PDA

View Full Version : Power Pool



MagneticFreak
01-10-2010, 12:50
Hello everyone,

I've been wondering if I understood correctly how is the limit of 12 power dice actucally calculated.

As I read the BRB, the power pool can never at any moment be higher than 12. Does that mean:

a) The sum of all dice used all along the phase must be smaller of equal to 12? For instance, lets say I roll 11 for the wind of magic. I cast a spell with 3 dice. I have 8 dice remainning. If I have an ability to generate more power dice (as per Slann's Rumination, for instance), can I generate only 1 dice (since I had 11 at the beginning, 11+1=12 max) or

b) Is the sum of dice at any moment capped to 12? Based on the previous example, I could generate more than 1 (actually up to 4) dice after casting the spell, since at this moment of the phase, I only have 8 power dice in my pool.

Let me know!

narrativium
01-10-2010, 13:14
At any given moment.

Example: a Dark Elf player rolls an 11 for his magic phase. His sorceress casts Power of Darkness with two dice (reducing pool to 9), rolls to gain more power dice, and gets four (which would increase the pool to 13, but the cap limits this to 12). All 12 power dice may be used to cast other spells.

So, in total 14 were used, but the cap never exceeds 12.

Bac5665
01-10-2010, 13:36
It means the one it says. As you even acknowledged in your OP, the rule says one of those two options clearly, so it can only mean that one.

If you don't like what it says, have the balls to make a house rule instead of trying to twist the rules to be what you want.

Don't mean to yell at you, I just get tired of rules questions that take the form:

"The rule says that if this spells does d6 hits. So does that mean

1) it does d6 hits?

2) it does 2d6 hits?

Thanks, I'm really confused!!"

Drives me absolutely crazy.

Oh, and all this assumes that English is your first language. If not, sorry.

Damocles8
01-10-2010, 14:14
OP did have a legitimate question, although I'd check the GW site for the FAQ first...

a18no
01-10-2010, 14:19
Hello everyone,

I've been wondering if I understood correctly how is the limit of 12 power dice actucally calculated.

As I read the BRB, the power pool can never at any moment be higher than 12. Does that mean:

a) The sum of all dice used all along the phase must be smaller of equal to 12? For instance, lets say I roll 11 for the wind of magic. I cast a spell with 3 dice. I have 8 dice remainning. If I have an ability to generate more power dice (as per Slann's Rumination, for instance), can I generate only 1 dice (since I had 11 at the beginning, 11+1=12 max) or

b) Is the sum of dice at any moment capped to 12? Based on the previous example, I could generate more than 1 (actually up to 4) dice after casting the spell, since at this moment of the phase, I only have 8 power dice in my pool.

Let me know!


Let say your roll double 6 for dice generation, so a total of 12

1- Cast first spell with the slann, he lose the capacity to generate extra dice, cause you are at that moment at the max of 12
2- Cast a second spell, he can now generate one extra dice for that spell

Dark elf, 12 dice too:
1- Cast a spell with 2 dices, can't use dagger at that point (10 dices after the casting)
2- cast the lvl 0 with 1 dices, can use the dagger at that point (11 dices with dagger, 9 dices after the casting)
3- on the D3+1, got 6, so will generate 4 dices, one is lost, pool is now at 12 dices.

Hope that help

Bac5665
01-10-2010, 14:40
OP did have a legitimate question, although I'd check the GW site for the FAQ first...

Where was the legitimate question? The rule is unambiguous. The rule itself says "at any moments" or "at any one time" (I don't have my book in front of me, but this is not a new discussion.) So asking if it applies at anyone one time, or some other time frame, is, by definition, unambiguous.

Rules say what they say. This rule contains the modifier "at any one time." So the rule is modified by that statement and no others, unless others are presented elsewhere. It is unambiguous.

I have no problem with people asking for confirmation of a rule, or a page number, or an explaination for why a rule is what it is. But questions of "the rule says x, so can I do y?" drive me nuts. It's asking "the books says that the sky is blue, so is it blue, or green? " Gah! That kind of question demonstrates either someone who needs to learn how rules work, or someone who is better off just house ruling anything ambiguous, cause there are 30 rules they're playing wrong already.

If the OP had asked "the rule says that the dice pool limits the dice at one time. Is there some other rule somewhere else that limits my power dice per phase?" I wouldn't have gotten worked up. That question would indicate an understanding of how rules work.

Maybe I'm getting worked up about semantic differences, but in the rules forum, I look for a higher standard. Just like I take the BRB at its word and play RAW, I take posters at their word and assume they mean what they say. Which makes semantics matter. Maybe I'm crazy, but there it is.

eyescrossed
01-10-2010, 14:42
Hey, I got it confused at first glance too.

It's not like every time someone starts a topic instead of going through the rulebook kills a puppy.

theunwantedbeing
01-10-2010, 14:52
OP did have a legitimate question, although I'd check the GW site for the FAQ first...

No he didnt.
It's 100% clear in the rules.

It's also answered in the FAQ with 100% clarity.

The OP (no offence) does not have a legitimate question.
He may as well have asked "The sky is blue, is the sky blue or green? I am unsure."

No doubt he has a cheating mate who lies about rules all the time and for some reason he hasn't really understood that his mate is a cheat and lies about rules.
So takes his word as correct over anything he reads in the rulebook (or in an FAQ).
Hence the pointless question and the OP's apparent confusion over what should be an obvious answer.

MagneticFreak
01-10-2010, 14:56
Thanks for the replies.

As for Bac5665 and all other posters who feel the same, if you think a question is not worth your attention, feel free not to answer a rule question in the rules question forum. No, english is obviously not my first language, but I dont see where this justifies your comments. Its really a shame that some posters (which are just occasional gamers, not absolute master minds of the rules) get crucified whenever a question does fit one ''standards''.

eyescrossed
01-10-2010, 14:56
OR

He just got confused - maybe it's really late where he lives - and wanted to ask the "nice" Warseerites (:rolleyes:) a genuine question.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

What he said.

Thundergod
01-10-2010, 15:16
Maybe I'm getting worked up about semantic differences, but in the rules forum, I look for a higher standard.
Well, really, there is your main problem. Its the internets.
A bit of slack is not out of the question. I've read the rules cover to cover many (perhaps even many, many) times, but still have questions, or recall something differently (with rules for who knows how many editions of how many gaming systems floating around in my head, its not surprising) than the actual rules.
Perhaps OP doesn't have the rule book, or perhaps as you said he does have a very persuasive friend who is playing wrong. Nothing wrong with posting a question. It was answered correctly in the first response. Everything after that, including my post, is just extraneous garbage.

Bac5665
01-10-2010, 18:00
Thanks for the replies.

As for Bac5665 and all other posters who feel the same, if you think a question is not worth your attention, feel free not to answer a rule question in the rules question forum. No, english is obviously not my first language, but I dont see where this justifies your comments. Its really a shame that some posters (which are just occasional gamers, not absolute master minds of the rules) get crucified whenever a question does fit one ''standards''.

First of all, the problem with the question isn't that its not worth my time, its that it's not worth your time, or at least not worth the time of someone who speaks fluent English. If you speak English, then there is no way to misunderstand this question if you understand how to read rules in a game. But if you don't speak English fluently, then it's completely different, and none of this applies.

Second, I really didn't and don't mean any offense to you. Of course you have a right to post such questions on the interweb and the right to expect people to answer it. But anyone who who asks any question in any context runs the risk of commentary on that question. It's part of the game.

Third, I can't just not read your question, at least not by the time I know it's not a legitimate question, because I have to read it to know that. But that's not the point. Again, I'm not trying to crucify you, I'm trying to help you.

I get worked up over questions like this because it is strong evidence that there is a problem with rules reading beyond the question at hand. Theunwantedbeing's comment is spot on. All of the players I know in real life who ask questions like this have no idea what many of the rules on, and I see them get cheated. It does happen. So I get frustrated with these questions not because I'm made at the OP, but because it's a symptom of something wrong with the hobby.

The rules mean what they say, not what some player wants them to say. When you read a rule, you should try and read it neutrally, with no expectations. I'll give you an example. I read somewhere that in 8E, you multiply wounds before saves. I read the book and what I read seemed to confirm. Then it came up in a game, and upon looking it up, it seemed I was completely wrong. Mulitple wounds work more or less like they did before. But I read it wrong because my expectations colored my reading of the rule. We all do it some of the time.

But that doesn't mean that my earlier mistake made the rule as written actually ambiguous. If I hadn't misread the rules earlier, I'd never believed that the rules could be read so that saves happened after wounds were multiplied. I'd have just read the rule correctly and played it correctly.

The point is that rules should be read as neutrally as possible, and this often doesn't happen, and when it does, people ask these questions. Forget about what you think the rule should be; forget what makes sense in real life, forget what it was last edition. Then read the rule. Now, if then the rule still is ambiguous, THEN and ONLY then should you think about those other factors, because they can help you pick one of two competing RAW readings.

TL:DR; Sorry to offend, didn't mean to, just wanted to 1) vent and 2) explain that people need to not read their own preferences and expectations into rules when they read them.

gunsmoke
01-10-2010, 19:06
First of all, the problem with the question isn't that its not worth my time, its that it's not worth your time, or at least not worth the time of someone who speaks fluent English. If you speak English, then there is no way to misunderstand this question if you understand how to read rules in a game. But if you don't speak English fluently, then it's completely different, and none of this applies.

Second, I really didn't and don't mean any offense to you. Of course you have a right to post such questions on the interweb and the right to expect people to answer it. But anyone who who asks any question in any context runs the risk of commentary on that question. It's part of the game.

Third, I can't just not read your question, at least not by the time I know it's not a legitimate question, because I have to read it to know that. But that's not the point. Again, I'm not trying to crucify you, I'm trying to help you.

I get worked up over questions like this because it is strong evidence that there is a problem with rules reading beyond the question at hand. Theunwantedbeing's comment is spot on. All of the players I know in real life who ask questions like this have no idea what many of the rules on, and I see them get cheated. It does happen. So I get frustrated with these questions not because I'm made at the OP, but because it's a symptom of something wrong with the hobby.

The rules mean what they say, not what some player wants them to say. When you read a rule, you should try and read it neutrally, with no expectations. I'll give you an example. I read somewhere that in 8E, you multiply wounds before saves. I read the book and what I read seemed to confirm. Then it came up in a game, and upon looking it up, it seemed I was completely wrong. Mulitple wounds work more or less like they did before. But I read it wrong because my expectations colored my reading of the rule. We all do it some of the time.

But that doesn't mean that my earlier mistake made the rule as written actually ambiguous. If I hadn't misread the rules earlier, I'd never believed that the rules could be read so that saves happened after wounds were multiplied. I'd have just read the rule correctly and played it correctly.

The point is that rules should be read as neutrally as possible, and this often doesn't happen, and when it does, people ask these questions. Forget about what you think the rule should be; forget what makes sense in real life, forget what it was last edition. Then read the rule. Now, if then the rule still is ambiguous, THEN and ONLY then should you think about those other factors, because they can help you pick one of two competing RAW readings.

TL:DR; Sorry to offend, didn't mean to, just wanted to 1) vent and 2) explain that people need to not read their own preferences and expectations into rules when they read them.

Is it raining in Columbus Ohio? Sheesh go outside man if you don't like the thread don't bunch your panties, just ignore it.

Wintermute
01-10-2010, 19:59
Thread closed pending investigation

Wintermute