• Registered: 2006-10-02
  • Posts: 44

Topic: Spell Factors

And now, time is come for the spell factor  :twisted:  :

Animate (3 – Qu): I suggest to make a "standard" skeleton/zombies stats, and apply them for all animated troop. Is simpler, avoid confusione between piece, and give a precise effect.

Apply Special (Varies – As, Ca, Cy, Qu): I don't understand this passage:
"The cost for this factor is the same as the cost for the special being applied. Round up in the event that a special has a fractional cost. No special may cost less than one full point."

Change Terrain (3 – Cy) : I think that should be forbidden "change terrain" in the middle of a unit. This phrases "Element that finds itself in Impassable terrain is unable to move." mean that with only 3 ME I can effectly block a unit for the game... not fair I think.

Despair (4 – Ca, Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

Holy Fire (4 – As): should cost less or be more effective. For the same point you get Rancor, that have the same effect but on all target...

Protect (3 – Cy): I think the target hex should become also impassable, or maybe you can't shoot througt it. Otherwise Shield is much way better.

Wasting (4 – Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Spell Factors

Zerloon wrote:

And now, time is come for the spell factor  :twisted:

Good! I never get enough discussion on this topic to make me happy. smile

Zerloon wrote:

Animate (3 – Qu): I suggest to make a "standard" skeleton/zombies stats, and apply them for all animated troop. Is simpler, avoid confusione between piece, and give a precise effect.

Feel free to do so for your group. But the desired power of my skeletons may not match yours, so we were loathe to dictate. The strength of the system is flexibility, and I would hate to undercut that.

Zerloon wrote:

Apply Special (Varies – As, Ca, Cy, Qu): I don't understand this passage:
"The cost for this factor is the same as the cost for the special being applied. Round up in the event that a special has a fractional cost. No special may cost less than one full point."

The cost of the special as listed in the table on page 28. At one time it was meant to work as if paying for the special ability while building a unit, but that was too unwieldy. It appears that we didn't get the text cleaned up enough... nice catch.

Zerloon wrote:

Change Terrain (3 – Cy) : I think that should be forbidden "change terrain" in the middle of a unit. This phrases "Element that finds itself in Impassable terrain is unable to move." mean that with only 3 ME I can effectly block a unit for the game... not fair I think.

ah, but it would be for the game... the spell has to expire unless the Mage spend the same spell over and over...

Plus the easiest way to make it impassable is to raise/lower the hex 2 levels which guarantees a 6 ME cost. pricey.

Zerloon wrote:

Despair (4 – Ca, Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

smile I often wish it were cheaper. But, it certainly isn't the factor I choose to use the most, so I think after some play you will find that it is probably about right. Since the beneficial effect is random, and no effect in the case of a bad die roll. Could be wrong, but it has worked out reliably at this cost for us so far. If you find it too cheap in play, let me know, we can always discuss good tweaks.

Zerloon wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

Zerloon wrote:

Holy Fire (4 – As): should cost less or be more effective. For the same point you get Rancor, that have the same effect but on all target...

Holy Fire and Rancor are the exact opposite of each other - same die shift affect. I do not see the issue you are indicating.

Zerloon wrote:

Protect (3 – Cy): I think the target hex should become also impassable, or maybe you can't shoot througt it. Otherwise Shield is much way better.

You may have something there. Shield protects against all damage and Protect only works against ranged attacks, yet the latter is cheaper.

* Either the prices should be reversed,
* It is easier for Assurance mages to provide protection
* Noel just plain missed this.
* Or I am forgetting something.
* A combination of all this.

Zerloon wrote:

Wasting (4 – Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

Now this is, my favorite factor. OTOH, I rarely cast it by itself, so its cost never feels low to me. Now, it isn't permanent, so the cost seems right on the surface. It is all about timing and having your mage near combat.

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Spell Factors

Taltos wrote:

You may have something there. Shield protects against all damage and Protect only works against ranged attacks, yet the latter is cheaper.

If Shield protects against all attacks, and Protect works only against ranged attacks, then the "latter" should be cheaper.
The "latter," in this case, being Protect.
wink
Kevin

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Spell Factors

Zerloon wrote:

Apply Special (Varies – As, Ca, Cy, Qu): I don't understand this passage:
"The cost for this factor is the same as the cost for the special being applied. Round up in the event that a special has a fractional cost. No special may cost less than one full point."

taltos wrote:

The cost of the special as listed in the table on page 28. At one time it was meant to work as if paying for the special ability while building a unit, but that was too unwieldy. It appears that we didn't get the text cleaned up enough... nice catch.

Yup, one for the errata (wherever that is now)

Zerloon wrote:

Change Terrain (3 – Cy) : I think that should be forbidden "change terrain" in the middle of a unit. This phrases "Element that finds itself in Impassable terrain is unable to move." mean that with only 3 ME I can effectly block a unit for the game... not fair I think.

taltos wrote:

ah, but it would be for the game... the spell has to expire unless the Mage spend the same spell over and over...

Yep, spells expire at the end of the tunr unless the mage can spend the points to keep it alive the next turn.

Zerloon wrote:

Despair (4 – Ca, Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

taltos wrote:

smile I often wish it were cheaper. But, it certainly isn't the factor I choose to use the most, so I think after some play you will find that it is probably about right. Since the beneficial effect is random, and no effect in the case of a bad die roll. Could be wrong, but it has worked out reliably at this cost for us so far. If you find it too cheap in play, let me know, we can always discuss good tweaks.

I also do not think it is too expensive, it is offset by the fearless and steadfast specials and really hasn't had a ton of effect on battle.  but, if you find it overpowered, raise the cost to 5.

Zerloon wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

taltos wrote:

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

Never had a problem with the cost of this one.  I could get the maths out again, if you'd like, but right now you spend roughly 60% of the average for the first point to remove 15% of the average ME.  If you start adding the 2, you can reduce a spellcaster to 0 rather quickly.  and think about it, you don't have to reduce it to 0, just below the threshold of points he or she needs to maintain the spells they have out.  But you can change it if you want.

Zerloon wrote:

Holy Fire (4 – As): should cost less or be more effective. For the same point you get Rancor, that have the same effect but on all target...

taltos wrote:

Holy Fire and Rancor are the exact opposite of each other - same die shift affect. I do not see the issue you are indicating.

I don't see the opposite, I see one working vs undead and the other working for everyone.  hmm. Maybe we need to modify a bit. noel?

Zerloon wrote:

Protect (3 – Cy): I think the target hex should become also impassable, or maybe you can't shoot througt it. Otherwise Shield is much way better.

taltos wrote:

You may have something there. Shield protects against all damage and Protect only works against ranged attacks, yet the latter is cheaper.

* Either the prices should be reversed,
* It is easier for Assurance mages to provide protection
* Noel just plain missed this.
* Or I am forgetting something.
* A combination of all this.

We missed that, protect should be 2 and shield should be 4 (more elements on the average are affected by shield.

Good catch.

Zerloon wrote:

Wasting (4 – Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

taltos wrote:

Now this is, my favorite factor. OTOH, I rarely cast it by itself, so its cost never feels low to me. Now, it isn't permanent, so the cost seems right on the surface. It is all about timing and having your mage near combat.

Never had a problem with this effect, the mage is extremely vulnerable when he or she gets in spell range.  The only time I've seen this work has been bad for the mage.  I like the effect and I think the cost is okay.  the effect is impermanent (like al leffects) and needs the maintenance to keep up.

But, as I've said before, change it if you want smile

  • Registered: 2006-10-02
  • Posts: 44

Re: Spell Factors

Taltos wrote:

Feel free to do so for your group. But the desired power of my skeletons may not match yours, so we were loathe to dictate. The strength of the system is flexibility, and I would hate to undercut that.

I see your point, I agree.

Taltos wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

A 2d6 mage have 7 ME, more or less... so using 6 point you can "cancel" 2 point... spending 8 me cancel 4, 12 me cancel 5 point... ok, you may hamper the opponent mage, but you must use a mage only for this... it's like warhammer scroll keepers, mage that not cast but only carries dispel scroll... IMHO is not very good.


Taltos wrote:

Holy Fire and Rancor are the exact opposite of each other - same die shift affect. I do not see the issue you are indicating.

Holy fire raise one the die type when attacking undead.
Rancor raise one the die type when attacking.
Both cost the same.

I can suppose that since Holy Fire is Assurance and Rancor is Quietus then there is a fluff balance... but imho fluff should not take into mechanics.

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Spell Factors

Zerloon wrote:
Taltos wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

A 2d6 mage have 7 ME, more or less... so using 6 point you can "cancel" 2 point... spending 8 me cancel 4, 12 me cancel 5 point... ok, you may hamper the opponent mage, but you must use a mage only for this... it's like warhammer scroll keepers, mage that not cast but only carries dispel scroll... IMHO is not very good.

The trick is the range restriction inherent in the FtM magic system. I have not played GW stuff, but my understanding is that range on the counter efforts is not a factor. Here, the targeted mage must be within spell distance. That can be quite a feat with armies in the way.

Zerloon wrote:
Taltos wrote:

Holy Fire and Rancor are the exact opposite of each other - same die shift affect. I do not see the issue you are indicating.

Holy fire raise one the die type when attacking undead.
Rancor raise one the die type when attacking.
Both cost the same.

I can suppose that since Holy Fire is Assurance and Rancor is Quietus then there is a fluff balance... but imho fluff should not take into mechanics.

As Jim corrected me, I read this too fast when I responded the other day. Since it is Undead restricted it should be cheaper.  So noted and I will take a closer look. Thanks.

Guess you can tell I have not played much Assurance magic.  lol

  • Registered: 2006-10-02
  • Posts: 44

Re: Spell Factors

Taltos wrote:
Zerloon wrote:
Taltos wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

A 2d6 mage have 7 ME, more or less... so using 6 point you can "cancel" 2 point... spending 8 me cancel 4, 12 me cancel 5 point... ok, you may hamper the opponent mage, but you must use a mage only for this... it's like warhammer scroll keepers, mage that not cast but only carries dispel scroll... IMHO is not very good.

The trick is the range restriction inherent in the FtM magic system. I have not played GW stuff, but my understanding is that range on the counter efforts is not a factor. Here, the targeted mage must be within spell distance. That can be quite a feat with armies in the way.

Well, this is another good point for reducing the cost... I should come whithin 8 hex (and you said this isn't easy) and must give up all my magic point to remove a mere fraction of opponents mp?