Wounds On Maw-krusha's Strength from Victory

[BunkhouseBuster]

So this seems pretty straight-forward, but not really at the same time.  And since we Ironjawz players are all excited at the prospect of fielding Megabosses with their lovely Maw-krushas, I feel there has been an important discussion missed.  Specifically, does the Wounds increases move the Maw-krusha up on the damage table to make its stats better?

So, with the "Strength from Victory" ability, the Megaboss on Maw-krusha increase its Wounds characteristic.  Let us say that our Maw-crusha is playing in a game, and over the course of it, the Megaboss squishes two enemy heroes into paste, thus granting him two more attacks with the slaying weapon, and +2 to his Wounds Characteristic.  But in the course of the battle, he has also suffered 7 Wounds worth of damage from various sources.  In this scenario, we have a Megaboss on Maw-krusha with a Wounds Characteristic of 16, and has suffered 7.  He would have 9 Wounds remaining rather than his normal 7, no doubt there.  But does that put his track on the damage table up a tier?

As written I would say no, sadly, as the Damage Table only ever says "Wounds Suffered", and the "Strength from Victory" ability is not a healed Wound (which gets covered in the main rules).

There isn't anything I'm missing, is there?

[Baron_Bathory]

1 minute ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

So this seems pretty straight-forward, but not really at the same time.  And since we Ironjawz players are all excited at the prospect of fielding Megabosses with their lovely Maw-krushas, I feel there has been an important discussion missed.  Specifically, does the Wounds increases move the Maw-krusha up on the damage table to make its stats better?

So, with the "Strength from Victory" ability, the Megaboss on Maw-krusha increase its Wounds characteristic.  Let us say that our Maw-crusha is playing in a game, and over the course of it, the Megaboss squishes two enemy heroes into paste, thus granting him two more attacks with the slaying weapon, and +2 to his Wounds Characteristic.  But in the course of the battle, he has also suffered 7 Wounds worth of damage from various sources.  In this scenario, we have a Megaboss on Maw-krusha with a Wounds Characteristic of 16, and has suffered 7.  He would have 9 Wounds remaining rather than his normal 7, no doubt there.  But does that put his track on the damage table up a tier?

As written I would say no, sadly, as the Damage Table only ever says "Wounds Suffered", and the "Strength from Victory" ability is not a healed Wound (which gets covered in the main rules).

There isn't anything I'm missing, is there?

Very good question, I hadn't thought about that. I agree with the way you put it though. The wounds are being added on as the Megaboss is becoming more and more enraged from his victory rush, he's not actually healing the wounds. I'm pretty sure that's how it's intended, but it would be nice to get an official ruling.

[Lysandestolpe]

In my book it's without no doubt wounds suffered: 7 which places him on that tier, no matter how many wounds he has gained.

[Nico]

Yes - wounds suffered. The other complication here is which weapon "kills" the enemy unit. Given that damage allocation happens after all attacks have been rolled (so effectively all attacks are simultaneous), it's not meaningful to say that a particular weapon caused the kill if the Fists also attacked the hero. Nor is it reasonable for the owning player to misallocate wounds to the hero so that the Fists cause the final wound. Nor is it sensible for the Mawkrusha to roll one attack at a time to ensure that the last wound comes off from a particular weapon. The practical solution is to pick one of the weapons which contributed to the kill by causing unsaved wounds in this combat phase (i.e. not both weapons). The same problem arises for Neferata and others.

[Malakree]

46 minutes ago, Nico said:

Yes - wounds suffered. The other complication here is which weapon "kills" the enemy unit. Given that damage allocation happens after all attacks have been rolled (so effectively all attacks are simultaneous), it's not meaningful to say that a particular weapon caused the kill if the Fists also attacked the hero. Nor is it reasonable for the owning player to misallocate wounds to the hero so that the Fists cause the final wound. Nor is it sensible for the Mawkrusha to roll one attack at a time to ensure that the last wound comes off from a particular weapon. The practical solution is to pick one of the weapons which contributed to the kill by causing unsaved wounds in this combat phase (i.e. not both weapons). The same problem arises for Neferata and others.

The Footboss effectively deals with this by having it go straight onto his boss choppa. Kinda a pain they didn't do the same here.

[BunkhouseBuster]

4 hours ago, Baron_Bathory said:

Very good question, I hadn't thought about that. I agree with the way you put it though. The wounds are being added on as the Megaboss is becoming more and more enraged from his victory rush, he's not actually healing the wounds. I'm pretty sure that's how it's intended, but it would be nice to get an official ruling.

I believe so as well, since the main rules go out of their way to distinguish "healing" and how it affects Wounds lost.

1 hour ago, Lysandestolpe said:

In my book it's without no doubt wounds suffered: 7 which places him on that tier, no matter how many wounds he has gained.

Guess I need to start counting up on Wounds suffered, not counting down on Wounds remaining like I have been for the past 7 years of wargaming

10 minutes ago, Malakree said:

The Footboss effectively deals with this by having it go straight onto his boss choppa. Kinda a pain they didn't do the same here.

Indeed, that would have made things simpler.

[BunkhouseBuster]

58 minutes ago, Nico said:

Yes - wounds suffered. The other complication here is which weapon "kills" the enemy unit. Given that damage allocation happens after all attacks have been rolled (so effectively all attacks are simultaneous), it's not meaningful to say that a particular weapon caused the kill if the Fists also attacked the hero. Nor is it reasonable for the owning player to misallocate wounds to the hero so that the Fists cause the final wound. Nor is it sensible for the Mawkrusha to roll one attack at a time to ensure that the last wound comes off from a particular weapon. The practical solution is to pick one of the weapons which contributed to the kill by causing unsaved wounds in this combat phase (i.e. not both weapons). The same problem arises for Neferata and others.

I read it that you should declare which attacks go where, rather than just rolling them one at a time for maximum shenanigans.  Let me check the rules and FAQs and see what I can find...

Rules:

"If a models has more than one attack, you can split them between potential target units as you wish.  If a model splits its attacks between two or more units, resolve all of the attacks against one unit before moving onto the next one."

"After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (...)."

Reading that last sentence makes me think that the target unit's player can dictate which of the Maw-krusha Megaboss's weapons can get buffed up, eh?

I'm not finding anything in the FAQs on the App on this subject.  But that one sentence from the rules I think is the clarification we need on this particular instance.

 

[Nico]

It cannot be the intention that the MK never gets this buff as the owning player arbitrarily says that the final wound was done by the Fists.

While you have to allocate the attacks before rolling any dice, what I was referring to was rolling the Fists one at a time so you don't accidentally do the final wound with them, them switching over to the Choppa and rolling them. This cannot be intended either as a time sink.

As I say it's a house rule we've used at events. I don't think it's controversial.

[BunkhouseBuster]

9 minutes ago, Nico said:

It cannot be the intention that the MK never gets this buff as the owning player arbitrarily says that the final wound was done by the Fists.

While you have to allocate the attacks before rolling any dice, what I was referring to was rolling the Fists one at a time so you don't accidentally do the final wound with them, them switching over to the Choppa and rolling them. This cannot be intended either as a time sink.

As I say it's a house rule we've used at events. I don't think it's controversial.

Gotcha.  I misunderstood your prior post.  Makes more sense this time around

[heywoah_twitch]

This is a very interesting thread and question. I find it rather distasteful to either have the opponent allocate wounds in such a way as to invalidate maw crusha's ability, and also to need to waste time beancounting one attack at a time to make sure your ability works. A much more elegant situation would just be: if a hero dies having taken a wound from such and such that turn, fluffily choose the killing blow weapon, it gets better.

[Lysandestolpe]

15 hours ago, Nico said:

It cannot be the intention that the MK never gets this buff as the owning player arbitrarily says that the final wound was done by the Fists.

While you have to allocate the attacks before rolling any dice, what I was referring to was rolling the Fists one at a time so you don't accidentally do the final wound with them, them switching over to the Choppa and rolling them. This cannot be intended either as a time sink.

As I say it's a house rule we've used at events. I don't think it's controversial.

Yes, all the attacks is happening at the same initiative - It makes no difference if youre rolling all attacks in one massive bulk of dice and picks the succesful woundrolls out, make your opponent save and slays your opponents hero with a massive amount of wounds here and there from an array if weapons. On the other hand, if you only manage to make wound roll of choppas, say 1, and three mighty fists, he saves the choppa on the armor roll. Then the only wounding rolls can be mighty fist, which then doesnt work out for Strength from Victory. 

But i'd say that as long as the hero dies, and there is at least one wound caused by oneof the weapons carryed by MB, it is as likely the "killing" wound as it is not. Thus, one can make a debate that will never end, or do as suggested, make each wound roll one at a time and make it take 5 times as long. 

If I am understanding you correctly this is the point you're making and it is undoubtebly the correct one. 

[Chris Tomlin]

• As agreed above, Strength from Victory does not impact the damage table whatsoever. It adds to your wounds characteristic and is not a heal.
• The way I've always played the bonus attack is if the Choppa does at least one unsaved wound during the models activation and it kills the model, it gets the bonus. Never really considered it working any other way.

[Goodapollo4]

Sorry to necro this thread, but I just wanted to clarify the healing versus gaining wounds aspect of this skill.

So if my Boss on Maw is at full normal wounds, kills a hero, would he then be 14/15 wounds? Because he isn't healing a wound right? If that is the case, what does gaining an extra empty wound do for your Boss?

Clearly I'm missing something

[Professor Clio]

1 hour ago, Goodapollo4 said:

Sorry to necro this thread, but I just wanted to clarify the healing versus gaining wounds aspect of this skill.

So if my Boss on Maw is at full normal wounds, kills a hero, would he then be 14/15 wounds? Because he isn't healing a wound right? If that is the case, what does gaining an extra empty wound do for your Boss?

Clearly I'm missing something

If he gains it before he took a wood he's now at 15/14. Then if he takes wounds he goes down a profile per wounds taken, not per % of starting wounds

[Goodapollo4]

1 minute ago, Professor Clio said:

If he gains it before he took a wood he's now at 15/14. Then if he takes wounds he goes down a profile per wounds taken, not per % of starting wounds

OH! Wow, really duffed that up lol. Okay, now I get it, thanks for that.

[PlasticCraic]

I would like to see this FAQ'd personally.  While I agree that the approach of "if it contributed any of the damage, you're good" is the most workable, it's not really RAW.  

[Malakree]

3 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said:

I would like to see this FAQ'd personally.  While I agree that the approach of "if it contributed any of the damage, you're good" is the most workable, it's not really RAW.  

The big question becomes who decides what dealt the lethal wound. Technically when you activate a unit all of it's attacks occur at once, that's why you need to declare them all at once.

Thus the question is, does the opponent decide what dealt the final wound, do you decide or do all of the MKs attacks count as having dealt the final wound (letting you choose the weapon).

On 22/09/2017 at 6:30 PM, BunkhouseBuster said:

"After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (...)."

On this, allocation of wounds is how the wounds dealt are distributed across models within the unit. However all of the damage resolves at once. 

Actually the old FAQ on the Stonehorn is really helpful here.
 

Quote

Q: Stonehorns. Do you halve the number of wounds done (i.e. before rolling for D3/D6 damage, etc.) or the amount of damage done?
A: Halve the damage inflicted after all of the attacks made by the attacking unit have been carried out.

So actually has a couple of ramifications. The first is that separate units are counted separately, however it means that all damage from a single unit occurs at the same time. From this we can actually say that the order of wound allocation is irrelevant since all of them are taken at the same time. Thus when dealing with which weapon got the killing blow the answer is ALL weapons that dealt damage to the hero in that round got the killing blow, even if there was overkill.

Technically you could then argue that if both the MK's weapons wounded the hero they actually both get +1 attack even though he only gains 1 wound.

Overall I think the fair way is the MBoMK gets to decide which weapon gets the attack however the rules as written are actually very unclear. Depending on WHICH rules you decide to cite to and how you read them the only option which is not a valid option is actually the logical one.

[PlasticCraic]

Yep, it does have other similar applications too.  For example, say a Mighty Lord of Khorne goes into your Brutes.  The Axe and the dog do two damage each.

If I get to choose how to allocate the wounds, I am incentivised to allocate the two from the Axe first, then the two from the dog.  The two from the dog kill off the guy who copped the first wounds, and one wound carries to the next guy.  Done.

This means that the only model who took damage from the Reality Splitting Axe is already dead.

What is more optimal for my opponent is if the dog's wounds are applied first, then the Axe kills off one guy, and the 4th and final wound (also from the Axe) carries to another Brute.  This means the Axe has done 1 wound to that second Brute and not killed it, so my opponent gets to roll for the insta-gib.

So it's not just Strength from Victory that this applies to.

[Malakree]

1 hour ago, PlasticCraic said:

Yep, it does have other similar applications too.  For example, say a Mighty Lord of Khorne goes into your Brutes.  The Axe and the dog do two damage each.

If I get to choose how to allocate the wounds, I am incentivised to allocate the two from the Axe first, then the two from the dog.  The two from the dog kill off the guy who copped the first wounds, and one wound carries to the next guy.  Done.

This means that the only model who took damage from the Reality Splitting Axe is already dead.

What is more optimal for my opponent is if the dog's wounds are applied first, then the Axe kills off one guy, and the 4th and final wound (also from the Axe) carries to another Brute.  This means the Axe has done 1 wound to that second Brute and not killed it, so my opponent gets to roll for the insta-gib.

So it's not just Strength from Victory that this applies to.

Actually I think this comes down in favour of not having the axe. The big difference here being that there are multiple models, as such the biggest factor is this rule.

On 22/09/2017 at 6:30 PM, BunkhouseBuster said:

"After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (...)."

You get to pick where the wounds are allocated within the unit, so you can pick to allocate the 2 from the axe then the one from the dog. They all hit at the same time but you choose where they land. What you're doing here is not picking whether the dog or the axe killed the target, you're picking which models took damage from what. 

The difference is that the maw krushas target will always be a hero, as such is a single target. Thus there's no choosing where the wounds are allocated, you can't allocate them away. So they all resolve together and jointly score the KB.

The similarity would come with something like "Sneaky or just lucky" for the Gitmob shaman. If there is only 1 grot nearby and the riptooth fist does 1 damage they can choose to block that wound first transferring the wound over meaning it didn't actually wound the shaman. Even if he then dies to the MK's fists of punchy death the Riptooth hasn't wounded him so can't get strength from victory.

So the point I'm arguing here is the following.

1. You can choose what wounds are allocated where and how are going to try to save them. 
2. Once allocated all wounds then resolve simultaneously, as implied in the old stone skeleton FAQ
3. Thus all wounds from a single activation which kill a target are all "killing wounds"
4. As such the MBoMK will always get his strength from victory attack if at least one of his weapons wounded the enemy hero.
5. Potentially both weapons could be considered to have scored the "killing wound" and so both get the +1 attack.

The person taking wounds chooses where they are sent, not when they trigger.

[PlasticCraic]

21 minutes ago, Malakree said:

Actually I think this comes down in favour of not having the axe. The big difference here being that there are multiple models, as such the biggest factor is this rule.

You get to pick where the wounds are allocated within the unit, so you can pick to allocate the 2 from the axe then the one from the dog. They all hit at the same time but you choose where they land. What you're doing here is not picking whether the dog or the axe killed the target, you're picking which models took damage from what. 

The difference is that the maw krushas target will always be a hero, as such is a single target. Thus there's no choosing where the wounds are allocated, you can't allocate them away. So they all resolve together and jointly score the KB.

The similarity would come with something like "Sneaky or just lucky" for the Gitmob shaman. If there is only 1 grot nearby and the riptooth fist does 1 damage they can choose to block that wound first transferring the wound over meaning it didn't actually wound the shaman. Even if he then dies to the MK's fists of punchy death the Riptooth hasn't wounded him so can't get strength from victory.

So the point I'm arguing here is the following.

1. You can choose what wounds are allocated where and how are going to try to save them. 
2. Once allocated all wounds then resolve simultaneously, as implied in the old stone skeleton FAQ
3. Thus all wounds from a single activation which kill a target are all "killing wounds"
4. As such the MBoMK will always get his strength from victory attack if at least one of his weapons wounded the enemy hero.
5. Potentially both weapons could be considered to have scored the "killing wound" and so both get the +1 attack.

The person taking wounds chooses where they are sent, not when they trigger.

Point 1. is only true to an extent...although the rule says "as they see fit", the FAQ does state that once you start applying wounds to a model, you keep applying wounds to that same model until it is slain, then move onto another.  So in that context, you are only ever applying wounds to one model at a time, and therefore the only way you can choose who takes what wounds is by choosing the order in which they are applied.

Also as regards point 2., it's definitely an interesting point but not part of any official (current) rules or FAQs, so I'm not sure we can use it to support an argument.  Which brings us back again to my point that it needs to be FAQ'd - if that's part of the logic then it needs to be written into the current FAQs.

[Malakree]

22 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said:

Point 1. is only true to an extent...although the rule says "as they see fit", the FAQ does state that once you start applying wounds to a model, you keep applying wounds to that same model until it is slain, then move onto another.  So in that context, you are only ever applying wounds to one model at a time, and therefore the only way you can choose who takes what wounds is by choosing the order in which they are applied.

Technically you are arguing against point 2 not point 1 here. In my mind I can see how I want to formulate the argument against this but I can't quite put it into words properly. I'll try but I apologise if it's a bit odd.

So essentially the argument is that all the wounds dealt resolve together as a block. What this means is you're not dealing with each wound then moving on to the next. What you're doing is saying 8 wounds have been inflicted (as an example) and my brutes have 3 wounds each. This means those 8 wounds then kill 2 Brutes and bring another down to 1 wound. This then results in you playing a "slot" game, you have 8 slots in which a wound can be allocated and 8 wounds to allocate to, each slot can only have exactly 1 wound. Thus you get

Brute 1

• -
• -
• -

Brute 2

• -
• -
• -

Brute 3

• -
• -

Wounds by Axe

• -
• -
• -
• -

Wounds by Dogs

• -
• -
• -
• -

You're then taking each wound and putting it into a slot but the whole block all resolves at once. Thus theoretically you could inflict 1 wound from the dogs on Brute 1 and Brute 2 and then have brute 3 take 2 wounds from them. Even within the individual attacks you are separating them out since you now have

Brute 1

• - Dog
• - Axe
• - Axe

Brute 2

• - Axe
• - Dog
• - Axe

Brute 3

• - Dog
• - Dog

Which is not "chronological" in anyway. The important point here is that it's not actually specifying which one of the attacks killed either brute 1 or 2 since the wounds aren't ordered and are all resolved at the same time.

Again this is kind of a clunky way to say it but I hope you see what I'm getting at. It has a very MtG stack feel to it.

[PlasticCraic]

No, that's actually a very clear explanation. I like it and can see your point of view. The logic does hinge on all wounds being allocated simultaneously - which I would like to see (re)written into a FAQ.  But despite never having played MTG I could follow your logic clearly, thanks for that.