• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

8th Ed. Let's discuss "all enemy units"

M
Saurus

miturian

Member
Messages
90
Likes Received
46
Trophy Points
18
So, I'm aware the the interpretation of "Deliverance of Itza" has been discussed repeatedly, but I was wondering if anyone had tried considering the ramifications on the rest of the book, depending on your stance?

As far as I can see, the wording is used in 3 different places:

The shooting attack from the ark of sotek (which we are specifically told will shoot while in combat, btw)

The bound spell on the engine of the gods

Deliverance of Itza (Kroak's spell, if anyone had forgotten)

I think there are 3 different, sensible interpretations:

A:
There is a conflict:
army book trumps BRB: we get to shoot at everything, which is the most literal interpretation of the wording.

B:
There is no conflict:
"all enemy units" means all _eligible_ enemy units, and the wording is designed to be in complete compliance with the BRB. In that case the only thing special about all three abilities is that they can target more than one unit.

C:
Sort of middle ground:
army book only overrules who the thing can be targeted at, not any other restrictions. So, basically, the army book should have written: "can target all units within range which would otherwise be permitted targets, as if they were within the forward arc".

My reason for restarting the discussion is that, to me, "A" is the only way to go on ark of sotek - if we are actually allowed to use it in CC, then it is very silly to expect us to have anything to shoot at which will not also be in combat. Taken on its own, I don't think very many people would object to this interpretation, especially since the ark is still pretty underpowered even with this addition (because these wounds won't count towards CR).

But, the engine of the gods is already kind of nice, and giving it a 4D6'' (!) ranged AOE nuke which can also target people in combat is, to me, getting a bit out of hand.

Finally we have kroak, but I am of the firm oppinion that special characters were never meant to be balanced, so giving him an AOE nuke is, to me, not such a huge balance problem. But I'm very much in a "no special characters" meta, so I'm probably biased.

so, considering that the verdict on deliverance of itza also influences the bastiladon and the stegadon, does anyone feel that this changes matters?

Personally, I think I'm in the "A" camp, but the engine does become a little scary to be around....

EDIT: accidentally wrote B instead of A in the last line :)
 
Last edited:
I believe A. I do not want to begin analyzing the text, I take it as it is written, meaning they all hit everything around them (which I think suits the fluff, and how I imagine it). If GW wants that changed, they will have to release a faq, to change the text.
 
I believe A since it also matches how this worked in previous editions.
(as per FAQ)
 
Last edited:
I believe B, as i already stated in my post about Kroakbombing. The fact that you target enemy units does not change anything about that you cannot target units you can normally not, nothing in the spell says anything about begin able to target model you normally cannot, so i see no reason to deviate from the normal rules. It is to bad that the wording is so poor, i can see why people would interpretate this in another way.
 
You all know my opinion, usually i'm not a self-regarding guy but i think i did some very good points in the kroakbombing thread. Definetely A for me, sorry if i auto-quote myself but i prefer not spending 15 minutes writing again the same things ;)

anyway, IMO the rule is clear: "all enemy units" for me means all enemy units, not "all the enemy units not engaged in combat". It makes sense even fluffwise: DD spells cannot normally affect enemy units in combat because they could hit friendly units, but DoItza almost always has friendly units in range unless Kroak uses a vassal, so i guess we're talking about a spell which is able to recognize friends from foes, or it would affect friendly units aswell.
I can see competitive opponents trying to make you believe you cannot use the spell this way, but in friendly games i've always met guys who asked me to read the rule and then told me exactly what i think: all means all. Remember that when a conflict occurs AB>BRB, and this is a conflict. Why? Again because "all" is different from "some of"
Click to expand...

Well, i don't agree. Don't hate me please (please don't do it :(), but on page 31 i read the following things in the general spell description:

"Targeting restrictions vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:
• The target must lie within the Wizard's forward arc.
• The Wizard does not need line of sight to his target.
• The target must be within the spell's range.
• Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat.
Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others"

I won't quote the DD section because the only relevant element is about templates, so not about DoItza.

Then i read the army book and i see "targets all the enemy units within 12".
This seems stating otherwise, at least to me.
Please notice that if you think that this is not a conflict and that AB and BRB can coexist here you can only target enemies not engaged in combat, within the range you choose and in kroak's (or vassal's) forward arc.
If you agree that this is a conflict then armybook wins.

So yeah, it's a grey area: untill we get a FAQ (or we get FAQed) we can only agree to disagree, but since we can see it either black OR white, not grey, make sure to follow all the restrictions if you go with your interpretation. Don't misunderstand me, i got your point and i think it's a valid one, still i think it's wrong since IMO kroak and DoItza fluff, BRB magic fluff, old DoItza rules and expecially the new rules i've just quoted are pointing in this direction.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how "all" vs "the ones not engaged" (aka "some of") is not a contradiction. Engaged enemy units are still enemy units, and the spell's description tells it targets all enemy units within range, not some of them. But it's fine, it's a matter of interpretation and i know it's possible (and very likely) that i'm wrong here. Just remember that, if you use your interpretation, you have to use the one regarding the forward arc aswell, so not a bubble, but a cone (well, almost).
Click to expand...

I had some problems with the multi quotes thing LOL

Oh, and @miturian : remember that the option B is "all the unengaged enemy units within the range and in the kroak's forward arc. Or in vassal's one if casted through a vassal ;)

edit: sorry mate, dunno why but i thought you told a different thing. My bad :D
 
Option B is what I think. For me adding "direct damage" is everything. I think all units means all units in forward arc of Kroak, within 12", not in CC, not friendly. If it was meant to be bubble it would have to be said not other way around:
By writing "all enemy units within forward arc and not in close combat" they repeat basically term "direct damage" which would be pretty unnecessary because its already there.
Some may argue "why they repeat enemy units? It's already in direct damage!", yes, but they use term "enemy unit" whenever they mean enemy units (as I saw), so it means nothing less or more here.
And with all nerfing from 7th to 8th edition it looks for me the Kroak was meant to be nerfed and part about "direct damage" is more to do this than take place of "can be cast through arcane vassals"
 
As far I do it understand is that its target any enemy unit in the radius as far Kroak / maschine of the gods is not bound in close combat. Because of the kind of spell.
 
So, in the below quotes:
airjamy said:
I believe B, as i already stated in my post about Kroakbombing. The fact that you target enemy units does not change anything about that you cannot target units you can normally not, nothing in the spell says anything about begin able to target model you normally cannot, so i see no reason to deviate from the normal rules. It is to bad that the wording is so poor, i can see why people would interpretate this in another way.
Click to expand...

Trociu said:
Option B is what I think. For me adding "direct damage" is everything. I think all units means all units in forward arc of Kroak, within 12", not in CC, not friendly. If it was meant to be bubble it would have to be said not other way around:
By writing "all enemy units within forward arc and not in close combat" they repeat basically term "direct damage" which would be pretty unnecessary because its already there.
Some may argue "why they repeat enemy units? It's already in direct damage!", yes, but they use term "enemy unit" whenever they mean enemy units (as I saw), so it means nothing less or more here.
And with all nerfing from 7th to 8th edition it looks for me the Kroak was meant to be nerfed and part about "direct damage" is more to do this than take place of "can be cast through arcane vassals"
Click to expand...

focus is entirely on kroak. Which is fine, he's a cool dude. But the point of me bringing the matter up, again, was to consider what the A/B-stance does to the rest of the army book. We're told that the bastiladon can fire while in CC, and that it has range D6''. That is on average 3.5''. If the turtle is in combat, there is never going to be anyone not in combat who's actually in range of the shooting attack. Do you agree with this?
Please notice that I'm not saying that this settles the matter, I'm merely asking whether the B-camp agrees that their interpretation nerfs the bastiladon quite hard?
 
Sorry, here is your answer.

Bastiladon is not nerfed - what nerfs Kroak and EotG is "direct damage" which says "cannot shoot around himself, cannot shoot into combat.

Bastiladon has special attack in shooting phase without being shooting attack. That means "all" really can mean all around him. Nothing says it cannot be shoot into combat, and nothing says it has to be in front arc. Hey, I think Arc of Sotek doesn't need LoS (but maybe I'm wrong with this one).
 
it doesn't need LoS :)

So, your solution is to classify the arc attack as "special"?
 
well, actually according to BRB you cannot shoot at units in CC, so it's the same issue even if we're talking about a shooting attack and two DDs. Well, at least i think so
 
miturian said:
it doesn't need LoS :)

So, your solution is to classify the arc attack as "special"?
Click to expand...

Rettile said:
well, actually according to BRB you cannot shoot at units in CC, so it's the same issue even if we're talking about a shooting attack and two DDs. Well, at least i think so
Click to expand...

I think so. I'm not specialist in Warhammer rules, but my "hobby" is reading rules to boardgames (yes, I'm freak). I think I'm pretty good in metalanguage of games overall and for me this is special attack, distributed as shooting, but still not shooting attack so it can targed units in CC.

Of course this is Warhammer, so metalanguage is closer to childs talk than to gentlemans speach...
 
I vote "A." I don't want to over complicate reading of the word "all." I don't believe any of our three omni-targeters are really overpowered. And if they are overpowered, that hasn't overturned other rules for other overpowered things.
 
A.

All means = Every Last Enemy unit.
 
hmm, I just came up with an additional point:

how do the "B"-camp feel about the fact that Comet of Casandora has a very similar wording, and is always interpreted as hitting everything, including units in combat? I do realize that CoC does not have a spell type, so it is not exactly the same; however, I think it's wort to consider.
 
My opinion is exactly the same because "direct damage" is the heart of the problem. But thanks for pointing Comet, I always thought about it as some sort of template like cannonball shot. Hey, I think it should be worded as template! Can't get idea where it could be important but maybe somewhere...

If only 9th wouldn't be so close I think I would rewrite BRB so it would use one dictionary of therms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top