Repel is broken.

[Renojustin]

But here we have multiple spells that could otherwise be used to harry and harm thugs, SCs, and assassins, become complete wastes instead, and actually a detriment to cast. It's very disappointing, because it SHOULD work... but the mechanic for Repel is broken. So people counting on these spells to work properly could recieve a very nasty surprise, and that's just not cool.

So maybe it's more accurate to say that the spells are broken. Either way, it's disappointing to say the least.

[Sombre]

Renojustin said:
But here we have multiple spells that could otherwise be used to harry and harm thugs, SCs, and assassins, become complete wastes instead, and actually a detriment to cast. It's very disappointing, because it SHOULD work...

Why? Because the manual says so? KO stated in the thread about prophetising under siege that the manual is wrong rather than the mechanic in some cases.

Repeating that it IS broken and SHOULD work a certain way is a bit pointless.

I don't see how the spells are broken. It doesn't say in the description of swarm that it's an anti SC spell does it?

[Endoperez]

Swarm would be an anti-assassin spell if it weren't for the repel-bug. If you pay one gem for summoning lots of troops to protect you, you expect them to actually be able to stall an assassin armed with fire sword for more than one turn.

[konming]

It is bugged not only because mannual said otherwise, but also because the current behaviour is neither consistent nor logical. Why would someone repel ten attacks as easily as one attack? Even this is a fantasy game, your spear/sword still cannot be at all places at the same time, regardless whether the attacker is mindless or not.

[Sombre]

Well the bug can be mitigated to an extent by making dragonflies non mindless.

I'm definitely not saying it isn't bugged. I think the fact that it works differently with mindless units isn't what the devs intended and doesn't make much sense. I just want the thread to be clear about exactly what's wrong with repel, why it should work differently and what could be done to fix or change it.

I always regarded swarm as an army delaying spell rather than an anti SC or anti assassin spell. The dragonflies suiciding themselves against a single sword doesn't seem right in any scenario though.

[mivayan]

konming said:
It is bugged not only because mannual said otherwise, but also because the current behaviour is neither consistent nor logical. Why would someone repel ten attacks as easily as one attack? Even this is a fantasy game, your spear/sword still cannot be at all places at the same time, regardless whether the attacker is mindless or not.

It's a small thing in a big game, but it makes no sense.

• If a defender successfully puts his weapon in front of the attacker, and the attacker is brave enough to attack anyway despite taking 1 damage, and dies from this, then the defender wont be hurt. Makes sense.
• 50 dragonflies all at once decide to bump into the enemies sword before biting him in the ear, no matter hos slow and unskilled he is. Thus losing their one hp. Why would they do that?

So this 1.07 patch change ("Dragonflies' strength changed from 0 to 1 and they can now inflict damage.") only matters against unarmed foes?

This should mean that soulless always takes one point of damage when attacking armed foes. (Almost always. The repel attempt dont always penetrate their 0 prot). Dont remember seeing it, but easy to miss. Unless it's not for all mindless units.

[calmon]

konming said:
It is bugged not only because mannual said otherwise, but also because the current behaviour is neither consistent nor logical. Why would someone repel ten attacks as easily as one attack? Even this is a fantasy game, your spear/sword still cannot be at all places at the same time, regardless whether the attacker is mindless or not.

Well look at shields. They are 'bugged' in the same way. A comander with a parry 8(or 9?) shield can survive thousands of archer shooting against him. There is only an insignificant chance of a hit and each parry is like you parry the first arrow.

I agree that this is somehow illogical.

[Meglobob]

calmon said:Well look at shields. They are 'bugged' in the same way. A comander with a parry 8(or 9?) shield can survive thousands of archer shooting against him. There is only an insignificant chance of a hit and each parry is like you parry the first arrow.

I agree that this is somehow illogical.

Works that way in the film 300 as well. So dominions got it spot on.

[Omnirizon]

Meglobob said:

Works that way in the film 300 as well. So dominions got it spot on.

you said it before I could

braveheart, same thing.
speaking of repel mechanics...

[mivayan]

calmon said:Well look at shields. They are 'bugged' in the same way. A comander with a parry 8(or 9?) shield can survive thousands of archer shooting against him. There is only an insignificant chance of a hit and each parry is like you parry the first arrow.

I agree that this is somehow illogical.

Nah, that concept I like. I imagine pythium infantry moving in a turtle formation with shields in front and above. Arrows are too fast to react to, you just hide under the shields and hope for the best. Thus the first arrow has the same chance as the last.

(though yes, a sc holding a parry8-shield above his head to block arrows while also using it to block melee attacks is funny. But nevermind that).

Has anyone ever seen dragonflies from swarm kill an armed guy?