Imagine this scenario where it is turn 2 - Kroak casted Balewind in turn 1, so start of hero phase he is now sitting on the Balewind Vortex with 4+1 = 5 casts. Start of hero phase in turn 2 he autodispells the Balewind Vortex - The warscrolls says the dispell counts as the extra cast, so Kroak is left with his standard 4 casts. In the same hero phase Kroak casts Balewind Vortex - Does he then gain another cast so he's still sat at 4 casts (effectively going down to 3 out of 4 casts but gain another = 4 casts), or will he not gain another cast and now be sat at 3 spells because he started the hero phase with a Balewind, hence already having benefited from the spell? Im not really certain how to interpret the Arcane Invigoration ability: "A Wizard on a Balewind Vortex can attempt to cast an additional spell in each of their hero phases (including the turn in which the Summon Balewind Vortex was cast), and you can add 6" to the range of any spells that the Wizard casts."
I don't think there was ever any thought put into that, as for as far as I can tell there is absolutely no reason to perform the actions required to make that scenario occur in game. from a purely rules standpoint. the auto dispel takes the extra cast of the old BWV, Kroak would get the new extra spell cast from the new BWV. its a new model/spell that has no connection to the old one, so there would be no reason for it to "remember" that it already gave him an extra spell cast. especially since the rule you quote doesn't have a timestamp requirement for the bonus (at the end of, at the start of), it just says if you are on it IN your hero phase you can make the extra attempt.
Oh but there absolutely is a reason to do this - When you dispell the Balewind you get to set up Kroak within 1" of the Balewind and when you cast it you get to set it up within 1" of Kroak. Balewind is a little over 4" at the widest point, so you effectively shuffle Kroak 2" forward and gain an extra total reach of 6" with this event compared to if you just stood still. There have been a number of times where Kroak was just about 2-3" out of reach to bomb with 3x Celestial Deliverance - If all I had to do was sacrifice 1 spell I would do it without a doubt. Sacrificng 2 might be a bit iffy depending on the situation.
It works. But you will definitely have to argue it. If you plan to do it at any events then check with the TO beforehand. I normally show up early to check in just to make sure the TO and I have an understanding about any rule ambiguities surrounding my army.
I think it works. Someone could object that you're exploiting it, to gain a free move and that you can only gain 1/round the positive effects of the same spell. At that point you can object with 2 reasonings: 1) you are effectively giving away 1 spell to slightly shift your position. Seems balanced to me, given that there are spells that let a unit redeploy anywhere on the battlefield. 2) of course the same spell can act twice in the same round. Start of turn: you move a predatory endless spell (let's say the lifeswarm), heals damage to target A. Then you dispel it and cast it again... target A is healed again.
Are you sure it is legit though? Im honestly not sure you can draw upon the same ability of an Endless Spell multiple times. Otherwise Tzeentch can cast Spellportal, nuke something, remove it with Spell-eater, recast Spellportal and nuke something again. Guild of Summoners with Kairos can quite reliably get a LoC turn 1 (especially if we are forced to go first) meaning tripple Spellportal.
You can't attempt to cast something more than once per turn tho. If the Spell Portal was still up from a previous turn, you could use it twice but not more than that. Also don't know the exact language of spell portal, that could potentially also cause some issue.
Right I forgot about the one attempt per Endless spell per round. So yeah, 2 is the max usage as you mention. We could do that too with the Dispell Magic Slann spell. Cast through it once, remove it with Dispell Magic (thats the name of the aoe Endless spell remover?) and recast it. Not quite as deadly as Tzeentch nuking twice though.
its not the same endless spell after its dismissed. the model doesn't remember the ability. additionally its not a triggered ability, its a static one, so its either ON or not. and because the BWV specifically states the spell used for the dismissal is the one gained from THAT spell, you aren't using the same spell slot twice
How do you know its not the same endless spell though? You pay for the specific model to be able to cast it and there is a reason you cant cast multiple of the same endless spell.
you just made the distinction yourself. you pay for the MODEL. the SPELL is cast and dismissed. once it is dismissed it no longer exists, and the new spell grants its abilities. this ruling stands across multiple games, not least of which is M:TG
I want to be able to juse the rule but Im not gonna sit at a table and argue for half an hour with my opponent about some grey area. I just dont find the arguement that "other games have similar ruling" convincing at all. Even AoS and 40K have conflicting rules. I would like something that actually makes sense from a core rule point of view, but it seems like that doesnt really exist from what I can tell.
I mean multiple experience players told you it works, and one even point out exactly how to avoid the table argument with your opponent. I really cant understand why you are asking for advice to do an action you want to do, and then fighting so hard to not accept it. it seems... contrarian for no purpose.
Because as much as I respect those guys, it is not really a compelling arguement to say “yeah man this totally works - a couple of dudes on the other side of the globe said so”. Nobody here knows who they are. My opponent would just look at me and shake his head. You have basically just claimed how things work based on other games but with no referencing to any rules in AoS. That doesnt work. Thats not how we play. Thats why I asked LizardWizard as to why it works so I have a proper reasoning, but it does seem like a grey area. If it isnt clearcut due to any rulings, I would probably rather play with losing 2 casts to ensure this works by the rules and nobody feels cheated. Killer Angel made a compelling arguement though - I have moved Geminids between turns, then dispelled and recast for -2 to hit, but I feel like the wording there is much different. It is very clearcut in regards to buffs/debuffs if they stack or no, but the Warscroll for BWV is kinda iffy.
no I gave reasoning, based in this games logic/rules AND then said that same logic has been applied to other games with the same results. dude just talk to the TO before the game so your opponent's opinion is removed from the equation.
1) You would still explain reasoning/come with an arguement as to why exactly it should work 2) Not every single game is a tournament game. If there is a trick I can use in a tournament, I want to practice it and incorporate it into my strats during "normal competitive games".
I saw it on the internet! yeah, sure way to lose an argument. imo the reasoning against a doubtful opponent should be this: 1) you cannot look at the final result and judge it if "seems right". We must look at the sequence by raw. Kroak on BWV got 4+1 castings; by raw, dispel the BWV eats the extra cast, so Kroak got its basic 4. This concludes the "old" BWV. From now on, it's all a new situation: Kroak uses 1 to cast BWV, goes to 3 + 1 extra for the effect of the new spell AND can shift some inches. 2) with predatory spells, i can move them at the beginning of the turn, they do their things, i dispel them, cast them again and they do their things again. Once they are gone, the new endless spells are a different thing. And their effects stack, unless stated otherwise (for example, double damage from the swords, or double healing from lifeswarm…) 3) my previous points are RAW. If you don't believe it works that way, the burden of proof is upon you, and "i don't like it" it's not a proof.
…. I literally said the same thing. LITERALLY But you spend 2 weeks arguing against me just to "like" someone else that LITERALLY said the same thing. I'm starting to think its something personal dude. EDIT clarification I think Grot has something personal against me not angel. I realized that wasn't necessarily clear due to the way I quoted angels post and didn't @Grotpunter
Mate dont flatter yourself.. You are reading way too much into this - I bear absolutely no ill feelings towards you. I dont even get why you care which posts get likes and which dont? I have had arguements with Killer Angel too but that doesnt mean I hate the guy in any way. We just have different view points at times and I only think it is healthy on a forum, otherwise it becomes a simple echo chamber which serves no purpose. Your explanation wasnt the same as Killer Angel's. Your thoughts might have been, but there is a significant difference in the way you explained why it might work and how Killer Angel did.