|
|
|
|
December 10th, 2007, 04:24 PM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necromancer?
The fluff talks about converting the necromancer into the demilich. Upon casting, it seems you get to keep the original unit and simply gain a D4 mage. Is this working as intended?
|
December 10th, 2007, 04:28 PM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,327
Thanks: 4
Thanked 133 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
Re: Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necroman
Yeah, it's just fluff text.
Unfortunately. It would be cooler the other way, if unbalancing.
|
December 10th, 2007, 05:27 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 359
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necroman
That originally confused the heck out of me with the Behemoth description too. Anytime a death spell says is uses a death mage to do something, it creates the needed mage, rather than modifying an existing one.
|
December 10th, 2007, 11:44 PM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 773
Thanks: 2
Thanked 31 Times in 28 Posts
|
|
Re: Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necroman
Lichcraft's fluff text specifically states that you are doing it to another necromancer in exchange for eternal servitude.
This makes sense to me, since the world of Dominions is full of third rate mages looking to sign up with a Pretender god in exhange for just the chance at power.
|
December 11th, 2007, 12:24 AM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lake of Hali, Aldebaran, OH
Posts: 2,474
Thanks: 51
Thanked 67 Times in 27 Posts
|
|
Re: Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necroman
It does make sense and I have no objection to the current lichecraft spell.
However, a spell effect # that enabled spells "become (unit #)" would have a lot of uses to modders, and I've long wanted it.
__________________
If you read his speech at Rice, all his arguments for going to the moon work equally well as arguments for blowing up the moon, sending cloned dinosaurs into space, or constructing a towering *****-shaped obelisk on Mars. --Randall Munroe
|
December 11th, 2007, 02:34 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
|
|
Re: Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necroman
Quote:
Ewierl said:
That originally confused the heck out of me with the Behemoth description too. Anytime a death spell says is uses a death mage to do something, it creates the needed mage, rather than modifying an existing one.
|
Man that would be an awful spell if it worked that way. Here, for 10 gems you can kill your death mage and get a mediocre undead jumbo.
Sign me up!
|
December 11th, 2007, 04:25 AM
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necroman
Given that before you try the spell, you do not know how powerful the behemoth is.
It could have been a good spell, giving a powerful unit for 10 gems at the cost of a mage.
|
December 11th, 2007, 09:20 AM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: France
Posts: 961
Thanks: 2
Thanked 12 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
Re: Shouldn\'t Lichcraft remove the target necroman
It would be cool with the behemoth made commander and keeping the magic levels of the necromancer.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|