|
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 04:29 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 282
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
Flame Storm
Is this spell like a bigger Burning Hands (area of effect extends from caster outward) or like a bigger Fireball (area of effect centered somewhere within 35 squares of caster)?
I am planning to cast it in a game, and I'm trying to figure whether to have the non-fire-resistant cleanup crew stand in front of the mage or to the side.
|
March 26th, 2010, 05:06 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 255
Thanks: 15
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
It's like fireball. Spells with ranges are centered wherever they land, and where they're aimed at is a target somewhere in their range. If there's no range, but there's an AoE, then it's centered on the caster.
|
March 26th, 2010, 08:35 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 3,207
Thanks: 54
Thanked 60 Times in 35 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belac
Is this spell like a bigger Burning Hands (area of effect extends from caster outward) or like a bigger Fireball (area of effect centered somewhere within 35 squares of caster)?
I am planning to cast it in a game, and I'm trying to figure whether to have the non-fire-resistant cleanup crew stand in front of the mage or to the side.
|
Definitely to the side or behind. It's like a flamethrower.
__________________
Be forewarned, anything I post is probably either 1) Sophomoric humor, 2) Satire, 3) A gross exaggeration of the power I currently possess, 4) An outright lie, or 5) Drunken ramblings.
I occasionally post something useful.
|
March 26th, 2010, 09:59 PM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,327
Thanks: 4
Thanked 133 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
Flame Storm? It's long range. Put the clean up crew where ever you want.
|
March 26th, 2010, 10:07 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 868
Thanks: 56
Thanked 42 Times in 33 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
be warned- its a very under-whelming spell
|
March 28th, 2010, 03:44 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 282
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
Yeah, having cast it you're right. 40 squares isn't much, really.
|
March 28th, 2010, 04:05 PM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,327
Thanks: 4
Thanked 133 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
40 squares would be great in early or even mid-game, but by the time you're fielding it, real armies have hundreds of troops with Army of Gold, or the equivalent, up. So you're hitting a few 20 prot units for half of 15AP. Hardly worth it.
The water equivalent, Neifel Flames, is smaller but AN, which makes it better in at least some situations.
|
March 29th, 2010, 08:51 AM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 827
Thanks: 23
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
Air equivalent, Shimmering fields is AN too. Problem with these is that the desired resistance is quite easy to get and cr50/sr50/fr50 really cuts a lot from the damage of a spell that is essentially casted once or twice a fight until the mage(s) tire out completely. And by the time you gain these spells, chaff isn't _that_ good to have anyway anymore, depending on the situation of course.
|
March 29th, 2010, 10:54 AM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 282
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejeff
40 squares would be great in early or even mid-game, but by the time you're fielding it, real armies have hundreds of troops with Army of Gold, or the equivalent, up. So you're hitting a few 20 prot units for half of 15AP. Hardly worth it.
The water equivalent, Neifel Flames, is smaller but AN, which makes it better in at least some situations.
|
Actually, I had the opposite problem. Against a small army, the spell annihilated what it hit, but that was only a fraction of the enemy troops. It turned out OK, but I'd have been better off sending the caster(a Fire King) in alone and casting Fire Storm, or just having him attack.
|
March 29th, 2010, 03:43 PM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Thanks: 15
Thanked 43 Times in 34 Posts
|
|
Re: Flame Storm
I believe the Shimmering Field/Niefel Flames/Flame Storm spells would be competitive if they had lower path requirement; as is, at best you'll have one national commander capable of casting one of these spells and that's often with a considerable investment in gem boosters - the spells are entirely out of reach for other nations.
The path req for Shimmering Fields is particularly egregious, you pretty much have to play Caelum in order to use it.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|