Can't you see that sentence can also be interpreted as saying "Ritual spells require a stress die, but NOT because they are stressful, but rather because of the following reasons..." ? That, too, is a perfectly fine reading that is no less strict - it insists that the rule changes only what it strictly says it changes, and not more. So it changes the dice, but it does not change the fact that the casting is relaxed.
The question is precisely what exceptions are noted. Does the sentence "The magnitude of Ritual spells, and the need to incorporate many elements, mean that they are always cast using a stress die" say only that the dice is stressed, so it allows the extraordinary situation of a relaxed casting but with a stress die, or does it explain why the circumstances are stressed and, therefore, says to use a stress die? I submit both are reasonable interpretations.
See by my reading of RAW, rituals can be relaxed and Mastery will remove the botch dice completely as a result.
Not only by my reading as argued in this thread for letter of the law but also spirit of the law. 13 tribunals, 6-10 (or more) covenants per tribunal so 78-130 Aegises cast a year which with minimum of 5 botch dice (1 base and 4 vis) would mean about 5% or 4-7 aegis botches each year. I just don't see that as part of the spirit of the rules and I don't see any single mage spending 6 seasons mastering aegis (just to get rid of 3 botch dice) for his covenant.
My problem with this is that you are breaking the root of the roll system:
relaxed situation <==> simple die
stressful situation <==> stress die
For me, saying one is saying the other. Since Rituals always require a stress die, Rituals are always stressful situation. Your interpretation is breaking this equivalence.
While the text does not directly supports it, you could decide that Rituals are stressful only because of the vis. This seems acceptable since Ceremonial Casting is not necessarily stressful even if it could take as long. If you accept that, you could cast a relaxed Ritual without vis with no chance of success. Since you could cast it relaxed, you use your Mastery to add back the vis without making it stressful.
But there are lots of ways to reduce that risk. Starting from having Mercurian magi cast lots of those aegis rituals; canon specifically says they traditionally do, on HoHTL. Add in any other means of risk reduction, such as spell mastery 1, and you have NO risk of botch at all. I see no problem with most covenants having a low aegis and a caster that mastered that spell or has cautious caster or gold core or whatever casting it, and many covenants having Mercurian magi casting it too, for a low, low prevalence of aegis botches.
And I have said that the relaxed and not relaxed is a SG call. Mastered Formulaic spells also use a stress die, even when in a relaxed situation. does that mean that they are stressful even in a relaxed situation? My only point is that the RAW clearly states that a Formulaic mastered spell COULD be cast with no chance of a botch if it is in a relaxed situation ( as ruled by the SG) even though a stress die is used. And since Ritual and Formulaic spells are alike then a Ritual spell COULD be cast with no chance to botch if it is in a relaxed situation ( as ruled by the SG) even though a stress die is used.
no. you are either over simplifying or not reading the sections. Under Formulaic spells it says that under a relaxed situation it is a simple die roll. But a Mastered Formulaic spell ALWAYS rolls a stress die. And that a mastered formulaic spell under relaxed conditions will produce no botch chance even though a stress side is being used. So if a SG ruled that the ritual casting is not a stressful situation and the spell was mastered it could be cast with no botch chance based.
Ah, got you. Granted. But then, the question becomes whether the rule implies that casting Ritual spells is always stressful, so the SG should rule that it is, or should he allow the casting of the ritual in a relaxed manner but with a stress die. That's the difference between the two positions being argued here.
this has an interesting twist since ALL mage in the Covenant participate in the casting of AoH. Does this mean that all could suffer twilight if the "caster" double botches? What does participate mean in a ritual? 
As I said, the first part of the Spell Mastery line could be read as: "A relaxed mastered spell can still succeed spectacularily." In my mind, with Mastery you are not rolling a true stress die because there are no chance of botch. The fact that you use the same mechanic to generate an exploded value does not break the equivalence.
I am saying stressful situation <==> botch, you are saying you can be relaxed and still botch. I am ok with that interpretation, I just don't like it. {BTW, thx - I managed to get to the crux of the matter.}
Nope. Fluff cant change game mechanics. The fluff says why you use a stress DIE. The text says nothing about any changes to mechanics beyond the die.
Again, Jebrick´s contribution kills that claim completely. Rituals are like Formulaic UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
No exception is specified for ritual spells. Only the die is specified as different. And since stressdie does not equal botchrisk...
Im afraid you´re clearly wrong. For the simple reason that stressful and stressdie are treated as two different things within RAW(otherwise there would be no such thing as casting a mastered formulaic spell without botchrisk despite using a stressdie). You´re doing the fallacy of commonality, that because a stressdie is usually used under stressful conditions, the two must be equal.
For a far out comparison, that´s like saying that my car is an aeroplane because i replaced the steering wheel with a joystick that looks like an aircraft control stick, and since they´re normally part of aeroplanes...
Or rather, CAN be relaxed.
Yes, that too. That´s part of why i dislike his argument, that by extension it would mean that such is no longer up to the SG.
Except then you ignore that a stressdie does not need to include the risk of a botch, as clearly stated in the section about dietypes.
"Some stress rolls cannot botch."
Quite. I think you might say i´m of the firm belief that if JLs argument was correct, there would be no Aegis used.
Or there would be a quickly dwindling supply of covenants.
But the formulaic section clearly states that only takes place if the spell is mastered. Mastered spells use a stress die and if cast in a relaxed situation then they will not be possible to botch. The problem is that the rule makers want the chance for critical success ( thus using a stress die) but have rules for not botching. I do understand where the argument is from since the first paragraph of describing a stress die says that it is a stressful situation. But the rules give a reason to have a stress die in a relaxed situation because they want to have an exploding die.
I would really like to hear what the ruling is for participation in a ritual and botches. Not using Wizard Communion but just participating.
Direwolf,
You're utterly incorrect. I think your arguments are poor. Do you like hearing that? Probably not. No more than I do. We disagree on how to interpret the rules regarding botch dice and Ritual magic, I have a much more conservative interpretation than you do. I can see your position might be correct. I find it interesting that you can't see someone else's position as incorrect.
So, what I can see from your brief statements, is that you think someone can cast a ritual, using a stress die that has no risk of botch,whether they are relaxed or not, at any time, with or without mastery. Am I right? Again, I can actually see that as being a reasonable interpretation of RAW. It's ambiguous, it isn't explicitly stated. My belief isn't explicitly stated, either, so all we have is opinion, and where we think it best fits the sagas we are in. I think casting a ritual is something that can go very badly, and can't be easily be recast (vis is wasted in the process, and all the work done is lost and it must be done again from scratch).
Since I'm not an ogre, and I find some of my players disagree with my interpretation, I'm letting them HR it, if they can all agree. Does that sound like someone who is utterly incorrect? I don't think so. I think it sounds like someone who thinks he has an argument but stipulates that he might be wrong. And yes, a HR is necessary, because I believe something to be different than some of my players (some of my players agree with my interpretation). Is that utterly incorrect, too?
In the future, I would prefer that you not say something is utterly incorrect, unless you can demonstrate that it is. And then also be open minded enough to accept a counter argument. Would you like to get into a discussion of US politics while we're at it? Because I'm probably utterly incorrect in some of my beliefs, there, too.
Warm regards,
Jonathan
IMS, participants won't feel the effects of a botch. Just those in a Wizard's Communion.
Since you have completely failed to come up with any argument that actually impress me, it doesn´t really matter what claims you make. Jebrick isn´t even arguing your side but still manage to actually make valid points.
Conservative? 
Excuse me but that is an utterly outrageous claim.
Stress die does NOT equate stressful situation.
Description of why you roll a stress die does NOT mean a roll ALSO suddenly automatically becomes stressful, despite not being mentioned at all.
Stress die is specifically stated to NOT mean an automatic botch risk.
Rituals are like formulaic unless otherwise specified, formulaics are explicitly stated to potentially use stress die without botch risk.
It is explicitly stated that for situations where you have time to redo something "so a botch is not really possible".
Of course not. Why ever should you be able to avoid botchrisk when you´re casting during stress? That would be breaking the rules even more obviously than you´re arguing for.
Your argument is completely based on "The magnitude of Ritual spells, and the need to incorporate many elements, mean that they are always cast using a stress die.".
Problem is that you´re reading it the way you want to, not the way it´s written.
YOU are ADDING an interpretation to that part, upon which you then go on to make a bunch of very arbitrary dismissals and further interpretation.
Unless the editor/writer of the AM5 book was extremely clumsy and messed up massively when writing that sentence, you simply do not have any basis for your claim. Hence, "utterly incorrect".
There is one statement of changed game mechanic in that sentence, and that is "always cast using a stress die", the rest is the fluff describing why the change. To make it mean anything more means you have to add additional interpretations to it.
It´s very simple really, RAW is strongly indicative of supporting my argument here, even if it´s not outright stated clearly. However, it does not actually support your interpretation at all. It even contradicts it.
Based on that, i simply cannot consider it anything but wrong. Because if i´m wrong then the book needs an errata that makes rituals the ONLY exception to the other RAW.
If you´re wrong, the book as it is, is merely slightly unclear by not specifically spelling it out an extra time.
Why dont you go ahead and send off a question on this to David Chart if you must.
And your arguments have failed to impress me? However, I don't say you're utterly incorrect. I say I give more weight to other things.
The first sentence in the Stress Die section:
And then, two paragraphs later it says that there are times when a stress die cannot botch, but that isn't clarified until page 7.
The text provides an example, but it is not definitive. It suggests that if a disaster were to occur, it wouldn't be a final result. I can't see that applying to casting a ritual spell.
And it says the text says that a stress die is always used. It says that in the Ritual magic section, and that section is entirely about differentiating the differences between ritual magic and formulaic magic. Since that is the pattern of the text of the Ritual magic section, the fact that an exception isn't listed is something I interpret as being important. Again, you and jebrick can disagree, but it isn't utterly incorrect, because the text is ambiguous and must be interpreted.
So we find some common ground. Can you cast a ritual, without mastery, in a relaxed manner with a stress die without the risk of a botch? Note, the text doesn't say that a ritual is stressful, merely that a stress die is required. Further, the section on using Vis suggests that vis can be used in a spell, but if the conditions are relaxed that no chance of botch exists. And it entirely discounts the need to have mastered a spell to do this, it's just a situational determination of whether the circumstances are stressful or not, and could be extended to rituals!
Where the rule is not stated explicitly one must interpret. One can interpret as I do, and indeed several others have. One can interpret as you do and, indeed, there are several who agree with you.
See my point above, it is possible to interpret that a ritual could be cast, if conditions are relaxed, without the risk of a botch, and without any level of mastery.
The book is entirely unclear and ambiguous, you think it says one thing, but it does not. Whether rituals may be cast in a relaxed manner, but with a stress die is not explicit and it has generated this discussion. I can see your and jebrick's position as being a reasonable interpretation. I'm willing to play the Bibracte saga with whatever interpretation the troupe comes to consensus on. Because the text is ambiguous, and there are multiple interpretations possible, I think there needs to be an agreement on what the rule should be going forward. I don't need to send this to David Chart. I'm comfortable with my interpretation. I'm less comfortable with your interpretation, but can play with it. I'm even less comfortable with the idea that someone can cast a ritual with no mastery ability whatsoever in a relaxed manner without risk of botching, which is also another possible interpretation of the rules as written, because the term stress die is used as opposed stressful situation.
In this case, there is no RAW, except that ritual is always cast with a stress die. As much as I'm reading it the way I want to read it, so are you. Both interpretations have implications.
For a lower powered saga my interpretation will solve some of the problems that have been proposed on this forum, that is why magi aren't more of a factor in the economics of Mythic Europe, being able to produce vast quantities of food, etc. I think those are the interesting story considerations you previously discounted. I find your interpretation suggests that there should be significantly more magi in the Order than the ~1200 magi suggested in HoH. Many fewer magi will have experienced Twilight as a result of a ritual.
As an SG, I prefer a go to rule that I can always rely on. I dislike rules that force me to adjudicate every die roll as to whether the situation is stressful or relaxed. Most times there won't be an issue, but when there is an issue, it is something that the player and the SG will disagree on. I really dislike those kinds of situations, and it is for that reason why I say my interpretation is conservative, utterly incorrect, though it may be.
And your arguments have failed to impress me? However, I don't say you're utterly incorrect. I say I give more weight to other things.
The first sentence in the Stress Die section:
And then, two paragraphs later it says that there are times when a stress die cannot botch, but that isn't clarified until page 7.
The text provides an example, but it is not definitive. It suggests that if a disaster were to occur, it wouldn't be a final result. I can't see that applying to casting a ritual spell.
And it says the text says that a stress die is always used. It says that in the Ritual magic section, and that section is entirely about differentiating the differences between ritual magic and formulaic magic. Since that is the pattern of the text of the Ritual magic section, the fact that an exception isn't listed is something I interpret as being important. Again, you and jebrick can disagree, but it isn't utterly incorrect, because the text is ambiguous and must be interpreted.
So we find some common ground. Can you cast a ritual, without mastery, in a relaxed manner with a stress die without the risk of a botch? Note, the text doesn't say that a ritual is stressful, merely that a stress die is required. Further, the section on using Vis suggests that vis can be used in a spell, but if the conditions are relaxed that no chance of botch exists. And it entirely discounts the need to have mastered a spell to do this, it's just a situational determination of whether the circumstances are stressful or not, and could be extended to rituals!
Where the rule is not stated explicitly one must interpret. One can interpret as I do, and indeed several others have. One can interpret as you do and, indeed, there are several who agree with you.
See my point above, it is possible to interpret that a ritual could be cast, if conditions are relaxed, without the risk of a botch, and without any level of mastery.
The book is entirely unclear and ambiguous, you think it says one thing, but it does not. Whether rituals may be cast in a relaxed manner, but with a stress die is not explicit and it has generated this discussion. I can see your and jebrick's position as being a reasonable interpretation. I'm willing to play the Bibracte saga with whatever interpretation the troupe comes to consensus on. Because the text is ambiguous, and there are multiple interpretations possible, I think there needs to be an agreement on what the rule should be going forward. I don't need to send this to David Chart. I'm comfortable with my interpretation. I'm less comfortable with your interpretation, but can play with it. I'm even less comfortable with the idea that someone can cast a ritual with no mastery ability whatsoever in a relaxed manner without risk of botching, which is also another possible interpretation of the rules as written, because the term stress die is used as opposed stressful situation.
In this case, there is no RAW, except that ritual is always cast with a stress die. As much as I'm reading it the way I want to read it, so are you. Both interpretations have implications.
For a lower powered saga my interpretation will solve some of the problems that have been proposed on this forum, that is why magi aren't more of a factor in the economics of Mythic Europe, being able to produce vast quantities of food, etc. I think those are the interesting story considerations you previously discounted. I find your interpretation suggests that there should be significantly more magi in the Order than the ~1200 magi suggested in HoH. Many fewer magi will have experienced Twilight as a result of a ritual.
As an SG, I prefer a go to rule that I can always rely on. I dislike rules that force me to adjudicate every die roll as to whether the situation is stressful or relaxed. Most times there won't be an issue, but when there is an issue, it is something that the player and the SG will disagree on. I really dislike those kinds of situations, and it is for that reason why I say my interpretation is conservative, utterly incorrect, though it may be.
And your arguments have failed to impress me? However, I don't say you're utterly incorrect. I say I give more weight to other things.
The first sentence in the Stress Die section:
And then, two paragraphs later it says that there are times when a stress die cannot botch, but that isn't clarified until page 7.
The text provides an example, but it is not definitive. It suggests that if a disaster were to occur, it wouldn't be a final result. I can't see that applying to casting a ritual spell.
And it says the text says that a stress die is always used. It says that in the Ritual magic section, and that section is entirely about differentiating the differences between ritual magic and formulaic magic. Since that is the pattern of the text of the Ritual magic section, the fact that an exception isn't listed is something I interpret as being important. Again, you and jebrick can disagree, but it isn't utterly incorrect, because the text is ambiguous and must be interpreted.
So we find some common ground. Can you cast a ritual, without mastery, in a relaxed manner with a stress die without the risk of a botch? Note, the text doesn't say that a ritual is stressful, merely that a stress die is required. Further, the section on using Vis suggests that vis can be used in a spell, but if the conditions are relaxed that no chance of botch exists. And it entirely discounts the need to have mastered a spell to do this, it's just a situational determination of whether the circumstances are stressful or not, and could be extended to rituals!
Where the rule is not stated explicitly one must interpret. One can interpret as I do, and indeed several others have. One can interpret as you do and, indeed, there are several who agree with you.
See my point above, it is possible to interpret that a ritual could be cast, if conditions are relaxed, without the risk of a botch, and without any level of mastery.
The book is entirely unclear and ambiguous, you think it says one thing, but it does not. Whether rituals may be cast in a relaxed manner, but with a stress die is not explicit and it has generated this discussion. I can see your and jebrick's position as being a reasonable interpretation. I'm willing to play the Bibracte saga with whatever interpretation the troupe comes to consensus on. Because the text is ambiguous, and there are multiple interpretations possible, I think there needs to be an agreement on what the rule should be going forward, IMS. I don't need to send this to David Chart. I'm comfortable with my interpretation. I'm less comfortable with your interpretation, but can play with it. I'm even less comfortable with the idea that someone can cast a ritual with no mastery ability whatsoever in a relaxed manner without risk of botching, which is also another possible interpretation of the rules as written, because the term stress die is used as opposed stressful situation, I wouldn't like running a saga with that rule.
In this case, there is no RAW, except that ritual is always cast with a stress die. As much as I'm reading it the way I want to read it, so are you. Both interpretations have implications.
For a lower powered saga my interpretation will solve some of the problems that have been proposed on this forum, that is why magi aren't more of a factor in the economics of Mythic Europe, being able to produce vast quantities of food, etc. I think those are the interesting story considerations you previously discounted. I find your interpretation suggests that there should be significantly more magi in the Order than the ~1200 magi suggested in HoH. Many fewer magi will have experienced Twilight as a result of a botched ritual.
As an SG, I prefer a go to rule that I can always rely on. I dislike rules that force me to adjudicate every die roll as to whether the situation is stressful or relaxed. Most times there won't be an issue, but when there is an issue, it is something that the player and the SG will disagree on. I really dislike those kinds of situations, and it is for that reason why I say my interpretation is conservative, utterly incorrect, though it may be.
Wow...this is by far the most responses I've ever had to one of my questions. (I'm assuming that's a good thing, as that means that this was not an easy one).
I have a feeling that, barring an edict from On High, this is going to be a prototypical "ysmv" situations. I've been following the arguments, and I've found my opinion changing almost daily. When I originally posted, I think I was of the opinion that, with Mastery, a maga could (with one level) negate any chance of a Botch on a Ritual spell, although I wasn't comfortable with it. Last night, I had gone to the other camp (namely, that you can't negate botch dice merely by taking one level of Mastery) based on someone pointing out the second paragraph on p. 7, where it says that there is no botch dice in a situation that you have a chance to try again â and since Ritual spells take at least an hour to cast and cost at least four pawns of Vis, there's not really that much opportunity. (although, to be honest, that might have been in Bibracte that I saw that).
Then I read the paragraph for myself and saw "This applies, for example, if the character is making something, but has time to do it again if the first attempt goes very badly." (emphasis mine). Which means (to me) that this is one situation where you can be relaxed, but not the only one.
So, it seems to me that the rules as written are ambiguous (duh!), and it all depends on which sentences you want to emphasize over others. In my saga, I'm going with the interpretation that (with mastery) you can negate botch dice if the spell is cast under Relaxed conditions, which is SG/troupe call (although most ritual spells, I would think, would be cast under optimum conditions). JL is going with "a Mastery ability score of 1 in a Ritual doesn't allow one to avoid the risk of botching Ritual spells" but is willing to go with troupe consensus if we feel otherwise.
So, in a nutshell: The rules are ambiguous enough on the question that both sides are equally valid interpretations of the rules as written, and that it's going to fall to the story-guide/troupe to decide which way they want to go.