Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
Tasoli said:
I am pissed that I have been pushing for this for IRL years and yet people still think mapping out some god forsaken and totally useless corner of the map is more important than apparation binding.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I didn't mean to say that caring about apparition binding is in any way bad or wrong, and I'm the last person in the world to criticize someone for wanting to follow through on a course of action like that. I was responding to a post that gave the motivation for taking that action as it being fun, so I gave my perspective that the alternative is imo also fun.

I get that this can come off as passive-aggressive, so I want to be clear that I am really truly just confused. I'm not a huge fan of apparition binding, but I'm also not a huge of Windherding, that didn't stop me from putting a Windherding action in my plan because I thought that it was something that some people really wanted. Then the thread dropped it like a hot potato, and picked up apparition binding despite giving it zero votes last turn. It just seemed kind of weird to me.

(for the record, the city I'm most interested in seeing during the mapping is Tylos, but that's not in Estalia so you got me there)
 
mathymancer said:
I didn't mean to say that caring about apparition binding is in any way bad or wrong, and I'm the last person in the world to criticize someone for wanting to follow through on a course of action like that. I was responding to a post that gave the motivation for taking that action as it being fun, so I gave my perspective that the alternative is imo also fun.

I get that this can come off as passive-aggressive, so I want to be clear that I am really truly just confused. I'm not a huge fan of apparition binding, but I'm also not a huge of Windherding, that didn't stop me from putting a Windherding action in my plan because I thought that it was something that some people really wanted. Then the thread dropped it like a hot potato, and picked up apparition binding despite giving it zero votes last turn. It just seemed kind of weird to me.

(for the record, the city I'm most interested in seeing during the mapping is Tylos, but that's not in Estalia so you got me there)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I will say that for choosing a plan to vote for it's not big ticket items I'm looking for but combining as many things in my wants as possible and what needs to be done soon or can be left waiting.
I wanted to do the red riders for a while because i really like them but it's the whole plan i like.
 
When discussing how long binding an apparition takes, we may want to keep in mind that we got the option to bind a dryad without any preparation. So, making it into a spell may take more AP, but I doubt looking for and binding one on its own will take more than 1 AP unless we roll very badly. It would be weird to have looking for one take more than 1 AP and once we find one, binding it will not take more (again, unless we roll very badly).
 
Voikirium said:
Magritta, Bilbali, Los Cabos, Almagora, Nerja. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel like that is unfair of you as the Author of the Estelian quest but point taken. :p I was reading your quest but I am only half way there so cheers mate.

Incidently if people are interested in Estelia go read this guys quest. It is good.

mathymancer said:
I get that this can come off as passive-aggressive, so I want to be clear that I am really truly just confused. I'm not a huge fan of apparition binding, but I'm also not a huge of Windherding, that didn't stop me from putting a Windherding action in my plan because I thought that it was something that some people really wanted. Then the thread dropped it like a hot potato, and picked up apparition binding despite giving it zero votes last turn. It just seemed kind of weird to me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel like this is just an early lead that will disspear considering the latest votes and the pushback that is happening which is frustrating as well. But Apparation binding has always had support last turn I was convinced that now was not the time and had other priorities so I voted among the leading votes but the constant delaying never seem to stop so why shoud I worry. Clearly there is never going to be a time for apparation binding unless we push for it. So this is me pushing. Come at me;

 
Last edited:
Romv said:
When discussing how long binding an apparition takes, we may want to keep in mind that we got the option to bind a dryad without any preparation. So, making it into a spell may take more AP, but I doubt looking for and binding one on its own will take more than 1 AP unless we roll very badly. It would be weird to have looking for one take more than 1 AP and once we find one, binding it will not take more (again, unless we roll very badly).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't read it that way, boney would have allowed us to try. It's like the dm saying "you may certainly try" to the question of romancing sizable lizards.
 
I'm an apparition binding fan, but I'd prefer to do it after we've 1: completed our swordstyle and 2: done that "initial" Windherding action we need to figure out Windherding's true potential.
 
Romv said:
When discussing how long binding an apparition takes, we may want to keep in mind that we got the option to bind a dryad without any preparation. So, making it into a spell may take more AP, but I doubt looking for and binding one on its own will take more than 1 AP unless we roll very badly. It would be weird to have looking for one take more than 1 AP and once we find one, binding it will not take more (again, unless we roll very badly).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm pretty sure Boney ended up saying that just because it was possible didn't mean it was likely or a good idea. It was indicative of how it was something that could be attempted without any actual knowledge of how well we'd have to roll to do so, or any consequences that would happen afterward.
 
Tobtorp said:
I wouldn't read it that way, boney would have allowed us to try. It's like the dm saying "you may certainly try" to the question of romancing sizable lizards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Parabola said:
I'm pretty sure Boney ended up saying that just because it was possible didn't mean it was likely or a good idea. It was indicative of how it was something that could be attempted without any actual knowledge of how well we'd have to roll to do so, or any consequences that would happen afterward.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, it was a terrible idea, for multiple reasons, but it means that the binding process doesn't need an AP worth of time to develop. If we had done it and it had somehow worked, what would have taken time would have been turning it into a spell and having it be repeatable.
 
Romv said:
Sure, it was a terrible idea, for multiple reasons, but it means that the binding process doesn't need an AP worth of time to develop. If we had done it and it had somehow worked, what would have taken time would have been turning it into a spell and having it be repeatable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No it means he would have lt us try binding with something we came up from the top of our heads. It isn't guaranteed to work anymore then it guaranteed to not kill us.
 
I have this mental image of it going mostly right but also it ends up with Drycha screeching in Mathilde's mind 24/7 and only sometimes taking a breather whenever Mathilde's killing other humans.
 
My understanding is basically that theoretically its possible to capture and bind an apparition in one action, but doing so safely would be a multiple action process.
 
Personally, I'm hopeful that the apparition binding is something we can do together with Johann for a little bit. A sounding board for the codification, a spotter for the binding, a partner for the combat testing.

I think the mapping action is superfluous at this point, tbh. It feels like complete make-work. Exploring an entirely separate network, like Nehekhara? That seems like it might bring some insights on board (e.g. how their river tributaries are working out for them), and something maybe to work towards with learning the language with Egrimm through WEBMAT in preparation. Tilea, though? I just don't get what we're hoping to find, and what we'd do even if we found it given that neither we nor anybody we'd be bringing has contacts nor authority nor even speaks the language in the area. Nobody's explained the benefits.

Is it just that it's on the list, and so therefore must be done as a matter of checking boxes?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure we can, or should, bring any witnesses to the whole apparition binding.
As fun as Johann is, and as useful as he might be, there is a reason all the colleges keep their known, or hypothetical, apparition shit in the "need to know (no, they don't need to know)" basis.
So even without the whole deal with the gold patriarch about keeping our knowledge secret, bringing anyone, let alone Johann (who kinda has a fairly good change of figuring out where we got the idea from), seems like a bad idea.
 
Valmond said:
I'm not sure we can, or should, bring any witnesses to the whole apparition binding.
As fun as Johann is, and as useful as he might be, there is a reason all the colleges keep their known, or hypothetical, apparition shit in the "need to know (no, they don't need to know)" basis.
So even without the whole deal with the gold patriarch about keeping our knowledge secret, bringing anyone, let alone Johann (who kinda has a fairly good change of figuring out where we got the idea from), seems like a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... Why? Johann is the one person who knows exactly how this works and wouldn't have any problem with it. It's literally his teacher who we learned it from.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top