Spellbreaker

[Ubijcsa]

Can Perdita Ortega end auras with her spellbreaker spell?

Example:

Jack Daw does Severed Ties spell then Perdita Ortega casts Spellbreaker on Jack Daw.

1. It is not possible, cause aura is not an effect, it's a kind of range.

2. The aura end cause it's the spell's effect too.

[Calmdown]

ok... after having a day to mull it over... the ruling still has some notable questions... but I'll take those to a different thread...

using the definition above,

I'm still left to wonder, if "passive" abilities of the model that also apply effects to models around them (like Terrifying) are disabled by Spellbreaker (because they are an ongoing effect that applies immediate effects)

Even if you could Spellbreaker Terrifying, it would be immediately reassert itself anyway since Spellbreaker doesnt remove it from the card.

[Mr_Smigs]

Even if you could Spellbreaker Terrifying, it would be immediately reassert itself anyway since Spellbreaker doesnt remove it from the card.

why? the duration of a spell without a listed one is "until the closing phase" ... so Terrifying would be gone until the closing phase...

the problem becomes,

that "end all effects" is an effect in itself,

so Spellbreaker (by the current definition of Effect ends itself as well.

this creates a problem in that ongoing effects would turn off, then reassert themselves...

does this count as a model re-entering the ongoing effect if it's one that normally would only affect the model once (upon entering)?

[Calmdown]

why? the duration of a spell without a listed one is "until the closing phase" ... so Terrifying would be gone until the closing phase...

Terrifying is a talent, not a spell. It doesn't have a duration. Spellbreaker also doesn't have a duration, as it doesn't apply an effect, although it does have an effect. Which is why you can remove auras gained from another model but they will immediately reapply themselves.

the problem becomes,

that "end all effects" is an effect in itself,

so Spellbreaker (by the current definition of Effect ends itself as well.

I can see your logic, but you're inferring something that clearly doesn't exist. Something only has an ongoing effect if it alters the state of the model but has no specified duration. Spellbreaker alters the state of the model implicitly by removing buffs but, explicitly, does not alter the state of the model - it explicitly alters the state of buffs, by ending them with it's immediate effect.

this creates a problem in that ongoing effects would turn off, then reassert themselves...

No, it doesnt. It specifically says that effects end.

Edit: clarified wording

[Mr_Smigs]

I can see your logic, but you're inferring something that clearly doesn't exist. Something only has an ongoing effect if it alters the state of the model but has no specified duration.

Spellbreaker also doesn't have a duration,

Spellbreaker alters the state of the model implicitly by removing buffs but, explicitly, does not alter the state of the model - it explicitly alters the state of buffs, by ending them with it's immediate effect.

what is the state of the model?

No, it doesnt. It specifically says that effects end.

effects .... end

you need to review what an effect is...

you're splitting hairs between "effect", "talent" and "spell" as though they were different.

the book says they're the same.

the ruling above says they're the same.

these definitions are where the argument is running in circles.

What is an effect? (see above, and other post)

What is the State of the Model?

[Calmdown]

you're splitting hairs between "effect", "talent" and "spell" as though they were different.

the book says they're the same.

the ruling above says they're the same.

these definitions are where the argument is running in circles.

What is an effect? (see above, and other post)

What is the State of the Model?

An effect is something that is created by something else being activated or coming in to relevancy. For example in the book, Lifer (a talent) has an effect on the model that makes it immune to Morale duels caused by Terrifying effects (a Terrifying effect is what happens when you fulfil the criteria for the Terrifying talent to do something to your model).

Hard-Ass (+4wp) is a talent that creates an effect. When you cast Spellbreaker (which is a spell), Spellbreaker has the effect of ending all other effects on the target. The effect of Hard-Ass ends. The effect of his talent that grants the Slow to Die aura (ie, the aura itself) also ends, but is immediately reapplied because you do not have anything that stops his talent from exerting itself.

The state of the model is not something that we need to clarify further. If I was to clarify it I'd just be quoting an English textbook at you. I'm not sure why you're hanging on the word state so much when you can't provide a single example of where the supposed ambiguity of the term would cause a problem in game.

[Mr_Smigs]

An effect is something that is created by something else being activated or coming in to relevancy. For example in the book, Lifer (a talent) has an effect on the model that makes it immune to Morale duels caused by Terrifying effects (a Terrifying effect is what happens when you fulfil the criteria for the Terrifying talent to do something to your model).

Hard-Ass (+4wp) is a talent that creates an effect. When you cast Spellbreaker (which is a spell), Spellbreaker has the effect of ending all other effects on the target. The effect of Hard-Ass ends. The effect of his talent that grants the Slow to Die aura (ie, the aura itself) also ends, but is immediately reapplied because you do not have anything that stops his talent from exerting itself.

all of which conflicts with the very definition of effect in the book, and given by the rules guy above who said that a talent can be an effect

The state of the model is not something that we need to clarify further. If I was to clarify it I'd just be quoting an English textbook at you. I'm not sure why you're hanging on the word state so much when you can't provide a single example of where the supposed ambiguity of the term would cause a problem in game.

this whole discussion is an example.

every time the term "effect" is used is an example.

please do, quote another source. it might help clarify things.

this is covered in the follow-up thread.