PDA

View Full Version : Curse of Anraheir



Khaain
13-08-2010, 02:02
Noticed a discussion at another forum about the Curse of Anraheir where they count any terrain, even open ground, to be dangerous for a moving unit. My group have been playing it such that we only count regular terrain, not the plain board itself. The spell would jump to an entirely other level if even open ground would be dangerous.

The reason we play it like that is because if open ground = terrain, fanatics wouldn't even be able to leave their units as they would die instantly.

What do you think about this spell?

damiengore
13-08-2010, 04:10
ANY terrain EVEN open ground, dangerous terrain for moving at all, dangerous on 1 or 2!

Casshole
13-08-2010, 05:53
I disagree, open ground cannot count as terrain due to many rules that would be affected by it (doomwheel, fanatics)

Terrain is the stuff you place on a table and possibly the hills built into the realm of abttle would count.

Urgat
13-08-2010, 08:29
Open terrain is a terrain type, it's listed in the terrain types in the BRB; the problem lies with fanatics and doomwheels, sadly. If you're liberal about the meaning of the fanatic rules, they'll die the moment they touch the table anyway, there's no mention of open terrain, just of "any terrain feature". Being open is certainly a feature >>

Haravikk
13-08-2010, 10:17
The Curse of Anraheir would be pretty pathetic if open ground wasn't included. Think of it as one of the net type spells; it makes it dangerous to move the unit, if you have to move the unit then that's just a good choice of target for the wizard.

Joehunk
02-09-2010, 15:31
The Fanatics analogy does not apply. The Fanatics special rule specifically says "terrain features" not "all terrain." These are distinct: a terrain feature is a thing you place on the board during terrain placement and say "this is a (forest,river,building,whatever)". Note that it is possible to be both a terrain feature AND open ground at the same time (as with a hill). Hills have always killed Fanatics despite being open ground. It is the fact that a hill is a terrain feature that causes it to affect Fanatics.

Note that in 8th edition, Fanatics move according to the Random Moves rule. Additionally, the Rulebook FAQ specifies that Random Moves are considered "normal moves" and do not trigger Dangerous Terrain Tests. Therefore, this spell would not affect Fanatics at all.

Finally, the BRB is pretty explicit: "open ground is the most prevalent type of battlefield terrain" (ergo open terrain is terrain, and "all terrain" includes "open")

In other words RAW is clear: the spell includes open terrain. The question is (as it always is) is RAW so absurd in this case that it would be silly to play that way? My feeling is no.

Teongpeng
02-09-2010, 15:42
Open Ground does not affect the game. read that again and again and again.

Joehunk
02-09-2010, 16:01
Yes I agree that open ground does not affect the game. That is, until you cast a spell that causes it to be treated as dangerous terrain, which does affect the game.

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 16:14
Note that in 8th edition, Fanatics move according to the Random Moves rule. Additionally, the Rulebook FAQ specifies that Random Moves are considered "normal moves" and do not trigger Dangerous Terrain Tests. Therefore, this spell would not affect Fanatics at all.
Not sure this is right unless you typo'd? A random movement from dangerous terrain will still trigger a dangerous terrain test I think as that's what normal movement means, unless I've completely missed something but I haven't been able to find mention of it.

Teongpeng
02-09-2010, 16:21
Yes I agree that open ground does not affect the game. That is, until you cast a spell that causes it to be treated as dangerous terrain, which does affect the game.if it doesnt affect the game, its not affected by the game either. its really that simple.

Chaos Undecided
02-09-2010, 16:36
Personally I think the passage on Open Ground page 116 makes it pretty clear that its still classed as a type of terrain and the curse will take affect still, its intended to hinder/immobilise units and its how I've always seen it played myself and has proven to be quite vicious on occassion and quite amusing when you panic the cursed unit :p

Joehunk
02-09-2010, 16:43
if it doesnt affect the game, its not affected by the game either. its really that simple.

The verb "to affect" is not semantically commutative. It is possible to affect something that does not in turn affect you back, by definition of the word "affect." Case in point: when I watch a movie featuring Reese Witherspoon, I doubt it affects her at all, but it sure as hell affects me :)

The rules as written do not say that "open ground is never affected by the game in any way," or anything along those lines. Therefore you are making an assumption by saying that the authors intended it to go both ways. If you want to play that way, then that's fine of course (most important rule), but it is in no way "that simple."

To me what seals the deal is: hills are open ground. The rulebook is extremely explicit about this. By your logic, I should disregard all rules regarding hills because it is in no way possible for any open ground to have any effect on the game, no matter what.

To Haravikk: I need to check the BRB when I get home, but from memory, normal moves never trigger dangerous terrain tests, only marching, fleeing, pursuing, or charging.

Chaos Undecided
02-09-2010, 16:51
Its dependent on the terrain type and unit type certain mysterious terrains always require a dangerous terrain test for any movement

Greyfire
02-09-2010, 17:09
Just curious but why say "treat the terrain" if the intent is to possibly affect the entire table when you choose "open terrain"? Why mention terrain at all? I mean, if the game board is terrain then that means we have a 4' x 6' piece of terrain? How'd that get selected from the random terrain table? In other words, how do you limit the affected area? The rules mention that terrain should generally be less than a foot square.

BTW, shouldn't we just discuss this on http://warhammer-empire.com? There's a nice thread there already.

Haravikk
02-09-2010, 17:13
To Haravikk: I need to check the BRB when I get home, but from memory, normal moves never trigger dangerous terrain tests, only marching, fleeing, pursuing, or charging.
Oh whoops, you're completely right! Here's me still shaking off my ingrained Dwarf player mentality; a march move is a normal move for a Dwarf :D

Joehunk
02-09-2010, 17:20
Just curious but why say "affect terrain" if the intent is to affect the entire table? Why mention terrain at all? I mean, if the game board is terrain then that means we have a 4' x 6' piece of terrain? In other words, how do you limit the affected area?

That's a fair question, and the best answer I have is "because GW takes great amusement in causing debates like this." They have in fact used the term "all terrain" to mean "the entire board" once before, in the Space Wolves codex for the Tempest's Wrath power, only this time they went on to clarify what they meant.

So I am home for lunch and looking at the BRB. I see something that I think seals it. In the entry for "Dangerous Terrain" it states: "As such [a bunch of different unit types] treat all terrain other than open ground as being dangerous terrain..." Riddle me this: if "all terrain" did not include open ground by default, then why would they have to say "all terrain other than open ground?" Clearly, the phrase "all terrain" is intended by the GW authors to include open ground. To say otherwise would be to assume the term "all terrain" is used inconsistently throughout the BRB, which in the absence of a FAQ I believe we should not.

Greyfire
02-09-2010, 17:36
To say otherwise would be to assume the term "all terrain" is used inconsistently throughout the BRB, which in the absence of a FAQ I believe we should not.
This won't be the first time GW has not been consistent within the BRB, or between BRB and ABs. :confused:

I do see your point (and a lot of other peoples points, for this and the cannonball and fanatic rule discussions) and I can't offer anything that contradicts it other than opinion. I just have a hard time believing that a game designer would take the time to define the size of a piece of terrain and then later rule that the gaming surface itself was also a piece of terrain.

It's like three sentences to clear this up. Would take about 10 minutes for GW to update their FAQs. I wish they would update the FAQs again.

Of course, my second wish would be for a banana milkshake and the third for world peace, so what do I know. :D

Joehunk
02-09-2010, 18:06
Oh I am not saying that they're always consistent. I am just saying that until they FAQ it, we should assume they are. The one exception to that would be if the interpretation of consistency is very obviously absurd, and in this case I don't believe it is. If you play as if the spell counts the whole board, which it appears a few posters here have, it's not game breaking. Of course I am aware that "absurd" is a subjective term.

FWIW I emailed their customer support and asked them to FAQ it.

Dragoon999
02-09-2010, 19:34
Open grounds passage specifically calls it (terrain), therefore it is affected by the spell.

Teongpeng
03-09-2010, 00:24
i find it strange that despite knowing deep in our hearts that it makes no sense to include open grounds as a terrain for curse of anraheir, the majority of us choose to play it as if it is...just because they find it fun to twist the words and description in RAW to help their cause.

Admit it folks....u know when the FAQ comes out for this spell....open grounds will not be affected. But why do u want to wait for that to happen instead of deciding for yourselves based on sound judgement for a very obvious rule intent.

Damocles8
03-09-2010, 02:09
i find it strange that despite knowing deep in our hearts that it makes no sense to include open grounds as a terrain for curse of anraheir, the majority of us choose to play it as if it is...just because they find it fun to twist the words and description in RAW to help their cause.

Admit it folks....u know when the FAQ comes out for this spell....open grounds will not be affected. But why do u want to wait for that to happen instead of deciding for yourselves based on sound judgement for a very obvious rule intent.

To me (and not really using Curse that often anyway) the intent appears to be to hold up a unit for a turn or force it to take dangerous terrain tests if it wants to move.....

Yamabushi
03-09-2010, 02:13
@Teongpeng:

Because of what Joehunk posted: Normal moves never trigger dangerous terrain tests, only marching, fleeing, pursuing, or charging.

Curse will never prevent you from making a normal move. It just slows you down (by making "fast movement" riskier). There is also a precedent for the effects of this spell in Curse of The Horned Rat :p

Teongpeng
03-09-2010, 05:23
I use the spell all the time. and i do find it insanely broken if it really does affect open ground. anyway my point is...we all know deep inside the real intent of the spell...which is to affect terrain pieces in the game...it just amuse me much that so many ppl here think its proper to twist the intent of the spell just because of a debatable situation where Open Ground is stated under the terrains section of the BRB.

Ask yourselves:
1)what other sections would Open Grounds be in the BRB if not for Terrains section? Its simply there to show us that we can interpret it as grassland,rocky lands or whatever...it just wont affect the game.
2)Why would the game designers mention 'terrains' at all in the description of the spell if its meant to affect the entire board. The wordings in the spell and the way its written shows clearly that its meant to only affect terrain pieces.

Ppl are exploiting the game designer's lack of hindsight when writing the rule, knowing full well that the coming FAQ will not include Open Grounds in the list of affected terrains, yet they choose to play it the wrong way anyway. WHY?

This is the same case with the Okkam's Mindrazor argument, where the majority of players purposely misinterpret the rule as to say that the Ld value wont affect armour saves...knowing full well that it will be FAQ-ed to meant that it will. Everyone knows the intent...but everyone chose to ignore the most common sense approach. Really amazing.

Senjak
03-09-2010, 15:27
The curse is already strong with the -1 to hit portion of its rules. How about compare it to the rules for chariot then, if the chariot moves through terrain then it takes a dangerous terrain test. So would any of you who want the curse to make opponents take dangerous terrain tests for open ground take the same tests for unensorcelled chariots over open ground?

Atrahasis
03-09-2010, 16:07
Chariots only take dangerous terrain tests for marching, charging, fleeing or pursuing through dangerous terrain; they're only different in that they treat all difficult terrain as dangerous.

Senjak
03-09-2010, 16:40
That should be the case. But if you're using Curse's verbiage and its lack of an exception for open ground, then the chariots rules don't have a clause for open ground either: "...a chariot that finds itself moving through terrain..." takes a test. Same situation, just as ridiculous.

Atrahasis
03-09-2010, 16:49
Chariots only take tests for charging, fleeing, or pursuing through dangerous terrain.

Moving "normally" doesn't cause a test. Honestly. Read the rules that the paragraph you're quoting from directs you to.

Senjak
03-09-2010, 18:09
I see, youre right. I hate to be so obstinate about it, the abusive interpretation of the Curse rules just annoys me so much, its like the Invisible Gyrocopter all over again.

Damocles8
03-09-2010, 18:49
This is the same case with the Okkam's Mindrazor argument, where the majority of players purposely misinterpret the rule as to say that the Ld value wont affect armour saves...knowing full well that it will be FAQ-ed to meant that it will. Everyone knows the intent...but everyone chose to ignore the most common sense approach. Really amazing.

You are really starting to sound like a broken record, if it was obvious we wouldn't be having the discussion en masse, it would be one or two people spouting things left and right trying to get an edge; Curse affects open terrain, so if you want to march, charge, flee, overrun or pursue through it then you take a dangerous terrain test....simple and not overly broken.

Teongpeng
03-09-2010, 23:29
You are really starting to sound like a broken record, if it was obvious we wouldn't be having the discussion en masse, it would be one or two people spouting things left and right trying to get an edge; Curse affects open terrain, so if you want to march, charge, flee, overrun or pursue through it then you take a dangerous terrain test....simple and not overly broken.ok good.

Enjoy playing it the wrong way till it got an FAQ then. You're exactly the sort of amazing ppl i tried to describe in my broken record. ;)

Talash
04-09-2010, 00:30
This is the same case with the Okkam's Mindrazor argument, where the majority of players purposely misinterpret the rule as to say that the Ld value wont affect armour saves...knowing full well that it will be FAQ-ed to meant that it will. Everyone knows the intent...but everyone chose to ignore the most common sense approach. Really amazing.

Actually, I thought more people than not thought the spell WOULD affect armour saves?

Either way, CoA is pretty straightforward - If you want to march, etc through -any- terrain, it is treated as dangerous terrain, blah blah. Open terrain is a kind of terrain, albeit one that usually has no effect on the game. This spell changes that.

Why do you think this spell is so overpowered? Have you even -seen- the other Lores in the game? If it's so damn good, why don't you take a Suicide Mage with a Power Scroll and CoA every game? ;)

Spell is fine. Working as intended.

TheTrueSloth
04-09-2010, 10:13
ok good.

Enjoy playing it the wrong way till it got an FAQ then. You're exactly the sort of amazing ppl i tried to describe in my broken record. ;)

With respect Teongpeng, you're taken a position of philosophical assumption (that the rules "must" have meant a different interpretation) and another assumption (that GW will "clearly" FAQ it or feel the need to) and asserting them as facts of opinion.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" - Occam's Razor.

What most people are posting is:

i) Looking at the RBRB, the book clearly labels it as "open terrain".
ii) The spell treats all terrain as dangerous.
iii) Therefore, open terrain is dangerous.

Two factual statements (i and ii) to get a conclusion (iii). You assertion has to go:

i) Looking at the RBRB, the book clearly labels it as "open terrain".
ii) The spell treats all terrain as dangerous.
iii) GW "clearly" meant for you to not treat open terrain as dangerous as that "clearly wasn't their intent".
iv) Therefore, Open Terrain would be ignored.

Two factual statements (i and ii) and one assumption that we cannot guarantee or quantify as fact (iii) to get a conclusion (iv) that, logically, is now wrong.

Therefore, if we want to hope to play RAW, we "must" assert that open terrain is now dangerous. You are welcome to play how you think the rules should be played in the meantime, however, until (and if) GW release an FAQ/errata to state to the otherwise, we have no choice but to use it in that fashion. And I don't even play with that spell normally.


Actually, I thought more people than not thought the spell WOULD affect armour saves?

It got FAQ'ed to state that "models in the target unit use their Leadership for Strength when rolling to wound..." so that now, the number in the model's Ld value is assumed to be their strength and will, accordingly, modify the saves.

What's more ambiguous at the moment is if the General's Leadership can apply to units using Occam's Mind Razor. But there's now three threads that deal with that and the most recent one with the most refined arguments is currently on the first page.

Toodles

Teongpeng
04-09-2010, 15:19
Thetruesloth and Talash,
I think u missed out on the point when i said - ppl would rather wait for the FAQ to come out to tell them to play the right way, even when instinctively they know they are bending the intended rule.

On post #23, i asked 2 questions...which should point us in the right way of thinking explaining why 1)open grounds is stated under Terrains and 2)why did GW wrote the spell description the way they did.

Answering those 2 questions, and applying a little bit of common sense (i use this phrase with full respect), we should be able to decipher the true intend of the spell.

PS: can anyone of you honestly believe that the FAQ(if it ever comes out) will allow open grounds to be included in the spell?

TheTrueSloth
04-09-2010, 15:33
Thetruesloth,
I think u missed out on the point when i said - ppl would rather wait for the FAQ to come out to tell them to play the right way, even when instinctively they know they are bending the intended rule.

Actually, not really. The rulebook in itself is clear in how it is referenced. As far as RAW goes, we have absolutely no reason to play it any other way until (or unless) GW do FAQ it.

As far as how people "instinctively knowing they are bending the intended rule":


To me (and not really using Curse that often anyway) the intent appears to be to hold up a unit for a turn or force it to take dangerous terrain tests if it wants to move.....

Quote from Damocles8. As far as "discerning a right way to play", that's got everything to do with individual interpretation and nothing to do with "what GW intended", because we have absolutely no way of knowing what GW really think. They're not the most logically sound people in the world (certainly if they're anything like the GW staff member I had a discussion with earlier.).


On post #23, i asked 2 questions...which should point us in the right way of thinking explaining why 1)open grounds is stated under Terrains and 2)why did GW wrote the spell description the way they did.
****
1)what other sections would Open Grounds be in the BRB if not for Terrains section? Its simply there to show us that we can interpret it as grassland,rocky lands or whatever...it just wont affect the game.
2)Why would the game designers mention 'terrains' at all in the description of the spell if its meant to affect the entire board. The wordings in the spell and the way its written shows clearly that its meant to only affect terrain pieces.


How can we assume that GW "meant" to write anything in a certain fashion at all?

1) It says it "doesn't affect the game" which shows us normally it will make no difference, but there's little reason to assume that it was intended to "never have any effect". By that logic, I could point to the fluff description and say "well since the wizard is only summoning a bunch of ghost animals that can happen anywhere".
2) Why did the game designers write a set of rules that imply that models in a unit use the General's Leadership and yet write the rules that lean more towards saying "they don't"? Why did the game designers write a set of rules about Purple Sun that caused them to FAQ it? Why did they write a set of rules that show that the Lance Formation can't ignore rank bonus? Because they don't think all the way through, they can't. But that simply isn't enough of a quantity to determine such an absolute claim - as I said, we know nothing of what the Gw designers actually wanted.


Answering those 2 questions, and applying a little bit of common sense (i use this phrase with full respect), we should be able to decipher to true intend of of the spell.

We all know common sense doesn't exist :p

Seriously though, since "common sense" is more a measure of individual understanding than anything empyrically sound, we have to run a sense of logic to establish a more viable sense of understanding. Logic could suggest to us that you have a good point in the way the rules are written. Logic could also tell us that if we don't follow the rules as we find them in the RBRB, then we're not playing with the rules from the rulebook for the game we enjoy - in which case, why use it at all?

Toodles

eyescrossed
04-09-2010, 15:58
Apparently Teongpeng is Jesus and can shoot lasers from his ass with his omnipotent knowledge of GW's rules.

Damocles8
04-09-2010, 16:13
This is the same case with the Okkam's Mindrazor argument, where the majority of players purposely misinterpret the rule as to say that the Ld value wont affect armour saves...knowing full well that it will be FAQ-ed to meant that it will. Everyone knows the intent...but everyone chose to ignore the most common sense approach. Really amazing.

Uh according to the FAQ Okkam's Mindrazor does affect armor saves.

Talash
04-09-2010, 18:35
@Teongpeng

In Warhammer 40K there is a similar spell that the Space Wolves can utilise, that means that units treat all terrain (even open ground) as dangerous terrain. Therefore this spell has a precedent, and one that I firmly believe proves how I (and most everyone else on this board) play the spell is the correct way. I am also currently backed up by the rules, and don't expect for this to be FAQed by GW.

You may continue to play how you see fit, but please either come up with -reasons- why you think we're wrong (backed up with evidence/proof, please) or stop arguing the point.

"BAWWWW, you're all wrong! I'm right! I know what they MEANT to say!" is not a valid argument for the forum, is not backed up with anything and is childish.

TheTrueSloth
04-09-2010, 20:10
Apparently Teongpeng is Jesus and can shoot lasers from his ass with his omnipotent knowledge of GW's rules.

In all fairness, I can see where Teongpeng is going with his discussion and why he feels that open terrain wouldn't count. It's not entirely illogical.

But GW is not a game you play for outstanding logic (chess, maybe). Additionally, it does seem the RAW is clear on this. Therefore it seems straight forward.

Toodles

Teongpeng
05-09-2010, 00:30
LOL geeez guys!

I did not say i know GW's intent nor i said i'm right. If u had read and tried to understand my posts properly, you would realise that i'm saying YOU know the right way for the spell to be played...YOU know that its going to be FAQ-ed to exclude open grounds. YOU just decided to play it the wrong way and wait for something obvious to be FAQ before playing it right.

RAW does not exist in 8th. Well, rules as written exist, but its not a rule to abide by anymore. GW has probably admitted that thats too cumbersome and ppl would abuse it(abuse RAW, not abuse the rules) no end, like for instance that ethereal/instability nonsense.

Having said that, i'm not saying by RAW, the spell should exclude Open Grounds. Ofcourse its obvious that Open Grounds is under the Terrains section of the BRB. But u have to ask yourself...what other section should a description for Open Grounds be? It's just there to remind us that we can assume the battle to be fought over a desert, plains, grasslands etc...it doesnt matter...it doesnt affect the game.

And then u look at the description of the spell, the way its written, and you would realise that its unnecessary to include the phrase "all terrains" at all, if what it meant is the entire board.

@Thetruesloth: hey dude...sorry...u are way too articulate for me to dare to enter a prolonged debate with you :)

@Damocles8: it would help if u can read properly. your last post was rather...uh...fail. You're saying exactly what i said and u totally fail to understand the point.

@Talash: i already brought up the points multiple times to the extend of being accused of being a broken record. :) I'm not arguing RAW here, i'm just asserting that common sense should be used, and the fact that Open Grounds is in the Terrains section is an oversight by GW when writing that rule.

How many of you would wager serious money on how the FAQ will end up to be? Very few...why? because deep inside YOU know the intent, its just more fun to abuse it while it last.

Talash
05-09-2010, 01:07
Words.

Don't tell me what I'm thinking, or what I know or don't know. It makes you seem even more arrogant than you're already being.

I believe the spells intention is to include even open terrain, as it is a curse, a magical effect, whatever, that makes it dangerous for a unit to move. You seem to think this spell is horrendously broken if it were to be interpreted that way, but I can't see your case.

Ergo the discussion is between your point of view, and everyone elses. Essentially arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall; you're not going to see reason, and have the insane belief that rules read as written don't count any more. Well hooray! I'd love to give you a game, because -in my mind- the intent of GW was to make Lizardmen invincible, so the fact that you can wound my models is an oversight that hasn't been FAQed yet. Therefore you can't hurt my models.

No, there's no rule reason why this is the case. No, there's no logical reason either. But it's what I believe, and for you that seems to be enough when talking on a forum about rules.

Teongpeng
05-09-2010, 02:12
Don't tell me what I'm thinking, or what I know or don't know. It makes you seem even more arrogant than you're already being.

I believe the spells intention is to include even open terrain, as it is a curse, a magical effect, whatever, that makes it dangerous for a unit to move. You seem to think this spell is horrendously broken if it were to be interpreted that way, but I can't see your case.

Ergo the discussion is between your point of view, and everyone elses. Essentially arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall; you're not going to see reason, and have the insane belief that rules read as written don't count any more. Well hooray! I'd love to give you a game, because -in my mind- the intent of GW was to make Lizardmen invincible, so the fact that you can wound my models is an oversight that hasn't been FAQed yet. Therefore you can't hurt my models.

No, there's no rule reason why this is the case. No, there's no logical reason either. But it's what I believe, and for you that seems to be enough when talking on a forum about rules.You're just too densed to understand that rules as written can just be as easily misinterpreted and abused in order to twist the intent of RAW.

I asked many times, do you honestly believe that in the FAQ, Open Grounds will be included in the spell? Would u put money on it? Instead of answering truthfully, u chose to go on an angry tirade bringing up stupid examples like flying lizardmen in order to squirm your way out.

a.Flying lizardmen is NOT in the rules. Nothing to debate about.
b.Open Grounds does not affect the game is. Ofcourse this also clashes with the spell since its written in the terrains section. This is debatable.

Maybe you're just too stupid to understand intents. Whats the point of following a specific rule when u dont understand the intent? heck..u dont even understand the gist of the points i brought up, which is to say that you're one of those amazing ppl who would rather play something the wrong way until an FAQ comes out to show you how stupid u are. Here's the spoon, now feed your self.

I like discussing with ppl like thetruesloth because he shows respect and atleast try to understand and reply in a logical manner. Even he, agreed that for the spell to include Open Grounds is illogical...but unfortunately thats what RAW suggested. Thats his arguments. That has merit, unlike yours.

Damocles8
05-09-2010, 02:34
words

So your asertion that open ground doesn't affect the game by default stands, that is what is intended and what is in the book. However Curse modifies ALL terrain (open terrain doesn't normally affect things, but it is modified by the spell for the unit).

I would put money on the FAQ saying it affects open ground; if they feel an FAQ is even needed at all.

Citadel97501
05-09-2010, 03:40
I happen to agree with Damocles.

Open Terrain, has 0 effect on the game, however if I curse your unit with the Curse of Anraheir, nothing on the board is Open Terrain for that unit any more, so if you Charge, March, Pursue, or Overrun your going to take Dangerous terrain tests and fail them on a 1 or 2.

Citadel97501
05-09-2010, 03:42
Chariots only take tests for charging, fleeing, or pursuing through dangerous terrain.

Moving "normally" doesn't cause a test. Honestly. Read the rules that the paragraph you're quoting from directs you to.

Thanks for pointing that out, somehow no one in my game store had bothered reading the Dangerous Terrain section. . .

Talash
05-09-2010, 03:53
More words. This time even -more- stupid.

Conversing with you is utterly pointless. No, I wouldn't put money on it being FAQed as you seem to be the only person with a problem with this spell. If they were to, I'd happily put money on it being interpreted as everyone (except for you) believes it to be.

I honestly believe that you're some sort of elaborate, logic-defying troll, but just to sum up why the spell works how I, and everyone else, says it does:

1) All terrain is treated as dangerous terrain for the spell.
2) Open terrain is a kind terrain.
3) Open terrain is therefore dangerous terrain for this spell.

I don't think this is over-powered. I don't see why you think it is. I don't think this is against RAI. This is RAW.

Bear in mind I never even use this Lore of magic, so I'm not trying to gain any advantage by ruling it this way, but it's simply how it works. Unlike with Okkams Mindrazor, there is no other way to interpret the ruling: It is as clear as day, and you're trying to muddy it by using false logic, assumptions and lies.

Out of interest, did the spell say something rude about your mother?

I can't imagine why you'd make yourself look like such an **** otherwise.

Teongpeng
05-09-2010, 04:18
So your asertion that open ground doesn't affect the game by default stands, that is what is intended and what is in the book. However Curse modifies ALL terrain (open terrain doesn't normally affect things, but it is modified by the spell for the unit).

I would put money on the FAQ saying it affects open ground; if they feel an FAQ is even needed at all.Yes i agree that COA can be interepreted to include Open Grounds, however the way its written, the fact that they need to mention "all terrains" instead of the "entire board", shows their intent.

Remember i'm not saying you are wrong by RAW, but sometimes we have to stop taking a strawman approach to interpret concepts that work together as a whole.

eyescrossed
05-09-2010, 05:21
But alas...the stupids shall remain stupid arguing in a low-level manner, while the wiser ones among us would see my points and admit that its illogical to include Open Grounds in the spell despite by RAW it can be interpretted as it does.

-snip-

@Talash: if the level of discussion is too high for your one tracked kindergarten brain to keep up, please leave it to the pros to debate it.
Insulting someone's intelligence based on the stance they take in a tabletop wargame, just because it goes against your opinion.

Grow up.

TheTrueSloth
05-09-2010, 08:18
Insulting someone's intelligence based on the stance they take in a tabletop wargame, just because it goes against your opinion.

Grow up.

At this point I am going to say I am stepping down from this thread, this has simply turned into a flame thread. The insults a really not needed, nor are they helpful and I would like to think that, as individuals, we could post in a more responsible fashion.

Toodles

philbrad2
05-09-2010, 10:46
Everyone take a deep breath and think before you type there's a flame war brewing here and this is against WS's posting rules. Play nice or I'll take further actions. First and final warning.

PhilB
:chrome:
+ =I= + WarSeer Moderation Team + =I= +
WarSeer Posting Guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines)
The WarSeer FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php)
The WarSeer Moderation/Posting/Forum guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)

Damocles8
05-09-2010, 13:58
Yes i agree that COA can be interepreted to include Open Grounds, however the way its written, the fact that they need to mention "all terrains" instead of the "entire board", shows their intent.

Remember i'm not saying you are wrong by RAW, but sometimes we have to stop taking a strawman approach to interpret concepts that work together as a whole.

To me "All Terrain" and "Entire Board" are the same thing, the language of the first being such as to attempt to keep your head in the game, instead of pulling it out with "Entire Board."

Talash
05-09-2010, 14:43
Yes i agree that COA can be interepreted to include Open Grounds, however the way its written, the fact that they need to mention "all terrains" instead of the "entire board", shows their intent.

Remember i'm not saying you are wrong by RAW, but sometimes we have to stop taking a strawman approach to interpret concepts that work together as a whole.

No-one's using a strawman argument but yourself: You keep saying "their intent" but there's no such thing as "their intent", only what they've written. We can choose to play with the spirit of the game, in which case I believe the spirit of a Hex spell such as this is to be punishing to a unit that wants to move. That's why it's a strong spell, which you might want to dispel. However, letting it go and then leaving the unit where it is doesn't harm you at all.

It says all terrain because that's what it means: All terrain. Terrain is -everything- on the board, including the parts that are just painted sand/grass/etc.

End of, feel free to play the spell how you wish. Logic, RAW and even RAI don't seem to dissuade you from your course, so I don't truley understand why you're even arguing this still.

Teongpeng
05-09-2010, 15:18
Insulting someone's intelligence based on the stance they take in a tabletop wargame, just because it goes against your opinion.

Grow up.well u guys started it. :rolleyes: sheesh.

oh well guess we'll just have to stick with my assertions earlier...u can argue all u want...we'll just have to wait for the FAQ to show u how its played, just like the Okkammindrazor vs armour saves argument where 90% (a wild guess based on that thread's responses) of the ppl got the intent wrong.

Damocles8
05-09-2010, 15:25
well u guys started it. :rolleyes: sheesh.

oh well guess we'll just have to stick with my assertions earlier...u can argue all u want...we'll just have to wait for the FAQ to show u how its played, just like the Okkammindrazor vs armour saves argument where 90% (a wild guess based on that thread's responses) of the ppl got the intent wrong.

My initial thoughts on Mind Razor when I first read it was that it affected armor saves, then another read of it didn't make it clear enough to me or my group....

Teongpeng
05-09-2010, 15:28
My initial thoughts on Mind Razor when I first read it was that it affected armor saves, then another read of it didn't make it clear enough to me or my group....yes..but please see the point i'm trying to make. When presented with 2 choices, many ppl would miraculously prefer to choose the wrong way to play it till it got FAQ-ed. The same with this spell.

Teongpeng
05-09-2010, 15:30
No-one's using a strawman argument but yourself: You keep saying "their intent" but there's no such thing as "their intent", only what they've written. We can choose to play with the spirit of the game, in which case I believe the spirit of a Hex spell such as this is to be punishing to a unit that wants to move. That's why it's a strong spell, which you might want to dispel. However, letting it go and then leaving the unit where it is doesn't harm you at all.

It says all terrain because that's what it means: All terrain. Terrain is -everything- on the board, including the parts that are just painted sand/grass/etc.

End of, feel free to play the spell how you wish. Logic, RAW and even RAI don't seem to dissuade you from your course, so I don't truley understand why you're even arguing this still.and till now u still dont get what i'm trying to say.

1.nobody's talking about the strenght of the spell.
2.everyone already knows that Open grounds is under the terrains section.
3.you dont understand intent.

Now to all those who argue that the spell gives Open Grounds an ability based on RAW...i can just be an **** and argue the other way...consider this :
1)Open grounds become dangerous terrain by COA
2)Open Ground's description says it doesnt affect the game.
3)Conclusion, even though affected by the spell..it doesnt affect the game.
The end.

But i'm not so low as to argue like that.

Damocles8
05-09-2010, 21:43
Now to all those who argue that the spell gives Open Grounds an ability based on RAW...i can just be an **** and argue the other way...consider this :
1)Open grounds become dangerous terrain by COA
2)Open Ground's description says it doesnt affect the game.
3)Conclusion, even though affected by the spell..it doesnt affect the game.
The end.

But i'm not so low as to argue like that.

I think your argument 2 doesn't override argument 1.

Open Ground doesn't affect movement in it's natural state; however COA changes it's natural state for it's target.

TheTrueSloth
05-09-2010, 23:51
Ooh, the thread's calmed down a bit, huzzah!

Just to add this though:


Open Ground doesn't affect movement in it's natural state

For the sake of being pedantic, we could argue:



Player 1: Open Ground doesn't affect movement in it's natural state; however COA changes it's natural state for it's target.
Player 2: The RBRB doesn't state anything to that effect, it just says that 'Open Ground doesn't affect the game', therefore its' clear about the RAW.
Player 1: Open ground doesn't affect the game, but the spell turns open ground as a terrain type into dangerous terrain. The spell details all terrain, except impassible terrain, is treated as dangerous. Therefore it's clear in RAW it does."
Player 2: But the RAW says 'Open Ground' doesn't affect the game.
Player 1: Open Ground is a terrain type.
Player 2: Then Open Ground is a dangerous terrain type that doesn't affect the game.
Player 1: What?! Open Ground says "Open Terrain is the most prevalent type of terrain!" The spell says to treat all terrain as dangerous---
*Cut short by sound of judge slapping both players*


We could go all day with this stuff you know peeps :angel: We don't *know* what GW really wanted to say with this one. It seems more likely that, following RAW, the spell turns Open Ground into Dangerous Terrain. If it matter to you guys so much, perhaps its' just best to agree with your opponent before the game begins? :angel:

Toodles

Damocles8
06-09-2010, 00:25
Ooh, the thread's calmed down a bit, huzzah!

Just to add this though:



For the sake of being pedantic, we could argue:



We could go all day with this stuff you know peeps :angel: We don't *know* what GW really wanted to say with this one. It seems more likely that, following RAW, the spell turns Open Ground into Dangerous Terrain. If it matter to you guys so much, perhaps its' just best to agree with your opponent before the game begins? :angel:

Toodles

Huzzah you killed it.....I think it's time to close this thread while people still haven't been banned ;)

Talgronth
06-10-2011, 14:41
Also note that its not if u move, dangerous test is only if u Charge, March, Flee or pursue unless otherwhise specified like in the tomb king spell.

sulla
06-10-2011, 19:29
The Curse of Anraheir would be pretty pathetic if open ground wasn't included. Think of it as one of the net type spells; it makes it dangerous to move the unit, if you have to move the unit then that's just a good choice of target for the wizard.Useless because of it's super high casting value and because -1 to hit in combat and shooting is worthless?

No matter which way you interpret the rules of the spell, it's still useful IMO.

T10
06-10-2011, 20:42
To Haravikk: I need to check the BRB when I get home, but from memory, normal moves never trigger dangerous terrain tests, only marching, fleeing, pursuing, or charging.

This is true: The rules for Dangerous Terrain only calls for a Dangerous Terrain Test for those kinds of rushed movement.

All in all this would have been a lot clearer if the designer had stuck to phrasings such as "A scree slope counts as dangerous terrain to models of all troop types," or "A forest counts a dangerous terrain for cavalry, monstrous cavalry and chariots." They do this for Marshlands.

However, some terrain features or terrain types require that models make Dangerous Terrain tests regardless of wether they are moving at a "rush" or not: Forests require flyers to test at the beginning and end of their move, the Venom Thicket requires a test for simply for moving.

-T10

w3rm
10-10-2011, 05:46
This thread is hilarious :D