[coke123]

OK, I was recently playing my mate's Vampire Counts, and something interesting came up. He gave his Vampire Lord an upgrade to make it ethereal, and then made the claim that this protects against the effects of any and all hits due to miscasts that his lord suffers, arguing that the rulebook doesn't explicitly say that miscasts cause magical hits. I couldn't find anything to counter this argument, and for the sake of keeping the peace I let him go ahead as he had intended, but I must ask the question: Who is right? Clearly, common sense would say that miscasts should be counted as magical hits, but for the life of me I cannot find anywhere that says this. This could be very important to me as a Lizardmen player, seeing as I can upgrade my Slann to only be affected by magical attacks and all... and I'd just love to legally throw his own cheese right back at him!

 

[AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH]

Edit - Aramoro is the man. Sucks to be me not checking the FAQs.

 

[Aramoro]

It's in the FAQ, hits caused by miscasts are magical attacks, although MR won't help obviously.

Q: What are ‘magical attacks’? (p68)
A: All attacks made by spells and magic items are considered
to be magical attacks, as are all attacks that are specifically
noted as being magical attacks. Shots fired from magical items
are also considered to be magical attacks, unless their
description specifically states otherwise. Hits inflicted by rolls
on the Miscast table are treated as magical attacks.

 

[coke123]

Ah, thanks for that. +rep.

 

[olderplayer]

It helps to have the FAQ handy but arguing that a miscast hit is not a magical attack is just silly and is a classic example of a win-at-all-costs, hypertechnical interpretation that drives me nuts at times. It is like the guy claiming line of sight through three ranks of warriors of chaos because he lined up his warriors such that he can "barely" see a tiny portion of the body of the target for his spells from his caster.

 

[squeek]

This:

He gave his Vampire Lord an upgrade to make it ethereal, and then made the claim that this protects against the effects of any and all hits due to miscasts that his lord suffers, arguing that the rulebook doesn't explicitly say that miscasts cause magical hits.

...and this:

It is like the guy claiming line of sight through three ranks of warriors of chaos because he lined up his warriors such that he can "barely" see a tiny portion of the body of the target for his spells from his caster.

...is called being a tool. No two ways about it, anyone that tries to claim either of these examples is in the spirit of the game is taking the piss. If they try it again with a similar 'rule interpretation' (like my vampire is immune to dwarfs because his name starts with a 'P') and it's not clear, point out that it is like arguing you 'didn't know boiling water would burn you because there was no warning label' and ask them to show you where it says they can do it.

 

[Masked Jackal]

People here seem to be overestimating just how ridiculous this is. It's reasonable to assume that if you don't get Magic Resistance from a Miscast, that it's not a magical attack, especially when it wasn't explicitly stated in the rules until the FAQ. There's a reason this had to be FAQ'd.

 

[Tim/Steve]

... and its equally ridiculous that a build up of magical energy backfiring directly into you wouldn't be a magical attack... but without the FAQ there would be no rules to say that it affects ethereal things.

My god, a useful FAQ that solves an issue... if anyone wants me I'll be off partying

 

[squeek]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it is 'a magical attack' and you don't get to use MR. For a start it's a 'magical' accident, it's not a plain old explosion, it's a dimensional tear to the realm of chaos and so on. One of the effects is called 'magical feedback' for those pretending not to see the link; trying to claim that the effect isn't magical is taking glib rules lawyering to a whole new level.

Any normal person would assume the effect is magical based on the fact that magic is doing the fucking damage in the first place. But if that isn't reason enough, it is fairly clear that allowing wizards to stack MR to side step the risks inherent with dicking about with magic would be so rule-bendingly stupid that the whole miscast mechanic would be redundant.

You can't use MR because if you could the whole miscast rule would have to be re-written so that you couldn't benefit from MR. It is not a reasonable or logical basis for pretending that miscasts don't cause magical damage.

 

[Orochi]

... and its equally ridiculous that a build up of magical energy backfiring directly into you wouldn't be a magical attack... but without the FAQ there would be no rules to say that it affects ethereal things.

My god, a useful FAQ that solves an issue... if anyone wants me I'll be off partying

I love this.

 

[coke123]

It helps to have the FAQ handy but arguing that a miscast hit is not a magical attack is just silly and is a classic example of a win-at-all-costs, hypertechnical interpretation that drives me nuts at times. It is like the guy claiming line of sight through three ranks of warriors of chaos because he lined up his warriors such that he can "barely" see a tiny portion of the body of the target for his spells from his caster.

This:

...is called being a tool. No two ways about it, anyone that tries to claim either of these examples is in the spirit of the game is taking the piss. If they try it again with a similar 'rule interpretation' (like my vampire is immune to dwarfs because his name starts with a 'P') and it's not clear, point out that it is like arguing you 'didn't know boiling water would burn you because there was no warning label' and ask them to show you where it says they can do it.

I would really like to stress that this particular guy is not a win-at-all-costs gamer- in fact he couldn't be further from it. As it turns out I still managed to trounce him with a substandard Lizardmen list, and on one turn half my army panicked (yes, including one block of saurus). It's not like he was running Uber cheese, it was just one equipment configuration he wanted to try out. I wouldn't be suprised if he got it off some WaaC dick on some forum, but his intent certainly wasn't to cheese out one of his best friends.