How does interaction between Arcane Suppresion and Lamentation work if an enemy warcaster is in range of both and wants to upkeep a spell?

Which models have those rules? I donâ€™t know all models by heart, haha.

Mordikaar and his bonded warbeast Despoiler

Lamentation:

Arcane Suppression:

Rules for Base Stats and Modifiers:

So, when casting the spell, you double first (Lamentation) and then you add 1 (Arcane Suppression).

When upkeeping the spell, you double the base cost (Lamentation) and double the base cost again (Arcane Suppression), leading to 3x cost. (But Iâ€™m going to ask @elswickchuck to double-check me on this claim.)

(Also: welcome to the Community Hub! )

If it is double the base cost (2 Ă— cost 1 to upkeep) plus double the base cost (2 Ă— cost 1 to upkeep) â€¦ wouldnâ€™t that be 4 to upkeep (which is 4Ă—, not 3 Ă— cost)?

It depends on if the intent was for Lamentation/etc. to affect the base stat or the current stat. I vaguely recall this being answered in a previous edition and that the intent was â€śbase costâ€ť, because otherwise it becomes effectively impossible to cast or upkeep spells against certain armies.

If the intent is â€śdoubles base statâ€ť, then two doubles is only 3x:

COST 1, doubled by Lamentation = +1

COST 1, doubled by another effect = +1

COST 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

But, thatâ€™s why I tagged an Infernal so we have that clarification for this edition and in a searchable, permanent location.

Ok, I smell what youâ€™re stepping in. Probably more accurate to say the intent is that each ability adds one to the upkeep cost. Because doubling the base twice or doubling the cost and then doubling it again doesnâ€™t equal 3x anything.

Why donâ€™t these rules just say pay 1 extra point to upkeep?

Wait a minuteâ€¦ Hang on.

Why would these stack, if the intent is to double the base cost?

It is like being knocked down, or suffering a fire continuous effect. You canâ€™t be double knocked down or suffer the fire continuous effect twice at the same time.

Paying double the cost from one effect should satisfy the other effect too. Two effects say pay double. So pay double. Not double plus double, or double plus an additional 1.

I promise that if you double the base cost two separate times, the result is only 3x the original value, not more.

COST 2 x 2 = COST 4 (difference of +2)

COST 2 x 2 (again) = COST 4 (difference of +2, again)

COST 2 (original cost) +2 (first effect) +2 (second effect) = COST 6

COST 3 x 2 = COST 6 (difference of +3)

COST 3 x 2 (again) = COST 6 (difference of +3, again)

COST 3 (original cost) +3 (first effect) +3 (second effect) = COST 9

All of which are very different from â€śdouble the current statâ€ť, which is usually the intuitive calculation:

COST 2 x 2 = COST 4

COST 4 x 2 = COST 8

In practice, itâ€™s a very real difference between â€śmaybe I can afford to upkeep 1 spell for effectively 3 focusâ€ť versus â€śThereâ€™s literally no way to pay the upkeep without spending my entire stack of focus/fury, and I defintiely canâ€™t afford to cast that spell again either.â€ť

And, to answer your subsequent question: theyâ€™d stack because they are effects with different names. One doesnâ€™t supersede the other, because they donâ€™t state any specific interaction. So, because neither one says â€śI work, the other one doesnâ€™tâ€ť, they both apply. Hereâ€™s the relevant portion from Rule Priority:

We just need to wait until we have a for-certain ruling on the intended interaction for MK IV.

Still fuzzy on the math.

If I upkeep, and we buy into the belief that each ability requires doubling the current cost to upkeep, then that should be 1Ă—2Ă—2, or 4.

If I upkeep, and the belief is that the requirement is to double the base cost to upkeep (1), then I should only pay 2, because once the base is doubled, it is doubled, satisfying both abilities.

For the spellcasting, it totally makes sense that they stack, because of how it is written. Double the cost, and add 1. A 2 point spell costs 2Ă—2+1â€¦ 5 points under lamentation and arcane suppression. They donâ€™t both say pay double the base cost.

If the answer is to pay 3 for upkeep, then each one needs to be written differently. They (or at least one ability) should say â€śincrease the cost to upkeep by 1.â€ť

Right now checking how it is to be played

The total will be 4 in this situation

Thanks, Chuck!

So we read it as â€śdouble the **current** COSTâ€ť, correct?

*Edit: accidentally typed â€śbaseâ€ť when I intended â€ścurrentâ€ť. Current stat is the only way we get to an upkeep costing 4.*

Yes, and then some 20 characters because Iâ€™m not allowed to just reply yesâ€¦lol

So, just to spell it out so thereâ€™s no possible chance of a mistake (because I even accidentally swapped â€śbaseâ€ť and â€ścurrentâ€ť a couple posts ago), this is correct:

A model is affected by both Lamentation and Arcane Suppression.

When casting a COST 2 spell, that model pays 5:

COST 2 (base cost) x 2 (Lamentation) + 1 (Arcane Suppression) = 5

This is because of the **Base Stats, Current Stats & Modifiers** rules:

When upkeeping a spell, the model pays 4:

COST 1 (the basic cost of upkeeping a spell) x 2 (Lamentation) x 2 (Arcane Suppression) = COST 4

This is because neither Lamentation nor Arcane Suppression specify â€śbase statâ€ť. Therefore, they must be referencing the current stat, per the following from **Base Stats, Current Stats & Modifiers**: