|
|
Post by knoffles on Mar 25, 2022 21:47:41 GMT
Hey gents, a query came up on one of the groups I’m in. To use the example:
A Paladin (i5) with flaming attacks, is in a unit of Grail Knights (i5) and attacking a unit of trolls. Do the Trolls get a regen save against the Grail Knights?
Does the regen get stripped by the Paladins flaming attacks (if he wounds of course), as the wounds occur before saves, or do the Trolls retain their saves because the Paladin would be wounding at the same time as them, so the flaming would t have quicker in as yet?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 25, 2022 23:05:16 GMT
Since the Paladin and Grail Knights are attacking simultaneously, the Trolls retain the benefit of Regeneration against the non-flaming attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by quenelles84 on Mar 28, 2022 5:48:27 GMT
Thanks for that - I've seen different folk say different things on this - just wondering if you have a reference to the rulebook or FAQ where this is clarified? Many thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Mar 28, 2022 13:28:20 GMT
The confusion stems from the fact that in the English version, GW is not stringent enough here in its language, and uses "wounded," "to suffer wounds", "wounds caused" or "wounds inflicted" etc. for, depending on the context, wounds that can yet be saved and actual wounds.
So, if we look at BRB p. 74: "Wounds caused by Flaming Attacks (as described earlier in this section) cannot be regenerated, and if a unit is wounded by a Flaming Attack it loses the Regeneration rule for the remainder of the phase (...)," there is room for debate, since we cannot know for certain whether this is before or after saves, although the context favours the latter [Italics mine].
However, the French version makes a clear distinction between blessure (wound before saves) and Point de Vie perdu (Life Point lost, i.e. wound after saves). In the French BRB, the paragraph reads: "Les blessures causées par les attaques enflammées (voir plus tôt) ne peuvent pas être régénérées, et si une unité perds des Points de Vie en raison d'une attaque enflammée, elle perds la règle Rëgénération pour la reste de la phase (...), which translates into: Wounds caused by Flaming Attacks (see earlier) cannot be regenerated, and if a unit has lost Life Points as a result of a Flaming Attack, it loses the Regeneration rule for the remainder of the phase (...).
Hence, a unit will lose Regeneration only when it has actually lost a Wound to FA - i.e. after saves. Since attacks made by models with the same Initiative are simultaneous, the respective rolls to Hit, rolls to Wound and saving throws are each made simultaneously too, and any unsaved Wound caused by the FA will be simultaneous with the unsaved Wounds caused by non-flaming attacks (casualties are equally removed at the same time).
|
|
|
|
Post by remetagross on Aug 17, 2022 18:01:04 GMT
Hi Fvon,
I happen to be facing the same issue. See, one player of my group has argued in good faith that "players can pick in which order simultaneous effects happen" and has deducted from that that he could resolve his flaming attacks before the non-flaming ones. Honestly, it appears to be a fairly good point to me. What would you answer to that?
remetagross
|
|
|
|
Post by rahotep75 on Aug 17, 2022 18:34:27 GMT
Hi Fvon, I happen to be facing the same issue. See, one player of my group has argued in good faith that "players can pick in which order simultaneous effects happen" and has deducted from that that he could resolve his flaming attacks before the non-flaming ones. Honestly, it appears to be a fairly good point to me. What would you answer to that? remetagross “Sequencing Whilst every effort has been made to make sure that the sequencing of rules is utterly clear, occasionally you’ll find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order.” Is this what he is referring to? Attacks being resolved simultaneously aren’t two conflicting rules. If your opponent thinks this way, wouldn’t they say that their models at one initiative step would swing before his opponents at the same initiative? Since they can resolve them in whatever order they want? |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 17, 2022 22:36:44 GMT
What rahotep75 says. Descriptions of the timing of actions like "at the start of the Movement phase" are not explicit as to the sequence in which they have to be resolved, and therefore do not mean they are made simultaneously. However, "simultaneous" is an explicit wording as how the rules are to be resolved. The fact that, for practical purposes, you may want to roll the dice separately does not change that. BRB p. 50: "Making attacks simultaneously doesn't necessarily mean both players need to roll both sets of dice at once. You can, of course, make simultaneous rolls, but it often gets a little confusing with so many dice rattling around in one go. A far tidier way of resolving drawn Initiatives, is for one player (it doesn't matter which) to resolve blows with his models first. When this has been completed, his opponent resolves blows made by his models as if no casualties had been caused by his opponent's set of rolls. You'll find that resolving drawn Initiatives in this manner is much less confusing than the alternative methods." |
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Aug 18, 2022 0:49:34 GMT
Give the Paladin a Potion of Speed.
Sorted.
|
|
|
|
Post by remetagross on Aug 18, 2022 9:02:47 GMT
Thanks for the fast answer, folks. If I'm understanding what you're saying, the point about choosing in which order simultaneous rules apply has no bearing here, as there isn't a pair of rules kicking in at the same time, but a single rule (flaming attack) in action. In addition to this, resolving attacks "simultaneously" is properly defined and does not trigger a situation where the active player has to choose what to do first.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Aug 18, 2022 10:45:17 GMT
If I'm understanding what you're saying, the point about choosing in which order simultaneous rules apply has no bearing here ... resolving attacks "simultaneously" is properly defined and does not trigger a situation where the active player has to choose what to do first. I think that is the most direct counter argument to using the catch all sequencing rule. The fact that simultaneous attacks are directly covered by the rules means playing it any other way would be wrong. |
|
