Frostgrave - Rules

[Calmdown]

Can I use a "move" action to activate the ring and then teleport into battle and attack?

You must spend one action to use the ring, which allows you an 8" move into combat. Then, you may (or rather, must) spend the second action to fight the target figure.

This is quite clearly stated in the rules. If you are asking if you can activate the ring as part of a move action, i.e. move x", then teleport 8", then fight, the answer is no - you must use one action specifically to activate the ring.

My understanding of this is wildly different. You dont have two actions (in anything but name, anyway) - you have a move, and an action. The move can only move. The action can be either a move or an action such as cast spell, attack, drink potion, etc but you can *not* use your move to do that, only you action. Page 30, activation. Is your understanding of this different?

So if you use your action to teleport, all that you have left is a move - not an attack. The same goes for drinking potions for example (uses your action, leaving only a move).

[Lotan]

Can I use a "move" action to activate the ring and then teleport into battle and attack?

You must spend one action to use the ring, which allows you an 8" move into combat. Then, you may (or rather, must) spend the second action to fight the target figure.

This is quite clearly stated in the rules. If you are asking if you can activate the ring as part of a move action, i.e. move x", then teleport 8", then fight, the answer is no - you must use one action specifically to activate the ring.

Yeah this seems inherently wrong. The rules state you get two actions, one of them MUST be a move action. Using a magic item doesn't count as a move, so surely after teleporting the only available option is to move the mandatory movement action, you can't fight as that would be two actions taken, one of which wasn't a move action, but an action to activate the magic ring.

[Argonor]

Just to make clear:
There is no 'mandatory move action'.
A model doesn't have to move if you don't want it to, but then it can use only one action.

[Calmdown]

Just to make clear:
There is no 'mandatory move action'.
A model doesn't have to move if you don't want it to, but then it can use only one action.

That's not quite correct. One of your actions *must* be to take a move action (barring special cases such as using your move action to reload instead). If you choose to move 0" that is up to you.

Yes that is semantic, but that's where you took the discussion

[Argonor]

That's not quite correct. One of your actions *must* be to take a move action (barring special cases such as using your move action to reload instead). If you choose to move 0" that is up to you.

Yes that is semantic, but that's where you took the discussion

Which is, in effect, the same as to say that you don't have to take a move action. I think the wording in the rules is just clumsy, and we have already had some examples of ppl thinking that they had to move all their models every turn.

[Awesomeshotdude]

"A figure may also choose to perform only one action, which can also be of any type."

[Lotan]

That's not quite correct. One of your actions *must* be to take a move action (barring special cases such as using your move action to reload instead). If you choose to move 0" that is up to you.

No he's actually right, It states that any time your figure takes 2 or more actions in an activation one of them MUST be a movement action. So you can take one action in a turn and there isn't technically a stage where you have to say "and for my move action I will stay put.", so no mandatory move action.

It doesn't stop the fact you are fighting and using a ring though.

[Westfalia Chris]

My understanding of this is wildly different. You dont have two actions (in anything but name, anyway) - you have a move, and an action. The move can only move. The action can be either a move or an action such as cast spell, attack, drink potion, etc but you can *not* use your move to do that, only you action. Page 30, activation. Is your understanding of this different?

So if you use your action to teleport, all that you have left is a move - not an attack. The same goes for drinking potions for example (uses your action, leaving only a move).

You are right, of course. What I was actually trying to say was that you cannot activate the ring as part of another action, you must spend one action specifically on using the ring. So you could move, use the ring for the second action and use it to enter combat, but not fight. My statement of using the second action to fight is indeed wrong, unless Joe can clarify that the ring action may be taken in place of the mandatory (or forfeitable) move action.

It really depends on whether the ring is a special action or a special Move action.

So what you can do is:

Option A: take a move action and then use the magic teleport by the ring.
Option B: use the magic teleport action, then use a move action.

In both cases, you could initiate a combat, but not fight during this activation.

[Ros]

For the spell "Write Scroll", it states that "the scroll must be of a spell that the spellcaster knows." However it doesnt say whether or not the known spell for the scroll is chosen or
somehow randomized upon succesfully casting.

I didnt want to add this to change opinions, but this can lead to over powered combos like potentially creating 2 strike dead scrolls per game.

[Lotan]

AFAIK it is any spell you know that you want to create. And as for strike dead, with the clarification of scroll usage on known spells it is not at all powerful according to the rules. More annoying ones are scrolls for spells that don't have opposed rolls, such as dispel scrolls.

[JamWarrior]

Collecting the unanswered questions since Joe left for his holiday:

(1) Can you Leap less than the full 10"?

(2) As a necromancer, as using the "bones of the earth", the only way to escape is to fight with the skeleton hand.
So, if the skeleton win the combat, does it damage the target or just avoid the target to move ?

(3) Can you critical the attack roll for a Push spell and double the distance pushed?

(4) I have a bound demon already in play.  I want to cast Summon Demon.  Is the situation: (A) Tough luck, you can't summon a demon while you have one bound. (B) If you succeed on the summon your old demon is going to go wild due to the one bound demon limit. (C) Succeed or fail on the summon, the attempt is enough to set your old demon wild.

(5) Its been established here that walls (from the Wall spell) can be climbed.  Do they have an appreciable thickness, such that they might also be used as bridges?

(6)  Summoned/conjured/enchanted creatures that take treasure off board (most especially zombies, but pretty much any other that can carry treasure, too)
     - is it then possible to summon up another with a new casting of the relevant spell?

Not quite 100 but we did our best

[joe5mc]

Okay, I'm back - unfortunately, Italy was just too hot to imagine anything as cold or frosty - except the gelato! Still, I'm sure some of those ruins I saw with work their way into Frostgrave in some form.

Only 6 questions? You guys are holding out on me.

Official Rulings based on what is written in the book.

1) The Full 10" 
2) It does damage.
3) If you are using the Critical Hit rule, then yes, it will double the distance of a Push spell.
4) A - one at a time. 
5) No appreciable thickness
6) Not if the creature is part of your warband (which zombies are). If they were only temporarily under your control, such as demons, then yes.

Now, here is my thoughts, nearly a year since I wrote the game:

1) I don't think I've ever actually played it that way. Me and my opponents have always just check to see if it was no more than 10".
2) I've always suspected that this spell might be overpowered, but playtesting feedback said it wasn't. That said, there seems to be more than average love for Necromancers out there, so I'm starting to suspect this coloured some of the playtesting!
3) If you are using the critical hit rule, why would you NOT want to see figures flying across the board!
4) While, I love demons running amok, I think there is just too much potential to abuse this any other way. Summoners aren't meant to be demon factories.
5) In truth, I would probably allow this in a game I was playing. Or, alternatively, I might allow someone to cast the spell sideways to bridge any gap of 6 inches or less. Talk it over with your gaming group - there's a lot of fun that could be had here. You've made the bridge, but how long do you feel comfortable standing on it???

 

[pulpgoblin]

Cool, cheers.

Yeah, I was thinking about springing this idea (walls/bridges) when I finally get some games set up.  I'm not sure I'd go as far as using it sideways, but saying half inch thick and letting folks move/climb along the top sounds like it has a lot of useful (and inevitably unfortunate...) potential  

[Darkson71]

I like the sidewise but no thickness variant.

[JamWarrior]

1)[Leap] The Full 10"

The reason I asked was this opens up some interesting vaguely offensive uses of the spell, casting on an enemy when you don't care where he goes as long it's away from where he is standing right now.  Such as getting him out of combat or away from stood right by a treasure he hasn't picked up yet.

4) While, I love demons running amok, I think there is just too much potential to abuse this any other way. Summoners aren't meant to be demon factories.

Good call.  This came just too late for last night's game where I tried out a Summoner.  I'd imagined it would be chaotic fun to be unleashing wild demons across the board.  In fact it was a far too effective tactic to be machine-gunning imps across the battlefield (summon, charge, repeat) to tie up the enemy band in a mid-table melee scrum.