Invocation Question

[Gojira]

You can't say that in the ressurecting fallen warriors only refers that literal interpretation when it also contains wording for healing a lone corpse cart that is still alive. Which would be the same as a character. I don't buy it, sorry.

Attribs not being a spell is a woc specific ruling on a specific magic item. They didn't FAQ attribs in the main FAQ. If we broaden the interpretations of every armies FAQ to affect similar things in any other army that would have a lot of ramifications.

 

[Aramoro]

You can't say that in the ressurecting fallen warriors only refers that literal interpretation when it also contains wording for healing a lone corpse cart that is still alive. Which would be the same as a character. I don't buy it, sorry.

Attribs not being a spell is a woc specific ruling on a specific magic item. They didn't FAQ attribs in the main FAQ. If we broaden the interpretations of every armies FAQ to affect similar things in any other army that would have a lot of ramifications.

Lore Attributes are not spells. Care to tell us all what the ramifications of that are exactly?

Ressurecting Fallen Warriors is very clear. Characters in units cannot be healed by it.

 

[Gojira]

I was referring to the bit at the end, which says unless otherwise stated, characters or mounts can't be healed by magic items or spells.

I think in general people should read all my posts on the matter though before picking apart one. I agree that the attribute CAN heal a character as I think the language in the book and intent shown in another army's faq are enough for me. But some people say as the WoC faq answer seperating spell and attrib is from a question regarding a specific item they don't count it as applying past that item because it isn't defined anywhere else.

For me the fact that they are seperating spell and attrib is enough to show their intent, so I'm cool with it. This back and forth started even after I said 99 out of 100 will probably play it as it not being a spell. It's just good practice to talk it over with your opponent first or get it faq'd so everyone is on the same page, especially for a tourney where you don't want any issues spoiling the game. It's wishfull thinking to expect there to be zero problems is all. In the past I've had people refuse to accept implied intent from unrelated army FAQs that dealt with similar topics. That's the ramifications I mentioned.

Bottom line of all I was trying to say is discuss it with your opponent to ensure a smooth experience. I hate when things come up mid game.

 

[FirestormXL]

You can't say that in the ressurecting fallen warriors only refers that literal interpretation when it also contains wording for healing a lone corpse cart that is still alive. Which would be the same as a character. I don't buy it, sorry.

Attribs not being a spell is a woc specific ruling on a specific magic item. They didn't FAQ attribs in the main FAQ. If we broaden the interpretations of every armies FAQ to affect similar things in any other army that would have a lot of ramifications.

Tomb kings has a similar rule to our resurrecting fallen warriors, and in their lore attribute that heals D3 it references it. Ours is mysteriously left out. And by mysteriously, I mean because it doesn't apply. You can heal 1 friendly model. resurrecting fallen warriors =/= Lore of vamp attribute, the attribute cannot in any way shape or form, bring a model back from the dead, it can only heal 1 wound to any model within 12". And the reason we are practicing on you is because first it isn't implied intent, it's as written and I need to bounce it off someone online before I take it to the table.

 

[Demian]

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!

I.. have a little problem here:

Regarding the "successfully cast" sentence, I've found a... disturbance in the force:

It's under "IRRESISTIBLE FORCE" (pag. 33), 3rd Paragraph on the Right:

"A spell cast with irresistible force automatically succeeds, even if the casting total is not enough to reach the spell's casting value. More importantly, perhaps, a spell cast with irresistible force is impossible to dispel"

This is somewhat informative, and perhaps not RAW, however I'm concerned that the first thing it mentions about Successful Casting is whether or not it has met the casting value, and on an additional note, it says it is impossible to dispel, as if dispelling had a secondary connection to casting.

Any thoughts on the matter?

EDIT: (Oh btw, I also have access to a spanish version of the BRB and it does say "lanzado con éxito" (successfully cast) where in the English version only says cast. Now, back on topic)