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.

As the rule currently stands, at the begining of the controling players magic phase, but after the winds of magic have been rolled for, the player may roll a D6 for each of the wizards on the battlefield, providing they are not fleeing, off the battlefield, ect... If any of the dice come up as 6's, the player may add one power dice to their power pool.

This rule is made to represent the wizard attempting to draw extra power out of the winds of magic.

As this would most likely take a large amount of skill, I find it odd that a level 1 wizard has the same change of channeling an extra dice as an elite level 4 wizard. Therefore, I am proposing this slight change in the rule:

The controlling player still rolls for each of his wizards, as before, however,

Level 1 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 6+
Level 2 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 5+
Level 3 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 4+
Level 4 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 3+

I realise that this has the potential to generate to many power dice, especially in large games, I have two additional varrations that are slightly diffrent, but that follow the same princicpal.

Varriation 1

Level 1 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 6+
Level 2 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 6+
Level 3 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 5+
Level 4 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 5+

Varriation 2

Level 1 wizards can not channel (they are assumed to not have the skill or experience to do so)
Level 2 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 6+
Level 3 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 5+
Level 4 wizards generate an extra dice on a roll of 4+

This is a rule that my friends and I play with (the original varriation), and I was wondering what you thought of it.

I believe the reason Games Workshop didn't go with this is because the rules already heavily favour a single high level Wizard rather than multiple wizards. To make the higher level Wizards also better at chanelling was probably felt to be too much.

True, however in the 8th edition many of the advantages of having a higher level wizard were eliminated, with few new ones created. For example, wizards may now use any amount of dice of six or lower to cast a spell, rather than a number equal to their wizard level, plus one. This allows even a level 1 wizard to cast more difficult spells the would not normally have been able to cast under 7th. Second, the power and dispell dice are generated the same way every time; wizard levels have no influence on this. Granted that a wizard is able to add his wizard level to his casting total, however in my opinion this does not outweigh the benefits lost of having a higher level wizard under 8th.

I understand that the changes GW makes are usually for the better (barring their prices) however I think that at least the first varriation(6+ 6+ 5+ 5+), giving more powerfull wizards only a slight advantage, would add more depth to the game. I'm not saying that it is a rule that should be applied to all of Fantasy, however it is a house rule I use and I find it to be quite interesting.

Yeah, channelling is a little rule that's there to encourage taking multiple low level wizards. What we need are more rules like that, so that multiple low level wizards become more the norm, and having one powerful wizard is no longer standard.

Yup. Buying higher wizard levels is cheaper than getting a new lvl 1 and any protective gear you get him will also protect all those spell levels. And you are more likely to get the spells you want on the character you want with a high lvl caster as opposed to multiple low levels. I.e., it is vastly more cost-effective currently to have and protect a single caster than numerous low levels.

Chanelling is only a very slight bonus. It doesn't have to make fluff sense. It's balance sense. As it is, people tend to get an extra lvl 1 for a dispel scroll caddy and nothing else.

If anything, people should be incentivized to get more low level casters than single high levels. Because right now you spend so much more to get so much less.

With the points you guys are making, I would have to agree. I suppose it would unballance the game if high level wizards were made even more powerfull.

That being said, my friends and I really have only played small games (around 1000 points) where there is seldome more than one wizard per side. We created this rule to provide more incentive to spend the odd 350 points and get a level 4 wizard instead of bulking up on infantry and a level 1 (not that any of this is wrong, we just have very little infantry).

In tournaments or any game at around 1500 points or above, I can see how this would not work. However I only have experience in small games where I find this rule to be quite interesting to play with.

I could see maybe a Wizard getting a Bonus. Certaintly not a big a bonus as you are suggesting.

Maybe Lvl3-4 wizards get +1 to channel perhaps. So Lvl1 and Lvl2 would channel on 6, Lvl3 and 4 would channel on 5+

Maybe Lvl3-4 wizards get +1 to channel perhaps. So Lvl1 and Lvl2 would channel on 6, Lvl3 and 4 would channel on 5+

Not to be rude, but this was one of the options I included in the original post.

Sorry, its early in the morning to be typing on the internet. I

I was referring to the bigger bonus. I was selecting Variation 1 as the best option. I should have said as much.

Yeah, I would have to agree that the first and third variations would be too much of a bonus. However, the second one could be interesting in friendly games as well as small games.

I agree with the over use of L4 wizards as it is....

I'd rather give the L1 wizard a 3+ and the L4 Wizard a 6+.... even though it makes no sense other than to blance the abuse of the L4 wizard...............A perk to taking multiple wizards as opposed to 1 hiding like a bitch uber wizard wrecking shyte.

Game balance however is not a strong point of GW games....

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, channelling is a little rule that's there to encourage taking multiple low level wizards. What we need are more rules like that, so that multiple low level wizards become more the norm, and having one powerful wizard is no longer standard.

Why do you want fluctuation from one end of the spectrum to the other? Many people run 1 -2 Lvl3s/4s/5s at 3k with a couple weaker wizards already anyway.

 Amaya wrote:
Why do you want fluctuation from one end of the spectrum to the other? Many people run 1 -2 Lvl3s/4s/5s at 3k with a couple weaker wizards already anyway.

Because I would think low level wizards would be a lot more common than high level ones. It'd be a bit like seeing more Combat Lords than Combat Heroes, it'd be odd. Heirarchies don't work that way.

The only reasonable way to do that would be to give all wizards access to spells they choose instead of roll for. High level wizards should be more capable of casting, dispelling, and have access to more spells.

The game doesn't necessarily need to reflect fluff perfectly. You can still choose to take multiple low level wizards if you want to. No one is forcing you to do otherwise.

 Amaya wrote:
The only reasonable way to do that would be to give all wizards access to spells they choose instead of roll for. High level wizards should be more capable of casting, dispelling, and have access to more spells.

There's millions of ways of doing it. Just making Lvl 1 mages cheaper would do it.

The game doesn't necessarily need to reflect fluff perfectly.

No, but it's nice when it does.