Hi,
The text on the rank 3 Bright Wizard spell says
"Fire blooms in the air throughout the target area or engagement, burning all within it. Each time you remove a recharge token from this card, each character within the conflagration is struck for damage as described below"
Does that mean the wizard as well? What about his fellow party members?
Thx.
Yes and yes. It is a conflagration after all, fire does not discriminate between friend or foe it will burn all.
Obviously it's a spell best used against groups of foes who are not engaged with the wizard or the party. But it could be used in desperate situations with the risk of hurting/killing friends.
Yes and yes. It is a conflagration after all, fire does not discriminate between friend or foe it will burn all.
Obviously it's a spell best used against groups of foes who are not engaged with the wizard or the party. But it could be used in desperate situations with the risk of hurting/killing friends.
Yes, but it's fire that's being controlled by someone, not just natural fire. I can see it harming allies, but harming the caster just seems ridiculous to me.
The text implies either a target area or an -engagement- so I'm having trouble thinking it was meant to hurt everyone, especially since Great Fires of U'Zhul's chaos star effect is "you hit each other character in the engagement, friend or foe , for 2+ Int damage"
I've allways thought of it as the wizard starting a big fire but then it behaves as a natural fire. As the wizard does not have to make any addittional effort after casting the spell (such as spending a manouvre, power or somesuch) to continue the spell and is free to do anything else, such as cast different spells, while the spell recharges I don't feel that the wizard is exerting any control over the fire after starting it.
I see it more like splashing an area with napalm and set it on fire. It's possible to control where to splash it, but when you've lit it it will burn anyone.
The caster does not have to stand in the engagement to start it as the spell has medium range, so mostly the wizard would probably not be hurt by the fire (as he/she would stand well back from the target area).
I have a hard time envisioning a flamestorm that does not burn everyone in it and Bright Wizards are not known for their precision magic, they wield a more kaboom sort of magical wind and are often quite reckless.
But I guess it's up to the GM in each group to make a rule call.
I've allways thought of it as the wizard starting a big fire but then it behaves as a natural fire. As the wizard does not have to make any addittional effort after casting the spell (such as spending a manouvre, power or somesuch) to continue the spell and is free to do anything else, such as cast different spells, while the spell recharges I don't feel that the wizard is exerting any control over the fire after starting it.
I see it more like splashing an area with napalm and set it on fire. It's possible to control where to splash it, but when you've lit it it will burn anyone.
The caster does not have to stand in the engagement to start it as the spell has medium range, so mostly the wizard would probably not be hurt by the fire (as he/she would stand well back from the target area).
I have a hard time envisioning a flamestorm that does not burn everyone in it and Bright Wizards are not known for their precision magic, they wield a more kaboom sort of magical wind and are often quite reckless.
But I guess it's up to the GM in each group to make a rule call.
It is definitely somewhat controlled, and I guess it's not even the gameplay mechanic itself that bothers me, but rather the roleplay thought of it. I took my 1st action card as Pyrokinesis, just because my thought was "who the hell would let an apprentice leave the college without teaching him how to -PROPERLY CONTROL fire?"
In my mind, bright wizards are clinical with their control of Aqshy, and only when they go hulk smash do they potentially lose control. I know it goes against some of the fluff, such as the Magestorm book premise, or that entry in Winds of Magic by Glavius Klugge, but then again, you have spells like Pyrokinesis, Curtain of Flame, Fulminating Flame Cage, and all of these require a great degree of control over the size, shape, and the way the fire behaves.
Not to mention the description of the battle between Thyrus Gormann and Balthasar Gelt from the WHFB Empire army book.
Related:
(this is how I see the spell)
Showing control and not just casting random spells without controlling them.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/preacherofnothing/gormanvsgeltgood_zps8ea9c852.jpg
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I like my bright wizards bat-**** crazy and destructive as hell (for everyone).
So in my games each character in the engagement would be everyone in the engagement (NPC, PC, Allies and the Wizard if he/she for some reason decided to use the spell on his own engagement).
But sure, there are precision Aqshy spells as well, so one could argue that it is a fire under control, it's a GM call I guess.
If it would only hurt enemies you could cast the flamestorm on your own party and almost "deny" the enemy the oppurtunity to attack the whole party (or part of the party) in close combat. Then you could just pick them off with spells and ranged attacks while beeing mostly safe from melee enemies. I don't think that's what the spell was meant to do, and a "flamestorm" does not strike me as a precision tool.
From a roleplay perspective I guess you could pick actions from the bright order spell list depending on how you want to portray your bright wizard. If you want to be a fire-controller you go for the precision spells. If you want a more wild and crazy feel you could pick the spells which are less precise (or uncontrolled).
I'm certain the empire has both kinds of bright wizards; those who focus their craft to a precision tool and those who inflict maximum mayhem and doesn't care about control. Obviously there's a whole spectrum in between the extremes.
To my mind flamestorm fit in the latter (less precise/uncontrolled) category of aqshy spells, so if you're looking for precise applications of fire, maybe you should pick another spell for your character?
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I like my bright wizards bat-**** crazy and destructive as hell (for everyone).
But sure, there are precision Aqshy spells as well, so one could argue that it is a fire under control, it's a GM call I guess.
If it would only hurt enemies you could cast the flamestorm on your own party and almost "deny" the enemy the oppurtunity to attack the whole party (or part of the party) in close combat. Then you could just pick them off with spells and ranged attacks while beeing mostly safe from melee enemies. I don't think that's what the spell was meant to do, and a "flamestorm" does not strike me as a precision tool.
From a roleplay perspective I guess you could pick actions from the bright order spell list depending on how you want to portray your bright wizard. If you want to be a fire-controller you go for the precision spells. If you want a more wild and crazy feel you could pick the spells which are less precise (or uncontrolled).
I'm certain the empire has both kinds of bright wizards; those who focus their craft to a precision tool and those who inflict maximum mayhem and doesn't care about control. Obviously there's a whole spectrum in between the extremes.
To my mind flamestorm fit in the latter (less precise/uncontrolled) category of aqshy spells, so if you're looking for precise applications of fire, maybe you should pick another spell for your character?
I don't like generalizing my characters so much that they're cookie cutter members of a class. I always liked the effects that the winds have on casters in Warhammer, but I'm also of the impression that if your character is Angry McExplosion, the moments of roleplay where you absolutely lose your s**t become irrelevant. (Like Syndrome said: "When everyone's super, no one is")
My character's not only wasted creation points on Pyrokinesis, but also on training Discipline from the get-go, and in every encounter I've had (our GM tends to troll me a bit) that has annoyed my character, I've rolled Discipline checks. Examples: Being a sigmarite, a lot of comments made by NPCs and even PCs have forced me to make Discipline rolls (passed them all though), just to keep my cool. However, at one point during the liber mortis adventure, upon finding trinkets from the abducted/dead apprentices that had been pawned for a few brass coins, I failed my Discipline check and nearly turned the surrounding area into a smoldering crater.
Same thing happened a bit later on during The Edge of Night. I should mention that all these Discipline checks are my own doing, my GM's never told me to make these rolls. And I feel like because most of the time I pass them and keep my cool and act like, say, a celestial wizard, when my character does lose his s&!t, it becomes that much scarier and more intense.
I'll probably end up getting the spell anyway simply because it's just an extremely good (and extremely powerful) spell, especially combined with Combustion, just not a big fan of the idea that it would hurt myself and allies as well.
Although reading the text, it says:
"8 power, target area or engagement within medium range. Must perform the prepare
As to the wizard himself being damaged by the fire -- I'd say yes he can be. There is an existing spell that protects you and your engaged allies from fire, and that seems like a good investment for anyone planning to hurl around Flamestorm recklessly.
Rules questions that spin off from this topic:
1) Does "target area" mean any area the caster designates in any shape? Or does it mean areas as defined by location cards, range bands, or some other existing or implied boundaries derived from mechanics?
(Off the top of my head, I'd guess "target area" is meant to typically be a location card or engagement. I'd let it be something more elaborate if requested, but if it hits a particular person I'd assume it also hits everyone engaged with them. The distance from one end to the other of the "area" probably can't be larger than Close range, unless I'm completely misremembering the card's text.)
2) I use flamestorm and spend 3 extra power via the Bright Order Talent. Does it add: +3 damage to everyone affected by the spell? +3 damage divided evenly between all targets? +3 damage divided as the caster see fits amongst any subset of the affected targets? +3 damage to just one target?
(Off the top of my head again, I think I would rule that the bonus damage is divided as the caster sees fit amongst the various targets. This makes a nice balance between "precision strike" and "uncontrolled area-effect". You can't spare friends, but you can do extra damage to just your most-hated foes. You can spike extra damage on a boss, but rely on base damage to take out his henchmen. Most importantly, it wouldn't break the 1 Power = 1 Damage ratio that other spells get so there's little risk of it being unbalanced.)
As to the wizard himself being damaged by the fire -- I'd say yes he can be. There is an existing spell that protects you and your engaged allies from fire, and that seems like a good investment for anyone planning to hurl around Flamestorm recklessly.
Rules questions that spin off from this topic:
1) Does "target area" mean any area the caster designates in any shape? Or does it mean areas as defined by location cards, range bands, or some other existing or implied boundaries derived from mechanics?
(Off the top of my head, I'd guess "target area" is meant to typically be a location card or engagement. I'd let it be something more elaborate if requested, but if it hits a particular person I'd assume it also hits everyone engaged with them. The distance from one end to the other of the "area" probably can't be larger than Close range, unless I'm completely misremembering the card's text.)
2) I use flamestorm and spend 3 extra power via the Bright Order Talent. Does it add: +3 damage to everyone affected by the spell? +3 damage divided evenly between all targets? +3 damage divided as the caster see fits amongst any subset of the affected targets? +3 damage to just one target?
(Off the top of my head again, I think I would rule that the bonus damage is divided as the caster sees fit amongst the various targets. This makes a nice balance between "precision strike" and "uncontrolled area-effect". You can't spare friends, but you can do extra damage to just your most-hated foes. You can spike extra damage on a boss, but rely on base damage to take out his henchmen. Most importantly, it wouldn't break the 1 Power = 1 Damage ratio that other spells get so there's little risk of it being unbalanced.)
1. location cards can be huge, as in entire temples or underground cave systems and such, I wouldn't think that's the case.
2. It's actually +1 dmg per 2 power spent. And I'd rule that it affects everyone the spell catches. I can't imagine an argument as to why it would be divided. The ability card says "increase the damage caused by that Spell action by 1". Flamestorm says "Each time you remove a recharge token from this card, each character within the conflagration is struck for damage as described below"
Same would go for using Kindleflame in tandem with it.
Edited by PreachermanAlthough reading the text, it says:
"8 power, target area or engagement within medium range. Must perform the prepare
manoeuvre before casting this spell"So I suppose I could just -create- a target area, that is donut shaped around my caster if I'm alone, and weirdly shaped around allies as well if they're involved as well...
I'd probably interpret "target area" as an are where there's no engagement. FFG probably just thought that you should be able to cast the spell on an are where there's not an engagement at the moment. For example, you might want to start the flamestorm in a corridor, to keep enemies from using the corridor without getting burned. I do not think it suggests that you can make the area into any shape you like.
You could check FFGs customer service for a clarification and get an official answer.
Although reading the text, it says:
"8 power, target area or engagement within medium range. Must perform the prepare
manoeuvre before casting this spell"So I suppose I could just -create- a target area, that is donut shaped around my caster if I'm alone, and weirdly shaped around allies as well if they're involved as well...
I'd probably interpret "target area" as an are where there's no engagement. FFG probably just thought that you should be able to cast the spell on an are where there's not an engagement at the moment. For example, you might want to start the flamestorm in a corridor, to keep enemies from using the corridor without getting burned. I do not think it suggests that you can make the area into any shape you like.
You could check FFGs customer service for a clarification and get an official answer.
Yeah but then if it's an area where there's not an engagement yet, how big is it? It just seems there's not enough definition.
I probably will contact them, just thinking the reply might not suit me too much so I'm hesitant
The target area would be roughly the size of an egagement in my opinion. WFRP is quite abstract when it comes to measuring distance and area. A lot of things are not as defined as they might be in other games.
As to the wizard himself being damaged by the fire -- I'd say yes he can be. There is an existing spell that protects you and your engaged allies from fire, and that seems like a good investment for anyone planning to hurl around Flamestorm recklessly.
Rules questions that spin off from this topic:
1) Does "target area" mean any area the caster designates in any shape? Or does it mean areas as defined by location cards, range bands, or some other existing or implied boundaries derived from mechanics?
(Off the top of my head, I'd guess "target area" is meant to typically be a location card or engagement. I'd let it be something more elaborate if requested, but if it hits a particular person I'd assume it also hits everyone engaged with them. The distance from one end to the other of the "area" probably can't be larger than Close range, unless I'm completely misremembering the card's text.)
2) I use flamestorm and spend 3 extra power via the Bright Order Talent. Does it add: +3 damage to everyone affected by the spell? +3 damage divided evenly between all targets? +3 damage divided as the caster see fits amongst any subset of the affected targets? +3 damage to just one target?
(Off the top of my head again, I think I would rule that the bonus damage is divided as the caster sees fit amongst the various targets. This makes a nice balance between "precision strike" and "uncontrolled area-effect". You can't spare friends, but you can do extra damage to just your most-hated foes. You can spike extra damage on a boss, but rely on base damage to take out his henchmen. Most importantly, it wouldn't break the 1 Power = 1 Damage ratio that other spells get so there's little risk of it being unbalanced.)
1. location cards can be huge, as in entire temples or underground cave systems and such, I wouldn't think that's the case.
2. It's actually +1 dmg per 2 power spent. And I'd rule that it affects everyone the spell catches. I can't imagine an argument as to why it would be divided. The ability card says "increase the damage caused by that Spell action by 1". Flamestorm says "Each time you remove a recharge token from this card, each character within the conflagration is struck for damage as described below"
Same would go for using Kindleflame in tandem with it.
1. I realize I wasn't terribly clear about it, but I really meant a single location card as being an upper limit. So if two different rooms were each location cards, your flamestorm couldn't hit them both. Not really meaning that the "rural settlement" card lets you destroy an entire town. As I said, I think the other upper limit to the size of an area would be that it's no more than Close range from one end to the other.
2.a. No, it's actually +1 damage per Power. It was per 2 power in the first printing. Some time after they issued an errata in the FAQ. Later, when the Player's Vault came out, they printed a corrected version of the Bright Order Talent that lists it as 1 damage per power. I'm quite certain of that.
2.b. I definitely agree that the strictest read of the rules is that every time a Bright Order spell does damage the Talent increases that damage if you paid extra when you cast it, and that there'd be no dividing. But since it's an area-effect that does damage over multiple turns, that's an interesting loophole. I don't have the card handy, so I might be wrong, but I think that If I set three targets on fire for 3 turns each, that's +9 damage total from that one extra power. Isn't it? That seems kinda good.
Edited by r_b_bergstrom2.a. No, it's actually +1 damage per Power. It was per 2 power in the first printing. Some time after they issued an errata in the FAQ. Later, when the Player's Vault came out, they printed a corrected version of the Bright Order Talent that lists it as 1 damage per power. I'm quite certain of that.
2.b. I definitely agree that the strictest read of the rules is that every time a Bright Order spell does damage the Talent increases that damage if you paid extra when you cast it, and that there'd be no dividing. But since it's an area-effect that does damage over multiple turns, that's an interesting loophole. I don't have the card handy, so I might be wrong, but I think that If I set three targets on fire for 3 turns each, that's +9 damage total from that one extra power. Isn't it? That seems kinda good.
2.a: Correct, they changed it to +1 damage per power. A errata card can be downloaded on the support page.
2.b: I do believe the bonus damage from the aqshy order card would apply every time a recharge token was removed.
But those in the conflagration could move out of it. I know I would not stay and fight within a flamestorm, I'd use a manouvre and get out of there first moment I could. So in most cases the flamestorm would only damage someone once anyways, if they are not stuck for some reason. As soon as you move out of the engagement where the flamestorm is raging you won't be damaged by it.
There is an existing spell that protects you and your engaged allies from fire, and that seems like a good investment for anyone planning to hurl around Flamestorm recklessly.
Clarification: you're probably thinking of "Aqshy's Aegis".
That spell only grants immunity to "non-magical" fire.
(Against magical fire it just adds two soak.)
There is an existing spell that protects you and your engaged allies from fire, and that seems like a good investment for anyone planning to hurl around Flamestorm recklessly.
Clarification: you're probably thinking of "Aqshy's Aegis".
That spell only grants immunity to "non-magical" fire.
(Against magical fire it just adds two soak.)
Yep, that's the spell I was thinking of, and bonus soak is what I meant by "protects".
That spell's specific provisions for immunity to non-magical fire, but only giving bonus soak against magical fire, strongly suggests that Bright Wizards are NOT automatically immune to their own fire magic, which was what the OP was asking about / asserting.
2.b: I do believe the bonus damage from the aqshy order card would apply every time a recharge token was removed.
But those in the conflagration could move out of it. I know I would not stay and fight within a flamestorm, I'd use a manouvre and get out of there first moment I could. So in most cases the flamestorm would only damage someone once anyways, if they are not stuck for some reason. As soon as you move out of the engagement where the flamestorm is raging you won't be damaged by it.
I agree the official/implied rule is exactly as you state: the bonus damage from additional power applies to every instance of damage. I don't like that (mostly-)official answer because it seems out of line with how much bonus damage a single power provides for just about every other Bright Order Spell in the game, but my plan is definitely to use the rule as written/implied. The Bright Wizard at our table has been feeling overshadowed by the Troll-Slayer and the Pistolier/Knight/Marksman, and a high-damage AoE should help even the score.
It still makes me a little nervous, though. You almost had me convinced that I shouldn't worry about it because only an idiot would stand around in the fire. Then I got the card out and re-read it. The comet lines basically prevent the target(s) from retreating, and since it's a Rank 3 spell, the odds on a comet are around 48%.
On the red side, a comet means you can immediately remove two recharge tokens from the card. So 1 power does 2 bonus damage per person in the area or engagement at the time of casting, before they can do anything about it.
On the green side, a comet means the fire follows the main target around and there's nothing they could do about it, so 1 power could potentially do 6 bonus damage to them over time. Unless the target is a Tzeentch Sorcerer with "Destroy Magic", death is pretty much guaranteed... then again, that's technically true even if they have high soak and only take minimum damage each turn. Wow. Good spell.
I just remembered that PCs can spend a Fortune Point to remove 1 recharge token from any recharging card. So if you have 3 Fortune available, Flamestorm hits every target 3 times before any of them get to move. Really. Good. Spell.
The text implies either a target area or an -engagement- so I'm having trouble thinking it was meant to hurt everyone, especially since Great Fires of U'Zhul's chaos star effect is "you hit each other character in the engagement, friend or foe , for 2+ Int damage"
Great Fires does specify "friend or foe" in the Chaos Star line, but it's also more specific when it talks about beneficial area-effect damage. Great Fires is normally a single-target spell. It only does area-effect damage if you raise the difficulty (above that of Flamestorm, I note) and still scores boons, and even then it's a very small amount of damage and specifically states that affects "each other enemy" in the target's engagement. In my eyes, neither the boon nor chaos star line sets any sort of precedent for Flamestorm, because they both use very different language than Flamestorm.
Even without such a precedent, Flamestorm outperforms Great Fires in nearly every way (higher damage, more targets for lower difficulty, greater range, guaranteed kill on the green side, ability to block a chokepoint, etc) even if it is dangerous to your friends.
...
On the red side, a comet means you can immediately remove two recharge tokens from the card. So 1 power does 2 bonus damage per person in the area or engagement at the time of casting, before they can do anything about it.
On the green side, a comet means the fire follows the main target around and there's nothing they could do about it, so 1 power could potentially do 6 bonus damage to them over time. Unless the target is a Tzeentch Sorcerer with "Destroy Magic", death is pretty much guaranteed... then again, that's technically true even if they have high soak and only take minimum damage each turn. Wow. Good spell.
I just remembered that PCs can spend a Fortune Point to remove 1 recharge token from any recharging card. So if you have 3 Fortune available, Flamestorm hits every target 3 times before any of them get to move. Really. Good. Spell.
Agree it is a dangerous spell, the comet result on both sides are vicious. But even if it follows one target (green side comet), the others in the engagement could flee from the fire, and the spell damage is not that good when applied only to one target.
I never thought about removing recharge with fortune points, that's a mean trick. On the red side you could roll a comet to remove 2 tokens, spend all your fortune to remove 3 more and then remove one at the end of the turn. 2+3+1=6: that would be horrible for anyone in the engagement.
Since the spell requires 8 power to cast you'd probably not have a lot of power left to burn on the aqshy order card, unless you spend a turn or two to overchannel. I guess all the enemies can hope for is having a high soak value and that the wizard casting the spell doesn't have any fortune points to spare.
In yesterday's session, the Bright Wizard at our table finally got a good opportunity to cast Flamestorm.
Targets in the area were a sorcerer on a screamer of Tzeentch, both at full health and hovering at medium height above the battlefield. They had plenty of A/C/E, but as it was neither an Opposed Roll nor a vs Target Defense and technically didn't target them, I was unable to spend any A/C/E on the roll. I did burn one of the bright wizard's Corruption to add a purple.
Net result: 2 successes and a Comet (in reckless stance). He had no left over Power to spend, but that's still 12 Damage each time a token came off.
Comet effect took 2 tokens off immediately. The sorcerer dies.
Then the wizard's player spent 2 Fortune to take 2 more recharge off immediately. The Daemon had soak 8 and 20 wound threshold, so it survived with 4 wounds left after the 4 packets of 12 damage each. I smile.
Then the Bright Wizard takes a movement manoeuvre, finishes their go and says "and at the end of my turn, 1 more recharge token goes away and that's another 12 damage."
Dang. 60 damage per target before they can move out of the effect. That spell is sick .
That's horrible. I think FFG fortgot the "spend 1 fortune to remove 1 recharge"-rule when they created Flamestorm.
I mean, if the Bright Wizard has some power to spend on the Aqshy Order card and spends 3 fortune for recharge it could easily do even more damage than that.
Allthough, it does kind of drain the Wizards resources, as it's probably putting him/her at 0 power and 0 fortune points. That could prove to be a bad thing for the Wizard, but a well placed flamestorm could probably take out a lot enemies in one turn.
That's really not a drain on the wizard's resources at all.
Sure, they're out of Fortune points, but the difficulty on the spell is low enough that no 3rd-Rank Wizard would need the Fortune on the spellcraft roll. Being a zero Fortune is no big deal if you've already killed all your enemies.
If they took the talent that gets you 2 Power closer to equilibrium every turn, and the roll well while Channeling in Reckless stance, you could be right back at 8 power next turn.
Which, as one of the players in my campaign just pointed out to me, means you could cast this spell back-to-back with a good roll. Starts with 6 recharge, comet result reduces that to 4, spending 3 fortune drops it to 1 recharge, which then is removed at the end of your turn. 72 damage per target, and next turn you hit any survivors (or a whole other engagement) for another 12 to 36 damage by casting the very same spell.
Yep, that's broken. Kinda shocking that the OP wanted free immunity (for their wizard and his buddies) on top of that.
Edited by r_b_bergstromITs going to be even more dangerous when used against the PCs by a monster.
I would probably either change the comet line to "remove 1 recharge" and might disallow using more than 1 fortune point to remove recharge from the spell.
Or simply rule that recharge removed by fortune points won't do extra damage, I feel that the spell wasn't intended to be used in that manner by FFG.
Simple houserule to lower the power of the spell, while still keeping it really powerful and dangerous. That way the power level feels more like rank 3.
Perhaps look at it in the context of balance between it and all the other actions out there. What else comes close in terms of damage?
jh
I think few actions (even rank 5 spells) come close to Flamestorm, but as we have no combat wizard in our group I never looked close at it.
Maybe Flamestorm could be "upgraded" to a Rank 5, and it might be balanced.
