Quote:
Originally Posted by sector24
Quote:
Originally Posted by K
Considering that any nerf on the duration of the spell would make it useless against regular armies, and it can be easily countered anyway, any change might as well be a straight deletion of the spell. Simply put, not having a spell on the casting list is better than having a useless spell.
|
I just have to point out how truly awful this argument is. Let's say we reduced the paralyze duration from 7 turns to 6. Would that make it worthless? Of course not. You are creating an all or nothing scenario where none exists. There may be some way to reduce the paralyze duration to something more acceptable, and maybe it doesn't need to change.
No offense intended, but I mean...come on.  |
It's only a bad argument if it's taken out of context, as you are doing.
For example, Adept claims in the first post that he sees Paralyzes lasting 20+ turns, and he wants them reduced to d6 +path, with a potential concession of open-ended d6s.
NTJedi wants successful saves to shave 2-10 rounds off per additional MR saves, which for a high MR unit means no Paralyze is lasting more than 10 turns in effect.
You have also asked for open-ended d6s after complaining of a 52 round paralyze, a rather drastic reduction if we accept that 52 round Paralyzes are common.
Except for Executor who asked for a "a little easier to resist or less turn paralyzed", suggestions have been for dramatic reductions in the effectiveness of the spell, therefore in context of the discussion one my argument makes sense. I'll admit I wasn't super-specific when I wrote that bit, but it seems pretty far-fetched that I was arguing against a hypothetical that no one had brought up.
Also, since a one turn reduction is not a "nerf" by any common-sense notion of the idea, it seems that you are criticizing an argument I didn't make.
PS. It is very hard to offend me, but please don't take that as an invitation to try.
