PDA

View Full Version : The importance of being magic (weapons)



Bombot
08-06-2007, 08:47
How often do you find yourself needing a magic weapon? Have you ever gone to battle without one and then been royally troubled by an enemy that can only be killed by them?

I just ask because my dwarf list kind of evolved into a list without any. So I dropped a shield from someone and put a Rune of Burning on the cannon, just in case. I thought I'd field the question anyway.

Evil-Lite
08-06-2007, 08:52
I would only worry if you play against Demons or Spirit Hosts a lot.

Braad
08-06-2007, 09:40
They can be handy and give a nasty edge, but Often I only give my characters amulets or armour-stuff...

Atzcapotzalco
08-06-2007, 12:53
Actually *needing* one would, IMO, be pretty rare. The only unit types currently immune to nonmagical weapons are the ethereal undead in the vampire counts army, which can also be destroyed by losing combats. I did once take heavy casualties from a pair of banshees I couldn't hurt, but that was with my southlands lizardmen, which also have very little static CR and due to their appalling LD an almost unique vulnerability to banshee screams. Dwarves would have a lot less to fear-at worst spirit hosts are liable to prove persistent. Other than that, its an extra edge against daemons or forest spirits which lose their ward save, but not one that's essential to have a chance of killing them. Most likely, you'll manage OK without them, espescially given that less points spent on runic weapons means more warriors on the field.

theunwantedbeing
08-06-2007, 12:59
I played a battle where my opponent took 2 banshee's,a necromancer with the cloak of mist and shadows and some spirit host......

So I gave my high sorceress the lifetaker,which allowed me to remove both banshee's and the necromancer with ease,and I destroyed the spirit host through combat resoloution.

ehlijen
08-06-2007, 13:09
If you're really worried, take some runes of burning on your characters weapons. Not only are they now magic when you need them, but also flaming, which while equally rarely useful, can come in handy against some nasty beasties (tree-stuff, tomb kings, stops regeneration...)

Bombot
08-06-2007, 13:26
The reason it went on the cannon is that one Thane has a great weapon, the other's carrying a Runic standard, and the Dragon Slayer has his free slayer axes. So the characters either can't take it or it would have to be used instead of the main weapons. On the cannon it doesn't diminish the existing firepower.

EvC
08-06-2007, 15:40
The only time you really have to worry is if you're facing a "Vampire Counts" army lead by a Necromancer with the Cloak of Mist and Shadows. At 2000 points or more he'll also have a magic item to give him a 4+ Ward Save vs Magic attacks, so either way you're probably going to have to rely on CR to kill him. So magic weapons aren't a must, though they will help against Spirit Hosts, Dryads etc.

DarkLord Of Naggaroth
08-06-2007, 16:38
I dont take magic items unless I think is very necessary. This is because I like the idea of cheap characters (or more I hate the idea of 300 pt characters)

So magic items can be useful but i dont find I need them

Mister Hat
09-06-2007, 19:24
With the large amount of undead and woodie armies around I always give my characters (O&G) some form of magic weapon. O&G struggle against both armies anyway, not taking a magic weapon just complicates matters.

I suppose it all depends on what you face and how often.