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.

Except that isnt what the rules say.

Interesting fluff basis (although countered by other, logical fluff arguments also presented) except the rules ask for the MINIMUM value in THE spells description.

There is a single description
There is only ONE value that is the minimum value in that description.

Within the description it also say that

"The Wizard can choose to cast a more powerful version of the spell ... If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+"

The wizard has chosen to cast the more powerful version and the cast number beside the spell has to be changed to 20+ as the spells rule requirement, so when looking at the description of the spell minimum cast value it is now 20+. After opting for the stronger spell the 16+ no longer exists for the spell in play. (the only reason you still see it in the description is because the book cannot re write itself.)

Except that isnt what the rule asks for.

There is ONE minimum value in the ONE description of the ONE spell you have just cast. You are still either atguing there are two descriptions, or that the word "minimum" has no meaning. Neither are correct, both involve rewriting or parsing the sentence in a way other than English would do.

Don't put words in my mouth. This rule is within the 1 description and it clearly states the casting value has to be changed to 20+.

'the minimum casting value' is still 20+ as it is the smallest possible number the spell could of been cast on. There is no way after opting for the stronger version that it could be cast on a 16+ as 16+ doesnt exist, it has been changed to 20+ for the duration of the spell.

Except you are utterly changing the wording.

The minimum casting value IN *the* description is 16+

You cannto show otherwise.

I'm pretty sure I am not.

"The Wizard can choose to cast a more powerful version of the spell ... If he does so the casting value is increased to 20+"

16+ becomes 20+ as it is increased to 20+.

'The' refers to the spell in play you are trying to dispel. Which according to the above rule within its description has a minimum casting value of 20+ due to the opting for the stronger version. It has to count as a minimal casting value because after the opt there is no possible way for it to be cast without scoring 20+

I'm surprised this is still going. Both sides have valid viewpoints, both sides have local areas that play with their interpretation of the rule. It's been made pretty clear how participating individuals would make the call. Are we sure this can't just sleep with the fishes at this point?

Kirbinator wrote:I'm surprised this is still going. Both sides have valid viewpoints, both sides have local areas that play with their interpretation of the rule. It's been made pretty clear how participating individuals would make the call. Are we sure this can't just sleep with the fishes at this point?

I have the feeling we both suffer from the "No I'm right" complex. But sure I will let it die. I suppose we both repeated our points to each other enough times lol.

Syantic - so in a single description of a spell (which we can all agree on, right?) you are saying the minimum value in the description of the spell (not the power level of the spell you cast, but the description in toto) is not *actually* the minimum value of the entire description, but in fact the highest (potentially) value in the entire description?

And that doesnt seem odd to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Essentiallyou are asked to find the minimum value in the following:

description = {text, 16+, text, 20+}

You are directed to only look at minimum values, not taking any consideration for the text of the description, just the values.

SO you find the minimum value. Which is 16+

Your method finds the maximum value.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Essentiall you are asked to find the minimum value in the following:

description = {text, 16+, text, 20+}

You are directed to only look at minimum values, not taking any consideration for the text of the description, just the values.

SO you find the minimum value. Which is 16+

Your method finds the maximum value.

That's out of context though. Those two blocks of 'text' in the description tell you want the numbers stand for, in this case that second block of text basically tells you to now ignore the 16+ because you are solely dealing with the 20+ because you are boosting the spell.

Except that the rule you are trying to follow doesnt care about the "context" of the text, it only cares about values within the block of text.

You are told to look in the description and find the minimum casting value in that description.

There is ONE description with multiple values in it. Only ONE of these values can be accurately descrbed as "the minimum value", and it never changes. It is entirely independent of what power level you cast the spell at.

Round and round we go. I mentioned all this post 5, first page and the argument has remained the same.

I think this "discussion" has run its course unless someone has new information or a new angle. Each side repeating itself for 2.5 pages isn't very constructive.

Don't give up yet guys, if we make enough noise GW might take notice and include this in the next FAQ. Not to mention that lizardmen are one of the armies that didn't get a new FAQ with the last wave of updates so it shouldn't be far off.
In fact go spread it to other forums just in case

Reading this thread is like watching Nascar in word form....

My 2 cents... In the single spell 'Transformation' there are 2 versions of the spell, the standard and the boosted version. For boosted spells you must make note that the boosted version of the spell was cast.

So we declare that we are using the 20+ version. How many casting values does transformation of kadon have... 1, a 16. How many casting values does 'boosted' transformation have... 1, a 20. The minimum of each set of numbers is 16 or 20, depending on the version. VERSION MUST BE SPECIFIED!

You declare you will be dispelling my RIP spell. You must declare WHICH VERSION you will be dispelling, standard or boosted. The same spell can have multiple instances which are different.

Example: I have 2 wizards cast miasma on the same unit. First casts boosted version, and your unit takes -1 to a bunch of stats. Now, for a particular combat -1 to WS isnt enough, so I cast the standard version of miasma to try and get a lower value, and get a -3 to ws.

Your turn, you declare you will be dispelling miasma. First, however, you must declare which of the 2 versions of the spell you will dispell, as each functions differently and has their own rules.

IMHO Nos and Killjoy have glossed over the fact that there indeed are 2 versions of numerous spells, not 1 spell with 1 description and 2 casting values; the version is very important and must be specified.

From a RAW standpoitnt I would have to agree with NoS and Killjoy on the matter. It only ever tells you to use the minimum value in the spells description. It doesn't say or even hint at using the minimum value for the boosted spell. It is possible that it was meant to be this way to balance out how powerful magic has become.

From a logical standpoint dispelling at the boosted value makes more sense. However, RAW doesn't always follow logic. If you are supposed to dispel it at the boosted version it should have been worded differently.

In a game I would play it either way depending on how my opponent would want to do it. I'm not really concerned with which was is the "correct" way. It'll either get FAQ'd (I hope it does. I'm interested to see how GW meant it to work) or it'll remain one of those grey areas.

syanticraven wrote:
If a wizard picks to cast the second (boosted) version of the spell you cannot pick to dispel the first version as it has not actually been cast.

That tells you right there. it uses the boosted spells minimum value because that was the spell cast plain and simple becasue the lesser version was not cast. Syanticraven has it right. you cant argue symantics on this one.

The symantics youa re arguing is the fact you dont understand context. when it says minimum it is reffering to what is needed to cast the spell at tis base. Meaning you disrgard the roll that was used to initialy cast the spell, So say i cast transform and decided to boost the effect and roll a 40, then you have to match my 40 on the first time you try to dispell it and on any subsequent turn after that it goes back to being a 20 to dispell for the remainder of the battle. The fact that in the spell it says if you boost it the spells casting total then becomes 20+. The spell itself changes.

Edited by Manchu. Stay polite and on-topic.

Infreak: "It only ever tells you to use the minimum value in the spells description. It doesn't say or even hint at using the minimum value for the boosted spell"

It does say you must specify which version of the spell, boosted or standard, you are using, and make note of it. Thus, I declare the boosted spell version, it remains the boosted spell version. There are 2 versions of the spell in the description, and the spells are different entities from each other. To read the description of the standard spell (including casting cost) when dispelling the boosted versions is to be reading the wrong spell.

I try to say goodbye and I choke...


Look - if it worked the way you are trying to say, there is NO reason for the word minimum to be there.

Try it.

Take out the word minimum.

Now it works exactly the way you say.

In fact, that's how it worked in 7th. There was no word minimum there.

Now there is. And that word only has meaning if you use the 16 rather than the 20.

Mmm, this is murky!

Glad to have this brought to my attention, though, as I'd never considered it... also agree that both sides have made their points abundantly clear by now

Edit: Nice song reference

DevianID - So your argument is there are now two spells, the boosted and the normal version?

Odd, i can only see one spell name there. Nope, cant see two.

YOU have to make note of which version you are trying to cast, as it stops you failing the higher version and pretending you went for the lower one.

However nothing in the actual rules for dispelling RIP makes any mention ever at any point in time whatsoever about what version of the spell you cast. All it cares about is finding the minimum value in the description.

To the poster talking about context: reading is tech. Try it.

Killjoy00 wrote:I try to say goodbye and I choke...


Look - if it worked the way you are trying to say, there is NO reason for the word minimum to be there.

Try it.

Take out the word minimum.

Now it works exactly the way you say.

In fact, that's how it worked in 7th. There was no word minimum there.

Now there is. And that word only has meaning if you use the 16 rather than the 20.

I still dont think that youur correct But after reading throughh the rule book, yes GW did fail to make it clear, the word i thought thatw as there is indeed not. they failed to cite an example which they shouuld have done as they did with every other entry of relevence in that section. i appologize for being a rude ass.

TitanKiller, congrats on being a straight-up, honest b.a.

I wonder what would happen if both sides admitted that the other side did, in fact, have a point.

1- Dispel at the lowest number required to cast the spell. This is legit, because the mathematical phrase 16+ and 20+ implies that the number stated is a minimum.

2- Dispel it at the lowest possible value. This is legit, because the above argument could function with or without the word "minimum", which has been included, compared to 7th edition, and thus seems to suggest that the word has a purpose.

Honestly, folks, there's no way to convince the other side of your argument, or else you'd have done it already. I would wager that any further debate is either a stubborn or argumentative gesture. Why can't people state things just a bit tentatively? Descartes already proved that certainty is impossible; can we at least admit that there is the smallest possibility that we're mistaken?

I say we set it aside.

I am the other side and I have already admitted nos has a very good point.

Well there is only one way, its the fact that Gw failed to cite an example for a rule that needs one. They say that the power for the spell fades, but they don't clarify what is needed to maintain a boosted spells power. As in if you cast Transform boosted turned into a fire dragon and then the spells power dwindles some shouldn't you then turn to a lesser form, since the power that was needed to make the trasnformation in the first place isn't there anymore. The inital part of the rule i had quoted from another acctualy is not in the the actual ruling once i was able top read it for myself. i checked the Faq's as well and no mention of this case was made there either. So who the hell knows what Gw acctualy intended it to be in the first place.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DevianID - So your argument is there are now two spells, the boosted and the normal version?
Odd, i can only see one spell name there. Nope, cant see two.
YOU have to make note of which version you are trying to cast, as it stops you failing the higher version and pretending you went for the lower one.
However nothing in the actual rules for dispelling RIP makes any mention ever at any point in time whatsoever about what version of the spell you cast. All it cares about is finding the minimum value in the description.
To the poster talking about context: reading is tech. Try it.

So nos, my point is that there are 2 versions of the spell transformation. By the words you wrote, you acknowledge there are 2 versions of the same spell that you must make note of which was cast. Yet then you say that there is only 1 spell name and dismiss the 2 versions?

Basicly, you go to dispell a RIP spell. You comment that dispelling RIP makes no mention of boosted/regular--fair enough. HOWEVER, what spell are you dispelling? You must specify which spell is being dispelled, and the boosted version is different, and noted to be different (by our mutual consent) than the non-boosted version.

What is the minimum casting value for boosted transformation? What spell are you dispelling--boosted transformation.

DevianID wrote:What is the minimum casting value for boosted transformation? What spell are you dispelling--boosted transformation.

Unless I am totally missing something, the point is that there is not actually a spell named "boosted transformation" or whatever. Even if there are two versions, they share one description in the book. That description is what is referenced by the rules in question.

Regardless, glad to know this one as I am starting a new list for Fantasy discussions prior to the game.

Thanks folks!

You do have it right, the wording of the rules is that the casting wizard has the option to infuse the spell with more power to get a greater effect, however under the remains in play poartion of the description when it talks about the spell losing power and needing to only match the minimum spell dificulty to dispel it dosn't dictate which is the correct number, which we come to the impass of Does the spell require the original power it took to cast it or does it only require and effective "upkeep" of power meaning that it only has X amoutn of power sustaining it that needs to be dispelled. They cited the example of the bright wizard fire force cage and the boosting it to the 14+ to cast from 11+, but did not site what would happen with say Purple sun when cast at the 25+ spell level wether you have to beat 25 or 15 only that you DON'T need to beat the original casting total of the dice rolled only the minimum requirement for the spell. In all basics its a GW issue to be dealt with and no one who is not a writer or developer of the 8th edition rule set can ever awenser as to what the intention of the rule set is.

Kirsanth - that was exactly my point.

You have ONE spell named "transformation of Khadron"

THat spell has a *single* description of how the spell works, either as a 16+ or a 20+ , but it is still ONE description.

So when you are told to find the minimum value in the description of the spell, you must do the following:

1) Find the spell you want to dispel. Name of "Transformation of Khadron" - check.
2) Find the minimum value within that description. There are 2 values in the spell (note singular, not plural) description - 16+ and 20+. Only one of these is the minimum value
3) Once you have found the minimum value you can then attempt to dispel.

Nowhere ini the directives for Transformation are you allowed to a) determine if there is a higher level of spell in play - only the OWNING player makes a note, not the opposite number! or b) divide the description up into 2 descriptions.

The minimum value of description(Transformation of Khadron) = {text, 16+, text, 20+} is always, 100% without exception 16+.

Sorry guys but in the BRB it says you need to beat the casting value of the spell to kill it.

If the spell is cast at a 18 you will need a 19 to stop it. I know I didn't believe it myself but it's there.