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

Are people happy with the changes to magic resistance?

Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,820
Spell resistance now seems like such a meh resistance (slightly less so in mp). In the WH2 days, units and lords could really stack magic resistance and it felt like a really useful stat to go for whereas now, it feels like you may as well completely Ignore it (particularly in SP).

What are other peoples thoughts?

Are people happy with the changes to magic resistance? 97 votes

Yes I prefer spell resistance
69%
philosofoolAnglocanerSerkelettalonnNitros14Arthas_MenethilItharustadakatsuMalruirDragantisSaigodjinSeswathalcmiracleboosykesBastileanMogwai_ManVon_CarsteinLordTorquemadoSaitohcat59 67 votes
No, revert back to magic resistance
30%
RigbySirEyeballBmnoble981mewade44StoreslemEltarionAnnoyedOneEyedGuyMkeefe78MonochromaticSpiderUgandaJimTheo91WarfieldXxXScorpionXxXkatana1231EterlikLennoxPoodleTheRealIronJazZArneSoGhettobibleNinaran 30 votes
«1

Comments

  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 2,173
    No, revert back to magic resistance
    Yeah it feels completely useless on characters now and you can't really stack it on units, where it would be useful, either.
    Ugh, I have spoken.
  • mewade44mewade44 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,016
    edited May 20
    No, revert back to magic resistance
    All magic resistance banners and items I trash/fuse because it's so rare the unit you assign banner to or lord you give item to ever get a spell cast on them. Better to get wars save or physical resist

    Edit: both kinda usless
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 2,031
    I'd prefer spell resistance if it wasn't just effecting damage spells.
  • mecanojavi99mecanojavi99 EspañaRegistered Users Posts: 9,914
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    It's how it was always supposed to work, it made 0 sense that it affected magical attacks as well.
    "By the fires of Hashut, let them burn in the flames of eternal torment!"
    - Anonymous
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,907
    No, revert back to magic resistance

    It's how it was always supposed to work, it made 0 sense that it affected magical attacks as well.

    It made no sense but it made the resistance useful. As it is, you really don't care if characters get hit by spells and you can't protect units sufficiently from damage spells anyway, so bothering with spell resistance is completely pointless.

    I reckon a compromise would've been preferable all around, where maybe half of spell resistance becomes generic magic resistance.
  • ProcessingProcessing Czech Republic Registered Users Posts: 722
    edited May 20
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    Whoever said they preferred the old magic resistance never went against Harkon and his Sirens with like 75% magic resistance on top of their 75% physical resistance.

    75% permanent ward save baby...
  • MeiBayettaMeiBayetta Registered Users Posts: 63
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    It kinda made the Dwarfs OP vs Wood Elves.


  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,820
    No, revert back to magic resistance
    I think for me, it comes down to whether you enjoyed buff stacking. In game 2, you could defeat kemmler to get resistance for the army, you could get a couple of landmarks to boost magic resistance. Add that with banners and you could get 50% magic resistance on a unit.

    I enjoyed that type of thing and I understand some people don’t. Spell resistance now just seems so pointless and it’s not even worth thinking about
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,820
    No, revert back to magic resistance

    It's how it was always supposed to work, it made 0 sense that it affected magical attacks as well.

    It made no sense but it made the resistance useful. As it is, you really don't care if characters get hit by spells and you can't protect units sufficiently from damage spells anyway, so bothering with spell resistance is completely pointless.

    I reckon a compromise would've been preferable all around, where maybe half of spell resistance becomes generic magic resistance.
    The reason I assume for the change is cos half the daemon rosters have magic attacks and that has caused balancing issues in the past with Dawi for example.

    It just seems like another example of sp being made less fun for the sake of MP balance
  • overtaker40overtaker40 Registered Users Posts: 974
    edited May 20
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    Im glad its changed but im not sure it should be considered perfect. Before it was too prevalint now its pointless getting magic resistance unless its a whole army buff
    I like all the races. Equally. Wood elves are just the first among equals.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,907
    No, revert back to magic resistance

    Whoever said they preferred the old magic resistance never went against Harkon and his Sirens with like 75% magic resistance on top of their 75% physical resistance.

    75% permanent ward save baby...

    Sure did. And it was kind of fun. Same with beating vampires back before they nerfed regeneration with a cap.

  • MatSTMatST Registered Users Posts: 102
    edited May 20
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    It's much better in WH3. Having magical attacks in WH2 is more often than not a hindrance, instead of a boon. It does not make sense. That's the reason why they changed the skill on Wurrzag that gives magical attacks to his whole army to also remove magical resistance from the enemy. Otherwise, it made 0 sense to take that skill, especially because your first enemies are dwarves.

    I hope they do something similar for fire damage too. It makes sense that fire resistance helps against fire spells and fire breaths; it does not make sense if it reduces the damage from flaming swords (there is still an iron sword beneath the flames).
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,401
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    Had to happen because Daemons have their entire roster with magic attacks.
  • lcmiraclelcmiracle Registered Users Posts: 801
    edited May 20
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    MatST said:

    It's much better in WH3. Having magical attacks in WH2 is more often than not a hindrance, instead of a boon. It does not make sense. That's the reason why they changed the skill on Wurrzag that gives magical attacks to his whole army to also remove magical resistance from the enemy. Otherwise, it made 0 sense to take that skill, especially because your first enemies are dwarves.

    I hope they do something similar for fire damage too. It makes sense that fire resistance helps against fire spells and fire breaths; it does not make sense if it reduces the damage from flaming swords (there is still an iron sword beneath the flames).

    I would be nice to do the other damage types like they do AP: this amount of damage is flame, this amount is non-flame, a 100% immune to flame damage still lets the non-flame portion through.

    Edit: on second thought, what I proposed would be pretty bad for ethereal units, as the magical portion of melee attacks will presumably be pretty low (< 50% most of the cases would be my guess), so ethereal units will have to be even more like paper mache than they are already.
  • Ben1990Ben1990 Registered Users Posts: 2,183
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    Theo91 said:

    Spell resistance now seems like such a meh resistance (slightly less so in mp). In the WH2 days, units and lords could really stack magic resistance and it felt like a really useful stat to go for whereas now, it feels like you may as well completely Ignore it (particularly in SP).

    What are other peoples thoughts?

    Yes because then magical weapons were useless against Dwarfs if they got stuff to stack magic resistance.
  • damon40000damon40000 Registered Users Posts: 1,621
    No, revert back to magic resistance
    Ben1990 said:

    Theo91 said:

    Spell resistance now seems like such a meh resistance (slightly less so in mp). In the WH2 days, units and lords could really stack magic resistance and it felt like a really useful stat to go for whereas now, it feels like you may as well completely Ignore it (particularly in SP).

    What are other peoples thoughts?

    Yes because then magical weapons were useless against Dwarfs if they got stuff to stack magic resistance.
    magic attacks now bypass armor so dawi will have a lot of fun getting roflrolled by daemons
    BsFG dwarf
  • 445Aas445Aas Registered Users Posts: 400

    Ben1990 said:

    Theo91 said:

    Spell resistance now seems like such a meh resistance (slightly less so in mp). In the WH2 days, units and lords could really stack magic resistance and it felt like a really useful stat to go for whereas now, it feels like you may as well completely Ignore it (particularly in SP).

    What are other peoples thoughts?

    Yes because then magical weapons were useless against Dwarfs if they got stuff to stack magic resistance.
    magic attacks now bypass armor so dawi will have a lot of fun getting roflrolled by daemons
    Are you sure magic attacks bypass Armor?

    In Warhammer 2 that wasn't the case and I haven't read anything that it's different in Warhammer 3?
  • GeorgeTrumanGeorgeTruman Registered Users Posts: 600
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    I would love it if they could figure a way to make magic resistance effect debuffs. Also I think they need to rebalance sources of magic resistance to be higher because every point is less valuable now.
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,401
    Yes I prefer spell resistance

    Ben1990 said:

    Theo91 said:

    Spell resistance now seems like such a meh resistance (slightly less so in mp). In the WH2 days, units and lords could really stack magic resistance and it felt like a really useful stat to go for whereas now, it feels like you may as well completely Ignore it (particularly in SP).

    What are other peoples thoughts?

    Yes because then magical weapons were useless against Dwarfs if they got stuff to stack magic resistance.
    magic attacks now bypass armor so dawi will have a lot of fun getting roflrolled by daemons
    That isn't true.
  • damon40000damon40000 Registered Users Posts: 1,621
    No, revert back to magic resistance
    zzz yep. derped by mistaking armor and phys res

    Is there going to be a difference between spell resistance and magic resistance in WARHAMMER III?

    Magic resistance has been changed into spell resistance in WARHAMMER III. We needed to change the way magic resistance interacted with magical attacks to make Daemons play well, so magical attacks now bypass physical resistance and are no longer resisted by magic resistance. Spell resistance now only affects spell damage. We changed the term to signal that something has changed there.
    BsFG dwarf
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 6,462
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    The old system sucked.

    It causes too many situations where a supposed buff resulted in a straight up nerf with little player control. CA bandaged Wurzag by adding the ability to negate magic resistance, but a bandage is just that, a bandage.

    Not to mention it was cheesy af if you stacked MR. If MR came with corresponding reduction of physical resistance (down to negatives) maybe it'd have been fine, but that's not the case
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,502
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    The change makes sense.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    I think replacing a lot of magic resistance with spell resistance makes sense. I think spell resistance needs to do more than just reduce damage though since a lot of spells tend to cause catastrophic damage anyway.

    I think the old magic resistance should still exist though. The lore behind the silverin guard is that their armor protects from daemons, not spells, so it makes sense to reduce damage from magic attacks. A few units and effects with magic resistance wouldn't be any kind of issue like it was in the old games.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,820
    No, revert back to magic resistance

    The old system sucked.

    It causes too many situations where a supposed buff resulted in a straight up nerf with little player control. CA bandaged Wurzag by adding the ability to negate magic resistance, but a bandage is just that, a bandage.

    Not to mention it was cheesy af if you stacked MR. If MR came with corresponding reduction of physical resistance (down to negatives) maybe it'd have been fine, but that's not the case

    You could make the same argument for fire damage. Fighting against dragons or dragon knights for HE, fire damage is a nerf. But like magic resistance, there are very few units that have this innate resistance.

    Whereas in SP, you can go out of your way to stack magic resistance and make it really useful. Wurzag I think is more of a one off example just because he’s likely to go up against Dawi early with is the niche circumstance where it’s bad having magical attacks

    I do understand why they chose to change it to make chaos daemons play better it’s just not something I think makes the game better
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 6,462
    Yes I prefer spell resistance
    Theo91 said:

    The old system sucked.

    It causes too many situations where a supposed buff resulted in a straight up nerf with little player control. CA bandaged Wurzag by adding the ability to negate magic resistance, but a bandage is just that, a bandage.

    Not to mention it was cheesy af if you stacked MR. If MR came with corresponding reduction of physical resistance (down to negatives) maybe it'd have been fine, but that's not the case

    You could make the same argument for fire damage. Fighting against dragons or dragon knights for HE, fire damage is a nerf. But like magic resistance, there are very few units that have this innate resistance.

    Whereas in SP, you can go out of your way to stack magic resistance and make it really useful. Wurzag I think is more of a one off example just because he’s likely to go up against Dawi early with is the niche circumstance where it’s bad having magical attacks

    I do understand why they chose to change it to make chaos daemons play better it’s just not something I think makes the game better
    Magic resist is way more common than fire resist, for instance, an entire Faction.
  • Arcani_4_EverArcani_4_Ever Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,796
    i want changes to missile resistance

    its so boring how both in Campaign and MP your rosters, specially if you have good ranged, devolve into a spam of missiles.

    Melee Infantry is pretty bad the higher the difficulty.

    I want to enjoy a slow brutal grind. But with how low missile resistance is, you never get to enjoy it.
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,401
    Yes I prefer spell resistance

    i want changes to missile resistance

    its so boring how both in Campaign and MP your rosters, specially if you have good ranged, devolve into a spam of missiles.

    Melee Infantry is pretty bad the higher the difficulty.

    I want to enjoy a slow brutal grind. But with how low missile resistance is, you never get to enjoy it.

    Red line skills and techs should just give better missile resistance and better shields more often.
  • XxXScorpionXxXXxXScorpionXxX Registered Users Posts: 5,512
    No, revert back to magic resistance
    Its basically worthless for Khorne and Dwarfs. Rather its not worth the trade off of not having access to lores of magic.
    Request scorched body textures, poisoned dying animations for infantry's skeletons, a blood slider that allows us to control how much blood appears in battle and make proper death animations for all ethereal units so they vanish for Blood for the Blood God 3.
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,820
    No, revert back to magic resistance

    Theo91 said:

    The old system sucked.

    It causes too many situations where a supposed buff resulted in a straight up nerf with little player control. CA bandaged Wurzag by adding the ability to negate magic resistance, but a bandage is just that, a bandage.

    Not to mention it was cheesy af if you stacked MR. If MR came with corresponding reduction of physical resistance (down to negatives) maybe it'd have been fine, but that's not the case

    You could make the same argument for fire damage. Fighting against dragons or dragon knights for HE, fire damage is a nerf. But like magic resistance, there are very few units that have this innate resistance.

    Whereas in SP, you can go out of your way to stack magic resistance and make it really useful. Wurzag I think is more of a one off example just because he’s likely to go up against Dawi early with is the niche circumstance where it’s bad having magical attacks

    I do understand why they chose to change it to make chaos daemons play better it’s just not something I think makes the game better
    Magic resist is way more common than fire resist, for instance, an entire Faction.
    Units rarely have 10-20% fire resistance when they do have fire resistance, it’s usually a high number - 30+%. Which I think is good. Makes units play more asymmetrically.

    Not that many units have magic resistance… and the only faction that has it across the board making it an issue is Dawi. I honestly think they could have left it and it wouldn’t have been an issue at all. WE are a top tier faction and they have lots of units with magic attacks
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,820
    No, revert back to magic resistance

    Its basically worthless for Khorne and Dwarfs. Rather its not worth the trade off of not having access to lores of magic.

    Agreed. Khorne get better attack stats and Dawi get better defence stats for their price to compensate for their lack of magic and it’s fine.

    It seems like there’s changes for the sake of changes in WH3… like the horrible red ui. Some things that weren’t broken shouldn’t have been fixed
Sign In or Register to comment.