8th Edition Ring of Hotek

[Dalamar]

Ring of Hotek, the bane of all casters in 7th.

Miscasting in 8th doesn't stop the spell anymore. The spell is still successfully cast and the wizard gets hurt.

Are you still going to use the ring? Knowing that you're actually helping them get their big spells off? (I'm assuming getting the "loss of control" equals casting the spell successfully even without reaching the casting value). How bad is the miscast table? Is it worth taking the effect of those new brutal spell in return for a chance of the wizard killing themselves?

Is the new miscast table "safe" enough for a Level 4 with Pendant of Khaeleth to reliably survive through it? If so, would it be actually beneficial to buy the Ring to force miscasts in your own spells? Blowing up enemy's as well as your face?

I need confimation from someone who can remember new "miscast" table well here.

[Deroth]

Its pretty bad, lowest result is large template on the wizard with everyone taking s10 hits and on a 1-3 wizard instant killed. Next is small template s10 hits and lose d6 power dice for that phase, next is s6 hit on all friendly casters, and last is the wizard loses d3 power levels and a spell lost per level.

But im pretty sure the RoH doesn't make the spell succeed though. The only way to miscast now is to roll irresistible force so the spell goes off then you roll on miscast table but the RoH just makes them miscast and not succeed, thats how I understand it. That may change in an errata though otherwise it is even more powerful than before.

[Dalamar]

They better, or Teclis will be a very sad caster

[Yourmumrang]

IMO it just got even worse to face and agree with Deroth.

[Venkh]

I will still take it in low magic lists

I think will be errara'd. If I were the designers I would take this as an opportunity to nerf the thing slightly.

Something like the spell always fails to cast on a double and double sixes fail to cast and roll on the miscast table.

[Red...]

Are you still going to use the ring?

It depends on the other magic items, in part. I take the ring currently because its the best, cheapest magic defense available to us. In 7th ed its often actually been a better deterrent than wizard killer: that level 4 super mage of your opponent is going to think twice about targeting your unit of black guards when he knows your champ is the ring bearer, giving you relatively low odds of being targeted.

If the other magic items pan out to have the same effect - ie the new anti-magic scrolls - then it may be I go without it. I'm basically looking each game for the most effective, least costly magic defense I can get. Currently thats the ring with a scroll caddy, if it becomes something else, I'll take that instead.

But im pretty sure the RoH doesn't make the spell succeed though.

It'll all depend on the fine line wording of the text in the rules, as well as if they issue an errata. I think it would actually make the ring incredibly balanced if it made the spell go off: you'd give him the unpleasant risky roll on the miscast table, BUT would get plowed by his spell, even if it wouldn't usually have been cast on that double three. For 25 points, that seems like a much fairer outcome than the current one...

[Fr0]

Well, it's only going to be effective vs magic missiles, last I read. So, it will certainly still have its uses.. depends on how the item changes when the book is revised I suppose.

[Tethlis]

I'm a strong advocate of the Ring. Not because I believe it's a fair or balanced item, but instead because I like it when armies have access to solid, decent magic defense without wasting the points on multiple casters. I wish more armies had access to items like the Ring of Hotek, or Mork's Spirit Totem, and similar items that can generate a decent magic defense while still giving magic-heavy opponents some ways to beat it.

That being said, if the Ring is nerfed slightly, I won't mind. When I use the Ring, affecting the enemy caster is sort of an incidental bonus; all I care about is the spell not going off successfully. So long as the spell fails to cast, I don't care if a miscast is forced or not. Conversely, if the spell is cast successfully but the wizard takes damage, I can live with that result too.

[Ebonyphoenix]

I should be able to get a second look at the 8th book later today. If so, I'll see if I can piece together the exact words and phrasings for miscasts to see how the RoH should work at let everyone know what I found.

[Dalamar]

I got the exact phrasing today.

There are two separate and very specific paragraphs, saying that if there are any items causing miscasts or irresistible forces they do in fact cause them separately (so RoH won't make spells go off on any double and Teclis will only miscast on double 6)

[Svarthofthi]

They better, or Teclis will be a very sad caster

This would please me.

[Venkh]

That makes the ring even better than it is now. I played a game today and the miscast table id pure evil.

Perhaps there will be something specific in the DE errata

[Faheman89]

why would teclis only miscast on double 6's?

[Deroth]

Because normally Teclis casts with irresistable force on any double but in 8th edition you miscast when you roll double six which for any other wizard is also irresistable force.

The rule is not you miscast when you get irresistable force it is when you roll double six.

[Geist]

I got the exact phrasing today.

There are two separate and very specific paragraphs, saying that if there are any items causing miscasts or irresistible forces they do in fact cause them separately (so RoH won't make spells go off on any double and Teclis will only miscast on double 6)

I am glad some one actually read that part other than me. I was starting to get tired of people thinking the ring would let spells go off, when in the magic section it clearly states that if it causes a miscast the spell wont happen. The ring is not only the best bet from magic its even stronger now than its ever been. I personally do not see why it would need an errata at all. The current phrasing in the book explains how items such as the ring will work very clearly.

[Swab]

Alright so let me get this right.

With the RoH if someone casts into my unit of BG needing an 11 to go off. They roll a 14 but 2 of the dice are double 4s the spell STILL goes off but they suffer the loss of control chart?

Also, if they cast the same spell and roll a 10 and 2 of the dice are double 3s the spell will not go off because they did not meet the requirements but will still cause a loss of control?

[Dumbledore]

Yup, but on the other hand you should have a comparable amount of DD compared to them, rather than just 2 or 3 (the standard hotek + caddy).

[Swab]

Right. You should have half or more dispel dice than their power dice.

[Deroth]

I got the exact phrasing today.

There are two separate and very specific paragraphs, saying that if there are any items causing miscasts or irresistible forces they do in fact cause them separately (so RoH won't make spells go off on any double and Teclis will only miscast on double 6)

Did the anyone actually read this?

Causing the enemy to miscast through a magic item does NOT cause the spell to automatically succeed

[Geist]

GUYS
Could you please please please for all that is unholly stop pushing around incorrect info. The new rules clearly explain that if an item causes a misscast that the spell will not go off.

As both Deroth and Dalamar have said and now me again for the fourth time. The ring of hotek is beyond worth its points now. Now its a game winner. So please those of you still reading it wrong or taking bad info and pushing it about stop that ok? I have been at the book twice this week and read the relevant passage about 5 times. Its a miscast and it does not work. You can still do the uber defense build.

[Dalamar]

The spell will not go off automatically. But you you roll high enough to meet casting value, the spell will take effect.

Miscast no longer stop spells from happening! They are just an additional (and deadly) effect.