November 24, 2017, 09:58:37 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
General Questions / Re: Is copying cards tourney legal?
« on: November 09, 2017, 12:18:24 PM »
Copying cards would make Proxy cards. Proxies should never be allowed at tournaments. However I have lent cards to people before the events. This is totally legal.

Rules Discussion / Re: Strategist helm + halberd + attack spells ?
« on: November 06, 2017, 04:27:53 PM »
I think the tough -2 and fast order make the anvil throne a great contender! Runes are just the cherry on top of it all. I like bloodwave more though because of his better synergy with lvl 1 and 2 creatures (vet) and he is an orc...peraonal flavor.  I think i just got burnt out from seeing so many dwarfs being played that i started playing the orc more and i find hos play styles much more enjoyable!

Orc = Ranged + 1 - I have been playing around with this, steep hill and other bits to make a powerful rushball style book.

Dwarf = Tough -4 - This plus other parts of the war school make this a very powerful high armor book.

Spells / Re: epic attack spell
« on: October 29, 2017, 11:21:41 AM »
Epic by definition is a spell that you can only have a single copy of in your spellbook. These are very powerful spells. To be able to cast them multiple times would break the game and/or the intention they were designed for. The first way to do this would be to place them on an object that allows multiple copies of a spell in your spellbook. This breaking of the order of normal spell casting is fine for non epic spells, however with Epic spells, then this could easy lead to a run away winner situation.

Rules Discussion / Re: Turn to Stone and Enchantment Transfusion
« on: October 24, 2017, 06:35:58 PM »
So just to chuck more spanners in the works. Am I right in assuming if a guard with a defence would not act in steps 2 or 7, but the guard marker would be removed. Would the guard still be valid or could this void that in the same way making it a pest with shrink?

Spells / Re: Thoughts on mind control
« on: October 21, 2017, 04:06:29 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.

Arcane ward is on the mind control. You can't ignite a mind control.

You're right that it is about spellbook points. One for one dispel beats mind control, but the point of mind control is that I've stunned your creature twice, used one of your dispels and perhaps gotten some attacks or wasted some of your attacks - - all for only one of my own actions. This becomes advantageous for the Forcemaster when you no longer have enough dispels for the Forcefield or the dot on you.

Then decoy. The point is the same.

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18