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.

You threw power dice, the Slaan removed it. It doesn't change the fact that you removed a dice from your pool and used it.

/just saying

Ragnar - have you altered the value of the D6? No? Then it isnt a modifier to the Dice Roll

You have entirely removed the dice, therefore there is no value to consider.

So what's the scenario that it fits on, in page 7? Those are the things you can do with the dice within the purview of the BR8...

Seems like the die-roll was modified to me. It's the only part it fits under.

Not that it's a typical modification, but a modification none-the-less.

Scarecrow456 wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:But the loss of concentration has happened. Re-roll all you want, but you can't cast any more spells as you have already lost concentration. So before loss of concentration is evaluated, dice need to be wholesale removed or re-rolled.

Likewise, (and I already stated this...) if he rolled 2 6's and the check came before Slann used Becalming, he would get Irresistable Force immediately. So the spell would be cast even though the total was 0. And it would be undispellable. That obviously makes no sense.

This makes so sense at all. By this logic, re-rolls are useless since your stuck with the original outcome. That means that if you fail a panic test, even if you use the BSB's ability to reroll, your still gonna run away.

Really?
I need a 15 to cast Gateway. I roll 4 dice, and get 1, 2, 3, 3. Is the total of the natural dice greater than 3? Yes, I do not lose concentration and auto fail.
Now I add my +5 (level 4 with mark of tzeench) and use the princes tendrals to re-roll the 1. The 1 comes up a 4, and my total casting goes from 14 (which would fail) to 17 which goes off.
This is based on checking for less than 3 fail on the original completely unmodified power dice.

-Matt

lixulana wrote:i would say that this is resolved by the rule on P10 under sequencing. When there is a problem with the sequencing of events the current player decides the seqence of events. In this case we have multiple things that occur but do not have a seuence of events that is specific.

They say that sometimes. But in this case, it would make Becalming pretty worthless. You couldn't cause someone to fail, you couldn't block Irresistible Force, spells could end up being cast with lower total casting value than the spell actually requires. The only value would be that after all this (or other forced re-rolls), the spell could be easier to dispell, if it wasn't cast with IF. Considering these are pretty pricey bonuses, Tendrils of Tzeentch is 60 pts, Tzeentch's Will is 70, Becalming is essentially 50.

Ragnar - is removing a dice listed as a modifier?
No

So it isnt.

The Slaan does something outside of the BRB. It is not a modifier, it neither fits the English definition of such (if you add and subtract, you modify) nor the BRB Definition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ragnar - is removing a dice listed as a modifier?
No

So it isnt.

The Slaan does something outside of the BRB. It is not a modifier, it neither fits the English definition of such (if you add and subtract, you modify) nor the BRB Definition.

modify: to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend

So yes, it does fit the English definition of a modification, however so would rerolling, which is clearly NOT a modification (as it listed in the BRB in a separate header)

I would rule you could cast it, as the in the Lizardman rulebook it specifically explains it can stop irresistible force, which leads me to believe it isn't a change of the natural roll or that information would be redundant. However if you are want to go by a "purer" interpretation of the BRB, you cannot as only addition, subtraction, and multiplication are modifiers.

I need a 15 to cast Gateway. I roll 4 dice, and get 1, 2, 3, 3. Is the total of the natural dice greater than 3? Yes, I do not lose concentration and auto fail.
Now I add my +5 (level 4 with mark of tzeench) and use the princes tendrals to re-roll the 1. The 1 comes up a 4, and my total casting goes from 14 (which would fail) to 17 which goes off. This is based on checking for less than 3 fail on the original completely unmodified power dice.

What about this example...

You go to cast invocation of nehek, you toss 1 die, you roll a 2. You re-roll the 2 and get a 5.

The natural roll was a 2, and as such was below 3 for determining "not enough power". You would now auto fail the spell, regardless of the reroll. This is why a reroll is NOT considered a modification, as outlined in the BRB.

modify: to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend

So yes, it does fit the English definition of a modification, however so would rerolling, which is clearly NOT a modification

Which is precisely why that definition of modification cannot be correct. What we are left with is adding, subtracting, and multiplying the die rolls. The discard is not a subtraction, it is a removal. They are different. The end result of the dice has changed, but not because you subtracted from the dice, you simply removed a die altogether.

Which is precisely why that definition of modification cannot be correct. What we are left with is adding, subtracting, and multiplying the die rolls. The discard is not a subtraction, it is a removal. They are different. The end result of the dice has changed, but not because you subtracted from the dice, you simply removed a die altogether.

I believe a re-roll WOULD be a modification if the rulebook did not specifically separate them out. "Discards" are not specifically separated out, and are in a more ambiguous zone. CLEARLY they are not re-rolls, so you cant apply to rules for re-rolls to them and assume they make a new natural roll.

The BRB says only "Sometimes you will have to modify the result of a die roll.", and I think this vague wording makes it more likely discarding fits under this. It says nowhere that the ONLY POSSIBLE modifications are adding, subtracting, or multiplying. The reason i said a "purist" (aka word for word interpretation and not a "spirit of the rules") stance would not allow it is because they are the only ones it specifically lists.

While the finer points of the English language don't massively play in, "discard" clearly isn't the same as "modify."

When you are playing cards and you discard, that card is not modified. It is not evaluated. If you discard a jack of diamonds, you did not modify a jack of diamonds and turn it into something else: a puff of air where once there was a card.

If someone says a jacket was discarded by the side of the road, that jacket was not modified by the former owner into a non-jacket. Or a roadside jacket. It was thrown away.

Likewise, modify means change. You can't modify a jacket to the side of the road or modify a card to the discard pile. If you modify your car, putting in new rims, or even modify your body, getting plastic surgery, it's still a car and still a body, respectively.

/end English

Discarding a jacket will not change the jacket, but it will change inside of your closet as it is now one jacket smaller. Discarding the die doesn't modify the die, but it is a modification of the roll, from being 1d6 to 0d6, that is a clear change. Perfect wording is very tricky and I admit to the vagueness of the rules, but as there are no rules for discarding, unless someone can suggest another type of rule covered in the BRB that I am overlooking, modifying is the most accurate description of what discarding a dice does.

Evidence of redundancy is not evidence of necessity. For the most glaring example look at the dice reroll abilities which still tell you about miscast / IF, despite the rules already perfectly covering this.

You have not modified the dice roll, you have made the dice roll cease to exist. Very subtle but key differece.

Tahoth wrote:Discarding a jacket will not change the jacket, but it will change inside of your closet as it is now one jacket smaller.

Lol, no. If someone said, modify that closet, no one would take a jacket out. They would paint it green. Or put a drawing of a walrus on it. That is what defines the closet. If someone said, modify that jacket, you'd put spikes on the collar or add a hood. But you wouldn't modify it by leaving it at the side of the road, because that wouldn't be a modification--though oddly it would be a modification of the road, which is now cluttered with a jacket (an addition). It wouldn't modify the closet. It wouldn't modify the owner, all of which are fundamentally the same.

Out of curiosity that this whole disscussion has brought up, i caved and just called customer support to get their ruling on it. They have sided with the idea that the spell wouldn't go off as you didn't meet the one dice required to cast. They also agreed that this is an interesting situation and will forward this onto the higher ups so it can be added to the next FAQ

Scarecrow456 wrote:Out of curiosity that this whole disscussion has brought up, i caved and just called customer support to get their ruling on it. They have sided with the idea that the spell wouldn't go off as you didn't meet the one dice required to cast. They also agreed that this is an interesting situation and will forward this onto the higher ups so it can be added to the next FAQ

Until an FAQ or errata,


For all that are saying that discarding a roll of a 6 equals a result of 0, it would therefore not meet the prerequisites to have Not Enough Power. That rule states a roll of a 1 or a 2 is a failure. 1 and/or 2 does not equal 0.

The rule for finding the casting value is to add the result of the dice roll (0 in your case) is added to your wizard level to get your casting result. 0+5 would meet a 4+ spell.

Boymac - guessing your didnt read the previous ppages in this thread?

Actually the rules for not enough power state that not reaching a score of 3 is a failure, then tells you that this means 1 and 2 would fail. Not achieving any score at all (you have no dice roll at all) is certainly NOT achieving a score of 3, meaning you cannot cast it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Boymac - guessing your didnt read the previous ppages in this thread?

Actually the rules for not enough power state that not reaching a score of 3 is a failure, then tells you that this means 1 and 2 would fail. Not achieving any score at all (you have no dice roll at all) is certainly NOT achieving a score of 3, meaning you cannot cast it.

I have read the previous pages. The way I see the 'Not Enough Power' rule is that the sentence stating that a 1 or a 2 is an auto-fail is the specific reason whey a result less then 3 would fail. General statement ---> Explained statement. If you take the whole paragraph into context then the '1 or a 2 part' is what you need to look at.

No, if you take the whole paragraph then you need to read both lines.

The first is the requirement that your casting dice is a 3 or more

The second is an explanation that this means a 1 or 2 will fail

Neither contradicts the other, and nothing about the second sentence limits the ONLY failure to being a 1 or a 2. It is A way that your casting can fail, not THE way - THE way is explained in the previous sentence; failing to score a 3 or more.

When you have no dice you did NOT score a 3 or more, you scored <undefined>

The Reason a 1 or 2 is giving as an example, is GW could not think of a way to roll a zero on a D6.
Stupid Slaan.

-Matt

there is no correct answer at this time until there is an official FAQ on it.

IMHO

RAW means that this ability does nothing under this rules set as complete RAW as all sequencing problems are resolved by the active player ( i dont see any exceptions in the rule on p10). As the slann rule was made before the current BRB it has no specific place it takes place in the sequence for determineing not enough power or total power/miscast..

RAI i would assume that this takes place during cast sequence after not enough power and before casting total.

I wonder how one dice vs becalming worked last ed since GW didn't see fit to FAQ it back then.
No bearing on this argument but im still curious.

HoverBoy wrote:I wonder how one dice vs becalming worked last ed since GW didn't see fit to FAQ it back then.
No bearing on this argument but im still curious.

Last edition it wouldn't have been possible to cast a spell unless it was an encantation, there were no modifiers to casting large enough to get you over the minimum casting requirement hump, the incantation would have gone off as though it were a zero.

lixulana - except it isnt a sequence issue. The 6 ius rolled and immediately discarded.

Ragnar4 wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:I wonder how one dice vs becalming worked last ed since GW didn't see fit to FAQ it back then.
No bearing on this argument but im still curious.

Last edition it wouldn't have been possible to cast a spell unless it was an encantation, there were no modifiers to casting large enough to get you over the minimum casting requirement hump, the incantation would have gone off as though it were a zero.

Actually, a Slaughter Master could have eaten all 3 of his tooth gnoblars for a +3, then had his roll of 6 discarded, leaving him with a 3.


-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:I wonder how one dice vs becalming worked last ed since GW didn't see fit to FAQ it back then.
No bearing on this argument but im still curious.

Last edition it wouldn't have been possible to cast a spell unless it was an encantation, there were no modifiers to casting large enough to get you over the minimum casting requirement hump, the incantation would have gone off as though it were a zero.

Actually, a Slaughter Master could have eaten all 3 of his tooth gnoblars for a +3, then had his roll of 6 discarded, leaving him with a 3.


-Matt

"Wait, Slaughtermasters can do that?"
-Ogre Kingdoms Designer

Nagashek wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:I wonder how one dice vs becalming worked last ed since GW didn't see fit to FAQ it back then.
No bearing on this argument but im still curious.

Last edition it wouldn't have been possible to cast a spell unless it was an encantation, there were no modifiers to casting large enough to get you over the minimum casting requirement hump, the incantation would have gone off as though it were a zero.

Actually, a Slaughter Master could have eaten all 3 of his tooth gnoblars for a +3, then had his roll of 6 discarded, leaving him with a 3.


-Matt

"Wait, Slaughtermasters can do that?"
-Ogre Kingdoms Designer

technically yeah,

all Gutmagic is a 3+ to cast.

That doesn't change the fact that you didn't roll a natural 3 to cast in the first place