Arcane Suppresion and Lamentation

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

1 Like

Which models have those rules? I don’t know all models by heart, haha.

Mordikaar and his bonded warbeast Despoiler

Lamentation:
image

Arcane Suppression:
image

Rules for Base Stats and Modifiers:
image

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 I’m going to ask @elswickchuck to double-check me on this claim.)

(Also: welcome to the Community Hub! :slight_smile: )

If it is double the base cost (2 × cost 1 to upkeep) plus double the base cost (2 × cost 1 to upkeep) … wouldn’t that be 4 to upkeep (which is 4×, not 3 × 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 “base cost”, because otherwise it becomes effectively impossible to cast or upkeep spells against certain armies.

If the intent is “doubles base stat”, 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, that’s why I tagged an Infernal so we have that clarification for this edition and in a searchable, permanent location. :slight_smile:

Ok, I smell what you’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 doesn’t equal 3x anything.

Why don’t these rules just say pay 1 extra point to upkeep?

Wait a minute… 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 can’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. :slight_smile:

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 “double the current stat”, which is usually the intuitive calculation:

COST 2 x 2 = COST 4
COST 4 x 2 = COST 8

In practice, it’s a very real difference between “maybe I can afford to upkeep 1 spell for effectively 3 focus” versus “There’s literally no way to pay the upkeep without spending my entire stack of focus/fury, and I defintiely can’t afford to cast that spell again either.”

And, to answer your subsequent question: they’d stack because they are effects with different names. One doesn’t supersede the other, because they don’t state any specific interaction. So, because neither one says “I work, the other one doesn’t”, they both apply. Here’s the relevant portion from Rule Priority:

image

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

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 1×2×2, 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 2×2+1… 5 points under lamentation and arcane suppression. They don’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 “increase the cost to upkeep by 1.”

Right now checking how it is to be played

4 Likes

The total will be 4 in this situation

4 Likes

Thanks, Chuck!

So we read it as “double the current COST”, correct?

Edit: accidentally typed “base” when I intended “current”. Current stat is the only way we get to an upkeep costing 4.

Yes, and then some 20 characters because I’m not allowed to just reply yes…lol

3 Likes

So, just to spell it out so there’s no possible chance of a mistake (because I even accidentally swapped “base” and “current” 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:
image

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 “base stat”. Therefore, they must be referencing the current stat, per the following from Base Stats, Current Stats & Modifiers:
image

2 Likes

Yes that is correct and in line with what is desired

2 Likes