PDA

View Full Version : Banshee & Terrorgheist screams



Mostream
20-06-2012, 10:18
Can either of the two scream into a combat which they are not part of, but have line of sight to?

Iraf
20-06-2012, 10:44
Nope, only combats they are apart of.

Smogg
20-06-2012, 11:37
The other view is: yes they can.
It's not a shooting attack but rather a special attack made in the shooting phase. Therefore nothing preventing them from screaming into close combat, except if they are already in close combat, then they can only target that unit.

T10
20-06-2012, 12:00
Does not the special rules for those attacks give them explicit permission to target units in close combat?

Sounds like an exception to the normal shooting rules to me.

-T10

Athlan na Dyr
20-06-2012, 12:20
Nothing says that they can shoot into combat unless they themselves are engaged in the combat.
Ergo, without a specific exception the general case (of shooting) applies.

Not a 100% confirmed answer, but when in doubt the polite thing to do is give benefit to the opposition.

GotrekFan
20-06-2012, 14:00
IIRC the stipulation is that they can "shoot" into combat, but if they are engaged must target the unit they are fighting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SimaoSegunda
20-06-2012, 14:09
Both say that if used while in combat, they must target a unit in base contact.

Smogg
20-06-2012, 15:33
@T10:
True, that is one way to view the sentence.

The other way is to view it as a restriction:
So a special attack can pick any target but it has restrictions such as:
- Target must be within line of sight
- Target must be within a certain range
- If the screamer is engaged in close combat, its further restricted to only target the engaged unit.


So it comes back to a discussion of if it is a:
- shooting attack. (with a special permissions)
- special attack in the shooting phase. (with a special restriction)

In the first instance, the sentence would work as an explicit permission as you correctly point out. (shooting into close combat is not allowed - But here its allowed if you are engaged)

In the second instance, the sentence it would work as a restriction. (nothing prevent special attacks from targeting into close combat - But here there are special restrictions if you are engaged then you must pick the engaged unit)


So the sentence works either way. You just got to know if it's a shooting attack or not.

T10
20-06-2012, 17:09
A ranged attack in the shooting phase: How is it not a shooting attack?

Asensur
20-06-2012, 18:09
A ranged attack in the shooting phase: How is it not a shooting attack?

It is a special attack, and so it has it's own restrictions.

However, it is true this need to be FAQ'd.

Rivet
20-06-2012, 18:22
As mentioned earlier, give benefit to the opposition, at least until there is an FAQ. That way if it is FAQ'd you do not risk losing anything you have already been playing by, only the chance to gain.

Smogg
20-06-2012, 18:22
@T10
It's not specified as a shooting attack, therefore it's not a shooting attack.

A faq on this would be nice. I'm pretty sure it will be included.

Rudra34
20-06-2012, 19:15
@Smogg (And everyone who makes that claim) - I'm not trying to sound like a jerk with this, but that is the worst logic I have ever heard.

It's a distance attack which takes place in the shooting phase. What kind of weirdness is going on where you guys need further clarification to consider that a, "shooting attack?"


That argument aside, the rules for these attacks give you an explanation for when you are able to shoot into combat. Why would they need to clarify when you AREN'T allowed do it when they already tell you when you ARE allowed??

Fun analogy time! When you are in a race you are told when to start, but you aren't given a separate set of rules on when you can't start. Why would you be? It would be completely unnecessary unless you were clearly trying to get an unfair advantage or were incredibly stubborn.

Lance Tankmen
20-06-2012, 19:49
your allowed to in combats that your already in thats how ive aways read it? what other attacks (save for skaven) allow you to shoot into combats that the model it self arent in. other wise the strat to beat WoC would be easy, tar pit zombies scream til the units dead actually that would work on most everything. Also funny thing when i asked if the screams a shooting attack and could be stopped by things such as the signature for heavens where if its a "shooting attack" with no bs you roll a 4+ to shoot, every one jumped in saying it was not a shooting attack...but a speacial attack made in the shooting phase.... its like every one is VC trying to work in their favor.

Smogg
20-06-2012, 19:49
@Smogg (And everyone who makes that claim) - I'm not trying to sound like a jerk with this, but that is the worst logic I have ever heard.

A good example of "but" being the word that invalidates everything stated before it.
Excuse me now, that I am going to elaborate on the logic nevertheless.



It's a distance attack which takes place in the shooting phase. What kind of weirdness is going on where you guys need further clarification to consider that a, "shooting attack?"


I looked though some examples of other special abilities, used in the shooting phase. Common for them are that they all specifically state that they are Shooting Attacks:
- Blue Flames - Storm of Magic p117
- Petrifying Gaze - Storm of Magic p124
- Transmogrifying Gaze - Tomb Kings p45

So it seems there is a consistent marking of attack that are Shooting Attacks. They are all clearly specified as Shooting Attacks, rather than a special attack in the shooting phase.

If the screams and howls had been shooting attacks, they would simply have been specified as such, just has every other special rule that grants a shooting attack.



That argument aside, the rules for these attacks give you an explanation for when you are able to shoot into combat. Why would they need to clarify when you AREN'T allowed do it when they already tell you when you ARE allowed??

I'm not sure what your "it" refers to, but lets look at the two cases.

Case 1
Assuming the scream is not a shooting attack then the rules stated are limitations or specification:
- Max 8" (Limitation)
- Must have line of sight (Limitation)
- If screamer is engaged it must scream at the engaged unit in base contact (Limitation)
- Wounds distributed as if from shooting (Specification)

Case 2
Assuming the scream is a shooting attack the rules would have a different meaning:
- Max 8" (Limitation)
- Must have line of sight (Redundant)
- If screamer is engaged it must scream at the engaged unit in base contact (Exception)
- Wounds distributed as if from shooting (Redundant)

Comparing Case 1 and Case 2, Case 2 has two redundant rules stated. So, here I could use your very point to argue my logic: Why would they need to clarify two redundant points that are already covered by rules for shooting?
The answer is of course: Because it's not a shooting attack in the first place.



Fun analogy time! When you are in a race you are told when to start, but you aren't given a separate set of rules on when you can't start. Why would you be? It would be completely unnecessary unless you were clearly trying to get an unfair advantage or were incredibly stubborn.
I take your claim that I am trying to get an unfair advantage or am incredibly stubborn as a mental defense mechanism. I forgive you.

Smogg
20-06-2012, 20:26
Also note that a shooting attack requires a roll To Hit, and must therefore specify an exception if no roll To Hit is needed.
Since howls and screams are not shooting attack, no explicit exception is made here.

Athlan na Dyr
21-06-2012, 03:10
Uh....


To resolve a Ghostly Howl, roll 2D6 +2. For each point by which the result exceeds the target unit's Leadership, the target suffers 1 wound with no armour saves allowed.

sounds like it does specify that no 'To hit' roll is needed. :angel:

Also note that the Ghostly Howl specifies that wounds
are distributed as if from shooting
the shooting rules specify that
Models are not permitted to shoot at enemies that are engaged in close combat

ergo, you are distributing wounds as though the attack is a normal one in the shooting phase, and the rules for the shooting phase specify that you are not able to target units in combat. Therefore, you are not able to distribute wounds from shooting into combat.

Seriously, there is nothing explicitly stating that you can. With a permissive ruleset that means that you can't.

Kayosiv
21-06-2012, 03:32
Somebody find me the rule that says "treat these shooting attacks as a shooting attack, and distribute them as shooting attacks" and the people claiming it is a shooting attack might have a case.

The Vampire Counts book states in exact words (page 31) that "A ghostly Howl is a special attack can be used against a single enemy unit in the shooting phase,"

If it was a shooting attack that could be used in the shooting phase, THEY WOULD HAVE JUST MADE IT A SHOOTING ATTACK. It doesn't follow the normal rules for a shooting attacks, because it isn't one. All limitations for the special rule are given, and screaming at units in combat is no such limitation.



Seriously, there is nothing explicitly stating that you can.

Except this rule, which states that I can. "can be used against a single enemy unit in the shooting phase." Right there. It's an enemy unit, I can shoot it as long as I follow all of the given rules for this special attack. Within 8" and in line of sight, it's game. In combat? Then you can only scream at the unit you are in combat with.

Sarge.au
21-06-2012, 04:34
I have a regular VC opponent and I have never seen any evidence to support not being able to shoot into combat.

Maoriboy007
21-06-2012, 04:54
A ranged attack in the shooting phase: How is it not a shooting attack?
Anvil of Doom and Warshrines abilities operate in the shooting phase, neither of which are shooting attacks.

Maoriboy007
21-06-2012, 05:00
are distributed as if from shooting
ergo, you are distributing wounds as though the attack is a normal one in the shooting phase, and the rules for the shooting phase specify that you are not able to target units in combat. Therefore, you are not able to distribute wounds from shooting into combat..Does that mean Stomps & Impact hits cannot target units in combat if they are distributed like shooting?

Athlan na Dyr
21-06-2012, 05:00
Somebody find me the rule that says "treat these shooting attacks as a shooting attack, and distribute them as shooting attacks" and the people claiming it is a shooting attack might have a case.

For Banshees:

Wounds from a Ghostly Howl are magical attacks and are distributed as if from shooting
For Terrorgheists:

A Death Shriek is a magical attack and Wounds suffered from it are distributed as from shooting

Ergo, both tell you to distribute the wounds as though they were from regular shooting.
The regular shooting rules have a specific clause stating that you cannot target units engaged in close combat. To me, this is the same as stating that you cannot distribute wounds from shooting to a unit engaged in close combat. I do however realise that many will not interpret it in the same way, but it raises enough doubt in my mind that I give my opponent the benefit.

The howl is not treated as a regular shooting attack due to it not needing to hit, not needing to wound and not being able to make a stand and shoot charge reaction.

You can argue that the description on using the scream enables it to target units in combat, but there is no statement that explicitly states "You can shoot a unit enagaged in combat", merely a quesitonable implicit one. As such, I give my opposition the benefit of the doubt and play my Terrorgheist as not being able to. This is one for the FAQ however, whenever the damnable thing finally comes out.

Iraf
21-06-2012, 05:05
The Terrorgheist/Banshee can only shoot into combat it is apart of, because of the fact that it says "...only target an enemy unit in base contact." You can't very well be in base contact with a unit unless you're in combat.

Kayosiv
21-06-2012, 07:50
Ergo, both tell you to distribute the wounds as though they were from regular shooting.
The regular shooting rules have a specific clause stating that you cannot target units engaged in close combat. To me, this is the same as stating that you cannot distribute wounds from shooting to a unit engaged in close combat. I do however realise that many will not interpret it in the same way, but it raises enough doubt in my mind that I give my opponent the benefit.


While it is of course open to interpretation because there is no "may be fired into combats you are not apart of" clause, do note that many things that are used in close combat (thunderstomps, impact hits etc.) are distributed like shooting attacks. Now of course those things can only be used in combats they are apart of, but they do not have explicit rules explaining them to be "special attacks" that have a range of 8 inches.


The Terrorgheist/Banshee can only shoot into combat it is apart of, because of the fact that it says "...only target an enemy unit in base contact." You can't very well be in base contact with a unit unless you're in combat.

That is not the entire rule. The entire relevant part of the rule you are talking about states, "If the banshee is engaged in combat, her Ghostly Howl can only target an enemy unit in base contact." This is not an exception to the rule, it is a limitation to the rule. If she's engaged, than she can only shoot at the unit she's engaged with. If she's not engaged she can shoot at whatever, as long as it is within 8" and within line of sight.

T10
21-06-2012, 10:06
Anvil of Doom and Warshrines abilities operate in the shooting phase, neither of which are shooting attacks.

And that's supposed to prove something?

The warshrine does not make ranged attacks.

The damage power of the anvil is quite similar to the treeman strangleroot attack, a shooting attack.

T10
21-06-2012, 10:18
The banshee scream attack causes a number of automatic wounds, which are distributed as shooting.

It's not entirely approptiate to do this since there is no process for allocating "shooting wounds" but rather "shooting hits". However, it requires no great imagination to resolve this: 7 wounds on a unit of Orcs results in 7 dead Orcs. On a unit of Ogres the result is 2 dead Ogres and 1 wound extra.

The underlying logic can probably be explained as "7 wounds" here meaning the same as "7 automatic hits that each causes 1 automatic wound".

GrottoKnight
21-06-2012, 17:29
The two "screams have carried over from the old rules basically. They can "scream" while in combat or at a unit which is not in combat. They cannot "scream" at a engaged unit as it stated the exceptions granted to it while maintaining its shooting aspect but does not state it can shoot at an engaged unit. (think of this as the "don't want to hurt my own dudes rule" which shooting follows)

T10
21-06-2012, 18:56
How DARE YOU suggest that it is in any way a shooting attack!?

:)

Smogg
22-06-2012, 09:10
The two "screams have carried over from the old rules basically. They can "scream" while in combat or at a unit which is not in combat. They cannot "scream" at a engaged unit as it stated the exceptions granted to it while maintaining its shooting aspect but does not state it can shoot at an engaged unit. (think of this as the "don't want to hurt my own dudes rule" which shooting follows)

I don't think it make sense to look at previous editions of the rules for screams since the rule have changed for each edition. You are right that 7th edition was FAQ'ed to screaming not allowed into the close combat (without any reasoning), but 6th edition allowed it and it and further elabotated in the FAQ : "Because it is not a shooting attack".

With regards to how I want to think of the scream. Well I just read The Red Duke, where a banshee plays a key role in the book. Here her screams were mental and only heard by her intended victims, so I can easily think of her scream as something that could indeed be used in a very focused way without damaging the minds of her friendly skeletons.

madival
22-06-2012, 15:07
Here her screams were mental and only heard by her intended victims, so I can easily think of her scream as something that could indeed be used in a very focused way without damaging the minds of her friendly skeletons.

Skeletons have minds? When did this happen ?

On a serious note, the banshee scream and terror scream are not shooting attacks. The best arguement to try and claim they are is the "distrubted wounds as shooting" which is there to keep the dead random. We talked it over at the FLGS and determined it would work. Even then, they often didn't do enough to matter. The terror gheist may be different, but it rarely limits then screaming enough to matter.

Lance Tankmen
22-06-2012, 19:25
well im going to play it as they cant shoot into combats they arent a part of, which raises a question, are there any similar range attacks that can shoot into combats they arent a part of?

T10
22-06-2012, 21:00
The best arguement to try and claim they are is the "distrubted wounds as shooting" which is there to keep the dead random.
I don't think the part about distributing wounds can be used to prove anything. The scream is a single attack that causes one or more wounds, and without the instruction to distribute one might assume that damage could be applied to a single model (capped), or even that damage be applied to each model in the unit :)

Montegue
22-06-2012, 21:29
Iraf answered this question succinctly above. You can only target a unit in combat if you're in base contact with it.

Smogg
22-06-2012, 23:24
well im going to play it as they cant shoot into combats they arent a part of, which raises a question, are there any similar range attacks that can shoot into combats they arent a part of?

First of all they can't shoot at all because they are not shooting attacks. Even if VC's in general were allowed to Stand and Shoot, the howls could not be used for that either.
But that aside...

Exploding Mortis Engine or Exploding Casket of Souls:
- Both cause hits or damage distributed as from shooting.
- Both are ranged.
- Both would affect units in close combat.
- They are not shooting attacks
Are they similar? Well thats a subjective thing, and you did not say what you meant here. They just came to my mind since you asked.

As I see it, unless the screamer is in combat, absolutely nothing prevents the screams from targeting into close combat, but of course it's cool to play it as you like.

Morrdred
04-07-2012, 13:32
well im going to play it as they cant shoot into combats they arent a part of, which raises a question, are there any similar range attacks that can shoot into combats they arent a part of?

Last week I had a game where I fielded my Skaven against Vampire Counts and I believe I can give you an additional example:

The vampire player assumed that his Terrorgheist can scream into close combat that it isn't a part of, something that I disagreed with at first. But on my turn before this question arose I asked whether my Doom Wheel shoots at his Zombies (which were the nearest unit and engaged in close combat with my Rat Ogres) or at my Plague Monks (the nearest unit not engaged in combat). Of course the other player stated that the Doom Wheel cannot shoot in close combat it is not a part of.

I had to laugh when, just a turn later, his Terrorgheist wanted to do just the same. In my opinion the two units both use a special attack in the shooting phase and either they both can fire in ongoing close combats that they are not engaged in or they both can't.

Just a few minutes ago I asked a guy from GW's mail order about his opinion. Yeah, I know, those guys are hired to sell stuff and not to know the rules, but at least he looked everything up in the books. In his opinion, both the Terrorgheist and the Doom Wheel can fire into close combats (they are not a part of, bla bla, you know the sermon) and the Doom Wheel hits the closest unit as stated, so normally it wouldn't have to roll which side of combat it hits.

I for myself will from now on zzzapp into close combat and grant the Terrorgheist the same ability. Apart from all the discussing, the Terrorgeist is a lame duck in close combat and his big ability is the scream. For me it's okay that it can use it quite effectively, because once the enemy pins the big batthing it surely crumbles to dust.

Ah, well, just for laughs it didn't manage to scream my Hell Pit Abomination to death and my big guy promptly did to it what it does to just about everything it reaches. Die-die, dead-things!

Maoriboy007
05-07-2012, 01:58
Last week I had a game where I fielded my Skaven against Vampire Counts and I believe I can give you an additional example:
The vampire player assumed that his Terrorgheist can scream into close combat that it isn't a part of, something that I disagreed with at first. But on my turn before this question arose I asked whether my Doom Wheel shoots at his Zombies (which were the nearest unit and engaged in close combat with my Rat Ogres) or at my Plague Monks (the nearest unit not engaged in combat). Of course the other player stated that the Doom Wheel cannot shoot in close combat it is not a part of.
I had to laugh when, just a turn later, his Terrorgheist wanted to do just the same. In my opinion the two units both use a special attack in the shooting phase and either they both can fire in ongoing close combats that they are not engaged in or they both can't.
Just a few minutes ago I asked a guy from GW's mail order about his opinion. Yeah, I know, those guys are hired to sell stuff and not to know the rules, but at least he looked everything up in the books. In his opinion, both the Terrorgheist and the Doom Wheel can fire into close combats (they are not a part of, bla bla, you know the sermon) and the Doom Wheel hits the closest unit as stated, so normally it wouldn't have to roll which side of combat it hits.
I for myself will from now on zzzapp into close combat and grant the Terrorgheist the same ability. Apart from all the discussing, the Terrorgeist is a lame duck in close combat and his big ability is the scream. For me it's okay that it can use it quite effectively, because once the enemy pins the big batthing it surely crumbles to dust.
Ah, well, just for laughs it didn't manage to scream my Hell Pit Abomination to death and my big guy promptly did to it what it does to just about everything it reaches. Die-die, dead-things!AS a vampire player I don't disagree with you, unnless given reasonable proof otherwise then yes the Terrogheist screams into combat , and from what I can tell the doomwheel zaaps the same way. Its no fun being on the wrong side of something nasty but that goes for a bunch of stuff and GW needs to come down on the fence one way or another in the next FAQ,. Moften than not I've found scream attacks to be more of a fail. Yes they occasionally do something decent but then I've seen horses kill fully armourd vampire lords with Ward saves too...shiznee happens.

Texhnolyze
06-07-2012, 18:11
Can I deny the regen save during the shooting phase for a unit of trolls by hitting them with a banshee scream from within a unit with the Banner of ethernal flame ?

Smogg
07-07-2012, 10:03
Can I deny the regen save during the shooting phase for a unit of trolls by hitting them with a banshee scream from within a unit with the Banner of ethernal flame ?

Flaming Attacks cover shooting and close combat attacks.

Since the scream is not a shooting or a close combat attack, it would not be flaming.

T10
07-07-2012, 19:40
Keep an eye on the VC FAQ for any clarification on whether the screams are shooting attacks or not: there are currently lots of different opinions on the matter.

Memnos
09-07-2012, 12:26
Yeah. I see that the VC FAQ is not on the website, so I'm sure we'll get something. Until then, I'd probably suggest not making a big deal one way or another as Gee-Dub has a 50/50 chance of ruling any given day.