Thanks. Overextend is yet another example of an action-oriented command (as opposed to commands which grant temporary traits, which I feel commands should get away from).

Here' s a card inspired by the Cursed Equipment thread:

Ah, I somehow missed the target of "friendly soldier creature". I saw the effect and immediately jumped for joy at a way to bounce my opponent's creatures back to his spellbook. I still think that bounce is a cool mechanic that should be explored. I can imagine both incantations and enchantments that could have the effect (both for friendly and/or opponent spells) as well as creatures with it built in.

I agree. Currently, I think the only official implementation of "bounce" mechanics are in Jinx, changing bound spells, and cantrips. Definitely a lot of room for exploration.

Catching up on feedback, slowly:

Runic Haste. I like Enhancement as your solution to 2-for-1 loss of Enchant Equipment. I appreciate that a quick action Hunting Bow could not be used twice (only quick spells may be cast with QC marker). However, I am  wary of enablers like this. A future full action ability could become broken with this so its existence restricts future design.

Yes, you make a good point. I can see how things like the Meditation Amulet could become too powerful. What if Runic Haste only hastes attacks? I think there is a limit to how reliant an attack can be on its Full Action status to balance it.

New status remover, in the same spirit as Reanimate Flesh:

Been busy lately. I realize that I haven't updated many of the older cards, but right now I feel more motivated to create new ones. I'll get around to addressing concerns with the older cards eventually.

Do you have a source for the unavoidable on Hail of Stones? OCTGN and my physical set both have it without, and the only errata I've seen were the temples and battle fury ones.

All zone attacks have the unavoidable trait by default (rulebook pp. 23, or the codex). It does not need to be printed on the card.

The Book of Secrets v2. I like the new mechanic over Obliterate but still too powerful to just growing veto spells. Starting with Dissolve to protect the book. For 2 spell points and 7 mana, this is too much. "Spells bound cost double to cast" is a more appropriate power level?

How's this as a solution to binding Dissolve/Explode/Corrosive Orchid/etc?

Now you can bind as many defenses for the book as you like, but it will cost you. This also gives the Archivist a way to get rid of the book if he has bound a dissolve but later decides he wants it back.

Lich's Soulstone v2. Too good, easy to abuse, too similar to "The Black Contract". Living enchantments will slip off, mage can guard his soulstone, Death Ring gives Necro discount. I'd just change benefits to just "Mage gains Indestructible, Finite Life and Pest". To become indestructible like this is a big deal, it needs nerfing. Does not need Unique if Epic. I'd allow it to be range 0-1 like other Zone Exclusives.

The Nonliving aspect of Soulstone is important to its theme, and I can't think of a good explanation for the Pest trait. Here is an alternative that prevents the necromancer from guarding his soulstone and may be either an advantage or a colossal drawback, depending on his situation: Bloodthirsty +2. It makes sense, since the undead seem pretty hungry for living flesh/blood in general. Altered card:

Standing Orders v3. It's delayed. It's telegraphed. It doesn't explain free persistent benefit of Mongoose Agility over Evade, Critical Strike over Piercing Strike, Bear Strength over Power Strike etc. And then there is the very fiddly Channel on an enchantment that doesn't work (where do you put mana?). Instead I urge you to simply rewrite the text to "You may reveal only when this creature is activated. Search your spellbook for any non-Epic Command, reveal it and pay its cost, returning it to your spellbook. This creature is considered under its effect for this action. Destroy this enchantment." So it is a very versatile one-shot Copy Command so exactly the right Command can be issued as a deferred action. It would be "Prescient Orders", new flavour text. But the game cannot accommodate channelling on an enchantment.

Good idea for a new card. I think standing orders can still be made to work, though. I'll think about possible revisions. Though I don't think it necessarily needs channeling, I don't in general agree that enchantments with channeling are impossible. If I understand you correctly, your objection is that there isn't space to place mana on an enchantment since it is underneath the enchanted object. I don't think this would be such an issue, though; part of the card sticks out, and there should be enough space there. Alternately, channeled mana could go on the creature (if it does not channel) or even next to it. Players should not have difficulty remembering what it means, provided there are not a lot of channeling enchantments attached to the same object.

Thinking about other suggested revisions. It may take a while to revise more of the cards. In the meantime, here are some new cards with mechanics centered around alternatives to killing monsters; specifically, returning them to players' spellbooks:

Or do you want me to foresee what The Prophet can do?

Ha ha. No need to make a prediction now; the first draft of the Prophet is below. I realize that many of the prophecy mechanics are worded ambiguously or in an unusual way, but it turns out to be difficult to articulate the sort of mechanics that I am going for using the current vocabulary, grammar, and style of mage wars, so this will have to do.

Some altered cards:



Your comment about clockwork programming gave me an idea - clearly, Magisbane Golems (and other such "Magisbane" artifacts) are designed for the purpose of killing mages (especially wizards), so why not bring that out a bit more in their behavior? The new Magisbane Golem relentlessly seeks out objects with the channeling trait and destroys them. At the same time, he draws magical attacks to himself. (I want him to still be targetable by conjurations, though). Note that he is perfectly suited to demolishing the dread Wizard's tower, although he is considerably more expensive than the tower. I think this is probably what Murkh had in mind when he made them. Given its limitations, I made it lumbering, rather than slow. I'm unsure how best to price it.



Good idea for the artificer; bonding with a weapon seems more like something for a weapons specialist like the Paladin (also forthcoming, BTW). I adjusted your suggestion slightly; now he can simply swap in equipment that he has already cast for a small cost. Thinking about some of the mage-specific equipment that I have been making lately, I think his broad expertise will probably be a substantial enough advantage that he needs nothing else.

New Cards:

Hope they are studying some of these ideas.

Thanks for your support. I don't know whether "they" actually look for ideas in this Custom Cards forum (I've read that some companies avoid looking at fan creations to avoid accusations of "stealing ideas"); it would certainly be neat if they did, though.




Edit: I also feel like I should give a deeper thematic explanation of The Book of Secrets.

The idea is that it is an artifact of ancient and terrible power (as such artifacts often tend to be). To most readers, the pages appear blank. Any magical knowledge written in this book is erased from the minds of all and immediately forgotten if it is ever rediscovered or read in some arcane text. Presumably, there will one day be a young mage who discovers that he has the power to read the secrets that have been written in the book, setting him off on an epic quest (probably a trilogy at the very least).

For the mage fortunate enough to have The Book of Secrets (for there is only one), he can stop to write down a spell in the book in order to erase it from the minds of both himself and his competitor(s). In practice, only the Archivist knows where this rare book may be found (and the Artificer, obviously).

Currently in the process of making modifications to many spells. A few specific responses:

Orb of Immolation. Nice idea but needs to be better? Burn is not meant to be burst but unreliable persistent damage. So I would make it more reliable, go as far as "when rolling for Burn, re-roll all blanks once". My main worry is Burn is going to be far better with the new set (Plants and Resilient Zombies). Still, this is a pricey Epic conjuration that can be destroyed. You forgot to add "Flame Immunity Hydro+3".

Currently, burns will on average go away after a while, since each burn has a 1/3 chance of disappearing on a given round. What Orb of Immolation does is to make burns stay, on average, indefinitely, since there is now a 1/3 chance of a new burn replacing one that was lost. Of course, at low numbers of burns luck still plays a significant role. If you think this needs to be better, rather than re-rolling blanks (which might be too powerful), what if it gave creatures an extra burn each time they received one from an attack (only from attacks though, or it might get out of hand)?

Dreamwalker v2. Indestructible is "the object cannot be damaged" so the convert damage to mana ability won't trigger.

Somehow, I missed that clause in indestructible. Not sure why they included that, since "cannot be destroyed by damage" is sufficient and this wording prevents a lot of cool possibilities. I will have to look back over my indestructible cards and make some adjustments, then.

Magisbane, the Purifier. Wow, this is the Warlord's totemic one-handed weapon! I'd remove Upkeep +2, change Mana Drain 2 to Mana Transfer 1 and give it free Dispel (pay X = full cost) or Seeking Dispel (pay 2) ability when it damages a creature as currently it's dispelling far too cheaply, even with its upkeep. An alternate way of removing enchantments as a free action is powerful. I'd also make it a Cantrip. It's an appropriate Dispelling weapon worthy of a Warlord!

My thought was that the upkeep cost would make up for the cheap dispel, but I can modify it as you describe. However, I don't want to remove its upkeep cost, because thematically I think it ought to drain its wielder. Also, Mana Transfer, while cool, does not make sense in this context because the weapon is obliterating the magical energies, not merely stealing them. Cantrip is a good idea, but to make the weapon more in line with the Magisbane Golem (which presumably uses similar anti-magical principles) I think it might be better to simply make it immune to magic (making it nearly invulnerable, though the Druid's new dissolving plant can still get at it).

New equipment enchantment, with a new possible way to avoid the "2-for-1" problem with dissolve:



Keyword: Enhancement - this enchantment increases the printed cost of the card to which it is attached by mana equal to the enchantment's full casting cost.

Atraxus, Dwarf Veteran. Nice idea to have schizophrenic traits based on Initiative (like "when attacking / when defending" cards in Magic). It's too good though, even with anti-synergy (e.g. Bloodthirsty, Charge). I'm not keen on the idea of a stubby legged Dwarf being elusive. Have you considered Goblin Veteran? (Opportunity for humourous flavour text, e.g. "Goblin = moron, Goblin Veteran = oxymoron"). I'd try combo traits. For example: "With initiative, gain Fast and Elusive. Off initiative, gain Vigilant and Intercept" (goblin skirmisher/guardsman).  I really like the schizophrenic traits idea, especially if they are anti-synergetic between the 2 combo pairs.

Fantastic theme idea. I may have to steal that (with some subtle attribution, of course):

As you can see, I have nerfed him a bit. (Do we actually know what vigilant does yet? I assume it means you get a guard token at the start of every round, or after taking an action, but I haven't yet seen an official definition).

Why not have the chimaera be a specific combination of three spliced creatures. The original concept of a chimaera was a cross between a lion, a snake and a goat. So it could be an nature 3+arcane 1 animal creature that's treated as a reptile, a cat and a bovid.

Sure, I could do that, but where's the fun in that? Of course, this is not to say that this cannot also be done; another "Classic Chimera" could be created, also with the Chimera subtype.

Chimera. Of course, a nice game mechanics interpretation. It's too expensive on Spellpoints (bound creatures) and too cheap to cast. To alleviate the former, make it Arcane 1 Nature 1. I'd price it at X = highest cost of bound creatures + total spell levels of all creatures bound. Currently, you could have a Fast Flying Grizzly for 20 which is too cheap. This is a combo enabler and because it closes the door to freely inventing creatures in the future ("what if we splice X and Y?"), it's too open to abuse. It gives too much freedom hence restricts design.

Okay - how's this for a solution: Limit it to only level 1-2 creatures. (still with the living, corporeal, non-legendary restrictions) I doubt any combination of such creatures would be terribly crazy; the real shenanigans start somewhere around level 4. Below is a modified Chimera, with some other traits changed (I changed it to arcane, since that is the school that seems most appropriate - might still be overpriced on spellbook points, since you also have to buy the creatures that you are binding. Another idea is to limit the creatures that can be bound to Animals, though I hope that is not necessary.

Psychic Network. A bit limited. Open to abuse with Illusory Tormentor, Nightmare etc. Also this is hardly a double edged sword! I prefer a subtler "see through your eyes" ability. Something like a psychic enchantment that said "the controller of this enchantment may cast spells originating from this creature. When this creature is damaged, the enchantment's controller suffers an equal amount of damage." This would make it more likely to appear in builds outside of mages with psychic spells, granting everyone access to remote casting at a price.

Okay. That sounds like a good idea for a different card ("Painbond"? I'll think on it.). You make a good point about psychic creatures abusing the spell; also, I just realized that most creatures with psychic attacks also have psychic immunity, so they would not be able to make use of the spell anyway. Here's a re-imagined version of the card:

Amulet of Protection. Meh. Hey, you sometimes miss. It should be Holy 1 but still does not compete with the cumulative benefit of current medallion slots. Colossus Belt is really the appropriate "Protection" item. To compete in the Medallion Slot, it must be good and certainly not a situational one-off benefit. Use its ready marker to re-roll an attack on you each turn seems like what a Lucky Charm may grant you?

Yes, that would be a good effect for a lucky charm. I am attached to the idea of an item that saves your life, once, though. This amulet is certainly situational; I suppose it will often be passed over. Here is an alternate change, which makes it function a little like the poor man's Divine Intervention:

Haemonologer. I hate the name. Why not just "Blood Mage"? Keep him a Vampire with all the Vampiress traits as an ability. But also "treat as a Dark creature". I also think the mana acceleration (Channelling 13 with vampirism and regeneration to counter damage) is too much. The Blood Mage spends his precious life blood to pump his spells. And sacrifices his creatures too. Something like "Once before each attack you make or each spell you cast, you may lose 1 life or deal 2 damage to a friendly living creature in your zone to gain +1 Melee or +1 Mana". Whatever the benefit, life loss should be the deterrent, not damage.

Done (Re: the name). Regarding loss of life vs. damage, part of the idea was that he would replenish damage taken with blood, simulating a vampire's relentless hunger, since he would be driven to melee attack as much as  possible to fuel his dark arts. I see your point about abuse of regenerative items, though. What if I simply restrict his ability more, and make it more expensive? I also added the option to drain his own creatures for mana, though obviously you would only do this to creatures that are about to die.

Dreamwalker. I love it. Morpheus from Neil Gaiman's The Sandman. But the 1 damage = 3 mana equation is too harsh as ethereal is too much of a silver bullet. I assume also non-Living? (Incorporeal creatures currently has both traits written on them). I think cap mana pool at 30 and 1 damage = 2 mana may be better (also dies if less than 0 mana). Is there an issue with Indestructible and "destroyed"? I don't have rules with me. Tranquilize is too clinical a name. "Slumber" maybe? Why not simply "Sleep and Mass Sleep are cantrips for you?". Makes him more of a ranged creature (as he can teleport to that range 2 target). I may be tempted to make his attack 0 dice Taint to kill off sleepers? Especially if you want him with Dark 1 training (why?). Anyway, the idea is really interesting, it just needs a bit of balancing.

Okay. Changed the damage/mana ratio. Yes, incorporeal means nonliving, and no, there is no issue with Indestructible, which just means that the creature cannot be destroyed by having more damage than life. I also removed his ability to gain armor and gave him a soft mana cap (I don't like the idea of a strict limit on mana, but I recognize the need to stop his "health" from growing out of hand). I don't want to reference specific spells, so no sleep/mass sleep cantrips. I removed the dark training after some thought; it was mostly in there for thematic reasons (due to his origins in dark magic) Anyway, here is a modified version:



Some other alterations, minor and otherwise, to cards:






Here are some new cards, focusing on Murkh's creations. If it is not already apparent, Murkh is basically an orc who hated magic so much that he devoted his life to its eradication, becoming a powerful mage in the process. This is mostly to justify spells for the warlord that make up for his crippling lack of arcane spells. While I recognize that it is better to leave metamagic to the arcane school in order to leave each school its own specialties, I think that as long as these are restricted to the Warlord, they should not be a problem.




Note: this is intended to be a clockwork golem, but my ability to convey that through art is limited. And yes, the parody of Thunderrift Falcon is intentional. Its magic immunity may be a double-edged sword.


Why should you choose the warlord over the Earth wizard? Perhaps this artifact will help with the decision.