PDA

View Full Version : Cracks Call



Screaming Manti
19-10-2010, 02:06
This has probably been asked before but i couldnt find anything by searching!

When you cast cracks call at a enemy character in a unit does he get Look Out Sir?

decker_cky
19-10-2010, 02:38
It's not a template so no.

Lord_Elric
19-10-2010, 09:38
can it target a character in a unit tho?

Korraz
19-10-2010, 16:20
No. You nominate a direction for the crack, you don't target at all. You can HIT a character with it, though ;)

Lord_Elric
19-10-2010, 16:41
It's not a template so no.

is it not the same as a cannon ball not being a template though such an penumbral pendulum ??? if it hits something along a line???

Korraz
19-10-2010, 17:23
No. Cannon Balls are no templates either, but it is explicitly stated that you get LOS against them.

decker_cky
19-10-2010, 18:16
is it not the same as a cannon ball not being a template though such an penumbral pendulum ??? if it hits something along a line???

Cannons are explicitly a special type of template. Some spells like pendulum and burning head use the cannon rules to determine who's hit (aka, use a template). Cracks Call doesn't use cannon rules or count as a special type of template, so no look out sir (and you can hit multiple models in the same rank).

Tregar
19-10-2010, 21:14
I still haven't got my heads around all the multifaceted areas of magic- can you do Crack's Call in any direction, or does it have to be front arc?

RMacDeezy
23-10-2010, 16:07
unless stated otherwise, the target of a spell must lie in the wizard's front arc. p31, choosing a target

Kisanis
14-11-2010, 20:57
Ok, so a 'friend' of mine is stating that in an old FAQ from march 2010 (a la 7th edition) Cracks call get a look out sir.
The FAQ: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1000262a_FAQ_Skaven_Mar2010.pdf

Since that Q&A doesn't exist in the current FAQ and is referencing an old 'look out sir' from 7th, I'm saying that it doesn't apply.

help?

Lord_Elric
14-11-2010, 21:05
Ok, so a 'friend' of mine is stating that in an old FAQ from march 2010 (a la 7th edition) Cracks call get a look out sir.
The FAQ: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1000262a_FAQ_Skaven_Mar2010.pdf

Since that Q&A doesn't exist in the current FAQ and is referencing an old 'look out sir' from 7th, I'm saying that it doesn't apply.

help?

id say unless there something that disputes it in the new erratta then id say yes it applys as its still for the same army book but im probably one of the few that would play it that way.....most would say youd only use the most up to date faq article...

Korraz
14-11-2010, 21:23
Wrong. No LOS. It's not in the FAQ any more. Otherwise the Steam Tank would still be immune to pit of shades. Or even better, let's dig up 6th Edition FAQs!

Kisanis
14-11-2010, 21:27
The issue I take with it is that the current 'look out sir' doesn't apply to magical attacks (unless they use a template)

cracks call doesn't target, and it doesn't use a template.

Once a new core comes out (and a wave of new FAQ's) I would argue all the old rulings don't apply, as they've kept what they wanted to bring into the new edition.

For example, how the heck is a new player supposed to trawl through the GW website looking for old FAQ's from old editions?

Bodysnatcher
14-11-2010, 21:30
I'd say it works the same as a cannon shot.

Kisanis
14-11-2010, 21:33
I'd say it works the same as a cannon shot.

Except its magic, and not shooting.
The LOS says unusual *Shooting* attacks.
the section also gives no mention of spells (except for spells that use templates).

I mean, if they redo the skaven FAQ and it changes then, fantastic. But for now I seriously see it as its a spell that isn't targeting a squad, isn't a template, and isn't shooting, ergo, no LOS
?

Kevlar
15-11-2010, 00:15
It should probably give a look out sir, but there is no definite answer that it does. It did in the old faq which is still the same armybook. Things that target exactly like it do give LoS.

I would give one to my opponent, if my opponent refused to give one to me I would at least demand a roll off over it.

It is good enough the spell snipes monsters and war machines. Sniping characters bunkered in units just doesn't feel right to me.

skavenmatt
15-11-2010, 13:26
There is no look out sir against cracks call. It's not a template, and it doesn't use cannon targeting which are things that say you can look out sir in their descriptions. since you can't magically give abilities and saves to whatever you want, using the rules for the game of course, they don't somehow get a look out sir against something that doesn't say they can take advantage of the rule. seems pretty cut and dry to me. If my I had an opponent demanding a lookout sir roll against cracks call, after I showed him the rules clearing letting normal people know they can't get one, I would then demand my clanrats get a 2+ ward saves as it would pretty much be the same idea.

Kevlar
15-11-2010, 14:06
There is no look out sir against cracks call. It's not a template, and it doesn't use cannon targeting which are things that say you can look out sir in their descriptions. since you can't magically give abilities and saves to whatever you want, using the rules for the game of course, they don't somehow get a look out sir against something that doesn't say they can take advantage of the rule. seems pretty cut and dry to me. If my I had an opponent demanding a lookout sir roll against cracks call, after I showed him the rules clearing letting normal people know they can't get one, I would then demand my clanrats get a 2+ ward saves as it would pretty much be the same idea.

A line is a template.

Tregar
15-11-2010, 14:51
No it isn't. Templates are defined on P9 of the book, and a cannonball bounce is singled out as being a "special kind of template". Crack's Call doesn't have anything calling it a template, nor does it reference cannonball rules.

The 7th edition FAQ answer is not present in the 8th edition FAQ as it does not apply. If GW would like to FAQ/errata the spell to allow Look Out Sir, they have had ample opportunity. However I encourage gaming groups and tournaments to houserule the spell as they see fit :)

Kevlar
15-11-2010, 14:52
A line is a template, everything under it is hit. If it isn't a template what is it?

Korraz
15-11-2010, 14:54
A line.

Characters for the Charactergod.

skavenmatt
15-11-2010, 14:56
to represent an area of effect warhammer uses a series of 3 different templates

a small 3" round template

a large round 5" template

a flame template 8" long

A line isn't one of the 3 templates that warhammer uses to determin or represent an area of effect, so it doesn't follow the rules for templates. The only reason cannons give look out sir rules is that the rules for cannons specifically give a look out sir. So no, a line isn't a template, and still no look out sir given by cracks call. If people actually read their rulebooks, there would be much less confusion about these kinds of things.

Kevlar
15-11-2010, 15:09
A line is a special kind of template. It has defined length and no width. Everything it passes through is hit. Just because you can't physically make a line into a little plastic toy doesn't mean it isn't used by the rule book as a template. Lots of things do, including cracks call.

Since there is an official faq stating that the spell gives a look out sir roll, and the line is in fact a template, and that is how I have been playing it since the 7th edition book was released, that is how I will continue to play it. Don't like it we can dice for it.

I think there is a lot more evidence supporting the "look out sir" than there is the contrary. In fact there is nothing supporting not giving a look out sir except your opinion that something using a line to determine what it hits, which works exactly like a template, is not a template because the game box did not include a toy plastic line with the rest of the set.

skavenmatt
15-11-2010, 15:36
No, since the rule book specifically says there are only 3 templates that the game uses, and then tells you what the size and shape of the only 3 templates the game uses are, a competant person would then be able to deduce that a line is not one of the only 3 templates that the game system then uses.

Since there is no FAQ saying that the spell gives a look out sir, even though they mentioned the spell in multiple listings in the FAQ, the characters do not get a look out sir roll. One could of course, give the characters a look out sir roll, and then be disqualified from any tournement they were playing in if the Skaven player were competant enough to know their own rules. in friendly games, cheating is often overlooked, so please continue playing contrary to what the rules say, until the cheaters opponents figure it out, they're just going to continue cheating anyway.

The game box does in fact include several lines, the rule book also does in fact list the only 3 templates that the game uses in the template section of the rule book, and there is no mention of a line template. only the two small rounds and the flame template. since they haven't FAQed in a line template, a competant person would be able to tell the difference between a simple line, and the only 3 templates the game system uses.

Makrar
15-11-2010, 16:03
If this is brought up in an Faq, we all know that it would hit models like a cannonball template. But if your feeling particularly gamey, then enjoy character sniping while it lasts :D

Kisanis
15-11-2010, 16:53
First and foremost, look out sir in 7th was different than in 8th.
In 7th it was 'special ranged attacks' which included many spells.
Now its 'special shooting attacks' and the reference are made under the shooting header.

None of us can determine GW's intentions, only what is written. What is written is that a line is not a template (by definition a template has set dimensions and is a physical item), and that the only spells that grant LOS are template spells and spells which specifically say so.

In the 2 8th edition FAQ's this has not been addressed and they did not reanswer the FAQ. Its one of those 'cheese until otherwise made uncheesed' situations. If you play as the rules are written, its not a LOS.

'Templates' has always referred to the templates (plastic or card) that GW supply with the gamebox. This has been true since I started playing (5th fantasy, 2nd 40k)

Any other spell that is similar grants LOS says so in the spell description. Cracks call does not.

Rules as written, which is all that matters is that from the above no LOS is given.
Im not arguing its cheese vs low init armies, what I am arguing is the Rules as Written. Does it suck for Low Init characters? Yes. Is it possible GW will amend this to grant LOS in the future? Yes.

Until it gets re-added into an 8th edition FAQ however, I don't see how you can logically allow it.

As has been said before you can't pick out rulings from Old edition FAQ's or else you open up a whole can of worms.

That all said, I suggest we get GW to clarify this in the FAQ. Until then, I push for the rules as written currently for the 8th edition.

Tregar
15-11-2010, 19:11
I'm not sure Kevlar is willing to be persuaded by an argument based upon the rules, so I won't be bothering again.

rakuen
15-11-2010, 22:09
I wont argue that as written it seems like it wouldn't allow LOS. But I can't believe that's how it is intended to be used when every other situation like this allows it.

I'm advocating a dice roll at the beginning of the game until an official answer can be found.

Kisanis
15-11-2010, 22:27
The problem is that I don't think the one opponent I'm dealing with would settle for a dice roll; he's become rather lawyerish about the whole thing lately..

Will it be dealt with in an FAQ? highly likley. Will it get nerfed? Highly likely.

Im usually the player who will give the charge or dice off for a solution if its iffy. Heck I usually am the one suggesting it.

I also don't wine about facing gunline after gunline... I just get one with it. But I do play with rules as written.

My initial question kinda got lost, but I feel that my initial opinion on the matter held true. If it isn't in the latest FAQ, it doesn't count.

rakuen
16-11-2010, 00:26
Current main rule book FAQ:

Q: When hits, other than from shooting and close combat attacks, are
inflicted upon a unit how are these hits resolved? (p42)
A: As per the ‘Resolving Unusual Attacks’ box. Note that all
hits resolved in this way will count as shooting attacks for
working out who is hit.

My emphasis in bold. The targeted models, if one is an eligible character, would get a LOS, as the attack counts as shooting in this situation.

Kevlar
16-11-2010, 00:38
Eureka!

Good job rakuen. Hard to refute that one.

Unless someone wants to argue that a line isn't an "unusual attack" and is in fact quite usual.

Tregar
16-11-2010, 01:09
That FAQ answer is telling us how we resolve hits in cases where the writers have unhelpfully forgotten to tell us how hits are resolved, e.g. Stomps, so far as saying that hits will go on units, not characters, etc. It certainly is not relevant as far as spells that tell us how to distribute hits are concerned, and Crack's Call is quite specific in that respect (anyone touched by the line is hit).

As is already established, the spell needs something to tell us to count it as a template, or akin to a bouncing cannon ball, but unfortunately the Skaven book was written by someone who doesn't pay attention to such things... and the FAQ author didn't see fit to include the question at all. I'm sure it will be answered soon, what with GW's promise of "monthly updates" for their FAQs...

papabearshane
16-11-2010, 01:15
LoS dose apply as long as your not wanting to Be a Lawyer and argue every point. If you are then theres a small case it dosnt allow a LoS roll because of a over looked rule by GW. Im sure if GW faqed it there would be a look out sir roll for it, so be a good sport and make him roll the LoS and have fun.

Kevlar
16-11-2010, 01:15
I see Tregar is unwilling to be pursuaded even by the rules.

rakuen
16-11-2010, 01:19
Although I agree completely with papabear above,

In the spirit of "as written applies" why doesn't the FAQ tell us that non-shooting, non-close combat attacks are treated as shooting attacks when determining who is hit?

Iron Hand Gotz
16-11-2010, 01:44
Current main rule book FAQ:

Q: When hits, other than from shooting and close combat attacks, are
inflicted upon a unit how are these hits resolved? (p42)
A: As per the ‘Resolving Unusual Attacks’ box. Note that all
hits resolved in this way will count as shooting attacks for
working out who is hit.

My emphasis in bold. The targeted models, if one is an eligible character, would get a LOS, as the attack counts as shooting in this situation.

If I had to guess, It sounds like magic is just the sort of thing that is 'other than shooting and close combat', so I think rakuen is right in that it does apply.

I was leafing through my rules after seeing this thread though, and I noticed that in the section describing look out sir!, it says the exceptions are 'shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules'. Doesn't that sort of fit the case here?

*edit* that looked more clear when I was writing it, but the full section basically says a character hit by an unusual shooting attack is entitled to a look out sir.
So since magic seems to be treated as shooting, and cracks call determines models hit differently from normal shooting, it would fall under the unusual shooting category, and allow a look out sir*

Kevlar
16-11-2010, 01:59
So since magic seems to be treated as shooting, and cracks call determines models hit differently from normal shooting, it would fall under the unusual shooting category, and allow a look out sir*

Makes sense considering the example of "unusual shooting" in the shooting section is a fireball.

Kisanis
16-11-2010, 02:00
I'll be honest neither I (nor the guy I am arguing with)
Ever saw that line in the FAQ.
Which I'm willing to guess will (After I read it in detail) refute my argument. When I lose, i lose and move on :D

That said;

If I had to guess, It sounds like magic is just the sort of thing that is 'other than shooting and close combat', so I think rakuen is right in that it does apply.

I was leafing through my rules after seeing this thread though, and I noticed that in the section describing look out sir!, it says the exceptions are 'shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules'. Doesn't that sort of fit the case here?


You need all the pieces of the puzzle to come to that conclusion. Without seeing that Particular FAQ ruling (which this thread shows is damn easy to do) you end up with an incomplete picture for Cracks Call giving LOS.

ergo, without that ruling Cracks call would not grant LOS, with it however, it turns everything over, and (likely) means it counts as a shooting attack.

[Edit]
I just looked at the box; While clarity is still lacking, its enough for me to say that since it is
A. Hitting specific models LIKE a template does (it is, nor will it ever be a template however, that I will die by! ;) )
B. Is not targetting a squad in general (as per the fireball example)
the spell would grant a 2+ LoS as per a template hit.

Could GW have done this better?
100% yes. this was the most convoluted way of doing things. Seriously, they should have kept it in the 8th FAQ, the fact it got deleted and not re-added in the update is beyond absurd.

For the rules lawyers out there; pay attention to the wording. The FAQ says 'Inflicted on a unit' NOT targeted on a unit. Cracks call inflicts on the unit (via particular models, like template weapons) and does TARGET the unit (like a fireball).

Tregar
16-11-2010, 02:43
*edit* that looked more clear when I was writing it, but the full section basically says a character hit by an unusual shooting attack is entitled to a look out sir.

I also saw this section, and thought it would probably be good enough to count to allow look out sir for all oddball hits that hit a character in a unit, so considered "are spells unusual shooting attacks?". Unfortunately, going back to P42, it does tell us that all non-close combat attacks can be considered as "unusual attacks". But that doesn't make them unusual shooting attacks. You don't resolve Crack's Call as per P42, you resolve it as per its own rules.

So, what of that FAQ answer? I fear that I am the only one to have read it properly, and what it actually says :( It tells you that all damage that is resolved as per P42 - which tells you includes rolling to wound, saves, and removing casualties - counts as shooting for distribution. Crack's Call is not resolved as per P42, so the FAQ isn't telling you that it counts as shooting either :(

NB if you did arrive at the conclusion that ALL magic attacking counts as "unusual shooting attacks" then this would actually entitle characters to "look out sir" rolls regardless of something being a template or not, so would allow "look out sir" for Dwellers, Transmutation, etc. However this is patently not the case, being emphasised by the metal #4 spell which specifically allows a look out sir, which would not be necessary if all spells i.e. "unusual shooting attacks" allowed look out sir to begin with.

So, conclusion #1: Crack's Call is an unusual attack. But it is not an unusual shooting attack, so doesn't qualify for look out sir based on that.

So, conclusion #2: we're back to square 1, and the question is entirely reliant on whether Crack's Call is a template of any kind or not. This argument has already been made and the two sides positions are clear ("Templates are defined on P9" vs "A line is a template") so can either be rehashed or not. To be honest I think it's fair enough to consider Crack's Call and other lines a template in a colloquial sense, as P9 does introduce templates by saying that "Some spells... have an 'area effect' which might encompass several different units'. Crack's Call definitely has an effect that might encompass several different areas, so why not just let it count as a template after all then? The only real niggle - and I'll leave the REAL wordsmiths to argue this point if they really want ;) - is as to whether a line can truly count as having an "area effect", since it technically has a width of zero, and so has an area of zero. But as I say, that's going a bit too far ;)

Kisanis
16-11-2010, 06:26
"So, conclusion #1: Crack's Call is an unusual attack. But it is not an unusual shooting attack, so doesn't qualify for look out sir based on that."

the fact that a spell was used as an example on 42 is what tipped it for me. The FAQ combined with that was pretty much enough for me to drop my argument. Its a spell inflicting damage on models in a squad. It is not close combat, therefore that little blurb applies..

Clear? moreso than before. But i'm dropping my argument. If GW clarifies, then great, until then... LOS

Fun while it lasted :D

Tregar
16-11-2010, 11:23
I disagree, and the conclusion of your logic is that Dwellers etc. will also grant look out sir. While I would love for that to be the case, are you really going to be arguing that is what the rules say?

rakuen
16-11-2010, 13:09
If I was playing with Life, I'd give my opponent a LOS for Dwellers, provided he's eligible for one. Especially if he was skaven ;)

Makrar
16-11-2010, 15:18
Its possible that im missing something here (looking at the faq + rulebook) but the fact that it counts as an unusual shooting attack changes nothing? Doesnt look out sir only work against templates and if so then nothing changes

EDMM
16-11-2010, 15:21
Current main rule book FAQ:

Q: When hits, other than from shooting and close combat attacks, are
inflicted upon a unit how are these hits resolved? (p42)
A: As per the ‘Resolving Unusual Attacks’ box. Note that all
hits resolved in this way will count as shooting attacks for
working out who is hit.

My emphasis in bold. The targeted models, if one is an eligible character, would get a LOS, as the attack counts as shooting in this situation.


That means that Skaven characters get LoS! against the self-inflicted Fellblade wounds too!

Iron Hand Gotz
16-11-2010, 16:22
There's a difference in this case between unusual attacks and unusual shooting attacks.

The quote rakuen brought up from the faq deals with 'unusual attacks', those that inflict hits upon an enemy outside of shooting and close combat. These are done using the basic rules for shooting.

Under the look out sir (that is, characters in units, on p 99) it mentions unusual shooting attacks, which are those that don't use basic shooting rules, but have some of their own (templates are a good example of this).

A character hit by an unusual SHOOTING attack is granted a LO,S against it.
This would mean that cracks call gives them LO,S if they fall under the line, but a magic missile wouldn't (because it doesn't target specific models, but uses the basic shooting rules to determine who is affected)

In the case of the fellblade, since it's not from an 'enemy' (no matter how much self loathing you have, your own army is going to be friendly) this thread doesn't apply to it

Kisanis
16-11-2010, 17:24
So just an example to help clarify everything for everyone;

Character in a unit of 20 models has a cracks call hit it.
Does Cracks Call inflict hits on the Unit? Yes. Is the character one of the models hit in the unit? Yes.
Is the attack neither Shooting nor Close Combat? Yes.
Then according to the FAQ Cracks Call uses shooting rules for distributing hits just as if it was shooting. The page 99 reference then now includes Cracks Call, as it now is counted as shooting as per the FAQ and is easily 'unusual shooting' because it isn't a template or regular shooting attack.


That means that Skaven characters get LoS! against the self-inflicted Fellblade wounds too!

Does the fellblade wounds inflict wounds on the unit or the bearer of the weapon? (don't have my book handy) If its the unit, then yes, if its the bearer of the weapon then no. (again, no book so I can't double check it)

rakuen
16-11-2010, 17:38
Fellblade also specifically says "the bearer suffers a wound with no armor save" when you fail that dice roll. So obviously the bearer takes the wound and cannot LOS.

Kisanis
16-11-2010, 17:39
Its possible that im missing something here (looking at the faq + rulebook) but the fact that it counts as an unusual shooting attack changes nothing? Doesnt look out sir only work against templates and if so then nothing changes

p99:
"unusual shooting attacks; The only exceptions to this (characters cannot be hit by shooting at a squad) are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules [The FAQ states to treat the spell as shooting, and it does not use normal shooting rules, ie. no BS] specifically attacks that use some form of template (such as cannons, stone throwers, breath weapons and so on)."

It then goes on to re-explain LOS saying the character gets a 2+ LOS roll.

If it wasn't for the FAQ question Rakuen posted that treats the spell like shooting, I would agree. But the spell is treated like shooting, it is unusual shooting, and it hits a character in a squad but isn't targeting the character (like a template, but not a template) that makes it 99% definite its a LOS. If GW FAQ's back that there isn't a LOS (highly unlikely) then the great horned one has smiled upon us
yes yes :cheese:

shadow hunter
16-11-2010, 18:12
So as mentioned earlier - using this FAQ and theory, do we now get LOS against dwellers?

Tregar
16-11-2010, 19:13
Course it's still wrong because you don't treat Crack's Call like shooting as per the FAQ (Seriously guys, take the time to READ the FAQ: it says that attacks that are resolved as per P42 are treated as shooting: Crack's Call is NOT resolved in that way, so it doesn't count as shooting; nor does Dwellers, in actuality. But at least rakuen is consistent, so that gets my respect)... ;)

Makrar
16-11-2010, 20:01
So cracks call counts as an unusual shooting attack. I get that part, However what i'm not seeing is how characters and champions get LOS from this as the look sir and page 99 talk about templates specifically and being an unusual shooting does not change the spell to a template.

Page 99 (Cant find an faq on this)

The only exceptions to this are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules, specifically, shooting attacks that use some form of template (Etc and so on)

Iron Hand Gotz
16-11-2010, 20:07
I'm not sure how this applies to dwellers below, certainly one could say that you target a unit with it, and that individual models affected might be subject to a LO,S as a result.

Actually, can you get a look out sir if there isn't anyone left in the squad not being hit?
It seems a bit odd that you would save him when there isn't anyone to take the bullet
(though from a game perspective it could just be that an additional hit is inflicted on the rank and file instead)

Tregar
16-11-2010, 20:16
You can still get look out sir if everyone in a unit is hit, e.g. 5" template over unit of 20 guys.

EDMM
16-11-2010, 20:27
But Look Out Sir! still only specifically applies to templates.

Not to simply ANY unusual shooting (or magic or X) attack.

Apply the shooting rules to non-shooting attacks all you like, it still doesn't magically turn non-template attacks into template attacks.

Bac5665
16-11-2010, 20:29
No one denies that.

rakuen
16-11-2010, 20:31
After calling GW, he claimed that dwellers would not allow LOS, as its not a template, and the FAQ I dug up earlier apparently is only talking about templates - don't agree.

Similarly with Cracks Call, as written it appears that it would NOT allow LOS.

We went on to agree that it's probably not the way it was supposed to be used, he continued to say that if he and I were playing a game, he'd give his opponent a LOS vs cracks, or failing that a roll off. In this case, he was suggesting leniency but admitted that for tourny purposes you'd have to ask the guys in charge how they want to play it.

Also, apparently this question has already been submitted to the FAQ guys, and hopefully they'll update it soon/at all.

EDMM
16-11-2010, 20:35
No one denies that.
Oh really???

These 4 beg to differ:


Current main rule book FAQ:

Q: When hits, other than from shooting and close combat attacks, are
inflicted upon a unit how are these hits resolved? (p42)
A: As per the ‘Resolving Unusual Attacks’ box. Note that all
hits resolved in this way will count as shooting attacks for
working out who is hit.

My emphasis in bold. The targeted models, if one is an eligible character, would get a LOS, as the attack counts as shooting in this situation.


Eureka!

Good job rakuen. Hard to refute that one.

Unless someone wants to argue that a line isn't an "unusual attack" and is in fact quite usual.


LoS dose apply as long as your not wanting to Be a Lawyer and argue every point. If you are then theres a small case it dosnt allow a LoS roll because of a over looked rule by GW. Im sure if GW faqed it there would be a look out sir roll for it, so be a good sport and make him roll the LoS and have fun.


If I had to guess, It sounds like magic is just the sort of thing that is 'other than shooting and close combat', so I think rakuen is right in that it does apply.

I was leafing through my rules after seeing this thread though, and I noticed that in the section describing look out sir!, it says the exceptions are 'shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules'. Doesn't that sort of fit the case here?

*edit* that looked more clear when I was writing it, but the full section basically says a character hit by an unusual shooting attack is entitled to a look out sir.
So since magic seems to be treated as shooting, and cracks call determines models hit differently from normal shooting, it would fall under the unusual shooting category, and allow a look out sir*

Kevlar
16-11-2010, 20:39
Also, apparently this question has already been submitted to the FAQ guys, and hopefully they'll update it soon/at all.

What I don't get is, its already been answered in an offcial FAQ. What happened to it, did it fall between the cracks?

Bac5665
16-11-2010, 20:40
@EDMM

Nothing you quoted is remotely relevant to the claim that someone is arguing that templates aren't a necessary trigger.

What you quoted does show that several people have correctly acknowledged that LOS, where otherwise available, is not denied because it's a spell attack.

Very, very, different things.

EDMM
16-11-2010, 20:44
They are answering in the affirmative that LoS applies - irrespective of whether the attack is in the form of a template or not.

Re-read the thread. They're talking about Crack's Call and Dwellers Below. Neither of which utilize templates.

skavenmatt
16-11-2010, 21:58
so the consensus is now that :
1. No, characters don't get los rolls against cracks call because it's not a template, due to the fact that the rulebook specifically says that "to represent these attacks, warhammer uses a series of three different templates, and a line isn't one of the three different templates listed,

but

2. Characters can't be affected by cracks call when they're in units of more than 5 because it's damage is distributed as unusual shooting attacks, even though it's not an unusual shooting attack. the example given is specifically targeting a unit and cracks call does not target a unit but single models which may or may not be in a unit at the time, and despite the fact that the spell description for cracks call specifically tells you exactly which models are affected. and the FAQ showing that all damage that isn't shooting or close combat attacks afflicted upon a unit does not apply since cracks call does not inflict damage on a unit, it removes single models without targeting a unit at all. With most spells it might apply, but since there is no "inflicts d6 wounds on target unit," in the desciption and there is an "all modelsin it's path.

correct?

EDMM
16-11-2010, 22:04
2. Characters can't be affected by cracks call when they're in units of more than 5 because it's damage is distributed as unusual shooting attacks, even though it's not an unusual shooting attack. the example given is specifically targeting a unit and cracks call does not target a unit but single models which may or may not be in a unit at the time, and despite the fact that the spell description for cracks call specifically tells you exactly which models are affected.

No, because it's not distributed like any shooting attacks according to the rules on page 42 referenced in the FAQ answer.

Also the rules in the "Resolving Unusual Attacks" box on page 42 don't say ANYTHING about determining who is hit and only refer to steps 4, 5 and 6, which are "4. Roll to Wound," "5. Saving Throws" and "6. Remove Casualties."

None of that is applicable to Crack's Call.

skavenmatt
16-11-2010, 22:06
so, it's still not a template, and there's still no los?

EDMM
16-11-2010, 22:06
Right, and it just hits whatever it hits according to its own, unique, and every particular, rules.

Tarian
16-11-2010, 22:29
Yeah, except there start being issues for Dwellers, Final Transmutation, Flames of the Phoenix, etc...

EDMM
16-11-2010, 22:30
There are no issues at all with those spells either.

No LoS because there is no template.

Tregar
16-11-2010, 22:55
The issues with Dwellers etc. only appear if the claim is made that any/all spells that target characters allow look out sir, which I forced several posters to note is the consequence of their insistence that the earlier FAQ answer applies to all unusual attacks including spells (It doesn't, as rakuen's discussion with the GW bod explained). If you just go with the simple logic that if Crack's Call isn't a kind of template (debatable), and follows its own hit distribution method (fact), then there is no issue with other spells that might allow look out sir.

Kisanis
16-11-2010, 23:11
No, because it's not distributed like any shooting attacks according to the rules on page 42 referenced in the FAQ answer.

Also the rules in the "Resolving Unusual Attacks" box on page 42 don't say ANYTHING about determining who is hit and only refer to steps 4, 5 and 6, which are "4. Roll to Wound," "5. Saving Throws" and "6. Remove Casualties."

None of that is applicable to Crack's Call.

If models in a unit have damage inflicted upon them, the unit is still being inlicted.

If my hand is inflicted, my body is also inflicted.

Guys, I got into some serious fighting over this on the weekend and was vehemently against LOS with rules as written, then that FAQ popped up and that gets it.

Cracks call targets specific models in a unit. It inflicts hits on those models, and therefore inflicts hits on the unit.

Please please please note, a line is not a template, but it is behaving exactly like one. Without the FAQ I argued (in my opinion, rightly) that a line is not a template, its not a shooting attack, ergo, no LOS.

That said the FAQ tells us exactly what to do. Treat it as a shooting attack that shoots and targets specific models (Yes all the examples are templates, but it is doing the EXACT same thing.)

Also, BIG IMPORTANT DEAL !!! - The game Specifies that yes, unusual attacks are template attacks. IT ALSO specifies that a usual shooting attack uses BS.

If Cracks Call is to be counted as a shooting attack (as per the FAQ) and it does not use BS, it therefore CANNOT be a usual shooting attack.

That makes it either an usual shooting attack (as I and others say) or technically none of the above and is some existential game concept.

Without the FAQ, cracks call behaves in its own world, with the FAQ it becomes a shooting attack, that hits specific models in a unit exactly as a mundane template weapon would. It does not use BS therefore it is not a usual shooting attack, the FAQ counts it as shooting, therefore it is an unusual shooting attack.


But Look Out Sir! still only specifically applies to templates.

Not to simply ANY unusual shooting (or magic or X) attack.

Apply the shooting rules to non-shooting attacks all you like, it still doesn't magically turn non-template attacks into template attacks.

The game is very specific on what is a regular shooting attack (uses BS) and what isn't (according to the rulebook, only templates). The FAQ tells us to treat non Shooting non CC hits inflicted upon a unit (which cracks call does) as shooting.
It is a shooting attack that doesn't use BS. Either it IS unusual (and therefore LOS) or its a none of the above and therefore nothing supports a definitive answer

[Edit] On the note of the rules answer from Phoning GW, I have learned to disregard that as I find they tend to go back and fourth. One could say yes for you, and No for me :s
Honestly, its 99% yes to look out sir now for me via that FAQ, and I hope to god they actually deal with these things soon in the next batch :(

Tregar
16-11-2010, 23:27
...I have to ask, you've mentioned the FAQ many times, but have you actually read what it refers to? It says hits resolved as per the "resolving unusual attacks" box are to be treated as shooting (for distribution). However, the "resolving unusual attacks" box specifically refers to hits where you roll to wound, take armour saves and then remove models. Things like fireballs (used as an example). Crack's Call does not follow this procedure, therefore while it is an especially unusual attack for sure, the line in the FAQ answer telling you to treat such hits as shooting attacks does not apply.

It's simply not an unusual shooting attack. So, "none of the above and no definitive answer" ;)

rakuen
17-11-2010, 00:01
Ok, heres the breakdown of the FAQ argument:

The whole resolve using unusual attacks box, which as described above, just goes on to tell you to wound, save and remove models IS NOT THE IMPORTANT PART of the FAQ.
The important part, is that hits resolved this way will count as shooting attacks to determine whos hit.
What does that mean? Well, NOW we go to page 99 of the main rulebook - where in the characters section we're talking about shooting attacks at characters. where it breaks it down to either 'normal' shooting attacks - (meaning using BS). Or 'unusual shooting attacks' (every thing else).
So since spells don't use BS, count as unusual shooting attacks on pg99, and grant eligible characters LOS.

With this ruling, it would also apply to other spells that hit characters in units. So its up to you players to house rule whether or not to grant LOS to both dwellers (and similar) as well as cracks call, or to neither.
Make sense?

Kisanis
17-11-2010, 00:11
...I have to ask, you've mentioned the FAQ many times, but have you actually read what it refers to? It says hits resolved as per the "resolving unusual attacks" box are to be treated as shooting (for distribution). However, the "resolving unusual attacks" box specifically refers to hits where you roll to wound, take armour saves and then remove models. Things like fireballs (used as an example). Crack's Call does not follow this procedure, therefore while it is an especially unusual attack for sure, the line in the FAQ answer telling you to treat such hits as shooting attacks does not apply.

It's simply not an unusual shooting attack. So, "none of the above and no definitive answer" ;)

I have read the FAQ, no need for a nasty tone.
I wouldn't have brought this thread up if I hadn't read it all, and wouldn't be arguing if my book wasn't beside me.

Lets look again. The FAQ says it counts as shooting, and to use the unusual attacks box. The Character section later describes usual shooting as only BS.
Its an attack that counts as shooting, and is resolved as an unusual attack.
Can you not safely assume then its an unusual shooting attack?

Iron Hand Gotz
17-11-2010, 00:13
Ok, heres the breakdown of the FAQ argument:

The whole resolve using unusual attacks box, which as described above, just goes on to tell you to wound, save and remove models IS NOT THE IMPORTANT PART of the FAQ.
The important part, is that hits resolved this way will count as shooting attacks to determine whos hit.
What does that mean? Well, NOW we go to page 99 of the main rulebook - where in the characters section we're talking about shooting attacks at characters. where it breaks it down to either 'normal' shooting attacks - (meaning using BS). Or 'unusual shooting attacks' (every thing else).
So since spells don't use BS, count as unusual shooting attacks on pg99, and grant eligible characters LOS.

With this ruling, it would also apply to other spells that hit characters in units. So its up to you players to house rule whether or not to grant LOS to both dwellers (and similar) as well as cracks call, or to neither.
Make sense?

Hmm, I would disagree with you slightly.
Certainly, the important thing to take home from the FAQ is that magic is treated as shooting, which, indeed, breaks down into two categories.

The distinction between normal and unusual shooting attacks isn't determined by the use of BS, however (as magic missiles inflict autohits, but wouldn't permit LO,S; they only use the wounding portion of the shooting rules, and the models are affected accordingly).

Rather, Unusual shooting attacks are those that don't behave as normal shooting, ie, the number of models hit is dependent on some other factor, which, of course, can include templates.
Since these have their own rules for determining who is hit, they often have the potential to single out models in a squad, and characters hit by such an attack are granted a Look out, Sir! Accordingly

Tregar
17-11-2010, 00:22
The whole resolve using unusual attacks box, which as described above, just goes on to tell you to wound, save and remove models IS NOT THE IMPORTANT PART of the FAQ.
The important part, is that hits resolved this way will count as shooting attacks to determine whos hit.

Precisely! Crack's Call is explicitly is not resolved in that way. So, it is not treated as a shooting attack.

Please, just read and consider the very words you are typing (or point out to me where this massive disconnect in our two ways of thinking exists!). You have just typed that hits resolved as per P42 are treated as shooting. Crack's Call is not resolved as per P42 (Do you roll to wound? Do you take armour saves? No, you really don't!)- it's resolved as per its own specific rules. Since it is not resolved as per P42, then you don't follow the directive to treat it as a shooting attack.

You guys keep endlessly repeating "it counts as shooting, so it counts as shooting". That's not how it works. If an attack follows the instructions for resolution on P42, whereby after determining who has been hit you then go on to roll to wound etc, then you are dealing with an unusual shooting attack. It does not say "everything other than combat is a shooting attack"...

Kisanis
17-11-2010, 00:22
Hmm, I would disagree with you slightly.
Certainly, the important thing to take home from the FAQ is that magic is treated as shooting, which, indeed, breaks down into two categories.

The distinction between normal and unusual shooting attacks isn't determined by the use of BS, however (as magic missiles inflict autohits, but wouldn't permit LO,S; they only use the wounding portion of the shooting rules, and the models are affected accordingly).


Except page 99 defines usual shooting as using BS and unusual shooting as using specifically templates...

"'Normal' Shooting attacks - By which we mean to say shooting attacks that use the firer's Ballistic Skill - ..."

"The only exception to this are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules, specifically, shooting attack that use some form of template (such as cannons, stone throwers, breath weapons and so on)"

Magic missles targeting a 20 man spearmen unit with a lord inside don't target the lord they target the unit, therefore LOS isn't applicable, the lord isn't being hit the unit he is in is. To have LOS be in question the particular model of the character has to be hit. If it just targets the unit generally, it doesn't*** If the lord is just outside the spearman unit he gets a 4+ Look out sir. Given the FAQ, the rules, etc...

***I agree Dwellers gets tricky - I choose to keep this one seperate for now.

Bac5665
17-11-2010, 00:26
Ok. This is complicated, but mostly clear. There are only one or two questions that need resolved.

1. Are template attacks the only kind of attack that triggers LOS?

2. Is Cracks Call a template attack?

The FAQ quoted by rakuen in post #30 makes it plain that spells count as shooting for working out who is hit. The LOS rules on p.99 are rules for working out who is hit by shooting attacks. Ergo, spells use the LOS rules on p.99 apply to spells. That's really easy.

So what are the requirements of LOS? The requirements are an "Unusual Shooting Attack," a character model who is joined to a unit and that there are at least 5 or more rank and file models of the same troop type as the character.

So the only question is whether or not Cracks Call is a template.

Page 9 tells us, as Tregar points out, that there are three types of templates, and that Cracks Call is none of those.

But, p.99 tells us that cannons use templates too. So there are more kinds of templates.

Cracks Call says that "a crack appears...and runs for 4d6" in a strait line...."

Crack's Call isn't a template. Not by RAW. I just can't bring myself to think otherwise. If GW says there are three types of templates, I need a specific appellation in order to add more to the list, despite the addition of cannons to the list. But that said, this question is something I am sure that GW would go the other way on. I am sure that the intent is for LOS to apply and I'm sure that GW plays that way in studio. And I know that I intend to grant LOS when I cast Crack's Call at my opponents.

But none of that changes what the rule is. It is not a template. Templates are clearly marked things, and this isn't that. And it is beyond clear that only templates grant LOS. the rules on p.99 say so outright and though there are some intimations that other kinds of shooting attack grant LOS, Tregar is correct that those intimations are up against a clear description of templates as an exclusive source of LOS AND that it's bad warhammer policy to rule otherwise.

Anyway, that's my answer. No LOS by the rules, but the intent is probably the other way, getting lost in the edition change.

EDMM
17-11-2010, 00:27
But you don't get Look out Sir! Against "unusual" shooting attacks, just attacks with templates!

What is going on here? Am I going crazy?


If a champion is hit by a template as described above...
Page 93


The only exceptions to this are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules, specifically shooting attacks that use some form of template...
Page 99

No template, no LoS!

Edit: ninja'd!

Kisanis
17-11-2010, 00:28
Precisely! Crack's Call is explicitly is not resolved in that way. So, it is not treated as a shooting attack.

Please, just read and consider the very words you are typing (or point out to me where this massive disconnect in our two ways of thinking exists!). You have just typed that hits resolved as per P42 are treated as shooting. Crack's Call is not resolved as per P42 (Do you roll to wound? Do you take armour saves? No, you really don't!)- it's resolved as per its own specific rules. Since it is not resolved as per P42, then you don't follow the directive to treat it as a shooting attack.

Page 44 under part 5 Armour saves; "Instant Kills" Is exactly how Cracks Call works.

So it is still under page 42.

Iron Hand Gotz
17-11-2010, 00:34
Ah, I see where it says that.
There appears to be something of a disconnect in the rulebook between the two kinds of shooting, since normal shooting uses the BS of the firer, and unusual shooting doesn't use the the normal rules for shooting (such as stuff that hits people in weird ways).
I had assumed the normal shooting would be regardless of BS used, merely because I grouped magic missiles into that category (they aren't unusual shooting, as you said, because they use the normal rules).

*edit*
It appears that I missed quite a lot while I was typing that.
I still believe that LO,S should be incurred from attacks that don't use the normal shooting rules (as per the rulebook p. 99 where is says 'shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules' the fact that most of these cases are templates would then be a different matter). From what rakuen reported in his call to GW, they *apparently* meant to exclude everything but templates, though why they didn't be a bit more clear is apparently only mystifying to me.

Nevertheless, it would certainly be in the line of logical reasoning to extend an LO,S to cracks call, at it defiantly emulates so many other things that do allow it.
Of course, with the offical word being as it is, this will become a matter for house rules.

Tregar
17-11-2010, 00:34
Well, it's still not resolved as per what P42 tells us, so, not good enough IMO. Still, I suggest you focus on the other arguments that the other two have put forward than this little side issue ;)

Kisanis
17-11-2010, 00:37
Well, it's still not resolved as per what P42 tells us, so, not good enough IMO. Still, I suggest you focus on the other arguments that the other two have put forward than this little side issue ;)


...why isn't it?

Like I said I was 100% against LOS until the FAQ post...
I'm not irrational or stubborn, I just can't follow..

EDMM
17-11-2010, 00:56
It appears that I missed quite a lot while I was typing that.
I still believe that LO,S should be incurred from attacks that don't use the normal shooting rules (as per the rulebook p. 99 where is says 'shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules' the fact that most of these cases are templates would then be a different matter). From what rakuen reported in his call to GW, they *apparently* meant to exclude everything but templates, though why they didn't be a bit more clear is apparently only mystifying to me.

No. Not "most," all. The word "specifically" on page 99 means that it only applies to attacks that use templates.

Kisanis
17-11-2010, 01:46
Ok, So this is a universal conclusion my friends involved have deduced. Use if you want, but this is what I'm using.

Cracks Call? LOS
Dwellers? LOS
Magic Missles No look out sir to a character in the squad - Done as per normal shooting ergo the character isn't hit until less than 5 RnF (we've just done this in the spirit of a magic missle being so damned close to normal shooting, we just want to get on with it)
Any other spell that deals damage (whether through tests, wounds, etc...) Gets a Look out sir unless it says it can specifically target characters. (or otherwise says no look out sir allowed)

Huzzah.

Kevlar
17-11-2010, 02:02
Ok, So this is a universal conclusion my friends involved have deduced. Use if you want, but this is what I'm using.

Cracks Call? LOS
Dwellers? LOS
Magic Missles No look out sir to a character in the squad - Done as per normal shooting ergo the character isn't hit until less than 5 RnF (we've just done this in the spirit of a magic missle being so damned close to normal shooting, we just want to get on with it)
Any other spell that deals damage (whether through tests, wounds, etc...) Gets a Look out sir unless it says it can specifically target characters. (or otherwise says no look out sir allowed)

Huzzah.
I can see LOS for cracks call and purple sun as they specifically target troops which can include characters.

Spells like dwellers and plague are a little different. They don't target anyone specifically, they don't cause any "hits". The whole unit just has to take a test or take a wound. (Well no wound, just death for dwellers).

Kisanis
17-11-2010, 03:00
I can see LOS for cracks call and purple sun as they specifically target troops which can include characters.

Spells like dwellers and plague are a little different. They don't target anyone specifically, they don't cause any "hits". The whole unit just has to take a test or take a wound. (Well no wound, just death for dwellers).

No, I see what you mean there, but we just decided this is the fairest most universal way. Essentially any spell that inflicts damage and is not a magic missle grants a LOS.

Official? no, but it appeals to the 'get on with it' within us all. and is pretty universally fair as well.

Iron Hand Gotz
17-11-2010, 03:10
I like it.
This sounds like a fair compromise while GW drags their feet making up a new FAQ (which will, I assume, clarify these issues)
Certainly there is something to be said for keeping things going, and I'm going to suggest this to my regular playing group as a compromise.

H33D
18-11-2010, 07:39
I can see LOS for cracks call and purple sun as they specifically target troops which can include characters.

Spells like dwellers and plague are a little different. They don't target anyone specifically, they don't cause any "hits". The whole unit just has to take a test or take a wound. (Well no wound, just death for dwellers).

Purple sun does not have any targets. Read the entry under magical vortexes.

skavenmatt
18-11-2010, 13:30
cracks call doesn't have any targets either

Spinocus
18-11-2010, 16:00
I'm a Skaven player and I would allow my opponent to take a LOS check versus Crack's Call. It makes perfect sense to treat the path of the crack as one long template. I mean c'mon now, it's a split in the earth that starts at the caster's feet, someone would be able to see that coming and take action. Pushing someone out of the way of an approaching rift in the ground (or jumping over one that appears beneath their feet) makes a lot more sense than some grunt actually being able to spot and predict a cannon ball's flight path as it hurtles towards their glorious leader at ludicrous speeds. Even a pointy eared Asuryan blessed freak would have a problem moving that fast... :rolleyes:

Kisanis
18-11-2010, 18:16
Purple sun does not have any targets. Read the entry under magical vortexes.

Purple Sun Uses a template, hence LOS.

We decided out of fairness for all players that any direct damage spell or for codex spells, spells that deal damage that arent' magic missles, grant a LOS if the character gets hit

Any spell that uses a template grants LOS, cause well, its a template.

Which is akin to saying, instead of waiting for GW to figure it out, we just came to a fair universal ruling for our group. None of us tourny play, we just get together about 1/week and smash it out.

Tarian
18-11-2010, 20:42
Flames of the Phoenix specifically notes that it hits characters/champions in the unit, and is similar to Dwellers in execution, if not effect.

Kisanis
19-11-2010, 04:25
Flames of the Phoenix specifically notes that it hits characters/champions in the unit, and is similar to Dwellers in execution, if not effect.

Like I said before, its a universal house ruling until GW clarifies more (Even then, we may keep the ruling) to just keep our friends able to play and 'get on with it'

Specifically about our ruling, is that unless the spell specifies that it hits a character, then a LOS is granted. Dwellers doesn't specify, therefore LOS is allowed... Flames of the Phoenix does specify, therefore no LOS.

As I said, its a universal HOUSE RULING that we all agreed on to just get on with the game.

EDMM
19-11-2010, 16:22
I really wish characters had SOME sort of protection under the rules for spells like Dwellers.

H33D
20-11-2010, 09:14
Purple Sun Uses a template, hence LOS.

We decided out of fairness for all players that any direct damage spell or for codex spells, spells that deal damage that arent' magic missles, grant a LOS if the character gets hit

Any spell that uses a template grants LOS, cause well, its a template.

Which is akin to saying, instead of waiting for GW to figure it out, we just came to a fair universal ruling for our group. None of us tourny play, we just get together about 1/week and smash it out.

@ Kisanis, 4 posts earlier:
This does not change the fact that the purple sun has no targets. I was merely correcting an earlier statement. I wasn't arguing that it does not allow a LoS roll. Why did you even quote me?