PDA

View Full Version : What is Warhammers Worst Special Rule



Pages : [1] 2

Stronginthearm
10-03-2010, 21:33
Following on the heels of the "What is Warhammers Best Special Rule" we're now going for the inverse, what is the worst rule out there. either Fluff wise just making no sense(I predict from my omnipotence a large amount of HE asf votes) or gamewise just messing you up in game, share your thoughts with the world of whineseer

Edit: oops I of course meant warseer:D

ewar
10-03-2010, 21:38
Daemonic Instability.

It's like Matt Ward spits in my eye every time I see a DoC player take a stability test.

Lordsaradain
10-03-2010, 21:56
Black Orc Bosses/Warbosses "Quell Animosity".

It's proably intended as a bonus, but it is just a huge drawback that make them almost unfieldable.

Oh yeah, Matt ward wrote that book too, didnt he? :S

Lordy
10-03-2010, 22:01
Stupidity, makes no sense whatsoever, no predatory creature on the planet just has a moment of stupidity while on the hunt.

ASF on mass was pretty rediculous.

Bloodgreed also blows.

Lord Inquisitor
10-03-2010, 22:06
I think the High Elves' ASF is probably the stupidest because it grossly affected how a whole army fights. Hatred across the board for Dark Elves is also pretty stupid.

For individual rules, the Masque's unstoppable ability or Siren Song are both pretty rediculous because they can't be stopped (I should say that consequently I use these in my tournament lists! :cheese:)

JayC707
10-03-2010, 22:10
Stupidity, makes no sense whatsoever, no predatory creature on the planet just has a moment of stupidity while on the hunt.


lol...so true.

The SkaerKrow
10-03-2010, 22:14
The Magic rules (and Lore) for Vampire Counts gets my vote.

Davo
10-03-2010, 22:26
I think the High Elves' ASF is probably the stupidest because it grossly affected how a whole army fights. Hatred across the board for Dark Elves is also pretty stupid.

For individual rules, the Masque's unstoppable ability or Siren Song are both pretty rediculous because they can't be stopped (I should say that consequently I use these in my tournament lists! :cheese:)

And the fact that they hate everyone but they really hate the High Elves is pretty strange. Imagine the poor ickle souls really, really hated someone! :P

(Bold in quote added by me)

Urgat
10-03-2010, 22:32
mmh, I hesitate between fear elves (because elves need help against gobs obviously) and Waaagh! (aka "Pop! Your cavalry self-destroyes!").

Razakel
10-03-2010, 22:34
Daemonic Instability.

It's like Matt Ward spits in my eye every time I see a DoC player take a stability test.

I cannot possibly top this.

willowdark
10-03-2010, 22:35
Khainite.

Within 12" a CoB, you're Stubborn. In every other way you're screwed.

sergio
10-03-2010, 22:38
autobreaking from fear causers who outnumber you.

just awful.

Davo
10-03-2010, 23:11
mmh, I hesitate between fear elves (because elves need help against gobs obviously) and Waaagh! (aka "Pop! Your cavalry self-destroyes!").

I still have a soft spot for the gobbos fear elves rule. Even if only because it harks back to the day of first opening and playing with my 4th edition boxed set. The first, GW, indeed first wargame/rpg I ever played. So for me it feels nice and fluffy.

I will concede that it is a pretty horrible rule in game though, especially since Elves are so much cheaper (in points) than they used to be, remember the 8 point, hand weapon only elf?

Maoriboy007
10-03-2010, 23:15
The Magic rules (and Lore) for Vampire Counts gets my vote.

:rolleyes:


autobreaking from fear causers who outnumber you.
just awful.

I agree, str 7 chariot smashing is also pretty unessesary IMO.

My top 3?
1. Gatewaty Auto Kill result
2. Str 7 chariot popping ninja stars
3. Hydra special rules (Hatred , skirmishing through woods, invulnerable crew :wtf:)

Baron Von Rotten
10-03-2010, 23:23
I have to agree with almost every post so far.
ASF - Dumb. Demonic Stability - Weak.

However, this rule makes no sense at all: Poisoning Skeletons.

Don't you need a vascular system to be poisoned? You know, arteries and veins and stuff.......

Lord Inquisitor
10-03-2010, 23:27
Haven't you heard? Jungle swarms secrete holy toxins... :rolleyes:

Dantès
11-03-2010, 00:01
Haven't you heard? Jungle swarms secrete holy toxins... :rolleyes:

...or acid...

Really though, the complaining about poisoned attacks not affecting skeletons is strange...you complain about realism, yet you're whole argument is based on the fact that *magically animated skeletons wielding weapons* getting hurt by poison is unrealistic :p

Daemonic instability and asf over here, too. Not too well thought out

The SkaerKrow
11-03-2010, 00:05
Another body for the pit of death! Yay! *Kick*

Stronginthearm
11-03-2010, 00:07
@Dantes So your argument is that skelletons are unrealistic so all logic should get tossed out the window, "we accept the presence of daemons so therefore the warrior preists are able to fly and see out the back of there head?"

The SkaerKrow
11-03-2010, 00:13
Actually, there's a precedent for Jungle Swarms poisoning Skeletons. Jungle Swarms are composed, at least in part, of Snakes. Snakes are the sacred animal of Sotek. As everyone knows, Undead have a problem with holy things, which is represented in this case by the snakes auto-wounding the Skeletons.

Dantès
11-03-2010, 00:24
@Dantes So your argument is that skelletons are unrealistic so all logic should get tossed out the window, "we accept the presence of daemons so therefore the warrior preists are able to fly and see out the back of there head?"

Hahah, don't take my words out of context...it's just that people tend to freak when their magically animated skeletons get hurt by poison and claim it's not realistic...okay, so neither are you skeletons...why can't there be granted some leeway there? How is it rational for a skeleton to swing a sword at a human sized rat, while a snake having a holy attack is blasphemy?


Actually, there's a precedent for Jungle Swarms poisoning Skeletons. Jungle Swarms are composed, at least in part, of Snakes. Snakes are the sacred animal of Sotek. As everyone knows, Undead have a problem with holy things, which is represented in this case by the snakes auto-wounding the Skeletons.

Or acid...because even if theyre dead, acid will corrode their bones. Just seems to make better sense :p

And if they're up against daemons, THEN they've been anointed with holy water :p

BigbyWolf
11-03-2010, 00:38
Taken directly from the "Best Rule" thread...


Fiery Demagogue...a rule so good, it's a secret!

mistrmoon
11-03-2010, 00:40
The 'assassin push' trick for dark elves is possibly the stupidest ruling the universe has ever known.

ooglatjama
11-03-2010, 00:49
I hate how shadowblade or whatever his name is deploys. Stupid special dark elf assassin

FictionalCharacter
11-03-2010, 00:52
my least favorite rule in the game is movement 3.

theunwantedbeing
11-03-2010, 00:58
Necromancy Spells

easily the worst rule ever.

Sygerrik
11-03-2010, 00:59
Siren Song. It's identical to the Dwarf Rune of Challenge in every way, including points cost, except that it's infinitely better because it works on ItP things (and can therefore FORCE them to charge).

Actually, in general, it's the ability to duplicate Daemonic Gifts. It's like Daemons weren't broken enough, with all of their access to ridiculously powerful characters and units for a laughably small amount of points.

ChaosVC
11-03-2010, 01:40
Eyes of the Gods. Most *********** Retarded special rule ever created by mankind.

FictionalCharacter
11-03-2010, 02:08
Eyes of the Gods. Most *********** Retarded special rule ever created by mankind.

that rule is part of why i chose WoC.

different strokes for different folks, i guess.

The Red Scourge
11-03-2010, 02:19
Daemonic (In)stability - it breaks an army

Followed by Speed of Asuryan - it just ruins the fun part of the game

sergio
11-03-2010, 02:27
another one, not really a 'special' rule, but still a facepalm:

flyers triggering, and then getting hit by, fanatics




"ok, now you go land behind that giant goblin hoarde, but make sure you land a few feet away first before flying over. you know, just in case."

"....in case of what?"

"....shut up."

The SkaerKrow
11-03-2010, 02:37
^ I chuckled.

Stronginthearm
11-03-2010, 04:17
Hahah, don't take my words out of context...it's just that people tend to freak when their magically animated skeletons get hurt by poison and claim it's not realistic...okay, so neither are you skeletons...why can't there be granted some leeway there? How is it rational for a skeleton to swing a sword at a human sized rat, while a snake having a holy attack is blasphemy?

Ok what about ghouls, there is no way you are going to convince me that ghouls have holy claws? I think its jsut simpler for us to say that its affecting all for rules balance, even within a fantasy scape you need to have certain rational conistancies, otherwise why doesnt a random child think very hard about khorne vanishing and he does, fantasy is about adding aspects to reality not just abolishing all rules... and that totally went off on a different line of thought, ending with yes poison should effect all but trying to rationalize it isnt going to work, and now I sound like Dantes... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE:mad::mad::(

Dantès
11-03-2010, 04:24
Ok what about ghouls, there is no way you are going to convince me that ghouls have holy claws? I think its jsut simpler for us to say that its affecting all for rules balance, even within a fantasy scape you need to have certain rational conistancies, otherwise why doesnt a random child think very hard about khorne vanishing and he does, fantasy is about adding aspects to reality not just abolishing all rules... and that totally went off on a different line of thought, ending with yes poison should effect all but trying to rationalize it isnt going to work, and now I sound like Dantes... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE:mad::mad::(

HAHAH :D

They have acid claws!!!

Volker the Mad Fiddler
11-03-2010, 04:36
Intrigue at Court, no, wait ASF. Well do HE army rules always suck?
Daemonic Instability - maybe okay fluffwise, really poor in practice.

But the biggest is really the absence of a rule- Mv 3 scouts who are slowed by all types of terrain- seriously?

For an individual rule- Slugtongue's famine fiend crap.

Tenken
11-03-2010, 05:22
March blocking.

"So I put these 3 harpies behind your unit and now you can't march. Oh but you can't charge them because you can't see them. Oh and you can't just turn around and walk into combat because that would make sense" GAH!!!

Also on poison vs skeletons remember bone is organic. It's possible to create a venom to virulent it can literally dissolve bone. It's not as if you're trying to poison stone.

sulla
11-03-2010, 06:14
Really angry guys making their horse/dragon really angry is pretty stupid too...

Almost as stupid as a really angry monster/chariot making it's rider really angry...

Jack of Blades
11-03-2010, 06:21
Most wizards are suffering from amnesia and their memory of what spells they know is random and shifting from battle to battle.

''Hmm let's see, what spells shall I merrily remember today? oh ho ho! I think it willl be these four!'' :wtf:

Maoriboy007
11-03-2010, 06:28
Necromancy Spells

easily the worst rule ever.

Nothing wrong with the necromancy rule
Master of the Black Arts - now there's your problem.

Eta
11-03-2010, 06:51
The Eye of the Gods. Not fluffy, restrictive, hardly any benefits. Bah!

Chrysis
11-03-2010, 07:30
If they'd allowed champions to give you a roll then it might actually be something you get to roll on without using a warshrine. As is though you just end up having to butcher some faceless pleb with a slightly fancier hat which won't rack up enough overkill to stop your lord breaking and running away after massacring a guy. At least if you could roll he might get a bit tougher while he legs it.

Condottiere
11-03-2010, 09:22
Personally, it's when the Paymaster dies, everyone has to roll for Panic.

ChaosVC
11-03-2010, 09:27
Personally, it's when the Paymaster dies, everyone has to roll for Panic.

Oh yah! I totally forgets that rule. Yep that really sucks for DOW players considering there is really not much protection on them to take in the first place and back in 6th ed, you can't ride a horse and lead a unit of infantry. Things at least got better in 7th ed. But still...

Urgat
11-03-2010, 09:40
I still have a soft spot for the gobbos fear elves rule. Even if only because it harks back to the day of first opening and playing with my 4th edition boxed set. The first, GW, indeed first wargame/rpg I ever played. So for me it feels nice and fluffy.

I will concede that it is a pretty horrible rule in game though, especially since Elves are so much cheaper (in points) than they used to be, remember the 8 point, hand weapon only elf?

Na (I mean nah, I don't remember), I started with in 5th edition, high elf spearmen were 12 points, and HW+shield 9 (I'm cheating, I have the book :p), couldn't have them w/o shields. Back then, goblins were 2.5 points. Back then, there was an obvious point to the fear elves rule.

I'm of course focusing on current's edition rules for this topic ;)


Personally, it's when the Paymaster dies, everyone has to roll for Panic.

Remnants of 5th ed when your army panicked when the general died, that. I remember back then if my gob general died, it was usually game over. I managed to lose a game before my opponent even got to play once, thanks to some cataclysmic animosity+waaaagh magic failures and a good two third of my army left the table. Amusingly enough, the only ones who've kept their equivalent of that rule are the undead :p (crumbling was the counter to army-wide panic, it was considered a very good advantage back then :p)

abuk
11-03-2010, 10:25
And what about Black Orks "Armed to tha teef?" - basically a speciall rule that is an equipment option really...

There is also the O&G miscast table, the rules "Daemonic" and "Undead", the fanatic rules which state, that those pesky little buggers explode after barely touching a hill and so on...

Edit: I forgot - Squighoppers having to test for animosity... Ok, so they are basically preocupied with hanging on to their mount and not falling off, having absolutley no controll over the distance which the squig will bounce, but still they somehow find the time to stop right in the middle of the field and throw some mud on the head of another Hopper... Right...

phoenixguard09
11-03-2010, 11:18
Abuk your Squig Hopper post was completely true.

Personally worst rule, hmm. That's a toughy because there are so very many.

Porbbaly Fear auto break or chariot auto pop. Either one makes very little sense to me.

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2010, 14:46
Nothing wrong with the necromancy rule
Master of the Black Arts - now there's your problem.

No, it's definately the necromancy rule. Without that, Master of the Black Arts really isn't that bad as you can only cast once a phase anyway. The problem is that you can just keep recasting raise or danse until it works. Besides, Lord of the Dead is certainly worse relative to the points cost.

In my opinion this is a good candidate for "worse special rule ever". It was entirely unnecessary and in my opinion the sole highest contributing reason as to why VCs are considered so overpowered.

spetswalshe
11-03-2010, 16:33
My peeves are entirely based on background rather than game mechanics;

1) Fear Elves. Because a big pack of goblins is more likely to fear a single elf than a unit of dwarf slayers? Sure, they smell funny, but I imagine so do Lizardmen Saurus. A goblin is more likely to attack an Orc than an Elf.

2) Hatred. Many soldiers really, really hate the people who are trying to stick blades in their guts - it doesn't make them more likely to hit with a sword swing.

3) ASF. I actually think this is quite in character for HE and changes their dynamic from just being like the Empire but with higher WS\BS and less guns - but does anyone else get the impression it's entirely based on that bit in Lord of the Rings where the Last Alliance elves do a mexican-wave uppercut?

Also, I think Ghouls get away with their poisoned attacks rule against Undead because they're all consumate bone marrow gourmets. Eating dead things is second nature to them and I bet they'd go through a unit of Grave Guard like a fat kid through tinned cake.

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2010, 16:40
2) Hatred. Many soldiers really, really hate the people who are trying to stick blades in their guts - it doesn't make them more likely to hit with a sword swing.
Yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense. If anything it should be a disadvantage in attacking. I think hatred should provide a bonus to pursuit and that's all. Be also nice if frenzied/hating troops were easier to hit as they're not so fussed on defence.

N810
11-03-2010, 16:44
"protection from ice magic"
-Ogre Yhettees :wtf:

Tokamak
11-03-2010, 16:47
ASF as it removes a vital part of the game.

@N810 Rofl is that even real? Whaha!

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2010, 16:48
Haha! Yes, that's real, the Yhettees have that rule. Definitely a contender for worst special rule!

Enigmatik1
11-03-2010, 16:51
"protection from ice magic"
-Ogres

And we have a winner!

I was going to say the Undead rule and Animosity, but I can't touch the Ice Magic rule.

riotknight
11-03-2010, 16:51
"protection from ice magic"
-Ogre Yhettees :wtf:

I agree, Ice magic isn't even available to any current character, is it?

BigbyWolf
11-03-2010, 16:53
How dare you insult Ice Magic! There's, like....one person in the entire world that uses it!

Urgat
11-03-2010, 16:56
1) Fear Elves. Because a big pack of goblins is more likely to fear a single elf than a unit of dwarf slayers? Sure, they smell funny, but I imagine so do Lizardmen Saurus. A goblin is more likely to attack an Orc than an Elf.

Nah, a big pack of goblins are not going to fear an elf, two gobs won't fear an elf, gobs fear elves that they don't outnumber 2 to 1. The problem is that 30 gobs will fear the 20 elves, and nowadays, units of 20 elves are not rare. Fear elves suck, but let's not make the rule worse than it actually is.


Haha! Yes, that's real, the Yhettees have that rule. Definitely a contender for worst special rule!

The Dragon hide standard (same book...) also gives immunity to ice magic :p Everybody knows the Tzarina is one of the most feared characters in the entire game...
I've never faced her, what about you?

N810
11-03-2010, 17:00
As far as I know only Kisleves had Ice Magic... :shifty:

Condottiere
11-03-2010, 17:05
At this moment, there's only one caster of Ice magic. She obviously made a big impression with the Ogres.

Alltaken
11-03-2010, 17:07
Necromancy spells,
The fact that they can try to cast even when failed a previous atempt is pretty meh

ASF swordmasters are my dread

Grey Mage
11-03-2010, 17:14
Daemonic (In)stability - it breaks an army

Followed by Speed of Asuryan - it just ruins the fun part of the game

So what is generally considered to be the most powerful army in the game has a drawback that when things go wrong, they go very badly indeed for that one unit?

Sorry, I just dont think this an issue at all.

Id say the worst special rule in the game is the inability of flying characters to join units of flyers. Thats just retarded.


No, it's definately the necromancy rule. Without that, Master of the Black Arts really isn't that bad as you can only cast once a phase anyway. The problem is that you can just keep recasting raise or danse until it works. Besides, Lord of the Dead is certainly worse relative to the points cost.

In my opinion this is a good candidate for "worse special rule ever". It was entirely unnecessary and in my opinion the sole highest contributing reason as to why VCs are considered so overpowered.

Frankly though, if the army cant consistantly get of IoN its SOL. While danse isnt needed, the return of dead troops is an important enough aspect of the army I think recasting it as needed isnt an issue.

N810
11-03-2010, 17:16
Id say the worst special rule in the game is the inability of flying characters to join units of flyers. Thats just frickin retarded.
(except Lizardmen Terradons and Skink Chiefs :p)

Grey Mage
11-03-2010, 17:21
Yeah... we really lucked out on that one :). To bad skink priests cant jump on a terradon though...

Ohwell.

Enigmatik1
11-03-2010, 17:25
Can't Bretonnia heroes/lords on flyers join units of Pegasus Knights? For some reason I thought they could...:confused:

The SkaerKrow
11-03-2010, 17:26
No, they merely hide behind them as befits the flower of Bretonnian chivalry.

Grey Mage
11-03-2010, 17:34
Yep... and elves on great eagles cant join units, flying cloaks... nightmares+harpies.... etc etc.

Theres no logical reason for it that I can see.

FictionalCharacter
11-03-2010, 17:36
Frankly though, if the army cant consistantly get of IoN its SOL. While danse isnt needed, the return of dead troops is an important enough aspect of the army I think recasting it as needed isnt an issue.

i agree. i think vampire magic is broken, but i don't think the simple practice of being able to recast is the problem. it just isn't balanced well. make lord of the dead more expensive and/or take away the +1 to IoN that it grants. perhaps introduce a rule that a vampire may only recast necromancy spells a number of times equal to its magic level. maybe raise IoN to 5+. something like that. a couple of little changes in magic would probably fix that entire army.

Urgat
11-03-2010, 17:46
Yep... and elves on great eagles cant join units, flying cloaks... nightmares+harpies.... etc etc.

Theres no logical reason for it that I can see.

It's not restricted to flyers. For instance, gobs on giant cave squigs can't join squig hoppers, go figure. I assume it's all got to do with balance... I guess.

Grey Mage
11-03-2010, 18:01
I hadnt noticed that one... also goes in for stupid rule.

BigbyWolf
11-03-2010, 18:42
It's not restricted to flyers. For instance, gobs on giant cave squigs can't join squig hoppers, go figure. I assume it's all got to do with balance... I guess.

Are you suggesting that a goblin on a squig has a sense of balance?

Urgat
11-03-2010, 18:47
Well yeah, I think they got a pretty awesome one to boot :)

Maoriboy007
11-03-2010, 18:52
No, it's definately the necromancy rule. Without that, Master of the Black Arts really isn't that bad as you can only cast once a phase anyway. The problem is that you can just keep recasting raise or danse until it works. Besides, Lord of the Dead is certainly worse relative to the points cost..

As grey mage states, IoN is so important to the army now that its rediculous to suggest that its unfair that an opponant can't negate it from the game with the most basic of magic defence. Its only overpowered when abused (as are most things in the game TBH). In reality a vampire army needs to reliably cast the spell at LEAST once per turn to stay competitive, some of the complaints suggest that people think they should just be able to remove undead models at will or that all their benefits should be taken away and all the


In my opinion this is a good candidate for "worse special rule ever". It was entirely unnecessary and in my opinion the sole highest contributing reason as to why VCs are considered so overpowered.

Absolutley wrong. Lets look at the most numerous complaints.
12-15 PD spam- well MoTBA is your problem right there.
Multiple Vanhels- Vanhels is just too cheap I admit it. But It needs to be recastable basically because of the 6th edition experience. It just drew too much laughter from your opponant.
3+ casting: Well there are only too ways to get the 3+: Skull staff is and expensive magic item, its fair enough.
The other is having a bloodline power that only works on your core infantry or dogs.
Its not the 3+ to cast thats the problem, I think its the right value of the spell. The bloodline power should have just changed the casting value to 3 instead of giving the +1.


Frankly though, if the army cant consistantly get off IoN its SOL. While danse isnt needed, the return of dead troops is an important enough aspect of the army I think recasting it as needed isnt an issue.

Very True.I'll admit im a bit prejudiced and its something of a sore point, but basically undead magic was laughed at in 6th edition, so whos laughing now? Still I think VC magic can be easily fixed to make it more bearable with a few sensible changes rather than people thinking it needing a comlete nerf.

Misfratz
11-03-2010, 19:41
3) ASF. I actually think this is quite in character for HE...Army-wide ASF is therefore a good example of a special rule introduced to compensate for the fact that the basic game mechanics don't work too well, in the sense that having a high Elven initiative simply is not as much of an advantage as the games designers would wish it to be.

I like the fear Elves special rule though...

Volker the Mad Fiddler
11-03-2010, 19:42
So what is generally considered to be the most powerful army in the game has a drawback that when things go wrong, they go very badly indeed for that one unit?

Sorry, I just dont think this an issue at all.

SNIP

I would argue it is an issue because when things go poorly for daemons, they actually go better than then do for other races. Lost combat by 3 or 4, need to roll a 5 or less to stay- roll a 7 - daemons lose 2 models oh noes! Other armies lose whole units. How is that not a problem?

Volker the Mad Fiddler
11-03-2010, 19:46
Army-wide ASF is therefore a good example of a special rule introduced to compensate for the fact that the basic game mechanics don't work too well, in the sense that having a high Elven initiative simply is not as much of an advantage as the games designers would wish it to be.

I like the fear Elves special rule though...

I could buy this argument, but it is such a clunky and poor fix because it negates too much of game. The problem was that HE quickness wasn't represented and HE are too vulnerable to attacks for the their point cost. An army wide ward [dodge] while less original would be a better solution as it solves both problems but does not negate the importance of the movement phase.

Misfratz
11-03-2010, 20:04
I could buy this argument...Sorry, I wasn't very clear, by "good example" I wasn't inferring that the rule was "good", I was saying that it was a bad rule because it was basically a sticking plaster for the underlying game not working well enough.

Finnigan2004
11-03-2010, 20:15
Aquatic.

Not the rule itself, but I have never seen a water feature on the table of any tournament as a lizardman player because people think it effects the outcome too much. Most casual players don't have them because it creates impassable terrain for every other army (and takes effort to make). Lizardman players don't dare pull it out at their own house as a terrain feature because they'll be accused of stacking the deck.

Maoriboy007
11-03-2010, 20:28
I could buy this argument, but it is such a clunky and poor fix because it negates too much of game. The problem was that HE quickness wasn't represented and HE are too vulnerable to attacks for the their point cost. An army wide ward [dodge] while less original would be a better solution as it solves both problems but does not negate the importance of the movement phase.

Urg :cries:The danger of army wide wards is quite evident with demons, granted demons have a lot more other things going for them as well.

Urgat
11-03-2010, 20:34
Aquatic.

Not the rule itself, but I have never seen a water feature on the table of any tournament as a lizardman player because people think it effects the outcome too much. Most casual players don't have them because it creates impassable terrain for every other army (and takes effort to make). Lizardman players don't dare pull it out at their own house as a terrain feature because they'll be accused of stacking the deck.

That's why random terrain generation had its merits. Other units should have the rule though (river trolls, for instance).

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2010, 20:52
As grey mage states, IoN is so important to the army now that its rediculous to suggest that its unfair that an opponant can't negate it from the game with the most basic of magic defence. Its only overpowered when abused (as are most things in the game TBH). In reality a vampire army needs to reliably cast the spell at LEAST once per turn to stay competitive, some of the complaints suggest that people think they should just be able to remove undead models at will or that all their benefits should be taken away and all the
Don't get me wrong, I play VC and I wouldn't want to see them nerfed. But the point is that the VCs should be able to cast it once or twice - fine, then bring your casters and roll some dice! The issue happens when they're successfully casting it 4-5 times a phase by throwing out a dice at a time. If I really want to cast Vanhels, particularly on a Lord caster or even worse Mannfred, I can probably keep doing it until you burn your scrolls and dice.


Absolutley wrong.
:eyebrows: Oh-kay...


Lets look at the most numerous complaints.
12-15 PD spam- well MoTBA is your problem right there.
Disagree. Sure, MoTBA is probably a bit good particularly on the hero vamps but the fact that you can use all these dice to raise or vanhels is really crippling, all of these dice can be used to their full potential on a spell that is ALWAYS useful. You can spread these power dice among a heap of casting spells, whereas if they were using any other spells you'd need to throw two or three dice at a time. Lastly, by being able to recase invokation again and again on one or two dice a pop, the vamps can pretty much avoid mistcasting and ending the phase/having something horrible happen to their caster, not to mention bypassing most armies' magical defences. Sure, 12-15 PD is pretty obscene by itself, but there are other such armies out there and the single thing that makes vamps so effective is being able to recast.


Multiple Vanhels- Vanhels is just too cheap I admit it. But It needs to be recastable basically because of the 6th edition experience. It just drew too much laughter from your opponant.
If you have enough power dice this is game-breaking in a way that spells like unseen lurker aren't, because you can burn through the opponent's defences. Vamps don't NEED Vanhels to win. They're no longer unable to march, even outside the range of the general, there are so many ways of bypassing this restriction now it really doesn't seem to be a restriction. With heavy cavalry that can move through terrain, superheavy cavalry that eat Khorne knights for breakfast and a range of dribblies like winged nightmares and vargulfs, the days when undead needed vanhels to take initiative in the game are long gone. I don't want to see the spell gone, but does it need to be recastable? No it doesn't, the vampire army should be perfectly capable of outmanoeuvering enemy anyway.


3+ casting: Well there are only too ways to get the 3+: Skull staff is and expensive magic item, its fair enough.
The other is having a bloodline power that only works on your core infantry or dogs.
Its not the 3+ to cast thats the problem, I think its the right value of the spell. The bloodline power should have just changed the casting value to 3 instead of giving the +1.
All of which I'd agree with you - if you couldn't recast the spell. The 3+ casting value is only an issue when you can just keep throwing a dice at a time to burn through an opponent's dispel pile and make a mockery of his scrolls, avoid miscasting and magic defences, etc etc. There's nothing wrong with the 3+ cast, if you could only cast it once a phase. Recasting, now that's a problem, which brings us back to the fact that the necromantic rule is the only issue with the vamp list. All of the issues with vamp magic come back to this any way you slice it - without the recast, sure 12+PD armies would still be a pain, but you might see players using some of the other spells! You could save scrolls for the inevitable vanhels or prevent a critical invokation.


Very True.I'll admit im a bit prejudiced and its something of a sore point, but basically undead magic was laughed at in 6th edition, so whos laughing now? Still I think VC magic can be easily fixed to make it more bearable with a few sensible changes rather than people thinking it needing a comlete nerf.
Removing the necromantic rule is a "comlete nerf" is it? Come on! It would just require VC players to think just a little bit about their magic phase, that's all.

BigbyWolf
11-03-2010, 20:53
That's why random terrain generation had its merits. Other units should have the rule though (river trolls, for instance).

But then they run the chance of drowning if they fail a stupidity test...

Enigmatik1
11-03-2010, 20:57
No, they merely hide behind them as befits the flower of Bretonnian chivalry.

Ugh...now you have me wanting a Bretonnian army with my General, Marquis Craven de Triomphe, cowering behind a unit of Pegasus Knights!

Thanks, Skaer! :mad:

The_Bureaucrat
12-03-2010, 01:10
Chariots, specifically a strength 7 hit auto killing them.

larabic
12-03-2010, 01:12
Auto Break from fear... makes the game no fun. Fear should just be a test if you want to charge them. Always had problems with armies that took 1/3 rd of the rule book and tossed it away.

shadowskale
12-03-2010, 01:20
therefore the warrior preists are able to fly and see out the back of there head?"
Blow me backwards and call me a fart, that would be bloody awesome! :p

OT: animosity gets my vote.

theunwantedbeing
12-03-2010, 01:44
Removing the necromantic rule is a "comlete nerf" is it? Come on! It would just require VC players to think just a little bit about their magic phase, that's all.

Pretty damned near every VC list I've seen would indeed be completely nerfed by the removal of the necromancy spells special rule.
But then again, those lists do somewhat rely on invcation-spam because they start off with almost nothing in the way of troops.

Necromancy Black
12-03-2010, 03:03
Animosity. I don't even like playing against Orcs and Goblins because it hurts them so much.

Also, the current Mark of Nurgle rules are stupid. Let's just go +1 toughness and immune to poison. Done.

Maoriboy007
12-03-2010, 03:13
Don't get me wrong, I play VC and I wouldn't want to see them nerfed. But the point is that the VCs should be able to cast it once or twice - fine, then bring your casters and roll some dice!

You'll need nehek more than once or twice just to stay in the game with undead. And the argument works both ways , if you want to stop me , bring your casters and roll some dice- after all I've spent my points on it you can spend yours


The issue happens when they're successfully casting it 4-5 times a phase by throwing out a dice at a time. If I really want to cast Vanhels, particularly on a Lord caster or even worse Mannfred, I can probably keep doing it until you burn your scrolls and dice.

The alternative is taking the spells out of the game completely, while I can stand by the fact that Vanhels is a bit cheap Invocation and Vanhels need to be recastable because otherwise your opponantwill never let you cast the spell when it will be useful

Vanhels will only be really useful in one , maybe ,two points in the game and your opponant will not only be able to see it coming, they will also be expecting it and probably more than prepared for it.


:eyebrows: Oh-kay...

Exactly my reaction to Necromancy being the worst rule


Disagree. Sure, MoTBA is probably a bit good particularly on the hero vamps but the fact that you can use all these dice to raise or vanhels is really crippling, all of these dice can be used to their full potential on a spell that is ALWAYS useful

Why is that such a problem? you should be bale to use all of your dice on a useful spell, otherwise why spend the points on magic in the first place?. Neither of the spells are as particularly or autamatically devestating as gateway or flickering fire.
Invocation has practically no effect until you can win a combat, if the fear rules get fixed (as is on the tables) then this will have even less effect as the auto-break is the best application of the spell.


You can spread these power dice among a heap of casting spells, whereas if they were using any other spells you'd need to throw two or three dice at a time.

Getting the full potential from your valuable dice shouldn't be seen as a crime.
And you can always fail to cast the spell
In fact you are just as likely to waste half your dice throwing them at a single casting, or at least a third with the bloodlines.
You can still throw multiple dice, but that means scrolls and miscast.


Lastly, by being able to recase invokation again and again on one or two dice a pop, the vamps can pretty much avoid mistcasting and ending the phase/having something horrible happen to their caster, not to mention bypassing most armies' magical defences. Sure, 12-15 PD is pretty obscene by itself, but there are other such armies out there and the single thing that makes vamps so effective is being able to recast[COLOR="magenta"]

Again, why is there this conception that wizards should have to miscast. Why do people think that the possibility of having the oppnants most valuable character nerf himself , without them enen lifting a finger, is a god given right?
Add that to the fact that the points spent on magic are wasted every time you either fail a spell or get nothing out of it (I get many phases where 8 power dice net me 2-3 models)


[[COLOR="magenta"]If you have enough power dice this is game-breaking in a way that spells like unseen lurker aren't, because you can burn through the opponent's defences.

Invocation needs to burn through an opponants defences, just due to the vital part it plays in the undead army.
Again MotBA play a part in the abuse of this.


Vamps don't NEED Vanhels to win. They're no longer unable to march, even outside the range of the general, there are so many ways of bypassing this restriction now it really doesn't seem to be a restriction. With heavy cavalry that can move through terrain, superheavy cavalry that eat Khorne knights for breakfast and a range of dribblies like winged nightmares and vargulfs, the days when undead needed vanhels to take initiative in the game are long gone. I don't want to see the spell gone, but does it need to be recastable? No it doesn't, the vampire army should be perfectly capable of outmanoeuvering enemy anyway.

Opponants with fast cavalry or any kind of bait and flee troops will always out maneuver you, thats when you certainly need vanhels


[All of which I'd agree with you - if you couldn't recast the spell. The 3+ casting value is only an issue when you can just keep throwing a dice at a time to burn through an opponent's dispel pile and make a mockery of his scrolls, avoid miscasting and magic defences, etc etc. There's nothing wrong with the 3+ cast, if you could only cast it once a phase. Recasting, now that's a problem, which brings us back to the fact that the necromantic rule is the only issue with the vamp list. All of the issues with vamp magic come back to this any way you slice it - without the recast, sure 12+PD armies would still be a pain, but you might see players using some of the other spells! You could save scrolls for the inevitable vanhels or prevent a critical invokation.

Scrolls not being able to nullify magic wont win you a sympathetic ear from my end, thay are half the problem in the first place, and now there is a trend if things like infernal puppet Bcalming and the infamous ring of hotek, with all that going on I still cant understand people thinking that recasting is unfair with all that arrayed against them- and thats before dispel dice come into the picture.




[Removing the necromantic rule is a "comlete nerf" is it? Come on! It would just require VC players to think just a little bit about their magic phase, that's all.

You should be asking why the necromancy rule is there in the first place. Considering the army is written with it in mind then a whole rewite would be required if you took it out.

Lord Inquisitor
12-03-2010, 04:38
The alternative is taking the spells out of the game completely, while I can stand by the fact that Vanhels is a bit cheap Invocation and Vanhels need to be recastable because otherwise your opponantwill never let you cast the spell when it will be useful
Come on, we're not talking taking the spells out of the game. You can still cast Invocation four times a magic phase. You might just need to throw more than one dice to get it to work.

Yes, vanhels can be pivotal, so yeah, your opponent is going to want to stop it! The same is true for any big spell. For my daemons, Phantasmagoria is typically game-winning for me and my opponents know it. Some games I get it off, some games I don't. That doesn't mean I NEED to get it off to win. Vanhels is the same, typically a critical Vanhels is game-winning.


Why is that such a problem? you should be bale to use all of your dice on a useful spell, otherwise why spend the points on magic in the first place?. Neither of the spells are as particularly or autamatically devestating as gateway or flickering fire.
Absolutely agree. Why does this mean that Necromancy spells need be recast? You can use your dice, you just can't feed one dice at a time.


Invocation has practically no effect until you can win a combat, if the fear rules get fixed (as is on the tables) then this will have even less effect as the auto-break is the best application of the spell.
Are you really backtracking to saying that Invocation should be recastable because it doesn't have that much of an effect on the game? You're kidding, right? Hell, Invocation is all the more useful when you are losing combat!


Getting the full potential from your valuable dice shouldn't be seen as a crime.
Getting more potential than any other army resulting in VCs being decidedly overpowered versus virtually all other armies in the game, yeah, it's a problem.


And you can always fail to cast the spell
In fact you are just as likely to waste half your dice throwing them at a single casting, or at least a third with the bloodlines.
You can still throw multiple dice, but that means scrolls and miscast.
Exactly. Which would bring VCs down a peg or two while still allowing them their magic.


Again, why is there this conception that wizards should have to miscast. Why do people think that the possibility of having the oppnants most valuable character nerf himself , without them enen lifting a finger, is a god given right?
Wow, you'd think I was making VCs unplayable. Because that's a risk that virtually every magic user - and magic heavy army - has to endure. It's not game breaking, but it contributes to the general overpowerdness of the VC army.

Put another way, why should the VCs be able to bypass this risk?


Opponants with fast cavalry or any kind of bait and flee troops will always out maneuver you, thats when you certainly need vanhels
*Shrug* Personally, I find that fell bats, wolves, flying characters and monsters not to mention rovers like the vargulf can deal with these just fine, just as with any other army. The tools are there, VC players are too used to the crutch that is the magic. And it's not like magic is taken away, just you need to get it right, again as with any other army.


Scrolls not being able to nullify magic wont win you a sympathetic ear from my end, thay are half the problem in the first place, and now there is a trend if things like infernal puppet Bcalming and the infamous ring of hotek, with all that going on I still cant understand people thinking that recasting is unfair with all that arrayed against them- and thats before dispel dice come into the picture.
You're right, VCs are totally balanced and not at all a top-tier army. Hell, they NEED this advantage that noone else in the game gets just to stay competitive with those terribly unfair WoC armies.

Listen to yourself. I've won tournaments with my VCs and you can bet I use every bit of them to my advantage, including spamming invocation and vanhels. But lets not convince ourselves that they're not overpowered, eh?


You should be asking why the necromancy rule is there in the first place. Considering the army is written with it in mind then a whole rewite would be required if you took it out.
Oh come on! The army would lose power, sure, bringing it more in-line with other armies out there. But the rule is an artefact of a time where undead were slow and pondering and required their magic to both manoeuver and fight and you couldn't have both the fighting power of vampires and magical dominance. Now with the helm of command and the ability to take fighty vampires as your magic users, plus the mobility of etherial cavalry, wolves vargulfs, flying monsters, bats and the fact that you can effectively entirely bypass the marching restriction means that this crutch is no longer necessary.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
12-03-2010, 06:14
Urg :cries:The danger of army wide wards is quite evident with demons, granted demons have a lot more other things going for them as well.

With Daemons it is really the combination- look at the Bretts- effectively army wide wards and not too many complaints [or Forest Spirit Wood Elf Armies]. Plus wards just make models more difficult to kill, they don't really mess with game mechanics and the metagame the way ASF does. If HEs just had an army wide dodge save, my WE playing friend's reaction after reading the book would not have been "Oh well, arrows always strike first." [In plainer terms, ASF army on HEs means that one of the best ways to deal with them is increased shooting, but most people seem to feel that heavy shooting is boring to play with or against].

Harwammer
12-03-2010, 07:37
Auto Break from fear... makes the game no fun. Fear should just be a test if you want to charge them. Always had problems with armies that took 1/3 rd of the rule book and tossed it away.

I think you'll find fear is part of the rulebook :p

Autobreak from fear is balanced around the idea that fear-causing troops are expensive, making it possible to counterbalance this rule with your own large units. A big problem is VC being able to increase units beyond their starting size for very cheaply (I think each core model raised takes roughly the equivalent investment in powers/magic as the cost of a goblin; increasing unit sizes in such a directed way for so cheaply isn't really fair).


Pretty damned near every VC list I've seen would indeed be completely nerfed by the removal of the necromancy spells special rule.
But then again, those lists do somewhat rely on invcation-spam because they start off with almost nothing in the way of troops.
Yep its often lists like this that abuse the autobreak rule; its cheaper to invest in magic and raise units to huge numbers than just start with those numbers on the table. Its not something I like to do with my own VC.

Souppilgrim
12-03-2010, 07:46
March blocking.

"So I put these 3 harpies behind your unit and now you can't march. Oh but you can't charge them because you can't see them. Oh and you can't just turn around and walk into combat because that would make sense" GAH!!!

Also on poison vs skeletons remember bone is organic. It's possible to create a venom to virulent it can literally dissolve bone. It's not as if you're trying to poison stone.

I like that march blocking exists...but agree with everything else. You can have a couple of little guys 5 feet behind a big unit and somehow that unit is totally unable to touch you. You should be able to do a regular move into combat (without any charge bonuses, and maybe give ASL to the movers or something).

Another thing that bugs me is when a super awesome unit of knights instant pops to 3 skinks that were standing kinda behind them...all because the knights saw some worthless little unit of foot troops die. I know, that's not a special rule but I had to say it.

Also dwarf rangers that, if placed in a wood, will never make it out of said wood before their great grandchildren die of old age.

Lord of Worms
12-03-2010, 07:51
Daemonic Instability.

It's like Matt Ward spits in my eye every time I see a DoC player take a stability test.
:wtf:
Sigged!

Lorcryst
12-03-2010, 11:21
Animosity.

1 in 3 chance of every unit in your army NOT performing according to the plan.

And NO, the 6 "We'll show 'em" result is not a benefit, not worded as it is ...

Urgat
12-03-2010, 11:33
Another thing that bugs me is when a super awesome unit of knights instant pops to 3 skinks that were standing kinda behind them...

Technically, that's not true, you need 5 skinks for the knights to be destroyed ;)

Flash Felix
12-03-2010, 12:02
Chariots, specifically a strength 7 hit auto killing them.

Actually, in my humble opinion, this one makes perfect sense. The most vulnerable part of the chariot isn't the vehicle itself or even the crew; it's the animals. If one of them is killed, or even lamed, the whole vehicle is essentially unusable. Try steering a chariot at speed when one of the animals is either deadweight, or moving at a walk?

I think that the S7 autokill rule replicates the weakness of a chariot quite nicely; a big hit of any sort is going to screw the animals, even if the vehicle itself is still OK. Because they're a hell of a lot more effective in Warhammer than they were in real life. There's a reason they were obsolete in most parts of the world by around 300BC.

The SkaerKrow
12-03-2010, 12:35
Thanks, Skaer! :mad:We aim to please. :D

Whitehorn
12-03-2010, 12:59
There's stupid and there's army ruining.

My vote for the latter is animosity. I love the concept, the mechanic is terrible though.

Urgat
12-03-2010, 13:14
Actually, in my humble opinion, this one makes perfect sense. The most vulnerable part of the chariot isn't the vehicle itself or even the crew; it's the animals. If one of them is killed, or even lamed, the whole vehicle is essentially unusable. Try steering a chariot at speed when one of the animals is either deadweight, or moving at a walk?

Yeah, that's why I prefer the 5th ed rules, for once. gave a meaning to additionnal horses/wolves/whatever

brendel
12-03-2010, 13:28
I do believe that O&G need Animosity, but in its present format its no good, Orc's that love to fight wont charge because they decide to bicker, If they are that close to the enermy im sure they would rather charge them.

Condottiere
12-03-2010, 13:40
Considering the potential damage a chariot can do, the speed it can get into combat and the fact that it has four wounds, the Strength 7 death blow is appropriate.

Whitehorn
12-03-2010, 13:43
If they are that close to the enermy im sure they would rather charge them.

This would move towards fixing the rule. I once failed animosity when 4 inches away from a unit of Dwarves. What a terrible roll!

brendel
12-03-2010, 13:48
This would move towards fixing the rule. I once failed animosity when 4 inches away from a unit of Dwarves. What a terrible roll!

yes had the same thing happen to me, but it was against some bret knights guess who charged me the next turn.

The SkaerKrow
12-03-2010, 15:05
Considering the potential damage a chariot can do, the speed it can get into combat and the fact that it has four wounds, the Strength 7 death blow is appropriate.This is one of those rare occasions where I completely disagree with you. Chariots actually aren't all that fast out don't particularly outperform Heavy Cavalry. Indeed, the only armies that seem to consistently run Chariots are those that don't have access to viable Heavy Cavalry (so Orcs and Goblins, Beastmen and Tomb Kings). Sure, there are many High Elf players that own Lion Chariots, but I've never seen one hit the table at any tournament that I've attended.

If attacks with Strength 7 or higher did double wounds to a Chariot I think that it would be a lot easier to stomach than the silly auto-death rule.

moose
12-03-2010, 15:08
Hatred is applied to mounts/monstrous mounts for dark elves.

Surely their horses aren't that nasty/evil to hate me that much? It's just silly nonsense.


Moose.

Lord Inquisitor
12-03-2010, 15:27
If attacks with Strength 7 or higher did double wounds to a Chariot I think that it would be a lot easier to stomach than the silly auto-death rule.

Not to mention that most S7+ weapons that are meant to smash apart chariots (cannots, stone throwers, etc) deal multiple wounds anyway. A chariot hit by a cannonball has a 50-50 chance of being smashed to pieces. The only things that really benefit from this rule are S7 close combat attacks, and that never really sat well with me.

Condottiere
12-03-2010, 16:21
I have a feeling it's a slippery slope once you start turning the strength of a hit into multiple wounding. Seen from a perspective of precedence (cannons), and real life weapons, you hit something hard enough, it's going to cause massive damage, possibly preserving it's structural integrity. The number seven is a threshold in this game, and I'd like it to be the potential for structural damage.

Urgat
12-03-2010, 17:14
This would move towards fixing the rule. I once failed animosity when 4 inches away from a unit of Dwarves. What a terrible roll!

Once? Things like that happen to me about every game :p

gogs78
12-03-2010, 17:23
Daemonic instability.

Souppilgrim
12-03-2010, 17:23
Technically, that's not true, you need 5 skinks for the knights to be destroyed ;)

Forgot about that...still it's one of those rules that really turn new players off the game, and that's the last thing you want to do. More players is a good thing.

Flash Felix
12-03-2010, 17:24
I have a feeling it's a slippery slope once you start turning the strength of a hit into multiple wounding. Seen from a perspective of precedence (cannons), and real life weapons, you hit something hard enough, it's going to cause massive damage, possibly preserving it's structural integrity. The number seven is a threshold in this game, and I'd like it to be the potential for structural damage.

I agree with you, but for a different reason. It's not about how robust the vehicle is, it's how the whole thing hinges on the draft animals. If one of these so much as develops a limp, the chariot can't be used at all. Damage either of those animals, whether they're horses, boars or cold ones, and the thing is stuffed. S7 hits, purposefully or not, replicates this rather large vulnerabililty.

Harwammer
12-03-2010, 18:35
Forgot about that...still it's one of those rules that really turn new players off the game, and that's the last thing you want to do. More players is a good thing.

This happens when the newbie gets outplayed (US5+ behind enemy their own units). They aren't really leaving the game because of this rule (though that may be the reason they attribute to leaving the game), the reason they are leaving the game is because more veteran players aren't cutting them slack, they are instead just laying down the poonage on some poor, unsuspecting babe.

Urgat
12-03-2010, 18:40
Forgot about that...still it's one of those rules that really turn new players off the game, and that's the last thing you want to do. More players is a good thing.

Usually, the people I've tried to get into warhammer get turned off when I explain how the units move, the wheels, all that :p

Malorian
12-03-2010, 18:49
Usually, the people I've tried to get into warhammer get turned off when I explain how the units move, the wheels, all that :p

Really? That's the part that drew me in :confused:


When I teach the game to people who end up not liking it, it's not because of any one rule but just because the whole 'table strategy game thing' isn't for them.

The SkaerKrow
12-03-2010, 19:37
Hatred is applied to mounts/monstrous mounts for dark elves.

Surely their horses aren't that nasty/evil to hate me that much? It's just silly nonsense.


Moose.Their horses have pointy vampire teeth and eat meat! Also, that pony that they wanted when they were nine years old? They didn't get it, you did! :mad:

Yes, they do hate you that much.

Malorian
12-03-2010, 19:39
Their horses have pointy vampire teeth and eat meat! Also, that pony that they wanted when they were nine years old? They didn't get it, you did! :mad:

Yes, they do hate you that much.

Another good way to look at it is with dogs.

Look at a dog owned by a person with a hateful personality and look at a dog owned by a person with a loving personality.

The difference will be very distinct.

Jormi_Boced
12-03-2010, 21:07
I think the Horned One being a magic item instead of a mount is wierd.

N810
12-03-2010, 21:09
I think the Horned One being a magic item instead of a mount is wierd.

yea bizare... The only reason I could think they would do that is to limit some sort of combo with another magic item ???

Jormi_Boced
12-03-2010, 21:17
yea bizare... The only reason I could think they would do that is to limit some sort of combo with another magic item ???

Yeah, I am sure that is it, but it seems like a wierd way to do it.

If it wasn't a magic item I think it would be cool to put a skink bsb in a unit of Cold One Cavalry with the Skavenpelt Banner:) Unfortunately the Skink would die quickly, so it wouldn't be that great of a combo or anything, but it would be cool to get that unit into combat just one time with the extra frenzied attacks from mounts and riders:)

N810
12-03-2010, 21:20
Yeah, I am sure that is it, but it seems like a wierd way to do it.

If it wasn't a magic item I think it would be cool to put a skink bsb in a unit of Cold One Cavalry with the Skavenpelt Banner:) Unfortunately the Skink would die quickly, so it wouldn't be that great of a combo or anything, but it would be cool to get that unit into combat just one time with the extra frenzied attacks from mounts and riders:)

Well you Can put a Skink Chief of foot with the Skaven Pelt in with the cold ones... They will just be 1" slower. ;)

Jormi_Boced
12-03-2010, 21:33
Yeah, and that is two inches off the charge that they desperately need to hopefully kill off anything that could attack the Skink. I suppose you could give them the one time use banner. How would that work with frenzy I wonder?

Enigmatik1
12-03-2010, 21:48
While not a Special Rule, I have one for a glaring omission of one:

WoC DPs not having Magical attacks! :wtf:

Commodus Leitdorf
12-03-2010, 22:23
Heh, I'll go against the grain...

Master of Battle for the Empire Grand master

When a Grand Master join a unit of knights of the same order, they become immune to psychology.

So basically, if I have a model of the Grand master of the Knights Panther as my GM and put him in a unit of Reiksguard knights....they do not benefit from the Master of Battle rule.

Kind of a RAW gripe, but still true.

Shazarn
13-03-2010, 06:18
Aside from stupidity as mentioned before, I'd say Lord Kroak's First Generation Spawning as it brought a tear to my eye seeing the most awesome caster in the game reduced to a power dice farmer

Grey Mage
13-03-2010, 09:03
Getting more potential than any other army resulting in VCs being decidedly overpowered versus virtually all other armies in the game, yeah, it's a problem.[/COLOR]


I would contest this- the problem is not with VCs recasting- its with people overly relying on the ability to stop spells with scrolls and not taking enough core troops.

Elites will get bogged down by skellies and zombies, and eventually theyll whiff... but basic troopers are cheaper, less likely to be outnumbered, and in many cases just as effective as their elite counterparts.

DD are more powerful than scrolls against VCs- to bad most people dont try to use them properly. Maybe instead of trying to nerf VCs casting abilities good players should work on their effective magical defenses?

Urgat
13-03-2010, 10:26
Yeah, many people also don't seem to realise the net gain they get by using the staff of sorcery against spam casters. Nah, they prefer stupid scrolls :p

Dag
13-03-2010, 10:48
are we writing lists after we know what we're fighting?

no army but VC spam a dice on a 3+ 10x a turn. Daemons can cast a 5 spells maybe, but the problem arises when your VC get a +1 to all their stuff. 3-4 average goes to 4-5, and then the dispel chance goes down to below 25% unless you throw two dice, which is a big waste.

im not griping or hating, i love the vc army and its fluff is really cool.

The rule i hate the most is "Outnumbered by a Fear causing enemy"
reroll successfull leadership saves, auto breaking is just too brutal with an enemy that literally gets raised faster than you can kill it

Grey Mage
13-03-2010, 12:08
are we writing lists after we know what we're fighting?

no army but VC spam a dice on a 3+ 10x a turn. Daemons can cast a 5 spells maybe, but the problem arises when your VC get a +1 to all their stuff. 3-4 average goes to 4-5, and then the dispel chance goes down to below 25% unless you throw two dice, which is a big waste.

im not griping or hating, i love the vc army and its fluff is really cool.

First thing- Thats not true, DE and DoC can both spam 10 spells a turn at 2k, or more.

2ndly, this has nothing to do with taloring your list. Im just saying in general- dispell scrolls are used because they are seen as "reliable". You know, supposedly, that you will stop the enemy spell dead in its tracks.

The problem is, if all you take is a scroll caddy, or two, your basicly declairing two things:
1) Your counting on your opponent to never get irresistable force.
And more importantly:
2) You would rather gaurantee stopping 2 or 4 spells, then having a good chance of stopping each and every spell.

50pts to add +1 to all dispell attempts, or a total of +2 for HE, is the cost of two of those scrolls- and going against an opponent whos using magic it will, over the course of the game, have a greater effect than two dispell scrolls vs a pair of lvl 2 enemy mages.

And god forbid we include such wonders as *gasp* magic resistance! or *woah!* wizard hunting flyers/infiltrators, or *OMG!* items that reduce/steal enemy PD to our own benefit.

There are alot of ways to protect against magic. But what do you see? Dispell scrolls- because someone decided, years ago, that they were the best and managed to convince others there was nothing else worth taking for magical defense, or that the points saved from not taking wizards could never be viable elsewhere.

Cost of a lvl 2 a lvl 1 empire wizard with 2 scrolls, is greater than that of an empire great cannon- but you can be sure that in the hands of a skilled player that cannon will probly do more direct damage to the field. Or how about that 30 strong unit of halbrediers you took instead? The one thats big enough to weather most arrow fire and still give you a +3 rank bonus?

And heres an interesting trend... go through the army books and youll find that with a couple of exceptions, like brettonians, you can field a respectable core or special choice for the price of a wizard with dispell scrolls, and almost always field a unit capable of hunting down and killing enemy wizards.

For the price of a 1rst level HE mage with 2x DS, I can hit in no fewer than 8 levels of magic resistance in a dwarven army. For the price of a Casting Vampire I can get a skink Priest who takes up a hero slot instead and has as many DD as he has PD, and gives a portion of my army a 5++ against any magic missiles coming their way.

DD have the advantage, if merely because the burden of success is on the caster.

Razhem
13-03-2010, 14:16
I agree with Necromancy being stupid good. For those vampire players whining, remember kids, there are higher difficulty castings of the spell, instead of casting on one dice 8 times, use your 3 casters to cast higher versions of the spell, you can still lift a lot of bodies but it isn't stupid broken.

BigbyWolf
13-03-2010, 14:27
I think the Horned One being a magic item instead of a mount is wierd.

I'm not sure, but isn't it possible to give a Skink Chief a horned one, then mount him on a stegadon?

Tymell
13-03-2010, 14:28
Black Orc Bosses/Warbosses "Quell Animosity".

It's proably intended as a bonus, but it is just a huge drawback that make them almost unfieldable.

Agreed on that one. Black Orcs stopping animosity? Great. Even inflicting a wee bit of damage in the process? Yeah, okay, I can go with that. So long as it's low, I can imagine them bashing some heads. But the rough equivolent of a vampire attacking the unit? I don't think so.

Make it something more like D6 S2 hits and then it wouldn't be so bad.


Stupidity, makes no sense whatsoever, no predatory creature on the planet just has a moment of stupidity while on the hunt.

Yeah, and this. Honestly, stupidity could be good in certain cases, but there's a difference between something that truly suffers from stupidity and a wild beast that will simply act on it's (most likely predatory) instincts.

Corrode
13-03-2010, 14:52
I'm not sure, but isn't it possible to give a Skink Chief a horned one, then mount him on a stegadon?

I think it might have been FAQed but as far as I can tell it's entirely possible to do this by the RAW in the army book. Stacking mounts ftw?

Jormi_Boced
13-03-2010, 15:29
I think it might have been FAQed but as far as I can tell it's entirely possible to do this by the RAW in the army book. Stacking mounts ftw?

You could probably fit a Horned One in the Howdah

Enigmatik1
13-03-2010, 15:32
Yeah, many people also don't seem to realise the net gain they get by using the staff of sorcery against spam casters. Nah, they prefer stupid scrolls :p

Agreed.

I've come to like the -1 to enemy casting thanks to the Casket of Souls and the Staff of Sorcery for the +1 to dispel over a couple of Scrolls. A net -2 to enemy spells generally means a lot of spells simply fail over the course of the game. :D

I wouldn't always use this set up, in fact I've only used it once. But I would every single time I faced a Vampire Counts list.

Hunter Rose
13-03-2010, 15:38
Animosity. And with it, Black Orc's ability to bash in some heads.

Djekar
13-03-2010, 15:43
While not a Special Rule, I have one for a glaring omission of one:

WoC DPs not having Magical attacks!

This isn't an omission - they address it in the WoC FAQ!!

He's just too far south to get magical attacks!

How this works when the entirety of the Daemons army is made of essentially the same stuff as the WoC DPrince and they still get magical attacks is beyond me though. I mean, don't they come down as far south to do some killing?

Enigmatik1
13-03-2010, 16:57
This isn't an omission - they address it in the WoC FAQ!!

He's just too far south to get magical attacks!

How this works when the entirety of the Daemons army is made of essentially the same stuff as the WoC DPrince and they still get magical attacks is beyond me though. I mean, don't they come down as far south to do some killing?

It's obviously something in the water!

Djekar
13-03-2010, 17:13
So I was going to say that Daemons don't drink. Then I remembered that they are the physical manifestation of our fears, doubts and weaknesses. So if we fear them drinking hard enough, maybe they do drink. And maybe people will stop taking Obsidian Armor on their 'Thirsters?

Urgat
13-03-2010, 17:19
or that the points saved from not taking wizards could never be viable elsewhere.

Problem is, you need wizards to take the other items, usually. I need to waste two hero slots just to take both staff of sorcery and sneaky stealing. Thank god they're cheap, those gob shamans, otherwise I'd said screw theme and have fielded one unit of orcs with the dispell banner long ago >>

Condottiere
13-03-2010, 18:31
Yeah, many people also don't seem to realise the net gain they get by using the staff of sorcery against spam casters. Nah, they prefer stupid scrolls :pIt's a great item, if you happen to be a High Elf and facing lots of casters.

BigbyWolf
13-03-2010, 19:01
Stacking mounts ftw?

Wouldn't advise it, I've just put an old action figure on the back of my cat, then put him on top of my dog...it was mayhem, hilarious mayhem!

Caiphas Cain
13-03-2010, 19:21
Wouldn't advise it, I've just put an old action figure on the back of my cat, then put him on top of my dog...it was mayhem, hilarious mayhem!

^ :p.

Nothing to add to the current discusion other than demonic instability has got to be the worst.

Aladauqs
13-03-2010, 19:39
Sneaky Gits and their 'always lap round' rule.

Not even a rule anymore, let alone a special one. Makes Sneaky Gits even less worth taking.

BigbyWolf
13-03-2010, 20:20
True, but it was written at a time where you could lap around, and in those days if I got the opportunity to lap around, I tended to do so.

Aladauqs
13-03-2010, 21:24
True, but it was written at a time where you could lap around, and in those days if I got the opportunity to lap around, I tended to do so.

Yeah, no question back in the day it was great. That many poisoned attacks was ridiculous. Now, though, naked hobgoblins, even with poisoned attacks, can't do very much.

Phelix
13-03-2010, 21:44
I agree with ASF: I remember elves before and they weren't weak, but were incredibly hard to play (hmmmmm considering they are elves perhaps they should be hard to play, but I digress) and this helped them out a great deal. Ive only honestly found this to be obnoxious on one unit (Swordmasters) everything else hits like a butterfly so its ok if I let them strike first, and I can just shoot/magic/impact hit the swordmasters to death. Easy enough

I refuse to believe demons exist and if anyone in my group mentions they are going to start playing them I will punch them in the face.

Anyways.... worst special rule..... hmmmmmm I kinda agree with stupidity, though very colorful & funny, I believe it should be replaced with something more akin to "bestial" where they just turn into ravaging hunters when they aren't controlled (and go after the closest thing in LoS)

Maoriboy007
14-03-2010, 21:39
I agree with Necromancy being stupid good. For those vampire players whining, remember kids, there are higher difficulty castings of the spell, instead of casting on one dice 8 times, use your 3 casters to cast higher versions of the spell, you can still lift a lot of bodies but it isn't stupid broken.

Every time I venture more than a couple of dice I will always run into scrolls, the ring of hotek ,infernal puppet or some other drek . Its so frustrating that it seems more than fair being able to get a decent return out of my wizards by throwing single dice.
Not to metion Grey mages point:


First thing- Thats not true, DE and DoC can both spam 10 spells a turn at 2k, or more.

2ndly, this has nothing to do with taloring your list. Im just saying in general- dispell scrolls are used because they are seen as "reliable". You know, supposedly, that you will stop the enemy spell dead in its tracks.

The problem is, if all you take is a scroll caddy, or two, your basicly declairing two things:
1) Your counting on your opponent to never get irresistable force.
And more importantly:
2) You would rather gaurantee stopping 2 or 4 spells, then having a good chance of stopping each and every spell.

50pts to add +1 to all dispell attempts, or a total of +2 for HE, is the cost of two of those scrolls- and going against an opponent whos using magic it will, over the course of the game, have a greater effect than two dispell scrolls vs a pair of lvl 2 enemy mages.

And god forbid we include such wonders as *gasp* magic resistance! or *woah!* wizard hunting flyers/infiltrators, or *OMG!* items that reduce/steal enemy PD to our own benefit.

There are alot of ways to protect against magic. But what do you see? Dispell scrolls- because someone decided, years ago, that they were the best and managed to convince others there was nothing else worth taking for magical defense, or that the points saved from not taking wizards could never be viable elsewhere.

Cost of a lvl 2 a lvl 1 empire wizard with 2 scrolls, is greater than that of an empire great cannon- but you can be sure that in the hands of a skilled player that cannon will probly do more direct damage to the field. Or how about that 30 strong unit of halbrediers you took instead? The one thats big enough to weather most arrow fire and still give you a +3 rank bonus?

And heres an interesting trend... go through the army books and youll find that with a couple of exceptions, like brettonians, you can field a respectable core or special choice for the price of a wizard with dispell scrolls, and almost always field a unit capable of hunting down and killing enemy wizards.

For the price of a 1rst level HE mage with 2x DS, I can hit in no fewer than 8 levels of magic resistance in a dwarven army. For the price of a Casting Vampire I can get a skink Priest who takes up a hero slot instead and has as many DD as he has PD, and gives a portion of my army a 5++ against any magic missiles coming their way.

DD have the advantage, if merely because the burden of success is on the caster.

That last line is one of the most important aspects of magic yet probably the most overlooked.

Troah
14-03-2010, 21:46
Daemonic Instability.

It's like Matt Ward spits in my eye every time I see a DoC player take a stability test.

What does Demonic Instability do now? I know what it did in 6th edition, but I've never seen a demon army or codex for 7th.

yorch
14-03-2010, 22:43
Instability now is estatistically like undead crumbling for common daemons (better for greater daemons).

When you make the break test, daemons suffer a wound (no saves) for each point you lost your check (if any). So if they lose by 1, and roll 8, for a common leadership of 7, they will lose 2 wounds (8+1-7=2 wounds).


I don't understand why people say it's the worst rule ever... back is 6th was very frustrating playing with daemons, because if you rolled more than 8 you lost the entire unit (and they were more pricey than they are now). Combats where based on pure luck of rolling 9+ or not (I've been playing for years with pure daemon armies). The real problem is that many DoC units in 7th are underpriced (heralds, hounds and flamers), but the rule is ok as it is now.


For me the worst rule is ASF... not because I hate HE (because as they are now, they need ASF badly)... mainly because it changes a lot the movement phase.

Animosity is also a real pain. I don't like when it frustrates my rivals' plans (100% of the games I play against O&G in 7th ed). 33% chances of each unit not doing what you want is just too much

Enigmatik1
15-03-2010, 02:00
I agree with ASF: I remember elves before and they weren't weak, but were incredibly hard to play (hmmmmm considering they are elves perhaps they should be hard to play, but I digress) and this helped them out a great deal. Ive only honestly found this to be obnoxious on one unit (Swordmasters) everything else hits like a butterfly so its ok if I let them strike first, and I can just shoot/magic/impact hit the swordmasters to death. Easy enough.

Didn't Swordmasters have ASF before 7E?

The SkaerKrow
15-03-2010, 02:59
Didn't Swordmasters have ASF before 7E?No, they did not. I believe that they used to strike in Initiative order when not charging, but that could be the long day taking its toll on my neurons.

Freman Bloodglaive
15-03-2010, 08:36
They did have a -1 to hit with ranged weapons because they could bat the arrows out of the sky with their massive swords.

I recall that they didn't strike last with their two handed weapons at a time when two handed weapons always went last.

I find Arch Lector, Warrior Priest and Level 2 Wizard with the rod of power at least keeps me in the hunt against Undead. Still not an easy ride though.

SatireSphere
15-03-2010, 09:18
Instability now is estatistically like undead crumbling for common daemons (better for greater daemons).

When you make the break test, daemons suffer a wound (no saves) for each point you lost your check (if any). So if they lose by 1, and roll 8, for a common leadership of 7, they will lose 2 wounds (8+1-7=2 wounds).


I don't understand why people say it's the worst rule ever... back is 6th was very frustrating playing with daemons, because if you rolled more than 8 you lost the entire unit (and they were more pricey than they are now). Combats where based on pure luck of rolling 9+ or not (I've been playing for years with pure daemon armies). The real problem is that many DoC units in 7th are underpriced (heralds, hounds and flamers), but the rule is ok as it is now.

Have you forgotten that for every other Warhammer fantasy army but undead and daemons, they have a great chance of losing the entire unit if they fail the break test?

The rule is Daemonic Instability, not Daemonic Stability.

Razhem
15-03-2010, 14:21
Every time I venture more than a couple of dice I will always run into scrolls, the ring of hotek ,infernal puppet or some other drek . Its so frustrating that it seems more than fair being able to get a decent return out of my wizards by throwing single dice.

Welcome to the magic phase of the rest of the armies in the game. Also, Hotek shouldn't even be a factor for invocation unless the elf carrying it is flying around on a dark pegasus or everything is engaged. Also, it's one army.

Urgat
15-03-2010, 14:54
They did have a -1 to hit with ranged weapons because they could bat the arrows out of the sky with their massive swords.

I recall that they didn't strike last with their two handed weapons at a time when two handed weapons always went last.

During 5th and 6th edition, they didn't suffer for the always strike last rule of great weapons, but that's it, afaik.

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 15:04
Every time I venture more than a couple of dice I will always run into scrolls, the ring of hotek ,infernal puppet or some other drek . Its so frustrating that it seems more than fair being able to get a decent return out of my wizards by throwing single dice.

yeah, but in my experience 15 points for lord of the dead swings the balance. not only does repeat casting on a 4+ now pass on a 3+, but my opponent would have to win every DD roll by 1, as ties would go to me because of the +1 to IoN. suddenly any 4 that i roll is a 5, and my opponent has to ponder the fact that i have a 50% chance of casting with one die what he only has a 33% chance of dispelling with one die. and i can do it over and over again.

Grey Mage
15-03-2010, 15:37
Wich is good, since your army is based around this ability.

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 15:52
Wich is good, since your army is based around this ability.

clearly. i just think it's way too good. there's a reason i had to warn people that i played VC because all-comers lists couldn't possibly keep up with my magic phase. the look in my opponents' eyes when they figured out that they almost always had to use two DD to dispel my one-die IoN throws (which passed 2/3 of the time) said it all.

i maintain that lord of the dead and its ghoul counterpart are criminally underpriced for what they do.

Razhem
15-03-2010, 16:07
Wich is good, since your army is based around this ability.

Which isn't good since it it one of the top three tier armies.

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 16:15
i honestly think you could raise 'lord of the dead' 5 or 10 points, take away the +1 to IoN and make the entire power about raising units past their starting strength, and it would still be worth it and go a long way toward balancing out VC magic.

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2010, 17:44
i maintain that lord of the dead and its ghoul counterpart are criminally underpriced for what they do.

They are very cheap, but I still maintain that it is the Necromantic rule that really makes this and all of the other abusive magic combos a problem. Would +1 to cast any given spell be an issue in any other list? Dark elves get +1 to cast all spells!

No, the underlying issue is the fact that you can recast. If you couldn't recast, you might hesitate to throw a dice at a 4+ spell, even with +1 to cast. Even if you did, you might want to use a higher casting level of Invocation with more dice, and the +1 is still useful, but your opponent can scroll or throw a decent number of dispel dice at it.

Put another way, the +1 is useful, but the kicker is that you can make use of that +1 several times a turn. That's when the 15 points seems criminally underpriced, because you're effectively multiplying the casting benefit. Without the Necromancy rule, it's not nearly so underpriced.

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 17:53
They are very cheap, but I still maintain that it is the Necromantic rule that really makes this and all of the other abusive magic combos a problem. Would +1 to cast any given spell be an issue in any other list? Dark elves get +1 to cast all spells!

No, the underlying issue is the fact that you can recast. If you couldn't recast, you might hesitate to throw a dice at a 4+ spell, even with +1 to cast. Even if you did, you might want to use a higher casting level of Invocation with more dice, and the +1 is still useful, but your opponent can scroll or throw a decent number of dispel dice at it.

Put another way, the +1 is useful, but the kicker is that you can make use of that +1 several times a turn. That's when the 15 points seems criminally underpriced, because you're effectively multiplying the casting benefit. Without the Necromancy rule, it's not nearly so underpriced.

ok, but the current VC book is pretty much unplayable if you take out recasting altogether. try facing an army with any remotely worthwhile amount of shooting if you can't recast at all. like i've said, i think a series of small changes would completely fix necromancy while still allowing it to be dynamic. change lord of the dead. make IoN 5+. only allow vampires to cast a number of necromancy spells equal to their magic level (or something of the sort).

i love the fact that necromancy is so dynamic, and i think the army needs that. the inverse of your point is just as true. being able to recast IoN on a 3+ is a problem, but it's waaaay less of a problem if it's on a 5+, and the 3+ is just as much the issue as is the recasting.

honestly taking away the ability to recast would just mean even more vampires on the table and would completely destroy a magic system that really only needs some tweaking to work well.

N810
15-03-2010, 18:03
how about something simple...
like each time you recast the same spell in the same magic phase
it the spell gets 1 harder to cast...

first cast 3+
second cast 4+
third cast 5+
etc...

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 18:06
how about something simple...
like each time you recast the same spell in the same magic phase
it the spell gets 1 harder to cast...

first cast 3+
second cast 4+
third cast 5+
etc...

there you go. that'd add a whole new dimension to managing power dice by trying to figure out where you need to use the best odds, and a whole new dimension of managing DD against VC by trying to play the odds for dispelling early and hoping the later casts fail. plus it might actually present a situation in which a vampire has to cast IoN on two dice...

Bladelord
15-03-2010, 18:08
I just read through the first page and I decided what's the worst special rule... that they removed braindead from zombies!

ASF on High Elves hell yeah they should have it! (or that every unit had the SM old rule & SM have ASF). Dark Elves: Slaughter across the World, weird people think it's a bad rule with hatred for the army. Daemonic instability, I agree...

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 18:09
a buddy of mine thinks asf shouldn't apply if you're hit in the flank or the rear. i think that's a good idea.

Alltaken
15-03-2010, 18:21
ok, but the current VC book is pretty much unplayable if you take out recasting altogether. try facing an army with any remotely worthwhile amount of shooting if you can't recast at all. like i've said, i think a series of small changes would completely fix necromancy while still allowing it to be dynamic. change lord of the dead. make IoN 5+. only allow vampires to cast a number of necromancy spells equal to their magic level (or something of the sort).

i love the fact that necromancy is so dynamic, and i think the army needs that. the inverse of your point is just as true. being able to recast IoN on a 3+ is a problem, but it's waaaay less of a problem if it's on a 5+, and the 3+ is just as much the issue as is the recasting.

honestly taking away the ability to recast would just mean even more vampires on the table and would completely destroy a magic system that really only needs some tweaking to work well.

Yeah, necromancy is great really! it's just that 1 dice spamming gets a OP really. I believe that failed cast should stop them from attempting again, I think that can limit VC's enough. People will be a little weary to spam spells so

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2010, 18:34
ok, but the current VC book is pretty much unplayable if you take out recasting altogether.
Much less than you might think. The core infantry need casting to be effective, but the cavarly and heavy cavalry plus the various beasties really don't need it. Grave guard and black knights were okay in the last edition when they couldn't be raised. Now they're just amazing.


try facing an army with any remotely worthwhile amount of shooting if you can't recast at all. like i've said, i think a series of small changes would completely fix necromancy while still allowing it to be dynamic.
Again, this is just conjecture if you haven't tried it (and I have - for campaign games - tried vampire counts with minimal to no magic. They're not nearly as reliant on it as people seem to think).

Remember, without recasting, that's still 4 Invocations a turn. With a reasonable amount of dice, that's still plenty of raising to operate, particularly if you can draw out scrolls and dice with nastier spells like Vanhels. You can always throw more dice and raise more than one D6 at a time.

Your list of small changes fixes the symptoms but not the cause, and it's still more complex than just removing one, unnecessary rule. Single dice recasting is still an issue. Now, raising the difficulty with subsequent casts is a possibility, but it does have the issue of bookkeeping.


i love the fact that necromancy is so dynamic, and i think the army needs that. the inverse of your point is just as true. being able to recast IoN on a 3+ is a problem, but it's waaaay less of a problem if it's on a 5+, and the 3+ is just as much the issue as is the recasting.
I don't know what you mean by dynamic, I hate that its so boring. In friendly games, I'll try out many of the other spells, but if I'm feeling competetive then I'll just recast invocation again and again unless I need a vanhels.


honestly taking away the ability to recast would just mean even more vampires on the table and would completely destroy a magic system that really only needs some tweaking to work well.
What? What on earth makes you say that? I already run 4 casters in a competetive list. It's not going to destroy anything. You can still cast Invocation 4 times a turn, and - gasp! - you might actually use the higher casting levels or even some of the other spells in the lore! It's not going to break anything, undead don't need magic nearly as much as is commonly thought.

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 18:46
yeah hey maybe i don't want to have to run four casters in every decent list... maybe i'd rather have a caster vamp that's drawing from the pool, a combat vamp, and a wight king. and maybe i'd only have three heroes because i'm not playing 2000 points, or because i actually want to spend it on other things.

i spent about four months trying to work out 1,000 point all-comers lists that had enough magic to get by but not too much to make the game completely pointless. everybody i talked to found it awesome and vital that i could recast spells, but was annoyed with how incredibly easy it was, and i agree with that. i once took a 1,000 point list that had something like 8 PD and 3 bound spells just to see what would happen. clearly the crux of the issue isn't just being able to recast invocation. it's being able to do it so easily with tons of cheap character additions.

also, note that there's a difference between being able to recast IoN and spamming it, the latter of which is the problem and the latter of which can be addressed by things like tweaking vampiric powers, spell costs, etc.

i do agree about IoN on grave guard being way too much, though. i think they should make it D3 wounds instead of D6, at the very least.

Agnar the Howler
15-03-2010, 18:56
a buddy of mine thinks asf shouldn't apply if you're hit in the flank or the rear. i think that's a good idea.

I also like that idea. A charge to the rear or flank indicates catching the enemy by surprise and hitting them in an unsuspecting area, having ASF work for those too is pretty stupid, as it's like tapping them on the shoulder and letting them know you're there. "Excuse me, Mr High Elf, we were just wandering up behind you and wanted to give you a bit of notice before we attack, you know, for fairness' sake."

theunwantedbeing
15-03-2010, 18:56
ok, but the current VC book is pretty much unplayable if you take out recasting altogether.

Unplayable? perhaps if your going to keep using a minimal model count list that relies entirely on being able to spam invocation to reliably get all your models back every turn and then some....yeah, that army doesnt work without recasting.

Cant even begin to fathom why that would be the case :rolleyes:

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 19:03
Unplayable? perhaps if your going to keep using a minimal model count list that relies entirely on being able to spam invocation to reliably get all your models back every turn and then some....yeah, that army doesnt work without recasting.

Cant even begin to fathom why that would be the case :rolleyes:

actually in my case it's because i routinely play against an army that can beat me on SCR unless my dire wolves go from artillery-hunter mode to detachment-charge mode. haha.

i mean i think i can see what GW was trying to do. dark acolyte/lord of the dead vamp handles casting. death knight/infinite hatred vamp handles the fighting. problem is they made it way too cheap and easy for dark acolyte/lord of the dead vamp to handle way too much of the casting. in a small game he's successfully casting IoN around three times a turn and effectively handing my opponent -1 to dispel all of them. for 15 points. brutal.

it's amazing how much better balanced the army was when i just didn't take summoning powers.

edit: plus we're both talking about getting rid of easy IoN spam. we're just taking different paths.

Defender of Ulthuan
15-03-2010, 19:13
Also, the current Mark of Nurgle rules are stupid. Let's just go +1 toughness and immune to poison. Done.

Oh. You don't want that.

Anyway, I'd have to go with all of the rules for line of sight and engagement.

And spears v. cavalry. Give me a break already.

GWItheUltimate
15-03-2010, 19:20
WoC Deamon Prince not able to take magical items ?

What a freaking stupid restriction !

Stronginthearm
15-03-2010, 19:26
how about something simple...
like each time you recast the same spell in the same magic phase
it the spell gets 1 harder to cast...

first cast 3+
second cast 4+
third cast 5+
etc...

This is actually a really good idea, I would make it per vamp though, so one lord cant spam but multiple can, necromancy can be cast alot if you are willing to throw the dice at it, the way it should be, good but not obscene

Arion
15-03-2010, 20:46
Mine in the "poison" rules, but for different reasons than already stated. By strict technicalities, Poisons must be ingested. Venom's can be injected. thus a Tree Frog is poisonous because when you eat him you get sick, a snake is venomous because when he bites you he injects venom into you and you get sick (or die). Jest sayin.

Urgat
15-03-2010, 20:49
Guess it's been long forgotten, but back when VC was released, I wondered why they could spam spells like that, while ogre butchers have the cast value doubled after each casting, when it's not even the same caster. I understand that Gut magic is far nastier than necromancy, of course.

N810
15-03-2010, 20:59
Mine in the "poison" rules, but for different reasons than already stated. By strict technicalities, Poisons must be ingested. Venom's can be injected. thus a Tree Frog is poisonous because when you eat him you get sick, a snake is venomous because when he bites you he injects venom into you and you get sick (or die). Jest sayin.

Actually if you even touch certain Lustrian poison dart frogs you will Die. :skull:

(real poison dart frog poison must be injected or consumed to harm you)
Poisioned darts do the injecting. :shifty:

http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoviews/ecoview091115.htm

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2010, 21:22
Mine in the "poison" rules, but for different reasons than already stated. By strict technicalities, Poisons must be ingested. Venom's can be injected. thus a Tree Frog is poisonous because when you eat him you get sick, a snake is venomous because when he bites you he injects venom into you and you get sick (or die). Jest sayin.

I don't know why people get so hung up about the poison terminiology.

If we're going to get technical, tree frogs are toxic and produce toxins, which are biological poisons. Venom is a toxin that is administered via a bite or a sting. Poisons are typically absorbed via the skin or other epethelial lining and are not produced by an organism. But these distinctions are fairly blurred. I mean, as noted above, if you use a poisoned dart, is it poisonous, toxic or venemous? It's injected, but it is a toxin.

Anyway, as a generic term, poison is probably the most correct. After all while jungle swarms certainly have venom, skink blowpipes are toxic, ghoul claws are infectious and various skaven poisons are actually poisions. Collectively, I'd say "poison" is probably the right term, although most are toxins.

Stronginthearm
15-03-2010, 21:29
The poison argument is of more value then the necromancy one, battles in generations to come may depend on the suceptability of skellitons to poison

In all seriousness if undead loose the necromancy buffness but gain the "skrew u poison rule"(yes I do want it called that) it all may even out unlikely but theoretically possible

theunwantedbeing
15-03-2010, 21:36
edit: plus we're both talking about getting rid of easy IoN spam. we're just taking different paths.

Erm.
Single dice castings on a 4+ is a 3/6 chance.
Single dice castings on a 4+ with a +1 to cast is a 4/6 chance.

Not a massive reduction on invocation spam.
6 dice, your idea puts you at 3 successes rather than 4. Whoope de doo, an extra 3.5 skellies over the course of 6 dice.

Yeah that really stops invocation spam doesnt it?
Also, your idea does nothing against invocation spam of anything like grave guard, and what unit gets used to make that nigh impossible to kill undead bunker all the character's castle in?
Yup, grave guard.

So, my path works and yours doesnt.

FictionalCharacter
15-03-2010, 21:56
Erm.
Single dice castings on a 4+ is a 3/6 chance.
Single dice castings on a 4+ with a +1 to cast is a 4/6 chance.

Not a massive reduction on invocation spam.
6 dice, your idea puts you at 3 successes rather than 4. Whoope de doo, an extra 3.5 skellies over the course of 6 dice.

Yeah that really stops invocation spam doesnt it?
Also, your idea does nothing against invocation spam of anything like grave guard, and what unit gets used to make that nigh impossible to kill undead bunker all the character's castle in?
Yup, grave guard.

So, my path works and yours doesnt.

well, no. your path is changing one thing and my path is reworking several. you being confident about it makes no real difference. in all seriousness several suggestions would work, i'd just rather the army not lose one of its more unique features, which i feel also has a useful and balanced place.

for one, my idea wasn't simply 'remove the lord of the dead bonus'. my whole point has been that several little things can be done, and that that's perhaps one of them. you don't even represent it fairly. yes, removing the bonus only lowers the spell's chance of casting by 1/6, but it also increases the opponent's chances of dispelling by 1/6. so that 4 successful casts becomes 3, but the opponent also isn't going to have to roll a 7 to dispel if i get a 6 on casting...

i've also talked about limiting the number of recasts. my suggestion was to limit it by magic level. another suggestion was essentially to institute diminishing returns, which is probably a better idea. personally, i'd probably raise IoN to 5+ and vanhel's to 8+ on top of that.

i also explicitly mentioned that IoN regarding grave guard is overpowered, and should at the very least be reduced to summoning D3 wounds instead of D6.

so basically you're ignoring half of what i said and oversimplifying and misrepresenting the rest.

Lord Anathir
15-03-2010, 22:20
regeneration and ethereal. some armies dont have a single unit with either flaming OR magical attacks, and some armies have a surplus of both.

Tymell
15-03-2010, 22:50
regeneration and ethereal. some armies dont have a single unit with either flaming OR magical attacks, and some armies have a surplus of both.

Personally I like things like that which add further distinctions between the different armies. I like the thought of a wood elf player with lots of flamable units cursing when he comes up against a Tzeentch army full of flamers ;)

VonUber
15-03-2010, 22:57
People are complaining about the spam rez thing. A simple solution is for GW to introduce a rule were they cant cast a necromancy spell more times than there current wizard level. Or nurf it to D3.

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2010, 22:58
Personally I like things like that which add further distinctions between the different armies. I like the thought of a wood elf player with lots of flamable units cursing when he comes up against a Tzeentch army full of flamers ;)

Personally, I'd like all armies to be reasonably balanced against each other - I don't much enjoy games that boil down to a game of rock-paper-scissors that takes two hours to play one round.


People are complaining about the spam rez thing. A simple solution is for GW to introduce a rule were they cant cast a necromancy spell more times than there current wizard level.
Yeah, that'd limit VCs to a maximum of ten casts of IoN. Oh no!

Noone has given any kind of explanation as to why they NEED to recast. The only VC army build that requires IoN spam to work is when you take minimum size raisable units and build them up over the game - and that's not exactly a build to be encouraged. VCs are overpowered and that's a power build because you avoid paying the points for the troops in your army list. I'd say I don't recast IoN more than about 6-8 times a magic phase even with full-on IoN spam, anything less than 1 cast per mage is really not much of a restriction at all. Upping the difficulty by 1 might help, but we're still probably talking only a maximum of 2 casts per wizard.

Tymell
15-03-2010, 23:19
Personally, I'd like all armies to be reasonably balanced against each other - I don't much enjoy games that boil down to a game of rock-paper-scissors that takes two hours to play one round.

One army having a couple of ethereal or flammable units hardly means it's automatically going to win/lose against certain other armies.

Grey Mage
15-03-2010, 23:25
Yeah, that'd limit VCs to a maximum of ten casts of IoN. Oh no!

Noone has given any kind of explanation as to why they NEED to recast. The only VC army build that requires IoN spam to work is when you take minimum size raisable units and build them up over the game - and that's not exactly a build to be encouraged. VCs are overpowered and that's a power build because you avoid paying the points for the troops in your army list. I'd say I don't recast IoN more than about 6-8 times a magic phase even with full-on IoN spam, anything less than 1 cast per mage is really not much of a restriction at all. Upping the difficulty by 1 might help, but we're still probably talking only a maximum of 2 casts per wizard.

Why not just have it at once for lvl 1-2 casters, and twice for level 3-4 casters?

And instead of a gift that makes it easier, taking it allows you to cast the spell up to your magic level # of times a turn instead, for say 30pts.

Condottiere
15-03-2010, 23:46
One army having a couple of ethereal or flammable units hardly means it's automatically going to win/lose against certain other armies.Tools to deal with that should be in the Common Magic Items Pool.

Urgat
16-03-2010, 00:05
Mine in the "poison" rules, but for different reasons than already stated. By strict technicalities, Poisons must be ingested. Venom's can be injected. thus a Tree Frog is poisonous because when you eat him you get sick, a snake is venomous because when he bites you he injects venom into you and you get sick (or die). Jest sayin.

You can die by just touching a tree frog, no need to eat it.

catbarf
16-03-2010, 01:00
Always Strikes First. Hmm, our initiative system doesn't do a good enough job showing the speed Elves have? Don't bother fixing it! BAND-AID! A special rule that allows Elves with swords to run up to guys armed with pikes and slash them before the pikemen can impale them. Brilliant.

Ward.
16-03-2010, 04:30
The screaming bells special rules, most of the rolls are situationally useless.

ChaosVC
16-03-2010, 08:47
You have to buy their rule book to know?

Dag
16-03-2010, 09:00
Always Strikes First. Hmm, our initiative system doesn't do a good enough job showing the speed Elves have? Don't bother fixing it! BAND-AID! A special rule that allows Elves with swords to run up to guys armed with pikes and slash them before the pikemen can impale them. Brilliant.

its more rediculous when they hit the heavy cavalry charge before the 12' lance.

but i get your point =P

ChaosVC
16-03-2010, 09:21
You probably haven't seen chinese fantasy martial art movies, they make asf looks like the simplest tricks in the show.

Condottiere
16-03-2010, 10:22
I guess the Elves just keep repeating the mantra, "There is no lance".

FictionalCharacter
16-03-2010, 12:50
Noone has given any kind of explanation as to why they NEED to recast. The only VC army build that requires IoN spam to work is when you take minimum size raisable units and build them up over the game - and that's not exactly a build to be encouraged. VCs are overpowered and that's a power build because you avoid paying the points for the troops in your army list. I'd say I don't recast IoN more than about 6-8 times a magic phase even with full-on IoN spam, anything less than 1 cast per mage is really not much of a restriction at all. Upping the difficulty by 1 might help, but we're still probably talking only a maximum of 2 casts per wizard.

the most common type of game i played with VC was 1,000 to 1,250 against an army with a solid amount of war machines, shooting, and magic defense. frequently i'd only have one vampire tooled for magic. as i'd move across the table, he'd cast IoN on the infantry blocks to regain losses from shooting. my other vampire would be off doing other things. if i couldn't recast, i'd have to take three vampires, and i'd have to keep them all babysitting the infantry. smaller lists would be incredibly dull.

honestly i think the best way to limit IoN spam is to raise the cost to the point that you have to actually consider using two dice (hence probably 5+). not only will that burn through PD faster, but players would have to consider the odds of a miscast.

theunwantedbeing
16-03-2010, 13:12
so basically you're ignoring half of what i said and oversimplifying and misrepresenting the rest.

So basically I win the argument ;)

Remove a single rule, balance vamps.
Rather than fiddle with lots of them to try and acheive mostly the same result.

FictionalCharacter
16-03-2010, 13:56
So basically I win the argument ;)

Remove a single rule, balance vamps.
Rather than fiddle with lots of them to try and acheive mostly the same result.

well i'd like to give the playerbase the benefit of the doubt in that it could handle things '4+ becomes 5+' and '15 points becomes 25 points' without getting completely lost. the rationale you're talking about is actually part of the problem for how these terrible rules show up. 'well, we could fine-tune the high elves and actually work out their problems. but whatever, army-wide asf is a single, simple fix. what could go wrong?'

in reality isn't the entire magic system rumored to change next edition anyway? so it's kind of a moot point. i just think you can balance the army and keep recasting, since it's a big part of what makes VC VC. actually i think balancing the army would be harder if you get rid of recasting, at least for smaller games.

theunwantedbeing
16-03-2010, 14:13
Ah touche with the High elf remark.

Although that's adding a rule that isnt suitable, rather than removing one that doesnt need to exist.
Eliminating spam raising stops small armies and turns the focus from bringing the army back each turn, to actually going over to the enemy and killing him.
It also stops abuse of van hels and causes you to be more clever in how your magic is used.
Plus it makes summon undead hoarde rather useful again (currently its almost irrelevant).

Note I'm looking at this from a 2k+ battle vs every sort of opponent, not a 1-1.25k game against a gunline. I daresay I have the greater experience and knowledge of what is and isnt worth altering in the vampire list as a result of this.

FictionalCharacter
16-03-2010, 14:21
Ah touche with the High elf remark.

Although that's adding a rule that isnt suitable, rather than removing one that doesnt need to exist.
Eliminating spam raising stops small armies and turns the focus from bringing the army back each turn, to actually going over to the enemy and killing him.
It also stops abuse of van hels and causes you to be more clever in how your magic is used.
Plus it makes summon undead hoarde rather useful again (currently its almost irrelevant).

we don't disagree on that at all. it's not like i've been arguing in favor of spam armies all thread.

serious question. were summoning powers in the last edition? the more i think about it the more i think lord of the dead and summon ghouls are a huge part of the problem (other than IoN being 4+). i think it's a sad state of affairs when one of the worst ideas for list-building is mixing the core choices...


Note I'm looking at this from a 2k+ battle vs every sort of opponent, not a 1-1.25k game against a gunline. I daresay I have the greater experience and knowledge of what is and isnt worth altering in the vampire list as a result of this.

those aren't the only games i've played. i was just giving an example of a game in which i'd be screwed if there was no recasting. honestly basically every sub-1500 point game in which the VC player doesn't want to take three casters would be a disaster. i don't want to give up my wight king (of course i gave up the entire army, but whatever).

theunwantedbeing
16-03-2010, 14:44
serious question. were summoning powers in the last edition? the more i think about it the more i think lord of the dead and summon ghouls are a huge part of the problem (other than IoN being 4+). i think it's a sad state of affairs when one of the worst ideas for list-building is mixing the core choices...

The summoning powers were simply one use only summon a random but tiny amount of models to the field. Invocation was a 3 power level thing, raising 1,2 or 3 D6 worth of models or wounds.



those aren't the only games i've played. i was just giving an example of a game in which i'd be screwed if there was no recasting. honestly basically every sub-1500 point game in which the VC player doesn't want to take three casters would be a disaster. i don't want to give up my wight king (of course i gave up the entire army, but whatever).

My point is, ditch invocation spam by removal of the necromancy spells special rule and VC armies have to operate more like TK armies.
Raising models back is now not the most effective use of your magic, your much better off using it offensively, rather than defensively.

However, raise dead still exists to form new units.
As does Summon undead hoarde to raise 3d6 models wherever you please in the army. Your ability to raise dead isnt gone completely, its still there in a reasonable form...the big differencebeing your not able to from turn 1 onwards just 1 dice invocation over and over waiting for the enemy to run out of dice, you have to stop the enemy from dispelling your raisings before you can really make full use of it.

Its a very simple solution to the problem.
Far more simple than having to playtest and check over numerous smaller changes to make them work properly without being abusable.

FictionalCharacter
16-03-2010, 15:11
My point is, ditch invocation spam by removal of the necromancy spells special rule and VC armies have to operate more like TK armies.
Raising models back is now not the most effective use of your magic, your much better off using it offensively, rather than defensively.

However, raise dead still exists to form new units.
As does Summon undead hoarde to raise 3d6 models wherever you please in the army. Your ability to raise dead isnt gone completely, its still there in a reasonable form...the big differencebeing your not able to from turn 1 onwards just 1 dice invocation over and over waiting for the enemy to run out of dice, you have to stop the enemy from dispelling your raisings before you can really make full use of it.

Its a very simple solution to the problem.
Far more simple than having to playtest and check over numerous smaller changes to make them work properly without being abusable.

actually you make really good points bringing up how completely useless summon undead horde is when IoN is the alternative. that's a fantastic example of how broken the IoN mechanics are.

again, we're both trying to accomplish the same thing. we're just taking different methods. i just don't think it would be that much of a challenge to balance necromancy in its current format as opposed to scrapping it entirely. although, that said, they sure did manage to screw it up in the first place...

even something as simple as raising IoN to 5+ and getting rid of summoning powers. it goes from 2/3 chance of success on one die with an effective -1 to dispel (with summoning powers) to 1/3 chance of success on one die (which admittedly still may not be enough when you can take like 10 PD at 1,000 points) and you actually have to pay for all of your core units. that would also free up PD normally used on raising that ghoul unit from 10 to 45 to actually maybe cast other spells that do other things.

like i've said, i think recasting on some level is worth it for no other reason than because i can tool up one vampire to handle much of the casting and use my other character slots for other things.

TheShadowCow
16-03-2010, 15:22
Actually, there's a precedent for Jungle Swarms poisoning Skeletons. Jungle Swarms are composed, at least in part, of Snakes. Snakes are the sacred animal of Sotek. As everyone knows, Undead have a problem with holy things, which is represented in this case by the snakes auto-wounding the Skeletons.

Get thee away from thy whine, heathen cur! Ye shall not findeth common sense explanations for things that thy angry brothers may cry at!

I don't get the crying at the Vampire Lore and IoN spam. Sure, it's annoying when 30-40 Zombies pop up in front of you, or that unit of Grave Guard is restored to full... but on the other hand, to make IoN spam truly work you need to invest heavily in it with your characters (and points). This leaves you with little else to play with, and deprives you of your character "teeth" on the field. I maintain that VC IoN spam is simply an enemy that plays very differently to how convention WFB is played, and it's this "wtf is going on?!" element that costs people their games.

FictionalCharacter
16-03-2010, 15:28
Get thee away from thy whine, heathen cur! Ye shall not findeth common sense explanations for things that thy angry brothers may cry at!

I don't get the crying at the Vampire Lore and IoN spam. Sure, it's annoying when 30-40 Zombies pop up in front of you, or that unit of Grave Guard is restored to full... but on the other hand, to make IoN spam truly work you need to invest heavily in it with your characters (and points). This leaves you with little else to play with, and deprives you of your character "teeth" on the field. I maintain that VC IoN spam is simply an enemy that plays very differently to how convention WFB is played, and it's this "wtf is going on?!" element that costs people their games.

i don't know, man. it can be ridiculously potent when used with even a rudimentary degree of understanding. really all you have to do is field a whole bunch of relatively small units, spend the first two or so turns spamming IoN until they're all enormous, and make everyone around you develop an even stronger hatred for the defeated-by-outnumbering-fear-causer autobreak rule. plus, remember that using this strategy can literally save 80 to 100 points per unit, and those points can go to some very very nice options...

plus once you get those units nice and big, your fully-kitted magic-heavy vampires are now free to cast whatever else they have in the bag. they're not exactly toothless.

Enigmatik1
16-03-2010, 15:58
i don't know, man. it can be ridiculously potent when used with even a rudimentary degree of understanding. really all you have to do is field a whole bunch of relatively small units, spend the first two or so turns spamming IoN until they're all enormous, and make everyone around you develop an even stronger hatred for the defeated-by-outnumbering-fear-causer autobreak rule. plus, remember that using this strategy can literally save 80 to 100 points per unit, and those points can go to some very very nice options...

plus once you get those units nice and big, your fully-kitted magic-heavy vampires are now free to cast whatever else they have in the bag. they're not exactly toothless.

Not that I necessarily agree with the tactic, but for this is the only real option/way that Undead Core infantry is effective, Ghouls aside. Why else would I bemoan TK Core Infantry so much. It's not that I want to be able to auto-break things (I hate the rule). But let's keep it real...Skeletons and Zombies have a really bad habit of getting utterly slaughtered in close combat against decent units.

The Invocation of Nehek and Djedra's Incantation of Summoning are supposed to offset the high price of these models coupled with their combat ineptitude. The possibilities with IoN are excessive, especially with things like MotBA but are necessary to some degree without some rather extensive re-adjustment to these units.

It's when we're talking about Ghouls and Tomb/Grave Guard that it gets really silly. I've found that my Tomb Guard units don't need Incanting to stay on the board anyway. I've always thought that Skeletons and Zombies should be a little better without having to abuse psychology/auto-break for their points. This way, the seeming necessity of Invocation spam would decrease in the eyes of most reasonable players.

For my part, I never cast the Incantation of Summoning in games. It's not worth the investment of magical resources to do since I either don't lose enough TG for it to matter or lose more Skeletons per turn to shooting and close combat than its worth trying to restore. Big shock, I guess that I only run Skeleton Archers in my lists now, huh? :D

N810
16-03-2010, 16:06
Good to see some one likes my idea...


This is actually a really good idea, I would make it per vamp though, so one lord cant spam but multiple can, necromancy can be cast alot if you are willing to throw the dice at it, the way it should be, good but not obscene


how about something simple...
like each time you recast the same spell in the same magic phase
it the spell gets 1 harder to cast...

first cast 3+
second cast 4+
third cast 5+
etc...

FictionalCharacter
16-03-2010, 16:11
Not that I necessarily agree with the tactic, but for this is the only real option/way that Undead Core infantry is effective, Ghouls aside. Why else would I bemoan TK Core Infantry so much. It's not that I want to be able to auto-break things (I hate the rule). But let's keep it real...Skeletons and Zombies have a really bad habit of getting utterly slaughtered in close combat against decent units.

The Invocation of Nehek and Djedra's Incantation of Summoning are supposed to offset the high price of these models coupled with their combat ineptitude. The possibilities with IoN are excessive, especially with things like MotBA but are necessary to some degree without some rather extensive re-adjustment to these units.

It's when we're talking about Ghouls and Tomb/Grave Guard that it gets really silly. I've found that my Tomb Guard units don't need Incanting to stay on the board anyway. I've always thought that Skeletons and Zombies should be a little better without having to abuse psychology/auto-break for their points. This way, the seeming necessity of Invocation spam would decrease in the eyes of most reasonable players.

For my part, I never cast the Incantation of Summoning in games. It's not worth the investment of magical resources to do since I either don't lose enough TG for it to matter or lose more Skeletons per turn to shooting and close combat than its worth trying to restore. Big shock, I guess that I only run Skeleton Archers in my lists now, huh? :D

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't zombie statlines get lowered for this edition? i can't remember. i kind of like the way zombies work in the magic phase, but also never used them that often. i like that they're easy to put on the board and that it's easy to wipe them off the board. the only change i'd maybe make would be to maybe make summoned units worth more VP (are they 50 or 100, i forget).

i honestly think that GW simply never stopped to think about how absurdly powerful IoN is on grave guard. 1/3 of the time you get the spell off you're summoning back a full rank... that's craziness.

overall i agree with you. that's why i think the basic necromancy rule has its place. but there's a world of difference between recasting IoN to recover losses in combat and the basic IoN spam strategy, which is nearly unstoppable. i mean, let's say somebody takes 14 PD in a 2,000 point game, which is not unlikely. first turn they spam IoN, successfully casting it 7 times, which might be low when considering summoning powers. let's say those 7 casts raise 4 models each on average. the army just increased its points value by over 10% in one magic phase, on top of the fact that all of the points not spent on core initially probably went to a deathstar or bunker of some sort.

Enigmatik1
16-03-2010, 16:24
correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't zombie statlines get lowered for this edition? i can't remember. i kind of like the way zombies work in the magic phase, but also never used them that often. i like that they're easy to put on the board and that it's easy to wipe them off the board. the only change i'd maybe make would be to maybe make summoned units worth more VP (are they 50 or 100, i forget).

I'm not sure, FC. I only started playing again within the past year and a half. Prior to that, I hadn't played since 4E. One thing I never got is why these summoned units were worth so few VPs. Would it be fairer within the context of the current rule structure if these units were worth their full, correct VP value at their time of destruction?


i honestly think that GW simply never stopped to think about how absurdly powerful IoN is on grave guard. 1/3 of the time you get the spell off you're summoning back a full rank... that's craziness.

Agreed. The one time I bothered to put the Banner of the Undying Legion (I greatly prefer the Icon of Rakaph) on a TG unit led by a King with the Spear of Antarhak it was utterly retarded (and boring). Let's just say I never used this set up again. :D


overall i agree with you. that's why i think the basic necromancy rule has its place. but there's a world of difference between recasting IoN to recover losses in combat and the basic IoN spam strategy, which is nearly unstoppable. i mean, let's say somebody takes 14 PD in a 2,000 point game, which is not unlikely. first turn they spam IoN, successfully casting it 7 times, which might be low when considering summoning powers. let's say those 7 casts raise 4 models each on average. the army just increased its points value by over 10% in one magic phase, on top of the fact that all of the points not spent on core initially probably went to a deathstar or bunker of some sort.

Aye. It's supposed to be a defensive tool...at least in my mind. Maybe a simple ruling like you can't cast it on a unit who hasn't suffered casualties and/or is down models at the time of casting? At a glance, I think this would go a long way to correcting the abusive potential of IoN without removing it's ability to perform its intended function.

Lord Zarkov
16-03-2010, 17:25
Aye. It's supposed to be a defensive tool...at least in my mind. Maybe a simple ruling like you can't cast it on a unit who hasn't suffered casualties and/or is down models at the time of casting? At a glance, I think this would go a long way to correcting the abusive potential of IoN without removing it's ability to perform its intended function.

That is the rule at the moment (zombies aside). It's only the three 'master' powers that change this, one for Skellies, one for ghoules, and one for wolves/bats

Grey Mage
16-03-2010, 17:28
Get thee away from thy whine, heathen cur! Ye shall not findeth common sense explanations for things that thy angry brothers may cry at!

I don't get the crying at the Vampire Lore and IoN spam. Sure, it's annoying when 30-40 Zombies pop up in front of you, or that unit of Grave Guard is restored to full... but on the other hand, to make IoN spam truly work you need to invest heavily in it with your characters (and points). This leaves you with little else to play with, and deprives you of your character "teeth" on the field. I maintain that VC IoN spam is simply an enemy that plays very differently to how convention WFB is played, and it's this "wtf is going on?!" element that costs people their games.

Exactly- OMGZORZ! How can wez stop themz spellz with only 4 Scrollsz???!

Seriously, its not unstoppable by any means, and an army built around it is highly dependant upon those casters to survive. Basic troopers may be plentiful, but none of them are stopping me from ripping a vampire out of his unit with both hands.

Enigmatik1
16-03-2010, 17:51
That is the rule at the moment (zombies aside). It's only the three 'master' powers that change this, one for Skellies, one for ghoules, and one for wolves/bats

Well darn...did I just make it painfully obvious that I'm TK player and not a VC one? :D

My bad. Then I guess I should shift that question to state are these master powers necessary then?

FictionalCharacter
16-03-2010, 17:55
Well darn...did I just make it painfully obvious that I'm TK player and not a VC one? :D

My bad. Then I guess I should shift that question to state are these master powers necessary then?

i've been yammering for a while that they're completely overpowered and underpriced. the more i think about it the more they should probably be removed entirely.

for 15 points you get +1 to casting invocation on skeletons/ghouls/animals and can raise corresponding units past their starting strength.

so 15 points makes it easier to cast IoN, makes it harder for your opponent to dispel it, and allows to pretty much field half as much infantry in your list as you'll actually have on the table by turn 3...

orcs of fire
16-03-2010, 18:55
I wouldn't say this is THE worst rule in warhammer, but is does seem to not make much sense...

march blocking

I mean really, can you imagine a unit of goblins going

'OMG!!! AAAARRRGGGHH!!! A massive bloodthirster behind us!!! Walk for your lives!!!'

shay
16-03-2010, 19:08
Lot of options really, some rules are just plain stupid and some are just .. very stupid.

I have to say I haven't got a problem with the s7-chariot- issue. If there was rules supporting attacks on the animals/ monsters pulling the chariot, this rule would be utterly pointless. But as the rules are written now, this rule points to the fact that a chariot is a very weak structure drawn by one or more animals, and if any part of the structure is damaged the chariot can't function.

Most stupid special rule must be march blocking.

KalEf
16-03-2010, 19:32
Walk for your lives!!!'

lol, that is funny!

I's not so much a rule, But my least favorite game mechanic (I guess it would be mechanism) is ridiculous ward saves. Especially when they are coupled with other good saves. :eyebrows:

Shadowsinner
16-03-2010, 19:39
how about the rule that prevents units from using their hand weapon & shield bonus when flanked.

It's like after years of training the unit finally gets charged from the side.

"Oh god they're coming right at us! We weren't trained for this, what do we do??? should we turn to face them? (throws shields at charging enemy) Oh god they're still coming! what should we do!?!?

Enigmatik1
16-03-2010, 19:53
how about the rule that prevents units from using their hand weapon & shield bonus when flanked.

It's like after years of training the unit finally gets charged from the side.

"Oh god they're coming right at us! We weren't trained for this, what do we do??? should we turn to face them? (throws shields at charging enemy) Oh god they're still coming! what should we do!?!?

That has Monty Python written all over it. Perhaps as a variant to the Kamikaze Highlander skit? Instead of walking off tall structures, they throw their shields at their enemies...

Maoriboy007
16-03-2010, 20:17
serious question. were summoning powers in the last edition? ......i think it's a sad state of affairs when one of the worst ideas for list-building is mixing the core choices...

...basically every sub-1500 point game in which the VC player doesn't want to take three casters would be a disaster...

Only Zombies and Skeletons could all be freely raised above thier numbers and muliti wound models could use it to regain wounds.
Zombies were made 2 points cheaper but lost a point of strength AND toughness and can't have characters in them anymore.
Nehek was recastable up until 6th edition (so the precident has been set, its only been gone for like one edition) where it was one cast only but with 3 levels of raising 3+ for D6 7+ for 2D6 and 11+ for 3D6.


My point is, ditch invocation spam by removal of the necromancy spells special rule and VC armies have to operate more like TK armies.
Raising models back is now not the most effective use of your magic, your much better off using it offensively, rather than defensively.


Not much of an incentive really, saying that VC should be more like one of the bottom tier armies that already needs serious improvements. This is one of the reasons I have my doubts about peoples motives, they really seem to want VC at the bottom of the pile.

One of the reasons that necromancy exists is so you can have an offensive option with your magic, it makes your opposition have to seriously consider which part of the magic phase he wants to negate rather that just coming to the table with no brainer scrolls and rings of Hotek etc.


I don't get the crying at the Vampire Lore and IoN spam. Sure, it's annoying when 30-40 Zombies pop up in front of you, or that unit of Grave Guard is restored to full... but on the other hand, to make IoN spam truly work you need to invest heavily in it with your characters (and points). This leaves you with little else to play with, and deprives you of your character "teeth" on the field. I maintain that VC IoN spam is simply an enemy that plays very differently to how convention WFB is played, and it's this "wtf is going on?!" element that costs people their games.

People seem to want to just take all the flavour out of VC and have us playing ally the same armies-VC are one of the better "Different" playing armies, at least they have some downsides compared to the nasty Demon or DE lists.
Hell, I've played Gunlines that remove entire units per turn before I can even touch them, THAT seemed broken to me, at least I have to get in combat to do anything.


Get thee away from thy whine, heathen cur! Ye shall not findeth common sense explanations for things that thy angry brothers may cry at!


Physician heal thyself :)


Exactly- OMGZORZ! How can wez stop themz spellz with only 4 Scrollsz???!
Seriously, its not unstoppable by any means, and an army built around it is highly dependant upon those casters to survive. Basic troopers may be plentiful, but none of them are stopping me from ripping a vampire out of his unit with both hands.

Directly quoting shadowcow: Get thee away from thy whine, heathen cur! Ye shall not findeth common sense explanations for things that thy angry brothers may cry at! :)


i've been yammering for a while that they're completely overpowered and underpriced. the more i think about it the more they should probably be removed entirely.
for 15 points you get +1 to casting invocation on skeletons/ghouls/animals and can raise corresponding units past their starting strength.
so 15 points makes it easier to cast IoN, makes it harder for your opponent to dispel it, and allows to pretty much field half as much infantry in your list as you'll actually have on the table by turn 3...

The raising powers should just change the VALUE of nehek to 3+ when used on said units, then your opponant can reliably compete with a single dice against invocation it he wants to.

kardar233
16-03-2010, 20:32
Noone has given any kind of explanation as to why they NEED to recast. The only VC army build that requires IoN spam to work is when you take minimum size raisable units and build them up over the game - and that's not exactly a build to be encouraged. VCs are overpowered and that's a power build because you avoid paying the points for the troops in your army list. I'd say I don't recast IoN more than about 6-8 times a magic phase even with full-on IoN spam, anything less than 1 cast per mage is really not much of a restriction at all. Upping the difficulty by 1 might help, but we're still probably talking only a maximum of 2 casts per wizard.

It might be a difference in our gaming groups, but my Undead units get shredded by the bucketload by my enemies' infantry troops, and taking a 9pd list like I do means that I can just barely keep up.

The +1 to casting value per vampire each cast of a Necromancy spell would be a better fix.

Sygerrik
16-03-2010, 20:41
One simple fix to IoN.

Make it like gut magic. Every time you successfully cast it, the casting value goes up by 3 for all wizards.
You can still spam it on one die until you get it off once, but then you need to move to two dice, then three...
A VC army SHOULD be able to get it off at least 1-2 times per turn successfully (and that means the spell makes it through). They should NOT be able to do so 4+ times.

carl
16-03-2010, 21:22
So basically I win the argument

No. You faled to debate properly which by the standards of all but the most cashual of debatters is an automatyic loss.

Your idea is also garbage.

it fails to adress several points:

1. What about armies that don't want to max out on characters. How are they supposed to support the multipule rez's they'll need.

3. It's clear from other rules they wanted to reduce the overall reliance of undead on their characters to a degree. Thus how does forcing somone to take max caharcters and keep them all near your army to be able to do enough rezing to be resonable fit in with that?

4. Ultimetly there's nothing wrong with VC magic. The issue as Lord Inquisitor and other accidently pointed otu early on is in the basic Magic System. The agic system as is dosne't allow anyone else to pull of reliable low risk magic. The whole system is out of whack leaving magic so unpredictable and dangerous that you eithier have to spend the minimum possibble on defence or spam it to be sure you get any use out of it.

Speaking of that my biggest 3 would be:

Rolling for spells. It was the whole reason dice caddy's ever existed. becayuse mages with only 2 spells tend to roll badly and the base spells are never good enough alone to justify the investment in them.

Irrisistabble Force: Some spells if pulled off at the right tike are game winners, others are just plain game winners regardless. Irrisitable Force is a mechanic that can easily make a spell go from resonablly priced and payed from advantage, to an out and out game decider with the defending player able to do absolutly nothing about it. It's potentiol for effect on the game is just too out of whack. On top of that it pushes another out of whack idea down our throats as a compensation.

Miscasts. They just take an allready loaded lottery and make it even less reliable, just pushing people even more towards sopam or minimalisem. Magic is dangerous to use sure. But bad things don't happen nearly as oftenm in the fluff as they do on the table. In fact fluff wise there's no justification for miscasts they're siply that rare.

FictionalCharacter
17-03-2010, 12:46
how about the rule that prevents units from using their hand weapon & shield bonus when flanked.

It's like after years of training the unit finally gets charged from the side.

"Oh god they're coming right at us! We weren't trained for this, what do we do??? should we turn to face them? (throws shields at charging enemy) Oh god they're still coming! what should we do!?!?

that rule introduces a fairly sizable tactical element to the game, though, so i like it. with it you need to ensure that you get your infantry into combat on their terms. you have incentive both to hit your opponent in the flanks and to protect your own flanks.

Weemo
17-03-2010, 20:41
my main gripe, although im not saying they should have the rule as it would unbalance them even further is plaguebearers not being immune to poison, seriously??

PLAGUE BEARERS, they bear plagues and spread them amongst the living, they have poisoned attacks to resemble this, yet being almost pure poison and pestilence....they are vulnerable to poison???!!!!

Lord Inquisitor
17-03-2010, 22:22
PLAGUE BEARERS, they bear plagues and spread them amongst the living, they have poisoned attacks to resemble this, yet being almost pure poison and pestilence....they are vulnerable to poison???!!!!

Ah, y'see, against Plague Daemons you use orange juice as poison. They just can't stand all that vitamin C.

Tae
17-03-2010, 22:26
my main gripe, although im not saying they should have the rule as it would unbalance them even further is plaguebearers not being immune to poison, seriously??

PLAGUE BEARERS, they bear plagues and spread them amongst the living, they have poisoned attacks to resemble this, yet being almost pure poison and pestilence....they are vulnerable to poison???!!!!

Even more amusing is to watch them go from hitting on 4s to hitting on 5s against Chaos Warriors, simply because said Warriors have the MoN and are surrounded by a bunch of flies :p

catbarf
18-03-2010, 01:32
that rule introduces a fairly sizable tactical element to the game, though, so i like it. with it you need to ensure that you get your infantry into combat on their terms. you have incentive both to hit your opponent in the flanks and to protect your own flanks.

The CR bonus and denial of ranks aren't enough? The no-shields rule just specifically and unfairly penalizes ranked troops armed with shields.

The Clairvoyant
18-03-2010, 09:02
"the newly dead" rule for zombies.

characters cannot join the unit and if you cast IoN on them, you create D6+4 instead of D6.

Two wildly different different rules shoehorned into one, with a name that bears no relation to either.

"Yes, m'lord, i'll go stand near the zombies to make sure they march and I'll add to our horde with the bodies of our enemies, but I'm afraid I can't lead them without feeling sick. These enhanced vampire senses are all well and good, but why did you have to enhance my sense of smell?"

Noxlin
18-03-2010, 13:37
Erm, in terms of stupid rules, I think they way magic res triggers makes it useless in a lot of situations that you would think it too work. "oh hi i cast this template over your regiment but dont worry as it didnt "target" you so you dont need those magic res dice"

The Clairvoyant
18-03-2010, 14:09
umm, what?

How can it not be treated as targetting the unit? :S

Maybe i've been playing it wrong but i would never assume such a thing and would let them have the MR bonus

Noxlin
18-03-2010, 15:54
Thats the point, its not treated as tho its targeting the unit, it jsut seems strange that MR doesnt come into play against magic used on units that way, anything that avoids targeting auto avoids the units magic resistance, which doesnt play into magic resistance at all and at most times you can kill a unit with MR 3 with magic at ease in ways like this :P

N810
18-03-2010, 15:56
Check out the BRB FAQ #2...
this is where they screwed every thing up. :p
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2220025_Warhammer_FAQ_part2_Feb_2009

GrogDaTyrant
18-03-2010, 16:05
The CR bonus and denial of ranks aren't enough? The no-shields rule just specifically and unfairly penalizes ranked troops armed with shields.

The no shield+hand-weapon to flank or rear is new to this edition. It's not meant to specifically penalize ranked troops, rather it was meant to bring a bit more 'variety' to the field. During 6th editiion, it was rare to see infantry WITHOUT shields and hand weapons. Why bother taking spears? Go for +1 to your armor save in combat! Why take halberds (still hasn't changed). What good is 2 CCWs, when the standard infantry in the game will have a 4+ save against it (even 3+ or 2+ from the tougher units like Dwarves or Chaos Warriors). So to give players an incentive to take things OTHER than shield+hand-weapon, the decision was made to mitigate the bonus to the flanks and rear. As long as they're not flanked, those units still do what they need to.

As such, I'm in favor of the no shield+handweapon to flanks/rear. Flanking is meant to give you a tactical advantage of some sort. And denying ranks and gaining a +1/+2 to combat rez may not be enough against some armies even with that (*cough* swordmasters or chaos-warriors). Anything that helps tone down the 'no-brainer' choices for your infantry, is good in my book.


As far as 'Worst Rule', I'm adding another for an army-wide 'Always Strike First'. Hatred's not too hard to deal with, as you still gain benefits to charging them... But ASF reduces the tactical applications of the game, and begins to bring in strategies that just don't make sense. Like stopping 1" away from Spearmen, because it's more advantageous for you if they do the charging.

A close second-most hated rule, would be the Tzeentch Horrors counting as wizards. I thought they were fine in the previous incarnation of their codex, when they produced bound-spells.

Lord Anathir
18-03-2010, 16:37
The no shield+hand-weapon to flank or rear is new to this edition. It's not meant to specifically penalize ranked troops, rather it was meant to bring a bit more 'variety' to the field. During 6th editiion, it was rare to see infantry WITHOUT shields and hand weapons. Why bother taking spears? Go for +1 to your armor save in combat! Why take halberds (still hasn't changed). What good is 2 CCWs, when the standard infantry in the game will have a 4+ save against it (even 3+ or 2+ from the tougher units like Dwarves or Chaos Warriors). So to give players an incentive to take things OTHER than shield+hand-weapon, the decision was made to mitigate the bonus to the flanks and rear. As long as they're not flanked, those units still do what they need to.

As such, I'm in favor of the no shield+handweapon to flanks/rear. Flanking is meant to give you a tactical advantage of some sort. And denying ranks and gaining a +1/+2 to combat rez may not be enough against some armies even with that (*cough* swordmasters or chaos-warriors). Anything that helps tone down the 'no-brainer' choices for your infantry, is good in my book.


As far as 'Worst Rule', I'm adding another for an army-wide 'Always Strike First'. Hatred's not too hard to deal with, as you still gain benefits to charging them... But ASF reduces the tactical applications of the game, and begins to bring in strategies that just don't make sense. Like stopping 1" away from Spearmen, because it's more advantageous for you if they do the charging.

A close second-most hated rule, would be the Tzeentch Horrors counting as wizards. I thought they were fine in the previous incarnation of their codex, when they produced bound-spells.


lmao you're worried about the effects of 5 st3 attacks on a combat? but its ok. stand there a turn longer so I can shoot you with my rbt.

GrogDaTyrant
18-03-2010, 20:54
lmao you're worried about the effects of 5 st3 attacks on a combat? but its ok. stand there a turn longer so I can shoot you with my rbt.

With 5-man frontage, it's a difference between 3.5 saving throws, and 5. With a 7 man frontage, it's a difference of 5 to 7. Factor that (when charging) I'm looking at a difference of having an average of 3 to 4 models able to attack compared to 2 with their paltry 1 attack each... hell yes I'll park 1" away! I'll take every ounce of combat-rez I can gain in my favor, and refraining from giving a HE spearmen unit the 3rd rank makes a difference. Besides, it's not like I gain anything by initiating a charge. But then again, I'm also not playing an army of 3+ saves with T4. I'm playing an army with standard light-armor nfantry of T3.

The only drawback is the potential to be shot at if they don't charge me. But if that's the case, then one HE unit is now being kept out of the fight, and left to slowly shuffle away 2.5" a turn, by a unit that is much lower in cost and value. Throw in the unit numerical superiority of my army, and they're now down a unit, while I'm down 1 of numerous. As for the shooting... well, I view that as a fair tradeoff since my army's certainly capable of it's own heinous amounts of firepower.

Tae
18-03-2010, 21:08
umm, what?

How can it not be treated as targetting the unit? :S

Maybe i've been playing it wrong but i would never assume such a thing and would let them have the MR bonus

Because certain spells (thinking of the Dark Elf "Black Horror" spell, as an example) require you to place the template rather than target a unit specifically. It comes down to semantics and the way the spell is worded.

Zoolander
19-03-2010, 00:04
All these suggestions are good, but I personally hate the rule that fleeing creatures self destruct if they run into a building. They can't stop running or run around it?

"Everyone into that house!"
"But sir, there's 20 of us! We'll never fit!"
"Yes we will! Keep running!"
<house collapses>

I Hate that rule...

On a side note, I have to agree with the undead on the poison rule. They made it realistic enough not to affect war machines, yet skeletons without any skin or blood are not immune? They half-assed that rule if you ask me. Lame.

Enigmatik1
19-03-2010, 01:24
On a side note, I have to agree with the undead on the poison rule. They made it realistic enough not to affect war machines, yet skeletons without any skin or blood are not immune? They half-assed that rule if you ask me. Lame.

Especially if you consider that "poison" that affects Undead is some form of holy water, why can't a similar "poison" akin to acid break down war machines? :confused:

catbarf
19-03-2010, 01:33
The no shield+hand-weapon to flank or rear is new to this edition. It's not meant to specifically penalize ranked troops, rather it was meant to bring a bit more 'variety' to the field. During 6th editiion, it was rare to see infantry WITHOUT shields and hand weapons. Why bother taking spears? Go for +1 to your armor save in combat! Why take halberds (still hasn't changed). What good is 2 CCWs, when the standard infantry in the game will have a 4+ save against it (even 3+ or 2+ from the tougher units like Dwarves or Chaos Warriors). So to give players an incentive to take things OTHER than shield+hand-weapon, the decision was made to mitigate the bonus to the flanks and rear. As long as they're not flanked, those units still do what they need to.

Another example of GW's desire for rules balance overriding common sense. The idea of spear- and pike-armed troops reacting better to flankers than shield-armed troops is completely backwards.

catbarf
19-03-2010, 01:35
All these suggestions are good, but I personally hate the rule that fleeing creatures self destruct if they run into a building. They can't stop running or run around it?

If they don't manage to rally before reaching the building, some members of the unit will probably enter it to hide/defend, some will run around one side, and some around the other. The unit is split up, it can't rally, and is for all intents and purposes out of the fight.

Shadowsinner
19-03-2010, 01:41
Another example of GW's desire for rules balance overriding common sense. The idea of spear- and pike-armed troops reacting better to flankers than shield-armed troops is completely backwards.

and the fact that the models at the center of the unit cannot strike the sides with their spears is dumb too making spears just as useless against a flank charge. if a unit gets flanked, then rank psychology is lost, but it still shouldn't inhibit the models from striking with full defense.

tactically the goal is to overwhelm the unit from all sides.

It does bring to mind though how much I hate high elf spearmen. apparently they are the only race that has the martial mastery to fight in three ranks. way too advanced for any other race

catbarf
19-03-2010, 02:04
Oh, Spearmen lose their weapon bonus if flanked? That makes a bit more sense now. I haven't played against spear-armed troops in a while so I didn't know. I wish the rulebook's index was better...

Edit: Ah, yes, they can't fight to the sides or rear. Okay, still dumb that guys with shields can't just turn to fight, but at least they're not slower to react to the enemy than pikemen.

Stronginthearm
19-03-2010, 03:25
Especially if you consider that "poison" that affects Undead is some form of holy water, why can't a similar "poison" akin to acid break down war machines? :confused:

Argh let this one die guys we've argued it into the ground earlier in this thread, it will never end, there is no way ghouls have holy claws, its just poison stuff happens, go on with life

Condottiere
19-03-2010, 04:25
and the fact that the models at the center of the unit cannot strike the sides with their spears is dumb too making spears just as useless against a flank charge. if a unit gets flanked, then rank psychology is lost, but it still shouldn't inhibit the models from striking with full defense.

tactically the goal is to overwhelm the unit from all sides.

It does bring to mind though how much I hate high elf spearmen. apparently they are the only race that has the martial mastery to fight in three ranks. way too advanced for any other racePointy sticks come in various lengths, from hand weapon to pikes; theirs just happens to be longer than average.

Cath
19-03-2010, 07:24
Honestly I don't understand why they made pikes as bad as they did. Pikes used in such a close formation were DEVASTATING. A nation was built off these pike blocks, a new style of warfare was designed around these pike blocks that people thought was unbeatable and would simply quit the field when they saw it in use.

In Warhammer is the worst thing since Slannesh tries to make Nurgle its boyfriend.

The SkaerKrow
19-03-2010, 12:29
A nation was built off these pike blocks, a new style of warfare was designed around these pike blocks that people thought was unbeatable and would simply quit the field when they saw it in use.Yeah, because that sounds all well and balanced in a game of Warhammer.

Meanwhile, Pikes are actually good as they are, they're just relegated to being used to exclusion by a very old army. The failing isn't with the Pikes, but the quality of the support units/characters around them.

Urgat
19-03-2010, 13:16
Then again, there's as many armies supported by GW using pikes these days as there's armies with units using blunderbusses... so... who cares about pikes? We may as well discuss about how ice magic is unbalanced :/

Cath
19-03-2010, 19:44
Ice magic is broken. That's why only one army gets it!

Lord Zarkov
20-03-2010, 15:29
Ice magic is broken. That's why only one special character gets it!

Fixed, :(
You can only use 4 spells from it any in any game!

Ward.
23-03-2010, 02:43
Fixed, :(
You can only use 4 spells from it any in any game!

That's still too many.

ChaosVC
23-03-2010, 03:07
Ice magic is broken. That's why only one army gets it!

You are kidding us right...

We play tested it and our conclusion is that its much less versertile then the other common lores.