March 31, 2020, 08:27:47 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 - Wildhorn

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 71
1006
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Ichthelid Necromancer
« on: December 11, 2013, 04:00:52 PM »
I've always heard Bryan say "Ik-Th-Lid", so I assume that's correct.

That is how I pronounce it.

1007
Thanks for the input. I like the nomenclature - "thornpush" and "telepit" (after all, you did name Golem Pit, Kich).

I see where you're coming from. I just love the multiple synergies here as it's so different. I suspect that telepit is just too strong.

Druid with her swarm of cheap offensive creatures is surely far better suited to Telepit? In my Druid book clinic thread, I'm vainly trying to avoid this archetype (I think I may be punched in my local meta if I played telepit again!). But just like my attempts at Warlord that always ended back to Earth Wizard, I suspect Vine Pit will be dominant competitive build. Which is a shame as the mechanics promise so much more (I far prefer Bloodspines + Lashers + Raptors + Galador in a focus ranged firepower board control concept). Teleport is the C# of Mage Wars, a brutally overly powerful sledgehammer that breaks too many interesting builds.

In fact, I contend that Golem Pit, replacing living creatures with Jelly, is still the strongest archetype out there (because no other mage  can beat a Wizard in Teleport Wars with wands, nullifies and transfusions). It's just too "cheesy" as jacksmack called it recently. They really should consider nerfing telepit as it's just so artless...

I so much agree with you about Teleport. It should only allow to teleport friendly creature.

1008
Rules Discussion / Re: 2 rise again
« on: December 10, 2013, 10:12:51 AM »
When you rise again something you become the controller of that "risen" creature.

As for two rise agains in conflict, I would actually think the older enchantment would be the one that goes through. Now keep in mind I'm not making a ruling here, just speaking out loud. The order enchantments play is important, and technically the second rise again should not be able to be played on the creature. I would think you'd check the oldest enchantment first to see if they wish to reveal it then keep moving up till you hit the other Rise again.

Now, this does mean I have something to discuss with Bryan and the Rules team. Once I have a firm ruling we'll let you guys know!

In the rules, it states that whenever the two players want to reveal enchantment at the sametime, it is initiative that determine who goes first. So if both want to reveal Rise Again, whoever has Initiative has priority.

1009
I would keep 1 or two Vine Snapper. They make formidable guards for your important conjuration (they only cost 7 mana but hit like 13 mana creatures).

Also, use an Idol of Pestilence against living creature. It doesnt hit your conjuration and all plants has Regenerate to heal the damage.

1010
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Minor Fixes to Underpowered Cards
« on: December 08, 2013, 10:54:46 PM »
For Earth Elemental, the simple addition of Vigilant trait would fix him.

1011
Do you think it is overkill to run both the Sectarius and the Lash considering that with the new DvN extention, fire and burns are very handy?

Also, with the increase of Tainted/Weak effect creature, do you think it would be worthwill to get a Wand of Healing even if it cost 3 spellbook points?


1012
Strategy and Tactics / Re: New Initiative Rules and You!
« on: December 04, 2013, 01:56:43 PM »
I begged, bitched, moaned, and screamed for this rule to be introduced. I'M SUCH A PROUD FATHER.


The actual intent of this rule was to try to push people to try more interesting set ups. If you were going second, your opponent could not respond to what you are doing until the next round, so you could do some pretty strange things, and get away with them. As well, you could choose to go second if you ware playing a more reactive book that needs to find out what the opponent is doing in order to crush his resources.

I don't know, there was so much I had thought of, and it was so long ago. I'm happy to see a rule I "thought" of to finally be introduced. I say that in quotes, because while there were many people who thought of it, and wanted it, I was one of the few who actually kissed Brian's feet in exchange for this rule to take effect. I'm still cleaning my mouth out.


Duder.

Personally, I always played initiative that way. Winner decides.

1013
Strategy and Tactics / Re: New Initiative Rules and You!
« on: December 04, 2013, 12:10:30 PM »
I would go first. Anyway, first turn it rarely matter what your opponent does, neither of you can interac with eacj others. I prefer to be first on second round, now knowing where my opponentnis going and what he casted first round.

In a mirror match, it depends of the mana cost of legendary that usually get cast in first few rounds. Under 20 mana, I want to go first to cast it first and deny opponent ability to cast it. Over 20 mana, I want to go second for same reason.

1014
General Questions / Re: Obliterate and markers from mages.
« on: December 04, 2013, 09:02:49 AM »
There is no place in the FAQ that states when an object is obliterated that everything attached to that object is also obliterated. The FAQ only states that Cantrips can be obliterated, but they still must be the target of the obliterate effect for that to occur.

If a spell with the Cantrip trait would be discarded or destroyed for any reason (including being countered), it is instead returned to its owners spellbook. Exception: The Obliterate effect destroys an object and removes it from the game. Obliterate will remove a Cantrip spell from the game.

So you are saying that the Obliterate effect has to target the "Cantrip" in order for it to be Destroyed? I read this and get something totally different.

Currently all of the Cantrip's the are available are on the mage, so if he is Obliterated the game is over any way. The only thing I can think of at the moment would be Seedling Pod when the Samara Tree is out has the Cantrip trait. In this case what we both are saying is 100% accurate. If the Devouring Jelly made a successful attack that reduced the Seedling Pods Life to 0 it would then be Devoured and then Destroyed and then removed from the game.

What I am not sure about and what we are debating is more future leaning, if an Enchantment with the Cantrip trait can and is attached to a non-mage creature and it were to be Destroyed, would the Enchantment with the Cantrip trait also be Destroyed?

My argument would be that since the Enchantment with the Cantrip is an Object and is attached to a Creature which is also an Object that is Devoured and Destroyed the attached Enchantment would fall under the exception above. But, I could see a ruling coming down on the side too, divining Arcanus's thoughts on topics as such has proven to be very difficult......

The Seedling Pod would NOT be Devoured because Devour only affect Creatures.

1015
I play Octgn and it is great. However, if anyone could get it to work on IOS or Mac, I'd be able to pull in some friends who don't currently plsy. Preferably Arcane Wonders would handle the port so it can be fully, officially supported.

What would be even better is a web based version. That way everybody could play regardless of they OS.

1016
Rules Discussion / Re: Stranglevine Crush
« on: December 03, 2013, 12:06:54 PM »
So apparently I am not the only one who spent time looking for tokens that don't exist.

If you looked in the base game codex under Token, you would have got your answer ;)

1017
Rules Discussion / Re: Thorg vs. Thoughtspore
« on: December 02, 2013, 11:19:13 AM »
On the other hand, the hammer from the spore would be an attack from the taunted creature, not an attack from the spell. Attack spells are attacks, right?

Attack spell are NOT attacks. They are a spell that create an attack. You have to cast the spell first. Then if it resolve, an attack occurs. So no, you can NOT use it if you are taunted.

1018
Frequently Asked Questions / Re: Updated FAQ (November 2013)
« on: December 01, 2013, 01:17:35 PM »

Obscured vs. Vine range ("ignore the range"); most card interaction games give "cannot" ultimate precedence?


Obscured:

"It can not be targeted from more than one zone away (this is for all purposes - ranged attacks, spells, abilities, etc.)


Vine marker casting:

"you can destroy a target vine marker she controls as an additional cost to cast that spell. If you do, you may ignore the range of that spell  to target that vine marker's zone,an object in that vine marker's zone, or a border of that vine marker's zone...... That vine spell must have a legal target."


Even though the range has changed, or rather ignored, the source of the spell has not. Obscured prevents the mage from being targeted from more than one zone away. So while the obscured mage is indeed in range of the spell, it is not a legal target because he is more than one zone away from the druid.

It is no different than trying to cast a 0 - 3 ranged spell at an obscured mage. Is he in range? Yes. Is he a valid target? No.

All that to say,
Vine markers only replace the range of a spell with the vine markers ability. Source is still at the druid.

Hope that helps clear that up

Burst of Thorns spell (the only one I can think of that would bring up this question) is casted on a Vine Marker, BUT the attack's source is the vine marker, so it can attack a Shrouded target.

1019
Rules Discussion / Re: Battle Fury (retarget?)
« on: November 29, 2013, 05:08:08 PM »
The new official rule/faq:

Quote
When a creature makes an attack, it normally ends its Action Phase after that attack. Conditions that are normally processed or removed at the end of an Action Phase, such as Stun and Daze, are not processed or removed if they were just received from a Damage Barrier or Counterstrike attack. In this manner they have an opportunity to affect the creature for an entire Action Phase (the next time it acts again).

Stun is not processed.

1020
Spells / Skeletal Sentry subtype
« on: November 29, 2013, 11:15:11 AM »
Shouldn't Skeletal Sentry be errated to have Soldier subtype? I mean... Skeletal Minion has it and I think something with a sword and an armor is much more a soldier than something that hold a femur...

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 71