Anti-spell variant

[vilhazarog]

I don't know if this variant really adds anything to the game or not, but this just popped into my head so I'm curious how badly this would affect the game:

In the original rules, anti-spell is a three gesture enchantment. Later it was bumped to four gestures because it was way too powerful. It's still listed as an enchantment, but it doesn't really act like one. You can't make it permanent. I don't think remove enchantment stops it (does it?). It's basically a disruption but it is not blocked by any of the other disruptions....

What if it was tweaked to fall into line with the other disruptions? What if it worked like this: If you are hit with it, the following turn, you gesture '-' with both hands. However, getting hit with any of the other disruptions cancels the effect. Remove enchantment blocks it, and it can be made permanent.

Too powerful? Impossible to defend against a perm if successful? Just curious what you guys think.

[xade]

that would be very interesting I reckon... Sadly, it makes it a 3 turn gesture that is stronger than a 4 turn gesture (charm person)... which might ruffle a few feathers...

[vilhazarog]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply it had to move back to three gestures, it could be left at four.

[xade]

oh... well, left at 4, it would make life very interesting.

Yes, you can counter it with an enchantment of your own... however, countering Perm would be imposible... dunno... perhaps it's a little strong considering what it is leading into... it would be very interesting to try out though.

[awall]

Not really a fan.

SPFPSDW
xxxSPFPSDW

Guaranteed permanent Permanency. If they try to mirror the second Antispell, you hit them with permanent Para instead.

Also makes Antispell not work as well vs. paraFoD, because it can be blocked by para.

[Slartucker]

Antispell is already less useful than PSDF, in general. Making it bounce with para and other disruptions makes it hands down worse. Removing a parafod answer is bad as well, as Awall points out.

Antispell at SPF is grotesquely unbalanced. An SPF antispell that bounces with disruptions is much less unbalanced, particularly as it can't be combined with other disruptions then. However it's also less interesting.

[xade]

admin said:

Antispell is already less useful than PSDF, in general. Making it bounce with para and other disruptions makes it hands down worse.

Not when it is done as an enchantment and takes effect *next* turn...

PSDFx
xxxxx
opponent
xxxx-
xxxxx

SPFPx
xxxxx
opponent
xxxx-
xxxx-

It would be hugely advantageous.

It offers both an unstoppable permanacy and troll option on the table, as well as whatever is going on in the other hand...

[Rycchus]

The difference between anti and charm though is that charm stops you completing the gestures, whereas anti lets you keep them but just not continue with them. An antispelled PWPFSSS- will still kill you, but a charmed won't. This is the reason charm is arguably more powerful, not because of the turn in which it takes effect.

Also, presumably
SPFPx
xxxxx

xPDWP
xxxxxx
will lift the antispell without it taking effect (or similarly Dispel on the turn after the anti).

[xade]

Sorry, I was getting caught up in semantics...

*points to first post*

What if it was tweaked to fall into line with the other disruptions? What if it worked like this: If you are hit with it, the following turn, you gesture '-' with both hands. However, getting hit with any of the other disruptions cancels the effect. Remove enchantment blocks it, and it can be made permanent.

Now, if it was the case where you could still cast your spells on the next turn (as it is now), then it would be a different kettle...