PDA

View Full Version : Los for non magic missile magic while in combat



WanderingRogue
17-03-2007, 03:26
Ok i had a cheeky little idea about my orc boss.


Give im the itty ring and then try a zap unit champions before combat is resolved with my pigstikka. This will stop him challanging and allow me to maxamise casualtys in the unit i have charged with my savage orc/wyvern choppy monster. Can i do that.?

Its not a magic missile, it lets me choose models in units to kill and sais that the only stipulation is that the unit in question is in line of sight. It seems silly, but i cant find anything to back it up.

The unit im in combat with is valid target to zap,i take the champion out, stop the challage and kill abuck load of dudes......right?

larabic
17-03-2007, 04:22
You can use the ring as normal...and you can target anymodel you can see...so you prolly have your pick of 2-3 models.

DarkTerror
17-03-2007, 04:45
Unless a spell specifically states so, you may not cast into combat

Greyfire
17-03-2007, 04:47
I don't think that would work.

That would mean you're casting a spell ('eadbutt in this case) at a unit in close combat. 'Eadbutt doesn't have a "cast at unit in combat" clause. So I think according to the targeting rules for spells you won't be able to do that. But that's just what I think, I could be wrong.

-=- Greyfire

DarthBinky
17-03-2007, 05:02
Agreed. You need to have that "cast into HTH" clause or you can't do it.

DeathlessDraich
17-03-2007, 09:54
Unless a spell specifically states so, you may not cast into combat


I don't think that would work.

That would mean you're casting a spell ('eadbutt in this case) at a unit in close combat. 'Eadbutt doesn't have a "cast at unit in combat" clause. So I think according to the targeting rules for spells you won't be able to do that. But that's just what I think, I could be wrong.

-=- Greyfire


Agreed. You need to have that "cast into HTH" clause or you can't do it.

The rules state that magic cannot be cast "at a unit in combat".

Unfortunately 'Eadbutt [and Nibbla's] is cast on a model within LOS.

Technically speaking Eadbutt can be cast on a model in combat or a model who is not in combat but is in a unit in combat.
Somewhere in the rules there should be a statement that indirectly states:
if a unit is in combat then all its models are deemed to be in combat. I can't find it at the moment.

Sanjuro
17-03-2007, 12:08
Somewhere in the rules there should be a statement that indirectly states:
if a unit is in combat then all its models are deemed to be in combat. I can't find it at the moment.

But we can assume that is the case, no? Because otherwise, we would be able to shoot missile weapons at models in a unit engaged in combat if those models aren't directly in base-to-base contact with the enemy, right?

I think you are being too literal in this case. :)

WanderingRogue
17-03-2007, 15:50
so it drop the itty ring and give him the kickin boots instead then, fair do's. thanks for your help

DeathlessDraich
17-03-2007, 18:16
But we can assume that is the case, no? Because otherwise, we would be able to shoot missile weapons at models in a unit engaged in combat if those models aren't directly in base-to-base contact with the enemy, right?

I think you are being too literal in this case. :)

Yes, it is a literal interpretation but if an O&G player insists on it I cannot use the rules to dispute him.

The targeting rules for shooting states that a unit is targeted. Therefore individula models cannot be targeted unless otherwise specified.

The distinction between model and unit happens throughout the rule book and is very important in some rules.

monkeyboyalpha
17-03-2007, 22:37
I'm an O&G player and no you cannot cast 'Eadbutt into a close combat, even the one you are involved in.

You are not allowed to cast spells INTO a close combat unless the wording on the spell specificaly allows it, like 'Gork'll fix it', for instance.

That is all you need to know in reference to Nibbla's and 'Eadbutt...



MBA

Sanjuro
18-03-2007, 00:57
Yes, it is a literal interpretation but if an O&G player insists on it I cannot use the rules to dispute him.


Of course you can - you pick the rules book up and smack him over the head with it.

Which is what he would deserve, if he was actively trying to ruin the game with that kind of lawyering. I rarely use that term, but you must agree that in this case, it is called for. I think the logic you used in your post is worthy of any solicitor standing before the bench, but less useful in Warhammer (where the rules specifically are not written in an unambigous, legal language).

I mean, what you specifically said was that this sentence was missing from the rulebook.

if a unit is in combat then all its models are deemed to be in combat.

That's a little bit (but not quite) like complaining about there not being an instruction booklet in the box of nails I bought.

DeathlessDraich
18-03-2007, 10:28
I'm an O&G player and no you cannot cast 'Eadbutt into a close combat, even the one you are involved in.

You are not allowed to cast spells INTO a close combat unless the wording on the spell specificaly allows it, like 'Gork'll fix it', for instance.

That is all you need to know in reference to Nibbla's and 'Eadbutt...

MBA

You still have to abide by the rules
pg 107 "Wizards cannot cast spells at units engaged in combat"
Apologies for the bold letters.

This allows spells cast/targeted on the ground (e.g. Comet) or in a direction e.g. Burning Head to affect units in combat.

It doesn't say "at models" which is the phrase used by 'eadbutt which unfortunately is a loophole.

I applaud your choice of not using the rules to your advantage but until an FAQ clears this up I don't think opponents of O&G players can dismiss it.



I mean, what you specifically said was that this sentence was missing from the rulebook.

if a unit is in combat then all its models are deemed to be in combat.

That's a little bit (but not quite) like complaining about there not being an instruction booklet in the box of nails I bought.

You have to read what I said a little more closely. What I actually said is quite different.

quote: "Somewhere in the rules there should be a statement that indirectly states:
if a unit is in combat then all its models are deemed to be in combat. I can't find it at the moment."

You need to pay heed to 'somewhere' and 'indirectly'.

When a unit is in combat, only models in base contact fight. Not every single model is in base contact and fights. So there are models technically not in combat. However if there is a statement that even suggests indirectly that even models not in the fighting line are deemed to be in combat, it is a start in contesting any claims of using 'Eadbutt against models in combat.

I think you've assumed my position on this matter wrongly.

I am not advocating the use of 'Eadbutt against models in combat.
I am trying to find how the rules could be used to effectively contest any such claims.

If you can provide any references from the rules that can do the same, please do so.
Smacking an O&G player was written in jest I hope.;) The O&G player at our club is too fragile for that.

Festus
18-03-2007, 10:38
Hi

A model is part of a unit. Or is a unit in itself (if Monster, lone charcater, chariot, etc.)

One (model) is the hyponym of the other (unit), which in turn is the hypernym.

Looking for rules: try p. 6, left column of the BRB

Festus

Sanjuro
18-03-2007, 11:36
DD: I apologize, I was being unclear. I didn't think that you were advocating the use of 'eadbutt at units in combat. It wasn't my intention to imply it either.

I was just razzing (not directed at you personally, but your post brought the thought to my mind) against the kind of extremely literal-minded way of approaching the game exemplified by someone insisting that he can use 'eadbutt at units in combat, since: "nowhere in the rules is there a statement that indirectly states: if a unit is in combat then all its models are deemed to be in combat."

That person may or may not be right, according to how the rules are lawyered and legally-wrangled, but it certainly does not make for a good game. I mean, if you think about it - what do you think the intention was? And if the person trying to pull this crap on me started going all rethorical in response to that question ("I have no way of knowing what the geist of the rules are") - well, to be honest, I would probably just sigh and die a little inside, but I would have trouble seeing it his way.

And naturally, I'm not advocating that you should use the BRB to slap sense into wayward greenskin players. There are perfectly good red prodding sticks supplied with the game for that very purpouse. :)

(Ah, and it seems Festus has supplied the reference that tells us that, yes, exactly as one might think, units are actually made up of models, and not little dream-cloud pixie pieces that twinkle in the dark and make little squeaky noices.)

Gorbad Ironclaw
18-03-2007, 12:26
Yes, it is a literal interpretation but if an O&G player insists on it I cannot use the rules to dispute him.



Sure I can. I can tell him not to be bloody stupid and play the game instead of the rules. Besides, the model is still part of a unit, so it's fairly irrelevant if your casting it on a specific model, as it still count as if being in combat.

T10
18-03-2007, 14:41
Technically speaking Eadbutt can be cast on a model in combat or a model who is not in combat but is in a unit in combat.


The distinction is flawed. A single model on foot is a unit of one. If you cast the 'Eadbutt spell on this model, hown can you claim you are not targeting a unit?

-T10

DeathlessDraich
18-03-2007, 18:36
The distinction is flawed. A single model on foot is a unit of one. If you cast the 'Eadbutt spell on this model, hown can you claim you are not targeting a unit?
-T10

Technically too true T10. ;)

Unit and model are the same in a unit of one.

Sanjuro: No need to apologise. Your opinion was quite valid

EvC
18-03-2007, 19:33
Lol at the discussion. Next someone will say you can fire a Hochland Long Rifle at a model in combat as well (Assuming you can see it)? :)

Atrahasis
18-03-2007, 19:51
Lol at the discussion. Next someone will say you can fire a Hochland Long Rifle at a model in combat as well (Assuming you can see it)? :)

You might be onto something! Anyone care to quote the Hochland rules so we can debunk it? ;)

Festus
18-03-2007, 19:58
Hi

You might be onto something! Anyone care to quote the Hochland rules so we can debunk it? ;)
He dfinitely is onto something:


The shooter may pick any target he can see (including ...)

Festus :angel:

Atrahasis
18-03-2007, 20:06
Hi

He dfinitely is onto something:



Festus :angel:

I remebered that part, it was the bit in the brackets afterwards qualifying it that I was unsure of. Can't remember anything that would prevent it though.

Festus
18-03-2007, 20:37
Hi

The part in the bracket are just examples overriding general targetting restrictions. And as always, GW just said thier usual *etc.*


(including characters or champions within a unit, a war machine's crew, on a chariot, riding a monster, etc.)

Festus

Greyfire
18-03-2007, 21:56
The part in the bracket are just examples overriding general targeting restrictions. And as always, GW just said their usual *etc.*

Hmmmm.... maybe we're onto something. I mean, page 26, does have:

"Units are not normally allowed to shoot enemy units that are engaged in close combat..."

Maybe my gunners are just a tad like the Skaven since I have that etc... on the targeting rules. But only Skaven have that explicit rule that lets them shoot into close combat. Wait... they have the explicit rule, but my Empire doesn't. So I guess I can't shoot into combat. <sigh> But then just because something doesn't tell me I can do something that doesn't mean I can't do it? Or maybe it does? I never took that class in philosophy and logic in college. ::confused:

The debate's been fun to play in but I don't think we'd take advantage of this RAW. What I want to know is why GW doesn't drop the book in our hands before publication? I've been wondering that for a while, especially since in one of their battle reports they used Second Sign to make a miscast go away. :eek: I'm pretty sure we'd be better at finding problems than letting the game designers and staff be the ones that test out their new rules. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, so I'll step down from my high horse. But it does sound like it'd be interesting to play against you all.

-=- Greyfire

JAB
19-03-2007, 07:08
You still have to abide by the rules
pg 107 "Wizards cannot cast spells at units engaged in combat"
Apologies for the bold letters.

This allows spells cast/targeted on the ground (e.g. Comet) or in a direction e.g. Burning Head to affect units in combat.

Is this really correct? I was under the assumption that you were not allowed to shoot the Burning Head into units engaged in combat.

DeathlessDraich
19-03-2007, 08:57
Difficult to refute that it does not.
Judge for yourself:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73249&page=3

Greyfire
19-03-2007, 13:24
Is this really correct? I was under the assumption that you were not allowed to shoot the Burning Head into units engaged in combat.

I'm pretty sure that the "each model that lies in the direct path" doesn't count as something like a stonethrower/mortar template (or even the template from Comet, that's just my interpretation as far as Comet goes since it's the rock that hits, not the spell, but in that case it felt right to me, even if not RAW). If it hits any part of the unit in CC it's being cast at the unit. All that is just IMHO so take with a grain of salt.


Difficult to refute that it does not.
Judge for yourself:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73249&page=3

But like DeathlessDraich says, it may be difficult to call it sometimes. With Burning Head, our example spell, say my caster is in a sweet spot in the flank of a unit of cold one knights that would all be hit by Burning Head. I'd really like to take that shot. So I'd cast it. But wait, about one inch from the knights is a unit in close combat. Now what? I'm not aiming at that second unit, it just happens to be in my way and in CC. So does it just not affect them as some of the people in that Comet thread have been saying? I think the wording over there from some was basically "units in CC are immune to magic that doesn't specifically say it can be cast into CC, so Comet can't affect those CC units, just the unengaged units." (On a different note, in that same situation with a cannon I wouldn't hesitate to shoot the knights with range 0 hoping for low rolls, but if the dice goes against me the rules do cover what happens when a unit in CC is hit by template weapons.)

Like DeathlessDraich say, it's hard to judge by the RAW. Common sense is the best thing to use, but that's not quite so common within my gaming group sometimes.

-=- Greyfire

Artemis
19-03-2007, 14:04
Burning Head is resolved much like a shot from a cannon. I believe that's actually in the wording. That means that the same rules apply if it hits a unit in close combat. You cannot target that unit though, as far as I can see.

As to the whole rules lawyer/RAW-discussion:
I'm a Norwegian Law Student, graduating this summer. The Norwegian/Scandinavian (inspired by German) way of looking at rules is very different from the British (Common Law) one. Here, Common Sense can actually change the way a rule is interpreted, even if it goes against the wording. The intention of the rules-maker is also important.
So, naturally, I have severe problems with using the term RAW, as that's only a starting point on the long path towards the best rule. But, maybe, I'll learn to adapt:-)

DeathlessDraich
19-03-2007, 15:53
As to the whole rules lawyer/RAW-discussion:
I'm a Norwegian Law Student, graduating this summer. The Norwegian/Scandinavian (inspired by German) way of looking at rules is very different from the British (Common Law) one. Here, Common Sense can actually change the way a rule is interpreted, even if it goes against the wording. The intention of the rules-maker is also important.
So, naturally, I have severe problems with using the term RAW, as that's only a starting point on the long path towards the best rule. But, maybe, I'll learn to adapt:-)

Your talents will be wasted here Artemis. :p
This is a game where common sense, common law and rules makers intentions have been unceremoniously dumped in the dung heap.:p
Please don't adapt for their sake.

steeler556
19-03-2007, 17:41
I don't think that would work.
That would mean you're casting a spell ('eadbutt in this case) at a unit in close combat. 'Eadbutt doesn't have a "cast at unit in combat" clause. So I think according to the targeting rules for spells you won't be able to do that. But that's just what I think, I could be wrong.
-=- Greyfire

I would suggest you check the wording of the 'Ead Butt' spell (I dont have the book in front of me), but there is a sentence in the description allowing you to 'target models that you otherwise would not normally be allowed too.' This clearly superceeds the 'cast at a unit in combat' requirement for magic.

Festus
19-03-2007, 18:03
Hi

I would suggest you check the wording of the 'Ead Butt' spell (I dont have the book in front of me), but there is a sentence in the description allowing you to 'target models that you otherwise would not normally be allowed too.' This clearly superceeds the 'cast at a unit in combat' requirement for magic.
You are leaning quite far out of the window here IMO, mate:

A spell may only be cast into close combat if the spell explicitly allows for it (BRB, p.107). I'd hardly say that this *catch-all* phrase qualifies.

Festus

steeler556
19-03-2007, 18:57
Hi
You are leaning quite far out of the window here IMO, mate:
A spell may only be cast into close combat if the spell explicitly allows for it (BRB, p.107). I'd hardly say that this *catch-all* phrase qualifies.
Festus

The various interpretations on this board makes me wonder how humanity ever put someone on the moon. You'd be laughed out of our store for suggesting that the sentence 'select a target you normally would not be able too' would not qualify to allow you to pick a target engaged in combat (one caveat: as long as you could draw an LOS to it).

Artemis
20-03-2007, 09:45
The various interpretations on this board makes me wonder how humanity ever put someone on the moon. You'd be laughed out of our store for suggesting that the sentence 'select a target you normally would not be able too' would not qualify to allow you to pick a target engaged in combat (one caveat: as long as you could draw an LOS to it).

Hm. If this sentence works as you claim, then why do you apply the general rule of LoS but not the general rule of not firing into close combat?
The Hochland wording is similar, but I would never dream of firing it into close combat because that basic rule demands a clear exception, just as the LoS rule does.

Oh and btw, where is this store that laughs people out of it for discussing rules? Just so I can stay away...

steeler556
20-03-2007, 15:10
Hm. If this sentence works as you claim, then why do you apply the general rule of LoS but not the general rule of not firing into close combat? The Hochland wording is similar, but I would never dream of firing it into close combat because that basic rule demands a clear exception, just as the LoS rule does.

Oh and btw, where is this store that laughs people out of it for discussing rules? Just so I can stay away...

*obviously* you have to be able to draw a LOS to the individual model in order to be able to pick it out (example, you only have an LOS to the side/flank of a unit, but the unit champion is in the centre of the front rank, he cant be individually targeted because you cant specifically see him).

A common practice is to put the ring on a Black Orc Warboss & use it against your challenge opponent while in the challenge. It is commonly done at my store and all of the other's that I have ever been too, including sanction GW tournaments. As for the store location, we're separated by something called the Atlantic Ocean.

explorator
20-03-2007, 15:37
I would suggest you check the wording of the 'Ead Butt' spell (I dont have the book in front of me), but there is a sentence in the description allowing you to 'target models that you otherwise would not normally be allowed too.' This clearly superceeds the 'cast at a unit in combat' requirement for magic.

O&G Book pg. 41

'Eadbutt Cast this on a single enemy model within 24" and line of sight (even a model in a unit can be picked out, as can a character mounted on a monstrous steed or chariot). If successfully cast, the 'Eadbutt causes 1 hit at a strength of 5. No armour saves are allowed against the 'Eadbutt.

Nothing in the description says 'target models that you otherwise would not normally be allowed too'. The two exceptions listed do not include any reference to casting into close combat.

BRB pg. 107

Wizards cannot cast spells at units engaged in close combat, unless the spell only affects the caster himself or the spells description specifies otherwise.

Clearly 'Eadbutt can not be cast at units in close combat.
So if I play at your store and question a sentence that does not exist I would be laughed out? Nice.

Avian
20-03-2007, 15:44
I agree. Neither the 'Eadbutt or the Mork Wants Ya spells can be cast at targets in close combat, because they don't say that they can be.

monkeyboyalpha
20-03-2007, 17:28
Avian and Explorator, you are both correct!

A spell like 'Eadbutt only allows you to circumvent certain targeting stipulations, ie, you can target the champion or a character in the front rank where you would not normaly as the unit numbers more than 5 models, its just 'Eabdutt is allowing you to bypass this sub-law.

You can specificaly target the character from off his Dragon, where the standard rule would make you roll off to see which you hit, the character or the monster.

In no way does a spell like 'Eadbutt allow you to bypass the core rule of being able to target a model engaged in close combat.

For further clarification please read the descriptions for the spells "Gork'll Fix It" and "Eadbutt" and please notice the difference in wording of the spells.

Can anyone tell me why these threads keep going and going and goin when the answer has been given many times over?



MBA

Artemis
21-03-2007, 09:11
Can anyone tell me why these threads keep going and going and goin when the answer has been given many times over?


Apparently it has to do with something called the Atlantic Ocean. :angel:

Tutore
21-03-2007, 09:25
Im relieved to see that most of you play the same way as I play this magic question.