I believe the Spell Generation Rules would limit the Slann without Loremaster to only the Signature Spells (and since the Lore Attribute also follows the Spell Generation rules); it seems impossible to have duplicate spells other than Signature Spells.
I would like to discuss these further: Engine of the Gods and Lord Kroak: Spell type is not as important as the targeting rules; The rules under targeting say: The 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 a Line of Sight to his Target - The target must lie within the spell's range. - Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat. Burning Alignment uses the following language: Burning Alignment is a direct damage spell that targets EVERY enemy unit within 4D6" So as you can see Burning alignment very clearly states otherwise as required by the Targeting Rules. It says it target every unit with no exceptions declared. Using the lawyer's most important tool, the Webster's Dictionary: EVERY is defined as: (preceding a singular noun) used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception. As you can see, the definition clearly points out that it must reference a singular noun, which it does in UNIT. SO all enemy units without exception that are within the rolled range of 4D6" are hit with the spell. SO RAW, without exception supports the area of doom not the front arc. the direct damage argument is flawed and distracts from the true point of interest the rules for Choosing a Target. so forward arc only, no its says every unit not just the ones in the forward arc SO line of sight required, no it says every unit not just those within Line of Slight SO Must be within spell's range, yes it says every unit within 4D6" So no targeting units in close combat, no they are part of EVERY unit so not exempt. and one of my opponent tried to say it hit my LM units also, but it clearly only targets enemy units Lord Kroak is similar and would follow the same logic. Thank you , Thank You, The Lovely MS. Vito
I believe it falls under the exception of having no choice over which spells the mage knows. In this case, the regular wizard can roll his four spells, and the loremaster would know all the spells.
Arbite, that is not correct: there is no contradiction. Previous editions addressed this issue directly, but the relevant wording has been removed from the book. Put the rules right next to each other - they could appear in the same army book: "Burning Alignment is a direct damage spell that targets every enemy unit within 4D6. Remember, wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat." A direct, clear contradiction has to exist in order for the army book to override. It needs to say something like, "Targets every unit within X inches, including those behind the caster or in close combat. This is an exception to the normal targeting rules." Otherwise, the same argument you're trying to use here could be used for every spell with any targeting restriction.
Really..?, cause it hit all units in every directions without restrictions in the previous book, as did Lord kroaks spell.
Yes, the previous book made it really clear that the targeting restrictions from the BRB didn't apply. The new book removed that language, apparently for no reason but to frustrate lizard players every where. Like many of the rules issues with the lizard book, it's a stupid technicality. It's ok to acknowledge the wording change, but as Hardyworld suggests, people should play with it the way its pretty clearly intended until it inevitably gets FAQ'd.
There is no need for a "conflict so Army Book overrules" The word "Targets" is what is important here. By saying targets, it directs you back to the "Choosing a Target" section of the magic rules. Then it clearly states the every enemy unit within 4D6". He gave the only exception very clearly. ENEMY UNITS only. If the author was only trying to establish the range of the spells, the wording would be different. Direct Damage as a type of spell has no bearing on the targeting. That is a distraction from the true focal point of the debate.
I agree with arbite here because again it comes down to army book over rulebook and EVERY is very clear as to its inrentions wherase unless stated otherwise in the brb is the case well the army book does state otherwise so thats that there is no other meaning for this and thank you for pointing that out arbite i hate gw sometimes why cant they make litteral rules rather than making conflicting rules? I do think also gw intended this to be the case as they would not have suddenly changed both spells from the old book and the old faq didnt change it either so im thinking that they intend us to read it this way
Yes, as I've previously said, the intention is very clear. It is also irrelevent for purposes of this FAQ. There is no contradiction, therefor both sets of rules apply in the RAW. But like with all the other busted rules, the correct solution here is to just ignore it, and play the game the way it was intended.
I would agree derek exept imho there is contradiction there are several reasons why : 1. If our spell waz meant to be interpreted like that gw would have put "every model in the front arc" or simply just put "direct damage" however the fact they explain it hits "every model would not be neccisary if they simply meant it to be a direct damage spell 2: our book clearly states EVERY wherase the brb states "unless otherwise stated well it is otherwise stated with "every " gw would not have put "every " unless they meant "every " otherwise they would have just put "direct damage" And also it states in the brb that army book automatically ursurps rulebook so "every" ignores the normal targeting restrictions Sorry if thats an ear full just had to point it out keep going guys its d!oing great
I would agree derek exept imho there is contradiction there are several reasons why : 1. If our spell waz meant to be interpreted like that gw would have put "every model in the front arc" or simply just put "direct damage" however the fact they explain it hits "every model would not be neccisary if they simply meant it to be a direct damage spell 2: our book clearly states EVERY wherase the brb states "unless otherwise stated well it is otherwise stated with "every " gw would not have put "every " unless they meant "every " otherwise they would have just put "direct damage" And also it states in the brb that army book automatically ursurps rulebook so "every" ignores the normal targeting restrictions Sorry if thats an ear full just had to point it out keep going guys its d!oing great
We've already covered that point, and why it is incorrect, in great detail. I'm not going to continue arguing in circles.
Hey, i don't suppose you could change the heading to include 'unofficial' or something. I find i keep looking at the thread to see if an official faq has come out. This is a well put together suggestion of what an faq might include. Thanks, and don't worry if you can't
Oh, I have a follow up question regarding the egg. Let's say you use the egg against Temple Guard in a mirror match. Before modifiers, is the TG's armor save 3+ (as per a breath attack) or 4+ (as per a stomp attack or impact hit). Put another way, would the Egg trigger armor saves from shields, white lion cloaks, shield of ptolos, etc.
Depends on when you choose your weapon tbh. The egg should be considered a shooting attack if i am correct, and with that in mind it gets important whether you can fire your egg before or after weapons are chosen. I think weapons for a given combat round are chosen at the beginning of combat, so is the egg - so it should be acting player no? Need to check up on the weapon rules to be sure.
Other than stuff with special rules like Black Orcs, there is no "choosing" weapons. Not sure what you mean there, Teddy.
I think he meant, and correct me if I got the wrong idea, that the Temple Guard marches towards an enemy tightly grasping their shields, thus getting the save bonus from it, and only when they are close enough they "choose" or "switch" weapons, or take a proper two-handed hold of the weapon, and lose the shield bonus. Though I think this is all a moot point, as even if the rule says "Distributed as a shooting attack", it doesn't mean it is a shooting attack. So, no shield bonus to the Temple Guards and they guard against the egg with 4+, as they are already in CC.
#30 Is incorrect, as its answer is wrong. The previous FAQ stated that they could flee if s&s was not an option.
That is where I got my information from. If you have a more recent FAQ (I thought v1.5 was the last one, but I could be wrong) source that says the opposite, please provide it. EDIT: Question #30 has been bumped down to #31 since you originally posted. Thanks a lot for the corrections everyone! Keep them coming!