Messages

1

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Niche Animal tactics

« on: November 29, 2019, 10:39:43 PM »

I have a charge-based BM deck that uses the Rams extensively. Lots of fun. And you are right - mix them up with some thorns or bloodspines and you're laughing. Particularly good if matched with something like a Rhino that draws aggro.

What I have had trouble getting to work are the Atticaran Porcupines. They just don't have that level of threat that makes opponents need to attack and thus bring the counterstrike +2 melee into play. Any thoughts?

2

Rules Discussion / Re: Siren’s call and fermata

« on: October 26, 2019, 07:28:11 PM »

That’s what we thought.

Pity.

3

Rules Discussion / Siren’s call and fermata

« on: October 26, 2019, 05:56:44 PM »

Hi ghosts

Simple question:

Siren’s Call is a song spell. Can it be extended with the fermata?

4

Mages / Re: flipping the channeling paradigm

« on: October 05, 2019, 07:09:36 PM »

I don't think these mages are stronger because of their 10% extra channelling.

If they are stronger (and my experience is that this is not proven at my table at least) it would be down to other factors:

Wizard and its cheap access to the arcane school toolbox.
Necromancer and Druid for their action economy
Priestess for its combo of actions and abilities (especially condition removal)

All up I would rate action generation as more important than mana generation. If I can do 4 actions on my turn and you can do 2, then in more games than not I will beat you. Zot's implicit suggestion that the next best mages are Straywood and Pally - both good action generators - and not the other 10 channel Forcemaster may well back that up.

Yes, that extra 1 mana each turn is useful in getting those action generators out in the first place, but it represents a margin of 10%. It is not decisive in and of itself, given the sheer number of variables in this game.

So, Zot, to answer your question, I would be interested in seeing the results of your testing. I would hypothesise that you won't find much difference in win rates.

Taking away all spawnpoints, on the other hand, may lead to a total inversion of the 'tier this or that' paradigm.

5

Spells / Re: Mind Control

« on: June 28, 2019, 03:46:19 AM »

I have both versions of the card.

The Mind Control spell had a little extra information added to it after an errata early on. The fighting orcs are the newer version, adding the following text: "During the Upkeep Phase, Mind Control's upkeep cost must be paid before any other upkeep costs on this creature."

Obviously AW decided to do an art upgrade at the same time.

(and oh, for the days when AW actually did such things as errata and reprinted cards...)

6

Rules Discussion / Re: Damage to Swarm Creature between attacks

« on: June 08, 2019, 07:12:38 PM »

Because the additional strikes occur before damage barrier and counter strike step, a full health Killer Bee Swarm can do a total of 4 attacks with 1 dice each against the same target.

What if the target had Redirect or Eye for an Eye on them?

Well, redirect is a defence and so takes place in step 4, before the additional attacks step. This would cause damage and reduce the overall number of attacks by the swarm.

Eye for an Eye would also deal damage to the swarm before the additional attacks step. But I am unsure whether it is direct damage (and thus would deal full damage to the swarm) or counts as an attack (and thus would only deal a maximum of 1 damage).

7

Rules Discussion / Re: Priest of Abenek

« on: May 29, 2019, 07:13:24 PM »

I believe Arkdeniz is correct that you may still deal the damage even if there's no damaged mummy.  However, If you do the damage, I don't believe you can opt out of removing a damage from a damaged mummy, that seems to be required if possible.

I agree with that assessment. There is no ‘may’ in the second sentence.

8

Rules Discussion / Re: Priest of Abenek

« on: May 29, 2019, 03:20:00 AM »

"As a full action Priest of Abenek may..."

In that sentence there are no conditions that need to be met other than it needs to use a full action. So yes, as written, it can use (wastefully, most likely) a full action to cause 1 damage even if there are no damaged mummies in its zone. Removing a damage is just an extra bonus on top.   

9

Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: The Brutemaster

« on: April 17, 2019, 04:06:28 PM »

Alas you cannot cast Plagued on a Brute, as it has Poison Immunity.

I found that out back in the day when I tried to play the spell on Malacoda

10

Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: The Brutemaster

« on: April 15, 2019, 07:59:55 AM »

Hey Puddnhead

Just wanted to say that I don’t as a rule work well with Forcemasters, but there is some good advice here for most mages in general. Thanks!

11

Rules Discussion / Re: Rage Tonic and Dancing Scimitar (autononous)

« on: April 14, 2019, 04:35:35 PM »

The Scimitar is Autonomous, and cannot be affected by traits, abilities or conditions of the creature it is attached to.

It can be affected by “other sources and objects”, which might be thought to cover the Corrosive Concoction. However, the CC clearly states that it can be applied to a creature damaged by the mage. The Scimitar is autonomous from the mage (essentially in practice functioning like a mobile version of the various attack conjurations).

So my reading is no.

12

Rules Discussion / Re: Rage Tonic and Dancing Scimitar (autononous)

« on: April 14, 2019, 03:28:56 AM »

The Rage Tonic cannot be applied to the Scimitar's attack (it is not a living creature).

You can use the Rage Tonic on yourself or another living creature in your zone while you have the scimitar equipped.

13

Spells / Re: The Embalmed

« on: April 12, 2019, 02:59:27 AM »

So during playtesting my favorite creature to embalm was the Affliction Demon.

Since it is nonliving the weak tokens fall off and he is primed at 5 dice out of the gate.

Ah, a playtester!

Kharhaz, did you ever see it turned into an Eternal Servant, and if so, how did it work?

14

Spells / Re: The Embalmed

« on: April 11, 2019, 09:43:11 AM »

Probably something like:

“When The Embalmed is Summoned for the first time, remove a non-Epic living creature from any discard pile. Obliterate that creature. For the remainder of the game The Embalmed gains the life, armor, attacks, traits, abilities, and subtypes of the obliterated creature.”

The key would be to demonstrate that the initial summoning is materially different from any re-summoning that may occur (from, for example, the Eternal Servant power), and indicate clearly that once a creature form is taken, that it is permanent.

We both at least seem to agree that the card’s actual wording is sloppy and imprecise. So that’s something!

15

Spells / Re: The Embalmed

« on: April 11, 2019, 09:08:34 AM »

I see where you are coming from, but I think that to obtain the effect you postulate it would have been much more efficient just to introduce an incantation named "Embalm" with text something like "take a discarded living creature and summon it into play. It retains all its own powers, traits and subtypes and gains mummy and undead. Casting cost 2+ the cost of the discarded creature."

It is important to note that The Embalmed is a Creature in and of itself, and it is the only card that remains standing after it copies the discarded/removed creature card. That card is formally gone from the game (even if you keep it on the board as an aide memoire). It can't be summoned again, but the 'The Embalmed' creature card is and reverts to its neutral state.

Don't forget the Magic Rule of the game: if there is conflict between a card and another rule, the card takes precedence.

I don't know. I think my theory makes more sense, but I can see where you are coming from. Are there any playtesters (or heaven forfend a designer!) around to tell us how they interpreted it?