Discussion with regard to black fury spell

I had a game against  the skaven warband again yesrerday and we had some discussions about his Eshin sorcerer and his spell



He wanted to use this spell without any line of sight, without performing climbing tests and via direct connection through air. He wanted to attack a model on first floor from the ground as some sort of teleport by standing behind a wall without line of sight

I discussed that he need to perform a charge action, so he need to move on ground and has to climb which was more than 12".

I would even discuss that he needs to make an initiative test for seeing the enemy, when he does not in the beginning and I would also argue for climbing rules, because I think he can ignore difficult terrain which would normally slows him down, but he cannot attack from ground to a spot 12" on a high tower. ( or running and climbing.

In the end he attacked a different hero on ground level, but I wanted to see what the rules gurus here think.

Thank you

RAW, I would say that the Sorcerer would have been able to charge your Warrior if the Warrior was within 12''. RAI, probably not but then again, they're rat-men (good ability to climb and to sense others). It could go either way, ask your group, decide as a group, and house rule it.

+1 to RAW being able to do it. Personally, I think that it *is* working as intended because of its similarity to Wings of Darkness or Flight of Zimmeran, both of which allow you to go anywhere within 12" and allow you to charge while doing so. Black Fury gains a combat buff, but loses all of the utility and the only person it can be cast on can't get either Strength skills or Combat skills.

We play it as a flying spell, so no need for initiative tests, etc.

The only issue we have ever had revolves around this FAQ:

TC FAQ wrote:

Q. Can spells be cast on a model out of line
of sight to the caster or which are hidden?
What about spells which simply affect all
models within a certain radius of the caster?
A. Spells cannot be targeted at models which
are out of sight. However, models which are
out of sight may still be affected by spells
with an area effect provided another model
is targeted and they fall within the spells’
radius.

But the spell is not being cast on the model being charged it is cast on the Sorcerer.

My group also plays it as a fly spell (like Wings of Darkness and Flight of Zimmeran as Lord 0 pointed out). Ignoring all terrain seems pretty explicit here in that it allows ascent and descent without penalty.

We also allow it to be used to charge models you can't see, since nothing in the rules for spells in general or that specific spell imply that you need to be able to see (and ignoring terrain could be interpreted as ignoring terrain that blocks LOS). I could, however, see a case being made for keeping that requirement of the charge. The times it has been used for us though it has been strong but not at all unbalancing. The Sorcerer tends to be a weak fighter; allowing for teleporting ambushes adds an interesting element.

Hmm,
for me it is clear that a charge action is using his feet which makes sense that the spell brings the skaven in a black fury, frenzy rage or whatever. For a charge you need to see or roll on I,  because a skaven who runs behind a wall casts a spell and attacks a model within 12" without any risks to be stuck in the open with eshin fighting claws, art of silent death and black fury is cheesy. 5A S4 with crits on 5s. There has to be a risk involved that when he fumbles the spell to be in the open and to be punished. I also think that the spell is not a flight spell, because this is worded different in the flight of Zimmeran



So minimum he should need to take the charge on ground and walls and rolling I to see if he did not see his vixtim during charge. I also just read that he turns into a big monstous rat like creature, so it is not a teleport it is a transmutation spell. If weapons should count is questionable fluff wise but the rules are clear on this.

"Cheesy" isn't a valid concern. A vampire with maximum attacks, maximum strength, maximum wounds, frenzy, healing herbs, +1 to casting and two applications of the "Reroll all failed rolls" spell from the Lesser Magic tree can pour out something like 10 wounds a turn while being invincible.

Even without that exaggerated point, you're talking a specific spell (1/6) that goes off on an 8+ (15/36) who has invested in a specific item and is in range.

The question is the wording. Let's break it down.

"The sorcerer may immediately charge any model within 12" (ignoring any terrain and interposing models) with +2A and +1Str during this turn's h2h combat phase only."

We can cut that down to this more manageable chunk:

"The sorcerer may immediately (during this shooting phase) charge any model within 12" (ignoring any terrain and interposing models) with a bonus this round."

1) "immediately"
2) charge
3) any model within 12"
4) ignoring any terrain
5) ignoring interposing models
6) with a bonus

1 and 6 are easy - "immediately" just means a charge of some sort during this shooting/magic phase instead of the normal charge phase and 6 is just a defined bonus that is unimportant towards the question. 2-5 are the hard parts.

What does "charge" mean? We know how charges are done before, but the real question is how it combines with 3-5. Clearly, this is intending to break normal charge rules - otherwise, a sorcerer usually has a 5" move, but I can charge any model within 12". Note that shooting requires you to define a shooter, define a target, and then check your range with models out of range automatically missing, whereas with magic, you roll to see if the spell is successful and then follow the spell's instructions. So it would be weird to say I can charge this model 12" away (which I may measure to determine if it is a legal result for my spell) but then only move 10".

It is further unusual to say you have to make normal charge movement rules such as avoiding obstructions or walking around models, especially since the spell specifically says you ignore terrain and interposing models (4 and 5).

What does that mean? If a model is within 12" but I have to go 16" around a wall, a normal charge would fail, but since I can 'ignore terrain', a Black Fury charge would succeed. Additionally, since I 'ignore interposing models', I wouldn't have to go around them or be intercepted by them.

So a long jump/fly type movement is probably OK.

Whether you follow the FAQ or not is a legitimate debate, since the FAQ is just so weird and questionable. However, the LOS requirement for magic is not an unreasonable one - either way, you'd want to be consistent. But if the spell goes off and there's a model 11.9" away, rip it up. Just roll 8+

(The real sneaky thing to do is cast the spell in combat. You can cast spells in combat. If you get it off, you get the bonus attacks, and extra attacks with a pip bonus to your strength means you can literally pick different weapons to really hammer in the hurt. But the REAL sneaky thing to do is use it to escape one combat and get into another.)

Here's the actual drawback. The difference between this spell and the other spells is the "charging" requirement.

That is, the other three movement spells have lots more utility.

Call of Vanhel gives a single zombie or dire wolf a normal movement that COUNTS AS CHARGING if it hits something.

Wings of Darkness and Flight of Zimmeran are a free 12" move that not only count as charging if they hit something, but can actually throw an automatic hit at something that is already fleeing. Note the normal case of a charge on a fleeing model - it runs 2d6" towards the nearest table edge but NO BLOWS are struck. This makes these spells a little more powerful (although they generally go on a not-so close combat capable model).

The drawback of the Black Fury spell is that it can ONLY be used to charge and it goes on a caster hero who is not too combat capable, is obnoxiously average, and probably will want to take Wyrdstone Hunter and sit far away from combat. The 12" charge restriction means you can't use this to do something like fly 11" into the air where nobody can climb up and then start shooting with impunity as you could with the other spells.

It's nice if you get a perfect storm of skills, attacks, and strength to make a killer caster, but Skaven toughness and armor are practically non-existent. You don't want your caster in combat, so even if he's a glass cannon, having him hang out near combats hoping for an 8+ means a single failed spell guarantees he'll be in the open while his buddies are in combat, often leaving him a shooting target or ripe for countercharging (charging an Eshin Sorcerer is awesome... if you're the enemy. 3 Toughness, 1 Wound Hero with no armor? That's a gift.)

Quote :

Hmm,
for me it is clear that a charge action is using his feet which makes sense that the spell brings the skaven in a black fury, frenzy rage or whatever.

I'm not sure how that could be clear from the wording of the spell. The sorcerer ignores terrain and any intervening models if the spell is cast. In addition he may charge 'any' model within that range. The words of the spell do not support your theory.

I tend to lose sorcerers that have this spell. Usually after attacking small fluffy animals or seemingly defenseless damsels in distress. When it is used against me, I usually lose whatever the target of the charge was. I did have a wonderful success when a sorcerer appeared on my flying carpet a campaign or two ago. The crew of the carpet did that rat in in fine fashion, but there were three of them and the sorcerer whiffed on his charge...

The sad end to many a rat.

@The Nick:
Yes cheesy is not an argument but to compare a full maxed out vampire to a rat mage with one skill, the spell and fighting claws is not a good argument either in my oppinion. The rat mage is as hard or harder than the vampire when he attacks with this spell especially at the beginning of a campaign.

You have some good points, but I still buy not everything.
1. Charging is not flying.
2. To be allowed to charge is not equal to sucessfull charging, dwarfs are allowed to charge 12", but this does not mean they succesfully charge. The rat mage may charge within 12", but he still needs to be succesful. Yes he may ignore scenery and models to have a clear unobstructed line to charge without ini test but with regard to distance the rules are clear. Charge doubles the movement like running. The description does not describe that the rat mage can move or even fly actually 12".
Your example above: The rat mage may charge the opponent 12" away behind walls, but it does not mean he do that succesfully. I think there s good argumentation that a sorcerer with running skill is nerfed so he can only maximum charge enemies 12" away and not 15".

And I think the spell description is important. The sorcerer transmutates into a rat monster, there is no teleport described.

The spell description is fluff. One can imagine the rat monster leaping in a straight line through the air 12". By 'fluff', you can intercept a 'rat monster' using the normal interception rules for charging, whereas this spell specifically instruct you to ignore interposing models.

Additionally, a starting Skaven caster is in no means outperforming a Vampire. At all. The bonuses from the spell will bring the caster to vampire levels in most regards and grant it a grand total of one extra attack over the vampire, but the vampire has equal or superior stats in every other way and is only matched when the caster pulls off a risky spell.

Failing that spell leaves the caster in a situation where he can be murdered outright by the weakest of henchmen with all of his stats inferior to a vampire.

Simply put, vampires are the best starting character. End of story. Hands down. The Undead Warband is by no means overpowered, but the vampire is violent.

--

Finally, the sorcerer's movement is irrelevant for the spell. You do not "declare a charge following all normal charge rules" if you successfully cast the spell, so every other point you bring up there is not important.

Remember, the rules for charging are explicit: declare a charge at the beginning of the phase, then check for legality and movement with measuring. Once you move on, you cannot declare more charges. Following the suggestion you laid out above, a model would cast a spell, declare a charge...

...then immediately get told by his opponent that he is not allowed to make the charge as the opportunity has passed.

"Charge a model within 12 inches" means to measure to 12", ignore terrain, ignore interposing models, and if there is a model within 12", you can put your model there as a charge.

Charging is not flying, this is true. However, notice the way the other rules are spelled - you may move your model 12", even into base-to-base contact (in which case it counts as charging). The spell is called "Flight of Zimmerman", and it allows me to move 12".

But using your words, a person might say "Movement is not Flying", which is true of movement during the movement phase by a model without a rule allowing it to fly. I would be displeased if was asked to keep my 'Flight of Zimmerman' spell from letting me go up a wall without an Initiative Test. Additionally, "Movement is not charging", but if I move into base to base contact with this spell, it is in fact charging. I would be unhappy if I made a 12" move, touched my model to another model, and was told that I am not allowed to do it because the movement rules do not allow you to move into contact unless you declare a charge.

Same with the "movement" requirements you stressed before. If I moved my movement 4 chaos caster 11" with my fly spell and was told, "No, you cannot move that far, because doubling your movement only allows you 8"," I would again be unhappy.

The spells might not be perfectly written, but it seems like parsing it out to allow at least some way to bring them into combat is reasonable.

For flight of Zimmerman it is for me totally clear, especially if you read the fluff text.

I copy in a foto of the charge text:





Dwarfs can charge any model on the tabletop, this does not mean they are succesfull in doing so.

I can only repeat my argumentation, the rat mage performs a charge action as described above.

But I am also aware that we both won't come to an agreement , so I agree to disagree here.

We haven't had a skaven warband in our gaming group for quite a long time but I do recall 'Black Fury' being cast to allow the Eshin Sorcerer to charge a warrior on the second floor of a building. In that particular instance the warrior did have LOS (slight difference to the example given) but we did treat it as a flight spell since the 12" was a diagonal line from the ground to the balcony/window.

The discussion in this thread is very similar to other discussions regarding spells and their names and their text in italics (fluff) and their normal text (rules).

Here is a similar thread regarding the Sword of Rezhebel and whether the name of the spell allowed the 'sword' to parry.
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t7910-sword-of-rezhebel-question

Here are two threads referring to the Hammer of Sigmar. The second refers back to the first.
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t4773-hammer-of-sigmar-spell
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t7617-the-hammer-of-sigmar

The reason why I link to these other threads is to show that spells can cause a bit of disagreement. A lot of people recommend to ignore the fluff in regards to how the mechanics work within the game (and I would argue that the name should be ignored too). The fluff is cool and helps to paint a more vivid picture but it becomes a downward spiral.

* Is the 'Sword of Rezhebel' spell counted as a flaming attack when attacking Trolls (ignore regeneration) or buildings (set building on fire)?
* Are the undead warriors immune to the 'Lure of Chaos' spell because it targets the taint of chaos that exists in the inner soul of all living beings?
* If the 'Armour of Righteousness' prayer is impenetrable then why does it only give a 2+ armour save instead of truly being impenetrable?

Ultimately though groups should decide how they want to use the spells. If a group wants to parry with the 'Sword of Rezhebel' spell and everyone agrees then fine. If a group wants to imbue a single weapon being wielded with the 'Hammer of Sigmar' spell while another group applies the 'Hammer of Sigmar' spell to all attacks from a warrior then great. If a group chooses to treat the 'Black Fury' spell not as a flight spell (because that makes most sense based on the fluff) then that is OK too.

That is just my 2 cents. I think that there are two strong sides to this discussion who are not going to budge.

RationalLemming wrote:

We haven't had a skaven warband in our gaming group for quite a long time but I do recall 'Black Fury' being cast to allow the Eshin Sorcerer to charge a warrior on the second floor of a building. In that particular instance the warrior did have LOS (slight difference to the example given) but we did treat it as a flight spell since the 12" was a diagonal line from the ground to the balcony/window.

The discussion in this thread is very similar to other discussions regarding spells and their names and their text in italics (fluff) and their normal text (rules).

Here is a similar thread regarding the Sword of Rezhebel and whether the name of the spell allowed the 'sword' to parry.
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t7910-sword-of-rezhebel-question

Here are two threads referring to the Hammer of Sigmar. The second refers back to the first.
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t4773-hammer-of-sigmar-spell
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t7617-the-hammer-of-sigmar

The reason why I link to these other threads is to show that spells can cause a bit of disagreement. A lot of people recommend to ignore the fluff in regards to how the mechanics work within the game (and I would argue that the name should be ignored too). The fluff is cool and helps to paint a more vivid picture but it becomes a downward spiral.

* Is the 'Sword of Rezhebel' spell counted as a flaming attack when attacking Trolls (ignore regeneration) or buildings (set building on fire)?
* Are the undead warriors immune to the 'Lure of Chaos' spell because it targets the taint of chaos that exists in the inner soul of all living beings?
* If the 'Armour of Righteousness' prayer is impenetrable then why does it only give a 2+ armour save instead of truly being impenetrable?

Ultimately though groups should decide how they want to use the spells. If a group wants to parry with the 'Sword of Rezhebel' spell and everyone agrees then fine. If a group wants to imbue a single weapon being wielded with the 'Hammer of Sigmar' spell while another group applies the 'Hammer of Sigmar' spell to all attacks from a warrior then great. If a group chooses to treat the 'Black Fury' spell not as a flight spell (because that makes most sense based on the fluff) then that is OK too.

That is just my 2 cents. I think that there are two strong sides to this discussion who are not going to budge.

Very technically, by the letter of the words you wrote above...

...if you have a model that is on the 4th floor, so long as I can draw an unobstructed line to it, I can declare a charge to it and 'move the most direct way'. No rule specifically nullifying me from flying straight to it (although, reasonably speaking, you should apply that, because even though the rule here doesn't explicitly state this, it just makes sense).

Either way, this is for charging.

The spell does not say to 'attempt to charge', but to charge anybody within 12". The spell lets you automatically charge somebody within 12", not declare a charge and try to charge it (i.e., if it let you make a charge move, you would have to declare it and then move your Movement x2. That is, if my caster had a 4" move, I could 'declare' a charge against somebody 12" away but it would fail, while I could not charge somebody 14" away and automatically fail since I'm measuring it. If I had a 10" move, I could make a 20" charge, but why is this one locked at 12"? Could I charge 20" even though the spell says otherwise)?

It's explicit.

Also, relatedly, a dwarf can't charge any model on the board. They have to see him and have an unobstructed line, then move double their movement without any obstructions.

@rational lemming: Thank you for your valuable post.

@The Nick: We may just start another rules discussion about the dwarfs who can charge any model on the board. Of course without seeing they have to pass an I test, as described above in the fotographed rule section, but I prefer not to, because I do not think we will find common ground there too.

Well, yeah. We won't find common ground because you're misquoting the rule and giving yourself a rather generous advantage with your dwarf charging.

Apart from 'just' passing an Initiative test to make a charge against a model you cannot see, you also have to be within a minimum 4" range. Note, this means that a particularly high move model (perhaps with Sprint) could have a huge range of movement. However, even with 100" of free movement, if you cannot see a model, the initiative test option is only available if you are within 4".

I lock this topic because the discussions are not leadig anywhere, except disrespectful posts.