Being slightly bored, I've decided to write a little (alright, a long) article about magic, in both an attempt to deflate the 'magic is cheesy' sentiment and also to get in a bit of practice for my English exam tomorrow :).

Magic: The Weakest Phase

There is currently a lot of anti-magic sentiment in the air. Famous abuses of the rules such as the Tzeentch Chariot army have obtained a lot of bad press for magic-heavy armies, to such an extent that some organisations penalise magic heavy armies in their composition scores. The purpose of this article is, hopefully, to disprove the claims of 'cheesiness', 'beardiness' or unfairness, and throw open just how weak magic really is.

The Inherent Weaknesses of Magic

Firstly, I'd like to write about the actual power of magic, and in combination with this, about selective memory. First of all, actual power: not many would deny that of the shooting phase and the magic phase, shooting's the more damaging. For sheer long-range destruction, a total gunline is better than 10 levels of magic any day. Now, magic and shooting are the only phases armies ever 'skip', that is to say, the only phases that people sometimes don't invest in at all. So immediately, we have set up that magic is weaker than any other phase, as the only other phase which is sometimes 'skipped' is definitely more powerful.

I'll back this up with a key fact: a spell can only be cast once. Even a magic-heavy army, with around 8 levels of magic (I'm thinking Slann and 2 skink priests @ level 2), will only garner about two or three direct, 'shooting attack' type spells, as well as one or two that might do direct damage in a different way. So really, the best a magic-heavy missile assault can hope for in 2000pts is maybe four ranged attacks. Not so great, compared to what a gunline or 'Enduring Mountain' can pump out. What's more, these attacks will not climb above S4, except in exceptional cases, and will never do more than an average of 7 hits (2D6). Usually, the S4 ones will actually do only 3 or 4 hits (1D6), with 7 hits being limited mainly to S3 attacks. So while, with a large investment (think about it - a Slann and 2 Level 2s) - a respectable amount of firepower can be put out, it's nothing compared to what mundane missile fire can achieve. The only difference is that individual magic attacks tend to do more damage than infantry firepower such as a unit of handguns, and so only the really devastating effects of magic are felt - only the comet that flattens half a unit. This selective memory is common in all parts of our society - exceptional events are remembered. The player will forget the other turns where hardly any worthwhile damage was inflicted, and will not balance it against the cost of the magic power invested, or against the far greater damage his own, steady shooting inflicted on the enemy.

This leads nicely on to my next point. Let's assume that the army above selects from Heavens, and gets a nice row of offensive spells - the Comet, both Thunderbolts and Storm of Cronos. The rest of the spells are non-offensive. Now, to achieve these four attacks, the Lizardman player has invested at least 525pts - over a quarter of the army. That's the price of about three Helblasters and a Bolt Thrower, or, if you'd rather, eight and a bit Salamanders. There is clearly no competition where firepower is concerned.

The final 'inherent weakness' of magic is the fact that it has what I call an additional 'level of achievement', and also limited results. These are what I consider the key aspects of a phase - how easy is it to achieve results, and what results are achieved? A level of achievement is something like rolling to hit, or rolling to save. The levels of achievements for the different phases are thus:

Movement: 1 level of achievement - measure to see if you can march.
Shooting: 3 levels of achievement - to hit/to guess, to wound, to save
Combat: 3 levels of achievement - to hit, to wound, to save.
Magic: 4 levels of achievement - to cast, not to be dispelled, to wound, to save.

Casting and dispelling not only increase the levels of achievement in the phase with the least offensive power, but also have a unique property - regardless of the quality of the caster, they are almost always equally difficult. There are no bonuses to cast simply for being a Level 4 magician, while a similar shooting model might be BS7, making the 'to hit' level almost a surety, or might hit automatically like a Salamander. What is more, casting is the only level of achievement where there is a universal risk of self-destruction - although in some cases misfires can destroy shooting units, those cases are in the minority. Any wizard can smear himself across the battlefield if the dice come up with a double one.

My last point: limited results. Magic and shooting share the characteristic of doing less damage than combat, and being far less able to influence a unit's performance. It is difficult to induce a leadership test via ranged attacks, and no modifiers can be applied to the panic test taken, as in combat. Therefore, with limited firepower and limited results, additional levels of achievement that recieve no bonuses for quality, and extremely poor effectiveness for cost, the magic phase is laden with inherent weaknesses.


Strategic Weaknesses

Magic is extremely weak strategically. I say this because of four undeniable points: predictability, vulnerability, the power of Dispelling, and the opponent's control of the phase.

• Predictability: Your opponent knows your spells. He knows from where your casters can attack, and he knows how much power he has in order to stop you. Therefore, with intelligent forethought, he can work out what you will do and to what degree he can impede you.
• Vulnerability: With the advent of 6th edition, gone are the days of WS10 A7 spellcasters. Although they are usually mobile to a degree, spellcasters are easy to slay and difficult to protect, as many units now exist that are suited perfectly to the assault and destruction of characters. A spellcaster outside a unit is very vulnerable. A spellcaster inside a unit is even more limited in his/her capabilities, and can still be slain by suicide, or hit-and-run attacks. What's more, they are valuable targets, yielding at least 100pts if slain and most likely more. Easily enough of a prize to take a risk on your Ghouls failing their rally roll. The exceptions to this rule (Slann, vampires, Greater Daemons) are, without exception, hideously expensive.
• Dispel power: this is perhaps the greatest strategic weakness of magic. Dispelling power is, in fact, more powerful than casting power - the reason why less dispel dice are recieved than power dice. To demonstrate this irrevocably, I shall compare the Dispel Scroll and the Power Stone - two items of equal points cost.
  
  The Dispel scroll: Automatically dispels a spell
  
  The Power stone: Adds two dice to a spell. May not cause IF, can cause a Miscast.
  
  Now, at 25pts each, these items are parallels. Why, then, does the Power Stone not automatically cast a chosen spell? Instead, it adds an unreliable number to a spell's casting value, and, while depriving the user of Irresistable force, can still blow the unfortunate mage seven ways from Sunday. Clearly the Scroll is far more cost-effective. Another example is the way that, when casting, double one heralds possible death, impending explosions or pending brain damage, while a double one to dispel is a mere automatic failure. Yet another example: a mere skink priest with the BS of the Old Ones and the Cube of Darkness is capable of shutting down a magic phase of an infinitely powerful magic army completely, with very little chance of failure.
  
  The power of Dispelling is because of the fact that Dispel items dispel regardless to the power of the spell or the user, and also because, as army books progress, more and more dispel items have become available. Another weakness of casting against dispelling is the way that the opponent chooses how he will dispel after seeing your roll to cast, so has no need to waste dice on an irresistable force or against a failed spell or miscast, whereas the caster may roll his dice and then find that the dispeller rolls four sixes. The unpredictability of magic acts as a huge advantage to the dispeller - which brings me onto my third point.
• Opponent control: In every other phase, control belongs to you! The aggressor! The user! The charger has control of the combat, the fighter has control of who he attacks, the marksman has control of who he targets, and the opponent does not get a look-in. In the magic phase, control is mostly given to your opponent and to your dice rolls, as your opponent knows your spells and probably has a rough idea of which ones you're going to cast. Therefore your opponent has mastery - he can save his dispel power for the important spells and let unimportant ones through, he can save his disproportionately powerful dispel items for the spells he needs them against, where as you must soldier on, always making the obvious first move. This situation is rather like engaging in a combat, declaring the magic items of your characters involved and who they will attack, and then giving your opponent the ability to switch all his models around, reveal his magic items after you and choose who he will attack, depriving you of your original attack plan.

So, in conclusion - magic is both intrinsically and strategically weak, weaker than any other phase. It can be abused, as can any other phase, but it must be accepted that magic-heavy armies are perfectly viable, and that those who cry 'cheese' because have difficulty defeating them clearly have difficulty in accepting their actual level of skill at the game. If anything, credit should be given to those who use magic-heavy armies (without abusing the rules) - they have taken on a very challenging task!

While I partly concur with the verable LordChilipepa, I'd like to add a few 'special cases' and thoughts of my own:

- Bound spells are spells cast automatically, adding to the need to dispel, while not eating up your power dice, and they can't cause miscasts.

- Tomb kings never fail their magic, and have lots of it.

- The only race that can kill itself with a single miscast are the greenskins. The normal miscast table only causes one wound (in the worst possible case). Not to mention that almost every race has an item to prevent miscasts.

- The potential damage of magic is huge, even if it isn't direct damage. All the non-direct damage spells such as the second sign will still power up your other phases or spells. Not to mention that a spell such as dominion, which can prevent movement, can be a lot more devastating then D6 S4 hits. Not to mention spells that hit every model in a unit such as flames of the phoenix - only a hellblaster could come close in achieving similar results on big units.

Magic isn't just about blasting the enemy to bits, it's about setting him up for devastation in combination with your other phases.


- The only way to defend against certain spells is by taking anti magic. Since a lot of players choose to forego this phase totally, the magic-heavy opponent's magic phase will become exponentially more effective. This is also why everybody will cry cheese at magic heavy armies: they'll take the risk of not taking anti-magic and will then complain bitterly about meeting a magic-heavy opponent.



In the end though, I agree that magic heavy armies aren't cheesier then other armies. They exploit a phase that a lot of poeple will sacrifice in favour of more units/combat characters. This, combined with selective memory, means that only the terrible 'irresistible-force-flames-of-the-phoenix-on-my-100-strong-stormvermin-regiment-causing-60-casualties' will be remembered, while the miscasts and failed attempts will go conveniently unmentioned.

The magic phase isn't cheesier then any other phase, but I don't feel it is the
weakest phase however.

For those of you looking for cheese: a garrisson force of the druchii can include eight rbts in 2000 points ;) .

well written but wrong.

While some things are right, Such as remembering the one time your magic does a ton a damege, The same can be said of shooting and combat.

the one time my catapult killed six knights of the white wolf are remembered while the previous 5 turns of fire where I all I hit was trees are ignored.



Skaven magic heavy armies can pump out so many warp lightnings its not funny.
Tomb kings, Can be almost impossible to stop if they really really want to get a incantaion off, And there magic is devastating in another way to direct Damage magic.

As far as Im concerned magic is no more powerful but no less weak than any other phase of the game.

It is certainly not the weakest phase of the game.

Im too tired to write a really well written counter argument so this will have to do.

Ah, but what's the way to defend against shooting? Or combat? There isn't one! It's true that you can sometimes take always-strikes first characters, but when a Helblaster opens up or the Chaos Knights charge, you can't roll dice and stop them. This is my main point.

I agree with you that many whiners are people who've taken a gamble on low magic defence and lost, but I feel that they have absolutely no grounds - they should, by this logic, complain about the game being broken because they have no way of 'dispelling' combat or missile attacks.

That's a really good point, and I'd just like to say that when Rasputin started TK, I really noticed this - the reason? His magic was doing the kind of damage that equal amounts invested in other phases might do. This was new to me. While more limited in its flexibility and straight-out damage compared to normal magic, TK magic gets every point's worth out of what you pay. The lack of flexibility is what GW put in there to keep TK magic no stronger than the other phases.

That's certainly true, but they still don't compare to the mighty Dispel Scroll, as they are extremely easy to stop - much easier than a normal spell.



On potential damage - I couldn't agree with you more. Magic's role is not only to blast the enemy, but also to use other forms of attack, using every phase's kind of assault. This is, IMO, why magic, expensive as it is, is still just about worth taking - it's so flexible.

However, it doesn't matter how much you power-up your spells, you still can't do more than what your one-cast-a-turn spells can manage. There are no spells that increase the damage of other spells. And, while Unseen Lurker or the Invocation of whatever it is are good, fast cavalry and magic banners can achieve the same situations for less points.

And on exceptional cases like Flames of the Phoenix - well, as in my original post, your opponent knows spells like that are coming, and will be waiting to stop it. Therefore you need a high-level wizard for any decent chance of casting a spell like that, and for the cost of a decent Archmage you could get two Helblasters, which I think you will agree will do even more damage.



To Kingphesphestus: I'm not sure how you've interpreted my article, but I'm not really trying to say magic is weak to the point of not being worth taking. I'm just saying the other phases are stronger: everyone knows combat wins the game 9 times out of 10, I've demonstrated in many examples how shooting of equal points can reap a far bloodier harvest, and movement is perhaps the most important phase in setting up the right combats to win the game - as well as who charges in what position, the movement phase does actually possess some weapons of its own, such as impact hits, fanatics, bouncing squigs, Doomseekers, etc.

On selective memory in other phases - I'd agree on warmachines, but not on other forms of shooting, because those forms really are reliable, and inflict constant damage. The same goes for combat - CR means that every combat is important and remembered. Selective memory appears at its worst when magic is involved because a great effect will inevitably be tied to good dice rolls (bah - you only won because you got lucky), whereas in the other phases (combat especially) the inherent strengths of the unit, positioning, strategy and CR play a greater part.

Very strong post LordChilipepa!

The part I like the most is the levels of achievement. As you explained, there are just to many levels that must be overcome to get a spell off. I have started to really look at parts of the game where the dice rolls weigh too heavily on the outcome of the event with a wary eye. I also don't like parts that can actually hurt my own army or take something out of the game even temporarily (i.e. miscasts, mis-fires).

I'd rather put my faith in things that consistently work, like a RBT, or a unit of Silver Helms on the charge with a Prince leading the way. Sure, bad to-hit rolls can hurt you, but at least I don't have to worry about my RBT blowing up or my horses tripping and falling along the way :lol:

I disagree on this point. While you can't dispel a crossbow (well, lore of metal can actually), you can portect against it. A unit of missile troops will have much lower mobility then a wizard, who can stay near or in troops to prevent the enemy shooting him. Therefore, defense against shooting is more easily achieved thanks to positioning, armour (this protects against most spells too, but some spells ignore armour altogether), and use of screening units.

Along ,the same lines, the movement phase is there to either get you into combat or to keep you out of combat.

While it's true magic has an additional way of being stopped, this is only logical due to it's greater effects! If anything, I'd consider the magic phase less reliable, not less efficient.

A scroll will only stop a bound spell once... I believe a scroll requires more consideration to use because it's one-use-only, which allows for mistakes made on deciding when to use it. It's true that it's very good value for it's points though, no argument there. Then again, since only wizards can use it. A scroll caddy will still be pretty expensive in most armies, thus partly negating the low cost of the scroll. And bound spells at level four can still force a dispell on two dice, which is quite all right in my book. even a single dispel die less helps out a lot, since most magic light armies (except dwarfs) will only be having 3-4 dispell dice at their disposal.

Which is exactly why magic and shooting are very hard to compare. The sole goal of shooting is killing enemies and forcing panic tests, while the magic phase has plenty of other options - and is therefore less destructive.

true, but your opponent can't stop every spell. And some stuff such as an additional charge can't be achieved with fast cav. It can be achieved even better however, in combination with fast cav. I think the key to considering the efficiency of the magic phase is to look beyond the magic phase, and to consider the general advantages that magic will have gotten you.

Items that allow additional casting dice to be used are fairly common. And besides, if my opponent has to make tough choices on what to dispell, he'll have to let something through. Then there's always the chance of irresistible force, forcing through a spell.

On the hellblaster note: I could of course combine my wizard lord with two hellblasters - they take up different slots after all. Also, the one thing less reliable then wizards may very well be the hellblaster (OK, skaven are less reliable :P ), and it's easier to get rid off too. Still there again it's the all-round support vs shooty support issue again. My wizard could for example cast second sign to prevent any nasty misfires happening to the hellblaster.


So, in the end, I agree that magic is less destructive then the shooting and the close combat phase, but I disagree on it being a less powerful phase then the other three.

OT: finally something less mind-numbing then exams. thanks Chili! B)

I didn't misinterpret your post, Your saying that of the omportant phases the weaest is magic, not that its worthless just weaker.

I Am simply saying that it is my experience that magic is not that much stronger or weaker than the other phases.

Shooting is not that much more effective.

Edit to include maelduins post.

That is my Thinking exactly.

Magic When viewed from the selective memory angle seems to strong.
Mgic when viewd in the how much damage how reliable ect seems to weak.

When you view it as not just a another shooting phase and more of the support phase its just right.

Almost every lore has a spell that is aimed at helping the army rather than hurting the enemy, and often its these spells that are ignored that can do the most damage.
Sure the damage isn't done in Straight away but it is still directly linked to what happened in the magic phase.

I mostly agree with Chili here; as a set of mechanics, magic is a lot less powerful than any of the other phases. In most cases, it will be less effective than a lot of shooting, or maxed combat, and I don't think anyone will argue that.

The thing is, there are some armies, or lores, or items that get around it, and those are the things that, in my opinion, lead to cries about the phase being too powerful. The best example, I think, is the Staff of Change. When you reroll any number of dice, having to cast is a lot less difficult, and it's easy to get casting rolls that are higher than most armies can deal with. It pushes up the average casting rolls, gets rid of miscasts almost entirely, and still gives you points to spend on defenses.

Tomb Kings are another example. I wouldn't say they're overpowered, but they're a lot more reliable, and their magic is, as Chili said, on par with other phases. Same with the Slaanesh lore; most of the spells are really good, making the investment of points into mages well worthwhile in most games. When you lose control of your most important unit, even if it's only for a couple of turns, it's easy to decide that the magic is too good.

Summary: In most cases magic is weaker than the other phases, but when it's equal, it's easy to overestimate the effect it had.

The High Elf player's perspective :). Over 50% of Bound Items are one-use-only, and many armies have no multiple-use Bound Items whatsoever.


On the rest of your post - great points, but on the support idea - I'd just like to say I can think of only seven worthwhile alternative support spells:
Curse of Arrow Attraction
Fortune is Fickle
Unseen Lurker
the Waagh spell that makes a free move towards the enemy.
Dominion
(Note: I have discounted Undead armies' spells, namely because with both Undead armies the magic phase becomes more powerful and more reliable - since these armies are built on magic. This essay is talking about general magic - stuff that's pretty much the same as the BRB lores).

Now, of all the spells available, that's not a great proportion. All the other support spells are really only useful in specific situations, which half the time you're not going to be able to know about in the appropriate magic phase and all the time your opponent's going to know about the usefulness of the spell in the context and try and dispel it, using the control of your phase that I talked about in the original post. Combined with the random spell selection (before you say it, there are no equivalents of the Seer honour in other races that I am aware of), that makes it somewhat difficult to perform the support role of magic with an effect proportional to the points spent - which is the reason my argument mainly centred on offensive magic, as the most reliable and cost-effective feature of the magic phase (the prevalence of these spells means that you're almost certain to get a few, and they do good damage).

Leading nicely on to my second point...

As I said, a fair number of your spells won't be useful on any one turn. The way that a well thought-out dispel strategy can cripple a far superior opponent's magic is by only letting the useless spells through.

Finally, I'd just like to give a quote of Vriishnak's that fairly sums up most of my argument:

Exactly. More predictable, easier to negate, less damaging. The reason it's still a viable choice is that it's the only phase with the ability do inflict combat, movement and shooting assault all in one, giving it flexibility; but it's still weaker.

Ah, Chili, good friend, I agree with very little of your views in your first post.

The bit about magic being weaker than shooting is largely biased. Sure, Empire have really good artillery, Lizardmen have their salamanders, but some armies can't go so strong with shooting like they can.
Dark/High Elves have longbows, which tend to do less damage than any magic missile I've used. In fact, without magic to help them along, the archers and reavers, etc. wouldn't do nearly as much as they do without it.

In your example, you use 525 points of magic users, which could be used for a lot of artillery. Did you forget the non-offensive spells? What were they? Artillery doesn't have non-offensive abilities like those spells probably did.

You say the opponent can predict what spells you have by where your mages are...then I reply that you are too predictable. If it really gets to the point where the opponent can do that, then move your mages. Go from a new angle, or use some different spells. Reassign a few targets if you must.
Also, about combat, it's not usually too hard to predict where combat is going to occur either. That predictability isn't mentioned. It exists, and I'd say it's just as bad.

Very minor note: If power stones made spells auto-cast, we'd have auto-comets.


In a conclusion of my own: Magic is not essential (neither is shooting for that matter), but it's only as weak as you let it be. Those non-offensive spells can be very important in bolstering the other phases, including the all-important combat.

Well, actually, artillery can be used to force the enemy to move in certain ways for fear of flaming anhiilation. So, basically, that's a toned-down Dominion that always casts and affects multiple units.

But they also have RBTs. For 100pts, I can get a Level 2 Skink Priest with no equipment, or an RBT. I'd take the RBT every time.

Well, actually, with fast cavalry, in fact any cavalry, and high-movement troops, and skirmishers, and flyers, and flying monsters, and lone characters, and pegasus-rider types, and skaven infantry, and elven infantry, and monsters with a high ground movement, that's patently untrue. And even Dwarves can do about one unit-changeover in the course of an advance.

However, I think you've possibly got the wrong end of the stick on my predictability point. It's not about moving the wizards - it's about the fact that your spells, unlike shooting or combat, have very few outlets - usually three individual models at a maximum. Therefore he knows what's coming from where, and can position his troops accordingly, whereas with shooting or combat there's an almost infinite number of combinations and variations, due to the far higher number of models and units that are shooting/attacking.

Empire has the doomfire ring, greenskins have the 'itty ring thingy, dark elves got the wand of the kharaidron...And isn't the book of Arkhan or whatever it's called a bound spell too? I think there are quite a few scattered over all the armies actually...

Let's just add a few to your original seven (I'll even stick to just the eight basic lores):

- Fire: wall of fire
- Metal: all except rule of burning iron and distillation of molten silver
- Shadow: pelt of midnight, shades of death, are both very good too...
- Beasts: all except the crow's feast
- Heavens: second sign, portent of far (circumstantial but very effective)
- Light: dazzling brightness, healing hand (anywhere on the tabletop!!!), guardian light, blinding light
- Life: mistress of the marsh, howler wind, rain lord (try that vs a hellblaster ;) )
- Death: death dealer, doom and darkness

Twenty-three total! Plus the unseen lurker, that makes twentyfour.

the direct damage spells of the eight lores number twenty-one, so there are actually more support spells then direct damage spells. For the math specialists: I left spells such as the bear's anger and sword of Rhuin out of the equation due to very limited use.

That's twenty-three spells that are all very useful. In fact, there are more support spells then direct damage spells, which only strenghtens my conviction that you can't compare the magic and shooting phase in efficiency by comparing damage potential. Imagine a lore including a hellblaster spell on top of all the other advantages!

And I do firmyly believe that most of these spells can be planned for in the magic phase, thus giving considerable advantages to your army as a whole.

Only if you're casting useless spells :) . I rarely take seers with my high mages, but all my spells will usually have a considerable effect on the battle, making my opponent very unsure as to what to dispel.

That's a bit of a contradiction there, saying the magic phase has so many options and is still predictable. ;)

You mean the shooting phase isn't predictable? I actually think the magic phase is the hardest phase to plan for together with the movement phase. Each phase affects the next phases, so I'd easily grade shooting and combat as phases that are a lot easier on their own then the magic phase. The simple fact that you have so many options in the magic phase is great; it also means, however, that you have to be very adaptable about your mage's role. I think therein lies the problem: if you consider a mage as mobile artillery, you're wasting over fifiy per cent of your magical capabilities!

Yes, you only have three, but with a huge range and a decent view - if there are any targeting restrictions at all! Let's not forget that it's only magic missiles that severely restrict your options. Also, terrain will funnel attacks and shooting, which makes it easier to predict where the enemy will strike, and any enemy worth his salt will reduce your options in any way he can too, making it even more difficult to have huge choice of targets..




The magic phase is not as directly destructive as the shooting phase. If it was, it would be truly overpowered , so I don't really think that's a bad thing. It's just that you pay for the all-round support for your army and for the magical defense, something that doesn't easily translate in 'x points destroyed' due to its supportive nature. I may be wrong about this, but isn't part of the problem that you're focusing too much on direct damage spells?

Theres double doin doo dahs as well, But I think chillis was saying that most of these are one use or exhaust them selves.

I Have to say That with the exception of war machines it will take many more points comparably to get the same ammount of damage.

War machines can do a great deal more but the most powerful of these will misfire.

Also Getting rid of shooting is relativley easy as most armies have at least one unit that can get them quickly, tunnelers, Flyers, miners.

As for Predictability With the exception of Tomb kings most armies magic phase's are not very predictable at all.

In short I agree with Maelduin

*Looks at Maelduin's list - reaches for the BRB*

I hereby set out to prove that most of Maelduin's listed spells are not universally useful, but rather fit into this category:

- Fire: wall of fire

Decent. I admit this is generally useful, and an oversight on my part not mentioning it. However, it's Remains in Play and a 12+, so to cast it and maintain it you need a Lord level mage who's not going to cast any spells until you're done with it. A minor point, but one which I think holds true.

- Metal: all except rule of burning iron and distillation of molten silver

Commandment of Brass - with a low casting value, and a very specific use, this one's just not going to be cast!

Transmutation of Lead - ok, this one's an oversight on my part. Pretty useful.

Law of Gold - what a waste. Your opponent will always nominate his cheapest item, and since this is only going to be cast where it has a strategic effect, it's going to be dispelled. Plus this spell has an extra level of achievement in comparison to other spells of its kind.

Bane of Forged Steel - again, too specific. When it's worth casting, it's worth even more to your opponent to dispel it, and this is the most memorable spell so they will know it's coming and will save a scroll for it. Plus it can really only be cast in the final turns of the game.

- Shadow: pelt of midnight, shades of death, are both very good too...

Pelt of Midnight: no, no, no. The worst spell in the game, because the enemy has 2 dispel attempts (Remains in Play) before it comes around to their shooting phase. They'll do this if the target's the only thing worth shooting, or they vitally need to damage it, but otherwise they'll target another important unit and your spell will be wasted.

Shades of Death: Too specific. You'll use it when you're outnumbered by Undead or when you really need an edge, and that's just when your opponent will dispel it. Again, it's Remains in Play, making it very easy to dispel. In other situations, it's not worth the dice due to Space Marine syndrome - there are too many high-Ld units around!

- Beasts: all except the crow's feast

Oxen Stands - a alight oversight from me, here. However, this is a back-up spell - there shouldn't really be units fleeing that don't have a decent chance of rallying!

The Eagle's Cry: Well, -1 M isn't a big thing on cavalry, chariots or monsters, as they can afford it, and is useless against swarms because they tend to have M5 and are only tarpits anyhow. ALL these units invariably have a very high leadership. Finally, if this is cast in any important situation (i.e. a cavalry standoff) your opponent's going to recognise it as important and dispel it, and in other situations it's not going to be worth dispelling.

Bear's Anger: all these spells are bloody useless. Who'd put a wizard in cc?

The Beast Cowers: This can be cast about once or twice a game. On cavalry. In your turn. So this is cast after those cavalry have charged, probably wrecking and breaking your unit in round 1, and only affects the mounts.

The Wolf Hunts: If you're jammy, and in the right situation, cast it, by all means. With a 2D6" move that means that if you were in charge range at the end of the movement phase you will most likely not end up in combat, and take a charge instead of charging (so a waste of p.d.) and if you use it to help move your battle-line, one unit going a random distance forwards isn't exactly going to help your co-ordination, or help you against fast, flanking troops.

- Heavens: second sign, portent of far (circumstantial but very effective)

Second Sign I didn't mention because of my experience with it - you can cast it turn after turn, the re-rolls will only be necessary in maybe one turn and then you may forget them anyway. The only thing it's good at is soaking dispel dice because of its reputation, and experienced players soon stop trying to dispel it.

Portent of Far - I never get this one off. Always roll it, always curse my luck, because you can only cast the spell once (curses) and so you will cast it on the combat where you need it the most, and therefore your enemy WILL stop you. By the time your troops reach combat, this and the Second Sign are really the only castable spells in Heavens, so you don't have a chocolate kettle's chance in hell og getting this off.

- Light: dazzling brightness,

Good on paper, but the blinding only applies for one turn so you can only apply it to protracted combats or troops who have taken a charge so will probably die anyway, you can only cast it when half your spells are out of use due to the armies engaging, and, with a low casting value and specific use, it's easy enough to identify where it's important and dispel it with ease.

healing hand (anywhere on the tabletop!!!)

Whoops. Yes, I agree, that can be used with great effect.

, guardian light,

Only useful if your army's routing - in which case the opponent will definitely pull a scroll - or if your opponent is an undead army, i.e. if you are facing an army which you have a 2/13 probability of facing. Going back to if your army's routing - that meant your army routed in the opponent's turn, which to me heralds a superior combat charge, a.k.a. heavy cavalry, fast monsters, etc. So there's a good chance your troops will already have been run down.

blinding light

Well, since there are so few other useful Light spells when you're at a range, your opponent has all his dispel dice to focus on this one spell.

- Life: mistress of the marsh,

As with most of the lore of life, you just have to read the range to get a good measure of this spell. Much too specific. Completely inflexible.

howler wind,

I admit that one.

rain lord (try that vs a hellblaster )

This spell is only useful v. blackpowder armies. Let's count them. One... two. Out of thirteen. Other firepower will just laugh, as it relies more on multiple units and will still fire 50% of the time. Did I mention that this spell also has a range equal to that of most missile fire and requires LOS, so your mage is sitting right... where... they... can... shoot... him... *splat*

- Death: death dealer, doom and darkness

Death Dealer - yes, true.

D&D - this spell is too difficult to pull off, and too important, and useful in specific situations only. Cast it at the beginning of the game and your opponent will let it go, and it will wear off harmlessly. Cast it when it matters and out comes either about five Dispel dice or a scroll.


So, of twenty three, we count 7+5=12. So almost exactly 50% of these spells are near-useless in most situations.

I'd just like to add as a final disclaimer that if this post seems agressive, I claim an excuse - I just had to write an argument against the educations system in an English paper, so I'm in that kind of mood :).

Chilli, an awful lot of the awesome spells out there you are just dismissing because "your opponent WILL stop it". This is a bit over the top. How many armies do you know that have more dispel dice than power dice? (dont say khorne or dwarves, they're designed for magic defense) Your opponent cant chuck 5 dispel dice or a scroll at every single one of your spells, but you seem to think they can. When reading your last post I got the impression your opponent must have about 20 dispel dice a turn, and 8 scrolls or something.

Your argument that a dispel scroll is better than a power stone is a bit moot. They perform different functions, and you know perfectly well you can't have an item for 25pts that automatically cast a spell. One thing you have to remember. How many power dice does a level 2 wizard (most common wizard in the game) generate? How many dispel dice does he generate?

I agree with some of your points, but sometimes you don't give spells enough credit. The wolf hunts is one of the best spells in the game, and you say you have to be jammy to use it?

When I said that, I meant your opponent will identify it as the main threat from your magic phase and commit all necessary reserves to prevent it being cast - as I said originally, he's got control over which of your spells get through. Even if he's only got enoigh dispel power to reliably stop one spell a turn, on a turn when a spell like that is useful, it's very useful, so he stops it - because it's almost a surety that no other spell in that turn will give you such an advantage, and he can probably afford to take a couple of magic missile hits. I've played a Slann-led army for years, and the only way this problem has ever been overcome is by luck - my opponent rolling low, or irresistable force rolls on my part.

As for Dispel Scrolls vs. Power Stones - I would say they perform pretty much the same function for either side of the phase - a one-off boost. The contrast between the power of dispel and the power of casting is clearly shown in the difference in these two items - which is why you have less d.d. than p.d.! What I was trying to illustrate that even with 5 dispel dice to 9 power dice, your opponent still has a surprising amount of resistance to and control of your magic.

Wolf Hunts - perhaps I'm overly cautious, but I just don't like random movement, because when those things are most useful is when trying to fit in a sneaky charge, and random movement doesn't cut it - I don't want my Saurii to shuffle 2" forwards and take the Black Orc charge. Unseen Lurker any day, for the same casting value!

Movement spells are game winners. It's not the distance you move, it's the fact that you can charge with it in the magic phase. That unit bearing down on your flank wont be laughing so much when you march round to face their flank in your movement, then get magically propelled into them. (surely you should know the power of the banner of huanchi? Even better though as no dispel chance)

Perhaps your opponent does dispel it, I personally make sure to have a lot of threats in the magic phase. When I cast the wolf hunts, it will be in the same phase as rain lord on that hellblaster, and as Doom and darkness on those chosen next to my terror causing griffon. That way my opponent has to decide what to dispel.

you were saying that a dispel scroll is better than a stone, for the same points, showing that defense is better than offense. There i was showing that you get more power dice than DD, as a counter.

Ok then...breaking out the book again - preparing for long post :D

1) You're already admitting that 12 spells have a use, so I won't go into those.

2) the spells you rejected:

- wall of fire: granted it's a RiP, but your mage can dispell it at the end of the opposing magic phase (provided your opponent didn't dispel it using power dice), allowing your unit to charge in in their movement phase. It gives you a whole turn to respond to an enemy unit, which should allow for a lot of nasty suprises when the delayed unit arrives (if it arrives at all after an adiditonal round of shooting).

- Law of gold: not many people will carry even three magic items, and lords usually carry two items of around fifty points over here. I can live with taking one of those out...

- Bane of forged steel can be cast as soon as you're getting into combat, and it lasts the whole battle. At worst, this is one of those 'must dispell' spells that will eat up your opponent's dice. At best, it'll wreck those greatswords.

- Pelt of midnight: a low level spell that has to be dispelled? I kinda like that, since I'll be having more power dice then my opponent has dispell dice... Not to mention that any power dice used to dispel won't be used against me.

- Shades of death: a skeleton costs 8 points for causing fear and barely being able to free itself from a wet paper bag, and you dislike this spell? Try casting it on a heavy cav unit, or on a war machine threatened by gutter runners...As above, the second attempt to dispel eats up power dice, and on 8+ it's a very affordable spell. And it does have uses against undead, since it'll make your troops immune to fear and less suceptible to terror...

- The oxen stands: granted, less generally useful

- The eagle's cry: another must-dispel at casting level 6? Bring'em on B) .

- The bear's anger: granted, not generally useful

- The beast cowers: this can also be cast after you have charged. And we all know that the beast are more dangerous then the riders :D .

- The wolf hunts: combine this with fast cav on flank. You could be flanking in the first turn of the game!

- Second sign: you mean you don't like to reroll misfires? And about forgetting it: that's not a flaw of the spell now, is it? ;)

- Portent of far: you shouldn't be counting on this, but it surely helps. Not only that, it's yet another 'must dispel' draining away dispell dice or scrolls.

- Dazzling brightness: again, since magic comes after movement, you can cast this on the turn you charge.

- Guardian light: this spell also makes you immune to panic, not just fear. Oh, and it also helps against stupidity - too bad dark elves can't take this lore :lol: . The simple fact that it makes troops immune to psychology is great, and it always comes in useful.

- Blinding light: Ok it's the only long range spell in this lore, but you can combine lores, and halving movement pretty much rocks.

- Mstress of the marsh: I'll grant you this one because of the very short range and the fact that it's circumstantial.

- The rain lord: useful against any shooty army, since it halves the firepower of non-blackpowder armies. Not to mention what this would do to a Nuln artillery train...And wizards can be protected from shooting now, can't they?

- Doom and darkness: this spell can actually remain in play for two turns without being a RiP spell, so I still consider it quite useful...Not to mention that if your opponent uses 5 dispell dice he'll increase his chance to fail and he'll probably have wasted all his dice too...

I still believe you limit your view of magic too much to just the magic phase instead of considering the whole turn here.

Concerning magic missiles and missile fire: are they always useful? After all, that the credit that you're setting for all the spells here.

And if power stones and dispell scrolls were equal, magic-light armies wouldn't stand a chance due to their reduced number of dispell dice. Now, a scroll caddy (in 2000 points) will usually be able of stopping one spell per turn and will carry two dispell scrolls... I'm bound to have at least two decent spells per turn with two lvl 2 wizards and the two standard power dice. hence, those scrolls won't last past turn 2. And this is with only two wizards, not going magic heavy and not taking into account bound items...

And your post didn't seem agressive at all -well, no more then my posts anyway :) . I just like a good discussion (not to mention the fact that I'm right of course :lol: ), and I wish you succes on the English paper!

That's a decent point, apart from the fact that this seems to rely on a unit which is geared up for a charge having Wall of Fire cast on it successfully (12+), and Wall of Fire not being dispelled. At this point in the game, fewer of the Fire spells are going to be useful as quite a few units will be engaged, so your opponent will have the resources.

But the opponent can equally choose to knock out his War Banner, or, if he's a HE, whatever gubbins he's got on his champ. My lords generally have 3 items, anyway, and I don't think that's uncommon. Also, two items of around fifty points I feel is inaccurate - when I carry two items, it's more of a 50pt and a 20-30pt Ward Save or some such thing. Basically, this spell only works in an extremely specific circumstance (so you've really probably only got one chance to cast it - if it's useful at all) and then when you finally get it off all the control is in the hands of the enemy. I'll even follow your example - there's a Black Orc with a +2 attacks weapon and the boots that do a KB S5 hit. He's charging your Swordmasters. You cast it. Everything goes well. He decides to lose the boots. You still die horribly.

But then what other spells have you got to use after his dispel dice have been soaked? Magic missiles on units in combat? The other, ranged spells of the Lore of Metal? As I think I said before, if it's important (Greatswords), then your opponent will save his resources that phase to stop it, letting your less damaging spells through; if it's unimportant (say... Savage Orcs) he can let it pass and barely suffer for it.

The point I was making was rather that it was easy to dispel. Unless the target is truly vital, this is definitely not a must-dispel spell, and your opponent isn't even forced to use dispel dice, as he can use a couple of power dice in his own turn to make it vanish (He only needs to get 6 or more...)

Huh - I've tried! My double-marked Saurii! Basically, if it's a hefty unit and it's charging, you've got a good chance of breaking your enemy anyway. Stopping people getting at your warmachines only applies to the few armies that actually use warmachines and are liable to leave them unprotected, and also only applies to war-machine hunters with low Ld. So that's an extremely specific situation. If you're fighting Undead (again, specifics) your opponent will swarm you, then dispel it in his power phase and break you in his combat phase.

Ummm - even if you had Daemonette cavalry, you could only manage a frontal charge (20" move, 24" distance...)

Bah! I sneer superciliously at this arguments, for the number of armies with misfire weapons and the Lore of Heavens can be counted on one finger...

No, no, no! The whole point of a dispel-drainer is that it's a spell that you don't mind failing! If you're actually in a situation where your opponent's going to dispel the Portent, you're also in a situation where you should be trying to get it to work!

Perhaps. I'm not in a position to give an unbiased opinion, but I long ago stopped buying the Spawning of Tlazcotl because of Space Marine Syndrome.

Well, I can, because I'm a Slann. No-one else can. Plus, you combine lores, you have a far decreased chance of getting the spell in the first place!

Correction - halves the firepower of one unit. A massive difference. Plus, your Nuln artillery train does happen to be an appendix list - how specific do you get?

Or he pulls a scroll. On the two turns - good point, point taken.

And now, on to Xarhain...

This is even better than the re-rolling misfires comment - *cackles manically*.

Point 1: You have a Lord on Griffon. That's 2 character slots taken. 2 left...

Point 2: You have three lores.

So if you have a lord on griffon with the thingy that makes him a wizard (which I thought you only took to give him the Sword of Rhuin anyway) you have this situation: you are trying to cast 3 high level spells. 2 you must rely on a 1/3 chance of getting in the first place, the other must be cast by a level 1 magician. The other two must be cast by level twos, and you have a total of 7 power dice to split between the three spells. Not to mention the way that you have invested an inordinate amount of points in this line-up, and also the fact that perhaps you're playing an army without a Helblaster such as Lizardmen, and the Rain Lord is useless, and Doom and Darkness is cast but due to Cold Blooded the Saurii are still effectively Ld7, and the Wolf Hunts is dispelled...

I hate the banner of Huanchi with all my soul (and the ones I've stolen, too). It is unpredictable, only uses 1 dice, requires an incredible amount of forethought to use, and is one-use-only. One of the one times I lost a Slann was when I risked him and his TG on a roll of the Banner of Huanchi, trying to charge and break a block of skaven - instead they rolled a 3, failed the charge and were swamped, broken and run down.

The Banner of Huanchi should be shredded and burnt, and replaced with something we can use! Like I said before, if on average you're going to get less than your charge range, it's a big risk. If you cannot achieve more than your charge range, it's an insane risk.

That was a hypathetical situation (and griffons dont take hero slots). I was just pointing out that If I have more than one thretening spell a turn you're not gonna be able to stop them all. And besides I do not have 7 power dice, I have 9-11 power dice along with 2 bound spells which are lethal if allowed to pass. Good luck stopping that each phase with 5 dice and a few scrolls.

Yes you are right I take the flaming sword with my prince, and I am flattered you remembered! ^_^

Once again you are misinterpreting the value of the banner of hunachi, or movement spells. You know that you have to have LoS to charge, so your opponent can protect himself from your charges to an extent. In your movement phase you move your unit to face an enemy units flank, which normally would be useless cos then it would be their turn etc. etc. But if in your magic phase you could propel yourself just an inch forward.... Which you can with these spells.

Movement spells are the best spells in the game, and the huanchi banner is better, because it cant be dispelled.

If you look at the maths per point. You will see that magic is just as effective if used properly.

This doesn't change the fact that it was practically impossible, therefore adding nothing to your argument.

So I'm moving my unit around an enemy unit's flank, close enough to ensure that my BoH isn't going to leave me stranded with an average or less-than-average roll... how exactly am I going to do this, since to pull off this manouvre I must surely be within 8" of the enemy and therefore unable to march...

I'll continue the maths for you, shall I?

12 power dice - that's, let's see, 3 Level 2s (working with Lizardmen, 300pts) and a Slann (325pts), so a mere 625pts! Now, 12 combat attacks - 6 Saurii, as you might say - at 72pts. Heck - why not 12 slaves, at 24pts? Working on the Saurus ratio, the points values mean that for 12 magic dice, you actually get 104 combat dice. Working on the skaven ratio (which you seem to be doing, since you're wounding on 4s) we get 313 combat dice for 12 magic dice.

The whole point I'm making here chili, is that there will never be only one dangerous spell being cast each turn. if you choose your targets wisely and have a decent amount of magic, you'll be pulling of two at least, more likely three. If going magic heavy, make that anywhere between 3-5 in 2000 points games.

I won't respond to every single spell becasue it's getting us off track ( and you're reacting to my examples as if they were the only possible cases these spells were useful :wacko: ), the main point is that I feel you can cast more important spells then your opponent can dispel.

Like I said portent of far is important enough to dispel, but I won't build my army with that in mind, so it's not an essential part of my strategy. Same goes for pelt of midnight. Both of these spells will drain dispell dice however, because your opponent won' t be willing to let them pass. And if he does let them pass, all the better. As an aside, the artillery train was just an extreme example, that's all...

I agree that armies based around getting off the comet won't work since your opponent will save his dice/scrolls for the comet, but an army relying on mlagic to support the other elements in the force will be able of casting lots of useful spells each phase, ranging from the humble reroll to devastating magic missiles.

This is where the magic phase excels at: supporting your army as a whole. I feel you think too much of magic as an additional shooting phase, and therefore you're wasting an awful lot of it's potential. And I do believe you're a bit quick to consider spells useless, bit we're trying to remedy that here ;) .

Oh and I will respond to each spell if you insist, but I feel that's a bit besides the point.

I would Just Like to chip in here with my opinions.

Power of spells in order.

1.Movement
2.Re-rolls/exta rolls
3.Other support spells
4.Damage spells no LoS
5.Direct Damage spells


Why?
1. Movement Spells
You have stated repeatedly chilli that combat wins games 9/10, I dsagree with this personaly but will go with that for now.

Now Movement will get you into combat 8/10 on your own manouverability, no random chance ect.

So If combat wins 9/10 haveing an extra chance to manouver with a charge seems to me to be a gamebreaker. Not to mention manouver out of charge range,
or Skitterleap a brass orb toteing assasin behind enemy lines, Or maybe move a unit into a support charge, maybe run down that unit that fled from your charge.

Then there is the other type of movement spells, the ones that effect your enemies
units, Sure -1 dosent sound like much but thats-2 if they try to charge, And then there pit of shades or mistress of the marsh, or blinding light.

As you say movement gets you into combat witch wins the game 9/10 Haveing extra movement or impedeing your opponents movement is an Ace up your sleeve.


2.Re-rolls/Extra rolls
Re-rolls are the bane of my exsistence, every time my opponent casts a re-roll spell I try to stop it, Fail, then I get his unit misses every atatck
"Oh ill just re-roll these" Hits with all his attacks.

Extra rolls are just as bad.

3. Other support spells.
This is down here because well some of the support spells are very good such as the summoning and healing hand and guardion light but then others are not so good such as combat spells for mages.
It averages out to about here though.
Again there are alot of possibilities with these spells as well, And even the not so good ones have there uses, The light spell which prevents magic weapon atatcks is very good, its name escapes me, and Bears anger in a desperate situation can be annoying. And a tomb king fighting a wizard with sword of rhuin, not pleasant.

4. No LoS damage spells
These are of course just damage spells only above direct damage due to versatility.

5. Direct Damage.
Now Most wizards can take a magc missle, some are very goos some are not so good, but they serve there role.

And thats my 2 cents.

I'd rate them quite differently than that, actually.

1: No-LOS damage spells. Picks off fast cav, lone mages, anything that's trying to hide, which are usually the most beneficial targets to kill. Much more useful than shooting, and faster than trying to hunt them down in the movement phase.

2: Anti-opponent supports. Making your opponent unable to fight, or having to test Terror at -3 on their next turn, or controlling their movement. These spells are gamebreakers for the most part, and if you happen to get them through you've probably taken a unit out of contention. The one problem with them is that, if they're allowed to come this close to your mage, they probably won't win you the game on their own.

3: Pro-self support. Frenzying your knights, beefing a mage who they expected to kill easily, whatever, it's a surprise that can really throw off your opponent's plans, and adds versatility to your own units. It's a nice touch, but not worth depending on in most cases.

4: Movement. In a lot of cases it's too random, but getting the charge when your opponent didn't expect you to can be very good. Of course, these are the spells they're saving dice for, so their primary use is to cause them to let the spells higher on my list go through. Who said I intended to cast The Wild Call at all? B)

5: Rerolls. It's nice to be able to affect luck a bit, but it still doesn't guarantee success by any means. As well, it's mostly granting d3, tops, so it's not that huge. Again, primarily used to make higher priority spells work.

6: Magic Missiles; why have another shooting phase that's less likely to work when you can use the less blatant affects of magic?

Yes well To each there own.

The Movement spells are definetly higher than than 4, and re-rolls maybe could be lower but as I've said there the bane of my existence.

In any event it is basically the same list you've simply split other support spells into to categories, Why you didn't do that for the movement spells also though is curious?

any way as I was saying you switched movement woth non-LoS damage and support was split and swapped with re-rolls as well as kinda takeing the extra rolls from re-rolls, also On that note wouldn't re-rolls count as self support spells?

It is not reall a clear cut tier system of course as some movement spells are tier one and others are tier 5 while some magic missles can be rated higher also.

As far as I can tell it really does depend on which lores we count though , If you count all magic, including tomb kings, Movement and extra attacks/shooting usefuleness increase a great deal, but as I said to each there own.

The fact that there is so mny ways of useing magic is enoughto prove that it is hardly predictable or weak as chilli is saying however.

Chli please note that my example was a comparing of the dice when dice are rolled. I was not taking it in points terms. If you then look at it again you will note that over the came and my large amount of power dice I will be effective. My point was that magic if used in amount easily has the same effect per die. I highlight you to when I took a Level 4 mage, 2 level 2 and a level 1 commander. The came in at about 800 points. I used them against a light character khorne army and blasted the hell out of them because he could not stop all my spells. So your point of lets see how many men do I get for this is a bit wrong chili.

I don't agree. At the beginning of the game you randomly roll up your spells, which is already one weakness. You get to pick what you take for any other phase, but magic will vary greatly in power from one game to the next, even with the same points spent.

At the same time, this shows your opponent exactly what spells you have, and who has them. At that point, it becomes entirely predictable which of your spells are going to have the biggest effect, and your opponent can basically choose to dispel that with minimal risk of it taking effect. How many people do you figure would pay 25 points for the ability to dispel a Hellblaster or Cannon shot, if given the chance? I think they'd willingly take some handgun fire to be able to do it, too.

Anyway, my primary point is that versatility on as broad a scale as you get by looking at all lores does nothing to compensate for the combination of unreliability and predictability that make magic weaker than the other phases, and this obviously changes when playing TK or a Seer army.

Ah! Thank you Vriishnak! I didn't speak about random spell selection because I didn't think I had to - I thought that it would be obvious when I spoke about limited use and predictability - but clearly that hasn't been coming across with the clarity I hoped. I also agree totally with your analysis of the different types of spell.

Also, I'm beginning to realise what you're getting at Maelduin - and I think it arises from my original post, where I repeatedly use the words 'damage'. I compared to offensive spells because, as I said, they have a reliable, uniform use - comparing the damage inflicted by other spells would be specious logic as Unseen Lurker is vastly better on Chaos Knights than on Skaven slaves.

When I said 'damage', I was not only referring to wounds. Think of damage as 'things against the enemy'. However, now, I would like you to reconsider the original post's point about weakness for points.

Would you rather have...

Three Helblasters...
Or one low-gen Slann with few magic items?

Even incorporating support, there is a very clear difference in power.

Caledorian - your post seems confused. You can't dismiss points - points must be incorporated in any direct comparison. That's like comparing CKoK to Skaven Slaves and saying 'If I have 20 CKoK and you have 20 Skaven Slaves, the Chosen will kill you all and therefore Chosen Knights of Khorne are invariably more useful than skaven slaves.' - which is obviously untrue.

As for the specific reference - that is worth nothing. For all we know you also had a battery of bolt throwers, or the Khorne player was an idiot, or you were jammy. One thing that strikes me is that a low-character Khorne army might actually have an inordinately high no. of dispel dice due to marked units...

Don't take my quotes out of context. I said I was just pointing out that If I have more than one thretening spell a turn you're not gonna be able to stop them all.
Besides it's not impossible. In that 2k army I can cast 3 spells with 3 dice per turn minimum. I also have up to another 2 dice (which I can harness with channeller) and the two devastating bound spells. I could also include another mage, because as I said but you kindly ignored, Griffons dont take an extra slot.

Thats exactly what I was saying, thats what I meant Chilli.

I was not saying that points were irrelvant I was saying that it depends on the amount of it. I put my first post wrongly, I have now edited it.

This is ludicrous.

1.There are ways of stopping shooting, Magic and magic items.
2. War machines can misfire.
3. Shooting units need a target to shoot at, unless you play on a board with no terrain, you can shield your important units from shooting, This is in my opinion equivalent of letting weak spells through. And you don't have to worry about irrisistable force.
4. Just because your opponent knows what you have dosen't neccesarily mean you can stop him.
5. as has been repeatedly stated unless our opponent takes such little magic as it is negligible, there will often be more than one spell you have to stop.
6. Bound Items should not be ignored for the impact they can have on a magic phase/game.
7. After a certain point Shooting will no longer be effective due to
A> Shooters killed/in combat
B> No real targets left due to combat/cover.

Im sure theres' more but its time for me to go to bed.

I agree with King. I think they are all equal. but that is just my 2 pence. It is good to see a nice debate.

It's a lively debate - I don't see flames.

Anyway, firstly Maelduin's post - I don't have counter-points. It's interesting, and I'll look into spell combinations for my next Slann game. The reason I've been arguing my way is because in my Slann games I rarely get more than about 2 important spells - perhaps it's the lores I choose (Heavens, Shadows, Fire and Death). Anyway, one thing I would say, is that with random spell selection I think 3-5 important spells in 2000 is a bit on the optimistic side, wouldn't you think?

Or maybe it's the armies we play. I know I'd love to use High Magic (mumbles to self - b****** HE, stealing our magic - we're meant to be the best - grumble - mumble - growl...*tails off*)

To King - I don't see anything laughable about mine and Vriishnak's arguments. As for your shooting - all those points are valid to an extent, but it's not the same kind of thing as Dispelling - those methods are more like the victim of a magic-heavy army targeting the mages or screening his troops against magic missiles. What's different about dispel is that it always works, you always have it to some degree and there's no way round it. It's built in to the system, whereas all the stuff you mentioned is about strategy.

Some brief rebuttal as well:

They're rare, and there are also magic items which stop magic (Shield of the Mirrored Pool and the Spelleater shield are some examples I can think of). This point is rather weak.

If you applied the same 'failure principle' as magic has on dispels, all missile fire would be able to misfire, as all mages can miscast.

Many spells also require LOS, and more importantly, qhen you're dispelling, do you have to move your units? The whole point is that if you make the enemy units deviate from their plan, you've gained a pretty significant advantage. Dispelling just stops the enemy magic with no influence on the rest of the army at all. Irresistable force - hell, basically every shot is cast with irresistable force, as the whole point of irresistable force is that you can't stop it!

That's a matter of army selection, not game mechanics or strategy, and so I don't think it has a place in this debate. We're already agreed that heavy magic can be very powerful against armies that don't invest in any reasonable dispel power.

And so you stop it, letting the little weak ones get through if you have to. Next point.

Who was ignoring them? They were brought up in comparison to dispel scrolls, and debated on - should we still be talking about them? There are other things in each phase that work a little outside the standard rules, such as Breath weapons or Impact hits, so by no means is this kind of thing unique to magic.

In the first part of the game, all the spells saying 'cast on a unit in combat' are useless. In the second part, the majority of spells which cannot be cast on units in combat are useless. Wizards are easier to kill than missile troops or artillery. Magic is worse off on this front.

Maybe not but it was mainly a warning as it could develop. I have to say I did enjoy the english paper so easy. I think my views come from my ability to choose spells with the seer honour and high magic. I think that you have put your finger on it Chili with the different armies idea.

On the one hand it depends a bit on the army. For High Elves or Dark Elves magic is usually a bit better than for some other races.

But basically I think that magic is powerful for all races in its way. We just shouldnt expect it to win the game on its own. A fireball wont take out a whole unit. Okay, the Comet of Casandora can be devastating, but otherwise offensive magic spells can "only" reduce enemy ranks or kill enough enemies for them to be outnumbered in cc. But what do we want more? With these advantages, one will most likely win in cc, and maybe the whole game.
Basically with shooting its similar. Archers or other missile fire units cant shoot units to pieces but they can bring the decisive 1 or 2 points for CR.

The advantage of magic is that there are many other spells, like move spells, protection spells, cc spells etc. that can bring a lot of advantages.

Battles are almost always decided in cc (which I think is good, as its the most exciting :) ). Thats why both shooting and magic are not made to be uber powered. But as a support for cc they are both very important. Although generally I do prefer magic to shooting, due to its versatility. A good combination is best though IMO.

I just ran an experiment, using a hypothetical army to see what spells I would gain.

The hypothetical army was:

4th Gen Slann, BSB, Plaque of Tepok, Plaque of Dominion
Lvl 2 Skink, Dispel Scroll
Lvl 2 Skink, Dispel Scroll

16 TG, FC, War Banner
20 Saurii, FC, Spears
20 Saurii, FC, Spears

3 Kroxigor, Ancient
4 Terradons, Brave


Anyhoo, I rolled for spells 4 times, selecting from Light with the Slann until I got about 3 useful spells and then moving on to heavens.

I got

Test 1: 4 useful spells, of which 3 applied only when in combat
Test 2: 5 useful spells, of which 2 applied only when in combat
Test 3: 2 useful spells, of which 1 applied only when in combat, plus the Comet for both skinks which, while having a very slim chance of success, must draw dispel dice.
Test 4: 5 useful spells, of which 3 applied only when in combat

So we see that we get at any one time a maximum of 3 really useful spells (The ones I classified as Useful were: Dazzling Brightness, Blinding Light, Guardian Light, Uranon's Thunderbolt and Portent of Far, plus the Comet if the Slann got it). A couple of times I also got Pha's Illumination (absolutely useless in the context).

So, the picture I get from that is something between mine and Maleduin's views. Not so many good spells as you would have had it, but a good deal more than I would have. Perhaps it's the lores I've previously chosen (Heavens, Shadow, Fire and Death in that order) - Light is certainly a good lore for the support spells (and it's on the same page as Heavens! How convenient!).

Anyway, I would still hold out, however, that my original argument holds true. Interpreting damage to be 'things against the enemy', including advantages given to your own troops and impeding enemy troops and so forth, magic is still weaker as it is less cost-effective. This combo of magic-users cost me 630pts, while for 625pts I can buy 2 units of Chaos Knights with full command, 6 Chaos Hounds and 5 Marauder Horsemen with flails, a musician and champion - which, due to their high movement and consistent, deadly combat power, are far more useful. Alternatively, try this: 618 points yields 2 units of 12 skinks, a unit of 3 Krox with an ancient and a unit of 4 Krox with an ancient. Both these choices yield consistent, deadly combat power plus the great flexibility that spells like Unseen Lurker might offer.

Finally, to Funky: I think you have brought up a key point. Magic-heavy armies can't win the game on the virtue of magic alone.

However, Dark Elf forces with excessive DR, or HE Cavhammer forces can win the game on movement alone. Khorne forces can win the game on simple combat alone. Shooting-heavy armies, a.k.a. SADs and gunlines, can win the game on shooting alone. This is why I still believe magic to be the weakest phase.

True, I interpreted that the wrong way, sorry about that. Still, I don't believe magic to be the weakest phase, and that's the main point of the discussion as far as I can see. I firmly believe that magic has it's place with the other phases.

And examples like this are focused on magic missiles, so maybe you do tend to focus a bit too much on these, since this paragraph only considers magic missiles... ;)

- Three hellblasters can only be bought in an army of at least 3000 points.

- Hellblasters are very effective, I agree. Now, would you rather have 375 points of hellblaster or a mage in a wood (and out of sight) with a thunderbolt? Or a unit that just stays out of its 24" range and shoots it? Hell, the much-maligned High Elf archers could take one dow this way. I don't think comparing very specific situations works, since then you'll be denying other strengths of the relevant armies. If I could choose between 100 points of free company or 100 points of saurri (or even skinks), my choice would be easy too.

- The hellblaster tends to be a tad overpowered, especially when used in large numbers. And, like I said, mages need support.

- a hellblaster has no defensive capabilities. A slann, however, adds dispell dice and adds scrolls (which can only be carried by wizards)!

Are skinks only capable of taking heavens? If so, that's abit of a handicap I'll agree. Just for the sake of argument: try taking life or metal for your slann once...And when using life, keep the terrain tables in mind. I believe that in jungle terrain this could be quite useful...

Actually, do this test with all the lores, maybe you'll find some hidden pearls of wisdom that none of us have found out about!


I'd also like to point out that I rarely use seer (one battle in ten or so), so I'm not biased by that. I may be biased by the High Elf magic and bound tems however since they are my main army.

In the end though, I believe that many spells' uses can only be found through consistent use. I tend to be a bit of an optimist, so I'll always find a use for a spell, while you seem to have a more pessimist look. Still, I'm glad you'll agree thay there are more useful spells then you previously believed there were.

Also, single-trick armies are stone-paper-scissors which carries an inherent risk in itself. And shooty armies are pretty much always supported by magic too, so it must have it's uses. I agree that magic needs to be supported by other elements, but so do other armies. Any 'single phase army' is at a disadvantage, it's mutual support that's the key to winning battles. When I go all out cav, I'll often include two mages, for protection as well as for offense. And some combat heroes to boost my combat capabilities. Actually, there's only one phase that I'll ignore with a cav amy, and that's the shooting phase...

P.S.: Follow this link to see how a sea guard army (considered very weak) dealt with a khornate army (which you think is very powerful). It's only through a combination of phases that I made it through, and I think that therein lies the secret to victory, not going overbard in one pphase!

Yes If all you have is one type of spell your mage is useless, but often you will have both types which means you can always cast something.

Wizards Benefit from all the character rules.
war machines and missle troops don't, with very little effort you can take out missle troops, tunnelers, It came from below, Flyers, Ambushing units, Scouts, other shooters/war machines can all take out a war machine or unit of missle troops a lot easier than a wizard that is used well.

Wizards can be significantly harder to kill. Just try and kill my hierophant.

This isn't true. Liche priests can't :D

To an extent this is true but not nearly to the level you seem to be implying, quite a lot of spells don't need line of sight.

As for irresistable force, Thats a ratehr tenuous link, to use your favourite example a magic missle.

A magic missle cast with irresistable force hits automatically for however many hits it is.

Shooting dosen't

I didn't bring that point in to the debate I am simply rebutting it.

your missing the point, there often isn't little ones to let through, If you play a decent ammount og magic, not too much not too little, you should have at least 2 spells that will need to be dispelled a turn.

I must of missed that bit, but they are still relevant, if for anything the fact that they often contain a must stop spell, such as vauls unmakeing or book of arkhan.



I think we should all be clear on this are we includeing every magic lore from every race or just the ones on the rule book ? As it seems to me that you focus way too much on those ones not to mention magic missles, its not all about magic missles chilli.

My point was rather that due to the contrasting usefulness of combat/non-combat spells, at any one phase you're not wielding all the power you paid for, since some of your spells will simply not be able to be cast.

But Wizards as a rule have 2-3 wounds, whereas a unit of missile troops has around 12.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement! A good defensive line, as in the enduring mountain tactic, can shield missile troops marvellously, plus many missile troops can actually fight their own corner pretty well. Plus you have far more missile troops than you have mages, so you can afford to lose some, and finally missile troops are generally cheap for their ability.

Such specific examples! 3 armies out of 13! Plus, Tunneling and It Came From Below are both prone to misfire and unpredictable as when they will come up, and Ambushing troops have a Ld test to make on their not-so-great Ld, and all these units are actually pretty expensive compared to the missile troops they're apparently going to take out .

There's quite a significant proportion of armies that don't have flyers or scouts. A firepower battle is a bit of an odd point here, as that's not at all the same nature as the other attack methods mentioned - if your opponent is shooting-heavy, you can't possibly hope to take him out, and what is more, usually missile troops are positioned in a shielded location from which to fire on your combat troops, where they won't be taking missile fire themselves. Going back to flyers and scouts - flyers are rare, and scouts, though great, will find it very difficult to penetrate an Enduring Mountain or Gunline's frontal defence of infantry, due to the tightly-packed line of units. Trust me - I've played my skinks against Rasputin's dwarves long enough. Finally, both Flyers and Scouts will give a much better result when used to hunt down lone mages!

Well, it's already been established that TK magic works outside the mechanics we're discussing here.

Sigh... As for IF, let me illustrate this more clearly.

Point 1: There is never a chance that your shooting will just be stopped, without any cover-taking or anything from the enemy, before you even roll to hit. This is what happens to magic.

Point 2: While most missile fire rolls to hit, there's quite a bit that doesn't - and notably, the things that don't roll to hit are the most powerful shooting doodahs around.

Point 3: You have a very low chance of IF, and it carries an equal chance of a Miscast (which doesn't happen to most shooting).

Point 4: Magic missiles have random numbers of hits. So there :P

Finally, I think you'll find at least as many spells need LOS as don't.

I think that's your perspective - just as my arguments against Maleduin's points beforehand were a little warped by my Lizardman perspective, so this argument is most definitely warped by your being a TK and Dwarf player - TK always have useful spells, which they can cast more than once, and dwarves don't even have spells! Due to the random selection of spells, the player often ends up with small, unimportant spells that he will cast just because he's got enough power dice to do them and the important spells as well. Examples are things like magic missiles - in the aforementioned test my Slann kept getting the magic missile from Light, which he might cast if he had a couple of power dice left, and other unimportant spells that my opponent would let through in the interest of stopping nastier ones might be Healing Hand, Forked Lightning, Second Sign, and so forth.


Finally, we're focussing on the basic spell mechanics. That means that TK are essentially disqualified. And we've also accepted without argument that elven magic has more useful spells. So far the debate has centred around rulebook lores, which are the most generic and therefore the most useful answers.


On to Maelduin...

I certainly agree that is has it's place with the other phases, just as I believe shooting has its place with combat - I juse believe that, while useful, magic is still a weaker, supplementary phase.

And the Comet - and the Thunderbolts - and the Curse of Years - and the Pit of Shades - and anti-enemy support spells like Dominion or Blinding Light...

Unfortunately, yes. It's a bit of a drag, as while it's a great lore they're just not capable of casting the higher level spells.

As for Life - a nice tip, if it were not for the fact that Lizardmen suffer from the 'Oh my god they're Aquatic' syndrome.

"What's that?"
"A lake, which I spent five hours slavishly constructing"
"WHAT? Trying to gain an ADVANTAGE, eh?"
*Lake is thrown against wall and smashes into a thousand pieces.*
"And what's THIS?"
"A Jungle, for part of my themed Lustrian Table."
"I THINK NOT! What a 'convenient' hiding place for your SKINK SCOUTS!"
*Sledgehammer descends upon pretty little trees.*

IMHO we should have a rule like the WE about putting some jungly stuff down on the table - at the moment I'm forced to play in some sort of defoliated Lustria, with a few tiny clumps of Jungle Trees and perhaps a jungle outcrop, and all the swamps, crocodiles, piranha-infested pools and massed rainforests gathering dust in the cupboard...

As for metal, I've tried that. It didn't even work against our Empire player (before he quit). That lore does and always will disgust me - short-ranged, specific and weak, IMO.