PDA

View Full Version : Giants versus Ethereals



Shadowfax
26-09-2009, 20:23
A few of the results on the Giant's random combat effects table lead to "instakills" without any mention of/need to roll for wounding. Can these harm ethereal units (who are immune to wounds caused by non-magical means)?

I know it's nonsensical for them to be able to do so, but I'm interested in the strict letter of the rules.

If no wounds are caused (ie. the model is simply removed from play) can the ethereals still claim immunity to the attack?

Da Crusha
26-09-2009, 21:05
I really really doubt that the giants can hurt ethereal creatures any other way than combat res, but I don't have my book on me... again I really doubt it though.

Sirroelivan
26-09-2009, 21:09
The pick up and ... (the eating, stuffing down pants and such) say "remove from play", so ethereal creatures wouldn't be immune to that.

danny-d-b
26-09-2009, 21:14
yell and ball I'd say inflict the 2 wounds, as thats combat res
the rest I'd say the ethereals are immune too even though the 'auto wound'

kyinpie
26-09-2009, 21:15
yell and bawl would be the best result against etheral creatures!

sirroeliven, i think your right but you would have thought the giants hand would pass stright through it though! :)

Sirroelivan
26-09-2009, 21:29
Hrm, can't seem to find the ethereal rule in my rulebook, but the "stuff in bag", "Squash" and "Eat" attacks all say removed from game, or counted as a casualty, so I would assume those do apply. (But since I can't check the exact wording of the ethereal rule, I'm not sure)

kyinpie
26-09-2009, 21:41
vampire rule book page 48 in the box

ethereal cretures
ethereal models cant be wounded except by spells and magical attacks or effects.

i read the giant rules to be either attacks or effects, but they are not magical! so i think the only thing a giant can do to ethereal creatures is yell and ball, everything else wont have an effect!

ky

nosferatu1001
26-09-2009, 22:00
That only protects them from wounds however "remove from play" is not a wound - as you get no saves against it - and therefore you would be affected.

IrishDelinquent
26-09-2009, 23:02
The Ethereal creatures are not immune to the Giant's attacks, as odd as it sounds, so long as those attacks remove the model from play. While Ethereal Creatures cannot be wounded by a non-magical attack, they can be forced to be removed from the board.

Think of it this way: When faced with the choice between the afterlife or the smell of a Giant's underwear, suddenly crossing over doesn't sound like such a bad thing.

Infurion
26-09-2009, 23:40
As we are talking Etheral here, just a sidenote: are they immune to dragon's breath weapon?

Kalandros
27-09-2009, 02:36
Yes, they are, unless the Dragon itself has Magical damage - which doesn't really happen anymore, right? o; I think even the HE Amulet of Light (makes the entire unit have Magical attacks) only applies to close combat but I could be wrong.

Condottiere
27-09-2009, 07:25
Close combat, otherwise they'd be fielding a Hero in an Archer unit.

siphon101
28-09-2009, 13:13
I've always interpreted it broadly in this instance, where "remove from play" means to inflict however many wounds the model has remaining. I think it's pretty clear from intention that etherial creatures are immune from mundane attacks of any and all kinds. They simply can not be effected by any attack that is not magical, or by combat resolution. The giants attacks are not magical. The only one attack by the giant that can effect them is "yell and bawl" as it explicitly details a situation in which the etherial creatures can be hurt, a losing combat resolution.

Mid'ean
28-09-2009, 13:39
The Ethereal creatures are not immune to the Giant's attacks, as odd as it sounds, so long as those attacks remove the model from play. While Ethereal Creatures cannot be wounded by a non-magical attack, they can be forced to be removed from the board.

Think of it this way: When faced with the choice between the afterlife or the smell of a Giant's underwear, suddenly crossing over doesn't sound like such a bad thing.

The only attack that will effect a ethereal creature is Yell & Bawl. All other attcks, whether stuffing down their pants, pick up and throwing, whatever, are by definition, an effect. You are doing something to the model which will have a effect on them. Which is NOT magical. Therefor, it does nothing. Removing them from the board directly effects the model.

Milgram
28-09-2009, 14:13
ethereal cretures
ethereal models cant be wounded except by spells and magical attacks or effects.

mid'ean, they can't be wounded is not equal to can't be affected.

if you do not agree on this I'd go with immunity against magic weapons as they will kill the ethereals. and when they are killed, their movement is reduced. to zero. which must not happen. so immunity. sounds stupid? yes, it does.

another interesting sidenote: is a thrown banshee a magic missile and therefore causes damage when thrown into her own unit? the lizardmen FAQ would suggest yes, because it sounds pretty magical to me. :)

siphon101
28-09-2009, 14:26
mid'ean, they can't be wounded is not equal to can't be affected.

Here's a question. Let's say a wraith is picked up and stuffed in pants, thus removing from play. How much combat resolution does the giant get for that? 2, because of the 2 wounds on the wraith profile? I'd say so, based on the recent game FAQ, which suggests when a model is killing blowed, or outright killed by other means, the amount of wounds he suffers, for combat resolution purposes, is equal to his remaining wounds.

If so, we can, as a general sense, suggest that removing a model from play is equivalent to dealing a number of wounds equal to its remaining wounds (IE why you get 2 combat resolution, as if you did 2 wounds). Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that anything that "removes a model from play" or "slays it instantly" or anything to that effect works, as a mechanic, of reducing its wounds to 0.

Which you can't do on an etherial creature short of magic attacks or combat resolution.

Blizzinam
28-09-2009, 14:37
Here's a question. Let's say a wraith is picked up and stuffed in pants, thus removing from play. How much combat resolution does the giant get for that? 2, because of the 2 wounds on the wraith profile? I'd say so, based on the recent game FAQ, which suggests when a model is killing blowed, or outright killed by other means, the amount of wounds he suffers, for combat resolution purposes, is equal to his remaining wounds.

If so, we can, as a general sense, suggest that removing a model from play is equivalent to dealing a number of wounds equal to its remaining wounds (IE why you get 2 combat resolution, as if you did 2 wounds). Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that anything that "removes a model from play" or "slays it instantly" or anything to that effect works, as a mechanic, of reducing its wounds to 0.

Which you can't do on an etherial creature short of magic attacks or combat resolution.

Look at the "for combat resolution purposes" part of this quote. this fragment of a sentence kinda says it all to me. While they may count as wounds for combat resolution they are not real wounds.

Look upon the Icon of Eternal Virulence for an example. Each wound caused in CC by the units poisoned attacks count as 2 for combat resolution. What this does is make 1 wound count as 2 for combat resolution. It does NOT cause an extra wound.

What the pick up does is remove the model without causing wounds with these 0 "real" wounds counting as the model that was picked ups remaining wounds for combat resolution. Ethereal wont protect you from this since you didnt really take any wounds at all.

This is just my thoughts after reading the wording on the banner, the giant and the FAQ.

siphon101
28-09-2009, 14:47
Look at the "for combat resolution purposes" part of this quote. this fragment of a sentence kinda says it all to me. While they may count as wounds for combat resolution they are not real wounds.

Look upon the Icon of Eternal Virulence for an example. Each wound caused in CC by the units poisoned attacks count as 2 for combat resolution. What this does is make 1 wound count as 2 for combat resolution. It does NOT cause an extra wound.

What the pick up does is remove the model without causing wounds with these 0 "real" wounds counting as the model that was picked ups remaining wounds for combat resolution. Ethereal wont protect you from this since you didnt really take any wounds at all.

This is just my thoughts after reading the wording on the banner, the giant and the FAQ.

I don't consider the banner to count because it is EXPLICITLY STATING that those "extra" combat resolution are not from "real wounds". In other circumstances, such as in the FAQ with killing blow, models that are killed outright count as combat resolution equal to their remaining wounds, because that's what killing them outright does, takes all remaining wounds away.

The banner is a poor example because it explicitly states a source of combat resolution beyond that of actual wounds caused. Absent that, absent an explicit statement directly stating the source of extra combat resolution, the only way to count it is "1 point per wound caused" unless otherwise stated. The banner otherwise states. But the FAQ rules that the number of wounds caused, and thus the combat resolution generated, when a model is slain outright, is equal to his remaining wounds. Why? Implicitly, it's because killing it outright removes all remaining wounds. It's the only way those rules, and the mechanism behind outright slaying models works. It removes their remaining wounds to 0.

Beyond that, we can argue a very general sense about the very purpose of etherial rules, and the context of those rules. I think that arguing that it's not "real wounds" does go above and beyond any reasonable interpretation of the rules. RAW is a valid position, but only when the intent isn't perfectly clear, and I think in this instance, it's quite perfectly clear that etherial troops can not be harmed by magical attacks.

If I had my rulebook in front of me, I'd want to check the killing blow rules in the book itself, how does it define killing blow? "wounds reduced to 0" or removed from play?

Blizzinam
28-09-2009, 14:59
"If a model with the killing blow special rule rolls a 6 when rolling to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent. No armor or regeneration saves are allowed against this wound, though ward saves can be taken as normal." -Rulebook page 95

But as this references actually rolling to wound, i dont know if it applies.

Mid'ean
28-09-2009, 15:05
mid'ean, they can't be wounded is not equal to can't be affected.

True, and since in ethereals rules both are covered. Can't be wounded, can't be affected, unless magical.



if you do not agree on this I'd go with immunity against magic weapons as they will kill the ethereals. and when they are killed, their movement is reduced. to zero. which must not happen. so immunity. sounds stupid? yes, it does.

Not sure what point your trying to make here? And where does it say your movement can't be reduced to 0? Reducing ones wounds is legal. And one way to kill a model.


another interesting sidenote: is a thrown banshee a magic missile and therefore causes damage when thrown into her own unit? the lizardmen FAQ would suggest yes, because it sounds pretty magical to me. :)

Not sure here, never read the lizzie faq. But the point is mote since you can't pick and throw.

siphon101
28-09-2009, 15:18
"If a model with the killing blow special rule rolls a 6 when rolling to wound in close combat, he automatically slays his opponent. No armor or regeneration saves are allowed against this wound, though ward saves can be taken as normal." -Rulebook page 95

But as this references actually rolling to wound, i dont know if it applies.

If we want to take the argument then to its logical extreme, that means that etherial creatures can be killing blowed by non magical attacks, because it simply "slays" the model, not "does wounds".

Sure there's a roll to wound, but nothing in the etherial rules say you CAN'T roll to wound, just that the wound won't DO anything. Players are free to roll to hit and wound against etherials if they wish, it just won't actually CAUSE a wound. Players usually just save time and don't, but there's nothing saying you explicitly can't go through the motions, and if you have a model with killing blow...hey, go ahead...

Arguing giant attacks can remove etherial creatures from play uses the exact same logic that killing blow can as well. Does anyone want to argue that an etherial creature can be killing blowed?

the_picto
28-09-2009, 15:37
Perhaps gamesworkshop should stop using terms like "removed from play" and "automatically slays" and stick to something like "loses all remaining wounds". They can then put whatever restrictions on saves they like.

Sirroelivan
28-09-2009, 18:25
ethereal models cant be wounded except by spells and magical attacks or effects.

ethereal models cant be wounded except by

What follows is a summary of the ways an ethereal model can be wounded, namely by spells, magical attacks or effects.

Since the pick up and stuff down pants and similar attacks say "remove from play" or "count as casualty", and don't mention anything concerning wounds, you don't get combat resolution for it, neither does ethereal protect you from them.

siphon101
28-09-2009, 18:33
ethereal models cant be wounded except by

What follows is a summary of the ways an ethereal model can be wounded, namely by spells, magical attacks or effects.

Since the pick up and stuff down pants and similar attacks say "remove from play" or "count as casualty", and don't mention anything concerning wounds, you don't get combat resolution for it, neither does ethereal protect you from them.

just for the sake of clarity, it has been noted that the killing blow rules do not state that the model "loses all remaing wounds" but rather that it is "slain" outright. So is it your contention that etherial models can be killing blowed by non magical attacks?

Nuada
28-09-2009, 19:10
Similar thread came up recently with Netters v's Ethereal

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204830&highlight=netters+ethereal

RAW night goblin netters can entangle a ghost

Sirroelivan
28-09-2009, 19:18
just for the sake of clarity, it has been noted that the killing blow rules do not state that the model "loses all remaing wounds" but rather that it is "slain" outright. So is it your contention that etherial models can be killing blowed by non magical attacks?

No, because you don't roll to wound against models you can't wound. Just like you wouldn't roll to hit with ranged attacks when you need more then a 10+.

stripsteak
28-09-2009, 19:24
just for the sake of clarity, it has been noted that the killing blow rules do not state that the model "loses all remaing wounds" but rather that it is "slain" outright. So is it your contention that etherial models can be killing blowed by non magical attacks?

Killing blow is still a wound just a wound with a special affect. pg 95 has killing blow referring to itself as a wound 'No armour saves or regeneration saves are allowed against this wound, ...'

and on a side note is there any way to get mundane killing blows?

by RAW like netters ethereal does not protect against some of the giants attacks

Nuada
28-09-2009, 19:31
and on a side note is there any way to get mundane killing blows?

Do you mean a non-magical killing blow?

Yeah i think there's a few.... waywatchers arrows at short range, DE executioners, ermmm can't think of any more without checking books :p

Nurgling Chieftain
28-09-2009, 19:35
Non-magical killing blow isn't that uncommon; executioners have it, assassins can get it, waywatchers shoot it, wardancers can use it, and there's probably more I'm not thinking of.


...is a thrown banshee a magic missile... :)Best. Question. Ever. :D

I'm biased by 40k. In 40k, attacks which do not cause wounds cannot be prevented by saves and other things that prevent wounds. (Ref: Gift of Chaos, Boon of Mutation, etc.) In WFB the only reason this isn't long-since resolved, IMO, is the fact that the most relevant precedents are magical anyway (pit of shades).

siphon101
28-09-2009, 19:38
No, because you don't roll to wound against models you can't wound.

But if killing blow is simply a "remove model from play" like giant attacks are, then you would be able to roll for it, as it is an effect you can get.

Nurgling Chieftain
28-09-2009, 19:54
As several people and several rules demonstrate, a killing blow is still a wound. I don't think it's going to be a productive avenue of discussion; I mean, even if you somehow proved it isn't, all that would mean is that ethereal creatures would be vulnerable to it. Isn't any more or less silly than giant grabs working.

stripsteak
28-09-2009, 19:57
Non-magical killing blow isn't that uncommon; executioners have it, assassins can get it, waywatchers shoot it, wardancers can use it, and there's probably more I'm not thinking of.


ah my first thoughts went to bloodletters and white blades, forgot about executioners since everyone seem to just take blackguard. and i never seem to play against wood elves

Ganymede
28-09-2009, 20:31
Another consideration is that maybe GW was merely being colloquial by their use of the word 'wounded.' Perhaps, they used the word 'wounded' to mean something like 'harmed.'

Just because GW used the word wounded doesn't necessarily mean they are referring the mechanic used to wound models.

puppetmaster24
28-09-2009, 20:51
ah my first thoughts went to bloodletters and white blades, forgot about executioners since everyone seem to just take blackguard. and i never seem to play against wood elves

wights and all deamon units have magical attacks anyway.

the killing blow EFFECT is not a magic EFFECT. so no you cannot killing blow them.

the giants attacks (or EFFECTS) are not magical. so no you cannot.

Nurgling Chieftain
28-09-2009, 21:18
You seem to implying the ethereals are immune to non-magical EFFECTS rather than merely being immune to non-magical wounds. That does not seem to be supported by the text.

Sirroelivan
28-09-2009, 21:18
Aye, I seem to have missed the "or" between "magical attacks or spells".
So the giants attacks wouldn't be able to affect em after all. (Except yell and bawl)

Edit: ethereal models cant be wounded except by spells and magical attacks or effects.

I'd say this means, can be wounded by spells, by magical attacks and by magical effects.

nosferatu1001
28-09-2009, 21:38
They cannot be wounded by non=magical, however they are not wounding the model - as has been stated "removal from play" is not invoking to "to wound" mechanic, and bypasses ethereal entirely.

Sirroelivan
28-09-2009, 21:39
Ah yes, I'm not really attentive today. :(

lcfr
28-09-2009, 22:08
It seems like there isn't any way to come to a clear agreement over this rules query...once again we have a problem of RAI vs RAW, and there's no clear way for either side to deliver any 'knock-out' punches so long as there is disagreement over whether the Giant's attack constitutes an 'effect' that, most importantly, results in a de facto loss of wounds. There is obviously some discrepancy in the language used to describe the 'effects' of the Giant's attacks but, as the Killing Blow example shows, it somehow seems intuitively wrong to suggest that an ethereal model could be KBed (to elaborate...yes, it is clear that as KB is a 'kind' of wound as explicitly stated in the rules, there is no shadiness here...my point is that before this was made clear we could concieve of mundane auto-kills that seemed odd to apply to Ethereals). How textual can we get on this one? Do future BRBs and ABs need to literally point out every exception to a given special rule or is there some elbow room in terms of rules interpretation?

Maybe agree to disagree on this one? If you're the tournament-going type, maybe check w/the organizers beforehand on their official ruling, otherwise work it out w/your opponent/gaming group.

Lastly, am I the only one who feels it would really not be in the spirit of the game (still part of the rule book, no?) to stuff your opponent's Spirit Hosts or Wraiths down your Giant's pants?

Shiodome
28-09-2009, 22:13
well in so far as the spirit of the game is 'to have a laugh', i'd certainly laugh at the idea of a giant cramming his pants full of the disgruntled, see-through deceased :D

Blizzinam
28-09-2009, 22:37
I'm just envisioning the giant being so dumb that he actually grabs them just because he doesnt know he cant.

Alcibiades
28-09-2009, 22:50
True, and since in ethereals rules both are covered. Can't be wounded, can't be affected, unless magical.
Why did you write this? It's patently false. The ethereal rules say that they can't be wounded. The word 'affect' or 'affected' doesn't appear in the rules governing them.

Maoriboy007
28-09-2009, 22:59
well in so far as the spirit of the game is 'to have a laugh', i'd certainly laugh at the idea of a giant cramming his pants full of the disgruntled, see-through deceased :D

...and have them float back out like a fart cloud, only more disgruntled and wanting revenge :)

Sirroelivan
28-09-2009, 23:23
It seems like there isn't any way to come to a clear agreement over this rules query...once again we have a problem of RAI vs RAW, and there's no clear way for either side to deliver any 'knock-out' punches so long as there is disagreement over whether the Giant's attack constitutes an 'effect' that, most importantly, results in a de facto loss of wounds. There is obviously some discrepancy in the language used to describe the 'effects' of the Giant's attacks but, as the Killing Blow example shows, it somehow seems intuitively wrong to suggest that an ethereal model could be KBed (to elaborate...yes, it is clear that as KB is a 'kind' of wound as explicitly stated in the rules, there is no shadiness here...my point is that before this was made clear we could concieve of mundane auto-kills that seemed odd to apply to Ethereals). How textual can we get on this one? Do future BRBs and ABs need to literally point out every exception to a given special rule or is there some elbow room in terms of rules interpretation?

Maybe agree to disagree on this one? If you're the tournament-going type, maybe check w/the organizers beforehand on their official ruling, otherwise work it out w/your opponent/gaming group.

Lastly, am I the only one who feels it would really not be in the spirit of the game (still part of the rule book, no?) to stuff your opponent's Spirit Hosts or Wraiths down your Giant's pants?

Erm, the rules are pretty much clear.
And killing blow doesn't apply because you don't roll against something you can't wound. Thus, there's no change of rolling a six and getting a killing blow.

lcfr
29-09-2009, 00:19
Erm, the rules are pretty much clear.
And killing blow doesn't apply because you don't roll against something you can't wound. Thus, there's no change of rolling a six and getting a killing blow.

I know that KB doesn't apply, I brought it up for instrumental reasons. Nevermind I guess.

I think the Ethereal rule is really meant to convey the fact that, aside from combat res. like the rest of the Undead, only magical attacks can kill them. Obviously, the exact words used to detail the Ethereal special rule do not cover the one mundane occurence (as far as I can think of) that could, if we interpret the Ethereal rule and the Giant-attack wording very literally, kill Ethereal models. Personally, I would have a hard time persuading an opponent beyond a reasonable doubt that a Giant could indeed auto-kill an Ethereal, and to interpret the rules in such a textualist way (at least where there are some scruples over what the designers intended) goes against the spirit of the game in my books.

Just wanted to put my 2cents down; most rules queries seem to be cases where players have missed sections of the rulebook or their armybooks but there are the rare few that are not so easily answered and can't be given universal judgments using a RAW logic, imo, since to carry this logic out to its fullest extent is bound to cause problems when it comes to other rules queries (potentially simpler ones, too).

Issues like this should really be resolved by players consenting to a common ruling or rolling a die (or in the case of a tourney asking the organizers). 'Iffy' cases like this can't be so easily resolved because of the way RAW/RAI both apply. We're not judges dealing w/constitutional law (ironic given all the legal terms and themes I've drawn on :p) so when it comes to sketchy queries we should let the players involved come to a working decision for themselves rather than try and mete out a ruling on shaky grounds (and neither approach necessarily lends out stronger support in certain circumstances, especially this one).

Like I said, just my 2cents and I'm happy to agree to disagree. Both sides to the argument have valid points but RAW/RAI only gets us so far w/out an official ruling from the higher powers.

Nurgling Chieftain
29-09-2009, 01:48
...we have a problem of RAI vs RAW...I'm inclined to agree. It seems to me that the RaW is that the giant's pick-up works, but that's obviously kind of ridiculous.

Condottiere
29-09-2009, 03:37
Could be like Orks and technology - Giants don't know any better and believe they can effect ethereal creatures.

Milgram
29-09-2009, 07:07
the whole discussion is completely unbelievable to me. it is clearly stated in the rules that ethereals cannot be wounded by blablub. and still people talk about 'cannot be affected'. that is not a rule. that is wishfull thinking.

even more, at least someone argued that the giant couldn't even pick the ethereal up. while the pick-up doesn't even do anything but allowing the ethereal an additional attack! whether the 6 possible results of pick up can be discussed, the pick up itself cannot.

what about y&b? it is not a magic attack and still everyone agrees that it works? but the ethereals cannot attack afterwards. that is also an effect. but even the die-hard-no-sayers agree uppon y&b?

sry, but this discussion has to end right here.

raw>rai>fluff in the rules forum. everything else is houserules.

the_picto
29-09-2009, 10:58
Yell and bawl works because the VC books says ethereals crumble to combat res. Whether combat res is magical or not doesn't matter, it still kills them.

Some of the giants attacks don't technically cause wounds and so do technically kill ethereals. It's daft, but it's true. Maybe it was a way to give O&G something that can kill wraiths. They are a bit lacking otherwise.

Milgram
29-09-2009, 11:02
yell and brawl has two effects. one of them is combat res, the other one is cancel all attacks from models in b2b that have not yet stroke. it was the second one I was referring to - it is clearly an effect and it is clearly not magic and obviously no one of the pro-ethereals has taken notice of it.

EvC
29-09-2009, 11:13
That's because they differentiate between "taking mundane damage" (i.e. an ethereal is immune to being squished) which is basically what they should be immune to, and "non-damaging mundane effects", like not being able to attack due to yelling, or being caught in enemy nets, etc. Even then, that's more of a glitch that allows it to happen, and allowed in good faith.

I would personally play it that they are immune to any non-magical damage based on the reasoning that when you kill a model, it is considered the same as reducing its wound to zero. Otherwise, whenever a Giant picks up and eats a 3-wound general, you'd have to say "you've caused no wounds, so you get no CR", which I doubt the owner of the Giant would agree to.

Milgram
29-09-2009, 13:37
again, for CR it counts as reducing it's wounds to zero - as per FAQ. also the general is still killed as he would be when running off the table and thus gives the 100 VP.

also, what if you have a fleeing ethereal model running through an US5 unit? is it not killed? (HE still have that ethereal thingie, right?)

as for the non-damaging-mundane-effect: pick up itself is not damaging and the hurl would still have effect to the unit the giant throws the ethereal model. also 'put into pocket' is not hurting in any means - you do not even get the VP if your giant dies.

siphon101
29-09-2009, 13:41
also, what if you have a fleeing ethereal model running through an US5 unit? is it not killed? (HE still have that ethereal thingie, right?)

When you can find a fleeing etherial unit, you let me know :p

The Red Scourge
29-09-2009, 13:58
Couldn't that Harry the Hammer guy cause panic in undeads - or am I just delusional ;)

nosferatu1001
29-09-2009, 14:27
Harry can make undead units Flee, and they Fear him :)

EvC
29-09-2009, 14:46
again, for CR it counts as reducing it's wounds to zero - as per FAQ. also the general is still killed as he would be when running off the table and thus gives the 100 VP.

Why stop there? The FAQ answer says treat being squished or whatever as a Killing Blow. And since this is a query about the odd effects of certain Giant attacks, it's perfectly reasonable to reference this answer in respect to other areas that seem odd. So let's treat the attack like a Killing Blow then! A normal, non-magical Killing Blow. Which doesn't harm ethereal models.

Sorted.


also, what if you have a fleeing ethereal model running through an US5 unit? is it not killed? (HE still have that ethereal thingie, right?)

No, things that flee through US5 enemies are not necessarily killed- they might be killed, or they might simply be scattered beyond the possibility of regrouping and entering the battle. I expect ethereals are particularly susceptible to being scattered by the four winds ;)


as for the non-damaging-mundane-effect: pick up itself is not damaging and the hurl would still have effect to the unit the giant throws the ethereal model. also 'put into pocket' is not hurting in any means - you do not even get the VP if your giant dies.

If we treat it like a Killing Blow as described above, then it cannot be affected. However some results can affect the model, like throwing it into another unit (Presumably the Giant gets ahold of the model's weapon and throws that with the bearer clinging on ;) ).

At the end of the day, it's a vague area in the rules. So I'm perfectly happy to apply a bit of that oft-maligned "common sense" stuff here.

Milgram
29-09-2009, 15:10
you can't treat it like a killing blow only because it works for CR like a killing blow. a champion works for challenges as if he was a character. but he still does not give you a roll on the eotg table if you slay him.

not sure, but I was under the impression that high elves were able to have ethereal characters. also there is that ugly discussion about undead able to flee from siren song.

EvC
29-09-2009, 20:39
That's an FAQ answer though- its reasoning is basically "Cmon, you've been squashed, so treat it like an attack that's taken all your wounds away". For another question where we're asking how to treat being squashed, why not follow the same rationale? It's good for your mental health as well- you must (or should, IMO) feel a little stupid trying to reason that a Giant actually picks up and squashes a Wraith that he can't actually harm otherwise. It's ethereal. He can't pick it up. That's RAI, sure. But there's nothing wrong with using RAI to consider what the RAW actually means when the RAW is unclear. And the RAW says they can't be wounded, but also to treat Giant insta-kills as attacks that remove all wounds (which makes good sense) for some reason. Put two and two together, get four, and enjoy a sane game.

As I said: sorted.

Or, keep arguing the side that feels stupid. Warhammer rules are rarely discussed to this degree in-game, and I'm fairly sure that I'd have an easier time convincing a fellow gamer that the Giant can't pick up ethereal troops than you would be able to do the opposite for.

I don't know why you're repeating the same question re: ethereal high elf characters, I already answered it explaining why an ethereal model would still be removed after fleeing into enemy troops (it's not necessarily killed, it's just no longer able to participate in the battle. You could say its spirit is broken), and so is not an issue at all.

Alcibiades
30-09-2009, 00:30
it's not necessarily killed, it's just no longer able to participate in the battle. You could say its spirit is broken
If being shoved into a Giant's pants isn't spirit-breaking, I don't know what is. :cool:

Milgram
30-09-2009, 07:22
I don't know why you're repeating the same question re:

I didn't repeat the question, I answered to siphon. and why do you repeatedly not answer to the question about the pants? :D

EvC
30-09-2009, 10:57
Ah I see. Well you were right in the first place that you can get fleeing ethereal models (I should know, I used an ethereal Archmage a lot recently, and he tended to flee far too much for my liking), it's just not an issue ruleswise.

Being put in sonmeone's pants is of course spirit breaking. But if we treat it as being dealt mundane wounds, then it doesn't apply. I saw no reason to reply in such a dry manner to a humourous post ;)

Condottiere
30-09-2009, 11:51
The important question might be, is the giant wearing underpants? Noxious fumes might even knock out ethereal beings.

nosferatu1001
30-09-2009, 12:23
Especially if the giants been eating Skaven.

Warpstone farts...

Maoriboy007
30-09-2009, 19:33
The important question might be, is the giant wearing underpants? Noxious fumes might even knock out ethereal beings.

It would explain the screams coming from the banshee.

Seriously though, I would expect that the sensible answer would be that of course a giant cant pick up an ethereal creature (for all intents and purpouses its a ghost right?) but there are people who will argue their interpretation or wave some loop hole or technicality (cause thats what it is right?, bloody lawyers!), and they might even be heard (DE Ninja stars cause chariots to explode right?), you can only hope that you play against reasonable people and that common sense wins the day :)

Zilverug
01-10-2009, 08:28
Ethereal (or other terrifying) creatures losing a battle automatically due to some posing by the giant doesn't make sense either - maybe we should leave common sense out of this rules discussion ;)

Milgram
01-10-2009, 09:17
I would expect that the sensible answer would be that of course a giant cant pick up an ethereal creature [...] you can only hope that you play against reasonable people and that common sense wins the day :)

sry, but I don't play fluffhammer. and neither does anyone of my regular opponents. this does not mean that we play cheesy lists and let a game end in a stare-down because we do not agree upon a rule. but it means that we use the rules - and when the rules tell us to do something stupid, we do something stupid. e.g. half movement for the skirmishing hydra, when it charges through difficult terrain.

Lijacote
01-10-2009, 09:31
sry

Sry is not a word, nor is it an apology. At least have the decency to use whole words.

On a less directed note, the rules should reflect the fluff to a degree within game balance and not at the cost of fun. Giants screaming at ghosts and causing them to lose coherency is easily explained away by the chaos energies animating the ghosts reacting to the giant's rage.

As it is however, I think ethereal creatures should be able to be hurt by a giant's special attacks, including the pick-ups and the like (excluding those that include to-wound rolls). Ethereal doesn't make you immune to anything but non-magical to-wound rolls, as far as I see.

Milgram
01-10-2009, 09:53
Ethereal doesn't make you immune to anything but non-magical to-wound rolls, as far as I see.

even though your on my side when it comes to the pick up - you are wrong here. ethereal makes you immune to anything non-magical that causes you wounds. e.g. auto wound from poison or headbuts (giant vs. ghosts).

edith meint: tks for the advise. :) I do not usually come up with such short forms.

Lijacote
01-10-2009, 10:53
even though your on my side when it comes to the pick up - you are wrong here. ethereal makes you immune to anything non-magical that causes you wounds. e.g. auto wound from poison or headbuts (giant vs. ghosts).


Hmm. I guess we disagree on the meaning of wounding, although I would include poison in the list of things ethereals are immune to, since poisoning would to me be an automatically passed to-wound roll.

It's a shame GW doesn't have a consistent terminology with rigid terms.

BrutusLee
01-10-2009, 15:38
Id say the giant can eat the etherealts, GW differentiates between suffering wounds and being removed from play.
Etherealts dont take wounds from "unmagical" effects, other than CR. They are not immune to everything "unmagical", since their rules doesnt say so.

The giant, like fex an 11-12 gateway, removes from play, and doesnt cause wounds, Even though one could argue that the wounds removed from play, though not caused, should give the giant CR, they are not inflicted.
As a parallell, the Carstein ring doesnt work against the gateway, think thats FAQed, even though the vamp dissapears, and so, technically looses his last wound. Cant see the difference between the warp and a giants panties.

I agree that it would be logical that a wraith should be able to, like the smelly thong that he is, slip out of someones trousers, counting trousers as difficult terrain and not be slowed.

So my humble opinion, eat the wights, but it will probably cause serious gas issues.

EvC
01-10-2009, 17:10
Just remember, if you decide to play RAW that way, then a VC army will not crumble if its general is stuffed down a Giant's pants, as he has not technically been slain.

Alcibiades
01-10-2009, 17:57
Just remember, if you decide to play RAW that way, then a VC army will not crumble if its general is stuffed down a Giant's pants, as he has not technically been slain.

The FAQ about the Empire's Spell-Stealing Casket suggests that if you don't have a Vamp General for any reason, you take crumbling tests.

lcfr
01-10-2009, 18:00
Just remember, if you decide to play RAW that way, then a VC army will not crumble if its general is stuffed down a Giant's pants, as he has not technically been slain.

This exemplifies what happens when we follow RAW to its logical conclusions....just as in actual law, we have to balance the intent or rather the spirit of the law with the actual text of legal documents; this isn't such a farfetched analogy in my mind, after all, we interwebbers use the term 'rules-lawyering' to denigrate the worst aspect of those in the legal business!

Many of you may be aware of an oft cited example from legal studies...a man kills his father to immediately claim the inheritance but is arrested and sentenced for murder, after which the man attempted to file suit for his inheritance (since the will does, after all, stipulate this) but is denied, since on some intuitive level we can see it would be contrary to the spirit of the law that a man who murders is able to profit directly as a consequence of this. In the same way I think it's reasonable to follow a similar 'spirit of the game' when making rules-decisions, whether on the spot or on the internet; i.e. at times we can't take the literal wording (or in some rare cases the lack of words!) of different rules found in different books just at face value!

If a group of players is very textualist in their interpretation of the rules this is all well and good but there's no 'validity' they possess that their more contextualist peers don't! And, if textualists and contextualists can't come to terms on a particular rule it has to be solved, unfortunately, arbitrarily through the roll of a die. Until a FAQ is released there is no hard and fast way to call the shots on rules queries that have their bases in semantics.

EvC
01-10-2009, 21:12
The FAQ about the Empire's Spell-Stealing Casket suggests that if you don't have a Vamp General for any reason, you take crumbling tests.

Probably not a good FAQ answer to refer to for any reason ever.

Alcibiades
02-10-2009, 02:04
Probably not a good FAQ answer to refer to for any reason ever.

It's not a True Scotsman?

EvC
02-10-2009, 11:09
For someone who knows the name of a fallacy, you should be able to come up with a good 3-4 reasons why that FAQ answer is a poor one in the first place. Plus you have also misrepresented it to boot. What it actually says has zero bearing on any situation other than its own.

Unless you think that a Vampire Counts army should crumble if its general pursues off the board ("for any reason", indeed). Which would make you an idiot. And I'm sure you're not an idiot.

Fobster
02-10-2009, 21:11
Seems pretty clear. Only immune to wounds. Being stuffed in pants doesn't cause wounds, in fact your still alive/undead just out of the game. Which many people forget this is-model has rule that removes another from the game-then follow the rules.

Dutch_Digger
02-10-2009, 22:56
if the rules obviously did not foresee this situation (heck who would!), wouldnt it be better just to stick to logics?

id be thinking, its ethereal, you cant hit it with a weapon because its ethereal, so you cannot pick it up either

just a thought...
and i need more posts to be able to start a rulethread myself haha.. dont tell the mods

Alcibiades
03-10-2009, 00:05
Unless you think that a Vampire Counts army should crumble if its general pursues off the board ("for any reason", indeed). Which would make you an idiot. And I'm sure you're not an idiot.
Eh, I'll grant you your point. I used FAQ inappropriately (and more than a bit casually) there.
But I would still suggest that stuffing a Vamp into a Giant's bag still would cause crumbling tests, as he 'counts as a casualty', according to the Giant's rules.

Maoriboy007
04-10-2009, 05:41
sry, but I don't play fluffhammer. and neither does anyone of my regular opponents. this does not mean that we play cheesy lists and let a game end in a stare-down because we do not agree upon a rule. but it means that we use the rules - and when the rules tell us to do something stupid, we do something stupid. e.g. half movement for the skirmishing hydra, when it charges through difficult terrain.

The whole "I'll get around his ethereal rule through a technical loophole" is a very thin arguement by anyones standards, there are criminal defence lawyers who do the same sort of thing and give their profession a bad name.
There are dozens of equally thin arguments in the game that people can come up with (not to be mistaken for the glaring ones which are the foundation for the FAQ's), reasonable people will play to the spirit of the game (this is mentioned in the BRB , can't remember where), otherwise the "stare down" is inevitable as interpretations will differ.
The easiest way to fix this is if GW FAQ the damned thing.

EvC
04-10-2009, 11:31
Yeah, and in the meantime, the most reasonable thing is to look at the closest equivalent FAQ, which says to treat the Giant's insta-kill moves as a killing blow. So I'll keep doing that.

Chicago Slim
04-10-2009, 13:30
Yes, they are, unless the Dragon itself has Magical damage - which doesn't really happen anymore, right?

It could, if the Dragon was ridden by a character who had an effect of making all his attacks magical (there's a Wood Elf Spite, for example...)

Not something you're likely to ever see in actual play, of course, but not impossible.

Maoriboy007
04-10-2009, 21:00
Yeah, and in the meantime, the most reasonable thing is to look at the closest equivalent FAQ, which says to treat the Giant's insta-kill moves as a killing blow. So I'll keep doing that.

Spirit Hosts are immune to Killing Blow, Killing blow is not automatically magical so doesn't solve the issue.

lcfr
04-10-2009, 21:11
Spirit Hosts are immune to Killing Blow, Killing blow is not automatically magical so doesn't solve the issue.

What is presumably meant is that the Giant attack 'is like' KB.

Isn't it clear yet that until GW releases a FAQ that deals w/this specific instance that there is no clear resolution to the issue? Literalists and contextualists who have to face one another and deal w/this dilemma don't have a hard way of solving it and should really just roll off, since they're effectively speaking at each other in different languages.

Dutch_Digger
04-10-2009, 21:24
not sure about this (hoping its wrong even) but does gw not only release a FAQ once per armybook?

Alcibiades
04-10-2009, 22:16
not sure about this (hoping its wrong even) but does gw not only release a FAQ once per armybook?

I'm pretty sure they've updated FAQs before after releasing an armybook, but generally only after, say, a new edition comes out.

I think this is because the only 'binding' parts of a FAQ are the errata, which tend to get cleared up after an initial release. Everything else in a FAQ is suggested merely as GW House Rules: you're intended to reach an understanding with your opponents or tournament judges about the way things work on your own.

Paraelix
05-10-2009, 02:40
No, things that flee through US5 enemies are not necessarily killed- they might be killed, or they might simply be scattered beyond the possibility of regrouping and entering the battle. I expect ethereals are particularly susceptible to being scattered by the four winds ;)


If we can assume something like this ^^^ that a creature is not literally "killed" but treated as such, why wouldn't the Giant's attacks work. Surely you're not going to argue that a Giant will literally do exactly the same thing in every game. Jumping up and Down for example, may lead the ethereal creature to be in a position where it is stuck inside something and thus is no longer un-alive? Otherwise why is there a rule prohibiting Ethereals for ending their move inside an impassable object. The Giant appears pretty impassable.

Furthermore, the rule is explicitly an immunity to wounds. Not to any other kind of effect. Thus, a ghost in combat with a Nurgle-marked warrior must reduce it's WS when directing attacks against it. The Mark is not a piece of magical equipment, nor a magical upgrade... And if you were to argue that it was, then magic weapon destroying spells could kill it, and additional frenzy attacks by khorne warriors must also be magical... Stupid argument, yes?

So, if a ghost can die due to its opponents standing around in enough numbers and with enough flags to "scare" it away... I'm pretty sure the horrid variety of actions a Giant can perform are enough to also "scare" away the ghost.

EDIT- Another case in point. A chaos lord with distendable maw. A daemonic gift is *not* a magic weapon. But I would argue that being swallowed into the realm of chaos is suitably *magical* to kill an ethereal creature.

Alcibiades
05-10-2009, 02:59
Paraelix does raise the essential point of the fact that if ethereal creatures can be beaten by combat res (which in general is supposed to be some sort of amalgamation of morale, confusion and brute force) that there's a very weak case for RAI being applied to ethereal creatues.
Who's ever heard of a ghost being banished through shock, instead of crossing the streams of proton packs?

EvC
05-10-2009, 10:09
Because it's a game mechanic designed to give undead something to worry about in combat, and specifically noted as being able to affect ethereals (In the VC army). It is direct damage that they are supposed to be immune to. Including the "jump up and down" result from Giants, which definitely cannot harm them, so I'm not quite sure why Paraelix brought that up...

Stuff like Distendible Maw is just old-hat argument. You would, as ever, treat that like a Killing Blow for damage. And I've already explained, several times (proving that posters such as Paraelix who join the discussion haven't bothered to read my posts, or simply cannot understand them) that ethereals are immune to mundane killing blows, so should also be immune to attacks that act in such a fashion. Although GW do deserve a slap for all this non-magical Daemonic attack stuff. But if we were to let Distendible Maw affect them, why not Word of Agony too...

Milgram
06-10-2009, 08:19
only because something 'counts as' in one situation, it does not imply that it 'counts as' in every other situation. because something gives you a +1 bonus to CR as if it was a standard does not mean that you can capture the thing if the unit breaks. unless it states exactly that.

the rules are clear. if they seem illogical to you, feel free to do a house rule. you can go on and disallow a giant to swallow a lord on a juggernaut because the jugger would be too big. but... that is not by the rules. if we want to discuss 'logical' rules that would 'enhance' the feel of the game, then we should move this to the rules development forum.

some of the examples from paraelix are actually quite fine and support my point, though jump does clearly no damage to ethereals.

EvC
06-10-2009, 11:29
If something is FAQed as something for one situation, then it is perfectly reasonable to consider that a similar question to a clear-but-wrong-sounding query might result in the same reply. If you go back and read threads on it from a year or so back, some showed that precisely by the rules, whenever you did a Killing Blow, or a Giant ate something, then it counted as 1 wound (Or even no wounds, since the Giant never actually inflicts a wound). In that case, it was reasonable to assume that actually you got full CR despite the rules being clear that it would only count as 1 wound.

So you can stick to the unreasonable absolute nonsenical RAW, but the Most Important Rule disagrees with you and even encourages you to use your noggin in situations not completely covered by the rules. I suppose you'd also have a model that is hit by a Giant's 'Eadbutt result unable to attack in the next round as well, even if it doesn't take the wound (due to being ethereal or saving the wound).

Milgram
06-10-2009, 12:44
So you can stick to the unreasonable absolute nonsenical RAW, but the Most Important Rule disagrees with you and even encourages you to use your noggin in situations not completely covered by the rules.

but this is a situation completely covered by the rules. so the MIR does not apply. it is not even a discussion about linguistics, it is a discussion about 'does it make sense?' - it's like that hydra beeing slower when charging through a wood compared to walking through a forrest.

does it matter if it makes sense? from a RAW point of view: no; from a player point of view: maybe. I would insist on this on a tournament on any given day and I would judge it on a tournament that way on any given day.

I don't play vampires against o&g in friendly games - even though I play both races. it is about as much fun as playing chess with an average 10 year old. :)

EvC
06-10-2009, 14:22
Hehe true. If I use VC against Orcs I usually let them have a 250 point advantage or so.

It's only completely covered by the rules if the rules say you aren't wounding something when you eat it (or otherwise kill it in one go by the game rules). Now it's true that it doesn't bother to ever state that you are causing wounds to something you reduce to zero wounds, but it's a fair assumption in my mind. Which is why it's fair game for MIR. In every case where you instantly kill something in combat, FAQ answers have consistently indicated that this is equivalent to causing as many wounds as they have on their profile. For example if a Vampire Lord has an instant-kill weapon (Equivalent to eating or squashing or putting an enemy in your bag), and also has Red Fury (1 extra attack for every wound caused in combat), then whenever the insta-kill weapon takes effect it gains the full wounds of the enemy. So I don't see why the Giant should have a special "I've killed you in combat but did so without causing wounds" exception.

I can come up with all kinds of RAW rules abuses that are "clear" in the rules that go the other way if any opponent tried to squash a Wraith ;) But i don't, because the game must involve some degree of shared sense and fairness or it breaks down completely.

Maoriboy007
06-10-2009, 19:46
. you can go on and disallow a giant to swallow a lord on a juggernaut because the jugger would be too big. .

Mounted casualties are explained in the BRB, when the rider is killed the mount runs off.

Paraelix
06-10-2009, 23:16
For example if a Vampire Lord has an instant-kill weapon (Equivalent to eating or squashing or putting an enemy in your bag), and also has Red Fury (1 extra attack for every wound caused in combat), then whenever the insta-kill weapon takes effect it gains the full wounds of the enemy.

But... He doesn't.

Question... Mark of Nurgle. Does it have any effect on a Wraith/Banshee/Spirit Host in combat? Does the Vampire bloodline power Beguile work? Does Soporific Musk work?

These are all NON-MAGICAL effects that effect ethereal units.

Milgram
07-10-2009, 06:17
Mounted casualties are explained in the BRB, when the rider is killed the mount runs off.

but it is not logical with a jugger - especially since he used to be a monstrous mount.

Paraelix
07-10-2009, 06:24
but it is not logical with a jugger - especially since he used to be a monstrous mount.

But now it isn't. What is the problem?

Milgram
07-10-2009, 07:30
the 'runs away when the rider is eaten' argument holds as much water as any 'giant warpstone tooth paste' argument. that is my point. :) it is just a way to adopt the fluff to the rules.

EvC
07-10-2009, 10:37
But... He doesn't.

Question... Mark of Nurgle. Does it have any effect on a Wraith/Banshee/Spirit Host in combat? Does the Vampire bloodline power Beguile work? Does Soporific Musk work?

These are all NON-MAGICAL effects that effect ethereal units.

The ethereals are supposed to be immune to non-magical damage... other effects still apply. Even Goblin nets ;)

Plus you might indeed have to disallow the Giant from eating a Juggernaut Lord, as his base size may mean that the Giant has to roll on the "big things" table. Not sure on that though.

Milgram
07-10-2009, 12:24
it is not big, as it has US 2...

EvC
07-10-2009, 12:38
I don't believe the Giant rules make a complete distinction, do they? Just earlier you said it seemed too big, and knowing GW they expect us to work it out for ourselves...

Paraelix
07-10-2009, 13:32
the 'runs away when the rider is eaten' argument holds as much water as any 'giant warpstone tooth paste' argument. that is my point. :) it is just a way to adopt the fluff to the rules.

"The daemon became subject to instability and faded into nothingness..." Problem solved.

Mid'ean
07-10-2009, 14:40
Not for the giant it isn't solved....He's comes away from the table still feeling hungry!!! " Darn it! I just ate a minute ago and I'm hungry again!!!!":wtf:

stripsteak
07-10-2009, 16:02
it is not big, as it has US 2...

I don't believe the Giant rules make a complete distinction, do they? Just earlier you said it seemed too big, and knowing GW they expect us to work it out for ourselves...

The giant rules don't make it fully clear which table to use for what, but i'd lean toward US as the intended indicator. They say to use it for 'big things (Ogres, Krozigors, Minotaurs and other similar sized or larger...' but they don't say if this means base size, US, or physical space taken up. For skirmishers they used to reference man sized models, and this was later changed to state US1 models so i think it's safe to assume when they refer to 'size' of things they are referring to the US of the models. but it's not clear and could be argued either way depending on how people are feeling that day.

EvC
07-10-2009, 16:31
Precisely what I thought, yes. This is yet another example where we have Giant rules that are not especially clear thanks to its rules being barely updated since 4th edition, and our best hope to finding the answer is to look for other FAQs and clarifications for the answers. Much as I was doing earlier ;)

Adran
09-10-2009, 13:08
Surely, the giant can only target the chaos lord, even when he is mounted on a juggernaut, and it doesn't matter what type of mount he is on, he is still a man sized creature so uses the small things.
Now a unit of blood letters...

I'd still say man sized

rtunian
09-10-2009, 14:12
what if the target is skarsnik or a shieldbearer-born dwarf lord? both have us>2, but one is a goblin and the other is a dwarf...