• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Giants attack vs ethereal

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#26
Count Flap said:
Grish said:
That's not what the rules say.
What? Come on man, that's exactly what they say. If you mean it says they can't be wounded by non-magical attacks, then yes, that's more precise.
As you always say Flap, quote the full post. What I said was this, bolded the parts so you don't have to read the whole three sentences.
Grish said:
That's not what the rules say. And the giant's yell and bawl is an attack, and you say they are affected by it. What you mean is cannot be wounded from non-magical sources.
Count Flap said:
They're only affected by Yell and Bawl because that's a CR modifier.
Disagree. If there was no CR modifier and they just lost all their attacks, then it'd still affect them. Mundane attacks affect them, just can't wound them. A significant difference.

IoN had specific wording in the spell itself that made it clear the intention was to cast into close combat. VHD is very clear on this. IoN was greyer and some people played as if you couldn't. Showing an example of how interpreting RAW lead to an incorrect situation does not rule all RAW is incorrect.

Killing blow allows a ward save. A ward save is taken when you're wounded (unless there's another situation you use your ward save that is not a wound?). Killing blow also requires a roll 'to wound'. To me, its much more clear that killing blow triggers the wounding clause. These attacks do not seem to. It also doesn't say it bypasses armour, regen, and ward saves. Therefore, I'm sure it isn't the same mechanism of killing blow. You just remove the model.

But Yell and Bawl does more than a CR modifier. And it's an attack. So I'm curious; are you applying the full affects of Yell and Bawl, or just the CR?

Another thing. I don't have the WoC book on me, but what do their giants say? They are written specifically for 7th edit, so if their rules are the same, then the argument that they were written for 6th holds no weight.

lordcypress said:
The Giant can't remove Ethreals from play because he can't grab them. Simple as that. His foot, hand, whatever would pass right through them. If this was not the case than we wouldn't be able to walk through walls.
That is not in the rules anywhere, that's a fluff thing. You are arguing fluff. There is only the rule that models with the Ethereal rule cannot be wounded. That's it, that's all. If you can walk through walls, why not walk through the giant and leave combat?
 

Johnny B

Grave Guard
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
283
#27
So they are definitely not immune to the attack, just to the wounding of the attack.
No, they are affected by the combat resolution. The only reason they take any damage is because the Giant auto-wins the combat by 2. If they were mortal troops they wouldn't take any damage, just a break test, thus the damage is a result of being Undead, nothing to do with the Giant.

s an Ethereal vampire that miscasts and rolls double 1's removed from the table? Is that attack considered magical? It is from a miscast, and therefore should be magical, but I don't believe it says it is. Just says remove from the table, correct?
The clue is in the fact that it happens in the magic phase. And no, it says he is 'annihilated, and removed as a casualty'. I would take that to mean he's dead, although I'm guessing some people won't.

....etherals cannot be wounded except for spells, MAGICAL ATTACKS AND EFFECTS"
Does it mean they can be wounded by magical attacks and magical effects OR by magical attacks AND effects of any kind (magical or not)?
Well, you could play that they are wounded by any 'effects' of any kind whatsoever anywhere in the universe, or you could play them the other way. Its not even particularly badly worded, unless you're actually looking for loopholes that make no sense.
 

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#28
@Johnny B: The yell and bawl also cancels all attacks from the Wraiths. If you removed the part about CR, would you say the Giant's attack affects the Wraiths? It is indeed an attack. I'm just trying to establish that a mundane attack can affect Ethereal units. If you say "no" then yell and bawl is a mundane attack and therefore shouldn't affect them either. Or you'd have to argue that it is not a mundane attack.
 

Johnny B

Grave Guard
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
283
#29
@Johnny B: The yell and bawl also cancels all attacks from the Wraiths. If you removed the part about CR, would you say the Giant's attack affects the Wraiths? It is indeed an attack. I'm just trying to establish that a mundane attack can affect Ethereal units. If you say "no" then yell and bawl is a mundane attack and therefore shouldn't affect them either. Or you'd have to argue that it is not a Giant attack.
Yes, the negating attacks part does work, as ethereal only states they cannot be wounded by non-magical attacks and effects, and in this case it is the combat resolution that damages them not an attack (the Giant's rules are also clear in that no one in contact with him fights). Its the fact that the Giant just wins by 2 that damages them. If the attack did damage to them directly, regardless of how, then I would say no.
 

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#30
Exactly what I'm saying. So the whole discussion is around "does removal of the model equate to dealing wounds w. no saves of any kind allowed?" Thats the sticky point.
 

Lord Fear

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
4,834
#31
Yep, that is indeed the key point. I say yes, in the case of close combat attacks that kill a model outright. So does GW, as far as combat resolution is concerned. If it didn't count as wounding or killing the victim, you'd get zero CR,. You don't have to agree- but it seems you're disagreeing just for the sake of it. Either way, the rules aren't totally clear, which is why most people will apply what seems reasonable at that point.

Also the wording for Giants, it doesn't go back to 6th edition- it goes back to 4th edition (When ward saves didn't exist, regeneration was very different and ghosties weren't the way they are these days). And the biggest change since then is their base size. That is how out of date the rules are- yet more reason to allow for a bit of wiggle room with such old rules.
 

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#32
I'm disagreeing partially because it's a grey area and no one is arguing the other side of it. I see it as a grey issue. I lean towards one side, but that's beside the point; the point is that its grey, and not painting a complete picture for people to understand and judge for themselves is not correct. Saying "no, it doesn't affect them, use common sense, end of story" is a poor answer. The correct answer, is we don't know, but we lean towards this because of reasons a, b and c, despite reasons x, y and z. Not for the sake of arguing, but to provide a complete answer. Again, WoC Giants are written for 7th edition. They may have been lazy and did a copy/paste, but it's still absolutely valid for 7th Edit, and I wouldn't say that their rules are 'left overs' from any other edition, that don't fit completely into this edition.
 

Lord Fear

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
4,834
#33
The copy/paste job is of course valid, but does have lots of problems due to the fact the wording is still the same as in 4th edition, and if you read the FAQ for the Chaos Giant, you can see all kinds of weird problems and the wacky solutions GW give to deal with them. Check it out, it's quite funny really, and not even close to RAW.
 

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#34
Exactly what I'm talking about. Write rules, and then FAQ over them to completely change them. Again, saying Characters that are Monsters are not affected by spells that affect monsters. What kind of precedent does this set? Extrapolate that to Character Infantry are not affected by Infantry spells? Or Cavalry? What about Bull Centaur Heroes?

Only solution is the same solution found in the movie WarGames.
 

Yanda

Black Knight
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
376
#35
You should just tarpit the giant with zombies, it should hold up a few turns even without heals. I tried this once and the zombies even won combat, he made his break test but it was still funny to see WS 7 zombies Holdup a giant without heals for 4 turns and the only reason my zombies crumbled is because his lord on a flying mount charged into the tarpit. With some heals I might have been able to hold them both up.
 

Johnny B

Grave Guard
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
283
#36
So the whole discussion is around "does removal of the model equate to dealing wounds w. no saves of any kind allowed?" Thats the sticky point.
How is this a sticky point? Removal from play in this case means its dead. If its dead its lost all wounds. It hasn't fled off the table (and even if it had, that still counts as destroyed), it hasn't been convinced to leave the game via the stage door, its been squashed, because the name of the attack is Squash (or Eat) and the very very very clear implication is that its been killed messily. The implication is so clear they worded it in a vaguely humorous way, which is presumably what is causing all this. Squashed means it died messily, no wounds left, bits of it all over the place.

Saying "no, it doesn't affect them, use common sense, end of story" is a poor answer. The correct answer, is we don't know, but we lean towards this because of reasons a, b and c, despite reasons x, y and z.
That would be the correct answer in a scientific experiment or a life-threatening state of emergency. This is a tabletop game, where common sense can and should prevail.
Its a Giant. He doesn't have magical attacks, he can't hit ghosts. You can't squash something you cannot touch. Thus the Giant cannot hurt ghosts, nor can he pick them up, throw them around, give them a hug or anything else. It really is that simple. I know it isn't in the letter of the rules, but the point at which we disengage our brains and blindly follow only what is in print to the letter and nothing else is when we should probably go and play a simpler game that doesn't require any use of imagination.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
70
#37
This is the most rediculous thread I've read in a long time. Nobody plays a Giant like that. Not once in the 7 years of RTT, Grand Tournaments and in house tournaments have I seen anyone ever squash an Ethreal model. My gaming group will have a good laugh at this one. Giants squashing ethreals.............:happy:.
 

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#38
Quite a few players seem to interpret the Giants rules like that if you look on Warseer.

I honestly don't think why you think it's ridiculous that all mundane attacks that do not deal wounds affect them just fine, like Goblin Netters, but find it ridiculous that something that doesn't specifically deal wounds can kill them.

So it seems that your using your brain, non-ridiculous stance is that Wraiths can be knocked around, kept in place, have nets thrown on them, be yelled at, stopped by Bretonnian archer's spikes (don't they explicitly ignore terrain?) and affected by all kinds of mundane things, just as long as it doesn't wound them. I don't see how my view point is any more ridiculous.
 

Kalandros

Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
835
#39
lordcypress said:
This is the most rediculous thread I've read in a long time. Nobody plays a Giant like that. Not once in the 7 years of RTT, Grand Tournaments and in house tournaments have I seen anyone ever squash an Ethreal model. My gaming group will have a good laugh at this one. Giants squashing ethreals.............:happy:.
Rules have nothing to do with logic.
By the rules, Banshee scream does not do Magic Damage, so a Banshee screaming at Wraiths will do nothing.

That's how rules are written, that's how you play them.
 

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#40
Kalandros said:
Rules have nothing to do with logic.
Exactly my sentiments. If you are a new comer to the game, there are a ton of rules in WH that make no sense. Maybe I should start a thread on it.
 

Johnny B

Grave Guard
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
283
#41
Quite a few players seem to interpret the Giants rules like that if you look on Warseer.
You can find an awful lot of things on Warseer that don't make sense.

I honestly don't think why you think it's ridiculous that all mundane attacks that do not deal wounds affect them just fine, like Goblin Netters, but find it ridiculous that something that doesn't specifically deal wounds can kill them.
I do find it ridiculous that Netters and stakes affect them. There is nothing to suggest they ignore attack penalties though, just that they are immune to damage from non-magical sources.
 

Grish

Liche
True Blood
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
5,444
#42
That's what I'm saying Johnny; it is ridiculous. And using 'common sense' doesn't make sense. If netters and stakes affect them (which they do) obviously everything affects them that doesn't inflict wounds. So if you say the mechanics for a removal effect is that they lose all wounds and are therefore removed, OK. If you lose all wounds as an effect of being removed, thats a weaker argument. The Gateway WoC spell removes from the table, and either a) does not cause wounds, as the Carstein Ring does not work, or b) does cause wounds, but has a specific exception in the FAQ to prevent the Carstein Ring from working. If the answer is b) and removal effects bypass the Carstein ring, then I'd question if that applies to all. This spell itself normally deals wounds so... its another set of questions to resolve.
 

Johnny B

Grave Guard
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
283
#43
The Gateway WoC spell removes from the table, and either a) does not cause wounds, as the Carstein Ring does not work, or b) does cause wounds, but has a specific exception in the FAQ to prevent the Carstein Ring from working. If the answer is b) and removal effects bypass the Carstein ring, then I'd question if that applies to all. This spell itself normally deals wounds so...
Generally, my stand point is that if you are removed from play due to anything other than fleeing off the board you are dead (0 wounds left). I find this is generally accepted by most people I play against and have never had anyone suggest that Removed from Play doesn't equal wounds caused, though I do see it could be taken that way if one were to focus solely on what is written to the letter.

The faq does specifically state the ring does not work, in the following, helpful manner:

'No, he does not. He’s gone, man. You must let go!'

Nice to see they take these things seriously then. I would still say he loses all his wounds and dies, otherwise does his army even crumble (is he wandering about in the Realm of Chaos?)? Presumably the intention is to recreate the double 1 miscast 'sucked into the Realm of Chaos effect', in which case they could just say so tbh.
 
Top