Crimson Gem of Lahmia

[Grish]

Hi,

This item says you must 'sacrifice' a wound to gain a PD. On other threads, every time you 'take' a wound you are allowed Armour/Ward/Regeneration saves to avoid it.

Question is, is a 'sacrificing' a wound the same as 'being wounded'? Would you get a Ward/Regeneration save? Is 'taking a wound' the cost of using the item, or 'paying a wound'?

I think I already know the answer, but I'd be curious to see what other opinions are out there.

Thanks,
Mark

 

[darknesseternal]

I think it's pretty safe to say that the cost of gaining the power dice, is that you lose a wound off your profile for the remainder of the turn.

It's not the same as being wounded.

Ok, I'm sorry but I'm going to be blunt.

Why are we speculating about things that are clear cut and set out clearly in the rules, when there are quite a few things that are not as clear cut and that will take up our time discussing as it is??

How the gem of lahmia works is not a question of opinion. It is clearly set out in it's rules. You lose a wound, you gain a power dice.

Again I apologise, I'm just irked by some threads/questions that seem to be trivial when there are going to be so many legitimite queries over things that are not clear cut.

I mean, are we going to start arguing next that perhaps 'one wound' may not actually mean one wound??!

Apologies for the rant, just a little annoyed at the moment.

EDIT: I'm saying that 'sacrificing' a wound with this item, is not the same as taking a wound. Ward saves come into it when someone is attacking you. Same with Regen. Is anyone attacking you when you choose to use the gem to sacrifice a wound and gain a power dice? No. Yes, you could heal back the wound in the next magic phase through invoke/summon dead horde, or through Isabella's chalice, but that would happen in the next turn. You would lose the wound for the rest of the turn that you used the gem in. By the way, with queries like this, are you looking to have games that are enjoyable or games where you go nose to nose with your opponent until someone backs down? Because I can tell you, you try to pull this one with an opponent and you can bet you will have an arguement on your hands.

 

[ArchMagosAlchemys]

I think this is a legitimate question.

The word 'sacrifice' is not used elsewhere in WHFB, AFAIK, and so no customary definitiion exists.

'Lost for the remainder of the game' vs 'lost until restored by some means' are valid and reasonable views.

If 'lost until restored by some means' is valid, then questions about Regeneration are reasonable too.

This is another case where GW REALLY annoys me. They have wording elsewhere for the permanent reduction of a characteristic.

... may permanently sacrifice a Wound from their profile ...

would be quite clear.

They have, it appears, deliberately avoided the usual 'lose', 'take', 'suffer', and 'inflict', so that's a good argument for 'sacrifice' being something different.

Even so, GW should have used clearer wording for if they intended the very unusual situation of permanent loss.

One of the greatest weakness of GW's rules is their failure to use consistent wording. If two things are the same, they should always use the same wording. If two things are different, they should always use significantly different wording.

 

[Grish]

Whoa dude (darknesseternal). I agree with the intent, but I was looking for some kind of rule or page quote?

I looked through the rules and didn't find anything, so I posted it up here. If you know where it's clearly posted in the rules please share it. If your entire 'clearly stated in the rules' is based on the word 'sacrifice' then I would first ensure it doesn't have a game term. I looked on WarSeer and here but didn't see anything, so I'm posting it up.

Now, if there is no rules, and there is no rules about a game term 'sacrificing' then I can only think it means the dictionary definition.

I've never seen a definition for a Ward Save can only be used when someone is attacking you. What I have seen is that anytime you lose a wound you get your saves unless stated otherwise. What about hits from an overrunning Black Chariot, or crumble from CR? You can take ward saves in that case.

Anyways, I do not think it is a silly question. If you're of that opinion don't post. If you think I'm trying to waste everyone's time with this, that's fairly insulting. Don't unleash your negativity on others with a different viewpoint. This is an exercise in WH logic for me, not a way to bend the rules to win.

 

[Avaris]

Ironically enough your first sentence indicates it is not as clear cut as you make it out darknesseternal.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the cost of gaining the power dice, is that you lose a wound off your profile for the remainder of the turn.

Until end of turn? Since when did it say anything about until end of turn? It says you sacrifice it, which implies to me a permanant loss, not a temporary one.

Personally, I see it as a situation where saves woud not be allowed... the effect is, in essence 'take a wound with no saves of any kind allowed', and the sacrifice term was seen as an easier way to say this through GWs twisted logic...

 

[darknesseternal]

Grish,

Apologies for again speaking when feeling full of passion, and not waiting to see things objectively/calmly. I put my hand up and say I am guilty of that.

I was about to post about why to myself it appears to be clear cut, but I paused and thought about it. I was going to paste on page 30 of the BRB how it talks about ward saves being taken after armour saves, implying someone attacking you in the first place for you to take an armour save if you have one, or if you fail it or if you don't have it, then a ward save if you have one. And then if you fail the ward save, then a Regen save as per page 96 if the armour save and ward save have both failed, if you have them. All implying someone attacking you, whereas the gem states in the description that you sacrifice a wound (by the way, the wording for Neferata's special blood poison attack also refered to giving up a wound to increase it's attack, so the gem is not the only time 'sacrificing' has appeared) to get an extra power dice.

Anyways, then something popped into my head. If you miscast, on the miscast table alot of the times a consequence is taking a hit of some sort of strength value, with it stating that no amour saves are allowed, so in that case, are we to also think that ward/regen saves are allowed against these wounds??

By the way, you mentioned taking ward saves against combat res?? I'll ask the question to everyone else.. has anyone else ever taken a ward save against crumbling due to losing combat resolution?? I've never heard of that, not saying it's not possible, but I have never, ever read a battle report where someone has said 'I lost the combat and lost my count/countess due to the combat res, after failing my ward saves'. Legit question, hands up to those who have rolled for ward saves against combat res?? You don't take armour saves against results from crumbling, do people take ward saves against it? Maybe you can. Have never seen it done myself.

EDIT: Avaris, I understand your point as well, but at the same time, yourself saying a permanant loss I could see as people reading that the wound is lost for good. Whereas I think you could actually invoke the wound that is sacrificed. You don't get a chance to 'save' it per say, but you could return it, as you can any other wounds that you may take through combat. Ahhhhh it's messy, as you could sacrifice a wound at the start of your magic phase, then cast an invoke and return the wound. Yeah, ok, I was wrong, it's definitely not as clear cut as I thought. I still believe ward saves/regen saves don't apply imo.

 

[ArchMagosAlchemys]

Neferata? Sacrifice?

http://uk.games-workshop.com/vampirecounts/special-characters/5/

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/vampirecounts/gaming/special_characters/neferata.htm

Are these still legal now that the new book is out?

They lack Vampire rule, powers, aand many more important things?

 

[Lord Fear]

Anyways, then something popped into my head. If you miscast, on the miscast table alot of the times a consequence is taking a hit of some sort of strength value, with it stating that no amour saves are allowed, so in that case, are we to also think that ward/regen saves are allowed against these wounds??

By the way, you mentioned taking ward saves against combat res?? I'll ask the question to everyone else.. has anyone else ever taken a ward save against crumbling due to losing combat resolution?? I've never heard of that, not saying it's not possible, but I have never, ever read a battle report where someone has said 'I lost the combat and lost my count/countess due to the combat res, after failing my ward saves'. Legit question, hands up to those who have rolled for ward saves against combat res??

Yes and yes, to both of these paragraphs. Ward saves have always applied to the miscast table from seventh edition (Except the dreaded double one result that specifically disallows them). You may have never, ever read a battle report saying that the player took his ward or regen saves for crumbling, but remember that the new book is new, and let's be honest, you havn't read every report out there, because I have read such reports, and they do mention it. Finally, when I've played my two games, I have been taking ward and regeneration saves for crumbling, because that's the rules... have you actually played a game with the new book yourself?

This question on the Crimson Gem of Lahmia was first asked weeks ago by astute people such as NIB and myself. We're not looking for a word-twisting advantage however... in this case, we're looking for a way to make an otherwise useless magic item worth taking. If you ave a chance of saving your lost wound, then the Crimson Gem could certainly be a decent choice on you Vampire Lord, if not, then why would anyone take it? When Neferata had it, she had 4 wounds on her profile and recovered a wound every turn anyway, so it was perfectly acceptable to sacrifice a wound for the extra hits every turn. Now, without those benefits, it's nigh-useless...

However, the wording is too vague, and I suspect few opponents would be happy about this. Which is why I would advise people not using the item until it's been FAQed.

Final thought: not every question on the rules is an attempt to get one over on your opponent. Sometimes an honest question is just that...

 

[Master of Shadows]

I have a couple questions about the item and thought I would post it here rather then start a whole new thread about it.

1. Can you only sacrifice 1 wound per turn?

It is not stated in the rule for the item. I would assume that the intent is to only do it once, but it dosent say "once per magic phase".

2. Do you get to keep that "gained" power dice for the remainder of the game? i.e. if I did it in the first and second turn of the game do I add two dice to all of my magic phases?

Sorry I am brand new to VC counts. So I am trying to get my head around all the strategies and items.

My main thought is I will be taking Mannfred as my General, he has 5 wounds to start the game. It would be cool if I could "sacrifice" two of them on the first turn and add another 2 PD to my pool of eleven for the remainder of the game and heal him in the second turn.

Just a thought...or I could sacrifice two of them(or 3 or 4..whatever) use those dice to heall myself in the first turn and then in the next phase have the "bonus" dice to cast.


P.S. I am not trying to find some kind of "rules loophole" or something I am just wanting some clarification on the rules of the item. If the above statements are true I believe the item could be worth taking.

 

[ArchMagosAlchemys]

It doesn't say 'One use only', so I assume that it could be used multiple times.

As to how long the power dice 'lasts', again the wording is not clear. The intent seems to be for that phase only, but other interpretations are arguable since the wording is not clear. Bad, bad, GW!

Asrai have a similar problem with the Spirit Sword, mostly useless until FAQed.

 

[darknesseternal]

EVC, I acknowledge your points, completely valid.

So am I able to ask, just as though I don't have the 6th ed BRB handy, did the wording for ward saves change, either in a small or large way, between 6th and 7th ed? I know that the wording for regen changed. It's not a question of the army book being new. It's a question of have ward/regen saves always been able to be applied against Undead crumbling/miscast wounds? I don't mean that in an antagonistic way either. I just mean it in a way that I've never seen anyone ever do that or mention it, including on these forums that I recall, so I just always assumed no saves were allowed against crumbling. And yes, I acknowledge assumption is the mother of all evil.

 

[ArchMagosAlchemys]

Although there is some alteration of the order of words, formatting change, and omission of a word or two, there is no significant difference between the ward wording on page 30 of BRB and pages 64-65 of ORB (Old Red Book)

The reason for few reports of saves against 'CR crumble' or 'general death' is that Wards and Regeneration are rare. I have used them when I could (not often) Remember that Crumble and Regeneration were different in 6th ed, miscast is essentially the same.

 

[Grish]

It definitely needs a FAQ. I may still take it for fun with Blooddrinker. Redfury, gem, blooddrinker... who knows what else. Could generate 2 PD a turn if you don't mind not using blood drinker to heal whatever else is in your unit. (or use the PD to cast IoN on your unit and blooddrink yourself...)

The only other scenario in which I think it could do well is on Mannfred, if you really needed some PD (although a powerstone would be better IMO, as regaining wounds on Vampires can be difficult).

Using Isabella could also be useful, if you have her and another casting vampire in the back ranks, but seems very wasteful

I do think the intent was to take an Unsaved Wound with no saves allowed for a PD that lasts for that turn. Until a FAQ comes out, this is how I will play it. And yes, I think it makes it a pretty junky item (but those are in every single book).

 

[Lord Fear]

Good points on Mannfred, but yes, the power stone is much better. Two power dice for free, no damage to your Vampire, and you can take another arcane item instead... silly Crimson Gem rules.

It's a question of have ward/regen saves always been able to be applied against Undead crumbling/miscast wounds? I don't mean that in an antagonistic way either. I just mean it in a way that I've never seen anyone ever do that or mention it, including on these forums that I recall, so I just always assumed no saves were allowed against crumbling. And yes, I acknowledge assumption is the mother of all evil.

No, ward and regeneration saves haven't always been a way to avoid crumbling wounds, because there were no saves at all allowed for crumbling in 6th edition. Hence why in the rumours threads people were very happy when they realised that the new book allowed ward and regeneration saves for them, as the new rules for crumbling said "no armour saves".

Couldn't tell you about whether you could use ward saves with the 6th edition miscast table, but I think you could anyway

 

[darknesseternal]

Oh ok, well I've definitely been caught out by the new army book then at my own fault.. o_o

So EVC, grish, everyone else, apologies for speaking before thinking (it's 3.30am here, and I have work in the morning, really have to avoid this late night/early morning posting).. completely stand corrected about it being clear cut about the gem.

Now if I could kindly take my leave, I have some egg to wash off my face before retiring to bed.. or is that a foot to remove from my mouth?

 

[Skillmatic11]

I've compared CGoL to other items and abilities and came up with this ruling...remember its just my interpretation.

1)The sacrificing of a wound CANNOT be AS/WS/Reg, for the fact you are WILLINGLY giving up this wound. There's no attack you are defending you're self from so no wound SACRIFICED can be saved.

2)The wound you saved CAN be restored with the use of IoN. Why? because you are losing a WOUND, not losing a wound from YOU'RE PROFILE...

3)Now there is no exact wording for this, but I'm ASSUMING once the PD is used then it is discarded as it says you GAIN a dice as apposed to +1 dice. I mean we've all played Fantasy games ALL our LIVES and understand BALANCE within games. Do you REALLY think GW will make a item like this for only 20 POINTS???

4)Lastly you can use this ability can be used multiple times, but as soon as you hit 0 wounds..You're DEAD.

I hope this helps...you need to play a new GAME!!! :-D

 

[The Dead of Night]

I think you can regenerate it. As far as I am aware, unless specifically stated that wards and regens are not allowed, then they are. I haven't got my book with me, but I will be checking the rules for wards and regens when I get home.

In my experience, every occasion in which wards and regens are not allowed, it has been clearly stated. This would be the first time that it was disallowed when not stated (as far as I am aware).

The sacrificing of a wound CANNOT be AS/WS/Reg, for the fact you are WILLINGLY giving up this wound. There's no attack you are defending you're self from so no wound SACRIFICED can be saved.

There is no ruling for the word "sacrifice" (again, as far as I am aware) therefore attaching a rule to the word is simply inventing rules. Invented rules are house rules at best.

I find that the trick to interpreting rules is to not think too much. Don't get hung up on words you have never seen before. In this case look carefully at the rules for wards and regens, I doubt very much that there is anything about "you can't ward off wounds voluntarily given" but if there is... so be it.

Remember:

1st step, look at the BRB. Does this disallow it? under normal circumstances is this allowed?

2nd step, is there anything in the army book (item description in this case) that contradicts the BRB?

The army book outranks the BRB.

 

[mannfred]

In regards to the crumbling and ward saves/regen-the Vargulf regen's crumbling in CC in the battle report in this months WD, yeah I noticed the change to saving against crumbling happened in this version of VC.

 

[darknesseternal]

Cool. Good to know. I have the current WD, just haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Will have to try to remember this stuff when I start playing a few games as it's hard when you are so used to playing things the previous way. I have a games day/night coming up on the 29th, but as it is starting after 6pm, they want to limit it to 500 pt lists.. I'm not too thrilled about that prospect.

 

[The Dead of Night]

Well I don't know.

I have read the rules for regen and ward and the gem again and I am undecided.

The wording of the item seems to suggest that you simply lose a wound. The rules on a ward save suggest you need to be "hit" and every example of anything I can find always uses the term "hit". For example look at the miscast table, in every case in which a ward is allowed there is a "hit" involved.

What I HAVE decided on, is to play devil's advocate. If you can, please show rules that contradict what I say below, it will make me feel a lot better if you do.

The basis of the following argument is that the rule for the gem doesn't include the words "no armour save allowed"... Which means either a) even armour saves are allowed or b) no saves at all are allowed (and the devs simply assumed you would realise this).

If you look at the description of armour saves it mentions nothing of hits. All it says is that if you take a wound you can use your armour to prevent it. Unfortunately this suggests that you in fact ARE allowed an AS. Though this seems absurd in the extreme, it does seem to be RAW.

Of course then you have to consider that there is no S value by which to modify the AS (unusual to say the least). Although it may simply be the case that if there is no S you don't modify the AS at all, but I think it is likely that the intent is that there is no AS allowed..... but I have no rule to back that up, intent doesn't count.

Moreover.

There is a prescedent of a similar situation... Crumbling. essentially "if you lose combat you take a/some wound/s". However, this rule contains the useful words "no armour save is allowed" which cleares up what we need to do in this situation at least. It seems that merely taking a wound, may invoke an AS regardless of whether you are being hit or not. And indeed, that in these situations the devs might agree, and when they feel an AS is not warrented, they specifically state so.

Considering this, you might suggest that even AS are allowed against the wound from the gem? It seems unlikely, but RAW and the precident suggest maybe...

Apart from common sense, there doesn't actually seem to be a reason why saves wouldn't be allowed... I understand all of the potential arguments "but the wound happens inside the armour" for example. but can you provide a RULE which contradicts this? We all know that zombies shouldn't care about a ghouls dirty finger nails, but the rules say they do. Common sense doesn't count, what do people think of the rules?

Now I will add my disclaimer at the end. I do not advocate the usage of an AS with this item and I will never use one unless it is FAQed. I am just playing devils advocate and wondering what people think about the rules specifically? Though if they are allowed, then the item becomes useful again.

 

[mannfred]

Cool. Good to know. I have the current WD, just haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Will have to try to remember this stuff when I start playing a few games as it's hard when you are so used to playing things the previous way. I have a games day/night coming up on the 29th, but as it is starting after 6pm, they want to limit it to 500 pt lists.. I'm not too thrilled about that prospect.

You could probably do a nasty Strigoi army for 500pts, Vamp (cheap), Vargulf and rest on two units of Ghouls.

 

[Lord Fear]

Oof, I'd hope it's Border Patrol rules at 500 points...

 

[darknesseternal]

I think I might like to try out several different lists and units and options, just to get a feel for how everything works, with the 500 pts games night..

So I'll be asking you guy's advice and opinions of course

I've already had to deal with the suggestion today that I shouldn't be allowed to play the new VC at 500 pts, being as though they are now able to be both martial, and magic strong. Of course I answered that stupid suggestion from one my gaming group mates with a suitable tirade about how no one ever suggested such nonsense when the new high elves came out or when the wood elves came out, or that it has never been suggested for any army that any of our gaming group has played before. I guess that they just expected me to just lie down and go 'oh ok, sure, fair enough' but I was already not in a fine mood, so it was a bad suggestion for them to go with

As an aside, earlier I checked out the wording for crumbling in the old army book, and compared it to the new one. Apologies again, I seriously don't know what drugs I was on last night, the new wording for crumbling makes it so clear that ward saves and regen can be taken against those wounds. I will be interested to see if it becomes an issue in my gaming group, just as like myself, they will be used to how things played previously. So I think it will be wise to have the old army book on hand for comparison if it comes up for discussion at any point..

As far as the Gem goes, I really hope they do FAQ that one.

 

[Skillmatic11]

Well if go by RAW instead of common sense the GEM is the most broken item in GW history for 20pts....

P.S. if this is how interpret rules on a tournament level how are games ever FINISHED? I've been playing for 3 months and after reading the VC book and these forums, I don't think would ever want to play again! lol

 

[Grish]

Good call with your gaming group darkness, although a tooled up vampire is going to cost half your army.

With Border Patrol rules, I don't know what kind of vampires you could field that would be effective. 150 pts is not much to kit out a character that starts at 100 pts. If you don't have that limitation, then your Vampire could cost 200 pts with just magic items/blood line powers. Very expensive in a 500 pt game.

Personally I think something like the Varghulf would cause more concern to them, as in such a game not many units have much static CR and with it's high movement it can dart around the board.

There's a lot of changes from 6th to 7th, so there's going to be quite the repeat of questions just to make sure.

@Darkness I would bet heavily your interpretation in your second post is correct. Sacrifice is a cost to be paid to gain the benefit, if you do not pay the cost you do not gain the benefit. With asking questions though you can sometimes get other knowledge as an aside from it. Thanks for the apology, but it was just a more over-the-top thing, there was absolutely no harm done man. Having both books on hand is a good idea, as even the vampire players are having difficulty figuring out all their rules, let alone all your opponents.