Is the Amethyst spell "Alter Allegiance" to good?

[Thanquol]

The Amethyst Wizard spell Alter Allegiance doesn't fire – it resonates. Not a missile, but a moment. Not aimed, but unleashed.

Line of Sight matters for arrows and fireballs – not for spells that whisper into minds (or dominate by sheer force of will).

Spells like Choke may not be projectiles, but they still demand the caster's gaze – magic flows where the mind focuses. Alter Allegiance, by contrast, is a psychic ripple through the dungeon's ether. It doesn't fire – it reaches. That's why Line of Sight feels like the wrong lens to judge it by.

On a related note, I've noticed the Jade Wizard spells Emerald Fountain and Emerald Waterfall have never been properly discussed in AHQ forums. The wording suggests a radial AoE, but the lack of grid clarification leaves it open. Even at age 13, I remember thinking, "What the flipping heck?"

UK, White Dwarf issue: 121 (January 1990), The Quest for Sonneklinge (page 54)

THE EMERALD FOUNTAIN

Component: Component: Swamp Dragon Blood

The Wizard raises his hands above his head, placing his palms together for a few moments. His fingers begin to spark and a green mist begins to flow from their tips. Upon easing his hands apart a stream of green energy flows from between them, like water from a fountain, covering his opponents and burning their flesh. It cascades down onto the surrounding area, spitting and crackling with the discharge of vast energies. Every model, friendly or enemy, within four squares of the Wizard take 5 damage dice of injury.

UK, White Dwarf issue: 121 (January 1990), The Quest for Sonneklinge (page 54)

THE EMERALD WATERFALL

Components: Swamp Dragon Blood and Emerald Dust

The Wizard throws his arms into the air, clapping his hands together three times. As he does so, a raging torrent of green fire arcs upwards from between his palms. It drenches the surrounding area, sending out bright green sparks into the air as it spits and crackles with unnatural vigour. Every model, friendly or enemy, within four squares of the Wizard take 7 damage dice of injury. Before casting this spell the Wizard must make an Intelligence test; if it is failed, only 5 damage dice can be rolled.

Surely it's not just four separate beams shooting out in cardinal directions or in just one forward direction. The imagery implies a cascading surge – like magic tumbling from a great height – not a timid quartet of beams. Has anyone ever ruled this differently?

It makes the Bright Wizard's signature destructive fireball spells – Flames of Death, Inferno of Doom – feel a bit underwhelming by comparison. That's before you realise that the Fireball template likely covers a 3×3 square area (9 squares total), even though the cardboard template only shows 2×2 (4 squares).

For a long time, I assumed it was just 4 squares – players often do. That discrepancy muddled things for me until I looked closer. The circular cutout fits snugly inside a 2×2 space, but it likely represents a 3×3 blast. Possibly a cost-saving choice, or just a casualty of the cramped corridor design.

AHQ's ranged combat counts range only in cardinal directions when counting range (distance), which affects how spells reach diagonally. It's a subtle mechanic, but it changes how AoE spells behave in practice.

Just a few thoughts from a long-time spell-slinger. I am curious how others have ruled these over the years – and whether any house rules have dared to rewrite the spellbook for said spells.

Sarcasm: Yes-yes, obvious it is! The sun – burny traitor-orb – rises just to glare-hate at Thanquol, greatest mind in all the Under-Empire (and above it too, probably). Always watching, always judging. And the moons – both of them! Mannslieb, that pale weakling-ball, does nothing but sulk and ruin spellcasting with its boring light. But Morrslieb – ahh, glorious-glorious Morrslieb! Made of pure warpstone, yes-yes, I know it! Endless power, infinite spells, all for me-me!

We tried to pull it closer once, yes-yes, clever plan! Closer moon, closer magic! Closer doom for all not-Thanquol! But nooo, the Council said "too risky," "might explode the world," "stop chewing the warpstone." Fools!

And maps – don't trust maps. They move when I blink. One moment I'm in the Eastern Warrens, next I'm shouting at a broom that looks exactly like Ikit Claw. Coincidence? Ha! I think-not!

Even my tail betrayed me once. Twitched mid-speech, ruined dramatic pause. Nearly cost me the vote for Supreme Warp-Lord (which I won anyway, obviously, because I am brilliant-genius). /Sarcasm

[Thanquol]

Thanks for the reply, RECIVS. I think we're approaching Alter Allegiance from slightly different angles, which is what makes this discussion worthwhile.

I'm not defending the original mechanics as flawless – far from it. AHQ is full of quirks and inconsistencies. My point was more about the intent behind the spell: it reads like a psychic intrusion, not a projectile. That's why I questioned whether Line of Sight should apply in the same way it does for ranged attacks.

Spells like Spirit Control (which was explicitly allowed to function through closed rooms) and Kabay's homebrew version of Alter Allegiance both lean into that mental override flavour. Kabay's version didn't require LoS either – it simply affected enemies within a short radius, with INT checks to resist and maintain control. I believe you've seen the spell on Victor Kabay's site before, though it's sadly offline now (Web Archive still has it).

Victor Kabay's fan-made version of the spell Alter Allegiance

Alter Allegiance

Components: nightshade

With a deep, powerful tone of voice, the Wizard points his finger at a number of enemies, looking at them straight into the eyes and pronouncing words of leadership and control. Affected enemies become submissive and are soon under the full control of the Wizard.

All enemy models within 3 squares of the Wizard may be affected. Each of these potential targets must take an Intelligence test. If the test is failed the model changes side, it is now totally controlled by the Wizard player and may even attack its former comrades (note that at no time may the Wizard control more models than his Intelligence value, half his Intelligence in the case of Warrior-mages).

Each turn thereafter the Wizard must pass an Intelligence test for each model in his control (roll each test separately). Each failed test means that the Wizard was unable to keep his concentration and the enemy model is freed from the effects of the spell.

At the end of the combat in which the spell was cast, all models who were unable to overcome the spell's effects revert to enemy status and run away (just remove them from the board).

As for bottleneck exploits, I agree they're problematic – but they're more about map design and encounter flow than spell mechanics. I've always treated LoS with common sense in my AHQ games as a kid: if the caster is near enough to affect the minds of nearby enemies, and there's no wall between them, the spell works. It's not about aiming – it's about presence and magical influence.

And no, it's not nostalgia driving this – it's a desire to preserve the thematic coherence of the spell. AHQ's system isn't perfect, but sometimes the flavour tells us more than the framework.

I get the impulse to apply ranged combat logic to spells – it's tidy. But I wonder if that's a bit of a category error? Psychic effects like Spirit Control don't really operate under the same constraints, do they?

Especially when AoE effects like the Plague Censer and Gas Trap explicitly include diagonals. That suggests the rules aren't universally orthogonal – just selectively so.

I'm not saying it's wrong – just that there might be more nuance here than the ranged combat framework allows for.

Curious to hear your thoughts on how you'd handle other psychic-style spells. Would you apply LoS to Spirit Control as well?

Oh, and I noticed the page link to your AHQ PDF seems to be down – might just be a site hiccup. I know you mentioned spells weren't really touched, so maybe it's not relevant here, but I was curious if that document or page with your tweaks is still floating around somewhere. No worries if not.

Addition: On the term "psychic" – Amethyst magic is more about soul and spirit than mind; however, the AHQ text leant more to mind. But that only strengthens the case for non-LoS targeting, doesn’t it? You don’t need to see a soul to "reach" it.

The winds of death do not travel in straight lines – they seep, coil, and consume.

Sarcasm: Yes-yes, all spells perfectly balanced – like a master rat on stilts juggling warpstone grenades! /Sarcasm

[RECIVS]

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that allowing the caster to pick targets not in LOS is what makes the spell overpowered regardless of the type of enemy affected—see my previous post. I say this because the overpower issue may be resolved simply by following the LOS rules regardless of what type of spell AA is. Your observations about the nature of the spell are correct, but that's not the point here! The question is how to fix it in the "best" way possible. To me, that means following the most-variety-of-results-with-the-least-complications standard as always. I may be wrong, but I'm afraid what you propose may be more complicated (and less engaging) than my approach as I've shown. I mean, yes, AA is not a projectile; it's a "psychic intrusion" that doesn't require LOS. That's what makes it repetitive, boring, and overpowered in the first place! That's my whole point!

If other versions of the spell don't require LOS is seemingly because they follow the same paradigm of preserving the original rules no matter what, which is not necessarily a good thing as posted above. As I said (and I repeat) my version of AA doesn't change the wording of the spell at all; it only enforces the LOS rules, which solves the problem while making the dynamics of the spell more interesting. You can see the results for yourself. Spirit Control can benefit from the same approach as well. The Emerald Waterfall is an area-effect spell more costly than AA. Let's keep in mind that AA, though an area-effect spell too, involves selecting the target enemies, which necessarily implies seeing them somehow. In other spells that affect enemies in a certain area surrounding the caster he doesn't need LOS in order to harm them, but he doesn't get to decide which ones are affected either. Is AA a special kind of area-effect spell, then? What am I missing?

I agree, the rules are not perfect, but why should we favor interpretations that don't do justice to the spirit of the game, then? From all the possible readings, why choosing the one that makes encounters in AHQ less dynamic and varied? If AHQ is a sandbox, why should we favor interpretations of the rules that dwarf the game system's potential? Is it pure nostalgia? That's all I'm saying.

You may find Re-Reforged V1.81a here. That version is outdated now, but it gives you a good idea of my approach.

[RECIVS]

Well, as mentioned above, AA seems to have been designed with doorway and corridor fighting in mind. For example, implementing LOS for AA in corridor encounters as I propose would be too restrictive in some cases, granted. It's clear why my approach prompts a redesign of the monster-placing rules in room encounters as I've mentioned. It's also clear that a redesign of the said spell is warranted if those rules are changed—as in Re-Reforged. The original form of the spell may be more suited than mine for corridor combat, then, though I'd use a fireball instead in that situation. In any case, however, we can see how AA becomes inadequate and (still) overpowered against a group of WMs coming down a corridor if the caster can control all of them at once regardless of LOS, for example. Something along the lines of shortening the duration of the spell (as you propose) may be an effective solution if we're not messing with the LOS rules, though it changes the original workings of the spell without making its dynamics more varied, which is the point I'm making here.

I totally understand that AA is about the caster gaining seer abilities somehow, and that what I propose changes the nature of the said spell. I get it. We're just discussing practical standards and ideas to solve its overpoweredness with the least tweaks possible, making the game more interesting at the same time—why not?

[Thanquol]

Thanks for your reply, RECIVS. I appreciate the effort, and I recognise you're trying to bring clarity to a system that's famously vague in places. That said, I do feel a few of your points warrant further unpacking – particularly around the Alter Allegiance spell and its nature.

You framed my position as advocating for "no LoS whatsoever," which isn't quite accurate. I've proposed several nuanced alternatives – INT rechecks, Fearsome monsters, aura-based logic – that preserve the spirit of the spell without making it overpowered. It's not about removing LoS entirely; it's about recognising that the spell Alter Allegiance isn't a ranged projectile – it's a spiritual intrusion.

I mean, yes, AA is not a projectile; it's a "psychic intrusion" that doesn't require LOS. That's what makes it repetitive, boring, and overpowered in the first place! That's my whole point!

You even acknowledged that it's a "psychic intrusion," but then used that as a reason to enforce LoS and call it boring. That's a contradiction worth exploring. If the spell's nature is non-visual and soul-based, then LoS becomes a mechanical imposition, not a thematic necessity.

"[…] Spirit Control can benefit from the same approach as well. ..."

UK, White Dwarf issue: 125 (May 1990), The Dark Beneath the World (page 18)

SPIRIT CONTROL
Component: A Stiffened Velvet Tube

With this spell, the Wizard may remotely see with another's vision and control his actions. Holding the tube to his forehead the Wizard gently, but firmly presses it, so that it burrows beneath his flesh to form a third eye. The Wizard may pick any potential area that has not been explored and generate what is there. If there are no monsters, generate some on the Wandering Monster Matrix. The Wizard may choose one of the monsters in the room and make it act as he wishes. It may open doors, move into unexplored areas (generating them as it moves), attack other monsters (who will retaliate), or perform any other action which isn't alien to its nature, like injure itself. The spell is broken when the Wizard performs an action or when the monster is wounded.

The Amethyst Wizard spell Spirit Control is clearly about remote possession, and its break conditions – when the Wizard acts or the monster is wounded – add tactical tension. It's not a ranged attack, and it certainly isn't dependent on LoS.

Your comparison to AoE spells like Emerald Waterfall was interesting, but I think it missed a key distinction: those spells affect areas indiscriminately. Alter Allegiance doesn't "target" in the traditional sense – it touches. It's more like a pulse or aura than a fireball. That's why it doesn't need LoS – it's not aiming, it's reaching.

Emerald Waterfall is inefficient; casting two Emerald Fountain spells would be more cost-effective and tactically flexible. Fountain is powerful, and arguably the better choice in most scenarios.

[...] As I said (and I repeat) my version [...] only enforces the LOS rules, which solves the problem while making the dynamics of the spell more interesting. [...] Spirit Control can benefit from the same approach as well.

It comes across as though you're saying: if you can't get a clean headshot, the spell doesn't exist. That logic flattens thematic spells into stat blocks and codifies ambiguity into rigidity. It's a mindset that favours predictability over nuance.

I also noticed you didn't engage with the AoE geometry issue I raised – particularly the 4-square radius confusion in the two Jade Wizard spells (see my second-to-last post above). I proposed a diamond-shaped 12-square layout that feels more balanced and thematic. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that, especially since you value clarity and consistency.

Lastly, I want to be clear: I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to preserve the spirit of AHQ while refining its mechanics. Your homebrew rules may be solid – I haven't read them in full – but your forum replies sometimes sidestep key questions or reframe others' words to fit your counterpoints. I say that gently, with respect – not as a criticism.

Let's keep the conversation open, layered, and respectful. AHQ deserves that.

PS: Also, just a small formatting note – when listing quantities in stat blocks or rulebooks, it's clearer to use the proper multiplication symbol ‘×’ rather than the letter ‘x’. The digit should come first, followed by the symbol, with no space in between.

For example:
✅ 2× Fireball components
❌ Fireball x2

This format is standard in most rulebooks and helps avoid confusion with other uses of "x" (like variable names or abbreviations). It's a minor detail, but it improves readability and keeps things consistent.

Sarcasm: 1× Thanquol's Forked Tongue Counter: Play when forum diplomacy is achieved without being seen taking sides. /Sarcasm

[Thanquol]

Supporting Analysis: Jade Wizard AoE Clarification for the Spells Emerald Fountain and Emerald Waterfall

"[...] Every model, friendly or enemy, within four squares of the Wizard" ...

The phrasing "within four squares" is frustratingly vague. It could imply a radius, a square block, or even a total area of just four tiles. But none of those interpretations are clearly defined, which makes parsing the intended AoE a challenge.

Even under the most generous reading of GW’s AoE phrasing – say, a 4×4 square block with no radius logic (not even counting the Wizard’s own square) – it still affects 16 tiles. That’s nearly double the Bright Wizard’s 3×3 fireball (9 tiles), and Bright Wizards are thematically supposed to be the offensive AoE specialists with fire-based spells.

If we instead interpret the GW’s AoE as a diamond-shaped pattern (as suggested by grid logic and thematic consistency), we get a more reasonable 12-tile spread. This still makes the Jade Wizard’s spells Emerald Fountain and Emerald Waterfall powerful, but not absurdly so – since it can affect up to 11 models that are 2 squares away in all directions.

A 9×9 cross or diamond would cover 41 tiles, which likely wasn’t the GW design intent. Even with that diamond logic, the Jade Wizard’s AoE would be over 4.5× larger than the Bright Wizard’s 3×3 fireball – an enormous leap in coverage for a damaging spell of green sparks and cascading energy. It's evocative, yes, but tactically excessive. Of course, if line of sight is required, actual coverage would shrink considerably – especially in Quest rooms, where 50 tiles is already near the upper limit.

Such a wide AoE would trivialise encounter design and undermine the tactical positioning that Quest relies on. So whether we go by thematic logic or comparative balance, the diamond-shaped 12-tile AoE is the most reasonable and consistent interpretation.

Sarcasm: Yes-yes, "four squares" clearly means "obliterate half the dungeon" – why not just melt the map and call it a day? Much balance, very elegance. All Skaven clan-rats will approve. /Sarcasm

[RECIVS]

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to preserve the spirit of AHQ while refining its mechanics. Your homebrew rules may be solid – I haven't read them in full – but your forum replies sometimes sidestep key questions or reframe others' words to fit your counterpoints. I say that gently, with respect – not as a criticism.

Thank you! I appreciate it. However, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here or what you're referring to exactly. Now I'm intrigued; would you mind to elaborate? I'm not trying to win an argument either; I just want to do AHQ some justice!

I could say the same about you avoiding the actual reasons and points I've made in this thread. You seem to have missed my previous post too!

It's fine if you want to preserve the original "spirit" of AA; I want to do the same. My whole point is that such an approach is what may be causing the problem in the first place. Yes, in any game of this type, spells are "boring" if their mechanics are repetitive, or if they don't pose a (tactical) challenge or risk to the caster. Am I wrong? Is that the "spirit" we want to preserve here?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can see, your arguments against my approach don't have anything to do with in-game results or making encounters more varied, which is what we're supposed to be discussing here if you ask me. Your opposition rather stems from the assumption that AA is a "spiritual intrusion", not a projectile, and you pretty much support your whole case on that even after admitting that the rules are full of inconsistencies. I'm afraid your position on the matter may be more dogmatic than mine, then; my approach here is much more pragmatic and results-oriented. That's why I asked you if it's pure nostalgia or something else.

As posted above, the point here is not to determine the right nature of AA (I already said you're correct about that!); the question here is how to fix the spell in the "best" way possible. I explained what I mean by that and why. I don't see you addressing those reasons either, which happen to be the core of what we're discussing here in the end. I never said that AA is a projectile, only that treating it as such could fix the problem with the spell quite easily, and I said why. To that, you replied saying that what really makes the spell overpowered is that there's no limit as to the type of monsters it can affect, and I explained with examples why I don't agree with that position of yours. This is the part in which you were supposed to reply saying if you agree with my assertions or prove me wrong—in game design terms, of course.

As I also mentioned, what you propose to fix the spell preserves the original "spirit", but it may end up being more complicated and with less variety of results (at least in room encounters) than using the LOS rules. My point is that we can fix the overpower issue and make the spell more interesting at the same time with fewer changes to the rules if we weren't so dogmatic about the nature of the spell—which evidently wasn't well playtested to begin with. That's all I'm saying, and I'm afraid we're not discussing it either. You keep going through other spells instead while saying that I evade "key" questions, which, by the way, would take us nowhere anyway. Who's the one evading the actual discussion here, then? I know that paradigm shifts such as the one I propose take time, so I understand your position and reaction, really.

You may want to check out my previous post before replying, by the way.

[RECIVS]

Have you seen Rout and Spasm in the Amethyst spell book? They seem to be psychic intrusions too—not projectiles, but they're stronger, more costly spells than AA that do require LOS! They're also about "picking" targets within a certain area of effect. According to what you've said here, then, either those spells shouldn't require LOS, or AA should require LOS too. Which one is it according to your logic? We should have started from there!

Not even the creators of the spellbook were as dogmatic about the nature of the Amethyst spells after all. In my opinion, AHQ will never evolve to the level it deserves if we blindly stick to its old mechanics and conceptions—particularly the ones that don't make the game more varied or interesting.

To me, it's now clearer than ever that AA should require LOS. That’s all it needs!

[Thanquol]

Thanks for the continued exchange. I'll respond to all three of your recent posts together, as they form a consistent thread.

Let's start with the Amethyst Wizard spell Alter Allegiance. You've acknowledged it's a psychic or spiritual intrusion, not a projectile – which is correct. But then you propose treating it like a fireball for balance. That's not refinement; it's a redesign that erases the spell's thematic identity. The issue isn't whether it reaches it's how it reaches. Psychic spells bypass physical constraints like line of sight because they operate on a different plane. That's not dogma – it's genre logic.

You also didn't engage with the Jade Wizard AoE spells Emerald Fountain and Emerald Waterfall or the "four squares" ambiguity in GW's original design. These were offered as tactical examples – clean, spatial, and relevant. If your approach is truly pragmatic, those should've been addressed. Ignoring them weakens your case.

It's worth noting that, when I briefly looked at Slev's homebrew, I noticed it was full of RPG-flavoured additions – feats, hero paths, faster casting, etc. These aren't just tactical options. They're expressions of character growth. That's classic fantasy roleplay design, not just mechanical refinement. If we're talking about evolving AHQ, we need to acknowledge that evolution includes narrative depth – not just tighter rules.

UK, White Dwarf issue: 125 (May 1990), The Dark Beneath the World (page 20)

THE AMETHYST COLLEGE

"[...] They are masters of the hidden forces that drive Humankind and its emotions. Their speciality is magic of the soul. Of all the colleges, the Amethyst Wizards are the most adept at constructing the magical incantations that can alter a person's will. ..."

UK, White Dwarf issue: 125 (May 1990), The Dark Beneath the World (page 18)

ALTER ALLEGIANCE
Component: A Sheet of Expensive Parchment

To cast this spell, the Wizard tears the parchment sheet in two. As he does so, all combat around the Wizard pauses for a second, and then continues as if nothing has happened.

However, not everyone is unaffected. Roll a dice. The Wizard may pick that many enemy models within six squares. Each of the chosen opponents must make an Intelligence test. If the test is failed, the model changes side – it is now controlled by the Wizard player, and may even attack its former comrades. The effect lasts until the end of the next exploration turn, when the model reverts to enemy status and runs away.

UK, White Dwarf issue: 125 (May 1990), The Dark Beneath the World (page 18)

ROUT

Component: Feather from a Griffon's Wing

The Wizard may use this spell to rout an enemy force. He picks out his target and utters an incantation that only the chosen person can hear. A look of sheer terror crosses the victim's face as he is seized by a sudden panic and turns to run. The Wizard may cast this spell on any model to which he has whole or partial line of sight. The Wizard player may then have the model run in any direction he chooses (see the AHQ rulebook for rules on running). All models that are adjacent to the squares that the fleeing model moves through must make a Bravery test. If failed, they will also run in the same direction.

UK, White Dwarf issue: 125 (May 1990), The Dark Beneath the World (page 18)

SPASM

Component: Purple Dragon's Blood

This spell allows the Wizard to inflict extreme pain on one of his opponents. Gulping down the Dragon's blood as he casts this spell, the Wizard is suddenly consumed with an inner pain. His nerves burn from within and agony wracks his body. Then, on the point of passing out, the Wizard points at his chosen victim. The pain is immediately transferred to the target. An inner peace descends on the Wizard, while the target goes into agonising spasms. The Wizard may choose a single model within 9 squares and within his line of sight to be the target of this attack. The Wizard must then make an Intelligence test. If the test is passed the model suffers 12 dice of injury; if the test is failed the model only suffers 9 dice of injury.

[...] According to what you've said here, then, either those spells shouldn't require LOS, or AA should require LOS too. ...

Your comparison to Rout and Spasm is also flawed. Both are psychic or spiritual in flavour, and their LoS requirements may reflect mechanical inconsistency rather than thematic necessity. They function more like a clear path of magical reach – free of physical obstruction – but not reliant on direct sight. In both cases, the Wizard is focusing through his mind's eye – visualising a single target and transferring possession within a defined range. Alter Allegiance also has a range of how far it winds and travels, it reaches and touches. If anything, they highlight how GW's rules weren't always internally coherent – which I already acknowledged.

As for your comments about spell variety and tactical challenge: I already proposed solutions that add nuance – INT checks, duration tweaks, and risk of failure. You dismissed these without engaging with their mechanics. Instead, you shifted the conversation to monster placement and corridor tactics, which aren't relevant to the spell's core function.

That's all I'm saying, and I'm afraid we're not discussing it either. You keep going through other spells instead while saying that I evade "key" questions, which, by the way, would take us nowhere anyway.

Finally, your tone has shifted. The bolded accusations and rhetorical framing suggest frustration, not clarity. We're here to discuss mechanics and theme – not to project motives or misrepresent positions. If you feel your ideas aren't being addressed, it may be worth revisiting the thread with fresh eyes.

I'm not here to win arguments. We're here to refine a game we all value – not by overwriting its spirit, but by deepening its mechanics and exploring possibilities that honour both theme and tactical coherence. That requires clarity, flexibility, and a willingness to engage – not just with what's written, but with what it means.

Sarcasm: Yes-yes, of course! Alter Allegiance is clearly a projectile – like a fireball, but invisible, intangible, and emotionally manipulative! Obvious it is! The caster throws their feelings – yes, feelings – at the enemy like a bag-sack full of dread-anexity. Tactical, very tactical. Must be vision, because if you can't see the soul, how can you poke it? Logic!

And AoE spells? Pah! Not good-safe, messy, unpredictable! What if the spell hits a goblin and a troll? That's two monsters! TWO! Unacceptable. Must be narrowed, must be trimmed, must be surgically precise – like a scalpel made of spreadsheets. Yes-yes, balance is everything! If the spell doesn't require a tape measure and a protractor, it's broken. BROKEN!

The four squares? Lies! Heresy! A myth whispered by rogue designers in candlelit warren-basements. No-no, we do not speak of the four squares. They are forbidden geometry. They bend the rules, twist the tactics, and make the LoS God weep. If you mention them, the thread collapses into chaos and someone starts quoting White Dwarf. Dangerous. Very dangerous.

And Spirit Control? Clearly overpowered. You control a monster? That's cheating! Trolls? No-no, trolls are sacred. You must earn your troll. With maths, suffering, and line of sight.

A heretic man-thing adds feats, adds flavour, adds fun. Fun is the enemy of balance! RPG elements? Character growth? Pah! That's just narrative dressing on a tactical salad. We want dry rules, dry spells, dry corridors. Moisture is for roleplayers.

Thanquol dances and thinks! Dangerous behaviour. Death-trap for Thanquol, must answer every question, even the ones never squeak-asked. Otherwise, evading. And evasion is treason. Yes-yes.
—As recorded in Thanquol's personal memoirs, Chapter 37: "How I Outsmarted Everyone, Again" (unpublished, banned, possibly on fire) /Sarcasm

[RECIVS]

Seriously man, I understand that you’re trying to save face here after what I said in my previous post, but I'm afraid you're still evading the actual discussion at hand. Besides, very little of what you’ve said in this thread has to do with determining the “best” way of fixing Alter Allegiance (AA), which is what this is all about to begin with.

We’re trying to fix a combat-oriented dungeon crawler in the end, not putting together a theology, so playability supersedes canon if we want the result to be fun and entertaining, unlike AA. Do we agree on that principle?

You do realize that the lore of the game exists only in our minds, right? The “nature” of the magic spells in the game is made up and completely imaginary. In contrast, I'm talking about concrete situations that happen in the material reality before of our very eyes when playing the game. Do you see the difference now? As I posted above, I do understand your quest for lore consistency (I really do), but it becomes a problem if it interferes with playability. That’s not good game design at all! Do you agree?

In short, we should be discussing in-game results, not imaginary magical canons that end up making AA overpowered and (thus) boring in the game it was designed for. You didn’t address what I said about what makes a spell boring either, by the way, which is of relevance for our discussion here.

Now, we all agree that the original form of AA is overpowered. What makes it overpowered and how to fix it? That’s the question here; let’s stick to it, please.

I said above that I always follow the most-variety-of-results-with-the-least-complications standard, as it has brought me very good results over the years. We can see that such a standard was kind of shared by Jervis Johnson himself in the interview I posted recently in my other thread, by the way. You haven’t said anything about that approach either, which, as I said, is the core of what we’re discussing here. I guess you’re too busy determining whether certain spells “ripple” or “fire” in an imaginary universe to be troubled with their actual in-game implications.

Let's start with the Amethyst Wizard spell Alter Allegiance. You've acknowledged it's a psychic or spiritual intrusion, not a projectile – which is correct. But then you propose treating it like a fireball for balance. That's not refinement; it's a redesign that erases the spell's thematic identity. The issue isn't whether it reaches it's how it reaches. Psychic spells bypass physical constraints like line of sight because they operate on a different plane. That's not dogma – it's genre logic.

And favoring “thematic identity” or “genre logic” over playability is what makes the spell overpowered to begin with. I have nothing against those concepts, but they become dogma if the game has to be less varied or interesting just to comply with them. We’ve covered this already; you’re just rehashing your arguments without actually addressing the actual discussion.

You also didn't engage with the Jade Wizard AoE spells Emerald Fountain and Emerald Waterfall or the "four squares" ambiguity in GW's original design. These were offered as tactical examples – clean, spatial, and relevant. If your approach is truly pragmatic, those should've been addressed. Ignoring them weakens your case.

How does it weaken my case, exactly? I was under the impression that ambiguities in the original spellbooks actually weaken your case, not mine. You’re the one that treats the original rules as a sacred book (regardless of playability) even when they're full of inconsistencies. As I said, not even the creators of the spellbook were as rigid about the nature of the Amethyst spells as you are.

It's worth noting that, when I briefly looked at Slev's homebrew, I noticed it was full of RPG-flavoured additions – feats, hero paths, faster casting, etc. These aren't just tactical options. They're expressions of character growth. That's classic fantasy roleplay design, not just mechanical refinement. If we're talking about evolving AHQ, we need to acknowledge that evolution includes narrative depth – not just tighter rules.

Yes, as long as such a “narrative depth” doesn’t interfere with playability. That’s my whole point, and it’s still unaddressed.

Your comparison to Rout and Spasm is also flawed. Both are psychic or spiritual in flavour, and their LoS requirements may reflect mechanical inconsistency rather than thematic necessity. They function more like a clear path of magical reach – free of physical obstruction – but not reliant on direct sight. In both cases, the Wizard is focusing through his mind's eye – visualising a single target and transferring possession within a defined range. Alter Allegiance also has a range of how far it winds and travels, it reaches and touches. If anything, they highlight how GW's rules weren't always internally coherent – which I already acknowledged.

My comparison is flawed you say? C’mon! I was expecting something like this, actually. Is it that hard to admit that you didn’t see those spells before posting about the “nature” of AA? Those spells actually contradict almost everything you said here about that. If the rules aren’t internally coherent, why do you adhere to them so blindly, then? Why playability has to suffer just to keep the “flavor” of an incoherent, overpowered spell? Yes, it’s incoherent that AA doesn’t require LOS when more costly spells of the same type in the same spellbook do require it.

As for your comments about spell variety and tactical challenge: I already proposed solutions that add nuance – INT checks, duration tweaks, and risk of failure. You dismissed these without engaging with their mechanics. Instead, you shifted the conversation to monster placement and corridor tactics, which aren't relevant to the spell's core function.

Are we going down that path, really? I didn’t dismiss what you proposed; I looked into it and realized that it changes the wording of the spell (to complicate it further) without making it more interesting or varied. My solution only requires LOS to fix the overpower issue, and it makes the dynamics of the spell more varied at the same time, complying with the standard I posted above, which, as I said, remains unaddressed. I invite you to playtest both and tell us about the results.

In fact, that's the problem: I showed how AA becomes inadequate and overpowered in corridors if LOS is not required, and you say that's not relevant! What is relevant, then? Let me guess: Is it the ripple-vs-projectile discussion?

Finally, your tone has shifted. The bolded accusations and rhetorical framing suggest frustration, not clarity. We're here to discuss mechanics and theme – not to project motives or misrepresent positions. If you feel your ideas aren't being addressed, it may be worth revisiting the thread with fresh eyes.

I'm not here to win arguments. We're here to refine a game we all value – not by overwriting its spirit, but by deepening its mechanics and exploring possibilities that honour both theme and tactical coherence. That requires clarity, flexibility, and a willingness to engage – not just with what's written, but with what it means.

That sounds very good, but I’m afraid you’re not following those principles yourself. Mechanics and theme, right, not theme over mechanics. In the end, you’re not saying anything concrete about the in-game effects of what you’re proposing, which is what we should be discussing here.

Frustration? really? Let me remind you that this exchange started because you implied that my approach was too complex to even bother with (or something along those lines) when in fact you had it all wrong. It turned out to be simpler and richer at the same time. Your avoidance of my actual points in this thread—seemingly to cover the fact that you have nothing to counter them with other than "sarcasm"—is what suggests frustration on your end, and it proves you have ZERO interest in an honest discussion.

Also, you said that I evaded “key” questions when it was you who evaded the actual discussion all along. In fact, you haven’t yet said what questions I evaded according to you or how they're relevant to our discussion. I'm getting used to it, actually.