Silver Arrows of Arha

Hey all! =)

I have a question about one of the Lesser Magic spells my warlock has. Does the spell Silver Arrows of Arha cause critical hits?

The rules for spells claim that spells CAN be cast in combat but can NOT cause critical wounds. However, all my research online states stuff like:

"The spell summons D6+2 arrows which the wizard can use to shoot against one enemy model, following the rules for normal shooting. The arrows have a range of 24". Use the wizard’s own Ballistic Skill to determine whether he hits or not, but ignore movement, range and cover penalties."

"The wizard can shoot D6+2 arrows at one enemy model. The arrows are shot as if from a bow with a 24" range, with no penalties for moving, cover, etc. They cause 1 S3 hit each."

“Unlike other spells, this cannot be cast whilst in hand-to-hand combat. The spell summons D6+2 arrows which the wizard can use to shoot against one enemy model.”

Anyone know an official ruling on the crit thing?

-Andy

p40 of the Mordheim Rulebook:

Rulebook wrote:

Spells do not cause critical hits...

I guess that should solve the problem

I think you can have critical hits only with "indirect" spells (e.g. that affect your abilities, re-rolls etc.)
Hope that helps,
AT

Quote :

Q: Can spells cause critical hits?
A: Directly, no. Indirectly, yes. The reference on page 56 to spells not causing critical hits specifically refers to spells that cause direct damage such as Word of Pain. These spells never cause critical hits. However, if a warrior is benefiting from a spell that enhances his ability to fight, such as The Hammer of Sigmar, he will be able to cause critical hits with these attacks.

So I think - NO.
This rule means that the spells can cause critical hits only if you enhance your wizard's weapon or sth. like that. A warlock has no bow or any missile weapon, so he cannot cause critical hits with Silver Arrows.

What Skavenblight said.

Interesting. How about the Sword of Rezhebel? That's a spell generated sword as well. Would that allow for criticals?

Is the only way a Warlock can crit by using his staff in melee?

-Andy

arogers907 wrote:

How about the Sword of Rezhebel? [...] Would that allow for criticals?

I would say: No.

arogers907 wrote:

Is the only way a Warlock can crit by using his staff in melee?

Yes.

No, sword of the warlock, or clubba of the orc shaman cannot cause critical hits. It would be nice, but there is no possibility, if the weapon is only effect of the spell...

Not to belabor the point, but the quote above mentions The Hammer of Sigmar as a spell that does cause criticals. Even though it is a summoned hammer.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that either no spell related activity could crit of any summoned weapons would crit?

EDIT:

kk... just read SB's last post. So the Priest needs a hammer to cast his spell on or something. It's enchanted rather than summoned.

That would make more sense.

Hmmm... actually, I begin now to wonder (after 4 years of playing, excellent...) ... because I really don't know if it's summoned or enchanted. I read the description of the spell and have no idea if the weapon appears or changes So sorry if I said something wrong... if the hammer is summoned, you can also cause critical hits with sword of Rehzebel or clubba and I'M DEFINITELY THE WORST PERSON TO JUDGE (but it's no surprise )
If it isn't, you cannot.

EDIT: It would make sense.
You need a WEAPON to cause critical hits.

Silver Arrows are no weapon, or fireball, or anything like that.
If you have sword, club or hammer - enchanted OR summoned - you can cause critical hits.

OK... it's too late... I cannot say what is correct... sorry

=P

Hehe... no worries. I mostly just really appreciate the response.

For our group, we'll come up with a house rule that works best for us. I was curious if there was an official ruling or consensus of the masses, though.

I would think the most equitable ruling would be that any attack that results from a successful spell attempt can not cause a crit.

However, given the interpretation quoted above, it looks like if the spell creates a weapon that you have to make an attack against a stat like WS or BS, you can crit. The difference from a spell like Fires of U'Zhul or Soulfire is that there is an 'to hit' roll necessary before you determine the wounds. I'm just working this through in my head while typing but ya... it would be a little lame if you could crit on a spell that you don't even need to roll to hit with. But if you roll to hit like you would with any other weapon using your WS or BS then you probably should have the possibility to crit as well.

Seems like you should do one of the following:

1) No spell effect can cause a crit.

2) A spell that does not require a 'to hit' roll can not crit. A spell that does require a 'to hit' roll can crit.

Thoughts?

-Andy

That HRE is sensible enough IMO. But dunno if spells *need* to cause criticals to be worthwile. Do you feel like magic in that underpowered?

Xavi

The way I always played it was that no spell, or spell-enhanced item, could cause critical hits. If you buffed your hammer with a spell/prayer then you were giving up your critical chance in favour of a different damage boost. Seemed like a reasonable trade off to me.

That sounds like the cleanest interpretation to me. I'm going to advocate that we play that way.

Hey guys, thanks. I really appreciate the conversation like this. It's nice to have a place to toss out questions like this and get educated and constructive response.

-Andy

I think the idea behind the "no crits from magic"-rule is that some spells can cause up to 6(or more?) hits at once. That's really quiet a lot of hits, if only a single one of them was critical it would make the spell way more powerful.

I'm still trying to win my group over for a "no-crits-at-all"-houserule because i think criticals take more fun from the game than they give.

@ Yorik
I Agree that cirts are powerful but I think they are important and fun for a couple reasons. The first is that they provide some really great imagry. How else can you explain a beardling brining down a rat ogre? Stabbing somone in the eye or slicing the achilies heel! Great stuff! Secondly they give a fighting chance to underdogs and henchmen who inevitably go up against much tougher warriors.

Gnawdoom, the skaven spell causes 2D6 hits at strength 1. That means that if you are T3 or T4 you are ONLY wounded on a 6. That means that *all* hits would be criticals straight away. The spell is quite powerful already (more than it seems, causing 1,16 wounds on average and doesn't need to target the nearest enemy); if ALL the wounds were autop-criticals.... well it could easily be a plan ol' killer.

No criticals for spells to balance some of them is OK IMO Criticals in general are great (the mentioned example of a beardling chopping out the head of a rat ogre), but for multi-hit spells they can be too powerful So, Yorik, I would not remove them. After that will you start removing the ability to climb and jump? HOw many criots do you score on average? I score few of them, really. I suck at dice rolling but that is an other matter

Cheers,

Xavi

Ash wrote:

they give a fighting chance to underdogs and henchmen who inevitably go up against much tougher warriors.

Please bear this in mind. Mordheim is still based on "Heldenhammer" and after a couple of games you need critical hits to balance henchmen vs heroes. They are an important game mechanic. And heck, they're fun!

The way I see it, it all depends on the spell... As a critical hit is a lucky hit, I'd say magic missiles that need BS or weapons could cause them, as they still are missiles/weapons which hit the opponent (or not), whereas spells as word of pain cannot cause critical hits as yo don't hit the enemy as such.

Regarding gnawdoom: Whenever you already need a 6 to wound, you do not cause auto critical hits, because you do not cause critical hits at all in this case.

Eliazar wrote:

Regarding gnawdoom: Whenever you already need a 6 to wound, you do not cause auto critical hits, because you do not cause critical hits at all in this case.

True! Just saw it in the critical hits rule

Cheers,

Xavi

the gnawdoom spell doesn't cause criticals because of 2 reasons hehe...
1: it's a spell. (nuff said)
2: if you need to roll a 6 to wound, that means that the enemy have a toughness that's minimum 2 higher than your strength and thus you can't cause criticals - even with a weapon.

Skavenblight wrote:

You need a WEAPON to cause critical hits.

If you have sword, club or hammer - enchanted OR summoned - you can cause critical hits.

This is how we've played it so far. So Hammer of Sigmar, Sword of Rezhebel, Clubba' and that Skaven Fury-thingie-spell can all 'help cause' criticals.

I thought this was figured out but Drud has it.

Spells do not cause Crits but a weapon with certain spells can.