Hidden in Snow
 

So, I've been noticing the somewhat random results of Hidden in Snow, and am looking for ways to influence the results. I'm not certain whether its affected by cold, dominion, unburied corpses or none of the above.

At one cast, I got 1 unfrozen lord, 7 of the unfrozen warriors with the magic flint sword, and 3 with the unmagical spear. Not that much for fifty five gems.

At another cast, I recieved the 1 unfrozen lord, 4 flint sword warriors, and 23 with the spear. This really turned around the siege, since these are non-eating, strong undead with an actual mind. Oh, and I recieved one Unfrozen Mage as well.

I have the gems to cast it several more times, and will keep precise records, but I was wondering if anybody knew what makes this spell tick (and is willing to share it).

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I always thought it was totally random.

As far as I remember you always get a lord and 0-2 mages and up to 25 of the ordinary soldiers. My guess is that it is up to 10 of the better warriors.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

An earlier thread on the subject:
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...art=1&vc=1

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Gah, I tell you I've had such abysmal luck with that spell I'm done casting it. I've cast it 4 times (in 2 different games), 3 of them I didn't get a mage at all and once a not terribly useful one plus the troops themselves rather underwhelmed me. I've got better uses for 55 gems...

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I've never failed to get a mage with this spell, most of the time I get two and once I got three mages. Getting a E2W2D3 and E3W2D2 mage out of one casting is sweet.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

If a non-earth nation the chance of an E2 or even E3 mage is pretty nice, same with death. Extra bonus in that it combines them. Its a very depressing spell though, if you get your E2 (or E3/D3,etc) its nice but not amazing for 55 gems - if you don't, it just sucks. I've also gotten poor mages, or no mages at all which suck. I'm not sure if anyone casts it for the troops, I've always cast it for the mage(s). Been happy a time or two, satisfied and disappointed about even I think.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I think I'd much rather spend the gems on anything else http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Jazzepi

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I happen to like the unique troops, not that there aren't more efficient troop summons. But the situation where it's an excellent deal is when you don't have the available paths and magic combos you can get with it. I've had good luck with it but I don't know if it had anything to do with where or how I did it - I think it's probably just a matter of luck, perspective, and attitude.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Got a handful of crap troops and no mages the time I tried it.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I have always had best luck at late summer and worse luck during late winter..

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

It's not the greatest troops, but when I've been lucky, I've found it great in a siege.

Winter wolves are mindless, I think. Most of the undead are mindless too. If I remember my math right, each one of them counts as two and a half regular troops.

... Though from that point of view, the Sea trolls are probably a better use of water gems at 4.8 castle defense each, and a reliable amount of troops. Though size and food may be an issue.

They don't compare that favorably to Legion of Wights, either - though are available a lot easier at enchant six than enchant nine.

I just can't see building a strategy around them, ever- though it is worth noting that even the lowly unfrozen have a MR of 17.

Since I cast them anyways, I am interested in seeing how an army of 20something unfrozen + mage with 60 ghosts and 10 Winter Wolves fares.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

That spell is really meant for LA Atlantis I believe and for LA Atlantis I find hidden in snow to be a great spell. For undead they have great stats. Above average hitpoints, high magic resitance, high defense and a cold aura. And you can cast it using water gems instead of death gems. There is a lot more use for death gems then water, so that in itself is a bonus. Combine them with darkness, wolven winter, and cold fatigue spells, and they do great.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I cast it with Niefelheim a couple of times (same game). I had great luck with it, with each casting bringing at least one good mage, and the full complement of troops (25 I think). Maybe I was just lucky.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

The times I casted it in my game, it had the full complement of troops as well. Is it the cold scale that makes the difference?

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

My crap result (no mage, a few of the worse troops), was from a late summer casting, so I don't think season is any guarantee of better results.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I think it might. Since I had the full cold 3 scale playing Niefleheim.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I checked the code. Currently temperature has no effect, but it might be fun if it did.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

You're such a tease, Kristoffer.

Temperature has no effect- but is there something that does?

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

If I was to make a guess... I would say it's the same as the blood+nature summoning spell which is effected by the luck of the province. This is only a guess.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Currently no scale effects on hidden in snow

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Is there anything that does, or it is completely random?

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I have had good luck with it everytime I casted it. How come some people seem to have good luck with it, and others always seem to have bad? Just coincidence?

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Nothing affects it. Only player luck and pure coincidences.

If you get more wariors, you might get fewer of the normal ones. 1d(25-w) w=number of warriors (1d8 IIRC).
0-2 mages.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I don't know that it would matter in MP, but my Hidden in Snow troops have mopped up in my SP game. They seem to be extremely tough. I would have no problem with casting this spell in a MP game.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

In MP this spell would only be useful to get the extra magic paths. Its just too expansive for what you get, which is far too random anyway.

The one time I cast it in MP, was just experimenting, got 1 mage, 17'ish warriors. The warriors died the next turn..., the mage was useful but not worth the gems.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Right ((Edit by the English police) reading "useful" as "efficient" or "competitive", the way it is typically abused in this forum). The point that it can give several nations magic paths in combos types and levels that they don't have, though, makes it well worth the cost, though how many castings it'll take to get that payoff is uncertain. Which is pretty interesting, IMO, though of course people who hate not to get what they want may get upset. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Out of curiosity, how many of you have tried it in early eras? I'd presume their lower protection would still be quite nice before armor really gets around.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I've used it (Edit: sorry, by "it" I meant Dragon Master) in early era, in a large SP game, having fun, with one of my many mages, mainly going for ice drakes to add to my undead / unfrozen army, since they are cold immune.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

People tend to lack patience in MP I guess. If they can't calculate the gains they are reluctant to use a spell.

Hidden in Snow might not be worth it if you don't get a mage, but if you get two, you can assume thet one of them is better than the average one and probably worth it in his own right.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Its not lack of patience, its the fact if your wasteful and ineffecient in MP, you end up very dead, very quickly.

To be competitive in MP you after manage your gems very carefully, this spell vs potiential gains is simply too expensive in gem cost as it stands now vs potential returns.

Like to see it influenced by season/luck/heat/cold scale, this may allow you to up the number of effects, thus make the spell more viable. It may then become a bargain to cast at certain times of the year with certain scales.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

How about this line of reasoning...

The mage is the only valuable unit produced by Hidden in Snow. This is evident when the Unfrozen are compared to other summons of the same level, such as trolls and ghosts.

Given the path requirements of this spell, the mage is only worthwhile if it gets picks in earth magic. Without picks in earth magic, you might as well just cast Streams from Hades for guaranteed water and death magic.

Disregarding pretender magic paths, the only nations with access to water and death magic to cast Hidden in Snow but lacking in earth are MA Caelum, EA/MA C'tis, EA Niefelheim, MA/LA Jotunheim, and EA Sauromatia.

Given the gem cost of this spell, the mage must get multiple earth picks to be worth the cost, otherwise you could just trade for some earth gems and use empowerment instead.

The expected number of mages per cast is 1 (random between 0 and 2), and the chance for each mage to get at least 2 picks in earth is 1/2 (from 3x 50% picks), so on average we can expect to spend 110 water gems for 2+ levels of earth magic.

Empowering two levels of earth from scratch costs only 80 earth gems, is guaranteed with no chance of failure, and can be used on any mage of your choice with the desired combination of magic paths.

Hidden in Snow is therefore a spell of very limited use, and still quite weak for its niche of providing earth magic to nations with water and death due to its unacceptable level of risk - just one or two failed castings will likely exhaust your gem supply and set you back many turns. This problem is further exacerbated in MP games where trading is allowed and one has the option to empower in earth without taking on such risks.

If the balance of this spell is supposed to be based on its performance in MP games, then it is certainly in need of improvement. One guaranteed mage with one guaranteed pick in earth magic would be a good way to start out, and you can reduce the chance of additional earth picks to keep its power level in check too.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Excellent post by Zath.

Hidden in Snow as it stands is currently a, 'no brainer' not to cast.

I am playing MA Caelum in MP at the moment and for the record I cast stream of hades to get D3 and found a amazon mage to get 1E and traded for earth boots. Far better than casting a 55W gem spell and 100% certain.

Don't get me wrong the spell is a good idea, description great, thematically good, its the mechanics of the spell.

It needs tinkering with, give it a power boost, reduce gem cost or give more goodies for the gem cost.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Personally, I'm not attracted by the mages, at all.
I'm LA Atlantis, often, and have w3d2 mages, quite a few with random air or earth.

I don't want the whole rationalization for this spell to be the mages, I just want them to be the gravy. I'm interested in the Unfrozen/Unfrozen Warriors, thank you very much.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I suppose I am playing MA Mictlan in the same MP game and have already cast Hidden in snow once. I'm quite satisfied with the results and I suppose intend to continue casting the spell. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

- The unfrozen actually thanked the Totl, Lord of Light, Enemy of Darkness, for their release from the Caelian ice prison. They claim Lord Flasheart wronged them in ancient times when they exterminated the Yazatas once living in the Caelian mountains. Now they are intent on vengeance, and it is only through Laws and stern justice thet they are prevented from finishing their ancient task of eliminating the Yazatas and their descendants.

Of the three paths available to the mage only water is readily available to mictlan to any greater extent. The addition of unfrozen mages is a splendid way to use gems. After a one empowerment it is better by far to cast hidden in snow than empower another of your other mages in death or earth. If you get an E2 guy you can then get trolls or whatever.

Also, I find the kokythiad less sexy (she is actually fear inspiring http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). Easily killed by stray arrows and stuff. Stealthy though. And she needs waterempowerment for many users, wich is the same path as the spell. Simpler to empower in death only and use watergems for the casting.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

> Personally, I'm not attracted by the mages, at all.
I'm LA Atlantis, often, and have w3d2 mages, quite a few with random air or earth.

> I don't want the whole rationalization for this spell to be the mages, I just want them to be the gravy. I'm interested in the Unfrozen/Unfrozen Warriors, thank you very much.

That, on the other hand, is a sentiment I can agree on. I wouldn't mind the spell being more expensive and more effective warrior-wise.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

...and it came to pass that one day the unfrozen were released from the laws and stern justice which prevented them in there vengenance. They marched into the lands of Caelum and the Seraphim where in there very first battle where refrozen and buried deep in the ice, never to resurface.

Shortly, thereafter the kingdom of Mictlan fell and Totl was banished from the world, only to return as a feebleminded tartarian to serve as Lord Flashearts jester...

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I see Zath's line of argument, but it's overstated and focused on one perspective. The mages are not the only valuable units produced, and you'll generally get several mages in the effort used to get an E2 or E3. Saying the other mages and troops aren't "worthwhile" is a narrow argument. Even if your main purpose is to get an E2-3 mage, the fact that you get other mages and troops doesn't mean they have zero value. The chance that you may get more mages and units than you expect, or that you may get them sooner or cheaper, also has value - it just depends on whether you choose that value, or whether you prefer sure things, which is a preference, not an absolute value. As for "just empowering a mage" in Earth magic, that's not so easy when you are a nation who lacks earth magic, and it results in an existing mage getting better, not getting a bunch of other mages and unique troops as part of the deal.

From a balance and flavor perspective, I'd say it's good that it is uncertain and has significant cost, because otherwise any nation able to cast Hidden In Snow could be considered to also have E2-3 magic, which would blur the distinct strengths and weaknesses of the nations' path variety.

I like the idea of making it more expensive and giving more of the unfrozen troops.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I used the spell in one game, when I was LA Atlantis. My opponent at the time was double blessed Mictlan. The reason I cast it was for the extra magic paths, but I was happy with the troops. I ended up casting it a second time as much as for the troops as the mages. when I sent them into battle against Mictlans main army, I cast darkness, and placed the unfrozen at the front lines. I lost many of my other troops, but practically all of the unfrozen survived. Even in later battles, without the darkness, and the unfrozen still on the front lines, they did just as good against the Jaguar warriors.

I find hidden in snow a strong spell. For undead the troops have great stats. They have high hit points, high defense, high magic resitance, and chill. The leaders make decent thugs, and there is good potential for the mages. There may be better spells, but if you are only at level six in research, it can be a good strategic option to use.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Lazy_Perfectionist:

I would argue that LA Atlantis is better off with simple Claymen for troop summons if you're stuck with too many water gems, especially since the Angakoks can amass much large numbers of them with a couple of boosters. Claymen are about three times as efficient in terms of HP/gem, are easier to research, and they can at least go underwater for a nation that always starts on the coast. For better long term payback, you could also make 5 Bottles of Living Water that could be reused indefinitely while helping you both on land and in water.

Kristoffer O:

If I am not mistaken, Hidden in Snow is not accessible to MA Mictlan's national mages. This would indicate to me that you are likely casting Hidden in Snow with a pretender or a mage summoned by your pretender, and that this spell was only available to you after some diversification in magic was achieved. With that in mind, I think you would have been better off just sticking 2E on your pretender instead of going in a circle and risking vast amounts of water gems for access to earth magic.

PvK:

I am afraid that what you perceive as narrow is to me just getting to the point. Hidden in Snow is a poor spell for solely troop summons, and a poor spell for solely mage summons. Bundling two poor functions together in this case does not produce a good spell, because the effort put into this spell could be better spent in its specialized counterparts instead for greater overall gain.

Risk is a cost that must be accounted for in any investment of resources, and in the case of Hidden in Snow the risk of getting hosed by the random number generator outweighs its potential benefit. Hidden in Snow is certainly a nice flavor spell and could serve the purpose of wasting gems like the level 1 to 5 summons usually do (I don't mean that negatively since games in general need dud options for players to experiment with), but it is quite lacking in terms of giving water magic some punch. As this last function seems to be the intended purpose of Hidden in Snow, I think concerns over its power level are not entirely unfounded.

Sir_Dr_D:

Hidden in Snow could be useful if you needed troops in a hurry for a decisive battle, but I think 5 Bottles of Living Water would have done you more good if you have the oppurtunity to deploy them in a couple of battles. Water Elementals lack protection, but they have better attack and defense, and their four AP attacks can deal with both chaff and whatever blood summons Mictlan comes up with. You can also use them with Darkness since they are blind, and their higher defense will take better advantage of your opponent's lower attack too.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Zath... What couple of boosters?

Oh... does Claymen scale up with levels in water? I hadn't noticed that before. Still, only a quarter of my Angakoks can do this - sometimes.

Regardless, the reason I cast Hidden in Snow as Atlants is three-fold. First, the chill aura. Second, the fact that it provides its own leadership. Third, curiosity, and the interest in finding a decisive battle for them to fight.

Winter wolves are better, from a pure chill perspective, but are also magical beings, and vulnerable to magical weapons. They have a place in my armies, but a limited one (though I think it would be interesting to mass them).

Not only are the Unfrozen neither magical or mindless, they come with their own commander, all the time. If one of my outposts are under considerable, but not overwhelming threat by my enemy, any Angakok can sail across the seas, summon the Unfrozen, and continue to do whatever I need him to do. Meanwhile, my Tungaliks and lesser armies will be trooping across the ocean floor. If I happen to get an Unfrozen mage, I round out the army with some Winter Wolves to harry the enemy. I also have the local Tungalik summon some dispossessed spirits to hold my flanks- even when you're lucky, there's room for more undead. Especially when every turn a unit is paralyzed is another fatigue penalty they're taking, in addition to being a target.

Unfortunately, the army I just described didn't have a chance to fight, since Ctis came under attack by Ermor, and withdrew from my anticipated clash.

The key factor about Hidden in Snow is that it's enchant six. Sure, there are better summons along the conjuration path - thats what its for, after all.

But look at what I get with the enchantments school.

Enchant 4:
Claymen (I'll have to take another look, but I'm worrying about cold fatigue)
Behemoth (cold resistantant trampler)
Pale Riders (can replace Winter Wolves as light cavalry)
Twiceborn (protect my favorite mages)

Enchant 5:
Winter Ward - You'll see
Undead Horde - Temporary measure, at best, but chaff can be very useful.
Send Tupilak - limited in use, but can be an useful, if overpriced assassin. Fear few mages or priests, thanks to your hitpoints and magic resistance, just be prepared to go down to bodyguards unless they succumb to friendly fire (happens more often than you'd think).

Enchant six:
Hidden in Snow
Frost Dome (nice, but easily circumvented)
Rigor Mortis (Keep away from living armies, but if you've got a nice undead death or twiceborn wight mage...)
Ziz (got fear? attack rear!)
Grip of Winter (the star)

All that list above? Can be ignored. Isn't that important, though does provide strategic variety. IMO, the real reason to cast Hidden in Snow is Grip of Winter.

If you have cold scales already, the chill aura and effect of Grip of Winter is increased, and does a nice job of knocking out enemy mages. If you don't have the cold scales, you'll have to resort to Wolven Winter. Once you get up to 3, you start seeing every normal nation take an encumbrance penalty. If you're facing a coldblooded nation, this is incredibly effective, allowing your Tungaliks and Angakoks to focus solely on undead slaying.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Lazy_perfectionist. Very well said. Hidden in Snow does work well with certain strategies. And you also gave all the reasons why I researched in the enchamnet school.


Are people on here arguing that the spell is bad because it is random, and there is a chance of a bad casting? OR are they arguing that even at its max it is sub par. I am biased towards it because I had good luck in its casting.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

To reduce a spell like Hidden in Snow to one point (as in "just getting to the point") is what I mean by a narrow perspective. I'm not saying it would be wrong to choose that perspective, but I see others that seem equally valid, and are more compelling to me.

I don't see how "the effort put into this spell could be better spent in its specialized counterparts instead for greater overall gain", unless you choose to weigh the pessimistic result more than the optimistic result. Either perspective is valid, but it's a choice, not an absolute value.

So Hidden in Snow casts 55 Water gems and requires W3D1, and gives 0-2 mages with W0-3, D0-3, E0-3, and some number of unique pretty good undead warriors and often a commander/thug.

Your suggestion if I understand it is instead of casting Streams from Hades a few times (possibly once, average twice, _if_ your goal is to get E2+:

Cast Streams From Hades for 40 Water gems with a W_4_D1 mage, to get exactly one W3D3 mage.
Somehow, as a nation without Earth magic, get 80 Earth gems to empower someone to E2.

And to get the same effect, also:
Cast other spells to get something you consider better than the unfrozen warriors and commanders.
Cast other spells or hire other mages to get more mages to match the ones that didn't have E2 that you would likely have got from casting Streams From Hades.

So versus an average of 110 water gems by a W3D1 mage for a bunch of troops, commanders, and mages with mixed WDE magic, you spend 40 water gems, 80 earth gems (that you probably don't have), and whatever other mage-time and gems it takes to get whatever makes up for the other undead and mages you won't get.

Seems to me you are spending considerably more because you focus on the pessimistic possibility that you'll not get the mages you think you want. Which is a valid perspective, but not necessarily more valid than the optimistic perspective that you could get several likely multi-path mages plus troops and commanders for less investment, D3 rather than D2, that even extra D2 mages are nothing to sneeze at, etc.

PvK

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Zath: I, also, believe you are looking at it narrowly. Without the extra experience of the others, I will restrict my comments to things I know I'm working with.

First of all, sticking 2E on KO's pretender is not always the optimal choice. If it's a rainbow pretender, it would be fine, but if Earth magic was that critical to your gameplan, you should have put that on in the first place. Also, working on that plan, if it's a combat pretender, you have to tie up your pretender to use it for non-combat work.

Second of all, your statistics, while accurate as stated, can be considered misleading. The possible results of the spell, assuming even probabilities, using your focus, are as follows:

33% No mage.
33% 1 Mage (12.5% 0E, 37.5% 1E, 37.5% 2E, 12.5% 3E)
33% 2 Mages (Each at probabilities above).

So, what are the chances per cast of getting a 2E+ mage. Well, it would be 33.3%+16.7%, or 50%, as stated.* Very good. Now, the question: What's this mean? You have a 50% chance, per casting, of getting a 2E+ mage. However, simply stated that way, you ignore the other point. The other option is simply not getting a 2E+ mage, NOT getting no mage or a useless mage.

PvK's point is that there are some people who have no problems taking risks. Also, some of the alternatives provided take more time. Claymen may well be more effective, in general. However, they either take (1) more mage time, or (2) a rather high level caster in Water (which typically means a lot of investment or your pretender). Also note that there is better than a 50% chance, I believe, of getting a mage who can cast Claymen. Possibly the best use of it is when you are sieged, and gambling on getting enough help to not lose the castle. Lack of time can do that.

Wyatt Hebert

* I believe the probability is slightly lower than 50%, actually. Probability of getting at least one mage of 2E+ is 0% (No mage generated)+ 33% (One mage generated) * 50% (getting 2E+)+33% (two mages generated)*75% (at least one of the two mages has 2E+)=41.667%, or less than 50%.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

> If I am not mistaken, Hidden in Snow is not accessible to MA Mictlan's national mages. This would indicate to me that you are likely casting Hidden in Snow with a pretender or a mage summoned by your pretender, and that this spell was only available to you after some diversification in magic was achieved. With that in mind, I think you would have been better off just sticking 2E on your pretender instead of going in a circle and risking vast amounts of water gems for access to earth magic.

55 is not vast amounts. A lot cheaper than empowering a mage from scratch. I think I tend to empower a lot though.

My pretender had neither earth nor water. I decided to use death gems to empower an ordinary rain priest after I got a magical plague event that gave me a boost in death gems. Now I have greater access to both earth and death than before.

I did not plan to cast the spell when I made my pretender, but as the game has turned out it is quite useful. I have not researched that high on conj, so ench is a nice way to spend gems not used on items or empowerment.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

never tried it, but such extreme variation in pay off makes this spell a gamble, and everyone knows you should gamble with funds you cant afford to miss.

if you have water gems to spare, but are in need of earth/death magic however...

(oops, forgot how old this thread was)

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

An admittedly rare situation...

In Veturi, there's only three players remaining. Currently,
Ermor was duking it out with Tien Chi whilst I cast Maelstrom, Sea of Ice, Well of Misery, and Riches from Beneath. Obviously, I wasn't going to be able to remain neutral for much longer. So in one of my border provinces and one turn...

5 Castings of Hidden in Snow got me 12 commanders, including mages. I averaged about 4 to 7 Unfrozen Warriors, maybe 14 to 17 Unfrozen per cast.

I spent maybe 275 water gems, plus a water bracelet for each mage. 320 something... Not a small expense- certainly not economical.

Admittedly, it was a surprise attack, this squad faced off against 153 undead and lost 19 (of 107) in return. They were scripted to cleansing water but I probably could have done better. I got a few 2,2,2, but nothing better. Since this is late game, I should have given one earth boots, and scripted, perhaps, Earthpower -> Army of Lead. Though I wasn't there quite yet, I could have been if I focused my research which is near 600 a turn. That alteration path would have also opened up quickening, which I would have been able to cast.

More practically aiming, Strength of Giants is on the Enchantment path, though there isn't much reason to bring that into play against Ermor. I can cast that with just two gems, even with a E1 mage. I could have pulled out some skelly spam of my own to even the odds. I could have cast Legions of Steel (construction 3), to buff my squads protection. Alteration really doesn't have much to offer me for a low research investment.

So, my first real fight was hardly a fair test of their value, but it did get me thinking how I'd make the most use of them, instead of using the mages to cast spells capable of friendly fire.

If I were to adjust the spell itself, I'd do one of two things...
Make it less expensive at 30 gems, making it summon five Unfrozen Warriors, 10 Unfrozen, 1 Unfrozen Lord, and 1 Unfrozen Mage with 1W1D1E 100%, with a 50% shot each at one additional level of water, death, and earth.
This would make it a) more consistent b). guarantee the ability to cast earth buffs, though I would need boosters/gems, along with other spells, and c). make it something I can dream of casting twice early on. If there was still some random factor, this would allow me to compensate for a bad roll.

Make it more expensive, say, 70 or 80 gems. As well, I'd get a minimum of 20 or 30 unfrozen, possibly as much as 60.
This way, instead of five castings getting me 105 unfrozen, I'd get that amount in four casting or less. I'm not going to hammer out exact numbers, but I'm thinking making the per gem roughly the same or somewhat better, but making an individual casting cost maybe 50% more, and be 50% more effective, plus somewhat reliable.

As it is, you may cast Hidden in Snow, and get around ten units- hardly enough to use as part of a fighting force, especially considering their weaknesses compared to wights. If you know you're getting at least 25, or so, you've got an additional strike force you can summon up in a pinch. They're not elites, but with some buff spells, their hardly a laughing matter, and could carve through unprepared armies. And you at least get greater numbers to differentiate them from a legion of wights. I've always thought from an unreasoning standpoint that a tribe should be forty units. I mean, I hardly see less when fighting independent wolf tribes. And while I don't see a reason for this, some banefire bows might be interesting.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I'm very dissapointed in this spell. I have casted it 5 times (in MP nonetheless!) and hit no mages. It's simply not fun. I had Enchnament bonus site, but still those could have been spend elsewhere.

A bit of randomness is cool, but I just don't think that Hidden In Snow is anyway near it's appropiate gem cost, if it can backfire this much.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

Nice. I've never spammed Hidden in Snow, but it sounds effective. I assume that would give you a fairly nice undead attack force, with fairly high HP, along with quite a few mages. I'm not sure I could ever replicate that in a real game, but it sounds interesting.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I got a D3E3W2 and a D2 W2 mage on my first casting. But that is probably ridiculously rare.

Re: Hidden in Snow
 

I think the game is playing favorites. FAVORITES, I SAY!!