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.

 

[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")

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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]

I'm saying Nico that they don't right tournament rules and there are inconsistencies and very poorly phrased rules throughout the war scrolls and battletomes. When you have well in excess of 500-600 warscrolls plus all the battalions, etc you are going to have to accept errors. You can't argue elegant variation and definitive meaning in the same argument to prove your point. 

We'll have to disagree on this Nico as I have a strong dislike for picking the rules apart in such a way. The game is at it's heart meant to be fun and any opponent I play who presents me with a legal case has immediately impacted on my enjoyment. 

[Double Misfire]

Dark Avenger is probably the single biggest selling point Destruction and Death armies have going for them right now.  

[Oppenheimer]

It's true and Death's Black Amulet is useless because it only does wounds, not mortal wounds.

[Arkiham]

4 minutes ago, Oppenheimer said:

It's true and Death's Black Amulet is useless because it only does wounds, not mortal wounds.

Not exactly useless, just less good.

[Nico]

There are 3 top tier artefacts better than that Death Amulet.

[Slav]

Why would I look for 3 other rules to find out how Chaos Talisman is working? This is AoS, not WFB, keep it simple. "Each wound" means each wound without distinction, simple as that and I used it this way on 3 tournaments since the GH is out and no one ever question it. I will use it that way until TO say differently - his event, his rules. Beside knowing GW I doubt someone wrote that rule this way intentionally, it's just oversight of an author. 

[Marc Wilson]

... go on?

[Nico]

You mean you're going to cheat knowingly until a TO calls you on it.

[Beardyface]

I can see what you're saying Nico and it really fits with the idea of wounds and mortal wounds as key words.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is ruled both ways though.

The wording is very loose in many areas of AoS that allows interpretation. It isn't designed for tournaments and I think this shows. I'd allow my opponent to use it for both and think you need to play AoS in this spirit.

[Nico]

Quote

The wording is very loose in many areas of AoS that allows interpretation. It isn't designed for tournaments and I think this shows. I'd allow my opponent to use it for both and think you need to play AoS in this spirit.

Not when it's game changingly important - Ward saves are phenomenally important. There's like 1% doubt on this rule when read in context. On a GUO with Dark Avenger against an Order army - it's gg against many lists! In the tournament, we diced it, but after reading the 4 rules referred to above, my opponent came around to my view.

[Beardyface]

The problem is you have to create a dossier of evidence to support an argument by referencing lots of different rules. 

The rules are poorly written if you're going to games lawyer everything on every page.

Until this is faq'd you're going to have an argument every game and umpires aren't necessarily going to rule with you. 

This hurts the enjoyment of the game by knitpicking the small details. The fact everyone has played it a certain way for months having all read the rules I more important to me than pulling each sentence apart.

[KhaosZand3r]

You'd think GW would've had the foresight to pick some other frikken words, instead of using the word "wound" in 4 different contexts: the health of a model, the roll to see if damage is inflicted (To Wound), the result of the damage, and finally damage that can't be saved against (mortal wounds). 

[Beardyface]

25 minutes ago, KhaosZand3r said:

You'd think GW would've had the foresight to pick some other frikken words, instead of using the word "wound" in 4 different contexts: the health of a model, the roll to see if damage is inflicted (To Wound), the result of the damage, and finally damage that can't be saved against (mortal wounds). 

This is the real problem with this argument in that there is no consistency in rules writing and terminology that clashes or at least is used in multiple ways. 

It's difficult to talk in any difinitives so I'd rather things like this slide.

If you want tight clear rules set this isn't the right game for you and nor is it ever going to be.

[Arkiham]

To be fair you can see it each way.

Each would inflicted. Via the normal to hit to wound save method.

Or each wound inflicted.

Via the normal to hit to wound armour save, or via mortal wound, it's still a wound inflicted.

 

I can see and understand both sides. But as mentioned it's going to require a faq.

Otherwise it will be argued due to circumstance

[BrAiKo]

I think using the four lines of rules to prove a position is a bit tenuous when said rules have clearly not been written to any sort of consistent standard or reference to each other.  They can't even follow the same wording for the terms "wounds inflicted" or "ignore the wound".

[Nico]

Quote

I think using the four lines of rules to prove a position is a bit tenuous when said rules have clearly not been written to any sort of consistent standard or reference to each other. 

So you're saying that they are complete amateurs and an editor didn't even look at pages a few pages apart; and that no-one thought - ok so Destruction get one against mortal wounds (perhaps because they don't have any ward saves bar Bonesplitterz) and Chaos get one against regular wounds (perhaps because they have ward saves and have terrible armour saves). The inconsistency of the other wording is elegant variation - not ideal but it doesn't affect the key point that (a) and (c) cannot mean the same thing. 

A thread running through the entire game is that mortal wounds and wounds are highly distinct. Often the rules make pains to distinguish them or list both of them. 

[Nico]

If one plays Nurgle and sees that their ward saves spell out both wound and mortal wound and then see an artefact which specifies only one, then that leads to the conclusion that the rules must mean different things - even without turning the page to look at the other artefacts.