Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This came up in a game recently, a warp stone dragon was next to an ethereal model meaning it has to take a toughness test or take a wound, however as the model was ethereal, does the model take a wound from the test or not?

I guess my question really boils down to, are characteristic tests magical, and if so, where is that stated?

Thanks!

Unless the characteristic test is caused by an source that is explicitly magical, like a spell, then it is not magical.

Incorrect. Effects can wound ethereals, the aura is not a magical attack, or a spell, however it does cause an effect (S test or take a wound). If it were a regular attack, then I would agree, but in this case it would indeed wound the ethereal target.

Ahh, I misread that section. I translated magic to apply to the entire second sentence of that paragraph when it actually doesn't.

 Ehsteve wrote:
Incorrect. Effects can wound ethereals, the aura is not a magical attack, or a spell, however it does cause an effect (S test or take a wound). If it were a regular attack, then I would agree, but in this case it would indeed wound the ethereal target.

Hi,

Thanks for your reply, can you point me in the direction of where this is stated, or is it your interpretation?

Thanks!

Ethereals, p68 second paragraph.

 Ehsteve wrote:
Ethereals, p68 second paragraph.

The close combat attacks of Ethereal creatures are magical. Conversely, Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons or effects. This is not to say that Ethereal creatures cannot be beaten in close combat by mundane troops, because combat results are not wholly dependent upon casualties.

Emphasis mine.

The common sense reading is that the effects must also be magical in order to wound an ethereal creature. As in, it could be written:

"Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by: 1) spells; 2) magical attacks; and 3) magic weapons or effects."

You are suggesting that it is written:

"Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by: 1) spells; 2) magical attacks and magic weapons; or 3) effects."

However, "effects" is not a defined term, and is always preceded by some sort of modifier...usually "special." Thus this reading should be ignored, as it would result in ethereals being harmed by vague and loosely defined "effects" as compared to the more specific and thematically appropriate "magical effects."


edit: TL;DR - Is it a spell? Is it a magic weapon? Is it a magic attack? Is it somehow else described as magic or magical? If not .... can't hurt ethereals.

They use that sort of language a lot. Even clarified in the official FAQ. For example:

Q: Where there are references to monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts does this mean just monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry and monstrous beasts (and not ‘ordinary’ cavalry and beasts)? (various)
A: Yes.


It's NOT
1) Monstrous Infantry
2) Cavalry
3) Beasts

But
1) Monstrous Infantry
2) Monstrous Cavalry
3) Mobstrous Beasts

There is no such thing as a magical effect. That should be evidence enough that the class rule does not apply.

EDIT: and even if you were to apply the class rule, you could well argue that the class refers to everything that is not a mundane close combat or shooting attack.

 Ehsteve wrote:
There is no such thing as a magical effect.

Of course there is.
It's an effect, of something magical.

If you think there's no such thing, you have to also admit that there's no such thing as "effects" (non magical) either.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
There is no such thing as a magical effect.

Of course there is.
It's an effect, of something magical.

If you think there's no such thing, you have to also admit that there's no such thing as "effects" (non magical) either.

Not exactly. Unless you mean it's an effect which causes magical wounds or is an effect from a magical item (of which there is perhaps...1 that I know of, and even that's contentious [Festus' potion]). So effects which cause wounds (which are neither attacks nor spells) will indeed wound an ethereal creature.

I am admitting that there is such a thing as effects. There are no non-magical nor magical effects, just effects. Furthermore I put forward that the sentence cannot use the class rule for intent nor written word with complete certainty, so magical never even comes into play in the first place.

So you're saying there are effects.
And there things that are magical.
And there are even effects from magical things.
But theses cannot be refered to as "magical effects" because of reasons.

The effect of something magical, isn't a magical effect. Good luck with that.

I actually agree with Ehsteve.

the section in question is : 'Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks and magic weapons or effects'

this is a list of the things that can harm an ethereal creature.

and in English the 'or' would render effects as a separate entity on the list.

the list would read:

ethereal creatures can be wounded by:

1) spells, magical attacks and magic weapons

or

2) effects


this is further backed up by spells, magical attacks and magic weapon all being defined terms.

spell : is a defined term
magical attacks : is a defined term
magic weapon : is a defined term

effects are also defined as something that takes effect, i.e. an area of effect such as that mentioned in the OP where units within X" take a toughness test is an effect.

Ethereal isn't the safetynet people seem to think it is.

The "and" in the sentence is in the wrong place for it to refer to that. There's a reason it's grouped with the magic weapons.

It would have to read as follows, to say what you're claiming:
'Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by spells, magical attacks, magic weapons and effects'

Grammar and all that, as it's a list. The final item is magical weapons or effects. These are grouped.
The final item is not effects.

Magical weapons
Magical effects
Written as magical weapons or effects

In exactly the same way they would write Monstrous Infantry or Cavalry.
This refers to Monstrous Infantry and Monstrous Cavalry (not normal cavalry).


To say Etherial can be wounded by "effects" just makes a nonsense out of the whole rule. A wound from a non-magical weapon is an "effect" of being hit. It's a very broad, non defined term that covers pretty much everything.
The automatic wound from a poison weapon is most definitely an effect.
So is the wound from dangerous terrain.

 grendel083 wrote:
So you're saying there are effects.
And there things that are magical.
And there are even effects from magical things.
But theses cannot be refered to as "magical effects" because of reasons.

The effect of something magical, isn't a magical effect. Good luck with that.

Magical Attacks are well defined.

Magical Weapons are well defined.

Spells are well defined.

But what is a 'magical effect', where are the rules for a 'magical effect', does it mean effects which causes wounds which are counted as magical attacks? I'm pretty sure that has already been covered.

There are effects (aura of madness, Festus' Potion, etc) which cause wounds which are not any of the following: attacks (close combat, shooting, and unusual forms of both) and spells. Heck terrain can generate effects in some cases, they are not attacks, nor spells.

 Ehsteve wrote:
But what is a 'magical effect', where are the rules for a 'magical effect', does it mean effects which causes wounds which are counted as magical attacks? I'm pretty sure that has already been covered.

That's the problem. "Effect" is not defined.
Not every term in the Rulebook is, so in those cases we have to take the actual meaning of the word instead.

Noun. A change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause:

It's a hugely vague term. Poison most definitely fits the definition (let's avoid the effect of Killing Blow, no one wants that re-opened). So does terrain as you mentioned. You really think these effect Etherial models?

Every wound caused is the effect of something, if we get down to it.

Simply using "effect" ignores everything about this rule, the grammar of the sentence, and their proven writing style.

A sharp rock won't effect etherial, nor will poison.

I'm a VC player and play with ethereals quite a lot. I would say that the ethereals would take the wound.

This is because the wound in question is not 'caused' by the effect in the same way that a wound might be caused by a weapon or spell.
The wording is simply 'takes a wound'. You would not say that the ethereal model was 'wounded by the effect'.
The wording from the ethereal section is "Ethereal creatures can only be wounded by..."
The ethereal is not being 'wounded by' the effect, or really anything at all. That is why the ethereal rules do not protect it from wounds being taken due to failed characteristic tests.

 grendel083 wrote:

A sharp rock won't effect etherial, nor will poison.

Poison is a different kettle of fish.

Ethereal creatures never take dangerous terrain because they treat all terrain as open terrain for movement regardless, so they could never provoke the wound in the first place. A Haunted Mansion would still inflict hits on the unit (not an attack, simply being within range will render hits on the given roll) and be able to wound and kill an ethereal model.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
There is no such thing as a magical effect.

Of course there is.
It's an effect, of something magical.

Eh. That's very vague.

In rules terms, Ehsteve is right, there is no magical effects. Magic weapons are all stated to have "magical attacks", all damaging magic spells are stated to be "magical attacks" and spells like the Flaming Sword of Rhuin give "magical attacks" to the unit it's cast upon. There's nowhere, anywhere, where there's a "magical effect". There's no "models must take a strength test or suffer a wound. This effect is magical" and there's no "models must take a strength test or suffer a magical wound". There's no distinction between a "magical effect" and an "effect". Therefore, it leads one to believe that all effects are the same and that the wording in the Ethereal rule is referring to all of these effects and that, consequently, the ethereal creature would take a wound in this situation.

To say there's no "magical effects" is absolute nonsense. Not every term in the rule boom is defined. Some common sense is require.

Another relevant term that isn't defined: "effects".

Yes magical effects is a vague term, effects is an even more vague term.

If you accept that effects exist in the game, you can't avoid magical effects, or pretend to not understand the meaning of the term.

 Ehsteve wrote:
Poison is a different kettle of fish.

Not really, it's an effect, unavoidably so.
You roll a 6 to hit (let's assume a non-magical poison weapon), what's the effect? An automatic wound.

This argument is actually really dumb for two reasons:

1) The warpfire dragon isn't even GW, it's forgeworld

2) There is no definition of magical effect, grendel can't just take vague words that are undefined in the rulebook and make them mean what he wants.

3) Even if there was such a thing as a magical effect, the dragon's effect would certainly be one. The rule can be found here.
Anyone who reads that and says it doesn't effect ethereal units is a masochist, probably worships the devil and plays eldar

Both arguments seem to be using the same logic; that the opposite term is vague and not actually defined by the rulebook.

So...two questions:

1. what is an example of a magical effect, and a non-magical one?
Poison doesn't factor into this discussion, because it merely changes the way the to hit/to wound process works, and therefore is ignored by the Ethereal special rule.

2. what is Warhammer's definition of "effect"?

Warpsolution wrote:
Both arguments seem to be using the same logic; that the opposite term is vague and not actually defined by the rulebook.

So...two questions:

1. what is an example of a magical effect, and a non-magical one?
Poison doesn't factor into this discussion, because it merely changes the way the to hit/to wound process works, and therefore is ignored by the Ethereal special rule.

2. what is Warhammer's definition of "effect"?

There is no definition of 'effect' that is specific to warhammer. But we don't need one because it is an actual word with an english dictionary definition which is the consequence of a cause. In the case of warhammer the cause is resolving a given rule, in this case the dragon's special rule.
However something like 'magical effect' would have to be defined in the rule book because it is not an english word and unlike 'magical weapon' was not defined in the BRB

The consequence of a cause. Resolving a given rule.

So...when I resolve a flee reaction, or roll for the winds of magic, or count a banner's CR bonus...I'm resolving rules. So the consequences to all of these are "effects"?

Yes they are effects by definition

https://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&rlz=1C1CHFX_enCA598CA598&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=define%20effect

Sorry. Not big on following random links. Though it looks like that's just a Google definition page, yeah?

So. That covers everything. A hit is the effect of a successful to hit roll. A wound is the effect of a successful to wound roll.
Every thing in the game is the cause of an effect, the effect itself, or both.