Witchbrew and Non-Frenzied Unit

[Dyvim tvar]

How do you think it works when the unit has to take a Leadership check to avoid charging?

1) Whole unit checks on highest base Ld?
2) Whole unit checks on unit's base Ld?
3) Whole unit checks on highest Ld -3
4) Death Hag and unit take separate tests (Death Hag at -3, unit at base)?
5) Another option I missed?

[Omnichron]

I believe you will use the highest base Ld without any minuses because the unit isn't frenzied before the buff is applied.

The text says that "This mode, and all models in the same unit gains the Frenzy special rule. If they already have the frenzy rule...", which seems to say that both both has to have the rule to get that Ld -3.

From the way I read it, the hag won't get an extra +1 attack with that super frenzy that way.

[Calisson]

I was wondering what was the problem. Got it.
- DH has already frenzy, therefore is candidate for double frenzy
- her unit has not, therefore is candidate for simple frenzy.

Rule says (translated from French):
Condition: "If they are already frenzied, "
Result: "frenzy grants +2A but the unit tests at Ld-3 for not charging."



1) Whole unit checks on highest base Ld?
RAW: "they" (plural) were not already frenzied, only the DH (singular) was.
Condition is not verified, => Result is not achieved, => the unit tests at highest Ld (most likely 9), and... the DH has simple frenzy.

2) Whole unit checks on unit's base Ld?
Possible RAI: DH gets double frenzy and -3 Ld, unit gets simple frenzy and normal Ld.
Take highest Ld available (i.e. unit's Ld unless unit was medusa )

3) Whole unit checks on highest Ld -3
Would "they" in Condition represent the DH only? If this was the case, then RAW, the whole unit would benefit from double-frenzy, no matter the unit (as the DH has built-in frenzy). Definitively no.

4) Death Hag and unit take separate tests (Death Hag at -3, unit at base)?
Never test separately.

5) Another option I missed?
Only now do I realize that the condition for double-frenzy is not met, even for the DH.


(Omnichron beats me but reaches same conclusion)

[Dyvim tvar]

I think you are right and agree with your logic.

[Schattenklinge]

IF any test is taken, the WHOLE unit tests on the highest LD available...


in that case i would say the DH has an frenzyDX rest normal frenzy and the tests are rolled on the highest LD the unit offers, but -3.

in english the book says "the unit tests on -3"

my view

[Omnichron]

IF any test is taken, the WHOLE unit tests on the highest LD available...


in that case i would say the DH has an frenzyDX rest normal frenzy and the tests are rolled on the highest LD the unit offers, but -3.

in english the book says "the unit tests on -3"

my view

Well, I don't think the DH will get "superfrenzy" because the whole unit needs to be frenzied already for the unit and her to get the superfrenzy. It's the wording "they" that implies that she and the unit she's in has to be frenzied to get the superfrenzy attack.

So, she'll have normal frenzy, the unit will have normal frenzy, the normal Ld test is taken to not charge.

[Ming]

Putting DH with Witchbrew in a WE unit, should give superfrenzy and -3 ld test. In non frenzied units I agree with Omni and Calisson

[Liquidedust]

Putting DH with Witchbrew in a WE unit, should give superfrenzy and -3 ld test. In non frenzied units I agree with Omni and Calisson

There is still the discussion of if she is actually part of a unit if she rides a cauldron though

[Calisson]

There is still the discussion of if she is actually part of a unit if she rides a cauldron though

I came to realize that she might well be part of that unit indeed, and I was the only one to suggest she might not.

[Liquidedust]

There is still the discussion of if she is actually part of a unit if she rides a cauldron though

I came to realize that she might well be part of that unit indeed, and I was the only one to suggest she might not.

Told you you were overthinking it didn't I

[Gidean]

You know guys, considering where the comma is placed in the second sentence I think any unit the witchbrew toting hag is in MUST test at -3 for restraining the charge whether they had frenzy already or not. Now I do not believe that Mr. Ward has an English degree in college but the sentence seems to read that the unit gets frenzy, or super frenzy AND must test at -3 to restrain from charging. In other words I don't see the clause after the common being conditional. I think it is automatic if you take witchbrew. Note that the Fury of Khaine bound spell on the Cauldron does not have any such requirement.

[Pablo]

I have to agree with calisson on this one. I'm stuck on "this model, and all other models in the unit" and the "if they...".
This would mean that the death hag does not get superfrenzy because all the other models in the unit are not originally frenzied. To me it is *relatively* clear that because all the models in the unit don't have frenzy, she does not go supermad. This also means that if one model was not frenzied (for example an assassin in a witch unit) THEY (as not every model has it) would have normal frenzy. Just my 2 cents.

[Dalamar]

"they" is a tricky word here.
They can mean:
one person of unspecified gender (singular)
they as a collective (plural)
each one of them on their own (also plural but with separation between entities)

[Pablo]

Use the third type in a sentence. The first two make perfect sense, but the third option I can't get my head around right now.

[Gidean]

Wow...threadomancy. I now play that the unit must have frenzy before they get super frenzy. Makes the most sense and works best for my army design. Otherwise it would be just plain stupid to take Witch Brew. Nobody wants to check at -3 all the time.

[Pablo]

Well this question has been on my mind :p

My resting argument is this:
They refers to "this model, and all models in the same unit. So when you read the next line literally insert "this model, and all models in the same unit" and the rule makes sense the way we have been explaining. If not, it just becomes chaotic and more messy than it needs to be.

[Dalamar]

It really doesn't. You simply go:
Have frenzy?
Yes- +2A
No- +1A
Any yes?- -3 to restrain.

[Gidean]

It really doesn't. You simply go:
Have frenzy?
Yes- +2A
No- +1A
Any yes?- -3 to restrain.

So I do not understand from your answer whether you consider the DH's inherent frenzy a "yes" and thus an auto -3? I don't. So I don't test on the -3 unless I am dumb enough to add her to witches or a group with Tullaris in it.

[Dalamar]

If you claim +2 attacks for your death hag then the rules are clear. One model with super frenzy is enough to trigger the -3 for the entire unit.

Which also supports my interpretation that each model benefits separately according to their personal level of frenzy. Otherwise the clause of any models benefitting from double frenzy would be unnecessary.

[Gidean]

If you claim +2 attacks for your death hag then the rules are clear. One model with super frenzy is enough to trigger the -3 for the entire unit.

Well I don't claim +2 attacks for her either. So I don't test at -3.