8th Ed. Mage-Lord of Hexoatl and Contemplations

[Ryan Ronald]

Good Day Folks,

I have recently began to play Lizardmen and have been trying to figure out tactics.

I have been playing a Slann Mage-Priest typically and running Lore of High for the ability to be a Loremaster and using the Lore attribute to grab any lore I need for that particular game. Today I opened up Army Builder to revise my list from last night when I played and noticed Lord Mazdamundi. In particular his Mage-Lord of Heoxatl rule. Maybe I am reading things wrong and if I am please correct me on such, but if you started him with Lore of High Magic and use the 'Contemplations' Lore attribute to go get another Lore, he then becomes a Loremaster of that lore as well. Which means to me, any lore he gains he will be able to re-roll his casts on. Is this correct?

Thanks in advance for the assistance.

 

[Mr Phat]

Reading it, it would actually seem so.
The wording seems to be coherent with the way the High Magic attributes works.

Cant seem to find any viable "against" argument for this.

 

[Scalenex]

Woah, with the RAW (Rules as Written), I see no other way to read that...

How did no one catch that before.

In my opinion that moves Mazdamundi from overpriced to fairly priced.

I feel a strong desire to trumpet this about all the LM forums but I fear as soon as I do so, someone will point out a perfectly valid reason why Mazdamundi of everything won't work.

 

[Qupakoco]

I want to say no, but I don't have a reason to back it up.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Applying strictly RAW, it seems to be completely legit. Good catch!

However, I probably wouldn't use this in a game myself, as it is clearly against RAI.

 

[Mr Phat]

I probably wouldn't use this in a game myself, as it is clearly against RAI.

I dont agree.
Regarding the changes Khaine magic brought with it, it could very well be intended as a way of pushing Mazdamundi in front of regular Slann.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I dont agree.
Regarding the changes Khaine magic brought with it, it could very well be intended as a way of pushing Mazdamundi in front of regular Slann.

There is no way that this was the intention of the rule. That's why I don't like to adhere purely with RAW, especially when if I feel I am gaining an unfair advantage. Personally I would never try this trick on an opponent, but to each their own.

I know I wouldn't find it fair if I was on the other side of the table. In a RAW vs. RAW battle, it think I found a caveat to this scheme. The rule states "Lord Mazdamundi has the Loremaster special rule for whichever Lore of Magic he chooses to select spells from". The key is that it states "Lore", singular, instead of "Lores", plural. So if someone tried to use this RAW trick against me, sorry... it's one per customer!!

I should say, that if your gaming group is okay with it, then no problem. Use it to its fullest; at least it would help justify Mazdamundi's points cost.

 

[Rettile]

very nice, but i'll never try it: i still miss my old loremaster life\light slann with +1 dice to cast. I know i'm going to miss the khaine WD/FoM slann. Playing the Khaine Mazda would become an addiction waaaaay too fast (and we know it's already over). And i fear what Bob could draw reading this post of mine

 

[Mr Phat]

There is no way that this was the intention of the rule..

Why ? because you say so?
Let me counter argue in that manner.
"There is YES way that this was the intention of the rule".

Could you argue why you think so?
I dont think its farfetched at all.

Fluffwise
it holds. Mazda is the mightiest wizard in the world. No debate.

Gamewise
When you look at the shenanigans the likes of Teclis and Kairos are up to, I don't think its overpowered at all.
especially not with such a price-tag on a General+BSB that goes without a "Look out Sir!" most of the time.

Even WITH access to full supplements of all the lores, I still hesitate to say "he is worth his points".
Because if anything have ever been "All your eggs in one basket", he is it, and he sits on a wall.

 

[rantapanda]

Agreed.. Looks like we have a multiple loremaster on our hands. Did miss that one myself as well. Anyhow, I also agree that he is ... still crap.
I could take him with me to a lulzy Triumh & Treachury game though.

 

[Scalenex]

Not that along there was this exchange...

RAI = Rules as Intended (using this phrase will usually start an argument)

I laughed so hard at this!!!

Any event, I was going to argue against your statement as well. The only way Mazdamundi could be competitive for his points is with this interpretation, so it could have easily been deliberate.

Why ? because you say so?
Let me counter argue in that manner.
"There is YES way that this was the intention of the rule".

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Why ? because you say so?
Let me counter argue in that manner.
"There is YES way that this was the intention of the rule".

Could you argue why you think so?
I dont think its farfetched at all.

Fluffwise
it holds. Mazda is the mightiest wizard in the world. No debate.

So let me tackle the last statement first, fluff is meaningless for rules interpretations. So the fact that fluff-wise Mazda is the most powerful wizard (though I'd say Nagash is stronger, possibly Teclis) is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

As for the intention of the rule, the fact that no one had caught on to this until now probably means it wasn't intended this way. The army book has been around for well over a year and no one even considered this interpretation. That alone has rules-lawyering written all over it. Secondly, if this interpretation was true, why would anyone initially choose any of the 8 BRB lores at the start of the game, when they can take High Magic, cast a spell and become loremaster for any lore of their choosing? In this event, the options would be so poorly balanced that it makes no sense at all.

I try to play the game fairly and honestly. My purpose is for all parties involved to have fun. I personally don't like the idea of rules-lawyering being employed to give me an unfair advantage or to put me at an unfair disadvantage. Fact of the matter is, GW's RAW is often of such quality that it is prone to these manipulations. In times like that, it sometimes becomes necessary to fight fire with fire, RAW with RAW, as I stated previously:

In a RAW vs. RAW battle, it think I found a caveat to this scheme. The rule states "Lord Mazdamundi has the Loremaster special rule for whichever Lore of Magic he chooses to select spells from". The key is that it states "Lore", singular, instead of "Lores", plural. So if someone tried to use this RAW trick against me, sorry... it's one per customer!!

 

[Mr Phat]

I know fluff has nothing to do with rules, except it does.
While I do agree on the sentiment that it cant be used as an argument to prove how a rule works,
most writers do try to someway reflect the fluff in the rules.

It was in no way intended to argue my point was the right one, but rather say "it is not unlikely that this is what the writer thought of."

The more I read it though, the more I doubt it is RAI.
Unless GW is trying to implement a "code" way of writing rules like MTG is currently using, I doubt he would have left out "While choosing lores at the beginning at the game, and if he uses the HM attribute"

Regardless, rulewise it works.
If "thats not RAI" was ever an argument then we would have nothing to base the game on.
Everybody could have their own take on what a special rule was meant to do.
"Here we follow RAI only"
Great, fine by me! looks like my Kroxes will be dealing a lot of Supporting PF attacks and my Tiq'Taq'to will be joining terradon units.


Finally: I will never play him, so this entire discussion is only for arguments sake.
Even with access to all-over-loremaster I think he is a terrible choice for the points, so regarding fair or unfair "diasadvantages" I think taking him would be doing my opponent a favor

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Great, fine by me! looks like my Kroxes will be dealing a lot of Supporting PF attacks and my Tiq'Taq'to will be joining terradon units.

Hahaha... I agree with both those things actually!

Finally: I will never play him, so this entire discussion is only for arguments sake.
Even with access to all-over-loremaster I think he is a terrible choice for the points, so regarding fair or unfair "diasadvantages" I think taking him would be doing my opponent a favor

This is true!

I agree that RAI has a high level of subjectivity inherent in it; so it is best used in a familiar gaming group where everyone comes together to mutually agree on the rules. One thing I highly believe in (and many will disagree) is that RAW is no where near as objective as most people make it out to be. RAW is not immune to personal interpretations, which is why there are so many heated RAW vs. RAW arguments. Of course I readily admit that RAI is more prone to subjectivity than RAW.

 

[Scalenex]

I have the magazine with the LM previews. The guy who wrote most of the book talked about Tik'Taq'To leading Terradon riders. Applying "likely" RAI would be a net gain for Lizardmen.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I have the magazine with the LM previews. The guy who wrote most of the book talked about Tik'Taq'To leading Terradon riders. Applying "likely" RAI would be a net gain for Lizardmen.

There is absolutely no doubt that Tiktaq'to was intended to be able to join a unit of Terradons. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective interpretation. The rules for his magic item, Mask of Heavens, states: "All Terradons in Tiktaq'to's unit use his Weapon Skill instead of their own...". I don't ever field the guy, but I can't imagine anyone giving a person trouble over it. I would refuse to play anyone who wouldn't allow Tiktaq'to to join Terradons because they are either completely dim witted or an outright cheater, IMHO.

 

[miturian]

So, what does people think of the interpretation that while he doesn't become LM of any other lores, he stays LM of his chosen lore, such that if he trades high magic spells, he does not loose the original? I guess it depends on how LM is usually interpreted, I.e. How does it work with miscasts forcing the wizard to forget a spell?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

So, what does people think of the interpretation that while he doesn't become LM of any other lores, he stays LM of his chosen lore, such that if he trades high magic spells, he does not loose the original? I guess it depends on how LM is usually interpreted, I.e. How does it work with miscasts forcing the wizard to forget a spell?

If the Slann trades away a spell, then the original spell is gone. The same goes for losing spells due to miscasts or Glean Magic, spellbreaking rune, etc. Loremaster defines how you generate your spells, but it does not protect you from losing them. That's my take on it and I've personally never seen anyone play it differently.

 

[Scalenex]

I concur with my doppleganger. Loremaster does not normally protect you from losing your spells, so even if we accept the favorable interpretation of the rules, Maz still needs to at least give up one High Magic spell to pick up seven BRB spells.

With End Times magic this goes out the window, since Loremaster means you get to re-roll failed casting and has nothing to do with possessing every spell. By the wording of ET Magic rules in Khaine, a High Magic Slann would NOT lose a High Magic spell from Contemplations.

 

[spawning of Bob]

I concur with my doppleganger.

I disagree. He could only be your "treble"ganger, at best.