Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Chronopia => Game Questions => Topic started by: troy-the-just on January 23, 2007, 08:44:25 AM
-
Crystal House, Blue Lotus eater: second edition: pg. 237 "Most fearsome of all the known powers of the Blue Lotus Eaters is their ability to summon an etheral dragon, a perternatural force capable of great destruction."
pg. 223 "with their blue plants, they can control the very air itself and summon the etheral drafon, a perculiar beast from the Elemental Planes that protects its summoner from harm"
pg. 249: Etheral Dragon: protects unit from missle fire until next activated
ok, Dog-o-War has mentioned several times that the Etheral dragon is a great spell, but when I read the description of it, it wasnt what he thought. Is it different in the first edition. THis spell certainly doesnt fit the description on pg. 237.
The other question I have is more general. Units or individuals with magic resistance get their own special save, i understand that. But do they then get a separate save against the spell if the spell allows a save?
-
Yup on the magic resistance. They still get a LD save.
The spell I think was the same in both editions.
-
I looked up the 1st edition , and yes its the same in both. I still think that I got the Sky Cariot confused with the Etheral Dragon. The Eatheral Dragon is still a cool spell, just not all its "hyped-up" to be by the book.
-
I know there's one or two bits in the fluff/descriptions that are a little different than what we have in the game mechanics, but nothing that's put me off. That spell is still handy, especially combined with some Dream Warriors. Gives you time to get across the board. Crystal Lotus is a tough house to play; you really need to make those caster power checks and play smart, as they're an army for more experienced players.
-
I know there's one or two bits in the fluff/descriptions that are a little different than what we have in the game mechanics, but nothing that's put me off. That spell is still handy, especially combined with some Dream Warriors. Gives you time to get across the board. Crystal Lotus is a tough house to play; you really need to make those caster power checks and play smart, as they're an army for more experienced players.
The "mistakes" in the fluff don't put me off but can be confusing to newer players. The Elves are very interesting army to play. The Warkiller, and Flying Dragonbane are cool individuals, ya just have to know how to use them. The flying rules really make the Flying Dragonbane a great harassment tool, and I've come to dread them since we have the rules down now( I've been playing Devout). You really need to balance your forces and have them cooperate very well. The Militia/Axemen combo is one of the stongest in the game, and quite deadly.
Spellcasters are a bit tricky. I've always seen them as a make or break part of the army. If they perform well you should win, if they don't make their roles then you are in serious trouble because of the points you spent on them. This game is so much about movement and timing. The "window" for some of the non-summoning spells comes and goes pretty quickly in the game, so you really need to plan ahead and think thru your list of spells you intend to use. I do like the "free" spell you get with the Lotus-eater, I think this was a very good idea, not to powerful, but a little something. I think you should really get to know your army before delveing into the spellcasters, as they can have so much influence on the game.
-
Well spoke. Elves are very different to play. We can say that about every army in this game, but I think that Crystal Lotus is definitely a finesse army, and not just a go out there and bash'em army like the Obsidian Serpents.
-
exactly. i am ready to try some magic and in fact need to, to counter dogs warped lord. the crystal lotus spells are like the house, finesse, which is why i need to understand the spells, and know when i will use them, before i purchase and field. i have no doubt i will continue to kick the evil out of the devout, but dog keeps on tryin, dark lord bless him!
also in follow-up to magic resistance, it is my understanding that it only applies to spells cast on the unit. what about a vortex cast under my feet?
-
exactly. i am ready to try some magic and in fact need to, to counter dogs warped lord. the crystal lotus spells are like the house, finesse, which is why i need to understand the spells, and know when i will use them, before i purchase and field. i have no doubt i will continue to kick the evil out of the devout, but dog keeps on tryin, dark lord bless him!
also in follow-up to magic resistance, it is my understanding that it only applies to spells cast on the unit. what about a vortex cast under my feet?
Your understanding is correct. Magic Resistance only applies to spells directly cast at the unit. In case of a Vortex, Chasm, or any other such spell which does not specifically target the unit, they act and save just like any other troops.
-
Thanks for the help Southpaw.
-
My pleasure, as always.
SP
-
ok, my questions are regarding the crystal lotus eater and the effect spells have on fliers only.
#1. the lotus eaters staff spell (pg. 247_ unearthly chill) if cast on a flier, they are chilled to the bone and "cant do anything for the remainder of the game turn" does that mean they fall, and you refer to the fall rules for damage?
#2 freeze spell, pg. 249. saving throw is leadership i assume, the strength test comes in after a successful spell and for successive game turns. if spell is successfully cast against a flier, they fail their leadership save, then do they fall and possible sustain damage?
I think the answer to both is yes, but i was wondering
thanks troy
-
Basically the answer is a whopping YES. If you use the new flying rules, any flyer making contact with terrain is crushed and taken out of the game. If you use the old rules, you will have to calculate the falling damage. Deadly spells and effects any way you look at them. Watch out Vulture Clan Totem.
-
Basically the answer is a whopping YES. If you use the new flying rules, any flyer making contact with terrain is crushed and taken out of the game. If you use the old rules, you will have to calculate the falling damage. Deadly spells and effects any way you look at them. Watch out Vulture Clan Totem.
thanks, i was thought that was the case, always nice to hear experienced input
-
That's mean, evil, underhanded, and icky....
I like it. ;D
-
one last question, I think, do spellcasters have to attack the nearest enemy unit? I would think that would greatly hinder their abilities, which already take some creativity to use. for example a spell says can be cast on any unit within LOS, does that really mean any unit or individual, or any type of unit, in LOS, as long as it is the nearest
-
one last question, I think, do spellcasters have to attack the nearest enemy unit? I would think that would greatly hinder their abilities, which already take some creativity to use. for example a spell says can be cast on any unit within LOS, does that really mean any unit or individual, or any type of unit, in LOS, as long as it is the nearest
Unless the spell states otherwise, any legal target in range is valid, they do not have to obey targeting priority.
So, for example, if a spell has a range of LOS, than any model in LOS may be targeted, whether closest or otherwise.
SP
-
1. A Lotus-eater casts a FREEZE spell on a warband and the warband fails its save. The next time the Elvish player activates a axemen warband and they charge the FROZEN warband. What are the +/- that the axemen would recieve against the Frozen warband? Would it be the same as PRONE?
2. A Risen warband fails all 3 saves against FREEZE. Do they DIE (again)? They are undead and I find it hard to believe that they can freeze to death. ;D
-
1. The only action that Frozen models may take is to attempt to break free. That being the case, it is implied that, while Frozen, models cannot be attacked, since they are "frozen in a block of ice".
So, I personally would rule it as follows: while frozen, models cannot normally be attacked. If you choose to do so, you are attacking through the ice they are frozen in, and thus the Freeze is dispelled.
2. Yes, undead can be frozen....bones do break, after all....and get quite brittle in extreme cold....
-
1. The only action that Frozen models may take is to attempt to break free. That being the case, it is implied that, while Frozen, models cannot be attacked, since they are "frozen in a block of ice".
So, I personally would rule it as follows: while frozen, models cannot normally be attacked. If you choose to do so, you are attacking through the ice they are frozen in, and thus the Freeze is dispelled.
2. Yes, undead can be frozen....bones do break, after all....and get quite brittle in extreme cold....
1. Thats the way I saw it but wanted more input.
2. Figured that was the case, but wanted to check (never hurts to ask).
Thanks for the input, your a very useful fellow. :)
-
My pleasure, as always. I'm glad to be of service.
SP
-
My pleasure, as always. I'm glad to be of service.
SP
"Glad to be of service" Are you a product of the Cyrius Cybernetic Corporation? ;D
Sorry - listening to the Hitchhiker's Guide on cassette again
-
Ahhh...............late 70's/early 80's................Hitchhiker's, Tripods, Doctor Who.............the memories. ;)
-
I'm havin' a moment here y'all. :'(
-
Ahhh...............late 70's/early 80's................Hitchhiker's, Tripods, Doctor Who.............the memories. ;)
All of these were great shows. ;D ;D
-
Good 'ol PBS, hopefull it never dies.
-
ok, the blizzard spell, pg. 249. it states it blocks LOS for missile fire, does it then block LOS for everything else as well? also, it states it remains until the start of the casters next turn. does that mean it is in effect until i activate the lotus eater the next turn, or simply fades away at the end of the turn? given the way everything is written, etc. id say it stays until the next time the lotus eater is activated, adn that the blizzard blocks LOS period.
please opine
-
It blocks LOS and stays in effect until you activate the caster again. So if you activate the caster last it would remain through your next turn until the casters goes.
-
thanks much!
-
Not sure I agree with that.
The spell specifically states that it does block LOS for missile fire, cannot fire in or fire out. However it also states that it does not affect Close Combat, thereby implying that LOS is affected only enough to prevent missile fire. You must have LOS to charge, and since the spell does not affect close combat, we must assume that there is still LOS, just not for shooting purposes.
So, does Blizzard completely block LOS? No, only for Missile Fire.
SP
It blocks LOS and stays in effect until you activate the caster again. So if you activate the caster last it would remain through your next turn until the casters goes.
-
what about for spells requiring LOS? isnt that more similar to missile fire than cc? I certainly see your argument on cc, and that makes sense, a blizzard will obsure long range sight more than close range, certainly you can see to walk etc., and I can buy charge.
Also, the Chronomancers interrupt action, that requires LOS I assume? Would that be affected if he is the subject of a blizzard? I would think so unless he is within 4" or so of the individual which he wants to interrupt
-
Coil has stated before that he believes the book is right 99% of the time, and I have to agree with that.
Unless the spell specifically states it, which it doesn't, I would say that ONLY missile fire is affected. Spells which require LOS are unaffected.
Depending on what the Chronomancer wishes to do on his Interrupt, depends on whether he needs LOS or not. Any must have LOS to any unit wishes to affect unless a spell rule or some other rule states otherwise. But from my interpretation of Blizzard, his spellcasting abilities are not affected.
Spellcasters aren't cheap, and well-armed and slightly lucky missile warbands can be extremely effective, thus Blizzard functions just as it should, hampering missile fire, but still allowing spellcasting and close combat.
SP
-
southpaw
it appears you are interpreting it as a defensive spell, where it appears to me to be offensive in nature, certainly any spell might be used at both.
I guess i dont see the logic on how something can block LOS for missile fire, firing out or incoming, but not affect LOS for any other long range type use. Your comments on CC, charge, movement, etc. are right on, but I have particular problems with the book when something doesnt seem logical. It appears to me to be as likely an oversight etc. as meaning to be strictly interpreted as it is written.
No offense, but Id like to hear some other views on this, if this spell is intended as you mention, it has 2 uses only
1) to stop a unit from firing misslies (does this mean hand-held weapons too?)
2) to protect a unit from missile fire.
the loss of 1 action is a side affect of being hampered by the blizzard and not being able to see and function as well I would suppose
-
No offense taken, it's strictly my interpretation of how it is currently worded.
As for it having both offensive and defensive potential, that is quite true, and was intentional, I believe. Yes the spell does prohibit missile fire, but it does so both ways: in and out. It also reduces the affected unit's actions by 1. So there are both positive and negative aspects to Blizzard.
Another key point which supports this fact is that the spell may be cast on ANY unit, not just an enemy unit, as other spells specifically describe. So would I cast Blizzard on my own units? In the right situation: absolutely.
It balances out: both offensive and defensive capabilities, and can be cast on friendly as well as enemy units. If the spell were designed to limit both missile fire AND completely block LOS, it would need to be considerably more expensive point-wise.
SP
-
As for your questions about logic, I look at it this way:
The Blizzard is strong enough with blowing winds, snow and such, that you can't fire out because of the effects, and for it being so damn cold. Conversely, you can't fire in because, even though you can see in for close combat, you can't see well enough to get a precise location to fire.
Spellcasting, however, is another story, being the special and spiffy lot that they are. Whether you say that they just see better, can see in another plane, or only require seeing a part of a person to target them.
Then again I have to chastise myself for committing the unforgivable sin of applying logic to a fantasy game. That can be a dangerous road to go down, due to the physical and finite nature of miniature games.
SP
-
My take would be thus...
Unless a spell description states that it blocks LOS, it should not hamper spells. If it only states it blocks missile fire then that is all it blocks. The rules for the blizzard spell (and others like it) could have been clearer by having each such spell say whether or not they block LOS--in this case I think it was just assumed that Blizzard does not.
IIRC, Wall of Thorns and Sandstorm specifically state that they blocks LOS. Look for instances like that in other spells for a definitive answer.
Slightly on topic...
A small argument resulted in a recent battle where my Wyrd wanted to cast Voice of Despair on a unit 22" away and position behind another unit. The defender declared that his troops were screened by the closer unit and should not be able to be targetted with the spell. I respectfully disagreed and pointed out that spells which require LOS only need to see all or part of a model to target it and/or the entire warband. The rules for missile fire do not pertain to spells in this instance either.
Just remember there are a lot of factors involved with shooting a target compared to just seeing a target.
-
I agree.
SP
-
thanks guys, that was enough logic to satisfy my concern, and when i say logic, i mean interpreted through the game system in a consistent and more or less coherent way, which you did.
-
As for your questions about logic, I look at it this way:
The Blizzard is strong enough with blowing winds, snow and such, that you can't fire out because of the effects, and for it being so damn cold. Conversely, you can't fire in because, even though you can see in for close combat, you can't see well enough to get a precise location to fire.
Spellcasting, however, is another story, being the special and spiffy lot that they are. Whether you say that they just see better, can see in another plane, or only require seeing a part of a person to target them.
Then again I have to chastise myself for committing the unforgivable sin of applying logic to a fantasy game. That can be a dangerous road to go down, due to the physical and finite nature of miniature games.
SP
So, does this also mean that javelins and spears can't be thrown? I would assume so.
-
i would say no it doesnt apply, as thrown weapons are a different catagory than missile weapons per pg. 45, i guess because they are closer???
-
I would say yes it is still a ranged attack based on RC stat.
-
Missile weapons ARE different than thrown weapons. If the text of the spell reads "RANGED" attacks then I would rule that all projectiles (missile or thrown) are blocked. But if it says Missile only then thrown weapons are okay.
-
And if you read it does'nt say missile attacks it states missile fire generalizing all ranged attackes to save space in the text. IMHO it is meant to cover all thown/missile attacks. If I can throw a spear than I could shoot a crossbow.
-
i would say no it doesnt apply, as thrown weapons are a different catagory than missile weapons per pg. 45, i guess because they are closer???
@Troy-- Do you mean pg. 95? Page 45 is the cover page for chapter 2! ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D
IMHO I can see this being arguable either way. Page 249 states "The Blizzard blocks Line of Site for missle fire. The unit cannot fire out or be fired upon." Now, since it says missile fire, I take it to mean hand held missle weapons. I'd like Thom's take on it at some point, but for now thats the way I see it. Definitly could have been worded better.
-
Both the Warzone and Chronopia books were rushed out and there are lots of errors and over-looked things in both books.
-
yes thats the page i meant, handheld ok, missile no no, least i think that is how we should play it until otherwise told
-
I clearly remember Thom making a distinction between thrown and missile weapons. In other words, if the book says missile weapons it is only referring to bows and crossbows and not spears, javelins, etc.
But, it would be nice to hear him chime in to clarify again... :-\
-
Wedge, I was under the impression they are considered to be different as well.
Logical, sometimes, but not normally, this is one of those lovely gray areas.
-
I clearly remember Thom making a distinction between thrown and missile weapons. In other words, if the book says missile weapons it is only referring to bows and crossbows and not spears, javelins, etc.
But, it would be nice to hear him chime in to clarify again... :-\
I remember that, as well.
SP
-
House CL under freeze spell it lists it as a cold based attack. Does this mean that a cold blooded opponent would have to make a role vs 4 pts damage when struck by this spell and subsequently every turn if it failed its save and were frozen? I would say yes, as it lists that all cold based attacks have dam. increased by 4, and this spell is stated as being a cold based attack.
-
or is their save reduced by 4???/
-
shameless bump! Anybody have an answer fro my last question?
-
Ok, here's my take on it.
Freeze is a Cold-Based attack, but per Cold-Blooded, the +4 technically only goes to Damamge, the way it is written.
So, me personally, I would not make the Stygian make an AR save vs 4 every turn, as there is no actual damamge to increase due to Cold-Blooded. However I would increase the Strength of the Freeze by +4 per Cold-Blooded from 12 to 16.
That's how I would play it.
SP
-
shameless bump! Anybody have an answer fro my last question?
See FAQ... http://forum54.oli.us/index.php?topic=310.0
-
southpaw
it appears you are interpreting it as a defensive spell, where it appears to me to be offensive in nature, certainly any spell might be used at both.
I guess i dont see the logic on how something can block LOS for missile fire, firing out or incoming, but not affect LOS for any other long range type use. Your comments on CC, charge, movement, etc. are right on, but I have particular problems with the book when something doesnt seem logical. It appears to me to be as likely an oversight etc. as meaning to be strictly interpreted as it is written.
No offense, but Id like to hear some other views on this, if this spell is intended as you mention, it has 2 uses only
My best example would be being in a tree stand and seeing a buck approach. While you can see the animal there are a lot of factors that would prevent a shot - wind, intervening small branches, ground fog, drizzle, snow flurries, etc. The buck can be seen but the bowshot is not worth taking as the LOS is not adequate for the purpose even though the buck is visible to the naked eye.
-
shameless bump! Anybody have an answer fro my last question?
See FAQ... http://forum54.oli.us/index.php?topic=310.0
That covers the Blizzard question. My "bump" was about Freeze question. I looked in the Spell clarifications and didn't see what you meant? I checked it a couple of times as I do miss things from time to time. ;) If I'm still missing it I'm sorry. :D
-
Ok, here's my take on it.
Freeze is a Cold-Based attack, but per Cold-Blooded, the +4 technically only goes to Damamge, the way it is written.
So, me personally, I would not make the Stygian make an AR save vs 4 every turn, as there is no actual damamge to increase due to Cold-Blooded. However I would increase the Strength of the Freeze by +4 per Cold-Blooded from 12 to 16.
That's how I would play it.
SP
Thanks Southpaw. That would be an excellent "middle of the road" way to handle it.
-
I thought so, too, which is generally the course I take in rulings and rules interpretations. Glad to be of service.
SP
-
ill buy that southpaw! you can see them, but too much stuff in the way to execute a missile attack, magic is different, thanks, that eases my brain fever on that issue!
-
My pleasure, as always. You're very welcome.
SP
-
for a moment i forgot one of my rules for RPGs and wargames:
Magic is not logical, and trying to apply logic to magic is not intended by the games rules, leading to unexpected consequences