PDA

View Full Version : +2 to dispel



theunwantedbeing
15-05-2008, 11:01
Assuming you have 2 mages, both with an item that grants +1 to dispel attempts.
Cant these be combined to become +2 to dispel?

I was thinking...the skull staff, staff of sorcery.

Spirit
15-05-2008, 11:18
Ive always played it this way, seeing as no specific mage is needed to dispell. The staff at my lgs agree, especially the undead player, who uses both items on manfred..

Milgram
15-05-2008, 11:22
I would say yes, the same as you could use the staff of sorcery and only use magic resistance to ban a spell. there are several examples where more than one wizard/hero/unit have influence into a dispell roll. (i.e. staff of change + staff of sorcery)

dispelling is not bound to a unit or character etc. but is taken out of the pool.

The Clairvoyant
15-05-2008, 11:23
yeah i suppose its possible, but i just don't like it (and i'm an undead player)

I think my opinion harks back to 4th Edition when you nominated a wizard to dispel (because you got a +1 to dispel if your wizard was a higher level). I know those rules are old, but its still the way i think of it.

Spirit
15-05-2008, 13:39
To be honest, i see many so many combinations with undead, i don't want to spend 100 points on +2 to dispell... It is good but i rarely get hammered in the magic phase as undead, they can just take magic to the face and keep walking.

Reinier
15-05-2008, 13:43
yes you can. It is even in the rules, saying you can combine all items and abilities for you dispell attempt. page 90.

Tarax
17-05-2008, 14:30
Actually, it's p. 109, left column, top (under the Miscast Table) of the BRB.

theunwantedbeing
17-05-2008, 14:37
Ah nifty, glad it's detailed in the rules so I can quote it to anyone who disagree's.

Lord_Squinty
17-05-2008, 19:41
Actually it states in the same Paragraph - "a wizard" - singular.

Lordmonkey
17-05-2008, 19:57
Apart from the fact that it's RAW, it eats the magic phase. Good enough for me :)

WLBjork
18-05-2008, 08:09
Actually it states in the same Paragraph - "a wizard" - singular.

That sentence deals only with re-rolling the dispel dice.

Mike KK
19-05-2008, 17:16
with high elves you can stack this bonus up quite a bit with the mandatory +1 to dispel for being a high elf

WLBjork
19-05-2008, 17:40
Not unless they changed the wording.

Should be that you get a +1 to dispel for having any High Elf mages in the army.

Mike KK
19-05-2008, 18:46
:P i know that but i meant along with +1 dispel staff

Loopstah
19-05-2008, 18:52
It specifically marks out dispel dice as different from power dice in the BRB by stating that the pool of dispel dice can be used by "any of the wizards in the army".

This implies that if you have wizards then the dispel dice are used "by" a wizard to dispel and not just used as part of some general dispel amalgam. If you have more than one wizard then you'd have to pick which one is attempting to dispel.

It also mentions that you can still dispel without wizards, implying yet again that it's the actual wizards that dispel normally.

Nurgling Chieftain
19-05-2008, 20:26
If you have more than one wizard then you'd have to pick which one is attempting to dispel.That's not in the rules.


It also mentions that you can still dispel without wizards, implying yet again that it's the actual wizards that dispel normally.That doesn't imply anything more than the fact that wizards add dispel dice.

Loopstah
19-05-2008, 20:40
That's not in the rules.

The actual dispel mechanic doesn't mention wizards at all but the paragraph on dispel dice does state that wizards use the dispel dice from the pool.

Then you have specific items like the Staff of Sorcery that state "A wizard who has this" i.e. the benefit applies only to that specific wizard, not "the player who's wizard has this". Why would they state that it only affects the owning wizard if dispels are used on a army basis?

If you read the description for a dispel scroll that also states "any wizard who has a dispel scroll can read it instead of attempting to dispel the spell by using dispel dice" That also implies that it's a specific wizards that uses the dispel dice rather than an army roll.

Andrew Luke
19-05-2008, 21:28
If you read the description for a dispel scroll that also states "any wizard who has a dispel scroll can read it instead of attempting to dispel the spell by using dispel dice" That also implies blah blah something....

If you wanna really be a rules-nazi, you could butcher that statement up and "prove" that in order to use a dispel scroll you must have dispel dice remaining in the pool, otherwise you can't do it 'instead of attempting to dispell the spell by using dispell dice.' Creative parsing of words are not going to get you anywhere when you are trying to win an argument...

Loopstah
19-05-2008, 21:45
All I'm saying is that the actual intention of the rules isn't exactly clear, as there is contradictory evidence in the rulebook, and the fact you can dispel without wizards doesn't help clear it up either, nor does the fact they don't just say which it is.

The RAW doesn't mention anything about specific wizards and just mentions the player rolling dice, it just seems odd that some items i.e. the Staff of Sorcery specify only their owner gets a bonus.

Arnizipal
19-05-2008, 22:57
If you wanna really be a rules-nazi
[snip]
Creative parsing of words are not going to get you anywhere when you are trying to win an argument...
This is the Fantasy Rules forum you know. Rules lawyers live for things like this ;)

Nurgling Chieftain
20-05-2008, 02:36
All I'm saying is that the actual intention of the rules isn't exactly clear...Okay, but that's a horrible justification for literally making up new rules. Seriously, all you've got that's worth anything is an oddity in the wording for a magic item (which is probably nothing more than a reference to the fact that if the wizard isn't in play the staff doesn't work), and from that you want to fundamentally modify the way basic rules work? It just doesn't cut it, IMO.

...And even if dispelling is wizard-specific, there is nothing prohibiting multiple wizards from joining a dispel attempt - indeed, the fact that their respective dice can be combined strongly suggests that that's entirely normal. So, if you insist that I have to nominate a wizard to do the dispelling, I can see no reason why I couldn't literally nominate every wizard I have, regardless of whether they even contribute dice to that particular attempt. This renders the entire argument academic.

The Red Scourge
20-05-2008, 08:12
Now take a HE army and add a couple of DOW truthsayers and you could totally ruin the game.

Well at least the magic phase, for your opponent that is... But one out of four phases every other turn is a beginning for ruining the rest ; )