PDA

View Full Version : Older army book spells - casting restrictions?



mortiferum
23-04-2011, 08:48
I seem to recall this rules debate came up sometime ago Ė Iíve searched for it but its either too old or (more likely) my search fu is weak. I didn't pay too much notice to it at the time and therefore am not sure if there was ever a consesus on the discussion?

It concerns spells from the older army books that donít have a specified spell type. I believe that much of the confusion comes from how the spells used to work in the previous 7th edition rules (I donít know, Iíve never played 7th Ed.).

How do players play the following spells Ė where I play we answered yes to all the following spells.

Vampire Counts Ė Vanhelís Danse Macabre - can it be cast on a unit that is not in front arc / line of sight of the caster?

Dark Elf Ė Black Horror Ė can it be cast into combat?

Warrior of Chaos Ė Infernal Gateway Ė can it be cast into combat?

Daemons of Chaos - Plague Wind Ė can it be cast into combat?

Godgolden
23-04-2011, 09:11
As far as i remember, Gateway could never be cast in combat as it never had that stipulation, so i would say no.

mortiferum
23-04-2011, 09:44
As far as i remember, Gateway could never be cast in combat as it never had that stipulation, so i would say no.

Should you be influenced by the previous edition, does it have any bearing on the current rules?

What of players that have only just started playing 8th - they will have no previous experience of previous rules for the spells, how are they to determine what a spell used to do / work?

They can't, and therefore only current rules can apply, correct?

Korraz
23-04-2011, 09:45
By RAW every old lore spell that wasn classified as one of the BRB types can be cast into combat.
The fact that you never could cast into combat UNLESS specified otherwise (like, for example, Skitterleap) should be a dead giveaway that you shouldn't cast it into combat.
Remember kids: RAW does not work with Warhammer.

mortiferum
23-04-2011, 10:04
As far as i remember, Gateway could never be cast in combat as it never had that stipulation, so i would say no.



The fact that you never could cast into combat UNLESS specified otherwise (like, for example, Skitterleap) should be a dead giveaway that you shouldn't cast it into combat.


Is it just me or are there others that feel uncomfortable applying rules based on a previous edition, that just seems wrong and abusable by unscruplous players? How is a new player suppose to play if there are rules from a previous edition that they never knew about.

newbie player: Right I'm going to cast 'Infernal Gateway' onto your unit over there that is in combat.
veteran player: You can't do that.
newbie player: why not, as I understand it the spells from the older army books contain all the restrictions (page 31 of my IOB rulebook), ther's no restrictions in the spell description that prevents me casting into combat?
veteran player: you can't, because in previous editions you couldn't cast it into combat.
newbie player: Oh, I wasn't aware I needed a previous editon rulebook as well as the current rulebook to play the game, where can I purchase one from.
veteran player: well, the GW store you brought your current rulebook from don't sell the old rulebooks anymore, you'll have to keep an eye out for one on one a 2nd hand auction site.

See the problem I have with this?

To go back to my original question: The questions for the four spells listed in my OP are ALL either answered 'Yes' (only restrictions in spell description apply) or 'No' (restictions in spell description plus the restrictions in the BRB found on page 31)

drear
23-04-2011, 11:10
the people who refer to older editions always seem to be the ones who will mis-read a rule or insert a rule , as they will recall older editions .

as far as our local chaps play it, read the spell, if it doesnt say its fine. so you can cast into combat.

there is never a need to go back to an older ruleset or codex for refrence.

either you play it as is, or wait for an errata or re-write.

Godgolden
23-04-2011, 11:30
So i have experience from an older edition and i get badgered for it?

Read 8'th edition on the restrictions of casting magic and come back and say sorry. (Page 31, under Choosing a target)

you may also need to read the gateway entry.

GodlessM
23-04-2011, 11:41
By RAW every old lore spell that wasn classified as one of the BRB types can be cast into combat.
The fact that you never could cast into combat UNLESS specified otherwise (like, for example, Skitterleap) should be a dead giveaway that you shouldn't cast it into combat.
Remember kids: RAW does not work with Warhammer.

The problem (and half the reason this debate still exists) is the RAW has two seemingly contradictory sentences in the RBRB about the matter, neither of which saying to ignore the other. Some people say to follow the AB as AB>RBRB however the rule telling you to follow the AB is in the RBRB just like the rule that tells you to follow the RBRB, therefore the war is RBRB vs RBRB and needless to say RBRB=RBRB. To me the intention seems obvious (why would they want you to cast all the old spells into combat when the new damage spells can't be), and thankfully this debate does not exist in my country.

mortiferum
23-04-2011, 11:47
targeting restrictions on page 31: three bullet points:

must lie within forward arc
no need for LOS
must be in range
cannot target spells at units in CC.

This is all fine and crystal clear - if it stopped there then I'd agree wiith you - you cant cast into CC. AND VDM can't be cast on a unit that isn't in the front arc. (so a vampire in front rank of a unit, cant cast it on his unit - since its not in his front arc!)

However, if you continue reading... 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, its my understanding that because VDM, Black Horror, Infernal Gateway, Plague Wind etc are all from older army books, firsttly they don't have a type and secondly their description contains the casting restrictions.

I'll check a couple of these spells (but will confiorm that all of the ones I've listed don't say otherwise) -

VDM - Vampire counts page 39. "This spell can be cast on a friendly undead unit within 12" and has one of the following effects:" - doesn't say anything about it having to be in the forward arc.

Infernal Gateway WOC page 108, " Pick an enemy unit, If the enemy unit is within 24" of the caster, it takes 2d6 hits at Strength 2d6. etc." No further restrictions in spell description and doesn't contain restrictions on casting into combat.

Happy to apologize if I've offended you somehow - it wasn't my intention.

drear
23-04-2011, 13:06
''So i have experience from an older edition and i get badgered for it?''

i assume you mean somthing else, badgering refers to sombody persistantly bothering you..

if i play 8th i play 8th..i dont play abit of 6th mixed with a dash of 7th and 8th ontop.
8th is 8th.

for spells with no type just read the spell . its not game changing...
for spells with a type, read the brb.

Yrrdead
23-04-2011, 15:43
Mortiferum, I'm not sure what you are looking for. This question has been around since 8th hit and hasn't been resolved. Might I recommend a solution for your gaming group.

Get together and make a list of all Army Book spells.
Give them a spell type.

It is that simple. In the case of a tournament you should bring this up to the TO well before hand.

The few spells that don't have a clear type almost always have pretty clear restrictions in the spell description.

jimthejuggernaut
23-04-2011, 17:22
It appears that there are two contradictory points on page 31, at first.

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

-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.

What it appears to me as I keep reading the section that they talk about types and choosing targets, is that the newer spells are governed by the type restrictions and that the section governs that older spells are used as written. As detailed between three sentences:

-Targeting restrictions vary from spell to spell.

-Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others.

-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. (from above)

In essence saying that older army book spells have there own type, as written. You use the spells written targeting restriction, or lack of.

jim

Clowater
03-05-2011, 01:45
Use the restrictions as they apply to all spells. If your spell says that they negate any of those, then do so.

"Any unit within..." Gets rid of the Arc requirement.

"Even if unit is in close combat" Gets rid of the combat requirement.

Plus its not hard to figure out what type of spell they should be.

Does it debuff, and can be cast into combat? Hex

Does it buff, and can be cast into combat? Augment

Does it deal wounds, but isn't a magic missile? Direct Damage.

Its not too hard for figure this stuff out.

People are just playing dumb. Get over it.

scruffyryan
03-05-2011, 04:09
This again.

You have to completely disregard the way a paragraph is assembled in the english language to interpret it as so many seem to. The paragraph is about specific spell types and additional restrictions based on those spell types. The line people continually reference is in the middle of this paragraph, the SUBJECT of which is additional restrictions on top of those listed in bullet point. The fact that they didn't add a second (redundant by the rules of the english language) additional to that line confuses people who are terrible* at grammar.

*terrible because i'm horrible at grammar as well as lazy in my typing and i still know how a paragraph is assembled.

Far2Casual
03-05-2011, 08:01
I agree 100% with scruffy.

Taking lines out of their context (here, a paragraph) is a common mistake that makes people misunderstand their signification. This is what people are using to cast Infernal Gateways in close combat, and its both against the intent of the conceptor of the spell and any sense of fair-play.

God, we need erratas on Magic so bad.

Paladin21
03-05-2011, 13:54
The problem is, the topic sentence *ISN'T ABOUT (only) EXTRA RESTRICTIONS*. It specifically says "...enforces additional restrictions, or waives others." You can't claim that the problem sentence only refers to additional restrictions when the topic sentence of the paragraph specifically says that it's for both additional restrictions and waivers from the base restrictions.

That said, I wish they would errata the targetting section to actually say what you think it says. However, until it is done, the only logical way to take the instructions is at face value.

The_Lemon
03-05-2011, 18:25
Are targeting restrictions the same as casting restrictions? Because the four big are targeting restrictions, but the sentence that gets quoted reads casting restrictions, if they are the same then unless the spell actually says "cannot be cast to combats" you can cast it to combats. But if they are not the same then it changes.

Paladin21
03-05-2011, 19:01
The section is poorly written all around. I wish they'd just FAQ it and be done with it. For that matter, what calendar is GW using these days? They've got one heck of a long "month", since the last monthly update was in January.

popisdead
03-05-2011, 21:00
There is an easy test to see if your spells can be cast into combat. If it is a Hex, if it is an Augment, if the spell says it can be cast into combat.

The first rule for stipulated casting is "spells cannot be cast into combat". If there is no exception clearly stated it cannot.

Also remember, this is the internet where people spend most thier time breaking english to get thier way. Remember the Beastmen Ambush debacle?

scruffyryan
03-05-2011, 21:54
The problem is, the topic sentence *ISN'T ABOUT (only) EXTRA RESTRICTIONS*. It specifically says "...enforces additional restrictions, or waives others." You can't claim that the problem sentence only refers to additional restrictions when the topic sentence of the paragraph specifically says that it's for both additional restrictions and waivers from the base restrictions.

That said, I wish they would errata the targetting section to actually say what you think it says. However, until it is done, the only logical way to take the instructions is at face value.

However, the paragraph is about EXTRA casting restrictions and waiving thereof. Does the sentence people love to quote say anything about how they waive any of the big 4 restrictions? Because if it doesn't than the restrictions they refer to, by the rules of the english language must refer to the restrictions mentioned in the topic sentence, or additional restrictions above and beyond the big 4.

Surgency
03-05-2011, 22:35
I think the phrase "Any restrictions will be printed in the spell text" itself is a rather direct waiver.

If it was additional restrictions, then it needs to say "Any additional restrictions..." Otherwise you're just adding words into the rulebook that aren't there.

Essentially, the first sentence says: "All spells follow these rules"
Second sentence says "some spells have types, types change the rules"
Third sentence says "these are the spell types"
Fourth sentence says "some spells don't have types, their rules are in the spell text"

Bold Line 1 (and its bullet points) tells you what the rules are
Paragraph 1 tells you how/when the rules are changed.

By your own logic, if you impose the base casting restrictions on spells in older army books, you HAVE to impose those same casting restrictions on spells from types. But you don't, why? Because the types are considered an "unless otherwise specified". Sentence 4 merely specifies that spell targeting restrictions will come from the spell text, and not the base rules.

scruffyryan
03-05-2011, 23:26
I had a whole thing typed out semi-sarcastically explaining the structure of a paragraph, topic sentences and the like again. Then i realized that literally the ONLY place Ive ever even begun to hear of this interpretation of the rules being used is on warseer, so I decided it didn't really matter enough. Anyone trying to enforce it that way anywhere near where I play would be laughed out of the building.

H33D
04-05-2011, 08:04
This is an old debate.
If you want to find out what the restrictions are for a certain army-book spell you are using, look at that section of the BRB book. It tells you that "any restrictions" are in that army book. Look up that spell in the army book. Follow those restrictions listed in the spells description. Done.
If you feel like applying further restrictions that are listed in the BRB for the BRB spells go right ahead but you don't have to.

shelfunit.
04-05-2011, 09:02
Just looking at the rules for targeting, the armybook spells "waiver" is for spell type alone - the basic 4 targeting restrictions will still apply.

Jerubaal
04-05-2011, 10:42
Get together and make a list of all Army Book spells.
Give them a spell type.

It is that simple.

I definitely think this is the best way forward for any group (organised or just friends) house rules.

SanguisAevum
04-05-2011, 10:49
Jeez, again with the sillyness!

what is it with warseer!

The rules for targeting spells are VERY clear in the "choosing a target" section.

For spells with a "type" (All spells printed for 8th edition, and certain spells from previous edition, MM for example) follow the rules described in the 8th ed brb.

For spells with no "type" (many of the spells printed before 8th edition) follow the rules printed within the individual spell description.

Its as simple as that! stop making things so complicated!

Ferrous82
04-05-2011, 17:51
I think there are very few people here that are wanting to use the RAW, because the raw for non BRB spells is literally "any restrictions are in the army book". Its as clear as it can be. Its silly, and most likely not RAI, but its there. But again, I don't think there are many people who want to go down that road and use that. I don't, and I play Skaven. Oh how brutal casting Scorch and 13th into close combat would be. But I can't in good conscience do that, because on the same pages are spells that specifically give me permission to cast into combat.

Again:
RAW = Yes, you can.
RAI = Not if you want friends.

The best solution for me has been to ask my opponent before we start how he would like to handle it. If he's using BRB spells only, then I will adhere to the BRB restrictions in addition to my own. If he is using army spells, then I will ask him if its ok that we BOTH use the BRB restrictions in addition, because its just friendlier. If he is set on using only the army book restrictions, thats ok too, but he will not like the results when I start casting my most brutal spells into close combat.

hamsterwheel
04-05-2011, 18:01
Jeez, again with the sillyness!

what is it with warseer!

The rules for targeting spells are VERY clear in the "choosing a target" section.

For spells with a "type" (All spells printed for 8th edition, and certain spells from previous edition, MM for example) follow the rules described in the 8th ed brb.

For spells with no "type" (many of the spells printed before 8th edition) follow the rules printed within the individual spell description.

Its as simple as that! stop making things so complicated!

It's complicated because the statement "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." is a very open statement. Is it referring to just targeting restrictions or all restrictions. Does it apply to the restriction that a spell can only be cast once per Magic phase?

The reason why this argument has such a strong opposition is that spells in prior editions would have specific text allowing it to be used in combat. Now unless it says "this cannot be used in combat," players are taking it as a free opportunity to cast spells into combat that in prior additions would have not worked because the text stating that it can be cast into combat is missing.

You would think logic would prevail in such instances but some players choose to play by the letter of the text rather than the intention of the rule. If you have a Grey Seer with "Curse of the Horned Rat" and "Plague" and "Plague" specifically says you can cast into combat and "Curse of the Horned Rat" does not, shouldn't that tell you something. We went from a game whose rules were permissive "Yes, you can do that" to a game that says "Well it doesn't say I can't do that" and that is certainly not the intention.

RealMikeBob
04-05-2011, 19:25
I think there are very few people here that are wanting to use the RAW, because the raw for non BRB spells is literally "any restrictions are in the army book". Its as clear as it can be. Its silly, and most likely not RAI, but its there. But again, I don't think there are many people who want to go down that road and use that.

I think many vampire players would disagree. They have already taken a bit of a hit in the magic phase; not being able to cast invocation on any unit not in the vampires forward arc would be awful.

Surgency
04-05-2011, 20:49
Oh how brutal casting Scorch and 13th into close combat would be. But I can't in good conscience do that, because on the same pages are spells that specifically give me permission to cast into combat.

then you're hindering yourself with scorch, because it doesn't target a unit. It just says to put the template anywhere within 24 inches (in the forward arc, due). Nothing about targeting units, completely bypassing the combat restriction :p

Bac5665
04-05-2011, 22:16
The problem is that there is no good solution without giving each 7E spell a type or requiring new players to buy 7E rulebooks. Any blanket house rule will generate one of the follow two results.

Either: Infernal gateway can be cast into combat

OR

Invocation of Nehek can't be cast into combat, nor can it be cast outside the forward arc.

One of those must be true. Both are abominations of rules solutions.

Surgency
04-05-2011, 22:34
The problem is that there is no good solution without giving each 7E spell a type or requiring new players to buy 7E rulebooks. Any blanket house rule will generate one of the follow two results.

Either: Infernal gateway can be cast into combat

OR

Invocation of Nehek can't be cast into combat, nor can it be cast outside the forward arc.

One of those must be true. Both are abominations of rules solutions.

which is why some of us repeatedly say that GW needs to just FAQ all the old spells, and provide spell types for them. That way all our problems are solved, as every spell would have a type :p

Bac5665
05-05-2011, 01:36
Sure, that'd be great. I'd also like it if they cut their prices for plastic infantry by about $10 a kit.

In other words, it ain't gonna happen. Unless it happens for storm of magic, or whatever that thing is. Here's hoping.

Ferrous82
06-05-2011, 18:13
Again, I realize I can, by RAW, cast my Ruin spells into combat as I please, and for that matter, since its Skaven, they would be the most likely not to care about hitting friendlies, but it still feels dirty, so I like to discuss it beforehand with my opponent. If he is planning on casting his Infernal Gateway (and since one of my most common fights is against WoC, and he always rolls that damned spell...) into combat, then I just warn him of the other side. 13th into combat, Scorch into combat, Cracks Call into combat. Grey Seer fun time!

Asensur
06-05-2011, 18:45
Old spells don't have any type.

They're followed under all non-type spells restrictions, as well as the ones from the spell itself. The exception is when the spell from the AB ignores any restriction of the book (it is explained in text), where the AB takes preference over BRB.

Old books aren't prepared to the new edition, so you will find a lot of problems like this.

Surgency
06-05-2011, 20:43
13th into combat, Scorch into combat, Cracks Call into combat. Grey Seer fun time!

Scorch can be cast into combat regardless, because of how the spell works... Notice, it doesn't target units

Ferrous82
07-05-2011, 14:00
Scorch can be cast into combat regardless, because of how the spell works... Notice, it doesn't target units

Again, I know what I am allowed to do. I was just offering up how I handle these spells to best avoid conflict, ie: Talk it over before the game starts. Saves everyone some time.

mortiferum
09-05-2011, 13:38
So the new FAQ's are up and I've checked over them - unfortumately no direct answer to the issue in my OP.

However, anyone notice that they took the opportunity to change "The Penumbral Pendulum" in Lore of Shadow - (see page 3 of the new WHFB rulebook FAQ V1.4) - its no longer classified as a direct damage spell, (its now a spell that doesn't have a spell type) - I believe the rulebook refers to these as 'unique' spells and as such their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

I'm still confused if I need to follow the basic four bulleted rules PLUS the restrictions in the spells text OR whether I ONLY use the restrictions in the spell text and ignore the basic four restrictions (means I can now cast this into combats?)

I'm wondering how this new change changes the spells use from previously?

Surgency
09-05-2011, 21:29
this argument goes around and around. All the valid points are already posted, so best to discuss with your gaming group.

I'd say that since the spell no longer has a type, it falls under the "older army books/spells with no type" waiver, and can be cast into combat. (see my first post in this thread)

Far2Casual
10-05-2011, 13:58
I agree with Surgency for the first part. It's impossible to decide at the moment, the mix of old rules from armybooks and the new rules from the BRB is just too vague to decide what should and should not be done. There are contradictions too many contradictions, explained in the other posts above.

That said, I would simply not play against my usual WoC opponent if he decides he can now cast Gateways into combat. I would feel raped.

Ferrous82
11-05-2011, 14:35
That said, I would simply not play against my usual WoC opponent if he decides he can now cast Gateways into combat. I would feel raped.

I would too, if I used a BRB lore. But I use Ruin, usually with a +5 cast/dispel. Basically, I just ask him what he wants to do. If he wants to cast his older spells into combat, then I will too. He usually concedes to use the BRB restrictions, seeing how 13th has done far more damage than his puny Tzeentch spells.

mildaevilda
12-05-2011, 07:35
I think this FAQ from the Vampires is interesting addition to our trouble:

Q. Can Invocation of Nehek be cast on friendly units that are
engaged in combat? (p38)
A. Yes.

As far as I know Invocation of Nehek doesn't specify explicitly that it can be cast in to the combat.

DarcinCole
12-05-2011, 15:00
I play VC.
Invocation of Nehek (IoN) does not explicitly state it can be cast into combat; however it is heavily implied in the spell txt. I don’t have my AB to quote the spell. This FAQ was created to make it explicit and from the spell description was intended anyway.
Therefore, I would argue that other army book spells without combat targeting permission would need a FAQ to similar effect to work in close combat.
I also think that the term “unit within 12 inches” negates the targeting restriction around forward arc casting. I agree that this needs some discussion with my opponent as it isn’t truly clear but I would say it is RAI.
However I would consider it un-sports man like of my opponent to then argue he can cast spells into combat because they don’t say he can’t. The norm in pre 8th army books is to give permission to cast into combat.

Surgency
12-05-2011, 20:40
by the same token though, saying "any unit within 12 inches" could easily imply that it can be cast into combat as well. Its usually not played that way (I hope), because that phrase is typically reserved for distance