End times magic shenanigans

[najo]

So, a combo a friend shared is you take a dark elf sorcerer with for magic and the sacrificial dagger. You one dice fireball and when it fails from rolling 1 or 2, you kill a guy and add a power dice, likely saving the spell. It goes off. Rinse and repeat. You in theory could launch as many fireballs as you have power dice, each on getting the lore attributes of the one before. With dispels making spells unable to recast, this combo can get disrupted any point. Without it, you can't stop it and you sit there and let them auto delete your army. This is barely scratching the surface.

Dispels stopping recasting are necessary to maintain a balanced game.

 

[Henning]

Oh Lord, The sky is falling!!! DOOM for everyone and there isn't anything you can do to stop this madness. We should all just quit because this awesomely balanced game just got messed up...

NOT.

Get a grip people. Holy moley, you lot go on as if every game is now an auto-loose for you :/ Was it not just a few weeks ago that people were still grumbling about 6 diced purple sun or dwellers? That risk is basically removed now and guess what? You find more stuff to complain about! Geez... stop complaining and find ways of countering the crazy combo's. There are plenty!

The new magic has a lot of volatility to prevent any broken magic phases. You can't rely on it any more which is good for a tactics point of view. There will be ways to nullify magic even when your opponent gets his 18-10 magic phases. Most of these "combo's" mentioned are useless since if a spell is dispelled, you can't cast it again, not with any wizard. So no word of pain or fireball or whatnot if I manage to dispel the first.

As for the sacrificial dagger, doesn't it add power dice to be used? If yes, then you are still capped at the D6 you are allowed to use. so no going over that limit.


EDIT: after reading the thread again, I realise most of you have a sober mind with regards to approaching the Khaine magic changes so I might have been a bit dramatic. I'm just seriously irritated by every other person claiming the magic is broken and we are powerless. Considering all, I believe there are less broken combo's now as was before.

 

[Sception]

Nobody's saying the rules make us terrible, or that magic under these rules is overpowered. Mostly what I've said, and what I've seen said, in termos of complaints is that these rules are are annoying, and boring, encouraging repetitive, predictable magic phases that take forever. Also, there's the issue of stacking. persistent effects from the same spell cast multiple times shouldn't stack on the same target unit. I mean, seriously. But mostly it's the extra time and rolling that bothers me.

Without the d6 limit, magic would certainly be overpowered with these rules, one need only look at storm of magic. But then again, that was the point of storm of magic, and without recasting small spells, plus with reliable chances of pulling off the big ones, the double winds dice in storm of magic did not lead to intolerably longer magic phases, the way end times magic seems like it will by encouraging the use of those extra dice on smaller spells for more casting attempts per turn combined with two more die rolls per attempt.

Magic in SoM was unquestionably more powerful, more 'broken', but it was also fun, played quickly, and most of all it was epic. It was exactly the sort of overblown version of magic that one is looking for in a game set during a magical cataclysym. Attempting to cast three to four different 20+ casting cost spells per round, each of them hinging on one big power dice and one big dispel dice roll is awesome. Attempting to cast the same one or two 7+ casting cost spell 9 to 14 times*, with two little casting rolls and two little dispel rolls each? That's not epic. That's a snooze fest of underwhelming predictability. More balanced or not, it's the exact opposite of what 'end times magic' should be about.


* yes, I know, I'm exaggerating for effect here, and it likely won't be that bad. I'm just trying to better illustrate the problems I have with the d6 limit and recasting in particular. And it's not about feeling like my own faction got nerfed, if anything vamps have some of the better chibi spells to spam. True recasting invocation spam in particular did not need to come back to the game.

 

[Henning]

Then I have to respectfully differ with you. Even before the end times came I have been casting small, numerous spells with the highest cost being chain lightning. Now and then I will go for a big comet but that doesn't happen often. That is just my play style though so to each his own...

I guess I am biased then because the new changes are advantageous to my way of playing. Go figure

 

[PureSphinx]

Okay here's the actual debate though: what a failed attempt is. ET:K states that if a spell is failed then no wizard can attempt to re cast it. The thing is that RAW in the BRB, you only fail to cast a spell if you don't meet the minimum casting value, NOT if its dispelled. If that were the case, then under normal magic rules, your opponent could throw all his dispel dice at your first decoy spell, and you would fail to cast it because it's dispelled. Your wizard would then lose concentration, and all the other spells he knows and power dice you rolled are useless.

I don't see why people say a dispelled spell equals a failed spell cast, for two reasons. First, the rules say if you fail a spell your wizard loses concentration which makes a level four wizard essentially a waste of points, see above example. Second, for you to have been able to dispel a spell, it had to have been successfully cast in the first place, so it doesn't count as failed, because failed is the opposite of succeeded, which the spell did if I met minimum cast value.

Edit: also, the sac dagger doesn't adhere to the old 6 dice max, so I don't think it would adhere to a d6 max either. With the dagger you kill a guy in your unit, roll a d6. On a 4 you get another die to roll, a bonus, not out of the pool and not within the normal PD limit. It does however contribute to IF

 

[Count Gery]

Okay here's the actual debate though: what a failed attempt is. ET:K states that if a spell is failed then no wizard can attempt to re cast it. The thing is that RAW in the BRB, you only fail to cast a spell if you don't meet the minimum casting value, NOT if its dispelled. If that were the case, then under normal magic rules, your opponent could throw all his dispel dice at your first decoy spell, and you would fail to cast it because it's dispelled. Your wizard would then lose concentration, and all the other spells he knows and power dice you rolled are useless.

I don't see why people say a dispelled spell equals a failed spell cast, for two reasons. First, the rules say if you fail a spell your wizard loses concentration which makes a level four wizard essentially a waste of points, see above example. Second, for you to have been able to dispel a spell, it had to have been successfully cast in the first place, so it doesn't count as failed, because failed is the opposite of succeeded, which the spell did if I met minimum cast value.

Edit: also, the sac dagger doesn't adhere to the old 6 dice max, so I don't think it would adhere to a d6 max either. With the dagger you kill a guy in your unit, roll a d6. On a 4 you get another die to roll, a bonus, not out of the pool and not within the normal PD limit. It does however contribute to IF

This. Under current rules dispelling a spell does not make it a failed cast. So your opponent can try again.

 

[Demian]

I have to agree with Najo that, there are some items that are absolute nuts without some form of restriction.

Lore of Fire in general becomes a very powerful nuke... which is what it was intended to be, hehe, but unlimited casts... we'll have to wait and see in a real game how it goes.

Power of Darkness is somewhat limited to wounding the wizard who used when adding 3 dice, but again, we'll have to see how it goes in a real game (aside from the fact that his unit will get +3-5 strength with cumulative effects.. which is... weird.

Don't know how we're gonna house rule it, anyways.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I have to agree with Najo, in this system the caster can easily dominate the magic phase even without the crazy combos. But prove me wrong. How would you stop a spell that you absolutely must? Like a couple of soulblights on your combat unit, or spammed banishment? Can you have any control of what you will let through, or you just have to hope that your opponent will roll low eventually?

That's really no different then magic now. 6 soul blight that he didn't roll low on is less likely then not getting purple sun that he 6 diced in the current system. And the purple sun is still more deadly.

 

[Yorga]

Sadly I think the rule for successful cast DOES indeed work like former rule 'broken concentration'. The language to me seems identical. But having said that...we can't let it be. The interpretation for a 'dispelled' spell ending all subsequent casting of THAT spell is the way to go. Otherwise these games are doomed to spell casting monotony. Even counting 'dispelled spells' as being failure, players with 3 level 2 wizards have 21 spells to choose from. I think the proponents for the other interpretation just have not been victimized yet by their playing partners. Once they see the true horror of spammed spirit leech , fire ball, and tons of other really cheap spells they will think otherwise.

As to Sacrificial dagger here is my argument from another forum.

Dagger rules:

1) Once per casting attempt.

2) After casting dice are rolled (no mention of a limit)

3) Sacrifice and gain a power die on a 4+ that MUST be rolled and added to the casting result.

All those rules seem to override the basic rule book. Otherwise they would have said may be used if you have not exceeded the six dice cap.

Even the basic rule book under CHOOSE NUMBER OF POWER DICE talks about how many you may select from your 'pool'. The 6 dice magic limit refers to dice from your pool. Not the extra die granted by the dagger.

So here a DE Sorceress with the dagger could one dice spells from any of the basic schools of magic or dark magic and if she rolls a 1 or 2, just kill a trooper until she can throw another dice. Note the dagger can be used per casting. This extra die doesn't even come from the original pool so can facilitate the spam of spell casting even more so. So a sorceress with the dagger and 14 power dice (the average) can throw 14 fireballs guaranteed! You really want to face that? How do you dispel 14 fireballs?

 

[LordTobiothan]

Sadly I think the rule for successful cast DOES indeed work like former rule 'broken concentration'. The language to me seems identical. But having said that...we can't let it be. The interpretation for a 'dispelled' spell ending all subsequent casting of THAT spell is the way to go. Otherwise these games are doomed to spell casting monotony. Even counting 'dispelled spells' as being failure, players with 3 level 2 wizards have 21 spells to choose from. I think the proponents for the other interpretation just have not been victimized yet by their playing partners. Once they see the true horror of spammed spirit leech , fire ball, and tons of other really cheap spells they will think otherwise.

As to Sacrificial dagger here is my argument from another forum.

Dagger rules:

1) Once per casting attempt.

2) After casting dice are rolled (no mention of a limit)

3) Sacrifice and gain a power die on a 4+ that MUST be rolled and added to the casting result.

All those rules seem to override the basic rule book. Otherwise they would have said may be used if you have not exceeded the six dice cap.

Even the basic rule book under CHOOSE NUMBER OF POWER DICE talks about how many you may select from your 'pool'. The 6 dice magic limit refers to dice from your pool. Not the extra die granted by the dagger.

So here a DE Sorceress with the dagger could one dice spells from any of the basic schools of magic or dark magic and if she rolls a 1 or 2, just kill a trooper until she can throw another dice. Note the dagger can be used per casting. This extra die doesn't even come from the original pool so can facilitate the spam of spell casting even more so. So a sorceress with the dagger and 14 power dice (the average) can throw 14 fireballs guaranteed! You really want to face that? How do you dispel 14 fireballs?

You are looking at quantity of spells as there damage. A fireball into conflagration into insert other bigger burn spell here will hit just as hard and with the dagger you can keep sacrificing until the casting value is more then your opponent can hope for.

Doing roughly the same amount of damage. And the problem with those 14 fireballs is how many guys they need to kill to make it work. There goes his bunker.

 

[najo]

You just double or triple the bunker size and then take a life mage too to replenish the unit if needed.

What I'm finding ironic about this debate in general on all forums. I originally am one of the people who argued for successfully casting is before dispel and this triggers lore attributes like vampire, tomb kings etc and this why dark acolyte is written the way it is. No one agreed with me at all. I faced tons of counter arguments that couldn't 100% back it up, but since everyone played successfully cast means it got pass the dispel, that's how I've done it.

Now we have essentially the other side of the same argument. There is language on page 8 of the khaine rules that when added to page 9, basically says the spell has to be successfully cast. But now the majority are trying to argue that a spell only fails when it doesn't meet its casting value.

So which is it? Can't be both. It's possible that the khaine rules are looking at only the casting roll, but if so it's worded poorly. Honestly, I don't think the rules are meant for you to spam a spell that gets stopped. Its meant for a wizard to have all the spells in his life to choose from and your opponent to selective remove certain tools. I could be wrong, but that sounds much more tactical and fun than spamming the same spell 14 times.

 

[Infernal Skull]

In the subject of the definition of "successful" I'll throw this out there:

The BRB, page 36 under step 4. Spell Resolution, states "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!) the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved."

The word "successful" isn't used in any of the language under "step 2. Cast" except where it's talking about irresistible force and states "A spell cast with irresistible force automatically succeeds."

That lends itself pretty heavily toward the idea that the End Times rule about recasting the same spell "as long as all previous attempts to cast the spell have been successful" means "cast and not dispelled."

Either way, as long as both players discuss (or roll off for) the interpretation at the start of the game, it's all good. The interpretation affects both players equally, and it's not something that requires one's army list to be rewritten (like the Legions magic items debate).

You will need to strategize your casting differently, depending on which way it goes. For example, trying to spam easy spells won't work if dispelling counts as a failure; Once the first Invocation of Nehek is dispelled you can't cast it again. So you'll need to draw out your opponent's dispel dice on other spells first and then, once he's out, spam away.

 

[LordTobiothan]

You just double or triple the bunker size and then take a life mage too to replenish the unit if needed.

What I'm finding ironic about this debate in general on all forums. I originally am one of the people who argued for successfully casting is before dispel and this triggers lore attributes like vampire, tomb kings etc and this why dark acolyte is written the way it is. No one agreed with me at all. I faced tons of counter arguments that couldn't 100% back it up, but since everyone played successfully cast means it got pass the dispel, that's how I've done it.

Now we have essentially the other side of the same argument. There is language on page 8 of the khaine rules that when added to page 9, basically says the spell has to be successfully cast. But now the majority are trying to argue that a spell only fails when it doesn't meet its casting value.

So which is it? Can't be both. It's possible that the khaine rules are looking at only the casting roll, but if so it's worded poorly. Honestly, I don't think the rules are meant for you to spam a spell that gets stopped. Its meant for a wizard to have all the spells in his life to choose from and your opponent to selective remove certain tools. I could be wrong, but that sounds much more tactical and fun than spamming the same spell 14 times.

You've been playing that if your level 4 wizard attempts to cast ion with 2 dice and your opponent dispels it with 6 that your wizard lost concentration and is completely done casting?

 

[najo]

You've been playing that if your level 4 wizard attempts to cast ion with 2 dice and your opponent dispels it with 6 that your wizard lost concentration and is completely done casting?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Broken concentration occurs when you fail to make a casting roll or your toll is a 1 or 2 total on the dice. A spell is successfully cast when it makes its casting roll AND gets passed the dispel, as @Infernal Skull pointed out above. Khaine rules specifically state that broken concentration is ignored but you still use not enough power. So if you roll 2 or less, it fails. If you fail to make the casting roll, you failed that spell and can't cast it again, but can still attempt to cast another spell. Normally that wizard would be done. We are also saying, that a spell is failed to cast if it gets dispelled, this you would not be able to recast it. That is the main issue being debated about the khaine rules.

 

[LordTobiothan]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Broken concentration occurs when you fail to make a casting roll or your toll is a 1 or 2 total on the dice. A spell is successfully cast when it makes its casting roll AND gets passed the dispel, as @Infernal Skull pointed out above. Khaine rules specifically state that broken concentration is ignored but you still use not enough power. So if you roll 2 or less, it fails. If you fail to make the casting roll, you failed that spell and can't cast it again, but can still attempt to cast another spell. Normally that wizard would be done. We are also saying, that a spell is failed to cast if it gets dispelled, this you would not be able to recast it. That is the main issue being debated about the khaine rules.

That is true on the concentration point. However dispelling a spell also says nothing about a spell not being successfully cast. It only says beating the roll causes a successful dispel, not that it causes a failed cast. The only stipulation on casting a spell per Brb is meeting the casting cost.

Btw have you gotten around to playing that game with the khaine magic rules you mentioned you were going to play soon? I'd really like a first hand account on how it goes.

 

[najo]

That is true on the concentration point. However dispelling a spell also says nothing about a spell not being successfully cast. It only says beating the roll causes a successful dispel, not that it causes a failed cast. The only stipulation on casting a spell per Brb is meeting the casting cost.

Btw have you gotten around to playing that game with the khaine magic rules you mentioned you were going to play soon? I'd really like a first hand account on how it goes.

I just finished the game literally ten minutes ago and am going to do a write up. We had allot of reviewing and use of the rules now. Those rules are very poorly worded and scattered across both the overview and both pages of rules. Its written in stream of thought method. Honestly, taken as a whole recasting is twice referred to as needing a successful casting, once a failed casting attempt. Dispels negate recasting. If they don't, I can't see how it would be even fun. Seriously, it'd be broken beyond belief. But I'll write up my first hand account and we can discuss it then.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I just finished the game literally ten minutes ago and am going to do a write up. We had allot of reviewing and use of the rules now. Those rules are very poorly worded and scattered across both the overview and both pages of rules. Its written in stream of thought method. Honestly, taken as a whole recasting is twice referred to as needing a successful casting, once a failed casting attempt. Dispels negate recasting. If they don't, I can't see how it would be even fun. Seriously, it'd be broken beyond belief. But I'll write up my first hand account and we can discuss it then.

From your first hand account it seemed the D6 roll for max pd used on a spell dominated what got cast more then anything. And were there many instances where a spell got dispelled that you wanted to recast?

 

[Jdredsox]

Not sure if this is the right place for this but wanted to get another opinion.

I had my first taste of end times magic today and went up against dwarves (not the best test maybe). Now this brought up an interesting sticking point. My opponent claimed that as the rule states a wizard needs to roll d6 for dispell dice it doesn't apply to dwarves and they can use as many dice as they like, from the pool. I felt it was a case of the rule being poorly worded and that he should still roll d6.

I let it slide as I just wanted to give the new magic a go and fought him to a draw anyway, but what do you guys think? Surely dwarves have to stick to the same dispell rules as everyone else?

 

[LordTobiothan]

Not sure if this is the right place for this but wanted to get another opinion.

I had my first taste of end times magic today and went up against dwarves (not the best test maybe). Now this brought up an interesting sticking point. My opponent claimed that as the rule states a wizard needs to roll d6 for dispell dice it doesn't apply to dwarves and they can use as many dice as they like, from the pool. I felt it was a case of the rule being poorly worded and that he should still roll d6.

I let it slide as I just wanted to give the new magic a go and fought him to a draw anyway, but what do you guys think? Surely dwarves have to stick to the same dispell rules as everyone else?

I suppose anytime your not using a wizard to dispel you technically don't need to use that rule. On the one hand you don't get the wizard bonus to dispel but in some cases an extra dice or two might be better.

Dwarves don't benefit from khaine magic at all so really it's not so farfetched to let them run it as written.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

Although it is talked about repeatedly here i will state it very clearly:

The edit times magic does not use the word failed. Assuming the word failed is what is causing the confusion.

"spells can be used any number of times in each magic phase, so long as all previous attempts have been successful."

As per the rulebook PG 36:
"If the enemy has foiled his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully"

And therein lies the proof; a spell is successful only when there has been no successful dispel. If you dispel a spell, it cannot be cast by that wizard, or any other, for the remainder of that magic phase.

Now I do want to note that, IMO this is a pretty glaring point of confusion, and could have been better written. But mistakes often happen, and can be easily resolved with good support (which unfortunately, GW is also greatly lacking) . I hope that with the success of both 40k and WHFB, GW has the resources to start properly supporting their product, especially after 9th is released.

As far as my current opinion on End Times Magic, I love it. I think its got some fresh ideas that really shake things up and create a more balanced magic phase. As I previosuly stated, the biggest effect is that it kicks mindless 6-dicing strategies right where they needed to be kicked.

One major point is there's not so much fuddling around in anticipation of starting a game. Spell generation can be a really frustrating and extensive part of the game. If I'm playing my wood elves, and I've built a strategy around Withering, and I don't roll it .. I'm pretty much ready to concede right there, and my entire enjoyment of that game has taken a hit. Also new players, or when simply trying a new magic lore, spell generation is when you have to read all the spels, consider your strategy, whereas in the heat of battle, you can quickly eliminate severel choices (Ex. that unit i want to hit is over 18" away, so I can only use longer range spells).

In regards to taking more or less time overall, the new magic probably takes more. but the time that it is tasking up is not dead time before the game, it is during a magic phase, while both sides are considering their next strategy. To me this phase is more exciting and therefore, it is time well spent.

As for spells with 15+ to cast, consider that you only need to waste a single dice to see if you even can come close to casting; Attempt the spell, and if you don't get a good number of power dice, waste one and move on.

Unfortunately this new way of magic is still a little rough and needs to be ironed out.
- Having a wizard who knows every spell from all 8 lores is absurd. Sitting around while your opponent considers all the spell at his disposal is nothing but annoying. A simple fix would be that, if a wizard knows spells from multiple lores, he must choose only one to start the game.

- Choosing the highest two winds dice for the chaos table and phoenixes is an unfortunate and cheesy boost. Already my frequent opponent and I have decided a hose rule to roll two separate dice for this.

- A limitless cap on dice generation is also unfortunate. Rules must have boundaries. Taking two dice from black priapt, a couple from Mannfred and an Casket of SOuls adn then casting a purple Sun is noting short of cheese shenanigans that have no place in a fair competition IMO. That's why I would prefer a limit of 3 dice outside of channeling, so that dice generation is not spammed and kept within healthy channeling, which also promotes multiple wizards as opposed to being fine with one lvl4, which the new end times magic is promoting.

 

[Infernal Skull]

The edit times magic does not use the word failed. Assuming the word failed is what is causing the confusion.

The End Times magic absolutely uses the word failed.

This was discussed over in Najo's Review of the End Times magic thread.

People are looking at the summary of the ET magic as the rule, because that's the only page that most sites have posted. But in the Khaine book, the following page has the full rule. The actual ET Magic rule states:

"A spell can be cast more than once in the Magic phase, as long as it is not:
* A spell for which a failed casting attempt was made in the same Magic phase."

(There are a few other bullet points about the different requirements for recasting, but that's the one relevant to the discussion/ debate.)

The casting attempt is the roll to beat the spell's casting value. If that roll is equal to or higher than the casting value the spell is cast. (Dispels come later.) So the wording of the rule requires that the casting attempt must not have been failed.

That's quite different from requiring that "the spell was successfully cast." Basically, the way the rule is written, as long as you don't fail the attempt to cast the spell, you can cast it again later (irrespective of any dispel attempt).

And the BRB defines "failing a casting attempt" on p. 32:

"If the result is less than the casting value, the casting attempt has failed. The spell is not cast."

So, that's pretty clear: The only thing that matters for a spell to be recast is that the casting attempt wasn't failed previously. Whether it was dispelled or not doesn't matter.

 

[Nicreap]

infernal skull is absolutely correct on the matter. Based on the actual rule and not the summary nothing by not enough power stops casting. Why did you arbitrarily pick a 3 dice cap? That hurts armies like tomb kings and vampire counts who have ways to make their magic phase more reliable. If you are going to do that then any combat block should only be able to have a max of 30 attacks in horde or 10 in bus, since armies who get lots of attacks might overwhelm armies that don't get that advantage. even before khaine you could have an 18+ dice magic phase so long as you never had more than 12 at a time.

 

[PureSphinx]

Although it is talked about repeatedly here i will state it very clearly:

The edit times magic does not use the word failed. Assuming the word failed is what is causing the confusion.

"spells can be used any number of times in each magic phase, so long as all previous attempts have been successful."

As per the rulebook PG 36:
"If the enemy has foiled his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully"

And therein lies the proof; a spell is successful only when there has been no successful dispel. If you dispel a spell, it cannot be cast by that wizard, or any other, for the remainder of that magic phase.

Now I do want to note that, IMO this is a pretty glaring point of confusion, and could have been better written. But mistakes often happen, and can be easily resolved with good support (which unfortunately, GW is also greatly lacking) . I hope that with the success of both 40k and WHFB, GW has the resources to start properly supporting their product, especially after 9th is released.

As far as my current opinion on End Times Magic, I love it. I think its got some fresh ideas that really shake things up and create a more balanced magic phase. As I previosuly stated, the biggest effect is that it kicks mindless 6-dicing strategies right where they needed to be kicked.

One major point is there's not so much fuddling around in anticipation of starting a game. Spell generation can be a really frustrating and extensive part of the game. If I'm playing my wood elves, and I've built a strategy around Withering, and I don't roll it .. I'm pretty much ready to concede right there, and my entire enjoyment of that game has taken a hit. Also new players, or when simply trying a new magic lore, spell generation is when you have to read all the spels, consider your strategy, whereas in the heat of battle, you can quickly eliminate severel choices (Ex. that unit i want to hit is over 18" away, so I can only use longer range spells).

In regards to taking more or less time overall, the new magic probably takes more. but the time that it is tasking up is not dead time before the game, it is during a magic phase, while both sides are considering their next strategy. To me this phase is more exciting and therefore, it is time well spent.

As for spells with 15+ to cast, consider that you only need to waste a single dice to see if you even can come close to casting; Attempt the spell, and if you don't get a good number of power dice, waste one and move on.

Unfortunately this new way of magic is still a little rough and needs to be ironed out.
- Having a wizard who knows every spell from all 8 lores is absurd. Sitting around while your opponent considers all the spell at his disposal is nothing but annoying. A simple fix would be that, if a wizard knows spells from multiple lores, he must choose only one to start the game.

- Choosing the highest two winds dice for the chaos table and phoenixes is an unfortunate and cheesy boost. Already my frequent opponent and I have decided a hose rule to roll two separate dice for this.

- A limitless cap on dice generation is also unfortunate. Rules must have boundaries. Taking two dice from black priapt, a couple from Mannfred and an Casket of SOuls adn then casting a purple Sun is noting short of cheese shenanigans that have no place in a fair competition IMO. That's why I would prefer a limit of 3 dice outside of channeling, so that dice generation is not spammed and kept within healthy channeling, which also promotes multiple wizards as opposed to being fine with one lvl4, which the new end times magic is promoting.

I play Tzeentch Daemons, Beastmen Herdstone, and Periapt/Casket VC all the time. What this post said to me is "Let's take away what you think is fun so I can win more often." I shouldn't be limited on dice generation and spell casting when that's what I built my list to do. Armies have these things for a reason, not just to be a pretty item that doesn't do shit just because people don't like getting magicked to death. I lost a game against HE yesterday because he took Banner of the World Dragon against my Tzeentch magic list. Woo, his 40 white lions got 2+ wards against literally my entire army. I then won a game against Nagash/Undead Legions with the same list, by shooting a million spells at Nagash over the course of the four turns it took to kill him, and that's only because I had Kairos Fateweaver, else it would have taken more turns. I guess people just don't understand that lists built to perform well in the Magic Phase are just as easy to counter as lists built to dominate other phases. Why are there super spells if it's dumb to cast them? It's not: Take a scroll. People think six dicing is mindless, but the chances of getting IF are really not very high. I got IF one time that Nagash game, on three dice. Of the three times I six diced Infernal Gateway I got IF zero times. Magic is really random already, crippling it and by extension the armies that rely on it is as "unfair" as me getting off a super spell once per turn. If you don't want to get Purple Sunned off the board, stop taking deathstars. Those are equally as cheesy and are what super spells are meant to counter.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

Yes sorry, the book has been sold out everywhere. Finally I have access to the next page where they re-state this rule using the word failed instead of successful, causing confusion.

Still, logic would continue to hold to the fact that a dispel is a failure. While it is correct that the BRB defines a lack of power generation to be a failure, its doesn't explicitly state that a successful dispel isn't also a failure (only that a failed dispel equals a successful cast)

Since the opposite of a success is failure, logic would mean that a a successful dispel means a failed spell. Additionally, for something to be successful, each of its steps must be successful.

For example, to pass a ball requires you to throw a ball, have it pass though the air and into the arms of the person catching it. Without all three being successful, a pass will not be complete. If you pass the ball and it falls short, you have not passed - you have thrown. If you pass the ball with perfect force right into the chest of the catcher, and he is unable to grab it before it hits the ground, the pass is not successful (AKA the pass was a failure).

A spell is the same way. If you cast a spell and it gets defected in the air, its not a successful cast = the cast has failed.

A lot of the confusion comes for the word "Cast". Many of us think of this like throwing an object. We can see this with a fireball, but what about dwellers below? The dispel likely happens in the mind of the wizard:

The wizard focuses his mind to organize the winds of chaos into power. The opposing wizard focuses his energy to confuse the chaos around him so that, even if the power is generated, the wizard is unable to execute the spell. While not stated, this is the only interpretation that would make sense with all of the different types of spells.

In summary, generating enough power to cast a spell is not a successful cast; it is only that: the generation of power. If you are unable to use that power as intended, you have failed what you are trying to do.

 

[PureSphinx]

its doesn't explicitly state that a successful dispel isn't also a failure (only that a failed dispel equals a successful cast)

Can you show me where in the Vampire Counts Army Book where it explicitly states that I cannot field a Bloodthirster in my army? It only states that I can use the units in that book in a Vampire Counts army, not explicitly stating that I can't usr anything else.

Warhammer rules don't work by exclusion. If it did your book would have ten extra pages saying "you can't use blah blah blah..." The confusion is not in the word cast, it's in the phrase "successful casting attempt." The attempt is made before a dispel attempt is made. By your logic, a successful ball tossing ATTEMPT only requires the ball to leave my hands, not for it to get where it's going. If the word "attempt" was not included you might be right, but it is. Look to @Infernal Skull 's analysis.