Question about ST cost when using a staff occult attack

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

But the Staff Attack in the new "Wizard" rules does not require a ST expenditure, at least not in the PDF I have. I haven't yet got the physical copy so don't know if that is final.

Wizard wizards are using their staffs for mundane rather than occult strikes.

Wizard Spell Reference Booklet page 5: "Spell Shield (T): Prevents any spells (hostile or otherwise) from being cast on its subject – that is, protects against effects of all Special, Missile, and Thrown spells. Does not affect spells already cast. Does not protect against ordinary physical force, including damage done by created beings or things, damage done by weapons (ordinary, magical, or staffs),"

ITL 27: "Spell Shield (T): Prevents any spells (hostile or otherwise) from being cast on its subject – that is, protects against effects of all Special, Missile, and Thrown spells, and the occult damage from a staff."

By ITL 122 a ST 8 wizard with a two handed maul (staff) has a mundane attack damage of 1d.

[Tolenkar]

Thanks; especially to Skarg and hcobb. I think I understand now, but, to break it down:
Wizards with a staff can have the staff spell cast on anything. (However, if it's a weapon that's not silver then it is just an expensive club)
Wizards have a choice to:

1.) either strike with their staff, as per a weapon, but spend no ST.
2.) Use an occult attack, with options and benefits of whichever Staff spell level they have, at the cost of 1 ST fatigue.

Does that sound right?

I am still fuzzy as to whether the physical staff strike counts as a magical attack, or not.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Tolenkar

Thanks; especially to Skarg and hcobb. I think I understand now, but, to break it down:
Wizards with a staff can have the staff spell cast on anything. (However, if it's a weapon that's not silver then it is just an expensive club)
Wizards have a choice to:

1.) either strike with their staff, as per a weapon, but spend no ST.
2.) Use an occult attack, with options and benefits of whichever Staff spell level they have, at the cost of 1 ST fatigue.

Does that sound right?

I am still fuzzy as to whether the physical staff strike counts as a magical attack, or not.

A Staff IV can use both the physical strike of a magical weapon (no ST cost) and the staff's occult strike (costs 1 ST) on the same turn against the same target. (ITL 30)

This is a magical weapon doing physical damage because it has immunity to Break Weapon (ITL 23) and immunity to Break Weapon is one of the three defining enchantments for a "magic weapon" as per ITL 42.

[Helborn]

Originally Posted by Tolenkar

I am still fuzzy as to whether the physical staff strike counts as a magical attack, or not.

According to Death Test 2 pg 43 #259, Wizard's Staffs are Magical Weapons even before the Immunity to Break Weapon (Staff II).

I was re-reading ITL 18 Staff Spell "Regardless of what the staff looks like – rod, wand, quarterstaff, etc. – it is an occult weapon that does one die of damage (front hexes only) when the wizard points with it. The wizard spends 1 ST and makes a regular die roll to hit. The staff does not have to touch its target in order to deliver its flare of magical energy".

This seems to imply that if the wizard doesn't point, but hits with it as a weapon, that the occult damage does not take 1 ST. This is my ruling in our games.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Helborn

This seems to imply that if the wizard doesn't point, but hits with it as a weapon, that the occult damage does not take 1 ST. This is my ruling in our games.

I have a large group of ST 6 DX 9 Goblin Sorceresses cackling in unison here over the concept of getting the +3 DX armor piercing attack from Staff III (ITL 26) and the 1d+2 damage from Staff V (ITL 32) without dipping into their tiny fatigue puddles.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

A Staff IV can use both the physical strike of a magical weapon (no ST cost) and the staff's occult strike (costs 1 ST) on the same turn against the same target. (ITL 30)

This is a magical weapon doing physical damage because it has immunity to Break Weapon (ITL 23) and immunity to Break Weapon is one of the three defining enchantments for a "magic weapon" as per ITL 42.

If the GM says so.

By ITL 42, I think you mean what Master Armorers can discern by examining a weapons, which is not the same thing as there being a rule which defines magic weapon for purposes of doing magic damage to mundane-immune creatures.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Helborn

According to Death Test 2 pg 43 #259, Wizard's Staffs are Magical Weapons even before the Immunity to Break Weapon (Staff II).

But that's because (like ITL 148) they were written for original TFT, where staffs were weapons you hit things with to do magical damage, no matter what their shape was. No one's arguing that the occult attacks of new staffs isn't magic damage. Hcobb and I disagree on whether bonking things with a new staff's underlying item's physical properties counts as doing magic damage or not.

Your ruling that you could hit with a staff to do the damage without using ST seems reasonable enough to me, though I don't think the rules say that. It is an upgrade of capabilities - e.g. compare Staff I, where otherwise there would usually be almost no reason to spend 1 ST, since hitting with the staff would usually be the same effect, but not cost ST with your ruling. Or see hcobb's ST 6 cacklers above.

[hcobb]

101 Reasons for Staff I to use the occult strike:

1. The target is using a defend option against a wizard.
2. The target is a wrath, green slime, or something else that can be hurt with a thrown spell, but not a magic weapon.
3. The staff is a dagger, wand or some other form that does less damage than the occult strike.
4. The staff is a dagger and the wizard lacks the Knife talent.
5. The target harms weapons that touch it.
6. etc.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Skarg

If the GM says so.

By ITL 42, I think you mean what Master Armorers can discern by examining a weapons, which is not the same thing as there being a rule which defines magic weapon for purposes of doing magic damage to mundane-immune creatures.

Those three enchantments are the only things defined as being "magic weapons" rather than merely a weapon with a random enchantment such as Light on it.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

101 Reasons for Staff I to use the occult strike:

1. The target is using a defend option against a wizard.
2. The target is a wrath, green slime, or something else that can be hurt with a thrown spell, but not a magic weapon.
3. The target harms weapons that touch it.
   ...
4. etc.

101? For those 3 very rare unusual cases (except maybe the one about Green Slimes, where the GM would need to rule whether Green Slimes are affected by "occult" attacks), sure.

In the most common basic situation, however - any figure who isn't defending, isn't immune to physical attacks, doesn't have any special damage-on-touch-even-with-a-staff (i.e. almost nothing) abilities, it would be identical (with Staff I) but just not cost ST, to use Helborn's suggested house ruling that you can hit with a staff without spending ST.

Originally Posted by hcobb

1. The staff is a dagger, wand or some other form that does less damage than the occult strike.
2. The staff is a dagger and the wizard lacks the Knife talent.

No, because I was talking about Helborn's suggested house ruling, that a wizard could do the occult staff attack for no ST cost by touching with the staff, which presumably would (like original-TFT staffs) not require nor take into account the staff's form.

Originally Posted by hcobb

Those three enchantments are the only things defined as being "magic weapons" rather than merely a weapon with a random enchantment such as Light on it.

The Master Armourer talent does not say it defines "magic weapons" for purposes of what can hurt things that are only hurt by magic weapons. It just says what Master Armourers can detect.