GW News: BIG N' SMALL WAAAGH! COMIN'

It works perfectly for the game size that it was designed for. You're right that it does not have built-in scaling (or more accurately it has extraordinarily limited scaling), but does that really matter? At what point does it begin to be problematic? 4,000pts? 5,000pts? More importantly, what percentage of games fall into the range where scaling would be required? I've never played a single one and even if I did, it would be the easiest fix of all time.

At a certain point the other phases lose their scaling as well (at least to a degree). Your duplicate special and rare choices scale as they cross into a 3,000pts grand army, but not beyond that point. So in a massive game, say 10k points, it would be limiting as well... not nearly as limited as magic, but not infinitely scalable either.

Even with the stock game, you still have a fair degree of magical variance, from no magic at all to highly magic focused armies. If that isn't enough you've got two choices...

1. Play Beastmen, as you can technically scale them to a guaranteed 12 power dice magic phase (though I wouldn't recommend it!)
2. Play with the Storm of Magic expansion, where magic is highly upscaled...

That said, maybe wizards and magic are meant to be rare and limited.

I suppose our milage varies. I've never really had an issue with magic being too unreliable and I've always felt that innate bound spells worked well enough. I simply don't see either of these as a design flaws. Maybe it is the armies I play (TK, LM, CD, WoC) but I've never had an issue with it. I've always found the magic phase to be my favourite of the bunch and they seemed to work out fine for me.

I do agree with you that a few of the spells were overpowered though.

 

I've already explained why the level 4 is not better in every aspect:

• killed more easily than multiple wizards and coughs up more victory points
• no built in redundancy (failing to cast/dispel, wizard being killed)
• limits/eliminates the ability to take combat (and leadership) orientated lords
• can be more easily shut down
• can't take as many arcane items
• can only be in one place at one time

If these aspects are not satisfactory for you, then you have the ability to field a level 4 instead. The choice is entirely yours. I don't see the problem with this. Simply treat the lower level wizard as either a backup and/or scroll caddie or a spot of magical defense in a low magic army.

Personally I love magic so I always field a level 4. But there is nothing wrong with going in a different direction. I wager I could create a very potent WoC army list with limited or potentially even no magic at all. I simply wouldn't do so, because I don't want to forgo playing my favourite phase of the game.

You can still slip spells through with lower level wizards depending on:

• your winds of magic roll
• the army you are fielding (and hence the magical support at your disposal... i.e. Casket of Souls, Chalice of Blood and Darkness, etc.)
• the strategy you employ in your magic phase

Yes, the level 4 does it better (as he should!), but its not like I would have no magic phase at all with my level 2.

Also, once my Hortennse lord wipes out your level 4 wizard, not only do my level 2's become unchallenged, but you've likely lost the game as well if it occurs early enough.

 

Always a place for new Bretonnian novels, I mean, the only Bretonnian ones that were released during the Fantasy years were Anthony Reynolds' trilogy, with them living in the Empire's shadow for the rest of that time, so every new Bretonnian novel deserves a big thumbs-up.

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/12/11/old-world-almanack-living-saints-and-special-rules/

 

The problem is that this is boring. It also indicates that magic as a mechanic is flawed, as the lower level options aren't really viable options with respect to their core mechanic. They don't exist to be capable wizards, they exist to be back-ups, to be sacrificial fodder, to carry a specific artifact, to fill some left-over points you can't really spend in a better way.

 

Let me give you an analogy...


Pictured above; both are hammers. Both are designed to drive in nails. However, they are each better suited for different tasks. If you are working with something small, requiring more precision and a delicate touch you, use the small hammer. If you want to do some framing in your house you would use the larger hammer.

Now, if you decide to put up a wall in your house and you go off to home depot and pick up two of the smaller hammers instead of the bigger one, good luck driving in 3 1/2 inch nails into your 2x4s. That does not mean that the smaller hammers are flawed. It does not mean that Home Depot is flawed. It is your expectations that are flawed. It is your responsibility understand the attributes of each, and armed with that knowledge, pick the right tool for the right job. It is Home Depot's job to continue offering a wide range of hammers with different attributes, designed to handle different tasks.

I don't need multiple level 2s to fulfill the role of a level 4. If my army needs the function of a level 4, then I will get a level 4. If my army needs the attributes of a level 2 then I will get a level 2. I don't want them to be the same, because that would be boring. I want different tools at my disposal which I will choose and incorporate in my army list according to the strategy I wish to employ. Honestly, it would be a little annoying if I forwent selecting a combat lord to make room for my level 4 only to have my opponent match (or even approximate) my level 4 with his multiple level 2's. No thank you.

And as I pointed out before, a level 2 is still a capable wizard. He's just a less capable wizard than a level 4...

If you want a concrete example of the idea outlined above I can provide one, but if you understand the mechanics of the game it should be pretty obvious.

 

The issue is that in this analogy, the level 4 wizard is a proper hammer. And the level 2 wizard is a chocolate hammer.
Sure the chocolate hammer has a purpose, but it's purpose is not to be a useable hammer.

This boils down to "be lucky", and isn't really a solution.

This boils down to "field enough magical support to basicly level up your wizard", which doesn't really adress the critique that "high level" wizards stomp low level wizards to the point of undermining magic as a system. At most it changes how we should define "high level".
Also, it doesn't even begin to address the issue for non-magical factions who only bring the occasional wizard, which are the ones who suffer most from this flawed magic system.

Sure, give me a strategy that allows a low level wizard to do his thing when faced with a high level opponent without being utterly dominated.
And for clarity "have someone else kill the high level wizard" or "avoid the high level wizard" are strategies that fully admit the low level wizard gets dominated and can't do anything meaningfull in a direct confrontation.

 

A level 4 wizard applies a large casting/dispelling bonus (of 4+) while a level 2 does the same but only applies a smaller bonus of 2+. That's just like a large hammer applying a large amount of force on a nail while a small hammer applies less force on the nail. In both cases they are doing the same thing, but to varying degrees. In both cases they are tools.

The chocolate hammer retort makes no sense. One is a tool and the other is a food item. They are different things entirely. The lower level wizard is still a wizard. The lower level wizard can still cast spells. The lower level wizard still helps to mitigate some of the opposing wizard's magic. Just not to the same level as the level 4.

Well... yes. What do you expect? Are you saying that a low level wizard (who costs less points) should match a high level wizard (who costs more points) without some sort of additional magical investment?

High investment in magic WILL, on average, stomp low investment in magic, at least in terms of the magic phase (but concessions will have to be made elsewhere). That does not undermine the magic system. In fact, anything other than that result would undermine the magic system!

There is only one non-magical faction in the game, which are the vanilla Dwarfs.... and even then, they do have magical defense. Additionally, they are a solid upper-mid tier army, so they're not exactly lacking.

If we instead consider army lists with limited or no magic at all, that is a strategy choice by the player. Sure, they will undoubtedly be hurt in the magic phase, but in return they should have some or all of their other phases enhanced depending on how they allocated the points they saved on magic. Magic is hardly the end all and be all of Warhammer. It isn't even the most impactful phase of the game (that being movement followed by [in most cases] the close combat phase). I discussed this previously on this tread:

"Was magic (outside of those select few uber spells) that overpowered in 8th?

I think we often suffer from a slightly distorted view of how effective it actually was. Could it win you the game... yes, sometimes. Could it be a complete point sink, doing little to nothing... also yes, sometimes. I think some of it comes down to recall bias that humans tend to suffer from. We tend to remember singular large effects more readily than more common smaller ones. So that one time that Purple Sun wipes out a Lizardmen or Orge army is for more readily recalled than the 20 other games where it had little, no or a moderate effect. And that's referring to one of the most broken spells in the game, which I agree should be toned down. Consider, there are only a handful of spells in the game that have that level of potential.

So to play devil's advocate against magic, consider the following:

• magic is typically expensive and usually quite squishy on the battlefield. A level 4 wizard is usually not cheap, quite soft and has a huge bulls-eye painted on its back. Those are valuable victory points for your opponent to capture, and also represents a significant points investment that could have bought you several more war machines or a truly potent close combat unit.
• the two most powerful armies in terms of the magic phase (the TK and the Beastmen) were both bottom tier in terms of competitiveness. Magic could not offset their weaknesses in the other phases. On the flip side, the Warriors of Chaos had very mediocre magic (and next to no shooting) but easily made up for this with Close Combat prowess and movement potential. Dwarfs have no magic (though they do have magic defense) and they are a very potent army. Shooting, close combat and magic defense easily make up for their lack of a magic phase.

I've seen games where magic punched above its weight, at its weight or well below its weight. Magic is fickle. Investing in the other phases offers far more reliability. But, the fickle nature of magic will mean that every once in a while it will have a highly memorable game-winning effect.

Lots of players invested a huge percentage of their points allowance on magic. It wasn't particularly uncommon to see a quarter of an army's points invested in wizards. So yeah, you'd expect 650 points of wizards to have a significant effect on the battlefield, but so can a pair of K'daai Destroyers for the same points cost.

I think the real issues were tied to those 5 or 6 really overpowered spells sprinkled across the entire game; of which Dweller's below and Purple Sun were the most famous examples. What made it particularly bad was that they unfairly disadvantaged certain armies in the game. Purple Sun could single handily defeat a Lizardmen or Ogre Kingdoms army. In fact, the Ogre Kingdoms could be every bit considered a top tier army alongside of the WoC, HE and DE armies if it wasn't for that one spell. Purple Sun is the one thing that kept them out of the very top echelon of armies. That was a bit of poor game design in my opinion, but even then it was never a sure thing."

I smell a strawman argument. I never said that the lower level wizard won't get dominated. That was never my position. My argument was (and continues to be) that the level 4 wizard will rightfully be better (at magic) than the lower level wizard. This is not a design flaw, but the way it should be! *bolded for emphasis*

So to answer the question within the context of how I originally laid out my argument (i.e. the level 2 wizard can still slip spells through):

Since we're looking at how a level 2 can slip spells past a level 4, we'll be looking at this through the vantage point that it is the level 2's magic phase (and the level 4 is the dispeller).

Ignoring outside influences (supporting units, magic items, special rules) and discounting channeling (which multiple lower level wizards actually have an advantage in), the power dice and dispel pool are determined by a roll of 2d6. The actual absolute number rolled is not relevant for our discussion here, but the difference between the two dice pools is. The power dice will equal the combined sum of the two dice rolled and the dispel dice is simply the highest of the two dice rolled. What this means is that:

1. the power dice pool will always be larger than the dispel dice pool
2. the difference between the two pools of dice will always be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 (in favour of the power dice)

In our little setup, the level 2 wizard contributes 2+ to cast and the level 4 wizard contributes 4+ to dispel. That gives the level 4 wizard a 2+ advantage per cast/dispel duel attempted. Keep in mind the average roll on a single die is 3.5.

So let's assume that each wizard rolls mathematical averages, because obviously good or bad dice rolling can radically swing things in either direction.

Scenario #1 - A good dice roll for the level 2's winds of magic roll: 4 & 4 [meaning 8 power dice and 4 dispel dice]
If the level 2 has one good spell to cast, he throws 6 dice at it.
Casting result = 6d6 casting roll + 2 for the wizard levels = 21 + 2 = 23

The level 4 is in a pickle now. He is mathematically unlikely to dispel the cast with his 4 dispel dice. On average we're looking at 4d6 + 4 = 14 + 4 = 18.

So odds are that the spell goes through.

Alternatively, the level 2 might have two viable spells to cast. In this case he can throw 4 dice at each. The level 4 is favoured to dispel one of these two casts with his 4 dispel dice and 4+ to dispel, but he'd have no chance of stopping the other one then.

So again, odds are that the spell goes through.

Scenario #2 - A bad dice roll for the level 2's winds of magic roll: 3 & 2 [meaning 5 power dice and 3 dispel dice]
The level 2 throws 5 dice at his spell. Average casting result = 5d6 + 2 = 19.5

The level 4 has no choice but throw all 3 of his dice to dispel. Average dispel result = 3d6 + 4 = 14.5

So odds are that the spell goes through.

Scenario #3 - A really bad dice roll for the level 2's winds of magic roll: 1 & 1 [meaning 2 power dice and 1 dispel dice]
The level 2 throws 2 dice at his spell. Average casting result = 2d6 + 2 = 9

The level 4 has no choice but throw his one die to dispel. Average dispel result = d6 + 4 = 7.5

So odds are that the spell goes through.


As the math shows, even in the case of the smallest possible power dice to dispel dice advantage (a differential of 1), the spell should still mathematically go through. In such an extreme case, the margins are razor tight, as the dispeller only has to match the casting value, but it's still there. As we increase the gap between the power dice and dispel dice pool, the effect only gets greater. So the level 2 will lose to the level 4 (especially on the defensive end), but it isn't the case that the level 2 is worthless and doesn't function as a wizard.

The trick with a wizard's bonus to cast/dispel is that it is cumulative. The more spells you cast (or try to dispel) per magic phase the greater its effect. So with all other things being equal, if you are at a bonus to cast advantage, you are better off casting more lower level spells with less dice (spreading your power dice out and repeatedly benefiting from your bonus to cast). Conversely, all things being equal, if you are at a bonus to cast disadvantage, you would be wiser to throw more dice at fewer spells (thereby limiting our opponents superiority in terms of dispelling bonus).


Of course this is a simplified look at things, there are other factors at play, but it does demonstrate that the level 2 can slip spells through.

 

Look, magic in WFB is massivly biassed towards the attacker.
This makes it more likely for an attacker to get through, regardless of the level difference.
Which is great for the low level wizard when attacking. But also means that he's utterly useless when defending. Assuming of course he gets to utilize his power dice advantage.
In contrast to the AoS system where the low level wizard is at an equal disadvantage in both scenarios.

WFB system is better in the sense that in WFB at least the low level wizard gets to attack.
However, it is worse in the sense that in WFB the low level wizard doesn't really get to defend because dealing with that +4 to cast on top of a dice advantage is basicly hopeless. On top of the fact that the high level opponent will be throwing around more dangerous spells making a failure to defend a bigger problem, which isn't great.

At its core the problem is that in both systems the low level wizard is struggling to act during (parts of) the magic phase because it is in direct conflict with the high level wizard's bonusses as well as his larger array of more powerfull spells. Consequently, in both systems low level wizards end up overwhelmed as the high level wizard just literally has better dice-rolls all the time on top of having access to more and better stuff.

A simple improvement would be to avoid a direct confrontation between the two cast bonusses. For example, removing endless spells in AoS is done without taking into account the original caster's bonusses. With the direct confrontation between cast-bonusses gone, the low level wizard actually gets to participate in a meaningfull way, while the high level wizard remains the more powerfull option thanks to the fact that he still has more & better spells.

 

Again, all interesting stuff!

Grail Knights have had a WS and Toughness buff, but loss of +1 Armour Save for being mounted and Lances only being -2 AP most of the time are nerfs (not just to them but to all cavalry) and units that can Counter-Charge can potentially stop them from going first on the charge (though they can also Counter-Charge enemies, re-roll 1s when Charging and deny enemy units their Rank Bonus in their first charge of the game, all particularly handy for Bretonnians as a whole).

Heavy Cavalry as a separate entity from Light Cavalry is also something I was interested in seeing, and of course it'll be the same with infantry too no doubt. Hopefully Heavies will get a bonus in combat against Light troops.
Command Group upgrades are now 3 points cheaper (not much of a change but it could potentially add up the more units you have).

Some Monsters or Monstrous Infantry may not have access to Stomp attacks (I’d be interested to know which ones and why… perhaps it’d make sense for creatures that prefer to fly like Phoenixes and Great Eagles to not have them, but there are a great many Monsters and Monstrous Infantry that should be able to keep it).

Move Through Cover has come over from 40K Proper.

Bretonnian Squires are now a new unit… I assume these are just renamed skirmishing Peasant Bowmen. Something that originated in the 5th Edition Bretonnian book, I was never fond of the idea of squires skirmishing with bows (and being called Peasantry when they are knights-in-training) when they should be with their knightly masters, fighting with sword and lance and learning how to be a knight.

It all still sounds exciting though, the game’s certainly looking like a worthy successor to previous Warhammer Fantasy editions.


Next week it’ll be Army Selection – thoughts on what you’d like to see?
I’d most like to see the 8th Edition system return but with an increased minimum Core percentage – after all, Core Units have to make up a good proportion of your army to actually be considered the Core in the first place.

 

I'm hoping for a percentage system with an increased minimum on Core as well. I really don't want to relive the 5th edition days of Hero-Hammer.

 

Agreed. Been a while since I last played the historical offshoot of WFB, WHAB (Warhammer Ancient Battles), but that was one of the many things I liked about the game system.

 

It does favour the attacker, because that's what makes for interesting magic phases. If nothing ever got through (or rarely got through), it would make magic boring and forgettable. Outside of a few overpowered spells, the magic phase hits the right balance. It is impactful without being overbearing, especially in the context of the other phases of the game.

Utterly useless? Based on what criteria?

If you are expecting him to completely shut down the opponent's magic phase (where not a single spell goes through), then yes, he is pretty useless. But the magic phase is far more nuanced than that. The lower level wizard functions to partially mitigate the opponent's magic phase. The player is forced to choose which spells to let through and which ones to prioritize dispelling. Meanwhile, the attacker is trying to bait out dispel dice and misdirect. Both players must make difficult decisions in how they manage their power/dispel dice pools. If the defending player does not have a wizard, the opponent's magic phase will be even more effective. Ergo, the level 2 can still play an important part, even defensively.

I won't defend AoS (as we all know my opinion of it ), but in WHFB, what you're describing is not a problem.

A level 4 lord level caster, costing a lot of points, will have a larger effect on the game.

A level 1-2 hero level caster, costing significantly less points, will have a smaller (but still important) effect on the game.

I've already established that the level 2 wizard can function in the magic phase. Not as well as the higher level wizard, but it wouldn't make sense if it was any other way.

I honestly can't think of a worse idea. That's essentially reducing an interactive game into a wargame equivalent of solitaire. This is supposed to represent an epic magical dual between two wizards. A mighty struggle between two magical practitioners. It's dynamic contest, taking into account the relative attributes of both sides and with the stronger wizard rightly having a noticeable advantage.

The last thing WHFB needs is the magical equivalent of AoS' fixed "to hit" and "to wound" rolls. That's static, simplified and boring. How does it make sense to hit/wound a goblin or a skilled Elven (Aelven? ) lord on the same dice roll? Go outside and try to catch a snail with your bare hands... and now a hummingbird. Not the same level of difficulty, hence it should not be represented by the same static dice roll. Or in terms of wounding... go punch a human and then a Kodiak bear. You won't do the same level of damage to both targets. It should always be an interaction between the attributes of the attacker and defender. Similarly, if you're casting/dispelling against a lower level wizard it should be easier (and more effective), and vice versa.

I'm so glad that GW can no longer meddle with Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition.

 

The attacker has more dice, and a larger casting bonus. Unless he speads himself way too thin over an extreme amount of spells he really shouldn't be having much difficulty bar extremely bad luck.

And yeah, of course the defender occasionally dispells something. It's a dicegame after all. And in that sense the level 2 wizard does "Something".
But relying on your opponent to roll 1's isn't exactly a viable strategy.

Look, that's great. Very thematic and all that. But it quickly results in mechanics that only work if you're fielding stuff that's similar-ish in power. Now this is fine if you can relativly reliably make sure that units of similar-ish power compete with eachother, or if at the very least you can alternate between "bad" and "good" matchups. However, the moment you are consistently forced to fight stronger opponents this type of mechanic quickly starts to show some cracks.

Which immeadiatly makes it obvious why it sucks for magic.
An army normally has a limited amount of wizards. This means that your interactions are mostly going to be the same two wizards fighting it out over and over throughout a single game. Consequently for the duration of a game, you're going to see the level 4 wizard constantly stomping the level 2 wizard. Of course with the occaisonal (un)lucky roll here and there where the level 2 dispells something. But on overall the level 2 wizard will consistently perform poorly.

In contrast if we look at the combat phase. Sure that unit of goblin fodder will struggle to hit the elven lord. But there are other units than elven lordsthat the goblins can sneak up on. Throughout the game you will be able to get your goblin fodder in favourable engagements here and there. Maybe they ambush a unit of archers, maybe they trap a lone hero, maybe they take down a siege engine.

Point being, the goblins get their time to shine over the course of a game. The level 2 wizard does not and consistently finds himself the underdog in every single duel. Which isn't particularly fun.

 

For the decades old models in a fancy new box?

(yes, there is an aesthetically ill fitting bone dragon too)

 

Defensively speaking, the level 2 wizard is there to mitigate some of the opposing level 4's magic. The level 4 will get some spells through, but he would likely get more spells through if the opposing army had no wizard at all.

Imagine for a second (and I'm just throwing numbers out there to illustrate the point):

• A level 4 casting against another level 4 might get 1 spell through
• A level 4 casting against a level 2 might get 2 spells through
• A level 4 casting against an army with no wizard might get 3 spells through

It's not an all or nothing game! There are gradations. And it has nothing to do with waiting for your opponent to roll 1's (which is your claim, not mine). Even with average dice rolling on both sides, the level 2 will have a measurable impact. He won't win against the level 4, but your magic phase (offensively and defensively) will fare better than if you didn't have a wizard at all.

A level 4 represents a greater points investment in magic, and hence, will on average, beat the level 2. No argument there, but that does not make the magic system flawed.

Consider the shooting phase. Let's assume that you include a single minimum sized unit of skinks in your Lizardmen army and no other shooting. We play a game together in which I field a 75-strong Khalida-star unit. Obviously my shooting phase absolutely obliterates your shooting phase. This is to be expected as I invested significantly more points into shooting. That does not mean that the shooting phase is flawed. Nor does it mean that I win the game. You may have invested the points you saved on shooting into your close combat units. If my shooting fails to do enough damage, your lines reach and crush mine. The magic phase works similarly, in that a larger investment usually leads to a greater effect on the battlefield. Just like a single skink unit should not be able to match the shooting output of a large Khalida-star unit, so to a level 2 should not be able to match the magic output of a level 4.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

Of course he is the underdog, he costs significantly less. If he wasn't the underdog at his lower points cost, the level 4 would be a worthless point sink and nobody would field him.

Now, if you personally don't find it fun to be at a magical disadvantage, then I have a perfect solution for you, field a level 4 yourself. Unless you're fielding Dwarfs, the game allows you that option. On the other hand, if someone wants to instead focus on shooting and/or close combat, they have the option to mitigate some of the damage of your level 4 by fielding a level 2 and investing their points elsewhere. I want such customization in the wargame I play.

 

In all seriousness, what does this say about TOW? Or more accurately, what does this say about GW's attitude towards it? How much effort are they planning on investing in the new game? Will this turn new people off of the game?

It might mean nothing at all, but it is strange that one of the two featured launch armies is seemingly receiving such little support. Best case scenario, GW has some new TK models yet to be revealed, in which case the issue is simply that they misplaced their focus. Surely those extremely outdated core models are the most in need of a refresh.

Thoughts?