Lotus Eaters Magic questions

[Southpaw]

Coil has stated before that he believes the book is right 99% of the time, and I have to agree with that.

Unless the spell specifically states it, which it doesn't, I would say that ONLY missile fire is affected. Spells which require LOS are unaffected.

Depending on what the Chronomancer wishes to do on his Interrupt, depends on whether he needs LOS or not. Any must have LOS to any unit wishes to affect unless a spell rule or some other rule states otherwise. But from my interpretation of Blizzard, his spellcasting abilities are not affected.

Spellcasters aren't cheap, and well-armed and slightly lucky missile warbands can be extremely effective, thus Blizzard functions just as it should, hampering missile fire, but still allowing spellcasting and close combat.

SP

[troy-the-just]

southpaw

it appears you are interpreting it as a defensive spell, where it appears to me to be offensive in nature, certainly any spell might be used at both.

I guess i dont see the logic on how something can block LOS for missile fire, firing out or incoming, but not affect LOS for any other long range type use.  Your comments on CC, charge, movement, etc. are right on, but I have particular problems with the book when something doesnt seem logical.  It appears to me to be as likely an oversight etc. as meaning to be strictly interpreted as it is written. 

No offense, but Id like to hear some other views on this, if this spell is intended as you mention, it has 2 uses only

1) to stop a unit from firing misslies (does this mean hand-held weapons too?)
2) to protect a unit from missile fire.

the loss of 1 action is a side affect of being hampered by the blizzard and not being able to see and function as well I would suppose

[Southpaw]

No offense taken, it's strictly my interpretation of how it is currently worded.

As for it having both offensive and defensive potential, that is quite true, and was intentional, I believe. Yes the spell does prohibit missile fire, but it does so both ways: in and out. It also reduces the affected unit's actions by 1. So there are both positive and negative aspects to Blizzard.

Another key point which supports this fact is that the spell may be cast on ANY unit, not just an enemy unit, as other spells specifically describe. So would I cast Blizzard on my own units? In the right situation: absolutely.

It balances out: both offensive and defensive capabilities, and can be cast on friendly as well as enemy units. If the spell were designed to limit both missile fire AND completely block LOS, it would need to be considerably more expensive point-wise.

SP

[Southpaw]

As for your questions about logic, I look at it this way:

The Blizzard is strong enough with blowing winds, snow and such, that you can't fire out because of the effects, and for it being so damn cold. Conversely, you can't fire in because, even though you can see in for close combat, you can't see well enough to get a precise location to fire.

Spellcasting, however, is another story, being the special and spiffy lot that they are. Whether you say that they just see better, can see in another plane, or only require seeing a part of a person to target them.

Then again I have to chastise myself for committing the unforgivable sin of applying logic to a fantasy game. That can be a dangerous road to go down, due to the physical and finite nature of miniature games.

SP

[Wedge]

My take would be thus...

Unless a spell description states that it blocks LOS, it should not hamper spells.  If it only states it blocks missile fire then that is all it blocks.  The rules for the blizzard spell (and others like it) could have been clearer by having each such spell say whether or not they block LOS--in this case I think it was just assumed that Blizzard does not.

IIRC, Wall of Thorns and Sandstorm specifically state that they blocks LOS.  Look for instances like that in other spells for a definitive answer.

Slightly on topic...

A small argument resulted in a recent battle where my Wyrd wanted to cast Voice of Despair on a unit 22" away and position behind another unit.  The defender declared that his troops were screened by the closer unit and should not be able to be targetted with the spell.  I respectfully disagreed and pointed out that spells which require LOS only need to see all or part of a model to target it and/or the entire warband.  The rules for missile fire do not pertain to spells in this instance either.

Just remember there are a lot of factors involved with shooting a target compared to just seeing a target. 

[Southpaw]

I agree.

SP

[troy-the-just]

thanks guys, that was enough logic to satisfy my concern, and when i say logic, i mean interpreted through the game system in a consistent and more or less coherent way, which you did.

[DogOWar]

As for your questions about logic, I look at it this way:

The Blizzard is strong enough with blowing winds, snow and such, that you can't fire out because of the effects, and for it being so damn cold. Conversely, you can't fire in because, even though you can see in for close combat, you can't see well enough to get a precise location to fire.

Spellcasting, however, is another story, being the special and spiffy lot that they are. Whether you say that they just see better, can see in another plane, or only require seeing a part of a person to target them.

Then again I have to chastise myself for committing the unforgivable sin of applying logic to a fantasy game. That can be a dangerous road to go down, due to the physical and finite nature of miniature games.

SP

So, does this also mean that javelins and spears can't be thrown?  I would assume so.

[troy-the-just]

i would say no it doesnt apply, as thrown weapons are a different catagory than missile weapons per pg. 45, i guess because they are closer???

[Dragon62]

I would say yes it is still a ranged attack based on RC stat.

[Wedge]

Missile weapons ARE different than thrown weapons.  If the text of the spell reads "RANGED" attacks then I would rule that all projectiles (missile or thrown) are blocked.  But if it says Missile only then thrown weapons are okay.

[Dragon62]

And if you read it does'nt say missile attacks it states missile fire generalizing all ranged attackes to save space in the text. IMHO it is meant to cover all thown/missile attacks. If I can throw a spear than I could shoot a crossbow.

[DogOWar]

i would say no it doesnt apply, as thrown weapons are a different catagory than missile weapons per pg. 45, i guess because they are closer???

@Troy-- Do you mean pg. 95?  Page 45 is the cover page for chapter 2! 


     IMHO I can see this being arguable either way.  Page 249 states "The Blizzard blocks Line of Site for missle fire.  The unit cannot fire out or be fired upon."  Now, since it says missile fire, I take it to mean hand held missle weapons.  I'd like Thom's take on it at some point, but for now thats the way I see it.  Definitly could have been worded better.

[Dragon62]

Both the Warzone and Chronopia books were rushed out and there are lots of errors and over-looked things in both books.

[troy-the-just]

yes thats the page i meant, handheld ok, missile no no, least i think that is how we should play it until otherwise told