So Ive copied this from another site. I am curious about what other people think. I will say that the argument seems to be leaining the wrong way but I wont suggest which way that is untill later.
Lileath’s Blessing states exactly the following:
"Models with this special rule add +1 to all attempts to cast spells from the Lore of High Magic."
High Elf forums have a new thread about the interpretation of this rule, and I believe it has some validity. First off, all archmages and mages have Lileath’s Blessing as a special rule under their descriptions.
So. Let’s say I have 4 level 1 mages, And let’s say one of those mages is casting a spell from the Lore of High Magic. The new thread postulates that that Level 1 mage would get +4 on top of its +1 for being a level 1. Each of the four mages would give +1 to all attempts to cast spells from High Magic, i.e. a level 1 mage gets +1 for his wizard level, +1 for his blessing, and +1 from the other three mages.
unfortunately this means if you are playing against someone else with High Magic, your mages would be pumping them up too…
To further defend the argument about super coven, a german player translated his book’s rule over and it says RAW: “adds +1 to all friendly high magic casts”. Additionally, I believe if this is RAI as well as RAW, this cumulative effect would be an appropriate way to balance out the Helfs’ drastic loss of PD, as well as balancing against other armies’ options to gain extra PD that Helfs currently do not have.
It’s pretty clear that the rule should be written as "Models with this special rule add +1 to all their attempts to cast spells from the Lore of High Magic."
If it gave an army-wide bonus then it would at least mention something other than the one model.
So. Let's say I have 4 level 1 mages, And let's say one of those mages is casting a spell from the Lore of High Magic. The new thread postulates that that Level 1 mage would get +4 on top of its +1 for being a level 1. Each of the four mages would give +1 to all attempts to cast spells from High Magic, i.e. a level 1 mage gets +1 for his wizard level, +1 for his blessing, and +1 from the other three mages.
Gunnerson
This never even came up as a possible scenario when I read it.
So. Let's say I have 4 level 1 mages, And let's say one of those mages is casting a spell from the Lore of High Magic. The new thread postulates that that Level 1 mage would get +4 on top of its +1 for being a level 1. Each of the four mages would give +1 to all attempts to cast spells from High Magic, i.e. a level 1 mage gets +1 for his wizard level, +1 for his blessing, and +1 from the other three mages.
Gunnerson
This never even came up as a possible scenario when I read it.
Sounds like Elf players just being elves.
I'm sure it will be in the FAQ.
rpitts2004
I too never considered the possiblity if stacking when I read it, why would I, why would anyone? There does not seem to be anything in the rule that indicates that stacking would be the case.
It’s a common feature of too many High Elf players (it’s the reason Speed of Asuryan got FAQed to ignore great weapons’ Always Strikes Last, when it read as they would cancel each other out and strike at the same time).
Not to mention that even if they did stack, he’d get +5 (+1 for Level 1 and +1 for 4 mages using High).
Then there’s the problem of the new Lizardmen book - is their lore not also called High Magic now?
A simple way to end this farce is to simply ask, where in the rules does it state that other models may lend their bonuses to each other in regards to casting or dispelling? To paraphrase from the main rules on page 32 section casting value first paragraph, second sentence, “the casting wizard’s level”. There is much more to the sentence but the important part is the simple bit on how the s in wizard’s is used. That is ownership meaning singular not plural, so in that example it is very clear that only a ownership bonus may be used, in this case the wizard level. So in a nutshell, the high elf player must some how provide proof that the bonuses granted from the racial rule can some how be used on any but the owning character. Which in the rules for magic at least there is no such provision.
I agree with most everyone else. The stacking sounds fishy. To be honest using rules like that ruins games. In my last game against daemons my army was wiped out in turn one on the pre magic table. Stuff like that is ridiculous and ruining the game. At least roll dice and try to play the game before you arrive at a +5 to cast, point and click win. If it honestly intend to game that way just pretend that you played a game rather than actually play one, that way you can get the certain victory that you want. The whole point of playing a game is to have each side have a possibility of losing. Just imagine loaded rules in other games like chess, checkers or even candyland. All that sort of thing ever does is make a game unbearable for one of the players. A key element of any game is that all parties have fun playing it. Yet so few ever consider, if a rule would unbalance a game or be miserable to play against. Nope, we get people seeking the insta-win. That thought process is killing our hobby.
