When you nullify a spell cast from a spellbound wand, does the nullify completely destroy the spell, or does it just make it fizzle?

4 Wands of Healing is the correct number you should have, and the Necromancer should have one in his starting spellbook.

For a list of what cards are included in the set, you can go here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dyayj613jresjjg/DRUID%20VS%20NECROMANCER%20SPELL%20LIST.pdf


For a list of the starter spellbooks, refer to the rules that came with the expansion.

Useful! Are there links to all the other expansions' spell lists? Thanks!

Good initiative.

Just got Mage Wars, and think it could be a keeper. Although I enjoyed the couple of sessions I had with Netrunner and Summoner Wars, I was never inspired to keep collecting and move beyond the base set. This one seems to have some of the best of the those, in a more lively and dynamic format. In a moment of madness, I ordered the druid-necro expansion to this game... a terrifying sign: is this the first step on a slippery slope of getting into an LCG? Maybe I just always liked the idea of controlling plants.

Anyway... it's not going to be the easiest game to get to the table, as a relatively long running two player. (I have played with my 7 year old son, but it will take a while to get him up to speed).  I do think, however, that this is a game that could be pulled out  at an out of the way table in a quiet pub on a weekday evening.

I live in Farnham, UK, and wondered whether anyone else within a half hour radius might be interested in a game of an evening?

This discussion seems to me the kind of thing that ends up hurting otherwise potentially popular games.

What seems a fairly intuitive 'you can't double buff yourself' kind of a rule, turns into a bizarrely convoluted debate over things clearly not really intended - such as the counterintuitive enchantment vaccine.

Seems to me as a newcomer to this game that the important element here is not to double poison someone, or give a creature double bear strength. To that end, I don't really understand the difficult-to-enforce-and-open-to-rules-lawyering rule about no unrevealed enchantment being the same as a revealed enchantment.

What happened that led to this rule? I guess the intention was to avoid a long string of 'aha, you dispelled me, but here I am again with the same enchantment's, but what's the big deal? I mean, someone sacrificed doing something else for that strategy. If that is a major problem, maybe the answer is to say - you can't have two of the same enchantment revealed on a character, and you cannot reveal a new enchantment if an enchantment of the same name on that creature was destroyed that round.