Menoth paladins.

[Scourge of heresy]

Can they be damaged by magic weapons? One of our local players says they cannot due to the rule on page 68 which says magical weapons are not magic attacks. We figure he's right but it never hurts to confirm.

[Kommissar Golovko]

I assume you mean Paladins in Impervious Wall? They will be affected by magic weapons since it makes a magical melee or ranged attack. Impervious Wall protects the Paladins from non-magical melee or ranged attacks.

[FearLord]

I assume you're talking about Impervious Wall?

He's wrong - Impervious Wall states that the model cannot be damaged by Non-magical ranged and melee attacks. While ranged and Melee attacks with the Magical weapon icon are not Magic attacks (which are spells), they are magical ranged and melee attacks, which impervious wall does not protect against.

Paladins under Impervious Wall can be hurt by any form of damage that is not a non-magical ranged or melee attack, so both Magic attacks and Magical ranged and melee attacks (and other forms of damage - collateral for example) will be able to hurt it.

[Moknim]

Everyone has it right. So you have proof:

The wording of Impervious Wall states:

A model with Impervious Wall is immune to continuous effects, does not suffer damage or effects from non-magical ranged or melee attacks, and cannot be knocked down.

The wording of Imp. Wall states "non-magical...attacks" thus magical attacks can still damage them.

[Ansgar]

I can totally see where he's coming from. The meat of this question is on page 68 of the main rulebook, where it explicitly states:

A magical weapon can damage and affect models with the Incorporeal ability. Attacks made with magical weapons are not magic attacks. Magical ranged weapons make ranged attacks. Magical melee weapons make melee attacks.

The first thing to note is what's bolded. The second is to note that for both melee and ranged weapons, they do not make "magical ranged attacks" nor "magical melee attacks".

According to the letter of the rules, magical weapons are specifically not magical. They literally only affect Incorporeal models.

[Lanz]

The main difference is 'Magic' attack, vs 'MagicAL' attack. That rule you quoted basically says that magical attacks(that is, an attack that is magical) is not the same as a magic attack(which is an actual magic spell that is an attack)

[dicegod]

The first thing to note is what's bolded. The second is to note that for both melee and ranged weapons, they do not make "magical ranged attacks" nor "magical melee attacks".

According to the letter of the rules, magical weapons are specifically not magical. They literally only affect Incorporeal models.

This is incorrect.

Magical weapons (icon) make magical attacks. They do not make magic attacks. That is the important distinction.

Impervious wall does not prevent damage from magical attacks.

[Masanori]

Like someone has mentioned before. technically nowadays there are 4 attacks

1. Ranged Attacks (normal)
2. Melee Attacks (normal)
3. Magic Attacks (spells)
4. Melee/Ranged attacks with the magical weapon Icon. (magic weapon attacks)

Impervious wall stops 1 n 2. Not 3 n 4
Just like the choir singing can stop spells but not attacks with magical weapons or normal ranged attacks
and how they can also stop ranged attacks but cannot stop spells or attacks with magical weapons.

[Ansgar]

Lanz makes sense, and his explanation fits suitably within the rules. Those two letters make all the difference.

[rydiafan]

Magical weapons do make "magical ranged attacks" and "magical melee attacks," and thus may harm paladins under the effects of Impervious Wall.

[SpellBinder]

Sounds like the rule Ansgar quoted is to set a distinction between magic weapons and spells, so certain abilities that will trigger on spells (like Witch Hound) don't trigger on magical weapons.

[FearLord]

Sounds like the rule Ansgar quoted is to set a distinction between magic weapons and spells, so certain abilities that will trigger on spells (like Witch Hound) don't trigger on magical weapons.

There is no such thing as a "Magic Weapon" in the game. There are only "Magical Weapons" which make "Magical Attacks" which are very different from "Magic attacks" (which are spells).

[Plushy Chestburster]

Oh Jesus. Just pick up the paladin and throw it already, hit something big with it and be on your merry way.

[SuperioR]

Can you throw a paladin under Impervious wall? Thought you couldnt since it states

does not suffer damage or effects

.

[dicegod]

No, you cannot (assuming the throw originates from a non-magical melee or ranged attack).

pKrueger could throw them with his Tornado spell, for example.

[NIK2286]

Or any or Karchev's jacks if he casts Unearthly Rage

[TheUnknownMercenary]

Oh Jesus. Just pick up the paladin and throw it already, hit something big with it and be on your merry way.

I believe this was just supposed to be a joke but what Plushy Chestburster did not realize is that in the rules forum, you are not supposed to post unless you are actually asnwering the original question. Because as we can all see, his comment has derailed this post into something different.

[vintersbastard]

Or any or Karchev's jacks if he casts Unearthly Rage

You're wrong on that account. Power attacks are not done with a weapon, and hence do not benefit from the advantage.

[Eglagrodion]

Can you throw a paladin under Impervious wall? Thought you couldnt since it states .

i think you can still throw the paladin, but he wont suffer any damage or knockdown effects, or any effects that come with the throw... though landing on an other model will cause damage on the model hit.

[vintersbastard]

i think you can still throw the paladin,

Being thrown is an effect of an attack, and as long as that attack happens to be a non-magical ranged or melee one, he won't suffer any effect from it.

[Masanori]

that's right.
look at it this way.
A throw is made with yer open hands/fist. So unless yer open hands/fist have the magical weapon properties OR had a spell cast upon them that gives it those properties, they cannot throw an impervious model.
A slam I'm not 100% being that, it's a melee attack, but not one that is done with hands/fist. I would say if we follow the rules 'strictly' than,
A slam does not move the paladin either because it is still a melee attack. Jacks with magical Icons cannot slam a paladin either because the magical icon effect is on their weapon, which is not what a jack uses to make a melee attack (unless u doing something like a chain attack smash grab thingy, can't remember the exact name, which should have killed the poor paladin anyway)

[rydiafan]

A throw is made with yer open hands/fist. So unless yer open hands/fist have the magical weapon properties OR had a spell cast upon them that gives it those properties, they cannot throw an impervious model.

Incorrect. As per page 51 of Prime, none of the properties of a warjack's weapons are applied to its power attacks. That means that even if a warjack has magical fists, it cannot throw an incorporeal/impervious model.

[Masanori]

Reaally? Even better than I thought then. Sweeeeeeet

[Ansgar]

Vintersbastard, Rydiafan, there's been a dispute at my local game store about this new information.

Can it be conclusively proven within the rulebook that the movement caused by a Throw or Two-Handed Throw Power Attack is an "effect" of the attack? Page 68 and 69 cover in detail what "effects" are. Because of this, the local argument is that the movement caused by a throw is not an "effect" of the attack.

Unless it is stipulated that throw movement is an effect of the attack, Paladin can be thrown.

[rydiafan]

Unless it is stipulated that throw movement is an effect of the attack, Paladin can be thrown.

Here is your stipulation: http://privateerpressforums.com/show...l=1#post311451

[Ansgar]

Thanks for the Infernal quote. That should be as close to a rulebook citation as necessary to convince the local players.

[Scourge of heresy]

I'm still not convinced. Can you provide the page number where it lists being thrown as an effect?

[rydiafan]

I provided an Infernal ruling. Those are law as much as anything in the rule books.

[Scourge of heresy]

Nevermind I've found it myself. page 54 under throw damage, thats all I needed to be happy with the ruling. Please cite better references next time PP forums

[Scourge of heresy]

That came out way worse then I meant it. I just needed the one page ref to be happy was all.

[Giygasfan]

That came out way worse then I meant it. I just needed the one page ref to be happy was all.

I understand that you did not mean offence, but be aware that Infernal rulings are as official as it gets. If an Infernal ruling and the actual rulebook conflict, the Infernal ruling takes precedence. You are new, and so might not have known this.