PDA

View Full Version : Is 6th ed broken?



FlyingViking
01-07-2006, 00:55
With 7th ed coming out in a few months, are people clamouring for it, because 6th ed is broken in some bad way?

I'm asking because, I bought 6th ed about 5 years ago, having not played WFB since 2nd ed back in the 80's. But since buying the game, and the new (and then the newer) Dwarf army books, I don't get chance to play WFB - I think I've played 4 games in 5 years.

So... what's actually wrong with 6th, that people are hoping/expecting will be fixed in 7th ed? Should I be looking to buy a new shiny book/box in September, on the offchance my group actually gets to play WFB, or is 6th ed perfectly serviceable?

thanks
FV

ZomboCom
01-07-2006, 00:57
6th is perfectly fine on the most part, and most of the changes in 7th won't actually fix many of the flaws in 6th anyway.

If you hardly ever play then I really wouldn't bother getting 7th.

Nkari
01-07-2006, 02:51
Only thing that is really wrong in 6th is the scaling of magic.. magic gets exponentially better the more mages you have..

7th ed will not fix this imho..

Nell2ThaIzzay
01-07-2006, 06:44
I don't think there are any problems with 6th edition, and I can't speak for everyone, but myself personally am not clamouring for 7th edition in the least bit, as there isn't 1 change yet that I've seen that I like, and the changes to magic totally kill my gameplay style by making it a totally unviable option.

I'm hoping there's some kind of miracle and 7th edition gets cancelled. I never want it to see the light of day :(

Trunks
01-07-2006, 07:18
Only thing that is really wrong in 6th is the scaling of magic.. magic gets exponentially better the more mages you have..

7th ed will not fix this imho..

7th edition is going to go a long way towards fixing this though. One of the big problems with magic getting exponentially better, is that in 6th edition you can funnel all of your powerdice from weaker models to those who have four spells at their disposal. With no more funneling of dice, high level casters will cast less.

Smoking Frog
01-07-2006, 07:47
It's funny, since the impression I got was that in 7th Ed, you'd be more reliant on solid blocks of infantry, cavalry needs space to set up a devastating charge, magic would be used by those who generate it, rather than having mages act like batteries for more powerful ones, and that magically adept armies (Tzeentch for example) would be more awash with it and thus all mages can use that magic, skirmishers aren't all dominating crazies (since, you know, way back when, skirmishers were used to, you know, skirmish...).

All in all, my solid Infantry-based High Elf Army seems to be somewhat beneficially advantaged. But then, I'm the kind of guy who sees opportunities when others see a falling sky.

Though, I would like to see spears actually do a little more... like they attack first when charged, for example, but cosidering that's the only complaint I have thus far (considering I have no 7th ed rulebook in my hands, I actually don't have an opinion on it other than what rumour says), I'd say I'm auspiciously optimistic. :)

Nell2ThaIzzay
01-07-2006, 08:28
7th edition is going to go a long way towards fixing this though. One of the big problems with magic getting exponentially better, is that in 6th edition you can funnel all of your powerdice from weaker models to those who have four spells at their disposal. With no more funneling of dice, high level casters will cast less.

It's also going a long ways towards handing the magic phase right over to the dispeller so that no spells can actually be cast by the casters...

Smoking Frog
01-07-2006, 09:12
It's also going a long ways towards handing the magic phase right over to the dispeller so that no spells can actually be cast by the casters...

How so? :confused:

The rules changes as I see them say that wizards cast with their own dice, rather than handing them all over as a battery to the big cheese in the army. It seems more or less to represent a wizard casting his own power, and then trying to dispel an enemy's power. If the enemy has a buttload of wizards, he will be overwhelmed and wont be able to dispel *everything*. Luckily in fantasy we don't have Space Marine Librarians with psychic hoods. Likewise, if your army is fully dependant on magic, naturally you will have all of your mages having some fun overwhelming the enemy. But if you are equal in magic casters then you should stand a more or less equal chance of seeing your plans come to fruition. :)

Rather, 6th ed gave a single wizard many batteries to smack around the enemies with, the changes seem to rectify that issue. Now, do you use all of your dispel dice on one spell? Or all of your casting dice on one spell? :cool:

I simply get the feeling that some people seem to be blowing a lot without actually having picked up the book and applied everything together so it works... ;)

Pokpoko
01-07-2006, 11:19
cavalry needs space to set up a devastating charge
unfortunatly this rule seems to have been only "considered" and didn't make it into the book(or so the Rumour threads state).this, coupled with the abominal "you must have 5 man to form a rank" means that the ones actually benefitting most are...Bretonni.
on the other side, while 6ed didn't have any serious flaw, i hope that the 7ed wil l fix all those little ones that constituted the "quarrel phase".

sigur
01-07-2006, 11:57
I haven't found a single aspect of 6th edition I don't like. The ruleset itself is very, very good and solid, the only broken things could be army lists/army books along with codex creep, but still, it's not as bad as in 40k.

@Pokpoko: I'm quite happy that they dropped this rule to be honest. Not that I play a cav-heavy army, I just didn't like the sound of the rule.

Nell2ThaIzzay
01-07-2006, 12:02
How so? :confused:

The rules changes as I see them say that wizards cast with their own dice, rather than handing them all over as a battery to the big cheese in the army. It seems more or less to represent a wizard casting his own power, and then trying to dispel an enemy's power. If the enemy has a buttload of wizards, he will be overwhelmed and wont be able to dispel *everything*. Luckily in fantasy we don't have Space Marine Librarians with psychic hoods. Likewise, if your army is fully dependant on magic, naturally you will have all of your mages having some fun overwhelming the enemy. But if you are equal in magic casters then you should stand a more or less equal chance of seeing your plans come to fruition. :)

Rather, 6th ed gave a single wizard many batteries to smack around the enemies with, the changes seem to rectify that issue. Now, do you use all of your dispel dice on one spell? Or all of your casting dice on one spell? :cool:

I simply get the feeling that some people seem to be blowing a lot without actually having picked up the book and applied everything together so it works... ;)

Because I don't want to post it again (it's late, and I've gone over it many times on this forum already), I'll just copy and paste a reply I made on the Librarium-Online forums about the situation. It's long, so be forwarned. And I play Vampire Counts, so that may help with the understanding of where I'm coming from, and what I'm talking about.

From my post on Librarium-Online:

My problem isn't even with the miscast table (although I do believe it's TOO devistating to us caster armies), but rather the fact that the magic phase has been handed over to magic defense.

Magic as it is, is the only phase in the game where the more you take of it, the more defense against it you have.

Example: My friend plays Skaven. No amount of shooters I take will be able to STOP his Ratling Guns, Warpfire Throwers, Warplock Pistols, Warp Lightning Cannons, etc... his shooters will shoot, no matter how many shooters I take.

However, he takes a mage, and he can stop my magic from going off. And the more mages he takes, the more of my magic he can stop.

Even armies that have no magic at all, they still get 2 free dispel dice to stop my magic. As Vampire Counts, I don't get any kind of shooting, and on the same token, I don't get 2 free dice to stop his shooting.

However, that's fair enough as it is. I don't have a problem with that. As a magic heavy army, I can manipulate the magic phase to surpass that. I can toss out spells as diversions to waste their dispel scrolls and dice for the spells I really want to get off. Curse of Years and Gaze of Nagash are great for that. So I still have a chance to do some stuff in the magic phase.

The against armies that have no magic at all, sure, I'll have a dominating magic phase, and there isn't much they can do about it. However, the points that I spent on magic, and they saved on not having magic, they are able to spend elsewhere. Nice decked out characters that can whoop mine into oblivion. Big regiments that no matter how many magic missles I get off, I might not do enough wounds because they have good armor saves, or good numbers. Or even more regiments, so even if I whipe out one regiment, there's still another that I have to deal with.

However, now, as it is, it's all going to change, and the magic phase is being handed over to magic defense.

I no longer have the dice needed to cast "diversion" spells, because my mages can only throw the dice that they generate. That means that Level 2 Wizards can only cast one spell. Level 3 Wizards can cast 1 spell, and Level 4 Wizards are the only wizards that have a legitamate chance to cast 2. Level 1 Wizards are totally worthless. There was at least an upside to Necrarch Thralls in the current addition, but Level 1 Wizards, in my case Necrarch Thralls, will be totally pointless. They will be a waste of points.

And now, I can't throw as many dice towards spells, nor can I have as much diversity in spells, and I now have less of a chance of getting spells off.

Let's look at a Level 2 casting Invokation of Nehek. 7+. That's roughly 50% (a little more, I know, but for the sake of arguement, it's 50%). That means that half of my Invokation of Nehek spells won't go off without any magic defense in the process. That means that the opponent has half as many spells to focus the same amount of dispel dice. So my opponent has the same amount of dispel dice, but only half the amount of spells to worry about, meaning their dispel dice are going to go a lot further now, because there's no limit to the amount of dispel dice that they can throw to dispel a single cast. And since I can't throw more than 2 dice with a Level 2, my chances of getting that 7+ have just dropped drastically below 50%, because all it will take is really 3 dice to dispel that.

Then there's the higher level spells, such as Gaze of Nagash, Vanhel's Danse Macabre, and Curse of Years, which all require 8+, 9+, and 10+ respectivley. A Level 2 Wizard will not be able to reliably get those spells off. Possibly the Gaze of Nagash, but the days of a Level 2 Wizard casting Vanhel's Danse Macabre or Curse of Years have gone out the window. However, considering the randomness of how spells are distributed, I could very well get a Level 2 Wizard with Vanhel's Danse Macabre or Curse of Years, a worthless spell for him because he'll never be able to get it off.

Then we have the Level 3, who CAN get off any of his spells, but again, he can only cast once, because he only has 3 dice to throw. So that means on any given magic phase, 2 of his spells are a waste.

Level 4 Wizards will be the only Wizards with anything of a chance of getting off 2 spells, but they'll both have to be 7+ or lower for it to work reliably.

So now, my best spell casting chances to get a spell off fall to around 50%, and that's really only for 1 spell worth casting (Invokation of Nehek, as at least for Necromancers, I don't see Hand of Dust being worth it. On a Vampire I can see it, but not a Necromancer). Half of my spells won't get off, the other half will have a higher chance of being dispelled, because with me getting off less spells than I do now, my opponent's SAME NUMBER of dispel dice will go further now. Therefore, there's a higher chance of me not getting off a single spell, playing even against minimal magic armies, than there is now. When now, if you want to stop my magic phase, you at least have to invest the points into it. That's not the case now... the same amount of points for magic defense goes further, while the same amount of points for magic casting becomes worse. And I don't think that's the right direction to take.

Then throw the new, ridiculous miscast table in the mix, and magic armies, like ours, have become a totally inviable option for 7th edition.

Smoking Frog
01-07-2006, 12:55
Fair enough, my friend. Fair enough. :) To each his own is what I will say. Don't be disenchanted that I share a completely different opinion and attitude, and that I totally disagree with you.

As I said, fair enough, may your new Vampire Counts army book allow you to retain the powers your lusting undead desire beyond anything else, and may they spread their filthy rotting plague amongst the world when said army book comes about. :)

Razhem
01-07-2006, 13:04
Actually, now that I think of it Nell2ThaIzzay, you could probably stop it if the dispeller was forced to state if heīs going to try and sipel a spell before throwing to cast, hell, Iīd make it that way. Anyway, you should be less lethal, remember you still have 2 dice that you can give to anybody and try it a couple of games to see if it really screws your game so much, theoryhammer isnīt always right

McMullet
01-07-2006, 13:37
To me, this is part of the "flavour" of the magic phase.

You argue that your shooting phase is unaffected by your opponents' ability to shoot; I might counter that your close combat phase is greatly affected by the proficiency of your oppponent in close combat... ;)

It's my opinion that the magic phase is meant to be something that can be shut down; effectively, something that acts in support of your army but can't win games for you. Now, this raises an issue of you have a magic dependent army, like Tomb Kings or Necrarchs, in that you have to go all-out on magic. This is more of an army book issue than a core rules issue to me though.

As for the main topic: 6th ed. is fine. It has a few little niggly bugs, which can occasionally cause a few minutes of consternation during a game, and which I expect 7th will sort out.

Avian
01-07-2006, 14:45
Let's look at a Level 2 casting Invokation of Nehek. 7+. That's roughly 50% (a little more, I know, but for the sake of arguement, it's 50%).

*snip*

And since I can't throw more than 2 dice with a Level 2[/b], my chances of getting that 7+ have just dropped drastically below 50%, because all it will take is really 3 dice to dispel that.
That is a fundamentally flawed reasoning, since a level 2 wizard can cast with 3 dice, just as he can now. Nothing stops him from dipping into the pool and grabbing one of those dice in addition to the two he generates himself.

If you believed he would be limited to only those dice he generates himself, I can see how you could think magic got drastically reduced in effectiveness.

Thranduil
01-07-2006, 16:41
Here's a small bit of a problem: what about Lvl 1 Scroll Caddies? Sure, they'll still be good for defense in 7th edition, providing dispel dice and scrolls, but if you were to field only one in your army, then your magic phase is a bit of a waste. Think of it: he get 3 dice and can only cast his one spell with 2. This is ok, but what happens to that 3rd dice? Someone - I don't know who - suggested in another thread that power dice should be able to be transferred into dispel dice in some way... I thought this'd be a great idea, and would help with magic defense.

But of course, I really want to see a hard copy of 7th edition so that we can put all this guessing/himming and hawing/chin scratching/beard smoothing to rest. Sure there's been confirmation of some parts of 7th edition, but none of us -*looks around at other posters with suspicion*- has a total picture of what the new and "improved" WFB will look and play like.

Avian
01-07-2006, 17:04
Here's a small bit of a problem: what about Lvl 1 Scroll Caddies?
What about them? They'll be exactly as they are now? I certainly see no reason to make them more attractive as they are about as dull as you can get. And decent value for the points.

Gorbad Ironclaw
01-07-2006, 17:49
It's funny, since the impression I got was that in 7th Ed, you'd be more reliant on solid blocks of infantry,

We can hope so, but I believe if thats to happen it will be because of the army books. As initially I don't think 7th encourages infantry. It will still be the hard hitting mobile units thats the flavour of the day(in fact, I think things like flying monsters and chariots become better).

The army books could be the answer though, and at least the OnG book should deliever a powerfull infantry combat army.


Edit: Doh, forgot the point. 7th edition will hopefully be cleaning up and tightening the rules a little bit. However, for a few random friendly games there isn't a great need to update. There are no glaring mistakes that makes it unplayable. So 6th or 7th shouldn't make a difference for you if your just playing a game or two a year. Of course, new army books will be written for 7th edition rules, and while they will work for 6th, there might be a few issues and problems you need to work out. Overall, not a huge priority. Buy it if you feel like it.

Trunks
01-07-2006, 19:42
It's also going a long ways towards handing the magic phase right over to the dispeller so that no spells can actually be cast by the casters...

This isn't true.

At the moment, players funnel alot of their dice to the "head honcho" so that he can cast a few spells, each using a bunch of dice. Under 7th edition, the head honcho won't be able to use all of those dice and more spells will be attempted.

The dispeller is stuck with the same amount of dispel dice as always, he's going to have to deal with more spells being attempted though. Instead of four spells on three dice apiece funneled through the Lord, you may be casting six spells on two dice apiece or three spells on two dice and two spells on three dice or something similar. They won't all be super powerhouse unstoppable spells cast on 4 or 5 dice apiece, but there will be a good number attempted and the dispeller will have to spread his dice out more if he wants to try to stop them all (or he can do as people do now and save them all to try and stop one spell, which isn't a change at all).

Oh, and in every example I see of you complaining about the magic phase and how you won't get to cast anything, you seem to forget that you have the two basic army dice that can go to anyone. You never factor that into any argument you put up it seems (such as the one you just copied/pasted from that other site).

mageith
01-07-2006, 20:02
With 7th ed coming out in a few months, are people clamouring for it, because 6th ed is broken in some bad way?

The three worst things about sixth edition. Not broken because we play it, but limping.

1) Fee, Charge and pursuit rules were unclear and cumbersome. From what I read these have been greatly streamlined and simplified. Could have been done without a new edition. But this is enough to justify a new edition, IMO.

2) Expensive/Elite Infantry overcosted and underused. Apparently not dealt with. Could have been fixed with some errata. Still can be. But looks like, if its fixed, will be done through army books.

3) The domination by certain armies of the magic phase because magic got out of proportion more powerful with the more mages that were used. This has been addressed and appropriately IMO.

4) All basic Lores appear to be adjusted.

Little irritating things that are (thankfully) fixed!
1) Mounted Great Weapons toned down.
2) Chariots unable to move in difficult terrain. Now they can.
3) Command position in front row made sensible.
4) Skirmishers too powerful, now march blocked.
5) Shooting at Single models/characters made sensible.
6) Battle standards count again.
7) Psychology ranges standardized.
8) Regeneration once again makes sense.
9) Hand weapon shield only good from the front.
10) Flyers must fly.
11) What the edge of the Board means.
12) Terrain clarifications.
13) Swarms apparently become a general rule?
14) Scenarios clarified, but not much.

Strange changes:
1) Units need to be five wide. No one can find a game reason for this--yet.
2) No more lapping.
I'm asking because, I bought 6th ed about 5 years ago, having not played WFB since 2nd ed back in the 80's. But since buying the game, and the new (and then the newer) Dwarf army books, I don't get chance to play WFB - I think I've played 4 games in 5 years.
3) Pistols work differently. Not sure of overall effect.
4) Monster charging is improved.
5) Allowing units (models) to turn face if they win (survive) a flank (rear?) charge.
6) Fast Cavalry improved.
7) Swarms crumble.


There's enough changes to warrent a new edition, IMO.



So... what's actually wrong with 6th, that people are hoping/expecting will be fixed in 7th ed? Should I be looking to buy a new shiny book/box in September, on the offchance my group actually gets to play WFB, or is 6th ed perfectly serviceable?


Apparently unaddressed.
1) EXPENSIVE INFANTRY!!!
2) Spears
3) Halberds
4) Bolt Throwers rules still nutsy
5) Definition of a Monster.

Nell2ThaIzzay
01-07-2006, 20:32
This isn't true.

At the moment, players funnel alot of their dice to the "head honcho" so that he can cast a few spells, each using a bunch of dice. Under 7th edition, the head honcho won't be able to use all of those dice and more spells will be attempted.

The dispeller is stuck with the same amount of dispel dice as always, he's going to have to deal with more spells being attempted though. Instead of four spells on three dice apiece funneled through the Lord, you may be casting six spells on two dice apiece or three spells on two dice and two spells on three dice or something similar. They won't all be super powerhouse unstoppable spells cast on 4 or 5 dice apiece, but there will be a good number attempted and the dispeller will have to spread his dice out more if he wants to try to stop them all (or he can do as people do now and save them all to try and stop one spell, which isn't a change at all).

Oh, and in every example I see of you complaining about the magic phase and how you won't get to cast anything, you seem to forget that you have the two basic army dice that can go to anyone. You never factor that into any argument you put up it seems (such as the one you just copied/pasted from that other site).

The reason why I don't factor those dice in, is because 2 dice isn't that big of a deal. That still means that all of my mages are only casting 1 spell per turn, because they only have access to 2 or 3 dice, not enough to use for 2 spells. So no, I won't be casting more spells than normal.

I don't know what all this "mage battery" talk is about... I simply don't do that. I distribute my dice around between ALL of my mages, casting the spells I need where neccesary. But items like Spell Familiars, and bloodline powers like Forbidden Lore, are now pointless, because what's the point of having 4 or 5 spells on a mage when he can only cast 1? (My current set up is to get 5 spells for my level 3 Vampire Count, and 2 spells per Necromancer)

Those 2 extra dice generated naturally just aren't enough for me to be able to get the spells off. And once I have a mage cast a spell, my opponent knows that mage can't cast anything else, because there's not enough dispel dice. So that gives me a max of 4 spells to cast, and little variety because once I cast one spell with a mage, that mage is done for the magic phase. And since I'm Undead, I'm generally going to be casting Invokation of Nehek a lot. That means no Gaze of Nagash, no Curse of Years, no Vanhel's Danse Macabre. And except for my Count, on 2 dice, none of those spells are going to be getting off anyways. So if I have a Necro with Vanhel's Danse Macabre, or Curse of Years, that's a waste of a spell that my opponent doesn't need to save dice for, because I'm not going to get it off.

I have to not take those 2 extra dice into account, because at most it will only affect 2 of my mages... so half of my mages WON'T be able to benefit from those dice, and will be stuck casting on 2 dice.

ebolatheripe
01-07-2006, 21:22
But Nell2ThaIzzay, your argument relys on too many factors that can change after people become accustomed to 7th edition. People may not be taking two Scroll caddies as they often do now. General concensus may be that scroll caddies only need one Dispell Scroll to be effective. Meaning that the argument that your opponent will be stopping your magic more often may not be true.

As far as casting, I know you have said before that you don't want to change your magic items choices, but Power stones are always there. And if general concensus IS that you don't need as many Dispell Scrolls that choice can be changed to Power stones in your army as well.

To protect against miscasts, sounds like you can now use items which grant Invulnerable Saves. I don't know about VC but most armies have an IS item they can give there wizards and at the least all can take a Talisman of Protection.

Back on topic:

6th editon is fine enough just like 7th edition will be fine.

Adept
01-07-2006, 21:51
magic armies, like ours, have become a totally inviable option for 7th edition.

Good. I, apparently the GW design team, and I venture to say most players believe that magic should be a support for the rest of your army, not a main focus. Now, magic is nerfed a bit. I personally would have done it differently, but the end result is good enough for me. Which is to say, people running magic heavy armies will have less of an advantage than they currently do.

Nell2ThaIzzay
02-07-2006, 06:05
Good. I, apparently the GW design team, and I venture to say most players believe that magic should be a support for the rest of your army, not a main focus. Now, magic is nerfed a bit. I personally would have done it differently, but the end result is good enough for me. Which is to say, people running magic heavy armies will have less of an advantage than they currently do.

Here's the thing though...

Why SHOULDN'T magic be able to win the game?

Close combat can do it. Movement can DEFINATLEY do it. Shooting can do it at times too. Why shouldn't magic?

The brilliance of Warhammer is the fact that there are, what, 14 different armies out there? And all of them have something different to offer. There are many different playstyles, and there's guaranteed to be an army out there that caters to whatever your playstyle is.

Mine happens to be magic. And my army (not my individual list, but Vampire Counts in general) are meant to have a strong magic phase. That's how they win the games.

What's wrong with that? Games can be won through close combat, movement, and shooting, why should magic not be just as important a phase as any of those other 3?

By nerfing a particular phase, WHATEVER that phase happens to be, you are essentially saying that style of play is WRONG, and that all players should conform to a particular play style. My impression of these rules pretty much are saying that magic is a wrong way to play, and us magic players should conform to other styles of play, giving up our own individuality in terms of this game.

I'll have you know I picked my army before I knew anything about this game. In any kind of RPG's and such, I like to play Necromantic / Undead characters / races. So when my friends and I started looking into Warhammer, Vampire Counts were an automatic for me. Before I even knew the difference between the phases. I picked out my army for fluff / character reasons, NOT because magic was some all powerful phase that I could dominate my opponents with. Why should I now be told that my style of play was wrong? Even if I'm wrong, and these changes in 7th Edition aren't nearly as severe as I believe they will be, YOU just all but told me that I'm wrong for playing the way I do. And that's the kind of attitude that I don't appreciate, and that kind of mentality has seemed to rub off on Games Workshop, whether they believe it or not. I've seen enough ongoing games to know how the companies running them will cater to a vocal group of people, whether their desires are best for the game or not.

Now as far as the power of the magic phase, just as many argue against me that it won't be as bad as I say it's going to be, I don't think it's as powerful as the vocal group of people on this forum make it out to be. I've never ran an army other than Necrarch Vampires. And in my entire time playing this game, I easily have a losing record. If magic is so overpowered, don't you think that my magic based army should be dominating?

Well it doesn't. Wanna know why? Despite games in which I've had absolutley dominating magic phases, BETTER OVERALL TACTICS by my opponents have allowed them to achieve victory over me. There was only 1 game I've ever played where a magic phase was detrimental to the game in one way or another, and that was when I played my friend's Lizardmen army... he decked his army out in full magic, and dominated me, because since I focused on magic, and he had a stronger magic phase than me, he negated the main strength of my army and strategy. It had nothing to do with the fact that he ran magic on it's own, but rather the fact that his magic negated mine, which negated my strength, and I couldn't compensate for it in that particular game.

And in fact, I feel that I've lost a few games because I devote my strategy to a magic phase, instead of more reliable things like a combat oriented army, or a manueverable army. Magic is too unreliable as it is. I feel it's more unreliable than anything the Skaven have that can blow up in their face, and when our stuff blows up (magic, on miscasts), it's a lot more detrimental than any Skaven unit blowing up, because unlike a Ratling Gun, or even a Warp Lightning Cannon, our mages are the center of our army, and losing them is detrimental.

So what I don't appreciate is being told, directly, implied, or otherwise, that I'm wrong for playing the way I do. I didn't choose my army and my strategy to be some uber god on the Warhammer table. I chose it because it's what appeals to me, and it's fun. I don't want to win every game. In fact, my recent games at Games Workshop are the funnest games I've ever had, because despite the fact that I'm like 0-2 or 0-3 since I've been going back, I haven't been thinking about points. My opponent and I just play our armies, make our moves, and let the points fall where they may. All I ask is that I have an oppourtunity to play my preferred playstyle, and still have a balanced shot at winning. As it is, I don't see any problems with the magic phase as is. In fact I've lost many a games for playing a magic army instead of something more reliable. And as I see it, my playstyle preference is being taken away, because I don't personally see it as being a viable option to build an army around. And for some reason, there's some notion that building an army around magic is wrong, and I don't appreciate that. Magic has no less place in Warhammer FANTASY Battles (not Warhammer Realistic Battles) than other forms of tactics.

Adept
02-07-2006, 06:42
Here's the thing though...

Why SHOULDN'T magic be able to win the game?

Because the designers, and I would hazard to add, most gamers, don't want it that way.

Maybe thats not quite the way you want your armies to run. In this instance, it's a case of tough titties. Casting spells, IMO and apparently the opinion of the design crew, should be a support system for the rest of your army, not the main focus of your army. Maybe you don't like being told that. I'm sure there are people who don't like being told they can't take four dragons, three units of grail knights, eight cannons, or an army consisting entirely of characters.

The game changes over time to represent what the design crew thinks is best. This time, one of the changes appears to be limiting the decisive impact magic heavy armies can have, just like the change from 5th to 6th limited the impact of mighty heroes on monsters.

I like it. You don't. There will always be winners and losers when things change. My advice is to roll with the punches, and adapt to the new system rather than digging in your heels and resisting.

WillFightForFood
02-07-2006, 07:09
You miss the point of the changes. Close combat increases at pretty much an arithmetic level for every point you pump into it. Missile fire increases in power at an arithmetic level but is pretty much capped by how wide your unit can be and how wide your missile lanes are.

Under 6th edition, magic gains in strength at a faster than arithmetic rate. Adding one extra wizard not only increases your strength, but decreases your opponent's strength. Adding more wizards increases your strength even more than the first wizard and decreases your opponent's strength even more than the first wizard. Not only that, but the presence of an additional wizard adds potential power to all other wizards on the field.

Nothing else in the game works like this. When you add another unit of missile troops your opponent's missile troops don't get worse. One of your Captains can't lend a WS point to another Captain on the other side of the board that needs it on an attack. The changes are to bring wizards in line with other units in terms of what they add to the field and what they add to extra units. Now a level 2 wizard is only as good as the two spells he has available and his powerdice + pool power dice. Magic will still be viable and a wizard lord will still be powerful, there haven't been any substantiated rumors to the contrary. In fact, the changes may improve overall game play because people may not feel the need to bring 2-3 scroll caddies to survive. They may actually try out some of the lesser used heroes.

No one is telling you how to play or that your playstyle is wrong. Games Workshop is responding to a perceived problem by players in the magic system and so its looking into addressing that issue in the rules. There is no implication as to the morality of one style of play or another. Games Workshop is probably still leaving the rules open to any style of play, they're just trying to fix a potentially abusive mechanic. No one is limiting you to one mage.

You don't have to move to 7th edition, nor do you have to follow the rules to the letter when not in tournament play. The rules are suggestions for miniatures, there is no Games Workshop secret police (that we know of) to enforce the official rules on games. At this point it is best to wait until 7th and try a couple of games before passing such harsh judgement.

Nell2ThaIzzay
02-07-2006, 08:12
You miss the point of the changes. Close combat increases at pretty much an arithmetic level for every point you pump into it. Missile fire increases in power at an arithmetic level but is pretty much capped by how wide your unit can be and how wide your missile lanes are.

Under 6th edition, magic gains in strength at a faster than arithmetic rate. Adding one extra wizard not only increases your strength, but decreases your opponent's strength. Adding more wizards increases your strength even more than the first wizard and decreases your opponent's strength even more than the first wizard. Not only that, but the presence of an additional wizard adds potential power to all other wizards on the field.

Nothing else in the game works like this. When you add another unit of missile troops your opponent's missile troops don't get worse. One of your Captains can't lend a WS point to another Captain on the other side of the board that needs it on an attack. The changes are to bring wizards in line with other units in terms of what they add to the field and what they add to extra units. Now a level 2 wizard is only as good as the two spells he has available and his powerdice + pool power dice. Magic will still be viable and a wizard lord will still be powerful, there haven't been any substantiated rumors to the contrary. In fact, the changes may improve overall game play because people may not feel the need to bring 2-3 scroll caddies to survive. They may actually try out some of the lesser used heroes.

No one is telling you how to play or that your playstyle is wrong. Games Workshop is responding to a perceived problem by players in the magic system and so its looking into addressing that issue in the rules. There is no implication as to the morality of one style of play or another. Games Workshop is probably still leaving the rules open to any style of play, they're just trying to fix a potentially abusive mechanic. No one is limiting you to one mage.

You don't have to move to 7th edition, nor do you have to follow the rules to the letter when not in tournament play. The rules are suggestions for miniatures, there is no Games Workshop secret police (that we know of) to enforce the official rules on games. At this point it is best to wait until 7th and try a couple of games before passing such harsh judgement.

Okay, and I'd feel a lot better with what you're saying (the arithmatic increase in power based on what you take) if the magic phase wasn't totally handed over to the dispeller.

I think that if the caster can only use the power dice that he produces, then the dispeller should too. As a dispeller, you choose which mage is going to dispel, and he can only use the number of dice he provides. Naturally produced dispel dice, or those produced by items, can be distributed just like power dice can.

As it is now, the magic casting is being limited, but the magic dispelling is not. And as I stated in my long long post above (I think back a page), magic casting now has a lower percentage to get off on it's own, therefore the opponent's same amount of dispel dice will go further, seeing as there will be less spells they actually have to roll to dispel.

If dispelling had the same limitations as casting, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But my impression of these rules is that the impact will be that the magic phase is handed over to the dispellers, and mages will hardly get any spells off anymore, because despite the limitations to casting, there are no limitations to dispelling.

And I don't think the scroll caddies will decrease. As everyone is trying to convince me, the power level of my magic wouldn't drastically decrease. Well, if you're right, and that is the case, then why would the need for opponent dispel caddies decrease? Vampire Counts is still going to be a magic heavy army, and people who see that I play Vampire Counts are going to say "Okay, I need magic defense", and out come the scroll caddies. Only problem is, because of my limitations to casting, I'll be getting less spells off as it is, so those dispel dice and scrolls of my opponent will go further.

Essentially, mage points spent for defense will go further... magic points spent for offense won't go as far as they did in 6th.

THAT'S my problem.

I could live with the changes, if they went both ways.

But the magic phase, under 7th edition rules, is being handed over to the dispel portion of the phase.

Close combat isn't handed over to the armor save portion of the phase. No, it's about who got the charge, and dealing damage. Well, so should the magic phase. Unfortunatley, the magic phase is now in total control of the dispeller, and I don't think that's right at all. And that's why I say magic will be inviable in 7th edition.

Nell2ThaIzzay
02-07-2006, 08:14
Because the designers, and I would hazard to add, most gamers, don't want it that way.

Maybe thats not quite the way you want your armies to run. In this instance, it's a case of tough titties. Casting spells, IMO and apparently the opinion of the design crew, should be a support system for the rest of your army, not the main focus of your army. Maybe you don't like being told that. I'm sure there are people who don't like being told they can't take four dragons, three units of grail knights, eight cannons, or an army consisting entirely of characters.

The game changes over time to represent what the design crew thinks is best. This time, one of the changes appears to be limiting the decisive impact magic heavy armies can have, just like the change from 5th to 6th limited the impact of mighty heroes on monsters.

I like it. You don't. There will always be winners and losers when things change. My advice is to roll with the punches, and adapt to the new system rather than digging in your heels and resisting.

Whatever, if you, and most players, as you put it, don't like magic, then DON'T PLAY MAGIC ARMIES! I like magic, so I play a magic army.

Taking 4 dragons, and all those units you rambled on about, is a LOT DIFFERENT then a person's preferred style of play.

If you don't want magic, then you need not play a FANTASY game. Magic has always been a huge part of fantasy. If you don't like it, find some World War 2 themed table top game to play, where you won't have to worry about magic.

Adept
02-07-2006, 09:01
Whatever, if you, and most players, as you put it, don't like magic, then DON'T PLAY MAGIC ARMIES! I like magic, so I play a magic army.

Of course, why didn't I think of that. I should simply phone each future opponent, and tell them what armies they can play. How simple.

:rolleyes:


Taking 4 dragons, and all those units you rambled on about, is a LOT DIFFERENT then a person's preferred style of play.

No, it's not. It's the same level of change from 5th to 6th, when I was able to spend 75% of my points on characters and mounts, including multiple dragons, and there was no such thing as a minimum core unit requirement. Oh how the Herohammer players squeeled when they were told they would need three core units, and could only give their heroes 50pts of magic items.

The shift then was away from powerful characters, which is a perfectly valid playstyle. The shift now is away from powerful magic users, which is also a perfectly valid playstyle. It's just not one the designers apear to favour. Sucks to be you, eh?


If you don't want magic, then you need not play a FANTASY game. Magic has always been a huge part of fantasy. If you don't like it, find some World War 2 themed table top game to play, where you won't have to worry about magic.

Dude, chill. I've got no problems with magic. I even run a Vampire Counts army myself. I just believe that magic should be a purely supportive mechanism, rather than a main focus of any army, and as a result I'm happy with the new changes. Not as happy as I could be, but happy enough.

Nell2ThaIzzay
02-07-2006, 09:23
Of course, why didn't I think of that. I should simply phone each future opponent, and tell them what armies they can play. How simple.

:rolleyes:[quote]

[QUOTE=Adept]That's not what I meant. I meant, you run a non-magic army, and I'll run a magic army.Dude, chill. I've got no problems with magic. I even run a Vampire Counts army myself. I just believe that magic should be a purely supportive mechanism, rather than a main focus of any army, and as a result I'm happy with the new changes. Not as happy as I could be, but happy enough.

No, I won't chill. You're telling me that I'm wrong for the way I play, and unfortunatley, Games Workshop has decided to go with that. So now, I'm screwed.

I didn't choose that way to play because it was powerful or something. I chose that way to play, because well, I like magic.

But now, something that should be a perfectly viable tactic to build an army around, has now been gimped.

Adept
02-07-2006, 09:35
No, I won't chill. You're telling me that I'm wrong for the way I play, and unfortunatley, Games Workshop has decided to go with that. So now, I'm screwed.

Yep. Again, my suggestion is try and roll with the punches, rather than dig your heels in and resist.


But now, something that should be a perfectly viable tactic to build an army around, has now been gimped.

Well, the 'should' is somewhat (actually, entirely) subjective. I don't think it should be a viable tactic, because I prefer the imagery of armies clashing rather than wizards dueling. Your opinions are obviously different, and unfortunately for you, in the (apparent) minority. It's happened before, and will likely happen again as the editions come and go.

Gorbad Ironclaw
02-07-2006, 09:38
I think your over reacting. The changes to magic will, as far as I see it, not really mean that much.

Yeah, your lose a little flexibility, and it becomes a little harder to have the right spell at the right place. *shrugs* Heavy magic should still be pretty good. If as you say you always cast magic with every mage anyway, I don't even see the problem. Just continue doing that. Yeah, it will mean a lvl two can't cast two spells on three dice a turn. Only your lvl four can do that. Just something you got to plan for.

It does in no way mean that you won't be able to cast spells, or that it's all in the hands of the dispeller. My undeads will continue to mostly cast three spells on three dice. And bound spells. I just don't see the issue. Undeads are one of the armies least hit by this. You got a good default spell. It's the lores where the default spell isn't good thats going to suffer from this.

Magic in general might go down a little, but I don't really expect it to be a massive change.

ebolatheripe
02-07-2006, 10:47
Nell2ThaIzzay, I agree with you that a magic heavy army should be just as valid a choice as any other legale army. But general consensus among players is that the magic phase is unbalanced as it is and Games Workshop apparently thinks it needed to be tipped slightly towards the defender as a solution. Too many people are of this opinion for it to be just "whiners" as you say. As you have been posting in multiple threads voicing the same opinion and I haven't read one reply that agreed with your assessment, I would tend to think that the majorities assessment is right.

I don't mean to be insulting but, it sounds like you lose an alfull lot as it is and with the changes to magic you expect to lose even more. Maybe you needed a change in your army composition, or tactics and not be so concerned with how the new rules change magic. A real good player will be able to dominate in 6th or 7th edition.


PS: If when 7th edition comes out, it turns out that you where right all along, I hope the mods post a sticky saying "Nell2ThaIzzay Was Right!!!!" for being the lone clairvoyant voice.

WillFightForFood
02-07-2006, 15:18
I would tend to think that the majorities assessment is right.
:rolleyes:
Let's not go too far on this. There's a perceived problem, the solution may be worse than the problem. Until the rulebook comes out no one will know.




I think that if the caster can only use the power dice that he produces, then the dispeller should too. As a dispeller, you choose which mage is going to dispel, and he can only use the number of dice he provides. Naturally produced dispel dice, or those produced by items, can be distributed just like power dice can.
This is good in theory, but not in practice. It would definitely allow a high level caster to get off at least one spell a turn with a lot of risk of miscasting, BUT any army without a mage would have no magic defense. Perhaps you think this is proper, but it would be doing just what you are decrying - forcing people to take mages. That would likely have the opposite effect of what Games Workshop is looking for - individuals taking a number of small mages specifically for the purpose of magic defense. If dispelling was a less sure proposition scroll caddy numbers would increase. Not saying it couldn't be worked in rules, and you're definitely free to house rule and play test it with friends, but for some reason Games Workshop found it not to work as well. It's pretty obvious, and they likely didn't miss it as an option.

althathir
02-07-2006, 15:57
I really am not sure how big of a difference the magic rules are going to make. the main difference is that we can't use weaker mages as batteries for our lord mages, which actually makes a lot of sense to me.As far as level 1 wizards go it wasn't like they were incredible effective in this edition anyway they are just used to hold onto a couple of dispel scrolls.
Now instead of handing thier power over to a better mage and holding out there dispel scrolls they are going to actually be used to cast a spell. The spell may not be a great a spell but every lore has a fairly decent first spell that you can always trade down for plus when you factor in the casting difficulties of spells could also be changed they could be pretty effective. plus we can use them in more of risky fashion, before I would have thought about hinding a weak mage and allowing my lord to use their dice. Now I might consider being more aggressive with them and maybe getting them into a position where they can win a game for me.

mageith
02-07-2006, 16:02
:rolleyes:
This is good in theory, but not in practice.

How do you know? :)



It would definitely allow a high level caster to get off at least one spell a turn with a lot of risk of miscasting, BUT any army without a mage would have no magic defense.

I didn't read that in Izzy's idea. Unless you are referring to....

Under current rules wizards don't dispel, armies do. Wizards just add power and, of course, carry dispel scrolls.

Even if the 8 Lores turn out to be perfectly adjusted, the most powerful lores are still in existence (VC and High Elf and Waaagh).

What Izzy better be vigilent about is how the Necromancy lore is changed in its forthcoming army book. His other current concerns are too little, too late. Whether they are real or not remains to be seen.

mageith
02-07-2006, 16:09
So... what's actually wrong with 6th, that people are hoping/expecting will be fixed in 7th ed? Should I be looking to buy a new shiny book/box in September, on the offchance my group actually gets to play WFB, or is 6th ed perfectly serviceable?


FlyingViking, Did you get your answer before the thread was hi-jacked?

Your situation sounds iffy. What exactly is your group? They just play games? wargames? Historicals? If they aren't playing WFB now, why do you think they will get into the newer version?

The newer version sounds much, much better than the current version as most, not all of the rocky spots have been addressed. Just don't be fooled and buy lots of Elite/Expensive Infantry---yet. Lots of newbies do that thinking WFB is a wargame. It's not really. The fantasy element (large fearsome monsters and Powerful magic) still exists and their force is strong and mere soldiers, of any ilk, often can't stand up to that.

Is there anybody, other than Izzy, who truly contemplates remaining in 6th edition based on the current rumors?

Mage Ith

alextroy
02-07-2006, 16:42
[QUOTE=mageith]Even if the 8 Lores turn out to be perfectly adjusted, the most powerful lores are still in existence (VC and High Elf and Waaagh)./QUOTE]
And Waaagh is first on the list of army specific lores to get revised with the new Orcs and Goblins armybook. Rumor has it that Vampire Counts are next on the list after Empire. That's two of the three in fast order.

As for Vampire Count magic, the biggest problems they seem to face under the 7th edition rumors are that a single caster cannot cast two spells at maximum dice and that Necromancy only has one spell that can be cast on one die. Hopefully, the new Vampire Counts book will fix that when it comes out.

That means we just have a long wait to see how they fix High Elves and the Dice centered Khorne and more importantly Tzeentch armies.

As for the point of this thread, 7th Edition appears that it be a improvement over 6th Edition, but not a major change to the game.

mageith
02-07-2006, 16:59
And Waaagh is first on the list of army specific lores to get revised with the new Orcs and Goblins armybook. Rumor has it that Vampire Counts are next on the list after Empire. That's two of the three in fast order.

I know. First, from what I've read the 8 Lores are still not perfectly balanced, but only the play will tell.

Second, the fact that the books you mentioned are on the docket, doesn't mean they will fall into line.



As for Vampire Count magic, the biggest problems they seem to face under the 7th edition rumors are that a single caster cannot cast two spells at maximum dice and that Necromancy only has one spell that can be cast on one die. Hopefully, the new Vampire Counts book will fix that when it comes out.



As for the point of this thread, 7th Edition appears that it be a improvement over 6th Edition, but not a major change to the game.
I think they've added a Psychology phase and greatly reduced the Argument phase. :)

I think GW would love your evaluation of "not a major change to the game". From what I can tell, a 6th edition player can come over to a 7th edition player's house and play the game and the 7th edition player will simply have a whole bunch of clarifications to teach.

Some notable exceptions: A few characters will die with the targeting rule changes. Great Weapons and Skirmishers are less effective. And some 4-wide units are not going to work. This can be changed on the spot. And, Oh yeah, you can't lap around. And of course, the biggie for Izzay, wizards can't lend dice to each other. This will take a few games for players to refigure their mages to take advantage of magic items that are more helpful and get rid of those that used to be helpful. And watch out for the Zig-zagging giant (and chariot?)

Most of the rest is just bringing sense to senseless rules (flee/pursuit/redirect now work in an intuitive and clear manner, characters in the front rank, maximization, regeneration, chariots in rough terrain and miscasts really matter.

Alas most Expensive infantry will still gather dust for a while.

Mage Ith

Nell2ThaIzzay
02-07-2006, 17:33
Yep. Again, my suggestion is try and roll with the punches, rather than dig your heels in and resist.

Well at least you admit that you're telling me I'm wrong for the way I play...

:mad:

Well, the 'should' is somewhat (actually, entirely) subjective. I don't think it should be a viable tactic, because I prefer the imagery of armies clashing rather than wizards dueling. Your opinions are obviously different, and unfortunately for you, in the (apparent) minority. It's happened before, and will likely happen again as the editions come and go.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't call what I'm in the "minority". I've never come across anyone outside of this board who has had a problem with the magic phase.

Razhem
02-07-2006, 17:37
Seeing how you constantly bitch about the lack of dice but for the sake of your arguments despise completely the 2 casting pool dice I cannot take you seriously. Youīve also been crying all over the forum for quite some time now, how about if instead of playing bloody theoryhammer, you make yourself a 2000 pts army and see if itīs soo damn horrible and tell us your feedback, Iīm sure it would be a hell of a lot more productive appart from having some tabletop experience

Nell2ThaIzzay
02-07-2006, 17:39
Seeing how you constantly bitch about the lack of dice but for the sake of your arguments despise completely the 2 casting pool dice I cannot take you seriously. You´ve also been crying all over the forum for quite some time now, how about if instead of playing bloody theoryhammer, you make yourself a 2000 pts army and see if it´s soo damn horrible and tell us your feedback, I´m sure it would be a hell of a lot more productive appart from having some tabletop experience

I've already explained why I don't take them into consideration, because it will effect at most 2 of my wizards, so 2 of my wizards still won't get that benefit and will still be casting 1 spell per turn.

Even with those extra 2 dice, my mages are still only getting off 1 spell per turn.

But you're right, a game under 7th edition rules to test it out would be a good idea, and something I've thought about, just not something I've gotten around to doing quite yet.

WillFightForFood
02-07-2006, 18:07
How do you know? :)


I didn't read that in Izzy's idea. Unless you are referring to....

Under current rules wizards don't dispel, armies do. Wizards just add power and, of course, carry dispel scrolls.


Good point about making a presumption there.

The way that Izzy seems to lay out his idea is that individuals should do the dispelling in the same way that individuals do the casting? If that's the case it would seem to be problematic for the reason stated. As it stands, everyone currently gets some magic defense regardless of any mages brought.

Even if the likely 7th rules change does happen, the rules as a whole have to be considered. What seems like a break in the rules to Izzy may actually work better with new ruleset than it would with the old one.

As for the broken question, it's not broken. Like mageith listed, it has some issues, but the system as a whole works fairly well.

Latro
02-07-2006, 21:31
Mwah ... don't see that change myself (yet)

The set-up of my VC army is Count (lvl2) + 2 Necromancers (lvl2) + items: Book of Arkhan, Black Periapt.

In the current edition I can cast summoning three times on three dice, sometimes changing on of the summonings for dance macabre if one of the wizards has it ... and the Book of course.

In the new edition (according to rumours) I can still cast summoning three times on three dice ... still able to change one of them for a dance macabre if I have it ... and the Book of course.

... exactly the same.


:cool:

ebolatheripe
02-07-2006, 21:55
[QUOTE=WillFightForFood]:rolleyes:
Let's not go too far on this. There's a perceived problem, the solution may be worse than the problem. Until the rulebook comes out no one will know.QUOTE]

Not saying that these changes will be the solution, just that there is a slight problem that most players see and Nell2ThaIzzay doesn't seem to see, or atleast doesn't feel is being adressed correctly, while most arn't up in arms until having a few 7th edition games under there belt.

Adept
03-07-2006, 01:17
Well at least you admit that you're telling me I'm wrong for the way I play...

:mad:

No worries.


I wouldn't call what I'm in the "minority". I've never come across anyone outside of this board who has had a problem with the magic phase.

I don't have a problem with the magic phase. I don't think anyone does. What I have a problem with is people using the magic phase as their tool to win the game, rather than supporting the rest of their army.

Nell2ThaIzzay
03-07-2006, 04:19
I don't have a problem with the magic phase. I don't think anyone does. What I have a problem with is people using the magic phase as their tool to win the game, rather than supporting the rest of their army.

And again, just as combat, movement, and shooting can win you the game, I don't see a problem with people using the magic phase to win games. I don't understand why that's a problem. If you want magic to be supportive, then you can run a magic supportive army. But there SHOULD be variety in the types of armies that you can play, to allow for many different playstyles to be used. There's nothing wrong with that.

What would be a problem, is if a particular phase was so much more powerful than another that focusing on that phase would make you inherently better than an army focused on another phase.

I.E.: Magic was so powerful that magic armies would ALWAYS beat non magic armies.

That, I don't see being the case. I run an all magic army, have ran it against non to low magic armies, and have lost, because of better overall tactics and strategy from my opponent. And I believe that is what wins the games. Not a phase. But better tactics utilizing your strengths.

That's why I'm upset with these changes. It's toning down a phase that I don't think is an overpowered phase.

But there is nothing wrong with someone utilizing a particular phase to win games. None of the phases are any less "legitamate tactics" than the other phases. I think that focusing your army on movement, combat, shooting, or magic, are all equally legitamate strategies to base your army around, and NONE should be deemed the "wrong" way to play. This is a fantasy game, afterall, magic has it's place. You may not enjoy magic. But nobody is forcing you to run a magic based army. And if you have to play against an army based on magic, well, tough beans. I don't like the fluff of giant, man sized rats who have big machines that shoot magical warpstone particles... but this is a fantasy game, and Skaven are part of the Warhammer world, and my friend isn't wrong for playing Skaven, even if I don't like it. It's the same thing with magic. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it's an illegitamate strategy to base an army around.

Adept
03-07-2006, 05:39
And again, just as combat, movement, and shooting can win you the game, I don't see a problem with people using the magic phase to win games. I don't understand why that's a problem.

And again, I'm sure there were people who didn't think spending 75% of their points on characters and monster mounts was a bad thing either.

Fact of the matter is, it's not a problem. It's not a bad thing. It's just not the direction the design team wants the game to go.


If you want magic to be supportive, then you can run a magic supportive army.

But I can't make everyone else run a magic supportive army, and I want to be able to make them. Thankfully, so does the design team, and it looks like magic will, while not be entirely nerfed, at least be less dominating than it currently can be.


What would be a problem, is if a particular phase was so much more powerful than another that focusing on that phase would make you inherently better than an army focused on another phase.

I.E.: Magic was so powerful that magic armies would ALWAYS beat non magic armies.

My personal gripe with the magic phase was that it didn't involve the opponent, and the only way to minimise it's impact was spend points and character slots on magical defence.

Personally, I would have made the following changes:

All spells require LOS, and have limited range.

No magic user can 'march' and use spells.

All spells are cast automatically.

It is impossible to dispell.

Each wizard can only cast one spell per turn.

Roll a die every time a spell is cast. On a '1' the spell is miscast.

Now, I can't say how that would work without playtesting it, but it stops magic operating completely differently from everything else. It means I can minimise magical impact by screening my units, hiding behind terrain, staying out of range, and all the other tricks I use to stop myself getting obliterated by shooting.


It's the same thing with magic. You might not like it, but that doesn't mean it's an illegitamate strategy to base an army around.

No, but if the game designers don't like it, then that does mean it's illegitimate. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Varath- Lord Impaler
03-07-2006, 07:23
Well if you want to really get to grips with what i say i suggest you read the Tzeentch Section of the Liber Chaotica.

In one movement phase the average unit can march forward a fair distance

In one shooting phase a unit can prepare, aim and fire a bow/crossbow/handgun, etc.

In one assault phase a unit can exchange a small amount of blows and possibly break an enemy units moral.

But your saying that in the Magic Phase a wizard can cast more than one spell?

Now. Magic is ethyrical power being refracted by its decent onto the mortal plane into the 8 winds of magic. A Wizard draws on these powers by using an ancient and very powerful calculated mathematical formulae which allows him/her/it to empower themselves with their selected wind of magic and then use another formulae to form it into the desired effect and use it on a target.

If one small amount of the formulae is compromised then many things can happen, from the spell not working to the wizard exploding and taking many men with him.

Any wizard would have to be VERY talented to launch 2 or 3 spells in a short space of time without turning themselves into a fine red mist.

In your case, Necromancy is an offshoot of death magic which is the magic of Endings. The Mathematical formulae used by Necromancy is very strange as it uses death magic against itself so it continues the end and takes a spirit from the underworld when it hasnt been claimed by any beings there ie. chaos gods, Morr, etc.

So i think magic will be better as it will put it into perspective in the difficulty of use and the concentration of the wizard.

Then again i play dwarfs with an anvil so i may just like the fact that i can stop magic phases.

But then again again, my main opponent will be Tzeentch with about 14 Dice for 4 wizards (which is entirely appropriate for Tzeentchian magic which is a synthesis of Normal magic and Devine magic)

Nell2ThaIzzay
03-07-2006, 09:54
And again, I'm sure there were people who didn't think spending 75% of their points on characters and monster mounts was a bad thing either.

Fact of the matter is, it's not a problem. It's not a bad thing. It's just not the direction the design team wants the game to go.



But I can't make everyone else run a magic supportive army, and I want to be able to make them. Thankfully, so does the design team, and it looks like magic will, while not be entirely nerfed, at least be less dominating than it currently can be.



My personal gripe with the magic phase was that it didn't involve the opponent, and the only way to minimise it's impact was spend points and character slots on magical defence.

Personally, I would have made the following changes:

All spells require LOS, and have limited range.

No magic user can 'march' and use spells.

All spells are cast automatically.

It is impossible to dispell.

Each wizard can only cast one spell per turn.

Roll a die every time a spell is cast. On a '1' the spell is miscast.

Now, I can't say how that would work without playtesting it, but it stops magic operating completely differently from everything else. It means I can minimise magical impact by screening my units, hiding behind terrain, staying out of range, and all the other tricks I use to stop myself getting obliterated by shooting.



No, but if the game designers don't like it, then that does mean it's illegitimate. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Whatever...

You want to force people to play the way you want them to play, and unfortunatley enough people just like you were vocal enough to make Games Workshop listen, and now the rest of us are screwed out of a perfectly legitamate strategy and gameplay style.

That's very selfish, you want the game the play your way, and nobody else can play the game their way because you don't like it.

McMullet
03-07-2006, 11:06
The same could be said of you. You want the game to play your way, which spoils it for those of us who prefer supporting magic.

Just so happens that, on this occasion, it didn't go your way. Unlucky for you, lucky for me and Adept. To name but three people who are affected by this change (although, to be honest, it remains to be seen how much difference it will make, or indeed if it's definitely certainly 100% going to happen).

You can't please all the people all of the time. Neither can GW.

Adept
03-07-2006, 11:09
That's very selfish, you want the game the play your way, and nobody else can play the game their way because you don't like it.

Yep. Yay for me!

Razhem
03-07-2006, 13:52
Stop bitching and try the rules, then come back and give us feedback, till then, stop throwing knives at adept, he can evade them with ease anyway

ZomboCom
03-07-2006, 14:26
Let's look at a Level 2 casting Invokation of Nehek. 7+. That's roughly 50% (a little more, I know, but for the sake of arguement, it's 50%). That means that half of my Invokation of Nehek spells won't go off without any magic defense in the process. That means that the opponent has half as many spells to focus the same amount of dispel dice. So my opponent has the same amount of dispel dice, but only half the amount of spells to worry about, meaning their dispel dice are going to go a lot further now, because there's no limit to the amount of dispel dice that they can throw to dispel a single cast.


It's 58% actually, which is closer to 60% than 50%. You're seriously overstating the case.



And since I can't throw more than 2 dice with a Level 2, my chances of getting that 7+ have just dropped drastically below 50%, because all it will take is really 3 dice to dispel that.


You can throw 3 dice at it if you want - you have 2 dice in the pool, possibly 3 if you use the periapt, or 4 with a power familiar.

Nell2ThaIzzay
03-07-2006, 22:32
The same could be said of you. You want the game to play your way, which spoils it for those of us who prefer supporting magic.

I knew this response was coming, and you're absolutley wrong.

Me being able to play a magic based army isn't forcing you to play a magic based army.

There is nothing stopping you from keeping magic as supporting in your army list, while I play a strategy that's a little more magic heavy.

However, these rules do stop me from playing a magic heavy army. It eliminates one style of play from the game. Therefore, armies become less unique, because there are less play styles to build around. Individual players become less unique, because there are less play styles for them to build around. The game becomes more cookie cutter because all the armies start falling into the same category; heavy combat, supporting magic. Only my army is screwed, because I have some of the weakest combat units in the game, and I don't have a strong magic phase to make up for it.

I don't care how you play. Play the game you want. Play the army you want that best suits your style. And let me play the style that bests suits me.

Wanting to take away magic as a viable strategy is selfish, because you're taking away a gameplay style. Me wanting magic to be viable isn't taking anything away from you, except for the fact that you just have to deal with something you don't like. I don't like Skaven, I don't like the concept behind them. That doesn't mean I want them run out of the game. They are perfectly legit in this world. Just as magic is.

Nell2ThaIzzay
03-07-2006, 22:34
Stop bitching and try the rules, then come back and give us feedback, till then, stop throwing knives at adept, he can evade them with ease anyway

Yea, I love how I'm the one getting bitched at for throwing knives when he is straight up telling me I am wrong for the type of style I enjoy playing...

Latro
03-07-2006, 23:07
Maybe your arguments would be more convincing if you backed them up with something a bit more solid than what we have read so far. Tell us what you play now (characters, items etc) and what you would lose in the new edition (according to the rumours)

(PS The current magic rules do in fact stop other people from playing how they want to. The magical arms-race has resulted in a lot of magic-heavy armies, a lot of magical-defence ... and as good as killed medium magic.)


:cool:

McMullet
03-07-2006, 23:42
I don't like Skaven, I don't like the concept behind them. That doesn't mean I want them run out of the game. They are perfectly legit in this world. Just as magic is.
I disagree. If you don't like them, you've every right to wish oblivion on them. If your view was in the majority, or at least shared by the games developers/background people, then it should be implemented. By doing so, the game of Warhammer becomes satisfactory to a larger number of people. However, in this case, the negative reactions will most likely be stronger than the positive ones.

Your argument neglects the fact that a game of Warhammer involves 2 people. Both players have to be satisfied by the game. What if I turn up with an army of 4 steam tanks? Wouldn't that suck, not just in general but for my opponent? Likewise, I'm not that keen on playing against an army that relies so heavily on magic. I find it boring, because I know that, if I'm playing someone with Necrarch VCs, I have to take lots of mages and dispelling stuff or I'll get pasted in the magic phase. Shooting or close comabt I can deal with by in-game tactics, but I'm shooting myself in the foot if I take a balanced (from a magic POV) army against a magic-heavy opponent.

This affects me greatly, and negatively. I am not unaffected by changes to the magic phase, even if I don't (often) use a magic heavy army.

Razhem
03-07-2006, 23:42
If you remember my last posts, I stated why I cannot take you seriously.
Has for magic has a "tactic", Iīve played mage heavy skaven, believe me, when I had free reign, I would anahilate my oponent, only things stopping me being my mages dieing of warpstone/lightning and a miscast or so. I stopped taking a seer because it was getting absurd and I wanted to focus into something more figther based, same reason I limited my ratlings and always tryed to make good use of a warpfire thrower. Iīve also played dead people, and if I have a turn of free reign with spells coming out, Iīll take out at least 1 unit

Adept
04-07-2006, 01:01
There is nothing stopping you from keeping magic as supporting in your army list, while I play a strategy that's a little more magic heavy.

But I want you, and everyone else to play with supportive-only magic as well.

You don't sound like you've been playing since 5th edition, so you may not realise that these sorts of changes usually happen, and are usually much more significant.

For example, in the last edition, the Bretonnian army could spend 75% of it's points on characters, and was required to spend 25% on Knights. I could take one large unit of Grail Knights as my one and only knight unit, then take a lord on a dragon, a bound dragon, two heroes on pegasi, or whatever my little heart desired. Playing with only one unit of models and the rest of my points spent on characters was a prefectly legitimate playstyle. Just like playing magic heavy.

Then the designers decided to place the emphasis more on units than characters, and 6th edition was born. People had to drastically change their armies, and there was much moaning done by all.

It's a similar situation here. While magic heavy armies have been, until now, a perfectly viable choice, the designers have decided to place the emphasis more on combined arms with magic in a supporting role. Some people will have to change their playstyles, and there may be some moaning.

The thing of it is, you can't just play any way you want, if you want to stick to the rules. Magic heavy armies aren't a direction the design team wants to go any more, and thats too bad for you. Cry me a river, why don't you?

Smoking Frog
04-07-2006, 01:56
A question for Izzy.

Why is it that I, as a magic heavy High Elf player, am looking forward to the next edition, while you, as a magic heavy Vampire Counts player, are not?

I realise you're one of the voices against the changes, fair enough, I'm not concerned about the semantics behind our stances in that regard, but, I'm confused. You tell us we're gonna get screwed, yet I see it differently.

Here's we're I'm coming from. I run on most occasions a purely Infantry based High Elf army, with three mages and a commander on most occasions, two mages and a commander in smaller games. Everything else is made up of archers, spears, swordmasters, shadow warriors, phoenix guard and repeater bolt throwers. Essentially when I pull this army out there is a big grin on an opponent's face telling me I'm gonna get creamed, but I still manage to pull off a victory 7 times out of 10, and a big contributor is the magic phase and the power I can dish out.

So, where do you stand? How is your army composed? Why do I look forward to the next edition where most of my advantages might be "nerfed"?

(A general question, what does nerf actually mean, where does it come from, what is the etymology behind the word?)

Gen.Steiner
04-07-2006, 01:56
In answer to the thread question:

No.

I won't be updating to 7th Edition rules.

WillFightForFood
04-07-2006, 02:08
(A general question, what does nerf actually mean, where does it come from, what is the etymology behind the word?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf

Nerf is a reference to the general reduction in power of a particular thing. It comes from "Non-Expanding Recreational Foam", and the soft weaponry made out of said foam that American children (or adults) use to attack eachother for fun.

Adept
04-07-2006, 02:10
I won't be updating to 7th Edition rules.

Why not? It seems much like 6th edition, whith a few blurry areas cleared up.

Gen.Steiner
04-07-2006, 02:20
Because it'll cost too much money. I already have every single army book, rulebook, and FAQ for 6th Edition. I don't want to go through that again.

I'll buy the models, just not the new rules. I really don't see the point in spending more money when I have a perfectly serviceable set already!

Adept
04-07-2006, 02:45
Because it'll cost too much money. I already have every single army book, rulebook, and FAQ for 6th Edition. I don't want to go through that again.

I'll buy the models, just not the new rules. I really don't see the point in spending more money when I have a perfectly serviceable set already!

Fair enough then.

Nell2ThaIzzay
04-07-2006, 10:18
Tell us what you play now (characters, items etc) and what you would lose in the new edition (according to the rumours)

It's hard to say, my character list is often changing, but here's a general idea of what I've been running lately.

*Vampire Count
-Level 2 Wizard
-Necrarch: Nehekara's Noble Blood
-Necrarch: Dark Acolyte
-Necrarch: Forbidden Lore
-Arcane: Spell Familiar

*Necromancer
-Level 2 Wizard
-Book of Arkhan
-Dispel Scroll (1x)

*Necromancer
-Level 2 Wizard
-Staff of Damnation

*Necromancer
-Level 2 Wizard
-Dispel Scroll (2x)

^ That's a new common character selection I've been using in 2000 point games. Sometimes, I will substitute a Necromancer (usually the one with 2 dispel scrolls) or a Vampire Thrall with Nehekara's Noble Blood. I reduce some casting power (1 less power dice, 1 less spell, and no magic items) for better combat, and a better shot at casting another Invokation of Nehek with the Necrarch +1 to casting.

With my list above, that's a total of 12 power dice to distribute between up to 8 different spells (4 Invokations, 4 non-Invokation spells with my Count, and 1 non-Invokation spell per Necromancer)

I don't know what this "mage battery" strategy is all about, because I don't do that. I use my power dice on spells wherever I need them. If that so happens to be my Count casting all the spells, then so be it, but I've never once done that. Sure, my Count will use more than 3 or 4 spell dice a magic phase sometimes, but most of it is different spells coming from my different Necromancers.

What will I lose with these rumored changes?

Magic flexibility.

As it stands, I can attempt to cast whatever spells I need to get off. There are no restrictions to it. I see "Okay, it's important I get this flank charge here to try to save my <insert whatever unit here> or to destroy his <insert whatever enemy unit here>", and I can make some multiple attempts at Invokations and Vanhel's Danse Macabre. With 7th edition, I don't see that happening. Why?

Under the new rules, I'll only be able to cast with a mage using the dice he provides. For Necros, which make up most of my army, that's 2 dice. Well, that effectivley negates casting anything on the list after Hellish Vigour, since anything from there on out requires 8+ or more. So what happens if I have a Necro that rolls a 5 and a 6 (Vanhel's Danse Macabre & Curse of Years, 9+ and 10+ respectively)? Sure, I can replace one with an Invokation of Nehek (7+ at level 2), but that's still one spell on my Necro that's a waste, because I won't be able to get it off. At least I won't be able to count on it.

My Vampire Count with 5 spells... well he casts one spell,a nd the other 4 are a waste. He can't cast those other spells. Spell Familiars and Forbidden Lore have become all but worthless, seeing as you're wasting 4 spells per turn (well, 4 spells under my build anyways)

There are 2 freely generated and distriburted dice, yes, but only 2. That means, tops, 2 Necros will cast 1 spell each on 3 dice. That means that 1 Necro is stuck with 2, and my Count is stuck with 3. Or I give my Count 4 and another Necro 3, 2 Necros get stuck at 2. Or I give them both to 1 mage, and the other 3 are kind of screwed, because they are only getting one spell off.

The 2 dice that my Necros are going to be using to cast means they are going to have a less of a chance to get their spells off. A 7+ (level 2 Invokation) is roughly 50% (yes, I know it's a little bit more than 50%, but not significantly more). That means I'm only going to be getting off half of my Invokation spells, which means that the opponent's same amount of dispel dice will now go further for them, because there's less spells getting off, so less spells they need to attempt to dispel. Which means that an opponent with a decent amount of dispel dice can effectively shut down my magic phase.

Level 1 Wizards are now totally pointless. As is, My Necrarch Thralls do have a use, even though they aren't as good as Necros. They have better combat stats than a Necro, and won't die as easily, all while still being able to cast a Level 2 Invokation of Nehek, at a +1 to roll at that.

Under the new rules, they can only roll on 1 power die, which means a level 1 Invokation of Nehek. 1-6 models isn't going to be doing much of anything, really. That's hardly significant. And the Thrall won't be getting off any other spells, period. I might as well just take a Wight Lord, because all I'd be taking the Thrall for is for combat.

I mean, I've gone over this a few times already, I don't know how many more times I can go over it. I've expressed why I feel these rules will severely impact magic negativley. Unfortunatley, I get bombarded with "I don't want you to play this way, so good for Games Workshop, and **** you and your playstyle". And unfortunatley, the selfish people who want to dictate to everyone else how to play the game have won. And I'm forced to go with it, if I want to play Warhammer beyond just playing my friend's Skaven army at the house. And I think that mentality of "**** you and your playstyle, because YOU'RE not playing the way I want you to" is totally wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if Adept forces his opponents to run lists he's made for them, so he can be sure they are playing the way he wants them to. I wonder if he even let's his opponent choose what race they want to run...

Adept
04-07-2006, 10:46
I wouldn't be surprised if Adept forces his opponents to run lists he's made for them, so he can be sure they are playing the way he wants them to. I wonder if he even let's his opponent choose what race they want to run...

:D

I just make 'em play by the rules, mate. I don't let them take seven characters in a 2,000 point game, like they could in 5th edition. And I won't let them funnel power dice around as they please, like they can in 6th edition. If I didn't like the rules, I wouldn't play. Perhaps a theory you might think on.

Zethal
05-07-2006, 09:30
I agree with Izzy 7th edition is just about completely destroying the magic phase, but it is doing so largley because of people who play lists like yours. People dont like fighting 12 Power dice and 2 bound items. Since the average player does not like fighting this amount of magic they are trying to find something to make players use less of it and in a supporting role.

GW is trying to make an average amount of magic worth while. However they are doing it poorly.

However, if your are so adamant about playing magic and dont care to much about VC switch to TK whos magic phase will not be affected by these changes at all.

Nell2ThaIzzay
05-07-2006, 10:01
However, if your are so adamant about playing magic and dont care to much about VC switch to TK whos magic phase will not be affected by these changes at all.

I do care about Vampire Counts.

Again, I don't play them because I can WIN with an uber magic phase.

I picked them because I like Necromantic type characters and fluff in RPG's and games and such, and I enjoy magical based tactics.

If I can still have a legitamate magic phase, then I'm fine. But with these changes, I don't particularly forsee a legitamate magic phase in the game anymore. But if I'm wrong, I'll be the first one to come back and admit it. I'm not too big to eat crow when it needs to be eaten.

chivalrous
05-07-2006, 10:28
It's hard to say, my character list is often changing, but here's a general idea of what I've been running lately.
*Vampire Count
-Level 2 Wizard
-Necrarch: Nehekara's Noble Blood
-Necrarch: Dark Acolyte
-Necrarch: Forbidden Lore
-Arcane: Spell Familiar
*Necromancer
-Level 2 Wizard
-Book of Arkhan
-Dispel Scroll (1x)
*Necromancer
-Level 2 Wizard
-Staff of Damnation
*Necromancer
-Level 2 Wizard
-Dispel Scroll (2x)


I entirely sympathise with your cause Izzy, even if I do find fighting a meatgrinder army like Nechrarch's a verticle struggle with my Dark Elves.
While we can all put forward a wish list what we'd like to counter the debilitating effect (all necrarch vampires get +1 power dice) the best we can do is to alter our tactics, I'm sure that after a while and endless success with the above character selection you'd change it anyway, the rules change is just forcing that on you.

Have you considered now though that with the new rules, most armies will be casting fewer spells, not jut yours and so you won't need quite so much in the way of magical defence?

You could replace at least one of your dispell scrolls with a power stone.

If the tactical benefit of the extra spell from the spell familiar is no longer appealing, again, swap that for a power stone.

If you're really more concerned with magical proficiency you could take an extreme measure and replace the Necrarch with a L4 Necromancer.

Nell2ThaIzzay
05-07-2006, 11:34
I'm sure that after a while and endless success with the above character selection you'd change it anyway, the rules change is just forcing that on you.

Endless success is something I haven't even come close to yet.

I don't know if my army just doesn't work against Skaven or what (as that's the army I play the most), but I often get slaughtered in games against my friend, no matter how much magic I throw at him. Usually because magic is so unreliable.

I have to worry about getting the cast off, him trying to dispel it, getting a good effect, and unless it's a high level Vampire, my mages are all weak, and easily killed. If I don't put them in units, magic, shooting, or sneaky charges will whipe them out, and if I put them in regiments of protect them, they get wiped out in combat, so from my point of view, I don't see magic as being some over powered phase because, although the right lore and the right circumstances CAN cause some serious havok, there is much risk that goes into it in a naturally unreliable process, and weak characters that fuel it, making it easy for your opponent to take them out.

I for one don't camp my Wizards out in woods and stuff and fire non-LOS spells all over the board.

Again, in my experience, magic isn't some uber powerful phase that single handedly determines the outcome of games and is in need of a tonedown. In my experience, building around a magic phase has cost me severely a number of times, because I have a combat weak army, and I'm not spending those points on heavy combat which is tons more reliable than magic.

It's also why I take so personally Adept's comments about how I should and shouldn't play, because this is a fantasy based game, and magic should be a perfectly viable option to build an army around, just as viable as combat, shooting, and the movement phase.

bored1
05-07-2006, 19:31
I got tired of reading...so...Nell2ThaIzzay: A couple of points:

1. Magic is not necessarily weakened in the sense you seem to think. Let's say you have 2 lvl 2's and a lvl 4. This will be 10 dice. Currently, with most lores, I'd throw 3, 3, and 4 dice. Perhaps, again lore-dependent, one could do something like 3, 3, 2 and 2, but I'd say this is far less reliable (the first option will probably cast 3 spells at a decent casting value, the second option will probably cast 3 spells at a less good casting value). Under the new rules, I'd be able to do the exact same thing. It's this that brings up the real issues. As a side note, I will say that it what the changes do do is that they stop certain builds from working quite as well. For example, a WE or Bret magic list with a lvl 4 (life) who uses the dice generated to do most of the damage. I would say the biggest effect will be on lizardmen w/ the slaan.

2. The problem with the new rules is 2-fold (at least initially):

-It does nothing to help "middle-magic". Dispel scrolls are unchanged. So let's say you bring 2 lvl 2's. Currently, this is far from optimal in most lists. A single level 1 and some intelligent play (3 dice, 2 scrolls, mage-hunting) will shut you down long enough for the opponent to take advantage of your "wasted" points. Under the new edition, I still see no advantage in taking the 2 lvl 2's (though there is no real increased negative either)

-Magic is still plenty potent, just where it is so has shifted. For example, skaven magic is just as strong. Due to the weakness elsewhere, this means that it is relatively stronger. In addition, the fact that other magic will now be decreasing in quantity (and hence magic defense as well), it could become even more of a problem. Similarly, I worry about Slaanesh lore, as well as necromancy.

WillFightForFood
05-07-2006, 19:58
With my list above, that's a total of 12 power dice to distribute between up to 8 different spells (4 Invokations, 4 non-Invokation spells with my Count, and 1 non-Invokation spell per Necromancer)
This is the type of formation that is causing GW to make the changes.


I don't know what this "mage battery" strategy is all about, because I don't do that. I use my power dice on spells wherever I need them. If that so happens to be my Count casting all the spells, then so be it, but I've never once done that. Sure, my Count will use more than 3 or 4 spell dice a magic phase sometimes, but most of it is different spells coming from my different Necromancers.
Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean a lot of people that exploit rules weaknesses don't. 7th edition is about shoring up the leaks in the system from 6th edition. That people can mage battery (transfer all the powerdice from low level characters to a high level character), is definitely problematic.



What will I lose with these rumored changes?

Magic flexibility.
You will not lose all magic flexibility. You will lose the ability of casters to transfer powerdice to other casters. You will still have the ability to distribute pool dice and the ability to use items to up dice for really important spells.

Here's a question, and honestly this is for curiousity - why do you believe that that particular aspect of magic flexibility should be there in the first place? What justification is there for such a system? Where in the fluff does it say that the presence of another caster in battle allows other casters to draw on him without any other work? Why should casters have the ability to simply lend their power to other casters with no risk and no rolls associated with it? If you think that casters should be able to work together in a group incantation, that's fine and probably would pose for some interesting gaming, but that would be another mechanic entirely (and it would have to incorporate some risk for the assisting mages).

As mentioned in a previous post regarding this subject, HtH and shooting don't get better through the simple presence of a similar unit on the board. To gain the advantage they have to work together and concentrate on a single target. One unit cannot lend attacks to another unit somewhere else on the board to help that unit, and, in effect, that is what mages are doing in 6th edition with power dice. If you can come up with a reason consistent with the other rules, with fluff, or something in the warhammer universe, that might make more sense, especially given how so many WHFB games have been abused by the current rules.

Magic is going to shift some, but the basic elements of flexibility will remain. So you'll have to take some extra items for powerdice instead of packing up dispell scrolls, this is not a hefty change. Power stones are under used anyway for the exact reason that people can transfer dice.

The thing is, right now you're arguing a game of theoryhammer when you really should be waiting until the edition is released and you see how the whole system stacks up, including magic. Wait, play a few games, and reserve judgement until then. You might actually enjoy it more if you give it a fair chance. If it does turn out to be so horrendous I'm sure one of us will buy you a consolation beer and your army.

Math Mathonwy
06-07-2006, 14:09
4) Bolt Throwers rules still nutsy
What's this? I don't think I've heard of trouble with Bolt Throwers before...

mageith
06-07-2006, 14:29
What's this? I don't think I've heard of trouble with Bolt Throwers before...

They weave and dodge around characters when going through units. They don't follow the randomize rules for shooting, but have their own unique rule. The rules are so confusing many people just ignore them and treat it like a cannon template. Some folks call it the most abstract rule in the game.

Actually everything's covered in the rules so in that respect the they might not need changing but OTOH I don't think many follow the rules either.

alextroy
07-07-2006, 00:35
How strange. The only problem I have with bolt throwers is that you have to roll one die at a time, making them a time-consuming weapon. Other then that, the rules are easy to understand.

gjnoronh
07-07-2006, 01:12
You miss the point of the changes. Close combat increases at pretty much an arithmetic level for every point you pump into it. Missile fire increases in power at an arithmetic level but is pretty much capped by how wide your unit can be and how wide your missile lanes are.

Under 6th edition, magic gains in strength at a faster than arithmetic rate. Adding one extra wizard not only increases your strength, but decreases your opponent's strength. Adding more wizards increases your strength even more than the first wizard and decreases your opponent's strength even more than the first wizard. Not only that, but the presence of an additional wizard adds potential power to all other wizards on the field.

Nothing else in the game works like this. When you add another unit of missile troops your opponent's missile troops don't get worse. One of your Captains can't lend a WS point to another Captain on the other side of the board that needs it on an attack. The changes are to bring wizards in line with other units in terms of what they add to the field and what they add to extra units. Now a level 2 wizard is only as good as the two spells he has available and his powerdice + pool power dice. Magic will still be viable and a wizard lord will still be powerful, there haven't been any substantiated rumors to the contrary. In fact, the changes may improve overall game play because people may not feel the need to bring 2-3 scroll caddies to survive. They may actually try out some of the lesser used heroes.


I just want to thank you for an elegant look at the role of differnt point expenditures in different phases.

The corollary is the opposite review of points spent on defense against certain phases. You can build a list with little movement (dwarves), no shooting (many lists), or little combat ability (skink/dark elf/wood elf avoidance lists, gunlines and HE magic/shooting batteries) and still win the game. It's quite difficult under sixth edition rules however to avoid spending points on magic defense and still play in a competitive environment. Most tournaments at 2K require 4-5 dispell dice and 2 scrolls. Any less and you are nearly gauranteed a loss against a tournament level magic army.

You wouldn't believe the number of times I've seen a khorne player discuss fielding a shaman with scrolls to up their defense against magic. It comes up about nce a month on the herdstone. THey have no interest in using magic, no desire to get magic users, but teh way the current magic rules are they are forced to spend points on a character who is only there for "just in case" (in many lists we are talking about 120-150 points on a caddy) That's a good chunk of points for a model only there for a defensive role.

I don't know that seventh will change the need for those anti magic defense points, but it woudl be nice if it made the nothing beyond base dispell dice list a possibilty.

Gary

Spaco
07-07-2006, 02:29
Are swarms worth taking with the rumored changes? That's quite a blow to their worth, in my opinion.

Adept
07-07-2006, 04:13
Are swarms worth taking with the rumored changes? That's quite a blow to their worth, in my opinion.

Until the relevant army books are done, no. Swarms will get pasted in combat, and at a cost of ~60 points per base, it's simply not efficient.

mageith
07-07-2006, 05:01
How strange. The only problem I have with bolt throwers is that you have to roll one die at a time, making them a time-consuming weapon. Other then that, the rules are easy to understand.
As I said the rules are clear, they just aren't followed by the people I've played with and when I do point how they work, they're surprised.

An example:
.x
xcx

Bolt from the side. What's the chances of it hitting the (c) character?

Adept
07-07-2006, 05:26
An example:
.x
xcx

Bolt from the side. What's the chances of it hitting the (c) character?

Do you mean;


x
xcx <-

Where the bolt hits as indicated by the arrow?

I would roll to wound for the first x, and if he is killed, then roll a 'Look out, sir!' for the character. If he failed it, I'd roll for the character, and if he is killed, then roll for the third and last model.

mageith
07-07-2006, 05:49
Do you mean;


x
xcx <-

No. I meant what I drew. Incomplete ranks are in the middle (except for Brets). But it really doesn't make any difference.



Where the bolt hits as indicated by the arrow?

I would roll to wound for the first x, and if he is killed, then roll a 'Look out, sir!' for the character. If he failed it, I'd roll for the character, and if he is killed, then roll for the third and last model.
Thanks for illustrating my point. Now go back and read the rule. (124) You made two or three mistakes.

Mage Ith

Adept
07-07-2006, 06:50
No. I meant what I drew. Incomplete ranks are in the middle (except for Brets). But it really doesn't make any difference.

Oh yeah...

We generally put them on the flanks, for whatever reason.


Thanks for illustrating my point. Now go back and read the rule. (124) You made two or three mistakes.

Mage Ith

I know. I'm not sure how the rules manage it, that's just how we do it around here.

mageith
07-07-2006, 07:29
I know. I'm not sure how the rules manage it, that's just how we do it around here.
Isn't that what I kind of said? Quoting myself: "Actually everything's covered in the rules so in that respect the they might not need changing but OTOH I don't think many follow the rules either."

So is it a problem that you (and others) don't follow the (nutsy) rules for the Bolt Thrower?

I'd really like to hear alextroy's solution. ;)

Adept
07-07-2006, 09:22
Isn't that what I kind of said?

Indeed. I was agreeing with you. I know it's rare for two parties to agree on anything on teh intarweb, but it happens from time to time.


So is it a problem that you (and others) don't follow the (nutsy) rules for the Bolt Thrower?

No. At least, not in a local sense. We have a result that makes sense to us, is easily applicable, and we all know it.

On a global, tournament level sense, it becomes problematic when different house rules variants can clash.

Baindread
07-07-2006, 09:41
I've got a question regarding the discussion about magic which was going on earlier. How do you see Tzeentch armies with Staff of Change well....change with the new magic rules? Isn't it going to be roughly the same?

Avian
07-07-2006, 12:52
Bolt from the side. What's the chances of it hitting the (c) character?
50/50 if the first guy dies.



I've got a question regarding the discussion about magic which was going on earlier. How do you see Tzeentch armies with Staff of Change well....change with the new magic rules? Isn't it going to be roughly the same?
If the guy with the Staff is currently pretty much the only one spending the power dice, it will be a bit worse since he'll have fewer dice at his disposal.

Baindread
07-07-2006, 21:19
If the guy with the Staff is currently pretty much the only one spending the power dice, it will be a bit worse since he'll have fewer dice at his disposal.

But the difference won't be so big since Tzeentch get a bunch of communal dices from their units?

gjnoronh
07-07-2006, 23:08
I think that's correct. I'm assuming dice from units with MoT will be treated like the "base army dice" and used by any caster.

WillFightForFood
07-07-2006, 23:39
The unfortunate problem with that is that MoT armies may be able to effectively circumvent the new magic restrictions, making them more powerful than they were. Thus, if they weren't broken in 6th edition, they may well be until they get another book.

Razhem
07-07-2006, 23:44
The lore of tzeench ainīt precisely the best, and everybody dispels like before, so I donīt think itīll be much of a problem

alextroy
08-07-2006, 01:25
As I said the rules are clear, they just aren't followed by the people I've played with and when I do point how they work, they're surprised.

An example:
.x
xcx

Bolt from the side. What's the chances of it hitting the (c) character?
The chance is none, since character's can be hit by bolt throwers unless their are only characters on the facing rank of the unit.

Just think of it as a "Look Out Sir" roll that always succeeds. In this case, there are three ranks from the side, so the guy behind the character pushes him out of the way and takes the hit.

That wasn't so hard ;)

Baindread
08-07-2006, 10:27
The lore of tzeench ainīt precisely the best, and everybody dispels like before, so I donīt think itīll be much of a problem

Well, it won't be better than before. Rather almost as it was before and that is what really bothers me. It gets worse for everyone else but Tzeentch remains the same which means they in relative terms become stronger. The miscast is getting worse for everyone else while Tzeentch remain relatively unaffected due to the nature of the Staff (Yes, a capital S;) ).

I just wished that they would review some items at the release of 7th ed. but that won't happen. I'll just be glad that they fixed skirmishers so that there is a theoretical way to beat Beast Tzeentch.

mageith
08-07-2006, 15:56
Well, it won't be better than before. Rather almost as it was before and that is what really bothers me. It gets worse for everyone else but Tzeentch remains the same which means they in relative terms become stronger.

Perhaps relatively to other MAGICAL based armies but not in relation to the game. Tzeentch is hardly dominating now, is it?

I think the reason is that Chaos in general is largely overcosted and the Tzeentch Lore in particular is not that strong.



I just wished that they would review some items at the release of 7th ed. but that won't happen. I'll just be glad that they fixed skirmishers so that there is a theoretical way to beat Beast Tzeentch.
Daemonic Legion or normal Beast Tzeentch?

Baindread
09-07-2006, 01:16
Perhaps relatively to other MAGICAL based armies but not in relation to the game. Tzeentch is hardly dominating now, is it?


Here it is. I speak of my experience with my fellow gamers and our group and how we view Tzeentch. And I mean in comparison with other magically based armies of course. I don't mean in comparison to the game as a whole.




I think the reason is that Chaos in general is largely overcosted and the Tzeentch Lore in particular is not that strong.


I have the belief that it is.



Daemonic Legion or normal Beast Tzeentch?

We have an excellent beast of chaos-player who very well executes the fighting retreat approach with a Tzeentch beast lord in a herd, firing off missiles and always backing away from any incoming enemies. Almost impossible to deal with.