Topic: Priests and dispel scrolls.

[warhammerlord_soth]

Over at TWF somebody asked if priests could take dispel scrolls. QEverybody said no, but one person answered this :

"Just going to throw this out there;

brb p105 "...we commonly refer to a model able to cast spells as a wizard. Some races may use different terms...but all of these and others are considered to be types of wizard."

If you cast spells, you are a wizard for rules purposes.

Priests cast prayers, 'exactly like bound spells'.

So it could be said that the priest is a model that casts spells, and thus a wizard for all other rules that interact with wizards.

The counterargument should be that prayers are still prayers, and not actual spells.

If they just didn't use that term 'exactly'... "

[CaptScott]

thats pushing it.... still  :sighs wistflully at not having to waste a slot on a scroll caddie:

[Lord Etharion]

Which is why bound spells are distinguished from normal spells.

[scarletsquig]

Apparently, according to the "remains in play" ruling in the latest FaQ, the prayers are in fact spells.

So yeah, WP's should have access to dispel scrolls in that case.

[queek]

Please look at the army list stat of the Battle Wizard and the Warrior Priest.  Pg 75, so you don't even have to page for it.

Notice the rule MAGIC in the Battle Wizards profile?  Do you see it in the Warrior Priests profile?

Sigmar on a sling, the stuff some people come up with. . . .

[warhammerlord_soth]

The hardest thing about making something foolproof, is the fact that fools are so ingenious.


YOU can sig that, Queek 

[Rufas the Eccentric]

Programming today is a race between software engineers and striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far the Universe is winning.
- Rich Cook

Edit:  I beat Queek to it.

[Laerniss]

Programming today is a race between software engineers and striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far the Universe is winning.
- Rich Cook

Edit:  I beat Queek to it.

Ah, care to define a "better idiot?"

In this case, Games Workshop is just digging a larger hole for themselves. I seem to recall seeing army summary sheets with a special rule designated "Wizard." It might have been a previous edition or possibly the draft list in the back of the BRB. Either way, that designation is NOT included in the current summary sheets for the army lists. It's a shame, because it would make this discussion much shorter.

My two cents is that priests are not wizards.

Priests can take armor, which is normally forbidden to wizards. Chaos armor and a Armor of Tarnus being specific exceptions.

The phrase "exactly like bound spells" opens up ambiguity, all wizards have a power level associated with them, usually level 1 through 4, which is then used to generate power and dispel dice. Even if a priest is a wizard, he has no "level" stated, so it would be assumed he is level 0. Thus he generates no power or dispel dice (but is granted dispel dice through the blessings of sigmar special rule).

I don't have my book, but I believe the magic rules state that if a wizard looses all his magic levels, and is effectively "level 0" he no longer counts as a wizard and looses the dispel die he generates.

I'm not sure if he can still use arcane magic items or not.

So we have no direct evidence, either way. But if you want to compare the "exactly like" phrase with other materials set in the rulebooks; I would say there is far more on the side that priests are not wizards.

- Laerniss

[Dendo Star]

Actually, Wizards are no longer forbidden Armour.

[Laerniss]

In this case, Games Workshop is just digging a larger hole for themselves. I seem to recall seeing army summary sheets with a special rule designated "Wizard." It might have been a previous edition or possibly the draft list in the back of the BRB.

Okay, I've confirmed it. Page 73 of the Empire Army Book, Wizard Lord has a special rule describing the characters "Level 3 Wizard." The battle wizard profile on page 75 has a similar entry as does Balthasar Gelt.

Incidently, my earlier babbling about wizards being marked with a "W" is shown in the summary army lists in back of the main rulebook (p. 109 in the small book). Shame Games Workshop did not continue that trend.

- Laerniss

[Laerniss]

Actually, Wizards are no longer forbidden Armour.

p121 Magic Armour sub-section
"A character that is not allowed to wear ordinary armour cannot be given magic armour/helms.... This includes many kinds of Wizard whose natural magical harmony would be seriously affected by armour."

Yes Dendo, Empire Wizards are not specifically forbidden armour. You are splitting hairs however, since the army book entry does not allow normal (thus magical) armour unless specifically stated by the item's army book entry.

- Laerniss

[cisse]

Yes Dendo, Empire Wizards are not specifically forbidden armour. You are splitting hairs however, since the army book entry does not allow normal (thus magical) armour unless specifically stated by the item's army book entry.

But for other wizards or future books, this change might mean something. Chaos armour for instance had a rule specifically allowing wizards to cast while wearing it; now such rules are no longer necessary. The wizard in question just needs the option for armour listed in his profile.

Still there is probably no difference... But it's something that surprises most people, many seem to think that there is still a rule preventing to cast spells while wearing armour.

[queek]

But it's something that surprises most people, many seem to think that there is still a rule preventing to cast spells while wearing armour.

That's because there used to be such a rule, and it no longer exists in 7th edition as a BRB rule.  However, most of the army books don't allow wizards the option of taking armour, so the end result is the same in most cases. 

[Lenny]

And all this could have simply been solved by defining wizards as follows "A character is a wizard if he/she/it has Magic Level(s)"

[queek]

If you look at the various army book entries, they basically have.  A character with "Magic" in its rules follows the BRB rules for casters.  If it doesn't, then it doesn't. 

[Crimsonsphinx]

Also, all wizards get casting dice.  A captain with a doomfire ring is not a wizard but he casts bound spells exactly the same as a priest, except the doomfire ring is actually a useful spell.

[HighPriest Rian]

exactly the same as a priest, except the doomfire ring is actually a useful spell.

Crimson!  How many times must you be burned before you sill stop these heretical comments >.< The spells of the holy priests of sigmar are all useful

[scarletsquig]

A captain with a doomfire ring is not a wizard but he casts bound spells exactly the same as a priest.

Except where "remains in play" bound spells are concerned. :p The arch lector is not a wizard until he tries to cast 2 RiP bound spells, then according to our FaQ, he is one and follows the rules for RiP spellcasting.

This is the reason why I'm not so sure anymore. The arch lector apparently follows the rules for wizards in some ways, but not others, and it's a very "pick n' mix" process at the moment!

If the captain had both the doomfire ring and ring of volans (I know, you can't take both...) then people would allow him to cast the doomfire ring after using a "remains in play" wall of fire from the ring of volans.

The arch lector is in the same position, having access to 2 bound spells, yet according to the FaQ he does not follow the same rules that a captain would if he had 2 bound spells. Therefore he must be a spellcaster, because (at least when casting spells), he is using rules that apply to spellcasters and not ordinary characters.


Hate to be the one throwing the curveball here, but that FaQ ruling makes things a little less black-and-white. The BRB defines a wizard as "a model able to cast spells", it mentions absolutely nothing about requiring "wizard" or "magic" to be present in the profile of the character, so I'm not sure why queek mentioned that.

And since the arch lector now apparently follows the rules for spellcasters, things aren't as clear. The arch lector is the source of his own prayers, he is the one casting them, and now, according to the FaQ they follow the rules for casting spells and not the rules for casting bound spells.

Ergo, the warrior priest is "able to cast spells", and according to the BRB definition, is a Wizard. Perhaps. It's not entirely clear.  .


Note - I would never consider putting scrolls on my own priests, the words above are simply an analysis of the current rules rather than being any sort of representation of my actual intent. I am not a cheesey gnoblar.

[Syn Ace]

I don't know why they can't just make things simple and say:

A warrior priest uses prayers, which function as bound spells with a power level of 4, though the priest is not a wizard and may therefore not take Arcane items. Prayers that remain in play follow the normal rules for Remains in Play spells i.e. are dispelled when the priest invokes another prayer.

 

[scarletsquig]

Or even better, put this line in the brb:

"A wizard is a model with Wizard or Magic listed in it's profile"

instead of writing a wishy-washy paragraph about how "some wizards aren't called wizards, but are still considered to be wizards".

[Albrecht Hexenjaeger]

It would be nice if there were Warrior Priest only magic items in the Empire book. Remember the Talismans of Ulric? Now those would be useful...the Wolfshead Emblem was only 10 points and allowed an extra Dispel die! I'll take 5 please!

[Burning Gaze]

Warrior Priests are not Wizards, and can't use Arcane Items. End of discussion.

[HighPriest Rian]

Warrior Priests are not Wizards, and can't use Arcane Items. End of discussion.

thank sigmar you wer ehere to contribute that to us Burning! Now the matter is solved we can all get on with our lifes.. 

[Crimsonsphinx]

To be fair, like priests need more special rules to make them even better.

If they could take scrolls, wizards would pretty much cease to exist in the empire, which would be a sad day.

[CaptScott]

If they could take scrolls, wizards would pretty much cease to exist in the empire, which would be a sad day.

Bah, burn all the witches