Vengeance of the dead, what the hell

[jutetrea]

I vote for GP's solution, sounds good. I also agree anyone who survives 75 turns of an assasination attack should be the winner.

[lch]

Kuritza said:
1) Please do read the post and comments. His mr was high, I equipped him for it, but you are 100% likely to fail one roll eventually.

I do read everything, could you please stop insinuating that I don't? "High" is a subjective number, 20 is not "high", more like 25+ and this should cancel MR-based remote attacks (almost) all the time. Your enemy would more likely waste more than a dozen turns trying to have one successful cast which still would not be a guaranteed kill in any case.

Kuritza said:
2) He was unkillable for this stupid chaff.

Just as that chaff was not possible for him to kill in that time. The turn limit is a necessary evil which I use to great advantage. You don't have to be in a position to beat an enemy army, you just have to have units that can't be taken down in that time, causing the enemy to route. Then you need to make sure that there is no province around them to retreat to, and you kill off the entire enemy army.

Kuritza said:
6) Preventing SC God from killing too many units? Is it a joke?

Do I look like I'm joking? I have used exactly that to keep the bodycount for my pretender down in a game of mine. A pretender is important, contrary to an expendable SC, I don't want it high in the HoF with lots of kills. It seems like you didn't know what you're up against and now you're just bitter. Vengeance of the Dead is a good anti-HoF spell which will get to you in time, since even if you had defeated all those enemies you'd have doubled your bodycount by that and would then have to face double that next time.

[GrobRIM]

If I may, I think the whole problem is the 50 turn limit.

I guess this limit has been set up to make sure that all battles eventually end, so battle resolution cannot lock-up turn resolution; and I can think of many more-or-less theoretical situations where a battle might not end in a reasonable number of turns, like two SC's fighting heads up, each one with a life drain attack; or a skelly-spamming high-reinvig necromancer against a good banishing priest.

But maybe the 50-turn limit should be made more flexible; for example, once turn 50 is reached, give another 5-turn grace period, after which the battle is ended, unless at least one unit has been killed, in which case we reset the countdown to another 5 turns; or, instead of counting the number of units killed, take into account the net amount between units killed and units created.

This proposition should take care of the "SC against horde of chaff" situation raised by Kuritza.

[lch]

Gandalf Parker said:
it seems to me that if someone is attacked, and outlasts the combat, that should be considered to be a win.

A draw you mean, I hope. Suggesting that both, assassin and victim, survive the combat. Regardless who would "likely" win.

[Cor2]

I have to agree with Kuritza here. Very crappy. I like GP's solution.

[Tuidjy]

The problem is not that there is a 50 turn limit, but that the defender loses
when the limit is reached.

[Taqwus]

GrobRIM said:
But maybe the 50-turn limit should be made more flexible; for example, once turn 50 is reached, give another 5-turn grace period, after which the battle is ended, unless at least one unit has been killed, in which case we reset the countdown to another 5 turns; or, instead of counting the number of units killed, take into account the net amount between units killed and units created.

Non-summons units, perhaps. If you just kill battlefield summons, the battle may be at a stalemate (ex. two skellispammers facing off...). If you're killing the -original- components of the armies, those numbers can't increase during battle.

[thejeff]

The problem is not the limit, or even that the defender loses, the problem is that these attackers don't respect the auto-rout limit.

If they did, then they would auto-rout properly and flee, before the target auto-routs himself, and well before the auto-kill kicks in.

Now, changing that, which seems buggy, or at least unintended, to me, might weaken Vengeance too much. It's always seemed more useful against battle mages who are vulnerable without there meat shields than against true SCs any way.

[Gandalf Parker]

lch said:

A draw you mean, I hope. Suggesting that both, assassin and victim, survive the combat. Regardless who would "likely" win.

A draw would be better. But the game might not support a draw. In some cases that would mean that the attackers would still be in the province (altho not with the vengeance of the undead thing in their dreams I guess). But in cases like that, I would feel that I have "won" the test or conflict if it ends without my death.

[K]

I think its very important that SCs can be killed this way. If they couldn't, then the best and only tactic in the game would be to eventually create SCs. Right now you often can't kill an SC even when you have brought your anti-SC tactics into the battle, since even reasonable protections can be brought by the SC player (like a few Fire or Astral or Death or Water mages for the W9F9 Shadow Vestal assault mentioned above).