8th Ed. KROAK and Burning ALignment in FAQ.

[T_Saurus]

Direct damage spells target enemies in the front arc, don't require line of sight and don't target units in combat. Why should this direct damage spell be different?

Edit:

To further my point the spell Flame Storm says

Flame Storm is a direct damage spell. Place the small round template anywhere within 30" of the Wizard - it then scatters D6". All models hit by the template suffer a Strength 4 hit. The Wizard can choose to create a larger conflagration, using the large template rather than the small template. If he does so, the casting value is increased to 16+ and the template scatters 2D6" rather than D6".

So how would you suggest we play this? that he can target behind himself? To his side? Those would be incorrect. The spell is direct damage and is therefore front arc only. The spells we are discussing in this thread use a similar wording giving only a range.

Therefore both Deliverance and Burning Alignment can only target units in the front arc and unengaged. If someone claims army book trumps rulebook even though the wording is nearly identical (giving only a range restriction) we can discuss other rule books that have similar wording with no arguments. For instance Foot of Gork, The Maw, or how about a little closer to home? Tempest, Arcane Unforging, Fiery Convocation?

 

[Overlord of Serpents]

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.

Did everyone here miss my post?

The Chain Lightning spell is a perfect example of CURRENT rules that allow a Direct Damage spell to hit enemy units as VIABLE targets for damage, it specifically says that in the Games Workshop FAQ on the subject. Therefore it should be a simple reapplication of those rules onto the Deliverance of Itza and Burning Alignment and easily allows us to hit enemy units in close combat, despite the fact that the spell does not SPECIFICALLY express so, just as Chain Lightning does not EXPRESSLY allow any kind of exception other than it can target viable enemy targets within 6" while still remaining a DD spell.

-Overlord of Serpents

 

[T_Saurus]

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.

Did everyone here miss my post?

The Chain Lightning spell is a perfect example of CURRENT rules that allow a Direct Damage spell to hit enemy units as VIABLE targets for damage, it specifically says that in the Games Workshop FAQ on the subject. Therefore it should be a simple reapplication of those rules onto the Deliverance of Itza and Burning Alignment and easily allows us to hit enemy units in close combat, despite the fact that the spell does not SPECIFICALLY express so, just as Chain Lightning does not EXPRESSLY allow any kind of exception other than it can target viable enemy targets within 6" while still remaining a DD spell.

-Overlord of Serpents

But the initial target of Chain Lightning cannot be a unit in combat, only "bounces" can hit a unit in combat. Chain Lighting is the exception TO the rule. Not to mention what the spells do are completely different.

 

[Screamer]

Direct damage spells target enemies in the front arc, don't require line of sight and don't target units in combat. Why should this direct damage spell be different?

Because it says "targets all enemy units within 12" and "targets all enemy units within 12".

To further my point the spell Flame Storm says

Flame Storm is a direct damage spell. Place the small round template anywhere within 30" of the Wizard - it then scatters D6". ...

"anywhere within 30"" actually means anywhere within 30" (behind, to the front, to the side). As opposed to all the Direct Damage spells that says "***** is a direct damage spell with a range of yy".

The spells we are discussing in this thread use a similar wording giving only a range.

If you read all the DD-spells in the BRB there is 2 different wordings (first/second sentance):
[spell name] is a direct damage spell with a range of [x]" or
[spell name] is a direct damage spell. Place the small round template anywhere within [x]" - it then scatters ...

Pendulum and burning head is the exceptions to this rule.

I believe the "anywhere" or "all enemy units within" or "every enemy units within" is the definition of something that is "stated otherwise".

I understand your arguments, but I simply don't agree with you're interpretation of the written rule.
Anywhere, every and all really means anywhere, every and all, no matter how you twist and turn to have it mean something else.

 

[Sleboda]

Direct damage spells target enemies in the front arc, don't require line of sight and don't target units in combat. Why should this direct damage spell be different?

Because it says "targets all enemy units within 12" and "targets all enemy units within 12".

=> Before this goes much further, and just because I am a huge believer in defining the terms of a debate so that everyone is speaking the same language, please consider the following question:


Would it be fair to say that the single point upon which this discussion hinges is determination of which part of the standard casting rules the word "all" is modifying?


It seems to me we all agree that there can be exceptions to rules and that army books can contain language that facilitates these exceptions. I don't believe any of us are arguing differently.


So it would appear that there are two ways to look at "all" in this case:

1) "All" is simply telling us how many targets are hit by the spell. Those who see it this way still apply the targeting restriction of what can possible BE a target (front arc, not in combat, etc) and carry a strongly implied "..that are eligible targets as per all DD spells..." in there. Those who believe this probably do so because they think that GW would have infinitely large books if every time a rule still applied they had to say "Yes, the rule still applies." In order to keep things simple, implied language is dropped. The simplest non-game example of this is when someone tells you to do something without saying your name or using "you." For example, the following two sentences are functionally identical -

- "Go to the store and get me a beer."
- "You, go to the store and get me a beer."

The word you need not be written/said because nobody needs to read/hear it to know that it's really actually (in a way) still there in the sentence.

Likewise, people who believe this is the case in our game believe that these two effects say, in effect "...targets all eligible targets as per the normal rules for targeting things..." and including that language would simply be superfluous (as in "Yeah, of course it's only stuff that can be targeted - they don't need to restate that rule every time..."


OR


2) "All" is actually overriding what can be targeted and the number of targets is largely irrelevant.



Again, is that what we all see as the crux of the disagreement?

 

[T_Saurus]

Certainly seems that way.

For the people that are basically saying that all DD spells can target anywhere around the caster why would they even have developed rules that state that DD spells must target units in the front arc, don't need LoS, cannot be in combat etc...

 

[rantapanda]

Certainly no one is saying all DD spells can cast be everywhere etc.

but it seems like Mr Kroaks spell for one actually can.

If we apply the limitations of a DD spell, then add the notion that an army book or the texts in spells can overrule them, then we use normal english language with the word "all".
With Kroaks spell it means everything within range. Everything. Its that simple. A target is legal if its on the board.
I understand where are you guys coming from who are saying DoI needs to follow the normal DD limitations. It would seem like that, especially if we take into account how other spells have been written. But really, the crappy and limited way the rules are written, it would indicate that Kroaks DoI is indeed 360 degree. It would also seem that Flame Storm can be put anywhere, including the casters behind. as can foot of gork as can a lot of spells.

But i guess.. the spell writers have probably meant that with flame storm and foot of gork etc that the normal spell limitations are used.. and from that we can decipher that the kroaks spell also follows those limitations..

Its not really an argument that the writers come short in space in the books and the books would be swollen hugely if theyd need to introduce every rule all the time. the armybooks and the rulebook is already Littered with useless garbage, loads of it, like, "this has nothing to do with any rules", "why is these sentences written here".. then when they have a chance to clearly define how a spell works, they do it with one crappy sentence so it can be understood multiple ways. heck GW is stupidly overpriced regarding how poorly they make the rules. Now it would be ok if they would come up with a FAQ. but hey dont seem to...

I really do understand what people mean in this thread.
Im leaning towars that, I guess DoI follows the normal spell limitations.. when u look at how the other spells work.
the RAW is completely different though.

now what i think is the most valid argument with kroak is that,.. if that spell is understood like i think is RAW, 360 degree, hits melee etc. DoI is crazily overpowered and i dont think i will be using it. Just imagine, you put kroak with a horde of temple guards, maybe skaven banner bsb saurus etc.. its just crazy my fellow gamers would not have fun with it. unless its some kind of joke game.. but then.. with kroak costing 400 points and if its only 90degree arc, no melee.. kroak stupidly overpriced and i wont be using him then either x..

also if kroak RAW is 360 degree, hits melee etc then alot of other spells become super strong as well.. u can hit foot of gork to melee *yikes*
EDIT: read the foot of gork thing again. it says "Place the foot of gork template within 36 inches of the Shaman". So i think it cant hit melee, but can go anywhere within those 36 inches, on 360 radius.. also the same thing with tempest..
EDIT2: blehgh on a second though i dont know. These spells can be understood both ways..

 

[Screamer]

Certainly seems that way.

For the people that are basically saying that all DD spells can target anywhere around the caster why would they even have developed rules that state that DD spells must target units in the front arc, don't need LoS, cannot be in combat etc...

Spells that DON'T state otherwise, as Dwellers etc follow the normal targetting rules ie front arc, not into CC etc.

Spells that DO state otherwise follow the targetting rule of that spell.

Why would they even include the sentance "unless stated otherwise" if there's no exceptions?

And, as a basic rule, if I have to add words to a rule to make it say what I believe it is saying, then I'm more probably wrong than if I don't have to add words.

And to say some words are implied is really the basis for the RAI vs RAW discussion.

I believe one should follow the written rules, not the implied ones.

 

[Centurion]

Having not played a game with lizardmen yet, nor really studied the rulebook for this edition, I read the rules for targetting DD spells, and the rules for Kroak's spell, and I immediately assumed the 'all' was an exception to the normal rules. As someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about, it seems the simplest way to read the rule, and therefore the most likely to be the writer's intention.

For the rule to be clear it'd need to either say 'Target all enemy units within 12" (Except in combat etc.)' Or 'Target all enemy units within 12" (Including in combat etc.)'. To me if I were going to summarise one of those rules as just 'Target all enemy units within 12"', it's be the latter.

Not saying I'm right. As stated I don't really have experience with fantasy, but just reading it at face value, that is my interpretation.

 

[Eladimir]

But if "all" is an exception is "anywhere" an exception for the flame storm spell people are talking about.

 

[Lizardmatt]

But if "all" is an exception is "anywhere" an exception for the flame storm spell people are talking about.

I'd say yes. Lore of Fire is pretty lack luster (outside of Flame Cage which is totally awesome). Even with being able to drop a template "anywhere", I don't know if I would take Firestorm, or just swap it out for the signature. I'm inclined to swap for the sig.

 

[Screamer]

I'd also say yes, the template can be placed anywhere. But I guess it has to abide to the rules for DD-spells with templates. And the reason for this is that Flamestorm doesn't target an unit, but is rather just placed on the battlefield, ie different rules for targetting.

 

[Arbite]

Lovely discussion here,

Just to note, in the local GT's it is being interpreted to include all enemies within in the XD6 Range.
It was argued that it was over powered in that configuration. It was also argued that several things reduce it from being OP.

First, it requires the additional tax of a Saurus hero if you wish to have a BSB. Also requiring you to choose between magical Battle Standard or protecting the saurus with magical armor.

Second the strength being limited to 4 makes many of the usual Meta units not even care. Knights, Gryphon thingy’s, Trolls, etc. pretty much laugh at strength 4 hits.

Third, under the standard points around here, 2000-2500, you have given up the level 4 slann of whichever lore that has a much bigger toolbox. Death slanns, metal slanns, even high magic slanns have better damage potenial. and obviously life and high magic slanns bring better healing.

The basic debate is whether the sections on spell targeting and spell type are linked. Can something be a direct damage spell but target differently due the exception stated in targeting? I am not sure anyone here is going to move off of their opinion on this. As was pointed out earlier, I believe the Direct Damage was added for the purpose of making it legal to cast through skink priests.

Thanks for continuing to improve the LM community.

 

[Eladimir]

The basic debate is whether the sections on spell targeting and spell type are linked. Can something be a direct damage spell but target differently due the exception stated in targeting? I am not sure anyone here is going to move off of their opinion on this. As was pointed out earlier, I believe the Direct Damage was added for the purpose of making it legal to cast through skink priests.

Yeah under spells page 31

Choosing a target:
Targeting restrictions vary from spell to spell. However unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:
Forward Arc
LOS
etc

 

[Screamer]

Spell targetting and spell type is closely linked, as stated above.

The debate is about what qualifies as "stated otherwise", and if DoI and BA meet the requirements.

I think the reason to make DoI Direct damage was to enable the casting through vassal.

 

[Asamu]

Is there any hex that makes damage?

yes: Curse of years, lore of vampires.

As for the OP: I think it can be interpreted either way, and there is no way to get to a definitive answer without either setting a house rule, rolling off for it, or having a TO decide it.

One can argue that the word "EVERY" means that the normal restrictions do not apply, while at the same time, one can say that the normal restrictions do apply because of the word "target."

 

[T_Saurus]

The biggest Hex damage spell I can think of is Cacophonic Choir (sp) from the Lore of Slaanesh.

This spell can target all models within range. BECAUSE IT IS A HEX AND DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE FRONT ARC.

Cacophonic Choir is a hex spell with a range of 12". The target takes 2d6 hits that wound on a 4+ with no armor saves allowed. If at least one unsaved Wound is caused the target unit gains the Always Strikes Last and Random Movement (D6) special rules until the start of the caster's next Magic phase. The Wizard can choose to have the spell target all enemy units within 12". If he does so, the casting value is increased to 24+

 

[hdctambien]

I know Sleboda doesn't like taking history into account when interpreting rules, but the rules weren't written in a vacuum so there could be something to learn from them. I was perusing the old FAQ and noticed that Deliverance of Itza was a Direct Damage spell in the previous book as well.

Page 61 – Lord Kroak, The Deliverance of Itza
Add “This is a direct damage spell.” Ignore the “*” and the
associated note

So, in the recent past this spell has been an exception to the DD targeting rules while being a DD spell. The changed wording between the spells is interesting:

Old: "The spell hits every enemy unit within the range that has been chosen, even if they are engaged in close combat..."
New: "... is a direct damage spell that targets all enemy units within 12""

The only real difference between the two spells is that the old book spelled out that units in close combat could be targeted, and the new book does not. They both describe how they target "all/every" unit within the specified range.

Burning alignment is even more specific about what it targets: ".. a direct damage spell that targets every enemy unit within 4d6"" That is written exactly the same way as the old Kroak spell (except it doesn't specifically call out units engaged in close combat)

If the old book was played such that these spells targeted units outside of the front arc, then whatever rules that made that interpretation correct should still apply to the new book.

I think the question is whether the spells should target units that are engaged in close combat. Both spells in the old book specifically called out that they affected units in close combat, but neither spells call that out now.

So, I would say:

outside front arc - yes
close combat - no

 

[Sleboda]

I know Sleboda doesn't like taking history into account when interpreting rules...
If the old book was played such that these spells targeted units outside of the front arc, then whatever rules that made that interpretation correct should still apply to the new book.

=> It's not a matter of like/dislike (though you are accurate that I am firmly on the dislike side of things). It's a matter of "what are the rules, today, for the game?"

There's a test I apply to Warhammer - The New Gamer Test.

I'm a new gamer.
I just bought the rulebook and Lizardmen book.
I downloaded the FAQs that GW has on their site today.


Those are my rules. That's what I have.

Why...why, why, why...should I even think about researching how things "use to be" in order to play my game?

I "used to" be able to make shield walls and fly high.
I "used to" never miscast with TK spells.
I "used to" have a great minus on Salamander shots.
Heck, I "used to" be immune to poison as an undead model (gosh, nothing says they are NOT now, so, according to the 'using the old rules that are now surely omitted by mistake' principle, undead area clearly immune to poison, right?).


All this is in the past...just like the old FAQs.

The old FAQs are gone and only apply to rules that are gone.

Again, it's not preference, it's...I dunno...reality?

There are LOTS of old FAQs that don't apply anymore. Why should this one be ANY different? (At one point, even in 8th edition, there was a FAQ answer that said you could not overrun against units that crumbled to death...then it was removed...I suppose that's just an error and I should apply the 8th ed FAQ answer that is now no longer present...)

 

[hdctambien]

There's a test I apply to Warhammer - The New Gamer Test.

I'm a new gamer.
I just bought the rulebook and Lizardmen book.
I downloaded the FAQs that GW has on their site today.


Those are my rules. That's what I have.

Why...why, why, why...should I even think about researching how things "use to be" in order to play my game?

If the rules are clear then the old FAQ wouldn't need to come into play.

It's when the rules as written don't exactly cover something, or there aren't rules for a specific situation. A game between new players would have to resort to a roll off.

Alternatively, players that are aware of the previous state of the rules could agree that a situation that was previously covered in a FAQ and has not been overwritten by a new FAQ or new BRB Edition and is not specifically covered in the new edition of the book could fairly be played by the ruling from the old FAQ.

I would never suggest using a rule from 7th edition to answer a question, or using a ruling from a previous version of an FAQ that has been overwritten by a new version of that FAQ. But, if a generic question comes up for one of the armies that no longer has a FAQ because of a new book and that question is answered in the old FAQ I'm far more likely to use the old ruling rather than push to use the rule opposite to that old ruling.

I "used to" be able to make shield walls and fly high.
I "used to" never miscast with TK spells.
I "used to" have a great minus on Salamander shots.
Heck, I "used to" be immune to poison as an undead model (gosh, nothing says they are NOT now, so, according to the 'using the old rules that are now surely omitted by mistake' principle, undead area clearly immune to poison, right?).

These are all examples of rules that have clearly changed.

The parts of the old FAQs that I would fall back on are questions about rules that did not change for armies that no longer have an FAQ.

At one point, even in 8th edition, there was a FAQ answer that said you could not overrun against units that crumbled to death...then it was removed...I suppose that's just an error and I should apply the 8th ed FAQ answer that is now no longer present...

All of your arguments are strawmen. I understand your argument that a new player should not be expected to know all historical rules to the game, and I agree with that. Where we disagree is what happens when that new player runs into a strange situation, "can my Skink Chief fire a Giant Bow?", "Can a razordon flee from a 2nd charge?", "does the phrase 'all enemy units' overwrite a Direct Damage spell's targeting requirements?"

If neither player agrees on the answer to the question then it becomes a roll off (today, my Chief can fire the Giant Bow, tomorrow maybe he can't...) It seems more stable to say "There is no official answer to this question, however the last official answer was XYZ, so lets go by that until we hear otherwise" assuming someone nearby was around for the "old rules".

ESPECIALLY when the FAQs were removed because of a new edition of the book and the new edition of the book raises the same question due to the same (copy and pasted?) wordings. It stands to reason (I know, I know GW and reason?) that the answer to those questions would be the same.

At least, "play it like we used to" is better than "now that the FAQ is gone I am going to play it the opposite of how we used to because no one is telling me I can't! (even though the rules don't specifically say you can, either)"