Sword of Judgement and conflicting 6+ rules

[Grailstorm]

Two units I can think if get multiple hits on rolls of a 6:

Nurgle lords exploding on 6s and Beasts units with a certain allegiance in enemy territory. 

In these situations, where a 6 to hit does multiple hits, do those multiple hits then cause multiple D6 mortal wounds with the Sword of Judgement? Or does the Sword of Judgement trump the other rules?

The sword states the “the hit roll for an attack” must be 6 or more.

[sorokyl]

There are two questions here. The original question involves a specific interaction.

The second question that came up is: "Do artefacts replace or augment the original weapon."  I play this as augment not replace. I am pretty sure most people do, and the OP makes this assumption also. This was brought up by Nos. I will address this afterwards.
 
So question 1. Specifically for the Sword of Judgment vs Plague-ridden great weapon (Lord of Plagues).  Sword of Judgement ends the attack sequence.  This is tricky. It specifically clarifies that the meaning of the rule is that you do not make a wound or save roll. It applies to "Hit rolls".  Plague-ridden great weapon says "that hit roll inflicts d6 hits" , it does not say "d6 hit rolls".  There is only 1 roll, and this rule doesn't change that.  So in that case, it only does 2 mortal wounds. attack sequence ends. It does not matter that you scored d6 hits, because you are not making wound rolls. 


  
Okay, now onto Nos'  "question stated as a absolute fact" 

I always play it as the artefact augments the existing weapon, does not replace it... 

"Chose a weapon to be" to me means "the weapon is now named this, replace the name, add this ability".  The name of the weapon changed, it doesn't lose it's existing attributes.  Think of it as "search and replace" on the warscroll. You'd update the melee weapons section and the abilities section both. 

Another hint is the wording "If the bearer ... with THAT weapon".   Note it does not say "THIS" weapon, which would be the correct wording if you were replacing the original weapon.  The target weapon is augmented, not replaced. it still exists, hence reference to THAT weapon. 

Another example is the Tyrant.   A wound roll of 6+ with a Great Gutgouger does double damage.   If you use Ghyrstryke, are we now saying that you lose the ability?  that's now how anyone in the Gutbusters thread plays it.    There are really tons of examples, especially amoung models with multiple weapon options. Can look at Drakesworn Templar, Saurus Sunblood

 

17 hours ago, Nos said:

it most instances I think it's pretty evident that the profile reflects the martial prowess of the wielder. I.e There's nothing special about an Incantor's staff that gives the Incantor 3 attacks with it, it's the Incantor being good with a weapon.

 

 

If a model has multiple weapons, they typically have different characteristics.  In other words, by your logic, the stats are that specific wielders competency with that specific weapon.   If you "replace" that weapon with an artefact, then why does it make any sense to apply the same stats?  If anything I would suggest that proves that you are not "replacing" the weapon, and so it doesn't make sense that the abilities go away. 

[Vextol]

14 minutes ago, King Taloren said:

FAQ as of today states abilities only trigger once. You can get both abilities to work. You do get D6 hits but only one of those hits is D6 mortal wounds from the sword of judgement the rest are normal hits.

Was just about to type this.  Weird ruling but I prefer some ruling over no ruling!  So you hit with 5 sixes, you inflict say, 15 hits.  15-5 means you get to keep rolling through with 10 of those hits and the other 5 explode into d6 mortals.  So be it GW!

[King Taloren]

FAQ as of today states abilities only trigger once. You can get both abilities to work. You do get D6 hits but only one of those hits is D6 mortal wounds from the sword of judgement the rest are normal hits.

[King Taloren]

10 hours ago, Vextol said:

It's a good question. I believe that if the sword hits explode into more hits, you would give up the mortal wounds. It's a timing issue.  

Those 6+ hits making more hits are specifically "hits through".  If you are still looking at your roll,  y haven't reached the "through" part yet.  You have to finish the hit roll before you get to explode into more hits. 

So you have this hanging six.  If you make it into mortals, the sword specifically states that the particular attack ends.  You can't then check to see if it also exploded. 

If you choose to explode, you've now moved past your "roll" and have moved on to the hits through thus missing your opportunity to see if you made mortals.

I agree. The Sword of Judgement  is not looking for number of hits it is looking specifically for hit rolls of 6+. It does not care if the roll would be a miss or give additional hits with another dice roll. The damage is dealt immediately after the 6+ is determined at the same stage the 6 would cause the additional hits with an additional dice roll. There has been other artifacts that GW has stated effects on weapons that  make you pick and choose which effect you wish to use because one takes precedence over the other. (I believe it was using a artifact that causes mortal wounds on 6s on a character who does mortals on 6s and they ruled that you pick which mortal wound proc cause you can’t have both.) So you have to pick which you want more. Additional hits or D6 damage.

[Vextol]

On 12/13/2018 at 2:27 PM, Grailstorm said:

Two units I can think if get multiple hits on rolls of a 6:

Nurgle lords exploding on 6s and Beasts units with a certain allegiance in enemy territory. 

In these situations, where a 6 to hit does multiple hits, do those multiple hits then cause multiple D6 mortal wounds with the Sword of Judgement? Or does the Sword of Judgement trump the other rules?

The sword states the “the hit roll for an attack” must be 6 or more.

It's a good question. I believe that if the sword hits explode into more hits, you would give up the mortal wounds. It's a timing issue.  

Those 6+ hits making more hits are specifically "hits through".  If you are still looking at your roll,  y haven't reached the "through" part yet.  You have to finish the hit roll before you get to explode into more hits. 

So you have this hanging six.  If you make it into mortals, the sword specifically states that the particular attack ends.  You can't then check to see if it also exploded. 

If you choose to explode, you've now moved past your "roll" and have moved on to the hits through thus missing your opportunity to see if you made mortals.

[King Taloren]

1 hour ago, ageofpaddsmar said:

I think the beastmen thing is one of the battalions  has a rule if you are in enemy territory and roll a 6 to hit it counts as 2 hits. So would that be 2d6 mortals? 

No cause the damage is d6 for every 6+ On the hit roll not for every hit that is rolled.

[ageofpaddsmar]

I think the beastmen thing is one of the battalions  has a rule if you are in enemy territory and roll a 6 to hit it counts as 2 hits. So would that be 2d6 mortals? 

[Nos]

6 hours ago, sorokyl said:

There are two questions here. The original question involves a specific interaction.

The second question that came up is: "Do artefacts replace or augment the original weapon."  I play this as augment not replace. I am pretty sure most people do, and the OP makes this assumption also. This was brought up by Nos. I will address this afterwards.
 
So question 1. Specifically for the Sword of Judgment vs Plague-ridden great weapon (Lord of Plagues).  Sword of Judgement ends the attack sequence.  This is tricky. It specifically clarifies that the meaning of the rule is that you do not make a wound or save roll. It applies to "Hit rolls".  Plague-ridden great weapon says "that hit roll inflicts d6 hits" , it does not say "d6 hit rolls".  There is only 1 roll, and this rule doesn't change that.  So in that case, it only does 2 mortal wounds. attack sequence ends. It does not matter that you scored d6 hits, because you are not making wound rolls. 


  
Okay, now onto Nos'  "question stated as a absolute fact" 

I always play it as the artefact augments the existing weapon, does not replace it... 

"Chose a weapon to be" to me means "the weapon is now named this, replace the name, add this ability".  The name of the weapon changed, it doesn't lose it's existing attributes.  Think of it as "search and replace" on the warscroll. You'd update the melee weapons section and the abilities section both. 

Another hint is the wording "If the bearer ... with THAT weapon".   Note it does not say "THIS" weapon, which would be the correct wording if you were replacing the original weapon.  The target weapon is augmented, not replaced. it still exists, hence reference to THAT weapon. 

Another example is the Tyrant.   A wound roll of 6+ with a Great Gutgouger does double damage.   If you use Ghyrstryke, are we now saying that you lose the ability?  that's now how anyone in the Gutbusters thread plays it.    There are really tons of examples, especially amoung models with multiple weapon options. Can look at Drakesworn Templar, Saurus Sunblood

 

If a model has multiple weapons, they typically have different characteristics.  In other words, by your logic, the stats are that specific wielders competency with that specific weapon.   If you "replace" that weapon with an artefact, then why does it make any sense to apply the same stats?  If anything I would suggest that proves that you are not "replacing" the weapon, and so it doesn't make sense that the abilities go away. 

You've stated a hell of a lot of interpretation there as fact. I never stated that my view was anything other than an interpretation but was honest about that.  

Once again if you’re doing as you say the burden of proof lies with you. The only thing you’ve proved is you have a very favourable interpretation of something which is unclear that really works in your favour. If that’s how other people play it as I’ve said if that’s the consensus in the community I’m playing in I’ll respect that. But I’m this instance where someone is asking a question and for people’s opinions I’ll give my answer and my opinions and my answer and opinion to this is that people are making massive assumptions that I don’t believe are consistent with the logic of the game or more importantly the spirit of it. Im not saying I’m correct in that, but I’ve supported my reasons for it and those reasons are considered and thought through. I’m not stopping anyone playing whatever they want though and people should play it among themselves however makes them happy.

I completely agree with your initial statement by the way, that’s a well worked answer and certainly more elegant than what mine threw up!

[Nos]

6 hours ago, Isotop said:

I think you are actually the one "overstretching". Nowhere does it say that a weapon has to be replaced by (for example) a Sword of Judgement. The rule say the weapon you chose "is" a Sword of Judgement. In my view there is no evidence for the weapon´s original name to vanish. In our example it will simply be a Plague-ridden Great Blade as well as a Sword of Judgement. Is there any logical (not intuitive) mistake I am making here? You say simply adding an Artifacts effect is a "stretch" while there is, in my opinion, nothing in the rules pointing in another direction.

The real stretching begins when we try to apply your method of "replacing" the weapon. You say that a weapon´s profile does not represent the weapon itself but the "martial prowess of the wielder". While being not a rules argument at all it is an interesting one. Do you seriously think the Rend characteristic shows us how armour-breaking the wielder is? By your understanding, a Gyrstrike does not add +1 to wound and hit rolls because of its own magical enchantment but because it makes the wielder more skilled? I really fail to see any sense in this explanation - if I misrepresented you or simply did not understand something I would be happy to be pointed towards my mistake.

Your replacing-method implicates that we have to erase the original name of the weapon chosen to be a Sword of Judgement. At the same time, we (obviously) keep the old weapons profile to have any reference how we should use the weapon at all. In some cases (Gyrstrike, Dimensional Blade) the Artifact even refers to the original weapon it "replaced" - how is this possible if the original weapon is erased and replaced by a new one (the Artifact)?

Finally, I really wish you would present your arguments in a more open-minded way. Your post sound like the things you say are common knowledge. I know there are a lot of (newer) players looking for answers and just move one without further asking when reading your kind of "arguments". Just to be clear - I do not want to offend you in any way. I am just aware that this rules forum is in a, let us say unprecise, state anyway and we should do anything to make it a place where rules questions are openly discussed. 

Nowhere does it state what you’re saying either.

My group plays, and most people online I’ve spoken to play,  that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. I’m very happy to admit-as I have done-that what I’m saying is not written in the rules and is an interpretation. But what you’re saying is likewise just an intrepretation as well and no more value than my own assertion. But I’m not the one taking an artifact and saying “hey guys this does both these things by the way”. 

At no point have I ever claimed to speak for the whole community or even objectivley or with authority. I explicitly stated “I might ha e gotten this wrong or missed something.” Now nothing this far has convinced me that this is the case but that’s not because I think I’m some sort of genius or better than other people which I’ll happily admit I’m not. But I’ve made it very clear why I think The Sword of Judgement from Aqshy is not the same thing as a Great Plague Weapon from Nurgle.

If this ever comes up at my club and I’m outvoted on my interpretation  I’ll respect that and play to that. But to me at present it’s a clear exploit to say “the rules don’t say you can’t do it” as a justification to do something, not to mention against the spirit of the game.

[Isotop]

19 hours ago, Nos said:

“Pick one of the bearer’s weapons to be The Sword of Judgement”. It can’t be the Sword of Jusgement and the Plague Weapon. It’s a specific item.  The only thing that grants multiplie hits on sixes is the great weapon. The only thing that grants multiple wounds is the Sword. He only has one weapon. So you need to pick one to give him for the battle.

And no-where in the rules for artifacts does it say you apply their effects to existing weapons.  It says heroes can carry them. It says you can’t have multiples. It says you can’t apply affects of weapons to mounts. And that’s it.  So unless you can find what you’re asserting I think you’re really overstretching. There’s literally nothing I can see supports your interpretation where the affect of the Plague lord’s Weapon somehow works in tandem with the affect of a completley seperate Weapon.

I think you are actually the one "overstretching". Nowhere does it say that a weapon has to be replaced by (for example) a Sword of Judgement. The rule say the weapon you chose "is" a Sword of Judgement. In my view there is no evidence for the weapon´s original name to vanish. In our example it will simply be a Plague-ridden Great Blade as well as a Sword of Judgement. Is there any logical (not intuitive) mistake I am making here? You say simply adding an Artifacts effect is a "stretch" while there is, in my opinion, nothing in the rules pointing in another direction.

The real stretching begins when we try to apply your method of "replacing" the weapon. You say that a weapon´s profile does not represent the weapon itself but the "martial prowess of the wielder". While being not a rules argument at all it is an interesting one. Do you seriously think the Rend characteristic shows us how armour-breaking the wielder is? By your understanding, a Gyrstrike does not add +1 to wound and hit rolls because of its own magical enchantment but because it makes the wielder more skilled? I really fail to see any sense in this explanation - if I misrepresented you or simply did not understand something I would be happy to be pointed towards my mistake.

Your replacing-method implicates that we have to erase the original name of the weapon chosen to be a Sword of Judgement. At the same time, we (obviously) keep the old weapons profile to have any reference how we should use the weapon at all. In some cases (Gyrstrike, Dimensional Blade) the Artifact even refers to the original weapon it "replaced" - how is this possible if the original weapon is erased and replaced by a new one (the Artifact)?

Finally, I really wish you would present your arguments in a more open-minded way. Your post sound like the things you say are common knowledge. I know there are a lot of (newer) players looking for answers and just move one without further asking when reading your kind of "arguments". Just to be clear - I do not want to offend you in any way. I am just aware that this rules forum is in a, let us say unprecise, state anyway and we should do anything to make it a place where rules questions are openly discussed. 

[XReN]

As written, when you get a 6+ with SoJ against Hero or Monster you inflict D6 MWs on the target, it happens immediately as well as Plague Sword's ability, so it's up to you to decide which to apply, but wording is that you will benefit only from single effect

[Nos]

41 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Actually every artifact weapon has the same text and you usually use the weaponprofile of the weapon you nominate as the artefact, so I am not sure wether it replaces or augments the chosen weapon.

the wording also isn‘t clear enough.

Agreed on the wording being vague but it most instances I think it's pretty evident that the profile reflects the martial prowess of the wielder. I.e There's nothing special about an Incantor's staff that gives the Incantor 3 attacks with it, it's the Incantor being good with a weapon. I think that's backed up by the fact that with larger models the attack profile is reduced as the combatant themselves becomes wounded. The Sword isnt' being attacked or wounded or I dunno, chipped, but it's effectiveness is reduced, so it's clearly a reflection of the wielders' capacity to wield it rather than the weapon itself. 

Now I would say that the full profile applies, so an Incantor's staff has 2 inch reach, I would say that the Sword of Judgement is actually a Rod of Judgement or whatever so still gets that reach. But it is nonetheless The Rod of Judgement not just Staff #7 and so the rules of the artifact apply.  I guess if you were playing WYSIWIG and a real stickley for that you just wouldn't be able to give anyone the sword who didn't have a sword somewhere on their person. 

Whereas for the Plague weapon the profile is fine to model the Weapon of Judgement's attacks a sper above, reflecting the wielder's prowess,  but the rules applying to it's modifiers are not in the profile, and they state that it's specifically because of Nurgle Goodness that they do the multipliers. The Weapon of Judgement is an Aqshy specific artefact and not a Nurgle weapon. Non-Nurgle Heroes aren't getting the effects of Nurgle Goodness from that weapon. I think it's intended that the artifcats be the same across all factions and represent their realm in favour of army character.

Of course it's AOS so it's not as clear as it should be. But I also think if you're going to claim without any evidence whatever that you can stack the effects of multiple weapons in one weapon, especially when there's logic to support that it's one weapon only, and really none to suggest why this single weapon is now SUPER DOUBLE WEAPON, that's really shady. 

I take all this back if there was an FAQ or if the wording does make it clear of course, but i haven't found that to be the case looking just now and nor has anyone else presented it as such. 

[JackStreicher]

Actually every artifact weapon has the same text and you usually use the weaponprofile of the weapon you nominate as the artefact, so I am not sure wether it replaces or augments the chosen weapon.

the wording also isn‘t clear enough.

[Nos]

29 minutes ago, Grailstorm said:

Don’t think that’s the case, is it? You add the effects of the artifact to any weapon.

“Pick one of the bearer’s weapons to be The Sword of Judgement”. It can’t be the Sword of Jusgement and the Plague Weapon. It’s a specific item.  The only thing that grants multiplie hits on sixes is the great weapon. The only thing that grants multiple wounds is the Sword. He only has one weapon. So you need to pick one to give him for the battle.

And no-where in the rules for artifacts does it say you apply their effects to existing weapons.  It says heroes can carry them. It says you can’t have multiples. It says you can’t apply affects of weapons to mounts. And that’s it.  So unless you can find what you’re asserting I think you’re really overstretching. There’s literally nothing I can see supports your interpretation where the affect of the Plague lord’s Weapon somehow works in tandem with the affect of a completley seperate Weapon.

[Grailstorm]

17 minutes ago, Nos said:

It’s a weapon. The Swords affects only itself and you have to choose it as a weapon. The rules for the 6’s comes under the Plague Weapon. You can’t have a Plague Weapon and a Sword on the same model. The rules state that the Lord is armed with a Plague Weapon, so you have to replace that with the sword as stated under the rules for the sword.  So you either have the Plague Weapon and it’s characteristics or the Sword. You can’t mix them. 

I don’t know the situation with the Beastmen but the sword will only have it’s effects of they occur under the weapon profile. So for example a beastmen attacking with horns won’t get the effects.

Don’t think that’s the case, is it? You add the effects of the artifact to any weapon.

[Nos]

20 minutes ago, Grailstorm said:

Two units I can think if get multiple hits on rolls of a 6:

Nurgle lords exploding on 6s and Beasts units with a certain allegiance in enemy territory. 

In these situations, where a 6 to hit does multiple hits, do those multiple hits then cause multiple D6 mortal wounds with the Sword of Judgement? Or does the Sword of Judgement trump the other rules?

The sword states the “the hit roll for an attack” must be 6 or more.

It’s a weapon. The Swords affects only itself and you have to choose it as a weapon. The rules for the 6’s comes under the Plague Weapon. You can’t have a Plague Weapon and a Sword on the same model. The rules state that the Lord is armed with a Plague Weapon, so you have to replace that with the sword as stated under the rules for the sword.  So you either have the Plague Weapon and it’s characteristics or the Sword. You can’t mix them. 

I don’t know the situation with the Beastmen but the sword will only have it’s effects of they occur under the weapon profile. So for example a beastmen attacking with horns won’t get the effects.