Deathfist?

[N1AK]

So yes Direct Damage spells are "Ranged Attacks".

Although I'm glad we both believe they are "ranged attacks", I'm not sure that the quote given irrefutably defines direct damage spells as 'ranged attacks'. The rules (as a whole) may well do so, which is why I said I think not I know and it would obviously end the debate if someone could show this.

It may seem like a pointless counter example but I can see no reason why a direct damage spell couldn't exist that targets a model in base contact for example. In my opinion that would not be a 'ranged' attack even though other more typical direct damage spells would be. Again, I may be missing something here.

[Mr_Rose]

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

You choose which of Kairos' heads to use each magic phase, I see no reason that that choice shouldn't "stick" until the choice is made again. As for channelling, you still only ever have one head 'switched on' as it were at once so I'd be leery of trying to channel twice.

[Mercules]

Although I'm glad we both believe they are "ranged attacks", I'm not sure that the quote given irrefutably defines direct damage spells as 'ranged attacks'. The rules (as a whole) may well do so, which is why I said I think not I know and it would obviously end the debate if someone could show this.

It may seem like a pointless counter example but I can see no reason why a direct damage spell couldn't exist that targets a model in base contact for example. In my opinion that would not be a 'ranged' attack even though other more typical direct damage spells would be. Again, I may be missing something here.

Um... however is anyone denying that the Greedy Fist doesn't work on targets in base contact that you attack? That doesn't preclude the ones that happen at range from being "ranged attacks" they are attacks, by the quote I gave, and any attacks, ranged or close, trigger the Greedyfist.

[N1AK]

Um... however is anyone denying that the Greedy Fist doesn't work on targets in base contact that you attack? That doesn't preclude the ones that happen at range from being "ranged attacks" they are attacks, by the quote I gave, and any attacks, ranged or close, trigger the Greedyfist.

If someone was in base to base and you cast the maw and hit them I would say that the greedy fist doesn't affect them because I don't think that a vortex spell is an attack by that model. I do think that a direct damage spell that did so, at range or not, would. However I'm saying that it is still open to interpretation because the book doesn't define direct damage spells as 'ranged attacks'. They FAQed that 'ranged attacks' apply the greedy fist rule, thus other non-combat attacks arguably are open to debate as the original rule can't be assumed to include them.

[Mercules]

If someone was in base to base and you cast the maw and hit them I would say that the greedy fist doesn't affect them because I don't think that a vortex spell is an attack by that model. I do think that a direct damage spell that did so, at range or not, would. However I'm saying that it is still open to interpretation because the book doesn't define direct damage spells as 'ranged attacks'. They FAQed that 'ranged attacks' apply the greedy fist rule, thus other non-combat attacks arguably are open to debate as the original rule can't be assumed to include them.

The Maw is not a Direct Damage spell. It's a Vortex Spell.

The book doesn't define 'ranged attacks' so you can't use that argument. By that shooting a bow is not a 'ranged attack' as the book doesn't define shooting attacks as 'ranged attacks'.

[Lord Inquisitor]

The Maw is not a Direct Damage spell. It's a Vortex Spell.

... Did Merc just get a rule wrong

Judging by the post you were responding to, I suspect you just got the words the wrong way around but it's still pretty amusing.

[N1AK]

I've cut my original answer and will bow out of this rule discussion. In summary, I don't believe that anything you have said here has proven that there isn't ambiguity over the definition of a 'ranged attack' or that the ambiguity doesn't leave room for interpretation. It remains my opinion that direct damage spells that have a range and inflict damage themselves will trigger the greedy fist.

[Mercules]

... Did Merc just get a rule wrong

Judging by the post you were responding to, I suspect you just got the words the wrong way around but it's still pretty amusing.

Yeah... I meant to say it wasn't a Vortex, it was Direct Damage.

[Axeman1n]

In the description of the spell, it says "Hits caused by <spell name>" not hits caused by the caster. It seems pretty clear to me that hits caused by spells are not caused by the caster, unless they are missile weapons eh?

[Mercules]

That does NOT mean that the caster did not do the hits. The language is common to GW rules. For example:

Q: What are ‘magical attacks’? (p68)
A: All attacks made by spells and magic items are considered to
be magical attacks, as are all attacks that are specifically noted
as being magical attacks. Shots fired from magical items are
also considered to be magical attacks, unless their description
specifically states otherwise. Hits inflicted by rolls on the
Miscast table are treated as magical attacks.

"Attacks by" next you will state that spells and magic weapons attack by their own accord.

Wounds caused by Flaming Attacks (as described earlier in this section) cannot be regenerated...

So now models in a unit with a Flaming Banner no long cause wounds to the other unit, the Flaming Attacks cause the wound. Does this mean that unit can't claim them for combat resolution?

[Lord Inquisitor]

I don't think it is a silly conclusion at all. Are you telling me that hits from a comet of cassandora are inflicted by a caster that died three turns ago? Would those hits strip levels if the deceased butcher used to have the greedy fist when he was alive?

"Many spells inflict hits" p36
"When a Lore of Death spell is resolved, roll a D6 for each wound caused by the spell." p499
Every magic missile states the spell causes or inflicts X hits.

And so on. Perhaps you can check your sarcasm, merc and actually look at the argument. It's pretty logical that hits from the spells actually come from the spells themselves. This would have knock-on effects to other items (bane head wouldn't work with spells, not a bad thing). There have been precedents in the past but these have been removed from the FAQs so the question is open.

[Mercules]

Sorry if I sound overly sarcastic.

The point I am trying to make is that it is a lot to base a judgement off of when the language is fairly common. Pg 62 of the Wood Elf book, "Hits by the Spirit Sword wound automatically." Whom is doing the hitting? The sword or the character wielding the sword?

I am just saying we can't go by that language alone because it is used in other situations where it doesn't make any sense for the item in question to be generating the hits. Why are spells the exception? I propose they are not and that the language is just a way of wording it that isn't germane to where the hits are being generated from.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Firstly, again, let me preface that certainly there have been precedents in the past (bane head, priestly prayers) that yes, spell damage counts as having been caused by the caster and I will give you that the language used for magic items is similar. But clearly this makes more sense for some spells than others. And there really has to be a limit. A creature created by an active spell (for example, an Exalted Hero summoned with Call to Glory, who is alive only as long as the spell lasts) who attacks is certainly not the wizard attacking, right?

I would say the difference really comes in because the spell isn't "wielded" by the wizard. Clearly there are many spells that are unleashed and then the spell does the damage. Maybe in the case of magical missiles or direct damage you could make that case but it throws up so many issues with other spells. Are hits inflicted by a unit moving through a flame cage inflicted by the wizard? Dangerous terrain tests? Units forced by magic into hitting themselves? Does that count as the wizard? What if the wizard is dead when the damage is inflicted. Is that inflicted by the wizard from beyond the grave?

The simplest and most logical conclusion is that hits come from the spells and not the wizard. This cuts out any abusive combos with magic items or other spells, including the Deathfist.

[Mercules]

To repeat myself.

Per the BRB Pg. 31

Direct Damage spells are deadly attacks that strike the foe without warning.

So yes Direct Damage spells 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).

So yes Magic Missiles are "Ranged Attacks".

Hex Spells are not "Ranged Attacks" so the Fulminating Flame Cage questions would never come up.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I would disregard both of those passages as fluff text. While Warhammer annoyingly doesn't explicitly distinguish between fluff text and rules (unlike, say, Flames of War), it's pretty clear in some cases what's fluff and what's not.

For example, for Magical Vortexes
"Magical vortexes are roiling globes of magical energy that travel across the battlefield, wreaking all kinds of unusual (and often deadly) effects. A magical vortex does not have a target - "
Clearly the blue section is fluff text. They aren't actually globes, they use the template. It's a descriptor. The green text is clearly the start of the rules.

The same applies to the other types. First sentence is fluff, second is the start of the rules.

Direct Damage
"Direct damage spells are deadly attacks that strike the foe without warning. Direct damage spells can only ever be cast on enemy units."
Blue is fluff, particularly the "without warning" part that's clearly not a rule.

Magic missiles
Magic missiles are sorcerous projectiles that the Wizard hurls at his foe. Magic missiles can only be cast on enemy units.
Do they follow the thrown weapon rules then if they are "hurled"? Fluff. It should also be noted that not all magic missiles necessarily do damage (wind blast, for example).

Augment
Augment spells empower the caster's allies, protecting them with sorcerous wards and magically enhancing their fighting prowess. Augment spells can never be cast on enemy units...
All augments do not provide wards and enhance fighting prowess. Fluff.

Hex
Hex spells are the counterpoint to augment spells, weakening the enemy and making them easier to slay. Hex spells can only ever be cast on enemy units.
Again, fluff. Not all hexes weaken the enemy or make them easier to slay, it's a broad generalisation.

So the two sentences you quote as settling the argument are designed to give a generalisation of the spell type. They are not rules, the use of the work "attack" doesn't by extension make them a ranged attack.

Even if it were the case, you still haven't shown that anything but possibly magic missiles are attacks made by the wizard. Assuming direct damage is, indeed, an "attack", how have you shown that the attack doesn't come from the spell itself?

I am intrigued, however, by your argument that any spell that isn't direct damage nor a magic missile should not be considered a "ranged attack" (which would also deal with comet). Interesting!

[BlackPawl]

In the old (7th edition) vampire book there was a talisman which provide a 3+ ward against "ranged attacks" and by this definition it was "inclusive warmachines, template weapons and magic missiles".

Yes, it it only in an (old) army book and this was before the definition for all spells in 8th edition (but magic missiles stay mostly the same), but for me it sounds that there is a difference between "all magic spells" and "magic missiles" regarding "ranged attacks".

[LiddellHart]

Mercules & Lord Inquisitor: your discussion has clearly showed that the answer is not in the exact wording of spells or spell types. Too much random choices of words to deduct rules from them.

I think we all agree that to treat ALL damage from ALL spells as caused by the caster is too much. Lord Inquisitor gave plenty examples (Comet among others).
But to say damage from spells is always caused by the spell and not by the caster is another extreme: the difference between magical bolt and crossbow bolt is too small IMO. The hit by the crossbow bolt is caused by the shooter, but the hit by the magical bolt is from the spell? That doesn't cut it from me.

We're looking for an arbitrary line that divides spells in "damage caused by spell" and "damage caused by caster". If I may suggest some criteria:
1) Damage caused instantenously or damage caused later on.
2) Damage caused without another medium or damage caused via another medium (like troops hitting each other).

I would say that damage caused instantenously without another medium is caused by the caster, and other damage by the spell.
This would roughly put Magic Missiles and Direct Damage spells in the first category, and Hexes, Augment and Vortices in the last.
There are always exceptions to think of (and lots of untyped spells), but these can by classed by the rules above. Eg: first damage from Flame Cage.

Seems I agree with Mercules, I only take longer to make my point

[jtrowell]

Also let's not forget that the author of the FAQ might well have written "ranged attacks" while thinking that it was defined as meaning the same as "shooting attacks" or maybe the version that you quote from the previous edition (as there is nowhere a "ranged attack" keyword really defined in the current ruleset).

Allowing the fist to work with magic missiles (as the current rules does says that they work sort of like normal shooting attacks) but not with direct damage spells would seems a good compromise on the interpretation of the FAQ, at least it would prevent the horrible combo with death magic.

Now for the dreaded Firebelly fireballing a major demon to remove its wizard level ...

[Mercules]

I would disregard both of those passages as fluff text. While Warhammer annoyingly doesn't explicitly distinguish between fluff text and rules (unlike, say, Flames of War), it's pretty clear in some cases what's fluff and what's not.

For example, for Magical Vortexes
"Magical vortexes are roiling globes of magical energy that travel across the battlefield, wreaking all kinds of unusual (and often deadly) effects. A magical vortex does not have a target - "
Clearly the blue section is fluff text. They aren't actually globes, they use the template. It's a descriptor. The green text is clearly the start of the rules.

Clearly you have not seen the Storm of Magic "Vortex Templates".

Magic missiles
Magic missiles are sorcerous projectiles that the Wizard hurls at his foe. Magic missiles can only be cast on enemy units.
Do they follow the thrown weapon rules then if they are "hurled"? Fluff. It should also be noted that not all magic missiles necessarily do damage (wind blast, for example).

1. Look at the rest of my quote that was clearly from the "rules" section of the rules as you like to see it.
2. Damage is irrelevant to this discussion as it is "hits" we are concerned about for purposes of the Greedy Fist.

So the two sentences you quote as settling the argument are designed to give a generalisation of the spell type. They are not rules, the use of the work "attack" doesn't by extension make them a ranged attack.

Okay, then we shall continue through the magic rules to Pg. 36. under 4. Spell Resolution

Many spells inflict hits or wounds on your enemies - you can find out how to resolve these on page 40 of the Shooting Phase.

We go to Pg. 40 as directed and find we are on step 3 of the Shooting Rules. Following to Pg. 41 we find:

Automatic Hits
Some unusual attacks (most commonly those made by magic missle spells - see page 31) hit automatically. Where this is the case, it is exactly how it sounds - do not roll for the attack, it instead automatically causes the number of hits stated within the wording.

Spells are attacks.

We go on further to Pg. 42 and find:

Resolving Unusual Attacks
There are several circumstance in Warhammer that call upon you to inflict hits upon an enemy - spells being an obvious example (the Fireball spell causes D6 Strength 4 hits on an enemy unit), as well as things like the Impact Hits made by a charging chariot (covered in the Special Rules chapter). Such hits are resolved using steps 4, 5, and 6 fo the rules for Shooting Attacks.

The only exception are hits caused by the Close Combat attacks - these are discussed in the Close Combat chapter (Page 46).

Again spells are compared directly to Shooting Attacks.

Even if it were the case, you still haven't shown that anything but possibly magic missiles are attacks made by the wizard. Assuming direct damage is, indeed, an "attack", how have you shown that the attack doesn't come from the spell itself?

I am intrigued, however, by your argument that any spell that isn't direct damage nor a magic missile should not be considered a "ranged attack" (which would also deal with comet). Interesting!

Well, as I stated, the language is common in GW terms and doesn't mean that it is the thing being discussed, in this case a spell, that is counted as the actual "hitter". For example Pg. 88 under the Parry Save rules:

...nor can it be used against Impact Hits or hits from Stomp attacks (there's no parrying something that big).

You can't really argue that the Stomp can hit a target without the model there. It is the model hitting the target. The same could be said for the wording:

Hits from the Caress of Laniph cause a wound...

Stomps specifically exclude special rules, but spells do not. So the Greedy Fist wouldn't trigger from a Stomp, but it would from Impact Hits, Shooting Attacks, Close Combat Attacks, Direct Damage spells, and Magic Missile spells. At least as far as I can determine.

[Whut]

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

In every codex if it mentions "ranged attacks" it means any attack not made in base-to-base contact afaik