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.

Shrug. Nos will be here soon and I'm 95% sure she'll agree with me. I'm surprised at you Hover, you're usually better on the RaW than this.

Killjoy00 wrote:Shrug. Nos will be here soon and I'm 95% sure she'll agree with me. I'm surprised at you Hover, you're usually better on the RaW than this.

Listen to yourself you are acting like the higher authority. This is a discussion on a rule not a battle.

But if you want to argue RAW then read the description where is says "If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+" you cannot mention RAW and leave out an important sentence like that. "If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+" is part of the rules.

Bah. Everyone knows nos is the highest authority, that was my point.

Killjoy00 wrote:Shrug. Nos will be here soon and I'm 95% sure he'll agree with me. I'm surprised at you Hover, you're usually better on the RaW than this.

Fixed that for you!

Minimum casting value in the description is pretty clear - there is a single description of the spell, even if the spell has different versions with different power levels you still have 1 description on which you must find the minimum casting value.

Therefore, to my reading you dispel on a 16+

(Oh, and possible standard maximum (i.e. no IF) is 35, barring extra boosts like Tzeentch bonuses - 5x5, 1x6, +4 for level 4)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:Shrug. Nos will be here soon and I'm 95% sure he'll agree with me. I'm surprised at you Hover, you're usually better on the RaW than this.

Fixed that for you!

Minimum casting value in the description is pretty clear - there is a single description of the spell, even if the spell has different versions with different power levels you still have 1 description on which you must find the minimum casting value.

Therefore, to my reading you dispel on a 16+

(Oh, and possible standard maximum (i.e. no IF) is 35, barring extra boosts like Tzeentch bonuses - 5x5, 1x6, +4 for level 4)

I would still argue that due to the inclusion of "If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+" in that 1 description that you abide by its rules and increase 16+ to 20+ until the spell is removed from play in some way or form.

But there is still only ONE minimum value in the ONE description - the word "minimum" is entirely redundant if what you were saying happened to be true, there is no point in it existing int he phrase.

One description, one possible minimum value in the description taken as a whole. Slightly counter intuitive but perhaps simply an extension of the "fading power" idea of why it is at base casting cost in the first place.

nosferatu1001 wrote:But there is still only ONE minimum value in the ONE description - the word "minimum" is entirely redundant if what you were saying happened to be true, there is no point in it existing int he phrase.

One description, one possible minimum value in the description taken as a whole. Slightly counter intuitive but perhaps simply an extension of the "fading power" idea of why it is at base casting cost in the first place.

It would have to state the minimum casting value, as 'the casting value' would be what ever the player rolled to cast the spell, would it not?
I also thought it may have been the fading power idea, but then in this case the effect of the spell in the next turn would have of also revert to the original base spell as there is no longer enough power to keep the boosted effect in play if it was to coincide with the ruling.

This is why by my logic, the way I read the rule and 'the spirit of the game' that the rulebook mentions so much that it is the way I think. As logically speaking a higher powered spell would need a higher power dispel. If the power faded the effect would also have to fade. and also the inclusion of "If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+" which states that after choosing the boosted version, the minimum casting value has now been increased to a minimum of 20+.

No, because the casting value IN THE DESCRIPTION is whatever "+" value you were required to beat - not the casting *roll*, which is different to the value required to cast the spell.

The idea behind the "power fade" is that the wizard doesnt need much power to keep a spell going - like overcoming inertia, once you have something rolling you only need a small motive force to keep it rolling. So you needed a big boost to get the higher result, but maintaining the higher result requires no more effort than the lower value.

While you are correct that the minimum casting value has been raised while casting, the minimum casting value in *the* description has remained the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because the casting value IN THE DESCRIPTION is whatever "+" value you were required to beat - not the casting *roll*, which is different to the value required to cast the spell.

The idea behind the "power fade" is that the wizard doesnt need much power to keep a spell going - like overcoming inertia, once you have something rolling you only need a small motive force to keep it rolling. So you needed a big boost to get the higher result, but maintaining the higher result requires no more effort than the lower value.

I have a feeling that the "power fade" is more to the point of if you roll something like 30 for the spell you, in subsequent turns, don't have to try and dispel it at 30, but it's casting value.

Wow this is horrible, sorry, but you people saying that you can dispel the 20+ Khadon on a 16+ are way way wrong and have some serious read comprehension problems. You are wrong. Hopefully some of these so called higher powers will come and delete or lock this thread.

Sol wrote:Wow this is horrible, sorry, but you people saying that you can dispel the 20+ Khadon on a 16+ are way way wrong and have some serious read[ing] comprehension problems. You are wrong. Hopefully some of these so called higher powers will come and delete or lock this thread.

I'm quite sure none of the above thread required any question of people's reading comprehension skills nor a "call-to-arms" of moderation to lock or much less delete the thread. While there's certainly an ongoing disagreement, there has been very little to no mudslinging until your post.

I am personally inclined to agree that RaW you must match the minimum casting value of the version of the spell cast. Transformation into a dragon or chimera has a very different description associated with its 20+ minimum casting value than the transformation into a lesser creature description that is associated with a 16+ casting value. RaW advises us to use the minimum casting value per the spell's description. As previously noted both in this and prior posts, the description for the 20+ Transformation (or boosted version of any spell for that matter) is different than the lesser version. You did not cast a 16+ and follow the description of the 20+ spell. You threw a 20+ and followed the description of the 20+ spell. The minimum casting value of that boosted spell description is 20+.

My question to those who believe you could dispel a boosted spell on the lesser value is if you would actually play it that way in the game. Would you allow someone to dispel your large-template Purple Sun on a 15+? I know I'd have a few concerns with allowing that to pass.

Kirbinator wrote:

the description for the 20+ Transformation (or boosted version of any spell for that matter) is different than the lesser version.

This is incorrect. There is only one description for the "spell" Transformation of kadon. A spell is one of the entries on the charts, of which a wizard typically gets one of per his wizard level. If Transformation were two spells, then you would have to use two of your choices to get both versions. You don't. That's why I kept reiterating that it is one spell. Since it is one spell, it has one description. And in that description, there are multiple casting values. Of which one is the minimum.

Again, the word minimum has meaning. If your explanation was correct, they could have said "the casting value in the description of the spell." If there were multiple descriptions in each single spell, then you would simply look to the casting value, which would be 20+. They didn't say that, they said minimum. That necessarily implies multiple casting values. There are two casting values in the spell Transformation of Kadon. One is 16 and one is 20. One of those is the minimum.

Kirbinator wrote:
My question to those who believe you could dispel a boosted spell on the lesser value is if you would actually play it that way in the game. Would you allow someone to dispel your large-template Purple Sun on a 15+? I know I'd have a few concerns with allowing that to pass.

I have let someone do that and had no concerns. Would you really have to beat a 13+ to dispel Doom and Darkness just because the opposing wizard was 25 inches away when he cast it? I'd have a few concerns allowing that to pass.

Killjoy00 wrote:Would you really have to beat a 13+ to dispel Doom and Darkness just because the opposing wizard was 25 inches away when he cast it? I'd have a few concerns allowing that to pass.

At first glance that's a very good point, but a boosted spell does not necessarily mean the potency is augmented. It is no less an augmented version of the spell though. You have a very good point but I still feel the enhanced range of the boosted spell is part of the separate description. So yes, you would have to match the boosted value to dispel a long-range D&D under that mentality.

If the difference between the minimum and boosted values were not a part of the description of the spell, how would you know what you were casting? Each 8th ed spell does not have a single description. Yes, they are a single spell, but there are two descriptions. How about hexes where the base version of the spell curses a single unit, but the boosted curses every unit within range? Do you simply meet the casting value of the base version and dispel all instances of the hex from the board?

What allows a boosted fireball to get extra hits? What allows a boosted Doom & Darkness to go further? The final effect of the spell is nearly always similar between the two, but the description of the boosted version of the spell is separate from the description of the base spell. That description of the augmented spell also comes with a minimum casting value of the augmented spell that I feel must be matched to dispel.

At the end of it, the conflict seems to lie not in the definition of the word minimum, but in the application of it. Yes, there is an absolute minimum to cast any application of Transformation of Kadon on the board. The boosted version isn't just any application, though. It's a specific application of the augmented spell with a specific, separate description of its final effect that comes at a higher casting value.

I can certainly see your point of view and I'm not saying it isn't a logical, valid argument. I just disagree for the reasons above, it's how I would make the call. At this point it just seems like something to clear with your opponent before the start of the game if you know you're going to be using RiP spells pretty often.

Edited for clarity on one of the lines.

If it helps when I was in my local games workshop (glasgow) I asked to see the Fantasy TO and asked him and he looked at me like I was an idiot and hit me with "It is the boosted versions cast value you use as its minimum cast value was 20+" The other employees agreed when I also asked them. -You need to be certain about these.
I explained the sitation in detail and he says that although it is not clear the ruling is that you used the boosted spells minimum value as you designated that spell before casting.

The text tells you to dispel on the *spells* minimum casting value in its description.

There is ONE spell.

ONE description

ONE minimum casting value in that description.

To parse that otherwise you have to insert multiple descriptions, not one, pretend the spell is actually 2 spells, allowing you to seperate out the description, AND entirely ignore the word "minimum" in the phrase entire.

This is all highly unlikely and ignores most of the rules for English sentences.

Kirbinator - the word minimum is key. Here's why:

I think the argument that a "spell's" description has to mean everything listed under that spell. But let's assume the english language doesn't mean what I think it means.
Under your explanation there are two descriptions. Ok, the "description" for that "spell" says it has a casting value of 20+. Can we all agree on this?

Therefore the rule would merely need to say "meet the casting value in the spell's description." If it said that, then I could see the merit in your argument.

However, the rule does not say that. It says the minimum casting value. Minimum implies more than 1, otherwise the word is once again superfluous. Therefore, description must encompass the whole part of the spell, as the normal use of those words would imply. Once description encompasses the whole part of the spell, we look at said description, we find the minimum casting value and that is the value used to dispel.

And syantic, sadly GW stores are known more to get the rules wrong than right.

Seems like, nos has the RAW (again), besides i'm more than willing to switch sides when it means im not on the troll's side.

Hoverboy, stop you're embarrassing yourself.

I earned that

Can i also convince people I'm male? Just because i mentioned husband doesnt stop that being true you know

Please keep the discussion civil, everyone. WHFB YMDC has a reputation to uphold!

Manchu - we were just joshing each other

And yes nos, I'm sorry, SOMEone misinformed me as to your gender. They have been corrected (as have I)

No worries, it even confused Gwar, who called me a lady....hehe

Yea Manchu we're just messin

Ooh, ooh. I may be able to offer something in a different light (though I do admit, I haven't read all of these posts...most of them, but not all):

Minimum casting value: the lowest number you need to cast the spell.
Transformation of Kadon requires a 16 or higher (16+), so 16 is the minimum. But if you opt for the boosted version, you need a 20 or higher (20+). The minimum casting value increases; otherwise, as stated earlier, you could fail to cast a boosted version but still cast the original.
Now, the matter is whether or not this is the minimum value "in the spell's description". It seems to me that the whole little passage is the spell's description, which means that spells like the Transformation of Kadon have multiple minimum casting values.

A few extra points: p.36 says "so a Wizard does not need to beat the original casting role", not the original value required, but the role that was made to cast. Support, perhaps, for Syanticraven?

And on this "no need to make note of each spell's casting roll", notice that it says, again "casting roll", not the value needed. So maybe we need to make note of which version of a spell is being casted, but not the specific total the wizard rolled? Or maybe GW thought that the Mountain Chimera or the large template-Purple Sun or whatever would be enough to remind us. Or maybe GW messed up.

Any thoughts on this?

Warp - you still haven't answered my point. If you were indeed right and the single spell had multiple descriptions, then why would they have to say minimum. Each "description" has only one "casting value." Therefore, you could say, beat the casting value in the description and not need to say minimum at all.

Minimum only makes sense if there are multiple values in the single spell's description. Oh look, there are. So it makes sense.

Meanwhile, you are still having to twist the English language just to get to that result. The spell has one description. In that description there can only be one minimum value. That value is what you have to beat.

Buh-wah? No, no, no. You mistake me. I did attempt to answer your question. And there is no twisting of words to any higher degree than is inevitable here.

Minimum: the lowest number you need to successfully cast the spell.
So, when it says "16+", it means "minimum of 16". Yes? Well, what about "20+"? It means you need 20 or more. Which means 19 or less doesn't work. Which means 20 is the minimum.

"Minimum" is, I suppose, conditional. The minimum-the "lowest value required"-changes.

Unless you suggest that they do not mean "minimum value needed", but instead, "lowest value listed", which is not what "minimum" means.

Minimum does not mean what you think it means.

But seriously, if minimum meant what you say it does here, "minimum spell value" and "spell value" mean the exact same.

Except there is ONE description and there is ONE minimum casting value in that description.

THAT is what you are twisting - you are trying to obtain either multiple descriptions from one spell (invalid) or you are pretending each value is a different spell (invalid)

Minimum:

1- the least quantity assignable, admissible, or possible.

2- the least of a set of numbers

So the first supports me, the second, you.
Killjoy, I suppose you are correct there. But you see what I'm saying, no? If I were to attempt to cast the boosted version, I could say "I need a 20 or more", which means I could say "I need a minimum of 20". So that could be the minimum casting value. The term is never defined outright, which is why this thread exists.

Nosferatu, it seems you are implying that the spell's "description" is it's name and the number that follows. Is this true? I would hazard that the name, number, and the text that follows (that describes the spell) is the description.

I do not think the answer is so clear as anyone thinks. I don't actually believe one way or the other; I simply saw many arguments that were all worded similarly, so I figured I'd try my hand at presenting the same thing differently.