Feast of Bones

[Timiketh]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but what's the wider community thoughts on Feast of Bones? If I hit with all my attacks against a unit, do I get the extra D6. My local gamers say yes, but I'd like to know if there is a wider consensus view?

[Calisson]

The wording says a model, not a unit.
I.e. you cannot have Feast of Bones and overflow to another model.

[Timiketh]

By that rational though if I'm corner to corner, say I multicharge a character of dragon and a unit of troops against the same opponent and my character is in b2b with 1 rank and file model, he puts his attacks on that model (as he would have to) and he can only kill that one guy? Surely the WOUNDS are distributed, not the attacks..?

[Calisson]

Your character in b2b with 1 R&F model will have wounds overflow to the unit.
K-beast has a specific rule for the use of its feast of bone: it must target a single model, and only that model suffers the additional wounds, therefore no overflow.
Of course, if the K-beast doesn't target anyone in particular, wounds will overflow, but there will be no feast of bones.

[Dalamar]

Unfortunately Calisson, when you target a rank and file model, the wounds do overflow onto a unit. You can only ever attack models in base to base contact. That would mean that a witch elf in a corner of a unit, in base contact with only one enemy would never be able to cause more than 1 wound which is not the case.

The point of contention appears when you have the *option* to attack more than one model and most people assume that if you are not forced to attack a specific model you must attack the unit as a whole (remember that wounds allocated to champions and characters *do not* overflow). I disagree.

I don't disagree without a basis either, he's my argument:
Q: Can Cygors allocate their attacks on a unit’s standard bearer with a magic banner to get re-rolls to hit? (p49)
A: Yes

Standard bearer is no special from any other model in the unit as any rank and file will pick the banner up again. What allows Cygor to re-roll is targetting a model with a magic item. What allows Kharibdyss to trigger Feast of Bones is targetting all attacks on a single model.

[Calisson]

What is the exact wording in English for Feast of Bones (up to the end)?

[Dalamar]

"If Kharibdyss directs all of its close combat Attacks against the same model, and all of those attacks hit, then the target model suffers an additional D6 Strength 7 hits."

[Calisson]

"If Kharibdyss directs all of its close combat Attacks against the same model, and all of those attacks hit, then the target model suffers an additional D6 Strength 7 hits."

Here is what I read: target model.

[Dalamar]

Correct.

And I just re-read the rules for removing casualties in the BRB and you might be on to something there Calisson... I just need to figure out what makes the Cygor special in its ability to re-roll all of its attacks against a single standard bearer and still kill multiple models (other than Beastmen monsters needing all the help they can get)

[Saintofm]

The cygor is simple: Magic. No, serious. Wizards, undead, daemons, or minies simply holding magic items is enough for them to aim better (they see magic, literally blind to just about everything else).

[Dalamar]

I know, but they can allocate all attacks on the standard bearer with a magic banner (single model) and do damage to the entire unit because extra wounds spill over.

[Calisson]

The magic banner is supposed to be taken by a nearby comrade as soon as the pennant bearer falls. Hence the overflow.

[Dalamar]

So? All hits are done before any wounds are. So the banner bearer is hit however many times.

And I think this is the key for kharibdyss as well.
You roll to hit first.
If all hit, you roll extra d6 hits (you're still on the hits stage so the targeted model is still alive)
Now the wounding comes, you roll all to wound dice against the chosen model, then excess overflow onto the unit.

[Haagrum]

Given the wording of the rule, and the fluff surrounding it, my personal view is that Feast of Bones does not overflow onto a unit where the attacks are made against a single non-character non-champion model within a unit (and obviously, would not do so for those examples either).

I think the comparison with the Cygor is somewhat inappropriate, and reflects the mechanics of the game rather than what would, in concept, actually be happening. Although we roll all attacks for a Kharibdyss at the same time, those attacks would not all be happening simultaneously, and a model killed by the first attack wouldn't still be available to be targeted by the fourth or fifth. I realise that this is not strict RAW, but then again, strict RAW can produce ludicrous results. A Cygor would keep swinging at whoever picked up the magic banner (which is consistent with what the Cygor's magical sight is intended to represent), whereas the Kharibdyss would have already eaten the first infantry standard bearer by the time it got to the fifth attack (which is what Feast of Bones is supposed to represent). Applying a modicum of common sense, the Cygor and the Kharibdyss would not be attacking the same model, but the Cygor's rules don't require its attacks to be directed at the same model.

I realise that this interpretation commits the sins of arguing RAI, fluff and common sense in a game world where giant rats eat glowing rocks to shoot lightning (amongst other things). However, Feast of Bones is worded to represent the Kharibdyss's ability to take apart a single target model, and the hits from Feast of Bones specifically land on a single model which has already been hit 5 times. The argument seems internally inconsistent to me. Although a standard bearer is conceptually replaced once the first bearer is killed, it's hard to see how one could argue that it is still the same "model" without insisting on the strict wording of the rules over everything else (physics included), without then becoming immediately self-contradictory by arguing that additional hits specifically inflicted on that same model will strike additional models in the same unit.

That said, if it came up in a game I was playing, I'd just resort to The Most Important Rule and get on with it, rather than getting stuck arguing. Since my interpretation is not to my advantage, I don't think it'd be an issue.

[Cold73]

I've never head anyone question this rule before. Most simply seem to take my word for it.

If a monster or character with a Random Number of attacks can only attack one model.... It can still kill several models of the entire unit.
Everyone seems to agree with me on that.

Than why is this any different? It is a random number of attacks...provided a certain condition is reached (in this case having to hit with all other attacks)
Then again since the chance of this happening is only 8% or so most people dont seem to mind.
However i do tell them about this before I even roll to hit....that often helps dissuade the issue should it ever arise.

[Calisson]

Than why is this any different?

There is something specific in the K-beast rule, already mentioned:

"If Kharibdyss directs all of its close combat Attacks against the same model, and all of those attacks hit, then the target model suffers an additional D6 Strength 7 hits."

Unless you have a different understanding?

[Dalamar]

No, not at all.

But any excess wounds (not hits) done to a rank and file model carry over to the unit. This is not kharibdyss specific or a new rule at all.

[Calisson]

But if there was to be an overflow as usual, why in the world would GW come up with such wording as to specify "same model" and "target model"?
Please explain convincingly.
If you can't, then apply AB>BRB and forget about overflow.

[Scyloc]

Calisson currently GW has established 2 different methods of handling extra damage.

One who allows overflow as usual -> d6 extra Sxx hits
One who does not allow overflow -> d6 multiple wounds

The question is. If GW did not want the extra damage to overflow, why wouldnt they simply use the multiple wounds approach, as they have allready done with many other monster attacks?
The fact that they decided to go down the extra d6 SXX hits route, clearly supports Dalamars reading of the rule, and that overflow is allowed.

[Calisson]

Not understood, sorry.

[Scyloc]

First of all, we all agree that the way they decided to word the Feast of Bones rule, is unclear. RAW does not support a clear ruling, there is only our interpretation of the RAW.

Back to the argument.

If they did not want Feast of Bones to overflow, it would have been much simpler for GW to write:
"If all attacks hit, the last hit has the multiple wounds (d6) special rule"
In this case, there would be no confusion. No overflow can happen, due to how the multiple wounds rule work.
But they decided NOT to do this.

Therefore (to use your own argument):

"If there was to NOT be an overflow as usual, why in the world would GW come up with such wording "causes extra d6 S7 hits", when there is allready another rule "multiple wounds (d6), that does exactly that.
Please explain convincingly.
If you can't, then apply AB>BRB and overflow will happen."


On a more general note:
The answer you come to, is a matter of where you put your emphasis

If Kharibdyss directs all of its close combat Attacks against the same model, and all of those attacks hit, then the target model suffers an additional D6 Strength 7 hits

Supports, NO overflow, but ignores the mention of d6 S7 hits, which would normally allow overflow, and instead plays the rule very similar to multiple wounds d6

If Kharibdyss directs all of its close combat Attacks against the same model, and all of those attacks hit, then the target model suffers an additional D6 Strength 7 hits

Supports, overflow, but ignores the mention of target model which seems to not allow overflow, and instead play the rule very similar to other d6 extra hits without this wording.

Both are equally true. It is just a matter of consensus and opinion.

I am personally in the later camp.

[Calisson]

But the additional D6 S7 hits are NOT the same as D6 S7 multiple wounds: you need to roll "to hit".
This is why there is such wording.

Was I convincing?

[Scyloc]

But the additional D6 S7 hits are NOT the same as a S7 hit with multiple wounds (d6), you need to roll "to wound" in the first case.
This is why there is such wording.

Was I convincing?

Is this what you ment?

No, the 2 are not the same, they are just very similar.
Statistically they do the same damage though.
With multiple wounds, you roll 1 to wound, to hit, armor save, ward save roll, which counts for all d6 wounds, "They either all wound or fail at the same time, all or nothing"
With d6 S7 hits, you roll d6 for each hit, and some might wound and get through defenses, others might not. Statistically they do the same # of wounds though.

But this has nothing to do with my argument. I dont argue that they do exactly the same thing. I argue that they behave differently with regards to whether there is overflow or not. Which I am sure we all agree with.



And the question still remains, what part of the Feast of Bones-wording one chooses to ignore. "target model" or "D6 S7 hits". Depending on what you ignore, you come to 2 different conclusions. Overflow or no overflow.

[Dalamar]

But you can't ignore any part of the text.

Imagine an ability:
Each model in base contact suffers 2 S10 hits.

On a 20mm base model, in base contact with 3 models out of a larger unit, how many models can this ability kill? 3 or 6?

[Calisson]

Me 'ead 'urts. I feel I rolled badly my stupidity check when trying to understand what Syloc writes.

I fail to understand how multiple wounds rule can be compared to feast of bones.
Before you consider any multiple wounds (p.73) you have already passed "to hit", "to wound" and "armour save failed". Then the wound can become multiple on a single model, no need to roll any other "to hit" or "to wound" or "armour save".
With Feast of bones, the trigging factor is all attacks passed "to hit", then you get to add a couple more "to hit". This happens before any "to wound" dice rolled.
How can this be compared?

I still read that the key condition is to target a single model. If you don't target, you don't meet the condition. And usually you cannot target specifically a non-champion R&F.