Topic: Imperial Wizards

[Spiney]

What's the 'massive difference'? They both 'playing' with 'dead'!
And don't overestimate the effectiveness of witch-hunters! If they were that good, Ludwig would never risk his life when he unmasked that Chaos cult in Ostland! Not to mention Blood Keep or Sylvania! (Witch-hunters! please.... )
If you don't like this idea we could think of something else! But having 'Alchemists' boosting our machines...I think that's ok! Dwarfs are making 'graffiti' on their machines to strike better -and nobody's complaining about that!

Don't get me wrong! I don't want to end up with 'superwizards' or the 'Legion of Super-Heroes'! But using Wizards that have alike spells.. is 'kinda boring'!

The difference is that necromancers raise the dead to do their bidding. I should imagine there is a fine line between amethyst magic and necromancy but a wizard who crosses it is as likely to get hunted down by his own college as the witch hunters.

[cisse]

Actually, I can only applaud your try to make wizards more unique and interesting. I don't want them to be very powerful either, just like Spiney, but a little rule here and there to make them more characterful isn't that unbalancing. For instance:

- fire (cfr the proposal of the original poster): wizards have A2 and S4, and attacks count as flaming. Does interfere a little with the Flaming Sword spell, but it's not unbalancing and the spell still gives a hugely better bonus.

- alchemists (again, like the op's proposal): alchemists count as wearing light armour that can't be modified by the S of the hit they suffer.

- beasts: wizard can scout

- shadows: wizard can only be seen from 18" away or less

- death: wizard hates undead and is immune to fear from them (like icon of magnus) and confers this to the unit he joins


etc, etc. Not very powerful things, just small characterful rules (easy too, not complicated) that make them a little unique.

[Hermux]

First: I'm new to the forums so: "haj!"

On to the sharing of knowledge!

According to the warhammer RPG fluff, human wizards are not as strong as most other wizards.
They can't use more than one wind of magic and have to train very long to become a battle wizard.

When they are "old-farts" who dedicated their entire lives to their chosen lore, they are considered master of magic. At the same skill level elves have completed their minor apprenticeship.

Imo that means they shouldnt get major abilities, more than one lore and other fancy stuff.

Small abilities would be awsome, as long as they are not to OP

Also, on the giant mounts, what the ...?
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that the average wizard wouldnt climb on top of a giant. I see beast wizzies ride a bear or other animal and other wizards normal horses (pegasus counts as horse with wings)

[iatroblast]

...I don't want them to be very powerful either, just like Spiney, but a little rule here and there to make them more characterful isn't that unbalancing...

these are good rules to start with! '- beasts: wizard can scout' is my favorite! very suitable for a 'wild' beast wizard

When they are "old-farts" who dedicated their entire lives to their chosen lore, they are considered master of magic. At the same skill level elves have completed their minor apprenticeship.
Imo that means they shouldnt get major abilities, more than one lore and other fancy stuff.
Small abilities would be awsome, as long as they are not to OP

I totally agree with that! It's just that a level 4 Wizard or a 'Patriarch'..CAN make something more exaggerated, right? If an Imperial General can ride upon the back of a Griffin (very themed! love it!), so can a level4 Beast or Life wizard!
As for giants.....I'm thinking something like the 'Giants of Albion' Regiment of Renown unit (one giant escorting one level4 Druid for e.g)

In Warhammer, mounts are usually 'symbolic'. Griffin is the glory of an empire, White Bear is the wilderness of the northern cold lands and so on. Maybe this is why Wizards are not allowed to mount steeds like these, even though they normally could