PDA

View Full Version : Burning Head in Close Combat?



RipFlag
22-11-2007, 04:24
So I did a quick search of the forum for magic in close combat and did not really get a consensus.

So I have a greater daemon in close combat with the spell Burning Head, I want to cast in on a unit that is not in combat, and in such a way that the line does not affect the unit he is engaged in. But my opponent vigorously disagreed we decided not to cast spells from combat unless they specifically say you can....

Unfortunately for my opponent, he realized that his orc shaman, which was in combat, according to our new house rule, could not cast Gorks warpath, because he had vetoed burning head.

So spells that do not require line of sight, and casted on units not in combat, can they be casted from combat?

Festus
22-11-2007, 05:23
You may not cast on a unit in combat if not explicitly allowed by the spell.

You may cast spells while being in combat yourself.

Festus

DeathlessDraich
22-11-2007, 08:51
Unfortunately for my opponent, he realized that his orc shaman, which was in combat, according to our new house rule, could not cast Gorks warpath, because he had vetoed burning head.


Gork's Warpath and Fist of Gork can be cast into and out of combat.

alextroy
22-11-2007, 19:15
Burning Head is not cast at units. It is cast by the caster in a specific direction and hits any models along that line. It therefore can incidentally hit models in combat.

RipFlag
22-11-2007, 19:22
That is what i think as well, though to be on the safe side, i think i will just avoid hitting models that are in combat, but the rules for Burning head are ambigious.

Arnizipal
22-11-2007, 20:50
Gork's Warpath and Fist of Gork can be cast into and out of combat.
Gork's Warpath cannot be cast into combat (but it can be cast FROM combat)

Burning Head is not cast at units. It is cast by the caster in a specific direction and hits any models along that line. It therefore can incidentally hit models in combat.
Then it counts as being cast at a unit in combat, which is not allowed.

highelfmage
22-11-2007, 21:34
and remember your los is 90 degrees in cc. so u cant cast burning head sideway or backwards.

txamil
22-11-2007, 22:00
Burning Head is not cast at units. It is cast by the caster in a specific direction and hits any models along that line. It therefore can incidentally hit models in combat.

So you think it could hit friendlies too then?

I'd love this to be true. It would make blunderbusses much much better. But it's not.

RipFlag
22-11-2007, 23:46
and remember your los is 90 degrees in cc. so u cant cast burning head sideway or backwards.
Burning head along with Gorks warpath, or Foot of Gork do not require line of sight, so you do not need 90 degrees. For Burning head it just says draw a line from the caster, and since it is treated like a cannon ball, I cannot see why you cant kill your own troops.... yet why would you want to unless ItP...

Festus
23-11-2007, 05:15
Hi

...I cannot see why you cant kill your own troops....
...because it is the rules? :rolleyes:

You may not cast a spell at a unit in combat - simple and precise, if you ask me. And you may not target your own side with shooting (Skaven excepted).

Festus

Flypaper
23-11-2007, 06:50
So you think it could hit friendlies too then?
Wait, can't you?

I've been avoiding the spell on my Slann in his Temple Guard unit, since I was assuming that by RAW he'll always hit the Guardsman standing immediately in front of him (palanquin rules place the Slann in the middle of the unit), and there's no exceptions or clarifications made as to how the spell is cast if you're a large target.

...So is the consensus that, when in a unit, (a) a Slann can't cast the spell at all (as he's surrounded by friendlies), (b) a Slann can cast it and ignore friendly hits, (c) a Slann can cast it but will hit friendlies, or (d) you draw the line from the top of the model at a downwards 45 degree angle, in which case it's unlikely to hit anything (and is pretty unweildly).

Atrahasis
23-11-2007, 10:17
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Burning Head cannot hit friendlies, nor that it cannot hit units in combat.

If you think there is, then please provide a quotation.

Arnizipal
23-11-2007, 10:24
...So is the consensus that, when in a unit, (a) a Slann can't cast the spell at all (as he's surrounded by friendlies
Isn't a slann on palanquin a Large Target, making him able to see and cast over his own (smaller) unit?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Burning Head cannot hit friendlies, nor that it cannot hit units in combat.

If you think there is, then please provide a quotation.
I'm at work so I don't have the rulebook with me and can't give any direct quotes or page references.

That said: Burning head is a spell with a fixed range* that doesn't specifically mention it can be cast into combat.
You can measure the full range of the spell when it goes off, so you can clearly see if you'll hit models in combat. If this is the case the spell can't be cast, as one of its targets is in combat (which the spell doens't specifically allow).


*unlike a cannon shot which adds rondom dicerolls to the distance and CAN accidentally hit something.

Atrahasis
23-11-2007, 10:28
Isn't a slann on palanquin a Large Target, making him able to see and cast over his own (smaller) unit?

Irrelevant, since Burning Head does not require LOS, and hits everything "in its direct path".

DeathlessDraich
23-11-2007, 13:02
Gork's Warpath cannot be cast into combat (but it can be cast FROM combat)


I don't see why not since it follows the rules of Fists of Gork.


So is the consensus that, when in a unit, (a) a Slann can't cast the spell at all (as he's surrounded by friendlies), (b) a Slann can cast it and ignore friendly hits, (c) a Slann can cast it but will hit friendlies, or (d) you draw the line from the top of the model at a downwards 45 degree angle, in which case it's unlikely to hit anything (and is pretty unweildly).

Burning Head requires an FAQ and the correct way to resolve it, is by mutual agreement. Any interpretation of "direct path" is as good as another. It's up to you and your opponent to decide.

a) The Slann can cast Burning Head if he is in a unit.
b) It can hit friendly units inadvertently and possibly intentionally. **
c) Normally Burning head is measured from the wizards base - which carries the silly implication that the Head emerges from the wizard's foot. :D

d) The other problems with Burning Head are: i) it is not a magic missile and doesn't require LOS ii) It does not specifically target a unit.
This leads to the possible interpretation that it could be aimed at a unit in combat while the wizard himself is in combat.

** The only rule guideline is "resolved much in the same way as a bouncing cannonball"
Unfortunately "much in the same way" is unclear.

There is some support of your idea of the Burning Head starting from an elevated position and continuing on the ground. You could argue that part of the bounce of a cannon ball starts from mid-air and then continues in a straight line after impact with the ground.

Personally I feel all these interpretaions are equally silly or valid.

explorator
23-11-2007, 13:53
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Burning Head cannot hit friendlies, nor that it cannot hit units in combat.

If you think there is, then please provide a quotation.

So in other words--There is reason to believe that Burning Head CAN hit friendlies and units in combat. Is that right? Using a double-negative is fancy.

This has to be a baited trap set by Atrahasis, but I will bite. Pg. 107 of the BRB says--Spells may NOT be cast at units engaged in close combat, unless the spell only affects the caster or the spell's description specifies otherwise.

The spell description for Burning Head does not 'specifiy otherwise'.

It seems very clear to me that Burning Head may not "hit" freindlies or be cast at units in combat, but I am sure I Atrahasis will now spring the trap and take my leg for his trophy rack. ;P

FYI to all, the Burning Head may be cast in any direction (no LOS), and any unit that suffers one or more wounds from the spell must take a panic test. Yikes!

EvC
23-11-2007, 14:03
If the description states "it [hits everything] in its direct path", then that means... exactly what it says! Everything, every model, everything that can take damage will take damage, friend or foe. It's written so simply that it's incredible what people read into the spell. True, it cannot be targeted into close combat- that's a point so obvious that it shouldn't even need debating. But can it hit friendly models? Well, Festus says quite correctly that you cannot shoot your own models... but the Burning Head isn't a shooting attack, and magic can of course be aimed at your own units (Depending on the description) and so it is entirely possible that it can hit, and kill, friendly models.

Thus a Slann can fire through his guards if he wishes, which will hit and possibly kill - and possibly panic - them. First time I tried a Lizardmen list with a Slann protected by Saurus, I was most disheartened to roll this spell for him.

DeathlessDraich
23-11-2007, 14:45
[QUOTE=explorator;2119578]This has to be a baited trap set by Atrahasis, but I will bite. Pg. 107 of the BRB says--Spells may NOT be cast at units engaged in close combat, unless the spell only affects the caster or the spell's description specifies otherwise.
QUOTE]

"May not be cast at *units* in combat".

This excludes spells which are *not cast* on a unit e.g. cast on a region e.g. Comet.

Burning head is not cast on a unit. (d) in my previous post.

Atrahasis
23-11-2007, 14:51
Burning Head can travel in any direction 18".

It hits everything in its path in the same way as a BOUNCING cannonball, ie the last distance rolled on the artillery dice when firing the cannon. Thus any arguments based on starting from an elevated position are void.

Since the spell is cast before measuring range, the best we can argue is that using it to target units in combat is akin to overguessing to achieve the same result - the rules do not police it and so only peer pressure can.

Noldo
23-11-2007, 16:13
One guideline that could be used is aswer given about DE spell Black Horror, since Black Horror is resolved very similaliry (place template over point v. line template calculated from the caster):


Q. Is the 5" template generated by the Dark Magic spell, Black Horror, allowed to be placed on enemy units in close combat?

A. No

However, the ruling is not included in Errata/FAQ of the DE Army Book (and not mentioned in revision), so its relevance can be quetioned.

explorator
23-11-2007, 16:24
Burning Head can travel in any direction 18".

Can Burning Head travel through impassable terrain? Can it travel directly up into the sky, or down into the ground?

I still find nothing it the spell desciption that indicates Burning Head may be cast into combat. The wording of the rule on page 107 in the BRB is precise.
That is how I would play it.

I would accept a judges ruling in a tournament either way, but I would certainly call for a ruling. This is too abusable a tactic to let it go without challenge.

Atrahasis
23-11-2007, 16:32
There are two options:

1. The player casting burning head nominates the direction before measuring (and thus before dispel attempts). In this case it is unfair to negate the spell should it happen to cross a combat. It would be abusable, but only in the same manner as overguessing with war machines.

2. The player nominates the direction after dispel attempts, and can choose the direction with tape measure in hand, optimising direction for number of hits. In this case it would be fair to prohibit hitting combats.

In a rare moment of reason, I think 2 is the one best supported by the rules.

Festus
23-11-2007, 16:56
In a rare moment of reason, I think 2 is the one best supported by the rules.
In an equally rare moment of madness, I daresay 2 is the only way supported by the rules.

As you do not determine the direction of a spell before the spell is successfully cast, not dispelled and takes effect, it is hard to do it as in 1.

I certainly will not tell my opponent the direction I want to cast my burning head in. In the same way as I do not tell my opponent where exactly I am going to raise the new unit of skeletons I am just summoning.

Festus

Arnizipal
23-11-2007, 18:03
I don't see why not since it follows the rules of Fists of Gork.

Er... No it doesn't. :eyebrows:
Are we talking about the same spell here?


In an equally rare moment of madness, I daresay 2 is the only way supported by the rules.

As you do not determine the direction of a spell before the spell is successfully cast, not dispelled and takes effect, it is hard to do it as in 1.

I certainly will not tell my opponent the direction I want to cast my burning head in. In the same way as I do not tell my opponent where exactly I am going to raise the new unit of skeletons I am just summoning.

Festus
Actually, I'm pretty sure you need to declare a target for your spell before you cast it.

See Casting Spells p107.

alextroy
23-11-2007, 18:33
Only spells that target something need to have the target declared. Burning Head does not target a unit, model, piece of terrain, or spot on the board. It just moves on a line in a chosen direction from the caster.

Arnizipal
23-11-2007, 18:46
Only spells that target something need to have the target declared.
If it isn't casted at a target it doesn't do anything to anything. ;)
A direction can be a target too.

Festus
23-11-2007, 19:03
Actually, I'm pretty sure you need to declare a target for your spell before you cast it.

See Casting Spells p107.
This can and indeed will only apply to spells which have a target that needs to be declared.

Several spells take effect in a certain radius, or even the whole playing field or have no target at all (like the Comet). The Invocation doesn't have a target either: The target of the spell has to be raised yet.

There is no need to declare the direction the Burning Head will travel in. No rule tells you to do so.

Festus

Palatine Katinka
23-11-2007, 20:15
Comet has a target. "This spell can be cast upon any fixed point on the tabletop." Target does not have to be a unit (either friendly or unfriendly), it can be a point or direction. I've always played that you nominate the direction of burning head before casting. I've ealso always played that you nominate where skeletons/zombies will be raised, be it a new unit, addition to a unit or even adding wounds to a multi-wound model, the target must be stated.

EvC
23-11-2007, 21:34
Haha, fun discussion of the rule continues. If you don't declare a direction when casting the spell, then I guess units can't use MR against it either? (But then that's a problem inherent to MR rules I suppose, as the only way to know if a target unit can use MR is if you first measure...)

RipFlag
24-11-2007, 03:33
This can and indeed will only apply to spells which have a target that needs to be declared.

Several spells take effect in a certain radius, or even the whole playing field or have no target at all (like the Comet). The Invocation doesn't have a target either: The target of the spell has to be raised yet.

There is no need to declare the direction the Burning Head will travel in. No rule tells you to do so.

Festus
Quite on the contrary, on pg 107 under casting spells, this reinforced by under dispelling on pg 108 where it says after a failed dispel measure the range to target. Thus stating that you have already declared a target,which allows your opponent to decide how many dice to commit to the dispelling.

This will allow for players to cast burning head at units with MR which may turn out that are actually out of range. This is because MR is used in the dispelling before either players knows that the spell is in range.

This rule stops Burning head negating MR and enforces the caster to nominate a target, though for the invocation I am unsure if you have to declare the target or not....

Festus
24-11-2007, 07:30
Hi

How do you come to think that every spell has a target if there are obviously spells which do not? :rolleyes:

Your agument is akin to denominating a target for a model in the shooting phase - even if said models does not have a missile weapon or even anything remotely capable of shooting.

Rules can only apply to something which fits the necessary parameters. A spell without a target cannot have its target declared, a model without a Movement cannot flee or march, a model without a weapon capable of shooting may not shoot, and a unit of non flying models may not fly.

Festus

T10
24-11-2007, 10:22
There are two options:

1. The player casting burning head nominates the direction before measuring (and thus before dispel attempts). In this case it is unfair to negate the spell should it happen to cross a combat. It would be abusable, but only in the same manner as overguessing with war machines.

2. The player nominates the direction after dispel attempts, and can choose the direction with tape measure in hand, optimising direction for number of hits. In this case it would be fair to prohibit hitting combats.

In a rare moment of reason, I think 2 is the one best supported by the rules.

How about Magic Resistance?

-T10

DeathlessDraich
24-11-2007, 10:44
Er... No it doesn't. :eyebrows:
Are we talking about the same spell here?
.

Yes, you're right. I've mixed up the Foot with Fists - a case of putting a Foot in my mouth.:p Apologies for not checking first.


Quite on the contrary, on pg 107 under casting spells, this reinforced by under dispelling on pg 108 where it says after a failed dispel measure the range to target. Thus stating that you have already declared a target,which allows your opponent to decide how many dice to commit to the dispelling.

The process for casting spells does indeed require that a target is selected.

Other than 1) units or models, targets could be 2) a spot on the table, e.g. Comet or Invocation summoning (Festus) a new unit or 3) a region e.g. Tree sing.

The definition of 'target' has to encompass the 3 above. This is not explicitly stated in the rules but it would be sensible to assume so.

However, including a direction as a target blurs the distinction between the *target* and the spell's *affected* area or models.

Consider Howling Wind - The *target* is the wizard but the *affected area* touches other models etc. Guardian Light is similar.

The *direct path* for Burning Head is definitely the *affected area*.
Whether this can also be the *target* can only be clarified by an FAQ.

Burning Head is one of 3 spells where the target is not explicit but is created (possibly) after the spell is cast. The other two are Vermintide and Black Horror.

In Vermintide and Black Horror, units in combat can be affected. It seems reasonable to allow the same for Burning Head
but as I mentioned from the very start, this requires an FAQ.



This rule stops Burning head negating MR and enforces the caster to nominate a target,

Yes MR cannot be used against Burning Head

T10
24-11-2007, 11:45
Yes MR cannot be used against Burning Head

Before you all get all exited with the idea that the Burning Head just creates a line effect, bear in mind that Magic Resistance kicks in if the MR unit is affected by the spell.

While this calls for a certain degree of interpretation from time to time, it should be pretty clear that drawing the line of effect through a unit will result in that unit being affected.

Magic Resistance can be used against the Burning Head.

-T10

Festus
24-11-2007, 12:35
The process for casting spells does indeed require that a target is selected.
Nonsense, I am afraid.

The process for casting spells require to nominate a target if one is needed.
The lehghts you have to go to to try and define targets for spells should alone be able to tell you that there is no requirement for a spell to have a target -

and if a spell does not require and indeed have a target, it cannot be necessary to select one...
...see your own *gibberish* (sorry) of trying to define *target*

Other than 1) units or models, targets could be 2) a spot on the table, e.g. Comet or Invocation summoning (Festus) a new unit or 3) a region e.g. Tree sing.

The definition of 'target' has to encompass the 3 above. This is not explicitly stated in the rules but it would be sensible to assume so.

However, including a direction as a target blurs the distinction between the *target* and the spell's *affected* area or models.

Consider Howling Wind - The *target* is the wizard but the *affected area* touches other models etc. Guardian Light is similar.

The *direct path* for Burning Head is definitely the *affected area*.
Whether this can also be the *target* can only be clarified by an FAQ.

Burning Head is one of 3 spells where the target is not explicit but is created (possibly) after the spell is cast. The other two are Vermintide and Black Horror.

Come off it. You do not need to select the direction of your burning head before casting.

The MR problem is easily solved: Do not allow BH to affect a model/unit with MR afterwards. If the caster wants to affect them, he should make his intent clear before casting (ie. rolling the dice).

THB, I don't care how you lot play, but this never ever even has been a problem in our games - and I usually take Fire Magic with my CD's Sorcerers...

Festus

Arnizipal
24-11-2007, 13:50
The process for casting spells require to nominate a target if one is needed.
The lehghts you have to go to to try and define targets for spells should alone be able to tell you that there is no requirement for a spell to have a target -
That's not what the rules say.

Rulebook p107 Casting Spells:
To cast a spell, a Wizard nominates one of his spells to cast and declares the target of the spell. (emphasis mine).

It's the rules dude.

T10
24-11-2007, 14:02
In the case of the Burning Head, I would find it reasonable to expect the intended direction of the spell be declared before casting.

-T10

theunwantedbeing
24-11-2007, 14:03
Considering a spell needs to say it may be cast into combat to be cast into combat and the burning head has no such ruling it may not be cast in a direction where it would hit anything in combat.
Page 107
Page 112

Sure it says "anywhere" but it doesnt say "anywhere even in combat" does it?
No.
So it may not be cast into combat, end of debate really.

Or does any really mean any?

Festus
24-11-2007, 14:27
It's the rules dude.
OK, wisecrack: Tell me how you can declare the target of the Invocation of Nehek if you raise a new unit... :rolleyes:

The spell explicitly states that you choose the point for the target to emerge *after* the spell was successfully cast - and this cannot happen if you *must* declare a target first (even if I put up with that nonsense that a point on the tabletop may constitute a target in the rules - which it does not).

This seriously annoys me:
Trying to apply rules to things wich they cannot be applied to - because those things do not exist in the rules.

Face it, tiger: Not every spell has a target.
And if it doesn't have a target, you simply cannot declare it anymore than you can declare that green is red.

But believe what you may... :eyebrows:

Festus

EvC
24-11-2007, 15:39
Using another spell which contains text that specifically over-rules the "choose a target" statement is not a valid argument. If Invocation of Nehek did not specifically say that you get to choose after a successful cast, then you would indeed be expected to choose the target location for the new unit.

I'm sure the tigers are happy to face that not every spell has a target, but those where the spell affects a specific unit within a specific chosen direction- sounds like a target to me, [insert appropriate patronising term followed by smiley here]

DeathlessDraich
24-11-2007, 16:29
Before you all get all exited with the idea that the Burning Head just creates a line effect, bear in mind that Magic Resistance kicks in if the MR unit is affected by the spell.

While this calls for a certain degree of interpretation from time to time, it should be pretty clear that drawing the line of effect through a unit will result in that unit being affected.

Magic Resistance can be used against the Burning Head.

-T10

Not excited at all but it's the way I will always play it.

To qualify for the use of MR, the unit has to be directly affected. This is not part of the rules I know, but to include any *indirect* effects will meaninglessly include everything in the game.
Therefore I prefer to intepret that MR can only be used if the spell if cast on the unit or on the spot/region where the unit is in.





The process for casting spells does indeed require that a target is selected.

Nonsense, I am afraid.

Except you reiterate my 'nonsense' with


The process for casting spells require to nominate a target if one is needed. .

"if one is needed" is an addition from the Book of Festus. :p



The lengths you have to go to to try and define targets for spells should alone be able to tell you that there is no requirement for a spell to have a target -
...see your own *gibberish* (sorry) of trying to define *target*
.

Necessary 'gibberish' to abide by the rules of pg 107.


Come off it. You do not need to select the direction of your burning head before casting.

Not in the rules but an interpretation which is just as acceptable as the converse.


The MR problem is easily solved: Do not allow BH to affect a model/unit with MR afterwards. If the caster wants to affect them, he should make his intent clear before casting (ie. rolling the dice).

This is a time warp solution favoured in Galifrey.


THB, I don't care how you lot play, but this never ever even has been a problem in our games - Festus

It will now be. I can foresee you spending sleepless nights poring over the problems of Burning head until you head starts to burn and becomes bald. :p, like Uncles Festus in the Adams family.


Tell me how you can declare the target of the Invocation of Nehek if you raise a new unit... :rolleyes:

You might have answered the question in your next statement



The spell explicitly states that you choose the point for *the target* to emerge *after* the spell was successfully cast


a) The target is the point and there is no declared target before casting because it makes little difference to the spell mechanics
b) The declared target is the 18" region surrounding the Necromancer
c) The declared target is the battlefield.

The *declared target* omission does not really matter because it does not cause problems for the Invocation.

In *all* other spells, the phrase "is cast on" defines the target with the exception of Vermintide, Black Horror and Burning head; and just for you, Festus, I'll include Invocation of Nehek.

In all the other spells, there are no problems with affecting units in combat.

And after re-reading this, I think there is more futility than sense in the continued debate of a rule which can be interpreted in any preferred way. :D

Festus
24-11-2007, 17:42
Hi

There are two options:

1. The player casting burning head nominates the direction before measuring (and thus before dispel attempts)...
2. The player nominates the direction after dispel attempts, and can choose the direction with tape measure in hand, optimising direction for number of hits. ...

... I think 2 is the one best supported by the rules.


...And after re-reading this, I think there is more futility than sense in the continued debate of a rule which can be interpreted in any preferred way. :D
Heartily agreed.

Festus

Chicago Slim
24-11-2007, 18:13
Jumping in late to the game: this is a rare instance in which I utterly disagree with Festus.

My rules analysis:
Burning Head directly damages models, and as such, requires a target (which must, therefore, be declared before any power dice are thrown-- pg 107). I won't get into whether or not ALL spells require targets, because it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

The target(s) of Burning Head cannot include any units in combat (pg 107).

If any targeted unit has magic resistance, it may use it as part of the dispel attempt (pg 95).

If the set of targeted models includes a character, that character will take a "Look Out Sir!" check, if otherwise eligible (pg 74-75).

Burning Head's targets may include friendly units: the only spells which cannot generally target friendly units are Magic Missiles (pg 110 and 25), and any spells which explicitly require that they be targeted at enemy units. It may be useful to consider Burning Head as a linear template (in which case, "Accidental Hits" from pg 26 is illustrative). If you think it's worth it to risk your friends, in order to nail your enemies, then you have that option (in the case of this specific spell, and a few others, like Crown of Taidron).

This analysis does allow a couple of weird "target my friends" opportunities (in the BRB, there are exactly two spells, Wall of Fire and Rule of Burning Iron, which do not specify friend or enemy in their targeting rules, leaving it to your good judgement to avoid killing your friends with those ones).

alextroy
24-11-2007, 19:40
So let me get this straight. I can't cast Burning Head if any model along the desired 18" line is in Close Combat? Even if the unit I want to hit happens to have a unit behind it that is engaged in Close Combat, for which 1 models happens to be with 18" of my caster? And I'm not allowed to measure before casting the spell!

Wow, this spell is even worse then I thought.

T10
25-11-2007, 13:45
So let me get this straight. I can't cast Burning Head if any model along the desired 18" line is in Close Combat? Even if the unit I want to hit happens to have a unit behind it that is engaged in Close Combat, for which 1 models happens to be with 18" of my caster? And I'm not allowed to measure before casting the spell!

Wow, this spell is even worse then I thought.

This spell, like any other, is useless if used in the wrong manner.

It's not that different from casting a magic missile and finding that it is out of range. You will usually be allowed to move your wizard before casting the spell, which should help you avoid the problem of hitting models in close combat.

-T10