September 25, 2017, 07:09:44 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 - Beldin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Rules Discussion / Re: Gurmash Battle orders
« on: September 20, 2017, 11:35:19 AM »
The Battle Orders ability says that the Warlord can use it once per round.  Gurmash says that he can use Battle orders.  There is no stipulation that I can find which prohibits them from both using it.  The way I read it you effectively copy the "Battle Orders" text from the Warlord card to Gurmash's card replacing "Warlord" with "Gurmash".

According to the above understanding, if you really feel it's a good use of resources, you could get Tough -6 and Armor +2.

I can see a different interpretation as well.  It is that perhaps Gurmash has access to the "Battle Orders" section of the Warlord's card and it should be read as "Once per turn, Gurmash or his controlling Warlord may...."

Of course I personally think it should be interpreted the first way.

This is the exact reason I was checking, due to the fact I reasoned both arguments in my head.

Rules Discussion / Gurmash Battle orders
« on: September 20, 2017, 10:21:51 AM »
If a battle order has been cast already in a turn:

1) can Gurmash, Orc Sargent cast the same battle order a second time and it double the effect of that battle order?
2) if the warlord is in the same zone with Gurmash, Orc Sargent and has an Ivarium Halberd out is he effected by both battle orders, as if he were a soldier?

I think I have read this all right but I am just checking my maths; am I correct in saying I can make my dwarf warlord have -6 tough and 2 armor this way?

Rules Discussion / Re: Turn to Stone and Enchantment Transfusion
« on: September 16, 2017, 02:22:52 AM »
Ok I am always ready to be wrong, and be corrected. It is how we learn.  I have come in half way through this thread. I do have a side question, but lets get this sorted first. :)

My point is if a "can not take x action" effect is on a creature, no matter how it appeared there, at the beginning of an action then it negates said action. If it is placed then it negates actions past the step it interrupts, referencing the negation of additional strikes in combat for an incapacitate gained due to an effect dice effect. Not effects the card generates due to previous steps within the action, before "can not take x action" effect was applied.

Rules Discussion / Re: Turn to Stone and Enchantment Transfusion
« on: September 15, 2017, 04:36:26 PM »
Personally I have looked outside the game for what could be an official ruling in this game. I looked to M:TG to see if it had a rule that could shine some logic to Mage Wars. I found the following:

Quote from: M:TG Comprehensive Rules
506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking donít remove the creature from combat.

We can lend this to Mage Wars as once a creature is declared as an attacker it is within the combat rules and thus follows the steps of combat. Incapacitating it should have no effect until it is out of combat again. The last time that Turn to Stone can stop a creature attacking this turn is holding priority before it activates or holding priority after it moves and still has a quick action to use.

This is the same as revealing Enfeeble after the Pay Costs phase of casting a spell. You are closing the barn door once the horse has bolted.

General Discussion / Re: The Force Awakens.
« on: September 13, 2017, 07:12:22 AM »
I feel this could be correct. The ability to ignore range and disrupt your opponents plan early and pile down a lot of attack dice at qc speed is something to content with. She deals with buddy builds very well due to force gremlin (spot the interaction) and also zombies due to her critical damage creatures. Swarms are less of a burden with clever spellbook design.

Spells / Re: Thoughts on mind control
« on: August 25, 2017, 07:10:58 PM »
ignite counters arcane ward, best spell for that. Wardstones I will just pay the mana for. More mind control means more sbp. This is a case of SBP not other resources.

Spells / Re: Thoughts on mind control
« on: August 25, 2017, 06:49:55 PM »
You mind control, I dispel. you are down on sbp. I run dispel in every book.

Rules Discussion / Re: Domination guarding rules
« on: August 24, 2017, 08:24:34 PM »
Some of the rules in this game just make no sense to me.

That's because people want intention and why it works instead of this is how it works, deal with it.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Is the Psylok a viable creature?
« on: August 20, 2017, 08:43:23 PM »
If it is so bad how did it end up in the game?

Can any playtester shed any light on that? What was the thinking behind it, or expected strategies for its use?

Not many playtesters from that time are still active on the forum. I think they simply overestimated 'critical damage' power and nerfed him a little too much fearing abuse of him. Also, remember that this is from the first expansion after the core set, meaning that after that set only Iron Golem, Mana Leech and Skeletal Sentry had psychic immunity. Back in the day this used to be a very rare trait.

Yes and necromancer came after this. By which time the card was printed and I am sure the interaction with undead was tested and seen as not game breaking. Not every card is viable, some are more for causal players.

This is a pretty cool idea! I would love to see a book for it. A few thoughts i had while reading.
1) would you put a grey wraith in? It sort of capitalizes a little more on lack of ethereal.

I agree with this. +1

Also this has sparked an idea for one of my own books. Thanks dude.

Rules Discussion / Re: Titanodon
« on: July 31, 2017, 07:10:57 PM »
Personally this should not be able to be effected by Counterstrikes and the like due to timing.

This attack only occurs upon a card leaving a zone and once it has made the attack it is no longer in the zone there it made the attack. Therefore any damage causing elements that generate from opposing effects cannot target this card as it is no longer at the range of 0-0 that these effects happen under, hence it cannot be effected by a counterstrike, etc. However it should be treated as an attack in that zone when interfacing with other rules elements, such as guards.

On the note of flying trample then it should lose the flying trait to make a trample attack against creatures that do not have the flying trait. This then covers the thematic of a swooping attack. Against flying creatures it does not lose the flying trait as the same combat happens the 3D aerial dynamic battlefield (think dogfights of WW2).

Rules Discussion / Re: Titanodon
« on: July 30, 2017, 03:22:43 AM »
I think Trample is an attack action, like quick or full action attacks. We have attack action icon, then type of attack and dices. In this case everything is clear: Trample is sort of attack action, which you can do when leaving zone. All Trample attacks in game now melee attacks, so you can't Tramble Flying and you can dodge this attack with Buckler. On Trample attacks doesn't affects bonuses like Melee +X, Bloodfirsty and ets.

However it is not. Please refer to the following post:

Titanodon has sword with trample attack. It means that it is melee attack. So, Agony can work. I think it works like Aegis.

Reread the Trample rules in Lost Grimoire. It specifically says it is not a melee attack, nor a ranged attack. It is it's own unique thing. I agree that the symbolism is confusing, and I don't know why they put that on the cards, but it definitely is not affected by Agony.

It is however affected by Weak. For exactly the reason that Kharhaz made mention of. Weak doesn't limit itself to just ranged and melee attack. It affects all non-spell attacks, which would include Trample.

Events / Re: UKGE '17 - Arena Tournament
« on: July 29, 2017, 03:12:58 AM »
Well I know two players who were not there due to work commitments. However I do believe there is a thriving London scene that I cannot speak for. Maybe Chris or Glenn can shed more light on this.

Firstly I do not sure on the Lich transformation. The concept is cool, however I am not sure this design is best. I do like the idea that as an enchantment that it is a red reveal cost on death (I know you didn't do this but the intention is in the design). The extra life level (6 life) would have to be tested to see if this enough extra life, however my gut says it is correct. HOWEVER I would argue strongly against ANY card that give Resilience to the mage. The high armor problem is something that is something that is the back of every play testers mind. Infinite armor is no go, sorry.

The concept of Nebra is very cool, if vastly overcosted. I would say that a version B should exist where it does less of an attack and cast non-creature undead spells. The necromancer already has 2 spawnpoints and does not need a third. Also a reflected lower mana cost. As a lich I feel this is a better direction than a "Magic proof" enchantment. Magic proof objects are another cool design space but would have to be costed and designed very carefully.

The tomb sadly would be another coaster card. I see no point in playing it. It costs 8 on top of the already prescriptive 18 (toss up between this and grizzly). 26 mana is more than Adramelech. This is if you cast it the same turn as the Nebra. Every turn past this means more and more mana that sadly that I would rather put into another spell that gives me more value. This is very, very expensive for Cantrip. Maybe played by Timmy players, but I am not sure.

Nice concepts, but not quite there yet in my opinion. I am not attacking you or your designs, I am just giving you my honest feedback.

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: On Goblins
« on: July 21, 2017, 09:05:10 AM »
Cantrip or not, I still fail to see how I would want to spend 3 spell book points on a 3 health creature with two attack dice.

I am with Puddnhead here. Even at 2SBP it seems a stretch as better Level 2 War creatures exist.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18