This might sound like a silly question, but there is a party of lawyers on Asrai who are convinced that dragontooths work whether you pass your save or not because you have still technically "been wounded", even though it has been saved.

According to them the entire gaming world agrees with them, I just want to see if thats true.

Well, I think that if you pass the Armour or the Ward Save you're not tecnically wounded... So you woudn't suffer from stupidity. Think on the ward save like an aura that makes the weapon impossible to pass into the skin (and the same goes for the Armour Save, but in this case the aura is a metallic aura xD). So there is no weapon that touches your body, in order to inflict any wound.

But the case is different with regeneration. A mini that tries to regenerate a wound has already that wound... So in this particular case I'd say that the mini DOES suffer from stupidity.

(So, I will not vote for any of the options... I'm rare,. I know xDD).

What do you think?

With regard to regen

Fluffilogically, and from a 6th Ed perspective I'd agree with you 100%, you might even manage to make it stick in 7th but Regen is described as working "exactly like a ward save", so I'm not sure how the exact technicalities work...

Well technicly (If you only look at how the rules are written) then yes they are correct. I'll find the qoutes if you so wish. Yet I still voted that they have to fail saves first. Why? Because as Xsathras stated above the poisen won't acctualy effect you if its stopped by their armour. Hell a dim witted monkey can see the logic in that :p

What I suggest you do is,
a) In a friendly game, hit them with some book, tell them that they should fuck off and start packing your minies.
B) In a turnement, give them the worst sportsmanship raiting possible (Which where made for cases like this :p )
c) On the net..... well.. not much you can do.... Unless it was on this forum in which case I would shout insults at em. I can't stand rule lawyers....

IMHO They have to fail their armour/ward save first. The armour save should technicly happen after the hit is scored to see if the arrow goes through to wound but the way the game is played it happens the other way.

People who try to tell you what a rule is or isn't really rub me the wrong way to start with but when they try to convince you by saying that EVERYBODY agrees with them that just makes me furious. So far we have 3 of the gaming world disagreeing with them.

The way i see this is firstly. To count as a 'wound' you need to minus 1 from your total number of wounds in the profile as THAT is what i interpret a wound.

If its fluff wise they want then you should take all saves before rolling to wound. You hit the opponent but before steel meets flesh (in most cases anyway) you have to hit and penetrate the armour (like leather or metal plate) and then any magical stuff that hides beneath. Then as the strength of the blow actually hits the flesh (failed saves) then you roll to actually wound it depending on how resiliant the character or creature is (toughness). Now the only reason why we do it as 'to hit', 'to wound' and then saves is to make the game more simple and easy to understand so easier to play (so more fun).

If its rules they want then i refer to what i said in the first paragraph that a wound only occurs once you minus 1 from the profile that indicates wounds (W). Thats why single wound creatures like pikemen etc would not be affected by it. Think about it one model gets hits and 'wounded' but throws a 5 for his 5+ save, so saved. If what they say is the case that one model now counts as having stupidity, meaning you will have to make this model independant now as he is different from the others (like a champion would). Which is ludicrus as that would make the game abit more complicated and so less fun.

The dragontooth arrows were not mean't to be used like they say.

Why would you fire an arrow and hope they make a saving throw? I thought this was war?

4 people now...not exactly everyone eh?

You can guess what i voted. Thats my two pence piece.

SDETT

I don't think a wound counts as a true wound until saves have been made.

I also agree the save must be failed for stupidity to take effect.
There are lots of references in the rules to creatures 'taking a wound' and I can't think of one other instance where people have argued that armour saves aren't required after for it to count.
The regeneration question is a good one though- fluff wise I'd definitely agree with Xsathras, but it's arguable... (and you can justify it fluff wise as the regenerative power repairing the area the poison damages).

Yes, after the explanation given by Spiney Norman,

, I have to agree and vote for the first option.

You're right Geep, you also could think about the regeneration as such a powerful ability that it could be able to cure the wound before the posion (or any additional effect) can even act. In the gaming perspective I think we must read the rules, and as it has been stated to be like a ward save, then no discussion... But I don't mind to accept the "fluffy version" of this rule. It makes sense completely!

seems like a total white wash on this one. Everybody is voting option 1 so far. And thats why I would never join asrai. Not that I've been there to see what its really like but I don't need to coz you guys are the bestestest :happy:

so true, I was a member of asrai before I heard of this place, but there seems to be a better atmosphere here, even if the membership is smaller.

I checked up on the rules and acctualy at least as far as I can see they are wrong. A wounded model is a model who have suffered 1 or more wounds. But if the said model makes his saving throw he do not suffer a wound and so he is not wounded.

If you do as they suggest you would acctualy have to remove models even if they past their armour save as the book states, "For each wound suffered, one model is removed as a kill"

So as you can see, they are obviously wrong. Both rule wise and fluff wise.

Regenerated wounds are also ignored and do not course stupidity. To quote the book page 96. "This rule confers a special regeneration save to the model which work exactly like a 4+ ward save." In other words its a ward save that is taken away by flames, which can be combined with another save and can not be taken away by anti ward save things.

^ agree with all of the above... You are not wounded if it bounces of your shield so how can the poison enter your blood-stream. I don't use this item anyway so it makes little difference to me, I prefer Starfire arrows, it's better for the normal infantry...

Hi Findecano/Spiney Norman, nice to see you on here. Just out of interest, who did you think were the party of rules lawyers that supported this view?

Anyway, just to shed a bit of light on the debate on Asrai.org from an impartial bystander, the issue was rather more over the method of rules interpretation. I rather felt that it was an argument akin to the ones that you get when a hardcore atheist confronts a fundamentalist. Hence, it was completely unresolvable via discussion.

Darkblade is spot on in identifying the issue: bare-reading of the rules, versus a more holistic approach.

I've always found smaller forums to be more open. For example, there's this Warhammer forum I frequent to that has about ten core members that post like crazy. People get to know each other better on smaller forums and that generates rapport.

Personally, I would be inclined to take the view of the majority, or the view of my opponent, when it comes to something like this.

No acctualy I where wrong. As I stated in my last post its not a question if you can or not, the rules on casulties state that a wound done to a 1 wound model mean dead model. And so, save wounds are no longer wounds.

So basicly If you only came across the wood elf book and read that entry you would say yes they have been wounded after the to wound roll has been made. However if you have read the basics of the rule book for wahammer then you know that it it not the case and that save throws come before a wound is truely made.

(btw, nice to see you about schmeag)

Thanks SeanyPrawny, though I probably will refrain from joining RPs because I'll more than likely let you guys down by disappearing off somewhere (end of school means that I have to prepare for university). :wink:

...alright, I'm confused. :blink: I never really could understand rules talk properly. I usually try to keep out of these kinds of threads, except that I saw that Spiney Norman had taken a massive rules-bash (I could understand it was about rules, because it was in the rules section; and I could understand it was a bash, because everyone was getting flamed (lol) ) in Asrai.org and thrown it over here.

We like to be the voice of reason here :happy: as we have shown with 10 people all voting the same thing and all showing valid points as to why. DAMN we're good (lol)

Yes! Long live the small communites! And HELLO Schmeag! And JOIN THE RP Schmeag! :p

I agree 100% that they do not suffer from stupidity. I would suggest that you read a couple of posts in that thread... but do not go past page 5.
Stupid???

After page 5 it gets ugly... but it does get bad looking before then...

I encourage you to read my post on page 5, the one with the conversation which I thought was fairly amusing to write.

-Seth

Double Post... Edited out

Ooh, I love going overboard with make-believe conversations!

Yes, of course, but we had to read your post or it wouldn't have been any fun revisiting that thread! :happy:

And I believe I shall join the RP after all. (B)

That guy was unbeleivable. At least the thread was named right (lol)

I take this as a complament :biggrin: B)

-Seth