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.

In my mind, scorch cannot be cast into combat (too much like a direct damage spell to have that make any sense), but crack's call I'm less sure of. I'd say it could be, but I'd put it past a judge or my opponent first ...

Etna's Vassal wrote:... just as a cannon ball can "accidentally" bounce through melee ...

Actually, it can't:

BRB 112 wrote:Note that you are not allowed to make a cannon
shot in such a way that it has a chance of hitting
a friendly unit or an enemy unit that is engaged
in close combat.

I point it out because I've seen a number of batreps where WLC splatter a monster and then 'LOL SKAVENZ' land on some clanrats on the other side, blowing them up too. This doesn't actually work (I know because I tried to do the same thing to a ghorgon and had it called on me )

- Salvage

Does anyone else note spells like Plague and Wither state "even against a unit engaged in close combat". In my mind (and yes this happened to me at 'Ard Boyz so I am bitching), you shouldn't be able to cast Cracks Call into combat, as you are still "targeting a unit engaged in close combat". My opponent's response was "Well it doesn't say I can't". To put it in perspective, a Grey Seer skitterleaped down a flank of 10 wide, 4 deep Savage Orc Big-Uns with a Great Shaman in front that was in CC with an ABom. Of course, the Great Shaman fails his Int test and auto dies.

While that certainly sucks...he's got some rules to back it up.

The key, once again, is that both spells are type: Unique. They're technically not Direct Damage spells, for whatever dumb reason. And the BRB says that any restrictions will be mentioned.

Now, I could mention how the rule disallowing the targeting of friendlies/combats might be considered a blanket one, but then I'd go on to say that all of that is under Shooting into Combat.
I could also go on to say that, technically, it only seems like war machine's templates are allowed to accidentally hit friendly models, but then we go back to this only applying to shooting, and to the fact that enemies in combat as illegal targets are left out of this point.
...but I won't mention any of that.

Warp - the war machines templates thing was shown to be inapplicable in the other thread on this (salamanders), so trying to apply a shooting restriction to magic is....unsafe

Was it? I missed that part, much to my chargin. What, exactly, was the proof? I'm interested in the answer.

And you're absolutely right. That's why I'm not applying anything to anything at the moment. I could have, but I certainly didn't want to.

That there is no restriction in the template rules that stop you from counting hits made to models in combat, the restrictions only exist on initial placement. So you have general permission to hit all models under the template, and nothing removes that permission.

Grey Templar wrote:If either of the spells are Direct Damage spells then they cannot be cast into CC.
Direct Damage spells still must have a target unit. the ground that you are targeting is in a CC.

Being an old book, none of the spells are classed at all.
I think you would be hard pressed to claim that scorch and cracks call would not be listed direct damage if the rule book was released today.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:I think you would be hard pressed to claim that scorch and cracks call would not be listed direct damage if the rule book was released today.

No offence Matt but this statement is total BS, noone but GW can make claims on what GW would do, including you.

HoverBoy wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:I think you would be hard pressed to claim that scorch and cracks call would not be listed direct damage if the rule book was released today.

No offence Matt but this statement is total BS, noone but GW can make claims on what GW would do, including you.

Sure I can.
Lore of fire has a spell that tells you to place a 3" template, and everyone under gets a S4 hit. Sound like scorch?
Lore of shadow (and orcs) have a spell that is 4D6" long, and models hit must... Sound like Cracks Call?

The reason I'm saying these SHOULD be direct damage is that GW is extremely similar spells in other lores that work exactly, or almost exactly the same way, and are direct damage.

If you wanted to know what type of spell Plague would be, I'd say I have no idea. It does direct damage, but can be cast into combat. It doesn't linger like hexes, and we don't have Any 8th edition army book or basic lore spell that works like that. But for scorch and cracks call, we have extremely good examples from 8th edition.


-Matt

Should, doesn't mean it is currently.


GW could have easily clarified in the Eratta, but they haven't.

that means they are currently happy with them being able to be cast into CC(in actuality, they might be unaware of the problem, but that is beside the point)

Warpsolution wrote:You...seem to be talking about something else.

Okay:

Rank Bonus- for every rank of 5 (3) or more models beyond the first, add +1 to your Combat Resolution, up to 3.

Disruption- when a unit of at least two ranks of 5 (3) models charges another unit in the flank or rear, the charged unit does not count its ranks towards Combat Resolution.

Strength in Numbers- a Skaven unit may add it's current rank bonus to it's Leadership for any Leadership-based tests, up to a maximum of Leadership 10.

So, if a Skaven unit gets charged in the flank and is Disrupted, it loses its rank bonus, which means it loses its bonus to Leadership tests.

Actually, RAW, they would, as it only says that the disrupted unit "does not receive combat result points for extra ranks as long as it is disrupted". Nothing in there states that they lose it, just that they can't count it, as you still get the ranks for steadfast and such. Now, as for RAI, yeah, they would probably lose it, Skaven being the cowardly lot they are (and from my battle experience with them), they are always looking for an excuse to run away.

Strength in Numbers only gives you a boost to Ld equal to your rank bonus. The bonus is not received.

As long as you don't receive a combat bonus, you don't get the boost. Yes-yes?

HawaiiMatt wrote:The reason I'm saying these SHOULD be direct damage is that GW is extremely similar spells in other lores that work exactly, or almost exactly the same way, and are direct damage.

I know why you said it, but i was pointing out that "simillar" isn't "the same", the argument could easily be made that GW intended for those spells to hit CC for uniqueness as well as demonstrating the skaven leaders blatant disregard for the lives of their underlings.

HoverBoy wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:The reason I'm saying these SHOULD be direct damage is that GW is extremely similar spells in other lores that work exactly, or almost exactly the same way, and are direct damage.

I know why you said it, but i was pointing out that "simillar" isn't "the same", the argument could easily be made that GW intended for those spells to hit CC for uniqueness as well as demonstrating the skaven leaders blatant disregard for the lives of their underlings.

Skaven have rules to disregard the lives of their underlings, and if anyone wanted to scorch into slaves, or cracks call through them, more power to them.
If it's the property of skaven that allows blasting into melee; then a warlord with the wizards hat on should be able direct damage spells into melee with slaves.

-Matt

I see your argument but the fact stands that skaven got 4 FAQ updates since 8th came out and GW did nothing to stop those spells hitting CC. That alone makes the "they intend it to be so" argument more credible.

@ HoverBoy

If GW intended Scorch and Crack's Call to be cast into combat, why didn't they write it in the spell discription. They wrote it in the discriptions of Plague and Wither....

Someone already quoted this on the first page of this thread, but:

Targeting restrictions vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:

Wizards cannot targets spells at units engaged in close combat.

If you seriously think that you can cast it into combat because placing the template under (or directly firing at, in the case of Crack's Call) a unit is NOT targeting, then you have never seen TFG in your FLGS because you are TFG...

Airmaniac - sigh.

That entry has NOTHING to do with the ability for these to be cast into combat. Non-BRB spells contain ALL restrictions on casting, and those lines do NOT apply unless the spell states it does.

Airmaniac wrote:@ HoverBoy

If GW intended Scorch and Crack's Call to be cast into combat, why didn't they write it in the spell discription. They wrote it in the discriptions of Plague and Wither....

See the fact that those spells were written under 7th edition rules, where targetting into combat was a no-no unless the spell said otherwise..

See us play 8th edition now. Check the disclaimer about non typed spells having all their casting restrictions in their description. pg 31" -their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

Apples to oranges.

@ Davall
targetting into combat is still a no-no in 8th edition .... see the quote of page 31 I posted earlier.

Airmaniac - see the quote listed above

Non-typed spells contain ALL their restrictions. The restrictions on page 31 only apply to typed spells

Try again....

So I can cast spells like Infernal Gateway, Flames of the Phoenix and Black Horror into combat? Cool.

Assuming ytou follow any restrictions given in the spell, you can cast as you wish.

WHich was the point.

If you are really going to play it that way then you should inform any Dark Elf players you know to take the Lore of Dark Magic again. Not only are the casting values low, you can now cast a non-scattering large template into combat! Everything that is touched has to pass a Strength test or suffer a wound with no armour saves allowed! Just charge on in with the unkillable Dreadlord and fire away!

You can't seriously defend this type of non-sense....

It's in black and white in the BRB, there is no "defending" it. The BRB says clearly that for any spell that does not have one of the spell types from the BRB, aka Hex, Augment, Magic Missile, Direct Damage, Vortex, that you read the spell for any casting restrictions that apply.

It does not say any additional restrictions or exceptions, otherwise you would have to follow the BRB targeting guide.

So yes, you can cast Gateway into combat, even the one you are engaged with as it is not one of the defined spell types from the BRB.

Airmaniac - do you have a rules question anymore, or a "i dont like the rules" statement?

I only remain with the impression that the rules lawyers that are going to play it like this are the same ones that, just after the Skaven 7th edition book came out, were playing stormbanner every turn (it didn't say one use only) and playing conga line skavenslave units to abuse the fact that the Cornered Rats rule says ranks...

If you want to be TFG, be my guest. You aren't my opponent anyway. Just saying that you all know that it isn't RaI and that it will be fixed at a certain point, just like Stormbanner and Cornered Rat abuse....

There have been *four* FAQS since 8th ed came out, and *none* have addressed this

Are you so certain on your spurious "RAI" claims?

Airmaniac wrote:I only remain with the impression that the rules lawyers that are going to play it like this are the same ones that, just after the Skaven 7th edition book came out, were playing stormbanner every turn (it didn't say one use only) and playing conga line skavenslave units to abuse the fact that the Cornered Rats rule says ranks...

If you want to be TFG, be my guest. You aren't my opponent anyway. Just saying that you all know that it isn't RaI and that it will be fixed at a certain point, just like Stormbanner and Cornered Rat abuse....

Insults aren't needed. This is a forum about RAW, not how you personally think the game should be played. The BRB has been out approaching a year, and as Nos said, there have been 4 BRB FAQs. Don't feel so certain about your RAI claims.

Davall wrote:

Airmaniac wrote:I only remain with the impression that the rules lawyers that are going to play it like this are the same ones that, just after the Skaven 7th edition book came out, were playing stormbanner every turn (it didn't say one use only) and playing conga line skavenslave units to abuse the fact that the Cornered Rats rule says ranks...

If you want to be TFG, be my guest. You aren't my opponent anyway. Just saying that you all know that it isn't RaI and that it will be fixed at a certain point, just like Stormbanner and Cornered Rat abuse....

Insults aren't needed. This is a forum about RAW, not how you personally think the game should be played. The BRB has been out approaching a year, and as Nos said, there have been 4 BRB FAQs. Don't feel so certain about your RAI claims.

GW's slow pace and low quality of FAQs is not an indication of one interpretation being more correct than another. One FAQ on the basic rule set every 3 months, with a lot of issues still unanswered is pretty slow paced.
IMO, GW should FAQ how the older spells work.
I for one would be thrilled to be dumping curse of years, black horrors, and having winds of undeath hit units in combat (I've got undead and dark elves). But, I won't do it until I get a specific FAQ saying I can.
When vampires, skaven and dark elves were written, you couldn't target units in combat unless the spell said you could. All three of those lists have spells that say you can, and those that don't mention it (meaning in 7th, you cannot).
I'm not convinced that GW's lack of FAQ, and poor wording on the 8th edition limitations is a green light to now toss those spells into combat.

The question of Cracks and Scorch isn't a question about those spells, it's about how 7th books are used in 8th edition rules, which has already been covered previously in another thread.

-Matt

Considering magic is one of the key components of the game, if there was something wrong in their eyes, there is a reasonable (as in it should approach certainty) chance they would have FAQ'd it.

We have mentioned the could have FAQ'd the spells for the individual army books. They have not.

We have mentioned they could have FAQ'd it for the BRB. They have not.

In reality they have had 48 entries where they could have FAQ'd changes vs what they wrote. They have not.

So it is fairly clear, at this point, they are content with how the BRB/Army entries' wording works. You read the spells in the army books how they are written for any restrictions, if they do not have a BRB spell type. Easy peasy.