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.

Warpsolution wrote:Nosferatu, it seems you are implying that the spell's "description" is it's name and the number that follows. Is this true?.

No what he means is that the number that follows is the spell's minimum casting value, as it is the lowest value given in it's entire decription.

Ah, yes, of course. I was attempting to understand the statement using (definition of "minimum" 1) instead of (definition of "minimum" 2).

So a thank you to Hoverboy, and a "do you see where I'm going now?" to Nosferatu.

I don't think your point changes what nos and I have been saying.


How many spells is Transformation of Kadon?
The answer to this has to be 1. You roll a 6, you get this one spell. It has different versions, but it is one spell.

How many descriptions does Transformation of Kadon have?
The spell has one description. That is all the text the follows it on the Lore page.

How many minimums does that description have?
Again, one. That is 16.

When the rules say use the minimum in the description, they mean 16.

Your third point is where the problem is. How many "minimum casting values" does it have? That depends. If you mean "the lowest casting value", then you are correct. If you mean "the minimum number required to successfully cast the spell", it would be two.

So the rules could mean 16, or they could mean 16 or 20. Until someone provides evidence that one definition is more clear than another, it's up for grabs. I would tend to agree with you for easy playing, but, from what I've read, the text seems to imply otherwise slightly more than they imply this.

To be honest I was trying to get some new insights into the problem by posting it here. So far both points still seem valid to me.
"Minimum casting value" can refer to the actual minimum of the spell or it can refer to the minimum number needed to roll to cast, which changes when you cast a boosted spell.
BTW "minimum" doesn't imply 2 casting values, the 7th Ed had the same phrase. Its most likely an oversight by the writers not realizing that "minimum casting value" and "casting value" are no longer interchangeable because of the implications created by the phrases.

Actually Leith, you are wrong and that's a great point.

In 7th, the rule read:
"Note that the player only needs to beat the casting value of the spell in question - he does not have to beat the original casting score."

In 8th, the rule reads:
"a Wizard does not need to beat the original casting dice roll . . ., but rather the minimum casting value listed in the spell's description"


Clearly, they added the word minimum. As I've pointed out about 15 times, that word does not have any meaning if you try to explain the rule other than I have. A casting value is the value you need to attempt to cast. A spell's description lists multiple casting values, but only one minimum casting value. That is the value you use to dispel.

Killjoy00 wrote:
Clearly, they added the word minimum. As I've pointed out about 15 times, that word does not have any meaning if you try to explain the rule other than I have. A casting value is the value you need to attempt to cast. A spell's description lists multiple casting values, but only one minimum casting value. That is the value you use to dispel.

"If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+" This is part of the description why are people ignoring this, it is in the spells description and is referring to the minimum casting value being changed as soon as the controlling player says "I am casting the Boosted..."

If you ignore that sentence then yes you are correct but that sentence is key to this. It clearly states once you have opted for the boosted spell that minimum casting for the spell is increased to 20+. The description is the entire pharagaph and the rulings within it.

You do not have to split it into 2 spells with 2 different descriptions. You just have to read the rules, you are dispelling 'the' spell that is in play. And the spell in play opted for the casting value in the description to be increased to 20+ it does not reset in the next turn -the rule remains in play while the spell does, otherwise it would note in the rule that it resets . As the minimum casting value for the Transmutation of Kadon is 20+ due to the player opting for that rule to come into play.
It does not say. I find it extremely hard to take from this that the minimum to cast 'the' spell is 16+ as the rule states that this has been increased to 20+.

It says increase for aa reason.

Also, Sol be calm it is a discussion not a battle.

If I ever came across this problem myself I would hope to run it this way to be fair to my opponent (I find it lacking in spirit if I need a 16+ to dispell a spell which had a minimum casting value of 20+) I also hold the staff in the GW accountable as a unofficial FAQ but it can be argued their ruling is moot. If tey disagree then I will offer them a roll off to decide or get the TO

The minimum is the lowest number out of a set of number need to obtain a certain function. In our case here the function being turning into a mountain chimera. To obtain this function need a need to reach a minimum casting value of 20. I decide to use 6d6 to attempt to reach this minimum casting value, and succeed with a roll of 28. 28 is now the total casting value of my function. On your next turn you decide to try to turn me back to normal. Lucky for you the original casting value has faded, and need only reach my minimum casting value for my mountain chimera which is the lesser the numbers I used to reach my function.

Yes this is a mathematical definition of minimum, but is the correct use of the definition. I have not known our played against anyone that reads this rule any other way. It is not the lesser value it is the minimum value that the spell required to be cast that you have to dispel for the RIP spells. The the 20+ spell required a minimum casting value of 20 so you have to dispel it on a 20 or double 6' s.

Oh and sorry didn't mean to be brash it just seems like arguing for arguments sake. The mathematical definition is minimum is what it is, and you can't make the minimum of a function a number that wasn't a part of it originally. A minimum of 20 can't also have a minimum of 16.

There is only one number needed to turn into a mountain chimera. That number is 20.

Do you agree with this?

If so, they could have said "the casting value" just like they did in 7th edition, and you would need a 20 to dispel it.

So why did they put the word minimum there, unless to distinguish between the TWO casting values in the SPELL'S description.

1) also supports our side - the least quantity possible is 16+

The entirety of the spell text is the description. There is one single description which contains the minimum value.

You still have failed to eliminate the use of the word "minimum", which is crucial here. There is no need for "minimum" in your interpretation.

Killjoy00 wrote:There is only one number needed to turn into a mountain chimera. That number is 20.

Do you agree with this?

If so, they could have said "the casting value" just like they did in 7th edition, and you would need a 20 to dispel it.

So why did they put the word minimum there, unless to distinguish between the TWO casting values in the SPELL'S description.

So when some dude gets lucky and rolls a 36 on 6d6 you wont have to spend the rest of the game trying to roll a 36 to dispel a mountain chimera while it eats yor army. You just to roll a 20 or double 6' s.

Sol, reading fail:

In 8th, the rule reads:
"a Wizard does not need to beat the original casting dice roll . . ., but rather the minimum casting value listed in the spell's description"

It clearly distinguishes between the "original casting dice roll" which is what you are referring to and the "casting value" which is 20. And the minimum casting value in the spell's description, which is 16.

Killjoy00 wrote:Sol, reading fail:

In 8th, the rule reads:
"a Wizard does not need to beat the original casting dice roll . . ., but rather the minimum casting value listed in the spell's description"

It clearly distinguishes between the "original casting dice roll" which is what you are referring to and the "casting value" which is 20. And the minimum casting value in the spell's description, which is 16.

My reading is fine I am using that as an example to show you the corret use of the term minimum in relation to it's use in removing remains in at spells. Honestly though idc anymore it is what it is, and after playing 8 th since release and winning some good stuff against some really good players I know in competition this is the way it plays and the way it is written in the rules.

So, in summation "im right because i am" is your position?

Nope, that isnt how the rules read - you have removed the need for the word minimum, tried to remove the concept of *one* description as having any meaning, etc.

You're not the only one to play 8th since release. Not only an attempt at appeal to authority, but a flawed fallacy at that...

Yeesh. So, I think Killjoy brings the second valid bit of evidence against my suggestion. The change between 7th's "casting value" and 8th's "minimum casting value" greatly suggests that the word was included for a reason.

Couple that with the first valid argument against me ("if spells have multiple minimum casting values, then the terms 'casting value' and 'minimum casting value' are interchangeable"), and we see something a little more concrete.

Unfortunately, a strong implication is still only an implication. So it's still up in the air.

And Nosferatu, I'm not sure if your harshness is out of a desire to make people feel stupid (and thus get them to accept your views faster) or just a natural thing, but c'mon. "Least possible" could mean "least [successful cast] possible" just as easily as "least possible [number present]". Yes, there is no need for the word "minimum" in this view, as stated earlier, but that does not mean that the word's presence must mean one thing or another, or that it must be vital. GW writers are not philosophers, and the brb isn't one big proof.

I honestly don't understand why it's so hard to present an argument tentatively, and admit that there is, in fact, a different way to look at things.
If everything were as obvious as some of us are making them out to be, why does this thread-why do arguments in general-exist at all? This isn't a case between Right vs. Dumb.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, in summation "im right because i am" is your position?

Nope, that isnt how the rules read - you have removed the need for the word minimum, tried to remove the concept of *one* description as having any meaning, etc.

You're not the only one to play 8th since release. Not only an attempt at appeal to authority, but a flawed fallacy at that...

Actually I have not removed the word minimum. I have explained why it is need in the letter of the rules. Previously in 7th Ed you only had one casting value so they could say you only had to reach the casting value. Now we have up to 3 different casting values so no you have to distinguish between them. By saying you have to reach the minimum they simply mean you have to reach the minimum for what ever particular spell is rip in the case of khadon it can be 2 different thing. Also if the casting value is 20 the minimum of 20 can never be 16 it can only be defined as less then 20. So by your logic the rule have to read that it is dispelled with the lesser not the minimum.

The only appeal to authority that would have any weight here is one to nos himself - that's how I got Hoverboy to change his mind.

Sol, hold on a second.

Nosferatu and crew are suggesting that "minimum" means "the smallest", which is a valid point. If this is the case, the "minimum casting value", meaning the "smallest casting value" is 16.

Also, I do not understand your first point at all. How is it that they need to use the word "minimum" in 8th if the "minimum" is whichever you choose?

Because we have 2 different values 16 and 20. If they wanted it to be dispelled on 16 they would have said the lesser not minimum. The minimum is simply ment to suggest you dispel on the 20 not the total rolled in casting. At the end of the day is just a matter of agreeing to disagree. But I do enjoy the debate. I also don't feel like our point is coming across very well, which is my fault for my poor typing skills.

Also, not trying to get off topic, but what do you think the chances are of some more erratas in the near future?

Considering they just released updated FAQs today for almost all of the army books and BRB, not anytime soon.

Yeah not for a while. I have the feeling it wont ever be answered either.

My argument is that there is a second ruling within the spells description that notes "If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+" -As in if he chooses to cast the higher power spell. I failed to add the beginning because I am currently out of my home. The spell is counted as having 1 value and only 1 value. But tat value is dependant on which version of the spell te player designated to cast. It is all in the one description.

Anyway my argument that this alone notes that the minimum to cast the spell has to be increased to 20+ (It has to be the minimum as it cannot be cast on anything other then 20+ - 20+ is the absolute minimum needed to cast the spell, 16+ does not exist after designating the higher spell, it has been replaced -The rules say it is Increased)

syanticraven wrote:I have the feeling it wont ever be answered either.

Have faith my friend, the halls of 40k YMDC used to be frought with Deff Rolla fussing every few weeks for a good long time until GW felt it was enough of a player issue to say "Yes, we want to sell Deff Rolla upgrades". Actually, I don't think that's a fair example since GW has no monetary gain by a "gw houserule" (see also FAQ) ruling on this one.

Now to post my question for Transformation of Kadon: Whether or not you should put down a new "transformed" model for your wizard. I vote yes, but there again I don't like the idea of 20mm square red dragons.

Kirbinator wrote:

syanticraven wrote:I have the feeling it wont ever be answered either.

Have faith my friend, the halls of 40k YMDC used to be frought with Deff Rolla fussing every few weeks for a good long time until GW felt it was enough of a player issue to say "Yes, we want to sell Deff Rolla upgrades". Actually, I don't think that's a fair example since GW has no monetary gain by a "gw houserule" (see also FAQ) ruling on this one.

Now to post my question for Transformation of Kadon: Whether or not you should put down a new "transformed" model for your wizard. I vote yes, but there again I don't like the idea of 20mm square red dragons.

I dont have my rulebook with me atm but does it say exactly? I remember it saying if the wizard is in a unit then there must be space for the new model to fit into that unit. Or along those lines.

As for the other ruling. I would take the GW stores tournament runners word for now (They are the highest possible authourity I can contact at the moment other then people on this forum and non GW TOs) Sure there word is not law because it is not in the FAQ yet but I will house rule it in with there jurisitiction. I did make sure to ask a few of them and ask it in a non biasis way thought. There is no point in getting them to agree with you when you are both wrong. That would be cheating and I am against all forms of it, after all this is a game for fun.

Thing is the staff in my area are split on the matter. The TO at the tournament where it came up agreed that "minimum" meant the lower value, but my opponent and another staff member we asked said it was changed to 20.

Besides, having been told i was wrong about 7th Ed, leads me to believe I was right all along. There is no point in adding minimum in that descriptor as it appears almost nowhere else (certainly nowhere that i can find), unless it is meant to specifically refer to something. If it were meant to be interpreted as using the new casting value the word "minimum" would have been omitted because its ambiguous.
On the other hand, i will admit they may have just forgotten to edit it out.

It would of been much better if they threw in an example, they done it with so many other things, it would of certainly solved this problem for us.

Lol, like the example that says a hero casts a bound spell? That hasn't made the other thread go any easier.

No but it would have solved this problem for us if they used the boosted version within the example. They just used a horrible example for the bound spell.

Nos and Killjoy have this right. If the rule did not state 'in the spell description' then you could argue that you only have to roll the minimum casting value for that version. The fact that it says to look at the spell description and not concern yourself with the actual spell means that you only have to roll a 16 to dispel it.

Also, to the people claiming that there's 2 descriptions then that would imply that each version is a separate spell and thus castable. So, with that interpretation you could cast fireball 3 times as there are 3 versions of the spell. Clearly you cannot do that thus you have to assume that a spell is actually a spell and not a collection of spells. Man, this side of the argument is confusing. How do you guys function with stuff like this clouding up your brain?

I don't think anyone said there was 2 descriptions just examples that would need 2 descriptions to work they way said other person means.

I think that it logically means the 20+ lvl as that is the one you attempted to cast.