PDA

View Full Version : Spells! Buy your spells here!



mattieice
03-11-2014, 20:25
After playing many games where I don't roll well and get the spell I want, I wondered why you were not allowed to purchase your spells. I also hated how upgrading your wizard to level 2 or 4 was such a no brainer due to the cheap value of the upgrade. I tried to think of a way you could purchase your spells instead that was fair and I thought why not have the casting value of the spell be the points cost to purchase it? It seems like a fair and simple way to get the spells you want/need with almost no modification needed. This would replace the Wizard level system. Every wizard innately knows the "signature spell" for free. For each spell you purchase after that, you become the equivalent wizard level. Hero level wizards can only purchase up to 2 spells (3 including the signature) and Lord level can purchase up to 4 (5 including the signature). And yes, lord level wizards can have the option of being level 1 or 2 with this model. What do people think?

leopard
03-11-2014, 20:41
Would love a system where you buy the spells, not for casting cost though, drop the cost of a wizard some and give them a 'spells' allowance, can also make some spells have another as a prerequisite.

That way can also fiddle the casting value, spend more points on a spell and know it better, or fewer and know more. spells from another 'colour' at twice cost say.

You still have winds to cope with but can now build your army around some effects.

Would just need care balancing the value of the spells, Different 'levels' of mage get different allowances, 'loremaster' provides an extra allowance at no specific cost

leopard
03-11-2014, 20:43
As an aside, this would of course dramatically change how the game plays and make mages perhaps worth a fair bit more as they are now a bit more predictable, but you could easily expand the lores both in number and size

EvanM
03-11-2014, 20:56
banishment for 12 points? haha youd have to have it be casting total multiplied by 4 or something. Its a good place to start. Give lvl 1's and 2's up to 50 pts to spend on spells and lvl 3's and 4's up to 100 pts.

then reduce the cost of the guys approprietly. so a lvl 1 empire wizard should be 15-20 pts but he has to at least by 1 spell, fireball for instance would be 15 pts... but other spells would be more.

mattieice
03-11-2014, 21:01
Those are some neat ideas but I think it would change how wizards work too much. I really do like the current model, but I think it's bogus that you may not get the spell that you need considering how many points you can potentially spend on wizards. It would be like an Empire player buying a "war machine" and having to roll on a chart before the battle to see if he gets a cannon, stone thrower, mortar, etc... Wizards fall on the extreme ends of the spectrum in terms of their value for good or ill. I think having control of your spells brings them in line with the rest of the options in the army list. Also, 4th level wizards can end up being extremely expensive if you buy all of the best spells and I think that can help temper that fact. This would make hero level wizards a more cost effective choice and lord level a extremely expensive but powerful choice.

yabbadabba
03-11-2014, 21:07
Nice idea but we need to get combat characters on a par with mages first. But definitely an interesting idea. The points cost will be the breaker on this though.

leopard
03-11-2014, 21:07
You will get a lot of players who just have a wizard for a single spell, or perhaps two.

It could work but changes the game a lot

theunwantedbeing
03-11-2014, 21:12
This would make hero level wizards a more cost effective choice and lord level a extremely expensive but powerful choice.

Hmm, 100pts (roughly) for a level 2 death mage with Purple Sun (plus whatever the cheapest other death spell is).
x however many times I reckon I can get away with casting it each turn.

Except vs elves obviously, then you take a life mage with dwellers.

Can't see any issues with that method.....:rolleyes:

EvanM
03-11-2014, 21:18
obviously different spells would be able to cost different amounts. plus, you could make lvl 1/2 wizards only have 50 pts to spend, and make all the "nuke" spells cost more than 50 pts. that way only lvl 4s could get dwellers, purple sun, etc.

leopard
03-11-2014, 21:26
Thats my thought on give each a spells allowance, can make some spells out of reach of the lower level mages, or make them 'need' another spell first so individually they are perhaps not prohibitive but only a higher level mage can have them and the others required.

Also the thought behind varying the casting level with points - so a Lv1 can pick PS, but only at a higher casting level, where as a higher Lv4 mage could take it on its own at a lower level but knows little else if anything.

Would suggest keeping a 'pot luck' spell you can buy which provides a random roll - exactly as now

EvanM
03-11-2014, 21:30
it honestly makes no sense that the wizards would come to battle knowing random spells. its wonky and weird. magic is unreliable enough already, we dont need our wizards sayng "you know, i dont feel like dwellers today. today its all about SHIELD OF THORNS!!!" hahaha

also you could easily make the spell lores have more than 7 spells. could be interesting to bring back old favorites or add new stuff.

leopard
03-11-2014, 21:34
Doubt the system will ever change, GW seems to think random == fun, so its unlikely. Can but dream.

It crops up as an idea every so often, perhaps an easy way would be to allow the player to either always re-roll one die, while allowing the same spell to be duplicated more than once - or allow a +/- 1 shift on any single die.

Personally I think they missed a trick with the cards in having you roll, why not just draw the cards?

EvanM
03-11-2014, 21:36
if you had to draw the cards then everyone would HAVE TO buy the spell cards. that would have been genious. Maybe they should do some sort of card drawing thing, that way youd get completely random spells with no double rolls and such.

but yeah GW makes things a little TOO random imo. itd be fun if you could agree to not play in such a random environement all the time.

leopard
03-11-2014, 21:43
They could do well to drop the lores from the main book, just have one spell as an example and thats it - then just publish a new spell deck each year - with all the lores to date in the one deck, and the ability to mix the spells up a bit.

A lot they could do with the concept of magic in the game, depends how much you want it to dominate really.

Skywave
03-11-2014, 21:57
What about the spell number related to the cost. Spell number 1 (like Fireball) cost 10pts, spell number 6 is 60pts. A wizard hero being limited to 50pts of spells would prevent the mega spell spam (and it make sense that the low-level guys can't/don't know the mega ultimate spells yet). That also limit a hero with 50pts allowance with 2 spells maximum, and a lord at 4 spells by taking #1-2-3-4. Taking #5 or 6 is a trade-off, more power but less spells.

That would require some re-aligment or changes to some spells, but the concept should work.

HelloKitty
03-11-2014, 21:57
i'd love it if each spell were useful. Then i'd be in favor of this.

However I am against this idea in a GW game because it would go to the same 5% of spells taken all the time and the other 95% you'd never see.

EvanM
03-11-2014, 22:07
you are right, the weakness of this is that people would NEVER use certain spells, and ALWAYS use some small selection of them.

Like i wish i could take gliterring robe and enchanted blades on a lvl 2 wizard but the rest of the spells are junk. so its not worth the risk unless if i am okay with at least 5 of the spells from that lore.

N00B
03-11-2014, 22:20
Hells, I would take treason of Tzeench on a lvl 1 each game if I could.

EvanM
03-11-2014, 22:30
I think everyone wishes they could pick their spells. maybe a good way to test this is to allow each wizard to pick 1 of their spells, same as signiture spell except that you get to pick which one of the 7 you get.

yabbadabba
03-11-2014, 22:32
You could also see the rise of the kamikaze level 1 wizards, 6 dicing uber spells.

N00B
03-11-2014, 22:43
You could also see the rise of the kamikaze level 1 wizards, 6 dicing uber spells.

I sometimes try this with my goblins for an epic curse of da bad moon. Take 1 lvl 4 and a lvl 2 with a powerstone...

facepalm
03-11-2014, 22:43
You would have to re-do all the spells. There is just too many way to abuse certain spells spells if you are able to reliably take the same ones on multiple wizards. Imagine spells that reduce T value of units now take 5 mages all with said spell, if you get 3 of these spells off on the same unit you remove 100% of any T3 unit from the game ignoring Armour/ward/regen saves. Repeat every single turn. how much would this 5 guys cost 500/600 points maybe?

EvanM
03-11-2014, 22:44
You could also see the rise of the kamikaze level 1 wizards, 6 dicing uber spells.


good point. How about spells 1, 2, and 3 all count as the sig spell in terms of being able to be swapped for. Then no uber spell lvl 1 suicide spam, but youd get more lvl 1-2 utility.

right now, unless you want the sig spell, a lvl 1/2 usually isnt a good way to do a specific job. you cant control which spells you get.

But lvl 2 lore of fire wizards would be better if you could alwasy get flaming sword of ruin and stuff.

Ramius4
03-11-2014, 22:50
This thread again...

I'll tell you how it ends. Everyone realizes that for this to work, the spells have to be balanced against each other in the first place in order to assign points costs. And even then, you realize that you'll only ever see a certain selection of spells.

the end ;)

EvanM
03-11-2014, 22:56
Gee ! dont jump to conclusions! haha

and yeah but you COULD price things to make it fair. perhaps some lores would be cheaper in costs, like lore of metal or lore of fire. Not that often used compared to life, death, shadow...

Ramius4
03-11-2014, 23:08
Gee ! dont jump to conclusions! haha

and yeah but you COULD price things to make it fair. perhaps some lores would be cheaper in costs, like lore of metal or lore of fire. Not that often used compared to life, death, shadow...

I think you missed my point. This same topic pops up about once every 6 months. And every time it ends just like I said.

It's not that it's not an interesting topic. It's just not feasible within the framework of the rules.

EvanM
03-11-2014, 23:18
I see your point. I honestly don't suspect to ever come across a genius idea that's the answer to everything, but I do enjoy discussing things.

Talo
04-11-2014, 05:25
The more values a spell has though (casting cost, damage dice, spell level and the proposed point values), the easier it is to balance.

You could add "spells" to generals, too. Like "shieldwall", to balance things out between the character options.

Wesser
04-11-2014, 05:48
Really wow. It been a long time since I heard a worse idea than that...

Just go around using the same few spells? As if we need more list tailoring. Sometimes playing the hand you are dealt actually can make you appreciate the worth of "useless" spells that you wouldn't normally take.

No thanks. I'm pretty happy with not facing the same couple of spells in every game I play

Urgat
04-11-2014, 06:22
Gee ! dont jump to conclusions! haha

and yeah but you COULD price things to make it fair.

Wouldn't change a thing. See how many of the BRB magic items are used? They're mostly priced fairly, doesn't change the fact that people still all pick the same ones.

Malagor
04-11-2014, 10:54
I remember when I had to buy my powers for my eldar in 40k.
It was a pretty bad system and rolling for powers is one of GWs better ideas.

TheOldblood
04-11-2014, 12:46
It is a bad idea because;

a) different armies get vastly different benefits from certain spells - balancing this would be a nightmare
b) it leads to armies built around particular spells, reducing tactical flexibility. Light council is already bad enough
c) it will lead to reduced usage of non-optimal spells (design a balanced lore, you say? Well there will always be sub-optimal spells relative to army builds).

Part of the downside of magic is that you shouldn't be guaranteed spells (unless you go level 4 + 2, which is often wasteful). Magic is almost perfect - just tweak Purple Sun/Dwellers slightly and give Fire a boost.

EvanM
04-11-2014, 12:49
The more values a spell has though (casting cost, damage dice, spell level and the proposed point values), the easier it is to balance.

You could add "spells" to generals, too. Like "shieldwall", to balance things out between the character options.

giving generals "spells" is kind of the coolest thing ive heard lately. Its like total war: Rome 2 where the general can use abilities to help the troops. I like it.



And yeah, you know what, you guys are right. The randomness of spell generation is the only thing stopping people from doing even worse tailoring.

If you want, in a friendly game, if you roll your spells and you get absolute garbage, just ask your opponent if you can reroll your dice. It can be a courtesy thing.

Ramius4
04-11-2014, 12:56
The more values a spell has though (casting cost, damage dice, spell level and the proposed point values), the easier it is to balance.

That's the opposite of true.

EvanM
04-11-2014, 13:00
That's the opposite of true.

good point. Casting value cant really control the spells though. So if there was other limitations that actually COULD make it work, then thatd be nice.

honestly, if you are playing a game with your opponent, just ask them "hey do you wanna play where we can pick our spells?" and if he agrees then cool.

Folomo
04-11-2014, 13:36
giving generals "spells" is kind of the coolest thing ive heard lately.
This sounds suspiciously like Warmachine XD.

HelloKitty
04-11-2014, 13:45
Well in warmachine all of the generals are super powered wizards.

EvanM
04-11-2014, 13:53
i think he meant spells like "grant one unit devastating charge for the turn" or "grant one unit stubborn for the turn"

Montegue
04-11-2014, 14:23
I'd hate to see folks be able to just spend a few points on a spell to make sure they get it. As a Dwarf player, it's nice when someone *every now and again* doesn't get Purple Sun or Cacobomb.

Captain Collius
04-11-2014, 15:00
I think you missed my point. This same topic pops up about once every 6 months. And every time it ends just like I said.

It's not that it's not an interesting topic. It's just not feasible within the framework of the rules.

Excellent point. As always remember the point of list building is to maximize the the way your elements interact to win. To this point you should choose a magic lore that maximizes your ability across the list. In my Monster Mash Stegadon heavy list I use life because regrowth, flesh to stone, throne of vines, and earthblood benefit the list. In a temple guard horde Lore of light is the choice as the buffs are monstrous. In Skink Cloud death and metal reign. My priests run beasts normally but in a steg list heavens is better. Lore choice is important the randomness of spell generation keeps us from being overpowering. See old 40K psychic power via 5th edition space wolves and blood angels.

Seelenhaendler
04-11-2014, 16:24
After playing many games where I don't roll well and get the spell I want, I wondered why you were not allowed to purchase your spells. I also hated how upgrading your wizard to level 2 or 4 was such a no brainer due to the cheap value of the upgrade. I tried to think of a way you could purchase your spells instead that was fair and I thought why not have the casting value of the spell be the points cost to purchase it? It seems like a fair and simple way to get the spells you want/need with almost no modification needed. This would replace the Wizard level system. Every wizard innately knows the "signature spell" for free. For each spell you purchase after that, you become the equivalent wizard level. Hero level wizards can only purchase up to 2 spells (3 including the signature) and Lord level can purchase up to 4 (5 including the signature). And yes, lord level wizards can have the option of being level 1 or 2 with this model. What do people think?

Do you mean something like this:
202719

Such a system can work but as others have already said you would need to rebalance all the spells first.
If you like to know more or just want to get some ideas how such a system could be implemented, check out my sig ;)

Katastrophe
04-11-2014, 17:08
Simplest answer would be to make all L1s have the signature and #1 spell.
L2s have sig, #1 and #2,
L3s have sig, 1, 2, 3, and 4
L4s have sig through dreaded 6

jigger their points slightly since lore master is now included in the L4s and up the L3s points just a tad. Mages fixed, no need to try to game the system on what spells you get and L4s are the only ones going around throwing the dreaded 6s.

Take out the silly rule about repeat spells (and since mages costs are going up a tad there will be some balance).

Talo
04-11-2014, 17:43
That's the opposite of true.

It's easier to balance, as you have more levers to pull. I'm not saying it would be easier for GW, seeing as they balanced thus far (lol).
If you only have one value, it's hard to balance it according to the multitude of scenarios, that WFB offers. Some armies/units will just benefit more from it. So you need additional ways to balance that out.

yabbadabba
04-11-2014, 21:06
It's easier to balance, as you have more levers to pull. I'm not saying it would be easier for GW, seeing as they balanced thus far (lol).
If you only have one value, it's hard to balance it according to the multitude of scenarios, that WFB offers. Some armies/units will just benefit more from it. So you need additional ways to balance that out. I can't agree there in mathematical terms.

a=0 is easier to balance than
a+b+c....+n=0

simply due to the reduction in variables. This is one of the key problems with GWs games - too many variables to balance.

Ramius4
05-11-2014, 05:09
It's easier to balance, as you have more levers to pull. I'm not saying it would be easier for GW, seeing as they balanced thus far (lol).
If you only have one value, it's hard to balance it according to the multitude of scenarios, that WFB offers. Some armies/units will just benefit more from it. So you need additional ways to balance that out.

Again, this is the opposite of true. You've got your logic absolutely backwards.