PDA

View Full Version : When it comes to characters and builds - do you like uber magic?



IcedCrow
17-06-2013, 13:17
I started back in 5th edition and back then the name of the game was dressing your heroes up as powerful as possible and having them go wage war on each other. This was kind of a letdown for me as I had gotten into warhammer from the images of armies clashing, but the reality was most games of warhammer were anything but that... they were in fact super powered Dungeons and Dragons parties clashing with some chaffe thrown in to cheerlead.

6th edition brought things more in line with how I enjoyed the game... actual armies. 7th, for all of its hideous boring snorefest that it brought still had armies.

8th edition started to bring back the uber though. The spells in this edition are as powerful as the 5th edition spells were. You have the ability to wipe out whole units with a spell from a relatively cheap wizard.

I feel that the spells that were introduced back in teh game and the power level of wizards was intentional as a way to sit next to warmachine and say "see we have super powered casters too!"

So the question of the day is, when it comes to characters what is your preference?

Uber casters ripping through whole armies like they do now?
Powerful fighting heroes on dragons ripping apart whole armies like 5th edition?
Characters that buff their units but do not single handedly win games wholesale by themselves?

Ville
17-06-2013, 13:24
I like my blender Vampire Lord. He can decimate entire units by himself.

He is a rockstar.:cool:

Wesser
17-06-2013, 13:29
I seem to be missing the option:

"Characters included because it just feels nice to have a proper leader in the unit".... and maybe add some great weapon attacks to the STR3 Swordsman unit...

Gustav Kohn
17-06-2013, 13:34
Most armies should have buffing characters that don't win by themselves. There are a few exceptions...Vamps & TK come to mind. No Wizards should win the game by themselves IMO.

HurrDurr
17-06-2013, 14:04
Agree every army should have a flavorful "warrior priest" type of lord/hero, and I think it's okay to make them super cost efficient, because they usually don't do much else. I also agree we should be able to simply take a non caster character and not be gimped by it. Hell I wouldn't mind if wizards stayed auto-include, nobody likes being excluded from an entire phase anyways, just make them less of an auto-include. I think magic is the least dynamic and most stagnant part of this game, just so many bad things to say about how all or nothing it can be. I don't think any spell should be over a 12 to cast, and balanced that way. So you see more spells that do more strategic things, instead of flesh to stone or mind razor swinging a combat wildly. Flesh could be -1 to be wounded and you gain some rank bonus, now you have to consider the combat rez and think more, I think that would be better for the game than the gambling magic is now.

Askari
17-06-2013, 14:11
Certain characters, like Daemon Princes and Vampire Lords should one-man entire units, I think their current iterations are good representations of them.

Others, not so much, Wizards in particular with some of the spells are just ridiculous; For example, I think Birona's Timewarp is the epitome of an 6th spell - very powerful, and can change the outcome of a fight in an instant, but it's not going to single-handedly end the game like Purple Sun and Dwellers can.

IcedCrow
17-06-2013, 14:12
I seem to be missing the option:

"Characters included because it just feels nice to have a proper leader in the unit".... and maybe add some great weapon attacks to the STR3 Swordsman unit...

That would be the same thing as the option for characters to buff units but not solo win.

Rakariel
17-06-2013, 14:36
I really like the idea that characters bring something special to the game, be it combat prowess, augments, hexes, leadership, certain rules or magic spells in shape of magic missiles or strong spells. In no way do I want herohammer back however and this applies especially to mages. I do understand that Greater Demons or Vampires have to be strong (as has been said already) but thats how far it should go. If I want one or two models winning a game for me I dig out my old Masters of the Universe figures.

shelfunit.
17-06-2013, 14:46
Characters that can boost the combat/staying power are great, but those that can take on (and beat) units by themselves are generally frustrating as they mow down most units they meet to the effect that the whole game is (boringly) spent avoiding them - funny if it all goes wrong and they somehow lose/die early, but even that is boring as it usually means the end of the game for the opponent as a large amount points are normally spent on that character and his unit. Kind of links in to the "power gaming" poll from a few days ago.

BigbyWolf
17-06-2013, 14:54
None of the above...I tend to use a mixture of builds, be they for fluffy reasons, or because the build is fun. They're rarely mega-powered and don't tend to do too much buffing.

IcedCrow
17-06-2013, 15:03
The thing to be careful about when it comes to super powered characters is simply that if one character can mow down 30 infantry... what do you think will become prevalent on the table?

From 5th edition I can tell you - the armies will always be 50% characters.

I do think vampire lords and greater demons are exceptions to this because by their nature those are uber powerful monsters and I don't have a problem with a couple of armies that have this ability.

But when Joe the Wizard weighs in at 150 points and can easily clean up 1000 points on his own through warmachine-like spells, that becomes where people say "you *have* to take a level 4 wizard".

Blinder
17-06-2013, 15:29
I'm kind of in the middle of "characters as support" and "characters being destructive in their own right." I do think magic is out of hand currently: the good stuff can often do too much, and the reasonable stuff can backfire far too dramatically. Tone both of these down and I think all characters (even pure combat characters) will seem less dangerously close to 5e.

I really like that my units fight my opponent's units and that any old character can't wade into any old unit and expect to survive, but I think having some characters who can do unspeakable things to some units adds some nice flavor which adds to both the play and feel of the game. If the magic lores were more heavily lined up with roles things might be more interesting as your mage would end up almost entirely about nuking, enfeebling, enhancing, healing, or rolling a ton of d6 to figure out what just happened if you're Tzeentch, and the chance of really bad things happening should be based on how powerful an effect you just tried to create (or I'd expect a ton of d6 if you're Tzeentch).

Non-wizard characters should be similar- lots of offense, lots of not-dying, lots of bonuses handed out to the unit, or a little of each. By and large they're not *too* far off currently, I think the biggest problem is that not-dying can be accomplished too easily alongside other "roles" in a few cases and in a few others the pricing/effect just doesn't line up. Yes, there have been some seriously iffy recent developments, but I think there's still room for the "clash of armies" feel to reassert itself and hope they choose to continue to emphasize "armies with heroes" rather than "heroes as armies" whenever 9th rolls around. I'm really more concerned about monstrous everything and the way 3+ and even 2+ saves are starting to look "weak."

Fear Ghoul
17-06-2013, 15:45
I think that most characters should play a supporting role, with a few notable exceptions such as Vampire Lords, Chaos Lords, Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, and Slann.

Captain Collius
17-06-2013, 16:39
My favorites are my Saurus Scar-vet's. Bashing peoples brains in for the Old Ones since the dawn of time.

I can just seem him jumping on a rock and roaring as the whole horde (i usually run 50+) of saurus bound after him determined to kill everything in their way.

Ullis
17-06-2013, 17:40
My favorites are my Saurus Scar-vet's. Bashing peoples brains in for the Old Ones since the dawn of time.

I can just seem him jumping on a rock and roaring as the whole horde (i usually run 50+) of saurus bound after him determined to kill everything in their way.

...only for them to be broken and run down by Night Goblin spearmen :p

Captain Collius
17-06-2013, 18:12
...only for them to be broken and run down by Night Goblin spearmen :p

Nope never happens :shifty: they always get through

artisturn
17-06-2013, 19:15
When it comes to magic I really prefer Hexes and Buffs over the killer number six spells .

Now I do have to admit I do miss the 7th edition days when my Vampire Lord was the big cheese when it came to magic dominance , But I find a balanced magic user to be more fun for both players.

Plus my Vampires haven't seen any action in a while since I have more fun with my Night Goblins at the moment and the spells of the Little Waagh seems to be pretty balanced spell wise.

Shadeseraph
17-06-2013, 21:11
I'm of the same opinion than you, IcedCrow. I personally dislike the way characters are dealt with on WHFB. Personally I'd rather have them be upgrades for units, in the same way champions are, but just providing bonuses to the unit, instead of raw killing power. I can understand certain kind of special characters, such as a "monster killer" character, that added a bit of (specific) punch to some units, and helped balancing the RPS game going on while keeping some of the "epicness" of the game.

As for magic, I do think it's too powerful. But I also feel I wouldn't be able to deal with some current threats without how magic currently works. I play HE, and, for example, Nurgle beasts are almost impossible to deal with without falling back on pit of shades or stacking withering and miasma, even with combined charges and good positioning. There are too many things that require fairly powerful magic to be able to deal with them.
If those were toned down, I do think magic could do with some serious tweaking, mainly by bringing down the spells power. I don't dislike the base mechanics, but making lvl 4s less of a must would be a big step forward, too. And I'd like to see magic based units, such as councils and the like, instead of magic being character based.

Anyway, If it was me, I'd just remove characters altogether from the game, but I believe I'm alone on that.

Kahadras
17-06-2013, 21:25
When it comes to characters I like to feel that they've got a decent opportunity to shine. If it's a Mage then he gets off some spells which help the army. If it's a BSB then his leadership rerolls help my army stay in the fight. If its a combat lord I want his to do well in fights and challenges. What I'm most interested in is stuff like a High Elf Prince on a Dragon actualy being a scary unit. If I'm going to shell out 500 plus points on a cool character/monster combo I want him to do well.

Kahadras

Vipoid
17-06-2013, 22:30
The thing to be careful about when it comes to super powered characters is simply that if one character can mow down 30 infantry... what do you think will become prevalent on the table?

From 5th edition I can tell you - the armies will always be 50% characters.

I do think vampire lords and greater demons are exceptions to this because by their nature those are uber powerful monsters and I don't have a problem with a couple of armies that have this ability.

But when Joe the Wizard weighs in at 150 points and can easily clean up 1000 points on his own through warmachine-like spells, that becomes where people say "you *have* to take a level 4 wizard".

I'm basically of the same opinion.

I think a few very strong fighty lords are ok, but it certainly shouldn't be the standard.

I think magic really needs to be toned down in 2 areas:

1) A lot of spells are too strong. Magic won't suddenly become worthless if it stops being able to remove entire units from the game, or sap their strength down to nothing.

2) Lv4s need either a nerf or a large cost-increase. As it stands, they're insanely-good and a staple of most lists. I mean, most Lv4s cost roughly as much as 2 Lv2 wizards, but are worth much, much more. I think changing magic so that wizard level isn't added to the casting total was suggested on a different thread, and I believe that's a good possibility. Or, allow mages to total their magic levels for dispelling (maybe up to a limit of 4). Basically, I don't believe a Lv4 should be able to completely outclass Lv1/2 wizards - especially when those wizards can cost more than the Lv4 (so it's not like the Lv2 player is even spending less on magic).

The Low King
17-06-2013, 23:46
I agree with everything you are saying, except this;



I do think vampire lords and greater demons are exceptions to this because by their nature those are uber powerful monsters and I don't have a problem with a couple of armies that have this ability.


Greater Daemons (or other monster-characters) im ok with, they are monsters and therefore should be balanced compared to them, which is a different issue. Same with characters on monster mounts, characters on dragons should be pretty powerful.
However, I feel that if you are going to make characters on foot able to take on units then you either have no armies able to, or most armies able to (preferably the first). It is completely arbitrary to say that a Vampire is able to kill 30 infantry alone, but for some reason a Chaos Lord, Ogre Tyrant, Saurus Old Blood etc cant? Fluff wise every army has characters that can kill Greater Daemons or entire armies or even Vampires.

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 02:01
I was just throwing that out there. Ogre lords and troll kings and saurus lords are equally nasty and powerful.

I don't think elven princelings and dwarf kings and human lords should be soloing units though.

However the direction of the game is moving towards that...w hich will put Warhammer as a skirmish based game which makes me kind of sad.

HurrDurr
18-06-2013, 02:06
It's arbitrary to say dwarves are resistant to magic or wood elves the best with bows, it's arbitrary to say slaan are more powerful casters than ogres. What else is new? Giving everyone superheroes from a balance/fun perspective I can humor, but saying the "made up fluff" is arbitrary seems redundant because it repeats itself. Why not more meaningful characters than outright blenders though? The characters are a little too simple imo, more hold the line style buffs and, taking a character lets a unit skirmish, I want heros that change the way an army plays instead of making it an optimal mathhammer choice.

Ramius4
18-06-2013, 02:06
I don't think elven princelings and dwarf kings and human lords should be soloing units though.

However the direction of the game is moving towards that...w hich will put Warhammer as a skirmish based game which makes me kind of sad.

How so??? Dig out your books and build some characters from 6th ed, 7th ed and 8th ed, and try telling me that characters in general are more powerful now... They're virtually the same!

Other than a few offending spells, you really can't. I also played 5th edition, and I don't see anything near the power level of those days.

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 02:09
How so??? Dig out your books and build some characters from 6th ed, 7th ed and 8th ed, and try telling me that characters in general are more powerful now... They're virtually the same!

Other than a few offending spells, you really can't. I also played 5th edition, and I don't see anything near the power level of those days.

With the magic, not the fighty lords. The fighty lords are still the same but i see them getting boosted in the future to swing the pendulum from what it is now. Wizards are several degrees of magnitude more powerful in this edition than they were in 6th and 7th.

I fully expect 9th edition to be the edition of the fighty lord and the level 4 getting shelved to be honest.

m1acca1551
18-06-2013, 02:27
I like balance, I hate the current theme of magic users being super powerful beings of magical doom, the problem is the spells are just too powerful for a "skirmish" game, if we were playing WFB on an apocalypse scale where armies are 10000pts the yeah magic should scale appropriately.

In the current form, in a 2500pt game, losing 400pts in a turn of magic is well horrible and very unbalanced. It promotes 6 dicing and the reward far out weighs the risk, 150pts for potential 400?? The mathematics of victory.

Combat lords are great, there needs to be those who are brutal namely
- vampire lords
- lords of chaos
- daemon princes etc

And those that can turn a battle by there involvement or there ability to counter said monsters through being able to tank or deflect the attacks.

Don Zeko
18-06-2013, 05:45
I think there's an awful lot of exaggeration of the effectiveness of magic going on in this thread. Magic can do a lot of things. It can win you games, and it's certainly more powerful than it was in past editions. But magic destroying 400 points in a turn? That's not a particularly common occurrence. And when it does happen, it's usually because the player who lost the massive unit built a deathstar list, knowing full well that it was vulnerable to Dwellers/Purple Sun, and then got exactly what he should have expected (and, IMHO, what he deserved).

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 11:27
Don, my tomb king army composed of units no greater than 30 models (no death star) was one shot by a wizard that managed to fly to thr flank of my battle line, six dice purple sun for IF, roll max distance, and then forced the whole army to make init checks or die.

He killed all but a handful of models, effectively scoring over 2000 points with one casting.

Wizards eating 400 points a turn is not far fetched at all. Most main units cost well over 400 points and they are the primary target of six dicing #6 spells.

Then there is skaven and the thirteenth.

The bearded one
18-06-2013, 12:01
Characters that can boost the combat/staying power are great, but those that can take on (and beat) units by themselves are generally frustrating as they mow down most units they meet to the effect that the whole game is (boringly) spent avoiding them - funny if it all goes wrong and they somehow lose/die early, but even that is boring as it usually means the end of the game for the opponent as a large amount points are normally spent on that character and his unit. Kind of links in to the "power gaming" poll from a few days ago.

This, in my opinion. It's no fun to get to face a flying nurgle daemon prince (a lvl4 for added funsies) who hits on 2's and can regenerate wounds, who leaps across the table, hurls itself without care at a block of 30 saurus with scar veteran with great weapon and kill the entire unit in several rounds without sustaining a single wound. There's no fun in facing that; you have no chance from the start and might just remove the whole unit at once, rather than ineffectively claw at it. It just boils down to hoping you have a cannon that gets in a Lucky shot to kill it. It pushes the game in a bad direction as well, as there's no point in taking smaller units or weaker types of soldiers when a combatcharacter launches itself at them and kills the whole unit. All you can do is have units powerful enough to actually beat/scare off these guys. If I have to be honest, I'd rather have 6-dicing than being beat up by mr indestructable.


Don, my tomb king army composed of units no greater than 30 models (no death star) was one shot by a wizard that managed to fly to thr flank of my battle line, six dice purple sun for IF, roll max distance, and then forced the whole army to make init checks or die.

He killed all but a handful of models, effectively scoring over 2000 points with one casting.

Wizards eating 400 points a turn is not far fetched at all. Most main units cost well over 400 points and they are the primary target of six dicing #6 spells.

Then there is skaven and the thirteenth.

I haven't seen a wizard inflict mass-damage with a spell anymore for ages (unless a miscast kills half his unit or something), not even my Slann. It's primarily buffs and multiple smaller spells, which work well to help units and characters.

Soundwave
18-06-2013, 12:34
Another highly controversial thread...good work Iced Crow!I am yet to vote as i am torn between reason here with the choices,i generally take a lvl four uber wiz but i deep down dislike magic.I much prefer the great warrior around a bad ass unit of his hardened veterans yet i take the prior as a uber spell stopper.I feel the reasoning here is the problem of battle magic wherein lies the spells of no save at all!If this was tweaked we might see lords carrying round more magic res and the like...Speaking of which can anyone name a spell from the current books where there is no save of any kind allowed?

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 12:38
This, in my opinion. It's no fun to get to face a flying nurgle daemon prince (a lvl4 for added funsies) who hits on 2's and can regenerate wounds, who leaps across the table, hurls itself without care at a block of 30 saurus with scar veteran with great weapon and kill the entire unit in several rounds without sustaining a single wound. There's no fun in facing that; you have no chance from the start and might just remove the whole unit at once, rather than ineffectively claw at it. It just boils down to hoping you have a cannon that gets in a Lucky shot to kill it. It pushes the game in a bad direction as well, as there's no point in taking smaller units or weaker types of soldiers when a combatcharacter launches itself at them and kills the whole unit. All you can do is have units powerful enough to actually beat/scare off these guys. If I have to be honest, I'd rather have 6-dicing than being beat up by mr indestructable.



I haven't seen a wizard inflict mass-damage with a spell anymore for ages (unless a miscast kills half his unit or something), not even my Slann. It's primarily buffs and multiple smaller spells, which work well to help units and characters.

I guess it will depend on your group. Mine are fond of the destruction spells that kill with no save. If your group favors the buffs then you may not see the death and destruction as much, though buff spells like Mind Razor are also uber powerful.


Speaking of which can anyone name a spell from the current books where there is no save of any kind allowed?

I am going from memory so i'm sure i will miss something:

Purple Sun
Pit of Shades
Transmutation
13th spell are the four that come to mind as spells that often crop up in our games.

The bearded one
18-06-2013, 12:41
I guess it will depend on your group. Mine are fond of the destruction spells that kill with no save. If your group favors the buffs then you may not see the death and destruction as much, though buff spells like Mind Razor are also uber powerful.

They definately can be, though my Slann usually just sucks the 6s away. Mindrazor is a fan favorite, but I just don't see Purple sun or transmutation a lot. I was at a major tournament last month and the worst I had to endure was a purple sun striking the last 3 templeguard.

Soundwave
18-06-2013, 13:55
I am going from memory so i'm sure i will miss something:

Purple Sun
Pit of Shades
Transmutation
13th spell are the four that come to mind as spells that often crop up in our games.[/QUOTE]

So as i was mentioning no new army books have spells of such devastation?This and a few other problems may be revised in the 9th edd...for balance purposes ,other than this i am very happy with the current -system(and also i started at 5th edd also,lets have some sort of celebration...:) and these points of reasoning make battle magic the best ever in all the additions thus far.)

IcedCrow
18-06-2013, 14:07
Correct sir none of the new books have anything as powerful as the BRB spells or spells from the past edition.

Soundwave
18-06-2013, 14:12
Correct sir none of the new books have anything as powerful as the BRB spells or spells from the past edition.
We forgot "dwellers below...").

Captain Collius
18-06-2013, 19:00
I am going from memory so i'm sure i will miss something:

Purple Sun
Pit of Shades
Transmutation
13th spell are the four that come to mind as spells that often crop up in our games.

So as i was mentioning no new army books have spells of such devastation?This and a few other problems may be revised in the 9th edd...for balance purposes ,other than this i am very happy with the current -system(and also i started at 5th edd also,lets have some sort of celebration...:) and these points of reasoning make battle magic the best ever in all the additions thus far.)[/QUOTE]

Dreaded 13th is a bit different htan it s brothers in the fact that it has a maximum of models it can effect but otherwise your points are valid.
Playing my friends Nurgle WOC's he has a habit of throweing purple sun at my lizards army knowing that I 1-2 is gonna be ripped by it.

This is a fact of the edition and its why I occasionally pull out the Magic Breaking slann and Cube of Darkness Skink priest it just teaches people a lesson about relying on 6 dicing and uber spells

Tau_player001
18-06-2013, 22:15
So as i was mentioning no new army books have spells of such devastation?This and a few other problems may be revised in the 9th edd...for balance purposes ,other than this i am very happy with the current -system(and also i started at 5th edd also,lets have some sort of celebration...:) and these points of reasoning make battle magic the best ever in all the additions thus far.)

Dreaded 13th is a bit different htan it s brothers in the fact that it has a maximum of models it can effect but otherwise your points are valid.
Playing my friends Nurgle WOC's he has a habit of throweing purple sun at my lizards army knowing that I 1-2 is gonna be ripped by it.

This is a fact of the edition and its why I occasionally pull out the Magic Breaking slann and Cube of Darkness Skink priest it just teaches people a lesson about relying on 6 dicing and uber spells

Most armies have access to army book lores. That's the point, even if it's not on their book. I don't think many high elven players will take their lore instead of one from the BRB for most builds. Yes i understand that you are talking about the future, but we can't really talk about that, but just speculate.

Soundwave
19-06-2013, 04:40
Most armies have access to army book lores. That's the point, even if it's not on their book. I don't think many high elven players will take their lore instead of one from the BRB for most builds. Yes i understand that you are talking about the future, but we can't really talk about that, but just speculate.

What are you saying here...?My crystal ball is redundant like the new lores published in the new books...:shifty:

Myster2
19-06-2013, 18:20
If we take out wizards then we need to take out warmachines as well. I have lost more points to warp lightning cannons that are a whole 90pts than to dreaded 13th, dwellers and purple sun combined. This is because I like bringing monsters. If you don't like dwellers and purple sun don't horde your units.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Don Zeko
19-06-2013, 18:40
Don, my tomb king army composed of units no greater than 30 models (no death star) was one shot by a wizard that managed to fly to thr flank of my battle line, six dice purple sun for IF, roll max distance, and then forced the whole army to make init checks or die.

He killed all but a handful of models, effectively scoring over 2000 points with one casting.

This doesn't strike me as a particularly representative sample. Your enemy had to bring a flying mage with death magic, had to get in your flank unmolested, had to get irresistable force (which is only about a 25% chance on 6 dice), had to roll max distance, and then you had to fail a disproportionate number of saves (assuming that you weren't spamming Sphinxes, Colossi, and heirotitans. If you were, I take that last point back), since most TK units have initiative 3, meaning you only fail half the time. This strategy is mostly worthless against teh several armies that have across-the-board initiative of 4 or 5. That makes it about as reliable as cannon-sniping the enemy's general on turn 1. It can and does happen, but it's hardly a point-and-click reliable way to win at Warhammer. In my experience, uber spells that actually kill models are only really pivotal in the following situations:
1. Dwellers killing mages, generals, and BSB's.
2. The old version of Infernal Gateway rolling an 11 or 12
3. The 13th spell when used against elite infantry, like chaos warriors, Phoenix Guard and the like.
4. Somebody getting lucky with Plague or Foot of Gork.
5. Purple Sun against unusually low initiative armies like Lizardmen or Ogres.

These are all powerful effects, but the don't happen terribly frequently in my experience. Buffs and debuffs swinging the battle (especially Mindrazor) is much more typical of my warhammer experiences.


Wizards eating 400 points a turn is not far fetched at all. Most main units cost well over 400 points and they are the primary target of six dicing #6 spells.

Then there is skaven and the thirteenth.

But most #6 spells won't actually wipe out, or even destroy the majority of, most units most of the time. The fact that this spells CAN simply remove units from the game doesn't mean that they usually DO actually do that.

IcedCrow
19-06-2013, 19:34
If you don't like dwellers and purple sun don't horde your units.

I guess you missed the part where the entire army was composed of multiple units of 20-30 models. None of those are horde units, and the entire army save for about six or seven models was killed by the purple sun. Not hording your units is not protection from the purple sun.


since most TK units have initiative 3, meaning you only fail half the time.

Skeleton warriors and constructs are Init 2. Characters and tomb guard are init3. MOst of my TK army is not characters and tomb guard.


But most #6 spells won't actually wipe out, or even destroy the majority of, most units most of the time. The fact that this spells CAN simply remove units from the game doesn't mean that they usually DO actually do that.

THrough most of the games I've documented, the #6 spells are as likely as they are not to seriously damage and take the unit down below 50% if not down 75% of its numbers (Depending on spell and opponent, a spell like purple sun vs low init models is obviously a lot better than high init models).

A #6 spell typically goes off like the above at least once a game. That's the average. Once in the game you are going to get nailed with the 13th or purple sun or whatever your opponent is six-dicing. About 1/4 of the time you're going to be hit with that thing twice, per the games I've documented anyway.

That's enough of potential damage to say "level 4 wizards are mandatory as is taking a brb lore and six dicing the #6 spell", which is a very common thought pattern on the internet and in the groups that I know. NOt universal... but very very common. Point-and-click reliable way to win warhammer? No. Odds decent enough to center your strategy on it because if it goes off then you will be at a huge advantage... absolutely. Odds enough that if you DONT take the level 4 that if and when your opponent gets one of those off you will be at a huge disadvantage that you can't six dice your way out of; enough to say "they are mandatory".

Luigi
19-06-2013, 19:41
I personally don't like characters that are too powerful and in the matter of magic, well i just don't like magic at all, that's why i really like dwarfs :) there's no option for magic at all...
plus i don't even worry at all about anti magic.
i'd much rather have multiple "smaller" heroes leading all of my units than fewer stronger lords.
actually i never use lord level characters but a lot of thanes and rune-smiths (often unmodified or with just a shield/GW)

Doommasters
21-06-2013, 00:33
Characters that serve a purpose but don't break the game are what I like;

Blender Lord = perfect in a VC army as they need that CR and damage output

Chaos Lord: Everything in the WoC book hits like a truck, so a combat lord adds very little to the army unless on a disk with CoC and a 1+/3+ save

Daemon Prince: Acts as a nice big fat anvil and is a viable unit all on his/her own, great in a WoC army as big blocks on Warriors are slow and hard to position

HQ choices need to bring something to the table the rest of the army you are feilding does not, but needs. If they do this then people will take them, if not it is just a nice to have.

Throgg is another great example as he allows you to take a full monstrous army and gives them his leadership, yes is a a great deal points wise but he opens up options you otherwise would not have.

In 40k they call it the character tax but you then have new options and ways of playing your armny not just +1 ld and 3-5 kills per turn.


Whay are lvl 4's so good, they open up tactical options and bring something your army can't take through other means and allow you to compete in the magic phase (in most cases).

Cobra
21-06-2013, 00:37
I personally don't like characters that are too powerful and in the matter of magic, well i just don't like magic at all, that's why i really like dwarfs :) there's no option for magic at all...
plus i don't even worry at all about anti magic.
i'd much rather have multiple "smaller" heroes leading all of my units than fewer stronger lords.
actually i never use lord level characters but a lot of thanes and rune-smiths (often unmodified or with just a shield/GW)

No magic users ( not of your fault playing dwarfs ) but no magic defense? Do you not constantly get your head stomped in without magic D?

Urgat
21-06-2013, 06:42
I don't like ubber guys. I don't paint hordes of goblins so that your lone stupid chaccater can beat them all single-handedly :p Well we're far from 5th ed yet, so I don't have to complain about that. But if it did come back to it, I'd have to petition GW to bring back the white emperor dragon again.