Game mechanics

[Seravy]

Tactial : nothing. You still have 100% chance to do damage.
Strategic : additional To Hit will further increase the unit attack rating.

[Nelphine]

I have a city with a nightshade, that regularly resists famine being cast on it (I think it took 8 tries for the AI to succeed on that city). However, it only displays that the AI cast famine, it doesn't say anything about nightshade resisting. Is it possible to have a pop up similar to when consecration prevents raise volcano?

Definitely not a huge priority though.

[Seravy]

I think it does show it when it counters the spell, but it can also dispel the enchantment at the end of any turn in which case it shows nothing.

[Nelphine]

At the end of any turn, or the end of any of the human players turns? I'm definitely having famine cast on the city, no sign of being countered, and as soon as it's my turn, I go look at the city, and there is no famine cast on it.

[Seravy]

At the end of the "global" turn. So after the 5th player is done.

[Nelphine]

So its possibly affecting me, then the last AI takes their turn, and then it gets dispelled before my next turn? Ok, thanks. Would that dispel attempt benefit from Aether Binding?

[Seravy]

No, but runemaster and specialist helps resist the dispel effect.

[Nelphine]

Random cool comment: I didn't know city growth messages at the start of the turn had scroll bars! they do! So cool! (I had to get 17 cities growing in the same turn.)

[Seravy]

How about the following change to the "shield" mechanics :
For each 3 damage that would be dealt by the attacking figure, 1 point of that cannot be blocked by any effect, rounded up, starting from 8 damage?

Examples :
Great Drake, 35 swords +3 to hit. Expected damage output = 21. So 5 damage cannot be blocked by shields from this attack.
Berserker with Lionheart and Alchemy, 10 swords, +2 to hit. Expected damage per figure = 5. Doesn't reach 8 so no change, but a lucky figure might be able to have 1 point ignoring it.
Demon Lord, 25 swords, +3 to hit, Expected damage output = 15. Damage ignoring shields = 3. Ranged attack from the same, 9, ignoring shields = 1.

This could allow us to fairly accurately regulate how much damage we want high end units to deal to heroes, regardless of how much defensive stuff is stacked on them.

The downside, this would pierce Magic Immunity, Missile Immunity, etc, as those grant shields. I suppose we can add an exception "unless defender has 100 shields or more" which is what immunities do.

[Nelphine]

Um. So you're just trying to put a minimum damage on units, without regard to the defense of the defender.

So, ultra elite adamantium beastman halberdier with Lionheart and holy weapon: 15 melee, +2 to hit, expected damage 7.5, so they would regularly get armor piercing attacks, but only 1 point, 2 when lucky.

What would they fight besides heroes where this would matter? Behemoth with iron skin?

So, anything less than 20 shields this should have no effect. So this is purely anti hero stuff.
So I agree with trying it.