Eye Shield

[jimkehn]

Too powerful for the cost. I think it should be more like 25 gems or maybe even 40.

[Twan]

I think there is probably a bug with it as it seems all attackers get the eyeloss effect (not only attackers who were parried by the shield, nor attackers who fail an mr check) when description just says "may lose an eye". As well the #eyeloss mod command seem to be 100% efficient when description says "might lose an eye" (WAD or a bug ?).

If the shield is WAD I agree it is too cheap for its power. But more probably it's not WAD and will be fixed.

edit : not sure about no MR check, but sure about affect attackers even if parry is impossible, already seen a fight ending in round 50 due to a paralyzed SC with eyeshield surrounded by blind troops.

[cleveland]

Twan said:not sure about no MR check

Just tested. High MR unit (24) did NOT lose an eye after attacking unit with eyeshield.

I agree that it's underpriced, though.

[DrPraetorious]

That depends on how effective you think thugs should be.

I agree that it's better, for most applications, than most of the other introductory shields, which are inferior to a second weapon.

However, I think thugs are generally inferior to invoker mages, so that isn't saying much. The Weightless shields, in particular, have a strong role as investment-protection for gem-carrying spellcasters, and they're a lot better for-that-purpose than the eye shield.

But that's not enough, in and of itself, to say that it is unbalancing - it's also in a different path from most of the other intro shields, and unlike air magic, nature magic doesn't make winged shoes.

[jimkehn]

Oh...respectfully, DrPraetorious......I disagree. I don't see an even close comparison to the weightless shields. Yes, I agree the weightless shields have their specific place, as you have articulated. But, the eye shield seems to emasculate ALL attackers (military, anyway). I am not postulating that the eye shield should be eliminated. It is a powerful item, and is great for SC's and Thugs. I just think at 10 gems, it is very, very powerful in negating any attacks against it.

[Jazzepi]

I think 10 nature gems is a fine price for something like eye shield. Charcoal shield, which is much more powerful since it simply kills your attackers instead of emasculating them, costs 15 gems in two different fields.

I'd rather kill my enemy any day than just blind them. I managed to kill an unrisen oracle in Armadillo with a bunch of blind knights because he got swarmed, had said shield, and couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. Even though all the knights around him couldn't do any damage, eventually he routed do the turn limit, and then was killed when we got to the hard limit. If he had a charcoal shield instead he would have killed all my knights instead.

Jazzepi

[cleveland]

A nasty early game tactic against high-priced, high-quality melee troops (e.g. Knights of Man):

Put it on a Golem (or any high-protection/hitpoint unit), script attack 5x, retreat. Opponent now has a useless army of high-upkeep troops.

[Shovah32]

Early game golems sound fun .

[cleveland]

Had them on the front lines on turn 30 with MA Ulm.