PDA

View Full Version : Storm Banner



LastExile
24-05-2010, 19:07
The storm banner requires all "non-magic missile attacks" that don't use ballistic skill to roll on a four plus to work. Does this mean that the warp firer thrower is unaffected by the banner, but a rattling gun is affected because it uses its ballistic skill? Similarly any dwarven war machines that are magical because of runes will not be affected? This seems odd that some magic shooting is affected and others aren't.

Tae
24-05-2010, 19:10
I believe all Skaven weapon teams fire warpstone ammunition (basically just makes them magical), so all are unaffected by the Stormbanner. Which is mighty coincidental .... :rolleyes:

Milgram
24-05-2010, 19:25
all skaven weapons that use ballistic skill are affected by the stormbanner. that includes jezzails and ratling guns.

warp flamers and warp lightning cannons are not affected as they do not use ballistic skill are obviously not affected.

Cambion Daystar
25-05-2010, 11:56
I believe all Skaven weapon teams fire warpstone ammunition (basically just makes them magical), so all are unaffected by the Stormbanner. Which is mighty coincidental .... :rolleyes:

ALL missile fire that uses BS is at -2 to hit. Missile fire that doesn't use BS needs a 4+ to fire, unless it is magical, in which case it can fire without penalty

Cambion Daystar
25-05-2010, 11:57
warp flamers and warp lightning cannons are not affected as they do not use ballistic skill are obviously not affected.
They are not affected because they don't use BS AND they are magical. Just not using BS is not enough to be unaffected.

Milgram
25-05-2010, 12:12
that they are magical should be clear to anyone remotely familiar with skaven. so besides stating the obvious, I left out the even more obvious. oh, you did not explain what BS means. so this should end all further discussions.

GodlessM
01-06-2010, 02:58
There is a big difference between "non-magic missile" and "non-magic". It simply means that magic missiles do not need to roll a 4+ to shoot as they are cast as like shooting. Dwarf and Skaven war machines are still effected.

lordsigmund
01-06-2010, 03:30
There is a big difference between "non-magic missile" and "non-magic". It simply means that magic missiles do not need to roll a 4+ to shoot as they are cast as like shooting. Dwarf and Skaven war machines are still effected.

Incorrect, the book says 'non-magical missile attacks' not 'non-magic missile attacks'. If it was referring to magic missile spells it would say 'magic missile'.

The storm banner does not affect spells, any ranged attack that needs a BS check to hit is at -2 to hit, any ranged attack that does not need a BS check to hit and does not do magical damage needs a 4+ to fire. Any ranged attack that does not need a BS check to hit, and does magical damage is unaffected.

For example, Jezzails are affected as they need a BS check to hit, Warp Lightning Cannons do not as they do magic damage and do not need a BS check to hit.

Dorack
02-06-2010, 12:37
Dwarfs "runed" WM count as magical attacks. So how can they be affected by the Storm Banner?

Agnar the Howler
02-06-2010, 13:33
They aren't. If a weapon like a cannon or stone thrower uses magical attacks, then because it doesn't use BS it is unnaffected by the Storm Banner

Dorack
02-06-2010, 13:49
What about a runed Bolt Thrower?

Agnar the Howler
02-06-2010, 13:51
If it uses BS to fire, then it's at -2 to hit no matter what.

Dorack
02-06-2010, 14:03
Then why add the "non magical" clause to the rule?

Im quite new to the game, I have never faced the Storm Banner with my Dwarfs yet. Im sincerely curious about it.

shelfunit.
02-06-2010, 15:59
Maybe to imply that "magical" missiles cannot be affected by an equally magical defense? Beyond that it's probably just fluff...

EDIT: Sorry about the rubbish wording (must have channeled a GW rules writer...)

Agnar the Howler
02-06-2010, 16:50
Then why add the "non magical" clause to the rule?

Im quite new to the game, I have never faced the Storm Banner with my Dwarfs yet. Im sincerely curious about it.

The non-magical bit only applies to weapons that don't use BS; weapons that do use BS are affected no matter what. If cannons used BS, then they'd be affected, magical or otherwise, but since they don't, they're only affected if they are non-magical (so an empire cannon would be affected, but a runed dwarf cannon would not).

Milgram
02-06-2010, 22:15
agnar has it. dunno why you discuss about that. it's like 'hey, he said that women and men that play d&d are not invited. but there are no women that play d&d. so his statement was wrong!' oO

(I realize that there are women that play d&d, but I yet have do meet one that actually behaves like a women should. by the way: I just met a (beautiful) girl that knows almost as many big lebowski quotes as I do. maybe I should ask her, whether she plays d&d. then again, I do not. and... I should get some sleep now. just ignore everything in brackets.)

(I should definitely do brackets around every single post of mine.)

Lord Inquisitor
02-06-2010, 22:45
Hmm. I have to say, I read "non-magical missile" to mean anything that's not a magic missile. I didn't even consider another interpretation was available. Saying magic missile would have been more clear, but magical missiles is more grammatically correct and I don't think that this should be taken to be a different rules term.

I realise it could be read the other way too, it makes sense, but I think that's what it means. After all, it seems downright odd that magical bolt thrower is affected by a magical storm but a magical cannon is not. It seems much more likely that it just means that all shooting is affected (magic or otherwise) but magical spells are not.

That's my opinion, anyway. You could read "all non-magical missile attacks" to mean either those attacks that are not magical missiles or those missile attacks that are not magical, but the former makes vastly more sense holistically. It's not like the Skaven armybook is known for its water-tight rules ;)

Agnar the Howler
02-06-2010, 23:27
Think of the crew of the bolt thrower instead of the bolt thrower itself, they'll have their vision done in by the storm and their aiming will be harmed by it. It's hard to penalise a guess weapon's accuracy without forcing a scatter re-roll (which could also improve accuracy) since their BS has no impact, so I guess the best they could do was no-firing on a 4+, but since the cannon is magical, it is immune to a magical storm.

I've no doubt that if the crew of a magical bolt thrower were also magical (so firing themselves at ethereal units would do damage) then it'd ignore the effects too :p

Trains_Get_Robbed
07-06-2010, 20:03
Yeah, I do not really care about how others interpert it -as we all interpert it differently- however that being said, I read it as the same as Lord Inquistor, and because of this every machine and every BS weapon is effected on our field of play.

(I play my best friend about twice a week since mid March with HE against his Skaven, if I played it your way Agnar, I would probably not even be playing Warhammer at this point as my archers are already so over costed and terrible that the storm banner makes them not even worth fielding. :rolleyes:)

Agoz
07-06-2010, 21:02
Hmm. I have to say, I read "non-magical missile" to mean anything that's not a magic missile. I didn't even consider another interpretation was available. Saying magic missile would have been more clear, but magical missiles is more grammatically correct and I don't think that this should be taken to be a different rules term.

I realise it could be read the other way too, it makes sense, but I think that's what it means. After all, it seems downright odd that magical bolt thrower is affected by a magical storm but a magical cannon is not. It seems much more likely that it just means that all shooting is affected (magic or otherwise) but magical spells are not.

That's my opinion, anyway. You could read "all non-magical missile attacks" to mean either those attacks that are not magical missiles or those missile attacks that are not magical, but the former makes vastly more sense holistically. It's not like the Skaven armybook is known for its water-tight rules ;)

see, the problem with that is, if that is the case, why include the non-magical missles clause at all? If it was refering to the spell, you could leave out the entire sentence and the rule wouldn't change, as the rest of the rule makes no mention of spellcasting, and wouldn't normally effect it anyway.

Lord Inquisitor
07-06-2010, 21:25
see, the problem with that is, if that is the case, why include the non-magical missles clause at all? If it was refering to the spell, you could leave out the entire sentence and the rule wouldn't change, as the rest of the rule makes no mention of spellcasting, and wouldn't normally effect it anyway.

Because if it just said "all missile attacks" you could argue that "magic missiles" are a "missile attack" and therefore would need a 4+ to use...

It's yet another example of trying to be clear and actually having the opposite effect. The Skaven book is simply poorly written by an inexperienced developer. I genuinely believe that the most logical interpretation of what the author wrote was that the storm banner affects all missiles weapons with -2 to hit or a 4+ for those that don't require to hit, but magic missiles are unaffected. This is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me in terms of what the storm banner is meant to do.

lordsigmund
07-06-2010, 23:58
Why not just say non-spells then instead of non-magical missile attacks?

Dorack
08-06-2010, 00:04
Magic Missiles is a defined game concept. "Magical" is not. I must say I see no ground on how the storm banner affects a magic ranged attack, regardless if BS is used or not.

Lord Inquisitor
08-06-2010, 00:25
I don't know why it was written like that! :shifty: Frankly the same applies to 90% of the Skaven book. :rolleyes:

I'm looking at the rule as a whole, and - to me - it seems like it's saying that all missile weapons are affected, just not magic missiles.

If you choose to read it the other way that's fine with me - it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense that all weapons are affected unless they're magical and they don't need to roll to hit. That seems just weird. I think he was writing 'all missile attacks that don't require a roll to hit' and then thought 'hey, what if someone says that "magic missiles" are a "missile attack", why don't I put in a non-magical missile clause in there?' instead of actually making the rule waterproof. We already know the Storm Banner wasn't exactly proofread very well! :D

This is all just my opinion, but it makes more sense to me than the suggestion that magical bolt throwers should be affected but not magical cannons...

lordsigmund
08-06-2010, 00:39
I don't know why it was written like that! So because something seems weird to you, you are assuming that a term used in a rule instead means a different well established term? The rule seems pretty straightforward to me and my gaming group.

'Magic missile' is the term used EVERYWHERE when referring to magic missile attacks. If they meant magic missiles, they would have said 'magic missile' not 'magical missile'. It just seems like your're making up rules to make more sense to you personally because you don't agree with the developers.

Missile attacks is another word for ranged attacks, non-magical missile attacks means ranged attacks that aren't magical. Even without the comma between magical and missile which would make it indisputable, using he hyphenated non-magical rather than "not 'magic missile'" is conclusive enough for me.

Lord Inquisitor
08-06-2010, 00:50
So because something seems weird to you, you are assuming that a term used in a rule instead means a different well established term?
Yes, yes I do. ;)


'Magic missile' is the term used EVERYWHERE when referring to magic missile attacks. If they meant magic missiles, they would have said 'magic missile' not 'magical missile'. It just seems like your're making up rules to make more sense to you personally because you don't agree with the developers.
Look at the Skaven errata, the author really wasn't very good at using established game terms, was he?

(To give the guy a break, it may be that there was insufficient time to write, proofread and playtest the book - Alessio himself admitted that the last Skaven book was insufficiently playtested - but not a great job for a first army book).


Missile attacks is another word for ranged attacks, non-magical missile attacks means ranged attacks that aren't magical. Even without the comma between magical and missile which would make it indisputable, using he hyphenated non-magical rather than "not 'magic missile'" is conclusive enough for me.
Well, fair enough by all means play it that way. I did say my interpretation was holistic. I think it's vague enough that both are plausible but yours is certainly closer to RAW - but I'd lay good money that if you interviewed Jeremy right now, I'd be right.

If you and I played, I'd be happy to play it your way, but it's still bizarre to say the least and I still stand by my suspicions as to what the author meant to write. Suffice to say if you think it makes perfect sense that magical cannons should be unaffected but magical bolt throwers are and that you think Jeremy 3-pages-of-errata Vetock really thought this carefully about the rule and whether the term magical missile or magic missile should be utilised then fair enough and we just differ in opinion! :)

theorox
08-06-2010, 14:17
That's my opinion, anyway. You could read "all non-magical missile attacks" to mean either those attacks that are not magical missiles or those missile attacks that are not magical, but the former makes vastly more sense holistically. It's not like the Skaven armybook is known for its water-tight rules ;)

This has been FAQ'ed. I Remember reading this myself! I'll go see if i can find it, ill edit it in then.

Theo

*Edit: It was not in the Skaven FAQ/Errata, but i remember seeing this SOMEWHERE! :(

Agoz
08-06-2010, 17:47
If it was refering to spellcasting, then why would it say "that don't use BS to hit their target"? Magic missles never use BS to hit their target, which would make it redundant.

Lord Inquisitor
08-06-2010, 17:59
If it was refering to spellcasting, then why would it say "that don't use BS to hit their target"? Magic missles never use BS to hit their target, which would make it redundant.

I'm not following you here.

Magic missiles are ranged attacks that don't use BS to hit their targets, but then so do other weapons like cannons. Why wouldn't a clause that stipulates ranged attacks that don't require BS to hit their targets not include magic missiles (or, at least, be potentially arguable)?

Agoz
08-06-2010, 18:27
As I've said before, if you were to take the magic missle part out of the paragraph entirely, it still wouldn't effect magic missles, as it says ranged attacks that don't use BS to fire, not to cast.

which is why I think it's refering to magical warmachines, and not the spell.

Lord Inquisitor
08-06-2010, 18:39
As I've said before, if you were to take the magic missle part out of the paragraph entirely, it still wouldn't effect magic missles, as it says ranged attacks that don't use BS to fire, not to cast.
I see. I remain unconvinced that if it said "all missile attacks that don't use BS to hit their target need to roll a 4+ on a D6 before they can fire" wouldn't also apply to magical missiles - or at least, that the designer wished to prevent people wondering if it did or not. Of course, if it just said missile weapons then that'd be a moot point but I guess it is designed to cover special ranged attacks - although why a magical storm would make it harder for, say, Kholek to summon lightning I don't know...


which is why I think it's refering to magical warmachines, and not the spell.
Fair enough. Why do you think this exception was made then?

Agoz
08-06-2010, 19:16
I see. I remain unconvinced that if it said "all missile attacks that don't use BS to hit their target need to roll a 4+ on a D6 before they can fire" wouldn't also apply to magical missiles - or at least, that the designer wished to prevent people wondering if it did or not. Of course, if it just said missile weapons then that'd be a moot point but I guess it is designed to cover special ranged attacks - although why a magical storm would make it harder for, say, Kholek to summon lightning I don't know...


Fair enough. Why do you think this exception was made then?

so it wouldn't effect skaven warmachines, the same reason it had in the last edition of the book, the wording hasn't changed.

Edit: and yes I know it still effects the ratling gun, but as I said, the wording hasn't changed, and in the last edition, you didn't need to roll to hit with the ratling gun, so it too would have been uneffected.

destroyerlord
09-06-2010, 06:44
I'm sure there is a precedent for that specific wording, perhaps in HoC? 'Magical missiles' definitely refers to missile attacks that are magic, and not 'magic missiles' (though it might include magic missiles as well). The similarity in wording is unfortunate, but has been around for several editions now.

Lordy
16-06-2010, 01:08
Thought i would steal this thread to ask my question rather than make my own :)

Do Tomb King archers suffer penalties when the Storm Banner is in place? I'm guessing not, the wording in the Tomb Kings book says:

"undead models in the tomb king army do not count any penalties or bonuses to hit when shooting"

Seems pretty clear cut to me but GW do make some silly rules, thought i had best get it confirmed before rubbing it in my friends face.

Cheers

Agoz
16-06-2010, 16:17
yeah, I think the tomb king's never take any penalties rule overrides the stormbanner.