Topic: Best tactic against Doomfire Warlocks and fast cav?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Would you please care to elaborate where there would be inconsistencies? Would it be inconsistent with gameplay (that could be worrisome) or just with logics (well, whatever logics remains in a fantasy game)?

With gameplay. 

Casualties: depends on how Dark Elves play it. If you attack a R&F model in CC and cause three wounds, three R&F models die.  Let us assume, an Ogre Bruiser with the Greedy Fist is only in btb with one (R&F) Doomfire Warlock. The Greedy Fist affects Wizards, and that Warlock has therefore to be nominated as the target. The Ogre causes 3 unsaved wounds - do Dark Elves players agree that 3 Warlocks are killed?

Obvious examples for Loss of Spells/Wizard levels:  Rune of Spellbreaking/Greedy Fist.

Edit: to put things a bit in perspective: A Lvl 2 Witch on a Dark Steed costs 125 points; a Doomfire Warlock unit of 5 models also costs 125 points, but has  +1S, +3W, + 13A (9 at S4 and 4 at S3); a 4+ ward (except against Slaanesh creatures); Poison, better miscast rules, and, according to the Dark Elves, either immunity to or at least a massive nerf of things like Feedback Scrolls, Runes of Spellbreaking etc.

[Calisson]

1. Casualties
Let us assume, an Ogre Bruiser with the Greedy Fist is only in btb with one (R&F) Doomfire Warlock, member of a larger unit.
The Greedy Fist affects Wizards, and that Warlock will therefore to be nominated as the target, because "If the unit is targeted by a rule that affects a wizard, your opponent must choose one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as target" (DE AB).
The Ogre causes 3 unsaved wounds.
Normally, if you attack a R&F model in CC and cause three wounds, three R&F models die.

Let's see BRB p.48 sq.
The Ogre can only strike the single Warlock he is in contact with - nominated as a Wizard.
All hits/wounds/saves/ward saves are made against that single model; the Greedy Fist special effect works. 3 unsaved wounds are made.
BRB p.51: "Casualties are removed from the rear rank...
It can happen that a model causes more casualties than it has enemies in base contact. The excess casualties are removed as normal from the unit as a whole, representing the attackers fighting over the fallen foes.") This would lead to understand that 3 Warlock die.

The tricky sentence is: "warriors in the ranks behind will step forwards to fill any gaps that appear."
A DE player might object that those "warriors in the ranks behind" were not designated as Wizards and therefore are immune to the special effects.
I would consider that this is true, but it is not relevant. 3 casualties were made against a model designated as Wizard. 3 models are removed from the rear. You do not "go back" to see whether they were wizards or not.
 

On the other hand, had the Ogre Bruiser face a unit of Sisters of the Thorn or Pink Horrors, this unit would be unaffected, because it would be the unit's controller who would nominate the target, and he would obviously nominate one model not in contact.


2. Spell removal.
What happens to a unit of Warlocks in case of spell removal?
Examples for Loss of Spells/Wizard levels:  Rune of Spellbreaking - Greedy Fist - Spellthieving Sword.
Would this affect the whole unit? If not, this would basically provide immunity to these and similar effects, as the unit itself retains the Wizard level and the spells.

Here, RAW tells that a single Warlock loses a single spell. Obviously the next one to be killed will be that one, which makes basically the whole unit immune to such effects - just like miscasts!


3. Pts balance.
A Lvl 2 Witch on a Dark Steed costs 125 points; a Doomfire Warlock unit of 5 models also costs 125 points.
Well, this is not a rule issue.
This is not even an issue at all, every DE player agrees that Warlocks are broken.
No wonder why all competitive DE lists include at least one unit, if not two of them.
This allegedly "rare" unit is, statistically, the most frequently played.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Here, RAW tells that a single Warlock loses a single spell. Obviously the next one to be killed will be that one, which makes basically the whole unit immune to such effects - just like miscasts!

Actually, RAW do not say any such thing. The only thing that is written is the better miscast rule. Otherwise, the only thing you have is "for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc." In fact, you only have the one abbreviation: etc. Frankly, this is far too thin to come to such far reaching conclusions. If there were a rule "for the purposes of bows, crossbows etc.", I do not think too many people will extrapolate this to CC weapons and war machines ( - although DE and Skaven might.  )

That said, and as I pointed out before, rules affecting a unit affect all models in the unit. Assuming that a warlock would lose a level or spell, he would instantaneously regain that level or spell, as the unit would be still a lvl 2 Wizard with two spells. That IS rules as written, as it is not specified otherwise by the Doomfire Warlock rules.

As far as I can tell, it is far more likely that the Wizard model is for targetting (active and passive) - and only for targetting.

Well, this is not a rule issue.
This is not even an issue at all, every DE player agrees that Warlocks are broken.
No wonder why all competitive DE lists include at least one unit, if not two of them.
This allegedly "rare" unit is, statistically, the most frequently played.

Except, of course, this time, it is not even as such in the rules. It is just one interpretation of etcetera - an interpretation that can be challenged on good grounds.

Edit:

On the other hand, had the Ogre Bruiser face a unit of Sisters of the Thorn or Pink Horrors, this unit would be unaffected, because it would be the unit's controller who would nominate the target, and he would obviously nominate one model not in contact.

I would like to see you try and pull that one on an Ogre player.

[Calisson]

The initial reaction from Druchii.net is not what I expected.

3 replies, most with little argument.
All say 1 = only one model killed.
Two say 2 = the whole unit loses the spell, while one (the most elaborate) says the opposite.

-=-=-

Here are the contradicting arguments for question 2.
2(yes). Entire unit loses the spell, since the entire unit is a single lvl 2 wizard.
2 (no). Imagine the spellthieving sword against a 10 big Warlock unit. Would it make sense they would cease to know any spell after losing two models? Would it make sense to stab one dude, and have the other 9 forget a spell because of it?
The very Warlock rule that states that the unit is considered a Wizard is the very same rule that explicitly states such effects are resolved on a single Warlock in the unit.
While this is not explicitly stated so in the rules, the rules effectively block out the possibility of losing spells on the unit. All effects are resolved on a single model and the miscast table is ignored.

-=-=-

Back to Fidelis' argument on "etc" which would allegedly limit designation of a single Warlock to targetting only (for both casting and being affected) .

The full sentences are:
"Each time the unit casts a spell you must nominate one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as the caster for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc."
"If the unit is targeted by a rule that affects a wizard, your opponent must choose one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as target".

I don't understand two things in your argument:

1. "etc" is by nature extensive. How can it become restrictive?
You seem to interpret "etc" to mean "and nothing else" instead of the usual "and everything else".

2. "etc" is only written in the sentence about casting a spell.
How can it become an argument at all when we're not even talking about casting, but only about being affected?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

1. OED: et cetera adv. and other similar things; and so on. 

It does not mean "and everything else" but "and the rest (of such things)".

2. Both are about targeting - the one by the Doomfire Warlock, the other of the Doomfire Warlocks. This is confirmed by the phrase in the Horrors/Sister rules: "Each time the unit cast a spell (or is targeted by a special rule that affects a Wizard) you must nominate on one X or X as the caster (or target) for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc."

There can be no doubt that the unit is the Wizard. Indeed, the first sentence of the rule is: "A unit of Doomfire warlocks is considered to be a Level 2 Wizard."
And further:
"The unit receives an additional +1 to cast for each rank..." 
"Each time the unit casts a spell, you must nominate one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as the caster for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc"

The unit casts the spell, but you must nominate a model as the caster "for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc."

And, once again, the crux is the meaning of "etc.".  Although otherwise unspecified, we know it must be other  things similar to line of sight and range. This makes me think rather of e.g. forward arc, but not of "immunity to Runes of Spellbreaking and the Greedy Fist" etc.

GW is often bad at writing rules, but I do not buy the idea that they would use a single etc. to overrule a whole range of normal rules (casualties included, apparently) without further specification.

[Rein]

The armybook does not say this:
"Each time the unit cast a spell (or is targeted by a special rule that affects a Wizard) you must nominate on one X or X as the caster (or target) for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc."
But this:
"Each time the unit casts a spell you must nominate one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as the caster for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc."

If you want to make up your own rules, please feel free to do so. Don't pretend that the rules are something else just to fit your purpose.

2.CAST
...
To cast a spell, a Wizard nominates one of his spells to cast, and declares the target of the spell.[..]. Spells also have targeting limitations,

So in other words:
Each time a Wizard casts a spell it has targeting limitations (Forward arc, line of sight, range, type of target). To me it seems that etc can only refer to all the targeting limitations.

[CarolineWellwater]

(( Rein,

I think Fidelis' quote was from the Sisters of Thorn, as he was showing how the Sisters of Thorn have a bit more focused of an ability.

Calisson,

I think part of the issue is that etc does not mean "And everything else."  It means "and everything similar".    For example, I could say I have the following colors of cloth: blue, red, green, yellow, etc.  In this sentence, the "etc" means "and every other color."  I could also say I have the following types of cloth: wool, velvet, cotton, flax, linen, etc.  In this case, the "etc" means "and every other type of cloth."

GW is pulling an American-English, in that we State-siders incorrectly tend to use "etc" to mean "and-every-other-meaning-possible-under-the-sun", when that isn't what etc means by definition.

All,

Overall, the problem goes back to one of the comments I made previously.  GW doesn't bother with any of the BRB-Magic rules anyway.  They couldn't even go one Army Book without introducing new magic rules.  The Empire Book has Battle Prayers... which are magic... but not.  Which are Bound Spells... but not.

Anyway, to ask an obvious question, has GW put out a FAQ on this yet? ))

[Rein]

No, but there is also no FAQ needed.

Wizards are in general models, not units.
All rules that are written are based on this assumption.

Now an exception is made by introducing wizard units. A new rule is added telling us to regard all rules targeting wizards(models) now target one of the models in the unit (who choses which model, is not very important). So in essence, nothing has changed.

It is clear and cut.
If a rule targets a Wizard model (e.g. empire wizard) it is treated in exactly the same manner as when it targets a Wizard unit model (e.g. warlocks)

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

(( Rein,

I think Fidelis' quote was from the Sisters of Thorn, as he was showing how the Sisters of Thorn have a bit more focused of an ability.

Obviously - as I have in fact pointed out in my post. Some people just cannot read.

Anyway, to ask an obvious question, has GW put out a FAQ on this yet? ))

No. There have not been AB Update Versions since 2013, with two exceptions: Wood Elves in Sep 2014 (a single, unimportant FAQ, while the real issues were left unanswered) and DOC in January 2015 (with the addition of the Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch as an amendment).

[Calisson]

Update.
I posted my analysis on D.net and there seems to be an understanding about why 3 Warlocks would be killed, after all.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

On a side note:

Obviously the next one to be killed will be that one

That would be only the case, if the model is specifically targeted. If you do play it your way, you would need to start marking each model that has lost one or more spells/levels, and roll for them separately, e.g. against shooting, to determine whether they are killed or not.

[Calisson]

I still think that the limited interpretation of "etc" is based on extremely weak argumentation, and does not meet the usual standards of rule interpretation that I came to appreciate in this forum.

"Each time the unit casts a spell you must nominate one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as the caster for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc."
When casting a spell, it is important to know exactly who is the caster for:
- forward arc (targeting, but not included specifically in the Warlock rule)
- LOS (targeting, and included in the warlock rule)
- range (targeting, and included in the warlock rule)
- vortexes (it happens only when playing ET magic rules)
- feedback scroll (wounds back the caster)
- Sivejir's Hex Scroll (caster turned to toad)
Tell me if I missed anything.

With the interpretation etc = everything similar to targeting a spell, "etc" stands for "forward arc" only.
With my understanding, etc = everything linked to casting a spell, "etc" means everything above.

The two examples provided, LOS and range, fit both interpretations.
In support of my interpretation, "cast a spell" is part of the rule when "targeting" is not.

It does not make any difference for vortexes or for the feedback scroll (with the understanding that overflow works).
It does make a difference for the toad scroll. I see no other difference.

Are we really arguing that "etc" excludes the toad scroll?
Is anyone really pretending that the whole Warlock unit, as being "the caster", would be reduced to a single toad (a single model with as many wounds as there were Warlock models)?
That would be the consequence of the limited interpretation.
If so, please provide more robust arguments telling why your interpretation would be stronger than mine.


-=-=-

Anyway, next issue, we are not talking about casting a spell, but being targeted as a wizard.
The rule is crystal clear:
"If the unit is targeted by a rule that affects a wizard, your opponent must choose one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as target".

I still fail to understand how anyone can disregard blatantly that rule and decide that the whole unit, rather than the single model that the rule says, would be the target of any effect affecting a wizard.
All arguments brought by Fidelis so far have been just deliberately ignoring that sentence. Sure, rule argumentation would be easier if the annoying rules could be deleted.
Of course, the whole unit is the target, as Fidelis demonstrates and I agree. But that sentence still exists!

-=-=-

If you do play it your way, you would need to start marking each model that has lost one or more spells/levels, and roll for them separately, e.g. against shooting, to determine whether they are killed or not.

Marking models indeed. But not rolling separately: warlocks remain R&F, whether they lost a spell or not.
Against shooting, R&F models are removed from the last rank, where you'd expect the diminished casters to be relegated at first opportunity.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

It does not make any difference for vortexes or for the feedback scroll (with the understanding that overflow works).
It does make a difference for the toad scroll. I see no other difference.

Most Dark Elves seem to deny that overflow would work. And it also makes a difference for (Double) Runes of Spellbreaking and similar effects.

Are we really arguing that "etc" excludes the toad scroll?
Is anyone really pretending that the whole Warlock unit, as being "the caster", would be reduced to a single toad (a single model with as many wounds as there were Warlock models)?

Inconceivable! Much better to make them basically immune against anything that affects Wizards. 

Anyway, next issue, we are not talking about casting a spell, but being targeted as a wizard.
The rule is crystal clear:
"If the unit is targeted by a rule that affects a wizard, your opponent must choose one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as target".

I still fail to understand how anyone can disregard blatantly that rule and decide that the whole unit, rather than the single model that the rule says, would be the target of any effect affecting a wizard.
All arguments brought by Fidelis so far have been just deliberately ignoring that sentence. Sure, rule argumentation would be easier if the annoying rules could be deleted.
Of course, the whole unit is the target, as Fidelis demonstrates and I agree. But that sentence still exists!

A bit strange that I am accused of deliberately ignoring this sentence. The very first sentence of my first post:

Most Dark Elves players will point to Dark Elves AB p. 41: "If the unit is targeted by a rule that affects a wizard, your opponent must choose one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as target" and argue that therefore only one Warlock can ever be killed by the Feedback Scroll.

For which, in fact, you chided me: 

Fidelis, you have been known for more appropriate quotes.
Before the sentence you quoted, there are other sentences. Could you read two sentences before?
It reads something like (my translation from the French):
"Each time the unit casts a spell, you must designate the champ warlock or a warlock as being the spell caster, to determine LOS, range, etc."
This would be the actual sentence mentioned by a decent DE player, rather than the one you quoted.
RAW, there is effectively a single warlock designated as the single spell caster for ALL purposes ("etc."), so the target of the feedback scroll is selected by the DE player, not by his opponent, and that is a single model.

notwithstanding the fact that I had quoted that sentence too.

Marking models indeed. But not rolling separately: warlocks remain R&F, whether they lost a spell or not.
Against shooting, R&F models are removed from the last rank, where you'd expect the diminished casters to be relegated at first opportunity.

Rather irrelevant, if not all models of the last rank are removed, or if there is only one rank, in the first place. This seems once more picking and choosing to maximise the benefit.

[Calisson]

Back to the initial argument.
The question was how to fight Warlocks thanks to effects affecting Wizards.

Q1. Some scrolls target casting Wizards: Feedback scroll (wounds); Sivejir's Hex Scroll (toad).
They aim at "the casting Wizard" / "the caster".
The question is who is "the caster"? The whole unit or a single Warlock?
For these effects, the relevant DE AB quote is:
"Each time the unit casts a spell, you must nominate one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as the caster for the purposes of line of sight, range, etc."
A1. No ambiguity. There is one single model affected.

Q2. Some effects target Wizards as a class. Rune of Spellbreaking; Greedy Fist; Spellthieving Sword.
They affect "a Wizard", regardless whether he casts anything or not.
Do they affect the whole unit, or a single model?
For those effects, the relevant DE AB quote is:
"If the unit is targeted by a rule that affects a wizard, your opponent must choose one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as target".
A2. No ambiguity. There is one single model affected.

For these two cases, there is a single Warlock nominated. The only difference is who choses the victim.

-=-

About the attempt to limit "etc" to when the Warlock unit targets, and to forget who was designated afterwards, nothing supports that.
Sentences such as "it can be argued", 'it seems more natural", "it can be challenged on good grounds" need support or are void.
The interpretation of "etc" to mean restrictively things similar to line of sight and range, is by no means more obvious than "things used when casting a spell", especially since the sentence talks about casting a spell, not about targeting.

About the attempt to expand such unsupported limitation to the second case, nothing supports that.
There is no reason to apply the first quote, which applies when the unit casts a spell, to a situation when the unit is not casting a spell.

-=-

As a result:
The "toad" scroll would transform, with 4/6 chances, a single Warlock into a toad, which limits tremendously the mobility of the unit.
It could be worth 50pts, along with the fun.

Rune of Spellbreaking / Greedy Fist / Spellthieving Sword would only affect one model in the unit, with hardly any effect on the game at all.
It is probably not worth.
Note that it can be validly argued that kills done by Greedy Fist do overflow.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Now we start just to repeat things. My interpretation for 1 is as much or as little unsupported as yours, because there is simply no way we can determine what was intended by etc.

Note that there is an obvious inconsistency in applying the rule e.g. for Feedback Scroll and the Runes of Spellbreaking. This inconsistency is absent in the wording for Sisters/Horrors, but, of course, so is your whole argument 2.

RAW, Rune of Spellbreaking, Greedy Fist, Spellthieving Sword have no effect at all (regarding loss of spell/level), as I pointed out above. I certainly would advise anyone using any of these to insist on a roll-off on how this is played, until an Update Version clarifies things.

[Calisson]

Well, if you cannot determine what was intended by "etc", do not determine it!
Leave it open, as I do.

And if you wish to be consistent,
- please apply Warlock rules to Warlocks, and Sisters rules to Sisters,
- and please apply the rule about Warlocks casting spells only in situations when they cast spells.
As I do.

-=-=-

About what you tell to be an inconsistency, ("RAW, Rune of Spellbreaking, Greedy Fist, Spellthieving Sword have no effect at all") you probably refer to:

That said, and as I pointed out before, rules affecting a unit affect all models in the unit. Assuming that a warlock would lose a level or spell, he would instantaneously regain that level or spell, as the unit would be still a lvl 2 Wizard with two spells. That IS rules as written, as it is not specified otherwise by the Doomfire Warlock rules.

I see not an inconsistency, I see you mentioning a rule that you made up: it is written nowhere that the affected Warlock would regain anything.
You would just be in a situation where, simultaneously:
- the Warlock unit would be a Lvl2 with 2 spells (generic case)
- inside of that unit, one model would be a Lvl1 with 1 spell (particular case).
The affected Warlock is an exception to the general rule, not an inconsistency.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Well, if you cannot determine what was intended by "etc", do not determine it!
Leave it open, as I do.

Well, you do not leave it open: you fill it with every possible benefit you can think of. 

And if you wish to be consistent,
- please apply Warlock rules to Warlocks, and Sisters rules to Sisters,
- and please apply the rule about Warlocks casting spells only in situations when they cast spells.
As I do.

True to a certain extent. But if there is ever a resolution, there is little doubt that all these units will be treated the same way.

I see not an inconsistency, I see you mentioning a rule that you made up: it is written nowhere that the affected Warlock would regain anything.
You would just be in a situation where, simultaneously:
- the Warlock unit would be a Lvl2 with 2 spells (generic case)
- inside of that unit, one model would be a Lvl1 with 1 spell (particular case).
The affected Warlock is an exception to the general rule, not an inconsistency.

On the contrary: the whole thing about individual warlocks losing spells or levels is something you made up, but has absolutely no basis in the rules. Please show me, where it says that individual warlocks are lvl 2 wizards knowing two spells? The rules specify that the unit is a lvl 2 wizard with two spells. As long as the unit does not lose level or spells, the warlocks do not either.

[Rein]

On the contrary: the whole thing about individual warlocks losing spells or levels is something you made up, but has absolutely no basis in the rules. Please show me, where it says that individual warlocks are lvl 2 wizards knowing two spells? The rules specify that the unit is a lvl 2 wizard with two spells. As long as the unit does not lose level or spells, the warlocks do not either.

So there is your answer. No inconsistency. RAW is indeed: The unit is immune to this effect.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

And all of this special treatment is not even worth mentioning. I suppose, that too falls under etc.

[Rein]

Also there is no such things as casualties overflowing to other RnF models when a model is targeted.

Think about it in this way:
If you cast spirit leech on a single warlock model and do 5 wounds, will 5 models die ?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

You may want to read the post in question.

[Rein]

Fidelis you live in a world with your own rules. No point in trying to persuede you.

If anyone else wants to know why casualties do not overflow I will be happy to elaborate

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

So, you have not read the post. No surprise there.

[Calisson]

If anyone else wants to know why casualties do not overflow I will be happy to elaborate

Please do.
For ease of reference, here was my analysis:

1. Casualties
Let us assume, an Ogre Bruiser with the Greedy Fist is only in btb with one (R&F) Doomfire Warlock, member of a larger unit.
The Greedy Fist affects Wizards, and that Warlock will therefore to be nominated as the target, because "If the unit is targeted by a rule that affects a wizard, your opponent must choose one Master of Warlocks or Doomfire Warlock as target" (DE AB).
The Ogre causes 3 unsaved wounds.
Normally, if you attack a R&F model in CC and cause three wounds, three R&F models die.

Let's see BRB p.48 sq.
The Ogre can only strike the single Warlock he is in contact with - nominated as a Wizard.
All hits/wounds/saves/ward saves are made against that single model; the Greedy Fist special effect works. 3 unsaved wounds are made.
BRB p.51: "Casualties are removed from the rear rank...
It can happen that a model causes more casualties than it has enemies in base contact. The excess casualties are removed as normal from the unit as a whole, representing the attackers fighting over the fallen foes.") This would lead to understand that 3 Warlock die.

The tricky sentence is: "warriors in the ranks behind will step forwards to fill any gaps that appear."
A DE player might object that those "warriors in the ranks behind" were not designated as Wizards and therefore are immune to the special effects.
I would consider that this is true, but it is not relevant. 3 casualties were made against a model designated as Wizard. 3 models are removed from the rear. You do not "go back" to see whether they were wizards or not.

There might be a difference with Spirit Leech:
Spirit Leech targets a single enemy model. That model suffers potentially several wounds, which do not overflow, just like multiple wounds.
The situation described is not exactly the same.
The Ogre did target a unit, not a model.
During the process, that model was nominated as a wizard, but it does not make that model a single-model-target.

[The Peacemaker]

Every army I play I find a way to put in range missile units. They don't have to be strong or tough. In fast the cheaper and weaker the better!

Strength 3 bows at 7pts each isn't so bad. Pretty much all fast cav is toughness 3 so you'll get wounds. Warlocks have 4+ ward so it just means you need more shots.

Heck, when I play brets its even better. 6pt longbowmen!!!! But empire guys are skirmish which really helps against fast cav.

I don't know why most people who play war hammer don't take small missile units. Are they just rolling badly? I always seem to get some wounds through.

At the beginning of 8th edition when everyone was taking big hordes then ya the missile units were pretty bad. Killing 3-8 guys out of 40 or 50 models over 3 turns of shooting isn't that great when that unit still hits your lines and kills everything.