PDA

View Full Version : Tzeentch steal spells from metal lore / lore attribute



BlackPawl
06-02-2013, 11:46
In the new book is the tzeentch spell with that you can steal spells from other mages, if successful you can cast them, but you have to use the tzeentch lore attribute.

That's fine with most spells, but if you get a damage spell from the lore of metal you can not use it - because only the lore attribute says how you wound the target, not the spell.

Your opinion?

kefkah
06-02-2013, 12:03
So i just do D6 hits and when i roll to wound the game glitches down?. How do you resolve the hits?

T10
06-02-2013, 12:17
Yes, the game crashes. Restore from last successful (armour) save.

-T10

pililuk
06-02-2013, 12:18
I expect this will be in the very first Faq/errata, itcomes down to house ruling/ deciding with your opponent before it comes up. Either it cant do anything thanks to not being able to do any damage, or you disregard everything and use both lore attributes.

kefkah
06-02-2013, 12:19
makes sense lol:D

Pedneault
06-02-2013, 22:08
I don't understand the problem here, it is written that if you steal a spell and then you use it, it's the lore attribute of the spell you cast that works.

EX : you steal a spell from the lore of life, you successfully cast it, you or another character in a 12'' range regains a wound.

Quite simple.

Leth Shyish'phak
06-02-2013, 22:24
Except that that isn't what it says at all. The spell you steal uses the attribute from the Lore of Tzeentch instead of its own.

DaemonReign
06-02-2013, 23:34
Maybe Cruddace figured since Tzeentch casters have access to this Lore there's no reason they'd ever want to glean a spell from it..?
Just playing the Devil's advocate.. Oh god what a failure. *lol*

decker_cky
07-02-2013, 00:14
General protection fault. Restart the game and don't try that again.

T10
07-02-2013, 07:15
I don't understand (...)

Then let me explain: The Glean Magic spell explicitly tells you to use the Lore of Tzeentch lore attribute instead of the spell's original lore attribute.

-T10

Senor
10-02-2013, 16:29
So what is the tzeentch lore attribute, what does it state:?

T10
10-02-2013, 16:31
It has an additional effect that allows the Wizard to recover some of the power dice spent on the spell and in no way helps decide what Strength or To Wound roll to use for a spell stolen from the Lore of Metal.

-T10

Senor
10-02-2013, 16:34
That's a quick response..thanx.

N1AK
11-02-2013, 07:22
Definitely strikes me as an oversight but I don't think they'll do anything about it. I doubt they'll go back on making us use the Tzeentch attribute and I doubt they'll want to muddy the water on not using the original attributes. At the moment the rules are clear, you can't cause damage with lore of metal spells, even if they are a little silly!

BlackPawl
11-02-2013, 07:44
Definitely strikes me as an oversight but I don't think they'll do anything about it. I doubt they'll go back on making us use the Tzeentch attribute and I doubt they'll want to muddy the water on not using the original attributes. At the moment the rules are clear, you can't cause damage with lore of metal spells, even if they are a little silly!

Yes, I think that's the point. You can steal the spell from the enemy but you can not use it!

Lord Solar Plexus
11-02-2013, 12:36
Indeed. It's not a huge drawback though. The spell is not so much about using additional spells but about neutralizing the opponent's wizard. A level 1 would be completely useless.

theunwantedbeing
11-02-2013, 13:19
It won't do any damage if the lore attribute is in effect will it?

I don't see where the confusion is.

Lord Solar Plexus
11-02-2013, 14:05
There never wasn't much confusion I gather.

HurrDurr
12-02-2013, 19:27
At work now so I don't have the exact wording but as far as I remember the lore attribute was more of a post-it note or a reminder, basically a way for them to not have to include that description in every single spells details, I think they still do damage aside from the strictest of rules lawyers, no one can say with a straight face "GW intentionally left metal spells out of the equation but every single other spell lore is fine"

I'll check and provide a copy paste of lore description if no one has by the time I'm home and have my book in front of me.

I'm not pointing fingers but I can see this getting "abused" (imo) and it annoys me because it seems impossible that it was RAI.

Lord Inquisitor
12-02-2013, 19:37
Yup. The Lore of Tzeentch is probably the highest concentration of "say what now?" moments in the book. There's this, there's whether or not warpflame is y'know, flaming. Then there's the whole question of how Treason works. The lowest value in the unit? Lowest value... like the lowest on a split profile unit (e.g. cavalry use horse's Ld?). What happens when there is a component like a chariot that has Ld - or Ld 0?

On the plus side the lore is so bad it isn't likely to come up very often. ;)

Lord Solar Plexus
13-02-2013, 14:41
Depends which forum you visit. Dakka highly recommends it.

shakedown47
13-02-2013, 17:13
Not being able to do anything useful with a very small percentage of spells, in a game with 160 unique spells, while still denying your opponent their use, doesn't seem like a travesty or an oversight of any kind IMO.

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2013, 17:37
Depends which forum you visit. Dakka highly recommends it.
Perhaps they do but then what would they know :p

It has its uses to be sure and I expect to see it on a secondary caster on a disc. But it lacks any buffs or force magnifiers and granting the enemy regen is quickly going to be a real pest. Good for chaff-hunting and there are a couple of good spells but it suffers a lot in comparison with the other Lores chaos has access to.


Not being able to do anything useful with a very small percentage of spells, in a game with 160 unique spells, while still denying your opponent their use, doesn't seem like a travesty or an oversight of any kind IMO.
Not specifying what happens in situations where a spell is stolen that requires the attribute to function is still sloppy. There's so many aspects of this book that seem sloppy or are going to cause some head-scratching. Cruddace seems to get that you have to specify with frenzy whether both the rider or mount gets frenzy (e.g. with the Skullcrusher cavalry), but then neglects to say whether the Mark of Khorne is meant to apply to normal mounts. This isn't a new issue but again, not very clear and seems like a very obvious thing to miss. Likewise with Slaanesh spells giving enemy units Random Movement. The random movement rules are written from the perspective of a single model. Using those rules on a unit can cause some really weird effects. What happens when a unit of, for example, handgunners 20 models wide pivots and moves? Do they ignore other units when pivoting? Can they rotate move than 2xM? Which flank do they count as hitting if they pivot from one flank to another? It may not be an oversight but it presents situations in the rules that the rules don't cover at all and we'll need quite a few FAQs to figure out what the intent is here.

HurrDurr
13-02-2013, 19:25
this was paraphrased from a text will clean up when I get the chance.

"Magic missiles and direct damage spells from the lore do not have a strength-their to wound score is always equal to the unmodified armour save of the target. no armour saves are permitted against wounds caused by spells from the metal lore and are all flaming attacks"

So it's apparent that there is room to argue that stolen metal spells do nothing, it doesn't look at all supported by RAI, seems like they didn't want people benefitting from two lore attributes from a single cast, no free heal from a life spell, which is a step you can ignore/skip. I'd be repeating myself if I defended the lore of metal's attribute twice and not much that can be said hasn't been. Hope no one loses out on beating up some knights.

(right when i shelf my WE and buy chaos it turns out knights are still going to have everything bounce off them)

Knifeparty
13-02-2013, 19:33
Perhaps he saw this issue when writing the book and that's why he gave Tzeentch casters the ability to take metal as well...

Also, the Lore of Tzeentch is quite strong. You just have to be smart enough to use it properly not just throw 6 dice at Gateway and watch units disappear off the board anymore.

Lord Inquisitor
13-02-2013, 19:35
That's fair enough, but from a rules perspective a stolen Lore of Metal spell such as a searing doom causes D6 hits with a strength unspecified. "It doesn't work" is a reasonable workaround but from a strict rules perspective it is simply undefined.

HurrDurr
13-02-2013, 20:02
good point knife, and as Lord Inquisitor said, although I think it's a nasty tactic GW did leave the rules loose enough, I thinking dicing it pregame is the best answer until a faq "expecting one shortly after the next 3 WE books"

Mr_Rose
13-02-2013, 20:10
Blatant wishing: maybe they're going to amend the Metal lore so that the present effect becomes a special rule like Warpflame and the Attribute becomes something like "roll a D6 every time you successfully cast a LoM spell; for every 6 you roll, the caster's armour save permanently improves by one (they can still cast spells)."?

shakedown47
14-02-2013, 16:48
[COLOR="#EE82EE"]Not specifying what happens in situations where a spell is stolen that requires the attribute to function is still sloppy. There's so many aspects of this book that seem sloppy or are going to cause some head-scratching. Cruddace seems to get that you have to specify with frenzy whether both the rider or mount gets frenzy (e.g. with the Skullcrusher cavalry), but then neglects to say whether the Mark of Khorne is meant to apply to normal mounts. This isn't a new issue but again, not very clear and seems like a very obvious thing to miss. Likewise with Slaanesh spells giving enemy units Random Movement. The random movement rules are written from the perspective of a single model. Using those rules on a unit can cause some really weird effects. What happens when a unit of, for example, handgunners 20 models wide pivots and moves? Do they ignore other units when pivoting? Can they rotate move than 2xM? Which flank do they count as hitting if they pivot from one flank to another? It may not be an oversight but it presents situations in the rules that the rules don't cover at all and we'll need quite a few FAQs to figure out what the intent is here.

How is it not specified? The rules are quite clear, why would they need to re-state their own rules when there is no ambiguity? To answer your direct question, what happens when a spell is stolen that requires the attribute to function is this: the target of glean magic loses that spell, and the caster of glean magic can cast it, albeit knowing beforehand it will have no effect and will merely be a waste of power dice. If he does try to cast a spell like Metal's signature spell, for example, if the casting value of the spell is met and not dispelled, then the target will suffer D6/2D6 hits with no possibility to wound, and the caster may then gain power dice equal to the number of 6's rolled to cast the spell.

Lord Inquisitor
14-02-2013, 18:17
How is it not specified?
When the rules describing what effect a "hit" has are in the attribute and the rules tell you to ignore the attribute, you have a spell that inflicts hits with an unspecified effect.

There is no rule that says "if no effect of a hit is specified, treat as a hit with no effect". Think about it this way, if the rules were a computer program that resolved hits and wounds, instead of getting a result of "0 wounds", you'd get an error message because it can't resolve that action unless you added a bit of code that stipulates what to do when an undefined wounding step is encountered.

Yes, we're not computers and I think we can bypass this particular problem without our brains crashing. It can even be argued that since there's only a small number of spells that have this issue, it's easier to just leave it for the FAQ than cluttering up the text. But especially with all the other rather obvious glitches and omissions in the WoC book, it seems sloppy.