A Defining Moment: Casting a Spell

[Fleshcollector]

There is some discussion concerning the definition of "cast" as in casting a spell as it affects the basic mechanics of the game and interacts with special rules and magical items, namely for us the Ring of Hotek. I am not a lawyer nor want to be one but as a common folk it seems that too many get their proverbial panties in a wad when it comes to understanding the meaning of casting a spell.

Assuming that Games Workshop uses words according to their definition, let us look at "cast" in verb form.

(a.) to cause to move or send forth
(b.) to put forth
(c.) to place as if by throwing
(d.) to deposit
(e.) to throw off or away
(f.) to point or turn to a target or goal (synonym: aim or direct)

Another synonym is "project" (as a verb).

(a.) to devise in the mind
(b.) to throw or cast forward
(c.) to reproduce on a surface by motion in a prescribed direction
(d.) to cause to fall into space or to fall on a surface

It should be obvious that cast is indeed synonymous with target and the removal of target in the FAQ is simply removing redundancy or wordiness of an unnecessary word of one bothers to understand the definition of "cast."

"Cast" does not simply mean to speak words or make strange gyrations in the air with ones arms, which is the argument of those who believe only wizards within 12" of the RoH are affected. But by observing the meaning of "cast" we clearly understand that it is more than speaking or proximity.

If a wizard "places" a spell within 12" of RoH then they are subject to the influence of the ring.

If a wizard "points to a target" for a spell within 12" then they would also be subject to the ring.

If a wizard "deposits" a spell within 12" of the ring then they would be subject to the ring.

It's all rather obvious what the definition of "cast" is when looking in the dictionary but we do not truly know the intent of GW in relation to the ring except to assume they use words according to their definition and since they have not re-defined the word "cast" it is fair to assume it means what it means.

Therefore the Ring of Hotek works as it always has.

[Phierlihy]

And in all your cases, the definition strikes me as obvious - castng is whatever arcane actions required to create the spell. Despite your attempted "verbal gymnastics" I will disagree and continue to play with it as written in the FAQ/errata. However if you can somehow manage to convince your gaming buddies that the ring should effect both caster and target, good for you! Me? Well I'd be embarrassed to even attempt backing up this hypothisis. I just don't need to win that badly.

[Erethain]

as much as i'd like to believe the ring still works the same, if GW wanted it to still affect spells that target a unit within the rings range they wouldn't have changed the wording, it would have been a wasted effort to change it and still keep it working the same.
so unfortunately imo the ring only works if the wizard casting a spell is within 12" of the bearer.
maybe now there wont be so much complaining about how overpowered it is for its points

[Bitterman]

Let it go, man. Let it go.

GW don't list a dictionary and a degree in law as requirements for playing their games. It's pretty obvious what the change to the wording is intended to convey (if the rules weren't supposed to change, why would they bother changing the wording?) and no amount of word-twisting will compensate for that.

Sure, RoH now sucks. Well, it was ridiculously overpowered before. Call it karma, rebalancing, whatever you like. But just let it go.

[Sloeberjong]

yes...the definition of casting is clear. However, rules are not made with a single word and it needs sentences.

So for once and for all...in english grammer..."Any Wizard attemting to cast a spell within 12"..etc." Refers to the wizard being within 12". Whatever he does there is his own buisiness.

Could also be read as "Any wizard trying to take a crap within 12" of the ring gets a miscast".

"at a target" is critical in the complete sentence...any other way is wrong, clear and simple. If you can convince others your way, good for you. I won't, cuz it be cheating man!

Don't get me wrong I would also love to have it work the old way...it just doesn't anymore. On the other hand, you don't need scroll caddies anymore and having a low level sorc is enough to get fun out of the magic fase...so I don't need it anymore either.

[Calisson]

Fortunately, the German and French RoH still work as the 7th edition! No need for a dictionary for us.

[Meteor]

Unfortunately we're not playing in Germany or France. However, if you ever do go there for a tournament then remember to take that RoH bubble with you

[Duguay-trouin]

I was getting a little bit tired of reading all these Ring of Hotek arguments, so I decided to ask GW to clarify!

This is the email I sent them:

Hello,

I am just looking for some clarification on a rule. The new Dark Elf FAQ includes the following entry:

Page 102 – Ring of Hotek
Change to “Any Wizard (friend or foe) attempting to cast a
spell within 12" of the wearer must roll on the Miscast table on
any roll of a double, but will only cast a spell with irresistible
force on a roll of double 6.”

The original entry in the army book reads "to cast or target a spell"

Now that the FAQ has left out the word target, there has been considerable debate as to whether this changes the effect of the Ring of Hotek.

To make matters more confusing, the German, and French versions of the FAQ have apparently not changed this detail.

If someone from GW can please clarify the effect of the Ring of Hotek, I am sure all of the members over at www.druchii.net will be most appreciative.


AND THIS IS THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED:

The spell must ORIGINATE within 12 inches of the ring. If the spell originates anywhere outside the 12 inch mark, it does not matter if the target is within 12 inches of the ring or the ring bearer him/herself.

Thanks!

John Hollingsworth
Customer Service Specialist



Now I know some people will continue to bicker, saying 'well if it's not crystal clear in an official FAQ, than it's still debatable...'

[Calisson]

Thanks a lot, Duguay-Trouin!
(also, Duguay-Trouin is the name of a famous French corsair )

You're right: as long as it is not officially FAQed, it is debatable.
Fortunately, I use the French FAQ, which is cristal clear.

By the way, I used the RoH only once in 7th ed (against Dwarves, which explains why I deleted it from my army list shortly after... )
and I do not intend to use it any soon again.

[Duguay-trouin]

Ha Ha, thanks for noticing the origin of my call sign Calisson!

[Calisson]

I belong myself to the French Navy, so I am sort of his heir.
Especially here in D.net, where I'm proudly a corsair since my 75th post!

[Meteor]

By the way, I used the RoH only once in 7th ed (against Dwarves, which explains why I deleted it from my army list shortly after... )
and I do not intend to use it any soon again.

I laughed so hard when I read that haha. And now I understand why you prefer the ranking of a Corsair Calisson, it's no longer strange to me

Once again, thanks Duguay for asking GW, I keep forgetting to, shows how much I rely on RoH from 7th to 8th ed now

(the only two times I used it was when I was an apprentice DE player and fantasy player all up, and flew a Dragon mounted DL behind a lv4 Slann Priest. Then another time where I had mages and RoH in the middle. Hit off an IF for black horror, then to my horror, I misjudged my distances to the RoH )

[Fleshcollector]

Fortunately, the German and French RoH still work as the 7th edition! No need for a dictionary for us.

The very existence of seemingly contradictory FAQs in various languages is the only reason one would need to bother with a dictionary in the first place. To those folks thinking that it is a twisting of words to use words applicable by the very definition is interesting and strange to me.

Is seems even stranger that there is a consensus of re-defining the word "cast" from the dictionary meaning based on nothing substantial, just an impression that it means something else.

It was already mentioned that the intent of the change in the FAQ is left to our imagination but the meaning of "cast" remains the same which is clear to my eyes.

Bitter Man: "It's pretty obvious what the change to the wording is intended to convey (if the rules weren't supposed to change, why would they bother changing the wording?)"

Indeed why? It removes what to me is rather obvious redundancy. To you it changes everything.

With that said, those folks who assume that the purpose of this thread is to gain myself some stinking cheating advantage over my stupid blokes can rest assured that those assumptions are incorrect. I have not played with the RoH in 8th as my wood elves led by a unicorn riding spellweaver don't have access to it. Nonetheless, whether it is as it is or if it isn't the RoH is merely a single item in a vast arsenal and ultimately means almost nothing.

Just speaking my mind.

[Meteor]

It'd be good if there was a point for raising the issue up then, otherwise what a waste of space and time reading >.>

Despite what you actually think it means now, it is very clear that RoH is no longer a bubble since Duguay has confirmed it by asking actual GW staff.

To me, the new actual effect of the ring was crystal clear from the get go, I even mistakened it to be the current effect even back in 7th ed before I was corrected.

[Burizan]

The first time this ed I actually wanted to take RoH was when they decided to change the wording!

Of course to actually do so would just be stupid. Or would it? For 7th ed I (and I guess many of you) have only considered it as only used in no/minimal magic lists. Three things have changed:
1) It can't be used to protect within 12"
2) We can measure whatever and wherever
3) Miscasting, although not cancelling a spell, is now more unhealthy than smoking.

#2 there opens a door, we can not only use it to target mages reliably (as we know how far they are from us, where we can move to etc), but we can now blast them with magic at the same time! We have one of the strongest magic phases in the game and we don't have to lose it to field a potent magic defense.

Chin up

[Dalamar]

Being able to measure anything, anytime also means their mages know exactly how far away the ring is, and can move 0.5" away out of its zone instead of guesstimatig and moving 2" just to be on the safe side, at the same time exposing themselves.

Contradictory translations in FAQs are there because the translators hired to do the job are crap. And they most certainly don't play the game to understand what they are translating (number one of translating anything, you have to understand it, not just semantics).
Warhammer translations went to the point of completely changing some rules in 7th edition rulebook translated to Polish.

So use english version, it will save you a lot of headaches.

[Hjiryon]

RoH has become an offensive item now; you put it on a lone noble on a dark pegasus and get her behind enemy lines near an enemy spellcaster, then proceed to merrily bombard the enemy with spells with no ill effects.

Personally, I think this fits the theme of the dark elf army much better than the previous defensive incarnation - and really, fielding magic defense in 8th has become rather more managable.

[Burizan]

Being able to measure anything, anytime also means their mages know exactly how far away the ring is, and can move 0.5" away out of its zone instead of guesstimatig and moving 2" just to be on the safe side, at the same time exposing themselves.

Good point. They won't always be able to get away though, the first time should be a surprise, and if you are putting pressure on your opponent to move in a certain way you can potentially trick them into other dangers. I'm curious to know how it would work in practice.

[Dalamar]

If you move your ring bearer in range and measure 12" to any mage, an opponent with half a brain will get a "Ring of Hotek right HERE" message.

[Dangerous Beans]

Sorry Dal, but I agree with Burizan - its a neat and interesting little trick call 'miss-direction' - and one that you can fully use to your advantage if your cunning (eg. position a unit of cold one knights to 'sadly' not quite oberve the flank of a target enemy unit with a spellcaster; move a RoH bearing Master into range; enemy unit moves outta range of the RoH but into a 'flank charge positioned' CoK unit...)

Theres always potential light at the end of the tunnel...

- Beanz

[Dalamar]

Or go for a charge on your cavalry so they don't end up showing their flank to them.

[Dangerous Beans]

infantry vs cavalry does still not always work - however courtesy of the new random charge lentgh, granted; the boundaries are somewhat dramatically blurred, however a unit of cold one knights should still charge further than chaos warriors. Alterantively, flee with your unit - givining the enemy an almighty D6" range to escape the Ring of Hotek. OR, if the enemy does'nt charge you - they still have to pass a LD test to march...

edit: they may not get the message if your RoH bearer happens to be a Master on Dark Steed in a Dark Rider unit - they must just be simply thinking "oh dear lord heck, this unit can negate my ranks and possibly prevent my return attacks"...

As I said - theres always alternate ending; even 'pretending' your unit/chara has the RoH can be super powerful; I pulled off a similar trick by putting a DR mounted BSB in a unit of Cold One Knights for the GT last year so that everyone thought he was a 'PoK/Sword of Might super BSB' that so many druchii lists were using - however he turned out to merely be the cheerful (and often usually obvious) Hydra Banner bearing munchkin that proves so handy - however because precautions were taken (and no nasty 7th Ed spells cast at him) he survived every game - denying my opponents 200 odd VPs (worked a treat too in the GT!); alas my army was let down by lack of 'black painted movement trays'... GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!! (where was any MENTION of painted movement trays in the starter pack )

Cheers,

a now super drunk/heavily enibriated

Beanz

***double edit/back on track of topic = Beanz takes a devils advocate approach: sure, it is OBVIOUS how GW 'intend' the wording to represent, but VS opponents who often play (IMHO annoyingly) RAWR (RAW???) it becomes tricky as theres no clarification/definition of terminology (IE. 'cast'/'casting'). Flesh Collector is corrent to amend that under 'dictionary terms', the RoH works the same as always. However, under 'spirit of game'/empathised interpretation of GW wording change - only the model/character attempting to conjure/create a spell is affected - NOT the target.
Its a connundrum that won't be resolved until GW issues ANOTHER faq. Sadly this is SUPER confusing for Tourney list writers...

[Calisson]

Contradictory translations in FAQs are there because the translators hired to do the job are crap. And they most certainly don't play the game to understand what they are translating (number one of translating anything, you have to understand it, not just semantics).
Warhammer translations went to the point of completely changing some rules in 7th edition rulebook translated to Polish.

So use english version, it will save you a lot of headaches.

Completely disagree on this specific point:
it was the English version which was very poorly written, allowing several interpretations.
The French translation (speaking about what I know) was well written and clearly included both interpretations.

The translators are not to blame here, but the rule writers and, later, the FAQ writers.

The present rules (in English) are still ambiguous. The FAQ did not clarified them clearly (as this thread shows). Only the Customer Service Specialist's sentence is cristal clear.

A FAQ v1.2 is definitively required, and that should not be an FAQ but an erratum, as it is not a clarification but a real change of rules compared to what the RoH was last year.



Back off topic to the tactical uses of that "downgraded" RoH,
the ability to measure anything at anytime means that if I bring a possible RoH bearer close (remaining at 1" or more) to a magic user, this magic-user will be tempted to move away. He moves before casting. He needs to get out of 12". He can measure anytime.
Consequence: I can't force a miscast on a mounted sorcerer, and I need to be at less than 4" of a M4 sorcerer on foot, or less than 2" of a M5 sorcerer on foot.
Any volunteer to get that close to the foe? And taking the measure discretely, so as to be at more than 1" but less than 2" of Teclis?

If I cannot get that close, setting an ambush in the opposite direction is the way to go, as mentioned above. Easier said than done, but that is the remaining use for the RoH, along with setting a 12" sorcerer-free bubble (but how many spells work only at less than this distance?).
All this fuss for 25pts, plus the value of the ring bearer on a mobile mount? Not for me.

[Meteor]

However, mages usually are in a unit for greater protection. For them to get away, either the entire unit must move, or the mage will have to leave the unit if the unit doesn't wish to go forward. I believe in 8th ed a character can't join another unit upon leaving their current one in the same turn, so they'll be exposed and easy pickings. The result is either an out of place battleline or an exposed mage for us to nuke in our following turn. You'd be silly if you allowed sufficient room for a mage to hop from one corner to the other. Bottlenecks aren't all that uncommon in 8th ed either since units are generally bulked up when we're playing bigger points lists. So the mage bunker could sometimes find itself unable to move out of that 12" diameter.

Being able to control or restrict your opponent's movement is an invaluable tool. It's these subtle things that'll put your opponent off, placing you in a further advantage. I do agree that it's not a very cost effective item since you require a bearer and a flying mount of some description. But I wouldn't write off RoH as a useless item that easily.

(btw, what does it mean when people add the word 'period' at the end of their sentence?)

[Bitterman]

(btw, what does it mean when people add the word 'period' at the end of their sentence?)

It means, "and that is all that needs to be said on the subject". The full stop at the end of a sentence is called a period, so when someone says "XYZ, period" they mean, "XYZ covers the entirety of the topic, and nothing else can be said that will change anything but XYZ".