PDA

View Full Version : Pit of Shades and targetting question



Entreri Bloodletter
28-10-2010, 19:17
So my ogre tyrant has the Greatskull which says that any spellcaster who targets him or his unit will miscast on a double 1,2 or 6. Now Pit of Shades is a direct damage spell so it normally 'targets' a unit correct? So that even if it uses a template and says 'place the small round template anywhere' he will still miscast if he rolls those doubles right? Am I doing this right?

The same would apply to any other direct damage template like Flame Storm as well.

Also, would the same apply to using Rune Maw as well? Rune Maw normally redirects a targetted spell onto a friendly unit. Can I redirect Pit of Shades onto my nearby unit of Gnoblars?(or whatever)

Lord_Elric
28-10-2010, 20:21
I would say yes to the first question though i would check in case that has been erratad the same as the ring of hotek...

as for the second question id say yes if the pit is in contact with them b4 scattering if it scatter onto you id say your outta luck...

Lex
28-10-2010, 23:58
The counter argument is that Pit doesn't have a target since you just place the template. So, Greatskull and Rune Maw wouldn't work on it. Same goes for Flame Storm. In many ways they behave like a vortex, which also doesn't have a target.

Lord_Elric
29-10-2010, 00:00
The counter argument is that Pit doesn't have a target since you just place the template. So, Greatskull and Rune Maw wouldn't work on it. Same goes for Flame Storm. In many ways they behave like a vortex, which also doesn't have a target.

yup thats very true and also much more consistant too so id go with this...

PeG
29-10-2010, 11:17
targeting is a word that either shouldnt be used or at least that should be defined and always used for the same purpose.

Until GW actually does something about I think that the best thing would be to play that a spell that hits a unit targeted that unit. If not can you cast Pit of shades into combat since it only targets the ground beneath the unit?

Lord_Elric
29-10-2010, 11:22
targeting is a word that either shouldnt be used or at least that should be defined and always used for the same purpose.

Until GW actually does something about I think that the best thing would be to play that a spell that hits a unit targeted that unit. If not can you cast Pit of shades into combat since it only targets the ground beneath the unit?

no because your are prohibeted seperately from using a spell in such a way as to hit a unit in combat on purpose it can only be done by accident aka "scatter"

Glasscannon
29-10-2010, 12:17
If they wanted to make it behave like a vortex or even have its own separate spell rules they would not class it as a direct damage spell, the entry for direct damage spells states
"Can only ever be cast on enemy units. the template cannot be placed in such a way that it touches friendy units or enemy units in combat"

There is a case for either way, either you follow the direct damage spell rules to the letter, or the spells description to the letter since the spell description is an obvious omission I would advise not firing it into a combat. I wouldn't but it depends what gaming circle you are in.

Lord_Elric
29-10-2010, 12:40
So my ogre tyrant has the Greatskull which says that any spellcaster who targets him or his unit will miscast on a double 1,2 or 6. Now Pit of Shades is a direct damage spell so it normally 'targets' a unit correct? So that even if it uses a template and says 'place the small round template anywhere' he will still miscast if he rolls those doubles right? Am I doing this right?

The same would apply to any other direct damage template like Flame Storm as well.

Also, would the same apply to using Rune Maw as well? Rune Maw normally redirects a targetted spell onto a friendly unit. Can I redirect Pit of Shades onto my nearby unit of Gnoblars?(or whatever)

To some up for the OP the way i read it now its a direct damge spell therefore it targets the unit it is placed over it does not target the ground the unit is occupiing (ive have a good re-read)

so Great skull--Yes if the opponent places the template to hit the tyrant or his unit this is definatly considered targeting... not if it scatters onto them

and the Maw--which is an iffy one there are 2 ways you can do it tbh given the lack of clarification and both sound fair also...though i would decide wich one you prefere and dicuss it with your opponent before the game if he rolls such spells "I am definately not saying you can pick and choose wich way you resolve the spell on a turn for turn basis" (they both sound equaly right to me but not knowing the exact wording of the item i cant make a ruleing)

1)you can redirect the spell when it is cast at the unit picking another unit within range to "force your opponent to place the template on before it scatters (he still gets to choose where on that unit the template goes)

2) The spell has to be successfuly cast first and then scatter is rolled if the template still hits the unit/model carrying the maw then you can then remove the template and tell your opponent to place it on your chosen unit (he still gets to place it where he wants to) and it doesnt scatter again...

other if an ogre player can give a more detailed answer im completly fine with being corrected though..

theorox
29-10-2010, 14:54
Templates doesn't target anything, no. :/

It works against Dwellers, though. :)

Theo

Lord_Elric
29-10-2010, 15:15
Templates doesn't target anything, no. :/

It works against Dwellers, though. :)

Theo

god dam i really need to try reading the rulebook with my eyes open LMAO im stepping out of this debate as im causeing more connfusion then im solving lol my last words will just be a quote from the PoS description

"the templates is placed anywhere within 24" " :P

Lex
29-10-2010, 15:34
The template doesn't target anything. The PoS description specifically overrides that portion of the Direct Damage rule. However, the lack of targeting doesn't override the portion of Direct Damage that says you can't "place it" in such a way as to contact a friendly unit or unit in combat. Scattering into those units is a whole other matter. So, as the rules are written, Greatskull and Rune Maw won't work and you can't place the template on a unit in combat or over a friendly unit despite the lack of a target.

edit:

If they wanted to make it behave like a vortex or even have its own separate spell rules they would not class it as a direct damage spell, the entry for direct damage spells states
"Can only ever be cast on enemy units. the template cannot be placed in such a way that it touches friendy units or enemy units in combat"

There is a case for either way, either you follow the direct damage spell rules to the letter, or the spells description to the letter since the spell description is an obvious omission I would advise not firing it into a combat. I wouldn't but it depends what gaming circle you are in.

It's not an either or situation. You must use both. The phrases directly under "Choosing a Target" in bold say that unless otherwise stated these rules apply. PoS states otherwise regarding a target. The rest of the rules apply.

Lord_Elric
29-10-2010, 15:52
The template doesn't target anything. The PoS description specifically overrides that portion of the Direct Damage rule. However, the lack of targeting doesn't override the portion of Direct Damage that says you can't "place it" in such a way as to contact a friendly unit or unit in combat. Scattering into those units is a whole other matter. So, as the rules are written, Greatskull and Rune Maw won't work and you can't place the template on a unit in combat or over a friendly unit despite the lack of a target.

edit:


It's not an either or situation. You must use both. Directly under "Choosing a Target" in bold state that unless otherwise stated these rules apply. PoS states otherwise regarding a target. The rest of the rules apply.

hmmm not 100% on that one id see it as perfectly fine and ballanced that item would still work

Greatskull if you choose to place the template on the tyrant or his unit "hey your the one choosing where to place it "unless you dont place the template until youve cast the spell of corse"

rune maw however would not as it can only come into effect after the spell has hit them so you would be moving something thats already scattered

Glasscannon
29-10-2010, 23:37
Strictly speaking it can be targeted into combat, but I would advise against it, stop and think about why they made it a DD spell if it ignores all DD spell rules.
There are only 2 DD spells in the rule book that follow those template rules and both of them ignore the entire section, Doesn't that tell you something?
again obvious rules omission don't be to pedantic about it i beg you.

a18no
03-11-2010, 13:42
Pit of shades is a direct damage spell.

You can't volountary ignore portion of the spell description.

Following that: can you place the template anywhere in 24" of the caster AND on a unit, so targeting it?

The answer is YES. So behing able to place it anywhere does not remove the obligation of targeting a unit.

BUT: targeting with a template is NOT "centering" it. That is not the same thing. So you must touch a unit with the template but don't need to center it on a model.

The target is choosen when the template (for pit of shades) is place, not when it scatter. in the case of runemaw, if a unit of irongut is partially or totally under the template of pit of shades, the ogre player can force the opponent to target someone else in 6" around. That last player will have to place the template at least partially on the targeted unit.

The grey zone is: does EVERY unit partially under the template are targeted, or only one? My answer is ALL unit at least partially under the template are targeted.

Following that answer, in my situation above, you must place the template at least partially under the new target and you must avoid the irongut unit with the runemaw.

Following that interpretation, you follow ALL the ruling in the spell, and not some part like some says.

Hope that help.

Lex
03-11-2010, 14:27
Your interpretation certainly requires adding a lot of language to the rules.

a18no
03-11-2010, 14:40
Your interpretation certainly requires adding a lot of language to the rules.

Tell me where exactly, I'll be happy to discuss and change my mind if you bring something good.

And it's better, I think, than removing some that are clearly there :p

decker_cky
03-11-2010, 16:38
You at least are limited to not putting it over units in combat. That's a limitation enforced by calling itself a direct damage spell. The placement rules would need to say "even over a unit in combat" to override the fact that it calls itself direct damage with all the limitations associated to that.

Targeting is as much of a grey area as it's ever been.

Lex
03-11-2010, 17:56
Tell me where exactly, I'll be happy to discuss and change my mind if you bring something good.

And it's better, I think, than removing some that are clearly there :p

The spell says to place template anywhere within 24". You are adding that it must touch a unit. You are adding that anyone touched by a template when placed is the target and also that anyone touched partially is also a target, thereby having multiple targets. No where in the BRB does it talk about multiple targets from a template.

I am not removing any language that the BRB doesn't tell us to. The BRB says these rules apply unless otherwise stated. Pit states otherwise. It doesn't tell us to target a unit. It says "place anywhere". It specifically overrides that one requirment of a direct damage spell, that it have a target. Glasscannon is wrong. It is strictly prohibited from being placed on a unit in cc or a friendly unit by the rules in the BRB under direct damge. Paraphrasing, "Some spells tell you to place template. Where this is the case, the template may not be placed over a friendly unit or enemy unit in close combat. This does not prevent it from scattering into such units." Nothing in the spells description says that in can be. But, the rules do not prohibit me from placing a big Pit in dead space and letting the scatter take into whichever unit random chance may allow.

While GW may not always use the best language in rule writing, if they had wanted it to "target" something they would have written it so. They would have said "Place the template over target model within 24"". They have had such wording many times before but did not do so here.

a18no
03-11-2010, 18:58
But behing a direct damage imply that you must TARGET a unit. And that this targeting is prohibited for unit in combat, etc.

You are ignoring the part direct damage because you want to prove your interpretation. I've proved to you that you can place it anywhere around AND still targeting a unit. You just want to ignore the last part.

"Anywhere" in the ruling is just the part that allow you to put the center of the template out of a unit (to target mutliple warmachines for exemple). So proving my point that by only touching a unit (and not centering the template on it), i'm following the "direct damage" part AND the "anywhere" part.

Prove me that your interpretation of it will follow BOTH rules, and I'll approve your point. But NEVER try with me to create exception. And don't tell me that "anywhere" create a situation that can prevent you from following the "direct damage" rule. You can follow both rule without creating problem, so follow both and be fair play. (and take a look to my signature).

And have a good game ! :p

Lex
03-11-2010, 19:25
But behing a direct damage imply that you must TARGET a unit. And that this targeting is prohibited for unit in combat, etc.

You are ignoring the part direct damage because you want to prove your interpretation. I've proved to you that you can place it anywhere around AND still targeting a unit. You just want to ignore the last part.

"Anywhere" in the ruling is just the part that allow you to put the center of the template out of a unit (to target mutliple warmachines for exemple). So proving my point that by only touching a unit (and not centering the template on it), i'm following the "direct damage" part AND the "anywhere" part.

Prove me that your interpretation of it will follow BOTH rules, and I'll approve your point. But NEVER try with me to create exception. And don't tell me that "anywhere" create a situation that can prevent you from following the "direct damage" rule. You can follow both rule without creating problem, so follow both and be fair play. (and take a look to my signature).

And have a good game ! :p

Sigh, I'm not trying to create an exception. The rules create the exception. There are exeptions to every rule. That's the whole point to "use these rules unless otherwise stated." That is what creates the possibility of an exception, not "anywhere". "Anywhere" merely provides the extent of the exception. Direct Damage is in and of itself a set of rules that provide exceptions to the basic rules for casting magic. You try and pretend that you are on the high horse and that you are not "rules lawyering" as it were. But, it is something you are guilty of. You have just decided which rules you want your "interpretation" to comply with. You have chosen to ignore "unless otherwise stated" and assert that no exceptions exist. But to imply that I am not complying with the rules or that I am unfair to my opponents and do not have fun is simply arrogant.

a18no
03-11-2010, 19:36
Sigh, I'm not trying to create an exception. The rules create the exception. There are exeptions to every rule. That's the whole point to "use these rules unless otherwise stated." That is what creates the possibility of an exception, not "anywhere". "Anywhere" merely provides the extent of the exception. Direct Damage is in and of itself a set of rules that provide exceptions to the basic rules for casting magic. You try and pretend that you are on the high horse and that you are not "rules lawyering" as it were. But, it is something you are guilty of. You have just decided which rules you want your "interpretation" to comply with. You have chosen to ignore "unless otherwise stated" and assert that no exceptions exist. But to imply that I am not complying with the rules or that I am unfair to my opponents and do not have fun is simply arrogant.

I'll try to be more specific. And if you think that I'm arrogant, it's more a barriage of langage than a purpose. I'm doing my best to post in english, but I can't wear white glove correctly in this langage, so my sincere appologies.

Can you, honestly, follow the ruling "direct damage" and the ruling "anywhere". Anywhere is large as a ruling, direct damage is very specific. If a ruling between both need to be restrein, is more the "anywhere" than the "direct damage" part.

Can you take an interpretation that will NOT create an exception for the most specific AND the rule that is covered in detailed somwhere else in the BRB? If you can, it's because that their's no exception to this rule. Anywhere does not have a rule in the BRB, so it's a complement to the first rule.

I'm sure that you'll agree with me: all discussions, all argumentation and all arrogant discussion near always start when a side say that "this ruling is an exception".

I'll re-ask my question to conclude: can you make a ruling, an interpretation that is simple AND that will follow the rule direct damage without ignore the part anywhere? Be honest, and don't stay on your position please.

Lex
03-11-2010, 20:41
I'll try to be more specific. And if you think that I'm arrogant, it's more a barriage of langage than a purpose. I'm doing my best to post in english, but I can't wear white glove correctly in this langage, so my sincere appologies.

Can you, honestly, follow the ruling "direct damage" and the ruling "anywhere". Anywhere is large as a ruling, direct damage is very specific. If a ruling between both need to be restrein, is more the "anywhere" than the "direct damage" part.

Can you take an interpretation that will NOT create an exception for the most specific AND the rule that is covered in detailed somwhere else in the BRB? If you can, it's because that their's no exception to this rule. Anywhere does not have a rule in the BRB, so it's a complement to the first rule.

I'm sure that you'll agree with me: all discussions, all argumentation and all arrogant discussion near always start when a side say that "this ruling is an exception".

I'll re-ask my question to conclude: can you make a ruling, an interpretation that is simple AND that will follow the rule direct damage without ignore the part anywhere? Be honest, and don't stay on your position please.

The language barrier may indeed be a problem as I have stated many times honestly that my ruling, interpretation, etc. does ignore one part of direct damage, i.e the requirement of a target. The reason that I do so is because the rules tell me to. You are also ignoring a rule. You are ignoring the first bolded statements under choosing a target. However, nothing in the rulebook tells you to ignore that paragraph. Your statement that there are no exceptions is completely false. This first paragraph says there are and will be exceptions to the rules governing magic. If you don't admit that "Follow these rules unless otherwise stated" creates exceptions, then there is a fundamental problem in any language that can't be overcome. In any event, no reason to discuss it any further.

mishari26
04-11-2010, 04:25
@Lex: the word "anywhere" is pretty broad, and when we played it in a tourney the question came up does PoS have to be within the frontal arc of the caster or not? and we ruled that it should (I was the one casting it, and I agree with the ruling 100%)
this is because when faced with 2 rules I should try to make them work together as much as possible, and in doing that I should look at the broad and the specific, and try to make the specific work within the broad if conflict can be avoided.

So I think the word "anywhere" does not "cancel out" any other restrictions for targetting as stated on p.31 (not in combat, in frontal arc.. etc.)