PDA

View Full Version : Burning alignment not magical?



Da Once & Future Git
03-04-2009, 00:59
Hey guys,

just heard that the Engine of the gods burning alignment attack is not magical, don't have the army book with me so wanted to hear your thoughts in the mean time.

fluffwise i would've thought it was intended to be a magical attack but does it actually say anywhere in the entry that it is?

Otherwise my etherial units are going to have a blast!!!

Da Git

Ps. looking for an actual rule clarification, not a fluff reason

Havock
03-04-2009, 01:05
Guess not.

WoC Daemon Princes and Dameonic mounts have to make due without being magical as well.

Spirit
03-04-2009, 01:06
There is a mahusive argument on this already. Basically, there are 2 sides

No. As it does not say it is

Yes, as there is no real definition of a magical attack in the BrB, and it is done in the magic phase, by a mage.

Dyrnwyn
03-04-2009, 01:11
Nowhere in the Burning Alignment text does it state that the attacks are magical. Contrast that with something like the Anvil of Doom, where it specifies 'd6 magical hits.' RAW, Burning Alignment hits are not magical. RAI... is alot muddier.

Spirit
03-04-2009, 01:26
Nowhere in the Burning Alignment text does it state that the attacks are magical. Contrast that with something like the Anvil of Doom, where it specifies 'd6 magical hits.' RAW, Burning Alignment hits are not magical. RAI... is alot muddier.

Contrast it with fireball, number 1 lore of fire spell.

Nowhere does it say that fireball does magical attacks

Or fiery blast
Or wall of fire
Or any "magical" attack in the BrB, as there is no definition.

So RAW, none of the spells, or magic missiles (magic in the name does not mean magical attack), deal magical damage. Neither do miscasts, magical weapons or anything except limited things in army books, such as anvil of doom, burning magical lance for undead, grave guard. And probably forest spirits.

So how do you define a magical attack then? Why does dark hand of death or crows feast kill spirit hosts but the burning alignment does not?

StormCrow
03-04-2009, 01:26
RAW - No

RAI - ???

Common sense - Yes

Take your pick

Necromancy Black
03-04-2009, 08:05
RAW - No

RAI - ???

Common sense - Yes

Take your pick

RAW - ???

RAI - ???

Common sense - always depends on the individual

Take your pick :p

As said before, Burning Allignment is well within the grounds to be a magical attack and has as much right as any spell.

Ultimate Life Form
03-04-2009, 08:12
I donīt get it. Why canīt **** GW come up with a simple rule? Surely this is not the first case leading to confusion. This has been debated for years. Seeing how much time they spent on overcomplicated movement rules that cover every single problem that wouldnīt be there were the rules not that complicated, is it asking to much they add a single sentence telling us how magical attacks are defined?

a squig
03-04-2009, 08:32
My two cents is that its not magical, because it dosn't have a casting value so its not like every other spell and so cant be stopped.

Ultimate Life Form
03-04-2009, 08:48
My two cents is that its not magical, because it dosn't have a casting value so its not like every other spell and so cant be stopped.

Only because it canīt be stopped, it cannot be magical? Now this definition is certainly novel.

nosferatu1001
03-04-2009, 08:57
My two cents is that its not magical, because it dosn't have a casting value so its not like every other spell and so cant be stopped.

Yet it states it "cannot be dispelled" almost as if it is a spell that casts with irresistible force.

Happens entirely in the magic phase, wording that suggests it is a spell == magical damage. By "RAW" none of the spells in the entire BRB do magical damage. If RAW on magic attacks is incomplete, which it is, then noone can claim "RAW" says these attacks arent magical.

a squig
03-04-2009, 09:10
i may of fluffed up my explination, what i meant that spells come from a spell list in your army book or rulebook. The burning aliment isnt under a spell list section and dosnt require a test to use, or prevent the priest from doing anything else so i though this means that its not a magical attack in game terms. it could just be arau of heat that eminates from the EOTG.

It just one of those semi magical things that you cant do anything about. You can't dispell magic swords etc they are just magical, and some have abblitys that cant be dispelled becuase they arent being cast they just happen it the same just on alot bigger scale.

havoc626
03-04-2009, 09:15
I think it was intended to be magical, and that's how I play it.

Also, to the Anvil of Doom example, while yes it does state it hase magical attacks, it is also done in the shooting phase. Just to point that out.

Gazak Blacktoof
03-04-2009, 10:29
I'd suggest reading through these recent threads.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189651&highlight=burning+alignment

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190322&highlight=burning+alignment

Or toss a coin.

Spirit
03-04-2009, 12:51
i may of fluffed up my explanation, what i meant that spells come from a spell list in your army book or rulebook. The burning aliment isnt under a spell list section and doesn't require a test to use, or prevent the priest from doing anything else so i though this means that its not a magical attack in game terms. it could just be arau of heat that eminates from the EOTG.

It just one of those semi magical things that you cant do anything about. You can't dispell magic swords etc they are just magical, and some have abilities that cant be dispelled because they aren't being cast they just happen it the same just on alot bigger scale.

Wait, your saying you cannot dispell magical swords, but they are "just magical" but then your saying that you cannot dispell burning alignment, so its not magical? That has logical holes bigger than a tardis..

Firstly, as stated before, magic swords aren't "just magical" by the rules. They are just taken to be magical by the player mass. (which i do not disagree with)

BUT, if it is taken that they are magical, and that spells are magical, then burning alignment falls right into the same category.

Nickskills
03-04-2009, 15:31
Wait, your saying you cannot dispell magical swords, but they are "just magical" but then your saying that you cannot dispell burning alignment, so its not magical? That has logical holes bigger than a tardis..

Firstly, as stated before, magic swords aren't "just magical" by the rules. They are just taken to be magical by the player mass. (which i do not disagree with)

BUT, if it is taken that they are magical, and that spells are magical, then burning alignment falls right into the same category.

Actually, according to the Wood Elf army book (pg 18, 'forest Spirits"), magic weapons and spells are considered magic for the purposes of denying forest spirits their ward save. I suspect (I don't have my rulebook handy) that the wording for Etherial is similar. So, there is no category of "magic attacks", but anything affected by magic attacks defines them in their own rules. This gets complicated in a few Wood Elf and Bretonnian magic items, which provide ward saves vs magic attacks.

Note, however, nothing defines "magic attacks" as things happening in the magic phase. The fact that it cannot be dispelled doesn't mean anything- unless it refers to the abilities that the EotG uses as "spells".

However, the exact wording is "magic weapons, spells, etc". Thank you Games Workshop- if you are going to use a keyword system, you should actually define and use it consistantly.

The best story I've heard about the EotG: Wood Elves vs Lizardmen- the Wood elf player was arguing it was magical, thus denying him ward saves, and the Lizardment player was arguing it wasn't magical, technically. Best display of sportsmanship ever.

So, my vote is non-magical until they errata it, which they almost certainly will.

EvC
03-04-2009, 19:08
Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...

Just because the Wood Elf army book defines magic weapons and spells as being things that deny their ward save, that doesn't mean that magic attacks are limited to those things. For example, there's a Chaos Armour that gives a 4+ ward save vs magic attacks- would you then say that spells are not magic attacks, because the Wood Elf book defines them separately? I'd hope not!

Nickskills
03-04-2009, 19:25
Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works...

Just because the Wood Elf army book defines magic weapons and spells as being things that deny their ward save, that doesn't mean that magic attacks are limited to those things. For example, there's a Chaos Armour that gives a 4+ ward save vs magic attacks- would you then say that spells are not magic attacks, because the Wood Elf book defines them separately? I'd hope not!

Did you read the part of my post where I pointed this out? I am quite aware that the rule I quoted is not the end all, be all of rule of figuring this out. I this the part where I get all offended? I'm not good at internet arguments.

What I am pointing out, is that you have to look at the affected rule, not the affecting rule. I am confused how you see this a circular reasoning. For Forest Spirits and Ethereal troops, EotG is not magical. There are two definitions (in random places) of what magical attacks are, and that is the best definition we have.

EvC
03-04-2009, 20:55
It's circular reasoning because it's circular reasoning, but +10 points for not getting offended ;)

The rules for ethereal troops say "ethereal models can't be wounded by spells and magical attacks or effects". They do NOT define what precisely magic attacks or effects are in their rules as you stated, they just say they are damaged by them. Thus, it is entirely down to us to decide what a magical attack/ effect is. So we're back to square one...

selone
03-04-2009, 23:50
Are you saying that everything in the magic phase counts as a magic attack?

Necromancy Black
04-04-2009, 00:20
Are you saying that everything in the magic phase counts as a magic attack?

Anything exclusive to the magic phase. It's just an implied rule, not written any where.


i may of fluffed up my explination, what i meant that spells come from a spell list in your army book or rulebook. The burning aliment isnt under a spell list section and dosnt require a test to use, or prevent the priest from doing anything else so i though this means that its not a magical attack in game terms. it could just be arau of heat that eminates from the EOTG.

All that shows is that Burning Allignment is not a spell. That doesn't actually help address the issue at all. It's still occuring solely in the magic phase, which fits the same mechanic as spells and miscasts to be counted as magical.

Nurgling Chieftain
04-04-2009, 00:41
Are you saying that everything in the magic phase counts as a magic attack?That does have a certain ring to it, being the MAGIC phase and all. :cool:

Really, the only case I can think of where that might not reasonably apply is otherwise mundane attacks triggered through magic, most notably the Tomb King incantation that gives a unit a round of attacks or missiles.

selone
04-04-2009, 01:08
H'okies some questions then :D
Is the masque's dance in the magic phase? Does that make it a magical attack then?

Spirit
04-04-2009, 01:15
That does have a certain ring to it, being the MAGIC phase and all. :cool:

Really, the only case I can think of where that might not reasonably apply is otherwise mundane attacks triggered through magic, most notably the Tomb King incantation that gives a unit a round of attacks or missiles.

the way i see it is that anything done in the magic phase, that would not be done elsewhere, even if it is added to by the magic phase, counts as magical. And conversely, if you are given a bonus that you only get because your able to use a mundane attack in the shooting/combat phase (such as tomb king smiting), then it will be mundane.

for example. Portent of far on a unit of kroxigor. The re rolls that this gives are mundane, because they are re rolls that can only be achieved because the unit can shoot in the shooting phase or attack in the combat phase.

If given to a slann, it'l re roll magical dice that can only be used in the magic phase (if he is casting fireball, for example), thus the attacks are magical.

same reasoning can be applied to anything. So tomb kings shooting in the magic phase can only be achieved because the unit will be able to shoot in the shooting phase, so the attacks are mundane. if you see where I'm going..

Sorry if that isn't very clear, someone feel free to do better!

Spirit
04-04-2009, 01:16
H'okies some questions then :D
Is the masque's dance in the magic phase? Does that make it a magical attack then?


what does the dance do and when? Curious myself,

selone
04-04-2009, 01:19
Reduces a target unit's LD or movement by d3, I believe in the magic phase.

EvC
04-04-2009, 01:20
The dance doesn't do any damage one way or the other. So it's not a magic attack because it doesn't fulfill the "attack" part of the term, without the need to consider the magic part!!

nosferatu1001
04-04-2009, 01:22
It is then irrelevant if the effect is magical or not, as it has no difference in the game. So that dance is magically reducing your leadership - even if you're ethereal, you're still affected whether it is or isnt magical.

selone
04-04-2009, 01:43
But if you were immune to magic ;)

slingersam
04-04-2009, 09:32
In the lizardmen rule book, it states that the skink priest can use any of the powers
associated with the engine. .... Note that none of these effects can be dispelled,
such as by dispel scrolls. Now I'm willing to go with anyone stating that the powers
of the engine is not magical, but when can we be able to dispel non magical attacks
(mundane), as I would love to be able to start using my dispel dice to dispel mundane
attacks.

cybercaine
05-04-2009, 18:38
In the lizardmen rule book, it states that the skink priest can use any of the powers
associated with the engine. .... Note that none of these effects can be dispelled,
such as by dispel scrolls. Now I'm willing to go with anyone stating that the powers
of the engine is not magical, but when can we be able to dispel non magical attacks
(mundane), as I would love to be able to start using my dispel dice to dispel mundane
attacks.

Lol I like this idea. I use my dispel scroll on your Hellblaster Volley Gun to cancel it's 30 shots! Or, I roll my dispel dice and beat the strength value on your ogre tyrant to cancel his attacks. I think that would be awesome! :skull:

Dexter099
05-04-2009, 21:22
Contrast it with fireball, number 1 lore of fire spell.

Nowhere does it say that fireball does magical attacks

Or fiery blast
Or wall of fire
Or any "magical" attack in the BrB, as there is no definition.

So RAW, none of the spells, or magic missiles (magic in the name does not mean magical attack), deal magical damage. Neither do miscasts, magical weapons or anything except limited things in army books, such as anvil of doom, burning magical lance for undead, grave guard. And probably forest spirits.

So how do you define a magical attack then? Why does dark hand of death or crows feast kill spirit hosts but the burning alignment does not?

It is a magic missile, and all magic missiles cause magical hits.

Necromancy Black
05-04-2009, 23:22
It is a magic missile, and all magic missiles cause magical hits.

Kindly show the class where this is stated in the rule book.

Spirit
05-04-2009, 23:53
It is a magic missile, and all magic missiles cause magical hits.

And how do you know this?

If they brought out an ability called the magical magic of magical doom, that's not enough reason to call it magical.

40kdhs
06-04-2009, 02:08
My two cents is that its not magical, because it dosn't have a casting value so its not like every other spell and so cant be stopped.

You can't stop IF anyway.

It's basically a IF spell which doesn't remain in place.

Spirit
06-04-2009, 02:13
You can't stop IF anyway.

It's basically a IF spell which doesn't remain in place.

?

I guess you mean irresistable force, but i dont see what thats got to do with anything.

Am i missing something obvious?

Lord Yawgmoth
06-04-2009, 03:02
?

I guess you mean irresistable force, but i dont see what thats got to do with anything.

Am i missing something obvious?

Someone said (a long time ago): It can't be dispelled, therefore its not a spell
He responded : You can't dispel irresistable force spells.


:eyebrows: I have no idea where the remains in play bit came from though.

Anyways, it not being a spell has little to do with whether it is magical or not.

nosferatu1001
06-04-2009, 06:31
It is a magic missile, and all magic missiles cause magical hits.

Except that nowhere in the rulebook does it state this. Reread the statements: nothing in the entire BRB defines spells as magical, or miscasts as magical.

I think the statement was in response to "it cant be dispelled therefore its not a spell", which is a fallacy as IF cannot be dispelled.

Remain in play though, not sure where that comes in...unless it was the -1 to cast? or the 5+ ward? They are effectively RIP without actually being RIP.

Spirit
06-04-2009, 13:21
Someone said (a long time ago): It can't be dispelled, therefore its not a spell
He responded : You can't dispel irresistable force spells.


:eyebrows: I have no idea where the remains in play bit came from though.

Anyways, it not being a spell has little to do with whether it is magical or not.

And it all becomes clear! lol :)