Arcane Binding - What it is and isn't

[SmartDummy]

In case you are new to the game, there are a number of "Mind Control" abilities:
Befriend Animal, Control Undead, Charm, Convert, Seduce, Dominate, Necromantic Aura
(Please let me know if I missed any.)
1. They all have limited and usually different sets of valid targets, some are clearly explained, some are not so much.
2. They all let player take control over a single enemy unit. While the mind control effect is active, you can use the unit as if it's yours (moving/attacking/using abilities). Dominate is the only one that has a turn timer while other effects can last indefinitely until the controller is killed, or the effect dispeled (with "dispel" or "break control").
3. In order to successfully control an enemy unit. The enemy unit must fail to pass a spirit check. This is why a unit who is immune to spirit damage would never get controled. Besides, units with Mind Control Immunity also can not be controled.
4. If the unit leaves the battlefield or if the battle ends while the unit is controled, it permenantly becomes yours.

Looking at the effects of Arcane Binding, one may suspect it is also a "Mind Control" effect. After all, Arcane Binding fits 1~3 perfectly okay. However, when it comes to 4, things become strange. The Unit would disappear after the battle as if it were killed. This inconsistency caused many players to be puzzled and/or frustrated, myself included.

I believe this has to be a bug that needs to be fixed. What do you think?

PS:
This is about the consistency of game concept ("Mind Control" in this case). The last thing we want is to increase the dificulty of player learning AOW III. Spending time memorizing the exceptions to all the game concepts is not perticularly a fun process. The game should be easy to understand. If Arcane Binding is a new and different type of effect from "Mind Control", it should clearly say so. However, I highly doubt the game needs a new effect that is so similar to mind control in so many ways.

Just to clarify, I am NOT talking about game balancing, whether Arcane Binding is too cheap to research/cast, whether Arcane Binding should have a success chance instead of always successful. In short, this discussion is not about whether Arcane Binding is too weak or strong. As far as I am concerned, balance it how ever you want as long as it is consistent with the rest of the game.

[Gloweye]

It used to, but then the game balance part came along and it stopped doing that.

I agree with you, but there were a few to many voices back then who didn't, mostly the MP crowd.

[Iguana-on-a-stick]

I sort-of agree, but since Arcane Binding only works on magical or summoned units, the point is mostly moot anyway, because all summoned units disappear if you mind control them.

Why? Simple. If they get mind-controlled, you control the unit, but the enemy (AI or otherwise) is still the one who cast the summoning spell in the first place, and so is still paying the mana upkeep. So he just dismisses the spell, and poof goes the summoned units.

This happens whether you use Arcane Binding or any other ability, like Befriend Animal on a summoned boar, or True Resurrect on an enemy elemental.

The difference is that this also happens when you use Arcane Binding on a non-summoned unit, which indeed is strange. I'd be in favour of that being changed.

If it's considered overpowered that Arcane Binding can't be resisted, a solution might be to implement a resistance check AFTER combat ends, and the player only getting to keep the unit if it fails its resistance check. That might be a good middle ground. (It'd still work automatically on the tactical map.)

[Sam Hotte]

Completely agree with Iguana on this: While the vanishing of strategic summons makes perfectly sense, magical non-summoned units should be permanent bindings just like mind controlling.

[SmartDummy]

Originally posted by Iguana-on-a-stick:

I sort-of agree, but since Arcane Binding only works on magical or summoned units, the point is mostly moot anyway, because all summoned units disappear if you mind control them.

Why? Simple. If they get mind-controlled, you control the unit, but the enemy (AI or otherwise) is still the one who cast the summoning spell in the first place, and so is still paying the mana upkeep. So he just dismisses the spell, and poof goes the summoned units.

This happens whether you use Arcane Binding or any other ability, like Befriend Animal on a summoned boar, or True Resurrect on an enemy elemental.

The difference is that this also happens when you use Arcane Binding on a non-summoned unit, which indeed is strange. I'd be in favour of that being changed.

If it's considered overpowered that Arcane Binding can't be resisted, a solution might be to implement a resistance check AFTER combat ends, and the player only getting to keep the unit if it fails its resistance check. That might be a good middle ground. (It'd still work automatically on the tactical map.)

I mostly agree, the explaination regarding spell upkeep do make a lot of sense. However, there might still be some questions left unanswered.

After the control of a unit switch from one player to another, it is only natural for the new controler to pay upkeep. Isn't it the same way with units having gold upkeep instead of mana? Similar to all other Mind Control effect, even if Player A produced/created the unit, have been paying gold upkeep until this point in time, once the unit is taken control by Player B, the unit no longer has any link to Player A, and the upkeep is no longer paid by Player A.

In a way, summoning is more similar to producing a unit than casting a ongoing spell. You pay mana instead of gold, casting point instead of city production. You pay upkeep in mana instead of gold. You can always disband a unit the same way.

If summoning were a spell, then could it be disjuncted similarly to a city enchantment?
All in all, people may disagree on whether Summoning is more like production or more like a spell. One thing we all should agree on is that "magical non-summoned units should be permanent bindings just like mind controlling" :D

[Iguana-on-a-stick]

Originally posted by SmartDummy:

After the control of a unit switch from one player to another, it is only natural for the new controler to pay upkeep. Isn't it the same way with units having gold upkeep instead of mana?Similar to all other Mind Control effect, even if Player A produced/created the unit, have been paying gold upkeep until this point in time, once the unit is taken control by Player B, the unit no longer has any link to Player A, and the upkeep is no longer paid by Player A.

In a way, summoning is more similar to producing a unit than casting a ongoing spell. You pay mana instead of gold, casting point instead of city production. You pay upkeep in mana instead of gold. You can always disband a unit the same way.

If summoning were a spell, then could it be disjuncted similarly to a city enchantment?
All in all, people may disagree on whether Summoning is more like production or more like a spell.

It's a story-concept more than a game-mechanics thing. In game there isn't much difference between paying gold upkeep or mana upkeep, but in the story the summoned creature is only in the game because the leader's powerful magic keeping it there. The game is designed with this concept in mind. Produced units behave like their gold upkeep is a fee they're paid each turn. Summoned units behave like their mana upkeep is required to keep them in the world.

• Run out of gold, units grow unhappy and may eventually desert
  
• Run out of mana, summoned units immediately vanish. Morale is unaffected.
  
• Lose the game, and produced units stay on the map as neutrals
  
• Lose the game, and summoned units vanish
  
• Produced units get charmed or seduced, and they work for the enemy who now pays their wages.
  
• Summoned units get charmed or seduced, and they vanish as you simply cancel the spell.

And while summoned units can't be disjuncted directly, they can be gotten rid of with the Banishment spell, which is more or less the same idea. Just like a single unit buff/debuff can't be disjuncted but needs to be dispelled. Different types of spells require different countermeasures.

You may indeed disagree whether summoning units *should* be more like production, or more like spellcasting, but the devs have designed the game fairly consistently with the premise that it's more like other spellcasting.

[SmartDummy]

Originally posted by jaccovandorpGloweye:

It used to, but then the game balance part came along and it stopped doing that.

I agree with you, but there were a few to many voices back then who didn't, mostly the MP crowd.

Thank you for providing the background information. In terms of balancing, it is a strange choice that they did it in such an unintuitive way. If it were too powerful, just make it more expensive to cast?

PS: Not sure what you mean by "MP crowd"

[SmartDummy]

Originally posted by Iguana-on-a-stick:

Originally posted by SmartDummy:

After the control of a unit switch from one player to another, it is only natural for the new controler to pay upkeep. Isn't it the same way with units having gold upkeep instead of mana?Similar to all other Mind Control effect, even if Player A produced/created the unit, have been paying gold upkeep until this point in time, once the unit is taken control by Player B, the unit no longer has any link to Player A, and the upkeep is no longer paid by Player A.

In a way, summoning is more similar to producing a unit than casting a ongoing spell. You pay mana instead of gold, casting point instead of city production. You pay upkeep in mana instead of gold. You can always disband a unit the same way.

If summoning were a spell, then could it be disjuncted similarly to a city enchantment?
All in all, people may disagree on whether Summoning is more like production or more like a spell.

It's a story-concept more than a game-mechanics thing. In game there isn't much difference between paying gold upkeep or mana upkeep, but in the story the summoned creature is only in the game because the leader's powerful magic keeping it there. The game is designed with this concept in mind.

• Run out of gold, units grow unhappy and may eventually desert
  
• Run out of mana, summoned units immediately vanish. Morale is unaffected.
  
• Lose the game, and produced units stay on the map as neutrals
  
• Lose the game, and summoned units vanish
  
• Produced units get charmed or seduced, and they work for the enemy who now pays their wages.
  
• Summoned units get charmed or seduced, and they vanish as you simply cancel the spell.
  
  And while summoned units can't be disjuncted directly, they can be gotten rid of with the Banishment spell, which is more or less the same idea. Just like a single unit buff/debuff can't be disjuncted but needs to be dispelled. Different types of spells require different countermeasures.
  
  You may indeed disagree whether summoning units *should* be more like production, or more like spellcasting, but the devs have designed the game fairly consistently with the premise that it's more like other spellcasting.

Thank you for your feedback!

The reason I didn't want to go into the story aspect is because everyone has different background and may very well have different expectations. I thought at least mechanics should be easier to agree on, was I mistaken?

If it is about the story, then Arcane Binding is already self-explanatory. Instead of the summoner keeping the creature bond to the living world, another magic user bind the magical creature to himself instead. Isn't that the whole story aspect of Arcane Binding in the first place?

You also brought up a good point on counter-measure. Global spells have global counter-measure; combat spells have combat counter-measure; this all make sense, but when it comes to summoning, how is a global spell (summoning) with a combat counter-measure (Banish) making any sense?

[Gloweye]

I've always seen Arcane Binding more of a hijack than an actual taking over the spell. Still tho, it's the only method you can practically gain control of a spell from someone else, so it's pretty unique already.

[Sam Hotte]

Maybe you can live with it better if you see the mana needed upkeeping a summon more as upkeeping the spell rather than unit itself. Just like any other global spell, the caster puts mana into the spell every turn to keep the spell active (and like other global spells, summons are listed as active spells to upkeep in the stats window). So if you, my enemy, took control of the creature that has been brought to existence by my spell, i will for sure cancel the spell thus removing the creature. And you, the enemy, are unable to take over a spell, you may just disjunct/dispel any of my spells (esp. if you don't have the knowledge of the spell that is necessary to summon the creature).

BTW, many global spells that have effects on units can be countered by combat dispels, so this is nothing unusual and does make sense for banish; imagine this as the basically same mechanic used also by the dispel combat ability or those combat spells, that prevent/hinder casting of enemy: Everybody capable of using magic is in principle able to negate the effects of enemy magic; lesser magicians (e.g. support units) have lesser abilities (so that they need to nearly touch a target in order to remove magical effects) while great magicians (leaders) can throw a magical creature out of existance when they encounter them in a battle (by hindering the flow of magic or some such).

Makes perfectly sense in the world of AoW, IMHO.

[SmartDummy]

Originally posted by Sam Hotte:

Maybe you can live with it better if you see the mana needed upkeeping a summon more as upkeeping the spell rather than unit itself. Just like any other global spell, the caster puts mana into the spell every turn to keep the spell active (and like other global spells, summons are listed as active spells to upkeep in the stats window). So if you, my enemy, took control of the creature that has been brought to existence by my spell, i will for sure cancel the spell thus removing the creature. And you, the enemy, are unable to take over a spell, you may just disjunct/dispel any of my spells (esp. if you don't have the knowledge of the spell that is necessary to summon the creature).

BTW, many global spells that have effects on units can be countered by combat dispels, so this is nothing unusual and does make sense for banish; imagine this as the basically same mechanic used also by the dispel combat ability or those combat spells, that prevent/hinder casting of enemy: Everybody capable of using magic is in principle able to negate the effects of enemy magic; lesser magicians (e.g. support units) have lesser abilities (so that they need to nearly touch a target in order to remove magical effects) while great magicians (leaders) can throw a magical creature out of existance when they encounter them in a battle (by hindering the flow of magic or some such).

Makes perfectly sense in the world of AoW, IMHO.

Great example with lesser vs greater magicians! Thanks!