8th Ed. Definition of "Succesfully cast"

[Mr Phat]

In our lore attribute for high magic it tells us that we can swap when we "successfully cast" a spell.

There is no true definition in the book (at least not when I search for it in my PDF, can anyone supplement?)

but in the Vampire Counts book, under vamp power
"Dark Acolyte"

States that

"The Vampire adds D3 to the casting total whenever he
successfully casts Invocation of Nehek (regardless of the
casting value chosen)"

If the original thought is that "successfully cast" means "it wasnt dispelled", this ability is utter useless as the casting total increases after dispel attempts.

Thoughts?

 

[hdctambien]

I asked this same question last week: http://www.lustria-online.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=15071

It turns out the BRB kind of does define what is means to be "successfully cast":

"If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved."

 

[Mr Phat]

That was my thought, but tell me, what is the use of this then?

"The Vampire adds D3 to the casting total whenever he
successfully casts Invocation of Nehek (regardless of the
casting value chosen)"

 

[hardyworld]

The quote that hdctambien provided has always been the guide that I have used for application of spell effects (such as LM High Magic lore attribute). However the wording of that Vampire Power does seem to muddy the waters since its obvious intent was to apply before dispel attempts. Perhaps both conditions require FAQ clarification (amongst other 'successfully cast' applications in warhammer).
EDIT: FAQ already exists that clarifies the Dark Acolyte Vampire Power. As hdctambien mentions below, this is an exception to the BRB rule that already exists.

 

[hdctambien]

That was my thought, but tell me, what is the use of this then?

"The Vampire adds D3 to the casting total whenever he
successfully casts Invocation of Nehek (regardless of the
casting value chosen)"

That's just another example of GW's poor rules writing. At least this one was FAQed to allow teh d3 to be added before the dispel roll.

However, I think it's stretching to try to errata a BRB rule based on a FAQ response to a question in the Vampire Counts FAQ to change the way a rule in the Lizardmen book works...

Really, the Vampire Counts FAQ should have addressed this question with an errata, something like: "change ...whenever he successfully casts... to ...whenever he casts, before an attempt to dispell..."

OR there should have been an errata to the BRB that changed when a spell is considered successfully cast.

Another FAQ for the BRB states:

Q: Does the Roiling Skies Lore Attribute require you to
successfully cast the spell before its effect can be applied?(Reference)
A: Yes.

Which seems to be saying, Heavens won't damage flying creatures of the spell is dispelled. But if you combine that with the Vampire Counts FAQ.... un-dispellable anti-aircraft magic missiles!

I think Dark Acolyte should be treated as an errata-ed exception, rather than a BRB rules change that was subtly tucked away in the Vampire Counts FAQ and contradicted by another FAQ for the BRB itself.

 

[SilverFaith]

I think Dark Acolyte should be treated as an errata-ed exception, rather than a BRB rules change that was subtly tucked away in the Vampire Counts FAQ and contradicted by another FAQ for the BRB itself.

The entire problem is that it ISN'T an errata, its a FAQ, which is explicitly stated to be a "clarification of what the rule means", rather than "change the wording so it works as intended".

This effectively means that, by calling it a "FAQ", they effectively said "The text was intended and doesn't need to be changed, you just didn't understand how it was supposed to work."

I'd still call you an idiot for trying to rule anything else like this. Dark acolyte is specifically intended to be used to prevent dispels. Lore attribute of heavens is not intended as undispellable damage against fliers.

If it was meant to be applied to lizardmens high lore, that's cool, but I'd wait for a FAQ/Errata before doing that.

 

[Sleboda]

You'll be waiting a loooooong time...

 

[SilverFaith]

You'll be waiting a loooooong time...

Like, 10th edition or so, probably.

But I'd still tell you to wait for it if you tried ruling it this way.

 

[Ixt]

We run 'successfully cast' as a spell that takes effect.

The Wizard meeting the casting value may be 'successful' in his or her concentratiom, but the spell is 'cast' only by trumping the opponents dispel.

So, the spell isn't cast by meeting the casting value - the Wizard in question has simply held up his end of the bargain until a dispel is attempted.

I think that the BRB rule quote is spot on.

I wish it were the other way, though.

 

[SilverFaith]

We run 'successfully cast' as a spell that takes effect.

The Wizard meeting the casting value may be 'successful' in his or her concentratiom, but the spell is 'cast' only by trumping the opponents dispel.

So, the spell isn't cast by meeting the casting value - the Wizard in question has simply held up his end of the bargain until a dispel is attempted.

I think that the BRB rule quote is spot on.

I wish it were the other way, though.

Especially with regards to our high lore. I'd really like a change that made it so all casting attempts made it legal to activate our lore attribute. A failed cast is still a break in concentration, so it wouldn't be all that abuseable anyway.

But that is wishful thinking on my part.

 

[RipperDerek]

Trust me, you don't want that particular interpretation changed. It affects a LOT more than just our lore attribute.

Because the FAQ and the rule book contradict each other in at least this one place, the only reasonable way to play this is to conclude that the phrase "successfully cast" is not a rigorously defined piece of rules terminology, but rather a standard English phrase that is capable of having the same sorts of ambiguity other English phrases might, and rely on context to figure out when which interpretation should apply.

In most places, such as the lore attributes, context (like the FAQ for rolling skies and transformation of kadon) makes it clear that the phrase is being used to mean "the spell resolved successfully and has its effects applied." In other places, the context may be different (as it is with Invocation of Nehek), and so it has a slightly different meaning.

Games Workshop should write better rules and update their FAQs more frequently, but unless and until that happens, this is the only sensible way to proceed.

 

[SilverFaith]

Trust me, you don't want that particular interpretation changed. It affects a LOT more than just our lore attribute.

Obviously not. I don't want the interpretation changed, I want the high lore attribute changed.

But really, it's a horrible defense to say "it depends on context", because that doesn't help us at all. Then it would keep coming down to RAI, which is not a good way to write rules - Sure, it might be obvious that heavens lore attribute only applies if you actually affect the fliers with a spell, and Dark Acolyte might be obvious as well, as the bonus is pointless otherwise.

but the moment we start talking other lores, High especially in all the variants, but also fire, life and shadow. Technically, they could be simply "hit the treshold and you can activate them", but imagine how powerful some of them would be. High elf high lore would be a pain to deal with, as would the wood elf variant.

On the other hand, some of them could use the small help, both for the LM high lore, but also fire - ESPECIALLY fire, because that lore attribute is just too weak as it is, like the lore attribute of beast.

 

[RipperDerek]

But really, it's a horrible defense to say "it depends on context", because that doesn't help us at all. Then it would keep coming down to RAI, which is not a good way to write rules - Sure, it might be obvious that heavens lore attribute only applies if you actually affect the fliers with a spell, and Dark Acolyte might be obvious as well, as the bonus is pointless otherwise.

Yes, it's a terrible way to write rules. But, it IS the way the rules have been written, and no other options that are consistent with them are available.