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.

Well they do mention Fated Dispel in case you ran out of wizards/witches/sorceres/scammers.

If a player finds themselves unable to attempt a Wizardly dispel, they may make one Fated Dispel per turn – an unmodified 2D6 attempt. To offset this, certain units (notably Dwarfs) have an innate resistance to magic, making it harder for enemy wizards to cast spells upon them successfully. Yet even Dwarfs have some recourse to the arcane – Runesmiths are perfectly capable of making dispel attempts.

 bong264 wrote:
Sorry everyone bad reading comprehension on my part lol. But now I'm wonder why the downgrade from 50x75mm? Unless that was just an 8th ed thing. As for the new magic I am excited to see it in action, here's hoping for a q1 release next year 🤞

Early february is date short of LI level thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Warcom article but we don’t have a ton of insight into caps on it, other rule interactions, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Magic is indeed the 2d6 system, suppose it fits the theme of not being game breaking and supplementary instead. See how it plays. I love the new magic resistance, it’s actually super useful now.

We know overlapping are 1 attack per model.

Seeing that Necromancy is now a main rule book lore I think that means that both Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts (the only two Undead factions) will use the same lore. Interesting development, as the two were previously very different.

 stonehorse wrote:
Seeing that Necromancy is now a main rule book lore I think that means that both Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts (the only two Undead factions) will use the same lore. Interesting development, as the two were previously very different.

That’s not to say that there aren’t lores – there are eight in the core rulebook alone

Implies there are also army book lores

 stonehorse wrote:
Seeing that Necromancy is now a main rule book lore I think that means that both Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts (the only two Undead factions) will use the same lore. Interesting development, as the two were previously very different.

Which would be a bit odd - or maybe they are allowing the independant wizards of the Empire to take it? There were magic schools/guilds in Middenheim and Talabheim but most dabled or were hedge wizards.

Having Tk's use it will be odd as they normally use magics assocaited with their gods and not that of Nagash.

If memory serves, TK had the lore of light from the main book last edition.

Anyway TK having their own lore would not contradict anything in the article.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Seeing that Necromancy is now a main rule book lore I think that means that both Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts (the only two Undead factions) will use the same lore. Interesting development, as the two were previously very different.

That’s not to say that there aren’t lores – there are eight in the core rulebook alone

Implies there are also army book lores

While that is true, having the Elf, Greenskin and other lores in the main rules seems to suggest that any Lores we get in army books may be for the likes of anyone who's lore doesn't fit/can not be covered by the main books.

Necromancy seems to be a blanket lore, and one that I can imagine will cover both Undead.

Or maybe TK will go back to 6th edition and have their own system altogether.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Or maybe TK will go back to 6th edition and have their own system altogether.

I'd love TK to go back to RH 6th edition and use the Scrolls again. Those things were very thematic, and fit in perfectly with the way magic is done now. They weren't used in the Magic Phase, but rather different Scrolls were used in different phases, a bit like how magic is going to work in ToW.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If memory serves, TK had the lore of light from the main book last edition.

Anyway TK having their own lore would not contradict anything in the article.

Light and Death.

Possibly ’Necromancy’ is a mixture of 4th/5th/6th Necromancy (aka LoV in 7th/8th) and Lore of Death

That would make more sense for TK to use (it seems in addition to their own lore), especially as TK includes Arkhan and a minority of other more Nagash aligned factions. VC would obviously use it, but they’re not Core.
It does say wizards get 2-3 lores, so TK could have Nehekhara, Necromancy and even one of the others (Battle or Illusion?).
Perhaps VC will get Necromancy and Dark like in 4th/5th?

Then perhaps some hedge wizard types could use Necromancy, or even perhaps Middenheim’s College (which had Dieter Hellsnitch as an alumnus in about the right period, albeit he was driven out for being a Necromancer).
Potentially Nurgle Chaos as well? They used Death in 8th and was marginally aligned with raising the dead in RoC.

Might have a delve into WFRP 1st Ed Realms of Sorcery, since the lores here align very much with what was presented there vs ‘contemporary’ WFB.

The magic system is the first part of the rules preview that seems to be a clear step down from 8th Edition.

There's no resource managment and no strategy -- just walk forward, roll dice, and hope you roll high. Furthermore, it makes Level 4 mages vastly better than any of the other options. L4s have always been much better than any of the other options, but in TOW they so totally outclass the alternatives there seems to be little reason in considering anything else. Even if restricted by points/hero slots/etc., a L4 looks to be the automatic choice.

A few things could change this. Magic items and upgrades could make cheaper options more enticing. The ability to cast spells outside dispell range could make cheap, rear echelon mages a viable tactic. But on raw numbers, the 2d6 curve greatly favors L4s and their bonuses.

 Saber wrote:
The magic system is the first part of the rules preview that seems to be a clear step down from 8th Edition.

There's no resource managment and no strategy -- just walk forward, roll dice, and hope you roll high. Furthermore, it makes Level 4 mages vastly better than any of the other options. L4s have always been much better than any of the other options, but in TOW they so totally outclass the alternatives there seems to be little reason in considering anything else. Even if restricted by points/hero slots/etc., a L4 looks to be the automatic choice.

A few things could change this. Magic items and upgrades could make cheaper options more enticing. The ability to cast spells outside dispell range could make cheap, rear echelon mages a viable tactic. But on raw numbers, the 2d6 curve greatly favors L4s and their bonuses.

L3-4 Wizards have always been much better than L1-2, and not just in raw number of spells.

In 6th-7th, each wizard generated their level in power dice (and half their level in dispel dice) and the number of dice you could use scaled with your level: Max 2 for L1 up to Max 5 for L4, a whole 3 extra dice is much more of a disparity than +3 to cast (though you did have to balance casting more spells vs better spells).

In 8th they also had the +Level to cast/dispel rolls, and while any wizard could throw 6 dice at a spell (which was also pretty brain dead), dispel dice were heavily restricted (so the L4’s +4 mattered much more) and the way spell generation worked meant taking a L4 practically guaranteed you got the spell you wanted.

I will miss the dice economy tbh, though it was a bit lopsided and the new rules will hopefully make taking a couple of wizards more viable to actually cast spells vs being a scroll caddy.

What will really matter I think is how often you can dispel. If a L4 can make 4 dispel roles then they will be a bit OP, but if they can only dispel once or twice then a couple of L2s becomes really viable IMO and makes interesting choices on which spells you dispel.
It then becomes a casting slot economy rather than a dice economy.


Edit: Also, on taking a L4, as auto, we don’t know what the character slot situation is like yet. If it’s like 6th-7th you only get 1 Lord at 2k, which means either you take a L4 wizard or a General with the best leadership value, which is massive given the new FBIGO rule.

Other than Chaos Dwarfs in 6th, even good Ld armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld10 and most armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld9, or even Ld8 in some cases (or 7 in the case of Skaven).

So it could be you have the difficult decision of a L4 wizard or massively increased staying power for a good chunk of your army (assuming the 12” radius bubble stays).

 Saber wrote:
The magic system is the first part of the rules preview that seems to be a clear step down from 8th Edition.

There's no resource managment and no strategy -- just walk forward, roll dice, and hope you roll high. Furthermore, it makes Level 4 mages vastly better than any of the other options. L4s have always been much better than any of the other options, but in TOW they so totally outclass the alternatives there seems to be little reason in considering anything else. Even if restricted by points/hero slots/etc., a L4 looks to be the automatic choice.

A few things could change this. Magic items and upgrades could make cheaper options more enticing. The ability to cast spells outside dispell range could make cheap, rear echelon mages a viable tactic. But on raw numbers, the 2d6 curve greatly favors L4s and their bonuses.

The problem with resource management in the Magic Phase often lead to players either taking lots of magic in hopes to overwhelm their opponent with dice or took none knowing that 1 wizard had nearly no ability to do anything at all.

Plus the Magic Phase took lots of time, at times to little effect.

I hated the dice pools, their imbalance had most events enforce limits that invariably killed TK's unique magic phase entirely.

We know from the "First Look at the Rules" article that TK have the Lore of Nehekhara.

It seems unlikely that GW are using that interchangeably as an alternative name for Necromancy.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Seeing that Necromancy is now a main rule book lore I think that means that both Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts (the only two Undead factions) will use the same lore. Interesting development, as the two were previously very different.

That’s not to say that there aren’t lores – there are eight in the core rulebook alone

Implies there are also army book lores

At least going back to 5th (when I started) there were the 8 schools and then armies got additional ones in the books.

Again, the devil is in the details here. There is a long and ignoble GW tradition of creating a balanced rulebook and "get-you-by" lists and then screwing up the army books later on. We honestly won't know if this edition works until all the books have been published.

Yeah I’m pretty sure that the rule book “necromancy” lore is going to end up looking like a combination of death and shadow magic, with maybe a bit of celestial if GW remembers what necromancy actually means, and will be available to imperial wizards.

Remember this is before Teclis helped establish the Colleges so human wizards are still scraping together what knowledge they can, as they can, and end up mixing the Winds freestyle, rather than picking one exclusively or using all at once like High and Dark magic.

Also, I slightly suspect that imperial human wizards might get additional restrictions on where they can be placed, like not in the same unit as the general, on account of their legal status being a bit questionable and not wanting their heads chopped off by an over-zealous seneschal.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

L3-4 Wizards have always been much better than L1-2, and not just in raw number of spells.

In 6th-7th, each wizard generated their level in power dice (and half their level in dispel dice) and the number of dice you could use scaled with your level: Max 2 for L1 up to Max 5 for L4, a whole 3 extra dice is much more of a disparity than +3 to cast (though you did have to balance casting more spells vs better spells).

In 8th they also had the +Level to cast/dispel rolls, and while any wizard could throw 6 dice at a spell (which was also pretty brain dead), dispel dice were heavily restricted (so the L4’s +4 mattered much more) and the way spell generation worked meant taking a L4 practically guaranteed you got the spell you wanted.

I will miss the dice economy tbh, though it was a bit lopsided and the new rules will hopefully make taking a couple of wizards more viable to actually cast spells vs being a scroll caddy.

What will really matter I think is how often you can dispel. If a L4 can make 4 dispel roles then they will be a bit OP, but if they can only dispel once or twice then a couple of L2s becomes really viable IMO and makes interesting choices on which spells you dispel.
It then becomes a casting slot economy rather than a dice economy.


Edit: Also, on taking a L4, as auto, we don’t know what the character slot situation is like yet. If it’s like 6th-7th you only get 1 Lord at 2k, which means either you take a L4 wizard or a General with the best leadership value, which is massive given the new FBIGO rule.

Other than Chaos Dwarfs in 6th, even good Ld armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld10 and most armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld9, or even Ld8 in some cases (or 7 in the case of Skaven).

So it could be you have the difficult decision of a L4 wizard or massively increased staying power for a good chunk of your army (assuming the 12” radius bubble stays).

The issue is a +4 is substantially better than a +1 (or +2 or even +3) on 2d6, greatly increasing your odds of casting or dispelling. In 8th the difference between magic levels was smaller as the larger number of dice cancelled out the bonus to a degree. In 6th and 7th L4s were much better than other wizards, but the difference was slightly less noticable as there were fewer overwhelmingly power spells in those editions.

TOW is shaping up to more like 6th, which is a step backward from the relative parity of 8th. Of course, this analysis could change based on currently unknown factors, but based what we do know L4s are vastly superior to other wizards. If magic is good then you'll be heavily incentivized to take a L4 if you want to be able to cast or dispell.

 alextroy wrote:
The problem with resource management in the Magic Phase often lead to players either taking lots of magic in hopes to overwhelm their opponent with dice or took none knowing that 1 wizard had nearly no ability to do anything at all.

Plus the Magic Phase took lots of time, at times to little effect.

That was not my experience in 8th, when it was (and is, as I frequently still play 8th) possible to take just a L2 and still get a spell through by using six dice. The magic phase was very random, though, so quite often nothing would happen. This seemed broadly balanced to me, as wizards weren't that expensive and you could easily swing a game with the right spell at the right time. The only armies that really suffered from that system were those who relied heavily on magic, such as undead, who could be left high and dry by a couple of bad rolls.

They've gone for low chance of miscast with a weird distribution on the miscast table.

The probabilities go:

2-4 16.66%
5-6 24.99%
7 -- 16.66%
8-9 24.99%
10-12 16.66%

Which means you've got a substantially higher chance to get almost anything but careless conjuration.

I'm not sure what the point is. A 1 in 36 chance is so low as to be negligible yet they've put a really bad outcome there.

That kind of probability generating any additional affect is entirely for flavour and not game play as it won't be something people factor into their casting.

In a 4 round game you would need to cast and dispel 9 times per round to generate a single miscast.

in a 6 round game that reduces to 6 casts and dispel per round.

5 rounds is 7.2 cast/disp per.

On average i would say you'd be lucky to see one miscast all game, from either side.

It becomes a random environmental bomb that may sometimes explode the game, for the sake of flavour.

I think I'd prefer a higher chance to miscast with a lower chance to generate a catastrophic outcome.


Either make it an actual feature of the game or ignore it. far too much effort spent on something that will rarely ever happen.

One detail missing, same as with combat, is if there is a hardcap for bonus or not.

a lvl 4 is mandatory to cast and dispel unless there is a hardcap and a lvl 2 with magic items can reach that cap as well

yet it looks like we are going to see the return of the dispel wizard, were you only take them to counter magic
but this time it will be at least 2 because of range limitation

 Saber wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

L3-4 Wizards have always been much better than L1-2, and not just in raw number of spells.

In 6th-7th, each wizard generated their level in power dice (and half their level in dispel dice) and the number of dice you could use scaled with your level: Max 2 for L1 up to Max 5 for L4, a whole 3 extra dice is much more of a disparity than +3 to cast (though you did have to balance casting more spells vs better spells).

In 8th they also had the +Level to cast/dispel rolls, and while any wizard could throw 6 dice at a spell (which was also pretty brain dead), dispel dice were heavily restricted (so the L4’s +4 mattered much more) and the way spell generation worked meant taking a L4 practically guaranteed you got the spell you wanted.

I will miss the dice economy tbh, though it was a bit lopsided and the new rules will hopefully make taking a couple of wizards more viable to actually cast spells vs being a scroll caddy.

What will really matter I think is how often you can dispel. If a L4 can make 4 dispel roles then they will be a bit OP, but if they can only dispel once or twice then a couple of L2s becomes really viable IMO and makes interesting choices on which spells you dispel.
It then becomes a casting slot economy rather than a dice economy.


Edit: Also, on taking a L4, as auto, we don’t know what the character slot situation is like yet. If it’s like 6th-7th you only get 1 Lord at 2k, which means either you take a L4 wizard or a General with the best leadership value, which is massive given the new FBIGO rule.

Other than Chaos Dwarfs in 6th, even good Ld armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld10 and most armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld9, or even Ld8 in some cases (or 7 in the case of Skaven).

So it could be you have the difficult decision of a L4 wizard or massively increased staying power for a good chunk of your army (assuming the 12” radius bubble stays).

The issue is a +4 is substantially better than a +1 (or +2 or even +3) on 2d6, greatly increasing your odds of casting or dispelling. In 8th the difference between magic levels was smaller as the larger number of dice cancelled out the bonus to a degree. In 6th and 7th L4s were much better than other wizards, but the difference was slightly less noticable as there were fewer overwhelmingly power spells in those editions.

TOW is shaping up to more like 6th, which is a step backward from the relative parity of 8th. Of course, this analysis could change based on currently unknown factors, but based what we do know L4s are vastly superior to other wizards. If magic is good then you'll be heavily incentivized to take a L4 if you want to be able to cast or dispell.

 alextroy wrote:
The problem with resource management in the Magic Phase often lead to players either taking lots of magic in hopes to overwhelm their opponent with dice or took none knowing that 1 wizard had nearly no ability to do anything at all.

Plus the Magic Phase took lots of time, at times to little effect.

That was not my experience in 8th, when it was (and is, as I frequently still play 8th) possible to take just a L2 and still get a spell through by using six dice. The magic phase was very random, though, so quite often nothing would happen. This seemed broadly balanced to me, as wizards weren't that expensive and you could easily swing a game with the right spell at the right time. The only armies that really suffered from that system were those who relied heavily on magic, such as undead, who could be left high and dry by a couple of bad rolls.

I think removing chucking 6 dice at Uber spells and hoping for a IF is a deliberate design intent tbh. Frankly that was one of the worse features of 8th imo. The new system seems much less swingy (other than the miscast table), with somewhat more restrained spells in the vein of 6th-7th and hopefully a more consistent output.

Also, wrt your last sentence - given one of the headliners is TK, not having a system where Undead suffer due to the swinginess of magic is rather sensible!

I wonder if you stop casting if you roll 2-7 on the miscast table...Is the miscast table that swingy? I thought the 8th one was, game was over if your lvl 4 entered the Realm of Chaos and simliarly I hated rolling high and forgetting a spell. This seems a lot more forgiving provided you roll average or high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyone else see Counter Charge on the Unicorn? I assumed that rule would be reserved for Empire Detachments like before but seems like other units beyond State Troops will get it. Interesting...

Finally had a chance to read the article. I'm once again fairly chuffed with how this rule set sounds. They said right at the start that they'd basically crafted this from the best bits of all the editions and added a few new things and fair play, it's exactly that.

Rulebook Magic Lores in the rulebook might simply just be the ones for the pdf factions

So everyone with a full book gets their own and those with pdf are stuck with the core ones

Looking at it with this small info, I kinda wish that the dice bonus was +1 lower wizard and +2 higher wizard, like dispel bonus worked in one of the older editions, and the extra magic level simply added a spell, I think that would make the choice to upgrade much less of a gimme then it has traditionally been.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Anyone else see Counter Charge on the Unicorn? I assumed that rule would be reserved for Empire Detachments like before but seems like other units beyond State Troops will get it. Interesting...

The movement article mentioned counter charge as part of the core movement (charge reaction) rules, so it seemed unlikely it would only apply to one faction.

*Edited

Level 4 wizards? Pah. I always used to take a level 25 wizard!

 Saber wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

L3-4 Wizards have always been much better than L1-2, and not just in raw number of spells.

In 6th-7th, each wizard generated their level in power dice (and half their level in dispel dice) and the number of dice you could use scaled with your level: Max 2 for L1 up to Max 5 for L4, a whole 3 extra dice is much more of a disparity than +3 to cast (though you did have to balance casting more spells vs better spells).

In 8th they also had the +Level to cast/dispel rolls, and while any wizard could throw 6 dice at a spell (which was also pretty brain dead), dispel dice were heavily restricted (so the L4’s +4 mattered much more) and the way spell generation worked meant taking a L4 practically guaranteed you got the spell you wanted.

I will miss the dice economy tbh, though it was a bit lopsided and the new rules will hopefully make taking a couple of wizards more viable to actually cast spells vs being a scroll caddy.

What will really matter I think is how often you can dispel. If a L4 can make 4 dispel roles then they will be a bit OP, but if they can only dispel once or twice then a couple of L2s becomes really viable IMO and makes interesting choices on which spells you dispel.
It then becomes a casting slot economy rather than a dice economy.


Edit: Also, on taking a L4, as auto, we don’t know what the character slot situation is like yet. If it’s like 6th-7th you only get 1 Lord at 2k, which means either you take a L4 wizard or a General with the best leadership value, which is massive given the new FBIGO rule.

Other than Chaos Dwarfs in 6th, even good Ld armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld10 and most armies needed a combat Lord to get Ld9, or even Ld8 in some cases (or 7 in the case of Skaven).

So it could be you have the difficult decision of a L4 wizard or massively increased staying power for a good chunk of your army (assuming the 12” radius bubble stays).

The issue is a +4 is substantially better than a +1 (or +2 or even +3) on 2d6, greatly increasing your odds of casting or dispelling. In 8th the difference between magic levels was smaller as the larger number of dice cancelled out the bonus to a degree. In 6th and 7th L4s were much better than other wizards, but the difference was slightly less noticable as there were fewer overwhelmingly power spells in those editions.

TOW is shaping up to more like 6th, which is a step backward from the relative parity of 8th. Of course, this analysis could change based on currently unknown factors, but based what we do know L4s are vastly superior to other wizards. If magic is good then you'll be heavily incentivized to take a L4 if you want to be able to cast or dispell.

Its not like a level 1 is useless. They still have 24% chance of casting a 7+ while a level 4 is dispelling.

You then also have to factor in coverage of the battlefield and how you can cover more *units* with the magic resistance (presuming that's a caster thing and not a damsel thing).

Two level 1s have certain advantages over a single level 4 so I don't think it's as simple as you make out.

Edit: For example a level 4 casting a 9+ with another level 4 trying to dispel succeeds 54.4% of the time.

A level 4 targeting a unit with a level 1 inside it, with the level 1 trying to dispel succeeds 50% of the time.

Elementalism!!! Wooo!!!

Ive not had an elementalist since 1st ed WHFRP.

Must say, while I'm a bit nonplussed about horus heresy, I'm getting really interested in TOW.

 kodos wrote:
Rulebook Magic Lores in the rulebook might simply just be the ones for the pdf factions

So everyone with a full book gets their own and those with pdf are stuck with the core ones

Hmmm that would make sense if we didn't know Greenskins were a main faction