PDA

View Full Version : EoT Khaine and the new magic phase. Thoughts?



Smithpod68
01-12-2014, 13:06
Exactly as the title implies. Has anyone used the new magic phase? Have you liked/disliked it? I explained the phase to friends of mine who have not gotten the book yet and they are strongly opposed to it. They feel that now magic has been "nerfed" and will hurt armies like VC and WoC who are reliant on magic. I like the idea as I despise the "roll 6 dice and hope for a miscast" tactic with the big spells. However,I see the need for those spells when facing hoardes and the like. I am curious what others think or have experienced.

CountUlrich
01-12-2014, 14:15
You have people who think this actually nerfed magic?? It changes it, but also makes it significantly more powerful ... The reason that most are pissed about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
01-12-2014, 14:22
I haven't seen much talk about it at all really.

Spiney Norman
01-12-2014, 14:41
I think it's because most of us laughed when we read it and thought 'I will probably never use that'.

It is basically just repackages storm of magic, which similarly powers up magic to ridiculous levels (when it is already too powerful). I guess it will be fun for the odd wacky game (rather like SoM) but for general purpose warhammer? Hardly suitable.

Kahadras
01-12-2014, 14:48
I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Some stuff is welcome like attempting to fix 6 dicing. Others seem just weird (did Doomfire Warlocks really need to be made better).

Smithpod68
01-12-2014, 14:53
Well the big spells can be difficult to cast especially when you go to cast a 15+ spell and roll a "1" or "2" for casting dice to cast it.

Antigone1977
01-12-2014, 14:57
I may just be hard of brain but I can't see a definition of when a spell is cast (apologies if this is covered somewhere already)? Once you've rolled for how many dice you can use do you then HAVE to attempt to cast the spell or lose the dice (I don't see that anywhere in the rules)? I'm assuming so and that's why 'broken concentration,' has been removed from the rules but I don't see it in black and white and I know my RAW mates will be all over it!

HelloKitty
01-12-2014, 15:11
Just something to point out though - a lot of these mechanics they are putting into the EoT series - expect to see as core 9th edition constructs ;)

MasterSplinter
01-12-2014, 15:16
You have people who think this actually nerfed magic?? It changes it, but also makes it significantly more powerful ... The reason that most are pissed about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you think magic is now more powerfull? Afaik the relation of pd to dd has changed slightly to dd, you canīt count with the typical 6-dicing spells anymore as you have to roll how many dice you can use - you then have to use it (declare you want to cast the spell before the roll is made). Then there is this discussion going on on what exactly is a "successfull spell" as you only can atempt to recast it if it always has been successfull before. All in all i would say magic is slightly to explicitly nerfed (depends on wether you count a dispelled spell as successfully cast or not). Just because you have access to all spells of your lore doesnīt make you a better wizard ( i got along before the new rules pretty well with a level 4 which almost everytime got the spell he wants anyway).
Units of warlocks and Maiden of Thorn may become a little bit redicoulus now, but then IMO they shouldnīt be treated as wizards in that purpose that they know every spell of their lore, as they come with spells by profile.
Most of the nerfbat comes by the circumstance that magic isnīt that predictable anymore regarding instagib spells or unbalanced spells. Ok, now we got the cataclysms which are even so breaking and can be (some of them) cast quite easily.

SuperHappyTime
01-12-2014, 15:30
Don't want to be "That Guy with the Stupid Comments" any more than I usually am. Can someone please post the new Magic rules. Not everyone had two hours to waste refreshing GW to buy Khaine. Some of us have bills to pay.

forseer of fates
01-12-2014, 15:33
Odd that you must use it if using anything from the kaine book.

MasterSplinter
01-12-2014, 15:36
Don't want to be "That Guy with the Stupid Comments" any more than I usually am. Can someone please post the new Magic rules. Not everyone had two hours to waste refreshing GW to buy Khaine. Some of us have bills to pay.

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=892871#p892871

somewhere in the middle.

SuperHappyTime
01-12-2014, 15:45
http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=892871#p892871

somewhere in the middle.

Thank you. You are a fine gentleman/woman/rat and a scholar.

Looks like we may be getting a FAQ update soon.

Malixian
01-12-2014, 20:49
I'm holding off on a final verdict but initial impression is pretty negative. It seems they took a phase that was powerful but unreliable and made it even more powerful and even more unreliable. The only gripe I have with the current magic system is the pass a characeristic test or die with no saves spells. I couldn't find them in the linked discussion but I've seen rumors of some pretty insane new End Times Spells. I'm worried that this new magic system is just going to boil the game down to "see who gets their doomsday spell off first, nothing else matters".

Edit: As someone who fights against Dark Elves a lot, loremaster Warlocks is not something I'm looking forward to.

kylek2235
01-12-2014, 21:02
I don't mind using them, but I'm not going out of my way to use them. Sort of like everything in Storm of Magic. All it really is is a more random and powerful magic phase. Good ol' Balance by Random. Yep, exactly what everyone wanted.

My main gripe is that they're never going to release a real FAQ for it (just like the other End Times books) and the numerous rule questions it creates will never be answered.

Andy p
01-12-2014, 21:33
I played one game so far and my impression of it was what I thought it would be. Big spells are high risk and depending on the situation and what the spell is, usually not worth bothering with. Smaller spells, especially anything less than 10, became incredibly nasty.

In the game I played I used my mono-tzeentch daemons and found I could easily spam, (depending on how you interpret the wording on letting you cast again but the use of the words 'casting attempt' seems pretty clear sadly), blue fire and pink fire until something died, or glean magic until a wizard became useless and I got some of his/her spells. In this particular game my opponent was high elves and he took the loremaster with the book of hoeth so access to all 56 spells of the core lores. Turn one he rolls 19 to my 12 dispel, and opts for shems burning gaze because of the lore attribute but unfortunately he can cast it on one dice, rerolling the attempt if it was less than 3 with the book, whereas some poor rolling on my D6 allowance meant I lost the use of the LOC to dispel with.

Admittedly I was pretty unlucky with my dice and vice versa for him as he got it off 17 times and wiped my entire right flank back into the emotional trauma of their realm. Average hits were around 10 though on the 2D6 with lore attribute so above average rolls, but even 6-7 would hurt. I did get some revenge by taking his levels later on with glean, but that is an extreme example since there is the obvious advantage of light vs daemons and my list was pretty much MSU based so vunerable to that type of thing.

However I realised had I spent more time thinking it through, I could have sat my LOC firing out blue fire with the wand of whimsy to charge him up while hurting something else, pretty easily. But i'd opted for the usually more reliable eternal blade and lesser gift. Obviously I also never went under 7 on the magic rolls for the daemonic table. Anyway from that brief 1500 pt game I realised some of my suspicions about how this would shift magic tactics away from bigger spells to low level spam spells, I mean gateway becomes pointless and firestorm...well that was always a terrible spell although I did try it twice anyway like a fool.

If this becomes part of 9th and I know many who claim there probably won't even be a 9th, there will be some glaring issues with it in it's current form as it gives too much advantage to the casting side. I won't lie though...it was quite fun and there was a lot of pleasure in one of the weaker lores looking like one of the stronger ones with this rule set, but it could easily get old. I can easily see something like a light council becoming unbearable to face, in fact the TK version would probably be better than the empire version for once. It's something I want to try a bit more before I condemn it completely however.

But my view of it is even with the forceful and compulsory wording in the Khaine book I would probably agree amongst the people I was playing.

MasterSplinter
02-12-2014, 06:44
So pretty much all comes down to wether you can cast a dispelled spell again or not (with the exception of a loremaster maybe as he got plenty enough to choose from, and some other characters).



In the game I played I used my mono-tzeentch daemons and found I could easily spam, (...) blue fire and pink fire until something died, or glean magic until a wizard became useless and I got some of his/her spells.

Sorry, canīt resist to post this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw

Andy p
02-12-2014, 08:35
So pretty much all comes down to wether you can cast a dispelled spell again or not (with the exception of a loremaster maybe as he got plenty enough to choose from, and some other characters).



Sorry, canīt resist to post this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw

That's perfect, exactly like that.

underscore
02-12-2014, 08:40
Are Doomlocks and Thorn Sisters actually loremasters though? They're given specific spells to cast, not a Lore to generate spells from.

Wesser
02-12-2014, 09:47
It looks terrible and the fact that they aren't just a special rule for some scenario, but indeed is "Them Rules" for fielding End Times Elves is so terrible that I'm considering sitting End Times out entirely.

- It's pretty ridiculous the number of spells that Loremasters, Sisters of the Thorn and Warlocks now knows. It's okay for SC's who benefit like Mannfred, but a big part of the magic phase was "playing the hand you are dealt". These are just the worst example

- Rolling D6 for number of dices you can use to cast or dispel seems like an odd attempt at balancing some of the big spells, but it's also make previously bad spells like Skullstorm or Wind of Death even more useless. Worst of all. It drains tactics from the game and channels it over into more randomness


It's pretty awful how much damage to the game can be contained in single page

Spiney Norman
02-12-2014, 14:14
Why would you think magic is now more powerfull? Afaik the relation of pd to dd has changed slightly to dd, you canīt count with the typical 6-dicing spells anymore as you have to roll how many dice you can use - you then have to use it (declare you want to cast the spell before the roll is made). Then there is this discussion going on on what exactly is a "successfull spell" as you only can atempt to recast it if it always has been successfull before. All in all i would say magic is slightly to explicitly nerfed (depends on wether you count a dispelled spell as successfully cast or not). Just because you have access to all spells of your lore doesnīt make you a better wizard ( i got along before the new rules pretty well with a level 4 which almost everytime got the spell he wants anyway).
Units of warlocks and Maiden of Thorn may become a little bit redicoulus now, but then IMO they shouldnīt be treated as wizards in that purpose that they know every spell of their lore, as they come with spells by profile.
Most of the nerfbat comes by the circumstance that magic isnīt that predictable anymore regarding instagib spells or unbalanced spells. Ok, now we got the cataclysms which are even so breaking and can be (some of them) cast quite easily.

I'm not sure it is more powerful, it became vastly less predictable, I also feel that dispel took a bigger kick than casting with the D6 dice thing.

For quite a while now I've not really faced anyone who just lols and throws 6 dice at their mega spell, most people ive played against competitive try to throw 3-4 smaller buff spells a turn, hoping to get a couple of them through to turn the game their way, that is certainly the way I have been playing for the last year or more. Giving loremaster to every caster massively plays towards that strategy, you can now potentially cast Wyssans wild form on the same unit 2-3 times with very little difficulty, welcome to S7, T7 Saurus...

In addition the D6 dice cap per spell hurts dispel much more than casting because dispel is inherently reactive. Whereas before I could save my dice for that spell I really need to stop, I now face two problems, firstly I might easily roll lower than my opponent for the number of dice I can use in the attempt, making the dispel attempt difficult to impossible depending on the difference, and the likelihood is that whereas before my opponent could only cast that spell once he can now potentially cat it multiple times, possibly from multiple casters.

And that's before we even consider the fact that end times spells cannot be dispelled.

Overall magic spells got harder to cast, harder to dispel but easier to spam, I also think that games are going to turn even more on the casting of one spell than they have previously. Character assassination spells are going to be particularly grotesque unless you are using one of the 'nigh unkillable' characters like Malekith or Nagash, but then again I suppose the idea behind this new magic phase probably is to push us towards those characters.

Andy p
02-12-2014, 15:12
It also drags the phase out....to the point where all the others seemed less important than they used to when compared to what you could do in the magic phase. Except movement, movement is always important.

We'll have to see if this becomes a standard rule set or not.

MasterSplinter
02-12-2014, 15:33
I'm not sure it is more powerful, it became vastly less predictable, I also feel that dispel took a bigger kick than casting with the D6 dice thing.

For quite a while now I've not really faced anyone who just lols and throws 6 dice at their mega spell, most people ive played against competitive try to throw 3-4 smaller buff spells a turn, hoping to get a couple of them through to turn the game their way, that is certainly the way I have been playing for the last year or more. Giving loremaster to every caster massively plays towards that strategy, you can now potentially cast Wyssans wild form on the same unit 2-3 times with very little difficulty, welcome to S7, T7 Saurus...

In addition the D6 dice cap per spell hurts dispel much more than casting because dispel is inherently reactive. Whereas before I could save my dice for that spell I really need to stop, I now face two problems, firstly I might easily roll lower than my opponent for the number of dice I can use in the attempt, making the dispel attempt difficult to impossible depending on the difference, and the likelihood is that whereas before my opponent could only cast that spell once he can now potentially cat it multiple times, possibly from multiple casters.

And that's before we even consider the fact that end times spells cannot be dispelled.

Overall magic spells got harder to cast, harder to dispel but easier to spam, I also think that games are going to turn even more on the casting of one spell than they have previously. Character assassination spells are going to be particularly grotesque unless you are using one of the 'nigh unkillable' characters like Malekith or Nagash, but then again I suppose the idea behind this new magic phase probably is to push us towards those characters.

You have some valid points there, and i re-thought my opinion about the new magic a little. As i read your post you sum up my thoughts exactly.
The things i experienced much "back in the days of old magic" weere two of a kind: 1. were the players who had well thought-through armylists depending on buffs which you describe, 2. were those who havenīt put much thought into the system of magic in general instead reading on the forums about six dicing all the time is helpful (not to mention these kind where the ones which werenīt succesfull in games most times).
the problem imo mainly is/was thepossbility to have this no brainer option available, and that it is/was very tempting to use it in certain(first group of players)/all(second group of players) situations and ruin an otherwise enjoyable gaming experience for one or more players at the table (although i must admit that seeing a wizard to get blast into oblivion with his half unit is even more fun then).
That might be gone now, alas it's replaced by the low casting cascades which could be even more frustrating.

Regarding that dispelling/spelling dice sbject:
It's now confirmed that you have to atempt to cast a spell after rolling the dice determing how many pd you can use for the atempt?! But can you still decide to cast with a lower dice count? If so, itīs not that daunting to try for a 15+/20+ spell. with 4d6 pd you could still sacrifice this one pd.

Rakariel
02-12-2014, 16:14
Wouldn`t this new magic phase make something like the Dwarf Anvil viable again? I mean casting multiples of +1AS on a few units or even the direct damage spell should be quite handy. I am thinking of 1+ Ironbreakers there :D
Come to think of it, Casket of Souls that can do its thing multiple times in a row in a single magic phase brrrr .....

Alltaken
02-12-2014, 16:33
Elven fireball lvl 2 spam.
Same thing with slanns.

dalezzz
02-12-2014, 16:59
Quite looking forward to trying this , but maybe ignore the d6 for dispel dice thing. Also think I'll refuse to play loremasters of hoeth, not sure I can sit throu my opponent looking through the entire magic deck every turn :p

are the new spells just storm of magic spells then?

Djekar
02-12-2014, 17:03
are the new spells just storm of magic spells then?

With some changes, yes.

Also, I'd like to point out that the new rules mention that spells can be cast subsequent times unless they meet one of the enumerated criteria. That being said, I'm rather sure that multiples wizards with the same lore do not allow you to keep casting a spell after that spell has failed (or is a 15+, or an End Time spell). For example. Joe the Death wizard casts Purple Sun. It's 15+ so it can't be recast. Bob the Death wizard doesn't get to cast a second purple sun because the purple sun has met the circumstances that prevent it from being cast again.

Spiney Norman
02-12-2014, 23:06
Wouldn`t this new magic phase make something like the Dwarf Anvil viable again? I mean casting multiples of +1AS on a few units or even the direct damage spell should be quite handy. I am thinking of 1+ Ironbreakers there :D
Come to think of it, Casket of Souls that can do its thing multiple times in a row in a single magic phase brrrr .....

Maybe slightly, but bound spells are still pretty weak in the current edition, they are always going to struggle because the dispelling wizard adds 4 to their roll, effectively giving them more than a dice worth' head start on whatever your casting roll is. With the number of dice you can use now determined randomly I would expect that to make the anvil's viability worse, not better.

underscore
02-12-2014, 23:48
- It's pretty ridiculous the number of spells that Loremasters, Sisters of the Thorn and Warlocks now knows.
Looking at the rules again, I don't think the Sisters or Warlocks get more spells as they don't get to pick a Lore to generate from - they're just given a couple of spells in their Special Rules. As opposed to something like Pink Horrors, which generate from the Lore of Tzeentch like a regular wizard. Yay for Gateway, I guess....

malisteen
03-12-2014, 00:09
Initial impression negative. More wind dice, recasting lesser spells, wizards knowing all spells, and the d6 dice limit all add up to a phase that discourages the use of big cool epic spells and instead encourages spam casting of smaller spells, which to me sounds boring, abusable, and basically the opposite of the epic tone it seems like they were trying to go for. Yes magic was overpowered in SoM, but that was the entire point, and the phase played like it was supposed to, imo. I would rather just play storm of magic than this if i wanted a 'world ending magical cataclysm' feel. I mean, whats the point of adding SoM style super spells if your going to cripple them with a casting dice limit which means you'll very rarely even want to try casting them?

These rules also lead to many more casting attempts per phase, and two more die rolls per attempt, which will drag out the magic phase in a game that already takes too long to play.

OfTheThorn
03-12-2014, 00:34
Looking at the rules again, I don't think the Sisters or Warlocks get more spells as they don't get to pick a Lore to generate from - they're just given a couple of spells in their Special Rules. As opposed to something like Pink Horrors, which generate from the Lore of Tzeentch like a regular wizard. Yay for Gateway, I guess....

I'm afraid there's a pretty clear paragraph specifically for units such as Warlocks. You're instructed to still use their special rule to determine their spells, but that they will then know ALL the spells of EACH lore they can cast any spell from.

Warlocks are definitely still a rank above Sisters, thanks to the Dark Magic lore!

Just Tony
03-12-2014, 01:58
Oh man, if this is any sort of indication of the direction on 9th...

inquisitorsz
03-12-2014, 02:00
The warlock/sisters issue I'll have to check when I get home - initial impression is that they don't "choose" from a lore therefore don't get loremaster. I'll have to check the wording. Read it last night but can't remember exactly.

As for the rest of the phase, it's FAR more random. Harder to cast, harder to dispel and MUCH harder to get the big ones off. 6dicing spells is rare now which is a good thing... but at the same time, casting a 25+ spell on less then 6 dice is very unlikely even with a LvL4 wizard. It's only about a 20% chance with 5 dice and 50% chance with 6 dice. So if you multiply that by the chance to actually be allowed to use 5 or 6 dice... the 25+ spells are basically worthless.

Miscasts and IF is equally less probable now. I like that they fixed suicide mages 6dicing big spells (which they honestly had to do if they wanted to give everyone loremaster). But overall it's a nerf to the magic phase.

The part that's not nerfed is the small spells. the spells there are 5-8+ to cast that can now be recast a bucket load of times. Things like warp lightning (6+) is pretty disgusting for a cheap lvl2 wizard who can cast it like 8 times per phase. In fact most magic missiles small to medium magic missiles are very powerful now.
The other thing (probably needs and FAQ) is casting multiple buffs or debuffs on the same target. for example, +2 toughness can easily become +6.
Again I'll use skaven as an example, the plague spell Wither, is -1 toughness, doesn't say "down to a minimum of 1 and remains on the target for the rest of the game. It's not unreasonable now to have a lvl2 cast that 3 times (it's a 10+ I think) and therefore kill a whole unit of T3 troops regardless of it's size, without any saves or anything.

Due to everyone getting loremaster, and the number of dice being random (both casting and dispelling) I also think that having a lvl 4 is pretty much useless now. Especially considering how expensive most lvl4 casters are. A lvl3 will now be enough if you really want an end times spell, but otherwise I'd stick to a bunch of lvl2s and use the lord allowance on something else.


Oh and final thought.... Arcane Fulcrums are plain stupid. If you put a hard to kill special character on them like morathi or nagash it's basically pack up and go home time. Especially with Nagash. The guy can raise 1500pts per turn (although, yes it's much harder for him to do so now) and is practically invulnerable. Cannons don't worry him and he can only be attacked by a single model in melee combat. It's flat out broken. You could argue that he's too big to fit on a fulcrum but the rules are quite vague.

HelloKitty
03-12-2014, 02:33
i know storm of magic rules for fulcrums state that the model has to fit on the fulcrum.

Ravening Wh0re
03-12-2014, 03:42
So can my Sorceress cast Power of Darkness again and again? So it draws out Dispel Dice and any successes gain Power Dice as well as +1S for the unit. Woof, my usual Sorceress on a Cold One in a unit of Knights is looking very dangerous now

forseer of fates
03-12-2014, 04:17
Wizard levels become a problem I think, 35 points for a spell and plus one to cast/dispel was worth it, now its just casting and dispelling bonus, is it worth it? on level ones probably most defiantly not.

MasterSplinter
03-12-2014, 05:13
IMO level 4 wizards will still be the norm. Remember, if everything will set as it is presumed to be and everyone will try to get as many low casting value spells through by one or two pd the +4 bonus on casting atempts will be a whole lot more worthwhile when you get it on a natural dice roll of 3 to 7 multiple times instead of one natural roll of lets say 15 to 18. I could see low level casters to be worth it just for variity of spells for their low points cost, as they also know all spells of their chosen lore - if not everyone will just run the new special chars with multiple lores and so on.

inquisitorsz
03-12-2014, 06:15
I feel like Lvl4 wizards will only be useful for dispelling because lets face it, it's harder now so any bonus is going to be super helpful....but for casting, not such a big deal. I'd be pretty happy with 2 or 3 lvl2 wizards (preferably with a few different lores for variety) in 2000pts.
Perhaps you can take an extra few magic levels now since you have more dice to play with but wizards don't lose concentration any more and have heaps of spells, so even a lvl 2 could easily use up all 4d6 dice.

MasterSplinter
03-12-2014, 06:28
See, if there is a discussion about what is more worth with different opinions at least something GW did right with the new rules :p

Captain Idaho
03-12-2014, 07:12
Meh and pah in equal measure.

Our gaming group has rejected it completely. It's just unbalanced nonsense.

9th edition might just see the D6 dice per cast/dispel attempt but the rest is a no brainer campaign mechanic to get the kids excited. Why carefully play your magic phase when you can cast whatever you want as much as you need?

As for it being "compulsory"... If your tournament uses End Times then why not - you have bigger problems. My group has already determined to house rule what we don't like.

Rakariel
03-12-2014, 07:15
Maybe slightly, but bound spells are still pretty weak in the current edition, they are always going to struggle because the dispelling wizard adds 4 to their roll, effectively giving them more than a dice worth' head start on whatever your casting roll is. With the number of dice you can use now determined randomly I would expect that to make the anvil's viability worse, not better.
But isn`t the dispelling working the same way? I mean you roll how many dispel dice you have so even if you are a lv4 you could end up with just one or two. I know this is far from ideal but it effectively gives the anvil a better chance to cast his runes in comparison to the current rules.

underscore
03-12-2014, 08:08
I'm afraid there's a pretty clear paragraph specifically for units such as Warlocks. You're instructed to still use their special rule to determine their spells, but that they will then know ALL the spells of EACH lore they can cast any spell from.


Well quite. They don't know Lores, they get given a couple of specific spells. There might even be a vase that their army book Special Rule overrides any standard rules for spell generation anyway.

Andy p
03-12-2014, 09:51
Looking at the rules again, I don't think the Sisters or Warlocks get more spells as they don't get to pick a Lore to generate from - they're just given a couple of spells in their Special Rules. As opposed to something like Pink Horrors, which generate from the Lore of Tzeentch like a regular wizard. Yay for Gateway, I guess....

Well why cast gateway once per phase when you can spam blue fire umpteen times a phase?

duffybear1988
03-12-2014, 11:19
The only plus I can see is that dragon mages are now slightly more usable, which is great as my model never saw table time before.

Ichshadon
03-12-2014, 13:42
I have played one game with the new Khaine rules so far and I have to say that I really liked it!

It hugely changes the way magic is used. With the random number of power dice and dispell dice you get everytime you cast and the fact that you can only attempt a spell with difficulty 15+ once per magic phase it makes attempting to cast an uber spell a tough decision.

I like the "many small spells" direction that this new rules change the magic phase into, as simply 6 dicing uber spells all game long really wasn't that fun for me. It also means that having a higher ranked mage is actually more useful now as access to endtime spells is quite nice, and it's way easier to get 8+ powerlevel spells off on 1-2 dice when you get +4 to your casts instead of +1 or +2.

To me the new rules just felt right and gave the magic phase a new excitement...although it REALLY made the storm of chaos daemon table a dangerous thing...new daemon units where summoned almost every second turn and my mages had to test to avoid becoming a daemon as well....I bet frostheart phoenixes will like the new magic as well...

underscore
03-12-2014, 14:33
How does it change the Reign of Chaos table? Was your opponent just lucky in getting a couple more sixes?

Edit: Ahhhh wait, I see. You're getting the best of 4 dice rather than just a straight 2D6.

moonlapse
03-12-2014, 16:01
Has anyone noticed that Dark Elves now get infinite powerdice? Here is the recipe for total annihilation:

1 lvl 4 Sorceress with Dark Magic, 4+ ward and the Sacrificial Dagger

30+ Dreadspears / Bleakswords

A character with MR2


If the opponent has used their scroll, and has no PD left, instead of chancing your remaining dice you can instead reliably summon 10+ more dice (technically unlimited, but you're likely to fail a cast after a while). Cast Power if Darkness on 1 dice. If you roll 3+, it is cast, thanks to Hekarti's Blessing. You have a net 'gain' of 1 PD per successful cast. If you fail, use the dagger (which you can do even if you rolled a 1 for maximum PD, so you don't even need to bother rolling for that).
If you roll a 5 or 6 for PD generation from the the spell, you get a 2+ ward against the wound thanks to MR2.

Congrats, your unit is now S10 and you have an extra magic phase with no opposition this turn (and any other turns you do this).

You can now pack away your models since your opponent will have resigned.

Captain Idaho
03-12-2014, 17:26
I have played one game with the new Khaine rules so far and I have to say that I really liked it!

It hugely changes the way magic is used. With the random number of power dice and dispell dice you get everytime you cast and the fact that you can only attempt a spell with difficulty 15+ once per magic phase it makes attempting to cast an uber spell a tough decision.

I like the "many small spells" direction that this new rules change the magic phase into, as simply 6 dicing uber spells all game long really wasn't that fun for me. It also means that having a higher ranked mage is actually more useful now as access to endtime spells is quite nice, and it's way easier to get 8+ powerlevel spells off on 1-2 dice when you get +4 to your casts instead of +1 or +2.

To me the new rules just felt right and gave the magic phase a new excitement...although it REALLY made the storm of chaos daemon table a dangerous thing...new daemon units where summoned almost every second turn and my mages had to test to avoid becoming a daemon as well....I bet frostheart phoenixes will like the new magic as well...

I'm sorry I just can't agree.

Spamming lower casting level spells just hurts the game. Getting off 4+ Soul Quenches will ruin even hordes and Knights and be easy to do (High Elf Archmage with a Book of Hoeth has +5 to cast with a reroll) and it's easy to get the 10 dice to do it.

And if you hate 6 dicing spells because you struggle to stop them, how are you going to stop my 5 or so Soul Quenches? What if a Skaven Grey Seer gets Wither off? 3 times and your unit is gone. That's better is it?

6 dicing spells is nothing anyway. I'd rather someone wasted each magic phase just to try and get off 1 or 2 big spells a game than use lots of small spells. Only poor players rely on 6 dicing.

HelloKitty
03-12-2014, 18:17
Six-dicing is fairly common - at least in my experience. Whether or not only poor players rely on it can be debated, but it being crimped a bit is a good thing in my opinion.

I like the new system because random spells go away. You know everything in your lore. Cool. That gets rid of the negative complaints about random spells.
I like the new system because it makes six dicing no longer a real viable tactic, despite peoples' opinions on whether poor players rely on it or not.

Recasting spells I'm on the fence about. However, each casting attempt is an attempt - not a guaranteed success.

I don't mind the storm of magic stuff added - I figured that was a foregone conclusion and to be honest I enjoy storm of magic games anyway so having it incorporated into the core game does not really impact me one way or the other.

The only thing I am not a fan of are the summoning rules.

Captain Idaho
03-12-2014, 19:48
Just for clarity I'm not saying using 6 dice for a spell makes you poor. Appropriate choice for your situation. But players build their game around it and they lose.

6 dicing certainly isn't a problem though.

HelloKitty
03-12-2014, 19:52
My problem with six-dicing as a tactic is that its often low risk high reward. I don't like things like that - they are no brainers. I would have preferred there being more risk involved with throwing six dice at a spell, considering what some of the spells can accomplish. the miscast table in this edition is very benign barring really bad luck.

Captain Idaho
03-12-2014, 20:22
Oh I can agree with you on that matey. I would prefer a miscast table that started pleasant and got progressively worse, with the amount of dice used for the spell added to the table.

HelloKitty
03-12-2014, 21:01
Yes exactly. I like how the 2nd edition WHFB RPG did things. The more dice you threw at the spell, the bigger the miscast if you miscast!

Captain Idaho
03-12-2014, 21:34
This is actually Warseer at its best - disagreement leading to discussion leading to a fair consensus.

Shame GW will just use the scorched earth approach and not improve on what is already there.

inquisitorsz
04-12-2014, 03:26
I completely agree... 6 dicing is only bad because you can use an expendable 100-130pt lvl 2 mage to blow up many more points of monsters or cav. With 6 dice it's a 26% chance (or 1 in 4) to get irresistible force. If your magic phase ends... who cares you killed lots of stuff, if you blow up, who cares you have 2 wounds. There's only 2 or 3 really bad results on the miscast table and they simply result in losing your 100pt caster who's paid himself off 2 or 3 times with one cast.

Nothing wrong with 6 dicing in general because it's higher risk with an expensive lvl4 (especially if they are your general) but for expendable mages it was quite absurd. Even spells that were only 13 or 15+, a lvl 2 can cast them easily. Not being able to stop a game changing spell... that was annoying.
To be fair, i haven't had any situations where one spell decided a game, but a few Mindrazors on Eternal Guard have swayed the battle a few times.

N00B
04-12-2014, 03:27
I really didnt like the new rules at first but I am slowly coming round to them. Certainly playing with them it feels like a lot of the randomness has been taken out of the phase and it doesn't seem imbalanced as a system. That said this was with some rulings we used to make it make sense:

A dispelling a spell means it is not successfully cast. This was vital - your spell you wanted to spam you couldn't as all it took was one successful dispel attempt and it was over. Cat and mouse with dispel dice was a lot of fun.

Bound spells are once per turn. Exhausting a players dispel pool then revealing Ruby Ring of Ruin to wipe their army is not cool.

Failed spells cannot be recast, even by another wizard.

No one went for big spells but they had an impact on the game. Dispelling you could hold fewer dice in reserve towards the end of your phase (firstly as stopping low level spell was important but also high level being less reliable beans you worry a bit less). I still got a unit eaten by mindrazor as my opponent knew it was is hope of winning (and turning around a lost game) so 5 diced it.

High level wizards are just as important. If you are casting more spells you get more bonus power from high level wizards now.

All in all the magic phase feel like you earn success and is much less random. 4D6 powerdice has a much lower fractional variance than 2D6 dice, as does the dispel pool. With all spells there is less of the element of luck in which spells you get.

Some lores are pretty brutal, although it is nice to see that some of the underused ones are now pretty good (fire is now pretty scary - every spell other than fireball is now practically undispellable as you save your dispel dice to stop chain fireball with kindle-flame until right at the end.

As a system I think it is actually pretty good and I would like to see it in 9th with appropriate adjustments to spell costs. The end times rules changes before this point were terrible but this is actually showing a lot of promise.



As a side note - despite the terrible Lore, night goblin Shamans are now pretty usable.

Doommasters
04-12-2014, 03:34
It is different and I really can't tell if I like it more of less than the current system........a few more games and I might be in a better position to comment. Very intereasting reading about what ervyone thinks :)

Ichshadon
04-12-2014, 06:16
I'm sorry I just can't agree.

Spamming lower casting level spells just hurts the game. Getting off 4+ Soul Quenches will ruin even hordes and Knights and be easy to do (High Elf Archmage with a Book of Hoeth has +5 to cast with a reroll) and it's easy to get the 10 dice to do it.

And if you hate 6 dicing spells because you struggle to stop them, how are you going to stop my 5 or so Soul Quenches? What if a Skaven Grey Seer gets Wither off? 3 times and your unit is gone. That's better is it?

6 dicing spells is nothing anyway. I'd rather someone wasted each magic phase just to try and get off 1 or 2 big spells a game than use lots of small spells. Only poor players rely on 6 dicing.

Have you already played a game with this rules? Cause from my experience this never happened. I never managed to get off 4+ of any given spell no matter how easy to cast it was. With the way power and dispell dice creation works I hardly ever had more than 4 powerdice over the amount of dispell dice my enemy had. Factor in a misscast here and there (when you throw only 1-2 dice for a spell your chances of getting 1-2s are ever present..) or a spell your enemy lets through because he doesn't care and suddenly you have just as many power dice as your enemy has dispell dice. And then it just comes down to luck and strategically deciding which spells to attempt when....and a little mind-war to mess up your opponents decisions ;-P

Maybe it was because I was mixing my spells up a lot...a +4 toughness spell here -> banned, a banishment against his daemons there -> banned. another +4 toughness there -> made it! Yay!, some movement restriction spell there -> banned, A Endtime Spell to spice it up -> damn, only got 3 dice to cast it and failed... and so on...

I am sure this system can be broken in some horrible ways, Book of Hoeth, Sacrificial Dagger with life lore and stuff like that comes to mind. But we where just playing a normal Game without any specific cheese mongering, and like I said, I really liked it.

Also my problem with 6 dicing is different from your 5 Soul Quenches. Your 6 dice spell is likely causing an irresistable force to happen, and that's the problem. Your 5 Soul Quenches will just get banned by my Level 4 or even 5 Mage all day long with maybe 1 getting through per magic phase ;-)

Actually come to think about it....all throughout my game there where only 2 misscasts....1 was my skaven opponent 6 dicing the curse of 13 on my unit of white lions (which turned him into a level 1 and deleted the curse from his mind...worth it to me as I just regrew my white lions later on throughout the game). And once for my Alarielle (Incarnation of Isha) with 3 dice I think, but she was sitting on a throne of vines and just saved it away.

Anyways, like I said, I only played one game with it so far, I'll see how the meta turns out to be and whether I'll still like it then or not.

pippin_nl
04-12-2014, 06:49
Have you already played a game with this rules? Cause from my experience this never happened. I never managed to get off 4+ of any given spell no matter how easy to cast it was. With the way power and dispell dice creation works I hardly ever had more than 4 powerdice over the amount of dispell dice my enemy had. Factor in a misscast here and there (when you throw only 1-2 dice for a spell your chances of getting 1-2s are ever present..) or a spell your enemy lets through because he doesn't care and suddenly you have just as many power dice as your enemy has dispell dice. And then it just comes down to luck and strategically deciding which spells to attempt when....and a little mind-war to mess up your opponents decisions ;-P

Maybe it was because I was mixing my spells up a lot...a +4 toughness spell here -> banned, a banishment against his daemons there -> banned. another +4 toughness there -> made it! Yay!, some movement restriction spell there -> banned, A Endtime Spell to spice it up -> damn, only got 3 dice to cast it and failed... and so on...

I am sure this system can be broken in some horrible ways, Book of Hoeth, Sacrificial Dagger with life lore and stuff like that comes to mind. But we where just playing a normal Game without any specific cheese mongering, and like I said, I really liked it.

Also my problem with 6 dicing is different from your 5 Soul Quenches. Your 6 dice spell is likely causing an irresistable force to happen, and that's the problem. Your 5 Soul Quenches will just get banned by my Level 4 or even 5 Mage all day long with maybe 1 getting through per magic phase ;-)

Actually come to think about it....all throughout my game there where only 2 misscasts....1 was my skaven opponent 6 dicing the curse of 13 on my unit of white lions (which turned him into a level 1 and deleted the curse from his mind...worth it to me as I just regrew my white lions later on throughout the game). And once for my Alarielle (Incarnation of Isha) with 3 dice I think, but she was sitting on a throne of vines and just saved it away.

Anyways, like I said, I only played one game with it so far, I'll see how the meta turns out to be and whether I'll still like it then or not.

How did he manage to six dice the curse, that would seem to be terribly lucky (before he rolled an IF)? As I understand it, you can not use Warpstone tokens to roll more dice than the D6 roll allowed.

Wesser
04-12-2014, 07:29
Lets say I for a moment forget that tactics was sucked out of the magic phase in favour of mayhem randomness. Lets say I forget all the instant-win abuse you can do with certain combos.... Lets say that.

Even that leaves 2 points that grate me.

1. How long does a magic phase take now? As an already slow player I'm prepared to house rule out-of-the-game any character/unit who knows more than one lore simply because I can't be bothered with HE players chosing 1 out of 56 spells to cast with their Loremaster. I haven't tested the rules yet, but it looks terribly clunky. What say experience thogh?

2. End Times are now a system just like Triumph & Treachery. Nagash, the rulebook FAQ and Glottkin. I didn't really feel I needed to take anything of these things into special considerations when making my army. Sure Undead/Chaos had more choice, but even the super characters weren't game-changing (Nagash just dominated the game a bit). With these magic rules End Times is officially something that should be agreed beforehand. I certainly can't imagine bringing my standard tournament army to an End Times game under these magic rules

Certainly if I have pick-up game and someone begins unpacking his ET:Elves I'll be saying "whoa, different game dude"

Captain Idaho
04-12-2014, 07:31
Our lot will not be playing these rules by the looks of it. Happy there are people out there who enjoy it though.

Wesser
04-12-2014, 07:40
By the way

Since Elves apparently don't get any new units is there any other special rule or something in ET:Khaine that would stop making sense if you chucked End Times magic in the bin?

MasterSplinter
04-12-2014, 07:56
With these magic rules End Times is officially something that should be agreed beforehand.

No, EndTimes Khaine clearly states that you HAVE to use the rules if we should have a game and i say "hmmm, i really do consider to use the endtimes magic, just because, so you HAVE to agree to it!!!" :D

Seriously... what was GW thinking when writing these "restrictions" They could have just as easily left them out and say: that is official now.

Spiney Norman
04-12-2014, 08:08
Certainly if I have pick-up game and someone begins unpacking his ET:Elves I'll be saying "whoa, different game dude"

I think you're right there, with the different magic system it has fundamentally changed how the game is played, but to be fair characters like Nagash and Karl Franz Ascendent were already doing that before the Khaine book came along. Tying in the end times magic system to the use of the elven host army lists is all well and good from a narrative standpoint, but it does muddy the waters if you play in the kind of environment where you just turn up and play.

I just wish they hadn't FAQ'd the dumb 50% lords/heroes thing into the brb, it would have been better to keep that for End times games as well.

At our club we are planning a big narrative End times campaign when the fifth book drops, at the moment we're treating ET games a bit like we treat the Horus Heresy games in relation to 40k, a separate way of playing the game that has to be agreed in advance.


No, EndTimes Khaine clearly states that you HAVE to use the rules if we should have a game and i say "hmmm, i really do consider to use the endtimes magic, just because, so you HAVE to agree to it!!!" :D

Seriously... what was GW thinking when writing these "restrictions" They could have just as easily left them out and say: that is official now.

Trying to force your opponent to play using the end times magic rules because you have turned up using the host of the eternity king list without telling them in advance is a low tactic that is likely to cause them to laugh in your face, pack up their models and go off to find an opponent who isn't a d***, this is essentially the same thing as happens when you bring a superheavy unit to a 40k game unannounced, you end up becoming the guy that nobody wants to play games against.

MasterSplinter
04-12-2014, 08:23
Trying to force your opponent to play using the end times magic rules because you have turned up using the host of the eternity king list without telling them in advance is a low tactic that is likely to cause them to laugh in your face, pack up their models and go off to find an opponent who isn't a d***, this is essentially the same thing as happens when you bring a superheavy unit to a 40k game unannounced, you end up becoming the guy that nobody wants to play games against.

That was basically what i was trying to say. IMO the redicolous thing is that you donīt even have to bring a list from the book. In GWs world it seems to just work out that when two players meet one player says: "look, i want to use the endtimes magic rules, so i will force you to use them so we can both get an exciting and enjoyable game ecperience."
Of course you wonīt have many friends left after a few tries with that, and no player i know of would do this in environment of social interaction like tabletop games.

I mean, they could have done two things: 1. they could have made the magic rules purely optional, so that players can agree on them 2. they could have made them mandatory so that both players would have to use them if they did decide to do the endtimes run.

Instead they did possibilty third, one player has to take the role of the a** if all go by the rules and forces his opponents to use them if he wants it. That wonīt work of course, but it suprises me that GW canīt comprehend that it does nothing more than doing more damage to the player base.

Yowzo
04-12-2014, 08:50
In GWs world it seems to just work out that when two players meet one player says: "look, i want to use the endtimes magic rules, so i will force you to use them so we can both get an exciting and enjoyable game ecperience."

In the real world you most likely know who are you going to play and have decided whether to use those rules beforehand.

And most likely your club/LGS/whatever has their own houserules anyway.

EmperorNorton
04-12-2014, 08:55
In the real world you most likely know who are you going to play and have decided whether to use those rules beforehand.

And most likely your club/LGS/whatever has their own houserules anyway.

IMO rules exist to provide a consensus between players and should cover all instances. Yes, most likely you will be able to agree with the person you are playing against, but it should not be the player's burden to make the rules usable.

Yowzo
04-12-2014, 08:58
IMO rules exist to provide a consensus between players and should cover all instances.

That's the ideal situation.

Sadly lack of FAQ support means WHFB rules don't do that anymore, so players need to step in.

MasterSplinter
04-12-2014, 09:31
IMO rules exist to provide a consensus between players and should cover all instances. Yes, most likely you will be able to agree with the person you are playing against, but it should not be the player's burden to make the rules usable.

And thatīs excatly what i mean. By acting like GW does they just scare lots of players away and more away, which are currently in an undecided mind of giving GW another try after all these years of being pushed away a little more, step by step, off the game they once cherished :/
At least thats my experience. If i tell these news to some guys who were fully hearted warhammer players times ago, most turn in disgust, but to play other games of other companys which manage to write rulesets in a more explicit / or in this circumstance responsability relieving way for players.

tneva82
04-12-2014, 10:13
this is essentially the same thing as happens when you bring a superheavy unit to a 40k game unannounced, you end up becoming the guy that nobody wants to play games against.

And refusing game because other brought super heavy makes everyone realize that you are just poor player who doesn't want to spend minute thinking about counter strategy. Of which there's plenty. 95%+ super heavies are crap and none are as broken as non-super heavies.

Emissary
04-12-2014, 13:11
Played with the new rules last night and really enjoyed the magic system. I'll just echo that I agree with what most people here said.

The one thing I'm surprised that nobody mentioned is that our group felt that magic resistance has gotten much better suddenly. With things like Soul Quench or Fireball that can be spammed, being able to shrug off those spells reliably on a unit without burning dispel dice looks like a good idea. This goes double on characters. I managed to assassinate both of his wizards in turn 2 with the Death magic signature spell because he couldn't stop them. We agreed that magic resistance with a ward save would have been really helpful.

Also, fulcrums are really good for your wizards now. Highly recommended and easy to cast.

N00B
04-12-2014, 13:53
It does seem like there is a divide forming here between people saying "actually I tried it and it is pretty good, very different but not bad" and people saying "I haven't tried it but I know it will be terrible so I wont bother".

The thing that I find really weird though is people saying it adds a lot of randomness and/or power to the magic phase. The new rules are much more subtle, tactical and interactive than the old ones and less influenced by dumb luck. Chances of getting 2/3 power dice on 4d6 and hence not being able to cast anything is now zero. No more dumb luck on what spells to cast now and a broken concentration doesn't end things for the wizard any more. Yes, you still have to play with the probabilities of getting spells off and getting them past dispel dice but now the better player will almost always get more out of the magic phase whereas before it was much more even.

The phase taking longer is a valid point though. I found this was certainly partly due to unfamiliarity but also partially due to the fact that it is much more cerebral than it was before. Rolling one extra die per spell to see how many powerdice you can use is not by itself significant, but it is the thought that you have to use alongside it that is. Now I would say that the magic phase is almost as long as the movement phase or the close combat phase and certainly longer than shooting.


I do like Emissary's point about magic resistance; it felt underwhelming before. Now with more low cost spells coming out to play the magic missiles are worth protecting against.

HelloKitty
04-12-2014, 14:04
When 8th edition fantasy came out, a large section of the community flamed it for being horrible, no tactics, and random etc. Over the years that disappeared as people started playing it and realized that those initial bursts of anger were simply unfounded.

It does not surprise me that the circle comes to a head once more with new rules being panned the same way 8th edition was panned in 2010.

MasterSplinter
04-12-2014, 14:15
Played with the new rules last night and really enjoyed the magic system. I'll just echo that I agree with what most people here said.

The one thing I'm surprised that nobody mentioned is that our group felt that magic resistance has gotten much better suddenly. With things like Soul Quench or Fireball that can be spammed, being able to shrug off those spells reliably on a unit without burning dispel dice looks like a good idea. This goes double on characters. I managed to assassinate both of his wizards in turn 2 with the Death magic signature spell because he couldn't stop them. We agreed that magic resistance with a ward save would have been really helpful.


Actually i havenīt thought of that! Great! Thats a big plus for the new rules :)

EmperorNorton
04-12-2014, 14:52
When 8th edition fantasy came out, a large section of the community flamed it for being horrible, no tactics, and random etc. Over the years that disappeared as people started playing it and realized that those initial bursts of anger were [...]

[...] warranted completely, which led them to stop playing a game no longer to their liking and leave the forums to those who still enjoyed it.

HelloKitty
04-12-2014, 15:28
[...] warranted completely, which led them to stop playing a game no longer to their liking and leave the forums to those who still enjoyed it.

In some cases yes. In many cases I see a lot of those people playing today that were slagging it then. We had an entire store throw fantasy in the bin for a year and left it for WM before coming back to it, and many of those guys acknowledged that the new rules weren't as bad as they were making it out to be - that they just didn't like change.

Of course there are still those that hated it then that hate it today and don't play it today too.

Horus38
04-12-2014, 16:07
In some cases yes. In many cases I see a lot of those people playing today that were slagging it then. We had an entire store throw fantasy in the bin for a year and left it for WM before coming back to it, and many of those guys acknowledged that the new rules weren't as bad as they were making it out to be - that they just didn't like change.

Of course there are still those that hated it then that hate it today and don't play it today too.

Hah, sounds like the shop I started going to about 2 years ago. My best friend and I basically to show/convince the other regulars that this actually is a fun edition after they all rage quit.

Captain Idaho
04-12-2014, 17:21
Forums always rage.

That's why I'm happy that my gaming group (as I said before actually) will take what we want from 9th edition, mash it into 8th and still enjoy ourselves.

ShruikhanTK
04-12-2014, 18:22
The one and only thing that bothers me in the book is rolling a dice to determine how many dice you can throw at a spell. Now the winds of magic I like and agree with, but rolling a 3 or lower on a spell that demands 4 dice to cast comfortably is kinda of annoying. It like ok I'm going to cast Return to the Golden Age!!!....4 dice......dang I need a 16 on 4 dice to cast it.

Do you have to roll the dice to see how many you can toss before or after you choose the spell? I thought it read as after choosing, hope I'm wrong though.

inquisitorsz
04-12-2014, 23:09
Do you have to roll the dice to see how many you can toss before or after you choose the spell? I thought it read as after choosing, hope I'm wrong though.

So they way my friends and I interpret it is like this

Roll 4D6 for winds of magic
Declare I am using wizard A to cast spell X at unit Y
Roll d6 to see how many power dice I can use
I roll a 3 but I know that it's unlikely I'll cast it with only 3
I throw 1 die at it and it fails
counts as a failed cast and used up 1 die
Repeat for next spell

The D6 roll tells you the MAXIMUM number of dice you CAN use. You don't have to use that many. So you can try for a double 6 with two or 3 dice or you can just throw out one and accept the failed cast.
I guess you could argue that you don't have to waste a single dice and just accept the failed cast but it does say something about a minimum of 1 dice needed and since you've already declared the spell it makes sense to at least use 1 die.

So obviously you can keep casting other spells but if you don't get enough dice to use it counts as a failed cast and therefore you can't keep casting that particular spell.

inquisitorsz
05-12-2014, 02:07
I think certain armies benefit from that more than others.
Horde army will still always prefer more troops to their relativley weak characters.

I think it's best for huge special characters (nagash et all. which are pretty much special cases anyway) and armies with strong but expensive characters like WoC or VC, maybe some of the elves.

It also helps to be able to take a lord AND a lvl3/4 wizard. Sometimes it can be hard to fit both in, especially if one has a mount of some sort.

ShruikhanTK
05-12-2014, 03:30
So they way my friends and I interpret it is like this

Roll 4D6 for winds of magic
Declare I am using wizard A to cast spell X at unit Y
Roll d6 to see how many power dice I can use
I roll a 3 but I know that it's unlikely I'll cast it with only 3
I throw 1 die at it and it fails
counts as a failed cast and used up 1 die
Repeat for next spell


The D6 roll tells you the MAXIMUM number of dice you CAN use. You don't have to use that many. So you can try for a double 6 with two or 3 dice or you can just throw out one and accept the failed cast.
I guess you could argue that you don't have to waste a single dice and just accept the failed cast but it does say something about a minimum of 1 dice needed and since you've already declared the spell it makes sense to at least use 1 die.

So obviously you can keep casting other spells but if you don't get enough dice to use it counts as a failed cast and therefore you can't keep casting that particular spell.

It seems like some spells can fail before they are even cast though, thats the annoying aspect of the way magic works now.

inquisitorsz
05-12-2014, 03:33
Well whats everyone else's interpretation?

BCaswell
05-12-2014, 09:11
Well played it my orcs against tomb kings new magic rules. Only tried once abd will have another go. It was pretty awful however there was some things that made it one sided hence why another go will be attempted.

Lost lv4 shaman on go one due too miscaste. This was his 5th spell attempt so when he saw a big black hole apprared his wagghhh addled brain just had too go have a look sigh.

Turn 3 was the finisher tomb kings magic phase. Only one of his first three spells got through. Then came purple sun. Soooooo back up too 17 dice lol.

So then came small death spell spamming went from unhurt too destroyed we called it. Kill extra dice kill extra dice blah blah.

Too be fair death and extra dice have always been annoying but recasting and no dice cap once he was on a roll may as well have just packed up. He made a tomb king magic gun line lol.

It was also tower game so not great once he got block of skellys in tower game was done anyway had too kill them too a man in one go because if not so many buff spells where going of they where back too full strength

Not the best match up or scenario however struggling too see the fun in endless magic phase scenario. Ok it wont happen everytime you play but my army was taken apart in a single phase by two wizards and i felt pretty much helpless. But will give it ago and redesign my army need too recruit new shaman for a start lol

dalezzz
05-12-2014, 13:45
So they way my friends and I interpret it is like this

Roll 4D6 for winds of magic
Declare I am using wizard A to cast spell X at unit Y
Roll d6 to see how many power dice I can use
I roll a 3 but I know that it's unlikely I'll cast it with only 3
I throw 1 die at it and it fails
counts as a failed cast and used up 1 die
Repeat for next spell

The D6 roll tells you the MAXIMUM number of dice you CAN use. You don't have to use that many. So you can try for a double 6 with two or 3 dice or you can just throw out one and accept the failed cast.
I guess you could argue that you don't have to waste a single dice and just accept the failed cast but it does say something about a minimum of 1 dice needed and since you've already declared the spell it makes sense to at least use 1 die.

So obviously you can keep casting other spells but if you don't get enough dice to use it counts as a failed cast and therefore you can't keep casting that particular spell.

thats how I intend to play it ( although I don't have the book yet so could be all kinds of wrong :) )

my main concern is dispelling , how's that working out for people?

Emissary
05-12-2014, 14:47
The book is really specific.

1) You pick a wizard
2) You pick which spell he's casting and the target of the spell
3) You roll a D6 for maximum dice you can use
4) You MUST spend at least 1 power dice to attempt to cast the spell (This is clear)

So every time you cast a spell you have to use between 1 and the number rolled on the D6 power dice.

Djekar
05-12-2014, 17:42
I believe that Emissary is correct but I wish I knew what to do with dispelling. There isn't any indication of whether or not you have to throw a dice to dispel once you determine the dispel maximum. On the one hand, you have never *had* to throw dispel dice before, but on the other hand the only rules to follow about the d6 max are in the casting section and require throwing at least 1 dice.

HelloKitty
05-12-2014, 17:47
As they are only on the casting section that would infer to me that that rule is only applied to the casting section.

Col. Tartleton
05-12-2014, 18:22
As I see it there were three ways to do magic.

Know the spells automatically.
Buy the spells you want.
Roll for the spells you get.

Of the three options I feel rolling for the spells is the worst choice so I'm glad they changed it.

Lord Dan
05-12-2014, 18:45
Just something to point out though - a lot of these mechanics they are putting into the EoT series - expect to see as core 9th edition constructs ;)
The cat speaks the truth.


My main gripe is that they're never going to release a real FAQ for it (just like the other End Times books) and the numerous rule questions it creates will never be answered.
Nonsense! Look at the Wood Elves - they got an FAQ. Let me just open it up here to refresh my memory regarding what it said...hmm...ah, here it is:

"Lol, %^#@ you guys."

See? I have total confidence in GW and their intent to release quality FAQ's for these End Times books.

auStun
05-12-2014, 19:01
It does seem like there is a divide forming here between people saying "actually I tried it and it is pretty good, very different but not bad" and people saying "I haven't tried it but I know it will be terrible so I wont bother".

The thing that I find really weird though is people saying it adds a lot of randomness and/or power to the magic phase. The new rules are much more subtle, tactical and interactive than the old ones and less influenced by dumb luck. Chances of getting 2/3 power dice on 4d6 and hence not being able to cast anything is now zero. No more dumb luck on what spells to cast now and a broken concentration doesn't end things for the wizard any more. Yes, you still have to play with the probabilities of getting spells off and getting them past dispel dice but now the better player will almost always get more out of the magic phase whereas before it was much more even.

The phase taking longer is a valid point though. I found this was certainly partly due to unfamiliarity but also partially due to the fact that it is much more cerebral than it was before. Rolling one extra die per spell to see how many powerdice you can use is not by itself significant, but it is the thought that you have to use alongside it that is. Now I would say that the magic phase is almost as long as the movement phase or the close combat phase and certainly longer than shooting.


I do like Emissary's point about magic resistance; it felt underwhelming before. Now with more low cost spells coming out to play the magic missiles are worth protecting against.

I agree. I have played VC for 2 years and a couple bad magic phases really hurt. Now playing Undead Legions with ET rules, I'm excited Mannfred is now loremaster again and crumbling isn't an issue, the rules should be fun and magic will be less strenuous on me while i focus on a few VC buffs and sniping with Death. Undeath makes anyone in combat scary with Hand of Dust.

These rules aren't THAT different than the 8th. Potential for a lot more dice per phase, but not guaranteeing that you can throw the amount of dice you want. (Balance). Failing a spell eliminates re-casting that spell (bummer, no spam for you) you can't cast a huge spell more than once (fine, probably never happened often anyways). So, average casters and decent casters alike will probably end up being slightly better (as they should be!) and weaker mages have more spells to choose from but aren't super effective because they will fail many attempts to cast anything if you roll poorly to determine how many dice you can use... so deck out a wizard as your lord and use your hero points on BSBs and cool combat heroes with magic items or mounts. If anyone has read any of the lore in the ETs, this set up fits the story quite well.

and if you fail a cast, your caster doesn't get sad and give up. He rages on to cast again.

Might take a little longer to do magic for those who over think which spell to use or are unfamiliar with spells, but those who play often enough should know to move things along quickly.

WhispersofBlood
05-12-2014, 19:21
A lot of people are missing the the Arcane items in the book actually massive increase the reliablity of your wizards. Items like Wand of Jet, and power stone help you get spells or Trickster shard can also aid you in preventing your opponent from trying to dispel everything as it increase the risk involved. Similarly on the defence, Staff of Stability, Feedback scroll, Hex scroll (on Loremaster of Hoeth, Warlocks, Sisters, and other low level casters). Magic res becomes far more important as it gives you options on the defence in the magic phase.

I find most people who have a problem with this new magic phase are plugging in the current army list and lamenting the ways it adversely affects them. What you should be doing is seeing how it has opened up new ways to play the game. It has drastically closed the value gap between level level 4 and level ones strictly as casters, and now at the army list phase you have to determine if you want the End Times spells or a second lore, and second arcane item. Both provide an interesting contrast but both are valuable in their own ways

Yes you can spam cast, but lets talk about the power of darkness build. In a world where just meeting casting value lets you recast, I'll let them all go off, because unless you have spent a ton of points on wizards you will run out of effective spells to cast. A good army will have units that are high armour or low armoured units with MR or both, so damage spells a lot of the time can be weathered unless spammed, providing you roll to high for me to dispel comfortably. Even with 100+ dice you are limited by that 1d6, to cast anything of value.

If you need to not have the spell dispelled I'll just stop the first cast with a low result, and move on from there.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
06-12-2014, 00:15
My first thought with these rules was that Tomb Kings just got massively better. Nehekhara is a solid lore when you have the whole thing, but with just a standard level 4 you're either sacrificing the utility spells like Vengeance and Desiccation for more buffs, or losing the buffs you need to make your guys fight and raise up wounds. Access to the whole lore becomes really solid. Also being able to cast spells multiple times (chariot impact hits with 5+ KB, for instance, or snake surfers with +3 attacks for 46 attacks from a unit of 4).

Ontop of that there's the hierotitan adding +d3, which was already good but just becomes even more amazing when you double the number of dice and have limits on the number you can use. The +D3 dice from the casket is less valuable but maybe people will stop shooting cannons at mine now. Plus casting the bound spell multiple times (if that's allowed) is solid. Oh...not to mention spam-casting banishment in a light council. Hells yea!

Oh, and TK just became the only army that will actually be able to cast purple sun on that one pivotal turn where you need it. Mighty Scrolls auto-cast FTW.

Kahadras
06-12-2014, 10:13
Potential for a lot more dice per phase, but not guaranteeing that you can throw the amount of dice you want. (Balance).

I don't really feel this is 'balance'. It feels like a longer magic phase with more randomness added in.

N00B
06-12-2014, 13:36
I don't really feel this is 'balance'. It feels like a longer magic phase with more randomness added in.


Longer yes, but much less random. It is the law of large numbers. The new rules reward more smaller spells rather than the outcome of the phase being whether you get lucky and get your one big spell off. There are also other factors like a much lower probability of having twice the amount of power dice as dispel dice (from winds alone). You should give it a try a couple of times (once to learn how it works and then once to see if you like it once you know it - it takes a bit more thought so the familiarity speeding things up does help).

Dorack
06-12-2014, 14:17
What bothers me is that the Magic phase now seems the most important of them all, sort of like a wizards duelling game with troops support, instead an army (of sorts) game. Hope this isnt how they designado 9th edition.

N00B
06-12-2014, 15:08
I do think a downside of this is that now it is even more important than ever to bring a Wizard. Magic isn't really more powerful than before if you make the right moves defensively but if you turn up without someone good at dispelling you can quickly get into a lot of trouble.

Sinsigel
06-12-2014, 16:15
As a dwarf player who just had three games in a row using end times magic, I am really frustrated. With greater disparity bet ween power dice and dispel dice, the defender is set at a disadvantage. Now that same spells can be cast.again, this means even basic spells cast thrice or more is equally dangerous as nuke spells.

Many end time spells can also be cast reliably even with low d6 particularly when power scroll or stone is used.

In my games at least three basic spells could be cast reliably per phase. And casting end time spells more than once per game is highly likely.

What I had today was a gutstar with it's toughness boosted to 8, a grave guard deathstar with hatred and hitting on 2+ teleported right in front of my line using shadow end time spell. They were also sporting 2+ ward save during two turns.

Is there anything dwarfs can do about it?
I believe not. Nor is there any fun unless you relish tasting defeat multiple times in a row

pippin_nl
06-12-2014, 16:38
As a dwarf player who just had three games in a row using end times magic, I am really frustrated. With greater disparity bet ween power dice and dispel dice, the defender is set at a disadvantage. Now that same spells can be cast.again, this means even basic spells cast thrice or more is equally dangerous as nuke spells.

Many end time spells can also be cast reliably even with low d6 particularly when power scroll or stone is used.

In my games at least three basic spells could be cast reliably per phase. And casting end time spells more than once per game is highly likely.

What I had today was a gutstar with it's toughness boosted to 8, a grave guard deathstar with hatred and hitting on 2+ teleported right in front of my line using shadow end time spell. They were also sporting 2+ ward save during two turns.

Is there anything dwarfs can do about it?
I believe not. Nor is there any fun unless you relish tasting defeat multiple times in a row

Power stone does not allow the use of extra dice, just using power stone dice instead of regular dice. Did you use the rule where you can decide how many dice to use to dispel up to 6 or bound by the 1D6 (as you have no wizard)? Which rule of recasting spells did you use; any spell not dispelled or any spell that made the casting roll?

hdctambien
06-12-2014, 16:40
Is there anything dwarfs can do about it?
I believe not. Nor is there any fun unless you relish tasting defeat multiple times in a row

I think that's how most people feel about Dwarf Gun lines, too.

Sinsigel
06-12-2014, 16:42
Power stone does not allow the use of extra dice, just using power stone dice instead of regular dice. Did you use the rule where you can decide how many dice to use to dispel up to 6 or bound by the 1D6 (as you have no wizard)? Which rule of recasting spells did you use; any spell not dispelled or any spell that made the casting roll?

We were rolling d6 for defenders, as we interpreted it as the spell caster rolling d6 for both spell caster and the defender who dispels.(separately, of course)

And as long as casting was success ful, same spells could be cast again.
So dispelling wouldn't stop it. I believe it's fairly obvious

Sinsigel
06-12-2014, 16:48
I think that's how most people feel about Dwarf Gun lines, too.

Not if you are using end times magic system.
Multiple phas protection or iceshard blizzard are truly terrifying. not to mention some of the most powerful end time spells, such as shadow, metal, slaanesh, etc.

Of course, if someone believes it's a payback for dwarfs using gunlines(which I was not using today), then I have nothing else to say

To describe what I fought today, the ogres had huge gutstar with five characters, maneaters and four ironblasters.

The undead legion had forty grave guards with mortarch.vlad, tomb king, blender vamp lord with necrotect for hatred. It was supported.by large unit of chariots, crypt horrors and hierotitan. The GG deathstar would teleport right in front of my units in turn one or two, using shadow end times spell.

Surely they would suffer so greatly against dwarf gunlines...

FatTrucker
06-12-2014, 16:51
As it stands currently there's absolutely no point fielding an army that hasn't had an end-times update against an army that has had an end times update.
Playing with end-times legions, rules and magic against a non updated army, you're pretty much guaranteed to lose which to be honest isn't much fun for either player.
Main reason I think there won't be very long between books as everyone needs to be included in order to be able to compete.

DeathGlam
06-12-2014, 17:09
As it stands currently there's absolutely no point fielding an army that hasn't had an end-times update against an army that has had an end times update.
Playing with end-times legions, rules and magic against a non updated army, you're pretty much guaranteed to lose which to be honest isn't much fun for either player.
Main reason I think there won't be very long between books as everyone needs to be included in order to be able to compete.

Or you could play with people who want mutual enjoyment, like my gaming group who have now had our first two games of an End Times force, one being the Chaos one and the other being the Undead Legion, against regular armies, both players had a laugh/enjoyable evening, crazy idea i know but works for us. ;)

Edit: The Undead army won its game but the Chaos army lost, both games quite close till the end but this is an enviroment among likeminded players who want to use the models they prefer rather then crush all comers, boost my ego with my toy soldier win percentage type of enviroment.

TheLionReturns
06-12-2014, 17:27
I quite like the end times magic rules. They seem to have addressed the issue of 6-dicing with a low level caster, and I think universal loremaster has some real potential to bring more variety to the magic phase.

While it is too early for me to form a properly informed opinion, some battle reports and my own limited experience seems to suggest that one issue is multiple castings of low level spells on single enemy units. I wonder if a couple of tweaks could address this.

1. A spell is not successfully cast if it is dispelled, meaning by dispelling a spell it cannot be recast that magic phase.
2. A spell can only be cast once per unit per magic phase, so no stacking iceshard blizzard, wyssans etc on a single unit.

The only other issue that worries me is those units with odd spell selection rules. Having Sisters of the thorn and warlocks knowing two full lores each is a massive upgrade to units already undercosted. Also the loremaster of hoeth just seems clunky and his use can potentially really slow down the magic phase as a player considers so many options.

Overall I think there is potential here. It is worth remembering that there are plenty of complaints about the current system. First impressions are that the end times update to the rules is far from perfect but I think there is potential for something good to emerge from them.

HelloKitty
06-12-2014, 22:15
As it stands currently there's absolutely no point fielding an army that hasn't had an end-times update against an army that has had an end times update.
Playing with end-times legions, rules and magic against a non updated army, you're pretty much guaranteed to lose which to be honest isn't much fun for either player.
Main reason I think there won't be very long between books as everyone needs to be included in order to be able to compete.

I disagree completely as I have seen several matches now and the ET armies weren't guaranteed anything and indeed lost as much as they won.

Kahadras
07-12-2014, 01:31
Longer yes, but much less random. It is the law of large numbers. The new rules reward more smaller spells rather than the outcome of the phase being whether you get lucky and get your one big spell off.

My concern is the fact that there's more dice rolling ergo more random. Want to stop that Doom and Darkness you're opponant just cast? To bad you only rolled up one defence dice better still have your dispel scroll.

Instead of the old 'one big spell' there's going to be a barrage of smaller spell spam backed up by extra power dice generation. There's also the fact that those big spells are still out there and as Loremaster is now a thing the wizard is always going to know it and why not go for an extended cast? Worst comes to the worst you lose a power dice (with the average being around 14 power dice in a magic phase this isn't the end of the world).

forseer of fates
07-12-2014, 01:43
Is it d6 dice max you can use or d6 power dice, just obv the wording affects things like Maliketh's crown of sorcery/night goblins.

Bigman
07-12-2014, 16:33
It's d6 max as I recall.

I am eager to try it out. I think it will be refreshing to see how it all pans out.


Also given the timescale, I can very much see the mechanics being part of 9th, maybe back to 2D6 once the magical storm of the invasion recedes. It would then be a rather more frantic phase. Only having an avg of 7 dice vs 4 with the d6 rolls would be very interesting.

Smithpod68
07-12-2014, 16:57
I read that dispelling as the spell is unsuccessful and can't be recast by the same mage. pg 36 BRB "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt(or not even attempted one!),the spell is cast successfully and its effect is now resolved". I don't see how meeting the casting cost and getting it dispelled counts as "successful" and would allow you to cast again. Also,the multi-buffing a unit raises an interesting question as well as the spells originally seemed to focus on one unit unless it had wording that could affect all in a given radius.

Bigman
07-12-2014, 17:02
Unfortunately,ET Khaine chicks the baby out with the bath water by asking you to use their rules in ET Khaine, and ignoring that page I believe. Hence the issues for RAW guys.

Smithpod68
07-12-2014, 17:43
I guess it comes down to what constitutes a " failed casting attempt". pg 9 EoT;Khaine, "A spell for which a failed casting attempt was made during the same Magic phase" cannot be recast

Bigman
07-12-2014, 18:31
Indeed, but by telling people to ignore the BRB page, it leaves people not knowing what a successful casting is.

So ET Khaine tells you to ignore but then doesn't re-define.

As others have done on this thread, people will house rule it, but still it's FAQ worthy if it is going to cause issues, whether GW FAQ (we can hope lol) or competitive community FAQ for tournaments.

SuperHappyTime
09-12-2014, 00:28
Indeed, but by telling people to ignore the BRB page, it leaves people not knowing what a successful casting is.

So ET Khaine tells you to ignore but then doesn't re-define.

As others have done on this thread, people will house rule it, but still it's FAQ worthy if it is going to cause issues, whether GW FAQ (we can hope lol) or competitive community FAQ for tournaments.

It's an issue that's FAQ-worthy, definitely if more people had access to the book.

Really, the only way I can see this working well is if you get rid of wizard levels being added to the cast, and a successful cast is only one that isn't dispelled. Of course, this destroys the need for Level 2 and 4 Wizards.

stonehorse
09-12-2014, 01:31
To quote an infamous internet meme....

I DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS!

This is not what Magic needed in Warhammer, it needed to be toned down, not this. Having to roll to see how many of your dispel dice you can use is simple a recipe for failure, did this get play tested?

moonlapse
09-12-2014, 02:04
To quote an infamous internet meme....

I DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS!

This is not what Magic needed in Warhammer, it needed to be toned down, not this. Having to roll to see how many of your dispel dice you can use is simple a recipe for failure, did this get play tested?

I'm beginning to think GW may see playtesting as analogous to market research, i.e. completely superfluous...

forseer of fates
09-12-2014, 02:08
I doubt it, I thinks just a poor attempt to salvage something from storm of magic.

Lord Dan
09-12-2014, 02:19
I doubt it, I thinks just a poor attempt to salvage something from storm of magic.

I'm with FoF on this one.

Tyrant of Zhufbar
09-12-2014, 05:00
They playtested it, but obviously with the attitude of will people like to play this in their basement for kicks, not will this balance the game and help the GT scene. They aren't stupid, that's why it hasn't been FAQd into the BRB and has clearly worded conditions on when to use it. (Aside) Beware of anyone who holds a metaphorical gun to your head and plays the "either player" clause by the exact wording. I see the magic system as more analogous to the street fighting and underground rules from the previous entries. 50% characters was so people could actually run the crazy kits they were putting out, the other stuff is just cool stuff for the player base to explore.

N00B
09-12-2014, 11:30
As a rules system it is far superior to the previous magic phase, and I hope they use the system in 9th. All my games with it have been fun and interesting. If they do they will need to rebalance the power of some of the spells though. Even now with the spells written for a different magic system there is still nothing quite as stupid as Purple Sun or Cacaphonic Choir.

Having said this we have been playing that dispelling a casting stops the spell from being used further that phase - which not everyone has been doing.

Yowzo
09-12-2014, 13:08
Is it d6 dice max you can use or d6 power dice, just obv the wording affects things like Maliketh's crown of sorcery/night goblins.

NG mushroom dice aren't power dice. They're just added to the casting total (and on a 1 autofail casting)

Just like they don't prevent not enough power or cause a miscast.

theJ
09-12-2014, 13:18
My thoughts?

On the positive side, the multiple-small-castings design makes it both more reliable and less likely to decide the whole game in a single phase(or fail horribly to do ANYTHING) the way the current megaspell design does. "Loremaster for everyone" also helps cement this - I now finally know what my wizards can do ahead of time, and can plan around it.
As an addition, simply knowing all the spells means I also no longer need to be sad about not getting all the accursed spell cards on time - in an age of over-complication, they've actually built a system that is easier to keep track of than the one that preceeded it. Kudos! :D

On the negative side, the rest of the rules clearly aren't built to support this. As usual, the minimum effort ruleswriting of the End Times lets it down. We could've had full reworks of the other lores to work within this system, but noooooo, we had to waste the all the pages on useless scenarios that are neither fun to play or read about anyway(one of the biggest mistakes of the End Times, imho).
The other big flaw of this system is the near endless potential for mindless spamming it opens up for. I think my solution would be to only allow players to cast X spells with each wizard(where X most likely equals their wizard level). With this design, the current power and dispel dice mechanic suddenly becomes outdated and unnecessary, and could be dropped entirely. You'd simply choose which spell to cast, roll to see how many dice your wizard manages to channel forth, and then roll again to see if the wizard manages to pull it off.

As of right now... might be fun to experiment with, but I don't expect it to be "great" until ninth can adapt the lores and surrounding rules to fit.

Personally, the possibility of my Undead finally having reliable enough magic to play like proper undead, with endless hordes of lesser undead, mass raising, and attrition makes me giddy, even if the system still has a long way to go before that vision becomes reality.

Emissary
09-12-2014, 13:51
Is it d6 dice max you can use or d6 power dice, just obv the wording affects things like Maliketh's crown of sorcery/night goblins.

It's D6 power dice. Other magic items or rules that modify the power dice work as they did before. It just replaces the max 6 dice with max D6.

For example, if you roll a 1 on the D6 and fail to cast the spell with Malekith, his Iron Circlet would kick in and add a 2nd dice.

MasterSplinter
09-12-2014, 15:35
I think my solution would be to only allow players to cast X spells with each wizard(where X most likely equals their wizard level).

Thats actually a quite good idea. But imo there would be even less reason to field a level 1 or 2, maybe the level shouldnīt be added to the casting result anymore in this circumstance? i had some ideas how it might have been changed to the better using the new rules as a frame, for example how would it be, if the d6 roll for how many powerdice you can use was a fixed number, i mean that you would have to roll that many dice for the spell, no more no less - and the wizard level would allow you to add or substract any number from zero to the wizards level? IMO that would reflect the actual skill of a wizards power and how he can handle the winds of magic and the benefit he woud give to your army would be more reliability and dosage of powerdice.

But thats offtopic :)

forseer of fates
09-12-2014, 17:18
Well Malikeths extra dice is a power dice, so that matters.

Montegue
10-12-2014, 14:01
As expected, the batreps I'm seeing are showing that the real power of the new magic phase is in small hexes that make units impossible to fight with, or small magic missiles and augments spammed over and over.

WarsmithGarathor94
10-12-2014, 15:32
I like it tbh i might just run a couple of level 2s one on beasts the other on heavens/fire/life etc

copesh
10-12-2014, 17:56
the spamming of hexes and buffs is the power in this new system.

Almost makes more sense to limit a unit to 1 copy of any given buff or debuff - but maybe they want you to be able to build your own death stars with your lowly troops.
Core infantry with 5-7 copies of Wyssan's can mulch anything out there.

N00B
10-12-2014, 20:49
Appart from witch elves... Lots of asf poison attacks hurt no matter how tough.

Doommasters
10-12-2014, 22:58
After half a dozen games here are my thoughts;

1) Units should not be able to have the same hex/buff on them more than once: I really like how we can choose to case lower tier spells more than once per magic phase, however I dislike the fact you can simply buff one unit multiple times with the same spell...if GW moves to this system in 9th I think this is something they should look at

2) DE magic/items can generate too many powerdice: only an issue when powergaming and can easily be cleaned up down the line however is a rather lrage oversight imo

3) Six dice spells are all but gone: the ability to simply pick up all your dice and throw them and the super spells was pretty lame from a tactical point of view. Now you really need to think about the cost/benefit of going for one of the big casts.

4) Some 15+ (big spells will never be worth casting): Come 9th edition the spell costs are going to need to be re-evaluated as many spells that fall into the 15+ section are simply not worth the risk given the reward they offer. Obviously this cannot be changed now but could become a problem if 9th does spell casts are not adjust for 'some' of the bigger casting cost spells. The same could be said for some of the low cost spells being a little too powerful given the ability to spam them

Overall it is very different but IMO a far more tactical and enjoyable system. If GW does go towards this system in 9th all the lores will need to be revised because as it stands now I do not believe the spells are close to being optimiased for this new method of casting.

Andy p
11-12-2014, 10:41
After playing a few more games with the system I'm starting to enjoy it more. I can't really add much more than has already been said, especially the comprehensive post by Doomasters above me.

But I think my first game was probably an unlucky fluke as the others have played out in a much more balanced manner. Yep small spells and hexes and augments. There are still many rule clarification issues and some conflicts though.
In my most recent game I did see a few of the bigger spells going off, but they'll still largely be ignored unless this is something that will be changed in 9th assuming there is a 9th, with regards to cost \result.

One good thing was that I found the level 1 heralds with metal I have in my list actually came in handy with the metal buffs and debuffs. As I had enough dice to use them. Oh a downside as well is the increased length of the game, although it can be sped up through knowledge of the rules like anything, it will naturally involve a longer time to resolve the phase because of increased dice and spell options.

Haravikk
11-12-2014, 14:36
I'm pretty damned pissed about it; I was expecting something new, not just Storm of Magic again! I already paid for Storm of Magic, along with the cards that go with that, and I foolishly bought the magic cards for this thinking they'd be something actually new.

I enjoy Storm of Magic, it's a fun alternative game-type to bring out now and then, and can be a blast along as you don't go into it expecting to win (it's definitely not for competitive play), but it's also still valid seeing as how it's also for 8th edition. So why the heck should we pay money for it all over again?

moonlapse
11-12-2014, 14:47
If the spell cards show anything, it's to never pre order from GW, as they love to screw people over.

Regarding magic, I would just LOVE it if 9th toned magic right down to how I envision magic should be: very minor buffs and hexes to tip things in your favour. Things like Calm, Frenzy, +1S, Goad, 6+ ward. No super spells. Yeah yeah, then you can't delete deathstars, but it's not worth ruining magic for. Deathstars should lose to chaff anyway.

HelloKitty
11-12-2014, 15:13
The Khaine book is not storm of magic all over again. It takes parts of storm of magic yes. There are still quite a few pieces of content that are scenarios, new magic phase rules, and named characters.

Andy p
11-12-2014, 20:15
If the spell cards show anything, it's to never pre order from GW, as they love to screw people over.

Regarding magic, I would just LOVE it if 9th toned magic right down to how I envision magic should be: very minor buffs and hexes to tip things in your favour. Things like Calm, Frenzy, +1S, Goad, 6+ ward. No super spells. Yeah yeah, then you can't delete deathstars, but it's not worth ruining magic for. Deathstars should lose to chaff anyway.

That is a bit how the new system works. Frankly it's much more economic with the dice to just cast the same debuff over and over on a deathstar, or buff you own, than to delete it with a big spell. The super spells hardly ever go off anyhow with this system.

Although it could easily be argued that the repetition of casting the same spells is less a tipping and more a deluge in your favour. But then again the opponent can do similar things, depending on the army.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2014, 07:52
I'm pretty damned pissed about it; I was expecting something new, not just Storm of Magic again! I already paid for Storm of Magic, along with the cards that go with that, and I foolishly bought the magic cards for this thinking they'd be something actually new.

I enjoy Storm of Magic, it's a fun alternative game-type to bring out now and then, and can be a blast along as you don't go into it expecting to win (it's definitely not for competitive play), but it's also still valid seeing as how it's also for 8th edition. So why the heck should we pay money for it all over again?

Even the spells aren't identicle in every case, at least one (return of the golden age) is markedly different (and by different I mean 'much worse for the same casting value').

doyouevenrealisebro?
12-12-2014, 16:04
Ok so on initial reading of the rules I did not like the way it changed the magic phase but reserved judgement until I had actually played a couple of games with the rules.

Boy oh boy I did not like it at all.
For me it was the fact that the dispelling player also had to roll for how many dice they could use. Its just too random and makes it hard to plan out what you want to do. For me the magic phase is more of a mind game and by introducing another random element it leaves too much to chance. I basically lost the entire game because my opponent would cast a spell and I would be like 'oh this is the one I need to dispel' (having let some others through) as I know it is going to be a lynchpin for him and then end up rolling a 1 and automatically not being able to dispel it. Whereas before I could at least throw more dice than him and have some sort of chance at dispelling it.
I understand people hate the 6 dicing of spells but bar an IF then you can still throw as many dice as you like against it for dispelling,
I really hope this is not what ninth will be like. It may be ok for now and then but personally I disliked it with a passion and will not be playing with them again.
Also for demons it makes the additional bonus they get from the chart silly as on 4 dice you are not going to roll less than a ten most of the time for the first wind of magic.
This is just my opinion of it though so I am glad that other people like it and find use for it.

Spiney Norman
12-12-2014, 16:17
Ok so on initial reading of the rules I did not like the way it changed the magic phase but reserved judgement until I had actually played a couple of games with the rules.

Boy oh boy I did not like it at all.
For me it was the fact that the dispelling player also had to roll for how many dice they could use. Its just too random and makes it hard to plan out what you want to do. For me the magic phase is more of a mind game and by introducing another random element it leaves too much to chance. I basically lost the entire game because my opponent would cast a spell and I would be like 'oh this is the one I need to dispel' (having let some others through) as I know it is going to be a lynchpin for him and then end up rolling a 1 and automatically not being able to dispel it. Whereas before I could at least throw more dice than him and have some sort of chance at dispelling it.
I understand people hate the 6 dicing of spells but bar an IF then you can still throw as many dice as you like against it for dispelling,
I really hope this is not what ninth will be like. It may be ok for now and then but personally I disliked it with a passion and will not be playing with them again.
Also for demons it makes the additional bonus they get from the chart silly as on 4 dice you are not going to roll less than a ten most of the time for the first wind of magic.
This is just my opinion of it though so I am glad that other people like it and find use for it.

This speaks the truth, there is very little tactical depth to the magic phase now, everything is decided by dice, player control is reduced yet again in a game which already has a strong random element.

Captain Idaho
12-12-2014, 16:22
Yeah because repeatedly casting the same spell over and over makes for a more tactical and balanced game than we have now...

I doubt we'll see this in the final rules of 9th edition. Storm of Magic didn't end up in the core rules last time and neither will this. It's just "fun" for people whilst we wait.

doyouevenrealisebro?
12-12-2014, 16:22
player control is reduced yet again in a game which already has a strong random element.

So true, I understand there needs to be a random element in the game. But too much is so frustrating.

HelloKitty
12-12-2014, 16:35
Yeah because repeatedly casting the same spell over and over makes for a more tactical and balanced game than we have now...

I doubt we'll see this in the final rules of 9th edition. Storm of Magic didn't end up in the core rules last time and neither will this. It's just "fun" for people whilst we wait.

They said the same about apocalypse and 40k. :)

MasterSplinter
12-12-2014, 17:11
stuff.

i can see that, ut you can still roll as many dd as you want RAW if you choose to dispel with your army, as only wizards need to roll the d6. You got some more flexibility than the casting player by that and nothing stops you to roll even more then 6 dd.

Captain Idaho
12-12-2014, 17:27
They said the same about apocalypse and 40k. :)

Gentleman's wager? A tin of your finest kitty kat food if you win; a new book mark for my Codex Astartes if I win.

HelloKitty
12-12-2014, 17:36
Gentleman's wager? A tin of your finest kitty kat food if you win; a new book mark for my Codex Astartes if I win.

:D sure thing. We shall see what they do hopefully soon enough!

N00B
12-12-2014, 17:56
Ok so on initial reading of the rules I did not like the way it changed the magic phase but reserved judgement until I had actually played a couple of games with the rules.

Boy oh boy I did not like it at all.
For me it was the fact that the dispelling player also had to roll for how many dice they could use. Its just too random and makes it hard to plan out what you want to do. For me the magic phase is more of a mind game and by introducing another random element it leaves too much to chance. I basically lost the entire game because my opponent would cast a spell and I would be like 'oh this is the one I need to dispel' (having let some others through) as I know it is going to be a lynchpin for him and then end up rolling a 1 and automatically not being able to dispel it. Whereas before I could at least throw more dice than him and have some sort of chance at dispelling it.
I understand people hate the 6 dicing of spells but bar an IF then you can still throw as many dice as you like against it for dispelling,
I really hope this is not what ninth will be like. It may be ok for now and then but personally I disliked it with a passion and will not be playing with them again.
Also for demons it makes the additional bonus they get from the chart silly as on 4 dice you are not going to roll less than a ten most of the time for the first wind of magic.
This is just my opinion of it though so I am glad that other people like it and find use for it.

I may have just missread the rules but it sounds like a) you lost and b) it was either by a mistake on your part or by some very high risk play on your opponents part.

I believe you can still use the dice you want to dispel as long as you don't use a wizard to do it. If you know what you want to dispel then keep your dice and then throw a buttload of them at the crucial spell. If the caster is needing 5+ dice to get the spell off then the rules are already disuading them from doing that and it was a pretty ballsy play (which sometimes you have to do).

Now it is also fair to say that with so many more spells to choose from your opponent may have put you in a position where a selection of different spells would be crippling and as soon as he rolled high for number of dice to use he would try and force it through... If he did then he simply outplayed you by putting you in that position and this is the reward for skill.

MasterSplinter
12-12-2014, 18:09
@noob: i wont judge on other peoples opinion about the magic phase became less tactical as this are just opinions but i think the magic phase overall has become a lot more tactical. Maybe you canīt predict it anymore like before but you can still weigh up desicions and can do more tactical tricks and psychic games with your oponent which in the end need more skill than just throw 6-dice or to try to draw some dispel dice from the enemy to get your next spells through, everyone did know soon enough on what this was about and did know what spell combinations to expect with an enemy having 4 spells to choose from. I like the new magic a lot and think it requires skill and tactics.

HelloKitty
12-12-2014, 18:33
A tactic is a choice. Something that is tactical denotes that it has choices that must be made. Less tactical implies that you have less choices to make. In that - I do not in any way agree that the new magic phase is less tactical. Or less strategic. Just different.

doyouevenrealisebro?
12-12-2014, 18:41
I may have just missread the rules but it sounds like a) you lost and b) it was either by a mistake on your part or by some very high risk play on your opponents part.

I believe you can still use the dice you want to dispel as long as you don't use a wizard to do it. If you know what you want to dispel then keep your dice and then throw a buttload of them at the crucial spell. If the caster is needing 5+ dice to get the spell off then the rules are already disuading them from doing that and it was a pretty ballsy play (which sometimes you have to do).

Now it is also fair to say that with so many more spells to choose from your opponent may have put you in a position where a selection of different spells would be crippling and as soon as he rolled high for number of dice to use he would try and force it through... If he did then he simply outplayed you by putting you in that position and this is the reward for skill.

I feel as if you are being somewhat judgemental of me here as to what happened and reading between the lines too much, without having actually witnessed the game.
I did in the end lose but not by much due to some mitigation on my part. However I am not a player who minds losing if it is due won to my opponents skill and I am always quick to point out my own mistakes as it is the only way to get better. Nonetheless in this case it happened because the magic phase was just overwhelming because everytime I wanted to dispel I would roll poorly for how many dice I could use.
I will concede that the mistake I made was I forgot about dispelling with the army however an extra +4 is still a lot to overcome comparatively.
But personally I do not like this way of conducting the magic phase and I was clear in stating that it is my opinion.
You talk also of ballsy play and manipulating the sheer amount of spells you have, but you have to remember that the power dice pool is, comparatively, much larger than the dispel pool. With one accessing a lot of damaging spells it is easy and not skillful to go 'oh I want to cast this one, oh I rolled a one for dice allowance, thats ok I will just try this other just as damaging one ah I rolled a 5 excellent'. Because there is no risk in trying the first one it doesn't matter if it doesn't happen, you can afford to take that risk. In that situation I would then have to either throw virtually all my dice with the army dispel to be sure of it not going through, or risk matching the amount of dice I am allowed to use in dispelling. Either way I am just left open to another big spell, unlike in normal magic where I am pretty sure that I am not going to be purpled sunned then have to face a mindrazored unit in combat. For me that is not as tactical, but that is my opinion.
Again you may be of the opinion that that does have some tactical merit and that is fine, my main lamentation with it was the introduction of another random variable.
But please don't make me out for being a bad loser because I have an opinion that I do not like the rule set, as I would not belittle someone for liking the rules nor would I say 'well you obviously like the rules because you won'.

doyouevenrealisebro?
12-12-2014, 18:48
A tactic is a choice. Something that is tactical denotes that it has choices that must be made. Less tactical implies that you have less choices to make. In that - I do not in any way agree that the new magic phase is less tactical. Or less strategic. Just different.

You sir have made an extremely good point.
It is not a fact that it is in either way less or more.
It is ok to have an opinion on each side though, as long as you are aware it is just your opinion ;)

doyouevenrealisebro?
12-12-2014, 18:55
i can see that, ut you can still roll as many dd as you want RAW if you choose to dispel with your army, as only wizards need to roll the d6. You got some more flexibility than the casting player by that and nothing stops you to roll even more then 6 dd.

Thank you sir I do admit I did forget about dispelling with the army but thank you for pointing out my mistake in such a cordial manner

Captain Idaho
12-12-2014, 18:56
I don't think it's as simple as breaking down the dictionary definition of the word tactic. It's a choice to wake up in the morning, not a tactic. ;)

Seriously; carefully choosing what spells to use out of the 7 dice you got versus 5 dispel dice is much more tactical than choosing to pump out 6 or so Soul Quenches.

moonlapse
12-12-2014, 19:23
Thank you sir I do admit I did forget about dispelling with the army but thank you for pointing out my mistake in such a cordial manner

Is this whole 'dispel with your army instead of a wizard, so you don't have to roll the d6 for dispel dice'generally accepted now then? I assumed this would be waved away by most people as 'gamey'.

MasterSplinter
12-12-2014, 19:39
Mainly it is lazy rules writing from GW. But why should it be gamey? Most people seem to have a problem with the new "OP" magic rules, so why argue something that is written in the rulebook when it does the dispeller a favor who otherwise is saied to be in a disadvantage because of having to react with a d6 roll?

N00B
12-12-2014, 19:50
I feel as if you are being somewhat judgemental of me here as to what happened and reading between the lines too much, without having actually witnessed the game.
I did in the end lose but not by much due to some mitigation on my part. However I am not a player who minds losing if it is due won to my opponents skill and I am always quick to point out my own mistakes as it is the only way to get better. Nonetheless in this case it happened because the magic phase was just overwhelming because everytime I wanted to dispel I would roll poorly for how many dice I could use.
I will concede that the mistake I made was I forgot about dispelling with the army however an extra +4 is still a lot to overcome comparatively.
But personally I do not like this way of conducting the magic phase and I was clear in stating that it is my opinion.
You talk also of ballsy play and manipulating the sheer amount of spells you have, but you have to remember that the power dice pool is, comparatively, much larger than the dispel pool. With one accessing a lot of damaging spells it is easy and not skillful to go 'oh I want to cast this one, oh I rolled a one for dice allowance, thats ok I will just try this other just as damaging one ah I rolled a 5 excellent'. Because there is no risk in trying the first one it doesn't matter if it doesn't happen, you can afford to take that risk. In that situation I would then have to either throw virtually all my dice with the army dispel to be sure of it not going through, or risk matching the amount of dice I am allowed to use in dispelling. Either way I am just left open to another big spell, unlike in normal magic where I am pretty sure that I am not going to be purpled sunned then have to face a mindrazored unit in combat. For me that is not as tactical, but that is my opinion.
Again you may be of the opinion that that does have some tactical merit and that is fine, my main lamentation with it was the introduction of another random variable.
But please don't make me out for being a bad loser because I have an opinion that I do not like the rule set, as I would not belittle someone for liking the rules nor would I say 'well you obviously like the rules because you won'.

Sorry, I wasn't intending this to be dismissive, although reading it back i can see why it came across that way (mainly I think due to poor deletion skills on my part ( "a) you lost" sounds like a point whereas I was going on to say "you lost because..." - I am happy to concede it sounds somewhat hostile when the actual constructive part has been deleted from the sentence)). This is not your fault, but mine.

I would also say that the dispel pool isn't much smaller than the power pool - probably about 75% of the size (I will run some numbers soon to check). I think that the way to play it as the caster in the phase is to accept that your best 5 or 6 powerdice will be dispelled and this will eat their dice. Given that your opponent is unwilling to lose those last dice for less than your best spells you are looking to maximise the effectiveness of the rest. I find magic phases now less swingy - you no longer have phases where no one can successfully cast any useful spells (due to low power dice, high dispel dice, dispel scroll or no useful targets) but nor do you manage to force a resignation on Turn 1 through a Dread 13 on a unit with their general/bsb/main wizard in.

doyouevenrealisebro?
12-12-2014, 20:31
Sorry, I wasn't intending this to be dismissive, although reading it back i can see why it came across that way (mainly I think due to poor deletion skills on my part ( "a) you lost" sounds like a point whereas I was going on to say "you lost because..." - I am happy to concede it sounds somewhat hostile when the actual constructive part has been deleted from the sentence)). This is not your fault, but mine.

Thank you, I accept your apology and must commend you for showing such good character. On the flip side I may have read into it too much and therefore also apologise if I came across too negatively also.



I would also say that the dispel pool isn't much smaller than the power pool - probably about 75% of the size (I will run some numbers soon to check). I think that the way to play it as the caster in the phase is to accept that your best 5 or 6 powerdice will be dispelled and this will eat their dice. Given that your opponent is unwilling to lose those last dice for less than your best spells you are looking to maximise the effectiveness of the rest. I find magic phases now less swingy - you no longer have phases where no one can successfully cast any useful spells (due to low power dice, high dispel dice, dispel scroll or no useful targets) but nor do you manage to force a resignation on Turn 1 through a Dread 13 on a unit with their general/bsb/main wizard in.

I too would love to see the numbers, in my experience when playing you seem to get roughly 60% of the total power dice. Plus as wargamers we all love numbers.
I see your point about the magic phase swing, especially with regards to phases that are sometimes very non-existant, which I guess is the whole point of this ruleset. In that they want to eliminate non-phases, as fluff-wise there is a lot of magic flowing around.
Nonetheless the control freak in me just gets too irate about the lack of dispel wizarding control.

Shadeseraph
12-12-2014, 20:58
Frankly, my first thoughts were: "Wait, does this mean that my light council can spam S7 banishment to hell and back?"

My second thoughts were: "Wawawawawawaiiiit... arcane unforging for everyone ****ches?"

I'm starting to think big bad characters might not be as scary anymore, at least under these rules. On the other side, I'm not sure what can really stand 14 dice of banishments.

N00B
13-12-2014, 00:36
Frankly, my first thoughts were: "Wait, does this mean that my light council can spam S7 banishment to hell and back?"

My second thoughts were: "Wawawawawawaiiiit... arcane unforging for everyone ****ches?"

I'm starting to think big bad characters might not be as scary anymore, at least under these rules. On the other side, I'm not sure what can really stand 14 dice of banishments.

Yes, multiple banishments but you will need a 10+ so a lvl 4 needing 6 of however many dice you use will still mean you can have a decent chance to fail to cast it. Also I would imagine that this would be getting the brunt of your opponents dispel dice (we have been playing that to count as successful the spell actually has to happen). I won't discount it as a threat but it is what will let all your other spells go uncontested as dispel dice are saved for this. The cost though is that your supporting light council are not adding any spells. It isnt like they fill out the lore or anything as each wizard gets all the spells. Now with a lvl 5 wizard who can cast lore of light spells I would get scared (Book of Ashur anyone?) (or loremaster light or archmage with book of Hoeth).

Arcane unforging is a nice extra spell and is pretty nice with +5 to cast but I cant see the need or the ability to be getting off large amounts of this. I think the big boost of high magic is a kickass magic missile and the ability to get ALL the situational spells.

Shadeseraph
13-12-2014, 00:55
Yes, multiple banishments but you will need a 10+ so a lvl 4 needing 6 of however many dice you use will still mean you can have a decent chance to fail to cast it. Also I would imagine that this would be getting the brunt of your opponents dispel dice (we have been playing that to count as successful the spell actually has to happen). I won't discount it as a threat but it is what will let all your other spells go uncontested as dispel dice are saved for this. The cost though is that your supporting light council are not adding any spells. It isnt like they fill out the lore or anything as each wizard gets all the spells. Now with a lvl 5 wizard who can cast lore of light spells I would get scared (Book of Ashur anyone?) (or loremaster light or archmage with book of Hoeth).

I've seen the discussion regarding recasting go both ways. In my LGS they have gone the "failed attempt = not roll enough to cast the spell" way. But nevertheless, the extra mages actually -do- add a lot: Should the main mage fail to cast the spell, I can still attempt to cast it at the very least 3 times more. Sure, I'm only at +1, rather than at +4, but there is a fairly reasonable chance of being able to roll more dice to cast the spell than the enemy to dispell it. I'm quite sure I can pull 2-3 banishments per magic phase, and that's a huge deal. For starters, that's an unkillable chaos character dead per turn, more or less. 2 S7 Banishments are enough to kill Nagash and Malekith, for instance. In this character-ridden meta, these spells are incredible. And the rest of the lore doesn't lag behind, while also being quite cheap. Stacked Pha's?


Arcane unforging is a nice extra spell and is pretty nice with +5 to cast but I cant see the need or the ability to be getting off large amounts of this. I think the big boost of high magic is a kickass magic missile and the ability to get ALL the situational spells.

No, I agree. Arcane Unforging isn't the best part, having access to the whole lore is, because, as you have pointed, most of the spells are very powerful but under specific situations. I actually agree: the best part is the magic missile, possibly, and that you are going to be on a 3++ almost continuously. Fun for a Cavstar or something similar.

copesh
13-12-2014, 00:57
I am going to try the new rules this weekend with my HE army and am doing an Arch with Book of +1casting in High and the Loremaster of Hoeth with Book of Hoeth.

I think the strength of High Magic for the HE is the ward improvement and Drain Magic. 5+ to negate all those buffs and debuffs the other player spent their entire magic phase getting up.

:D

N00B
13-12-2014, 01:38
OK... So I ran the numbers.

Hopefully this table reads well enough. It gives the probability of getting x dice in each category (with x being on the left hand side), so the probability of the caster getting 4 more dice than their opponent is 0.201 (modal value).

A couple of summary figures-
average ratio of dispel dice to power dice is 0.67.
average number of power dice 14 (well duh!)
average number of dispel dice 9.344
average difference of 4.66 dice




Total Dice
Total Dispell
Difference


1
0.000
0.000
0.000


2
0.000
0.001
0.132


3
0.000
0.003
0.188


4
0.001
0.012
0.201


5
0.003
0.025
0.173


6
0.008
0.050
0.132


7
0.015
0.083
0.083


8
0.027
0.132
0.050


9
0.043
0.173
0.025


10
0.062
0.201
0.012


11
0.080
0.188
0.003


12
0.096
0.132
0.001


13
0.108
0.000
0.000


14
0.113
0.000
0.000


15
0.108
0.000
0.000


16
0.096
0.000
0.000


17
0.080
0.000
0.000


18
0.062
0.000
0.000


19
0.043
0.000
0.000


20
0.027
0.000
0.000


21
0.015
0.000
0.000


22
0.008
0.000
0.000


23
0.003
0.000
0.000


24
0.001
0.000
0.000




204386

@Copesh - I would be tempted to swap your items round. The Archmage can threaten Soul Quench on a rerollable 3+ with the book which is nasty - the loremaster needs the boost to be able to access more spells effectively of low dice numbers.

Djekar
13-12-2014, 02:13
But nevertheless, the extra mages actually -do- add a lot: Should the main mage fail to cast the spell, I can still attempt to cast it at the very least 3 times more.

I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the rules. The Khaine rules say that "a spell" cannot be cast again if it is not successfully cast/failed to be cast. If banishment can't be cast again, it doesn't matter how many other wizards know it, it cannot be cast again that phase.

forseer of fates
13-12-2014, 02:48
Indeed, it is worded as if 'wizard A' fails to cast say level 1 fire ball, no other wizard may attempt to cast fire ball, in the same magic phase.

Shadeseraph
13-12-2014, 09:39
I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the rules. The Khaine rules say that "a spell" cannot be cast again if it is not successfully cast/failed to be cast. If banishment can't be cast again, it doesn't matter how many other wizards know it, it cannot be cast again that phase.

Agh. That's right.

Haravikk
13-12-2014, 12:34
I doubt we'll see this in the final rules of 9th edition. Storm of Magic didn't end up in the core rules last time and neither will this. It's just "fun" for people whilst we wait.
Storm of Magic came out for 8th edition, so it not being rolled into the main rules isn't really evidence of anything.

I definitely hope this doesn't indicate 9th edition's magic though; what I want to see from fantasy magic is a focus on buffs and debuffs, which this kind of seems to have at least, but with more of a duelling aspect to it. To me the magic phase should feel like one wizard duelling another (or a runesmith or whatever) in attempt to cast their spell successfully. I'd almost like to see a single dice system, where one player rolls a D6, and the other rolls one to dispel, alternating until irresistible force is achieved, or either player chooses to stop rolling dice. This way you still have the risk-reward of trying to draw out more of your opponent's dispel dice early, vs. trying to judge what the casting player really wants to cast this turn, but it's not quite so random, despite still being dice based.

I guess I'd also like to see magic not be quite so powerful too; it's fine for supplements and such to allow crazy magical games, but when it comes down to it no army in warhammer would bother going to war if a single mage could turn the whole thing around so easily. To me it seems that either the really powerful magic should be so risky that you only use it as a gamble, or armies have ways of protecting themselves even without wizards of their own that means magic is less powerful in practice except during storms of magic or similar events involving arcane fulcrums and the like.

I wouldn't actually mind having Storm of Magic integrated as an alternative set of scenarios to play with crazier magic, if it meant that the vanilla scenarios and game were geared more toward tactics with magic as supplemental effects, with anything more powerful being so risky it's rarely worth it, e.g - someone using powerful magic all the time in a tournament would fail more than win because of it, it would be something you only draw upon if you're losing anyway and need something that gives you a fighting chance again.

Andy p
13-12-2014, 13:39
Storm of Magic came out for 8th edition, so it not being rolled into the main rules isn't really evidence of anything.

I definitely hope this doesn't indicate 9th edition's magic though; what I want to see from fantasy magic is a focus on buffs and debuffs, which this kind of seems to have at least, but with more of a duelling aspect to it. To me the magic phase should feel like one wizard duelling another (or a runesmith or whatever) in attempt to cast their spell successfully. I'd almost like to see a single dice system, where one player rolls a D6, and the other rolls one to dispel, alternating until irresistible force is achieved, or either player chooses to stop rolling dice. This way you still have the risk-reward of trying to draw out more of your opponent's dispel dice early, vs. trying to judge what the casting player really wants to cast this turn, but it's not quite so random, despite still being dice based.

I guess I'd also like to see magic not be quite so powerful too; it's fine for supplements and such to allow crazy magical games, but when it comes down to it no army in warhammer would bother going to war if a single mage could turn the whole thing around so easily. To me it seems that either the really powerful magic should be so risky that you only use it as a gamble, or armies have ways of protecting themselves even without wizards of their own that means magic is less powerful in practice except during storms of magic or similar events involving arcane fulcrums and the like.

I wouldn't actually mind having Storm of Magic integrated as an alternative set of scenarios to play with crazier magic, if it meant that the vanilla scenarios and game were geared more toward tactics with magic as supplemental effects, with anything more powerful being so risky it's rarely worth it, e.g - someone using powerful magic all the time in a tournament would fail more than win because of it, it would be something you only draw upon if you're losing anyway and need something that gives you a fighting chance again.

Well for your first paragraph my latest game was closer to that dueling ethic. It was essentially my level 4 vs his and for a couple of phases I did manage to shut down his magic quite effectively, by choosing when to try and dispel based on what he'd rolled and how many dice, as normal really. But the D6 adds that level of randomness which can be daunting yet tends to work out fairly evenly.

The only game I've had that really was one-sided and horrible was my first game's magic phases, but that was because of the lack of foresight, (in my opinion), of the abuses of certain items; in this case book of hoeth was a nightmare allowing rerolling to cast a 5+ spell on one dice, meant I was out of dispel dice eventually. However on playing subsequent games that was the extreme end of bad variables from my end and vice versa for the opponent's. Truth is that I've had games using the usual 8th core rules that were just as one-sided both in magic and other areas, as the dice are still a core component.

This new style of phase could be quite balanced if toned down in a few areas. And especially so if abusive areas and items are taken into consideration. I'll admit I like the 4D6 dice as it actually makes lower level wizards more viable, since there are more dice to go around to allow you to dip into one of two lores with a few key spells rather than JUST having a level 4 and maybe a side wizard who you later regret because it didn't do anything. I do have a slight bias as one of my armies is daemons, but I wouldn't be bothered by an FAQ that said to use the highest and lowest dice for the table, but that might make the higher rolls a bit too unlikely. The D6 allowances are...debatable but apart from my first game it's been fairly consistent and balanced throughout my games and I've even seen a few of the bigger spells go off quite often.

The repeater cast throwers...*ahem* I mean repeated castings is something I'm not that sold on, it's far too vaguely worded in areas and makes quite a few spells ridiculous. Wither, anyone? However a lot of this has to do with the spells themselves. If a 9th edition does incorporate this new magic system, why is there an assumption that the spells will stay the same? Army books would for sure until updates and for them there is still an issue; however they could just change the core spells and tone them down, not that I am assuming they will of course.

This is all assumption and speculation and I won't pretend otherwise, but I do have a wait and see attitude. I try to be realistic if I can without straying too far into pessimism or optimism, being both a different side of the same deluded coin, cynicism not withstanding. It could make or break the hobby, along with many other issues but either way I had fun.

najo
13-12-2014, 22:21
My main issue with the end times magic is 1) how poorly written the rules are 2) how the D6 takes away the interplay between the two players. The poker game was killed and that is terrible.

What they should of done:
1) 4d6 winds of magic. Highest 2 are dispel. Highest and lowest are reign of chaos.
2) spells can be recast, but if dispelled or casting attempt fails that spell is done.
3) wizards roll their spells and get the signature spell on top of them. Wizards of level 3 or higher know their end times spell. This means all wizards know their signature and all 3-4 know the end time. But none of this lore master stuff or characters knowing every spell in the brb.
4) no broken concentration. This is a good change.
5) make miscast table based on number of dice you use. If you six dice, those S10 hits are also multiple wound d6. Sucked into warp on a 2+ etc.

What's unfortunate, we could of had these rules lead into 9th in a positive way. Lose 1-3 and keep 4 & 5 for 9th. Tells the story of magic going off the charts, becoming more dangerous until all the winds are bound to an incarnate and then 9th is when it settles down but some things are changed.

As it is, the end times magic is sloppy, poorly tested rules that ruin a lot of good things in the magic phase. They are the worse thing GW has done in a long long time.

CariadocThorne
13-12-2014, 23:10
I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the rules. The Khaine rules say that "a spell" cannot be cast again if it is not successfully cast/failed to be cast. If banishment can't be cast again, it doesn't matter how many other wizards know it, it cannot be cast again that phase.

I don't really fancy repeating this whole argument, but the quotes I've seen so far say you get to cast the spell any number of times as long as it's cast successfully. Meaning once you fail to cast successfully you no longer get to cast any number of times (not you no longer get to cast the spell at all), and the normal limit of once per caster applies. Note that only unlimited repeat casting is conditional on not having failed to cast.

Djekar
13-12-2014, 23:15
I can't vouch for what quotes you've seen, but the relevant quote from the book (p 9) is "A spell can be cast more than once in the Magic phase, as long as it is not:..." (emphasis in original).

I don't see how this allows you to keep casting from a different wizard once you fail to cast, given that a failed casting attempt is one of the triggering conditions.

CariadocThorne
14-12-2014, 00:08
I can't vouch for what quotes you've seen, but the relevant quote from the book (p 9) is "A spell can be cast more than once in the Magic phase, as long as it is not:..." (emphasis in original).

I don't see how this allows you to keep casting from a different wizard once you fail to cast, given that a failed casting attempt is one of the triggering conditions.

Ok, the part which had been quoted to me was from the bullet-pointed summary, which I suspect is the page before the full version of the rule. It only says a spell can be cast any number of times as long as all previous attempts have been successful. By itself, that doesn't mean you can't cast it all once it's been failed, just not "any number of times", which leaves the existing limit if once per caster.

What you just quoted sounds a lot more definite.

Djekar
14-12-2014, 00:18
No worries sir. There are actually (IMO) a lot of discrepancies/contradictions between the bullet-point summary and the expanded rules. I feel like at this point, it's my fault for expecting GW to put out fully coherent rules. :rolleyes:

CariadocThorne
14-12-2014, 00:26
No worries sir. There are actually (IMO) a lot of discrepancies/contradictions between the bullet-point summary and the expanded rules. I feel like at this point, it's my fault for expecting GW to put out fully coherent rules. :rolleyes:

Shame on you, you should know better than to expect anything of the sort. :banghead:

Emissary
14-12-2014, 01:11
I've seen the discussion regarding recasting go both ways. In my LGS they have gone the "failed attempt = not roll enough to cast the spell" way. But nevertheless, the extra mages actually -do- add a lot: Should the main mage fail to cast the spell, I can still attempt to cast it at the very least 3 times more. Sure, I'm only at +1, rather than at +4, but there is a fairly reasonable chance of being able to roll more dice to cast the spell than the enemy to dispell it. I'm quite sure I can pull 2-3 banishments per magic phase, and that's a huge deal. For starters, that's an unkillable chaos character dead per turn, more or less. 2 S7 Banishments are enough to kill Nagash and Malekith, for instance. In this character-ridden meta, these spells are incredible. And the rest of the lore doesn't lag behind, while also being quite cheap. Stacked Pha's?

From what it looks like to me, if anyone fails the casting attempt for Spell X, casts spell X with a needed value of 15+ or if spell x is an end times spell then nobody else can attempt spell X either. Nothing in that rule mentions they only apply to that 1 wizard.

malisteen
14-12-2014, 02:04
Yeah, extra mages in the same lore only provide redundancy if one dies. Nobody else can cast a spell that phase once it's been failed (or successfully cast, in the case of end times / high cost spells)

Seriqolm
14-12-2014, 21:17
Here's part of the rule from the Khaine book I have in front of me.


"Spells can be used any number of times in each magic phase, as long as all previous attempts to cast the spell have been successful. The only exception to this are End Times spells, and any other spell with a casting value of 15+ etc....."



The confusion is what constitutes a successful cast, I played the rules on Friday and we used the caveat "if the spell is dispelled it has failed to cast" and I feel that's the best route to take. And if you read, as Smithpod68 pointed out on a previous page, page 36 of the BRB Spell Resolution "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), THE SPELL IS CAST SUCCESSFULLY so from that, I think its logical to think a dispelled spell counts as an unsuccessful cast So that's that cleared up eh! :shifty:

Emissary
14-12-2014, 23:59
Here's part of the rule from the Khaine book I have in front of me.


"Spells can be used any number of times in each magic phase, as long as all previous attempts to cast the spell have been successful. The only exception to this are End Times spells, and any other spell with a casting value of 15+ etc....."



The confusion is what constitutes a successful cast, I played the rules on Friday and we used the caveat "if the spell is dispelled it has failed to cast" and I feel that's the best route to take. And if you read, as Smithpod68 pointed out on a previous page, page 36 of the BRB Spell Resolution "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), THE SPELL IS CAST SUCCESSFULLY so from that, I think its logical to think a dispelled spell counts as an unsuccessful cast So that's that cleared up eh! :shifty:

Problem is the books says you only need a successful casting attempt. Not successful casting.

Smithpod68
15-12-2014, 00:17
"Problem is the books says you only need a successful casting attempt. Not successful casting." That is the main problem. In my testing I find the dispel counting as unsuccessful being much more logical. If you go the other way it just gets silly. It definitely changes how certain armies work IMO. For instance,if you play IoN as being stopped once dispelled an no other mage can cast it is really limiting for the Undead. However,go the other way and it gets out of control! If you play it that if one mage fails another can try to cast it sounds logical,but then 2 death mages on the board can get ridiculous.

Doommasters
15-12-2014, 00:33
"Problem is the books says you only need a successful casting attempt. Not successful casting." That is the main problem. In my testing I find the dispel counting as unsuccessful being much more logical. If you go the other way it just gets silly. It definitely changes how certain armies work IMO. For instance,if you play IoN as being stopped once dispelled an no other mage can cast it is really limiting for the Undead. However,go the other way and it gets out of control! If you play it that if one mage fails another can try to cast it sounds logical,but then 2 death mages on the board can get ridiculous.

Another way to make it less extreme would be to limit spells abilities to target a unit more than once per turn. That way you cannot simply snipe that one character off the board turn one with three death casters.

CariadocThorne
15-12-2014, 03:15
Problem is the books says you only need a successful casting attempt. Not successful casting.

If the spell is not cast successfully, the attempt was not successful. That seems pretty simple.

Ahnarras
15-12-2014, 05:25
Did a 5k game yesterday. I was a bit afraid that the lvl of a wizard won't matter anymore. I was wrong, so very wrong. With the D6 to cast, your lvl matter more than ever.

Worst, there is very few reason to take multiple wizard. As you have so many spell with one guy, and can spamm them, a single lvl 4 will surely use all your power dice.
Only reason i see to take a second guy is if you are afraid your main wizard will die, or maybe a second lore. But then again, my lvl 2 were always dispelled by his lvl 4, so i ended casting only with my lvl 4...

Seriqolm
15-12-2014, 12:52
If the spell is not cast successfully, the attempt was not successful. That seems pretty simple.


I agree, the word attempt has no real bearing on what we are talking about here. The rule explanation on page 36 of the BRB is pretty clear to me and makes sense so those spammed low level spells will not be as nasty as some fear as they are equally likely to be quickly dispelled in a high percentage of cases, though of course you'll get the odd 4 in succession going off with bad rolling but that will be very rare.

malisteen
15-12-2014, 16:15
BRB can sort of be read either way, but the vamp counts army book and faq makes the intent clear. A spell is successfully cast when you meet the casting value. It's effects can be nullified via a successful dispel, but the casting attempt was still successful to begin with. Dispel does not stop recasting in End Times - though that's not a bad house rule to tack onto it. I'd still argue that if you were willing to house rule this stuff you'd be better off starting over from the ground up.

N00B
15-12-2014, 16:30
I think that "successfully cast" has to be at least somewhat predicate on success. I.e. that the spell does something.

I think that if anyone came to me suggesting that a spell that was stopped would be counted as successfully cast in a game I would treat them the same way as any other rules lawyer and find someone else to play. This doesn't mean that it isn't what was intended - the fevered visions of the rules writers can only be guessed at by seers and sages.

Ramius4
15-12-2014, 16:57
BRB can sort of be read either way, but the vamp counts army book and faq makes the intent clear. A spell is successfully cast when you meet the casting value. It's effects can be nullified via a successful dispel, but the casting attempt was still successful to begin with. Dispel does not stop recasting in End Times - though that's not a bad house rule to tack onto it. I'd still argue that if you were willing to house rule this stuff you'd be better off starting over from the ground up.

You're ignoring a precedent that we've had since the very beginning of 8th edition. Every Lore Attribute that specifies "x happens if the spell is successfully cast" does not take effect when a spell is dispelled.

You can't apply what you're saying without going completely against other, established precedents.

KingCheops
15-12-2014, 17:57
Do not like. Lizardmen and Elves are going to dominate in this meta. I took a Slann with Focus of Mystery. Loremaster of High Magic is insanely useful but not so much against HotEK. Forget Deadlock -- Drain Magic is now the single best spell in the game. If this is a route that GW is going for 9th magic then they need to come up with some ways to either protect your augments or dispel enemy augments/hexes outside of your turn. They also need to limit augments/hexes to a single copy of any given spell on each unit. This doesn't stop the abuse completely but it at least forces you to spam more than just 1 or 2 lores (which is what we both did in our game).

The nice part of this system is that it has reduced the uber spells in usefulness. This could have been better achieved by changing the wording on those spells. Deathstars have been emphasized with this system but CoreStars instead of your nasty special units. If you are playing against someone without Drain Magic then you should be okay. Otherwise you have to make sure you get the charge and then augment as much as possible on your charge so you break the opponent in 1 turn. So Avoidance and Shooting is further emphasized with this ruleset. I'm thinking of either 100 skink cohorts with as many naked Skink Chiefs as I can fit or else 50 Saurus with as many naked Skink Chiefs as I can manage. Old Bloods and Scar Veterans are nearly worthless in this meta because you are either playing against non-Drain Magic and can buff Chiefs to 10's or you are playing against Drain Magic and won't do jack against his augments.

Magic didn't take us very long. There was one turn where I spent 15 minutes agonizing over choice but otherwise we were always at about the same time as before. Not sure why people are taking so much longer with this (ps. I used my lore attribute to switch out into 5 more lores by turn 3 so it's not like I didn't have choice).

Emissary
15-12-2014, 18:04
See I would say that successfully attempting to cast a spell is different then successfully casting the spell. For a cast there are 2 things that have to happen as we all know: 1) the caster has to hit or beat the needed casting value and 2) the spell has to not be dispelled. For me, the wizard successfully attempting to casting the spell just has to hit the needed casting value. The wizard successfully attempted to cast the spell at that point. Then if the spell isn't dispelled then the spell is successfully cast.

For me successfully attempted isn't the same as successfully cast. Being successful at attempting isn't the same as being successful at casting.

CariadocThorne
15-12-2014, 18:21
BRB can sort of be read either way, but the vamp counts army book and faq makes the intent clear. A spell is successfully cast when you meet the casting value. It's effects can be nullified via a successful dispel, but the casting attempt was still successful to begin with. Dispel does not stop recasting in End Times - though that's not a bad house rule to tack onto it. I'd still argue that if you were willing to house rule this stuff you'd be better off starting over from the ground up.
How can the BRB be read either way?

Pg 32 talks about the casting roll, and does not have the word successful, or successfully, or any other version of that word, anywhere on the page.

Pg 36, under spell resolution, the very first sentence says "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully....."

That's about as clear as any rule GW have ever written, if you expect rules to be any clearer than that, GW games must be unbelievably infuriating for you.

This is further evidenced by the fact that lore attributes take effect if the spell is cast successfully, and they also don't take effect if the spell is dispelled, as someone already mentioned.

Andy p
15-12-2014, 19:13
How can the BRB be read either way?

Pg 32 talks about the casting roll, and does not have the word successful, or successfully, or any other version of that word, anywhere on the page.

Pg 36, under spell resolution, the very first sentence says "If the enemy has failed his dispel attempt (or not even attempted one!), the spell is cast successfully....."

That's about as clear as any rule GW have ever written, if you expect rules to be any clearer than that, GW games must be unbelievably infuriating for you.

This is further evidenced by the fact that lore attributes take effect if the spell is cast successfully, and they also don't take effect if the spell is dispelled, as someone already mentioned.

From Khaine: "A spell can be cast more than once in the Magic Phase, as long as it is not: A spell for which a failed casting attempt was made in the same magic phase."

From the BRB section on casting: "Cast: The casting player's wizards can attempt to cast each of their spells once during each magic phase, provided they have enough power and they don't fail a casting attempt.

From the same section: "For a spell to be cast, the total of the dice rolled, added to the wizard's level, must equal or beat the spell's casting value."

Now dispelling from the BRB which is a separate sub-section set apart from the casting section: "If the wizard was able to cast his spell, (and it was not cast with irresistible force) the opposing player now has the chance to prevent the spell's effects by attempting to dispel it" < Nothing to do with stopping the casting attempt which is explicitly outlined in the section before dispelling. Instead dispelling is about preventing the resolution of the spell, ie: it's effects.

As I said in the rule section, I'm not condoning this rule, but it is pretty clear. The mention of "successfully cast" in sub-section 4 is to do with resolution of the spell not the success of the attempt to meet the spell's initial cost.

MasterSplinter
15-12-2014, 19:21
Thanks Andy p for elaborating that once again. I thought that has already been discussed and was to lazy to write it all down again.

logan054
15-12-2014, 19:46
To reply to the originally question, i took one look of the rules online and rolled my eyes. I've never been a fan of the magic system, storm of magic really doesn't appeal to me, this appeals to me even less.

Andy p
15-12-2014, 19:51
You know regarding the repeated casting thing, I wonder if the intention was to allow a wizard to attempt the same spell more than once if it was dispelled, but not the same wizard casting the same spell over and over in terms of resolution.

In fact that might be an oversight because normally you would only be able to know the spell once, but with lore master DIFFERENT wizards can cast the same spell once each for how many are lore master of that lore. Hmm if only I could clearly argue a case for it, I would happily go for that ruling.

Lord Dan
15-12-2014, 19:54
I'm just excited to have a reason to take cheap level 1 and 2 wizards, again.

Andy p
15-12-2014, 19:57
I'm just excited to have a reason to take cheap level 1 and 2 wizards, again.

That is true, even without repeated castings the 4D6 dice help quite a lot I found. Oh just reading the 5th sub section of the magic section about next spells and it does say: "Remember, that unless specified otherwise, each wizard can cast each spell only once per turn."

I think perhaps that might be it, since that has nothing to do with casting attempts. So attempts can run and run until broken concentration, but once it actually goes off by not being dispelled it's done....oh but wait, Khaine buggers that as well with it's wording...doh!

"Spells can be used any number of times in the magic phase" :( < I mean does that trump the same wizard only being able to cast each spell, (not attempt to meet it's cost), once? It appears so. Specified otherwise...heh.

CariadocThorne
15-12-2014, 21:17
Ok Andy, but none of those quotes say anything about the attempt being successful before the dispel either.

By definition, an attempt is not successful if the thing being attempted does not occur successfully. So if the spell is not cast successfully, the attempt was not successful.

If the BRB said that the casting attempt was successful if you rolled high enough on the casting roll, then fine, but it doesn't.

Shadeseraph
15-12-2014, 21:29
Ok Andy, but none of those quotes say anything about the attempt being successful before the dispel either.

By definition, an attempt is not successful if the thing being attempted does not occur successfully. So if the spell is not cast successfully, the attempt was not successful.

If the BRB said that the casting attempt was successful if you rolled high enough on the casting roll, then fine, but it doesn't.


"A spell for which a failed casting attempt(...)"


"(...)provided they have enough power and they don't fail a casting attempt.(...) "


"fail a casting attempt. "

Damn, they even use the same nomenclature, including the "failure" part, for gods sake. At this point it's arguing for the sake of arguing.

Andy p
15-12-2014, 22:46
Ok Andy, but none of those quotes say anything about the attempt being successful before the dispel either.

By definition, an attempt is not successful if the thing being attempted does not occur successfully. So if the spell is not cast successfully, the attempt was not successful.

If the BRB said that the casting attempt was successful if you rolled high enough on the casting roll, then fine, but it doesn't.

Actually it does:

"If the casting result equals or exceeds the spell's casting value, the spell is cast (although it may be subsequently dispelled and neutralised by the opposing player, as we'll discuss later). If the result is less than the casting value, the casting attempt has failed. The spell is not cast" - page 32.

It also gives two italicised demonstrative paragraphs on the same page explaining how that works in practice.

forseer of fates
15-12-2014, 23:02
Level 1 wizards already have a purpose, to carry the dispel scroll:P

Smithpod68
16-12-2014, 00:15
I still have a hard time believing that the intent of the repetition of casting is just to cast the same spell over and over again and ignore dispelling. I think this is just one of those things that until an FAQ clears it up people will just have to decide how to play it amongst their gaming group. I definitely fall into the camp of dispel= unsuccessful. I agree with CariadocThorne's statements earlier.

Andy p
16-12-2014, 00:17
I still have a hard time believing that the intent of the repetition of casting is just to cast the same spell over and over again and ignore dispelling. I think this is just one of those things that until an FAQ clears it up people will just have to decide how to play it amongst their gaming group. I definitely fall into the camp of dispel= unsuccessful. I agree with CariadocThorne's statements earlier.

That's the problem with poor wording, however in this case it's not necessarily just poor wording, more disbelief and confusion as to the intent. But it doesn't matter what someone believes or feels or what 'makes sense' (a horribly arbitrary term these days). It's about the logic of the language when it comes to deciphering the rules accurately. Agreeing with Cariadoc's statements doesn't make them correct.

However more important is what you choose to do with your own gaming circles, no one has to follow anything to the letter if it would impact the entertainment in a mutual sense.

Itake
16-12-2014, 00:30
Why would the logic of the language weigh more heavily then the presumed intent of the rules writers when it comes to deciphering rules?

Smithpod68
16-12-2014, 00:34
I don't seeing as it being "right" or "wrong" it's just that I agree with his assessment. Above all,it is yet another way GW has taken something simple and totally screwed it up with its poor use of language. However,could this be GW's way of getting people to discuss the hobby and push us to take the rules and use them as we wish? Overly optimistic,yes,but intriguing .

Seriqolm
16-12-2014, 00:55
I don't seeing as it being "right" or "wrong" it's just that I agree with his assessment. Above all,it is yet another way GW has taken something simple and totally screwed it up with its poor use of language. However,could this be GW's way of getting people to discuss the hobby and push us to take the rules and use them as we wish? Overly optimistic,yes,but intriguing .


My personal take on this is akin to the classic video recorder manual being undecipherable, engineers/rules writers/technical/scientific people write things in their own language as they understand it not in layman's terms like they should. I think it is as simple as that, there is no conspiracy really, though someone will I'm sure tell me that GW are just [insert derogatory term] rules writers.

Andy p
16-12-2014, 01:00
Why would the logic of the language weigh more heavily then the presumed intent of the rules writers when it comes to deciphering rules?

Well in this particular case, what constitutes a casting attempt as opposed to the spell effect resolution is pretty clear, I suppose my post was too general in its language.

But intents are a guessing game and based largely in opinion, so it can help to look at how the wording of the rules fit together in order to create debate using evidence which is harder to refute just because someone doesn't like it. But it's a balanced thing, obviously the idea of being a rules lawyer and battering people with a loose interpretation isn't an attractive prospect either.

Itake
16-12-2014, 02:45
I disagree, I think what constitutes a casting attempt and what constitutes a "successful spell effect resolution" is actually pretty unclear.

But, to the point, I find the whole idea of "RAW" pretty silly. When intepreting legal texts (not too dissimilar to what we're doing noww) you're only interested in the wording (be it a statute or a contract) of a text because it is assumed the wording reveals the intent of the authors. In a situation where you know there's no relationship between the wording and the intent, or where that relationship is in doubt, the wording is given little (if any) attention.

So we have a game manual with various rules governing the game. The authors behind the manual readily acknowledge that the rules as written are inadequate, and even that they are sometimes flat out wrong. We also know that the manual(s) are riddled with typos and errors. And worse, we know that various terms are used inconsistently throughout the text. We know that it's not even the ambition of the authors to provide a clear, concise and well-structured text. The rules are provided "as is", anything that is unclear should just be settled with a D6 roll.

Against this background, for reasons I will never understand, we still have people running back and forth between armybooks and dictionaries trying to understand the meaning of a rule by divining the words, as if the text had been crafted by master wordsmiths whom've have pondered long over the inclusion of every single word. RAW is born, resting on the fictious notion that Jervis Johnson actually proof-read what he writes more then twice (tops) and that the presence of a term ("Wizard", for example) in one section of text (When detailing how dispelling is done) is meant to convey a deeper meaning and not just sloppy writing.

Maybe it's just me, but RAW makes little sense. It's a principle that can make a lot of sense in other circumstances, but given what we know about GW and writing rules, it just makes very little sense.

Like AndyP suggested, the starting point should be what you and your gaming group thinks would be the most fun. Not the least because the BRB makes it abundantly clear that that is the intent of the rules writers. If that doesn't resolve the issue then you could take some time to think about what the intent behind the rules might be. If all else fails then and only then is it a good idea to go to the literal meaning of the words in a specific rules passage, but since you can be sure the guys who wrote that passage did not think about the literal meaning of the words, that approach does in no way guarantee that you're going to play the game they way it's "supposed" to be played.

SuperHappyTime
16-12-2014, 04:00
My personal take on this is akin to the classic video recorder manual being undecipherable, engineers/rules writers/technical/scientific people write things in their own language as they understand it not in layman's terms like they should. I think it is as simple as that, there is no conspiracy really, though someone will I'm sure tell me that GW are just [insert derogatory term] rules writers.

As someone with an engineering mind who deals with both laymen and engineer/science people, I can tell you that sometimes one wraps their head around bias and profit/expense now vs profit/expense later that the best course of action usually gets pushed aside. Since Occam's Razor usually prevails: GW doesn't know what they've done. Personally I'd like to think there will be an update to the magic step (mainly dispel) in End Times 4: Rats are People Too.

Urgat
16-12-2014, 07:37
But, to the point, I find the whole idea of "RAW" pretty silly.

Yesterday, I was going back from work and something made me think of RAW versus RAI: there's a park between my home and the train station, and at the entrance, there's a sign forbidding dogs to enter. The sign shows a german shepherd crossed out. Made me think that RAW people would argue that if their dog isn't a german shepherd, they'd say they're allowed to go in the park with it :p

Mech87
16-12-2014, 10:27
Incredible unbalanced. During a single magic phase where i had 13 powr dice and my opponent 10 dispel dice i got 4 spells through and he couldn't do Jack **** about it. Usually Malakith(The eternity one) should rip Nagash a new one but duo to getting Speed, Pha's, Briona's and Vanhell's the same turn i suicide charged him, i managed to kill him in two rounds of combat.

How did i get four spells of? The random d6 for how many dice you can use completely ****** my opponent during the magic phase, he only rolled 1's and 2's while i rolled no less than 3's or higher.

During another game my opponent got a 17 vs 9 phase duo to some good Winds and channels. He didn't get a single spell of. The few spells he got dice enough to cast i got dice enough to dispell, the rest he simply didn't get enough dice for.

We thought about remaking it to d4+1 insted or d3+2 to make it just a Little bit less random and still make it a risk with high cost spells since you can only use a max of 5 dice.

Theocracity
16-12-2014, 14:54
Regarding RAW / RAI, I'd say that it'll be interesting to see how 9th edition changes the wording. It could be that these rules were written with 9th in mind, so the wording of the 8th edition BRB won't apply for long.

Personally, I haven't gotten a chance to play with the new rules yet, but it sounds like they work better with the dispel prevents casting RAI interpretation, so that's probably how I'd play it.

malisteen
16-12-2014, 16:13
They may work better with that interpretation, but that doesn't mean that's what they were written for, and that doesn't mean that's what the rules are. Again, while things may arguably be murky in the core rulebook, the VC stuff makes the design intent absolutely clear. A spell is considered successfully cast when you meet the casting value, before the dispel attempt is made.

Yes these rules work better the other way, but they still don't work well. If you're going to house rule that far, you really, really shouldn't stop there. Go further. Take out recasting. Take out knowing all spells (maybe know signature spells in addition to spells generated normally, but not know all spells). Allow epic spells to be dispelled (their casting value is so high that it will already be hard to stop them if they're cast anyway). Take out the d6 limit, and instead put in some other mitigation on irresistable force and super spells (allow invulnerable saves, maybe just take out irresistable force altogether - again if the casting player rolls a bunch of sixes, then the spell is already hard to dispel).

If you still want the feel of unstoppable irresistable and super spells, maybe force a reroll of a successful dispel attempt if it doesn't also roll two sixes - making it more difficult but still possible.

If you're going to fix something, I say you might as well just go ahead and actually fix it.

Ramius4
16-12-2014, 17:21
*a long post*

That was one of the most compelling and wonderful posts I've read in all my time on Warseer. And it is also very much the same way I try to approach things. :)

Emissary
16-12-2014, 17:27
However,could this be GW's way of getting people to discuss the hobby and push us to take the rules and use them as we wish? Overly optimistic,yes,but intriguing .

Honestly, I think this gives GW too much credit.

Theocracity
16-12-2014, 17:38
snip

If you're going to fix something, I say you might as well just go ahead and actually fix it.

Sure, if you and your group finds that more fun. But the system seems fine to me, so I'll try it out (with the dispelling prevents casting interpretation) for a bit before I decide one way or another.

copesh
16-12-2014, 20:54
overall I think this system is better than the standard 8th magic.
However, I think the dispeller should get the same siphon out of the winds as the caster rolled. So Caster rolls the d6 and both plays can use that many dice.

It also makes trickle casting very effective. stacking small buffs is great.
Also, Drain Magic is the best spell in the game now.

logan054
16-12-2014, 21:52
Yesterday, I was going back from work and something made me think of RAW versus RAI: there's a park between my home and the train station, and at the entrance, there's a sign forbidding dogs to enter. The sign shows a german shepherd crossed out. Made me think that RAW people would argue that if their dog isn't a german shepherd, they'd say they're allowed to go in the park with it :p


lol, sadly this is spot on! More often than not people know the intent, but sometimes, being the masters of plastic crack get's a little too important for some people.

Thurisaz
16-12-2014, 22:10
I'm very skeptical of the new magic phase. I haven't played with it, though. D6 casting / dispelling dice is far too random, caster level +D3 available dice to a max of 6 would've been a lot better. This way most of the stronger spells remain simply unused while cheap spells get spammed like crazy, not to mention bound spells.

Andy p
16-12-2014, 22:33
lol, sadly this is spot on! More often than not people know the intent, but sometimes, being the masters of plastic crack get's a little too important for some people.

A funny example was the 'failed misses' typo for rerolls on having ASF and higher initiative. To me that was a case where clearly the logic of the words didn't fit and helped to define intent when discussing it with others. Although I could be wrong about that.

malisteen
16-12-2014, 23:22
I'm very skeptical of the new magic phase. I haven't played with it, though. D6 casting / dispelling dice is far too random, caster level +D3 available dice to a max of 6 would've been a lot better. This way most of the stronger spells remain simply unused while cheap spells get spammed like crazy, not to mention bound spells.

Spamming cheap spells like crazy is a big problem with these rules. It drags out the magic phase to interminable length, especially when combined with double winds dice, extra rolls for available power and dispel dice per turn, and option paralysis from wizards knowing every spell of whatever lore they select. It also sucks out a fair bit of the strategy of the phase.

The more battle reports I see of End Times Magic, the more I feel recasting in general is just a bad, bad idea. IMO, If you're going to house rule this thing, recasting is the first thing I would remove, before the d6 limit even.

copesh
16-12-2014, 23:49
I don't understand how it is taking people so much longer. When my friend and I did these rules we timed each magic phase. The longest one took 15 mins and most were 6 mins or so.
We rapid fired off the castings and dispels and were done with it.

forseer of fates
17-12-2014, 00:08
You should probably get access to the same amount of dispel dice as the amount of power dice the casting player has, so 5 dice gets up to 5 dice for dispelling instead of maybe 1 power dice and other person gets 6 and so on.

logan054
17-12-2014, 01:00
A funny example was the 'failed misses' typo for rerolls on having ASF and higher initiative. To me that was a case where clearly the logic of the words didn't fit and helped to define intent when discussing it with others. Although I could be wrong about that.

I actually can't read the rules forum anymore, I've seen too many people say "you can't use logic in game that has things like magic and dragons". I just hide in my little happy bubble of warhammer with beer and vodka, its much more fun ;)

N00B
22-12-2014, 23:57
You should probably get access to the same amount of dispel dice as the amount of power dice the casting player has, so 5 dice gets up to 5 dice for dispelling instead of maybe 1 power dice and other person gets 6 and so on.

Actually I am not sure that this would be good. It would make it much harder for lower level wizards to take on higher level wizards. At least now a crucial spell can be dispelled if you roll low and cast it OR your opponent rolls high on the number of dice they can use. It is already bad news having only a lvl 2 wizard to your opponents lvl 4 but if they are using a character with the book of Ashur or a special character like The Fey Enchantress where they can be at +6 to cast then you are pretty unlikely to ever be able to dispel any of their spells.

As it is it means that every spell you want to spam is vulnerable to dispel - going for a few slightly higher level spells and mixing things up in different orders then becomes a bit more important.

My experience of the new rules is that you generally get one or two medium spells off (2 dice) and then one or two one die spells.

Spiney Norman
23-12-2014, 00:11
I don't seeing as it being "right" or "wrong" it's just that I agree with his assessment. Above all,it is yet another way GW has taken something simple and totally screwed it up with its poor use of language. However,could this be GW's way of getting people to discuss the hobby and push us to take the rules and use them as we wish? Overly optimistic,yes,but intriguing .

If by 'getting people to discuss the hobby' you mean 'passionately argue for whichever outcome gives them the biggest in-game advantage' then you are probably right. The whole point in a rule book is to solve problems like this before they become an in-game situation where both players have a stake on the outcome, 'take the rules and do with them as we wish' is a recipe for disagreement, discord and, eventually, disaster.

Shadeseraph
23-12-2014, 03:00
Tried a game with the new magic system. We played it with dispels allowing recasting. I played my usual high elves (this time without those traitorous Phoenix Guard), and my opponent played Undead Legions. The summary:

-High magic + Book of Hoeth on a lvl 4 archmage is absolutely bonkers. 17 dice vs 14, and still my main combat unit was behind the enemy line, with a 3++ and after having deleted all his chaff in my first magic phase. The book allows for very safe castings, and you can one-dice spells to hell and back.
-In general, the mechanics give a huge boost to low casting value spells, so any kind of bonus to spellcasting is brutal. My opponent was running a lvl 4 with life, a lvl 4 with death, a lvl 2 with vampires, a lvl 2 with beasts and a lvl 2 with Nehekara, a hierotitan and a Mortis Engine. The +1D3 from the hierotitan was huge, the only reason I made it alive out of that mess was because of high magic wards and because I broke my vow and used the Banner for the first time since the inception of the book.
-Death can be gamebreaking. If the enemy takes death and your single models (characters, monsters, etc) aren't protected from magic, expect them to die in the first magic phase.

forseer of fates
23-12-2014, 03:45
Roll of a 1 or 2 is a failure regardless of lies and trickery, so one dicing stuff is risky, how that rule is interpreted is probably subject to opinion, however it seems it would be there for balance.

Shadeseraph
23-12-2014, 11:01
Roll of a 1 or 2 is a failure regardless of lies and trickery, so one dicing stuff is risky, how that rule is interpreted is probably subject to opinion, however it seems it would be there for balance.

Yeah, I know. The book of hoeth helps plenty with that. One of the most critical points was when I rolled 1 dice to see how many dice I could use with drain magic after a phase were my opponent managed to cast Byrona's and Speed of Light, and I rolled 1 and rerolled 1 to cast the spell. But in general being able to reroll one-dicings means you have plenty opportunities to make it. And I did use 2 dice whenever I -needed- the spell to work and the 1D6 initial roll allowed me to. That still meant he had to spend 3 dice to my 2.

For the next battle, I think I'll try to convince him to test the other line of reasoning (dispelling = no recasting), but I think it's going to be hard: first, it's very hard to argue for this (sorry, the wording is fairly clear), and second, he loved being able to cast so many spells. Personally, this makes the magic phase way too important and long compared to... well, everything else.

N00B
23-12-2014, 12:13
Odd that. For our group it was the other way round. It was obvious that failure to make the spell happen=not successfully cast. Everyone apart from"that one guy" used it that way.

If you don't use it that way it is just abusive (even me playing High Elves, who could happily spam 1 die soul quench didnt want the silly interpretation).

Mech87
23-12-2014, 15:29
Odd that. For our group it was the other way round. It was obvious that failure to make the spell happen=not successfully cast. Everyone apart from"that one guy" used it that way.

If you don't use it that way it is just abusive (even me playing High Elves, who could happily spam 1 die soul quench didnt want the silly interpretation).

Well having just read the rules in my own book i can't personally see how it can be intepretted as anything else than as long as the 'attempt' was succesfull then you can recast the spell. It does quite specifically say that you just have to succesfully attempt the spell. Not that you have to succesfully cast it. And dispelling doesn't prevent you from having made a succesfull attempt, just a succesfull cast.

Emissary
23-12-2014, 15:35
T
-Death can be gamebreaking. If the enemy takes death and your single models (characters, monsters, etc) aren't protected from magic, expect them to die in the first magic phase.

This is why my group is thinking that magic resistance is much more important now.

Also, our group has decided that augments and hexes shouldn't be cumulative with themselves. So if you cast flesh to stone twice on a unit you're only getting the +T once. If you cast flesh to stone and wissyan's wildform on them, they'll get the +T and the +T/+S.

Lastly, I put this in the ET Khaine thread in the rules forum, but I thought I should put it here too. This is how our group see the "successful casting attempt":


What I don't understand is why people are equating a successful casting attempt with a successful cast? For me it's rather easy, casting attempt = hitting the needed casting value for the spell and successful cast is that plus the spell not being dispelled.

For me there's 2 phases: 1) Casting attempt (hitting the required casting value) and 2) dispelling attempt (hitting the casting total)

If you fail #1 = failed casting attempt
if you succeed #1 and they succeed at #2 = successful casting attempt, successful dispelling attempt, spell not cast
if you succeed at #1 and they fail at #2 = successful casting attempt, failed dispelling attempt, spell successfully cast

You only need to succeed at #1 to recast a non-end times spell that has a required casting value of 14 or lower IMO

Shadeseraph
24-12-2014, 00:31
This is why my group is thinking that magic resistance is much more important now.

I seriously feel that any main combat block needs at least a 3++ or better against magic, or will be wiped up. I'm facing an ET tourney under these rules on Sunday, and I'm wondering if it's better to take the obsidian lodestone over the talisman of preservation on the star dragon just because of this. Cannons or magic, it's not easy.


Also, our group has decided that augments and hexes shouldn't be cumulative with themselves. So if you cast flesh to stone twice on a unit you're only getting the +T once. If you cast flesh to stone and wissyan's wildform on them, they'll get the +T and the +T/+S.

I guess that's a sensible approach. I know where I play people assume spells are self-stackable, having seen elven units with T10, and I realize how lucky I am to have access to drain magic.

Smithpod68
24-12-2014, 01:10
After much reading and watching of battle reports I say my group is staying with Dispel=failed attempt. The other way just seems way too crazy and unbalanced. I'm still waiting to try it out myself after the holidays,but the more I read the more I think it should be dispel=failed attempt.

Emissary
24-12-2014, 03:58
I seriously feel that any main combat block needs at least a 3++ or better against magic, or will be wiped up. I'm facing an ET tourney under these rules on Sunday, and I'm wondering if it's better to take the obsidian lodestone over the talisman of preservation on the star dragon just because of this. Cannons or magic, it's not easy.

Depends on the size of the unit I guess. I think it's more important, but don't think that level of protection is vital myself. I really haven't had many games where the magic got really out of control. At least no more out of control then the past where people just 6-diced the horrible spells. Usually, the caster will only have around 4 more power dice then the dispel dice or so. It's a lot closer then it used to be in the old system. I've found that unless the two lower dice were still high rolls it's just about best to try to dispel everything and hope for the best. I'm used to a certain amount of magic getting through (in the older system it's not uncommon for me let some spells through, even damage spells to my units, and have unused dispel dice in order to make sure that some back-breaking spells don't get through) so what's happened to me hasn't been out of control. I don't expect to shut down everything. I'm just going to make it manageable when possible.

The only times we've seen the magic really get out of control is with the loremasters and/or the book of hoeth (compounded with a level 5). Being able to 1-dice a lot of spells reliably can be really bad. Personally, Alarielle, Incarnate of Life is really, really good. High Elf mages and Frogs have also done really well in the new system (which they should).

N00B
24-12-2014, 10:52
My approach is to dispelling is to look at the difference between power dice and dispel dice and accept that is how many PD of spell will go undispelled. I then think what the most unpleasant spells are and not dispel anything else. I often find myself with one or two dispel dice left at the end of the phase but almost always dodge the very nasty spells.

Talking of Nasty - The Fay Enchantress is now much stronger and so far is working out to be well worth her points.

Is it Lichbone Pennant the MR banner? If I remember it correctly it sounds like it should be a decent purchase for a lot of units.

Shadeseraph
24-12-2014, 11:00
The only times we've seen the magic really get out of control is with the loremasters and/or the book of hoeth (compounded with a level 5). Being able to 1-dice a lot of spells reliably can be really bad. Personally, Alarielle, Incarnate of Life is really, really good. High Elf mages and Frogs have also done really well in the new system (which they should).

Undead Legion can put the hurt like there is no tomorrow. A hierotitan and a mortis engine makes the VC lore almost undispellable without using minimum 1-2 more dispel dice than the opponent. Gaze of Nagash sweeps T3 elves like fallen leaves, and chained danse macabres can see the whole enemy army in your face fairly quick. Death is absolutely terrifying coming from a lvl 4 supported by the hierotitan, and light isn't far off.

Also, the book of Ashur (the one that grants +1 to casting attempts and dispel attempts (BTW: yet another reference to "casting attempts")) can be taken by any caster, and is very powerful if the enemy doesn't has his own +1 to dispel. In general, as lower casting value spells get more powerful the effect of any bonuses to spellcasting jumps exponentially.

As a side note: the power scroll suddenly can be used to cast those 15+ casting value spells. I'm specially looking at you, ET spells.

forseer of fates
24-12-2014, 12:13
The only spell UL players should be casting is curse of years again and again because its only a 12, but this entire end times magic thing is unbalanced nonsense.

Shadeseraph
24-12-2014, 12:38
The only spell UL players should be casting is curse of years again and again because its only a 12
Not sure. Danse Macabre is great. Gaze of Nagash can really put the hurt if you can spam it. Raise Dead is strictly worse than Ryze from undeath despite the longer range, and not that useful in general in a meta filled with flyers, but you are casting it at 7+1D3 base with a Mortis Engine, a Hierotitan and a book of ashur, and it can help sometimes. And Nehek is very solid for healing and raising.
Curse of Years has its uses, but it's a remain in place spell, which means you have to dispell it first if you want to cast it again.

but this entire end times magic thing is unbalanced nonsense.
Agreed.

Emissary
24-12-2014, 13:57
Undead Legion can put the hurt like there is no tomorrow. A hierotitan and a mortis engine makes the VC lore almost undispellable without using minimum 1-2 more dispel dice than the opponent. Gaze of Nagash sweeps T3 elves like fallen leaves, and chained danse macabres can see the whole enemy army in your face fairly quick. Death is absolutely terrifying coming from a lvl 4 supported by the hierotitan, and light isn't far off.

Also, the book of Ashur (the one that grants +1 to casting attempts and dispel attempts (BTW: yet another reference to "casting attempts")) can be taken by any caster, and is very powerful if the enemy doesn't has his own +1 to dispel. In general, as lower casting value spells get more powerful the effect of any bonuses to spellcasting jumps exponentially.

As a side note: the power scroll suddenly can be used to cast those 15+ casting value spells. I'm specially looking at you, ET spells.

Fair enough. We haven't been trying to cheese things too much.

I agree with what you say on the book of ashur. It's a similar concept to make things easier to cast. I think the rerolling for loremaster/book of hoeth is a little better because it helps to avoid the 1s and 2s on the cast so you can chain cast.


Curse of Years has its uses, but it's a remain in place spell, which means you have to dispell it first if you want to cast it again.

The caster can choose to end the spell at any time. Hence it's possible to chain cast a remains in play spell.

Edit: I also wanted to add that a great counter to these types of things for those that can do it is Deadlock (especially if backed up by a power scroll). Yes, you have to go first and get it off, but when it does, it can't be stopped.

Smithpod68
29-12-2014, 01:57
Played the ET magic rules today and my opponent and I liked it a lot. We played that dispel=unsuccessful cast. It was much more tactical and a bit random too as you couldn't gauruntee to have the dice you needed to cast certain spells.However,we both felt it made for a fun game. Highlights: 3 fulcrums summoned. 3 miscast in which my level four mage lost two levels on the last turn.My opponent moved two units with the Shadow end of times spell to hold an objective.