Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Was just taking a look and was woundering that if you had both the Bane head (choose a character and all unsaved wounds are doubled) and Prhanha Blade (unsaved wounds are multiplied by two), would you end up with the situatino of for instance;
A) I cause 1 wound, Piranha blade doubles it to 2, that character now has 2 wounds against it which the Bnae Head (as long as chosen enemy) doubles to 4 wounds,
B ) I cause 1 wound, Piranha blade doubles it to 2, Bane head has no effect on the character as the doubling of wounds has already occured through the affects of the Piranha Blade.
Just somthing I'm woundering about if theres anyone with an answer out there.
Tricky one this as its easy to see either of those two as being correct. I actually think its more likely to be A as a result of the wording used in the item's description.
Unsaved wounds caused by the Piranha blade are "multiplied into two wounds", while the Bane Head "doubles all unsaved wounds suffered". As the Piranha blade explicitly states that every unsaved wound becomes two and the Bane Head doubles the unsaved wounds caused, that suggests that each wound caused becomes four.
While I can see the possibility that B is correct, I think the use of the phrase "multiplies into two", is deliberately intended to avoid conflict with the doubling effect of the Bane Head.
If the Piranha was stated as doubling unsaved wounds then only one instance of the doubling should take place, as only one unsaved wound was caused, but the Piranha blade's description ensures that two wounds are caused, not one doubled.
I'm not sure why you'd want to use that combination, dragon slaying maybe?, but I think it would indeed cause four wounds for each one inflicted.
Last edited by Autodeath37; April 13th, 2009 at 16:15.
The other option that you didn't mention is that it causes 3 wounds. Blade causes one wound, then that one wound is multiplied into to wounds by the blade. At the same time that one wound is doubled by the banehead. So you end up with three wounds,
That being said, I don't know which one is right. Have to wait for an FAQ on that.
I am right 94% of the time, why worry about the other 3%.
I think that Sirkently has a nice compromise until there is a FAQ one way or the other.
I am trying to locate it again, but I swear this had been FAQ'd to state that it is in fact 3 wounds.
Last edited by Esco Thomson; April 14th, 2009 at 03:56.
It's Adventure Time!
2010 'Ardboyz Champion
Might have been for last edition, neither item is new.
3 wounds caused, as suggested by sirkently.
Magic items and special rules that double wounds can only double the "original" wound. The rules from different special items or weapons with the same effect are not combined unless specifically stated in the description. I can presently think of no such case.
1 original wound
+1 wound (unsaved wound is multiplied by two - Piranha Blade)
+1 wound (unsaved wound is doubled - Bane Head)
As there is no official ruling in a new (is one out yet?) or old Lizardmen FAQ, you have to go on what everyone else is playing it as.
I have heard and even asked this question at various Games-Workshop stores, and be it employee or players, everyone agrees that using the "original" wound method can be applied in both this situation and others that are vague with their descriptions.
I do not think you can double a double, in the same way you cannot reroll a reroll. There was a very old direwolf FAQ which sourced an equally old White Dwarf FAQ stating that you cannot quadruple wounds, the items just shouldn't be taken together. Of course that was an old edition of the game and a pair of different items, but I still think the answer is the correct one, that you simply cannot combine them.
Will have to wait for an official FAQ to get a proper current answer though.