Is the Amethyst spell "Alter Allegiance" to good?

[Thanquol]

Thanks for the reply. Let's set aside the theatrics and focus on the actual issue. The Amethyst Wizard Alter Allegiance spell is overpowered because it ignores tactical limitations that are fundamental to comparable spells, giving it an edge that feels unearned. That's not a matter of "thematic identity" – it's a matter of game balance.

You keep insisting I'm ignoring theme, but I've done the opposite – I've acknowledged genre logic and even proposed refinements that preserve it. What I haven't done is let theme override playability, which is precisely what you're doing. You're defending a spell that breaks tactical coherence in corridors, trivialises monster placement, and reduces challenge – not because it's balanced or fun, but because it evokes something in your imagination. I'm not dismissing theme; I'm trying to make it work with gameplay, not against it.

You also keep accusing me of evasion, but I've responded to every mechanical point you've raised. What I haven't done is indulge the idea that GW's inconsistencies somehow justify keeping broken mechanics intact. That's not design – it's nostalgia.

You've avoided the Jade Wizard "within four squares" ambiguity for the spells Emerald Fountain and Emerald Waterfall again, which is telling. That's not thematic consistency – it's mechanical incoherence. And it's exactly why Alter Allegiance needs a fix.

You've suggested I treat the GW spellbook texts as gospel. That's not accurate. I've repeatedly pointed out their inconsistencies – both in wording and application – and even challenged specific interpretations, such as the Jade Wizard's "within four squares" phrasing. If anything, I've been arguing against rigid literalism, not for it.

What I have done is treat the original texts as a reference point – because that's where the design language starts. If we're going to critique or revise spells like Alter Allegiance, we need to understand how they were framed, even if imperfectly. That's not blind adherence. It's just groundwork.

Also, your claim that I don't understand what the words mean is a bit much. I've been engaging with the mechanics, the lore, and the thematic implications throughout. You're free to disagree, but misrepresenting my position doesn't strengthen yours.

Advanced Heroquest was always a hybrid – part skirmish, part sandbox, part storytelling engine. And those spells? They were the narrative spice, the unpredictable twist, the "what if" that made every dungeon feel like a new story. They remind people what it felt like to play AHQ when it was still magic.

As for your tone-policing and claims of frustration: I'm not frustrated. I'm just not interested in rhetorical gymnastics. If you want to discuss mechanics, great. If you want to keep projecting motives and dodging playability concerns, I'll leave you to it.

Then we'll actually have something worth discussing.


Sarcasm: Ah yes-yes, the winds of inspiration howl once more! I feel them – yes, feel them – coursing through my superior intellect like lightning through a copper rat. Ideas! Schemes! Glorious revelations! And naturally, the jealous chittering of man-things trying to gnaw at the edges of genius.

Let them babble. Let them scribble their petty objections in the margins of history. I and the Skaven shall not be deterred. No, no! The plan proceeds, as all my plans do – flawlessly, inevitably, with only minor setbacks caused by incompetent underlings.

Now, where was I before the static of mediocrity tried to drown out the signal of brilliance? Ah yes – creation! Let the next phase begin!

Author's Commentary: This masterpiece was composed during a moment of divine inspiration. Any errors are the fault of my incompetent scribe. /Sarcasm

[Thanquol]

For those keeping score (and keeping receipts), here's a tactical cross-section of eight spells that continue to shape the conversation – whether through brilliance, controversy, or sheer refusal to be ignored. Four of these have already earned their share of footnotes, but exclusion would be more conspicuous than inclusion. Consider this a reminder: clarity isn't silence, and balance isn't consensus.

Each spell is presented without embellishment – just mechanics, context, and the tactical implications that speak for themselves.

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

THE GREEN EYE
Component: Small Glass Lens

The Wizard's stare becomes glassy as a green fire seems to ignite within his eyes. The two bright balls of emerald light grow brighter and larger until they merge into one and, with a loud crack and a cascade of sparks, shoot out a beam of green energy which injures any model in its path. The Wizard should choose a direction to fire the beam. It shoots forward in a straight line in the chosen direction, forming a corridor 1 square wide and 12 squares long. Every model, friendly or enemy, in this corridor of light is automatically hit. Roll 5 damage dice for each model to see what effect a hit has.

The Green Eye

• Effect: Beam attack in a straight line, 1×12 corridor.
• Mechanics: Auto-hits all models in path.
• LoS: Not specified.
• Strategic Note: Directional AoE with no mention of visibility – targets are hit based on position, not sight.

THE EMERALD FOUNTAIN
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.

The Emerald Fountain

• Effect: Area damage to all models within 4 squares of the Wizard.
• Mechanics: 5 damage dice per model.
• LoS: Not mentioned.
• Strategic Note: Damage is centred on the caster – proximity-based, not vision-dependent. Until clarified by official errata or precedent, assume Manhattan distance for tactical planning. However, some GMs may interpret it as radial for thematic consistency.

MIST OF SPEED
Component: Crystal Vial of Chlorine

As the Wizard utters this spell a thick green mist spews from his mouth, quickly enveloping the area around him. As he moves so does the fog. Beyond the area covered by the cloud, the air is still and time runs slowly. For one turn, the Wizard and a number of others may move at a rapid rate. Roll a dice and halve the number (rounding up); that many Heroes may be moved at either 18 squares (exploration turn) or may double their Speed (combat turn).

Mist of Speed

• Effect: Movement buff for multiple Heroes.
• Mechanics: Roll and halve the result to determine number of targets.
• LoS: Not specified.
• Strategic Note: Targets are enveloped by mist – selection is thematic, not governed by line of sight.

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.

The Emerald Waterfall

• Effect: Area damage to all models within 4 squares of the Wizard.
• Mechanics: 7 damage dice (5 if Intelligence test fails).
• LoS: Not mentioned.
• Strategic Note: Another proximity-based AoE – reinforces the pattern of spatial spellcasting in the Jade Wizard's design. As above, the "within four squares" phrasing implies Manhattan distance unless otherwise specified.

These four Jade spells operate entirely on proximity or direction – none require Line of Sight. GW's own wording makes it clear: AoE spells often bypass LoS, especially when centred on the caster or described as environmental effects. If LoS were mandatory, these spells would not function as written.


AMETHYST WIZARD SPELLS
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.

Alter Allegiance

• Effect: Mind-control up to X enemies within 6 squares.
• Mechanics: Intelligence test per target.
• LoS: Not mentioned.
• Strategic Note: Magical influence, not visual targeting. Proximity-based control – no LoS dependency implied.

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.

Spirit Control

• Effect: Remote control of a monster in an unexplored area.
• Mechanics: Wizard sees through the monster's eyes and directs its actions.
• LoS: Explicitly bypassed.
  Strategic Note: Direct contradiction to LoS rigidity. Interaction with unseen areas proves magical awareness trumps visual line.

SOUL SHARE
Components: An Amethyst and a Hammer

The Wizard may use this spell to forge a magical bond between himself and one of his companions. Shattering the amethyst with the hammer, the Wizard starts to chant. Seconds later, a steady beam of light shoots towards one of the Wizard's companions from the broken gem. At that instant, a magical bond is formed between the two Heroes, and their souls become as one. The Wizard may choose any friendly model within six squares. Until the start of the next exploration turn, the Wizard's characteristics, with the exception of Fate Points and Wounds, are identical to the chosen model's. The effect on the Wizard's chance of hitting, and the amount of damage he inflicts in combat can be found in the Creating Heroes section of the rulebook.

Soul Share

• Effect: Wizard copies stats of a friendly model within 6 squares.
• Mechanics: Beam of light connects the two.
• LoS: Not mentioned.
• Strategic Note: Magical bond, not visual lock. Proximity-based targeting – flavour text supports thematic, not optical, selection.

DISILLUSION
Component: Corundum Globe

The Wizard may use this spell to disillusion his opponents. Smashing the globe at his feet, the Wizard bellows the incantation of power this spell requires. As the noise of the breaking glass dies, the Wizard's opponents begin to doubt their cause, and are thoroughly disheartened. They become aware of their own mortality and are resigned to the fact they will be killed. All enemy models in the same dungeon section as the Wizard have their Weapon Skill, Bow Skill and Bravery reduced by −2 until the next exploration turn.

Disillusion

• Effect: Debuff all enemies in the same dungeon section.
• Mechanics: −2 to WS, BS, and Bravery.
• LoS: Irrelevant.
• Strategic Note: Zone-wide psychological effect. No individual targeting – visibility is moot.

Eight spells. Not one requires Line of Sight. GW's own wording makes it clear: AoE spells often bypass LoS, especially when centred on the caster or described as environmental effects. If LoS were mandatory, these spells would not function as written.

If you're arguing that Line of Sight should be required for all these spells because it 'fixes things', that's a house rule. If your LoS framework is based on interpretation rather than explicit rule text, it's a house rule – no matter how elegant or widely adopted. If you've got a rule that makes it universal, cite it.

[RECIVS]

Yeah, right! Whatever you say, man. If anyone is performing "rhetorical gymnastics" here, it's you—I call it trolling myself, by the way. I have to admit that you've refined the techique to the point of becoming almost unnoticeable; I give you that.

Besides avoiding my questions, misrepresenting my position, and contradicting yourself, you conveniently excluded rout and spasm from your analysis, which is not very honest on your part. As I asked above, is it that hard to admit that you didn’t see those spells before posting here about the “nature” of amethyst magic in AHQ? Maybe you knew about those spells all along, but you didn't want to help my case. I wouldn't be surprised, unfortunately.

I'm only an amateur game designer trying to fix AA in good faith. My approach is about objective standards, design principles, logic, common sense, and results. I guess you're simply not used to discussing that sort of things, which is fine. Your position seems to be more about preserving AHQ as you remember it, interpreting the lore accordingly, whereas mine is more about taking advantage of the game system's potential with the least complications, keeping the original rules as much as possible. They're just different approaches; niether is better than the other. However, playing AHQ by the vanilla rules is a waste of the said potential in my opinion.

Your posts are lengthy, which I appreciate—it will never be a problem for me, but I'm afraid you're still not addressing my points or saying anything concrete that has to do with the in-game implications of the solutions proposed in this thread, which is what we should be posting about here. I've lost hope and interest anyway, sadly.

In the end, I pointed out in this thread what makes the spell overpowered and how to fix it, to which you disagreed. I proposed my solution, and you proposed yours. I also said why I wouldn't follow your approach, and you said why you wouldn't follow mine. Anyone interested in fixing the spell can playtest what's been proposed here and form their own opinion of what works best.

[Thanquol]

Thank you for confirming that your approach is a house rule. That distinction matters. My analysis is based on the eight Wizard spells as written – most require no line of sight, and none rely on speculative fixes. Anyone curious can read them and draw their own conclusions.

For clarity, here is where I posted the full text of Rout and Spasm, in response to your earlier mention: (see previous page). I used them to demonstrate how Amethyst Wizard magic routinely bends standard mechanics. The timeline is verifiable. I didn't exclude them – I expanded on them. If anything, your post ends up bolstering the very position it set out to challenge.

We've both proposed solutions. Mine is grounded in RAW and consistent precedent. Yours is a personal fix, based on what you feel should be true. That's fine – but it's not the same thing.

If laying out the mechanics, precedent, and implications isn’t concrete, I’m not sure what is.

I've laid out the evidence, the mechanics, and the implications. Anyone can playtest and judge for themselves. I won't be revisiting this – the facts are there, though evidently not everyone's on speaking terms with them.

[RECIVS]

P.S. Thanks to the internet gods, I just found out that troll brew exists in the WH lore, by the way. It may be a cool addition to our beloved game, really—as a house rule as always, of course.

[Thanquol]

Oh, marvellous. Troll brew.

What a completely coincidental discovery, and how very relevant to the discussion at hand.

Cheers to that – now, shall we get back to the actual topic?

[RECIVS]

I thought you liked sarcasm.

So now you want to get back to the actual topic, huh? There are some unaddressed points and unanswered questions in this thread that suggest otherwise.

I like your style, but it could be more subtle.

I stand by what I posted here; I don't have much to add, really.

[Thanquol]

Subtlety was never about volume. It's knowing when silence speaks louder than repetition. I've addressed what mattered – anything left hanging was left deliberately. If you're still searching for resolution, it's not in my words. It's in your need for them.

[RECIVS]

Yeah, right! Your silence speaks volumes indeed. I don't need a resolution; as I said, anyone can review this thread and draw their own conclusions.

As I posted above, your style of trolling is good and refined, but it could be more subtle. I say that gently, with respect—not as a criticism. Blatantly and conveniently excluding rout and spasm from your analysis—and denying it in your August 24 post—gave you away easily. The timeline is verifiable indeed! You did exclude them; you didn't mention anything about those spells before I brought them up in my August 18 post. The reason is, seemingly, that those spells help my case, and that they pretty much contradict almost everything you said about the "nature" of AA and amethyst magic before that post. In my August 21 post, I replied to your trollish remarks about the comparison of those spells with AA being "flawed", and I also asked you a few relevant questions that you (unsurprisingly) avoided—you now have confirmed that it was deliberate. By the way, unlike you, I haven't edited a single post that has been replied to in this thread.

P.S. I have no idea what "precedent" you may be referring to, but all the solutions proposed in this thread are personal fixes or house rules based on what their creators "feel" should be true, including yours. We just happen to have different standards and methods, which is what we should be discussing here if you ask me.

[RECIVS]

shall we get back to the actual topic?

I’m revisiting this thread from a different angle and with an open mind. This is supposed to be a friendly community, and I came here to make friends after all.

So, after going through your posts again, I think I may now have a better grasp of your contention. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your position here seems to be centered around preserving the original “flavor” and “theme” of Alter Allegiance, which—according to your own words—basically means that the spell shouldn’t be subjected to LOS rules because it doesn’t fire, it “resonates”. It’s supposed to be a “psychic intrusion”, not a projectile. It’s a “psychic ripple” through the dungeon's ether; it doesn't fire–it reaches. We have then that your main objective or “desire” here is to preserve the “thematic coherence” of the spell. Am I missing anything?

I find it fair to say, then, that your approach is about putting “theme” first, above mechanical considerations and even playability. What I gather from this thread is that you don’t care much about in-game implications as long as the “thematic coherence” is preserved. I mean, you seem to be judging the solutions proposed in this thread (mainly) by that standard, so let's focus on that if you agree.

I’ve been delving more into the theme-vs-mechanics debate, and it’s clearly an endless discussion that will take us nowhere. It’s a troll’s heaven in other words, and I believe we could all agree that our exchange here shouldn’t be about that. However, let me just say the following, which is where I currently stand on the matter: Theme is not important to games; it's important to (some) players and to the marketers. It sounds trollish, I know.

For our purposes here, let's accept that the ideal is to mesh theme and mechanics together in ways that make sense, which is exactly what I’m trying to do! In my personal opinion, setting aside whether the solutions proposed in this thread are coherent with the “theme” of Alter Allegiance, at some point we’ll have to judge them by their results, don’t you think? We’re playing a game in the end, and games are mostly about playability and having fun. Theme alone doesn’t make for a good game as far as I understand.

Now, in the case of Alter Allegiance, my whole point here is that what you call “theme” is actually the very flaw that we need to fix.

I’ve been going through the spellbooks in more detail, which—I admit—is something I should have done before posting here. You can see I reached the same conclusions through other means, though. Anyway, let’s focus on the original content for now and ignore all the variants that have been proposed over the years. We have the following facts, then:

*The Amethyst spellbook seems to be the one that includes more non-projectile spells (that are “psychic intrusions”) with LOS requirements in AHQ. Sleep is in a gray area, as it still is a psychic intrusion with LOS requirements—it's only treated as a projectile for its area of effect. As a side note, EAHQ and EAHQ 2nd Edition add The Pleasure of Pain and Asphyxiate, which are non-projectile spells that require LOS too.

*Contrary to what you’ve suggested in this thread, then, there are spells in the vanilla game that aren’t projectiles but still require LOS.

*Sleep of Ages (in the Light spellbook) also seems to be a “psychic intrusion” that requires LOS.

*Except for Still Air (in the Bright spellbook), which is more costly, all the non-projectile spells with LOS requirements in AHQ affect only one target model, at least directly.

*The wording of Alter Allegiance doesn’t say anything about whether it “resonates” or “ripples”; it says nothing about the caster seeing through walls either. It simply doesn’t mention anything about LOS—it only says that all combat around the caster "pauses" for a second, and that he may "pick" some enemies as targets within a certain area of effect, which doesn't tell us much about how the spell "reaches" exactly. I do appreciate theme in boardgames; it's just that it's too vague in this case, isn't it?

*The vanilla rules are full of inconsistencies.

*Alter Allegiance is a starting spell, so it shouldn’t be more powerful than the more-costly spells in the spellbook. That’s what we need to fix.

In view of how overpowered it is that Alter Allegiance doesn’t require LOS as a starting spell when it may affect more than one model, I believe the most plausible explanation so far is that the creators of the Amethyst spell book simply didn’t notice the inconsistency. It's clearly a design flaw, not a game feature that we should preserve!

As mentioned above, what is a fact is that the Amethyst spellbook is the one that includes more “psychic intrusions” with LOS requirements, which should tell us something about the original “flavor” or “theme” of that type of magic in AHQ.

Using your own terminology, if we consider all the above, we have then that LOS requirements in Alter Allegiance may reflect mechanical necessity rather than thematic inconsistency. It seems to be more of an obvious solution rather than an imposition as you implied in this thread.