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.

Nos, I don't have my book with me, but I believe that the rules on direct damage spell state that they "can't be cast into combat." It's fine if the spell doesn't have any language regarding targeting; neither does the description of the rule.

I think it would probably be best to apply the standard that a cannonball uses, namely: you can't cast it even if there's a mathematical possibility that you could hit something engaged in a close combat. It's effectively the same sort of template (a straight line, of a determined length but infinitely small width).

edit: previous poster kindly provided the citation. BRB, Pg.31, Direct Damage, "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--that is not to say that the template won't scatter onto friendly units later, depending on the spell."

It's not a direct damage spell, the skaven army book dosen't give it any sort of classification.

I think they should FAQ every single spell in every single army book already!

They should have. They didn't.

Malleus - even if it were a DD spell, which it isnt, it doesnt use a template.

A crack appears in the ground at the caster’s feet and
runs for 4D6" in a straight line in any direction in the
caster’s arc of sight. Any models in its path must make
an Initiative test to leap out of the way. Models that fail
are removed as casualties. Instead of taking an Initiative
test, war machines and chariots must instead roll a 5+
or be destroyed.

Its not a direct damage spell as Nof has been trying to say.

Thing is, by the rules on page 31 of the BRB, a spell can be one of the five main types, or it can be a unique spell where the spell description contains all of its casting restrictions. Crack's Call doesn't declare itself a Direct Damage spell, and so we can't assume those limitations exist. Instead we have to consider it a unique spell, where all the limitations for the spell are given in the spell's description.

That said, I'm a lot more interested in whether or not a character can receive a Look Out Sir! roll for Crack's Call. I've just been looking it up and Look out Sir is worded very strangely, and seems to apply to only shooting attacks. Does this mean that magical template attacks never allow a Look out Sir! roll. I've never played it that way.

I still stick by my point that something like a giant or a shaggoth or a dragon should easily be able to clear a gap drom this spel.. if its cast at them then why would they be affected? i really think that "monsters" should be immune to this spell as a hole large enough to swallow a shaggoth or dragon would have to be so big it would swallow like 40% of both armies. They really need to FAQ spells like this because it is just silly at the moment. and what someone said about it targeting and having random ranges.. you said "what if you declare it at a target and it doesnt reach?"

Well what do you do for charging.... EXACTLY.

So we would currently have to use this as a unique spell that can (given its written in the spell) destroy whole armies practicly... or take out anythign that matters.. monsters.. HPa, shaggoths, giants, your enemys screaming bell.. things that cost like 1/8 or 1/6 of an army can be swallowed up in 1 spell.

By the way just realised it cant kill a dragon because its a flying monster and i belive the spell doesnt affect units that can fly?

So what if it can kill entire armies?

It has variable (short!) range
It has a high casting cost

Exactly like purple sun.

Its does affect dragon's, it does not matter if the model can fly. The way I have been resolving it is showing the opponent the spell.

Many opponents have read it themself and said "doesn't say template, my characters on the line, character takes a initiative check, it clears as day Any models in its path..."

A few opponents have asked would I consider allowing a look out sir. In the spirit of the game, i've allowed it, but again, there is not indication you get one.

I guess I can see the argument being made that seeing as the spell only affects units in a straight line, thus assuming at most, the spell's width would only be as wide as the caster's base (20-25mm), you might argue that a large or huge creature might not be affected by this spell simply due to the size of the fissure/crack created would be too small for the creature to fall into.

However, that is probably thinking way too much into the spell.

Especially as it is a *line*, not a rectangle.

matt55 wrote:I guess I can see the argument being made that seeing as the spell only affects units in a straight line, thus assuming at most, the spell's width would only be as wide as the caster's base (20-25mm), you might argue that a large or huge creature might not be affected by this spell simply due to the size of the fissure/crack created would be too small for the creature to fall into.

However, that is probably thinking way too much into the spell.

None of this is justified at all by any type of rules currently outlined in the WFB system. There is no argument on how to apply the spell. If the line established runs through your model you are effected. The spells width is irrelevant.

thelordoflife wrote:I still stick by my point that something like a giant or a shaggoth or a dragon should easily be able to clear a gap drom this spel.. if its cast at them then why would they be affected? i really think that "monsters" should be immune to this spell as a hole large enough to swallow a shaggoth or dragon would have to be so big it would swallow like 40% of both armies. They really need to FAQ spells like this because it is just silly at the moment. and what someone said about it targeting and having random ranges.. you said "what if you declare it at a target and it doesnt reach?"

Well what do you do for charging.... EXACTLY.

So we would currently have to use this as a unique spell that can (given its written in the spell) destroy whole armies practicly... or take out anythign that matters.. monsters.. HPa, shaggoths, giants, your enemys screaming bell.. things that cost like 1/8 or 1/6 of an army can be swallowed up in 1 spell.

By the way just realised it cant kill a dragon because its a flying monster and i belive the spell doesnt affect units that can fly?

The hard lessons you learn from a spell eating up your monsters/warmachines/etc. are:

1) Realize you don't just recklessly stomp them in wherever you want, especially since you know this spell is in play and from which point or origin.
2) Realize that having a single model cost 1/6 of your points is a really bad way to make a list in general.

Spell is working as intended, magic makes the impossible... possible. Pretty sure that's in the dictionary or something.

njpc wrote:

matt55 wrote:I guess I can see the argument being made that seeing as the spell only affects units in a straight line, thus assuming at most, the spell's width would only be as wide as the caster's base (20-25mm), you might argue that a large or huge creature might not be affected by this spell simply due to the size of the fissure/crack created would be too small for the creature to fall into.

However, that is probably thinking way too much into the spell.

None of this is justified at all by any type of rules currently outlined in the WFB system. There is no argument on how to apply the spell. If the line established runs through your model you are effected. The spells width is irrelevant.

Easy cheesy...I didn't say it should be interpreted that way. I was simply offering up a reason as to why some may not be able to understand the physics of it. Yikes.

Cheesy? Not so.
Your interpretation is not even close to how you should resolve a rules issue. Anyone attempting to utilize your suggestion would get laughed at in any tournment setting. I pointed out none of your suggestion is een grounded in any of the WFB rules.

Perhaps you should look at backing your suggestions with facts. I'm guessing your newer here and should likely look over several longer posts on how people resolve rule complications.

njpc wrote:Cheesy? Not so.
Your interpretation is not even close to how you should resolve a rules issue. Anyone attempting to utilize your suggestion would get laughed at in any tournment setting. I pointed out none of your suggestion is een grounded in any of the WFB rules.

Perhaps you should look at backing your suggestions with facts. I'm guessing your newer here and should likely look over several longer posts on how people resolve rule complications.

And what suggestion was that mr. E-thug? I simply talked about the flavor/description of a spell and provided an explanation/reason as to why some people may have difficulty understanding why/what effect it should have based on the spell description-that little thing that tells the narrative before the effect on game play. I didn't say anywhere that it should be interpreted this way. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

A good portion of us don't make rule judgements based on a whether we will receive a "laugh" response at a tournament. The average player doesn't play a majority or any of their games at tournaments, so worrying about the reaction of fellow tournament players isn't that high on most players' lists.

Perhaps you should handle future comments with a more tact and proper candor instead of coming off like a....well I'll leave it at that.