8th Ed. Lord Kroak vs Dwarfs question

[Sleboda]

I personally would play that Kroak can lose concentration just like any other wizard. To me the wording of can cast it as many times as he likes is specifically overrulling the normal one cast per spell per turn rule. Not all other magic rules.

=> Exactly.
In order to be allowed to do something that is based on something else being true, that other thing must be, well, um...true.

I have a parallel that helps me understand this. I know it's not exactly the same, but I bring it up to show where my head is at and to maybe give folks something else as a filter through which to view this one. Here it is -

Lots of folks I've talked to over the years have be surprised to learn that if the enemy casts a spell with Total Power, you cannot use a Hex/Feedback scroll against the caster on that spell. Both scrolls say "instead of dispelling..." That means you have to have something to be in the stead of, in this case being able to dispel. Since you cannot attempt a dispel against Total Power, you have no action being taken that would allow you to do something "instead" of it.

I get a similar vibe on our Kroak conundrum. Sure, you can cast the spell as many times as you like if you still have power dice, but if you are not allowed to cast at all, you cannot take being allowed to re-cast a spell as permission to cast it when you have no ability to cast in the first place.

As for the dwarf spell breaking the wording on Kroaks ability is a whole spam of "you can't get rid of this spell" so RAI I definitely feel like Kroak should be allowed to continue.

=> But as has been discussed, the dwarf thing is not taking the spell away. He can still have it all he want and he can still want to keep casting it as long as he has power dice, but it won't matter since the Rune does not mess with him having the spell - it prevents him from ever casting it again (in that game).


To sum up: Kroak's ability does nothing to indicate that he can cast spells (or one single spell in this case) at times when he has no ability to cast. It just lets him cast it many times when he able to cast.

 

[n810]

And that's why we hate playing against Dwarves....

 

[Screamer]

To sum up: Kroak's ability does nothing to indicate that he can cast spells (or one single spell in this case) at times when he has no ability to cast. It just lets him cast it many times when he able to cast.

Nothing except the wording in lord kroak's rules. The part about 'can cast as long as you have PD' actually gives him the ability to cast as long as he still has PD. At least RAW. And considering how old and powerful he is, it's pretty close to fluff or RAI as well.

I don't play with him anyway, I'm mostly just interested in what the text/rule says.

 

[Markhaus]

The dwarven rune says that they cannot cast the spell the rest of the game. Lord Kroak says that "Lord Kroak can cast The Deliverence of Itza as many times per turn as be has sufficient power dice"
They contradict each other completely. Which means you have to look at the "spirit" of the rules. Lord Kroak gets a single spell that he can cast whether he failed, cast it already, had it stolen, forgotten, destroyed, lost all his wizard levels, or pretty much anything that could remove a spell. This is probably due to him being a 400 point one trick pony.
The dwarf anvil is made to dispel a spell or prevent the wizard from casting a spell, not neuter the only ability of a high level character that specifically says "he can always cast this"

I wouldn't use Lord Kroak, but if a dwarf says "Ha! My minor rune gets rid of your major lord, no matter what your rule says" they are trying too hard to win, and should probably play a single player game for awhile.

 

[Sleboda]

The dwarven rune says that they cannot cast the spell the rest of the game. Lord Kroak says that "Lord Kroak can cast The Deliverence of Itza as many times per turn as be has sufficient power dice"
They contradict each other completely.

=> As has been shown, no they don't. Kroak's rule is a contradiction (in the form of an exception) to the rule that a caster may only cast a given spell once per magic phase, even if he has lots of dice left.

A caster must be able to cast to begin with in order to cast a spell, regardless of how often he wishes to cast it.

I'll show why his rule is not a contradiction to the dwarf rule -
If it were, the same thought would apply if Kroak were fleeing, or even dead.
These are both circumstances that disallow the casting of spells. The dwarf rune also disallows the casting of the spell.

If it is played that his rule is meant to allow his to cast at times when other rules say he cannot cast a spell (as opposed to simply meaning that he can REcast as spell if he still has dice), then you should feel no qualms about casting when he is dead or fleeing.

 

[lizard_sNow]

Not to argue, but Kroak will never be fleeing (unbreakable), and he's already dead I do agree with Sleboda that Kroak's rule is to allow him the ability to cast the same spell multiple times, as long as he has dice. If he is then "silenced" by the rune then he wont be able to cast.

 

[Markhaus]

Where does it say that it is only an exception to that one circumstance? Considering his other rules I would assume it was meant to cast the spell as long as he has dice. If he is dead he is not on the board, so he can cast it, wherever he is, but it's a waste of your dice. He can't run, can't lose his spell in any circumstance, can always cast the spell. I am only going strictly off how it is written, and no where does it say how or why he "can cast as many times per turn as he has sufficient dice." There is not an exception to the dwarf rule (either way), so a FAQ clearing it up is needed.

Based on his other abilities, I would think the anvil is not a special and unique way to remove the spell from him (not being able to cast a spell seems like removing it to me).

 

[Sleboda]

No offense, but you've done exactly what some of the rest of us are doing.

You've said (to paraphrase) that he cannot cast spells when he's not on the table (which is one of the ways a wizards is prevented from casting spells) so you have placed a limit on his rule - just like we've done. It's reasonable to do this, so don't think I'm having a go at you!

A model not on the table cannot cast a spell.

A model that has been hit by the Dwarf thing cannot cast a certain spell.


Both of these are conditions that prevent a unit from using its spells.

Either his rule grants an exception to both or neither.



As to the fleeing thing, fine, he's unbreakable, but let's look at it as a thought exercise in order to see it through.

If he could flee, would you allow him to cast while fleeing due to his rule?

 

[hdctambien]

The rune reads like this:

"on a 4+, the enemy spell is lost to the Wizard casting it and cannot be cast by him for the rest of the game."

And Kroak's rule is:

"If this spell is lost, forgotten, swapped or stolen by any means, Lord Kroak will immediately remember it again..."

Does this second Dwarf Rune of Spellbreaking give 2 abilities? Or just one?

If the rune only gives 1 ability: "the enemy spell is lost to the wizard" and the second part of that sentence is just defining what it means for a spell to be "lost", then Kroak would "immediately remember it again"

If the rune is actually giving 1 abilities: "the enemy spell is lost to the wizard" AND "[if for some reason the wizard finds that spell again] it cannot be cast by him for the rest of the game" then Kroak would remember his spell, but be unable to cast it because of the second part of the rule.

I believe that the Rune is only giving 1 ability and that the second part is just specifically defining what it means for a spell to be "lost".

However, if someone wants to read the Rune as giving 2 abilities, then I think it is just as valid to read Kroak's other rule as pedantically:

(NOTE: I agree with Sleboda that this rule is *intended* to only contradict the "can only cast each spell once" rule, but if you are going to RAW the Dwarf rule then you should RAW the Lizardmen rule too)

"Lord Kroak can cast The Deliverance if Itza as many times per turn as he has sufficient power dice"

That rule does not say that he can only cast the spell if he knows it. It does not say he can cast any spells he knows. It says that Lord Kroak can cast "The Deliverance of Itza" as many times as he wants as long as he has sufficient power dice.

Do you have at least 1 power dice? Do you have a Lord Kroak model? Then that model can cast The Deliverance of Itza spell. (Sleboda's argument about him being dead or not in your army are red herrings. If someone argued that interpretation of the rule, I just wouldn't play them)

With that reading, any rule that says he cannot cast The Deliverance of Itza even though he has enough Power Dice would be contradicted.

So, I would say against a Dwarf player that says his Rune have 2 abilities, you would have to have a roll-off to decide which Army Book wins.

 

[lizard_sNow]

This is how I would see it happen. (Disclaimer: my personal view. I don't know if this will help but it helps me. I may be just opening up a whole different discussion but again this helps me understand it.) I am going to use an example from Magic: The Gathering. They have a mechanic for gameplay called "The Stack", which is to mean the order of resolving of spells/abilities in the game. This can get quite technical but for this example it seems to be quite clear.

In the game to start the stack a card is played, then there is time to respond. If there is a response it goes on top of the first card and is resolved before the first as well. If the second played card stops the first played card from happening then the first card doesn't resolve.

Now to relate to our situation. Kroak has his ability which says he can cast his spell as long as he has dice. That is the "first card" on the stack. Then the dwarf rune says he can't cast it for the rest of the game. This is the "second card" on the "stack". This "second card" resolves first, and that means the "second card" stops the "first" from happening and thereby preventing kroak from casting.

I see this in the same way a dispel scroll works. I cast a spell, you play a countering dispel scroll. This format also applies to dwarf runes. And since this is a dwarf rune, with added effects, I believe it works the same.

If there is a better, less confusing way, take it. This is mine, and you dont have to use it

(P.S. to Sleboda: Just goofing around with the unbreakable thing, didn't want to ruffle feathers )

 

[Sleboda]

@hdctambien -

I do indeed view the dwarf thing as two effects. That's an astute observation on your part to call out this point. Well done.

I also agree that RAW should apply to both. I just happen to disagree with your take on RAW for Kroak.

Just to keep thinking about this, can anyone think of other situations or rules that prevent casting? How about that one Light spell that prevents you from acting on a 4+?

If he failed that roll, could Kroak try to cast again even though he is prevented from casting?

EDIT: Ho, ho! Just thought of one. The Chaos Dwarf spell Ash Thingie says that a wizard with this spell on him cannot cast.

That seems like a more suitable resolution point for the question at hand -



Can Kroak, while under the influence of Ash Thingie, still cast his spell even though he's not allowed to cast at all despite having power dice, being on the table, and not fleeing?



(Just to pre-empt - Yes, this is a real spell in a real book, so you can't just dismiss it as not being legit.)

 

[Markhaus]

I think it needs a FAQ. Some people are interpreting the rune as being two powers, instead of clarifying what "lost" means. I would disagree with that assessment. Lord Kroak's rule is worded that he can always cast it, some take this to mean that it is an exception to one rule, ignoring the wording for its "intended" meaning. His other rules "intended" meaning is that he can always cast it. As written he can always cast. From the writers giving him multiple rules that say he always has and can cast the spell I would say the "intention" is he can always cast.

Whether you look "as written" or "as intended" both seem to say the anvil and Kroak have contradictory rules. (I assume the anvil's intention is that it completely prevents casting, just like Kroak's is that that cannot happen to his spell).

At which point I would say "which costs more points?"

 

[Sleboda]

See, while reasonable on some level, I fundamentally disagree with the basic premise of your post.

Whether you look "as written" or "as intended" both seem to say the anvil and Kroak have contradictory rules. (I assume the anvil's intention is that it completely prevents casting, just like Kroak's is that that cannot happen to his spell).

=> This is not at all what I would say. I would not say it's contradictory, nor would I agree with your interpretation of Kroak's rule being that he cannot be prevented from casting. In fact, that's pretty much THE heart of the issue.

IF we all agreed that Kroak's wording means he cannot be prevented from casting, then yes, you would be right and there would be a conflict. For me, and those like me, the disagreement starts a step 'further back,' if you will. This view posits that Kroak's wording does not, at all, mean he can be prevented from casting, only that he cannot lose his spell and is also allowed to cast it several times providing he has power dice to do it.


I'm curious, then, what your view of Ash Thingie is. Do you believe it prevents Kroak from casting or that it's a roll-off? If it's a roll-off, does he roll-off each time he wishes to cast or recast it?

Not to belabor it, but I would really like to see what people think in light of the Ash Thingie spell. I think it would be highly informative for this discussion.

 

[Lizards o Lustria]

Kroak has so many rules around the spell, i.e that he will always remember, or that he can be the only one to be able to cast it. Yes, the rune stops him from being able to cast, but his First Generation spawning rule says he can always cast it.
What i am saying is that it seems kind of the whole point of Lord Kroak is that he can cast the DoI anytime he wants.
Therefore, I would think that he COULD always cast it, and that he cant be shut down by some dwarf rune.

 

[Markhaus]

I do not have the dwarf book, so if "on a 4+, the enemy spell is lost to the Wizard casting it and cannot be cast by him for the rest of the game." is the accurate line from the book, I would say that it is just clarifying what "lost" means.

Saying "I disagree with how you are reading both these lines, so it doesn't need a FAQ" is kind of silly. There is obviously confusion, so they need to clarify by putting something out.

Until the FAQ comes out, having the rule that it does shut down Lord Kroak makes 400 points worthless against dwarves. However, finding on the side of Lord Kroak does not get rid of the usefulness of the rune against Lizardmen, since most with Kroak would take a priest or two, who dwarves could still shut down, and they can still dispel his Deliverance twice a game (how many LM actually play Kroak anyway?).

 

[Sleboda]

Until the FAQ comes out, having the rule that it does shut down Lord Kroak makes 400 points worthless against dwarves.

=> That's not true at all. While I do (now) agree a FAQ would be beneficial, I cannot agree that the dwarf thing makes Kroak worthless against them. The opponent has to take it. You have to cast the spell while the rune is still on the table (you can always kill the bearer first and then cast away). The rune has to actually work.

Besides, even if it did make Kroak useless, that's hardly a unique circumstance in Warhammer and not justification for a ruling.


Anyone...at all...with Ash Thingie thoughts?

 

[hdctambien]

Anyone...at all...with Ash Thingie thoughts?

For anyone that doesn't know what the Ash Thingie does, it is a hex that, among many other things, says: "Wizards cannot cast magic spells except on themselves while under the effect of this hex."

I think this spell is different than the Dwarf Rune. The real question with the Dwarf Rune is if it is giving 2 different abilities or just 1 ability and a description of what that ability means in practice.

Sleboda reads it as giving 2 distinct abilities. The wizard both loses the spell, and if he someone gets the spell back he can no longer cast it.

I read it as a single ability causing the wizard to lose the spell, which means that he can no longer cast it (however, Kroak can "remember" the spell and thus can cast it again).

Arguing over if the First Generation Spawning rule allows Kroak to cast the spell given Sleboda's reading is jsut fighting RAW with RAW. However, Sleboda has historically read Lizardmen very strictly RAW and given the other armies the benefit of doubt when it comes to what their rules mean. (I'm not hating on you Sleboda! You always get a conversation going!)

But, to answer the question about Ash Storm. In practice I would say taht Kroak can't cast spells while under the effects of the hex. However, if the Chaos Dwarf player was taking dvantage of every RAW loophole he could find and really gaming the game, then I would argue that the First Generation Spawning rule counter-acts the spell and would probably push for a roll-off.

Concerning roll-offs. I believe that once a conflict is decided via roll-off that fall of the die should stand for the remainder of the game. Like an ump calling balls and strikes, the rules don't have to be right, but they should be consistent.

 

[themuffinman873]

Ignorant question, but if units are engaged, lord kroak's spell does diddly squat right?

 

[Screamer]

Ignorant question, but if units are engaged, lord kroak's spell does diddly squat right?

It depends, either one is valid. There's a long thread about the subject, but in short the summary is:

1: If you and your opponent thinks the "all enemy units within ..." contradicts the BRB target restrictions for direct damage spells (only front arc, not into combat) the spell is 360° and targets enemies in close combat.
2: If you don't think it's a contradiction, then the spell is front arc only and not into CC.

Some say 1, some say 2.