Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Magic resistance and Death frenzy
Topic Started: 31st July 2010 - 02:41 PM (1,902 Views)
Kevlar
Doomwheel Driver
This is what is commonly referred to as "rules lawyering".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ratemis
Member Avatar
Made of 110% Skaven!

I'll just address the issue again.

Look, in the rulebook, there's not even an RAI vs RAW argument that could be made. The Main rulebook says that Magic Resistance applies against damage caused by spells. The damage in Death Frenzy is caused by the spell.

If it worded to have the damage in Death Frenzy was due to Fatigue I would agree that there was an intent issue. There isn't anymore. The wording of the spell was changed to where it's only the spell that is causing the damage to the unit it is cast on, and that the idea that it's caused by some other source than the spell is simply drawing from outdated and already changed materials that no longer apply.

It's not rules layering. It's how the rules are worded with no ambiguity. From what I have read so far, the idea of the damage being caused by fatigue, and that Magic Resistance only applies to magic damage lies in the way things worked last edition, not this edition.

Like many (but not all) of the problems I've come across with the change between editions the problem seems to be about misremembering, or remembering old rules over the current ones. This is understandable, we've used the old rules for a long time, and now we have to get used to the new ones. However it is also important to understand that because the rules changed, the way they apply has also changed.
My Skaven Army, now with Testudorats!
Posted Image
" However, Bonebreakers have another mark against them now. Going up a hill can kill your warlord if you roll bad. Should call them Neckbreakers
"Get down from there! You could fall and break your neck!""
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Riktikticheck
Warlord
I also would note that i run a non caster list, and will not be gaining anything from this debate in an army.

Like Ratemis has pointed out now several times this is a very clear case where the rules are conserned (however counterintuitive it may seem).

The spell does damage to someone as is evident in the spells effect text.

Magic resistance is gained against wounds caused by spells be thay magical or not - that is not specified anywhere.

So there is no other way to read the rules - you get Magic resistance against wonds from this spell just like all the others.

Now before you start pointing fingers and calling out the age issue, I will not be using mages much in this edition either, and will basically opt for plague over ruin every time I do so thos will not affect me one way or the other.

Oh and i am 29 years old too for that matter.

Now if you could cast the spell on an enemy unit there would really be no discussion about this part even if the wording would remain the same, so why all this bickering when the rules in this case are surpricingly clear cut.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stripsteak
Warlord
'damage caused by spells' is really a very vague term and I wish they hadn't used it for MR. Does this mean any damage that results from a spell having been cast at some point?

you wither a unit now hits that wouldn't have wounded before are now wounding it. That could be damage caused by a spell, it wouldn't be damage if that spell wasn't there.

A unit gets occam razor-ed and wounds easier do we have to figure out what their normal wound roll wound have been, then figure out the ones that wound only because of the spell and MR just those?

obviously those are pretty ridiculous statements but are plausible only since 'damage caused by spells' is rather vague.

If we look at Hysterical Frenzy vs Death Frenzy
Hysterical Frenzy 'the unit becomes subject to Frenzy. In addition, whilst the unit is affected by this spell, it suffers ..." This very clearly spells out the damage is an additional effect of the spell.

Death Frenzy on the other hand says 'The unit will go into a state of Death Frenzy.' then 'Units that are Death Frenzied suffer D6 automatic wounds' this differs in that is specifies the wounds are caused by the state of Death Frenzy and not from the continual influence of the spell like Hysterical Frenzy does. It's also necessary for it to list out the effects of 'Death Frenzy' since outside of the spell we have no reference for what this state does.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ratemis
Member Avatar
Made of 110% Skaven!
Stripsteak
Aug 9 2010, 03:22 AM
'damage caused by spells' is really a very vague term and I wish they hadn't used it for MR. Does this mean any damage that results from a spell having been cast at some point?

you wither a unit now hits that wouldn't have wounded before are now wounding it. That could be damage caused by a spell, it wouldn't be damage if that spell wasn't there.

A unit gets occam razor-ed and wounds easier do we have to figure out what their normal wound roll wound have been, then figure out the ones that wound only because of the spell and MR just those?

obviously those are pretty ridiculous statements but are plausible only since 'damage caused by spells' is rather vague.

If we look at Hysterical Frenzy vs Death Frenzy
Hysterical Frenzy 'the unit becomes subject to Frenzy. In addition, whilst the unit is affected by this spell, it suffers ..." This very clearly spells out the damage is an additional effect of the spell.

Death Frenzy on the other hand says 'The unit will go into a state of Death Frenzy.' then 'Units that are Death Frenzied suffer D6 automatic wounds' this differs in that is specifies the wounds are caused by the state of Death Frenzy and not from the continual influence of the spell like Hysterical Frenzy does. It's also necessary for it to list out the effects of 'Death Frenzy' since outside of the spell we have no reference for what this state does.

"Damage caused by spells", not "damage resulting from spells". In the case of Death frenzy, it's the spell that causes the wound. The spell "Death Frenzy", which is why it says that units that are Death Frenzied suffer D6 automatic wounds. The spell causes the wound.

However, in the case of wither, it is not the spell that causes the damage, it is another source. The spell only makes it easier to wound them. Magic Resistance doesn't say "against modifiers caused by spells", it's "against damage caused by spells".

Magic Resistance is applicable against damage caused by spells, not against modifiers caused by spells, not against damage eventually resulting from spells, not against flying pink elephants (unless they cause damage as part of the spell).

Someone with Flaming Sword of Rhuin doesn't give MR saves against everyone he hits, because the damage is caused by the person the spell is cast on and he is augmented by the spell.

Likewise damage caused by someone transformed into a Fire Dragon does not benefit from Magic Resistance, because it is not damage caused by the spell, it's damage caused by the person transformed, they're just augmented by the spell.

If spells like Wither, Flaming Sword, and Transformation gave, as part of their description, "The caster", or potentially "enemies", "suffer x hit/wounds/slaps with fish" then it would be damage caused by the spell.


I think that the conversation is starting to move to an absurd level. The rules, without any twisting, conniving, or dictionaries give the magic resistance save "against damage caused by spells". I'm done pointing that out and re-typing it.

If you can't move a stone out of your way, you go around it.
My Skaven Army, now with Testudorats!
Posted Image
" However, Bonebreakers have another mark against them now. Going up a hill can kill your warlord if you roll bad. Should call them Neckbreakers
"Get down from there! You could fall and break your neck!""
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kevlar
Doomwheel Driver
You keep saying that the direct damage is caused by the spell but ignore simple facts.

1. The spell does no damage in the magic phase.
2. The spell does not "remain in play".

The wounds are a side effect of the double frenzy and have nothing to do with the spell. The only way to 'dispel' the frenzy is to lose combat. Argue it all you like but go to any tournament and you are going to be over ruled.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stripsteak
Warlord
Ratemis
Aug 9 2010, 03:53 AM
Magic Resistance is applicable against damage caused by spells, not against modifiers caused by spells, not against damage eventually resulting from spells, not against flying pink elephants (unless they cause damage as part of the spell).

Someone with Flaming Sword of Rhuin doesn't give MR saves against everyone he hits, because the damage is caused by the person the spell is cast on and he is augmented by the spell.

Likewise damage caused by someone transformed into a Fire Dragon does not benefit from Magic Resistance, because it is not damage caused by the spell, it's damage caused by the person transformed, they're just augmented by the spell.

If spells like Wither, Flaming Sword, and Transformation gave, as part of their description, "The caster", or potentially "enemies", "suffer x hit/wounds/slaps with fish" then it would be damage caused by the spell.

I don;t see how you can make these statements and still advocate so strongly that death frenzy allows MR.
particularly:
"not against modifiers caused by spells, not against damage eventually resulting from spells"
the spell puts you in a modified state of Death Frenzy, and you eventually suffer damage from being in this state. as i mentioned above you'll notice the difference between the spell Hysterical Frenzy and Death Frenzy. Hysterical specifically sates it the continued effect of the spell doing the damage. Death Frenzy says it's being in a Death Frenzy that causes the wounds.

and this "Likewise damage caused by someone transformed into a Fire Dragon does not benefit from Magic Resistance, because it is not damage caused by the spell, it's damage caused by the person transformed, they're just augmented by the spell. "

the damage of Death Frenzy is not caused by the spell, it's caused by the models being in a Death Frenzy. they are just augmented into the state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demonrat Thing
Member Avatar
The Bloated
I cant believe people are still arguing this...ugh. In the book on page 44 on the right side in the box it states no saves of any kind allowed, period.

Therefore, I would assume that death frenzy allows ZERO, yes ZERO, saves.

MR for Death Frenzy...HAHAHA! It's a shadow of a thought that once could have been but never was.

P.S. Nice try though.
Doom, Doom, Doom,
it seems to endlessly say… all will fall, all will be ruinous,
Doom, Doom, Doom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kevlar
Doomwheel Driver
Demonrat Thing
Aug 9 2010, 02:52 PM
I cant believe people are still arguing this...ugh. In the book on page 44 on the right side in the box it states no saves of any kind allowed, period.

Therefore, I would assume that death frenzy allows ZERO, yes ZERO, saves.

MR for Death Frenzy...HAHAHA! It's a shadow of a thought that once could have been but never was.

P.S. Nice try though.

That doesn't apply here. Death frenzy does wounds, it does not remove models. Regular ward saves apply. Magic resistance after close combat and break tests not so much.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SkavenDan
Member Avatar
Doomwheel Fanatic
Kevlar, Your fingers will bleed before this rule lawyer rubbish is concluded I just laughed at the torrent of replies since my last.

This hole direct damage argument is rubbish. Skaven book predates it so quoting it is direct damage is silly. It is frenzy for all intensive purposes.

RAW the rule lawyers I ask you to prove it is magic damage because it does not state that it is. :P
Posted Image Twitter @SkavenDan

YouTube SkavenDan

SkavenBlight Radio Website

Twitch SkavenDan

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
zap2828
Clanrat
Here's the thing it doesn't have to be "Magic Damage", reread magic resistance, it just has to be damage caused by a spell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SkavenDan
Member Avatar
Doomwheel Fanatic
I have read the section probably more times than you and well done for telling me to read the section for the billionth time if you had actually read the hole post you might have realized that your just saying whats already been said.

The skaven book states it is a type of frenzy. Now if it was classed as a remains in play spell your point might hold some merit but it is not.

There is nothing in the skaven description that says the damage is magical / caused by the spell.

This hole debate hangs the fact they keep changing the wording on things.

But if it was spell damage then surly it should be damage taken in the magic phase?? not at the end of the skaven turn.
Posted Image Twitter @SkavenDan

YouTube SkavenDan

SkavenBlight Radio Website

Twitch SkavenDan

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
zap2828
Clanrat
The debate really comes down to one thing. The damage is either caused by the spell or not caused by the spell. Some would point out that the spells description states you take the damage so it must be damage from the spell. Others would state the damage is not taken in the magic phase therefore it's not caused by the spell. Stating the same two sides over and over is getting boring and a little frustrating. I'll stick to my interpretation and if it ever becomes an issue I'll get to roll off against someone, that is until I see it in a faq.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sammy the Squid
Member Avatar
Back to retirement!

I agree with Zap. Both sides do hold some merit, and this argument isnt actually going anywhere. People are just restating the same things without progressing the point. Personally, I dont believe that MR would work from wounds caused by DF, and dont believe it was ever intended to. That is my opinion on the rules. But Ratemis and his followers believe otherwise, and he has actually put forward a good argument supporting it. I may not agree, but he has put forward a perspective and supported it with evidence. On the rare occurance that this situation arises, it will be up to the individuals playing the game to decide what rule prevails. If people cant decide, a dice-off is a simple way to go. Its unlikely to be game changing afterall...

- Sammy
"If the squidman can't do it, no one can!!"

Wins/Losses/Draws

Skaven Clan Rattenkrieg - 108/58/20
Dark Elves - 44/14/8
Hochland Empire - 33/14/4
Malkavian Vampires - 23/22/4
Beastmen - 50/25/2

Have not completed a Painting Vow since July 07!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clanlord Trask
Member Avatar
Quiet, I'm plotting.

I agree with the Squid. Both sides have a point, and there is no definative answer (at least, not to be found in the books).

It might be worth pointing out that Death Frenzy cannot be a direct damage spell, however, as in the magic section of the rulebook (page 31) it states

Quote:
 
...direct damage spells can only ever be cast on enemy units.


And while Magic Resistance (page 72) doesn't specify direct damage (it just says "against damage caused by spells"), everyone seems to be getting their terms mixed up refering to Death Frenzys damage type. Death Frenzy falls into the 'Augment' category.

It is also worth noting that Death Frenzy is not a Remains In Play spell. Even though it has an effect that can last multiple turns, there is no Remains In Play (page 36, under Spell Duration) qualifier in its description. Shockingly, this means that you can cast it again the next turn without cancelling it on the first unit. It also means Deah Frenzy can't be dispelled in the other players magic phase, as they can only nominate to dispel Remains In Play spells (page 36, see Spells Lasting More Than One Turn).
Posted Image
The Campaigner
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fantasy Battles Rules Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply