Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

So, are 'trick' spells like False Fetters, Bonds of Fire, Rage and such viable in a serious game of Dominions II?

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

I have seen a Nataraja start killing my own units thanks to Rage. I didn't notice him being affected by it in the beginning, when there were enemy units around him, but when he started going for my archers... For a spell affecting only one unit, it can slow down or hurt surpisingly many units.

Those spells have their uses, but only in spesific cases. As an example, a strong enemy force can be slowed down, so that e.g. only few of the 15 knights reach your units in the first wave, and are massacred before the next few get to your units.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

Not only are they weak, they are short range. That's an impossible double-whammy, and I'd never use them. Consider a level 2 (+ Phoenix Power, level 3) fire mage:

1) Killing 6/20 knights at range 40, at cost 20 fatigue.
2) Briefly immobilizing 6/20 knights at range 25, at cost 30 fatigue.

Notice how one of them is dumb... This goes for most of the other spells, too. The non-lethal spells need to have (some of) a substantially lower fatigue cost, greater range, greater precision, and greater area than lethal spells to be viable, and they don't.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

Some of them are more precise though, and that's nice.

But yeah, I don't know if 'nice' is enough. I've seen a Knight charge get foiled by Rage spam, but there could have been better ways to spend the research. Maybe.

Some of them like Suplhur Haze and Freezing Mists have path requirements that aren't very easy to meet, too.

Blind spam is kinda diffrent, but the range is very short.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

blind rocks in arena though (my f1 sage blinded a wyrm in CoW http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif) rage could be very useful vrs a group of thugs if they all started fighting eachother.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

I always thought of Suplhur Haze and Freezing Mists as damage spells. Do you mean that all cloud spells are 'trick' spells as well?
Weird path combination doesn't make a spell a 'trick' spell. Only Tien Chi/Atlantis/Arcos get Acid (Water/Fire) with randoms in most games, Magma (earth/fire) is rare except on Ulm, Nether Darts is the only Astral/Death combination spell with Nether Dart, but this doesn't make these spells any weaker.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

Some are better used by solo mages or pretenders or in arena. Ot a mage surrounded by sword fodder.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

Well, they do neglible damage and their main purpose is to poison/numb the enemies there. FYI, I consider stuff like Combustion trick spells too.

Combustion spam is fun, too. 'Fun', maybe not effective.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

Combustion is a weak spell, although AoE version would be quite useful against creatures vulnerable to Fire (Vine men/ogres). However, AoE Poison is very, VERY powerful. One turn in the fog will hurt any mortal creatures badly, and two turns will probably kill them. The constant damage is bad for morale, might cause afflictions, and of course, dead Vanir or even cavalry are very expensive to replace.

All cloud-type spells aren't useful. Some are worthless. However, if by "trick" spell you mean spells which inhibit the creature some way without causing (much) damage or severe status changes, Sulphur Haze doesn't belong into that list.
Being aflame, numb, slowed, unable to move until (something), unable to attack etc are weak abilities. Poison is not. I'd like to see all of the above having greater AoE. However, Sulphur Haze is already useful for those able to use it.

Re: Are \'trick\' spells viable?
 

Poison is still not immediatedly deadly to your run the mill militia like a close-up meet with Flare would be, so my classication stays. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

I might have to use SH more, but from what I remember the cloud did 1 point of damage and gave weak poisoning...I'm not saying that is useless.