8th Ed. Kroaky von Kroaks

[Ondjage]

Direct damage spells arent allowed to TARGET units in close combat, or units outside the casters range or front-arc. But the deliverance of itza doesnt TARGET any units, therefore it hits all units in the bubble, even those in CC and those outside the front arc.

No..?

 

[n810]

Thats how it worked in the last book.

 

[rantapanda]

dammit GW. gibe faq plz

 

[Rettile]

i think Kroak can hit all enemy units, even if in CC and not in his forward arc. "All enemy units within range" =\= "enemy units within range, not engaged and in kroak's front arc". Come on, it IS a conflict!
and if you want utility spells, take Tetto! He boosts Kroak and knows a full lore, plus he's an arcane vassal, and you still can fit in a beast scroll caddy and a cheap fighter and/or BSB scar vet

 

[VampTeddy]

i think Kroak can hit all enemy units, even if in CC and not in his forward arc. "All enemy units within range" =\= "enemy units within range, not engaged and in kroak's front arc". Come on, it IS a conflict!
and if you want utility spells, take Tetto! He boosts Kroak and knows a full lore, plus he's an arcane vassal, and you still can fit in a beast scroll caddy and a cheap fighter and/or BSB scar vet

The reason some of us disagrees that there is a conflict is because the spell uses the word "targets", if a DD wants to target, it has to do so in it's front arc and it has to avoid units in combat, even though it can be cast out of combat.

I agree it is somewhat hard-ruling it, but nonetheless it is how the rules are written.

 

[olderplayer]

The prior book version of the spell specifically clarified that the spell hit all enemy units chosen within range even if in combat. the new army book removes that language but also says "all" enemy units in range are targetted. Unless FAQ says otherwise, the word "all" and specific ability to target "all units in range would, IMO, over-ride the BRB, just as was the case with other "older" spells that said one could target a unit anywhere within range over-rode the BRB forward arc restrictions. That being said, it is curious that GW clearly omitted the clarifying language wrt to the Itza spell in the prior army book and classified the spell as a DD spell apparently n order to allow a skink priest to act as a focus familiar for the spell.

 

[RipperDerek]

Between the wording and the previous editions, the intent of how the spell should function is at least pretty clear. A strict, technical reading of the rules, however, does make it function differently. There's no getting around that.

My advice is to just ignore it, and play the spell as intended. It will only matter at a tournament, and in that case you should probably just clear the functionality with the TO ahead of time.

 

[Sleboda]

...the word "all" and specific ability to target "all units in range would, IMO, over-ride the BRB, ...

=> You may be right, or you may not be. That said, you've used the key phrase that shows why this needs to be addressed (and why I am so irrited with GW right now - see: http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119569). You've said "IMO."

My advice is to just ignore it, and play the spell as intended.

=> And what happens when you perfectly gentlemanly opponent, in a non-tournament environment, honestly believe the "intent" to be different than how you wish to play it? If both players are good people, and the disagreement is calmly discussed but both people equally feel they are correct and don't wish to do what they would see as changing the game, why is it ok to use one person's opinion to trump the other?

Maybe the good old 4+ is the answer, but even that solution leaves things in an uncomfortable spot. Perhaps the other player didn't even both to attempt a dispel (or used all his dice on earlier spells because, based on his reading of the spell) because he "knew" he was safe from this one. Now it's been decided he was "wrong" and his previous choices are rendered meaningless.


The real solution is one GW has seen fit to thumb their noses at since April - provide product support for their rules in the manner their website says they will - FAQ/errata docs.

Double Grr.




(By the way - not calling you out on this or implying any improper behavior on your part. Just discussing.)

 

[Caprasauridae]

i think Kroak can hit all enemy units, even if in CC and not in his forward arc. "All enemy units within range" =\= "enemy units within range, not engaged and in kroak's front arc". Come on, it IS a conflict!

Just thinking, but isn't a "forward arc" also range, i.e. the range of a Direct Damage spell is always forward arc, x inches? Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, as I'm not a native English speaker, but to me range also denotes direction.

 

[hilburn]

i think Kroak can hit all enemy units, even if in CC and not in his forward arc. "All enemy units within range" =\= "enemy units within range, not engaged and in kroak's front arc". Come on, it IS a conflict!

Just thinking, but isn't a "forward arc" also range, i.e. the range of a Direct Damage spell is always forward arc, x inches? Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, as I'm not a native English speaker, but to me range also denotes direction.

Simple answer, no

More complex answer; range is a scalar distance quantity, it only has a magnitude (this is someone saying he's firing his cannon 22 inches)
The alternative is a vector distance quantity which has both magnitude and direction (firing 22 inches at your stegadon)

Free gcse physics lesson for you young 'uns

 

[ElectricPaladin]

So, guys, there's some language in the spell that you're forgetting.

The spell doesn't say that it hits all models in the front arc. It says that it targets them.

Models in combat can't be targeted.

Therefore, the spell does not effect them.

The Burning Alignment works the same way.

 

[Ondjage]

So, guys, there's some language in the spell that you're forgetting.

The spell doesn't say that it hits all models in the front arc. It says that it targets them.

Models in combat can't be targeted.

Therefore, the spell does not effect them.

The Burning Alignment works the same way.

It doesnt say that it targets all models in the front arc either, it says that it targets all targets within 12/18/24 inches. Needs a FAQ imo

 

[RipperDerek]

=> And what happens when you perfectly gentlemanly opponent, in a non-tournament environment, honestly believe the "intent" to be different than how you wish to play it?

You roll off. It's a fairly standard resolution.

 

[Sleboda]

I agree that it's a standard way to do it, but I addressed that. I'd be interested in your thoughts on what I said about having your plan ruined by a 4+ (to paraphrase myself).

Not that I am suggesting that it's the norm, or that you or anyone else here would do this, but I have directly witnessed 4+ abuse where one player was NOT of the gentlemanly sort and was using 4+ to pull out a win by refuting a rule he knew perfectly well was not in need of a 4+. Those games are awful.

I mean more of the sort I touched on above. Both players can be truly good ports and yet one person's enjoyment can take a serious blow mid-game because of the 4+ method - all because one player felt that he 100% knew the intent was different than what was printed.

 

[RipperDerek]

Your plan isn't ruined on a 4+.

I don't understand why you seem to insist that the only possible solution to a rules disagreement is to show up blind and then initiate conflict. That simply isn't the case. Reasonable playgroups are capable of discussing things and reaching a conclusion. In places where agreement can't be reached, they are capable of using a fair and impartial mechanism to determine an outcome, which everyone agrees to abide by.

If your playgroup isn't capable of doing these things, I daresay it's probably not a fun place to play anyways.

If you go to some other game store, or play with a different group, they may have different rulings. Ask them. If they are dead-set against what you want to do, do something else. It's really that simple, and it happens with hundreds of controversial rules each time a new army book is put out. There's nothing "special" about this one.

 

[Eladimir]

Its quite the huge swing to be decided on a 4+

In the best case (for lizardmen) - Hits all enemy units in 360 degrees include units locked in combat

In the worst case (and most likely) - Hits all unengaged enemy units in front arc

 

[ElectricPaladin]

So, guys, there's some language in the spell that you're forgetting.

The spell doesn't say that it hits all models in the front arc. It says that it targets them.

Models in combat can't be targeted.

Therefore, the spell does not effect them.

The Burning Alignment works the same way.

It doesnt say that it targets all models in the front arc either, it says that it targets all targets within 12/18/24 inches. Needs a FAQ imo

Yes, that's correct - my bad.

And I agree that it needs an FAQ to clarify it a little.

 

[Sleboda]

Your plan isn't ruined on a 4+.

I don't understand why you seem to insist that the only possible solution to a rules disagreement is to show up blind and then initiate conflict.

=> I don't know why you feel the need to ascribe to view to me which I do not hold and have not expressed.

That simply isn't the case. Reasonable playgroups are capable of discussing things and reaching a conclusion.

=> Of course they are. And they do. Mine does. Mine is also very heavily tournament-oriented, so we tend to try to come to actual resolution, as opposed to isolated rulings, so that when we step outside of our group we at the very least understand fully the rules as presented, and at the very best are properly equipped to help others understand them as well so that rules disagreements between strangers can be logically and amicably resolved without depending on the capricious whims of fate.

As it turns out, internet hobby forums are an excellent place to try to work out the finer points of rules detached from in-game competitiveness, which is what I am doing and which you seem to have concluded means I turn up at games looking to start a conflict.

If you go to some other game store, or play with a different group, they may have different rulings. Ask them. If they are dead-set against what you want to do, do something else. It's really that simple, and it happens with hundreds of controversial rules each time a new army book is put out. There's nothing "special" about this one.

=> Oh, I agree. Asking ahead of time is indeed a great way to head off a problem with a stranger. The trick is identifying which rules you are certain you understand that others may not agree with. I'm sure you can see the issue there. If you (the general "you") don't see a rule as vague, then you have no reason to ask if others agree with it. As an admittedly silly example, take the To-Hit chart. I'm willing to bet that 101% of us all agree that a WS4 model needs a a 3+ to hit a WS3 model, per the chart. Would you ever ask ahead of time about that? Obviously not, because to you (and, as I say, to eveyone else) there is no need - the rule is clear.

What about poison vs. undead. Also clear as day, but it's more common than it seems like it should be that, for whatever reason (fluff, holdover from old rules...whatever), some people think undead are immune. Should you clarify ahead of time that poison works on undead? I say no, and most people would also say no, but it's less clear than the WS chart example.

A step further down the path is when you roll for spells, or the importance of rolling one at a time for all units in Dawn Attack - even identical units such as two troglodons, or...Predatory Fighter.

All of these rules are utterly, completely, and absolutely clear to me. Should I ask each new opponent how he plays each one before we begin our game? I'd like to think the answer is a clear "no" at this point as it should be easy to see that we could easily list a hundred rules we could ask about, if not more. We need clarity well before two players meet, in order for the most pleasant game. The other end of that, the end that results in the least enjoyment, is what we're taking about in this thread - You are well into a game, tactical and strategic decisions have been made, resources have been committed and consumed, and then someone pulls common sense/intent/etc on you, leading to, at the least, awkwardness.

That's what I'm trying to avoid in these internet discussions. I'm not looking for loopholes, trying to find ways to spring conflict on my opponents, trying to be "right" all the time, or anything of the sort. I'm just trying to properly equip myself to play the game correctly and, when conflict does arise in a game, to be able to discuss it logically and reach a quick, friendly agreement that doesn't rely on a 50/50 shot that ends with one person still feeling they are correct, but playing incorrectly anyway.

Isn't it better to reach an actual agreement where both players go "Oh! Yeah! That makes sense. Play it that way." than it is to have one player happy that he was "right" while the other player has to play with a ruling that was "wrong?"

Is that such a bad aim to have?

 

[RipperDerek]

=> I don't know why you feel the need to ascribe to view to me which I do not hold and have not expressed.

I can find no other way to read your replies in context. You seem to have discussed only a few different 'solutions': either showing up with a list prepared and then rolling off whenever an arbitrary opponent objects, or arguing with your playgroup until they agree to accept your interpretation of the RAW, or going to other people's playgroups and trying to convince them that their desire to play with the intent of the rule is wrong, and they should use your reading of the RAW instead. None of these are helpful, and none of these approaches will help to prepare you for a tournament!

=> Of course they are. And they do. Mine does. Mine is also very heavily tournament-oriented, so we tend to try to come to actual resolution, as opposed to isolated rulings, so that when we step outside of our group we at the very least understand fully the rules as presented, and at the very best are properly equipped to help others understand them as well so that rules disagreements between strangers can be logically and amicably resolved without depending on the capricious whims of fate.

The fact is that different tournaments will rule this differently, so there is no "right" way to play it from a "tournament perspective". If you're going to a tournament, you should check with the organizer up front and ask how they play it, and be prepared to receive either answer. Arguing with the TO over this is not likely to win you any favors.

If you're not going to a tournament, you should play it in the manner your playgroup agrees upon. Different playgroups may have different rulings from you, just like different tournaments might - accept this fact and move on. You will gain nothing by trying to argue that RAW trumps intent, when even tournaments don't always agree with that stance. You will only invite unnecessary conflict.

If a stranger shows up, explain that there is disagreement on the rule, and that your playgroup has chosen whatever your particular direction is until such time as it is clarified by the FAQ.

Isn't it better to reach an actual agreement where both players go "Oh! Yeah! That makes sense. Play it that way." than it is to have one player happy that he was "right" while the other player has to play with a ruling that was "wrong?"

Is that such a bad aim to have?

No, it's a perfectly fine aim to have. It's not something your proposed strategy accomplishes, however.

RAW says one thing, yet many people acknowledge this and still believe that it wasn't intended, and want to play it in the manner they believe matches the intent. These facts mean that people aren't going to agree on this issue. So, you will gain nothing by continuing to make it a point of contention.

 

[Sleboda]

I can find no other way to read your replies in context.

=> OK. So, now I've cleared that up above. We can enjoy good productive community discussions without assumptions now, right?

The fact is that different tournaments will rule this differently, so there is no "right" way to play it from a "tournament perspective".

=> Believe you me, that is VERY high on my list of "shake fist at heavens and scream whyyyyyyyyyy" items. It's one of many reasons GW needs to stay on top of the FAQs. That way there would be a common source. Most events that I've found tell you straight up something like "The following books are legal...blah blah blah...rules used will be the BRB and GW FAQs..."

As an aside, I do tend to not go to events that have different rules. I like to work on one build of my army for a given "season" (or series of events) and when you have to jettison what you have learned for 3 tournaments just to play in a 4th, well, the 4th gets dropped in a hurry for me.

No, it's a perfectly fine aim to have. It's not something your proposed strategy accomplishes, however.

=> Oddly enough, my experience is rather different. I'm just fortunate, I suppose, to have a very large selection of opponents who like feel like I do and like to get things "right." My strategy is their strategy and has resulted in many, many pleasant games.

RAW says one thing, yet many people acknowledge this and still believe that it wasn't intended, and want to play it in the manner they believe matches the intent. These facts mean that people aren't going to agree on this issue. So, you will gain nothing by continuing to make it a point of contention.

=> Yeah, but that touches on a larger issue that extends well beyond this thread and, indeed, gaming in general.
I'll mention it here but not debate it here. Happy to do so elsewhere though if you like.
The issue is that of having the rule/law on your side and encountering people who disagree with the rule/law and expect that their position - that of changing the established rule/law to suit their view - ought to be the default position. I understand the desire to propose alternate views, but when two views conflict and one can be demonstrated to be the reality of the situation and the other is a wish, then reality should trump and nobody should be upset by this. If you want your wish to become reality, then work within the system to affect change.

To put it into Lizardie context, look at Predatory Fighter.

The rule couldn't be more perfectly clear the way it is written. Rank #2 doesn't benefit. If I were playing against a Lizardman opponent (even if I were using my own Lizardmen) and that opponent said something like "Hey, Joe, I really think they meant for Rank #2 to get the benefit too" I would reply "Yeah, you know, it might be so, but we don't really know what the intent was and the rule they printed is awfully clear, don't you think?" A reasonable opponent might reply "Yeah, I agree that's what they wrote, but don't you think we should go with what was intended?" To which I'd say "If we had the author here and could ask him to tell us his intent, then I'd be with you, but since intent is actually unknowable, and we do have a clear rule to follow, I'd prefer we play with what is as opposed to what we think could maybe be.

So, we would both have our positions outlined and I would expect, fully, for the default to be to be play with what the rule is as opposed to what it could be changed to be.

Anyhoo, from previous experiences I've had with that line of thinking, I know it's best debated over a beer instead of a keyboard, so I'll refrain from going further down that path. I just thought it might help to illuminate my general principles.