PDA

View Full Version : Is 8ths magic system any fun for competitive players?



jamano
21-08-2010, 01:56
The reason I worded it like that is, for people who play most of their games like its a tournament, and wouldn't just tone down all their lists because the game was imbalanced(I don't mean something as bad as double hydra or hellpit or something, but rather not just fluffy lists) In 8th when I get to pick a level 4, why would I not choose life? It has good buffs, heals, lets me ignore miscasts, and has the best of the nuke spells. No brainer options make the game boring for me.

Warhammer has never been the most balanced game, but the things you can do with the new lores in 8th edition are just terrible. In 7th the spell I hated the most was infernal gateway because even though it only happened on a 11-12, no spell should have that sort of unstoppable killing power, because theres still going to be those times where you get double 6s irresistible and then double 6s for strength, your opponents big unit and lord and whatever is just gone with nothing at all you can do about it. And congratulate yourself, you won by rolling two 12s! That spell should have never existed, and now in 8th there's even more spells like it! All of them structured to eliminate any semblance of balance. (no saves, no LOS, doesn't care about wounds, no MR)

I LOVE most of the changes in 8th edition(all but TLOS and the magic system really), making all armies more viable and diverse, which means more interesting lists from everyone without them being underpowered. But it's all overshadowed when every game comes down to who can get their dwellers/purple sun etc off first and blow up the other big unit with the wizard in it and win the game.

Its pretty obvious GW dislikes tournament players, especially ones who like more balanced tournaments instead of ard boyz, was this just a big middle finger to those players? Why does the game being unbalanced and not playtested by competent people(I can just see the playtest game where they only cast dwellers below vs skinks because they have 3 str instead of a more expensive unit with a slann in it) make it more fun in their eyes? Are they just trying to kill off the third party tournament scene by forcing them to make 20 page rule packets that will alienate people who only use the rules as written.

It's just been driving me crazy since 8th came out(and the other local players) games aren't even fun to watch when its decided by a spell on turn 1. I see alot of people complaining about steadfast or whatever, does no one else think this is the biggest problem with the new book by far?

TheKingInYellow
21-08-2010, 02:18
Funny, most people rant about Purple Sun, not Dwellers.

jamano
21-08-2010, 02:25
Funny, most people rant about Purple Sun, not Dwellers.

Purple sun can certainly do alot more damage than dwellers, but dwellers is better in that its much more consistent and comes in lore of life. You may be able to completely destroy lizards with it, but its not as easy to hit them with turn 1 thanks to the random range(unless you have a flyer casting it of course) whereas with dwellers you only have casting target of 3 higher to get 24 inch range. Dwellers can't hit more than one unit but it will hit every model in one unit, whereas a small template especially could miss plenty. No army has high base strength across the board, while many have high initiative. Wizards especially die a lot easier to dwellers than they would purple sun, making it easier to take over the magic phase with one spell.

Orangecoke
21-08-2010, 04:33
I don't think it's intentionally malicious towards competitive players. Tbh I think they just screwed up.

Blackknight1239
21-08-2010, 05:14
I don't see how randomness can't be competitive. Besides, the lores are fairly equal. Life is good, yes, but needs a set up to get 100% out of it. Hard to do with only a max of 4 spells. Plus, not every army can get it.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 05:26
I like Light and Heaven over other Lores specifically because they don't have big nuke spells.

ChrisIronBrow
21-08-2010, 05:33
I don't see how randomness can't be competitive. Besides, the lores are fairly equal. Life is good, yes, but needs a set up to get 100% out of it. Hard to do with only a max of 4 spells. Plus, not every army can get it.

I don't know, I can get as many Heralds of Tzeentch with Master of Sorcery as I want for 140 points each. That gives me a lvl 2 with all the spells of any lore from the BRB, and so far, the best by far is Life.

Blackknight1239
21-08-2010, 05:39
I don't know, I can get as many Heralds of Tzeentch with Master of Sorcery as I want for 140 points each. That gives me a lvl 2 with all the spells of any lore from the BRB, and so far, the best by far is Life.

Maybe, but I think there are only 5 armies with access to all 8 Lores (Daemons, Empire, High Elves, Slaan, and WoC), and only a further one that can get Life (Bretonnia). While I agree Life it great, I don't think it's the be-all end-all by any means. It can be great, but you really need the Throne, so spamming level 2's isn't really the best thing.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 05:42
Wait, WoC can get all 8 Lores?

CaptScott
21-08-2010, 05:45
Nope WOC can't get access to all lores (definitely not life), unless there's some magic item I don't know about.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 05:47
Actually, all armies can get access to any of the Rulebook Lores; the Wizard's Hat.

Blackknight1239
21-08-2010, 06:27
Oops, my bad. But still. I don't think it's a no brainer in any of those armies that can take them. All the magic is relatively balanced. Life gets to be a little stronger because you need to cast an 8+, RIP spell to get the full use of it. Really, if that gets dispel (which it probably will in the next magic phase), you're not really that hot.

Aluinn
21-08-2010, 06:55
Maybe, but I think there are only 5 armies with access to all 8 Lores (Daemons, Empire, High Elves, Slaan, and WoC), and only a further one that can get Life (Bretonnia). While I agree Life it great, I don't think it's the be-all end-all by any means. It can be great, but you really need the Throne, so spamming level 2's isn't really the best thing.

VC can have access to any Lore except Life with Forbidden Lore, and Wood Elves can take Life instead of Lore of Athel Loren. And, yeah, Wizard's Hat, but as that's random and costs a Lord's full allowance of points, I don't really count it :). I mean, I guess TK will use it, but ... yeah.

On the subject of balance between Lores, I don't think Life is broken by any means. Certainly you need to stop Throne of Vines, and you need to stop Dwellers in most cases, but that's why you have scrolls and dispel dice. Without Throne up it's a decidedly fair Lore, and I think that makes it fair all around, because Throne is by no means guaranteed to resolve and no one is going to want to deliberately miscast in order to IF a setup spell.

As for Dwellers, well, there a lot of spells like that. It may be slightly better than average as a unit-wide nuke, but not by enough that I can call it broken without saying the same of Final Transmutation, Pit of Shades, and Purple Sun. I think we have to face the fact that this sort of spell will be available to most armies and plan magic defense accordingly. Besides, it is probably a necessary counter to elite Horde deathstars.

The only major problems I see with 8th Ed. magic can be traced either to Power Scroll or to certain casters who don't realistically have to worry about miscasting (and can often circumvent magic defense with ease as well). And, really, if suicide wizards with Power Scroll are the most broken things in 8th, I don't think that's especially terrible; most armies are still sacrificing quite a few points to get off that big spell, and though the payoff may be well worth the sacrifice, it's not as though anyone's causing massive destruction for free. It can indeed be broken, but I've seen worse.

In the end I'm much more concerned about a Slann, Teclis, or Kairos than I am about some Purple Sun suicide bomber, but those overpowered wizards are not so because of the 8th Ed. magic system, but rather their own army book rules. (Okay, they were, to varying degrees, helped by 8th Ed. rules, but that's far from the whole of the problem with them.)

TheAmazingAntman
21-08-2010, 07:11
Your premise is flawed; competitive players aren’t capable of having fun.

Ba-Zing!

Rosstifer
21-08-2010, 07:25
Is ANYTHING fun for competitive players?

*SQUEE*
21-08-2010, 07:37
Actually, all armies can get access to any of the Rulebook Lores; the Wizard's Hat.

With the exception of Dwarves and Daemons that's true.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 08:03
With the exception of Dwarves and Daemons that's true.

Ahh, touché.

Kal Taron
21-08-2010, 08:18
..., because Throne is by no means guaranteed to resolve and no one is going to want to deliberately miscast in order to IF a setup spell.

Actually there isn't much reason not to try to get IR with Throne of Vines, seeing that it protects you from the miscast table on 2+.

pointyteeth
21-08-2010, 08:37
Short answer: No. 8ths magic system isn't a whole lot of fun for competitive players
Long answer: No. While it is not always going to be the case, the game changing ability of certain spells can nullify any amount of good generalship or tactics. If you general a game perfectly and still lose because of one spell, its not a competitive system. And to respond in advance to the standard reply of "this edition makes you have to change your tactics on the fly"; sometimes, there is no change in tactics that will save you from having half a unit wiped out, or a large chunk of multiple units wiped out, or key characters (BSB/General) sniped.

Disclaimer: yes, I am a tournament player. no, I am not a WAAC player. I like to compete and have fun :D

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-08-2010, 09:20
Actually there isn't much reason not to try to get IR with Throne of Vines, seeing that it protects you from the miscast table on 2+.

So you find it sensible to go for IF on ToV? What will you then proceed to do with it, since you've probably wasted more than half of your PD - and the opponent still has her full DD ;)

WarmbloodedLizard
21-08-2010, 10:01
Warhammer has never been the most balanced game, but the things you can do with the new lores in 8th edition are just terrible. In 7th the spell I hated the most was infernal gateway because even though it only happened on a 11-12, no spell should have that sort of unstoppable killing power, because theres still going to be those times where you get double 6s irresistible and then double 6s for strength, your opponents big unit and lord and whatever is just gone with nothing at all you can do about it. And congratulate yourself, you won by rolling two 12s! That spell should have never existed, and now in 8th there's even more spells like it! All of them structured to eliminate any semblance of balance. (no saves, no LOS, doesn't care about wounds, no MR)

I LOVE most of the changes in 8th edition(all but TLOS and the magic system really), making all armies more viable and diverse, which means more interesting lists from everyone without them being underpowered. But it's all overshadowed when every game comes down to who can get their dwellers/purple sun etc off first and blow up the other big unit with the wizard in it and win the game.


I agree 100% with what you say. I hate it when everything hinges on single dice rolls. If at least Look Our, Sir and ward saves and regen saves were allowed, the spells would be much less idiotic.

ChrisIronBrow
21-08-2010, 10:01
sometimes, there is no change in tactics that will save you from having half a unit wiped out, or a large chunk of multiple units wiped out, or key characters (BSB/General) sniped.



Basicly, I agree. Which is why I think 8th edition is going to change the Warhammer tournament scene more than anyone is realizing yet. Because anything can die at any time. The only way to win, will be redundancy. Massive redundancy. That way if they kill a block of troops a turn it doesn't matter, cause you have more than they can kill.

Think Space Orks in 40k, In a game where 40 dudes on the table is a lot, Orks can easily bring 180+ Everyone screamed and cried, until they changed tactics to killing lots, and ignoring "elites". I think Warhammer is headed that way as well.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 10:45
It's great for deterring Deathstars, though. Absolutely great at deterring them.

Aluinn
21-08-2010, 14:22
Actually there isn't much reason not to try to get IR with Throne of Vines, seeing that it protects you from the miscast table on 2+.

There is still a chance for that protection to fail, though, and more to the point I don't think it's worth throwing so many dice at a spell that does nothing in and of itself, unless perhaps you managed to hit 12 power dice. It's great if it goes off and you can cast something which it powers up in that same magic phase; if you can't resolve anything after Throne, however, your opponent will get another two chances to dispel it (one with their power dice) before it can be of any use. Really I think it is fairly easy to stop it from letting the Life wizard go completely nuts, if you make it your priority.

Of course the vagaries of the magic phase will mean you can't *always* dispel it, but it is definitely not valid to assume that every Life spell, or even most Life spells, will be cast with the benefits of Throne.

I will confess, at least, that I find Flesh to Stone pretty frustrating, because it has a low casting value yet I don't always feel I can spare the dice to dispel it, and its effect, even at just +2 T, can easily swing combats. I don't like going from a 4+ to wound to a 6+ at all :(.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 14:32
It's certainly better than spells which reduce a model's Strength in ways... Besides AS modifiers, that is.

itcamefromthedeep
21-08-2010, 15:53
I like Light and Heaven over other Lores specifically because they don't have big nuke spells.
Really? The Comet doesn't count as a nuke? 2D6+2 S6 hits (min for big casting) in a 2d6" bubble *hurts*. Better, it doesn't rely on a low (or even average) stat.


I agree 100% with what you say. I hate it when everything hinges on single dice rolls. If at least Look Our, Sir and ward saves and regen saves were allowed, the spells would be much less idiotic.I have good news for you. Look Out, Sir! rolls can be taken on Purple Sun and Pit of Shades.


It's great for deterring Deathstars, though. Absolutely great at deterring them.I think that was the intention to begin with. There are spells that just don't care about what kind of protections your unit has.

This makes me think that 8e magic was a pressure valve to stop super-units (either in terms of strength or size) from getting out of hand. Unfortunately, this seems to have led to some lame games.

---

Don't worry about truly competitive players. By definition they've already set the conventional fun of balanced armies aside. They've have fun playing with and against such classics as Double Stank + Walter.

Competitive players are big boys. They can handle it.

---

Life is not the undisputed champ of the lores. Shadow and Death have many advocates, and for Slann so does Light. I haven't heard any advocates for Heavens or Fire.

---

Competitive players don't need game balance. They tend to simply pick the most competitive options. Models that are too weak to play just don't matter.

To the OP, I think you're trying to eat your cake and still have a cake when you talk about competitive players that don't like 'Ard Boyz. If players are willing to avoid lame lists then that's great. If they want to play balls-to-the-wall then that's fine too (and they won't much mind lame lists). There isn't a whole lot in between.

eyescrossed
21-08-2010, 16:04
Really? The Comet doesn't count as a nuke? 2D6+2 S6 hits (min for big casting) in a 2d6" bubble *hurts*. Better, it doesn't rely on a low (or even average) stat.

Yet it can't kill anything based on one die roll.

WarmbloodedLizard
21-08-2010, 17:43
I have good news for you. Look Out, Sir! rolls can be taken on Purple Sun and Pit of Shades.


right, because I was talking about those two when I said LOS should be allowed... ._.




Competitive players don't need game balance. They tend to simply pick the most competitive options. Models that are too weak to play just don't matter.

To the OP, I think you're trying to eat your cake and still have a cake when you talk about competitive players that don't like 'Ard Boyz. If players are willing to avoid lame lists then that's great. If they want to play balls-to-the-wall then that's fine too (and they won't much mind lame lists). There isn't a whole lot in between.

wow, what ignorant statements.

first off, competitive players are the ones that need balance between Army Books THE MOST. It is they that are affected the most by imbalances.

secondly, 'ard boyz is an almost rule free environment where army choice and list often mean a lot more than the generals skill. very few competitive would prefer 'ard boyz over a well organized indy tournament with elaborate balancing rules. just compare it to any other sport: there are always very tight rules that make sure that it's balanced (e.g. no doping).

Odominus
21-08-2010, 20:55
secondly, 'ard boyz is an almost rule free environment

You had me up till this.

I've never heard of anyone overtly breaking the rules in Ard Boyz tourny. People have tried, but T.O.s have been great and not allowed it. This includes finals at Chicago. If anything, I believe Ard Boyz is the most exacting rules environment.


army choice and list often mean a lot more than the generals skill.

What tourny does this NOT apply to? This is universal and affects all tournys.

Tae
21-08-2010, 21:42
What tourny does this NOT apply to? This is universal and affects all tournys.

Apart from those with limitations on army lists.

And honestly, if 'competetive players' find the magic system too unreliable here's an idea that's completely outside the box - don't rely on it!

sulla
21-08-2010, 22:24
I'm struggling to have sympathy for any player that thinks magic in the last edition was any better. Even with all the uber spells, this edition is a massive improvement over 6th/7th's brute force magic system and scroll caddy defense force. To make it fairer in tourneys, all that's really needed is a ban on items or skills that grant IF and those that cause/modify or restrict miscasts. Then the risk/reward ratio for big dice starts to matter more.

WarmbloodedLizard
21-08-2010, 22:34
[...] breaking the rules [...]

did you really not get what I said? it is extremely and utterly clear that when I was talking about "rules free environment" I was talking about "no special army restrictions or comp system".
The only restrictions 'ard boyz has are: 3000pts, models have to be WYSIWYG and come from GW, and no special army lists.



What tourny does this NOT apply to?

any serious tournament (i.e. no GW tournament) has composition rules. of course they still don't balance the game completely but they do A LOT to create an at least semi-balanced environment.


EDIT:
I do agree that the magic system as base is better, BUT there are still A LOT of problems with the new system, many of which the old didn't have.


Then the risk/reward ratio for big dice starts to matter more.

the problem is, the risk/reward ration is EXACTLY the what's wrong. there is too high a reward and too high a risk. both reward and risk hinge on very few dice rolls that can have extreme effects. if all spells were slightly toned down (by allowing at least some saves) and miscasts were slightly less brutal (e.g. S5 hits instead of S10), it would be almost fixed. the only real problem left would be the Power Scroll, which could just be restricted to Lord level casters. (most tournaments don't allow special characters anyway, so they are not a problem)

(of course the phase could be improved a lot in other ways but many non-competitive players wouldn't like that)

enygma7
21-08-2010, 23:42
sometimes, there is no change in tactics that will save you from having half a unit wiped out, or a large chunk of multiple units wiped out, or key characters (BSB/General) sniped.


There are things you can do to limit the damage, such as building lists that aren't overly reliant on one unit or character and not investing too much in one "basket". You can also mount a good magic defence, buff your units with your own spells and trying to assassinate your opponents wizards.

I'm not saying you're wrong in any way - sometimes despite your best efforts nothing works and the above measures aren't possible for everyone (want to take a slann? Well you don't have any choice but to invest a lot in one place) but you aren't a helpless bystander in the matter as some seem to advocate.

Odominus
22-08-2010, 00:00
I was talking about "no special army restrictions or comp system".

(edit) Lol ok I'll stop playing devils advocate.


any serious tournament (i.e. no GW tournament) has composition rules. of course they still don't balance the game completely but they do A LOT to create an at least semi-balanced environment.

Any serious tournament? hmm lil bias there. Last few big GTs I went to didnt use any comp restrictions. Well the last one (Battle on Beale -Big Waaag) asked the entrants to try not to run deathstars. It wasnt required, and they werent taking points away if you did run one. But they asked and most players complied.


I guess to address the OP, yes I think magic is competitive and fun in 8th. I think we are just starting to see the different nasty combos available with the different lores. And I am very much looking forward to Ard Boyz where we shall see what the different races can really do.

itcamefromthedeep
22-08-2010, 01:41
right, because I was talking about those two when I said LOS should be allowed... ._.
Both Pit of Shades and Purple Sun rely on single die rolls (Initiative tests) to determine whether or not the model is affected. Since you didn't make exception to these, I assumed you included them with the others. I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't read what you don't write.


first off, competitive players are the ones that need balance between Army Books THE MOST. It is they that are affected the most by imbalances.Competitive players take advantage of imbalances. That helps them win.

A weak army build can simply be ignored. If an army book has no good builds, then a very competitive player will ignore the army book. Weak models and weak builds don't detract from the competitive game. They do detract from a game where models are fielded for reasons other than their usefullness.


very few competitive would prefer 'ard boyz over a well organized indy tournament with elaborate balancing rules.I posit that this would depend on how competitive the player is. A player who uses restrictions outside the rules could be called less competitive, because they put winning behind other considerations. I commonly hear that players are not interested in 'Ard Boyz because the environment is *too competitive*.


any serious tournament (i.e. no GW tournament) has composition rules.I think that 'Ard Boyz is pretty serious, and does not include such composition rules.

It's been years since I heard of a tournament with artificial composition rules. Most that I attend include presentation, sportsmanship and generalship scores (sometimes *honor points* as well). Nothing for army composition.

Could you back that statement of yours up? Perhaps elaborate on what you mean by "serious"? I don't buy it yet.

sulla
22-08-2010, 06:20
the problem is, the risk/reward ration is EXACTLY the what's wrong. there is too high a reward and too high a risk. both reward and risk hinge on very few dice rolls that can have extreme effects. if all spells were slightly toned down (by allowing at least some saves) and miscasts were slightly less brutal (e.g. S5 hits instead of S10), it would be almost fixed. the only real problem left would be the Power Scroll, which could just be restricted to Lord level casters. (most tournaments don't allow special characters anyway, so they are not a problem)
I disagree. In the previous edition of the game, there were already super powered spells, but only a few armies had access to them, they could roll them multiple times, and simply buy their way into the power dice to cast them. Now, nearly every army has access to these spells but you have to choose your lores before knowing who you face so, assuming you're not tailoring for your opponent, you may well end up with an uber spell that does not very much vs your opponent. Also, why would you ever want to tone down miscasts? The high strength means all armies have to be wary, not just t3 ones.

It's nice to be able to play in the magic phase without having to spend 75-100% of my character allowance just to get parity.

Argent
22-08-2010, 07:59
Is ANYTHING fun for competitive players?

I hear feasting on the tears of those of us who like to have fun is fun for them :).

WarmbloodedLizard
22-08-2010, 10:10
Both Pit of Shades and Purple Sun rely on single die rolls (Initiative tests) to determine whether or not the model is affected. Since you didn't make exception to these, I assumed you included them with the others. I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't read what you don't write.


you should always assume that the opposing speaker isn't an idiot and knows the rules... (especially such basic ones). you may not be a mind-reader but you should be able to get what is meant even if it isn't written 100% clear. It's how a conversation functions. we sacrifice clearness for brevity.



Competitive players take advantage of imbalances. That helps them win.

A weak army build can simply be ignored. If an army book has no good builds, then a very competitive player will ignore the army book. Weak models and weak builds don't detract from the competitive game. They do detract from a game where models are fielded for reasons other than their usefullness.


you equate competitive players with WAAC players. a competitive player could just as well play a weaker army, he might like the competition more than simply winning with an overpowered army book.

(people are also seldom as one-tracked as you imply (not purely competitive). they always have preferences for certain armies or don't have one of the strongest armies and don't have the time and money to just buy and build the army that is the strongest at the moment.)




I posit that this would depend on how competitive the player is. A player who uses restrictions outside the rules could be called less competitive, because they put winning behind other considerations. I commonly hear that players are not interested in 'Ard Boyz because the environment is *too competitive*.


whether you call WAAC the apex of competitiveness or a different branch of competitivenss is probably opinion-based. I also don't say that 'ard boyz isn't a competitive environment. It just isn't a fair or balanced competition. It is more like a brawl than a boxing tournament (although organized and with only 2 people at a time) where you can use table legs and be on angel dust. sure, it's still a competition...



I think that 'Ard Boyz is pretty serious, and does not include such composition rules.

It's been years since I heard of a tournament with artificial composition rules. Most that I attend include presentation, sportsmanship and generalship scores (sometimes *honor points* as well). Nothing for army composition.

Could you back that statement of yours up? Perhaps elaborate on what you mean by "serious"? I don't buy it yet.

I agree that I wasn't very clear. when I say serious I mean a tournament that focuses on the competition between the players and not on promoting and selling products. Because GW is the the producer of the product (and also mainly because of their policies*), GW organized tournaments are very unlikely to come close to that. They might see their rules as tournament worthy but they clearly are not. GW rules need balancing to create a proper tournament environment where it is more about the generals than about the army (see that I'm talking about army, not army composition).

* "1. You can only use our minis! 2. We are GW, our rules are great and don't need balancing errata. just make house rules or roll it off if you want things differently."

EDIT:


I disagree. In the previous edition of the game, there were already super powered spells but only a few armies had access to them[...]

Gateway and the 13th spell I assume? (the only BRB semi-uberspell in 7th was pit of shades)

gateway is a 15+ spell (70% chance to cast on 5 dice) and the 13th spell was very risky and unlikely to go off. both could be easily scrolled unless IF. and even if IF, you had to roll high enough.

also see that those two spells were usually NOT liked by competitive players. they rely too much on chance and have too great an effect. and now there is an abundance of similar spells (including stronger versions of gateway and the 13th, becasue they are a lot easier to cast)




Now, nearly every army has access to these spells but you have to choose your lores before knowing who you face so, assuming you're not tailoring for your opponent, you may well end up with an uber spell that does not very much vs your opponent.


If you know your opponent's army, you tailor. everything else would just be handycapping yourself...
If you don't know your opponent army, you take life.



Also, why would you ever want to tone down miscasts? The high strength means all armies have to be wary, not just t3 ones.


because there is too much chance involved. -D3 levels, wiping out your unit or losing your caster is too great an effect. by toning down the strength (make it S6 if you don't like S5) you would at least give the player a chance to protect their units from miscasts by upping their toughness (life, beasts, and some other spells). that way you have the possibility to not make the outcome of the battle depend on chance alone, as you have the option to protect your unit if you want to.




It's nice to be able to play in the magic phase without having to spend 75-100% of my character allowance just to get parity.

I also prefer the 8th ed system. it's just the spells I have a problem with. (and rules that allow more than 12 PD/unlimited dwarf-scrolls/certain items)

Coyote81
22-08-2010, 15:36
I LOVE most of the changes in 8th edition(all but TLOS and the magic system really), making all armies more viable and diverse, which means more interesting lists from everyone without them being underpowered. But it's all overshadowed when every game comes down to who can get their dwellers/purple sun etc off first and blow up the other big unit with the wizard in it and win the game.

I have to start off with totally hating this comment. I play Woodelves and Beastmen, and I whole-heartedly believe 8th ed was a nerf for both of them, no making them most viable and diverse. Why was the big nerf for skirmishers needed?

But as to your post as a whole, and totally agree with them messing up with the magic spells. The magic system is great, but the spells being cast are over the top good and way too devastating. Especially when the rules push you toward bigger and bigger units. Then a lvl 1 magic walks up and make your 40man unit take a Str test on every model and you lose 30 of them. Just stupid IMO.


Actually there isn't much reason not to try to get IR with Throne of Vines, seeing that it protects you from the miscast table on 2+.

I don't believe the throne of vines protects you from the miscast when you cast it, because it says that when you mistcast and this spell is active you can ignore it on 2+. But by the time you successfully cast it, you've already miscasted. It'll get all the ones after the initial cast though.


I'm struggling to have sympathy for any player that thinks magic in the last edition was any better. Even with all the uber spells, this edition is a massive improvement over 6th/7th's brute force magic system and scroll caddy defense force. To make it fairer in tourneys, all that's really needed is a ban on items or skills that grant IF and those that cause/modify or restrict miscasts. Then the risk/reward ratio for big dice starts to matter more.

I would agree on the system is just amazing, but aside from a few odd armies "Cough" Dark elves for example "Cough", noone in 7th had over the top, game changing spells. Where as 8th ed is fulll of them. Pretty mush every lore has one.

itcamefromthedeep
22-08-2010, 15:45
you should always assume that the opposing speaker isn't an idiot and knows the rules... (especially such basic ones). you may not be a mind-reader but you should be able to get what is meant even if it isn't written 100% clear. It's how a conversation functions. we sacrifice clearness for brevity.
In this case in particular, there are many people who honestly believe that you don't get a Look Out, Sir! roll against Pit of Shades or Purple Sun because they haven't read the "resolving unusual attacks" sidebar on page 42, which states that unusual hits (like spells) are resolved like shooting attacks. I don't think that it's entirely reasonable to assume that every player has read through the rulebook cover-to-cover, particularly with many players waiting on Island of Blood instead of picking up the hardcover.

More generally, if someone were to say "I wish I could have a Look Out, Sir! roll against war machines" then it would be fair to respond with "well, you do". You don't *always* get a Look Out, Sir! roll against war machines (for instance, with a cavalry model in an infantry unit), but it's incorrect to say in general terms that characters *don't* get Look Out, Sir! rolls against war machine hits.

To say that you don't get a Look Out, Sir! roll against spells that instantly kill is incorrect (incomplete, misleading), because it's too broad a statement.


(people are also seldom as one-tracked as you imply (not purely competitive). they always have preferences for certain armies or don't have one of the strongest armies and don't have the time and money to just buy and build the army that is the strongest at the moment.We all fit somewhere along that continuum. Since just about every player out there likes winning to some degree, are we not then all competitive players? <<<Rhetorical, see below.

In order to make the term "competitive" actually refer to a meaningful subset of players, I assumed that you would draw a sharp line in distinguishing the group, with players who make winning their *overriding* priority in army and unit selection. This is not to say that such a person demonstrates bad sportsmanship or engages in behavior like "modeling for advantage". Without a strong distinction, the definition of "competitive" becomes wishy-washy in such a way that it can bend to virtually anything the speaker wants it to be at the moment.


GW rules need balancing to create a proper tournament environment where it is more about the generals than about the army (see that I'm talking about army, not army composition).I think that to justify that statement in the current 8e environment you would need more experience then we have thus far.

I agree that amendments were appropriate for late 7th edition in the form of the tier system for tournaments. I'm not convinced that the balance situation is bad enough to call for such a solution now. I am, however, willing to allow the tournament data to show otherwise. Wood Elves and/or Tomb Kings may need help, for instance.


"We are GW, our rules are great and don't need balancing errata. just make house rules or roll it off if you want things differently."The Ring of Hotek got a balancing update. So did Tomb Kings Incantations (most of which became Augment spells). Since there *have* been such changes, I find that criticism to be weak.

EDIT:
I don't believe the throne of vines protects you from the miscast when you cast it, because it says that when you mistcast and this spell is active you can ignore it on 2+. But by the time you successfully cast it, you've already miscasted. It'll get all the ones after the initial cast though.Actually it's the other way around. First the spell is cast, then the miscast happens. This means that even if your wizard is killed by the miscast, that Pit of Shades or Soulblight is still resolved.

freddieyu
22-08-2010, 15:51
In this case in particular, there are many people who honestly believe that you don't get a Look Out, Sir! roll against Pit of Shades or Purple Sun because they haven't read the "resolving unusual attacks" sidebar on page 42, which states that unusual hits (like spells) are resolved like shooting attacks. I don't think that it's entirely reasonable to assume that every player has read through the rulebook cover-to-cover, particularly with many players waiting on Island of Blood instead of picking up the hardcover.

More generally, if someone were to say "I wish I could have a Look Out, Sir! roll against war machines" then it would be fair to respond with "well, you do". You don't *always* get a Look Out, Sir! roll against war machines (for instance, with a cavalry model in an infantry unit), but it's incorrect to say in general terms that characters *don't* get Look Out, Sir! rolls against war machine hits.

To say that you don't get a Look Out, Sir! roll against spells that instantly kill is incorrect (incomplete, misleading), because it's too broad a statement.

We all fit somewhere along that continuum. Since just about every player out there likes winning to some degree, are we not then all competitive players? <<<Rhetorical, see below.

In order to make the term "competitive" actually refer to a meaningful subset of players, I assumed that you would draw a sharp line in distinguishing the group, with players who make winning their *overriding* priority in army and unit selection. This is not to say that such a person demonstrates bad sportsmanship or engages in behavior like "modeling for advantage". Without a strong distinction, the definition of "competitive" becomes wishy-washy in such a way that it can bend to virtually anything the speaker wants it to be at the moment.

I think that to justify that statement in the current 8e environment you would need more experience then we have thus far.

I agree that amendments were appropriate for late 7th edition in the form of the tier system for tournaments. I'm not convinced that the balance situation is bad enough to call for such a solution now. I am, however, willing to allow the tournament data to show otherwise. Wood Elves and/or Tomb Kings may need help, for instance.

The Ring of Hotek got a balancing update. So did Tomb Kings Incantations (most of which became Augment spells). Since there *have* been such changes, I find that criticism to be weak.

Great response...I do hope that forced comp scores due to real imbalances will be a thing of the past....

rodmillard
22-08-2010, 16:02
I agree 100% with what you say. I hate it when everything hinges on single dice rolls. If at least Look Our, Sir and ward saves and regen saves were allowed, the spells would be much less idiotic.

Look out sir is useful, but it strikes me as ... odd ... that they changed Magic Resistance to a ward save versus magic and then put a spell in most lores that ignores ward saves. Now, in the old system MR wouldn't help against a spell cast with IF either, but as it stands it just doesn't make sense.

eg. Suppose I field a dwarf lord with MR 2; in the old system, this would have given me two extra dice to dispel any spells cast against him - including hexes - provided they weren't cast with IF. In the new system he has a 1/3 chance of avoiding magical damage even if it was cast with irresistible force, but not a hex that reduces his initiative to 1, or a spell that makes him roll under his newly reduced initiative or die...:wtf:

TheKingInYellow
22-08-2010, 16:22
MR didn't work in the last edition either though... Warpath coul hit a primary unit and then bounce to a second unit that had MR and completely ignore it.

In a game this complex with so many rules and interactions, sometimes things don't work out. Play with friends, play for fun, and these balance problems go away!

WarmbloodedLizard
22-08-2010, 17:38
In this case in particular, there are many people who honestly believe that you don't get a Look Out, Sir! roll against Pit of Shades or Purple Sun [...]

ok, accepted. ^^




We all fit somewhere along that continuum. Since just about every player out there likes winning to some degree, are we not then all competitive players? <<<Rhetorical, see below.

In order to make the term "competitive" actually refer to a meaningful subset of players, I assumed that you would draw a sharp line in distinguishing the group, with players who make winning their *overriding* priority in army and unit selection. This is not to say that such a person demonstrates bad sportsmanship or engages in behavior like "modeling for advantage". Without a strong distinction, the definition of "competitive" becomes wishy-washy in such a way that it can bend to virtually anything the speaker wants it to be at the moment.

I don't think there is anything wishy-washy about this.


WAAC-Player:
winning alone is important, it doesn't matter whether the other players army ever had any chance to win. (winning depends mostly on the "nature" of an army) [mind: WAAC players are not cheaters and can be great sports]
Tournament style he likes: anything that is mainly focussed on the game (rather than fluff or models). e.g. 'ard boyz
Football Analogy: a Professional A-League Team playing against U21 or U18 league players.

Competitive-Player:
winning is very important and he will optimize his lists as much as possible. but he wants to win in a balanced environment, where a player, given he has enough strategical (armylist building, consideration of meta-game, etc.) and tactical skill, can win with every army. (winning depends mostly on how you "nurture" your army)
Tournament style he likes: anything that is mainly focussed on the game and is also balanced (rather than fluff or models). e.g. random European indy tournament
Football Analogy: a Professional A-League Team playing against another.

I see that you could lump them together and also call them the competitive players and maybe call the competitive players above the "sports-players" (but nobody really does that).




I think that to justify that statement in the current 8e environment you would need more experience then we have thus far.

I agree that amendments were appropriate for late 7th edition in the form of the tier system for tournaments. I'm not convinced that the balance situation is bad enough to call for such a solution now. I am, however, willing to allow the tournament data to show otherwise. Wood Elves and/or Tomb Kings may need help, for instance.

some things, among them unsavable uberspells, powerscroll and more or less reversing the skirmisher rules to 7th ed, could be done right away. there really is no need to wait any longer. You're right about army-specific changes, though, there needs to be more data collected before balanced comp-systems can be put in place.




The Ring of Hotek got a balancing update. So did Tomb Kings Incantations (most of which became Augment spells). Since there *have* been such changes, I find that criticism to be weak.

that was no real balancing errata it was more of a "bring in line with new edition" errata. and even if you want to consider it as actual balancing errata: there are VERY FEW of such erratas. the rules have gaps and cause problems and imbalances almost throughout all the books. if they just made an errata (with input from competitive but resonable players, of course) every month or every third month, there would be a lot less problems.

Stinkfoot
22-08-2010, 17:53
EDIT: Actually [miscasts are] the other way around. First the spell is cast, then the miscast happens. This means that even if your wizard is killed by the miscast, that Pit of Shades or Soulblight is still resolved.

Indeed. This got me thinking though... Do you think the magic system would be more balanced if one resolved miscasts first? That would make protections like Throne much harder to put up, and discourage Wizard Bombs (assuming the spell doesn't go off at all if you're dead after the miscast). I think that might be a rather elegant solution to the magic phase, actually...

WarmbloodedLizard
22-08-2010, 18:05
Indeed. This got me thinking though... Do you think the magic system would be more balanced if one resolved miscasts first? That would make protections like Throne much harder to put up, and discourage Wizard Bombs (assuming the spell doesn't go off at all if you're dead after the miscast). I think that might be a rather elegant solution to the magic phase, actually...

nice idea, though I don't think it would change that much since the wizard is usually still alive after one miscast.

Stinkfoot
22-08-2010, 18:10
There are what, 1/12 odds that he dies of a miscast regardless of wounds (don't have my book in front of me, but he'd need to roll a 2-4 on the table then not roll a 5+ to avoid being sucked into the void)? Those are dangerous odds, plus if the wizard is wounded (and a hero wizard would only need to be wounded once) the miscast table has high odds of killing him. Also, he may roll "lose d3 levels" and forget the spell he's trying to cast. I dunno, I think it would make magic MORE balanced, even if it still wasn't balanced in an absolute sense.

EDIT: Actually I'm a *****, 1/6 * 2/3 = 1/9 chance of dying, assuming my memory of the miscast table is correct.

itcamefromthedeep
22-08-2010, 20:55
WAAC-Player:

...

Competitive-Player:
Thanks for clearing up terms.

So, it looks like the argument is that people who want a balanced environment would not be fans of the current magic system, because access to powerful spells helps some armies more than others.

I'm not convinced that the playing field is significantly off-kilter such that some army books are just hosed by others. If that's not a big problem, then magic isn't sending things critically off-kilter. If magic isn't a big inter-army balance issue then I say there's no need for drastic action.


that was no real balancing errata it was more of a "bring in line with new edition" errata. and even if you want to consider it as actual balancing errata: there are VERY FEW of such erratas. the rules have gaps and cause problems and imbalances almost throughout all the books. if they just made an errata (with input from competitive but resonable players, of course) every month or every third month, there would be a lot less problems.
I also hope that the errata documents come. We're less than 2 months in and we've had 2 errata documents so far. While we haven't had any in the last month or so, it's not unreasonable for them to slow the output from one a week.

There is no history of making errata that changes points values or simply removes items that would otherwise function, and there are compelling reasons for that. I wouldn't start expecting a change in policy now.

---

There are good reasons to do Skirmishers the way they are done in 8th. I would have preferred something be done to make them a bit more capable, perhaps let them disrupt enemies or something along those lines. I believe 8th is closer to how Skirmishers should be done, though.

jamano
22-08-2010, 21:55
While some armies not having access to them or being hurt more by them does make the problem much worse, the spells themselves are flawed by how game changing they are, it leaves more to chance than anything else. Two players might cast dwellers below, one kills nothing and his wizard dies and takes out half of the unit with him, the other kills most of the unit and all the characters in it and his miscast only kills a few guys in his unit. While both players have access to the same spell, its gross power level makes the game decided by how well they roll on it, not how well they roll overall on 100 different things through the course of a game.

It's just not fun for so much of the game to be decided that way, or very interesting. If there was a common magic item for 100 points that killed an entire unit, would that be balanced because everyone could use it?(excluding demons and dwarves) not only could some armies abuse it more than others, it just wouldn't be fun to play with.

WarmbloodedLizard
22-08-2010, 21:56
So, it looks like the argument is that people who want a balanced environment would not be fans of the current magic system, because access to powerful spells helps some armies more than others.

Concerning the topic of this thread, I was kind of arguing in the wrong direction. I mainly wanted to say that the spells should go through more than one layer of single-dice-rolls, to remove randomness and lower the unstoppability/impact of single spells, as this goes strongly against the control over an army a competitive player needs to reliably win and make his skill matter. (don't know why I lost course.)




There is no history of making errata that changes points values or simply removes items that would otherwise function, and there are compelling reasons for that. I wouldn't start expecting a change in policy now.

I know, and I find it a horrible policy.



There are good reasons to do Skirmishers the way they are done in 8th. I would have preferred something be done to make them a bit more capable, perhaps let them disrupt enemies or something along those lines. I believe 8th is closer to how Skirmishers should be done, though.

I actually don't see any reason for the change. 8th ed Skirmisher rules are extremely inelegant and make them also annoying to move. they aren't even real skirmishers but more like RnF units fighting in semi-loose formation.

what are the "good reasons" you mention?

EDIT:


[...] the spells themselves are flawed by how game changing they are, it leaves more to chance than anything else. Two players might cast dwellers below, one kills nothing and his wizard dies and takes out half of the unit with him, the other kills most of the unit and all the characters in it and his miscast only kills a few guys in his unit. While both players have access to the same spell, its gross power level makes the game decided by how well they roll on it, not how well they roll overall on 100 different things through the course of a game.

It's just not fun for so much of the game to be decided that way, or very interesting. [...]

exactly this is the problem. (I think I mentioned the army book balance only to show the difference between WAAC and Competitive)

Marshal Torrick
22-08-2010, 23:26
To topic question:

I'm not too big on the new magic system with my vamps. When the roll is high, awesome; when it's not, then that's one turn that my crap-poor troops get no support and I'll be fighting through the next few turns' worth of magic phases to play catch-up. The exception to this is, of course, if I'm simply wiped off the table on turn 4. That tends to save me the trouble.

itcamefromthedeep
22-08-2010, 23:30
I mainly wanted to say that the spells should go through more than one layer of single-dice-rolls, to remove randomness and lower the unstoppability/impact of single spells, as this goes strongly against the control over an army a competitive player needs to reliably win and make his skill matter.
Spells that override strong defenses on a unit lessen the value of strong defenses on a unit. I suspect that this is intended to prevent deathstar units or reliance on a single unit or model. It's a push toward redundancy in army lists. Purple Sun may turn out to be a problem here, as it does damage to more than one unit. I'm fine with the others.

Super-units were common in 7th edition. The strategy of points denial was sound, and quite lame. Now, with the advent of Dwellers Below and similar spells, such super-units are far more difficult to build. I think the reduction in deathstar units will help encourage many more good games in the future.

Do not let the loss (or crippling) of any one unit or model cost you the game. If losing a key model is curtains for your army, then I think you've invested too much in that model.

To directly address an issue, I think it unwise to give your Slann the Battle Standard these days. This will mean that the loss of your Temple Guard unit will probably cost you the game (particularly in Blood and Glory games). I would be tempted to go cheap with a Slann and leave the unit below 700 points. That way, a single casting of Dwellers Below doesn't ruin your day. You'll still have a Battle Standard somewhere and most of a unit of Temple Guard. Hard as it may be, you can come back from that loss.



I actually don't see any reason for the change.

...

what are the "good reasons" you mention?
Ranking up as they do now allows you to put the unit on a movement tray, which significantly speeds up their movement.

Giving skirmisher units a facing makes them "play by the rules". This way they line up with lone characters, chariots and monsters (which all also have a facing).

Making march-blocking unreliable helps to stop the lame situations of units stuck unable to join the game. It also helps to stop gunlines from stalling the enemy army on the way across.

jamano
22-08-2010, 23:35
Do not let the loss (or crippling) of any one unit or model cost you the game. If losing a key model is curtains for your army, then I think you've invested too much in that model.


It isn't about deathstars, its about bunkers. Characters are far too easy to kill now, as dwellers can kill them outright or purple sun/pit can make their unit so small it can be wiped out by shooting. So even if you just go with tons of cheap core, if your opponent kills your wizards, general, and bsb with his nuke spells, isn't he going to have a distinct advantage from that point on? having a +4 to cast and no bonus to dispel makes it pretty easy to cast all the debuffs and nukes in a turn, making it easy to kill even many cheap units.

itcamefromthedeep
23-08-2010, 00:06
if your opponent kills your wizards, general, and bsb with his nuke spells, isn't he going to have a distinct advantage from that point on?
Yes, he will, so don't put all of your important characters in one unit. Try not put even two important characters in one unit if it can be avoided. Spread the wealth.

If your opponent can kill 3 units and all the important characters therein, then I'm sorry but that's an achievement of such magnitude that your opponent deserves the advantage that they get.

jamano
23-08-2010, 00:18
Yes, he will, so don't put all of your important characters in one unit. Try not put even two important characters in one unit if it can be avoided. Spread the wealth.

If your opponent can kill 3 units and all the important characters therein, then I'm sorry but that's an achievement of such magnitude that your opponent deserves the advantage that they get.

I'm not suggesting putting them in one unit, but if he kills the wizard lord first, then he can kill the others in their seperate units at his leisure. and killing a wizard is easy with dwellers below or like i said, blowing up the unit first to make them easier to kill other ways.

WarmbloodedLizard
23-08-2010, 00:40
To directly address an issue, I think it unwise to give your Slann the Battle Standard these days. This will mean that the loss of your Temple Guard unit will probably cost you the game (particularly in Blood and Glory games). I would be tempted to go cheap with a Slann and leave the unit below 700 points. That way, a single casting of Dwellers Below doesn't ruin your day. You'll still have a Battle Standard somewhere and most of a unit of Temple Guard. Hard as it may be, you can come back from that loss.



every so often someone suggests this and it is just really not thought through. (I assume you are not a LM player)
putting the BS on a Scar-vet really hinders it's usefulness. if you put him on a CO, you want him in a unit of CO, which in turn won't be where the BSB is needed. If you field him on foot, he is much more vulnerable and extremely easy to kill.
putting it on a Slann in 20+ TG will make sure that your slann ist fairly well-protected against anything but dwellers/transmutation (against which you have Becalming cogitation, DD and possibly a scroll on a skink). (remember that 8th ed. TG are much less survivable than 7th ed TG. you need big units with an absolute minimum of 16TG. you don't want to give your opponents any points for this unit.) If you want any real chance at winning, you need your slann to survive at least till turn 3 or 4 (or till the enemy wizard is dead). When your slann+TG are killed on turn 1 or 2, you pretty much lost the game (depending on the enemy list of course). that's just how lizardmen play. Slann+TG have always been an All Eggs In An Iron Basket: either you make that basket as survivable as possible or you don't take it at all and run the Slann solo.

(as for skirmisher rules: I still find the new rules horrible. why not just make them RnF with extra special rules? would have been easier. the 1-2 inches of screening lost won't matter much.)

itcamefromthedeep
23-08-2010, 00:58
I'm not suggesting putting them in one unit, but if he kills the wizard lord first, then he can kill the others in their seperate units at his leisure. and killing a wizard is easy with dwellers below or like i said, blowing up the unit first to make them easier to kill other ways.
That sounds like strategic thinking with a reasonable chance of success given the cost (the wizard you're paying for and the many dice devoted to this gambit). Range of the spell is also a consideration (getting within 24" of your target isn't always easy). Is this really a simplistic strategy that makes the game less fun for competitive players? The same thing can be attempted casually with Fate of Bjuna or Caress of Laniph.

You could often get similar results by doing an assassination run to pick the bunkered wizard out and kill it.

This all looks to be above-board and kosher to me. In fact, all of this looks to include in-depth analysis of units and spells to make the game easier to win. I don't see how this new challenge of killer spells makes the game lame for new guys or for experienced players who are willing to adapt to the change in metagame by spreading their points among many units. I'm seeing a lot of thinking in this thread that counts as good strategy.

~PrometheuS~
23-08-2010, 01:07
Everyone knows tactics are dead in 8th ed :rolleyes:

jamano
23-08-2010, 01:09
That sounds like strategic thinking with a reasonable chance of success given the cost (the wizard you're paying for and the many dice devoted to this gambit). Range of the spell is also a consideration (getting within 24" of your target isn't always easy). Is this really a simplistic strategy that makes the game less fun for competitive players? The same thing can be attempted casually with Fate of Bjuna or Caress of Laniph.

You could often get similar results by doing an assassination run to pick the bunkered wizard out and kill it.

Well while I think even the snipe spells are a little much, at least MR works against them so if you have a 4+ward and MR 2 they wont be doing too much to you. And getting within 24 of anywhere on his unit to cast a spell is easier than getting in charge range.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
23-08-2010, 09:06
WAAC-Player:
...[mind: WAAC players are not cheaters and can be great sports]...

Competitive-Player:
...

I see that you could lump them together and also call them the competitive players and maybe call the competitive players above the "sports-players" (but nobody really does that).

Your definitions are wrong - or different from the norm ;) - which is why you have a hard time distinguishing the two.

WAACers are the annoying gits of the gaming world, they will Win-At-All-Costs. They will cheat, they will try to misinterpret any rule to get an advantage and likely change their disposition from game to game depending on whether they stand to gain an advantage. These are the guys, who will claim that your bowmen can't shoot, if you haven't modelled bowstrings on them (true story :p).

And nobody calls competitive players 'sports-players', as they're rarely very sporty - they usually go for the least sporting/challenging game with min/maxed lists.

WarmbloodedLizard
23-08-2010, 09:28
Your definitions are wrong - or different from the norm ;) - which is why you have a hard time distinguishing the two.

WAACers are the annoying gits of the gaming world, they will Win-At-All-Costs. They will cheat, they will try to misinterpret any rule to get an advantage and likely change their disposition from game to game depending on whether they stand to gain an advantage. These are the guys, who will claim that your bowmen can't shoot, if you haven't modelled bowstrings on them (true story :p).

And nobody calls competitive players 'sports-players', as they're rarely very sporty - they usually go for the least sporting/challenging game with min/maxed lists.

no. what you call WAAC are simply cheaters. a WAAC may argue about milimeters on the tabletop, make crazy charges and use any rule to his advantage but does not necessarily cheat. sure, there are cheating WAACs, but WAAC doesn't imply cheating.

and the thing with the bow strings was just extreme WYSIWIG. One player had his Steam Tank assembled so that the turret or the cannon or something was not they way should have been for it to be able to fire (edit: I think it was moving, not firing). The steam tank player accepted that and then proceeded to point out, that the Wood Elf players Glade Guard had no strings on their bow and could therefore not shoot either, which the WE player accepted as well. you could call it WAAC, but it certainly isn't cheating or being an idiot etc. as he accepted the fact that he also didn't have a 100% WYSIWIG proof army. If I remember that correctly, a few day later he was then seen with string on his bows.

you might not get or like competitive players but sportsmanship also has very little to do with being competitive. Often they are just as great sports as any other player. There are many fluff and other palyers that are just as annoying and unsportsman-like, complaining about how unfluffy your list is and how you have only painted half your army. just because some are annoying doesn't mean it comes with the label.

DaemonReign
25-08-2010, 00:04
Last night I played a 5k game (DoC vs DE) and I don't care about the "competativeness" of it all, but this non-scalable magic phase is really starting to scream for house-rules in my mind.. Every magic phase is just a question of whether someone gets lucky with throwing 6 dice at some über spell. Either you fail and the magic phase is over, or you succeed and the game is over.

Haven't played any battles so far in 8th that were smaller than 3k so I don't know how the new magic phase plays out on those lower levels of game-play.. But in the battle-sizes I prefer the new magic phase is really becoming a drag.

Gatsby
25-08-2010, 04:13
The Ring of Hotek got a balancing update. So did Tomb Kings Incantations (most of which became Augment spells). Since there *have* been such changes, I find that criticism to be weak.

The day GW properly re balances the army books with their FAQs I will eat my hat.

I mean seriously, they change 2 things out of 1001 grievous errors and your going to say they have rebalanced the game? hooray now there are only 999 grievous errors.

the new magic system ruins the game, turn one means everything and despite what people have said, turn one wins are commonplace in this edition as a direct result of the magic system. And to answer the question, no it is no fun for competitive players and no im not a WAAC player, I only build balanced lists but when i play i expect to have a fair chance to win, which doesnt exist in this edition.

They needed to think through what they were doing to armies, VC are HORRIBLY nerfed, almost beyond repair, and they just had a codex so they'll see an update next edition... maybe. Wood Elves and Bretts may get lucky, they may see an update in the next 2 years. GW DID NOT prepare for this release, it was haphazard at best and until they come out with proper Errata for the codex's, I'm taking peoples advice and giving up on it and shelving my fantasy armies. GW's general lack of appreciation for its customers is not appropriate given how much we've spent on their product. When the novelty of a new edition wears off, we'll see if it really was an improvement or just a new face.

DaemonReign
25-08-2010, 05:11
I mean seriously, they change 2 things out of 1001 grievous errors and your going to say they have rebalanced the game? hooray now there are only 999 grievous errors.

Agreed. 8th Edition might have "balanced" DoC, Empire and Dwarves in a positive sense - but to what cost? DE and Lizardmen (already good in 7th)have become broken unless you tone them down on purpose, VC are a joke now unless you spam Coaches and every other ugly trick in the book, armies like WE (that really deserved a boost) are still far behind..

The magic phase... No you're right it doesn't seem thought through. Bound Spells might as well be "Ignore This Item"-items, there used to be a very rewarding element of "poker" in the magic phase where one would meddle with one or two dice on spells trying to lure the opponent out of his scrolls/dispel-dice - now it's just finnished: Save your defence for when he rolls six dice and hope he doesn't get IF.

Scaling things up with bigger battles only solves half the problem with these new rules really - sure, you get more dice so that all your wizards can play, but in reality there's no reason not to just toss 6 dice twice instead of just once.

Speaking of new Army Books.. I realize it's probably true that most new books are years away, and still I just can't bring myself to really believe that... It seems practically every army, whether nerfed or boosted, really needs a new AB with this Edition. It's part of the fun with Warhammer that it is complex, but when it crosses over into incomprehensible the fun ends.

I'm not shelfing the hobby, fortunately I enjoy the painting and the social surroundings enough - but if I was a whacky tournament-player I might feel differently.

Anyways, all in all I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with you. There's alot of cool stuff in 8th Edition (Hordes, Steadfast, classifications of troop-types, faster flow and less decimal-inch tactics) - but in truth, the new magic phase almost weighs up for all that all on its own. And "competative" players might actually enjoy it more than us friendlies - because some players, deep down inside, couldn't care less about the "fair chance" that you mention.

Odominus
25-08-2010, 05:59
turn one means everything and despite what people have said, turn one wins are commonplace in this edition


Yea turn 1 is a killer.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270158

Commissar Vaughn
25-08-2010, 10:52
11 games in and so far NONE of them were decided on turn 1. Not that Commonplace. I cant even see how theyre possible. Ive looked at some of the lists that purport to accomplish this with ease, and well, they seem a bit rubbish really.

Idle Scholar
25-08-2010, 11:30
Just had a 3K that was effectively over by turn 1. Ogres vs Lizards, the Slann casts purple sun and 1/3 of the Ogre army dies. It could have been a lot more but the artillery dice only rolled 2. Even then we house ruled the spell to allow for MR saves to make the game playable. Neither armies were exactly optimised but the fact it happened made a bit of a mockery of turning up and deploying.

Commissar Vaughn
25-08-2010, 13:02
HUH? Thats impossible, surely! The Slann is what, 24" from the Ogres (less whatever movement has occured) and the purple sun template starts in b2b with the Slann...if it only goes 6" it cant even reach the Ogres, much less kill 1 in 3 of them! There no way you can cram 1000 points of ogres under a template 3" across that only moves 6".

I wish my purple sun was that nasty last night, I cast it with irresistable force, it killed 2 dragon ogres and then my Wizard Lord (Luccrezia Belladonna) left the battlefield in a spectacular ball of light. Giant waste of 380 points worth of wizard...

Idle Scholar
25-08-2010, 13:09
the purple sun template starts in b2b with the Slann

OK we did it wrong then. Was it erraterd to that or is it in the Purple Sun blurb or the power whirl blurb?

ewar
25-08-2010, 13:18
HUH? Thats impossible, surely! The Slann is what, 24" from the Ogres (less whatever movement has occured) and the purple sun template starts in b2b with the Slann...if it only goes 6" it cant even reach the Ogres, much less kill 1 in 3 of them! There no way you can cram 1000 points of ogres under a template 3" across that only moves 6".

I wish my purple sun was that nasty last night, I cast it with irresistable force, it killed 2 dragon ogres and then my Wizard Lord (Luccrezia Belladonna) left the battlefield in a spectacular ball of light. Giant waste of 380 points worth of wizard...

It's extremely easy if the Slann is ethereal and equipped with the flying carpet. Turn 1 fly forward, roll Purple Sun along their battleline. Don't worry about the counter charge as he is ethereal and has cold blooded Ld9 with re-roll.

It's a rubbish tactic, requiring zero skill, but there seem to be a lot of them these days.

Commissar Vaughn
25-08-2010, 13:18
Aint got the book on me but the word your looking for IIRC is Vortex in the magic phase rules.

Someone did that to me in my 2nd game of 8th (before Id read the rules!), killed a few empire knights leaving me with 2 knights and a battle standard: Turned out that 3 were plenty! They killed the offending Wizard lord, the Chaos Lord and the 30 Maurauders they were hiding in in one round of h2h.

Lesson: Alwyas read the rules, and never say die!

explorator
25-08-2010, 13:22
HUH? Thats impossible, surely!

I think much of the anger directed at the Magic system is due to the rules being misplayed. This happened at my local after 8e launch, and people were freaking out, but mostly because they were playing it wrong.

Gatsby
25-08-2010, 13:32
I think much of the anger directed at the Magic system is due to the rules being misplayed. This happened at my local after 8e launch, and people were freaking out, but mostly because they were playing it wrong.

No i thinks its because of people playing to the strengths that GW wrote into the rules. Normally id call someone using this tactic a WAAC player, similar to the Nob Bikers of 40k. But unlike the Nob bikers (which in my opinion was a combination of army book powercreep and oversight), this was not an oversight, its a GLARING strategy they built into the main rulebook. Cant wait to see whats built into the new army books.


I'm not shelfing the hobby, fortunately I enjoy the painting and the social surroundings enough - but if I was a whacky tournament-player I might feel differently.

i also play 40k so my attention is turning exclusively to it as far as GW goes.

PeG
25-08-2010, 13:33
I dont think that too many armies are capable of taking builds that have a high probability of wrecking the game in turn 1. VC can do it with a flying vamp, forbidden lore, powerscroll. On the other hand they cant protect their general so the game might not be over anyway.

But the problem is that a single magic phase (usually turn 2-3) can determine the entire game regardless of tactics used.

With the possible exception of purple sun the fact that magic doesnt scale for most armies means that the magic phase becomes less important in bigger games which I currently think is good. However there are a few exceptions to this in which armies can actually generate more PD which gives them a big advantage such as DE.

Spiney Norman
25-08-2010, 13:50
Funny, most people rant about Purple Sun, not Dwellers.

I think the crucial thing is that low str is universally more a problem than low Int. Most armies' core troops are str 3, and with 8th encouraging larger and larger units dwellers really can be game breaking. Sure purple sun suck if you are undead or a saurus, but aside from that its not going to devastate many armies, plus your characters get a look out sir roll against purple sun.

Dwellers is almost criminal given its fairly low casting cost (11 for a L4) and not permitting Look out sir means it kills most characters on a 5+ (4+ for wizards) with no saves.

Plus the rest of the lore of life is much better than the lore of death, if you take death you're only really doing to get purple sun, whereas life has a whole raft of great spells.

UberBeast
25-08-2010, 15:49
I think they should have really focused on making magic more subtle with more support spells and hexes and fewer direct damge (or direct model removal) spells. Sure wizards are weapons, but GW could have given the magic phase a whole new tactical value to replace the loss in other areas, but instead they made it into a "nuke" phase.

WarmbloodedLizard
25-08-2010, 15:55
I think they should have really focused on making magic more subtle with more support spells and hexes and fewer direct damge (or direct model removal) spells. Sure wizards are weapons, but GW could have given the magic phase a whole new tactical value to replace the loss in other areas, but instead they made it into a "nuke" phase.

I'm totally pro subtle magic phase but a lot of people don't like that kind of magic. they want a "fluffy" magic phase with extremely powerful magic and horrendous miscasts. :(

The_Lemon
25-08-2010, 15:58
Most of these problems with magic spells killing thousands of points in a single casting are because people still play with large units. Yes new rules favour them, but new magic hinders them, Try to find a balance between big units where all of your characters are and little units.

These spells do not affect more than one or two units in a single cast, make sure the units you loose are not teh only units that are worth something in your army.

Answering teh questiong of the OP: Yes magic is fun for competitive players (I am competitive and it is fun for me) as long as you prepare strategy and tactics for it.

WarmbloodedLizard
25-08-2010, 20:58
Most of these problems with magic spells killing thousands of points in a single casting are because people still play with large units. Yes new rules favour them, but new magic hinders them, Try to find a balance between big units where all of your characters are and little units.

These spells do not affect more than one or two units in a single cast, make sure the units you loose are not teh only units that are worth something in your army.

Answering teh questiong of the OP: Yes magic is fun for competitive players (I am competitive and it is fun for me) as long as you prepare strategy and tactics for it.

who cares how big a unit is if you can just kill the opponents lv4 caster on a 4+, 18 model unit on a 2+ or just anything, even monsters on at least a 6+. no saves of any kind allowed.

you cannot really prepare strategy or tactics against 8th ed magic. you can shuffle the odds a little, but in the end, a big, random part, that you have no control over, will often decide the outcome of the game or at least guide it strongly into one direction.

Justice And Rule
25-08-2010, 21:00
I'm totally pro subtle magic phase but a lot of people don't like that kind of magic. they want a "fluffy" magic phase with extremely powerful magic and horrendous miscasts. :(

I have to ask, what do you mean by "subtlety"? This isn't me being sarcastic, but it's thrown around a lot and I'm not sure what people are expecting from it. The problem with subtlety is that there is going to be a lot less obvious return for the investment, if there is return at all. I want to know what sort of spells you are envisioning.

If wizards were noticeably cheaper, then we'd have something. I'm not against it (I feel I would have organized, balanced, and themed the lores differently in certain cases, but that's just me), but I'm not sure that it would make people want to take wizards. Making them "subtler" might make them even less effective than they were previously, or not make them good enough for people to really look at taking them. I'd love to see a project from you guys in the Rules Development forum on redone magical lores; I'd certainly help out with it.

I don't see the problem with the magic system being destructive, though. It is in part meant to be a balance against larger units, as well as a way to get more tangible returns out of your magical investment.


turn one means everything and despite what people have said, turn one wins are commonplace in this edition

No, they aren't. My group has yet to have one. Stop going around as though this is an established fact, as I doubt many people would be enjoying this edition as they are if "one-turn wins" were a regular events.

sulla
25-08-2010, 21:14
Plus the rest of the lore of life is much better than the lore of death, if you take death you're only really doing to get purple sun, whereas life has a whole raft of great spells.

I take death for spirit leech. It's the best way my DE have of dealing with big fast monsters. It's our version of a cannon.

Ender Shadowkin
25-08-2010, 21:50
It's extremely easy if the Slann is ethereal and equipped with the flying carpet. Turn 1 fly forward, roll Purple Sun along their battleline. Don't worry about the counter charge as he is ethereal and has cold blooded Ld9 with re-roll.

It's a rubbish tactic, requiring zero skill, but there seem to be a lot of them these days.

That is just silly. Your odds of a double 6 are around 25%. You PROBABLY will have enought power dice to cast your spell but anything other irressistable and you will get scrolled in turn 1. Then even if it goes off you are stuck out there. Going to get flank charged and possible hit with somthing that has magical attacks. your not stubborn so you still have pretty poor odds making that break test even when cold blooded. A unit of peasansts is gonna make you test on 4 (3 ranks + flank + Stds + charge - BSB). There is way too much risk involved in that manouver for a serious player to do it.

I think most of this turn 1 magic devastation hype is purely that. I've played numerous games and have yet to see it pulled off. You cant take annecedotal evidance and extrapolate it to the entire phase is busted. The odds of loosing your big unit/death star to a couple trebuchets or hellcannons are much higher than getting nuked by a spell. Stone throwerers hit 30% of the time, dead on not including near misses. No casting odds, lhuge range, no dispelling, no random movement, no winds of magic, every turn. Getting smacked with a S5 template that has no partials is pretty ******* bad, especial if there are a couple floating around back there.

Commissar Vaughn
25-08-2010, 22:13
No, they aren't. My group has yet to have one. Stop going around as though this is an established fact, as I doubt many people would be enjoying this edition as they are if "one-turn wins" were a regular events.

Agreed, I aint seen one either, totally unconvinced that such things are possible without a complete misreading of the rules.

Actually, a 3000 point armies with no banners at all in that scenario that has a breakpoint...cant think of any other gambit that would actually work.

Odominus
25-08-2010, 23:47
That is just silly. Your odds of a double 6 are around 25%. You PROBABLY will have enought power dice to cast your spell but anything other irressistable and you will get scrolled in turn 1.


Meet the power scroll.


I think most of this turn 1 magic devastation hype is purely that.

Might want to see the power scroll in action first. Then you won't have to think. You will know.


Agreed, I aint seen one either, totally unconvinced that such things are possible without a complete misreading of the rules.

Wow. So because you havent personally seen it, others MUST be misreading the rules. I am not going to say that is powerful stupid. I will not.

ewar
25-08-2010, 23:55
That is just silly. Your odds of a double 6 are around 25%. You PROBABLY will have enought power dice to cast your spell but anything other irressistable and you will get scrolled in turn 1. Then even if it goes off you are stuck out there. Going to get flank charged and possible hit with somthing that has magical attacks. your not stubborn so you still have pretty poor odds making that break test even when cold blooded. A unit of peasansts is gonna make you test on 4 (3 ranks + flank + Stds + charge - BSB). There is way too much risk involved in that manouver for a serious player to do it.

I think most of this turn 1 magic devastation hype is purely that. I've played numerous games and have yet to see it pulled off. You cant take annecedotal evidance and extrapolate it to the entire phase is busted. The odds of loosing your big unit/death star to a couple trebuchets or hellcannons are much higher than getting nuked by a spell. Stone throwerers hit 30% of the time, dead on not including near misses. No casting odds, lhuge range, no dispelling, no random movement, no winds of magic, every turn. Getting smacked with a S5 template that has no partials is pretty ******* bad, especial if there are a couple floating around back there.

Sorry, meant to include the power scroll.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a good tactic for a slann (though I think you overestimate the number of magic weapons on the table or that the owning player would put the guy out of charge arc) - though it's very doable for vampires and I have personally had it done to me.

Suicide mages are extremely easy to setup, extremely easy to use with a power scroll, can get the exact spell you want (through using up a whole lore) and are unstoppable! Trust me, it is very unfun.

Against some armies they'll be useless. Against about 5 armies they're a game winner - not a bad return for 200pts.

enygma7
26-08-2010, 00:24
This is more a problem with power scroll giving you a virtually certain IF exactly when you want it than with the magic system itself. If people are abusing it then banning this item fixes the problem.

Likewise, turn one wins don't just happen, they require an army selected for the purpose. I would suggest if people are doing this for "friendly" games they need to re-evaluate what they hope to get from the game or find people no longer want to play them.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if these things weren't open to abuse, but they are things that are only a problem if people try to exploit holes in the system. Also, they tend to be one trick ponies that don't work reliably against all armies and in all scenarios. If you are playing as suggested and using random scenarios and picking lores when you write your list then you shouldn't be able to taylor an extreme army to suite your opponent. Your flying purple sun throwing wizard is likely to be a poor investment against an elf army.

ewar
26-08-2010, 00:37
This is more a problem with power scroll giving you a virtually certain IF exactly when you want it than with the magic system itself. If people are abusing it then banning this item fixes the problem.

Likewise, turn one wins don't just happen, they require an army selected for the purpose. I would suggest if people are doing this for "friendly" games they need to re-evaluate what they hope to get from the game or find people no longer want to play them.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if these things weren't open to abuse, but they are things that are only a problem if people try to exploit holes in the system. Also, they tend to be one trick ponies that don't work reliably against all armies and in all scenarios. If you are playing as suggested and using random scenarios and picking lores when you write your list then you shouldn't be able to taylor an extreme army to suite your opponent. Your flying purple sun throwing wizard is likely to be a poor investment against an elf army.

I agree with you - but in a competitive environment, it's very worthwhile. I personally don't find this fun or satisfying gameplay, but unfortunately it is available.

Ender Shadowkin
26-08-2010, 00:43
Sorry, meant to include the power scroll.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a good tactic for a slann (though I think you overestimate the number of magic weapons on the table or that the owning player would put the guy out of charge arc) - though it's very doable for vampires and I have personally had it done to me.
.

I suppose it all depends on your group. There are a lot of magical attacks out there (half of most WE lists, All of Daemons list, chaos knights, Phoenix guard, black knights, etc). Not to mention getting spells cast at you.

And if you know this guy is going to do this, well you need to cover your flanks during deployment.



Suicide mages are extremely easy to setup, extremely easy to use with a power scroll, can get the exact spell you want (through using up a whole lore) and are unstoppable! Trust me, it is very unfun.

Against some armies they'll be useless. Against about 5 armies they're a game winner - not a bad return for 200pts.

enginma7's points are pretty valid. People need to make sure that lores are picked out ahead of the game. A VC player dedicating one vampire to the lore of Death is impacting their raising ability. This can also be dealt with in Deployment, assuming you do open lists like most tournaments. If you see the flying suicide death mage with his IF scroll. Don't line up at the edge of your deploment zone, and don't line up in a nice little line for him. This should generally reduce his impact. Other than VC, most armies would need a lord to reliable pull this off by stacking the flying carpet with the power scroll. You really need to fly, and most players are pretty conservative with their lords.


I agree with you - but in a competitive environment, it's very worthwhile. I personally don't find this fun or satisfying gameplay, but unfortunately it is available.

I guess in one off battle with competitive players it may be worthwhile, but if you really want to win tournies, you need to win nearly all of your games to get your battle score high enough, tactics like this are win big or loose, big. Like noted Purple sun is not very good verse elves. Building a risky list with hopes of ending the game in turn are just not ballanced enough to get you through 5 different opponents. I'm sure you may run into a few players doing it, but not the top players. I'm not saying people won't be going big with magic. Just not relying on suicde mage tricks and what not. I might try out the HE vortex shard in my next tournie, That'll get me throght the first turn for sure ;)

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 01:12
Agreed, I aint seen one either, totally unconvinced that such things are possible without a complete misreading of the rules.

No, it's certainly possible. The scenarios for it, however, are fairly limited. Even with a Power Scroll, Purple Sun is largely dependent on your roll and your opponent's setup, and isn't assured to get maximum distance or anything like that.

There are certainly one-turn wins in this edition, just as you could figure some out in the last edition. Purporting them as "commonplace", however, is foolish.

Gatsby
26-08-2010, 05:38
No, they aren't. My group has yet to have one. Stop going around as though this is an established fact, as I doubt many people would be enjoying this edition as they are if "one-turn wins" were a regular events.

In the 14 games I've played, 8 were effectively decided turn one (5 wins 3 losses), 3 turn 2 (all 3 losses), 3 turn 3+ (2 wins 1 loss)


Agreed, I aint seen one either, totally unconvinced that such things are possible without a complete misreading of the rules.

I've never seen a million bucks in cash, but im pretty sure it exists. Nor have I seen New York City, but the State of New York is rather certain its there.


No, it's certainly possible. The scenarios for it, however, are fairly limited. Even with a Power Scroll, Purple Sun is largely dependent on your roll and your opponent's setup, and isn't assured to get maximum distance or anything like that.

There are certainly one-turn wins in this edition, just as you could figure some out in the last edition. Purporting them as "commonplace", however, is foolish.

again in 14 games half have been effectively decided turn one and close to a quarter by turn 2. So i will have to admit, those people who say they enjoy the new fast paced nature of 8th, they sure got it.

sulla
26-08-2010, 06:43
Other than VC, most armies would need a lord to reliable pull this off by stacking the flying carpet with the power scroll. You really need to fly, and most players are pretty conservative with their lords.


DE sorceresses can ride pegasus too. Of course, with daemons, you can have as many flying tzeench heralds who know all of the lore of death as you want, but they can't get powerscrolls. They're probably better off hanging back and blasting with multiple dwellers instead.

Kal Taron
26-08-2010, 07:01
I might try out the HE vortex shard in my next tournie, That'll get me throght the first turn for sure ;)

I wouldn't count on that one. Unless they fixed the FAQ that is. Or your tourney organizers fix it.
Because the FAQ can be misused in the way that your opponent gets to decide when you use your vortex shard because it's his turn. It's not exactly meant this way but you never know who you'll meet.

rocdocta
26-08-2010, 08:29
nah magic is a joke in 8th. it is as bad now as it was in 7th but in a different way. it encourages fools to try and play the game. requires ZERO finesse. there is no gamble for throwing masses of dice to get IF. before in 7th, double 1 meant it didnt go off. it should do the same now. roll any double 1 = fail.

i play ogres and the amount of Psuns is a joke. managed to roll a double for miscast on Psun...wiped out 8 of the 10 ogres...on a 3+ to kill yeah good game...w@nker...

dont get me wrong, ogres have become more effective in 8th. but magic is a joke.

eyescrossed
26-08-2010, 08:37
In the 14 games I've played, 8 were effectively decided turn one (5 wins 3 losses), 3 turn 2 (all 3 losses), 3 turn 3+ (2 wins 1 loss)



I've never seen a million bucks in cash, but im pretty sure it exists. Nor have I seen New York City, but the State of New York is rather certain its there.



again in 14 games half have been effectively decided turn one and close to a quarter by turn 2. So i will have to admit, those people who say they enjoy the new fast paced nature of 8th, they sure got it.

You don't like 8th edition, do you?

Commissar Vaughn
26-08-2010, 08:51
Wow. So because you havent personally seen it, others MUST be misreading the rules. I am not going to say that is powerful stupid. I will not.

Thanks for that :eyebrows: The only example Ive seen so far that actually happened WAS due to a misreading of the rules. Thing is, when somebody tried it on me(still due to misreading the rules), despite the damage inflicted I carried on playing and was victorious.

I cant help thinking then that a first turn win requires a certain situation:

1) It requires One player to have built his army with a flying doom mage, and to draw the right spells, get a good WoM roll, cast the spell succesfully etc...

2)It requires a lot of help from a player on the recieving end to achieve: He must take an army so concentrated it becomes vulnerable to such an attack: i.e: a an Army with only one proper regiment (a death star presumably) with a few supporting friends (who, without the main regiment, are insufficient to the task), in effect, a 7th ed style Army. Probably will have quite a small model count and be deployed in very close formation. The only army list Ive seen that has been claimed to be able to achieve a first turn win, and suffer from one, was EXACTLY this.

Given that, based on this thread , First turn wins keep happening to some players but not at all to the rest of us, it seems likely that point 2) is the greater part of the reason for first turn wins. Fortunatly its also the easiest to solve: In deployment a simple Chequerboard deployment will probably save your bacon. The main thing though is not to concentrate your power: spread it out a little, if you put all your eggs in one basket dont be surprised when they all get smashed.

I suspect the main reason I havnt been on the recieving end of a first turn defeat is becouse my armies arent vulnerable to one. Yes theres nothing to stop someone nuking one of my units in the first turn, but thats not a problem when there are (in a 2k army, say) 7 more that are capable of taking its place, and that that overpriced hocus-pocus merchant that inflicted the damage will not live to get a second try.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
26-08-2010, 09:32
again in 14 games half have been effectively decided turn one and close to a quarter by turn 2. So i will have to admit, those people who say they enjoy the new fast paced nature of 8th, they sure got it.

I'm guessing this has a lot to do with the new scenarios. I've had a single game decided by turn 2 (out of 5), this was from the Blood and G(l)ory scenario, and a single CC involving the death of a BSB and a unit standard decided that game. Of the rest 2 has been decided around turn 3-4 and the last two drawn out till the 6th - Of course none of the armies had been aimed at turn 1 wins :)

Commissar Vaughn
26-08-2010, 10:09
I'm guessing this has a lot to do with the new scenarios. I've had a single game decided by turn 2 (out of 5), this was from the Blood and G(l)ory scenario, and a single CC involving the death of a BSB and a unit standard decided that game. Of the rest 2 has been decided around turn 3-4 and the last two drawn out till the 6th - Of course none of the armies had been aimed at turn 1 wins :)

So that must have been a 3000, with just a General, bsb and 1 banner to provide fortitude. Im actually quite impressed you got both banners in one round: Id assume that was his biggest and best unit?

It still sounds like hes trying to use a 7th edition style army....you might as well play Tennis with a Rugby ball and Golf clubs

Lord of Divine Slaughter
26-08-2010, 10:32
Im actually quite impressed you got both banners in one round: Id assume that was his biggest and best unit?

What can I say, I'm really that good :p - it was 2500, and it did involve one extra unit that was about to get creamed, the game wasn't technically decided, but there was no point in going on, since the outcome was certain.


It still sounds like hes trying to use a 7th edition style army....you might as well play Tennis with a Rugby ball and Golf clubs

I fail to see the point in your presumed ragging on my opponents army, beyond boosting your own ego. But this was in fact my whole point with the example. 8th is young, you make decisions and learn from them, whether they're bad or good is really irrelevant to the process.

Commissar Vaughn
26-08-2010, 10:55
Ragging? Not intentionally so, just pointing out that the old style of a few powerful units with only a few banners between them doesnt really work. My own style (which Ive always done since 5th ed) of spreading power between more units and almost all of them having full command has been giving me a great advantage in many of my games so far.

Haravikk
26-08-2010, 12:13
Personally I would have rather magic had taken a different route than it did in 8th. I like the winds of magic rolling which means magic tapers off in larger games and tactics are key, but I don't like the Russian Roulette feel to the current system, as many spells are too powerful, meaning that while statistically they're difficult to cast without crazy builds or intentional miscasts, you have the problem that when they do go off they can ruin a game.

Really magic should be limited more to minor augment/hex spells, with damaging spells maybe the equivalent to an average level 2 wizard's cost in missile troops (i.e - enough to be decent given the chance of failing to cast). With magic easier to cast but a lot less powerful we could have games where magic is useful and pervasive, but not game changing on its own.

To get such a thing right though GW would need to include a comprehensive list of lores and magic items to balance every army in a single swoop until army books could catch up. Not likely to happen any time soon, maybe for 9th edition.

Don't get me wrong, magic is fun for the most part, but if I were playing competitively I'd be incredibly annoyed when a lucky roll or two destroys half my battle-line, because it annoys the hell out of me when it happens in friendly games! I shudder to think how I'd feel if I were knocked out of a tournament by the current randomly powerful magic.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
26-08-2010, 12:32
Ragging? Not intentionally so, just pointing out that the old style of a few powerful units with only a few banners between them doesnt really work. My own style (which Ive always done since 5th ed) of spreading power between more units and almost all of them having full command has been giving me a great advantage in many of my games so far.

No hard feelings there :)

8th has been great, since the basic design philosophy has been all about checks and balances. You gain bonuses for big units, but you then become vulnerable to the nasty spells and artillery, while on the other hand if you rely on artillery and magic, you'll be overrun by the improved movement etc. And this encourages a more balanced approach.

My gaming group has focused on these balanced list for quite a while - if only for the sake that it provides a better game than the rock-paper-scissors thing, and out of a game over several hours winning is only 5 minutes of it.

I personally go for a good mix with big blocks/small blocks, lots of distracting elements and very low on characters.

jamano
26-08-2010, 14:17
No, it's certainly possible. The scenarios for it, however, are fairly limited. Even with a Power Scroll, Purple Sun is largely dependent on your roll and your opponent's setup, and isn't assured to get maximum distance or anything like that.

There are certainly one-turn wins in this edition, just as you could figure some out in the last edition. Purporting them as "commonplace", however, is foolish.

I think whats more commonplace than a first turn win is the game being decided on turn 1, if dwellers nukes your lvl 4 and whatever unit he's in first turn, the rest of the game your opponents magic phase will be walking all over you.

Shimmergloom
26-08-2010, 15:17
So everyone complained about how in 7th, cav could counter infantry so easily, so needed all those nerfs and how steadfast being negated even by 10 cav would destroy the balance.

And yet those same people are A-ok with magic being able to wipe entire infantry units off the board before turn 1 is over, or even at any time during the game?

So while, I agree that cav getting nerfed was a good thing(I just think they went too far), I don't see how 1 model mage armies are somehow a better balance vs infantry, than 5-10 model cav unit armies were.

WarmbloodedLizard
26-08-2010, 16:27
I think whats more commonplace than a first turn win is the game being decided on turn 1, if dwellers nukes your lvl 4 and whatever unit he's in first turn, the rest of the game your opponents magic phase will be walking all over you.

that's pretty much what people usually mean when they say "1st turn win". but people just refuse to understand that because they wanna be right and therefore have to argue semantics. ^^

Damocles8
26-08-2010, 16:30
So everyone complained about how in 7th, cav could counter infantry so easily, so needed all those nerfs and how steadfast being negated even by 10 cav would destroy the balance.

And yet those same people are A-ok with magic being able to wipe entire infantry units off the board before turn 1 is over, or even at any time during the game?

So while, I agree that cav getting nerfed was a good thing(I just think they went too far), I don't see how 1 model mage armies are somehow a better balance vs infantry, than 5-10 model cav unit armies were.

Quite often I end up killing a lot of my own escorting units when my mage goes IF......but if you only invest in one unit of infantry (even a big one) you can find yourself lacking.

Gatsby
26-08-2010, 17:07
You don't like 8th edition, do you?

no prob with 8th itself.... just a few of the changes for the "better."

Ender Shadowkin
26-08-2010, 17:46
In the 14 games I've played, 8 were effectively decided turn one (5 wins 3 losses), 3 turn 2 (all 3 losses), 3 turn 3+ (2 wins 1 loss)



I've played 8 games and witnessed about 8 more and have yet to see a game decisivly won in the first turn. Turns 3 or 4 lots, turn 1, zero. Maybe somebody should put a poll up so others can weigh in. I would say going first is a big deal in 8th, but I have not seen that guarntee wins either, maybe 60/40 there.



I wouldn't count on that one. Unless they fixed the FAQ that is. Or your tourney organizers fix it.
Because the FAQ can be misused in the way that your opponent gets to decide when you use your vortex shard because it's his turn. It's not exactly meant this way but you never know who you'll meet.

The FAQ says the person who's turn it is gets to pick the order of things "that happen first" in the magic phase. All those things all still happen before anything else does, so the Vortex is Always stopping new spells from being cast. Its not a big deal really.

UberBeast
26-08-2010, 18:46
I've played 8 games and witnessed about 8 more and have yet to see a game decisivly won in the first turn. Turns 3 or 4 lots, turn 1, zero.

In 16 games, were any of the armies designed to break their opponents list on the first turn and then actually got the first turn?

I've had it happen to both my O&Gs and my DEs against a chaos Hellcannon LD modifier list.

Ender Shadowkin
26-08-2010, 20:16
In 16 games, were any of the armies designed to break their opponents list on the first turn and then actually got the first turn?

I've had it happen to both my O&Gs and my DEs against a chaos Hellcannon LD modifier list.

I have not seen the suicide Death Mages. Most of my group thinks those all or nothing risky strategies are just not worth invsesting in a nights enterainment. And I noted earlier your not going to reliably win enough games in a tournament that way to be be competitive for a top prize. I have seen Power Scrolls, tooled up Slann, and other magic heavy lists. In most of the games, magic has really fiziled, The winds of magic can be pretty brutal. Plus if your looking at a guy who is going to be throwing vortex's at you (or has a lote of template weapons), you spreadout in deployment to minimize your losses. I've seen players get worked over pretty good in the first turn (mainly due to shooting IMHO, like those nasty hellcannons you mentioned ;) ...) . But rarely is it a death blow that eliminated thier chance of coming back. For better or worse, there really is a lot of randomness in 8th that can pull you back in. But warhammer has been like that for a while now. I can't count the number of times I have seen players pout about getting totally worked over, only to have luck swing their way later in a game.

That being said, I don't think the power scroll adds much enjoyment to the game. I can see that getting comped out of indie tournaments.

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 21:38
that's pretty much what people usually mean when they say "1st turn win". but people just refuse to understand that because they wanna be right and therefore have to argue semantics. ^^

No, I know exactly what you mean. I've yet to have my army or my opponent's army completely crippled in the first turn. I've had units crippled in the first turn by magic, but nothing ever big enough to call it a "first turn win". Our games have been close up to at least the 3rd turn, and more often longer than that. I've never had a game settled because of early magic use.


I think whats more commonplace than a first turn win is the game being decided on turn 1, if dwellers nukes your lvl 4 and whatever unit he's in first turn, the rest of the game your opponents magic phase will be walking all over you.

Huh? This isn't 7th, where not having a wizard completely cripples you in the magic phase. If you have no wizard, you simply get no channeling and no bonus to dispels. You still get dice at the very least.

Gatsby
26-08-2010, 22:18
No, I know exactly what you mean. I've yet to have my army or my opponent's army completely crippled in the first turn. I've had units crippled in the first turn by magic, but nothing ever big enough to call it a "first turn win". Our games have been close up to at least the 3rd turn, and more often longer than that. I've never had a game settled because of early magic use.

I'd love to see you play in my circle. We don't cheese our lists, nor do we handicap them. That means always have the right tool. 8th Edition gave us a universal multi-tool of death when it gave us the power scroll. Just having it in your list is almost a necessity whether you use it or not is right out of a M.A.D. lecture. But its not even like it's a loophole or an oversight that was accidentally included, its a BLATANT design in 8th edition.


Huh? This isn't 7th, where not having a wizard completely cripples you in the magic phase. If you have no wizard, you simply get no channeling and no bonus to dispels. You still get dice at the very least.

Yes that is a fault with 7th, but this magic system is absolutely devastating, far more so than last edition. 8th just replaced dispel scroll caddies with a new and improved power scroll caddie.

WarmbloodedLizard
26-08-2010, 22:36
Huh? This isn't 7th, where not having a wizard completely cripples you in the magic phase. If you have no wizard, you simply get no channeling and no bonus to dispels. You still get dice at the very least.

there's a pretty big difference between +0 and +4 to dispel. that's about 1 die you don't get per dispel. you can pretty much forget about dispelling any spell that is cast with 6 dice, and that's best case scenario. he just might cast half the lore while you can only dispel 1 or maybe 2 spells. so he'll get pretty much the same amount of spells through as he would have in 7th. only in 8th, spells are a lot stronger. and in 7th, you could at least spread out your defense on 2 cheap scroll caddies (which gave you a pretty great defense).

itcamefromthedeep
26-08-2010, 23:09
So everyone complained about how in 7th, cav could counter infantry so easily, so needed all those nerfs and how steadfast being negated even by 10 cav would destroy the balance.

And yet those same people are A-ok with magic being able to wipe entire infantry units off the board before turn 1 is over, or even at any time during the game?A 205 point unit (Giant) can wipe an entire unit off the table in a turn. Any given turn. That's fine. It can even yell an bawl and run down a super-unit. I don't really mind a 200-point wizard having similar power to a 200-point monster.


there's a pretty big difference between +0 and +4 to dispel. that's about 1 die you don't get per dispel. you can pretty much forget about dispelling any spell that is cast with 6 dice, and that's best case scenario. he just might cast half the lore while you can only dispel 1 or maybe 2 spells. so he'll get pretty much the same amount of spells through as he would have in 7th. only in 8th, spells are a lot stronger. and in 7th, you could at least spread out your defense on 2 cheap scroll caddies (which gave you a pretty great defense).
Bring a lvl 2 along with your lvl 4. Lizardmen often bring a Skink Priest along with their Slann (on an Engine, for instance). In that case, the Skink often brings the dispel scroll (perhaps saving you from a 6-die spell). Vampires almost always have a second and third wizard of some kind (and their wizards tend to be resistant to Dwellers, the spell mentioned). Dwarfs don't need any given model to keep their bonus to dispel.

Armies that bring several wizards are not uncommon. So, losing any given wizard should not be absolutely crippling.

---

The Power Scroll seems to be an ill-advised choice. I'd be happier if, like the Book of Hoeth or Teclis, you still needed to meet the casting value in order to cast the spell.

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 23:29
I'd love to see you play in my circle. We don't cheese our lists, nor do we handicap them. That means always have the right tool. 8th Edition gave us a universal multi-tool of death when it gave us the power scroll. Just having it in your list is almost a necessity whether you use it or not is right out of a M.A.D. lecture. But its not even like it's a loophole or an oversight that was accidentally included, its a BLATANT design in 8th edition.

Wait, what? Were you on the design team? Did Mat Ward come up to you and secretly whisper in your ear "We want everyone to use the Power Scroll. That's why we made so broken..."?

It's not a blatant design in 8th Edition. There's nothing I've seen to indicate as such. If you want to try and justify using it, that's fine. But don't act like 8th edition magic is completely centered around the Power Scroll; considering it's price, it obviously wasn't meant to be as powerful as it is. It would seem to indicate that there was an oversight, at least in one way.

And I'm glad that I don't play in your group; when you have to M.A.D. an item because it's obviously broken in some way because your group can't self-regulate, it doesn't sit well. You can justify it anyway you want, but it's still cheese, and the real cause of most of the power builds in 8th.


Yes that is a fault with 7th, but this magic system is absolutely devastating, far more so than last edition. 8th just replaced dispel scroll caddies with a new and improved power scroll caddie.

Again, your argument is not based around a fault in the system, but a fault in the wargear. The problem with the 7th edition is that the magic system necessitated having scroll caddies because your wizard was the only way to generate dispel dice. You can take the power scroll out of 8th without any ill-effects; you can't take scroll caddies out of 7th and not expect people to get dominated if their wizard gets offed.

They aren't the same. You try to make them the same, but they aren't because of the way the magic phase is designed.


there's a pretty big difference between +0 and +4 to dispel. that's about 1 die you don't get per dispel. you can pretty much forget about dispelling any spell that is cast with 6 dice, and that's best case scenario. he just might cast half the lore while you can only dispel 1 or maybe 2 spells. so he'll get pretty much the same amount of spells through as he would have in 7th. only in 8th, spells are a lot stronger. and in 7th, you could at least spread out your defense on 2 cheap scroll caddies (which gave you a pretty great defense).

There's a difference, but when your wizard gets taken out you should be hindered. The difference between the two is that, unlike 7th, you still have a defense no matter what. You don't have to specifically create characters to just carry dispel scrolls so that you aren't boned if your wizard dies at some point.

Damocles8
26-08-2010, 23:34
I've yet to field or play against the Power Scroll, but it can't be terrible, only one use only. and if my opponent uses it for Purple Sun or some such, I'd love to see them take a nasty hit on the miscast table.....

itcamefromthedeep
26-08-2010, 23:43
Wait, what? Were you on the design team? Did Mat Ward come up to you and secretly whisper in your ear "We want everyone to use the Power Scroll. That's why we made so broken..."?
The item was designed to make a powerful spell irresistible. It is not unreasonable for the author to predict how good that trade-off is when you know the miscast is coming (and can account for it).


I've yet to field or play against the Power Scroll, but it can't be terrible, only one use only. and if my opponent uses it for Purple Sun or some such, I'd love to see them take a nasty hit on the miscast table.....
If there are no friends around the wizard, the miscast will likely not hurt much.

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 23:57
The item was designed to make a powerful spell irresistible. It is not unreasonable for the author to predict how good that trade-off is when you know the miscast is coming (and can account for it).

That doesn't mean that it was meant to be the only way to play the magic system, as is explicitly stated by Gatsby. I don't think that the designers meant for everyone to carry the Power Scroll, nor that they would be willing to sacrifice a wizard to a miscast as readily as they did .

Gatsby
27-08-2010, 00:04
Wait, what? Were you on the design team? Did Mat Ward come up to you and secretly whisper in your ear "We want everyone to use the Power Scroll. That's why we made so broken..."?

might as well have when they wrote it into the game system.


It's not a blatant design in 8th Edition. There's nothing I've seen to indicate as such. If you want to try and justify using it, that's fine. But don't act like 8th edition magic is completely centered around the Power Scroll; considering it's price, it obviously wasn't meant to be as powerful as it is. It would seem to indicate that there was an oversight, at least in one way.

its design and point cost IS indicative of it being designed to use in just about every list. Its to good NOT to take. And if GW disagrees with that, they can FAQ it to be more expensive, or change its effect slightly. Plus if you read the article GW put out recently about using the rules without altering them, and they HAVE TO KNOW about this issue by this point, they are clearly condoning its use.


And I'm glad that I don't play in your group; when you have to M.A.D. an item because it's obviously broken in some way because your group can't self-regulate, it doesn't sit well. You can justify it anyway you want, but it's still cheese, and the real cause of most of the power builds in 8th.

our definition of cheese is clearly different. And as this thread is regarding Competitive play, this is my domain, my lists take the best of what we have in a balanced fashion. I don't min/max. But when i can take something for so cheap and obliterate an opponent so easily with NO skill whatsoever, i have to take it to remain competitive, even if it pains me to do so.


Again, your argument is not based around a fault in the system, but a fault in the wargear. The problem with the 7th edition is that the magic system necessitated having scroll caddies because your wizard was the only way to generate dispel dice. You can take the power scroll out of 8th without any ill-effects; you can't take scroll caddies out of 7th and not expect people to get dominated if their wizard gets offed.

they made that wargear as part of the system. so how is it not a fault in the system? the other Faults are there is not enough risk to rolling tons of dice for a spell, oh and my lvl 2 wizard can use AS MANY dice as he wants, the only advantage to my lvl 4 is that i get a very slight advantage to cast thats it. so why not spam lore of death lvl1-2 wizards you can gain more power dice as you go and cast so many spells its not funny, have fun trying to dispel all those.


They aren't the same. You try to make them the same, but they aren't because of the way the magic phase is designed.

The magic in 7th was not as devastating as it is in this edition and you can get those spells off SO much easier (even WITHOUT the power scroll) that building a competitive list without it is INTENTIONALLY handicapping your list.


Yes you can as a group tone down your lists, but then why not just say everyone can only use the following builds to be fair to each other, and to keep things fair if you roll above averages you must instead take the averages, and if you roll lower than average then you must take the averages instead. i play to have fun, my oponents play to have fun, but we also play to win and we understand that. To intentionally handicap my list is just beyond me.


I've yet to field or play against the Power Scroll, but it can't be terrible, only one use only. and if my opponent uses it for Purple Sun or some such, I'd love to see them take a nasty hit on the miscast table.....

thats why they fly the wizard up close and personal so YOU take the hit with that as well.


That doesn't mean that it was meant to be the only way to play the magic system, as is explicitly stated by Gatsby. I don't think that the designers meant for everyone to carry the Power Scroll, nor that they would be willing to sacrifice a wizard to a miscast as readily as they did .

everything in trade off, 200 point wizard for 300-400 points of hard hitters (aimed right try 500-600) is hardly a sacrifice to be ignored. I ASSURE you they knew wht they were doing when they wrote that equipment into the system.

Damocles8
27-08-2010, 00:09
an awful lot of risk of a generally high level wizard to count on using the power scroll, I might take one this weekend just to see how it works and what my opponents think.

Justice And Rule
27-08-2010, 00:38
might as well have when they wrote it into the game system.

That's not an argument, nor proof. Or are we going to take all the powergaming aspects of 7th as BLATANTLY DESIGNED by the developer team, too?


its design and point cost IS indicative of it being designed to use in just about every list. Its to good NOT to take. And if GW disagrees with that, they can FAQ it to be more expensive, or change its effect slightly.

This is true, and perhaps they will in the future. Or perhaps they feel people will self-regulate. They obviously know that tournaments comp armies without making changes.


Plus if you read the article GW put out recently about using the rules without altering them, and they HAVE TO KNOW about this issue by this point, they are clearly condoning its use.

Uh, the article said to try the rules "as-is" the first few times before creating comps. Unless you are referring to a different, unpublished article.


our definition of cheese is clearly different. And as this thread is regarding Competitive play, this is my domain, my lists take the best of what we have in a balanced fashion. I don't min/max. But when i can take something for so cheap and obliterate an opponent so easily with NO skill whatsoever, i have to take it to remain competitive, even if it pains me to do so.

Well, I suppose, this being your domain, I'll have to get help:


Finally, I'd recommend playing with the rules and army lists 'as written', and only start to use army composition restrictions (i.e. additional limits on what units may be used in the tournament) once you have run a few tournaments using the new rules.

Since you've played a few times, you see no need to restrict this for competitive tournament play? You don't think that something you yourself said you had to take because someone is going to use it as an unbalancing and unnecessary item?

If it "pains" you to do so, why don't you have your group comp it out? From everything you said, it won't change anything about how you design or play your armies except worrying about an underpriced magical boogyman piece of wargear that you take out of fear of the other guy having it.


they made that wargear as part of the system. so how is it not a fault in the system?

*Slaps forehead*

Because the system functions completely independent of whether or not the piece of wargear is actually taken. I don't see how this is hard to understand: the magic system does not rely on the Power Scroll to work. If you were to take it out tomorrow, you would have absolutely no problems.

The problem with 7th Edition magic is that it requires scroll caddies; if you take them away, armies can completely go without a magic defense.


the other Faults are there is not enough risk to rolling tons of dice for a spell,

6? Yeah, you can roll 6 dice. It's better than the abominable 14 PD builds you could get previous to this. Considering spells have higher casting levels, this isn't a problem as much as a necessity.


oh and my lvl 2 wizard can use AS MANY dice as he wants, the only advantage to my lvl 4 is that i get a very slight advantage to cast thats it.

If he got to roll less, there wouldn't be much of a point to taking him. Unless you want to go back to where 2nd Level wizards are absolutely useless outside of carrying things, I don't see how this is a good criticism.

And as Warm-blooded said, it's not as minor as you think. There is still a decent difference between +2 and +4. Not only that, but the versatility in having more spells should be enough to give the Wizard Lord more value.


so why not spam lore of death lvl1-2 wizards you can gain more power dice as you go and cast so many spells its not funny, have fun trying to dispel all those.

...? You could try this, but you have a limit on what you get. On average, you are getting around 8 PD a turn; having too many is going to restrict how much actual usage you get.

(As a random aside: It just struck me how the new PD system somewhat resembles the Conservation of Ninjutsu to an extent. If you have too many wizards there isn't enough magic to draw out, making them not as useful. But a single wizard, while vulnerable, can really cast a bunch of things if allowed to. Not a perfect comparison, but it made me chuckle a little bit.)


The magic in 7th was not as devastating as it is in this edition and you can get those spells off SO much easier (even WITHOUT the power scroll) that building a competitive list without it is INTENTIONALLY handicapping your list.

Yes, it's easier. That's mostly because unless you put a lot into magic, magic was useless; you never got nearly as much out of it in comparison to other units. Of course, there were certain armies which could dominate due to just having so many power dice generated. The new system, due to dispel dice always being generated, means that you don't need scroll caddies like you used to.


Yes you can as a group tone down your lists, but then why not just say everyone can only use the following builds to be fair to each other, and to keep things fair if you roll above averages you must instead take the averages, and if you roll lower than average then you must take the averages instead.

Because it's one item of wargear? Because it's something that, in your group, you guys feel you all have to take it or you'll be at a disadvantage? Because if you all take if off, none of your armies necessarily change (as you said, they are all balanced previous to having the Power Scroll. It's just a nice, 35 point superweapon completely separate of the build)? Because you've already told us how unbalanced it is, and shown us by saying that you have to take it to not give your opponent a step up?



i play to have fun, my oponents play to have fun, but we also play to win and we understand that. To intentionally handicap my list is just beyond me.

It's not a handicap if no one can use it. As you said, everyone is basically taking it as an add-on to their already-balanced armies. If you take it away, I don't see what really changes. If it were inherent to, say, Empire or Wood Elves, or whatever, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's something that you buy on top of your lists to make sure you're not caught at a disadvantage when your opponent has it.

If you are not min-maxing, taking away the power scroll shouldn't mean anything.


everything in trade off, 200 point wizard for 300-400 points of hard hitters (aimed right try 500-600) is hardly a sacrifice to be ignored. I ASSURE you they knew wht they were doing when they wrote that equipment into the system.

I doubt they intended everyone to feel they had to take one, lest they get blown up in one turn. Or perhaps, like we've seen before, they didn't fully see it being put into a power-gaming combination as it is right now. Just because they made it up does not mean they are suddenly Epimethius and can see what is going to come of it.

Idle Scholar
27-08-2010, 01:28
A 205 point unit (Giant) can wipe an entire unit off the table in a turn. Any given turn. That's fine. It can even yell an bawl and run down a super-unit. I don't really mind a 200-point wizard having similar power to a 200-point monster.

But the giant can be re-directed, tarpitted, avoided or shot (as can most combat units), whereas the Wizard can only be shot or out-magicked. That's always been my main beef with magic, the magic phase affects all the other phases but the other phases can't really affect the magic phase.

(Ok so I'm aware you can be out of range of spells or kill the spellcaster or even protect your units by moving them into close combat but it's a lot easier to manoeuvre and protect a single model with a 2+ los roll than it is to kill them)

jamano
27-08-2010, 01:41
It's not like the magic system is balanced except for the evil power scroll, the power scroll just makes the brokenness of it more consistent. And I think you're overstating the effects of the winds of magic roll, alot of armies have ways to add power dice, and if their opponent isn't an army that can add dispel dice, there will be a much bigger gap in casting then there was in 7th.

Justice And Rule
27-08-2010, 04:15
It's not like the magic system is balanced except for the evil power scroll, the power scroll just makes the brokenness of it more consistent. And I think you're overstating the effects of the winds of magic roll, alot of armies have ways to add power dice, and if their opponent isn't an army that can add dispel dice, there will be a much bigger gap in casting then there was in 7th.

I don't see Magic as broken. There are powerful spells, but outside of the power scroll they are reasonably difficult to get off, and can still be stopped with a dispel scroll if it comes down to it.

Bigger gap? There will be a gap, but certainly not bigger. Especially the absolute monsters you could create with certain armies. At the very least, you're not always getting 10-14 PD.

Odominus
27-08-2010, 05:51
Well Ard Boyz is this Saturday. We shall see what the 3k hard as nails magic phase looks like first hand:D


http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1350680a_WHArdBoyz2010

eyescrossed
27-08-2010, 07:58
Its to good NOT to take

Hmm. Yep. Nobody in our group takes it, and go over to the army list section and take a look around.

Commissar Vaughn
27-08-2010, 08:35
I dismissed the powerscroll out of hand when I saw it...why the hell would I blow up my own wizard? Theyre good enough at that as it is without any extra help.

WarmbloodedLizard
27-08-2010, 10:34
*Slaps forehead*

Because the system functions completely independent of whether or not the piece of wargear is actually taken. I don't see how this is hard to understand: the magic system does not rely on the Power Scroll to work. If you were to take it out tomorrow, you would have absolutely no problems.


everything that changes the magic phase is part of the magic system. wargear may be an optional part of the system but it's still part of the system.

sure, the "winds of magic and casting"-system (basic mechanic/sub-system/whatever you wanna call it) does not factor in the wargear. but that's pretty irrelevant, because you always have to factor in all aspects. you can't just perfect (and the basic system of 8th ed magic is FAR from perfect) one part of a system and think that's enough.

eyescrossed
27-08-2010, 10:42
Removing the Power Scroll would balance it out a lot, though...

CaptScott
27-08-2010, 10:53
Yep. I'm all in for forming a 'ban the power scroll committee' (bps for short :) ). I like the system as it is but the ability to virtually guarantee you get off that game changing uber-spell is too powerful.

eyescrossed
27-08-2010, 10:55
No need for our group to since we have a very strict code.

If anyone's a dick in a game (regarding cheesy combos) then the next person they play will do something similar :evilgrin:

Contrary to what you may think, this discourages being a cheesy git.

itcamefromthedeep
27-08-2010, 12:34
everything that changes the magic phase is part of the magic system. wargear may be an optional part of the system but it's still part of the system.So, wizard assassination is part of the "magic system"? A Black Coach is part of the "magic system"? Is movement also a part? Your definition is so broad that claiming the Power Scroll to be ingrained in the system or integral to the system is meaningless, and should carry no rhetorical weight.

If your local gaming group features only Dwarf, Daemon and Tomb Kings players then the Power Scroll will never see the light of day, and it will have no impact on the metagame. The system works just fine even when the Power Scroll isn't even an option.

The "magic system" is the mechanics outlined on pages 28 to 37, and all the mechanics referenced there (roll to hit, armor saves and such). Wizards, units and magic items are artifacts layered onto the system (they're the content). Going by that definition, saying that something or other is "part of the system" actually means something.


That's always been my main beef with magic, the magic phase affects all the other phases but the other phases can't really affect the magic phase.
You make a fine case against this notion all on your own.

Vsurma
27-08-2010, 12:50
I think whats more commonplace than a first turn win is the game being decided on turn 1, if dwellers nukes your lvl 4 and whatever unit he's in first turn, the rest of the game your opponents magic phase will be walking all over you.

I am not convinced, you should/can still have a level 2 caster with dispel scroll so i don't think its an autolose.

Sure you might have a harder time but you have a backup for about 125pts max regardless of which army you play.

Alternatively you can try to deploy your lv4 outside of the enemy casters 24" range, at least for turn 1.

WarmbloodedLizard
27-08-2010, 13:33
So, wizard assassination is part of the "magic system"? A Black Coach is part of the "magic system"? Is movement also a part? Your definition is so broad that claiming the Power Scroll to be ingrained in the system or integral to the system is meaningless, and should carry no rhetorical weight.

of course! everything in the game flows into other parts, if everything had movement 200 and 360° sight, magic would be a lot worse. But that's WAY broader than is useful.
The magic part of the game can however be pretty well separated: Everything in the magic phase makes up the magic system, the system how magic behaves and functions in warhammer.
you can then layer them, but making layers INSIDE the BRB is kind of pointless, since the item section is an integral part of the BRB, the BRB is not modular, it's the base. without it there is no magicphase! and it has to work well with ALL the modular layers (army books), not just with dwarfs, daemons and tomb kings.

it's like saying higher CO2 concentration in an ecosystem is not relevant, just because the rise is caused through pollution.

e.g. in 7th edition, dispel scrolls were an extremely important part of the magic system. you could say they are not part of the magic system by your definition but that would make your defintion totally useless for discussion as you HAVE to consider them, no matter how broad your definition of the magic system is

oCoYoRoAoKo
27-08-2010, 13:39
In a word, no.

If there is one thing that competative players like it is consistency. For example; i build a list which is magic-light . I know that it will suffer in the magic phase, and i can build the rest of the army to cover this weekness. The same thing happens if i build a magic-heavy list. it will usually suffer in other phases (usually by not having a fighty lord, or less points spent in shooting/combat).

However, what this edition does is widen the gap between magic-light and magic-heavy, as well as taking away some of that consistency (in my old list i had 4 dispel dice. from this you could dispel one large spell, or a couple of smaller ones. This allows you to plan the magic phase depending on what spells your opponents have. Now i have D6 dispel dice. Add to this the bonuses to casting due to magic levels, and those dice are largely ineffective as you will need more dice to reliably dispel anything).

Cy.

Idle Scholar
27-08-2010, 13:54
You make a fine case against this notion all on your own.

It's all relative. Until I can kill or panic an enemy wizard he can cast his magic. The movement phase only has an in/out of sight (if the Wizards spells are LOS based) and in/out of range effect. Then you get to manoeuvre before you cast which gives the casting player a chance to undo any movement based shenanigans their opponent has pulled. Close combat units can be depleted by shooting or magic and as you have to charge without turning outmanoeuvred and ganged up on.

My basic point is that once the armies are picked and you're playing the game you have a lot more control over your opponents close combat phase than you do over their magic phase. GW's answer to this is to introduce a fairly large bit of variability which works well enough, provided certain lists aren't taken to circumvent that. However it still sucks when your opponents magic phase goes well and they 'win' the game (or get well ahead) on a few dice rolls.

jamano
27-08-2010, 14:15
I agree on your end point there, randomness might make it more balanced between the two players, but it wont make a particular game more balanced, if I roll below seven every turn and my opponent rolls above, thats gonna have more impact than just rolling good in combat or for charge ranges. I almost wish you both rolled one die and that was what the pool would be for each set of player turns.

Spiney Norman
27-08-2010, 14:45
I dismissed the powerscroll out of hand when I saw it...why the hell would I blow up my own wizard? Theyre good enough at that as it is without any extra help.

Because if you can get Purple sun of Xereus or Dwellers below off you can easily do more pts worth of damage than any L2 wizard in the game, conversely if you are a life wizard with the Throne of Vines in play you will almost certainly ignore the effect of the miscast anyway, which means when the enemy horde in front of you dissolves to an IF dwellers below you wont suffer the consequences. Oh look, there goes that DE High Sorceress on a 4+, not to mention a full half of the blackguard that were accompanying her...

Stupid bloody spell...

Vsurma
27-08-2010, 16:30
The power scroll is a cool item, and the new extra powerful lores are also nice for the game.

The problem really comes from the combination of the two, even if you have a backup caster, say a lv2, it does really hurt when dwellers kills your lv4 mage on turn 1.

Sometimes you can deploy away, other times not (say opponent has more units) IF the casting player always took a decent amount of damage themselves it might even out but with 4+ ward item being available in the common items it doesn't really happen.

Most of the time a few cheap models in the mages unit take some damage and that is that.

I think without the power scroll we are ok, the chance of rolling IF on 6 dice is only 26.3%, so about 1/4 according to:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/311174.page

Granted he didn't explain his math so we can't really confirm (feel free to confirm if you have the time)

So assuming you have a dispel scroll you end up having the option of dispelling with dice if the opponents cast is low and you have a decent amount of dice (they cap out at 6 PD to cast the spell and you can throw as many DD as you like)

Alternatively you can scroll it and have lots of DD left, basically ending 1 magic phase right there.

Over the course of the game the opponent is likely to get 1 IF casting of say dwellers but it does mean he is pretty much spending all his casting phases trying for this spell.

Throwing the power scroll into the mix somewhat messes this up since your will really likely to cause IF on just 5 dice (about 99.9% chance with 6) Now granted it does take up your arcane slot meaning no miscast protection on your mage, so there is a chance you will either lose the mage or lose d3 levels and the spell. 1/3 chance of getting one or the other result.

I imagine when writing the rules they figured this chance was high enough to deter people from using it too much but it would seem that this is not the case, I have now attended 3 tournaments, only the first one had no comp and the following 2 banned the power scroll after what was witnessed in the first tourny.

Turn 1 dwellers was a common sight.

I quite like the new magic as the phases are always very exciting, more so than any other but the added chance of getting or not getting IF adds to this, just as there is a chance your charges will fail and you may get flanked etc. I am quite glad there is no "roll any double and complete your charge regardless of range item" :)

Alltaken
27-08-2010, 16:54
So you find it sensible to go for IF on ToV? What will you then proceed to do with it, since you've probably wasted more than half of your PD - and the opponent still has her full DD ;)

Well that's the slanns tactics mostly, you can cupp someones hands, cure a wound, and get nasty on your other 2 spells you're gonna still try to cast. On 1 die you cast +2T (+4 on ToV) or WS 5+ (4+ on ToV) thanks to the Extra Dice. I really don't care about dwellers (It just might be me) when I can pull a horde of 40 T6 or T8 saurus. Let them be shot I say! And with 1 or 2 regens most wounds aren't felt.

I also LOVE lore of Shadows, the hexes and augementations have become my favorite side of magic. They so much more volume to core fights and big horde standstills with those, and that's what's been keeping me on the hordes don't suck team

Haravikk
27-08-2010, 18:17
I also LOVE lore of Shadows, the hexes and augementations have become my favorite side of magic. They so much more volume to core fights and big horde standstills with those, and that's what's been keeping me on the hordes don't suck team
These are the spells that are the most fun to play with/against IMO, as it's all about magic supplementing the rest of the army. If magic had been just augments/hexes and some sane magic missiles then it would be perfect. With that balance they could have taken out some of the unpredictability to make it easier to cast, but with less powerful spells, making magic pervasive but not devastating, except in combination with the right units and tactics.

Alltaken
27-08-2010, 20:59
These are the spells that are the most fun to play with/against IMO, as it's all about magic supplementing the rest of the army. If magic had been just augments/hexes and some sane magic missiles then it would be perfect. With that balance they could have taken out some of the unpredictability to make it easier to cast, but with less powerful spells, making magic pervasive but not devastating, except in combination with the right units and tactics.

Yeah but 2d6 S4 is nearly lousy magic missile. 3d6 S3 suits me better as a decent magic missile spell, 2d6 is just a low amount of hits

Justice And Rule
27-08-2010, 21:06
I really wish they had gone with ALL augments and hexes with the Lore of Shadow. Or, at the very least, a much weaker attack spell. It's still a great lore, though. Bright Magic needs an upgrade; they limited themselves to the foolish "Fire is S4", when magic fire should vary. I also thought that, for utter destruction, Bright Magic should be on top, but I don't believe that to be the case; it would have maybe a weak buff/hex, but for wrecking utter havoc I'd love to see that get redone. Again, that's my concept of the Colleges of Magic.

Haravikk
28-08-2010, 00:36
Yeah, they could have done some more interesting things with lore of fire; I want to take it for the fun of setting things on fire, and have some scenic smoke somewhere (and would happily make more) to represent burning buildings, obstacles, walls of fire, etc... :)

Setting things alight is a good form of tactical destruction meaning it can be powerful since it couldn't cause direct damage, but by plopping a healthy dose of fire somewhere you can dissuade an enemy from choosing a route that will leave them without eyebrows.