Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Magic attacks and Magic damage should be considered 2 different things for magic resistance

User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 314
Back in TT magic attacks didn't have any interaction with magic resistance. Magic resistance either added dispel dice or added a ward save against spell damage (and miscasts). Magic attacks only bypassed the ethereal rule and the some ward saves in older editions. I don't mind pretty much every ward save being ignored by magic attacks, because it is something that used to happen and it makes magic attacks more universally useful (and it makes ward saves more interesting)

(Fire damage did interact with fire resistance, so that's working as intended)

Why would magic resistance impact the damage from a physical weapon just because it's enchanted? What about dwarf's magical resilience makes them resilient against a silver bullet or a tree man crushing them under its foot? Why is Sarthorael more resilient to a Grail knight's holy weapon rather than less?

This would at least make the Fay enchantress less tanky because you'd actually be able to bypass her physical resistance.


The biggest elephant in the room are the Dwarfs who all have MR. With this changed you could either increase it to help (since it's not getting in the way of anything else), or give them a map wide magic debuff that lowers the enemies winds and recharge rate so that their opponent cant use as many spells against them. Other magic resistances could also potentially be increased too based on this change so that they actually had a decent impact on spell damage.

Also this wouldn't stop melee and ranged units from dealing magic damage (and interacting with magic resistance), it would just be listed differently on the unit card.

Comments

  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,493
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,529
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 314

    This gets brought up weekly

    So hopefully it's nothing controversial
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,360
    Yes agreed current implementation is not good
  • MitechMitech Registered Users Posts: 67
    I agree in principal but it would need to come with + cost on magic attack units and a complete overhaul of factions to give everyone enough range and melee magic attacks.

    And magic resist needs to have effect on every kind of magic no matter if it heals, deals dmg, buffs or debuffs.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,794
    Yeah, it´s kinda weird atm.

    Maybe make a new damage type, maybe call it "enchanted", that affects physical resistance but is not affected by magic resistance?
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 1,965
    Agreed.


    Giving magic damage to units can easily be such a huge nerf because of magic resist. It's so bad CA even bandaid fixed Wurzag's stupid skill that inadvertently nerfed his entire army against their archenemy
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,027
    Yep a long standing issue. Should definitely be fixed in WH3 otherwise there will be issues with daemons. Would also make balancing with dwarfs more comfortable.

    Giving Wurrzag a skill to strip the whole enemy army of its MR so him granting magic attacks to his army wouldn't be a debuff against dwarfs was definitely a bandaid fix towards this.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 5,235
    Agreed OP... We've only been saying it for years now. Pretty much since the release of the Wood Elves when it really became apparent that certain factions that primarily do magic damage or have magic resistance would be severely hard to balance against eachother.

    Looking at Wood Elves, Dwarves, Daemons and Khorne specifically.
  • Captain_OzCaptain_Oz Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 62
    Back in TT magic attacks didn't have any interaction with magic resistance. Magic resistance either added dispel dice or added a ward save against spell damage (and miscasts). Magic attacks only bypassed the ethereal rule and the some ward saves in older editions. I don't mind pretty much every ward save being ignored by magic attacks, because it is something that used to happen and it makes magic attacks more universally useful (and it makes ward saves more interesting)

    I partly agree with you OP. The magic resistance should only consider spells for the resistance. This would make it easier to balance units with magic attacks as well as rosters with many units with magic resistance (eg. dwarfs). It might make it confusing for new players that something named 'magic resistance' doesn't provide protection versus all magic damage. If that is the case, the name of magic resistance could be changed to spell resistance.
    NEDKIL™ for life! :D
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,794

    Back in TT magic attacks didn't have any interaction with magic resistance. Magic resistance either added dispel dice or added a ward save against spell damage (and miscasts). Magic attacks only bypassed the ethereal rule and the some ward saves in older editions. I don't mind pretty much every ward save being ignored by magic attacks, because it is something that used to happen and it makes magic attacks more universally useful (and it makes ward saves more interesting)

    I partly agree with you OP. The magic resistance should only consider spells for the resistance. This would make it easier to balance units with magic attacks as well as rosters with many units with magic resistance (eg. dwarfs). It might make it confusing for new players that something named 'magic resistance' doesn't provide protection versus all magic damage. If that is the case, the name of magic resistance could be changed to spell resistance.
    Or you could just make a new damage type called "enchanted", that is not affected by magic resistance but cuts through physical resistance.

    Basically a "refined" version of magic damage simulating the fact that the weapon does not sololy rely on magic to do the damage.

  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,731

    This gets brought up weekly

    As it should, until CA realizes they have been doing it wrong for 200 weeks.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • Captain_OzCaptain_Oz Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 62
    Or you could just make a new damage type called "enchanted", that is not affected by magic resistance but cuts through physical resistance.

    Basically a "refined" version of magic damage simulating the fact that the weapon does not sololy rely on magic to do the damage.

    That is also an option. As long as the meaning of the resistance and/or damage type is clear for the majority of the playerbase, I would be happy with any name :)
    NEDKIL™ for life! :D
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 5,235
    TeNoSkill said:

    Back in TT magic attacks didn't have any interaction with magic resistance. Magic resistance either added dispel dice or added a ward save against spell damage (and miscasts). Magic attacks only bypassed the ethereal rule and the some ward saves in older editions. I don't mind pretty much every ward save being ignored by magic attacks, because it is something that used to happen and it makes magic attacks more universally useful (and it makes ward saves more interesting)

    I partly agree with you OP. The magic resistance should only consider spells for the resistance. This would make it easier to balance units with magic attacks as well as rosters with many units with magic resistance (eg. dwarfs). It might make it confusing for new players that something named 'magic resistance' doesn't provide protection versus all magic damage. If that is the case, the name of magic resistance could be changed to spell resistance.
    Or you could just make a new damage type called "enchanted", that is not affected by magic resistance but cuts through physical resistance.

    Basically a "refined" version of magic damage simulating the fact that the weapon does not sololy rely on magic to do the damage.
    Yep... all this balance nonsense could have been simplified with one extra line in the data base.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,430
    Using the existing game system, Lothar Fellheart has a physical resistance reduction debuff called Disrupted!. How would people feel if magical attacks were replaced with physical resistance reduction anywhere between -.1PR to -1.0PR?
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 314
    Bastilean said:

    Using the existing game system, Lothar Fellheart has a physical resistance reduction debuff called Disrupted!. How would people feel if magical attacks were replaced with physical resistance reduction anywhere between -.1PR to -1.0PR?

    But what about ethereal units who have 75%. Magic attacks are supposed to completely ignore their ethereal nature, not part of it.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,430
    User_Clue said:

    Bastilean said:

    Using the existing game system, Lothar Fellheart has a physical resistance reduction debuff called Disrupted!. How would people feel if magical attacks were replaced with physical resistance reduction anywhere between -.1PR to -1.0PR?

    But what about ethereal units who have 75%. Magic attacks are supposed to completely ignore their ethereal nature, not part of it.
    Well, that was part of my point. Some magical weapons might be superior or you could just provide -1.0PR which would be total removal of resistances. On the other hand, maybe it would be good to tone down magical weapons effect on physical resistance...

    Also, keep in mind a debuff affects everyone's attacks on the target not just the unit doing debuffing with the 'magical weapon'.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 5,235
    Bastilean said:

    User_Clue said:

    Bastilean said:

    Using the existing game system, Lothar Fellheart has a physical resistance reduction debuff called Disrupted!. How would people feel if magical attacks were replaced with physical resistance reduction anywhere between -.1PR to -1.0PR?

    But what about ethereal units who have 75%. Magic attacks are supposed to completely ignore their ethereal nature, not part of it.
    Well, that was part of my point. Some magical weapons might be superior or you could just provide -1.0PR which would be total removal of resistances. On the other hand, maybe it would be good to tone down magical weapons effect on physical resistance...

    Also, keep in mind a debuff affects everyone's attacks on the target not just the unit doing debuffing with the 'magical weapon'.
    No flat out Magic Weapons should ignore Physical Resistance, Magic Resistance shouldn't effect Magic Weapons just spells just like table top.

    I don't know about Lokhier but Witch Elves and Eshin units shouldn't even have Physical resistance, they should have Melee Resistance.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 314
    OdTengri said:

    Bastilean said:

    User_Clue said:

    Bastilean said:

    Using the existing game system, Lothar Fellheart has a physical resistance reduction debuff called Disrupted!. How would people feel if magical attacks were replaced with physical resistance reduction anywhere between -.1PR to -1.0PR?

    But what about ethereal units who have 75%. Magic attacks are supposed to completely ignore their ethereal nature, not part of it.
    Well, that was part of my point. Some magical weapons might be superior or you could just provide -1.0PR which would be total removal of resistances. On the other hand, maybe it would be good to tone down magical weapons effect on physical resistance...

    Also, keep in mind a debuff affects everyone's attacks on the target not just the unit doing debuffing with the 'magical weapon'.
    No flat out Magic Weapons should ignore Physical Resistance, Magic Resistance shouldn't effect Magic Weapons just spells just like table top.

    I don't know about Lokhier but Witch Elves and Eshin units shouldn't even have Physical resistance, they should have Melee Resistance.
    Eshin units had the dodge rule which was a flat out ward save, so they should have it. You're right about Witch elves though. They had nothing in TT. They were made of tissue paper. They no armor, no parry, and no save of any kind. All they had was their measly 3 toughness.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,430
    Most physical resistance was a straight ward save on Table Top except for tree and undead spirits.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 5,235
    User_Clue said:

    OdTengri said:

    Bastilean said:

    User_Clue said:

    Bastilean said:

    Using the existing game system, Lothar Fellheart has a physical resistance reduction debuff called Disrupted!. How would people feel if magical attacks were replaced with physical resistance reduction anywhere between -.1PR to -1.0PR?

    But what about ethereal units who have 75%. Magic attacks are supposed to completely ignore their ethereal nature, not part of it.
    Well, that was part of my point. Some magical weapons might be superior or you could just provide -1.0PR which would be total removal of resistances. On the other hand, maybe it would be good to tone down magical weapons effect on physical resistance...

    Also, keep in mind a debuff affects everyone's attacks on the target not just the unit doing debuffing with the 'magical weapon'.
    No flat out Magic Weapons should ignore Physical Resistance, Magic Resistance shouldn't effect Magic Weapons just spells just like table top.

    I don't know about Lokhier but Witch Elves and Eshin units shouldn't even have Physical resistance, they should have Melee Resistance.
    Eshin units had the dodge rule which was a flat out ward save, so they should have it. You're right about Witch elves though. They had nothing in TT. They were made of tissue paper. They no armor, no parry, and no save of any kind. All they had was their measly 3 toughness.
    I guess I was getting Sisters of Slaughter confused with Witch Elves

    They had a Ward save in Melee only, Witch Elves had nothing and your right Eshin units had variable amounts of Ward Save
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 5,235
    Bastilean said:

    Most physical resistance was a straight ward save on Table Top except for tree and undead spirits.

    Yeah.... But this game works on different bones and ward saves are mostly dumb in the Total War context.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,430
    OdTengri said:

    I guess I was getting Sisters of Slaughter confused with Witch Elves

    They had a Ward save in Melee only, Witch Elves had nothing and your right Eshin units had variable amounts of Ward Save

    Kind of like this Steam Workshop: Sisters of Slaughter mod I created?
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 5,235
    Bastilean said:

    OdTengri said:

    I guess I was getting Sisters of Slaughter confused with Witch Elves

    They had a Ward save in Melee only, Witch Elves had nothing and your right Eshin units had variable amounts of Ward Save

    Kind of like this Steam Workshop: Sisters of Slaughter mod I created?
    Interesting.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 314
    Bastilean said:

    OdTengri said:

    I guess I was getting Sisters of Slaughter confused with Witch Elves

    They had a Ward save in Melee only, Witch Elves had nothing and your right Eshin units had variable amounts of Ward Save

    Kind of like this Steam Workshop: Sisters of Slaughter mod I created?
    dam. That's closer to what sisters should have been. Although 30% ward is pretty high.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,430
    edited April 9
    .

    Post edited by Bastilean on
Sign In or Register to comment.