PDA

View Full Version : Magic resistance?



Finnigan2004
02-05-2009, 13:34
So, in a game last weekend, I had an interesting situation arise. A guy that I played cast burning head, and asked if I wanted to dispel it. Looking at my pool and looking at his remaining spells, I elected not to. He then drew a line straight through a magic resistant unit, and said that their magic resistance would not work because I had let the spell through. I know that a recent FAQ sort of nerfed magic resistance, but is this the right interpretation?

Atrahasis
02-05-2009, 13:39
Burning head doesn't target units, and since the BRB FAQ Part II errata'd MR to require targeting, Burning head does not trigger it.

Finnigan2004
02-05-2009, 13:46
Yup, I was just talking about it on another site, and it seems that's the case. I suspected as much, but it's too bad that they nerfed magic resistance so much. Ah well, they'll likely FAQ it and say that it applies to burning head and spells like it when they realize what they've done. Not that it's congruent with the rules, but we are talking about a GW FAQ .

Necromancy Black
02-05-2009, 14:13
So, in a game last weekend, I had an interesting situation arise. A guy that I played cast burning head, and asked if I wanted to dispel it. Looking at my pool and looking at his remaining spells, I elected not to. He then drew a line straight through a magic resistant unit, and said that their magic resistance would not work because I had let the spell through. I know that a recent FAQ sort of nerfed magic resistance, but is this the right interpretation?

This isn't actually to do with the MR nerf.

You get one chance and only one chance to dispel a spell. You chose not to.

If you later find the spell affects a MR unit, too bad. Your one chance to dispel the spell has gone and passed.

Finnigan2004
02-05-2009, 14:17
I suppose Necromancy, but if he does not have to say which unit he targets with burning head, the magic resistance will never be triggered for this spell (possibly others too). I suppose that this just never happened in my games before the nerf. It's probably worth looking up when he has to declare the direction of the spell.

Edit: Actually, after looking, it does have to do with the nerf. It would not matter either way because burning head does not target the unit, it just nominates a point on the table.

Necromancy Black
02-05-2009, 14:23
Even before the nerf with the old ruling you wouldn't have gotten MR, because you choose to not attempt to dispel :p

Mercules
02-05-2009, 14:29
He still needs to nominate his target(in this case choose the path of the spell) before the casting and offer of dispel. So yeah, it would have worked before since before I would have "affected" the MR(x) unit.

Necromancy Black
02-05-2009, 14:35
Yeah but this created the problem of being situations where you can not tell with 100% certainty if a unit will end up being affected or not. You can't measure anything until after dispel attempts and after this you can't apply MR.

A bunch of were arguing that because of this things like Burning Alignment would not be able to trigger MR, then a week or two later the new FAQ came out.

Atrahasis
02-05-2009, 14:37
Burning Alignment can't trigger MR because it isn't a spell...

Chipacabra
02-05-2009, 19:33
He still needs to nominate his target(in this case choose the path of the spell) before the casting and offer of dispel. So yeah, it would have worked before since before I would have "affected" the MR(x) unit.

Nope. You only have to nominate a target before the cast, but BH doesn't have a target. Nominating a path isn't targeting, it's completely distinct and it's just a thing that the spell does after it's already been cast. As per the FAQ, "affecting" is not the same as targeting.

Necromancy Black
03-05-2009, 22:21
Burning Alignment can't trigger MR because it isn't a spell...

Whoops, I'm getting confused. I meant Cleansing Flare.

havoc626
04-05-2009, 05:51
I think the other spell that was causing some problems was Vermintide, as it would have the random range and no way to tell if it would affect a MR squad or not before the spell was successfully cast.

I don't think that it really nerfed MR that much, because there aren't that many spells which nominate a point/direction in comparison to those that nominate a unit.

Mercules
04-05-2009, 15:34
Nope. You only have to nominate a target before the cast, but BH doesn't have a target. Nominating a path isn't targeting, it's completely distinct and it's just a thing that the spell does after it's already been cast. As per the FAQ, "affecting" is not the same as targeting.

I would disagree. I would say that target in this case is the PATH you are taking. The BRB states to cast a spell you nominate your spell and declare your target. It doesn't say, "if optional." You declare your target. A target isn't always a unit. It might be a point on the battle field, and area covered by a template, or a path.

Chipacabra
04-05-2009, 17:30
Nope. A target is always a unit. Templates and so on aren't targets. It's obvious from the way every single spell is written. Notice that the word 'target' never shows up in Burning Head or in any other spell that, hey, doesn't have a target.

Target, in the context of spells, is a very specific rule with a specific meaning. If the spell doesn't say it has a target, it doesn't have a target.

Lord Dan
04-05-2009, 17:39
He played it correctly, but he wasn't very polite about it. You can tell a person is desperate to win if you feel like you've been tricked into a decision.

The Red Scourge
04-05-2009, 19:35
So can anyone refer me to the definition of "target" under the WFB rules for magic?

Lord Dan
04-05-2009, 19:50
I think that was the issue clarified by the FAQ.

The Red Scourge
04-05-2009, 19:59
Nope the FAQ just strengthened the need for a definition.

And it really was an "errata" :)

Necromancy Black
04-05-2009, 22:36
So can anyone refer me to the definition of "target" under the WFB rules for magic?

Sure, it's right next to the definition of a magical attack.

In other words, it's implied, not specified.

The good rule of thumb I found is that if a spell can be cast without any enemy models on the table, then general it will not trigger MR.

Da GoBBo
04-05-2009, 22:55
I would disagree. I would say that target in this case is the PATH you are taking. The BRB states to cast a spell you nominate your spell and declare your target. It doesn't say, "if optional." You declare your target. A target isn't always a unit. It might be a point on the battle field, and area covered by a template, or a path.

I guess its reasoning like this why they FAQed the issue. These path spells just don't trigger MR, plain and simple.

If it would have been a spell directly targeting the unit it would have been foul play of course, this ain't munchkin :)

Finnigan2004
05-05-2009, 01:01
He played it correctly, but he wasn't very polite about it. You can tell a person is desperate to win if you feel like you've been tricked into a decision.


Yup, I figured that at the time, so didn't even dispute it. I thought I'd clarify after. You also read it right in terms of the situation. The game was pretty tight, and he did seem a little concerned at the end. No big deal either way though.

Lord Dan
05-05-2009, 06:20
Out of curiosity, what was the final result of the game?

Atrahasis
05-05-2009, 07:38
The good rule of thumb I found is that if a spell can be cast without any enemy models on the table, then general it will not trigger MR.

That you found?

Necromancy Black
05-05-2009, 07:50
Yep, found. I didn't come up with it, someone else did. I found their idea and blatantly stole it for my own use. :)

Kinda like all music after 1981.

havoc626
05-05-2009, 07:58
Hmm, I was just re-reading the original post, and I have the strangest feeling that your opponent might have been arguing that, because you said you didn't want to dispel, you couldn't use the MR, rather than you couldn't use the MR because the unit wasn't a target.

Mind you, it might just be the wording of your post and that clearly wasn't the case when you were talking to him about it. (The internet has a habit of being completely devoid of emotion.)

Necromancy Black
05-05-2009, 08:01
Hmm, I was just re-reading the original post, and I have the strangest feeling that your opponent might have been arguing that, because you said you didn't want to dispel, you couldn't use the MR, rather than you couldn't use the MR because the unit wasn't a target.


Ditto. That's pretty much what it sounds like you are saying.

TheDarkDaff
05-05-2009, 08:34
So can anyone refer me to the definition of "target" under the WFB rules for magic?

GW uses the term "target" for any time you try to hit a unit by any means.

enyoss
05-05-2009, 09:42
I actually like the way that MR has been clarified a bit, as spells like Vermintide and Burning Head were always a bit of a headache when applying it.

Still, it's a shame that magic defence has taken a hit. Maybe in 8th edition, MR could be updated to give a 6+ ward save against damage inflicted during the magic phase which doesn't explicitly target the unit (with 5+ for MR2, 4+ for MR3)? I have absolutely no idea how this would play out, but it seems reasonable enough. :)

Finnigan2004
05-05-2009, 13:19
Out of curiosity, what was the final result of the game?

It ended with him up by about four hundred points, but some ridiculous rolling on my part helped the result for him (I actually rolled the legendary double one casting (on two dice) and followed with a double one on the miscast table, and that was only the tip of the iceberg). It was a pretty good game overall, but he is a very competitive guy.

Finnigan2004
05-05-2009, 13:25
Hmm, I was just re-reading the original post, and I have the strangest feeling that your opponent might have been arguing that, because you said you didn't want to dispel, you couldn't use the MR, rather than you couldn't use the MR because the unit wasn't a target.

Mind you, it might just be the wording of your post and that clearly wasn't the case when you were talking to him about it. (The internet has a habit of being completely devoid of emotion.)

Yup, that was it exactly. He had not actually chosen a target, then picked the one with magic resistance after I said that I was not allocating dispel dice. It really does not matter because I thought that he was probably right because of the magic resistance nerf. I also was not sure if he had to decide which direction the spell was cast in before I decided to allocate, but I just went with it and figured I'd clarify after. In short, his reasons were wrong, but it would have played out that way anyhow because burning head does not target the unit.

Da GoBBo
05-05-2009, 15:07
We allways play that you tell what you want to do with a spell before deciding wether you disspell or not, regardless of the spells effect. In this case the end would indeed have been the same when it comes to MR.


(I actually rolled the legendary double one casting (on two dice) and followed with a double one on the miscast table

hehe, that makes met think of my battle versus skaven 2 weeks back. The first time I played with magic in my greenskin army in years. I got the fist of Gork (WOOT!:D), first turn, roll 3 dice, 15 ... that's when the double 1 dispellroll kicked in. The turns after he wasn't so lucky and versus those big blocks my shaman did a good job indeed, but it was a good way getting aquainted with magic again.