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.

How is an Attack at Range not a Ranged Attack?

The same way ironfists wheren't shield enough during the last ogre argument

lixulana wrote:well you left off the part of the faq that says "ie lore of death". so yes lore of death works on it.

And you left out the part where you made your own FAQ

But because of this ruling Greedyfist has reached our banned magic items list

No, I don't believe so.

Good old page 12 describes a turn as:

Movement
Magic
Shooting
Close Combat

I think that's the highest of high levels of each category. If you use power dice to activate it, it is "Magic" regardless. If you cast a magic missile and someone has Shield of Ptolos (1+ armor against shooting attacks) it doesn't help. Cuz it's still magic. Even Amber SPEAR! Hey, it's a spear. No, it's still magic. Nothing in Close Combat with models facing each other will ever not be Close Combat unless it has Special Rules that say it. Your fancy pistols become fancy hammers. Your fricken' cannon you're carrying becomes a fricken' big hammer. And shooting is shooting. No bow-fired arrow will ever be a able to be dispelled, or stone thrower.

There is no "Ranged" type per-se. The BRB lists 3 pages for Range and they are all Shooting.

And finally, spells have range. (P.81). Spells are not referred to as "attacks," however. If we want to get anal about words:
"If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the Greedy Fist, does it lose a Wizard Level?"
A spell is a spell. It may have an effect that causes damage, but you will not see them referred to (that I see) as "ranged attacks." They are direct damage or magic missiles, etc. Which are still not referred to as attacks or ranged attacks. Shooting attacks are referred to as just that, as well as being at range.

How is an Attack at Range not a Ranged Attack?

It's not an attack, it's a spell. There is no WS->WS check. Or BS check. If the spell is successful, THEN the semblence of an attack takes place (if it's even a spell that causes damage).

"Attack" is not purely close combat.

An attack at range is a ranged attack. A spell, hitting you from a Range and causing damage, is a Ranged Attack

well when i first saw the faq it said lore of death, and didnt have the designers note.

also apparently its V2 and it has changed to just ranged attack...

In general terms, yes. In context of the game though?

lixulana wrote:well when i first saw the faq it said lore of death, and didnt have the designers note.

also apparently its V2 and it has changed to just ranged attack...

The original FAQ didn't say anything about magic, it said ranged attacks.

If it had mentioned magic then there would not be this issue of people trying to prove balck is white with regards to what is a ranged attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

How is an Attack at Range not a Ranged Attack?

It's not an attack, it's a spell. There is no WS->WS check. Or BS check. If the spell is successful, THEN the semblence of an attack takes place (if it's even a spell that causes damage).

An attack is the intent and occurs regardless of the outcome.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Attack" is not purely close combat.

An attack at range is a ranged attack. A spell, hitting you from a Range and causing damage, is a Ranged Attack

I didn't say it was close combat. A spell is a spell. It is not "hitting you" from ranged. It is being cast. Nowhere is it defined as an attack. Nowhere under MAGIC heading is the word "Attack" used. It does not exist. At no point when conjuring the winds of magic do you say you are making a ranged attack. Nor do you ever say you are making an attack. The burden of proof, if you want to RAW it, is on you. It exists for attacks under the Shooting category. It does not for anything under Magic or even Spells.

An attack is the intent and occurs regardless of the outcome.

No. A spell is the intent. The effects are resolved after the spell is cast. Per Spell Resolution. You're casting the net obscenely wide. Here is another example. If a Slaughtermaster with Greedy Fist casts Trollguts on a friendly target, Miscats, Detonates, is he still stealing levels from anyone in base contact? Because it's a ranged attack. Again, if you're trying to go RAW, you can't say "intent" and grab a dictionary when your starting point is FAQ RAW (and clearly not RAI). You need to find the RAW that backs you up. Shooting has it. Close Combat has it. They define ATTACKS. They use the words that match the FAQ and item description. Spells do not. What page does it describe a spell as a "ranged attack" or an "attack" fit for Greedy Fist?

I have RAW'd it - Attack has a very simple meaning in English, not contradicted by the BRB.

Under this meaning Ranged Attack includes ranged spells.

I have RAW'd it

LOL! That's the exact opposite of the definition of Rules as WRITTEN. Your definition isn't RAW.

A spell is never called an attack. A spell is never called a ranged attack. It isn't RAW.

You aren't looking for the exlusion of something, you're looking for the inclusion. That's RAW. Where does it say a spell is a "ranged attack?"

DukeRustfield wrote:
No. A spell is the intent. The effects are resolved after the spell is cast. Per Spell Resolution. You're casting the net obscenely wide. Here is another example. If a Slaughtermaster with Greedy Fist casts Trollguts on a friendly target, Miscats, Detonates, is he still stealing levels from anyone in base contact? Because it's a ranged attack. Again, if you're trying to go RAW, you can't say "intent" and grab a dictionary when your starting point is FAQ RAW (and clearly not RAI). You need to find the RAW that backs you up. Shooting has it. Close Combat has it. They define ATTACKS. They use the words that match the FAQ and item description. Spells do not. What page does it describe a spell as a "ranged attack" or an "attack" fit for Greedy Fist?

I suggest you look at pg 31 BRB - "Direct Damage spells are deadly attacks....", and since they have a range, by extension and commonly accepted English usage they are 'ranged attacks'.

Q: If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the
Greedy Fist, does it lose a Wizard Level? (p62)
A: Yes.

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6211 East Holmes Road
Memphis , TN 38141
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM CST
Contact info:
1-800-394-4263

ME: I have a question regarding Warhammer Fantasy rules.
CS: Go ahead.
ME: Regarding the Ogre FAQ If a Wizard is hit by a ranged attack from the bearer of the Greedy Fist, does it lose a Wizard Level?
CS: Okay.
ME: Does that apply to spells cast as well?
CS: We are ruling now that it does not. We have pushed this back to the FAQ preparers but for the time being we are all answering this as no it doesn't, because a ranged attack such as a bow isn't the same as a spell.

Asking GWs customer service a question is not valid in a rules discussion.

It's exactly what their job is, actually. This isn't CS for shipping or product info, it's CS specifically for gaming rules.

If you have a rules question that you need immediate help on, then please call our Customer Services line at 1-800-394-4263 and we’ll try and help you out. We can either refer you to the correct section of rules or give you our opinion on a particular interpretation if it is less clear.

And they were the same ones who said Ogre casters could wear magic armor.

You're always free to play however you want, obviously.

Grey Templar wrote:Asking GWs customer service a question is not valid in a rules discussion.

And it is silly.

DukeRustfield wrote:It's exactly what their job is, actually. This isn't CS for shipping or product info, it's CS specifically for gaming rules.

If you have a rules question that you need immediate help on, then please call our Customer Services line at 1-800-394-4263 and we’ll try and help you out. We can either refer you to the correct section of rules or give you our opinion on a particular interpretation if it is less clear.

it might be the intended purpose of the hotline, but it fails miserably because you can call three different times and get three different answers. even if 2 of them are correct, you don't know which one is the wrong one so all have to be tossed out. Its like playing Russian Roulette, the one loaded cylinder makes the whole game something no one in their right mind would play.

it is a crap shoot weather or not you will get someone who knows what they are doing and someone who just got stuck there so they can have someone who answers the phone.

On top of that, its also a non-verifyable source. I could easily just say "I just called and talked to Robert on the GW customer service line and he agrees that my way is the correct interperation"


Without a way of verifying the source of the ruling, and no reputation of quality, it is a useless thing to do.

If GW had their own Forum where you could ask the game designers questions and get their direct interpertations then you could verify the source because anyone could see it and make sure that you arn't lieing for advantage.

Duke - so, please "RAW" me the meaning of the word "the"

You can only use the rulebook. PLease come back to this thread when you can do so.

Or, you can accept the game is not totally internally defined, and that by definition the common english usage of a word or phrase, controlled by context, IS RAW.

Your choice

Grey Templar wrote:it might be the intended purpose of the hotline, but it fails miserably because you can call three different times and get three different answers.

On top of that, its also a non-verifyable source. I could easily just say "I just called and talked to Robert on the GW customer service line and he agrees that my way is the correct interperation"

Without a way of verifying the source of the ruling, and no reputation of quality, it is a useless thing to do.

If GW had their own Forum where you could ask the game designers questions and get their direct interpertations then you could verify the source because anyone could see it and make sure that you arn't lieing for advantage.

Lollersauce! First, they're all sitting in a room together and make a call sheet on how to answer questions. I posted the # so you could call them. They don't send emails or give "Joe" because they want you to use the FAQ I suppose.

But, really, not sure if anyone cares or noticed, but I don't actually play the game. Ever. I watch the game. I read the game. I write some stuff that never goes anywhere. I like game theory. And this is just one of the games I participate in. Some people paint. Some people sculpt. I debate gaming rules and theorycraft. It's fun stuff. I have less vested interest in the outcome of this than I can possibly express. The idea I'm lying because I'm...I don't know. I can't even complete the nefarious scheme.

I debated long about the Ironfists ruling. And I quote the same GW Customer Service who said they use armor. If you'll look up that post, I'll said, good enough for me, even though I rationalized against it long and hard.

I'm totally okay with you calling CS and asking the same question. Ask them 40 times, calling 7 days a week at various times. I'm very confident you will get the same response. If you don't, post it here. Then maybe we could get them to do something more official. But the idea that umpteen thousands of gamers are going to talk directly to the developers on all the issues that crop up every day is a little bit...not cost-effective. The person I talked to on the phone said, "later, dude," instead of goodbye--to give you an idea of the pay grade we're talking.

Don't feed the troll.

Grey Templar wrote:Asking GWs customer service a question is not valid in a rules discussion.

Yes it is but you need to use the 3 step program.

Step 1: Ask and get an answer.
Step 2: Repeat 1 the next day.
Step 3: Compare the two ansers.

Repeat the steps until you get the same answer as a statistic average.

HoverBoy wrote:
Step 1: Ask and get an answer.
Step 2: Repeat 1 the next day.
Step 3: Compare the three answers.

Fixed it for you.

In all seriousness, I don't think Deathfisting is that practical(at least in theory). The two spells are very short ranged and your opponent can dispell them still. It's not like you can't deploy to fight against it though. Your opponent rolling spells from the Lore of Death should be setting off some warning bells. You can put screens in front of the wizards(to keep the SM at armslength, I know DD spells don't need LoS).

You're lazy if you only shoot for three.

I don't have the rule book in front of me, but you might want to take a look at the description of magic missiles.
The whole "ranged" thing is wider than just deathfisting.
Corsairs, White Lions, and Dwarf rune of Shielding all have special effects aganist "Ranged attacks".
If you fireball any one of these three, what save do they use?

On the flip side, I know at least one spell effect does inflict CC hits (dark magic), and bypasses the above defense. Does that imply that a normal magic missile is a "ranged" attack?

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:I don't have the rule book in front of me, but you might want to take a look at the description of magic missiles.
The whole "ranged" thing is wider than just deathfisting.
Corsairs, White Lions, and Dwarf rune of Shielding all have special effects aganist "Ranged attacks".
If you fireball any one of these three, what save do they use?

On the flip side, I know at least one spell effect does inflict CC hits (dark magic), and bypasses the above defense. Does that imply that a normal magic missile is a "ranged" attack?

-Matt

They have defence from shooting attacks.

Yes.

HawaiiMatt wrote:I don't have the rule book in front of me, but you might want to take a look at the description of magic missiles.
The whole "ranged" thing is wider than just deathfisting.
Corsairs, White Lions, and Dwarf rune of Shielding all have special effects aganist "Ranged attacks".
If you fireball any one of these three, what save do they use?

On the flip side, I know at least one spell effect does inflict CC hits (dark magic), and bypasses the above defense. Does that imply that a normal magic missile is a "ranged" attack?

-Matt

Yes, they would get their saves. except from the Dark Magic spell which specifically says its a CC attack. which in turn means that spells that do damage are most definitly ranged attacks, unless defined otherwise like this spell.

White Lions are Shooting attacks. Dwarfs are Shooting attacks and spells defined as magic missiles. Shooting attacks have a special section in the BRB that has nothing to do with spells.

GW has never defined a "ranged attack."

...which is fine, because the English language does it for us, just perfectly.

Youre still looking for that definition of "the", yes?

DukeRustfield wrote:White Lions are Shooting attacks. Dwarfs are Shooting attacks and spells defined as magic missiles. Shooting attacks have a special section in the BRB that has nothing to do with spells.

GW has never defined a "ranged attack."

Yes, but they have defined Close Combat attacks.


Thus, anything that isn't a close combat attack MUST be a ranged/shooting attack.

DukeRustfield wrote:White Lions are Shooting attacks. Dwarfs are Shooting attacks and spells defined as magic missiles. Shooting attacks have a special section in the BRB that has nothing to do with spells.

GW has never defined a "ranged attack."

Corsairs gain the better save against anything not in close combat.
I was pretty sure the dwarf rune just used the "ranged" term, with no specification to magic missiles.

Direct Damage spells are explained as attacks, and do have a range limitation.

IMO, Death Fisting does work and should be Errata to disallow it.

-Matt