8th Ed. Wishes for 9th

[Putzfrau]

Not when they, on average, can wipe out 5/6 of any unit.

And personally, I find the entire idea that you can instantly kill anything, regardless of what it is, to be aabsurd. Same with artillery VS huge monsters.

And getting rid of dispel scroll and the like, I'd agree to only if you also removed IF. If I am not allowed to remove a spell, no questions asked, you should never be able to cast a spell, no questions asked, either, especially not with magic capable of wiping out entire armies in one go.

There isn't a single spell that will kill on average 5/6 of a unit.

Purple sun has other factors that make its increase potency when compared to dwellers or transmutation.

 

[pgarfunkle]

Never having played an edition other than 8th I cannot compare it to what has gone before.

With that in mind I am pretty happy with 8th and would like to see mainly rules clarifications and tweaks to simplify some of the more complicated sections.

Having said that the main points of the core rules I would like to see changes in are cannons and the big spells.

For cannons I would like to see a reduction in accuracy or effectiveness, it's generally too easy for monsters to be removed in a shot or two. Whether it is a limit on the amount of wounds done or something to reduce the changes of a cannon ball ending up exactly where it's wanted.

The big spells don't need much of a tweak, for me it's really just the risk vs reward on some of them. I think that the big spells in the recent army books seem more balanced in that they allow armour saves.

I like the threat that the big spells can provide but I think that in some cases they can be too powerful and can swing the game too far for not enough risk.

For Lizards specifically, I would like to see PF applied to supporting attacks and a bit of a boost to some of our non skink based shooting to make it more useful and therefore likely to be used i.e. bolt thrower steg (alright technically partially skink based), razordons (still needs a bit more of a reason to be taken over sallie, also no further nerfs to sallies!)

The trog needs an overhaul which is a shame as it is a lovely model, I have one and would love a reason to have a second. Primarily it's roar should be an always on benefit similar to the bastiladon and the eotg ward.

 

[Sleboda]

And getting rid of dispel scroll and the like, I'd agree to only if you also removed IF. If I am not allowed to remove a spell, no questions asked, you should never be able to cast a spell, no questions asked, either, especially not with magic capable of wiping out entire armies in one go.

=> First off, there is no part of magic that is "capable of wiping out entire armies in one go." Magic is deadly, but so are cannons, K'Dai Destroyers, blocks of White Lions, scouting Maneaters, charging Witch Elves with a Cauldron, etc...

Nothing in the game can wipe out an army in one go.

Now, then, on to the idea of tying Dispel Scrolls to Total Power.


Why?


You say that if I should be able to do a thing without you being able to tell me not to, then you should be able to tell me not to do the thing without me being allowed to try to do it. At least that's your general idea.

Look at the rest of Warhammer. Where else can your opponent spend 25 points to tell you that you simply are not permitted to do something, even after you've made the needed rolls to allow it?

Turning that around, where else in Warhammer do you have to roll first to even attempt the action and then still have your opponent be able to tell you you can't do it?

It would stink to move a unit of archers into range and declare your shots only to be told "Nope. Your round of shooting is wasted." You might reply "But I took a risk to move into range. Now I am exposed." Too bad, I guess.

Or how about if you declared a charge, rolled the distance successfully and then got told you were not allowed to even move the unit, let alone complete the charge?

Think about it. All over Warhammer you, as the player, are allowed to decide how and when to take your actions. Some of those actions require that you pass some sort of roll to do it, but most are just things that always happen - they get "Total Power" all the time - and without the risk of blowing up the thing taking the action!

Total Power does not guarantee that the spell will have its desired effect. You can still misfire that Purple Sun even after TP. You can roll the variable distance of the Pendulum and fall short even after TP. You can roll 2D6 hits from a magic missile and get a 2 and then fail to wound. Total Power just lets your spells do nearly everything else in Warhammer does, and that's take an action without your opponent being able to yawn from behind a 25 point piece of paper and say "no."

Plus getting Total Power (yeah, yeah, I know, Irresistible Force or whatever) means that the caster not only might kill himself and his friends, but he also might prevent every single other spell in your army from being able to even try to be used. Nothing else in Warhammer is like that. One cannon's misfire does not carry any risk, at all, of preventing all your other ranged attacks from being allowed to fire that phase. A failed March check does not prevent your whole army from trying to move.

Magic is already pricey, random, and risky enough without your opponent being able to screw you over with a stupid scroll. Heck, I don't even think there should be dispel dice in the game. Spells should have two types: Standard and Apocalyptic.
Standard spells are cast as many times as the wizard wants, once per phase, as long has he has enough dice to do it. Apocalyptic spells are cast once per game and still require dice to happen. Get rid of dispels and also Total Power, and let wizards act like everything else in the game that you pay points for.

 

[RipperDerek]

I am vaguely alarmed to find I agree with Sleboda on most of what he's proposed here.

The game would be better if GW would rebalance magic to be less swingy, and let wizards roll to cast it in a similar manner to what archers and warriors do. Dispels can be done on your turn, and only for remains-in-play effects.

 

[Qupakoco]

Look at the rest of Warhammer. Where else can your opponent spend 25 points to tell you that you simply are not permitted to do something, even after you've made the needed rolls to allow it?

Turning that around, where else in Warhammer do you have to roll first to even attempt the action and then still have your opponent be able to tell you you can't do it?

It would stink to move a unit of archers into range and declare your shots only to be told "Nope. Your round of shooting is wasted." You might reply "But I took a risk to move into range. Now I am exposed." Too bad, I guess.

Or how about if you declared a charge, rolled the distance successfully and then got told you were not allowed to even move the unit, let alone complete the charge?

Perhaps making the scroll work on a 2+ would me more fair? Similar to our Cube.

Fairly specific examples there. Say you had an Ethereal Slann and your opponent didn't know it. Shots declared, roll to hit, too bad so sad. Say you charged a small unit of Cavalry into a unit of Gobbos. What if a fanatic pops out and kills all the Cav?

Also, the D-Scroll is one use only and doesn't work against IF. Spells you can attempt every single turn. Maybe it would be more fair to make a similar item that automatically casts a spell at IF without consequence? Tit for tat.

 

[n810]

At lest you can only have one scrool these days, unlike preverious editions where you could have one scroll for each caster.

 

[Kroq]

Loved those days! You could have wizard with two scrolls! 6th ed. FTW!

 

[SilverFaith]

Unless you had to pay for them. Then you would just see mages buying the same two or three because efficiency.

That would just require the spells are actually balanced and well worth it in different situations.

Of course, it's pretty obvious that GW doesn't exactly do extensive playtesting before releasing anything, so it is unlikely that this hypothetical spell list would actually be even remotely balanced. So yeah, you're right.

At least it would make tactics more immportant than luck. From a Liardmen perspectve, it's kinda sad that the signatures of either skink lore is practically better than whatever we could potentially roll. I mean, sure, transformation is terrific to get off, but it means you don't get your +1S&T. Savage Beast is awesome if bubbled on a couple of saurus characters, but then you are relying entirely on your characters to carry the game for you.

It makes sense to make the most "generic" spell the signature, sure, but I'd just prefer that rollable spells always seem at least a bit better than the signature, and not so terribly narrow as some of them are. Panns pelt giving +3 T is nice, but only on characters? That's a tad too specific, and still wont save anything, even an oldblood, who will still be wounded on a 2+.

 

[Sleboda]

I am vaguely alarmed to find I agree with Sleboda on most of what he's proposed here.

=> From what I'm told there are some pretty solid support groups out there for people in your situation. I tend to get people riled up and wanting to send the angry mob my way at times, and then I'll meet them in person or say something reasonable and they end up liking me. It's hard to deal with, but just know that there is help. You can be cured.

Savage Beast is awesome if bubbled on a couple of saurus characters, but then you are relying entirely on your characters to carry the game for you.

=> From what I can see so far, it looks like that's what we, as Lizardmen players, tend to do, right? Rely on the characters? (and skink clouds)

 

[Putzfrau]

Unless you had to pay for them. Then you would just see mages buying the same two or three because efficiency.

That would just require the spells are actually balanced and well worth it in different situations.

Of course, it's pretty obvious that GW doesn't exactly do extensive playtesting before releasing anything, so it is unlikely that this hypothetical spell list would actually be even remotely balanced. So yeah, you're right.

At least it would make tactics more immportant than luck. From a Liardmen perspectve, it's kinda sad that the signatures of either skink lore is practically better than whatever we could potentially roll. I mean, sure, transformation is terrific to get off, but it means you don't get your +1S&T. Savage Beast is awesome if bubbled on a couple of saurus characters, but then you are relying entirely on your characters to carry the game for you.

It makes sense to make the most "generic" spell the signature, sure, but I'd just prefer that rollable spells always seem at least a bit better than the signature, and not so terribly narrow as some of them are. Panns pelt giving +3 T is nice, but only on characters? That's a tad too specific, and still wont save anything, even an oldblood, who will still be wounded on a 2+.

You're asking for an impossibility. There's too many spells to assume you could balance them all to even remotely close in value.

There isn't a game system alive that has balance that good.

 

[Sleboda]

Well, just an example of the sort of balance that does already exist in Warhammer that folks tend to ignore -

Right now you are supposed to design your list, including Lore selection before knowing your foe or the scenario/layout. That means that you are unwise, for instance, to make a list with few banners (WoC Chariot list) because B&G may come up. Likewise, you may not benefit from taking a lore with its killer spell working against initiative all the time since you may end up playing against elves (and if your plan is "magic for the kill!" then you may not have much of a plan at all).

So, the starting point of balancing a Lore could be to say that spells that allow no saves of any kind begin at 50 points. If their range is more than 12", add 10 points. If they impact every model in the unit, add 50 more points, and so on. Then you end up with spells like Dwellers costing 125+ points.

Some might argue that the points are worth it. What happens, though, when you face an army that is more resistant to a spell like Dwellers (or Pit or...) because it has higher overall ratings in the stat that matters? Well, if you have spent 125 points on the spell you might get lucky and face a weak foe, or you might get hosed and face a tough foe. Savvy players will gravitate toward spells that are less foe-dependent and minimize the fluctuation in effectiveness of their spells that is based on the foe they face. They might tend toward less all-or-nothing spell selections.

Then again, if they are allowed to know their opponent ahead of time, they can customize...but so can their opponent.

I think you can build balance into the Lores like you can for anything else - just ensure that all army books have access to the tools that allow them to create both balances and focused lists. The problem is not in balancing the Lores or the main rules. It's in balancing the books to ensure that they are well-rounded. This is why, for instance, both Dwarfs and Tomb Kings are hard to get right. Dwarfs have no magic, are slow, and have great guns. TK are weak everywhere and depend on magic to save the day. Both armies are pigeonholed into certain styles of play and army builds not because of the main rules, but because the army books are so limited.

Not to turn this into a "Yay! Privateer Press!" post, but seriously, look at them. Each faction has distinct elements that serve to make them fun and unique, but the way PP releases stuff, each faction gets access to the same general sort of enhancement to its capabilities with each new release. Their system is proof that a wargame can be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more balanced than Warhammer is. While not perfect, it is miles and miles ahead of Warhammer (and these days it's not like is has much less in the way of options to factor in to the equation either).

 

[Putzfrau]

Well, just an example of the sort of balance that does already exist in Warhammer that folks tend to ignore -

Right now you are supposed to design your list, including Lore selection before knowing your foe or the scenario/layout. That means that you are unwise, for instance, to make a list with few banners (WoC Chariot list) because B&G may come up. Likewise, you may not benefit from taking a lore with its killer spell working against initiative all the time since you may end up playing against elves (and if your plan is "magic for the kill!" then you may not have much of a plan at all).

So, the starting point of balancing a Lore could be to say that spells that allow no saves of any kind begin at 50 points. If their range is more than 12", add 10 points. If they impact every model in the unit, add 50 more points, and so on. Then you end up with spells like Dwellers costing 125+ points.

Some might argue that the points are worth it. What happens, though, when you face an army that is more resistant to a spell like Dwellers (or Pit or...) because it has higher overall ratings in the stat that matters? Well, if you have spent 125 points on the spell you might get lucky and face a weak foe, or you might get hosed and face a tough foe. Savvy players will gravitate toward spells that are less foe-dependent and minimize the fluctuation in effectiveness of their spells that is based on the foe they face. They might tend toward less all-or-nothing spell selections.

Then again, if they are allowed to know their opponent ahead of time, they can customize...but so can their opponent.

I think you can build balance into the Lores like you can for anything else - just ensure that all army books have access to the tools that allow them to create both balances and focused lists. The problem is not in balancing the Lores or the main rules. It's in balancing the books to ensure that they are well-rounded. This is why, for instance, both Dwarfs and Tomb Kings are hard to get right. Dwarfs have no magic, are slow, and have great guns. TK are weak everywhere and depend on magic to save the day. Both armies are pigeonholed into certain styles of play and army builds not because of the main rules, but because the army books are so limited.

Not to turn this into a "Yay! Privateer Press!" post, but seriously, look at them. Each faction has distinct elements that serve to make them fun and unique, but the way PP releases stuff, each faction gets access to the same general sort of enhancement to its capabilities with each new release. Their system is proof that a wargame can be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more balanced than Warhammer is. While not perfect, it is miles and miles ahead of Warhammer (and these days it's not like is has much less in the way of options to factor in to the equation either).

None of this really answers how you're going to make the spells balanced against one another. with 8 decks, 7 spells in each deck theres no way to create a situation where you dont have a half dozen or so spells that are going to be auto picks. Every wizard will end up looking exactly the same.

No spell is worth 125 points on top of the cost of a wizard. You'd have to literally make every wizard cost a quarter of what they do now, if that. And then that wizard is totally overpowered if you only throw on 40 points (or less) worth of spells. Slanns 100 points, give him a magic missile and a buff and he's suddenly 50 times better than he is. at 200 points he's barely worth taking.

I just don't see how you realistically balance something like that, especially given theres already balance built into spells like dwellers. You need winds, roll to cast, get through dispell etc etc etc.

 

[Sleboda]

None of this really answers how you're going to make the spells balanced against one another. with 8 decks, 7 spells in each deck theres no way to create a situation where you dont have a half dozen or so spells that are going to be auto picks. Every wizard will end up looking exactly the same.

=> I suppose I just disagree. While there may be some lessening of uniqueness in the Lores, I think it is possible to create sets of spells that perform similarly enough that it could be a relatively simple task to assign meaningful points to them. Certain spells would be better at supporting certain styles. A spell like Wildform would be good for a Lizardmen army built how I like to make them, whereas a spell like Fireball might be better for a Skink cloud army. If you get the points of the spells close to right, they don't become auto choices across the board, they become auto choices based on themes - and that's no different from other choices we make to support a theme.

No spell is worth 125 points on top of the cost of a wizard.

=> Again I disagree. For the right build, in the right circumstances or local dynamic, some spells would be worth it. It's true that when those players went to events that had players from outside their group, those spells would be less worth taking, and thus players would not spend the points. It's no different from cannons. If I am an Empire player any my regular opponents take no war machines, monsters, or high-value heroes, my cannons are not worth the 125 points. However, when I go to tournament, I will take them because I am more likely to get something out of them. It works the other way as well. I may find that Rippers are great against my regular dwarf opponent with all his armor and great weapons, but I certainly won't take them to tournaments.

The point is that the 125 points for a spell like Purple Sun may very well be worth it to some players and not to others - just like lots of stuff in Warhammer.

I just don't see how you realistically balance something like that, especially given theres already balance built into spells like dwellers. You need winds, roll to cast, get through dispell etc etc etc.

=> But that "balance" applies to Regrowth as well. There is nothing (almost nothing) that 'balances' Dwellers within the Lore. Points would do that.

EDIT: Enjoying the conversation, BTW.

 

[Putzfrau]

I would consider the massive cost difference between the two something that balances a spell like dwellers over regrowth.

Lets be realistic, a spell like dwellers most people throw six dice at, and even then its not a guarantee. 6 dice is a huge chunk of your magic dice, potentially all of it. And then it still has to get through dispells, which i think is easier on a cast like dwellers because people are more likely to hold their dice and chuck them all to dispell dwellers.

Lets say under your scenario the slann costs 200 points, which honestly is probably still too expensive to ever make one 125 point spell worth taking. But, 200 points is probably reasonableish given his stat line and built in ward save.

You take dwellers and just one other spell. Lets say its regrowth and regrowth is 10 points. Thats a naked 335 point model that has 2 spells. One that you literally might not even get to cast if your winds rolls are shit, and one that doesnt even begin to make up the points investment. Lets say you take 5 spells and you're sitting on a 450 point slann. Again, you're paying out the ass for the potential to use SOME spells sometimes.... and in a competitive environment thats just not going to happen.

Wizards would either completely drop out of competitive play or you'll see the same 1 or 2 spells bought every single time to keep the caster effecient.

I'll agree, it has more potential in a more casual setting, but why does a casual setting need any balancing?

It just seems like you'll consistently run into the issue of wizards will have to be cheap enough to make a 125 point spell worth considering, which inevitably makes a wizard with a few cheap spells better anyways. Or you could make all the spells closer in value and then it's an issue of why take anything but dwellers?

I don't see a realistic way to keep a range of spells potentially worth it while maintaining a reasonable points cost for a wizard.

 

[Moniker]

Continue with cannons as a 'template' but make them have to roll to hit monsters or some sort of 'avoidance' test. Initiative?

 

[Crillaz]

I am quite happy with 8th the way it is, but a few things i want is this:

-Monster and rider is ONE unit. Ward save on the character would protect also the monster.
-A charging unit goes first in close combat in the turn it charges. Subsequent turns its initiative order.
-Cannons less accurate or less powerful.

 

[NexS1]

I normally can't stand wishlisting, but what the heck, here goes -


Core Book

• Find a way to make all combo models into single things like cavalry. The means chariots and monsters with riders would be one single unified profile and set of rules.
• Make Fly 20" again, and no marching for it.
• Change the Toughness chart back to what it used to be (so, for example, S3 could not harm T7).
• Revamp the 8 Lores, adjusting the powers of several either up or down as needed.
• Define game terms, use them consistently, and bold them when they are used so that people can tell when something is a rule and when it is description/plain English. For eff's sake, if the word "unmodified" is present, it should mean what the word actually means, not what GW has redefined it to mean.
• Allow for spells to be bought from points, not rolled for randomly.
• Create a set of Initiative modifiers. For instance, Spear vs. Charging Cavarly is +4I for spearmen. Charging is +2I all the time. Turn after rally is -1I for rallied unit. Fear imposes a -2I to enemy models. And so on.
• Remove Unstable rule from Swarms.
• Change Ustable rule to allow Steadfast troops to ignore Unstable.
• Remove ASL and ASF from the game. Just follow the damn Initiative sequence.
• Remove the rule that says you round up Movement distances.
• Eliminate Random Charges.
• Make flee and pursuit distances = M+I+1D6.
• Impose a (possibly optional or as part of an "Advanced & Tournament Gaming" section) set up terrain 'heights' and what blocks what. For instance - L1 Hill blocks LoS to infantry. L2 blocks cavalry and Monstrous Infantry. L3 blocks Monstrous Cav. L4 blocks Monsters.
• Hell, add in a whole "Advanced & Tournament Gaming" section so that events all over the world have a sanctioned and consistent rules set to use. Gosh, promote and encourage events!
• Give Supporting Attacks at full value. If we are told that these combats are 'swirling melees' then there is no need to limit the guys in other ranks ranks beyond the already extant limit on how many can attack at all to begin with. If you can fight at all, you can fight to full effect.
• Cannons are limited in one of the following ways. Pick one:
  - one shot per game
  - d3 wounds
  - roll to hit
  - cause d6 hits to the unit, with a maximum number of hits to be no more than the number of models in the target unit (this also means eliminating the whole bounce thing)
• Stone Throwers allow no armor saves and are S4.
• Give cavalry Impact Hits (just 1 per model) at the Mount's Strength.

Lizardmen Book

• +1 WS to Saurus and Kroxigor
• +1 T to Rippers, and I10 for Rippers but only for the unit they mark with the Blot Toad.
• Bastiladon Initiative boost is +3.
• +2 T to Carnosaur.
• Give High magic to Skinks, but each Skink can only swap for one Signature Spell even if he is level 2.
• Allow skinks to go to Level 4.
• Troglodon's Roar replaced with "Motivating Musk" - all PF within 12" is always on 5's and 6's.
• Reword Burning Alignment and Kroak to allow 360 and into combat.
• PF is covered in main rules changes, but if that is not changed, then change the wording of PF to be a clear exception to the main rules and thus allow it to work from second (and later, when possible) ranks.
• Give 50pt magic banner option to Cold One Cav.
• Give 25pt magic banner option to one unit of Saurus Warriors.

As usual, Sleboda has a well thought response. +1 to this with following amendments:
Basty does +2, not 3, or +1 but let them stack
Cavalry already get charging strength bonus, so no impact hits

 

[SilverFaith]

When I suggested a rebalance of the spells, I didn't mean solely through point cost.

I meant a total revision of some of the spells. No matter what spell we are talking about, no spell should ever have the potential to wipe out half the enemy army in one go. purple sun can realistically do that right now to lizardmen. 5/6 chance to kill each saurus is insane. You could argue it is balanced by the fact that it only works against low I armies, but a good chunk of all warhammer armies have low I to begin with.

I'd say save or die spells should work more like Curse of Years from Lore of Vampires. roll a d6, on a 6, that model dies (I know that curse of years currently allow ward saves). On every subsequent turn, increase the roll by 1, so 5+, 4+ 3+ 2+, either until the unit is gone, or the spell is dispelled. Make them cheaper to cast as well, and make them a sort of "investment", something you throw at that dangerous block of white lions, and slowly whittle it down. It forces your opponent to either dispel immediatly, at the risk of failing, or spend his power dice to dispel it later on, which in turn limits his own magic phase. It keeps the spell powerful, but without making it a spell that simply removes a unit.

I don't buy into the "They are already balanced because dispel" arguement, because at 6 dice, you have a very real chance of IF'ing the spell, which means even dispel scrolls are useless. Have you tried using a lone slann for that? Oh no, I was hit by a small template. Luckily no one else was hit, and I have wounds to spare... lost power dice? what power dice? I already spend them all to remove your unit with dwellers.

Miscasts are only dangerous if the wizard is in a unit. Otherwise, even a slann isn't expensive enough to not be worth sacrificing for wiping out that elven death star unit.

Miscasts are actually fine right now, in my opinion. They are sufficiently bad that you want to avoid them in most cases, but not to the point where miscasting always costs you the game - it's just that the big spells that runs the highest risk of miscasting are so good, you'll still WANT a miscast to happen. And that's pretty sad.

Also do remember that skaven, while technically outdated, has aa generic lord that has a signature spell which forgoes the "save or" part, and outright kills 4d6 models, or if it removes the entire unit, EARNS the skaven player a new unit.

And that's a SIGNATURE spell.

 

[Screamer]

1. Line of sight. True line of sight... sucks. All terrain and model should have "height", depending on the unit-type.

=> What about it sucks? I pointed out that the need to go from the eyes is silly and that trees moving in woods can be a problem, but I think the basic idea that in a game involving three-dimensional toys you should be able to take a look to see what they see is a good one. My suggestion about hill heights would be a hybrid approach and really meant to create playable terrain more than anything else. I think you define things like hills, and maybe models, and then you let real (true) lines of sight govern the rest.

Again, what sucks?

2. Allow magic resistance and ward-save against all spells.

=> It is my belief that the Big Spells are a vital balancing factor to counter the rules that encourage large formations and also to keep the old Days of Herohammer at bay. Even that darn Tzeentch 3+ ward, re-roll 1's has a 1 in 6 chance of simply going away vs. these spells. No wonder you see more of that guy in comped events that allow wards vs. all spells or limit power dice per casting. Big Spells help to keep people from turning their armies into assemblages of heroes and also, interestingly, from turning them into groups of just 2 or 3 massive blocks.

Big Spells with no saves are really important.

TLoS: It sucks because
a) It shouldn't matter how I glue my models together or if I make a conversion. With TLoS it does, if Line of sight is considered based on A: base-size and B: Unit type (consider the model/unit as a "box") then it doesn't matter if you put the hero on a pedistal or crawling on the ground. And are the game actually as static as the models? Can't an archer lean a liiiitle to the left, and thus being able to see past the treetrunk? Within his base, of course. That's how it's been in warhammer and 40k before, and it created less of an argument about "can I or can't I see" than it does now.

No, big spells isn't needed to counter death-stars. Thats what diverters are there for.
There's 2 scenarios if your opponent has got a death-star: Either you also has got one, or you have a lot more units than him. Divert, ignore or fight. Tactical descisions. Lucky enough to get/choose a nuke spell when you face a Death-star player? Not much skill needed. But I don't like the MR stacking on ward-save part. It shouldn't ever be better than 4++. And I liked MR better in earlier editions when it simply added dispel-dices against spells cast at that unit.

 

[Putzfrau]

Dreaded 13th isn't that bad. Neither is purple sun.

True line of sight is easy and it's no hard to use a static example if you want to model them uniquely. There will always be dome issues associated with a line of sight system.

There isn't a single spell that ruins armies consistently and if you find that to be the case, sorry to say but that's player error. Yes, you can get unlucky but it's a game of dice. You should be able to get lucky.