June 25, 2019, 05:10:24 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - iNano78

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86
Rules Discussion / Priest of Abenek
« on: May 28, 2019, 08:29:26 PM »
Priest of Abenek - Undead, Mummy, Cleric

As a full action, Priest of Abenek May place 1 direct damage on a living creature in this zone. If he does, remove 1 damage from a friendly mummy in this zone.

Question: if there are no damaged mummies in Priest’s zone (eg no other mummies and he himself isn’t damaged, etc), can he still use his ability to deal 1 direct damage? Even if there is a damaged mummy, can he opt out of healing? Would have been clearer if there was another “he may” before “remove 1 damage...”

I don't think anybody here expects a formal reprint with official errata to change some Spirit creature subtypes to/from "undead". I think it's more a thematic question of "What does it mean to be 'undead' in the Mage Wars universe?"

Illusions, elemental spirits (like Whirling Spirit), the Imperial Stalker, etc, would seem to be non-living incorporeal  (or not actually incorporeal, in the case of Academy illusions) creatures that were never Living. Is "undead" simply a non-living creature that was at one previous time living? If so, then Grey Wraith would likely qualify, as do the other new Spirit "undead" creatures. Or does "undead" require being a corporeal construct of the remains of formerly living creatures, like a zombie, mummy or skeleton, in which case the Grey Wraith would not qualify (it can effectively walk through walls after all), although then it would stand to reason that the new nonliving Spirits ought not to be "undead" either - e.g. a creature would be disqualified from being "undead" if it is incorporeal.

Thematically, I always figured "undead" referred to a reanimated corporeal non-living being, whereas a spirit doesn't get the "undead" subtype since it isn't a reanimated corporeal being. So I'd argue the other spirits should be stripped of their "undead" subtype rather than giving it to the Wraith.
(In this game, Ravenous Ghoul is more of a zombie than a ghost, so I don't mind it having "undead" subtype despite being named a "Ghoul")

General Discussion / Re: Spellbookbuilder.com
« on: May 13, 2019, 03:32:02 PM »
I am not sure who maintains that site. the arcane duels team may know.


As per Tony's post, there is supposed to be something somewhat official between Arcane Wonders and grga...

Mage Wars Academy / Re: Future plans
« on: May 13, 2019, 11:59:36 AM »
Ottawa here.

General Discussion / Re: Mage Wars: Misc Stuff
« on: May 02, 2019, 03:52:31 PM »
+1 on the I Love Mage Wars  ;D

Seconded. Also agree that Forcemaster (hurls) Rocks!

General Discussion / Re: Hellstar vs Dragon´s Lance
« on: February 28, 2019, 12:11:33 PM »
For those who haven't seen it...

Yep, looks strictly better than Hellstar (in either game), even ignoring the Ki ability.

General Discussion / Re: It is 2019 - What do we know?
« on: January 31, 2019, 01:49:19 PM »
Existing Arena Necromancer is great.
Agreed, Arena Necromancer is very much top tier.   Around the top of that tier even.
Are you saying there are no useful cards (from an Arena perspective) in the Academy Necromancer expansion? And same for Monk?
The former, although Necromancer has some mediocre, but not great cards, whilst Monk is a complete non-purchase for Arena.

Hmmm, in that case, I wonder if dismal sales of Academy Monk (compared to other Academy expansions) will signal to Arcane Wonders that the only reason Academy expansions sell is because Arena players buy it to satiate their desire for more Arena-compatible cards... or if they'll take the lack of Monk sales to mean Academy is dead and they should give up on Mage Wars completely...

General Discussion / Re: It is 2019 - What do we know?
« on: January 31, 2019, 08:11:21 AM »
Necromancer is very weak for Arena, and Monk is useless.

Existing Arena Necromancer is great. Are you saying there are no useful cards (from an Arena perspective) in the Academy Necromancer expansion? And same for Monk? Or are you saying that if you took the Academy mage cards for these mages and just upped the life, channeling and spell book points, they'd be inferior to virtually every existing Arena mage?

General Discussion / Re: Arena vs Academy?
« on: January 31, 2019, 08:08:12 AM »
In my opinion, Arena is far superior to Academy.

But at this point in time, you should assume that Arena is "complete" - e.g. there may not ever be another new Arena-specific expansion. That said, all the Academy cards work (to varying degrees of competitiveness) in Arena, so as long as Academy exists, there will be at least some new content that you could add to your Arena collection, even if it doesn't have a great value-to-cost ratio (e.g. from a given Academy set, maybe 3 or 4 cards might be worthwhile to play in Arena... but you can experiment with any of them).

General Discussion / Re: Interesting website forum stats
« on: January 30, 2019, 12:31:24 PM »
Nothing has toppled Mage Wars Arena as my favourite board game of all time. Still trying to pull in new players, despite the lack of support. Just because it isn't a "living" game with new expansions every few months doesn't mean it isn't among the best games ever designed.

Events / Re: Winter Mage War 2
« on: January 29, 2019, 08:54:38 AM »
Force Pull
  • Once per round, the Forcemaster may cast this quick Force spell. Target creature is Pushed 1 zone towards the source of this spell. Will not Push a creature through a wall with the Passage Attacks trait.

I know the question it's trying to answer, but I'm still not clear which way this wording falls...

Would it pull towards the FM or the Minds Eye?

If Mind's Eye is the source of the spell, then this ruling above makes it push towards Mind's Eye. See Mind's Eye text attached, which state's it becomes "the source of the spell."

As written on the Forcemaster's card, it pushes towards "her" = the Forcemaster who cast the spell (identified as "she" earlier in the card text).

Spells / Re: Altar of Infernia
« on: January 20, 2019, 11:24:03 AM »
So should there be an entry for Mud Golem? I was checking in here to see if the altar would remove their dice, I'm pretty sure it will, having it on the list would would be nice though. :D

Mud Golem is definitely affected by Altar of Infernia. I’d put it in the first bin of original post, since it says right on the card that it gets Melee +1 for each counter.

Events / Re: Winter Mage War 2
« on: January 17, 2019, 08:06:19 PM »
As for Steep Hill, it was pointed out that the rules only have it block line of sight through edges and not corners. Therefore anything that could target through opposite corners of Steep Hill's zone was technically not blocked by Steep Hill's rules.  Minor quibble, hardly ever comes up, but just in case...we clarified.

So it would have to be like a range four effect, from the corner zone to the hill to the opposite corner zone. That makes sense... though I can't think of anything that might make use of the ambiguity.

There are a handful of effects that require line of sight with no range restriction, like a Druid using a vine marker's zone as the target of a Vine spell, effectively bypassing the spell's range restriction. So rules as written, one could argue that perfectly diagonally across Steep Hill corner-to-corner had "tunnels" in an X that allowed LoS even though any other direction across Steep Hill (+) was opaque. Huh, never thought of anybody trying to argue that.

Events / Re: Winter Mage War 2
« on: January 17, 2019, 02:32:57 PM »
Thanks for the quick assist. I am curious now... what is the difference between discarding and obliterating a spell?

If such a spell is bound to an object, does it become lost under these rules? Is the object that it is bound to affected at all?

Obliterated spells don't go to your discard pile. I assume this is to avoid shenanigans with Resurrection/Animate Dead to bring back a creature that was never in play.

I don't quite understand the Steep Hill clarification. What are "two diagonal sections of a zone"? Would this mean "two adjacent (orthogonal) edges of a zone?" e.g. would apply to a Range 3 spell that's "up 2 / over 1" or similar?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86