Brassclad shield

[Arkiham]

So the Skullcrushers have this ability on their Shields, and I was wondering the extent of its ability.

I feel it's alot wider than first thought,  as it says result of a spell.

Alot of spells effect a lot of units in various ways, extra attacks, extra mortal wounds etc.

So, does this shield cover that for those effects ?  As it says wounds or mortal wounds.

Example, I cast a spell which grants a unit +1 to hit in combat. Do they then gain a 4+ ward against those hit which benefit would have missed but now dont as it's an result of a spell. 

Or for like the 2nd picture,  do they gain a 4+ ward against those effects on a roll of a 5. Again as it's an result of a spell ,

In both examples a spell has resulted in an outcome leading to either wounds or mortal wounds which wouldn't have happened if the spell wasn't cast 

 

[Screwface]

By that logic would you also include attacks caused by a unit that was in combat as a result of Sayl's spell moving them into charge range of the Skullcrushers?

 

Or would they get a 4+ against any wounds inflicted for the rest of the game in any phase if Festus casts his -1 to save spell against them?

 

Could get silly...

[rokapoke]

By that logic, they would always benefit against any summoned units. To me the effect is clearly only when the spell deals wounds (like Arcane Bolt). 

[Arkiham]

Yeah I was thinking it could end up broken as hell,  can't understand why they worded it how they have though.

 

Does it also apply to debuffs? 

And what spells cause normal wounds ?

[Screwface]

47 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

Does it also apply to debuffs? 

What do you mean?

[Squirrelmaster]

I think for the sake of sanity you have to only apply it when wound or mortal wound is the direct result of a spell (e.g. Arcane Bolt), not when there's some intermediate step involving another unit.

Otherwise, you risk ending up in “well that guy would be dead if you didn't have mystic shield on him, so all of his attacks are the result of a spell” territory. It just gets insane.

[Arkiham]

19 minutes ago, Screwface said:

What do you mean?

Not sure now I look back at it , probably meant to delete it but forgot.

[Kramer]

4 hours ago, Arkiham said:

Or for like the 2nd picture,  do they gain a 4+ ward against those effects on a roll of a 5. Again as it's an result of a spell ,

 

Well the second picture is an command ability so that logic does not apply.
But I get your drift. I would have assumed it was just vaguely worded and the intend was to protect against wounds and mortal wounds as the 'direct' result of the spell. Or something like that. 

[Arkiham]

Agreed, unessessarily open worded.unless they left it open for future potential spells. 

Like this perhaps?

[Screwface]

Or just add the word "directly" to the text.

[Kaleb Daark]

I would read this as any magic spell cast at them, not ability. so any spell which caused damage. I see it as a ward save against direct damage magic spells.

[Arkiham]

18 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

I would read this as any magic spell cast at them, not ability. so any spell which caused damage. I see it as a ward save against direct damage magic spells.

So, would you say that treason of Tzeentch spell is direct damage or not ? It's a spell causing wounds.

I can't think of a spell which causes normal wounds, and this is something which does. 

[Kaleb Daark]

1 hour ago, Arkiham said:

So, would you say that treason of Tzeentch spell is direct damage or not ? It's a spell causing wounds.

I can't think of a spell which causes normal wounds, and this is something which does. 

In this instance it wouldn't apply because the spell hasn't targeted you directly- the damage will be caused by a model in your unit attacking you.

remember that the war scroll was lifted straight out of the warriors of chaos compendium iirc so in that respect you might find in other compendium scrolls there were spells which caused normal wounds.

[Arkiham]

ok cool, i get it. 

 

shame but never mind