|
|
Post by knoffles on May 2, 2019 7:19:35 GMT
Gents, a query came up about the toad dragon tongue attack on FB.
The wording is basically below (though I slightly paraphrased the non pertinent bits).
This single attack may be inflicted against any enemy model in base contact. It is a S4 poisoned attack with ASF. Should the victim survive, they suffer -1 to hit that combat.
The query was basically around at what point does the -1 get imposed? Initially I argued it should be after a wound role but a good case was put forth that does an attack even need to hit to impose the -1. It could be argued that just the attempt of attacking (and not hitting) would mean the enemy survived the attempted attack.
I appreciate that RAI it is likely the attack should hit to impose the -1 but what is the thought on RAW.
Edit: the toad dragon is in the monstrous arcanum (pg31) and possibly the chaos lord rides it in Turmakhan too.
|
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on May 2, 2019 7:48:56 GMT
I would argue that the "if they survive" bit implies that the -1 is gained when you have wounded the target... But then the next question would be, does it have to be an unsaved wound... FW were truly awful at rules  |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on May 2, 2019 7:53:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 2, 2019 8:26:41 GMT
I would tend to agree that you do not even need to Hit. "Survive" is not a technical term, but the two other relevant passages I could find do not really imply "being wounded" (or even hit, in the first quote), just "remaining alive."
BRB p. 103: "If both competitors survive a challenge, and the combat continues, then they will continue to fight in the next round of close combat."
BRB p. 499: "The target suffers a number of hits equal to 2D6 minus his own Toughness. Hits from the Fate of Bjuna cause a wound on a roll of 2+, with no armour saves allowed. If the target survives, he is subject to Stupidity for the remainder of the game."
|
|
|
|
Post by sedge on May 2, 2019 18:48:40 GMT
Strictly speaking, I'd agree with FvonSigmaringen that the effect simply takes place as a result of the attack, so it matters not whether you hit or wound.
I would play it differently (if my opponent agrees, of course) and require a hit. I don't think a wound is necessary - from what little fluff there is plus the image of a tongue attack in Monstrous Arcanum, I think the -1 to hit is because of the tongue grasping part of the target's body, which would restrict their movement and thus impede their attacks, regardless of whether it's hurt them or not.
I don't think you could argue that merely trying to avoid the tongue ("being attacked") would result in the target finding it harder to hit with their attacks, as that's not really any different to trying to avoid regular attacks - hence why I would suggest at least a hit is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on May 3, 2019 6:49:46 GMT
Strictly speaking, I'd agree with FvonSigmaringen that the effect simply takes place as a result of the attack, so it matters not whether you hit or wound. I would play it differently (if my opponent agrees, of course) and require a hit. I don't think a wound is necessary - from what little fluff there is plus the image of a tongue attack in Monstrous Arcanum, I think the -1 to hit is because of the tongue grasping part of the target's body, which would restrict their movement and thus impede their attacks, regardless of whether it's hurt them or not. I don't think you could argue that merely trying to avoid the tongue ("being attacked") would result in the target finding it harder to hit with their attacks, as that's not really any different to trying to avoid regular attacks - hence why I would suggest at least a hit is needed. The query actually came from my club mate Luke (who was at Riotville) and your answer was basically my final comment on it. |
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on May 3, 2019 14:50:01 GMT
That is such a poorly written rule, shame on you Forge World.
Shame! Shame! Shame!
|
|
