Eater of the Dead

[quantum_mechani]

NTJedi said:

Hand of dust doesn't cost any gems thus any gamer having to choose between casting hand of dust 4 times during a game or casting eater of the dead 4 times while still having access to other spells would wisely not waste the 200 astral gems to cast eater of the dead. So even tho hand of dust is not very useful it's definitely not worse.

Curse of stones... sure it hits both you and the enemy... its more of a spell for special situations. This spell is easier to cast and cost less gems. Not worse... not even close.

Arcane domination... just because an identical spell is better doesn't make this a bad spell. I'd rather cast two arcane dominations compared with wasting 50 gems on eater of the dead. Arcane domination is not good, but definitely not worse than eater of the dead!

Blood Heal or Pain Transfer... sure these spells have no real value, but again any gamer would rather cast any one of these spells three times compared with wasting 50 gems on one eater of the dead. Thus definitely not worse.

Wrath of the Sea is a bad spell also near the top of worst spells I agree.

Well it depends how you define worst spell. My definition was 'What spell would I least care if it were removed from my spell list?'. All the spells I mentioned, I would pretty much not care at all if every other player had access to them but me. Not having Eater of the Dead on the other hand, I would feel was an ever so slight disadvantaged, since I could conceive of lacking better methods of directly converting astral gems to military power.

So, yes, the battlefield spells don't hurt as much to try cast them, but on the other hand have even less reason to _want_ to.

I also don't think you fully comprehend Curse of Stones uselessness. With mr easily negates, only maybe 1 out of 10 of mr 10 troops is going to be effected by it. So, you have no prayer of effecting any significant units like pretenders, and versus a large army, a small percent of the army will tire slightly faster...

That sounds pretty weak, but it would be a huge step up from what it currently does, hitting _your_ army as well. In other words, you have a spell with a highly marginal effect, that destroys whatever tiny advantage it might have achieved, by hitting your army too. If it took no research, 1e and only 1 gem, I still would never cast it. I think the 'special situation' you are thinking of for it is the insanity of the player considering it.