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.

 

[Nico]

There are other areas where the wording of rules could be significantly improved. This isn't one of those though. I'm actually adopting the literal wording here (i.e. it stops wounds - full stop) - my opponent is having to twist this by implying that "wounds" somehow includes "mortal wounds" with handwaving over the damage allocation rules.

 

[Terry Pike]

I still think there is an argument for it working on mortal wounds due to the wording of "inflicting" and "suffering" under the 4 rules you have listed.

You don't actually have a mortal wound stat on your character profile and the wording lends itself to protection against being wounded as a whole, after damage allocation, rather than it being against the "wound" part of the damage where wounds/mortal wounds are factored in.

Its one for TO's to clarify, as it can be argued both ways.

I'm guessing the 4 factions were written by 4 different peeps so rules writing may look inconsistent?

[bottle]

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.

[Beardyface]

43 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

I still think there is an argument for it working on mortal wounds due to the wording of "inflicting" and "suffering" under the 4 rules you have listed.

You don't actually have a mortal wound stat on your character profile and the wording lends itself to protection against being wounded as a whole, after damage allocation, rather than it being against the "wound" part of the damage where wounds/mortal wounds are factored in.

Its one for TO's to clarify, as it can be argued both ways.

I'm guessing the 4 factions were written by 4 different peeps so rules writing may look inconsistent?

This is the point I was trying to get at but far more eloquently put.

Perhaps some sort of community FAQ would be useful to save every organiser having to make a ruling for each tournament. Things can be deleted in light of the GW document being updated. It'd help keep games fun by erasing the obscure.

[Nico]

Quote

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

Every single one of them spells it out - Plaguebearers, GUO, Settra, Phoenix Guard, Frost Phoenix, Dread Maw....

There is unique wording for the Chaos Talisman and this looks a lot like a deliberate choice for balance reasons (considering most people are pickers, it's far better than the Order equivalent and about the same as the Destruction one). 

 

[Beardyface]

25 minutes ago, Nico said:

Every single one of them spells it out - Plaguebearers, GUO, Settra, Phoenix Guard, Frost Phoenix, Dread Maw....

There is unique wording for the Chaos Talisman and this looks a lot like a deliberate choice for balance reasons (considering most people are pickers, it's far better than the Order equivalent and about the same as the Destruction one). 

 

I do agree with your argument Nico and would be happy to play it that way but saying it looks deliberate isn't a cast iron argument and @Terry Pike's response cast enough doubt to make this issue problematic and potentially rules both ways in the heat of a tournament. That's why these things need concensus before the tournament to prevent problems. 

You might play one person at a tournament and bring this up against an opponent but 7 others could play the entire tournament playing it as it seems to have always been played.

That's a very unsatisfactory solution and frankly unfair for the person who was corrected while the others weren't.

[Nico]

Quote

I do agree with your argument Nico and would be happy to play it that way but saying it looks deliberate isn't a cast iron argument and @Terry Pike's response cast enough doubt to make this issue problematic and potentially rules both ways in the heat of a tournament. That's why these things need concensus before the tournament to prevent problems. 

The point of this thread is to build a consensus/flag it, as it's easy to read it quickly and think "ward save". Several people got the Bastilodon rule wrong at other events - hopefully by accident. 

The purposive argument is backup. The literal or rules as written approach supports me - they left out the word mortal, hence it doesn't work on mortal wounds. The context argument - looking at the 3 other examples literally within a few pages of it is another supportive argument (which convinced 2 doubters at the tournament).

[Terry Pike]

I have used it at as an additional 'Nurgle' style save on my GUO for 13 tournament games now against both mortal and normal wounds as I'd never even considered it to be played any other way. Also not heard of anyone else just using it against non-mortal wounds.

[Nico]

So you're lucky none of your opponents checked the rule then.

I can completely see that one could read it briefly and not look at it in context and just assume it covers both.

[Beardyface]

I don't see it as lucky when the entire community except you have played it this way for months. 

It comes back to poorly written rules. 

[Terry Pike]

7 minutes ago, Nico said:

I can completely see that one could read it briefly and not look at it in context and just assume it covers both.

Why would I pick out 3 other special rules to compare it to though. Chaos Talisman doesn't come with a little * at the bottom saying I need to also research other wound negating rules.

I looked at the rule and it says you ignore an "inflicted" wound on a 6 (5+ against order). Regardless of its source (mortal or normal), a wound is inflicted and negated on a 6. I read it for what it is and then used it.

[James McPherson]

I just saw it as the AOS equivalent of the talisman of protection/endurance/preservation. Loads of the Arcane Artifacts or whatever they are called now are nods to the old magic items in WFB right? There was a talisman (or three!?) that gave a ward save in WFB, because that's generally what talismans did in WFB, they gave ward saves right? It was even mentioned by Heelan and those guys in the only the faithful podcast that those new items were done in a way as to appease the 8th ed crowd who wanted more items to use and more layers of depth to the game, and that most of them were a hat tip to the old items.

So I just play it as a ward save and I would imagine the majority of people play it that way for the same reason. And I generally apply a ward save to any kind of wound.

I never really bothered playing WFB though because of all the intense rules stuff like this, it really puts me off, life's too short.

I think the problem with your logic is it's just not black and white enough. Here's a great example of the grey area , point in case look at the wording of Disgustingly Resilient, one of the most well known and popular ward saves around,

You see it clearly distinguishes between wound and mortal wound, but then it goes back to calling them both just 'wound'

A 'wound' is an adjective to describe suffering harm, whereas a 'mortal wound' is an adverb to describe suffering a wound that would otherwise kill a mortal man. You can use an adjective to loosely refer to an adverb without having to specify the verbage.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's whats going on in the above paragraph and also in the Talisman wordage, because as I pointed out earlier, everyone knows a Talisman is basically a Ward save provider right?

You can't just wipe out 20 years of WFB history because 4 random paragraphs in a hastily assembled book are authored and worded slightly differently, I mean I admire your eye for finding discrepancies but it's almost like you are looking so hard for it, that you are bound to see it no matter what anyone else tries to tell you. 

That's my 2 cents anyway , not saying I'm right, but that's how I see it, and if anyone wants to call me a cheat for playing it that way then fine, that makes me a cheat!

 

 

[Jonatan]

I'd say you do get the save (it is not s saveroll). A mortal wound is a wound that you can't with your armor but other than that it is a normal wound.

[Bowlzee]

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.

[Terry Pike]

14 minutes ago, Bowlzee said:

After reading the artefact again, to me it's pretty clear it only works on normal wounds.

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.