Treatise on Magic Lores

[Gastronauticon]

I just noticed something about Transformation of Lead which might not actually mean anything practical and yet…

Its effect is not capped at WS/BS 1 as with most other hexes or effects. Hence, Transformation of Lead makes it possible to reduce WS/BS to 0 (!) in combination with Word of Pain or, to a slighter degree, the Miasma. Now, that may not quite as good as it sounds but BS 0 equals no shooting whatsoever which is ok on a big shooty unit if you have the powerdice to spare.

The Rulebook does not explicitly mention anything about a WS 0 models not being able to attack (even though the To-Hit table for close combat only goes between WS 1 and 10). Thusly a bit meh. What it does mention however, is that all attacks made on that model hit automatically. Very nice for the second round of combat. Just beware that this renders poison useless since you actually need to roll to hit for it to work.

So where does this lead us? Is Dark+Metal something to consider because of this? Well, no, not really. It is a very situational and costly combo. I do think it is something to consider though, if only to watch out so you don’t un-poison your which elves…

[Scriboergosum]

I don't think that would work, considering the last sentence in the section describing hexes on p. 31 of the BRB.

The wording suggests that you need explicit permission to take any characteristics value above 10 or below 1, which is not given in Transformation of Lead.

The fact that many other hexes mention values not going below 1, while ToL doesn't, is not sufficient, I'd say. The mention in the other spells is simply redundant.

The general rule for hexes still counts for ToL, as no explicit permission is given to break it.

[Calisson]

Good remark from Scriboergosum for his first post.

Welcome to D.net!

[Gastronauticon]

The mention in the other spells is simply redundant.

Ah, bummer. Good call Scribo. I suppose it was too much to hope for. Then again, ToL has a rather high casting cost for what it does. Probably guessed that this was the reason.

Is ToL the primary spell one trades for the signature spell then? I mean, it is of course situational but it´d be a very rare case indeed where some other metal spell has less utility than ToL. Final Transmutaion is of course a bit less interesting when playing with the new (crappy) ETC ruling on LOS, but still...

[Dangerous Beans]

Gastronaut, Searing doom (d6 or 2d6 hits) is the Signature spell for Metal, ToL is, IMHO a very overpowered spell for little effect.

[Darktan]

Is ToL the primary spell one trades for the signature spell then? I mean, it is of course situational but it´d be a very rare case indeed where some other metal spell has less utility than ToL.

No, the spell you'd primarily drop for searing doom is golden hounds, because it's the same spell, but can only target single models not units (and hounds grants a LoS! so it's mostly useless at sniping) Whereas searing doom can be extended to 2D6 hits.

Otherwise, i'd not usually drop a spell for searing doom, lead (and the others) have constantly proved to be of more use overall than doom, unless facing characters on juggernoughts/chariots/dragons or a sizable number of knights/chariots/ironbreakers/chaos warriors with shields or similar.

[Gastronauticon]

Gastronaut, Searing doom (d6 or 2d6 hits) is the Signature spell for Metal, ToL is, IMHO a very overpowered spell for little effect.

Yes, that is what I was aiming at. Sorry if I´m a bit unclear. Switch ToL for Searing Doom as deafult.

As for the golden hounds, I have not have much experience with it. It does seem to be a slightly different version of searing doom for most practical purposes. The net effect is basically the same as unboosed SD with a slight chance of hurting a character within the unit. I guess I´d keep it to follow up searing doom with. You know, to get knight units below LoS- threshold and then finnish of the character within.

[[llct]kain]

I started with Dark, Fire or Death in th 8th. But in the end I am stuck with Metal. As I read the whole thread I was a bit surprised that there are so few voices supporting the metal lore (in the end it is all about the different playstyle and army comp.).

From my experience it is the lore that gives you the best "leverage" effect.
The lore can be devided in the spells that work well independent from your enemies army and the rest that depends on the amount of armour available.

Independent Spells

Here are definitly the glittering robes and final transmution to be named. Both spells give you a good reward against every army and are the spells that make the lore a valid choice every time.

- final transmutation makes big units/hordes, especially the über-horde like 50 Chaoswarrios or 50 grave guard, manage able. Removing 1/3 of the modells each time and has a 1/3 chance to kill a charakter (as normaly 2 heroes are attached to those units).

- glittering robes can upgrade one unit or your whole center. With a 3+AS a cheap spear unit comes quite a good match, even witch elves get more durable. If you add on top the cualdron ward save your ~200 point spear elve horde gets realy hard to kill (WS4, 3+AS, 5+WS).

- enchanted blades
Not as good as the fire spell. But quite ok, and a good choice for an all round lore. The two main uses are to get magical attacks (for undead, Slann and and Highelves that are "bodyless?") and to to enhance our troops in CC with some boost especially AP.

- transmutation of lead - not seen good use for a 12+ spell up to now.

Armour dependent Spells

For armies/units which Druchii units can handle well the lore gives you less benefit - but the benefit increases as harder as the enemy units are to handle. The spells that depend on the armour of our enemy are the ones that enables us to handle some threats we have no (good) tools for.
Best know are the steam tank, treeman/-kin, skaven things, knights...
Here are
- seering doom
- golden hounds
- plague of rust (nearly useless spell IMO)
the benefits are allready discussed to a good degree.

The point for me is that the spells which are most indentified when we talk about lore of metal are just a bonus to ensure that my army performs also well against hard opponents with high AS. The other spells are too easily overlooked in the discussion - but provide a good boost to our vulnerable troops.

the golden hounds...The net effect is basically the same as unboosed SD with a slight chance of hurting a character within the unit.

In most cases yes, but in the case the chacter would gain no look out anyway but you are not able to target him indipendently it makes a big difference. E.g. mounted character in an infantry unit (or as mentioned above with less than 5 RnF modells).independent

[L1qw1d]

yknow whats odd? I've thought we should get the Lore of Ice or Heavens- based on where some of our cities are located, it would be fluffy (or Story Glory).

I also like the colour coding.

I hate being predictable with my casting. I usually take at least one or 2, but for the most part I'm finding that I actually have developed a list of use now.

1: Dark
2: Shadow (I still suck at controlling my pendulum.)
3: Metal (if Supreme Sorc)
4: Death (Flip w Metal, if no S. Sorc)
5: Fire

I've just found that since Metal was Flaming, and seemed to do more practical actual outright attacks, I'd only go get the Fireball and thats about all.

[Dalamar]

Metal can't make your unit of 20 crossbowmen have flaming attacks and the armor piercing is largely wasted on them.

With Metal I found the sorceress usually had at most one useful spell (out of 3) to cast each phase.

[L1qw1d]

gotcha- I usually throw it on a unit that has to hold the line, so I've never considered RXB lol