Blood SCs

[Fantomen]

FYI I did test it, both with blood and astral and mixed communions, same result.

But to take the most obvious of all tests as an example: A S7 caster with 2 communicants casting master enslave kills both slaves with that single casting.

Of course I knew this beforehand, but anticipated you would pull that as your next strawman.

Someone might wonder why I bother?
It's because this kind of thing can give new players a hard time, when someone seemingly knowledgeable gives advice, but that advice turns out to be complete misinformation. Non slave sabbaths is not a nerf, not a big scripting issue. It works like an astral communion. Spill over fatigue in communions damages the slaves, you can not do any tricks by putting them at just under 200 fatigue, you need to recover them enough to withstand what your master are casting. There are no "other fatigue reducing spells" that can be compared to reinvigoration for zeroing slave fatigue, that's why you want to add a blood master. There are other clever ways to recover your slaves, like having them cast drain life, or buff them with soul vortex and giving them bodyguard batteries, pythiums communicants can be quickened and given a standard of the damned, and so on, but the principle is the same, to keep them alive you need to keep them under 200 fatigue.

While reverse communions with pure blood mages as slaves might sometimes cast sabbath master if poorly scripted, the solution is to learn proper scripting, not to blame the game or this mod.

[Bat/man]

Its hardly a strawman to say you might be right.
But thanks for the test.

[Fantomen]

Originally Posted by Bat/man

Its hardly a strawman to say you might be right.

Yes it is. It's a strawman to question whether I'm right or not, rather than test it first and confirm that I'm right. A way to stale the discussion by insinuating your opponent might not know what she's talking about, in lack of proper arguments of your own. In other words, a strawman.

You can assume I test things before answering, because otherwise I'll write out clearly that I'm not sure.

[brxbrx]

Originally Posted by Fantomen

Yes it is. It's a strawman to question whether I'm right or not, rather than test it first and confirm that I'm right. A way to stale the discussion by insinuating your opponent might not know what she's talking about, in lack of proper arguments of your own. In other words, a strawman.

You can assume I test things before answering, because otherwise I'll write out clearly that I'm not sure.

No, a strawman is a similar but purposefully flawed version of an opponent's argument that is easier to defeat.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman

[Fantomen]

Originally Posted by brxbrx

No, a strawman is a similar but purposefully flawed version of an opponent's argument that is easier to defeat.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman

Exactly. I presented a confirmed fact about communion mechanics, and bat/man answered as if I was just guessing, in other words; a similar but purposefully flawed version of my argument. A strawman.