PDA

View Full Version : Burning Alignment



CaliforniaGamer
23-03-2009, 17:27
Realizing there is some controversy on this: are most people considering Burning Alignment from the EoTG both Magical AND Flaming? Just magical?

Does both regen and say range attack wards protect against it?

Bac5665
23-03-2009, 17:32
Unfortunately its neither. While there is some possible debate on the magical side, the overwhelming evidence is that GW = fail and that the Burning Alignment is neither magical nor flaming.

nosferatu1001
23-03-2009, 17:55
It is an attack used exclusively in the magic phase, and notes that it cannot be dispelled (if memory serves), so unless otherwise stated it would be safe to asume magical. Given that the entire spell casting rules do not say they are magical I think they expect you to use a bit of common sense here and say they ARE magical.

Before anyone goes "TK firing in magic phase aren't magical!" note i said exclusively in the magic phase.

jax40kplyr1
23-03-2009, 18:18
Raised this issue before myself, as I could see the debate. Argument for it being magical is that it goes during the magic phase and can't be dispelled (and comes from a magic engine) - haven't seen any complaints about it being a magic attack.
The flaming question - that one is more of a stretch. The FAQ recently put out states:

Q: If an attack is obviously based on fire (such as a Dwarf Flame Cannon's shot), but it was published before the term "Flaming Attack" was formalized in seventhly edition, does it count as a Flaming Attack or not?

A: We cannot answer this question with an all-encompassing rule, but in three specific cases we can be more precise: hits from Flame Cannons, Warpfire Throwers and Salamanders' ranged attacks all count as Flaming Attacks.

Yes you can imply that the "Burning Alignment" would be flaming, but since it is a seventh edition army and it wasn't specified as "Flaming", I would be hard pressed to go with it. If they FAQ it (they should to answer the debate about magical and/or flaming), I hope it's both. Goodbye reg GG/Black Knights and Plaguebearers!

Necromancy Black
23-03-2009, 23:56
There's no direct RAW saying it's magical but at the same time there is no direct RAW saying magic weapons do magical attacks. Same with spells and miscast results, it's all implied.

So it seems to be well within the rules for it to be magical attacks, but I don't see it as flaming unless they FAW it, as flaming attacks are always noted as such (when they remember to print it!)

Dokushin
24-03-2009, 13:45
Hey, I win either way, either Burning Alignment is magical or miscast hits aren't magical and that ethereal discipline makes Slann immune to them.

Re: flaming, I honestly would rather it not be flaming. I have enough trouble dealing with Dragon Princes as it is.

Shamfrit
24-03-2009, 13:56
Let's completely ignore the fact that it's not made of fire, it's made of lightning as well, zap bolt down, blue sphere of energy out - magical 100%, flaming, no -

Spirit
24-03-2009, 14:33
Magic - Yes
Flaming - No

Reasons:

Magic - nothing in the magic phase is magical if you use RAW. Nowhere does it say spells cause magical attacks, but it is obviously intended. Burning alignment is in the magic phase and "cannot be dispelled" as per its rules. This to me implies it is magical.

Flaming - In one of the recent FAQ's, there is a question regarding flaming attacks and what counts as flaming. the reply says "Although we cannot specify for everything we can on these 3 counts: Dwarf flame cannons, something else and salamander ranged attacks, all count as flaming"

Considering they show the salamanders, but do not show burning allignment, im going with no flaming.

edit:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2220025_Warhammer_FAQ_part2_Feb_2009

Special Rules
Q. If an attack is obviously based on fire (such as
a Dwarf Flame Cannon’s shot), but it was
published before the term ‘Flaming Attack’ was
formalised in seventh edition, does it count as a
Flaming Attack or not?
A. We cannot answer this question with an allencompassing
rule (as a few ruthless individuals
out there would be sure to exploit it for their evil
schemes!), but in three specific cases we can be more precise: hits from Flame Cannons, Warpfire
Throwers and Salamanders’ ranged attacks all count
as Flaming Attacks.

this to me concludes that salamanders have flaming attacks, burning alignment does not. At least for the moment.

Necromancy Black
24-03-2009, 14:53
Let's completely ignore the fact that it's not made of fire, it's made of lightning as well, zap bolt down, blue sphere of energy out - magical 100%, flaming, no -

Lore of Light spells are made out of light and they still burn :p

But I agree, magical yes, flaming no.

Bac5665
24-03-2009, 14:53
Nothing in the BRB is explicitly magical, but everything in the Army books that's Magical DOES say so. Look at the GW FAQ of the WoC book. Nothing that wasn't clearly magical my RAW was deemed to be magical as well.

Yes, GW failed when writing the BRB, and we have to assume that miscasts deal magical hits. But the Army Books have always been very good about pointing out magical attacks, and, unfortunately, the need to assume argument doesn't really apply to them.

EvC
24-03-2009, 15:35
Not really a good comparison, there's not been any similar effects in the magic phase in any other army book. There's nothing in the WoC book that anyone should expect to be magical in the first place (Daemonic Gifts etc)...

blackjack
24-03-2009, 15:40
It is obviously non Magical Flaming :D

Why

Before every battle the skinks feed the steggie a huge meal of beans...

When the skinks priest feels the steggie rumble a skink with a torch leans over the steggies backside and... Boom!

A huge ring of burning methan engulfs the enemy! Just like Terrance and Philip. ;)



Seriously though. Magic yes, Flaming not unless an errata says so.

CaliforniaGamer
24-03-2009, 17:21
Verdict of the council is Magical: Yes Flaming: No. thank you.

Atheis of Caledor
24-03-2009, 18:19
Its both magical and a flaming attack. Its got burning in the name dollars to donuts its flaming, the whole "well its a 7th ed book, and they didn't have it listed so its not" reason doesn't fly. Both the vamp counts and daemons have magic items/attacks that are flaming but not listed.

The rod of flaming death in the vamp counts book is not listed as a flaming attack but it is, by the faq. As well as the spells orange fire, red fire, blue fire, poka dot fire. Its got fire in the name so its flaming, as per the daemon faq.

Shamfrit
24-03-2009, 18:42
Which would be a perfectly logical assumption, should the FAQ be A) giving authority to assume hidden effects or for that matter B) Primary School Science giving us at least 3 other methods of burning, without fire...

Ice, Acid and Alkaline (on extremes of the scale.)

CaliforniaGamer
24-03-2009, 20:19
B) Primary School Science giving us at least 3 other methods of burning, without fire...

Ice, Acid and Alkaline (on extremes of the scale.)

Okay I LOL'D fairly hard at that.;)

Can I add infectious agents/biochemical reactions like crabs? Your crotch burns yet the crabs themselves are presumed not to cause an actual fire. Perhaps burning alignment is a giant STD attack.

N810
24-03-2009, 20:27
you forgot lasers, microwaves, and radiation.

I figure the Engine of the gods is a directed microwave emiter (one of it's functions),
but due to being millions of years old the output has become random.

Since it is a relic of the Old Ones it is based on science instead of magic.

stripsteak
24-03-2009, 22:07
Its both magical and a flaming attack. Its got burning in the name dollars to donuts its flaming, the whole "well its a 7th ed book, and they didn't have it listed so its not" reason doesn't fly. Both the vamp counts and daemons have magic items/attacks that are flaming but not listed.

The rod of flaming death in the vamp counts book is not listed as a flaming attack but it is, by the faq. As well as the spells orange fire, red fire, blue fire, poka dot fire. Its got fire in the name so its flaming, as per the daemon faq.

it is not flaming attacks at the moment. the "well its a 7th ed book, and they didn't have it listed so its not" does fly because that is what the FAQ specifically states. that it only applies to books written before the establishment of the flaming attacks rule in 7th ed.

the vampire item was 'clarified' in the errata not the FAQ. it's a big difference. they actually went and changed the rules for the item so it would be flaming, they didn't clarify anything.

the same was done in the daemon book it was changed in the errata ir was not just clarified in the FAQ.

if in the future they errata to engine to be flaming attacks. then it would be flaming attacks until then it is not.

Spirit
24-03-2009, 22:16
Its both magical and a flaming attack. Its got burning in the name dollars to donuts its flaming, the whole "well its a 7th ed book, and they didn't have it listed so its not" reason doesn't fly. Both the vamp counts and daemons have magic items/attacks that are flaming but not listed.

The rod of flaming death in the vamp counts book is not listed as a flaming attack but it is, by the faq. As well as the spells orange fire, red fire, blue fire, poka dot fire. Its got fire in the name so its flaming, as per the daemon faq.

My point was not "well its a 7th ed book, and they didn't have it listed so its not"

My point was that they used salamanders and specified them as flaming (thus, looking at the lizardmen book and specifying a unit that does not have a "flaming" rule as flaming anyway) but did not specify burning alignment. (which is in the same boat as salamanders, flaming in the fluff but not in the rules)

This to me does fly, if they wanted to specify burning alignment here, they could have, but they chose not to.

Shamfrit
24-03-2009, 22:19
you forgot lasers, microwaves, and radiation.

I figure the Engine of the gods is a directed microwave emiter (one of it's functions),
but due to being millions of years old the output has become random.

Since it is a relic of the Old Ones it is based on science instead of magic.

Precisely (although I believe lasers and microswaves are on the heat spectrum, so technically use fire to burn, I can't remember secondary science to care, lol.)

I picture/imagine the ring on the Engine having two consecutive halves which spin in opposite directions really fast, the Skink Priest channels lightning or the storm clouds above and the Engine absorbs it, then explodes, a great big sphere of light blue cracking energy going crunk.

Blame it on Stargate...:rolleyes:

Spirit
24-03-2009, 22:31
Precisely (although I believe lasers and microswaves are on the heat spectrum, so technically use fire to burn, I can't remember secondary science to care, lol.)

I picture/imagine the ring on the Engine having two consecutive halves which spin in opposite directions really fast, the Skink Priest channels lightning or the storm clouds above and the Engine absorbs it, then explodes, a great big sphere of light blue cracking energy going crunk.

Blame it on Stargate...:rolleyes:

I only use one half of the component with the dragon head add on, a mohawk on my steg looks so much cooler than a giant anus.

Atheis of Caledor
24-03-2009, 23:46
Its not like this particular situation is the first time they left out something important out of fantasy book, like say for example mazamundi's magical battle standard which currently does nothing?

Or the Phoenix Blade, which was not a magical halberd until the high elf faq (which is the exact same document as the errata, in fact there is no such thing as a fantasy errata document they are all faqs). Despite the fact the model is armed with a halberd, and the lore description of the weapon is that of a halberd.

It seems rather silly for them to have to tell me something that is blantely obivious. Like the ever fun dragon armor argument about it stopping flaming attacks or not.

Case in point out of all the 7th ed books name one attack,spell, item, or weapon that has the name burning,flaming, or fire in the name (aside from burning alignment) that is not a flaming attack and you will get a cookie.

Kalandros
25-03-2009, 03:14
Magical: Possibly, almost every damaging thing that happens in the Magic Phase does Magical Damage.
Flaming: Definitely not, unless FAQ'd otherwise. They had the opportunity to slap a simple 'This counts as a Flaming Attack' but they did not.

rottahn
25-03-2009, 07:59
burning doesnt have to mean flaming. burning can be an acidic burn, or a lightning based burn, or maybe the EotG is just a huge magnifying glass and your models are just hapless ants. "burning" could just be a descriptive word on what it does, and not what it is made of.

Magical? definately.

stripsteak
25-03-2009, 16:01
Its not like this particular situation is the first time they left out something important out of fantasy book, like say for example mazamundi's magical battle standard which currently does nothing?

Or the Phoenix Blade, which was not a magical halberd until the high elf faq (which is the exact same document as the errata, in fact there is no such thing as a fantasy errata document they are all faqs). Despite the fact the model is armed with a halberd, and the lore description of the weapon is that of a halberd.

It seems rather silly for them to have to tell me something that is blantely obivious. Like the ever fun dragon armor argument about it stopping flaming attacks or not.

Case in point out of all the 7th ed books name one attack,spell, item, or weapon that has the name burning,flaming, or fire in the name (aside from burning alignment) that is not a flaming attack and you will get a cookie.

7th ed BRB
The Burning Head. pg 112 no mention of flaming attacks and has not been erratad to be. so by the faq2 it is not flaming attacks (technically) can i have my cookie now?

they have to tell you something that is blatently obvious because that is how the rules for the system work. you can only do what they tell you, since they haven't told us those attacks are flaming they are not, regardless of what you think is obvious they have to make them 'flaming attacks' before they are.

errata and faq are different even though they are included in the same pdf, their rules page o nthe site explains this. errata are hard rules and actually modify the respective book they are talking about, faq are soft rules and just meant for clarifying

N810
25-03-2009, 16:24
Here's a little science content...
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/fire.html
"So what is fire? It's not the fuel or the oxygen or the heat or the light. Fire is what happens between all these things. It's a chemical reaction."

Volker the Mad Fiddler
25-03-2009, 16:53
7th ed BRB
The Burning Head. pg 112 no mention of flaming attacks and has not been erratad to be. so by the faq2 it is not flaming attacks (technically) can i have my cookie now?

SNIP

Sorry. The Lore itself says- "All spells in this list are flaming attacks."

stripsteak
25-03-2009, 17:22
Sorry. The Lore itself says- "All spells in this list are flaming attacks."

ah thanks i had missed that, it really shouldn't be in italic text

Gazak Blacktoof
25-03-2009, 17:41
Why? Do you only read italic text?;)

EvC
25-03-2009, 18:19
It's funny, like people wondering if Greater Daemons are monsters or not- it says so, in the army book... but people always think it's a "fluff box". No, it's a rules box: you can tell because it has rules in it. Not difficult!

Pete_x
25-03-2009, 18:35
Precisely (although I believe lasers and microswaves are on the heat spectrum, so technically use fire to burn, I can't remember secondary science to care, lol.)

I picture/imagine the ring on the Engine having two consecutive halves which spin in opposite directions really fast, the Skink Priest channels lightning or the storm clouds above and the Engine absorbs it, then explodes, a great big sphere of light blue cracking energy going crunk.

Blame it on Stargate...:rolleyes:

Actually burning occurs at high temperature. Fire is as much of an effect then a cause to the burning. if I also remember my secondary science correctly :)

ScalySkin
26-03-2009, 02:03
Does both regen and say range attack wards protect against it?

As has been already answered:

Magical - Yes
Flaming - No

Regen can still be taken as it is not a flaming attack.

Ranged attack wards can not be taken as it is not considered a ranged/missile attack.

Standard (not Daemonic) ward saves can be taken.

N810
26-03-2009, 02:45
Here's a little science content...
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/fire.html
"So what is fire? It's not the fuel or the oxygen or the heat or the light. Fire is what happens between all these things. It's a chemical reaction."
See what you did Pete_x,
now you are making me quote myself. :p

Lord Zarkov
26-03-2009, 12:05
As has been already answered:

Magical - Yes
Flaming - No

Regen can still be taken as it is not a flaming attack.

Ranged attack wards can not be taken as it is not considered a ranged/missile attack.

Standard (and Daemonic) ward saves can be taken.

Well it is a 'ranged' attack as it is an attack with a range, although I agree not a 'missile' attack. So VC Braces would work (as they say any 'ranged' attack) but if the ward specified 'missile' then you wouldn't.

Bac5665
26-03-2009, 14:21
Why is it a magical attack again? No one here has pointed out any reasons that the rules indicate that it's magical. As bad as GW is with explaining the magic phase in the BRB, everything that does magical hits in Army Books is spelled out very concretely. Go look at the VC and Skaven books, for example. Why are we assuming the lizardmen book follows different rules?

rottahn
26-03-2009, 14:29
Ranged attack wards can not be taken as it is not considered a ranged/missile attack.
.

i would disagree with this. it is a ranged attack, since.... it hits you from a range, and not in HtH.


It's funny, like people wondering if Greater Daemons are monsters or not- it says so, in the army book... but people always think it's a "fluff box". No, it's a rules box: you can tell because it has rules in it. Not difficult!

it sure does look like a fluff box. and besides those "rules" have been thrown out, since bloodthirsters arent monsters anyways. they are "monstrous characters" which follow 90% of the character rules anyways.

CaliforniaGamer
26-03-2009, 17:36
As has been already answered:

Magical - Yes
Flaming - No

Regen can still be taken as it is not a flaming attack.

Ranged attack wards can not be taken as it is not considered a ranged/missile attack.

Standard (and Daemonic) ward saves can be taken.

Definitely ranged attack wards can be taken. BA is absolutely a ranged attack. Now if the ward specifically states "ward vs. missile attacks" then no. But Banner of Blood Keep would definitely work as that item states ward vs. all ranged attacks, missile, magic or otherwise.

CaliforniaGamer
26-03-2009, 17:37
Why is it a magical attack again? No one here has pointed out any reasons that the rules indicate that it's magical. As bad as GW is with explaining the magic phase in the BRB, everything that does magical hits in Army Books is spelled out very concretely. Go look at the VC and Skaven books, for example. Why are we assuming the lizardmen book follows different rules?

Everyone at this point is assuming it was omission. The evidence that is rests on one factor and one factor only: the attacks occurs during the magic phase and not the shooting phase.

EvC
26-03-2009, 17:45
Why is it a magical attack again? No one here has pointed out any reasons that the rules indicate that it's magical. As bad as GW is with explaining the magic phase in the BRB, everything that does magical hits in Army Books is spelled out very concretely. Go look at the VC and Skaven books, for example. Why are we assuming the lizardmen book follows different rules?

Bullscheisse. Not one army book - to my knowledge - bothers to tell us that their spells or their magic weapons cause magic damage. It is entirely down to the reader to work out for himself that thse magic-based attacks are, in fact, magical. Same principle applies to Burning Alignment.

CaliforniaGamer
26-03-2009, 17:54
Bullscheisse. Not one army book - to my knowledge - bothers to tell us that their spells or their magic weapons cause magic damage. It is entirely down to the reader to work out for himself that thse magic-based attacks are, in fact, magical. Same principle applies to Burning Alignment.

actually the skaven book does carefully point out that its range attacks ie-warpstone bullets are magical attacks/damage while for some reason the LM book fails to mention this, maybe to them it was obvious in writing it.

Bac5665
26-03-2009, 17:55
Spells and magic items are "covered" in the BRB. Assuming that the BRB does make magic weapons and spells magical, there is no reason to make the same ruling in army books. It would be like pointing out that goblins can get rank bonuses. Its already part of the rules.

But look at Tomb Guard, or Grave Guard, or the Ethereal rule in the VC book. Go look at Skaven weapons. GW is very clear about which are magical and which aren't. There is no other thing I can think of that the "reader" might assume is magical that doesn't explicitly say so, other than the EoTG.

Don't misunderstand me. I strongly believe that it should be magical. But it's not. There is no positive authorization, and the circumstantial edivence is strongly undercut by dozens of explicit positive examples where GW made it explicite that something was magical.

N810
26-03-2009, 18:41
Don't Dwarves have some large Anvil with similar properties (non-magicial attacks/effects)
also don't the dark elces have some blood filled bowl thing that is similar ?

Dokushin
26-03-2009, 18:41
My whole thing is, hits from miscasts aren't specified as magical, nor pretty much anything else. Occasionally things are specified as being magical -- these are always attacks that do not occur in the magic phase. Is it really a stretch that Burning Alignment does magical hits? What else would it do? Mundane shooting?

In the description for the Engine, it notes that "none of these effects may be dispelled." Is it more likely that they are doing mundane shooting effects, and GW just felt like reminding us that you can't dispel shooting, or is it more likely that it's a spell-like effect, that they were noting you cannot dispel?

Is it really so unlikely that something that happens triggered by a wizard during the magic phase is magical?

Bac5665
26-03-2009, 19:47
No, its not an unreasonable assumption to assume that the EoTG is supposed to be magical. But it is a judgment call. We are using the fluff to drive the rules, without any RAW backing. That's dangerous. If we all play the game based on out own interpretation of the fluff, it makes tournament's that much harder.

I'm not willing to alter blackletter rules to suit the fluff. I think that's bad. And that's what I think people are doing in this case when they say the the attacks are magical. There is no rule I can find that supports that claim. Without such a rule, I can't play it that way; to me playing be the rules is more important that any other consideration.

Lord Zarkov
26-03-2009, 20:21
For what it's worth the Magic Section doesn't say that anything in in is 'magical' ruleswise, including all spells, magic items, miscast results etc. But clearly everything in it is magical, we're just supposed to take it as given.

nosferatu1001
26-03-2009, 21:20
No, its not an unreasonable assumption to assume that the EoTG is supposed to be magical. But it is a judgment call.

IN that case none of your spells do magical damage, either. That is also a judgement call!

Necromancy Black
27-03-2009, 00:10
IN that case none of your spells do magical damage, either. That is also a judgement call!

Exactly right. Nothing int he magic section of the BRB is said to do magical attacks. Infact magical attacks isn't found in the BRB at all!

This is not a call made on fluff, this is a call made on mechanics. The EotG is trigger only in the magic phase. It is the assumption of the entire warhamemr ruleset that magic phase = magical attacks, leaving us to work out the differences between something that happens only in the magic phase in something that can happen in multiple phases, like TK's getting extra shooting.

So until someone can show me a rule of what a magical attack is and that Buring Alignment is not covered under it, it should be classed as magical under the mechanics of the game.

ScalySkin
27-03-2009, 01:13
Can we make this thread into a poll? Ask who thinks burning alignment is a magical attack and who doesn't. I'm guessing the results would read:

Magical - 99

Not Magical - 1

N810
27-03-2009, 15:33
Maybe this will clear up some questions untill we get an official FAQ.
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190322

Bac5665
27-03-2009, 15:34
Can we make this thread into a poll? Ask who thinks burning alignment is a magical attack and who doesn't. I'm guessing the results would read:

Magical - 99

Not Magical - 1

Oh I'm sure I would have more support than that. This is the ruling my club made and most of them are on here.

N810
27-03-2009, 16:06
Heres what GW says...

17) When the Engine of the Gods uses Burning Alignment, are the hits magical?

No.


18) When the Engine of the Gods uses Burning Alignment, are the hits flaming?

No.

Gazak Blacktoof
27-03-2009, 16:36
If I was in charge of responding to rules questions correctly, instead of picking and choosing when I play devil's advocate and when I want to express my own opinion, those are the same answers I would give. Both of them are perfectly acceptable as far as RAW goes.

Fortunately I'm not paid to waffle on the forums so I can express an opinion.

I think that if it was the intent of the designers that burning alignment was neither magical nor flaming that it should probably be usable at any other point during the turn other than the magic phase and not included the word "burning" in its name.

As others have pointed out, the line of thinking in those responses opens up a can of "potentially-magical" worms.


What confuses me about magic items and magic attacks in general is that the FAQ answers provided for magic ranged weapons seems to indicate that none of them make magical attacks because they don't specifically say they do. However, the designers seem unaware that they haven't mentioned it for many of the other effects we all implicitly understand to be magical in nature.


Personally I think a few more errata and few less dodgy FAQs need to be issued.

Bac5665
27-03-2009, 16:45
Personally I think a few more errata and few less dodgy FAQs need to be issued.

Amen. Really, GW just needs to rewrite the Magic section, defining terms and introducing a standard format for spell descriptions, i.e.:

Name: Fireball
Type: Magic Missile
Range: 24"
Casting Value: 5
Target: any one Enemy unit in LoS
Effect: 1d6 S4 Fiery Hits.
Affects units in Combat?: No

Name: Unseen Lurker
Type: General
Range: 12"
Casting value: 11
Target: any one Friendly unit
Effect: Target unit may move ...
Affects units in Combat?: No

Name: Cleansing Flare
Type: AoE
Range:0"
Casting Value: 10
Target: Casting Wizard
Effect: All enemy units within 12" of wizard take d6 S4 hits (S6 against DoC or undead.)
Affects units in Combat?: Yes.

This kind of format would reduce about a third of the rules forum questions.

Gazak Blacktoof
27-03-2009, 16:54
Yep, that would be a lot clearer. If the designers had a set format they would be less likely to omit information. A paragraph or two of italic text can cover the background material.

Lord Yawgmoth
27-03-2009, 17:00
.....Personally I think a few more errata and few less dodgy FAQs need to be issued.

I am with you, 100%.

Dokushin
27-03-2009, 17:35
I think the rules guys at GW should play more Magic: The Gathering. For all it's pros and cons it's got the most solid, well-defined ruleset I can think of, and every card printed manages to be crystal-clear, 100% non-ambiguous, and flavorful. WH is a better game, by all means, but sometimes I wish for a stack, and card types, and you know, sensible stuff *grin*

Spirit
27-03-2009, 17:50
Heres what GW says...


If this is "what GW says" why are some of the answers "as far as we know" or "we believe he is intended to..." ?

If this was a GW response then im sure the answers wouldn't be uncertain.

Jormi_Boced
27-03-2009, 17:59
I was under the impression that everything in the magic phase was magical.

N810
27-03-2009, 18:04
If this is "what GW says" why are some of the answers "as far as we know" or "we believe he is intended to..." ?

If this was a GW response then im sure the answers wouldn't be uncertain.

More specificly John Spencer at askyourquestion at gw.com.

40kdhs
27-03-2009, 18:05
Burning alignment is flamable. Why? Because you can't burn stuff without 'fire'. Burning= FIRE and FIRE= flamable. Therefore is burning is flamable. The name implies the meaning. Yes, it's magical and flaming.

N810
27-03-2009, 18:09
Microwaves burn things without magic or fire :p

40kdhs
27-03-2009, 18:17
Microwaves burn things without magic or fire :p

You don't use microwave to 'burn' your pop corn or whatever. You use it to 'heat up'. If you heat it up too much, your pop corn is going to be 'burned'.

By the way, can you 'burn' your chicken soup in the microwave? I dont think so.

It's huge different.:D

Burning Alignment is magical and flaming because you 'burn' your opponent unit in your 'magic phase'.

N810
27-03-2009, 18:19
As Arthur C. Clarke once said,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Lord Zarkov
27-03-2009, 18:33
Lightning also burns and isn't fire
As does Acid
& alpha/beta particles
& EM radiation
etc

Spirit
27-03-2009, 21:52
More specificly John Spencer at askyourquestion at gw.com.

And we know how often the askyourquestion boys have gotten it completely wrong...

Necromancy Black
28-03-2009, 00:39
Amen. Really, GW just needs to rewrite the Magic section, defining terms and introducing a standard format for spell descriptions, i.e.:

Name: Fireball
Type: Magic Missile
Range: 24"
Casting Value: 5
Target: any one Enemy unit in LoS
Effect: 1d6 S4 Fiery Hits.
Affects units in Combat?: No

Name: Unseen Lurker
Type: General
Range: 12"
Casting value: 11
Target: any one Friendly unit
Effect: Target unit may move ...
Affects units in Combat?: No

Name: Cleansing Flare
Type: AoE
Range:0"
Casting Value: 10
Target: Casting Wizard
Effect: All enemy units within 12" of wizard take d6 S4 hits (S6 against DoC or undead.)
Affects units in Combat?: Yes.

This kind of format would reduce about a third of the rules forum questions.

That would be good. That and a rule saying anything that occurs soley in the magic phase cause magic attacks, as do any CC magic weapon. Ranged magic weapons only cause magic attacks if specified.

Keep MR the way it is, saying the spell must target the the magic resistent unit. It would all work perfectly.