Can a slann with focused rumination, benefti from it if using a bound spell item?

Yes, because he is casting a spell and the only restriction i could find is you dont add your wizard level to it.

Makes sense to me.

^^ This!

I don't think he can as the bound spell is "cast" by the item and not by the wizard. This is stated on pg 37 of the rule book. That is why even non wizards can use bound items. Focused Rumination says it is added when the Slann casts a spell.

I don't see anywhere it says the item is the one casting it. Furthermore, on pg. 37, in the example, it says, "when the Noble attempts to cast the spell" - indicating the Noble is indeed casting it.

Killjoy00 wrote:I don't see anywhere it says the item is the one casting it. Furthermore, on pg. 37, in the example, it says, "when the Noble attempts to cast the spell" - indicating the Noble is indeed casting it.

...and of course they should have written it as "when the spell is cast by the item that the Noble is holding".)

They don't write the rulebooks with the idea in mind that a RAW crowd will be parsing sentences trying to find hidden treasure. The item casts the spell, you cannot add your wizard level, don't need to be a wizard to use it, and the miscast affects the item, not the person holding it. I would not allow the slann to add dice to attempt to use a bound item.

Wow, I can't believe this hasn't been addressed by the FAQ? I did not even consider whether or not you would add wizard level, etc. from using a bound item...

I agree it seems a little odd, but there is other language supporting it too:

"A bound spell is cast just like an ordinary spell
using dice from the power pool (the model
may do so even if it is not a Wizard)."

Note the model, not the item, etc.

"On the other hand,
failing to cast a bound spell does not break a
wizard's concentration"

Note the wizard's failure, not the item, again.


And RiTides, it specifically says you don't add any casting modifiers such as wizard level. Although I was myself a little wary of the idea at first, I think we have to be open to the idea that this is what they intended. RaI it makes sense that a person is indeed casting it. The item doesn't have a will of its own. And focused rumination is an "attuned" mind - attuned to the use of magical items as well.

Hmmm...... RaI I'm not sure I buy it at all! But RaW, I don't know...

Will definitely have a think on it and am glad for this thread bringing it up, at least

The item doesn't have a will of its own.

Really? Why? Huge examples in stories where the items have a will of their own. Hell, Stormbringer kicks a Slanns ass easy and uses the frog to cast It's spells.)

And focused rumination is an "attuned" mind - attuned to the use of magical items as well.

Anytime you start logically explaining how magic works, you've slid into the twilight zone.) Who's to say a bound spell isn't simply pointing a stick and saying 'Shazam'. The Lizardman codex even has an example of one in it's fluff. Implying that some 'Old One Magic' is actually technology.

Failing to cast a bound spell not breaking a wizards concentration, IMHO, is a point in the direction of it being the item casting the spell, not the wizard/user/model. The item doesn't affect the wizard, or even care if he is one.

It could go either way. I'll be ruling at our tournaments that it doesn't work on bound items.

If it was the item casting the spell instead of the wizard, they wouldn't have to point out that it doesn't concentration. _Obviously_ if it were the item actually casting it, then it wouldn't break conc.

Look, I just put the RaI out there. I think the RaW is quite clear and even if it is a change from 7th, I feel the reticence is just from how you feel the rules should be. There's nothing saying that the bound item casts the spell. There is a strong example (even if you wish it were worded differently) that indicates the model is casting the spell.

Look, I just put the RaI out there.

Nope, because you can't know RaI.

I think the RaW is quite clear and even if it is a change from 7th, I feel the reticence is just from how you feel the rules should be.

And your opinion is somehow not how you think the rule should be. You're funny.) Of course you think the rules are quite clear, but that doesn't change anyone elses mind.

Play it how you wan't, I'll be interpreting it differently.

The last sentence in the first paragraph under bound spells on Page 37 says:

"Possessing a bound spell does not make a character a wizard - he just has an item that can cast a spell."

Seems like it is saying the cast is from the item not the character - the character just activates it.

Later it says that bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I put a potential RaI explanation out there.

I agree no one can know RaI. That's why a pretty clear RaW issue should not be taken aback by RaI explanations.

I've given clear reasons and quotations on why the rules shold work this way.

You are the funny one. Your best comeback was "and of course they should have written it" a different way. But they didn't. Maybe you would have written it differently.

The rule is actually (relatively) clear here, no one is trying to gain an advantage (I don't play LM and if I did, I don't think I'd ever take a bound item on my slann b/c cupped hands is much, much better - extra dice or no).

The rule is clear; you can add an extra dice to the casting with FR

You can play it otherwise, but it is a houserule to do so.

mikhaila wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:I don't see anywhere it says the item is the one casting it. Furthermore, on pg. 37, in the example, it says, "when the Noble attempts to cast the spell" - indicating the Noble is indeed casting it.

...and of course they should have written it as "when the spell is cast by the item that the Noble is holding".)

They don't write the rulebooks with the idea in mind that a RAW crowd will be parsing sentences trying to find hidden treasure. The item casts the spell, you cannot add your wizard level, don't need to be a wizard to use it, and the miscast affects the item, not the person holding it. I would not allow the slann to add dice to attempt to use a bound item.

My least favorite phase: The Semantics Phase

(Oh, and my solution to the issue is ... ban focused rumination )

- Salvage

Duke_Corwin wrote:The last sentence in the first paragraph under bound spells on Page 37 says:

"Possessing a bound spell does not make a character a wizard - he just has an item that can cast a spell."

Seems like it is saying the cast is from the item not the character - the character just activates it.

Later it says that bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have.

I didn't see anyone respond to this... is that what page 37 says? The line certainly makes it sound like the item is the one casting the spell...

I don't see any evil geniuses at work on either side of this issue although it certainly is open to abuse if rumination or the like does apply... however, RaW I think you need a bit more to go on to say that it does add to the bound item (if Duke_Corwin's post above is correct per page 37... which I need to go home and check ), rather than proof that it doesn't.

RiTides wrote:I didn't see anyone respond to this... is that what page 37 says?

Indeed it does.

There are more instances which say the user casts the bound spell than the item casts the spell.

CLassic writing.

Page 37, in the section on bound spells, under 'Casting Bound Spells'

"Note that bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have (for Wizard level, magic items, and so forth). On the other hand, failing to cast a bound spell does not break a wizards concentration, as using an item that contains a bound spell normally would not require anything more complex than uttering a single word of activation"

I think people can read that and decide for themselves how they want to play it, but seems fairly clear, RAW or RAI.

I read that as strong evidence in favor of the user casting the spell.

If they wanted the item to cast the spell, it would be easy to say "the item casts the spell" and obviously, you wouldn't add caster value and obviously, you wouldn't break concentration.

Only if the model is casting the spell do you have to add rules that DO apply to other spells that model would cast!!

I anxiously await the legal mumbo jumbo that will now come out to try and explain how adding a dice to the casting value is not a modifier.

It isnt a casting modifier as you are changing the number of dice rolled.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There are more instances which say the user casts the bound spell than the item casts the spell.

But surely that isn't justification for choosing one over the other? It's a conflict that has to be resolved.

Killjoy00 wrote:If they wanted the item to cast the spell, it would be easy to say "the item casts the spell"...

But what about the quote above from page 37? It specifically says "Possessing a bound spell does not make a character a wizard - he just has an item that can cast a spell."

SO, this is an instance of a specific rule overriding a general rule. Generally, a wizard can cast spells. Specifically, this is a bound spell. On page 37, it says that the item casts the spell. This overrides the general "he's a wizard" rule, and you just cast the spell from the item as you would if it was on any model.

Just my $0.02 and maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the clear evidence that you guys are seeing for it being RAW an open and shut case for adding dice from a wizard ability. At best, there's a conflict (see the quote from page 37 above... can somebody please respond to this ) and so it is not clear, because there are sentences supporting both stances.

To me, that means it comes down to which rule is more specific (and so overrides) and I think it's the one on page 37 saying the item casts the spell.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It isnt a casting modifier as you are changing the number of dice rolled.

And how are you coming by that explanation? Is the term 'casting modifier' defined anywhere in the book?

Normally under "modifiers" which explain addition or subtraction of a number from a dice total. So +1 to cast is a modifier. Luckily this would be the English definition as well...

RITides - did you read the second sentence of my post? Nowhere did I say it was "open and shut" just that they state the USER casts the bound spell more than they say the item does. In a balance of probabilities this suggests the former is true. You are simply taking the latter as true based on a single instance, which HAS to be flimsier....

The English definition would be anything that changes something. Adding another die when casting something would be, by an English definition, a 'casting modifier'.

Page 7, modifying dice rolls, disagrees with you. First two lines define how you modify a dice roll, which is by adding or subtracting a number from the D6. It then talks about how to work out other dice rolls.

The bound item doesn't mention modifying the casting die roll but rather

any casting modifiers

IE any modifier to casting.

And casting requires you to roll dice, and the only point at which "casting modifier" makes ANY sense at all is when you roll dice.

So it is modifying the dice roll caused as part of the casting process.

Other things make sense in a casting modifier situation. For instance, being able to extend the range of of a spell, the ability to target multiple units with a spell, the ability to add a dice to the casting of a spell, the ability to have irresistable force (Or miscast) on any roll of a double.

All of those are modifiers to the casting of a spell. If a caster had that any of those abilities, then they wouldn't be able to affect the casting of a bound item with them.

Except they are not modifiers as defined in the rulebook.

Except that die modifiers is what defined in the rulebook, not casting modifiers.

This seems like an agre to disagree - you arent modifying the casting in anyway shape or form according to the rules, you see it differently.

You are the one using a definition of one thing for something else. I forget the name of the logical fallacy you are commiting, but it is one.

And Focussed doesnt modify casting as it adds dice. This isnt a modifier according to the rules.

nosferatu- but you don't agree that the instance on page 37 is the "most specific?"

I just think using the number of times it's mentioned a different way in the book is very poor justifcation for going with that ruling. Perhaps "open and shut case" was too strong of wording on my part for what you're saying... but I don't think you can use that as any weight at all.

Rather than how many times (what is it, 3 vs 1?) it is mentioned, which instance is the most specific?

Is it NOT page 37?

Anyway, looks like this is going to be a conflict not resolved in the book RAW since there are disagreements in the book itself. However, common sense would lead one to take it the way I and most others in this thread (notable exception Killjoy and yourself) are taking it.

Agree to disagree is fine but I'm just wondering why you're reasoning doesn't revert to the "most specific" instance of the rule, in the case of a conflict... rather than the number of times it is mentioned? (As a general thing, it could apply to other rules as well... I always thought the most specific overrode the others in case of conflict, I think the BRB even says this although I don't have it handy)

Edit: Also, as someone pointed out, this is largely theoretical since 90% of slanns will be equipped with cupped hands of the old ones for their arcane item!

Again, the book defines a die modifier, not a casting modifier.

Skyth - and you are modiffying dice rolls when you roll dice. Part of the casting roll is a dice roll, and you are not modifying that dice roll. If you arent modifying the dice roll you arent modifying the casting roll.

There are many instances where it states the bearer casts the bound spell, and one where they say the item.

Ther is no "most specific" rule here AT ALL - there are rules of equal weight saying opposite things. So you either tae it as entirely equal, thus it is a 4+ every turn.

OR, you decide more instances means that is true, in which case it is the bearer that casts it.

However, the rules do not say that no 'casting roll modifiers' are useable, but rather a blanket 'casting modiifier' is prohibited. Again, you keep on using the definition of one thing and trying to say it applies to something else. That is bad logic.

Again, agree to disagree. I dont see it as a modifier, you do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is no "most specific" rule here AT ALL - there are rules of equal weight saying opposite things. So you either tae it as entirely equal, thus it is a 4+ every turn.

OR, you decide more instances means that is true, in which case it is the bearer that casts it.

I think that logic is flawed. I would say in the case of a conflict between rules of absolute equal weight, you have to make a judgement call... and then we're getting into RAI territory.

However, I would have to see all of the quotations laid out to really decide... but I'm skeptical of your assertion that none of these rules can be taken as more specific. Certainly, I think that's a better method than counting up the number of times a phrase is used, with how inconsistent GW is about that.

Can you point me to the page numbers where it says the user casts the spell? I'd like to lay all the quotes out here and see if they are truly of equal weight, or if one can be determined to be the most specific. That's the only way to resolve this according to the conditions laid out in the BRB (specific rules trumping general ones). There is no principle that says "in case of conflict, count the number of times it is mentioned one way and compare it to the other"... only comparing more specific to more general.

To resolve the conflict in a more RAW, that is the approach I think would be required. Otherwise, it's just guesswork... and at that point we're looking at RAI and people can easily argue the other side as well, so you have no ground to stand on.

Theyre in this thread.

Which is why I said that it is a 4+ at all times. There is equal RAW on both sides, so the ONLY solution is to 4+ it, every time.

Okay, here's where I call shenanigans. Your post a page ago:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule is clear; you can add an extra dice to the casting with FR

You can play it otherwise, but it is a houserule to do so.

Since then you've backed off on your stance a bit and said to 4+ it. However, I've gone through the thread and gathered the evidence. These are (so far) the only rules actually quoted in the thread.

Supporting the wizard casting the bound spell

Page 37 (in the example):

"...when the Noble attempts to cast the spell..."

Other examples:

"A bound spell is cast just like an ordinary spell
using dice from the power pool (the model
may do so even if it is not a Wizard)."

"On the other hand,
failing to cast a bound spell does not break a
wizard's concentration"

Supporting the item casting the bound spell

Page 37 (first paragraph under bound spells):

"Possessing a bound spell does not make a character a wizard - he just has an item that can cast a spell."

Page 37 (under section Casting Bound Spells):

"Note that bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have (for Wizard level, magic items, and so forth). On the other hand, failing to cast a bound spell does not break a wizards concentration, as using an item that contains a bound spell normally would not require anything more complex than uttering a single word of activation"

-----------------------------------------

I don't know why I'm still arguing this. You're making it sound like it's a clear cut toss-up now, whereas a page ago you were equally blunt in making it sound like it was FOR SURE something that focused rumination would modify- so much so that you said it would be a house rule to play it otherwise.

I don't think you're taking the discussion seriously. Look at the two items I bolded above. The first, in the very first paragraph under bound spells, says that the item casts it. The second says "and so forth" when talking about casting modifiers, and lists wizard level, magic items, and so forth. Is focused rumination not falling under "and so forth"? It's a discipline, rather than a magic item, that modifies the casting of a spell. Which is exactly why they put that phrase there in the first place.

Now that I've actually looked at the evidence in detail, I think you should stop waving your hand at "it's mentioned more times one way than the other" (which looking at the above doesn't really seem to be true... except the first one which was used in an example rather than a rules paragraph, the other two just state "a bound spell is cast" and "a bound spell does not break"). The more I look at the actual wording, rather than what you're saying it is, the more I think this idea of "it's mentioned more times one way than the other" is completely untrue.

If you still disagree, that's fine, but imho you have no evidence to support your position. "And so forth" = focused rumination.


Edit: If you want to write a rebuttal, I would really appreciate you looking at the actual supposed "multiple mentions" of the wizard casting the spell that I listed out above. Show me how they are saying the wizard is casting it. As far as I can tell, they only say "a bound spell is cast" and "a bound spell does not break". The only one that actually says a noble casts the spell is in the example! And it's talking about a noble, not a wizard!

And you're comparing that to a sentence that specifically says "an item that can cast a spell" in the very first section of the rules for bound spells! And then ignoring the "and so forth" line outlawings casting modifiers such as wizard level, magic items, and so forth! Where is your evidence???

/wigging out

So an example doesnt count?

You can call shenanigans if you like, however it deosnt alter that a modifier by adding an extra D6 is not what the book calls a modifier, and the rules are unclear on who is casting (item or bearer)
Your second quote from page 37 DOES NOT state, ANYWHERE, that the item is casting the spell. Not at all. Make an argument, dont make one that isnt true.

You have posted evidence that shows that the rules talk about both the item and the bearer casting the spell. Hence a 4+ is one sensible way to deal with it (RAI almost never is, as noone can know RAI)

Seems to me like the "No focus" team is winning so far.

I'd have to agree with Nos that you can use FR with a bound item.

How does Focused Rumination work? It allows you to add one die to your casting attempt, but it's more then just adding a die. It also counts towards your PD limit.

From the LM FAQ: "Q. Does the ‘free’ power dice gained from Focused Rumination count
against the power limit? (p43)
A. Yes."

FR allows you to add one PD to your power pool for the purpose of casting a spell. That on its own leads me to believe that its not a casting modifier. It is modifying your power pool.

Similiarly, the Power Familiar from the WoC book allows you to add one PD to your pool. Would you disallow that one PD from being used to cast a bound item?

@Infreak

The only time you may use Focused Rumination though is when the Slann casts the spell. Thats why the caster in this case is the most important part of the equation.

If the item is casting the spell, then FR would never come into play as the Slann is not attempting the cast and therefore cannot activate FR

If the Slann is casting the spell then FR would be allowed.

That is the crux of the debate.

Since the Item cannot activate by its self, then it must be the bearer that activates it. I would take this as the bearer is casting the spell.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your second quote from page 37 DOES NOT state, ANYWHERE, that the item is casting the spell. Not at all. Make an argument, dont make one that isnt true.

Nosferatu, the second quote was obviously there (was I went on to explain) to show that this rule disallows the use of Focused Rumination, regardless of the debate on who is casting the spell.

Here it is again for reference:
"bound spells never benefit from any casting modifiers that the user might have (for Wizard level, magic items, and so forth)"

Are you stating that Focused Rumination would not fall under "and so forth"?

If so, that is all I need to know.

Imho, this debate has missed the point. Even if there is ambiguity about who is casting the spell (and why wouldn't there be? it's an item that someone has to utter a magic word to activate) there is a clause in the rule specifically prohibiting things like focused rumination affecting the cast. Debating the definition of "casting modifier" also misses the point. "And so forth" is a catch all for anything like this. Until I see that refuted, I hold the stance that you have no case... the evidence is very against what you're saying, as I wrote out in detail above.

I already answered, this, about 3 times. It is not a casting modifier, so no, it does not count.

Actually, you haven't answered it. You've answered what a die-roll modifier is defined as. You haven't given a rule-supported answer as to what a casting modifier is.

Yet again, I have done. You just didnt read my answer. Much like your insistence in 7th that over "guessing" wasnt against the rules when it was.

Adding a free dice is not a casting modifier, because it is not a dice modifier as defined in the rulebook. It may affect your casting roll, but it is not modifying the casting roll according to what the ruebook is after.

There are more to casting than just rolling dice. Therefore casting modifiers includes more than just die roll modifiers.

*shrug* you see it that way, I dont.

Hey, you're always welcome to house-rule it and have Focused Ruminations give you the extra D6 for bound spells.

Nos is rarely wrong, and in this case he isn't. Adding a dice to a roll is not the same as +1 to cast or anything that MODIFIES the dice that were rolled.

If the rule said "+d6 to casting rolls" then it would be a modifier. It is not worded as such. It specifically states that you roll an entire extra dice at the same time as the others, thus not modifying any roll as the extra dice is PART of the roll, not a modification of it.

skyth wrote:Hey, you're always welcome to house-rule it and have Focused Ruminations give you the extra D6 for bound spells.

You're welcome to houserule it and pretend that something specifically stated as not being a modifier (check the rule again, it states itisnt a modifer *at all*) IS a modifer, and therefore make FR not work. Up to you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have posted evidence that shows that the rules talk about both the item and the bearer casting the spell. Hence a 4+ is one sensible way to deal with it (RAI almost never is, as noone can know RAI)

If it's a house-rule either way, then it's a 4+ issue... as you already stated earlier in the thread!

We've gone in circles enough times here... I admit it got my ire up, but I think both sides are pretty clear at this point (and the RAW is not... I'll even admit that). It just bothered me that it was being presented as clearly one way, when there's evidence for both sides.

So yeah... cease fire and all that

nosferatu1001 wrote:

skyth wrote:Hey, you're always welcome to house-rule it and have Focused Ruminations give you the extra D6 for bound spells.

You're welcome to houserule it and pretend that something specifically stated as not being a modifier (check the rule again, it states itisnt a modifer *at all*) IS a modifer, and therefore make FR not work. Up to you.

I'll go with Skype. You just keep hammering the same thing over and over, somehow assuming you can beat people down. Doesn't seem to be working, and yes, we do read your posts. Reading them doesn't make us magically agree with them.

Play it your way. Others will play it differently. At a tournament, ask the TO.

Valueless posts abound....

Skyth didnt read the post, as I had answered the question. Not agreeing with it is not the same thing at all.

Actually, I did read the post and like I said, you are using the definition for one thing for something else, thus having a logical error rendering your argument invalid.

Which i refuted, and you then ignored. Making your rebuttal(s) harping on about the same point still invalid. But carry on, believe what you want to.

Actually, your refutal was just restating the same, incorrect thing. Unless you mean when you said that since casting involves rolling dice, it must be a die roll modifier...Which is incorrect because casting involves more than rolling dice.

So try again.

Nope, dont need to.

As I have already said, I am convinced, I have no need to convince you.

Well, at least I convinced the silent majority

If the extra die counts as a power die in respect to the maximum number of dice pool, then wouldn't it be modifying the dice pool and not the casting roll?

Shush, apparently everything is a modifier in skyths world...

If you treat focused rumination as a modifier, then would you say that a Slann who casts a spell with 1 "normal" die, then gets a free one from rumination, but rolls a 1 or 2 on the normal die has failed to cast per the rules on a natural 1 or 2 without bonuses?

I can't see that being true at all. I really don't think the die roll is a modifier in any sense of the word, although I do think the "who is casting" is a much closer call.

Again, die roll modifier is different than casting modifier.

and focused rumination is neither, but a modifier of the Power Dice Pool.

It's a different than the normal casting process, thus it modifies casting and is thus a casting modifier which is prohibited from being used on bound items.

I agree with you Arion. But Skyth, the failure on 1 or 2 doesn't say "die roll modifier" it says it is a failure "regardless of any bonus from any source"

Well, it is a bonus, so if the rules say that, then it would fail if it doesn't get greater than 2 without the bonus die.

skyth wrote:It's a different than the normal casting process, thus it modifies casting and is thus a casting modifier which is prohibited from being used on bound items.

Well, if we are applying this to FR, we must then apply it to Master of the Black Arts, Standard of Sorcery, and any other item/ability that grants extra power dice.

Those items don't modify the normal casting process. Focused RUminations has an effect on each spell that is cast.

sure they do, you gain Power Dice through unconventional means. they Modify the Power Dice Pool just like Focus, only difference being that they have to be used at the beginning of the phase. Again Focus DOES NOT modify the casting, merely the Power Pool.

When it is dependant on casting a spell to get it, and cannot not be used, it is a modification of the standard casting process.

If it were, then it wouldn't be included in the maximum power dice in the pool. I'm sorry, there is just too much evidence stacked against you, you are just unwilling to see it.

I haven't seen any evisdence against it being a casting modification. I've just seen people try to twist what the rules say to come up with what they want the answer to be.

By casting, you add a die to the power pool that must be used. That is a modification of the standard casting procedure, as normally casting a spell doesn't add a die to the pool.

Personally, I've been convinced on the casting modifier portion of the rule (that FR isn't a casting modifier, that is).

However, I wasn't convinced on the item/model casting the spell... and I think that's where the crux of the argument is (as someone said last page). And that's where you'll have to 4+ it, or ask the TO at an event.

In practice though, it's not going to come up... in fact, I might offer to a LM player to have an extra dice on a bound spell, if that means they wouldn't take cupped hands

RiTides wrote:
In practice though, it's not going to come up... in fact, I might offer to a LM player to have an extra dice on a bound spell, if that means they wouldn't take cupped hands

+ a whole bunch!

"In practice though, it's not going to come up... in fact, I might offer to a LM player to have an extra dice on a bound spell, if that means they wouldn't take cupped hands "

NEVER!!!!!

I know your frustration with Slann and FR in particular RiTides, and you seem like a pretty cool dude that would be fun to play against.... but c'mon... Slann with FR and Cupped Hands is just so damn fun.

Well, for the LM player anyway LOL

RiTides wrote:In practice though, it's not going to come up... in fact, I might offer to a LM player to have an extra dice on a bound spell, if that means they wouldn't take cupped hands

Actully this thread was started with "blood statuette of spite" in mind so i'd still get both

Arion wrote: I'm sorry, there is just too much evidence stacked against you, you are just unwilling to see it.

A statement that could be applied by both sides of this arguement, and I think has already.)

Until it's FAQ'd, you're just going to have to ask a TO at a tournament how he sees it. TO's really do have to 'Make da Call' in these situations, and players have to accept it that it's going to get played that way at that tournament. In a friendly game, you either batter your opponent verbally until he gives in, or roll a 4+ to decide it.

I think FR is a modifier to casting, and can't be used on bound items. It's how I'lll make da call, and how we will play it in my area.

Feel free to have a different opinion.

mikhaila, would you count FR as a bonus to the "1, 2" rule for casting?

Killjoy00 wrote:mikhaila, would you count FR as a bonus to the "1, 2" rule for casting?

This is the point where I've said I'm done discussing things, stated how I'll Make Da Call, you don't like the answer, so you want to get statements from me that you can then interpret in such a way to show that I'm inconsistant and that you're right about the original topic.

Don't feel like playing the game. Sorry.

I'll stick with "No you can't use FR to add a dice to the casting value of a bound spell". I'm ok with you not liking my reasons, my logic, or how I came to the conclusion.

Feel free to play it otherwise in friendly games. Ask the TO at tournaments.

It's not a game. I'm legitimate interested (and almost started a new thread). How would you Make Da Call on Focused Rumination and "Not Enough Power"?

Not to mention you must now keep all Power Dice gained in unconventional ways from being used on bound Items i.e. Standard of Sorcery, Master of the Black Arts et al. If you don't want to play our "game" that's fine, but they are legitimate questions. you can't have it not count for bound Items, but still count to modify the score of a 1 or a 2 on the "natural" die. You also can't let those other items that give you power dice work when casting bound spells, because that is the same thing. You have to go all or nothing, you can't pick and choose.

Or, if the reasoning for excluding FR is that the item casts the spell (rather than that the extra dice is a casting modifier), you can exclude FR but allow those other situations...

Killjoy00 wrote:It's not a game. I'm legitimate interested (and almost started a new thread). How would you Make Da Call on Focused Rumination and "Not Enough Power"?

Go start a new thread to address that question then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arion wrote:Not to mention you must now keep all Power Dice gained in unconventional ways from being used on bound Items i.e. Standard of Sorcery, Master of the Black Arts et al. If you don't want to play our "game" that's fine, but they are legitimate questions. you can't have it not count for bound Items, but still count to modify the score of a 1 or a 2 on the "natural" die. You also can't let those other items that give you power dice work when casting bound spells, because that is the same thing. You have to go all or nothing, you can't pick and choose.

The game I was referring to was being led down a series of questions so you can then draw some semi-logical conclusion you want to set up. It's a method of winning an arguement if the other party is congenial enough to let you control the conversation.


As to the above "you must" "you can't" and "you have to". BS. If you think they are legitimate questions, go start a thread on those topics, discuss it, and prove those points to peoples satisfactions. Linking several things together with the 'all or nothing' assumption is also not a game I feel like playing.

On the original topic, it's pretty much done, with some people going one way, some going others, and a few in the middle who are going to try and argue until everyone agrees with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:Or, if the reasoning for excluding FR is that the item casts the spell (rather than that the extra dice is a casting modifier), you can exclude FR but allow those other situations...

+1, and the reason I'll be going with no FR for bound items at our upcoming GT and tournaments. The other situations will get looked at independent of some linking to FR.

Ok new thread done.

Your attitude here is really quite amazing. No one is trying to lead you down any roads or feed you "BS." I have no idea why you are acting so defensively.

It was a legitimate question that does have relevance to this rules thread, but is in no way an attack. I had messaged RiTides independently when it first came up because I was interested. Since you brought it up again, I thought I'd ask. Sorry your panties are in a twist.