Improving some spells

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.

  • marcema wrote:

    Fate's judgment and unerring strike against UD sphinxes and daemons is very painful. You can put a 1000p greater daemon down with those 2 spells.

    200p artillery can shoot a 500-900p monster down before it does something. Why can a 400+ point mage reliably kill 100p per turn for maybe 6 turns. Assuming you won't get into combat or get killed and such, so maybe 3-4 turns is more realistic.
    What kind of artillery you are talking about kind sir?
    Do you take into account all the points and effort artillery need to keep it alive?
    Or do you take into account that artillery is heavily limited by terrain, since it can't move quickly enough?
    And do you take into account the cost of engineer, who makes artillery piece more or less reliable?
  • Happy Aspid wrote:

    marcema wrote:

    Fate's judgment and unerring strike against UD sphinxes and daemons is very painful. You can put a 1000p greater daemon down with those 2 spells.

    200p artillery can shoot a 500-900p monster down before it does something. Why can a 400+ point mage reliably kill 100p per turn for maybe 6 turns. Assuming you won't get into combat or get killed and such, so maybe 3-4 turns is more realistic.
    What kind of artillery you are talking about kind sir?Do you take into account all the points and effort artillery need to keep it alive?
    Or do you take into account that artillery is heavily limited by terrain, since it can't move quickly enough?
    And do you take into account the cost of engineer, who makes artillery piece more or less reliable?
    Are we taking the unit that is required to keep the mage alive in consideration?

    We can keep having what if discussions but they are endless as we end up considering a whole army list. In the end this depends on a list and how it is build together how things function.

    We don't take binding scrolls and dispell and casting chances in account either do we?

    My comparison with artillery is purely based on the fact that there is a counter for everything. Monsters suffer from artillery, cavalry from high AP and alchemy, hordes do not like catapults and pyromancy due to low armour,etc. I personally hate gun lines for example as SA player as it is tough to play against when you put 3 monsters on the table that need to stay alive.

    People who always face people with alchemy and play pure cavalry ofcourse are hurt by this, but the current level of alchemy does not mean that a knight army instantly dies because of an alchemy mage, it depends on the quality of the player, how people make decisions and a portion of luck with the dice.

    Or is there someone who can prove me wrong based on statistics of cavalry armies facing an army with alchemy that more than 60% of the times result in a major loss?
  • Can you prove me that a full Cavalry is not instantly countered by 1 alchi mage?

    I would take a gut feeling that 60% is major loose 30% small loose and 10% win if both players are the same skill level.

    I don't have any data but I trust my belly (he is huge he packs much information many data)

    And if we look at the threads over and over again about Cavalry it seems more likely.



    How about a change of the path.

    What I read right now:

    Alchemy is fine power wise but too much rock paper scissor. Some small change without changing power to make it more flexibel and less anti armor on range could be good.


    What is your opinion about druidsmn?
    Did you use it?
    Do you like it?
    What needs to change?
    Too close to home; too lightly guarded!

    Translation Team DE

    Product-Search

  • Alchemy is disgusting dude.
    Even ogres get mopped with it if you're playing certain builds. Especially against WotDG. If you bring 2x hunters with 2+ armour, 4+ fortitude and some 3+ tuskers or veterans and 4+ monsters you will have a terrible time as everything will get really badly damaged by any alchemy spell.
    Chipping in just a wound or two on an auroch let's a unit of 5 chosen very reliably kill it in one round whereas otherwise it's a gamble.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Just Flank It © KoE - Tactics 101
  • Klexe wrote:

    Can you prove me that a full Cavalry is not instantly countered by 1 alchi mage?

    I would take a gut feeling that 60% is major loose 30% small loose and 10% win if both players are the same skill level.

    I don't have any data but I trust my belly (he is huge he packs much information many data)

    And if we look at the threads over and over again about Cavalry it seems more likely.



    How about a change of the path.

    What I read right now:

    Alchemy is fine power wise but too much rock paper scissor. Some small change without changing power to make it more flexibel and less anti armor on range could be good.


    What is your opinion about druidsmn?
    Did you use it?
    Do you like it?
    What needs to change?
    I think @Marrcus talked about the KoE matchup with his SA being drawish. He recently won swedish nationals with pyro/alch cuatl.
  • Jomppexx wrote:

    Alchemy is disgusting dude.
    Even ogres get mopped with it if you're playing certain builds. Especially against WotDG. If you bring 2x hunters with 2+ armour, 4+ fortitude and some 3+ tuskers or veterans and 4+ monsters you will have a terrible time as everything will get really badly damaged by any alchemy spell.
    Chipping in just a wound or two on an auroch let's a unit of 5 chosen very reliably kill it in one round whereas otherwise it's a gamble.
    It is miracle if this 5 will survive long enough to at least lift a finger, since you need GW ones in order to deal with Aurochs Resilence.
    Then there are really only one spell that is so powefull -
    1) Quicksilver lash It is devastating but it deals 2-4 wounds max. 4+ to-wound against auroch.
    Everything else is not so much.
    4) Molten Copper 4-6 wounds max. 6+ to wound
    6) Silver Spike d3 damage (against Mountain Hide that lowers multiplication) on 4+ to-wound.

    So the enemy not only need wizard master in order to use all of them, but he spends 3/4 of available spells (so maximum one buff or hereditary)
  • Happy Aspid wrote:

    Jomppexx wrote:

    Alchemy is disgusting dude.
    Even ogres get mopped with it if you're playing certain builds. Especially against WotDG. If you bring 2x hunters with 2+ armour, 4+ fortitude and some 3+ tuskers or veterans and 4+ monsters you will have a terrible time as everything will get really badly damaged by any alchemy spell.
    Chipping in just a wound or two on an auroch let's a unit of 5 chosen very reliably kill it in one round whereas otherwise it's a gamble.
    It is miracle if this 5 will survive long enough to at least lift a finger, since you need GW ones in order to deal with Aurochs Resilence.Then there are really only one spell that is so powefull -
    1) Quicksilver lash It is devastating but it deals 2-4 wounds max. 4+ to-wound against auroch.
    Everything else is not so much.
    4) Molten Copper 4-6 wounds max. 6+ to wound
    6) Silver Spike d3 damage (against Mountain Hide that lowers multiplication) on 4+ to-wound.

    So the enemy not only need wizard master in order to use all of them, but he spends 3/4 of available spells (so maximum one buff or hereditary)
    Well I played against EH with Hellfire and other spells and master? or adept alchemist on dragon one game. Magic was definitely powerful.
    5 Wrath GW Chosen attack before aurochs hitting on 2+ wounding on 4+ with 15A. Hallys do the same but wound on 5+. Obviously if aurochs charges they just get flattened with even mediocre luck.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Just Flank It © KoE - Tactics 101
  • Jomppexx wrote:

    Happy Aspid wrote:

    Jomppexx wrote:

    Alchemy is disgusting dude.
    Even ogres get mopped with it if you're playing certain builds. Especially against WotDG. If you bring 2x hunters with 2+ armour, 4+ fortitude and some 3+ tuskers or veterans and 4+ monsters you will have a terrible time as everything will get really badly damaged by any alchemy spell.
    Chipping in just a wound or two on an auroch let's a unit of 5 chosen very reliably kill it in one round whereas otherwise it's a gamble.
    It is miracle if this 5 will survive long enough to at least lift a finger, since you need GW ones in order to deal with Aurochs Resilence.Then there are really only one spell that is so powefull -1) Quicksilver lash It is devastating but it deals 2-4 wounds max. 4+ to-wound against auroch.
    Everything else is not so much.
    4) Molten Copper 4-6 wounds max. 6+ to wound
    6) Silver Spike d3 damage (against Mountain Hide that lowers multiplication) on 4+ to-wound.

    So the enemy not only need wizard master in order to use all of them, but he spends 3/4 of available spells (so maximum one buff or hereditary)
    Well I played against EH with Hellfire and other spells and master? or adept alchemist on dragon one game. Magic was definitely powerful.5 Wrath GW Chosen attack before aurochs hitting on 2+ wounding on 4+ with 15A. Hallys do the same but wound on 5+. Obviously if aurochs charges they just get flattened with even mediocre luck.
    Only one question - in which situation auroch don't charge them first? He has adv 7 and swiftstride. But i think this discussion is a pointless without proper battle report. Too much variables.
  • Happy Aspid wrote:

    Jomppexx wrote:

    Happy Aspid wrote:

    Jomppexx wrote:

    Alchemy is disgusting dude.
    Even ogres get mopped with it if you're playing certain builds. Especially against WotDG. If you bring 2x hunters with 2+ armour, 4+ fortitude and some 3+ tuskers or veterans and 4+ monsters you will have a terrible time as everything will get really badly damaged by any alchemy spell.
    Chipping in just a wound or two on an auroch let's a unit of 5 chosen very reliably kill it in one round whereas otherwise it's a gamble.
    It is miracle if this 5 will survive long enough to at least lift a finger, since you need GW ones in order to deal with Aurochs Resilence.Then there are really only one spell that is so powefull -1) Quicksilver lash It is devastating but it deals 2-4 wounds max. 4+ to-wound against auroch.Everything else is not so much.
    4) Molten Copper 4-6 wounds max. 6+ to wound
    6) Silver Spike d3 damage (against Mountain Hide that lowers multiplication) on 4+ to-wound.

    So the enemy not only need wizard master in order to use all of them, but he spends 3/4 of available spells (so maximum one buff or hereditary)
    Well I played against EH with Hellfire and other spells and master? or adept alchemist on dragon one game. Magic was definitely powerful.5 Wrath GW Chosen attack before aurochs hitting on 2+ wounding on 4+ with 15A. Hallys do the same but wound on 5+. Obviously if aurochs charges they just get flattened with even mediocre luck.
    Only one question - in which situation auroch don't charge them first? He has adv 7 and swiftstride. But i think this discussion is a pointless without proper battle report. Too much variables.
    Chaff and failed charges.
    Nevertheless it's past the point. Lets not start discussing chosen and charging aurochs in here.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Just Flank It © KoE - Tactics 101
  • Pyromancy - Scorching Salvo

    This spell got (partially) nerfed between v1.3 to v2.0. I wouldn't mind it to be set back to a full D6 hits but instead being decreased to 18" which would already correspond to a very large zone on the battlefield. At 24", the caster is out of charge range of almost any enemy unit. At 18", it's another matter. We would then see if the caster has the guts to move ahead with the possibility of being counter-charged on the next turn.

    v1.3

    9A - Pyro - Scorching Salvo v1.3.JPG

    v2.0


    9A - Pyro - Scorching Salvo v2.0.JPG
    KEEP CALM AND PLAY THE 9TH AGE
  • Skarloc wrote:

    Pyromancy - Scorching Salvo

    This spell got (partially) nerfed between v1.3 to v2.0. I wouldn't mind it to be set back to a full D6 hits but instead being decreased to 18" which would already correspond to a very large zone on the battlefield. At 24", the caster is out of charge range of almost any enemy unit. At 18", it's another matter. We would then see if the caster has the guts to move ahead with the possibility of being counter-charged on the next turn.

    v1.3

    9A - Pyro - Scorching Salvo v1.3.JPG

    v2.0


    9A - Pyro - Scorching Salvo v2.0.JPG
    24" range and D6 hits was too much but I agree dropping it to 18" could have worked too.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Just Flank It © KoE - Tactics 101
  • New

    The problem with Pyromancy and Alchemy is that they're focused on pumping out a lot of X. For Pyromancy, X is S4 AP0 hits; if you're vulnerable to those, Pyromancy is going to wreck your day. For Alchemy, it's Armour hate; if you've got good Armour, Alchemy is going to wreck your day.

    No other lore works that way. No other lore has four or five spells that are basically "if your army has a lot of THIS, you're hosed".

    Divination has two spells that hate on roughly the same kinds of targets (the two damage spells), Evocation has two snipe spells, and that's about it.


    Normal lores have things they do for you. Shamanism is a little focused on giving shooting penalties to-hit but it's defensive, not offensive, so it's more about covering a weakness than putting them in the ground. Most other lores give a subset of buffs and it's more about what kind of units you want to field and support.

    But Alchemy and (especially) Pyromancy are damage lores focused on killing particular types of targets super-hard.

    The easiest way to fix them would actually be to swap some spells between them. Make Pyro a bit *less* S4 AP0 all the time and make Alchemy a bit less Armour hate all the time.

    (Standard RT reply: "But then they would be too good in general". My reply: "No, they really wouldn't. 'Damage' is still a niche")
    --------------------

    The problem with Druidism is that you need Oaken Throne to Raise models. It shouldn't need that. Why? Because Raising models is less good than healing wounds on monsters. Because even a Knight? Is less points per wound than a big monster.

    Should fix.

    Background Team

  • New

    ceridan81 wrote:

    you wanna force a mage to being charged for a d6 hits?? :thumbdown:
    1D6 hits on ALL units within 24"!!

    With the Pyromancy Wizard well positioned in the middle of battlefield, it can sometime count like more that 6 targeted units, especially when you play MSU lists, like my Res 3 SE. And then there is the additional D3 hits from the Attribute Spell on the unit of his choice amongst those 6 targeted units.

    Not bad for a 8+ spell!!
    KEEP CALM AND PLAY THE 9TH AGE
  • New

    Skarloc wrote:

    ceridan81 wrote:

    you wanna force a mage to being charged for a d6 hits?? :thumbdown:
    1D6 hits on ALL units within 24"!!
    With the Pyromancy Wizard well positioned in the middle of battlefield, it can sometime count like more that 6 targeted units, especially when you play MSU lists, like my Res 3 SE. And then there is the additional D3 hits from the Attribute Spell on the unit of his choice amongst those 6 targeted units.

    Not bad for a 8+ spell!!
    I remember the Scorching salvo from before it was nerfed, doing D6 hits at 24" bubble.
    It was definitely amazing. It's surprising how many targets you could hit even against an army with medium-big units.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Just Flank It © KoE - Tactics 101
  • New

    marcema wrote:

    I think you have a point there that the amount of damage output might be the thing that is concerning as you indeed can go for 100% damage spells on your priest, especially with pyro.

    You can deny the weakness of pyromancy with the essence of the free mind to always have either anti infantry with no armour or anti heavy armour.

    Having nothing but X S4 AP0 hits is not a weakness. It is a strength - it means that the opponent is basically helpless to stop it. Your wizard will do their thing.

    Other lores have that one spell that would be amazing to get off now that your opponent can just all-dice to stop. Pyro? Flammables get burnt. End of story.

    And you're not paying for that reliability. If you want reliable strength buffing, or accuracy buffing, you need two wizards. If you want reliable crispifying, one wizard is fine.


    Sure, some armies aren't hurt so bad by X S4 AP0 hits... but damage is always relevant.

    EoFM exacerbates problems a bit, but the problem is not EoFM, it's Pyromancy and to a lesser degree, Alchemy, because they don't need to be built around and in fact basically can't be built around. Buff spells care about your force composition; damage spells care about theirs.

    Background Team

  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    marcema wrote:

    I think you have a point there that the amount of damage output might be the thing that is concerning as you indeed can go for 100% damage spells on your priest, especially with pyro.

    You can deny the weakness of pyromancy with the essence of the free mind to always have either anti infantry with no armour or anti heavy armour.
    Having nothing but X S4 AP0 hits is not a weakness. It is a strength - it means that the opponent is basically helpless to stop it. Your wizard will do their thing.

    Other lores have that one spell that would be amazing to get off now that your opponent can just all-dice to stop. Pyro? Flammables get burnt. End of story.

    And you're not paying for that reliability. If you want reliable strength buffing, or accuracy buffing, you need two wizards. If you want reliable crispifying, one wizard is fine.


    Sure, some armies aren't hurt so bad by X S4 AP0 hits... but damage is always relevant.

    EoFM exacerbates problems a bit, but the problem is not EoFM, it's Pyromancy and to a lesser degree, Alchemy, because they don't need to be built around and in fact basically can't be built around. Buff spells care about your force composition; damage spells care about theirs.
    You can build around Alchemy. Tons of flaming banners in combination with any spells from this path gives great synergy in melee.
  • New

    Jomppexx wrote:

    Skarloc wrote:

    ceridan81 wrote:

    you wanna force a mage to being charged for a d6 hits?? :thumbdown:
    1D6 hits on ALL units within 24"!!With the Pyromancy Wizard well positioned in the middle of battlefield, it can sometime count like more that 6 targeted units, especially when you play MSU lists, like my Res 3 SE. And then there is the additional D3 hits from the Attribute Spell on the unit of his choice amongst those 6 targeted units.

    Not bad for a 8+ spell!!
    I remember the Scorching salvo from before it was nerfed, doing D6 hits at 24" bubble.It was definitely amazing. It's surprising how many targets you could hit even against an army with medium-big units.
    Well, i remember i once lost my whole army (mixed se list) to pyro master. Literaly.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • New

    Ciara wrote:

    Jomppexx wrote:

    Skarloc wrote:

    ceridan81 wrote:

    you wanna force a mage to being charged for a d6 hits?? :thumbdown:
    1D6 hits on ALL units within 24"!!With the Pyromancy Wizard well positioned in the middle of battlefield, it can sometime count like more that 6 targeted units, especially when you play MSU lists, like my Res 3 SE. And then there is the additional D3 hits from the Attribute Spell on the unit of his choice amongst those 6 targeted units.
    Not bad for a 8+ spell!!
    I remember the Scorching salvo from before it was nerfed, doing D6 hits at 24" bubble.It was definitely amazing. It's surprising how many targets you could hit even against an army with medium-big units.
    Well, i remember i once lost my whole army (mixed se list) to pyro master. Literaly.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    What kind of army did you had?