Welcome to Librarium Online!
Level 2 Spellsingers
Level 4 Spellwaever
Recently a thought struck me "why not field two level 2 Spellsingers rather than one 'all important' level 4 Spellweaver. Naked, they cost exactly the same point wise, and can take 100 pts of magical gear (total). The 'singers have more wounds, but the 'weaver can cast stronger spells (but only a bit stronger)
So what do the Asrai Lords say?
With only 500pts I don't know if I would consider myself an Asrai Lord but I personally would rather have 2 lvl 2 Spellsingers then 1 lvl 4 Spellweaver. That way on the field of battle I can spread them out, 10 GG & a Singer on either side of the table to deal with all threats that come at me.
Legion Of Everblight: Abyslonia
Protectorate of Menoth: Grand Exemplar Kreoss
It all depends on your other character choices.
I think the weaver in general is better.
The most important difference is the extra leadership from the weaver.
The weaver also gets access to a couple more lores. Life is great if you want to keep the weaver out of harm's way.
Rolling 4 dice at once gives you a better chance of getting a spell you want.
On the other hand 2 lvl1 mages are cheaper than a lvl3 for defence.
I would usually go with the lord b/c alter nobles and BSBs are so good so the mage is likely to be the general.
Now if you ask me which one I'm more likely to take, I'd say the lvl 2 singer. If you ask me which one is more effective at being a spellcaster, then I'd say the weaver, hands down, both for offense and defense.
The question is, what sort of magic phase do you want. Taking characters strong in magic means forgoing juicy WE nobles and highborns, not to mention dryads.
I usually take a lvl 1 BW with cluster of radiants and a lvl 1/2 singer with 1 or 2 scrolls. That's 5 dd and one auto-dispel. I don't expect to accomplish much in the casting phase, but treesinging is always worth a roll of the dice.
But if I know that I'm facing a magic-heavy foe, I take a weaver with the wand of wych elm, the branchwraith as above, and maybe a singer.
I'm going to refrain from voting in this poll - the answer seems very conditional. Sometimes a lv4 spellweaver is better for your strategy than 2 lv2 spellsingers.
As DotR mentioned, the most obvious benefit of spellweavers is their ability to take other lores. But the spellweaver himself can be kitted out to deal out a lot more hurt than a pair of lv2 singers - for example, try attaching a lv4 weaver with the moonstone, calaingor's stave, and the aramanthine brooch (or some such ward save) to a unit of wardancers. Suddenly you've got a guy who can move the wardancers around the board, treesing 4 times per turn, and re-roll the results of the treesinging. You could even remove him from the wardancers after he has teleported them if you want, and then leave him with his own private tree Cadillac to drive around. If he stayed within the woods, he could move it around to disrupt enemy tactics, and woe to any enemies dumb enough to come in after him.
I'm with David on this.
The 'Weaver is better but I am more likely to take a 'Singer and a 'Wraith so I can have juicy highborns and nobles.
I seldom try to cast spells with them but the 5 DD and 5 PD give you the ability to remove "remains in play" spells during your magic phase. I have played 3000pt games against magic heavy armies (Tzeentch with 14 PD and 2 horror units) and been able to survive the magic phase.
But for the question on the poll I think you will find most people would take the level 1 or 2 Spellsinger, just so they can have a kick arse Highborn.
Mirage Arcana Podcast
The "A Smart Player Will..." theory is a complete paradox. If we make an assumption that everything we do is outsmarted, then theoretically we can never win.
I went for the 2 'singers in a small army. But in a larger army 'weaves are better, not only because they can cast stronger spells but because they can chose from 3 lore's not 1.
A Level 4 Wizard can hit a BW with the Bears Anger, making her more better than a Treeman in combat (all gasp), VERY nasty for an unsuspecting opponent. She can also access the Wand of Wych Elm (not much of a bonus, but hey). Individually, she has he potential to dominate the Magic phase, ofensively, defensively, and supportively.
Unfortunately, from my experience, Lvl 4 wizards carry rather a target (wizards and cannons are NOT good friends). 2 smaller wizards inspire less paranoia amongst the enemy.
2 Lvl 2 Wizards can take 2 Arcane items (between them, that is). Another bonus is that if one suffers a Miscast and is banished into the Shadow Realm of Eternal Torment, the other one can still get the job done. They are also harder to kill (with the extra wound between them, and requiring 2 units to shoot them in one turn). You can also tool up one for offense, and one for defense. that said, you can do that with a Lvl 4 one anyways.
Finally, with Dave's heroes, you have 3 of your Hero slots used up with Wizards. With a Lvl 4, you only take up 2 slots. Can you put a price on a Lord choice over 2 Hero choices?
Today I look a lvl 3 weaver with only modest success, and that's being kind to myself.
He miscast on the first turn and caused himself a wound. On the second turn he drew out an enemy dispel scroll. On the third and fourth turns he attempted to cast Call of the Hunt, failing both times. Despite being supported by a lvl 1 Branchwraith and a lvl 1 Spellsinger, the weaver never accomplished much, besides being torn to shreds by a voracious Carnosaur on the last turn and nearly costing me the game.
I've played WEs since they came out, and I've rarely had games where the magic phase brought me as much success as either the combat or shooting phase.
My most successful Wood Elves characters have been either Alters, Wardancers, Wild Riders, or some variation of a HoDA launching pad.
As for magic, I finally decided to just take basic magic defense (lvl 1 branchwraith with cluster and maybe a lvl 1 spellsinger with a scroll) and otherwise go for offense with shooting and combat when it came to characters.
Unless I know for sure I'm going up against an opponent who doesn't use a lot of magic, I can count on treesinging to get dispelled (or at least attempted) at every possible turn. It doesn't take long for opponents to realize that treesinging is far from a nothing spell (a common early misconception), and to do everything in their power to stop you from using it. Our other spells can bolster a WE strategy easily, but with Lv1 wizards, I'm not rolling enough power dice to be confident that they'll go off. By the time I've upgraded to Lv2 or better wizards, they stop seeming worth their points.
In that light, I'd have to agree that 2 spellsingers is probably a better investment than a single spellweaver.
Last edited by Cyric the Mad; June 17th, 2007 at 08:58.