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.

In a tournament can a player change a wizards lore from one opponent to the next?

Or are you stuck with your first choice.

Thanks in advance.

Lores must (mostly) be chosen at army list creation thus you're stuck with one lore.

afaik, every tournament lets you know in advance. But most force you to choose 1 lore for every wizard, which you keep throughout the tournament. The spells can be changed; you roll at the beginning of each battle.

Skaven ignore that as the Grey Seers can Freely mix between their Two lores if I remember rightly

Which is unlikely as I've not played in a year

Lores are chosen as part of your list, so, unless otherwise stated, you cannot change them in between games, no more than you can decide to swap a unit or two out for another. Lores are just as much part of your list as any unit, upgrade or magic item.

Teclis, Alarielle, and Kairos are the main exceptions, I believe?

And Morathi.

And the mighty Grey Seer and Vermin Lords ! And obviously Thanquol

 Bloodhorror wrote:
Skaven ignore that as the Grey Seers can Freely mix between their Two lores if I remember rightly

Which is unlikely as I've not played in a year

Adepticon fixed this by making you declare how many spells of your 4 were going to be ruin or plague. You can take 2 from each but you will always take 2 from each rolling before each game

It's not a "fix", it's a house rule that is arbitrary

 namiel wrote:

 Bloodhorror wrote:
Skaven ignore that as the Grey Seers can Freely mix between their Two lores if I remember rightly

Which is unlikely as I've not played in a year

Adepticon fixed this by making you declare how many spells of your 4 were going to be ruin or plague. You can take 2 from each but you will always take 2 from each rolling before each game

This would be a "House Rule" Not an official Fix.

TanKoL wrote:
It's not a "fix", it's a house rule that is arbitrary

Its a tournament rule because RAW are not for tournaments it is for an individual game. If the point was to play 5 individual games that would be fine and you would be changing army lists, magic lores, ect. To change the lore of magic or the number of spells from one lore to another would change the list. A specific number of spells are randomly generated at the beginning of the game but to change the number or lore from which they come could effectively change a list completely. Call it a house rule but if their are no rules stated for how to govern the situation, keeping identical lists through the whole tournament, then gaps must be filled.

And this DOES fix the issue for tournaments because

a) spells are still randomly rolled for at the beginning of the game

b) signature spells may be taken as normal

c) results of doubles are handled exactly the same way

d) the same number of randomly generated spells are randomly generated EACH GAME for each lore just the same as the person across the table is rolling for their wizards who do not get to choose from several lores.

This is a very workable fix for tournament environments. The point is to write your list not knowing who you will be playing so the number of spells you randomly generate should have no bearing whatsoever on WHO you are playing but be totally dependent on how YOU are playing YOUR army. Otherwise its list tailoring IMO

It might be a big house rule, but it's still a house rule, we can call it a warehouse rule if it makes you feel better
I run tournaments, I do often tweak some rules in them, but changing something that (technically) works is not a fix, it's a house rule
Allowing Tiq Taq To to join Teradons is a fix (because for once the RAI is obvious and is in conflict with the RAW), changing the way spells are generated for multi-lore users is a house rule

Thats just it, it doesnt change how they are generated at all. Just makes you generate the same way each game.

TanKoL wrote:
It might be a big house rule, but it's still a house rule, we can call it a warehouse rule if it makes you feel better
I run tournaments, I do often tweak some rules in them, but changing something that (technically) works is not a fix, it's a house rule
Allowing Tiq Taq To to join Teradons is a fix (because for once the RAI is obvious and is in conflict with the RAW), changing the way spells are generated for multi-lore users is a house rule

Anything that changes RAW is a house-rule.

 namiel wrote:
Thats just it, it doesnt change how they are generated at all. Just makes you generate the same way each game.

Yes it does, it chanegs how many of your spells re from each lore from something that the owner decides every game, to something that is decided once. It is very definitely a rules change to a rule that worked perfectly well, as in it was entitrely unambiguous

I always take a Plague Priest and a Grey Seer.

I roll for the Plague Priest first and after seeing what spells he gets, if he gets wither or Plague in particular, I change how many spells my Grey seer is going to roll for on the Plague table.

I Always want Plague or Wither on my Grey seer AND Crackers Call if I can help it !

@Sigvatr: Fair enough yeah, I really meant "allowing Tiq Taq To to join teradons is a house rule fixing something where the RAW is in clear conflict with the RAI"
it's not a "house rule because I don't feel it's right just because it's my interpretation"
(I mean, Tiq Taq To special rule has a very, very obvious RAI, contrary to a lot of other rules)

Oh, I did not want to make a qualitative statement, I'm all with you on the "RAI > RAW" train