D vs Nightmare Doll

So in that case - surely the doll works as you have only got a single unsaved wound?

As a side note it looks like we agree on how D weapons work (save once before multiplying the wounds) - it's just how it interacts with the doll we are not on the same page

I would like to summarize here. All hits cause wounds. Wounds are what we save, not hits. D weapons are not an exemption from this, because we are not explcitly told that they ignore the usual process whereby hits cause wounds = saves. The term hit is used here because D weapons use a different 'to wound' chart, which has the potential to wound automatically regardless of toughness and generate mutliple wounds. The hit terminology is used because D-weapons do two things that normal weapons don't: wound regardless of toughness and cause multiple wounds. This where the exemption from normal rules for D is. They do not give D weapons an exemption from following the usual wound allocation process. This would need to be more explicit if it was the case.

The hit thing is a leftover rule from an older (6th?) edition of fantasy where magic weapon 'hits' were what you saved, not wounds (not sure if its still worded the same way in the current one), however the rules for allocation from this 40k edition are dramaitcally different from that edition of fantasy and nowhere does it say D bypasses the general rules for allocation.

There would be other situations where this would cause problems. Example = D-Scythes. Following hits = wounds logic: a D-Scythe is dropped on a unit. Where do the hits come from? The guys under the template or the the nearest model? Cause following hits = wounds logic, its either the guys under the template, not the closest model, or ALL D hits taken by the closest model. This breaks the rules for allocation, D usr doesnt give you an exemption from that. RAW the Doll can work on D, you can also argue that it doesnt but the argument requires more referencing stuff that isnt in the current ruleset (fantasy weapon analogy), though I can see merits in both arguments. RAI if someone argued it with me I would have no problem ignoring the Doll in the D case if someone felt strongly enough about it.

Btw (not trying to be faceitous) but I wonder how many of the DE players arguing against the D Doll have Eldar allies .

Sulmo wrote:

Btw (not trying to be faceitous) but I wonder how many of the DE players arguing against the D Doll have Eldar allies .

If you are suggesting DE players that are not agreeing with you dont want the doll to work because they have Eldar allies then you are completely wrong. Most arguments around here are about whats wrong or right and most often side with hindering my most loved and army. Personally I come here because I feel I will most likely get truth to the rules that way I am not pissing anyone off or coming across as a lair at the game shops I go to.

Sulmo I’d like to point out the following:

Not all hits cause wounds.

Saves are not always made against wounds  

Sulmo wrote:

D weapons are not an exemption from this, because we are not explicitly told that they ignore the usual process whereby hits cause wounds = saves.

This is where I completely disagree with you, I believe if you read the D weapon USR then you will find that it explicitly tells you that D-weapons hits do not cause wounds (in the normal context) and furthermore it also explicitly says that you do not save against the wound.

The D Weapon USR states that you do not roll to wound but instead roll on the d-table, rolling on the D-table is NOT the same as rolling to wound you are explicitly told that you roll on the d-Table INSTEAD of rolling to wound.

The results of the D-Table refers to HITS that cause x number of wounds

The D weapon USR also clearly states that you make available saves against hits, this if AFTER the USR tells you to roll on the D-Table. The USR NEVER states that you make available saves against wounds.

Therefore I think you are wrong and the D-Weapon USR explicitly tells you what to do and that NO wounds are caused until the effect of the D-Table is resolved ergo the Doll (which negates the first unsaved ID wound) cannot kick in until a wound with ID is created.

I’d like to say that I have been known to play Eldar, however I jumped ship with the Eldar 3 months after the 6th edition codex came out as I found it boring tabling my opponent by end of turn 4 (BTW I only own two wave serpents). I’ve not used the 7th edition eldar codex, and I’m unlikely to…..however, as I’m the only person I know who uses dark eldar, even IF (and it’s a big IF) I do use Eldar then the chances that I’ll face anyone with the nightmare doll is zero.

Shadowseer: thank you I couldn’t agree more, I’m lurking here a lot and rarely post, generally because I generally agree with what most people say and or have nothing relevant to contribute. I come here a lot as I respect this forum and its members over all others.  

I apologise if I seem like I’m arguing this from a RAW stand point, but as far as I’m concerned RAW is the only logical/fair way to play, because of that I allow FMC that are not swooping to jink FFS.

RAI is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

So, i prefaced the last post saying I wasn't trying to be facetious, not trying to get on anyone's bad side.

On the hits versus wounds point I think der-al that you are skipping a step in equating hits with wounds. This is what I was trying to say, and you seem to say the exact same thing in your own post. The D-Scythe example was given to say what the logical extension of equating wounds with hits results in: an absurd situation. By skipping the step between hits translating to wounds and being allocated in the normal way, you are in fact skipping a step in the normal order and using D in a way that bypasses the wound and wound allocation part of resolving the attack.

Just because D replaces the to wound chart with its own chart doesnt mean you can ignore this part of it, because other processes (such as allocation) are tied to our understanding of the to-wound part of the attack.

Also RAW a flyrant can jink because jink is part of his special rules, flying or not. There is no issue with RAW there. RAW here would seem to side with D being ignored by the Doll, assuming we follow the usual rules for resolving a shooting (or hth) attack, if we dont follow those rules then we end up with the D-Scythe paradox i mentioned before. I also realise that the D-Scythe example may be faceitous in itself and that we may have the same argument on the wounds = hits thing, but that we are arguing from opposite points of view. Also this seems to be getting overly complicated...

Sulmo, as far as I’m aware, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t facetious mean tongue in cheek or flippant? Saying you’re not trying to be facetious and then going on to imply that the only reason to argue against your point is for a personal advantage, is interesting to say the least. I just hope you meant to say “I’m just being facetious but I wonder how many of the DE players arguing against the D doll have eldar allies” If so I apologise.

Sulmo I would also like to know which step I’m skipping in equating hits with wounds? I’ve tried to point out that there are two distinct hits in my argument the first hit is as per normal, a positive result of a roll to hit. the second HIT I’m referring to is the result of rolling on the D-Table were you either get a seriously wounded or deathblow result which results in a HIT that causes x number of wounds. I’ve tried to point out that the first hit (from rolling to hit) is not the same as the second seriously wound / deathblow HIT. However, I can see that it does not matter how many times I point this out it’s always going to be at the centre of your argument against me and so I’ll stop using this phraseology. Although I do think that it’s very important when it comes to saves, but I’ll get back to that.

I understand your argument, I really do, however It’s my belief that as you do not roll to wound with a D-weapon but rather roll on the D-Table and get either a Lucky Escape, Seriously Wounded (SW) or Deathblow (DB) result, none of which are wounds. The SW or DB results wound automatically but that does not mean that they are wounds, in fact I strongly believe that they are NOT wounds. They do, however cause x number of wounds to a model. Ergo the doll only works for the first of the resultant x number of wounds.  

Now I guessing you’re going to say that if they are not wounds then how can you make a save against them? I’ll tell you, the fourth sentence in the D-weapon USR states that cover and invulnerable saves can be made against hits (this is where I think the second HIT i.e. the Seriously Wounded or Deathblow HITs comes in and why it is important) this allows cover and invulnerable saves against Seriously Wounded results. But please I implore you to re-read the D-Weapon USR carefully.

To put it another way why do you only make one save against D3 wounds? Normally each wound requires a separate save. The reason for one save against D3 wounds is because the USR states you save against hits. Now the reason why I believe that these SW / DB HITS are different to hits from the rolling to hit, is because when you make your saves, you save against the number of Seriously Wounded results and not the total number of hits. (They really should have used a different word for the second HIT).  

Also saying that the SW / DB results need to be wounds to follow allocation rules is, in my opinion neither here nor there. The SW / DB result causes a single model to be allocated x-number of wounds, this is where wound allocation comes in, when you allocate the resultant wounds. This is also why you save against hits and not wounds.

As a point of interest, the reason why I’m arguing so strongly for this is due to the amount of times I’ve had to argue that you only take saves against the Seriously Wounded result and NOT the resulting D3 wounds. I’ve played far too many games against LOW and IK.

However I've resigned myself to having to agree to disagree.

I take your point about hits and yes I did mean the facetious bit as a joke, not seriously. The only reason 'hits' casuses a problem for me is that it as you put it, it is telling you to save against hits not wounds, introducing a complication in what you save, because up to that point we are used to dealing with wounds (not hits) to save against. This may be confusing wording in the rule, but I'm sure it will lead to other confusions in how D works and not just with the Doll.

The D-Scythe analogy may have been a brain fart on my part.

Sulmo wrote:

The D-Scythe analogy may have been a brain fart on my part.

Quote :

The results of the D-Table refers to HITS that cause x number of wounds

No.

Quote :

Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically

The result of the hit causes a wound which multiplies.
You are not skipping the to wound you just succeed automatically.

I'm just going to interject to answer an earlier question.

You would make saves based on number of Wounds taken.
If a 2-5 result does d3 wounds, you take THAT many saves, not one.
You roll to hit, then instead of the roll to wound you roll on the D chart. The D chart tells you how many wounds are done, these are then allocated (to one model only) and are defended against.

I tried asking my club about this question as well, as the last thing I want is to be doing it wrong, and not one of them agrees with you guys. THey were ALL on the side that you defend against number of wounds taken, and the number of wounds taken is d3 or d6+6.

@Klaivex Charondyr: Could you do me a favour? Could you quote me the full text from the Seriously Wounded result of the D-Table please? I only ask as I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt as your location (Latvia) indicates that you may not have an English version of the rule book.

Notwithstanding the above, and without the rule book with me, the Seriously Wounded result on the D-table reads something like:

Seriously Wounded: The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically regardless of toughness and causes D3 wounds instead of 1.

It is my belief that rolling a 2+ on the D-table upgrades / converts a hit (from rolling to hit) to a HIT that wounds automatically but causes x number of wounds. A hit that wounds automatically and causes x number of wounds is NOT a wound as wounding automatically is not a wound. There are NO wounds until you roll the D3 (or D6 for Death blows).

Furthermore, the fourth sentence of the D-Weapon USR states that you take saves against hits and not wounds and therefore following the actual words used in the USR you are NOT saving a wound.

@Squidmaster: I recommend that you read carefully the D-Weapon USR, taking particular care over the fourth sentence, and then point this out at your gaming club. Hopefully, this should be enough to convince your gaming club that you save hits and not wounds with D-Weapons. (BTW by saving hits I mean saving the resulting seriously wounded HIT from rolling on the D-Table and not the successful hit from rolling to hit)

Part of me wishes they had called the upgraded HIT something else such as a sneeze or something

The fourth sentence: "Most Destroyer Weapons have AP1 or AP2, so armour saves are not typically allowed."
How is that relevant?

And D Weapons make NO distinction between their kind of Hit and any other kind of Hit.
Saves are ALWAYS made against Wounds taken. There is no rule which says D Weapons are otherwise.

You still saves wounds - they are just generated automatically from the hit - its the same as saving vs hits but then allows you to complete the sequence.

The shooting phase is...

1. Nominate a unit to shoot
2. Choose a target
3. Select a weapon
4. Roll to hit
5. Roll to wound
6. Allocate wounds & remove casualties

So, a unit with D weapons (like a wraith knight) is picked to fire (1). It nominates a unit (2) of grotesques as the target. It elects to fire both wraith cannons (3). It rolls to hit (4) and gets a 3 and a 5 - 2 hits by the BS chart.

NOW...
(5) is replaced with 2 rolls on the D chart. a 3 and a 6 are rolled resulting in 2 automatic wounds in 2 separate wound pools as they have different effects (exactly like having a rending vs non rending hit). This pool process is in the to wound section of the BRB. It is very clear that special rules separate into different pools.

(6) tells us to allocate wounds from the pools in an order by the firing player but each pool must be emptied before the next is started.

At this stage the closest Grot is selected and the 3 wound pool is selected. The target is now allowed a save vs the wound (with Ap2 its failed). We are now told to reduce the models wounds by 1... but wait! The D chart said that "the models suffer a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 wounds instead of 1". We now roll a D3 and get a 2 - not enough to kill the grot.

The second pool of the 6 result is now allocated to the closest (now wounded) grot. Again the target would normally be allowed a save but Deathblow says "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to loose D6+6 wounds instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit." so the Grot now takes D6+6 wounds and dies horribly but because the wound is already allocated, these over kill wounds which are being applied don't spill over (confirmed in the FAQ).

I hope this clears it up - You NEVER allocate more wounds than hits and you save against wounds allocated. Its only when you apply the wounds AFTER saves that you are told the model loses X instead of 1 wounds.

Now... the nightmare doll says - "The bearer of the NMD adds 1 to any FNP rolls he makes. Furthermore, the NMD automatically negates the first UNSAVED wound with the ID special rule that the bearer suffers, although as soon as it does so, the NMD will immediately cease to work for the rest of the battle.

So in the above sequence, We are hit, automatically wounded, the wounds are pooled and then allocated. As D weapons count as S10 it will inflict ID on the haemy. He suffers an unsaved wound. The doll breaks as he has suffered an unsaved wound and as such the wound is negated. You never get to the lose dX wounds as the wound has been negated.

Does that make sense now? I have only just got all my books together along with a keyboard - no way was I trying this on my phone!

@Squidmaster sorry if i miss counted but I believe the next sentence states:

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

Still irrelevant as you need wounds to complete the shooting sequence. And D weapons wound automatically

der-al wrote:

@Squidmaster sorry if i miss counted but I believe the next sentence states:

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

Ah, I see what you're getting at.

As I see it though, thats just the confusion of the multiple different ways the word Hit is used.
The problem I see is that the Doll doesn;t care about Hits, because as I;ve said its not a Save.
The Doll only cares about the WOUNDS.
The Nightmare Doll negates the first WOUND you take. The fact that its unsaved is fairly irrelevant, as there is no difference between an unsaved wound and a wound from which you get no save.
The D weapon inflicts a number of Wounds as part of its chart roll which takes place instead of the To Wound roll.
These Wounds are then allocated to a single model, at which point they may try to defend themselves from those total number of Wounds in the Wound Pool by whatever means he has at his disposal.
To be frank, when it comes to the Doll, HITS are irrelevant. Only WOUNDS INFLICTED have any bearing on how the Doll works, and D weapons clearly cause multiple Wounds by the time we get to the phase where the Doll could be used.

The D weapon may wound automatically, but its d3 or d6+6 wounds that go into the Wound Pool.

No it's not. The dX only takes effect when a model loses the wound which happens after saves and is thus after the wound pools.

Quote :

@Klaivex Charondyr: Could you do me a favour? Could you quote me the full text from the Seriously Wounded result of the D-Table please?

Why? I quoted the important part. No need to give a full quote as you just kept ignoring the auto wound part of the table. And this wound (if unsaved) will multipy.

Massaen wrote:

No it's not. The dX only takes effect when a model loses the wound which happens after saves and is thus after the wound pools.

You know what, I think we've hit exactly where the problem is.
I really can see both sides of the argument here, but am definitely more on the side that the dX comes into play BEFORE saves, and fill wound pool, not afterwards as you put it.
Its the exact placement of the dX roll that is the problem, and I don't think we're any closer to reaching an agreement on this.

Oh, if only GW actually responded to FAQ emails.....

I think you're overthinking it.

Squidmaster wrote:

Massaen wrote:

No it's not. The dX only takes effect when a model loses the wound which happens after saves and is thus after the wound pools.

You know what, I think we've hit exactly where the problem is.
I really can see both sides of the argument here, but am definitely more on the side that the dX comes into play BEFORE saves, and fill wound pool, not afterwards as you put it.
Its the exact placement of the dX roll that is the problem, and I don't think we're any closer to reaching an agreement on this.

Oh, if only GW actually responded to FAQ emails.....

The D chart says that "the models suffer a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to lose D3 wounds instead of 1". while Deathblow says "The model suffers a hit that wounds automatically and causes it to loose D6+6 wounds instead of 1. No saves of any kind are allowed against this hit."

When do we lose wounds? AFTER saves - not before. As such, the dX has to come up after saves

In summary I think that Sqidmaster and I agree that there are no wounds until you resolve the D-table result and therefore the Doll only works against the first wound. However We disagree on when you take the save, I say before you resolve the D-table result and Squidmaster says after.

Were as Massaen and I agree that you take the save before you resolve the D-table result but disagree with the 'wound'/hit that gets multiplied to x number of wounds.

Firstly Squidmaster the D-weapon USR tells you to roll to save and then tells you to roll for the number of wounds. Therefore, I think that you roll the save (against a Seriously Wounded hit) before you resolve the D-Table result.

The main problem / reason for confusion I believe are that D-Weapons do not follow the normal rules. I do not say this likely, the USR explicitly tells you NOT to follow the normal rules.

The problem is you are explicitly told to not follow a process that is so fundamental and universal to the game, and you are told to replace it with something that is 90% the same as the fundamental process. Therefore the thinking of the rule slips back to the fundamental process and not what the USR is telling you to do.

I understand that in the normal chain of events is you roll to wound, roll to save, allocate any unsaved wounds. I get that, I really do. I’ve being playing this game since the mess that was 2nd edition (you needed a postmans bag to carry around all the WD with separate rules ect.)

However, the D-weapon USR tells you NOT to follow normal process.

Firstly it tells you to roll on the D-Table INSTEAD of rolling to wound (therefore you do not roll to wound as normal)

Secondly the result of rolling to wound says that a model suffers a hit that wounds automatically…….. now I contended that suffering a hit that wounds automatically is NOT a wound, I could see an argument for this if it wasn’t for the next part of the USR.

Thirdly you are explicitly told to save against the HIT, this is why I think that suffering a hit that wounds automatically is NOT a wound.

Fourthly you are then told to roll the resulting number of wounds.

Therefore the USR explicitly tells you:

NOT to roll to wound

But tells you TO save against a ‘hit’ i.e. you do not save against a wound.

Saving vs the hit is exactly the same as saving vs the automatic wound inflicted by the hit

Massaen, I agree, saving vs the hit is the same as saving vs hit that wound automatically. but i where i disagree is that this hit is not actually a wound untill you roll the D3 as you are told to save against the hit and not a wound.