Nemesis Warding Stave vs Perils of the Warp

[thade]

Say a LIbrarian or Justicar or whatever is holding a NWS, is in melee, rolls double 1s or 6s (or otherwise via Nid/Eldar shenanigans) has to save against a Perils of the Warp wound; re-roll successful invuln save, we know the drill.

 

The Perils wound isn't coming from an enemy unit; it was not caused *by* the close combat. It was however caused in close combat. Ridiculous, right? Well...does the caster get a 2++ vs Perils if hes locked in melee? The wording is ambiguous and - while the implication is clear - I can see people making a fuss over it.

 

This stinks of loophole and loose-wording. For the record (in case my own implication was unclear) I don't think the staff should work against Perils whether in combat or not, but I'm unsure, so here I am.

[Something Wycked]

A rules lawyer could certainly argue that "wounds caused in close combat" would apply to Perils if the Libby is locked in assault at the time.

 

Reasonable people will know that, bare minimum, the wording should be "wounds caused by close combat", or even better, "wounds caused by melee attacks in close combat."

[Seahawk]

It's not a wound caused by a CCW of any type, or anything involved by close combat; it was caused by his own head. RAI it's obvious that you shouldn't get that 2+, but because of stupid, terrible writing (once again) I'd say RAW that he can use it against a Perils while in close combat.

 

He's in close combat, a wound was caused to him, and the conditions are met for the warding stave to activate.

[jeffersonian000]

Since the Perils of the Warp entry in the BRB states you can use any Invul save the model has to counter the wound, wouldn't you be able to use the 2++ regardless of combat?

 

SJ

[thade]

Since the Perils of the Warp entry in the BRB states you can use any Invul save the model has to counter the wound, wouldn't you be able to use the 2++ regardless of combat?

 

SJ

This is a bit more clear, as the Warding Stave entry itself states specifically that the the save is available in CC.

[dswanick]

This is not dissimilar to the argument surrounding Space Wolves Runic Armor and Perils of the Warp, where Runic Armor states :

A model wearing Runic Armor...has a 5+ Invulnerable Save against all wounds caused by psychic attacks due to its protective runes.

and the fluff description of Perils of the Warp being :

If the result of a Psychic test is either a double 1 or double 6 this indicates that something horrible has happened to the psyker. The forces of the Daemon haunted Warp claw at the psyker's mind and threaten to engulf and destroy him. The psyker suffers 1 wound...

which sounds pretty much like a psychic attack. Personally I would have no problem allowing my opponent to attempt to use the save, as allowing or denying the save in the appropriate circumstances hinges on nit-picking wording and interpreting fluff. Especially as PotW Invul. Saves have to be rerolled and are therefore less likely to succeed anyway, although the Staff is much better at it then the Runic Armor.

[Legatus]

Unfortunately, the phrase "caused in close combat" is too ambiguous. I think it is possible to interprete it in the way the rule was probably intended (i.e. it works against wounds caused by attacks that are part of this close combat), but it is just as possible to interprete it in several different ways.

 

Here are a few possible interpretations:

 

A. "in close combat" means "everything that happens as long as the unit is in close combat". So technically, as soon as the unit is locked, every wound that is suffered qualifies as happening "in close combat". If a blast template scatters on top of the unit currently locked in close combat, it suffers those wounds while "in close combat".

 

B. Like A, but only wounds that are caused in the Assault phase are considered to be caused "in close combat". Wounds that are caused in the shooting phase would be considered wounds by shooting, and not wounds in close combat.

 

C. Only attacks from enemy combatants in this current combat are considered wounds suffered "in close combat". Being fired at, running against a tree, or the mind of a psyker being fried do not count as wounds "in close combat". The important thing is not where the model is at the time of suffering the wound, but where the wound originates.

 

 

Naturally I would vote for C. Especially since the rule does not merely refer to "wounds suffered in close combat", but "wounds caused in close combat".

[Roesor]

I would say that unless it was a direct result of an enemy in close combat then no. It shouldn't.