Going Magic-less

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.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Going Magic-less

    Separating the thread... @DanT @Altao @Krokz

    (I’ll respond when I have relief from child)

    DanT wrote:

    @Altao @Fleshbeast @Krokz and others...
    Re: Wrath priest.
    My summary (correct me if I'm wrong) of the wrath priest stuff is that players want a model that nullifies the magic phase for the WotDG player and strongly (if not completely) nullifies the opposing magic phase, in order to open up a magic-less playstyle.
    Assuming I have understood this correctly, this leaves me with a couple of questions:
    (A) Is this a good/fair/fun thing to have in the game?
    (B) Why should it be WotDG specifically that gets this tradeoff option? Or should everyone get it?
    (C) On a more general level, why should WotDG get such good dispelling capabilities? Isn't that going to result in a "dispelling arms race"? Why aren't HBE this good at dispelling? WotDG have no strength in magic defence.

    Hopefully, you guys at least think that the answers to these questions are not 100% trivial and that, from the perspective of the game as a whole, giving super dispel power to WotDG is not an obviously brilliant move. I think my personal conclusion right now is that the wrath priest concept has naturally died a death from the transition from 1.3 to 2.0.
    I encourage you all to try playing WotDG with no magic anyway, it could be an interesting experiment.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • If any army then dwarfs should be able to cripple opponents magic phase for no own spells.
    At start it was claimed that casting Boni would be an exception. But sadly every master wizard have it. And now with demons getting one. HBE reducing casting value and whatever future will bring this is not true any more.

    Anti magic is limited in most army's to binding scrolls. Dwarfs can invest points in it but have to take runic Smith and then it makes no sense to exclude the bound spells.
    In dwarf army the runic magic needs about the same points as regular magic to be viable but is much more limited than regular spells. So this is one of the army's where it makes still sense to exclude magic.

    In warriors army I think a character with Stats like a prelate could make sense bringing the same bonus of plus 1 casting value like dwarf army bonus... If there is no spell in the army. Low costs and propably with the ability to become bsb seem reasonable

    Proposals that add more magic defence... Based on sins where no one seems to be antimagic anymore seems to step on dwarfen heritage of beeing the antimagic faction.
  • Adding to thread

    Krokz wrote:

    @DanT
    For ADT heaving some kind of non-magic playstyle stopped with RT saying this is not army strength any more and BGT saying there is no support for that in new 2.0 fluff. All Gods are about magic (WDG are not WoC). So on contrary, WDG should be more about magic than their legacy army was if you look at the background.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • Krokz wrote:

    @DanT
    For ADT heaving some kind of non-magic playstyle stopped with RT saying this is not army strength any more and BGT saying there is no support for that in new 2.0 fluff. All Gods are about magic (WDG are not WoC). So on contrary, WDG should be more about magic than their legacy army was if you look at the background.
    According to fluff lack of support for that - what if it would be done/described/reasoned in way similar to Entropic Aura?
    Anyway looking at book and units WDG isn't so magical. There are only two units with magical attacks (EH & Hellmaw).
    Even some sins could explain going magic-less - like Sloth (propably don't even need to say more :) ) or Pride (I don't need magic to win).
    Without real mage-warriors (don't even mention Sorcerer as it is pity shadow of that) that is simple. Doomlord & Forsworn are good example for that - no magical attacks, no Favours, no Gifts (talk about what IS in book entries, not about background).

    "All Gods are about magic."
    But it was said that it is Warrior book. What would be more worthy to Dark Gods than Warrior that proves its worthness by fighting in their name, but without their help (read: magic)?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!
  • It could, but it could also not.
    Looks like forcing something preconcieved on the army, just because it had it in the past. Yeah we do that all the time, but there is no reason WDG have stronger anti magic than any other army in the game, so average.
    Even dough I personally do not like it, Magic is part of the game in 2.0. . That is not an army question, but a game wide direction.
    Army Design Team.
  • (Note: assumes being able to run a viable non-magic list is a desired playstyle)

    I would not want a character to nullify the opponent's magic phase. I was, perhaps, misunderstood when I spoke of "levelling the playing field". I was meaning that the character allowed us to be competitive in the opponent's magic phase without enabling our own magic phase. Previously this meant giving dispel bonus. The current magic phase means that we already have equal ability to compete in the opponent's phase as others who have invested in magic.

    However, if we are to consider fluff, I postulate that Sorcerers are not a common feature of WDG armies in general due to the nature of their "creation" and the high mortality rate that implies. I would expect there to be a lesser sorcerer or priest (similar to one who rides the shrine perhaps?) who would help to guide the warriors on their path. The CL does not fill this role due self interest.

    From a non-fluff perspective I would expect this role to be possible because the WDG army which does not participate in the magic phase is compounding it's disadvantages due to missing both magic and shooting phases. To make this play style work there would need to be tools to compensate. These tools I could see as non-complex and somewhat viable would be aligned to those items already available (MR or dispel modifiers) but at a cheaper rate due to being inbuilt to the character. The result of which means that there is a discounted rate for combatting a magic phase but not the ability to simply shut it down.

    So, in answer to your questions:
    (A) Is this good/fair/fun?
    I strongly feel that it is.
    Good/Fun: It plays to a storyline and fluff evolution from Warband to Army as the group gains more notice from the gods. Feel free to read the tournament batreps by @AxelVicious prior to him moving back to playing KoE (and after, they are a great read). Really fun and from what I could read both players often enjoyed every part of the game. Skill or generalship was definitely still a key factor in any game on the part of both players had they fluff or competitive focus.
    Fair: I do not feel this would be unfair (splitting hairs I know). Depending on the actual abilities designed into the character the "fairness" would largely be determined by the price I feel. Considering the large effect magic has for minimal investment in 2.0 I don't feel reducing the effectiveness of it would be significantly unfair or make opposing armies non-competitive. Most wizards costing at 500pts or more have additional talents (Dragon mounts or MoCT in CC, being a BSB, etc) so would still participate. In addition, the intent is not to be closing down the phase, just reducing its effectiveness.
    (B) Why WDG specifically? Should other armies also get this option?
    I think deciding which armies this option should be open to is best left to the ADT. I definitely feel that non-magic builds should be a solid option for many armies in this game and lament that this is not currently the case. This would be a good way to create this possibility.
    (C) Why WDG and not others? WDG has no AWSW strength in dispelling. (Paraphrase sorry)
    Good point. And a point I can't answer aside from what is already said in (b). As @Krokz says above we are not bound by the past. However, I feel this may be an area where AWSW falls down a bit as I suspect if in the AWSW survey the WDG player were directly asked "should non-magic be a viable build for your army" the answer would have been a solid "yes". While in HBE (to use your example army) the answer would have been more aligned to "not at the cost of our own magic phase" or something similar.
    [u][/u]
    Hope this helps and that you had a great holiday!
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • regarding the "dispelling arms race": I don't feel that it will, though that would be up to the impact ACS has on the ADT during FAB creation. I definitely do not feel that reducing the effectiveness off magic in this game is a bad thing.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • I think that creating a non magic list is very interesting and would open many options but agree that it should probably be available to all armies rather than just WDG. This said there isn’t any reason why WDG couldn’t have some sort of boost in addition. There are currently 7 gods but only 5 gifts of the gods which doesn’t make too much sense, this would also make taking the chosen lord actually worth it as it provides an option for an anti mage.
    Chosen lord gift of +1 or +2 to dispel attempts
    Chosen lord gift of anti magic aura, all casting attempts are at a -1.

    Some easy examples of what could be done for non magic common items with a rough thought on price.
    50 point standard 0-3 banner which generates an additional dispel dice.
    100 point Artifact which allows you to store up to 6 warp tokens but then only exchange them during the opponents magic phase
    100 point Artifact which gives you the same warp tokens as the caster as indicated on the card and then exchange them for dispel dice

    None of these options would shut down the magic phase but would allow a non caster army to more effectively defend themselves while also being available to all the armies. Any of these options could work but I wouldn’t implement more than 1 as you wouldn’t want the defensive magic to be more powerful than the offensive side. At best I would say equal so the opponent still has their phase but take their 2-3 successful spells cast a turn down to 1-2. These items could also come with a caveat of no wizards in your army list so you couldn’t have both.

    None of these options is really game breaking, they would just need to be priced correctly so the obvious or best option isn’t to go anti magic instead of magic.

    As with everything the background could be modified to match the game system...whenever you have a belief in something you will always have those who oppose that belief, atheists, heretics, witch hunters etc.

    In most fantasy there is some sort of magic but in some there is also those on whom magic doesn’t work, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Some cast spells and some absorb them.
  • I was a fan of the wrath priest, think I ran him as my general in about half of all my games in 1.3 with Crown of Scorn and Wrath Battleshrine for the added MR and was disappointed to see these go in 2.0.

    My 2 cents on the above;

    I would preface my answer by saying that I believe a "Wrath priest" (or whatever you want to call it) should operate in such a way as to not necessary shut down all enemy magic but certainly increase the probability that we can dispel more reliably or increase the casting values of enemy spells. How this could be achieved is up for discussion and presumably there are a variety of options. I suggested one potential option months ago.

    There are several things about the current book which, in my opinion, make WDG a fairly boring army to play, and we've lost several tools over the last few iterations to help offset certain areas of weakness in the book, specifically anti-shooting and anti-magic protection.

    I don't think that a Wrath Priest operating in the aformentioned manner could objectively be considered to provide an unfair advantage considering other armies already provide something similar, so the precedent already exists.

    I've played many a game where my army has been absolutely wrecked by the combination of enemy shooting and magic well before any of it can see CC. At no point has anyone asked whether this offers a fun experience for the WDG player so I think the idea that this anti-magic would be disallowed on the grounds of being unfair is somewhat laughable.

    Should WDG have this ability and not another AB? I'm not sure the answer to that question needs to be yes, but for an army which is all about CC, and lacks the ability to compete in every phase I think having an anti-magic compliment would be a good addition. Not sure why armies like EoS or HBE need something like this since they can build very effective lists with magic and shooting and rely on creating such synergies within lists. There may be other armies who can make a solid case for better anti-magic options but I don't think that's a reason to deny it to WDG (or those other books).

    Host of Mad Git Radio
    soundcloud.com/user-241688236-793404489

    Team Scotland ETC 2019 - WDG

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

  • For the sake of spitballing ideas, how about something like this;

    "Veil Priest" - Standard Infantry 25mm

    M/M 4/8
    DS/OS/DS 4/4/8
    R/HP 4/3
    A/S/AP 3/4/1

    Dark Conduit
    Gains +1 to dispel, Chanel and has MR 1. Veil Priests cannot be fielded in an army with Sorcerers or Exhalted Heralds.

    Access to Plate Armour X pts
    Paired Weapons X pts
    Great Weapon X pts
    Halberd X pts

    Magical Allowance 150 pts
    If General 200 pts

    May take
    Dark Chariot X pts
    Black Steed X pts
    Chimera X pts
    If General
    Hellmaw X pts

    Rather than using veil tokens to increase their magical prowess, the Veil Priest can harness this energy to counter enemy spells or to warp the boundaries between the mortal and immortal realms thereby creating doorways through the material plane.

    Priests siphon the Veil in both Player Turns.

    Similarly to a wizard who siphons the Veil to create additional magical dice, the Veil Priest can combine veil tokens in a similar fashion to add to their dispelling ability.

    After siphoning the Veil, the Veil Priest may exchange 3 tokens for an additional +1 to any dispel roll to a maximum of +2 (i.e. 6 tokens discarded) from this source against an enemy spell. This stacks with their base +1 dispell to a grand total +3 to dispell against an enemy spell

    Alternatvely, if the Veil Priest is mounted on a Hellmaw, they may opt to use this energy to boost the Hellmaw's range by +12" or may create a single Gateway during their turn (The number of Gateways allowed on the table at any one time is still capped at 4). Both these actions require 6 Veil Tokens.
    Host of Mad Git Radio
    soundcloud.com/user-241688236-793404489

    Team Scotland ETC 2019 - WDG
  • (A) Is this a good/fair/fun thing to have in the game?
    My sensation is that it's an interesting tool, so it spices up a little bit the game by creating alternative play styles.

    (B) Why should it be WotDG specifically that gets this tradeoff option? Or should everyone get it?
    On the one hand dwarfs have it: Hewn out of Mountains, Rune of Denial, and Rune of Devouring can significantly nerf opponent magic phase. On the other hand, the very same argument could be made for shooting as well: since everybody else has it, why WDG shouldn't?

    (C) On a more general level, why should WotDG get such good dispelling capabilities? Isn't that going to result in a "dispelling arms race"? Why aren't HBE this good at dispelling? WotDG have no strength in magic defence.
    Well, here the easy answer is something called Khorne. Let's not pretend WoDG doesn't have a past. Also, in general this book has always had two souls, the one more magical and connected to the deamonic world, the other one more connected to pure crude violence of barbarians, so it would be nice to represent the two souls (maybe alternatively)
  • (A) Is this a good/fair/fun thing to have in the game?
    No. hHaving tools that deny your opponent their own tools might be fun for you but it is certainly not for your enemy. Bringing a magic strong army to a game and getting you magic phase shut down and loosing completely because your army needs the magic support to compete is simply not fun. Games where only one player is having fun are bad games.

    Same goes for avoidance lists, and this playstyle should, imo, not be possible.
  • Inn0c wrote:

    (A) Is this a good/fair/fun thing to have in the game?
    No. hHaving tools that deny your opponent their own tools might be fun for you but it is certainly not for your enemy. Bringing a magic strong army to a game and getting you magic phase shut down and loosing completely because your army needs the magic support to compete is simply not fun. Games where only one player is having fun are bad games.

    Same goes for avoidance lists, and this playstyle should, imo, not be possible.
    I don't think the case was on shutting down the opponent's magic phase completely.

    it's a game of weapons and counter-weapons, it's totally normal to have things that nerf/contrast other things.
    otherwise the same argument could be made against KOE, for example: it's unfair for my army based on light shooting that KoE save everything on 2+ shutting down my shooting phase.
  • Idle thought:

    If I was gonna design something in this direction, I would look for ways to discourage opposing magic without adding to dispelling power.
    This would be extra elegant if it naturally discouraged players from taking wizards in the WotDG army without just saying "can't take wizards", which is kinda ugly.

    Something like:
    Wizards within 24" of this character miscast on any double.

    This achieves the goals of making enemy magic worse whilst encouraging magic-less WotDG, but does so without causing any of the fluff or mechanical problems associated with increased dispelling power.
    People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

    ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

    Basic beginners tactics
    No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
  • Agree, a similar thing I proposed in the thread this one separated from was that all spells cost 3 more to cast. Not quite as elegant, as it effectively just increases the number of dice you need to throw at a spell by one.

    I’d have the 24” be board-wide as 2D6 miscast is still a low chance of misfire to get to a table which does nothing more often than not. A threat with no teeth is no threat at all.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef