Strange-strange points for mages

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.

  • Strange-strange points for mages

    Hi everyone!

    I had long debate with @AlexCat about prices for mages. There are a lot strange things with their prices. I think it would be better to discuss them together.

    Let's take a look on master mages for OnG, HbE and EoS.

    EoS Wizard (Wizard Master): 350 points, Dis 7.
    Common OnG Shaman (Wizard Master): 380 points, Res 4, Str 4, Att 2, Dis 8
    HbE Mage (Wizard Master): 375 points, Adv 5, Dis 9, -1 to spells values.

    It seems EoS Wizard is overpriced for about 70-90 points, and Shaman for about 40-50 points.

    It's clear that Res 4, Str 4, Att 2 on mage cost less than +1 Dis and -1 to spells values.
    And Res 4, Str 4, Att 2 and +1 Dis cost more than 30 points.

    Also same strange prices happened with VS Vermin Demon: he costs 790 for Dis 9 Wizard Master with 5 spells and +3 range (it's about 400 points) and also single monster with 6 Hp, Res 6, Str 6, 5+, 5++/4++, Ag 9 and AP10. It seems that all these stats should cost more than 390 points (Dragon for HbE Mage costs 475 points and has worse stats).

    @Adam @Calcathin would you join conversation, please?

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Gerfaks ().

  • Artem Kurhanskii wrote:

    Fight with your 380 point Mage in close combat? If your mage is in close combat - you did something wrong.
    not if he's an Orc shaman, only being wounded on a 5+ against everything (shamanism attribute) with paired weapons and a decent save then he's good to go in the front line where his combat buffs (because he's running shamanism) are most effective.


    Artem Kurhanskii wrote:

    And what about Common/Forest Goblin Wizard Master? 340 points for 2 wounds adv4 and dis6?
    yeah I feel this guy is a bit pricey for his 2 wounds but I guess it's okay his bunker units are cheap, I just wish they'd up the cost of master a bit and make master give him a 3rd Hp
    :O&G: :BH: :ID: :HE:
  • What about the SE wizard which costs 375 points with no special abilities, no magical items dedicated to him in the book, no access to any kind of Armour (only useless bows) and no decent bunker for protecting him but forest guards? Ah and he is only ld8 which is the lowest in the book.

    I fully support a re-pricing campaign for underpowered wizards.

    PS: goblin wizards are not that bad because their bunkers are pretty decent, they have access to light troop mounts, armor, and a very good monster
  • The pricing itself is never done in vaccum. There are various factors to consider. That is why cross army comparisons usually lead to bad results.

    For example I would gladly pay a lot more than EoS for their mortar/cannon with my VC because it gives me something that I do not have in the army otherwise. So even though two armies might have similar choice it might be priced differently

    LD also falls under this case. In LD10 army LD9 character or LD8 character would make no difference whatsoever to LD10 char. Therefore if let's say a mage in predominantly LD9 army has LD9 it doesn't bring much and shouldn't be priced as such. The same goes for LD7 wizard in LD7 army and so on.

    The only factors in pricing (in ideal world) should be external and internal balance - so top picks in externally balanced list are priced right. Top picks in externally overperforming list are under priced and so on. And from what I know BLT tries to price units this way.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • Adam wrote:

    The pricing itself is never done in vaccum. There are various factors to consider. That is why cross army comparisons usually lead to bad results.

    For example I would gladly pay a lot more than EoS for their mortar/cannon with my VC because it gives me something that I do not have in the army otherwise. So even though two armies might have similar choice it might be priced differently

    LD also falls under this case. In LD10 army LD9 character or LD8 character would make no difference whatsoever to LD10 char. Therefore if let's say a mage in predominantly LD9 army has LD9 it doesn't bring much and shouldn't be priced as such. The same goes for LD7 wizard in LD7 army and so on.

    The only factors in pricing (in ideal world) should be external and internal balance - so top picks in externally balanced list are priced right. Top picks in externally overperforming list are under priced and so on. And from what I know BLT tries to price units this way.
    I’m not sure if I agree here. Wizards are all picked to do the same thing (obviously with access to different paths) and therefore there should be a base price tag which is the one you pay to get access to the magic phase and one to get access to master/adept level. However there are obvious advantages for certain wizards which are not compensated by pricing.

    For example an HBE wizards has “only ld9” in an army which has all ld8 units but for 2. A SE druid instead has ld8 in an army that has minimum lD8. They cost 50 points different but the HBE one has a clear advantage over the other (i let you evaluate how big because you have for sure more experience with HBE). On top of that HBE wizard has bonus to cast, access to Armour, access to very good mounts and acces to very good magic items. But what makes it really better than the other is the fact that you can get an ld bonus+BSB+ wizard without having to pay for 3 characters while SE needs general+BSB+wizard which is far more than 50 points difference.

    That said I used the above mentioned example not because i want to whine but because I think that the situation is clearly externally unbalanced, and I honestly think that HBE wizards are fairly priced, is the rest that is overpriced.
  • @nantuko lore choices and mage role in the army matter a lot in this case. WoTG would pay arm and a leg for pyromancer as this army really needs ranged damage and chaff clear. For HBE which have a lot of ranged damage and chaff clear the same pyromancer is worth less. You still need mage for specific and this might be different across armies therefore pricing is different too.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • As far as I can tell mages have been deliberately overpriced for balance reasons. If mages are priced correctly, the vast majority of people will take a Mage simply because it's a fantasy game and that's what you do. By overpriceing mages it makes people think about what a Mage can do and make a reasoned decision on whether to take them or not based on how they intend to use the Mage.

    I've said before that I think this is stupid. It's the equivalent of an army general saying "lets leave the machine guns and tanks at home today boys and use kitchen knives instead!" And justifying it because "kitchen knives are cheaper than machine guns so we can have loads more of them..."

    But that is what the team want to do so they won't listen to us. And in fairness it's only master mages that are overpriced. I find 2 adepts with different paths > 1 master.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Currently not taking a mage would appear to severely hamstring your list, so I'm not sure you are right of your assessment there :/ I can't think of any army where the wizard character is a bad pick internally, regardless of how you think they compare against other armies' magic users.

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    "lets leave the machine guns and tanks at home today boys and use kitchen knives instead!"
    You ever played CounterStrike and shanked someone? Or ran around with a gauntlet in Quake?

    If going no-magic was a viable option competitively, people would do it...
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Irish Wargamer wrote:

    Artem Kurhanskii wrote:

    Fight with your 380 point Mage in close combat? If your mage is in close combat - you did something wrong.
    not if he's an Orc shaman, only being wounded on a 5+ against everything (shamanism attribute) with paired weapons and a decent save then he's good to go in the front line where his combat buffs (because he's running shamanism) are most effective.

    Artem Kurhanskii wrote:

    And what about Common/Forest Goblin Wizard Master? 340 points for 2 wounds adv4 and dis6?
    yeah I feel this guy is a bit pricey for his 2 wounds but I guess it's okay his bunker units are cheap, I just wish they'd up the cost of master a bit and make master give him a 3rd Hp
    The problem is that Orc Shaman has not only shamanism. So he can want not to go in close combat and be range caster and perhaps even general of army. Also should pay extra points for magic items for cc.
    So it looks like he should be about 40-50 points cheaper. And maybe should pay some extra points (10-20) if he take shamanism with cc magic items.

    Mage shouldn't pay points for having cheap bunkers in army. It really has no sense.
    For instance cavalry char doesn't pay extra points for having cavalry in army, does he?

    So even with 3 hp goblin master mage is overcosted for about 100 points. He has worse stats than EoS master mage.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Gerfaks ().

  • Cortrillion wrote:

    Are there in fact any list in any tournaments without one master wizard? it is almost a tax for all lists now.
    I think it's good news. It's fantasy wargame after all - you should have both might and magic in your army)

    Adam wrote:

    @nantuko lore choices and mage role in the army matter a lot in this case. WoTG would pay arm and a leg for pyromancer as this army really needs ranged damage and chaff clear. For HBE which have a lot of ranged damage and chaff clear the same pyromancer is worth less. You still need mage for specific and this might be different across armies therefore pricing is different too.
    I agree. So mages should pay some points for access to pathes. If you take pyro - X points, if you take cosmo - Y points and so on.
    And X,Y,... depends on army and synergy with mage stats. For instance cc mages and monster-mages should pay more points for shamanism.
  • Adam wrote:

    @nantuko lore choices and mage role in the army matter a lot in this case. WoTG would pay arm and a leg for pyromancer as this army really needs ranged damage and chaff clear. For HBE which have a lot of ranged damage and chaff clear the same pyromancer is worth less. You still need mage for specific and this might be different across armies therefore pricing is different too.
    Yes, I agree that lore choice matters a lot in this case and also the role of the wizard in the army. In fact I said that HBE wizards are actually priced correctly because they will cost around 10% or your army but will get you a very good magic phase, Ld bonus and will leave you in the need of only one additional character (BSB).

    The point here is not even that a SE druid or a shaman orc should cost 150 points less (btw in my comparison I made a mistake they cost exactly the same... bad sleeping playing me bad tricks :( ) because as @Fnarrr said you will anyway pick a wizard for what he can bring (an additional game phase) but still there is too much difference between the top wizards and weaker ones.
  • I also want to add something about cross surfing armies to compare point costs. I agree that it is not always straight forward but there are cases in which it is crystal clear that the point cost is applied ill over in the same way. For example giants all cost more or less the same while having some minor army specific rules. I think this is correct because the base models all do the same while the specific rules are basically priced separately.

    I think this should be applied up to a certain extent to wizards too.
  • Gerfaks wrote:

    For instance cavalry char doesn't pay extra points for having cavalry in army, does he?
    Actually, that's not always true. For example, one major complaint for KoE in 1.2 was how expensive a horse was for Dukes and Paladins especially when you consider that you would expect them to be mounted for fluff reasons.

    We were told that horses were that expensive because it gives the character extra utility by being able to join so many different units and because KoE characters are so good in units they pay extra for it. I think you'll be surprised at what you pay for.

    Fnarrr wrote:

    You ever played CounterStrike and shanked someone? Or ran around with a gauntlet in Quake?

    If going no-magic was a viable option competitively, people would do it...
    People did in 1.3 and I'll be surprised if nobody tries it in 2.0. It may well end up showing that wizards in some form are necessary. I haven't been able to play 2.0 much so maybe that was a 1.3 hangover. :(

    Fnarrr wrote:

    Currently not taking a mage would appear to severely hamstring your list, so I'm not sure you are right of your assessment there I can't think of any army where the wizard character is a bad pick internally, regardless of how you think they compare against other armies' magic users.
    I should clarify that Master Wizards appear to be overcosted from my point of view. Compare a Master vs 2 Adepts, the adepts are just much better and the only real disadvantage is that you lose +1 to cast and have no access to a couple of decent spells.

    Too many #5 or #6 spells aren't worth taking a master for. E.g. Druidism - the forest spell is poor and the +2/+3 toughness spell is good but not awesome. Divination - Unerring strike is good, but not awesome (and Fate’s Judgement on 9+ gives a similar result) and Portent of Doom is better than it was but an obvious target for dispel.

    If the #5 and #6 spells were better, then I'd see more benefit in trying out a master wizard.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.