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.

Yo.

Just a quick question as the spells are a bit vague. Can either of these spells be cast into combat?

Yes, because they don't have a specific spell type. The rule book says spells like this contain their own Casting restrictions and these spells have nothing which prevents casting into CC.

Of course, the above is simply one interpretation.

Page 31 in the BRB lists the full rules. Read starting with Choosing a Target. That lists 4 rules that all spells must have unless stated otherwise. One of which is can't be cast into combat.

Some people say the paragraph that comes after relieves the spell of all those restrictions. If that was true, Infernal Gateway could be cast into cambat, would not need to be within the forward arc, and would not need line of sight. Because the spell itself doesn't specify them.

Of course, that's just one interpretation. I believe the BRB exists so you don't have to list the same rules over and over again, especially for something like spells.

But read it and draw your own conclusions.

Note that the above ignores the plain written rules, and tries to assume that they meant something entirely the opposite of what they actually wrote.

Now, I'm of the opinion that they did miss a word or two (such as "additional") from the rule, however applying the current rules Duke is objectively incorrect

And considering they have had going on 2 years and no FAQ to say otherwise....

But that's beside the point

nosferatu1001 wrote:Note that the above ignores the plain written rules, and tries to assume that they meant something entirely the opposite of what they actually wrote.

Do you work at GW? If you don't, please don't state what they intended, as a certainty, using my name in an ad hominem manner. It's silly and rude. You have an opinion which you are certainly entitled to. It is not the only opinion or there wouldn't be a need for this subforum, FAQs and the OP asking the question to begin with.

The other interpretation means every single spell has to repeat every single limitation it has over and over again. Which would be like redefining infantry and archers in every unit in every army book. It's not necessary. They make global rules in the BRB that can be applied to everything. That's the entire purpose of a game manual. The army General does something. Regardless what the army books say. Monstrous Infantry does something, regardless of what the army books say. Unless the army book specifically states it does not behave in a manner of the BRB in which it overrides it.

Infernal Gateway does not state it can be cast into combat, it does not state it doesn't need line of sight. And guess what, all spells do, "unless stated otherwise." Does it state otherwise? No.

Really, all these questions should be answered with a link to the previous 10+ page arguement, the pages of the rules in question and the you decided.

Or we could re-hash those 10+ pages all over again.

-Matt

I personally interpret gateway as a direct damage spell.
So check the faq or see what people say.

I find it fair that gateway is a direct damage spell because honestly thats all it does.

DukeRustfield wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Note that the above ignores the plain written rules, and tries to assume that they meant something entirely the opposite of what they actually wrote.

Do you work at GW?

No.

DukeRustfield wrote: If you don't, please don't state what they intended

Ah, this is your first inability to read. *I* never said what they intended *you* did. Repeatedly. Your ENTIRE argument is based in intent, MY argument is based on the *FACT* that the rules do not back up your argument.

DukeRustfield wrote:, as a certainty, using my name in an ad hominem manner.

Your second comprehension failure: it was not an ad hominem manner, it was an objective assessment stating your opinion of the rules is wrong. It is wrong. 100% wrong. This is not debateable, despite your pretensions otherwise.

DukeRustfield wrote: It's silly and rude. You have an opinion which you are certainly entitled to. It is not the only opinion or there wouldn't be a need for this subforum, FAQs and the OP asking the question to begin with

Have you seen some of the questions that get asked?.

DukeRustfield wrote:The other interpretation means every single spell has to repeat every single limitation it has over and over again.

Yes, or it has to have a spell type errata'ed in. Or that they meant for spells to only have their own limimtaitons - which is EXACTLY what they wrote

YOU are the one who is judging the GW intent and assuming that the 100% clear wording means something else, and adding additional words (see, like the word "additional" that I mentioned in my post - which you clearly didnt read) in order to make the rules match that.

DukeRustfield wrote:Infernal Gateway does not state it can be cast into combat, it does not state it doesn't need line of sight. And guess what, all spells do, "unless stated otherwise." Does it state otherwise? No.

Except as per the REAL rules, not the Duke made - up - out - of - whole - cloth rules, those are not required of the spell. Because ALL the restrictions are listed in the spell type - this is known as "the more specific rule", and is how the rule is actually written.

Finally, the most aggregious comprehension fail on your part? You missed the part where I agreed with you on the *intent* of the rule, but objectively you ARE wrong on the rules as written.

Considering the Chaos lores have spells that state they can be cast into CC I stand behind duke

Johnny-Crass wrote:Considering the Chaos lores have spells that state they can be cast into CC I stand behind duke

Different edition was when the WoC book was written, and made that exception necessary.

Davall wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:Considering the Chaos lores have spells that state they can be cast into CC I stand behind duke

Different edition was when the WoC book was written, and made that exception necessary.

Thank you for making my argument for me. They had to add that EXCEPTION because the other spells COULD NOT be cast into CC. I do not see how one could read that differently

Johnny-Crass wrote:

Davall wrote:

Johnny-Crass wrote:Considering the Chaos lores have spells that state they can be cast into CC I stand behind duke

Different edition was when the WoC book was written, and made that exception necessary.

Thank you for making my argument for me. They had to add that EXCEPTION because the other spells COULD NOT be cast into CC. I do not see how one could read that differently

7th edition did not have the much maligned paragraph that people like to debate. 8th edition does.

As was said earlier, anyone can feel free to go back and re-read the thread where all of this is debated in length. I have no interest in doing so.

Agreed with Davall on the rehashing of the old debate.

That being said, keep in mind what Nos is actually arguing. He isn't advocating playing the game that way, just that the rules were written in a way that failed to take into account older editions.

I think they wrote that paragraph with 8th ed books in mind, where most of the spells in new codices have spell types. They just didn't bother to FAQ the old spells to give them a proper fix. Its one of the problems with new editions in that we often wait for fixes long after the launch of the edition.

Look, this really isn't worth hashing out again. For what it's worth, I agree with Nosferatu. But, as I recall from the other thread, he is inclined to house rule it to the way GW *should* have written it (with the inclusion of the word "addiional"). Most people do the same, whether they realize it or not.

Yep, not only inclined to do so but I have done so - tournament im running this weekend (shameless plug here) adds the missing words in.

Johnny - 7th ed /= 8th ed, there is a difference between the two

Objectively Duke is 100% incorrect as to how the rules are written, however based on likely intention of the rules they would be correct.