Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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