14 replies to this topic

[Rolf]

Hi All,

 

I was playing a friendly game against a Skaven army last weekend when the Skaven player tossed a spell at one of my units.  (Please excuse the use of the words 'friendly' and 'Skaven' in the same sentence!) I rolled to dispel, but failed. At that point, I remembered my runesmith had an unused spellbreaker rune. I told my opponent that I was using the rune. Being a friendly game, he said (paraphrasing): "Alright, you can, but I want you to know I am being nice, because you normally can't use a dispel scroll after rolling to dispel." I didn't remember reading that restriction, but I have played fewer than 10 WHFB games in my life and some of those were in the eighties, so I said 'OK', and we moved on.

 

Since we are going to play again soon, I decided to look at the rules again, just to be sure I understood how spellbreaker works.

 

In part, the spellbreaking rune rule reads: "When a spell has been cast, a Runesmith or Runelord can use this rune to dispel it automatically, without the need to roll the dispel dice." There seems to be no prohibition against attempting to dispel it the normal way first. It just allows you to dispel it and you don't have to roll any dice. (New Dwarf Army Book: Page 64)

 

I then looked up a dispel scroll and it reads: "...a wizard who has a dispel scroll can read it instead of attempting to dispel the scroll using dispel dice." (BRB: page 504)

 

The wording for the scroll explicitly says it may be used *instead* of attempting a dispel dice roll. The wording lays out a clear either/or option. However, the same restriction does not appear to exist for the spellbreaking rune. 

 

How have people been playing the spellbreaker? (I have read all sorts of posts where people refer to the rune and scroll as if they are interchangeable, so I am guessing it is being treated the same.) It seems GW could have easily cut and pasted the dispel scroll rules if they wanted it to be the same. In fact, they did use mostly the same wording. (In respect of copyright I have not quoted either object's whole rule text, please read yourself to see what I mean.)

 

Please let me know what you think, a beardling wants to know !

 

 

[dwarfsarethebestaround]

You may either choose to roll dice to try and dispel the spell, OR use a scroll it's either or, that's the way I've been playing it anyway.

[Zidane_blade]

It's one or the other.

[Kallstrom]

I have been playing it like a dispel scroll, but the wording sounds interesting. I do not hhave the rule or army book with me. Any glorious rules lawyers or RAW-warmongers among us that can shed some light on this matter and quote their sources from our holy books?

[Zidane_blade]

It more og less reads the same.

No roll is required.
No need to roll.

It implied, that its one or the other.

[Kallstrom]

Aye, it might be implied, and RAI it probably is supposed to work like a dispel scroll. But if it says "without the need to roll the dispel dice" it can be interpenetrated that you may choose to roll the dice beforehand to give dispelling a try first.
RAW it is up to debate, but on the other hand - if you fail to dispel a spell with dice the spell is supposed to go through. So then one should not be able to dispel it with a rune.

I think no tournament judge or fellow player would allow one to use the spellbreaking/eating rune after trying to dispel with dice though. But nice find nonetheless!

[Zidane_blade]

Not rally, because there is no option to do both. The core rules only give you the opportunity to roll dice. And the exceptions are those that read: A roll is not needed/required.
The assumption that both can be used, if not explicitly told, is something we make up.

[Grim1]

"When a spell has been cast, a Runesmith or Runelord can use this rune to dispel it automatically, without the need to roll the dispel dice."

It does say you can use this rune to dispel it automatically, but it also says that you must use it when a spell is cast.... not after a spell has been cast and a dispel attempt failed. This is an enhanced dispel, not an additional dispel.

Every army has only one opportunity to dispel and this is an opportunity to guarantee a successful dispel not to have an additional guarantee after a failed dispel attempt.

[Kallstrom]

Zidane-blade: Aye, it is a RAW vs RAI question. But the army book is known to overrule the rule book. However, even though we are in agreement - the wording of the Spellbreaker/Eater is not something one make up, it is just open for interpretation.

Grim1: Ah, then we have it written. Splendid!

Edited by Kallstrom, 24 March 2015 - 08:41 AM.

[kelvenmore]

@kallstorm I prefer a RAW interpretation myself since there is less gray area. So when i read the rules I don't see it, for me it's clear cut you dice it or use a rune.

Here's why, GW mechanics usually allow for one attempt at anything unless explicitly stated otherwise and usually the second value sticks.
In the magic section that covers casting and dispelling and its clear it's one attempt to cast and one attempt to dispel.
The rune of spellbreaking never gives an option to use the rune even if earlier attempts failed. It only gives the option to automatically pass the dispel attempt.

[Granitbeard]

Now maybe this is me over thinking and remembering things wrong, but you get one chance to dispel a spell when it is caste. I will have to double check the dispel section of the BRB, but I feel I read that some where. Which would there for mean, to me, use the dice or use the rune.

[Grumpgrim]

I think OP is right in that you can make a fair RAW argument that the RoSpellbreaking can be used in addition to rolling for dispell. There is no clear rule or principle stating otherwise, and the text of the rune doesn't state any exception the way the scroll does.

 

I think we have just played rune=scroll out of lazyness. Just because a similar item from a different book has some rule stating it works a certain way doesn't mean ours does as well, particularly since scroll clearly states exception and the rune does not. So I think OP's RAW reading is valid.

 

 

That said, RAI is probably scroll=rune. Being able to both roll and auto-dispell is such a unique and powerfull tool that if they had intended it to work that way they would have said so.

 

Also, every tournament and flgs will most probably faq/houserule it as working the same way. And we're dwarfs to boot, there's traditions to keep in mind. We have always played the rune like this, can't change it now! 

[Gotrong Gudmundsson]

Hell no.

[Rolf]

 

 

And we're dwarfs to boot, there's traditions to keep in mind. We have always played the rune like this, can't change it now! 

 

Best argument!

 

Thanks everyone for the good input. ( "Hell no" being a good grumbling dwarf response ! ) 

 

I pretty much felt that RAI is that the rune is like the scroll, but wasn't sure (... and, in truth, I was hoping for a better way to thwart my pesky Skaven opponent, but alas, it is not to be. )

 

"Shields up ! Forward !"

[Grim1]

I think that it goes without saying that, now that we have hatred v skaven, we don't have to join these rats in order to beat them.