Skeletal Sentry subtype

[Bluebaron]

I cannot see that this issue is a big problem. As far as I can see this is rather a fun book than a competitive one. You already have a big tax burden spellpointwise, because of all that skeletons which count double for the warlord. If you would play against me I would definitely don't have a problem with houseruling the skeletal sentry so that it has the soldier subtype. I think thar would be fair game. Maybe just ask the guys you are playing with, if you could houserule this way.

[Zuberi]

I agree it isn't a big issue in the grand scheme of things, and I'm sure he can (and probably does) house rule it for casual games. However, I disagree about this being a "fun" book rather than a "competitive" one. I think it could be quite viable in a competitive environment (at least as far as Warlord books go in general). If this is his preferred spellbook, and he does wish to use it in official events, then the issue becomes a far bigger concern for him than it may be to us observers.

He makes some decent points, both mechanically and thematically, as to why it should receive such a change. The best counter argument I can think of is simply that errata sucks and should be avoided in my opinion unless absolutely necessary. The lack of a soldier subtype might not make a lot of sense, and might not be completely fair, but it's not absolutely necessary. It doesn't break the game any. Thus, my vote would be against errata. I'm fairly conservative on the use of errata though.

I do hope that your book sees support though in the future. It sounds like a very fun and creative strategy and having Arcane Wonders embrace it would be awesome.

[Wildhorn]

It is not just a fun spellbook, it is a competitive one (would be with skeletal sentry being soldier). Yes you pay double for skeletons, but they worth it with their immunities and Warlord tools for soldiers make them really shine more than in a Necromancer spellbook.

They have high hp but no armor, which Warlord has so many way to add that it make them strong in his army. All that build lack is a level 2 undead soldier. Then it would be competitive and it would add to the diversity of the game. More builds = less cookie cutters = more fun.

[Wildhorn]

I agree with you Zuberi that errata sucks. I would prefer a brand new level 2 skeleton soldier, but there is already a skeleton level 2 that just lack a subtype to be perfect. It just happens it got released before DvN else i bet he would have got it along the other humanoid skeletons.

[V10lentray]

I would like to see the errata only because it would be like the army Ash fights against in Army of Darkness.

[Adkin1233]

I'm not sure about the story behind tanglevine, but that was re-released in DvN with the "vine" subtype added. So I guess I don't see the big deal here. (Especially considering strangle vine came out in the same set)

[Aylin]

I feel like the change would be minor enough to not cause issues if it were implemented. If AW did change it, it would probably either appear in FiF or in the alternate Necromancer expansion.

However, I don't think AW cares enough to make the change.

[Wildhorn]

I feel like the change would be minor enough to not cause issues if it were implemented. If AW did change it, it would probably either appear in FiF or in the alternate Necromancer expansion.

However, I don't think AW cares enough to make the change.

I think AW cares alot about their players. Just the excellent customer service proves it. 
But I know an errata require a good reasons, either it is for game balance (the 3 errated cards) or for gameplay experience (vine on tanglevine).

I think soldier subtype addition to Skeletal Sentry would fall in the second category. It would make more sense thematically and it would allow the viability of a new Warlord build which increase diversity of this amazing game.

[Zuberi]

You've about convinced me, Wildhorn. Although I'm not the target audience that you are trying to convince, I thought I'd throw that in there. You make a lot of very valid points, and I think it really comes down to whether or not Arcane Wonders wants to fully embrace a fringe build with such an errata.

Don't take that derogatorily, please. It sounds like a very fun and quite viable build. However, I think it's clearly not intended as the Warlords primary method of operation (considering they aren't even in his school of training). They are currently a side consideration and any build making them the focus instead is kind of on the fringe of how the Warlord was intended to operate.

I think before they make such an errata, they would have to broaden the appeal of a soldier Skeletal Sentry. If they introduce more cards that are usable by anyone which targets Soldier's specifically, then having this change will not only benefit a fringe Warlord build but also any other builds stacking soldier buffs. Currently the only card I can think of that falls into this category would be the Armory that was previewed. This would definitely increase the power and appeal of a skeletal Necromancer and make him clamoring for the same change you are.

Of course, they then have to balance this to make sure they don't make zombies and other undead irrelevant. It can be a hard ship to steer.

[Wildhorn]

I agree with you Zuberi, making an errata change just for 1 build is quite difficult. But like you said, with the Armory introduction, a skeleton soldier necromancer would be tempting, but he would face the same problem as the warlord, lacking a level 2 soldier skeleton. I always talk about Skeleton Warlord because I prefer the Warlord over the necromancer, but Skeleton Necromancer would be very happy to have the Armory to affect their level 2 creatures too.

[sIKE]

I would think that subtypes by designers intent mean that other mages can use this creature in some manner (in a lesser way) that synergizes with the mages particular talent.

For example [mwcard=DNC02]Deathfang[/mwcard] is very obvious a Dark mage creature type, particularly the Necromancers type of creature. However by giving it the Canine subtype it will also play well, though a bit more expensive, with a Straywood Beastmaster. I would not categorize this as fringe though....

I think that the reason the Sentry does not have the subtype in question, is that during its design phase of this card, the skeletal synergy via the Soldier subtype hadn't been developed. If this card were started in design today from scratch, I have no doubt that it would have the Soldier subtype.

[Laddinfance]

So, I've been dealing with a lot of rulings and errata lately. In so doing I've been looking at a lot of rulings, and that was where I found something quite interesting. In the most recent printing of the Core Set, Skeletal Sentry is Soldier, Undead, Skeleton.

As my core set is a first printing, it had never come up. Needless to say I'll be fixing the Rules and Codex Supplement. We should have a new version up in the next day or so.

Congratulations Wildhorn, you had already won and I didn't realize it.

[sIKE]

Is that printing 3 or is there a printing 4 now?

[Laddinfance]

3rd. As far as I know that is the most recent printing.

[Wildhorn]

Unholy shit YES!!! Finally I am complete.

Tremblez pauvres mortels! Le Seigneur de Guerre vous terrassera de son armee de soldats squelettes!