Healing Herbs

Don't have to make a rule, people generally only use them once per game (if that) anyway. If ever they start using them too much and it makes things less fun then perhaps they will. Until then, they will probably stay how they are .

I'm ready for the rules mod to jump in here anytime and clairify all this for us with an official ruling.

Anytime now...

Wait for it...





Please?...

Actually, I think Lord O has the right of it. The way the rules are written, the description is consistent with other items - like Hunting Arrows - that have unlimited uses.

It is a sound argument, for sure. And he is probably right.

But for 20 gold, infinite recovery? That is more than ridiculous when you have 6 Black Orcs with Multiple wounds and 2+ armor saves!

The potential for that to be abused is insane, there would be no reason for a hero not to have it when he reaches 2 wounds.

..In short, the way we run our games, it would be waaaay too beneficial for 'tough' warbands like the ones I run. (Black Orcs, Beastmen, and Lizardmen.)

While I find unfairness and imbalances PART of the game, this would just be too much!

I don't think we will change the way we play them, even realizing it isn't what was intended.

Perhaps it is just the way my group plays, but even when we eventually get models with two or more wounds, we still don't get Herbs that often - there are just too many more important things to get.

Before healing herbs are purchased you need rabbit's feet and tarot cards for everyone. Then everyone needs to get their good weapons, then armour (better to not take the wound in the first place), and even then I tend to get Firebombs for a multiwound model before I get them Healing Herbs.

That being said, from what people have been saying I suspect we play with much denser terrain than everyone else, so picking people off at range is seldom viable.

Also, actually getting and equipping Healing Herbs paints a *massive* bullseye on that model and *everyone* that goes against it will be marking it for death and anything that can be done to permakill the model will be done, so you better be sure it is a pretty darn sturdy model.

I don't think they are particularly useful for two-wound models - in my experience more often than not two-wound models are taken out in one blow by a critical hit. For that reason, in terms of two-wound models, perpetual healing doesn't seem particularly broken 'cause a crit is still quite likely going to take the warrior down. But a three or four wound model - that become a big problem (albeit one that isn't going to come up very often).

We have never used Tarot cards much. Not sure why.

Goodness. They are so totally amazingly awesome. How else do you get the Alchemist's Notebook, the Gladiator's Manual, and the magical artifacts? Not to mention the +1 Rare Trade gems and all the handy early free weapons and armour and stuff.

6 lots of +/-1 is super handy. +1 on this dice, -2 on this dice, -1 on that one. At the very least it can often bump you up into the next bracked of shards/treasures.

mweaver wrote:

We have never used Tarot cards much. Not sure why.

Perhaps because they are an easily abused item? People tend to forget their possible downside and just remember them when rolling for exploration.

"Alchemist's Notebook, the Gladiator's Manual," the what? Lord 0, I think you play a vastly different game than I do.

Von Kurst wrote:

Lord 0, I think you play a vastly different game than I do.

Probably. My group and I try to use as few house rules as possible and play as close as we can to RAW. This makes us almost unique as far as I can tell .

Alchemist's Notebook: Result 22222 from the Mordheim exploration chart.
Gladiator's Manual: Result 555555 on the Mordheim exploration chart.

If you don't roll for the bad side of the cards you can't claim the good side as far as I know. We are pretty keen on making sure our opponent doesn't get the good side if they didn't roll for the bad . It is one more thing that keeps the Skaven warbands in check long term.

LoL! That comment turned around on me! I should realize that our group DOES play a different game. We're off if far Khemri at the moment, don't get around to Mordheim the ruined city much. And you are right with out those pesky +/- 1 items you aren't likely to see any of the 6 or a kind rolls much. I kind of like that.

Part of the explanation for our foolish neglect of the Tarot deck is that the majority of our campaigns seem to wind down after 6 to 9 games - that is, about the time we have money to start spending on some of the weirder items (we tend to spend gold on recruits, basic weapons, rabbits' footsies and lucky charms first).

The "Miscellaneous Equipment" section of the rulebook is...creatively organized. There's a section called "Poisons and Drugs" in there. There's a bit of space between the last entry in that "section" and the entry for Healing Herbs, but I would certainly classify Healing Herbs as drugs. And if that's the case:

"When you buy a vial of poison, there is always only
enough to last the duration of one battle."

That's what makes the difference for me.

@mweaver: What warband are you playing that you've got an Ogre Hero? I mean, if that's an upgraded Ogre Bodyguard you're talking about you've missed a rule. Hired Swords role advances on the Hero advancement chart (see the Hired Swords section of the base rulebook). You can't role Lad's Got Talent for a hired sword.

@ Ogre-Hero: I'd hazard a guess and say: Ostländer!

I wish they would say if it is a 1 use then discard Item, a once per scenario, or an unlimited use item.

At 20 gold a single use and discard seems a bit expensive.

@Grimskull: Thanks for the heads up. I stand corrected.

@Rudeboy: I agree that it seems expensive. But when you look at the even higher costs of the other one-time use poisons....

Here's a question though: can a knocked down or stunned model use the herbs?

DRD1812 wrote:

"When you buy a vial of poison, there is always only
enough to last the duration of one battle."

That's what makes the difference for me.

Why does this make a difference to healing herbs? Healing herbs are clearly *not* poisons. In fact, they are pretty much the *exact opposite* of poisons .

Madcap mushrooms, Crimson Shade, and Mandrake root are all drugs, not poisons, so do not suffer from the duration-of-one-battle that poisons suffer from. I suppose if you were some filthy WAC player you could try to claim that Mandrake root is a poison because it says it is poisonous, but it seems to me that they intend mandrake root to be a drug rather than a poison.

DRD1812 wrote:

Here's a question though: can a knocked down or stunned model use the herbs?

If they are not in close combat then yes, they can use healing herbs. Remember though, you *only* get all your wounds back - they won't make you stand up or roll over.

When I pop down to the corner drug store, it's certainly not to buy corrosive venom. Remember, the section in question is called "Poisons and Drugs," not just "Poisons." Besides, the cost of healing herbs syncs up pretty well with the other one-time use poisons/drugs.

That said, Lord0's interpretation isn't so wildly unbalanced as the rest of the board seems to think. As he rightly points out, you can't use the herbs in close combat. That means that, very often, they will do nothing once models get into BtB.

Lord 0 wrote:

Madcap mushrooms, Crimson Shade, and Mandrake root are all drugs, not poisons, so do not suffer from the duration-of-one-battle that poisons suffer from.

I agree that they are drugs, not poisons, but I do not see where it specifies that drugs last for a campaign. Given the comparable cost and effects of superior blackpowder, and the lumping of the "poisons and drugs" into a single miscellaneous equipment heading in the rulebook, my group has interpreted the rules as intending the drugs to last only a single battle. The addictions rules for Crimson Shade seem to support this interpretation; if drugs are to last a campaign, why must you buy them every battle for an addicted model? You should have enough supplies. Crimson Shade's description also states, "this effect lasts for one game" while Mandrake Root's states it lasts for "the duration of a battle."

That being said, your interpretation of the rules makes the drugs a bit more viable. I don't think anyone has ever bought Crimson Shade or Mandrake Root in my campaigns. I would think that Madcap Mushrooms would be a bit overpowered if it lasts a campaign however; the every-battle-frenzy would almost completely negate the side effect of stupidity.

Identity wrote:

I agree that they are drugs, not poisons, but I do not see where it specifies that drugs last for a campaign.

Show me something that *does* specifically say that it lasts for the whole campaign. As far as I can tell, equipment is all assumed to last for the whole campaign *unless* it specifically says otherwise, eg one use only, for the whole battle, once per battle, etc.

If you need it to say "lasts the whole campaign" do you also treat, say, halfling cookbooks, elven cloaks, lucky charms, and rope-and-hooks as one use?

Identity wrote:

That being said, your interpretation of the rules makes the drugs a bit more viable. I don't think anyone has ever bought Crimson Shade or Mandrake Root in my campaigns. I would think that Madcap Mushrooms would be a bit overpowered if it lasts a campaign however; the every-battle-frenzy would almost completely negate the side effect of stupidity.

Confession time. It is only in the last few hours that I realised that, unlike poisons, drugs were not limited to one battle only.

I think I will have to bring this up with the group I play with and try it out, because, like you, noone ever bought any of the drugs ever. At all. And that is over years of play and goodness knows how many campaigns. The frenzy might be something to watch, but I think we should play a few campaigns and see how it shakes out before we start making house-rules.

LOL. We're looking at the same rules and reaching opposite conclusions. In my reading, the italicized text of the "Poisons and Drugs" section (RB, pg. 36) only specifically says "poisions," but since the section at large is titled "Poisons and Drugs" I assume the "there is always only enough to last the duration of one battle" clause to refer to both.

Supporting this assumption is the text for Crimson Shade side effects that Identity pointed out.

But hey, play it as you want. 'Tis a silly game after all.

Identity wrote:

The addictions rules for Crimson Shade seem to support this interpretation; if drugs are to last a campaign, why must you buy them every battle for an addicted model? You should have enough supplies. Crimson Shade's description also states, "this effect lasts for one game" while Mandrake Root's states it lasts for "the duration of a battle."

The addiction rules for crimson shade reflect the lack of control. If you are not addicted then you only use it when you need it and can maintain your supply with the normal upkeep of a warband. If you get addicted to the stuff then you go NOM NOM NOM all the time, so need a whole new supply each game.

To be honest, the difference between "lasts one game" and 'lasts one battle" is too subtle for me. What exactly is the difference?

The reason they both say something like that at all is because if they didn't then you could eat it once, gain the effect, and then you would have that effect forever - even if you then traded the drugs to someone else. With the addition of the duration it means that you have to *use* the drugs each game to get the effect and must therefore also suffer the side effects each game also.

Madcap mushrooms don't need to say something like that because Frenzy only lasts until you get knocked down or stunned anyway so the duration is built in.

It's raining fish. Your argument is invalid.

We use the fish-umbrella house-rules in these parts.

[quote="Lord 0"]

Identity wrote:

The addictions rules for Crimson Shade seem to support this interpretation; if drugs are to last a campaign, why must you buy them every battle for an addicted model? You should have enough supplies. Crimson Shade's description also states, "this effect lasts for one game" while Mandrake Root's states it lasts for "the duration of a battle."

Lord 0 wrote:

The addiction rules for crimson shade reflect the lack of control. If you are not addicted then you only use it when you need it and can maintain your supply with the normal upkeep of a warband. If you get addicted to the stuff then you go NOM NOM NOM all the time, so need a whole new supply each game.

This is an explanation for the rule, but it is not based on anything beyond speculation, whereas the rule as written gives a strong implication that drugs too are one use only.

Lord 0 wrote:

be honest, the difference between "lasts one game" and 'lasts one battle" is too subtle for me. What exactly is the difference?

Again I am lost. The terms game and battle are used interchangeably throughout the rulebook. Games Workshop writers are notorious for not keeping to a single vocabulary when writing rules. Lasts one game sounds a lot like one use only to me.

Lord 0 wrote:

The reason they both say something like that at all is because if they didn't then you could eat it once, gain the effect, and then you would have that effect forever - even if you then traded the drugs to someone else. With the addition of the duration it means that you have to *use* the drugs each game to get the effect and must therefore also suffer the side effects each game also.

Madcap mushrooms don't need to say something like that because Frenzy only lasts until you get knocked down or stunned anyway so the duration is built in.

And if you don't get knocked down or stunned then you do gain the benefit even if you trade the drugs away?

Also when the drugs Crimson Shade or Mandrake Root or Healing Herbs are found by an event or as treasure, they are found in D3 doses. We have always played that either 3 characters used them for 1 game or 1 character could use them for 3 games. By your interpretation 3 characters could use them forever.

I will also point out that when a poison is found in similar circumstances it is found in D3 doses as well. The evidence doesn't seem to support your thesis.

House rule as you want, but I think the first impression of the rule--that drugs and poisons are both one use only is probably the correct one.