PDA

View Full Version : Feedback on a house-rule idea



grumbaki
10-09-2008, 18:19
Hello everyone, I'm looking for some feedback on this rule idea. Basically, I've been hearing alot of people complaining about VC and daemons bringing a bucket load of power dice to the table in a 2k point game. So much in fact, that if you go against them with just a scroll caddy, then you are pretty much SOL.

So, this brings me to my idea: Restrictions on how many power dice can be brought into a game depending on the point limit.

Now, before I am tarred and feathered for this, let me explain my reasoning. In the past editions of warhammer, there were no limits on what troops you had to take: no core, special, rare or hero/lord limits. When these rules were placed in, we saw hero hammer die. So why not take the same attitude towards power dice?

0-1000 points: 6 dice maximum
1001-2000 points: 8 dice maximum
2001-3000 points: 10 dice maximum
etc, etc. Each rise of 1000 points allows an extra two power dice to be added.

So, in practical terms, what would this do?

* In a 1000 point game, there are a maximum of 6 powder dice that can be taken. So a VC player knows this, but he still wants a strong magic phase. So he takes 2 lvl 2 spell casters. Now, he has 6 power dice, and to make them a bit stronger he gives them every option that allows them to cast spells easier. However, at the end of the day he still only has 6 power dice.

Now, this VC player goes up against an Empire player who only brought a scroll caddy. The Empire player has 3 dispel dice and 2 scrolls. Now, the vampire player won't dominate the magic phase to the point of making the game unfun, but he still has a 2:1 advantage, plus any bonsuses his vampires get and their bound spells.

* So, with it being impossible to just take a full range of wizards to dominate the magic phase, what does this leave people with? It frees up hero slots for more close combat heroes and it makes them think about what spells to use. "I only have 8 dispel dice, and I really need to get vanhel's dance off...do I try to soak up his dispel dice with some invocations, or..." It makes the game more tactical, and I would argue more fun.

Anyways, please offer some feedback on the idea, the mechanics of it and the possible abuses.

Nomad
10-09-2008, 18:53
How are you going to limit magic use for Tomb Kings, who don't use power dice?

Malorian
10-09-2008, 18:55
Well dont stop there... How about limiting how many:

-warmachines you can have
-archers you can have
-cav you can have
-infantry you can have

Or better yet just make everyone use the same list!

As you can see I'm being silly because I think ideas like these are kind of silly. People that put all of their points in one area of the game are obviously lacking in other areas of the game. The key to to hone in on those weaknesses and stop complaining about the strengths.

A DE player I often play against used to love going magic heavy, but in doing so he wouldn't have very many models and so shooting/combat would really hurt him. After several losses he has changed his list to be more balanced.

If your group wants to do something like this, then sure go ahead, but you'll only find other areas that will start to be abused.

Joe Cool
10-09-2008, 18:56
How about limiting the amount of power dice that can be USED during a magic phase? This wouldn't affect army composition, but would prevent dominant magic phases.

Also, I'd suggest a ruling regarding bound spells and items as well. For example each bound spell corresponds to one power dice, or something like that. And don't forget armies that can get more power dice during magic phase, such as Slann's free dice or Tzeentch's spells giving more dice.

grumbaki
10-09-2008, 19:00
With a pointy stick?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I've only played against them about 3 times and that was when they were released, so I don't remember their details all that well.

I'd say that they'd probably need a special rule on how many bound spells they get. It'd take some wording from someone who knows the book better than me though...

grumbaki
10-09-2008, 19:05
Well dont stop there... How about limiting how many:

-warmachines you can have
-archers you can have
-cav you can have
-infantry you can have

Or better yet just make everyone use the same list!

As you can see I'm being silly because I think ideas like these are kind of silly. People that put all of their points in one area of the game are obviously lacking in other areas of the game. The key to to hone in on those weaknesses and stop complaining about the strengths.

A DE player I often play against used to love going magic heavy, but in doing so he wouldn't have very many models and so shooting/combat would really hurt him. After several losses he has changed his list to be more balanced.

If your group wants to do something like this, then sure go ahead, but you'll only find other areas that will start to be abused.

Of course there will always be areas to be abused. However, I am sure that when things such as mandatory core were introduced and limits on specials, people had this same reaction, pointing out that small armies of only elite troops would be outnumbered, etc. But putting a limit on how many can be taken in armies depending on their size did help to balance the game. Now that we are seeing relatively small armies that bring bucket loads of dice to the table, I see this as a problem. Sure, the list may not be balanced and is at the whim of the dice gods (a few bad miscasts...), but what fun is that?

When going to a 2k pick up game, you shouldn't have to load up most of your hero choices to be anti-magic, and a rule like this would stop that. Magic heavy is still possible, it just can't be that dominant.



How about limiting the amount of power dice that can be USED during a magic phase? This wouldn't affect army composition, but would prevent dominant magic phases.

Also, I'd suggest a ruling regarding bound spells and items as well. For example each bound spell corresponds to one power dice, or something like that. And don't forget armies that can get more power dice during magic phase, such as Slann's free dice or Tzeentch's spells giving more dice.

I'd actually go against this. Having the limit on power dice is enough to stop the worst of the cheese. But spending your points on bound items? It's legitimate. And the Tzeench spell that gives more power dice? Well, now it is really worthwhile because they don't start with more power dice than their opponent's power and dispel dice put together.

Having those options become what needs to be done to have the dominant magic phase, but it requires more tactics. It would likely ensure that a few spells might go off a turn, but that is much better than over half a dozen.

theunwantedbeing
10-09-2008, 19:06
If you limit casting dice like that, you need to limit dispel dice as well.
There's no point making magic easily stoppable, to the extent that only an irresistable force will do anything.

Similarly, armies with access to lots of bound items will be hideously powerful.
Only 6 powerdice at 1k huh?
Still have 3 bound items.
So your opponent has to deal with 6 dice plus bound items...he still gets utterly overwhelmed in the magic phase.

Dark elves generating additional dice.
2 level 1 mages, thats only 4 dice.
But they can get an extra 8 dice to use at 2k easily enough, so will have used 12 dice in total.
Or are they not allowed to do that?

Your house rule needs improvements to be "fair".

grumbaki
10-09-2008, 19:16
Well, I'd like to point out to all the angry responses that this was not presented as a playtested rule. Instead, it is an idea that I asked feedback on, and hopefully some advice as well. Any help on what would make the rule balanced would be much appreciated.

Lord Dan
10-09-2008, 19:21
Though I like your idea, in practice there are several flaws that I see:

First of all, Theunwantedbeing makes an excellent point about dispel dice. The way you have set things up now makes it seem less like a way to balance out the game a little, and more like a way to nerf magic heavy armies. For example, in a 2,000 point game a Daemon army has 8 PD, as per your rule. A Empire army shows up with 1 Arch Lector and 3 priests, which is a total of 7 dispel dice. Obviously no magic will be cast that game at all.

VC are also a concern of mine. You're assuming that shutting down a majority of the enemy's magic phase will make the game more balanced, when in fact armies like VC NEED to get off a certain number of spells just to survive the game. Obviously this is usually abused, but people are often so distracted (or angered, take your pick) by a VC player casting IoN 7 or 8 times a turn that they forget that the undead need it at least 1 or 2 times a turn.

Nomad's point about TK is also quite valid, as well as other armies that rely heavily on bound spells.

I too am frustrated by lists that take almost all magic, however I'm equally frustrated by people who take almost all shooting, or all flyers, or all monsters, or even all combat troops (the last one is a lie. I love slugging it out in HtH!). I just don't think the solution is limiting other players.

Malorian
10-09-2008, 19:31
Well, I'd like to point out to all the angry responses that this was not presented as a playtested rule. Instead, it is an idea that I asked feedback on, and hopefully some advice as well. Any help on what would make the rule balanced would be much appreciated.

It just bugs me when people go after magic and not realize the amount of points that go into getting that magic.

As a VC player I spend about 40% my points on characters. I have a hell of a magic phase but because of that I have less units.

Compare this to my brets where I spend the bare minimum on characters and then use those freed up points to get more units.

(As an interesting note, players actually prefer to play against my magic heavy brets rather than my unit heavy brets).

Sorry if this comes across as 'angry'. I'm just tired of the complaining about the new armies and magic in general.

grumbaki
10-09-2008, 19:48
Though I like your idea, in practice there are several flaws that I see:

First of all, Theunwantedbeing makes an excellent point about dispel dice. The way you have set things up now makes it seem less like a way to balance out the game a little, and more like a way to nerf magic heavy armies. For example, in a 2,000 point game a Daemon army has 8 PD, as per your rule. A Empire army shows up with 1 Arch Lector and 3 priests, which is a total of 7 dispel dice. Obviously no magic will be cast that game at all.

VC are also a concern of mine. You're assuming that shutting down a majority of the enemy's magic phase will make the game more balanced, when in fact armies like VC NEED to get off a certain number of spells just to survive the game. Obviously this is usually abused, but people are often so distracted (or angered, take your pick) by a VC player casting IoN 7 or 8 times a turn that they forget that the undead need it at least 1 or 2 times a turn.

Nomad's point about TK is also quite valid, as well as other armies that rely heavily on bound spells.

I too am frustrated by lists that take almost all magic, however I'm equally frustrated by people who take almost all shooting, or all flyers, or all monsters, or even all combat troops (the last one is a lie. I love slugging it out in HtH!). I just don't think the solution is limiting other players.

A good point, and I concede to it (and to Malorian's). Ah well, it was worth a try. I guess I'll stick to my standard 2 runesmiths to weather the magic one thing that always turned me away from playing anything but dwarfs is the magic heavy lists that are commonly seen. I usually refuse to take more than 1 anti-magic character, and the idea of weathering out a game against a magic heavy armor with only 3dd and 2 scrolls just seems to scary to me.

Malorian
10-09-2008, 20:05
Just think of a mage as a warmachine.

It takes a chance oif misfiring, but can cause damage at long range. Then once you get to it it's as good as dead.

Your typical 100 point mage probably won't kill 100 points unless it gets something really nasty off. The real things you have to look out for is the non-direct damage spells like vanhels or the beat cowers that can totally change the direction of a game.

But that's what dispel scrolls are for ; )

In my WE army I don't take any magic defense at all, and because of that I have a dragon. The enemy mages might get a smell or two off, but they are also as good as dead on turn 2. (By the way, I won a local tournament with that army.)

yabbadabba
10-09-2008, 20:07
Hmmmmm - ok some honest feedback. I like the basic idea, and coupled with a similar approach to dispel dice and magic items, it could work quite well.

It seems to me that you are creating a balance to offset power gaming. I believe in a simple process here - GW makes the armies relatively balanced for the way they like to play the game. Other players make the game unbalanced by playing the game in a different way.

As a consequence if you played with two balanced armies, this change would make magic too restrictive and unbalance the game - leading to a need to redesign other rules and eventually the whole game.

Nomad
10-09-2008, 20:48
It takes a chance oif misfiring, but can cause damage at long range. Then once you get to it it's as good as dead.


Not entirely true. The two armies that people seem to have the most problems with, Daemons and Vampire Counts, have powerful spellcasters who can also be deadly in close combat. There are other armies with powerful magic, like High Elves, but at least once you get into close combat with a High Elf mage he'll probably die. A Vampire or Herald, particularly when in some kind of elite unit, will probably defeat your attackers.

This isn't a whine about how broken VC or Daemons are, by the way. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't as clear-cut as you suggested.

zak
10-09-2008, 21:52
I think your being a bit harsh in relation to the Vampires. Most of them wil be toughness 4 with little or no armour. I take your point in that these are still harder than your average mage, but not many will have a ward save.

Lord Dan
10-09-2008, 21:56
I think your being a bit harsh in relation to the Vampires. Most of them wil be toughness 4 with little or no armour. I take your point in that these are still harder than your average mage, but not many will have a ward save.

But you're paying 130 points for a lv. 2 mage with WS6, S5, T4, 2W, and 3 attacks. You can also easily upgrade him to have a ward save, or other options to make him more survivable.

Compare this to about the same points for a lv. 2 HE mage with WS4, S3, T3, 2W, and 1 attack, who have no such options.

Yeah. I don't think he's being too harsh.

Staurikosaurus
11-09-2008, 03:31
I would very much caution against gross modification of core rules - even as a house rule. This is owing to the fact that (as previous posters have stated) these changes rarely effect all armies equally, creating even greater imbalances.

The magic phase is about paying attention to the opponent's army; being able to distinguish between what your opponent wants to do and what your opponent needs to do. Don't let them get those need spells off, and let through the ones that don't affect your battle plan.


But you're paying 130 points for a lv. 2 mage with WS6, S5, T4, 2W, and 3 attacks. You can also easily upgrade him to have a ward save, or other options to make him more survivable

He still won't be that survivable. Just as a point of comparison, a saurus spawning champion is 24 pts and has WS 3, S4, T4, W1, A3 and a 4+ save in hth combat - which can be improved to 3+ for cheap. I only say this to make the contention that points comparisons between armies aren't necessarily a balanced & equal idea, as points values are balanced more within the army books themselves than between them.

ChaosCajun
11-09-2008, 07:39
@ Malorian: While what you say about magic points and points spent on characters to get that magic is true in general, it takes on a whole new meaning with VC. You can start with a few tricked out characters and a small number of units and end Turn 3 with more troops on the field than your opponent started with. This creates a problem with your thesis. I realize that the troops are crappy in general, but when you can't kill enough of them each turn because the VC are raising more troops than you can kill, then having more units to start really doesn't offset the points spent on magic in that case. I realize that this is a whole different issue and there are ways of dealing with VC, but I don't sympathize too much with your frustration about this issue. As a long time chaos player, I just field my daemon army with the Blue Scribes any time I face a VC player that does this. He can face my 25 power dice next turn (my own +1 for every die he used in his turn).

Regarding this thread in general, while I like the premise of the house rule limit, I think that as more army lists come out, you will see the problem of certain armies having magical advantages being dealt with. Note the DE changes. In the meantime, a friendly limit locally might do the trick for you. Alternatively, you could trace 4 cannon balls a round over the VC caster each turn until he fails a Lookout Sir check.

Tarax
11-09-2008, 08:25
Why not limit the number of Magic Levels?

Eg.: =< 1000 pts - 3 ML, ie 3 Level 1 wizards or 1 Level 1 and 1 Level 2
1001 - 2000 -6 ML
etc.

Now you can take all the Power Dice you can have, but are still limited in the number of spells.

Limiting the number of spells will not work. Though you can use Bound Spells as 1, some armies (wizards) get a free spell, therefore limiting those armies.

Leogun_91
11-09-2008, 10:27
This could work.....gametest it and change accordingly and it will be fine.

Someone said something about limiting bound spells as well if this is done you should only limit those that can be used each turn, not the "one use only" items as those would be as important as powerstones to own that one magic phase.

Hvidponi
12-09-2008, 10:09
Well is very common for turneis around here to have a maximum of 9-10 power dice in 2250 pts armies... I personally belive in agreeing on power level before playing a friendly game...

Feefait
13-09-2008, 04:15
I don't think it's a terrible idea to step away from magic once in a while, but unfortunately some armies are all about magic. I would hate never be able to bring a slann because I'd only get 6 power dice and only be able to cast 2 (maybe) sells a turn. And vamps and TK rely on their magic just to survive. MAybe VC are overpowered, but limiting their magic that woulch would kill thema dn they'd be no fun at all, in a different way. :)

My suggestion is there are actually a number of simlar threads, hunt em down and test out some of the ideas and see what works for oyu and your group. I know in our group we seem to self regulate. Other then once in a while someone going nuts with em just to see what will happen we dont have overwhelming magic phases.