PDA

View Full Version : Corpse cart in combat



Malorian
31-03-2008, 14:35
So we got passed the IoN in combat but the corpse cart in combat is coming up now.

You can't cast magic into combat, but would the bound spell of the corpse cart count as that? To me it's more an area effect (every friendly unit within 6 inches) rather than targetting a specific combat, but it is in the grey area to be sure.

So what do you think?

And as an expension to this, what if the corpse cart itself is in combat.

SuperBeast
31-03-2008, 14:43
You can cast bound spells in combat, so it can still use it.

Also, as you are not specifically casting on a particular unit, you can affect units already in combat.
Including the corpse cart itself.

mudcow304
31-03-2008, 23:11
I conur, makes perfect sense to me.

Ganymede
01-04-2008, 01:40
When the cart summons forth the energy to cast the spell, all units within the 6 inch radius are considered to be the spell's targets. If any of those units are in combat, then they are not targetted by the spell and do not benefit. The spell does not grant any special permission to target those units in combat.

As to whether or not the cart's spell can be cast on itself when in combat (due to the provision allowing wizards to cast spells on themself as long as they are the only one affected), it is a grey area.

2d6
01-04-2008, 10:12
It's pretty clear that the spell can be cast and affect units in combat,
but as the spell lasts for a full round, does it affect units that were within 6" of the cart at the time of casting that then move away, or do the units have to remain within 6" of the cart to keep the bonus?

Atrahasis
01-04-2008, 10:19
It's pretty clear that the spell can be cast and affect units in combat,No, it's absolutely clear that it cannot.

T10
01-04-2008, 10:26
but as the spell lasts for a full round, does it affect units that were within 6" of the cart at the time of casting that then move away, or do the units have to remain within 6" of the cart to keep the bonus?

The units need only be within range at the time the spell is cast and are free to move and still retain the benefits.

-T10

DeathlessDraich
01-04-2008, 13:36
all units within the 6 inch radius are considered to be the spell's targets.

Not stated in the Corpse Cart rules or in the magic rules and is therefore an assumption **


It's pretty clear that the spell can be cast and affect units in combat,


This is probably how most players will interpret this but it is not a certainty. **


No, it's absolutely clear that it cannot.

This is an assumption as well.


pg 107 explains the restrictions of casting spells.
pg 121 explains bound spells.
(I won't quote the statements because some abrasive contributors have jumped down my throat in the past for quoting a phrase and not quoting the whole passage)

** The questions here are:
1) When a rule states that a spell is cast, what exactly is meant by the word 'cast?' 'Cast' is not the same as 'cast successfully' and could be ' an attempt to cast'.

This is important in applying pg 107 restrictions to bound spells - equating cast and cast automatically.
Most players will accept that pg 107 restrictions are applicable to bound spells.

2) Assuming (1) above.
The next question is the assumption made by Ganymede i.e. a spell that does not target unit/s explicitly [in its rules] has to be regarded as having targeted any unit affected by the spell.

This assumption has to be balanced with pg 28 which distinguishes the original targeted unit and the inadvertently targeted unit.

And,
This assumption creates problems with MR rules. - pg 95

3) Assuming (1) above
The 3rd question is
Are the restrictions on pg 107 aimed at only spells which specifically target a unit, or taken in context, can those restrictions be extended to spells which *do not* specify a target/ target unit (there's about 5 such spells I can think of)? - This is Atrahasis' assumption.

Atrahasis
01-04-2008, 14:17
"Cast" means to roll equal to or higher than the casting value. page 107
"Cast automatically" means that the bound spell does not have to roll.

"attempt to cast" is different from both, being the act of rolling the dice.

Ganymede
01-04-2008, 15:08
And,
This assumption creates problems with MR rules. - pg 95


I actually think this is pretty immaterial. The magic resistance rules have always been a little sloppy.

Malorian
01-04-2008, 15:13
If it can't effect units in combat then it makes it pretty limited. You're basically hoping you get charged...

I'm pretty sure this is like IoN where although it doesn't say it can be cast into combat that you have to use some common sense.

I'm just still not sure it can be cast if the cart iself is in combat...

Caboose123
01-04-2008, 15:28
I think it can be cast while it is in combat. Think of it like this, it is a 6" radius spell that is cast on the corpse cart itself and effects all things within 6", just my 2c.


1) When a rule states that a spell is cast, what exactly is meant by the word 'cast?' 'Cast' is not the same as 'cast successfully' and could be ' an attempt to cast'.

DO NOT BRING THIS UP AGAIN, please, this has been discussed again and again in Slaan related threads. I think its clear that Atrahasis has the right of it.

DeathlessDraich
01-04-2008, 16:17
DO NOT BRING THIS UP AGAIN, please, this has been discussed again and again I think its clear that Atrahasis has the right of it.

Atrahasis? What?:p He only discusses RAW rules - hence his minority interpretation.
I prefer to present all possible interpretations before debunking some and then choosing, in my opinion, the best possible.


"Cast" means to roll equal to or higher than the casting value. page 107
"Cast automatically" means that the bound spell does not have to roll.

"attempt to cast" is different from both, being the act of rolling the dice.

Your interpretation of course. Maybe you should suggest that these words should be included in the 8th ed or in the latest FAQs you keep saying would be out soon.:D



I'm pretty sure this is like IoN where although it doesn't say it can be cast into combat that you have to use some common sense.

I'm just still not sure it can be cast if the cart iself is in combat...

Sounds strange. I think nearly all players would readily allow the latter and only 2 players in this thread would not allow the former.

The rules impose fewer limitations on casting while in combat than casting into combat.

SuperBeast
01-04-2008, 16:19
BRB states cannot cast spells at units engaged in close combat.

The "at" requires targetting.
The Miasma isn't targetted or cast on a specific unit.
It affects models in combat if it is successfully cast.

Atrahasis
01-04-2008, 16:37
Your interpretation of course. Maybe you should suggest that these words should be included in the 8th ed or in the latest FAQs you keep saying would be out soon.:D

The rules in the rulebook actually, without any interpretation.

Page 107 tells us what is cast and what is not, hence "cast" has the meaning I described.

2d6
01-04-2008, 18:56
The units need only be within range at the time the spell is cast and are free to move and still retain the benefits.

-T10

Thats how we've been playing it, but the spell description leaves it ambiguous.

On the subject of miasma into combat...
The burning head is another example of a spell that does not explicitly state it may be cast into combat, but will affect units in combat as it is an area effect rather than a targeted effect.

For the folks arguing RAW, check out the hand of dust.
This also does not explicitly state that it may be cast into combat, but it would be a totally useless item if it couldn't.

The requirement in the rulebook states that spells may not be targeted at units in combat, unless otherwise stated in the spell's description, there is no requirement for the explicit use of the phase "may be cast into Combat", merely a description. This handily solves the ION issue, as the spell description describes the spell being cast on a unit in combat.

Necronartum
01-04-2008, 19:42
I am a VC player and I have to agree with Atrahasis. Like IoN, it certainly doesn't state that it can be cast into combat, although it certainly seems silly that it shouldn't be. RAW disallows it and if anyone wanted to argue it, I would gladly accept that ruling.

However, I do believe that it should be able to. In our gaming group, it is upheld that it can be...and thus we play it as such. Thankfully, as previously stated, not many people hold Atrahasis's hardcore RAW views and due to it being a new codex and the horrific writing team at GW, many people are willing for the time being to take a more liberal interpretation and give people the benefit of the doubt.

We could agrue semantics until the sun comes down, but ultimately it comes down to personal opinion.

SuperBeast
01-04-2008, 22:41
If you're going to argue Miasma of Deathly Vigour doesn't affect units in CC, then being in combat makes you immune to Comet of Cassandora...

Neither spell is directly cast into combat, but has an effect which can affect units in combat once cast.

Ganymede
02-04-2008, 02:34
If you're going to argue Miasma of Deathly Vigour doesn't affect units in CC, then being in combat makes you immune to Comet of Cassandora...

Neither spell is directly cast into combat, but has an effect which can affect units in combat once cast.

The Comet has a wholly unique effect that is unprecented in all of the rest of Warhammer. Comparing the miasma to this unique effect is not the most rational of strategies.

Absolutely nothing works like the comet of cassandora, and a comparison in this case is off base.


As to the issue of untargetted spells, there is no such thing. Page 107 clearly states that declaring a target is part of the process of casting a spell. You can't cast a spell with a target, and you need a target to cast.

Nurgling Chieftain
02-04-2008, 03:20
As to the issue of untargetted spells, there is no such thing.There are several spells where no choice of target is allowed.
Page 107 clearly states that declaring a target is part of the process of casting a spell.Right, but it's a meaningless step for spells where you cannot choose a target.
...you need a target to cast.That doesn't follow. Plus, it would already be contradicted by the fact that multiple targets would be involved.

Ganymede
02-04-2008, 03:36
There are several spells where no choice of target is allowed.Right, but it's a meaningless step for spells where you cannot choose a target.That doesn't follow. Plus, it would already be contradicted by the fact that multiple targets would be involved.

I'd be interested to know which spells lack a target.

Additionally, having multiple targets does not contradict the notion that a spell needs a target. Is a spell with multiple targets a spell with a target? Of course!

2d6
02-04-2008, 08:08
I'd be interested to know which spells lack a target.


Raise dead, The burning head, second sign of amul

SuperBeast
02-04-2008, 09:40
Cassandora is actually the closest spell I can think of to Miasma.

No unit-specific target, has a lasting effect but is not remains in play in the true sense, and has an effect based on distance from a specified point on the board.

If that isn't good reasoning, then what is the overall effect? If units are within 6" of the CC, can you cast it at all?

Because if you're stating that specifying 'all units within 6" ' as the target/s is the same as specifying a target unit, then you cannot cast if any eligible units are in combat.

Stormsender
02-04-2008, 09:55
I was under the assumption that the Army book trumps main rule book, the army book states that ALL friendly undead units within 6 inches, including the corpse cart. If someone argues that it does not include units in close combat those are the kind of people you shouldn't be playing with. At tournements you'll just have to hope for a reasonable dicission from the attending judge.

Atrahasis
02-04-2008, 11:39
Cassandora is actually the closest spell I can think of to Miasma.

No unit-specific target, has a lasting effect but is not remains in play in the true sense,Maybe in 6th, but it's RiP proper now.


I was under the assumption that the Army book trumps main rule bookA common misconception.

Kalist
02-04-2008, 12:23
No, it's absolutely clear that it cannot.


I would expect a statement with such an amount of finality to it to be backed up by a very strong case.....are you going to enlighten us?

If you are so worked up about semantics, try this on for size. Page 107 of the rulebook refers to the rules that pertain to WIZARDS casting spells. Are you, good gentlemen, suggesting that the corpse cart is a WIZARD? I invite you to look at page 93 of the new VC codex and look at the Corpse Cart rules. Nowhere on this page does it say that the Corpse Cart counts as a WIZARD. If it did, it would generate power dice and dispel dice, and would be subject to the scripture on page 107.

If you are unsure where the WIZARD note would be included in the Corpse Cart statistics on page 93, take a look at page 90 and look under the Necromancer - Magic: a necromancer is a LEVEL 1 WIZARD and knows one Necromancy spell.

I'm glad that nobody is arguing the fact that Miasma of Deathly Vigour is a bound spell. That being said, page 121 of the rulebook says that "Possessing a bound spell item does not make a character a wizard".

So if a Corpse Cart is not inherently a WIZARD, and having a bound spell does not make it become classified as a WIZARD, then why are you so steadfast in your assertions that you must treat the Corpse Cart as a WIZARD in regards to using it's bound spell?

*Note that while the Corpse Cart can have a WIZARD (Necromancer) riding it, the bound spell still belongs to the Corpse Cart (not a WIZARD) and the presence of a necromancer does not have any effect on this spell.

Atrahasis
02-04-2008, 12:32
Bound spells are "cast just like ordinary spells", with all the restrictions associated.

Unless you're suggesting that merely being bound in the Ring of Volans allows Uranon's Thunderbolt, for example, to be cast into combat?

Kalist
02-04-2008, 12:47
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the Corpse Cart and Miasma of Deathly Vigour?

Still waiting on your supporting evidence.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, where does it say that you can't cast spells into combat? (I know this is a totally noob question and I'm not trying to argue against the point, but I am new to warhammer and would really like to know the rules well to avoid arguments in the future).

Atrahasis
02-04-2008, 13:19
I've already given my supporting evidence - bound spells are cast just like normal spells, and normal spells cannot be cast into combat.

The rules for casting spells are on page 107.

Kalist
02-04-2008, 14:05
Wow it's right there plain as day - spells cannot be cast by wizards or with bound items at units in close combat.

I'm totally willing to concede that point, but the Corpse Cart is neat because it doesn't posses an item that has a bound spell associated with it. The Corpse Cart just has the bound spell.

"bound spells are cast just like normal spells, and normal spells cannot be cast into combat."

We can argue semantics some more..

Being able to cast a normal spell = WIZARD
Holding a bound item that casts a spell = Does not make the carrier a WIZARD

Normal spell = Roll to succeed
Bound spell = Succeed automatically

When you say bound spell = normal spell are you referring to page 121:

"The spell held in a magic item is cast in the player's magic phase just like other spells (for example, it cannot be cast by fleeing models) and can be countered in the same way as ordinary spells."

That's talking about items again and the Corpse Cart doesn't have any items..

The writers at GW might not have felt it was necessary to state that Miasma could affect units in combat because they assumed it was a given.

While we're already talking semantics, it was said earlier that new editions of codex never (I'm hesitant to use an absolute word here, but this was the jist of the earlier post) trump the rulebook? What about on page 107 where it says "In a player's magic phase, each of his Wizards on the battlefield can attempt to cast each of his spells ONLY ONCE". New VC book gives ability to cast ION, Raise Dead, and Danse more than once. Would that be considered trumping the 'each spell only once' rule of the BRB?

When all is said and done, we just can't forget "The most important rule"!

While it may seem like I'm fervently arguing here on the forum, I wouldn't actually make a huge fuss in a real game (I'm not an *******). If the guys who I play with agreed that Atrahasis was 100% right then no big deal, that's the way the cookie crumbles. It's just easy to argue semantics when you've got the BRB and the VC codex in front of you during an 9 hour nightshift..

Malorian
02-04-2008, 14:23
Cassandora is actually the closest spell I can think of to Miasma.

No unit-specific target, has a lasting effect but is not remains in play in the true sense, and has an effect based on distance from a specified point on the board.

If that isn't good reasoning, then what is the overall effect? If units are within 6" of the CC, can you cast it at all?

Because if you're stating that specifying 'all units within 6" ' as the target/s is the same as specifying a target unit, then you cannot cast if any eligible units are in combat.

I think that is a very good example, and a good comparision. (An arguement I'll use for sure ;))

Atrahasis
02-04-2008, 15:22
When you say bound spell = normal spell are you referring to page 121:

"The spell held in a magic item is cast in the player's magic phase just like other spells (for example, it cannot be cast by fleeing models) and can be countered in the same way as ordinary spells."

That's talking about items again and the Corpse Cart doesn't have any items..

If it doesn't work like a bound item, then it doesn't work at all (as there are no rules to govern it except those for bound items).


While we're already talking semantics, it was said earlier that new editions of codex never (I'm hesitant to use an absolute word here, but this was the jist of the earlier post) trump the rulebook?

No, I didn't say that, I merely said it was a common misconception that the army book always trumps the rulebook.

Specific instances of rules overrule general rules, but only if the rules says so. The way the poster I responded to was talking, any spell that appeared in an army book (rather than the rulebook) could be cast into combat.

paulb11
02-04-2008, 15:53
First post so be gentle with me, the spell which seems to be most similar to this effect is the one titled 'Guardian Light' from the lore of Light. It also affects every unit within a set radius. Is it not possible to cast this spell if any unit within 18" is in close combat?
The implication is certainly that either you cast the spell and it effects units in close combat, or if there is a unit within 18" in close combat then the spell cannot be cast. It is either 1 or the other.

Question - is the corpse carts bound spell really cast on every unit within 6"? Or is it cast upon itself and the effect is felt by every unit within 6"? ie is the corpse cart the target of the spell rather than any unit in combat.(uless of course said cart is in combat as well).

2d6
02-04-2008, 15:54
The restriction on not casting into combat applies ONLY to choosing a Target of a spell.

Guardian light is another area effect spell that will affect friendly units in combat in the spells area.

Also see steal soul, this does not explicitly state may not be cast into combat, instead it states "with no targeting restrictions whatsoever", which also gets round the cast into combat, which is merely a targeting restriction.

Many spells do have "even if engaged in combat" listed unnecessarily (drain life, cleansing flare, crown of taidron) in order to reduce arguments, It's just a shame they didn't continue this practice into the new VC book. (all such spells inflict x hits and IMO the clarification is merely so that the hits do not get spread out between the involved units but hit only the enemy)

2d6
02-04-2008, 15:57
Question - is the corpse carts bound spell really cast on every unit within 6"? Or is it cast upon itself and the effect is felt by every unit within 6"? ie is the corpse cart the target of the spell rather than any unit in combat.(uless of course said cart is in combat as well).

In my mind this is the only unresolved question about the corpse cart, I think that the intention may be that the corpse cart itself is the target and the 6" are is the effect, thi salso explains circumvention of the targeting restrictions.

SuperBeast
02-04-2008, 16:32
The spell is not cast ON the corpse cart, it is cast BY the corpse cart.

The CC itself simply provides the point of reference for the effect once cast.

Most spells specify when they are are able to be cast on the caster (bear's anger) or if the caster is the only target (flaming sword of rhuin), including warrior priest prayers.

The MoDV requires no target whatsoever.

Atrahasis
02-04-2008, 16:32
Also see steal soul, this does not explicitly state may not be cast into combat, instead it states "with no targeting restrictions whatsoever", which also gets round the cast into combat, which is merely a targeting restriction.Nope. A general removal of targeting restrictions is not a specific removal of the restriction on casting into combat.

2d6
02-04-2008, 22:08
Nope. A general removal of targeting restrictions is not a specific removal of the restriction on casting into combat.

Yes it is, not casting into combat IS a targeting restriction, nothing more....

Atrahasis
02-04-2008, 22:44
It is not a SPECIFIC removal of the restriction on casting into combat, which is what the rules require.

Kalist
02-04-2008, 22:46
For those of you without the VC codex here is the exact wording for Miasma of Deathly Vigour (page 43):

Miasma of Deathly Vigour: This power is a Bound spell with power level 3. If it is successfully cast, all friendly Undead units within 6", including the Corpse Cart, have the Always Strikes First rule. This lasts until the start of the next friendly Magic phase.

So you are saying that being unable to cast into combat is not a targetting restriction? It seems pretty clear that that's exactly what it is.. Afterall, the BRB (p 107) says "Wizards cannot cast spells >>AT<< units engaged in close combat, unless the spell only affects the caster himself or the spell's description specifies otherwise."

At = Target

I don't see any other way you could possibly interpret that.

Atra you seem to think it says "spells cannot AFFECT units in combat". That is a misconception, sorry.

Dracosavarian
02-04-2008, 23:33
The Corpse Cart, is, for all intents and purposes when considering the power of its bound item spell, just that, an Item. The rules are pretty plain to read. I just think Atra is pretty bitter and is either arguing for the sake of semantics or just generally doesn't want that thing unleashing its bound spell in games he is playing when its in CC. At least thats what I get the jist of from his staunch defense of his opinion.


Generally speaking, the only time that spells cannot be unleashed in CC are Magic missiles, and spells that specify otherwise. Examples of this are throughout the book, and since I am at work, I don't care to elaborate too well


Basically, GW wrote the Corpse Cart assuming people would have Common Sense that the Corpse Cart spell, Specifically stated by the rules, Acts as a BOUND ITEM. Not a Wizard, but a bound item


Put simply, the CC can cast its spell whilst in Close Combat. But why anyone would want it in Close Combat is beyond me. Basically, the CC is the new Zombie Bunker for Necromancers. Just put it behind your army lines and use careful planning and unleash it spells at your leisure.

siphon101
03-04-2008, 00:18
For those of you without the VC codex here is the exact wording for Miasma of Deathly Vigour (page 43):

Miasma of Deathly Vigour: This power is a Bound spell with power level 3. If it is successfully cast, all friendly Undead units within 6", including the Corpse Cart, have the Always Strikes First rule. This lasts until the start of the next friendly Magic phase.

For those who think this ability can not target units in combat, I wonder what their definition of "all" is.

Atrahasis
03-04-2008, 00:39
:oWords:o

It would help if you understood the conversation before making personal judgments.

No one is saying the Cart cannot cast while in close combat.

Ganymede
03-04-2008, 01:35
It is important to remember that the only way for a spell to be cast in close combat is with an explicit exception in the spell's rules. Anything implicit is not good enough.

2d6
03-04-2008, 02:00
It is important to remember that the only way for a spell to be cast in close combat is with an explicit exception in the spell's rules. Anything implicit is not good enough.

Almost right, the correct definition is that a spell that requires a target may not choose a unit engaged in combat as a target, unless the spell description specifically says otherwise.

which is different to saying that a spell may not affect a unit engaged in combat, which seems to be some peoples interpretation.

Kalist
03-04-2008, 05:46
Good show, Siphon101! "All" would certainly seem to include units in close combat. Otherwise it would read:

If it is successfully cast, any friendly Undead units NOT IN COMBAT within 6", including the Corpse Cart, have the Always Strikes First rule.

Ganymede
03-04-2008, 06:01
Good show, Siphon101! "All" would certainly seem to include units in close combat. Otherwise it would read:

If it is successfully cast, any friendly Undead units NOT IN COMBAT within 6", including the Corpse Cart, have the Always Strikes First rule.

We do nto need to be reminded that this spell can't be cast into combat as the general state of affairs is that spells can not be cast into combat. instead, we need to be told when to break this general rule.

An analysis of the language of many spells reveals that "all" is used in both spells that explicitly allow casting into combat and spells that don't. Considering the wide spread use, it would be ill advised to consider the use of "all" as an explicit permission to break the general rule.

Kalist
03-04-2008, 07:41
Does anyone know Gav Thorpe's email? Would be super to get some closure on this other than "Officially, can't be used, but most people will allow it because the intent of the spell is obvious".

Atrahasis
03-04-2008, 08:38
Gav doesn't work here any more...

Kalist
03-04-2008, 08:56
No, he doesn't... but didn't he write the newest VC book?