8th Ed. KROAK and Burning ALignment in FAQ.

[Arbite]

MOVING this to its own thread as to not derail the FAQ thread.

I would like to discuss these further: Engine of the Gods and Lord Kroak:

7) Q: Does the Engine of the Gods' Burning Alignment spell only hit enemies in forward arc and not in the close combat?
A: Yes, the spell is classified as a Direct Damage spell and has no listed exceptions that would allow hitting units outside the forward arc or units in close combat. It is hoped that this will be changed in an Errata since the 7th version of this spell did not include those two restrictions.

8) Q: Does Lord Kroak's Deliverance of Itza spell only hit enemies in forward arc and not in the close combat?
A: Yes, the spell is classified as a Direct Damage spell and has no listed exceptions that would allow hitting units outside the forward arc or units in close combat. It is hoped that this will be changed in an Errata since the 7th version of this spell did not include those two restrictions.

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

 

[harbinger334]

Thanks for this arbite i think you are spot on here! And i agree totally i doubt gw would change it anyway and EVERY should be pretty clear thanks again arbite gj!

 

[hardyworld]

Thank you for moving discussion to a separate thread.

I believe these quotes from the 'Kroaky von Kroaks' thread well points out the rules from a RAW perspective.

In places where the army book explicitly contradicts the BRB, the army book wins. But that isn't the case here. The army book supplies a range, but it doesn't explicitly state the targeting restrictions in the BRB can/should be ignored.

=> Exactly. AB>BRB gets tossed around a lot, but RipperDerek has brought focus to a very important part of that point that often gets overlooked.

Another way to sort of frame it in our mind is to ask a question - "Can I apply all the rules from both sources fully without conflict?" If so, then do so. That's the case here. There is no conflict, and thus the AB>BRB catch-all never comes into play.

The point Sleboda and RipperDerek are trying to make (correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth) is that when combined with the targeting rules from the BRB it becomes "all valid targets within x inches", ie those in the casters front arc, not in combat etc.

 

[VampTeddy]

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.

Actually, this is where i for one completely disagree that the wording proves your points.

Since you are using the exact argument i would use for the opposite.

It directs us to choosing a target - and since it has to choose targets - it has to follow the BRB rules for choosing a target, and since it has no clear differentiate between the rules in the BRB it cannot target units outside of it's front arc, or in combat as it isn't clarified anywhere in the rules of the spell.

Anyways, it's dead horse we're beating on (well it ain't truly dead 'till GW kills it) and i agree with Derek that arguing on it further won't get anyone anywhere.



Moved my reply over here and made the text in the original FAQ clutter less.

 

[Necromancy Black]

These spells have further problems in that they target all enemy units. What about units in close combat? It targets them, but the rulebook says you can't, so that means you can't cast the spell at all?

It's just terribly written. There's no consensus on this until an FAQ comes out.

 

[olderplayer]

These spells have further problems in that they target all enemy units. What about units in close combat? It targets them, but the rulebook says you can't, so that means you can't cast the spell at all?

It's just terribly written. There's no consensus on this until an FAQ comes out.

Yes. I think that the point made previously that the BRB relates to "choosing a target" restriction for spells and front arc and not in combat are default restrictions for direct damage spells. The problem is that Lord Kroak's spell says "targets all enemy units within..." It doesn't say that you have a choice. When this issue arose with the old 7th ed army book spells, we generally defaulted to terms like "every" or "anywhere" or "all" l meaning the spell over-rode the BRB restrictions to in forward arc and would be played as it had been before in 7th ed. That meant that certain spells that were effectively direct damage spellls did not have to target a unit in the forward arc and often could target or hit enemy units in combat. Similarly, burning alignment "targets every enemy unit within 4D6"." There is no choice. It hits all or every enemy unit. To me, combined iwth the practice in the prior army book (where these two effects were better written and clarified) the terms all and every lead to defaulting to targetting all or every enemy unit regardless of the BRB restrictions under RAW.

That being said, the curious removal of clear clarifying language of "even if they are engaged in close combat" wrt to Lord Kroak's spell in the old book and similar language in the old book wrt to burning alignment raises an issue as to whether this was intentional, so as to allow an FAQ or the changes to the rules in 9th edition to alter these two direct damage spells.

 

[rantapanda]

agreed... it really seems like DoI and BA both hit 360 arc and hit into melee.
words "all" and "every" are powerful enough to override DD rules.

 

[Lizardmatt]

agreed... it really seems like DoI and BA both hit 360 arc and hit into melee.
words "all" and "every" are powerful enough to override DD rules.

And doesn't that just make it a Hex?

-Matt

 

[Sunchax]

Is there any hex that makes damage?

 

[Sleboda]

agreed... it really seems like DoI and BA both hit 360 arc and hit into melee.
words "all" and "every" are powerful enough to override DD rules.

=> Only if you ignore the posts above yours that explain how you can play by all the rules involved. Just sayin'.



BTW, if you believe recent rumor posts, GW is deliberately trying to kill balance and gamers like us in favor of cultivating a new customer base that really doesn't give a toss about clarity.

I don't think we'll ever get a new FAQ. I truly don't.

 

[olderplayer]

For what it is worth, at some of our regional and local tournaments, the words "every" and "all" and "anywhere" in the context of this thread and the new LM army book are taken literally to over-ride the BRB restrictions on choosing targets for direct damages spells. When a spell (such as in the 7th ed books) says "every" or "all" or "anywhere" then it generally over-rides the BRB targetting restrictions and the same principle applies here with some common sense exceptions. In a more general sense, when the rule says "targets" "every" or "all" within a given range, doesn't that mean just that? That rule over-rides the ability or rule of choosing a target as well. The army book rule should have spelled in out more clearly (as had been done in some cases in the prior Lm book) that the spell ignored the usual restrictions. It may very well be that the author(s) [I am told some of this is by design team and not necessarily the listed author] did not clarify to leave room for what 9th edition and alternative rules might say or do and leave the issue for FAQ clarification [which right now GW is doing a bad job of proactively responding to such issues].

More generally, while I appreciate the effort, there are times in the FAQ ithread in question, where the author of the thread summarizes the FAQ based on his beliefs and views and not the consensus and fails in the FAQ to note the varying practices and interpretations. He has that right but it would, therefore, be mistake to print out that FAQ summary and try to use it as proof of something at an event. A number of the FAQ summaries in that thread do not agree with common practice in certain regions of the US at GTs and do not agree with the new Masters FAQ 1.2 [which includes some house rules, like the ETC FAQ, and is not strictly just an FAQ] that is being used in the US for a new Masters tournament where the identified regions of WHFB players in the US each send selected players to represent them [based on prior performance at Gts in the prior year].

 

[T_Saurus]

For what it is worth, at some of our regional and local tournaments, the words "every" and "all" and "anywhere" in the context of this thread and the new LM army book are taken literally to over-ride the BRB restrictions on choosing targets for direct damages spells. When a spell (such as in the 7th ed books) says "every" or "all" or "anywhere" then it generally over-rides the BRB targetting restrictions and the same principle applies here with some common sense exceptions. In a more general sense, when the rule says "targets" "every" or "all" within a given range, doesn't that mean just that? That rule over-rides the ability or rule of choosing a target as well. The army book rule should have spelled in out more clearly (as had been done in some cases in the prior Lm book) that the spell ignored the usual restrictions. It may very well be that the author(s) [I am told some of this is by design team and not necessarily the listed author] did not clarify to leave room for what 9th edition and alternative rules might say or do and leave the issue for FAQ clarification [which right now GW is doing a bad job of proactively responding to such issues].

More generally, while I appreciate the effort, there are times in the FAQ ithread in question, where the author of the thread summarizes the FAQ based on his beliefs and views and not the consensus and fails in the FAQ to note the varying practices and interpretations. He has that right but it would, therefore, be mistake to print out that FAQ summary and try to use it as proof of something at an event. A number of the FAQ summaries in that thread do not agree with common practice in certain regions of the US at GTs and do not agree with the new Masters FAQ 1.2 [which includes some house rules, like the ETC FAQ, and is not strictly just an FAQ] that is being used in the US for a new Masters tournament where the identified regions of WHFB players in the US each send selected players to represent them [based on prior performance at Gts in the prior year].

The issue with looking at the old 7th edition spells is that they don't use the 8th edition types of spells and the new LM book does.

Deliverance of Itza and the Engine of the Gods are called Direct Damage spells and therefore have to use the targeting rules of Direct Damage spells (front arc no LoS) whereas the old 7th edition spells do not specify a spell type (as they didn't have them in 7th)

 

[rantapanda]

agreed... it really seems like DoI and BA both hit 360 arc and hit into melee.
words "all" and "every" are powerful enough to override DD rules.

And doesn't that just make it a Hex?

-Matt

Nope. Its a DD (probably) because you need it to be Direct Damage type to cast it through a skink vassal.

 

[rantapanda]

agreed... it really seems like DoI and BA both hit 360 arc and hit into melee.
words "all" and "every" are powerful enough to override DD rules.

=> Only if you ignore the posts above yours that explain how you can play by all the rules involved. Just sayin'.

We are indeed playing with all the rules involved. The most important rules here are "..unless stated otherwise.." p.31 rulebook.
and that DoI targets all enemy units withint 12 inch.

It is very clear. The word "all" overrides alot of things. This is RAW and i really believe it is also RAI.

so it targets everything withint 12 inches of the caster (or vassal), and targets units in close combat as well.
Though this makes Lord Kroak overpowered as shit.

BTW, if you believe recent rumor posts, GW is deliberately trying to kill balance and gamers like us in favor of cultivating a new customer base that really doesn't give a toss about clarity.

I don't think we'll ever get a new FAQ. I truly don't.

Im beginning to fear this as well : / Looking at some armies.. it really does look like it.

 

[rantapanda]

Deliverance of Itza and the Engine of the Gods are called Direct Damage spells and therefore have to use the targeting rules of Direct Damage spells (front arc no LoS) whereas the old 7th edition spells do not specify a spell type (as they didn't have them in 7th)

Unless stated otherwise. With Deliverance of Itza and Burning Alignment it is stated otherwise.

 

[Overlord of Serpents]

Wait, I have some evidence from GW that we can hit units in close combat with this! If we follow the rules of Chain Lightning, the spell is a DD spell and doesn't state any exceptions to that ruling, even though it's allowed to "jump" from unit to unit, the units must be "viable" targets.

However, in the BRB FAQ, GW says that Chain Lightning may jump to hit units that are engaged in close combat. I find this to be very suitable that although no EXACT wording states "We can hit units in close combat," that we may do so because the spells DO state that we may hit all targets within X" range. As Chain Lightning is the ONLY precursor (that I know of) to this situation, I would say that this provides enough evidence for us to do so.

Thoughts?

-Overlord of Serpents

 

[Sleboda]

Deliverance of Itza and the Engine of the Gods are called Direct Damage spells and therefore have to use the targeting rules of Direct Damage spells (front arc no LoS) whereas the old 7th edition spells do not specify a spell type (as they didn't have them in 7th)

Unless stated otherwise. With Deliverance of Itza and Burning Alignment it is stated otherwise.

=> If it said something like "all units within range are affected" I might be inclined to agree, but in this case it says it targets them. Targets have to be legitimate, well, targets and units out of arc or in combat are not legitimate targets for a DD spell.

This is what I was talking about above with applying all the rules.

The word "all" is not an over-ride to the word "target" and that's what you would need to have an "otherwise stated" exception."All" just tells us how many units (all of them) are targeted by the spell. Still gotta actually be a target though since there is nothing in the spell to say otherwise.

I'd like to be wrong on this. I really would. In good conscience, though, I can't bring myself to try to convince an opponent of something I don't actually think is true myself.

 

[T_Saurus]

Just looking to compile all the relevant rules in question here.

Choosing a Target
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 lie within the spell's range.
- Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat.

It continues:

Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions or waives others. There are five distinct types of spell: augment, direct damage, hex, magic missile and magical vortex. Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

So far from this we see the general casting restrictions that apply unless stated otherwise. Then we see there are particular types of spells. Deliverance and the Engine of the Gods are Direct Damage spells so now we should look at the Direct Damage section for further restrictions.

Direct damage spells are deadly attacks that strike the foe without warning. Direct damage spells can only ever be cast on enemy units. Sometimes a direct damage spell will use a template to determine which models are hit. When this happens, the template cannot be placed in such a way that it touches friendly units or enemy units that are in close combat - this is not to say that the template won't scatter onto friends later, depending on the spell.

Ok, so at this point what does Direct Damage spells add to the normal casting restrictions? There is reiteration that it can be cast at enemy models only and more confirmation that you cannot target models in combat (this time discussing magical templates).

The Deliverance of Itza

The Deliverance of Itza is a direct damage spell that targets all enemy units within 12". Each target suffers 2D6 Strength 4 hits. If a target has the Daemonic, Undead or Nehekharan Undead special rule, it suffers 3D6 hits instead. Lord Kroak can choose to extend the range of this spell to 18"; if he does so, the casting value is increased to 18+. Alternatively, Lord Kroak can choose to extend the range of this spell to 24", in which case the casting value is increased to 24+.

I was originally of the opinion that as a Direct Damage spell it was limited to only unengaged enemy models in the front arc...however, after re-reading all the rules in question I am now hesitant. The issue comes from the "targets all enemy units within 12"." part.

I can see two different interpretations:

1. The spell does not need to explicitly state that models need to be in the front arc and unengaged because those are the general targetting rules of a direct damage spell and that they are implied by saying the spell is a direct damage spell. Afterall, the spell does restate "enemy units" even though being a Direct Damage spell already implies this.

2. The omission of restating that the spell must target units in the front arc and unengaged acts as permission to target all enemy units within 12" of the caster. Including engaged and models outside of the front arc.

As an aside and unrelated to the thread at hand but something that I think is quite interesting. If for some reason the spell is stolen, or swapped the new caster will be unable to boost the spell because the wording of the spell is that:

Lord Kroak can choose to extend...

instead of "The Caster can choose to extend..." So the only wizard in the game that can cast the boosted versions of Deliverance is Lord Kroak!

The wording of Burning Alignment

Innate bound spell (power level 3). Burning Alignment is a direct damage spell that targets every enemy unit within 4D6". Each target suffers D6 Strength 4 hits with the Flaming Attacks Special rule, distributed as for shooting.

The wording of Burning Alignment follows the same pattern as Deliverance. Explicitly stating that the spell targets enemy models even though as a direct damage spell that is implied. Leading me to think that the targeting of the spell can be outside of front arc and to engaged models.

Why would they explicitly state one of the normal targeting restrictions of a direct damage spell but not the other ones...

With this all compiled I am curious how other people are now interpreting the rules...

 

[olderplayer]

The DD restrictions in the BRB relate to "choosing a target". Here, there is not a choice, it says targets all or every. When the spell says targets, there is not a choice. I think people forget that the army book targetting language. Also, the old version tagetted every unit within range.

 

[Sleboda]

I'm unable to come up with a fresh way to express my stance, but the one thing I feel like I can say is that whatever the old book/FAQ said is truly meaningless for the current rules.