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.

I had played a game against a WoC player and he had squad of Chaos Ogres. I cast The Dreaded 13th at the unit and successfully cast it. I rolled enough to where it wiped out the unit. My opponent argued that it should not work on the unit because the unit has multiple wounds per model. The codex says infantry in a unit. He then argued that ogres are considered monsterous infantry and therefore could not be targeted. We looked it up in the FAQ and it states nothing we could find about it. He got his way anyways.

Was he right? Is monstrous infantry different eventhough it's infantry? Or did I get hosed?

Also, can ther 13th spell be cast on a different unit if my Seer is on a Bell that's locked in combat? Because it's not direct damage and doesn't say if it is a Hex or Augment.

1. As far as I know, your opponent was correct. "Infantry" and "Monstrous Infantry" are two different troop types.
The idea here is that you've got to be man-sized to mutate into a Clanrat. It's a bit more of a stretch to say that some ogres each mutated into three Clanrats (and downright silly to say that a Dragon or, Horned Rat forbid, a Steam Tank, can mutate into six or ten of them).

2. I believe you can cast in on any unit you can see, as you suggest.

1. In 7th you could have cast the spell, as there was no difference between regular 20/25mm and Ogre class.

In 8th they have made a distinction such that Monstrous Infantry is different to Infantry, so your opponent was correct.

2. It is not a hex or augment, so you can cast freely.

Well thats a great benefit to ogre armies.

Don't they have to be in the front arc to be targeted. I believe the "general casting restrictions" says that unless otherwise stated a unit needs to be in the front arc of the caster to be targeted.

doom bell gives the seer 360 degrees of line of sight

Line of sight isn't the question, the it's the restriction of the casting that says "front arc." A model may have 360 los, but it still has a front arc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2. It is not a hex or augment, so you can cast freely.

You're saying 13th can be cast into combat?

We had this discussion before, although whether it was concluded....

pg 31 under Choosing A Target:

"Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

The spell description for army specific lores, unless they have the Magic Missile type, will tell you where they can target, separate of the general prohibitions (IMO).

I agree. After reading that, I concluded that Dreaded 13th could not be targeted into combat...

Red_Zeke wrote:I agree. After reading that, I concluded that Dreaded 13th could not be targeted into combat...

Well, I would disagree as the Dreaded 13th doesn't say it may not be cast into combat, and as per the section I quoted, it doesn't give unengaged as a restriction. Also, no, I am not a Skaven player

Hopefully GW will FAQ it and eliminate any confusion

RZ - you can cast it into combat as there are no general restrictions on firing into combat any longer. The bell also states it can cast in a 360 degree arc while sat on top.

Page 31:

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

- The target must lie within the Wizard's froward arc.
- The wizard does not need line of sight to his target.
- The target must lie within the spell's range.
- Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat.

Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others... ...Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type- their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

So you're saying for for all non-types spells, the basic 4 restrictions are thrown out the window and the only thing you do is look at the spell description itself?

There are plenty of skaven spells that include the text "even in combat", but that is apparently unnecessary? I guess I read the above to indicate that the basic 4 categories apply unless explicitly stated otherwise.

I can see the argument, but I just don't think it's right. A quick scan through the books. Offensive spells that I noticed that can be cast into combat because they have neither a type, nor a specific prohibition against doing so (so long as you don't count page 31) include:

Bladewind, black horror, foot of gork, mork wants ya, 'eadbutt, gork's warpath, treesinging, magnificent buboes, plague squall, cloying quagmire, baleful transmogrification, infernal gateway, ecstatic seizures, and flames of the phoenix.

I may have missed some.

Yeah the screaming bell SPECIFICALLY states that it can CAST spells(as well as gives LOS) in a 360 degree arc around the bell. That should mean any "front-arc" spell can be cast in any direction.

Red_Zeke: Well, what you quoted does say "unless stated otherwise". As Davall pointed out on page 31, the rulebook claims that any restrictions(note that it doesn't say permissions) that are applied for unique or old spells is described on the spell in question.

And there are no limitations for close combat casting for the Dreaded 13th Spell.

Red_Zeke wrote:

So you're saying for for all non-types spells, the basic 4 restrictions are thrown out the window and the only thing you do is look at the spell description itself?

There are plenty of skaven spells that include the text "even in combat", but that is apparently unnecessary? I guess I read the above to indicate that the basic 4 categories apply unless explicitly stated otherwise.

I can see the argument, but I just don't think it's right. A quick scan through the books. Offensive spells that I noticed that can be cast into combat because they have neither a type, nor a specific prohibition against doing so (so long as you don't count page 31) include:

Bladewind, black horror, foot of gork, mork wants ya, 'eadbutt, gork's warpath, treesinging, magnificent buboes, plague squall, cloying quagmire, baleful transmogrification, infernal gateway, ecstatic seizures, and flames of the phoenix.

I may have missed some.

Remember, in 7th, there was a rule, with no general exceptions, that you could not cast into combat unless given permission. That's why some spells say "even into combat" or "even if engaged in combat" and other assorted wordings. The little blurb I quoted is a clear exception for the book lores. To me, if the general targeting rules applied to them, it would have said "any additional casting restrictions that apply".

Fair enough, I guess. I'm betting GW doesn't realize it works this way though.

Just the other day, I was just thinking Dreaded 13th wasn't good enough.

Well, to be fair, with the Army FAQs they did, they could have easily FAQ'd/Errata'd each spell. I know it was a lot of spells, but they already were doing each army.

Ah well, GW missed a perfect opportunity to either change the spells, or to state that's how they intended it.

Here's my take on casting restrictions.

Page 31 of the Rule Book.
Choosing a Target: Target restrictions vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:

The target must lie within the wizards forward arc

The wizard does not need line of sight to the target

The target must lie within the spell's range

The wizard cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat

Some spells have a type that enforces additonal casting restrictions, or waivers others. There are five distinct types of spell: augement, direct damage, hex, magic missile and magical vortex. Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

Ok the bold portions are the important points. From the beginning we learn that every spell has the same 4 restrictions unless stated otherwise which include targetting units in close combat. The following paragraph then describes that some spells have additional restrictions or waivers some of the restrictions. It then goes on to say that older spells in the Army books will have any restrictions listed in the entry. It does not however state that these army book spells exclude the standard 4 restrictions, it's mearly stating that additional restrictions for these spells are in the description for the spell. How do we know that? Well it's in the same paragraph that starts with the topic sentence "Some spells have a type that enforces [b]additonal casting restrictions, or waivers others."

The bold text from hamster says it perfectly. If a spell does not specifically say "you can cast this spell into combat," or if it doesn't have a type (hex, augment) that allows this on a general level, then you can't cast it into combat. I'm usually not into being the rules gestapo, but I'll go to the wall on this one, because the only spells it affects so far are infernal gateay and the 13th, which are both disgusting and should be restricted in every possible way.

This was (is?) my original argument. But you can also read that last sentence to indicate that all Army book spells (that are not defined, like magic missiles) have entirely self contained casting restrictions.

Given that I see it is possible for a reasonable person to read that last sentence and come to a different conclusion than I did, I don't think it's worth arguing...

RZ

EDIT:

Oh, I'm so fickle. So, for the sake of argument, let's take Fists of Gork.

"This has a range of 18" and may be cast on any single enemy unit, even if it is in close combat. If successfully cast, the unit is pummeled..."

If none of the basic four restrictions apply to Army book spells without a type, then this restriction from page 31 doesn't apply either:

- The target must lie within the spell's range.

So, I can see it has a range, but since the original four restrictions don't apply. I'm not restricted by the spells range. I'll cast it full table length. As opposed to a spell like 'Eadbutt, which says that I may "Cast this on a single enemy model within 24"..."

This is a silly argument of course, but I think it shows where you could head if you throw out the 4 universal restrictions.

RZ

their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply

The key word is ANY.

It does NOT state "will contain any additional restrictions", but ANY restrictions.

In other words spells in the army books have ONLY the restrictions they state.

Now, that is probably not what is intended, but that IS what is written.

Not to be too fickle but the fact that it leaves out the word additional during that portion shouldn't matter.

Some spells have a type that enforces additonal casting restrictions, or waivers others. There are five distinct types of spell: augement, direct damage, hex, magic missile and magical vortex. Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

Topic Sentence
Supporting Sentence

The last sentence doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The last sentence has no link to the first sentence. Given that the subject of the first sentence is different to the final sentence that is abundantly clear.

The context of the "additional casting restriction" is "some spells have a type"

the context of the "any casting restrictions" is the "unique spells,...."

Two entirely seperate, distinct sentences relating to two entirely, seperate, distinct types of spell.

I disagree about the first and last sentence not being linked. The first sentence is talking about how the type of spell can enforce restrictions. The middle sentence talks about the 5 most common types. The last sentence is talking about unique spells or army book spells that have no type. We could discuss this until the end of time. I'm satisfied that if we were to ever play a game, we would just dice it off.

Red_Zeke wrote:This was (is?) my original argument. But you can also read that last sentence to indicate that all Army book spells (that are not defined, like magic missiles) have entirely self contained casting restrictions.

Given that I see it is possible for a reasonable person to read that last sentence and come to a different conclusion than I did, I don't think it's worth arguing...

RZ

EDIT:

Oh, I'm so fickle. So, for the sake of argument, let's take Fists of Gork.

"This has a range of 18" and may be cast on any single enemy unit, even if it is in close combat. If successfully cast, the unit is pummeled..."

If none of the basic four restrictions apply to Army book spells without a type, then this restriction from page 31 doesn't apply either:

- The target must lie within the spell's range.

So, I can see it has a range, but since the original four restrictions don't apply. I'm not restricted by the spells range. I'll cast it full table length. As opposed to a spell like 'Eadbutt, which says that I may "Cast this on a single enemy model within 24"..."

This is a silly argument of course, but I think it shows where you could head if you throw out the 4 universal restrictions.



RZ

No. The spell contains its restrictions, which includes the 18" range.

Like I said before, GW needs to step in and clarify (and get editors, and actually playtest their own rules, and... )

Then one of those 4 restrictions is pretty silly isn't it?

Yep, it sure is. There was no need to put into the general requirements that it had to be within range. That is an intrinsic property of the game, that if an attack/ability has a range, you have to be within range to use it.

*edit* Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving all (if you celebrate it). Time to make that 9 hour drive...

Over all, the question I was asking was not if it can be targeted at a unit in close combat. Is if the spell can be targeted at an not engaged unit if the bell and seer itself is engaged in close combat.

Blarglord wrote:Over all, the question I was asking was not if it can be targeted at a unit in close combat. Is if the spell can be targeted at an not engaged unit if the bell and seer itself is engaged in close combat.

To answer your question then. Yes, the seer can target another unit not in close combat even if it's in close combat assuming you're not breaking the 4 restrictions already listed in this thread.

hamsterwheel wrote:Here's my take on casting restrictions.

Page 31 of the Rule Book.
Choosing a Target: Target restrictions vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:

The target must lie within the wizards forward arc

The wizard does not need line of sight to the target

The target must lie within the spell's range

The wizard cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat

Some spells have a type that enforces additonal casting restrictions, or waivers others. There are five distinct types of spell: augement, direct damage, hex, magic missile and magical vortex. Some unique spells, or spells that are printed in older Warhammer Armies books, do not have a type - their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply.

Ok the bold portions are the important points. From the beginning we learn that every spell has the same 4 restrictions unless stated otherwise which include targetting units in close combat. The following paragraph then describes that some spells have additional restrictions or waivers some of the restrictions. It then goes on to say that older spells in the Army books will have any restrictions listed in the entry. It does not however state that these army book spells exclude the standard 4 restrictions, it's mearly stating that additional restrictions for these spells are in the description for the spell. How do we know that? Well it's in the same paragraph that starts with the topic sentence "Some spells have a type that enforces [b]additonal casting restrictions, or waivers others."

Exactly. Since some spells don't have a type and therefore aren't subject to the normal limitations and waivers. The basic restrictions are the building blocks for all spells and the types are additional rules. The first rule can't be ignored and that is unless otherwise stated all spells have the basic limitations. The rules state that in addition to the basic restrictions types are factored in, not that unless a spell has a type the basics don't count. People seem to want to ignore that "..unless otherwise stated the following rules apply". This precludes and is separate from any rules for a spell type.