Counterspelling Chain Lightning

[jdripley]

Counterspelling says that if a spellcaster is targetted (either directly or by being in the AOE) by a spell, it may spend SP to lower the CP of the attacking caster. Chain Lightning has the attacker selecting targets as the lightning progresses. "ok, model 1 was hit, now I pick the next one. Oops, missed model 2. Now I'll pick model 3..."

 

What if a subsequent model picked is a spellcaster and it decides to counterspell?

 

 

If I were an event organizer I would rule that all five targets must be assigned before any rolling happens to avoid that whole issue. What do you guys think?

[ViciousPanzer]

That's how we've always played it. When casting chain lighting you have to declare all your targets before rolling. Much like with shooting or anything else we have always played that you declare first, roll second. If you only plan on hitting one guy with chain lightning then feel free to only declare 1 target.

 

I think it even states in the rules that all targets have to be declared before rolls are made. . not sure, will have to check in on that.

 

Joshua

[Qwyksilver]

That's how we've always played it. When casting chain lighting you have to declare all your targets before rolling. Much like with shooting or anything else we have always played that you declare first, roll second. If you only plan on hitting one guy with chain lightning then feel free to only declare 1 target.

 

I think it even states in the rules that all targets have to be declared before rolls are made. . not sure, will have to check in on that.

 

Joshua

 

Step 1 of how to resolve an Attack Spell, page 35 (my emphasis added):

Declare each spellcasting model's spells: The controlling side declares all spells and all targets of those spells. All measurements for range and AOE are made.

[jdripley]

Very true. The wording of the Chain Lightning spell is somewhat at odds wit hthe rule on page 35, in that it has wording involving hitting the first target before choosing the next target.

[Spike]

It seems like the term "hitting" is more in regards to range-finding than to casting power.

[ViciousPanzer]

You're right. The wording does seem sortof at odds. But I'm sure the intent was to declare all targets and THEN start lighting them up heheh.

 

Here's the wording:

Chain Lightning

 

This spell has the possibility of affecting multiple models. Only the first target model must be within LOS and Range of the Spellcaster. If the spell is successfully cast, the first model suffers 1 point of damage. The Spellcaster then chooses the next enemy target model. This next target model must be within 2" of the first target model, measured from the edge of each model’s base, but does not need to be within LOS or Range of the Spellcaster. Chain Lightning continues in this manner until the spell has targeted five models or the spell has no other targets in range that have not already been targeted by Chain Lightning.

 

Heck, the way it's worded almost implies that if you miss your first target then the spell ends. Period.

[jdripley]

Yeah, except that last line about it continuing until it targets five models or runs out of new targets.

 

I'm going to revert to the core rules principle of declaring all targets prior to rolling anything as that's how every other attack works. Simplest solution. If a caster was selected as a target and it counterspells, the CP drops for all rolls associated with the spell, just like normal. The wording on the spell is a little round-about, but when viewed in light of the last sentence of the spell description and in light of the "declare completely then roll" rule, it's simple enough.

[Qwyksilver]

Honestly, I would read it as it needs to successfully hit the first target for it to chain. Otherwise, the spell completely fizzles. Once the first target is hit, all bets are off and it's a fryapolluza.

[wildbill]

To me, unless Gus comes in and specifically puts in his official two cents, it sounds like that everyone just needs to use a little house rule action to determine what to do. So long as it makes you and your players happy, go for it.

[Gus Landt]

I did indeed write the Chain Lightning text poorly. Here is an official clarification:

 

All targets of Chain Lightning are declared when the spell is announced, as per the rules for resolving an attack spell. If any spellcasters are targeted, they can Counterspell as normal, which will affect the Casting Check for each target.

[Warwick]

As long as you're handing out "official clarifications", can I finally get a ruling on why my toast always falls butter side down? Because, seriously, it's getting annoying.

 

I love the idea of Chain Lightning, but I only have one spellcaster in all my armies who can use it. Drat. Guess I'll stick to Fireball.

[Gus Landt]

As long as you're handing out "official clarifications", can I finally get a ruling on why my toast always falls butter side down? Because, seriously, it's getting annoying.

It is purely the weight of the essence of the cows it came from. You will find this does not happen with butter made from the milk of lighter animals, like goats. Same principal you'll find in animal tipping. The weight of the cow makes em tip to the ground. You never hear about goat tipping, cause they are simply too light.

[wildbill]

As long as you're handing out "official clarifications", can I finally get a ruling on why my toast always falls butter side down? Because, seriously, it's getting annoying.

It is purely the weight of the essence of the cows it came from. You will find this does not happen with butter made from the milk of lighter animals, like goats. Same principal you'll find in animal tipping. The weight of the cow makes em tip to the ground. You never hear about goat tipping, cause they are simply too light.

 

 

[Qwyksilver]

If you put toast butter side up on the back of a cat and throw it off the roof, with it land, inches from the ground and proceed to spin infinitely?

 

Back to the topic.

 

 

Gus,

 

For chain lightning, does it go through targets 2-5 even if it misses the first one?

 

 

And Gus, are you keeping track of the clarifications? It might be helpful to keep a locked sticky thread with official rulings/clarifications/errata. If for no other reason than it will be easier when you decide to officially release any errata, most of the work would be done for you.

[Warwick]

GAH! Qwyksilver, that's what I've been asking for. One stop shopping for all your basic clarification needs. No errata. No new rules. No cow-tipping! Just clarifying the murky parts when we stir up the sediment at the deep end of Warlord. Probably won't be much there, but it sure would help some people not to have to ask the same questions every week and not to get into the bad habit of playing a rule the wrong way.