Tasunke

I think some spells already have minor version effects. It would just be a matter of adding minor versions to all resistables. although I'm not sure that is the best approach.

hmm. Makes sense. Personally I would prefer that only mounted units (and whatever skirmishers are, I guess) be able to leave from ZoC ... and if that is the case then no attacks of opportunity. Yet if anyone can try to leave a ZoC, only mounted,etc don't suffer from attacks of opportunity (I agree with you on the redundancy of the earlier model)

Well. If spell resist increases both 'resist' and spell 'defense' and if spell power increases both 'success chance' and spell 'damage' (for both stats to affect both types of spells) then I'd be happy :) Currently, I really like how a magic-specialized champion can get -50% mana cost for tactical spells. I also like the 'meditation' spell which can increase mana production :)

I agree, it would be better for a solid ZoC definition, rather than stat checks. So mounted units can leave the ZoC ... possibly some skirmisher units as well? Not sure how skirmisher units would be implemented, but I definitely think mounted should be able to leave ZoC normally (now ... while leaving the ZoC they have to get hit by an attack of opportunity regardless, not counting hero traits)

I think there was some talk of mixing up the AI's 'main priority' ever so often.

True. Casters n Archers in the back Daggers + Dex focused melee in the middle Meat Shields n Mounted units in the front the trickiest part is ... if high attack, but no defense, go in the back, but if high attack and high defense, go in the front. High Initiative in front only if Attack is high and defense is not low.

Hmm. Upon playing the beta (some more), and reading in-game descriptions ... I'm thinking Spell Power only reduces the target's spell resistance :(

I think more important than "tac move at 1, tac move at 2, etc" is to make ZoC more powerful. For non mounted units to be unable to leave ZoC. (or has some have said, need an agility check, and if fails, enemy gets an attack of opportunity and no movement is made) In this way, a defensive line could be much more 'defensive' (regardless of what tactical speeds end up being)

[quote who="Aerion Istari" reply="2" id="3084443"]The thing that is most annoying about this is that high initiative units are often trapped behind low initiative units. It sort of eliminates the advantage of a high-initiative unit when that happens.[/quote] exactly ... unless said high initiative unit has move 10 and moves twice before anyone else XD Units should not be able to cross the board in 1 turn, Melee units should not be killing casters at turn 0 but ... <

I still think Strategic movement should be base 2 (maybe capped at 3?), but that tactical movement should be base 1

Making (several) custom factions ... and I remember reading somewhere that Amarians had higher Int, and Trogs had higher strength, but as far as .77, what are the differences between races? (not factions, but just the race by itself) Not sure if races are the same in .77, and a dev thread in the future was talking about races having different stats (with the introduction of mage units) ... or if races currently have stat differences. If so, if someone knows, I would like to know as we

Well, I do think that units should either be in a pre-placed formation via Frogboy AI, or placed by the humans. This would become more important if movement is reduced, imho, as one would not want to waste precious turns getting units into position while the archers and mages are attacking.

After playing the beta (just started FE today, huzzah!) I don't think orthogonal or non-orthogonal is even part of the real issue. While orthogonal only attacks (with non pole-arms) could potentially change the face of tactical combat, until movement is fixed, it won't really matter. #1. non mounted units should not have 10 movement. Mounted units should not have 10 movement. #2. 'Good units' and buffed units could have high initiative, e

@ frogboy I think Dexterity should be to Archers what Strength is for Melee I no longer think maps need to be larger. Only less total movement (no move 10 units, no +3 move traits for melee units (even if its only for the first round of combat)) -> and I agree with most of your E:WoM assessment.

I hear all these things about how Strength is the best stat, and that it needs to be nerfed. But does it really? I think what needs to be nerfed is a Melee unit able to move 10 tiles on the first round of combat and kill a caster EVEN IF ITS BEHIND A DEFENSIVE LINE. Near turn 200, my sovereign can not only move twice at the beginning of the battle, but also move 10 tiles each time. (granted he IS on a horse) Still, the ability to move 'around' the first line of

First I would like to start out with how IMPRESSED I am with Fallen Enchantress. It is much better than E:WoM. It looks prettier, battles are more fun, champions are more fun (and leveling champions are more fun). I like the Spell skills (death 1-6, etc) I like how imbued champions cannot automatically cast all spells I think I agree with Derek that the 'imbue' spell is not needed. Though I really love the concept of the 'Paragon' spell

Doesn't intelligence already increase spell power?

MoM was not balanced, however it was a fun sandbox.

nice

Or maybe 10^n (base 10) ? Honestly though it seems like he means C + nX^(1+t) where C is starting strength n is number of new events X is average strength of new events (new shards/ new champions) and t is a time-coefficient for the snowball effect.

I think he means that movement should not be allowed. period. while in an enemy's zone of control. I kind of like that idea ;)

Hmm. upon reading your progression chart, perhaps rename "path of hunter" to "path of assassin"?

hmm. Can the per level tag only take integers? A 0.5 might be nice :)

True, other ways to balance it. Especially the once every X turns bit. Due to the 'speediness' of current tac battles though, maybe more appropriate to be usable once every 4 turns. and yes, there are ways to make it hard for a unit to get, just a balance between 'easy' and 'impossible' such as pure level requirements, path requirements, skill requirements, etc. (even technology requirements) So is your &#39

Hmm. perhaps this "Critical Strike" could require Critical Skill 2 (to learn), and attack with half accuracy (since its a guaranteed critical, and extra damage to boot)