Re: Aura Blast protection

James Frediani (ferpo@netdex.com)
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:32:10 -0700

>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
>
>

I concur. A major change now will invalidate 100+ turns of work done by
those players who correctly assessed what was necessary to "win" the
earliest. Maybe in g3 we can have a "Conan" skill. It would make one
immune from bribes [treats as Oath-2] aura blasts, lightning strikes,
fog of death...but the noble could never study Alchemy, any magic, or
Persuasion. Also religion. It would cost an NP. Or maybe make
a prerequisite of only O-2 need apply.

In _this_ game, there are ways to minimize Aura Blasts. Most of them
require smaller, faster armies...or lots of nobles. But you are never
immune to them without Necromancy. Sorry.

ICLF

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links