PDA

View Full Version : Changeling vs Miasma (vs Bear's Anger)



decker_cky
25-06-2008, 00:40
How do The Changeling and a Herald of Nurgle or GUO with Miasma cast interact? There isn't the questionable 'Base stats' wording or anything like VHS uses, the changeling just gets to switch stats.

So the easy thing is that Miasma makes the changeling WS, S, T, I and A 1, then the changeling swaps stats with the herald, making the herald WS, S, T, I, and A 1. Does miasma again affect the changeling (eg, is miasma continuously affecting, or just once?), making his stats all 1's, or does it keep the herald's stats, making it an excellent nurgle herald assassin hitting on 3's, wounding on 2's and ignoring saves with it's 3 flaming attacks?

I think the reason you could interpret it both ways is that the wording "all enemy models in base contact with the caster reduce their WS, S, T, I and A to 1" has already been covered. Does it occur continuously? That's the question, but it's worded like a singular chance, where a model, having had it's stats reduced, is already affected by the spell. I don't think there's a very strong case either way.

I'm sort of 50/50 on what the resolution would be.

But that brings me to a similar occasion would be if a character who's affected by miasma gets the bear's anger cast on him. Are stats reduced to 1's then are increased by the bears anger, which would support the changeling keeping the herald's stats. Or does miasma 'loop' so to say, and attempt to reduce the stats again, in which case casting bear's anger would actually dispell miasma as described on page 110 under 'Cancelling spells'.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

Khorneflakes
25-06-2008, 01:35
id like to hear peoples thoughts too haha:evilgrin:

Nurgling Chieftain
25-06-2008, 02:06
Sets (i.e. "your stat becomes 1 regardless of what it was before") are traditionally applied after all other modifiers. (...Or is that too much 40k talking?)

decker_cky
25-06-2008, 02:22
If there is a contradiction among spells, the first automatically is dispelled. Bears anger increases stats, where miasma sets stats at a specific level. If you can't increase the stats with bears anger because of miasma, then miasma is dispelled and bears anger goes through.

][nquist0r
25-06-2008, 07:10
The changling swaps stats, but then is still in btb with the herald and has his stats set to 1. The herald then gets to fight using the changlings stats (mofified by whatever items he has of course.) This is VERY straight forward. As for the bears anger if you are claiming a counter spell then it matters who cast the last spell. For example Bears anger (remains in play) is the spell that is countered if the nurgle player just cast miasma or vice versa. Just thought I would clairify that a little more for you Decker.

Fulgrim's-Chosen
25-06-2008, 16:07
In my view, a simple application (and the way I'd think it should be resolved), is that a Miasma-affected Character who gets Bear's Anger cast on him in his own turn, before the resolution of that round of combat, would get the actual stated benefits of Bear's Anger added to his (Miasma-reduced Statline).

So...let's say he has this statline normally:

Move-5, WS-5, BS-0, STR-4, Tough-4, Init-4, Attacks-3, Ld-8


Now he moves into contact with a Daemon that casts Miasma of Pestilence and his stats are reduced, per the Miasma spell effects:

Move-5, WS-1, BS-0, STR-1, Tough-1, Init-1, Attacks-1, Ld-8


--------

NOW, during his turn (but while the Miasma is still in effect), a friendly Wizard casts Bear's Anger on him, which has the effect of, STR+2, Toughness+1, Attacks+3.


So, applying that to his Miasma-reduced statline you get:


Move-5, WS-1, BS-0, STR-3, Tough-2, Init-1, Attacks-4, Ld-8


------------

Fight the round of combat with him at those (Bear's Anger-enhanced) stats.


At the start of the Daemon players Magic Phase, the Miasma ends automatically and the Character with Bear's Anger would immediately go back up to his normal stats, PLUS the Bear's Anger bonuses (assuming Bear's Anger is still in effect and has not been dispelled, etc).


That seems the fairest/most sensible way to play it.

decker_cky
25-06-2008, 16:31
But fulgrim....that would imply that miasma is a one off effect on each model in B2B. That would imply that the Changeling gets the herald stats and the herald gets all 1's. You agree with that?

---------------------------------------------

The more I look at this rules situation, I'm thinking that the continuous effect is more likely. That would mean that the more recently cast spell would dispell the older spell, as ][nquist0r said. That would make Bear's Anger an effective counter spell to Miasma, which is nice for beasts of chaos (they need those little beasts) and an amusing boost for tzeentch daemons (who already are loaded with flaming attacks against nurgle).

For Miasma to occur once, but each time an enemy model gets in base to base seems odd. It seems to work that as soon as you're in base to base, your statline is 1's, and that lasts until you are no longer in base-to-base.

Loopstah
25-06-2008, 18:20
The important point is Miasma of Pestilence seems to be targeted on the Caster themselves and not on the models in btb with the caster.

As the spell affects the caster then it wouldn't be dispelled if someone cast Bears Anger on a model in btb.

I'd probably go for the reduce stats to 1 then add Bears Anger as the way to do it, although it isn't really clear which spell should take precedence.

decker_cky
25-06-2008, 19:41
The important point is Miasma of Pestilence seems to be targeted on the Caster themselves and not on the models in btb with the caster.

As the spell affects the caster then it wouldn't be dispelled if someone cast Bears Anger on a model in btb.

I'd probably go for the reduce stats to 1 then add Bears Anger as the way to do it, although it isn't really clear which spell should take precedence.

That Miasma isn't cast on the same character who gets bear's anger cast on him doesn't matter. The effect is what's in question, and miasma unquestionably has an effect on the bear's anger player. If miasma is continuous, it would apply after bears anger is cast, making it a case of contradiction in spells, so miasma would be dispelled.

Loopstah
25-06-2008, 20:31
That Miasma isn't cast on the same character who gets bear's anger cast on him doesn't matter. The effect is what's in question, and miasma unquestionably has an effect on the bear's anger player. If miasma is continuous, it would apply after bears anger is cast, making it a case of contradiction in spells, so miasma would be dispelled.

You mean the effect of Bears Anger would overwrite the effect of the Miasma, the Miasma itself would not be dispelled and other models in btb would still suffer the effects. I don't think Bears Anger would cancel the effects though.

The effect of Miasms lasts until the the start of the casters next magic phase. If you cast Bears Anger on someone under the effect of the miasma then I would say you add the effects to the stats with Miasma as it just says it adds to the characteristics, not base characteristics, so it's added to whatever characteristics they have at the time.

If Bears Anger said it gave certain stat values like Miasma does I would agree it overwrote it but as it just adds to the values then I think it would add to the values as they are set by Miasma.

captain sarcasmo
25-06-2008, 21:06
the hearld of nurgle with the stats of the changling and the dhangling fights with stats of 1 regardless of bears anger or anything like that.

decker_cky
25-06-2008, 21:48
You mean the effect of Bears Anger would overwrite the effect of the Miasma, the Miasma itself would not be dispelled and other models in btb would still suffer the effects. I don't think Bears Anger would cancel the effects though.

The effect of Miasms lasts until the the start of the casters next magic phase. If you cast Bears Anger on someone under the effect of the miasma then I would say you add the effects to the stats with Miasma as it just says it adds to the characteristics, not base characteristics, so it's added to whatever characteristics they have at the time.

If Bears Anger said it gave certain stat values like Miasma does I would agree it overwrote it but as it just adds to the values then I think it would add to the values as they are set by Miasma.

First....if the spells contradict, the earlier spell isn't ignored when effected, it's dispelled. That would mean miasma altogether gone (read cancelling spells on page 110).

Bears anger is affecting the characters profile. It is the character themselves that games +3 attacks, +2 strength and +1 toughness. Miasma reduces those characteristics to 1. Because Miasma is in effect for the duration of the turn, it contradicts an increase of a characters stats. Bear's anger is trying to increase, but miasma is trying to keep at one. That's what you would call a contradiction. The stats are being pulled in 2 directions.

Being that there's a contradiction between 2 spells, we go to the nice section of the rulebook that solves rules situations like this that are created. Those rules specify that the earlier spell is dispelled.

Loopstah
25-06-2008, 22:25
First....if the spells contradict, the earlier spell isn't ignored when effected, it's dispelled. That would mean miasma altogether gone (read cancelling spells on page 110).

Bears anger is affecting the characters profile. It is the character themselves that games +3 attacks, +2 strength and +1 toughness. Miasma reduces those characteristics to 1. Because Miasma is in effect for the duration of the turn, it contradicts an increase of a characters stats. Bear's anger is trying to increase, but miasma is trying to keep at one. That's what you would call a contradiction. The stats are being pulled in 2 directions.

Being that there's a contradiction between 2 spells, we go to the nice section of the rulebook that solves rules situations like this that are created. Those rules specify that the earlier spell is dispelled.

Yes but the two spells are on two different units.

Miasma is a spell on the Herald/GUO, Bears Anger is a spell on someone stood next to the Herald/GUO.

Spells only get dispelled when new spells are cast on the same unit/model. The fact that Miasma has an effect on models it isn't cast on does not mean it has been cast on those models.

For the second point they aren't contradictory at all.
Miasma sets some stats to 1.
Bears Anger adds a set amount to whatever your stats are when the spell is cast.

Miasma does not take away a set amount from some stats nor does Bears Anger set the stats to a new value.

The effect of Miasma cancels out Bears Anger as it sets the stats to a specific value.
Bears Anger does not cancel out the effect of Miasma as it only adds to the stats not sets them to a specific value.

There are two situations:
a) A model is in btb with a GUO that has Miasma running.
It's stats are set to 1.
Bears Anger is cast on the model.
It adds the stated amount to the relevant stats, because BA ADDS value x to the models stats as they are at the time of casting.

b) A model has Bears Anger running.
The model moves into btb with a GUO with Miasma running.
It's stats are set to 1 as Miasma overwrites Bears Anger as regardless of what it's stats are they are now set at 1 (note it does not say base stats which would allow BA to still add its bonus).

decker_cky
25-06-2008, 22:43
Yes but the two spells are on two different units.

Miasma is a spell on the Herald/GUO, Bears Anger is a spell on someone stood next to the Herald/GUO.

Spells only get dispelled when new spells are cast on the same unit/model. The fact that Miasma has an effect on models it isn't cast on does not mean it has been cast on those models.

Are you really going to refuse to read the Cancelling Spells section?

"It is quite possible for the effect of one spell to contradict the effect of another."

Nothing about targeting. You can't keep a straight face and claim miasma has no effect on the models in base to base.


For the second point they aren't contradictory at all.
Miasma sets some stats to 1.
Bears Anger adds a set amount to whatever your stats are when the spell is cast.

Miasma does not take away a set amount from some stats nor does Bears Anger set the stats to a new value.

The effect of Miasma cancels out Bears Anger as it sets the stats to a specific value.

If miasma took away stats, they wouldn't be contradictory. They'd build on each other. It's quite alright to be +1 strength from one spell and -2 from another.

Here's the relevant Contradiction definition from Webster's:
"A condition in which things tend to be contrary to each other; inconsistency; discrepancy."

Situation B, I agree with. There's no contradiction created. Bear's anger had one effect, then miasma has another.

Situation A doesn't work like that. There is no occasion where bear's anger has a chance to have an effect. The effects of miasma are creating an effect contrary to the bear's anger effect. Your solution doesn't work, because miasma isn't being done right there. The stats aren't 1. Miasma in this situation contradicts what bears anger is doing and tries to reduce the stats to 1. There is a discrepancy as to which spell takes precedence (as they both have a continual effect over a period of time). This creates a contradiction and so miasma is dispelled.

decker_cky
25-06-2008, 23:05
Just to add a little extra, the Cancelling spells wording is only concerned with the end effects. The manner in which miasma works leads to an effect that contradicts bear's anger's effect. The specific wording of miasma doesn't much matter, so long as the end effect is contradictory. Miasma contradicts bear's anger not because of a specific interaction, but because the effect would be that bear's anger's effect is contradicted. So the key thing is to look at the effect on the bear's anger.

drugar
26-06-2008, 07:29
As far as the miasma vs. bears anger thing, you just apply both. All the stats on the profile that are reduced to 1 get reduced, then add bonuses for bears anger, order doesn't matter. Just as if in the case of using miasma on a model with a halberd, although its strength was reduced to 1, it still gets +1 strength from the halberd, making it 2.

As far as the changeling stat swapping, the herald of nurgle is not in btb with itself and so regardless of the profile it was using, would not suffer effects of the miasma. The changeling, in btb with the herald would however suffer the effects, again regardless of what profile it was using or when it started using it.

decker_cky
26-06-2008, 07:40
But bears anger modifies your profile. It's not the same as a halberd, so you would be contradicting what miasma does if you solve it that way.

And I'm not sure what your suggesting for the changeling. It almost sounds like you think the herald gets the 3's from the changelings book profile, and the changeling keeps 1. The changeling's profile is changed to 1's before the swap, so the herald for sure gets all the 1's. I agree that the changeling would then have it's stats dropped to 1 again (meaning it would actually be better to steal the stats from the palanquin if there's one there, since it reduces 6 attacks down to 1, rather than 3 down to 1).

drugar
26-06-2008, 19:55
Bears anger doesn't say it adds to the profile, it says it adds to the characteristics, much the same as mundane equipment does.

And yes, I don't think the herald would be getting 1s for stats. If the changeling leaves btb with the herald, its stats go back up, yes? So, when the herald gets the stats, they are also no longer in btb with the herald.

Loopstah
26-06-2008, 19:56
The rules are simple.

You can not dispel a spell that is not a remains in play spell once cast.

You can not dispel a spell on one model by casting a spell on another model.

You can dispel a spell on one model by casting a spell on the same model if the spell has a contradictory effect.


You can not dispel Miasma by casting Bears Anger on a model in btb for the following reasons:

a)Miasma is not a remains in play spell so there is nothing to dispel once it has been cast. It is a spell with an effect that lasts a certain length of time. You can't dispel something that isn't there. You can't dispel a spell that has a set duration that is not remains in play.

If you had read the "Spells lasting one or more turns" section you would have read "Once they are in play, the effects of these spells cannot be dispelled, unless the spell description specifies otherwise." which makes it as clear as possible that you cannot under any circumstance dispel Miasma.

b)Even if Miasma was a remains in play spell(which it isn't) and you could dispel it once cast (which you can't), you could not do so by casting a spell on a model in btb anyway. Miasma is not cast on models in btb so can not be dispelled by casting a contradictory spell on any of the models in btb. If you had actually read the whole paragraph of "Cancelling spells" as you asked me too, you would see it only applies when both spells are cast on the same unit, which is not the case in this situation. For Miasma to be cancelled you would have to cast the contradictory spell on the GUO/Herald, but as it isn't a remains in play spell anyway this is irrelevant.

c)If Miasma was a remains in play spell (which it isn't) and you could dispel it (which you can't) by casting a contradictory spell on a model that doesn't have the Miasma spell cast on it (which you also can't do)then Miasma and Bears Anger are not actually contradictory. They would be contradictory if Bears Anger said "stats are set to x". It doesn't so it isn't contradictory.

Examples of contradictions:
Move/ Not Move
Flee/ Can't Flee
Shoot/ Not Shoot
Strike First/ Strike Last
Set stats to x/ Set stats to y

Set stats to x and add x to stats are not contradictions. But as Miasma is neither a remains in play spell, nor can you dispel a spell on one model by casting a spell on a different model then this really is irrelevant.

So there you go, you can't dispel Miasma, you couldn't dispel Miasma by casting Bears Anger on another model even if you could dispel it, and even then it isn't contradictory so wouldn't work.

decker_cky
26-06-2008, 22:29
a)Miasma is not a remains in play spell so there is nothing to dispel once it has been cast. It is a spell with an effect that lasts a certain length of time. You can't dispel something that isn't there. You can't dispel a spell that has a set duration that is not remains in play.

If you had read the "Spells lasting one or more turns" section you would have read "Once they are in play, the effects of these spells cannot be dispelled, unless the spell description specifies otherwise." which makes it as clear as possible that you cannot under any circumstance dispel Miasma.

Counter: Dominion vs a movement spell is exactly what is described in cancelling spells. To not play that is blatantly against the intention of the rule.


b)Even if Miasma was a remains in play spell(which it isn't) and you could dispel it once cast (which you can't), you could not do so by casting a spell on a model in btb anyway. Miasma is not cast on models in btb so can not be dispelled by casting a contradictory spell on any of the models in btb. If you had actually read the whole paragraph of "Cancelling spells" as you asked me too, you would see it only applies when both spells are cast on the same unit, which is not the case in this situation. For Miasma to be cancelled you would have to cast the contradictory spell on the GUO/Herald, but as it isn't a remains in play spell anyway this is irrelevant.

Counter: You invented that entire paragraph. The section says nothing of the sort. It talks about contradicting effects of spells. There's nothing about the targets. Miasma doesn't target other units, but it does have an effect on them. Much like miasma wouldn't have an effect on a HE unit with the banner of the world dragon, it has the potential of having a contradiction with a spell cast on another unit.


c)If Miasma was a remains in play spell (which it isn't) and you could dispel it (which you can't) by casting a contradictory spell on a model that doesn't have the Miasma spell cast on it (which you also can't do)then Miasma and Bears Anger are not actually contradictory. They would be contradictory if Bears Anger said "stats are set to x". It doesn't so it isn't contradictory.

Examples of contradictions:
Move/ Not Move
Flee/ Can't Flee
Shoot/ Not Shoot
Strike First/ Strike Last
Set stats to x/ Set stats to y

Set stats to x and add x to stats are not contradictions. But as Miasma is neither a remains in play spell, nor can you dispel a spell on one model by casting a spell on a different model then this really is irrelevant.

So there you go, you can't dispel Miasma, you couldn't dispel Miasma by casting Bears Anger on another model even if you could dispel it, and even then it isn't contradictory so wouldn't work.

It is a contradiction. A response at the warhammer forum put it quite nicely.

"Miasma at that instant tells you the stats should be 1, Bears anger says otherwise.

You cant have both so Miasma is dispelled."

Loopstah
26-06-2008, 23:01
Counter: Dominion vs a movement spell is exactly what is described in cancelling spells. To not play that is blatantly against the intention of the rule.


No, to claim you can cancel a spell with a fixed duration that is not Remains in Play is blatantly against the RAW. It's not even one of those foggy rules where you could interpret RAI as the correct choice. The rules clearly state you can not dispel the effects of Miasma of Pestilence once it has been successfully cast.



Counter: You invented that entire paragraph. The section says nothing of the sort. It talks about contradicting effects of spells. There's nothing about the targets. Miasma doesn't target other units, but it does have an effect on them. Much like miasma wouldn't have an effect on a HE unit with the banner of the world dragon, it has the potential of having a contradiction with a spell cast on another unit.

Miasma wouldn't affect a HE unit with the banner of the world dragon but if any units were in contact on the other 3 sides then they would be affected. Ignoring the effect of a spell does not dispel it.

Like I said though b) is irrelevant as you can't dispel Miasma anyway because the rules say so.



It is a contradiction. A response at the warhammer forum put it quite nicely.

"Miasma at that instant tells you the stats should be 1, Bears anger says otherwise.

You cant have both so Miasma is dispelled."

Which is totally against the rules and illegal. You can not dispel a spell with a durational effect that is not Remains in Play. That's the rules and as I've already said, contradiction is irrelevant because you can't dispel Miasma anyway.

Which part of:"Once they are in play, the effects of these spells cannot be dispelled, unless the spell description specifies otherwise." is the bit you don't understand?

It's a pretty clear rule, little opportunity for interpretation and it seems pretty clear what the intention behind it is as well.

Trying to claim otherwise is nothing more than ignoring the rules, your not even twisting them for your own benefit, just ignoring them completely.

What other rules should we ignore next? The rule you can only cast a spell once per magic phase, it would be easier if we were all like VC, how about ignoring the Stand and Shoot reaction? It can be a pain charging missile troops.

decker_cky
26-06-2008, 23:30
Page 110 says in one spot they can't be dispelled. Slightly lower on the page, it says they can. Why does one of those overrule the other? If it's a contradictory spell (with no qualifier for remains in play), it's covered by that rule.

Loopstah
26-06-2008, 23:45
Page 110 says in one spot they can't be dispelled. Slightly lower on the page, it says they can. Why does one of those overrule the other? If it's a contradictory spell (with no qualifier for remains in play), it's covered by that rule.

Spells that are not remain in play but have a long lasting effect can not be dispelled because they are not spells once they have been cast.

If you cast Acquiescence on a unit they become stupid. They do not have the spell Acquiescence working on them, they are just stupid. You can not dispel stupidity.

Miasma is exactly the same. Once Miasma is successfully cast the spell is finished. The model that had Miasma of Pestilence does not have the spell Miasma of Pestilence on them, they have a special rule that makes models in btb reduce their stats to 1.

The "cancelling spells" section states:
"the most recent spell automatically dispels the previous spell"

There is no previous spell to dispel in regards to Miasma of Pestilence. Miasma of Pestilence does not remain in play, a model who has cast Miasma of Pestilence does not have the spell Miasma of Pestilence on them, a model that has had it's stats reduced to 1 is not under the spell Miasma of Pestilence, they are being affected by an ability the GUO/Herald has until their next magic phase.

You can't dispel Steal Soul by casting Healing Energy on a model and regain 2 wounds, because once the spell has been cast there is no spell.

lparigi34
26-06-2008, 23:56
Just like "Lord of Rain" from the "Lore Of Life"...

Once successfully cast causes a unit to get wet, well, you cannot dispel wetness from a wet unit, otherwise you could make rivers dry using dispel dice!!!

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 00:08
Actually....depending on wording of the incantation, I believe the tomb king spell allowing you to shoot might dispell rainlord on a failed rainlord roll. It dispells the previous spell, so it's dispelling it in the past tense, when it was cast.

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 00:09
You can't dispel Steal Soul by casting Healing Energy on a model and regain 2 wounds, because once the spell has been cast there is no spell.

Nice strawman. ;)

lparigi34
27-06-2008, 00:14
Actually....depending on wording of the incantation, I believe the tomb king spell allowing you to shoot might dispell rainlord on a failed rainlord roll. It dispells the previous spell, so it's dispelling it in the past tense, when it was cast.

Nope... please try to understand the difference between

1.- A "Remain in Play" spell, as defined by the rules, aka RIP

2.- A spell that have a lasting effect that is not RIP.

You cannot dispel the 2nd type of spells, since there is no magical effect to be dispelled, just a remaining mundane effect (again, like being wet)

What you say about the TK incantation - smiting - is also not true.

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 00:21
Your ranking 1 rule above another, and you have no grounds to do so. Cancelling spells has to do with the effects of spells, not with a spell necessarily still 'remaining in play'. If there's a contradiction and the spell is not remains in play, both of those rules could be applied. The problem with using only the Spells Lasting One or More Turns is that it leaves you with spell effects that still contradict.

theunwantedbeing
27-06-2008, 01:53
Page 110
Cancelling spells.

So bear's anger can dispel the maisma, and the maisma can dispel bear's anger.
It's got nothing to do with remains in play spells, merely spells that contradict each other.

lparigi34
27-06-2008, 05:21
Your ranking 1 rule above another, and you have no grounds to do so. Cancelling spells has to do with the effects of spells, not with a spell necessarily still 'remaining in play'. If there's a contradiction and the spell is not remains in play, both of those rules could be applied. The problem with using only the Spells Lasting One or More Turns is that it leaves you with spell effects that still contradict.

Do I? :confused:

The fact that casting a spell that nullifies the effect of a previously cast spell (not RIP) is not the same as dispelling it, but you seem to have a problem with the concept.

The effect of the most recently cast spell prevails over previous effects in case they contradict each other.

If there were a spell called "Lord of Thirst" that dries everything, including rivers & forests (That would be nice against WE's), IŽd just accept that it dries out the negative effects of "Lord of Rain", but that is not dispelling anything.

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 07:22
The fact that casting a spell that nullifies the effect of a previously cast spell (not RIP) is not the same as dispelling it, but you seem to have a problem with the concept.

Erm....the wording from the section states "In these cases, the most recent spell automatically dispels the previous spell."

There's nothing about nullifying the effect. If there's a contradiction, the previous spell is kaput.

Loopstah
27-06-2008, 08:23
Erm....the wording from the section states "In these cases, the most recent spell automatically dispels the previous spell."

There's nothing about nullifying the effect. If there's a contradiction, the previous spell is kaput.

So if there was a spell that made a unit immune to magic missiles, and I cast it on a unit that had been hit by Wind of Death the turn before, I could get all the dead models back, because being immune to magic missiles is contradictory to having been hit by magic missiles and that was the previous spell so it would be dispelled.

That's what your saying.

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 09:28
Once again, you build up a strawman situation. That's not the same at all. The effect which is contradictory is occurring at the moment from the effect of miasma, where the one you talked about is something that had occurred and is done.

I like banner of the world dragon because it gives a nice gauge of whether something is a spell effect or not. Move a standard bearer with the banner of the world dragon into a unit that had Acquiescence cast on it, and they wouldn't have to test on it while he's there. Same thing with a unit affected by Rain Lord. If you join that unit with the banner of the world dragon, they could shoot without problems while he's in the unit. You're trying really hard to make spell effects a complicated thing, but it's a straightforward concept. If the spell continues to do something over time, then it's still a spell effect.

Loopstah
27-06-2008, 09:36
Once again, you build up a strawman situation. That's not the same at all. The effect which is contradictory is occurring at the moment from the effect of miasma, where the one you talked about is something that had occurred and is done.

Exactly like Miasma, it occurs and is done. The effect it has on the caster lasts longer but it is not the spell.


If the spell continues to do something over time, then it's still a spell effect.

I agree with that completely, but you continue to confuse a spell and a spell effect. You can dispel spells, you can not dispel spell effects. You might be able to ignore a spell effect or overwrite a spell effect with another spell but you can't dispel it because the effect is the result of a spell, not a spell itself.

Example:
A GUO with 4 characters in btb.

..C
CGC
..C

The GUO has previously cast Miasma.
The 4 characters suffer the effect.
You cast Bears Anger on 1 character.
I agree that Bears Anger could overwrite the effect of Miasma for that character.
You can't dispel the effect of Miasma though, so the other 3 characters still suffer from it.

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 16:56
And you were accusing me of inventing rules? If you agree that Bear's Anger could overwrite the effect of Miasma for anything, it must dispel miasma.

Loopstah
27-06-2008, 17:05
And you were accusing me of inventing rules? If you agree that Bear's Anger could overwrite the effect of Miasma for anything, it must dispel miasma.

Once again, you can only dispel spells.

The effect of Miasma of Pestilence is not a spell.

You cannot dispel the effect of Miasma of Pestilence.

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 17:42
The effect of Miasma is a spell effect. You yourself admitted that models in a unit with the Banner of the World Dragon wouldn't be affected by it. Is it a spell effect? Does it contradict the spell effect of a more recently cast spell? If you've answered yes to both those questions, the previous spell is dispelled.

drugar
27-06-2008, 17:44
Even if Miasma could be dispelled by another spell, why would Bear's Anger be contradictory :confused:. The first reduces some profile stats to 1, the second raises some... both of these effects can happen, with no confusion. They do not contradict.

The contradictory part is only when both spell effects simply cannot be true at the same time (such as, 'this unit is moving' and 'this unit can't move').

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 17:53
It only is contradictory if the model was already in base to base with the miasma bearer when the spell was cast. So you're starting with a model with all 1's.

If the model does not have all 1's, Miasma isn't working.
If you don't add +2 S, +3 A and +1 T, then Bear's Anger isn't working.

When bear's anger is cast, there is a contradiction of effects because they can't both be fulfilled at the same time.

Loopstah
27-06-2008, 17:57
The effect of Miasma is a spell effect. You yourself admitted that models in a unit with the Banner of the World Dragon wouldn't be affected by it. Is it a spell effect? Does it contradict the spell effect of a more recently cast spell? If you've answered yes to both those questions, the previous spell is dispelled.


The effect of Miasma is a spell effect.
I've already stated it doesn't contradict numerous times, but even if it did the answer would still be no.

You cannot dispel something that isn't there.
You can't dispel a magic missile after it's been cast successfully because the spell is over. You can't dispel Miasma because the spell is over. You can only dispel Miasma when it is cast.


So the simple answer: there is no previous spell to be dispelled.
The complicated answer: there is no previous spell to be dispelled.
The really complicated answer: there is no previous spell to be dispelled.


There is no spell to dispel. You cannot dispel something that isn't there.

A spell effect is not a spell.

lparigi34
27-06-2008, 19:56
...If you agree that Bear's Anger could overwrite the effect of Miasma for anything, it must dispel miasma.

please.. please... please...

The direct answer is NOOOOOOO!

You cannot dispel Miasma once successfully cast, as is not a RIP, the spell is there no more.

As for the spell effect, it is not relevant anymore that the effect was previously caused by the spell itself, it is only relevant that the effect is there, regardless the source of it.

See the following two cases, and notice the differences.

Case A
Stupidity spell is cast on a unit (can not remember the spell that do it), once cast, it cannot be "removed". The unit just became stupid! It cannot be dispelled and will not end if the caster dies, cast a new spell and also the caster cannot chose to end its effect.

Then lets assume that you have a Special Character, with a magic banner that rules: "all stupid units at 12" from the character do not suffer from stupidity while in range".

In this case, the fact that the beforementioned unit became stupid by the effect of a spell is not relevant at all, it just benefits from the banner, but the effect is still there (like "being wet" from one previous post of mine).

Case B

A RIP Stupidity spell is cast on a unit. The unit just became stupid! But only as long as the spell remains in play, as it is not a lasting effect, but very dependent on the spell remaining active.

This unit will also benefit from the rule of the character mentioned above, but ALSO as it is a RIP, it can be properly dispelled or will end if the caster cast a new spell or he even may decide to end its effect.

See the differences here? I really hope you do.

Over and Out
L

Loopstah
27-06-2008, 20:08
....
L

I've been saying the same thing for the last page and a half and he still wont see the difference. :(

That brings up an interesting point though, when things like the Banner of the World Dragon mention they negate spell effects do they mean an effect that was originally caused by a spell (such as stupidity from Acquiescence), or only an effect caused by an active spell/ a spell being cast.

If you think about it the Banner of the World Dragon should have no effect on Acquiescence or Miasma as it doesn't magically raise dead models hit by magic missiles, or restore wounds taken by Steal Soul, and they are the same thing really, effects originally caused by a spell no longer there.

Condottiere
27-06-2008, 20:49
I think the BotWD does negate the spell effect if it remains with the unit effected (the BSB joins the unit after the fact), and completely neutralizes it if the effect was cast onto the unit while the BotWD/BSB was part of the unit.

decker_cky
27-06-2008, 21:41
It does. It's a spell effect. Read the 'Spells Lasting One or More Turns' section and it explicitly talks about spell effects after the fact. Loopstah is just making a strawman argument by calling the effect of a magic missile and acquiescence the same, since one continues to do something, and the other has done something.

Loopstah
27-06-2008, 22:01
It does. It's a spell effect. Read the 'Spells Lasting One or More Turns' section and it explicitly talks about spell effects after the fact. Loopstah is just making a strawman argument by calling the effect of a magic missile and acquiescence the same, since one continues to do something, and the other has done something.

Acquiescence does not continue to do anything because it does not continue.
It's an instant spell, you cast it, it does it's thing, it ends.

Miasma does not continue to do anything because it does not continue.
It's also an instant spell, you cast it, it does it's thing, it ends.

Magic missiles do not continue to do anything because they do not continue. They are also instant spells, you cast them, they do their thing, they end.

The main points you continue to ignore while moaning about strawmen:

There is a difference between a spell and a spell effect.
You can dispel a spell, you can't dispel a spell effect.
You can't dispel a spell after it has been cast unless it's a Remains in Play spell because there is no spell after it has been cast.

drugar
28-06-2008, 00:35
It only is contradictory if the model was already in base to base with the miasma bearer when the spell was cast. So you're starting with a model with all 1's.

If the model does not have all 1's, Miasma isn't working.
If you don't add +2 S, +3 A and +1 T, then Bear's Anger isn't working.

When bear's anger is cast, there is a contradiction of effects because they can't both be fulfilled at the same time.

So a halberd can dispel Miasma? I guess maybe it would have to be a spell... but by the same logic using a halberd would mean Miasma wasn't working. Bear's Anger modifies the characteristics, it does not change the basic profile (read the spell text if you don't believe me). So, there is no contradiction. The whole situation is really simple to figure out if you just use some basic algebra.

decker_cky
28-06-2008, 23:23
Bear's Anger modifies the characteristics, it does not change the basic profile (read the spell text if you don't believe me).

Bear's anger is modifying the characteristics. Characteristics = profile. The WE faq supports this with the Alter Kindred adding an attack to the Bow of Loren because it changes the profile. Bear's anger is not a weapon (unlike Flaming Sword), it modifies the profile (and you only can't get further benefit from a weapon because it specifies that the affected model can't use a weapon with it).

Neither Miasma nor Bear's Anger specify 'base profile' which would allow them to avoid coming to head. Both affect the profile as it stands.


The whole situation is really simple to figure out if you just use some basic algebra.

1+2=1? :wtf:

Fulgrim's-Chosen
28-06-2008, 23:46
I think some people are looking at this in a way that is making it overly complicated. The idea that a buff spell should "completely counter and dissipate" the Effect of a spell that is NOT Remains-in-Play and which doesn't even come into conflict with one another is odd, in my view.

For instance....if a unit was hit by Pit of Slime, another Nurgle Daemon spell, which says that if they fail a STR-Test their unit cannot move or shoot in the following turn.....THEN, in their friendly turn, one of their Wizards cast Unseen Lurker on them, they WOULD be able to move because the last-cast spell's MOVE effect would counter the CANNOT MOVE effect of Pit of Slime.

This is not hard to understand and is how everyone plays it, per the rules.

In that example, there is COMPLETE difference and opposition between the two spells. The idea that one can counter the other is fairly sensible and reasonable to most players, I would think.


-------------------

Jump ahead to Miasma VS. Bear's Anger (or any other Buff spell).


Miasma says that, until the start of the Daemon player's next Magic Phase, all enemy models in base-to-base with him (the Daemon casting the spell) have their WS, STR, Init, Tough, and Attacks reduced/changed to "1" (instead of their usual values).


Nothing in that spell description precludes later spells which are cast from buffing up that (reduced) profile though. Nothing in Bear's Anger's wording would suggest that it cannot work in conjunction with the Miasma-reduced statline.


Give the model you are targeting with Bear's Anger his usual +3 Attacks, +2 Strength, +1 Toughness.

Thus, he would become STR-3, Toughness-2, and Attacks-4, from the effects of that spell.

If you then used Vampire Counts Helm of Commandment on him, he would go up to WS-7 (or whatever) too.


----------

Nothing in any of those spells or effects specifically contradicts the others. So why make it such a complex issue ? Why try to "ENTIRELY" nerf the Miasma because of a single Bear's Anger? It's the same approach I'm seeing over in the Icon of Despair thread. Why don't people want to choose the approach that is fairest to BOTH armies (give both effects a shot, when possible), as opposed to looking for ways to 100% nerf one or the other, without (IMHO) fair cause to do so ?


-

* Note, I realize that my position here on Miasma then is, essentially, that it is a One-Shot Effect, which can later be changed by other spell-effects, but not entirely dispelled, as some are trying to suggest here.

IE, a unit affected by Miasma, which has a Vampire use the Helm of Commandment on them in the ensuing close-combat phase (as I've had this exact situation happen in one of my games already) would have it's "Reduced WS-1" value ENHANCED by the Helm, up to WS-7.

NOBODY I've played has tried to suggest that simply using the Helm TOTALLY "dispels" the Miasma, just that the Weapon Skill value is enhanced by the items's effect.

If the Helm was a SPELL that said "Target friendly unit has Weapon Skill-7 unitl the start of your next Magic Phase" it would STILL not "dispel" the Miasma, as the two don't counteract each other (in my way of reading the spell)....just increase the WS value to 7, but leave the other stats as they are, reduced by Miasma.


Again, this is the fairest way for both sides to have it resolved, and is logical, and in keeping with what I have seen in games so far.

drugar
29-06-2008, 06:22
1+2=1? :wtf:

It's pretty simple to figure out what a stat effected by both spells is IMO. Stat=x. Miasma: x=1. Bear's Anger: x becomes x+y. So, with both... 1+y, where y is whatever Bear's Anger is adding to the stat. See how there's no conflict here?

WLBjork
29-06-2008, 09:50
Check the Warhammer 7 FAQ. Page 5, last question.


If the wizards in my army cast a spell like the Bear's Anger or the Flaming Sword of Rhuin multiple times on the same model, do their bonuses stack up?
No, these bonuses are not cumulative (as they add their bonuses to the model's base Characteristic), so there is no point in casting multiples of them.

Therefore Bear's Anger would indeed dispell Miasma.

Loopstah
29-06-2008, 11:38
Check the Warhammer 7 FAQ. Page 5, last question.



Therefore Bear's Anger would indeed dispell Miasma.

No, Bear's Anger would overwrite the effect of Miasma for that model only.

It would not Dispel Miasma because the Miasma effect is not a spell.


This seems to be the point certain people have trouble grasping:

Yes, a spell can dispel another spell when they have contradictory effects.

Example: You cast Bears Anger on a model with Flaming Sword of Rhuin. They have contradictory effects and are both Remains in Play. Bears Anger dispel Flaming Sword of Rhuin and takes effect.

Yes, a spell effect can overwrite/ work over the effect of another spell on the same model.

Example (a): You cast Bears Anger on a model in btb with a Miasma model. Bears Anger adds it's bonus to the models stats. As long as it Remains in Play the model keeps the bonus even though it other stats remain as 1.

OR (some people seem to believe this should happen, but as the effects are not directly contradictory it shouldn't.)

Example (b): You cast Bears Anger on a model in btb with a Miasma model. Bears Anger cancels the effect of Miasma on the model it is cast on who regains all their normal stats + Bears Anger bonus.

No, a spell effect can not dispel a spell effect on a different model.

Example: You cast Bears Anger on a model in btb with a Miasma model. The effected model then follows (a) or (b) above depending on your belief. Whichever you choose the model that cast Miasma is still under the effect of Miasma even if the model with Bears Anger is not. All other models in btb with the Miasma model still suffer the effect as the effect is only on the model that cast Miasma. It might cause something to happen to other models but the effect itself is the "all models in btb with you do this". Reducing your stats to 1 is not the effect of Miasma, it's a result of the effect on the caster.

WLBjork
29-06-2008, 19:35
Loopstah, Miasma and Bear's Anger do contradict.

There is no way in which to determine the order they are applied in.

Should Bear's Anger be applied first or Miasma?

Flaming Sword of Rhuin and Bear's Anger on the other hand do not contradict. A model affected by both spells would: Hit on 2+, have +3S, +1Tand +3A.

Loopstah
29-06-2008, 19:48
Loopstah, Miasma and Bear's Anger do contradict.

There is no way in which to determine the order they are applied in.

Should Bear's Anger be applied first or Miasma?


100% RAW: Miasma dispels Bears Anger.
100% RAW: Bears Anger does not dispel Miasma.

The FAQ you quoted actually just answered the main problem.

Flaming Sword and Bears Anger add the bonus to the base characteristics.

Miasma has altered the characteristics to a value not the base value.

Bears Anger must therefore cancel the effect of Miasma on the model it is cast upon.

100% RAW: Bears Anger cancels the effect of Miasma upon the model it is cast upon.

PROBLEM:
Does Miasma then re-affect the model as it has a set duration and therefore cancel Bears Anger or can the model not be re-affected unless Miasma is recast?

Balgor
30-06-2008, 10:21
hmm what a discussion.

All I say is, your stupid for letting miasma get cast when you have units in combat with the caster, how hard is it to dispell a power 3 spell :).

On a more serious note, I would let both spells just run, maisma reduces your stats to 1, bears anger increases the stats that it alters, there problem done, time to move on.

lparigi34
30-06-2008, 15:12
Well, at least it seems we are starting to understand the difference between a RIP spell ans a spell with lasting effect that is not RIP. :rolleyes:

As for the discussion of Miasma Vs Bears Anger, I truly believe this must be FAQ'd as it is not so clear what the real intention is. IMHO, Bears Anger CANNOT dispel Miasma, as the Spell is not there anymore, only its effect. The "Canceling Spells" ruling in page 110 clearly mentions DISPEL.

Returning to my Lord of Rain effect example: a Character with a Magic Bow is in a unit that got wet by the spell effect. A spell that allows him to hit everything on 3+ in his next shooting phase is then cast on the character. So what happens after that? Was the wet effect removed by the spell just cast on him? No, IMHO the guy is still wet since being wet CANNOT be dispelled, since it is an effect, not a RIP (remember P110 clearly mentions Dispel, not removing effects, remember the section name is Canceling Spells, not Canceling Spell Effects).

Alas, being wet cannot be removed by AFAIK, any spell in the game but by the Banner of the World Dragon that clearly removes previous spell effects (meaning all spells that are still causing some effects, RIP or not) except for the mentioned ones, pretty clear (and a nice clothes dryer!), so here it is important what caused the effect (I mentioned that before for just the specific issue of dispelling Vs lasting non RIP effects).

WLBjork
30-06-2008, 22:36
On a more serious note, I would let both spells just run, maisma reduces your stats to 1, bears anger increases the stats that it alters, there problem done, time to move on.

Which order does it go in?

Miasma, then Bear's Anger, or Bear's Anger then Miasma?

I'll go along with Loopstah that, in this case, at a minimum the most recently cast spell's effects over-ride the older spell's effects.

Thus if Miasma then Bear's Anger affect an Empire Captain, he would end up with stats of 4/1/5/6/5/2/1/6/8

Of course, if the order goes Bear's Anger then Miasma, the Bear's Anger is dispelled (RIP, can't see any argument from Loopstah et al. here :p), leaving the poor Captain with a profile of 4/1/5/1/1/2/1/1/8

Loopstah
01-07-2008, 10:59
On a more serious note, I would let both spells just run, maisma reduces your stats to 1, bears anger increases the stats that it alters, there problem done, time to move on.

I would have agreed with that, but as the FAQ states Bears Anger adds it's bonus to the Base statistics, then Bears Anger must cancel the effect of Miasma on the model as Miasma sets the stats to something not the Base.

I would then say as long as Bears Anger RIP then the model can't be re-affected by the Miasma effect as Bears Anger is the newest effect.

The order would then be, either:

1. A model with Bears Anger moves into btb with a model with Miasma. Miasma dispels Bears Anger.

2. A model with Bears Anger is in btb with a model that casts Miasma.
Miasma dispels Bears Anger.

3. A model is in btb with a model with Miasma and has Bears Anger cast on it.
Bears Anger cancels the effect of Miasma on that model.

with the most recent effect on the model replacing the older effect on the model.

EvilMinion
01-07-2008, 15:16
It would be the most current or cast spell... he did it again!

Fulgrim's-Chosen
01-07-2008, 19:44
One could argue though, couldn't they, that for the duration of Miasma's effect, the model's "base stats" ARE the Miasma-reduced stats ?

IE...what stats does that Captain have ?


Oh...he's got 1, 1, 1, 1, - etc. per Miasma.


---------

I think it's another case of GW not wording the things clear enough. As someone earlier in this thread said, the very fact that the Changeling and the Miasma spell appear in the same book/list, yet NOBODY at GW-HQ apparently had a thought or a test-game in which the two came into contact/interaction with each other. Had they done so, perhaps they would have worded either/both abilities better/clearer/with a few examples of what to do in unusual situations like that one / this one.

Oh well. Pray it's in the FAQ coming up soon !

Loopstah
01-07-2008, 19:55
One could argue though, couldn't they, that for the duration of Miasma's effect, the model's "base stats" ARE the Miasma-reduced stats ?

IE...what stats does that Captain have ?


Oh...he's got 1, 1, 1, 1, - etc. per Miasma.

If that's the case then you would add FSoR/ BA onto the stats of Miasma, but we don't know if it is or not at the minute. It would make sense though.

On the other hand the rules for Miasma are that loose that you could twist them anyway you wanted.

You could argue that the effect of reduced stats is permanent for the model effected as their is no allowance for returning stats to normal or duration of reduced stats.

It only states that the effect of Miasma on the caster lasts till the casters next magic phase, not how long the effect of reduced stats lasts on the models.

"All enemy models in btb reduce x stats to 1"

Without the qualifier of "while they remain in btb with the caster" or "until the start of the casters next magic phase".

On the other hand that means you could also argue that the model only reduces their stats the first time they move into btb with the caster of Miasma or if Miasma is cast while they are in btb, and that nothing is keeping their stats at 1 after they reduce them as by reducing them you meet the requirements of the spell (so things like Bears Anger would then add onto them etc..)

What do they mean by reduce exactly? Reduce one time? Reduce constantly? Reduce permanently?

BTW I'm not suggesting in any way that these are sensible views but you could argue they are valid interpretations of the rules for Miasma.

lparigi34
01-07-2008, 22:35
Well, it depends, and IMHO this is why this have to be FAQ'd.

I will start with two axioms here.

1) Cancel Effects -> Only apply to RIPs that are clearly contradictory.

2) Miasma and Bear Anger are not contradictory IMHO.

So easy to see where I go to, neither one will cancel each other, as IMHO (again) effect on stats for Bear Anger is something that add to another value, which is a base value?

Miasma modifies those base values. And as both spells are not clearly contradictory, then they do not cancel/dispel, etc...

If Bear Anger should give absolute values instead of modifiers, I would agree on the contradiction, but I see none here.

Loopstah
01-07-2008, 22:51
How does Miasma work?

1.Models in btb with the caster at the time Miasma is cast reduce their stats to 1. This only effects models in btb at the time of casting and models keep the effect for the duration even if they leave btb. New models moving into btb are not effected.

2.Models in btb with the caster at any time during the duration reduce their stats to 1. This only effects models while they are in btb and they lose the effect only if they leave btb.

Which one is it? Does the "Until the start of the casters next magic phase," refer to causing the effect or the duration of the effect on the models?

From reading the rule I really can't tell what was intended as it can be read either way.