Useless Fn spell

[Lord Thanatos]

I was just informed that spell 92, dispel magic, only affects battle magic. If true, a whole range of subtlety and nuance is absent. If true, the spell is a waste of space on my turn result and should simply be removed from the game. Of all the enemy spells I would care to dispel battle magic is absolutely the last. I always wondered why dispel was number 92 leaving a handful of spells (88 and 91) completely unaffected. I guess if it only affects battle spells it doesn't even matter that it exists....

Is it true we can only dispel battle magic?

[HeadHoncho]

True. But I find it very helpful at times to dispel Kill spells and Walls of Flame. Any time there's group-to-group combat, the importance of the spell ramps up.

[Lord Diamond]

There is room for improvement for sure. Even if there are several different dispels, there should be more options.

[Cipher]

There are other 'dispels' that counter other magic/effects (off the top of my head)
Ward
Ward PC
Protect from regional effect spell
Dispel regional effect spell
Dispel storm at sea

92 is designed for battle magic - protects, wall of flame, kill, chaos, other 92s and are incredibly useful

[Lord Thanatos]

There are other 'dispels' that counter other magic/effects (off the top of my head)
Ward
Ward PC
Protect from regional effect spell
Dispel regional effect spell
Dispel storm at sea

92 is designed for battle magic - protects, wall of flame, kill, chaos, other 92s and are incredibly useful

These spells are the reason why I think 92 dispel is a waste the way it is now.  Let me explain:

Each one of the spells you list above are complete counters (i.e. counter spell) to the single spell they are designed to counter.  And once cast are 100% effective.  What is the counter to the counter spell?  It should be dispel!  Dispel has a % chance to fail based upon the relative strength of the casters.  What the player should gain by casting dispel (in exchange for the 100% certainty of the counter spells listed above) is a chance to dispel whatever the opponent casts.  The limiting factor, in addition to the % chance to fail, is that the wizard casting dispel has to be in the same hex as the other wizard.

Why should Ward be 100% effective?  Sleep isn't - precisely because Ward exists.

Why should any of the counter spells be 100% effective?

Why should there be no counter to instant teleport? Wizard/adept invisibility? Teleport group? Raven Familiar? Etc...

So dispel is presently ONLY used:
1) to counter offensive battle magic (such spells are never actually cast at present);
2) to counter protect heroes (here dispel is actually used as an offensive spell itself to allow a 95 or 96 to get through);
3) to counter wall of flame (which has already been nerfed so that a player need only face one wall of fire, which disuades no kingdom except for the TR).

Why should a wizard in the same hex as another wizard not be able to counter whatever the other wizard intends? At something less than 100% certainty, of course?

As it is now a player can Ward pc (against a destroy pc spell), but has to correctly select the intended target.  Why not reward the player who puts a wizard in the same hex as the other wizard and allow him to cast dispel to prevent the destroy pc spell?

If dispel was capable of affecting any spell an opposing wizard in the same hex cast there would be lots of additional strategic possibilities.  I am really tired of wizards using spell 88 or 91 - dispel would impact these spells.  Why should that invisible patrol not be prevented from teleporting about the board?

Finally, most of the counter spells are available at a lower level than the spells they are intended to counter. So if a P5 casts Bounty and a P4 casts Dispel Regional Effect then the only available counter to the counter is a second P5 casting Bounty on the same turn.  Why not allow a P2 (in the same hex as the P4 with counter spell) a 50% chance to counter the Dispel Regional Effect spell?  This allows three wizards of three different levels to potentially affect the intended results of two players.  I think this is a very good result.

At present, the lower level spell too easily neutralizes the higher level spell.  And that is not a good result...

As always, just my two cents . . .

[Lord Diamond]

I also agree with LT.

[HeadHoncho]

I honestly like it as-is, because the only time it really gets "real" in terms of possible Wizard death is assassinations (which you can fight with counter-espionage) and the Wizard-vs-Wizard duels represented by group combat. When you're head-to-head like that, relative power level OUGHT to matter, I believe. Otherwise a P3 could just blithely dispel a P8, and something just feels wrong about that. I think the Kill spells get it right in terms of percentages, and the Dispel mechanic is similar.

[Lord Thanatos]

I honestly like it as-is, because the only time it really gets "real" in terms of possible Wizard death is assassinations (which you can fight with counter-espionage) and the Wizard-vs-Wizard duels represented by group combat.  When you're head-to-head like that, relative power level OUGHT to matter, I believe.  Otherwise a P3 could just blithely dispel a P8, and something just feels wrong about that.  I think the Kill spells get it right in terms of percentages, and the Dispel mechanic is similar.

Sorry to disagree with you here HeadHoncho but I feel that the automatic "counter spells" already have the element you dislike.  Specifically, a much-lower level wizard can counter 100% of the time a higher level wizard casting various named spells.  Also, the way the Dispel Magic spell works it is 100% to counter spell of an equal level wizard and minus 25% for each level below the Wizard you are attempting to dispel.  So a P3 could never dispel a P8.  A P4 has a 25% chance to dispel a P7.

But you didn't address the main point: why should the counter spells be 100% effective?  Also, why shouldn't a wizard in the same hex be able to attempt to dispel whatever the other wizard wants to cast?

In Wizard-vs-Wizard duels why should a P1 Protect spell counter 100% a P8 Kill spell? I guess I have a real problem with the counter type spells being 100% effective when the counter spells are available at a lower level.  A truly nuanced dispel magic spell is my solution to this problem!

[HeadHoncho]

It's a relatively common design philosophy that the defense to a tactic should be cheaper than the offense for that tactic.

As for the 100% effectiveness of a defense, that too is a matter of game design. I think I could see it going either way, and it would be interesting if a P8 sleep or kill could "punch through" a P1 ward or protect (using some kind of understandable formula). But these might be good enhancements for the next cycle, and to be fair, I think it has worked pretty well up to this point in Classic.

Finally, regarding dispelling other spells, given that squares are 80 miles across, I would personally envision that the leadup to the battle is where the wizards are in close proximity, and then after that the groups withdraw a bit (even if they both remain in the same hex), and the wizards are out of range to impact one another directly.

The reality is that sure, groups could have multiple and continuous battles over the course of an entire month and remain "in each others' faces" for the entire period, but there are underlying limitations to any game framework for the sake of playability, and I don't personally have a problem with this one.

[Hawk_]

I earlier stated I agreed with LT.  I actually only agree with parts of it.  I don't think dispel is useless and I happen to agree with what HH stated above.  I am pretty much OK with the system as is but thought there may be some more room for dispel variations.  There could also be some more defenses spells introduced to counter strong combat magic if that becomes a bigger part of the game.