Is Cracks Call too powerful?

[resnet34]

If I understand correctly, Cracks Call destroy any walking unit with probability 25%, regardless of any parameters, once and for all, irreversibly. In my opinion, this spell is far too powerful, especially applied to Heroes and high-ranking units. It is a cheap uncommon spell, i.e. available to almost and Nature wizard, and has a very high probability of 25% of completely destroying almost any non-flying unit. For comparison, a unit with 30% chance and, e.g. 15 attack rolls, can deal at most 5 damage. I think it tips the balance a bit too much. In fact, with enough mana and channel, even if I have just one well-defended unit (e.g. invisible or invulnerable, etc), I can easily eliminate all enemy's units, including the flying ones (web+cracks call).

[drake178]

I don't think it's too powerful at all. If you want protection from it, it's generally not Flight you're looking for. It's Wraithform or, alternatively in the CP, Merging. Invisibility also works if the enemy doesn't have anything immune to illusions. But, of course, they are a tier higher, at rare. Heroes can get these on items though, so they can't be dispelled.

Being Non-Corporeal prevents both Web and Cracks Call, by the way. As a result, you can't kill Guardian Spirits, Phantoms, Shadow Demons, or Wraiths with your combination, nor Great Wyrms in the CP. In addition, with both spells being fairly cheap, you're unlikely to do any serious harm in chaos or sorcery nodes unless you have Node Mastery too. Similarly, an enemy wizard with Counter Magic can stop the combination dead in its tracks. Finally, 25% is actually far from a very high probability. It's a 1-in-4 chance, which means, on average, you need 4 casts to kill something, so 4 (5 if flying) turns and 80 (90 if flying) skill/mana. Any truly serious opposition will kill your invisible invulnerable unit in that time, never mind the remainder of the combat. When that is not the case, you could usually win without this combination too, which makes the point entirely irrelevant.

[resnet34]

I don't think it's too powerful at all. If you want protection from it, it's generally not Flight you're looking for. It's Wraithform or, alternatively in the CP, Merging. Invisibility also works if the enemy doesn't have anything immune to illusions. But, of course, they are a tier higher, at rare. Heroes can get these on items though, so they can't be dispelled.

Being Non-Corporeal prevents both Web and Cracks Call, by the way. As a result, you can't kill Guardian Spirits, Phantoms, Shadow Demons, or Wraiths with your combination, nor Great Wyrms in the CP. In addition, with both spells being fairly cheap, you're unlikely to do any serious harm in chaos or sorcery nodes unless you have Node Mastery too. Similarly, an enemy wizard with Counter Magic can stop the combination dead in its tracks. Finally, 25% is actually far from a very high probability. It's a 1-in-4 chance, which means, on average, you need 4 casts to kill something, so 4 (5 if flying) turns and 80 (90 if flying) skill/mana. Any truly serious opposition will kill your invisible invulnerable unit in that time, never mind the remainder of the combat. When that is not the case, you could usually win without this combination too, which makes the point entirely irrelevant.

Don't mean to be rude here, but your examples are very specific, or strange. Guardian spirit, counter magic, flying/non-corporeal ets are not available to most players. Even so, what good it is that I keep a Guardian spirit (cheapest Life creature!) if I lose my top hero or paladins in one go, simply because they can't fly?

Well I don't have any of those spells and/or abs. I have 7 Life tomes, Warlord, Channeller and Alchemist retorts. I'm thoroughly happy with the gameplay until I ran into CC. Obviously I don't have the spells you mentiond, let alone the heroes. It is an overpowerd spell, because none of walking units is immune from it, and can't even be revived in any way. 

Look, its casting cost is 20, at par with much weaker spells, e.g. 2xHoly Weapon, yet its effect is far more consequential, because the target doesn't get to do any rolls, and is essentially powerless against it, and so is the wizard, in most cases. 25% chance means that, on the average, it's 1 success out of 4 attempts (see below for the detes). Again it's against absoltely any walking target, however high-ranking + no resistance/defence rolls. On top of it, the attacker doesn't risk any units at all! If that's not enough, it can target any unit it wants, and, obsiously, he will go for the highest-ranking. 

For example, a wizard with 240 channel (not too high) can cast it up to 12 times/battle, on the average with 3 successes. Obviously he will go for the best units. Comparing it to other non-resistable spells/attacks, e.g. Web or Doom gaze, it's by far more powerfull, as neither of the other two would destroy the unit completely(!), immediately(!!), and with no chance of resurrection(!!!). There's practically no way you can destroy Paladins or a Hero, or even a Stag Beetle so easily. 

Using Binomial distribution, the probability to fail all CC casts in this case (0 success in 12 trials w.p. 0.25) is a meager 3.1%. This means the opponent will destroy at least 1 unit w.p. at least 97%, which is absurdly high. So instead of wasting his units to kill (or even just damage), say, a top Hero, it can just keep using CC, and it is practically guaranteed to kill it at once and for good! Wrt the average success (3/12), this probability is roughly 25.8%, meaning 3 (top!) units are rather likely do die. Even if I reduce the number of attempts, e.g. to 6 (very low) the first probability is still around 83%!

Putting it all together, facing a Wizard with this spell, the player would by highly reluctant to advance his top units into the battle, which, obviously, gives the opponent an unfair advantage. Considering this, I would like to suggest a change to this spell in the future updates. For example:

1. Remove it for good (optimal imo) and replace it with something else,
2. Reduce the probability of success, e.g. to 5%, which, in the example above, would decrease the chance of at least 1 success to roughly 46% (1 - 0 successes out of 12). 
3. Allow the target to make resistance rolls.
4.????????

I hope you take my arguments seriously.

[spottedshroom]

Cracks call is indeed very strong, especially against the otherwise dominant strategy of using high level heroes in important battles. It's especially annoying in combination with Web, which any Nature wizard will also have.

The only real counters for heroes are Invisibility or Wraithform, both of which are hard to come by. Plus they can be dispelled unless they're on an artifact, which the enemy wizard will definitely try to do. The best option is to use disposable units, which of course is much more difficult.

It's just one of many unbalanced things in the game. If you want a more balanced experience, check out the Caster of Magic patch, but be warned: it plays very differently.

[drake178]

I don't think it's too powerful at all. If you want protection from it, it's generally not Flight you're looking for. It's Wraithform or, alternatively in the CP, Merging. Invisibility also works if the enemy doesn't have anything immune to illusions. But, of course, they are a tier higher, at rare. Heroes can get these on items though, so they can't be dispelled.

Being Non-Corporeal prevents both Web and Cracks Call, by the way. As a result, you can't kill Guardian Spirits, Phantoms, Shadow Demons, or Wraiths with your combination, nor Great Wyrms in the CP. In addition, with both spells being fairly cheap, you're unlikely to do any serious harm in chaos or sorcery nodes unless you have Node Mastery too. Similarly, an enemy wizard with Counter Magic can stop the combination dead in its tracks. Finally, 25% is actually far from a very high probability. It's a 1-in-4 chance, which means, on average, you need 4 casts to kill something, so 4 (5 if flying) turns and 80 (90 if flying) skill/mana. Any truly serious opposition will kill your invisible invulnerable unit in that time, never mind the remainder of the combat. When that is not the case, you could usually win without this combination too, which makes the point entirely irrelevant.

Don't mean to be rude here, but your examples are very specific, or strange. Guardian spirit, counter magic, flying/non-corporeal ets are not available to most players. Even so, what good it is that I keep a Guardian spirit (cheapest Life creature!) if I lose my top hero or paladins in one go, simply because they can't fly?

Well I don't have any of those spells and/or abs. I have 7 Life tomes, Warlord, Channeller and Alchemist retorts. I'm thoroughly happy with the gameplay until I ran into CC. Obviously I don't have the spells you mentiond, let alone the heroes. It is an overpowerd spell, because none of walking units is immune from it, and can't even be revived in any way. 

Look, its casting cost is 20, at par with much weaker spells, e.g. 2xHoly Weapon, yet its effect is far more consequential, because the target doesn't get to do any rolls, and is essentially powerless against it, and so is the wizard, in most cases. 25% chance means that, on the average, it's 1 success out of 4 attempts (see below for the detes). Again it's against absoltely any walking target, however high-ranking + no resistance/defence rolls. On top of it, the attacker doesn't risk any units at all! If that's not enough, it can target any unit it wants, and, obsiously, he will go for the highest-ranking. 

For example, a wizard with 240 channel (not too high) can cast it up to 12 times/battle, on the average with 3 successes. Obviously he will go for the best units. Comparing it to other non-resistable spells/attacks, e.g. Web or Doom gaze, it's by far more powerfull, as neither of the other two would destroy the unit completely(!), immediately(!!), and with no chance of resurrection(!!!). There's practically no way you can destroy Paladins or a Hero, or even a Stag Beetle so easily. 

Using Binomial distribution, the probability to fail all CC casts in this case (0 success in 12 trials w.p. 0.25) is a meager 3.1%. This means the opponent will destroy at least 1 unit w.p. at least 97%, which is absurdly high. So instead of wasting his units to kill (or even just damage), say, a top Hero, it can just keep using CC, and it is practically guaranteed to kill it at once and for good! Wrt the average success (3/12), this probability is roughly 25.8%, meaning 3 (top!) units are rather likely do die. Even if I reduce the number of attempts, e.g. to 6 (very low) the first probability is still around 83%!

Putting it all together, facing a Wizard with this spell, the player would by highly reluctant to advance his top units into the battle, which, obviously, gives the opponent an unfair advantage. Considering this, I would like to suggest a change to this spell in the future updates. For example:

1. Remove it for good (optimal imo) and replace it with something else,
2. Reduce the probability of success, e.g. to 5%, which, in the example above, would decrease the chance of at least 1 success to roughly 46% (1 - 0 successes out of 12). 
3. Allow the target to make resistance rolls.
4.????????

I hope you take my arguments seriously.

I'm confused. Are you asking for advice on dealing with Cracks Call given your specific build, or are you just venting your frustration resulting from having come across something you couldn't steamroll without losses?

I have no interest in altering the game balance in any way outside of the strict confines of fixing bugs. While I do add "patch features" in my projects that are the equivalent of modding (all optional, mind you, with in-game toggles), they are either what I consider should have been common sense to do that way in the first place, or they boost things that, in my subjective opinion, are too weak as is. "Nerfing" is outside my scope. You're free to write your own balancing mod. I can even help you with that. But outside of that, with all due respect, your argument is dismissed. It is entirely irrelevant.

PS: Are you happy with Paladins having Magic Immunity, or do you consider that to be overpowered as well?

[resnet34]

Cracks call is indeed very strong, especially against the otherwise dominant strategy of using high level heroes in important battles. It's especially annoying in combination with Web, which any Nature wizard will also have.

The only real counters for heroes are Invisibility or Wraithform, both of which are hard to come by. Plus they can be dispelled unless they're on an artifact, which the enemy wizard will definitely try to do. The best option is to use disposable units, which of course is much more difficult.

It's just one of many unbalanced things in the game. If you want a more balanced experience, check out the Caster of Magic patch, but be warned: it plays very differently.

Thanks, looks like I got my point across. I didn't quite like CoM, too many changes to my taste, so it kinda loses the magic (pun intended)

[resnet34]

I don't think it's too powerful at all. If you want protection from it, it's generally not Flight you're looking for. It's Wraithform or, alternatively in the CP, Merging. Invisibility also works if the enemy doesn't have anything immune to illusions. But, of course, they are a tier higher, at rare. Heroes can get these on items though, so they can't be dispelled.

Being Non-Corporeal prevents both Web and Cracks Call, by the way. As a result, you can't kill Guardian Spirits, Phantoms, Shadow Demons, or Wraiths with your combination, nor Great Wyrms in the CP. In addition, with both spells being fairly cheap, you're unlikely to do any serious harm in chaos or sorcery nodes unless you have Node Mastery too. Similarly, an enemy wizard with Counter Magic can stop the combination dead in its tracks. Finally, 25% is actually far from a very high probability. It's a 1-in-4 chance, which means, on average, you need 4 casts to kill something, so 4 (5 if flying) turns and 80 (90 if flying) skill/mana. Any truly serious opposition will kill your invisible invulnerable unit in that time, never mind the remainder of the combat. When that is not the case, you could usually win without this combination too, which makes the point entirely irrelevant.

Don't mean to be rude here, but your examples are very specific, or strange. Guardian spirit, counter magic, flying/non-corporeal ets are not available to most players. Even so, what good it is that I keep a Guardian spirit (cheapest Life creature!) if I lose my top hero or paladins in one go, simply because they can't fly?

Well I don't have any of those spells and/or abs. I have 7 Life tomes, Warlord, Channeller and Alchemist retorts. I'm thoroughly happy with the gameplay until I ran into CC. Obviously I don't have the spells you mentiond, let alone the heroes. It is an overpowerd spell, because none of walking units is immune from it, and can't even be revived in any way. 

Look, its casting cost is 20, at par with much weaker spells, e.g. 2xHoly Weapon, yet its effect is far more consequential, because the target doesn't get to do any rolls, and is essentially powerless against it, and so is the wizard, in most cases. 25% chance means that, on the average, it's 1 success out of 4 attempts (see below for the detes). Again it's against absoltely any walking target, however high-ranking + no resistance/defence rolls. On top of it, the attacker doesn't risk any units at all! If that's not enough, it can target any unit it wants, and, obsiously, he will go for the highest-ranking. 

For example, a wizard with 240 channel (not too high) can cast it up to 12 times/battle, on the average with 3 successes. Obviously he will go for the best units. Comparing it to other non-resistable spells/attacks, e.g. Web or Doom gaze, it's by far more powerfull, as neither of the other two would destroy the unit completely(!), immediately(!!), and with no chance of resurrection(!!!). There's practically no way you can destroy Paladins or a Hero, or even a Stag Beetle so easily. 

Using Binomial distribution, the probability to fail all CC casts in this case (0 success in 12 trials w.p. 0.25) is a meager 3.1%. This means the opponent will destroy at least 1 unit w.p. at least 97%, which is absurdly high. So instead of wasting his units to kill (or even just damage), say, a top Hero, it can just keep using CC, and it is practically guaranteed to kill it at once and for good! Wrt the average success (3/12), this probability is roughly 25.8%, meaning 3 (top!) units are rather likely do die. Even if I reduce the number of attempts, e.g. to 6 (very low) the first probability is still around 83%!

Putting it all together, facing a Wizard with this spell, the player would by highly reluctant to advance his top units into the battle, which, obviously, gives the opponent an unfair advantage. Considering this, I would like to suggest a change to this spell in the future updates. For example:

1. Remove it for good (optimal imo) and replace it with something else,
2. Reduce the probability of success, e.g. to 5%, which, in the example above, would decrease the chance of at least 1 success to roughly 46% (1 - 0 successes out of 12). 
3. Allow the target to make resistance rolls.
4.????????

I hope you take my arguments seriously.

I'm confused. Are you asking for advice on dealing with Cracks Call given your specific build, or are you just venting your frustration resulting from having come across something you couldn't steamroll without losses?

I have no interest in altering the game balance in any way outside of the strict confines of fixing bugs. While I do add "patch features" in my projects that are the equivalent of modding (all optional, mind you, with in-game toggles), they are either what I consider should have been common sense to do that way in the first place, or they boost things that, in my subjective opinion, are too weak as is. "Nerfing" is outside my scope. You're free to write your own balancing mod. I can even help you with that. But outside of that, with all due respect, your argument is dismissed. It is entirely irrelevant.

PS: Are you happy with Paladins having Magic Immunity, or do you consider that to be overpowered as well?

How on earth could you infer something like this from my post? I gave very specific suggestions, confirmed by rigorous mathematical derivation, which, obviously, you failed to understand. The comment of spottedshroom easily supports most of my claims.

Next, you discard all my arguments, including those confirmed by a strict mathematical calculation because your opinion is better. and/or you are too lazy to add any changes. In such case, I'd like to raise this issue with the community and whoever coordinates and supports community patches. If I had access to the source code (or whatever framework the game uses these days) to introduce these changes. Of course, only in case they are approved by the community. I'm more than confident in my suggestions, because, as I already said, it's not my like/dislike, instead, they are explained in mathematical terms, similar to those deployed in the original tabletop RPGs (https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rmk35/dropbears.html)

[drake178]

Venting frustration it is, then. Cool. I feel your pain. It is annoying to run into Cracks Call for the first time, not knowing what it is, or how to counter or prepare for it. It can indeed feel unbalanced that the target unit is irrevocably lost. Unless, of course, it's The Chosen, who will only lose his gear and excess XP above his current level. You can cast Incarnation to make him reappear at the same level he was at when Cracks Call hit him.

I take it from your post that you never actually tried to play with Cracks Call on your side. You should, sometime. You may find that it puts some of your arguments into a different perspective.

For the record, I dismissed your argument because regardless of whether you managed to convince me or not, I would not make any of the changes you requested. As I wrote already, I'm not interested in balancing acts. Laziness has nothing to do with it either, although I would be remiss if I claimed that I am not lazy. It's modding, not patching, and as such is simply not in scope. Which doesn't bode well for you, given that "whoever coordinates and supports community patches" is my puny and lonesome self. Until such a time that this changes, I'd suggest you shelf your argument.

Speaking of which though... I inferred what I did from the mixed messages of your posts. Maybe it's just because you don't seem to place a high emphasis on using proper English grammar to build your sentences, and missing a pronoun or conjunction here or there doesn't bother you; but it also could be the result of not having provided a truly rigorous argument that evaluates all aspects of the issue. Instead, what I perceived was an approach to the problem from several angles with propositions that are all individually incomplete or invalid - with sentences sometimes following each other in a paragraph without actually having anything to do with each other.

Take your original post, for example. It is a cohesive unit up to the sentence before the last, although the comparison has no basis, and is therefore difficult to asses as an argument. But then, in your last sentence, you make a claim that is not only false, it also has an opposite perspective - you've gone from arguing that the spell is too strong when you're on the receiving end to arguing that it's too strong when you're the one casting it. While this may seem like a logical whole to you, evaluating both sides and presenting an argument for each, I see them as two different arguments. It also doesn't help that you missed Non-Corporeal as a preventing mechanic in both cases, which is what I tried to outline in my first reply. I even went to the trouble of trying to separate the argument for the receiving end from the one on the casting end, apparently much to your alleged confusion.

You see, Master of Magic is a single-player computer game. It's not a multi-player tabletop RPG where an unfair advantage to one player is an unfair disadvantage to another. There is only one player here, and certain realms being better against certain others at certain points in the game under certain circumstances is a given. It is part of the game. I'd posit that if you were playing Death magic instead, you may never have created this thread in the first place. "Oh, Cracks Call? Good. They're researching useless spells." You're not the first person trying to make this case, and likely not the last either. It almost invariably comes from players preferring Life Hero strategies (typically involving Paladins, because they can't be hurt by other spells, which is, of course, not unfair). While these are possibly the most popular plays, they are in no way representative of the player-base as a whole.

Anyway, moving on to your second post, in which you felt it necessary to elaborate on your wizard's profile, to arrive at the conclusion that because you, specifically, in this game, specifically, have no easy way of dealing with it, Cracks Call is simply too powerful. Since this conclusion, I believe, satisfies the criteria of faulty generalization, I ignored it as an argument outright. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you understood what you wrote, this left me with the impression that you're likely frustrated about this. Since that would also explain the existence of this thread perfectly, I kept and referred to this inference in my next reply.

Your third paragraph in that post starts by a comparison of casting costs. Sadly, this is out of context, as the magical realms are designed to be different, and are meant to be stronger and weaker in certain things than other realms. In fact, the same effect may well have a different cost in one realm than it does in another. By design. Emphasizing the wide target range, irreversibility (omitting The Chosen, naturally), and perceived or attributed level of power of the valid targets ad nauseam has no bearing on this argument, just as it doesn't on the comparison with "other non-resistable spells/attacks", even if I include the two that I would consider to be much more similar than the ones you listed (the Chaos item power and the Mind Storm spell). Again, the problem is that there is no concrete basis for the comparisons. It is also not a generally true statement that the attacker doesn't risk any units while casting Cracks Call.

Finally, we get to the binomial distribution. Your numbers seem sound, and your argument appears solid. Except, it doesn't support your conclusion. There, you assume that the player's most powerful units are always susceptible to Cracks Call, which is not true given that 2/3rds of the game's Rare and Very Rare summoned units are not, including Life's Angels and Arch Angels. Yes, there is Web, but it's not accounted for in your distribution. Neither is the average length of battles, or the average composition of forces - both of which, in practice, have a major impact on whether Cracks Call is even worth casting. There's also the issue of whether the Cracks Call wizard is the attacker or the defender. In short, the numbers alone are but a very small fraction of the story, and you appear to have omitted all the other parts.

In the end though, it probably doesn't matter for yet one more reason. You seem to make your request from a point of view that an unfair advantage of any kind is necessarily, and without exception, wrong. But that statement does not hold in this game, which kind of invalidates the entire argument, "strict mathematical calculation" or otherwise.

EDIT / PS: The probability of Cracks Call's success is controlled by the byte at $AA66D in WIZARDS.EXE. Unless you want something more complicated than a 1-in-X, that's all you need to change (for yourself, with a hex-editor). Otherwise, $AA67A, sign-extended to 16 bits, is the "1" in the "1-in-X", and $AA67B is the jump condition for the comparison to skip the destruction. Happy modding!

[resnet34]

Venting frustration it is, then. Cool. I feel your pain. It is annoying to run into Cracks Call for the first time, not knowing what it is, or how to counter or prepare for it. It can indeed feel unbalanced that the target unit is irrevocably lost. Unless, of course, it's The Chosen, who will only lose his gear and excess XP above his current level. You can cast Incarnation to make him reappear at the same level he was at when Cracks Call hit him.

I take it from your post that you never actually tried to play with Cracks Call on your side. You should, sometime. You may find that it puts some of your arguments into a different perspective.

For the record, I dismissed your argument because regardless of whether you managed to convince me or not, I would not make any of the changes you requested. As I wrote already, I'm not interested in balancing acts. Laziness has nothing to do with it either, although I would be remiss if I claimed that I am not lazy. It's modding, not patching, and as such is simply not in scope. Which doesn't bode well for you, given that "whoever coordinates and supports community patches" is my puny and lonesome self. Until such a time that this changes, I'd suggest you shelf your argument.

Speaking of which though... I inferred what I did from the mixed messages of your posts. Maybe it's just because you don't seem to place a high emphasis on using proper English grammar to build your sentences, and missing a pronoun or conjunction here or there doesn't bother you; but it also could be the result of not having provided a truly rigorous argument that evaluates all aspects of the issue. Instead, what I perceived was an approach to the problem from several angles with propositions that are all individually incomplete or invalid - with sentences sometimes following each other in a paragraph without actually having anything to do with each other.

Take your original post, for example. It is a cohesive unit up to the sentence before the last, although the comparison has no basis, and is therefore difficult to asses as an argument. But then, in your last sentence, you make a claim that is not only false, it also has an opposite perspective - you've gone from arguing that the spell is too strong when you're on the receiving end to arguing that it's too strong when you're the one casting it. While this may seem like a logical whole to you, evaluating both sides and presenting an argument for each, I see them as two different arguments. It also doesn't help that you missed Non-Corporeal as a preventing mechanic in both cases, which is what I tried to outline in my first reply. I even went to the trouble of trying to separate the argument for the receiving end from the one on the casting end, apparently much to your alleged confusion.

You see, Master of Magic is a single-player computer game. It's not a multi-player tabletop RPG where an unfair advantage to one player is an unfair disadvantage to another. There is only one player here, and certain realms being better against certain others at certain points in the game under certain circumstances is a given. It is part of the game. I'd posit that if you were playing Death magic instead, you may never have created this thread in the first place. "Oh, Cracks Call? Good. They're researching useless spells." You're not the first person trying to make this case, and likely not the last either. It almost invariably comes from players preferring Life Hero strategies (typically involving Paladins, because they can't be hurt by other spells, which is, of course, not unfair). While these are possibly the most popular plays, they are in no way representative of the player-base as a whole.

Anyway, moving on to your second post, in which you felt it necessary to elaborate on your wizard's profile, to arrive at the conclusion that because you, specifically, in this game, specifically, have no easy way of dealing with it, Cracks Call is simply too powerful. Since this conclusion, I believe, satisfies the criteria of faulty generalization, I ignored it as an argument outright. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that you understood what you wrote, this left me with the impression that you're likely frustrated about this. Since that would also explain the existence of this thread perfectly, I kept and referred to this inference in my next reply.

Your third paragraph in that post starts by a comparison of casting costs. Sadly, this is out of context, as the magical realms are designed to be different, and are meant to be stronger and weaker in certain things than other realms. In fact, the same effect may well have a different cost in one realm than it does in another. By design. Emphasizing the wide target range, irreversibility (omitting The Chosen, naturally), and perceived or attributed level of power of the valid targets ad nauseam has no bearing on this argument, just as it doesn't on the comparison with "other non-resistable spells/attacks", even if I include the two that I would consider to be much more similar than the ones you listed (the Chaos item power and the Mind Storm spell). Again, the problem is that there is no concrete basis for the comparisons. It is also not a generally true statement that the attacker doesn't risk any units while casting Cracks Call.

Finally, we get to the binomial distribution. Your numbers seem sound, and your argument appears solid. Except, it doesn't support your conclusion. There, you assume that the player's most powerful units are always susceptible to Cracks Call, which is not true given that 2/3rds of the game's Rare and Very Rare summoned units are not, including Life's Angels and Arch Angels. Yes, there is Web, but it's not accounted for in your distribution. Neither is the average length of battles, or the average composition of forces - both of which, in practice, have a major impact on whether Cracks Call is even worth casting. There's also the issue of whether the Cracks Call wizard is the attacker or the defender. In short, the numbers alone are but a very small fraction of the story, and you appear to have omitted all the other parts.

In the end though, it probably doesn't matter for yet one more reason. You seem to make your request from a point of view that an unfair advantage of any kind is necessarily, and without exception, wrong. But that statement does not hold in this game, which kind of invalidates the entire argument, "strict mathematical calculation" or otherwise.

EDIT / PS: The probability of Cracks Call's success is controlled by the byte at $AA66D in WIZARDS.EXE. Unless you want something more complicated than a 1-in-X, that's all you need to change (for yourself, with a hex-editor). Otherwise, $AA67A, sign-extended to 16 bits, is the "1" in the "1-in-X", and $AA67B is the jump condition for the comparison to skip the destruction. Happy modding!

Whatever m8. The fact that at least one other player agrees with my ideas immediately begets their validity + my mathematical derivation outweigh your thin arguments

[drake178]

...