Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Laddinfance on May 12, 2014, 04:55:29 PM
-
Check out the very special "Preview" today for Garrison Post. You can find it >>HERE<< (http://www.arcanewonders.com/arcane-wonders/special-preview-garrison-post). Get to know an old card all over again.
-
Oh shiiiiiiiiiiii
-
Oh shiiiiiiiiiiii
It just got real?
-
Real-er than a fishing rod! BAM!
Great change to this card. Errata is awkward but definitely justified in this case IMO. Well done and thanks very much for making this change, it has felt like a long time coming :)
-
Oh shiiiiiiiiiiii
It just got real?
A dream came true... Now if the same could happen with Skeletal Sentry... I would cry of joy!
-
This errata / change is GOOD.
Great decision on this card.
-
About god**** time. So how's that new "preview" of Arcane-incantation-that-shall-remain-nameless coming?
-
I don't mean to be that guy but it's not the *only* card that lets you change the position of your summon...iirc summoning circle does as well, but who plays with promos anyway lol.
I like the buff, shouldve always been that way. I dont think its that earth shattering but its nice to have more options.
Edit: actually, this means I dont have to put rax up so far...this could go a long way to protect rax play against certain mages, will have to test
-
When it came out, everyone was saying it needed to work with barracks. I assume designers thought of that, so I'm wondering why they didn't do this card in the first place? Did they think it was too good in some obscure combination or something?
-
Cool. They finally did what they should have done originally.
-
This was one of our house rules. Glad its official changed. My question is the new garrison post in fif or is it just getting errata?
-
I really like this errata. As Arlemus stated, this means you can protect your Barracks and throw soldiers at the front line simultaneously, which may be why it didn't have this wording initially. Time will tell how powerful this actually is, but I think it is a good and much needed change.
My question is the new garrison post in fif or is it just getting errata?
I do not have any official information on this, but it is my hope that they will release the card list ahead of the actual expansion like they have done in the past. I really like knowing what I am getting before I purchase something. It is one of the biggest attractions I have for this game.
-
I really like this errata. As Arlemus stated, this means you can protect your Barracks and throw soldiers at the front line simultaneously, which may be why it didn't have this wording initially. Time will tell how powerful this actually is, but I think it is a good and much needed change.
I do not have any official information on this, but it is my hope that they will release the card list ahead of the actual expansion like they have done in the past. I really like knowing what I am getting before I purchase something. It is one of the biggest attractions I have for this game.
OT: This is one of the main reasons why LCG's are so much better than CCG's.
-
I adore this. ;D
-
FINALLY.
Garrison Post will no longer be completely wasted space in my Mage Wars box.
Please tell me Akiro's Hammer will also be getting an errata to give it the Indirect trait.
-
This was one of our house rules. Glad its official changed. My question is the new garrison post in fif or is it just getting errata?
Unfortunately, Garrison Post is not in FIF. The only reprinted cards in FIF are the promos that are being printed for the first time in a set.
-
FINALLY.
Garrison Post will no longer be completely wasted space in my Mage Wars box.
Please tell me Akiro's Hammer will also be getting an errata to give it the Indirect trait.
I think it'd be cleaner to just remove the word "corporeal" from its target restriction so it could hit any conjuration.
Right now it can't shoot a Pentagram or Poison Gas Cloud even if it had a clear path.
Even with Indirect, it couldn't voluntary target a Wall of Fire or Fog Bank in the event you needed to clear the LOS for something else. At no point should a machine specifically for busting conjurations be unable to target a type of wall.
-
FINALLY.
Garrison Post will no longer be completely wasted space in my Mage Wars box.
Please tell me Akiro's Hammer will also be getting an errata to give it the Indirect trait.
I think it'd be cleaner to just remove the word "corporeal" from its target restriction so it could hit any conjuration.
Right now it can't shoot a Pentagram or Poison Gas Cloud even if it had a clear path.
Even with Indirect, it couldn't voluntary target a Wall of Fire or Fog Bank in the event you needed to clear the LOS for something else. At no point should a machine specifically for busting conjurations be unable to target a type of wall.
That wouldn't really solve the problem, since the range on the attack is 2-3. It could still be stopped by a wall right in front of it.
-
More and more i hear an A-Team opening song!
Thank you AW!
-
It looks like a very good idea as without being able to position creatures summoned by the barracks, it always looked like a pretty weak card. This fix should sort out the problems and I can now begin imagining running one again in my Warlord book.
Will we get a copy of the updated card in the download section like we've had with previous errata (those ones posted here http://www.arcanewonders.com/resources/Errata_Cards.pdf)? With the previous cards I have been printing them out onto vinyl stickers and sticking them over the old text of the old cards to keep my set up-to-date.
-
FINALLY.
Garrison Post will no longer be completely wasted space in my Mage Wars box.
Please tell me Akiro's Hammer will also be getting an errata to give it the Indirect trait.
This would be awesome!
-
Akiro's hammer is in a weird spot because it's usually quite bad, but making it any better would alarm me in one specific matchup that should not be exacerbated any further in this set, IMO.
-
Akiro's hammer is in a weird spot because it's usually quite bad, but making it any better would alarm me in one specific matchup that should not be exacerbated any further in this set, IMO.
dont tell me its the druid.
Currently the Warlord is worthless against the druid, so he needs all the help he can get.
Come to think of it - it can only be mirror match your referring to.
-
"Currently" is a funny thing!
-
Akiro's hammer is in a weird spot because it's usually quite bad, but making it any better would alarm me in one specific matchup that should not be exacerbated any further in this set, IMO.
Making a character or card better in some matchups without affecting others is the kind of thing that makes game balance truly tricky. I love stories about that kind of thing but don't envy the designers!
-
Akiro's hammer is in a weird spot because it's usually quite bad, but making it any better would alarm me in one specific matchup that should not be exacerbated any further in this set, IMO.
I assume you're referring to the Druid v. Warlord matchup, who is already going to have some pain with more Fire...
And the Hammer is weak against Fire, which the Druid is terrible at. I see what you mean.
Well, hopefully for SvP then. =\
-
What is cool with this updated version of GP, is that you can wall off the Barrack to protect it, yet still can spawn creature.
-
Will the set Warlord vs Forcemaster have the updated card in them at some point?
-
Will the set Warlord vs Forcemaster have the updated card in them at some point?
Yes, the next printing of FVW will have the updated cards in it.
-
Will the set Warlord vs Forcemaster have the updated card in them at some point?
Yes, the next printing of FVW will have the updated cards in it.
Do we have to wait the release of FiF to play it like this or the errata is effective right now?
-
Will the set Warlord vs Forcemaster have the updated card in them at some point?
Yes, the next printing of FVW will have the updated cards in it.
Do we have to wait the release of FiF to play it like this or the errata is effective right now?
While I can't speak to the tournament scene, people are free to use whatever rules they want for casual games, so I see no reason to delay in implementing this change.
-
My group play by the book. So if not official they won't allow it.
-
The article says "starting today". That sounds official to me.
-
The article says "starting today". That sounds official to me.
Ah yeah. I missed it. Thanks.
-
What is cool with this updated version of GP, is that you can wall off the Barrack to protect it, yet still can spawn creature.
I guess you'd probably want to use pike walls or take a backup copy of garrison post to use this strategy because 6 HP isn't too hard to breach (particularly if going up against a fire mage) and, without the GP entry point, you'd otherwise end up with all your spawing creatures stuck behind a wall.
-
Ludwig will mby see play with this.
Deploy in range and Rouse beast him.
Expensive sure... but u do 3 x 3 dice damage and leave a big threat on the board.
-
Ludwig will mby see play with this.
Deploy in range and Rouse beast him.
Expensive sure... but u do 3 x 3 dice damage and leave a big threat on the board.
Ludwig LOVES the Armory too...
-
Ludwig will mby see play with this.
Deploy in range and Rouse beast him.
Expensive sure... but u do 3 x 3 dice damage and leave a big threat on the board.
Ludwig LOVES the Armory too...
You guys really think there's reason to be excited for him? If it wasnt so easy to just agony him and forget about it I'd be happier. I haven't used him for a long time because he's overcosted for his hp and armor, and I so rarely found him a solid answer to anything. His triplestrike is shut down pretty heavily by armor (or agony as stated) and his zone attack can be achieved for less mana (albeit less effeciently potentially).
Not saying he's bad or anything, he just never makes the cut when I adjust/streamline.
-
Ludwig will mby see play with this.
Deploy in range and Rouse beast him.
Expensive sure... but u do 3 x 3 dice damage and leave a big threat on the board.
Ludwig LOVES the Armory too...
You guys really think there's reason to be excited for him? If it wasnt so easy to just agony him and forget about it I'd be happier. I haven't used him for a long time because he's overcosted for his hp and armor, and I so rarely found him a solid answer to anything. His triplestrike is shut down pretty heavily by armor (or agony as stated) and his zone attack can be achieved for less mana (albeit less effeciently potentially).
Not saying he's bad or anything, he just never makes the cut when I adjust/streamline.
The main problem I ever had with Ludwig was getting him into the right position with a 1-1 full action attack. Garrison Post helps with the position aspect, and armor is mitigated by the Armory (which is awesome anyway).
Agony will still be an effective counter against Ludwig, but the possibility of a "surprise" 3-dice 1 pierce triplestrike or zone attack at range 1 might be worth putting him in. With Rouse you should be able to get off at least one shot before Agony sets in (and you can Dispel it afterwards if needed).
-
Ludvig Bolstrom Zombie Hunter!
If i wanna play in a "cost effective" way, i would probably not include him in my spell book. But i play in "fun effective" way and i must say, there is no better feeling than seeing a trapped zombie in quicksand getting his hair cut from Bolstroms repeating crossbow.
I agree that Agony on Bolstrom, Sir Corazin or Hydra is way too effective and armor often negate all my attacks but that doesnt mean, i am not having fun. I am working on warlord swarm book right now, thanks to new garrison post, armory and Gormash.
My wish list:
a) Give Akiros Hammer Indirect or "Death from Above" trait, ignoring LOS
b) Change Goblins Bomber bombing attack to quick attack
c) Boost Sledgehammer (stun) or make it cheaper (5 mana)
d) I dont care about triple arcane cost anymore so thats all :)
-
Common mistake to believe that 3 dice tripple attacks are shut down by armor.
What ~13 mana creatures does 4.5 actual damage on average vs a creature with alot of armor?
Agony is a different story... not all books run this card, and few run more than 1.
-
If you put a mathematical proofs, i will not say nothing against it.
But if on 3 dices you roll an average dmg against 3 armor creature, it is not as glorious as i could dream about :)
-
If you put a mathematical proofs, i will not say nothing against it.
But if on 3 dices you roll an average dmg against 3 armor creature, it is not as glorious as i could dream about :)
3 dice vs 3 armor does an average of 1.61 dmg. So x3 it does 4.83 damage on average.
Against infinite armor it does 1.5 dmg. So 4.5 on average.
-
Common mistake to believe that 3 dice tripple attacks are shut down by armor.
What ~13 mana creatures does 4.5 actual damage on average vs a creature with alot of armor?
Agony is a different story... not all books run this card, and few run more than 1.
Well, dark pact slayers and situationally dire wolves immediately come to mind...that's probably about it though.
But considering I can power strike an orc butcher for a total of 9 mana (with ring) and the play in question costs 16 to get about the same expected dice vs that much armor(4 vs 4.5) and about the same body (10hp, 1armor vs 9hp 2armor)...it just doesn't seem that impressive to me, at least right now. Obviously it's worth noting that its not a perfect comparison, but in terms of pure dice output against a decently armored target I think you can do pretty much the same for less mana and end up with a very similar body (ie paying the extra 7 isn't worth it).
Also, I think all non-holy books should run agony. It's only 2 book points and it's extremely powerful/useful in a good many situations, at least IMO. I run it in every non holy book I make.
-
Ludwig is an amazing anti-Forcefield/Block/Reverse Attack unit.
-
Common mistake to believe that 3 dice tripple attacks are shut down by armor.
What ~13 mana creatures does 4.5 actual damage on average vs a creature with alot of armor?
Agony is a different story... not all books run this card, and few run more than 1.
Well, dark pact slayers and situationally dire wolves immediately come to mind...that's probably about it though.
But considering I can power strike an orc butcher for a total of 9 mana (with ring) and the play in question costs 16 to get about the same expected dice vs that much armor(4 vs 4.5) and about the same body (10hp, 1armor vs 9hp 2armor)...it just doesn't seem that impressive to me, at least right now. Obviously it's worth noting that its not a perfect comparison, but in terms of pure dice output against a decently armored target I think you can do pretty much the same for less mana and end up with a very similar body (ie paying the extra 7 isn't worth it).
Also, I think all non-holy books should run agony. It's only 2 book points and it's extremely powerful/useful in a good many situations, at least IMO. I run it in every non holy book I make.
Not sure where to start....
You seem to refuse data, or atleast make your own interpretation of it and further twisting it into your own perfect scenario.
Direwolfs and Dark Pact Slayers in a Warlord book? common...
(this is a Garrison Post thread which means Warlord right?)
Power strike a butcher gives 6 dice of damage = 3 actual damage on average vs infiinte armor.
Ludwig does 50% more damage than that.
Then you further mess up the premises.... Ludwig + Rouse beast = 16 mana
Orc butcher + Power strike (with a (free apparantly) ring) = 9 mana.
The only problem here is that your Orc Butcher cannot attack where as ludwig CAN.
Another advantage of Ludwig is that he is ranged - which means the opponent cannot retaliate if you attack a guard, or protect (by guarding the zone) the target you want to attack.
Im not saying Ludwig doesnt have downsides - because he certainly does. But lets not take his advantages away from him.
-
Common mistake to believe that 3 dice tripple attacks are shut down by armor.
What ~13 mana creatures does 4.5 actual damage on average vs a creature with alot of armor?
Agony is a different story... not all books run this card, and few run more than 1.
Well, dark pact slayers and situationally dire wolves immediately come to mind...that's probably about it though.
But considering I can power strike an orc butcher for a total of 9 mana (with ring) and the play in question costs 16 to get about the same expected dice vs that much armor(4 vs 4.5) and about the same body (10hp, 1armor vs 9hp 2armor)...it just doesn't seem that impressive to me, at least right now. Obviously it's worth noting that its not a perfect comparison, but in terms of pure dice output against a decently armored target I think you can do pretty much the same for less mana and end up with a very similar body (ie paying the extra 7 isn't worth it).
Also, I think all non-holy books should run agony. It's only 2 book points and it's extremely powerful/useful in a good many situations, at least IMO. I run it in every non holy book I make.
Not sure where to start....
You seem to refuse data, or atleast make your own interpretation of it and further twisting it into your own perfect scenario.
Direwolfs and Dark Pact Slayers in a Warlord book? common...
(this is a Garrison Post thread which means Warlord right?)
Power strike a butcher gives 6 dice of damage = 3 actual damage on average vs infiinte armor.
Ludwig does 50% more damage than that.
Then you further mess up the premises.... Ludwig + Rouse beast = 16 mana
Orc butcher + Power strike (with a (free apparantly) ring) = 9 mana.
The only problem here is that your Orc Butcher cannot attack where as ludwig CAN.
Another advantage of Ludwig is that he is ranged - which means the opponent cannot retaliate if you attack a guard, or protect (by guarding the zone) the target you want to attack.
Im not saying Ludwig doesnt have downsides - because he certainly does. But lets not take his advantages away from him.
First of all, I'm not refuting anything. You seem to have missed the part where I said it's "obviously worth noting that it's not a perfect comparison," AKA my scenario ISN'T perfect, so say I'm "twisting" info for my "perfect" comparison is just a farce. I literally said it wasn't perfect, I don't know why you feel the need to be such an ass about it.
Also, your question was "What ~13 mana creatures does 4.5 actual damage on average vs a creature with alot of armor?". There were no stipulations to that question, IE they have to make the most sense for a warlord book, so I took it at face value. If that's not how you wanted me to view/answer the question, I'm sorry you feel that way.
I know my comparison wasn't perfect, as I had INITIALLY stated, but it was just meant to show that you can get SIMILAR dice for a lot less mana, and based on that, I was skeptical.
And okay, lets say I don't have the ring, it's 1 more mana. 10 vs 16. You're still paying 6 more mana for 1.5 more dice. Doesn't seem worth it, but I KNOW the 2 situations aren't that simple.
-
Let's try and keep things civil, guys. We should talk about the facts and not each other. Personal comments won't get us anywhere.
With [mwcard=FWC10]Ludwig Boltstorm[/mwcard] I think we can all agree that with his armor and life he is a little squishy for his price point. Not more so than other ranged combatants, really though. The main question seems to be if his attack is worthwhile though.
Looking at the extremes of facing an opposing creature with either 0 armor or infinite armor (aka Resilient) then only an attack that does 9+ dice of damage would be equivalent (or has a direct damage trait like Burn or Rot to compensate). No other creature deals 9+ dice of damage for the casting cost of 13 mana, nor do any have a trait that can compensate enough to rival Ludwig at these extremes. Even if we throw other spells to buff their damage into the mix, I'm having a hard time finding a creature that will be able to put out this level of damage every single round without going over a total expenditure of 13 mana, plus then we are investing more actions into the mix as well (summoning + buffing).
Against an armor value in between the extremes, it would still require at least 8 dice to compete. Now, other traits like Piercing can help lower this number as well, though. Even with these lower standards, it is very difficult to find any other creature who rivals Ludwig for only a 13 mana investment, although buffing one up to this level for that price may be more possible.
Thus, I concur that Ludwig has an extremely good attack in terms of damage for his level of investment. However, he is squishy, his attack is severely limited by the 1-1 range, and he is very susceptible to things like Agony, Aegis, and Weak. Whether all of this is worth including him in your spellbook is kind of a matter of opinion. Personally, the 1-1 range is what excludes him from my spellbooks because I find that very difficult to coordinate effectively without a lot of babysitting. But it's not impossible to do.
-
The thing is that its attack is very good, with Armory will become even more powerful while he will also get sturdier. When he gets in the arena he can't be ignored. Yes he is vulnerable to dice reduction but it means opponent used ressources on him. Yet he would still be useful to get ride of Forcefield/Block/Reverse Attack. Its attack range might be 1-1 but it just means he is some kind of guardian turret. He makes 4/12 zones very dangerous.
-
Add in the Ranged Battle Order from the Dwarf Warlord and that first attack gets Piercing +2...
-
sike, all the attacks of the triplestrike would gain piercing+2, making crossbow dude quite powerful. edit: my bad i may not have understood you meant his ranged attack rather than the first roll of his ranged attack
-
Actually, it's worth noting that Piercing +X doesn't have the same limitations as Melee +X and Ranged +X. So, would the Piercing +2 apply to each damage roll he makes, then? (I was going to just say it would, but then I realized it isn't quite so crystal clear...)
Also, I'm not sure where to put this, but in looking this factoid up, I noticed that on Page 6 of the Rules Supplement Codex, under the heading "OR" Attacks, it says "...Ludwig Boltstorm's...attack can have either the Sweeping trait or..." Should be Triplestrike instead of Sweeping, correct?
-
piercing applies to all attacks, but ranged +x does not
-
piercing applies to all attacks, but ranged +x does not
So its even better than I thought!
-
Very good this "preview", now i need (i remember another time) xd xd) another "preview" that said
Treebond: Druid can treebond with plant creatures and conjurations, whe she use treebond with a creature plant she gains +4 innate life, Lifebond +2 and Melee +1, if she stay in the same zone she and the plant creature gain an additional melee +1 , and if this creature is torgorath gain a quick melee attack xd
-
Actually, it's worth noting that Piercing +X doesn't have the same limitations as Melee +X and Ranged +X. So, would the Piercing +2 apply to each damage roll he makes, then? (I was going to just say it would, but then I realized it isn't quite so crystal clear...)
Also, I'm not sure where to put this, but in looking this factoid up, I noticed that on Page 6 of the Rules Supplement Codex, under the heading "OR" Attacks, it says "...Ludwig Boltstorm's...attack can have either the Sweeping trait or..." Should be Triplestrike instead of Sweeping, correct?
It would indeed affect every attack. Combine his battle orders with Armory and Ludwig suddenly has Piercing +3 on all three attacks of his Triplestrike. Pretty powerful combination.
You are also correct that there is a typo on page 6 in the Official Rules and Codex Supplement. It still adequately explains the rule it is meant to exemplify, it just doesn't match what traits the card actually possesses.
-
Very good this "preview", now i need (i remember another time) xd xd) another "preview" that said
Treebond: Druid can treebond with plant creatures and conjurations, whe she use treebond with a creature plant she gains +4 innate life, Lifebond +2 and Melee +1, if she stay in the same zone she and the plant creature gain an additional melee +1 , and if this creature is torgorath gain a quick melee attack xd
::) This again...
-
When will the errata'd version be available for download with the other errata'd cards?
-
Very good this "preview", now i need (i remember another time) xd xd) another "preview" that said
Treebond: Druid can treebond with plant creatures and conjurations, whe she use treebond with a creature plant she gains +4 innate life, Lifebond +2 and Melee +1, if she stay in the same zone she and the plant creature gain an additional melee +1 , and if this creature is torgorath gain a quick melee attack xd
::) This again...
Sorry, only fight for my poor druid, hard times comes to her for too many burn xd xd, dont worry i try not to boring with this, i give you my word, sorry.
-
When will the errata'd version be available for download with the other errata'd cards?
What do you mean by download? The image is right there in the article.
-
When will the errata'd version be available for download with the other errata'd cards?
What do you mean by download? The image is right there in the article.
I was thinking of the pdf that has the other errata'd cards in - I wasn't thinking that the web image provided would look particularly great as a print; depending on the resolution it saves as. But just checking, the link for the errata cards has been disabled anyway.
-
Clean your browser's Cache out and the link should work.
-
My guess is, that he is pointing out the fact thet it is not easily accesible or officialy downloadable from main page or something. :)
-
Sometimes when we have to update, I have the same problem he has, where it is not showing me the updated version. So far, every time that's happened, I just needed to clear my Cache on my browser.
-
doesn't seem to cure it, but I'm on my tablet ATM. I'll try from the PC later.
-
let me know if you're still having issues and I'll get that to our web support.