As hashed out a bit on FB earlier, the wording on Madrak3’s feat is very easily interpreted as a 2 box heal on rolls of 5 or 6.
As the feat does not say it replaces tough’s core rules, nor does it specifically say a roll of 4 removes disabled from the model, I can only conclude it functions in concert with Tough, as written. This would cause a healing of 1 box from Tough and a stated heal of 1 box from the feat.
I understand the intended function and I am aware of the MK3 infernal ruling.
New edition, New players, forums no longer exist (meaning no one would be able to find that ruling who didn’t already know it exists). Perhaps it should see a wording change to actually function as written rather than by fiat?
Something like “Tough rolls get +1?” Functionally the same, shorter on the card, and unambiguous that 4-6 succeed as regular Tough.
Link to FB thread:
It was answered in the old rules Forums that it only heals once. It modifies the Tough roll to work on a 4 as well, but it still only one Tough roll.
If you check out the FB link, I’m well aware. However, I’m also aware that forum no longer exists. Also, a ruleset that works as written, imho, is better than one held together with TO fiats.
It only worked in MK3 because the Infernals said it did. The wording still doesn’t function as intended as written. Known bugs in old releases should be addressed as part of the new edition. JM2C
The Feat says 'When you make a Tough roll…" this is the timing trigger. What makes it work then “… a tough Roll of 4, 5, or 6”.
This is modifying how the Tough roll works.
Then explain to me Critical hits. Do they somehow negate the actual hit? or is there an additional ability tacked on because of a specific result on the dice? Critical Knockdown still does damage like a non-critical hit, right?
It doesn’t say “instead” or otherwise imply it is a replacement of the standard tough rules.
You do realize you already got a ruling from an infernal on this on fb?
Yes. And, if you READ the posts, you’ll see why I posted it here…
To argue with everyone telling you the correct answer until Travis tells you again?
An identical wording has existed since Mk1 on Irusk1’s feat. Most people have managed to accept the explanation when answered by an official source.
Travis asked to get it posted here so it could get an official ruling. There are no official rulings on facebook.
So it was posted here and explained why it’s not working according to intent. Why are you arguing with and belittling people who try to improve the game?
There are other cases where ruling for this would be needed, eg Doc Killingsworth has a similar rule.
You will only heal one point of damage due to his feat