Miscast and Attribute application debate
Dec 29, 2020 15:35:13 GMT
knoffles and Lizards_of_Renown like this
Post by padre on Dec 29, 2020 15:35:13 GMT
Here is a ruling I have (as GM) just made in the play-by-email game we are running right now.
A Vampire Count's army level 1 necromancer had only 1 wound left after a previous turn's miscast had caused a S6 hit on him.
The necromancer now irresistibly casts 'Invocation of Nehek'. The Lore attribute 'Curse of Undeath' says that "When a spell from the Lore of the Vampires is successfully cast, the wizard (or another friendly model with 12") instantly recovers a single wound lost earlier in the battle". The WFB core rulebook says (p.33) "A spell cast with irresistible force automatically succeeds..." so it is a 'success'. And (p.34) it says that one should "... first resolve the effects of the spell the wizard was attempting to cast ... [&] The casting player can enjoy the effects of his spell before something ... bad happens to the wizard ..." so the spell's effects are sorted before rolling on the miscast table.
Thus I ruled that by ruling as written, 'RAW', exactly in the order stated in the rules, the necromancer casts the spell successfully, instantly recovers her wound (part of the effects of the spell which the rules say she must 'enjoy' first) then when she then rolled 9 on the Miscast table and received another S6 wound, wounding her on a roll of 2, she goes back to 1 wound.
I checked and rechecked, made sure of the actual wording, and this seemed right.
The non-vampire player however, disagreed, saying "As it is a lore bonus that happens after the spell" BUT as there is a GM in the game he then graciously wrote "but that is an argument for over a cold beer so happy with [the GM's] view of the rules.
I was very glad we could carry on. And reminded how having a GM can really help (although we once lost a player from the campaign over his annoyance at army lists etc)
I had tried to fully research the decision, and felt I had gained a level of clarity that meant I didn't even think we should 'roll to decide'. However, I knew that my initial perception before reading all the rules was that he surely must die and so I had dreaded the debate.
In the game the other Vampire Counts wizard (a vampire) also received a wound and was now on 1 wound, having previously lost a wound from his 3W stat to the earlier miscast!
This meant I could have skirted the whole issue by reading the rules exactly the same (and ruling as written), but by suggesting that we avoid any debate by having the necromancer die and giving the vampire the wound back. But the vampire is more than 12" away and so that was not possible!
A Vampire Count's army level 1 necromancer had only 1 wound left after a previous turn's miscast had caused a S6 hit on him.
The necromancer now irresistibly casts 'Invocation of Nehek'. The Lore attribute 'Curse of Undeath' says that "When a spell from the Lore of the Vampires is successfully cast, the wizard (or another friendly model with 12") instantly recovers a single wound lost earlier in the battle". The WFB core rulebook says (p.33) "A spell cast with irresistible force automatically succeeds..." so it is a 'success'. And (p.34) it says that one should "... first resolve the effects of the spell the wizard was attempting to cast ... [&] The casting player can enjoy the effects of his spell before something ... bad happens to the wizard ..." so the spell's effects are sorted before rolling on the miscast table.
Thus I ruled that by ruling as written, 'RAW', exactly in the order stated in the rules, the necromancer casts the spell successfully, instantly recovers her wound (part of the effects of the spell which the rules say she must 'enjoy' first) then when she then rolled 9 on the Miscast table and received another S6 wound, wounding her on a roll of 2, she goes back to 1 wound.
I checked and rechecked, made sure of the actual wording, and this seemed right.
The non-vampire player however, disagreed, saying "As it is a lore bonus that happens after the spell" BUT as there is a GM in the game he then graciously wrote "but that is an argument for over a cold beer so happy with [the GM's] view of the rules.
I was very glad we could carry on. And reminded how having a GM can really help (although we once lost a player from the campaign over his annoyance at army lists etc)
I had tried to fully research the decision, and felt I had gained a level of clarity that meant I didn't even think we should 'roll to decide'. However, I knew that my initial perception before reading all the rules was that he surely must die and so I had dreaded the debate.
In the game the other Vampire Counts wizard (a vampire) also received a wound and was now on 1 wound, having previously lost a wound from his 3W stat to the earlier miscast!
This meant I could have skirted the whole issue by reading the rules exactly the same (and ruling as written), but by suggesting that we avoid any debate by having the necromancer die and giving the vampire the wound back. But the vampire is more than 12" away and so that was not possible!
