View Full Version : Rune Maw and Greatskull interaction

31-10-2006, 01:53
Hello people, I'm having a rules problem. My gaming buddy and primary opponent unearthed an interaction from the Ogre Kingdom's book that I believe is not legal and I want some outside opinions please.

His contends that he can use the Rune Maw to redirect a spell onto a unit carrying the Greatskull when the caster has successfully cast a spell with double 2s or 3s thus triggering a miscast.

From my stance, there is at least one major flaw in this logic. The rune maw only moves spells that are successfully cast. The opportunity for 'miscast' is long gone at this point.

What I'm looking for are opinions and, hopefully, some clarity on this issue. Any help?

31-10-2006, 01:59
When the spell goes off, it does not target the Greatskull, hence the 2/3 = miscast does not happen.

The Greatskull only works if it is the target of a spell, which it isn't in this case, the spell has already been cast by the time it reaches the guy with the Greatskull, so it does not have any effect.

31-10-2006, 14:59
Correct, there is absolutely no interaction between the runemaw and the greatskull.

of course, such doesn't change the fact that both of those items are pretty good.

31-10-2006, 19:28
Thank you for the replies... I'm having a hard time winning this argument since I can't find that explicitly STATED anywhere... that having been said, my interpretation is that it is so obvious it doesn't need stating... has anyone seen this issue specifically addressed so I can quote something here?

Gorbad Ironclaw
31-10-2006, 19:45
I believe no one is considered silly enough to do that so it haven't been addressed.

Rather than you trying to prove him wrong, try and make him prove that it is so. The spell is already cast, it can't suddenly turn into a miscast, that part is over and done with, you are now working out the effect. If it was a miscast, the spell would never hit the unit with the Rune Maw in the first place, making it impossible to rebound onto the Greatskull.

31-10-2006, 22:48
Yeah, this cant be done.

What? You think the OG army list would actually have anything good? try again.

01-11-2006, 02:40
I believe no one is considered silly enough to do that so it haven't been addressed.

Rather than you trying to prove him wrong, try and make him prove that it is so. ...

Sadly, he has 'proven' himself correct. He emailed some ignorant git at mail order and they told him that he was correct. That's the part that makes me really mad, because the Mail Order Troll is quite wrong:

I'm am curious if this is a valid use of the Rune Maw and Greatskull magic
items from the ogre list.

A spell targeted at the unit with the rune maw succeeds with a roll of
double 2's or 3's. The rune maw is used to redirect this spell to another
unit or character that has the greatskull. The greatskull causes the enemy
wizard to miscast.

Similarly, if the rune maw is used to redirect a spell to a unit with one or
more thiefstones, can the magic resistance given by those thiefstones be
used to dispel the spell?

and the troll replies:

You smart general you! You figured out how it all works. In both scenarios
you are correct.

Jeff A--------
Direct Services

so, you see the pickle I'm in.

Gorbad Ironclaw
01-11-2006, 06:16
Well, there it is then. You are proven correct. It's well know that the correct way to use the trolls is to ask them something and then do the opposite of what they say, as they got litteraly no clue whatsoever about anything rules related.

There are as much value in there answers as an errata written with a crayon on te backside of a dirty napkin by yourself, and then a badly forged signature saying Alessio.

If he insist on using that, I'd send in the same question, just word it different(maybe how it's impossible because if it's a miscast it never gets rebounded) and ask if you isn't correct. Most likely you will get an answer saying he can't do it. Hit him over the head with that, and then tell him to stop being silly.

But really, if he depends on GW online staff for rules questions, there isn't much you can do. He might be beyond saving.

01-11-2006, 08:02
What Gorbad said.
If he's really going to take the rulesboy's answer as final then there's not much you can do, he's been lost forever.
Or, you could, as Gorbad says, mail in the same question, first wording it the same, and if that does not help, try different wordings.
You're bound to get different answers more than one time, shove those answers in your friend's face to show him the credibility of GW's rulesboyz.
For anyone that actually reads the rules the answer to your question is very clear, and as we have said, so don't let him get you, you're the one with the rules on your side.

01-11-2006, 16:52
As I recall, GW actually cleaned up the meaning of "successfully cast" in 7th edition.

Previously, if you rolled high enough on your dice, a spell was "successfully cast" and the enemy could then attempt to dispel it. Then if the enemy failed to dispel, the spell was still "successfully cast." This re-use of the same term caused some ambiguity as to the timing of a spell's success.

Now, in 7th edition ....

"If the casting result equals or exceeds the spell's casting value, the spell is cast (though it may still be dispelled and neutralized by enemy wizards)." (BRB 107)

"If the dispel result is lower than the caster's casting result, the spell is said to have been cast successfully. (BRB 108, emphasis original).

"Note that a miscast spell does not normally succeed." (BRB 108).

The runemaw only affects spells that are successfully cast ... and such successful spells are safely past the point of a miscast.

Otherwise you enter a temporal distortion and the universe explodes.

1. Spell successfully cast
2. Spell redirects causing spell to miscast.
3. Miscast causes spell to have never been redirected.
4. Failure to redirect causes spell to be successfully cast.
5. to infinity ...

You see the point. He claims the a post-dispel effect overrides an earlier successful casting. If we accepted this as true (which I don't), you could just as reasonably allow the subsequent miscast to override the Rune Maw effect.

These casting/miscasting/dispelling efforts must be kept in their proper sequence.

By the way, the second ruleboy answer was even more patently wrong. The rune maw can't work until after the dispel attempt. The magic resistance can only be used to supplement the dispel attempt. How can these possibly interact?

- Gukal

01-11-2006, 17:04
After reading the rules in the main book, I am inclined to write down the steps in which the actions occur, poving the rules boy wrong.

Now, I am no master of the rules, so if I get this wrong, please point it out to me.

1) to cast a spell, a wizard must nominate which spell he is casting and then a legal target to cast it on.

2) the wizard now uses dice form his own and the master pool for the spell. He rolls his dice.

3) if the spell is cast (not "successfully" cast, just cast) the defending playwer NOW has the option to dispell the spell. And only ONE dispell try is allowed.

4) if the spell is not dispelled, the spell is now called "successfully" cast. The spell now measures range, then the spell take effect.

5) the spell "hits" the unit.
5a) At THIS step can you use the Rune Maw since the rune may says the spell must HIT the unit to be redirected. If the Rune Maw said TARGETED, then you could have used the rune maw between the first and second step, but it doesn't. A Fireball must HIT the unit to be redirected.

6) You now redirect the spell onto a unit with a Great Skull. Since you are WAAAAY past the dispell step, you cannot dispell the spell anymore. The Great Skull says the unit must be targeted to be dispelled, but you are 1) redirecting the spell, not changing targets and 2) the targeting was done in step 1, not when the spell HITS a unit.


If the Rune Maw was able to trigger itself after step one, then yes this combo would work, but since the Rune Maw triggers AFTER the defending players dispell step, the defending player cannot attempt the dispell the spell anymore by any means.

02-11-2006, 00:48
the funniest part of it all from my perspective is that this 'rule boy' who caused this problem is brand new. How do I know? The same day as this whole thing started I received a news letter from GW Canada proudly announcing their newest employee with the same name.