Warhammer Fantasy 8th and earlier question

Shaun

Member
What weapons hurt Undead Ghosts? I dont have the rules and i am pondering whether to give a dwarf character of mine the Rune of Fire to support the Master Rune of Death so as to be able to kill Ghosts in one hit also ... - which magical weapons hurt ghosts? Does Master Rune of Death hurt them or must i have Rune of Fire too?


Also ... how much to upgrade the oldhammer dwarfs to include a musician and standard bearer? The information isnt in my sentimental 4th edition dwarf armies book ... where is it recorded? I shall be getting multiple books for multiple editions but can someone let me know the points cost for musicians and standard bearer in Warhammer Fantasy ... 8th edition and yeah - for me just now ... 4th?
 

Fuxxx

Member
Any magical attacks should do for ghosts and fire doesnt hurt them in any way, so if the rune doesnt give the dwarf magical fire attacks, it wont do good either.

All models of the command group in the 8th edition tend to cost 10P, but in the editions before was some variation, so no idea for 4th ed. dwarfs
 

Snickit

Member
Shaun":22pdsxdw said:
What weapons hurt Undead Ghosts? I dont have the rules and i am pondering whether to give a dwarf character of mine the Rune of Fire to support the Master Rune of Death so as to be able to kill Ghosts in one hit also ... - which magical weapons hurt ghosts? Does Master Rune of Death hurt them or must i have Rune of Fire too?


Also ... how much to upgrade the oldhammer dwarfs to include a musician and standard bearer? The information isnt in my sentimental 4th edition dwarf armies book ... where is it recorded? I shall be getting multiple books for multiple editions but can someone let me know the points cost for musicians and standard bearer in Warhammer Fantasy ... 8th edition and yeah - for me just now ... 4th?

In 4th edition:

Attack just needs to be magical, so don't bother with the Rune of Fire, the Rune of Death will suffice. That said, leave off the Rune of Death and just go for the much cheaper a Rune of Fire and whilst you won't get an instant kill with just the one wound you will benefit from magical attacks so be able to wound the ghost at a much cheaper price.

Musicians and Standard Bearers in 4th cost double the cost of a regular trooper from the unit (I.e a Longbeard standard bearer costs 30 points as a basic Longbeard costs 15 (2 X 15 = 30).
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
1st Edition & 2nd editions also have Ghosts only vulnerable to attacks from magical weapons, not susceptible to fire damage.
 

Snickit

Member
Shaun":3u9wjac8 said:
Ah thank you ... but i thought fire hurt ghosts?

Not in Warhammer of any edition I believe.

It does double damage against flammable targets such as Mummies (bandages) but ghosts are ethereal so fire does b*gger all. Magical fire does damage however but because it's magic, not because it's fire.

Oh and regeneration for things such as Trolls is negated if they suffer one or more wounds from fire.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Snickit":umbatcnp said:
Magical fire does damage however but because it's magic, not because it's fire.

As originally conceived magic doesn't damage Ethereal beings such as Ghosts either, only magical weapons, other versions might be different.
 

Gallivantes

Member
Zhu Bajie":mh5i7fvy said:
1st Edition & 2nd editions also have Ghosts only vulnerable to attacks from magical weapons, not susceptible to fire damage.
3rd ed says the same, with the addition of "Attacks from demons, elementals and chill attacks from Vampires or other ethereal creatures are considered to be magical". Whether that addition was new for 3rd or also present in 1st and 2nd I can't say since I don't have those books.

(From this I can make out a possible reason as to why someone might conceive of the idea that fire hurts ghosts because a fire elemental actually would. Maybe that's where this idea got started? But as has been mentioned, it's the supernatural nature of the attack, not the fire aspect.)


Some additional notes on fire in 3rd relating to what's been said:

- Fire attacks are resolved at +1 strength, not by dealing double damage. (The double damage rang a bell to me also but apparently not so in 3rd from what I can tell. Think that might be true in 4th, can't confirm as I don't have that book available. Anyone?)
- Units that get this fire bonus include units equipped with torches or fire arrows, fire-themed magical weapons and spells, flame-projecting war machines, dragon fire breath and fire elementals.
- This +1 bonus applies against units listed as flammable, cases I found were mummies as mentioned and also treemen.
- Trolls and Jabberwocks are vulnerable to fire but in a different way. They aren't flammable but it does negate their regeneration if the attack is entirely fire based and reduces it to a roll of 6 if having taken partial fire damage.
- In the cases of both fire-dealing and fire-susceptible units there may be more. These are only ones I found and not by reading the books extensively.
 

Snickit

Member
Indeed, I was using 4th as my reference as this rules set was mentioned and is when Dwarf Runes began their proper form (after the trial run right at the end of 3rd after an article or two in WD) with the master rune of death and rune of fire being some such items.

Also, in fourth it is magical attacks that hurt ethereals but this can be taken to mean magic missile spells as it does not state magic weapons.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Surely chaotic weapons damage ethereal creatures because they are enchanted rather than because they are technological? Space Marines can't shoot ghosts, Chaos Space Marines with mutant weapon arms gifted by malignant warp entities can :mrgreen:

With magic, there's usually (D&D, Reaper, early Warhammer) a differentiation between a purely magical effect and a physical effect caused by magic. So a fireball or magic missile both cause physical effects - an arrow in flight or the fire, which themselves do physical damage. The magic is in bringing the physical effect into being, but the damage done doesn't effect the ethereal plane. An enchanted weapon exists on both the physical and ethereal planes so will damage creatures in both.
 

Gallivantes

Member
Snickit":1ooqv0hg said:
Indeed, I was using 4th as my reference as this rules set was mentioned
Right you are Snickit! I think I got too blinkered by the mention of Oldhammer dwarfs and limited myself to pre 4th edition, which is a fallacy in itself... I stand corrected. Anyways, we seem to have covered the matter for editions 1-4, and that's a good thing I suppose :)
 

Snickit

Member
Gallivantes":2cud8e4b said:
Snickit":2cud8e4b said:
Indeed, I was using 4th as my reference as this rules set was mentioned
Right you are Snickit! I think I got too blinkered by the mention of Oldhammer dwarfs and limited myself to pre 4th edition, which is a fallacy in itself... I stand corrected. Anyways, we seem to have covered the matter for editions 1-4, and that's a good thing I suppose :)

I would of thought that covers most of the later ones too, certainly nothing about ghosts and fire in those ones.

Zhou raises an interesting point though. Is a fireball or lightning bolt a magical attack or is the magic summoning the fire/lightning.

I would argue it's not natural fire or lightning so therefore it is a magical attack but if moving a hill then whilst moving the hill is magical the hill itself is not so the thing causing the damage is not a magical attack.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Snickit":3thsm1oe said:
Zhou raises an interesting point though. Is a fireball or lightning bolt a magical attack or is the magic summoning the fire/lightning.

I would argue it's not natural fire or lightning so therefore it is a magical attack but if moving a hill then whilst moving the hill is magical the hill itself is not so the thing causing the damage is not a magical attack.

I think you're good to rule whatever makes sense for your game/table. Certainly the magical (enchanted) weapons only and not normal magic is explicit in 1st/2nd/3rd. Possible to envisage a fireball that exists on both the ethereal and physical planes, so can damage ethereal creatures but that's not how it is conceived. If we were gaming Weathertop from LoTR, it's clear that the Nazgul fear fire, so in that case it would make sense for even natural fire to have an effect on Wraiths.

Interesting that 4th ed. removes the separate ethereality component, simplifies it to just 'magic' - here I could imagine a Skaven Flamethrower destroying ghosts because it's using refined warpstone, and warp-energy is what forms ghosts. Who ya gonna call?
 

Snickit

Member
Not sure about 4th but later iterations do class Skrye weapons as being magical attacks.

I guess it's down to what both/all players within the game feel is right at the end of the day. There is a white dwarf article that deals with 4th edition direct Vs indirect damage spells that covers if the spell attack is magical but it's not important enough for me go dig it out, am more inclined to go with the agree on the day policy, I ain't no tournament player!
 

Shaun

Member
Ah well this thread has been informative and helpful ... i first became interested in Warhammmer Fantasy during its Fourth edition so the Runes seem agiven to me ... i appreciate the information - i must ask though, Gallivantes, what on earth is a Jabberwock?
 

Padre

Member
Jabberwocky is a poem and a film. A jabberwock is what said film and poem were about. I am a font of all knowledge. Next!
 

Gallivantes

Member
Shaun":10aehnui said:
i must ask though, Gallivantes, what on earth is a Jabberwock?
What Padre said... and this!

374
 

Padre

Member
Aaargh! At least I had the sense not to post an image. Everyone, take a Cool test asap. If you fail, please feel free to post your gibberings here as they'll be entertaining even if nothing else.
 
Back
Top