PDA

View Full Version : Dreaded 13th spell in close combat



ASTINOFF
21-12-2011, 02:41
Dreaded 13th spell can be cast in a enemy unit in close combat? the enemy unit is in close combat with another unit without the mage who cast the spell. My friend said It can't because dreaded 13th is a direct damage spell, but I say the rules only say It can cast in a unit the mage can see.

:confused:

Thanks

Kalandros
21-12-2011, 02:54
Can'o'worms.

I say no. Because.

Mr. Shine
21-12-2011, 05:38
I personally would hazard not, given that ordinarily you may not and that the other spells on the same page explicitly state that they may be cast on units in close combat while The Dreaded 13th states no such exception.

ASTINOFF
21-12-2011, 05:41
I personally would hazard not, given that ordinarily you may not and that the other spells on the same page explicitly state that they may be cast on units in close combat while The Dreaded 13th states no such exception.

That's make sense to me!

thanks

Ghremdal
21-12-2011, 07:32
On page 31 of the BRB, under choosing the target of a spell it states 4 conditions required to cast a spell on a unit, one of which is that spells cannot be cast into units engaged in close combat.

Further on the same page, the description of direct damage spells does not alter the conditions required to cast a spell.

So no, it is not legal to cast The Dreaded 13th at a unit in close combat.

Mr. Shine
21-12-2011, 08:11
On page 31 of the BRB, under choosing the target of a spell it states 4 conditions required to cast a spell on a unit, one of which is that spells cannot be cast into units engaged in close combat.

Further on the same page, the description of direct damage spells does not alter the conditions required to cast a spell.

So no, it is not legal to cast The Dreaded 13th at a unit in close combat.

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

The problem is that Warhammer Armies: Skaven falls into this category, and therefore The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell is not any of the listed categories in the rulebook, and further The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell does not have any casting restrictions in its rules.

In saying the above however, with the presence of specific mention of using spells in combat for many of the other Skaven spells, and the lack of any mention of close combat for The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell, we can draw the conclusion that The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell cannot, by contrast, be cast on units engaged in close combat.

theunwantedbeing
21-12-2011, 08:20
Dreaded 13th spell can be cast in a enemy unit in close combat?

You have 2 choices.
1. Make all spells stick to the basic limitations in the magic section meaning the dreaded 13th spell cannot be cast into combat.

2. Madness.

Pick option 1 please, it makes for a more enjoyable game unless you like rules loopholes and abuses.

Sadly GW hasn't bothered to answer this in any FAQ anywhere and likely never will.

DaemonReign
21-12-2011, 09:01
Spells from those older army books (as mentioned in the BRB) follow the Basic Laws for casting spells (hence cannot be cast into combat!) unless there is clearly written exception written in their respective spell-descriptions.

So No you absolutely cannot cast the Dreaded 13th into combat. For that to be possible its entry in the Skaven book would have to contain the sentence: ... also note that this spell may be cast on a unit engaged in combat.

I see this issue popping up again and again with respect to this spell. It's unclear to me what's so unclear about it to be honest.

RealMikeBob
21-12-2011, 09:51
What's unclear is that applying that logic makes certain other older spells rather useless. Namely the vampire ones. True they are (hopefully) getting redone next month, but it does create reasonable doubt that these 4 basic rules from the BRB are not meant to be applied to older books lores.

theunwantedbeing
21-12-2011, 12:35
What's unclear is that applying that logic makes certain other older spells rather useless. Namely the vampire ones. True they are (hopefully) getting redone next month, but it does create reasonable doubt that these 4 basic rules from the BRB are not meant to be applied to older books lores.

Doesn't the VC FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1780262a_FAQ_VampireCounts_V1_4.pdf) clarify that issue?

In anycase, yes it does create reasonable doubt that the Armybook lores may or may not follow the casting limitations listed in the Rulebook because GW is awesome like that.

And people think them suppling online rules would be a good idea...oh how laughable that is. I guess that's why GW sells so well :)

DaemonReign
21-12-2011, 12:46
There's no reasonable doubt.
That's why those Errata/FAQ amendments of the VC spells were necessary.
Spells like Plaguewind and the Dreaded 13th spell cannot be cast into combat according to RAW, let alone RAI.
That VC FAQ is litterally the exception that proves the rule.

TsukeFox
21-12-2011, 12:58
What about a combat with slaves-?

theunwantedbeing
21-12-2011, 13:07
There's no reasonable doubt.

Well there is, seeing as GW has never actually said that all spells follow those casting limitations and the rulebook simply says ,
"their text will contain any casting restrictions"
When referring to spells that have no type (ie. almost all the armybook spells)

So there is reasonable doubt.
Do they mean you follow the limitations and the restrictions in the no-type spell?
Or do they mean you ignore them and only follow the restrictions listed in the no-type spell?

GW has not answered this....despite 53 FAQs having been brought out.

The VC spell lists a unit that has charged that turn being affected in its description, so the FAQ answer is reasonable. Although it merely answers "yes" to the question "can it be cast into combat". Which is of no value to other spells which may or may not be cast into combat.

So yeah, there is reasonable doubt even though it should be obvious that you aren't supposed to be playing like that.

RealMikeBob
21-12-2011, 13:43
Doesn't the VC FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1780262a_FAQ_VampireCounts_V1_4.pdf) clarify that issue?

No, not entirely. I was more thinking whether or not the target lies in the casters front arc, not the casting into combat part. It sucks being a combat vampire already, without being unable to raise your unit as well.

Mr. Shine
21-12-2011, 18:56
Spells like Plaguewind and the Dreaded 13th spell cannot be cast into combat according to RAW, let alone RAI.

As has been pointed out, that's less than clear.

As the rules are strictly written, given Warhammer Armies: Skaven is an older Warhammer Armies book, we must follow any casting restrictions in the spells' entries, as the Warhammer rulebook states. That is clear.

What makes it less clear is that the rules for The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell, as they are written, do not have a restriction on casting on units engaged in close combat. Other spells in the book of course do have exceptions stated to allow them to cast on combat-engaged units, which lends weight to not being able to cast The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell in the same way.

shakedown47
22-12-2011, 02:03
"ANY" casting restrictions does not equal "ALL" casting restriction. If you want to avoid EVER having an argument about the conditions for spell targeting, treat every single spell that has no type as being subject to the four basic casting restrictions.

Mr. Shine
22-12-2011, 05:28
"ANY" casting restrictions does not equal "ALL" casting restriction.

Alas, "any" can mean the same as "all", but I completely agree with you otherwise. I'm only playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion and investigation :)

DaemonReign
22-12-2011, 07:35
treat every single spell that has no type as being subject to the four basic casting restrictions.

That's how understood it.
Up until now, that is.
Must be missing something..
As usual.. :eyebrows:

ASTINOFF
23-12-2011, 04:25
Thanks to all of you guys! I have that doubt, but know thanks to you, I know how to use it. Hopefully when I play vs my CV friend, We don't know if I can cast 13th over his Vampire Lord General unit of 15 graveguard. So we use logic and target another unit of Graveguard with magic level 4 vampire and a necromancer.

Now I know I played well.

thanks

Fubar
23-12-2011, 06:17
*Bangs head against wall*
do we really have to regurgitate these same arguments over and over again?
Nothing has changed in the form of FAQ so why discuss it?

I swear GW deliberately don't give FAQ's on these sorts of questions to add that little bit of Mystery so people talk about them, what they fail to understand though is these petty rules arguments are what put people of this game and is the most frustrating part of it, either that or they are a bunch of sadistic ******* who enjoy watching people suffer. Well I suppose that keeps them in line with the rest of the human population.

Surgency
23-12-2011, 07:19
Thanks to all of you guys! I have that doubt, but know thanks to you, I know how to use it. Hopefully when I play vs my CV friend, We don't know if I can cast 13th over his Vampire Lord General unit of 15 graveguard. So we use logic and target another unit of Graveguard with magic level 4 vampire and a necromancer.

Now I know I played well.

thanks

Keep in mind, if you're not allowed to cast D13 into combat, he's not allowed to cast Invo on his own units, unless they're in his front arc

Gonzoyola
23-12-2011, 10:27
Keep in mind, if you're not allowed to cast D13 into combat, he's not allowed to cast Invo on his own units, unless they're in his front arc

I have to say you're wrong. Invocation clearly states that "When cast on a unit that has charged that turn, resurrected models do not gain bonuses for charging in that close combat phase"


This is in contrast to the Dreaded 13th, which does not state it can be cast into combat, while there are spells next to it that state that specification.

RealMikeBob
23-12-2011, 11:07
I have to say you're wrong. Invocation clearly states that "When cast on a unit that has charged that turn, resurrected models do not gain bonuses for charging in that close combat phase"


This is in contrast to the Dreaded 13th, which does not state it can be cast into combat, while there are spells next to it that state that specification.

Casting into combat is not the issue with Invocation. It's which direction the target lies in from the caster.

Kalandros
24-12-2011, 16:19
Keep in mind, if you're not allowed to cast D13 into combat, he's not allowed to cast Invo on his own units, unless they're in his front arc

He can cast it at his own unit.

Aljoman
29-12-2011, 01:47
Just answering the Slaves question, I never used to cast into combat with slaves but the Ogre FAQ and looking over the rules again seems to allow it so I'm saying go nuts.

The wording is "...ranged attacks at enemy units in combat with Skavenslaves..."

dementian
29-12-2011, 18:17
So if magic attacks count as ranged attacks then we can use magic into slaves, is it just magic missiles that are considered ranged attacks or direct damage and even d13th?

ihavetoomuchminis
29-12-2011, 20:17
It also says "Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

The problem is that Warhammer Armies: Skaven falls into this category, and therefore The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell is not any of the listed categories in the rulebook, and further The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell does not have any casting restrictions in its rules.

In saying the above however, with the presence of specific mention of using spells in combat for many of the other Skaven spells, and the lack of any mention of close combat for The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell, we can draw the conclusion that The Dreaded Thirteenth Spell cannot, by contrast, be cast on units engaged in close combat.

I'll say the contrary. I think that not categorized spells have all the restrictions of the BRB, except those wich explicit that can be cast on combat, doesn't require LOS, and so on.....

If a spell must choose a target, it has to be still a valid target.

If not, Phoenix flames, Infernal gateway, Dreaded 13th, scorch, tzeentch's treason, extatics atack's (the last WoC slanesh spell), wind of plague, and similar spells could be casted against any unit in range, even those outside the front arch, or those engaged in CC, because they just say "choose any enemy unit" and that's would be weird, and it'll give an ENORMOUS advantage to those armies, who would have less restrictions, among easier to cast spells. Most of those spells are stupid enough, they don't need to be even more.

THe problem comes with those spells that are CLEARLY buffs or debuffs, like Invocation, wich use the same words. And being that the dreaded 13th is called Curse of the...... doesn't help. There's a bunch of reasons why i refuse to play against skavens.

On another note, it would not be that hard to GW to specify the spell type of all the spells in the game. Some of them are obvious, and it just needs a couple of lines in the FAQ. They did it with the unit types, even in the BRB. The reason why they didn't with the Spells....is beyond human understanding.

Surgency
30-12-2011, 05:48
I'll say the contrary. I think that not categorized spells have all the restrictions of the BRB, except those wich explicit that can be cast on combat, doesn't require LOS, and so on.....

which is fine, except that the BRB specifies otherwise, according to the RAW

ihavetoomuchminis
30-12-2011, 07:10
But you couldn't cast those spells in Close combat in 7th, because in the BRB stated that you couldn't. And the spell text in the AB was the same. I don't see why it should be different now.

Again, it's not the players fault, but GW lazyness.

herohammer
30-12-2011, 07:15
The brb states that unless stated otherwise in the spells description or if it is a rule of the spell type, no spells can be cast into cc. Curse of the Horned Rat has no type and states nowhere in its rules that it can be cast into cc. I am baffled that this is still a confusing issue.

Yes interpreting the rules straight as written may make some poorly written spells like mantle of ghorok literally not work at all hardly but the rules are the rules and are quite clear on that point.

RealMikeBob
30-12-2011, 08:22
The brb states that unless stated otherwise in the spells description or if it is a rule of the spell type, no spells can be cast into cc. Curse of the Horned Rat has no type and states nowhere in its rules that it can be cast into cc. I am baffled that this is still a confusing issue.

Yes interpreting the rules straight as written may make some poorly written spells like mantle of ghorok literally not work at all hardly but the rules are the rules and are quite clear on that point.

Except it doesn't say unless stated otherwise in the spells description, it just says unless stated otherwise. The very next paragraph after the 4 points then states otherwise, ie older book spells contain any restrictions that apply. That's where the confusion arises from.

If it is interpreted one way, then the 13th can be cast into combat. But then other older spells will also be severely hampered in a way that wasn't intended when they were written. Primarily (for me anyway) the lore of the vampire.

If the casting restrictions are interpreted the other way, then the 13th can be cast into combat. Bad form, but within the rules.

Surgency
30-12-2011, 14:53
But you couldn't cast those spells in Close combat in 7th, because in the BRB stated that you couldn't. And the spell text in the AB was the same. I don't see why it should be different now.

Again, it's not the players fault, but GW lazyness.

In 7th edition you also didn't get steadfast, attacks from multiple ranks, HE ASF bonus, etc, but you get those now. Just because you couldn't do something in an older edition and can now doesn't set a precedent, especially when the rulebook does state otherwise, in a very simple 2 paragraph format.

However, I will agree that this is primarily GW's fault for not just FAQ'ing all the spells to give them types

Noght
30-12-2011, 15:44
The brb states that unless stated otherwise in the spells description or if it is a rule of the spell type, no spells can be cast into cc. Curse of the Horned Rat has no type and states nowhere in its rules that it can be cast into cc. I am baffled that this is still a confusing issue.

Yes interpreting the rules straight as written may make some poorly written spells like mantle of ghorok literally not work at all hardly but the rules are the rules and are quite clear on that point.

Herohammer is exactly right. Untyped spells must meet casting requirements from page 31 of the rulebook. No reason to argue it. Any exceptions are listed in the spell restriction. No exception in the description of Dreaded 13th then no casting into combat. The absence of the exception/restriction shouldn't be used to argue "intent" or somehow conclude that because you can shoot into a slave combat you could cast into a slave combat.

For Example: Wood Elf Treesinging says you can inflict D6 Str 5 wounds on any unit partially within a Woods (no range required) but that doesn't mean I can cast it on a unit engaged in combat in the Woods because I have to follow the rules on page 31 of the Rules for casting.

Skaven spells are powerful enough, no need to "enhance" them.

Noght

Surgency
30-12-2011, 16:17
Herohammer is exactly right. Untyped spells must meet casting requirements from page 31 of the rulebook.

Can you quote me the exact wording that says that untyped spells have to use the spell restrictions listed?


No reason to argue it.

There's plenty of reasons. For instance, most of the VC players I know would have a few reasons to argue it, as would most older AB specific lores with buffs


Any exceptions are listed in the spell restriction.

except thats not what the rule reads. The rule reads any restrictions, not any exceptions.

Noght
30-12-2011, 16:36
Can you quote me the exact wording that says that untyped spells have to use the spell restrictions listed?

Read the section on page 31 of the BRB titled "Choosing a Target", pay particular attention to the first Sentence and the Last Sentence.

There's plenty of reasons. For instance, most of the VC players I know would have a few reasons to argue it, as would most older AB specific lores with buffs

The argument apparently being made is: I can cast 13th into combat because the description doesn't tell me I CAN'T is BS. Any sane ruling would be: I can cast 13th into combat because the description tells me I CAN. The absence of a restriction (you can't cast into combat) is NOT the same as a specific exception (it doesn't say I can't so I'm gonna).

except thats not what the rule reads. The rule reads any restrictions, not any exceptions.

The Restriction to casting into close combat is the fourth bullet point under "Choosing a Target" on page 31.

Answers in Orky Lime Green.

Noght

Surgency
30-12-2011, 16:40
Answers in Orky Lime Green.

Noght

You might want to go back and read paragraph 2 of the rules you told me to read. Specifically the part where it says for older army books lores (sic) the spell text contains any restrictions to the spell.

Noght
30-12-2011, 17:28
You might want to go back and read paragraph 2 of the rules you told me to read. Specifically the part where it says for older army books lores (sic) the spell text contains any restrictions to the spell.

You might want to read the first sentence and rest again..wait, I'll read it for you..

"Targeting restrictions (emphasis mine)vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules (most of us would call them restrictions) apply:
1st Bullet: Target must lie within the Wizards forward arc.
2nd Bullet: Wizard does not need line of sight to the unit.
3rd Bullet: Target must be within the spell's range.
4th Bullet: Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat."

Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions or waives others." skip the types..
"Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

So unless the Dreaded 13th specifically waives the 4th bullet you don't get to cast into combat. The absense of the waiver =/= exception to the above rules.

Noght

Lord Zarkov
30-12-2011, 17:40
They problem is "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" could be construed as either "their text will contain any additional casting restrictions that apply" or "their text will contain any and all casting restrictions that apply"

In that latter case that would be the "unless otherwise stated" that means none of those restrictions apply. Since any spell with a range will say something like "... within XX inches..." even the loss of bullet 3 is not an issue as the restriction is contained within its text.

dementian
30-12-2011, 17:47
I hate the ambiguity of "any".

For instance if I said:
Give me any apples that you have.

You would then give me all the apples that you have, or run away because you want to keep your apples.

So then if it says their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply why not use just the restrictions that appear in the spell text.

Surgency
30-12-2011, 18:37
You might want to read the first sentence and rest again..wait, I'll read it for you..

"Targeting restrictions vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:
(restrictions)

Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions or waives others. There are five distinct types of spells: (spell types). "Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

So unless the Dreaded 13th specifically waives the 4th bullet you don't get to cast into combat. The absense of the waiver =/= exception to the above rules.

This is where you're reading it wrong, and you've left out a very key point that I added in (the line listing the spell types). According to the bolded point, there are spells with types, and there are spells without types. Spells with types follow the restrictions above, unless the spell specifies otherwise. You conveniently left out the part where it lists the spell types, which follows right after the line "some spells have a type that enforces additional restrictions or waives others..." because the next line after that says that some spells do not have types. So those restrictions are on spells with types, not all spells. That satisfies the "unless otherwise stated" portion of the very first line.

I included the entire rule and didn't leave any portions out because thats important for our reading of the rule. The spells with types are given their restrictions, as can be seen in the rulebook. But the rulebook doesn't stop there. It goes on to say that there is a sixth "unofficial" type of spell, and those are spells without types, or spells from older army books. I'd say D13 certainly qualifies, as there is no actual spell type, and the Skaven book was released prior to 8th Edition. The BRB then tells us how to deal with these "untyped" spells... Namely, that those spells will have their casting RESTRICTIONS in the spell text. It doesn't say that it will have any restrictions or waivers in the spell text. It doesn't say that it will have any additional restrictions. It says that any restrictions to the spell will be in the spell text.

D13 contains 2 restrictions, the restrictions of range and LoS. The spell text does not restrict the spell being cast into CC. Thus, according to the rulebook, D13 can be cast into CC.

D13 needs restrictions in the rule text, or it needs a type. It doesn't need waivers to the restrictions, due to the wording of the rule.

Lord Zarkov
30-12-2011, 20:23
The problem (which you have not addressed) is the following:

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. Emphasis mine.

Lets look at that again "any casting restrictions that apply". Not "any additional/extra casting restrictions", or "any change to the casting restrictions", or anything like that, just "any casting restrictions"

This is your "unless otherwise stated" that waives the four basic casting restrictions. In standard English "X will contain any Y" automatically implies "and no other". Now this might be sloppy wording on GW's part and they could be have meant otherwise, but it is just as likely to be as they intended, and from looking at other threads in this forum it seems that people are fairly evenly split around which they believe to be the case.

On my part I think that "will contain any casting restrictions" is supposed to over-rule the four standard ones for the following reason.
1) Even for GW something along the lines of "unless stated, no other restrictions apply" would be much more natural to write, not to mention unambiguous.
2) Since Army Book >> Rulebook (and Specific >> General) anyway, this line would be serve no purpose but to generate confusion, phrased as it is, but interpreted the other way.
3) If subject to the four bullets, bullet 1 (forward arc) would nerf to oblivion all the pre 8th Augment equivalents, which would seem to me a good enough reason for GW to put a waiver line like this one in - despite the issues with ignoring bullet 4.

Around where I live I've never seen it interpreted other than a waiver for the general restrictions, and while you occasionally have to put up with nastiness from some spells (I've had things happen to me such as Grave Guard + General + wraith in combat Gatewayed, and ~20 strong blunderbusses also in combat reduced to one by Dreaded 13th), its not too bad, and Augment equivalents can actually be cast on something.

Edit: Ninjad

Darnok
31-12-2011, 10:03
Some trolling and responses to it have been deleted. Please keep this civil and polite.


Darnok [=I=]
The WarSeer Inquisition

commanddarksun
31-12-2011, 11:18
it can be cast into combat and i saw that happening at gt with noone stoping them. stop fantasizing about it and accept it. its a powerful spell that has few restrictions but requires lots of dice or a cerain one use item to bring down.

ihavetoomuchminis
02-01-2012, 10:29
The problem (which you have not addressed) is the following:
Emphasis mine.

Lets look at that again "any casting restrictions that apply". Not "any additional/extra casting restrictions", or "any change to the casting restrictions", or anything like that, just "any casting restrictions"

This is your "unless otherwise stated" that waives the four basic casting restrictions. In standard English "X will contain any Y" automatically implies "and no other". Now this might be sloppy wording on GW's part and they could be have meant otherwise, but it is just as likely to be as they intended, and from looking at other threads in this forum it seems that people are fairly evenly split around which they believe to be the case.

On my part I think that "will contain any casting restrictions" is supposed to over-rule the four standard ones for the following reason.
1) Even for GW something along the lines of "unless stated, no other restrictions apply" would be much more natural to write, not to mention unambiguous.
2) Since Army Book >> Rulebook (and Specific >> General) anyway, this line would be serve no purpose but to generate confusion, phrased as it is, but interpreted the other way.
3) If subject to the four bullets, bullet 1 (forward arc) would nerf to oblivion all the pre 8th Augment equivalents, which would seem to me a good enough reason for GW to put a waiver line like this one in - despite the issues with ignoring bullet 4.

Around where I live I've never seen it interpreted other than a waiver for the general restrictions, and while you occasionally have to put up with nastiness from some spells (I've had things happen to me such as Grave Guard + General + wraith in combat Gatewayed, and ~20 strong blunderbusses also in combat reduced to one by Dreaded 13th), its not too bad, and Augment equivalents can actually be cast on something.

Edit: Ninjad


So then, Scorch can be cast in combat too..right? And Flames of the Phoenix too? And those spells wich clearly state that can be casted into CC.....isn't it a bit redundant?

RealMikeBob
02-01-2012, 10:55
So then, Scorch can be cast in combat too..right? And Flames of the Phoenix too? And those spells wich clearly state that can be casted into CC.....isn't it a bit redundant?

So your saying that all those vampire players who've been casting invocation or dance macabre on units their vampire has joined have been playing it wrong then?

The problem is we are trying to apply rules written years ago to a newer framework, and that is never going to be perfect. In this situation we have two choices. Apply the rules one way, and spells A, B and C become broken. Apply it the other possible way and spells D, E and F don't work the way they were intended. This suggests that the intention of the original authors is unclear. And won't be until there is an FAQ, in which case there is going to be one side who looses out.

Kalandros
02-01-2012, 11:27
VC don't matter anymore due to new book in a month, so there you go, no casting into combat.

Lord Zarkov
02-01-2012, 11:28
VC don't matter anymore due to new book in a month, so there you go, no casting into combat.
What about Wood Elves, there's quite a few buffs in their list IIRC?

Noght
02-01-2012, 12:21
What about Wood Elves, there's quite a few buffs in their list IIRC?

Wood Elves Loren Lore:
1. Treesinging: Now according to this thread can be cast into combat. It can't but NVM.
2. Fury of the Forest: "Unengaged Enemy unit"
3. Hidden Path: "Unengaged Friendly unit". "Unit becomes engaged, spell ends"
4. Twilight Host: "Friendly Unit, may be engaged in Close Combat"
5. Ariel's Blessing: "Friendly unit, may be engaged in Close Combat"
6. Call of the Hunt: "Friendly unit, if already engaged in Close Combat"

Figures, even the untyped spells from one of the oldest books can't be abused like Skaven and WoC. Dangit, Wood Elves suck.

Noght

Lord Zarkov
02-01-2012, 12:28
Wood Elves Loren Lore:
1. Treesinging: Now according to this thread can be cast into combat. It can't but NVM.
2. Fury of the Forest: "Unengaged Enemy unit"
3. Hidden Path: "Unengaged Friendly unit". "Unit becomes engaged, spell ends"
4. Twilight Host: "Friendly Unit, may be engaged in Close Combat"
5. Ariel's Blessing: "Friendly unit, may be engaged in Close Combat"
6. Call of the Hunt: "Friendly unit, if already engaged in Close Combat"

Figures, even the untyped spells from one of the oldest books can't be abused like Skaven and WoC. Dangit, Wood Elves suck.

Noght

But do the spells give an exception to the "needs to be in forwards arc" limitation? Probably not given it didn't exist at the time.

Given than nearly all the spells are meant to be cast on friendly units this would be quite limiting and make them suck even more.

Noght
02-01-2012, 13:18
But do the spells give an exception to the "needs to be in forwards arc" limitation? Probably not given it didn't exist at the time.

Given than nearly all the spells are meant to be cast on friendly units this would be quite limiting and make them suck even more.

All of them say within 18" of the caster including the forest moving portion of Tree Singing (though the damage portion has unlimited range per FAQ).

My guess was in the past there was no forward arc requirement and now there probably is/should be. Four of the Six probably would be considered "Augments" but of course that's not in the current FAQ.

I guess it's too hard to say: Tree Singing = Direct Damage. Fury of the Forest = Magic Missle, Spells 3-6 are all Augments.

Noght

BaSe
02-01-2012, 13:23
The way I personally play it is like shooting. I can cast into units fighting slaves but nothing else.
I nay be wrong (seems there's no right answer) but this seems a good midway to the rule.

Lord Zarkov
02-01-2012, 13:27
All of them say within 18" of the caster including the forest moving portion of Tree Singing (though the damage portion has unlimited range per FAQ).

My guess was in the past there was no forward arc requirement and now there probably is/should be. Four of the Six probably would be considered "Augments" but of course that's not in the current FAQ.

I guess it's too hard to say: Tree Singing = Direct Damage. Fury of the Forest = Magic Missle, Spells 3-6 are all Augments.

Noght

But "within 18" of the caster" is even less of an implied exception to the four rules then "will contain any restrictions".

Yes in the past there was no forward arc requirement (it's new for 8th), but there is one now if the four bullets are applied.

I agree GW should have errata'd in types for all existing spells. (Fury of the Forest would probably be a direct damage rather than magic missile though - since that type existed at the time)

RealMikeBob
02-01-2012, 13:56
VC don't matter anymore due to new book in a month, so there you go, no casting into combat.

I don't think the release of a new book changes the intention of a rule written over 18 months ago.

Kalandros
02-01-2012, 15:04
I don't think the release of a new book changes the intention of a rule written over 18 months ago.

Just because you quote a partial rule does not make it a rule. Read the entire rules then apply all parts of it.

RealMikeBob
02-01-2012, 19:46
Just because you quote a partial rule does not make it a rule. Read the entire rules then apply all parts of it.

Sorry, but can you clarify where I only quoted part of a rule? I don't believe I did.

Mr. Shine
02-01-2012, 23:05
Just because you quote a partial rule does not make it a rule. Read the entire rules then apply all parts of it.

The problem with applying all parts of the rule is that the latter part of the rule negates an earlier portion.

"...will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

As has been said, "any" is an exclusive term and therefore excludes the previously-stated casting restrictions in that rulebook section.

I'm not saying that's how you have to play your games, but you can't tell me they're not the rules.

Surgency
03-01-2012, 06:20
So then, Scorch can be cast in combat too..right? And Flames of the Phoenix too? And those spells wich clearly state that can be casted into CC.....isn't it a bit redundant?

Scorch could always be cast into combat, as you picked a location to burn that happened to have a unit standing on top of it, you didn't pick a unit to burn. Its entirely feasible (though incredibly stupid) to pick a point in the middle of an open field

Noght
03-01-2012, 12:25
So then, Scorch can be cast in combat too..right? And Flames of the Phoenix too? And those spells wich clearly state that can be casted into CC.....isn't it a bit redundant?

Apparently the minority thinks so.

Spells that say "can be cast into combat" can be cast into combat.
Spells that don't say "can be cast into combat" can also be cast into combat.
Clear as mud.

One of the local rules guys on our board responded with this:
The rules for this situation are presented on page 31 under "Choosing a Target" and are lock-tight:

"Targeting restriction vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply: (4th bullet point) Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat."

So unless the specific spell says "can be cast into close combat," it cannot. Easy! No need for FAQ answers or anything else. They actually thought of pre-existing rules when writing this rulebook.



Noght

Lord Zarkov
03-01-2012, 12:39
Apparently the minority thinks so.

Spells that say "can be cast into combat" can be cast into combat.
Spells that don't say "can be cast into combat" can also be cast into combat.
Clear as mud.

Spells that say "Can't be cast into combat" can't
Spells that don't say "Can't be cast into combat" can
Clear as Day. ;)



One of the local rules guys on our board responded with this:
The rules for this situation are presented on page 31 under "Choosing a Target" and are lock-tight:

"Targeting restriction vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply: (4th bullet point) Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat."

So unless the specific spell says "can be cast into close combat," it cannot. Easy! No need for FAQ answers or anything else. They actually thought of pre-existing rules when writing this rulebook.



Noght

But as stated repeatedly, that's ignoring a later part of the very same section on p31: "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" emphasis mine.
"Any" as it stands (i.e. without "other") is an exclusive term in English, so overrides the rest of the section.

So we follow this and the only limitations for such spells are the ones listed in the spell, and "Easy! No need for FAQ answers or anything else. They actually thought of pre-existing rules when writing this rulebook." :shifty:

GW either need to FAQ it or errata "any" to either "all"/"any and all" or "any other" - given the disagreement it is obviously anything but clear.

Edit: Also it's interesting that people are getting hung up and emotive over casting into combat (which was pre-existing), but completely ignoring the question of frontal arcs (which is new). I wander what the impression of a new group of players, without the burden of previous edition's memory (either personal or group), would be?

To rephrase the start of my post:

Apparently the minority thinks so.

Spells that say "can be cast into combat" can be cast into combat.
Spells that don't say "can be cast into combat" can also be cast into combat.
Clear as mud.

Spells that say "must be in the frontal arc" must
Spells that don't say "must be cast in the frontal arc" must
Clear as ?

which is the position of the "additional restrictions" crowd.

theunwantedbeing
03-01-2012, 12:49
GW either need to FAQ it or errata "any" to either "all"/"any and all" or "any other" - given the disagreement it is obviously anything but clear.

It 100% needs an FAQ.

Do spells without a type follow the casting restrictions outlined in the magic section?
Yes/no

Although given how after 50+ FAQs across the various armies GW has yet to say anything to do with casting restrictions I think it's safe to say that we are not going to get an official answer for this question.

Noght
03-01-2012, 13:01
Spells that say "Can't be cast into combat" can't
Spells that don't say "Can't be cast into combat" can
Clear as Day. ;)


It appears to me that the Rules set is a Permissive set, telling you what you can do, rather than a Restrictive set.
I don't honestly know what the untyped spell descriptions say but I don't think the direction "Can't be cast into combat" exists.

Many examples of "Can be cast into combat" (Permission Granted) exist, for example spells 3 thru 6 from the Wood Elf Book.

What does Plague (Skaven) say? What does Rot Glorious Rot (WoC) say? What does Flames of the Phoenix (High Elves) say?

Noght

ihavetoomuchminis
03-01-2012, 13:12
Apparently the minority thinks so.

Spells that say "can be cast into combat" can be cast into combat.
Spells that don't say "can be cast into combat" can also be cast into combat.
Clear as mud.

One of the local rules guys on our board responded with this:
The rules for this situation are presented on page 31 under "Choosing a Target" and are lock-tight:

"Targeting restriction vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply: (4th bullet point) Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat."

So unless the specific spell says "can be cast into close combat," it cannot. Easy! No need for FAQ answers or anything else. They actually thought of pre-existing rules when writing this rulebook.



Noght

I think the words UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE are quite important, as this is how the rules are worded in the BRB.

- No spell can be cast in Close combat, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. It must be stated. CLEARLY. Does it state that it can be cast in combat? NO? So it can't.

- The caster doesn't need have LOS to the target. Does it say that LOS is needed? No? So it isn't.

- The target must be in the front arc. Does it say it can be outside the front arc?

- The target Must be in range. Does the spell has unlimited range? No? So it must be in range.

Are the words "any unit" really a restriction? It doesn't restrict much, does it?

In general terms, you must follow the rules, unless stated otherwise.

The opposite to that, would be that Army books should contain all the normal restrictions in shooting, charging, casting spells, close combat, psycology, and so on..... There should be, before any Army book rule, a sentence saying "this unit/spell/weapon follows all the Rulebook rules, AND....", just because oh....AB trumps Rulebook, and my army book doesn't say i can't charge backwards, it just talks about targets, just as it doesn't say i can't cast this spell into combat.

That's not how it works. THe fact a rulebook doesn't state you can't do something, doesn't mean you can do it. To you be allowed to do something, it must be stated clearly that you can do it.

Noght
03-01-2012, 13:25
That's not how it works. THe fact a rulebook doesn't state you can't do something, doesn't mean you can do it. To you be allowed to do something, it must be stated clearly that you can do it.

That's been the argument from page 2 on apparently. Most of us follow the "you need permission, i.e. ok to cast into combat" to cast spells into combat.

A vocal minority says, "It doesn't say I CAN'T so I can."

And yes we use LOS, Front Arc, and Range. The VC argument has been FAQ'd regarding Danse as an Augment and if you've been letting the Vamp violate Arc and LOS shame on you.

Noght

Lord Zarkov
03-01-2012, 13:32
It appears to me that the Rules set is a Permissive set, telling you what you can do, rather than a Restrictive set.
I don't honestly know what the untyped spell descriptions say but I don't think the direction "Can't be cast into combat" exists.

Many examples of "Can be cast into combat" exist, for example spells 3 thru 6 from the Wood Elf Book.

What does Plague (Skaven) say? What does Rot Glorious Rot (WoC) say? What does Flames of the Phoenix (High Elves) say?

Noght

It's permissive yes, but once you're given a permission (e.g. "may be cast on any unit within X") that permission holds for all cases unless contradicted.

With regards to a "Can't be cast into combat" restriction, don't WE spells 2&3 specify they have to be cast on an "unengaged" unit?
From WoC Treason of Tzeentch also specifies "unengaged", as does Titillating Delusions - but Infernal Gateway does not

With regards to spells that are made near useless by the four restrictions
From DoC Miasma of Pestillence would be literally useless (as it's a 1 turn thing that affects enemies in btb with the caster, with no other 'may be cast into combat' statement).
From BoC (which was designed with 8th in mind!) Mantle of Ghorok would also be pretty much useless (A and S bonus for one character for one turn, no extra permission to cast into combat - also range 6" with the frontal arc restriction is pretty limiting
Not to mention all the Necromancy spells that are gimped by the arc restriction.

Edit @ ihavetoomcuh minis:
The point is 'untyped' spells all have a blanket 'unless otherwise stated' in the very same section - "...will contain any casting restrictions that apply" - so you follow all the restrictions listed in the spell, and none other.

Edit 2:

That's been the argument from page 2 on apparently. Most of us follow the "you need permission, i.e. ok to cast into combat" to cast spells into combat.

A vocal minority says, "It doesn't say I CAN'T so I can."

And yes we use LOS, Front Arc, and Range. The VC argument has been FAQ'd regarding Danse as an Augment and if you've been letting the Vamp violate Arc and LOS shame on you.

Noght
No the argument is, as always, specific >> general
So:
You may cast spells << spells must follow these restrictions << spells without a type contain any restriction in their wording

Yes you need an exemption to override the bullet points, but one is provided.

And if we're going to say "oh you need a specific allowance to cast into combat because permissive", by the same logic Gateway can't be cast at all (it only says 'a unit', nowhere does it give permission to be an enemy unit :shifty: ). A permission to cast (with certain restrictions) has been given, you then need another restriction to take the permission away again from particular included circumstances.

p.s. in general no spell requires LoS

Noght
03-01-2012, 14:17
Another response from our local board:

The rule says "Unless otherwise stated the following apply"

It also goes on to say "Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others".

Typeless spells need explicit wording then to be cast into combat.

Argument-proof.

It's amazing that you are using "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" to completely override the whole CHOOSING A TARGET section. I'd conceed if you had a specific AB rule that overrides a BRB rule but you can't use a BRB rule to override a BRB rule. Do you think GW wrote the BRB without considering the existance of Typeless spells?

FYI: I started playing 8th edition after a 15+ year hiatus (old Battle Magic box) so this line of argument is amazing to me when the BRB rules for selection of targets are clear.

With regards to the Wood Elf book:
Fury of the Forest (2) "unegaged unit" would be an additional restriction (see BRB). Call of the Hunt (6) "unit engaged in close combat" would be a waiver (see BRB).

Continue please...
Noght

Lord Zarkov
03-01-2012, 15:05
Another response from our local board:

The rule says "Unless otherwise stated the following apply"

It also goes on to say "Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others".

Typeless spells need explicit wording then to be cast into combat.

Argument-proof.

It's amazing that you are using "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" to completely override the whole CHOOSING A TARGET section. I'd conceed if you had a specific AB rule that overrides a BRB rule but you can't use a BRB rule to override a BRB rule. Do you think GW wrote the BRB without considering the existance of Typeless spells?
You absolutely can use a BRB rule to override another one.
Heck the entire of the p31 is BRB rules overriding other BRB rules (or are you suggesting that Augments and Hexes can't be cast into combat either? :rolleyes: )
Specific >> General in all cases, it's how all rulesets work.

As it stands "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" is an exclusive phrase - it means to 'any and all'. If in said "any other", "any additional", etc I would agree that you point is correct - but it's not what the line says.

With regards to the line "Some spells have a type that enforces additional restrictions and waives others." Yes, but it is only some, others do not. The end of the paragraph explains how to deal with these spells.

Obviously I think GW considered the existence of typeless spells, since the very bit we're arguing over is the bit put in to directly consider them - in fact I believe it was put in to overcome the problem of some typeless spells (mainly the old ones that would now be Augments/Hexes, examples in my previous post) from still working in the new rules - otherwise that sentence would not be needed at all.
(for example in 7th there was a general restriction about not casting into combat with the exception of spells cast on the wizard himself - hence a number of 7th Ed combat spells that are cast on the caster do not give an additional exemption, and so under your interpretation of "Choosing a Target" would no longer work at all (as their previous exemption is gone). I believe that GW put in the line about unique spells to get around issues like this - the allowance of certain spells to now be cast into combat being an unfortunate side effect).

TLDR: in addition to the 5 regular types (only one of which obeys all four bullets) there are also 'untyped' spells, for which any targeting restrictions are contained entirely within the spell text.


FYI: I started playing 8th edition after a 15+ year hiatus (old Battle Magic box) so this line of argument is amazing to me when the BRB rules for selection of targets are clear.
Equally I (even with my 6th/7th ed bias) find it amazing so many others are interpreting it differently as well - no one from where I come from does. The first time I read the book I finished the paragraph and was like "oh, so older spells ignore that then. That makes sense."



With regards to the Wood Elf book:
Fury of the Forest (2) "unegaged unit" would be an additional restriction (see BRB). Call of the Hunt (6) "unit engaged in close combat" would be a waiver (see BRB).

Continue please...
Noght
Yup, so it works both ways: with both interpretations one spell has an extra restriction/waiver and the other has redundant repetition.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to get anywhere, since we fundamentally disagree of the meaning of the rule - the thread basically boils down to this:

If you believe that 'any' in "...will contain any casting restrictions..." means 'any and all casting restrictions' (which is better English, as that is the default meaning of 'any') then the four bullets are ignored for those spells.

If you believe that 'any' in "...will contain any casting restrictions..." means 'any other' (because you don't consider 'any' to be a strong enough worded exception) then the four bullets all apply.

Do you think this is a fair assessment?

Noght
03-01-2012, 15:32
Anyway, I don't think we're going to get anywhere, since we fundamentally disagree of the meaning of the rule - the thread basically boils down to this:


If you believe that 'any' in "...will contain any casting restrictions..." means 'any and all casting restrictions' (which is better English, as that is the default meaning of 'any') then the four bullets are ignored for those spells.

You and Surge.

If you believe that 'any' in "...will contain any casting restrictions..." means 'any other' (because you don't consider 'any' to be a strong enough worded exception) then the four bullets all apply.

The rest of the posters on this topic.

Do you think this is a fair assessment?

Everyone in my Warhammer world (Central Illinois/Chicago/Wisconsin) uses all the BRB rules, not just the ones they like :rolleyes:. So we'll agree to disagree.

Noght

Lord Zarkov
03-01-2012, 15:46
Everyone in my Warhammer world (...) uses all the BRB rules, not just the ones they like :rolleyes:. So we'll agree to disagree.

Noght

I would say the same back to you ;)
Personally I would rather not be gatewayed or 13thed while in combat, but as I see it, disallowing it is not what the rules say.

and Mr Shine, Real Mike Bob, and commander darksun also agree with my interpretation so you appeal to numbers is wrong, as well as a logical fallacy.

However I would agree with agreeing to disagree, as we're clearly not going to agree.

ihavetoomuchminis
03-01-2012, 17:35
I just hope this thread serves a purpose, and GW faq's it :D

H33D
03-01-2012, 20:07
It appears to me that the Rules set is a Permissive set, telling you what you can do, rather than a Restrictive set.
I don't honestly know what the untyped spell descriptions say but I don't think the direction "Can't be cast into combat" exists.

Pg. 31 "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."

It is a restrictive set of rules for magic. If it doesn't have a type and you are curious to see if the spell is restricted in any way, read the spell's description as "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

In the Vampire Counts book under Invocation of Nehek. Raise Dead shares the same rules so those apply as well. Nowhere in that spell description does it say that the spell can or can not be cast into combat. There is no restriction then so you can. At the end of the spell description it even mentions that resurrected models that are in combat do not count towards combat resolution.

Yeah it sucks that there are some powerful spells out there that can be cast into combat because of the change from 8th to 7th.

It doesn't matter if the dreaded 13th can cast into combat or not. It is OP enough already especially with how important infantry are now this edition.

H33D
03-01-2012, 20:10
It appears to me that the Rules set is a Permissive set, telling you what you can do, rather than a Restrictive set.
I don't honestly know what the untyped spell descriptions say but I don't think the direction "Can't be cast into combat" exists.

Many examples of "Can be cast into combat" (Permission Granted) exist, for example spells 3 thru 6 from the Wood Elf Book.

What does Plague (Skaven) say? What does Rot Glorious Rot (WoC) say? What does Flames of the Phoenix (High Elves) say?

Noght

The reason so many of them say you can is because they are from before the 8th edition rule set came out. In 7th you could not cast any spell into combat unless the spell gave you permission to do so. In the 8th edition BRB it is actually telling us to do just the opposite with spells that do not have a type.

Mr. Shine
03-01-2012, 21:02
Everyone in my Warhammer world (Central Illinois/Chicago/Wisconsin) uses all the BRB rules, not just the ones they like :rolleyes:. So we'll agree to disagree.

Noght

Then how do you explain the line "...will contain any casting restrictions that apply." ?

You have yet to explain how that can mean anything other than what it says, that older books' spells descriptions state any casting restrictions that apply.

Let's take Infernal Gateway as an example.

Choosing a target... "unless stated otherwise..." yada yada yada, "...printed in older Warhammer Armies books... will contain any casting restrictions that apply." Oh, okay, let's see what Infernal Gateway says, then.

I can pick an enemy unit within 24". Okay... that engaged unit there... is it an enemy unit? Check. Is it within 24"? Check.

The final paragraph before moving on to the specific spell types is stating otherwise, and is therefore waiving the initial restrictions placed on choosing a target based on what the individual spells say.

Please, explain what "...will contain any casting restrictions that apply." means if it does not count as "unless otherwise stated".

Arijharn
04-01-2012, 12:08
I'd say Dreaded 13th can't be cast into combat (unless said combat is Skavenslaves vs. something) simply because every other spell within the Skaven list (which is; for reference: Skitterleap 'even if engaged in close combat', Death Frenzy 'even if engaged in close combat', Pestilent Breath 'may be cast while the Wizard is in close combat', Bless with Filth 'may be cast on a friendly that is already engaged in close combat', Wither 'including a unit in close combat', Vermintide 'may be cast while the Sorcerer is in combat', Cloud of Corruption 'even if they are in close combat.' and Plague 'even if it is engaged in close combat.') explicitly spells out that it can be cast into close combat. I doubt the author would have had a sudden brain fart and forgot to put that rule in if it was intended given the precedence already set (8 spells!).

T10
04-01-2012, 12:14
But how does that reasoning help if you really REALLY want to cast the spell into close combat?

-T10

Arijharn
04-01-2012, 12:16
lol. /shrug.

Lord Zarkov
04-01-2012, 12:31
I'd say Dreaded 13th can't be cast into combat (unless said combat is Skavenslaves vs. something) simply because every other spell within the Skaven list (which is; for reference: Skitterleap 'even if engaged in close combat', Death Frenzy 'even if engaged in close combat', Bless with Filth 'may be cast on a friendly that is already engaged in close combat', Wither 'including a unit in close combat', Vermintide 'may be cast while the Sorcerer is in combat', Cloud of Corruption 'even if they are in close combat.' and Plague 'even if it is engaged in close combat.') explicitly spells out that it can be cast into close combat. I doubt the author would have had a sudden brain fart and forgot to put that rule in if it was intended given the precedence already set (8 spells!).

The point is WA: Skaven was written in 7th Ed when the rules were different. The question here is not whether Jeremy Vetock intended it to be cast into combat when he wrote the Skaven book, but what Mat Ward meant when he wrote "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." in the 8th Ed rulebook.

As written it overwrites the general restrictions given in the bullet points above (and not without precedent given all 5 types ignore at least one of them). This means that older, 'untyped', spells now have to specifically ban you from casting into combat.

Whether this was intentional (for example to keep older augment-like spells working properly (or at all in the case of ones meant to be be cast on an engaged wizard (which didn't need explicit permission in 7th))), or whether it was simply misworded (e.g. he accidentally left out some synonym for other) is obviously unknown.

Until it's FAQ'd we should really go with the rules as actually written, rather than what we think it should be, unless you house rule it on a case-by-case basis.

As I said earlier, I'd rather not have it cast on me in combat (I don't play Skaven, or WoC for that matter), but at present the rules allow it.

Mr. Shine
04-01-2012, 12:36
Until it's FAQ'd we should really go with the rules as actually written, rather than what we think it should be, unless you house rule it on a case-by-case basis.

Well said. My gaming group are currently grappling with this issue, and are leaning towards some compromise. If the issue arose in a tournament or an in-store battle, you would have no grounds to dispute what's fairly clearly the rules.

theunwantedbeing
04-01-2012, 13:08
Until it's FAQ'd we should really go with the rules as actually written, rather than what we think it should be, unless you house rule it on a case-by-case basis.

While I agree with this in most cases, due to the sheer number of problems that such a stance causes I would simply follow what looks to be RAI and follows the rules as closely as possible to cause the least amount of issues.

So follow the 4 main rules for all spells.

Arijharn
04-01-2012, 13:09
The point is WA: Skaven was written in 7th Ed when the rules were different. The question here is not whether Jeremy Vetock intended it to be cast into combat when he wrote the Skaven book, but what Mat Ward meant when he wrote "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." in the 8th Ed rulebook.

As written it overwrites the general restrictions given in the bullet points above (and not without precedent given all 5 types ignore at least one of them). This means that older, 'untyped', spells now have to specifically ban you from casting into combat.

Whether this was intentional (for example to keep older augment-like spells working properly (or at all in the case of ones meant to be be cast on an engaged wizard (which didn't need explicit permission in 7th))), or whether it was simply misworded (e.g. he accidentally left out some synonym for other) is obviously unknown.

Until it's FAQ'd we should really go with the rules as actually written, rather than what we think it should be, unless you house rule it on a case-by-case basis.

As I said earlier, I'd rather not have it cast on me in combat (I don't play Skaven, or WoC for that matter), but at present the rules allow it.

I understand the underlying issues of this argument, and I can see both sides, but given that the self-same army book your arguing about mentions specifically waivers to the cases that bypass normal rules, I think it becomes a bit hypocritical (however logical it seems) to say that because Dreaded 13th doesn't have those waivers then it's okay regardless.

I say it doesn't make sense because not only doesn't it follow the rules in the actual rulebook, it also doesn't follow the 'rules' (aka exceptions that have become perfectly valid even in 8th edition) that's been set out in it's own rulebook where the exceptions/waivers have been spelt out. I think therefore that it follows to reason that the spell can not be cast into combat.

I mean, technically you can cast Dreaded 13th at your own forces too since it doesn't stress enemy infantry, or perhaps even monstrous infantry because they too are infantry (just scary infantry, I didn't play during 7th but did Monstrous Infantry or 'Troop Types' as a concept even exist back then?) By allowing speculative rulings on this, I think all that we're managing to do is open the floodgates to perhaps 'dangerous' interpretations.

The flipside to the whole Errata concept you've mentioned above is: "No until Matt Ward says yes" which I think is equally valid if nothing else.

Lord Zarkov
04-01-2012, 13:35
I understand the underlying issues of this argument, and I can see both sides, but given that the self-same army book your arguing about mentions specifically waivers to the cases that bypass normal rules, I think it becomes a bit hypocritical (however logical it seems) to say that because Dreaded 13th doesn't have those waivers then it's okay regardless.

I say it doesn't make sense because not only doesn't it follow the rules in the actual rulebook, it also doesn't follow the 'rules' (aka exceptions that have become perfectly valid even in 8th edition) that's been set out in it's own rulebook where the exceptions/waivers have been spelt out. I think therefore that it follows to reason that the spell can not be cast into combat.

I mean, technically you can cast Dreaded 13th at your own forces too since it doesn't stress enemy infantry, or perhaps even monstrous infantry because they too are infantry (just scary infantry, I didn't play during 7th but did Monstrous Infantry or 'Troop Types' as a concept even exist back then?) By allowing speculative rulings on this, I think all that we're managing to do is open the floodgates to perhaps 'dangerous' interpretations.

The flipside to the whole Errata concept you've mentioned above is: "No until Matt Ward says yes" which I think is equally valid if nothing else.

It's not just the Skaven AB that's the issue - it's WoC, DoC, Beastmen, WE, HE, DE, etc - they should all follow the same rules after all.

Heck Beastmen, who were designed with 8th in mind (there spell lore even follows the 6+ signature paradigm), has a spell (to be cast on the caster or another character within 6") which lasts for one turn and gives +D6 A&S and gives no extra permission to be cast into combat (or outside frontal arc for that matter). Under your interpretation this spell would be functionally useless (although not quite as bad as one of the DoC ones which hits models in btb). Under mine (which follows the wording better) it works just as intended.

It is spells like this which make me think the wording on p31 is intentional - to stop certain older spells from not working completely - rather than an accidental miswording. Yes the downside is some nasty spells can now be cast into close combat (dreaded 13th and Gateway in particular), but that's just something you've got to live with.

I agree the intent is fairly murky, but the actual English is reasonably clear here - by the rules as currently written, 'untyped' spells follow only the restrictions in their spell wording - and no others.

Personally I think they should have just Errata'd in spell types like they did troop types, but for some reason they chose not to. Hopefully they'll FAQ or Errata it to make it completely clear - which ever direction they choose to pick.

Noght
04-01-2012, 16:31
Personally I think they should have just Errata'd in spell types like they did troop types, but for some reason they chose not to. Hopefully they'll FAQ or Errata it to make it completely clear - which ever direction they choose to pick.

Agree 100%.

My last thought on this, stated simply on our local board:

"Unless otherwise stated, no spells may be cast at units engaged in close combat. Some spells have a type that may waive this restriction. In addition to "untyped" spells (whose restrictions not mentioned above are in their own texts), there are five types of spells: DD, MM, Augment, Hex, and Vortexes. Augment and hex spells can be cast into combat because it clearly states they can in their descriptions or Errata.

Page 31 restrictions are umbrella limitations that affect all spells. Some armybook-specific rules overwrite these (if at all), as do "typed" spells."

As I mentioned previously, one BRB sentence (the infamous "any restrictions" at the end of the Choose a Target section) does not override or invalidate the remainder of page 31. All rules apply equally, you don't get to pick and choose or assign "superiority" to any word or sentence. You can cast any spell by following the rules on page 31.

Now if there is an Army Book rule thats fine (for example Empire Detachment supporting/counter charge rules override the rules for charging in the BRB) but in the absence of a specific AB rule then BRB apply (all of them).

Carry on. Fight the good fight. You just don't get to play "wild west" rules here in Central Illinois.

Happy New Year!
Noght

Arijharn
04-01-2012, 22:31
I think all spells should be errata'd into types too, but more than that I would like them to actually dedicate a couple of issues of WD to update all the 7th ed spell lores into 8th, and I agree with Noght.

The problem I have with the Skaven in particular is that if the other spells in the book have been written with 7th but are now 8th 'current', then so too must the Dreaded 13th spell. For arguments sake; lets look at the spell effect ruling for Pestilent Breath:


Pestilent Breath - Cast on a 5+
Uttering horrible phrases the Skaven Sorcerer belches forth an impossibly foul cloud.
Place the flame template with the narrow end in base contact with the caster and the wide end anywhere in his arc of sight. Any models touched by the template suffer a Strength 2 hit with no armour save allowed. The spell may be cast while the Wizard is in close combat, but instead of using the template one enemy unit in base contact takes a D6 Strength 2 hits with no armour saves allowed.

Pretty simple to read right? But according to 8th edition choosing a target rules, not only does the spell expressly point out it's restrictions, but also the rules it waivers. Namely, it can be cast into close combat.

The Dreaded 13th must therefore follow the same general wording for a 7th edition spell now compatible with 8th, it spells out it's restrictions quite handidly 'infantry only, LoS, 24". For all intents on purposes, if we look at the spell now in 8th it would functionally perform exactly the same as a Magic Missile. Because unlike the other 7th edition spells in the self-same list, Dreaded 13th does not state waivers, then in keeping with the rules of 8th (which surely would take precedence) (and the standards within the self-same document) then the spell can't be used in combat.

This is why I agree with Noght's last message.

Mr. Shine
04-01-2012, 22:33
As I mentioned previously, one BRB sentence (the infamous "any restrictions" at the end of the Choose a Target section) does not override or invalidate the remainder of page 31. All rules apply equally, you don't get to pick and choose or assign "superiority" to any word or sentence. You can cast any spell by following the rules on page 31.

Now if there is an Army Book rule thats fine (for example Empire Detachment supporting/counter charge rules override the rules for charging in the BRB) but in the absence of a specific AB rule then BRB apply (all of them).

Carry on. Fight the good fight. You just don't get to play "wild west" rules here in Central Illinois.

The problem is that some rules in fact do waive others. You still haven't come up with an answer to the central point, which is that the rule says "unless otherwise stated" and then goes on to state otherwise with the "any casting restrictions" sentence.

I don't disagree with you on how the rules should be, but you can't tell me the rules don't "state otherwise" with regards to older army book spells. You seem to be confusing a discussion of what the rules are with how the rules should be :confused:

commanddarksun
05-01-2012, 09:37
T ~20 strong blunderbusses also in combat reduced to one by Dreaded 13th), its not too bad,

Edit: Ninjad

didnt i do this :)

Lord Zarkov
05-01-2012, 09:47
didnt i do this :)
Yes, when you played allied with Mo