PDA

View Full Version : Wall Of Fire



EvC
15-08-2007, 17:10
If a unit takes casualties from the Wall of Fire spell, fails its panic test and flees, does it immediately take ANOTHER round of hits from the spell?

theunwantedbeing
15-08-2007, 17:34
Yep,thats what the spell says.
Tis a nasty spell :P

knightime98
15-08-2007, 19:40
Remember, that when the spell is cast that ONLY the front rank take hits initially. If you can get 25% casualties on a unit by doing that and force a panic test then it would be a small unit. Once the spell is in play, if the unit moves then ALL models take hits from the spell.

EvC
15-08-2007, 21:07
No, it wouldn't have to be a small unit. A unit with a wide frontage, like a bunch of archers would certainly be at risk.

We were thinking at the time, that you'd technically be removing models from the front and then after it's established that the unit has survived, move up models from the back ranks to fill in the gaps... but in this case, maybe the unit would have panicked before you reform the ranks, and so the only guys to take another hit would be the survivors from the first wall of fire? Probably not supported by the rules, but it seems horrible for a spell to specifically punish units already beaten and running away even more!

theunwantedbeing
15-08-2007, 21:22
If you hit a long line,youde effectively do 2 hits to each model if it panicked and ran as a result of the initial round of hits.

When you consider the rather high casting value of the spell it makes no sense for this not to happen.

T10
15-08-2007, 21:38
Each model in the unit takes a single hit if the unit moves for any reason, and fleeing is movement.

-T10

EvC
16-08-2007, 09:33
Sorry, was that every model in the unit, not just the front rank?! Oh well, the affected unit ran off the table anyway...

theunwantedbeing
16-08-2007, 12:59
How about you read the description of the wall of fire in your rulebook?
It very clearly states that all models in the unit that moves suffers a hit.
Initially its just the front rank though.

EvC
16-08-2007, 13:35
Hey, give me a break, I don't generally bring the rulebook with me to work :rolleyes:

thanks those of you who responded politely [which does actually include theunwantedbeing for his earlier posts :p ]

Atrahasis
16-08-2007, 14:48
We were thinking at the time, that you'd technically be removing models from the front and then after it's established that the unit has survived, move up models from the back ranks to fill in the gaps... No, casualties are always removed from the rear, even in combat. It doesn't matter which model is actually hit (except characters/champions obviously).

highelfmage
16-08-2007, 16:39
what happens if a character moves out does the whole unit get hit?

i casted flame of phoenix and wall of fire on the same unit.

Ganymede
16-08-2007, 18:16
A unit does not count as having moved if a character leaves it. I'd presume the character would still get hit though.

Festus
16-08-2007, 19:05
A unit does not count as having moved if a character leaves it. I'd presume the character would still get hit though.
No, p.110 details, that a caster has to decide with whom the spell will stick if the Character leaves the unit. So there basically are two possibilities:

It is decided to be kept on the unit: The Character is free to move and will not get hit, but the unit may still suffer Damage if itself moves.

It sticks with the character: As soon as the Character moves, he is hit, but the unit is no longer under the influence of the spell.

Festus

Atrahasis
16-08-2007, 19:16
I'm with Festus :)

sulla
16-08-2007, 20:00
No, p.110 details, that a caster has to decide with whom the spell will stick if the Character leaves the unit. So there basically are two possibilities:

It is decided to be kept on the unit: The Character is free to move and will not get hit, but the unit may still suffer Damage if itself moves.

It sticks with the character: As soon as the Character moves, he is hit, but the unit is no longer under the influence of the spell.

Festus

I was quite happy to see that rule change/clarification when 7th came out. Solves problems like this quite nicely IMO...

Ganymede
17-08-2007, 17:24
I do not think page 110 specifically applies to the wall of fire spell, Well, at least not most of it.

The last paragraph reminds us that there are spells which are exceptions to the normal remains in play spells. If we reference back to the Wall of Fire, we see that it is only ever the targeted unit that takes the damage, not the effected unit. Even if you were to move the spell to a character who moved out of the unit, only the targeted unit could trigger the consequences of the spell, and only the targeted unit would suffer the damage.

Atrahasis
17-08-2007, 17:40
GW have a long history of using "targetted" and "affected" interchangeably.

Festus
17-08-2007, 17:43
I do not think page 110 specifically applies to the wall of fire spell, Well, at least not most of it.
Wall of Fire is a RIP spell, and p. 110 explicitly deals with what happens if a character leaves a unit under a RIP spell.

Why on earth shoud it not apply? :rolleyes:

Festus

Ganymede
17-08-2007, 19:22
Wait, so you are saying you didn't read anything in my post aside from the first sentence? The paragraph that follows the quoted sentence kinda answers your question.

It doesn't matter whther the spell transfers to an exiting character, it is only the targeted unit that suffers the negative effects.

Festus
17-08-2007, 20:16
The paragraph that follows the quoted sentence kinda answers your question.

It doesn't matter whther the spell transfers to an exiting character, it is only the targeted unit that suffers the negative effects.
As Atrahasis pointed out, this is not only irrelevant, it is rules lawyering...

Festus

Ganymede
17-08-2007, 20:34
Ehh... Wall of Fire is the only RiP spell that uses the term "targetted unit" when dealing with lasting effects. It sems unusual to me for them to do that when they could have easily said "affected unit".

Additionally, it is only rules lawyering when it is done to get some sort of contrived advantage. There is no advantage to interpreting the rules as I've explained them.

Festus
18-08-2007, 07:10
Hi

Well yes, that may seem easy to do: being consistent in the terminiology. But GW are not. The BRB is a compilation written by a large team of designers, and they never agreed on the best - concise - terminology.

There are at lest 6 designers involved in the writing of the rules, and many more if you count the ones who did the previous editions - whose leftovers can be found in this book, too.

If this were M:tG, you were probably right. Alas! It is WHFB, and the rules rarely deal with the special cases in a foresight manner...

Festus