The state of Khaine magic

[Woolly.Mammoth]

Thats an interesting point. I often refer to this as "you have to commit" to what you're doing. Especially with VC, you have to commit to a unit - you can't just bring 10 ghouls and call it a unit. While there a ton of fun variety throughout the book, your lists are stronger if you pick a few units and make sure to have a lot of bodies in them.

This is also true for your dice rolls. 5+ to hit is actually better than two 6+ to hits. A 5+ save is better than two 6+ saves.

I never thought of this in terms of war machines, but it makes sense. Most armies are comped to one though.

Magic is limited by range and often forward arc and LoS. One of your spells has to provide something relevant in the current situation. You ahve to be able to cast in the current phase (many things can prevent you from doing so). When you cast you need enough dice to cast, and you have to meet the casting value, and it not get dispelled. Adding an additional pre-layer to roll to see what spells you even have is nonsense IMO.

 

[najo]

There's a pretty major difference between 2 cannons and 2 caster's though. I fire one and it does only great but I bring 2 and one of them is more likely to do fantastic.

I bring 2 caster's and if my level 4 doesn't get the spell I want then I simply didn't get the spell. My level 2 having it is close to worthless. A level 2 caster is just used as a back up dispeller and if you have extra dice, not for casting anything of worth.

You actually roll with your level 2 first. Then if the spell lands on him you want on your level 4, take the signature spell in place of the spell you want. This puts the spell back in the mix and pulls one spell out of the 6 in the lore. You roll 4 dice against 5 spells. Unless you get an awful roll, you will likely get the spell you want or at least a duplicate. With duplicate, choose the spell. Then whatever trash spell is in there, swap for signature spell of the lore. That's how you get the spell you want on to your level 4.

In the event that a level 2 has something you want to cast, juts throw extra dice at it or intentionally six dice it if that caster is in combat. Only do this after the level 4 is done casting so you aren't risking your power dice being sucked away.

 

[najo]

Thats an interesting point. I often refer to this as "you have to commit" to what you're doing. Especially with VC, you have to commit to a unit - you can't just bring 10 ghouls and call it a unit. While there a ton of fun variety throughout the book, your lists are stronger if you pick a few units and make sure to have a lot of bodies in them.

This is also true for your dice rolls. 5+ to hit is actually better than two 6+ to hits. A 5+ save is better than two 6+ saves.

I never thought of this in terms of war machines, but it makes sense. Most armies are comped to one though.

Magic is limited by range and often forward arc and LoS. One of your spells has to provide something relevant in the current situation. You ahve to be able to cast in the current phase (many things can prevent you from doing so). When you cast you need enough dice to cast, and you have to meet the casting value, and it not get dispelled. Adding an additional pre-layer to roll to see what spells you even have is nonsense IMO.

This is where the vampire lore is so versatile, every spell is almost always useful in some fashion, plus the lore attribute heals things we can't use Invocation on or that heal slowly (like varghiest, spirit host, T-bats etc). Raise Dead alays redirects. Van Hel's always moves and rerolls To Hits...THROUGH THEIR TURN!!!. Hellish Vigor let's those wounds do the same. Curse of Years is a hex and threatens THE ENTIRE UNIT!. Wind of Death punishes buses and armored units and can be cast from combat. Gaze pops of warmachines, chaff, MSU, solo characters and softens rank and file before engaging. Invocation removes your opponent's progress and breaks their morale when you fix everything they have done (yes this is possible, I've ended games fully healed before and my opponent tabled - ouch).

The point is, use lores that have synergy and reversibility in them. don;t be dependent on one spell. Vampires is such a good lore, because it really doesn't have a bad spell. Everything works towards you either slowing or preventing damage done to you or you increasing threat and dealing more damage to them. All of it but GoN works while engaged and IoN, VHDM and HV all can be boosted to create a different level of threat and thus response from your opponent.

Take Van Hel's, so let's say you got a unit you really need to move and be able to reoll to hits. You want to move your ghouls up to redirect or something. So, first thing you fire off a spell to bait with (like raise dead or Curse of Years). They ty to dispel it. Then you bubble cast Van Hel's which happens to hit your Hexwraiths and some other stuff, plus the ghouls. So they dispel that too or even burn a scroll. Now, you cast Book of Arkhan's bound VHDM on the ghouls (which also puts a wound back on something within 12") and move your ghouls to redirect and now they have rerollable To hit (with poison). You got through what you wanted because of the tricks and options in your magic. Any one of those things succeeding would have been good. Hell, you might get them all off if done right. This approach also makes your opponent feel helpless as your magic phases pushes him towards failing.

This is also why I LOVE black periapt. Gaining two extra dice each magic phase, especially if the winds are low makes your opponent feel weaker, even though you purposely took a beating in his casting phase. At the moment, it doesn't seem that way to him. You rolled double 2's, have 6 power dice and he only has 2. That is crushing. Especially with a Mortis Engine w/ tome nearby. You will get off 3 spells that turn by two dicing them with your level 4.

 

[LordTobiothan]

You actually roll with your level 2 first. Then if the spell lands on him you want on your level 4, take the signature spell in place of the spell you want. This puts the spell back in the mix and pulls one spell out of the 6 in the lore. You roll 4 dice against 5 spells. Unless you get an awful roll, you will likely get the spell you want or at least a duplicate. With duplicate, choose the spell. Then whatever trash spell is in there, swap for signature spell of the lore. That's how you get the spell you want on to your level 4.

In the event that a level 2 has something you want to cast, juts throw extra dice at it or intentionally six dice it if that caster is in combat. Only do this after the level 4 is done casting so you aren't risking your power dice being sucked away.

How did I not consider that? Even still though I think that 2% chance of even that failing is an issue. You can still miss the spell you want on the level 4 however small the chance there's no going back.

I think ideally to compromise both parties, Wizards shouldn't know spells they should know lores. And each turn you roll for the spells you can cast and switch for the sig accordingly. You can even allow multiples on each wizard with this method. This would have it mimic the rest of the game where one bad round of rolling attacks means you hope the next one goes better instead of one bad round of rolling spells is permanent.

One turn you might know spells 1-4 and drop one for sig. The next you might know spells 1,2,5,6. But you are very likely to get the spell you want some of the time if not every turn of the game. Although this does cause even more dice rolling in an already clogged phase so maybe a bad idea actually...

I'll definitely have to give that roll for lesser wizard first thing a try though thanks najo

 

[najo]

Try it with a level 4 and two level 2s. You will have the whole lore and the one spell exactly where you want it.

And good luck, I'm glad I could help bud

 

[LordTobiothan]

Try it with a level 4 and two level 2s. You will have the whole lore and the one spell exactly where you want it.

And good luck, I'm glad I could help bud

Only problem with our army is this only works with a minimum 3 wizards for any lore that isn't vampires.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

Thanks, thats a great way to make (mostly) sure your level 4 has the spell.

Vamp lore is amazing. I've never had any issues with magic when playing VC. One of the strengths of VC is very strong magic and magic tools. I have really enjoyed the 8th magic phase with Lore of Vamps, outsmarting my opponent in a battle of wills. In your example, sometimes my opponent will let a Raise Dead or Curse of Years go, because they know VDM/Nehek is what is really going to hurt them. But things like Blasphemous Tome and Black Periapt put even more pressure on them.

Taking a level 2 in the same lore is a lot of points just to get around the rolling for spells issue. This is only a non-issue when the lore is well rounded and/or with a great signature. Lore of Vamps has both.

- Taking two Shadow Wizards to ensure you dont miss out on The Withering is not as optimal as taking a level 2 in a lore with a great signature (and the possibility of rolling for another great spell). Some armies rely on The Withering to win a pivotal combat or shoot down a key target that can be the difference between a win and a loss against a tough match-up.

- Going for Plague on a Grey Seer and not rolling for Wither really sucks. Skaven need this spell to counter their physical inferiority in most combats. If going Ruin and not rolling Cracks Call, that could lead to a loss in certain matchups. Having an Engineer is much easier than a Priest, making Skaven lists most commonly Ruin, which is kind of boring.

- High Magic is a well rounded lore but I often take it specifically for Arcane Unforging. This can break a key magic item such as BotWD, or the ward on an "unkillable" Tzeench lord or BSB. Lizardmen and Wood Elves do not even have the option of taking a level2 in High.

There are many more examples.

I would be happy if only a level 4 wizard knew all spells, or even if there was an item for level 4 wizards to roll for one more spell, or be loremaster. I think this would be fair so that some armies that truly rely on a key spell can pay to avoid this error. An item to avoid the potential of a roll to ruin your game - like the Grounding Staff.

In fact, this already exists - WoC have the Chaos Familiar for one additional spell and +1 to channels. While its a chaos power, its also an arcane item.

Instead of avoiding certain lores and compromising my lists, I would much prefer better rules to promote more enjoyable magic. End Times Magic improves some of these bad rules, (albeit in not the most optimal way), and while creating more problems than it solves.

 

[najo]

side note, undead legion can pull off other lores with 3 wizards.

As for loremaster and spell choices, I completely agree there should be a brb item that either grants loremaster or at least the ability to choose one of your spells. I lean the second way because loremaster would put to many copies of some spells into play. Its very, very strong. Maybe a 100 point item that grants loremaster of one chosen lore you know would be ok.

What would be more interesting to me is an arcane item, maybe spell familiar or something, that was between 25-50 points and let that wizard choose a spell in place of a roll they didn't like. You could instead grant the wizard an additional spell, which would be cool.

I think it's a missed opportunity.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

If you subtract channeling staff from chaos familiar, the ability to take one extra spell is worth 10 points. This issue could have been resolved any number of ways. How about every wizard knows 1+WL spells?

What is the potential for change with 9th edition? What changed from 8th ot 9th? All I have heard is that spells were less powerful and double 1s was a miscast while 6s was IF. Is the insanity of spells like dwellers/purp sun and rolling for spells all inventions of 8th?

 

[najo]

If you subtract channeling staff from chaos familiar, the ability to take one extra spell is worth 10 points. This issue could have been resolved any number of ways. How about every wizard knows 1+WL spells?

What is the potential for change with 9th edition? What changed from 8th ot 9th? All I have heard is that spells were less powerful and double 1s was a miscast while 6s was IF. Is the insanity of spells like dwellers/purp sun and rolling for spells all inventions of 8th?

You mean what was changed from 7th to 8th? A lot changed. Top of head, in 7th you couldn't premeasure, charges were double your move, there was no step up in combat, chargers attack first before initiative, there were no real nuke spells, no winds of magic and instead magic power dice was your total wizard levels +2 and your total dispel pool was 2+ half your wizard levels round up. There was lots of other small stuff, but that is what comes to me.

3rd edition was massive slim downed and cleaned up for 4th, 5th (hero hammer) was a cleaned up 4th. 6th was a massive over haul that ditched the army books and started fresh (this was a really balanced and good edition. If 9th has some of this edition in it that will be a good thing), 7th was a more complicated version of 6th and created some gamist issues. 7th was too mechanics driven in some places but codified other game mechanics. 8th did some really bold and good things, but it needed streamlining. 9th could nail it, or it could go to far we will see in a few months I will tell you this, each edition has been better than the previous one with the exception of 6th (rules and army books) I think was better than 7th. If 8th had its changes but would have been presented in a similar form to 6th and didn't push towards hordes and nuke spells (i.e. the deathstar level of the game), and the army books were balanced like 6th's books were, 8th would be a more successful edition.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

Yes 7th to 8th thank you

Personally I also dislike the nuke spells and the infantry favored rules. I really enjoy a game of subtle blace - charges, combats, hexes, augments magic missiles. Then someone pops a super spell and I feel like everything goes out the window.

As for spells - most of them are okay. Purple Sun really annoys me - not so much for the super area of effect it creates, or the fact that initiative tests are biased against only certain armies. I mainly dislike it because of how much time it adds to my opponents turn with all of that free dice. Pit of Shades and Cracks Call are considerably better. Other nukes like final trans or dwellers are not too terrible but if they dropped them all out of the game I wouldn't mind in the least.

If 7th wasn't about nukes, what the heck is 13th? The Skaven book was written in 7th and 13th is about as nuke as it gets. I cast it on some Blightkings + Gutrot today and it felt a bit overpowered (but I attribute that more to the fact that they should be MI, not so much the power of 13th).

The infantry-centered rules annoy me as well. Not because I don't love a good block of infantry, but because all the beautiful monsters are left on the shelf. Cannons are way too powerful. There are a million great ideas to improve this - the new combined profiles in End Times help a little bit. I had an idea that monsters should count as 3 ranks for the purposes of steadfast and disruption. I have a feeling that 9th is going to be a big reinvention of things rather than an improvement of 8th .. but we shall see.

I have also heard a lot of rumors that a huge number of fans ragequit when 8th came out and never came back. Based on what you're saying it sounds like most had already left after 7th came out. I think that most dont really share the vision for WHFB that Mat Ward has been rocketing us toward in more recent years. With his absence, 9th might be on a good foot, or we could be starting down an even worse path. The main thing that the End Times rules have been doing for me is making me appreciate 8th more. If this is a sign of the things to come, there is not much hope for the future.

 

[Sception]

7th was dominated by a succession of OP army books, each more broken than the last, that taint my opinion of the core rules. Ours in particular really started that trend, with an obvious 'best build' which was night unbeatable by anyone else, and 7e style magic was a big part of that. Oh, sure, we weren't casting nuke spells, but there were giant piles of casting dice repeatedly spamming one diced invocations to keep your grave guard topped off and grow your ghouls to well over starting size.

If the small spells are effective and cheap enough, I really don't see a system that allows you to spam them over and over as better than one that allows you to cast a couple giant spells. A big spell may take a while to resolve, but not more than a half dozen of the same small spell, and it's far less tedious. I also vastly prefer the system decoupling available power and (especially) dispel dice from your number of casters.

 

[najo]

Yes 7th to 8th thank you

Personally I also dislike the nuke spells and the infantry favored rules. I really enjoy a game of subtle blace - charges, combats, hexes, augments magic missiles. Then someone pops a super spell and I feel like everything goes out the window.

As for spells - most of them are okay. Purple Sun really annoys me - not so much for the super area of effect it creates, or the fact that initiative tests are biased against only certain armies. I mainly dislike it because of how much time it adds to my opponents turn with all of that free dice. Pit of Shades and Cracks Call are considerably better. Other nukes like final trans or dwellers are not too terrible but if they dropped them all out of the game I wouldn't mind in the least.

If 7th wasn't about nukes, what the heck is 13th? The Skaven book was written in 7th and 13th is about as nuke as it gets. I cast it on some Blightkings + Gutrot today and it felt a bit overpowered (but I attribute that more to the fact that they should be MI, not so much the power of 13th).

The infantry-centered rules annoy me as well. Not because I don't love a good block of infantry, but because all the beautiful monsters are left on the shelf. Cannons are way too powerful. There are a million great ideas to improve this - the new combined profiles in End Times help a little bit. I had an idea that monsters should count as 3 ranks for the purposes of steadfast and disruption. I have a feeling that 9th is going to be a big reinvention of things rather than an improvement of 8th .. but we shall see.

I have also heard a lot of rumors that a huge number of fans ragequit when 8th came out and never came back. Based on what you're saying it sounds like most had already left after 7th came out. I think that most dont really share the vision for WHFB that Mat Ward has been rocketing us toward in more recent years. With his absence, 9th might be on a good foot, or we could be starting down an even worse path. The main thing that the End Times rules have been doing for me is making me appreciate 8th more. If this is a sign of the things to come, there is not much hope for the future.

The last army books from 7th going into 8th were pretty broken. Vampires, daemons, dark elves and skaven. Eternal gateway was the first nuke spell, followed by 13th.

8th had tons of good innovation. Stepping up, 2d6 charges, fighting in two ranks, steadfast, 2d6 winds of magic, unit type overhaul. Where 8th failed is a number of places in the rules make a bad first impression until you understand it. Basically charging, death stars and layout of the special rules, types andrcross referencing rules all create barriers to entry and pushed players out. Then the cost of starting a new army is to high.

Infantry are headed the right way, before cavalry just hit and broke units. Now infantry has a place. If cavalry had Asf when charging and spears on foot had ASF vs charging cav, and disruption negated steadfast, and cannons could scatter, 8th would be even better.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

Infantry are headed the right way, before cavalry just hit and broke units. Now infantry has a place. If cavalry had Asf when charging and spears on foot had ASF vs charging cav, and disruption negated steadfast, and cannons could scatter, 8th would be even better.

Agreed. Although, I bet every edition could have been something amazing if it continued to grow and improve from user feedback. Until GW starts to provide proper product support it will never get there.

 

[owain_b]

The last army books from 7th going into 8th were pretty broken. Vampires, daemons, dark elves and skaven. Eternal gateway was the first nuke spell, followed by 13th.

8th had tons of good innovation. Stepping up, 2d6 charges, fighting in two ranks, steadfast, 2d6 winds of magic, unit type overhaul. Where 8th failed is a number of places in the rules make a bad first impression until you understand it. Basically charging, death stars and layout of the special rules, types andrcross referencing rules all create barriers to entry and pushed players out. Then the cost of starting a new army is to high.

Infantry are headed the right way, before cavalry just hit and broke units. Now infantry has a place. If cavalry had Asf when charging and spears on foot had ASF vs charging cav, and disruption negated steadfast, and cannons could scatter, 8th would be even better.

That last paragraph is pretty much exactly what I'd change. 8th is definately the best edition I've played and I'm very happy with 99% of it. I love the fact that infantry plays such a big role in the game now, its the way it should be

 

[Seneschal]

The last army books from 7th going into 8th were pretty broken. Vampires, daemons, dark elves and skaven. Eternal gateway was the first nuke spell, followed by 13th.

Beasts were the last book and honestly, there was a lot of time in between the release of the vamps and DoC and the release of 8th.

 

[najo]

Agreed. Although, I bet every edition could have been something amazing if it continued to grow and improve from user feedback. Until GW starts to provide proper product support it will never get there.

User feedback controlling game design isn't necessarily the answer. Game designers paying close attention to interactions that players exploit or that have unintended side effects and then finding the least complicated path to correcting them is more ideal.

The problem though, GW has traditionally waited to patch a game at the next edition. This is so players are playing the same rules set. Digital rules and the internet open up new solutions, but GW's culture is one of conservative small steps when it comes to embracing communication mediums. There is a while list of pros and cons and why they do this, and though it seems simple to each of us, companies don't turn on a dime when they get big. GW has many factors most of the fan base can't percieve. So, the real question is what causes those obstacles.

 

[najo]

Beasts were the last book and honestly, there was a lot of time in between the release of the vamps and DoC and the release of 8th.

Lol, I hit post and then was like "doh! I forgot beastmen!" But didn't think anyone would call me on it

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

User feedback controlling game design isn't necessarily the answer. Game designers paying close attention to interactions that players exploit or that have unintended side effects and then finding the least complicated path to correcting them is more ideal.

The problem though, GW has traditionally waited to patch a game at the next edition. This is so players are playing the same rules set. Digital rules and the internet open up new solutions, but GW's culture is one of conservative small steps when it comes to embracing communication mediums. There is a while list of pros and cons and why they do this, and though it seems simple to each of us, companies don't turn on a dime when they get big. GW has many factors most of the fan base can't perceive. So, the real question is what causes those obstacles.

I wouldn't expect GW to choose their design based on what people want. Its important for designers to stay true to their original ideas. But its also important to communicate with your fans and understand the difference between what you had intended to happen and the reality of what is really happening. GW has put up a wall between their fans and their product and there is no reason for it - its simply an archaic business practice. I would be mostly satisfied if they simply took an afternoon to update their FAQs to clarify common confusions and update blatantly broken and unplayable rules. You simply do not release something then turn your back to it in this day and age. Companies make mistakes all the time, but they carefully monitor their releases and then patch/FAQ or even recall their product as soon as possible. There's no excuse for any company to provide such poor product support.

I can live with all the rules I don't agree with but I'm sick of having long unresolved rule debates because GW chooses to release embarrassingly broken rules and not providing an ounce of support for them. The only excuses possible are either that they are completely ignorant of these failures - or they simply don't care about their fans.

 

[najo]

I do agree that they should be supporting their product better. I don't think it's lazy or that they don't care. I think the third option is they want minimal disruption between the new player and the established one (leading to avoiding errata for example), mixed with internally redirecting resources from 8th to 9th. So when the decision was made to go 9th, they stopped updating the WFB FAQs. There is also the business model that they rather surprise us with releases instead of having things leak six months ahead and no one care when those releases come out.

With that said, the FAQs got moved to the main site. The White Dwarf is running much smoother as a launch vehicle. 40ks recent releases have been pretty awesome. This new model of data slates, surprise codices and smaller releases seems to be working well. The run of 7th ed army books have been awesome and really well balanced too. If you follow 40k you would know what I'm talking about. Essentially, the introduced Lords of War, then did a new edition, fast tracked a bunch of army books with mellowed out, balanced rules, and now it's all looking pretty good. The just need to redo eldar, chaos marines, tau and dark angels and then 40k will be the best supported and balanced it's ever been.

I think GW stumbled with the modern technology, but they may have found a sweet spot. If fantasy gets set up for support like 40k is getting, then good things are ahead.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

I dont like 40k. I dont like throwing 40 dice to shoot guns. For shooting games I'd rather play a skirmish game like Infinity (which also has a much cooler sci-fi art direction). Also I have heard that Eldar just blows everybody out of the water right now. I have a large Necron army yet somehow the release of one model and a unpopular book was not enough to draw me back into the hobby. They look cool on my shelf though.

I'm happy that they are releasing rules and a few models to keep 40k fans happy while flooding fantasy with lore and models. 2014 was supposed to be the year for fantasy 9th edition though, and instead 40k got a new edition after only two years. I'm not happy about that, but I'm hoping that they are taking an extra year to make this the best fantasy edition ever. The rumors are getting a bit more positive lately.

Sure, they may have left the Wood Elf book broken because they were combining elves, or the End Times stuff broken becasue there moving to 9th - but there's always another excuse. The fact is they release broken things with often no attempt to fix them.

I don't agree with the "new player/old player" argument. If they released a proper FAQ for wood elves saying Steeds of Kurnous don't have frenzy, the clarity would benefit new and old players equally. Sure if they leave something broken for a year and then suddenly change the ruling on something, that would be disruptive to old players - but why do they have to leave it broken for a year? (Also - they do this anyway).

There's still no excuse for not hiring one guy to use his brain and find out what people are confused about (by reading the free boards all over the internet) and then taking a few minutes to update an official FAQ with clarity.

I see they are doing some things, but its silly that some of the most basic things are still overlooked.