PDA

View Full Version : Do "Magical Attacks" need rethinking?



Mozzamanx
09-04-2014, 11:21
Hi all,

A very simple question to you all; Does the rule 'Magical Attacks' need to exist, in any form, under the current rules? As it is the rule accomplishes exactly nothing except set up hard-counters, either to the attacker or to the attacked, and is 100% negligible the overwhelming majority of the time. It is a very immediate form of rock-paper-scissors in that it will either win hard, lose hard, or accomplish nothing and so I think the entire concept needs a rethink.

As it is:
- Completely neuters anything with the Ethereal rule, turning them into exceptionally expensive dead weight.
- In turn, makes Ethereal obnoxiously difficult to deal with for anyone without the proper tools. Because such a hard counter exists, it's considered acceptable to make them nails the rest of the time?
- Makes the unit completely unable to deal with the Banner of the World Dragon.
- 2(?) Magic Items, belonging to Dark and Wood Elves, which grant special properties against Magical Attacks.

A similar case could be made against Flaming Attacks in concept, which I would agree with under 7th Edition. However in the current rules the whole Flaming-Regen 'minigame' has been fixed to the point where it is now a tactical application rather than a rock-paper-scissors farce. Flaming Attacks serve an actual purpose in that they help with building assaults and panic beasts. Regen is not as tough as Ethereal and so can be better justified as being ignored, and Flaming Attacks are not so common as to make the Dragonbane / Dragon Armour unfairly good value.
However with an entire army being built on them (Daemons) existing at the same time as armies with no access outside of the Character selection (Beastmen, O&G), Magic Attacks is an inherently unfair rule that will only take effect when it serves to brutalise one player, while being redundant the other 99% of the time.


My thoughts are that the rule simply should not exist if it were kept as it stands, with Ethereal being changed to something new like a 2/3+ Ward or only-hit-on-6's. Daemons would then be capable of playing against the BotWD without dying outright, Ethereals would be useful against everyone without wildly varying results depending on the opponent, and the magic-light armies could have a fighting chance to stop their big units being removed for 3+ turns by Spirit Hosts.
However I think it should still exist, and rather than removing the rule or leaving it as it is, introduce a new 'minigame' that is less extreme. Where Magic Attacks are useful outside of dealing with a specific army (And sometimes Slann) without being gutted against the BotWD.
My personal preference would be that Magic Attacks mess with Ward Saves, in the same way that Flaming messes with Regenerate.

"Successful Ward Saves must be rerolled against Magical Attacks. In addition, a unit that has lost wounds to a Magical Attack must reroll all successful Ward Saves for the duration of that phase, even against non-Magical Attacks."
"Magic Resistance improves the Ward Save against Magic Missiles, Direct Damage, and Magical Attacks."
"Ethereal confers a 3+ Ward Save and are only hit on 6's against mundane attacks. Magical Attacks hit normally but still roll against the (rerolled) Ward Save."

This would then stabilise the whole BotWD>>>Magic>>>Ethereal series of hard counters into something a little less extreme, while also opening the way for melee characters to really come into their own as an option for everyone. If a high-Init Hero swings a cheap magic item, it can break open Ward Saves in the same way that a Flaming dude shatters Regen units, and the fighty Hero can take his place as the General of choice. It would also make Magic Resistance a little more universally applicable.

Any thoughts?

Urgat
09-04-2014, 11:36
Well, as a general rule, I dislike all the all or nothing rules. They should all be modifiers of some sort, and stuff like magic attacks (and ethereal and the likes) should be the same.

Snake1311
09-04-2014, 11:36
There is no rule that needs to exist when it comes down to the special rules.

What you are suggesting doesn't improve the game, it just changes it, I don't think particularly for the better. I can't think of many interactions between etheral units and the rest that can really mess up the game.

Your biggest gripe seems to be with BoTWD, but your fixes don't really do much against it other than give magical attacks a free OTS on their 2++ rolls - decent boost, but you're still not going to ram units in there. And as a side effect, DoC start getting gutted by the obsidian lodestone.

TL;DR do you really have a gripe with the magical attacks / ethereal interaction in the entire game, or do you just dislike the Banner?

Because then the simple fix is add 5 points to the banner's cost, making it squishy-BSB-only.

Lastavenger
09-04-2014, 11:37
You forgot about WE forest spirit ward save.

warhammerscotlandplayer
09-04-2014, 11:48
This is just a gripe against the BOTWD, get over it. Elves are low armoured, low toughness, high point cost. This is a good item for them.

theunwantedbeing
09-04-2014, 12:24
I don't see the issue personally.

The only unit that has a 2+ ward vs flaming attacks is dragon princes, and flaming attacks just aren't prevalent enough for that to be a problem. No army has all flaming attacks for example.
The only unit that has a 2+ ward vs magical attacks is a HE unit with the BotWD, and because one army (Daemons) has magical attacks on everything they have real difficulty with that.

Ethereals while immune to mundane attacks aren't immune to combat resolution, similarly magic is widespread enough as are characters toting magical weapons that they shouldn't be much of a problem. It's certainly nothing like the issue Daemons face against the BotWD.

So really the only issue is the BotWD against Daemon Armies, I'm sure everyone agrees that making it work vs magical attacks was a very dumb idea.

WhispersofBlood
09-04-2014, 12:28
I don't see the issue personally.

The only unit that has a 2+ ward vs flaming attacks is dragon princes, and flaming attacks just aren't prevalent enough for that to be a problem. No army has all flaming attacks for example.
The only unit that has a 2+ ward vs magical attacks is a HE unit with the BotWD, and because one army (Daemons) has magical attacks on everything they have real difficulty with that.

Ethereals while immune to mundane attacks aren't immune to combat resolution, similarly magic is widespread enough as are characters toting magical weapons that they shouldn't be much of a problem. It's certainly nothing like the issue Daemons face against the BotWD.

So really the only issue is the BotWD against Daemon Armies, I'm sure everyone agrees that making it work vs magical attacks was a very dumb idea.

I don't agree...

Scammel
09-04-2014, 12:29
This is just a gripe against the BOTWD, get over it. Elves are low armoured, low toughness, high point cost. This is a good item for them.

I think it's in contention for the worst single mistake yet made in 8th and I dare you'd find a lot of people who'd agree (other contenders count the Daemon Prince amongst their number). The 2+ save against most characters and spells is fine, the miscast protection is very potent and what it does to Daemons is terrible game design.

I think Ethereals are absolutely fine as long as they're confined to being crappy ghosts and single models as they have been in the past. It's very, very rare for an army to have no way whatsoever of dealing direct damage to them and even then they don't particularly like getting charged by anything with a sensible amount of static res. It'll only be problematic if the rule gets tacked onto anything that can fight half-decently. Plus, I think it's much more invocative for ghosts to be flat-out immune to damage, I wouldn't like to see the rule reduced to another form of ward save.

WhispersofBlood
09-04-2014, 12:46
I think it's in contention for the worst single mistake yet made in 8th and I dare you'd find a lot of people who'd agree (other contenders count the Daemon Prince amongst their number). The 2+ save against most characters and spells is fine, the miscast protection is very potent and what it does to Daemons is terrible game design.

I think Ethereals are absolutely fine as long as they're confined to being crappy ghosts and single models as they have been in the past. It's very, very rare for an army to have no way whatsoever of dealing direct damage to them and even then they don't particularly like getting charged by anything with a sensible amount of static res. It'll only be problematic if the rule gets tacked onto anything that can fight half-decently. Plus, I think it's much more invocative for ghosts to be flat-out immune to damage, I wouldn't like to see the rule reduced to another form of ward save.

So hold on. You are ok with the fact that all Daemons and forest spirits ignore ethereal (a rule that is admittedly used in only one army usually) , but not ok with the fact that one unit, in one army gets a 2++ against the Daemons. It is basically reverse Ethereal, which people get a long fine with. My Empire army already has a bad match up with Vamps, let alone having limited access to magical attacks, but that is ok right? I feel like most people who are still against BotWD are merely against it as a mental exercise, and then repeated on the internet creating an availability cascade.

Having watched and played the match up several times now it isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be. On the contrary I've witnessed several HE armies simply get rolled by Daemons without it, so I'm willing to believe that it was included for a reason. If only to force DoC armies to take some fast chaff like seekers or furies, and give wall of nurgle some grief.

MOMUS
09-04-2014, 13:12
Ethereal units are obnoxiously difficult to deal with? :confused:They are mainly reserved to one army (VC) only a few unit types who will rarely be ranked up and dish out only a handful of attacks. These units can easily be beaten by most standard rank and file with a banner through combat res. I think your main gripe and thus the bulk of your argument revolves around the BotWD which is one item in one unit in one army, yes its tough but I don't think magical attacks need reworking do to that one small issue. The real losers from magical attacks are the wood elves as mentioned but I guess they didn't factor into your bias...

Tae
09-04-2014, 15:38
So hold on. You are ok with the fact that all Daemons and forest spirits ignore ethereal (a rule that is admittedly used in only one army usually) , but not ok with the fact that one unit, in one army gets a 2++ against the Daemons. It is basically reverse Ethereal, which people get a long fine with. My Empire army already has a bad match up with Vamps, let alone having limited access to magical attacks, but that is ok right? I feel like most people who are still against BotWD are merely against it as a mental exercise, and then repeated on the internet creating an availability cascade.

Having watched and played the match up several times now it isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be. On the contrary I've witnessed several HE armies simply get rolled by Daemons without it, so I'm willing to believe that it was included for a reason. If only to force DoC armies to take some fast chaff like seekers or furies, and give wall of nurgle some grief.

Ethereal units are in one book and, by in large, are skirmishers/single models so would get killed on combat res alone vs most units. The fact that one entire army has no problems with them does not overly impact in the VC book as a whole as they don't comprise the bulk of the army and there are plenty of other units available.

That banner, by contrast, makes one unit (which can be a unit which includes all characters and the vast majority of the army's points, if the player so wishes) have a 2++ against an entire army with nothing the opponent can do to mitigate its effects in any way.

All the "fast cav and chaff" in the world aren't going to save you against a well built list and a competent player.

If the banner was limited to BSB only or units with a practical limit (such as Dragon Princes) it would still be exceedingly good. As it currently stands it is the single most broken items in not only this edition but most of the editions I've ever played.

Now I would agree that the complaints about the banner by the non Daemon players are often exaggerated, the effect it has on DoC armies is utterly absurd and quite frankly any attemp to compare it to the issue of magical attacks against ethereal creatures suggests a basic lack of understanding of the balancing issues in WHF.

Scammel
09-04-2014, 15:48
So hold on. You are ok with the fact that all Daemons and forest spirits ignore ethereal (a rule that is admittedly used in only one army usually) , but not ok with the fact that one unit, in one army gets a 2++ against the Daemons. It is basically reverse Ethereal, which people get a long fine with. My Empire army already has a bad match up with Vamps, let alone having limited access to magical attacks, but that is ok right? I feel like most people who are still against BotWD are merely against it as a mental exercise, and then repeated on the internet creating an availability cascade.


Ethereals encompass a tiny handful of units in a single book. To my knowledge no-one ever takes more than a couple and they're not particularly potent (in combat, anyway). They are tricky, but not impossible to deal with if you don't have magical attacks. Contrast with the banner, which takes an unceremonious dump in the face of an entire army that lakcs any way of ever dealing with it in a meaningful way.

Your assertion that HElves have some form of weakness to Daemons is peculiar to say the least. You'll have to try a lot harder than 'I saw some HElves get beaten by Daemons so BotW is ok'.

Vipoid
09-04-2014, 18:09
"Successful Ward Saves must be rerolled against Magical Attacks. In addition, a unit that has lost wounds to a Magical Attack must reroll all successful Ward Saves for the duration of that phase, even against non-Magical Attacks."

I probably wouldn't bother with the latter part, but I like the idea.

Especially with all the ward saves that seem to be appearing these days.

The bearded one
09-04-2014, 19:01
Aye, I'd find it rather neat to force rerolls on wardsaves against magical attacks. Magical attacks is one of those rules that essentially doesn't come up in the game at all, except for ethereals and the banner of the world dragon. And then it's rather all-or-nothing. Magic attacks cancelling wardsaves out entirely seems too much for me, but a reroll or a -1 seem okay. If anything you can finally have something in your army's arsenal that makes a dent on them. 3+ wardsaves must die!

I'd only have it in close combat though. I don't think we need magic dwarf artillery negating the ironcurse icon ;) Or magic spells impacting the already feeble magic resistance :D

Voss
09-04-2014, 19:09
Any thoughts?

Removing the rule would simply be better, as it has a lot of carry on and legacy effects (WE daemons) to no good purpose. Its a absolutely minuscule part of the game, but causes a lot of grumbling and headaches for such a trivial thing. Best ejected.

And this point I also just object to _anything_ that inflicts yet more rerolls in a system that is slaved to buckets of dice rolls and far too many rerolls of the same as it is. Some armies might as well not roll dice and just take the average value for all situations. It would shave a ton of time off games, and rarely change the end results.

Imperator64
09-04-2014, 22:53
I'll comment on a side issue that you mentioned. Dragonbane gem, the dragon helmet and dragon armour are really irritating examples of the all or nothing problem you mention. The signature spells of three lores ( & one entire lore) are all flaming attacks and can be negated by three items which cost a pittance. The nurgle dp wouldn't be such a problem if he wsnt immune to searing doom.
Which has got me thinking... The lore of metal is annoying aswell. You shouldn't be able to turn an expensive quality like armour into a giant liability. I took out a unit of mournfang last week witj a level one on turn one. At first I felt chuffed. Then I felt like i'd romped ahead without any effort required.
Warhammer takes a lot longer to set up than a game of rock, paper, scissors.

Lastavenger
10-04-2014, 05:02
Lets not forget that not all ward saves come from magic. For example parry save and Skaven assassins are also ward but don't have anything to do with magic.

HurrDurr
10-04-2014, 07:01
The magic attacks system is a little bit clunky, it has one interaction which is piercing ethereal protection. But there are a lot of other unique rules built around it. Like forest spirit wards and the banner, all of these are afterthoughts tagged onto the rule after the fact. It would be the same as having units with ward saves against attacks that had armor piercing or poison. Having or not having magic attacks can have such a big influence on the battle which is ironic considering how rare you are striking a target that is actually ethereal.

Ignore the non-constructive posts, the banner is trash and everyone knows it. A lot of your suggestions sound really good but also aren't feasible this late into a new edition, tons of 8th edition books fresh off the print now with magic resistance or ward saves running around, suddenly people can equip a +4 MR item/banner and have a unit suddenly gain a 4+ ward against anything with magic attacks(even if you have to reroll that's 25% saved). Right away you have empire luminark and a witch hunter giving a 6++MR2 so daemons and wood elves get shafted. Throw an MR banner on some knights or MC and they can ward save dwarven siege weapons.

It sounds really characterful and fun but also would be a huge shake up to balance and who knows where the armies would land. It could cause everyone to be too afraid to take magic attacks at all and reduce the variety.

IF we could get a new edition and all the books out in a year or so I'd be excited otherwise it seems like more trouble than it's worth for such a small part of the game.

WizzyWarlock
10-04-2014, 07:02
- Completely neuters anything with the Ethereal rule, turning them into exceptionally expensive dead weight.
And the Forest Spirit rule, which is a major thing for the Wood Elves as it covers all their main combat troops. Add on Flaming Attacks and the whole thing gets ridiculous. Treeman hit with a Skullcannon, no saves, double wounds, that's 150pts killing 285pts in one shot. How cool is that? Yeah, forget taking the Treeman. Treekin? Same problem. Dryads? Oh, look at all the magical attacks being fielded these days, yeah, bye Dryads. Wild Riders! 5+/5++, yeah, forget that ward save, and everything has higher strength so maybe change that armour save to 6+ or none at all.. So that leaves the Wood Elves with some archers and.. well, that's about it. Now get into combat with what remains and be torn to pieces by rerolls on every other army.

Why do I keep trying to play Wood Elves?

Snake1311
10-04-2014, 10:48
Good examples above - lore of metal making what is usually a bonus into a liability; same with the 'immune to flaming' stuff.

Magical attacks was traditionally only a bonus (like armour, and flaming). Now one item in the game makes it a conditional feature. Whats the big deal? There are clearly precedents.

And reworking an entire aspect of the game because you are unhappy with how ONE ITEM in ONE ARMY works against ONE OTHER ARMY is pretty silly.

As an option B to reworking the banner itself, has anyone considered that the problem might be that all Deamons have magical attacks? I understand why letters and bearers get it from their swords, and even why horrors are magical, but what if for example all the Slaanesh stuff didn't have it? Isn't that a much neater fix (and as a side note, somewhat better internal balance in the DoC book) than reworking everything? It makes them slightly weaker against etherials overall as well.

And for the record, the HE BotWD vs DoC matchup isn't THAT bad. Deamons get cheap chaff that can keep the unit occupied for the entire game at a cost of about 200-300 points total; nothing then stops them taking out everything thats not under the banner.

Lorm
10-04-2014, 12:53
What really bothers me about magical or flaming attacks is that they're intended to be a bonus, but more often they're a big drawback, thanks to stuff like dragonbane's gem, BotWD, rune of furnace, etc...
"Oh, you got a nice 100 points magical sword of flaming-apocalypse-destruction, well half my army has 2+ against flaming and the other half (one unit with everything in it) has 2+ against magical; have fun!"
...lame...

Solution is simple: remove/reduce effectiveness/reduce availability/increase cost of said items, and if you think helves are too squishy, decrease their points too, or increase points for daemons, or try to balance stuff up with other more appropriate means; after all why helves' players should be obliged to take the banner or else be defeated?
I hate no-brainer stuff...

N1AK
10-04-2014, 14:45
As it is:
- Completely neuters anything with the Ethereal rule, turning them into exceptionally expensive dead weight.
- In turn, makes Ethereal obnoxiously difficult to deal with for anyone without the proper tools. Because such a hard counter exists, it's considered acceptable to make them nails the rest of the time?
- Makes the unit completely unable to deal with the Banner of the World Dragon.
- 2(?) Magic Items, belonging to Dark and Wood Elves, which grant special properties against Magical Attacks.


The issues you highlight here aren't with the magical attacks rule but a couple of poor rules that interact with it. The BotWD could be fixed easily with an errata, but won't be. Ethereal should never have been complete immunity to non-magical attacks, a 2+ ward against non-magical attacks and either a drop in pts or a stat buff would have been fine.

In my opinion, the magic attacks forcing ward re-rolls is a big mistake. 2++/3++/4++ wards are already far better than 5++/6++ wards as it is. Re-rolls are more damaging the weaker your original ward is, so it would make the difference even more stark. I agree that wards, especially good ones, need toning down but I don't agree with this method.

N1AK
10-04-2014, 14:50
Which has got me thinking... The lore of metal is annoying aswell. You shouldn't be able to turn an expensive quality like armour into a giant liability. I took out a unit of mournfang last week witj a level one on turn one. At first I felt chuffed. Then I felt like i'd romped ahead without any effort required.

Why not? A unit with 100 strength 3 attacks won't even kill a Mournfang even though it can decimate lesser armoured units. Armour turns an expensive quality, quantity of attacks, into junk ;)

I've won games T1 because a lucky spell has panicked a general/BSB/big unit off the table. It happens, rarely, but it doesn't mean it's broken. Plenty of people take very heavily armoured units and very, very, rarely do they suffer that kind of issue due to it.

WhispersofBlood
10-04-2014, 16:14
Ethereal units are in one book and, by in large, are skirmishers/single models so would get killed on combat res alone vs most units. The fact that one entire army has no problems with them does not overly impact in the VC book as a whole as they don't comprise the bulk of the army and there are plenty of other units available.

That banner, by contrast, makes one unit (which can be a unit which includes all characters and the vast majority of the army's points, if the player so wishes) have a 2++ against an entire army with nothing the opponent can do to mitigate its effects in any way.

All the "fast cav and chaff" in the world aren't going to save you against a well built list and a competent player.

If the banner was limited to BSB only or units with a practical limit (such as Dragon Princes) it would still be exceedingly good. As it currently stands it is the single most broken items in not only this edition but most of the editions I've ever played.

Now I would agree that the complaints about the banner by the non Daemon players are often exaggerated, the effect it has on DoC armies is utterly absurd and quite frankly any attemp to compare it to the issue of magical attacks against ethereal creatures suggests a basic lack of understanding of the balancing issues in WHF.


Ethereals encompass a tiny handful of units in a single book. To my knowledge no-one ever takes more than a couple and they're not particularly potent (in combat, anyway). They are tricky, but not impossible to deal with if you don't have magical attacks. Contrast with the banner, which takes an unceremonious dump in the face of an entire army that lakcs any way of ever dealing with it in a meaningful way.

Your assertion that HElves have some form of weakness to Daemons is peculiar to say the least. You'll have to try a lot harder than 'I saw some HElves get beaten by Daemons so BotW is ok'.

Well 25% of your list must be core, which can't take any magic banner anyway. So in theory even in the most extreme case Daemons can kill 25% of the HE list. If everything is slammed into that one unit how would it ever see combat with a game deciding number of victory points.

Now if you or your events change the victory conditions, then you could argue that the BotWD is unbalanced. But with the rules GW themselves have published its just fine.

underscore
10-04-2014, 16:31
Well 25% of your list must be core, which can't take any magic banner anyway. So in theory even in the most extreme case Daemons can kill 25% of the HE list.
...unless that unit is a Silver Helm Star with the Banner.


You know how in almost every release there's some option that everyone moans is going to break the game and is terrible etc etc and it never works out that way and everyone calms down? The BotWD is kinda like the opposite. The longer it's been out, the more I despair that it was ever okayed in the first place and more and more baffled that people try to defend it.

WhispersofBlood
10-04-2014, 16:38
Ethereal units are in one book and, by in large, are skirmishers/single models so would get killed on combat res alone vs most units. The fact that one entire army has no problems with them does not overly impact in the VC book as a whole as they don't comprise the bulk of the army and there are plenty of other units available.

That banner, by contrast, makes one unit (which can be a unit which includes all characters and the vast majority of the army's points, if the player so wishes) have a 2++ against an entire army with nothing the opponent can do to mitigate its effects in any way.

All the "fast cav and chaff" in the world aren't going to save you against a well built list and a competent player.

If the banner was limited to BSB only or units with a practical limit (such as Dragon Princes) it would still be exceedingly good. As it currently stands it is the single most broken items in not only this edition but most of the editions I've ever played.

Now I would agree that the complaints about the banner by the non Daemon players are often exaggerated, the effect it has on DoC armies is utterly absurd and quite frankly any attemp to compare it to the issue of magical attacks against ethereal creatures suggests a basic lack of understanding of the balancing issues in WHF.


Ethereals encompass a tiny handful of units in a single book. To my knowledge no-one ever takes more than a couple and they're not particularly potent (in combat, anyway). They are tricky, but not impossible to deal with if you don't have magical attacks. Contrast with the banner, which takes an unceremonious dump in the face of an entire army that lakcs any way of ever dealing with it in a meaningful way.

Your assertion that HElves have some form of weakness to Daemons is peculiar to say the least. You'll have to try a lot harder than 'I saw some HElves get beaten by Daemons so BotW is ok'.


...unless that unit is a Silver Helm Star with the Banner.


You know how in almost every release there's some option that everyone moans is going to break the game and is terrible etc etc and it never works out that way and everyone calms down? The BotWD is kinda like the opposite. The longer it's been out, the more I despair that it was ever okayed in the first place and more and more baffled that people try to defend it.

So what are the other 2 units in the army? Lets be intellectually honest, the examples people come up with are so extreme and unlikely you will never see them. Playing the brb scenerios, and using diverse terrain also minimize the effect of these outlier armies.

underscore
10-04-2014, 16:42
So what are the other 2 units in the army?
Usually a mixture of Bolt throwers, Eagles, Phoenixes, Dragon Princes and Reavers, in my experience. All stuff that'll either make their points back or give you a tough time manoeuvring.


Playing the brb scenerios, and using diverse terrain also minimize the effect of these outlier armies.
I don't really see how. I mean, a couple might help a bit, but not THAT much.

Yowzo
11-04-2014, 09:48
...unless that unit is a Silver Helm Star with the Banner.

Silver helms can't carry a magic banner. If you mean a BSB with the banner it can be attacked and killed way easier than a unit banner, and after the charge those S3 helms aren't going anywhere.

T10
11-04-2014, 10:27
A very simple question to you all; Does the rule 'Magical Attacks' need to exist, in any form, under the current rules?

Unless I am completely mistaken, there is no "Magical Attacks" special rule. There are a number of effects that "count as" Magical Attacks, e.g. spell effects and attacks made with magic weapons, but there is no formal rule akin to Flaming Attacks.

It would be nice to see the rules define it as such. For example, a miscast could state "The Wizard takes a Strength 10 hit with the Magical Attack special rule," and "All Wounds caused by spells have the Magical Attacks special rule."

-T10

underscore
11-04-2014, 13:40
Silver helms can't carry a magic banner. If you mean a BSB with the banner it can be attacked and killed way easier than a unit banner, and after the charge those S3 helms aren't going anywhere.
Easier is only relative when you're trying to get through a 2+/2++ save and the BSB isn't even necessarily in the front rank.

Daenerys Targaryen
11-04-2014, 13:56
I find it highly amusing actually that the OP's suggestion would instantly make DoC the game's worst army, to the point they'd be barely playable!

Vipoid
11-04-2014, 13:58
I find it highly amusing actually that the OP's suggestion would instantly make DoC the game's worst army, to the point they'd be barely playable!

Might I ask why?

Scammel
11-04-2014, 14:12
Might I ask why?

Perhaps because MR is relatively cheap and easy to come by. A ward save against the Daemon army and most combat characters is potent even if it is re-rolled on successes.

Vipoid
11-04-2014, 14:21
Perhaps because MR is relatively cheap and easy to come by. A ward save against the Daemon army and most combat characters is potent even if it is re-rolled on successes.

Hmm, that's true. I imagine MR stacking with normal ward saves would be especially problematic.

Yowzo
11-04-2014, 14:22
Easier is only relative when you're trying to get through a 2+/2++ save and the BSB isn't even necessarily in the front rank.

If not in the first rank the unit is a prime target for tarpitting since it will be a point sink and two nobles aren't precisely the best use of points.

If on the first rank it's just two wounds on a T3 character. And remember the unit can still be debuffed.

Honestly botwd on a BSB is asking for trouble unless you're list tailoring against daemons.

SpanielBear
11-04-2014, 14:23
Perhaps because MR is relatively cheap and easy to come by. A ward save against the Daemon army and most combat characters is potent even if it is re-rolled on successes.

You think the daemons would have it bad? "Hello Wood Elves. All your leafy friends attacks are now useless. You still lose your save. Bye bye!"

Scammel
11-04-2014, 14:26
You think the daemons would have it bad? "Hello Wood Elves. All your leafy friends attacks are now useless. You still lose your save. Bye bye!"

My sympathy for the Woodies is somewhat tempered by the simple fact that they're old and written for a different edition - it's just the way of things and they can suck it up for a month more.

SpanielBear
11-04-2014, 14:32
My sympathy for the Woodies is somewhat tempered by the simple fact that they're old and written for a different edition - it's just the way of things and they can suck it up for a month more.

Ehh, truth be told they aren't that bad currently- overpriced with a duff lore and a couple of iffy units, but otherwise playable and fun (IMO). I was more reacting to the changes the OP was suggesting.

May should be fun! :)

Daenerys Targaryen
11-04-2014, 14:34
Might I ask why?



"Successful Ward Saves must be re-rolled against Magical Attacks. In addition, a unit which lost wounds to a Magical Attack must re-roll all successful Ward Saves for the duration of that phase, even against non-Magical Attacks."

Because an army that basically only has a 5++ as it's only real form of protection, and no ability to buy reliable armour saves on its characters needs to have the screws put to it even harder...

Vipoid
11-04-2014, 14:38
Because an army that basically only has a 5++ as it's only real form of protection, and no ability to buy reliable armour saves on its characters needs to have the screws put to it even harder...

That's true, but then a lot of armies don't have many magic attacks - and everything in their army will be rerolling ward saves too.

Maybe it will make DoC worse overall, but to me it seems like it can go either way - since they're also getting a massive, army-wide offensive boost against everything that relies on ward saves for protection.

Clockwork
11-04-2014, 18:51
I'll comment on a side issue that you mentioned. Dragonbane gem, the dragon helmet and dragon armour are really irritating examples of the all or nothing problem you mention. The signature spells of three lores ( & one entire lore) are all flaming attacks and can be negated by three items which cost a pittance. The nurgle dp wouldn't be such a problem if he wsnt immune to searing doom.


This is why I support removing the Dragonbane Gem and the Dragonhelm from 9th edition.

HurrDurr
11-04-2014, 20:57
It could be a buff to daemons overall, how many sources of MR can they have? If they can slap a MR3(or however much is on the banner) they could give up a 5++ for a 2/3++ reroll on success. rerolling 3's is 66% of 66% or 43ish% a 5+ is only 1/3 or 33% saved.

Scammel
11-04-2014, 21:25
This is why I support removing the Dragonbane Gem and the Dragonhelm from 9th edition.

It does lend an incentive not to wantonly slap the banner of Eternal Flame on everything, though. Checks and balances (though granted, it could be on the less extreme end of the RPS scale).

Vipoid
11-04-2014, 21:29
This is why I support removing the Dragonbane Gem and the Dragonhelm from 9th edition.

Again, I struggle to see the issue.

Is a 2+ ward against flaming attacks on, at most, two characters really such an issue?

Clockwork
11-04-2014, 21:42
Again, I struggle to see the issue.

Is a 2+ ward against flaming attacks on, at most, two characters really such an issue?

When one model can roll through entire armies because it has no weaknesses due a 5 point item, then yes.

Scammel
11-04-2014, 21:45
When one model can roll through entire armies because it has no weaknesses due a 5 point item, then yes.

I am dying to know how a borderline immunity to flaming (itself found on one or two units in every army at most) is 'No weaknesses'.

theunwantedbeing
11-04-2014, 21:49
This is why I support removing the Dragonbane Gem and the Dragonhelm from 9th edition.

That doesn't make a huge difference, it just gives him a bit of a weakness against the Lore of metal.
If you haven't taken that lore then you're not getting any benefit and the guy is exactly as problematic as before.

Neither item is an issue on anything that isn't a daemon prince.

Clockwork
11-04-2014, 22:04
That doesn't make a huge difference, it just gives him a bit of a weakness against the Lore of metal.
If you haven't taken that lore then you're not getting any benefit and the guy is exactly as problematic as before.

Neither item is an issue on anything that isn't a daemon prince.


I am dying to know how a borderline immunity to flaming (itself found on one or two units in every army at most) is 'No weaknesses'.

Daemon Princes are problematic because they have no weaknesses. Their stats are good enough to see off all magical attacks (even the old reliable Spirit Leech needs a lot of luck), they don't care for losing combat or Panic, they can survive against most infantry or cavalry long enough to Purple Sun them away, wipe them out or Soulfeed wounds back, they can beat almost any other character in combat one on one, they can Fly out of trouble or into favourable combats, and they have high Toughness, a high Armour Save, and a Ward.

When confronted with something that's practically untouchable but has a high armour save, there's two solutions: warmachines (particularly cannons), and Searing Doom. If you're unfortunate enough to play an army which doesn't have cannons, or who's cannon's happen to be Flaming, then yes - that 5 point magic item is just icing on an already tough cake which might as well be 'no weaknesses.'

I don't mind the items on anything else. Sure, getting rid of them might help reverse the trend towards 1+ save characters (looking at you, Scar-Vets, Masters and Exalteds). But we're less likely to get a new WoC book that addresses the problem at source than we are to get a new rulebook which could 'patch' it by giving him a very real and very threatening weakness that more armies have access to.

theunwantedbeing
11-04-2014, 23:04
Daemon Princes are problematic because they have no weaknesses. Their stats are good enough to see off all magical attacks (even the old reliable Spirit Leech needs a lot of luck), they don't care for losing combat or Panic, they can survive against most infantry or cavalry long enough to Purple Sun them away, wipe them out or Soulfeed wounds back, they can beat almost any other character in combat one on one, they can Fly out of trouble or into favourable combats, and they have high Toughness, a high Armour Save, and a Ward.

Weaknesses of Daemon Princes.
1. Cannons, Bolt Throwers and Stone throwers (in that order)
2. High Strength close combat attacks (ie. st7+ although enough st6 will still drop him)
3. Ignore armour save weapons (everyone has access to at least one, usually strength 4-5 which is plenty for hurting the prince)
4. Magical Spells
Amber Spear (bolt thrower/cannonball),
Final Transmutation (1/6 to kill),
Banishment (minimum 3D6 hits that force wards to re-roll)
Dwellers Below (1/6 to kill)
Urannons Thunderbolt (D6 St6 hits)
Mindrazor (on the unit he's fighting to let them cause st7-10 hits)
Caress of Laniph(4+ to wound ignores armour), Fate of Bjuna (2+ to wound ignores armour), Purple Sun (1/6 to kill) Spirit Leech (auto wounds, ignores armour)

Then there is simply hitting him with every bit of ranged firepower you can, unlikely to kill of course but entirely capable of knocking a wound off him.

Obviously the Prince isn't easy to beat otherwise people wouldn't have an issue with him, but he's far from unbeatable when toting a 2+ ward vs flaming attacks.
It also means he can't re-roll that armour save which makes him significantly more vulnerable in close combat.
Plus he does tend to be rather close to 500points in cost, when he's a mage he can still accidentally kill himself (unlikely obviously but possible).

The main reason the Daemon prince is such an issue is because he can get wounds back and can't be broken from combat.
He's much like the stubborn flying lord you see sometimes, only he's better at combat and has zero risk of running away.

Scammel
11-04-2014, 23:05
Daemon Princes are a problem for all armies and certainly don't make the Dragon- items an issue. Besides, isn't the Daemon army the one that can hit the blasted thing with better monsters? You'll forgive my unfamiliarity with the book but I don't think it goes toe-to-toe that well with 3 out of the 4 Greaters.

Alltaken
12-04-2014, 03:07
Weaknesses of Daemon Princes.
1. Cannons, Bolt Throwers and Stone throwers (in that order)
2. High Strength close combat attacks (ie. st7+ although enough st6 will still drop him)
3. Ignore armour save weapons (everyone has access to at least one, usually strength 4-5 which is plenty for hurting the prince)
4. Magical Spells
Amber Spear (bolt thrower/cannonball),
Final Transmutation (1/6 to kill),
Banishment (minimum 3D6 hits that force wards to re-roll)
Dwellers Below (1/6 to kill)
Urannons Thunderbolt (D6 St6 hits)
Mindrazor (on the unit he's fighting to let them cause st7-10 hits)
Caress of Laniph(4+ to wound ignores armour), Fate of Bjuna (2+ to wound ignores armour), Purple Sun (1/6 to kill) Spirit Leech (auto wounds, ignores armour)


Stone throwers have to get bulls eye.
Ignore armor save weapons are mostly horrible overpriced items,

High Strength isnt always so easily available, can have trouble landing hits (say mon deamon) or even more, they will have difficulty getting the charge because it flies. And since most units that strong are wielding 2 handed weps

Any of the characterisc test is highly unlikely and the openent will know that this spell should be dispelled.
Uranons a terrible example, targeting it is pretty hard

Clockwork
12-04-2014, 10:32
1. Cannons, Bolt Throwers and Stone throwers (in that order)
Addressed previously. Summarised: not everyone has these, and it is possible to mitigate (terrain, Charmed Shield, 5++, Fly, hiding behind a Chimera/Ogres/Trolls/etc).

2. High Strength close combat attacks (ie. st7+ although enough st6 will still drop him)
You need, on average, 12 S7 hits to kill a Nurgle Daemon Prince. Given that most things will be hitting him on 5s, thats a whopping 40 attacks. Where do you get 40 S7 attacks from? Unfortunate enough to be hitting on 6s? Then you need 72 attacks - and that's assuming that he doesn't Soulfeed something back (although, chances are you get wiped out or run down long before killing it). Even the infamous Saurus cowboys need significant magic investment and a ton of luck.

3. Ignore armour save weapons (everyone has access to at least one, usually strength 4-5 which is plenty for hurting the prince)

Er, no. Firstly, you still need to deliver it on a package that won't get killed by the Prince first. Secondly, once again the Mark of Nurgle comes in to play - you'd need 108 S4 attacks hitting on 6s (18 hits, 6 wounds, 2 successful Ward saves); 54 S4 attacks hitting on 5s; 72 S5 attacks hitting on 6s, and your best chance - S5 attacks hitting on 5s - still requires 36 attacks just to deal 4 wounds.

Granted, there are other things in the game that require just as silly numbers (again, Scar-Vet cowboys for instance) - but all of those things are weak to a range of threats. Not so Daemon Princes.

4. Magical Spells
Of the spells that you listed, three of them are 1/6 chance. I've argued this before, but I don't consider a 1/6 chance a viable counter to something (especially when its already dependent on Winds rolls, successful casting, failed dispel, etc). You might as well say "well the Daemon Prince could miscast and fall down a hole, so there's nothing to worry about" - sure, it might happen, but the odds of it actually happening are so remote you can't count on it. Banishment needs to be S5, ideally S6 or higher, which limits it to only a couple of armies. Even a max Thunderbolt only deals 1 wound, whilst to get something out of Caress or Fate you need to roll highly and still cast it multiple times (or, once again, get really lucky). And thanks to him being Leadership 9 and most mages being Leadership 8 (possibly boosted to 9 thanks to Standard of Discipline), you still need to get lucky with Spirit Leech, and it still needs to fail its ward. So that leaves us with Mindrazor and Amber Spear.

Plus he does tend to be rather close to 500points in cost,

This is irrelevant when it can take equal, twice or three times as much in points investment to bring it down.

The conclusion? If you don't have cannons, a Light Council, or two out of all the BRB spells, then the only significant counter is luck. Remove 2++ vs Flaming, and suddenly there's a lot more options. For a start, not only is Searing Doom a clear and present threat, but all the other signature magic missiles open up.

Vipoid
12-04-2014, 10:55
2+ against flaming should not be removed because of one model. Period.

Especially when that model is a problem anyway and needs to be addressed. Making every other character suffer because of one badly-designed model is just a horrible idea.