PDA

View Full Version : Withering + curse of the leper, autokill?



TMATK
02-09-2011, 07:07
A unit is hit with The Withering and has it's T reduced to 1. It's then hit with Curse of the Leper(T reduced by 1 every turn in play, starting with 1st)

1) Toughness stays at 1 since Withering has "minimum of 1"'

2) "minimum of 1" doesn't matter since Leper was cast 2nd, entire unit dies with toughness 0.


This was being discussed here http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=315841

I know what I think, but maybe I'm missing something. Thoughts?

CaptainFaramir
02-09-2011, 07:18
I agree with this interpretation for two reasons.

1) Rules If you take the alternative approach (and the "final" result is T1), then before the Leper spell was cast, the toughness was only reduced to T2. But that would have involved not applying all of the effect of the Withering. Consequently, since you must apply the effects of both spells in full, you must reduce toughness to T1 with the Withering and then you must reduct T by 1 with Leper. Result = T0.

2) Game Play I beleive, the reason that Withering is "min of 1" is because otherwise it has (on its own) the potential to be an unit auto-kill spell. It's casting value is too low for that. If it were a 25+ spell, they may well remove the T1-min restriction. As it is, the probability of rolling both spells and getting them off on the same unit on the same turn is so remote as to be allowable.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 07:19
Number 2 is correct.

TMATK
02-09-2011, 07:22
If Withering has a "minimum of 1" stipulation, isn't it true that it can't be part of any math that takes the toughness to 0? At any time?

It doesn't change the stat line and go away. It's a RiP spell - the "minimum of 1" is part of the spell just like the negative number.

Tarian
02-09-2011, 07:30
For me, the "Minimum of 1" is for the effects of Withering itself. I.e. Withering reduces T by d3, to a minimum of 1. Another effect could then drop it to 0. But that's just my thought.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 07:38
While I understand your reasoning TMATK I don't believe it is correct. Nor have I have I played it or seen it played that way. (Anecdotal I know sorry :(. )

TMATK
02-09-2011, 07:40
TMATK let me ask a related question.

What is the WS of a Goblin who fails a fear test and attacks a Chaos Knight marked Nurgle?

0. That's a different argument ;)

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 07:43
I know I realized that the latest FAQ removed the minimum from MoN.

But this is related :).

Miasma + MoN?

TMATK
02-09-2011, 07:52
I know I realized that the latest FAQ removed the minimum from MoN.

But this is related :).

Miasma + MoN?

Yeah that's the same thing I guess. Either way, WS0 is not as bad as having an important unit deleted to 2 piddly hex spells lol.

I don't know. A friend pulled this on me about 6 months ago. It felt broken as hell, and I thought I figured out that it was wrong.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 07:57
I wouldn't consider a combo that requires back to back spells piddly. It is pretty hard to do for WoC. They don't have a Teclis/Book of Hoeth. And you would pretty much have to be playing with SC's to guarantee even having these spells. (Sorc Lord w/Shadow + spell familiar , and Festus).

T10
02-09-2011, 09:00
In my opinion: If a characteristic is subject to a number of limited penalties and unlimited penalties, the limits still apply.

E.g a characteristic is subject to the following penalties:

A: -1 (no limit)
B: -1 (to a minimum of 1)
C: -2 (to a minimum of 1)
D: -3 (to a minimum of 3)

Total penalty: -7.

Depending on the characteristic's value, we get the following:

10 -> 3
9 -> 3 (penalty D is counted but doesn't bring the value below 3)
8 -> 3
7 -> 3 (at this point, penalty D is effectively discounted)
6 -> 2
5 -> 1
4 -> 1 (penalty C is still counted, but doesn't bring the value below 1)
3 -> 1 (penalty B and C both can't bring the value below 1)
2 -> 1 (penalties B and C are effectively discounted)
1 -> 0

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 09:07
T10, I got what you were laying down but that made my head hurt. And I don't agree.

The limitations are only in regards to the spell that they are a part of.

T10
02-09-2011, 09:38
The limitations are only in regards to the spell that they are a part of.

You lost me. Please elaborate.

-T10

Korraz
02-09-2011, 09:41
The spell limits only itself. Withering does not limit Leper. Leper was cast after Withering. Leper only cares if the unit's current T is 0. There goes the unit...

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 09:47
I shouldn't have been so declarative since it is simply an opinion.

I was just saying that in the case of the Withering that the limitation in the spell ,that is in parentheses, is only applicable to the casting of that spell. I don't believe that part of the Withering is a "protection" from any other toughness modifiers that would bring a models toughness below one. So when you are resolving the Withering you have a limitation that isn't for the life of the spell rather it is for the resolution of said spell. The same would apply to any of the other related shadow spells.

I'm not sure if that is more clear. But again just my opinion on the subject.

reddevil18
02-09-2011, 09:54
I wouldn't consider a combo that requires back to back spells piddly. It is pretty hard to do for WoC. They don't have a Teclis/Book of Hoeth. And you would pretty much have to be playing with SC's to guarantee even having these spells. (Sorc Lord w/Shadow + spell familiar , and Festus).

Funny enough just what i plan on doing :D
Im also getting plus 1 spell on the sorc lord so thats 6, i now cant not get it lol

Loopstah
02-09-2011, 10:19
It all depends which order you cast the spells.

Lets use a T3 creature.


The Withering > Curse of the Leper

You cast The Withering and roll 3, it lowers the targets T to 1.

You cast Curse of the Leper, it lowers the targets T to 0.

Withering isn't lowering the T to 0, Curse of the Leper is so it doesn't break any rules.


Curse of the Leper > The Withering

You cast Curse of the Leper, it lowers the targets T to 2.

You cast The Withering and roll 3, it lowers the targets T to 1.

In this case the rules of The Withering prevent you lowering the T below 1.

Munin
02-09-2011, 10:25
I agree with Loopstah and Yrrdead since the spells are cast sequently. If they were applied simultaneously then the limit of the Withering would prolly protect the unit from being reduced to T0, but this isnt the case here.

Noght
02-09-2011, 12:07
Why is Toughness 0 = autokill? Doesn't Tough 0 mean anything wounds on a 2+ even a STR 1 attack? Unless you argue that Tough 0 is an autowound from any attack, meaning you still need to hit. I always assumed a 1 to wound was always a failure.

Noght

Loopstah
02-09-2011, 12:09
Why is Toughness 0 = autokill? Doesn't Tough 0 mean anything wounds on a 2+ even a STR 1 attack? Unless you argue that Tough 0 is an autowound from any attack, meaning you still need to hit. I always assumed a 1 to wound was always a failure.

Noght

BRB Page 4 last paragraph.

SkawtheFalconer
02-09-2011, 13:22
I believe the spell description for Curse of Leper also calls out fact that if T reaches 0, unit dies.

Lex
02-09-2011, 14:56
Curse of the Leper says if the model reaches S or T 0, the model dies. The combo can be used with Withering or Enfeebling.

T10
02-09-2011, 15:16
I agree with Loopstah and Yrrdead since the spells are cast sequently. If they were applied simultaneously then the limit of the Withering would prolly protect the unit from being reduced to T0, but this isnt the case here.

No, Withering does npt protect against being reduced to T0, but rather it would not contribute to modifying the value below it's own limit.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the order in which the effects are applied is significant.

-T10

Korraz
02-09-2011, 19:11
Curse says that the T is modified, and not the unmodified, or base toughness. Just that. It isn't interested in other things, just "That T - 1", that's it. Withering only cares that Withering can't reduce below 1. That's it. Those two don't intereact at all in this scenario. The sequence of the spells is significant because how on earth would spells interact with each other, otherwise? A simple example would be: You first hit a unit with Withering and then with a spell that has a S value.

Dungeon_Lawyer
02-09-2011, 21:05
The spell limits only itself. Withering does not limit Leper. Leper was cast after Withering. Leper only cares if the unit's current T is 0. There goes the unit...

This is the most logical answer

Bodysnatcher
03-09-2011, 08:52
2) "minimum of 1" doesn't matter since Leper was cast 2nd, entire unit dies with toughness 0.


This one. It's how our gaming group have always interpretted it.

Gazak Blacktoof
03-09-2011, 09:46
I don't think that the rules direct you to one specific answer in this instance and that it needs an FAQ response. If it were my game I'd probably suggest that the limit of 1 still applies and the unit does not die- simply because the alternative does nothing to improve the balance of the game.

Korraz
03-09-2011, 09:57
You need two mages and two successful casts to pull that of. It's not gamebreaking in the least. Actually it improves the game, since it deepens the gameplay beyond "My dude with a flaming stick beats your regenerating dude. Really hard."

Gazak Blacktoof
03-09-2011, 12:33
Fair enough, it's a bit too gateway-ish for my tastes. Regardless of my views on the subject as to which one is most/ least fair, I'm of the opinion that the rules are sufficiently unclear that any rules based decision is probably going to cause a heated debate in the middle of the game and as such it probably needs an FAQ or house rule.

SilasOfTheLambs
04-09-2011, 14:44
Fair enough, it's a bit too gateway-ish for my tastes. Regardless of my views on the subject as to which one is most/ least fair, I'm of the opinion that the rules are sufficiently unclear that any rules based decision is probably going to cause a heated debate in the middle of the game and as such it probably needs an FAQ or house rule.

Although I agree with the majority here (that you can, in fact, poof units out into the aether with this spell combo) I think Gazak has made the most important point here.

decker_cky
04-09-2011, 16:37
If those spells are around, stopping one of them is the important thing. It's a lot easier to force through one spell than it is to force through 2. Gateway is the type of spell a wizard can force through, then cross their fingers. These two spell combos are much tougher to get off together, since they'll be the utmost priorities. One of them will even be cast on a L2 wizard most likely.

Liber
06-09-2011, 00:30
It all depends which order you cast the spells.

Lets use a T3 creature.


The Withering > Curse of the Leper

You cast The Withering and roll 3, it lowers the targets T to 1.

You cast Curse of the Leper, it lowers the targets T to 0.

Withering isn't lowering the T to 0, Curse of the Leper is so it doesn't break any rules.


Curse of the Leper > The Withering

You cast Curse of the Leper, it lowers the targets T to 2.

You cast The Withering and roll 3, it lowers the targets T to 1.

In this case the rules of The Withering prevent you lowering the T below 1.


this.


pretty neat combo really. i'll watch out for it, and make sure to not let both of these spells get pushed through!

H33D
06-09-2011, 01:22
Yeah I agree that this would cause a unit to vanish. Normally I wouldn't say that the timing of the spell would be important except one of them explicitly says it can't reduce a unit to T0, and the other spell explicitly says that if a unit is reduced to T0 by it then that unit is destroyed.

Since Curse of the Leper is the spell dropping the target's Toughness to 0 I see nothing wrong with the combo. The Withering is still not reducing the target's Toughness to less than 1.

Gonzoyola
06-09-2011, 11:14
Yeah, as well here it seems pretty clear. You cast a spell that reduces me to T1? ok, I let it go off. My unit is now effectively Toughness 1. You are going to cast a spell that reduces my current toughness by 1, ok I let it go off. What my unit is now T0? that means they die automatically per BRB rules? ok. That sucks.

cptcosmic
06-09-2011, 22:43
why should the minimum of 1 of withering not apply just because you cast the other spell afterwards? as long as the spell and the penalty of withering is in effect the minimum of 1 is in effect too. the penalty to toughness from withering decreases if for some reason the toughness drops to zero while withering is in effect. the combined effects of two spells brings the toughness to zero, not only the curse, does not matter what is cast first.

Mr_Rose
06-09-2011, 23:01
Because the minimum for Withering applies to Withering, not any other spell, or other effect. Withering can only wither so far, apparently, but that's not a part of the Curse of the Leper's effect.

By the time the Curse comes along after Withering has rolled a 3 on its D3 vs some regular humans, the unit's T is 1, not "1 and can't go lower."

enyoss
07-09-2011, 05:06
I don't subscribe to the idea that the order in which the effects are applied is significant.
-T10

But this is often a significant consideration when casting spells, right? For example, you'd be wise to cast Withering before Flames of the Phoenix rather than vice versa, so the order in which effects are applied matters there.

Similarly, Withering and Curse of the Leper aren't the same spell (even if they do both involve altering the Toughness stat), so it's reasonable to assume that the order in which they are cast might matter, but that they are otherwise entirely independent of one another.

cptcosmic
07-09-2011, 08:09
Because the minimum for Withering applies to Withering, not any other spell, or other effect. Withering can only wither so far, apparently, but that's not a part of the Curse of the Leper's effect.

By the time the Curse comes along after Withering has rolled a 3 on its D3 vs some regular humans, the unit's T is 1, not "1 and can't go lower."

you still ignore the fact that the combined effects of 2 spells bring down the target to T0, not the curse only and just because you cast the curse afterwards does not mean that the rules of the first spell are suddenly gone. the first spell is still active and so are the rules.

yes curse lowers the T to zero but so does withering too at the same time despite the order of casting. the combined spell effects lowers the T to zero. curse alone does not lower the T to zero. why is this so hard to understand for some? the order you cast the spells is irrelevant in this case. you cast spell 1, spell 1 is active, you cast spell 2, both spells are active and so are the rules of them.


But this is often a significant consideration when casting spells, right? For example, you'd be wise to cast Withering before Flames of the Phoenix rather than vice versa, so the order in which effects are applied matters there.

it is pretty obvious the he meant penalties of the same type. the order in such a case is irrelevant. curse and withering lower the targets the toughness to zero (the order of application actually does not matter), that means that BOTH spells lowered the targets toughness to zero, that also means that withering lowered the targets toughness to zero...

enyoss
07-09-2011, 08:16
it is pretty obvious the he meant penalties of the same type. the order in such a case is irrelevant. curse and withering lower the targets the toughness to zero (the order of application actually does not matter), that means that BOTH spells lowered the targets toughness to zero, that also means that withering lowered the targets toughness to zero...

The whole point is that Withering explicitly cannot reduce toughness below 1, whereas Curse of the Leper explicitly can. This difference, although subtle, is exactly why there is an asymmetry in their combined effects, as was discussed above.

This is partly why spells are cast, and their effects completely resolved, in order.

cptcosmic
07-09-2011, 08:23
The whole point is that Withering explicitly cannot reduce toughness below 1, whereas Curse of the Leper explicitly can. This difference, although subtle, is exactly why there is an asymmetry in their combined effects, as was discussed above.
well this really does not matter. BOTH spells lowers the targets toughness to zero, both spells means that withering lowered the targets toughness to zero too and withering cannot lower the targets toughness lower than 1... it is really simple. the order of aplication does not matter because as soon you cast the second spell both spells are active simultaneously. I dont see why everyone is holding on that irrelevant fact which spell is cast first...

Althwen
07-09-2011, 09:35
I agree with Loopstah.

The order does indeed affect the outcome of the spells.

Conclusion: If cast in the right order, the unit dies.

Nothing too overpowered about that with those new BRB lores and their evil spells.

cptcosmic
07-09-2011, 10:19
I agree with Loopstah.

The order does indeed affect the outcome of the spells.

Conclusion: If cast in the right order, the unit dies.

Nothing too overpowered about that with those new BRB lores and their evil spells.
so you ignore the rules of one of the spells that is still in effect and the fact that curse AND Withering reduces the toughness below 1? OK. then I will ignore that my units have toughness, you cant reduce something that is not here and you cannot make wound rolls against something that I just ignore...

ignorance for everyone! gogo! :rolleyes:

AnomalyOfAwesome
07-09-2011, 10:24
so you ignore the rules of one of the spells that is still in effect and the fact that curse AND Withering reduces the toughness below 1? OK. then I will ignore that my units have toughness, you cant reduce something that is not here and you cannot make wound rolls against something that I just ignore...

It isn't a matter of anything being ignored. In fact, it's the opposite. You have to pay attention to the stipulation of the spells in order to get the combo to work correctly. Withering HAS to be cast first, and it has to roll high enough for the toughness to be reduced to 1. Then, Curse of the Leper has to be cast. Nothing is being ignored, or even exploited. It's a direct combination of spells that work together to produce a better effect. It's tactics, and it's a difficult one for the Warriors of Chaos to pull off, given that they do not have anything to auto Irresistible Force, and they have to be lucky enough to roll both spells. With the odds stacked against this combination even getting to work, there really is no reason why this should not work.

cptcosmic
07-09-2011, 10:36
It isn't a matter of anything being ignored. In fact, it's the opposite. You have to pay attention to the stipulation of the spells in order to get the combo to work correctly. Withering HAS to be cast first, and it has to roll high enough for the toughness to be reduced to 1. Then, Curse of the Leper has to be cast. Nothing is being ignored, or even exploited. It's a direct combination of spells that work together to produce a better effect. It's tactics, and it's a difficult one for the Warriors of Chaos to pull off, given that they do not have anything to auto Irresistible Force, and they have to be lucky enough to roll both spells. With the odds stacked against this combination even getting to work, there really is no reason why this should not work.
being hard to pull of does not justify anything. ok again, the order of application does not matter, all that matters is that withering never can reduce below 1, this rule is active when the spell is active, period. does the spell say that this limitation only applies at the moment the spell is cast? no? OK

the moment you cast curse, BOTH spells are active at once (despite the order of application) and BOTH spells combined reduce the toughness to 0, thus when BOTH spells reduce the toughness to 0 then withering does it too because withering is obviously one of those spells thus toughness stays at 1 always. no epic logic behind.

Loopstah
07-09-2011, 10:42
There is a precedent for this with the Masque.

The Masques Dance of Dreaming cannot reduce Ld below 2, but you can reduce it below 2 using the Icon of Despair.

2 Separate effects one of which is limited to a minimum but you can go below the minimum with the 2nd effect.

If that works then it makes sense that Withering and Leper work.

Althwen
07-09-2011, 13:57
so you ignore the rules of one of the spells that is still in effect and the fact that curse AND Withering reduces the toughness below 1? OK. then I will ignore that my units have toughness, you cant reduce something that is not here and you cannot make wound rolls against something that I just ignore...

ignorance for everyone! gogo! :rolleyes:

Your style of debate leaves something to be desired of.

On a brighter note, I don't ignore anything. If used in the correct order, there is no conflict between the spells as stated earlier.
If Loopstah's post, to which I referred earlier, does not convince you, nothing will. And that's okay as long as you and your friends all agree on the same thing. I don't care.

cptcosmic
07-09-2011, 15:11
If used in the correct order, there is no conflict between the spells as stated earlier.
as soon as you cast the curse both spells are in effect at the same time. there is no order of applying penalties, the order you are referring to is a phantasm, it does not exist. you are only casting the spells in different order but the spells are in effect at the same time after the second spell is cast thus either both spells bring the target to toughness 0 (which includes withering that has a minimum of 1) or none reduce it to 0. but we can agree that we disagree :p

enyoss
07-09-2011, 16:19
the order of aplication does not matter because as soon you cast the second spell both spells are active simultaneously. I dont see why everyone is holding on that irrelevant fact which spell is cast first...

Right, after re-reading the spell description I now see that I made a schoolboy error: I thought that Withering was a one off `lasts one turn, resolve effects immediately' hex, whereas it's actually a remains in play :o.

So, yes, I actually agree with T10 and yourself! :) The spell isn't cast and resolved and then lasts one turn, it's effects are being continually resolved (and cannot result in toughness dropping below one as a result of its application) all the time. Sorry for not reading it properly.

Spiney Norman
07-09-2011, 16:40
Fair enough, it's a bit too gateway-ish for my tastes. Regardless of my views on the subject as to which one is most/ least fair, I'm of the opinion that the rules are sufficiently unclear that any rules based decision is probably going to cause a heated debate in the middle of the game and as such it probably needs an FAQ or house rule.

I think its a bit worse than gateway personally. its not hard to string together two spells of relatively modest casting value and it does guarantee wiping out the entire unit, which is relatively unlikely in the case of Gateway. TBH if your regularly struggling to get off 2 spells a turn when your opponent can only bring a single scroll there probably isn't a lot of hope for you.

Besides because the two are very much dependent events its really the casting of the second spell that matters anyway since the combo will only work if you roll maximum T reduction on the withering. In addition Gateway has a sky-high casting cost and would probably be far harder to cast on its own than withering and CotL in the same turn.

Minor hexes stacking to create game-breaking effects like auto-unit removal is broken. If it were me I'd houserule that CotL reduces unmodified toughness since thats very obviously what it is costed for.

Yrrdead
07-09-2011, 17:30
I think its a bit worse than gateway personally. its not hard to string together two spells of relatively modest casting value and it does guarantee wiping out the entire unit, which is relatively unlikely in the case of Gateway. TBH if your regularly struggling to get off 2 spells a turn when your opponent can only bring a single scroll there probably isn't a lot of hope for you.

Besides because the two are very much dependent events its really the casting of the second spell that matters anyway since the combo will only work if you roll maximum T reduction on the withering. In addition Gateway has a sky-high casting cost and would probably be far harder to cast on its own than withering and CotL in the same turn.

Minor hexes stacking to create game-breaking effects like auto-unit removal is broken. If it were me I'd houserule that CotL reduces unmodified toughness since thats very obviously what it is costed for.

Withering casts on a 13. Leper is on a 10. Gateway is on a 15.

Stopping a two spell combination is always easier than stopping a single spell. Your casting cost argument is simply wrong. And offtopic to this thread.

BEEGfrog
07-09-2011, 21:39
As has been pointed by many people RAW is that the unit dies. Any time you are in an environment where RAW applies , e.g. most tournies the unit will be ruled to die.

If your gaming group agrees you can house rule it as you like. But inventing a new rule that spell effects of one spell overrule the spell effects of another spell, without any specific wording in the overriding spell text, is will never convince anyone here without relevant text references from the official rules, army books or faqs. Wanting sometning to be different doesn't make it different, even if it would make it better.

timmytool
08-09-2011, 06:57
As it has been pointed out "the withering is a remain in play spell and not a once off effect spell.... it will continually check for the min of 1 clause for the duration of the spell.

the withering "Remains in play. The Withering is a hex with a range of 18". All models in the target unit have their Toughness reduced by D3 (to a minimum of 1) for the duration of the spell. The Wizard can extend the range of this spell to 36". If he does so, the casting value is increased to 16+.

While I understand the idea that the casting order will affect the outcome, RAW wise this is not the case.

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 07:26
As has been pointed by many people RAW is that the unit dies. Any time you are in an environment where RAW applies , e.g. most tournies the unit will be ruled to die.

If your gaming group agrees you can house rule it as you like. But inventing a new rule that spell effects of one spell overrule the spell effects of another spell, without any specific wording in the overriding spell text, is will never convince anyone here without relevant text references from the official rules, army books or faqs. Wanting sometning to be different doesn't make it different, even if it would make it better.
both spells reduce the toughness to zero not the curse alone, thus withering too. if curse brings it to zero the penalty of withering is lowered because it cannot result in toughness go below one for the duration of the spell. YOU are just inventing new rules of some phantasmic order of casting that are actually irrelevant for a rest in play spell where the limits apply for the whole duration. fact is, the moment you cast curse BOTH spells are active, thus so are the rules. RAW.

Althwen
08-09-2011, 08:22
As it has been pointed out "the withering is a remain in play spell and not a once off effect spell.... it will continually check for the min of 1 clause for the duration of the spell.

the withering "Remains in play. The Withering is a hex with a range of 18". All models in the target unit have their Toughness reduced by D3 (to a minimum of 1) for the duration of the spell. The Wizard can extend the range of this spell to 36". If he does so, the casting value is increased to 16+.

While I understand the idea that the casting order will affect the outcome, RAW wise this is not the case.

This only makes me more adamant that the unit should die, as there's nothing in there that suggests that any other modifiers cannot take the characteristic beneath 1. It simply states that that particular spell effect that you are casting with that single spell, does not take the value under 1. It doesn't say anything about: 'And it cannot be lowered any further for the duration of this spell by any further modifiers no matter the source.'

And there definetly is something like an 'order'of things. If all things were to happen simultaneously, then me casting fireball first, and after having worked that out, I would proceed to lower the same target's toughness, would imply that I would have to go back to the effect of my fireball and take the modified characteristic into account, because all things happen simultaneously. A bit daft, wouldn't you say?

N1AK
08-09-2011, 08:23
I was certain that the answer would be that the unit died until I read TimmyTools post. As he correctly points out the spell is constantly 'in play' the modification to toughness and the limit that goes with it remain relevant until the spell ends.

To give an example, a unit of T3 spearmen gets Wildformed up to T4, then Withered to T1. The wildform is removed, the unit won't die. Why?

Because after Wildform the unit is T3+1: 4
After Wither is added: T3+1-3(to min 1): 1
When Wildform is removed: T3-3(to min 1): 1

It also works the opposite way. A unit of T2 skinks gets withered for -3T, they only drop to T1 (due to min) if they then got 'flesh to stone?' cast giving them +2T they would remain T1 because

After Withering: T2-3(to min 1): 1
After FtS is added: T2+2-3(to min 1): 1


I think the main difference between this logic, and the logic that they should die is that the idea they die is based on -D3 (min 1) becomes effectively -1/-2/-3 once the unit is affected. However I don't believe this is the case.

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 08:28
It doesn't say anything about: 'And it cannot be lowered any further for the duration of this spell by any further modifiers no matter the source.'
it does not have to, because the spell always has a minimum of one. please dont invent more phantasmic rules :rolleyes:

N1AK got it right, as it works the other way around too. a unit with toughness buff and withering hex would not suddenly die when the buff would drop.

Loopstah
08-09-2011, 09:13
Dance of Dreaming: The target unit reduces its leadership by D3 (to a minimum of 2) until the end of the next player turn.

Oh look, a minimum of 2 for an effect that last until the end of the next turn.


Q. If the Masque uses the Dance of Dreaming to reduce an enemy unit's Leadership, can a separate effect (such as the Great Icon of Despair) subsequently reduce that unit's Leadership below 2? (p58)

A. Yes it can, down to a minimum value of 0.

Oh no GW broke the rules because the Dance is still in effect so the "to a minimum of 2" is still in effect as well but it went to down to 0.

Yrrdead
08-09-2011, 09:19
Maybe because the bit in parentheses only has to do with the specific resolution of that individual spell/effect. Not as some catch-all as some are making it out to be. Otherwise it wouldn't be in parentheses.

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 09:23
Oh look, a minimum of 2 for an effect that last until the end of the next turn.

Oh no GW broke the rules because the Dance is still in effect so the "to a minimum of 2" is still in effect as well but it went to down to 0.
applying the resolved penalty until the end of the next turn is not the same as applying the spell effect for the duration of a RIP spell.

N1AK
08-09-2011, 09:27
Oh look, a minimum of 2 for an effect that last until the end of the next turn.

Good point Loopstah. Obviously it's an FAQ answer and so is correct. It is an interest precedent, and I'm interested to know how it applies.

If for example a unit gets Danced, reducing its LD from 7 to 5, does the general then moving within 12" then make their LD9, or would it be LD9-2: 7?

Conversely, if the unit was within the generals bubble and him moving away took their leadership below 2 would that be ok?


It's been a while since I've played against the Masque so I apologise if these answers are covered by the rules are irrelevant.

Loopstah
08-09-2011, 09:30
Good point Loopstah. Obviously it's an FAQ answer and so is correct. It is an interest precedent, and I'm interested to know how it applies.

If for example a unit gets Danced, reducing its LD from 7 to 5, does the general then moving within 12" then make their LD9, or would it be LD9-2: 7?

Conversely, if the unit was within the generals bubble and him moving away took their leadership below 2 would that be ok?


Would be 9-2=7. That's in the FAQ as well.

2nd question I'd have to say probably not as only the Dance would be effecting the Ld and that's self limited.

N1AK
08-09-2011, 12:03
Would be 9-2=7. That's in the FAQ as well.

2nd question I'd have to say probably not as only the Dance would be effecting the Ld and that's self limited.

I don't think it is covered by the FAQ, unless we say that the modifier isn't applied once but is instead constantly checked against the units LD constantly.

The FAQ makes clear that if a unit is affected by 'inspiring presence' when the spell is cast that it is covered. It doesn't cover what happens when the unit is affected on its own leadership and then has its LD improved by 'inspiring presence' etc afterwards.

If the -2 (to min 2) is constantly applied to whatever the units current leadership is, then it should have (until an FAQ altered the rules) made it impossible for this spell to be part of a combination that took LD below 2.

Loopstah
08-09-2011, 12:14
The -2 is applied constantly and thus the Ld of the unit can change through the duration of the Dance.

The FAQ makes it clear that the minimum only applies to the Dance by itself though and shows that other modifiers can reduce the value below the minimum.

The sequencing is the sticky bit though as the FAQ questions uses the term "subsequently" meaning you can Dance then Icon to hit Ld 0 but if you iconed then danced I believe you would be stuck at Ld 2 as the Dance couldn't reduce a Ld of 2 below 2.

Dance > Icon= Ld below 2
Icon > Dance = Limit of 2

Withering > Leper = T below 1
Leper > Withering = Limit of 1

They both would follow the same rules as they do exactly the same thing but to different stats.

This would also apply to Soulblight and The Enfeebling Foe which use the same mechanics.

Althwen
08-09-2011, 12:26
N1AK, with all due respect, but you seem to have set your mind on a certain property and working of mechanics that I don't understand.

You repeat the phrase: 'it is constantly being checked against...'
This sounds a bit like you're talking about a computer programme. I myself am quite the computernoob and don't really think this way.
(In case any of this seems offensive, that is really not my intention, I swear.)

I don't think that you should see Warhammer mechanics like that. It might actually do them some good if they were like computermechanics, but I don't think they're intended to work that way.

Example: You cast Throne of Vines. You then cast Flesh to stone, which increases the target's toughness by 4 because Throne of Vines is on.
Next magic phase your opponent dispels Throne of Vines.
Flesh to Stone will not proceed to 'constantly check against' Throne of Vines still being up. It will remain +4 for the duration of the spell even with Throne of Vines being dispelled.

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 12:53
The -2 is applied constantly

The FAQ makes it clear that the minimum only applies to the Dance by itself though and shows that other modifiers can reduce the value below the minimum.
it is actually only applied once when it is resolved. no one ever said the the limits of one spell affect another one. the limit always apply to itself. the difference is, withering is RIP and thus is still in effect when curse is cast and the effect can NEVER bring the T below 1. when the curse is cast it goes below 1, thus the penalty of withering is lowered. this has nothing to do with the effect of the curse.

in the case of the dance it is resolved and applied till the end of a fixed duration with no further consquences.

you are mixing stuff and the fact that you mix 2 different cases is really disturbing. stop comparing 2 different cases.


N1AK, with all due respect, but you seem to have set your mind on a certain property and working of mechanics that I don't understand.
he meant it metaphorical and you know it. stop trying to search for a reason for the sake of your phantasmic illusions :rolleyes:

Althwen
08-09-2011, 13:26
he meant it metaphorical and you know it. stop trying to search for a reason for the sake of your phantasmic illusions :rolleyes:

Can we agree not to respond to each other anymore? Somehow our ways of communication do not match and leave us both aggrevated with each other.

My apologies and my thanks.

N1AK
08-09-2011, 13:58
N1AK, with all due respect, but you seem to have set your mind on a certain property and working of mechanics that I don't understand.


No need to worry it's a perfectly fair thing to say. What I am trying to get at, and I do have a background in planning and IT ;), is that some things make a change and are complete, others make a change that could actually alter at a later point (such as Withering).

I completely agree that in the case of Dance GW have been very clear. I won't dismiss the argument that the precedent could be seen to answer the question of what happens in similar circumstances. I will say that applying FAQ answers to rules they weren't written for is something I'm not sure on, imagine the hassle trying to extrapolate the latest Mindrazor errata to other rules could cause.

In my mind, and I genuinely believe by the rules (as written) the modifier from Withering (and dance prior to FAQ) inherently limited it from being combined with other sources to drive a value below the minimum.

To use the Dance example.
> A unit of LD5 troops who can see the Icon is LD3.
> The Masque dances the LD down by D3 and gets -3. The unit is then LD2 (due to the Dance minimum)
> The unit now moves so that it can't see the banner. The Dance means their LD is still 2 (even though that means it is now knocking off 3 instead of 1).
> Something happens that means the unit can now see the banner again. By the FAQ and your argument the unit will now be LD 0.

The above is correct because of the FAQ, without the FAQ I do not believe a compelling case for handling it like this exists.

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 14:23
Can we agree not to respond to each other anymore? Somehow our ways of communication do not match and leave us both aggrevated with each other.

My apologies and my thanks.
nothing a bottle of cool beer cannot fix :cool: *cheers*

Loopstah
08-09-2011, 14:25
it is actually only applied once when it is resolved. no one ever said the the limits of one spell affect another one. the limit always apply to itself. the difference is, withering is RIP and thus is still in effect when curse is cast and the effect can NEVER bring the T below 1. when the curse is cast it goes below 1, thus the penalty of withering is lowered. this has nothing to do with the effect of the curse.


Ok, so now you are saying that casting one spell on a unit modifies the way another spell that is already on the unit works? Withering suddenly changes the modifier it has on the unit because you cast another spell on it?

So say I rolled 3 on Withering on a toughness 2 unit.
The unit is now T1.

Now I cast Flesh to Stone on the Unit for +2T.

In your opinion the unit would now have T1 still because the Withering can now do the full -3 originally rolled for because it changes when you cast other spells on the unit?

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 14:42
In your opinion the unit would now have T1 still because the Withering can now do the full -3 originally rolled for because it changes when you cast other spells on the unit?
your initial roll does not magically change just because you cast something else. the real penalty also does not change, only the current amount that you can substract to the limit of 1 toughness. this is not a opinion, this is how it is written:


All models in the target unit have their Toughness reduced by D3 (to a minimum of 1) for the duration of the spell.

so if you throw a 3 it turns to


All models in the target unit have their Toughness reduced by 3 (to a minimum of 1) for the duration of the spell.
thus for the duration of the spell the unit gets a penalty of 3 on toughness to a minimum of 1 toughness every turn this spell still remains in play. it could not be more clear and easy.

Mr_Rose
08-09-2011, 14:45
your initial roll does not magically change just because you cast something else. also this is not a opinion, this is how it is written:



so if you throw a 3 it turns to


thus for the duration of the spell the unit gets a penalty of 3 on toughness to a minimum of 1 toughness. it could not be more clear and easy.
Are you going to answer Loopstah's question directly, or carry on implying and dodging like a politician?

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 14:54
Are you going to answer Loopstah's question directly, or carry on implying and dodging like a politician?
are you serious? what do you not understand about my answer? it is pretty clear what I wrote. obvious troll is obvious :rolleyes:

Loopstah
08-09-2011, 14:54
thus for the duration of the spell the unit gets a penalty of 3 on toughness to a minimum of 1 toughness. it could not be more clear and easy.

For some reason I don't find having to record what I originally rolled for every RiP stat altering spell just incase that stat gets altered at some point in the future clear and easy, I call it confusing.

The way I see it is this.

A T3 unit.
You roll a 3.
You reduce the T down to the minimum.
All reductions are now finished, forget about what you rolled.
The unit now has a reduced toughness of 1 for the duration of the spell.

"For the duration of the spell" just tells you how long they have the reduced toughness not that you keep applying the original dice roll eveyr second for the duration.

There is no mechanic in the game to constantly check the state of the unit to see what its toughness is and to decide if it needs changing or not. This isn't Magic the Gathering.



BTW: Calling someone a Troll for saying something before you edit in the answer is a bit sad really.

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 15:08
"For the duration of the spell" just tells you how long they have the reduced toughness not that you keep applying the original dice roll eveyr second for the duration.

There is no mechanic in the game to constantly check the state of the unit to see what its toughness is and to decide if it needs changing or not. This isn't Magic the Gathering.

yes for the duration of the spell you reduce the target of the amount you rolled to a minimum of 1. you roll for it, you apply the penalty and keep in mind that it cannot go below 1. as a RIP spell it is active all the time till dispelled. where do see the necessities to check anything constantly? also I do not see an issue in noting the roll you made.

also the "mechanic" you are talking about is: "taking a look at the units statline in the armybook" :) you use it all the time, e.g. when you try to wound someone in close combat, you first need to know the toughnes of the target :p



BTW: Calling someone a Troll for saying something before you edit in the answer is a bit sad really.
I read it after I saved my changes :p for some reason I am never satisfied with what I wrote thus edit it million times.

Loopstah
08-09-2011, 15:13
yes for the duration of the spell you reduce the target of the amount you rolled to a minimum of 1. you roll for it, you apply the penalty and keep in mind that it cannot go below 1. as a RIP spell it is active all the time till dispelled. where do see the necessities to check anything constantly?

Because you just said that if you cast Leper on a unit after Withering you reduce the penalty from Withering to keep it at 1 rather than going down to 0.

Either you apply the reduction then forget about it (Leper then can take it to 0 as Withering has stopped checking if it's below 1) or you keep track of the reduction and check it for the duration (Leper can't take it to 0 because Withering keeps altering its value to keep it at 1 or above).

Or are you trying to say something else and I'm just not understanding it?

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 15:35
Because you just said that if you cast Leper on a unit after Withering you reduce the penalty from Withering to keep it at 1 rather than going down to 0.

Either you apply the reduction then forget about it (Leper then can take it to 0 as Withering has stopped checking if it's below 1) or you keep track of the reduction and check it for the duration (Leper can't take it to 0 because Withering keeps altering its value to keep it at 1 or above).

Or are you trying to say something else and I'm just not understanding it?
I think you are confusing the value substracted from the targets toughness with your roll for the spells' effect. the spells effect does not change after you resolved the amount even if the targets toughness may change itself.

if you roll a 3, then it remains 3. due to the spells limitation it can only reduce it to a minimum of 1. it does not change after the spells effect is resolved but the limitation remains on all the time.

it can be also be done the other way round: the target has T3 but is buffed with wyssans and has T4 now. on your turn you cast withering and roll a 3. the T is now 1. on the other players turn wyssans wears off and according to you it would die because the limitation of withering is not valid anymore and the penalty does not change with your logic.

Loopstah
08-09-2011, 15:44
Right I see now.

Your view is that the original dice roll is valid even if you can only reduce it to 1 and that any other changes that increase/ decrease the stat are still affected by the original dice roll and minimum.

My view is that the minimum and the value used for the duration of the spell is decided when you cast the spell and remains fixed.

In your view it is a constant reduction of -x to a minimum of 1 that applies for the duration of the spell.

In my view it is one time reduction of -x to a minimum of 1 that applies for the duration of the spell.

Obviously one of us is wrong and one of us is right but what GW intended is only going to be shown if it gets a FAQ.

So in my view the unit would die once Wyssans wore off.

enyoss
08-09-2011, 18:57
That seems like a pretty good summary Loopstah :).

cptcosmic
08-09-2011, 19:01
In my view it is one time reduction of -x to a minimum of 1 that applies for the duration of the spell.
but that is not what the spell descriptions says and in my opinion is against the rules. why?

1. it is not a "one time reduction" the spell is a RIP spell or actually to be precise, it is always a one time reduction but the reduction is the roll you made
2. when you cast the spell you determine its effect according to the magic phase rules. part of the spell effect is the limitation of a minimum of 1. this lasts as long as the spell lasts as a RIP type spell.
3. if the target then drops to zero and you let it die then you break a part of the spells effect that you have determined when you have cast it.

beside that: you are right, this is how I see it. too bad I cant convince you but atleast you understand my point, that is worth a cool beer :cool: *cheers*

Grey Mage
14-09-2011, 10:05
I dunno, it seems very simple to me- order of operations, like everything else in this game.

So- first you leper, then you wither- well leper reduces it by 1 (say to 2), and then withering reduces it further- but cant go below one.

If you wither first and reduce it by 3 then your stuck at 1, but leper comes along and reduces it to 0.

Withering cant reduce it below one-\ but thats fine, because it didnt- leper did.

If a unit is immune to fire do to a magic item and you cast flames of asuryan on it you do no damage. If you then cast vauls unmaking on that item you dont then get your damage to go through. HOWEVER if you cast vauls unmaking on the item first, and then flames of asuryan you get your hits in, no problem.

Order matters, and its very simple to execute it.

cptcosmic
14-09-2011, 14:06
if you wither first and reduce it by 3 then your stuck at 1, but leper comes along and reduces it to 0.




Withering cant reduce it below one-\ but thats fine, because it didnt- leper did.




Order matters, and its very simple to execute it.
oder matters but not in this case. you bring up again this "order" argument that is actually totally irrelevant in this case.

if you first cast wither, you resolve the effect and it is active all the time as a RIP spell as explained in the magic phase part of the book. part of the effect is that it cannot go below 0 as explained in the description of the spell. according to you, withering is not active any more, only the penalty is but this is not true.

Grey Mage
15-09-2011, 07:12
Doesnt matter if withering is actively giving the penalty or not- because its not reducing anything below 1. Its sticking to its rules, and leper is sticking to its.

cptcosmic
15-09-2011, 10:03
Doesnt matter if withering is actively giving the penalty or not- because its not reducing anything below 1. Its sticking to its rules, and leper is sticking to its.
your argument makes so much sense. you say target is actively giving the enemy a penalty and then you say it does not. :rolleyes:

Grey Mage
15-09-2011, 18:16
I said neither of those things good sir- I said it doesnt matter of the penalty is active- ie an effect constantly being applied- or passive- a penalty that lasts until removed.

What matters is that the first penalty is not/did not drop it below one. An entirely different spell is doing that. Both spells are thus operating within their rules, and either way the application of the first penalty first and the second penalty second will come up with the same results.

badguyshaveallthefun
15-09-2011, 22:16
@ cptcosmic : What happens if both withering and leper are allowed to run for three turns; are you ACTUALLY saying that even though leper is reducing the targets toughness to 0 (ending it's existence), they are still alive because withering won't let their toughness go below 1? :rolleyes:

Order that the spell is cast does matter, as many folks prior have said.

cptcosmic
16-09-2011, 07:42
@ cptcosmic : What happens if both withering and leper are allowed to run for three turns; are you ACTUALLY saying that even though leper is reducing the targets toughness to 0 (ending it's existence), they are still alive because withering won't let their toughness go below 1? :rolleyes:

Order that the spell is cast does matter, as many folks prior have said.
your comment makes no sence at all :rolleyes: have you actually read what leper and withering does or what was discussed in this thread?

Yrrdead
16-09-2011, 07:58
His comment does make sense. And I doubt he has read this entire thread.

See you both are right :) .

badguyshaveallthefun
16-09-2011, 15:25
your comment makes no sence at all :rolleyes: have you actually read what leper and withering does or what was discussed in this thread?

I have read the entire thread actually. (I'm surprised the discussion went on as long as it did)

And yes, I do know what both of these spells do. ;)

Let me rephrase the question then if you didn't understand it originally:

IF for some reason Curse of the Leper was allowed to stay up and running for a sufficient number of turns to make the toughness of the unit that it was cast on go to zero (ending it's existence) and the unit also had withering cast on it, your argument and your logic says that that unit would NOT be dead because withering wouldn't let their toughness go to zero.

Which makes absolutely no sense.

Yrrdead
16-09-2011, 20:04
Actually I think we have a case where you both have provided examples that are nonsensical.

His was Withering(-3)+T2+Wyssans Wildform. Meaning in your phase you cast Wildform on your skinks. Skinks are T3. I cast Withering in my phase and reduce T by 3. Skinks are now T1. In your phase Wyssans Wildform goes away. Skinks are now....T1 by his argument. By your argument they are T0.

It was a pretty important point in this thread.

RTGamer
17-09-2011, 01:53
Apart from the fact that Withering has to follow it's own rules and dthat it cannot reduce it below 1.

Leper has no such restriction.

Liber
17-09-2011, 02:57
huh...i guess i shouldn't be surprised this is still being debated, but i am.

anways as other have said, order matters. and yes withering + curse of the leper is an autokill. all the points have been argued so i just wanna throw in my weight with the majority (not nescessarily against cptcosmic...again ;)

OldMaster
17-09-2011, 20:01
as soon as you cast the curse both spells are in effect at the same time. there is no order of applying penalties, the order you are referring to is a phantasm, it does not exist. you are only casting the spells in different order but the spells are in effect at the same time after the second spell is cast thus either both spells bring the target to toughness 0 (which includes withering that has a minimum of 1) or none reduce it to 0. but we can agree that we disagree :p


both spells reduce the toughness to zero not the curse alone, thus withering too. if curse brings it to zero the penalty of withering is lowered because it cannot result in toughness go below one for the duration of the spell. YOU are just inventing new rules of some phantasmic order of casting that are actually irrelevant for a rest in play spell where the limits apply for the whole duration. fact is, the moment you cast curse both spells are active, thus so are the rules. RAW.


it does not have to, because the spell always has a minimum of one. please dont invent more phantasmic rules :rolleyes:

N1AK got it right, as it works the other way around too. a unit with toughness buff and withering hex would not suddenly die when the buff would drop.


it is actually only applied once when it is resolved. no one ever said the the limits of one spell affect another one. the limit always apply to itself. the difference is, withering is RIP and thus is still in effect when curse is cast and the effect can NEVER bring the T below 1. when the curse is cast it goes below 1, thus the penalty of withering is lowered. this has nothing to do with the effect of the curse.

in the case of the dance it is resolved and applied till the end of a fixed duration with no further consquences.

you are mixing stuff and the fact that you mix 2 different cases is really disturbing. stop comparing 2 different cases.


he meant it metaphorical and you know it. stop trying to search for a reason for the sake of your phantasmic illusions :rolleyes:

:D sorry had to do it.

It's a very interesting discussion, actually.

My point, however (as most of the time) fixates on the mental representation of what actually happens on the battlefield and personally, I can envision a unit being weakened by the miasmic waves of Withering to the point that the Curse would cause their heads to chip off their spinal chords as their already abused cells are infused with the decay-inducing might of Nurgle.
And indeed, a unit with Wyssan's Wildform may feel strong and tough in their bestial form and stay alive during the Withering's effect due to their hearts racing faster etc. But when the Wildform wears off, they might just collapse from the sudden exhaustion.

However, Curse of the Leper specifically states the possibility of killing a whole unit with it; Withering, however, makes an impression that you can't kill with it alone. I would allow the Wildform unit to survive because of that, I think. But when Papa is involved, things get a liiiiitle bit more nasty.

enyoss
18-09-2011, 09:40
Which makes absolutely no sense.

Maybe not, but seeing as Withering is a remains in play spell, which is why we have the problem in the first place, you could always just choose to end it and finish off the unit via the Curse of the Leper's usual rules. Problem solved :D. RAW, common sense, and a reasonable outcome all at once!

EDIT: To make it clear, although it is pretty ridiculous, I think Withering would stop Curse of the Leper from killing the unit. But because the casting player can always avert this outcome and kill the unit anyway, I consider this particularly weird RAW to be one which is still entirely within the spirit of the rules :), i.e. a RAW which is so RAW, its RAI (sorry for the acronym hell!).

Capt._Jaelinek
18-09-2011, 14:08
I think this is a fascinating discussion, so I'm going to toss in my 2 cents.

Let's look at a few possible scenarios (assuming our friendly wizards get the 2 spells needed).

#1 Withering is cast first, lowers T to 1. CofL cast 2nd, lowers T to 0. Unit dies.
I think most of us agree on this.

#2 Wither is cast first, lowers T to 2. CofL cast 2nd, lowers T to 1. Next turn neither spell is dispelled. Withering cannot lower T below 1. CofL lowers to T0 and unit dies.

#3 Wither is cast, lowers T to 2, CofL cast, Lowers to T1. Wildform cast in other player turn and raises T to 2 (I think cptcosmic opinion about tracking die rolls is very interesting and I would tend to agree with him, but I don't see where in the rules this is expressly stated). Next turn CofL lowers T back to 1. Wildform goes away in other player turn and T goes to 0. Unit dies.

#4 CofL cast first, lowers to T2. Wither cast lowers to T1 (and can't lower beyond T1). Turn 2 (assume neither spell is dispelled) CofL lowerst to T0 and unit dies.

#5 CofL cast first, lowers to T2. Next turn CofL lowers to T1, Withering cast, but can't lower below T1 (due to the limitation of 1 in spell description).

#5 is where the debate really heats up. Cptcosmic would disagree in that Withering lowers T to 1 and then CofL stacks, but I think the rules for Withering are pretty clear. Withering has no effect on a T1 model.

So again in my opinion, the order of the spell casting does matter, but is turn dependent also.

Loopstah
18-09-2011, 18:06
I think this is a fascinating discussion, so I'm going to toss in my 2 cents.

Yes, that sounds right for each scenario.

In each case it is CofL that lowers the T below 1.