|
|
Post by 1plussave on Dec 20, 2019 23:31:00 GMT
Just something that has been bugging me and I suspect doesn't have an actual answer because GW rules writing.
The Scroll says that: "The Target of the Spell is granted a 4+ Ward Save against any Wounds cause by the Spell."
The Lore of Heavens Roiling Skies Lore Attribute: "When a Spell from the Lore of Heavens Targets an enemy Flying Unit or a Model with the Fly Special Rules, the Target suffers D6 Strength 4 Hits"
The Comet rules: "All Units from either side that are within 2d6" (Of the spot for the Comet) are struck by the Comet."
The 8th Edition Magic Cards say that the Lore of Heavens Attribute does not apply to the comet, the final 8th Edtion FAQ says that it does.
By process of implication (The Roiling Skies Attribute requires a unit to be targeted, the FAQ says Comet has the effect of the Roiling skies Attribute therefore it targets units it hits) can we assume the Scroll of Shielding works for units hit by Comet?
Is there a clarification I'm missing on any of the other Spells/FAQs with hazy AoE targeting rules that have a better answer? I suspect this is just going to be another inconclusive mess of: GW rules writers never stick to precise meanings of the terms they reuse in the targeting rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Dec 21, 2019 10:36:42 GMT
Your suspicion is correct. This is another instance where the magic cards contain information not specified in the BRB, and where whoever wrote the FAQ did check all sources.
Regarding the magic cards: here is another example I encountered years ago in a discussion about Flaming Attacks and Fear.
Metalshifting, the Lore Attribute of the Lore of Metal (BRB p. 494) specifies that "spells from the Lore of Metal...also always count as Flaming Attacks." Thus, this would also apply to Plague of Rust, the Enchanted Blades of Aiban etc. However, according to the magic cards, the "Lore attribute does not apply to this spell."
Since the magic cards are clearly also an official publicatione, I accepted to follow the magic cards. It is, as it were, a case of difficilior lectio potior.
The current issue is confounded by the fact that the FAQ contradicts the magic cards. The question is whether you attach more weight to the FAQ than the magic cards.
Note the GW explanation of FAQ:
FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.
Of course, the quality of the FAQ has been erratic, and on a number of issues, they have flip-flopped several times. There are even FAQ that blatantly contradict the BRB. So, as in the case of Metalshifting, I would be more inclined to follow the magic cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Dec 21, 2019 10:53:49 GMT
To add a comment: following the magic cards is actually more in line with the wording of the BRB: "This spell is cast upon any fixed point on the table." So, if the spell has a target, it would be that fixed point on the ground. One can compare this to the cannon. As I keep have to explain to people: a cannon usually does not target the unit it wants to hit, but a point on the ground somehwere in front.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1plussave on Dec 21, 2019 16:31:40 GMT
I suppose I could just assume its a case of the card writers realising Comet by RAW doesn't trigger the effect because inconsistent targeting rules and the FAQ team making the understandable decision that it should probably trigger anyway rather than strictly following said inconsistent wording problems. I thought Lord Kroak or whoever the dead Slann was had an FAQ about his AoE spell and targeting... Huh, looks like theres no 8th Lizadmen FAQ? Dammit.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Dec 21, 2019 18:01:41 GMT
I don't think the targeting rules are inconsistent, as long as you realise that a "target" does not necessarily mean "the unit you want to hit." As BRB p. 32 says: "To cast a spell, a Wizard nominates one of his spells to cast, and declares the target of the spell." For the Comet, this translates into: "This spell is cast upon any fixed point on the table." In other spells too "cast upon" or "cast on" indicates the target (Caskading Firecloak, Pann's Impenetrable Pelt, Plague of Rust....).
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Dec 21, 2019 23:30:58 GMT
Regarding Lord Kroak and his "Deliverance of Itza" spell: you may be referring to the FAQ that provided the overlap of the 7th edition AB with the 8th BRB. However, I cannot see how that FAQ has any bearing on the issue at hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1plussave on Dec 22, 2019 0:27:03 GMT
I'm just trying to figure out if any of the other damaging spells with an AoE have a clarification on whether they actually target things.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Dec 22, 2019 9:22:55 GMT
As far as I can tell, the only spells that do not have a target are vortices, and some spells from 7th edition ABs that are still valid. Perhaps there are some 8th edition AB spells too that specify they have no target, but, at the moment, I cannot think of any.
To summarise the above: the FAQ contradicts not just the magic cards, but, more importantly, also the wording of the BRB. Therefore, I myself would ignore it. However, since it still an official FAQ, I would not fault anyone who wants to apply it. That said, it cannot be used to exempt other situations not specifically covered by the FAQ itself.
|
|
