Curse of Anraheir Update

[Skittelz1981]

Its really simple.
The terrain doesnt change nor do the rules for it.
The unit on the other hand, has been hexed, which changes the way the unit behaves on any terrain type.

Fact is that the RAW for CoA is that the hexed unit views All terrain as DT.
there is just nothing else that matters anymore because even Open ground is a terrain type.
The hex changes the way the unit has to behave( which is the purpose of the spell)



And again.........



The rule for Open Ground and the line describing the fact that Open Ground does not affect units is being "overruled" (if that is what you want to call it) by the RAW in the spell; 'the cursed/hexed unit treats all terrain as DT'

This is not conflicting nor is it even remotely confusing after looking at it twice or three times.

1. OG never affects units, fact and true and RAW
2. Hex comes into play on 1 unit, which makes that unit behave differently, namely that it treats all terrain (including OG since its a type of terrain) as DT. Fact and true and RAW.

Now indeed, under normal circumstances, OG will never affect any unit.
Well this is still the case, OG doesnt affect the unit, no. It is the spell that affects the unit, which suddenly has to view even OG as DT.


Not a contradiction, it is perfectly clear. It is not a rules clash since the rule for OG still stands, the terrain did not change, it is how the hexed unit performs on it that has changed.

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

4 pages of this? Wow.

 

[Pirate Robot Ninja of Death]

Hardly convincing. You start by saying that the rules (referred to by you as RAW) do not say that Open Ground has no effect on the game, when in actual fact that is exactly what it DOES say.

No. The rules do not say "open ground has no effect on the rules." The rules say that open ground has no effect BECAUSE the rules have been written to assume open ground. If open ground is treated as dangerous terrain, that assumption no longer holds.


This is a cut-and-dry issue. Curse works on open terrain. Period. Full stop. Until FAQ'ed otherwise, there is no other interpretation that is in keeping with the rules in the book.

 

[Mc1gamer]

For all those bending breaking and rules lawyering the CoA spell, you are doing so to gain an unfair advantage for the woodies. Hey, I get it, they've been down SO long, but I think if you looked at it from the receiving end, you'd see that the hardcore interpretation being argued is completely not as intended.

Case in point, show me the drop for Open Ground. How many options of Open Ground do you get when you ROLL UP TERRAIN. Its a feature of the game board and was only listed in the terrain section as a classifier of what Open Ground, ie, what is LEFT on the board after you deploy the ACTUAL terrain, means.

Read the entire BRB gain, and you will see many references to Open Terrain signifying that its basically empty ground. This spell is crazy powerful either way, but over the top nuts if you count the entire game board as such. That's more than broken, its stupid. If it was intended to affect Open Ground, the spell would say 'the entire game board.'

No one is going to deny that GW needs better proofreaders, and more gamers playtesting to see how things can be broken. This is a case where one inclusion is being made to trump what should be common sense interpretation. The spell also reads that it goes into effect when you enter terrain...so how do you enter Open Ground when you are IN Open Ground??

In my local meta, people are divided on this, and its not such a surprise that its the WE players that seems to be vocalizing this so hard. The same people see how Ethereal definition says it treats all terrain as OPEN GROUND....sound familiar??? The idea is that Ethereal ignores all terrain....so now you are going to tell me that Ethereal take difficulty tests? So that's how this was intended?

Just stop...play the game and stop these shenanigans. I certainly won't play vs anyone who's taking this standpoint, but in a Tourney, well it all depends on what the TO thinks, and I guess I'll just wag my fist at yet another rule argument that GW needs to clear up with an FAQ that may never come.

 

[Melle]

 

[Adam_Barrow]

+Rep inbound.

 

[RarerMonsters]

For all those bending breaking and rules lawyering the CoA spell, you are doing so to gain an unfair advantage for the woodies. Hey, I get it, they've been down SO long, but I think if you looked at it from the receiving end, you'd see that the hardcore interpretation being argued is completely not as intended.

"Open ground is a terrain type" is not bending breaking and rules lawyering. It's just a thing written down clearly.

For me, lawyering is trying to argue against clear RAW on grounds of what you think is or isn't fair.

Case in point, show me the drop for Open Ground.

Not the definition of terrain.

How many options of Open Ground do you get when you ROLL UP TERRAIN.

Not the definition of terrain (Also only 1 option for Forests when you roll up terrain)

This spell is crazy powerful either way, but over the top nuts if you count the entire game board as such. That's more than broken, its stupid. If it was intended to affect Open Ground, the spell would say 'the entire game board.'

If it's really so broken why is anyone taking other lores than Beasts? Why aren't people terrified of Sisters of the Thorn?

No one is going to deny that GW needs better proofreaders, and more gamers playtesting to see how things can be broken. This is a case where one inclusion is being made to trump what should be common sense interpretation. The spell also reads that it goes into effect when you enter terrain...so how do you enter Open Ground when you are IN Open Ground??

By marching charging or fleeing.

In my local meta, people are divided on this, and its not such a surprise that its the WE players that seems to be vocalizing this so hard.

Wood Elves aren't the only ones with Lore of Beasts.

The same people see how Ethereal definition says it treats all terrain as OPEN GROUND....sound familiar??? The idea is that Ethereal ignores all terrain....so now you are going to tell me that Ethereal take difficulty tests? So that's how this was intended?

No because it's still non-magical damage so Ethereals don't take damage.

Just stop...play the game and stop these shenanigans. I certainly won't play vs anyone who's taking this standpoint, but in a Tourney, well it all depends on what the TO thinks, and I guess I'll just wag my fist at yet another rule argument that GW needs to clear up with an FAQ that may never come.

See, the problem here is that you're assuming that your "The Intent is Obvious" claim is somehow a neutral standpoint. It isn't. You're arguing something that changes a rule in a way that makes a spell worse, it isn't the path of least resistance. You're asking other people to accept a spell is worse or better based on the intent, and you can say why you do or don't think that's right but it isn't just "accepting things as they are"


Also, the fact that CoA works on Open Terrain was never a debate until now. The problem is that I misidentified a WD article as a FAQ (Which people have informed me they aren't). The WD is not a FAQ, the debate is closed.

 

[Wilhelm das Blutige]

Having looked at this further, I tend to think that the statement under Open Ground (...therefore has no effect on the game...) is a generalisation rather than an absolute, and so would go along with popular opinion in this regard i.e. Curse of Anraheir affects units charging/marching etc. over Open Ground as well.

It does not include generalizations or interpolations like this one.

It's unfortunate that the rules are full of such 'interpolations'.

The fluff is easily identified as such, and is kept in it's proper place. However, every now and then you come across something that is intended to give an idea of WHY a rule is there or give a bit of background explanation, and instead provides what could amount to a rule in itself (and because of the context in which it is written could easily be overlooked or ignored).

I know it's going off topic a bit (so I'll say no more after this) but one such example that springs to mind is under fleeing units, where it describes the unit as having broken formation. In a similar way that "...has no further effect on the game..." under open terrain could be taken in an absolute sense, rather than an indication of the general way in which such terrain should be treated, the reference to broken formation can be interpreted in gaming terms (the unit has no ranks or formation, for example).

 

[RarerMonsters]

It's unfortunate that the rules are full of such 'interpolations'.

And things I say aren't RAW. If that was meant to be a slam it doesn't work or even make sense.

However, every now and then you come across something that is intended to give an idea of WHY a rule is there or give a bit of background explanation, and instead provides what could amount to a rule in itself (and because of the context in which it is written could easily be overlooked or ignored).

And this is the point. Not every word in the rulebook is necessarily part of RAW. A phrase talking about why they're not going into more depth is not a rule itself.

There's no point going any further about this. The original post was a misinterpretation of what White Dwarf was, the other issue is long since resolved. There's no point taking it any further, especially when this is just dissolving into increasingly confused takes on what RAW is.

 

[Wilhelm das Blutige]

It's unfortunate that the rules are full of such 'interpolations'.

And things I say aren't RAW. If that was meant to be a slam it doesn't work or even make sense.

However, every now and then you come across something that is intended to give an idea of WHY a rule is there or give a bit of background explanation, and instead provides what could amount to a rule in itself (and because of the context in which it is written could easily be overlooked or ignored).

And this is the point. Not every word in the rulebook is necessarily part of RAW. A phrase talking about why they're not going into more depth is not a rule itself.

There's no point going any further about this. The original post was a misinterpretation of what White Dwarf was, the other issue is long since resolved. There's no point taking it any further, especially when this is just dissolving into increasingly confused takes on what RAW is.

1 - No it wasn't a slam (How could it be?). Just an opener.

2 - Agreed. The matter is long since settled, though it does seem to fuel quite a debate nonetheless (that's what forums are for, after all).

 

[Skittelz1981]

Sorry Mc1gamer but i agree with the rest that youre wrong.

It is a strong spell, true. but its not overpowered. A DT test is only taken when marching, charging or fleeing, thus normal movement still remains possible without any DT effect.
If you wouldnt count open ground as a type of terrain (which is what you insinuate) then the spell loses so much value that it makes me wonder what the use ever would be (only forests, marshes, rivers would then count. Which are a definite minority on any gameboard.)

Also your idea that woodelves have this insanely overpowered spell is not true. CoA already existed and many armies can take Lore of Beasts. Compared to the Doomlocks of the Darkelves, CoA isnt that impressive next to Doombolt and the -1S/-1T spell (forgot the name).
It is a very good spell but it works just as intended if you include OG, without OG its just flawed and nigh irrelevant.


The mere fact that BRB states: OG is a terrain type, says it all.
The fact that CoA states: any type of terrain, says it all.

Its just simply unmistakeble that CoA makes the hexed unit fail DT test on 1 and 2 on ANY TERRAIN TYPE, including Open Ground

Furthermore, CoA comes nowhere near spells like Purple Sun, Dwellers below, Doombolt, and a few others, that all have a potentially far greater impact on the game overall.

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

Well the spell is overpowered if cast on a chariot. As its says if the chariot moves at all it takes the test.

 

[Ripper]

If your opponent is casting Anraheir, he isn't casting wildform, savage beast, or transformation. This is always a good thing.

 

[Skittelz1981]

If your opponent is casting Anraheir, he isn't casting wildform, savage beast, or transformation. This is always a good thing.

I guess that just all depends on the winds of magic roll, the consecutive rolls for the spells and what items/what army youre facing

 

[Skittelz1981]

Well the spell is overpowered if cast on a chariot. As its says if the chariot moves at all it takes the test.

How do you figure that?
The spell just makes the unit view all terrain as Dangerous Terrain and has to take the test for it, if it marches, charges, overruns, pursues or flees.

A chariot can never march.... no problem there.
A chariot normally views all terrain as DT except OG, this is the only thing that changed because of the spell. even OG is now DT. but it can still make a normal move without taking the test.


Also, chariots and monsters etc are multiwound models, failing a DT gets you 1 wound that you cant armoursave.... its still alive and in the case of any VC, our chariots have regeneration and wardsaves and so do our monsters.... its really not that big of an issue

 

[Powl]

Nope, chariots get D6 wounds on a failed DT test (pg 117).

 

[Skittelz1981]

Nope, chariots get D6 wounds on a failed DT test (pg 117).

Ah true that, but it still only counts when charging marching etc.... not for regular move

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

Nope, chariots get D6 wounds on a failed DT test (pg 117).

Ah true that, but it still only counts when charging marching etc.... not for regular move

not true.

CHARIOTS AND TERRAIN
Chariots are primarily created to operate over firm, even ground. As a result, a chariot that finds itself moving through terrain is likely to have a very bumpy (and possibly fatal) ride. See page 117 for details on chariots and Dangerous Terrain tests.

this is located under chariots. it refers to the dangerous terrain page mainly for how to do the test.

 

[Mad 'At]

Though under Dangerous Terrain it only says that you take the test if you charge, march or flee etc. regardless of unit type. I see no mention of that chariots take it if they move normally. I could be blind though, and I have always played it otherwise, but now I starting to doubt what is correct in the matter.

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

Though under Dangerous Terrain it only says that you take the test if you charge, march or flee etc. regardless of unit type. I see no mention of that chariots take it if they move normally. I could be blind though, and I have always played it otherwise, but now I starting to doubt what is correct in the matter.

my eta plays it that if it moves through then it takes the test. GW strikes again. how many times do we see one bit of the rule in one place and another bit in another place. or it just makes it unclear.

pretty much all the time. Madness.

 

[Skittelz1981]

What u mean Geordie, is that Chariots always have to take it on terrain other than OG. But it still only happens when doing something else than a regular movement.
Which makes for the curse that a chariot can still move over OG without the DT test

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

What u mean Geordie, is that Chariots always have to take it on terrain other than OG. But it still only happens when doing something else than a regular movement.
Which makes for the curse that a chariot can still move over OG without the DT test

if it moves on open ground its fine, but if it moves att all through anything other than open ground it takes the test.

if it wasnt meant to be played this way then they should simply put, "chariots take dangerous terrain tests as if they were cavalry, with the exception that it is d6 wounds not one".

why mention moving at all if it was not meant to be this way?

like i say i can see both sides, typical for GW to make a hash of things. so my meta, if that chariot is cursed, as soon as it does anything involving movement, then it takes the test.

 

[Skittelz1981]

if it moves on open ground its fine, but if it moves att all through anything other than open ground it takes the test.

if it wasnt meant to be played this way then they should simply put, "chariots take dangerous terrain tests as if they were cavalry, with the exception that it is d6 wounds not one".

why mention moving at all if it was not meant to be this way?

like i say i can see both sides, typical for GW to make a hash of things. so my meta, if that chariot is cursed, as soon as it does anything involving movement, then it takes the test.

Because a Charge, march, flee, overrun, pursue is also a movement. Thats why they say movement under the chariotrule.
Yet the DT ruling specifies that units only take the test if they march, charge, flee, overrun, pursue, effectively excluding the normal move which is defined by under the characteristics of the unit under the letter M and the according number specified.

Obviously your meta plays it wrong

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

if it moves on open ground its fine, but if it moves att all through anything other than open ground it takes the test.

if it wasnt meant to be played this way then they should simply put, "chariots take dangerous terrain tests as if they were cavalry, with the exception that it is d6 wounds not one".

why mention moving at all if it was not meant to be this way?

like i say i can see both sides, typical for GW to make a hash of things. so my meta, if that chariot is cursed, as soon as it does anything involving movement, then it takes the test.

Because a Charge, march, flee, overrun, pursue is also a movement. Thats why they say movement under the chariotrule.
Yet the DT ruling specifies that units only take the test if they march, charge, flee, overrun, pursue, effectively excluding the normal move which is defined by under the characteristics of the unit under the letter M and the according number specified.

Obviously your meta plays it wrong

Well the rules back my interpretation just as much as yours so i shall not accuse you of playing it wrong out of respect.

 

[Skittelz1981]

True, it is a vague one.
and it wasnt an accusation but more of a sarcasm, hence the smileyface