PDA

View Full Version : Animosity and Channelling



Feefait
17-03-2011, 22:25
Can an orc shaman who has been affected by animosity still channel?

Spiney Norman
17-03-2011, 22:59
Can an orc shaman who has been affected by animosity still channel?

Yes he can, there are only three things a squabbling greenskin may not do
1. move in the movement phase
2. cast spells
3. shoot

Feefait
17-03-2011, 23:58
My understanding of animosity was that they may not do anything. Our feeling was that if oyu can't cast then you can't use magic items, channel, etc. as the would be part of the magic phase the model is not participating in. I can see it either way, we just went with no for complicities sake but wanted to get some other thoughts.

Urgat
18-03-2011, 00:18
If they couldn't do anything, that would mean they couldn't fight back when charged. I don't have the book at hand (I'm at work...) so I can't check for channeling, but I at least wanted to point that out, that they still can do a lot of things even when squabbling, like testing for terror or panic, stuff like that. Making generalisations can be risky..

Malorian
18-03-2011, 00:33
Yes he can, there are only three things a squabbling greenskin may not do
1. move in the movement phase
2. cast spells
3. shoot

This is exactly what it says in the book. It actually spells out what they can't do rather than say 'they can't do anything'.

(Book is right in front of me)

Feefait
18-03-2011, 02:11
I'm just looking for clarification guys - sorry! lol I don't have the book and am going from what was read to me. It doesn't make sense that if he cannot cast spells he can still channel, honestly. The idea that just because they can still do some things they should be able to do others is as flawed as my original proposition that because they can't do A they can't do B. Frankly, I think we're happy with how we decided it. Anyway, thanks for commenting, it's at least something to consider.

LaughinGremlin
18-03-2011, 03:44
You must not be the greenskin player, because if you were, you would desire to do as much as possible in spite of animosity.

Whenever we think that rules don't make sense, we consciously or subconsciously refuse to truly see the rules for what they REALLY are. This is the "paradigm effect."

Kalandros
18-03-2011, 07:44
Feefait, go read the rulebook FAQ, fleeing wizards may use items and channel.. or something like that?

Avian
18-03-2011, 10:48
Even people reduced to wizard level 0 may channel, in fact.

Spiney Norman
18-03-2011, 23:57
I'm just looking for clarification guys - sorry! lol I don't have the book and am going from what was read to me. It doesn't make sense that if he cannot cast spells he can still channel, honestly. The idea that just because they can still do some things they should be able to do others is as flawed as my original proposition that because they can't do A they can't do B. Frankly, I think we're happy with how we decided it. Anyway, thanks for commenting, it's at least something to consider.

Then you're in luck, my earlier post (#2) was copied directly from the animosity rule as it is written in the new book.

It does make sense that a squabbling shaman cannot cast spells but can still channel because the rules say that he cannot cast spells, they do not say he cannot channel.

TMATK
19-03-2011, 05:54
Feefait, go read the rulebook FAQ, fleeing wizards may use items and channel.. or something like that?

Dispel and use magic items, can't channel.