8th Ed. three questions

[Ersh]

1) Some heroes are in duel. Both in some units. One unit failed fear test. Or was hexed. Does this (failed test or hex) affect the heroes?

2) Two heroes in duel. If on is a wizard, can he cast magic missile on his opponent? On other unit that is not in combat?
Can i do same thing with my bastiladon and his arc of chotec?

3) Razordone can re-roll artillery dice. Can i do so if i rolled failure (and my poor skinks are prepared to be eaten)?

 

[Ondjage]

1) Yes

2) No, no, no

3) Unless specified otherwise, yes

=)

 

[Ersh]

Thanks for fast reply =)

 

[NexS1]

the way I read magic missiles is that it requires forward arc and line of sight. in the case of bastiladon fighting infantry, as long as I can draw a line of sight from the crystal at the top to an unengaged unit, there's no rule in the BRB that says it can't be fired. the same for direct damage spells, except that direct damage spells don't need line of sight so should always be able to be cast from a wizard in combat.

Please, if someone has some page numbers from the BRB or the BRB errata, please let me know (i've just read through both, but am prone to missing things!)

 

[Ondjage]

Awesome as that would be, magic missiles cannot be cast out of, nor into close combat.

BRB page 31:

Magic missiles cannot be cast at all if the Wizard (or his unit) is engaged in close combat.

 

[NexS1]

Ah, excellent! As suspected, I read the page through and through and missed it. Haha

 

[Ersh]

...and what is with 'direct damage' spells? Can mage cast it into his opponent in duel?
If Lord Kroak challenged, can he cast his 'deliverance of itza', because it is AoE and need no target (and affect only enemy units)?

 

[SilverFaith]

Duels doesn't happen in the magic phase.

So no. You cannot cast spells during a duel.

 

[Screamer]

...and what is with 'direct damage' spells? Can mage cast it into his opponent in duel?
If Lord Kroak challenged, can he cast his 'deliverance of itza', because it is AoE and need no target (and affect only enemy units)?

Grey area, I think the Deliverance "target every enemy unit within xx inch" overrule the BRB target restrictions for direct damage, but some other people think the forward arc only and not into CC still applies to DoI.

And about the bastiladon:
Its not crystal clear that he can't cast the spell out of combat (at an unengaged enemy), since the rule says "the Wizard can't cas tmagic missiles" (and the bastiladon isn't a wizard)

But he sholdn't be able, because after all it's a magic missile.

 

[Crillaz]

The snake thingy on the basti can shoot into combat however.

A third interpretation with deliverance of itza is that it can't shoot at all if cc takes place in the forward arc. Meaning that if two enemy units is in forward arc and one is in cc and the other isn't, you can't cast the spell.

Personally I don't think that is how it is. I think you can shoot at everything in forward arc that is not in cc. I know it says all units in the spell description. But there is also the rules for direct damage spells in the rulebook, which says forward arc only.

/Crillaz

 

[Screamer]

The snake thingy on the basti can shoot into combat however.
But there is also the rules for direct damage spells in the rulebook, which says forward arc only.

/Crillaz

Doesn't it also say "Unless stated otherwise"? And that would apply to both the target restriction (not into cc) and the "forward arc"-restriction.

One could argue that "All enemy units within xx" is to be consideres as "stated otherwise". In the BRB I think it's just flamestorm that has a similar wording (place the template anywhere within xx, but it doesn't say anything about which unit can be targeted), the rest of the DD spells just give you a range (thus NOT overriding the target restrictions of the basic DD-rules by claiming something like anywhere or all/every enemy unit within xx)

But, as I said, it's debatable and can be read in more than one way. And I personally think that the wording on both Deliverance, Flamestorm and ancient steg-bound spell differs enough from the norm to be considered to be "stated otherwise".

 

[SilverFaith]

The snake thingy on the basti can shoot into combat however.
But there is also the rules for direct damage spells in the rulebook, which says forward arc only.

/Crillaz

Doesn't it also say "Unless stated otherwise"? And that would apply to both the target restriction (not into cc) and the "forward arc"-restriction.

One could argue that "All enemy units within xx" is to be consideres as "stated otherwise". In the BRB I think it's just flamestorm that has a similar wording (place the template anywhere within xx, but it doesn't say anything about which unit can be targeted), the rest of the DD spells just give you a range (thus NOT overriding the target restrictions of the basic DD-rules by claiming something like anywhere or all/every enemy unit within xx)

But, as I said, it's debatable and can be read in more than one way. And I personally think that the wording on both Deliverance, Flamestorm and ancient steg-bound spell differs enough from the norm to be considered to be "stated otherwise".

Depends on the reader, unfortunatly.

Some are anal enough to require that the rule SPECIFICALLY points it out, otherwise it doesn't work.

 

[Sleboda]

Some are anal enough to require that the rule SPECIFICALLY points it out, otherwise it doesn't work.

=> Not to start a peeing match, but I could easily state that differently...

"Some are not selfish enough to assume that vague wording is enough to meet the requirement for having a specific exception in order to be allowed to be allowed an action prohibited by the main rules."

Roozl is roolz. :shrug:

An imperfect comparison, I know, but suppose for a moment that I had this rule:

No car may park in this parking lot, unless the car is painted yellow.

You could not show up with an orange car and try to park, even though orange is made up of red and yellow. Orange is not specific enough to gain access. "All units within x" is not a specific exception to the rule that the spell cannot target units in combat. It tell us how many units may be targeted if they qualify as targets, but does not change the rules for what is a target in the first place.


Yes, it can be debated (certainly much more so than some other **cough PF cough cough** rules can be, but calling people who want to simply follow the rules "anal" and then using all-caps for the word "specifically" really does make it sound like you are passing a negative judgment. I apologize if this was not your intent.

Depends on the reader, unfortunatly.

=> This part, I agree, is indeed unfortunate. Man, it really bothers me that GW sells products that require the purchaser to 'fix' before they can be used - especially since we can end up 'fixing' them in different ways that are not compatible with each other's ways.

 

[SilverFaith]

Yes, it can be debated (certainly much more so than some other **cough PF cough cough** rules can be, but calling people who want to simply follow the rules "anal" and then using all-caps for the word "specifically" really does make it sound like you are passing a negative judgment. I apologize if this was not your intent.

I am "passing negative judgement", but not specifically for this rule.

I just know some REALLY pissy players who will discuss everything endlessly, and refuse to ever see another point of view than their own. It's rule as explicitly written, or it's a no go. This is fine when looking at a single rule at a time, but when rules start interacting, things can get complicated.

The problem with this specific type of rule, lies in the wording. When "Deliverance of Itza" says "Targets all enemy units within 12"", one would assume it really does hit every unit within 12", and not just unengaged in the forward arc.

Especially because, lore-wise, Kroak appears to have cast this spell WHILE IN CLOSE COMBAT with an enemy.

It conflicts on so many points that it is just a massive headache to deal with. I'd never bring Kroak to a table because of the many issues there are with his rules. A dwarf player claimed that he'd love to face kroak, because he can "make him unable to use his only spell", and while Kroaks rules seem to imply he can never lose access to his spell, it doesn't actually seem to do anything about the dwarves dirt-cheap super dispel scrolls that can prevent a spell from ever being cast again. This is especially sad for a 400 points model that doesn't have anything else going for it.

They should really remove the direct damage classification from deliverance, or rewrite it to just say "This spell has a 12" range, and hits all units that meet the casting requirements for direct damage spells." Clarification is very important for a spell that is the role reason for bringing Kroak in the first place.

 

[Sleboda]

...when rules start interacting, things can get complicated.

=> True enough, but...

The problem with this specific type of rule, lies in the wording. When "Deliverance of Itza" says "Targets all enemy units within 12"", one would assume it really does hit every unit within 12", and not just unengaged in the forward arc.

=> ...this is not a complicated interaction case. There is one rule in the BRB and one rule for Kroak. It's simple enough to apply all the rules involved (all two of them) and come up with the one answer to the question that does not require that either one be broken.

Especially because, lore-wise, Kroak appears to have cast this spell WHILE IN CLOSE COMBAT with an enemy.

=> Hey now, let's not use fluff to support a rule, otherwise we would have T11 orcs.

It conflicts on so many points that it is just a massive headache to deal with. I'd never bring Kroak to a table because of the many issues there are with his rules.

=> On this we are in sad, sad, violent and sad agreement. There are things in Warhammer I don't use (and thus don't purchase - you hear that GW??? Lost sales!) because trying to use them to their best effect (or in some cases, use them at all) has too much potential to create disagreement during a game.

A dwarf player claimed that he'd love to face kroak, because he can "make him unable to use his only spell", and while Kroaks rules seem to imply he can never lose access to his spell, it doesn't actually seem to do anything about the dwarves dirt-cheap super dispel scrolls that can prevent a spell from ever being cast again. This is especially sad for a 400 points model that doesn't have anything else going for it.

=> Yup. Sad, because the Stuntie player is correct. Of course, one could kill the bearer of that Rune before he employs it, but that would require tactics and experience, and few players want that.

They should really remove the direct damage classification from deliverance, or rewrite it to just say "This spell has a 12" range, and hits all units that meet the casting requirements for direct damage spells." Clarification is very important for a spell that is the role reason for bringing Kroak in the first place.

=> Agreed again, conceptually anyway. There needs to be a rewrite of Kroak's rule or of Direct Damage in general. Sadly (once more with the sadness) GW has quite obviously abandoned all pretense of support for their Fantasy rules.

"Here kids, here are some parts. Some are broken or have missing bits, but we're sure you can make...um...something...out of them. Have fun!"