Card Errata (The Mage Wars Community Self-Management Project)

[Brian VanAlstyne]

I'm not even sure that matters as that's 4 zones away and I don't believe there's a single card in the game with range 4.

[Kharhaz]

I'm not even sure that matters as that's 4 zones away and I don't believe there's a single card in the game with range 4.

ABC
DEF
GHI
JFK

That would be the full 12 zone arean. A steep hill on E does not block LoS from G into C, RAW.

[Brian VanAlstyne]

And again, there's no spell with range 4 so it doesn't even matter if you can see from G into C.

[Kharhaz]

And again, there's no spell with range 4 so it doesn't even matter if you can see from G into C.

I apologize, I should have used more sarcasm in my last post.

Listen man if you're gonna use logic like this then I don't know what to tell you. CLEARLY this card is a problem that needs to have errata immediately! The foundation of the game is in jeopardy! Can't you see it? I technically can see through the hill! O the possibilities; Just imagine how many 4 range cards you could make at home that could take advantage of this clear designer oversight! I suppose you're not experienced enough lol


XD

[Puddnhead]

And again, there's no spell with range 4 so it doesn't even matter if you can see from G into C.

You are correct. There is no range 4 card. However Malakai's Basilica, Straywood Scout and most importantly Vine Tree require line of sight to use their infinite range abilities. I wouldn't call it a huge problem, but it will save the casuals from the rules lawyer spikes that wreck every game.

[Sailor Vulcan]

And again, there's no spell with range 4 so it doesn't even matter if you can see from G into C.

You are correct. There is no range 4 card. However Malakai's Basilica, Straywood Scout and most importantly Vine Tree require line of sight to use their infinite range abilities. I wouldn't call it a huge problem, but it will save the casuals from the rules lawyer spikes that wreck every game.

Hear Hear! Sometimes it takes rules lawyering outside the game to prevent rules lawyering during a game.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[exid]

Hear Hear! Sometimes it takes rules lawyering outside the game to prevent rules lawyering during a game.

totally agree with that!
if i hadn't heard of that problem now, it would have appear once during a game with an infinite range spell (thanks Puddnhead!) and we would have to rule it as written: LoS accros the Steep hill.

[Arkdeniz]

Hear Hear! Sometimes it takes rules lawyering outside the game to prevent rules lawyering during a game.

I recently saw a very elegant solution to rules lawyering in another game recently. Basically, if two players have an argument over interpretation, then all players vote on which one wins the argument, highest vote wins and that interpretation becomes the house rule until such time as an official ruling can be accessed. In case of a tie, flip a coin.


The same coin toss in MW would save a fair few arguments, I reckon.

[Kelanen]

Druid doesn't need changing. Bloodwave Warlord is abysmal, but AW has decided to not errata it. so it stays as crap - the time to change it was before Academy Warlord - I argued some of those effects should have been errata on BW. Having not done that, the time is passed, leave it. The others are are minor rules clarifications about edge cases or rules lawyering which I'll warrant has never come up in a real game.

The only exception is DoR. DoR was fine in playtest, but Bryan Pope changed before printing (never shown to the playtesters) which made it a bit better in Academy, but he didn't realise broke it in Arena, but was spotted in teh first week of it's release. AW agreed that errata was needed, and were going to release it, but just haven't done it for 18 months. They even asked the playtesters not to play the DoR book at a big tournament at one point.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Druid doesn't need changing. Bloodwave Warlord is abysmal, but AW has decided to not errata it. so it stays as crap - the time to change it was before Academy Warlord - I argued some of those effects should have been errata on BW. Having not done that, the time is passed, leave it. The others are are minor rules clarifications about edge cases or rules lawyering which I'll warrant has never come up in a real game.

The only exception is DoR. DoR was fine in playtest, but Bryan Pope changed before printing (never shown to the playtesters) which made it a bit better in Academy, but he didn't realise broke it in Arena, but was spotted in teh first week of it's release. AW agreed that errata was needed, and were going to release it, but just haven't done it for 18 months. They even asked the playtesters not to play the DoR book at a big tournament at one point.

What's DOR again? I forget.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[exid]

disciple of radiance (once per round or any time)

[Sailor Vulcan]

okay, so after reading a few more comments i've somewhat changed my mind about card errata. we probably don't need any errata for broken cards at the present time, just for cards that are worded badly or break rules as intended, or which are worded confusingly and need to be made more clear.

The game might be more fun and diverse with single purpose wands instead of mage wands/elemental wands, but i'm not sure that's actually necessary for game balance, so that idea's not a good one right now. We don't need to get rid of spellbind.

As for the druid being nigh unkillable without killing her tree, i suppose that one way to think of it is that the druid's tree is like a part of her mage abilities which doesn't become active until after the game starts and she spends mana and actions on it. if you think of the druid as a 34 life 10 channeling mage, and the tree as a 9 mana spawnpoint with 1 channeling and regen 2 and the ability to transfer damage to the controlling mage to make it more surivvable.... barkskin compensates for this, but barkskin has upkeep +2. so basically if your running a druid with a vine tree bonded thats' 34 life and 10 channeling on your mage, minus 10 starting mana and one quick action, and if opponent starts attacking tree and the tree needs to transfer damage to mage, barkskin is needed to compensate for that, which has upkeep 2 so thats like lowering druid down to 8 channeling effectively
So basically, the druid actually starts the game off at a mana and action disadvantage. She isn't overpowered, but maybe it would be a good idea to start attacking the tree sooner even if you don't expect to destroy it. the damage will be transferred to mage, then if she puts barkskin on it will be easier to gain a mana advantage on her until she removes it, which may give you more time to setup on her.

[Meles]

okay, so after reading a few more comments i've somewhat changed my mind about card errata. we probably don't need any errata for broken cards at the present time, just for cards that are worded badly or break rules as intended, or which are worded confusingly and need to be made more clear.

The game might be more fun and diverse with single purpose wands instead of mage wands/elemental wands, but i'm not sure that's actually necessary for game balance, so that idea's not a good one right now. We don't need to get rid of spellbind.

As for the druid being nigh unkillable without killing her tree, i suppose that one way to think of it is that the druid's tree is like a part of her mage abilities which doesn't become active until after the game starts and she spends mana and actions on it. if you think of the druid as a 34 life 10 channeling mage, and the tree as a 9 mana spawnpoint with 1 channeling and regen 2 and the ability to transfer damage to the controlling mage to make it more surivvable.... barkskin compensates for this, but barkskin has upkeep +2. so basically if your running a druid with a vine tree bonded thats' 34 life and 10 channeling on your mage, minus 10 starting mana and one quick action, and if opponent starts attacking tree and the tree needs to transfer damage to mage, barkskin is needed to compensate for that, which has upkeep 2 so thats like lowering druid down to 8 channeling effectively
So basically, the druid actually starts the game off at a mana and action disadvantage. She isn't overpowered, but maybe it would be a good idea to start attacking the tree sooner even if you don't expect to destroy it. the damage will be transferred to mage, then if she puts barkskin on it will be easier to gain a mana advantage on her until she removes it, which may give you more time to setup on her.

Any developments On the Errata front? Will the final arena expansion expected later this year perhaps create the need for further adjustments?