New Warhammer Main Rules FAQ - Part 2 (official)

[Silashand]

Note that there is a new Warhammer Main Rules FAQ - Part 2 posted on the GW site now. It clears up a lot of issues, though a few make you go d'oh!

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conte ... 06&start=2

Cheers, Gary

[Silverheimdall]

By this FAQ, we can no longer hide a Hydra in difficult terrain and still get 12" charge reach.. hmm

I guess ill just run up and use the breath weapon instead! O:

Good to finally have some answers to long-time debates.

[Rugi]

Wow, magical lances are "lost" if the character is demounted and must use hand weapon...khmm...

The most shocking of all was that monster characters are not considered monsters. Damn it! And I wanted to go bloodthirster killing spree with a rune of true beasts armed beastlord

Some wierd answers but in general I´m satisfied.

[Silverheimdall]

Beast FAQ already covered Rune of True Beasts, but not Beast Cowers (:

[Thanee]

So, we can cast Black Horror into close combat now, and MR does not affect it anymore? Wow! :eek:

Page 95, Magic Resistance, first paragraph. The
second sentence should be replaced with:
‘The number in the brackets indicates the
maximum number of extra dice that may be rolled
when trying to dispel each spell that is targeted
against the magically resistant unit.’

Q. Do the effects of the Lore of Light spell, Guardian
Light apply to friendly models engaged in close
combat?
A. Yes, as the spell is not cast ‘at’ any specific target,
but it affects all friendly units within 12”.

Bye
Thanee

[Silashand]

So, we can cast Black Horror into close combat now, and MR does not affect it anymore? Wow! :eek:

No. Black Horror no longer has the wording from 6th stating that the template is placed after rolling the dice. Because of that it falls back into the normal casting order of:

1. choose spell
2. nominate target
3. roll dice
4. resolve effect

In this case placing the template is equivalent to nominating a target for the spell. Any model/unit touched is classed as the target as normal. The new DE book did away with the problematic nature of Black Horror and it works within the basic spellcasting rules now.

As to the area effect spells, I am constantly amazed at the loopholes people will try to wiggle through . A typical area effect spell still considers the target any unit within the area of effect. These spells have a point of origination and specify a radius of effect with anything in that radius being classed as the target as per the rules in the BRB. The spells the new MR wording references are those that have no range, radius, origination point *and* no defined target as per those rules. Such spells are things like Wind of Undeath, Drain Magic, etc. which do not actually affect anything on the battlefield until actually cast. The reason for this is simple, short of making every unit on the table the target there is no way to adjudicate determining an actual target. Thus for game simplicity those spells effectively ignore MR.

Cheers, Gary

[Thanee]

You see... I thought exactly that was right before reading the FAQ, where they specifically changed words from "affected" to "cast at/targeted at" and specifically answered a question about casting into combat with something that means "yes it works, since they are merely affected by the spell and the spell is not directly cast at them."

Templates also "affect" those under the template and are not "cast at" them.
Black Horror, for example, is cast at a point in space, not at a unit. It does affect units, however.

Until this errata, MR was a good argument for why affecting equals targeting, but they changed exactly that part now!

At least it looks like that to me...

A typical area effect spell still considers the target any unit within the area of effect. These spells have a point of origination and specify a radius of effect with anything in that radius being classed as the target as per the rules in the BRB.

If you make claims like this, please back them up with actual rules quotes.

I am constantly amazed at the loopholes people will try to wiggle through.

And please refrain from posting any insults or second-guessing of people's motives (which you know absolutely nothing about). Thanks!

I might add, that I am always at the same side of the argument as you are here, or have been, but I see no "wiggle room" anymore to argue, that it works the way you obviously still think it does.

Bye
Thanee

[Silashand]

I don't see it that way at all. Nothing has changed. The Blinding Light spell still "affects" all models in its radius of effect and says nothing about whether MR would apply or not. The only thing that particular answer did was say that Blinding Light applies to units in combat, including friendly ones. The BRB still defines a spell's target as any model/unit that is affected by it. The only exceptions are as I listed above. Templates are a means of targeting and as I said, the BRB *specifically* defines a spell's target as one affected by it. The revised MR wording does not change that. Targeting a "point in space" is irrelevant since the BRB tells us explicitly how to resolve which units are considered targeted by such spells. Reading anything else into the change in wording is incorrect.

Cheers, Gary

[Thanee]

The only thing that particular answer did was say that Blinding Light applies to units in combat, including friendly ones.

And thus going clearly against the BRB rule, if you say it is not possible to affect units in combat, even though it only says "cast at" not "affect".

This coupled with the explanation as to why it works that way (as answered in the FAQ, i.e. the unit is affected), clearly says to me, that it does not work the way you think (i.e. affected = targeted/cast at).

The BRB still defines a spell's target as any model/unit that is affected by it.

Quote?

Templates are a means of targeting and as I said, the BRB *specifically* defines a spell's target as one affected by it.

Quote?

Bye
Thanee

[Silashand]

And thus going clearly against the BRB rule, if you say it is not possible to affect units in combat, even though it only says "cast at" not "affect".

In this case I would read the answer as specific only to that particular spell. Any other interpretation does nothing but confuse things. In that context it's no different than any other army-specific FAQ ruling.

This coupled with the explanation as to why it works that way (as answered in the FAQ, i.e. the unit is affected), clearly says to me, that it does not work the way you think (i.e. affected = targeted/cast at).

Suffice to say I disagree. I understand the wording is poor, but trying to interpret it the way you are doing does nothing but throw the entire targeting system out the window. IMO you simply cannot do that and maintain any sense of order in the rules. Best to as I said simply assume this answer is specific to one spell, not all of them.

The BRB still defines a spell's target as any model/unit that is affected by it.

Quote?

Can't right now as I don't have my rulebook handy :-). However, this is as it's always worked (as FAQed in 6th and explicit in 7th). If you can't determine a target then you can't cast the spell. Black Horror itself says to place the template as desired. That is synonymous with targeting since the spell gives no other means of doing so. In this case your so-called "point in space" is defined by the size of the template, thus so are any targets. Any other reading of this spell is wishful thinking.

Besides, you appear to be confusing what constututes a target with how MR works. Nothing in the FAQ changes the targeting rules and as I said, the Blinding Light answer is explicit to that spell only. If it were meant to apply to any other spell then it would say so since that's a key component of the Warhammer rules.

Cheers, Gary

[Phierlihy]

The whole magic resistance issue is important if for no other reason, the Ring of Hotek uses extrememly similar verbage as to what it effects. If I cast Black Horror and a unit touched has magic resistance, I'm going to give it to them but you all are free to do you're own thing!

Other important things to note...

Killing Blow in challenges - each killing blow attack is worth the remaining number of wounds on the model for combat resolution!

The miscast table that removes all Remains in Play spells now removes Cauldron effects, prayers, and so on.

Characters charging out of a unit, an Assassin using his cloak for example, does not get shot but instead the unit he charged out of does. And then if they panic then he is somehow sucked back into the unit and they run in the opposite direction. I think they screwed that part up but at least we have an answer.

[Silashand]

Characters charging out of a unit, an Assassin using his cloak for example, does not get shot but instead the unit he charged out of does. And then if they panic then he is somehow sucked back into the unit and they run in the opposite direction. I think they screwed that part up but at least we have an answer.

Actually, I think they got it right. I believe the reason for that ruling is to be consistent with the order of resolution for S&S reactions. The BRB says the action happens when all models in the firing unit are in range. If the unit containing the character is in range at declaration, then technically the character is still in the unit when the shots occur. If they were out of range, then the charger would be moved first and stopped at max range. At that point the shots would all hit the character since he would obviously be the only one in range to hit.

A relatively sneaky trick is to have models with pistols and/or thrown weapons in a unit of normal missile troops. That way the shots wouldn't occur until the entire shooting unit, including the pistols, were in range. In most cases this would force the character to move out of the unit before the shots occurred. I know Dwarf and some Empire players do this all the time.

Cheers, Gary

[Master of arneim]

What surprises me most from those faqs is:

- as said the hydra part: ok for marching, but not for charging

- characters that are monsters are not considered mosters

- characters charging out from a unit and different results when speaking about fear/terror test and stand & shoot reaction: I'll add a little personal comment. It seems to me greatly unfair and wrong, expecially when seeing the character running out from the unit because he's failed his terror test or walking with his unit even after failing the fear check. In my opinion the Gw gurus have gone Ko in this part.

- 3rd question about movement: "the limit (2M) only specifically applies to Reform manouvers". Welcome back zulu lines and thrown fanatics! Is The limit stated on page 12 good only when going straight ahead, or does this >2M apply only to changing formation and not when wheeling? Bah.

- every spell that affects any unit within x" is not targetting them, so the ring/Mr will not work (Guardian light comment).

- again in the magic phase: question number 2 "bound spell can be cast this way (with the rebound result on the miscast table), as can TOMB KING INCANTATIONS. Page 34 of Tomb Kings book 3rd paragraph: "Liche Priests cannot take advantage of gaining additional magical power from such things as enemy Miscast."

What a Faq

[Thanee]

In this case I would read the answer as specific only to that particular spell.

The answer lists an explanation why it does work that way.
And that explanation cannot be specific to that single spell as it is far too generic.

Can't right now as I don't have my rulebook handy :-).

I would be really interested in seeing it, though. So, once you got to your book, please look it up and post it here.

I have been unable to find anything in the book so far, that defines targeting a spell at all. It's simply not there as far as I know.

And these FAQ answers really make me reconsider my stance (that was exactly what you are saying), because it really seems they consider "cast at" to happen only when a spell is directly targeted at a unit.

Bye
Thanee

[Master of arneim]

The miscast table that removes all Remains in Play spells now removes Cauldron effects, prayers, and so on.

Why? It does remove all spells that last for more than the turn they've been cast in. Cauldron powers are not spells at all, so why should they be dispelled?

[Silverheimdall]

Cauldron powers last one turn but are in no way from a Magic source like Prayers are (Magic Phase) or spells that "last until the caster's next magic phase"

Cauldron remains unaffected.

[Ebonyphoenix]

I have to chime in with something in the new FAQ. Has anyone noticed that Celestial Shield can no longer be cast on the wizard's own unit?

Is it just me, or does this make no sense? Are the FAQ writers trying to say that the mages cannot turn their heads to see that they have people standing next to them in line?

[Layne]

The only thing I wonder in all of that is, where are all the gumbies who want to know if Skirmishers can reform?

[Silverheimdall]

The FAQ writer, this time, went all out on RAWful ruling.

[Master of arneim]

The only thing I wonder in all of that is, where are all the gumbies who want to know if Skirmishers can reform?

I think that the question could be argued when your skirmishers are fleeing and then regrouped. There you cannot reform and this is extremely important because they keep their formation, many times uncovering nasty surprises for their master.

@ EbonyPhoenix: you're right. This comes from the way they thought to do those clarification: instead of putting some sense into the deep debated question, they preferred to read the book literally, washing their hands if something becomes a nonsense. You can see it in some answers like the hydra one or others:
- when moving it is considered a skirmishing unit, but when charging you've to consider only the monster (so that literally means that the unit is no more skirmishing)
- fear checks and S&S reactions: because, when charging, the character is considered inside the unit, and because you literally do every Ld check when declaring charges, if your character is in that moment itp he has not to take any roll. The same for S&S: because literally the S&S reaction is done when every model is able to fire, if the character is in the unit at that time, you S&S on the unit.

The same for the Celestial Shield: the mage cannot see himself, so he cannot cast the spell on his unit.

In my opinion they missed a chance to make this game better.

[Thanee]

About the wizard in unit LoS: Well, they said it's counter-intuitive, so they are well aware that it is stupid, but it's how it works, if your LoS is a 90° arc from your front base edge.

In Confrontation you always have LoS to all models you touch, that would be a pretty good rule here, too, but it does not exist in Warhammer.

At least you don't need LoS to make melee attacks... otherwise that would make flank and rear charges even more annoying.

Bye
Thanee

[The skaerkrow]

The FAQ writer, this time, went all out on RAWful ruling.

Except for things like purely arbitrary changes to Rule of Burning Iron and the Hunte's Spear, among other things.

Seriously, this FAQ looks like it was done by an intern in the art department during his first week at GW.

[Layne]

Master of Arneim : but Skirmishers do not have a formation. That's the point. You don't reform them, you move them. So I'm amazed that it was asked, still more that it was seemingly asked frequently, yet more again that GW took the time to answer it. Daffy I call it.

Other than that, I mostly dig what they're trying to say with most of the changes. Some seem a bit useless - but then I haven't been in the arguments that led to the questions. Some make eminent good sense - for instance, I dig the notion that once the Beastmasters say 'Sic 'em' to the Hydra, they're not in control of it. So it blunders into stuff they might have led it around.

With that Celestial Shield thing they've backed themselves into a corner I suppose, but perhaps that will be cleared up in the next edition with somthing like what Thanee suggests. I guess it's something that was taken for granted. Or perhaps something that suggests that whatever the unit can see, every character in it can see.

[Sulla]

The FAQ writer, this time, went all out on RAWful ruling.

Except for things like purely arbitrary changes to Rule of Burning Iron and the Hunte's Spear, among other things.

Seriously, this FAQ looks like it was done by an intern in the art department during his first week at GW.

I agree about burning iron... that's a bit of an easter egg for anyone with access to the lore of metal. But hunter's spear was always like that. It only penetrates ranks like a bolt thrower, it doesn't do d3 damage like one. Was that the answer you were referring too?

[Master of arneim]

@ Layne, I know, but it still there is some sense in clearifying the non chance of changing formation with skirmishers, even if just for making them more concentrate, still keeping the centre. In my opinion there is room for this question. Not for something like the hunter's spear above or many others.