Re: Aura Blast protection

Wayne Sheppard (mrwayne@mindspring.com)
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:49:08 -0400

From: Seehawk42@aol.com <Seehawk42@aol.com>

>In a message dated 4/22/99 1:38:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lindahl@pbm.com
>writes:
>
>> It doesn't affect game play that much; you just have to keep your
>> garrisons small and your armies in the hands of necromancers. Which
>> makes it harder to exploit the "beats in garrisons don't die" bug. And
>> that's good.
>
>See, I really disagree with the idea that having to keep your armies in the
>hands of necromancers not affecting game play that much.
>I think that affects the game drastically.
>
[clip]
>
>Just my 2 cents, but I've often thought that there should be some sort of
>aurablast protection available other than becoming a necromancer. The
>ability to create a magic item, or a spell similar to immunity to vision,
>both sound like great ideas to me.

It does affect gameplay. But the rules have been in place from turn 1. Our
group realized that big mages would be very powerful later in the game. We
knew that mages would be required to control castles. We knew that armies
would be vulnerable to our mages.

A fully studied mage can use up 9+ NPs. Each turn, for about 100 turns, was
spent studying for 2 weeks followed by researching or scribing. We invested
much of our resources to get to our current level of ability.

Rich has said that he will not make any major changes to the game. Adding a
way to avoid AuraBlast would be a major change in the game. I do think that
the current system does suck, but we should wait for G3 before any changes
are made.

Wayne

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links