PDA

View Full Version : Skaven Scorch Spell cast in combat



Thruster
11-07-2010, 11:04
Skaven's Scorch says "Place the small round template anywhere within 24", so can it cast into close combat??

As usually spells cannot be cast into combat otherwise specifically stated, but this one says place the template ANYWHERE... so I'm not sure.

Can anyone clarify this please?

theunwantedbeing
11-07-2010, 11:07
Read the magic rules?

Heck just read the basic magic rules in either the 7th or 8th ed books, they both have the same limitations.

Atrahasis
11-07-2010, 11:28
Yes tub, but Army Book trumps Rulebook and the spell description says "anywhere"!!!111oneeleventyone

We're going to have a lot of this until GW remove the "trumping" clause.

Thruster
11-07-2010, 11:37
Yeah... I really hate it when the rules are somewhat cloudy like this.

I think this is the same with Dark Elf's Black Horror spell.... FAQ doesn't state anything about this either.

theunwantedbeing
11-07-2010, 11:38
Fair enough point, lots of abusability that was clearly not intended shall ensue :)

Necromancy Black
11-07-2010, 12:04
One day I'm going to see the inside of the main GW office and find a giant sign that says "Remember: Cloudy rules make for forum lols"

As for the answer I can't really say. If it literally does say just place the template in 24" inches then it does indeed sound like it could be placed into close combat.

mightyzombie
11-07-2010, 12:16
I seriously doubt that they are just going to remove the "trumping" clause. It isn't nearly so ambiguous as some people claim it to be. We might as well learn to live with it, rather than taking every opportunity to blame a need for rules clarification on the clause. Some rules are just ambiguous, just like they were BEFORE it was explicitly stated that armybooks "trump" RBRB rules where there is a conflict. Since armybooks are designed to add a particular army's flavor to the game, it seems reasonable that sometimes rules will be printed in them that take precedence over the RBRB to reflect that an army has a particular penchant for something, or a strength where others do not. Putting that clause in the RBRB is essentially GWs way of getting around having to FAQ each and every instance where this occurs in books that were printed before it. It seems likely that in new 8th ed armybooks, the rules that supersede the RBRB will be explicitly stated as doing so. On the otherhand, I've seen just as many people trying to claim all sorts of things trump BRB rules because they found something in an armybook and attempted to force literal interpretations of 6th/7th ed RAW to interact directly with RAW 8th BRB rules. In the vast majority of cases, common sense should usually provide all the answers needed.

In this case, it appears that simply applying the now-standard spell types to armybook lores would have solved this problem, but of course they didn't do this. I've been trying to figure out if this was to compensate for the fact that armybook lores are almost universally weaker than corebook lores now, and GW didn't feel the need to further hinder those spells with additional targeting restrictions and the like. Case in point: Scorch. Its description sounds exactly like a Direct Damage spell that uses a template, which generally can't be cast so that the template touches a friendly unit, or an enemy in close combat. Is this intended to be treated as a Direct Damage template? It seems like a fairly skaven-y thing to allow this template to be placed in contact with friendly units, if that is what you want to do, so I can see some sense in NOT making it a direct damage spell, but it also seemed like a prime candidate to just be FAQd to have a spell type.

Another example is the Skaven Lore of Plague spell Wither. This spell seemed like a prime candidate to be made a Hex spell. but generally those can't target firndly units, however they actualyl went out of their way in the FAQ to specify that it COULD (for whatever reason).

So in some instances it seems like the decision to not apply the new spell types to armybook lores was intentional, to give them more versatility over the corebook lores, to make up for any perceived weaknesses. On the other hand, it seems just as likely that they forgot, or just didn't want to bother. I'd suggest finding such cases in your own army book and discussing with your opponents ahead of time to see if you can just reach an agreement on them, rather than simply assuming RAW interpretation, or getting into an argument during game over RAI.

tl;dr
The armybook trumps BRB clause cannot be blamed for every rule that is ambiguous, or that one does not agree with, no matter how much one may wish it to be so. Nor should it be invoked just because one WANTS to force a rule to trump one they don't like in the BRB. Use some reason and, when in doubt, rule in favor of fun.

ON TOPIC: There's fairly compelling evidence to support the idea that some armybook spells will not always have to follow normal targeting restrictions that BRB spells do, but it just as easily could be GW being lazy. Discuss with you opponent before playing for maximum enjoyment.

Atrahasis
11-07-2010, 13:04
Your tl;dr should really read:

The trump rule isn't a problem because I'm in denial, or don't realise the far-reaching effects.

The "trump" rule means that if a model has a rule that says "any model in base contact takes X hits/wounds", then Ethereal cannot protect a model from that rule.
It is the nature of a ruleset that some rules MUST be able to ignore others based on the nature of the rule, and NOT merely where the rule is printed.