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.

"their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply"

By requrement in the BRB the spell must contain ANY restrictions that apply. Meaning restrictions NOT listed in the spell description do NOT apply. As that is how English actually works.

I see TDA is doing no better with reading comprehension in this thread than in the other from the quoted responses. Broken record.

That's why I put him back on ignore. I don't know if English is not his primary language, he is being obtuse, or he is just trolling.

My concern (if you want to call it that) is that newer players get the wrong information. Don't screw the game up!

I didnt take them off, just had a look at the responses. Still a failing to understand a) it never targets and b) that the BRB has a very clear, never FAQ'd (likely a mistake, but hey, its GW, could be intended) rule that type-less spells have ANY restriction laid out in their rules, and you do NOT follow the BRB restrictions.

This is clear to almost everyone, and I agree it would be bad for people to get the wrong idea about the actual rules vs TDAs houserules. To be fair, its quite a common houserule, as I personally believe they missed out "further" from the sentence.

dark does that nowadays. He takes a flagrantly wrong position and defends it way past sanity.

I don't know what happened to him. He used to be opinionated, but not crazy or unreasonable. Now...

Best just to put him on 'ignore' and have done with it.

Tell you what. How about someone post actual restrictions, rather than permissions and tell me what actually overwrites the BRB restrictions.

Looking at my skaven army book right now, I see nothing that overwrites the restriction placed on targetting into combat.

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT DOES SO.

Except for the fact the BRB GIVES YOU THE VERY PERMISSION YOU SEEK.

Crap, I fed the troll. Must not do it. Must not do it.

I'm actually inclined to agree with TDA, though not to his level.

The BRB provides a list of basic restrictions on spells that apply to ALL spells unless otherwise stated. Ergo, I'm inclined to believe that spells cannot target units in combat unless the spell's description specifically says so.

That said, I also tend to favor intent rather than RAW because GW does a crappy job writing rules. I still have nightmares about someone feeling the need to FAQ what a force sword did in the Blood Angels codex since that was before GW decided to differentiate between different types of force weapons (the argument was that since there were rules for force weapons but not force SWORDS, a model armed with a force sword was armed with a useless weapon he couldn't use).

To sum up: I agree with TDA's interpretation but not his emotion; I also agree that GW missed a word in their rule.

Mannfred - actually the BRB states that you have some basic restrictions, such as targeting into combat. It then states that, when you have spells with no type, the spell will list ANY restrictions on casting that spell - you c annot any longer use the basic BRB restrictions, due to the wording "any restrictions". If it had said "any further" restrictions, then the BRB restrictions, plus spell specific ones, would apply

BUt it doesnt. Meaning that TDA is again incorrect, and cannot meaningfully argue against this point.

Davall wrote:
Except for the fact the BRB GIVES YOU THE VERY PERMISSION YOU SEEK.

Crap, I fed the troll. Must not do it. Must not do it.

Yes. It gives you casting permissions. A unit within 24".

It does not give you any restrictions, nor permission to override any of the existing limitations in place in the BRB. Why can you not get this through your head?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mannfred - actually the BRB states that you have some basic restrictions, such as targeting into combat. It then states that, when you have spells with no type, the spell will list ANY restrictions on casting that spell - you c annot any longer use the basic BRB restrictions, due to the wording "any restrictions". If it had said "any further" restrictions, then the BRB restrictions, plus spell specific ones, would apply

BUt it doesnt. Meaning that TDA is again incorrect, and cannot meaningfully argue against this point.

No. It states the spell lists it's limitations. It does not tell you to ignore the existing ones. The rules from the BRB will always apply. You cannot choose to ignore them at will.

Must....resist....feeding....

No, TDA, it does NOT state that. As has been shown.

It states, very clearly, that the spell will list any restrictions. Not any further restrictions, but ANY restrictions. Meaning you cannot use the BRB restrictions any longer.

WHen you have an untyped spell you have NO RESTRICTIONS on you from the BRB, because thats how the rules are worded. LIkely stupid, but until then your stancehas no rules basis to it.

Right, back to ignore. Easier life.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Must....resist....feeding....

No, TDA, it does NOT state that. As has been shown.

It states, very clearly, that the spell will list any restrictions. Not any further restrictions, but ANY restrictions. Meaning you cannot use the BRB restrictions any longer.

WHen you have an untyped spell you have NO RESTRICTIONS on you from the BRB, because thats how the rules are worded. LIkely stupid, but until then your stancehas no rules basis to it.

Right, back to ignore. Easier life.

In both threads we've clashed on, you've argued a case for ignoring the basic rules for a game. I refuse to waste any more time or effort on someone too thick headed to grasp the basic idea of a rule set. The ignore is mutual.

Ah, a typical response

In the previous thread, your "Basic English" was shown to be incorrect, and you still claimed you were not wrong, even when faced with factua evidence to the contrary.

Why I expected differently here I am not sure.

Reported for rule one.

So we'll leave that there then.

Davall wrote:
Skaven are an old book, written for a previous edition. Unless the spell tells you the unit must be unengaged, then yes you can cast it into combat. The main rulebook says that spells without a type will tell you what restrictions they have.

There are some huge older threads about old book lores. I suggest you try to find them and read through.

That's a point I always make but no one listens....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Demelain wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Davall wrote:
As I said above, unless Dreaded 13th is a Magic Missile (it's not) or specifically says in its description that it can only target unengaged Units (not sure but pretty sure it doesn't), you may cast it into combat.

The BRB says that untyped spells will have any casting restrictions in its description. Unless Dreaded 13th says you can't, you can.

You need to target a unit. Which can't be done for units that are engaged.

Wrong, there is no problem targeting a unit in combat with a spell, Hex and augment spells do it all the time.
since the dreaded 13 spell has no type on it, you cannot apply any of the restrictions from the brb to it.

You can target units in combat with hexes and augments because it gives you explicit permission to do so.

Without that permission, you cannot.

Spells without type dont need permission from the BRB. They need to be denied by the spell des . The last sentence of the "choosing a target" paragraph "-any casting restrictions that apply". The BRB says specifically, that the spell description of a typeless spell has its rules for targeting. The spell description of a spell without type overrides targeting restrictions of the BRB. IMO, the real problem in 13th's mixed opinion is one of sportsmanship. The letter of the rules seem clear but 13th is, in the opinion of most, an over powered spell and people try to turn it down. Letter of the law vs spirit of the game. Ppl see 4d6 casualties and think its limburger dick. In the game environment, most people bring blocks of infantry when they do. The spell has limited targets, It has a prohibitive casting value when compared to spells that have similar deadliness. Keeping the block o' infantry in mind, Scorch is almost as potent at dealing an equal number of wounds but scorch doesn't produce the clanrats and thats if the unit is wiped. More often than not the spell is getting cast with irresistible force so that s a risk also. One thing I will say about those " spells of equal deadliness". 1/3 of the people that I know that played 7th dropped 8th ed because of magic. Maybe that's some random instance of deuchy nitpicking but it may represent a general bad feel towards spells like that. Having said that, its not something I'd push in a regular game but in a tourney game, I'd ask for a judge if the issue came up.

I've played Skaven for a very long time and this is how we play it at my meta and I am the our tournament organizer as well as our GT tournament organizer. It says that any restrictions will be listed in the spell wording. "Casting into CC" is a restriction. It's not listed in the description so you are not allowed to do it. I realize it's an old book but the restrictions will be written there, Cast into CC is not written there. I feel the argument of saying "If it doesn't say that you can't cast into CC, then you can." Can easily be countered with "if it doesn't say you can cast into CC, then you cant.!"

Not really looking for a debate as I was just informing others on how we play this. Our tournaments usually host around 20 people and our GT is scheduled to host 50. I've never had any problems with this ruling before.

My two coppers...

Wait so there's no real answer?
I've casted it into combat before....does that make me a bad person?

I've never had anyone tell me I couldn't and another skaven player agreed with me that you could cast it into combat.
Makes me a bit uneasy when I do that though because I don't want to make it seem like I'm cheating. Ah well hopefully they change it/clarify next skaven book. I don't think they will nerf it either since 25+ to cast is ridiculously hard unless you use a power scroll.....trick is to cast it once get the opponent to use their dispel scroll then next turn cast it with the power scroll on less dice mwaaahahaha skaven trickery!!

Orkimedes wrote:
I've played Skaven for a very long time and this is how we play it at my meta and I am the our tournament organizer as well as our GT tournament organizer. It says that any restrictions will be listed in the spell wording. "Casting into CC" is a restriction. It's not listed in the description so you are not allowed to do it. I realize it's an old book but the restrictions will be written there, Cast into CC is not written there. I feel the argument of saying "If it doesn't say that you can't cast into CC, then you can." Can easily be countered with "if it doesn't say you can cast into CC, then you cant.!"

Not really looking for a debate as I was just informing others on how we play this. Our tournaments usually host around 20 people and our GT is scheduled to host 50. I've never had any problems with this ruling before.

My two coppers...

CANNOT cast into combat is a restriction. CAN cast is a permission. The default in the BRB is that you CAN cast into combat, as you are given blanket permission to cast. As this permission is not restricted, you MUST allow it to be cast into combat, RAW

Your post, as written, doesnt make sense. Can cast into combat is most certainly not a restriction - the clue is the fact it is saying you are nw able to do something.

Let's take this to the next level!

By the argument of "Well it doesn't say I can't." There are lots of things it doesn't say you can't. So does that mean the spell can do everything that it doesn't say you can't do?

Can you cast it on your own unit? It doesn't say you can't.

Can you use it to move a unit? It doesn't say you can't.

Can you cast it and win automatically? It doesn't say you can't...

Now, on a more serious note...

The "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" is a subpart of the statement "Some spells have a type that ENFORCES ADDITIONAL casting restrictions, or WAIVES OTHERS."

13th does not enforce additional, nor waive others.

Case in point. Death Frenzy a spell from the SAME army book states "This spell can be cast on any friendly unit even if engaged in close combat." Dreaded 13th has no such caveat.

So the "it's an old book" argument really doesn't work when one spell has an explicit cavaet, and another does not, it doesn't gain it because it doesn't say it.

Again. Not saying "it doesnt say I cant". We're pointing out that you CAN cast into combat UNLESS you are restricted otherwise.

Does 13th restrct otherwise? No. Therefore you may cast into combat

If you wih to post further, post the actual rule that restricts this. Page and graph

So while 1 spell in the Skaven book explicitly states it can be cast on units engaged in combat in order to do so, all other spells can do the same thing without explicitly saying so?

If it doesn't say that you CAN, you cannot. The only spells that may be cast into combat are the ones that explicitly say they can, such as hexes, augments, or old spells that state they can, such as Death Frenzy, Wither, Plague, and Skitterleap.

The engaged/unengaged this is an artifact from 7th edition, for a 7th edition army book.

For the too manyeth time (over emphasis mine):

pg 31 Choosing A Target:

"Some unique spells, OR SPELLS THAT ARE PRINTED IN OLDER WARHAMMER ARMY BOOKS, do not have a type - their text WILL CONTAIN ANY >>>>>>>RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY<<<<<<<."



restriction
[ri-strik-shuh n]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
something that restricts; a restrictive condition or regulation; limitation.


apply
[uh-plahy]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object), applied, applying.
1.
to make use of as relevant, suitable, or pertinent:
to apply a theory to a problem.

The four targeting conditions in the BRB are clearly limitations. They put restrictions (there's that word) on what you can target with a spell.

The Dreaded 13th does not have a type. The BRB tells us to read the spell itself for any restrictions it may have.

Dreaded 13th lists 3 restrictions.

24" range.

Within line of sight of the caster.

Infantry only.


Nowhere does it list unengaged in a FAQ or the spell's description as the BRB tells us to reference. Therefore, it can be cast into combat.

Domine Nox wrote:
So while 1 spell in the Skaven book explicitly states it can be cast on units engaged in combat in order to do so, all other spells can do the same thing without explicitly saying so?

If it doesn't say that you CAN, you cannot. The only spells that may be cast into combat are the ones that explicitly say they can, such as hexes, augments, or old spells that state they can, such as Death Frenzy, Wither, Plague, and Skitterleap.

I CAN cast at any enemy unit. This is fact

Certain spells cannot be cast at engaged units. This is fact.

This restriction is contained within the spell type restrictions. This is also a fact.

The final fact is that the rule book states that spells without a type list any restriction

So, again. I CAN cast at any enemy unit. Raw. Now, for the second time, page and graph where it stares I cannot cast this spell into combat. Page and graph. Failure to provide this will prove you gave no rules based argument.

You have a critical misunderstanding of how permission is granted. I have initial permission to cast. Until that is restricted, I may continue to do so. Your opinion us noted as bald assertion, but nothing more useful than that.

Targeting restrictions vary from spell to spell. However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply:
• The target must lie within the Wizard's forward arc.
• The Wizard does not need line of sight to his target.
• The target must he 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. There are five distinct types of spell: augment, 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.

We have a lot of focus on "their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply"
Why are we choosing to ignore the very first statement? "unless stated otherwise the following rules apply"?
Do we really believe that the text about restriction overrides the first rule? Apparently so?
Though some will scream not RAW and crappy GW writers, but it is logical as well as in sentence context and structure that the last part about older books is making reference to restricting or waiving the 4 listed restrictions. NOT stating that none apply to the older books.

So let me get this straight..
So according to some I can cast cracks call, vermintide, pestilent breath, scorch into close combat and across my clanrats or stormvermin or any other unit??
None of these spells list a type.
And none say I can't.
And it was just redundant to put permission into spells like death frenzy and plague etc.?
I

In 7th it wasn't redundant. You know, when the army book was written?

The final clause states otherwise - it tells you that the spell will list any restriction.

Reading otherwise isn't parsing the sentence as written , but making gak up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In 7th it wasn't redundant. You know, when the army book was written?

The final clause states otherwise - it tells you that the spell will list any restriction.

Reading otherwise isn't parsing the sentence as written , but making gak up.

Not redundant of edition vs. edition. But in to themselves. Skaven spells are giving additional permission, and sometimes placing restrictions.
For example. If you can cast into combat already. you do not need to state that you can.
So for example in 7th edition, without the permission granted by the text in death frenzy you would not be able to cast death frenzy once a unit was in combat.

You are a fan of telling someone to correctly parse sentences. Correct parsing of the paragraph is also necessary, each sentence does not exist in a vacuum.

Some spells have a type that enforces additional casting restrictions, or waives others. There are five distinct types of spell: augment, 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.

This has a context. Spell types are adding or waiving restrictions from the afore mentioned list based upon their types. The 4 listed criteria apply to all spells. The spell text or type may alter these 4 things. So with skaven spells the 4 conditions apply until text tells you something other than those 4 things.

But...
You , then, would agree with my previous post then.
You do believe that " their text will contain any casting restrictions that apply" Directly overrides "However, unless stated otherwise the following rules apply: "
Therefore, since no restrictions are within the text of the spells, cracks call, vermintide, pestilent breath, scorch, and yes the 13th, then they may all be cast into combat and across your own units no matter the type of unit.

That is correct. You can cast all of those into combat, across your own units etc. Unless the spells description has a restriction listed, it has none due to that sentence that keeps getting mentioned but seemingly ignored.

Davall wrote:
That is correct. You can cast all of those into combat, across your own units etc. Unless the spells description has a restriction listed, it has none due to that sentence that keeps getting mentioned but seemingly ignored.

Very well.
I haven't ignored it my interpretation is different to yours and I disagree.
The sentence on restrictions does not invalidate the 4 rules of spells.
The 4 rules of spells do not cease to apply.
For those who attempt to get so literal in 'restrictions', they are rules, not restrictions.
The 4 rules apply to all spells and then their spell types modify accordingliy..you can't cast into combat but hex allows you to.
The 13th and all other skaven spells follow the same rules and the spell text makes any required modifications from the original 4.
If death frenzy did not say you could cast into combat, rule #4 would apply and you would have to cast prior to combat.
.

"Any restrictions that apply." Look up the definition of a restriction. This is 100% unambiguous and is the last I will bother (again) with this thread.

I think the crux of the problem is GW's short-sightedness and subsequent failure to include the word 'further' in that sentence.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I think the crux of the problem is GW's short-sightedness and subsequent failure to include the word 'further' in that sentence.

..which I've said in every thread in the matter. I truly think they probably MEANT "furhter", just didnt bother to note it down.


However, as written, you have utter permission to cast into combat, as your general permission is already granted. This is RAW. THis is unarguable froma rules as written stand point.