Monday, 16 April 2018

Warhammer 9th ed 1.075 out now!

This update changes the following:

  • Signature spells is no longer recastable (would require redesigning too many of them and a greater risk of cheese).
  • Signature spells are now available in addition to a wizard's other spells, meaning a level 1 wizard always knows the signature spells of his chosen lore plus another spell of his choosing. This means you now will have more options than before, and makes even a level 1 wizard more useful on his own.
  • Dispel Dice are now channelled on a 6 instead of a 4+, but is instead rolled for each Wizard level. So a level 4 Wizard now rolls 4 dice rather than 2 for dispel dice. This will make dispel dice somewhat more difficult to channel.
  • Nerfed Power Drain; it now only causes you to be unable to cast more spells that round rather than lose levels and spells.
  • Removed Multiple Shots from two different sources; I will instead make clear exceptions for these in the few books where this will come into play.
  • Removed repeater crossbows - these were only used by Dark Elves anyway, and with different rules.

Overall, I hope this will go some way to improving the magic system, which is the main thing I'm not quite happy with yet. I'd also like to get more feedback of the following:

  • Making miscasts take effect on double 1 instead of double 6.
  • Making Irrestistible Force a bonus to the casting result instead of being undispelable.
  • Removing boosted versions of all spells to keep the focus more on casting multiple lower-level spells instead of throwing all dice on the super-Purple Sun.
  • Anything else I might have missed.

You will also notice I have moved the Skaven book further up in the update order. While I would like to finish the complete versions of the other books first, the Skaven book is in pretty big need of an update to fix some glaring issues (thanks for the harsh criticism 4chan!), so I will get that one out as soon as I'm finished with Wood Elves.

47 comments:

  1. Changes to magic look good, I'm personally a fan of miscasts on double 1, not sure how I feel about removing boosted spells. Perhaps just remove the boosted versions of already big spells while keeping the option to upgrade spells like fireball.

    What issues with the Skaven book need fixing? I haven't really trawled through it since I haven't really been doing much Warhammer recently, but I'm always excited for Skaven updates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding the Skaven, it's mainly things like the Abomination, Cannon and Night Runners that needs fixing in order to be worthwhile, but I will do some more tweaks as well based on feedback I've received (and read on 4chan).

      Delete
    2. One more thing on Skaven which I'm unsure if you are aware of. Stormvermin being moved to core ( good move imo) but their magic banner allowance is still 50pts which is usual for special units. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not.

      Delete
  2. Some interesting changes there Mathias, especially concerning Signature spells, which I think could be intersting to test out :-)

    The dispel solution could be interesting too.. It gives you an incentive to go for a highter lvl wizard compared to several lower lvl ones, without making multiple lower level ones a bad option. Pros and cons to both options, which I like. :-)

    Nerfing Power Drain is a good thing if you decide to keep the miscast table. Level 1 Wizards loosing a wizard level is quite harsh.. :-P

    I like the Miscasts on double 1's tbh. I don't like the idea that when a wizard successfully cast a spell he is somehow loosing control by default. It's my take on magic in warhammer at least.

    I like the idea of some boost to the casting value for every natural 6 rolled, wether this is a free dice, added wizard level etc...

    I would not remvoe boosted versions of spells. It would make some armies suffer horribly, like the undead armies needing to prop up units with spells for example. It would severely impact the game in many ways. Also, higher level wizards would be hard to justify if more potential power in the form of powerful spells were removed. A 300+ pts wizard should be able to have a significant impact on the game, just like a battery of 3 Imperial Great Cannons can... They are not effective in melee, so they have to make up for it with ranged power generally speaking. The meta has also changed, with less points in every unit (with the hores of 8th ed being gone), so many of the spells will not have the same impact on the game even of the spell is still the same technically speaking...

    Happy to see that you are keeping an open mind regarding re-balancing the magic system Mathias :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. If wizards turn out to be nerfed a bit too much, one could always switch it around so that you rolled a channeling die for every Wizzard levl (needing a 6) and then having every wizard add a dispel dice on a 4+ (only one die rolled). Just a thought.

    Regaring the casting of spells with variable casting values, I quite liked the idea that someone suggested that you automatically cast as powerful a version as the result of your casting dice total. It's logical and also removes the whole potential issue abot stating the previous casting roll requirement before rolling the dice etc...

    ReplyDelete
  4. -I agree with making Miscasts take effect on a double 1, just remember to modify the army books to match. I don't like how rolling really high is both punishing and rewarding. Both a Miscast and an irresistable force should only happen when a lot of power is put into a spell.
    -I'm against making Irresistable Force a bonus. The key word is 'irresistable'.
    -Keep the boosted versions of spells. In general, don't take away options, someone should have the option of throwing everything into a single spell or using multiple weak spells.
    -Perhaps a rune like system where the bonus to weapons or armor could be applied to something. The dwarves have the benefit of a more versatile system. If something was originally armor, it's boost can only be applied to armor. The Dragonhelm remains as is. Since magic items from specific books are tailored to the book, keep them as is. Leave Talismans, Arcane Items and Enchanted Items as is. Some examples:
    --Silvered Steel improves the armor save granted by armor by 2. If the best an army book has is light armor then the Silvered Steel upgrade improves it to 4+. Remove the fact that the armor cannot be improved from helmets or shields. Perhaps include a weaker upgrade that improves the save by 1.
    --A Halberd could be made a Berserker Halberd, becoming a Halberd that grants the user an unloseable Frenzy. Remove words like Blade or Sword from the name

    ReplyDelete
  5. Changes look good, will try some games with them. The no boosted spells could make the game more interesting

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like the changes. Being able to repeat signature spells with the same wizard made VC very powerful as I was able to spam nehek from a souped up necharch returning a 30 man skellie unit to full strength from down to 3. Perhaps allow seperate wizards to cast multiple attempts at signatures but only once each?

    I like the idea that the casting value rolled decides the power level of a spell. I don't like the idea of the souped up version of spells being scrapped.

    Keep up the excellete work you beautiful person!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like the changes that have been made so far, but I’m against making miscasts take place on a double 1. From an in game perspective, I can see why many people here are giving positive feedback on the idea, but you have to remember that this is a mechanic that has a very good in world explanation. The double six represents that flood of power that a mage experiences when channeling too much power. In that moment, what causes the miscast isn’t necessarily caused by them losing control of the magic itself, but losing control of themselves. Every one of them experiences that itch to simply let loose, and to allow the power to run free. It’s like having the most intense addiction a person could experience, and then being told that you were only allowed to use a dose that wouldn’t even affect you, save to prolong the addiction. That double six may just be a minor inconvenience to the player, but to the wizard, that moment is the glorious euphoria of finally using their true power, and nothing can stop them. Because of this lore reason, I also don’t think that the irresistible force rule should be reduced to a simple boost.
    Double one have always just been the magic fizzling out, haven’t they? I ask because I didn’t play anything earlier than 7th, so I’m not sure how magic worked further back. The double 1 isn’t meant to be dangerous, just a disappointment. I’m not sure that channeling too little dangerous magic should have explosive results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the lore, you can find arguments to build up under both cases mechanically. The reasoning that you have to have a spell go off at ustoppable power for a wizard to screw things up for himself and those around him is generaly not the case in warhammer lore overall, not even in the latest rpg if I recall correctly...

      Delete
  8. I have had a number of discussions with Mathias on the topic of magic and should share my latest suggestion.
    There are a few issues right now, one the highest spells need a lot of dice to cast, which means likely only the higher wizards can cast it (which is fine as only the top levels can take those spells.) Problem is that rolling that many dice triggers miscasts.
    The chance of getting 2 sixes on 6 dice by my maths is just less than a quarter, and if the high casting levels mean that players feel forced into rolling 6 dice then this will happen a lot - it also now really only affects the higher level wizards because only they can roll that many dice which seems counter intuitive as the higher level the caster, you'd think the better at it they'd be.

    I have a suggestion, which is a little more complicated than currently but I don't think we are an inexperienced audience:

    When we roll power dice we roll two dice and add them. Well I suggest we have a split between safe dice and risky dice. So the higher number gives safe dice and the lower number unsafe dice. Channelling and other sources add to your risky dice pool. Use different coloured dice to distinguish between them.
    At the start of the magic phase the player can choose to turn Safe dice to unsafe dice if they wish – (armies with multiple level 1 or 2 wizards may need to do this). Each level 3 or 4 wizard can take a single unsafe die and make it safe.
    Now when you cast you can only use as many safe dice as your level per spell. Any wizard can use up to 2 risky dice per spell.
    For each roll of a 6 on any die, the wizard can choose to roll an extra unsafe die – tapping into extra power.
    However as soon as there is any 1s on unsafe die (including extra ones from the 6s), there is a miscast.
    If 2 or more 6s are rolled on the safe dice then it is cast with irresistible force (no dispels)

    A spell can be both successfully cast and miscast.

    Then the dispelling player can use any number of dispel dice. Any results of a six grants the player an additional D6 that can either be rolled immediately to boost the dispel, or added to the dispel pool for subsequent turns.


    Resolving a miscast:
    For each result of a 1 on an unsafe die the wizard rolls a D6, adding the results, and consults the miscast table after resolving the effects of the spell if it exceeded the casting value:
    So now the wizard can see what the situation is and make the decision as to whether to tap into the extra power they have available. If they already have a single 1 on an unsafe die they will probably not choose to take the extra power unless they have to.
    Top level wizards are less likely to need the risky dice, but also more likely to roll irresistible force, a level 1 can’t now. Lower level wizards are likely to be making lots of small mistakes triggering more miscasts. Higher level wizards are more reliable. Serious miscasts are often going to be self inflicted. The caster rolls a safe 6,4 and an unsafe 1, the spell hasn’t gone off, needed a 13… Do they tap into the extra power they have found to roll that extra die...? Roll 3+ and the spell goes off, roll a 1 and they are in serious trouble….

    The actual irresistible force would be much rarer as it is 2 from 4 rather than 6 now, and only for level 4s, so more a pleasant surprise than something that could be almost forced before.

    What do people think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An intriguing idea Phillip, which I think has a lot of posititve sides to it, but it also has it's downsides which makes me a bit sceptical at first glance.

      -It seems a bit fiddly and more time consuming (with a more complicated "I'll have to look this up" kind of a miscast table).

      -It seems that items will have to be changed in most army books and so on.

      I do see where you are going with it though and I don't dislike your idea Phillip, I just think that perhaps it would be better to nerf and standarize Miscasts instead myself. Makes for quicker gameplay, ye the threat of Misasts will be there to counterbalance/discourage the higher level spells from being overly used, yet it won't be so often so disasterous that it wins or loses you the game if and when you Miscast a single spell...

      Delete
    2. If "Irresistable Force" (is there really good justification such a thing?) instead adds some bonus to the casting dice, not so many powerful spells will actually get off during a game, as the option to dispel will always be there. It also helps a bit with being able to cast some of the higher level spills without having to make adjustments to the magic cards themselves. A free dice/wizard lvl added for every 6 initially rolled would go a long way towards making up for the loss of Wizard levels being automatically added, but still would not be as good as it used to be...

      In this context though, I'd like the Dispel scroll be a 6 dice dispell, rather than an automatic one.

      Delete
    3. What I don't like is that only the best wizards miscast, which is why splitting out safe and unsafe dice is an option, it means that the wizards that miscast are the ones that take risks. It also allows a miscast table such as the one i suggested to get progressively worse depending on how risky you were, the current one is situation agnostic which isn't as interesting. Yes we could just make miscasts less serious but I feel we should come back to agreeing what the problem is that we are trying to solve. What is the problem with the original 8th system? For me that is people forcing spells through with 6 dice hoping for irresistable force and a miscast.
      As for looking stuff up - I have no issue with that, I don't know the current misfire table either.
      Yes spells can be dispelled, but one of the downsides of the current system is that if you do get off an irresistable force, you'll struggle for the rest of the phase as the opponent didn't expend any dice in stopping your spell - so may even outnumber you dice wise now. get a spell off on a roll of a 22 now and you'll give the opponent a real headache, empty their hand of dispel dice, or let it through to stop everything else...

      Delete
    4. So would anyone be willing to give this concept a play test and feedback to the forum? Doesn't have to be these specific rules, just the headline concept. the only way we'll work out if something works, is to test it.

      Delete
    5. The best wizards only have a greater chance to miscast WHEN trying to use more powerull spells though, which is a luxury in some respects, but I understand your argument regardless. When Wizard levels were added, they didn't neccessarily need to use so many dice, so the chance of miscasting was lessened by default in that sense.

      Delete
  9. New Miscast Table. This one clearly just gets nastier and nastier as you go down. Rolling on this table with just 1D6 is going to be quite common – but not too serious

    1 - no effect
    2 - 1 power die lost from the pool
    3 - The wizard can use one fewer risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 1 die is lost from the pool
    4 - All models in base contact with the wizard suffer a S3 hit.The wizard can use one fewer risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 1 die is lost from the pool
    5 - All models in base contact with the wizard suffer a S5 hit.The wizard can use one fewer risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 2 dice are lost from the pool
    6 - The Wizard and all models in base contact with the wizard Suffer a S6 hit. The wizard can use one fewer unsafe power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 2 dice are lost from the pool
    7 - The Wizard and all models in base contact with the wizard and all models on the same side that can channel/ generate power or dispel dice suffer a S6 hit. The wizard can use one fewer risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 2 dice are lost from the pool
    8 - The Wizard and all models in base contact with the wizard and all models on the same side that can channel/ generate power or dispel dice suffer a S6 hit The wizard can't use risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 2 dice are lost from the pool
    9 - The Wizard and all models in base contact with the wizard and all models on the same side that can channel/ generate power or dispel dice suffer a S10 hit. The wizard permanently loses a wizard level and forgets the spell they just cast. The wizard can't use risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 2 dice are lost from the pool
    10 - Centre the small round template over the wizard. All models underneath the template suffer a S10 hit D3W.The wizard permanently loses a wizard level and forgets the spell they just cast. The wizard can't use risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase. 3 dice are lost from the pool
    11 - Centre the small round template over the wizard. All models underneath the template suffer a S10 hit D3W.The wizard permanently loses a wizard level and forgets the spell they just cast. The wizard can't use risky power dice for the remainder of the Magic phase and can only use on unsafe die per spell for the rest of the game. 3 dice are lost from the pool
    12 - Centre the large round template over the wizard. All models underneath the template suffer a S10 hit D3W. The wizard permanently loses a wizard level and forgets the spell they just cast. 3+D3 dice are lost from the power pool. The wizard cannot cast again this phase and can never use risky power dice again
    13+ Centre the large round template over the wizard. All models underneath the template suffer a S10 hit D3W. 3+D3 dice are lost from the power pool. Remove the wizard from play

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was a massive fan of the recast signature spells, but also accepted that they'd nearly all need editing to avoid issues, such as the VC player above identified. It would not be insignificant effort, but would add tactical depth. There is a constant balance between richness and complexity. Being an experienced old timer I prefer the rich rule set but appreciate that not everyone is like me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think recasting of signature spells is generally speaking a negative thing, but with the change that all wizards get the signature spells for free, it is more viable to buy multiple wizards to do this instead, which I do like. :-) No editing needed then.

      Delete
    2. it is certainly simpler I grant. I like the richness that comes with being able to recast a powered down version of the signatures, but that is significant editing. I think more edits is a good thing though generally.

      Delete
  11. If wizard has the option to select spells from several lores, how would this work as far as Signature spells go?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many wizards actually have this option? Just say that a wizard can only have signatures from one lore. (can't say just one as that is the benefit of being a High magic caster - 2 signatures.

      Delete
    2. No many admitedly. Only Morathi really comes to mind at the top of my head. Still, it needs clarifiction somewhere.

      Delete
    3. Every caster in the Daemon army list has multiple lores, with Kairos Fateweaver having nine.

      Delete
  12. One magic change I really do want to see is fixing the lore of metal lore attribute. It only affects 2 of the 7 spells and for one it makes no sense. I would fix the Strength of Gehenna's hounds, move the lore attribute that the hits are the armour save to the spell that suits it and then have a new lore attribute that gives casting bonuses against units that have high armour saves (other than natural armour) as the magic is naturally attracted to metal. (similar in concept to the beasts lore attribute)
    There really are so many small fluff supported improvements that could be made. The more I read the rules the more I feel they aren't sufficiently thought through - rushed and slightly play to the lowest common denominator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like a good idea I think. Heavy Armour or Full Plate armour on the targeted unit lowering the casting value by -1... Or you could go by saves, 4+ or better, excuding Natural armour... I like it in any case. :-)

      Delete
    2. i disagree, lore of metal is a good lore and its attribute works for its spells. changing it to work better with heavier armoured guys makes it really easy to get spells off and added to the -1 to casting values that has been purposed. Searing Doom and Golden Hounds eat heavy infantry and heavy cav and is a good hero hunter spell. Enchated Blades being effected by armour makes no sense, so now will you say different weapon types give a bonus too? Great Weapons vs say spear? Both Plague of rust and transmutation are good spells and dont need a buff to casting. Final Transmutation turns people into gold, so it wont make sense in your purposed attribute change. Leave Lore of Metal as is.

      Delete
  13. The lore attribute really is only applicable to 2 of the 7 spells. Heavens spells are easier to cast on fliers, metal spells should be easier to cast on troops covered in metal, the magic is easier to form and target them. The enchanted blades for example, the troops armour makes it easier to attract the magic that is used to improve the weapons
    My suggestion would leave searing doom/ metal shifting unchanged (the old lore attribute just moves to inside this spell), gehena’s hounds become S5 rather than variable, they are clockwork dogs... why would they offer no save, why are they stronger if the target happens to be carrying a shield?
    If the concern is that the spells become too easy to cast then add 1 to each spell, then give casting bonus of 1 for armour save 4+ and casting. Bonus of 2 for armour save 2+ that will leave us almost neutral

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heaven spells are not easier to cast on fliers rolling skies is d6 s4 hits on flier. You may be thinking of lore of beasts :).

      Tbh Lore of metal is a decent lore. Enchanted blades is a good spell without the attribute and searing doom is a great signature spell.

      Lore of light has the same issues you are mention except its even more specific (over half of the spells are augments). Why no push for that to be changed?

      In my opinion I think a rework of the spells is something that should happen I understand the card dilemma but if you keep the names/casting values the same it should still be relevant and helpful in game

      Delete
  14. You are quite right, I was thinking of beasts my mistake. I quite agree the lore of metal is a good lore, although of course they should all be equal ideally.
    I am not bothered about the cards, they are 8th, this is 9th, an improvement.
    As for The lore of light you are quite right, requires pretty much the same treatment. Put the lore attribute inside those two spells and then change the attribute to apply to all spells. Given that light is always described as diffuse and hard to focus I suggest: the caster gains +1 to cast if they are not in combat and did not move this turn. If they choose to use this they can’t shoot either. So they are better when given the time to concentrate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mathias:

    Been thinking a lot about the Magic system after you intruduced some intersting change here and I have a list of possible suggested modifications:

    1. Add half (rounding up) the Wizard's casting level to any casting/dispel rolls.

    -This gives some of the cost-effectiveness of having higher level wizards back, while at the same time making the more game-winning spells harder to cast, yet not impossible (2 pts higher casting value effectivly).

    -This also makes lvl 1 & 3 Wizards more viable than previously, where 2 & 4 were the norm only.

    -It negates the point of reducing all casting values by 1 point as suggested, hence we can keep the spell cards as is.

    -Lvl 5 Wizard will atually mean something again, not just another spell you don't have the dice to get off...

    2. Allow Signature spells for free as you've already suggested.

    -This makes low lvl wizards very cost-effective (1 to two more spells for free means a 100% to 200% inrease in spells for a lvl 1 Wizard, but only a 25% to 50% increase for a lvl 4 wizard).

    -It also allows for recasting of the Signature spells by using several low lvl wizards, which I find to be a fair and balanced idea, making low lvl wizards very flexible.

    3. Remove the idea that you have to state the casting level of a variable casting level type spell. MAke it so that it is always vast at the highest level the dice roll qualifies you for.

    -This removes all the "Damn, I forgot to state my casting value before I rolled the dice" instances for one thing. It also makes sense.

    4. No More Irresistable force. Instead add Half Wizard lvl (rounding up) for every 6 that is rolled.

    -This means that when higher power lvl spells are cast, they can still be dispelled, hence reducing the potential effect of the more game-winning spells even further.

    -irresistable Force are just words that can't really be justified... There is no legitimate lore reason why someone like Nagash suddenly can't manage to dispel a "well-casted" spell made by a junior wizard fresh out from the Colleges of Magic...

    -The magic phase will hopefully become more of a calculated gamble, not just 6 dicing your most powerful spell to get Irresistable force.

    ReplyDelete

  16. 5. Irresistable Force on 6's, Miscast on double 1's...

    -See reasons above.

    6. Channeling Power dice on 6's, rolling one dice for every Wizard lvl.

    -This makes higher lvl wizards a bit more valuable if your primary idea is to dominate the magic phase offensivly.

    -This makes it so that Lower lvl wizards are more flexible and good defensively, while higher lvl wizards are more offensivly inclined.

    7. Dispel Dice generated on 4+ for every wizard. One dice only.

    -This makes lower lvl wizards, perhaps multiple of them viably definsivly.

    -It prevents higher lvl wizards from making lower lvl wizards unable to cast spells from generating a higher amount of dispel dice.

    8. Make the dispel scroll a 6 dice dispel cast instead of automatic.

    -It doesn't really make that much sense that some scroll contains the power to negate some spell regardless of how powerfully it was casted.

    -It might reduce the "scroll-caddy" factor somewhat and instead open up for more varied wizard "builds", especially at lower level..

    9. Change how miscasts work. Either by making one standarized result that spped sup the game, or at the very least remove the "lower wizard level by one" (which can now result in level 0 wizards with two spells ironically) and the reduce your power dice pool by 1d6 (which could as well have been "ends you magic phase".

    -I think it's only fair that if the overall potential of magic is lowered in the game, due to casting levels not being so dominant, it s also fair that one mitigates some of the dangers of magic to compensate.

    -A standarized Muscast result would make the game quicker as well as prevented some armies basically losing the game due to a single bad dice roll (VC and TK's having their Lord/Hierophant dissapear into the relm of chaos) etc...

    -Nerf the OK's Hell-heart item so that it is not so damned game-breakingly OP against some armies for its cost...

    10. Potentially allow lvl 3+ Wizards to re'roll a single 1 (assuming miscasts are on double 1's) when using less than 4 dice to cast a spell.

    -This would help higher level wizards from dying due to miscasting when casting spells that should be within their "comfort level" if you will. It would do a lot of what Phillip sugggested in his setup above, but in an easier way tht won''t force one to redesign the whole magic level, fix the army books etc...

    ReplyDelete
  17. 10: This could be changed so that one 1 could be re-rolled for any casting attempt that used equal (or less than) power dice than the wizards level. This would go some way towards justifing the +35 pts cost for increasing a Wizard level from lvl 1 to 2 and 3 to 4, as well...

    ReplyDelete
  18. There have been a number of people suggesting that spells go off on their higher casting option by default if the casting roll is high enough. This needs to be an OPTION rather than a default because there a number of spells with the following syntax: target A unit at range high on low casting value or target ALL units, range low on high casting value. Forcing the higher result will mean the intended target may now be out of range...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good call Phillip. I agree. An oversight on my part :-)

      Delete
    2. I also meant that you add +half wizard lvl (rounding up) to you casting roll for every 6 rolled AFTER the first 6 btw...

      Delete
  19. Just some general thoughts on Magi cin WHBF and the current rules:

    As it now stands, I don't see higher level wizards being a viable option in the game. Lower level wizards are fine though, as they don't suffer much from losing the added wizard level and they get a lot of spells for their cost. They are also relatively cheap and if they die due to miscasts etc, it's not the end of the world.

    Higher level wizards are now terribly overprised for what they can bring to the table presently. Yes, they have access to more powerfull spells (as they did previously too), but their ability to cast them is severely reduced, to the point htat you are better off going for spells of casting values of 7 or less only, as otherwise you are looking at 3 or more dice on average and a much higher chance of miscasts than before as well.
    They no longer dispel anywher as effectively as previously either, when compared to lower lvl wizards.

    I think higher lewel wizards and powerfull spells do serve an important fucntion in the game tbh, and that is serving as a good counter against powerfull fighters and otherwise "unbeatable" regiments. For some armies they serve the same role as a battery of great cannons would for an Empire army for example (and they often cost the same or even more too).
    I don't think wizards dominate the game or have for many years. Not more so than artillery at least, and at least against magic you have the option to dispel and go for the wizard kill, whereass against artillery, killing is your only option...
    It is not unfair that sometimes a Lvl 4 wizard wins you the game. Not more than an overpowered melee lord, artillery, etc etc... For some reason magic is seen as "cheese" that players can complain about, yet I think that generally speaking it has always been one of the least cost-effective ways to win the game realistically speaking... It is no coincidence that many tournament winners have constantly gone with a low lvl wizard with a dispel scroll, instead of putting points into higher lvl wizards, and that should be rather telling...

    Under the current rules, there is little to no difference ofa alvl 1 wizard casting some low lvl spell and a lvl 5 wizard like Nagash doing so. None. In practial terms that means high-level wizards are gone from the game under the current meta, due to being terribly inneffective from a cost-perspective.

    With the current meta change wher charaacters, and melee characters in particular having received a boost (due to no longer being picked out ina unit due to shooting, less number of models hitting back at them in close combat due to horde being gone etc), I think magic is very much needed to keep some sort of balance. There must be viable counters to Melee Lords being the all-or nothing thing that determines the outcome of most games.

    Just putting down some thoughts as to the reasonings behind my suggestions above, in a broader perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi, agree with your changes. I think the IF should be a bonus - eg D6 +PDU to casting roll, not totally undispellable. I also think miscasts should be pegged to double sixes (double 1s is more a damp squib rather than mishandling huge amounts of energy, plus from gameplay perspective it is more balanced. double ones is just a punishment for taking a wizard - and this is a fantasy game.

    Just one thing I noticed in Bretts 9th ed book - if the damsel cannot draw line of sight from here position in the lance, then surely that would affect some of her casting. with shooting in two ranks, they draw LoS from the model in front, so surely that still applies to the damsel?

    ReplyDelete
  21. A rule change suggestion unreleated to magic:

    Could it be an idea to let models with the Sniper Special rule shoot into combat following the normal rule but extrending their range to 12" Mathias? Adding this to the Sniper special rule in other words. Just a though I had since the Wood Elves are coming up next...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have one simple idea:

    Unlimit the quantity of power and dispel spell beyond 12 and elimite the boosted spells versions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you eliminate the boosted spells, you might as well eliminate any and all Wizard Lords options as well as they will be utterly a waste of points... why would you ever take the likes of Telis, A Lord of Change, A Slann, Mannfred, Morathi, Malekith, Thanquol, etc etc under the current rules??? That is WITH boosted spells included...

      Delete
  23. But I think the point is cast a lot of spells instead of using most of dices to cast a one single boost spell version.

    But it is just a new point of view

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get the idea, but I'm against it for several reasons as mentioned earlier, but also, what is really better if you could spam a single spell several times to get effectivly the same result than if you cast one powerful version? One thing you're guaranteed to do is make the magic phase take more time, which the game certainly don't need.
      Another thing is that it would overall be easier to dispel spells more reliably, as you don't decide if you want to dispel or not until affter the casting roll has been made. With no casting levels added as is the case now, you are far more likely to fail casting now and again, which reallyy swings the number of dice in the defender's favour...
      Some armies would suffer far more from this than others potentially, such as the VC/TK in particular, who actually rely on spells to really work decently to a much larger degree than most other armies.

      Points of view and arguments and new insights are always appreciated. :-) As good as Mathias is, the game is simply too rule-heavy for one person to get it all right with no input and feedback from others, especially since changes potentially impacts so many armies in various ways...

      Delete
  24. Still waiting for ravrning hotdes 8th ed :((((

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will be out soon, I promise. I'm not going to release Wood Elves before they are finished, I just want to fix some of the issues with the 9th ed versions first.

      Delete
  25. You accidentally removed the 1.08 blog post or just hide it because you're doing some update?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pure mistake actually, accidentally clicked the wrong button. I've restored the post now.

      Delete