Strategic Arms Limitation Talks?? No mega Nuclear spells

[Duke Ramulots]

Fine , autokill compared to practically every other attack in the game (the only other that comes close is possible a giants grab attack) And they do auto-kill war machines. But you get one, thats one, chance to pass a test after which you are dead regardless of how many wounds you had, whatever protection you paid for , the cost of the model etc , even cannonballs are't quite so effective.
The type of test doesn't always scale that fairly either , most of the Tomb Kings army for example can be considered fodder to these types of spells, especially the big expensive ones. Dwarves probably just get by on thier dispelling ability (which probably will be toned down in the next book)
I would venture that GW have already realised that "auto-kill" (please note parenthesis) spells do not do much for the betterment of the game, if the latest Spell lores in the books are any indication. My personal favourite spell is the rune maw spell.

To kill in CC: step1- roll to hit. step2- roll to wound. step 3- attempt to save

To kill with an "autokill" spell: step 1 - roll winds of magic. step 2- attempt to cast spell. step 3- roll stat test

Looks to me that there are just as many chances to fail to kill on one of these nuke spells as there are in CC and with CC you dont run the risk of blowing yourself up.

Looks to me theyre

[MyNameDidntFit]

Dark elf units removed twice in one game by gateway, A ghould unit that just happened to have the General in it removed by gateway, a Tomb King in a chariot unit Gateway just because a unit has a character in it does that make it "eggs in one basket"?

Your WoC players must roll 11's and 12's all the time for their Gateways... I've never rolled >10 on my Gateway's strength

If you want to watch to giant deathstars slap together for 4 turns like a pair of sumo wrestlers (or as my wife and I call it, Friday night marital relations....)

I am gravely disturbed by one of the possible interpretations of this comment.

To kill in CC: step1- roll to hit. step2- roll to wound. step 3- attempt to save

To kill with an "autokill" spell: step 1 - roll winds of magic. step 2- attempt to cast spell. step 3- roll stat test

Difference being the following:

In CC: Step 1 is based on YOUR stats. Step 2 is based on YOUR stats. Step 3 (and 4 for Wards) is based on YOUR stats.
In Magic: Step 1, THEIR rolls. Step 2, THEIR rolls. Step 3, YOUR roll.

See what I'm saying?


(for the record I've no problem with the big spells and play completely un-comped Warhammer with my group this just struck me as a terrible argument)

[Lord Inquisitor]

What's the relation here? Did the ETC come from Sweden?

There are a number of comp systems, some are "hard" comp (strict restrictions, e.g. no unit more than 40 models strong) and others are "soft" comp (few things or nothing is banned, but competitive choices will result in some form of handicap). There's a link in my post here to another forum where you can see the Swedish system.

I like the core magic rules and find they fit very well into the game and even though a 6 dice limit is arbitrary it does not indicate a problem in the mechanics.

Given that it is the area of the game most complained about and most often houseruled, even in tournamnets, a large proportion of players do not agree with you.

However, surely you could agree that the game would be more elegant if the magic dice system didn't require an arbitrary 6-dice maximum? For example, if 2 or more 6's equals an IF and Miscast (as now), but 2 or more 1's equals Not Enough Power and cancels out an IF, then you wouldn't need a 6-dice cap - but the more dice you throw the bigger the chance of all that power slipping through your grasp.

*jesus*
.. did Anybody get I was joking about playing Warhammer the 'proper' way? *haha*
Wait.. No.. In fact, if you were offended by that or actually took it seriously well then hey that probably serves you right.
It was meant as a comical reminder of the sort of attitudes that gamers like me get from 'certain' kind of people all the time.

Funny, it seems to come from the anti-comp crowd far more than the other way around. I certainly understood it was meant as tongue in cheek, but given that certain posters feel exactly that way, it wasn't that amusing.

In fairness your posts on the subject have been measured and reasonable - my apologies. Perhaps I was confusing you with someone else...

To kill in CC: step1- roll to hit. step2- roll to wound. step 3- attempt to save

To kill with an "autokill" spell: step 1 - roll winds of magic. step 2- attempt to cast spell. step 3- roll stat test

Looks to me that there are just as many chances to fail to kill on one of these nuke spells as there are in CC and with CC you dont run the risk of blowing yourself up.

Which is patently a false comparison. Why don't we compare apples to apples? Compare a classic nuke spell with one of the new nuke spells.

Pit of Shades vs The Maw.

Casting value: Pit (14+) The Maw (15+)
Range: Pit (24") The Maw (18")
Scatter: Pit (D6") The Maw (Artillery)
Can misfire? Pit (no) The Maw (yes - horrifically!)
Initiative test? Pit (yes) The Maw (yes - but inflicts S3 on passes)
Require "to wound" roll? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Allows armour? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Allows regen/ward? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Allows Magic Res? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Multiple wounds? Pit (all wounds lost) The Maw (D6 wounds lost)

Both are spells and require casting value, not dispelled, etc.

In fact, you can compare almost all the ogre spells against rulebook ones and the rulebook ones are far and away better and more dangerous. Comparing the basic levels of Toothcracker with Flesh to Stone is quite amusing.

[Djekar]

It sounds like the answer to the orginal question of "are other groups avoiding the 'doom spells'?" has been answered with a definitive "maybe".

There are some people who through comp - be it heavy or soft - change the way that the magic phase works, which limits the efficiency of these spells. Maybe there are others who decide that the magic phase is more tactical - indeed, perhaps even better! - without resorting to 6 dicing those big nukes. I'm glad to see that 2 years after the induction of 8th, that we aren't all screaming "[insert spell of choice here]!" and picking up a handful of dice to show how skillful we can be by rolling 6d6.

[Malorian]

I'm glad to see that 2 years after the induction of 8th, that we aren't all screaming "[insert spell of choice here]!" and picking up a handful of dice to show how skillful we can be by rolling 6d6.

It's the system, take it or leave it. Some times the best tactic to win a game is to cast a game winning spell.

Hopefully in 9th they bring back that double 1s means the spell automatically fails (miscast still possible ).

[DaemonReign]

@ Lord Inq: No worries. I guess I should have made it more appearant that it was meant as a fraternal joke between me and Ramulots and that I definately don't concider myself the sort of presumptious prick who'd call any certain way of playing Warhammer correct, better, proper, or anything like that. Me and Ramulots just happens to have in common that we belong to smaller, more closely knit, communites with a penchant for 'bigger' games - and for some reason 'that meta' seems to breed skepticism toward comp (whether you're a Daemon or WE player appearantly) - which I actually find highly intriguing.

I think Ramulots comparison between Stat-test spells and Close Combat mechanics was pretty accurate. A dice roll is a dice roll is a dice roll, after all.

And it's true that the top spells from the Lore of Light, Life, Death are more 'potent' compared to the top spells of knucklehead Lores like the Maw or Whaagh. To me that's just as easily explained by background as the assumption that GW games designers got guilt-tripped as they sifted through every complaint on Warseer. What I mean to say is: You may be right, of course, but I'd give it a couple of more ABs before being all certain on that one because the Armies released so far for 8th arn't really the best of measures as far as I am concerned.

[Duke Ramulots]

Difference being the following:

In CC: Step 1 is based on YOUR stats. Step 2 is based on YOUR stats. Step 3 (and 4 for Wards) is based on YOUR stats.
In Magic: Step 1, THEIR rolls. Step 2, THEIR rolls. Step 3, YOUR roll.

See what I'm saying?


(for the record I've no problem with the big spells and play completely un-comped Warhammer with my group this just struck me as a terrible argument)

Really? that is also, their roll, their roll, and your roll for the CC and there was an optional step I left out of both(ward saves and dispell dice). The point was that GW made certain that each way of killing things took the same level of commitment and have very ballanced levels of success and failure.

[Lord Inquisitor]

@ Lord Inq: No worries. I guess I should have made it more appearant that it was meant as a fraternal joke between me and Ramulots and that I definately don't concider myself the sort of presumptious prick who'd call any certain way of playing Warhammer correct, better, proper, or anything like that. Me and Ramulots just happens to have in common that we belong to smaller, more closely knit, communites with a penchant for 'bigger' games - and for some reason 'that meta' seems to breed skepticism toward comp (whether you're a Daemon or WE player appearantly) - which I actually find highly intriguing.

I'm not sure that the community necessarily makes a lot of difference. I know people locally at both extreme end of "pro/anti comp" spectrum with most people either ambivalent or preferring a limited amount of comp. I think it's much more a personal preference. I myself find both extremes baffling.

I think Ramulots comparison between Stat-test spells and Close Combat mechanics was pretty accurate. A dice roll is a dice roll is a dice roll, after all.

Again, a stat-test puts life or death on that one stat, ignoring wounds, armour, ward and magic res. A close combat attack does not. Comparing the casting roll to the attack is fallacious because this has nothing to do with the model being attacked. Most damage spells require both casting and THEN wounding, failing saves, etc. The damage of the attack is proportional to the casting difficulty, yes, but then it is ALSO affected by the target's resilience, which is highly correlated with points value of the unit being attacked. You have two factors, the quality of the attack and the quality of the resilience of the target. With stat-death spells, only the quality of the attack is really meaningful, the quality of the defence is not taken into account, beyond the stat test itself, which is not correlated well with the resilience or value of the target at all.

Certainly a better comparison is between stat-test spells and conventional damage spells because they both require casting, not being dispelled and then inflicting damage. Therefore you can compare without casting/dispelling being a factor as they are present in both categories of spells. A control group, if you like.

And it's true that the top spells from the Lore of Light, Life, Death are more 'potent' compared to the top spells of knucklehead Lores like the Maw or Whaagh. To me that's just as easily explained by background as the assumption that GW games designers got guilt-tripped as they sifted through every complaint on Warseer. What I mean to say is: You may be right, of course, but I'd give it a couple of more ABs before being all certain on that one because the Armies released so far for 8th arn't really the best of measures as far as I am concerned.

We now have Big Waaagh, Little Waaagh, Nekehara, Maw and Vampires. That's not just "knucklehead" Lores. I can imagine that Ogre magic is more crude, but then Ogres have access to Death and Heavens too, surely they would be the same level of crudeness? I also don't follow that crude spells should be less powerful. After all, the pit of shades and the maw really both just open a big hole in the ground? In any case, it's a game, regardless of fluff surely all the magic Lores should have equivalent casting values in order to be balanced? A more "crude" Lore might have simpler, more direct effects but that should surely have an appropriate casting value?

I don't think the designers trawl Warseer but they do take in feedback. Mistakes are noted. Their policies on minimum changes to books mean they rarely do anything about it and that makes sense but that doesn't mean they make the mistakes in the future. We know that mistakes have been made in 8th - the power scroll was errata'd because of negative feedback. You can label it whining, but when it is widely banned for competitive play and frowned upon in casual play, that's more than just complaining. Something was wrong, and it has been corrected. Likewise, unintended consequences happen e.g. Ironfists allowing Butchers to take magic armour, and the design team decided (not unanimously it seems) to leave as-is despite it being not rules as intended.

The new army book Lores are balanced. Maw is a perfectly good Lore (even if the Maw spell is pretty much rubbish). The casting values are appropriate in comparison with most other Lores. Vampires, Nekehara and the Orc n Gobbo Lores are fine. They just aren't the no-brainers of Shadow or Life, which are just plain better for lower casting values than some of the other Rulebook Lores let alone the AB Lores.

[SunTzu]

Your WoC players must roll 11's and 12's all the time for their Gateways... I've never rolled >10 on my Gateway's strength

Same here. Even if you manage to cast it every single turn, with your Wizard getting it every game, always being alive, always attempting to cast it, never failing to cast it and never having it dispelled; on average you'll only roll 11+ for its effects once every other game. Realistically you're looking at once every three or four or more games, on average rolls... and I've yet to have it happen for my WoC.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a nasty spell, and the potential for it to happen is pretty frightening. It's not exactly a dead cert, though. There are much, much nastier spells in the game.

[Malorian]

Woah woah woah, whoever thinks the Big Waaagh is a knucklehead lore deserves to have foot of gork remove half their army in a single magic phase by a mage that is across the board.

I have nothing to say about the little waaagh

[Duke Ramulots]

Woah woah woah, whoever thinks the Big Waaagh is a knucklehead lore deserves to have foot of gork remove half their army in a single magic phase by a mage that is across the board.

I have nothing to say about the little waaagh

Ive found curse of da bad moon can rape armies. Itchy neucense(i know i cant spell) works well too.

[Duke Ramulots]

Heres an Idea, how would you guys like a magic phase without irrisitable force at all, but also remove the dice cap from casting and add in double 1's is a miscast? I might try this out at my next game to see how it plays out.

[DaemonReign]

Heres an Idea, how would you guys like a magic phase without irrisitable force at all, but also remove the dice cap from casting and add in double 1's is a miscast? I might try this out at my next game to see how it plays out.

Could be fun for changing things up I reckon. Those few races that have lots of more or less static Dispel-capabilities would suddenly be overly safe in the magic phase though.

[Malorian]

Could be fun for changing things up I reckon. Those few races that have lots of more or less static Dispel-capabilities would suddenly be overly safe in the magic phase though.

Not really. That's only dwarfs now, and it's really not that big of an advantage.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Heres an Idea, how would you guys like a magic phase without irrisitable force at all, but also remove the dice cap from casting and add in double 1's is a miscast? I might try this out at my next game to see how it plays out.

I think it's a good suggestion. Indeed, we've been contemplating this as a house rule too. It definitely has potential to make the game more interesting. I think a dice cap is still required unless double-1s auto-fails the spell (and I still quite like double-6s being the miscast as it isn't just pain for the caster.

[Djekar]

Some times the best tactic to win a game is to cast a game winning spell.

Key part of this sentence is "some times". I'm fine with game winning spells. Why the hell would we take wizards if they didn't have an appreciable impact on the game? I just don't want the magic phase to devolve into "Do I have 6 dice? Guess it's time for that Purple Sun, then!" I think the game is a lot more fun and varied when people get past that - and I'm not even entirely sure that it's *better* to cast 6 dice "killer spells" anyways - what with the inconsistencies that people have noted as a "balancing" agent against the spells in the first place. A lot of times, as LI was heard saying many moons ago, "Powered up Purple Sun may destroy a unit, but powered up Soulblight destroys armies."

[Maoriboy007]

To kill in CC: step1- roll to hit. step2- roll to wound. step 3- attempt to save

step 4 Ward/Regen saves Step-5 opponant takes a wound step 6 - if the opponant isn't dead he attempts to punch you in the face.

To kill with an "autokill" spell: step 1 - roll winds of magic. step 2- attempt to cast spell. step 3- roll stat test

step 4 fail and die do not pass go , do not collect 200 dollars.

There are a couple of things here, first I dont have a particular problem with the magic system itself, or even , to some extent, the damage potential of spells. I compare it to the combat system more that you are taking merely different risks (both risk attack failures, the wizard risks miscasts while comabt puts the model in harms way) to do hits to a unit, but while both do an equivalent amount of "hits" so to speak (the wizard cost more but spells affect more models for the cost) the combat system tends to allow more effective defence measures for the target. Causing multiple wounds with no armours saves (but allowing wards or MR) will still devestate most units and seems a much better system than "fail and die" , but there is still an avenue of defence if to you choose to take it. I find the issue similar to 7th ed fear where if you were vulnerable to it you werew on a major back foot to start.

Often units / models are priced for their resilience in close combat, incorporating several factors such as toughness wounds WS etc, the problem I have with autokill spells is they bypass this completely and boil it to an arbitrary figure that doesn't nessesarily reflect the value of the model. My two cents anyway.

Looks to me that there are just as many chances to fail to kill on one of these nuke spells as there are in CC and with CC you dont run the risk of blowing yourself up.

Different risks, in CC you risk getting kicked in the balls. Spell tend to affect whole units in a single hit. CC takes more commitment IMO and is less , well , arbitrary than spells. You really agonise and consider factors when putting models in combat (part of the fun IMO) much more so than , point , cast spell, remove unit.

Your WoC players must roll 11's and 12's all the time for their Gateways... I've never rolled >10 on my Gateway's strength

Maybe ome gaming groups are different, but with a level 4 and the puppent, it was cast consistenly every phase pretty safely, unually starting with pandemoneum and or flicker ing fire then a 6 dice gateway. Just about every 2nd game one to two units simply got taken off the board never having had a chance. Thats not counting units spanked by an average 7 str 7 hits. He is a bit of a jammy git though....

[COLOR="#EE82EE"]Which is patently a false comparison. Why don't we compare apples to apples? Compare a classic nuke spell with one of the new nuke spells.

Pit of Shades vs The Maw.

Casting value: Pit (14+) The Maw (15+)
Range: Pit (24") The Maw (18")
Scatter: Pit (D6") The Maw (Artillery)
Can misfire? Pit (no) The Maw (yes - horrifically!)
Initiative test? Pit (yes) The Maw (yes - but inflicts S3 on passes)
Require "to wound" roll? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Allows armour? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Allows regen/ward? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Allows Magic Res? Pit (no) The Maw (yes)
Multiple wounds? Pit (all wounds lost) The Maw (D6 wounds lost)
Both are spells and require casting value, not dispelled, etc.
In fact, you can compare almost all the ogre spells against rulebook ones and the rulebook ones are far and away better and more dangerous. Comparing the basic levels of Toothcracker with Flesh to Stone is quite amusing.

Pretty good comparisen, I actually like the Maw spell, it just pales in comparisen to the Rulebook Lores. If the same sort of damage system were applied to the other "autokill" spells

Heres an Idea, how would you guys like a magic phase without irrisitable force at all, but also remove the dice cap from casting and add in double 1's is a miscast? I might try this out at my next game to see how it plays out.

If irrisitstable force were removed you should remove miscasts as well, but have double 1's be an automatic failure.

Woah woah woah, whoever thinks the Big Waaagh is a knucklehead lore deserves to have foot of gork remove half their army in a single magic phase by a mage that is across the board.
I have nothing to say about the little waaagh

I actually like the Ogre and OnG lores, they are porbbly a lot closer to what the BRB lores should be.

[GotrekFan]

I think that as the books are updated we will see less and less BRB lores being used.
If we look at the evidence: We have 4 new armies since 8th was released and in 3 of them the primary caster has to either use the army lore or a "lesser" lore (OK Firebelly for example).
All of the remaining books that are to be done will all have race specific lores which will hopefully be as balanced as the recent army lores have been.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Inquisitor]

Forcing a caster to take the army book Lore is a pretty heavy-handed way of doing it though. Okay, it makes some fluff sense for TK or Vamps but it's really annoying to have to take a gut caster for ogres. When all the restrictions are being removed from books it seems irritatingly... restrictive. And it doesn't really work for those armies like Empire, who aren't required to take a downpowered army book lore. Shall I have a level 4 Shadow or a level 4 Life or both?

[Malorian]

Yeah, I've never agreed to the full range being available to empire wizards. Makes sense for high elves but seems wrong for empire.

Then again they are suppose to have schools for each branch of magic so by the fluff it's also correct...

So wrong and yet so right...