Lifespark and musings on defensive casting

[dreiche2]

I still don't get why it should not be useful, it might not be as good as other level 3 spells, I don't know, but still...

Imagine the following situation.

You have a hero and a summoner that summoned lifespark on the same tile. No imagine a strong unit attacking your stack. Your hero, being the best defender, gets into combat and gets hurt badly, but that instant 40% heal might just save his life.

Isn't that as good as having some other strong unit instead of the lifespark summoner (that still wouldn't save the hero in that situation)?

 

[eerr]

lifespark increases the base odd of a unit winning a battle-so that even if your unit really isn't as good as thiers you still can slightly increase your chances of winning-like a fortification that doesn't become less powerfull compared to raising combat most of the time
it's an easy way to reinforce units against more powerful attackers-in a battle thats not hopeless it's very likely to turn the tide

 

[Grey Fox]

The same thing doesnt have to be done with a unit right? Could just be a promotion.

Like you promote a unit with Auto-Life (to copy Final Fantasy), if your unit dies during combat, it is revived and continues combat. etc. Or a stoneskin promotion, which lowers damage by 15% or something.

Right?

 

[Kael]

The same thing doesnt have to be done with a unit right? Could just be a promotion.

Like you promote a unit with Auto-Life (to copy Final Fantasy), if your unit dies during combat, it is revived and continues combat. etc. Or a stoneskin promotion, which lowers damage by 15% or something.

Right?

Yeap, in fact stoneskin is a promotion that works just like that. It protects from 3 hits (in three combat events where the stoneskinned unit loses the round the damage is reduced to 0) in the same section of code as lifespark.

 

[Jono]

The addition of 'up to' takes your statement from blather to nonsense, which I suppose is an improvement of sorts.

Nine lifesparks add an effective 360% heal to dying units in the tile - no more, no less - three attackers, nine attackers, twelve attacker - it doesn't matter.

You don't need eight more attackers, you don't need up to eight more attackers, what you need is enough attackers to deal that much damage - this can be more than eight or less than eight, and the number of actual attacks doesn't matter.
(unless there is a limit to the number of lifesparks triggering in any one combat, of course.)

Using nine high-level summoners to turn one defender into what is effectively 4.6 (less if the defender is wounded) defenders of the same strength for a turn might be powerful, but nine regular third-tier summons should prove stronger unless that one defender is a very powerful unit. Further, if the tile is not attacked on that turn, eight of the summoners will have wasted their spells.


Now, I do apologize for calling much of your post meaningless blather - only that piece would qualify as such.

I just wanted to point out that they also heal the units in the same tile before sacrifice.

 

[eerr]

so stoneskin is like +3 first strikes that aren't taken away vs units immune to first strikes?

 

[Kael]

so stoneskin is like +3 first strikes that aren't taken away vs units immune to first strikes?

Yeah, I almost just had stoneskin give 3 first strikes but in the end I gave it its own mechanic. The differences are that since I track the amount of hits against the stoneskin I can remove or leave it depending on if it has protected against X amount of hits. Also I think first strikes are all calculated at the begining of combat, and stoneskin only plays a role when the unit loses a combat round so I think stoneskin is a bit more useful.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

The addition of 'up to' takes your statement from blather to nonsense, which I suppose is an improvement of sorts.

Nine lifesparks add an effective 360% heal to dying units in the tile - no more, no less - three attackers, nine attackers, twelve attacker - it doesn't matter.

You don't need eight more attackers, you don't need up to eight more attackers, what you need is enough attackers to deal that much damage - this can be more than eight or less than eight, and the number of actual attacks doesn't matter.
(unless there is a limit to the number of lifesparks triggering in any one combat, of course.)

Using nine high-level summoners to turn one defender into what is effectively 4.6 (less if the defender is wounded) defenders of the same strength for a turn might be powerful, but nine regular third-tier summons should prove stronger unless that one defender is a very powerful unit. Further, if the tile is not attacked on that turn, eight of the summoners will have wasted their spells.


Now, I do apologize for calling much of your post meaningless blather - only that piece would qualify as such.

You assign significance to a distinction that holds no substansive diffrence.

I am not responsible for your one-unit-defending scenrio.

The premise described strongly defended tile, which by definition includes more than one very capable unit in reltion to the attacker's capabilities, plus fortification/dug-in/terrain advantages. For someone quick to flame over aleged poor reading habits, you should do better.

In my experience these few top-defending unit does the brunt of the fighting. More often than not a wounded skilled unit will be selected to defend rather than oe of the 'militia'. And that is when they die, they enter battle with a new unit with far fewer hitpoints than 100%. The attacker scors a few hits and the defender dies. But give him a boost and he might survive that combat. Add another quality defederunit or two, and a stack of Lifesparks, and the attacker is faced with mounting many attacks before he can expect to actually kill a defender.

Sure, if you change the scenario, you can achieve any result you want. Give the attackers a stack of Plague csters and they don't have to rely upon so many direct attacks. Make the defending unit a Scout in Desert against a 5* Flurry and no number of lifesparks will save it.

But for a looming close fight where units will actually engage, excuse me for thinking the Lifespark will prove both fun and effective. If want to take me to task for thinking that, fine.

 

[Teg_Navanis]

Sure, if you change the scenario, you can achieve any result you want. Give the attackers a stack of Plague csters and they don't have to rely upon so many direct attacks. Make the defending unit a Scout in Desert against a 5* Flurry and no number of lifesparks will save it.

Or use Marksmen