PDA

View Full Version : Spell successfully cast - before or after dispel?



najo
28-10-2012, 22:01
So the whole spell is successfully cast is causing some strife amongst our local Warhammer group. The current edition is not clear about when a spell is considered successfully cast like it was in 7th edition. This wouldn't be much of an issue, but many army lists effects and lore attributed now trigger when a spell is successfully cast. So I present the evidence for and against and I like to know if anyone has any supporting for or against in the rules or official FAQ to help us out of this conflict:

Support a spell is successfully cast only after any dispell attempt:
* previous edition
* First sentence under Spell Resolution on pg 36 "If the enemy has failed in his dispel attempt (or not attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully..."

But then here is the problem, the rules function, the FAQ rulings and any errata support this apporach of:
1) Spell is successfully cast
2) apply lore attributes/effects that state so
3) dispel attempt
4) resolve spell and apply effects that trigger here

So here is the evidence to validate that:

Lore of Fire and Beast, both have a Lore Attribute that affect the casting value of a spell, thus they take effect before making a casting roll.
Lore of Life, Nehekara and Vampire all state when a spell is successfully cast X happens.
Lore of Shadow, Gut Magic and Little Waaagh all state when a spell is successfully cast and resolves.
The vampire power Dark Acolyte states that a successfully cast spell adds d3 to its casting result. Thus the spell is consdered successful when your roll equals or exceeds the casting value here. The FAQ states that this bonus is applied before dispelling attempts to clarify for players. But if the rule were writen wrong, it would have been errataed like the Ogre enchanted item was. FAQ just clears up confusion over rules, thus successfully cast is clearly a state that occurs from a power dice roll equaling or exceeding the casting value of a spell, not a spell that is not dispelled.

Finally, when you read the magic section, their are numerous references to a spell casting not failing or a spell casting being cast. Technically, a spell being cast or not failing is another way of saying a spell casting was successful. Likewise, dispells are referred to as being successful or failing and when successful that they negate the EFFECT of a spell.

The issue here is does successfully cast mean you made your casting roll or does it mean your spell made its casting roll and wasn't dispelled, thus taking effect.

I argue that in this edition, the writer's have not so clearly made it the first one so lore attributes and other game effects can occur both after a spell is cast (i.e. successfully cast) and after a spell is or is not dispelled (i.e. resolved).

Before you jump oin here with your opinion I ask you review the magic phase, the spells lore attributes in question and the vampire power with both frames of mind, then post any direction that can help us figure this out please.

Laniston
29-10-2012, 00:56
I am reading in the Magic section under Spell Resolution (pg 36 in the mini rulebook, not sure about big rulebook) and it says:

"If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt(or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved."

This leads me to conclude that if the enemy does dispel a spell then it cannot be considered successfully cast.

Lore attributes do not all hinge on spells actually being cast but I would say the ones that do would have to be cast successfully according to the rules for spell resolution noted above.

Kalandros
29-10-2012, 01:43
You people are putting too much thought into "RAW" - yes we have to play RAW but there's also a limit to this and if you cross this line, you fall into the realm of stupidity.

GW's Writers never use the same combination of words to determine how a rule works, in the case of Dark Acolyte, it means that if you don't fail to meet the casting value, you can add D3 to that.

Its annoying how GW cares for only one thing and that is profit. They care not for quality therefore they skip on quality control entirely - whether for miniatures, books (typos, inconsistencies etc) or anything really. Even their Plastic Glue doesn't work properly anymore.


Anyway. Dark Acolyte is quite clearly meant to be "if you don't fail to meet the value, add D3" because any other way it doesn't work at all.

GW and their writers do not care for Terminology, unlike Privateer Press and their clear rules.
Have Mat Ward, Cruddace and whoever else.. Jervis? I forget, whoever wrote the Ogre book - give those 3 the assignment to write the same rules, all separately - this is whats done right now. Each prefers certain words to other words that another would use instead.

Therefore, its unprofessional, feels rushed and unrefined.

That, is Warhammer and Games Workshop.

Mid'ean
29-10-2012, 11:28
You people are putting too much thought into "RAW" - yes we have to play RAW but there's also a limit to this and if you cross this line, you fall into the realm of stupidity.

GW's Writers never use the same combination of words to determine how a rule works, in the case of Dark Acolyte, it means that if you don't fail to meet the casting value, you can add D3 to that.

Its annoying how GW cares for only one thing and that is profit. They care not for quality therefore they skip on quality control entirely - whether for miniatures, books (typos, inconsistencies etc) or anything really. Even their Plastic Glue doesn't work properly anymore.


Anyway. Dark Acolyte is quite clearly meant to be "if you don't fail to meet the value, add D3" because any other way it doesn't work at all.

GW and their writers do not care for Terminology, unlike Privateer Press and their clear rules.
Have Mat Ward, Cruddace and whoever else.. Jervis? I forget, whoever wrote the Ogre book - give those 3 the assignment to write the same rules, all separately - this is whats done right now. Each prefers certain words to other words that another would use instead.

Therefore, its unprofessional, feels rushed and unrefined.

That, is Warhammer and Games Workshop.

Totally this.

And IF you check the Vampire FAQ you will will that they did answer the DA issue for those people who had such a hard time grasping the simple concept of how is was meant to be played except for the poor writing of GW.

najo
01-11-2012, 01:27
Totally this.

And IF you check the Vampire FAQ you will will that they did answer the DA issue for those people who had such a hard time grasping the simple concept of how is was meant to be played except for the poor writing of GW.

Except the rules have multiple instances of successfully cast and successfully cast and resolved. One means before being dispelled and the other means after it is cast and not dispelled. Since Dark Acolyte was not giving errata but instead FAQ'ed, that implies that the FAQ confirms when a Lore Attribute or another game effect says it happens when a spell is successfully cast (before dispel attempts), then that Lore or special rule triggers. Look at Lore of Life, Lore of Nehekara, Lore of Vampires and Dark Acolyte for examples of the one, then look at Little Waagh, Lore of Shadows, Gut Magic for the other. The rules are different and the FAQs support that difference.

Mid'ean
01-11-2012, 11:53
Sorry M8. I think your rule lawyering to the extreme IMO. I don't have all the books with me but enough to see that in ALL the instances every one has in it "Successfully cast". And as you yourself has said, "Spell Resolution on pg 36 tells you when a spell is "successfully casted". The first part of ALL the Lore attributes you listed have successfully casted in them. That some lore attributes have resolved in the is irrelevant IMO. Bad wording by GW.

The Low King
02-11-2012, 00:57
I think you are trying to rules lawyer a bit to much here, trying to twist language and use references in various army books.

Paticularly: "Technically, a spell being cast or not failing is another way of saying a spell casting was successful. Likewise, dispells are referred to as being successful or failing and when successful that they negate the EFFECT of a spell."
Just no. As soon as you start trying to analyse the language and make extrapolations you need to stop.


The rulebook is very clear on it (and the VCs FAQ applies only to their army book, not the rulebook).

1) The Casting player's Wizards can attempt to cast each of their spells once during each magic phase, provided they have enough power and dont fail a casting attempt.
2) For a spell to be cast, the total of the dice rolled, added to the Wizards level, must equal or beat the spells casting level.
3)If the Wizard was able to cast his spell (and it was not cast with irresistable force) the opposing player now has a chance to prevent the spells effects by attempting to dispel it.
4)If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one), the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved.

To reinforce this, the order of the magic phase is:
1) Roll for winds of magic
2) Cast
3) Dispell
4) Spell resolution

You only resolve the effects of the spell, including any lore attributes (with the exception of those specifically stated as affecting the casting value) in the spell resolution part, AFTER dispelling. In fact, it very clearly states in the Lore attributes that the spell must be successfully cast (defined in the rules as after dispelling) before the effect happens. Shadow adds 'and resolved' because otherwise you would be able to teleport using it before you cast the spell, wich would be silly.

The VC FAQ clarifies that dark acolyte has an effect before the dispel attempt because otherwise it would be completely useless, add D3 to the value of the spell after ithas already been resolved? woop. Also, as i mentioned, a FAQ effecting only the vampire army book does not change the core rules or have any effect on any of the other army books.

To conclude, a spell being simply 'cast' and a spell being 'succesfully cast' are not the same thing, unusually for GW they are actually consistant in their use of the words. Apply logic.

najo
02-11-2012, 06:42
I think you are trying to rules lawyer a bit to much here, trying to twist language and use references in various army books.

Paticularly: "Technically, a spell being cast or not failing is another way of saying a spell casting was successful. Likewise, dispells are referred to as being successful or failing and when successful that they negate the EFFECT of a spell."
Just no. As soon as you start trying to analyse the language and make extrapolations you need to stop.


The rulebook is very clear on it (and the VCs FAQ applies only to their army book, not the rulebook).

1) The Casting player's Wizards can attempt to cast each of their spells once during each magic phase, provided they have enough power and dont fail a casting attempt.
2) For a spell to be cast, the total of the dice rolled, added to the Wizards level, must equal or beat the spells casting level.
3)If the Wizard was able to cast his spell (and it was not cast with irresistable force) the opposing player now has a chance to prevent the spells effects by attempting to dispel it.
4)If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one), the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved.

To reinforce this, the order of the magic phase is:
1) Roll for winds of magic
2) Cast
3) Dispell
4) Spell resolution

You only resolve the effects of the spell, including any lore attributes (with the exception of those specifically stated as affecting the casting value) in the spell resolution part, AFTER dispelling. In fact, it very clearly states in the Lore attributes that the spell must be successfully cast (defined in the rules as after dispelling) before the effect happens. Shadow adds 'and resolved' because otherwise you would be able to teleport using it before you cast the spell, wich would be silly.

The VC FAQ clarifies that dark acolyte has an effect before the dispel attempt because otherwise it would be completely useless, add D3 to the value of the spell after ithas already been resolved? woop. Also, as i mentioned, a FAQ effecting only the vampire army book does not change the core rules or have any effect on any of the other army books.

To conclude, a spell being simply 'cast' and a spell being 'succesfully cast' are not the same thing, unusually for GW they are actually consistant in their use of the words. Apply logic.

Normally I would agree with everything posted above. Except, this time because GW only FAQ'd the Vampire Bloodline power instead of writing an errata it raises the question of why is the bloodline power written that way in the first place.

Step back from the idea of successfully cast = not dispelled. All these instances are consistent. I think this time GW is using successfully cast to mean exactly that, a spell was successfully cast. No more or no less. Why is that such a crazy stretch or a play on words. The rules on p.36 do not say that the spell is successfully cast once its not dispelled. The rules say that once the dispel fails, the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved. There is a difference.

Take this a step further. The same bold text at the start of 2. Cast says: The casting player's Wizards can attempt to cast a each of their spells once during each Magic Phase, provided they have enough power and don't fail a casting attempt. .

Now, one could easily say that in this instance a successfully cast spell is another way of saying "don't fail a casting attempt". Also, later those same rules for casting say that if a spell equals or exceeds its casting value it is cast. One could also argue that saying a spell if cast is equal to saying a spell is successfully cast.

And that's my point. I think that the writers are saying successfully cast as an easy way to say "you equal or exceeded your casting value". In plain English, successfully cast means exactly that.

The Low King
02-11-2012, 11:59
Now, one could easily say that in this instance a successfully cast spell is another way of saying "don't fail a casting attempt". Also, later those same rules for casting say that if a spell equals or exceeds its casting value it is cast. One could also argue that saying a spell if cast is equal to saying a spell is successfully cast.


No you could not easily say that. You are trying to read things in the rules that arnt actually there.
It is a 'stretch' or 'play on words' because you are having to twist the meaning of the words slightly to get your argument, whilst reading the words completely as they are written goes againt what they are saying.

I could say that 'Wounded' and 'suffers a wound' kind of mean the same thing, and therefore saves are irrelevent because if you wound you skip strait to casualties.

As you as you start saying 'this kind of means this' you have gone beyond the rules, you are in fact inventing meanings that are not actually in the language to begin with.

The rules specifically define a difference between 'cast' and 'Successfully cast', it makes sense until you read more into it.

The quote is specifically: "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast succesfully and its effect is now resolved."
IF the condition is satisfied (the enemy has failed his dispel attempt, or not attempted one) then you have the result (the spell is cast succesfully and its effect is now resolved). It is specifically saying that in order for for the spell to be succesfully cast is cant have been dispelled.

To further support this it says in the dispel section that 'the opposing player now has a chance to prevent the spells effects...'. Everything the spell causes is part of its effects, including the lore attribute.

belgarath97
02-11-2012, 22:57
Normally I would agree with everything posted above. Except, this time because GW only FAQ'd the Vampire Bloodline power instead of writing an errata it raises the question of why is the bloodline power written that way in the first place.

You are over thinking. FAQ's are designed to give the official interpretation of a rule. Clearly the DA had multiple interpretations, they then answered the question of which interpretation is 'official'. An errata is designed to permanently change the rules in the published book. And amendments are designed change the way a rule works.

By giving it an FAQ they are saying the wording is possibly unclear and this is the way we intended it to be played. So by the criteria they use for Errata vs. Amendment vs. FAQ, FAQ was the correct way to address this.

And can we please stop it with the GW bashing. If another company's way is soooo much better, go play with them. This is a forum to talk about rules and their play, not comment on the process.

najo
03-11-2012, 02:15
Ok, so we are clear, I want a correct ruling not one in my favor. Second, I can't find anything in the rulebook that says lore attributes trigger when a spell takes effect. Spell lores vary when they take effect and most faqs imply that. And the reason that i keep bringing up dark acolyte is because if successfully cast means that the spell was not dispelled then the bloodline power either has no effect or Phil Kelly doesn't under stand the rules. Since it is supposed to have an effect, and Phil does know the rules (hence all the banshee and terrorgiest faqs ruling in his favor) then we have to assume that his rule is written right. If it wasn't, then games workshop would errata it to read right instead of issuing a faq. I think this is a valid point.

belgarath97
03-11-2012, 03:06
Ok, so we are clear, I want a correct ruling not one in my favor.

Fair point. I have been a similar position.


Second, I can't find anything in the rulebook that says lore attributes trigger when a spell takes effect. Spell lores vary when they take effect and most faqs imply that. And the reason that i keep bringing up dark acolyte is because if successfully cast means that the spell was not dispelled then the bloodline power either has no effect or Phil Kelly doesn't under stand the rules. Since it is supposed to have an effect, and Phil does know the rules (hence all the banshee and terrorgiest faqs ruling in his favor) then we have to assume that his rule is written right. If it wasn't, then games workshop would errata it to read right instead of issuing a faq. I think this is a valid point.

Kindleflame quite clearly happens at the time the casting roll is made
Wildheart also quite clearly happens at the time a casting roll is made
Metalshifting clearly happens when the spell is resolved
Exorcism also clearly happens when the spell is resolved
Lifebloom happens when the spell is successfully cast, ie after dispel attempts
Roiling Skies same as lifebloom, I think. This is the only one that I am questioning, because it says when a spell targets a unit. Not hit, effects, or anything else that requires the spell to have gone into effect first. But simply targets...
Smoke and Mirrors hapens last in the order of spell resolution.
Same with Life Leeching.

Not all the lore attributes resolve at the same time, but each is fairly clear when they do happen.

Dark Acolyte:

It seems clear to me that the caster adds +d3 if he casts the spell successfully. IE he addss d3 if his initial roll is enough to cast the spell, but not if he needs a 5 and rolls a 4. The FAQ simply clears up the misinterpretation that the wording meant after the dispel attempt.

Reading anything more than that into an FAQ is reaching. Honestly looking at any FAQ and trying to extrapolate that into anything beyond the question answered is risky. Unless you can find wording to support the extrapolation you will be hard pressed to find anyone to support you.

The reason it may seem that everyone thinks you are trying to get your way might be that you are the only one arguing for an interpretation other then the one given here.

najo
09-11-2012, 09:57
So full disclosure. I own a gaming store in the US and the reason I want insight into this is because we have a large warhammer population divided on this. I like to have consistency in our events and was hoping the community here could provide insight or reveal something within the rules we missed that directly answers the question. Thing is, the more I research this and discuss it with people and look at errata and FAQs the more it seems that successfully cast is before dispel. But all of the stuff above aside, I think Dark Acolyte is the best example why.

Dark Acolyte uses the wording “successfully cast” in the very same way as lore of life, lore of vampire, lore of heavens and lore of nekehara. The question in the FAQ is does that take place before or after dispel. It's FAQ answer (not errata) states 'before'. Therefore, it can be assumed that other effects in the game with the same “successfully cast” terminology would thus take place before dispel.

If anything, Dark Acolyte has cleared this up by defining when successfully cast occurs during the magic phase sub-steps. In fact I would argue that it is reaching to say they made a mistake in the rules and are clearing up this power. It is more likely that they are answering exactly what the power does the way it is written. At the very least, it does raise the question why was it written that way if that is not what it meant already?

Also, there is precedence for lore attributes auto applying effects before rolling (fire and beast), so why not right after rolling? The Chaos Warrior FAQ states that Lore Attributes are not part of a spell's effect. The dispel section of the rules state that successful dispels negate the spell's effect after it is cast. There is nothing in the dispel section stating that spell's are not successfully cast when you succeed on a dispel.

One finally thought, if successfully cast means before dispel, than Tomb Kings lore attribute gives the army a needed boost. They are very dependent on their spells to march and fight well. TK units would get healing boosts even when their spell's are dispelled. This makes sense then why the constructs are limited to getting the healing once per phase. It also means the TK's have a sort of auto healing that occurs even when spells are countered. Same could be said for the vampires lore protecting its characters and chunky units that would normally fall apart from a bad charge and crumbling. If there is not an error on Dark Acolyte, then some of the spell lore's work a bit differently than people initially thought and its intentional game design.

That’s a reasonable way to look at it right?

Lord Solar Plexus
09-11-2012, 10:35
A successful cast is defined in the rule book, and since it has been cited already, I'll refrain from repeating the sentence. I also think this overrules any other possible interpretation arising from the wording in some of the lores.

Lore attributes have no bearing on this, as they are all applied at different, similiarly clearly defined times. Some must by necessity be before a dispel attempt; so does DA. Doing it the other way around, ie. casting, not meeting the value, not dispelling, then still successfully casting or casting, dispelling, then rolling IF or whatever only opens a giant can of worms.

Furthermore, a FAQ answer has no bearing on the main rule other than in its own area of jurisdiction. If they want to tell us something, they must do so in unequivocal terms in the right place, not through some subtle interpretation of one reply in one PDF many people have not even looked at.

belgarath97
12-11-2012, 16:31
Najo,

You have been given reasonable answers to the question. Lord Solar Plexus one above is a fine example. Yet you continue to try to reason out an interpretation that says successfully cast means before dispel. Everyone here disagrees with that sentiment. The rules have been clearly cited, one FAQ answer to make sure the intention of Dark Acolyte is clear is not an ERRATA or AMENDMENT of that rule. The rule still stands that a spell is successful after the dispel attempt.

If this is not to your liking, and you really own a store, then house rule it the way you want in your store and move on. But not a soul here has agreed with your interpretation, and none of us have changed our minds.

If you really are " hoping the community here could provide insight or reveal something within the rules we missed that directly answers the question", well they have and they have given you their reasoning. The last bit of reasoning I can give is this (taken from the shrine of knowledge page of gw website):


What Are Amendments, Errata and FAQs?

It's helpful to people's understanding of these documents that we provide a clear distinction between Errata and FAQs.

Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material.

Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game.

FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

So by the above if gw wanted to change the rule:


If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully and its effect is not resolved.

They would do so with and Errata or Amendment of the rule, not an FAQ of the Dark Acolyte ability.

Iraf
12-11-2012, 22:01
Certain spells even say "when successfully cast" in the spell description. At least one from the Lore of Death. And a lot more instances in previous army books. High Elf magic has the phrase in half their spells.

So if you play it that way Najo, then all those spells can't be dispelled until after the spell affect occurs.

najo
17-11-2012, 03:19
@belgarath97 I honestly don't care either way and we are currently playing successfully cast is after dispel since both the last edition and most players play it that way. I sent the whole case into the faq guys and my gw rep, so hopefully gw will clear it up. My rep says gw guys play it after dispel, but he looked over the whole thing and said that through multiple books and even through the brb successfully cast is used in different contexts and with different timings. He agreed gw needs to clear it up.

@Iraf I agree about the spells and came aware of them after the list above. It's still messy though. 7th edition clearly states in bold letters the definition of successfully cast and when it occurs. The current rules do not do it like that. Everything is inferred and then jumbled together in the spell resolution section. If they had clearly stated successfully cast is a direct result of a failed dispel like they did in 7th, it would remove the issue altogether.

belgarath97
17-11-2012, 17:18
@belgarath97 I honestly don't care either way and we are currently playing successfully cast is after dispel since both the last edition and most players play it that way. I sent the whole case into the faq guys and my gw rep, so hopefully gw will clear it up. My rep says gw guys play it after dispel, but he looked over the whole thing and said that through multiple books and even through the brb successfully cast is used in different contexts and with different timings. He agreed gw needs to clear it up.

If you think it is unclear, then asking them to clear it up is reasonable. To me it's not as unclear, but I can't fault you for finding it so. I hope I didn't come across as a jerk, but I just wasn't sure what else I could offer. For the record, I can understand how you got to where you're thinking landed you. I just don't think the rules as the are written support it, but if enough people in your community want to play it that way, I say go for it. GW has always encouraged people to play the way they want.

najo
18-11-2012, 10:42
You didn't come off anyway bad. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt since the internet lacks intonation and inflections. I can see the case where it's clear also. It's just that Phil Kelly wrote the book and used that rule in both the vampire lore and the bloodline power, so it's unusual one rule in the same rulebook would be different from another with the same wording. Also, the game mechanic space opened up of triggers occurring at the casting roll is much more interesting than everything going after dispel attempt in my opinion. Also, having little difference between successfully cast and successfully cast and resolved is a bit boring. Anyways, here's to gw finalizing this one way or another.

belgarath97
19-11-2012, 08:56
Phil Kelly may be the author, but that doesn't mean the wording didn't get edited by someone else. Or that upon further review GW realized their error in the wording, thus the FAQ.

Case in point, read the OK FAQ, where Jervis put in a big note about how he never realized that giving Butchers ironfists meant they could have magic armor. Sometimes stuff slips in, and GW has to make the best of it, or justify it. They are hardly infallible.

Last months WD has a Developer admitting to being caught messing up the rules all the time. The BRB is over 100 pages, I don't expect anyone knows it all, and mistakes happen.

Have you ever written something and when someone else reads it they get a completely different meaning then the one you intended. Happens all the time, when we read something we wrote ourselves, we know what we meant, so the meaning is clear. It can happen on a collective level too. Everyone knows what the author is trying to say, so they read in the missing information, never realizing it wasn't there.

So in conclusion, GW and their writers are human and quite fallible. If they weren't they wouldn't need FAQ's at all. I believe it quite possible that Phil Kelly used the same wording in two spots and never realized there would be confusion.

PS - High Elves and Dark Elves.... heathen! :p