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.

So since, scorch targets the ground beneath the target, and cannons could accidentally hit units in combat, and paired with cracks calls random cast range, I say its ok to to cast scorch and cracks call into combat. What does dakka think?

Well, i say, NO it isnt. Disallowed by the main rules. Unless its into a comhat where ONLY slaves are engaged from your own side.

Under the BRB rules for magic, if it doesn't say you CAN cast it into combat, then you can't. So it would either have to be an augment or hex (type allows them to be cast into combat) or to specifically say it can be cast into combat (like some of the codex lore spells... vamps, dark elves, etc). Otherwise, you're out of luck.

There has been discussion about this before. Some people think no, some yes when it comes to spells from the non 8th edition army books. Until there is a GW FAQ, talk it over with your opponent.

LordofMuck wrote:Well, i say, NO it isnt. Disallowed by the main rules. Unless its into a comhat where ONLY slaves are engaged from your own side.

Would you have to random the hits though since its a swirling combat?

Wait-..... i said you can magic into CC with only slaves involved... But aint that wrong actually?? I think thats only for shooting...

Darn..
Pretty sure you cant even cast scorch or cracks call on a unit engaged in CC even with slaves...
Havent got my book here, but think i made a mistake before!

I still say I'm not casting it into your unit in CC. I'm targeting a spot on the table that happens to have models there. If my opponent sees the other side of it then I'd just roll off for it. I would not, however, be convinced that the way I'm doing it is wrong. i.e. I would not let a TO say that its an illegal move as it's certainly not, just a gray area that hasn't been FAQ'd yet. So in the end, I'd roll for it if there was a problem. I would recommend this to anyone have this issue since there's no definite answer.

My two coppers...

Well, I'd say Crack's Call can "accidentally" be cast into close combat, just as a cannon ball can "accidentally" bounce through melee, but as far as Scorch is concerned, definitely not. The intention is to target a unit in close combat, even though the spell says "anywhere within 24 inches". That location is close combat, so the rules disallow it.

As far as "accidentally" casting Crack's call into close combat, it's really against the spirit of the game, just not against the rules...

Actually a grey seer casting cracks call or scorch into combat is not against the spirit of the skaven book at all...

ShivanAngel wrote:Actually a grey seer casting cracks call or scorch into combat is not against the spirit of the skaven book at all...

Okay, I'll concede that one.

So this may have been answered somewhere else but is relevant I believe, you say cracks call can't be directed at units in combat...what about magical vortex you place the template choose and direction and hope it does actually go that way. would you be able to cast them towards a combat?

I see no reason why this should be disallowed and you are following the rules for the vortex, cracks call is no different you choose a direction and it just goes off that way, you're not allowed to target models in combat...but you're not.

And with scorch you place the template anywhere within 24" so there's nothing saying you can't place it where there just so happens to be a combat, if you can't place that on a unit in combat, would that also mean you can't place a comet of casandora marker under a unit in combat (if you so choose) despite being able to "place it anywhere on the battlefield" surely if either couldn't be placed on units in combat it would say specifically.

So I think both are fine as you're not targetting a unit in combat, and one says anywhere.

I may have missed something somewhere but that's how I read it.

I agree with the poster above, I also have one more question, since 8th introduced true line of sight, can my warp lightning cannon shoot through forests now?

if you can see them from the models perspective you can shoot them is the idea, so unless it's a dense forest sure I believe they'd just get soft cover which isn't an issue

p.39 "...you cannot purposefully aim a template so that some of your models may be hit."

p.31 "some unitque spells...in older Warhammer Armies books...do not have a type-- their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

So, I'd say: for Crack's Call, no. For Scorch, technically, yes.

Warpsolution wrote:
p.31 "some unitque spells...in older Warhammer Armies books...do not have a type-- their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."
.

You, Sir, just opened the can of worms I was trying to avoid. Thank you.

Gooda wrote:if you can see them from the models perspective you can shoot them is the idea, so unless it's a dense forest sure I believe they'd just get soft cover which isn't an issue

well isnt soft cover just +1 to armor save for things that are shooting against it? Does that count for my WLC?

Cover is not a modifier to armor, it is a modifier for to hit rolls.

Which cannons do not use.

Happy blasting.

Also, the cannon ignores armour, yes-yes?

Sorry about the worms, Davall, but they needed some air. With the RaW, Scorch does not present us with any restrictions, so we assume it does not have any, as the BRB tells us so.

Would it really be that hard for a new FaQ to pop out and label us some spells? What's the point of having troop and spell types if half or more of the stuff we field is "unique"? Oiy.

Warpsolution wrote:Also, the cannon ignores armour, yes-yes?

Sorry about the worms, Davall, but they needed some air. With the RaW, Scorch does not present us with any restrictions, so we assume it does not have any, as the BRB tells us so.

Would it really be that hard for a new FaQ to pop out and label us some spells? What's the point of having troop and spell types if half or more of the stuff we field is "unique"? Oiy.

Oh, I am not complaining, as I argued that very point in a previous thread. I just didn't want to start it again.

Mods, if this is too far OTT then delete it. I won't be offended.

Davall, Warp, what about the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" further up the page?

"their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply."

To me, that is as ironclad as you can get. Any restrictions for that spell will be contained in the text. So you only go by what that spell says to determine any restrictions on casting it may have. It doesn't matter what any other spell or guidelines say.

If it had said "any additional casting restrictions" or "casting waivers", it would be 100% clear that the BRB restrictions were to be followed. But it doesn't.

Which restrictions apply? Well, the ones in their text do.

You know, It wouldnt be that hard to FAQ this stuff Games Workshop..

>_>
<_<
;_;

tgtony wrote:You know, It wouldnt be that hard to FAQ this stuff Games Workshop..

>_>
<_<
;_;

Yep, we said (and have been saying) the same thing. I find it ridiculously hard to believe there hasn't been feedback over a core component of the game and the potential "Wha?" moments contained therein.

Ah well.

Yeah, I too have been wondering why they havent gone through all the books with their own lores and labeled each spell in the FAQ...

Ok this is obviously a hex, obviously a DD....

Yep, do that for the ones that easily fit into the current scheme. Subtle rewrites for the ones that do not.

Easy peesy.

Heres one more questions. Strength in Numbers..... If i am flanked do I lose my SiN and basically become utter crap? Disruption says rank bonuses so in my mind, thats the up to +3 for combat res. But SiN says current rank bonus up to 10. Im so confused. If that is true, slaves are the most broken unit in the game...

Whoa, no. Maximum rank bonus is 3. Maximum Leadership, including the Strength in Numbers bonus, is 10.

Ok but there are people saying that its bonus ranks and that disruption (flanking) gets rid of bonus ranks...

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.

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.