon rule that did a wound on a 1-2 for any "warp stone weapon", and the fellblade was listed as having the WarpStone Weapon rule, then you could strongly argue that it's the army special rule, not the fellblades special rule that is doing the wound. That would be a perfect match to the 40K plasmagun rule.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
Oh, I see what you mean. It's a little silly to even point that out. If it didn't say "all" it would still be implied.

But leaving it out strengthens your argument. Which is why I called you on it.
I'm curious about your plasma comparison. Plasma guns have a rule called get's hot. That's a universal rule, not detailed under plasma, but detailed under Universal Special Rules, and applied to many weapons, not just a plasmagun.

You do see the difference in those don't you?

If skaven had a warpstone weapon rule that did a wound on a 1-2 for any "warp stone weapon", and the fellblade was listed as having the WarpStone Weapon rule, then you could strongly argue that it's the army special rule, not the fellblades special rule that is doing the wound. That would be a perfect match to the 40K plasmagun rule.

-Matt

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

I don't think it strengthens my argument at all.

Yes, I see the difference.

But I think you still aren't really getting my point. I'm not trying to make a rules comparison. I'm trying to make a "what happens" comparison that has little to do with the rules other than that they both exist. And "what happens" provides the context under which the wording of the rules should be read.

 Tangent wrote:
I don't think it strengthens my argument at all.

Yes, I see the difference.

But I think you still aren't really getting my point. I'm not trying to make a rules comparison. I'm trying to make a "what happens" comparison that has little to do with the rules other than that they both exist. And "what happens" provides the context under which the wording of the rules should be read.

Oh, right I get it. We should ignore the rules and just look at a final effect.
So failing a dangerous terrain check is just like rolling a 1-2 with a fellblade, because they both cause a wound.
Does that mean you now have to re-roll ward saves on dangerous terrain tests?

Comparing rules for "What Happens" only works when rules are similar. Otherwise, you get the logic I posted above about dangerous terrain, or any other effect that causes a wound.

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

And you have yet to explain how that is outside of "ANY".

I think it should work your way, I'd agree to play it your way, but if I were running a fellblade in a tournament, RAW says otherwise, and I won't run it your way.

-Matt

Make some space in the "1 wound" camp for me.

It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

I see and fully understand the opposing side's argument, but making the conclusion that since the sword has the USR and the USR causes 1 wound, the wielder automatically suffers d6 wounds is a very logic argument...but it's RAI, not RAW.

See, if the wording was "On a roll of 1, it causes 1 wound to the wielder", we can all agree on it dealing more than 1 wound.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Make some space in the "1 wound" camp for me.

It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

I see and fully understand the opposing side's argument, but making the conclusion that since the sword has the USR and the USR causes 1 wound, the wielder automatically suffers d6 wounds is a very logic argument...but it's RAI, not RAW.

See, if the wording was "On a roll of 1, it causes 1 wound to the wielder", we can all agree on it dealing more than 1 wound.

It's not a Universal Special Rule when the rule is exclusive to a single weapon.

-Matt

No need to start nitpicking, you know what I mean.

USR as in Unique Special Rule.

It's unique special rule(s) also multiplies by D6 and makes you reroll wards. They have already FAQed that the reroll for wards applies to the user.

If the special rule doesn't apply to each other, then none of the rules should stack against the enemy either. It doesn't do D6 to them or force reroll. Cuz those are special rules and you're suddenly saying those don't modify each other. Or is it they only don't modify each other when it's inconvenient? Though the FAQ has already quashed that.

The point is, that entire block of text is ONE rule. It is the Fellblade. You don't pick and choose parts of it. All of it is on and in play.

Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

...and inconvenient? Any nerf to Skaven would be convenient to me. Don't put words in my mouth.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

How do you separate the Fellblade from its rules, Unique, Special, or otherwise?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

It is the absolute definition of RAW. I think just about everyone agrees on that. It's bad RAW, but it's RAW. The Fellblade clearly does cause the wound (since if you don't have it, you don't take a wound, that's what cause means) and the Fellblade multiplies ANY wounds by D6. Any means all. 100%. Everything. I think you're the only person saying it's not RAW. Even detractors say it is, it just makes the sword terrible.

Rerolling wounds on yourself was RAW too. They didn't need to FAQ it. They don't always FAQ things that are highly questionable. At least half the FAQs are pretty obvious.

Warpsolution wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

I still think that the wound caused on a 1/2, is a different effect entirely.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

The fellblade has two effects. 1 being the bearer becomes S10 and each unsaved wound gets multiplied into d6, and causes wounds to be rerolled. And, IN ADDITION, which is a completely different effect, it causes a wound to the bearer on a 1 or a 2.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It is not the Fellblade that causes the wound, it's the weapons USR and therefore, you only get 1 wound.

How do you separate the Fellblade from its rules, Unique, Special, or otherwise?

The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself. It is like me saying Killing blow does multiple wounds. It doesn't, but it takes off multiple wounds. This is the opposite. The weapon causes multiple wounds, but the special rule only deals 1. NOTE: I AM VERY TIRED, AND THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME RIGHT NOW.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Correct, they have FAQ'ed that the re-roll for wards applied to the user. They did not FAQ the d6 also applying to the wound you inflict on yourself.

You make a very logical conclusion, but it's not RAW. That's RAI.

How is the phrase "any unsaved wounds...are multiplied into D6..." not applicable to "...on a 1-2, the wielder suffers 1 wound..."?

Again, you're trying to lump together the wounds caused by the fellblade, and the wounds caused by the special rule of the fellblade. They are two different effects.

The in addition, even though it's underlined, is added by you. It is not in the text. It nowhere at any point made a separate statement or condition. Your theory is further decayed by the fact that the ward save, which you describe as being part of one full special rule, also applies to that IN ADDITION. So that's clearly not the case. They can't be merely 2 special rules unless they are:

1. St10, reroll ward, D6 wounds
2. take a wound, reroll ward

And that makes no sense that part of a special rule, which you're going out of your way to say is separate, is shared among both, but the other part isn't.

The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself

That's silly. Then the Fellblade never does D6 because it isn't causing wounds, the model that owns it is. The Fellblade has 0 attacks. It cannot cause a wound EXCEPT to the owning player.

Special Rules are Special Rules, it is a game term. They are in the BRB and have a particular meaning. Or they are listed under units. Scurry Away! is a Special Rule. What is the Special Rule that is doing dmg? It isn't that whole last sentence because that isn't a Special Rule, it is the textual implementation of one. It falls under the heading of...Fellblade. You are trying to take a sentence that occurs under the heading and saying that is a separate rule.

As an example, Strength in Number is a rather large rule. It has ONE sentance that says, "if for any reason a Skaven unit loses its rank bonus, it also loses its Leadership bonus." Well I take that to mean they lose Inspiring Presence and BSB reroll and any other LD bonuses they may have gotten, because I'm going to ignore the rest of the rule like you're doing with Fellblade.

DukeRustfield wrote:
The in addition, even though it's underlined, is added by you. It is not in the text. It nowhere at any point made a separate statement or condition. Your theory is further decayed by the fact that the ward save, which you describe as being part of one full special rule, also applies to that IN ADDITION. So that's clearly not the case. They can't be merely 2 special rules unless they are:

1. St10, reroll ward, D6 wounds
2. take a wound, reroll ward

And that makes no sense that part of a special rule, which you're going out of your way to say is separate, is shared among both, but the other part isn't.

The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself

That's silly. Then the Fellblade never does D6 because it isn't causing wounds, the model that owns it is. The Fellblade has 0 attacks. It cannot cause a wound EXCEPT to the owning player.

Special Rules are Special Rules, it is a game term. They are in the BRB and have a particular meaning. Or they are listed under units. Scurry Away! is a Special Rule. What is the Special Rule that is doing dmg? It isn't that whole last sentence because that isn't a Special Rule, it is the textual implementation of one. It falls under the heading of...Fellblade. You are trying to take a sentence that occurs under the heading and saying that is a separate rule.

As an example, Strength in Number is a rather large rule. It has ONE sentance that says, "if for any reason a Skaven unit loses its rank bonus, it also loses its Leadership bonus." Well I take that to mean they lose Inspiring Presence and BSB reroll and any other LD bonuses they may have gotten, because I'm going to ignore the rest of the rule like you're doing with Fellblade.

The fact that the two rules are completely unrelated is why I wrote in addition. Find a way to prove that they are related without telling me that the wound is caused by the fellblade. Or bringing up the rerolling ward. I'll wait.

The special rule thing as a mistype. And I apologise it. The special rule should in fact be an effect of the weapon. And reading through the fellblade, it has two separate effects.

If it has 2 separate effects, why does one...sub-effect, apply to both and not the other sub-effect (d6).

They reworded the first sentence.

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

+

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

It's clear bearer and Fellblade are the same from the FAQ. Since the first FAQ changed it to require rerolls caused by the bearer and the 2nd FAQ talks about wounds caused by the bearer on himself. As I said before, the Fellblade itself has 0 Attacks and thus can never do D6. The Fellblade multiplies any wounds by D6.

If you hold that enemies have to reroll ward saves, then the user takes D6. Because in both cases, the wording is "the bearer" causes those wounds. That is the language of the first and second FAQ. If the bearer is causing wounds to the enemy and those are multiplied by D6 then it stands to reason they are also multiplied by D6 against himself because "the bearer" is causing the wound.

DukeRustfield wrote:
If it has 2 separate effects, why does one...sub-effect, apply to both and not the other sub-effect (d6).

They reworded the first sentence.

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

+

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

It's clear bearer and Fellblade are the same from the FAQ. Since the first FAQ changed it to require rerolls caused by the bearer and the 2nd FAQ talks about wounds caused by the bearer on himself. As I said before, the Fellblade itself has 0 Attacks and thus can never do D6. The Fellblade multiplies any wounds by D6.

If you hold that enemies have to reroll ward saves, then the user takes D6. Because in both cases, the wording is "the bearer" causes those wounds. That is the language of the first and second FAQ. If the bearer is causing wounds to the enemy and those are multiplied by D6 then it stands to reason they are also multiplied by D6 against himself because "the bearer" is causing the wound.

Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade. The way it is worded seems like it works like the Other Tricksters' shard, but not applying to friendly models in B2B. However, the bearer taking a wound on a 1/2 is still a different effect to the S10 and D6 wounds.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade.

This is also what I'm saying. The assumption being made is that because a model has a certain weapon, that model possesses only ONE way to do damage (cause wounds), which is WITH the weapon. But models with Thunderstomp will show otherwise - models, wielders, and bearers of weapons can inflict wounds, saved or otherwise, in different ways, often regardless of the equipment they carry. This is one of those cases - the bearer of the Fellblade is not hitting himself with the Fellblade. Instead, the energy of the Fellblade is leeching wounds from the bearer as long as the model remains the bearer. Or whatever. The grammar can be argued but the language (I can't think of a better word for it) seems fairly clear to me: The fluff describes the effect. The rules themselves specifically say "one wound." The FAQ doesn't go out of its way to add the "d6 wounds" part, despite the fact that it DOES go out of its way to add the "reroll ward saves" part.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't. Presumably on purpose. I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

This is the context that I was referring to, that I believe is being ignored.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade.

2 things, first off, yes he does. Because the bearer causes the wound to himself and the fellblade is the source of the wound because it has the rule. Again, there is nothing anywhere that says the fellblade has to be swung vigorously. If you want to say your Lord taps the nose of your enemy with the fellblade and giggles it will have exactly the same effects as written. Second, a bit more obscure, if you have a magic weapon you must use it, per the BRB. There is nothing the bearer could use otherwise. And even if he could, he is forced to use the fellblade because it has a mandatory rule attached to it. No matter how you look at it, when the wound takes effect he is under the influence of the fellblade's rules. He HAS to reroll successful ward saves. If he is wounded they take D6.

I know you want to make some distinction between yelling and screaming and swinging a weapon with great force, but there isn't one. If a weapon is Killing Blow it doesn't matter if it's wielded by a Str 1 gnoblar with arthritis. It will still instantly slay a super high elf lord of awesome if he fails his save.

Put it another way, if it was a Chainsaw of Clumsiness and you had the exact same rules across the board. But instead of the evil blade sapping your soul or whatever, you're dropping it on your foot or otherwise fell on it. In that case you would probably say it's multiplied by D6. But the problem with that is it's just fluff. The rules would be exactly the same. If it helps you, think of the many curses laid on the blade that simply magnify any wound caused around it. The warpstone causes a wound. I mean, that's all fluff. You are arguing that he's not swinging the sword at himself. But that is irrelevant. If he's incapable of attacking at all (spell or somesuch) nothing would change.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't.

The absence of FAQ does not make proof for conjecture. They didn't FAQ tens of thousands of questions that pop up here all the time. RAW is in force if there is no FAQ.

The assumption being made is that because a model has a certain weapon, that model possesses only ONE way to do damage (cause wounds), which is WITH the weapon.

This is really simple. If the Fellblade is destroyed, you don't have to test. If you don't buy the Fellblade, you don't have to test. The Fellblade causes the wound. There can't be any question about that. If you disagree, then every skaven unit will have to take the test because it's something...else doing the wound. Just having the entry in your book? The model can possess 239842398 ways to cause wounds--doesn't matter. None of those other ways cause the Fellblade's test. If you have it, you test. If you don't, you don't. After that point it is immaterial HOW you taking the wound. It is from the Fellblade, if you are kissing it, licking the blade (mmm, chocolate), stabbing yourself in the eye, or absorbing evil evilness, it's still got the same conditions of rerolling wards and D6.

I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

Find anywhere in any rule where that distinction is made. Nowhere does it say you're merely holding the Fellblade instead of striking with it. Those conditions don't exist. If you put the Fellblade down at the end of combat can you escape the roll? Can we make up all kinds of subphases like pre-combat-prep and post-combat-ditch-evil-artifacts?

DukeRustfield wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Just because the bearer has to reroll wards does not mean that he is hitting himself with the fellblade.

2 things, first off, yes he does. Because the bearer causes the wound to himself and the fellblade is the source of the wound because it has the rule. Again, there is nothing anywhere that says the fellblade has to be swung vigorously. If you want to say your Lord taps the nose of your enemy with the fellblade and giggles it will have exactly the same effects as written. Second, a bit more obscure, if you have a magic weapon you must use it, per the BRB. There is nothing the bearer could use otherwise. And even if he could, he is forced to use the fellblade because it has a mandatory rule attached to it. No matter how you look at it, when the wound takes effect he is under the influence of the fellblade's rules. He HAS to reroll successful ward saves. If he is wounded they take D6.

I know you want to make some distinction between yelling and screaming and swinging a weapon with great force, but there isn't one. If a weapon is Killing Blow it doesn't matter if it's wielded by a Str 1 gnoblar with arthritis. It will still instantly slay a super high elf lord of awesome if he fails his save.

Put it another way, if it was a Chainsaw of Clumsiness and you had the exact same rules across the board. But instead of the evil blade sapping your soul or whatever, you're dropping it on your foot or otherwise fell on it. In that case you would probably say it's multiplied by D6. But the problem with that is it's just fluff. The rules would be exactly the same. If it helps you, think of the many curses laid on the blade that simply magnify any wound caused around it. The warpstone causes a wound. I mean, that's all fluff. You are arguing that he's not swinging the sword at himself. But that is irrelevant. If he's incapable of attacking at all (spell or somesuch) nothing would change.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't.

The absence of FAQ does not make proof for conjecture. They didn't FAQ tens of thousands of questions that pop up here all the time. RAW is in force if there is no FAQ.

The assumption being made is that because a model has a certain weapon, that model possesses only ONE way to do damage (cause wounds), which is WITH the weapon.

This is really simple. If the Fellblade is destroyed, you don't have to test. If you don't buy the Fellblade, you don't have to test. The Fellblade causes the wound. There can't be any question about that. If you disagree, then every skaven unit will have to take the test because it's something...else doing the wound. Just having the entry in your book? The model can possess 239842398 ways to cause wounds--doesn't matter. None of those other ways cause the Fellblade's test. If you have it, you test. If you don't, you don't. After that point it is immaterial HOW you taking the wound. It is from the Fellblade, if you are kissing it, licking the blade (mmm, chocolate), stabbing yourself in the eye, or absorbing evil evilness, it's still got the same conditions of rerolling wards and D6.

I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

Find anywhere in any rule where that distinction is made. Nowhere does it say you're merely holding the Fellblade instead of striking with it. Those conditions don't exist. If you put the Fellblade down at the end of combat can you escape the roll? Can we make up all kinds of subphases like pre-combat-prep and post-combat-ditch-evil-artifacts?

Using the logic you're applying, the spell flaming sword causes the unit to have flaming attacks, rather than giving them the flaming attacks special rule. Likewise, the sword does not attack the bearer, but confers a rule onto the bearer where he takes a single wound on a roll of 1/2.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The fellblade has two effects. 1 being the bearer becomes S10 and each unsaved wound gets multiplied into d6, and causes wounds to be rerolled. And, IN ADDITION, which is a completely different effect, it causes a wound to the bearer on a 1 or a 2.

Can you offer textual evidence that these two rules are separate?

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The wound is caused by a special rule. Not the fellblade itself.

I ask you, what is the Fellblade?
Several people seem to think that the Fellblade is a sword with rules. And within the narrative aspect of the game, that's true. But in terms of the mechanics, I don't think there's anyway to separate the sword from the rest of its rules. The Fellblade isn't swung around, isn't slowly sapping anyone's life force; it changes the Strength number to a 10, and the wound number to a the result on a six-sided die.
Am I making my point clear? It's kind of tricky; our imaginations fill in a lot of the gaps automatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tangent wrote:
the bearer of the Fellblade is not hitting himself with the Fellblade. Instead, the energy of the Fellblade is leeching wounds from the bearer as long as the model remains the bearer. Or whatever. The grammar can be argued but the language (I can't think of a better word for it) seems fairly clear to me: The fluff describes the effect. The rules themselves specifically say "one wound." The FAQ doesn't go out of its way to add the "d6 wounds" part, despite the fact that it DOES go out of its way to add the "reroll ward saves" part.

The fact that they only FAQed the "reroll ward saves" part does not help the opposition argument - it hurts it. They could have FAQed the "d6 wounds" part as well, in the same breath, but they didn't. Presumably on purpose. I'm trying to say that the Fellblade can cause wounds in two different ways: when it is held, and when it strikes something.

This is the context that I was referring to, that I believe is being ignored.

How is "...suffers 1 wound..." separate from "any unsaved wounds..."?
I get what you're saying. I just don't think you have any support from the RAW.
Again: there is no difference between "the Fellblade" and "the Fellblade's rules". Not that I can see. Once more, I ask for proof.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
Using the logic you're applying, the spell flaming sword causes the unit to have flaming attacks, rather than giving them the flaming attacks special rule. Likewise, the sword does not attack the bearer, but confers a rule onto the bearer where he takes a single wound on a roll of 1/2.

The spell gives the unit flaming attacks. That's quite specific. The point is there is no functional difference between a unit having flaming attacks and a sword having flaming attacks except if the sword is destroyed it loses the special rule. And that's what you guys aren't getting. DoC Bloodletters in the new book have KB on their SWORDS and TK Tomb Guard have KB on themselves. Do you know what the difference is? Functionally, none. If a Bloodletter OR Tomb Guard had to attack itself, it would still be KB.

WoC has a Daemonblade and on a roll of 1 the hit is resolved against himself. ANY special rules that are in play on that model or weapon are in play on that attack against himself. Special Rules are only turned off when they specifically say they are. Like when they FAQed that Stomp/Thunderstomp don't get benefits from magic items, spells, special rules. You see under each unit a collection of special rules. As you buy items, more rules accumulate. They don't turn off and on depending on whether you attack someone (or yourself) unless it explicitly says so. If that wielder of the Daemonblade attacks himself and he has KB somehow, he has the chance of instantly slaying himself. Because you don't get to turn off the special rule when it's inconvenient.

The case of the demon blade is irrelevant here Duke
Because the demonBlade attacks rolls of 1 to hit make the user hit himself, thus applying all the other modifiers/rules

With the Fellblade it could go 2 ways
1) "soft RAW" = unsaved wounds caused by attacks with the Fellblade inflicts d6 wounds instead (ie: weapon has the multiple (d6) wounds rule)
2) "hard RAW" = ALL unsaved wounds on the battlefield -anywhere- instead inflict d6 wounds

As usual, "hard RAW" is completely absurd