AoS 2 - Stormcast Eternals Discussion

[PJetski]

5 minutes ago, mystycalchemy said:

Unfortunately, I don't believe Whitefire Tome is an apt example here for what you're trying to argue.

Whitefire tome is worded as such because it can be given to a unit that is not a wizard. If it did not have that second clause, it would read as such:

"If the bearer is a WIZARD, they know all the spells from the lore of whitefire instead of only 2."

Thus, it would not perform at all on anything but a wizard. You could, legally put it on a wizard, but without that second clause, the artifact does nothing on a non-wizard, thus, the statement saying a spell can be cast is required.

If we look at evocators the same way, let's remove the troublesome words from the FAQ.

"Each EVOCATORS unit in your army can know 1 spell from the lore of invigoration."

If this is how the FAQ was worded, they wouldnt be able to cast any spells from LoI at all, as their warscroll states they can only cast empower. The FAQ for the Lore MUST say they are able to cast a spell, it MUST contradict the warscroll's rules (and state as such) so that Evocators are able to cast the spells. 

The FAQ doesn't say that so it can be misconstrued into meaning they get two spells, its literally required so that Evocators work as they are meant to. It's written poorly, but not THAT poorly.

i know you're in this for good fun. But consider how your opponents are gonna think about this. If I saw this, I'd call the TO over to confirm cause most TOs i can think of wouldnt go for this kind of exploitation.

I'm not sure your argument about the Whitefire Tome is relevant? It's not something I am disputing, and it doesn't contradict my statements about it. My point about the Whitefire Tome is that a specific rule which allows you to do something (in this case "cast a spell") trumps the general rule (in this case "only WIZARD cast spells").

If a unit has the ability to cast 1 spell per turn it can still cast more spells through special abilities; the number of spells a WIZARD can cast are not relevant when a special rule says you can cast a spell. Similarly, the movement characteristic of a model is not relevant if a special rule says you can make a 2d6" move.

In the case of Evocators the way the errata is worded states that evocators can:

1. Learn a spell from the lore

2. Attempt to cast a spell from the lore

If they want this ability to work the way you are describing, then they need to add the phrase "instead of casting empower" or something along those lines. Neither of us know why they chose to word it this way for this unit, and I'm not going to pretend I know better than the designers written word.

I don't care what random TOs think; their opinion is irrelevant to this conversation.

1 minute ago, Jaskier said:

Take a step back and think about what you are arguing. Evocators have a rule that says they can only ever cast Empower, meaning the FAQ has to specify that they can cast a spell from the lore they have access to, otherwise they would know a spell but not be able to cast it. It does not say they can cast a second spell or an extra spell. You are arguing instead that this allows them to cast two spells in one phase. Whether you want to accept it or not, it's blatant rules-lawyering to gain an advantage that is clearly not intended - nor is it even really supported by the actual rules-as-written. 

It does have to specify that they can cast that spell, but the specific way they chose to phrase the rule allows for the ability to cast an additional spell from the lore. If that was not their intent then they should have just written the standard text for spell lores that exists in every single book in the game or worded it in so many different ways that would work like a standard spell lore. 

I feel like I'm trying to explain the Aetherwing movement to people all over again... It's not intuitive because it's not consistent with other spell lore text but that doesn't mean it is written incorrectly. You can make house rules but don't pretend that your interpretation is the designers intent.

I do not appreciate the assumptions you are making about me nor the childish ad hominem attacks.

[Mark Williams]

I agree with the interpretation that the FAQ is giving Evocators a choice of either their warscroll spell or one of the Invigoration spells - this accounting for the fact that their warscroll as written would only allow Empower and nothing else. It feels weird having to try to argue about it... every time I go to respond to one of these posts I end up deleting everything I wrote because I feel like I'm trying argue about whether or not water is wet with someone who is saying stuff like "what if you don't touch the water" or "what if the water is ice?" It's not that I couldn't hash out an argument for it, but at a certain point I feel like either the person I'm arguing with is having a laugh at me, or they are not worth arguing with... I can't tell which, but it's not worth it either way.

[Jaskier]

Your argument revolves entirely around ignoring the last sentence of the errata which, by your interpretation, means they can cast two spells but only if they do it in a specific order. That's the basis of your argument, correct? You understand how that's already flimsy ground to work off, right? 

If you want to argue about wording, Evocators can cast one spell each hero phase. The FAQ lets them cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration. Where in the FAQ does it say they can cast more than one spell per hero phase? No matter how you try to spin it, the Evocators' warscroll hard caps them at one spell cast per turn. The Errata does not override that restriction, lest it would also say "in addition to casting any other spells the unit knows" or something that specifically stipulates that the unit can cast a second, extra or additional spell. If any of those three words were present, you might have a point, but they're not, so you don't. It specifies they can cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration because otherwise they would know a spell but not be able to cast it because their warscroll specifies they can only ever cast Empower. The FAQ specifically overrides their restriction of only casting Empower. The FAQ does not specifically override their restriction of only attempting to cast one spell per turn. 

And by the by, I'm not making assumptions. Your list with a triple duplicate mount trait on one unit, your blatant rules-lawyering to attempt to gain a very obviously unintended advantage regarding Evocators, and your admission that you don't care about the opinions of "random TOs" with regard to said rules-lawyering, all speak for themselves. That's fine if you want to roll that way! No judgement here, mate. Just understand that it's very much typical of power-gaming, and thus you shouldn't try to pretend that's not what you're doing. That's all. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jaskier

[NauticalSoup]

52 minutes ago, Jaskier said:

No judgement here, mate.

Well - some judgement here, maybe.

This whole line of discussion has a a very TFG early 2010s You Make Da Call thread vibe.

[Champasaur]

I just wanna be excited about dragons man

[PrimeElectrid]

3 hours ago, Jaskier said:

Your argument revolves entirely around ignoring the last sentence of the errata which, by your interpretation, means they can cast two spells but only if they do it in a specific order. That's the basis of your argument, correct? You understand how that's already flimsy ground to work off, right? 

If you want to argue about wording, Evocators can cast one spell each hero phase. The FAQ lets them cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration. Where in the FAQ does it say they can cast more than one spell per hero phase? No matter how you try to spin it, the Evocators' warscroll hard caps them at one spell cast per turn. The Errata does not override that restriction, lest it would also say "in addition to casting any other spells the unit knows" or something that specifically stipulates that the unit can cast a second, extra or additional spell. If any of those three words were present, you might have a point, but they're not, so you don't. It specifies they can cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration because otherwise they would know a spell but not be able to cast it because their warscroll specifies they can only ever cast Empower. The FAQ specifically overrides their restriction of only casting Empower. The FAQ does not specifically override their restriction of only attempting to cast one spell per turn. 

And by the by, I'm not making assumptions. Your list with a triple duplicate mount trait on one unit, your blatant rules-lawyering to attempt to gain a very obviously unintended advantage regarding Evocators, and your admission that you don't care about the opinions of "random TOs" with regard to said rules-lawyering, all speak for themselves. That's fine if you want to roll that way! No judgement here, mate. Just understand that it's very much typical of power-gaming, and thus you shouldn't try to pretend that's not what you're doing. That's all. 

That’s quite clearly a lot of judgement.

You know it’s possible to disagree with someone without calling them a WAAC rules lawyering power gamer, right? @PJetski is the only person who doesn’t come across as a ****** here.

[Turragor]

4 hours ago, Mark Williams said:

I agree with the interpretation that the FAQ is giving Evocators a choice of either their warscroll spell or one of the Invigoration spells - this accounting for the fact that their warscroll as written would only allow Empower and nothing else. It feels weird having to try to argue about it... every time I go to respond to one of these posts I end up deleting everything I wrote because I feel like I'm trying argue about whether or not water is wet with someone who is saying stuff like "what if you don't touch the water" or "what if the water is ice?" It's not that I couldn't hash out an argument for it, but at a certain point I feel like either the person I'm arguing with is having a laugh at me, or they are not worth arguing with... I can't tell which, but it's not worth it either way.

There are a few examples of RAW/RAI debates like this, it's just up to local TOs.

If it's a RAW/RAI loophole then go for it. SCE get a new book soon rendering it obsolete. SCE aren't challenging any tournaments. TOs decide so you don't need to debate with opponents.

If it were a loophole in StD, Disciples, LrL etc, the players there would definitely be using it if TOs allowed.

It's the nature of the game!

If you play a friendly game with pals then ask them if your interpretation is ok. If its a tournament - TO decides.

Given that, I think there's been too much of an attempt to condemn @PJetski for his list. It puts me in mind of Stormwinged (taken twice, one on each Drake; used in move, charge & pile-in) which I think a lot of ppl thought was more ok.

My own feedback would be IF the TOs allow it, the Evocator choice is good and triple stormwinged is a nobrainer. IF the TOs don't allow it, I'd still take stormwinged and the evocators aren't necessarily invalidated so the need to adjust the list may not exist.

[Mark Williams]

27 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

That’s quite clearly a lot of judgement.

You know it’s possible to disagree with someone without calling them a WAAC rules lawyering power gamer, right? @PJetski is the only person who doesn’t come across as a ****** here.

That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite.

[Fuxxx]

Hehe 🍿...

 

You know - I wouldn't say @PJetski is bad at arguing. And Mr. Jetski you know enough about topoi to open up a meta-discussion about this discussion. I enjoy reading it. I'm also not saying you're wrong. If your local game group accepts it, and either noone likes you or (and I believe that this second assumption is correct) the tone in your group is one of abusing (yeah mean word for that here but you yourself say you also think it will be changed and you're just having fun as long as it lasts so I don't think it is totally wrong here) poorly written rules. And that's fine as long as you have fun with it you do you and as long as your opponent and you have fun that's a nice thing

I'm also tempted enough to the petty statement: I played with someone once that I invited into my house, he wanted to learn kings of war vanguard's Rules from me. Came with a list that abused all the unbalanced point costs at that time (and were changed afterwards), that he'd gotten on the internet and while my English surely isn't perfect his was pretty bad - he still argued on pretty clear cut rules since he wanted to understand them however they benefitted him. He wasn't invited another time. I heard he got better though.

This is certainly a way to play, but not one I like. This is only an anecdote and not at all directed at you. It's just that we choose our opponents. Sometimes we don't know what we'll get and are irritated by that. But if your opponents know you and still want to play and you're ok with them doing the same thing: cool, have fun, at the current state there's nothing wrong without it and even if you'd implement those as house rules afterwards I wouldn't mind.

 

I'll need some dragons btw. No flying away Kharadron ships that kill my entire army anymore

[Jaskier]

1 hour ago, PrimeElectrid said:

That’s quite clearly a lot of judgement.

You know it’s possible to disagree with someone without calling them a WAAC rules lawyering power gamer, right? @PJetski is the only person who doesn’t come across as a ****** here.

I think we've got some wires crossed here. Pre-COVID I was a regular tournament player and a lot of my absolute favourite opponents have been the kind who look to game the rules and push every loophole they can. In fact, I find usually the nicest tournament opponents are the ones who would be described as "power-gamers." I don't consider it an insult to say a person plays in that way. The reality is that there's an enormous difference between "person who tries to cheat" versus "person who looks for every advantage they can get" and that's where the "WAAC" terminology isn't always applied correctly, as it's unfortunately oft used to describe both the aforementioned types of player despite the fact they are completely distinct. 

I'm merely challenging the insinuation that their argument isn't indicative of being that type of player (the one that looks for every advantage they can get.) Saying they don't care about what "random TOs" think regarding a rules debate where their interpretation is clearly not the intent of the rule because it involves ignoring/judicious scrutinization of the last line of an Errata to a point where the only way their interpretation works is that they must cast spells in a certain order to avoid said line? I don't think it's at all unfair to say that type of player is trying to power-game. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jaskier

[PrimeElectrid]

19 minutes ago, Jaskier said:

I think we've got some wires crossed here. Pre-COVID I was a regular tournament player and a lot of my absolute favourite opponents have been the kind who look to game the rules and push every loophole they can. In fact, I find usually the nicest tournament opponents are the ones who would be described as "power-gamers." I don't consider it an insult to say a person plays in that way. The reality is that there's an enormous difference between "person who tries to cheat" versus "person who looks for every advantage they can get" and that's where the "WAAC" terminology isn't always applied correctly, as it's unfortunately oft used to describe both the aforementioned types of player despite the fact they are completely distinct. 

I'm merely challenging the insinuation that their argument isn't indicative of being that type of player (the one that looks for every advantage they can get.) Saying they don't care about what "random TOs" think regarding a rules debate where their interpretation is clearly not the intent of the rule because it involves ignoring/judicious scrutinization of the last line of an Errata to a point where the only way their interpretation works is that they must cast spells in a certain order to avoid said line? I don't think it's at all unfair to say that type of player is trying to power-game. 

I don’t give a ****** what random TOs in Poland think, either. The only TO that matters to me is the one running the event I’m going to.

Edit: there’s a lot of people making a very big deal out of some minor interactions here. They can be supported by the wording as has been argued. We’re not talking about big major exploits that require big leaps. I’d suggest you are all overreacting. Again, you can state “I disagree with this reading and wouldn’t play it that way” without accusing someone of deliberately seeking exploits to abuse so they can gain an unfair advantage and insinuate they are cheaters who don’t play honourably and should be made an outcast.

Remember the yesteryear of a few weeks ago when we thought they’d change unleash hell or pink horrors because it obviously wasn’t meant to work the way it was written? Well they didn’t. Reading intent into future adjustments is a fools errand.

Edited August 4, 2021 by PrimeElectrid

[Lucur]

All the while Kharadron shoot up a third of my army every turn and fly to the other edge of the board to do it all again next turn. RAI. No, a triple stormwinged drake is not the worst of our problems. And it's not like that drake is immortal. Sure it's abusive of badly written rules, and probably it's not intended. But come on, give the man a pause on the douchebag hype train (then again, i wouldn't play against that list on my sunday out beer and brezel hammer :P)

Edited August 4, 2021 by Lucur

[Marcvs]

The problem with the argument "SCE is bad anyway so it's ok to allow for this interpretation" (whether I agree with it or not is not the point here) is that by accepting this you are also accepting stuff like triple metal cruncher on a stonehorn. So, in purely strategic thinking, I'd rather hope that my TO says no to triple storm winged if that reduces the likelihood of facing triple metal cruncher

[Turragor]

4 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

The problem with the argument "SCE is bad anyway so it's ok to allow for this interpretation" (whether I agree with it or not is not the point here) is that by accepting this you are also accepting stuff like triple metal cruncher on a stonehorn. So, in purely strategic thinking, I'd rather hope that my TO says no to triple storm winged if that reduces the likelihood of facing triple metal cruncher

This is perfectly logical. And then I'm thinking of list building as a kind of prisoner's dilemma where you don't take the worst cheese in case someone takes the worst cheese against you. And then the lists are unveiled and you open your eyes to see:

I love this hobby haha

[ledha]

On 8/2/2021 at 7:31 PM, PrimeElectrid said:

There’s every reason to think these guys will be busted.

Fly, expected 3+ save, minimum 5 wounds (so count as double for objectives), probably a 12” move, all great in this edition. As battleline they can be reinforced twice and you don’t have to take liberators.

In addition, GW base rules around model visuals. Oh, this looks like it does xyz so we’ll give it some special ability. This is where sin writing usually creeps in. These models look fantastic so will probably get some good rules to go with them. But even if they don’t, the above rules are already pretty good.

Then consider that they might have the monster keyword and oh boy

probably like 300-400 points though.

Stormcast heroes look incredibly cool yet the lame freeguild captain on foot hit harder than any of them. Heck compare the knight questor to the grimwrath berserker and it's so sad it become funnny.

Stardrake is a enormous armored dragon yet ended up with 7 attacks -1/d3 and is hilariously pillow fisted for its cost even if all stars aligns on his special attacks (it's basically a very good anvil and that's all) 

Stormcast are full of cool models with lame offensive profiles so i can totally expect these badass dragon riders being outpaced by zombies damage wise.

Edited August 4, 2021 by ledha

[PJetski]

9 hours ago, Jaskier said:

If you want to argue about wording, Evocators can cast one spell each hero phase. The FAQ lets them cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration. Where in the FAQ does it say they can cast more than one spell per hero phase?

I think this is where you are misunderstanding my argument. You don't need to be able to cast another spell if a special rule tells you that you can cast a spell. Since the spell lore rule says "cast a spell from the Lore" then it doesn't matter that they can only cast one spell per turn normally. Casting a spell from the Lore through this special rule is not bound by their warscroll limitation of one spell per turn.

As I've stated before, nobody here knows if this is intentional or not. It is inconsistent with every other spell lore phrasing in the game but that doesn't mean it is wrong. There are many rules in the game that break the norms and are totally unique, such as Aetherwings moving in the enemy charge phase.

There are even other instances in the game where you can cast additional spells despite a limit of casting per turn. The Whitefire Tome allows a hero that can cast 0 spells to cast a spell. In the 2.0 realm rules for Ghyran there was a command ability that let you cast Shield of Thorns (I think?) and it could be used even if you aren't a WIZARD and regardless of how many spells that hero attempted to cast previously in the phase.

[Mikosan]

My take on the mount traits and evo's: I can see the triple mount traits, surely not intended but yeah, not explicitly disallowed by the rules.  The evo's on the other hand have a warscroll that says they can cast one spell full stop.  Nothing in the FAQ says they can cast an additional spell, just that they can cast from lore of invigoration.  No text to break the one spell limit, where there is text to break the part about only being able to cast empower.  Its simply one step too far for me.  

Fill your boots for the next couple weeks I guess, is my take.  If TO allows it, and it is definitely worth an ask before turning up, have at it.

[Jaskier]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

I think this is where you are misunderstanding my argument. You don't need to be able to cast another spell if a special rule tells you that you can cast a spell. Since the spell lore rule says "cast a spell from the Lore" then it doesn't matter that they can only cast one spell per turn normally. Casting a spell from the Lore through this special rule is not bound by their warscroll limitation of one spell per turn.

As I've stated before, nobody here knows if this is intentional or not. It is inconsistent with every other spell lore phrasing in the game but that doesn't mean it is wrong. There are many rules in the game that break the norms and are totally unique, such as Aetherwings moving in the enemy charge phase.

There are even other instances in the game where you can cast additional spells despite a limit of casting per turn. The Whitefire Tome allows a hero that can cast 0 spells to cast a spell. In the 2.0 realm rules for Ghyran there was a command ability that let you cast Shield of Thorns (I think?) and it could be used even if you aren't a WIZARD and regardless of how many spells that hero attempted to cast previously in the phase.

If we're going to talk about intent, you can't ignore the last line of this errata, or do you seriously believe the rules designers' intent was for Evocators to be able to cast two spells but only in a specific order each time? You can't expect me to believe they included that line with the intent of "Evocators can cast two spells a turn, but only if they cast Empower first - OR ELSE!" 

Further, there's a key difference between this and something like the Whitefire Tome; when you give a non-wizard the Whitefire Tome, that unit does not have a rule telling you how many spells it can cast because it's not a wizard, hence the Whitefire Tome tells you how many spells you can cast with that unit. In this case, Evocators already have a rule that tells you how many spells they can cast - one. No matter how you try to grapple with the last line of the Errata, the Errata does not say you can cast an additional, second or extra spell, nor does it say you can cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration in addition to the normal one spell they can cast per turn. It says you can cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration. Evocators can only cast one spell per turn. You can feel free to cast either Empower or one spell from the Lore of Invigoration, but the moment you cast one, you have cast one spell and thus cannot cast anymore because Evocators can only cast one spell.

You can do x thing if a rule says you can do x thing and doesn't clash with y thing. In this scenario, you have a rule that lets you cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration, but if you want to cast Empower as well in the same turn, you have another rule that says you can only cast one spell per turn. Could the wording be a bit better? Sure! It's also clearly written on the basis that Evocators have a rule specifically stating they can only cast Empower; the Errata specifically overrides that, but it does not specifically allow them to cast two spells, or more than one spell, a turn.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jaskier

[PJetski]

16 minutes ago, Jaskier said:

If we're going to talk about intent, you can't ignore the last line of this errata, or do you seriously believe the rules designers' intent was for Evocators to be able to cast two spells but only in a specific order each time? You can't expect me to believe they included that line with the intent of "Evocators can cast two spells a turn, but only if they cast Empower first - OR ELSE!" 

Further, there's a key difference between this and something like the Whitefire Tome; when you give a non-wizard the Whitefire Tome, that unit does not have a rule telling you how many spells it can cast because it's not a wizard, hence the Whitefire Tome tells you how many spells you can cast with that unit. In this case, Evocators already have a rule that tells you how many spells they can cast - one. No matter how you try to grapple with the last line of the Errata, the Errata does not say you can cast an additional, second or extra spell, nor does it say you can cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration in addition to the normal one spell they can cast per turn. It says you can cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration. Evocators can only cast one spell per turn. You can feel free to cast either Empower or one spell from the Lore of Invigoration, but the moment you cast one, you have cast one spell and thus cannot cast anymore because Evocators can only cast one spell.

You can do x thing if a rule says you can do x thing and doesn't clash with y thing. In this scenario, you have a rule that lets you cast one spell from the Lore of Invigoration, but if you want to cast Empower as well in the same turn, you have another rule that says you can only cast one spell per turn. Could the wording be a bit better? Sure! It's also clearly written on the basis that Evocators have a rule specifically stating they can only cast Empower; the Errata specifically overrides that, but it does not specifically allow them to cast two spells, or more than one spell, a turn.

They write strange rules all the time. Maybe it is their intent, and there is no way any of us can know either way. It definitely seems silly because it is inconsistent with the rest of the rules in the game, but just because it seems silly doesn't mean it is wrong or a mistake - I'll point out Aetherwings moving in the enemy charge phase again. 

No, the Whitefire Tome does not specify how many spells the unit can cast. It just says it can cast that spell. It does not make the unit a WIZARD that can cast 1 spell and specify that it can only cast that spell, it just says you can cast that spell.

The number of spells Evocators can cast per turn does not matter. If a special rule says "you can attempt to cast this spell" then you can try to cast it even if you can't cast any spells normally, or even if you've already cast all your normal spells. 

If they wanted Evocators to choose between casting Empower and the Lore spell they would have added another clause that said "If an EVOCATOR attempts to cast Empower then it cannot cast any other spells this turn" or "They can cast this spell instead of casting Empower" or something along those lines.

Personal opinions about intent aside, the way it is written right now allows you to cast a Lore spell regardless of how many other spells you can or can't cast. It specifies that you can't cast any other spells after that Lore spell, but the timing matters so you can cast Empower and then the Lore spell.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

10 minutes ago, Jaskier said:

If we're going to talk about intent, you can't ignore the last line of this errata, or do you seriously believe the rules designers' intent was for Evocators to be able to cast two spells but only in a specific order each time? You can't expect me to believe they included that line with the intent of "Evocators can cast two spells a turn, but only if they cast Empower first - OR ELSE!" 

I agree with this, particularly the argument that the intention is very likely not to give Evocators the ability to cast two spells, but only in a certain order. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a clearer example of designer's intent. They really all but spell it out for you: The language stating that Evocators can learn and cast a lore spell is the exception to the rule on their warscroll that says that they can't do this. The part saying that they can attempt to cast a lore spell is only there to prevent a situation where Evocators can learn, but not cast their spells. And I believe it's necessary to have this language if that is the mechanical outcome we want. This is why I believe the argument that the language which states that Evocators can cast a lore spell means that they can do so regardless of the usual casting mechanics to be pretty weak. The language is necessary to allow them to cast the spell at all, because their warscroll rules would otherwise prevent it.

While the last sentence of the erratum can be taken to imply that casting Empower first is allowed, it can just as well be read as evidence for the opposite, since it explicitly disallows casting two spells in the reverse scenario. The basic rules still disallow Evocators from double casting in the first place. So this last bit of rules text seems more like a clarification to me: No, you this rule does not let you double cast. Explicitly forbidding double casting in one case definitely does not imply double casting is allowed in the other case, from a logical perspective.

[PJetski]

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The basic rules still disallow Evocators from double casting in the first place. 

Intent is impossible to discern

Special rules trump core rules

Simple as

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

34 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Intent is impossible to discern

I disagree with that. In some cases, it's fairly clear.

I also disagree that your interpretation is clearly correct under RAW. The truth is, the case of a wizard being explicitly allowed to cast a lore spell is ambiguous. We don't know 100% how it should be handled in the absence of further designer commentary. It's not simply RAW vs RAI. What is RAW is unclear.

Cases where RAW is unclear are precisely when we should look at the probable RAI to make a ruling. In this case, I think one interpretation of RAI just seems overwhelmingly more likely. And it's not the one where you get double casts for no discernable reason by ordering your spells in a certain way.

[jhamslam]

Whats allowing people to take more than 1 mount trait on the same unit? i understand taking the same mount trait multiple times on different drakes but what exactly allows multiple traits on one stardrake. even according to the FAQ  it says one of those HEROES can take A mount trait

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by jhamslam

[Mark Williams]

3 hours ago, jhamslam said:

Whats allowing people to take more than 1 mount trait on the same unit? i understand taking the same mount trait multiple times on different drakes but what exactly allows multiple traits on one stardrake. even according to the FAQ  it says one of those HEROES can take A mount trait

 

I was going to bring this up today too. When I read the rules, I got the same thing out of them.

[mystycalchemy]

1 hour ago, Mark Williams said:

I was going to bring this up today too. When I read the rules, I got the same thing out of them.

I believe its the extra enhancements from Warlord/Command Entourage Core Battalions.

When I did a cursory check yesterday, I didn't see anything saying you could take Unique Enhancements multiple times, I also didn't see anything that says you couldn't take Unique Enhancements multiple times. So its very much a grey area until clarified what extra enhancements we can take with the Magnificent Core Battalion ability.