October 15, 2019, 01:36:45 AM

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 - lettucemode

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19]
271
Rules Discussion / Re: Holy Avenger and Mind Control
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:05:15 AM »
I'm good. A mind-controlled Holy Avenger keeps the token and all associated benefits but is no longer considered "friendly" to the Priest.

272
Rules Discussion / Re: Holy Avenger and Mind Control
« on: September 20, 2013, 08:49:57 PM »
I'd say no, since your opponent now controls him, and any creatures your opponent controls are non-friendly by definition.

I'd also say that since he becomes non-friendly, he's no longer a legal target for Holy Avenger and loses the token. Similar to the way trying to Transfuse an enchantment onto a non-legal target destroys the enchantment.

273
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: MANA FORCE!
« on: September 20, 2013, 01:02:08 PM »
Alternative to Cervere in the above: Stonegaze Basilisk. Level 3 so he'll only cost you 9 spellbook points, less mana cost, and if you park him at near center or so, his Cripple should be able to help hold anything off until you build up.

274
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: MANA FORCE!
« on: September 20, 2013, 12:31:51 PM »
What would be the issue with: Mana Crystal and Battleforge turn 1, Thoughtspore turn 2. At that point you'd have 9 mana left for an enchantment or force ring. So not quite as much mana advantage as your original build, but the forge will help you gain armor quickly without spending extra actions.

If hindering is an important part of your strategy, that's gonna be tough. Being unable to hinder your opponent with creatures seems like a built-in weakness of the Forcemaster. Best creature for that would probably be Cervere. So your opening would change to:

1st turn - Cervere and mana crystal.
2nd turn - Battle Forge, Force Ring
3rd turn - Thoughtspore, face-down enchantment or Defense Ring
4th turn - if you haven't been rushed yet, another Thoughspore and Moonglow, otherwise Galvitar.

That leaves you pretty mana-starved, also you'd need to make 12 points of room in your spellbook for Cervere. He should be able to help you survive any rush, though.

275
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Flat damage.
« on: September 19, 2013, 10:39:58 AM »
I like the dice rolling in this game. It simulates strong and weak attacks. For example if a knight attacks a goblin, maybe the goblin tries to twist out of the way but still gets slightly wounded (low damage roll) or maybe the knight outmaneuvers him and gets a solid hit (high damage roll).

It also has an effect on strategy. Not knowing exactly how many hits it takes to kill something means that lots of attacking decisions carry a risk. Your bear might one-shot that wolf or he might not, which makes you consider whether or not it's worth spending an action on the attempt. If everyone knew that you could 1-shot level one creatures I don't think they'd ever get summoned.

Having said that, I think there's room for a trait that guarantees some damage. I don't really see the point since there are lots of direct damage effects already, but it could work.

276
General Discussion / Re: Druid vs Necro Spoilers
« on: September 19, 2013, 10:23:25 AM »
Thanks for the replies guys. I've only seen the Knight of Westlock like once in my games so I didn't think about him. I also forgot that stuff like Bear Strength is living creature only! My concerns are no more.

I really like the zombie and plant stuff because it was new.

Oh my gosh...I just realized...this expansion is basically Plants vs. Zombies.  :o

277
General Discussion / Re: Druid vs Necro Spoilers
« on: September 19, 2013, 09:31:17 AM »
I'm pretty new to the game, but that seems ridiculously efficient for 13 mana. 5 attack, defense roll, psychic immunity, doesn't have Lumbering like other undead we've seen...compare that to the Dire Wolf or Bridge Troll. But at least it's nonliving so you can't heal it?

278
Rules Discussion / Re: House Rules to retain realism
« on: September 18, 2013, 08:47:07 PM »
Thanks for your post, Deckbuilder. I don't own CoK yet so I didn't know about the wording on Intercept. I like your explanation of RAW vs. RAI.

If somebody would be kind enough I will read it all and make a ruling this weekend

If you mean the words from the rulebooks, I listed all three relevant passages from the v2 rulebook in an earlier post of mine in this thread. Linky: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13050.msg23372#msg23372

279
Rules Discussion / Re: House Rules to retain realism
« on: September 18, 2013, 04:41:27 PM »
Right, it now sounds like everyone agrees that the Rule as Written is that guards protect conjurations from flyers. Just checking, because it seemed like there was some confusion about that.

I'm still confused about it.

Page 15 of the rulebook says "A Flying creature is affected by guards when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone." This implies that you can't guard conjurations against flying creatures.

Page 23 of the rulebook says "Remember: If a Flying creature attacks a non-Flying object, it loses Flying until the end of the attack." This implies that you can guard a conjuration against a flying creature, since the attacking, flying creature would lose flying during the attack and thus be subject to non-flying guarding rules. However this appears to contradict the rule on page 15.

Page 29 of the rulebook has the updated wording mentioned in that thread: "If a creature is in a zone with one or more enemies with guard markers (except for guards he can ignore; see sidebar), that creature cannot make a melee attack against any object without a guard marker" and in the sidebar, it says "Guards affect a flying creature when it makes a melee attack, but only if it is attacking a non-Flying creature in the guard’s zone." So flying creatures attacking non-non-Flying-creatures are an exception to the "Protect the Zone" text. This appears to support the rule on page 15 and contradict the rule on page 23.

So which is it?

It seems like the rules as written state that when a flying creature attacks a conjuration, it loses flying for the duration of the attack, and it gets to ignore any guards. So it's both.

280
General Discussion / Re: Druid vs Necro Spoilers
« on: September 18, 2013, 03:34:10 PM »
Nope, not yet anyway.

281
League / Tournament Play / Re: Starting a League in Pittsburgh, PA
« on: September 18, 2013, 02:17:55 PM »
I'm in the Pittsburgh area as well - I live in Turtle Creek. I'll send you a PM to try and set something up.

282
Rules Discussion / Re: House Rules to retain realism
« on: September 18, 2013, 11:09:39 AM »
I agree with Kharhaz re: healing. None of the Codex entries deal with specific cards, but instead with the effects and traits that those cards represent or describe. Additionally, the text on Minor Heal, Heal, etc. says something like "Heal target thing the amount rolled on X dice." So we can conclude that the codex is describing what the healing effect does and is not intended to describe legal targets for the various healing spells. As Kharhaz mentioned, Regeneration is a healing effect, and according to the Codex living objects are legal targets for healing effects, and there are Living conjurations, so there you go. The wording leaves open the possibility of a healing spell that can target living conjurations, but so far none exist.

"Enchantments are perpetually targeting the object it is attached to."

Didn't realize this was even an issue.

"Text effects that do not cite Line of Sight do not need it"

As a Heroscape player I very strongly agree!  :D

"You can guard a conjuration against a flyer."

This is a tricky one. I think a decent house rule would be that guards can only guard creatures and non-temple, corporeal conjurations. But even this causes problems because it means you can guard a wall of stone, but not a wall of fire.

EDIT: removed some stuff

"Your mage may ignore the effects of any equipment worn."

I very strongly disagree with this one. There are plenty of cards that say "you may do such and such a thing". Even the rules for choosing different attacks spend words to make it clear that you can choose any available one you want. The provision is there, yes - but only for attacks. Nowhere in the rules does it state you can ignore certain effects because it's convenient for you. The Eagleclaw Boots text does not say "You may gain the Unmovable trait" or "You put on boots with retractable claws, how cool!" You can't ignore enchantments this way - if you enchant a creature with Melee +X and then need to attack one of your own creatures to wake it from Sleep you have to roll all the dice - so why would you get to ignore equipment effects?

I would argue that ignoring such effects is actually illogical. When Link puts on the big heavy boots in that Zelda game, he doesn't get to just will the effects away - he has to take them off before he can move normally again. And currently the only way to remove equipment in Mage Wars is to replace it with something else or Dissolve it.

Having said all that, I think a house rule that says "a mage may return a piece of equipment to his spellbook as a free action" would be a fine, still-friendly alternative to what you're ruling now.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19]