Magic phase

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • I think the current problem with magic is that armies without magic have it too good. They can easily get an almost free dispel scroll and still get a banner that gives +2 to dispel.

    When you think about how much a caster costs wdg for example costs 850-900pts which is the equivalent of a horde of elite troops magic really needs to make up for the loss of a unit like that. If it's easy for non magic using armies to stop spells it's never worth taking a caster. Add to that the reduced potently of magic and the fact there are some stupid spells floating around in the paths it's difficult or impossible to justify spending a massive amount of points on a caster.

    I'd like to see
    1 fix lores by making all the spells good, not op but rather useful
    2 making it easier for armies wth mages to get spells off against armies without mages.

    The worst thing that can happen in my opinion is the addition of some complicated mechanic using cards dice and tokens. It'll just slow the game down and intimidate new players away from the game. Make it simple fun and effective. Not an easy task. GL
  • Magic will get a complete redesign with 2.0. So I guess your point one might be implemented soon.

    I disagree on point two. If a wizard is needed to have magic defense we would go back to a system were wizards are must-haves. I rather enjoy the possibility of taking no wizard. It creates more variety and the opportunity to play more thematic lists.

    Overall I don't think magic is as weak right now as some people think. The majority of competitive lists still include wizards which would not be the case if magic was too weak.
  • Arrahed wrote:

    I disagree on point two. If a wizard is needed to have magic defense we would go back to a system were wizards are must-haves. I rather enjoy the possibility of taking no wizard. It creates more variety and the opportunity to play more thematic lists.
    I agree that taking no wizard should be possible. However, I don't like the Aether Icon because it makes no wizard armies just as good at magic as wizard armies (better if they only take a wizard apprentice). I'm expecting a merge of the crown and the scroll into a trinket with the new rules but I think the Icon needs to go.

    If you want to dispel as a wizard master, take a wizard master. Or think of it like this:

    • If I choose to take no specialist close combat units, I expect my army to suck in close combat.
    • If I take no shooting units, I expect my army to suck at shooting.
    • If I take no wizards, my army is better at stopping magic........ eh?
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Arrahed wrote:

    The way magic currently works means that even tiny differences can have huge effect.
    The magic phase is up for review and I hope that this won't be so much of an issue with the new rules.

    Arrahed wrote:

    But I am not sure that magic-less armies would still be viable if their magic defense would be tuned down even a little bit.
    Then so be it. I'd prefer magic-less armies to be possible but if making them possible means giving them an advantage in the defensive magic phase then I'd scrap them in a heartbeat.

    It just doesn't make any logical sense.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • There are armies, such as DHs, who should defend themselves well from magic, regardless of Runic Smith or Anvil; I love playing without Magic, I'm a Dwarf and Aether (Rune and Banner) are fundamental.
    Now I do not want the game to become a magic game, where if you do not have a magician or equivalent (Runic Smith) you're dead.
    By spending the right points, I would like magic defenses, or racial magic defenses (namely for DH, the current one is poor).
    Everyone should be free to play their own style.
  • kargan wrote:

    There are armies, such as DHs, who should defend themselves well from magic, regardless of Runic Smith or Anvil; I love playing without Magic, I'm a Dwarf and Aether (Rune and Banner) are fundamental.
    Now I do not want the game to become a magic game, where if you do not have a magician or equivalent (Runic Smith) you're dead.
    By spending the right points, I would like magic defenses, or racial magic defenses (namely for DH, the current one is poor).
    Everyone should be free to play their own style.
    Agreed. I'm just trying to say that there is a big difference between 1 race (DH) being good at something and everyone being good at it.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • From the Nosferatu spoiler on VC's forum we know that there will be (at least) 3 levels of Wizards in T9A

    Novice, Apprentice, Master

    I'm assuming that each level grants an incremental bonus to casting.

    I believe in the VC spoiler it also mentioned part of the Magic Phase mechanic by introducing things called Veil Tokens. It also implied that a Miscast will occur if three or more D6 rolls of 1-3 we're rolled when casting a spell and that certain conditions could make your risk of Miscasting higher (ie three D6 rolls of 1-4 or possibly 1-5)

    I'm wondering if the number of Tokens a Wizard generates per turn represents the number or power level of spells they can cast that turn. Each Token might represent one D6, which can be used to cast the spell (which would mean that spells using D6 or 2D6 could never Miscast).

    iirc one of the Magic proposals which received a lot of likes involved needing to roll X number of "successes" to successfully cast a spell. For example low level Fireball might only need 1 successful roll of 3+ to go off, whereas Wrath of God might require 2 successful rolls of 5+ to be successful. A version of this could also be possible.

    Regarding the OP, it's not unreasonable that armies that are supposed to have wizards will lose access to an Aether Icon type of Banner. Remember, there will only be 10 common RB Magic Enchantments, so while it is fluffy for DH to have no wizard, yet have excellent magical protection, it may not be for and army like Ogres Khans which must decide between a Wizard or no protection.

    The vice versa is also true. Armies like HbE, DE, Daemons, SA, VS, VC, UD will likely have such good Army-specific Enchantments that writing a list without a Wizard, no matter how thematic, would be considered uncompetitive.
  • The current spells are in no way too weak. For an extreme example play a T3 army vs. Pyromancy especially when they get salvo and embers. Getting one buff spell off can completely swing a combat that would normally go the other way, or you can blast an expensive single model off the table in one turn.

    What it is is too random. Its all the luck of the dice and your mage can easily be the mvp and in some extreme cases account for half the enemie's army or, swinging the other way, do diddly except cost a significant portion of your army and it's all based entirely on dice rolls. And they know this, its been brought up. Quite a bit.

    As people have pointed out, the entire magic phase seems to be differnt based on the glimmer of spoilers we've seen about it. I doubt anything we say here is going to affect any decisions the team have made regarding the 2.0 magic phase (because, why would they listen to people that have no idea what's coming? And They shouldn't. Not to mention, its kinda too late now.) So, perhaps, we should wait to see what's in store and give feedback during the playtesting phase that actually exists solely for us to give feedback.
  • If we base any discussion on whether it effects the team then why even post?

    Anyway too much emphasis has been placed on getting magic defense without a wizard. The pts saved are its own defense, invested back into character assassins if you like, along with the inherent risk of magic. I do not agree with being able to defend magic without similar investment. The exception possibly being dwarves.

    Off topic but 10 RB items is not enough for my tastes. Especially if I'm playing a book with only 10.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • Normally id agree, but right before a big update is released and is in the final stages? Not really the time to start complaining about the current magic phase thats been around for a year+. I think you may have missed the window. I mean you are complaining about a phase of the game and magic items that, for all we know, are nothing like they were.

    Besides the stat changes, the two things we know that have been reworked the most are specifically the magic phase and the magic items.

    And I must say I disagree with you fundamentally about magic defense. Magic offense and defense are two different things. When you buy a mage, you're buying its spellcasting power. You're not bringing a mage because of its current +2 to dispel. You're bringing it to bring the pain. That's what you want. That's what you expect. Are you right to be disappointed with 1.3 mages? Maybe. Like I said they're pretty luck dependant. But you can't expect a magicless army to pay as much in defense as you pay for both defense AND offense. Are no mage armies paying too little for defense? Maybe. I could agree it's a tad undercosted. Perhaps the standard should require a character to carry it so it cant be placed on a unit standard bearer that doesn't die until you kill the unit. But it shouldn't be so expensive that it takes all the characters magic item allowance. Mages have that defense built in and in addition they get to blow stuff up. No combat character can be as devastating as a mage can potentially be, so a combat character in a mageless army shouldn't have to spend all of its magic item points allowance on magic defense.

    As for magic items, yeah 10 plus 10 sounds pretty low. But then I think, there's maybe 6 items I regularly take in the brb and 2 or 3 I take in the army books, so depending on how things work out, 20 good items can easily be greater than what we currently have.

    So, the point I'm making is you can keep throwing up a fuss over things that we know have changed before we know how they did, or you can wait a month or so to see if it's actually necessary.
  • Korvain wrote:

    You're not bringing a mage because of its current +2 to dispel.
    This is currently true but it never used to be. In an old game, if you wanted a bonus to dispel, you needed a wizard (or equivalent for armies like DH) and if you go back to 7th ed, you needed wizards just to generate dispel dice.

    I'm not saying that the old way is better but it makes very little fluff sense for a flag on a stick to be just as good at dispelling as a master wizard.

    Korvain wrote:

    you can't expect a magicless army to pay as much in defense as you pay for both defense AND offense.
    I agree that you shouldn't pay as much for just defence as for both offence and defence. The issue is that taking no magic and getting the crown and the banner allows you to dispel remains in play spells in your own offensive magic phase, with a +2 to dispel. Armies with magic have to make a decision to (potentially) sacrifice their own magic in order to dispel a remains in play spell.

    As the current rules stand, magic-less armies are better at magic defence than armies with magic. This is daft.

    Armies without any spells (or bound spells) to cast, shouldn't be allowed an offensive magic phase. As you so accurately point out - they haven't paid for it.

    Korvain wrote:

    Are no mage armies paying too little for defense?
    Under the current rules: Yes they are. But that's the crux of the matter really, 2.0 will see quite massive changes in the magic phase so I image that this will be one of the things that the team look at.

    It might not change, but I hope it does.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Korvain wrote:

    Korvain wrote:

    So, the point I'm making is you can keep throwing up a fuss over things that we know have changed before we know how they did, or you can wait a month or so to see if it's actually necessary.
    I think you missed this bit here.
    That didn't really have much to do with the discussion on magic Defence. I was highlighting my issues with your views, which can be paraphrased as: "It's OK for a flag on a stick to be better than wizards as dispelling because said flag can't cast magic."

    And If we're quoting ourselves then:

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    But that's the crux of the matter really, 2.0 will see quite massive changes in the magic phase so I image that this will be one of the things that the team look at.

    It might not change, but I hope it does.
    I agree that this is changing (it's pretty hard to deny) but I disagree that that means we shouldn't voice our opinions - you have, so why shouldn't the rest of us?

    The team might see something that someone posts and think it amazing - they may not incorporate this into 2.0 but they'll keep hold of the idea and incorporate it when they can (if they can). I don't really see this as a problem - provided people know that these things might not get put straight in for 2.0.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • The Unmarked wrote:

    @Stygian out of curiosity, which book(s) only have 10 items? I thought baseline was 15 except books that had lots of complexity.
    iirc OnGs, SE, VCs, KOE all have less than 15. I may be mistaken on some because I haven't gone back to find those posts.

    Korvain wrote:

    Normally id agree, but right before a big update is released and is in the final stages? Not really the time to start complaining about the current magic phase thats been around for a year+. I think you may have missed the window. I mean you are complaining about a phase of the game and magic items that, for all we know, are nothing like they were.

    Besides the stat changes, the two things we know that have been reworked the most are specifically the magic phase and the magic items.

    And I must say I disagree with you fundamentally about magic defense. Magic offense and defense are two different things. When you buy a mage, you're buying its spellcasting power. You're not bringing a mage because of its current +2 to dispel. You're bringing it to bring the pain. That's what you want. That's what you expect. Are you right to be disappointed with 1.3 mages? Maybe. Like I said they're pretty luck dependant. But you can't expect a magicless army to pay as much in defense as you pay for both defense AND offense. Are no mage armies paying too little for defense? Maybe. I could agree it's a tad undercosted. Perhaps the standard should require a character to carry it so it cant be placed on a unit standard bearer that doesn't die until you kill the unit. But it shouldn't be so expensive that it takes all the characters magic item allowance. Mages have that defense built in and in addition they get to blow stuff up. No combat character can be as devastating as a mage can potentially be, so a combat character in a mageless army shouldn't have to spend all of its magic item points allowance on magic defense.

    As for magic items, yeah 10 plus 10 sounds pretty low. But then I think, there's maybe 6 items I regularly take in the brb and 2 or 3 I take in the army books, so depending on how things work out, 20 good items can easily be greater than what we currently have.

    So, the point I'm making is you can keep throwing up a fuss over things that we know have changed before we know how they did, or you can wait a month or so to see if it's actually necessary.
    Not complaining about magic, just adding my opinion that defense is already too good for its cost.. but Sully said it better. I'll just add that I like playing no magic. I'm versed in it and even did a campaign I called a year without magic during 7th edition with all elf wood elves no less. This is childs play by comparison.

    EDIT- the rest is obviously off base so I deleted it. Looking good T9A carry on!
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Stygian ().

  • Alright. I actually had a lengthy post all written out, but as I've been saying, arguing about the 1.3 magic phase is silly so I deleted it and just went with stating that fact again. However, if you really must have it so:

    "A flag on a stick should not be better than a wizard at dispelling"
    First off, it's not. Its as good. But not better. (And worse if the enemy mage has the book)
    Secondly, why shouldn't it be? Because you say so? What do you base that on? Is it fluff? We dont know the fluff. Maybe its easier to dispell than cast. Maybe the best wizards sit around and enchant things instead of risking themselves in battle so the skill that they pour into the items outpaces the common battlemage. Maybe the magic items are relics of times past when men were men, women were women, and magic was more powerful. We don't know any of that.

    Another reason I suppose you might think that is point costs and I allowed as to how no magic armies might be getting a bit of a break. But then, do you know how much mages pay points wise for their defense? I don't. But I would guess that most of their cost comes from their ability to cast and potentially single handedly turn the tide of battle.

    "No magic armies have an advantage at dispelling remains in play spells"
    No they don't they make the same choice. To cast or to not cast and dispell that pesky RIP. They just made that choice at the list building stage instead of during the game. Also, denying no magic armies the ability to offensively dispell RIP spells would make those spells over powered vs. No magic armies. They'd be forced to let the spell remain or to allow their opponet a completely unopposed magic phase with possibly disastrous consequences. If you wanted to go this way, the effects of RIP spells would need to be nerfed quite a bit.

    You seem to think that voluntarily opting out of an entire phase of the game is all sunshine and roses. It's not. You can't really swing combats, and you can't really bring any ranged pressure without going gunline, which has its own drawbacks. Currently going no magic is more viable than its been since my sixth edition khorne army, but it's no where near that powerful. I'd really say that its just not a huge disadvantage anymore. As someone else already pointed out, most people still bring magic. Even I do most of the time. The way I'd prefer to play is getting up close and smashing people in CC, but magic is often too good to overlook. I do however usually take steps to make it less random like taking 2 units of acolytes in my DE army and maybe a lvl 1 or 2 with a lore that I know I want the signature from, or taking the pendulum and a shamanism mage in my VS army so I get pretty much the whole lore etc. So Im not saying there's no problem with 1.3 magic, just expressing that i dont think the problem is what you think it is. The problem is the randomness. The way it swings from "Holy crap!" To "ugh, well, crap". Hopefully that's what they've addressed in 2.0.
  • So wrong on so many levels.

    Awther icon is better than a wizard because it's a fraction of the cost for the same or better effect. A wizard apprentice costs anywhere from 3x to 5x as much as a flag on a stick and less effective.

    Dispelling RIP argument is ridiculous. If you have 2 spells and one is an RIP an army without a wizard dispels it for free every turn making it far less useful. It means you paid a lot of points for something with greatly reduced potency. Not sure how you don't see this.

    Saying someone shouldn't voice their opinion "just b cause they say so" is just plain arrogant and completely counter productive, going against the the sole purpose of having forums... for feedback.