# Clarify the poison rule



## KarlFranz40k

So I play tyranids, we got alot of poisoned stuff in the new codex. My question is this: I have believed that poisoned attacks that are equal to or higher the victims toughness may reroll to wound, yet in the rulebook it says that they always wound on a specific value for those with lower strength, but doesn't clarify for those with higher strength that they still wound on a 3+/2+.

So do poisoned attacks ALWAYS wound on a 4+? Making toxin sacs on a carnifex statistically useless. Or do trygons, alpha warriors, tyrants etc gain a reroll to their 2+/3+?


----------



## Masked Jackal

As I recall, if you already are able to wound at that level, then you get a reroll.


----------



## Cyklown

It's generally a bit idea unless you're facing a metric ton of wraithlords/talii, etc., or if your opponent somehow talked you into allowing his nurgle-worshiping biker-wraithguard. Or something.

edit: as SHarrington put it: BRB: page 42: paragraph 7.


----------



## SHarrington

The weapon always wounds on the fixed number regardless of target's toughness.

In addition, if your strength was equal to or greater then the target's toughness, you can reroll your failed to wound rolls.

In the case of the nids, yes everything but the Venomthrope with poison wounds on a 4+ regardless if its a carnifex or a gaunt.


----------



## VanitusMalus

in addition if the wielder's S is equal to or higher than you can re-roll any failed to wound results. You only get a 2+/3+ to wound if it's stated specifically in the unit/models profile or in the special rules for a particular weapon.


----------



## KarlFranz40k

Hmm, bit silly that;
Carnifex: "I'm swinging at you with enough force to cleave a battletank in two, but since said talon is coated in venom that will infect and kill you in a few minutes, i'll only wound you on a 4+ with a reroll you lucky bugger!"

But I'll take this as you've explained and adjust accordinglly, seems its only worth taking toxin on gaunts, stealers and warriors, and probably tyranid primes if you fight MEQs alot (4+ reroll is better than a single 3+ but worse than a 2+) anything with more than T4 is quite rare, and probably can't afford to have hormagaunts wounding it on 4+ rather than fighting a tyrant/trygon that took toxin for the purpose of fighting said big thing.


----------



## Cyklown

KarlFranz40k said:


> Hmm, bit silly that;
> Carnifex: "I'm swinging at you with enough force to cleave a battletank in two, but since said talon is coated in venom that will infect and kill you in a few minutes, i'll only wound you on a 4+ with a reroll you lucky bugger!"
> 
> But I'll take this as you've explained and adjust accordinglly, seems its only worth taking toxin on gaunts, stealers and warriors, and probably tyranid primes if you fight MEQs alot (4+ reroll is better than a single 3+ but worse than a 2+) anything with more than T4 is quite rare, and probably can't afford to have hormagaunts wounding it on 4+ rather than fighting a tyrant/trygon that took toxin for the purpose of fighting said big thing.


What? Plague Marines! Nobb bikers!
I mean, there may not be a ton of units with t5, but the ones that do are doozies. The latter is downright meta-defining, is it not?


----------



## Winterous

KarlFranz40k said:


> Hmm, bit silly that;
> Carnifex: "I'm swinging at you with enough force to cleave a battletank in two, but since said talon is coated in venom that will infect and kill you in a few minutes, i'll only wound you on a 4+ with a reroll you lucky bugger!"
> 
> But I'll take this as you've explained and adjust accordinglly, seems its only worth taking toxin on gaunts, stealers and warriors, and probably tyranid primes if you fight MEQs alot (4+ reroll is better than a single 3+ but worse than a 2+) anything with more than T4 is quite rare, and probably can't afford to have hormagaunts wounding it on 4+ rather than fighting a tyrant/trygon that took toxin for the purpose of fighting said big thing.


Yes, it's dumb, I think they should amend that in the FAQ.
Because it's not the poison that's actually the weapon in this case, unlike with Plaguebearers, who have rusty swords which are just a poison delivery system.
It's a massive fucking talon which ways more than the target.
They'll probably say that on any MC the poison is increased to 3+ or something, so that the re-roll benefit they get isn't 35/36, it's 8/9.


----------



## SHarrington

I only wish you could choose to turn it off similar to a marine that has a power weapon and a power fist can choose which to use each combat.


----------



## solkan

Just think how much worse it would be if we were still stuck with 4th editions 4+ to wound without the re-roll. uke:

I could see changing the Carnifex poison to 3+, but I think there's an obligatory "Clearly GW didn't bother spending much time on the Carnifex rules" reference required to do so. :wink:


----------



## Aramoro

A poison Carnifex is better at wounding Wraithlords and C'Tan than an unpoisoned one. If you don't like the upgrade then don't buy it, simple. Making MC poison 3+ makes it plain too good on the smaller MC like Tervigons and Hive Tyrants. Carnifexes only have the option for completeness sake, not because it's a great idea. 

I can buy Pavane for my KoS, but thats not very good because it's fleet, thus I should be able to use it when running. All codexes have option which are poor, thats no reason to power them up until they're broken. 

Aramoro


----------



## Winterous

Aramoro said:


> I can buy Pavane for my KoS, but thats not very good because it's fleet, thus I should be able to use it when running. All codexes have option which are poor, thats no reason to power them up until they're broken.
> 
> Aramoro


True, true.


----------



## KarlFranz40k

Aramoro said:


> A poison Carnifex is better at wounding Wraithlords and C'Tan than an unpoisoned one. If you don't like the upgrade then don't buy it, simple. Making MC poison 3+ makes it plain too good on the smaller MC like Tervigons and Hive Tyrants. Carnifexes only have the option for completeness sake, not because it's a great idea.


Yeah, but then wraithlords and Ctan will die far easier to hormagaunts with oxin sacs than carnifexes


----------



## Winterous

KarlFranz40k said:


> Yeah, but then wraithlords and Ctan will die far easier to hormagaunts with oxin sacs than carnifexes


Quoted for truth.
And also, it would end up far cheaper.


----------



## Aramoro

KarlFranz40k said:


> Yeah, but then wraithlords and Ctan will die far easier to hormagaunts with oxin sacs than carnifexes


Hey I wasn't saying toxicgaunts aren't totally bent and render every other MC in the game obsolete. They totally do that. 

Other than C'Tan obviously which are impossible to kill with Toxicguants. 

Aramoro


----------



## Winterous

Aramoro said:


> Hey I wasn't saying toxicgaunts aren't totally bent and render every other MC in the game obsolete. They totally do that.
> 
> Other than C'Tan obviously which are impossible to kill with Toxicguants.
> 
> Aramoro


First of all, how do they render every _other(?)_ MC in the game obsolete?
For a start they aren't an MC, so there aren't any _other_ MCs, but they don't make them useless, they just kill them quite well.

And why do you say that?
C'Tan don't have an immunity to poison, do they?


----------



## Aramoro

Neither C'Tan can be engaged by guants unless they choose to be as per their rules. 

They make monstrous creatures useless because 15 toxicguants can just murder most monstrous creatures so if you think you're going to play against Nid's you dont put any MC's in your army. 

Aramoro


----------



## KarlFranz40k

Aramoro said:


> Neither C'Tan can be engaged by guants unless they choose to be as per their rules.
> 
> They make monstrous creatures useless because 15 toxicguants can just murder most monstrous creatures so if you think you're going to play against Nid's you dont put any MC's in your army.
> 
> Aramoro


Then the same can be said of Jaws of the world wolf, it kills with extreme ease anything with low I.

Never heard of this C'tan rule, so they can flatout refuse to be engaged by an enemy in CC? Sounds too ridiculous to be true, can anyone confirm please?


----------



## Winterous

KarlFranz40k said:


> Never heard of this C'tan rule, so they can flatout refuse to be engaged by an enemy in CC? Sounds too ridiculous to be true, can anyone confirm please?


Confirmed.

Nightbringer can push away units that do not consist entirely of unmodified S4+ models, this happens during the opponent's assault phase, after moves are made but before fighting starts. (it's an radial ability too, so multiple units won't override it)

Deceiver (being the cheeky bugger he is) can simply fall back from combat before it starts, after moves are made but before attacks are thrown, he can simply leave the combat.

So, Deceiver is one nasty bastard to kill if you have a melee-heavy army :S


----------



## Cyklown

Winterous said:


> Confirmed.
> 
> Nightbringer can push away units that do not consist entirely of unmodified S4+ models, this happens during the opponent's assault phase, after moves are made but before fighting starts. (it's an radial ability too, so multiple units won't override it)
> 
> Deceiver (being the cheeky bugger he is) can simply fall back from combat before it starts, after moves are made but before attacks are thrown, he can simply leave the combat.
> 
> So, Deceiver is one nasty bastard to kill if you have a melee-heavy army :S


Well, unless you play one of those CC armies with s4 models. I suppose those are rather rare.


----------



## Sethis

Frankly, the Nid codex is so powerful it doesn't need fixing at all.


----------



## MidnightSun

Yeah, you'd think that an Ork with all that green muscly goodness would be at least as strong as a marine. But no, we're as strong as _Eldar Guardians_. Orks are, in fluff, renowned for their toughness. So we get the same toughness as a marine. COME ON GW!

(Although I do enjoy occasianally teasing Guard players about the fact that Conscripts are just as accurate as Orks. Where the hell were they conscripted from?)

Eldar CC specialist troops are Str 3, and even with re-rolls from doom that's a bit pointless. A marine gets it for free.

Devastators, ooh bugger me, they're Str 4. And they're fire support.

Anyway, more on topic, I thought that the poison rules were similar to the Gauss rule. You roll to wound normally, but never require more than a 2+/3+/4+.


----------



## KarlFranz40k

Sethis said:


> Frankly, the Nid codex is so powerful it doesn't need fixing at all.


Really? I suppose a few things are now ridiculously good, like trygons, zoanthropes and toxin equiped hormagaunts, but other stuff is just ruined or useless. Still haven't forgiven the bastards for making my fexes so far from competitive that no list can be taken seriously with them in it now :cray:


----------



## Winterous

MidnightSun said:


> Yeah, you'd think that an Ork with all that green muscly goodness would be at least as strong as a marine. But no, we're as strong as _Eldar Guardians_. Orks are, in fluff, renowned for their toughness. So we get the same toughness as a marine. COME ON GW!


Yes Orks are strong, but they aren't quite as strong as a Space Marine.
And they can't really give them a Strength value of 3.5 can they?
What they did works perfectly, they have 2 attacks base, making them the melee machines that they should be, and also represented not only their physical strength, but their frenzied mindset with Furious Charge!



KarlFranz40k said:


> Still haven't forgiven the bastards for making my fexes so far from competitive that no list can be taken seriously with them in it now :cray:


I don't understand why they aren't competitive.
Sure they're more expensive, but they're flat out better if you ask me.
I4 on the charge with Adrenal Glands, makes them decent against infantry, especially in cover.
They're still great against vehicles.
Crushing Claws aren't a waste of points any more.
The only problem I can see is that they aren't tough enough.


----------



## Sethis

KarlFranz40k said:


> Really? I suppose a few things are now ridiculously good, like [Our Heavy Support], [Our Elites] and [Our Troops Choices], but other stuff is just ruined or useless. Still haven't forgiven the bastards for making my fexes so far from competitive that no list can be taken seriously with them in it now :cray:


Fixed that for you. Also your HQ choices are pretty overpowered as well. So that leaves, um, Fast Attack as the only option that isn't overpowered. Poor Nid players! How do you cope??!

/sarcasm off

Sorry, I'm dragging this off topic aren't I? Never mind.


----------



## bakoren

Winterous said:


> I don't understand why they aren't competitive.
> Sure they're more expensive, but they're flat out better if you ask me.
> I4 on the charge with Adrenal Glands, makes them decent against infantry, especially in cover.
> They're still great against vehicles.
> Crushing Claws aren't a waste of points any more.
> The only problem I can see is that they aren't tough enough.


If only Crushing claws didn't drop them to I1...but that is how they balenced the unit, and I try not to whine about how we aren't overpowered enough.


----------



## KarlFranz40k

Sethis said:


> Fixed that for you. Also your HQ choices are pretty overpowered as well. So that leaves, um, Fast Attack as the only option that isn't overpowered. Poor Nid players! How do you cope??!
> 
> /sarcasm off
> 
> Sorry, I'm dragging this off topic aren't I? Never mind.


Sorry, but just how are our HQs overpowered? Just because they're good doesn't make them overpowered, none of them have an invun save apart from the swarmlord in CC, chances are the tervigon will stop making babies after turn 1, and when he dies he'll probably kill a handful of them anyway. Tyranid prime I confess is cheap for what he does, people gripe about the swarmlord but he's 280 points and dies relatively easy so I think its fair. I'm not complaining, infact I think the tyranid HQs are very good, but they aren't overpowered compared to what other armies have.




Winterous said:


> I don't understand why they aren't competitive.
> Sure they're more expensive, but they're flat out better if you ask me.
> I4 on the charge with Adrenal Glands, makes them decent against infantry, especially in cover.
> They're still great against vehicles.
> Crushing Claws aren't a waste of points any more.
> The only problem I can see is that they aren't tough enough.


They are less competitive because they are less focused, dakkafexes are a prime example of this. In the old codex a dakkafex cost 113 points, in the new it costs 190, it dies just as easily, has more attacks in CC and is only marginly better at shooting (worse infact against T6+ foes). For a screamer killer fex I could outfit one with 4 attacks with +2 on the charge, WS4, I2, frag grenades, toxic maisma (drops enemy WS by 1, means I hit MEQs on 3+) and a tail weapon for roughly the same as a basic fex is now. Also barbed stanglers were better 
Sure they've made crushing claws good an gave us some tricks like bioplasma which I like, but the inability to give an extra wound, T7 and a 2+ save I sorely miss.
Maybe I'm just wining, maybe they were broken back then, but they arent any better now.


----------



## Da Joka

One thing you guys forgot to point out is that a MC with poison weapons have oh major advantage over non-MC with a poison weapon, theirs are power poison weapons.

as for the Tyranid Codex, I think its really good and out shines the Ork Codex as far as horde armies go. The only problem I see with it is lack of frag grenades.


----------



## VanitusMalus

I'm sorry but no Tyranid player should ever complain about the power of their codex. If you can't play a Tyranid army properly don't ever try to play any of other armies especially anything that's not a MEQ because you will be sorely dissappointed every battle. I haven't seen the new codex but I remember the previous carnations of Tyranids and I hated every battle with them. Thank gawd GW changed the sweeping advance rule.


----------



## KarlFranz40k

VanitusMalus said:


> If you can't play a Tyranid army properly don't ever try to play any of other armies especially anything that's not a MEQ because you will be sorely dissappointed every battle. I haven't seen the new codex but I remember the previous carnations of Tyranids and I hated every battle with them.


What makes you say this? I'm curious to know what makes you equate "Being unable to play tyranids" = "Unable to play with any non MEQ army". Just for the record, I also play eldar and orks, both of which I've had more success with since the start of 5th ed than the old tyranid codex, so if this is a jibe at me it's unfounded.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

*Just Sayin.*

Carnifexes that wound on 4+ with Re-roll has a 1/4 chance of missing. Without Toxin Sacs the 2+/3+ is 1/6th or 1/3rd, respectively, chance of missing. I say go with the Sacs...not worth worrying about, in the long run. Or if you really want leave both sets of scything talons on one and take glands on another...Reroll to wounds on 2+ for little things, and bring in the saced fex for the big stuff, ta da. Wouldn't be a bad strategy anyway. Once you launch the first assault if you don't kill them bring in the other, it can't be attacked by units that were already engaged and then keep killin. Two fexes work great in conjunction with each other. Everything needs support in the Nid list to be most effective. 

And the C'Tan can't push gaunts away if you have furious charge...

(Also, go with the Tervigon and hordes of Gaunts rather than the carnifex..just better..hordes of Gaunts with Poison, Adrenal Glands and FNP for free for just 30 pts as long as you keep the tervi close.

The New Codex isn't -underpowered- even compared to what it used to be. It just requires everything to work together better. Synergy. Venomthropes give cover to everything. Venomthropes + Reaper Swarms = 4+ cover. There are -loads- of bonuses that each unit can give to others, you just gotta utilize them in the right fashion. 

Really there is no reason not to take the Tervigon anymore..just far too much good stuffs is given. Tervi w/ Onslaught + Trygon/Deathleaper = Run, Shoot, and Assault all in the same turn.

Nids are pretty amazing if used in conjunction, but this does make each lose more substantial, but just make it catch up. Plus we have loads of 'fun' units now. Like the Mawlock. Lots of fun stuff.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief

Winterous said:


> Yes Orks are strong, but they aren't quite as strong as a Space Marine.


But Kroot are!


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Carnifexes that wound on 4+ with Re-roll has a 1/4 chance of missing. Without Toxin Sacs the 2+/3+ is 1/6th or 1/3rd, respectively, chance of missing. I say go with the Sacs...not worth worrying about, in the long run. Or if you really want leave both sets of scything talons on one and take glands on another...Reroll to wounds on 2+ for little things, and bring in the saced fex for the big stuff, ta da. Wouldn't be a bad strategy anyway. Once you launch the first assault if you don't kill them bring in the other, it can't be attacked by units that were already engaged and then keep killin. Two fexes work great in conjunction with each other. Everything needs support in the Nid list to be most effective.


First of all, do you realise that the last post on this thread was in February of last year?

Second, there is no reason (other than Wraithlords or C'tan) in the game at the moment for Carnifexes to ever take Toxin Sacs, EVER.
Wraithlords and C'tan are the only things of Toughness greater than 7, which means they are the only things that aren't wounded on a 2+ by S9 attacks.


----------



## eyescrossed

Ohlawd, people who actually think (or thought) that 'nids are overpowered.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Alright...soo...This is my take on it...it should be by choice? Why? Glad you asked...

Toxic Sacs add the ability to wound on a (Poison) 4+ to all Tyranid Close Combat weapons, but strike as if they are the normal weapon against Tanks.

In the main codex it says that you may choose which weapon you wish to use in close combat.

And the rule for poison is thus:
"Poison weapons do not _rely_ on a comparison
of Strength and Toughness to wound – they always
wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets."

Which to me says they can always wound on that fixed number, but could also wound on less numbers as well, since the weapon is capable of doing the same damage to a tank it only make sense this way.


This topic might have been dead, but I still wanted to discuss this possibility, since, well, it needs rehashing, unless it has been Errata-ed and specifically GW said 'no.'


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Alright...soo...This is my take on it...it should be by choice? Why? Glad you asked...
> 
> Toxic Sacs add the ability to wound on a (Poison) 4+ to all Tyranid Close Combat weapons, but strike as if they are the normal weapon against Tanks.
> 
> In the main codex it says that you may choose which weapon you wish to use in close combat.
> 
> And the rule for poison is thus:
> "Poison weapons do not _rely_ on a comparison
> of Strength and Toughness to wound – they always
> wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets."
> 
> Which to me says they can always wound on that fixed number, but could also wound on less numbers as well, since the weapon is capable of doing the same damage to a tank it only make sense this way.
> 
> 
> This topic might have been dead, but I still wanted to discuss this possibility, since, well, it needs rehashing, unless it has been Errata-ed and specifically GW said 'no.'


It's not a choice, the codex is quite clear on this; it says (close to) "All attacks made by a Tyranid with Toxin Sacs are Poisoned 4+.", it's not a weapon, it's ALL melee attacks they make.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Right, I understand that they are all Poison 4+, but is there any rules that says you can't choose to treat it like a normal CQC weapon, since you always have them? You do it against tanks, stands to reason you can do it against troops.


----------



## eyescrossed

40k is a permissive ruleset. Are there any rules that say I can't just declare I win? No? Good. I win.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

But it does have rules defining combat...what I'm asking is can I choose which rules to follow...

Wounding In Combat:
Not all of the attacks that hit their mark will harm the
enemy. They may be parried at the last moment or may
merely inflict a graze or flesh wound. As with shooting,
once you have scored a hit with an attack you must roll
again to see if you score a wound and incapacitate
your foe. Consult the chart below, cross-referencing the
attacker’s Strength characteristic (S) with the defender’s
Toughness (T). The chart, which is the same as the one
in the Shooting section, indicates the minimum value
on a D6 roll required to inflict a wound. In most cases,
when rolling to wound in close combat, you use the
Strength on the attacker’s profile regardless of what
weapon they are using. Some close combat weapons
give the attacker a Strength bonus – this is explained
later in Special Close Combat Attacks.

Nowhere does it say that poisoned weapons don't also wound compared to strength. The poison rule does not state that you ignore the rules for wounding in close combat, it simply states that regardless of the opponents toughness they wound on x+.

I imagine that unless a rule says otherwise you follow all existing rules.

I was content wounding on a 4+ with anythign with Toxic Sacs until I read this thread, and then I started really reading and looking for the answer...Which had led me to believe the former.


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Nowhere does it say that poisoned weapons don't also wound compared to strength. The poison rule does not state that you ignore the rules for wounding in close combat, it simply states that regardless of the opponents toughness they wound on x+.


Can you really not see the contradiction here?
It says that, regardless of comparative Strength and Toughness, you will always wound on a roll of X+.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Winterous said:


> Can you really not see the contradiction here?
> It says that, regardless of comparative Strength and Toughness, you will always wound on a roll of X+.


Right they will always wound on a roll of X+, but it doesn't say that they still do not wound at their original strength value. No where does it say you may not wound using the Strength and Toughness chart put forth in the "Wounding In Close Combat" section, since that is the rules for CQC. 

So - for instance - You Compared the Strength and Toughness and will be wounding on a 2+ that's fine, ignore the bonus "Wound Regardless on 4+"

But compare the strength and toughness and wound on a 6+, take the 4+ wound regardless of strength and toughness. 

Logically: You're still using a weapon and applying strength to get the poison home. Even if that weapon is more effective at killing than the poison, the poison is simply an addition to the weapon to people who manage to survive the blade/shot/etc. 

It doesn't make sense (unless your attack is simply placing poison/acid whatever on someone) that you would ignore the respective strength on stronger creatures, right?

Did they ever include anything saying otherwise in Errata, or whats the ruling at official tournaments?


----------



## eyescrossed

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> It doesn't make sense


Stopped paying attention right here.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

I'm completely understanding where you guys are coming from, and wounding on more than 4+ would be broken, but there is nothing in the -rules- that says what you are saying. I was just hoping to see some official errata/ruling on the subject.


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> No where does it say you may not wound using the Strength and Toughness chart put forth in the "Wounding In Close Combat" section, since that is the rules for CQC


The thing is that it DOES.
In saying that you ALWAYS wound on a roll of a 4+ (note that it doesn't say "At least on a 4+"), it's saying that you will never, when using a Poisoned weapon, wound on any lower result.
It's really quite simple, the rules are very clear on the matter.

Also common sense doesn't come into it, the rules work how they work regardless of how you think it would work in real life.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Poison Weapons:
Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom
to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison
of Strength and Toughness to wound – they always
wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets.
In most cases this is 4+. Some venoms are so lethal that
the merest drop can kill – these may wound on a 3+,
or even 2+ (as described in the appropriate Codex).
In addition, if the Strength of the wielder is the same
or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder
must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat.
These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.

Rely:
re·ly/riˈlī/
Verb:	
Depend on with full trust or confidence.


- Wounding on a 2+ meets the prerequisite of "Always wounding on a 4+" It doesn't say anywhere, or even imply that it doesn't wound at lesser numbers. 

Which means, as it is worded, other rules could still be applicable...and I just want somewhere 'official' that says otherwise, for my own piece of mind...anyone got an example of such a thing?

Seems like they would just write "They do not compare Strength and Toughness to wound" rather than "They do not rely on a comparison
of Strength and Toughness to wound"

Description of Fast Attack:
Fast Attack
Fast Attack units are generally (surprise, surprise!) faster
than their comrades and are masters at manoeuvre.
Often they are responsible for reconnaissance and
scouting, while at other times they are assault troops
_relying_ on speed to strike at the heart of the enemy.

This use of the word rely is used to represent two things a model can do, but it doesn't have to forgo whatever it doesn't rely on. 

In contrast, just because they don't rely on it, doesn't mean they cannot use it.


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Poison Weapons:
> Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom
> to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison
> of Strength and Toughness to wound – they always
> wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets.
> In most cases this is 4+. Some venoms are so lethal that
> the merest drop can kill – these may wound on a 3+,
> or even 2+ (as described in the appropriate Codex).
> In addition, if the Strength of the wielder is the same
> or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder
> must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat.
> These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.
> 
> Rely:
> re·ly/riˈlī/
> Verb:
> Depend on with full trust or confidence.
> 
> 
> - Wounding on a 2+ meets the prerequisite of "Always wounding on a 4+" It doesn't say anywhere, or even imply that it doesn't wound at lesser numbers.
> 
> Which means, as it is worded, other rules could still be applicable...and I just want somewhere 'official' that says otherwise, for my own piece of mind...anyone got an example of such a thing?
> 
> Seems like they would just write "They do not compare Strength and Toughness to wound" rather than "They do not rely on a comparison
> of Strength and Toughness to wound"


Yes, it's poorly written.
"they always wound on a fixed number"
That outright SAYS that they always wound on the roll given, they can't do better than that.
I can see how you might understand the statement differently, but it's definitely how the rule works; I won't bother providing more evidence, because most likely it would involve rummaging through GW battle reports.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

I see that it says "It always wounds on a fixed number" But it doesn't say that it cannot wound on less due to Strength/Toughness. It says "You wound on a 4+." If you have strength enough not to worry about that four plus, you're still getting the bonus of Poison Weapons, you just don't need it.


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> I see that it says "It always wounds on a fixed number" But it doesn't say that it cannot wound on less due to Strength/Toughness. It says "You wound on a 4+." If you have strength enough not to worry about that four plus, you're still getting the bonus of Poison Weapons, you just don't need it.


It's just that when it says "You wound on a 4+." it doesn't mean "If you would wound on worse than a 4+, you wound on a 4+.", but yeah, there's not much evidence to give.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Shucks, Evidence, Errata, FAQ, thats all I really want. Hehe. It is poorly written, we'll agree on that, and I'll let it lie.


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Shucks, Evidence, Errata, FAQ, thats all I really want. Hehe. It is poorly written, we'll agree on that, and I'll let it lie.


I checked the BRB and Tyranid FAQ, and there was no mention of it, unfortunately.


----------



## eyescrossed

Probably because, no offence to you Dracon, nobody else has even had that interpretation. 

Since 5th edition came out I haven't seen a single thread on Poison like this, on Warseer, B&C or Heresy Online. And I browse forums a lot. Not saying you're wrong - heck, if you bring it to GW's attention they might change it - but yeah, it's quite a unique perspective.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

I just called GW customer service, and they said a Carnofex with Toxic Sacs would still wound everything else on a 2+ not a 4+...

To Quote...

"Other people may argue with you about it because of how it reads, but you'd still wound on a 2+ instead of a 4+."


----------



## Aramoro

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> I just called GW customer service, and they said a Carnofex with Toxic Sacs would still wound everything else on a 2+ not a 4+...
> 
> To Quote...
> 
> "Other people may argue with you about it because of how it reads, but you'd still wound on a 2+ instead of a 4+."


That's just flat wrong. Why would you even call customer service? Just use your eyes and read the rulebook. 



BRB Page 42 said:


> They do not rely on a comparison of Strength and Toughness to wound - they always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets. In most cases this is 4+





BRB Page 42 said:


> they always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets. In most cases this is 4+





BRB Page 42 said:


> they always wound on a fixed number





BRB Page 42 said:


> they always wound on a fixed number





BRB Page 42 said:


> they always wound on a fixed number


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

I already brought up the wording issue...

"Rely" 

That's the word that makes it questionable, since you can use something that you don't rely on. 

And I thought calling Customer Service (Since that is where they handle questions on the rules) would be able to give me an answer that I could accept...and they said the former..

Wounding on a 2+ still satisfies the criteria of "ALWAYS" wounding on said fixed number.


----------



## Aramoro

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Wounding on a 2+ still satisfies the criteria of "ALWAYS" wounding on said fixed number.


No it doesn't stop being a cretin. No one has ever play it that way nor will they.

You have no choice but to use the weapons you have, you use a poisoned weapon you always wound on a fixed number, those are the rules.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Right...you have no choice but to use your weapon, and the weapon is a CQC weapon that always wounds on a fixed number. It will -always- wound on a 4+...if their Toughness is less than your strength it will also wound on less...

Every part of the "Poison Weapon Rules" are satisfied still wounding on less when comparing strength and toughness...

And even more so, it also satisfies the rules for "Wounding in Close Combat."

How people play it is no consequence to me, I just wanted to know the -official- stance on the subject. I'm willing to play it either way, sorry if I came off as condescending throughout this debate, wasn't my intent, was trying to put forth all the evidence I had, which was very little except the wording of the exact ruling and logic. 

Wasn't trying to be difficult.


----------



## Aramoro

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Right...you have no choice but to use your weapon, and the weapon is a CQC weapon that always wounds on a fixed number. It will -always- wound on a 4+...if their Toughness is less than your strength it will also wound on less...
> 
> Every part of the "Poison Weapon Rules" are satisfied still wounding on less when comparing strength and toughness...
> 
> And even more so, it also satisfies the rules for "Wounding in Close Combat."


Are you a native English speaker? I ask because this is the only way you could get this wrong.

Poison does not compare strength and toughness. If you have poison 4+ and you roll a 3 you have failed to roll 4+ so you do not wound.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Actually, I am a native English speaker, which is why I realized that it could wound on a roll of less. 

Its the exact meaning of each of the words that hint at being able to wound on less. 

They do not rely on a comparison
of Strength and Toughness to wound – they always
wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets.
In most cases this is 4+.

In no way does the rule say you ignore comparisons of Strength and Toughness, nor does it say you ignore the rules for wounding in close combat...it simply says that it does not 'rely' on it. (Which is the key phrase to suggesting that it may still be done.)

I didn't make the rules, I'm simply reading the rules the same as you are...if you have a question I can give you the number... 

US Customer Service: 1-800-394-4263


----------



## Igni Ferroque

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Right...you have no choice but to use your weapon, and the weapon is a CQC weapon that always wounds on a fixed number. It will -always- wound on a 4+...if their Toughness is less than your strength it will also wound on less...
> 
> Every part of the "Poison Weapon Rules" are satisfied still wounding on less when comparing strength and toughness...
> 
> And even more so, it also satisfies the rules for "Wounding in Close Combat."
> 
> How people play it is no consequence to me, I just wanted to know the -official- stance on the subject. I'm willing to play it either way, sorry if I came off as condescending throughout this debate, wasn't my intent, was trying to put forth all the evidence I had, which was very little except the wording of the exact ruling and logic.
> 
> Wasn't trying to be difficult.


No, unless the venomed weapon states that it wounds on a lower value, then you roll on the set number in brackets. Just like what it says in the poison ruling in the BRB. You dont have to satisfy any criteria to use a poison weapon other than to have a poisoned weapon, therefore saying "Every part of the "Poison Weapon Rules" are satisfied" isn't a valid argument

Once you have one, you follow the rules that are clearly stated in the poison section, which is 4+. It then goes on to state that some codex's can override the base poison rule with rolls of 3+ or 2+. Everyone else follows the base 4+ unless stated otherwise. 

Man I hate spelling poison...

[Edit] _Poor english..._


----------



## Aramoro

Poison attacks do not rely on the comparison of strength and toughness, like normal attacks rely on it. They ALWAYS wound on a fixed number, that always is important because it mean always, you know as in every single time no matter the circumstance it means always. Not 'always, well unless I decide not to do that and wound using the normal mechanism instead' as that would mean you did not always do it. 

You roll to wound once with each hit, you have a rule which says you ALWAYS wound on a 4+ so you workout what your to wound roll will be and guess what, it's 4+. You do not go well I could wound on a 4+ but I'm going to choose to ignore my rule for no reason and wound on a 2+ instead even though it says I ALWAYS wound on a 4+. If I always wound on a 4+ and I roll a 3 have I rolled 4+? No. 

If you were competent at English you would know the meaning of the words in secondary to the context in which the words are used. The intent and meaning of the rule is not vague or even questionable.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Aramoro said:


> Poison attacks do not rely on the comparison of strength and toughness, like normal attacks rely on it. They ALWAYS wound on a fixed number, that always is important because it mean always, you know as in every single time no matter the circumstance it means always. Not 'always, well unless I decide not to do that and wound using the normal mechanism instead' as that would mean you did not always do it.
> 
> You roll to wound once with each hit, you have a rule which says you ALWAYS wound on a 4+ so you workout what your to wound roll will be and guess what, it's 4+. You do not go well I could wound on a 4+ but I'm going to choose to ignore my rule for no reason and wound on a 2+ instead even though it says I ALWAYS wound on a 4+. If I always wound on a 4+ and I roll a 3 have I rolled 4+? No.
> 
> If you were competent at English you would know the meaning of the words in secondary to the context in which the words are used. The intent and meaning of the rule is not vague or even questionable.



Not true....

I want to count to ten...
I will -always- count to five
That does not mean I have to stop at five, but I must at least go through five. 

I count to ten, I have counted to five (Since I always must do that first) and continued on to ten..

I -Always- Wound on a 4+... Awesome, I rolled a 4 I wounded...

I have a str 4 and they have a toughness 3...I rolled a three and a four....

I wounded on both, why? Because I always wound on a 4, and my strength allows me to wound on a three.

------------------

Power Weapons:
A power weapon is sheathed in the lethal haze of a
disruptive energy field, which eats through armour,
flesh and bone with ease. Models wounded in close
combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power
weapon are not allowed armour saves.

If you're using a power weapon, you ignore armor saves, like it says, right? But if you are only allowed to use the mechanism present in the rule for the special weapon... they don't say how to resolve that attack...so we refer back to the overarching rule...which is?

Wounding in Close Combat
Not all of the attacks that hit their mark will harm the
enemy. They may be parried at the last moment or may
merely inflict a graze or flesh wound. As with shooting,
once you have scored a hit with an attack you must roll
again to see if you score a wound and incapacitate
your foe. Consult the chart below, cross-referencing the
attacker’s Strength characteristic (S) with the defender’s
Toughness (T). The chart, which is the same as the one
in the Shooting section, indicates the minimum value
on a D6 roll required to inflict a wound. In most cases,
when rolling to wound in close combat, you use the
Strength on the attacker’s profile regardless of what
weapon they are using. Some close combat weapons
give the attacker a Strength bonus – this is explained
later in Special Close Combat Attacks.

The same can be assumed for Poisoned weapons...they wound the same, they just have bonuses allowed by a special weapon type....


----------



## Aramoro

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Not true....
> 
> I want to count to ten...
> I will -always- count to five
> That does not mean I have to stop at five, but I must at least go through five.
> 
> I count to ten, I have counted to five (Since I always must do that first) and continued on to ten..
> 
> I -Always- Wound on a 4+... Awesome, I rolled a 4 I wounded...
> 
> I have a str 4 and they have a toughness 3...I rolled a three and a four....
> 
> I wounded on both, why? Because I always wound on a 4, and my strength allows me to wound on a three.


Poison attacks set the target number to wound, they do not give you an additional optional number. You consult the Wound chart to work out what you need and then the poison rule leaps in and say 'Woah horsey, we don't rely on that chart to workout your target number, it's 4+' and you go 'Gee thanks Poison rule you saved the day again'

Power weapons replace the rules for taking armour saves normally, they do not add to them. Poison replaces how you roll to wound it does add a new way. So you are correct they do work in the same way.

I'm going to have to assume trolling now.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Aramoro said:


> Poison attacks set the target number to wound, they do not give you an additional optional number. You consult the Wound chart to work out what you need and then the poison rule leaps in and say 'Woah horsey, we don't rely on that chart to workout your target number, it's 4+' and you go 'Gee thanks Poison rule you saved the day again'
> 
> Power weapons replace the rules for taking armour saves normally, they do not add to them. Poison replaces how you roll to wound it does add a new way. So you are correct they do work in the same way.
> 
> I'm going to have to assume trolling now.


Yeah, its not trolling....Game Workshop (Those are the people who made this game) Told me how it works...

For all other weapons you reference the models str and toughness ...that stands for the Poison Rule, because it doesn't tell you not too...


----------



## Winterous

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Yeah, its not trolling....Game Workshop (Those are the people who made this game) Told me how it works...


GW customer service are not a reliable source of rules, they're less reliable than most players; they're just monkeys on the phone / email, they aren't professional rule jockeys.

Hive Mind's interpretation of the sentence is entirely valid, you guys are incorrect in saying it's wrong; it's just that we know HOW the rule works, despite the ambiguous wording.


----------



## DeathKlokk

What the hell is up with all of these rules discussions in General lately?

Good thing it's not much of a debate. Guess that's why it's stayed here so long.

Dracon, you're reading way too much into the rule. Good luck convincing anyone to play it like that. It's a good sign your argument is invalid when you have to drag out the dictionary.

It does point out how terrible the Tyranid book is (yet again) that Toxin Sacs are as much as they are so Carnifi can re-roll a 4+ (75%) instead of wounding on 2+ (84%). Gotta love paying points to make a bad unit _worse_!


----------



## Aramoro

Winterous said:


> Hive Mind's interpretation of the sentence is entirely valid, you guys are incorrect in saying it's wrong; it's just that we know HOW the rule works, despite the ambiguous wording.


I disagree entirely, I see nothing in the rule to suggest you use both the wound table and the poison rule to work out a target number. It's unambiguous when read in context.


----------



## Winterous

Aramoro said:


> I disagree entirely, I see nothing in the rule to suggest you use both the wound table and the poison rule to work out a target number. It's unambiguous when read in context.


When it says "ALWAYS wound on a 4+" it can reasonably be interpreted to say that you will, provided your to wound roll is a 4+, always wound the target.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Ehh, it shouldn't cause that much fuss. 

By how the rules read, and for every other Special Weapon entry making you refer to the strength and toughness of models (Without saying to do so) it is not -out there- to carry the trend to a weapon, unless it says specifically otherwise. The Poisoned Weapon (and the Witchblade) do not say not to refer to the Strength and Toughness of the models...

Logically: Unless it says it reduces a models strength when wielding a poison weapon in whatever respective codex, they still are capable of packing the same punch, regardless.


----------



## Igni Ferroque

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Ehh, it shouldn't cause that much fuss.
> 
> By how the rules read, and for every other Special Weapon entry making you refer to the strength and toughness of models (Without saying to do so) it is not -out there- to carry the trend to a weapon, unless it says specifically otherwise. The Poisoned Weapon (and the Witchblade) do not say not to refer to the Strength and Toughness of the models...
> 
> Logically: Unless it says it reduces a models strength when wielding a poison weapon in whatever respective codex, they still are capable of packing the same punch, regardless.


Find a poisoned weapon that doesn't have an assigned value to be rolled and your argument will hold more water. Otherwise the entry clear states that: 



> _
> "...they *always* wound on a fixed number,*generally shown in brackets*."
> _


Therefore... it *ALWAYS* rolls the assigned value, regardless of Strength or toughness.

Strength has no viable affect on Witchblades as they roll a 2+ to wound... you can't roll lower than a 2+ in game mechanics.


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

If you find something that says "Regardless of Strength and Toughness" your argument will hold more water. As is, it says it always wounds on a 4+, but no where does it say that the strength and toughness of the wielder isn't taken into account.


----------



## Igni Ferroque

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> If you find something that says "Regardless of Strength and Toughness" your argument will hold more water. As is, it says it always wounds on a 4+, but no where does it say that the strength and toughness of the wielder isn't taken into account.


5 words... "They do not relay on..." so _regardless_ that there is a perfectly good to wound chart, poisoned weapons _(they)_ do not rely upon _(on)_ it as they have their own rules... which are clearly stated.


----------



## eyescrossed

Hive Mind Dracon, by your name I'm going to guess you're a Tyranid player.

That you're willing to go on for pages and pages on a forum arguing the definition of a rule from a point that would benefit you, where you have to start analysing every word in the rule, I'm guessing that's why you're doing it. Amirite?


----------



## Winterous

Igni Ferroque said:


> 5 words... "They do not relay on..." so _regardless_ that there is a perfectly good to wound chart, poisoned weapons _(they)_ do not rely upon _(on)_ it as they have their own rules... which are clearly stated.


But just because they do not rely upon the traditional Strength-Toughness comparison does not mean they cannot utilise it.

As I've said, he has a point; he's not right, but he's pointing out an actual flaw in the rules.


@eyes
Don't say that, that's just rude.


----------



## jaysen

Aramoro said:


> Are you a native English speaker? I ask because this is the only way you could get this wrong.
> 
> Poison does not compare strength and toughness. If you have poison 4+ and you roll a 3 you have failed to roll 4+ so you do not wound.


 
OMG, Aramo, you crack me up! 

All bow to the King of Spain. +rep


----------



## jaysen

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> But it does have rules defining combat...what I'm asking is can I choose which rules to follow...
> 
> Wounding In Combat:
> Not all of the attacks that hit their mark will harm the
> enemy. They may be parried at the last moment or may
> merely inflict a graze or flesh wound. As with shooting,
> once you have scored a hit with an attack you must roll
> again to see if you score a wound and incapacitate
> your foe. Consult the chart below, cross-referencing the
> attacker’s Strength characteristic (S) with the defender’s
> Toughness (T). The chart, which is the same as the one
> in the Shooting section, indicates the minimum value
> on a D6 roll required to inflict a wound. In most cases,
> when rolling to wound in close combat, you use the
> Strength on the attacker’s profile regardless of what
> weapon they are using. Some close combat weapons
> give the attacker a Strength bonus – this is explained
> later in Special Close Combat Attacks.
> 
> Nowhere does it say that poisoned weapons don't also wound compared to strength. The poison rule does not state that you ignore the rules for wounding in close combat, it simply states that regardless of the opponents toughness they wound on x+.
> 
> I imagine that unless a rule says otherwise you follow all existing rules.
> 
> I was content wounding on a 4+ with anythign with Toxic Sacs until I read this thread, and then I started really reading and looking for the answer...Which had led me to believe the former.


Logically, you are right. If I had a sword that wounded eldar on a 2+, then I coated it with some special arsenic poison to kill things I couldn't wound, say a C'tan, on a 4+, that wouldn't mean that the sword is now less effective against Eldar. Well, that makes sense to me, it's not how WH40k rolls. The 4+ for ALL WOUNDING is the balance they put in the game. Sure, you can now wound a C'tan half the time.... however, you can now wound wimpy things only half the time, also.

Hmm... however, you do have a point about the wording issues. If I said that my wife will always yell at me if I arrive at home past 8pm, that does not mean that she won't yell at me if I arrive at 7pm. For that, it would have to say, "Your wife will ONLY yell at you if you arrive past 8pm, you're safe earlier than that."


----------



## jaysen

Aramoro said:


> Poison attacks do not rely on the comparison of strength and toughness, like normal attacks rely on it. They ALWAYS wound on a fixed number, that always is important because it mean always, you know as in every single time no matter the circumstance it means always. Not 'always, well unless I decide not to do that and wound using the normal mechanism instead' as that would mean you did not always do it.
> 
> You roll to wound once with each hit, you have a rule which says you ALWAYS wound on a 4+ so you workout what your to wound roll will be and guess what, it's 4+. You do not go well I could wound on a 4+ but I'm going to choose to ignore my rule for no reason and wound on a 2+ instead even though it says I ALWAYS wound on a 4+. If I always wound on a 4+ and I roll a 3 have I rolled 4+? No.
> 
> If you were competent at English you would know the meaning of the words in secondary to the context in which the words are used. The intent and meaning of the rule is not vague or even questionable.


When they say that it will ALWAYS wound on a 4+, technically, that means that no matter what, if you role a 4, 5, or 6 you will wound, regardless of the creatures toughness or your strength. It says nothing about rolling a 1, 2, or 3. Now, if it said you will ALWAYS wound on a 4+ and only on a 4+, then your arguement would be valid. Always is not exclusive, it's additive.


----------



## Winterous

jaysen said:


> When they say that it will ALWAYS wound on a 4+, technically, that means that no matter what, if you role a 4, 5, or 6 you will wound, regardless of the creatures toughness or your strength. It says nothing about rolling a 1, 2, or 3. Now, if it said you will ALWAYS wound on a 4+ and only on a 4+, then your arguement would be valid. Always is not exclusive, it's additive.


Exactly, this is why his interpretation is valid, even if we all know that it's incorrect.


----------



## jaysen

/nod. Rules lawyers love this stuff and will come up with all sorts of strange interpretations for well known rules, due to the innaccurate wording. That's why there have to be so many FAQ's and errata, to explain what they really meant.


----------



## eyescrossed

Winterous said:


> @eyes
> Don't say that, that's just rude.


-shrugs- I was just asking.


----------



## Aramoro

Winterous said:


> Exactly, this is why his interpretation is valid, even if we all know that it's incorrect.


When rolling to wound you have to work out your target number. Poison replaces how you work out that target number. Just because they used the word 'rely' does not magically mean that you can simply ignore your poison rule (well I would assume you would not ignore the rerolls because they are to your benefit). Reading all the rules in context there is no suggestion that you use the Wound chart AND the poison fixed number. Arguing the other way is trying to argue to your armies benefit of the worst sort. 

Games Workshop rules are not templated, nor written in simplified English (which is why perhaps Dracon is struggling) like other game system. They write what looks and reads well. I think we can all agree the Poison rule reads well. Looking up the dictionary definition of 'rely' is just retarded as it will tell you nothing. Normal wounds rely on the wound chart for a target number, poison wounds do not rely on it because they wound on a fixed number instead. What is hard about that?


----------



## Winterous

Aramoro said:


> When rolling to wound you have to work out your target number. Poison replaces how you work out that target number. Just because they used the word 'rely' does not magically mean that you can simply ignore your poison rule (well I would assume you would not ignore the rerolls because they are to your benefit). Reading all the rules in context there is no suggestion that you use the Wound chart AND the poison fixed number. Arguing the other way is trying to argue to your armies benefit of the worst sort.


You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

By the contended interpretation, the wording means that a Poisoned weapon will simply give a 'minimum' roll of a 4+.
And it's not because of the word 'rely', nor am I ignoring the Poisoned rule

Reading the whole rule in context actually doesn't clarify what it means, that you ALWAYS wound on a 4+ only, or that you wound on a 4+ minimum; if you cannot see this alternate meaning in the words then it's a flaw in your writing comprehension, not mine.

I also resent your implication that I'm a cheater, not to mention the fact that I've repeatedly stated that I do not believe that this IS the rule, I'm merely arguing that it is a valid interpretation of the rules as they are written.


----------



## Aramoro

Winterous said:


> You don't seem to understand what I'm saying.


I understand perfectly but you're wrong. 




Winterous said:


> By the contended interpretation, the wording means that a Poisoned weapon will simply give a 'minimum' roll of a 4+.
> And it's not because of the word 'rely', nor am I ignoring the Poisoned rule
> 
> Reading the whole rule in context actually doesn't clarify what it means, that you ALWAYS wound on a 4+ only, or that you wound on a 4+ minimum; if you cannot see this alternate meaning in the words then it's a flaw in your writing comprehension, not mine.
> 
> I also resent your implication that I'm a cheater, not to mention the fact that I've repeatedly stated that I do not believe that this IS the rule, I'm merely arguing that it is a valid interpretation of the rules as they are written.


You are abusing the context, if the rule was meant to add another value on which a wound roll could be successful it would say that. But it doesn't say that not even close. You're taking a rule with clear wording and obvious intent and trying to break down the meanings of the words and partial phrases to come up with a different interpretation. It's a spurious technique for examining data looking for details which are not there. If they wanted to have that interpretation of the rule it would have been childishly simple for them to write them that way.


----------



## Winterous

Aramoro said:


> I understand perfectly but you're wrong.


First of all, don't be a dick.



Aramoro said:


> You are abusing the context, if the rule was meant to add another value on which a wound roll could be successful it would say that. But it doesn't say that not even close. You're taking a rule with clear wording and obvious intent and trying to break down the meanings of the words and partial phrases to come up with a different interpretation. It's a spurious technique for examining data looking for details which are not there. If they wanted to have that interpretation of the rule it would have been childishly simple for them to write them that way.


The rule is not clearly worded, and the intention is not clear.
Upon first reading the rule most people get what we both consider to be the 'correct' interpretation, but there's nothing in the actual language which necessarily SAYS that, it's at best implied.

I'm going to stop here, because I know how stupidly stubborn you can be, Aramoro, and how you seem to be completely incapable of thinking about language in different ways.


----------



## DeathKlokk

The world is gone mad. Wint is telling people not to be a Dick. :grin:

Next thing you know people will be condescending to _Me_! lol

Ugh, can we all agree that this is pointless and move on?

::grumblegrumble, fucking thread not in Rules, grumblegrumble, can't lock or edit, grumblegrumble:: :ireful2:


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

Actually, I play Tyranid, but don't use any big creatures with Toxic Sacs...infact the biggest thing in my list is ...the Swarmlord followed by Tervigons (Which I always get Toxic Sacs on for swarms of Gaunts) And I just recently started the game...always have been interested in it, however, I'm not arguing this for my personal gain, as I really am not that fond of Fexes. 

Sorry to cause such a commotion, we all know how it is played, sorry for bringing it up...


----------



## eyescrossed

Hive Mind Dracon said:


> Sorry to cause such a commotion, we all know how it is played, sorry for bringing it up...


No matter, people here like a good debate. I was just being a bit of a dick, and for that I'm sorry :thank_you:


----------



## Hive Mind Dracon

No worries, happens to the best of us.


----------



## Aramoro

DeathKlokk said:


> The world is gone mad. Wint is telling people not to be a Dick. :grin:


Not that mad, he was telling me not to be a dick, so business as usual I would think heh.


----------

