8th Ed. I have a tricky one :).

[Idura]

I came across this rule from the FAQ while browsing some other forums.

In the BRB FAQ it's stated that the damage from a wizard's miscast is not considered to be caused by the wizard.

(Q: Is damage caused by a miscast counted as a spell? Can a model
with Magic Resistance add it to its ward save against it? Is any
damage caused counted as being caused by the Wizard? (p34)
A: No to all questions.).

Cupped hands of the old ones:

"One use only. If the bearer miscasts, roll a d6. On a roll of 1 the bearer suffers the results of the miscast as normal. On 2+ the miscast is ignored and if there is an enemy wizard within line of sight he will suffer its effects, ignoring result 5-6."

Bane Head:

"Nominate an enemy character at the start of the battle. All unsaved wounds caused by the bearer on the nominated target are doubled."

And then we have the Lizardmen FAQ:

Q. Do wounds caused by Cupped Hands of the Old Ones combine
with the Bane Head? (p102)
A. Yes.

How the hell does this work? The miscast wounds are not caused by the wizard as per the BRB FAQ, but still they combine with the bane head who has the exact ruling that the wounds has to be caused by the bearer?

 

[Arli]

I would say that is because the transfer of the effect is caused by the user of Bane Head. Thus, the wounds are caused by the bearer, so they are doubled.

See, that was easy.

 

[HoverBoy]

Meh i have an even easier answer:
Because GW said so.

 

[Coatl]

i got a good one for you along the lines of miscasts. can't remember what dice roll it is, but there are several ones where there is a large or small template placed over the caster. since this is a template (and the damage is not being caused by the caster, as stated above) do you get a LoS roll

 

[HoverBoy]

Both such miscasts have wording adressing that issue.

 

[strewart]

Meh i have an even easier answer:
Because GW said so.

Yep, agree. I was going to say because one person wrote the BRB FAQ, while someone else wrote the LM FAQ.

We know if BRB and Army Book contradict, follow the Army Book. We know to follow FAQ over any book. But what about FAQ vs FAQ contradicting?? I bet GW didn't expect that to even happen.

 

[HoverBoy]

In that case we use the "specific>general" thing.
In this one specific case GW decided it should work that way.