Irresistible magic

[DaemianLucifer]

Or better yet like this

[Kilop]

I am not that childhish anyway,

Thats a bonus to your retal.Honestly,like youd ever choose not to have it

yes, on freezing bones, phoenixes, to save it for later... And can you imagine a skill that force you to get hit first, as i wish to get hit, or as, i ll let my marksmen go contact, just to have the retal bonus !!

If it was real time it would be even more logical(stacks arent really that logical,even though they are neat),and it still could be very tactical.

... the more time you have to think your next action, the better it is ( in theory anyway ) that is why people count the number of actions per minute in RTS... and that is why chess is not time based ( i know, some games are, but it is not real time ... that would be funny thought , real time chess )
That makes heroes a "more" strategic and tactic game!

in short DL i am right, you are wrong

[ThunderTitan]

And can you imagine a skill that force you to get hit first, as i wish to get hit, or as, i ll let my marksmen go contact, just to have the retal bonus!!

It doesn't force you to do anything, it just makes sure that when you do get hit it's gonna hurt the enemy more then usual at no extra cost. Unless you're gonna go with ye old "they can't touch me unless i let them".

[mr.hackcrag]

That is the ideal way to go. And with mass haste it's not to hard to accomplish. The game always seemed a bit imbalanced with some of these mass spells. The cost of them should significantly rise since it affects all units.

[DaemianLucifer]

yes, on freezing bones, phoenixes, to save it for later... And can you imagine a skill that force you to get hit first, as i wish to get hit, or as, i ll let my marksmen go contact, just to have the retal bonus !!

It doesnt force you to do anything.When you get hit(and against a human you will get hit),the enemy will suffer more.So the enemy should think twice before engaging you in melee.Its a very good bonus imo.

... the more time you have to think your next action, the better it is ( in theory anyway ) that is why people count the number of actions per minute in RTS... and that is why chess is not time based ( i know, some games are, but it is not real time ... that would be funny thought , real time chess )
That makes heroes a "more" strategic and tactic game!

You can think all you want,but that wont help you beat casparov.And there is also timed chess if you didnt know.And its not any less strategic then the non limited one.

in short DL i am right, you are wrong

I am not that childhish anyway,

[mr.hackcrag]

And there is also timed chess if you didnt know.And its not any less strategic then the non limited one.

I think he meant real-time in the sense that both players move any piece they want, whenever they want.

in short DL i am right, you are wrong

I am not that childhish anyway,

Nice one.

Although, I expected more from you with that link DL.

[Kilop]

ok let s play quotes... but the last time I play wih you DL, I prefer to stick on the subject, even if that was fun ...

And there is also timed chess if you didnt know

i know, some games are

I give you the excuse that since I am not a native speaker, I may not always be as clear as I would like to.

And its not any less strategic then the non limited one.

If it is so, why put a time limit ?? Answer : to force players to take a decision without having enought time to think to every possibilities...

in short DL i am right, you are wrong

I am not that childhish anyway,

... And you didn t notice that I made these two statements at the beginning and at the end of my post on purpose ???
Wait a minute maybe you think that when I wrote " no, it is not" , it wasn t to highlight your poor argumentation, answering an argument-free assertion by another ... THAT WAS ON PURPOSE
You disapoint me here, try not to underestimate people on this forum... At least, no more with me.

To come back to the subject, retaliation, is biased just as much as IR, even worse since you have to dommage your own units to get the bonus ( and btw, against neutrals, it is useless most of the time, and at the last batle, if one of your stacks as been hit, it usually means you have lost more than half of it or so , so the dommage boost is not that significant )... but this has already been said, so just accept the fact that the Dungeon racial is NOT perfect, and that it has some defaults... ( I'd take it anytime against better retaliation...)

[Mytical]

Ok somebody wanted facts, well here are some facts. (And undesputable ones at that)

Fact - Artificer can not hurt your troops, all it can do is give them bonuses. Yes it eats up resources, but it has no -health or -attack or such that will cause your troops to be harmed in any way. And you can choose to use it or not as you see fit.

Fact - Avenger can not hurt your own troops in any way, even if they are the ones on the 'favored' enemy list. Despite the fact that you must build a building and visit it to use it, it still can not in any way harm any of your own creatures

Fact - Gating can not hurt your own troops, but instead add to the total number of troops you have. You don't even have to build a building and/or visit it to use it.

Fact - Necromancy can not hurt your own undead troops (it can cause negative moral for non-undead however). You neither have to build or visit a building, but there are buildings that add to this. It does no actual damage to any troops however.

Fact - Counterstrike does not add to the damage your enemy does to you. Yes you need to be hit to use it, yes it has limits, but it does not in any way dirrectly hurt your own creatures.

Fact - Now there is Irresistable Magic. Again I restate, the only racial special that can actually cause harm to your creatures, without actually benifiting your creatures in any way. (Fact -Counterstrike helps your creatures kill more enemies as long as a few remain to counterstrike, Necromancy adds total number of units you have permanitely as long as you survive the fight, Artificer can make your creatures faster stronger ect, only Avenger also does not actually benifit your creatures directly).

I don't actually have a problem with it harming dragons, but if it can harm them it makes sense it can help them also. Buffs, ect should be just as irresistable as damage. After all the skill is not Irresistable Damaging and Negative spells, but Irresistable Magic (as in all magic...). Please refute these facts if you can, but refute the facts, don't make it personal. Just the facts please.

I agree 100% that you can control IM and avoid casting it on/arround your stacks. I agree that it is a choice to do so, but why is it the only skill that both has a potential to harm your creatures and also does nothing to help them? I am not agruing against that you can control it. And if it is allowed to just buff your creatures it would be good enough and still have the negative effect. At least then it would benifit them.

Oh and as for "X company says it is this way and people should just take it and like it" that is not a fact, that is just a cheap way of not actually debating the facts of the reason of this post. Thank you.

[DaemianLucifer]

If it is so, why put a time limit ?? Answer : to force players to take a decision without having enought time to think to every possibilities...

Exactly.But that doesnt limit the strategy itself,just makes you think of it faster.

... And you didn t notice that I made these two statements at the beginning and at the end of my post on purpose ???
Wait a minute maybe you think that when I wrote " no, it is not" , it wasn t to highlight your poor argumentation, answering an argument-free assertion by another ... THAT WAS ON PURPOSE
You disapoint me here, try not to underestimate people on this forum... At least, no more with me.

Im not underastimating anyone,it was just a joke to lighten the atmosphere a bit.

To come back to the subject, retaliation, is biased just as much as IR, even worse since you have to dommage your own units to get the bonus ( and btw, against neutrals, it is useless most of the time, and at the last batle, if one of your stacks as been hit, it usually means you have lost more than half of it or so , so the dommage boost is not that significant )... but this has already been said, so just accept the fact that the Dungeon racial is NOT perfect, and that it has some defaults... ( I'd take it anytime against better retaliation...)

No,you dont have to hurt your units,your enemy does.It would be like saying you have to waste a turn in order to hit a creature.And,if we want to split hairs here,IM doesnt hurt you as well,your spells do.But IM is harmful because it lowers your units stats as well as enemies.Is that a bit clearer?

[Jolly Joker]

Could you keep at least to the facts?
"But IM is harmful because it lowers your units stats as well as enemies.Is that a bit clearer?"
This is a gross warping of the truth because it suggests that the opponent has an advantage as well. I certainly would agree with you and there were no discussion if that was true: if the opponent could actually hurt your Dragons. But the opponent cannot. So this lowering of stats does not apply for the opponent, only for you, which makes a lot of difference, don't you think so?
And, yes, I didn't want to post anymore in this thread, I know. Before you start writing posts about that: whether I post here or not, the "bash brigade" is busy stomping on anyone who dares to say something in favor of the current rule whether I post here or not. So I can jump in again just as well.

[Mytical]

Hmm and yet my factual post is not worth a response. Oh well. I guess it is not important. I will continue to haunt this threadl, and post occasionally, but alas I beginning to fail to see the point of posting at all.

[DaemianLucifer]

Could you keep at least to the facts?
"But IM is harmful because it lowers your units stats as well as enemies.Is that a bit clearer?"
This is a gross warping of the truth because it suggests that the opponent has an advantage as well. I certainly would agree with you and there were no discussion if that was true: if the opponent could actually hurt your Dragons. But the opponent cannot. So this lowering of stats does not apply for the opponent, only for you, which makes a lot of difference, don't you think so?

True,it does lower the stats just for you,but it still does lower them.And,like stated before,even if the problem happens in very small number of cases,it still does happen.I didnt warp the truth at all.

[Jolly Joker]

Okay, you wanted a response:

Ok somebody wanted facts, well here are some facts. (And undesputable ones at that)

Fact - Artificer can not hurt your troops, all it can do is give them bonuses. Yes it eats up resources, but it has no -health or -attack or such that will cause your troops to be harmed in any way. And you can choose to use it or not as you see fit.

Artificer will give you something if you use it, but for a price - a price that is debated up and down in other threads and of which some say it was so hard you can either build dwellings or artifacts but not both. Sure you can choose between using it or not, but you can choose with IM as well: whether to cast a harmful spell onto your dragons or not. This is a full choice because you always can cast a Destructive spell that is not hurting your Dragons. With academy you cannot build artifacts that don't cost resources, so the choice really is for the Dungeon to make, not for the Academy.

The whole point of all this is probably that some people claim that you would be so much better off without IM:
Dungeon has this beautiful magically immune creature. Without IM this ability allows a wealth of tactics in battle making use of that creature ability. However, the racial makes these tactics impossible or at least idiotic (wasting your own creatures). For that loss you gain basically nothing or not much, at least, so where's the advantage? Lastly, if they wanted you to not use a creature ability, why give them to it in the first place.
That's it in a nutshell.

The contrary opinion says that you get a lot in return, because Destructive spells have truly become irresistable for the opponent, no matter their skills, with the added Destructive power. You simply don't need that magical immunity. You don't need to fly your Dragons into the thick of battle. They are vulnerable because of your Warlock's low defense and the Hydras have become a much better shock troop, especially with Teleporter Assault. The whole Dungeon setup has changed and there's nothing wrong with that change. You could say, your Dragons have lost something of their overall importance (and that's a good thing gamewise, I think).

The question to what this all amounts, then, is the poll question. But that's a question of liking: Do you like it that your Dragons can be harmed by your own spells or would you rather see Dungeons Destructive power going back to how it used to be and see Dragons back to their old role.

Moreover there are other suggestions to combine it: you said it yourself, make them open for buff spells or make them able to pick whether a spell should be irrestistable or not, foregoing any additional power if it works out. There is nothing wrong with those suggestions per se (if it would be balanced, because it seems rather obvious that Dungeon is not underpowered currently, so a buffing of Dragons would add more options and make them more powerful). However, there is nothing wrong with the way things are now, either, because, strangely enough Dungeon seems to work quite well. So we can all safely agree to disagree.

[asandir]

not again ....

[mr.hackcrag]

So we can all safely agree to disagree.

For some strange reason, I have a feeling that's not going to happen.

[DaemianLucifer]

So we can all safely agree to disagree.

Instead of continuing the argument,Ill agree with you here.

[okrane]

Amen

[Mytical]

Agreed.

[Elvin]

LOOK!Someone stole the 1% of votes and now there are 29% and 70%.

[Shauku]

There is a hidden third option