April 25, 2019, 11:04:46 PM

Author Topic: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS  (Read 305392 times)

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2013, 01:51:47 AM »
Seems funny how there is a Warlock in the picture yet it would be quite an expensive spell for him. But I get the feeling this might be a spell for the paladin, holy / war would make a lot of sense.

The Warlock shows up in a lot of weird art. The Force Master is depicted stealing his Lash of Hellfire with Steal Equipment, even though she can't legally equip it, so it must be destroyed.

Say... what happens when a Forcemaster tries to use Steal Equipment on a Warlock's Lash of Helfire, and the Warlock reveals Armor Ward? If the Forcemaster can't pay the extra 4 mana....

Steal Equipment (cost 2X): Choose an equipment object attached to target Mage. You control that equipment. You may immediately destroy it; Or, if you can legally attach it to yourself, you may do so, returning any item in that location slot to your spellbook. X = the chosen equipment's casting cost.

Taking the cards as written, it looks like the Forcemaster
  • Targets the Warlock with Steal Equipment
  • Gains control of the Lash of Hellfire that is still attached to the Warlock
  • Tries to destroy it, fails
  • May not legally attach it, though, so nothing happens. It stays attached to the Warlock?

So there's a Lash of Helfire attached to the Warlock (step 4)... that is controlled by the Force Master (step 2)?
Have I got that right? I assume the Warlock can't make attacks with equipment he doesn't control. If he summons Sectarus into that equipment slot, I assume his Lash of Helfire is returned to his spellbook? 

For extra confusion, if the Warlock had started with Sectarus (instead of Lash) and the Force Master tried and failed to steal it, but if Sectarus was still attached to the Warlock because of Armor Ward... because Sectarus is legendary the Warlock would be unable to summon another Sectarus to knock the first one back into his spellbook (assuming he's got 2 Sectarus in his spellbook). Hope he's got a Lash or a Wand remaining, or he'll be stuck with a useless sword he can't replace!
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 02:31:45 AM by ringkichard »
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2013, 02:09:31 AM »
Rereading the rules, I see that,

Quote
Equipment spells have a range of 0-2. Normally, a Mage will be casting equipment only on himself. But, if he wants to cast it on a friendly Mage (in a team game), or have a Spawnpoint such as Battle Forge cast the equipment on him, then the range requirement must be checked. You can cast equipment on an enemy Mage too, but you cannot cast equipment on a location that is already taken on that Mage. You may not have more than one equipment spell with the same name attached to your Mage at any time. Some equipment spells have an attack bar on them, and give your Mage a new attack he can perform. When the Mage makes an attack, he can choose to use an attack printed on an equipment card, instead of another attack he may have.

The rules don't exactly specify whether or not a mage can attack with equipment that is attached to him but controlled by the other player, but the rules clearly allow you to cast equipment onto your opponent, so there shouldn't be any problem having equipment attached to one player but controlled by the other.

Absent further clarification, I'd assume that you can attack with a weapon attached to you in your weapon slot, even if you don't actually control it?
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

Paleblue

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2013, 08:04:45 PM »
Potentially it will have the same ruling as Pacify, in which you cannot reveal it after the attack / action has been declared. Also I would assume that if someone cast's equipment on you that you can use it. Perhaps there will be cursed equipment down the line which has positive and negative effects, which you may want to use on yourself or your opponent.

Brazil

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2013, 12:58:54 AM »
Re-read the card. It doesn't expire; it's a suppression cloak for your artifacts. And it can come as a surprise the first time. If you counter an opponent's spell with it, it pays for its own tempo (and likely its own mana), then sits around draining mana until it's dispelled.

It's a 2-for-1 in both mana and tempo if it catches the first dissolve, then catches a dispel.

And I really wouldn't want to try dispelling high cost artifacts through one of these. 8+4 is 2 turns of mana for an opponent's agro deck, where 8 is only 1 (assuming he's spending to 0 every turn).

It's an enchantment, so it works with Enchanter's Ring, and it's meta magic, so it works with Arcane Ring, and it's Holy, so it works with Ring of Asyra. It's got a "protection" keyword, too, which I'm sure will be useful soon enough. It protects against abilities that destroy artifacts, not just spells (Druid?).

It's protection for your wands that can't be baited with a Decoy (Nullify) or Arcane Zap (Jinx), and it's compatible with Nullify so you can stack both.

The major downsides I see are a hefty spellbook price for Warlock (5 points), and Wizard when compared to Nullify (4 vs 1). If agro Priestess (or Priest) is a thing, Armor Ward plus Battle Forge seems like a pretty good way to start. Oh, and it's actually the same spellbook price as Nullify for Warlord!

The more I look at it, the more I love all the design details in this card. I'm not certain it's good (might be kinda situational, requires playtesting) but damn if it isn't beautiful.

Will it prevent the attack from an Explode? I'm thinking no (a shame) but it might, depending on what is meant by, "Destroy the chosen equipment. Then Explode makes the above flame attack against the target Mage."

It's a terrible spell.  Look if you see some equipment out there you want to destroy with an enchantment on it, people are just going to not risk the destruction spell until they have 4 extra mana, and then they won't have to worry about this spell at all.  Plus, it costs the caster 6 points to force his opponent to spend 4 point extra to destroy it so you're not even getting an economic advantage.   You've heard of throwing away good money after bad.   This is the equivelent of throwing away good mana after bad.    If the spell cost the opponent more than the 6 it cost the caster, then MAYBE it would be worth it.  (still a weak spell since it can be planed for)

Shad0w

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2013, 06:33:42 AM »
Rereading the rules, I see that,

Quote
Equipment spells have a range of 0-2. Normally, a Mage will be casting equipment only on himself. But, if he wants to cast it on a friendly Mage (in a team game), or have a Spawnpoint such as Battle Forge cast the equipment on him, then the range requirement must be checked. You can cast equipment on an enemy Mage too, but you cannot cast equipment on a location that is already taken on that Mage. You may not have more than one equipment spell with the same name attached to your Mage at any time. Some equipment spells have an attack bar on them, and give your Mage a new attack he can perform. When the Mage makes an attack, he can choose to use an attack printed on an equipment card, instead of another attack he may have.

The rules don't exactly specify whether or not a mage can attack with equipment that is attached to him but controlled by the other player, but the rules clearly allow you to cast equipment onto your opponent, so there shouldn't be any problem having equipment attached to one player but controlled by the other.

Absent further clarification, I'd assume that you can attack with a weapon attached to you in your weapon slot, even if you don't actually control it?
For the rules we will discuss them in you other thread http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12236.0;topicseen
"Darth come prove to meet you are worthy of the fighting for your school in the arena and not just another scholar to be discarded like an worn out rag doll"


Quote: Shad0w the Arcmage

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2013, 12:06:38 PM »
It's a terrible spell.  Look if you see some equipment out there you want to destroy with an enchantment on it, people are just going to not risk the destruction spell until they have 4 extra mana, and then they won't have to worry about this spell at all.  Plus, it costs the caster 6 points to force his opponent to spend 4 point extra to destroy it so you're not even getting an economic advantage.   You've heard of throwing away good money after bad.   This is the equivelent of throwing away good mana after bad.    If the spell cost the opponent more than the 6 it cost the caster, then MAYBE it would be worth it.  (still a weak spell since it can be planed for)

You're awfully confident about a card you've neither played, nor had played against you (or are you a playtester?). Armor Ward seems pretty similar to Suppression Cloak, and I haven't heard from anyone yet who thinks Supression Cloak is terrible.

If you're looking for a hard-counter, like in Magic the Gathering, obviously this isn't it. Mage Wars doesn't really have those (except, so far, Divine Intervention at 12 mana). But this spell doesn't seem any easier to play around than Nullify, and I think everyone agrees that Nulify is pretty great. After all, all you have to do to trigger a Nullify is play a Decoy on your opponent, and you'll get your mana back, too.

It's weird to me that you think people won't try to dissolve equipment unless they've got 4 spare mana, just because the opponent has a face down enchantment. Do you play around Nullify and Reverse Magic this carefully, too? There's a lot of things that enchantment could be, and you'll feel kinda silly if you let my face-down Bear's Strength prevent you from Dissolving my Lash of Hellfire.

You're right that the worst case scenario for Armor Ward is that the opponent guesses what it is, has the extra 4 mana to pay, and then never tries to Disolve any other equipment for the rest of the game. That's a 4 mana for 6 mana trade, and a loss of 1 action of tempo.

But that's not actually any worse than the worst case scenario for Nullify: the opponent guesses the Nullify, then doesn't cast any spells on the protected target. 2 to 0 mana trade, and loss of 1 action of tempo.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 12:23:59 PM by ringkichard »
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

sdougla2

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2013, 03:05:10 PM »
One note, you don't get your mana back from Decoy if it gets countered by Nullify. Since the Decoy never resolves, you don't get to use the ability to get the mana back.

Also, I don't think my opponent never targeting my mage with an incantation or enchantment means I've wasted the Nullify. If they would have targeted me otherwise, I'm happy to discourage Ghoul Rot or Teleport or whatever.
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

patrickconnor

  • Guest
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2013, 05:41:53 PM »
 Maybe I'll just swim...


sdougla2

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2013, 06:54:49 PM »
The Bridge Troll looks awesome except possibly against the Warlock. I'm looking forward to trying him with the new Beastmaster (the old BM has way too many synergies with animals to be tempted by a non-animal creature like this). With Rhino Hide and Bear Strength he'll be a real beast, and cost similar to other powerful, resilient creatures like Necropian Vampiress with Bear Strength or Steelclaw Grizzly with Vampirism. He won't be able to heal as much potentially, but he doesn't lose his healing if he doesn't manage to land a hit for the turn or he's up against a nonliving creature either.

Bridge Troll is also cheap enough that you could afford to play him and an early Fellella. Even without support, he hits hard, and there is no point in taking incidental shots at him. You need to either focus him down or do your best to ignore him.
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

sIKE

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 4172
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Ugh
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2013, 08:05:44 PM »
Man he is a hard hitter! Add in the regen and he is one tough beastie to take down!
  • Favourite Mage: Malakai Priest

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2013, 11:13:57 PM »
One note, you don't get your mana back from Decoy if it gets countered by Nullify. Since the Decoy never resolves, you don't get to use the ability to get the mana back.

Also, I don't think my opponent never targeting my mage with an incantation or enchantment means I've wasted the Nullify. If they would have targeted me otherwise, I'm happy to discourage Ghoul Rot or Teleport or whatever.

Oops, yep! Got confused with the Seeking Dispel ruling.

And yes, if Armor Ward preserves my Mage Wand of Sleep and my Suppression Cloak and whatever else because my enemy decides not to dissolve them, I'm totally ok with that. Thats resources well spent.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

DarthDadaD20

  • Dark Father of Random Occurrence/TeamRocket Grunt
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1790
  • Banana Stickers 14
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2013, 08:21:25 AM »
I love bridge troll! I love that he is a solder, and Regenerate 3 is amazing.
Where does my greatest enemy lie?
It has been around since the dawn of time,
it follows your loved ones as well as mine,
takes the form of a mountain as well as a flower,
it cannot be outrun by the greatest of power.
Where does my greatest enemy lie?
Within Shad0w.

sdougla2

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2013, 08:29:49 AM »
Yeah, I'm thinking Bridge Troll will be a nice addition to a Warlord list as well. Maybe with a few more additions I'll be able to come up with a Warlord list that satisfies me.
  • Favourite Mage: Straywood Beastmaster

ringkichard

  • Flightless Funpire
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2564
  • Banana Stickers 18
  • Kich, if you prefer.
    • View Profile
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2013, 12:01:52 PM »
At 13 mana, the obvious comparisons are to Iron Golem and Knight of Westlock. He's got more health and Regenerate, but 0 armor is a major weakness. He's not an animal, so he doesn't seem like he's what the Beastmaster wants in a creature, but I can see him in a Warlord's book. But that's a crowded mana point, and Knight and Golem are some of the best defensive creatures in the game.

The real problem is his vulnerability to the Warlock's lash and demons. 7 dice + burn seems like it might kill in 2 turns, or even 1 with battle fury. Piusflea has said before that he thinks the Warlord is vulnerable to an early Warlock rush and this doesn't really help.
I can take the fun out of anything. It's true; here, look at this spreadsheet.

patrickconnor

  • Guest
Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2013, 02:28:52 PM »
Stun, Burn, meh!