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.

Yeah, I think you guys are right. These are all good arguments - I think Mystic Shield should stack.

1. It provides a strategic priority for you to target and take out enemy wizards.
2. Although Sporgar's math is all wrong, his point is valid - successfully rolling two Mystic Shields is not a given. I think it's 68ish % to get them both.
3. Your wizards can unbind if you get them into range.

These ideas seem to be a critical blow to any argument that stacking Mystic Shield is too powerful - there are clearly in game ways to mitigate the risk - which is awesome.I

Bottle: I think obviously other sources of bonuses would stack with Mystic Shield (Sporgar quoted the rule on that) - the question was whether or not you could stack the bonus from the same source - that is, a Mystic Shield spell.
So if it were possible to be standing in two different terrain pieces at the same time, would you get a +1 cover bonus from both? That is, would it stack to give you a +2 or would it still only be +1 Cover bonus regardless of how many terrain pieces you were standing in?

The argument at this point is that folks would say: "The rules don't say you can't stack those cover bonuses, so we can!" The other argument would be "The rules don't say you CAN stack them, so we shouldn't!"

I would argue the safer stance is the second one, because the first one opens the game up to ridiculousness (e.g. the rules don't say I can't hop on one leg and get a bonus for this roll.)

Roper argues, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it is NOT the same source - Wizard A and Wizard B are different sources. I'm arguing that the actual source of the bonus is the spell "Mystic Shield" when it gets applied to a unit. If a Mystic Shield is applied to a unit, and then another Mystic Shield is applied to a unit do we get to stack the bonuses from them or does the effect given by Mystic Shield stay the same, a +1 to your save rolls? I think Roper is certainly assuming things when he says it's RAW. If it were so clear, this thread wouldn't exist.

At any rate, this was helpful for me at least to get my mind around it - thanks all!

akempist wrote:

2. Although Sporgar's math is all wrong, his point is valid - successfully rolling two Mystic Shields is not a given. I think it's 68ish % to get them both.

How is my math wrong? You have a 26/36 chance of rolling a 6 or higher on two dice - that's 72%. Successfully rolling all three Mystic Shields is .72 * .72 * .72, or about 37% (less than the 40% I said). Successfully rolling two would be .72 * .72, or 52%. Granted, it's been a decade (or two) since I took probability in college, but I think I did that right.

(Also, it's SQorgar, not SPorgar - the Q stands for Quality)

 Sqorgar wrote:

akempist wrote:

2. Although Sporgar's math is all wrong, his point is valid - successfully rolling two Mystic Shields is not a given. I think it's 68ish % to get them both.

How is my math wrong? You have a 26/36 chance of rolling a 6 or higher on two dice - that's 72%. Successfully rolling all three Mystic Shields is .72 * .72 * .72, or about 37% (less than the 40% I said). Successfully rolling two would be .72 * .72, or 52%. Granted, it's been a decade (or two) since I took probability in college, but I think I did that right.

(Also, it's SQorgar, not SPorgar - the Q stands for Quality)

Yep you're right -- the Q does stand for quality. I calculated 27 to fail, and then flipped it to 83 to succeed - doh! .83 * .83 = 68. When I read your post I thought you were just adding 25s to get to 50% which of course would get anyone in trouble in probability. My apologies!

akempist wrote:
Yeah, I think you guys are right. These are all good arguments - I think Mystic Shield should stack.

1. It provides a strategic priority for you to target and take out enemy wizards.
2. Although Sporgar's math is all wrong, his point is valid - successfully rolling two Mystic Shields is not a given. I think it's 68ish % to get them both.
3. Your wizards can unbind if you get them into range.

These ideas seem to be a critical blow to any argument that stacking Mystic Shield is too powerful - there are clearly in game ways to mitigate the risk - which is awesome.I

Bottle: I think obviously other sources of bonuses would stack with Mystic Shield (Sporgar quoted the rule on that) - the question was whether or not you could stack the bonus from the same source - that is, a Mystic Shield spell.
So if it were possible to be standing in two different terrain pieces at the same time, would you get a +1 cover bonus from both? That is, would it stack to give you a +2 or would it still only be +1 Cover bonus regardless of how many terrain pieces you were standing in?

The argument at this point is that folks would say: "The rules don't say you can't stack those cover bonuses, so we can!" The other argument would be "The rules don't say you CAN stack them, so we shouldn't!"

I would argue the safer stance is the second one, because the first one opens the game up to ridiculousness (e.g. the rules don't say I can't hop on one leg and get a bonus for this roll.)

Roper argues, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it is NOT the same source - Wizard A and Wizard B are different sources. I'm arguing that the actual source of the bonus is the spell "Mystic Shield" when it gets applied to a unit. If a Mystic Shield is applied to a unit, and then another Mystic Shield is applied to a unit do we get to stack the bonuses from them or does the effect given by Mystic Shield stay the same, a +1 to your save rolls? I think Roper is certainly assuming things when he says it's RAW. If it were so clear, this thread wouldn't exist.

At any rate, this was helpful for me at least to get my mind around it - thanks all!

I think Roper is arguing (and this is what I would argue too) is that the "source" never even comes into question. Mystic Shield is not the effect. The effect is +1 save, and this can come from multiple places for example two mystic shields or a mystic shield and a cover save (and there is no difference between the two because they all give +1 save).

 Bottle wrote:


I think Roper is arguing (and this is what I would argue too) is that the "source" never even comes into question. Mystic Shield is not the effect. The effect is +1 save, and this can come from multiple places for example two mystic shields or a mystic shield and a cover save (and there is no difference between the two because they all give +1 save).

But Bottle - you say the "source" never even comes into question ... but in the next sentence say "The effect is the +1 save, and this can come from multiple places" -- but "coming from multiple places" means you are considering the source of the bonus. Right? Where the bonus comes from matters. If the bonus comes from cover you get to add +1, if you have a Mystic Shield applied you get to add +1, if you have ANOTHER Mystic Shield applied (from a different wizard) you get to add +1....or do you?

If you say the source of the bonus is the wizard who cast it: clearly you can stack the +1 save bonuses from the separate Mystic Shields being applied - and I think that's what you guys are arguing - and it's a sound argument.
If you say the source of the bonus is the spell Mystic Shield when it gets applied to a unit, then a unit that has Mystic Shield applied gets a +1 save bonus. Another wizard applying the same Mystic Shield spell is possible, but a waste since we don't have anything that says it necessarily stacks - I think this is also a valid argument.

e.g.
Unit is in Cover: +1 to save.
Wizard A's Mystic Shield: +1 to save.
Wizard B's Mystic Shield: +1 to save.
Total: +3 to save for the unit.

vs.

Unit is in Cover: +1 to save.
Mystic Shield: +1 to save.
Mystic Shield: +1 to save (a second application of which still just gives the unit Mystic Shield...so "overwrites" the previous one, so to speak)
Total: +2 to save for the unit.

It's kind of academic at this point anyway I suppose.

Yep we'll just have to agree there are different interpretations. :-)

To try and explain my reasoning, Warmachine is a really good example of non-stacking bonuses.
E.g. Warcaster casts 'Strength' on a unit, unit receives the effect 'Mighty Strike'. Units affected by mighty strike gain +2Str.
(Names made up).
So no matter how many times a unit is given 'Mighty Strike', it only gets the bonus once, because the spell applies an effect, not a straight modifier.
In the case of Mystic Shield, you don't give the unit a 'Mystic Shield' effect - the unit simply gains +1 to saves.
I've yet to find an example in the rules where any indication is given that a modifier cannot be applied multiple times to a unit.