PDA

View Full Version : Vermin Lord, magical attacks?



TheDrugLordX
15-08-2010, 14:42
It says under it's beastiary entry that the Vermin Lords Doom Glaive is a magic item so initially thought he had magical close combat attacks. Howerver, my friend claims it has to specifically say that it's a magic weapon, which it does not. Therefor he does not have magical attacks (he claims).

Both of us seem to remember that demons have magical attacks (rules says he's a demon) but we can't find it anywhere in the rulebook.

Fluffwise I personally think it's obvious. But my question is, how is it actually? Does the Vermin Lord have magical close combat attacks or doesn't he?

(I havn't had the time to read the rulebook so throughly that I've found that his claim is even right...)

Loopstah
15-08-2010, 14:44
This is covered in the rulebook FAQ.

Attacks from Magic Items are magical attacks.

Walgis
15-08-2010, 16:16
you have a pathetic friend to be so stupid you have to be a five year old.
offcourse it has magical atacks

Bac5665
15-08-2010, 16:21
The Doom Glaive is listed as a Magic Item, so attacks made with it are magical by definition.

However, should the Doom Glaive be destroyed (because it is a magic item, it could be) then I see no reason the Vermin Lord would have magic attacks; after it counts as a demon for the purpose of effects that effect demons, it does NOT have the Demon special rule.

T10
15-08-2010, 16:26
I fail to see how the Doom Glaive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaive) can not be considered a weapon.

-T10

Paraelix
15-08-2010, 21:32
However, should the Doom Glaive be destroyed (because it is a magic item, it could be) then I see no reason the Vermin Lord would have magic attacks; after it counts as a demon for the purpose of effects that effect demons, it does NOT have the Demon special rule.

See this is like that ridiculous "Is a Daemon Prince a Daemon? Cos it doesn't say so!!!1!" debate. It describes him as a Daemon, so I'd let him benefit as much as he is disadvantaged... But then, I'm not a hardcore competitive player... I let my opponent place his Master Moulders and characters in the back ranks :)

TheDrugLordX
15-08-2010, 21:38
From the Errata:
Q: What are ‘magical attacks’? (p68)
A: All attacks made by spells and magic items are considered
to be magical attacks, as are all attacks that are specifically
noted as being magical attacks. Shots fired from magical items
are also considered to be magical attacks, unless their
description specifically states otherwise. Hits inflicted by rolls
on the Miscast table are treated as magical attacks.

Thanks a lot (he actually refered to this errata, only he remembered it as "magic weapons", not "magic items")! This makes a huge difference when facing vampire counts with tons of wraiths and black coaches :evilgrin:

shadow hunter
16-08-2010, 11:51
You shouldn't really worry too much as a Skaven, you have tonns of magical attacks. Most of your shooting units for example (Jezzails, Ratling guns, warpfire throwers, poison wind globadiers etc etc are all magical attacks).

TheDrugLordX
16-08-2010, 14:38
You shouldn't really worry too much as a Skaven, you have tonns of magical attacks. Most of your shooting units for example (Jezzails, Ratling guns, warpfire throwers, poison wind globadiers etc etc are all magical attacks).

I'm not worried at all, it's just that I love the Vermin Lord, and he gets really, REALLY powerful against vamps if he has magical attacks.

Bac5665
16-08-2010, 15:15
See this is like that ridiculous "Is a Daemon Prince a Daemon? Cos it doesn't say so!!!1!" debate. It describes him as a Daemon, so I'd let him benefit as much as he is disadvantaged... But then, I'm not a hardcore competitive player... I let my opponent place his Master Moulders and characters in the back ranks :)

That fine for you that your ok with changing the rules to suit your moods and arbitrary view of what's fair. I know that this sounds sarcastic, but I really do mean that; I think its good that your kind of gamer exists; the hobby is big enough for both of us (or at least it was).

What I find objectionable is that you call my view (that the rules are the rules) ridiculous and make fun of my view like its a disease on our hobby. I can make your view look just as bad, since its really just selectional cheating based on arbitrary whims about semi-relevant children's stories.

But I think its a good thing that you can make the game what you want in your club and I can play it how I want in mine. So lets instead of going down that road, recognize 1) in the RULES forum we tell people the RULES; they are then more than welcome to house rule it so it makes them happy, but the question is about what the rules say, and 2) lets do all of this without attacking different approaches to the hobby; there are plenty of 8E sucks/rules threads to do that ;)