Talk:Air of Disenchantment

If this is used before Spell Breaker(or other such skills) has been placed on a target, then that target gets spell breaker put on, will it still remove spell breaker?
 * Yes. --Fyren 18:02, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Unless there's some godly combo I'm missing... Tycn 20:12, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Is it just me, or does this skill need a buff... Silver Sunlight 16:18, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Not just you. Illusion as a whole has always been shafted when it comes to elites. Only two I've ever used are Migraine and Ineptitude... though I did use Recurring Insecurity before it got nerfed to the point that only SB/RI builds could use it. This is just the latest in the tradition of Crippling Anguish, Shared Burden, and so on. Sad thing is, this skill's actually a pretty cool concept, but the recharge time just murders it. When I first saw the skill name before NF came out, I had envisioned something like "For X seconds, whenever target foe casts a spell, that foe loses one Enchantment." or maybe "For X seconds, whenever target foe suffers from a new hex, that foe loses one Enchantment." The problem with this is that the disenchantment effect is staggered (So it doesn't remove on demand unless you end it prematurely with Shatter Delusions or Drain Delusions), and the slower cast time effect does fit with Illusion very well (yes, I know that only Illusion has skills which slow the casting speed of enemy spells, aside from Enchanter's Conundrum, but the point is it's hard to take advantage of that with a purely Illusion setup). The AoE range is pretty lame, and just overall it's not worthy of an elite slot. If it affected only one foe and wasn't elite, or if the recharge matched the duration, or even if it removed enchantments at the beginning instead of at the end, I would find a use for it. As it is? It's just not that great by any measure. Zaq 16:47, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

I like the general idea of Illusion spells, since it has both anti-attack and anti-spellcaster spells, but there are no elites that stand out from the croud. Shared Burden is kind of useless when it is compared to Deep Freeze and like you mentioned Recurring Insecurity is only worth putting in Soul Barbs builds. It's the same with Illusionary Weaponry, it can only effectively be used in one type of build. This spell just isn't worth filling your elite skill slot, there are easier, more effective, non-elite ways for mesmers to remove enchantments. They may not remove multiple echantments like this skill does, but they don't have the delay that this skill has. I like the suggestions you added for this skill, it would make it much more usefull. This skill would also have been great if the 100% cast time was for all spells and not just enchantments (but I guess it would over power Migraine then). The reason why almost every Mesmer uses Domination elites, is because the elites from the other attributes just don't match up to them. Maybe we should add the LAME template :) Silver Sunlight 07:38, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

I guess you could stick it on someone before they use Spell Breaker, Shadow Form, and the like, but that's a pretty narrow focus. Tycn 05:03, 23 March 2007 (CDT)


 * This spell might have its uses, but I would rather take another elite like migraine, it's more versatile. Silver Sunlight 11:49, 24 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Even for enchantments like Spell Breaker, if the duration doesn't run out on it's own before the enchantment is removed, a good opponent may be able to cover the enchantment they don't want revomed with another one. I think the advantage of this skill is AoE slower enchantment casting (Migrane may be all spells, but only on one target).  Maybe good against a group of dervishes, as cast time is time not attacking (though once it wears out you may be spiked).  But it's to specalized to be practicle in my opinion.  Probably only good as a monster skill in high difficulty areas or specalized farming... which is a waste of an elite in my opinion. --Mooseyfate 18:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Maybe...just MAYBE the metagame will shift towards 8 man dervish teams :P then this spell would be fun Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 07:09, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

So if the enemy removes this skill, does it still remove an enchantment?65.184.80.94 20:04, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, unless it was removed with holy veil. In that case, it seems to count as removing holy veil.  I didn't test hexing with a second hex and letting this expire by itself to see if the second hex would be removed.  --Fyren 20:54, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Worth it?
With the new update, is this worth it, or does it still need a lower recharge? Dean Harper 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs 12-15 recharge. &mdash; Abedeus  [[Image:Sandstorm.jpg|19px]] 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it still needs more after that XD --Mafaraxas 11:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Change adjacent to nearby and keep recharge, and it should be fine, IMO--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 11:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, maybe. Best use I can see out of this is against a standard 2-monk backline, but only Guardian, Aegis, and Shield of Absorption will be noticeably affected, which may or may not be worth the elite slot.  Even nearby range is a bit 'meh', since any good backline will spread out a bit once they see the elite. --Mafaraxas 13:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Buffed and now owns!
Holy shit, enchantments expire 300% faster! --Alf&#39;s Hitman 03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes me cry... little AoD is all grown up into a big boy elite :'( Roland Cyerni 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 7, 2008
IMO, this skill just became a bit useful for pressure teams in HA. I have two questions though:

1) At 15 Illusion, will a 60s Enchant wear off in 15s or 20s? 2) Does this Hex nearby foes, or only nearby foes who had an enchantment removed?ArisB 05:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if this is unconditional. Meaning that no matter if target is enchanted or not, it will strip nearby enchantments. Most notably Shadow Form, Obsidian Flesh, Spell Breaker by targetting a nearby foe instead --Lexxor 09:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)