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.

Hi All

Just a quick question in regards to the template spray rule I am trying to understand as a new WM player.

eg corrosion from a cryx Jack, Template 6" corrosion damage with continous corrosion effect.

Does that mean everything covered in the template is auto hit like 40k? or do I need to make a roll to hit? The damage is apparently magical as indicated by battle college, does the continous corrosion take effect immediately or it needs to be triggered off liek critical fire from an inferno mace?

Loon

For Sprays, you roll to hit individually for every model the spray template touches.

Yes, Continuous means it takes effect as soon as the model it hit.

Edit: Realized you're talking about Spray templates.

Thank you very much good sir! I have now reached WM level 2!

loongor wrote:Hi All

Just a quick question in regards to the template spray rule I am trying to understand as a new WM player.

eg corrosion from a cryx Jack, Template 6" corrosion damage with continous corrosion effect.

If you are talking about the defiler then it is an 8" spray

loongor wrote:
Does that mean everything covered in the template is auto hit like 40k? or do I need to make a roll to hit? The damage is apparently magical as indicated by battle college, does the continous corrosion take effect immediately or it needs to be triggered off liek critical fire from an inferno mace?

Loon

And nope, battle college has misinformed you here. A spray from a defiler is not magical. If the arc node is being used by Deneghra to cast venom then that spray is magical.

Battle college is a great resource but only use it to get a flavour of what things can do. If you want use something on the table then have the card/book and read that.

yastobaal wrote:

loongor wrote:Hi All

Just a quick question in regards to the template spray rule I am trying to understand as a new WM player.

eg corrosion from a cryx Jack, Template 6" corrosion damage with continuous corrosion effect.

If you are talking about the defiler then it is an 8" spray

loongor wrote:
Does that mean everything covered in the template is auto hit like 40k? or do I need to make a roll to hit? The damage is apparently magical as indicated by battle college, does the continuous corrosion take effect immediately or it needs to be triggered off like critical fire from an inferno mace?

Loon

And nope, battle college has misinformed you here. A spray from a defiler is not magical. If the arc node is being used by Deneghra to cast venom then that spray is magical.

I had looked through the Mk2 rulebook and it doesn't state that it is a magical attack in any way, but my friend keeps arguing it is a magical attack. That is when we both went to battle college site and read up that is a alchemy magical attack. Do we have further evidence that it is not a magical attack?

Battle college is a great resource but only use it to get a flavour of what things can do. If you want use something on the table then have the card/book and read that.

loongor wrote:
I had looked through the Mk2 rulebook and it doesn't state that it is a magical attack in any way, but my friend keeps arguing it is a magical attack. That is when we both went to battle college site and read up that is a alchemy magical attack. Do we have further evidence that it is not a magical attack?

Look at the CARD, there's no Magical Weapon advantage(the little sword surrounded by stars symbol) on the Defiler's Spray Attack.

Attacks are only Magical 2 ways: They are made with a Magic Weapon(indicated by that sword and stars symbol or granted through a spell) or they're an Offensive Spell/Magical Attack Spell.

NEVER take a 3rd party Wiki source as a rules answer, especially for a system that's so thorough at telling you what is and isn't what on the cards.

And this is why Battle College ought to die in a fire.

loongor wrote:That is when we both went to battle college site and read up that is a alchemy magical attack. Do we have further evidence that it is not a magical attack?

I'm not sure which article you two read and were subsequently misinformed by, but nowhere in the Defiler's Battle College page does it list the sludge cannon as being a magical attack. In fact, that entire page doesn't have the word "magic" on it at all, so at first I wasn't sure what you were referring to. After a quick review, the Mk.I page doesn't list anything about it having magical attacks either.

There is no such thing as an "alchemy magic attack" in the game. What you read on Battle College is that the attack is the Corrosion damage type and causes Continuous Corrosion. Both Damage Types and Continuous Effects are covered in the rulebook. Damage Types do not grant any other bonus or attribute. If a weapon is both Corrosion damage type AND a magical weapon, it will have both symbols. Magical attacks are also covered in the rulebook and designated just as Polonius illustrated: via the sword and stars symbol or being explicitly stated an offensive magic spell or offensive magical attack.

Laughing Man wrote:And this is why Battle College ought to die in a fire.

I enjoy exaggeration for its own sake as much as anyone else, but really Battle College is a pretty handy tool overall. The issue here is not Battle College but the individual reading it. That is not to say Loongor's friend has poor reading comprehension, but is not as well versed in the rules as he could be and so seems to have misinterpreted an attack having a damage type as also being granted the Magical Attack attribute. To us it is clear that is not the case because the rules do not make this connection, but it is again not BC's fault that someone did nor does it devalue the information available there.

Of course you should not rely 100% on the information provided, but for the vast majority of things BC is accurately written and with a proper understanding of the rules it gives you a pretty clear idea of what things do. It is not designed to be a card/rule replacement, a complete unit tactica, or a "this unit is better than this other unit and here is why" resource; that's what community forums and official game elements are for.

With that in mind, one criticism that often comes up is that they make every model/unit out like a viable selection in your army. Some people would argue that is correct and some would even argue it would be a disservice to put on the Battle College pages "Just go with Winterguard Deathstar instead" whenever it talks about Khador infantry. With the proper support and understanding of the limitations of the unit, most models in the game can be a viable, effective choice. They are not always the most effective choice but that's where levels of competitiveness comes in which is separate from viability. And in BC's defense, even they think Cryx Drudges are terrible.

loongor wrote:...The damage is apparently magical as indicated by battle college...

To help beat this horse, the other posters are absolutely right. All unit/model attributes are defined on their associated card. Warmachine/Hordes is a very different system than what you might be used to in that nearly every ability, movement, attack, etc is defined with no real room for interpretation. It was built to minimize the need to infer things like this.

A good rule of thumb is to always remember, "If it doesn't say you can, you can't; if it doesn't say you have it, you don't".

I found the link again, this is what initially confused me, sorry for being such a noob.

http://battlecollege.wikispaces.com/Continuous+Corrosion

Here is the quote from the site if you haven't been on the link!

Continuous Corrosion

Corrosion

Corrosion is a Continuous Effect. When you are suffering corrosion, you roll a d6 in the Maintenance Phase with corrosion expiring on a roll of 1 or 2. If corrosion does not expire, then you suffer a point of damage.

Note also, that corrosion effects are considered alchemical or magic, so entering water will not wash them off.

Cryx has the largest availability of corrosion effects, with only a few instances else where.

Oh, ok. Fair enough then, that's certainly a confusing statement even when you know the rules already. They are trying to clarify why jumping into water won't erase Corrosion, though that can be a misleading explanation. Of course, now that makes me wonder if (per the rulebook) jumping into water does put out the Fire continuous effect, or if that is counted as being non-mundane fire as well.

Again, BC is wrong. There is nothing magical about Corrosion damage as it is defined in the rulebook, unless it comes from a source that is also magical (p 34/35, 68/69).

The water terrain rules do not say they remove Corrosion or Fire. Deep water will remove both off a Jack though since it removes it from play.

I would like to further confirm eg. A repenter's fire spray attack.

1. I scored a hit on say a warcaster with the fire spray (with fire continuous effect)

2. Other players turn to resolve the fire continuous effect, he/she rolls eg. a 5 the effect does not disappear unless a 1 or 2
-> The fire effect is POW 12 his armor is 14, so even though the fire effect is on him/her it does 0 damage? as it will be 14 -12?)
-> Or do I get to roll a d6/2d6 +POW 12? eg. POW 12 + 6 = armor 14 - 18 = 4 damage?

If anyone can clear this up for me it would be greatly appreciated!

Cheers Loon

You would roll 12+2d6 as per the normal rules. Page 69 in Prime covers part 2 of the question. A damage roll is defined on page 65.

BC isn't wrong, its just adding the same fluff line from the rule book (paraphrased) concerning the alchemical/magical nature of fire and corrosion in this setting.

Adding that line was a bad idea though, as it adds nothing to the discussion but confusion.

When you find an error on Battle College, the best thing you can do is correct it yourself.

blue loki wrote:BC isn't wrong, its just adding the same fluff line from the rule book (paraphrased) concerning the alchemical/magical nature of fire and corrosion in this setting.

Adding that line was a bad idea though, as it adds nothing to the discussion but confusion.

When you find an error on Battle College, the best thing you can do is correct it yourself.

Fluff != rules. Magical attacks mean something completely different. Not seeing how you can maintain it's not wrong.

I would like to add to this thread since it is still under spray attacks but against stealth units.

Can spray attacks still target stealth units that are 8 inches away? Or must I be within 5 inches before I can do a spray attack on the unit?

As spray attacks have the ignore stealth rule, when playing games with my friend he states that I must still be within 5 inches or its a auto miss.

I've been watching more battle reports and just saw one that targeted a stealth unit approx 7 to 8 inches away ignoring the you must be within 5 inches rule?

Would anyone be kind enough to clarify this for me? Just a Yes/No to the 8 Inches would be fine!

Thx again all!

Loon

Hey man, To my understanding sprays only target a single model, you are then allowed to roll to hit on anything under the template... Which allows you to hurt stealthed units.

I believe that stealth will only cause you to auto miss it if you choose a stealthed unit as the initial target, and you are over 5" from it.

The corrosion sentance is misleading, mainly because of the use of "alchemical or magic". The Wikiposter was attempting to bypass questions about entering a water feature to "wash off" the corrosion... 'Flooding' areas exposed to chemical burns in order to dilute and remove the acid/base without rubbing it further into the surface is the most common reaction to coming into contact with corrosive material.

It's basically the same as saying, "no, your guys cannot Stop-Drop-Roll to remove the fire effect.". It's the most well known method of removing the particular m'lady, and the poster just wanted you to know it doesn't work in game terms.

This is wrong. Sprays ignore stealth, period (p60, WM). There's nothing about over/under 5".

The intent of whatever BC was trying to do still doesn't change the fact it's wrong.

I knew it got around it somehow, That's the quote I was hoping for 12th, thanks.

On a side note, no one is arguing with you that the spray isn't magical.

To be complete:

-Sprays are a type of ranged/magical attack. You choose a target, place the template against the point of origin with the center line directly at the target, and then see what is under the template. Roll to hit against each model under the template. You ignore concealment, cover, and stealth. IIRC you don't ignore elevation, but I may be misremembering.

By ignore, that means play like the rule isn't there. Hence you also ignore camouflage and such. Stealth is ignored so none of the rules apply.

In the case of the attack coming from a gun that has the magical weapon symbol (Discordia's weapon, for example) or from a magical attack (Venom from Deneghra, or the spray from a Greylord), it is magical. Else not.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:To be complete:

-Sprays are a type of ranged/magical attack. You choose a target, place the template against the point of origin with the center line directly at the target, and then see what is under the template. Roll to hit against each model under the template. You ignore concealment, cover, and stealth. IIRC you don't ignore elevation, but I may be misremembering.

By ignore, that means play like the rule isn't there. Hence you also ignore camouflage and such. Stealth is ignored so none of the rules apply.

In the case of the attack coming from a gun that has the magical weapon symbol (Discordia's weapon, for example) or from a magical attack (Venom from Deneghra, or the spray from a Greylord), it is magical. Else not.

Entirely correct.

And stuff.

Sprays ignore stealth, which means you can shoot enemy models with stealth from further than 5" away with sprays.