Topic: Can the tank be healed?

[Aldaris]

All I did was quote the two sentances AFTER the one skyros quoted.

Maybe if YOU had read the book ... 

 

I figured the one I quoted should have been enough, no need for the heavy artillery.
 

[Cannonofdoom]

When in doubt, whip it out.




The Rule Book, I mean. Not your wiener. 

[Midaski]

So if you put an engineer on a horse and kept him within 3" of a Stank ................ you might be able to fire the cannon more reliably ........
 

[Syn Ace]

Sadly, no -- the STank is no longer a war machine -- it's a chariot (I know, that seems like a blasphemy - poor steam tank is going to have to go to therapy for identity crisis) and the engineer's ability only applies to war machines.

[Cannonofdoom]

So if you put an engineer on a horse and kept him within 3" of a Stank ................ you might be able to fire the cannon more reliably ........
 

Sadly, no -- the STank is no longer a war machine -- it's a chariot (I know, that seems like a blasphemy - poor steam tank is going to have to go to therapy for identity crisis) and the engineer's ability only applies to war machines.

Oooh, Midaski, you just got TOLD.

[Midaski]

Oooh, Midaski, you just got TOLD.

Only one bite - yes it wasn't very good after the last 3 pages of 'debate'

 

[Cannonofdoom]

 

[Skyros]

This logic is flawed. Buffs do not affect the Steam Tank. In the case of Occam's Mindrazor (which is the best pun in the whole book IMO) it is a spell effect that modifies the strength of the target unit. The Steam Tank is not the target of the spell effect, therefore it works. It is not immune to something that does not affect it.

But the same is true of the lifebloom perk. The steamtank isn't the target of the original life spell.

I find the bit you quoted inconclusive.

Of course the lore perks alter the way a spell behaves. It adds a special rule that happens when the spell is cast, and of course it only works on spells from that lore. That's not really the issue and that's all that quote talks about.

But not everything that happens in relation to a spell  is a 'spell effect'.
Using your interpretation...

a shadow wizard hitting the steamtank with penumbral pendulum could *not* use smoke and mirrors because it is a special spell effect attached to the spell targetting the steamtank without a S component.

Fire mages attacking the steamtank wouldn't get the bonus to casting for previous fire spells on the steamtank

Beast mages casting amber spear at the steamtank wouldn't get the bonus to casting

I find it highly dubious to claim that all the perks are spells.

They only affect spells, and are not, therefore, standalone abilities.

This claim won't fly. Using an item that adds to your casting value only affects spells, but that's not a 'spell effect'. Are you saying the steam tank is immune to, say, the staff of volans?

You have to define *exactly* what a spell effect is. This has not so far been done. I believe it to be only the text underneath each spell that tells you what happens after you successfully cast it. Other people are arguing that spell effects are....things that only effect spells. This is clearly wrong.

You need a much more precise and rigorous definition.

[Cannonofdoom]

Lore Attributes are Spell effects. It says so in their description, from the page I gave and the two sentences I quoted.


The End.

[Skyros]

It does not say so in their description.

It says it is a 'grouping of one or more special rules that are applied to certain spells for that lore' and it says they 'alter the way the spell behaves'.

It doesn't say 'Lore Attributes are spells/spell effects'. Indeed, how could it? The lore of fire and lore of beasts perks apply even if the spell is no successfully cast - how can something that happens whether or not the spell occurs be a 'spell effect'?

And if some of the perks are not spell effects, may not others be as well?

A spell effect is the effect of a spell once it is successfully cast. If something isn't a spell, what it does isn't a spell effect.

The end.

[Cannonofdoom]

It doesn't say 'Lore Attributes are spells/spell effects'. Indeed, how could it?

Pg 491 of the BRB: "A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type, or alter the way a spell behaves. Regardless of the detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from it's own lore."

Yeah. See that part where it says a lore attribute gives certain spells an extra effect, or alter the way a spell behaves? Stop ignoring that part, because it says exactly what you are saying it does not say. It is very clear, and I am not going to argue with you for the sake of argument. You are grasping at straws. The Lore of Fire and Lore of Beast attributes alter the way the spell behaves. Most of the other attributes give their lore spells an extra effect. They do one or the other. They either alter the way a spell behaves, or they add an extra effect to a spell.  How is that not clear?

[Grotsnot]

Pg 491 of the BRB: "A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type, or alter the way a spell behaves. Regardless of the detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from it's own lore."

(Bold added by me)

What you are quoting is a list of examples of what a lore attributes can do. It is not a definition of all lore attributes. The whole sentence you are pinning your definition on describes giving a spell an extra effect against a certain troop type.

The Lore of Life attribute doesn't do that; your example is flawed.

[Syn Ace]

Well, I wonder how long it will take GW to FAQ this -- if we start trying to heal our tanks, non Empire player heads are going to start popping.

[Cannonofdoom]

Pg 491 of the BRB: "A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type, or alter the way a spell behaves. Regardless of the detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from it's own lore."

(Bold added by me)

What you are quoting is a list of examples of what a lore attributes can do. It is not a definition of all lore attributes. The whole sentence you are pinning your definition on describes giving a spell an extra effect against a certain troop type.

The Lore of Life attribute doesn't do that; your example is flawed.

Your face is flawed. 

The healing ability of the Lore of Life attribute adds an extra effect (healing a model within 12") to every spell cast. This extra effect added by the Lore Attribute does not work on the Steam Tank because it is not a direct damage spell with a specific strength. It is a part of the spell being cast, added to the spell by the Lore attribute. Basically, GW made Lore Attributes instead of adding "When this spell is successfully cast you may immediately heal one wound on a friendly model within 12 inches." to every spell. If the spell was written like that would there be any question of whether or not it can heal the Steam Tank? No. Obviously it would not be able to because that is a spell effect. Well, the Lore Attribute is adding that effect to every spell in the Lore. Explain to me how that means they could possibly NOT be spell effects.

My example is not flawed. It is the rule in the book. Yes, it IS a list of examples of how Lore attributes work, and all of the examples given are in regards to adding effects to, or modifying the effects of spells in the Lores.  These extra or modified effects are still spell effects that do not have a specified Strength value, and the Steam Tank is therefore immune to them.

Why does everyone keep coming after me as if I am rules lawyering? The answer seems clearly written and not in need of FAQ. Am I the only one who reads it that way?

I think the confusion is being caused by people who WISH they could heal their Stanks, and want to find some way that they would be allowed to.

[Grotsnot]

An effect on a spell is not an effect of a spell.

[Helgrim]

The Lore of Life attribute doesn't do that; your example is flawed.
[/quote]

Your face is flawed. 


[/quote]

Greatest comeback! Actually snorted the pop i was drinking 

[Syn Ace]

Here's some rules lawyering I overheard ha ha

"The Steam Tank's metal mass is enough to scramble and block most magical attacks. Only spells with a given Strength can damage Steam Tanks -- all other spell effects are ignored."

A guy was trying to argue that the entry only deals with magical attacks and that the section I put in red is talking about the effects of magical attacks, not the effects of other spells that aren't attack spells. (bold was mine)

*smacks self in forehead*

GW, next Empire AB just put "The Steam Tank is immune to all magic, except a magical attack with a given Strength. A magical attack with a Strength value can damage the tank, but any other effect of the spell is ignored."  Or something along those lines.

[Cannonofdoom]

An effect on a spell is not an effect of a spell.

I never said it was.

[Skyros]

An effect on a spell is not an effect of a spell.

I never said it was.

yes you did. In fact, your entire argument hinges on it!

[MrDWhitey]

I like how this thread has even managed 3 pages without it being locked and the OP banned.

Just my two cents.

Also, ban CannonofDoom. It would amuse me.

Edit: While I'm at it I'll make a list of people I want removed. Be back in a few hours.

[Skyros]

It doesn't say 'Lore Attributes are spells/spell effects'. Indeed, how could it?

Pg 491 of the BRB: "A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type, or alter the way a spell behaves. Regardless of the detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from it's own lore."

Yeah. See that part where it says a lore attribute gives certain spells an extra effect, or alter the way a spell behaves? Stop ignoring that part, because it says exactly what you are saying it does not say.

No it does not. You are the one who is ignoring stuff. It says a lore attribute MIGHT give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type - the lore of life perk is obviously not one such.

So, it MAY or may NOT fall under the category of a lore attribute altering the way a spell behaves.

Is anything altering the way a spell behaves a 'spell effect'? Obviously not.

They either alter the way a spell behaves, or they add an extra effect to a spell.  How is that not clear?

Firstly, that's not clear (see the 'might').
Secondly, we know it's not the adding an extra effect, because that clause applies vs certain troop types (which the life effect doesn't)
Thirdly, I see no reason to assume that a special rule altering the behavior of a spell is a 'spell effect'.
Indeed, one might think it isn't since it gets its own special category.

If GW wanted all lore perks to be spell effects, don't you think they would have just said so? Why add the clause about 'altering the way a spell behaves'?

[Skyros]

GW, next Empire AB just put "The Steam Tank is immune to all magic, except a magical attack with a given Strength. A magical attack with a Strength value can damage the tank, but any other effect of the spell is ignored."  Or something along those lines.

They are going to need to do some additional work on the lore perks all round. Obviously it would be highly imbalanced if the steamtank could be healed by a life mage.

However, why shouldn't the fire or beast perks work on it? CannonOfDoom is saying they are spell effects and dont' work, while I disagree. I see no reason why they shouldn't work. They can't be spell effects because they happen before the spell is even cast.

Also, I think GW will need to FAQ the tank main cannon as only doing D3 wounds. I think some people think it does D6 but there is no indication that it does.

[Cannonofdoom]

It doesn't say 'Lore Attributes are spells/spell effects'. Indeed, how could it?

Pg 491 of the BRB: "A lore attribute might give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type, or alter the way a spell behaves. Regardless of the detail, a lore attribute only has an effect on spells from it's own lore."

Yeah. See that part where it says a lore attribute gives certain spells an extra effect, or alter the way a spell behaves? Stop ignoring that part, because it says exactly what you are saying it does not say.

No it does not. You are the one who is ignoring stuff. It says a lore attribute MIGHT give certain spells an extra effect against a particular troop type - the lore of life perk is obviously not one such.

So, it MAY or may NOT fall under the category of a lore attribute altering the way a spell behaves.

Is anything altering the way a spell behaves a 'spell effect'? Obviously not.

They either alter the way a spell behaves, or they add an extra effect to a spell.  How is that not clear?

Firstly, that's not clear (see the 'might').
Secondly, we know it's not the adding an extra effect, because that clause applies vs certain troop types (which the life effect doesn't)
Thirdly, I see no reason to assume that a special rule altering the behavior of a spell is a 'spell effect'.
Indeed, one might think it isn't since it gets its own special category.

If GW wanted all lore perks to be spell effects, don't you think they would have just said so? Why add the clause about 'altering the way a spell behaves'?

You are stretching, and you continue stretching. I have given my reading of the rules, and that is all I have to say. Continue arguing if you want.

[Skyros]

You are stretching, and you continue stretching.

Not at all! I think a close perusal of the rules will indicate that you are the one who is stretching. 

[Cannonofdoom]

You are stretching, and you continue stretching.

Not at all! I think a close perusal of the rules will indicate that you are the one who is stretching. 

Whatever you say.