"nur fur saurus-gefolge, verbessere den wuchtwert der kiefer-waffen dieser einheit um 1" = "Only for Saurus followers, improve the rend characteristic of jaws weapon for this unit by 1" Not sure what threw the auto-translate off. It should have been at least be able to translate "Wucht" into "force" or something similar.
I think it's +1 damage for jaw attacks, wuchtwert could be translated as something like "powervalue" or "strengthvalue", so i'd guess that's the term they use for damage in the german ones. edit: nvm, it's apparently rend given what acehilator said Also, the reason google translates it like this is because google translate is stupid. The basic idea behind google translate is that you take 2 books, say hamlet by shakespear, one in german, one in english. And then you look for the word you want to translate and pick the corresponding word in the translation. Which can lead to some funky translations when a word has multiple meanings, or is part of a saying like in this case where it insists it means "balance" (one of the possible translations is "balance-value") Also @Acehilator, google does give those other suggestion if you put in just "wucht" and then click on the option to show all possible translations. It's just deemed "balance" to be the "best" cuz of reasons.
Does it also clarify if we can sacrifice multiple spells per caster or not? Cuz there was some uncertainty over that as well.
It would be a stretch but possible. In that regard it isn't more clear than the Englosh one unfortunately.
We can do Troglodon spam and get up to 8d3 points with 500 points for a asthrolith bearer and battle line
First Post yay! The wording to me sounds like before attempting to cast the "first spell" for "each" Slann or Oracle in your army, you choose to get D3 celestial points and reduce spells by 1. My interpretation is that you can do this UNTIL you either "Cast that first Spell" or run out of spells to cast. As in if you want to get conjuration points with each Slann or Oracle, you have to do a celestial conjuration BEFORE they attempt their first spell AKA you do Celestial Conjuration before Spells. That is how I am taking it at the moment I really don't see why its so confusing? other then if you just "glanced" over it... I could be wrong...
the confusion plays lies in wether or not the celestial point conjuration counts as "casting your first spell". Imho, it should be for every spell as if it's only 1 spell the mechanic is essentially dead on arrival, a maximum of 3d3 is far too unreliable to do anything significant with. Whereas a nerf from 3 to D3 CP per spell seems quite reasonable. Also, having to decide on it before attempting any casts is an minor nerf as well. It means you need to plan far more carefully. If you think that arcane bolt only has a 50% chance of killing the enemy maybe you should keep a 2nd spell cast ready just in case. Whereas previously you could just attempt the arcane bolt, see if it's succesfull, then decide to cast more or use the extra spell for CP.
The more often I read it (in both German and English) the more I think that it may actually be possible to conjure using more than one spell slot as long as the wizard hasn't casted any spells yet.
There seems to just be way clearer ways to word that, if that was the case. Fingers crossed it is th . That would be a nice little boost to summoning.
But woudn't that mean, that you can generate infinite CCP per phase, because you never cast spell and nothing forbids you from going to less then 0 possible casts?
Raw having just looked at the book, it seems very clear that no model may give up more than one spell a turn, but that each qualifying model can give one up.
I agree, see no reason why you cannot summon a unit of 20 Sarus Warriors turn one with enough Slanns & luck
Well it doesn't say "may attempt to Cast Celestial Conjuration", it purely says you "carry out" the act of Celestial Conjuration. Like its an ability but uses your spells to do it which makes sense and since its d3 now that nips its overall power in the butt a bit to me. It will be interesting how it goes and the intended mechanic of it is. That would be a lot of Slanns and Oracles just to put out 10 Saurus warriors reliably and the summoning for Seraphon anyway never felt like a "luck of the draw" kind of mechanic.
RAW, sure. But I think they assume noone is going to need to have explicitly explained to them that achieving "-1 spellcasts" would be stupid and that the RAI is to obviously not go below 0 spellcasts RAW it indicates no limites beyond "you need to declare it before your first spellcast with the model". Nothing is said about how many conjurations you can do with 1 model. Technically RAW @Nart's remark I replied to above here is correct (though very obviously would be stupid and against RAI unless the writers are insane)
Yeah it is weird. But then... even with two Slanns and an Oracle on the table those numbers are so... small. I mean... the average of 4d3 is 8. Playing two Slanns or two Oracles will get that to 5d3 so 10 points per round. A Bastiladon in round 2 isn't that bad. I guess I just don't want to give up a summoning based playstyle yet. But it does sound as if summoning has become more of a gimmick than something a strategy can be built on. Two more d3 would surely come in handy for that.
It just seems way too easy to get to 10d3+ a turn with 2 Slanns if you can sacrifice every spell cast. Fill in the rest with mass Skinks + buffs in FoS where they can just tie up things piss off on a 4+ while actually killing stuff. Pulling in a Bastiladons worth of models each turn seems a wee bit nutty to me.