PDA

View Full Version : Ethereal questions.



DeathlessDraich
03-05-2007, 15:11
1. "suffer no penalties from ... other reductions in movement e.g. Pit of Shades"

Q1. How have you interpreted this with 7th ed?
The only movement in 6th Ed Pit of Shades is climbing out of the hole and movement at half speed i.e. hits are still inflicted.

2. "can't be harmed in combat except by attacks from magical weapons

Q2. What about Enchanted Items, Magical Banners etc which are not magic missiles but inflict/modifies hits/weapons e.g. Orc's Kickin Boots, Banner of Butchery, Skaven Bands of Power, Beasts Staff of Darkoth, Beast Banner. etc
LM Venom of the Frog - seems to be a magical weapon.

Q3. Some players insist that Ethereals can only be harmed by shooting which is magical. I do not see any reason for this. Is there something I've missed?

Vattendroppe
03-05-2007, 15:16
Q1. I'm not toofamiliar with.

Q2. It it's under magical weapons its attacks is obviously magical. Other wise it's written in the rules to the specific item that the attacks that is effected by X becomes magical.

Q3. Nope, they're just absolutely wrong.

Atrahasis
03-05-2007, 15:35
1. "suffer no penalties from ... other reductions in movement e.g. Pit of Shades"

Q1. How have you interpreted this with 7th ed?
The only movement in 6th Ed Pit of Shades is climbing out of the hole and movement at half speed i.e. hits are still inflicted. The example is no longer relevant as PoS no longer affects movement.


2. "can't be harmed in combat except by attacks from magical weapons

Q2. What about Enchanted Items, Magical Banners etc which are not magic missiles but inflict/modifies hits/weapons e.g. Orc's Kickin Boots, Banner of Butchery, Skaven Bands of Power, Beasts Staff of Darkoth, Beast Banner. etc
LM Venom of the Frog - seems to be a magical weapon.Items which modify attacks only make attacks magical if the item says so. I believe Venom of the Firefly Frog does where Bands of Power, Banner of Butchery, Beast Banner, Vitriolic Totem etc do not.

The Staff of Darkoth is a difficult one as it is obviously magical and obviously a weapon. So obviously that GW didn't bother to state it. It was in one of the FAQs that disappeared at the dawn of 7th.


Q3. Some players insist that Ethereals can only be harmed by shooting which is magical. I do not see any reason for this. Is there something I've missed?RAW they can be harmed by any shooting at all, but I don't think anyone plays that way.

Asrai Wraith
03-05-2007, 17:38
So does Pit of Shades affect Ethereals? Taken RAW [like a good steak], it can be interpreted as having no effect.

Is that last statement can or cannot be harmed at all?

Atrahasis
03-05-2007, 18:12
Taken RAW [like a good steak], it can be interpreted as having no effect.I don't see how. Not being affected by movement penalties does not make a unit immune to harm.

DeathlessDraich
03-05-2007, 18:47
Thank you for all the contributions so far.
Q1 and Q3 are more or less answered.

1. Pit of Shades does affect Ethereals
3. All shooting affect Ethereals.

Just a little bit more needed for Q2 which is dependent on a basic question.

Q2A: Is gas a weapon? Plague Censer gas is magical and forces a Toughness test. Do Ethereals have to take this test?

This is slightly off topic but while I'm on the question of magical attacks:
Do Jezzails/Ratling guns affect Ethereals in *combat*?
Skaven rules state that the Jezzail has magical attacks. What reason is there to assume that this does not refer to the Jezzail model but only the shots made by them.

Jonke
03-05-2007, 19:53
What reason is there to assume that this does not refer to the Jezzail model but only the shots made by them.

Common sense? ;)

black-francis
03-05-2007, 19:56
in the banshee entry in the VC book, it is stated that anythng that affects movement has no effect on etheral creatures. the pit of shades would not effect the banshee. its a ghost, boooo!

Festus
03-05-2007, 20:26
Oh my, DD, are you at it again? :rolleyes:

Ethereals can simply only be harmed by a Magival source. That's it. Period. They usually can crumble by combat result, but any actual harm done to the Ethereals must be magical...

Festus

Atrahasis
03-05-2007, 20:40
Ethereals can simply only be harmed by a Magival source. That's it. Period. They usually can crumble by combat result, but any actual harm done to the Ethereals must be magical...That's not strictly what the rules say :cheese:

Entreri Bloodletter
03-05-2007, 20:59
What about something like Manbane from the Dark Elf book. Its not exactly a magic item but it enhances mundane weapons, can it hurt ethereals?

Atrahasis
03-05-2007, 21:08
No, manbane does not grant magical attacks.

ZomboCom
03-05-2007, 22:11
Gah, this raises its ugly head again.

Ethereal units can only be hurt by magical attacks in combat (note the uncapitalised c in combat).

People seem to assume that combat means the same as Close Combat, but the two terms are not the same. The term combat is never defined, and a dictionary definition definately includes shooting attacks.

Sanjuro
03-05-2007, 22:18
What a shining example of sloppy rules writing. That addition, 'in combat', seems completely redundant, if that is how it is worded. That is sort of like adding 'in this universe' at the end of every sentence in the rule book.

Models rank up in units... in this universe.

Magic comes after movement... in this universe.

Break tests are rolled with two dice... in this universe.

Masque
03-05-2007, 23:23
The Green Knight is also Ethereal and the Bret book is newer than the VC book. His wording for Ethereal is that he 'can't be harmed except by magical attacks.'

DeathlessDraich
04-05-2007, 08:38
Gah, this raises its ugly head again.

Ethereal units can only be hurt by magical attacks in combat (note the uncapitalised c in combat).

People seem to assume that combat means the same as Close Combat, but the two terms are not the same. The term combat is never defined, and a dictionary definition definately includes shooting attacks.

Nothing is defined formally in Warhammer as far as I know. Let's use the word explained instead of defined.
Other than combat (Close combat, beg your pardon :p ) attacks, there are shooting attacks, magic spell 'attacks' and characteristic tests 'attacks'. The last occurs during Close combat or magic.

As far as I can see in the rules,
Shooting 'attacks' are referred to and explained as 'shooting' or sometimes 'shooting hits'.
Magic spells uses 'magic' or 'spells' as substitute words.

The word 'combat' is not used with reference to shooting or magic.
Can it really be assumed that combat encompasses more than just Close Combat?
If so, then what about rules where the word 'combat' is used to mean 'Close Combat' e.g.
pg 54 "At the start of the first turn of combat"
pg 61 "Monstrous mounts in combat"
pg63 "These hits are inflicted at the very beginning of combat"


What a shining example of sloppy rules writing. That addition, 'in combat', seems completely redundant, if that is how it is worded. That is sort of like adding 'in this universe' at the end of every sentence in the rule book.

Models rank up in units... in this universe.

Magic comes after movement... in this universe.

Break tests are rolled with two dice... in this universe.

lol! Sanjuro, point taken but you sound like a trekkie!
We can all agree that Warhammer rules could be more rigorous.
Maybe 'in combat' is not redundant.


Oh my, DD, are you at it again? :rolleyes:

Ethereals can simply only be harmed by a Magival source. That's it. Period. They usually can crumble by combat result, but any actual harm done to the Ethereals must be magical...

Festus

Ah yes. A player who advocates any magical attack will harm an Ethereal.
How do you overcome the rule stipulation of "magic weapon"?
I tend to think that any attack in combat should qualify as an attack with a weapon [in the broadest sense of the term] but I don't think Atrahasis will agree with this. In addition this line of reasoning has problems when it comes to Enchanted items etc which modify combat attacks.

If you can convince me that Ethereals are more invincible than I thought, I will use Spirit Hosts in my next game with VC.
And... I promise to be good...sir! (I know you're a teacher.:p )


The Green Knight is also Ethereal and the Bret book is newer than the VC book. His wording for Ethereal is that he [I]'can't be harmed except by magical attacks.'

Didn't realise the Green Knight is Ethereal but then again I almost never use Special characters.
I don't think it is wise to cross-over army specific rules. It causes more problems then it solves.
It is very possible that a mistake has been made with one of the two Ethereals' rules but which one is anybody's guess.

Vattendroppe
04-05-2007, 10:34
If we assume that festus is right (which I think he is) that includes shooting. The question is, do a normal arrow from a magical bow count as magical attack, or do you have to have a WE magic arrow(s)?

Eversor
04-05-2007, 12:24
If we assume that festus is right (which I think he is) that includes shooting. The question is, do a normal arrow from a magical bow count as magical attack, or do you have to have a WE magic arrow(s)?

Any magical bow will do.

EvC
04-05-2007, 13:52
Nothing is defined formally in Warhammer as far as I know. Let's use the word explained instead of defined.
Other than combat (Close combat, beg your pardon :p ) attacks, there are shooting attacks, magic spell 'attacks' and characteristic tests 'attacks'. The last occurs during Close combat or magic.

As far as I can see in the rules,
Shooting 'attacks' are referred to and explained as 'shooting' or sometimes 'shooting hits'.
Magic spells uses 'magic' or 'spells' as substitute words.

The word 'combat' is not used with reference to shooting or magic.
Can it really be assumed that combat encompasses more than just Close Combat?
If so, then what about rules where the word 'combat' is used to mean 'Close Combat' e.g.
pg 54 "At the start of the first turn of combat"
pg 61 "Monstrous mounts in combat"
pg63 "These hits are inflicted at the very beginning of combat"

Well in that case I believe it is down to the player to apply some of his own common sense and judge each situation on its own individual merits! Fancy that!

DeathlessDraich
04-05-2007, 14:24
Don't quite follow you, EVC which situations are you referring to that should be judged on its own merits?

EvC
04-05-2007, 16:46
I good guess would have been that I mean the situations quoted from you immediately before my post begins, and the specific situation being queried in this thread.

As far as I can remember, each of those situations are certainly related to close combat, for example I assume that page 63 refers to impact hits, which would utterly obviously only apply in close combat. I know that "RAW" is a staple of the rules, but that doesn't mean you never have to apply context or use your own common sense. "Combat" is a vague term, sometimes it will mean close combat, for example when referring to two units in base to base contact and one impacting against each other, but that doesn't mean every reference to "combat" must be the same. A pretty simple concept, really...

Atrahasis
04-05-2007, 17:29
OK EVC, show me one other place in the Warhammer rules that uses the word "combat" to describe something other than close combat and I'll eat this clanrat.

Rabban
05-05-2007, 01:20
At the back of the VC army book under the "BASIC RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" for spirit host Alessio Cavatore writes
".....they are best used against armies with lots of missile fire. Your normal troops can comfortably advance behind this invulnerable screen which will block enemy units' line of sight...."

This clearly suggests that spirit hosts are not intended to be harmed by non-magical missile fire.

DeathlessDraich
05-05-2007, 12:48
Hello and welcome Rabban.
Well spotted. I shall check. :)

EvC
05-05-2007, 17:16
I thgink it was also Alessio Cavatore who wrote that Banshees' screams could be used with Doom and Darkness, so clearly his opinion is worthless ;)


OK EVC, show me one other place in the Warhammer rules that uses the word "combat" to describe something other than close combat and I'll eat this clanrat.

I'm sure I recall you making a post saying along the lines that if something has the virtue of being unique, that doesn't mean it's not the case. And even if you didn't say that, it's true either way.

Atrahasis
05-05-2007, 18:38
I'm sure I recall you making a post saying along the lines that if something has the virtue of being unique, that doesn't mean it's not the case. And even if you didn't say that, it's true either way.It certainly is true, when there is actually evidence to support it. However, assuming that this one use of "combat" refers to more than just close combat is just that - pure assumption.

EvC
05-05-2007, 19:12
It's assumption either way: don't act like there's intellectual high ground to be taken here, it's just us fools muddling our way through GW's inappropriate wording... and I hope we're all in agreement with how the rule works even if the wording isn't great. If it meant close combat and close combat alone, it would have had to say so.

If this is the rules forum, then the above is context as written.
That does mean that I think it is "right" in a fun sense- as well as RAW (But only just).

Atrahasis
05-05-2007, 19:18
It's assumption either way:It is, yes, but its certainly a better supported assumption to say that all uses of the word combat are the same rathger than assuming that one use of the word is different for no appreciable reason.

EvC
05-05-2007, 19:21
As far as DD has shown, there's four mentions of "combat" without "close" in front of it (In another book!), and even then usually have some other contextualiser that makes it clear it means close combat; the Ethereal rules do not. The assumption is more yours than mine, and has about as much validity as thinking that a Goblin Hero in a Chariot takes up a troops slot because all the other army books have it that way.

Atrahasis
05-05-2007, 19:32
If you read DD's post again you'll see that he says quite clearly that "combat" is not used to describe shooting.

The main rulebook uses the word combat exclusively to describe close combat. Every other book uses combat exclusively to describe close combat.

Tell me again how it is youy think that this one example of the word combat means something different?

EvC
05-05-2007, 20:13
If you read DD's post again you'll see that he says quite clearly that "combat" is not used to describe shooting.

Uhh... yes? My point is that the fact that there may be a few occasions where combat is used to describe close combat without the word close in front of it, but that doesn't mean every mention of combat must mean close combat. As ZomboCom says very accurately: "People seem to assume that combat means the same as Close Combat, but the two terms are not the same. The term combat is never defined, and a dictionary definition definately includes shooting attacks."


The main rulebook uses the word combat exclusively to describe close combat. Every other book uses combat exclusively to describe close combat.

Tell me again how it is youy think that this one example of the word combat means something different?

Ever heard of the problem of induction? If you saw five cars in a row that were blue, would that mean the next you see is also blue? Obviously not. Of course that also means that you can't assume it won't be, so we're back to that word you find so distasteful: context. Join the dark side, become a believer in CAW.

"Up and at them."
"Up and atom!"
"Up and at them."
"Up and atom!"
"Up and at them."
"Up and atom!"
"Up and at them!"
etc etc etc.

Edit: In fact now I've had a chance to look up the rules cited by DD, I'm amazed at how bogus his examples are. The page 61 example is a heading, shortened for simplicity, and is followed immediately by "In close combat". And the Ethereal rules initially talk about combat as a general idea before going on to talk additionally and specifically about close combat. Textbook example of how to take something out of context.

Come on, the final nail is in the coffin. Keep this up and I'll ask the idea gets buried upside down to stop it re-surfacing :p

DeathlessDraich
05-05-2007, 20:22
At the back of the VC army book under the "BASIC RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" for spirit host Alessio Cavatore writes
".....they are best used against armies with lots of missile fire. Your normal troops can comfortably advance behind this invulnerable screen which will block enemy units' line of sight...."

This clearly suggests that spirit hosts are not intended to be harmed by non-magical missile fire.

I read this in full and it doesn't explicitly state that Ethereals are invulnerable to missile fire but simply blocks LOS and can be used as a screen.

If you play the not very Clevertore, Cavatore way, I'm sure you'll be massacred! :D

In addition signore Cavatore also state under Wraiths:
"These are perfect to challenge powerful enemy characters who have left their magic weapons at home" which suggests he is aware of the phrase
"magic weapons in combat" under Ethereal rules and further suggests that the words chosen may not be a mistake.
Then again Caveat -tore has made quite a few mistakes in the past and admited to them.

Having said all that, in an actual game I would willingly concede the benefit of the doubt to any insistent VC player.

BTW, Atrahasis and EvC, thank you for quoting me and enjoy your discussion.:p

ZomboCom
06-05-2007, 00:55
I read this in full and it doesn't explicitly state that Ethereals are invulnerable to missile fire but simply blocks LOS and can be used as a screen.


Which part of

"Your normal troops can comfortably advance behind this invulnerable screen"

doesn't say they are immune to normal missile fire?

Come on guys, you all know the correct interpretation here, so stop trying to worship at the false altar of RAW and play nice.

Rabban
06-05-2007, 01:27
If you look at the Ethereal rule in full it also suggests that mundane shooting does nothing.

VC p28
"... can't be harmed in combat except by attacks from magical weapons, Daemons or other Ethereal creatures, though they can be affected by spells as normal."

If combat applied only to close combat, why would they need to give an exception for spells, and not shooting?

Atrahasis
06-05-2007, 02:00
If combat applied only to close combat, why would they need to give an exception for spells, and not shooting?
If combat applies to more than close combat, why would they need to give an exception for spells?

Rabban
06-05-2007, 02:23
If combat applies to more than close combat, why would they need to give an exception for spells?


Because spells are not a magic weapon, so this exception allows spells to wound Ethereals. Without this exception, they would be immune to spells.

EvC
06-05-2007, 12:47
Conclusion: they shoulda just said they can only be harmed by magical attacks. GW in bad wording shocker, eh? :D