Can we admit there are still magic items in the game?

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.

  • Can we admit there are still magic items in the game?

    So prior to 2.0, everyone simply had "magic items". Each one was a specific item with specific bonuses. No option to enchant for anyone except Dwarven Holds. With 2.0 comes the ability to do "magical enchantments". Yet these are often simply Magic Items by a different name. A LOT of books essentially HAVE magic items, yet cheapen them by making it an enchantment with a generic name (Light of Sonnstahl instead of THE SONNSTAHL, for example).

    Perhaps the game could move in the direction of having "enchantments" and items? It could have the generic enchantments that could be applied to any armor/weapon, but then include one item in each category that "exemplified" the faction. Essentially, one that either carries deep and resonating connotations in the faction's background, exemplifies the faction's inherent traits, or (ideally) both.

    For example:
    - The Empire's Magic Weapon Item being The Sonnstahl.
    - Highborn Elves Magic Armor Item being The Protection of Dorac
    etc.

    Basically, create actual Magic Items for the enchantments that are, in practice, simply Magic Items with an added level of complexity, and then have enchantments that are more unrestricted and generic that can be tagged onto anything else.

    What are y'all's thoughts on this?
    My army has rocks, papers, and scissors. The reason you lost this war is that you thought we were playing checkers at every battle. - Anon. Highborn Elf Prince.
    Highborn Master of the Infantry and aspiring Equitaininan Champion of the Lady.

    Playtester

    DL Army Community Support

  • But wait a minute. From 1.3 to 2.0, the army book format has changed converting magical items to enchantments, with in general no modification other than transferring part of the cost to the price of the mundane piece of equipment (if any). This was, and correct me if I'm wrong, under the premise that the actual redesign are supposed to happen, for the most part, during the FAB rework anyway. So why are you surprised that, in this transition state, a lot of enchantments still look like the old items? Going back seems actually just like undoing the layout work.
    Also, other question: how would you explain that you can have two instances of "The Sonnstahl" on the board at the same time in cases of a mirror match?
  • I agree, I keep running into players (or ex players). Who say they are losing or lost interest in the game due to the lack of story during thier game. And I think named magic items is a part of that. It took a little while to understand what they meant as to me it's all the same. But for a decent number of people the game is about the stories they tell after, not just a highly efficient set of rules.
    Personally I miss the specific magic items as it allowed for a kinda rule breaking character here and there (Lance carrying wizard, or heavily armored goblin, etc...)
  • I agree, we need Magical items to come back, but we don't need to lose the enchantment system to get it.

    I'de like to see the customisation options get expanded to more like this:
    • Magical Items
      Self Contained Items with Magical Effects, you buy it as is
    • Enchantments
      these go on items, but you're not limited to just one per item(like the Dwarven Runic system)
    • Multiple items
      if you want to take a halberd, a sword, a great weapon and paired weapons you can and you can enchant them all but you have to pick which one to use so you only get one effect at a time
    • Additional Equipment options
      Weapons for mages and such, albeit as a costly upgrade
      Artefacts as mundane items, like scrolls, talismans, rings and such that don't do anything but can be enchanted
  • Shlagrabak wrote:

    But wait a minute. From 1.3 to 2.0, the army book format has changed converting magical items to enchantments, with in general no modification other than transferring part of the cost to the price of the mundane piece of equipment (if any). This was, and correct me if I'm wrong, under the premise that the actual redesign are supposed to happen, for the most part, during the FAB rework anyway. So why are you surprised that, in this transition state, a lot of enchantments still look like the old items? Going back seems actually just like undoing the layout work.
    Also, other question: how would you explain that you can have two instances of "The Sonnstahl" on the board at the same time in cases of a mirror match?
    This is true. HOWEVER, look at the outcome. Most, if not all, armies had their mundane equipment become CHEAPER while their magic enchantments became MORE expensive. So there was obviously a big disconnect here in what happened. However, the past is the past.

    There was a BIG loss of flavor when these items changed in the way they did. As was mentioned, the Spear of the Blazing Dawn was far more thematic than "A Sliver of the Blazing Dawn". The "Light of Sonnstahl" vs. The Sonnstahl is a perfect example of this.


    My proposal is NOT to "undo" the update and change, but to work alongside it. I would propose KEEPING the "15 enchantments per army", and make them less complex. Then take one item per category, and craft a unique item that exemplifies what that category does for the army. It would have the advantage that you could write ALL rules for the item in a paragraph, rather than saying "well here's what the enchantment does, but you also have to look up its mundane rules".

    An example of how this could work both currently and under the new system:
    - Currently: Enchantment of Generic Name: Paired Weapon Enchantment. The model gains Metalshifting.
    - Proposition: Moonlight, Starbright. The model gains +1OS, +1A, and Metalshifting. The model ignores the Parry Defensive Special Rule. Insert fluff text about it being a pair of matched swords.

    The effect is the same but:
    - There is a stronger sense of flavor in the second one.
    - The second one is easier for a New Player to remember, and more likely to make them excited.

    An example with a current item:
    - Current: Sliver of the Blazing Dawn: Each successful to hit roll with this weapon causes two hits. attacks with this weapon gain +1S +2 AP. In BRB, find rules for Spear. Combine with character's S4 AP1 for full ruleset.
    - Proposition: Spear of the Blazing Dawn: Each successful To Hit roll with this weapon causes two hits. The model Gains +1S and +3AP. When directing attacks against a model charging in the bearer's front arc, the model instead gains +1S, +4AP, and +2I.

    Greater flavor, easier for a newbie to grasp the rules of the item, and easier to refer to if any questions arise. :)
    My army has rocks, papers, and scissors. The reason you lost this war is that you thought we were playing checkers at every battle. - Anon. Highborn Elf Prince.
    Highborn Master of the Infantry and aspiring Equitaininan Champion of the Lady.

    Playtester

    DL Army Community Support

  • I feel like the enchantment rules allow for greater story honestly. Before, my character would carry "the sword of such and such" and a shield. I would feel obligated to have him carrying a sword (or similar hand weapon) even though I think the model would look cooler with a spear.
    Now I can take "the enchantment of such and such" and throw it on the spear... For the most part.
  • Its the difference between being free to write your own story, and being immersed in an existing one.

    T9A is great for the former (yay!) and lacks in the latter (boo!) - but they are somewhat mutually exclusive, because something can be viewed as a "guideline" or a "restriction" depending on your preferences.

    I think embracing the former rather than half-assing both and meh for everyone is the better way to go.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Specific Items will be part of the game but only for Legendary Characters when we get to do them.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG: