Jump to content

Familiars/Holy Symbols and Counter Spell


Recommended Posts

If you look at all of the powerful offensive items in the game they have come down in cost. Familiars, instead of being decreased in price have regained an ability they had in the original rules, effectively making them more valuable.

Deadly things became a better deal. Familiars got the same buff as the Avenger or Magical ranged weapons in my opinion.

 

All of the powerful items got cheaper because they were overpriced, not simply to make them better, the changes were made (like the base cost of mages dropping and innate(bolt) being added) to make the various models and abilities more balanced and cost effective.

 

There are also plenty of things that didn't change in price.

 

The change to familiars was made, along with with the other changes to mages to make taking a Mage model more desirable.

 

At the same time they make taking counterspell less desirable and cost effective.

 

Funny how you discuss the decrease in cost of all the spells and equipment when most of those pieces of equipment have stayed the same or gotten better, yet despite the clear decrease in effectiveness of counterspells against mages employing a familair you take offense to my suggestion that maybe counterspell should be a Level 1 Mage spell, or maybe is should cost less.

I haven't taken offense to anything you've said SE. We're talking about pretend mages and magic, sorry if my reply seemed like I was angry, but I promise I'm just arguing what I think is tactically fair. :)

 

You can phrase the decrease in price for offensive items however you like, we're both saying the same thing in the end. They didn't work before, hopefully now they will. You're right that many things didn't get changed, but that's because they seemed to be working properly at the current price or with the current abilities. Familiars weren't one of those things.

 

I don't think that when something is made to fit better into the game, that things to stop them should be boosted also.

Just as I don't think Counterspell should be lowered in price or lowered in spell grade, I don't think Deflect should lower in price since Ranged attacks are more powerful now.

Both Counterspell and Deflect still perform their original roles. Both were more powerful originally than they will be in RC'08, yet both are still vital to the game, worth every penny to have in your army, and both will still see lots of use.

 

 

Truthfully, it isn't the 10 points that worries me, it is the 2 spells slots. On a 2/6 or 2/8 Mage if I want to buy 2 counterspells I give up a huge amount of my offensive ability to do so. And as it stand I don't believe the offensive abilities I give up are balanced by the defensive abilites I gain with my investment. If counterspell was a level 1 spell it wouldn't mind the fact that a familiar only causes it to be delayed.

 

RE: Counterspell being powerful

 

1) I have to invest in a Mage 2/x just to buy the spell

2) I have to give up 2 spell slots just to take the spell

3) I have to hope you cast a spell around my caster to use the spell

4) I have to make my caster check in order for the spell to be useful

5) The spell merely hinders you casting attempt, it doesn't cancel your spell automatically

6) I have to spend 10 points to buy the spell

 

And now you want all my effort and points cost to simply delay my chance at a dispel simply because you invested a mere 15 points in a gimmecky piece of kit that lets a player be tactically inept and unimaginative (there are plenty of ways to prevent me from using my counterspell including forcing me to use my defensive action otherwise, using multiple casters in the same troop, or duping me into burning my counterspells on lesser spells earlier in the game).

All of the steps in gaining a Counterspell are easy, I wouldn't call taking Counterspell on a mage "effort". If there is something that is a "gimmecky piece of kit" wouldn't it be the mage who can take a 10 point spell and effectivly increase his troops MD by 6 for a round...

Also, note that the tactics you listed to get around counterspell are far more expensive than taking the spell and making good use of it. Such as two mages or burning spells trying to pull out your counterspell (when you could have more than one anyways)

 

What you just said with that single statement is that Counter Spell in it's current form is so powerful that if I even attempt to cast a spell at a model within 6 inches of an opponent mage, whether I have a familiar or not, I deserve to lose the spell because of the severe tactical error I made...

Yet you still think there shouldn't be an item that is more expensive than the spell to help lessen the affects.

 

Yes, deserve to lose a spell if:

1) You take the risk and cast within 6 inches of my caster

and

2) I have a counterspell available to cast

and

3) I make my caster check

and

4) You fail your caster check (even with your familiars +1 CP bonus)

 

If you were paying 15 points just to be able to negate the counterspell I would have no problems, but you get a whole lot more than that for your 15 point investment.

 

Oh, and your familiar already lessen the affects of my counterspell by giving you a +1 to your CP.

You also get a whole lot more for your 10 point investment. I can't quantify the advantages of other mages avoiding the 6" circle around your mage who may have dispel, forcing them to attack fewer targets or a cheaper target. I am sure though, that those advantages will still be in place if your opponent takes a Familiar.

 

We know how counterspell works and usually you are right. I wouldn't use the words "deserve to lose" the spell, but as the game works I would lose the spell meeting those conditions. If I take an item that says I never lose a spell for the rest of the game though, it's just not going to happen, no matter how much you think I deserve it.

Even though I get to keep the spell, if it was completely ineffective, you still have these advantages from using that spell.

1) If it's a single target spell, you prevented me from doing anything this round and all I can do is take a single action. (side benefits of this include the slowing of an entire troop if they stay to protect the mage who still has valuable spells; the front line had to shift to allow los between the mage and target, so they may be open to attack now)

2) If it's an AoE spell, you could have prevented most of the models from being hit. In this case it acts as it always does.

3) If it's an AoE spell, you could have also completely delayed my action as noted in (1)

4) If the spell is blocked and it returns via familiar, you now know what spell I have in addition to preventing its use that turn.

5) The delay could means more expensive mages may not get off all of their spells if they filled their spell capacity.

 

 

All in all, the advantages are there for Counterspell. Keeping it as is, keeps it simple to understand and doesn't negate the usage of counterspell. Both the item and spell carry their value and when interacting with each other they both offer advantages and disadvantages to the players.

 

Anyway, at this point we're beating a dead horse, I think the arguments are out there, and we can only wait and see what sort of comments might be made regarding them.

I think it's good to debate and share what we've seen with the abilities. The more information we have out there, the better the outcome will be for the game and players.

 

Even:

Amulet of Spell Dueling (5 points): Spells counterspell by the casting wizard gain +1 to their caster checks and cannot be retained by an enemy wizards familaiar.

I don't think really cheap spell items are a good solution, but I do like the idea of another form of Counter Spell for mages that can't really handle the current one. I also don't know if this should happen though because of the possibility of a situation like others were talking about in WHF. It's something worth trying out eventually though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

For me there is just a certain sense of unfairness if I have brought a Mage with defensive purposes in mind (So we are talking CP 5-6 so it is unlikely to be an autocast) and invested in that model (lets say 35 points) and 2 counterspells (20) points to help protect my Big Adept but only to have my 55 point investment merely able to delay your spellcaster (don't get me wrong, I know that for those 55 points I also get an Innate(bolt) caster which is significant).

 

Lets just say, for 10 points a counterspell, if I know my opponent is likely to bring familiars alot, I migh tnot pack a counterspell as it isn't worth while in my mind.

 

But on the opposite side, familiar or not, there isn't any spell I wouldn't bring to the table in the the spells lists simply out of fear that my opponent might have a counterspell or two on the table.

 

So I guess for me that is the real decider when I think about whether counterspell is cost effective given familiars. I think it is generally pointed right when used against casters that don't have a familiar (I'll argue that until I'm blue int he face as well if you want ::D:) But that little familiar really drives me nuts!

 

Another thought:

Counterspell 1 (5 points): -4 CP, 2 inch range, ignore familiars

Counterspell 2 (8 points): -6 CP, 3 inch range, ignore familiars

Counterspell 3 (10 points): -6 CP, 6 inch range, ignore familiars

 

Thew problem is that with that version of 'counterspell 3' you are forced to give up a level 3 spell slot; and that might drive me even more nuts, seeing as how I am nuts about having to give up a level 2 slot.

 

The big problem with dropping counterspell down to level 1 is that suddenly there are a lot of Mages that can carry them, and carry multiples of them so it might begin to dominate the game, which isn't what we want. So perhaps a lesser counterspell (-3 or -4) would be the best solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my thought bring your own mage with counterspell and if you miscast you can use it again!

I dislike the idea of counterspell bieng dropped spell levels, and it seems fair in price.

The whole idea of counterspell caddy: BLEK!

Most mages can carry counterspell already I don't see a need to reduce level...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SE what it really sounds like is: you don't like magic. My opponent and I both used familiars last night and well it really didn't unbalance the game, and he ended up nullifying my casting actions and making all the points I had spent worthless.

 

Fruggs: Exactly! Screw a casting of Counterspell? Great you still have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SE what it really sounds like is: you don't like magic. My opponent and I both used familiars last night and well it really didn't unbalance the game, and he ended up nullifying my casting actions and making all the points I had spent worthless.

 

Actually I do like Magic, and I do like Mages, in fact while listing options to help make Mage models more playable it was one of my suggestions that led to Mages getting Innate(Bolt) in the RC08 changes. The last 1000 point army list I took had 4 Mage models in it, and the previous one had 3. I'm quite chuffed about the changes to Mages in the latest version of the game, you couldn't be further from the mark in your assumption, I'm a magic junkie, so long as it is cost effective and balanced.

 

That is my criteria for anything that is being discussed in terms of changes to the current game (Is it balanced), and remember, we are dealing with a beta rules set, that means anything you think might need addressing needs to be brought up now, or you've got to hold your tongue until the next revision.

 

Gus is a smart guy, and the BL team (Shakak included) can in general be relied upon to address any issue we bring up. I trust them to make the right decision, and that doesn't mean siding with me in every argument I make, the fact that they consider our opinions is enough to keep me happy as there aren't too many games where you can point directly to something and say you were involved as a community in helping shape that particular part of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I do like Magic, and I do like Mages, in fact while listing options to help make Mage models more playable it was one of my suggestions that led to Mages getting Innate(Bolt) in the RC08 changes. The last 1000 point army list I took had 4 Mage models in it, and the previous one had 3. I'm quite chuffed about the changes to Mages in the latest version of the game, you couldn't be further from the mark in your assumption, I'm a magic junkie, so long as it is cost effective and balanced.

 

That is my criteria for anything that is being discussed in terms of changes to the current game (Is it balanced), and remember, we are dealing with a beta rules set, that means anything you think might need addressing needs to be brought up now, or you've got to hold your tongue until the next revision.

Fair enough. We will have to agree to disagree then because I see the stopping of a spell as balanced. Whether it is retained or not, stopping a spell is pretty effective. This why my force has a Counterspell caddy.

 

Gus is a smart guy, and the BL team (Shakak included) can in general be relied upon to address any issue we bring up. I trust them to make the right decision, and that doesn't mean siding with me in every argument I make, the fact that they consider our opinions is enough to keep me happy as there aren't too many games where you can point directly to something and say you were involved as a community in helping shape that particular part of the game.

 

True enough. I can say that I have affected a game, and it unfortunately wasn't a Reaper product. :down: I wrote something and it is in use almost verbatim. But you are right that Reaper is pretty responsive to their customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say I AM a BL and while I have had some contibution to RC08 I will not divulge exactly what it was , and thus prevent irrate comments directed at me for change x,y,z . ::P:::D: I will state now that I think that the familiars and counterspell are exactly as they should be . Anyone is quite welcome to disagree but that is my oppinion . If there are choruses of people who dislike something then the team and Gus will have a look at it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said the rule wasn't written as intended, merely that as written the counterspell vs. familiar interaction might not play out fairly or balanced and might be worth really paying attention to during playtesting sessions. It might be that everyone agrees it plays fine, but it might be that many people find it isn't doing its job.

 

Let keep in mind, in the original rules we had familiars (20 points) that allowed the recasting of spells and Magical Empowerments that added to CP.

 

In RC07 familiars became magical empowerments essentially (15 and 30 points)

 

In RC08 familiars suddenly become not only Magical Empowerments, but regain their old ability to recast miscast spells, while at the same time remaining the same cost (15 and 30 points). On top of that familiars are even more powerful becuase the re-introduction of the re-cast allows them to lessen the effect of defensive magic int he game when dealing with counterspell (which did not exist until RC07 so never had to deal with the recast previously).

 

Trying to build a Chorus :lol: But it looks like I'm singing a SOlo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you're not entirely alone. While I don't like the idea of making counter spell ignore familiar I do very much like the idea of a weak level 1 counter spell and a stronger level 3 counter spell (I feel the current on is just fine where it is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After thinking about this a bit more, I had a perfectly wicked idea. The only issue is that it involves extra record keeping.

 

The spell that fails due to Counter Spell is retained by the Familiar/Holy Symbol, only when it is re-cast it is STILL countered at -6 CP!! :devil:

 

[ducking] What does everyone think?

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a lot of bookkeeping to get pretty much the same result as not being able to recast it. Most mages would not bother ever trying to recast the spell since they'd need a 10 to succeed. I'd rather cast a bolt spell at my normal CP than try to recast a more powerful spell at -6 CP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'm willing to spend a 10 point counterspell to delay a 5 point Scare after seeing it in action... Even if he does get to cast it again next turn.

 

Scare gets real nasty when it is cast on Isiri Warriors. So just delaying it would be helpful, and you can try and kill the weedy spellcaster who dropped the Scare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AOE spells are only as effective as you let them be, scare is nice, but if you are careful you can really limit its effectiveness by not bunching up your models (something you should be careful of whenever a Level 2+ Mage hits the board). Scare is sort of like a super bless giving your models that +2 to hit is fairly snazzy, and you cost your opponent a Combat Action if they want to remove it, and that really hurts. Its a spell I kinda don't like being so cheap, but I think at the previous points cost it wasn't getting used much. It really helps out wimpy troops like skeletons and Goblins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...