D vs Nightmare Doll

I view AP as meaning that the armor save is automatically failed do to it penetrating the armor so it is similar to my above arguement, the save is automatically failed so there is a failed wound to activate the doll.

I know the BRB stays that it cancels armor save/ignores the armor but in my mind it should be written as an automatic failure for the armor rather than it being like it didn't exist in the first place.

But of course now we are dealing with more and more of my interpretations then RAW... This is the problem with these kinds of games and wording.

The problem with that is that that would limit other special rules such as FNP, which don't count as saves and have similar wording as the Doll, working against 'hits' that allow no saves.

Does it? The rule states: "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’, for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp). Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule."

In this case it clearly states that it doesn't work against wounds inflicted by ID and Destroyer Weapons, and that it can be used against "wounds" that state that 'no saves of any kind are allowed'. It is working against the wound not the hit.

Edit: I guess we can look at FnP and The nightmare doll RAW and once agian say that it has no effect on destroyer weapons as ID is identified yet Destroyer weapons are omitted.

Yup but D is not omitted from instant death/inflicting wounds and that is what we are told the nightmare Doll saves against.

So the question comes back to intent and wording. Was the omission intended because D weapons are not effected by the nightmare doll or was it omitted because of an oversight?

What was the reason for the omission on the doll's rule?

How I play it is you roll for any saves on the hit first. If the save fails. You then roll a d6 1 is null. 2-5 roll d3 and you take 1-3 wounds. Usually ap 2 and st10. You then roll for saves on those wounds. If you fail those and it can id you then you tank one with the doll.

On s 6 you no saves allowed.

Quote :

How I play it is you roll for any saves on the hit first. If the save fails. You then roll a d6

On s 6 you no saves allowed.

And how you disallow saves you already rolled? Travel back in time?

Nevermind realised I wasn't taking into account other things, such as weapon strength and toughness.

Klaivex Charondyr:

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Der-al wrote:

@der-al wrote:
the D-table result calls it a HIT that causes D3 wound NOT me

It does not.
It calls it a hit that wounds automatically and does D3 wounds instead of 1.

It still calls it a hit, however and this is the important bit, it states that it causes D3 wounds INSTEAD of 1. The INSTEAD is the important bit. It does not state that it causes a wound that then gets multiplied (otherwise I can quite easily see some smart arse trying to say that you have to take the initial wound as well of the D3 wounds).

You do not get to choose which hit to save against, as Massaen has already pointed out you can only allocate wounds and not hits. Therefore as I see it you allocate the D3 wounds from the hit that causes D3 wounds instead of 1, save against the hit that causes D3 wounds instead of 1 (as per the USR) and then roll the D3 to see how many wounds there are instead of 1. This way no rules are broken or ignored.

No value in talking to people which make up their own rules as they see fit.


Basically your argument is "it is no wound and you only safe against the hit per USR and I know that both are called "hit" but I rule that this is a different "hit" from the other "hit" so I rule we save against the "hit" instead of the "hit".

I guess I worded wrongly. You save vs the hit itself. If it saved you stop there. If not Then roll on d table. Say you roll a 4 on the d table then a 4 again for wounds you get get two wound that you can try to save. If you were eternal warrior with 5 wounds you would just take two wounds and not be doubled out. But if you have the doll you would just take the one wound, the doll would take one wound.. which could double you out unless you had some other kind of save to prevent that. From what I have played in the past you roll a save vs the hit and saves on the wounds, if possible.

A lot of this is dependent on other rules and players toughness.

That said the doll is expensive and only useful against ID in rare occasions. Your best bet it to lookout sir and your probably running in s set of high t unit to bump up their FNP with the doll.

That and my local meta does not play with any ranged D, and the guy that does bring the knight doesn't get many games with it.

But in my opinion the doll on a t5 would only save one wound from a d attack.

Klaivex Charondyr: I really wish you wouldn’t put words into my mouth, I’m not saying it’s not a wound, I’m sayings it’s D3 wounds as per the words in the rules. A hit, from rolling to hit, is different from a hit that causes D3 wounds instead of 1, for a start it’s a hit that causes D3 wounds instead of 1, where as the hit from rolling to wound is just a hit. Now because this second hit causes D3 wounds instead of 1, these wounds can be allocated as per the rules, this hit that causes D3 wounds instead of 1 is saved against, again as per the rules. Personally, I cannot see where I’m making rules up, but if you're willing to ignore a rule then that's your prerogative.

Der-al wrote:

Klaivex Charondyr, you are quite right and I’m wrong when I said I think that suffering a hit that wounds automatically is not a wound.

What I should have said / meant to say was: a hit that causes the model to be wounded regardless of toughness and further more causes D3 wound instead of one, does not cause a wound, it causes D3 wounds instead of a single wound.

Because of some of my errors during this conversation and getting curious I went back to look at the basics. So lets break down the Initiative step and then apply it to the Destroyer Weapons:

During the initiative step we have several things that need to be done, You first determine who attacks first and then that model, who goes first, rolls to hit, lets say it succeeded, that is then followed by the to wound roll. If that attack succeeds in wounding we continue with the next step, determining the number of wounds to add to the wound pool. Most weapons only cause a single wound so normally only one wound is added to the wound pool. And from there you move on to the next step, wound allocation. We have determined that a single hit happened against the model and we have a wound pool of one do to this. That one wound it allocated to the model and that model rolls any saves it might have that apply to that wound.

A D Weapon however operates differently. During the initiative step you attack with the D weapon. The D Weapon uses one of it's attacks. We then have to roll to hit, in the case of the D Weapon the rule is different:

"If the attack hits, roll on the table above instead of rolling To Wound"

The to wound roll is replaced by the D Table roll and that determines how the attack hits. On a roll of 2-5 the single attack does D3 wounds, on a roll of a 6 the single attack does D6+6 wounds. These wounds, determined by the roll, are then placed inside of the wound pool. We then allocate those wounds to the appropriate model. It is only at this stage that we attempt to save against the wounds from the wounding pool. We aren't saving against the hit but the wounds in the pool. If a 6 was rolled for the D Table then D6+6 wounds are in the wound pool from that single attack and these wounds cannot be saved against so the Model takes the wound.

As the Haemonculus has a nightmare doll and all but D-Scythes have more than double the Haemonculus' Toughness the attack is Instant Death. This means that on a roll of 2-6 the first wound from the wounding pool that isn't/can't be saved against will cause the Doll to activate and remove that wound from the pool. Any remaining wounds in the pool then go through the normal procedure of being saved against or automatically being applied if no saves are allowed against them.

Saves do not negate the To wound roll it negates the wound in the wound pool. If the guy was naked the wound would have hit, the armor/magic/ect intervened to prevent that wound from causing injury. The concept between Feel no Pain is that the individual is able to ignore the injury and keep on fighting as if they were still uninjured. The Doll isn't negating the D Table roll it is negating a single Instant Death wound in the wound pool that would have caused instant death to the Haemonculus, any remaining wounds in the wound pool are still there to kill/injure him.

Lets use a wave pool analogy. The wave pool is a single body of water (that is the D Weapon attack) and creates waves within that body of water (these waves are the D3 or D6+6 wounds). If something stops the first wave from hitting you that wave's effect on you is negated but if there is more than one wave the other waves in the pool still have to be dealt with. You are not stopping the wave pool from creating the waves before they are created, you are only stopping a single wave generated in the pool and if there is more than one you have to deal with the remainder.

Great explanation Curst .

@CurstAlchemist: Well reasoned, but wrong. I know for a fact that the authors intended it to work just like the 'Multiple Wounds' special rule in Warhammer Fantasy, i.e., a single save (if possible) completely negates all wounds from a single attack. In concrete visual terms, if you have some protection that can save you from a D-Strength explosion (for example), it will either save you from the blast or not, but it can't save you from just a fraction of the explosion, as if explosions could be divvied up! The whiskey flask stops the whole bullet, or it doesn't.

And since you are almost certain to ask, 'How do you know this for a fact? Where is your evidence? Do you have secret knowledge?' Why yes, as a matter of fact I do: God Herself came down from Heaven just to tell me. And yes, I did take pictures, but no, you can't see them, so there.

Much of the No argument here is based on stuff that isn't in the rules. Myself I can see it going either way if it was FAQ'd.

Barking Agatha: in my opinion that’s the best argument I’ve heard against my position on this thread. I agree that D-weapons are supposed to work like that, I even believe that they practically work that way 99.9% of the time. My only issue is with the doll as it negates the first wound and because the D-weapon rules say you save against the hit (not the wound) the doll can not kick in until the D3 (or 6+D6) wounds are rolled.

Please do not say that you never save against a hits, we save against glancing and penetrating hits all the time, personally I cannot see the difference between a glancing / penetrating hit and a hit that causes D3 wounds.

This is where I see the problem, it’s the little sentence that tells you to save against the hit, this sentence is doing a lot of work, it’s allowing a single save (after rolling on the D-Table) for the D3 wounds and D3 hull points. It works, just about, as the result for none vehicles say the model suffers a HIT that wounds automatically and causes D3 wounds instead of one.

I fully appreciate it’s supposed to work the way that you says it does, but being pedantic and from a purely RAW stand point the doll can not kick in as you save the hit and not the wound. There are no wounds until you roll the D3 (or 6+D6). Please feel free to think that I’m a Dick, there’s a good reason for that, that’s because I am.

You are putting words where there are none Der-al...

You never save against hits when it comes to models with wounds - we are even told that the hit auto wounds.

The hit reference in the D weapon rules continues on to say saves may be taken as normal... how do you normally take saves? against wounds that have been allocated. You have given no method of allocating how to take the saves against hits - because there is no way to do it.

The multiplier only happens when you LOSE wounds - its in the d weapon rules. LOSE - not suffer - LOSE

When do you lose wounds? after being allocated a wound and failing a save. When does the NMD kick in - when you suffer an unsaved wound that inflicts ID...

I just don't get how there is such confusion about this...

der-al wrote:

Barking Agatha: in my opinion that’s the best argument I’ve heard against my position on this thread. I agree that D-weapons are supposed to work like that, I even believe that they practically work that way 99.9% of the time. My only issue is with the doll as it negates the first wound and because the D-weapon rules say you save against the hit (not the wound) the doll can not kick in until the D3 (or 6+D6) wounds are rolled.

I honestly don't know, but if it were up to me I'd let the Nightmare Doll negate the whole thing, on the principle of being generous. I mean, so what? What is the Haemonculus going to do then? 'Aha! The power of my doll has saved me from your D-Strength attack! Now I shall slap you with my scissorhand. Slap! Slap!' It's supposed to be a powerful relic, and you only get one, so in doubt, why not? Dark Eldar are underpowered enough as it is.

der-al wrote:

Please feel free to think that I’m a Dick, there’s a good reason for that, that’s because I am.

       

Aw, no!

Massaen: could you give me a simple yes or no answer to the following two questions, please?

Does the D-Weapon USR state;

BRB, Appendix, Special Rules Destroyer Weapons entry pg163 second column, 5th sentence wrote:

Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against hits from a destroyer weapon as normal, unless a devastating Hit or Deathblow result is rolled.

And

Does the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table state,

Destroyer Weapon Attack Table, third column, third row BRB, Appendix pg163 and Reference Section pg 200 wrote:

Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 wounds instead of 1.

If the answer to either of these questions is no I would be interested if you could tell me whether you are referencing a hard paper copy or digital e version of the rules.

If the answer is yes to both of these two questions could I politely request that you stop insisting that I’m “putting words were there are none”.

the allocation of wounds is the best argument against my point of veiw. However I see no problem with allocating the D3 wounds from the hit and then saving against the hit as per the USR.  

with regards to losing wounds rather than suffering a wound it's not self evident (to me) what your trying to get at here, and would like to know what you are trying to put across? but if you're saying that you can ignore the "instead of" in: loses D3 wounds INSTEAD OF 1, then i personally cannot see it. you do suffer the hit that causes D3 wounds instead of 1 after all.   

However, I'm willing and even sympathetic to the idea that such a RAW perspective is not necessarily the correct way to go. I'm nothing if not pragmatic, but I take offence at being told that I'm "making things up"  

Barking Agatha: I completely agree with you, I would let an opponent play it that way, but as I’m the only Dark Eldar player in my gaming group, the more relevant point of view is I would also NEVER suggest that the doll should be played that way. We’ve got to give our opponents a fighting chance after all, everyone in my gaming group complains about the strength of the Dark Eldar codex (BTW the last bit is NOT tongue in cheek)

Also how do you know my names not Richard?

der-al wrote:

Barking Agatha: I completely agree with you, I would let an opponent play it that way, but as I’m the only Dark Eldar player in my gaming group, the more relevant point of view is I would also NEVER suggest that the doll should be played that way. We’ve got to give our opponents a fighting chance, everyone in my gaming group complains about the strength of the Dark Eldar codex (BTW the last bit is NOT tongue in cheek)

Also how do you know my names not Richard?

Because I have a friend named Richard, and you're not him. Logic!

And that last bit demands some explanation. I would dearly like to hear what it is about Dark Eldar that they find so overwhelming!

Wait... do they all play Tyranids?

Truthfully if I had a destroy weapon model while fighting against an opponent that was using a Haemunculus with the doll who said that the doll negated all of the wounds, I would just let it play out like that. It isn't important enough to stand around arguing about especially as a FAQ is needed to confirm exactly how it was intended to work.

However, if I was the Dark Eldar Player fielding the Haemunculus with a doll I would play it as I stated above. Again not worth the headache and it has been my experience, with the group I play with, that players that insist on using D Weapon models (against my Dark Eldar) in a normal game that is supposed to be fun usually want to abuse their opponent instead of playing a decent game anyway.

I should note that I don't play competitively.

@Barking Agatha, you mean there's someone else out there called Richard thats not me! I need pictures or I won't belive you

I ask my self that all the time, but i regularly play against, Gay Knights, chaos marines, daemons (and now Daemon kin which is a lot better than the interweb would have you belive, fearless hound spam FFS), tau, Blood Angels (soon to be red ultramarines ) and even some poor sods playing Orks and Dark Angels. so no necrons or space elf monks.

oh and the marine players field IK, I can not belive that i forgot about them

@ CirstAlchemist: well said and i couldn't agree more