Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Spells => Topic started by: Goreshde on February 08, 2013, 12:56:49 AM
-
I want to make sure I understand Sectarus the new Warlock familiar sword spoiled on facebook.
"If this mage attacka and damages a create with Sectarus, he my immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action"
So the spell the it due to being a familiar it can only be cast once the warlock damages a creature, and that is the only spell you can cast. Right?
-
Correct, you have to hit first and then you can only cast the spell bound to the weapon.
-
Correct, you have to hit first and then you can only cast the spell bound to the weapon.
Sorry? Bound to the weapon?
I made the assumption that it would work just like other familiars and spawn points, in that you place a spell next to it during your planning phase IN ADDITION to the two you choose for yourself, and it's that that can be cast.
Or do you fish it directly from your spell book? My feeling is probably the latter, as it's entirely possible to have two attacks using that weapon, and nothing on it states it can only be cast once per turn....
I actualy don't think it's quite as clear as youre making out :)
-
The first sentence reads.
"Sectarus is a non-creature familar, which can ce used to cast only curse enchantments."
I would say this means exactly what it says, sectarus follows the familiar rules as explained in the rule book being able to cast but not reveal curse enchantments.
The second sentence reads.
"If this mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, he may immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action."
To me this is saying that if there is a spell attached to Sectarus the mage may cast it as a free action. The only benefit is the free action, which is a big benefit. I don't see where it says the mage may search his spellbook for a curse enchantment and play it on the creature, which is probably close to how they would have worded it if that was their intention. Since the card says the mage cast the spell I don't think he can even use the mana that Sectarus has channeled.
That is how I interpret the card.
-
I completely agree with Tacullu64 in this, even though I suspect some erratum saying you can use the mana on Sectarus to reveal the curse (if you do so instantly).
And I do not see yet how you should be able to attack twice in one turn?! Your mage has his normal action and a quickcast action, so that would allow only one attack. Maybe I forget (or do not know yet) some sort of speed spell, but for now I do not think it possible.
-
I completely agree with Tacullu64 in this, even though I suspect some erratum saying you can use the mana on Sectarus to reveal the curse (if you do so instantly).
And I do not see yet how you should be able to attack twice in one turn?! Your mage has his normal action and a quickcast action, so that would allow only one attack. Maybe I forget (or do not know yet) some sort of speed spell, but for now I do not think it possible.
Battle Fury cast on the warlock would give him a second attack immediately following his first one.
-
The first sentence reads.
"Sectarus is a non-creature familar, which can ce used to cast only curse enchantments."
I would say this means exactly what it says, sectarus follows the familiar rules as explained in the rule book being able to cast but not reveal curse enchantments.
The second sentence reads.
"If this mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, he may immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action."
To me this is saying that if there is a spell attached to Sectarus the mage may cast it as a free action. The only benefit is the free action, which is a big benefit. I don't see where it says the mage may search his spellbook for a curse enchantment and play it on the creature, which is probably close to how they would have worded it if that was their intention. Since the card says the mage cast the spell I don't think he can even use the mana that Sectarus has channeled.
That is how I interpret the card.
I think you missed my point. WHEN and WHERE is this spell coming from. In my mind, it would be selected during the planning phase, alongside your 2 usual planned spells, just as a spawn point/familiar spell is, and placed alongside it. However, you seem to be implying some kind of 'spell bind'.
For what it's worth, I can't see there ever being an errata allowing you to pay the reveal cost either - otherwise familiars etc will also need to be changed.
-
The first sentence reads.
"Sectarus is a non-creature familar, which can ce used to cast only curse enchantments."
I would say this means exactly what it says, sectarus follows the familiar rules as explained in the rule book being able to cast but not reveal curse enchantments.
The second sentence reads.
"If this mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, he may immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action."
To me this is saying that if there is a spell attached to Sectarus the mage may cast it as a free action. The only benefit is the free action, which is a big benefit. I don't see where it says the mage may search his spellbook for a curse enchantment and play it on the creature, which is probably close to how they would have worded it if that was their intention. Since the card says the mage cast the spell I don't think he can even use the mana that Sectarus has channeled.
That is how I interpret the card.
I think you missed my point. WHEN and WHERE is this spell coming from. In my mind, it would be selected during the planning phase, alongside your 2 usual planned spells, just as a spawn point/familiar spell is, and placed alongside it. However, you seem to be implying some kind of 'spell bind'.
For what it's worth, I can't see there ever being an errata allowing you to pay the reveal cost either - otherwise familiars etc will also need to be changed.
Perhaps the word attached was poorly chosen. I do not think there is any sort if binding going on with this card. I think the spell is chosen like a spell for a spawnpoint or familiar that cast spells and then returned to the spellbook if it is not used that turn.
-
Okay, okay. I was thinking about the wrong version of the weapon (originaly it was like mage wand).
Being it's a familiar you can cast spells through it in the same way as any familiar, with the caveat that you have to deal damage first.
This is what I get for making quick replies before bed...
-
The way I'm reading the card (based purely on the FB preview) is this:
1) Sectarus is a familiar. Therefore it can prepare a spell during the planning phase, just like a Huginn or Felella.
2) Sectarus is not a creature. Therefore it does not get an action marker and cannot cast spells using normal spellcasting mechanics. It is also not a Spawnpoint, so it cannot cast spells during the Deployment phase.
3) Sectarus has special wording that allows it to cast a spell as a free action. The way I am reading the card text is that after the Mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, Sectarus can immediately cast the prepared spell on the creature as a free action. This would allow Sectarus to use the mana that it generates from Channeling.
-
The way I'm reading the card (based purely on the FB preview) is this:
1) Sectarus is a familiar. Therefore it can prepare a spell during the planning phase, just like a Huginn or Felella.
2) Sectarus is not a creature. Therefore it does not get an action marker and cannot cast spells using normal spellcasting mechanics. It is also not a Spawnpoint, so it cannot cast spells during the Deployment phase.
3) Sectarus has special wording that allows it to cast a spell as a free action. The way I am reading the card text is that after the Mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, Sectarus can immediately cast the prepared spell on the creature as a free action. This would allow Sectarus to use the mana that it generates from Channeling.
In regards to your #3 above. That is an elegant interpretation and I hope we get an official ruling confirming that is the way it was meant to work, unfortunately I don't get that from the text of the card. The card references the mage and then says he may cast the spell as a free action.
-
In regards to your #3 above. That is an elegant interpretation and I hope we get an official ruling confirming that is the way it was meant to work, unfortunately I don't get that from the text of the card. The card references the mage and then says he may cast the spell as a free action.
The card wording is a classic case of pronoun confusion. It says that "he" may cast the spell as a free action. Is the Mage a "he"? (what if there was a female Necromancer?) Is Sectarus a "he"? (surely weapons can be anthropomorphized)
It actually makes a pretty big difference whether the curse is cast by the mage or by Sectarus:
- There's the aforementioned Channeling question.
- The mage could be affected by Jinx, Magebane, Gate to Voltari, etc. Sectarus can't.
- Reflect Magic couldn't reflect the curse back at Sectarus. (it would simply be an expensive Nullify)
-
In regards to your #3 above. That is an elegant interpretation and I hope we get an official ruling confirming that is the way it was meant to work, unfortunately I don't get that from the text of the card. The card references the mage and then says he may cast the spell as a free action.
The card wording is a classic case of pronoun confusion. It says that "he" may cast the spell as a free action. Is the Mage a "he"? (what if there was a female Necromancer?) Is Sectarus a "he"? (surely weapons can be anthropomorphized)
It actually makes a pretty big difference whether the curse is cast by the mage or by Sectarus:
- There's the aforementioned Channeling question.
- The mage could be affected by Jinx, Magebane, Gate to Voltari, etc. Sectarus can't.
- Reflect Magic couldn't reflect the curse back at Sectarus. (it would simply be an expensive Nullify)
I agree with everything you say here. All that would be required to validate your interpretation is changing "he" to Sectarus in that last sentence.
-
The way I'm reading the card (based purely on the FB preview) is this:
1) Sectarus is a familiar. Therefore it can prepare a spell during the planning phase, just like a Huginn or Felella.
2) Sectarus is not a creature. Therefore it does not get an action marker and cannot cast spells using normal spellcasting mechanics. It is also not a Spawnpoint, so it cannot cast spells during the Deployment phase.
3) Sectarus has special wording that allows it to cast a spell as a free action. The way I am reading the card text is that after the Mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, Sectarus can immediately cast the prepared spell on the creature as a free action. This would allow Sectarus to use the mana that it generates from Channeling.
This was my interpretation too (after some head scratching).
The only thing I'm not sure about is what if the Mage makes 2 attacks and inflicts two lots of damage. Can I, assuming I attached a curse after the first attack, attach a second curse to the target? Or does the fact that there would no longer be a chosen curse enchantment sat on the weapon preclude that 2nd casting?
-
The way I'm reading the card (based purely on the FB preview) is this:
1) Sectarus is a familiar. Therefore it can prepare a spell during the planning phase, just like a Huginn or Felella.
2) Sectarus is not a creature. Therefore it does not get an action marker and cannot cast spells using normal spellcasting mechanics. It is also not a Spawnpoint, so it cannot cast spells during the Deployment phase.
3) Sectarus has special wording that allows it to cast a spell as a free action. The way I am reading the card text is that after the Mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, Sectarus can immediately cast the prepared spell on the creature as a free action. This would allow Sectarus to use the mana that it generates from Channeling.
This was my interpretation too (after some head scratching).
The only thing I'm not sure about is what if the Mage makes 2 attacks and inflicts two lots of damage. Can I, assuming I attached a curse after the first attack, attach a second curse to the target? Or does the fact that there would no longer be a chosen curse enchantment sat on the weapon preclude that 2nd casting?
I would assume the latter since I have no idea how Sectarus is going to get a second curse spell to cast. There isn't any text on the card explaining how sectarus would get a second spell. I am surprised we haven't got an official ruling from AW yet since that same question popped up on Facebook the day Sectarus was spoiled. Hopefully we will hear from them soon.
-
I am surprised we haven't got an official ruling from AW yet since that same question popped up on Facebook the day Sectarus was spoiled. Hopefully we will hear from them soon.
That may well have been me too :blush:
-
Currently we have no way to get more than 1 spell on familiars. (http://magewars.com/jsite/forum/6-spells/7025-forcemaster-vs-warlord-spoilers#7402)
The way I'm reading the card (based purely on the FB preview) is this:
1) Sectarus is a familiar. Therefore it can prepare a spell during the planning phase, just like a Huginn or Felella.
2) Sectarus is not a creature. Therefore it does not get an action marker and cannot cast spells using normal spellcasting mechanics. It is also not a Spawnpoint, so it cannot cast spells during the Deployment phase.
3) Sectarus has special wording that allows it to cast a spell as a free action. The way I am reading the card text is that after the Mage attacks and damages a creature with Sectarus, Sectarus can immediately cast the prepared spell on the creature as a free action. This would allow Sectarus to use the mana that it generates from Channeling.
1: Correct
2: Correct
3: This was how it worked in playtesting just like other familiars the mage used familiar mana first.
-
Im really trying to like Sectarus, but its too gimmicky for my tastes and lacks versatility. Ive been hoping for a dark familiar..but I still don't see my Warlock running this.
-Its outright dissolvable, limiting its reliability
-MUST spend an action to attack to use the spell, so its not a "free" action..just budget neutral.
-MUST hit with the attack to use the spell. Defense, Daze, and Block all can waste your preparation
-MUST damage target to use spell.. Armor or just unlucky rolls prevent you from using your familiar
-Can ONLY cast spell on the target of your attack. Can't pressure mage and debuff his creatures at the same time, and meaning Guards can prevent you from casting what you need when you need.
-Does not get its own action marker.
-Can only cast curses, unlike say Fellalia who can cast curses, buffs, blocks, decoys, traps, etc. This limits the books that have an interest to include it. Typically I only run a few key counter curses (finite life, enfeeble, agony..things to answer specific situations. not things to just spam)
-Doesn't let you use the 0-2 range of curses due to the fact that they must be in melee range to cast.
-Fellalia packs etherial damage, Huugin gets to peek under hidden enchantments... this one occupies your main hand slot where you could have equiped a vorpal sword for half the cost and double the pierce or a lash of hellfire for less mana, burn chance, reach and extra damage from a fireshaper ring.
No other familiar is so limited on its spell choices, AND its cast conditions, AND its target choices AND requires an action from the mage himself.
Its not that its bad or anything... but its too focused for me. I get that certain cards are made for certain structures, but familiar's should be a bit more open to me... they should be able to support multiple build types for a mage to consider. This one only appeals to very specific curse-driven, melee combat books.
-
Im not sure I agree about it being budget neutral. You are gaining the attack and it's subsequent damage plus the curse. I think that has promise. Hell if it draws some anti-equiment spells that's good news for my Lash. :)
-
I like Sectarus. This might be the card that inspires me to finally play the warlock. I think it might be fun to play a warlock delivering curses via sword. Especially if we get some more good curses out this set.
-
Im really trying to like Sectarus, but its too gimmicky for my tastes and lacks versatility. Ive been hoping for a dark familiar..but I still don't see my Warlock running this.
It's really more of a weapon than a Familiar. The Curse part is more of a bonus.
Compare the Sectarus to the Lash of Hellfire:
- Sectarus costs 1 more mana.
- Both have 4 attack dice
- Lash has Reach, while Sectarus has +1 Piercing.
- Lash inflicts Burn at random for no mana cost, while Sectarus inflicts precise Curses but you have to pay their cost
They are really two very similar weapons.
-
I like the lashes burn effect (except for the fact that I'm always on the receiving end of it), but another factor is the -2 flame abilities on the elemental cloak and dragonscale hauberk is much more effective against the lash.
-
The final card (@Bashcon) appears to say:
"Sectarus is a non-creature Familiar which can b used to cast only curse emchantments. If Sectarus is used to attack and damage a creature, it may immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action."
-
The final card (@Bashcon) appears to say:
"Sectarus is a non-creature Familiar which can b used to cast only curse emchantments. If Sectarus is used to attack and damage a creature, it may immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action."
/thread
-
I agree with Koz - I think this is now closed ;)
-
but, sectarus can use the mana generated to reveal the cursed emchantment?
-
but, sectarus can use the mana generated to reveal the cursed emchantment?
My understanding was no, that's 'revealing an enchantment', not casting it... Sectarus just places it on an opponent, you, the caster, has to pay to reveal it.
-
but, sectarus can use the mana generated to reveal the cursed emchantment?
My understanding was no, that's 'revealing an enchantment', not casting it... Sectarus just places it on an opponent, you, the caster, has to pay to reveal it.
Correct, just like the Beastermaster familiar.
Sectarus only contributes to the facedown casting, to flip is up is out of your own pocket. You can reduce the cost a little by using Ring of Curses. (Which also reduces the casting cost of Sectarus itself, since its spell type is "curse" even as equipment)
-
Im really trying to like Sectarus, but its too gimmicky for my tastes and lacks versatility. Ive been hoping for a dark familiar..but I still don't see my Warlock running this.
-Its outright dissolvable, limiting its reliability
-MUST spend an action to attack to use the spell, so its not a "free" action..just budget neutral.
-MUST hit with the attack to use the spell. Defense, Daze, and Block all can waste your preparation
-MUST damage target to use spell.. Armor or just unlucky rolls prevent you from using your familiar
-Can ONLY cast spell on the target of your attack. Can't pressure mage and debuff his creatures at the same time, and meaning Guards can prevent you from casting what you need when you need.
-Does not get its own action marker.
-Can only cast curses, unlike say Fellalia who can cast curses, buffs, blocks, decoys, traps, etc. This limits the books that have an interest to include it. Typically I only run a few key counter curses (finite life, enfeeble, agony..things to answer specific situations. not things to just spam)
-Doesn't let you use the 0-2 range of curses due to the fact that they must be in melee range to cast.
-Fellalia packs etherial damage, Huugin gets to peek under hidden enchantments... this one occupies your main hand slot where you could have equiped a vorpal sword for half the cost and double the pierce or a lash of hellfire for less mana, burn chance, reach and extra damage from a fireshaper ring.
No other familiar is so limited on its spell choices, AND its cast conditions, AND its target choices AND requires an action from the mage himself.
Its not that its bad or anything... but its too focused for me. I get that certain cards are made for certain structures, but familiar's should be a bit more open to me... they should be able to support multiple build types for a mage to consider. This one only appeals to very specific curse-driven, melee combat books.
Think of it as a weapon that is in many cases more damaging than the Lash of Hellfire (isn't flame so can't have the dice reduced by flame resistance or flame immunity and it has piercing making it much better against a mage with the Elemental Cloak and/or Dragonscale Hauberk) and can cast curses for you on the side.