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.

So far i have seen almost everyone character slots are given to casters.
With the exceptions of 1 slot given to BSB.

Should it be like this? Should the combat type of Lords and Heroes be stronger?
benefit from better gear customization? That would allow them to be worthy to field
in place of casters?

I mean how many of us can really care less about casters , and only felt we are forced to take them
to not be obliterated by magic . *Scroll caddy?

I normally take only 2 casters (2000 points or more).

1 will always have x2 dispel scrolls.

The other will invariably have whatever the best items for that race that are available.

I like fighty generals. And if I take a lord caster, there is little point in taking 2 level 2's as well.

Depends on the army IMO.

I rarely take fighty characters with my Dark Elves because I can compensate with Assassins.

With my VC, I'm leaning towards more CC effectiveness because my Black Knights are otherwise the only source of combat power.

A wizard can cast one or more spells that can kill anywhere between d6 models to a whole unit. Or do other things like stop something from moving, make something move extra, do an auto-wound to a hero, give a unit extra attacks, etc.

A fighty character can, rolling perfect dice, usually kill like....5. After 3 turns of maneouvering. Odds are more likely that they'll kill 2 or 3, after misses, failed wound rolls, enemy saves, etc. Lots of models have ways around fighty characters [pendant of khaelith] that make them all but immune. Those same characters can far more easily be taken out with spells [make a toughness test! Make an initiative test!] that go through their saves.

In the end, casters just plain DO MORE over the course of the game. They give you an extra phase in which to do damage, or GREATLY assist in the movement and placement parts of the game, which are some of the most important.

Spellbound wrote:A wizard can cast one or more spells that can kill anywhere between d6 models to a whole unit. Or do other things like stop something from moving, make something move extra, do an auto-wound to a hero, give a unit extra attacks, etc.

A fighty character can, rolling perfect dice, usually kill like....5. After 3 turns of maneouvering. Odds are more likely that they'll kill 2 or 3, after misses, failed wound rolls, enemy saves, etc. Lots of models have ways around fighty characters [pendant of khaelith] that make them all but immune. Those same characters can far more easily be taken out with spells [make a toughness test! Make an initiative test!] that go through their saves.

In the end, casters just plain DO MORE over the course of the game. They give you an extra phase in which to do damage, or GREATLY assist in the movement and placement parts of the game, which are some of the most important.

Yes , that was my point . As to why is it designed that way , a caster is so important that people will take them just to be on the safe side.

Humorously, I don't use magic casters that much any more. My standard list involves a Combat-Lord, BSB, single-Shaman (using the Staff of Sorcery), and then a fourth combat character if I can fit it in. And I didn't even start taking BSB's until recently.

I tend to take fighting characters because - while not super kill monsters (Grimgor being an extremely obvious exception) - my units need their few kills for combat resolution. If your units can handle the enemy well enough (either by having a good save, or being wonderful can-openers / something like Swordmasters or Chosen), you can take a spellcaster because you aren't losing much. If you're using something like Clanrats or Goblins, you need that character to get through the enemy's anvils / hammers. Without them, the unit is doomed and all you're kidding yourself is how quickly.

Ogres work around this as - while lacking armor (4+ save usually being their best) and killing power (3 S4 attacks! ... at WS3 w/ a 40mm frontage / model) - their Butchers can make up for either of these flaws, and you can't lob a Bruiser into all units in a MSU.

LunaHound wrote:So far i have seen almost everyone character slots are given to casters.
With the exceptions of 1 slot given to BSB.

Should it be like this? Should the combat type of Lords and Heroes be stronger?
benefit from better gear customization? That would allow them to be worthy to field
in place of casters?

I mean how many of us can really care less about casters , and only felt we are forced to take them
to not be obliterated by magic . *Scroll caddy?

I don't understand. Should combat lords be stronger? Are you asking whether we should buff the Bloodthirster and the Dreadlord on Black Dragon or the Prince on Star Dragon?

Only Vampire Counts and Lizardmen are lead by spellcasters, and they're both basically forced to either by army design or because the alternative is too crappy to even consider. Basing your gameplan on wizards is unreliable and the fickle gods of dice will cause bitter defeats. Not only that, but a Bolt of Change is dispelable but 7 WS10 S7 attacks with re-rolls are not. In my opinion magic is perfectly balanced especially when there's a reasonable cap on it. The cap is only needed because if there isn't one and someone goes over the top with magic and encounters someone with little or no defence the game is a mismatch. If he would meet someone with lots of magic defence his over the top magic would do little good for him. I'll also add that a Bloodthirster is also a mismatch against many armies because they simply have no ways or means to kill him.

Armies that don't have access to ultimate fighty heroes of doom like dragonriders usually resort to spellcaster lords as a means to provide some ranged support while also being their biggest source of magic defence. I have no problems with this. A level 3 wizard lord that mostly carries dispel scrolls was a very popular hero choice once upon a time and the only other hero the army then needs is a BSB and the large majority of the points can now be spent on actual troops.

I feel like combat characters should do more than just have x attacks at x strength. One bad roll and they do nothing more than make that eradicated unit's points cost go higher. Maybe "combat" heroes could add +1 to the combat resolution and lords could add +2. Maybe they could allow you to roll an extra die and take the two lowest for break tests.

All I know is that they don't really seem to do a whole lot, while casters change the game turn to turn.

I generally like combat characters more, though my Warriors has more casters (though it was intentional from my other magic light armies).

Wood Elves, I seldom take more than a scroll caddy. Empire, I lead with a Grand Master, and might take up to two level 2s, sometimes a scroll caddy and I mix in hybrids like the Priest or utility guys like a BSB or Casketus.

My pure Khorne WoC don't have any puny Sorcerors! Sure, magic-heavy armies can hurt me a fair bit, even with as much magic resistance as I can stuff into the list, but you can't dispel a frenzied Khorne Lord on a Juggernaut slapping you in the face.

I think the value of combat characters is a bit understated. Lets say you have two blocks of similar core units. Both units have the usual 4+ save and all the trimmings, and both blocks lets say cost 150 points give or take some. Bot blocks are armed with the usual nerf bats of doom that kill 1 guy on the other side, if you are lucky. Both units have the usual 4 static res, plus hope to outnumber. Whoever wins that combat, will win by two (1 wound, now outnumbers), if it isn't just a tie. A break test at -2 going to cause very many run downs. So essentially you have two blocks of worthless units futilely hitting each other waiting to be flanked. Don't know about what you guys think, but that is a pretty worthless way to play a game. Add in combat hero who "only" kills 2-3 models, and you are looking at a break test at -4 (0-1 wounds from unit, 2-3 from character, 1 from outnumber). A very good chance of running down the opponent, getting 150 points for the unit, and an additional 100 for the captured banner. So even thought that character only killed a few models, he broke parity and caused an entire unit to be destroyed. (which might cause panic) Anything that breaks parity in a game that has equal forces is something worth looking at.

That being said, some combat characters are just too expensive for the result you are trying to achieve, or aren't good enough to even achieve the limited goals you have for yourself. I personally prefer a caster lord, and at least 1 other wizard, and use 1-2 combat characters to supplement units combat ability. Usually a hero with a great weapon is going to be powerful enough to hurt rank and file, and rank and file have a very small chance of killing a hero. Of course you take champions in units that have R&F killing heroes, just so you can throw a chump at at a hero killer character your opponent might be using.

In some areas the meta favors combat characters, so taking a guy who is a challenge anvil or hammer is worth taking as a counter. And example of this is the unkillable dreadlord/master that DE can field, the hard to kill tzeentch character WoC can make, an ogre tryant with tenderizer, the empire character with the stat swapping ability, and a quite a few other that aren't coming to mind right now. Personally I don't see anything wrong with that sort of meta, it is not very different than the casting dice vs dispel dice meta you see in other areas.

I am not a big fan of list restrictions or comp that limits the above dynamic. I do understand why some people require it. GW doesn't write army books for tourneys, and as a result, there is a couple of books that have powerdice spam, or characters that people just can't deal with unless they have exactly the right tools. Nothing really wrong with a paper rock scissors dynamic (as long as it isn't just a matter of list hammer), but there is something wrong when someone can bring dynamite and you don't have anything to stop it at all. (tzeentch dice spam, I'm looking at you)

Tzeentch dice spam? Seriously? You're calling Horror blocks casting magic missiles dynamite? It's garbage. If any magic is dynamite it's the VC lord throwing 9 one dice spells with +2 to cast right on his own. Now, support that dude with two Necromancers with Danse and power stones or a caster Vampire and then you're really getting something out of your dice.

I don't know how you didn't get this already in the previous editions of the game. It's not the amount of dice that matters, it's what spells you're casting with them. Some armies can throw spells that have very limited chance of miscasting (VC) and when not dispeled will nearly automatically cause you to lose the game (movement spells, VC). Magic missile casualties are simply inevitable and unless targeted against a particularly vulnerable and particularly important unit because of mistake in your own movement phase, they are almost completely unimportant and uninteresting. 50 Dark Elf crossbowmen or Shades can 'cast' that dreaded spell of 100 armour piercing S3 shots per turn and it can't be dispeled and it will never miscast. I'm afraid of that spell, as should you. Their Dragon and unkillable lord is also incredibly good points denial and the S7 lance attacks and terror bubble it casts can't be dispeled.

Why do so many WoC players use the Tzeentch caster lord on a Dragon or a disc? Same reasons as I've presented above. Because Gate doesn't require los and that makes the flying caster both good points denial and his spell potentially one that when undispeled will single handedly win the game. In this case it's a very cheap way to attempt to win and it rarely works (once per tournament on average), but there's a case for it because the alternatives aren't much better. Casting Gate doesn't require ineffective dice spam either. All you need is enough dice to go for an irresistible each turn.

I don't know where you're looking Luna, but there are tons of lists that don't have caster spam. I also see few lists with BSBs, not that they aren't good, however.

Cryonicleech wrote:I don't know where you're looking Luna, but there are tons of lists that don't have caster spam. I also see few lists with BSBs, not that they aren't good, however.

I also consider scroll caddies a form of spam ( as in people take it for just in case )

I don't see how it is spam. I take 1 scroll caddy. That's not spam. Spamming is, obviously, if I took 3 caddies.

Caster Spam is something like this

Wizard Lord Type

Wizard

Wizard

Perhaps Another Wizard or maybe a fighty-hero.

This is usually seen in WoC, DoC, Lizardmen to some extent, Vamps, and on some occasion, Ogres. Dark Elves can also run this.

However, I see few High Elf, Skaven, Orcs and Goblins, Empire, Beasts of Chaos, Bretonnians, Dwarfs, etc. running this.

Fighty-Heroes aren't bad. Mages may be all the rage when it comes to serious competitive lists, but I see plenty of lists with Fighty-Heroes.

O&G can work with multiple wizards, but they have to dedicate early on if they're going offensive (Goblin) or giving unit buffs (Orc). Yeah, Orcs have a bunch of good offensive spells (Fists, Warpath, a D6 S4 magic missile). However, their best spells to cast are a 6+ "Strike first and re-roll failed to hit" bonus to a unit, and a 12+ "Strike first and re-roll failed to hit for whole army, in addition to everyone who's unengaged getting to move 2D6 towards an enemy allowing only hold or flee reactions." Which is your best bet without combat characters to have your units win reliably.

Skaven can work with caster-spam, because they can still have leadership ten for their army (Grey Seer) and their spells work when cast en-masse. They're not quite as powerful as they once were (no more 2D6 magic missiles into units tied up by clanrats and the like), but they can still hold their own with a magic-user focus.

High Elves have Teclis, which alone gives them a big boost when going wizard-spam. Add in others, things just get more SoL for the defender.

Beasts sort-of need magic to be effective. Often times I'd see a Tzeentch list with as many Wizard-Fighter characters as possible so that the units could win form something other than a rear charge.

They certainly can, but what I am saying is that Luna states that every army she sees is full of caster spam, which many of them are obviously not.

However, I agree with the idea that a Mage will simply do more than a Fighty-Character. However, I'm still taking 'em.

Cryonicleech wrote:They certainly can, but what I am saying is that Luna states that every army she sees is full of caster spam, which many of them are obviously not.

However, I agree with the idea that a Mage will simply do more than a Fighty-Character. However, I'm still taking 'em.

K , im home! Here is what i meant.
If everyone take mages for the sake of they like magic hocus pocus , thats fine!
But too often because casters are so strong , people have to take casters only for the sake of insurance ( hence i said scroll caddy spam )

Brets almost never caster spam, 'cause their lores suck. Also, the Combat characters in each army can usually take a flying mount which is added mobility. Who cares they only cause 1 or 2 casualties, they are fighting war machines!

My usual 5 heroes are Gen, BSB, flyer, caddy, caddy (cause I hate enemy magic)

Ahh...

Well, I think of it this way.

Magic defense is insurance that something doesn't happen, and you are correct in the fact that magic can be quite deadly.

However, it isn't because mages are so powerful. It's because there is a chance that something bad could happen. It doesn't mean mages are the uber-characters of Fantasy, they are simply there to protect against a phase that has a potentially devastating effect.

I mean, it's like wearing a coat when it is only slightly chilly outside, and it seems likely that the weather can only improve. Sure, you probably won't need it, but in that case it becomes necessary, you have something to fall back on.

With my empire I just take a scroll caddy and a warrior priest for my magic defense (and the priest is fairly fighty). I've never bothered spamming magic with empire as there wizards are quite expensive and average compared to other armies wizards.

This thread makes me miss my flying circus.

This is what you do.

You put a Saurus Lord on a Carnisaur.
You put a Stegadon beside him.

You run pounding down the flank.

You put Saurus and Saurus Cavalry in the middle with a bunch of those Skink guys.

You take two or three of those Skink wizards and cast spells on everything.

Then you kill everything and laugh. And after you are done laughing you brag about it for months until no one will play you anymore.

my 2c.

Right and now we get rocks or something.

----
Only army I would actually take a Wizard lord is Chaos and Orc/ Goblins I think. Everything else the fighty lord is more fun, Slann is just a big frog now. But I do not have competitive experience with Fantasy like I do 40k, my Fantasy games usually go like, "what was that rule again?" and meanwhile they keep making new rules anyway.

Fighty lord often gives units a boost, don't forget. High ld General, special rules like so and so is Core, etc. And you should be able to keep Lord on Dragon away from other characters until they make you do the Toughness test or something. Even then, hello dispel magic.

Tacobake wrote:and Orc/ Goblins I think. Everything else the fighty lord is more fun,

The funny thing is you can cheat with the O&G list to make your Shaman a fighty lord. It'll be a WS3 Fighty Lord, but Shaga's Screamin' Sword + Center of Lines = fun. Make 'em a Savage Orc w/ Big 'Eds kicking Boots, you have a 6+ Ward w/ an additional attack. Give them the Gnashas instead, your Orc Shaman has killing blow!

Savage Orc Shaman w/ Shaga's Screamin' Sword + the Boots + in 12" of 3 characters = 6 S6 attacks by a Wizard Lord who is T5 and still gets a save. Use the last 15pts to buy a Waaagh! Paint so you get +2 to all spells you cast while in HtH. Or, in other words, "I just Bash 'Em Ladz myself so now I strike first and can re-roll my failed to hit dice". 6 S6 attacks is better than most Wizard Characters who are benefiting from Bear's Anger!

That surely would be cheating, cause Wizards can't normally have magic weapons (though Gnashas are Enchanted Item). Correct me if I'm wrong.

nyyman wrote:That surely would be cheating, cause Wizards can't normally have magic weapons (though Gnashas are Enchanted Item). Correct me if I'm wrong.

They can take Magic Weapons, but not magic armour (normally).

Cheese Elemental wrote:... but you can't dispel a frenzied Khorne Lord on a Juggernaut slapping you in the face.

QFT, and the juggerlord also doesn't miscast and explode first turn. "Ring of what?" *smash smash smash*

I think another point about fighter lords is that in some books they have the highest Ld available to the army. For those armies who are still playing the psych game (i.e. non-slaanesh, non-khorne WoC in my case) that's an important factor to keep in mind, and one of the reasons I'm sticking with my tizz lord (level 0). Looking at the skaven book one of my friend's asked why ever take a warlord any more? I said basically "Ld, duh" but he pointed out that seers are the same now ...

Which leads to point #2, that fighter lords are often more protected as well, with more and magical armor not necessarily available to the caster variant. This isn't really true of WoC or vamps or so on, but I still see quite a few naked casters (with weaker WS and T too) running about, apart from a shiny ward save or something. Great targets for assassination runs, easy points and if the enemy is relying on magic than his main weapon just got weaker when you start dismantling casters.

Therion's point on the points denial ability of gateway spammers is right on with the above, with gateway's indirect-ness getting around general caster vulnerability.

A related negative for fighter lords, to use their points they mostly have to be smashed up into the enemy, which means a chance at failing and a chance at dying themselves. As opposed to watching things die at a distance, risk of miscasting or not. So there are risks everywhere I suppose, meh.

- Salvage

I find it frustrating sometimes that I gotta use 1/2 my heroes to make sure I can enjoy 2 or 3 turns of shutting down normal magic. Especially on the rare occasion that I fight dwarfs or someone that only brought 1 scroll caddy. Even if my opponent is down to his 2 base d dice, I usually still don't cast 'cause the benefits for me usually don't outway a chance for a miscast. (lore of life and beast aren't bad now, but when you only got lvl 1s trying to cast from the centre of a lance, there are very few no LOS spells)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
in 6th when I played skaven, I could play grey seer + 2 warlock engineers + dark emmissary. take enough warp tokens and you had 17 power dice a turn plus your bound spells. And that's all you did. So when a spell can easily destroy something like 5-6 core infantry a turn (and that's only 1 spell) that is all you have to do. Same thing with my friends high elves (6th ed) who caster spammed and bolt thrower spam. Those kinda games are boring. (worse than a gun line, 'cause the mages do more damage than war machines)

Daba wrote:

nyyman wrote:That surely would be cheating, cause Wizards can't normally have magic weapons (though Gnashas are Enchanted Item). Correct me if I'm wrong.

They can take Magic Weapons, but not magic armour (normally).

They can?
Now this is gonna be interesting...
I stand corrected

In the very least, Orcs could. There's even a specific "Shaman Only" Magic Item (The Skull Wand). Problem being said Skull Wand is only good when taken on a Savage Orc w/ the Kickin' Boots, although that does give you a three-attack model that for every hit causes an unmodified leadership check or instant death with no save of any sort allowed. Being only WS3, it limits its use against most characters though (having to hit most Skaven characters at least twice to have good odds of success, let alone Dwarf or Elf).

Reason why most people don't take magic weapons on wizards is that they are 1 Attack models, and if they cast something like Flame Sword or Bear's Anger then they lose their magic weapon's benefits (and usually said spell has better benefits than a magic weapon in the first place). A few armies have some weapons that work decently with a Wizard (for instance Skaven could do well with Death Globes on a Skyre Engineer), but for the most part you're looking at stuff like "My Wizard is S5 now!" or "My Wizard strikes first!", nothing that overcome their low weapon skill / attack number / strength.