|
|
Post by IbnSeesAll on Jan 20, 2023 19:17:20 GMT
The Bretonnian magic item ‘The Ruby Goblet’ states that after the unit suffers its first wound it can’t be wounded by non-magical sources on a better than 3+.
Does this mean things like poisoned attacks would still need to roll a 3+ to wound?
|
|
|
|
Post by quenelles84 on Jan 20, 2023 21:12:20 GMT
While we're at it do we understand the wording of this item to basically mean the unit can NOT be wounded on a 1 or a 2 (instead of normally just a 1)?
(I think that's the intention, but the wording makes my head spin).
- On point above my assumption is it wouldn't stop poison, as the wound is automatic, but will await with interest what the community consensus is.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jan 20, 2023 22:03:29 GMT
quenelles84 : You are correct on both points. With to wound and to hit rolls the lower the better, and only 2 is better than 3 (since 1 is always a failure). For the Ruby Goblet to work, you need to roll to wound, and that is not the case for automatic wounds. Compare with Killing Blow, where you need to roll 6 (or sometimes lower and better) but "if a Killing Blow attack wounds automatically, then the Killing Blow special rule does not come into play" (BRB p. 72).
|
|
|
|
Post by IbnSeesAll on Jan 20, 2023 23:33:36 GMT
Thanks for the replies.
Archaon’s Armour of Morkar has a similar rule: ‘no attack against him may ever have a better chance Wound than a 3+. Attacks that Wound automatically, always Wound on a 2+, and so on, will still need a 3+ to Wound.
I had always taken the second sentence to be explaining the rule rather than adding to it, but presumably the Ruby Goblet needed that additional sentence to force poisoned attacks to roll to Wound?
So how would the Ruby Goblet work against something that always Wounds on a 2+?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Jan 21, 2023 0:05:17 GMT
So how would the Ruby Goblet work against something that always Wounds on a 2+? It changes it to wounding on 3+. |
|
|
|
Post by thezildo on Jan 21, 2023 6:19:29 GMT
Just a bitter guy venting a bit here, but it irks me that we need to” square peg into a round hole” for armies from previous editions that didn’t get an updated rule book. I am loathe to try and figure it all out and make the proper decision for balance with books that are not fully compatible with the current system. It sticks in my craw currently with adepticon coming up and the thought of several gaps in rules for different editions/wording being decided upon in potentially different ways really throws a wrench in the idea of balances games.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jan 21, 2023 8:34:49 GMT
Thanks for the replies. Archaon’s Armour of Morkar has a similar rule: ‘no attack against him may ever have a better chance Wound than a 3+. Attacks that Wound automatically, always Wound on a 2+, and so on, will still need a 3+ to Wound. I had always taken the second sentence to be explaining the rule rather than adding to it, but presumably the Ruby Goblet needed that additional sentence to force poisoned attacks to roll to Wound? So how would the Ruby Goblet work against something that always Wounds on a 2+? 1. Yes, the additional sentence is needed, because, unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply. 2. It depends. If it is against a special rule or item from the BRB, then AB>BRB. In that case, as the thegoat says, it changes it to wounding on 3+. However, if it is a special rule or item from another AB, then there is no precedence, and the players would have to agree on a solution or dice it off. |
|
