PDA

View Full Version : Crevasse sprays and boxing models



Hug a Gorax
07-28-2012, 04:12 PM
Having just read the interpretation of the Crevasse spell that states that the spray is not part of the spell but a separate magical attack triggered by the spell, am I right in thinking that only the initial target can be removed from play, as models under the spray are not boxed by Crevasse?

vintersbastard
07-29-2012, 01:51 AM
Wouldn't make much sense, since Crevasse refers to more than one boxed model ("models"). If it would only remove one model from play (the original target), it would state so in the first sentence.

Hug a Gorax
07-29-2012, 03:44 AM
The English makes perfect sense. Use of the plural doesn't necessitate the possibility of multiple boxed models from a single instance of Crevasse.

What would be odd would be if the spray did remove models from play, since given that:
a) The spray is not a spell;
b) The spray is Crevasse (since it is Crevasse that removes models from play),

it would then follow that:
c) Crevasse is not a spell.

Given that Crevasse is an item in a warlock's spell list, I would find that very odd indeed.

LEJ
07-29-2012, 04:04 AM
The Spray is part of the spell effect, the ruling that is is a magic attack, not a spell in itself, in no way stops it being "Crevasse" and so models boxed by the spray are removed from play.

In short, all effects of the spell are still named the same and have all effects of that spell.

Hug a Gorax
07-29-2012, 04:26 AM
Okay.

So, as I said that would mean that Crevasse is not a spell. Crevasse would be a combined set of effects, some of which some are spells and some aren't.

I find that hard to square with the definition of the spellcasting in the rulebook, which states that you can cast spells from the list on your card.

"Crevasse" is in the list on the card headed "Spells." As far as I understand it, that means that Crevasse is a spell.

If Crevasse is a spell, all parts of Crevasse must be spells (as opposed to the situation where Crevasse isn't a spell, but may contain spells).

Essentially if the spray is part of Crevasse, then Crevasse can't be a spell (since the spray isn't a spell). Crevasse could of course contain spells under this reading, it just couldn't be one.

If the spray isn't part of Crevasse, then models boxed by the spray aren't removed from play.

LEJ
07-29-2012, 04:44 AM
If Crevasse is a spell, all parts of Crevasse must be spells

This is where you are going wrong.

Crevasse is a spell, part of the spell tells you to make a SP6 magic attack. Thats the effect of the spell, but it says they are magic attacks and the ruling says its not a spell. Its still an effect of crevasse though and so still RFP on boxed.

Hug a Gorax
07-29-2012, 04:59 AM
Crevasse is a spell, part of the spell tells you to make a SP6 magic attack. Thats the effect of the spell, but it says they are magic attacks and the ruling says its not a spell. Its still an effect of crevasse though and so still RFP on boxed.

This is the nub of the issue: whether something is something or is the effect of something. In the spray/spell ruling, the spray isn't the spell but is an effect of the spell. In this case as far as logic dictates, the spell is Crevasse. We ought to be able to substitute the word "Crevasse" for the the words "the spell" at any point.

Which gives us the case that the spray is not the spell (=Crevasse) but is rather an effect of the spell (=Crevasse). If the spray is an effect of Crevasse, rather than actually being Crevasse, or part of Crevasse (and this is what the ruling seems to be saying), then as an effect of Crevasse, it does not remove models form play. Only Crevasse itself does that, in the same way that only Crevasse itself is the spell (under the logic of the spray/spell ruling).

Effects of Crevasse don't count as being Crevasse (for RFP), in the same way that effects of a spell don't count as being a spell (see previous ruling).*

Does that make sense?

* And in this case there is no area of argument in what counts as an effect versus the core spell, as it's the same spell and the same effect!

LEJ
07-29-2012, 05:08 AM
Ask one question.

Why did this model get boxed?

If the answer is "Because of Crevasse" then it is RFP. This includes the original and spray casualties.

Bacause the spray is an effect of the spell, casualties were caused by the spell so are RFP.

Hug a Gorax
07-29-2012, 05:26 AM
Just because it is an effect of something doesn't mean that it is something. We have ascertained that from the spray/spell ruling. In fact, that seems to be the whole point of the spray/spell ruling.

So a spray can happen "because of a spell" without it counting as a spell.

The model that get boxed by that very same spray are boxed "because of the spray, which was because of the spell" while not being boxed by the spell.

In fact, if:

1. the models were boxed by Crevasse;
2. Crevasse is a spell,

then we have to conclude that:

X. the models were boxed by a spell.

If we agree that:

3. the models were boxed by the spray,

then with X. we have to conclude that the spray is a spell.

Basically if the spray is not a spell, you can choose two out of 1., 2. and 3. to be true, but not all three of them. Which one(s) don't you agree is true?

Valander
07-29-2012, 06:54 AM
Per prior ruling:

The Spray generated is a magic attack, but it is not a spell.

This means models boxed by the spray would not be boxed by "the spell."

Hug a Gorax
07-29-2012, 07:07 AM
Ta for the confirmation!

Valander
07-29-2012, 12:41 PM
I'm going to double check on intent here, because I agree this is about as clear as mud that it should work this way.

Valander
07-31-2012, 09:38 AM
Correction to the above:

The spray is an effect of Crevasse, but not a spell itself. Thus, the damage done by the spray is damage done by Crevasse (it triggers the RFP clause of the spell and is considered damage from a spell), but the spray is not subject to targeting restrictions that apply to spells (e.g., Spell Ward).

Bishop84
07-31-2012, 10:42 AM
Woah, ok. You scared me there for a minute. The first ruling made the spray seem more like an incidental effect like Electro-leap and the last thing we need is more of that confusion.