Bladewind

[Thanee]

It's not 3d6 S4, it's usually 1/2 - 2/3 of 3d6 S4, depending on the target unit's WS.

That's very similar to a 2d6 S4 Magic Missile, just a bit more random.

Bye
Thanee

[Bad beast]

i don't believe you get the HW+shield bonus, the problem is the requirement to get the HW+shield bonus is that you must be engaged with a unit to the front, and there is nothing to say that the attacks from them spell are happening in the front, flank, from the inside of the unit, etc

[Gibious]

It's not 3d6 S4, it's usually 1/2 - 2/3 of 3d6 S4, depending on the target unit's WS.

That's very similar to a 2d6 S4 Magic Missile, just a bit more random.

I was describing the attacks like a normal CC unit ie my Black guard have 11 S4


Bk to the spell at hand, 2d6 S4 24" where you can direct attack against characters hiding in units, and of course is immune to items like the SDC

[Thanee]

I was describing the attacks like a normal CC unit ie my Black guard have 11 S4

I see.

Bk to the spell at hand, 2d6 S4 24" where you can direct attack against characters hiding in units, and of course is immune to items like the SDC

Yep, it's a good spell. It's hardly overkill, though. It's slightly better than a typical 2d6 S4 MM, but not much.

Against the more juicy targets it is a bit weaker (since those usually have WS4+), while it's far better against warmachines.

The targeting of characters is nice, but so far I havn't found it to be a very useful feature.

Bye
Thanee

[Gibious]

Well one things for sure it will mow down Skaven slaves in droves

Targetting, less usefull more about shooting in the dark

You'll never know what you hit =D

Champions knocking a permanent attack from the front row
Half the W of some hero (easy hitpoints, and sets up for...)
Finishing off some hero
Not forgetting enemy Kouran and similar


Side note anyone thinking of that scene in kung-fu hustle when ever they read bladewind?

[Scallat]

So I guess we've decided by this point that you can just allocate bladewind attacks on warmachines however you see fit?

[Gibious]

No idea =D normaly never attack a WM in CC but just read its a normal model with WS0 so will get hit automatically

[Getwisteerd]

Gibious: that's right

Scallat: Erm, no...

[Mordru]

@ Thanee

You assessment is correct. This spell, while decent, is nothing I would have traded for Dominion.

[Thanee]

So I guess we've decided by this point that you can just allocate bladewind attacks on warmachines however you see fit?

To me it's clear that you can, yes, though I don't see where "we have" decided it at this point.

Bye
Thanee

[Danceman]

The question is not whether it's magic, but rather that the target isn't engaged by anyone.

Bye
Thanee

If they are not engaged with anyone then I guess you cant fight with the attacks from the spell. Sorry but you cant have flying blades using WS and allocate attacks like its close combat and then just decide its not really close combat when convenient.

i don't believe you get the HW+shield bonus, the problem is the requirement to get the HW+shield bonus is that you must be engaged with a unit to the front, and there is nothing to say that the attacks from them spell are happening in the front, flank, from the inside of the unit, etc

It's close combat, does not say it deviates from the core rules of combat. If not mentioned it is resolved as a close combat according the core rules. Thus, since it is not said to be a flank/rear attack then it can only be one thing, a normal fight in the front.

[Silverheimdall]

Eh you're making assumptions just like anyone else.
Blades are just flying around - there is no front, rear, flank(s)

GWShop never ceases to amaze us with their crystal clear wordings.

[Danceman]

Of course, I just tend to try to consistent. If it is a combat then it is a close combat. Cant really selective with which rules you want to follow. Either it is combat or its not.

[Bad beast]

Of course, I just tend to try to consistent. If it is a combat then it is a close combat. Cant really selective with which rules you want to follow. Either it is combat or its not.

we aren't arguing that it isn't a combat attack, we're arguing that the unit that is being attacked is not engaged by a unit to the front (at least that's my argument)

for example if the casting mage were in the flank or rear arcs of the target unit would you still contend that the spell is hitting them in their front arc so they receive HW+shield bonus?

if 6th edition HW+shield rules applied i would agree with you that they receive them, however, since there is no unit attacking the target unit from the front, it's really hard to claim that they get their HW+shield bonus against the spell

[Danceman]

I know. But that is also my point as well, it makes no mention of it being a flank or rear attack. Therefor it can only be one thing, an attack in the front as we can safely assume if it would have been anything else it would have been stated(It's GW I know). Why I say that is beacause of the core rules and how it handles combat. Getting a flank/rear is a "special"(for the lack of a better word) case. Thats my reasoning, but I guess you have a point too.

[Rabidnid]

I know. But that is also my point as well, it makes no mention of it being a flank or rear attack. Therefor it can only be one thing, an attack in the front as we can safely assume if it would have been anything else it would have been stated(It's GW I know). Why I say that is beacause of the core rules and how it handles combat. Getting a flank/rear is a "special"(for the lack of a better word) case. Thats my reasoning, but I guess you have a point too.

That's how I see it as well. Its a close combat attack, but not a flank or rear attack, so they get their +1 for HW and Shield as well.

[Mordru]

Eh you're making assumptions just like anyone else.
Blades are just flying around - there is no front, rear, flank(s)

GWShop never ceases to amaze us with their crystal clear wordings.

One thing this thread has made plain is that the tradition of sloppy rule writing has definitely been carried forward in this spell description.

BTW, I rolled the spell today in a battle against woodies and it certainly inspires a reaction of ...meh. After one casting, My opponent just let it go and saved his dispel dice to try to shut down black horror, doombolt and chillwind.

[Sulla]

BTW, I rolled the spell today in a battle against woodies and it certainly inspires a reaction of ...meh. After one casting, My opponent just let it go and saved his dispel dice to try to shut down black horror, doombolt and chillwind.

Sure, but against a gunline army or mage heavy, would he have wanted it going off against his mage+unit? It's just compliments chillwind in my mind as a furthe supression spell.

Dominion was cool but 12" is a big no-nofor me when there is the chance I may have to use all my dice or pop...

[Dggrj]

I know. But that is also my point as well, it makes no mention of it being a flank or rear attack. Therefor it can only be one thing, an attack in the front as we can safely assume if it would have been anything else it would have been stated(It's GW I know). Why I say that is beacause of the core rules and how it handles combat. Getting a flank/rear is a "special"(for the lack of a better word) case. Thats my reasoning, but I guess you have a point too.

That's how I see it as well. Its a close combat attack, but not a flank or rear attack, so they get their +1 for HW and Shield as well.

The model is not engaged to its front. It doesn't get much simpler than this. That is when you get the +1 AS, when engaged to the front.

[Sith]

I think the pure fact that the spell description includes a WS stat should let you treat the attack like it was in the close combat phase.

The parry should be granted.
Parry rules states: "...+1.. when in close combat"

[Bad beast]

I think the pure fact that the spell description includes a WS stat should let you treat the attack like it was in the close combat phase.

The parry should be granted.
Parry rules states: "...+1.. when in close combat"

you left off the next line of the quote, parry rule states "....he may increase his armor save by a further +1 in close combat against enemies fighting from his front"

in this case there is no enemy fighting from his front, as there truthfully is no enemy at all

[Rabidnid]

I know. But that is also my point as well, it makes no mention of it being a flank or rear attack. Therefor it can only be one thing, an attack in the front as we can safely assume if it would have been anything else it would have been stated(It's GW I know). Why I say that is beacause of the core rules and how it handles combat. Getting a flank/rear is a "special"(for the lack of a better word) case. Thats my reasoning, but I guess you have a point too.

That's how I see it as well. Its a close combat attack, but not a flank or rear attack, so they get their +1 for HW and Shield as well.

The model is not engaged to its front. It doesn't get much simpler than this. That is when you get the +1 AS, when engaged to the front.

They are being attacked by flying blades that are not recieving bonuses for flank or rear attacks, so they are being engaged in close combat to their front.

[Calisson]

They are being attacked by flying blades that are not recieving bonuses for flank or rear attacks, so they are being engaged in close combat to their front.

Not valid.
It is an attack from no specified direction.
I cannot see how it would trigger any benefit/drawback from being a frontal attack, nor side nor rear attack.

[Rabidnid]

They are being attacked by flying blades that are not recieving bonuses for flank or rear attacks, so they are being engaged in close combat to their front.

Not valid.
It is an attack from no specified direction.
I cannot see how it would trigger any benefit/drawback from being a frontal attack, nor side nor rear attack.

Actually I agree, the attack can reach a character or other model in the unit irrespective of its location in the unit. However, i would have no problem with the target claiming the +1 save simply because I cannot convincingly argue that he can't claim it.

Basically, the attacks are coming from somewhere, and I would not be comforable arguing that the target can't claim the bonus because it can't prove that it is being attacked from the front.

[Mordru]

There are arguments on both sides of the parry bonus issue.

How exactly do you "parry" mystical flying blades that are conjured out of thin air an suddenly attack you?

How would a trooper ever be skilled and experienced enough to get the same bonus to repel this sorcerous attack that he gets when facing another swordsman? The target's weapon skill already accounts for the defense he is able to mount why exactly should he get a select and situational bonus that is not set forth as applicable by the spell description?

That is the problem with the spell. It doesn't give any real guidance as to whether this bonus would ever apply or whether it routinely applies.