PDA

View Full Version : WOC Questions



GreenSpeed
18-10-2010, 17:59
I have a few questions about WoC that arent directly addressed by the FAQ.

The banner of rage says that the unit gains frenzy, does this mean that the horses also gain frenzy?

In the lore of tzeentch does baleful transmogrification effect units that are immune to psychology, like the undead who never take leadership tests?

Can Infernal Gateway be cast into combat?
the woc books states that "pick an enemy unit, if that units is within 24" of the caster..."
The 8th edition rule book states that "wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat, unless stated otherwise"
in this case the woc book doesnt consider wether someone is engaged in combat or not.

Thanks

Lord_Elric
18-10-2010, 18:05
Can Infernal Gateway be cast into combat?
the woc books states that "pick an enemy unit, if that units is within 24" of the caster..."
The 8th edition rule book states that "wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat, unless stated otherwise"
in this case the woc book doesnt consider wether someone is engaged in combat or not.

Thanks

however in 7th edition when there wernt a set of spells types it did state that a spell had to Say if could be cast into combat not that it couldnt

so unless the description of the spell says "even a unit in combat" then no it cannot be cast so..

theunwantedbeing
18-10-2010, 18:10
Yes the horses(or whatever the mounts happen to be) get frenzy.

Undead are just immune to psychology and don't take break test, they still take other leadership tests when required to.

No infernal Gateway cannot be cast into combat.

Synnister
18-10-2010, 19:07
There's still a lot of discussion on the frenzy thing affecting horses. Best bet would be to talk to your opponent prior to game to avoid unpleasant situation in the game.

Don't have the WoC book but if the spell says it doesn't affect ItP targets, then no it won't. If it doesn't say that then I think undead would be affected.

Infernal Gateway is another sticky situation and best to talk prior to game. By RAW, it can be, but there is several arguments to be made on both sides.

Lungboy
18-10-2010, 21:35
Frenzy from Mark of Khorne sure, but i don't see how anyone can argue horses getting Frenzy from the Banner of Rage.

decker_cky
18-10-2010, 21:53
Infernal Gateway is another sticky situation and best to talk prior to game. By RAW, it can be, but there is several arguments to be made on both sides.

Errr....by RAW it's quite clear that infernal gateway can't be cast into combat.

Infernal gateway has no spell type so is not a direct damage spell or any other type of spell (older spells don't list this).

On page 31, the restrictions that apply to spells unless otherwise stated includes:

"Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat."

So no infernal gateway in combat.

Synnister
18-10-2010, 22:33
It also says that older spells will have their casting restrictions in their description. There is no restriction on casting infernal gateway into combat in its description therefore by RAW it can be cast into combat.

Lord_Elric
18-10-2010, 23:06
It also says that older spells will have their casting restrictions in their description. There is no restriction on casting infernal gateway into combat in its description therefore by RAW it can be cast into combat.

Thats wrong sorry id be in uproar if somone tried that with me as all army book spells are written for 7TH and in 7TH it explicitly stated that unless otherwise stated spells could not be cast into combat be it RAW or RAIP youll make some major enemies doing that

Lord_Elric
18-10-2010, 23:09
It also says that older spells will have their casting restrictions in their description. There is no restriction on casting infernal gateway into combat in its description therefore by RAW it can be cast into combat.

However id be more than happy to cast black horror into a unit in close combat with me lovely:D:D

Ramius4
18-10-2010, 23:17
It also says that older spells will have their casting restrictions in their description. There is no restriction on casting infernal gateway into combat in its description therefore by RAW it can be cast into combat.

That's so completely wrong it's not funny.

"Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat."

So unless stated otherwise within the description of the spell, you can't. Claiming that something works because the rule doesn't state that it won't work is anti-logical.

There's nothing in the rulebook that says I don't automatically win either... Doesn't mean I do.

Lex
18-10-2010, 23:20
The rule says, "...unless otherwise stated the following rules apply:..."
Infernal Gateway targets a unit that: Must be in forward arc, does not need LoS, must be within range and can't be in close combat.


However id be more than happy to cast black horror into a unit in close combat with me lovely:D:D

Actually you can cast Black Horror into close combat. It doesn't have a target, you just place the center of template within 18". The rule says "Wizards cannot target spells at units..." It's no different than having PSoX travel through a unit in CC.

Lord_Elric
19-10-2010, 00:15
The rule says, "...unless otherwise stated the following rules apply:..."
Infernal Gateway targets a unit that: Must be in forward arc, does not need LoS, must be within range and can't be in close combat.



Actually you can cast Black Horror into close combat. It doesn't have a target, you just place the center of template within 18". The rule says "Wizards cannot target spells at units..." It's no different than having PSoX travel through a unit in CC.

It states that they cant be targeted in such a way as to accidentaly hit a target in close combat or a friendly unit black horror have to b placed over the unit to hit it as it doesnt scatter

same as a cannon cannot be fired in such a way that it could hit a combat or friendly unit

geldedgoat
19-10-2010, 01:06
The banner of rage says that the unit gains frenzy, does this mean that the horses also gain frenzy?

The eligibility of mounts to benefit from frenzy has been hotly debated here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279074&page=10) to no apparent conclusion so far (and apparently the thread's been unlocked again). This is probably something best discussed or diced off with your opponent before the game begins (or the tournament director if that's your gaming environment).


In the lore of tzeentch does baleful transmogrification effect units that are immune to psychology, like the undead who never take leadership tests?

Yes. Immune to psychology does not grant immunity to leadership tests. This is actually specifically mentioned on page 71 of the BRB.


Can Infernal Gateway be cast into combat?

My first reaction was to say yes, but after reading the posts here and checking the BRB and army book, it looks like the answer would be no.

Lex
19-10-2010, 02:11
It states that they cant be targeted in such a way as to accidentaly hit a target in close combat or a friendly unit black horror have to b placed over the unit to hit it as it doesnt scatter

same as a cannon cannot be fired in such a way that it could hit a combat or friendly unit

Where does it say that? Just like Infernal Gateway it doesn't have a spell type so the rules for direct damage don't apply. The base rules do. The base rule says that "Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat." Black Horror has no target so you can place the template so that it will hit a unit in cc. PSoX or any magical vortex can be sent in a direction such that it may strike a unit in cc. Cannon rules don't apply.

Synnister
19-10-2010, 08:18
Pg 31 under the Choosing a Target


Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type -- their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

So lets see what we have. Spell from older army book ... check. No type on the spell ... check. Therefore the text will contain ANY casting restrictions. Last time I checked, Infernal Gateway does not say you can't cast it into close combat in it's text. Now like I said previously, there is discussion to be had on this point. To simply assume that it is one way is not right. There has been quite a bit of argument in the past on this point. But RAW does support an interpretation that Infernal Gateway can be cast into close combat.

Crimifa
19-10-2010, 09:16
interesting point

found the solution to this though

clearly stated in the rules, sorry peeps

BRB page 31, (Magic, section "2. Cast", subsection "Choosing a target") first paragraph (bold bit) and 4th bullet point.

"However, unless otherwise stated the following rules apply:

...

- Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat"

so given that in the previous edition the spell was unable to be targetted into combat, and this edition also has rules stating that it cannot (the "typeless" nature of it actually causes it to not be castable into combat, not the other way around... types actually help spells by bending the standard magic rules)

it is both RAI (previous edition it couldn't. why should it this time?) and RAW,
infernal gateway cannot be cast into combat

it also was not included in the FAQ merely because it very straightforwardly follows the normal rules.

p.s. oh and before you pipe back by repeating what was said in the post above this one... the "unless otherwise stated" means that the spell has to say so... this goes hand in hand with the "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" in that a "typeless" spell must specifically tell you if it is allowed to bend the normal spell targeting rules

geldedgoat
19-10-2010, 11:20
Pg 31 under the Choosing a Target

That bit got me too at first, but if you look again you'll notice that the paragraph it's listed in discusses additional restrictions and specific restriction waivers found in spell descriptions.

Lord_Elric
19-10-2010, 11:40
Where does it say that? Just like Infernal Gateway it doesn't have a spell type so the rules for direct damage don't apply. The base rules do. The base rule says that "Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat." Black Horror has no target so you can place the template so that it will hit a unit in cc. PSoX or any magical vortex can be sent in a direction such that it may strike a unit in cc. Cannon rules don't apply.

actualy it states it must be placed over a unit and therefore cannot intentionaly be used to hit a unit in CC as per basic magic rules stated above however spells that scatter can ACCIDENTALY hit model in CC but black horror doesnt scatter.

Synnister
19-10-2010, 17:19
"However, unless otherwise stated the following rules apply:

...


And perhaps you can explain, in your oh so condescending way, why if it says unless otherwise stated then goes on to state a rule that is clearly an otherwise situation, it doesn't apply.

Basically it goes like this:

Follow these rules unless we say different.
For older spells get their casting restrictions from the spell description.

That is very straight forward. You go to the spell description and look for any casting requirements, just as the rules tell you to. The problem is that GW has refused to spend the 1 hour to go through the older AB and class the spell, then you have to deal with people coming out and trying to cast infernal gateway into combat. I mean seriously, how long would it take to go through every AB Lore and class the spells then put it in a PDF and post it? 3 hours tops? Sad really.

Ramius4
19-10-2010, 17:30
Basically it goes like this:

Follow these rules unless we say different.
For older spells get their casting restrictions from the spell description.

This is where you're going wrong.

Basically it goes like this:

Follow these rules unless the spell description says different.

Which it does not. The rules set is exclusive, not inclusive.

Synnister
19-10-2010, 22:58
This is where you're going wrong.

Basically it goes like this:

Follow these rules unless the spell description says different.

Which it does not. The rules set is exclusive, not inclusive.

you are making stuff up at this point. No where does it specify spell description in the otherwise statement.

Crimifa
19-10-2010, 23:01
firstly, i shall defend my honour being called into question

at no point in ANY of my posts EVER do i intend to be condescending... therefore any whom thinks such a thing is unecessarily inferring, as i am certainly not implying

just felt a need to do that, as if people believe i am being condescending, it makes them inclined to dismiss anything i say... and i already have enough trouble with that because of my somewhat rambling writing style

back to the real discussion

how about addressing the overwhelming evidence of the RAI for the spell... 7th edition it couldn't be targeted into combat, why should it be able to now?
in 7th edition, spells needed specification that they COULD be targeted into combat

the "older spells will tell you their targeting restrictions" is for that...
spells follow their standard rules outlined in the rulebook quote i gave earlier and if they have a type or a special targetting system outlined in their description then they may bend/break those rules

7th or older edition spells shouldn't EVER say "cannot be targetted into combat" because that was an inherent part of EVERY spell except those that specifically said "can be targeted at a unit engaged in close combat"

the debate that suddenly now you can target such spells into combat purely because they don't say you can't is... silly, would be awesome, but is completely against the intentions

p.s. forgive if this time it does truely sound like i am annoyed or upsetted, i am just growing weary of people using rather flimsy arguements, and claiming they are stronger than supported arguements. They were, until the evidence that was being used was made weaker by an expanded reading of the section, you need a new point to back up, or to find flaws in the opposite arguements claim to refute it

decker_cky
19-10-2010, 23:43
Read the subject of that paragraph. It's talking about additional restrictions. All of the basic restrictions apply to spells without types, and there can be other restrictions listed in the spells themselves.

Synnister
20-10-2010, 01:55
just felt a need to do that, as if people believe i am being condescending, it makes them inclined to dismiss anything i say... and i already have enough trouble with that because of my somewhat rambling writing style

I shall not dismiss what you have to say because you are condescending. I'll dismiss it because you are trying to bring a RAI argument into a rules debate. Unless you wrote the rulebook or you are a mind reader you have no idea what was intended with any rule.


back to the real discussion

how about addressing the overwhelming evidence of the RAI for the spell... 7th edition it couldn't be targeted into combat, why should it be able to now?
in 7th edition, spells needed specification that they COULD be targeted into combat

I don't know if you know this or not but ... uh there's a new edition of Warhammer out (note the condescending tone :p ). With the new edition there are lots of things that have changed. For example: Characters can make way; Skirmishers don't have 360* LOS; Warmachine's crew are just markers; Units that have more ranks get to be stubborn; Units fight in 2 ranks now; All combat is fought in Initiative order; Unit size is gone; Winds of Magic are variable now; etc ... etc ... etc. Lots of things have changed and can do things they couldn't do in the previous edition. Perhaps its a balancing issue with the overpowered spells in the BRB Lores. I am not so presumptuous to think I know what the game designers intended.




the "older spells will tell you their targeting restrictions" is for that...
spells follow their standard rules outlined in the rulebook quote i gave earlier and if they have a type or a special targetting system outlined in their description then they may bend/break those rules

The Rulebook very clearly states follow these rules unless otherwise stated. It then goes on to say for older spells check the spell description for ANY restrictions.



7th or older edition spells shouldn't EVER say "cannot be targetted into combat" because that was an inherent part of EVERY spell except those that specifically said "can be targeted at a unit engaged in close combat"

once again you keep talking about 7th edition as if it were relevant. Unfortunately, that's not the case.


the debate that suddenly now you can target such spells into combat purely because they don't say you can't is... silly, would be awesome, but is completely against the intentions

No the debate is that because of a lack of oversight on GW's part they have yet to classify the older Lore spells. They wrote the rule to say for older spells look at the spell descriptions for the casting requirements. Which is a poorly worded rule if they wanted it to work as you think they intended it work. A far better rule would be to say "For older spells follow all the casting requirements above and check the spell descriptions for any ADDITIONAL casting requirements.



p.s. forgive if this time it does truely sound like i am annoyed or upsetted, i am just growing weary of people using rather flimsy arguements, and claiming they are stronger than supported arguements. They were, until the evidence that was being used was made weaker by an expanded reading of the section, you need a new point to back up, or to find flaws in the opposite arguements claim to refute it

I am not doing this to upset you nor am I in the least bit angry or trying to abuse the system for my own personal gain. I will debate the Rules in the book and call attention to poorly worded rules so that hopefully GW will address the problem in their FAQs. That's assuming its even a problem at all. Like I said before you nor I have any idea what they intend we just have find problems like this and make a big enough stink about it that they get around to answering the questions.


Read the subject of that paragraph. It's talking about additional restrictions. All of the basic restrictions apply to spells without types, and there can be other restrictions listed in the spells themselves.

All of this is implied. Nowhere does it say to follow the basic restrictions and check the spell description for additional restrictions. Believe me if they had written it that way it would be a lot less ambiguous. As it stands now there is no way to get around the "any" casting requirements.

Crimifa
20-10-2010, 01:55
@decker_cky
i love when people find a way that says what i was trying to say so simply and unconfusingly

thank you, that is exactly what i was trying to say

@ synnister
i am pleased that i have not caused offence

i also have sat down and done a wider reading of all kinds of older spells
and must unfortunately retract my position
while i do still so very strongly believe that ALL spells must follow the standard spell targetting rules unless they have specifics that let them ignore those restrictions
in this case, i have found evidence to support the ability for gateway to be cast into combat
other spells in the same lore use other wording to specify their targets
treason of tzeentch for example, uses the term "unengaged enemy unit"
gateway does not make this distinction, hence it is therefore capable of being cast against "engaged units" or more specifically its target is "an enemy unit" doesn't matter what state it is in (doesn't matter about line or sight, line of effect, fleeing, engaged or anything), then measure range (so hell, you could try casting this spell at a unit that is obviously out of range if you were really daft)

therefore in this instance, i was indeed wrong, sorry.


however, a new situation is created then and i don't know what would occur
if a unit that was engaged in combat is whisked away... what happens to the units left behind?

Taureus
20-10-2010, 02:00
Baseless arguing.

Spells printed before 8th specifically state when/if they CAN be cast into close combat.

Read the WoC book for specific examples before you start trying to beat people up over the internet when you're the one who is wrong.

Synnister
20-10-2010, 02:11
Spells printed before 8th specifically state when/if they CAN be cast into close combat.

Read the WoC book for specific examples before you start trying to beat people up over the internet when you're the one who is wrong.

So do you even read posts or just randomly troll and add absolutely nothing to the discussion on purpose? So if I'm the one wrong show me a rule that states the opposite of what I have stated. It should be easy to do since I'm so patently wrong. Feel free to actually quote a rule from the rulebook in the rule debate. That is the problem. The rule is poorly written and needs a FAQ. Which is why I said in my very first post that the rule needed to be discussed with your opponent. I love how you assume that I actually want the spell to work that way and are so offended to actually insult me over it.

Taureus
20-10-2010, 02:18
So do you even read posts or just randomly troll and add absolutely nothing to the discussion on purpose? So if I'm the one wrong show me a rule that states the opposite of what I have stated. It should be easy to do since I'm so patently wrong. Feel free to actually quote a rule from the rulebook in the rule debate. That is the problem. The rule is poorly written and needs a FAQ. Which is why I said in my very first post that the rule needed to be discussed with your opponent. I love how you assume that I actually want the spell to work that way and are so offended to actually insult me over it.

Gateway would state it could be cast into a unit engaged in close combat if that were the case, since there are multiple spells that state such within the WoC armybook.

You're arguing for a rules clarification for no other reason but to argue. So yes, be insulted all you like for trying to tell people that 'because it doesn't say it cannot be cast into close combat, you are able to cast it into close combat.'

The 8th Edition rulebook says spells cannot be cast into close combat, unless they are buffs/hexes. Older spells do not have these labels; but they still state whether they can be cast into close combat. Gateway has no such allowance, so it cannot be targeted on a unit that is engaged.

Are you really ignoring that on purpose? Oh wait...Yes, yes you are.

Good day to you sir; because it's people like you who make this game no fun to play.

decker_cky
20-10-2010, 02:18
All of this is implied. Nowhere does it say to follow the basic restrictions and check the spell description for additional restrictions. Believe me if they had written it that way it would be a lot less ambiguous. As it stands now there is no way to get around the "any" casting requirements.

What is the subject of the paragraph? Taking a sentence out of context doesn't cut it. The subject is additional restrictions.

geldedgoat
20-10-2010, 02:39
All of this is implied. Nowhere does it say to follow the basic restrictions and check the spell description for additional restrictions. Believe me if they had written it that way it would be a lot less ambiguous. As it stands now there is no way to get around the "any" casting requirements.

You're cherry-picking a single sentence and using it out of context.

Let's examine the whole paragraph:


Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others. There are five distinct types of spell: augment, direct damage, hex, magic missile and magical vortex. Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

The first sentence dictates the subject of the rest of the paragraph, in accordance with proper English syntax, and we have to assume the authors are aware of this (if we don't, the whole book becomes open to the most liberal of interpretations, making it fairly useless as a reference for rules). That being the case, the last sentence, the one you quote as the basis for your argument, must refer to the subject of the entire paragraph, additional casting restrictions and restriction waivers.

Would it be clearer if that last sentence included the word 'additional'? Sure, but it's not really necessary.

Synnister
20-10-2010, 02:47
Gateway would state it could be cast into a unit engaged in close combat if that were the case, since there are multiple spells that state such within the WoC armybook.

You're arguing for a rules clarification for no other reason but to argue. So yes, be insulted all you like for trying to tell people that 'because it doesn't say it cannot be cast into close combat, you are able to cast it into close combat.'

The 8th Edition rulebook says spells cannot be cast into close combat, unless they are buffs/hexes. Older spells do not have these labels; but they still state whether they can be cast into close combat. Gateway has no such allowance, so it cannot be targeted on a unit that is engaged.

Are you really ignoring that on purpose? Oh wait...Yes, yes you are.

Good day to you sir; because it's people like you who make this game no fun to play.

The rulebook which is what this debate is about specifically says follow these rules unless stated otherwise. It then states for older spells to follow the spell descriptions for ANY casting requirements. Infernal gateway lacks the requirement of not being castable into close combat in its description therefore it is permissible by the rules as they are currently written to be cast into close combat. I am ignoring the rules in the book for casting since the rules tell me to. They say follow these rules unless otherwise stated then go on to state an otherwise, namely for older spells. Are you ignoring the rules governing older spells because you usually don't follow the rules or do you just do it because you like to cheat others? As far as making the game no fun, I'd think following the rules in the book instead of just making stuff up would be preferable. I guess that's just me.

Synnister
20-10-2010, 03:00
You're cherry-picking a single sentence and using it out of context.

Let's examine the whole paragraph:


Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others. There are five distinct types of spell: augment, direct damage, hex, magic missile and magical vortex. Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

The first sentence dictates the subject of the rest of the paragraph, in accordance with proper English syntax, and we have to assume the authors are aware of this (if we don't, the whole book becomes open to the most liberal of interpretations, making it fairly useless as a reference for rules). That being the case, the last sentence, the one you quote as the basis for your argument, must refer to the subject of the entire paragraph, additional casting restrictions and restriction waivers.

Would it be clearer if that last sentence included the word 'additional'? Sure, but it's not really necessary.

It is absolutely required. Because to say that they only intended it to apply additional requirements is an assumption with absolutely no rules basis. I can assume a lot of stuff, like the book doesn't say I ever lose therefore I always have to win.

And actually, I'm not sure where you learned English (not a slight ... seriously I don't know if you're a native English speaker or not), but the subject of the first sentence is spell types. It's saying that the different types of spells (i.e. hex, augment, direct damage, magic missile, magic vortex) have different casting requirements. Then it goes on to say that for spells that lack a spell type or from older ABs you follow the casting requirements in their spell description. If the rule was to be written as you intend, then the "ANY" would be replaced with the word "additional". There is no rule saying for me to follow the basic casting requirements, there is a rule saying to ignore those casting requirements if they state otherwise.

geldedgoat
20-10-2010, 04:52
Because to say that they only intended it to apply additional requirements is an assumption with absolutely no rules basis.

:confused: Of course there's a rules basis. It's in the structure of the paragraph detailing the rules.


[...] the subject of the first sentence is spell types.

No, the subject is spell types that enforce additional casting restrictions and restriction waivers.


There is no rule saying for me to follow the basic casting requirements [...]

There most certainly is. It's listed on the same page, directly above the aforementioned paragraph.


[...] there is a rule saying to ignore those casting requirements if they state otherwise.

Yes, that's correct. Now where in the spell description for Infernal Gateway does it explicitly say you may ignore combat restrictions?

And, again, if the last sentence in that paragraph carries the implications you want, then it would be an anomaly in the paragraph; it would have nothing to do with the subject.

Your interpretation would play out like this: sentence 1: spell types, additional casting restrictions, waiving casting restrictions. sentence 2: spell types. sentence 3 part A: spell types. sentence 3 part B: unique casting restrictions.

Do you not see how that last part does not mesh with the flow of the paragraph? Now, replace that last bit with the following: sentence 3 part B: additional casting restrictions, waiving casting restrictions. Reading it this way gives cohesion to the entire paragraph.

Arnizipal
20-10-2010, 10:51
I'm locking this thread before it gets really out of hand and I'll have to start handing out warnings.

Arnizipal,

++ The Warseer Moderation Team ++