Talk:Magnus the Red

From 1d4chan

Magnus' Weakness[edit]

I don't suppose anyone would mind if I added a bit in his On the Tabletop section about how three Inquisitors carrying hammers can royally kick his ass in melee? Seriously, one Hereticus Inquisitor with the Null Rod and a Hammer, and two Malleus Inquisitors with the Grimoire of True Names, Empyrean Brain Mines and Hammers (costing 175 points in total, which is 475 points less than Magnus) will kill him in two rounds of combat. Meanwhile Magnus can't hurt them with either his Psychic Powers or in close combat, only being able to resist the brain mines from both Inquisitors 2.777% of the time. -- Triacom (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

dude can fly problem solved

I know, that's why I mentioned that already. -- Triacom (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Chirst Magnus is a pansy in the rules. I don't think the godammed fanatic is gets smacked around that hard. -- Taumanta (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Magnus and D[edit]

Magnus turning Nova's into D isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. It doesn't change the AP. Since 1 does nothing, and 6 essentially removes from play, 2-5 would be ID wounds at the AP of the Nova. with 7 being the standard average, this means ~ 6 wounds, 1 of which would be a 6 by math, meaning the marines would just have to make ~5 3+ saves, meaning 3 dead marines based on averages from a D nova. Vehicles are a different story.

Yes it doesn't change the AP but it does cause automatic Wounds to each model. On average every single marine hit by his nova will have to save two automatic Wounds, which is why MEQ's die 55% of the time. Considering that Magnus can drop two separate novas, both at Strength D (on average) that means every marine within 18" has a 20% chance to live through the Psychic phase. Yes it is really broken. -- Triacom (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
it only does those multiple wounds AFTER a save is failed, and those multiple wounds applied to a single marine. Assuming average rolls, every unit within 18" of magnus takes 14 D hits, which averages to roughly 12 armour saves (4 failed 3+'s), and 2 removed from each unit. 6 dead marines is NOT the end of the world.
"To resolve a Destroyer weapon's attack, roll To Hit as you would for a standard attack. If the attack hits, roll on the table above instead of rolling To Wound or armour penetration." You roll on the table first, you do not do saves first. -- Triacom (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. You hit, you roll on the table, you take your saves (if applicable. i.e. the case of an AP: 4 D weapon), then you apply the effect. it's NOT you hit, you roll on table, you apply effect, you take saves.
Hmm, let's look at this with what you said. You hit, done automatically. You roll on the table, on average each marine hit suffers 2 auto-wounds. You take saves, a MEQ suffers a Wound 55% of the time, then you apply the effect, Instant Death. If you seriously think the model only suffers D3 Wounds after they fail a single save then you're reading the rules wrong, or you're a fantasy player who's migrated to 40k. If you still want to argue that multiple wounds only happen as a result of failing the armour save, then quote me where in the rulebook it says this, because there's nothing there about the models only suffering the roll on the table if they fail a single armour save roll. -- Triacom (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It would also be worth noting you take your save vs. D HITS, not D wounds. "...Cover saves and invulnerable saves may be taken against HITS from a destroyer weapon as normal, UNLESS a devastating hit or deathblow is rolled." Since the rest of the book specifies saves against wounds, and not hits, and that this has not been FAQ'ed after so long, the intention is clear. you roll to hit, roll on the table, and then take your saves against the hits rolled rather than the effects rolled.
First of all, those are cover/invulnerable saves, not armour saves so your argument doesn't work. Secondly page 36 clearly states what saving throws do, nowhere does it state that saving against a hit prevents the hit from causing a Wound or multiple Wounds from a destroyer weapon. -- Triacom (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
it brings up armour saves, but blows them away as "since most D weapons are AP1 or AP2, armour saves are not typically allowed" It's also clear, RAW, that D hits are dealt with differently from standard wounds as covered on page 36. Roll to hit, roll on the table, take saves against hits is RAW. it even brings up the "6" result on D as an exception to even this rule.
GW faq states:
Q: If a model is hit by a Destroyer weapon and takes a
Seriously Wounded result for, say, 3 Wounds, how many cover/
invulnerable saves does it take?
A: 1. In your example, if the save roll was failed, the
target model would suffer 3 Wounds.
But it doesn't say that armour saves are allowed against 'hits' does it? It says cover/invulnerable and that's it so you have no weight to stand on there. -- Triacom (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
are you REALLY trying to argue that the marines would take 1 invuln save, but have to take d3 armour saves? the intention is clear, you're just being difficult.
You are familiar with the difference between RAW and RAI right? The intention is clear, however if you were to follow the rules as they're written then yes, marines would take D3 Armour saves. If you can post anything to the contrary then please do it now. -- Triacom (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Armour saves aren't mentioned because the rule points out that most D weapons are AP1 or AP2(since it was written pre-magnus). In the case of an AP higher than an armour save, it would allow your armour saves in the same manner as cover and invuln saves. To Argue otherwise is to be ridiculous, or in the same vein as "well, D says you can take cover saves, so I guess I ignore your "ignores cover" rule" or "lol, nope. I know you would normally need 1 4+ invuln save, but actually you need to take d3 armour saves"
"In the case of an AP higher than an armour save, it would allow your armour saves in the same manner as cover and invuln saves." Prove it. Quote the exact passage in the book that says this. -- Triacom (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Alright, since you're being a mix of stubborn and salty: So long as you mention that, on the Magnus page next to the "SO OP" section, "While you only need 1 invuln or cover save, I choose to think that you need multiple armour saves per model" then you can have your way.
I'm not being salty, I don't know if you're new here or what, but this wiki runs on RAW while having mentions of RAI. I'm perfectly fine with including that as that's also RAW. -- Triacom (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The wiki runs on RAW, but it also tends to call out TFG shenanigans. it's completely clear that the wording implies that non AP: 1 or 2 D weapons would be treated in the same manner as cover saves or invulns in the case of D. Worst case scenario we wait for FW to FAQ or at least reply to an email. But I'm fairly certain we all know what the response will be.
It's implied but not stated. If the game itself ran off of what was implied rather than what was stated then we would not be having this conversation. -- Triacom (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
True, but you could argue that in Warhammer, a save is a save unless it is feel no pain or reanimation. the fact that 2/3 of the normal saves are allowed and explained, and it only makes exception of armour saves by strictly mentioning that most D weapons are AP: 1 or 2 and only says that "typically, armour saves are not allowed", in the case of a non AP: 2 D weapon, the armour saves would have the same restrictions are invuln or cover, not it's own special sub branch of restrictions.
But armour saves do have their own sub branch of restrictions, hell that's the point of the AP system so 2/3 saves being allowed happens in the regular game too, just look at AP 1 or 2 weapons, or rules that say they ignore Armour saves. If we look at AP - weapons that ignore cover then we're still given weapons that only allow 2/3 saves. In any case I do agree that in this instance armour saves should be allowed, although as we've just finished discussing that's not how the rules are written. -- Triacom (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Magnus vs other Primarchs[edit]

I really see no point at pitting unbuffed Magnus vs other primarchs, as noone would do this on the tabletop if you can just roll on the Biomancy if your opponent have his Primarch. Mostly because he's the only one of them capable of blasting his brothers from distance before they reach melee, and there's not much AP2 witchfires outside the Biomancy. But even then if they DO come close enough to worry all he needs is Iron Arm an Warp Speed.

So what I propose it to use his Warp Speed+Iron Arm stats (+3 to everything but WS/BS) for mathammering his duels. Probably with Force activateed against Primarchs with FNP (or Scoria)

I've been mathammering it without because a) I'm a completist so I want to see us have them all and b) because I think the Lorgar precedent of no magic is a good one because otherwise this is impossible (you'd have to calculate the likelihood of getting those buffs and casting them successfully etc). You are right that no-one would send him into a Primarch duel without those or more sensibly just use his mind bullets but thats not really the point of the exercise. Finding out that an invisible, iron arm, warp speed, endurance Magnus wins every time seems to me less interesting than how he does on his own (for example that if my maths is correct he is more durable than Mortarion without psychic powers seems to me much more interesting than that he is much more so when he buffs himself to the stratosphere). I think the real problem with this suggestion is Lorgar because if we allow Magnus his Biomancy when duelling him, not allowing Lorgar Precognition would be unfair but then we would break the long established policy that Lorgar doesn't get to use that and then it be inconsistent to say he gets it against Magnus but not against anyone else DUguy (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Random note: Removed "the Iron Warriors would weep of jealousy if they ever saw how the Sons made battle during the Great Crusade" erm... see Novel Magnus the Red. Not feeling clever.

The Recent Edits[edit]

I might be overstepping my bounds here(only having been here for 2 years), but what else can we call the constant near exact changes and counter changes on this page than a "edit war"? This is (as should be obvious) happening on three topics here, the rules of S:D novas, the comparison to the battle against Mortarion and just how the battle of the Fang ended. in all these cases there is a constant resetting between two states, while Talk:Magnus the Red hasn't been touched for months. --Arenuphis (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

An edittwar is when you have a lot of contradictory edits in a short period of time, for example having five within a single day. There hasn't been an editwar on that Mortarion bi since I removed it since it hasn't been brought back in, there hasn't been an editwar on the SD Novas since both information is technically correct, they just have different ways of saying it, and there hasn't been an editwar on the conclusion to Battle of the Fang as those edits are all days apart. -- Triacom (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll give that this entire thing has somehow calmed down since friday. But should this really not be considered a war(albeit a slow one) if it's exactly the same thing, but drawn out over a week?
either way, it's still very annoying to get pinged for an edit on the page, when it's a near-exact reversal of the latest one. to make things worse, they don't simply press the Undo button--Arenuphis (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Not really, if it keeps happening you can ask them repeatedly to move it to the talk page but the editwar tag is primarily used for people who are engaged in a lot of really quick edits as it's supposed to get their attention. It doesn't really have the same impact if it's happening across several days rather than several times in one hour and even if the editwar tag was applied Friday, it would be removed today (if not before) since it's been long enough. -- Triacom (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
well, fine, let's wait and see when it starts again--Arenuphis (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Mathhammer?[edit]

It looks like some digits were written at random: how can IWND bring incoming 0,5 wounds to zero? Why someone calculates it being 4+ in one case and 5+ (as it should be) in the others, and I'm not talking about Primachs who reroll it? --Flutist (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

While I wasn't the one who wrote it on this page, IWND isn't a save, it's a flat out minus to any incoming wounds and if a Primarch re-rolls it then it actually does bring it down to 0. That being said I can't speak for any of the pages besides the ones I've down the math for, and when we finally get all the Primarchs released I'll have to go through each page to make sure everything adds up and it's all consistent. -- Triacom (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Wait, so you calculate IWND by adding a fixed number of wounds healed each turn (i.e. 1/3 of the wound per turn and roughly 1/2 for Primach rerolling it)? --Flutist (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes because it's not a save, they're flat out regaining a lost wound. This is also why when I wrote it (back when I started this on Mortarion's page) I stated what IWND would do at the start of the next turn, rather than compiling it all into one round. -- Triacom (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort of The Grimdark Future[edit]

I love the Crimson King in the books, but can I just state for the record that the way GW/Black Library have utilized him according to the core concept of his legion, that of being a bunch of 'space wizards,' has been terribly unoriginal.

I mean, seriously, they literally turned himto Lord Voldemort, he's got his soul splintered and now parts of it are off doing their own thing. They couldn't be more unoriginal (well, unless it turns out Rowboat now has a splinter in him because Magnus tried to kill him, but that would probably result in a fan uproar).

What is so hard about having a space marine legion use magick? Have the Thousand Sons do indirect-magic shit like transforming the terrain, crafting illusion, or making it rain human teeth to terrify the enemy. Let them let loose with minor deamons that wreak havoc on enemy electronics.

Surely I am not the only one who has thought like this?

Cruz Espada, July 16 2019.


We do have a siganture button, for the record.

And granted the whole "fragmented soul" aspect they've been running with does sound less than inspired at a glance (I say this having only a cursory knowledge of the franchise, so grains of salt there), but I wouldn't call it entirely unoriginal, so much as "not done justice". I'd contest that the idea of the "Magnus the Father" fragment has/had the most potential, vis a vis a tragic story of still trying to save his legion and Ahriman even after all this time - even in the face of certain failure - and ultimately choosing a sort of "death" rather than submission to his corrupted self's influence. Not sure Voldy ever had even the slightlest hints of self-awareness, let alone anything like the Magnus fragments (Frag-nus? plural "Frag-nuses"?) demonstrated, but that's just me.

The concept of the fragments and the legion as conceived likely could do with much more meat on the bones, though calling him "Space Voldemort" seems a little inaccurate based on what little I do know, and at least certainly imprecise. --LGX-000 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to experiment with these things, but thanks for telling me about the button.

As for the 'Space Voldy' reference, I stand by it. It may be imprecise, but I wasn't saying Magnus was the result of a copy-paste from the Harry Potter series. I was arguing that they aren't being that original with him. Or his legion.

What do you think can be done to make Magnus more suited to be the leader of a bonefide legion of Space Wizards?

--Cruz Espada

About Magnus' Eye[edit]

At no point did Magnus need to sacrifice his eye to save Tizca, the city was already safe by the time he made his bargain to save his Legion. -- Triacom (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)