D vs Nightmare Doll

Sulmo wrote:

If anyone had a problem with it I'd happily roll for it (4+ it works, 1-3 it doesn't) in a game.

I suspect if I ever tried this on a non DE player Id be called a cheater shortly before being tarred and feathered.

I can see why people are saying the doll negates all the wound from a solid hit or devastating hit as that is the normal way wounds are allocated and saved. However, D weapons works as follows:

Roll to hit as normal

For each hit roll on the D table

1=lucky escape
2-5= solid HIT (or seriously wounded)
6= Devastating HIT (or Deathblow)

You then take any available saves (generally cover or invun) against the HIT (be it a solid hit or a devastating hit).

Any unsaved HITs are then resolved (D3 or D6+6 wounds / HP)

As you do not take any available save against a ‘the original wound’ but rather against the unsaved HIT, the Doll only works for the first resultant wound of either the D3 or D6+6.

Quote :

“Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against the HITs from a destroyer weapon as normal unless……..”

It used to annoy me when people tried to force me to take saves against the D3 wounds rather than the unsaved HIT……..

Being able to discount a deathblow is still pretty irrelevant over the course of a game. Also, you save wounds not hits, as pointed out in the previous post. The D roll is in place of a to wound roll; the hit causes a an automatic wound which then has the multiplier applied after a save, otherwise D circumvents the usual rules for wound allocation.

Also I doubt a Dark Eldar player can be accused of cheating in this case; its no worse than the guy from the last eldar book who used to claim that an eldar independent character with the mantle of the laughing god could be joined by other independent characters as long as he didn't join them.

Sulmo wrote:

Also I doubt a Dark Eldar player can be accused of cheating in this case; its no worse than the guy from the last eldar book who used to claim that an eldar independent character with the mantle of the laughing god could be joined by other independent characters as long as he didn't join them.  

...who would rightly be tarred and feathered. As would the guy who gets his Land Raider stripped of Hull Points and then tries to claim his terminators can get out and then Charge during his opponent's turn (because that's what the assault vehicle rules say).

Man, I've got to start bring feathers and tar with me to the store where I play. Not that these things happen there, but if they did, I'd be woefully unprepared.

I had someone threaten to stab me once after a game where I fielded a Buffmander with a group of plasma cannon devastators.

The model suffers so many wounds on the D chart. I say the doll wouldnt prevent someone from suffering D3-D6 wounds.

der-al wrote:

I can see why people are saying the doll negates all the wound from a solid hit or devastating hit as that is the normal way wounds are allocated and saved. However, D weapons works as follows:

Roll to hit as normal

For each hit roll on the D table

1=lucky escape
2-5= solid HIT (or seriously wounded)
6= Devastating HIT (or Deathblow)

You then take any available saves (generally cover or invun) against the HIT (be it a solid hit or a devastating hit).

Any unsaved HITs are then resolved (D3 or D6+6 wounds / HP)  

As you do not take any available save against a ‘the original wound’ but rather against the unsaved HIT, the Doll only works for the first resultant wound of either the D3 or D6+6.

Quote :

“Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against the HITs from a destroyer weapon as normal unless……..”

It used to annoy me when people tried to force me to take saves against the D3 wounds rather than the unsaved HIT……..

You are close...

You save against wounds. D weapons very clearly wound - they just do it automatically on results of 2-6 on the chart.

Its only when you come to apply the wounds after saves that they multiply out. So the doll will work against an unsaved D wound and negate the whole affect on the model.

Look at it this way.... a S10 hit that successfully wounds and then the target fails it save on a model with the nightmare doll has the wound and its effects (ID) negated before they are applied. A D weapon hit is the same thing.

The rules never say that, though. The timing of the wound multiplication is ambiguous. The fact that they needed to tell us in the FAQ that excess wounds don't spill out into the squad confirms the ambiguity. (Swarms DO multiply wounds on application, like people are saying D does, but no such FAQ was needed for them.)

I understand that saves are generally applied to wounds (or glancing / penetrating hits) and I think this is the reason for the confusion. However, I implore you to carefully reread the rules for D weapons (Pg 163 second column) in particular the fourth sentence which reads “Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against HITS from a destroyer weapon as normal, unless a devastating hit or………” the rules very clearly state that you save against the HIT.

Now the problem here is a poorly written rule (what a surprise), in particular the use of the word HIT. Reading the full USR on D-weapons carefully states that the saves are taken after the roll on the D table and reading the D-Table effects shows that 2-5 causes a solid HIT and 6 causes a Devastating HIT. (we’ll just have to skip over the fact that for non-vehicles these are called something else…… and just put it down to poor writing….)

Therefore (and this is just my opinion) the rules should have been written thus:
“Cover saves and invulnerable saves can be taken against solid HITS from a destroyer weapon as normal.” With the D table labelling 2-5 as a solid hit for both vehicles and non-vehicles.

So no, by the wording of the rules you save the hit and not a wound (as you would normally). And by hit I do not mean the initial roll to hit but rather the solid HIT and therefore the doll only works for the first of the D3 wounds caused by the solid hit.    

GW I hate you…….

You are forgetting one important thing.

The Nightmare Doll does not save or negate a HIT. It negates the first WOUND.
It specifically says the first UNSAVED WOUND.
So if it does multiple wounds, for whatever reason, its the first of these WOUNDS which is negated.
The Nightmare Doll is not a SAVE, it is a modifier to the WOUNDS CAUSED.

Squidmaster, thank you that was the point I was trying to make.

As the roll on the D-table causes a Seriously Wounded result (2-5) or Deathblow result (6) the doll cannot negate this as they are not wounds, but rather the doll negates the first of the resultant wounds caused by the D-Table result.

Also I’d like to take back some of what I said regarding the poorly written rule. As the Seriously Wounded result and Deathblow result clearly states that “the model suffers a HIT that causes it to loose x number of wounds” this is the HIT that you are allowed to save against in the rules. Therefore as you are clearly saving against a HIT and not a wound, the Doll most definitely does not cancel out the “wound before it is multiplied” as suggested above as it does not cause a “wound” but rather causes a HIT that causes x number of wounds.

A possibly very naïve question coming from a very confused bystander, but couldn't it be that you guys are confusing the "wound" as in "roll to wound" (1) with "wound" as in "this model has/loses/gains x wounds (in its profile)" (2)?

The way I see it, you roll to hit with a D weapon. You then roll on the D table instead of wounding (1), then causing D3/D6 wounds (2) on the model. This is to show how utterly devastating that one, single wounding (1) is and how the one, single wounded (1) model is very much expected to die from it, no matter its size and might. You can only ever lose that one, single wounded (1) model from this one, single D attack, even if you cause more wounds (2) than the target has in its profile.

Now, the Nightmare Doll prevents the first Instant Death wound that the bearer suffers and I imagine all this confusion is coming from the fact that we don't know for certain if said wound is (1) or (2), correct? Wouldn't it only be logical, though, to assume it was (1), as the multiple wounds (2) of the D attack are only there to imply lethality? Don't the D3/D6 wounds of a D attack basically mean "Instant Death", which the Doll negates? I'd like to think of the D attack ruling as a cumbersome "Heroic Killing Blow" for 40k, but maybe that's just me.

As a colourful example: imagine a super energy shield that stops any single thing that touches it from passing through, but then seizes to work immediately afterwards. Now we have three scenarios: A - we shoot a pistol at it. B - we shoot a tank cannon at it. C - we keep firing a machine gun at it. In A, the target behind the shield is unharmed: the bullet simply vaporizes at the touch of the barrier. In B, the impact and detonation of the shell would have invariably caused significantly more damage to the unprotected target, but the target remains unharmed, too, as the tank cannon shell is neutralized, it being a single thing touching the shield. In C, however, the first bullet of the burst is neutralized, while every other shot coming after goes through, riddling the target with hits and probably killing it.

Now assume the energy shield to be the Nightmare Doll, A to be any Instant Death single-shot weapon in 40k, B to be any single-shot D weapon and C to be any multi-shot weapon in 40k.

What do you think?

Kinnay, I can see your point regarding the confusion over wounds etc. however the rule for the doll states that it negates the first unsaved wound with ID, and not the first unsaved roll to wound with ID. To me it’s clear, that it negates the first unsaved wound and not the roll to wound.

Put it this way, rolling on the D-table is NOT rolling to wound you do it INSTEAD of rolling to wound. If a 2+ is rolled the out come is a HIT that causes x number of wounds. It is this HIT that you save against (if possible). There are NO wounds until the Seriously Wounded or Deathblow HIT is resolved.

Do not get me wrong I would prefer it to be the other way round, but I find it too much of a stretch with the rule as written. If others are willing to argue for it then that is up to them but personally I would never try it.

BTW I really liked your colourful analogy

But there are wounds on the D table - read it - it very clearly says it wounds automatically. The only difference is that it applies more damage than 1.

I sometimes wonder if we see this one clearly. We are, after all, Dark Eldar players, so we have a dog in this race. I hope it won't offend anyone if I post this question to a neutral site.

Massaen, you are quite right there are wounds in the D-Table, the full quote reads:

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

So the model suffers a HIT which wounds automatically, the fourth sentence in the D weapon USR states that cover and invulnerable saves can be taken against HITS. As the Doll only allows you to disregard the first UNSAVED WOUND with ID, the only wound that is disregarded is the first wound of the D3 (or D6+6)

You are over ephisising hit here. You get to save against any hit you take - so long as it wounds.

The fact you are wounded means you can follow the normal resolution process (hit, wound, save, remove). Otherwise, the system breaks as you are not told how to save vs hits.

I really think we're letting the idea of SAVES push us away from the original question and confuse matters.
The original question was on how the Nightmare DOll works, and the Nightmare Doll is not a save. It applies only to the unsaved wounds the model takes. If a D weapon causes d3 or d6+6 wounds to be taken, it is the FIRST of these which is negated. I see the question being argued here as "how many unsaved wounds are actually taken"? And I think its pretty clear that wounds taken is the same as wounds inflicted, and a D weapon inflicts either d3 or d6+6 wounds.



(I'll briefly note for @Jimsolo that I was intrigued to get some other opinions, so have posted this same question to another forum (TWF). Few responses so far, but the two people who have chimed in definitely fall on the side of the Doll negating the first of the d3 or d6+6, but you still take the rest)

But a single roll on the d weapon table only EVER causes a single wound to be saved. It's AFTER the failed save you multiply it out to apply the wounds on the models profile.

The doll stops a single unsaved wound...

See, thats where the disagreement comes in.,
As I see and read it, it does d3 or d6+6 wounds. Just because the attack wounds automatically, that doesn't mean it only wounds ONCE.
I guess this really is down to poor wording on both the part of the D chart and the Doll.
I think we may at some point have to agree to disagree, otherwise this is going to go back and forth forever Until S8nigger* an "FAQ" *chuckle* comes out *rolls eyes as if to think it'll never happen*.

Massaen, I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you, you are right that normally you roll to hit roll to wound and then take any saves. However the D-weapon USR clearly states that:

Roll to hit as normal

Instead of rolling to wound roll on the D- table

(The D-table has two positive results (Seriously Wounded and Deathblow) both of these cause HITS that result in X number of wounds.)

Take any available saves against Seriously Wounded HITS

Resolve any unsaved seriously wounded HITs

I’ve tried to differentiate between a hit (from rolling to hit) and a Seriously Wounded / Death blow result that causes a HIT that results in X number of wounds, by capitalising the second HIT, as I honestly think that these are two different distinct things.

You can say that I’m reading too much in to the word HIT, but as it is actually consistent throughout the D weapons USR rule, I would beg to differ. However, GW should have used a different word to stop confusion, but following the whole context of the D weapon USR and D table I’m 99% sure that this is the way D Weapons work.

In fact if you can ONLY save against wounds then do you not have to save against the resulting D3 wounds rather than the seriously wounded HIT?

Also as I’ve gone off topic (I would like to think justifiably) and have ended up explaining how I think D-Weapons to work, I would like to apologise.

Sorry

and Squidmaster I completely agree with you, and your explanation is much more succinct than my own. However, I'm trying to show that a roll on the D-Table does not cause a single wound that can be saved.....

but I'm happy to agree to disagree with Massaen etal

Fair enough then

Out of interest - ignoring the doll for a second - how many saves would you take on a 2-5 result on the D table? 1 or D3?

One