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.

Plenty? I don't think any of the 8th books allow that--though I didn't check. They allow standards, obviously, but I think only the old books allow magic items on champs, with HE standing out in my mind along with some WoC. But it's certainly a minority among armies.

Hmm that's true (aside from blood knights), guess GW are moving away from that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davall wrote:Yes. You have a Slaan. Be happy in its OP'ness. At least you are not an O&G player with those two lores. Granted, a spell or two in the O&G is good, but overall...

Having a lvl4 for smaller games is great, at 1500pts a slaan is a huge chunk of the army but the opponent will also have a lvl 4 so going for priests only doesn't work.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Davall wrote:You don't decide you need a magic weapon, then add yet another character to wield it

Sure you do.

A Lizardman army can be perfectly fine with 1 slann. But with the threat of mass ethereals, you need some magic-spewing combat fighters. Kind of like flaming. It wasn't nearly as prevalent until all the regen mobs came out.

One army example out of 16 (or however many there are) doesn't support the overall argument. The idea of adding a character to take a magic item is about an absolute minority in the game as can be.

As I said, the OP's original question has been answered.

Davall wrote:As I said, the OP's original question has been answered.

A discussion board can often, despite our best intentions, turn into discussions. You don't have to post.

One army example out of 16 (or however many there are) doesn't support the overall argument. The idea of adding a character to take a magic item is about an absolute minority in the game as can be.

No, it's not. Ogres. WoC. TK. VC. Just off the top of my head. Those Heroes are either extremely expensive and/or don't add a buttload their rank-and-file don't already.

You're generally going to take a Slaughtermaster and a Bruiser for OK. Not 5 Bruisers in a standard army. As good as they are they aren't worth the cost premium. TK, because of the rules of resurrecting, characters actually get ignored. So having a ton of your points in unressurectable models in an army whose main defense is resurrection, isn't the best strategy. WoC the heroes are just crazy expensive. etc

So the point being, there are a lot of instances where you don't have 5+ heroes sitting around in a standard 1500-2500 game other than as delivery mechanisms for magic attacks.

And you do not have to be so obtuse. A different thread should be started in the tactics section for this to continue.

OK takes 3 or so characters normally. TK the same, granted most are casters. VC take , ahem, VAMPIRES which happen to be reasonable in combat. The same with WoC, as in their mages can benefit greatly from magic items. These heroes are only "crazy expensive" if you max out their allowance for abilities/gear.

I never claimed that armies will have 5+ heroes sitting around to solely be magic weapon caddies. So I still contend the idea of having to buy "extra" characters to wield magic items happens to be the extreme minority of armies.

It's not worth arguing over. Start a topic in the tactics section.

Vulcan wrote:Etherial Vampire lists are very much a one-trick pony. They work great... until your opponent brings a list that is prepared to deal with them. All it really takes is a couple of characters with magic weapons to wreak havoc on Etherials; they aren't exactly durable once you bypass it.

or demons where everything is magical.

Davall wrote:It's not worth arguing over. Start a topic in the tactics section.

No one is arguing. It's a discussion forum. Again, if you don't want to post, nothing on earth can make you do so. Yet you keep doing so.

DukeRustfield wrote:It's not a 5-10 pt magic item, it's a 5-10 pt magic item + hero.

It's not like you can just buy disembodied magic weapons to fight Ethereals. If you are facing 5 units of Ethereals and you only got 1 hero, you're still going to have trouble. Or multiple heroes and one is killed.

I was just filled with the desire to run 'characters' that are modelled as disembodied floating weapons.

The Floating Sword of BabaJaba would be cool, but it would be unfair in terms of LOS for shooting weapons or spells I think.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Davall wrote:It's not worth arguing over. Start a topic in the tactics section.

No one is arguing. It's a discussion forum. Again, if you don't want to post, nothing on earth can make you do so. Yet you keep doing so.

It's a discussion forum about rules. You (and admittedly myself as well) have been blathering about tactics. Yet you fail to see the point, and continue to do so. So to keep it on the level it has been, NUH UH!

/done

And you keep responding despite your 3rd response saying no one should respond after you try and get some kind of last word response.

last word

i think that I am with the duke on this one, I have never understood why once a question has been answered the thread must immediatley end. I realize that a new thread about the off topic can be started, but it is often hard to find such threads unless a link to the new thread is posted(which it often isnt) and the new thread will often lose people who used to be in the old discussion.