Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Rulebook Magic Lores in the rulebook might simply just be the ones for the pdf factions

So everyone with a full book gets their own and those with pdf are stuck with the core ones

Hmmm that would make sense if we didn't know Greenskins were a main faction

Also Brets are a core faction and use 3 rulebook lores.

Waagh lore is the main outlier tbh - all the other rulebook lores could reasonably be used by multiple factions (both core and not)

On the one hand, the miscast table is much improved (insofar as the new system allows for).

On the other hand, GW have systematically removed all strategy and tactics from the magic phase. Now we're stuck with the garbage introduced in AoS.

Granted, it's still lightyears ahead of what 40k is currently stuck with but that's about as low as the bar can possibly get.

The old magic system had problems, don't get me wrong. However, it would have been nice to see GW make an effort to actually *fix* those problems, rather than just throwing the entire system in the bin in favour of the most low-effort fix possible.

As other posters have said, I don't think chucking 6 dice and hoping for a double 6 on Dwellers etc was remotely good.

I feel this system is simple - and sort of coherent.

But - and I feel this was more the case back in older editions - it feels like there's a high chance to just fail. I.E. I think (and this probability may be scuffed) a level 2 wizard casting Glittering Robe (8+) with a level 2 Wizard trying to dispel would only have a 48-50% chance to succeed (depending on how double 6 vs double 6 plays out).

So you are going to have games where you cast seemingly every spell - and others where you just fail. Which is definitely giving me flash backs to 5th or 6th edition - but I'm not sure will feel great. Maybe dispelling is capped somehow.

Back in the card-dealing days, a dispel card gave a 4+ chance to stop a spell, so a 50/50 success seems in line with that.

^ That's good to know, and 50/50 isn't bad - might feel more productive then some of my old 8th magic phases where I'm like "Well that was a waste of time" especially if you rolled low on winds of magic dice.

I wish they had used the strategy phase for magic dice generation but keeping track of those dice for casting spells throughout the remaining phases (including strategy) might have seemed clunky and designers went with the simpler version.

I'll play and decide myself if I'm a fan or not of course but we still don't have the full picture in terms of army rules and magic items. Imagine that will influence these 2d6 rolls pretty substantially.

As I noted before, IMO number of dispels per turn will be the big thing on how well it works.

IMO the best case would be if you got half as many dispels as you do casts (rounding up), like how in 6th/7th you got half as many dispel dice.

Then in the case of two matched wizards, you get two attempts to cast but they only get one to dispel, which makes it less often you’re going to do nothing at all, but also both balances more multiple L2s vs 1x L4 (e.g. 4 or 6 casts vs 2 dispels), as well as making just a level 1 useful as a cheap defensive option if you’re going magic light (vs always upgrading to L2).

Tyel wrote:
As other posters have said, I don't think chucking 6 dice and hoping for a double 6 on Dwellers etc was remotely good.

I feel this system is simple - and sort of coherent.

But - and I feel this was more the case back in older editions - it feels like there's a high chance to just fail. I.E. I think (and this probability may be scuffed) a level 2 wizard casting Glittering Robe (8+) with a level 2 Wizard trying to dispel would only have a 48-50% chance to succeed (depending on how double 6 vs double 6 plays out).

So you are going to have games where you cast seemingly every spell - and others where you just fail. Which is definitely giving me flash backs to 5th or 6th edition - but I'm not sure will feel great. Maybe dispelling is capped somehow.

50.5% I think, unless my maths are off. The article says double 6 to dispel stops the spell no matter what the casting roll was.

Edit: Also, I would imagine wizards can dispel any number of times, since you can always try a dispel of 2D6 +0 even without any wizard on the board.

The dispel thing without wizards on the board was only once per turn I thought so they did limit that.

Tyel wrote:
As other posters have said, I don't think chucking 6 dice and hoping for a double 6 on Dwellers etc was remotely good.

That was definitely an issue. But it was something you could solve without completely butchering the magic system. I mean, it would probably only take a couple of changes:

1) Tone down the big spells so that you're not throwing a literal Black Hole at the enemy army (e.g. have spells do damage to units, rather than just insta-killing them, regardless of wounds).

2) Make the Miscast table 1d6 + # of dice rolled in the casting, with the higher effects being more dangerous.

This would mean that throwing 6 dice at a spell would make it extremely likely that the wizard will be killed or crippled on a miscast (meaning the risk of trying this is much higher), whilst also reducing the value of auto-casting a single spell.

Only other thing I'd consider would be tweaking the number of dice generated so that it's harder for armies to dominate the magic phase by just spamming wizards.

 nathan2004 wrote:
The dispel thing without wizards on the board was only once per turn I thought so they did limit that.

Ah so it does. I didn't read that properly the first time round.

I guess that does suggest a limit on dispels per wizard per turn then.

I liked 3rd. A finite number of spell points usable per game. No dispel dice.

If I had 30 points to spend during the game I could choose to burn most of them in a few powerful spells, or try to get some cheap spells off and find creative ways for them to help.

The 40 point spells that completely exhausted a very powerful wizard were very destructive and often capable of winning a game outright.

The number of useless spells was large and it was a sound strategy to not take any wizard at all. I often played without one.

Another thing to note. It will be a lot easier to cast spells on first turn, when wizards will be further apart from each other. The player going first could potentialy cast without opposition on first turn.
Dispell range also means you cannot just hide your wizards in some remote forest on the edge of the board.

Dispel dice and dispelling in general give a way for the opponents of spells to participate in that part of the game versus just having things happen to them. Ask Dwarf players how fun it is just sitting back and having their opponent sling spells at them while they just take it lol.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
Another thing to note. It will be a lot easier to cast spells on first turn, when wizards will be further apart from each other. The player going first could potentialy cast without opposition on first turn.
Dispell range also means you cannot just hide your wizards in some remote forest on the edge of the board.

Yeah, the positional game is a lot more interesting now. 18" and 24" is not that far.

I am interested in the magic duelling aspect, but I think they could have done it more simultaneously with dice pools.

If they used an exploding 6 mechanic, even lower level mages have a chance.

All casters have a set of dice they get to use each battle round (so for dispel and cast), but the cast/dispel roll is a max of 2 dice, unless you roll a 6 to add dice.

What this does is allow higher level casters to do MORE without guaranteeing they will succeed on anything.

When an opponent within X" of a mage casts, the mage can choose to duel and dispel, and rolls their chosen dice, adding dice for 6s rolled. If the dispeller wins, the spell fails. You must beat the opponent's score.

But you choose when the spell is declared, not after it is cast. So players have to decide whether they wish to gamble their dice to shut the opponent down or not.

The current system is basically the same as One Page Rules

I was slightly disappointed about gw axing the dice pool management aspect of the magic phase.
But now I actually feel like it’s a good refresher, remembering my games of 8th and watching a lot of bat reps of 6th and 8th editions. Basically anything other than the most basic strategy was absent. Most spells would never end up being cast or even attempted to be cast in order to max dice the spell that you actually want.

Hopefully in the new Ed positioning will add a good depth to gameplay in terms of spellslinging and dispelling.

Btw, why is everybody fine with (free) dispel dice to counter magic while nobody is asking for „sabotage“ dice to counter artillery?
Let’s hope the potential of an effect is reflected in its point cost.

Seelenhaendler wrote:
Btw, why is everybody fine with (free) dispel dice to counter magic while nobody is asking for „sabotage“ dice to counter artillery?
Let’s hope the potential of an effect is reflected in its point cost.

Found the High Elf player!

Seelenhaendler wrote:
Btw, why is everybody fine with (free) dispel dice to counter magic while nobody is asking for „sabotage“ dice to counter artillery?
Let’s hope the potential of an effect is reflected in its point cost.

When has dispelling artillery EVER been a thing?!?!?!?!?

Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

One of the lead Devs is a big Dwarf fan. Just to warn you

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope they get rid of the misfire/chance to blow up. Why would you want a "balancing" factor of cataplut having a chance to blow up but not for bolt throwers or missile troops?

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope they get rid of the misfire/chance to blow up. Why would you want a "balancing" factor of cataplut having a chance to blow up but not for bolt throwers or missile troops?

The bigger the weapon, the more energy involved, and thus more dramatic results if things go wrong.

See I always think things like that are more fun when its either

1) A goblin type unit where you have a lot of them so it doesn't matter if a few blow up in their own face because you have others. It's thus a risk that lowers the power of the unit, but doesn't invalidate it entirely.

2) It's an optional super-powered hit. So basically you have your regular good attack and then a very good super attack that comes with the risk attached. That way you at least have some agency in choosing if it blows up and you can always play it safe the entire game and the units points are not "wasted" because it blew up the first time you used it.

Seelenhaendler wrote:
Btw, why is everybody fine with (free) dispel dice to counter magic while nobody is asking for „sabotage“ dice to counter artillery?

Lol, Why would I ask for something I don't want?

Seriously though, if ToW stays fairly accurate to its WHFB roots, then most Artillery will have its own built in counter effect. Some might use the misfire dice, Skaven stuff tends to blow up, etc etc etc.
So I don't need to ask for it as I'm just expecting it.

 Overread wrote:
See I always think things like that are more fun when its either

1) A goblin type unit where you have a lot of them so it doesn't matter if a few blow up in their own face because you have others. It's thus a risk that lowers the power of the unit, but doesn't invalidate it entirely.

2) It's an optional super-powered hit. So basically you have your regular good attack and then a very good super attack that comes with the risk attached. That way you at least have some agency in choosing if it blows up and you can always play it safe the entire game and the units points are not "wasted" because it blew up the first time you used it.

Weren't Goblin Spear Chunkas the only bolt throwers in 8th that misfired. Dwarf, Elf, etc didn't have that same problem.

think so yes, most of the O&G stuff had misfires, ditto Skaven but they lacked a bolt thrower

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope they get rid of the misfire/chance to blow up. Why would you want a "balancing" factor of cataplut having a chance to blow up but not for bolt throwers or missile troops?

As long as it results in higher price or reduced power fine.

Stone thrower "bit" more powerful than the ones you mentioned unless rules change dramatically after all.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope they get rid of the misfire/chance to blow up. Why would you want a "balancing" factor of cataplut having a chance to blow up but not for bolt throwers or missile troops?

Because even now it's quite possible to blow up a cannon, and it happened in the past a lot more?