Invocation Question

[shel5210]

I just started a VC army and I have a question about how IoN works. For example if I have a necromancer in a unit of skeletons and a vampire in a nearby unit of skeletons, and both the necro and vamp are down 2 wounds.

If the necro cast IoN and it hits both units, do the characters both regain wounds. Obviously the vampire only recovers one.

Also, does the necro gain wounds back?

 

[Lynks]

Characters in units cannot gain any wounds from casting IoN. You will however gain one wound back on one of them for casting a spell from the lore of vampires (lore attribute). However, if a character ios by themselves then they can make use of IoN for healing wounds as well as the lore attribute (but this puts your characters at great risk.

 

[Lord Fear]

Just checking here on a similar matter: if you cast Invocation on, say, a Spirit Host or a Terrorgheist, you heal one wound. Can the Lore attribute also be used to heal a wound, or is that part of the spell as well, meaning only one wound healed in total?

 

[Gojira]

You can resolve the spell heal one wound on a spirit host or terrorghiest. Then you can resolve the attribute which is completely different. So yeah, heal a host with invoc, then after that heal it with attrib.

Strictly speaking though, the current wording stops the attribute being used to heal a character that is not the caster himself. Although, I don't think anyone will play it that strictly as it seems like just bad wording.

 

[Lord Fear]

Anyone else have an opinion? It just seems off to me, but if everyone else is doing it, I will continue to do so as well...

 

[maxtoreador]

Don't forget to let your vamps feed. (Only 1 in 6 but you kill 3 RnF and that's a 50-50 shot.) Also that every successful vamp spell proc's the lore attribute and it's before dispel.

 

[Lord Fear]

Uhh well I don't know everything but I know that's quite wrong!

You roll for Hunger if the Vamp kills one or more models, so if you kill 3 rnf that's still only one chance. Thankfully, the one time I had a wounded Vamp hero kill some rank and file, she passed the Hunger role, which is nice.

Lore attribute only kicks in on a successful casting, which is defined as a casting that isn't dispelled. There's misprints in the Spanish rulebook that say otherwise, however.

 

[maxtoreador]

Uhh well I don't know everything but I know that's quite wrong!

You roll for Hunger if the Vamp kills one or more models, so if you kill 3 rnf that's still only one chance. Thankfully, the one time I had a wounded Vamp hero kill some rank and file, she passed the Hunger role, which is nice.

Lore attribute only kicks in on a successful casting, which is defined as a casting that isn't dispelled. There's misprints in the Spanish rulebook that say otherwise, however.

Sorry, only read hunger once... didn't realize they capped it at one d6 rolled.

From what I hear the German and Japanese ed have the same 'misprint.'
Also, if this is not the intended... how do our Dark Acolyte and the elves book work? They use the same wording.

 

[Lord Fear]

Sorry, what's the Elves book thing? I've missed that.

I can only make an educated guess on Dark Acolyte is supposed to work: +D3 to the casting roll. Now, that is entirely supposition, but the fact that an army book has a reference to a spell and mentions "successful casting" in a sentence that makes no sense does not over-rule what the actual English rulebook says. It might seem wrong to play Dark Acolyte against its actual wording, but the game becomes a whole lot dumber if you play a successful casting as being before the dispel roll.

You'd have a much stronger case for the Lore of Heavens attribute working even if dispelled as it only says "target", but even that would be a bit too silly for me...

 

[maxtoreador]

Sorry, what's the Elves book thing? I've missed that.

I can only make an educated guess on Dark Acolyte is supposed to work: +D3 to the casting roll. Now, that is entirely supposition, but the fact that an army book has a reference to a spell and mentions "successful casting" in a sentence that makes no sense does not over-rule what the actual English rulebook says. It might seem wrong to play Dark Acolyte against its actual wording, but the game becomes a whole lot dumber if you play a successful casting as being before the dispel roll.

You'd have a much stronger case for the Lore of Heavens attribute working even if dispelled as it only says "target", but even that would be a bit too silly for me...

But you must 'successfully cast' IoN for DA to work, think of this chain:
Lvl 2 Caster, casts IoN on 2d6, rolls the avg of 7 for a 9 total. With this roll he could 'successfully cast' a 6' IoN. DA adds 1d3 to the roll (avg 2) for a total of 11. Difficulty to dispel is an 11. This is how DA works in my group's opinion, it cannot allow you to cast a spell you wouldn't have otherwise but simply makes it harder to dispel.

The idea that you can interpret DA in what you feel is 'overriding' the BRB and yet a lore attribute that uses the same terminology in the same army book should be played any differently makes absolutely no sense, you can't have it both ways.

The item in the High Elves book makes on a 'successful cast' any doubles rolled cause irresistible force not just 6's. If 'successful cast' only happens after a dispel attempt and failure or decline then neither this nor DA works at all. I have yet to see an FAQ/Errata that says either of these has been "fixed" so they will work with this assumption, the only answer I have seen that makes any sense is that the assumption is incorrect.

BTW, my ENGLISH copy of the 8th ed BRB only has the phrase we're debating, "successfully cast", in one location and it's not in the dispel section that everyone's quoting but rather it's under lore of life's attribute.

 

[texhnology]

You can resolve the spell heal one wound on a spirit host or terrorghiest. Then you can resolve the attribute which is completely different. So yeah, heal a host with invoc, then after that heal it with attrib.

Strictly speaking though, the current wording stops the attribute being used to heal a character that is not the caster himself. Although, I don't think anyone will play it that strictly as it seems like just bad wording.

The wording does not stop it from healing other casters imo. It is not a spell or an item so "resurrecting the fallen" has no effect on the attribute.

Ps. And the tombkings lore attribute has nothing to do with it. It is worded totaly different. Ds.

 

[Gojira]

I didn't mention the TK attrib at all. That one was FAQ'd anyway. I was simply pointing it out from a strict point of view, that no one will probably bring up anyway. Attributes aren't really defined as either a spell or not a spell, just happens after a spell. Short of broadening the WoC faq that is, which has bigger implications in itself.


I'd say in 99 games out of 100 no one will have a problem using the attrib to heal another character.

 

[Smogg]

The "Resurrecting fallen warriors"-rule apply for magic spells and items that can resurrect fallen warriors in an Undead unit by restoring a number of wounds worth of models.

The Lore Attribute does not follow this rule since it cannot resurrect fallen warriors.

 

[Gojira]

The "Resurrecting fallen warriors"-rule apply for magic spells and items that can resurrect fallen warriors in an Undead unit by restoring a number of wounds worth of models.

The Lore Attribute does not follow this rule since it cannot resurrect fallen warriors.

It also mentions you can target lone models like corpse carts and healing them, which is not ressurecting a fallen warrior either. I don't think the heading is literal, otherwise half of the explanation makes no sense.

 

[Smogg]

It also mentions you can target lone models like corpse carts and healing them, which is not ressurecting a fallen warrior either. I don't think the heading is literal, otherwise half of the explanation makes no sense.

I don't see the problem. The rule clarify that you can restore wounds of lone models using the mechanic where you "resurrecting fallen warriors". However when you do that, there is a number of limitations, such as you cannot heal characters.

The rule is clearly boxed in with a heading and an introduction, just by reading the heading there should be no doubt it apply to "resurrecting fallen warriors".
Secondly, there are two things in the VC rulebook that do lets you resurrect fallen warriors and both of these even reference the rule specifically.

There is nothing in the attribute lore about resurrecting fallen warriors, i don't see what it has to do with that rule.

 

[Gojira]

But that doesn't really flow though. I personally think they got a bit confused with their own wording. At the end of the day we are both playing the mechanic the same way. That's wat matters. If the two of us played it would never come up as an issue.

It's just I think it's weird to apply literal logic to one half and interpreted logic on the other. What happens if you are invocing a corpse cart with nothing else in range. It works no problem of course. Even though nothing was ressurected that wasn't there before.

I understand what you're getting at but I like to keep a level of consistency. GW aren't great in their wording, but what's new. At least most people will play it to what is probably the correct way. I suspect an FAQ to clarify like in other armies. It's just cleaner that way. There is nothing more uncomfortable to be half way through a tourney game with a stranger and they pull you up on something because that's not how they read it. Clarity would stop any issue. There was already a many paged thread on TWF the week it came out. It's good for GW to keep everyone on the same page.

 

[Lord Fear]

The item in the High Elves book makes on a 'successful cast' any doubles rolled cause irresistible force not just 6's. If 'successful cast' only happens after a dispel attempt and failure or decline then neither this nor DA works at all. I have yet to see an FAQ/Errata that says either of these has been "fixed" so they will work with this assumption, the only answer I have seen that makes any sense is that the assumption is incorrect.

Nope, check the HE FAQ, it talks about a "successful casting roll", which refers to the diceroll itself, in that it must reach the casting value for the spell to be IF. Similar words, but different meaning

BTW, my ENGLISH copy of the 8th ed BRB only has the phrase we're debating, "successfully cast", in one location and it's not in the dispel section that everyone's quoting but rather it's under lore of life's attribute.

P36, first non-bold line under "Spell resolution".

 

[maxtoreador]

BTW, my ENGLISH copy of the 8th ed BRB only has the phrase we're debating, "successfully cast", in one location and it's not in the dispel section that everyone's quoting but rather it's under lore of life's attribute.

P36, first non-bold line under "Spell resolution".

Yeah, it's NOT there. We had a game recently and I asked to check everyone's book. Of 9 books checked: my book, 2 other 'mini- BrBs and the hard cover that just came in the last shipment to the store all have had "successfully" removed. Why here they edited the book and everything else they errata I have no clue but they did change the book for some reason.

 

[shel5210]

Where does it say that characters in units don't benefit from IoN?

 

[Tawg]

BTW, my ENGLISH copy of the 8th ed BRB only has the phrase we're debating, "successfully cast", in one location and it's not in the dispel section that everyone's quoting but rather it's under lore of life's attribute.

P36, first non-bold line under "Spell resolution".

Yeah, it's NOT there. We had a game recently and I asked to check everyone's book. Of 9 books checked: my book, 2 other 'mini- BrBs and the hard cover that just came in the last shipment to the store all have had "successfully" removed. Why here they edited the book and everything else they errata I have no clue but they did change the book for some reason.

It actually states "The spell is cast successfully and it's effect is now resolved." 'Cast Successfully', 'Successfully Cast' is basically the same right? I'm curious if it's actually not there, or you're saying it isn't because it's written differently than you expect?

In any case, GW has to constantly FAQ their RAW since they don't know how to stick to a single terminology or how to keep things cohesive. I think it is fairly clear how DA must function to work, and I don't see why the other Vamp spells should work differently. It could be good or bad for you either way, so I wouldn't consider it a distinct advantage applying the rules as 'Successfully cast' being after the successful roll but before dispel; If you miscast and lost a wound you hadn't taken yet, you'd end up healing it off with the attribute if you play it after dispels wouldn't you?

Where does it say that characters in units don't benefit from IoN?

Page 26 VC book, in the 'Resurrecting Fallen Warriors' side-bar, very last part. "If a character has joined a unit, only the unit will recover lost Wounds."

You can resolve the spell heal one wound on a spirit host or terrorghiest. Then you can resolve the attribute which is completely different. So yeah, heal a host with invoc, then after that heal it with attrib.

Strictly speaking though, the current wording stops the attribute being used to heal a character that is not the caster himself. Although, I don't think anyone will play it that strictly as it seems like just bad wording.

The wording does not stop it from healing other casters imo. It is not a spell or an item so "resurrecting the fallen" has no effect on the attribute.

Gojira, how would it stop from healing a character besides the caster?

The rules state that you can't heal a character or mount unless it's specifically allowed, and the attribute says "Another friendly model." OH I see, so we're arguing over if a model and character is the same?

 

[maxtoreador]

BTW, my ENGLISH copy of the 8th ed BRB only has the phrase we're debating, "successfully cast", in one location and it's not in the dispel section that everyone's quoting but rather it's under lore of life's attribute.

P36, first non-bold line under "Spell resolution".

Yeah, it's NOT there. We had a game recently and I asked to check everyone's book. Of 9 books checked: my book, 2 other 'mini- BrBs and the hard cover that just came in the last shipment to the store all have had "successfully" removed. Why here they edited the book and everything else they errata I have no clue but they did change the book for some reason.

It actually states "The spell is cast successfully and it's effect is now resolved." 'Cast Successfully', 'Successfully Cast' is basically the same right? I'm curious if it's actually not there, or you're saying it isn't because it's written differently than you expect?

In any case, GW has to constantly FAQ their RAW since they don't know how to stick to a single terminology or how to keep things cohesive. I think it is fairly clear how DA must function to work, and I don't see why the other Vamp spells should work differently. It could be good or bad for you either way, so I wouldn't consider it a distinct advantage applying the rules as 'Successfully cast' being after the successful roll but before dispel; If you miscast and lost a wound you hadn't taken yet, you'd end up healing it off with the attribute if you play it after dispels wouldn't you?

No where on that page do the words successful, cast, or any variation exist beside each other in my BrB.

 

[Tawg]

It actually states "The spell is cast successfully and it's effect is now resolved." 'Cast Successfully', 'Successfully Cast' is basically the same right? I'm curious if it's actually not there, or you're saying it isn't because it's written differently than you expect?

In any case, GW has to constantly FAQ their RAW since they don't know how to stick to a single terminology or how to keep things cohesive. I think it is fairly clear how DA must function to work, and I don't see why the other Vamp spells should work differently. It could be good or bad for you either way, so I wouldn't consider it a distinct advantage applying the rules as 'Successfully cast' being after the successful roll but before dispel; If you miscast and lost a wound you hadn't taken yet, you'd end up healing it off with the attribute if you play it after dispels wouldn't you?

No where on that page do the words successful, cast, or any variation exist beside each other in my BrB.

Then I fall back to my favorite theory: GW is slowly trying to change the wording in the BRB so when they issue an FAQ for the problem, it'll look like they are fixing something to most players, instead of looking like they flubbed it in the first place :lol:

 

[Smogg]

There was already a many paged thread on TWF the week it came out. It's good for GW to keep everyone on the same page.

I agree its good if everyone is on the same page. The same discussion took place on War Seer, discussing back and forth if the attribute count as a spell until we suddenly realized omg Curse of Undeath does not and cannot ressurect fallen warriors and that concluded it.

Anything written within the "RESURRECTING FALLEN WARRIORS" box apply to any case within the VC list where you resurrect fallen warriors. More specifically "...by restoring a number of wounds' worth of models to the unit"

Whatever is written in the box only matters if the effect can resurrect fallen warriors. GW has even been nice to reference the rule clearly in those cases.

The rule "Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts" does not limit healing of characters in general. It only apply within the context of the RESURRECTING FALLEN WARRIORS section. (If the spell can resurrect fallen warriors)

Just as the rule "A model is assumed to have sufficient javelins to last the battle" does not give your entire army javelins. It only apply within the context of the JAVELIN section. (if your model is equipped with a javelin)

 

[Aramoro]

No where on that page do the words successful, cast, or any variation exist beside each other in my BrB.

Then well done, through your rigour you've got a Dark Acolyte ability which does nothing. I think everyone else will continue to have a Dark Acolyte ability which does something, even if it is not very good.

 

[Lord Fear]

I find it hugely ironic that maxtoreader has the word "reader" in his name, because he clearly has HUGE issues with the concept, from his very first post in this thread where he was telling us how the Hunger works wrongly, to his inability to read the High Elf FAQ properly, to where we are now.

I simply don't believe that maxtoreader has an English version of the rulebook that doesn't have this section as he claims. Post a picture and I'll believe you (and apologise)- but you've just been consistently wrong and misleading so far. In the meantime, I'm not going to bother replying to your posts, as they are just wrong wrong wrong. Not meaning to be so harsh, but this is the rules section, and I've never seen anyone get it so consistently wrong as you!