I don't think so. It specifically says characters cannot heal wounds from IoN. Lore attribute, yes. IoN, I believe not.
Impact hits on a character in a unit
- Thread starter Alabaster427
- 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!
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
No, IoN can never heal characters.
This is specifically mentioned in our AB.
@najo, its a very interesting dilemma. obviously im more drawn to getting my attribute, wether its dispelled or not. this gives VC more healing power since youre likely to get dispelled every magicphase.
Problem is nobody is going to accept it like that. ive never played it that way and i dont think anyone in my meta will allow me to play it that way either. they all hate VC and its healingprowess.
But i agree completely on Matt Ward being sloppy. i think he is an aweful ruleswriter. Casting one glance at the DarkElf book should be enough to spot a few completely retarded and unbalanced cases....
This is specifically mentioned in our AB.
@najo, its a very interesting dilemma. obviously im more drawn to getting my attribute, wether its dispelled or not. this gives VC more healing power since youre likely to get dispelled every magicphase.
Problem is nobody is going to accept it like that. ive never played it that way and i dont think anyone in my meta will allow me to play it that way either. they all hate VC and its healingprowess.
But i agree completely on Matt Ward being sloppy. i think he is an aweful ruleswriter. Casting one glance at the DarkElf book should be enough to spot a few completely retarded and unbalanced cases....
@Skittelz1981 yay! We agree on something.
I think that's the exact reason for the faq regarding dark acolyte. "Successfully cast" is the verbiage in that power. Now what would be the point in adding d3 to a spell attempt that was not dispelled?
The faq points out the the d3 is added before dispel attempts, removing "successfully cast" from the equation.
Somewhere in the book this is gone over in detail, but I stand firm in the belief that a spell is only successfully cast after its total is met and either is chosen not to dispel or failed to be dispelled by opposing player.
I think that's the exact reason for the faq regarding dark acolyte. "Successfully cast" is the verbiage in that power. Now what would be the point in adding d3 to a spell attempt that was not dispelled?
The faq points out the the d3 is added before dispel attempts, removing "successfully cast" from the equation.
Somewhere in the book this is gone over in detail, but I stand firm in the belief that a spell is only successfully cast after its total is met and either is chosen not to dispel or failed to be dispelled by opposing player.
And that is why I don't push it lol. There is more than just dark acolyte to support the predispel ruling, it's like 8 other lore attributes and the fact that Phil Kelly wrote the vampire one we are debating. Plus, the FAQ doesn't errata this, it just answers it. But I digress, the problem is Mat Ward's writting in the core book and it's easier to go with the majority on this one. But there is no way I'm letting my opponent hea more than 1 wound per casting on hexwraiths, lol, got it 
Mat ward was definitely devisive and he made choices that ruined parts of warhammer and 40k for me. Necron C'tan, Grey knights Dragon writing graffiti on tzeentch's wall, the 7th ed daemon army. But I will give him props for being bold and thinking outside the box with rules. His ideas are bold, and we have a lot of positive change from them too. He wasn't afraid to take risks like Banner of the World Dragon, steadfast, stepping up, 2d6 charges, wood elves overhaul.
His stuff needs refinement is all. But its laid ground work for the future of our game. Hopefully whatever version of unbound or allies we end up with won't tear all that up.
Mat ward was definitely devisive and he made choices that ruined parts of warhammer and 40k for me. Necron C'tan, Grey knights Dragon writing graffiti on tzeentch's wall, the 7th ed daemon army. But I will give him props for being bold and thinking outside the box with rules. His ideas are bold, and we have a lot of positive change from them too. He wasn't afraid to take risks like Banner of the World Dragon, steadfast, stepping up, 2d6 charges, wood elves overhaul.
His stuff needs refinement is all. But its laid ground work for the future of our game. Hopefully whatever version of unbound or allies we end up with won't tear all that up.
Skittelz1981
Varghulf
Well bigbadbat. i have to disappoint you on agreeing 
succesfully cast means that the amount needed to roll has been reached.
In GW-fluff terms: the wizard was able to cast his spell by channeling enough of the winds of magic into it without losing cocentration or being disrupted.
Adding d3 after the spell has succefully been cast makes alot of sense. it simply shows that a Dark Acolyte is more proficiant at casting IoN. so when he succefully casts it, its stronger and thus harder to dispel than from a wizard that is not a dark acolyte. this is shown by adding d3 to the casting result but only after rhe spell is succefully cast.
Dispelling, like Najo broke down earlier, is merely a defensive measure to block a succesfully cast spell. otherwise there would be no need to dispel it.
For the lore attribute though. its a grey-ish area.
I can totally see a wizard succesfully casting a spell and getting a lore att from it but the spell getting dispelled rihht after.
But i can also see a wizard casting a spell and getting dispelled which effectively blocks lore att.
But since this is once again a flawed writing-error that didnt get adressed by GW.... majority rules, and the vc players never are the majority.
succesfully cast means that the amount needed to roll has been reached.
In GW-fluff terms: the wizard was able to cast his spell by channeling enough of the winds of magic into it without losing cocentration or being disrupted.
Adding d3 after the spell has succefully been cast makes alot of sense. it simply shows that a Dark Acolyte is more proficiant at casting IoN. so when he succefully casts it, its stronger and thus harder to dispel than from a wizard that is not a dark acolyte. this is shown by adding d3 to the casting result but only after rhe spell is succefully cast.
Dispelling, like Najo broke down earlier, is merely a defensive measure to block a succesfully cast spell. otherwise there would be no need to dispel it.
For the lore attribute though. its a grey-ish area.
I can totally see a wizard succesfully casting a spell and getting a lore att from it but the spell getting dispelled rihht after.
But i can also see a wizard casting a spell and getting dispelled which effectively blocks lore att.
But since this is once again a flawed writing-error that didnt get adressed by GW.... majority rules, and the vc players never are the majority.
Actually I believe that najo is wrong on his break down. A spell is not considered successfully till the enemy attempts to dispel or does not wish too. If you look on pg 32 under casting value, 3 paragraph. " If the casting value result equals or exceeds the spell's casting value,THE SPELL IS CAST ( though it may be subsequently dispelled and neutralized by the opposing player." The spell is casted. Nothing about being successfully casted.
Now go to Step 4 {Spell Resolution} Very first sentence " If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one), the spell is CAST SUCCESSFULLLY." Here it tell you when the spell is considered "casted successfully". It says it word for word.
You can see the difference in the wording from the first part, the spell is cast, to in step 4 where if not dispelled the spell is successfully casted.
Now go to Step 4 {Spell Resolution} Very first sentence " If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one), the spell is CAST SUCCESSFULLLY." Here it tell you when the spell is considered "casted successfully". It says it word for word.
You can see the difference in the wording from the first part, the spell is cast, to in step 4 where if not dispelled the spell is successfully casted.
@Skittelz1981 lol, see the can of worms that this rule stirs up.
@midean @bigbadbat
For the record, I have your backs and I do play the way everyone else is. But even with everything else aside Phil Kelly wrote the vampire book, he wrote the dark acolyte power and our lore attribute. One guy. The two rules in our book have the exact same wording. The one rule works a certain way as it points out in the FAQ, Kelly knew what he was doing, he is a consistent designer. So, it's logical to extrapolate that the lore attribute works the same way.
@midean if we go through each step of the magic rules, there is all manner of referring to success and failure with casting and dispelling. Its not clearly worded. Technically the game state of successfully cast never is written as it appears in the various rules.
Even worse, under the defination of successfully cast = not dispelled, then successfully cast and successfully cast and resolved have the same meaning. Why have the two distinct game states then?
Look, I'm only bringing this up because Skittlez was curious about it. My gaming groups couldn't find a final ruling everyone could 100% say was right or wrong. I think out of the weird RAW situations this is one of the more valid ones that is hard to prove one way or another with. More so, the one possible interpretation I'm offering has more design space. It allows for certain Lores to have effects prior or in spite of their spell effects occurring. That's good for games design. It makes Tomb Kings a lot better too.
Any rate, I just ask people interested in this loop hole in the rules to investigate it unbias and fully. Turn over the game mechanic rocks and figure out what the designers were doing instead of just looking to support the majority opinion. Better yet, if someone can get Mat Ward or Phil Kelly to weigh in with the truth, that would be amazing!
Until then, I'm still resolving my spells then apply the lore attribute just like the rest of you.
@midean @bigbadbat
For the record, I have your backs and I do play the way everyone else is. But even with everything else aside Phil Kelly wrote the vampire book, he wrote the dark acolyte power and our lore attribute. One guy. The two rules in our book have the exact same wording. The one rule works a certain way as it points out in the FAQ, Kelly knew what he was doing, he is a consistent designer. So, it's logical to extrapolate that the lore attribute works the same way.
@midean if we go through each step of the magic rules, there is all manner of referring to success and failure with casting and dispelling. Its not clearly worded. Technically the game state of successfully cast never is written as it appears in the various rules.
Even worse, under the defination of successfully cast = not dispelled, then successfully cast and successfully cast and resolved have the same meaning. Why have the two distinct game states then?
Look, I'm only bringing this up because Skittlez was curious about it. My gaming groups couldn't find a final ruling everyone could 100% say was right or wrong. I think out of the weird RAW situations this is one of the more valid ones that is hard to prove one way or another with. More so, the one possible interpretation I'm offering has more design space. It allows for certain Lores to have effects prior or in spite of their spell effects occurring. That's good for games design. It makes Tomb Kings a lot better too.
Any rate, I just ask people interested in this loop hole in the rules to investigate it unbias and fully. Turn over the game mechanic rocks and figure out what the designers were doing instead of just looking to support the majority opinion. Better yet, if someone can get Mat Ward or Phil Kelly to weigh in with the truth, that would be amazing!
Until then, I'm still resolving my spells then apply the lore attribute just like the rest of you.
Last edited:
I went a read through everything again. It is possible that successfully cast is after dispell and successfully cast and resolved is after applying the spells effect.
This doesn't change whatever Phil Kelly intended with both rules being the same. But this means the two states can be applied to Midean's layout of the rules. In that case, Mat Ward sloppiness aside, it would mean Phil just worded dark acolyte wrong. Which I can admit is possible.
This doesn't change whatever Phil Kelly intended with both rules being the same. But this means the two states can be applied to Midean's layout of the rules. In that case, Mat Ward sloppiness aside, it would mean Phil just worded dark acolyte wrong. Which I can admit is possible.
@midean @bigbadbat Ironically, the rules for summoning spells in the Nagash book use successfully cast in the same way you guys are. There is no question in my mind successfully cast is after dispell.
Interestingly, if you read the summoning text, it is written as a BRB entry for a new type of spell, like hex, direct damage, vortex etc. We are getting daemon summoning I bet, and the Lores will be in the 9th ed rule book.
Interestingly, if you read the summoning text, it is written as a BRB entry for a new type of spell, like hex, direct damage, vortex etc. We are getting daemon summoning I bet, and the Lores will be in the 9th ed rule book.