Skarbrand.

[Arkiham]

For skarbrands ability "total carnage "

If a target is hit by it the target suffers 8 wounds, no saves can be taken.

If this is used against a target who suffers half damage from attacks, does this still deal 8 wounds? As the writing is quite specific. "Target loses 8 wounds "

Or does it deal 4.

[BaldoBeardo]

In a humourous twist, I was Skarbranded last night for the first time in real life.  Carnage got a single Liberator before Skarbrand was taken out.  I was unable to avoid it.  [emoji14]

Well that's your fault for not using a Stonehorn... [emoji12]

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Well, no - but that was never part of the discussion.

There's an 'official' ruling now, and thankfully Skarbrand vs. anything isn't likely to be that common.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

only on half the question but yeah, im considering taking him, an i plan on using 2 bloodsecrator's to buff him. so that'll be 10 attacks 4+3+-2 3 damage and 3 attacks with carnage. 

[BaldoBeardo]

In a humourous twist, I was Skarbranded last night for the first time in real life.  Carnage got a single Liberator before Skarbrand was taken out.  I was unable to avoid it.  [emoji14]

Well that's your fault for not using a Stonehorn... [emoji12]

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Quote

It really all depends on whether you take the "if it has 8 or less wounds, it is slain" as a special rule in itself, or simply restating the obvious.

Yeah - it's probably restating the obvious (for the general case ignoring the existence of other special rules out there), or giving an example, rather than setting out another special rule.

Taking the other approach leads to an absurd situation where a Stonehorn with 9 wounds takes 4 wounds (assuming no other wounds from Skarbrand that combat phase), while one with 8 wounds dies.

Another point is that the wounds are all allocated at the end of the unit's attacking, so if you started on 12, chose to roll the other attacks first, knock off 4 with other attacks, you're rigging it such that the first 4 wounds occur first (when actually they are applied simultaneous), so in fact it wasn't on 8 wounds remaining when you hit it with Carnage. People often apply the wounds as they are going through each attack for record keeping purposes but strictly you wait until all attacks are done. I take this as "the all attacks froma  unit are simultaneous" principle and have found it useful in other contexts (e.g. if there's a special rule from a particular weapon causing a kill, I've taken this as if that weapon causes any wounds on that model which contributes to the kill). It would be dippy if your opponent could choose to misapply the wounds so it just happens that another weapon caused the final wound.

[Cowboy Boots Matt]

Firstly, ignore what GW says on the facebook page regarding rules, these have backtracked, changed etc between there and the FAQ (historically).

I use Skarbrand a lot, both Tournament games, and club games and have played against him a fair amount. I honestly do not understand the confusion.

- The Stonehorn halves the damage from Carnage

- However, if it has 8 or wounds less it dies, the rules are explicitly clear.

- You get the extra Death save, disgustingly resilient etc against the damage as these are not 'saves'.

You can argue fluff, interpretation etc. all you want however those are the rules. You can't really argue fluff wise that Skarbrand's axe wouldn't outright kill a wounded Stonehorn.

[Chris Tomlin]

43 minutes ago, Cowboy Boots Matt said:

Firstly, ignore what GW says on the facebook page regarding rules, these have backtracked, changed etc between there and the FAQ (historically).

I use Skarbrand a lot, both Tournament games, and club games and have played against him a fair amount. I honestly do not understand the confusion.

- The Stonehorn halves the damage from Carnage

- However, if it has 8 or wounds less it dies, the rules are explicitly clear.

- You get the extra Death save, disgustingly resilient etc against the damage as these are not 'saves'.

You can argue fluff, interpretation etc. all you want however those are the rules. You can't really argue fluff wise that Skarbrand's axe wouldn't outright kill a wounded Stonehorn.

Interesting. Didn't think you'd go that way with this (other than bashing the Facebook page haha!!).

I always thought you played it as you just lose 8 wounds, without triggering any other abilities.

[amysrevenge]

56 minutes ago, Cowboy Boots Matt said:

- The Stonehorn halves the damage from Carnage

- However, if it has 8 or wounds less it dies, the rules are explicitly clear.

Yeah, seems pretty clear to me.  Any other interpretation would require you to say "Well, they say X in the rule, but they don't really mean X, they really mean the opposite of X."  Which I've been railing against in several different contexts lately it feels like.

[RuneBrush]

Think it just needs an Official Clarification from GW rules guys on the terminology of "loses wounds" for Total Carnage as it's not used on any other warscroll.  It could be debated in pretty much any direction and equally all valid

[amysrevenge]

Well, the "loses wounds" part we all pretty much agree on, actually.  It's the "or is slain if it has 8 wounds or fewer remaining" part that is causing trouble.  I am (and many others here are) taking this to mean the model is slain if it has 8 wounds or fewer remaining (madness!).  The counter argument is that this explicit thing means something other than exactly what it says.

[BloodTithe]

I know this is an old debate but it's worrying how argumentative people can get over rules questions like this. But it's good that since this time skarbrand's rules have been clarified on his wardcroll: he inflicts 8 wounds and this can't be halved or reduced by any ability. So the original intention is now crystal clear.

[BaldoBeardo]

It really all depends on whether you take the "if it has 8 or less wounds, it is slain" as a special rule in itself, or simply restating the obvious. I.e. if the Stonehorn does get to use it's wound-halving rule, then it's restating the obvious as a Stonehorn with 8 wounds left won't actually be slain, and as the Stonehorn's rule is triggered by inflicting wounds then any other ability triggered at the same time must also be possible.

If you take it as a rule in its own right, then they don't.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[BaldoBeardo]

"no escaping the axes wrath" is not in itself a rule, though.

Well, no - but that was never part of the discussion.

There's an 'official' ruling now, and thankfully Skarbrand vs. anything isn't likely to be that common.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Arkiham]

They only answered about the half wounds.

Nothing else.

The wording for 8 or less wounds is extremely precise. If they say it doesn't kill what ever it's attacking with 8 or less wounds the rule needs to be changed faq'd asap.

[daedalus81]

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

That's just it. By the GW FB team saying the Stonehorn ability is valid, then it opens the floodgates for the others. Bad decision on top of imprecise rule wording.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

"no escaping the axes wrath" is not in itself a rule, though.

[BaldoBeardo]

Come on, let's find more ways to avoid "there's no way to avoid".  We can do it!

 

How about Sourbreath Troggoth "Too Dumb to Die"?

That's just it. By the GW FB team saying the Stonehorn ability is valid, then it opens the floodgates for the others. Bad decision on top of imprecise rule wording.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[amysrevenge]

Come on, let's find more ways to avoid "there's no way to avoid".  We can do it!

 

How about Sourbreath Troggoth "Too Dumb to Die"?

[BaldoBeardo]

It does now set the precedent that post-save wound mitigation affects it, so Nurgle / Bonesplittaz / etc. rolls will affect it too.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Except that they've now ruled that the halving wounds rull does mitigate this.

I agree that this is a bit academic.

[daedalus81]

Well, fluff is never a proper justification since otherwise some models would never die and could kill entire armies on their own.  If facebook ruled clearly on it then that's enough until a proper FAQ is produced.  I have no skin in the game so I don't care which way it falls.

[amysrevenge]

Hey man, we're all just doing semantic backflips in this thread to find ways to avoid the effects of a rule that says right in the rule "there is no way to avoid this".  I'm just playing along.

[Nico]

I think that's a very literal (and unfluffy) way to rule it. It's ridiculous that the weapon does 4 damage to a model with 9 wounds and 8 to a model with 8 wounds left. 

 

You're reading too much into the secondary wording (it's secondary because it follows the primary rule (underlined below) and because it's in a bracket - it's effectively an example or an explanation of the consequences):

"one enemy model in the target unit loses 8 wounds (or is slain if it has 8 or fewer remaining)".

Just treat it purposively as convoluted wording that they were trying to stop the wounds carrying across to another model.

[amysrevenge]

Yeah I saw the Facebook ruling too.  Seems pretty easy.

 

Stonehorn A has 9 wounds remaining.  The "has 8 wounds or fewer" clause doesn't kick in, so it takes 8 wounds, which is halved to 4.  Stonehorn A now has 5 wounds remaining.

Stonehorn B has 7 wounds remaining.  The "has 8 wounds or fewer" clause kicks in and it dies - suffering no wounds to be halved.  Stonehorn B just dies.

[Nico]

That's not how it has been ruled.

[daedalus81]

There are two conditions in the rule.  Either the model has more than 8 wounds remaining or it has 8 or less wounds remaining.

If the former condition exists then 8 wounds are done and halved if such a rule exists for the attacked model.  If it is the latter condition then the model is slain regardless of an ability to halve wounds.

[Arkiham]

2 hours ago, Nico said:

I think you were reading an illustrative example as if it were the rule itself. An illustrative example will not cover the special case, e.g. Ward Saves, halving wounds.

Hard to read them seperately when they're both intermittently written within the same paragraph of text with no distinguishing factor other than interpretation .. 

 

I mean, "(is slain if it has 8 wounds or fewer remaining )" reads very rule like to me but apparently not.