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

Dispelling: How and Why to implement it

2twoto2twoto Posts: 36Registered Users
edited July 11 in Balancing Discussions
Hello again. Title is self explanatory, so I'll skip the intro and get straight into the meat of this discussion: how and why to do a dispel system.

I realize that a dispel system has been discussed before (Ephraim did a post on it a year back, and there are a few other posts on the subject as far back as 2016), with the proposed systems being based on the concept of spending a certain amount of mana for a chance to dispel a spell (the mana scaling with the mana of the enemy spell). While this system seems to be trying to remain true/faithful to the table top, I think there are 2 reasons why this system is fundamentally flawed:

1) RNG: While not all RNG is bad, having it play a major role in dispelling undermines the system. When the enemy casts the spell, they spend the mana and it is always guaranteed to go off; this makes it so one can plan strategy around the spells they bring, which is what makes magic fun and interesting in the game. Having the dispel system by heavily RNG prevents dispelling from being a strategically important decision, as there is no guarantee that it will generate any value (unlike something like the flamespire pheonix or Hellpit abom, which can still easily pay for themselves without the rng ability being used). As such, Dispelling must have some degree of guarantee that it can produce value, meaning that RNG cannot be the primary factor for determining if the mechanic works or not.

2) Mechanics and Systems: Basically, the commonly proposed system requires that CA creates and entirely new system within the game specifically for dispelling, which, while not impossible, is unlikely to happen. Even looking in the steam workshop (which can finagle the systems and mechanics to do some things that CA itself can't, like respecing lords/heroes and region trading), there isn't much for specifically dispelling magic: closest thing is a "dispel magic" stance for the HE in campaign that lowers enemy WoM pool and adds magic resistance. If the modding community cannot produce an effective dispel system, there is not much chance that CA could do so without significant investment time and resources (which, due to the current balance of the magic in the game not being horrendous, seems unlikely). As such, I think that dispelling must be made in a way that doesn't require the introduction of completely new mechanics or systems, thus allowing for CA to implement it easily.

As such, I believe that the only way to have a chance at having a dispel system incorporated into the game is to have one that is not RNG based and uses mechanics and systems that are already present within the game. This is my proposal for implementing dispel:

Dispel Implementation

Dispel is added as a spell that all casters have automatically (i.e. it cannot be removed). Because this is being added to all casters, it shouldn't result in a cost increase (as, ideally, it will only affect other casters, rendering any cost increase moot). Hero mages will only be able to access the non-overcast version of the spell, whereas Lord Mages will be able to access an overcast version of the spell (Subject to the normal miscast, ironically, but I don't know if overcasts can have 0% chance of miscast so I'm going to assume that they must have at least some miscast chance). The dispel spell's layout would be as such:

Normal: 15 WoM to cast. Single target only, 100m range. Either typed as hex or augment. Can affect allies and enemies. 3 second cast time, 90 second duration. 60 second cool down. The targeted unit has any spell, bound spell, and rune effects negated, and any further spells or runes targeted on them are likewise negated for the duration (this would just be represented by an indicator on the unit card).

Overcast: 20 WoM to cast. adds AoE of 20m (still typed as hex or augment).

Dawi: To prevent them from being able to use all of their WoM on just dispelling (which would make magic almost worthless against them), what will instead happen for dwarfs is that their runesmiths will get 3 runes of spell breaking (equivalent to the normal dispel magic) and the runesmith will get 2 Runes of Spell Eating (equivalent to overcasted dispel magic).

Viability

Insofar as balance is concerned, 15-20 WoM cost along side the effective 150 second cooldown (the spell does not go on cool down until the duration has finished, meaning that its cooldown insofar as affecting multiple targets is really 150 seconds, rather than 60) prevents the spell from being spammed to negate the opponent's attempt to use their own magic (furthermore, doing this would prevent beneficial spells from affecting the unit as well, meaning that spamming it would result in not being able to support that unit). It would be more expensive than most spells, but makes up for this with a long duration (90 seconds was chosen because the longest duration spell, overcasted flesh to stone, lasts 88 seconds, so dispel would completely negate even the longest duration spell) and the potential to counter game winning spells (i.e. can remove regrowth from the enemy lord/SEM to ensure the final kill, save some of one's units from a devastating Final Transmutation, or negate an Arcane Unforging being used on a GS Lord). Thus, I think dispel would see use, but it would not be OP or make magic worthless to bring. If I'm wrong about some of the particulars in terms of numbers, though, feel free to suggest corrections (off the top of my head, I could see arguments for a shorter duration closer to 60 seconds, +1 or 2 WoM to dispel's cost, or a slight increase in cast time).

As far as the ability for CA to do this, they have already established that one effect canceling out another class of effects is something they are capable of doing: the cold blooded changes demonstrate this, as it not only cancels the rampage of the normal feral units and the primal instincts, but also the witch elf rampage (although this does also require that dispel also dispels beneficial effects on the unit, as I don't know if the game can differentiate how the dispel would work based on which player used it and on what units it was used). Because it is a spell, the most they may have to do is put it on a separate tab from the main spells if they don't want to break the 6 spells on the wheel limit (the separate tabs being possible, as proven by Manfred). Finally, with Delilverance of Itza they've demonstrated that they can make AoE damage spells (vortexes, explosions, winds, bombardments) not damage certain units.

The only part of this system that I wish could be added but I don't think can be would be the ability to dispel summoned units; the problem is the unbinding mechanic is a unit ability, so dispel as proposed here wouldn't affect it at all (the result would be that the unit would be affected as though it were a normal unit). I do suppose they could hard code it so that if the spell is cast on a unit with unbinding it immediately starts the second phase of unbinding (i.e. where the unit dies), but I kept it out of the main proposal as I don't believe it is possible given the current mechanics and systems within the game (basically, unbinding on the tool tip has a duration of 5 seconds longer than the active icon on the unit card because, after the initial duration is over, the second phase begins during which the unit takes massive damage until death. Thus, it seems both stages of unbinding are part of the same effect, and so I don't believe it is currently possible to have the 1st phase be "skipped" in some fashion by an effect).

If I'm wrong or misinformed on any of these things, let me know @CA_Duck

Why Dispel should be a thing

Now then, the arguments for why there should be a dispel system in the game at all:

1) TT and Lore: this one is kind of the weakest of the lot, but it is the first precedence for having dispelling in the game. Basically, this game is uses the TT and lore for its base and, though some things cannot translate over due to the mechanical and systemic differences between the table top and the game, if it's possible to implement something from the TT in a fun and balanced way then it should be done.

2) Strategic counter play: As it stands, when a spell goes off the only way to counter it is with another spell that negates the effects (i.e. Harmonic Convergance countering Enfeebling foe), dodge out of the way (a fairly micro-intensive option that is sometimes effective and other times not even an option), use items/abilities to lower WoM regen/pool (which are somewhat uncommon and don't actually prevent the effects of spells at the time), or, in the case of damaging spells, use a very small number of items/abilities to improve the magic resistance of the unit (most of which are single use and only partially effective, baring a few exceptions). While the first option is fairly strategic (i.e. you have to consider what you should bring and if you should use resources in that manner) it is rare due to the lack of directly opposing spell effects (or in the case of direct damage, equal value between them and healing spells), the remainder are basically point and click with little thought and similarly lackluster effects (again, baring a few abilities like the arch lector's 90% MR in an aoe). Having a system like the one proposed would allow for a much more strategic choice to counter enemy spell casting, as there is a significant trade off for an effect that, while it can be game changing, can also be easily wasted/crippling if misused. (see the first paragraph under viability for the details on that).

3) Balance: Simply put, this helps spells overall be more balanced because they would no longer be guaranteed to have the intended effect. When building the army, there is not guarantee any individual unit will have the intended effect on the battle; one can bring several large monsters with the intent to smash the front line quickly, only to find the front line filled with elite halberds/flagellates or find that the enemy has gone with a kiting build. Spells should be in a similar place: bringing enfeebling foe should not ensure that the enemy cannot fight you with his kited out lord or big monster when he needs to, or else that bringing healing spells will allow you to keep your lord healthy throughout the whole game. (note that, in these scenarios, bringing those spells would still be valuable: in either case, a dispel costing 15 WoM is more expensive than enfeebling foe's 6 WoM [10 overcasted] or earthblood's 6 WoM [11 overcasted], and even regrowth is less expensive at 13 WoM [though the overcast is slightly more expensive at 17 WoM]; if your opponent chooses to use WoM to negate you spells, then you will have a net gain over your opponent through the interaction, thus your spells will still generate value).

Long story short, the idea for how to implement dispelling has been talked about for a while, but it hasn't gone anywhere because the systems proposed were heavily RNG based or not possible with the game's current mechanics and systems. I think I've proposed a way to implement it that does not rely on RNG, is possible within the game's current mechanical and systemic limitations, and would be strategic, balanced, and dynamic if implemented. Also, just in case people are opposed to changing the system currently, I've argued why it should be implemented separate from its viability.

Let me know what you think.

Edit: added Runes to the effects negated by dispel (as they appear to be a separate category of abilities)
Post edited by 2twoto on

Comments

  • 2twoto2twoto Posts: 36Registered Users
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 1,001Registered Users
    edited July 10
    This dispel mechanic seems way too weak. I can only see this being worth it as a last ditch effort to save a character (probably your lord), but you cannot just save 15 WoM for that eventuality (and you might wanna heal him anyway). I know it would be free to bring, but the impact would be minimal as I see it. The mechanic also has very low utility as you cannot really counter almost any spell because of the low radius when overcast and the reaction time to a spell (so spells that deal damage immediately cannot really be interacted with). Even dot spells like FoB or spirit leech will have done some damage before you can react. The long duration does not really matter imo because the opponent can just use his WoM in other ways. I don't see what this would be good against: Against opposing damage spells, it is a really bad heal, against opposing healing, it is a really bad damage spell. Same with buffs/debuffs.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Posts: 699Registered Users
    edited July 10
    I like the idea. I think the costs/duration of the dispel spell can probably be tweaked.

    I think that as proposed, the system will add very little to the actual game play.

    In addition,

    If this system is implemented, there would be some balance issues that come to my mind:

    1) Seems that spells with very high cast values and long duration will be less valuable while spells with low cost values and shorter duration will be more valuable.

    Consider a spell like sneaky stabbin'. It only costs 4 WoM and lasts 19 s. No one will reastically even consider dispelilng this. Therefore it will not be affected. Likewise, a spell whose effects are instantaneous will not be affected (like Foot of Gork).

    However, spells that cost a lot of magic and last a long time will not be as good. Consider Fate of Bjuna with a cost of 22 WoM. This spell will have to be rebalanced as there is no point in casting it as someone can dispell it for 15 WoM. So it will definitely be weaker than it currently is


    2) Dwarfs would become stronger. (if rune smith/lord's abilities cannot be dispelled)

    3) It would have to be determined which items/abilities are considered magic. For example, are the rune smiths abilities magic and can they be dispelled? If so, which other items/abilities should be dispelable?
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 1,387Registered Users
    Is dispelling a good idea in regards to gameplay though? Considering all factions bar Dwarfs can bring magic, I'm not sure I see the point behind allowing spells to be dispelled just because you could do it in Tabletop. Especially because in certain matchups the use of magic is a key part of the strategy for winning. It would require a lot of rebalancing of magic across the board and for questionable benefit imo.

    I quite like the current crop of abilities/passives that can be used to influence the use of magic like WoM degenerators, adding ability cooldowns, increasing miscast chance etc.
  • sandercohensandercohen Posts: 171Registered Users

    I like the idea. I think the costs/duration of the dispel spell can probably be tweaked.

    I think that as proposed, the system will add very little to the actual game play.

    In addition,

    If this system is implemented, there would be some balance issues that come to my mind:

    1) Seems that spells with very high cast values and long duration will be less valuable while spells with low cost values and shorter duration will be more valuable.

    Consider a spell like sneaky stabbin'. It only costs 4 WoM and lasts 19 s. No one will reastically even consider dispelilng this. Therefore it will not be affected. Likewise, a spell whose effects are instantaneous will not be affected (like Foot of Gork).

    However, spells that cost a lot of magic and last a long time will not be as good. Consider Fate of Bjuna with a cost of 22 WoM. This spell will have to be rebalanced as there is no point in casting it as someone can dispell it for 15 WoM. So it will definitely be weaker than it currently is


    2) Dwarfs would become stronger. (if rune smith/lord's abilities cannot be dispelled)

    3) It would have to be determined which items/abilities are considered magic. For example, are the rune smiths abilities magic and can they be dispelled? If so, which other items/abilities should be dispelable?

    I agree with your points. It would change the balance of the game, but not in a favorable kind of way. It would effectively reduce the power of debuff and direct damage spells and overall make missiles spells and even vortexes more powerful. Some. I do not believe that magic is in need for such a feature, at least not in multiplayer, and I'd doubt it would add much for singleplayer, either.
  • ReymReym Posts: 478Registered Users
    This dispel system looks nice. However it seems to completly forget vortexes or as sanderchosen said magic missiles.

    I'm more on the side of ork lad. The current system to counter spells is nice it's just not spreaded enough in all races and may require some tweaks.

    -Indeed items like the sceptre of stability could be seen in most races. Some scrolls could see at least 2 uses (espescially scroll of leeching and scroll of protection) and again be easier to access.

    -Ability/items/spells who add cooldown on the target need to break spell channeling (and also to have more range to be easier to use). It would indeed be way more interactive to have to stop something like a bjuna or a delivrance of itza when it's about be cast (a lot of low tier spells could use a casting time of at least 3 seconds Hello windblast.).

    -Debuff spells are already counter by... well... buff spells ;).

    -Maybe they can implement a status effect able to reduce the healing received.


    But is talking about what is appropriate to talk about in this thread appropriate to be talked about in this thread ?
  • 2twoto2twoto Posts: 36Registered Users
    edited July 11
    Right, I see that there are some critiques: let me see if I can't put some of them to rest.

    I like the idea. I think the costs/duration of the dispel spell can probably be tweaked.

    I think that as proposed, the system will add very little to the actual game play.

    In addition,

    If this system is implemented, there would be some balance issues that come to my mind:

    1) Seems that spells with very high cast values and long duration will be less valuable while spells with low cost values and shorter duration will be more valuable.

    Consider a spell like sneaky stabbin'. It only costs 4 WoM and lasts 19 s. No one will reastically even consider dispelilng this. Therefore it will not be affected. Likewise, a spell whose effects are instantaneous will not be affected (like Foot of Gork).

    However, spells that cost a lot of magic and last a long time will not be as good. Consider Fate of Bjuna with a cost of 22 WoM. This spell will have to be rebalanced as there is no point in casting it as someone can dispell it for 15 WoM. So it will definitely be weaker than it currently is


    2) Dwarfs would become stronger. (if rune smith/lord's abilities cannot be dispelled)

    3) It would have to be determined which items/abilities are considered magic. For example, are the rune smiths abilities magic and can they be dispelled? If so, which other items/abilities should be dispelable?

    For you first point, I do agree in hindsight that the system as it stands wouldn't be efficient against low cost spells, and while that was partially intentional (see the description at the end of 3) Balance for a brief example) in order to not make the mechanic feel frustrating to play against (i.e. you can counter it by not using high-impact spells). Also, don't forget that its not just the WoM cost of the spell negated that is valuable: the unit itself cannot be affected by spells for the duration regardless. If this is needed, though, then perhaps a "lesser dispel" could be formulated for that.
    However, I disagree on instantaneous spells: those spells have a 5 second cast time and you can see it coming, so someone who is paying attention can easily use dispel on the affected unit/s before they are hit (though there is an argument that the cast time for dispel should be shorter in that case: originally I was going to propose 1 second cast time, but I decided to err on the side of UP before posting).
    As for spells that cost lots and last a long time, I also don't think that is necessarily true: yes, the example you give would be inefficient, but Fate of Bjuna is also a pretty poorly designed spell in the first place (remember a while back when everyone was complaining about it? Only reason they aren't still is because CA bumped up the cost and changed the damage to the point it stopped being common, otherwise the spell is poorly designed). As for other spells in that category, I don't think its nearly as bad: Final Transmutation, for example, has a 30m range, meaning that even if one unit is shielded the spell still gets some value (or, in the case of the overcast dispel, it has a greater range and therefore the entire spell cannot be negated, save the opponent takes a few seconds before casting to bunch up his troops, which itself would allow the spell to do damage and could be punished in other ways). Likewise, Timewarp, soulblight, and literally every other AoE spell in the game except vortexes (which don't count because they move) and tempest (which is cheaper, even overcasted) have a larger AoE than overcasted dispel would, so they will still generate value even if dispel is used to partially negate it. As far as long-duration spells go, I don't believe they would be weakened: for the most part, the spells that have very long duration (i.e. Soulblight upgraded, bless with filth, wither, etc.) all cost less than dispel magic does, meaning that you, again, win in the trade there in terms of WoM if your spell is dispelled (though your opponent might still want to do that if, for example, you net his lord down in a really bad position or if he wants to protect some key units from a particularly devastating spell).

    For your second point, I made a mistake when I originally posted: I didn't check on what ability type the Dwarf runes were, so I assumed they were character/lord abilities. As it turns out, they are typed as "runes," so dispel could actually be broadened to dispel to include rune abilities while still fitting within the realm of what is possible within the game currently.

    For the third, the way things are labeled in game is by ability type: Items are called "item" abilities, abilities coming from weapons are labeled "weapon" abilities, things like foe seeker are character abilities, and then things like Mazda's winds are Lord abilities. Due to this, I didn't propose that dispel affect items because, if it did, it would have to affect all item abilities labeled "item" or "weapon" or both (based on what I understand/can find on the labeling system), and since that would affect everybody (not just wizards and magic) it would complicated to change and cause massive balance issues (hence, I did not propose that).

    As for what it adds to game play, I do thing that having the strategic option to spend an admittedly high amount of WoM to negate an opponents spell opens up the game to more play and counter play: for example, let's say that you are charging in with something like a dragon against the empire and they net down the dragon. Normally, this will either prevent the dragon from doing anything for the immediate fight or else open him up to punishing counter fire that could easily kill him by the time the duration ends: basically, you can't do anything after your opponent points and clicks on it. However, dispel magic would allow the negation of that spell in exchange for more WoM and the inability to heal/buff the dragon for the next minute and a half. Basically, instead of your opponent simply casting a spell and you having to deal with it, you have an option to directly negate it for a high cost. However, it doesn't remove the ability to simply play around the magic if you so choose either: keeping the dragon back until you can bait out the net on another unit is still more rewarding than using dispel magic on it, but if you decide that you need to send the dragon in before then you can pay a high price to allow it to go as you wish.
    OrkLads said:

    Is dispelling a good idea in regards to gameplay though? Considering all factions bar Dwarfs can bring magic, I'm not sure I see the point behind allowing spells to be dispelled just because you could do it in Tabletop. Especially because in certain matchups the use of magic is a key part of the strategy for winning. It would require a lot of rebalancing of magic across the board and for questionable benefit imo.

    I quite like the current crop of abilities/passives that can be used to influence the use of magic like WoM degenerators, adding ability cooldowns, increasing miscast chance etc.

    See above for the first part. For the second part, the problem with these things is that, in the moment, they don't do anything: you cannot negate a net on you lord, an enfeebling foe that will ensure a key unit dies, or a clutch heal that keeps an enemy lord alive for just a little longer. While the things you describe can affect the outcome of the battle over time and limit your opponent's options, they don't allow for direct counter play of spells. Likewise, not every faction has access to those abilities (dwarfs notably have nothing that does any of the abilities/items/passives to influence WoM, and most other races don't have them save on 1 hero type or 1 of their generic lords).
    Reym said:

    This dispel system looks nice. However it seems to completly forget vortexes or as sanderchosen said magic missiles.

    I'm more on the side of ork lad. The current system to counter spells is nice it's just not spreaded enough in all races and may require some tweaks.

    -Indeed items like the sceptre of stability could be seen in most races. Some scrolls could see at least 2 uses (espescially scroll of leeching and scroll of protection) and again be easier to access.

    -Ability/items/spells who add cooldown on the target need to break spell channeling (and also to have more range to be easier to use). It would indeed be way more interactive to have to stop something like a bjuna or a delivrance of itza when it's about be cast (a lot of low tier spells could use a casting time of at least 3 seconds Hello windblast.).

    -Debuff spells are already counter by... well... buff spells ;).

    -Maybe they can implement a status effect able to reduce the healing received.


    Problems: spreading out items like sceptre of stability would make it so that units that deal Magic Damage would become worthless quickly (already, Bretonia can't ever bring grail units against Empire if they want to win because the priest/lector's soul fire completely shuts down their damage by giving everyone in an AoE 90% magic resistance that can be spammed several times in a row). The dispel system proposed avoids this problem.

    Breaking spell channeling would be nice, but spreading out the ability to add cooldown to units would have larger balancing issues: the Waaagh! ability in particular would be hurt really badly.

    I do wish you'd read what I said concerning that: buffs cannot always counter debuffs. There is no spell that counters overcast Fog of the Damned's -44 MA and -8 ld (closest is 'ere we go which 1) only the orks have and 2) only counters the MA debuff, not the LD). Likewise, there is no debuff that directly counters curse of Anhrir, no spell that counters doom and darkness, and so on with most of the buff and debuff spells in the game. As I said in the begining, though such counterplay would be strategic, it is extremely rare in the game due to the lack of directly opposing spell effects (or in the case of direct damage, equal value between them and healing spells). Due to this, it isn't a valid argument to say buff counters debuff and vice versa (because, essentially, that's not always an option).

    for your last point, I think that's Unlikely: if they had that ability, then regeneration would't have a +25% fire damage downside and instead fire damage would cause the unit to regen less. again, the big thing with this system is that they don't need to add anything new mechanic or system wise into the game in order to implement it.

    Well, I hope I've addressed the raised concerns adequately for now. Also going to edit the original to include runes.

    Edit: fixed some grammar and added an example
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,684Registered Users
    Dont fix what isnt broken.
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • ReymReym Posts: 478Registered Users
    @2twoto

    - You actually don't want grail knights vs the empire anyway since the demis blob is way stronger when attacked directly on the front, some thing like a mix of hyppo knights with louen+knight errants or a mix of kotr and questing knights is much better. I still agree it may create some issues in very niche situations.

    - I think I should do a thread about the wwaahg but to summarize the idea.
    Make the wwaahg an army ability (like the ushabti summon) instead of a lord ability, then add a passive to the lord saying that when he is in melee the waahg recharges. Waahg fixed (and please don't tell me that we can't counter the waahg anymore with this "rework" since everyone seems to don't want the waahg to have counters).

    - Most lords got "stand your ground" or an equivalent right those abilities aren't as long as doom and darkness but are still pretty much useful anyway?
    Also how many buff/debuff are on fog the damn or 'ere we go level in term of numbers ? Not a lot (on a side note who uses fog of the damn? I have saw no one so far, probably because such debuff is just overkill to defend a frontline made mainly of zombies but this again may require another thread).

    - Healing isn't only the regeneration passive, also it's not very hard to make a few line of code to make such effect become a thing, like if the HP value is increased by X then modify the value by X*0.Y (I don't know how their game engine works nor their healing script of course but it might be far from being the most insane script in their game).

    - At last I'm asking the question again but how do your system works for magic projectiles, vortexes, bombarment, wind etc spells ?
    But is talking about what is appropriate to talk about in this thread appropriate to be talked about in this thread ?
  • MentatRenderMentatRender Posts: 15Registered Users
    "
    2twoto said:


    Dawi: To prevent them from being able to use all of their WoM on just dispelling (which would make magic almost worthless against them), what will instead happen for dwarfs is that their runesmiths will get 3 runes of spell breaking (equivalent to the normal dispel magic) and the runesmith will get 2 Runes of Spell Eating (equivalent to overcasted dispel magic).

    That's the whole schtick with dwarfs! They are supposed to be good at dispelling!! All we got was magic resistance but it should actually be that magic is hugely expensive to use against dawi and likely to be dispelled.
  • 2twoto2twoto Posts: 36Registered Users
    @Reym Sorry I didn't reply earlier: I've been busy the last few days and just now got the chance to post.

    For what you say about Waagh!, I do agree that it does need something or a change/rework in order to not feel frustrating to try to use, but I think cooldown increasing items would still be problematic regardless of its effect on Waagh! (it was just the best example I had at the time): it would be incredibly frustrating to have a mage constantly interrupted from casting their spell by something, vs currently where, for the most part, the wizard rarely fails to cast the spell (I think the only ways to interrupt them currently is for the mage to get knocked over/sent flying, which can be solved by just putting them on a mount). Admittedly that's less of a balance concern and more of a game play concern, but still I think it's important to consider.

    For the Buffs/Debuffs thing, it is true that those are rather extreme examples (though Word of Pain is a popular spell with equal MA modifies, albeit for a single unit), but the point was to illustrate the imbalance and rarity of essentially sum-0 negation between different buffs/debuffs: consider flesh to stone, for instance: the only 2 direct counters to this spell are 1) plague of rust, which is only available to 3 factions (Empire, Norsca, and Chaos), last for half the duration vs the overcasted version of flesh to stone, and must be overcast to fully negate the effect (though it is admittedly cheaper than flesh to stone by 5 WoM overcasted) and 2) Wither, which must also be overcast and is only available to the skaven (though it does affect an AoE, so it is more effective than Flesh to stone). Basically, unless you are one of the 4 factions mentioned before, you do not have a counter to flesh to stone (or any other spell that grants armor). And while it is true lord abilities can kind-of act as a counter to things like doom and darkness, its limited by the positioning of you lord due to the ability centering on the lord (i.e. in order to negate the debuff you have to put your lord next to the units affected by doom and darkness) and they aren't nearly as long in duration as the spells are (Doom and darkness lasts for 32 seconds, whereas the rally/"Stand Your Ground" abilities only last 14). Basically, the lord abilities can help but themselves aren't sufficient to say there's a dynamic counter system in the buffs/debuffs.

    As for the healing thing, I was trying not to be speculative and focus specifically on what they've demonstrated they can currently do, and since there isn't anywhere in the game they've demonstrated I thinks its unwise to make assumptions on it (Though, on a side note: this discussion has made me question why on earth doesn't Earth Blood just grant regeneration to a unit for a limited duration? That was how it worked in the table top and it would make fire damage something worth while to bring to most matchups, rather than currently where you bring it vs undead and maybe wood elves)

    So for how the system works for vortexes and the like, Kroak's vortex spells have demonstrated that CA is capable of programming spells to completely ignore (i.e. not damage, disrupt, or affect) certain units (Technically they've also demonstrated this with AoE abilities that do not target units climbing/on walls, but Kroak's are one of the clearer examples). Thus, the system proposed would attach whatever tag/code/whatever that negates spell effects to the unit, making it so that any spells used on them would have no affect on them (like how Kroak's vortex's uniquely do not damage his own units and how certain buffs spells [I think IoN, though I may be wrong] do not affect units on walls despite them being in the AoE). As they've demonstrated this works for multiple types of spells, it makes sense that they'd be able to do this for all spell types. Basically, to answer your question, the unit/s targeted would unaffected by those spells (i.e. not take any damage and not be scattered).

    "

    2twoto said:


    Dawi: To prevent them from being able to use all of their WoM on just dispelling (which would make magic almost worthless against them), what will instead happen for dwarfs is that their runesmiths will get 3 runes of spell breaking (equivalent to the normal dispel magic) and the runesmith will get 2 Runes of Spell Eating (equivalent to overcasted dispel magic).

    That's the whole schtick with dwarfs! They are supposed to be good at dispelling!! All we got was magic resistance but it should actually be that magic is hugely expensive to use against dawi and likely to be dispelled.
    They still would be the most efficient at dispelling (i.e. their runes only cost gold, rather than gold and WoM, an additional resource that can be spent on other things), but it forces them to bring more than 1 rune character if they want to be the dispelling masters (admittedly, in the current meta, this isn't much of a choice since their other Hero/lord choices are underwhelming, but that's a separate issue that should, and hopefully will, be addressed later). This also is to prevent the dwarfs from being able to have an entire resource pool that they can dedicate just to dispelling.

    Hope that clarifies and explains my ideas on the topics mentioned.
Sign In or Register to comment.