PDA

View Full Version : How big should magic be?



Commissar von Toussaint
09-08-2006, 00:54
Thinking about magic for my own game, I was wondering what people thought about magic levels in WHFB.

In 5th ed., magic was all you needed to win. The Forbidden Rod was pretty much mass produced based on how many I ran into (shoulda been called the "Mandatory Rod") and you could pretty much sweep all before you with a solid spellcaster.

In 6th, the balance shifted back at first, but as the books came out, magic again became a key element to victory.

How much is too much?

Specifically, what role to you see magic playing?

Is it artillery, something that reaches out and kills people?

Is it a support, something that shouldn't do direct harm, but instead enhances units so that they can kill?

Or is it the ne plus ultra of warfare, capable of wiping out whole units in a turn?

What do you think?

DeathMasterSnikch
09-08-2006, 01:03
I think of it as a mix of the first 2 styles but when it comes to things like 2nd gen Slann, Nagash etc surely they should be able to destroy units in 1 go. Depending on magic lvl and army magic should provide different roles.

TheWarSmith
09-08-2006, 01:06
I think the nuke rewards are a bit too high for magic. Sure, it should be able to "reach out and kill someone", but i'd like it if it was a bit more support than it is currently.

Certain lores have it right, like beasts. Most of this is all about alteration, not killing. It's only got one nuke spell, and it's not that good.

I wish there was a way to go middle of the road with magic. As tons have said before, it's almost all or nothing, and it's very game theoretic.

"I'll take magic just so that if my enemy does, i'm not screwed"

deamon
09-08-2006, 02:32
Magicsould definatly be an atillery / support option ad not a game win in itself

Sasquatch
09-08-2006, 03:14
I'm on the light artillery / support side of the argument. Special characters aside, you should not be able to blast a whole R&F unit with a single spell. Cause enough for a panic test, yes, but not take out the whole unit.

But is also depends which armies you face/play. Many armies tend to push the players towards high levels of magic. Tzeentch, Undead, High Elf push towards magic heavy lists, while armies like Khorne and Dwarves have little/no castable magic, but high dispel capabilities. More middle of the road armies will struggle in these situations, either because they'll get blasted to bits, or have their own magic phase neutered.

Magic using characters cost a lot of points, so you expect some return on investment. But in the majority of cases, I think the balance is skewed towards the return. Rarely have I seen a well used wizard not be worth his points. Wether it's outright blasting or unit support.

Magic, like every other phase, should be able to change the flow of the game. But it should not be better (or worse) at doing this than any other phase or aspect of the game.

DeathMasterSnikch
09-08-2006, 03:29
Special characters aside, you should not be able to blast a whole R&F unit with a single spell. Cause enough for a panic test, yes, but not take out the whole unit.

But is also depends which armies you face/play. Many armies tend to push the players towards high levels of magic. Tzeentch, Undead, High Elf push towards magic heavy lists, while armies like Khorne and Dwarves have little/no castable magic, but high dispel capabilities. .

You missed Lizardmen from the magic heavy list ;)

And I fail to see where mentioning Khorne or Dwarves comes into this debate :wtf: They can't use magic therfore the question of 'How big should magic be?' surely doesn't concern them in the slightest.

I think units should be able to get decimated under certain situations. In high point games (I'm talking the rare 5k+ games) I've seen slann costing well over 700 points (Yes it was wearing the kitchen sink), when a single mage is that powerful surely it should be able to decimate units (within reason). I always being a warpscroll and that can cause mass casualties to low toughness horde units, considering that cost me 30 points I'd be pretty pissed if the mage I spent 700 points on couldn't do anything similar. (Yes I know it's the players choice to make such a :cheese: slann but still)

pox
09-08-2006, 06:06
I play very magic defensive, so naturally i would want it to have less of an effect. i find it can be game breaking, especially in 2500 pts or so, when one side takes the magician lord and the other goes for the leader. (this is especially noticable in ogre kingdom games, its not very kind, imho, to take a lvl 4 wiz, they cant even get one till 3000.)

I usually take one caster for every 1,000 pts, ande at least ONE dispell scroll per wiz. I dont mind the direct damage of most spells, but the truly damaging ones are spells that increase/enhance movement, those buggers can ruin your day.

All in all, I prefer to limit magic, and I usually discuss it with my opponent when we set the point limit of the game. obviously this doesnt apply as much to armys that NEED there magic too win, like vampire counts or tomb kings.

(besides, with less magic, more mini's on the board, so more tactical moving, and more excuses to make monsters.)

Nell2ThaIzzay
09-08-2006, 06:31
I think that Magic should be just as viable a strategy to build an army around as combat, shooting, or movement. I don't see any reason why magic shouldn't be the focus of an army, and how you win games.

What magic shouldn't be, is the be all end all. If a magic heavy army could inherently beat a non-magic army, then that's too far.

I don't see 6th edition being that way, which is why I was so vocal about the 7th edition changes. I play a very magic heavy Necrarch Vampire Counts list, and have gone against quite a few armies with nill magic defense, yet still lost or drawn, because better overall tactics from my opponent were able to prevail over my magic heaviness.

Therefore, I don't see magic as being overpowered, because I've never experienced a game in which magic determined the outcome of the game. Hence, I'm very defensive about the magic changes in 7th edition, and anyone who says that magic should merely be support.

samw
09-08-2006, 06:47
I approve of the changes to magic in 7th ed, because I think it will make medium magic viable. While people argue magic is made weaker, they forget about the knock on effect. Because magic now appears weaker, people will not feel compelled to take the near mandatory spell caddy. You will find far more armies with zero dispel ability. This means those two level two mages won't be useless for the first 2 turns. Magic should be all of the above things depending on lore choice and amount. When lore choice becomes a strategic decision rather than a compulsory (heavens) or random one, I think the situation will be helped.

mageith
09-08-2006, 07:07
In 6th, the balance shifted back at first, but as the books came out, magic again became a key element to victory.

How much is too much?

Specifically, what role to you see magic playing?

Is it artillery, something that reaches out and kills people?

The major elements of WFB are Movement, Magic, Shooting and Close Combat.

IMO, the other elements are supportive to the final phase, close combat. The purpose of Movement, Shooting and Magic should be to bring victory in the close combat phase.



Is it a support, something that shouldn't do direct harm, but instead enhances units so that they can kill?

Definitely support. It can do more than merely enhance units to kill. It can weaken and/or attrit enemy units so they can more easily be killed.



Or is it the ne plus ultra of warfare, capable of wiping out whole units in a turn?

I can even see certain highly powerful and risky magic spells being able to destroy a unit or two in a game, just as shooting can drive off a unit through panic or snipe a powerful character or monster.

But in the end, the armies have to get stuck in.

Put another way, I don't think the game could hold the interest of the players if it were largely wizard duels or shoot outs or non-engagement guerilla wars. Its a form of ancient warfare melded with heroic fantasy. I think that's what GW is selling in their game of Fantasy Battles.

Twisted Ferret
09-08-2006, 07:47
The major elements of WFB are Movement, Magic, Shooting and Close Combat.

IMO, the other elements are supportive to the final phase, close combat. The purpose of Movement, Shooting and Magic should be to bring victory in the close combat phase.


Definitely support. It can do more than merely enhance units to kill. It can weaken and/or attrit enemy units so they can more easily be killed.


I can even see certain highly powerful and risky magic spells being able to destroy a unit or two in a game, just as shooting can drive off a unit through panic or snipe a powerful character or monster.

But in the end, the armies have to get stuck in.

Put another way, I don't think the game could hold the interest of the players if it were largely wizard duels or shoot outs or non-engagement guerilla wars. Its a form of ancient warfare melded with heroic fantasy. I think that's what GW is selling in their game of Fantasy Battles.
I disagree. Close combat is my least favorite phase, and all of the armies I like are built around either shooting, or magic. Magic especially - the most fantastical and, in my opinion, awesome part of the game. I love to envision my level 4 wizard lord of Tzeentch blasting the hell out of the enemy. :)

Galonthar
09-08-2006, 08:52
IMO magic should be support / lightly damaging (with the logical exeptions as HE etc.)
the number of really destructive spells should be lowered (conflag. of doom , comet of cassandora...)

it should be a force to be reconed with, but not one that blows your host to hell in a single turn (experienced that to many times...)

samw
09-08-2006, 09:28
I think there should be potential in magic to cause massive havoc, but it should be unlikely. There will be times as an empire, dwarf or skaven player where every soldier with a missile weapon is a crack shot and every warmachine seems to have a laser sight on its turret and a tactical nuke in its barrel. However this is a rare occurence, and things may go massively wrong (especially if you're the ratmen :p ). I think Magic should be on the same scale. You can play it safe with your mid or low level casters (think a cannon) or try for massive destruction with Lv3 and 4 mages going for 12+spells (think hell-blaster volley gun.) The risk is only worth it if there is that wondeful pay off. From what I hear the 12+ spells from Metal and Shadow at least seem to have followed this path.

chivalrous
09-08-2006, 11:39
Magic heavy should be as viable (and reliable) a tactic as going heavy with any other troop type. And should for a limited number of armies be the core factor to the tactics they employ.

Bretonnians rely on a core of Heavy cavalry while paying for this with very small numbers and weak infantry and magic capability.

Dwarfs can rely on having a large amount of artillery to bring to bear but suffer from an inability to move, umm, much.:p

Greenskin hordes can mass their troops but really do suffer with animosity rolls

Skaven hordes suffer from amazingly poor leadership and other statistics, their artillery is quite powerful but also unreliable and the points spent on that eat into the points you can spend on infantry an loosing out on taking full advantage of the strength in numbers rule.

Undead can go magic heavy but sacrifice movement and depending on what bloodline they choose, sacrifice combat ability or magic ability.

Magic itself should be there to enhance the strengths of an army, not to fill in the cracks and bolster the weaknesses.

So Chaos magic shouldn't be raining death from afar, it should be up close and personal, improviing performance in combat and a few very close range (no more than 12") damage dealers.

Undead magic should be used to bolster the hordes of infantry.

The trouble is that you then come to good all rounder armies like Empire and High Elves who have access to 8 different lores that do plug the gaps and who can go magic heavy but still have a reasonably strong army.

I do think that of you're going to go magic heavy then you should sacrifice ability in another phase, just like the above armies sacrifice something to play to their particular strength.

Sasquatch
09-08-2006, 14:57
You missed Lizardmen from the magic heavy list ;)

Oops on the lizardmen, definatly another high magic army.


And I fail to see where mentioning Khorne or Dwarves comes into this debate :wtf: They can't use magic therfore the question of 'How big should magic be?' surely doesn't concern them in the slightest.

As for the mention of Khorne and Dwarves, this discussion also concerns them to a certain extent. Sure, they can't blow units off the field, but since everyone agrees that magic is an important and integral part of the game, having your magic shut down by an army with loads of dispel can be considered a "high level of magic".

How many mages does it take to equal the dispel dice of a khorne or dwarf army? If my skaven army is forking out 400-500 points on a grey seer, warlock(s) and magic items, I don't want all that offense shut down. Also, in those points that i'm spending, I also have magic defense, in the form of dispel dice and possibly dispel scrolls (assuming I don't customize to the opponent). The inherent (dispel dice) or explicit (scrolls) cost that I'm paying for that defense isn't going to other aspects of my army which may be more useful.


I think units should be able to get decimated under certain situations. In high point games (I'm talking the rare 5k+ games) I've seen slann costing well over 700 points (Yes it was wearing the kitchen sink), when a single mage is that powerful surely it should be able to decimate units (within reason). I always being a warpscroll and that can cause mass casualties to low toughness horde units, considering that cost me 30 points I'd be pretty pissed if the mage I spent 700 points on couldn't do anything similar. (Yes I know it's the players choice to make such a :cheese: slann but still)

I was talking about standard tourney sized armies. Around 2K pts. Magic should scale with army size, so when you're playing at 5K, you should have the potential to blast whole units. But at 5K, you can generally afford to loose a unit or two. My skaven force (if I had 5K) would need a 10' wide deployment zone to get all the regiments on the table!

DeathMasterSnikch
09-08-2006, 16:28
I was talking about standard tourney sized armies. Around 2K pts. Magic should scale with army size, so when you're playing at 5K, you should have the potential to blast whole units. But at 5K, you can generally afford to loose a unit or two. My skaven force (if I had 5K) would need a 10' wide deployment zone to get all the regiments on the table!

Mine will finally be the 5k horde it was born to be on the 5th of september :) Shame my friends havn't got that far yet. Suppose they'll be playing last stands etc :p

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-08-2006, 17:38
The major elements of WFB are Movement, Magic, Shooting and Close Combat.

IMO, the other elements are supportive to the final phase, close combat. The purpose of Movement, Shooting and Magic should be to bring victory in the close combat phase.

<snip>



You know, for once I think we actually completly agree! :p

Magic should be a supportive element in the game, but it can spans all the other phases in that effect. It being used as artilery isn't bad either, again, as long as it's not on an army destroying scale. That just isn't very fun, and doesn't make for very much of a game.

Venomizer
09-08-2006, 18:42
Personally, I think magic should be largely supportive to the rest of the army, but it should also have a slight 'kick' of offensive power as well

arxhon
09-08-2006, 19:23
I agree with the assessment that magic is a phase as equally weighty as movement, close combat and so on. As a result, if you blow several hundred points on magic, then it should give you an advantage similar to having troops who are super hard.

Here is my theory:

People have issues with magic because they lose their 300 point uber-killy unit of knights to a series of magic missiles.

They tend to forget that the uber killy unit of knights tends to even more easily tear apart whatever unit they come into contact with as combat resolution is far more reliable and decisive than a couple of rounds of shooting.

By piling points into magic, you're making serious sacrifices everywhere else. As mentioned before, a high level wizard costs as much as a unit of heavy cavalry, or even a couple of units of troops, or even a few war machines, and a low level one will generally cost a medium sized unit of troops.

Can magic be abused?

Sure, the same way that armies made entirely of heavy cavalry and chariots can be abused. Is it easily abused? Not really. A Tzeentch army tends to be really small in size, for example, and requires huge amounts of points to make it 'effective".

EDIT: Two typos

Nell2ThaIzzay
09-08-2006, 20:16
I agree with the assessment that magic is a phase as equally weighty as movement, close combat and so on. As aresult, if you blow several hundred points on magic, then it should give you an advantage similar to having troops who are super hard.

Here is my theory:

People have issues with magic is because they lose their 300 point uber-killy unit of knights to a series of magic missiles.

They tend to forget that the uber killy unit of knights tends to even more easily tear apart whatever unit they come into contact with as combat resolution is far more reliable and decisive than a couple of rounds of shooting.

By piling points into magic, you're making serious sacrifices everywhere else. As mentioned before, a high level wizard costs as much as a unit of heavy cavalry, or even a couple of units of troops, or even a few war machines, and a low level one will generally cost a medium sized unit of troops.

Can magic be abused?

Sure, the same way that armies made entirely of heavy cavalry and chariots can be abused. Is it easily abused? Not really. A Tzeentch army tends to be really small in size, for example, and requires huge amounts of points to make it 'effective".

Totally right.

arxhon
09-08-2006, 22:52
I would have edited my post to reflect some further comments, but it's been quoted, so insert the following instead:

Where i say "troops who are super hard", i mean the stuff like Chaos/Grail knights, Plague Censer Bearers, Dwarf Slayers/Ironbreakers, Dragons, Giants and the other super tough non-character stuff that shows up in armies.

A further comment on Tzeentch armies:

It's easily possible to have piles and piles of power dice, and the way the magic rules were set up in 6E, it was pretty easy to go mental with it. As someone who plays a Tzeentch army, magic is the only thing going for it. It's not unusual to be outnumbered by 1.5:1 by even other Chaos armies (unless those armies are purely Knights and Chariots), and that's with large numbers of marauders to fill ranks.

Twisted Ferret
09-08-2006, 23:20
As someone who plays a Tzeentch army, magic is the only thing going for it. It's not unusual to be outnumbered by 1.5:1 by even other Chaos armies (unless those armies are purely Knights and Chariots), and that's with large numbers of marauders to fill ranks.
I just played in a little friendly tournament with a 1,000 point Tzeentch Mortals army, and I felt intimidated every time I set up. The enemy would always seem to have two time as many troops as I did! You're right - magic is very important to a Tzeentch army, and I think that's how it should be. Just as some armies are built around CC or speed or shooting or whatever, some should also be able to be built around magic. Someone earlier suggested that everything is really about Close Combat; it seems like that would get boring really fast, to me. Isn't part of the fun about all the diverse armies? How fun would it really be if every army basically just charged in and then left it to the dice?

Commissar von Toussaint
10-08-2006, 01:00
Here is my theory:

People have issues with magic because they lose their 300 point uber-killy unit of knights to a series of magic missiles.

An interesting theory. Perhaps correct in some cases. Not in mine.


They tend to forget that the uber killy unit of knights tends to even more easily tear apart whatever unit they come into contact with as combat resolution is far more reliable and decisive than a couple of rounds of shooting.

Actually, I think the issue most people have with magic is that this is a miniatures game.

I think people spend a lot of time painting their figures and like to actually use them. For them to die against a very small army with a handful of models is incredibly lame.

I wanted to play a game of subtle magic strategy, I'd play a different game.

But since I've invested in 500+ figures, I'd like them to be the decisive element of the game, not the one model with the three pages of special rules.

My thought is that magic should be a supporting element.

Moreover, it should be a positive choice.

One shouldn't take a wizard to shut down other wizards. One should take a wizard because one wants to cast spells.

But those spells should be adjuncts to an overall army strategy. I completely agree that no single spell should crush a unit. For legendary figures like Nagash and so forth, their special rules should include their special "kill a unit" spells.

arxhon
10-08-2006, 01:49
An interesting theory. Perhaps correct in some cases. Not in mine.

Actually, I think the issue most people have with magic is that this is a miniatures game.

I think people spend a lot of time painting their figures and like to actually use them. For them to die against a very small army with a handful of models is incredibly lame.

I wanted to play a game of subtle magic strategy, I'd play a different game.


Sure, like Magic: the Gathering.;) (though the subtlety of that game's strategy isn't something that should be debated here). I'm fully aware this is a miniatures game. It's also a miniatures game that reflects a world where magic basically created everything and infuses everything, has wizards, and as such, has rules to include them within the miniatures game. It's a very strong part of the background. Besides, many people like magic.



But since I've invested in 500+ figures, I'd like them to be the decisive element of the game, not the one model with the three pages of special rules.
[snip]

One shouldn't take a wizard to shut down other wizards. One should take a wizard because one wants to cast spells.

The second sentence here is a different argument, not something you appeared to want to address in your original post, and as such, takes things in a different tangent in an attempt to obscure the issue. Therefore, i call straw-man, and ignore it for the time being.

As for the third line, personally, i play a Tzeentch army because i want to cast spells. Magic in this army isn't a supporting element, it's the main element; it's the theme of the army. I want to see a small handful of units hold off and prevail against something that vastly outnumbers them through the powers of dark sorcery. Same applies to undead armies to a lesser extent (created and sustained by magic). That's what the focus of the army is.

When i want to field an army with 500 odd models, i roll up with my Skaven.



But those spells should be adjuncts to an overall army strategy. I completely agree that no single spell should crush a unit. For legendary figures like Nagash and so forth, their special rules should include their special "kill a unit" spells.

What if the army strategy is "cast a whole s#itload of spells"? The way things are set up for certain armies, that is the strategy. They pay through the nose for it.

I'm not saying a spell should crush a unit (unless that unit is, say, 5 models strong, or something), and i agree as well, having played 4E, where Arnizipal's Black Horror and that templated amethyst spell (that i can't remember the name of off-hand) with similar effects but was even more powerful wiped out entire armies, and man, that was no fun at all.

Basically you seem to be saying "i don't like magic. Therefore, people who spend points on wizards should just have those points be a complete waste." Perhaps this isn't the game for you.

shadowprince
10-08-2006, 02:54
I personally like how it is sounding in 7th edition. MAgic should always be a big part of Warhammer fantasy, as it is warhammer fantasy. It should be something to be reckoned with at a risk, and something that should have to be prepared for.

Commish normally I agree with you but in this case I think your off. Yes this is a miniture game but it is also a fantasy game, and Magic is normally what makes it fantasy.

MAgic is a powrful element, and is a tactical one both fluff wise and game wise. How many background battles were decided becuase of Teclis, or kroak. I see magic jsut as something else that should be used and prepared for. Like when I amke a list I think how I will defend against and use calvary, I look at magic the same way.

Twisted Ferret
10-08-2006, 03:33
Actually, I think the issue most people have with magic is that this is a miniatures game.

I think people spend a lot of time painting their figures and like to actually use them. For them to die against a very small army with a handful of models is incredibly lame.
I'm not sure what your point is. You prefer to imagine your models dying in hand to hand combat as opposed to by fireballs? Either way, a small army with good troops is going to - if wielded effectively - destroy your larger army. I'm not sure exactly why you seem to think that small armies somehow make it impossible to use your troops, either. If it's a big enough match in terms of points, you'll get to use your 500+ figures or whatever. Just because the enemy prefers to use heros or mages doesn't mean your models are somehow rendered useless. Isn't that the point of large armies, that you swamp the enemy?

Magic doesn't destroy strategy, it adds another element.

DeathMasterSnikch
10-08-2006, 04:00
Actually, I think the issue most people have with magic is that this is a miniatures game.

I think people spend a lot of time painting their figures and like to actually use them. For them to die against a very small army with a handful of models is incredibly lame..

That gives the impression that armies should be valued by the amount of minatures in them :wtf:. A hanful of models winning a game could be through better tactics, whats bad about that?

Minatures game..yeh...and?:confused: Most minature games are based in a world of fantasy therfore magic forms a core part.

Edit: Just thought I'd add this, Twisted Ferret is completely right, Magic just adds another element of strategy. Magic isn't exactly some no-brainer. Think of tactics.

Not every army can fight by 'marching until charge range, charging and rolling a lot of dice' Close combat is only a small aspect of the game. Khorne and dwarves would lose a lot of their strength is magic was toned down, they benefit from protection from magic therfore that would most likely be toned down along with magic, otherwise they would beast a lot of other armies in CC.

Some armies need more than just CC to play a game.

whitra
10-08-2006, 04:12
I think you've all misinterpreted CvT's point. Since the game is primarily organized around regiments, it's dissapointing when the game is not decided by how the regiments are used, but rather how the spells, represented on the table by only a single model or two, turn out.

The magic phase hardly requires physical representation on the board. All it requires (with one or two notable exceptions) is a single model from which to designate range. The other aspects of the game mandate pretty precise attention to the physical representation: where a unit is in relation to everything else, it's personal facing, etc.

He's not saying that value comes from the number of miniatures, (I think) he's saying that it detracts from the desired affect of a table top wargame when the large chunks of units-the visually appealing aspect of wargaming that makes us want to play this instead of magic or a computer game- is largely secondary to a highly abstracted magic phase that has no in-game representation.

DeathMasterSnikch
10-08-2006, 04:26
I think you've all misinterpreted CvT's point. Since the game is primarily organized around regiments, it's dissapointing when the game is not decided by how the regiments are used, but rather how the spells, represented on the table by only a single model or two, turn out.

No one argues that magic should detract from the use of troops. Magic (except in :cheese: cases) hardly ever decides a game. Whats more dissapointing is when you roll snakeyes for your generals 3+ armour save on his last wound. If somone attempts to play a game without good use of regiements and instead depends on magic, they will lose. Regiments are more important that magic in warhammer and always will be, more so in the new rules when wizards cant snipe from teh sidelines of troops.


He's not saying that value comes from the number of miniatures, (I think) he's saying that it detracts from the desired affect of a table top wargame when the large chunks of units-the visually appealing aspect of wargaming that makes us want to play this instead of magic or a computer game- is largely secondary to a highly abstracted magic phase that has no in-game representation.

I think If magic played a smaller part in warhammer that would detract from the desiered effect even more. WOW! My slann that can move continents killed 3 empire spearmen!, call that a 'desired effect'?

whitra
10-08-2006, 04:56
When I say desired affect, I mean that we're spending $300+ too make pretty representations of armies on the table. The magic phase is arguably the most abstracted (separate from the representation) part of the game, and so I feel a bit put out when that, rather than pushing around my blocks of troops, decides a game.

So yes, I'd say magic is against the desired affect. I'd call it a difference in opinion. If a model is so powerful as to move continents, then I don't think it belongs on the tabletop, for the same reason I'd object to the equivalent of a nuclear blast or titan in 40k. Sure, I'm willing to accept that such things exist in a fantastic universe, but I think they're beyond the scale of the battles represented on the table. And yes, I'd say the same thing about Archaon or Steam Tanks.

In my previous post, I was trying to explain what I thought CvT meant. I did that in part because overall I agree with him that I'd like it if magic played a smaller role. However, most of the fantasy games I played were at 3,000 or 4,000 points, so I cannot comment on whether or not magic is overpowered in normal fantasy games. My gut instict is to say that it probably is balanced, it's just not designed the way I'd prefer it to be.

Commissar von Toussaint
11-08-2006, 01:05
Yes, I certainly didn't mean to say that I use all of those models at once. :eek:

Sheesh. That would be a long game.

My point is twofold.

Firstly this is a game of tabletop battles. That being the case, the decision of the game should come down to the battle, not the spells.

I am most definitively not saying that numbers should always win, only that it simply isn't any fun to take a mini out of the box and put it on the table when it's only going to get put back again without so much as seeing the enemy. Which can happen with magic.

Secondly, magic involves very little strategy. You spend the points, roll the dice and it works. Or it doesn't.

There are no flanks, no rear charges. If I bring a level 4 and you bring a level 1, you are tricked, period. The only way you can succeed is for the dice to really go your way.

However, on the tabletop, even the inferior unit can be the superior one through better handling. I know we've all seen a lowly unit like Empire infantry or goblins break an elite one with a well-timed flank charge.

What magic does is eliminate those opportunities, and I dislike that. It's like buying "tactics insurance" to get you out of a scrape.

Yesterday I was paging through 5th Ed. Magic. Yikes! :eek: Now that was pretty imbalancing. Certainly things are better.

DeathMasterSnikch
11-08-2006, 01:49
I am most definitively not saying that numbers should always win, only that it simply isn't any fun to take a mini out of the box and put it on the table when it's only going to get put back again without so much as seeing the enemy.

Hey, I still bring my skaven slaves :p

I see where you're coming from I just don't agree, sorry. It's not just a game of minature battles it's a game of fantasy battle and If a game doesn't include men/rats/lizards/goats/fishmen getting incinerated/electrocuted or killed in some other strange way.

I can completely understand where you're coming from It's happend more than once that my fave unit has been thinned to a single rank (or less) before they even reach combat BUT half the time thats through missile fire. Missile fire is just as abstract as magic and can be just as effective.

whitra
11-08-2006, 02:27
I wonder what the game would look like if magic lacked it's direct damage component. Instead of having a shooting/artillery aspect, it just had spelled that affected the psychology, maneuverability, and combat effectiveness of the armies. Something along the lines of the way Gandalf was portrayed in all but his fight against the Nazgul in RotK (books): he never has pyrotechnics that outright kill things, but he is able to bolster the abilites of others.

Magic still has the ability to be game winning, without damaging units, and magic would be further distinguished from the shooting phase.

I'd like something like this, but then again, I'll freely admit to a bias against magic in warhammer.

Twisted Ferret
11-08-2006, 03:06
Firstly this is a game of tabletop battles. That being the case, the decision of the game should come down to the battle, not the spells.
Spells are part of the battle.


I am most definitively not saying that numbers should always win, only that it simply isn't any fun to take a mini out of the box and put it on the table when it's only going to get put back again without so much as seeing the enemy. Which can happen with magic.
Either you put a mini on the table and move it far away from the enemy, or you put a mini on the table and move it close to the enemy. :confused: There's no actual sword-swinging involved...


Secondly, magic involves very little strategy. You spend the points, roll the dice and it works. Or it doesn't.
It can't win the game on its own. The point is to spend your points and use the spells you get wisely. I used my Champion of Tzeentch, for instance, to soften the enemy up with magic missile fire as he charged up, and then to cover himself with a defensive spell once he became embroiled in close combat. My friend, on the other hand, just made his mage wander around in bad positions and cast missiles the few times it could... which, while it may not have been battle-losing on its own, certainly didn't help. I spent 200 points on a mage and had to balance that with the rest of my army, and used his spells to bolster my army's tactical effectiveness. Sounds like strategy to me. More strategy, in fact, than stationary cannons or single-attack (as opposed to two spells + CC effectiveness) archers.

You could say CC is the same way: You just roll dice, and it works or it doesn't. However, there are lots of things you can do to make sure that luck won't have to go your way that much to win. It's the same with magic.

Twisted Ferret
11-08-2006, 03:12
The magic phase hardly requires physical representation on the board. All it requires (with one or two notable exceptions) is a single model from which to designate range. The other aspects of the game mandate pretty precise attention to the physical representation: where a unit is in relation to everything else, it's personal facing, etc.
It's not different with mages! You have to be able to see the enemy (most of the time), be in range, etc.


He's not saying that value comes from the number of miniatures, (I think) he's saying that it detracts from the desired affect of a table top wargame when the large chunks of units-the visually appealing aspect of wargaming that makes us want to play this instead of magic or a computer game- is largely secondary to a highly abstracted magic phase that has no in-game representation.
It's only like this if both armies spend all of their points on magic. A smaller army of high-points-cost units still needs to be outmaneuvred etc.


I think you've all misinterpreted CvT's point. Since the game is primarily organized around regiments, it's dissapointing when the game is not decided by how the regiments are used, but rather how the spells, represented on the table by only a single model or two, turn out.

When I say desired affect, I mean that we're spending $300+ too make pretty representations of armies on the table. The magic phase is arguably the most abstracted (separate from the representation) part of the game, and so I feel a bit put out when that, rather than pushing around my blocks of troops, decides a game.

Sounds like you're not against magic per se, but overpowered single models of any sort. Balanced magic isn't game-deciding by itself, I think, but rather helpful. Of course, if I'm taking an army devoted to the God of Magic and led by a mage ascended to Daemonhood I'd like it to play a larger role... but I think that just means you have to adapt your tactics, not that it's impossible to win against.

DeathMasterSnikch
11-08-2006, 03:12
I wonder what the game would look like if magic lacked it's direct damage component. Instead of having a shooting/artillery aspect, it just had spelled that affected the psychology, maneuverability, and combat effectiveness of the armies.

We already have that...Amber wizards - Lore of Beasts.



You could say CC is the same way: You just roll dice, and it works or it doesn't. However, there are lots of things you can do to make sure that luck won't have to go your way that much to win. It's the same with magic.

You could say combats even worse because with banner, rank etc (things that benefit combat res before the dice rolling even begins) will give you auto combat res therfore somtimes it can be a simple 'I have this, this and this in my unit so I win by default'.

Twisted Ferret
11-08-2006, 03:15
You could say combats even worse because with banner, rank etc (things that benefit combat res before the dice rolling even begins) will give you auto combat res therfore somtimes it can be a simple 'I have this, this and this in my unit so I win by default'.
Heh, yeah. You don't even have multiple attacks to choose from, usually, and magic has many subtle effects whereas CC is just "swing sword, make wound". :p

shadowprince
11-08-2006, 06:20
Ok hows this shooting takes no stratagy pick a target shoot it kill it or not. Same as magic. This is a battle game and magic is a part of the battle. And , magic is a part of the tactics. Example. useing the wood elf lore almost none of it drectly does damage but is still game changeing.

And about the post that sad the people spending a lot of money on their large miniture army getting beat by a smaller miniature army that didn;t cost a lot, So you want this to be turned into a who makes more money game.

And I have never really seen that thing as normally elite infrantry aren't in huge blocks tht just stand there. The empire players and skaven player sI play are either gunlines/SAD or HUGE units that really don;t move and just march forward.

ebolatheripe
11-08-2006, 07:08
I think Magic just adds another facet of choice and versatility to the game. I love that two players can play a game and one army have triple the number of models than his/her opponent and still lose. Without the Magical aspect WHFB would just be like a Historicle battle game (with Daemons and Trolls and whatnot:p ).

I use Mages in my Chaos Dwarf army to have my slow warriors units still present a long range threat so my opponent can't just ignore them in favor of killing the fast elements of my army (Hobgob. Wolf riders, Bull Centaurs). So I would probably categorize that as an Artillery style.

Magic is no more abstract in the game than Magic Items that aren't physically represented but can have a huge impact.

Gorbad Ironclaw
11-08-2006, 08:14
Secondly, magic involves very little strategy. You spend the points, roll the dice and it works. Or it doesn't.

There are no flanks, no rear charges. If I bring a level 4 and you bring a level 1, you are tricked, period. The only way you can succeed is for the dice to really go your way.


And thats why I much prefer to see magic in a supportive role of the rest of the army. It enhance the game-play that way, instead of becoming the game play.

And no, before everybody gets jumpy, that doesn't mean magic can't be a very important part of you game.

Tomb Kings are a good example. How they use there magic is a huge part of there army, and you could argue that without a good magic phase, they will have a very hard time winning. However, the way the use the magic makes it an extension of the army, and the game as a whole. Same if you look at an army like ogres. There spells will markedly improve the performance of the army, and can be very important in deciding the outcome.

The problem with magic can be the same with as the problem with gun-line armies.

You have removed the actual game elements and reduced it to rolling dice. If you roll well, you win, if not, you get slaughtered. An army like SAD, where it's all magic missiles and other shooting, isn't much fun, as it comes down to if he can kill all/enough of your troops before you reach his line. There isn't much of a game in it.

So certainly, magic can be a very important part of your game-plan, and indeed, is for several armies. But it's all about how it interacts with the rest of the game. Watching your opponent blow up your army from afar using a couple of mages just isn't much fun, if thats all there is to it.

Twisted Ferret
11-08-2006, 20:41
Blowing up armies from afar is a viable tactic; I see no reason it couldn't be used, and it was used a lot (see English longbowmen). It isn't unbeatable, though, or shouldn't be. If you use your big blocks of units (note that all you do with these units is march around and roll dice - just like with mages) well enough, you could certainly manage a victory. That is, if the opponent's army is magic or shooting heavy but not cheese-heavy. :p

Edit: It's really a matter of personal opinion. I like to play a game where magic plays a large part, others might not. That's why there are different armies and different army-list compositions. How boring would it be if we all played as Khornate beserkers? :p

shadowprince
11-08-2006, 23:19
the case can be made that a magic missle is weaker than 10 shots from rifle men. As the magic missle can be dispeled and is not armor piecing. On the other hand the rifles have to roll to hit.

Commissar von Toussaint
12-08-2006, 00:00
Magic and melee are not and should not be equal.

You can play a game of warhammer without a magic phase. You cannot play it without a close combat phase - if you do, you're playing another game.


Blowing up armies from afar is a viable tactic; I see no reason it couldn't be used, and it was used a lot (see English longbowmen).

Twice. Twice is not a lot. It is "twice." Over hundreds of years of warfare.

It seems to me that people who want to play warhammer and avoid close combat are like people who go swimming but don't want to get wet. :eyebrows:

I suppose there are tactics for magic in the sense that there are more and less effective ways to use it. However, other than staying in range and getting LOS (gosh, he's marching towards you, real hard, that) there isn't a lot of thought.

Pick deadly spell.

Roll lots of dice.

Repeat.

This is not to say that magic is devoid of thought, only that it isn't subtle or really all that tricky. The amount of finesse it takes for an Seer Council to achieve total magic dominance is a lot less than it takes to turn a flank and exploit it.

Were I being inflammatory, I might suggest that people use magic because they have no grasp of conventional tactics. Can't deal with the heavy cav on your flank? Hit 'em with Curse of Years. Not a lot of thought involved.

Moreover, in most cases you don't even pick your spells, you roll them. Not that it matters much, since 4 out of 6 means yout get most of everything anyway.

High Elves get to select, but given that two of their spells are pretty useless, not a lot of thought there, either. And in any event army selection isn't a tactic. It's arguably a skill in and of itself (more's the pity) but it doesn't take tactical skill per se.

I actually like the idea of wizards sending fireballs zapping across the field, but I think that we still have too much. The core of medieval combat is the grind of melee. Wizards' duels are better left to D&D.

shadowprince
12-08-2006, 00:41
Um you can play a game of warhammer without a close combatt phase, gunlines and wood elfs.

Also this isn't a historical battle game but a fantasy battle game.

DeathMasterSnikch
12-08-2006, 01:02
It seems to me that people who want to play warhammer and avoid close combat are like people who go swimming but don't want to get wet. :eyebrows:.


I think people who play warhammer and don't want magic to play a major part are like people who go swimming and only swim in straight doing the breaststroke.



Pick deadly spell.

Roll lots of dice.

Repeat.
.

Equip units.

Ram into enemy.

Roll dice.

Repeat

Commissar von Toussaint
12-08-2006, 01:29
I think people who play warhammer and don't want magic to play a major part are like people who go swimming and only swim in straight doing the breaststroke.

Equip units.

Ram into enemy.

Roll dice.

Repeat

I feel sorry for you. There is a lot more to melee combat than you think. Maybe the players near you aren't very imaginative.

There is no way a 2-level wizard can beat a 4-level one. Barring amazing luck (in which case you were better off buying a lottery ticket), whoever has the most dice wins.

Period.

I guess you can waste dice and lose control of the magic phase, but I've never seen it happen. Who is bigger stays bigger. That's the way it works.

And the question isn't whether you can beat magic. Of course you can. I've taken zero magic armies against Seer Councils and swept the field. Dull game, though.

See, there's a problem with the way magic is set up. Armies that use lots of magic aren't very flexible. It's a crutch. High elves with zero magic is a broken army - it's hard-wired into the army list. Used to be with the lizzies but GW got a clue (may be their quota for the decade).

If magic is limited, it actually has to be used with far greater skill. Be honest, the only real question when you cast Flames of the Phoenix is which unit you want to hurt more. Yes, there's the trick of casting it, letting it work a turn and then dropping it and casting it again. Neato. But that's game mechanics, not strategy.

But if magic only can inflict limited ranged damage and is primarily used to enhance units - say by shielding them, obscuring them or speeding them up - now you've got a game! Magic then becomes an integral part of the tactical element of the battle rather than a great cannon with a pointy hat.

I'd like to see less stand-alone spells and more stuff that focuses on the units.

After all, if wizards are so powerful, why go to the expense of buying a warhorse, putting on full plate armor and so forth when you get zapped on the first turn?

You're right that getting a big unit of elites vaporized by magic is annoying. One lesson is: don't use elites.

And thus the horde becomes more prevalent.

Twisted Ferret
12-08-2006, 01:44
Magic and melee are not and should not be equal.

You can play a game of warhammer without a magic phase. You cannot play it without a close combat phase - if you do, you're playing another game.
What? I don't follow at all. Magic is a part of Warhammer, with its own rules and spells and background and section in the books. How can you say it'd still be the same game without a Magic phase? :confused: You can certainly play a game without using magic, but you can also - concievably - play it without getting in CC either.


Twice. Twice is not a lot. It is "twice." Over hundreds of years of warfare.
Now you're really losing me. In the Hundred Years War, there were three famous battles - not two, three (Cr&#233;cy, Agincourt, and Poitiers) - and many, many more where longbowmen shot the hell out of knights.

That's not even the main point, though; the point is that long-ranged attacks are, if anything, even more effective than close combat. Why do you think people put so much effort into developing ways to kill the enemy from afar? It's because you don't want the enemy to get close up where he can stick you with pointy sticks.


It seems to me that people who want to play warhammer and avoid close combat are like people who go swimming but don't want to get wet. :eyebrows:
I like close combat. My army is composed almost entirely of close combat troops. I just prefer magic even more.


I suppose there are tactics for magic in the sense that there are more and less effective ways to use it. However, other than staying in range and getting LOS (gosh, he's marching towards you, real hard, that) there isn't a lot of thought.
You're just framing the basic essense of all combat in negative words to make it seem as if magic is somehow thoughtless. Take a look at this:

I suppose there are tactics for combat in the sense that there are more and less effective ways to do it. However, other than marching in range and getting a good position (gosh, he's marching towards you, real hard, that) there isn't a lot of thought.


This is not to say that magic is devoid of thought, only that it isn't subtle or really all that tricky.
And combat is tricky?

March into enemy.

Roll dice.

Repeat.


The amount of finesse it takes for an Seer Council to achieve total magic dominance is a lot less than it takes to turn a flank and exploit it.
Here we get into the strategic choices. Didn't take an army that could deal with a Seer Council? Now you're paying for your mistake. It's hardly game-losing, though.


Were I being inflammatory, I might suggest that people use magic because they have no grasp of conventional tactics. Can't deal with the heavy cav on your flank? Hit 'em with Curse of Years. Not a lot of thought involved.
Were I being inflammatory, I might suggest that people use conventional tactics because they have no grasp of magic. Can't deal with the mage on your flank? Hit 'em with your heavy cav. Not a lot of thought involved.

Except there is thought involved in each action. In yours, the mage is strengthing his army by eliminating a big threat. If he had attacked another unit, would it have been as effective? In mine, the heavy cav are strengthening their army by eliminating another big threat. In both cases, the player maximized effectiveness by sending units/spells against units that needed to go and that they would do well against.


And in any event army selection isn't a tactic. It's arguably a skill in and of itself (more's the pity) but it doesn't take tactical skill per se.
You said "strategy" in the post I was quoting, and it most certainly does take strategic skill.

From your post, it seems that you don't want a fantasy game (you think that magic has no appeal except as a way to win where the more interesting and superior "conventional tactics" fail). Hell, you don't even want a strategic game where choosing your units actually matters (you'd rather it all be "tactical skill", but it isn't, "more's the pity"). You want a game where everyone has an army consisting of swordsmen that are no different from the other army's swordsmen, so that you can concentrate on Conventional Tactics as opposed to fantasy and strategy, and don't have to bother with ranged units messing up your elaborate and finessed charges. That's fine, but that's not Warhammer.

Twisted Ferret
12-08-2006, 01:51
There is no way a 2-level wizard can beat a 4-level one. Barring amazing luck (in which case you were better off buying a lottery ticket), whoever has the most dice wins.

Period.
And...? That's kinda the point: you spends points on magic phase, you dominate magic phase. However, that means you have less points for other uses, and your opponent is supposed to be able to capitalize on this weakness.

Losing the magic phase doesn't mean losing the game.


See, there's a problem with the way magic is set up. Armies that use lots of magic aren't very flexible. It's a crutch. High elves with zero magic is a broken army - it's hard-wired into the army list. Used to be with the lizzies but GW got a clue (may be their quota for the decade).
No, it's part of the background. High Elves are good at magic and have many wizards. Thus, this is represented in the game. Magic is an integral part of Warhammer.


But if magic only can inflict limited ranged damage and is primarily used to enhance units - say by shielding them, obscuring them or speeding them up - now you've got a game! Magic then becomes an integral part of the tactical element of the battle rather than a great cannon with a pointy hat.
Yeah, and I'd also like to see Great Cannons shoot special beer kegs that make your troops move faster or something. Now there's a game! No ranged damage at all to worry about! :p I take a mage instead of a Great Cannon because, well, my army has no cannons and not really any ranged units at all; thus, I use magic. That, and because I love magic and mages in general. I play a really crappy army (Thousand Sons) in 40K because I like their background; even if my Legion of Tzeentch mages were horrible, I'd still take them... just because I like the idea. (Not because I can't deal with heavy cavalry!)


After all, if wizards are so powerful, why go to the expense of buying a warhorse, putting on full plate armor and so forth when you get zapped on the first turn?
They're supposed to have other advantages to make up for their small number; being harder to kill, for instance. Seems like a fair trade to me, anyway: you spend 300 points on a wizard and get the points back from the elite unit. You still have everything else to deal with...


One lesson is: don't use elites.

And thus the horde becomes more prevalent.
I'm not sure if this is right (I've seen plenty of elites), but regardless, this makes sense too. Muskets shooting through your knights' armour? Don't use knights! Happens in the real world, too.

DeathMasterSnikch
12-08-2006, 05:25
I feel sorry for you. There is a lot more to melee combat than you think.

I think after playing skaven aslong as I have I know melee. feel sorry for you. There is a lot more to magic than you think. 'I hate teh 1337est! pwnt!' doesn't always cut it.

Do you just get your lower levels to cast spells until he's out of dice? Don't you attempt to make the enemy use dice dispelling bluff spells and then use another when his dispell dice are low?

Using magic also requires tactics when moving, can't have your lvl 4 wizard be denied sight from vertain units or be taken down by skirmishers, archers etc [/QUOTE]



There is no way a 2-level wizard can beat a 4-level one. Barring amazing luck (in which case you were better off buying a lottery ticket), whoever has the most dice wins.

Period.


Impossible? No. Require tactics? Yes.



I guess you can waste dice and lose control of the magic phase, but I've never seen it happen. Who is bigger stays bigger. That's the way it works.


I think it would be more appropriate to say 'I guess you can Make people waste dice and lose control of the magic phase.[/QUOTE]




See, there's a problem with the way magic is set up. Armies that use lots of magic aren't very flexible. It's a crutch. High elves with zero magic is a broken army - it's hard-wired into the army list. Used to be with the lizzies but GW got a clue (may be their quota for the decade).


Everyone knows high elves have problems, and when was it such an issue with lizardmen? They were forced to take a slann previously...




If magic is limited, it actually has to be used with far greater skill. Be honest, the only real question when you cast Flames of the Phoenix is which unit you want to hurt more. Yes, there's the trick of casting it, letting it work a turn and then dropping it and casting it again. Neato. But that's game mechanics, not strategy.

The real question is Why you want to hurt that unit so much. Surely it's a tactical decision between 'What unit poses the greatest threat', 'What unit can I cause the most damage too', 'What enemy unit is close to somthing that can gain victory points easily (Close to killing a character, taking somthing below half health, close to a strategic point etc), and a myriad of other things.




But if magic only can inflict limited ranged damage and is primarily used to enhance units - say by shielding them, obscuring them or speeding them up - now you've got a game! Magic then becomes an integral part of the tactical element of the battle rather than a great cannon with a pointy hat.

True, I love Amber magic, then again if it swings too far in the other direction it will lose effect and we will have this same discussion but arguing for the opposite.




I'd like to see less stand-alone spells and more stuff that focuses on the units.

I was about to write I agree. Then I looked through the magic section and saw howmany spells arn't simple magic missiles. Seriously, can you say Wall Of Fire, Bane Of Forged Steel or any of the Amber or Life Lores require no tactic?



After all, if wizards are so powerful, why go to the expense of buying a warhorse, putting on full plate armor and so forth when you get zapped on the first turn?

Because It's not that often that troops you equip so well get blown up in the first turn. Ya see theres these things known as dispell scrolls and dice, If troops matter so much that you want them to have good equipment, defend them. Do you charge them into melee unsuported?

Nadir
12-08-2006, 11:16
I seem to have lost the ability to write a reasonable post. Thirds time a charm I guess.

In my opinion magic has a really important part in the warhammer fluff, where it is very powerful yet very dangerous. This is represented nicely in the game with miscasts and the actual spells, and the fickleness of it all represented by the dice. The miscast table could be made more innovative/crueler, but its fine as is for the purpose of making it worthwhile to even put your hopes on the wizards.

Magic is tactical, as most everything in the game, the armylistmaking, the sceneryplacing, the deployment, its a part of it all and not to be looked down upon. Why would you look down upon magic if you dont look down upon cannons and such? They are in many cases more deadly on a more regular basis and have several advantages over the wizards (disadvantages as well, but thats just like it should be).

Try seeing magic as just another challenge post by the enemy, one that it will be interesting to try and overcome. Or use it yourself and feel the fantasy flowing. Embrace the fantasy, embrace warhammer.

Or...Khorne/Dwarves.

Just as a little sidenote; All of you who hate the SAD, do they have extreme luck or what? With my dice I would blow up half my army including all the wizards in 1-3 turns with that setup, and it would be booring to boot (well rolling dice is always fun but you get my point).

DeathMasterSnikch
12-08-2006, 15:22
.

Just as a little sidenote; All of you who hate the SAD, do they have extreme luck or what? With my dice I would blow up half my army including all the wizards in 1-3 turns with that setup, and it would be booring to boot (well rolling dice is always fun but you get my point).

I fail to see how that has anything to do with why we hate SAD. We hate it because it's a cheesy no brainer army that is no fun to play against. Your underestimating how powerful it is, it's sucess speaks for it's self.

Nadir
12-08-2006, 18:37
I probably am, I havent played against it myself. Actually I said "or what" implying that I was simply asking for an answer.

I dont know why but your response seemed really rude. My question may have been silly in your eyes, but I dont have much experience with them at all, only what I have heard and what I know of the rules. I hope to face them in the future, only once or twice though because I dont like those kind of lists either.

DeathMasterSnikch
12-08-2006, 20:14
Sorry if I sounded rude, wasn't intentional. Trust me you wont want to play SAD more than once. Not only is it boring but if an opponents beardy enough to use that list they wont be the greatest person to play in the first place.

Twisted Ferret
12-08-2006, 21:30
Just as a little sidenote; All of you who hate the SAD, do they have extreme luck or what? With my dice I would blow up half my army including all the wizards in 1-3 turns with that setup, and it would be booring to boot (well rolling dice is always fun but you get my point).
Heh, I've wondered that too. Sometimes I wonder why I like magic so much; with my dice-rolling abilities, anything that CAN go wrong WILL go wrong. :p I'm still bitter over those six ones I rolled... Jesus, 2+ to hit, 6 units, and SIX ONES...

Nadir
12-08-2006, 22:06
Okey sorry I realise I probably read it wrong when I checked your other post in the other topic, excuses from me as well.

And yeah you are probably right, I dont get any "feel" whatsoever from that list. Skryrebased armies are just fine, but I think they can be done a hell of a lot cooler than SAD, its just so devoid of thought, background, feeling, everything.

DeathMasterSnikch
13-08-2006, 00:11
The whole 6th edition army book was devoid of background. No way fluffwise would one clan become more powerful than the others, it goes against everything fluffwise.

I can see how you read that other post too, I come across as mean, I'm just usualy a bitter person :p

Skyre, lizardmen, HE and Tzentch armies are possibly teh reason of such negetive feelings towards magic, all of em can be abused pretty easily.

Commissar von Toussaint
13-08-2006, 18:13
Sigh.

My intention wasn't to start a "U SUK!" "No U SUK!" argument. (Pointless digression: Funniest argument I ever heard was a half-hour long shouting match between two drunks outside the dorm. The entire conversation consisted of "@#$k you, man!" "No, @#$k YOU!" endlessly repeated. A laugh riot at 2 a.m.)

Obviously every aspect of the game can be said to have "tactics." Army selection is clearly one of them, and that seems to be what many of you are arguing.

Now army selection and it's impact on the game is a whole other discussion. Suffice to say that many of the arguments in favor of Big Magic have to do with army selection choices rather than what you do on the tabletop.




I think it would be more appropriate to say 'I guess you can Make people waste dice and lose control of the magic phase.

But only if the magic forces are within reach of one another, which is my point.

If you go light or medium on magic and the opponent goes heavy, there isn't a lot you get do to but throw scrolls.


The real question is Why you want to hurt that unit so much.

Because it's big and powerful. That's what I keep hearing. "You just don't like magic because it killed your super unit."

Maybe. Or maybe I just prefer to concentrate on the figures rather than the spell book.

I think that conceptually, if magic is as powerful as it is in WHFB, you simply wouldn't see elite troopers, you would see all horde armies - mass levies of untrained troops that hunt down and kill the wizards.

The wizards in turn would focus on killing the elites because without them, the army has no staying power.

You see, I'm looking past the "game" and at the campaign.

If you frag my Reiksguard Knights, and then quit the field, I may win, but it took 20 years and countless treasure to train and equip those men. So why bother? Better off with conscript spearmen.


I was about to write I agree. Then I looked through the magic section and saw howmany spells arn't simple magic missiles. Seriously, can you say Wall Of Fire, Bane Of Forged Steel or any of the Amber or Life Lores require no tactic?

Actually, magic missiles don't bother me that much. They're just a bad turn of shooting and require LOS. The Comet of Death, Curse of Years, Flames of the Phoenix, Gork's Tap Dance - those bother me.

[quote]Because It's not that often that troops you equip so well get blown up in the first turn. Ya see theres these things known as dispell scrolls and dice, If troops matter so much that you want them to have good equipment, defend them. Do you charge them into melee unsuported?

This goes back to what I said earlier about magic being something you take for what it can give you, rather than just to stop your opponent from slaughtering you.

I really dislike dispel scrolls and their caddies. They add nothing to either side.

I'd rather simply use no magic, which I often do.

The end result is what I suggested earlier, massive horde armies that run forward through a storm of magical energy and seek to swamp the enemy with superior numbers. It's okay as far as it goes, but my point is that there should be more to the game than that.

ebolatheripe
13-08-2006, 18:58
[QUOTE=Commissar von Toussaint;867735]Sigh.

My intention wasn't to start a "U SUK!" "No U SUK!" argument. QUOTE]

You know, if that wasn't your intention it really would be a better idea to argue your point of view without adding insulting declarations such as "I feel sorry for you".

Mephistofeles
13-08-2006, 19:04
I know I might be disturbing the topic, but I just had to ask:

What is SAD?

DeathMasterSnikch
13-08-2006, 19:21
Warlock engineer and ratling gun heavy skaven armies, minimum troops in units simply so they can have more ratlings, cheesey magic phase, lots of warplightning cannons, jezzails etc.

No fun to play with or against.

S-Skyre, shootey, skaven
A-army
D-Doom, death, etc etc

Turns skaven, THE horde army into somthing it isn't.

Edit: Sad could also just be used in the context of 'That's a sad army' refering to most beardy lists.

bob syko
13-08-2006, 20:25
Magic should be this big -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And the whole wide world.

shadowprince
14-08-2006, 01:29
I would like to oint out the baility to use magiuc is a intergral part of my tactical ability. Should every spell be like Falmes of the pheonix or a commet of Cassandora no and every spell isn't. Every list in the entire game has at least 1 spell that isn't a direct magic missle.

For examp[le what is the difference between a line of gunmen holding a flank with a cannon and a mage doing it.

Deathgmaster I agree with you but it isn't the point to the thread.