Banshee & Terrorgheist screams

[Mostream]

Can either of the two scream into a combat which they are not part of, but have line of sight to?

[Iraf]

Nope, only combats they are apart of.

[Smogg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Both say that if used while in combat, they must target a unit in base contact.

[Smogg]

@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]

A ranged attack in the shooting phase: How is it not a shooting attack?

[Asensur]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

I have a regular VC opponent and I have never seen any evidence to support not being able to shoot into combat.

[Maoriboy007]

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.