PDA

View Full Version : Pick up and Nikkit



Judochop
24-09-2011, 20:59
1)On the giants roll of "pick up and" most results are "removed as casualty"!. Can one use a ward save vs that? Ive always played it as no, but some questioned it the other day saying it doesnt say no ward save. What do you think?

2) Nikkit Nikkit- "The caster can now use that item". Seems pretty clear to me that the caster can use any item he doesnt own.. even magic armor. Yes normally you can not use magic armor with a caster but in this case I would say yes. What do you think?

Thanks.

papabearshane
24-09-2011, 21:06
No ward save on Models and no armour save on them either. If they dont wound him they get eatedn even multi wound chars.

Couldnt say on the other one but I would think no.

TMATK
24-09-2011, 21:08
1) Ward saves are taken against wounds. Remove model means just that.

Korraz
24-09-2011, 22:21
Giant issue has already been solved.

Yes, he can use the armor. Special rules always trump BRB rules, so he can wear the armor if he wishes to.

Mr_Rose
24-09-2011, 22:38
1) yeah, what everyone else said; no saves at all, except the chance you get to wound the giant: Your character may well have a ward save but all that means for him is that he's now sitting inside a nice protective bubble inside the giant's pants or wherever. Eventually he'll either get out or the device will fail, but either way he ain't in the game no more.

2) Normally, wizards can't take armour because they don't have the option. There isn't actually a rule that says that wizards can't ever cast if they somehow gain armour, just one that makes oblique references to how difficult it is to do then explains what this means in game terms.

T10
25-09-2011, 07:39
I want to see a Goblin Shaman nick Settra's Chariot. That's going to make him REALLY abgry.

Korraz
25-09-2011, 09:20
I don't think the chariot is a magic item. It's a mount.

stainawarjar
25-09-2011, 09:53
But what if a goblin nicks all of Archaons bling? Who is the Everchosen then?

Korraz
25-09-2011, 15:12
The goblin, obviously.

Harwammer
25-09-2011, 17:42
I don't think the chariot is a magic item. It's a mount.

SETTRA ... MAGIC ITEMS: ... The Chariot of the Gods

It's a magic item... It looks like poor old Settra having to slog it on foot like the peasants!

Korraz
25-09-2011, 17:44
Well, yes, strictly RAW it works. Strictly RAW you can also dismount a Lizard riding on that special Cold One.

musical
25-09-2011, 18:34
SETTRA ... MAGIC ITEMS: ... The Chariot of the Gods

It's a magic item... It looks like poor old Settra having to slog it on foot like the peasants!

Wow Chariot jacked, thats really crazy, bet Settra never saw that one coming :eek:

Scalebug
25-09-2011, 18:44
TBH, there is some indication of the intent of "un-nikkability" of such items; in that magic items that are (more or less) separate model representations like mounts or houses cannot be destroyed by Vauls Unmaking (High Elf FAQ)...

Although, sure, by the letter of the rules you can do it.

My money is on a SOM FAQ saying "no" to it eventually.

Sexiest_hero
25-09-2011, 19:06
I can just see a Goblin saying "Gimme your Chariot, b*&^! while the other skeleton screams like a banshee. 80's movie style.

Harwammer
25-09-2011, 19:45
Goblins love chariots; if you're gonna nick something it may as well be someone's vehicle, right? :D

That said, I agree with Scalebug, the hypothetical SoM FAQ (I doubt it will come out soon/at all) would likely say 'can't steal magic item mounts'.

musical
25-09-2011, 20:18
TBH, there is some indication of the intent of "un-nikkability" of such items; in that magic items that are (more or less) separate model representations like mounts or houses cannot be destroyed by Vauls Unmaking (High Elf FAQ)...

Although, sure, by the letter of the rules you can do it.

My money is on a SOM FAQ saying "no" to it eventually.

I don't see why not, there are plenty of crazy combos you can end up with this spell, it is only part of the random fun of SoM. Plus it is a big green hand from the sky nicking your things :shifty: , it is all fair game to me ;)

Scalebug
25-09-2011, 21:35
While random, fun crazy combos are indeed anticipated with the spell, I'd still lean towards a "no" being the final verdict...

Reasons are threefold;

1) You have the whole physical model deal; the reason for not letting Vauls Unmaking work is that it would clash with the representation on the tabletop, really, rather than some rules mechanic that wouldn't work. And you ultimately need a chariot (or whatever "actual model"-style magic item it is you are stealing) model, and while most people would be ok with lending their chariot to you for a while, the whole handing over models to your opponent is not something you want to build into the rules, for people who are not comfortable with it.

2) Were he to get on it, he is now a living, breakable Gobbo on an Khemrian Undead chariot that is unbreakable and unstable. Rules prohibit characters from joining units that have those rules, for the purpose of avoiding their rules colliding. What if he gets into combat and loses? CR wounds on the chariot, and breaktest for the goblin means double penalty, and ignoring one of these rules means the "other part" of the gobbo/undead combo unit getting an advantage. Look at how Necromancers used to be not "undead" but got that rule for the purpose of working with their units, even if technically they fluffwise are not.

3) What if he is in a unit when nikking the chariot? He cannot be anymore... in other circumstances (eg. Transformation of Kadon) there is a resolution noted, with what rules you are allowed to suspend (there, the "Monster" can still be in the unit, even if monsters normally may not, and the spell cannot be cast if there is no room to place the new model)

Tregar
26-09-2011, 18:34
I don't think the chariot is a magic item. It's a mount.

Don't guess, check the army book...

Korraz
26-09-2011, 18:45
Thanks for that tipp, bro.
I knew it was a magic item, but I thought it had some other classfications/rulings. And unfortunately my book as 130 kilometres away when I wrote that.

musical
26-09-2011, 19:32
While random, fun crazy combos are indeed anticipated with the spell, I'd still lean towards a "no" being the final verdict...

Reasons are threefold;

1) You have the whole physical model deal; the reason for not letting Vauls Unmaking work is that it would clash with the representation on the tabletop, really, rather than some rules mechanic that wouldn't work. And you ultimately need a chariot (or whatever "actual model"-style magic item it is you are stealing) model, and while most people would be ok with lending their chariot to you for a while, the whole handing over models to your opponent is not something you want to build into the rules, for people who are not comfortable with it.

2) Were he to get on it, he is now a living, breakable Gobbo on an Khemrian Undead chariot that is unbreakable and unstable. Rules prohibit characters from joining units that have those rules, for the purpose of avoiding their rules colliding. What if he gets into combat and loses? CR wounds on the chariot, and breaktest for the goblin means double penalty, and ignoring one of these rules means the "other part" of the gobbo/undead combo unit getting an advantage. Look at how Necromancers used to be not "undead" but got that rule for the purpose of working with their units, even if technically they fluffwise are not.

3) What if he is in a unit when nikking the chariot? He cannot be anymore... in other circumstances (eg. Transformation of Kadon) there is a resolution noted, with what rules you are allowed to suspend (there, the "Monster" can still be in the unit, even if monsters normally may not, and the spell cannot be cast if there is no room to place the new model)

Man you are no fun, your arguement is basically because the consequences is too complicated so let avoid it. A bit like saying nothing can travel above relativistic speed because it can potentially violate causality.

On 1 and 2, I don't see any problem just sticking to the same base size and 'imagine' the goblin is on a chariot rule wise, just like any other magic item.

On point 3 you do realise that he need to be sitting on a arcane fulcrum to cast a cataclysm spell? Have you actually played many games of SoM? Sorry but I got the feeling you are one of those people who constantly think and debate the rule but don't actually play much.

Yrrdead
26-09-2011, 19:46
On point 3 you do realise that he need to be sitting on a arcane fulcrum to cast a cataclysm spell? Have you actually played many games of SoM? Sorry but I got the feeling you are one of those people who constantly think and debate the rule but don't actually play much.

Hate to snip but you are incorrect here. Being on a fulcrum isn't a requirement to cast cataclysm spells.

Scalebug
26-09-2011, 19:49
Woah? What's your problem? Antagonise with strangers much in the real world as well? :rolleyes:

I was merely listing my argumentation as to why an educated guess is on a FAQ saying "no" to it, I don't plan to come to your house and force you to play a certain way.

As for the third point, I added it as an afterthought, then I suspected (had no book in front of me) that I had forgotten it was a cataclysmic spell rather than a cantrip, and wouldn't actually be an issue, but did not bother to remove it.

But really...

Edit: This was of course @musical, not Yrrdead, who got a post in and pushed it to a new page... :)
Edit 2: Also, Yrrdead is right, and thus my third point should have been there al along, you don't have to be on the fulcrums to cast the spells, other wizards on your side can be there to fulfill the Equilibrium criteria needed for the goblin shaman to cast the spell.

Trigger87
26-09-2011, 19:53
On point 3 you do realise that he need to be sitting on a arcane fulcrum to cast a cataclysm spell?

Your army only has to control the fulcrums, not the specific wizard
page 32 of the storm of magic book
sorry

musical
26-09-2011, 19:58
On the cataclysm spell I stand corrected :p

@Scalebug chill out man it is nothing personal, you are perfectly entitled to your option and I am just saying I disagree with you. ;)

sulla
26-09-2011, 19:58
While random, fun crazy combos are indeed anticipated with the spell, I'd still lean towards a "no" being the final verdict...

Reasons are threefold;

1) You have the whole physical model deal; the reason for not letting Vauls Unmaking work is that it would clash with the representation on the tabletop, really, rather than some rules mechanic that wouldn't work. And you ultimately need a chariot (or whatever "actual model"-style magic item it is you are stealing) model, and while most people would be ok with lending their chariot to you for a while, the whole handing over models to your opponent is not something you want to build into the rules, for people who are not comfortable with it.

I think you're making this bit up. The only FAQ I see for Vaul's unmaking is the one that stops it unmaking something that has already been summoned to the field. Stealing (or unmaking) a magic item that is a mount is completely different.

My vote is yes and he becomes a goblin in an unbreakable and crumbling unit. move him out of any other unit he was in. He may now potentially crumble if he loses combat by enough while the chariot still exists.

Scalebug
26-09-2011, 22:29
I think you're making this bit up. The only FAQ I see for Vaul's unmaking is the one that stops it unmaking something that has already been summoned to the field. Stealing (or unmaking) a magic item that is a mount is completely different.

Hmm... it is 100% clear, I think you are not getting what the answer is at all there...

Q: What happens when you use Vaul’s Unmaking to destroy a
magic item that is represented by a model in game, such as a mount or
Fozzrik’s Folding Fortress? (p47)
A: Nothing. We assume the magic item is what summons the
mount/fortress, so destroying the item will have no in-game
effect.


My vote is yes and he becomes a goblin in an unbreakable and crumbling unit. move him out of any other unit he was in. He may now potentially crumble if he loses combat by enough while the chariot still exists.

And I was making things up? :)

If anything, and you want to go that route, it could be argued that settra's stolen chariot may not be unbreakable and unstable, as the "Nehekran Undead" rule could be seen as belonging to Settra, not actually listed for his ride... It is not a very strong argument though...

Grimgormx
26-09-2011, 22:43
It would be great to cast this spell with IF on a Slan with that art. that lets him pass a miscast to an enemy mage.

Gobo cast it with IF
Steals cup of hand (I think this is the name)
As the spell effects are resolved before the miscast, the gobo gets the cup
then the miscast is resolved versus the slan

Great fun!!!

sulla
26-09-2011, 23:20
Hmm... it is 100% clear, I think you are not getting what the answer is at all there...

Q: What happens when you use Vaul’s Unmaking to destroy a
magic item that is represented by a model in game, such as a mount or
Fozzrik’s Folding Fortress? (p47)
A: Nothing. We assume the magic item is what summons the
mount/fortress, so destroying the item will have no in-game
effect.


.
I stand corrected. Somehow missed the 'mount' in the FAQ.