PDA

View Full Version : Bretonnians: Bear's Anger + Virtue of Heroism



stonetroll
15-05-2009, 01:33
What happens if I cast the Bear's anger on my Bretonnian Lord with the Virtue of heroism?

Virtue of Heroism: Against large targets, and if armed with a non-magical weapon, the Knight has the Killing Blow special ability. This overrides the normal limitation of Killing Blow only affecting man-sized models.

The Bear's Anger: blablabla. The target becomes as wild and powerful as a mighty bear. He add's +3 Attacks, +2 Strength, and +1 Toughness to his characteristics. He cannot use a weapon nor use a shield whilst using this spell.

So, if I cast Bear's Anger on my Bretonnian Lord, will he still count as having a hand weapon, and thus give me Killing Blow against large targets?

Seems rather situational, but if you get it off, you have a good chance to poof a Bloodthirster :D.

Nicha11
15-05-2009, 01:49
Yes i believe you would still have killing blow.

Dark14
15-05-2009, 01:50
bears anger cannot be cast on anyone with a mount this edition. so he cant do that as it would be 2 virtues and a foot lord is awfull.

Frep
15-05-2009, 01:54
I'm not sure if this is correct by RAW but I'd say no you can't use the killing blow because you are specifically stated to "not" have a weapon. Even though the main rule book says models always have handweapons I think bear's anger overrides this clause.

EDIT: I wasn't aware that bears anger couldn't be used on mounted characters, the bears anger isn't a virtue so I'm not sure what your arguement about virtues is.

EDIT EDIT: I think I figured out what you meant, the virtue of heroism and virtue of empathy can't be combined

Dark14
15-05-2009, 02:02
yup the edit edit got it :P

hopefully when we are updated we get our magic back...heavens or a lore of the lady.

kingjshrulz
15-05-2009, 03:44
virture of herisiom if the knight is armed with a Nonmagical weapon he has killing blow vs large targets. If say your hippogriph lord's mount dies and then has bears anger cast on him then yes as he still is not using a magical weapon remember things like trolls and hounds fight with teeth and claws that count as hand weapons same goes for bears anger. the attacks are nonmagical the profile bonus is.

nosferatu1001
15-05-2009, 05:14
NO - when you fight with "bears anger" you do not use ANY weapons - you use your bare hands.

So you are not fighting with a weapon at all and the virtue therefore cannot work.

Keller
15-05-2009, 13:46
NO - when you fight with "bears anger" you do not use ANY weapons - you use your bear hands.

So you are not fighting with a weapon at all and the virtue therefore cannot work.

Fixed it for you. :D

selone
15-05-2009, 16:40
Fixed it for you. :D

I'm not sure I can bear any more bad puns.

Griefbringer
15-05-2009, 17:50
This is starting to get a bit grizzly - I am about to lose my bearings on all the relevant rules, and that is getting quite unbearable.

Nurgling Chieftain
15-05-2009, 18:36
Well, let's see. You could have a Bretonnian Lord with the virtue of heroism on a monster (royal pegasus or hippogryph), and the monster could die, leaving the lord on foot. Then, the lord could have Bear's Anger cast upon him, and I see no reason why his virtue wouldn't function at that point.

As a tactic, though, I wouldn't recommend trying this. :p

enyoss
15-05-2009, 19:23
Then, the lord could have Bear's Anger cast upon him, and I see no reason why his virtue wouldn't function at that point.


I would disagree.

The virtue only kicks in when the character fights with a non-magical weapon.

Bears anger then says you may not use any weapon at all, which includes non-magical ones.

As you are not using a non-magical weapon, there's no killing blow.

As has been said though, it's only going to crop up very rarely in any case :).

Nurgling Chieftain
15-05-2009, 19:36
I find that unconvincing. Tearing an opponent apart with your "bear" hands is still using your hands as a weapon. If you actually push that idea beyond its intention to its semantic conclusion, he can't even attack, since any attack he'd made would effectively define itself as a weapon by dint of being attacked with.

RaI, it's obvious that the key term is non-magical.

Dark14
15-05-2009, 22:24
This is starting to get a bit grizzly - I am about to lose my bearings on all the relevant rules, and that is getting quite unbearable.

hopfully no one here is biPOLAR...har har.

chaos just killed 137 children in anger at our bad puns.

Griefbringer
16-05-2009, 08:32
If you actually push that idea beyond its intention to its semantic conclusion, he can't even attack, since any attack he'd made would effectively define itself as a weapon by dint of being attacked with.


This could sound like a potential way to put an enemy character of uber-killyness into an unbearable state where he could barely bear his anger for not being able to give his enemy anything more than a gentle, honey-flavoured hug. Presuming you can cast the spell on an enemy character.

That said, when I go to a restaurant, I don't want my steak to be served RAW.