Pinned Phase 202v of Path of Magic Feedback Beta

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

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    matrim wrote:

    New MoCT does not get Druidism or shamanism. It is called protean magic check the main rule book.
    Calling MoCT have access to Druidism (or shamanism) is similar to say WoDG have an army strength in shooting.
    New MoCT's special rule extending the Druidism attribute to all their spells is... it's more than just one spell worth. The Druidism Attribute is pretty much the only reason to take Druidism.


    And if I were to try to fix this issue, I'd do it by removing Shamanism from KoE and/or SE (replacing it with something else, of course) because while both revere nature... Shamanism is kinda ehn.

    Also, again, Treefathers have access to Druidism but not Shamanism; there are at least models which have Druidism but not Shamanism.

    Peacemaker wrote:

    ya, not sure why KoE has Shamanism.
    Why shoul they not have it.

    It is fitting imo for KoE
    Too close to home; too lightly guarded!

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Chack wrote:

    I don't exactly see the issue with having two similar path of magic more or less consistently shared, i see shamanism and druidism like two faces of the same coin.
    I mean we have more weird pairings like all the elves must have cosmology.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    And if I were to try to fix this issue, I'd do it by removing Shamanism from KoE and/or SE (replacing it with something else, of course) because while both revere nature... Shamanism is kinda ehn.
    Do you realize SE have units like Wild Hunstmen, Blade Dancers, Kestrel Knights and Shapeshifters ? To me that units represent Shamanism quite well, in mentality(Huntsmen,Dancers) or in being close to beasts(Kestrel and Shapeshifter).
    If I were to draw a diagram of where I think all the Paths fall in relation to each other (this is not an official pronouncement, just my opinions), I'd put Shamanism between Druidism and Thaumaturgy; it's nature-based, but also a kind of primitive worship.

    SE feel (to me) too sophisticated and elegant for it; Shamanism is primarily on the brutish races (OnG, Strigoi, BH, Plague Cult).

    I feel like Divination or Witchcraft would be an equally fitting option it could be swapped for.
    This texf

    I'd put Shamanism between Druidism and Thaumaturgy; it's nature-based, but also a kind of primitive worship


    Fits exactly KoE
    Too close to home; too lightly guarded!

  • KoE is more then medieval knightly stuff.

    They worship a goodness of nature and the land and getting blessed by this goodness while all knights prefer riding on horses and horse like beasts and not riding one is a sign of shame.


    So they worship a tribal old goodness and are quite one with nature and beasts.

    It fits.

    Sure it fits not exactly like BH with shamanism but it fits.

    Also the spells fit currently very good to KoE.

    An anti ranged dmg spell which KoE see as unknightly.
    A summon which fits exactly to pegasus and fast movement.
    Increasing strength or resilience to fight bigger enemies? Sure
    An anti WM spell? Perfect for KoE


    Or in short.
    The spells deal with range threats while the rest only support the knights to slay them with honor in melee
    Too close to home; too lightly guarded!

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Chack wrote:

    I don't exactly see the issue with having two similar path of magic more or less consistently shared, i see shamanism and druidism like two faces of the same coin.
    I mean we have more weird pairings like all the elves must have cosmology.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    And if I were to try to fix this issue, I'd do it by removing Shamanism from KoE and/or SE (replacing it with something else, of course) because while both revere nature... Shamanism is kinda ehn.
    Do you realize SE have units like Wild Hunstmen, Blade Dancers, Kestrel Knights and Shapeshifters ? To me that units represent Shamanism quite well, in mentality(Huntsmen,Dancers) or in being close to beasts(Kestrel and Shapeshifter).
    If I were to draw a diagram of where I think all the Paths fall in relation to each other (this is not an official pronouncement, just my opinions), I'd put Shamanism between Druidism and Thaumaturgy; it's nature-based, but also a kind of primitive worship.

    SE feel (to me) too sophisticated and elegant for it; Shamanism is primarily on the brutish races (OnG, Strigoi, BH, Plague Cult).

    I feel like Divination or Witchcraft would be an equally fitting option it could be swapped for.
    Maybe T9A SE aren't so elegant and sophisticated? I always saw the book as raw and primal, not poncy elves dancing in forests, but savage elves who never became elegant and sophisticated in the first place. Leave the poncing to HbE.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • I thought wizards apprentices were a non-choice, so taking the opportunity of 280 lists for ETC I checked how many players take the choice in a hight competitive level (it's still a small sample).

    For the numbers below I counted only character (no conclaves, or Giant apprentice from WodG, etc), as they are the only who have the choice (but I count Cualts, Vermins Daemons and Exalted Heralds as they are character).

    280 lists, 426 wizards characters
    213 Masters (50%)
    178 Adepts (41,8%)
    35 Apprentices (8,2%)
    + 4 crown of the wizard king (or maybe more, I admit I didn't care that much and might have miss some, so I didn't count them in the total)

    Apprentices are surely not totaly throw away, but not that attractive too for the cheaper entry.
    Let's see the more common apprentices, I didn't push too far the inventory, anyway I don't have all the context to know why thoses choices :

    (~28%) 10 skinks priests : in very various setup, with palanquin or not, sun tablet or not, the two path are used, with Cualt or not in the list. Thoses skink surprise me the more, and most of them have stuff so it's not just a 125pts chaff or whatever.
    (~22%) 8 vampires courtiers strigoi/dragon bloodline : only choice for them, other bloodline prefers the adept version, but are still uprgraded (only 30pts and the hereditary replicable + potential "Master" nomination if the general die are good argument)
    (~12%) 4 necromancers : they make VC the biggest users of apprentice in this sample with 12 choices, not very surprising
    (~12%) 4 orc/goblin on chariot : it's only 30/20pts more than the special choice, nice upgrade (1 spell, can issue Duel, distribute hit in unit... for exemple)
    (~14%) 5 varied wizard on mounts (not as cheap as above) : harbringer of Change on chariot, EoS on engine (divination master nearby), BH on chariot, VS on pendulum (apprentice is mandatory) and Vampire count on court (apprentice is free)
    (~12%) 4 others : 1 druid, 1 dryad, 1 goblin, 1 harbringer of change

    Armies with no apprentices chosen : DE, ID, OK, UD, WdG (+ HbE and DH but they can't).

    I didn't note paths, but as not remember think they are varied enought. I might miss other thing to report, but I'm to lazy to start again a reading of 280 lists.

    A quick analyse from my perspective :
    - those skinks in the sample are pretty annoying for a simple conclusion ^^, but they are the only one with list option to increase easily the number of spell (palanquin give n°1 spell for 60pts with other bonus, better than magical heirloom), and a better spell selection (sun tabler give "pathmaster") they are more near an adept level than all other apprentices. And as second caster behind a Cualt it's more intuitive to spend lesser in an spell which don't have all the bonus the first have (I'll add that with a Cualt Master of Reallity, additional channelling is not that important)
    - half of the apprentice choices are for CC character (optionnal wizard or wizard with mount like chariot)
    - others bring no stuff, even "wizard only", so they are not really here for carrying artefact or help a lot in the magic phase I guess, at maximum have an utility spell which can't be gain via a bound spell in the list
    - a big part of thoses choices are here because it's mandatory, only upgrade choice and/or via an upgrade cheap enought (like a 20pts upgrade goblin chariot or a 30pts courtier)


    I don't know if it's really intended that apprentices being so few reprensented, but in my opinion it's not good a general option see so few playing.
    Unfortunatly, actual magic phase don't allow big space for designing and having 3 options on the same scale is maybe a just too much. I also think apprentice are too cheap as upgrade or too expensive for a character with only this. But it's normal as it bring very few in a game and have to be not too cheap to be spammed for chaff... so in this way the better solution I see is make the apprentice better to justify costs like we have now.
    - A first approach and refering to this option is particulary used by CC character, I can suggest to replace apprentice by a sort of battle mage with ability to use magic for CC (like using veil token to boost himself or a free generic and replicable spell for all battle mage or whatever). Note that people would probably want to have a upgrade, so 4 options of wizard instead of 3 which is already too much. ^^
    - A second idea is to compete a little more with adept, without adding channel (which is the main issue). The best idea I had is to increase a little the choice of spell (going to choice between spell H, 1 and 2 - need maybe a reorganisation of paths) first. Then having 2 learned spell, as most options for apprentice cost exactly the same than adept but are different for master - this second upgrade may be tone done by some malus in order that adept don't be just "+ channel". This malus can be a +1 mistcast modifer (as they don't master the veil, fail are bitter), -1 to cast in CC, or other small modifiers.

    May I help to see myself wonder about fielding an apprentice one day.
    Armies : DE, UD - Co-organise : Nain Gros-Gnon
  • in 280 lists at current supposed top level you found 35 apprentices not counting conclave, Crown or wdg Giant. Yet you call it "so few". It's 1/8 on average.
    I claim this conclusion is far fetched and the proposals of a change do not match magnitude of the supposed problem here. 5 point less if anything seems like the deal for some of the less taken apprentices.
    But it's natural that as soon as someone spots a problem often he proposed overblown solution and actually much smaller fix can cut the deal so don't worry.
  • slivek wrote:

    in 280 lists at current supposed top level you found 35 apprentices not counting conclave, Crown or wdg Giant. Yet you call it "so few". It's 1/8 on average.
    I claim this conclusion is far fetched and the proposals of a change do not match magnitude of the supposed problem here. 5 point less if anything seems like the deal for some of the less taken apprentices.
    But it's natural that as soon as someone spots a problem often he proposed overblown solution and actually much smaller fix can cut the deal so don't worry.
    Don't get me wrong, it's biased at the start and the sample is too small for a proper conclusion. A lot of thing are missing like the distribution of level, or a weighting of those level (a master is more impactfull for reaching a good magic phase, we can easily count them twice the value of an adept), etc.

    I just wanted to illustrate a little my initial statement (apprentice are badly designed), and if it's not exactly a good proof to it, it not show the opposite too.
    I might was wrong to attach the conclusion directly to the exemple and not the initial statement, but I don't think it's that's exagerated and this issue will be solved by an little point adjustment, 5 points less (and less, and less because the first will not be sufficient) will just tend to have chaff wizard instead of units and I don't think designer will love to see their wizard design be trnaform to this...
    And to make clear : the "solution" are not "THE solution", it's far away from that, just thought shared because I take some time thinking of this "matter" (to me).
    Armies : DE, UD - Co-organise : Nain Gros-Gnon
  • slivek wrote:

    in 280 lists at current supposed top level you found 35 apprentices not counting conclave, Crown or wdg Giant. Yet you call it "so few". It's 1/8 on average.
    I claim this conclusion is far fetched and the proposals of a change do not match magnitude of the supposed problem here. 5 point less if anything seems like the deal for some of the less taken apprentices.
    But it's natural that as soon as someone spots a problem often he proposed overblown solution and actually much smaller fix can cut the deal so don't worry.
    Nitpick: conclaves are adepts, not apprentices.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • It's the big part of the problem, and it seems Channel on apprentice will not happen. It will need some arrangement like "Channel (1,5+)" => you generate 1 Veil Token on a 5+ during the magic phase. I'm not sold, but it will be more attractive and not too good.

    Or from the most popular choice in the list above (2/3 of the choice are from only 2 armies out 14, that's maybe the key to see what apprentice miss) :
    - like skink add spell or number of choice. It can be an option when select spell : learn spell H & 1 OR learn one spell in the list H, 1, 2, 3, 4.
    - or according to VC, add more replicable spell Hereditary mostly, but it can be also the #1 in most path (actually replicable spell are very few : Oaken Throne + Arise! what an usefull rule). If mix with a better selection of spell, let's say H, 1, 2, rep spell can be seen as spell #2 too. Then I will see some reaon to play 1/2 apprentices in addition to a better caster. A counter-argument is that will motivate maybe too much using a single path in a list, but now it's rarely a good option to share the same path with 2 casters.

    I'm sure a little improvement for apprentice can be made, even in the narrow window between nothing and the adept level.
    Armies : DE, UD - Co-organise : Nain Gros-Gnon
  • I'll repeat a suggestion from earlier in the game.

    I *highly* doubt that this will make it, its too far into the beta IMO.

    Tokens need a defensive use, like modifying opposing spells., so casting would work like this.

    Active player declares casting of a 10+ spell.
    Defensive player declares they are using 2 tokens to increase the casting value by 2 (now a 12+ spell)
    Active player declares how many dice they are using
    active player casts.
    defensive player attempts to dispel if they desire

    If you make it so that you can only do this if you have a wizard, and modify by 1 per wizard, than you can see apprentice spam as a defensive tactic.

    it also adds some cool strategy to token management and makes magic more interactive between players

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • kisanis wrote:

    I'll repeat a suggestion from earlier in the game.

    I *highly* doubt that this will make it, its too far into the beta IMO.

    Tokens need a defensive use, like modifying opposing spells., so casting would work like this.

    Active player declares casting of a 10+ spell.
    Defensive player declares they are using 2 tokens to increase the casting value by 2 (now a 12+ spell)
    Active player declares how many dice they are using
    active player casts.
    defensive player attempts to dispel if they desire

    If you make it so that you can only do this if you have a wizard, and modify by 1 per wizard, than you can see apprentice spam as a defensive tactic.

    it also adds some cool strategy to token management and makes magic more interactive between players
    You'd still see most people upgrading those apprentices to adepts for the channel.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • kisanis wrote:

    I'll repeat a suggestion from earlier in the game.

    I *highly* doubt that this will make it, its too far into the beta IMO.

    Tokens need a defensive use, like modifying opposing spells., so casting would work like this.

    Active player declares casting of a 10+ spell.
    Defensive player declares they are using 2 tokens to increase the casting value by 2 (now a 12+ spell)
    Active player declares how many dice they are using
    active player casts.
    defensive player attempts to dispel if they desire

    If you make it so that you can only do this if you have a wizard, and modify by 1 per wizard, than you can see apprentice spam as a defensive tactic.

    it also adds some cool strategy to token management and makes magic more interactive between players
    i think his would spice up the phase. The only suggestion is to allow you to store 1 additional token per wizard. From phase to phase.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • duxbuse wrote:

    kisanis wrote:

    I'll repeat a suggestion from earlier in the game.

    I *highly* doubt that this will make it, its too far into the beta IMO.

    Tokens need a defensive use, like modifying opposing spells., so casting would work like this.

    Active player declares casting of a 10+ spell.
    Defensive player declares they are using 2 tokens to increase the casting value by 2 (now a 12+ spell)
    Active player declares how many dice they are using
    active player casts.
    defensive player attempts to dispel if they desire

    If you make it so that you can only do this if you have a wizard, and modify by 1 per wizard, than you can see apprentice spam as a defensive tactic.

    it also adds some cool strategy to token management and makes magic more interactive between players
    i think his would spice up the phase. The only suggestion is to allow you to store 1 additional token per wizard. From phase to phase.
    Yes! I had thought of that way back when I originally posted the idea, but forgot to mention.

    3 token base, +1 per mage regardless of level.

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • Decided to post this here instead of in main rulebook because this is where the discussion about apprentices is.

    Suggestion

    Wizards and Channel
    Separate the channel rule from the various levels of wizard and just give the channel rule as needed to the unit entry in the specific books.
    As with most of my suggestions this opens up the design space. Because it is quite obvious that apprentice not having channel is just to satisfy the balance of a few books that have cheap wizard apprentices while it restricts the balance of books with apprentices that have better stats.
    Note: we already do this with EoS prelates or Dwarf Holds.