Actually he is not. I had raised this exact same question in a thread long, long ago. When you are doing a card game with multiples of cards allowed, there will be a certain subset of your customers (let's call them hardcore gamers for ease) who would want to have all the options. This is not a Mage Wars thing, it's a card game thing - Magic and all of FFG's LCGs are in the exact same boat. Magic is a CCG, however, and people know right out of the bat that they have to hunt for those cards. LCGs and MW, on the other hand, purport to not having to hunt cards. In my previous thread, I clearly stated that I am on-board with the Core Set being as it is - it's meant to present a playable and enjoyable experience from one box and it does. Hardcore gamers will just have to buy a couple + maybe some CSTs ... BUT ... this is where it needs to stop. Going forward, if this game intends to maintain an audience of said hardcore gamers, the products need to be assembled appropriately vis-a-vis card distribution. If they are not, this game cannot claim to be anything other than a casual one or it becomes a gigantic money sink, second only the evil Magic (okay, maybe some other CCGs that I am not aware of as well).

I have also bought 2 core sets in order to expand my options and I was even considering getting one of each CST but I decided against it - I am not starting down that path with this game. At the same time, I am among those hardcore gamers so I would expect to have a much more reasonable way to get cards from here on out. If not, this was not the game for me and I will have to relocate my board game budget elsewhere. Incidentally, I don't need 6x of every lvl 1 spell or 4 of every higher lvl, but the card distribution in the core set is rather off. You cannot have 1x of Hand of Bim Shalla (a lvl 1) or 1x Lash of Hellfire (pretty central to the equip Warlock and a priority Dissolve target) and build what I would consider a competitive deck including either. That's what it boils down to for me.

For reference, here is the older thread with everyone who agreed with this viewpoint "of no actual concern."
http://magewars.com/jsite/forum/player-feedback-and-suggestions/1101-card-distribution-in-future-products

Yay, I contributed! Along the same lines, what would you think about a flying archer vs a flying creature in the same zone? I'm thinking no shot, but would like to know for sure.

He is official Art director for AW. But I'm sure someone else will chime in here too.

A Planeswalker would be cool too. Probably Arcane but his MO would be summoning extra-planar beings. Very powerful and not terribly expensive BUT with a steep Upkeep costs (I mean close to standard channeling values steep) so basically have to expend all your efforts to sustain them turn after turn. Alternatively those beings could have a variable upkeep and depending on how much you pay for them (so how much energy you focus on manifesting them in the arena) each turn they would change their stats and shift from stronger to weaker to stronger depending on your needs.

Oops. That's what I get for shorthanding the Holy school as Light to contrast it with the warlock's Dark school Thanks for that!

Very well put, Nitz! I was thinking this too and am glad other people do as well.

Back to the Warlock's innate abilities, I actually think his Curseweaving is pretty great. I don't look at it from the perspective of saving me having to double up on curses (because I actually don't think it can do that - a dispel would ruin your day then) but rather of allowing me to deal my curses out much more freely. A hypothetical deck based around flyers, for example, that starts you off with Thunderift Falcons and then transitions into angels will illustrate this. At the beginning a couple of birds pops out and rush to start harassing you (let's pretend for some reason you don't have the whip with the reach) - at this point you have a choice - deal with them at range (probably playing precious attack cards), weather their assault or maim their wings. For anyone other than the warlock maiming their wings is probably not an option because what would we do when the angels come out? We need that card for then. But the warlock just pulls out his loom of curses, brings one of those annoying falcons down for him and his creatures to tear apart and then takes back that valuable card. I have actually used that strategy (not against flyers - in general) against BM hordes to great effect - that Fox that has one health left - let's Chain it in agony. That pet you have - let's enfeeble it, etc. Ones those threats are out of the way I still get to use those cards on more important things. Also, as a side note, Curseweaving could allow you to use an EPIC curse more than once ... someday

Sorry to pile on top of this thread but I have a question regarding attacking walls as well so might as well put it here. My question concerns attacking walls with a ranged attack. If the range of the attack is (1-2) and the archer is in a zone that the wall borders can he attack it? In the rulebook it says that a wall can be attacked at range "if either of the zones is in range of the attack" but I kinda figured that goes mostly for maximum range. Does it also allow an archer to attack a wall that is half in his zone as well?

Thanks and sorry about piling on that thread again!

Hey, so I asked this question on BGG as well but it's been slow to receive responses so I'm going to try here as well. If a creature is Bloodthirsty or has been taunted is it forced to attack the requisite creature in it's zone before even having the chance to move or does that only kick in after having moved? The BGG thread received two answers - one each way - so I am hoping for more opinions and maybe an official clarification. Thanks!