PDA

View Full Version : Irresistible Force vs. Meeting Casting Value

knightime98
20-11-2009, 20:54
Has there been an FAQ addressing this issue?

Don't want to start another fight over this situation.

Two schools of thought and many fights later, I still have not had any resolution.

Take any given spell that requires more than a 12 to cast. A great new example is the 13th spell from Skaven. Required casting value is 25!

Example - Skaven rolls 5 dice to cast spell, they naturally get a 6,6,4,3,1
which equals 17. Does not meet the 25 casting value. However, 2 6's are present and thus the debate over which is the correct answer.

First School - Is that it is Irresistible because you rolled two 6's...
Spell is cast with Irresistible Force.

Second School - The required minimum casting value was not met so therefore, that takes precedence. The spell fails.

I have yet to receive a definitive answer as all you get are yelling and screaming that either side 1 is right because of x page and side 2 says the same in retort. I'm looking for a GW FAQ or source OTHER THAN from the BRB as this has been BEATEN to death.

nosferatu1001
20-11-2009, 21:02
Well, there isnt one because it isnt needed:

When rolling to cast a spell, any result of two or more unmodified 6s means that spell has been cast with irresitistable force. The speill is cast successfully

There is no other way that sentence can be interpreted: the spell is cast successfully as per the rules for casting spell.

knightime98
20-11-2009, 21:10
Well, there isnt one!

Not to be mean and ergo;
the other side of the coin.
The same book, same page, says exactly the very opposite thing.
The spell is NOT CAST...

Which was explicitly, in my original post!

So, my original Question STANDS!

Now, I got both sides covered from the BRB - can we move on to a FAQ or other source.. Many thanks for READING AND contributing to the subject.

nosferatu1001
20-11-2009, 21:19
Except the rule states it is cast successfully

it is more specific so wins out.

Your original question does not stand

knightime98
20-11-2009, 21:36
Has there been an FAQ addressing this issue?
I'm looking for a GW FAQ or source OTHER THAN from the BRB as this has been BEATEN to death.

So far - you have NOT done so.

The BRB contradicts itself.. SO, if there is NOT an FAQ or other source then that is what I need to know.

Nurgling Chieftain
20-11-2009, 21:41
The BRB does not contradict itself on this point - IF's and miscasts are exceptions to the normal casting rules.

Tae
20-11-2009, 21:44
There is no FAQ because, as pointed out above, the BRB does not contraict itself, therefore no FAQ is needed.

nosferatu1001
20-11-2009, 21:49

So far - you have NOT done so.

The BRB contradicts itself.. SO, if there is NOT an FAQ or other source then that is what I need to know.

The BRB does not contradict itself, it only does so if you fail to read the rules properly

I will not follow instructions that make no sense - the rules have been pointed out to you, if you wish to believe there is a contradiction when none exists please do so.

(cf Book of Hoeth if you want to see why IF normally cares nothing about minimum casting value - again, if you wish to ignore th8is please do so)

20-11-2009, 21:52
I think the rules are pretty clear when you take this paragraph, rulebook page 107 into account:

"Irresistible Force and Miscast
So far we have seen that spells are cast by rolling a result equal to or more than the required casting score. In addition, there are two secial rules that apply to wizards when they cast spells: these are irresistible force and miscasts"

The emphasis in this paragraph is on "In addition,"

This makes it clear that Irresistible Force and Miscast are both rules in addition to the regular rules.

The fact that then Irresistible Force states that '...ANY result of two or more unmodified sixes" (emphasis of any is mine) that in addition to the normal rules of spell casting (so not covered by the normal rules) any result with two or more sixes is successful, whether it is greater than the casting value or not is irrelevant because the rule is "In addition" to the previous rules.

yoshimo
20-11-2009, 21:53
IR overwrites cast value. "the spell is cast successfully" is sufficient to not need an FAQ

knightime98
20-11-2009, 22:01
I think the rules are pretty clear when you take this paragraph, rulebook page 107 into account:

"Irresistible Force and Miscast
So far we have seen that spells are cast by rolling a result equal to or more than the required casting score. In addition, there are two secial rules that apply to wizards when they cast spells: these are irresistible force and miscasts"

The emphasis in this paragraph is on "In addition,"

This makes it clear that Irresistible Force and Miscast are both rules in addition to the regular rules.

The fact that then Irresistible Force states that '...ANY result of two or more unmodified sixes" (emphasis of any is mine) that in addition to the normal rules of spell casting (so not covered by the normal rules) any result with two or more sixes is successful, whether it is greater than the casting value or not is irrelevant because the rule is "In addition" to the previous rules.

You know this is the first time someone has made this argument. Because you have joined together and with some conclusiveness that this is the way it works. I'll buy this argument. This settles it for me.

I just needed a bit more than just one paragraph that is contradicted by another on the same page. Throwing this bit in that "In addition to, ...." makes it a great sell to tell the other opponents. It is an argument that I think I can win by showing a line of rules in order.

Da GoBBo
20-11-2009, 22:32
Well, as a rule, the later allways overwrites the former. A contradiction is therefor allways a matter of overrulling by default. Even if it happens on the same page.

Necromancy Black
21-11-2009, 03:48
And you couldn't have just read that in the BRB yourself?

Like people have said, it's been FAQ'd because there's never been a need for it.

Tykinkuula
21-11-2009, 07:45
it's been FAQ'd because there's never been a need for it.

One lovely typo and suddenly it sounds exactly like something GW would do. :)

mattjgilbert
21-11-2009, 08:00
We came up against this the other night. How could such a powerful spell be cast without meeing the casting value. It was right there in the BRB though so we went with it. Rolling that many dice, there is a high chance of miscast too so it's swings and roundabouts really.

Necromancy Black
21-11-2009, 08:46
The chance of miscasting actually increases greater then the chance of IF the more dice you roll, simply because a miscast takes precedence. It's for this reason that's it's not worth rolling more then 3 dice for a 8+ or 9+ spell as on 4 dice the chance to cast actually decreases.

One lovely typo and suddenly it sounds exactly like something GW would do. :)

Whoops /facepalm

themandudeperson
21-11-2009, 12:01
The main issue is that the rule in the BRB was created without considering the possibility of some insane rules developers coming up with spells that require 25+ to cast. In fact, the BRB even states that the most a spell can cost is 15+, which shows it was never their intent for spells like Lord Kroak's AOE of doom and now the 13th spell to exist in the first place. But as with any recent army book, it shows how little effort GW puts into making sure new army rules don't throw a monkey wrench into the game rules.

nosferatu1001
21-11-2009, 18:15
Well, given they speicifcally state in the LIzardman book that Kroaks spell IS an exception to the normal maximum casting value, I don't think you can say they (as in that developer) forgot

09Project
22-11-2009, 02:02
I have always worked it that any spell can be cast with just 2D6, assuming both turn up a 6 on the roll.

Or are we not miscasting now a days unless we meet the casting value? That the problem I have with the 'have to meet the casting value' arguement.

Nurgling Chieftain
22-11-2009, 07:01
In fact, the BRB even states that the most a spell can cost is 15+......Which is high enough to roll 6, 6, 1. :D

knightime98
22-11-2009, 20:26
My question with the 13th spell is why did GW come up with such a ridiculous casting value!

Seriously, how are you going to get a 25 without rolling a doubles of some sort... which means that items like the ring of hotek are invaluable. No chance to ever cast that spell in that case. What is GW thinking.. Absurb and ridiculous....

narrativium
22-11-2009, 20:58
My question with the 13th spell is why did GW come up with such a ridiculous casting value!

Seriously, how are you going to get a 25 without rolling a doubles of some sort... which means that items like the ring of hotek are invaluable. No chance to ever cast that spell in that case. What is GW thinking.. Absurb and ridiculous....
They're probably wondering why you're casting the spell so near a model with the Ring of Hotek.

Achor
22-11-2009, 21:27
Best use for the 25+ spell is to take it just in case the enemy gets a 4-6 on a missfire.

nosferatu1001
22-11-2009, 22:01
5-6 on miscast

Close ;)

Yes: the 25+ is insane, but Kroak also has a very high casting cost spell. His is arguably much more useful as well...

knightime98
22-11-2009, 22:08
I think that is a 5-6 on standard miscast chart, and that would be a valid point. However, really how often is that going to be?

As for the Ring of Hotek, you'll get an education. It is either of these situations that it works.
1. Cast within 12 of the Ring Bearer.
AND/OR
2. The target of the spell is within 12 inches of the Ring Bearer.

Which means, a caster who may not need line of sight and is hiding a woods in the corner of the field casts a spell at a unit within 12 of the bearer and rolls doubles, now has miscast!

So, your off-handed remark of who would do such a thing! The answer is who in my Dark Elf army would be more than 12" away from the Ring Bearer. That's a 24" inch bubble. So, you have my retort to that Sir!

knightime98
22-11-2009, 22:12
Yes: the 25+ is insane, but Kroak also has a very high casting cost spell. His is arguably much more useful as well...

Well don't let any number of items from different armies go off that makes you forget your spell for the rest of the game. In this particualr case, Lord Kroak would be without a spell to cast. As this is the only spell he knows.

Covalent
22-11-2009, 22:31
Well don't let any number of items from different armies go off that makes you forget your spell for the rest of the game. In this particualr case, Lord Kroak would be without a spell to cast. As this is the only spell he knows.

Get Kroak in CC and you'll laugh. Get a Grey Seer in CC and you'll cry.

Killboss
23-11-2009, 05:24
Does all this also mean that you could throw 2 dice on a 13+ spell, get 2 6's and have it cast? Despite not even having enough dice (mathmatically) to cast the spell? Just curious, because i may try it with the 13th spell, as i really want to get it off, and the person i'm playing usues sneaky tricks aswell...

Ultimate Life Form
23-11-2009, 05:35
It's not a trick, it's simply following the rules. 6+6 = IF period. That whole thread was pointless to begin with.

Killboss
23-11-2009, 05:52
Sweet, maybe i'll adjust my list to use a verminlord/grey seer for this purpose...

Tolinwiz
23-11-2009, 12:37
I'm pretty sure the only time you need to meet min casting value for IF is on Teclis' doubles no? Unless he rolls two 6s of course.

EvC
23-11-2009, 12:42
Yeah, Teclis, the Book of Hoeth and also a Lizardmen special character provides a similar effect. The confusion arises because tonnes of people don't bother reading the rules for those guys correctly, where they do have to meet the casting value, and then when they learn that they do, their lack of reading comprehension sends them over the other side into assuming that ALL IFs require the casting value too. When in actuality, the rules are perfectly clear- just not obvious.

marv335
23-11-2009, 13:24
You'd be amazed (or not, actually if you spend much time in here) how many rules problems are due to an epic fail of basic reading skills

Milgram
23-11-2009, 14:26

So far - you have NOT done so.

well done knightime.

mad makz did not follow the above instructions. he did not quote a source other than the BRB so he has not done this well.

what happens is that you contradict yourself and there is definitely not an FAQ for that.

not well done knightime. and this contradiction of myself is purely for my own amusement. if anyone else is amused, then I'm pleased.

23-11-2009, 15:32
What the above three posters said.

yarrickson
23-11-2009, 18:57
:eyebrows:Lizardmen FAQ notes that when a destroy spell ability is used on Kroak, that he only loses the level of the spell that he was trying to cast. Sorry Knighttime.

ZigZagMan
23-11-2009, 21:30
Didn't one of the FAQ's say that you can't attempt to cast a spell if the dice your throwing (plus modifiers) couldn't reach the casting value. Possibly the dark elf one, so as to prevent their casters from throwing their extra dice at a spell they couldn't cast in order to prevent the damage.

Nurgling Chieftain
23-11-2009, 21:37
Not quite - it says they can't attempt to cast a spell if they cannot possibly succeed, and as an example used trying to cast Black Horror on a single die.

Necromancy Black
23-11-2009, 23:10
So as long as you have 2 power dice, there is a chance to cast any spell in the game.

Nurgling Chieftain
23-11-2009, 23:28
...Unless you're currently affected by that Slann power that makes you discard sixes. :D

Necromancy Black
24-11-2009, 00:14
...Unless you're currently affected by that Slann power that makes you discard sixes. :D

......wait, will that then force a DE wizard trying to cast a spell with a casting value of 11 or higher to not be able to roll it with only two dice from power of darkness, and thus have to take 2 Str 4 hits?

enyoss
24-11-2009, 01:42
If they have to discard any 6's then it would appear so, as there is no way they can successfully cast the spell. I get the feeling this may well cause arguments with those that haven't seen the FAQ!

RanaldLoec
24-11-2009, 01:59
On an interesting and often over looked side note 2 6's on a dispel roll auto dispels even if the casting wizard rolls 13 or higher on his power dice. But but nothing can dispel an Irresistible Force roll obviously.

Nurgling Chieftain
24-11-2009, 02:11
......wait, will that then force a DE wizard trying to cast a spell with a casting value of 11 or higher to not be able to roll it with only two dice from power of darkness, and thus have to take 2 Str 4 hits?By the wording of the FAQ, I would say so, yes. :cool:

Necromancy Black
24-11-2009, 03:15
I need to start compiling all these into a single document.

Ragehammer: How to make your opponent throw his dice in a fit without cheating, lieing or hypnosis.

sulla
24-11-2009, 03:16
......wait, will that then force a DE wizard trying to cast a spell with a casting value of 11 or higher to not be able to roll it with only two dice from power of darkness, and thus have to take 2 Str 4 hits?... or just throw those 2 dice at an easier spell in their arsenal.

WLBjork
24-11-2009, 07:17
If they can, but if they wind up with 2 dice left after castin PoD, and no spells it can be used on, then the DE player will not be happy. Probable reaction would be :wtf: :cries:

sulla
24-11-2009, 18:18
If they can, but if they wind up with 2 dice left after castin PoD, and no spells it can be used on, then the DE player will not be happy. Probable reaction would be :wtf: :cries:
If a DE player casts Pod vs lizardmen when his mage has becalming cogitation on them and he only has black horror left in his arsenal, the technical term used to describe him is 'Dumbass', I believe. :D

Xynok
26-11-2009, 22:14
Well with a miscast, you're unlikely to make the casting value and that's taken into effect so I'd expect IF to be as well. If there's debate, roll a dice. I was actually thinking about this the other day....

Nurgling Chieftain
27-11-2009, 07:15
If you throw 3 dice at an 8+ you can miscast 1,1,6. Still fails, of course.

wilsongrahams
27-11-2009, 07:43
I need to start compiling all these into a single document.

Ragehammer: How to make your opponent throw his dice in a fit without cheating, lieing or hypnosis.

There are nice 10cm square dice in Gadget shops at the moment, get him to roll them at his army instead for some 'real' kills...

Milgram
27-11-2009, 09:40
there are 30cm square dice available in some shops. unfortunately they are more like sponges and therefore will not do a lot of damage. unless the spears get tangled up in the dice, in which case... we are talking about DE here, right? :)

fall3nang3l
27-11-2009, 09:53
Wow i never read the rules so close. I just assumed the spell wouldnt go off if you IF and didnt make the casting value. but i am mistaken.

I learned something today.

but now that i think of it, i dont know of very many spells that need a 13+ to cast.

Milgram
27-11-2009, 11:02
there are some ways to increase the casting value needed for a spell (by altering the spell rather than the roll). gut magic is an example.

marv335
27-11-2009, 11:59
HE drain magic is another