Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does the VC's Flag of Blood Keep which gives a 4 ward save to all ranged attacks work on ranged magic that are not magic missiles?
Like Burning Head, Conflagration of Doom or Wall of Fire.

Yes - it is still a ranged attack

I would disagree that Conflagration or other magic spells count as ranged attacks for the sake of such a ward.

The spells are cast at range but the damage is not coming from range.

I would say no, but am leaving atm so I don't have time to research a BRB answer.

Was the damage caused by a close combat attack? No? Then it is ranged.

The BRB FAQs state this is for simplicity, which I agree with.

Quoted from the 2009 FAQ of the main rule book page 8:

"Q. Many army books have magic items that provide protection against "Missiles". However the main rulebook does not provide a comprehensive definition of what "missiles" are. Can you please provide us with guidance on what "Missiles" are in regards to Magic items?

A. We assume that the word "missiles" includes all attacks executed in the Shooting phase as well as spells that are labeled as "magic missiles". "

From this, spell damage that is not specifically a magic missile is not protected against by items that provide protection from ranged attacks i.e. missiles.

Ranged attack /= Missile

I'm not trying to be stubborn, but unless you can quote precedence, then I'm inclined to disagree. That being said if you can show otherwise in the rules and I"m missing it, I will gladly accept your answer

excluding spells(as they are the subject of this thread) name a ranged attack that is not classified as a missile. The FAQ stated every action in the shooting phase as a missile in addition to magic missiles. Is there such a ruling on "if it aint close combat then it's ranged"?

Because the FAQ answer you quoted was specifying "Missiles", not "any ranged attack"

By *definition* a ranged attack is one caused at a distance - which this spell is.

When there is no definition in the rulebook you fall back on the English definition of the wording - in which case any attack caused at range, or the obverse any attack not caused through close combat.

Again though, Conflagration and Wall of fire are damage that happens AT the unit as they spontaneously combust. It is not fire shot from the wizard.

I would say an official FAQ for this would be nice.

Ranged attacks in warhammer by definition would then require a range value, which many spells do not. Conflagration for example only requires LOS and has no range and is specified that the unit bursts into flames and thus is not attacked by flames originating from a distance.

No, shooting attacks require a range, spells by nature do not follow any shooting rules unless they are "Magic Missiles" - for example FOrked Lightning (the 6+ heavens spell) simply requires line of sight. It has no range at all - are you saying this is not a ranged attack?

You cannot look at the fluff - it is still an attack derived at range, as the wizard is not in base contact.

Still, there is not a rule that define spells as being ranged attacks.

You cannot define ALL spells as ranged, as some spells affect the caster himself, therefore not all spells are ranged.

For sake of this argument, I will quote the Flag of Blood Keep rule:

" Grants the unit a 4+ ward save against ranged attacks of any kind(including war machines, templates, magic missiles etc)."

If it were to encompass ALL spells then the inclusion would not have specified magic missiles as it would have said "... templates, spells etc)." which it does not.

I wasnt stating ALL spells are ranged, I was instead stating "any attack not originated from base contact is, by definition, a ranged attrack"

As that is how English works.

At this point I would say the wording is fuzzy enough that in game you should roll a dice on a ruling and hope that it is addressed in a FAQ some time.

I dont think it is that fuzzy - ranged has a solid definition that works perfectly fine in the Warhammer ruleset.

did the atttack come from something in base contact? No? Then it was an attack made at range.

Simple, easy, works well enough. I doubt a faq will ever answer it, it seems too easy....although with some of their answers (missing out the hard ones...) who knows

While I agree with your definition of what constitutes a ranged attack, the fact that magic missiles were singled out in the banners rules instead of just saying spells makes it questionable enough to warrant an official ruling.

Because some spells do damage in base contact? If it said a blanket "spells" then flaming sword would count as ranged, despite it very definitely not being a ranged attack!

Nice to know my question wasn't an easy one.
I play with two other guys. One agrees with Aerethan and the other two agree with nosferatu. So I'm going to play with nosferatu's interpretation.
And just be aware that there may be debate in a tournament setting.

Thank you very much guys.

Nos is 100% correct here, a ranged attack is in fact anything that causes damage from a distance greater than BtB. Also the inclusions of 'Templates' in the rules for the Banner indicate that it is not just magic missiles but rather any spell that uses a template to decide the damage. There is more than enough in the spell description to indicate that it is available any time you would get a ward from damage that did not originate in BtB with the unit.

I'm not arguing the logic that ranged attacks are those not made in BtB combat. I'm saying that the rule book does not specify non magic missile spells as ranged and therefore can be construed as NOT being counted when dealing with the banner.


If you are going to rules lawyer you have to be able to do it from both sides. RAW works some rough stuff.

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of debate, and I respect Nos' opinion very much as he's proven himself to be rather up to date on rules knowledge.

You simply cannot say that spells are ranged based on the definition of range, especially when other rules such as what constitutes "shooting" are around. We cannot assume that a rule applies just because logic dictates it, for if logic dictated gameplay then we would have a very different game in our hands.

EDIT: Negativemoney, there is no ruling in either the BRB or in errata or FAQ's that states that " a ranged attack is anything that causes damage from a distance greater than BtB."

We simply cannot make statements like that without quoting precedence from an official ruling, as it is about as meaningful as armchair lawyering.

Except the banner only lists examples, so simply saying it isnt on the list isnt enough.

40k is *not* an inclusive ruleset - this is obvious given that there is no glossary of terms! As such you when you are left without an in game definition of a term you *have* to use the context appropriate general English term - there is no choice in the matter, as otherwise the game literally grinds to a halt.

If you dont accept the standard definition of "range" because there is no ingame term, then you cannot play the game - there is no ingame definition of a) a dice, b) what counts as a "roll", c) how far 1" is, etc

I am NOT saying that ALL spells are ranged, as I have painstakingly pointed out about 6 times now - what I am saying is any spell that does damage without the caster being in base MUST be a ranged attack.

By that logic a Burning Alignment made by an Engine of the Gods against a unit it is engaged in BtB with does NOT count as being a ranged attack, but against every other unit it does...

for those who would argue that EotG effects are not technically spells then lets use Crown of Taidron from the lore of shadow as an example. All units within 12" foe and friend take d6 S4 hits distributed like shooting(for sake of randomizing hits) and affects units in combat. So wizard McShadow casts this while engaged in combat and thus it does not count as ranged against his BtB unit but it does against that unit 1" away. So as long as I get McShadow into melee combat with the banner unit then they get no such ward save, but they do if I cast the exact same spell from 1" away.

Except the BA has a range - and burning alignment isnt a spell either

Same for Crown - it states it has a range, making it a ranged attack that in this instance has occurred in btb.

But stating that something HAS a range does not determine it BEING a ranged attack, lest we forget that Conflagration of Doom has no range.

It cannot be that any spell happening AT range or that HAS a range value counts as being a ranged attack in respect to this magic item(and also the Divine Plaque of Protection, which gives no such examples).

Again, I never said it was the only condition on being a ranged attack, just they are both sufficeint conditions.

An attack executed AT range or WITH a range is, by definition, a ranged attack.

aerethan wrote:Quoted from the 2009 FAQ of the main rule book page 8:

"Q. Many army books have magic items that provide protection against "Missiles". However the main rulebook does not provide a comprehensive definition of what "missiles" are. Can you please provide us with guidance on what "Missiles" are in regards to Magic items?

A. We assume that the word "missiles" includes all attacks executed in the Shooting phase as well as spells that are labeled as "magic missiles". "

From this, spell damage that is not specifically a magic missile is not protected against by items that provide protection from ranged attacks i.e. missiles.

The bolded part is a logical leap.

There is nothing in the section you cited that states that all ranged attacks are missile attacks and vice versa. The FAQ quote only mentions "missile" attacks; it is you, yourself, that have made the assumption that missile and ranged attacks are the same thing.

(BTW, I'm not saying your interpretation is definitely wrong, I'm just saying that there is no logical progression from the FAQ cited to your conclusion.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

aerethan wrote:Still, there is not a rule that define spells as being ranged attacks.

You cannot define ALL spells as ranged, as some spells affect the caster himself, therefore not all spells are ranged.

For sake of this argument, I will quote the Flag of Blood Keep rule:

" Grants the unit a 4+ ward save against ranged attacks of any kind(including war machines, templates, magic missiles etc)."

If it were to encompass ALL spells then the inclusion would not have specified magic missiles as it would have said "... templates, spells etc)." which it does not.

It says "...magic missiles, ETC."

The clear implication of the "etc." is that the list provided is not exhaustive, and there are other examples of ranged attacks that the rules writers did not feel the need to list.

In your opinion, what other types of "ranged attacks" might be included in the "etc." stated above? If there are no other examples besides "war machines, templates, [and] magic missiles," then why have the "etc." notation?

No, sorry, you are trying to lump "ranged attacks" and "missiles" together, they are two different things. Missiles are ranged attacks, but not every ranged attack is a missile. Your "logical leap" would make Spock cry.

While I'm not sure who you are referring to Arion, name a ranged attack that does not fit in the definition of Missiles as described in the FAQ part 2 2009.

Any attack or action during the shooting phase and magic missiles are "Missiles". The problem is that magic items no longer say" protection against missiles" they say "protection against ranged attacks" , and the term "ranged attacks" has NOT been clarified in the same manner as "Missiles" has.

Forked Lightning is a ranged attack but is most definitely not a missile.

Not exactly difficult, and still cant see why you are arguing against using the English language in a non-internally defined game structure.

I assume your next argument is that "the" isn't well defined?

I had an argument like this at my club sometime ago and came up with this

Missile weapons are anything used in the shooting phase or magic missiles

ranged spells are spells where it does direct damage however it might say within 24 or line of site

a good example is the lightning bolt spell above where it states the caster needs just line of sight.

anything else we arn't to sure of we solve gentlemanly with a D6 and 123 i'm right 456 your right

While Nosferatu and I haven't always seen eye to eye, I have to agree with him here. I find the term 'ranged attack' to be fairly self-explanatory here. This is another good example of why RAW is bad: it gets people arguing over every little nitpicky thing that, prior to RAW, was common sense.

A 'ranged attack' is, literally, an attack made at range.