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.

random question that bugged me in the last game i had....

can spells from codex-specific lores be cast into combat??

as memory serves the rulebook says you can only cast into combat if the spell says you can (or is a hex/augment, but i think the book says they can anyway).

it then goes on to say something about book-lores having their own rules.


i always assumed that both these rules applied to codex lores but in my last game i had a skaven player target a unit of swordmasters with the 13th spell (diddnt kill them all but the hell pit i was in combat with certainly did afterwards ). i let it go to keep the game flowing but it got me wondering if there is an official word on it somewhere....

Normally, no you can't cast any damage dealing spells into combat unless the spell says it can.

Now on skaven, They don't care about thier own troops expectually skaven slaves. Expect spells and shooting to go into thier own troops.

Skaven can only cast or shoot into combat that involves just skavenslaves and enemies due to the expendable special rule.

If they have any other unit in the combat (e.g. the hellpit abom you mentioned) then he would be unable to cast dreaded 13th into the group.

Dreaded 13th doesn't have a spell type does it?

If a spell doesn't have a type then the only restrictions it has on it are the ones found in its spell entry.


The Tzeentch spell Infernal Gateway does damage, but has no restrictions beyond proximity to the caster so it can be cast into combat.

Sadly, GW seem to have missed out the word "additional" in their wording for non-type'd spells.

Technically the 4 basic requirements on casting do NOT, technically, apply to spells that lack a type. As such you CAN cast them into combat.

This is why for my upcoming tournament I've errated in the requirement for all spells without a type to follow the basic rules AND their own rules....

Technically the 4 basic requirements on casting do NOT, technically, apply to spells that lack a type. As such you CAN cast them into combat.

This is incorrect. Types are listed AFTER the below rules that apply to all spells. Types are a modification to the rules which apply to every and all spells that have a target.

unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:

*Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat.

All spells of type Augment can, as it says they can. All Hexes can, as it says they can.

Any other spell has to explicitly state it can.

Skaven Slaves' expendible only applies to shooting, not spells. It's expendible because it has the chance of hitting them. Spells automatically hit, it doesn't make sense.

Skitterleap is an example of wording that allows you to cast into combat. Dreaded 13th has no such wording and thus is subject to the limitations of all spells. Which states they can't be cast into combat.

Wrong, because you didnt bother to read the rest of the rules on that page.

"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, if you dont have a Type, you dont have ANY casting restrictions except those contained in the text of your spell.

However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:

*Wizards cannot target spells at units engaged in close combat.

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 second rule does not contradict the first. Or any of the others. You can have multiple restrictions. As all spells do. By your logic, spells without an explicit type could be cast outside the forward arc, without line of sight, OUTSIDE THE SPELL'S RANGE, while the wizard was itself in close combat. Those rules apply to all spells UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.

If it said, "their text will contain ALL casting restrictions that apply," then I'd be inclined to agree. It says any, however. If a spell could only be cast on turn #2, that would be an any, in addition to restrictions that apply to spells unless stated otherwise.

Actually the 2nd rule does contradict the first.

it says "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply"


the word any in that sentence shows that all of the restrictions that there are will be found there. It leaves no allowance for restrictions anywhere else.

Any is not exclusive in that sentence. All is exclusive. That's where the phrase, "any and all" comes from.

Are there any restrictions for driving a car?
Are there any restrictions for driving a car in London?

Those two aren't mutually-exclusive and the one does not necessarily satisfy the other. You might not have a proper sticker that lets you drive around London, but you can still drive outside it. etc etc

Pretty much in the same vein as the rest of this thread, what about Cracks Call? It doesn't target anything, so can it be cast in such a way that it crosses combat? My friend and I played it that it could, but I don't want to cheat him next time I play.

seems the confusion i was faced with is a problem for all...

for what its worth i spent a whole game with my warriors of chaos before an opposing tzeentch mage targetted a unit in combat with the gateway (i spent the whole game not doing much with MY tzeentch mage because both our armies were in combat - that was a GW manager as well). lost that game to that spell as well.


i always read it as cant be cast into combat (especially as the majority of the skaven spells state that they can be cast into combat in their text and 13th doesn't), but if people want to use it on me i guess i'd be a fool not to do it myself

Duke - "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply"

If you apply a casting restriction that is not in their text, you have broken this rule.

Very, very simple

Can we just have links to the previous ten threads on this subject and save some forum space?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Duke - "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply"

If you apply a casting restriction that is not in their text, you have broken this rule.

No, you haven't. We're doing the same thing again, but if it said, "any and all," or "all," then you would.

-Do you, nosferatu, have any allergies or things you can't eat?
-You may tell your doctor your body can't handle strawberries or dairy products.
-But as a human, you also can't eat cyanide, hycrochloric acid, strychnine, or a host of other things. Your personal list of ANY allergens is not all-encompassing (notice the word all). You also inherit the limitations of your superclass, human. It is implied, and thus you don't have to tell your doctor you can't eat known poisons, unless you have a really terrible doctor.

This is a case of class inheritance from a programming or logical stand-point. All spells are spells. And per the BRB:

Spells must be cast:

*in forward arc
*in range
*not when caster in combat
*not into combat

UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.

What the any clause means is any other. The Dreaded Thirteenth specifically has any other. If you don't have enough models to change into rats, you take a different behavior. They are not going to reprint the BRB for every spell, which is what you're implying they do. That's why there is a BRB and class inheritance. The Dreaded Thirteenth is still a spell. It still can't be cast when the caster is in combat, for instance, as no spell can UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.

Apparently you enjoy shouting. Have fun with that.

Apparently, in your "RAW" world, when they say "any" they mean "any other"

I agree they meant that, however they did not actuall write that. What they wrote was "any casting restrictions"

You are apply casting restrictions not in their text, ergo you have broken a rule. If you'd like you could research the other dozen threads on here, however while you continue to simply make things up, arguing with you will be pointless

Seriously,

What are any allergies you have?

It's a simple sentence and has the exact same wording context as the BRB. How would you answer that question?

Seriously, stop making up rules

They do not say "any other" casting restriction, they state any casting restrictions will be noted in the text.

If you apply a casting restriction not in the text, you have broken a rule.

You also realise the difference between an allergen and a toxin, yes? Well, you clearly dont, given your argument, but give it a go.

They do not say all.

Any is never all-inclusive by itself. You can't even describe it as such without using the word "all."

-Who are any people you admire? --Stephen Hawking
-What are any mobility limitations you have? --I can't fly
-What are any colors you find attractive? --Blue
-What are any casting requirements on the Dreaded Thirtheenth? --the caster can't be in combat
-Where are there any people with red hair living living? --Ireland
-When are any airplanes flights late? --When there is bad weather.
-Why are there any rules for Warhammer Fantasy? --So they can sell books that detail them.

So there's at least one who/what/when/where/why question and answer. And you can see they are not the totality. To make them all-encompassing, you cannot use the word any. You have to change the sentences to make them exclusive.

-Who are all people you admire?/Who is every person you admire?
-What are all mobility limitations you have?
-What are all the colors you find attractive?
-What are all the casting requirements on the Dreaded Thirtheenth?

Any can indeed be all inclusive.


Bring me any tools we have. I want all the tools.

Do you have any paint? I want to know if you have any type of paint, all types are included in this.

Do we have any flour? I didn't specify what kind of flour so all kinds are encompassed

Do you have any outstanding warrents? it doesn't matter what kind, all are included.


these are all inclusive statements.

I feel they would need to say any additional rules will be in the description, but they say any rules that apply will be in the description.

If you walk into a store and it says no shirt, no shoes, no service those are additional rules to use that store not the only rules that apply to that store, for instance just because they say no shirt no shoes no service doesn't mean stealing or killing the workers there is allowed.

Grey Templar wrote:Bring me any tools we have. I want all the tools.
Do you have any paint? I want to know if you have any type of paint, all types are included in this.
Do we have any flour? I didn't specify what kind of flour so all kinds are encompassed
Do you have any outstanding warrents? it doesn't matter what kind, all are included.

These are binary, yes/no questions and conditions. Not one-in-many. They don't match the BRB example.

Bring me any tools we have. --This is a statement, not a question.
Do you have any paint? --This is a yes/no question on the existence of paint. The word "any" is extraneous. The same with the others. They can't be applied to the BRB. To answer the question, yes, there are rules. But that doesn't stop the BRB from having rules or the army book from having rules or both having rules.

"their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" --BRB
The chainsaw will contain any warning restrictions that apply. --that's as close as I can get to tools and the spell example from the BRB. The warning labels on the chainsaw are NOT inclusive. There is no way they could possibly tell you everything you shouldn't do with a chainsaw. "Hey, you didn't say I shouldn't cover it in grease and try and juggle it!" If they wrote "all warning restrictions," they would be setting themselves up for a lawsuit, as it implies there is nothing you can possibly do not written there with that chainsaw that could ever harm you.

So the end result is you are still making up asinine "examples" to try to deflect from the very bald statement: "any casting restrictions that apply"

Your mangling of this very clear (if, in my opinion, flawed) statement doesnt alter base facts.

Have you applied a casting restriction that is nit in the spell text? If so you have broken a rule

i know this is not a rules argument, in fact it is probably a RAI argument (and therefore invalid in a rules discussion) but....

look through the other skaven spells, most (i hesitate to say all, i cant remember) actually say they can be cast into combat and some even detail different effects when casting into combat (two of the plague spells)...

seems they diddnt want you to do it but as far as i can see there is nothing stopping anyone

Nosferatu is right in his interpretation. That being said, most anyone I ever play with doesn't actually play it that way (though I believe most don't realize we're breaking a rule). Things start to get weird and unclear for a lot of spells if you actually make it so the basic restrictions don't apply.

Which is why I mentioned that I had errata'ed in the missing word into my tourney.....

Yes, I read that. Sorry I didn't mention it?

It was the implication I didnt get that GW are terrible at writing rules