Chaos Talisman - doesn't work on Mortal Wounds!

[Nico]

This was prompted by a rules discussion at a tournament yesterday. 

Let's read 4 sets of rules from within 10 pages of the same book shall we:

(a) Chaos Talisman

"Roll a dice for each wound inflicted on this model. On a roll of 6, the wound is negated and has no effect."

 

(b) Talisman of Protection

"Roll a dice each time this model suffers a mortal wound. On a roll of 4 or more, the mortal wound is stopped..."

 

(c) Master of Defence

Roll a dice for each wound or mortal wound inflicted on your general. On a roll of 6 or more the wound or mortal wound is ignored. 

 

(d) Deathless Minions

"Roll a dice for each wound or mortal wound inflicted on a Death unit from your army... On a roll of a 6 or more, the wound is negated...."

 

Reading these 4 rules together, it's abundantly clear that the Chaos Talisman doesn't work on mortal wounds and that this is the intent of the writers (the only alternative is that the writers are maliciously sowing confusion). Firstly because the Chaos Talisman is the mirror image of the Destruction one (because that one only works on mortal wounds - which is why the latter works on a 4+ instead of a 6+/5+); and secondly because it's inconsistent for wording (a) to mean the same thing as wording (c). That (c) and incidentally (d) spells out both wounds and mortal wounds must mean that (a) is limited to only "wounds" with mortal wounds being treated as highly distinct.

Similarly, Nagash's ward save and that of the Bastilodon/Mourngul only work on mortal wounds - there are clear precedents of ward saves that only work on one but not the other.

After playing against Chaos twice yesterday, I've upped the Chaos Allegiance pack to above that of Destruction - Dark Avenger is a free 320 point Hurricanum.

 

[Garxia]

Look at what I have found:

Straight from the GW Age of Sigmar FB page:

Bohême Jonathan "normal" wounds and mortal wounds are two different things, so if an ability only state wounds, then it is always "normal" wounds.

1 · 20 de agosto a las 13:28

Warhammer Age of Sigmar This is how we'd play it.^

This is the more "official" answer we are probably getting, and it specifically says that we can only use saves against mortal wounds if the item or ability specifically says so.

So no talisman, neither shields against mortal wounds.

[Nico]

So you agreed to wait until an answer from the FB page, then you get the answer you didn't want, then you attack the credibility of the FB page. You just cannot take losing. Had it gone otherwise, you would have been crowing about being right all along.

When this happened to me, I conceded to the FB page on the query about Empire using the old Battalion with sensible keyword changes even after arguing against it. I now see the merits of this decision as it keeps Moonclan and Warherd viable (amongst other armies). 

They haven't stopped - they made some more responses recently.

Bear in mind that if they had answered it the way you wanted them to, this would be an admission that they messed up the wording of at least 2 Warscrolls, because they would be misleading and confusing as they stand.

[Beardyface]

34 minutes ago, Cowboy Boots Matt said:

The FAQ answer above (stated at least twice) clears this up, read the rule in isolation and apply. Do not waste your time trying to refer to other rules on other warscrolls.

I think it does clear things up. Mortal Wounds cause wounds that ignore certain things, e.g. Saves. You can use the Talisman to negate wounds.

Nothing else matters.

[Uncas]

Why would they put "wound or mortal wound" on other things and just "wound" on this? The simplest answer is to read it as written, i.e. you do not get to use it on mortal wounds. Everything else is conjecture or irrelevant (ex "they meant it to be mortal wounds but it was not written well" or but "everybody else has been playing it this way")

[Uncas]

10 hours ago, Garxia said:

Look at what I have found:

Straight from the GW Age of Sigmar FB page:

 

Bohême Jonathan "normal" wounds and mortal wounds are two different things, so if an ability only state wounds, then it is always "normal" wounds.

1 · 20 de agosto a las 13:28

 

Warhammer Age of Sigmar This is how we'd play it.^

This is the more "official" answer we are probably getting, and it specifically says that we can only use saves against mortal wounds if the item or ability specifically says so.

So no talisman, neither shields against mortal wounds.

Well that settles that! Great find.

[Beardyface]

@Nico not at all.

The only thing that will clear this up is an official FAQ. Until then it's gong to be up to TO's to rule on.

I have nothing invested in this as don't play the army and happy to let my opponent play it either way. I want a game that doesn't have this discussion over rules at the table as you seem determined to have with your little dossier of evidence.

Since there clearly isn't consensus I'll just send my queries to GW and wait for their ruling and let you bulldoze people on the internet.

[Bowlzee]

1 hour ago, Garxia said:

Look at what I have found:

Straight from the GW Age of Sigmar FB page:

 

Bohême Jonathan "normal" wounds and mortal wounds are two different things, so if an ability only state wounds, then it is always "normal" wounds.

1 · 20 de agosto a las 13:28

 

Warhammer Age of Sigmar This is how we'd play it.^

This is the more "official" answer we are probably getting, and it specifically says that we can only use saves against mortal wounds if the item or ability specifically says so.

So no talisman, neither shields against mortal wounds.

Exactly, he's another example after i was reading some Duardin scrolls last night that support this.

[Nico]

 

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, Garxia said:

Look at what I have found:

Straight from the GW Age of Sigmar FB page:

 

Bohême Jonathan "normal" wounds and mortal wounds are two different things, so if an ability only state wounds, then it is always "normal" wounds.

1 · 20 de agosto a las 13:28

 

Warhammer Age of Sigmar This is how we'd play it.^

This is the more "official" answer we are probably getting, and it specifically says that we can only use saves against mortal wounds if the item or ability specifically says so.

So no talisman, neither shields against mortal wounds.

 

 

 

Thank you kindly!

Since I've been listbuilding Destruction lately, I've been looking at Ardboyz and I'm pleased that it doesn't work on mortal wounds for them either. 

[Beardyface]

8 hours ago, Uncas said:

Why would they put "wound or mortal wound" on other things and just "wound" on this? The simplest answer is to read it as written, i.e. you do not get to use it on mortal wounds. Everything else is conjecture or irrelevant (ex "they meant it to be mortal wounds but it was not written well" or but "everybody else has been playing it this way")

The key issue is that warscrolls and battletomes have little consistency in the way they are worded. The FAQ accepts this as unsatisfactory as it might be.

Until then mortal wounds cause wounds and the Chaos Talisman allows you to save against wounds.

[Beardyface]

33 minutes ago, Bowlzee said:

Exactly, he's another example after i was reading some Duardin scrolls last night that support this.

Any ruling by the facebook page is about as 'official' as an in store ruling. It means nothing and that's why they've stopped.

This issue will get no closer to resolution until an official FAQ.

[BrAiKo]

So can you find any other examples of rules that interact with "wounds but not mortal wounds"?  If you can I would be interested to see how it is worded.  If you can't (i.e. that rule doesn't exist elsewhere), then it should play as it reads, and it is just as likely the author/editor forgot to add "and/or mortal wounds" to the talisman given the inconsistencies already mentioned.

[Nico]

No it doesn't - the context point was only the ancillary argument. On its face, works on wounds means only "wounds" and not "mortal wounds". You are the ones who are relying on another rule (damage allocation) to try to interpret "wounds" to be both - so the FAQ answer doesn't even help you.

We await the answer from the FB page. I'm expecting them to rule with you.

 

[Cowboy Boots Matt]

The FAQ answer above (stated at least twice) clears this up, read the rule in isolation and apply. Do not waste your time trying to refer to other rules on other warscrolls.

[James McPherson]

Magic armor provides save bonuses, talismans provide ward saves. You realize a talisman is physically a small object right, like a pendant you wear around your neck or a lucky jewel encrusted into the hilt of your blade. Why would that give you a bonus to your armor save? Its a magical ward save given by an enchanted item. 

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, discoking said:

The FAQ tells us this:

Q: Empire Archers and Bretonnian Mounted Yeomen have a similar ability to make a move as if in the movement phase after set-up. The Mounted Yeomen specify that they may also run. Are these two abilities different, or do they mean the same thing despite the different wording?

A: Although worded differently, the two abilities have the same effect. The wording of one ability should not be used to confer any meaning on the wording of another ability.

 

I read the rule for the Chaos Talsiman and taken on it's own I'd play it that it works against both type of wounds.

 

 

This is a strong argument. Nice find.

[discoking]

I replied to this thread but my post isn't showing up for some reason so I'll post again.

The FAQ tells us this:

Q: Empire Archers and Bretonnian Mounted Yeomen have a similar ability to make a move as if in the movement phase after set-up. The Mounted Yeomen specify that they may also run. Are these two abilities different, or do they mean the same thing despite the different wording?

A: Although worded differently, the two abilities have the same effect. The wording of one ability should not be used to confer any meaning on the wording of another ability.

 

I read the rule for the Chaos Talsiman and taken on it's own I'd play it that it works against both type of wounds.

[discoking]

The FAQ tells us this:

Q: Empire Archers and Bretonnian Mounted Yeomen have a similar ability to make a move as if in the movement phase after set-up. The Mounted Yeomen specify that they may also run. Are these two abilities different, or do they mean the same thing despite the different wording?

A: Although worded differently, the two abilities have the same effect. The wording of one ability should not be used to confer any meaning on the wording of another ability.

 

I read the rule for the Chaos Talsiman and taken on it's own I'd play it that it works against both type of wounds.

 

 

[Beardyface]

6 minutes ago, Nico said:

I think you're reading way too much into it. That's about allocating damage right at the end. It doesn't counter any of the 3 arguments I put forward earlier - literal wording, context and purpose.

I'll leave this as my contribution but this is clearly open to interpretation and casts enough doubt on your argument. The literal wording here is wound. Very simple in the main rules. When you put this alongside the Chaos Talisman I think it's very clear. We all accept inconsistencies in rules writing/wording. 

The fact is we don't agree and many others are also split on the issue so it's clearly not as black and white as you believe it. 

Why am I also reading too much into something clearly written in the rules? I've not had to use multiple wars rolls to prove a point!

[Terry Pike]

The thread is at 40 posts including this one I just made. It would appear its not very clear cut if it needs this much discussion.

Someone send it into the FAQ team lol

[Nico]

Quote

What's your interpretation of the wording for mortal wounds under the rules as I mentioned a few posts earlier?

I think you're reading way too much into it. That's about allocating damage right at the end. It doesn't counter any of the 3 arguments I put forward earlier - literal wording, context and purpose.

[Beardyface]

14 minutes ago, Nico said:

Most tournaments seem to be picker rather than roller and pick before game (which is my preference also). I'd estimate that 30-35% of armies at tournaments are Order (i.e. more than 25%) because Death are so unpopular.

If the Order allegiance pack wasn't so god awful, I'd be less motivated to point this out (for completeness the Sylvaneth one is amazing). Stacking ward saves (especially 5+ ward saves or better) is always a big deal, which is why hardly anything in the game can do so (e.g. Flesh Eaters can, but then they cannot shoot anything).

Fair enough but easily sorted by fixing choices pre-tournament. I'd prefer this option as it makes more sense to me to have a general with one specialism going out on campaign.

@Nico What's your interpretation of the wording for mortal wounds under the rules as I mentioned a few posts earlier?

[Nico]

Most tournaments seem to be picker rather than roller and pick before game (which is my preference also). I'd estimate that 30-35% of armies at tournaments are Order (i.e. more than 25%) because Death are so unpopular.

If the Order allegiance pack wasn't so god awful, I'd be less motivated to point this out (for completeness the Sylvaneth one is amazing). Stacking ward saves (especially 5+ ward saves or better) is always a big deal, which is why hardly anything in the game can do so (e.g. Flesh Eaters can, but then they cannot shoot anything).

[Beardyface]

On 09/10/2016 at 9:27 AM, Nico said:

On 09/10/2016 at 9:27 AM, Nico said:

After playing against Chaos twice yesterday, I've upped the Chaos Allegiance pack to above that of Destruction - Dark Avenger is a free 320 point Hurricanum.

 

Isn't this also an over reaction. Considering it works on only 1 of 4 factions so becomes worthless in those instances. Considering that some tournaments are starting to set these choices on your initial submitted list it's a calculated risk.

I also believe that items are designed to complement the allegiances and so aren't necessarily designed to be balanced. Death are. Basically two old army books and lack choice, particularly if compendium isn't allowed. Order has a vast range of potential combos and so doesn't need items to help build them.

Sylvaneth are a similar example in that they should always get to use their array of Wildwood summoning as the book and points seem to reflect they can use these abilities. 

[Bowlzee]

12 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

It doesn't mention anything about "normal wounds" which is where the confusion comes from. It just says "wound" which can be both mortal and non-mortal as it's not clear in what sense it is using the term "wound" lol. The other problem is, it doesn't say it doesn't work on mortal wounds. Other rules say and/or but the rules writing is not always consistent. An FAQ either way would be helpful, or just a TO clarification a long with the other mystery rules.

I can see the confusion, but like Bottle says, other rules don't say normal wounds, they just state wounds and MORTAL wounds.

3 hours ago, bottle said:

I would agree with Nico's interpretation because other abilities like the Vulkite Bezerkers' Beserk Fury also explicitly state both wounds and mortal wounds.

I also agree that GW using the word "wound" in so many areas is confusing as is the "inflicted"/"suffered" that seem to be used interchangeably.

[Arkiham]

28 minutes ago, Bowlzee said:

After reading the artefact again, to me it's pretty clear it only works on normal wounds. Every other instance of mortal wound save, I've seen (I have not read all the warscrolls) state explicitly in their rules that it works on wounds and/or MORTAL wounds.

Has anyone sent a FAQ question to GW? Perhaps if enough people write in, they will release an official FAQ for it.

the facebook pages are silent now. no idea why.