Frostgrave - Rules

[Westfalia Chris]

I understand the mechanic you're explaining Chris (though I am relatively certain that almost no one reading the book will infer this from it; its incredibly confusing, and probably only makes sense to anyone who playtested the game and had it explained to them how this works, which I assume you have).

Although I am involved with the game to an extent, I was not part of the playtesting group. The above interpretation was made after multiple readings of the passage and inferrence from the rule mechanic, under the assumption that it is NOT a typo/error.

But logically, why would using the power of a scroll to cast a spell that you do know result in lower casting numbers than using the power of a scroll to cast a spell that you do not know? Surely the spell should always cast at a minimum of the base casting number. At least, the caster who knows the spell should have the option to autocast it like someone who doesn't, OR use it in "spell salvage mode". It doesn't make any sense for it to be worse.

It doesn't really follow - that's what makes me doubt the working, because this game is highly narrative and so something that makes no narrative sense seems unintentional.

See, that is where our interpretation of the narrative differs. As I read it, using a scroll for an unknown spell is just reading off the words and doing the movements without any proper understanding; thus, the spellcaster does not actually KNOW the spell. For known spells, by my reading of the rule linked to the fluff, the scroll would be whipped out to salvage the failed attempt at the last moment, a measure of desperation, if you catch my drift.

The other variant of using the scroll to be able to cast a spell without risk, albeit at higher cost, is IMHO not different enough from the "unknown spell" variant to warrant inclusion; I consider this to be problematic with regard to high-level spells which could come into play too early considering the narrative structure of a campaign, and could lead to some unpleasant rules exploits, mechanic-wise, that would be even more unbalancing than the issues you pointed out in your previous contributions.

Being able to cast a high-power spell without risk AND while ignoring your school penalties, which are an integral part of the spell relationships and central to the fluff aspect, IMHO, is not within the purpose and spirit of the rules. It would entice people even more to go for "killer combos" with a Sigilist secondary that is not conductive to a proper developing campaign.

Personally, I think that "it works, but it went poorly" is more in character than "once per game, it will always work".

Do mind, though, that I can follow your interpretation. I am nonetheless convinced that the "works poorly" option is more balancing and therefore preferable in the long run, and adds a level of complexity to the equipment process.

[JamWarrior]

Out of Game spells - how many times can you cast them?  Write Scroll specifically says "once after every game", whereas none of the others seems to specify.

I'm going to assume once each but....

The rules description for out of game spells says each may be cast once.

Also, Embed Enchantment says "causes any Enchant Armour or Enchant Weapon spell that is still active at the end of the game, to become permanent" - does that mean if I have 3 different Enchant spells still in play at the end of the game I only need to cast it once to affect all 3?

Any does not mean all.  The spell is clearly intended for a single case of enchantment per cast.

And does Enchant Armour/Weapon stay in affect if a model leaves the table (so I can cast Embed)?

Nothing says it doesn't.  The enchantments say they last until end of the game so until the end of the game they last.

[Darkson71]

The rules description for out of game spells says each may be cast once.

Where (Not disagreeing, just I've missed it.)

Any does not mean all.  The spell is clearly intended for a single case of enchantment per cast.

"Any coin in pot is yours" - there are 3 coins in the pot, do you get 1 or all?  If the intention is it to only be able to fix one Enchantment then "Any" is the wrong word to use.

[Dalcor]

Seems a typo (Armor is missing)
Page 62: Magic weapons amd armour can only be carried by soldiers who already carry a weapon of that type
I believe shoud read:
Page 62: Magic weapons amd armour can only be carried by soldiers who already carry a weapon and armor of that type

It means that it REPLACE same type of the weapon and take one inventory slot, right? No wizards running with mundane and magical staff...

[Westfalia Chris]

Where (Not disagreeing, just I've missed it.)

It's in the spell category description for Out of Game spells, pp.74-75.

"Any coin in pot is yours" - there are 3 coins in the pot, do you get 1 or all?  If the intention is it to only be able to fix one Enchantment then "Any" is the wrong word to use.

In this case, "any" is used interchangeably with "one instance of any type of enchantment", eliminating the need to spell out "any enchantment of armour or weapon currently in place". "Any one" or "a single Enchant X spell" would be more precise. The problem is that lexically, "any" can per se mean "any one" or "any and all", which can be derived from inflection or stress in spoken English, whereas in written English, it requires additional specification.

[Westfalia Chris]

Seems a lot of questions repeating, I will try to make a summary tomorrow, somehow

Anyway
A) Is it possible to cast INTO combat with non engaged spellcaster? (for example LEAP out thief combating a bear)?

If the spell specifically states that you can use it on figures engaged in combat (e.g. Transpose), you can use it. If you are using any "magic shooting attacks", these suffer the same difficulty as normal shooting into combat.

B) Is it possilble to move columns/treasure in The Complex Temple Scenario with TELEKINESIS

That is an interesting one. The scenario explicitly states that you place columns INSTEAD OF treasure (or treasure tokens, to be precise). The treasure token only comes into play once the column has been defeated, so you cannot use the spell on an unrevealed treasure token.

[Darkson71]

Seems a typo (Armor is missing)
Page 62: Magic weapons amd armour can only be carried by soldiers who already carry a weapon of that type
I believe shoud read:
Page 62: Magic weapons amd armour can only be carried by soldiers who already carry a weapon and armor of that type

It means that it REPLACE same type of the weapon and take one inventory slot, right? No wizards running with mundane and magical staff...

P19
“Wizards have five slots, Apprentices have four and Soldiers have one. For Soldiers this is in addition to whatever equipment they recieve as standard.
All Wizards start with thier choice of either a staff or hand weapon, and this should be written in one item slot in their entry on the Wizard Sheet.”
P20
“Apprentices can only carry four items and remember each weapon counts as an item.”
Hand Weapon (Like a Sword) is one item, Dagger is another item.
The wizard isn’t requirted to keep carrying a normal Staff as well as a magic version however. That’s only Soldiers.

So it looks like that if you make a Enchanted Sword a Thug can carry it in addition to their regular sword, whereas for a wizard it would use a second slot.

That does beg the question as to whether a wizard can leave their mundane weapon in their vault to free up a slot.

[Darkson71]

"Any one" would be more precise.

A better re-wording.

[Lotan]

That is an interesting one. The scenario explicitly states that you place columns INSTEAD OF treasure (or treasure tokens, to be precise). The treasure token only comes into play once the column has been defeated, so you cannot use the spell on an unrevealed treasure token.

This one lead me to ask what happens if you cast crumble on a column, and as an extension to that question, what happens if/can you use crumble on a column in the Complex Temple to remove the chance of someone getting treasure from it?

[Dalcor]

OK here are UNOFFICIAL Errata and FAQ from Page 1 to Page 6. Thats last time Joe replied to this post.
Please note I am not connected to Osprey, nor these Errate should be considered OFFICIAL ones. I will try to update (especialy the long scroll cause) as soon as I found Joe or Phill agrees to that. Also please excuse my english ;-)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2_A_uc_n_u7UEZ6QlhsbUxrOTg/view?usp=sharing

[Westfalia Chris]

So it looks like that if you make a Enchanted Sword a Thug can carry it in addition to their regular sword, whereas for a wizard it would use a second slot.

I think that this is not correct. By my interpretation, a magic item DOES take up a slot AND replaces the "mundane" version to account for the added value the magic version has. For that purpose, spellcasters and warriors would be treated alike; I would assume that if you move the magic item to another figure between games, the warrior who yielded the weapon receives a mundane replacement for free since it is his standard equipment and you paid for it upon recruitment.

That does beg the question as to whether a wizard can leave their mundane weapon in their vault to free up a slot.

Since you may leave any item in the vaults, I see no reason why this should not apply to mundane weapons as well, especially in that you had to pay for it (remember, warriors receive replacements for free).

[Dalcor]

So it looks like that if you make a Enchanted Sword a Thug can carry it in addition to their regular sword, whereas for a wizard it would use a second slot.

That does beg the question as to whether a wizard can leave their mundane weapon in their vault to free up a slot.

Well as you can get you mundane weapon destroyed by decay before for free, I do believe that wizard just toss away its mundane staff when he found a new shiny one. And free his slot - therefore full replacement for Wizard if he choose so.

[Westfalia Chris]

This one lead me to ask what happens if you cast crumble on a column, and as an extension to that question, what happens if/can you use crumble on a column in the Complex Temple to remove the chance of someone getting treasure from it?

Another tricky one. It must be noted, though, that Crumble does not "remove" items of scenery but rather makes them "transversable" by creating a "hole" large enough for figures to pass through. Also, it could be interesting to discuss whether a Complex Temple column is a piece of scenery or rather a unique type of construct, in which Crumble could not be used on it at all.

[Darkson71]

I think that this is not correct. By my interpretation, a magic item DOES take up a slot AND replaces the "mundane" version

Where do you get the "replace" bit from?

[Darkson71]

@Dalcor - the site doesn't auto-translate, so no idea which boxes to click and don't want to risk signing up for something by mistake. 
Can you not use Google Docs or Dropbox?