Again I'm stuck on wich lore to take.. Am in need of some thoughts and experiences..

[Marnepup]

The challenge is that you don't want to end up with one of the "bad" spells let alone both.

Hmmm. I don't think baelful is all that bad. And can't you drop one for flickering? I agree that call to glory stinks... But then, my L4 mages generally only use 1-2 of their spells (repeatedly, of course!) in a giveb game. I go L4 to maxinize my chances of getting the 1-2 spells that I want, not in the crazy hope of getting four spells that I can actually use... Hell, I'd pay 25 points for an item that lets me reroll my spells and just take a L2 if I could.

[talismanictattoo]

can't switch out for a spell you rolled up naturally.
The bane of the 7th edition lores.

[Marnepup]

Ah, that sucks. Nevertheless, I'd be okay with baleful, call, and two other spells. As a worst-case scenario, it's not bad enough to scare me off the lore, that's for sure! I mean, even then, you're guaranteed two out of treason, flickering, pandemonium, and gateway. To put it another way, the chance of not getting either treason or gateway is vanishingly small. To me, that is what the worst case is really about, not getting the 1-2 spells that make the lore. Even then, having flickering, baelful, and pandemonium (and, yes, call to glory) in my book is pretty good, compared with having the four least desirable spells from most lores...

[AshBorn]

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly, but why can't you swap out a spell for flickering fire? It specifically says you can...

"Any sorcerer can swap one spell for Flickering Fire of Tzeentch if you wish"

Maybe it was errated out or something and I missed it?

[talismanictattoo]

You roll a 1 when generating spells . . . . there goes your ability to swap it out . . .

[AshBorn]

You roll a 1 when generating spells . . . . there goes your ability to swap it out . . .

Yeah that's where I wasn't understanding correctly. I know you can't swap out a spell if you already rolled fire, but in the event you didn't, you can swap out one of those two spells for fire.

[Marnepup]

Aha! So you only lose the ability to dump 'call to a gory end' if you roll a natural 1 for one of your spells... As I thought!

[sdefreit]

I am just coming back and haven't played any 8th edition games yet but the OP also touched on asking about whether it would be a good idea to go with a BSB kitted out with BoS, spell familiar and shadow to effectively be a level two caster to support a level four death mage. What do the more experienced players think about this? The ability to have a BSB wizard honestly sounds pretty darn good. But then again a BSB with a 4+ / 3++ and 4 strength 6 attacks with all the other nice combat stats seems really strong too.

[Son of Bretonnia]

Yeahhh ... the thing is that with the book of secrets I can combine a fighter with a wizard.
But I have to give up stenght and defence. So it's a big trade.

Right now I'm leaning against the lore of death. Because I get another fase to kill stuff (magic fase).

[el_don]

I think part of my thinking behind "Which Lore?!" (my answer being: "Shadow. Duh.") is the way the game is balanced. Here's my reasoning:

1. The game is balanced.
2. Our army is ridiculously good at killing things in close-combat.
3. In order to balance our army's strength, the game is designed so we lose combat efficiency while crossing the board (ie., we get shot).
4. There is one Lore which lets us soak up unit losses and still hit with the full power of our close-combat might.
5. (It's Shadow.)

I feel that having a magic phase which provides our only ranged threat is a waste of a magic phase. My first policy in playing GW games is redundancy: pick something you want to be good at and make sure that even if stuff goes wrong or badly or your units die, you always have more units that can do that same thing and do it well. I feel that having a half-hearted damaging magic phase is less useful than having a magic phase which supports our main goal: eating faces.

If I'm playing with Shadow, my opponent knows that he can either focus on killing my mage - in which case more of my close-combat units get in his face - or he can focus on killing my (ridiculously tough) units - in which case my mage will make those units that survive just as powerful as if they hadn't lost any troops.

If I'm playing Death, my opponent knows that my one really serious threat is my close-combat power. If he focuses on killing my close-combat units, sure he loses some stuff from my magic, but it's as nothing compared to what happens if my troops get into proximity with his sappy little wet-rag goops - and when he's removed enough close-combat threat, he has all the time in the world - and all the ranged superiority in the world - to take care of my magic.

Just my two cents.