PDA

View Full Version : CvT's alternative magic rules



Commissar von Toussaint
18-10-2005, 02:48
Okay, here's my take on how to fix magic.

The basic problem is that magic doesn't scale well. Players either go with big magic to dominate the game or they take a couple of scroll caddies for protection.

Mid-level casting is nonexistant.

There are a couple of ways to work around this, such as capping power levels/power dice and so forth, but these still don't get at the fundamental issue which is that it is too easy to dominate both sides of the magic phase.

That is to say if you go with big magic so that you can cast, you also get to own the opponent's magic phase as well by virtue of your superior dispels.

What I suggest are two fundamental changes.

The first involves eliminating the bonus dispel dice wizards provide for your army. They're gone, *poof* just like that.

Instead, wizards generate dispel dice for the other player.

This reflects the fact that the more you try to disrupt reality, the more reality fights back.

In essence, magic becomes self-limiting. The more you bring, the more resistance you are creating for yourself.

If it helps to conceptualize it, think of it as the "wind resistance" from the Winds of Magic. The faster you go, the greater your own drag. Eventually you reach a point where you can't go any faster, no matter how much power you bring.

In game terms, a level 1 or 2 wizard generates the same power dice as before, and also gives one dispel to the other player.

A "lord" level caster gives two dispel dice.

What this does is create a situation where magic becomes a positive choice. You would be spending points specifically to cast spells, not to defend from them.

Add in a couple of other minor changes and I think you get a better game.

Those changes, btw, are ones rumored to be in the works already:

Wizards can use current level +2 power dice.
Power dice generated by a wizard must be used by that wizard.

Anyhow, that's my big idea. Have at it.

Adept
18-10-2005, 03:10
Brilliant. Simple, effective, and (from an early inspection) balanced.

Trunks
18-10-2005, 04:45
I think I've already said that I think that this idea is awesome.

Wintersdark
18-10-2005, 04:47
I like it, the best part is that you don't need a major overhaul of the lores to make it work. It's a simple rules change - would need to happen between editions, of course - but it would remove the need to take magic simply to defend against magic... while at the same time making whatever amount of magic you take actually useful - be it a lot, or a little.

There will be strong resistance to this, though, particularly from those who play for strong magical dominance - and particularly from those who started playing in this edition.

I'd assume you're keeping dispel scrolls, so that an army has the option to increase it's own magic defense. Otherwise, there could be serious problems with armies capable of gaining additional power dice through magic items (or, for that matter, Tzeentch in general).

Also, I have some misgivings about how it would work in a Tomb King army.

Markconz
18-10-2005, 05:00
Sounds good to me in theory - has anyone tried it in practice?

Using this proposed amendment - would you ever see level 1 and 3 wizards?

Wintersdark
18-10-2005, 05:37
Do you ever see them now? I mean, other than as scroll caddies?

Not to say that's an excuse - I'd like to see them all be viable choices.

However, considering taking a mage gets you magical power, and your opponent magical defense... you may as well spend the extra couple points to get a little more power than he gets defense, otherwise what's the point? I don't see why you'd NOT upgrade a wizard.

maxwell123
18-10-2005, 07:57
In a previous post in another thread which I've quoted below, I provided examples of what Commissar's suggestion would achieve compared to the current system. Clearly, it is a far superior system in terms of power/dispel balance.
I think Commissar's suggestion will require some other minor changes in order to work, but serves as a better base for a magic system than any other suggestion I've seen for magic so far.




EXAMPLE 1
Magic heavy force with Level 4 & 2 Level 2's vs single Level 2 wizard

Current System
10 power dice vs. 3 dispel dice

Commissar's Idea
10 power dice vs 6 dispel dice

EXAMPLE 2
Mid magic army with 2 Level 2's vs magic heavy army with Level 4 and 2 Level 2's
Current System
6 power dice vs 6 dispel dice

Commissar's Idea
6 power dice vs 4 dispel dice

EXAMPLE 3
Mid magic army w/ Level 4 vs low magic army with Level 2

Current System
6 power dice vs 3 dispel dice

Commissar's Idea
6 power dice vs 4 dispel dice

EXAMPLE 4
High magic army w/Level 4 & 3 Level 2's vs low magic army w/ Level 1

Current System
12 power dice vs 3 dispel dice

Commissar's Idea
12 power dice vs 7 dispel dice

EXAMPLE 5
Mid magic army with Level 4 & Level 2 vs mid magic army with 2 Level 2's

Current System
8 power dice vs 4 dispel dice

Commissar's Idea
8 power dice vs 5 dispel dice


This is actually a pretty damn balanced system IMO, providing dispel scrolls are limited to one per wizard in it, otherwise we'll still see loads of scroll caddies and low-mid magic casters hardly ever getting spells off.

There are two things I like most about this system:

1) Heavy magic armies will still have a decisive advantage in the magic phase over low magic armies (as they should), but will no longer hold quite as much of one as they currently do. This doesn't cripple high magic as it is still a perfectly viable option under this idea - it just brings it more into balance.

2) Mid magic armies will become viable and able to get spells off occassionally, even against heavy magic armies.

maxwell123
18-10-2005, 08:12
I'd assume you're keeping dispel scrolls, so that an army has the option to increase it's own magic defense. Otherwise, there could be serious problems with armies capable of gaining additional power dice through magic items (or, for that matter, Tzeentch in general).

No more than now.

Indeed, the main complaints I've seen regarding Commissar's idea is that it makes magic heavy armies too weak.

My preference if Commissar's system was implemented would simply be to keep dispel scrolls in their current form, but limit them to one per wizard. That allows armies to retain the ability to stop the really huge spells, without weakening magic heavy armies too much.

If an army with a level 1 wizard facing an army with a level 4 and 3 level 2's as shown in my previous post gets an additional 4 dispel dice each magic phase, I really think allowing him to have 2 dispel scrolls on top of that is too much. Limiting him to 1 would still allow the magic heavy player (who has invested a hell of a LOT more points in magic) to get some of his most powerful spells off.

Mad Makz
18-10-2005, 08:24
Some immediate "Issues"

Bound spells. Potentially far too powerful, would need a complete overhaul.

Tomb Kings are obviously problematic.

Pts costings of wizards would need to be changed.

Conceptually, the idea is fairly sound, but it has more limitations in a lot of ways than the current system, and you bet that certain spell lists will need a complete overhaul...

Wintersdark
18-10-2005, 13:14
How would dice be generated from a Tomb King list?

Also, what happens if I take, say, a single L2 wizard, and, as Makz suggests, say 2 very potent bound spells? My opponent gets 3 dispel dice, but cannot hope to stop the two bound spells AND a spell I cast with 4 dice.

Niibl
18-10-2005, 13:37
From a tourney-gaming view I like it, but fluffwise I don't.
I miss the powerstruggle between the wizzards.
The resistance of reality against tinkering with it is reflected by the diffculty of the spell, so using this "alibi" for a second, different stat or dicepool sounds wrong to me.
Thus I would prefere the concept of spelleffects which depend on the difference in dicerolls of the battling powers.
If the powerincrease would be nonlinear midlevels would be worth their points again whithout leaving the lowlevels useless.
Sadly, leaving the "all or nothing" path would most likely mean some serious changes of the magic system which would leave most magic items and spellists connected to it useless.
In addition, this would mean that players would have to do in-game-mathematics which is unthinkable, isn't it?
This will at least not happen with the 7th edition and so i would rather prefere the system given here than the old one.

KellerMeister
18-10-2005, 14:39
No. As long as there are armybooks that are built to require lots of magic mixed with armybooks that don't need it at all - used by players that on one end embrace and love the fantasy aspect and on another end guys that would rather play Warhammer Historical/Ancient if enough people joined them - there will not be a successful attempt to reduce the effects of magic in a way that makes everyone happy.

A basic idea of the VC book for instance is that the VC player shall resurrect and create new units during the game instead of paying for them in advance, as other armies. Or make them march properly since they can't. Or hurl something at the enemy since they have no other means of doing that.
This is also why composition restrictions fail to function objectively. Any other army wouldn't normally care less that 9PD sets you back a 1000 comp points because they wouldn't field that anyway. But a Lahmian, Necrach or Necromancer list would definitely consider it, and would need it not do be mangled out there.

An idea that makes a difference between offensive/harmful spells and defensive/bolstering spells I'll consider.

As a VC player, I could easily be of the opinon that it is so unfair that the shooting phase is totally dominated by everyone else. I could rightly think that shooting should be severely capped and restricted. But I don't. I have realized that if my armys shooting is built to be weak (or non existent), then my strenghts lie elswere. If the army I field is lacking in magic due to a choice I made then its a choice I made. If I dont like magic as a concept - thats ok too, as long as I don't take it away from those that do.

mageith
18-10-2005, 15:29
Actually this system has kind of grown on me and I generally like it.



There will be strong resistance to this, though, particularly from those who play for strong magical dominance - and particularly from those who started playing in this edition.

So far this hasn't happened. Wonder why?





Also, I have some misgivings about how it would work in a Tomb King army.
Also a Tzeentch army and Khorne army and Dwarf army.


I like it, the best part is that you don't need a major overhaul of the lores to make it work.

I'd like it if the players on this list would look at their magic items and see which items they'd imagine would become more effective and which less effective under this system. I'd really be interested in those lists.

Mage Ith

Avian
18-10-2005, 16:53
I think this suffers from the same problems I ran into with my variant of the system, which also altered how wizards generated dice (ie. they stopped).
The problem is that armies that don't rely on wizards to generate their dice can easily get a large bonus which you can't really do anything about.

Under this system an army with a single high-level Tzeentch wizard and a lot of marks of Tzeentch would get a lot of benefits compared to other armies who spent a similar ammount of points on magic.

Let's say you have a lvl 4 tzeentch guy with four Tzeentch-marked units facing another player with a lvl 4 and a level 2*.

Currently it goes like this:
Tzeentch magic phase: 10 PD vs. 5 DD
Other magic phase: 8 PD vs. 4 DD

Under this system it would be:
Tzeentch magic phase: 10 PD vs. 4 DD
Other magic phase: 8 PD vs. 5 DD



* buying a wizard and upgrading him to lvl 2 costs approximately the same as giving 4 units marks of tzeentch

maxwell123
18-10-2005, 21:20
How would dice be generated from a Tomb King list?

Also, what happens if I take, say, a single L2 wizard, and, as Makz suggests, say 2 very potent bound spells? My opponent gets 3 dispel dice, but cannot hope to stop the two bound spells AND a spell I cast with 4 dice.

Good point, but how many armies can have a level 2 wizard with 2 bound spells??
Both would have to be 25pts or less PLUS not be in the same category (i.e. enchanted items, or both in arcane items, etc), since you can only take one item from any category.
I know Skaven and Vampire Counts can have a level 2 wizard with 2 very potent 25pt bound spells (one enchanted, one arcane), but I'm not sure about anyone else.

Adlan
18-10-2005, 21:55
Good point, but how many armies can have a level 2 wizard with 2 bound spells??
Both would have to be 25pts or less PLUS not be in the same category (i.e. enchanted items, or both in arcane items, etc), since you can only take one item from any category.
I know Skaven and Vampire Counts can have a level 2 wizard with 2 very potent 25pt bound spells (one enchanted, one arcane), but I'm not sure about anyone else.

What about bound spells that wizards don't carry? like spells bound in standars and the like?

A few minor modifications to all bound spells would be needed. A few pages in whitedawrf maybe?

I have come up with a soloution but have not yet worked it through to every avenue i can see. Please feel free to blast holes into it.
Now Bound spells are not cast at a fixed casting value and then dispeld.
They are now cast by rolling a d6 (not a powerdice, though he can add power dice to the roll) and adding their casting value. The opponent also rolls a d6 (to which he can add dispel dice, but the original does not come from his dispel pool). The bound spell is dispeld if the opponent rolls equal to or more than the Caster.

Commissar von Toussaint
19-10-2005, 02:16
This is actually pretty easy.


I think this suffers from the same problems I ran into with my variant of the system, which also altered how wizards generated dice (ie. they stopped).
The problem is that armies that don't rely on wizards to generate their dice can easily get a large bonus which you can't really do anything about.

Under this system an army with a single high-level Tzeentch wizard and a lot of marks of Tzeentch would get a lot of benefits compared to other armies who spent a similar ammount of points on magic.

Now it does bear mentioning that Tzeentch players are spending points for this, so there is a cost associated with it.


Let's say you have a lvl 4 tzeentch guy with four Tzeentch-marked units facing another player with a lvl 4 and a level 2*.

Currently it goes like this:
Tzeentch magic phase: 10 PD vs. 5 DD
Other magic phase: 8 PD vs. 4 DD

Under this system it would be:
Tzeentch magic phase: 10 PD vs. 4 DD
Other magic phase: 8 PD vs. 5 DD



* buying a wizard and upgrading him to lvl 2 costs approximately the same as giving 4 units marks of tzeentch

The answer is simply to change the effect of the Mark of Tzeentch.

This isn't anything new; Nurgle also has been revised as the games and editions have changed.

For example, you could say regiments with the mark may cast a flame bolt spell on a 4+ during the magic phase. It is a magic missile that does d3 s3 hits within 24 inches. This may seem small, but with multiple units, you could do considerable damage if you concentrate fire.

Or you could do something with re-rolls, which is also appropriate.

For the short run, simply say that they get the bonus power dice, but that for every two bonus dice they give, they also generate a dispel die.

As for bound spells and Tomb Kings, the fixes there are pretty easy.

Bound items would no longer work automatically. They would carry enough power to run themselves, but they'd still roll. On a 4+ they work on a d6.

Yes, it would be possible to take lots of them, but most bound spells are pretty weak and the dispel number would remain the same (thus they work half the time, but the number to dispel them is still pretty low).

Warrior Priests would work the same way. Their spells go off on a 4+ but you need a 3 to stop them.

Tomb Kings are actually pretty easy: they work just like bound spells, with dispel 3 for the hero-level and 4 for the lord level ones.

Wintersdark
19-10-2005, 04:10
Good point, but how many armies can have a level 2 wizard with 2 bound spells??
Both would have to be 25pts or less PLUS not be in the same category (i.e. enchanted items, or both in arcane items, etc), since you can only take one item from any category.
I know Skaven and Vampire Counts can have a level 2 wizard with 2 very potent 25pt bound spells (one enchanted, one arcane), but I'm not sure about anyone else.

Errr, LOTS of armies.

High Elves, for example, can sport a bound 2D6 S4 hits magic missile on one Hero, a bound Vaul's Unmaking on another hero, and, say, a L2 mage with Channeller + Seer (and then choosing, say, Flames of the Pheonix and Fury of Khaine for spells). Cast Flames on 4d6, then unleash your two bound spells, 2d6 S4 hits and destroy a magic item too! Your opponent? 3 dispel dice? LOL.

Many armies have potent bound spells. Vampire Counts, Chaos and theirs, Skaven, Dark Elves, etc, etc, etc.


Now, if CvT's further suggestions where taken into consideration - say, having Bound Spells have to roll a D6 and reach their Power Level in order to cast in a turn, then that would be great basically, it's just like how a wizard casts a spell, except it doesn't require power dice.

...

Actually, you know, I think THAT right there would go a long way to fixing the current magic system. Right now, it's my (very firm) opinion that Bound Spells are the "straw that breaks the camels back" with our magic system. A strong magic phase has little to do with your power dice but rather the pontential dangerousness of your spells coupled with bound items. Because Bound Spells never fail to cast, they are garanteed to either go off or draw dispel dice, something you can't say about normal spells.

I'd REALLY like to see bound spells having to roll to cast too - with or without the rest of the system (though it's very good!)

Wintersdark
19-10-2005, 04:15
Ok, I'm off to peruse magic items. I'll take Mage Ith up on that.

I'm really intrigued by this. I expected very strong resistance, and there doesn't seem to be very much at all (other than the vague "I'd miss the power struggle between wizards" - no offense intended btw).

Vague misgivings abound.... but I think it's definately worth testing out.

A magic system change that could actually survive discussion? One that requires minimal changing of rules, and NO real changing of army books? One allowing players to get what they put into magic back out, big or little.

mageith
19-10-2005, 05:40
As a general rule a wizard may only have one bound item: "A character cannot have more than one bound spell item." 153

mageith
19-10-2005, 06:02
The answer is simply to change the effect of the Mark of Tzeentch.
...
For the short run, simply say that they get the bonus power dice, but that for every two bonus dice they give, they also generate a dispel die.

That would be the easiest. The High Elves have several items that generate dice. Would this be a general rule or only apply to Tzeentch?




As for bound spells and Tomb Kings, the fixes there are pretty easy.

Bound items would no longer work automatically. They would carry enough power to run themselves, but they'd still roll. On a 4+ they work on a d6.

This essentially cuts their effectiveness in half. If I roll a 6, would a 6 be needed to dispel or just equal their power level?



Warrior Priests would work the same way. Their spells go off on a 4+ but you need a 3 to stop them.

Apparently just meet their power level. That creates a possibly confusing two types of dispelling for regular spells and bound spells.



Tomb Kings are actually pretty easy: they work just like bound spells, with dispel 3 for the hero-level and 4 for the lord level ones.
But how many dice does the opponent get? The tomb king characters are not wizards, are they? (It's the one book I don't have.)

I don't play Tomb Kings but I think this is weakening them quite a bit (by half). Any TK players want to chime in?

Khorne sounds pretty much like they're going to shut down magic if they want, if they get free dice and can buy dice too.

And Dwarfs? Two extra dice as now? (Or 1 per 500 as some have suggested for other purposes).

Mage Ith

Wintersdark
19-10-2005, 06:04
As a general rule a wizard may only have one bound item: "A character cannot have more than one bound spell item." 153

Noone said only one character. Also, you don't have to be a wizard to pack bound spell items.

mageith
19-10-2005, 06:09
Noone said only one character. Also, you don't have to be a wizard to pack bound spell items.

The question was this:


Good point, but how many armies can have a level 2 wizard with 2 bound spells??

Your answer was this: “Errr, LOTS of armies.”

Lots of armies can have more than one bound spell but I think only one army can have a single level 2 wizard (character) with 2 bound spells.

Besides the response was more to Maxwell.

Mage Ith

Wintersdark
19-10-2005, 06:13
As to bound spells, and all similar effects, I think the easiest way is to just roll a single die and compare that to the bound spell power level. The spell is cast and dispelled in every way like a normal spell, except for that the power die for the spell comes from the item, rather than the players power dice pool.

Thus, low power bound items become slightly more useful casting on a 3+ (err, rather, become less "less useful") and more powerful bound items, typically power level 4, work less reliably, needing a 4+.

Are there any bound items on power levels other than 3 or 4?

So, the spell would be dispelled on whatever you rolled casting it. This eliminates a seperate system for Bound Items.

Yes, it also means bound items are not as good as they are now. I think it's a good thing, honestly. Right now, bound spells add a huge boost to a magic phase with garaunteed spells. I don't think things would be harmed if they worked less often. They still don't miscast, and don't use up your power dice.

I *KNOW* people will be pissy about this. Seriously, though, I think it would help smooth out the magic phase a bit, and reduce the huge boost bound items give to magic. High magic armies won't miss the slight loss; medium/low magic armies won't notice it so much because they are actually able to cast spells under the new system.

mageith
19-10-2005, 06:34
Some immediate "Issues"

Bound spells. Potentially far too powerful, would need a complete overhaul.

Bound spells are pretty powerful now, especially when used in conjuction with heavy magic. Several easy solutions have been offered already. A more general solution is not to count wizards but power dice and award the defender half as many (rounded up!). Count normal bound spells as one power dice and 2 dice bound spells as two power dice. This also addresses those magic items that award power dice such as the High Elf banner of sorcery.



Tomb Kings are obviously problematic.

I feel naked w/o their book but I have played against them a lot. The main problem I think is coming up with a system to generate the friction since (I believe) the characters are not wizards. It could be as simple as two dice per hero and four dice per lord plus the bound spells and cut in half.



Pts costings of wizards would need to be changed.

I brought this up on the other forum. Actually wizards are nearly as powerful now as they were before, but it's as if they are always facing the maximum opposition.

What actually gets better are the fighty characters. They'll be more of them available in those armies that like to fight. I know my Brets and Dogs of War feel pretty good about it.;)



Conceptually, the idea is fairly sound, but it has more limitations in a lot of ways than the current system, and you bet that certain spell lists will need a complete overhaul... The lores are getting an overhaul anyway, but what are the problems that you foresee here? Again the casting is all brought into scale and so the current lores and spell lists will probably work but an overhaul will probably be welcome.

It all seems too good to be true, so certainly some playtesting is in order.

Mage Ith

Wintersdark
19-10-2005, 06:54
It DOES seem too good to be true:rolleyes:

hmmm... A flat half isn't good, doesn't work out so well:

L2 = 4 power dice, 2 dispel; L4 wizard = 6 power dice, 3 dispel; L4+L2 = 8 Power, 4 dispel dice. Again, not good.

CvT's system works well right now because of the 2 base to level out that curve a bit...

L2 - 4 power, 3 dispel; L4 = 6 power 4 dispel; L4+L2 = 8 power, 5 dispel

So.... how would you word a simple rule to deal with additional power dice? Should they give additional dispel dice too? Or, is that not so necessary?

Seems Mage Ith is right for the TK, though - a Tomb King giving 2 dice, and a Tomb Prince giving 1 may work.

mageith
19-10-2005, 07:23
It DOES seem too good to be true:rolleyes:

hmmm... A flat half isn't good, doesn't work out so well:

L2 = 4 power dice, 2 dispel; L4 wizard = 6 power dice, 3 dispel; L4+L2 = 8 Power, 4 dispel dice. Again, not good.

CvT's system works well right now because of the 2 base to level out that curve a bit...

I guess I missed the +2 base. In fact I still don't see it in CVT's explanation but I see it in Maxwell's examples.

In game terms, a level 1 or 2 wizard generates the same power dice as before, and also gives one dispel to the other player.

A "lord" level caster gives two dispel dice.


However, that's fine. Makes it a little better for the dispeller.



So.... how would you word a simple rule to deal with additional power dice? Should they give additional dispel dice too? Or, is that not so necessary?

I don't think it's necessary.

Avian
19-10-2005, 12:26
For the short run, simply say that they get the bonus power dice, but that for every two bonus dice they give, they also generate a dispel die.
So if you pay for one mark of Tzeentch you get one power dice.
If you pay for two marks of Tzeentch you get two power dice and the opponent gets one dispel dice.
Doesn't that make the second mark rather ineffective?



And what about Khorne?
Is the Mark of Khorne now supposed to give power dice to the opponent?



However, that's fine. Makes it a little better for the dispeller.
But it also means that armies with only a single low-level wizard will have more problems when facing armies without wizards. If you get base dice as before and in addition 1 dispel dice for lvl 1/2 wizards and two for lvl 3/4, then a level 2 wizard facing off against an army with no wizards is now facing 3 dispel dice per turn instead of 2, or if you have a single lvl 1 you have 3 PD to 3 DD.



In generaly this system certainly appears to work well at a certain level of magic (much in the same way that the current system works well at a certain level of magic), but it becomes less good once you get far removed from that level.
Plus there is a lot of specific items and rules that would have to be altered (fat chance of that happening).

Avian
19-10-2005, 12:36
Are there any bound items on power levels other than 3 or 4?
Sure, there are a couple of bound spells at power level 5 (Blood Statuette of Spite, for example) and Horror bound spells can (I believe) have any power level, depending on the number of horrors. 'Ard Boyz banners have power level 4 to 7, etc.

What happens if you are supposed to roll a D6 vs. the power level and the power level is 7 or more? :D

You want some nails for that coffin? :angel:



High magic armies won't miss the slight loss; medium/low magic armies won't notice it so much because they are actually able to cast spells under the new system.
Armies will only have an easier time casting spells against armies with more magic than they do. Against armies with less or no magic they have a harder time than before.
I also think you are wrong about High magic players missing the slight loss, I think they will greatly miss the slight loss (or, if they play Tzeentch, greatly celebrate the slight gain).

maxwell123
19-10-2005, 12:50
As to bound spells, and all similar effects, I think the easiest way is to just roll a single die and compare that to the bound spell power level. The spell is cast and dispelled in every way like a normal spell, except for that the power die for the spell comes from the item, rather than the players power dice pool.

Thus, low power bound items become slightly more useful casting on a 3+ (err, rather, become less "less useful") and more powerful bound items, typically power level 4, work less reliably, needing a 4+.

Are there any bound items on power levels other than 3 or 4?

So, the spell would be dispelled on whatever you rolled casting it. This eliminates a seperate system for Bound Items.

I think with bound spells, a more sensible and realistic way would be to have to roll equal to or under the power level to cast them.

i.e. Power level 3 = 50% chance to cast; Power Level 4 = 66.6% chance; Power level 5 = 83.3% chance; Power level 6 or more = Automatic cast (i.e. same as now).

If this was implemented, it weakens bound spells a LOT though, seeing as even if cast, they can still be dispelled easily. I'd probably limit all dispel attempts vs. bound spells to 1 dispel die for up to power level 5 and 2 dispel dice for power level 6+ bound spells.

Avian
19-10-2005, 13:00
I'd probably limit all dispel attempts vs. bound spells to 1 dispel die for up to power level 5 and 2 dispel dice for power level 6+ bound spells.
That would suddenly make lvl 5 bound spells better than level 6 ones (heck, it probably makes lvl 5s better than they are now). Any particular reason for that?
:eyebrows:

Gabacho Mk.II
19-10-2005, 17:16
I certainly appreciate the ideas presented in this thread. (havent quite grasped all of the intracacies yet however)

My opinion is that the general emphasis of dispel dice being generated due to the direct involvement of the wizards in one's army seems logical and pretty clear. (fluff, in future books/articles, can certainly be used to buttress this argument)

But, how can we reconcile the effects of having a single wizard in an army, when that single wizard will have a rough time casting spells (under the proposed system) now as compared to before?


And I would like to applaud those who have also realized the over-bearing strength of Bound items, as it stands now. It seems that with some more tweaking, Bound items can certainly be brought into line.




[throughout all of this debate, I suppose we all realize the need for a MAJOR rehaul/reworking of the lores and the given spells, no???]

mageith
19-10-2005, 17:24
But it also means that armies with only a single low-level wizard will have more problems when facing armies without wizards. If you get base dice as before and in addition 1 dispel dice for lvl 1/2 wizards and two for lvl 3/4, then a level 2 wizard facing off against an army with no wizards is now facing 3 dispel dice per turn instead of 2, or if you have a single lvl 1 you have 3 PD to 3 DD.

In generaly this system certainly appears to work well at a certain level of magic (much in the same way that the current system works well at a certain level of magic), but it becomes less good once you get far removed from that level.
Plus there is a lot of specific items and rules that would have to be altered (fat chance of that happening).
That's because the curve is skewed by the two bonus power dice. If one used a flat number of dice and there was always 50% friction, then there's no curve at all which I think (or at least thought) was the goal of the system.

A first level wizard, however wouldn't have much chance of casting much since he'd only have one dice available to him (though most lower level magic missiles are cast on 5+), but by the same taken if he did get his spell off, the opponent would only have one dice to dispel. Personally I think this is about right.

However a first level wizard with an item that increases his number of PD will now have two dice and will essentially get his medium to low level cost (upto 6 or 7 cast) spell off every turn w/o any opposition. Are there game breaking spells at casting level 7 or less that would make this unworkable?

Also, if I read it correctly a wizard can cast with +2 dice to his level, so a 2nd level wizard can cast spells with 4 dice.

Add in a couple of other minor changes and I think you get a better game.

Those changes, btw, are ones rumored to be in the works already:

Wizards can use current level +2 power dice.

Too much IMO. +1 is good enough. Some high cost spells are real game breakers, IMO.



Mage Ith

mageith
19-10-2005, 17:35
But, how can we reconcile the effects of having a single wizard in an army, when that single wizard will have a rough time casting spells (under the proposed system) now as compared to before?

One of us is missing something. It will be easier for a single wizard to cast now. A 2nd level wizard will have 4 dice available to him and can cast with all 4 dice on a single spell. The dispel side will only have three dice to dispel.

A first level wizard will have three dice and can use all three dice. The opponent also has three dice and so a first level wizard should be able to cast close to 50% of his spells per game, not counting dispel scrolls. But I'm not interested in a system that lets a single first level wizard being much of a force. Three dice average 10.5 pips and 9 casting cost spells and less will be pretty regularly cast. Too regularly, IMO.



[throughout all of this debate, I suppose we all realize the need for a MAJOR rehaul/reworking of the lores and the given spells, no???]
It's been promised for the lores but the army book spells will remain the same until their new book is released.

Mage Ith

Avian
19-10-2005, 17:57
That's because the curve is skewed by the two bonus power dice. If one used a flat number of dice and there was always 50% friction, then there's no curve at all which I think (or at least thought) was the goal of the system.

A first level wizard, however wouldn't have much chance of casting much since he'd only have one dice available to him (though most lower level magic missiles are cast on 5+), but by the same taken if he did get his spell off, the opponent would only have one dice to dispel. Personally I think this is about right.
But what would happen if you had a single lvl 2, then? Assuming a 7+ (give or take 1) spell, he'd be able to cast it more often than not, and his opponent would pretty much never be able to dispel it with the single dispel dice he had available.
I can forsee a lot of problems with that.

(It gets even more fun if that single caster is a Tzeentch wizard and there are a handfun of Tzeentch-marked units in the army.)


And could someone please write down all of these propsed changes in a single post, with no other text in it? Just so we know what we are dealing with.
I'm not certain what the ideas for Bound spells are, for example.

mageith
19-10-2005, 18:05
But what would happen if you had a single lvl 2, then? Assuming a 7+ (give or take 1) spell, he'd be able to cast it more often than not, and his opponent would pretty much never be able to dispel it with the single dispel dice he had available.
I can forsee a lot of problems with that.

Let's get specific. What spells would be so harmful? In other words, a 2nd level costs around a 100 points. For that he get's off a 5 cost magic missile every turn. IMO, that's about right. A 7 cost spell will only be cast on 4 turns out of 6 even without a dispelling chance.

If there are killer spells at the medium level, then the hoped for and promised overhaul would fix that.

Edit: Besides isn't a 2nd level with four dice he can cast on the same spell vs. 3 dispell dice even more powerful and troublesome?




(It gets even more fun if that single caster is a Tzeentch wizard and there are a handfun of Tzeentch-marked units in the army.)

I'm assuming the solution of counting PD, not wizards so a Tzeentch Lord with six marked units will have ten dice and award is opponent 5.

Mage Ith

maxwell123
19-10-2005, 19:42
That would suddenly make lvl 5 bound spells better than level 6 ones (heck, it probably makes lvl 5s better than they are now). Any particular reason for that?
:eyebrows:

Yeah, there is. Because under my suggestion, Power Level 6+ spells work like they currently do (i.e. automatic cast), whereas a power level 5 spell still has a 16.6% chance of failing even getting cast, which equates to about 1 failure to cast per game.

Power level 6+ spells on the other hand will never fail to be cast and are impossible to dispel with a single die, making them EXTREMELY dangerous when you have sapped all except 1 of your opponent's dispel dice in a phase.

Power level 5 and below spells are still a reasonable chance of being dispelled if your opponent has a single dispel die left.

I suppose the cut-off point could possibly be raised to power level 7 though for 2 dispel dice.

Avian
19-10-2005, 19:42
Let's get specific. What spells would be so harmful? In other words, a 2nd level costs around a 100 points. For that he get's off a 5 cost magic missile every turn. IMO, that's about right. A 7 cost spell will only be cast on 4 turns out of 6 even without a dispelling chance.
I think the main problem is that any 7+ spell the single caster gets off cannot be dispelled without a Scroll, since the opponent only has 1 DD.

Example:
A lvl 2 necromancer will be able to cast Danse Macabre (9+) 74% of the time, for example, and if that's all the wizards he has, you have no chance of dispelling it unless you have a scroll. Below 2k, a vampire count army might very well have this guy, a thrall and a wight or something.
My ogres would really have to load up on the scrolls, or we're screwed, because that's all the chance we get to dispell.



Annoying spells of 6+ to 8+:
-Luxurious Torment (frenzy)
-Titillating Dilusions (force unit to move)
-medium level Invocation of Nehek (raise/heal undead)
-Hellish Vigour / Bash 'em Ladz (unit strikes first with re-roll to hit)
-Poxes (reduce WS, BS, S & Ld)
-Boils (2D4 S4 hits, no armour save)
-Word of Pain (WS1)
-Forked Lightning (D6 S4 hits with no restrictions)
-Father of the Thorn (2D6 S3 hits with no restrictions)
-The Howler Wind (move as if in difficult terrain, possibly the most annoying spell in the game)
-Master of Wood / Stone (decent damage spells that don't require LOS)




Yeah, there is. Because under my suggestion, Power Level 6+ spells work like they currently do (i.e. automatic cast), whereas a power level 5 spell still has a 16.6% chance of failing even getting cast, which equates to about 1 failure to cast per game.
Which is easily made up for by the fact that it will only be dispelled 33.3% of the time, unless you have a Scroll handy at your side.
Again you guys are suggesting things that are going to make scrolls more popular than they currently are. As someone who tries to do witout the dull things as much as he can, I'm not greatly pleased.

mageith
19-10-2005, 23:44
I think the main problem is that any 7+ spell the single caster gets off cannot be dispelled without a Scroll, since the opponent only has 1 DD.

Example:
A lvl 2 necromancer will be able to cast Danse Macabre (9+) 74% of the time,

Under my suggeston, where there isn't any bonus dice, he'll only have two dice, not three dice, so the casting will only be successful 36% of the time.



for example, and if that's all the wizards he has, you have no chance of dispelling it unless you have a scroll. Below 2k, a vampire count army might very well have this guy, a thrall and a wight or something.
My ogres would really have to load up on the scrolls, or we're screwed, because that's all the chance we get to dispell.

With a 2nd level necromancer plus a count, you'd have 3 dice to cast and your opponent 2 to dispel. Under my proposal either one of them could cast the spell once at your 74%, using 3 dice. So that's about 4 successful castings. Perhaps one will be dispelled with the two dice. If your defending wizard brings something that gives him an extra die or +1 to dispel (don't know if Ogres have such) it would reduce the percentages.

Under CVT, you'd have 5 dice and your opponent 4, but your wizard could cast with 4 dice, get off the spell a little less that 50% of the time. It seems about the same to me, though slightly better for the defender, but then it skews too good for the defender at lower levels.

The Danse, however, as a movement spell, is one of the most powerful spells in WFB and severely undercosted, IMO.



Annoying spells of 6+ to 8+:
-Luxurious Torment (frenzy)
-Titillating Dilusions (force unit to move)
-medium level Invocation of Nehek (raise/heal undead)
-Hellish Vigour / Bash 'em Ladz (unit strikes first with re-roll to hit)
-Poxes (reduce WS, BS, S & Ld)
-Boils (2D4 S4 hits, no armour save)
-Word of Pain (WS1)
-Forked Lightning (D6 S4 hits with no restrictions)
-Father of the Thorn (2D6 S3 hits with no restrictions)
-The Howler Wind (move as if in difficult terrain, possibly the most annoying spell in the game)
-Master of Wood / Stone (decent damage spells that don't require LOS)

Won't they be annoying under both systems? The solution here is the hoped for overhaul.

Another radical proposal is to allow wizards to only be able to cast at their level: 1 level - one die and 4 levels = 4 dice. Or to smooth it out: 1.2 = 2 dice and 3,4= 3 dice.



Which is easily made up for by the fact that it will only be dispelled 33.3% of the time, unless you have a Scroll handy at your side.
Again you guys are suggesting things that are going to make scrolls more popular than they currently are. As someone who tries to do witout the dull things as much as he can, I'm not greatly pleased.
As long as there are deadly spells that are relatively easy to cast, I'll be using scrolls. This is a problem with spell lists, not the system, IMO.

Either casting is going to more possible or it's going to be less possible. The Cvt system is designed so that low/middle wizards can successfully cast spells. If this is a worthy goal, then be prepared to face the consequences of more successful magic.

Mage Ith

Wintersdark
20-10-2005, 04:04
While it will make dispel scrolls more popular than they are now (if that's possible) they'll have less negative impact than they do now, because more spells will be cast successfully in the first place. I think scrolls are fine, really, it's the need for dispel dice that forces people to take more and more wizards even though they don't want to have magic be such a large portion of their force.

Thus, magic defense uses up character slots that could be otherwise utilized for fighter heros. If you're already using those characters as mages, why not spend the couple extra points, bump them up, and actually get something out of your magic? But then you get into the magic arms race you have now.

Under CvT's system, there's no arms race. There will be more spells successfully cast, so mages will still be necessary if for nothing else than to pack a pair of dispel scrolls, but at least you won't need to keep taking more and more mages in order to avoid being thrashed in the magic phase.

My prediction is that there will be a lot more single L2 wizard armies. Why L2? Because at L2, you've got a reasonable chance of successfully casting your spell once in a while that way, but not having to put too many points into your magic phase if you don't want to. That's still a dispel scroll for you too.


Assuming that this system was implemented with 7th edition, while the lores are being fixed - particularly the more powerful spells that are low-casting level like Danse.

Trunks
20-10-2005, 04:16
I don't really see the problem with the CvT system where you have a single Tzeentch Wizard of low level with a bunch of regiments with the Mark of Tzeentch.

Lets say you have a Level 2 and three regiments with the Mark of Tzeentch and the opponent gets absolutely no bonus dispel dice for the mark of tzeentch.

This means that you have 7 Power Dice and your opponent is getting three dispel dice.

This gives the tzeentch player magical superiority, which is keeping in character with the army but isn't all that crazy.

However, the strength of the tzeentch lore doesn't lie in the spells individual power level (decent lore with average spells, but alot of gambling involved), but the fact that are hurling out massive amounts of them with all of your power dice.

A level 2 wizard can only cast two spells.

The opponent can use three dice to stop one, and then let the other through (if it succeeds). Since you are casting two spells as a level two wizard (assuming both are even useful at this moment), you will probably have a 50/50 shot at either one going off. Whichever one you do have go off, the opponent has three dice to stop.

If you keep adding in more regiments with the mark of tzeentch, you are getting dice you can't even use. Hell, in the example I gave you are getting one die you can't use. Even if the rumored "you can use your level +2 dice to cast a spell" goes through, if the tzeentch player has more than 4 marked regiments he is wasting points.

This whole situation really isn't all that crazy for an army that is suppose to get magical superiority, which in fact is really more of a shooting phase than a normal magic phase. If Tzeentch had alot of really deadly spells it'd be different, but Tzeentch magic is deadly because you overwhelm the enemy with average spells (as opposed to having a few awesome spells go off).

I really fail to see the problem.

I think that any item that gives bonus power or dispel dice should do just that and stay how it is without giving the opponent anything. A Power Familiar should not be 50 points and give you and your opponent a die. A Seal of Ghrond, which makes your Dark Elf Army more resistant to magic (extra dispel die for those who don't know), should not give the enemy a power die.

I don't know that there is really any problem with Dwarves getting bonus dispel dice without giving the enemy any power dice in return. They are almost throwing away character slots to do that, which in my eyes, makes it okay (Runesmiths really aren't all that scary at the moment . . .). A dwarf player could spend all of their character slots on runesmiths and rape the magic phase against weak magic armies (getting an extra 4 or 5 dispel dice plus the two they get for being dwarves), but I don't know if that is really a big problem (it's not like they are doing what magic heavy armies do now, gaining magical superiority and negating the opponent's magic phase, it is just one). A dwarf army is really losing out on alot if they spend all of their points on runesmiths. If a dwarf army is prepared to spend alot of their points to stop my one level two wizard, let them.

If the mid level magic army has two level 2's they generate 6 power dice and the dwarves will have 11 or 12 dispel dice. This makes things hard on the mid level magic army. The two level two's, if casting on two dice for each spell (so they get three reasonable attempts) will have to beat what the dwarves can roll on 4 dice (assuming the dwarves are trying to stop everything, which will be hard. I don't know how big a problem this will be. Maybe a low or medium level magic army really should have problems when facing a dwarf army focused on just stoping magic when it comes to character slots.

If a dwarf army takes all runesmiths against a high magic army then it isn't so bad. If the high magic army is maxed out with a level 4 and three level two's then it generates a total of 12 power dice and gives the dwarf opponent 7 dispel dice before you figure in the dwarven bonus and the runesmiths. With those bonuses it becomes 12 power dice versus 13 or 14 dispel dice (if master runesmiths generate two, I'm not sure). That makes it harder on the casting side since things are tipped slightly in the dwarves favor, but it is not crazy. With bonus power die items and bound spells (which are bound to be seen in a magic heavy army), it gets better.

Khorne could be a problem because it makes low magic armies completely unable to cast without irresitable force when there are a couple of marked regiments/characters. A simple change would be to make the Mark of Khorne work how it does for Bloodletters, just give magic resistance to Khorne regiments. Khorne characters could still generate dispel dice, which woudl make it hard, but not impossible to get a spell by khorne regiments (especially if the spell doesn't actually target the khorne regiments).

Wintersdark
20-10-2005, 04:52
Hmmm... From the Dwarf perspective, I think Trunks is right. Sure, it will be hard to get spells through vs. dwarfs if they max out on runesmiths.... but will they actually do that? Would they be gaining anything from it? I mean, sure, you're low-magic army won't get much of any magic off, but that Dwarf army is giving up far more points to achieve that crazy magic resistance. You'd end up much better off - your single L2 wizard may never get a single spell off, but you may as well be playing with a couple hundred extra points in your army.

Khorne? Meh... I don't mind it being hard to cast against them either. Ultimately, it depends on how many characters he takes, but even at extreme ends, you're looking at a maximum of +4 dispel dice (in <3000 pt games). With a magic heavy army (L4, 3xL2) you'd have 10 or 12 power dice to 11 or 13 dispel dice, depending on wether or not the two base dice are used. That's pretty much equal, but the khorne army won't have any dispel scrolls (Err, a deamon MAY pack the dispel scroll-esque gift, but that's just one).

You'd still get a number of spells off in that situation. Maybe not a lot, but you shouldn't get a lot off. The khorne player WILL fail dispel rolls, which will typically sport equal numbers of dice to your casting rolls. The trick in that situation is to focus on high-die casting until you can remove a character or two, so you can rest assured that you will cast successfully. You have to meet or beat your spells power level, your opponent has to meet or beat your roll. The odds are in your favour there.

Oh.... Lets not forget the Wonder of Power Stones. vs a Khorne army, a power stone or two would be fantastic.

In fact, in this system overall I think Power Stones will be much more usefull - a way to boost your effective power dice in a phase to force a spell through.

Particularly if wizards are capped at a single scroll each.

A single L2 wizard in an army with a Dispel Scroll and a Power Stone would be a very effective choice, I think. You'll be able to stand a reasonable chance of getting a spell off in each turn. With two spells, you can have the base-level spell and a higher level spell. Use the base-level spell to draw your opponents dispel scrolls (basically, a high casting roll, as with his dispel dice it'll be very difficult to dispel those) then you can use the stone to really boost your odds of casting the high-powered spell later.

Trunks
20-10-2005, 05:36
The only reason I was really worried about the Khorne army more than dwarves was because of the ability to get "cheap" dispel dice through marked chariots. But then again . . . they are frenzied chariots so can be easily disposed of unless the khorne player is very, very careful (which typically means the khorne player needs some non-marked regiments to protect them, which means less marked regiments anyway).

I hadn't even thought of Power Stones. I rarely ever go magic heavy myself, so I don't consider them in my army lists (only go magic heavy with my Tzeentch demons, who can't take them). I just plain forgot about their existance :)

Wintersdark
20-10-2005, 05:53
Most people forget about them. I think they'd be very helpful given the "self generated resistance" of CvT's magic system. They'd be a great way to push through that resistance. Thus, they'd take fewer dispel scrolls...

Avian
20-10-2005, 10:13
With a 2nd level necromancer plus a count, you'd have 3 dice to cast and your opponent 2 to dispel.
No.

Read my post again. It's sub-2k, so a single lvl 2 and no count. He basically takes Invocation of Nehek and attempts to cast it at the 7+ level each time. He typically suceeds in four out of six attempts, none of which can be dispelled unless the opponent has brought a Dispel scroll.

Do you or do you not think that this is a problem?



What you guys are doing wrong is to base all your statements on the level at which this system works, while conveniently forgetting the areas where it doesn't.

Avian
20-10-2005, 10:18
I don't really see the problem with the CvT system where you have a single Tzeentch Wizard of low level with a bunch of regiments with the Mark of Tzeentch.

Lets say you have a Level 2 and three regiments with the Mark of Tzeentch and the opponent gets absolutely no bonus dispel dice for the mark of tzeentch.

This means that you have 7 Power Dice and your opponent is getting three dispel dice.
Under Ithy's suggestion it would be 5 power dice (or 6, if the opponent takes another marked unit) to 1 dispel dice.
That basically means two spells cast each phase and no dispelling apart from scrolls.

Sounds good?



The only reason I was really worried about the Khorne army more than dwarves was because of the ability to get "cheap" dispel dice through marked chariots. But then again . . . they are frenzied chariots so can be easily disposed of unless the khorne player is very, very careful (which typically means the khorne player needs some non-marked regiments to protect them, which means less marked regiments anyway).
Bah, most Khornate players will get something like five extra dispel dice from their marked units and characters. And it's no problem getting a lot of dice while still having points left over for non-frenzied support units.

Under CvT's system they get more dispel dice on top of that, while under Ithy's system (basically the same, but no basic dice) they'd typically have the same ammount of dispel dice (assuming they are facing two lvl 2s), but the opponent has less Power dice.

In either case Khorne gets a better deal.

Sounds good?

mageith
20-10-2005, 14:52
No.

Read my post again. It's sub-2k, so a single lvl 2 and no count. He basically takes Invocation of Nehek and attempts to cast it at the 7+ level each time. He typically suceeds in four out of six attempts, none of which can be dispelled unless the opponent has brought a Dispel scroll.

Do you or do you not think that this is a problem?

Not really. Like I said, if one wants to allow more casting then there will be more casting. Nehek is a very powerful spell, perhaps the best default spell in the game but if that's all that is cast and only four times for the 100 or so points of the cost of the wizard, its probably reasonably balanced.

Edit: In addition, under Cvt's suggestion the dice would be 4:3 and the necromancer can cast the higher level of the spell with all four dice and it will be difficult, but not impossible to dispel. The math's too much for me at this time of day, but four castings at four dice average 14, a larger chance of miscasting but the defender will only have three dice to defend. In a simple six cast test I got it off 5 times and it was dispelled once.




What you guys are doing wrong is to base all your statements on the level at which this system works, while conveniently forgetting the areas where it doesn't.
This is very harsh and very rude and very untrue on my part. Stop it.

Mage Ith

mageith
20-10-2005, 15:02
Under Ithy's suggestion it would be 5 power dice (or 6, if the opponent takes another marked unit) to 1 dispel dice.
That basically means two spells cast each phase and no dispelling apart from scrolls.

Sounds good?

1) Under my suggestion it would be 5 power dice to 3. I count power dice, not wizards. Or 6 to 3 if he takes another unit.
2) No one has jumped on the bandwagon for my suggestion.
3) If you take the original suggestion and count PD not wizards, as Cvt suggested later, then its 7 to 5, I think.
4) A problem with discussing such stuff on the internet is that it's sometimes difficult to follow the thread. When I do it, I amend the original suggestion when good ideas come across. Cvt ought to at least amend the first suggestions when he as an idea.



Bah, most Khornate players will get something like five extra dispel dice from their marked units and characters. And it's no problem getting a lot of dice while still having points left over for non-frenzied support units.

Under CvT's system they get more dispel dice on top of that, while under Ithy's system (basically the same, but no basic dice) they'd typically have the same ammount of dispel dice (assuming they are facing two lvl 2s), but the opponent has less Power dice.

In either case Khorne gets a better deal.

Sounds good?
This is not the way either of us are currently suggesting. See above.

Mage Ith

chivalrous
20-10-2005, 18:55
I really quite like this suggestion and while the Bound items, Tomb Kings and Tzeentch seem to cause problems, I don't see why they should.

Bound Items:-
As far as fluff goes, the spell is woven into the item with enough energy to cast the spell. So I propose the following method:-
1. Player states the item is going to cast the spell
2. Roll a D6, on a 1, the spell fails.
3. If the spell is successful the opponent can choose to dispell it, the item will still have a power level for this purpose.
4. After dispell attempts have been made and spell effects have been resolved the casting player rolls a D6. Unless they roll X+ on a D6 (X is 2-6 depending on how powerful the item is) the item has run out of power for the rest of the game.

For "One Use Only" items, step 4 isn't all that much use but if the spell is really that powerful, step 2 can be altered or the item can have a cost increase.

Tomb Kings Characters generate as many dispell dice as they have incantations to cast so a tomb prince generates 1, a tomb King generates 2 etc.

Tzeentch Why not just increase the cost of the Mark of Tzeentch? How much does a mark of Tzeentch cost for a unit now? 20pts is it?
Increase the cost slightly after all, sacrifice army size for magical ability and allow the opponent a tactical advantage in another area.

Khorne armies are a lesser problem but having units generate dispell dice will be problematic to armies such as vampire counts that rely (to a cretain extent) on getting a spell or two off a game.
Now it's been a long while since I read the chaos army book but I seem to remember that the mark of Khorne on any unit or chariot or character grants frenzy and an extra dispell dice.
Why not restrict the extra dispell dice to characters only (1 for a Hero, 2 for a Lord), units and Chariots just gain magic resistance 1.

Trunks
20-10-2005, 19:10
Under Ithy's suggestion it would be 5 power dice (or 6, if the opponent takes another marked unit) to 1 dispel dice.
That basically means two spells cast each phase and no dispelling apart from scrolls.

Sounds good?


I believe it was pretty clear that I stated my post was assuming CvT's system. I didn't mention having anyone else's sugestions implemented. I stand by what I said because it was under CvT's proposal, not alterations.

Wintersdark
20-10-2005, 19:40
Ok, have we settled on a system or variant of yet? Seems we're discussing too many all at once, it gets confusing :)

chivalrous
20-10-2005, 19:58
I should read a whole thread before posting *sigh*:(

Avian has mentioned that some suggestions would result in dispell scrolls becoming more popular or no less popular than they were before.
Dispell scrolls have always been a symptom of the new magic system and I think that it is time that the rules for Dispell scrolls were also changed.
The auto-dispell is, I think, a little too effective nowadays.
There have been suggestions of the scroll giving a "one use only" +2 dispell dice to the dispell attempt.


But it also means that armies with only a single low-level wizard will have more problems when facing armies without wizards. If you get base dice as before and in addition 1 dispel dice for lvl 1/2 wizards and two for lvl 3/4, then a level 2 wizard facing off against an army with no wizards is now facing 3 dispel dice per turn instead of 2, or if you have a single lvl 1 you have 3 PD to 3 DD

A wizard can only use magic level +1 dice to cast a spell in the current system. Has it been proposed that this restriction be removed?
A level one wizard can only cast a single spell so it's always going to have a D6 left over at the end of its magic phase.

To combat the quoted difficulty you could always modify the original statement to say that Level 1 wizards don't generate any dispell dice, level 2's generate 1 dispell dice and levels 3 and 4 generate 2 dispell dice. slightly better for a level 1 wizard, slightly worse for a level 2 wizard and exactly the same as originally proposed for levels 3 and 4.

Lastly, in the previous edition, a wizard was allowed to hold on to a single card (power/dispell etc.) into the next magic phase, could we bring this back i.e. "each wizard can carry over a single D6 into the next magic phase" so that you could choose not to use your power dice in your own phase in order to bolster your defence in your opponents or vice versa?

Avian
20-10-2005, 20:16
Not really. Like I said, if one wants to allow more casting then there will be more casting.
Is getting more spells cast really the goal?

I can see a lot of problems with altering the magic system so that more spells are cast, but it generally boils down to that under a system similar to this, using dispel dice to dispel spells will be a lot harder. Hence, I believe that more armies will rely on scroll caddies to do the dispelling, which I think is rather dull and the opposite of what an altered system should encourage.

Meanwhile you also get a lot of problems with odd lists and items, which you really can't do anything about, since the army books will not be rewritten alongside the new rulebook.

Wintersdark
20-10-2005, 21:27
Lastly, in the previous edition, a wizard was allowed to hold on to a single card (power/dispell etc.) into the next magic phase, could we bring this back i.e. "each wizard can carry over a single D6 into the next magic phase" so that you could choose not to use your power dice in your own phase in order to bolster your defence in your opponents or vice versa?

That was one of the biggest problems in the 5th edition magic phase though. Aside from the obvious card denial possible (ei hold drain magic so you opponent could never get it), what it results in is alternating light magic/devastating magic phases. It makes high magic armies immensely powerful vs. low magic armies as they are able to use just a few of their dispel dice to stop the low magic army, then hold the remainder for their power phase and steamroll over the defender who either couldn't get anything cast in their magic phase or held dice... but not enough because he had fewer wizards.

It's been well discussed (including holding power dice only for use as power dice, and dispel dice only for use as dispel dice) but in the end it just makes high-magic armies better and low-magic armies worse.

Overall, I'm still really liking the idea of the self-generated resistance concept, though, where an army creates it's own dispel dice.

We still need a way to impletement that, though, allowing for a rulebook rewrite but not army book changes - they'll happen over time, so some fiddliness is ok, but nothing grossly unbalanced.

So, again, what exactly are we all discussing now?

Are there +2 base power/dispel dice, or no?

Are dispel dice a flat 1/2, or based per character (1 per hero caster, including tomb princes; 2 per lord caster including tomb kings)?

Are dispel scrolls one per wizard? Do they auto-dispel or grant +X dispel dice in an attempt?

mageith
20-10-2005, 21:30
Is getting more spells cast really the goal?

I don't know about THE goal, but it's part of it, isn't it?

From first page:


The basic problem is that magic doesn't scale well. Players either go with big magic to dominate the game or they take a couple of scroll caddies for protection.

Mid-level casting is nonexistant.

There are a couple of ways to work around this...

It's certainly part of the goal, especially lower and mid level magic. Magic is supposed to be more offensive up and down the scale, no?



I can see a lot of problems with altering the magic system so that more spells are cast, but it generally boils down to that under a system similar to this, using dispel dice to dispel spells will be a lot harder. Hence, I believe that more armies will rely on scroll caddies to do the dispelling, which I think is rather dull and the opposite of what an altered system should encourage.

I don't see it. Right now I generally take two dispel caddies with really no expectation of casting. Under this system, with its built in friction, I'll probably take one or even no wizard and hire some more fighting heroes. But that wizard would either have two scrolls or some way of generating an extra dispel dice.



Meanwhile you also get a lot of problems with odd lists and items, which you really can't do anything about, since the army books will not be rewritten alongside the new rulebook.
No one has yet identified any of these problems, have they? I reviewed some some armybooks and only found items that are weaker, not stronger. Right now lots of items are not used, I really don't think I'd be interested in a system that was geared to making more items work.

However, your example of one 2nd level wizard under Cvt's system is actually a killer. With four dice and casting Curse of Ages (or any equally obnoxious high casting cost spell) whenever the 2nd level wizard wants to this could be unpleasant. I don't know why more folks aren't picking up on it. Now low magic could be the big killer.

Mage Ith

Avian
20-10-2005, 21:30
Are dispel scrolls one per wizard? Do they auto-dispel or grant +X dispel dice in an attempt?
I think the most you can do to Dispel scrolls is limit them to 1 per character, since the rules and cost are printed in "every" (not the Dwarf) army book.



No one has yet identified any of these problems, have they?
Well, it would help if we knew what the propsed system actually was...

Wintersdark
20-10-2005, 23:05
It should be noted that a 4 die (assuming, then, that we keep the base dice?) casting of a high-power spell (typically in this case 10+ or more) will happen once per turn. Assume it can't be used effectively in one turn of the game, leaving 5 attempts. The first one or two will be scrolled, leaving 3-4 attempts. The 3 die dispel will be hard pressed against that, to be sure. However, it works both ways.

Also, I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that we shouldn't have level+2 dice to cast a spell - High Elves can get the addition die for a L2 casting on 4 dice, but that's a HE special thing.

So, otherwise, a L2 with 4 power dice can elect to cast a big spell on 3 dice - followed by likely a 3 die dispel attempt; then a 1-die attempt at a base-level spell too. Or, he can go for two 2 die castings. He'll likely get spells off from time to time.

No, I think level+2 creates a situation where a lone L2 mage is too potent. Sticking with level+1 works better, IMHO.

Oh, and yeah, I'm aware that level+1 as now does make it difficult for an army with a single L1 wizard to cast a spell, and he will waste a power die every turn (just like he does now), but at least he'll have 3 dice to attempt to dispel RIP spells in his casting phase. A level 1 wizard doesn't need to be attempting 3 die casts, he's just a little wizard anyways. He can reliably cast a low-end spell on 2 dice, then hope for a bad dispel roll. He'll likely still get the odd spell off, but it'll be tough. That's ok, though, that's what you get for just fielding a single L1 wizard.

Wintersdark
20-10-2005, 23:11
So, is this correct? The current proposed "self-generated resistance" system is:

Power dice - 2 base + 1 per level of wizard in army + any bonus dice as usual.
Dispel dice - 2 base +1/+2 per hero/lord level caster(in the current player turn) +any bonus dice as usual.
Dispel Scrolls - 1 per character
Power Stones - 1 per character (why just limit dispel scrolls this way? This makes the rule more consistent for all magic items)

Army specific: Tomb kings and princes are considered casters for dispel dice generation

Everything else as it is now.

Is this correct?

Commissar von Toussaint
20-10-2005, 23:57
Pretty much, yes.

I want to address a couple of issues and clarify things a bit.

Yes, the base two dice for power and dispels are still there. This is as it should be. It allows a level 1 wizard to be a viable spell caster.

At the same time, it puts things on a reasonably even footing.

My changes are also based on the idea that wizards may use level +2 dice and these are non-transferable. So you can't take a bunch of smaller wizards to power up your Super Seer.

I'm both encouraged and disappointed by the reaction to my suggestion.

I'm encouraged by the people who took at in the spirit in which it was offered: something to get people to think about magic as a concept, about how we deal with it fundamentally, rather than simply tweaking with the existing mechanics.

I dislike the whole notion of taking a character simply to stop another character from working. Nowhere else do we do this. You don't neutralize a warrior by taking another warrior. They may fight one another, attempt to offset each other's killing potential and so forth, but they don't simply cancel out.

That's what I hate.

If GW came up with the "Brick of Power" and allowed people to spend 100 points to negate one artillery piece or missile unit, they'd sell like crazy - to the great detriment of the game.

That leads me to the disappointment. Whether willfull or not, some folks are really misconstruing what I am trying to do and the examples they are coming up with seem contrived to come up with the worst-case scenarios in what is only a conceptual stage rule.

I could counter by offering endless examples of things that are just as if not more broken now. This gets us nowhere.

Instead of sitting back and saying "Ah, but the bound item on page 34 - how do you deal with that, rule-writer?!" one could try to think of a solution on one's own.

Now more on topic, the subject of Dwarves, Khorne and Tzeentch have come up. Here are my responses.

Dwarves and Khorne are legendary anti-magic armies. They are basically made of anti-magic substances. Guess what? Magic doesn't work well against them.

That's on purpose. Yes, the Dwarves get FOUR basic dispel dice, PLUS the "friction dice," PLUS the runesmiths.

Dwarves are supposed to be that damn good. This makes them that way. If you want to take down Dwarves, you're going to really need to go heavy on magic.

Same with Khorne. We're talking about a god that is willing to directly intervene. Gosh, that means if he wants to make magic tough, he will.

The point is that players will learn that against some armies, lots of magic isn't all that effective.

I say this is a GOOD THING. Cavalry isn't always effective, nor are missile weapons. Every army has a counter. Magic should be the same. Against some armies, it's a waste of your time.

Magic against Dwarves and Khorne is like gun lines against spirit hosts: a total waste of time.

Regarding Tzeentch, the bonus power dice also scale. If you take an odd number units, yes, you get to sneak an extra power die in the mix.

Good for you! You can do math! If people want to take lots of odd-numbered Tzeentch units they will have to pay for them. This makes Tzeentch's magic potential tied into army composition. Again, fine with me.

Why does Tzeentch create this resistance? Because magic generates its own friction. Tzeentch simply can push more into the world, but that doesn't mean the world likes it. It will still try to push back.

Now, as for bound items, I think the notion of rolling under/over to make them work is fine. Yes, they get to be more effective - except the part where they no longer work all the time. :rolleyes:

For the folks who've found the power X item in subparagraph B, clause iii in page 32 of the Revised Amended Erratta (Second Printing): Good on you.

That item would have to be fixed.

See, I'm a simple guy. If I have a system that works fine except for a handful of speciality items, I change the items, not the system.

Too often it seems that GW's impulse is to do the opposite - which is how we get train wrecks like Herohammer and 4th edition 40k.

For the record (because there is some confusion) I originally thought of getting rid of the "base line" power and dispel dice. But the more I looked at it, the more I liked leaving them in.

So they're in, it wasn't in my initial idea, and because of someone else's input, we have a better product overall.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm all about people coming up with better ways to do stuff and I'm not shy about giving folks credit for doing it. I really liked changing the way HW/S worked, but I never claimed credit for thinking of it.

Wintersdark
21-10-2005, 00:45
My changes are also based on the idea that wizards may use level +2 dice and these are non-transferable. So you can't take a bunch of smaller wizards to power up your Super Seer.I like this for how it makes L1 wizards able to cast, but I'm nervous about L2 mages and 4 die castings vs. 3 dispel dice. Those 4-die spells are very, very powerful.



I dislike the whole notion of taking a character simply to stop another character from working. Nowhere else do we do this. You don't neutralize a warrior by taking another warrior. They may fight one another, attempt to offset each other's killing potential and so forth, but they don't simply cancel out.I agree here - I've always strongly disliked being forced to take characters to deal with other characters. It forces players to go character-heavy, something you should not have to do.



If GW came up with the "Brick of Power" and allowed people to spend 100 points to negate one artillery piece or missile unit, they'd sell like crazy - to the great detriment of the game.LOL! You're right, of course :)


That leads me to the disappointment. Whether willfull or not, some folks are really misconstruing what I am trying to do and the examples they are coming up with seem contrived to come up with the worst-case scenarios in what is only a conceptual stage rule.I'm ok with specific things being a little fiddly, but for example, my nervousness about 4-die casting L2's is much broader - not related to specific spells but rather the upper level of magic a L2 wizard is capable of reliably casting. The die limits obviously do not affect higher level wizards significantly, as 4-die castings are typically the highest one needs for most spells.

What about Hero level wizards being capped at 3 dice and lord level wizards not being capped at all?



Instead of sitting back and saying "Ah, but the bound item on page 34 - how do you deal with that, rule-writer?!" one could try to think of a solution on one's own.We are doing just that, aren't we?



Dwarves and Khorne are legendary anti-magic armies. They are basically made of anti-magic substances. Guess what? Magic doesn't work well against them.
...
The point is that players will learn that against some armies, lots of magic isn't all that effective.Good. Much like, say, artillery - it's extremely effective against some things, and some armies, and much less effective against others.


I say this is a GOOD THING. Cavalry isn't always effective, nor are missile weapons. Every army has a counter. Magic should be the same. Against some armies, it's a waste of your time.Making magic much less of a no-brainer, and thus making magic heavy armies of dubious use vs. some armies. People often complain about the rock-paper-scissors nature of fantasy. It's a good thing, IMHO, as it typically only applies to highly focused lists that depend overly on only one aspect. You can have a rock list if you like, but you can also take a list with a smaller rock, but paper and scissors too.



Regarding Tzeentch, the bonus power dice also scale. If you take an odd number units, yes, you get to sneak an extra power die in the mix.So that applies for all +power die generating items?

Should Warrior Priests generate dispel dice too? Treeman Ancients? Just wondering if the non-wizard dispel die generation would be limited to TK, or extend to cover any "non-wizard caster" characters.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-10-2005, 02:05
I like this for how it makes L1 wizards able to cast, but I'm nervous about L2 mages and 4 die castings vs. 3 dispel dice. Those 4-die spells are very, very powerful.

Fair enough. We can keep casting maxes where they are.


Making magic much less of a no-brainer, and thus making magic heavy armies of dubious use vs. some armies. People often complain about the rock-paper-scissors nature of fantasy. It's a good thing, IMHO, as it typically only applies to highly focused lists that depend overly on only one aspect. You can have a rock list if you like, but you can also take a list with a smaller rock, but paper and scissors too.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. :)


So that applies for all +power die generating items?

I don't have an answer for that. There are a few and I'm not sure there's much of a problem with them being used.

Now right away people are thinking "Aha! I'll bring the banner of sorcery or some such and get total magic dominance!"

My counter to that is that this is what happens anyway.

And since we're allowing wizards only to use their own dice, this does provide a way for people to get off more than one decent spell.

One thing I want to make clear is that I want people to be able to have wizard duels and lots of magic. I just want this to be a positive choice for both players.


Should Warrior Priests generate dispel dice too? Treeman Ancients? Just wondering if the non-wizard dispel die generation would be limited to TK, or extend to cover any "non-wizard caster" characters.

Warrior priests still generate dispel dice. That's a big part of why you take them, just like Runesmiths.

Can't comment on treeman ancients since I don't have that book.

Avian
21-10-2005, 09:59
Pretty much, yes.
Well, then my reply is the same as the first post in this thread:
Armies that get their dispel dice from a source other than wizards will now get a boost.

Example:
Against Dwarfs, you typically need six levels of magic if you want to actually achieve something. Under this system the dwarves would then have three more dice than usual and the same applies to Khorne armies and Empire armies with a lot of priests.
I don't think that's a minor "item on page 34" problem you can just ignore, I think that's a major flaw in the system. I say this because I discovered the same problem with my Winds of Magic system and that's the reason I dropped it.

I have no good solution that will "fix" magic, but I think I have fiddled around with (and actually play tested) enough attempted fixes to know what doesn't work. Alternative ways of generating the magic dice ain't the answer. It's too much of a chance and there are too many things that interact badly with it.

mageith
21-10-2005, 15:13
I don't think that's a minor "item on page 34" problem you can just ignore, I think that's a major flaw in the system. I say this because I discovered the same problem with my Winds of Magic system and that's the reason I dropped it.

I have no good solution that will "fix" magic, but I think I have fiddled around with (and actually play tested) enough attempted fixes to know what doesn't work. Alternative ways of generating the magic dice ain't the answer. It's too much of a chance and there are too many things that interact badly with it.
I generally agree. Most especially the bold part.

Cvt,

I too have tested several different methods of fixing magic and the realitively easy fixes are well, just too good to be true. And the holes are not that hard to find. So unless you want to deal with the more than several items and spells that skew your system, I've not got much more to say.

You've addressed some of them but in a dismissive manner, especially the HE dwarf and Khorne 'problems'.

Mage Ith

Commissar von Toussaint
22-10-2005, 06:24
Well, then my reply is the same as the first post in this thread:
Armies that get their dispel dice from a source other than wizards will now get a boost.

And this is a problem...why?


Example:
Against Dwarfs, you typically need six levels of magic if you want to actually achieve something. Under this system the dwarves would then have three more dice than usual and the same applies to Khorne armies and Empire armies with a lot of priests.

I'm confused. Are you saying players should approach Khorne and Dwarves as other armies, that their vaunted anti-magic prowess should be pretty much inconsequential?

I completely disagree. As it stands, there are armies against which certain tactics and combinations are useless. What you seem to be saying is that magic should be the one army type that always works.

Please clarify this.


I don't think that's a minor "item on page 34" problem you can just ignore, I think that's a major flaw in the system. I say this because I discovered the same problem with my Winds of Magic system and that's the reason I dropped it.

You're missing the point. I was referring to specific bound items with high casting values. People were getting all wrapped up in them, which seems to me pointless.

There aren't a lot of bound items with power levels above 4. To response to this was that there are a couple. And my response to that: rewrite the rules for them.


I have no good solution that will "fix" magic, but I think I have fiddled around with (and actually play tested) enough attempted fixes to know what doesn't work. Alternative ways of generating the magic dice ain't the answer. It's too much of a chance and there are too many things that interact badly with it.

Before you can get an answer you have to know what your question is.

Part of the problem is that there is disagreement on what that question should be.

I want magic that is a positive choice. You buy wizards to cast spells, not to stop them.

I want magic that has diminishing returns built into it. If you go too heavily into it, you will waste points.

I want magic that allows casters of all levels to get spells off, particularly in the middle power levels.

Finally, I want magic that more accurately reflects the fluff and army types in the game. Anti-magic armies should be effectively anti-magic and pose a serious danger to armies that rely on magic - just as armies that ignore psychology pose a danger to ones that rely on fear.

The fact that warrior priests will make Empire armies better at fighting magic phases me not at all. That is part of their purpose. Empire players pay a premium for a hero with mediocre spell use and champion-level combat stats.

I'm not saying they are bad values, they aren't. They're fairly priced and, like captains and engineers, help give the Empire army the character it has.

Same with Runesmiths and dwarves.

So while you can claim I'm "dismissing serious problems," I can't agree because what you consider a problem I consider a selling point.

Tiberius Frost
22-10-2005, 07:48
I haven't read all of this, I got bored about half way through the thread and gave up, so forgive me if this has already been addressed.

My point is this: In some armies (like my poor High Elves, for example) magic seems to take the place that artillery might in other armies. I don't have any high strength shooting, or even high strength units or characters. I do, however, ahve a spell that can hurt every model in a unit, and a 2d6 S4 spell which I can also get as a bound version.

You guys are proposing that this is too good, and that my opponent should be given a break against all my magic. I ask: What do I get in return? Will I be granted ward saves against Imperial cannons?

I think not. As it is, I have a hard time surviving against war machines, especially ones where you roll the artillery dice and score 10 hits (Salamanders hurt me. Alot.). I think that these are over powered as they can potentially chew threw a whole unit of my spearmen (and yes, it's happened) and since they skirmish they're bloody hard to shoot (remember all shooting in the HE army uses BS). So I resort to magic, but now you folks want to take that away from me?

For Shame...

Commissar von Toussaint
25-10-2005, 00:16
My point is this: In some armies (like my poor High Elves, for example) magic seems to take the place that artillery might in other armies. I don't have any high strength shooting, or even high strength units or characters. I do, however, ahve a spell that can hurt every model in a unit, and a 2d6 S4 spell which I can also get as a bound version.

I suppose it's pointless to remind you that repeating bolt throwers are technically artillery.


You guys are proposing that this is too good, and that my opponent should be given a break against all my magic. I ask: What do I get in return? Will I be granted ward saves against Imperial cannons?

Nope, I'm not proposing that at all.

In fact, your magic will become better in many respects.

Let me put it to you another way: my wife plays a magic-heavy High Elf army. If you think I'd propose something that would in any way compromise that army, well, you're a braver man than me. ;)


I think not. As it is, I have a hard time surviving against war machines, especially ones where you roll the artillery dice and score 10 hits (Salamanders hurt me. Alot.). I think that these are over powered as they can potentially chew threw a whole unit of my spearmen (and yes, it's happened) and since they skirmish they're bloody hard to shoot (remember all shooting in the HE army uses BS). So I resort to magic, but now you folks want to take that away from me?

For Shame...

Shame on you for jumping to ill-informed conclusions. :rolleyes:

If it's not worth your time to read the posts that explain how this works, it's certainly not worth my time to type it all out again.

High elves do quite well under this system - too well some folks might say. Read back a few pages and find out why.

Tiberius Frost
25-10-2005, 00:58
Dwarves and Khorne are legendary anti-magic armies. They are basically made of anti-magic substances. Guess what? Magic doesn't work well against them.

This is what I'm trying to say. Dwarves and Khorne are great examples, because they both have high toughness and armour, which means my High Elf spearmen are going to have a hell of a time doing any damage unless I soften them up first.

Ordinarily, I'd use magic for this, since I don't have access to cannons or stone throwers or BIG artillery which negates armour saves. I'm aware that bolt throwers are artillery, but they have the same stats as an imperial handgunner. If I take two repeater bolt throwers, my war machines ahve the stats of 12 handguns (with increased range.) Would you fight a dwarf or Khorne army using 12 handgunners?
(Don't even think about mentionig High Elf archers, by the way... )

Now, the obvious way for me to stand a chance of hurting these guys is to TAKE MORE MAGES. But under the proposed system, These guys get extra dice to deal with my magic. Which means my spells are cast less frequently (if at all) and I end up on the recieving end of lots of close combat goodness, or Dwarf artillery which I now can't take out.

I've now read the entire thread. I can't see anything that says High Elves will be better under this system. Unless you're talking about the banner of sorcery, which compared to the power dice generating abilities of a Tzeentch army is rubbish, really.

I don't see how this system is any better than the current one. It seems to have just as many flaws in it. Anyway, in the interests of continuing the discussion, I suggest that someone post the full proposed system again, so that everyone knows what we're talking about. There have been too many additions that haven't been recorded in one place, and it's making this thread really difficult to follow.

Commissar von Toussaint
25-10-2005, 01:53
This is what I'm trying to say. Dwarves and Khorne are great examples, because they both have high toughness and armour, which means my High Elf spearmen are going to have a hell of a time doing any damage unless I soften them up first.

Ordinarily, I'd use magic for this, since I don't have access to cannons or stone throwers or BIG artillery which negates armour saves.

Sure you do. Your RBTs are arguably more effective than cannons: they don't blow themselves up.

They also negate armor.


I'm aware that bolt throwers are artillery, but they have the same stats as an imperial handgunner. If I take two repeater bolt throwers, my war machines ahve the stats of 12 handguns (with increased range.) Would you fight a dwarf or Khorne army using 12 handgunners?

You seem to imply that this is all your army gets. I beg to differ.


(Don't even think about mentionig High Elf archers, by the way... )

I wasn't going to.


Now, the obvious way for me to stand a chance of hurting these guys is to TAKE MORE MAGES. But under the proposed system, These guys get extra dice to deal with my magic. Which means my spells are cast less frequently (if at all) and I end up on the recieving end of lots of close combat goodness, or Dwarf artillery which I now can't take out.

I've now read the entire thread. I can't see anything that says High Elves will be better under this system. Unless you're talking about the banner of sorcery, which compared to the power dice generating abilities of a Tzeentch army is rubbish, really.

I don't see how this system is any better than the current one. It seems to have just as many flaws in it. Anyway, in the interests of continuing the discussion, I suggest that someone post the full proposed system again, so that everyone knows what we're talking about. There have been too many additions that haven't been recorded in one place, and it's making this thread really difficult to follow.

There are two issues in play here.

The first - and the one that is the core of your argument - is that the High Elf list needs revisions.

That is so obvious, so glaring that it renders your other argument - about the merits of my proposal - moot.

High Elves are designed to be reliant on magic. I consider this a serious design flaw. It one of many that plague that list.

All armies should have some means of fighting without relying on magic dominance. Dominance, by the way, is not parity, not superiority or even supremecy. It is just that, dominance.

If your army needs this dominance to win, it is broken, plain and simple.

What my proposal does is remove the concept of dominance and makes magic more viable at the other levels. Indeed, one of the problems of the current game is that there are generally only two types of magic competition: parity and dominance.

Either the armies are balanced by both ignoring magic or both going magic heavy - or one dominates the other.

That is what I want to eliminate.

People trying to say I want to "weaken" magic are therefore completely mistaken. I want to make magic something that more players can use more effectively.

As it stands, though, one either goes all out on magic, or drags along a caddy or two for protection.

Surely as a High Elf player you should welcome the ability to cast key spells without having to make such a massive points investment.

Will Dwarves and Khorne present you with specific problems because of their magic resistance?

Absolutely.

The solution is not to demand that magic works against all opponents equally well, but to fix the broken lists that need magic dominance to have a shot at winning.

Tiberius Frost
26-10-2005, 10:41
Sure you do. Your RBTs are arguably more effective than cannons: they don't blow themselves up.

They also negate armor.

Okay. Very rarely do I fire single bolts from the repeater bolt thrower. Perhaps it's just me, but spending 100 points on a war machine that goblins can get for 30 doesn't float my boat.
However, this is getting off topic, so I'll stop there.



You seem to imply that this is all your army gets. I beg to differ.

Care to elaborate? How would you go about killing Chaos warriors?



The solution is not to demand that magic works against all opponents equally well, but to fix the broken lists that need magic dominance to have a shot at winning.

Alright, point made. As long as you acknowledge that your suggestion won't fix the magic system outright, which was the vibe I was getting initially. However other people kept using High Elves for examples, I just wanted to have my say. High Elves are the only army that I really play, so I had to use my experiences there.

I can understand where you're coming from with this. But I still don't think that your idea is going to fix it. I personally think that the magic system as it stands will need to be completely reworked, though this is unlikely to happen. It has become a victim of Games-Workshop's design system - update main game, spend 5-6 years slowly releasing army books.
The prblem is that to sell new products, they have to be appealing, and therefore better (better-looking, maybe) than everything before them. When High Elves were first released they were fine. It wasn't until later that the flaws in the lists became really apparent. Mainly when other armies started to get the same rules/magic items as them but at a cheaper cost.

It's a similar story with Eldar in 40k. Unless GW is willing to repair errors in army lists within the 6-year cycle, the problems aren't going to work themselves out.

The current magic system is now built into the game. Unless the army books are altered with the release of 7th ed, the system can't be changed; only tweaked. The discussions in this thread have shown that this particular idea requires more than a tweak.

Something I do consider to be a problem is the Lord/Hero division of wizards while still having the 4 level system. How often do you ever see a level 3 wizard? Because if you're going to buy a lord wizard, why not pay an extra 35 points for that extra spell/power dice?? It'd be a wasted opportunity not to.
But, again, this can't be fized without rewriting all of the army books.

I must point out that I think the only reason a problem occurs is because people are viewing WHF as a tournament game - and I say it again, it isn't. It's not balanced. Everyone can see that certain armies have clear advantages over others. With the amount of rules in the game it will never be perfectly balanced - wars aren't balanced.

This is getting long. I've hope I've gotten my point across. Anyway, from what you've been saying about wanting to see more spells cast etc, wouldn't you be looking for an entirely different approach to magic than the current system?

Avian
26-10-2005, 18:31
And this is a problem...why?
Because you are giving armies that are currently okay a rather big bonus for no disadvantage.


Avian's view of the problem with magic
To do this, I will divide an army's use of magic into three broad categories (at the 2k level):
-Low magic: around 1 level of magic, around 2 scrolls, no offensive items
-Medium magic: around 4 levels, a couple of offensive items, a couple of defensive items
-High magic: 6 or more (often more) level of magic, several offensive items


There are six match-ups: high magic vs. high magic, medium vs. medium, low vs. low, high vs. medium, medium vs. low and high vs. low.

Of these six, I call four of them okay, all the ones where both sides have an equal ammount, and high magic vs. low magic.
Where the system fails is in these two cases:

1) High magic vs. medium magic
-High magic is about as effective as it is compared to low magic, even though the opponent has now put more points into magic
-Medium magic is very ineffective, with few if any spells being cast

2) Medium magic vs. low magic
-Medium magic struggles to cast anything due to the plethora of defensive items, even though they have put about twice as many points into magic as the opponent.


Cvts system makes it easier to cast against an army with more magic than you, but harder to cast against an army with less magic than you (if the opponent gains a lot of dispel dice from non-wizards, it always gets more difficult).

This effectively means that the high magic vs. low magic contest is more balanced compared to how many points get put into magic, while making the medium vs. low magic contest more unbalanced than it already is. In addition, high magic vs. low magic gets shifted in the favour of low magic, something I also think is unneccessary, as that contest is okay at the moment (again considering how many points the players spend on magic).

So, while it does a lot to reduce one imbalance in the magic system, it increases another imbalance, and in addition creates imbalance in two cases which are currently okay.

Gabacho Mk.II
29-10-2005, 07:53
I assume that this discussion has died, right?

:(

Commissar von Toussaint
30-10-2005, 16:26
I've got some additional points to make but I never have time to post any more.