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.

Hi all, I'll start by saying this is definitely a raw discussion for very competitive play , this came up in a game today and in discussion we weren't exactly sure how to play it due to some odd wording on the Phoenix gem and its interactions.
The Phoenix gem is a relic in the aeldari codex

The Phoenix gem rule state:that the first time a model is slain, roll a d6 for each unit friend or for in 3", on a 2+ that unit suffers d3 mortal wounds. If at least one wound is inflicted the model isn't slain but remains in play with a single wound remaining.

So my first question is does the model count as being in range of itself Per Brb page 178 ? There is no counter statement in the gems rules but does the gems affect count as an aura in this context ? ( If not why not? If it does does it take mortal wounds and apply them sequentially per call out on page 181 on mortal wounds ( likely saving itself and killing itself again?).

Question 2 page 181 brb section 5 inflict damage is the only point I see where "Slain" is defined but the weird limbo of the gem being slain and not slain adds confusion, clearly the model is not removed from play until after the stone affect is applied but the gems rule do call it slain. So aside from the remove from play piece does the other section of this rule get applied... Are remaining attacks lost?

Question 3 modifying characteristics page 175 calls out strength toughness and leadership not being modifiable to below 1, wounds aren't mentioned so in this bizarre scenario can a model count as having multiple negative wounds? I.e. when you are slain the gem explodes can you cause a -1 wound on a model with zero wounds?


Thoughts on these weird interactions, is Schrodinger's warlock alive or dead

1) Technically yes; the character is a Unit within range of himself(as always)

2) No. Remaining attacks are never lost; remaining damage from the single attack is lost. A unit of 10 Marines in rapid Fire range wounding 5 times and slaying the bearer on the 4th wound will still leave the 5th wound to be dealt with after the Phoenix Gem does it's thing.

3) Damage is not Modifying characteristics; it is simply applying damage. if you have damage from a single source that brings remaining wounds down to 0 or less they are lost. the MW Dealt to the units within 3" are done before resolving the Phoenix Gem, so you cannot have a character kill itself while returning itself.

Caveat) Ask the TO for his interpretations of the rules before the event; I am effectively just "some guy on the internet" to him(and you), so what I have to say are only arguing points you might bring up.

Thanks kel
1) agreed but can you cause a mortal wound to yourself when you have 0 wounds left, per q3 is there anything stopping you having -1 wound until Phoenix gem is resolved

2) also very reasonable , does it matter if I or the opponent fast roles or not? If they cause 5 wounds and I roll the saves 1 at a time the warlock (1 wound remaining) will die on the 2nd fail. If I roll all 5 simultaneously are the wounds applied at once simultaneously ( effectively -1 wound again). Meaning getting back up with 1 wound

3) the 0 wounds or less bit is what I find interesting here, what is your logic for something having less than 0 wounds?

If you have to ask “can wounds go to negative numbers?” And “can I wound someone who’s dead?” you need to apply a little common sense, no matter how competitive the game.

Auras are abilities. See core rules pg. 5. Abilities are listed on the datasheet of your unit. Se core rules pg. 12/13. Is the phoenix gem listed on the datasheet of your unit ? No, its not. Thus its not an aura ability. The model cant mortal wound itself with it.

The bester ist slain, so He hast left the table. Therefore He is Not rolling for himself, right?

Elodigens - thats the problem the warlock is slain, but then action taken, then isn't dead. Slain (or destroyed) implies an action that removes you from the table but in this case you aren't There aren't rules for being dead and not dead (hence the schrodinger reference). Its not like say Gulliman where he does die and then comes back and gets replaced on the table.

P5freak - The implication in your commentary is that no relic with an area affect can impact the bearer, E.g. Archon with writ of the living muse reroll 1s himself with writ of the living muse? is that not an "Aura Ability"? similarly if a Knight takes landstrider warlord trait does that affect the unit with it? (add 2 advance and charge rolls made for friendly units within 6" of your warlord). My read of that section is that it applies generically to things that have aura like abilities not just abilities in their sheet. The more I think about this the more definite I become that RAW he is within 3" of himself and if that is the case and he is not yet "removed from the table" then he can take mortal wounds to heal himself weird as that sounds. Now if you disagree with same then above examples of landstrider and Writ would need to be treated the same as they don't confer an ability to the data sheet.

johnnyhell - I know this feels like asshatery but these are logical extensions of weird rule interactions. RAI is you fall down you explode you get back up but the mechanics of how exactly that should work are not clear. This isn't clearly written like Gulliman or celestine it's messy.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you have to ask “can wounds go to negative numbers?” And “can I wound someone who’s dead?” you need to apply a little common sense, no matter how competitive the game.

If a logical process which is compliant with the rules can be determined (the point of these discussions) then you have something that another reaonable person will likely agree with.

Saying "it's just common sense that it works this way" isn't going to convince someone whos common sense tells them it works a different way.

eldritchstormer, I guess we all play warlord traits and relics as abilities, but we don't know for sure if they become abilities. Even if they become abilities you can't do it, becaus the rules don't say anything about negative wound numbers. Excessive damage is lost after the model gets to 0 wounds. That means any mortal wound you do on yourself would be lost. And that means you can't resurrect because no wound was inflicted.

I can see and understand your rules conundrum . You are correct that the Warlock is within range of himself. I also agree that trying to find a difference between aura abilities being on a datasheet or from another source is splitting a silly hair, which would itself require an FAQ, so I don't like trying to make sense of it using that as an answer either.

That said, I think there's TWO main things we need to consider:

#1 - I'm sure we can all agree that the intention of the rule is that the model is siphoning the life force off those nearest to it, and that the Phoenix Gem cannot siphon this off of its own user who would already be "dead". This is something to consider, because it allows us to say that even if the RAW on it is wonky, you should DEFINITELY still play it as though the rule was written perfectly. The arguments we're having here are simply to determine if an FAQ is really required, or if the existing rules are sufficient to cover this. As Kommissar Kel stated, ask your TO for the final word. If this is a tournament, the TO can rule whatever way they want, and I'm sure they're going to rule in favour of "no, it can't wound itself past already being dead in order to save itself".

#2 - We are in a sticky situation as far as what is "slain" and what isn't "slain". Our understanding is that a model reduced to 0 or fewer wounds is "slain". Our understanding is also that a model can't really go below 0 wounds (they have no wounds left to lose, assuming Warhammer 40,000 uses a Cardinal number system, and not an Integer or other number system, as nothing in the game ever goes below 0 or into fractions or irrational numbers). While at 0 wounds, which is what this model is, I believe it is impossible for it to "lose" further wounds, as the model is "slain". A slain model can not be inflicted with damage from mortal wounds, as per pg181 (Mortal Wounds), or else a Smite that deals 3 wounds would only ever kill 1 model. With all of this put together, I think we can safely say that Warhammer 40,000 works on a Cardinal Number system, and that damage cannot be inflicted on something that is considered "slain". For the purposes of the Phoenix Gem, the bearer is already "slain", otherwise it cannot trigger in the first place to make it un-slain. Until it is un-slain, it cannot be inflicted with additional wounds, and thus the Phoenix Gem's ability cannot inflict wounds to its own bearer, and therefor cannot count the bearer as having been inflicted wounds in order to have the bearer be un-slain.

If you can proc phoenix gem on yourself, then "explodes!" should be chain-proccing on a destroyed vehicle if I can consecutively roll 6's.

You cannot allocate a mortal wound, or any wounds for that matter, on a model that already has 0 wounds left.

The point is moot.

 skchsan wrote:
If you can proc phoenix gem on yourself, then "explodes!" should be chain-proccing on a destroyed vehicle if I can consecutively roll 6's.

You cannot allocate a mortal wound, or any wounds for that matter, on a model that already has 0 wounds left.

The point is moot.

That doesn't Track.

Explodes happens when the vehicle is reduced to 0 wounds. If it mortal wounds itself and those wounds go below 0; then you are not reduced to 0 wounds from those mortal wounds.

OP: Since there is no restriction on going below 0 wounds, we could see the MW reducing the gem bearer to -1; but when the effect then kicks in it is returned to 1 wound remaining without a problem.

But, again, discuss it with the TO before it ever comes up.

Fast-rolling does make a difference; if the opponent fast-rolls 8 shots then all hits, wounds, saves, and damage are applied at once, slaying the model and losing any remaining damage when it reaches 0 wounds. If you do not fast roll than each gun fires all of its shots until the bearer is reduced to 0 wounds; you then resolve the gem and the firing unit must continue resolving shots against the returned model.

If the weapons are fixed damage then it's simple enough to halt after allocating enough wounds, resolve the gem and then continue. If they are multi-damage then you'll want to slow roll.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Explodes happens when the vehicle is reduced to 0 wounds. If it mortal wounds itself and those wounds go below 0; then you are not reduced to 0 wounds from those mortal wounds.

Much in the same way, if you're at 0 wounds, you cannot allocate further wounds on it. Having negative wounds doesn't mean it doesn't not have wounds left on it. If there are no more wounds, wounds cannot be allocated to the model. Applied to case on hand, you cannot allocate the d3 MW's to see if the bearer of the relic can get back up with 1 wound when the said bearer has no more wounds remaining.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
OP: Since there is no restriction on going below 0 wounds, we could see the MW reducing the gem bearer to -1; but when the effect then kicks in it is returned to 1 wound remaining without a problem.

Battle Primer pg 7

...If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play.

If a model is reduced to 0 wounds as a result of resolving damage, no further actions can be taken on the model, including allocating wounds, unless explicitly stated otherwise. In this particular case, the Gem rule allows you to take an action before removing the model form play. It does not, grant you the permission to allocate wounds to a model with 0 W remaining.

This is particularly why you would try to allocate all those single wound shots against 1 model (say this model has 6W) until it is down to its last wound, then allocate the 6D wounds against it to maximize the damage mitigation. If you had allocated the 6D wound on the model and failed it, it would no be able to soak up any further wounds.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Fast-rolling does make a difference; if the opponent fast-rolls 8 shots then all hits, wounds, saves, and damage are applied at once, slaying the model and losing any remaining damage when it reaches 0 wounds. If you do not fast roll than each gun fires all of its shots until the bearer is reduced to 0 wounds; you then resolve the gem and the firing unit must continue resolving shots against the returned model.

As per RAW, you're only allowed to fast roll if the outcome is irrelevant whether you fast rolled or not. In your particular example, you are allowed to fast roll your to wound rolls, but you cannot fast roll your to save rolls.

The rules for resolving attacks have been written assuming you will make them one at a time. However, it is possible to speed up your battles
by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and
Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit

Fast rolling is a means to speed up your game, not to change the outcome of the roll via sequencing.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you have to ask “can wounds go to negative numbers?” And “can I wound someone who’s dead?” you need to apply a little common sense, no matter how competitive the game.

If a logical process which is compliant with the rules can be determined (the point of these discussions) then you have something that another reaonable person will likely agree with.

Saying "it's just common sense that it works this way" isn't going to convince someone whos common sense tells them it works a different way.

The irony being that he actually said you could do this re: Lashwhips and Tyrant Guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
As per RAW, you're only allowed to fast roll if the outcome is irrelevant whether you fast rolled or not.

Not true in the slightest. The rules for Fast Rolling don't care about that.

1) Usually the model/unit, when reduced to 0 wounds, is removed from play immediately. In both of the cases here there is an ability or special rule that interupts that removal until the rule is resolved. In both of these cases the rule tells us to effect all units within a given range, which the slain but not removed model itself is within by definition. Because the model/unit has not been removed from play yet, it is still in play.

2) There is no restriction from allocating wounds to a model with 0 wounds remaining. You are making that up whole-cloth.

3) Again Whole-cloth. Fast rolling says nothing of the sort. Only requirements is that all models have the Same To-hit value(BS or WS, same S AP and Damage, and targeting the same unit.

Here's another fun wrinkle: The Gem is obviously meant to be a one use only item, but doesn't actually say this. It merely says "The first time the bearer is slain..." is when it activates. But if you successfully cause a Mortal Wound, it isn't slain.
So you can use the Gem again?
Because you weren't slain the "first time" so the "next time" they are slain will be the "first time" again.

This is where "logic" breaks down and "common sense" MUST be applied. The implication is clear that you cannot use the Gem every single time the bearer is slain. Otherwise the rule would not need to say "the first time".

-

 Galef wrote:
Here's another fun wrinkle: The Gem is obviously meant to be a one use only item, but doesn't actually say this. It merely says "The first time the bearer is slain..." is when it activates. But if you successfully cause a Mortal Wound, it isn't slain....so you can use the Gem again?
Because you weren't slain the "first time" so the "next time" they are slain will be the "first time" again.

This is where "logic" breaks down and "common sense" MUST be applied. The implication is clear that you cannot use the Gem every single time the bearer is slain. Otherwise the rule would not need to say "the first time".

-

Where did you get the idea that mortal wounds don't cause the model to be slain? Is everyone forgetting the Designers Commentary exists?

Q: When is a unit considered to be ‘completely destroyed’ or ‘wiped out’?
A: These two terms are used synonymously. A unit is considered to be completely destroyed when the last model in that unit is destroyed (also referred to as slain) or flees.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Here's another fun wrinkle: The Gem is obviously meant to be a one use only item, but doesn't actually say this. It merely says "The first time the bearer is slain..." is when it activates. But if you successfully cause a Mortal Wound, it isn't slain....so you can use the Gem again?
Because you weren't slain the "first time" so the "next time" they are slain will be the "first time" again.

This is where "logic" breaks down and "common sense" MUST be applied. The implication is clear that you cannot use the Gem every single time the bearer is slain. Otherwise the rule would not need to say "the first time".

-

Where did you get the idea that mortal wounds don't cause the model to be slain? Is everyone forgetting the Designers Commentary exists?

Um, I didn't say that. The bearer of the Gem is slain, the Gem causes Mortal Wounds to nearby units. If a Mortal Wound is caused by the Gem (as in, not denied from some special ability) the BEARER of the Gem is not slain.
I did not imply that the bearer could not be slain by a Mortal Wound

My question is when do you consider the bearer of the Gem "slain for the first time"? As the Gem itself can make the model considered "not slain", then one could argue the "first time slain" is every time they are slain. So as long as there is a unit near it to cause a MW to, the bearer is immortal.

-

The bearer of the gem must be slain before the gem can be used. If you use the gem he was slain and cannot be slain a second time for the first time.

 p5freak wrote:
The bearer of the gem must be slain before the gem can be used. If you use the gem he was slain and cannot be slain a second time for the first time.

Common sense would agree with this, as do I. But if you apply "logic" using the pure RAW, the model is no longer considered "slain"

So you have this weird progression as follows:
1) Bearer is slain, Gem activates
2) Gem causes a MW to something nearby
3) Bearer is no longer slain and now has 1W

So yes, it had to be slain for the Gem to work, but if the Gem works, it isn't slain. So when it is slain "again" it is the first time, since the "first time" it wasn't actually slain.
Since the Gem is not "one use only", you can keep using it RAW.

I point this out to show that you must use common sense and CANNOT use pure RAW logic. B/c RAW can have more than 1 interpretation, all wrong and right at the same time. Common sense sorts out the "correct" answer when RAW has more than 1 right answer.

-

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Fast rolling says nothing of the sort. Only requirements is that all models have the Same To-hit value(BS or WS, same S AP and Damage, and targeting the same unit.

Battleprimer pg5:
...Your opponent can then allocate the wounds one at a time, making the saving throws and suffering damage each time as appropriate.

RAW, you cannot fast roll to-save rolls. If a model has 4W and have 6 1D wounds allocated to it, you must roll to-save roll for each instances of wounds allocated.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
There is no restriction from allocating wounds to a model with 0 wounds remaining. You are making that up whole-cloth.

Battleprimer pg5:
Remember, if the target unit contains a model that has already lost any wounds, they must allocate further wounds to this model until either it is slain, or all the wounds have been saved or resolved.

Wounds can only be allocated to a model until it is slain, or all of the wounds have been saved or resolved. Once a model receives a wound, any further wounds MUST be allocated to the said model until it is either slain, all wounds have been saved or all wounds have been resolved. When a model reaches 0 wound, it is considered to be slain and no further wounds can be allocated to the model.

You don't need an explicit statement saying "wounds cannot be allocated to model with 0 wounds" to conclude that wounds cannot be allocated to models with 0 wounds remaining.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Usually the model/unit, when reduced to 0 wounds, is removed from play immediately. In both of the cases here there is an ability or special rule that interupts that removal until the rule is resolved. In both of these cases the rule tells us to effect all units within a given range, which the slain but not removed model itself is within by definition. Because the model/unit has not been removed from play yet, it is still in play.

Indeed, the relic interrupts the 'removal' mechanism of being slain. It does not, however, grant you permission to ignore rest of the rules pertaining to wound allocation.

Battleprimer pg 7:
If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play.

When a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is [slain or destroyed] and [removed from play] - note it doesn't read "it is slain or destroyed, and then removed from play." Being slain IS equivalent of being removed from play. Removing the model from play IS being slain. The relic merely lets you take an extra action prior to pulling the physical model from play. Being slain but not removed from the board =/= slain but still in play because being slain and being removed from the board as a result of being slain is one and the same.

P.S. I implore you to maintain courteous manner when responding to posts on this forum, rather than accusing people of making stuff up or "whole-clothing" things.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you have to ask “can wounds go to negative numbers?” And “can I wound someone who’s dead?” you need to apply a little common sense, no matter how competitive the game.

If a logical process which is compliant with the rules can be determined (the point of these discussions) then you have something that another reaonable person will likely agree with.

Saying "it's just common sense that it works this way" isn't going to convince someone whos common sense tells them it works a different way.

The irony being that he actually said you could do this re: Lashwhips and Tyrant Guard.

What’s the ironic bit, you trying to use a post where I was taking the piss out of RAW AT ALL COST-ism as the way I believed the rule to be interpreted? Bless. Read the rest of the thread dear.

Nice try on a gotcha, etc., but better luck next time.

 Galef wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
The bearer of the gem must be slain before the gem can be used. If you use the gem he was slain and cannot be slain a second time for the first time.

Common sense would agree with this, as do I. But if you apply "logic" using the pure RAW, the model is no longer considered "slain"

So you have this weird progression as follows:
1) Bearer is slain, Gem activates
2) Gem causes a MW to something nearby
3) Bearer is no longer slain and now has 1W

So yes, it had to be slain for the Gem to work, but if the Gem works, it isn't slain. So when it is slain "again" it is the first time, since the "first time" it wasn't actually slain.
Since the Gem is not "one use only", you can keep using it RAW.

I point this out to show that you must use common sense and CANNOT use pure RAW logic. B/c RAW can have more than 1 interpretation, all wrong and right at the same time. Common sense sorts out the "correct" answer when RAW has more than 1 right answer.

-

Except if the model was not slain the gem cannot have activated to make the model not slain, so it's not not slain ie is slain so the gem activates to make the model not slain, so the gem cannot have activated. Add infinite.

Event 1 results in activity 2 if conditions met event 1 didn't happen, it's an infinite paradox loop so actually the gem doesn't work ever.
Codex eldar breaking the game as with every other edition.

The second use of slain should say removed.

Common sense would allow you to cross reference what it means to be "slain for the first time" = "first time the model is reduced to 0 wounds."

The gem activates upon the condition "wound is reduced to 0", which upon successful 'cast' of the ability/relic, that 0W gets replaced by 1W. The gem only works the first time wound is 0, not any other auccessive fulfillment of the condition.

 skchsan wrote:
Common sense would allow you to cross reference what it means to be "slain for the first time" = "first time the model is reduced to 0 wounds."

The gem activates upon the condition "wound is reduced to 0", which upon successful 'cast' of the ability/relic, that 0W gets replaced by 1W. The gem only works the first time wound is 0, not any other auccessive fulfillment of the condition.

Hey didn’t you hear? Common sense isn’t allowed.

Yeah, my point about the bearer "not being slain, so each new time they are slain is the first time, every time" is that we MUST apply common sense to be able to treat the "first time slain" as truly the first time.

I never have these rules dilemmas in real life, because the people I play have common sense. We also discuss odd situations and come to pretty quick solutions by applying RAI.

Treating everything as "RAW or bust" will obviously result in a "bust" from time to time. But the RAI in these situations will result in a clear answer 99% of the time.
I just don't understand why some posters here think RAW is the end-all-be-all. Even in competitive play, it doesn't work.
And no, I don't think that is GW "not know how to write rules". I think most situations are the players not properly interpreting the spirit of the rules.

-

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, my point about the bearer "not being slain, so each new time they are slain is the first time, every time" is that we MUST apply common sense to be able to treat the "first time slain" as truly the first time.

I never have these rules dilemmas in real life, because the people I play have common sense. We also discuss odd situations and come to pretty quick solutions by applying RAI.

Treating everything as "RAW or bust" will obviously result in a "bust" from time to time. But the RAI in these situations will result in a clear answer 99% of the time.
I just don't understand why some posters here think RAW is the end-all-be-all. Even in competitive play, it doesn't work.
And no, I don't think that is GW "not know how to write rules". I think most situations are the players not properly interpreting the spirit of the rules.

-

But even as RAW, [never been slain] =/= [not being slain]

So that infinite loop interpretation doesn't even hold RAW. It's pretty clear cut.

 skchsan wrote:
But even as RAW, [never been slain] =/= [not being slain]

So that infinite loop interpretation doesn't even hold RAW. It's pretty clear cut.

I personally agree that it is clear and I agree on that particular RAW interpretation.
However, some can make a valid argument that [never been slain] = [not being slain].

The takeaway is that we all interpret what we read in subtly different ways. You can argue the "correct" way that the English language is to be read, but British English has differences to American English, for example. Both can be correct, and sometimes not all writers use either correctly, nor does the reader interpret using the "correct" language.
This all derives from our personal experiences, culture and varying levels of education.

There is no single RAW end-all-be-all. There is variance, however small. Common sense to determine RAI is supposed to close the gap.
Again, I agree that "first time slain" is pretty clear. But if you ignore RAI and come at the issue from a pure RAW logic, it leaves a gap that can be argued against.

-