Chillblade from new 8th armybook

[Loriel]

Some photos can be found there
http://lkhero.blogspot.de/2013/09/new-dark-elves-from-book.html

One thing came up to me

Attacks made with the Chillblade wound automatically...

Ok, I think RAI is that Chillblade needs to roll a hit and then automatic wound. Or if it would be intented I really doubt that they would have item with autohit + autowound with only 50 points, and added some cool debuff effect to the item also. Flavor text gives a hint that "its merest touch freezes not only the physichal body but also the soul within." So in fluff wise it is still considered that you actually have to hit the target.

but RAW seems to have implication that attacks just wounds automatically. And if we open what does attack mean. for example Roll to Hit from BRB page 50 dictates that "Roll a D6 for each attack". For example same kind of wording can be found from poisoned attack. In poisoned attack there is IF condition that makes the effect wounds automatically trigger.

Any thoughs on the matter?

[Calisson]

Nothing suggests autohit, but only autowound.

[Dalamar]

You still have to roll to hit and the weapon is terrible.

[Dyvim tvar]

I agree. It's not so good for the price since it doesn't help punch through armor and we already have some help in wounding due to murderous prowess.

[Loriel]

First of all I must say that I am not a RAW fanatic and (I am actually not even a Dark Elf player, I am (as my avatar suggest) High Elven player) so my goal here is not to get any unfair advantage or rule abusing. I tend to think that to understand the rules of Warhammer (or any other game) you have to look things from many angles. And best way to counter RAW fanatics is to analyze things how they do (or just put the most important rule on the table ). Way I would play this item would be not auto hitting, purely for RAI interpret / fluff perspective.

Nothing suggests autohit, but only autowound.

I have to disagree in RAW sense. It states and attack wounds automatically. That means when you do an attack it wounds automatically. There is clear nuance difference if it would state all hits wounds automatically, which it should have and probably is intended to have. An attack is something that is done before "hitting". Allt hough hitting isn't problem for elves in general thus having almost "auto hit" anyway

This isn't actually rules section material but I actually disagree with this weapon being trash. It gives almost solid +4 combat resolution from lord when fighting some trashy skavens / ogres. It will devastate Tomb Kings Necrosphinx, Necrolith colossus or anyother high toughness monster with low armor save. It will be great asset to fight frostheart phoenix. Not everything in FB has 1+ as.

[Dalamar]

An attack cannot go to the to-wound stage without first satisfying to-hit stage.

[van Awful]

I have to disagree in RAW sense. It states and attack wounds automatically. That means when you do an attack it wounds automatically. There is clear nuance difference if it would state all hits wounds automatically, which it should have and probably is intended to have. An attack is something that is done before "hitting". Allt hough hitting isn't problem for elves in general thus having almost "auto hit" anyway

on this Loriel has got a point though,

[Omnichron]

Dalamar is correct. It's quite clear how the mechanics work in this game:

- First you roll to hit
- Then you roll to wound
- Then the wounded miniature can do his saves

Just because the middle one happens automatically, doesn't mean that you can skip the two other parts (unless specificly stated). If you disregard these steps, you could say that "Hey, it says it wounds automatically, not that you have to hit or that you'll get any saves"... and that's wrong.

[Calisson]

Until we get a GW FAQ, I anticipate Druchii.net community to FAQ this unanimously as Omnichron says, and to strongly discourage Loriel RAW reading.

[Amarel]

Just to be clear what we're talking about:

Attacks made with the Chillblade wound automatically

It neither stats that "Attacks hit and wound automatically", nor "Hits wound automatically" (which are the two statements that we'd like to find for clarity).

However, we have to assume that the word "hit" was occluded on purpose, meaning that it's just the "wounds" that automatic.

[Loriel]

I complete agree that it isn't supposed to be auto hitter. Flavor text has it.

This actually breaks down in to the term attack and what does it mean. When looking in to BRB it comes extremely clear that word attack is used in many different ways. When people talk about RAW/RAI/Fluff what they actually is supposed to do is actually look at the rules and see how they collaborate each other, and then be baffled that how is it possible that there is 8th edition and still BRB feels like its been written with infinite monkey theorem. Good example of better ruleset is magic the gathering, surely much more complex with almost infinite number of combinations, but because the basic rules are very simple, very deterministic and wizards of the coast has made it clear how to use terms, not many conflicts rises on MTG.

I want to make a little hypothesis here. If flavor text would suggest something like "air around chillblade chills the bones of enemies without ever touching enemy" How would people see this printed rule. Perhaps poorly written with the intend of autohit.

I list different quotes from BRB that can be used to define attack.

This shows the number of times a creature attacks during close combat.

... the easier a creature finds it to hit with missile attack...

This allows you to check wheter your units are in range of their target before they launch an attack

A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy whether with sword, spell or bow

... a model armed with a missile weapon can use it to make a single shooting attack.

So in short idea behind here is to show just that the word attack it self is used in many ways. Nothing above cannot be used to solve this RAW.

The real "attack" definition, that matters in this case can only be found in close combat section

Here are few quotes from close combat

Roll a D6 for each attack... To determine whether or not hits are scored, roll a D6 for each attack a model gets to make.

Roll a D6 for each attack that hit.

So this is very clear. Nothing conflicts whatsoever for each attack there is requirement to hit and wounding comes after hit. And this is very fluffy and very RAI way. And RAW way for the matter

Here are few quotes from shooting. Just to make comparison of similar ruleset

Roll a D6 for each shot fired

Roll a D6 for each shot fired

Ok.

Lets make hypothesis about an bow that would have ruling
"Shots made from this bow wounds automatically" How would you interpret that. I actually dare to say that most would say that it would autohit or it would be much more disputed... In this sense shots would be equal to attack as a terms of rules. Well this isn't really solving the matter, rather bringing some out of the box thinking to equation.

Ok, I failed to find any other similar effect in the book than poisoned attack

A model with the Poisoned Attacks special rule wounds his target automatically if his natural dice roll to hit is a 6.

It has similar effect but with a nuance twist. There is trigger effect which is linked to "to hit roll". then there is actually noted definition if shooting attack would hit 7+. Based only by this, they are different kind of effects, allthough similar. I actually hope that anybody that knows better example of similar effect / item / special rule etc. across warhammer (even previous editions) it would be nice to know. that kind of out of the box thinking is required when one does RAW / RAI hammering =).

Ok, lets break down what is a magic weapon, what does it actually mean.

Unless otherwise stated, a magic weapon is treated as a hand weapon, and follow the rules for such...

a model with a hand weapon fights precisely according to the rules laid out in earlier sections

Hah! Actually after reading this section one could argue that no magic effect could be used from magical weapons if you would follow RAW and treated as hand weapon. Well let's not go that way . This actually gives a good rulewise statement that all the rules of the brb also effect magical weapon, which is actually no brainer. But when it comes to RAW this sort of things must exist. This also leads to the fact, that Chillblade should also need to hit before having an effect

Basic rules apple to all the models in the game unless specifically stated otherwise. This include the rules for movement, shooting, close combat and so on...
Advanced rules apply to specific types of model, wheter because they have a special kind of weapon...

BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED: Where rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules...

... Rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence

ok.. how would we follow Basic Rule vs. advanced rule in this matter. First of all, we perhaps all can agree that to hit / to wound close combat ruleset is surely a Basic Rule within the game... And Chillblade is advanced rule

So we have a basic rule set that states that Attack needs to roll to hit and a advanced rule that states attack automatically wounds... There is contradiction of term, which is poorly defined. And in this type of contradictions we follow advanced rules over basic rules. And since Chillblade is from warhammer armybook it actually triumphs over BRB advanced rules also.

Well one of the best rules in BRB can be found at the page 1. "The Most Important Rule". And since BRB advices us to make house rules perhaps there is one to be made.

So in conclusion:
- RAW: auto hit
- RAI: requires to hit
- Fluff: Definately not autohitter, flavor text tells the story.

I hope that somebody could show good definition between the rules how my thinking is wrong. I actually would love it and that is actually what I am trying to achieve since, in this matter (and many other rules in the game) can be solved by different kind of thinking.

[Drasanil]

We've had auto-hit and auto-wound for plenty of editions now and I have never ever seen anyone try to argue that the latter meant the former was also included by RAW. This is just ridiculous. Hitting and Wounding are two clear and distinct things and you are using incredibly tortured logic to try to justify an outcome you supposedly don't even agree with.

Rules as Written is that attacks wound automatically no more, no less. That is pure RAW, there is nothing mentioned about hitting so you use the normal rules for it plain and simple.

[CreativeName]

According to RAW, the wounds are automatic but the rules in the army book don't specify exactly who is wounded. It could be all attacks would wound the bearer automatically or it could be that the target of the attack is wounded. I know the Brb states how this is handled in general but since it doesn't go over the combat phase word for word in the weapon's rules, we can't assume. I think we'll have to roll off everytime we attack. Why can't GW make clear rules for us?

[Loriel]

This is very interesting addition to discussion

All hits from a Runefang wound automatically with no armor saves allowed

Clear difference in wording. Item is 85 points, so say 50 points for no as and 35 for auto wounds... (compared to 8th BRB obsidian blade) So chillblade would have auto wound with 35 points -> 15 point for that extra effect.

[Fr0]

You have to hit, in order to wound. Fair comparison with Runefang though, I suppose.

I don't really think the weapon is bad, but I won't be using it any time soon. Last edition I actually used it on occasion, because it completely stopped them from attacking. It was good situationally.