It has been brought to my attention that I may have been playing the Lizardmen High Magic Lore Attribute incorrectly. I'm interested in what yous guys' take is on it. The lore says "If a spell is successfully cast... [forget spell, learn new spell]" I have been playing it such that I have to roll high enough with power dice to cast it, and it must not be dispelled by my opponent. The local TO tells me that a spell is still "successfully cast" even if it is dispelled. And he cited the wording on BRB Pg 32: "For a spell to be cast, the total of the dice rolled, added to the Wizard's level, must equal of beat the spell's casting value" In the dispel section, on page 35, it described dispelling a spell as: "the opposing player now has achange to prevent the spell's effects by attempting to dispel it" And later says: "If the dispel result equals of exceeds the spell's casting result, the dispel is successful and the spell does not take effect." So, is it true? Can the Lore Attribute of Lizardmen High Magic trigger even if the spell is dispelled? Or does stopping "the spells effects" include stopping the Lore Attribute?
When a spell is "cast", it means that the result is equal or higher than the casting value When a spell is "succesfully cast", it means that the opponent didn't succeed to dispell it. You should look p36, first paragraph. That's prety clear in the french version, I suppose it's the same in the other ones. Hasael
My local group stills goes with "after dispel attempts", but I see the confusion some people has. The Dark Acolyte FAQ especially seems to mess with our minds, because it tells you to "add 1d3 to the casting number AFTER SUCCESFULLY CASTING", which the FAQ explains to be BEFORE dispels. FAQ meaning "clarification", and not a change in the rule... which means they insist that "succesfully cast" is before dispelling. I can't help but think they meant "errata" or "amendment". That "FAQ" label is just messing with so many rules that would otherwise have been no confusion about.
Yeah, it looks pretty clear in the English, too. "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved." That's what I thought a successful casting was. It looks like there is a subtle difference between "casting a spell" and "successfully casting a spell" that the TO didn't pick up on.
Nah, that sentence is perfectly clear. the only thing making it confusing is the Dark Acolyte FAQ they released, which actually states "After succesful cast means before dispel attempts" It's a valid point, though I don't think you'd get many people to agree that "succesful cast" is before dispels.
I play High elves as well, and despite pointing out the rulebook page that you guys have, it's always been ruled that no lore attribute can activate if the spell is dispelled. So i have to get a high spell off to get the ward save, equally i have to get a high spell off to swap it out.
No matter how you look at it, this is RaW. Because "succesful cast" is stated as "beating the casting value, and not getting dispelled". RaI, and indeed, a bit of RaW, comes into conflict when you consider Dark Acolyte FAQ. Check here: http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer/Vampire-Counts.pdf 3 colon, third from bottom: Dark Acolyte states "The Vampire adds D3 to the casting total whenever he successfully casts Invocation of Nehek." This seems to imply that "successfully cast" is before dispelling attempts... otherwise, why call it a FAQ, and not an errata or amendment? Not even sure I'd call it rulesbending, honestly. I'd always go with "The spell needs to go off, and give it's benefits, or you haven't successfully casted it", but if someone insisted on the other interpretation, I'd probably just go along with it - After all, it's a massive boost to High Lore, so why not.
Yeah, there's no point fighting the grain on most rules queries if you want a fun and smooth game. In tournaments I tend to speak to the TO before i play any games if i've got a list where any "open to interpretation" situations may occur. That way we can get on quicker and get the game moving.
Using the Dark acolyte FAQ is wrong, since it specifically answers a FAQ about Dark acolyte. FAQ answers should NEVER be extrapolated to other rule questions. Just imagine, that would mean you activate the lore attribute all the time if you beat the casting value, no matter if the opponent dispels or not.
But here's the thing: FAQ implies the wording is intended and correct, but that people have just misunderstood the use. This is why we argue that way. If they had called it an Errata or amendment, there wouldn't have been any problems. It's just another example of GW not really thinking, or bothering, with their rules...
Yes, I understand what you mean. But still, the question answered with that particular FAQ is: When does a dark Acolyte add their D3 to the casting total before or after dispel-attempts? The question answered is not: When is a spell considered succesfully cast, before or after dispel-attempts? I believe a FAQ answers that specific question, it doesn't include a ruling for all the circumstances that the wording is similar or even the same in other places within the rule-books.
There is no doubt that this is a confusing issue and one which I am 99.99% sure GW is fully aware of based on the following Lore Attribute activation descriptions for High Magic from oldest to newest: High Elves (~2012) - "Each time a spell from this lore is successfully cast, the caster and his unit immediately gain +1 to their ward save,..." Lizards (~2013) - "If a spell from the lore of High Magic is successfully cast by a Wizard from the Warhammer:Lizardmen, the caster can choose to forget that spell at the end of his Magic phase. At the end of the Magic phase, the Wizard must immediately generate a replacement spell from any of the spell lores he can normally use for each spell forgotten in this manner,..." Woodelves (2014) - "Whenever a Wood Elf Wizard successfully casts a spell from this lore, and it is not dispelled, place a protection counter next to him once the spell has been resolved.,...." It is clear that the intent is for lore attributes to only be activated as per the woodelf description - i.e. the spell is both cast and not dispelled. However, we all know where paving a road with good intentions leads to
But the problem is that Dark Acolyte has the EXACT SAME WORDING as pretty much any of the discussed lore attributes. that's the entire problem with it, because it means that answer SHOULD apply to everything else - otherwise, they should have made it an errata and rewritten the rule to specify that you add it *before* dispel attempts are made. It's not even lazyness that caused this mess-up. It's just sheer stupidity on the part of whoever makes those FAQs+Erratas, as well as the poor writing ability some of those writers has. I'd still say it's pretty clear what the rules say about "succesful casting", so RAW is to only apply them after dispel attempts, with the sole exception of Dark Acolyte (whose intention was super obvious to anyone with half a brain - I haven't heard anyone argue otherwise before the FAQ, and my local group was actually surprised when GW released that FAQ, because it seemed completely redundant.)