Does talisman of Loec effect regen rolls?

[Minsc]

Cheating is when you claim to have a dispel scroll that you don't...

Thats also cheating, there are many ways to cheat in wfb.

No but really, if you want to use the ToL that way feel free too, I won't, and I probably won't play anyone else who would either.
(If I did, I would as previously mentioned, start powergaming so hard that the one I play against won't wanna play against me again - thats soo much cooler than just grabbing your army and walk away.)

[Astromarine]

um, are the accusations of cheating really necessary? It CAN be read both ways, people who are saying it can't aren't properly parsing it. If the "better" way is the way you are actually reading it, you're not "cheating", you're at most misinterpreting a rule.

The description has a trigger and an effect. The trigger is what causes the item to affect a particular model. The effect is the, well, effect.

In this case, the trigger is "Any model wounded by his attacks", him being the character with the item. The effect is "must reroll any sucessful saves of any kind". It's unclear which version of the reading GW intended. If the trigger said "Any model, when wounded..." it would be clear that the item would only affect the bearer's attacks. If the effect said "...of any kind, until the end of the phase" it would be clear it would affect other attacks from other models. Since it doesn't, we have to wait for clarification, use our own personal interpretation and agree with the opponent, and ask judges in tournaments which interpretation they follow. Calling each other cheaters really doesn't help.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Agreed, refusing to play is a lame excuse. I see people write that all the time, and I just shake my head. Same with the folks who threaten to punch people who 'abuse' rules.

What does one do to be powergaming hard? Does it imply that you'll question every rule? Or closely inspect dice rolls? or meticulously scrutinize your opponent's movement? Or just enforcing rules? You're within your rights to do so.

Just keep in mind that a lot of things people once considered 'abusive' are now straight up accepted and even written into the rules. Once upon a time, people used to argue heatedly over the legality of 'tactical wheeling' or using eagles to redirect, or tidying ranks (the 'slide'). Then consider whether its really worth it to get that worked up about it.

[Musashi]

The description is quite clear, there is no need to worry about misinterpretation.

It's rather interesting that a single use item can stir this much controversy and name calling. There are really more powerful items whose effect on the game are more dramatic, and surprisingly undercosted. The fact that we can discover an item in the HEAB that might slightly benefit our armies seems to be viewed as a catastrophe by some.

[Anduil of Elithis]

The description doesn't discriminate on the source of the attacks.

True. But I asked the german GW team about it and they told me, that the talisman was intended to only force rerolls for saves, that are caused be attacks of the bearer. And personally, I must admit that intention is at least pretty clear in the rules text. Therefor, they don't think an faq about this is neccessary and on their official tournaments, they'd rule it in the intended way.

For me that is enough to play it in the intended way, though I agree, that it can be read the way that you're playing it without bending any rules here.

[PapaElf]

The description is quite clear, there is no need to worry about misinterpretation.

Now that is funny, How in the world can one make that statement at the end of a page and a half of posts arguing about interpretation.

[Musashi]

It is rather funny - my stance on the Standard of Balance should be well known, because whenever it was mentioned, I stated that it needed to be FAQed as Eternal hatred could not by default be determined as a Psychological state within the definition of the BRB.

The wording here is clear - it is so clear, that it would be difficult to make a finding that the book's author screwed up between grammar and intent.

A lot of these posts tend to reflect preferences, but I believe my past record speaks for itself.

[Candy Chesthair]

I agree with Musashi, the wording is clear. It might not be how it's intented, but hey, we are playing warhammer and the idea of a great item in our collection (instead of being humiliated by the new dark elf items) is something I can embrace.

[Telephalsion]

It's been said earlier, but I'll rephrase it:

I believe the Talisman of Loec bestows the following three effects:
1. Good luck to the wearer (reroll failed to hits/wounds)
2. Bad luck to the wearer (loss of a wound)
3. Bad luck to anyone touching the wearer (models hit must reroll all saves during that round, regardless of nature and source)

Mind you, it's just how I read it, but when you read "any saves of any kind", it's hard not to interpret it like so.

[Flame of the Asuryan]

I find this absolutely less intimidating then Str 7 Throwing stars.....while throwing stars in history where considerd useless because the low lethality.

[Anduil of Elithis]

The wording here is clear - it is so clear, that it would be difficult to make a finding that the book's author screwed up between grammar and intent.

Yes and no. The thing is, nowhere in the rules for the talisman is a mentioning of other units beeing involved in this, except for the bearer and the models that he is attacking. So while I agree that it can be read in your interpretation without explicitely including those additional models, they usually would have been included if the wounds resulting from their attacks are beeing affected by the talismans effect too.

So in my interpretation the intention was, that only the bearer and his targets are effected. The author expected that to be clear and by that simply forgot to nail it with explicitely saying that it only works for these attacks from the bearer. The german GW team that I asked said this was the case which is enough for me to accept it as I haven't seen this new interpretation anywhere but here in this forum. But there is no FAQ or anything about it, so everyone is up to read it like you think it fits your bill

[Wildling04]

[q

So in my interpretation the intention was, that only the bearer and his targets are effected. The author expected that to be clear and by that simply forgot to nail it with explicitely saying that it only works for these attacks from the bearer. The german GW team that I asked said this was the case which is enough for me to accept it as I haven't seen this new interpretation anywhere but here in this forum. But there is no FAQ or anything about it, so everyone is up to read it like you think it fits your bill

I'm not trying to argue or take a side here, but I think it is worth pointing out that "official people" may not have the ruling correct.

Heck, there are three things wrong that I found regarding the high elves that were blatantly wrong by the author of the book:

1) In the HE WD release edition, he said that fully kitted silver helms would be 21 points.

2) In the same WD, he played his high elf white lion chariots with strength 6 attacks from the crew.

3) In a sample army within the book, they show a 5 hero army at 2k points.

Again, I'm not sure what the correct answer for the talisman is, and in FAQs they sometimes have gone with RAW (casters don't have line of sight to their own unit when within a unit, anyone?) and other times "as intended." So, regardless even of intent or writ, it may turn out to be the flavor of the FAQ that day.

[Minsc]

1) In the HE WD release edition, he said that fully kitted silver helms would be 21 points.

2) In the same WD, he played his high elf white lion chariots with strength 6 attacks from the crew.

WD armylists and battlereports are reknown to...well, be wrong quite often.

3) In a sample army within the book, they show a 5 hero army at 2k points.

Yepp, but then I've seen pictures of 2250 pts armies within some book that also ignored the rules concerning how many special/rareslots you can take as well.

The AB says you only get 4 characterslots at 2000-2999 pts so you only get 4.

So, regardless even of intent or writ, it may turn out to be the flavor of the FAQ that day

This is sad, but true.

[Anduil of Elithis]

[q
I'm not trying to argue or take a side here, but I think it is worth pointing out that "official people" may not have the ruling correct.

Again, I'm not sure what the correct answer for the talisman is, and in FAQs they sometimes have gone with RAW (casters don't have line of sight to their own unit when within a unit, anyone?) and other times "as intended." So, regardless even of intent or writ, it may turn out to be the flavor of the FAQ that day.

Sure, it's a sad fact. One needs to take all these things with some salt. Just think of the DE-FAQ and the S7 throwing stars which were never intnded that way by the books author.

[Stormie]

By the exact RAW wording, once a model has been wounded by the Talisman-bearer, not only must they re-roll all successful saves from other models that turn- but also in fact the rest of the battle, as that portion of the wording has no timeframe to it (other than the original wound must have occured "this phase", which it has to). This is of course so ridiculous and anyone still playing by RAW really needs to get over it, there's too many potentially silly loopholes that can and should be ignored.

Hell, if you remember the debates from months back, then by "RAW" when re-rolling hits and wounds you could be required to re-roll ALL the dice (including successes), which is quite silly, and happily ignored by most players

[Minsc]

as that portion of the wording has no timeframe to it (other than the original wound must have occured "this phase", which it has to). This is of course so ridiculous and anyone still playing by RAW really needs to get over it, there's too many potentially silly loopholes that can and should be ignored.

[langbaobao]

If it was used that way though, surely it wouldn't help with champions in units as they all have the same initiative so all strike their blows at the same time. Which means they would all wound at the same time, so the champions wound won't have happened before the rest of the models attacking (and thereby jinking him) and you opponent would be making all the saves together.
As far as I am aware you can't choose which wounds are applied to the target first from hits from models with the same I, there isn't some sub layer timing sequence or something (unless I have missed it in the rulebook), so everything happens at once.
Characters on the other hand have higher I, so could technically hit first to get the jink in.

Actually, if you reread the BRB, you will see that tecnically attacks are done one at a time. However to speed up the game we all roll the dice in batches.

Any additional wounds on that specific model(s) (IF they count) would have to come from a friendly model in base to base contact with the same wounded model, and would have to be specifically targeted. Against big base targets maybe, but if all this is true, it's one hell of an undercosted item.

Agreed, this item is usefull only against large base targets like giants and hydras. The reroll of sucessful saves is forced on only one model (the one wounded by the ToL bearer) so it's useless against standard based units or at best of very scarce utility.


As for the wording controversy I'll explain in more detail how I interpret this.

Talisman of Loec

This item is used at the start of any Close Combat phase. The bearer may re-roll all rolls to hit and to wound until the end of the phase. Any model wounded by his attacks this phase must re-roll any successful saves of any kind.

I've pointed out the part that I think is the most important. Any model wounded by the attacks of the bearer of ToL must re-roll ANY sucessful saves of any kind. If said model is attacked by more then one model it is conceivable that some of those attacks will wound as well. So the attacked model has to roll saves not only for the wounds dealt by the ToL bearer but also for the wounds dealt by other models that attack it. And since the ToL says that the model has to re-roll ANY sucessful saves it's clear to me that he has to re-roll all sucessful saves regardless of origin. Had ToL a wording that said that the model has to re-roll saves on wounds dealt by the ToL bearer the situation would be different.

So to sum it up, to me the wording is very clear. The model should re-roll all saves on wounds it suffers that combat phase, regardless of origin of said wounds.

[Arhain]

If it was used that way though, surely it wouldn't help with champions in units as they all have the same initiative so all strike their blows at the same time. Which means they would all wound at the same time, so the champions wound won't have happened before the rest of the models attacking (and thereby jinking him) and you opponent would be making all the saves together.
As far as I am aware you can't choose which wounds are applied to the target first from hits from models with the same I, there isn't some sub layer timing sequence or something (unless I have missed it in the rulebook), so everything happens at once.
Characters on the other hand have higher I, so could technically hit first to get the jink in.

Actually, if you reread the BRB, you will see that tecnically attacks are done one at a time. However to speed up the game we all roll the dice in batches.

Any additional wounds on that specific model(s) (IF they count) would have to come from a friendly model in base to base contact with the same wounded model, and would have to be specifically targeted. Against big base targets maybe, but if all this is true, it's one hell of an undercosted item.

Agreed, this item is usefull only against large base targets like giants and hydras. The reroll of sucessful saves is forced on only one model (the one wounded by the ToL bearer) so it's useless against standard based units or at best of very scarce utility.


As for the wording controversy I'll explain in more detail how I interpret this.

Talisman of Loec

This item is used at the start of any Close Combat phase. The bearer may re-roll all rolls to hit and to wound until the end of the phase. Any model wounded by his attacks this phase must re-roll any successful saves of any kind.

I've pointed out the part that I think is the most important. Any model wounded by the attacks of the bearer of ToL must re-roll ANY sucessful saves of any kind. If said model is attacked by more then one model it is conceivable that some of those attacks will wound as well. So the attacked model has to roll saves not only for the wounds dealt by the ToL bearer but also for the wounds dealt by other models that attack it. And since the ToL says that the model has to re-roll ANY sucessful saves it's clear to me that he has to re-roll all sucessful saves regardless of origin. Had ToL a wording that said that the model has to re-roll saves on wounds dealt by the ToL bearer the situation would be different.

So to sum it up, to me the wording is very clear. The model should re-roll all saves on wounds it suffers that combat phase, regardless of origin of said wounds.

Good post. I think it's a little immature to jump to the "you're cheating" response when the wording on this is actually very clear. I'm surprised no one really pointed this out earlier actually.

[Stormie]

As I noted before, the save re-roll portion is not even limited to that phase, so once wounded by a model that has activated Talisman of Loec, he should re-roll all saves for the rest of the entire battle. If you want to play fully RAW. Expect Dark Elf players opponents feeding Potion of Strength to their Dragons, and other RAW idiocy in that case, however.

[Minsc]

Expect Dark Elf players opponents to field S9 T7 Dragons with 1+ armoursaves, Cold One Chariots with 1+ armoursaves, S8 T7 Manticores with 5+ armoursaves, And S7, T7 Dark Pegasuses with 5+ armoursaves.

There, added in some stuff for you.

[Marinero]

Expect Dark Elf players opponents to field S9 T7 Dragons with 1+ armoursaves, Cold One Chariots with 1+ armoursaves, S8 T7 Manticores with 5+ armoursaves, And S7, T7 Dark Pegasuses with 5+ armoursaves.

There, added in some stuff for you.

Out of curiousity, how on earth would these combos be even theoretically possible?

[Minsc]

Seadragon Cloaks (+1 AS, +2 AS vs shooting)
Armour of Living Death (+1T, +1W)
Potion of Strenght (+3S)
Black Dragon Egg (--> T6)

All affect the "modell", wich according to the BRB (and RAW, since many users on this forum seems to praise RAW above anything else) is both the rider and his mount.

[Marinero]

Seadragon Cloaks (+1 AS, +2 AS vs shooting)
Armour of Living Death (+1T, +1W)
Potion of Strenght (+3S)
Black Dragon Egg (--> T6)

All affect the "modell", wich according to the BRB (and RAW, since many users on this forum seems to praise RAW above anything else) is both the rider and his mount.

Which according the BRB is true, except in the cases of monstrous mounts, which are never affected by items affecting the riders - it is quite clearly (for GW standards ) written

This is further emphasized by the description of some items, which clearly state that the items extend to the mount. I.e the stone of crystal mere, the grail shield or the golden eye of tzeenche (this one was in the 6th ed only, I think)

And if you persist with this claim, them we may see stardragons affected by the vambraces of defence and the talsiman of loec of their rider, and this is quite a scary sight too

[Minsc]

Ofcourse it is, but is still debatable, in the same sence that ToL is debatable.

However, lets assume that magical items don't work on monstrous mounts; that it still leaves us with Cold One Chariots (since theyre not monstrous mounts - if they we're they could join units.) with S8, T7, W5 and 1+ saves, as well as Cold Ones with S7.

Also, according to RAW; Dark Elves can have a character become both the BSB and General at the same time (not sure if they cleared that up in the last FAQ though.)

The list goes on and on. Trust me, I'd never do anything of the above, unless I met someone who for instance, argued that ToL forces a modell to reroll succésfull saves for the rest of the game, or similar things...

[Musashi]

I reserve ToL for certain special characters, or characters equipped with a certain combination of items.

I like the ToL description, as RAW it is very clear in it's effects.

[Stormie]

Which according the BRB is true, except in the cases of monstrous mounts, which are never affected by items affecting the riders - it is quite clearly (for GW standards ) written

It doesn't state that at all. You might think it does, but unless you can provide a quote, then we're left with a simple statement in the BRB that when they say "model", they mean all parts of a model including mosntrous mounts, chariots, etc. There is an FAQ that clears up that ward saves are never transferred to mounts except where stated, but sadly that isn't enough to convince some RAWsome idiots of how we sensible people should play it.

This is further emphasized by the description of some items, which clearly state that the items extend to the mount. I.e the stone of crystal mere, the grail shield or the golden eye of tzeenche (this one was in the 6th ed only, I think)

Emphasised, yes- Dragon Armour being the best example (As it's not a ward save). Still not enough to convince the desperate rules lawyers.

And if you persist with this claim, them we may see stardragons affected by the vambraces of defence and the talsiman of loec of their rider, and this is quite a scary sight too

Indeed, as is exactly what I said last time someone claimed this kind of thing happened. Play RAW to this extent and you'll just reach this stupid MAD level where everyone is trying to twist every last badly-written phrase to their advantage.

Or just mellow out, play Talisman of Loec as most of us have until now (Only re-rolling "any" saves caused by the bearer, "any" meaning warmour, ward or regen saves), and don't try and gain extra advantages from these things. You'll have a much better game, and a much better gamnig group as a result.

[Minsc]

And if you persist with this claim, them we may see stardragons affected by the vambraces of defence and the talsiman of loec of their rider

Not exactly the same thing. Vambraces says "the wearer", wich is not the same thing as "the modell". If you're trying to argue that the Stardragon wears the vambraces, since he/she "wears the wearer", then this is really out of hand.

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince anyone that S8, T7 chariots are legit, I'm just showing another stupid example of RAWabuse.

And ontopic: Yes, regeneration has to be re-rolled vs ToL. (hence the any saves part.)

[langbaobao]

Seadragon Cloaks (+1 AS, +2 AS vs shooting)
Armour of Living Death (+1T, +1W)
Potion of Strenght (+3S)
Black Dragon Egg (--> T6)

All affect the "modell", wich according to the BRB (and RAW, since many users on this forum seems to praise RAW above anything else) is both the rider and his mount.

Ofcourse it is, but is still debatable, in the same sence that ToL is debatable.

Others have already tried using these arguments and it has been debated. Here's the result of said debate:

BRB Errata Part 1, page 6:

Q. Do ward saves and other special rules that apply to a character (including those coming from a magic item or spell) also apply to the monster/chariot it is riding?

A. Because the rider and mount can be hit separately, any saves and other special rules of the character (including those from magic items, spells, etc.) are not passed to its mount, and viceversa. There are a few exceptions to this rule however, when such rules do apply to both rider and mount: Psychology rules (see rule book, page 79), rules that the character would confer to a unit it joins (like Magic Resistance), or if the rule itself specifies otherwise (certain magic items, the Blessing of the Lady, etc.).

As far as the ToL is concerned, even with this new and creative way of use, it's still not overpowered. It's a one use only item, it's very good against a restricted range of models (characters + monsters) while it's an useless expense of points if used against the rest (like RnF models). It's nowhere near undercosted like for example the Ring of Hotek or the Hydra.

Besides all this, considering the HE (being a T3 army) are one of the rare armies that don't have non mounted monsters and the inflation of owerpowered and severely undercosted monsters in the last few books (Warghulf, Hydra and so on), I think the HE deserve another way to be able to dispose of them besides just a mounted monster and an RBT. I for example don't play the dragon too often but lately, just like many others, I've come to the conclusion that I need to play it to be able to compete in a metagame rife with overpowered and undercosted monsters and similar stuff (popemobile and similar warshrinesque stuff). The ToL gives me an additional option so I don't have to resort to a dragon.