PDA

View Full Version : How on earth are people reading this Mushroom rule for N. Goblins?



Blkc57
02-04-2011, 07:34
Ok so this came up today, seems 50% of the people where I play read the N. Goblin extra mushroom rule one way and others read it totally different. If you roll a 1 with the mushroom dice and then roll a 4, what exactly happens? Does the spell auto fail or does it only auto fail if you roll a 1-3?

Avian
02-04-2011, 07:50
I'm surprised that some people can interpret the phrase "nothing further happens" to mean "something further happens". :shifty:

drear
02-04-2011, 09:15
if you take a wound it fails. if you dont take a wound the spell is cast with +1 to the power.

i cannot see why its difficult to understand..it seems to be people who dont play o+g who say ' ye the spell fails auto on a 1, but you may take a wound'

Zed!
02-04-2011, 14:47
"I'm surprised that some people can interpret the phrase "nothing further happens" to mean "something further happens"."

It's because 'the spell is cast" can be interpreted as being "something further".

Avian
02-04-2011, 15:35
That makes no kind of sense. By that interpretation the rule says:

"On a roll of 4+ the spell automatically fails, but on a roll of 1-3 the mushroom was poisonois, and the Shaman suffers a wound with no armour saves allowed. Finally, unless it was cast with Irresistible Force, the spell automatically fails."

I'm baffled that anyone could think that's the correct interpretation.

Zed!
02-04-2011, 15:45
The rule is simply written very unclearly - I'm not taking position on either side of the dispute, and I'd be inclined to either follow the Goblin player's interpretation or have them roll a d6 for it - but that interpretation is certainly possible. Either the confusion is generated by the sentence being unnecessarily wordy (they could've just said "The spell fails; if you roll a 4+ on a d6, you also take a wound"), or it's generated by the sentence saying that nothing further happens when you still have to resolve the spell. Either interpretation is problematic, because the rule was poorly written.

Morkash
02-04-2011, 15:52
The German translation is relatively clear. You roll the mushroom dice, and if it shows a 1, you roll another dice: On 4-6 nothing happens (effectively the misfire roll has no effect), on 1-3 you take a wound and the spell fails if not cast with IF.

Avian
02-04-2011, 17:07
Either the confusion is generated by the sentence being unnecessarily wordy (they could've just said "The spell fails; if you roll a 4+ on a d6, you also take a wound"), ....
Now you have drastically altered the sequencing of the rule.

The only interpretation that makes any kind of sense is that rolling a 4+ doesn't cause anything else to happen other than what has already happened. And at this point, you haven't done anything else other than rolling a 1 to see how much you add to the casting value.

Zed!
02-04-2011, 21:07
It doesn't say "rolling a 4+ doesn't cause anything to happen". It says that if you roll a 4+, nothing further happens.

Chipacabra
03-04-2011, 00:28
Oh, so 'nothing further happens' isn't talking about mushroom effects, it's just talking about all game effects? OK, that's easy. The spell doesn't go off, because that would be something. Also, you can't cast any further spells, because that would be something happening. Also, the magic phase can't end, because that would be something happening.

Man, I hope we're limiting 'nothing' to just things in the game. I like breathing.

drear
03-04-2011, 12:51
why would the rule state clearly ' take a wound and the spell fails unless cast with IF' if the next line would be so ambiguos?

its because its easy to understand..take a wound? yes...spell fails.
dont take a wound? yes ...spell is cast at 1 higher.

T10
03-04-2011, 14:25
The way I read it:

Add 1d6 to the casting result. If this dice roll is a 1 then roll 1d6:

1-3: The shaman suffers 1 wound and the spell fails unless it was cast with irresistible force.
4-6: Nothing special happens.


-T10

GodlessM
03-04-2011, 21:22
A lot of people on this thread don't seem to understand the fundamental issue behind the problem. The reason the rule is ambiguous is because the wording makes it unclear whether "nothing further happens" is an argument of the "if you roll a 1 on the dice" method or the later "on a 1-3" etc. method. It does need an FAQ however I believe the intention is that a 1 on the mushroom dice allow makes the spell fail before rolling for the wound or not, mainly because of how the old mushies worked.

Zaonite
03-04-2011, 22:25
The way I read it:

Add 1d6 to the casting result. If this dice roll is a 1 then roll 1d6:

1-3: The shaman suffers 1 wound and the spell fails unless it was cast with irresistible force.
4-6: Nothing special happens.


-T10

This is how our club plays it. Just be clear the 4-6 result allows the spell to be cast.

WarhammerNoob4ever
04-04-2011, 06:07
The way I read it:

Add 1d6 to the casting result. If this dice roll is a 1 then roll 1d6:

1-3: The shaman suffers 1 wound and the spell fails unless it was cast with irresistible force.
4-6: Nothing special happens.


-T10

I cant read the rule to read anything but, no matter how hard i try......

w the 4-6 part saying, other than the fact that you rolled a die, nothing happens, continue as u were

Avian
04-04-2011, 07:17
A lot of people on this thread don't seem to understand the fundamental issue behind the problem. The reason the rule is ambiguous is because ...
[stuff]
Again, that makes no sense grammatically. You don't go "On a roll of 4+ something happens, but on a roll of 1-3 something different happens. Then finally, the same thing happens."

With no evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the interpretation that credits the writer with at least a rudimentary grasp of language is the correct one.

T10
04-04-2011, 07:23
It does need an FAQ however I believe the intention is that a 1 on the mushroom dice allow makes the spell fail before rolling for the wound or not, mainly because of how the old mushies worked.

I don't think it is fair to expect new players to have read the old Orcs & Goblins army list.

-T10

sssk
04-04-2011, 08:21
It nees FAQing. Until then, agree it with your opponent, or dice it. That's how I play it.

Avian
04-04-2011, 13:00
Whenever a rules dispute arises from an opponent's inability to read properly, I refuse to roll for it.

GodlessM
05-04-2011, 02:56
Again, that makes no sense grammatically. You don't go "On a roll of 4+ something happens, but on a roll of 1-3 something different happens. Then finally, the same thing happens."

With no evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the interpretation that credits the writer with at least a rudimentary grasp of language is the correct one.

Well firstly I believe the exact wording in the book was, "additionally nothing further happens." So straight away that means your claims of grammatical error are wrong as yes, something can happen followed by nothing further happening.

The issue then is if the rule is meant to generally read, " if one of these mushrooms rolls a 1, roll the die for effect, and nothing further happens", or, "if one of these mushrooms rolls a 1, then on a roll of a 4+ nothing futher happens." Further is a lazy way out of writing more rules.

This is all assumnig I've remembered the wording correctly as I don't have the book here with me.


I don't think it is fair to expect new players to have read the old Orcs & Goblins army list.

Did I say they should have read it? Did I say this is how everyone should play it? No to both. That is just the reasoning behind my own interpretation.

Avian
05-04-2011, 17:32
Well firstly I believe the exact wording in the book was, "additionally nothing further happens."
Well, that's not what the book says. It says: "On a roll of 4+ nothing else happens, ...".
"Additionally nothing further happens" would be nonsense no matter how you look at it.



So straight away that means your claims of grammatical error are wrong as yes, something can happen followed by nothing further happening.
Typically one would check to see if one's assumption about the wording of the rule was correct before making such a claim... :eyebrows:

DraconisTheElder
05-04-2011, 19:41
I just read the rule. there are three components that are taken into account when a roll of 1 is rolled on the mushroom die

1st- 4-6 "nothing else happens"
2nd- 1-3 "the shaman suffers one wound"
3rd- "Finally unless it was cast with irresistable force, the spell automatically fails."

Unitl just now I did not realize there was the third object and took to interpereting that the spell continued as long as no wound is taken. However, the use of "Finally" implies an additional object which states that, whatever the result of the roll, the spell fails - unless it was irresistable force.
*Note the seperation between point 2 and 3, point 3 is independant of point 2 and must be considered even if point 2 is not*

Zaonite
05-04-2011, 20:18
I can see both interpretations of this rule. However, I'd go benefit of the doubt, and combine conditions 2 & 3 as posted by DraconisTheElder until such a time that the FAQ is released.

To clarify;

1st- 4-6 "nothing else happens"
2nd- 1-3 "the shaman suffers one wound, finally unless it was cast with irresistable force, the spell automatically fails."

IMO a 1 in 6 chance of a successful casting attempt being spoiled by a silly rule and an ambiguous interpretation of it is too risky (but then it is O&G).

DraconisTheElder
05-04-2011, 20:37
Personally, based on the way it is worded (specifically by saying finally instead of and - and in doing so indicating a seperate point instead of a continued point), I do not see how it is possible to read it that way. When the faq comes out we will all no at any rate. In addition, N.G. shamans cost less than regular goblin shamans, the only difference is one point in leadership. It makes more sense that the mushroom opperates in the way that I am arguing based on the point value of the shaman - if the spell does not end on a 4-6 then that is a pretty beneficial special rule that would result in a higher point cost. A .5 out of 6 chance to not be able to cast is much better than a 1 in 6 chance to have an unsuccessful cast and would result in a higher point cost.

Avian
05-04-2011, 20:43
However, the use of "Finally" implies an additional object which states that, whatever the result of the roll, the spell fails - unless it was irresistable force.
*sigh*
When you rolled a 1 for the mushroom dice, the spell had not automatically failed. The spell automatically failing would be, as you say an additional object or effect, that is to say SOMETHING ELSE happening. Ergo, it isn't happening on a 4+, because if you roll a 4+ NOTHING ELSE happens.

I can't understand how this can be difficult for some people when they even admit that this is something additional. :eyebrows:

Zaonite
05-04-2011, 22:11
*sigh*
When you rolled a 1 for the mushroom dice, the spell had not automatically failed. The spell automatically failing would be, as you say an additional object or effect, that is to say SOMETHING ELSE happening. Ergo, it isn't happening on a 4+, because if you roll a 4+ NOTHING ELSE happens.

I can't understand how this can be difficult for some people when they even admit that this is something additional. :eyebrows:

I'm with Avian on this one. This argument has made me go back to my original conclusion before reading this thread lol.

DraconisTheElder
06-04-2011, 03:34
Regardless on how you want to interperet the wording avian we have both come to the same conclusion about the final result. No matter what, if the mushroom die is a one, the spell will not go off.

AMWOOD co
06-04-2011, 03:44
Regardless on how you want to interperet the wording avian we have both come to the same conclusion about the final result. No matter what, if the mushroom die is a one, the spell will not go off.

That's not what Avian is saying. If you roll a 1, roll again. On a 4+, it is just a 1, continue to cast the spell because the mushroom does nothing else. If you roll a 1-3, then the spell fails (except for Irrisistable) and you take a wound.

I've heard Avian say it enough times, and the paragraph is written sort of like computer code where the 'does nothing else' is like a break or end command, exiting the current subprogram (ie. the mushroom rule).

T10
06-04-2011, 07:59
When a rule says "nothing further happens" I stop reading the rule. :)

-T10

DraconisTheElder
06-04-2011, 12:01
Okay fair enough. Personally thats the way I would prefer the rule to work being an OnG player myself.

Teongpeng
06-04-2011, 13:18
Can someone post the exact words in the book? Not everyone got the book you know?

Teongpeng
06-04-2011, 13:22
The German translation is relatively clear. You roll the mushroom dice, and if it shows a 1, you roll another dice: On 4-6 nothing happens (effectively the misfire roll has no effect), on 1-3 you take a wound and the spell fails if not cast with IF.Without the seeing the exact wordings, but based on what this guy said....nothing happens effectively means nothing bad happens. The spell may still be cast as normal.

Is it really that confusing?