Was talking with some folk at my FLGS and they said that Deathfist doesn't do that, as the hits were caused by the spell, and not the Caster. Is that just a diference of opinion, or do they have any basis for this stance?
Deathfist : Using a Slaughtermaster with Lore of Death to snipe out enemy casters using the OK magical item, Greedy Fist.
Nah... that's like saying it isn't the Ogre causing the hits in other circumstances either, it's his club or his gun.
Do they agree that a Brace of Ogre Handguns would trigger the Greedy Fist? It's not the Ogre hitting them, it's the bullets from the pistols doing the hits.
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."
Douglas Adams
Universal Battle - Click here to play!
Animosity Campaigns - A5 was a blast join us next year for A6
There is however a cas to be made that a spell might not be what the faq intented to allow when talking about "ranged attacks".
I think myself that ranged attacks was supposed to imply *shooting* attacks, not spells. Rule of thumb: when the discussion to allow a specific combo starts to be on the meaning of words ("is a spell an attack ?", "the spell works at range so it is a ranged attack"), then the problem is probably just GW writing a FAQ without thinking that it might be misinterpreted.
In this cas, thinking of RAI and not allowing the clear abuse (like when some players used a clear loophole to get characters in the second ranks forever) is probably best in your local game group, hoping that a later FAQ will be more precise and prevent the abuse.
I would rather win with my ogres by using good tactics with an already good army that using cheap tricks like that
There's no attack roll with Leech.
A model armed with Greedy Fist must hit a target for the item to gain its effect.
I assume the assumption is that spells that do not roll for hitting do not benefit from buffs that require successful attacks (IE, poison, killing blow, greedy fist, etc).
if there is not to hit roll, but the target is still hit by the spell it is counted as an auto-hit, so greedy fist can still work. if you go staight to wound rolls and such then you must have hit
when life gives you lemons you interrogate the lemons as potential hereticsOriginally Posted by ZoomDog
Hah. Harry Potter and co wouldn't last a second in the WH Fantasy world.I bet the scene with the troll in the bathroom in the first movie would've ended a lot differently if it was an Orc and Goblin Troll. :P
"Quick Harry, stick your magic wand up its nose!"
*Troll vomits acid*
"...Where'd Ron go?"
Leech might be up for debate, but both Caress and Fate specifically mention hits.There's no attack roll with Leech.
A model armed with Greedy Fist must hit a target for the item to gain its effect.
Definitely. Unless an FAQ says otherwise, I can't see it working any other way.
Want Warmachine Rulebook, Khador, Lizardmen models, Lizardmen, Dark Elf and Beastmen Army Books, Grey Knights books or some awesome Banelegion models? Check out my trade thread!
Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of theGreedy Fist,does it lose a Wizard Level? (p62)A: Yes.
Thats the FAQ. Is a spell with a given range a ranged attack? Yes. Is the spell caused by the wizard? Yes. Therefore, it would cause the wizard to lose wizard levels
Last edited by Graxy; 22-04-2012 at 12:58.
Just replace "ranged" with "shooting", and the meaning would clearly not allow spells.
What is more probable: that they wanted to allow shooting attack and used the "ranged" word without thinking it could be misinterpreted, or that they intented for the fist to work with shooting attacks *and* spells and just didn't think of some better way to write it ?
Yes, by RAW, if you abuse the langage, it could work with spells if your read the FAQ and stretch its meaning because of a poorly worded phrase.
Myself I prefer to follow the RAI and not use such abuse.
its not an abuse. you have no foundation for an argument using ' replace "ranged" with "shooting". you may aswell rewrite the book yourself. leech counts as autohitting as it auto hits, it must do as it is capable of wounding without the need for a to hit roll. till they state that spells dont count then they do, as its a ranged attack, sub-catagorising or not, its an attack....that requires range
when life gives you lemons you interrogate the lemons as potential hereticsHah. Harry Potter and co wouldn't last a second in the WH Fantasy world.
"Quick Harry, stick your magic wand up its nose!"
*Troll vomits acid*
"...Where'd Ron go?"
You can't really say replace a word in a rule with another word, in that case, I could replace the words "missile weapon" with "close combat weapon" in any rule concerning either (an extreme example I know, but an thats just off the top of my head, could probably think of a better one), but you can't, because they are two completely different things. If it was supposed to be specifically shooting attacks, then that would have been addressed in the FAQ. It may have been overlooked, but when you consider that they had a question this close to the one we are discussing now, you'd think that they would have addressed it.
By the way, this is coming from somone who doesn't play ogres, so is not in the favour of such a potent combination, but in a game where armies like daemons of chaos (which are a method of torture, not an army) exist, you learn to live with things that seem very powerful when compared to your own army.
Last edited by Graxy; 22-04-2012 at 18:51.
Those of you saying that the hits count as coming from the caster, do you still think it counts as the caster when they take hits moving through a flame cage or from a comet of cassandora? (Both available to ogres.) Clearly the spell inflicts the hits and these are inflicted after the spell has been cast.
Overall, it makes heaps of sense if we were to see a FAQ that said that hits and wounds inflicted by spells are inflicted by the spell and not the caster. This would clear up loads of interactions like the greedy fist, bane head and so on. Really there's not much support one way or the other. The only real precedent I can think of is the (now obsolete) Empire FAQ which says that warrior priest prayer that allows the model to reroll to wound applies to spells, which is a precident in favour of Deathfisting.
Deathfisting seems to have been accepted but it's far from clearly stated in the FAQ and I think saying that the spell and not the caster inflicts the hits is not unreasonable at all.
... and then I won.
Well, i guess the local experts say that it's the spell and not the caster, so I will go with that when I'm at my FLGS.
Sorry, when I mentionned replacing "ranged" with "shooting", what I was meaning to say is that the person writing the FAQ, *if* his intention has been to allow shooting attacks (but not spells), could well have used the "ranged" word thinking it would mean the same as "shooting", as with a superficial reading both would seems similar to the reader.
My point is that such a superficial reading allows shooting attacks, but doesn't seems to allow spells unless you take the literal meaning of each word to the extreme, and the simpliest solution would be that the author didn't expect spells to be allowed, else he would have been more precise.
Absolutely not. The simplest sollution can never be to assume someone is thinking something, when you can instead read what it says...
Has it got a range? Yes. Then it is a ranged attack.
As for the flamecage/comet of cassadora/possible other "delayed" effect.... I mean, sure, I see the point, but the sensible way is not to argue that because some exception to a norm works a way that is weird, and sensibly should not count, that means we must assume the "normal spells" should also not count.
Just take a step back and realise how that train of thought is wrong.
I think that whatever the author of the faq intented, we can all agree that he wasn't precise enough ?
Another question regarding Deathfist, if Karios is hit with it, how do you determin which head loses the levels? Or is it both since he is still a single model?
Q. Do Kairos Fateweaver’s heads count as different Wizards for
the purposes of miscasts and other rules? (p52)
A. Yes.
Along those lines does he get 2 chances to channel 1 for each head? When I play him I've only been doing 1 channel die
It's a valid argument; there is nothing inherently different about flame-cage and fireball other than spell type. Would you treat the first D6 wounds from flamecage the same as fireball but not the extra wounds if the unit moves later? I don't think the rules clearly define what a ranged attack is with regards to spells.
Personally I think a direct damage or magic missile spell are ranged attacks made by the caster. I don't believe a hex spell would be and I'm not sure about vortexes, though I'm leaning towards the opinion that they are not.
Ehem....
Per the BRB Pg. 31
So yes Direct Damage spells are "Ranged Attacks".Direct Damage spells are deadly attacks that strike the foe without warning.
So yes Magic Missiles are "Ranged Attacks".Magic missiles are sorcerous projectiles that the wizard hurls at his foe... ...to which he can trace line of sight (just as if the wizard was firing a missile weapon).
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."
Douglas Adams
Universal Battle - Click here to play!
Animosity Campaigns - A5 was a blast join us next year for A6
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote