Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Spells => Topic started by: drmambo23 on May 24, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
-
Has anyone had any success with arcane ward in arena? Either on equipment or on a creature as a cheap nullify?
Also, same with exile to get a pet or holy avenger out of the way for a few turns?
-
Arcane ward is awesome. It's also turning into a necessity because if your opponent is ruining them then you must have either decoy, seeking dispel, or another arcane ward to get rid of its target, otherwise it costs you two dispels. Cheap nullifies are not the best use of them as they trigger on your own spells too. But fir keeping an investment around longer than intended they work great! I'm talking about cobra reflexes or any of the damage barriers, force crush, or force field, any of those big defenseless enchantments that you might not have wasted the mana on in other cases. I try to pack at least one. And a decoy just because the target line is so specific they are hard to get rid of.
-
Agreement on Arcane Ward. I don't use it myself (I don't have one), but I've played against people who do, and it can be quite a pain. The way I've seen it used mostly is on an Astral Anchor in a zone where my Mage is Tangle/Strangle-vined.
I was debating between Exile and Banish for a Wizard book the other day, and it was a toss-up. If I had room for both, I would have taken one of each. The Banish can handle level 3+ creatures, but costs a ton more to cast. A pet Timber Wolf out for two turns is super, but a big Angel out for three is well worth the Banish.
-
Yeah. I never thought of revealing it so that it has to be dispelled as well. It makes sense though since it is a giveaway to enchant an enchantment. :b
-
I don't get the point about decoy :(
Can somebody please explain? Thanks!
-
decoy can target enchantments and therefore get rid of the arcane ward protecting the enchantment so it can be dispeled. This is 1 spellbook point cheaper than 1 more dispel, if it is hoodwink or a decoy itself you gain your mana back too
-
Thanks Mystery! I was Thinking waaayyy too complicated.
-
i think arcanward is usefull and i play it in a lot of books... but it didn't bring me a big advantage yet...
about banish and exile, are 2 or 3 turns realy worth it in a game?
(i think use it in domination, in shorter games)
-
i think arcanward is usefull and i play it in a lot of books... but it didn't bring me a big advantage yet...
about banish and exile, are 2 or 3 turns realy worth it in a game?
(i think use it in domination, in shorter games)
Pet Grizzly can deal at least 18-27 dice of damage in 3 turns. How much mana and how many actions do You have to spend to heal or prevent 27 dice?
-
i think arcanward is usefull and i play it in a lot of books... but it didn't bring me a big advantage yet...
about banish and exile, are 2 or 3 turns realy worth it in a game?
(i think use it in domination, in shorter games)
Pet Grizzly can deal at least 18-27 dice of damage in 3 turns. How much mana and how many actions do You have to spend to heal or prevent 27 dice?
yeah... but if there's no pet grizzly, or if i have 3 guards, or if i have a defense,...
and after these 3 turns, it comes back and i was low mana becose of the banish...
i'm not convinced!
-
Banish is just as much a "finisher" as hurl boulder or drain soul. Its very much a gamble that says i can kill you in the three rounds that this creature is gone. Yes it can bite you if you fail to kill the mage beforr the creature comes back but I've spent 16 mana on a pair of boulders or fireballs that failed to end the match and paid for that failure wit a loss before. Anything you can Exile is minor anyway so in arena i dont think id use it, but banish definately has a place or two where I've seen it be very powerful. Just my 2 cents
-
but the 2 boulders can kill directly.
the banish gives you time... you still must have to find a way to kill befor the creature comes back!
-
Exactly, banish is not a substitute for poor preparation, so it won't save you if you don't have a win condition prepped. But it would open a3 round window for say a priest or paladin to throw 12 dice a turn at you for 10 mana (luminous blast + DB ring + hawkeye + melee attack with a weapon [likely the staff of asyra) that's 36 dice with dazes and stuns and possibly burns if its a priest. If the banished critter was your huge buffed grizzly bear or a guardian angel who was intercepting all your attempts at ranged attacks well now those 3 rounds of freedom seem like forever! Banish is an expensive way to buy some time. If you can't capitalize on that time well that's your fault. Besides banishing Sardonyx could really hurt the other guy. That's 6 life lost. Lol
-
Just like You don't simply throw a boulder at someone with 5 armor and reflex boots, You don't cast Banish without preparation. It's mana sink so You should make sure it's worth it. Also You don't have to kill the enemy mage in those 3 turns. Just make the threat You banished useless. If it's slow creature then move action to different part of the arena and You will have more than 3 turns.
Hurl Boulder will do only 4 damage against someone with 3 armor with an average roll. That's 6 damage for two boulders that cost 16 mana, but banishing Sardonyx will cost 2 mana less, use only 1 action and your opponent will lose 6 life for nothing. If he has Sacrificial Altar out just, Jinx enemy and put Reverse Attack on yourself. In the best case your opponent will sacrifice Sardonyx and attack himself with 12+ dice.
-
We actually have a house rule that Arcane Ward cannot be put on Enchantments. We feel like it really messes with the game to be able to do that (not to mention messes with the card placement a lot). We don't want to have every deck needing to counter Arcane Ward as well (there's enough of that going on).
It's a cheap, Novice spell, and it can already do well enough without placing it on Enchantments. Nullify can only go on corporeal creatures. Arcane Ward also has a downside (triggers on your own spells), which isn't in effect at all when it goes on an Enchantment, since you almost never target your own Enchantments.
-
I have used Banish with good effect when I needed to set up a way to defend against the target of the Banish... such as maneuvering or in bringing out a couple of creatures in the meanwhile. I was once able to kill a large creature (I forget what it was) before it ever got to act again. It left the arena after having moved, and didn't make it to the end of the round in which it returned with all of my creatures in position to attack it as soon as it did.
Does anyone know whether Exile works the same way as Banish regarding the action marker, etc. while outside the arena?
-
Does anyone know whether Exile works the same way as Banish regarding the action marker, etc. while outside the arena?
No one has responded to the question, so I thought I would ask again.
-
i don't know, but i don't why it would be different...
-
I've only seen the card being used once on Octagon and we treated it the same way as Banish.
-
The text on Exile has no effect on the "action marker" of the enchanted creature. So you would follow all the normal steps of a turn, including Ready.
-
We actually have a house rule that Arcane Ward cannot be put on Enchantments. We feel like it really messes with the game to be able to do that (not to mention messes with the card placement a lot). We don't want to have every deck needing to counter Arcane Ward as well (there's enough of that going on).
It's a cheap, Novice spell, and it can already do well enough without placing it on Enchantments. Nullify can only go on corporeal creatures. Arcane Ward also has a downside (triggers on your own spells), which isn't in effect at all when it goes on an Enchantment, since you almost never target your own Enchantments.
Have you tried using decoy? Or ignite? Or simply countering an enchantment in other ways without destroying it? Arcane ward is very useful for winning the enchantment game against your opponent. Sometimes certain spellbooks have particular enchantments that they need to protect but don't use enough important enchantments to justify using the wardstones.
I strongly advise against house ruling a card's effect unless that card has been thoroughly tested and shown to be overpowered in your playgroup's metagame. What can be fixed with a house rule can oftentimes be fixed better with tactics, with very rare exception.
I'm really curious about your playgroup's meta. What sets do you guys have access to? Do you guys have a shared card pool or do you each have your own? What other cards have you houseruled?
-
If you're houseruling Arcane Ward, I really hope you're houseruling Dispel too since Dispel is a game changer that can be near impossible to counter unless you have the perfect set-up and are given enough previous actions to set up an enchantment transfusion chain.
-
i think AW is a bad nulify... but his only advantage is it can be cast on an enchantment!
and i think it's good, because enchantments coudn't be protected, beeing directly targeting by dispel.
but it changes a lot the balance, for shure.
and there are only few enchantments that can be cast on enchatments, so it brings no surprise (for the moment... hint!).
-
Frankly, I don't see using Arcane Ward on a piece of equipment as some seem to suggest. Sure, it stops Crumble, but I use Dissolve far more often than Crumble (since I need the full action for something else in my books). Dissolve targets the Mage, so my understanding is that the equipment will get Dissolved even with an AW on it. This is correct, isn't it?
-
The text on Exile has no effect on the "action marker" of the enchanted creature. So you would follow all the normal steps of a turn, including Ready.
Thanks, Laddin... that's the way I read it. It makes a big difference to me, and makes Exile far weaker in my opinion.
-
Frankly, I don't see using Arcane Ward on a piece of equipment as some seem to suggest. Sure, it stops Crumble, but I use Dissolve far more often than Crumble (since I need the full action for something else in my books). Dissolve targets the Mage, so my understanding is that the equipment will get Dissolved even with an AW on it. This is correct, isn't it?
right.
-
Frankly, I don't see using Arcane Ward on a piece of equipment as some seem to suggest. Sure, it stops Crumble, but I use Dissolve far more often than Crumble (since I need the full action for something else in my books). Dissolve targets the Mage, so my understanding is that the equipment will get Dissolved even with an AW on it. This is correct, isn't it?
right.
On the flipside if your equipment does not have arcane ward on it, and you have a nullify on your mage, crumble will still destroy the equipment. And then it gives two mana back to the caster.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
i think AW is a bad nulify... but his only advantage is it can be cast on an enchantment!
and i think it's good, because enchantments coudn't be protected, beeing directly targeting by dispel.
Not only enchantments can be protected by AW. Imagine Warlord's surprise after having Conquer countered when trying to get rid of Wizard's Tower.
Also AW is a novice spell so it costs less than Nullify for everyone but Wizard.
-
I'm really curious about your playgroup's meta. What sets do you guys have access to? Do you guys have a shared card pool or do you each have your own? What other cards have you houseruled?
There is no dedicated playgroup in our area, we're just a bunch of friends who play. We don't play that much to have a well developed meta, honestly. Our biggest issue with arcane ward on enchantments was the awkward placement, and we didn't find a reasonable solution for it, so we just took it off enchantments. It hasn't affected our games so much, but then again we don't play more than a few hours per week.
We also have some other changes in gameplay, like immunity doesn't mean you can't target that object at all... But I understand it can be completely different in competitive organized play.
If you're houseruling Arcane Ward, I really hope you're houseruling Dispel too since Dispel is a game changer that can be near impossible to counter unless you have the perfect set-up and are given enough previous actions to set up an enchantment transfusion chain.
I don't quite understand. Why is Dispel such a game changer? If you're relying on 1-2 enchantments to win the game for you, then Dispel should very well be a game changer against you, shouldn't it?
-
I think he's saying that by restricting arcane ward, one is also making dispel practically unstoppable. With very few , costly exceptions.
-
I think he's saying that by restricting arcane ward, one is also making dispel practically unstoppable. With very few , costly exceptions.
Jinx isn't costly. But of course, it's not entirely reliable either.
I think the best way of countering Dispel is to just keep your enchantment hidden until it's most effective to reveal.
Either way, I don't find Dispel overpowered. It's an exactly 1-1 ratio to the enchantment in terms of mana cost and action cost. You lose the enchantment, the enemy loses the dispel. You will have a lot more enchantments than they have Dispels. So you just have to be adaptive and have a plan B, C etc. If he puts Dispel on a wand, then take the wand out, of course.
I guess you could change dispel to target the creature, not the enchantment, so that Nullify would protect against it... But I really don't agree that Dispel is overpowered just because it can't be stopped.
After all, arcane ward is a pretty new card, was Dispel considered overpowered before? I don't think so.
-
I guess you could change dispel to target the creature, not the enchantment, so that Nullify would protect against it... But I really don't agree that Dispel is overpowered just because it can't be stopped.
If anything, I would argue that it's better to change Dissolve so it targets the equipment. ::)
Dispel/disperse --> enchantment
[mwcard=DNJ02]Corrosive Orchid[/mwcard]/Crumble --> equipment
Dissolve is the only exception that targets the mage. (In reality we all know that the spell is spell is targeting the equipment too)
This way, the mechanics for enchantments and equipment would be the same. Changing this would also increase the value of the ward on equipment, as mentioned before in this tread.
-
I guess you could change dispel to target the creature, not the enchantment, so that Nullify would protect against it... But I really don't agree that Dispel is overpowered just because it can't be stopped.
If anything, I would argue that it's better to change Dissolve so it targets the equipment. ::)
Dispel/disperse --> enchantment
[mwcard=DNJ02]Corrosive Orchid[/mwcard]/Crumble --> equipment
Dissolve is the only exception that targets the mage. (In reality we all know that the spell is spell is targeting the equipment too)
This way, the mechanics for enchantments and equipment would be the same. Changing this would also increase the value of the ward on equipment, as mentioned before in this tread.
There aren't enough differences between equipment and enchantments as it is, imho. Making them "more the same" ... might as well change equipment to being a subtype of enchantments that can only target mages.
Given that enchantments are kind of unique to Mage Wars (the face-down thing with "instant speed" reveal that's the closest effect to being "in response" to something - although technically happens after a sub-step of an action), in order for equipment to feel "good" they have to do something that enchantments don't do. e.g. Chestpieces are like Rhino Hide but usually get a "damage type -X" to make up for the fact that they don't get the "surprise" instant-speed reveal. It would be nice if they were also more difficult to remove or to protect. Armor Ward is kind of like Enchanter's Wardstone for equipment (but itself is an enchantment rather than a conjuration). Battle Forge is a universally used spawnpoint for equipment (there are familiars that can cast enchantments, but they're all "mage-type only"). The Anvil Throne Warlord has abilities that work with equipment, letting him favour them over enchantments.
I liked that equipment could only be revealed by targeting the mage - and thus effects like Obscure on the mage could prevent equipment removal. But Crumble (and Corrosive Orchid) changed things; now equipment is more like another type of enchantment, minus the instant reveal that makes enchantments really good.
-
If anything, I would argue that it's better to change Dissolve so it targets the equipment. ::)
Things like Dissolve target the Mage specifically so that Nullify works against them. Losing an important piece of equipment (not just the plain buffs ones but those that provide attacks/spells) hurts a lot more than an enchantment.
Doing what you suggest would essentially guarantee that Arcane Ward becomes a mandatory card in all spellbooks. I think we have enough of those already.
-
If anything, I would argue that it's better to change Dissolve so it targets the equipment. ::)
Things like Dissolve target the Mage specifically so that Nullify works against them. Losing an important piece of equipment (not just the plain buffs ones but those that provide attacks/spells) hurts a lot more than an enchantment.
Doing what you suggest would essentially guarantee that Arcane Ward becomes a mandatory card in all spellbooks. I think we have enough of those already.
I would change anything about dissolve, rather crumble if a change, but the diversity is nice
and arcane ward or/and decoy is already mandatory for me!!!
-
I liked that equipment could only be revealed by targeting the mage - and thus effects like Obscure on the mage could prevent equipment removal. But Crumble (and Corrosive Orchid) changed things; now equipment is more like another type of enchantment, minus the instant reveal that makes enchantments really good.
I liked your reasoning here. What is the difference between equipment and enchantments? Which one should be easier to remove? The answers to these questions should drive what is being targeted and what the spell costs are.
If you imagine how a "real" battle would go, I would however argue the other way around. You should be able to target equipment directly without targeting the mage. After all these are things he has on himself or holds in his hands.
On the other hand, enchantments are supposed to be magical alterations that mages produce. It would be "logical" to me if enchantments would require targeting the mage. This would be even more obvious if all enchantments had something like upkeep cost or disperse on them, which would underline that the mage's attention is needed to keep them active.
Enchantments that do not require upkeep/disperse would then be in fact conjurations. These would be objects that are created from magic and then become independent from the mage who conjured them.
But looking at the way Mage Wars has evolved enchantments, equipment and conjurations, in a relentless effort to offer us something excitingly new, everything has started to get attributes of everything. Now we have equipment with their own action or that act as enchantment. We have conjurations that act like creatures or display incantation-like behavior, we have enchantments that act like equipment and incantations that cannot be stopped by enchantments that were probably originally designed to stop those incantations and enchantments.
So everything is already blurred and the desire to keep things "pure" is probably already a lost case.
So I guess the best option we have is to go with the flow and take things as they are and as they are being offered to us and accept the fact that even despite the fact that the differences between equipment, enchantments and conjurations have started to blur, our imagination can still play along.
Maybe in a new future game the scope and restrictions of equipment, creatures, enchantments, incantations and attack spells can be thought out in advance and can be kept pure while evolving. But note, that this is much easier now based on the experience with Mage Wars then it was before Mage Wars saw the light. On the other hand, do we really want conjurations that cannot attack? Do we really want to add armor through equipment and not through enchantments? Do we really want upkeep cost or disperse on every enchantment?
-
I don't think every enchantment needs upkeep or dissipate tokens. Dissipate represents an effect that only lasts a minute or so but does not require any attention once it has been cast, like Giant Size or the song boosts, while bear strength and so on are smaller changes (enlarging muscles instead of entire body) that can easely last more than an hour. (aka, entire game)
Upkeep represents something that would disappear immediately once focus is lost.
Granted, there is a flaw with the dispel/dissolve/... thing, but it works fine for the game mechanics. I really do not feel at all that the difference between them is fading at all.
Conjurations are always objects that are not attached to your mage
Equipment is always an object attached/around your mage
Enchantments are basically incantations that last for a long(er) time
...
I also still feel a big difference between equipment and enchantments because of the interaction with so many different effects and spells. While protection for a nature mage can easily be done with enchantments, a warlock or warlord with a battle forge will probably rely on his equipment more.
- Dwarf ability
- Purge magic (not there for equipment)
- Arcane corruption
- Battle forge (universal)
- fellela (Nature mage only)
- armor ward
- Enchanters wardstone
My decission in a deck between enchantments and equipment is based on many things for each different deck.
-
I agree with you that these concepts are still very usable and although separations are not as pure as they were or could have been, there is still enough difference in place to work/strategize with, have fun with and to imagine how it would look like if it was real.