Fear and Metal
- Thread starter arbogast
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
- Status
Questioner said:
Unless it's in an official FAQ/Errata, GW hasn't spoken.
You're under the effects of the spell and you also fear your enemy, that should equate to less WS than just fearing your enemy.
Which, imo, it also does for reasons already stated.
Player who's turn it is decides if you can't agree in which order it happens. /thread
CountVoldemort said:
Actually <thread>
Incorrect, if you cannot agree then you fall back to the Most Important Rule. The current player only decides the order of sequencing he's not the final arbiter of all decisions. As this is not a sequencing issue (The spell went off on the previous phase) the current player has nothing to decide sequencing wise.
You keep saying the most important rule, are you talking about the rule to have fun? I'm a little lost lol...
FirestormXL said:
It's on page 2 of the rulebook. It's pretty much if you can't agree on something you roll a dice for it just so you can keep playing.
Agreed with WS being 1.
There's nothing more to really explain here, I think Aramoro said it very nicely. Perhaps a summation of all arguments is in order, but I do not see this as a sequencing issue.
I do not see Weapons, Spells or any other factor 'reapplying' itself. Yes, it's always there, but that doesn't change it's sequencing. I don't know why people think there is a different order because one is a bonus/subtraction and the other 'sets' the value.
We even have an example from the last book.
Accursed Armour + Helm of Command. If a character was wearing the Accursed Armour and had the Helm apply to his unit, he would completely ignore the Accursed Armour. It would not be 'reapplied' even if it was a constant effect, and the Helm a temporary one.
Seems like this is a similar situation.
There's nothing more to really explain here, I think Aramoro said it very nicely. Perhaps a summation of all arguments is in order, but I do not see this as a sequencing issue.
I do not see Weapons, Spells or any other factor 'reapplying' itself. Yes, it's always there, but that doesn't change it's sequencing. I don't know why people think there is a different order because one is a bonus/subtraction and the other 'sets' the value.
We even have an example from the last book.
Accursed Armour + Helm of Command. If a character was wearing the Accursed Armour and had the Helm apply to his unit, he would completely ignore the Accursed Armour. It would not be 'reapplied' even if it was a constant effect, and the Helm a temporary one.
Seems like this is a similar situation.
maxtoreador
Grave Guard
Grish said:
The difference here is that with the helm/accursed situation the helm 'overrode' the accursed. The negative modifier was on the unit but the entire value is replaced by the helm bearers. The effect of the helm overrides the armor because the armor is not on the helm bearer. Look at the lore, the helm is basicly the direct control of the wearer on a unit(hence why it doesn't work in combat s/he needs full concentration to use it.)
In the case of fear/metal spell BOTH debuffs are on the same models. The -1 modifier is not over ridden by the fear, you're cowering in fear AND weakened by the spell.
GhoulKing505
Grave Guard
I'm with the WS 1 group.
I get the argument that the -1 is always there but I don't agree with it. The negative modifier is still there, you just lowered the WS to wherever it was to 1. I liked the point brought up about getting +1 WS. If you failed a fear test would you then have 2 WS? Of course not. At least that's my opinion. That's how I'll be playing it. I can't stop you from doing otherwise.
I get the argument that the -1 is always there but I don't agree with it. The negative modifier is still there, you just lowered the WS to wherever it was to 1. I liked the point brought up about getting +1 WS. If you failed a fear test would you then have 2 WS? Of course not. At least that's my opinion. That's how I'll be playing it. I can't stop you from doing otherwise.
I fail to see the difference here maxtoreader.
You seem to be saying:
Negative WS applied to target, Positive WS set by a source = Positive source wins.
Negative WS applied to target, Negative WS set by a source = Combine.
It does not matter where an effect comes from on whether it combines or not. External, from the model itself... no difference.
I do not think we have a better example then that.
EDIT: I think I understand what you're saying, in that the Helm overrides everything and no effect is normally applied to the helm bearer.
You seem to be saying:
Negative WS applied to target, Positive WS set by a source = Positive source wins.
Negative WS applied to target, Negative WS set by a source = Combine.
It does not matter where an effect comes from on whether it combines or not. External, from the model itself... no difference.
I do not think we have a better example then that.
So exactly why does Fear not 'override' this? Where are you getting these different mechanics from?
Why is the 'entire value' replaced by the helm bearer for the helm, but not so for fear?
This makes no sense. Becaues the 'set value' is coming from an external source (Helm Bearer) you think it has a different effect than if the source comes from the Model itself (isn't the fear from an outside source)?
In the case of Accursed Armour and Helm, BOTH effects are on the same model as well. Only difference is, one is positive and one is negative. In the other case, both are negative.
EDIT: I think I understand what you're saying, in that the Helm overrides everything and no effect is normally applied to the helm bearer.
So if there was an ability that reduced Toughness to 1 and there was a hex with -1 toughness on the unit it would still have 1 toughness?
Same logic. A hex is always in effect is it not? So if a unit is reduced to WS1 and has a -1 Hex, it would make it zero...as such.
Same out of combat with a half toughness spell with a -1 Hex involved. Hex/Augments modify your profile. As such, they do not "re-apply" you just simply take them into effect when you "check" your stat to use.
If you have Wildform on, you would look at your S or T value when needed then ADD the +1 when you must compare it.
If fear set your WS to one that is a whole nother matter...like the FAQ from the last book that had the helm setting WS to the lords' value. It overrode buffs/debuffs on the unit since you were using a "set" weapon skill. If the lord was modified in some way then that would pass on as the new "set" value.
Care to point out how i'm wrong?
Same logic. A hex is always in effect is it not? So if a unit is reduced to WS1 and has a -1 Hex, it would make it zero...as such.
Same out of combat with a half toughness spell with a -1 Hex involved. Hex/Augments modify your profile. As such, they do not "re-apply" you just simply take them into effect when you "check" your stat to use.
If you have Wildform on, you would look at your S or T value when needed then ADD the +1 when you must compare it.
If fear set your WS to one that is a whole nother matter...like the FAQ from the last book that had the helm setting WS to the lords' value. It overrode buffs/debuffs on the unit since you were using a "set" weapon skill. If the lord was modified in some way then that would pass on as the new "set" value.
Care to point out how i'm wrong?
It would depend on the order of effect Nedar.
With reduction of T from Shadow combined with Night Goblin netters, the spell goes off first, then the nets take effect. It's not that one is a hex and the other is an ability, it's that one was applied before the other. I don't think the source or the type is really important, but more the order they're applied.
Mark of Nurgle CAN set the WS to 0 as the -1 to WS occurs after the fear occurs. Fear occurs at the start of combat, and Mark of Nurgle is applied when the models attempt to swing at the unit with MoN. Transformation of Lead occurs before the fear occurs.
Nurgle: Regular WS -> Fear (reduce to WS1)-> apply -1 = WS0.
Transformation of Lead: Regular WS -> -1WS -> Fear (reduce to WS1) = WS1.
Even though both have the same components (base WS, -1 to WS, reduction to one WS) the order they are applied is the key. In both cases, they are all still in effect, but one you end up with WS0 and one WS1 due to the order they're applied.
With reduction of T from Shadow combined with Night Goblin netters, the spell goes off first, then the nets take effect. It's not that one is a hex and the other is an ability, it's that one was applied before the other. I don't think the source or the type is really important, but more the order they're applied.
Mark of Nurgle CAN set the WS to 0 as the -1 to WS occurs after the fear occurs. Fear occurs at the start of combat, and Mark of Nurgle is applied when the models attempt to swing at the unit with MoN. Transformation of Lead occurs before the fear occurs.
Nurgle: Regular WS -> Fear (reduce to WS1)-> apply -1 = WS0.
Transformation of Lead: Regular WS -> -1WS -> Fear (reduce to WS1) = WS1.
Even though both have the same components (base WS, -1 to WS, reduction to one WS) the order they are applied is the key. In both cases, they are all still in effect, but one you end up with WS0 and one WS1 due to the order they're applied.
Grish's example there is exactly my viewpoint on the matter. For me the key is the Fear reduces your weapon skill to 1 from what ever it was before, if you're WS 3 it'll give you -2 WS, if you're WS 4 it'll reduce your WS by 3 until your WS is 1, it wont reduce your printed WS to 1 then apply other effects again.
The Nurgle Warriors example is a perfect one, or the Withering + Netters (from the old O&G book)
The Nurgle Warriors example is a perfect one, or the Withering + Netters (from the old O&G book)
maxtoreador
Grave Guard
With your edit I think you're getting my thought process Grish. Seems like the linchpin to most of the WS1 thought process is the old Helm FAQ. Least the way I read it on the old FAQ it was more of a Lore reason than from any RAW. We all know what the old FAQ said on the helm so I'll give an out of Warhammer example:
Driver is racing around a track and the nut holding the steering wheel gets a bit loose and he loses a fair amount of handling(-1WS/accursed armor) but the crew chief has a remote for the car and takes over(Helm.) The chief isn't effected by the loose nut as his ability completely bypasses it, however if he's drunk(-1WS/accursed armor) that WILL effect his driving. Now lets say there is no remote (our helm is gone :'( ), the driver still can drive he's just hampered by the loose nut(-1WS). Only one problem, in his frantic state he mis-shifts the car and strips a gear or two(fear) now he's FUBAR. He cant accelerate properly thanks to the gears(Fear = WS1) AND he can't steer properly(-1WS) this boy's out of the race (WS0).
Really on this I think RAW doesn't give us a dead set answer but does lean slightly to WS1, and RAI the 0WS seems a whole lot more likely thanks to just common sense(my sword is heavy as hell and I'm so scared I just shat myself)/lore+Old FAQ(read above).
Driver is racing around a track and the nut holding the steering wheel gets a bit loose and he loses a fair amount of handling(-1WS/accursed armor) but the crew chief has a remote for the car and takes over(Helm.) The chief isn't effected by the loose nut as his ability completely bypasses it, however if he's drunk(-1WS/accursed armor) that WILL effect his driving. Now lets say there is no remote (our helm is gone :'( ), the driver still can drive he's just hampered by the loose nut(-1WS). Only one problem, in his frantic state he mis-shifts the car and strips a gear or two(fear) now he's FUBAR. He cant accelerate properly thanks to the gears(Fear = WS1) AND he can't steer properly(-1WS) this boy's out of the race (WS0).
Really on this I think RAW doesn't give us a dead set answer but does lean slightly to WS1, and RAI the 0WS seems a whole lot more likely thanks to just common sense(my sword is heavy as hell and I'm so scared I just shat myself)/lore+Old FAQ(read above).
Yowza, this thing is still going on? My final two cents:
Not that bonuses and penalties from hex, augment, and other spells are cumulative, but normally cannot take any characteristics above 10 or below 1. (p.31).
Note that ToL does not have this limitation of less than 1 (though all other spells specifically state the limitation (reduce to a minimum value of 1) in their description).
[Spell duration] Some spells last for longer than this, for one or more phases, or turns. (p.36).
By not applying it in each phase, you're robbing the hex of its effects (i.e. it doesn't stop applying in the CC phase).
[FAQ] Q: If a unit taking a Leadership test has a modifier to its Leadership, will this modifier still apply if the unit uses the generals Leadership, because of the Inspiring Presence special rule for example? (p10)
A: Yes.
E.g.: A unit's leadership changes when it moves and enters the general's IP sphere, and then Doom & Darkness applies (despite it being cast before hand). (Incidentally, this was one of my counter examples before).
So:
1. A unit has ToL cast on it (imposing a -1WS penalty/modifier).
2. In the ensuing combat phase, that unit's WS is reduced to 1 (a change to its WS) upon failing a fear test.
3. The unit, having a modifier applied to its WS and is still under that effect, still applies said modifier, taking their WS1 to WS0.
End of story, right?
Not that bonuses and penalties from hex, augment, and other spells are cumulative, but normally cannot take any characteristics above 10 or below 1. (p.31).
Note that ToL does not have this limitation of less than 1 (though all other spells specifically state the limitation (reduce to a minimum value of 1) in their description).
[Spell duration] Some spells last for longer than this, for one or more phases, or turns. (p.36).
By not applying it in each phase, you're robbing the hex of its effects (i.e. it doesn't stop applying in the CC phase).
[FAQ] Q: If a unit taking a Leadership test has a modifier to its Leadership, will this modifier still apply if the unit uses the generals Leadership, because of the Inspiring Presence special rule for example? (p10)
A: Yes.
E.g.: A unit's leadership changes when it moves and enters the general's IP sphere, and then Doom & Darkness applies (despite it being cast before hand). (Incidentally, this was one of my counter examples before).
So:
1. A unit has ToL cast on it (imposing a -1WS penalty/modifier).
2. In the ensuing combat phase, that unit's WS is reduced to 1 (a change to its WS) upon failing a fear test.
3. The unit, having a modifier applied to its WS and is still under that effect, still applies said modifier, taking their WS1 to WS0.
End of story, right?
The Doom and Darkness example from the FAQ should make people realise that the effect of the spell isn't just "applied" in the magic phase and then stops working if a value changes.
If you're having trouble of the sequencing - put the spells card next to the unit and take a look at it before you are about to roll your dice to hit (after failing your fear test).
Does the card still say you are at -1 WS until the casters next turn?
Actually, I am correct when talking about the order of which it happens (sequencing) and refering to the player whos turn it is. You do not go to the most important rule when it comes down to that. You don't agree that it's sequencing, but that's another issue.
(I don't believe it to be a problem either, because I think it's clear in which order you should apply the effects. But if it was in question, etc, etc.)
If you're having trouble of the sequencing - put the spells card next to the unit and take a look at it before you are about to roll your dice to hit (after failing your fear test).
Does the card still say you are at -1 WS until the casters next turn?
Aramoro said:
Actually, I am correct when talking about the order of which it happens (sequencing) and refering to the player whos turn it is. You do not go to the most important rule when it comes down to that. You don't agree that it's sequencing, but that's another issue.
(I don't believe it to be a problem either, because I think it's clear in which order you should apply the effects. But if it was in question, etc, etc.)
Good final example Arbo.
Agreed Transmutation of Lead can reduce model's WS to 0.
Agreed that it's still in effect.
I still disagree on order of application. You are making a distinction between 'setting' a models WS (figuring out what it is) then applying 'modifiers'. Your Leadership example is very good though, and makes me question my position further.
So, a final example to example.
A vampire character (hero, WS6) has Dread Knight power (+2 WS) and is equipped with the Fencer's Blades.
He is fighting the legendary Harry the Hammer (Fear in undead troops).
On Harry's Turn, his chaos forces blasts the Vampire Character's unit with Mekoth's Mystifying Miasma (-3 WS, minimum of 1).
To help, the Vampire's Lord has used "Speed of Light" Weapon Skill/ Initiattive to 10.
The Vampire's Character's unit then charges Harry and his unit.
In the Combat round, they fail their Fear test.
So, the way you see things is you first:
Determine the models WS. It has Fencer's Blades (constant), Speed of Light (1 turn), and Fear applied to it. What is the order for determining which takes precedence?
You would then apply modifiers (Dread Knight, and Miasma). Which goes first? Does it matter? If you determine Fear takes the model to WS1, can you apply Miasma (-3 WS, minimum of 1) then apply Dread Knight to get a WS of 3? Do you total up all modifiers, then apply the result of said total to the model, giving a -1 to WS (but no lower than 1)?
There needs to be some kind of sequencing for these things. I believe that the setting and modifying of abilities are sequenced together. Your LD example shows this is not always the case, but LD has always been treated a bit differently over the editions.
I think there's enough evidence to play it either way.
Agreed Transmutation of Lead can reduce model's WS to 0.
Agreed that it's still in effect.
I still disagree on order of application. You are making a distinction between 'setting' a models WS (figuring out what it is) then applying 'modifiers'. Your Leadership example is very good though, and makes me question my position further.
So, a final example to example.
A vampire character (hero, WS6) has Dread Knight power (+2 WS) and is equipped with the Fencer's Blades.
He is fighting the legendary Harry the Hammer (Fear in undead troops).
On Harry's Turn, his chaos forces blasts the Vampire Character's unit with Mekoth's Mystifying Miasma (-3 WS, minimum of 1).
To help, the Vampire's Lord has used "Speed of Light" Weapon Skill/ Initiattive to 10.
The Vampire's Character's unit then charges Harry and his unit.
In the Combat round, they fail their Fear test.
So, the way you see things is you first:
Determine the models WS. It has Fencer's Blades (constant), Speed of Light (1 turn), and Fear applied to it. What is the order for determining which takes precedence?
You would then apply modifiers (Dread Knight, and Miasma). Which goes first? Does it matter? If you determine Fear takes the model to WS1, can you apply Miasma (-3 WS, minimum of 1) then apply Dread Knight to get a WS of 3? Do you total up all modifiers, then apply the result of said total to the model, giving a -1 to WS (but no lower than 1)?
There needs to be some kind of sequencing for these things. I believe that the setting and modifying of abilities are sequenced together. Your LD example shows this is not always the case, but LD has always been treated a bit differently over the editions.
I think there's enough evidence to play it either way.
This is a great example of what I was thinking, but was failing to form into words. All I can really say is, sets WS to 1. It doesn't give minus modifiers that can accumulate, it makes it 1.Aramoro said:
maxtoreador
Grave Guard
Aramoro said:
Your logic and example makes sense, except one thing... what us WS0'ers are seeing it as is:
You have $10, you owe Mr Metal $1 by the combat phase so you have $9 to spare. But oh no the Skellies jumped you and took your $9 you had to spare so when Mr Metal comes for his money in the combat phase you hand it to him and you're slap broke. The sequencing of when the events happen doesn't really matter because you'll still owe Mr Metal regardless at least until the next magic phase.
I see both sides of this coin and both logics, honestly I think neither is wrong till there's an errata. However I see MORE logic in the WS0 crowd's argument.
In my little deluded world Fear alters the base weapon skill to one and is in no way a modifier. Wheras the Hex spell is a modifier taken into account whenever it needs to be rolled or checked against and always reduces whatever the model is using by one. If fear reduces his skill to one, it then is further reduced by the Hex. But that's just me. Not that I ever use Lore of metal anyway so the point is basically moot. I mean, why take metal when you can take heavens and drop comets on peoples heads. Amiright?
Aramoro said:
Perhaps you should re-read my posts. And in your £ example, as stated above, you haven't taken the duration of the spell into account.
In the mega complex example given above, I would have to refer to the sequencing rule - meaning the player who's turn it is gets to apply the effects in whatever order it choses.
But in the simple fail fear and go to WS1 at beginning of combat and then look at the spell in effect that gives me a further -1 WS before I roll to hit, I don't believe it's needed. (I refer to doom and darkness example)
CountVoldemort said:
The effects of Transmutation Have ALREADY been applied, in the magic phase, when you applied them. You know when you resolved the spell effects and applied the effect to the WS of the target unit. In the magic phase. That is the magic phase, not the combat phase or even the round of combat where you take the fear test but the magic phase, that was ages ago might as well be in the different time zone to the fear test. You would still be -1WS even if there wasn't a close combat phase.
This is absolutly not sequencing and if you think it does have anything to do with sequencing then I don't think you can add any more value to this debate. Re-read what sequencing is in the rule book.
- Status