Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Guardian Force

  1. #1

    Guardian Force

    Guardian Force
    Circles: Life, Summoning
    Description: The wizard summons a powerful benevolent being on the battlefield, which shields his units from magical effects. Saving throws of all units go up by 2 and the guardian force tries to dispel the first spell cast on your army by an enemy.

    This is a neat idea. However, I wonder if we should be able to see the “Guardian” on the battlefield. It needs something that really says it's a Summoning spell. We don't just want a Protection spell with a more flamboyant description.

    What can we do to make it more “summoned creature” and less “magical protection”?

  2. #2
    It would be more unique in an opponent had something to attack to dispell the effect.

  3. #3
    Archmage of the Inner Ring ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,662
    Personally I don't see the problem with this spell being ethereal. But then you're right, it wouldn't be Summoning.

    If this really creates a unit on the battlefield I would want it to be a real unit capable of attacking. Then shift the "it attempts to dispel" effect to giving it spell points and access to Dispel.
    It can still have the bonus to saving throws effect. I think similar "leadership" traits on select heroes are perfectly acceptable.

  4. #4
    Caster of the Inner Tower
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    France
    Posts
    735
    I like the idea of the guardian being visible, a bit like a Patronus in Harry Potter for the visual effects. The guardian shouldn't have any attack, but it could shield units around it more than unit far from it, and it should be killable which would halt the spell.

  5. #5
    If the Guardian is killable, how about removing "attempts to dispel the first spell"?

    "Saving throws of all units go up by 2 and the guardian force attempts to dispel all spells cast on your army by an enemy."

    It essentially becomes a quasi-Counter Magic (because it doesn't counter the other wizard's spells that don't directly affect your army.

    Which leads to a question: Would "Earth to Mud" (or a similar spell) get countered by this? It's not cast on your army, rather on the landscape.

  6. #6
    Archmage of the Inner Ring ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,662
    Where does Counter Magic come in? It's not attempting to prevent spells from being cast. It's attempting to dispel after the fact.
    Thus Earth to Mud would not be affected by the Guardian.

  7. #7
    Caster of the Inner Tower
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    France
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by WyldeRhide View Post
    It essentially becomes a quasi-Counter Magic
    What if the Guardian only tries to dispel spells that affect units near it ? Like a 5x5 area around it ? It adds some tactical element, and makes it different from Counter Magic.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ampoliros View Post
    Where does Counter Magic come in? It's not attempting to prevent spells from being cast. It's attempting to dispel after the fact.
    Thus Earth to Mud would not be affected by the Guardian.
    Counter Magic and Dispel have the same end-result. If sucessful, the spell has no effect. Whether it's stopped pre or post-casting, the effect never hits the target.

    If you think about the Guardian's ability as an "umbrella" or a "bubble" that surrounds your troops, then "Earth to Mud" may not actually work since the magic can't get through the shield in order to affect the ground under the troops' feet.

    For what it's worth, I think spells like Earth to Mud that don't directly target/affect the troops should no be affected by the Guardian. However, the argument could be made.

  9. #9
    Archmage of the Inner Ring ampoliros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,662
    Quote Originally Posted by WyldeRhide View Post
    Counter Magic and Dispel have the same end-result. If sucessful, the spell has no effect. Whether it's stopped pre or post-casting, the effect never hits the target.
    Dispel being after-the-fact, the effect does hit the target, the difference is not unimportant, especially considering instant damage spells.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ampoliros View Post
    Dispel being after-the-fact, the effect does hit the target, the difference is not unimportant, especially considering instant damage spells.
    I take your point. I was thinking of it in terms of D&D. If Wizard 1 starts casting a spell, and Wizard 2 casts "dispel magic", the spell fizzles without ever hitting anything, even though Wizard 1 finishes casting his spell. (Effectively an instantaneous "counter-magic" rather than an on-going effect.)

    If we use the dispel mechanic as you describe it, I submit that the spell becomes far less useful if it's "dispel" vs "counter magic". (reactionary vs preventative)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
footer