[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 580: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 636: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
End times magic post khaine - WestGamer
It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:48 am

All times are UTC+08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:23 am
Posts: 159
So just looking to see what the general consensus on how the new magic works is with regards to multiple castings of the same spell . This is my read on it and my reasons for why.

End times khaine says ' a spell can be cast more that once so long as it is not a spell with which a failed casting attempt has been made in the same phase '

Please look at the wording carefully ' casting attempt '

In the rulebook it says ' if the casting value of the spell has been met or exceeded the spell is cast '

It also says 'if the wizard was able to successfully cast the spell, the opposing player has a chance to prevent the effects by dispelling it.'

That's why I think so long as your casting ATTEMPT was succesful, you are able to then cast it again even if it was dispelled.

Hopefully gw will sort it out with an FAQ before too long. Ive skipped over the end times spells and 15+ casts as that is unambiguous


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 1546
For what its worth I actually agree with you - I think the term "attempt" covers multiple casting of the same spell. So long as your attempt is successful you should be able to recast the spell regardless of if the spell was dispelled or not (your attempt to cast a spell has to be successful in order for it to be dispelled).

Unfortunately I cant see GW FAQing this one, so its going to be a question asked a lot I think until 9th ed comes along.

_________________

Kings of War - still rolling my dice and moving my mice


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 1640
Location: Thornlie
Mark
The casting attempt section is unambiguous – it is very clear that if a wizard does not meet the casting value of a spell the “casting attempt” has failed and cant be tried again.

The ambiguity comes in with the overview section where it states “......as long as all previous attempts to cast the spell have been successful”

I think you have a misquote in your fifth paragraph. The only reference I can find in the rule book to a spell being “successfully cast” is after the opponent has either failed to dispel or elected not to try.

From what I can see:
“casting attempt” – the rolling of the dice to cast a spell
“casting attempt failed” - what happens when a wizard fails to meet the casting value with his casting attempt
“cast” - what happens when a wizard meets the casting value with his casting attempt
“successfully cast” - the spell has made it through the dispellers defences and its effects are resolved.

The problem is that in the quote in my second paragraph none of these exact terms are used, so we have to work out what they mean. Interestingly there is no such term as a “successful casting attempt” which makes deducing what it takes to make an attempt to cast a spell successful a little hard seeing as “cast” and “successfully cast” are two different things.

Edit (since I forgot to make a point) – I think, since GW aren’t using any of the exact terms above that successful has to be the overriding word since the only time a spell is described as being successful is when it is cast and not dispelled.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:23 am
Posts: 159
Page 35 of the little rulebook the very first sentence and I quote 'if the wizard was able to cast his spell (and it is not cast with irresistible force) the opposing player now has a chance to prevent the spells effects by attempting to dispel it'

I think that's pretty conclusive.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:42 pm
Posts: 2741
Location: Perth
You have confused me.
What are you discussing?
The definition of attempt to cast.
The definition of successfully cast.

Both are different.
I believe the most End Times magic rules (now the normal magic rules?) Use the successfully cat stipulation.

I will make a comment on the debate once I understand what we are debating

_________________
"Let Ye be Warned"
"From Ostermark; your Doom shall be sealed"


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 1640
Location: Thornlie
Mark – I disagree. The quote you have provided uses the term “cast” this means that the “casting attempt” roll has met the spell casting value. However this spell is not yet successful (because the dispelling player has not had his chance to block the spell yet).

Ju – We are debating what the requirement is to be able to cast a spell repeatedly.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:23 am
Posts: 159
A very good point boothy baby.

The fifth bullet point in end times khaine magic reads 'so long as all previous Attempts to cast the spell have been successful'

I think that casting attempt roll is meeting the initial value and as you can see from the quote above that's all you need.

The other way of looking at it is just taking the pg 33 quote litteraly as it flat out states you cannot dispel unless the spell was succesful cast


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 1546
Yes, the issue with the arguement is that it boils down to whether you place more emphasis on the "attempt to cast was successful" or the "the spell was successfully cast" bit. Unfortunately they both mean different things, and I believe both phrases are contained in 2 separate sentances within the same paragraph (further muddying the issue).

* For a spell attempt to be successful, the casting value of the spell needs to be met, otherwise the attempt is unsuccessful.

* For a spell to be successfully cast, it needs to be both attempted successfully (ie: met the casting roll) and not be dispelled.

It seems we are not alone in this conundrum, as this is causing quite a stir on a few other forums as well. Warhammer.org for instance seemed to agree on one interpretation and then changed their minds a few days later, so the rule is far from clear.

I think this is one of those rare cases where we will just have to 4+ it during friendly play, or let the TO decide for themselves how this is going to be played out at events. Personally I have my own opinions on End Times rules and competitive events, but I think thats already been covered elsewhere. :lol:

_________________

Kings of War - still rolling my dice and moving my mice


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 1640
Location: Thornlie
I don’t have the book on me, but if page 35 makes any mention of “successful” then that is different to what you quoted a couple of posts ago. I thought page 35 states that the dispeller can try to dispel once a spell is ”cast”, not “successfully cast” (since it only becomes successfully cast after the dispel attempt fails).

If the fifth point in khaine read “…so long as all previous attempts were cast….” then this would unequivocally allow repeat casting of a spell despite previous successful dispels.

If the fifth point in khaine read “…..so long as all previous attempts were successfully cast” then this would unequivocally forbid repeat casting of a spell that was previously dispelled.

Unfortunately we are stuck with something in the middle.

Can you find anything in the rule book that uses the words “successful” or “successfully” prior to a failed dispel attempt?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:23 am
Posts: 159
The quote several posts ago from Page 35 of the small rulebook is exact word for word. I'll post it again though for clarity. This is the whole paragraph not a selection to boost my interpretation.

If the wizard was able to cast his spell (and it was not cast with irresistible force) the opposing player now has a chance to prevent the spell's effect by attempting to dispel it.

That's word for word and even the slightly dodgy apostrophe in spell's as I think it should be spell effects. Let's hope gw never write the instructions for Ikea or no one in Australia will have any properly built furniture


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:23 am
Posts: 159
The end times khaine doesn't say all previous casts have to have been successful it's the attempt to cast must have been successful. That's the sticking bit.

I can be successfull in my attempt to cast but bot successful in casting if you dispelled it


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 1640
Location: Thornlie
Casey
We know a “casting attempt” fails if the casting value is not met, but nowhere is it stated what a successful casting attempt is (indeed, no such term exists in the rule book – your bullet points above are using fictional terms). A spell can be “a casting attempt”, “cast”, and “successfully cast”, no other terms/states are clearly defined.

Any reference to a “successful casting attempt” is something that we are making up/using English to infer (unfortunately the khaine paragraph can be interpreted both ways using English).

You are saying that a successful casting attempt is the same as a spell being cast

I am saying that a successful casting attempt is the same as a spell being successfully cast.

It may well be an unresolvable problem.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 1546
Unfortunately the issue with all rules is that they have to be interpreted. When something is written using precise terms where the meaning of the term is defined by the author of the text, then generally there is only one interpretation. GW have regretably never been one for precision in their rules, and I would say that this is one of those instances where the lack of precision is telling (take the Reign of Chaos table for instance). This is pretty evident by the fact that you and a few other people swear up and down that a rule reads one way, but me and few other people swear the opposite.

I think it will be an interesting exercise to compare and contrast the two interpretations of the rule actually, as I feel that interpreting the rule in one way or the other will have a huge effect on list design (eg: multiple spell casts favour MSU lists, while single spell casts really benefit deathstars IMO). Since Mitch is rolling with multi-casts at Chaos Against Humanity, would you be willing to utilise single-casts at March Melee? It should give us a real juxstaposition of how the rules will affect gameplay.

_________________

Kings of War - still rolling my dice and moving my mice


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:42 am
Posts: 1640
Location: Thornlie
I think the case has been made about as much as possible for and against. It will be interesting to see what other people think.

With the talk of an Outpost event late Feb to early March, and Chaos Against Humanity in early Feb I’ll probably push the Melee back a bit……which will hit the field season so it will be a while before I can confirm dates. As its probably being pushed back I’m happy to just wait and see what happens for the time being before ruling anything one way or the other. Since it is entirely scenario driven its probably not the best example to contrast the two interpretations anyway.

I don’t think the different magic interpretations have too much effect on msu vs deathstars. The greater impact will probably be on spamming vs diversity.

Under the dispel blocks re-cast interp several lower level wizards on different lores will probably out preform a single higher level wizard (since it’s just about impossible to force any given spell through if the dispelling player really wants to stop it). Thus a player needs a greater number of similar spells to achieve the same thing.

Under the re-cast as long as casting value is met interp then single higher level wizards with good spammable spells will win out. I think this interp massively boosts the power of wizards in general since they would be able to hex the hell out of deathstars, but chain casting of things like comet or banishment is going to be ruinously powerful against msu ..….deathstars also build up magic resistance more easily so could withstand death snipes and direct damage better. High level wizards with multiple lores probably go nuts under this interp since they combine the best of both worlds.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 1546
Dunno about spamming comets and such - I would be too wary of the casting cost vs only generating 2 or less dice personally. I think we will see more Magic Missile and Hex spells which is probably a good thing (MMs arent really that scary unless you start boosting them, and Hex's reduce the reliability of deathstar lists).

I agree that wizards who know multiple Lores will be worth it, but generally that means that most people will only take one wizard (because why bother with more?), meaning that there will be fewer targets to assasinate. Light councils wont be a thing I think as you will basically be buying multiple wizards with the same Lore who do absolutely nothing all game except boost the strength of a spell (3+ Light wizards + a bunker to stick them in is a pretty expensive outlay considering that only 1 of those wizards will be casting spells during the game). I think people will try it, realise its sh*t and then stop.

To try and steer the conversation into a different area whilst remaining on topic - what do people think about the issue of wizard dispelling vs army dispelling.

Basically, the rules state that a wizard who wishes to dispel a spell rolls a D6, and thats how many DD he can dispel with. Can you therefore declare that you will not dispel with a wizard and throw as many dice as you want at the dispel attempt (up to 6)? Obviously you would miss out on the wizard dispel bonus, but if your opponent cast say Dwellers on 3-4 dice you could say screw that and 6-dice dispel it.

_________________

Kings of War - still rolling my dice and moving my mice


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited