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.

The rules for the 3rd Eye stat that the sorcerer is counted as knowing the spells that an enemy wizard knows, provided that the spell(s) do not summon addition models or heal wounds suffered earlier in the game.

Does that mean a Sorcerer can never use spells from the Lore of Life via the 3rd Eye due to Lifebloom? Or does Lifebloom not count since it's the attribute healing wounds and not the spell(aside from Regrowth, that's a given )?

You got it - the attribute is what heals the model, not the spell.

Does the spell heal a wound? Yes, because of the lore attribute. Therefore you can't use 3rd Eye for it.

The lore attributes are rules which apply to the spell and alters the way the spell behaves. As such, the lore attributes are part of the spell's behavior.

I personally would be more permissive and allow Third Eye to nab Life spells but not take advantage of Lifebloom.

As far as RAW goes though I agree with Solkan, Lifebloom is essentially another section of the rules for each of those spells. Simply ignoring it requires a house rule to intervene.

- Salvage

The spell itself never, ever, ever heals a wound. The attribute of the Spell LORE does.

Spell Lore /= Spell. Attribute /= Spell

Mmm semantics - the reason I play RAI when able. I think the connection between attribute and spell is stronger than you're suggesting, but I'll fade out of the debate here ...

- Salvage

nosferatu1001 wrote:The spell itself never, ever, ever heals a wound. The attribute of the Spell LORE does.

Spell Lore /= Spell. Attribute /= Spell

You're ignoring what the definition of the Lore Attributes says. The lore attributes are special rules which apply to all of the spells.

If there were some way to cast the spell without the lore attribute rules applying, then 3rd Eye would be able to be used. Since there isn't, then 3rd Eye can't.

However they are not a function of the spell like you are trying to claim - they are an additional rule that kicks in when you cast the spell, but it is not the spell itself that performs the action, but an action of the lore the spell was cast in.

The spell is cast and one of the spell's rules causes healing. That means that the spell healed.

Except, as you keep on ignoring, it is not a rule of the spell but a rule of the lore the spell is cast from.

It is an attribute of the Lore and not a rule of the spell. Otherwise the rules for the spell would include the Lore Attribute rules.

Actual rules: When a spell from the lore of life is successfully cast....

Not a rule of the spell, a rule of the lore.

And you keep going ignoring the part on page 491 which says "This is essentially a grouping of one or more special rules that are applied to certain spells in that lore." There's no separation between the spells and the lore attributes in the rules.

So, again, for this case: The spell is cast and one of the spell's rules, a rule which triggers whenever one of the Lore of Life spells is cast, causes healing.

We demand a new FAQ.

Just because I'm distracted...

Champion A attacks Champion B, and uses a special rule to attack Champion B, and as a result of the special rule Champion B dies. According to Nosferatu1001's position, Champion A didn't kill Champion B because it was one of Champion A's special rules, rather than Champion A, that did the killing blow.

It's just like the old "Guns don't kill people, people who use guns kill people" argument. Spells which have special rules that heal are spells that heal.

Nos, I'm curious what you think happens when a chaos dude uses third eye to cast Searing Doom or Gehenna's Golden Hounds from the Lore of Metal. Searing Doom causes D6 hits ... but without the lore attribute Metalshifting how are we to resolve those hits?

- Salvage

Huh? That isnt my position. My position is that, as the Attribute (essentially but not actually - that is called changing meaning) is what performs the healing, then you can indeed cast it.

Solkan - um, no, stop changing words. Essentially is not the same as "they actually are"

Oh. So you're saying you can cast it, and also get to heal some chaos dude on the side? My three-eyed DP finally gets what you're after, and is pretty happy with it

(In other words, I thought you were telling us to ignore the attribute entirely, which would allow Life spells to happen in the first place. And by ignore, I mean not read it as part of the text describing how a spell works, which clearly must be done for those Metal spells to function ...)

((That said, you are winning be over. I'm still not 100% on where the "spell" ends and the "attribute" begins, and my point is that some lores are not as cleanly divided as Life.))

- Salvage

The spell causes wounds to be healed thus cannot be used with 3rd eye.

Synnister wrote:The spell causes wounds to be healed thus cannot be used with 3rd eye.

There is no question that the spell Regrowth can not be used, but Lifebloom is the Lore Attribute, not a spell.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Solkan - um, no, stop changing words. Essentially is not the same as "they actually are"

Ah, now you see that's the entire root of the problem. You're expecting 'essentially' to mean that, and I'm expecting 'essentially' to be used to mean something like this:

essentially - adverb- used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing or situation : [sentence adverb] Example: essentially, they are amateurs.

I don't think the term is used in the manner that you're expecting it to be used, but I don't want to argue about that.

Instead, if you understand the term to be used as you say, then I don't understand why, given a statement that would mean roughly 'these things are more or less a collection of rules that apply to spells in the lore' you proceed to conclude that they're something else, potentially something else entirely. Especially since there are really only two statements in the paragraph about Lore Attributes which define what they are, and the literal interpretation of the second sentence is contradicted by the Lore of Fire attribute, leaving just the one sentence.

I assume that the 40K YMDC guidelines against arguing over word definitions applies in this case, so please don't take this as an invitation to argue about the proper meaning of 'essentially'. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning for your position.