PDA

View Full Version : Lore Attributes Discussion



Yrrdead
21-09-2010, 22:23
This thread is to attempt to settle the question of Lore Attributes.

This has been discussed obliquely in the past in a variety of threads. Most notably in the Third Eye of Tzeentch discussions.

The question is what exactly are Lore Attributes?

I'll state my opinion and then bow out for the afternoon.

Lore Attributes are an intrinsic portion of every spell (unless otherwise noted). They cannot be separated in anyway from their associated lore.
In effect every spell has an additional line in its description including the Lore Attribute.(Unless specifically excluded)

Hoping to see some fun responses by this evening.

Edit - References pg 163(LRB) pg 491(BRB)
"Some Lores of Magic, including those presented in this book have something called a 'lore attribute'. This is essentially a grouping of one or more special rules that are applied to certain spells for that lore. A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type, or alter the way a spell behaves. Regardless of the detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from its own lore."

Lord Inquisitor
21-09-2010, 22:25
Yes that makes sense. Lore Attributes come with the spell. Otherwise, for example, several Lore of Metal spells would be useless.

SiNNiX
22-09-2010, 00:16
Pardon my stupidity, but what's the question here? This seems a little self-explainable. Are people arguing this or something? :confused:

Chris_
22-09-2010, 00:19
It is stuff like HE Banner of the World Dragon for example, makes the unit immune to a "spell's effects" that warrants a thread about Lore Attributes.

SiNNiX
22-09-2010, 00:25
It is stuff like HE Banner of the World Dragon for example, makes the unit immune to a "spell's effects" that warrants a thread about Lore Attributes.

Meh, I would also say that's self-explanatory.

AlphariusOmegon20
22-09-2010, 04:45
LORE attributes are not spells.

wilsongrahams
22-09-2010, 07:34
Again I don't see what the problem is either. Many lore of life spells have the attribute that a model regains a wound as well as the spell being cast - these are just bonus affects that apply to certain spells that are cast from that lore.

Lungboy
22-09-2010, 10:14
To use the Third Eye example, it states you can't use it to cast spells that summon additional models or heals wounds. Would casting a Life spell (other than regrowth) be allowed as the attribute isn't part of the spell and is just something that happens passively, or would it be disallowed due to the spell and attribute being part of the same thing?

theorox
22-09-2010, 10:21
*Sigh* Is someone actually saying that the "Metalshifting" note on the top of the Lore of Metal page doesn't effect all Lore of Metal spells somewhere? I hope not.

Theo

Orion_76
22-09-2010, 12:23
Lore attributes are additional spell effects of a spell and therefore are part of the spell (also, remember not all spells have lore attributes... so its not something generic but rather specific of certain spells).

3rd eye of Tzeentch cannot use any Lore of Life spells because they all heal 1 wound per spell cast with success.

Munin
22-09-2010, 14:41
*Sigh* Is someone actually saying that the "Metalshifting" note on the top of the Lore of Metal page doesn't effect all Lore of Metal spells somewhere? I hope not.

Theo

I remember a long discussion about this actually, couldn't find the thread tho. However I think most came to the conclusion that that not all Metal spells are Flaming Attacks.

Loopstah
22-09-2010, 16:10
I remember a long discussion about this actually, couldn't find the thread tho. However I think most came to the conclusion that that not all Metal spells are Flaming Attacks.

The fact not all of them have the Lore Attribute on the Battle Magic Cards supports that conclusion.

Leth Shyish'phak
22-09-2010, 18:53
"Lore Attributes
... This is essentially a grouping of one or more special rules that are applied to certain spells of that lore. A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect... or alter the way the spell behaves."

The attribute really is part of the spell. You cast a Life spell, a model gets a wound back because you cast that spell. Therefore the third eye can't use it.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 01:39
"Lore Attributes
... This is essentially a grouping of one or more special rules that are applied to certain spells of that lore. A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect... or alter the way the spell behaves."

The attribute really is part of the spell. You cast a Life spell, a model gets a wound back because you cast that spell. Therefore the third eye can't use it.

Wrong, because of this word in what you posted.


This is essentially a grouping of one or more special rules that are applied to certain spells of that lore.

Third eye only discusses direct SPELL effects as being barred, not incidental after effects of a LORE, thus you CAN use third eye to pinch any Lore of Life spells EXCEPT for Regrowth.

Synnister
23-09-2010, 01:58
Wrong, because of this word in what you posted.



Third eye only discusses direct SPELL effects as being barred, not incidental after effects of a LORE, thus you CAN use third eye to pinch any Lore of Life spells EXCEPT for Regrowth.

Absolutely not. Every spell in the Lore of Life heals a wound. 3rd eye says you can't steal spells that heal wounds. No way to get around that direct contradiction.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 03:03
Absolutely not. Every spell in the Lore of Life heals a wound. 3rd eye says you can't steal spells that heal wounds. No way to get around that direct contradiction.

I'm afraid you're actually wrong. The effect of Flesh to Stone does NOT directly heal wounds, it's direct effect is +2 T.

I don't understand why so many people are having problems distinguishing the difference between a SPELL (a direct effect of CASTING)and a LORE attribute (an Incidental AFTER SIDE EFFECT of casting a SPELL).

A spell is exactly that, a spell. A lore attribute is not a spell.

Synnister
23-09-2010, 03:21
Every Lore of Life spell upon successful casting heals a wound. How do you violate a very simple rule that states it cannot take spells that heal a wound? I mean you can play it that way but you're not actually following the rules and since you're talking about a house rule that violates a rules then it's kinda hard to debate those since they can technically be anything.

Yellow Commissar
23-09-2010, 03:57
I don't understand why so many people are having problems distinguishing the difference between a SPELL (a direct effect of CASTING)and a LORE attribute (an Incidental AFTER SIDE EFFECT of casting a SPELL).

Thats because there is no such thing as incidental after side effects of spells. What there is is Lore Attributes that give certain spells extra effects. These effects are part of the spells. That is why this third eye thing does not work and everyone disagrees with you.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 03:58
Every Lore of Life spell upon successful casting heals a wound. How do you violate a very simple rule that states it cannot take spells that heal a wound? I mean you can play it that way but you're not actually following the rules and since you're talking about a house rule that violates a rules then it's kinda hard to debate those since they can technically be anything.

There is no violation unless Regrowth is the spell in question. Only Regrowth would violate the rule, as it does directly heal wounds/summons models. It's not a house rule, it's the correct interpretation of Third Eye's rule. Third Eye mentions nothing about Lore Side Effects, only Direct Spell Effects.

Thus, you CAN steal any Lore of Life spell except Regrowth.

Synnister
23-09-2010, 04:05
There is no violation unless Regrowth is the spell in question. Only Regrowth would violate the rule, as it does directly heal wounds/summons models. It's not a house rule, it's the correct interpretation of Third Eye's rule. Third Eye mentions nothing about Lore Side Effects, only Direct Spell Effects.

Thus, you CAN steal any Lore of Life spell except Regrowth.

How is that if you successfully cast a spell and then you get to heal a model is that not a direct effect of the spell? Sorry man but this is a huge Easter egg hunt. No where in the entire rule book is the phrase "Lore Side Effect" used. Nor is there any rule for "Direct Spell Effect". You are essentially making up rules to skew the discussion in your favor. Which is why I said you're trying to debate a house rule and that's still hard to do. Normally, GW is very vague and ambiguous with their rules, this one however, is not one of them.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 05:12
How is that if you successfully cast a spell and then you get to heal a model is that not a direct effect of the spell? Sorry man but this is a huge Easter egg hunt. No where in the entire rule book is the phrase "Lore Side Effect" used. Nor is there any rule for "Direct Spell Effect".

Nor does it say in the rulebook that you get the benefit of a lore effect if you steal the spell from someone who does know the spell either, raising the question if you do or not.


You are essentially making up rules to skew the discussion in your favor. Which is why I said you're trying to debate a house rule and that's still hard to do.

One could claim it is you are making "House Rules" as you call them, to suit your argument.


Normally, GW is very vague and ambiguous with their rules, this one however, is not one of them.

I agree this rule is not vague or ambiguous. I have cited the correct interpretation of the rule. A Lore attribute is NOT a Spell, no matter how you cut it. They are quite two different things.

Do you roll before the game starts to determine what your lore effect for the game is? No you do not, it is not a spell. Only spells are rolled for at the beginning of the game.

If you roll doubles, do you get to choose what your Lore attribute is? No you do not, it is not a spell. It is set in stone, based on your chosen lore.

Does MR affect Lore Attributes? No it does not, it is not a spell. It is a side effect.

Unless it meets those criteria, it is not a spell.

Quoted from p491 of the BRB under Lore Attributes, first paragraph:


Some lores, including those presented in this book, have something called a "Lore Attribute". This is essentially a group of special rules that are applied to certain spells for that lore.

So according to the BRB, Lore Attributes are definitively NOT spells, but special rules. Third Eye only applies to SPELLS, not special rules, as I have stated multiple times.

Again, I have cited the correct interpretation of the rule, even based on the rule in the BRB on Lore attributes.

You can pinch any Lore of Life spell EXCEPT Regrowth using Third Eye.

Munin
23-09-2010, 07:39
I agree this rule is not vague or ambiguous. I have cited the correct interpretation of the rule. A Lore attribute is NOT a Spell, no matter how you cut it. They are quite two different things.

You are correct, its not a spell, however its a PART of a spell. It will apply when you cast the spell.



Do you roll before the game starts to determine what your lore effect for the game is? No you do not, it is not a spell. Only spells are rolled for at the beginning of the game.


If you roll doubles, do you get to choose what your Lore attribute is? No you do not, it is not a spell. It is set in stone, based on your chosen lore.

What are you seriously talking about here? But sure I roll the spell dice and get the lore attribute as a part of the spells.



Does MR affect Lore Attributes? No it does not, it is not a spell. It is a side effect.

In a matter of fact it does. Look no further than the lore of light and cast a either of the magic missiles on a demon or undead unit, they could use MR against it.

And to follow your logic further I guess that would mean spells like Dwellers, Hexes and Augments arent spells either since MR doesn't affect against them.



I agree this rule is not vague or ambiguous. I have cited the correct interpretation of the rule. A Lore attribute is NOT a Spell, no matter how you cut it. They are quite two different things.

You are correct, its not a spell, however its a PART of a spell. It will apply when you cast the spell.



Do you roll before the game starts to determine what your lore effect for the game is? No you do not, it is not a spell. Only spells are rolled for at the beginning of the game.


If you roll doubles, do you get to choose what your Lore attribute is? No you do not, it is not a spell. It is set in stone, based on your chosen lore.

What are you seriously talking about here? But sure I roll the spell dices and get the lore attribute as a part of the spells.



Again, I have cited the correct interpretation of the rule, even based on the rule in the BRB on Lore attributes.

And again you haven't done it well enough since no one else seems to think it being a correct interpretation.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 08:04
In a matter of fact it does. Look no further than the lore of light and cast a either of the magic missiles on a demon or undead unit, they could use MR against it.

And to follow your logic further I guess that would mean spells like Dwellers, Hexes and Augments arent spells either since MR doesn't affect against them.


Against the spell missile hits themselves, yes they could.

But.... You would not receive an MR save vs the extra d6 hits from the Lore attribute, as they do NOT come from a spell. They come from a special rule.

The same applies with the 4d6 extra hits for the Lore of Heavens attribute against flyers.

Attributes are NOT spells.



I agree this rule is not vague or ambiguous. I have cited the correct interpretation of the rule. A Lore attribute is NOT a Spell, no matter how you cut it. They are quite two different things.


You are correct, its not a spell, however its a PART of a spell. It will apply when you cast the spell.

No, it is NOT part of the spell either. It is a special rule that takes effect when the spell is cast. The distinction is that is not part of the spell's effect due to the above mentioned example of MR concerning attributes. You only get MR against SPELLS. You do not get MR against special rules.




And again you haven't done it well enough since no one else seems to think it being a correct interpretation.

I believe that the last part of my post puts the argument to rest, as even the BRB says they are not spells but special rules that apply when casting certain spells, thus making a definitive distinction between what is a spell is and what an attribute is, settling what Third Eye can and can not do.

Peregijn
23-09-2010, 08:14
... and again we are comparing a 7th edition item/gift with 8th edition rules.
there isn't a clear answer on this debate because everyone will read/interpreted the rule in their own way. just talk it over in your gaming group and house rule it.
example: you can cast lore of live spells except regrowth and you can not use the lore attribute. simple as that. or spend the whole game arguing about it and never play each other again...

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 08:18
you can cast lore of life spells except regrowth

Again, I believe this is the correct interpretation.

I am open however to the idea now that you may get the Lore attribute though the pinching after further thought, though I do still believe you may not.

Elyssia
23-09-2010, 08:50
I believe that the last part of my post puts the argument to rest, as even the BRB says they are not spells but special rules that apply when casting certain spells, thus making a definitive distinction between what is a spell is and what an attribute is, settling what Third Eye can and can not do.

The description in the BRB specifies the lore attributes to extend/alter the spell, not being 'a seperate effect'. The original spell is complemented/altered, so the bonus effect becomes an integral part of the spell and cannot be seperated.


The effect is part of the spell, ergo all life spells are healing spells. Can't get much more simple than that.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 08:54
The description in the BRB specifies the lore attributes to extend/alter the spell, not being 'a seperate effect'. The original spell is complemented/altered, so the bonus effect becomes an integral part of the spell and cannot be seperated.


The effect is part of the spell, ergo all life spells are healing spells. Can't get much more simple than that.

No, that is wrong. It is not part of the spell, but is a separate effect of the LORE itself. Otherwise the BRB would have stated it was part of the spell and not a special rule of the lore.

Third Eye mentions nothing about Lores, only spells.

Synnister
23-09-2010, 09:19
No, that is wrong. It is not part of the spell, but is a separate effect of the LORE itself. Otherwise the BRB would have stated it was part of the spell and not a special rule of the lore.

Third Eye mentions nothing about Lores, only spells.

If the lore attribute is separate then how do resolve Lore of Metal spells that you steal? All of the Lore Attributes are added to all of the spells of that Lore. In most cases these effects are not even optional and in the case of Metal it defines how to resolve every spell. And if you cast a Metal spell at an unarmored unit if you don't steal the Lore Attribute, you're still following the lore attribute which you can't do since you didn't steal the attribute. Hmmm, now that I think about it your 'interpretation' makes the most sense. No really, lets write that implode and cause me to have a headache. Anyway, I believe I'm done talking to you since you want to cast +2 toughness on your chaos warriors and refuse to listen to any reason or discussion that deviates from that goal.

Althwen
23-09-2010, 11:48
The way I see it, is that some lore attributes act like their own separate spells (ie. shadows,life,etc.)
If you look at them like this, it's easy to say that 3rd eye would allow the spell to be cast but Life's lore attribute not to be utilised. That's the way I see it, but I guess I'm gonna have to discuss this with my gaming group.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
23-09-2010, 11:54
The way I see it, is that some lore attributes act like their own separate spells (ie. shadows,life,etc.)
If you look at them like this, it's easy to say that 3rd eye would allow the spell to be cast but Life's lore attribute not to be utilised. That's the way I see it, but I guess I'm gonna have to discuss this with my gaming group.

I would say that is the reasonable way to play it. Stopping Third Eye of Tzeentch working on all Life spells because of the Lore attribute seems a bit silly. Though I do agree that the Lore attribute wouldn't come into effect when cast through the Third Eye of Tzeentch.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-09-2010, 15:23
If the lore attribute is separate then how do resolve Lore of Metal spells that you steal? All of the Lore Attributes are added to all of the spells of that Lore. In most cases these effects are not even optional and in the case of Metal it defines how to resolve every spell. And if you cast a Metal spell at an unarmored unit if you don't steal the Lore Attribute, you're still following the lore attribute which you can't do since you didn't steal the attribute.

Hence why I have reconsidered my previous position that you don't ever get the Lore Attribute with certain Lores. I am inclined to agree with Nixon and Althwen's posts after this one on that issue. I believe that you still would not get the Lifebloom though, as it is a separate effect to the actual spell. But Lore of Metal would get it's attribute, as it IS integral to the spell.


Anyway, I believe I'm done talking to you since you want to cast +2 toughness on your chaos warriors and refuse to listen to any reason or discussion that deviates from that goal.

My position was not based on "what I want to do." My position is based on logic and what is cited in the BRB

Besides, I see the Throne of Vines far more useful out of the Lore of Life than Flesh to Stone would ever be. ;)

Yellow Commissar
23-09-2010, 15:45
Read the Lore Attributes paragragh on page 491.

Yes, they are special rules, but they are "special rules that are applied to certain spells of that lore". Applied to the spell. The spell is what gets the special rules. Magic resistance applies.

"A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect"; this is the case with Lore of Life. The spells are given an extra effect. Therefore Lifebloom becomes an effect of the spell.

"Regardless of the detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from its own lore." Again, the attribute has on effect on the spell, not anything else. It is then the spell which effects other things.

Synnister
23-09-2010, 17:50
If you want the Lore Attribute to apply then all Lore Attributes apply. You just can't pick and choose how to interpret a rule based on how it benefits you or your army.

Lord Inquisitor
23-09-2010, 21:41
Lore attributes are part of the spell, they have to be.

You use Third Eye to steal Searing Doom from the Lore of Metal. If you don't apply the metalshifting lore attribute, how can you cast the spell? You can't. Unlike life you can't separate the lore attribute from the spell. So for metal, you HAVE to apply the lore attribute.

You use Third Eye to steal Awakening of the Wood. Why would the lore attribute not be applied just as above?

SiNNiX
24-09-2010, 01:50
Lore attributes have a direct effect on the spell cast, not the lore used. The wording is actually very clear. Lore attributes are additional spell effects, not lore effects. I know it's tempting to say ?but they're called LORE attributes!? To prevent this way of thinking, simply give yourself a hard slap on the wrist for trying to incorporate rational interpetation in a rules-governed game.

The rules and their wording are absolute.

wilsongrahams
24-09-2010, 15:34
Whilst I agree that a Lore attribute does not apply to all spells of a lore and that it is inseperable from that spell, on the lone case of the 3rd Eye of Tzeentch only, I'd say that it steals the spell but not the attribute, reasoning that the model never selected that lore, only the spell, and that only a wizard selecting to use that lore when purchased would also benefit from the lore attribute as standard because usually this is the only way to get a spell. Also bound spells could do with being clarified as per lore attributes.

Lord Inquisitor
24-09-2010, 16:51
Please explain what happens, then, if a Third Eye steals and casts the Lore of Metal spell Searing Doom.

Leth Shyish'phak
24-09-2010, 18:40
Lore Attributes apply every time a spell which uses an Attribute is cast, there is nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise. The rules say that the attributes are applied to the spell when it is cast, not when it is cast by the wizard who rolled it, bought it or used any other sort of funny business to get it. Regardless of whether or not the Attribute is part of the spell (it is, reasons as posted by myself and many other people... no point in posting again to get "NO YOU'RE WRONG" back again), the attribute always happens when spells with attributes are cast, whether by the original wizard, someone stealing it or even from a bound item.

wilsongrahams
24-09-2010, 21:29
I wasn't trying to disagree with you on when Lore attributes apply, simply offering a compromise for use of the 3rd Eye with spells with these lore attributes because claiming RAW doesn't work here because the item was created before lore attributes were, and nothing has so far been FAQ'd for it. Being right and smug because you can quote the rulebook without offering a solution isn't really very helpful now is it?
Surely agreeing their is a conflict and then discussing a fair solution is better than 'neh neh I'm right and not going to listen to what you say if you even partially disagree.'?

Lord Inquisitor
24-09-2010, 21:53
Sorry I didn't meant to be rude or inflexible, was a serious point. You were arguing that the Lore Attribute can be separated from the spell, which can't be the case for the Lore of Metal. If it applies for Lore of Metal it should apply for Lore of Life too.

I'm okay with an opponent wanting to use Third Eye for Life in a friendly game and not use the Lore Attribute, but this is a rules forum and consequently the exact nature of the rules is going to be discussed! ;)

In the end I'm not even quite sure what the problem is... so Third Eye doesn't work on Lore of Life. Is that really a RAW vs RAI problem? Does it need solving?

wilsongrahams
24-09-2010, 22:17
Sorry Lord Inquisitor, I hadn't been referencing you there, in fact I seem to have missed your reply altogether lol. Well, Lore of metal is a hard one because the strength issue is in the lore attribute.

You're right that we don't actually need a fix for that item - my Cloak of Beards is useless against non-dwarf armies.

Lord Inquisitor
24-09-2010, 22:20
Sorry Lord Inquisitor, I hadn't been referencing you there, in fact I seem to have missed your reply altogether lol.
Maybe I need to find a more noticable text colour? ;)

Leth Shyish'phak
25-09-2010, 00:47
I did provide a solution in my first post when I said the Third Eye couldn't steal Life spells, its not hard and its not really game-breaking, the item is still very good.

I don't see how completely changing how the attributes work so that an item can do something it can't usually do is a good solution at all. And what does being created before 8th edition have to do with it? By that logic we can make stuff up for everything that isn't mentioned in the FAQs.

AlphariusOmegon20
25-09-2010, 03:43
Lore attributes have a direct effect on the spell cast, not the lore used.

The rules and their wording are absolute.

Just how is it a direct effect when I use Lifebloom to heal a wound on my BSB in a Knights of the Realm regiment 12" away when I cast Regrowth on my Grail Knights with my General in them 24" away? The Grail Knights and General were the original target of the spell, thus if Lifebloom has a DIRECT effect, I can only use the lore attribute to heal the General inside the Grail knight unit. That I targeted the BSB makes Lifebloom an INDIRECT effect as he was not the original target of the Regrowth.

Granted, in my example, the Grail Knights are actually too far away for Lifebloom's effect to be validly used on the General in the first place, but I assume you get my point about whether it is DIRECT and INDIRECT from my example.


I did provide a solution in my first post when I said the Third Eye couldn't steal Life spells, its not hard and its not really game-breaking

Actually, it's quite game breaking to remove a complete lore from being a target of Third Eye when it has spells that do not meet the banned criteria and are highly useful, but also when it's a highly popular lore for most players to choose if they have the option to take it.

Yrrdead
25-09-2010, 04:10
Alpha could you repost your argument once more for me so that I don't have to parse through each page?
Yes I'm lazy.

Edit-

Okay well I parsed through all the posts.

Here's what I'm seeing.

1. 'lore attributes' are as described integral to every spell (as described in each specific 'lore attribute').
2. Therefore in the specific case of the Daemonic Gift "Third Eye" may not be used on any spells from Lore of Life.

OR

1. 'lore attributes' are something else entirely. I'm still not entirely sure how exactly you categorize them but they are entirely separate from spells.
2. Therefore in the specific case of the Daemonic Gift "Third Eye" may be used on all spells from the Lore of Life with the exception of Regrowth.

Is that about right Alpha?

Synnister
25-09-2010, 04:36
Just how is it a direct effect when I use Lifebloom to heal a wound on my BSB in a Knights of the Realm regiment 12" away when I cast Regrowth on my Grail Knights with my General in them 24" away? The Grail Knights and General were the original target of the spell, thus if Lifebloom has a DIRECT effect, I can only use the lore attribute to heal the General inside the Grail knight unit. That I targeted the BSB makes Lifebloom an INDIRECT effect as he was not the original target of the Regrowth.

Granted, in my example, the Grail Knights are actually too far away for Lifebloom's effect to be validly used on the General in the first place, but I assume you get my point about whether it is DIRECT and INDIRECT from my example.



Actually, it's quite game breaking to remove a complete lore from being a target of Third Eye when it has spells that do not meet the banned criteria and are highly useful, but also when it's a highly popular lore for most players to choose if they have the option to take it.

Dude you are just making up terms again that are in no rule book.

Lore of Life says when a Lore of Life spell is successfully cast heal a wound on a model. Nothing in that rule says anything about direct or indirect or if its even optional. Nor does it say only the wizard that rolled the spell or picked the spell during army creation gets to heal a wound. Stop making up rules that don't exist.

3rd eye says you can't steal a spell that heals or creates models. Period. No mention of direct or indirect. Does casting the spell cause a wound to be healed? If yes then you can't steal it. All Lore of Life spells heal a wound when cast thus you can take NONE of them with 3rd eye.

I'm sorry if this ruins your army build. But to continue on after overwhelming evidence to the contrary is an exercise in futility.

SiNNiX
25-09-2010, 07:00
Just to reinforce the fact that lore attributes are spell effects and not lore effects:


Regardless of detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from it's own lore.

AlphariusOmegon20
25-09-2010, 15:57
Alpha could you repost your argument once more for me so that I don't have to parse through each page?
Yes I'm lazy.

Edit-

Okay well I parsed through all the posts.

Here's what I'm seeing.

1. 'lore attributes' are as described integral to every spell (as described in each specific 'lore attribute').
2. Therefore in the specific case of the Daemonic Gift "Third Eye" may not be used on any spells from Lore of Life.

OR

1. 'lore attributes' are something else entirely. I'm still not entirely sure how exactly you categorize them but they are entirely separate from spells.
2. Therefore in the specific case of the Daemonic Gift "Third Eye" may be used on all spells from the Lore of Life with the exception of Regrowth.

Is that about right Alpha?

After reading the Lore of Metal, It seems it is integral to the spells themselves, as the spells can not work without it. I do not dispute that issue. However, Lore of life's Attribute is not integral to the spell, as it allows you to target a different target SEPARATE from the original target of the spell you cast the spell at, thus it is a separate effect. You may target something else with Lifebloom.


Dude you are just making up terms again that are in no rule book.

Lore of Life says when a Lore of Life spell is successfully cast heal a wound on a model. Nothing in that rule says anything about direct or indirect or if its even optional.

Actually if you read the attribute it specifically says you can only target characters with Lifebloom. I provided an legal example of how Regrowth with Lifebloom could be used as written to heal two SEPARATE targets. Thus the Lifebloom effect is IMPLIED to be a second SEPARATE effect, as they do not have to be the same target, thus meaning it can be used INDIRECTLY to heal a Target character to was not the original target of the Regrowth.



3rd eye says you can't steal a spell that heals or creates models. Period. No mention of direct or indirect.

Agreed, but it also doesn't say an indirect way is banned either. #rd eye only seems to deal with Direct Effects, as indirect effects did not exist in 7th.


Does casting the spell cause a wound to be healed? If yes then you can't steal it. All Lore of Life spells heal a wound when cast thus you can take NONE of them with 3rd eye.

That, I believe, is still open to debate as you may not get the Lore attribute when you steal a life spell. Metalshift is Integral to the spell, but reading Life, you can just as easily remove Lifebloom's text and the spell still works.


I'm sorry if this ruins your army build.


Actually it doesn't affect it at all. I'd still take 3rd eye because it does work the way I've described.



Just to reinforce the fact that lore attributes are spell effects and not lore effects:

It also states they are special rules. Some are integral to the spells to make them work. Lifebloom does NOTHING to make the spell actually work and thus can be considered a SEPARATE after effect.

Yrrdead
25-09-2010, 22:06
Alpha (hope you don't mind me shortening your name)

3rd Eye doesn't specify Direct or Indirect .You are just assigning those labels. At no point do any rules support those labels. It is irrelevant that lore attributes didn't exist in 7th.


3rd Eye allows you to "steal" spells.

Spells can't be separated from their associated lore attributes. Since lore attributes are part and parcel of a spells effects.


I'm not sure how you can argue that in the specific case of Lifebloom that it isn't a spell effect. It is a spell effect that happens as the result of casting any spell from the Lore of Life.

If you 3rd Eye any spell from the Lore of Life and successfully cast a spell then Lifebloom happens. You can't get around this. Which is why you can't 3rd Eye Lore of Life.

SiNNiX
25-09-2010, 22:28
Alpha knows he's been naughty... he knows.

Also, what the guy above me said. Any time you're thinking about a new way to argue your case, read the above post. Nowhere does it it say that spells can be cast without their corresponding lore attribute being activated.

Yellow Commissar
26-09-2010, 00:14
Agreed, but it also doesn't say an indirect way is banned either. #rd eye only seems to deal with Direct Effects, as indirect effects did not exist in 7th.

This has got to be my favorite argument. What else doesn't that 3rd eye spell say?

I bet it doesn't say I win automatically if you try to cheat using "the rules don't say" arguments.

It doesn't say that all of your characters are destoyed with no saves of any kind.

It doesn't say that I can launch flying pigs from my rear that cause 10d6 S10 hits on each and every unit in your army.

I could go on...:wtf:

AlphariusOmegon20
26-09-2010, 02:31
Alpha (hope you don't mind me shortening your name)

Nope, I don't mind at all.


3rd Eye doesn't specify Direct or Indirect.

Agreed it doesn't specify it, but it does IMPLY it.


3rd Eye allows you to "steal" spells.

Agreed, no argument there.


Spells can't be separated from their associated lore attributes.

I believe they can, as only the Lore of Metal MUST have it's Lore attribute to work correctly. None of the others REQUIRE their attribute for the spells to work correctly.


Since lore attributes are part and parcel of a spells effects.

I disagree. If you removed the Lore attribute of Lifebloom, would Regrowth or Thorne of Vines no longer work? No they would not, they would still function the same as they do now. Lore attributes with the exception of Metalshifting, do not affect whether a spell works according to it's description or not.



I'm not sure how you can argue that in the specific case of Lifebloom that it isn't a spell effect. See my previous comment above.




If you 3rd Eye any spell from the Lore of Life and successfully cast a spell then Lifebloom happens. You can't get around this. Which is why you can't 3rd Eye Lore of Life.

I dispute this also. I do not believe you can steal the attribute with the exception of Metalshift which IS INTEGRAL to the spells.

Yrrdead
26-09-2010, 02:57
Agreed it doesn't specify it, but it does IMPLY it.


I believe they can, as only the Lore of Metal MUST have it's Lore attribute to work correctly. None of the others REQUIRE their attribute for the spells to work correctly.

I disagree. If you removed the Lore attribute of Lifebloom, would Regrowth or Thorne of Vines no longer work? No they would not, they would still function the same as they do now. Lore attributes with the exception of Metalshifting, do not affect whether a spell works according to it's description or not.


I dispute this also. I do not believe you can steal the attribute with the exception of Metalshift which IS INTEGRAL to the spells.

Implication is irrelevant.

I think that you are looking at this the wrong way. Its not so much that spells require the lore attribute to work. Its that lore attributes are spell effects that happen (like any spell effect) with the successful casting of a spell.****

You can't remove the lore attributes. There is no mechanism in the game to allows you to do this.

Again you steal the spell. You cast the spell successfully. When you resolve the spell the lore attribute applies with all other spell effects.****



**** Lore of Heavens is slightly different in that you don't even need to successfully cast a spell for its lore attribute effect. Merely target.

AlphariusOmegon20
26-09-2010, 23:35
You can't remove the lore attributes. There is no mechanism in the game to allows you to do this.

I didn't say there was one, Dead. It was an example of how the spells would still work as written even without the Attributes, with the notable exception of Metal.

Makrar
27-09-2010, 00:49
I didn't say there was one, Dead. It was an example of how the spells would still work as written even without the Attributes, with the notable exception of Metal.

How does that change a single thing? Just because something would work without a rule doesnt mean you can ignore the rule as and when it suits you, the possibilities to abuse this are immense.

Lord Inquisitor
27-09-2010, 01:15
I dispute this also. I do not believe you can steal the attribute with the exception of Metalshift which IS INTEGRAL to the spells.
So you can steal Metal's attribute but not Life's? I get why you want this to be true, but in rules terms how do you differentiate them? Either the lore attributes are part of the spell or they're an additional special rule. Picking and choosing between which Lore effects are integral or not is getting subjective. Fire spells, for example, have two extra effects. Is Flaming Attacks "integral"? I would have thought so (they're fire spells!), but presumably the bonus spell casting value effect isn't.

There's no rules basis to suggest that some Lore attributes are part of the spell and some aren't. The most logical and parsimonious conclusion is that Lore attributes are part of each spell in the lore, so if the spell is stolen or cast from a bound item, etc, the Lore attribute would apply.

AlphariusOmegon20
27-09-2010, 16:12
So you can steal Metal's attribute but not Life's? I get why you want this to be true, but in rules terms how do you differentiate them? Either the lore attributes are part of the spell or they're an additional special rule. Picking and choosing between which Lore effects are integral or not is getting subjective. Fire spells, for example, have two extra effects. Is Flaming Attacks "integral"? I would have thought so (they're fire spells!), but presumably the bonus spell casting value effect isn't.

The differentiation is whether it is integral to make the spell work. Obviously, Flaming Attacks are Integral to the Lore of Fire. The bonus cast value is not.

We seem to agree on how Lore of Fire works using my POV.


There's no rules basis to suggest that some Lore attributes are part of the spell and some aren't. The most logical and parsimonious conclusion is that Lore attributes are part of each spell in the lore, so if the spell is stolen or cast from a bound item, etc, the Lore attribute would apply.

Actually there is. By reading the description of each Lore attribute, we can determine easily which ones are integral to make the spell work and which ones are not. Those attributes that are not integral to make the spell work can not be stolen by Third Eye.

That would be the most logical answer. Your answer might be parsimonious, but it would also be illogical and wrong.

Lord Inquisitor
27-09-2010, 16:32
Actually there is. By reading the description of each Lore attribute, we can determine easily which ones are integral to make the spell work and which ones are not. Those attributes that are not integral to make the spell work can not be stolen by Third Eye.

That would be the most logical answer. Your answer might be parsimonious, but it would also be illogical and wrong.

You've added in a category of your own "integral" and "nonintegral". You've essentially made up a game term that doesn't exist.

Let's go back to flaming attacks for Fire. Are they integral? You could cast the spells without them being flaming, unlike the metal spells. But they're kind of part and parcel of the spell. Are the extra wounds caused by Fire an additional effect? You could argue it either way.

The only consistent conclusions that don't require subjective judgement are that all Lore Attribues are part of the spell or they're all not. Since some attributes are necessary to cast, they must all be part of the spells.

AlphariusOmegon20
27-09-2010, 16:40
You've added in a category of your own "integral" and "nonintegral". You've essentially made up a game term that doesn't exist.

Let's go back to flaming attacks for Fire. Are they integral? You could cast the spells without them being flaming, unlike the metal spells. But they're kind of part and parcel of the spell. Are the extra wounds caused by Fire an additional effect? You could argue it either way.

The only consistent conclusions that don't require subjective judgement are that all Lore Attribues are part of the spell or they're all not. Since some attributes are necessary to cast, they must all be part of the spells.

And I would agree with you you could steal those. However, the reading the descriptions of the Attributes and the Spells they work with as well, there does seem to suggest that there are attributes you can not steal due to them not being integral to the spell working according to it's description.

That is the basis of my argument.

Aglemar
27-09-2010, 17:02
Can you cast half a spell?

If no, then all lore attributes are integral to a spell, as you can't cast the spell without them. Either the lore attributes are part of the spell or they are not. If they are, then all are equally as integral as you are required by the rules to cast the entire spell. If they are not then you can not cast spells from the lore of metal as you are not using their lore. Trying to claim only some are part of the spell is pointless, a spell can have as many and as varied attributes and effects as the rule writers care to add to them, making claims that some lores have direct or indirect effect on the spells pointless.

theunwantedbeing
27-09-2010, 18:17
Actually, it's quite game breaking to remove a complete lore from being a target of Third Eye when it has spells that do not meet the banned criteria and are highly useful, but also when it's a highly popular lore for most players to choose if they have the option to take it.

In that case, its quite game breaking to lose all the items that altered unit strength.

I guess anyone that used them should complain and demmand they still work huh?

That would be the sensible thing wouldn't it?
To complain that your item should still work as normal when due to the changs in 8th ed it doesnt anymore.

Synnister
27-09-2010, 19:53
The differentiation is whether it is integral to make the spell work. Obviously, Flaming Attacks are Integral to the Lore of Fire. The bonus cast value is not.

We seem to agree on how Lore of Fire works using my POV.



Actually there is. By reading the description of each Lore attribute, we can determine easily which ones are integral to make the spell work and which ones are not. Those attributes that are not integral to make the spell work can not be stolen by Third Eye.

That would be the most logical answer. Your answer might be parsimonious, but it would also be illogical and wrong.

Could you please point me to the rule in the BRB that says you don't have to use the Lore attribute? Page reference is much needed since apparently there's an entire set of rules that I didn't read when I went through the book the first couple times.

Ohhhh that's right you can name a page reference because your entire argument is based on fictional ramblings in your head that have absolutely no basis in this game.

It doesn't matter one bit if the spell would still work without the Lore Attribute. You have to have a rule that allows you to violate this rule:


"When a spell from the Lore of Life is successfully cast, the Wizard (or another friendly model within 12") instantly recovers a single Wound lost earlier in the battle."


In that rule the ONLY trigger is for the spell to be successfully cast. That's it. You cast the spell and then you recover the wound. As a matter of fact its not even optional. It doesn't say 'may' or 'can'. It says instantly recover. So, even if you didn't want it to go off you'd still have to. There's no getting around it in any rule in the current game. If you'd like to make a house rule to allow you to do it, that's fine however, we cannot debate house rules on this forum.

Adran
28-09-2010, 09:16
Did you ever try and claim you could cast Drain life in 7th edition using the third eye?
After all the direct effect was to do one wound to your target. Indirectly the caster gained a wound. The caster was never the target of the spell. And the wound causing and the wound gaining were not related events (as shown by if the target passed a ward save the wizard still healed a wound).

You can't "logically" apply some lore attributes and not others just as it suits you. You need to pick one rule and stick with it. There is nothing what so ever in the rules which suggests you can pick and chose which bits of the spell you steal.
Either The lore attribute is part of the spell and is therefore stolen by the third eye, meaning it can't steal Lore of life,
or the lore attribute isn't part of the spell stolen by Third eye, and there is no point in stealing the lore of metal.
That is logical, consistant, and doesn't introduce any random new rules or terms that appear nowhere in the rule book to justify it.

Personally I go with choice one. I can't see anything in your arguements to support another choice.

Are your games broken when you play Tomb princes with the Third eye, as it then does nothing?

Elyssia
28-09-2010, 09:45
Are your games broken when you play Tomb princes with the Third eye, as it then does nothing?

This is an example of the actual underlying debate going on.

It's not about 'what's in the rules', because the rules are very, very clear.

This is about someone not wanting his expensive item to be uselss in a lot of battles against the most popular lore.

AlphariusOmegon20
28-09-2010, 15:55
In that rule the ONLY trigger is for the spell to be successfully cast. That's it. You cast the spell and then you recover the wound. As a matter of fact its not even optional. It doesn't say 'may' or 'can'. It says instantly recover. So, even if you didn't want it to go off you'd still have to. There's no getting around it in any rule in the current game. If you'd like to make a house rule to allow you to do it, that's fine however, we cannot debate house rules on this forum.

Thank you for making my argument for me.

This word shows it is a separate effect as I have stated all this time.


trigger

If Attributes are "triggered" by certain conditions being met in the casting of a spell, then they are at that point DEFINITIVELY a SEPARATE EFFECT and thus are SPECIAL RULES and NOT PART of ANY SPELL.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in your last sentence though. Are you debating house rules? I'm not. I'm debating the rules of the game As Written and As Intended.



P.S. I called GW on this issue and was alerted that an FAQ is expected soon stating that Lore Attributes are Separate Effects and thus are not subject to the ban on Third Eye and that I have been correct on this issue. I think I'll sit back now and and wait to say "I told you so" when it comes out. ;)

Aglemar
28-09-2010, 17:42
You don't seem to realize that it doesn't matter. In a debate the quality of the arguments is what matters, not being right or wrong. As many people here have said, your arguments are weak and tend to use arbitrary terms and conditions that aren't supported anywhere in the rules.

The fact of the matter is you have argued both that some lore attributes are separate effects, and that some are not separate effects, which means that if they are indeed ruled as a separate effect then you are still wrong, as people have said you need to choose one way or the other and stick to it. That is if you are even correct, as the "I Phoned GW and they said X" of the past tend to be widely varied and inaccurate.

Synnister
28-09-2010, 18:10
P.S. I called GW on this issue and was alerted that an FAQ is expected soon stating that Lore Attributes are Separate Effects and thus are not subject to the ban on Third Eye and that I have been correct on this issue. I think I'll sit back now and and wait to say "I told you so" when it comes out. ;)

That's rich!! I believe sir that you win at the intrawebz!! I honestly wait holding my breath for the FAQ that addresses this. LOLZ!!

To be honest though it would not surprise me in the least for them to screw up their rulings. They've done it in the past plenty of times.

Makrar
28-09-2010, 19:44
Lore attributes are a special rule of the spells in the lore. How can you cast spells or anything for that matter and ignore the special rules without the exception being in a rulebook somewhere. A spell with a special rule of healing a model just does not work with the eye.


Quick question for you, Could you cast 13th spell with the eye?

As far as I can make out the only difference between these 2 spells is that the healing part is clearly a special rule of the spell and the model summon in 13th is writen straight into the spell description

But i would argue that there is no difference when it comes to the rules between a special rule and a restriction written into a description.

Lord Inquisitor
28-09-2010, 20:42
Ha! If GW FAQs this then I welcome it - but they have a history of fudged FAQs that aren't one side or the other. The doomwheel mess from the 7th ed FAQ that didn't match up with the way anyone interpreted it.

As and when the FAQ appears then you may be smug... But that doesn't validate your position.

theunwantedbeing
28-09-2010, 20:51
Attributes are stuck with whatever lore you have.

Although dark elves for example dont get to roll some dice to see if the wounds they took from power of darkness generate new dice though, even if the mage took death magic. A lore attribute is tied into the spell itself.

So third eye doesnt work with any of the life magic spells.
Get over it you big babies.

They nerfed my ring of hotek so much that you have no right to complain :(

Elyssia
29-09-2010, 08:35
P.S. I called GW on this issue and was alerted that an FAQ is expected soon stating that Lore Attributes are Separate Effects and thus are not subject to the ban on Third Eye and that I have been correct on this issue. I think I'll sit back now and and wait to say "I told you so" when it comes out. ;)

That's awesome.

You do realize that if GW put's out a FAQ/Errata on something, that it doesn't mean the ruling was true before that moment?

If GW put's out a FAQ today, saying that magic resistence now also works against hexes, it doesn't mean everybody played it wrong yesterday.

Today, the rules say that third eye of tzeentch does diddely bubkis against lore of life. If a new FAQ comes, tomorrow could be another day.

SiNNiX
29-09-2010, 12:45
That's rich!! I believe sir that you win at the intrawebz!! I honestly wait holding my breath for the FAQ that addresses this. LOLZ!!

To be honest though it would not surprise me in the least for them to screw up their rulings. They've done it in the past plenty of times.

Come ON guys, GIVE the guy A BREAK. He just has AN OPINION just like EVERYONE ELSE. SURE, he's wrong, but AREN'T we ALL at some POINT?

See what I did there? :)

This is one of those things that's obvious, but because of the fact that a decent chunk of people don't want to play the way it's intended to be played, you have to reason with people and allow certain things to happen.

Except for in tournaments... :D

Elyssia
29-09-2010, 13:52
This is one of those things that's obvious, but because of the fact that a decent chunk of people don't want to play the way it's intended to be played, you have to reason with people and allow certain things to happen.


Most rule debates have some unclarity to them and the RAW allows for speculation.

This one does not, therefore allowing these 'certain things to happen' in this case, would be simply to ignore the rules and play a house version of the game.

Adran
29-09-2010, 14:12
P.S. I called GW on this issue and was alerted that an FAQ is expected soon stating that Lore Attributes are Separate Effects and thus are not subject to the ban on Third Eye and that I have been correct on this issue. I think I'll sit back now and and wait to say "I told you so" when it comes out. ;)

Does this mean that you can't take lore of metal?
Or does it mean that when you take lore of life spells you still get to heal one of your models using the attribute?
Or are your spells of fire no longer flaming?
And is the FAQ actually going to state that Alpharius Omegon has been correct on this issue? ;)

I shall await the FAQ with baited breath.

Personally I don't care how they rule it. I'd be interested in what they rule from an understanding point of view, because I can not see how you can get to your views on Lore attributes in a consistant manner that would allow me to catigorise any further lore attributes and their interaction with Third eye.

SiNNiX
30-09-2010, 01:12
You can say it's obvious all you want (I already have, trust me), but it ends up not making any difference. The fact remains that people are still arguing about it (about 40/60 it seems), so the wording is obviously not clear enough. Therefore, just figure it out with your opponent and come up with a solution that won't keep the game from being friendly and fun.

God, I sound like such a casual gamer... gross!

Elyssia
30-09-2010, 08:17
God, I sound like such a casual gamer... gross!

I'll get the spray...