Define popularity and your expectations of it. If you wanted adoption akin to Warmachine, Warhammer, MtG, Netrunner, et al., then Mage Wars was never "popular".

Me personally, I see a few things that speak volumes:

1. Lack of any substantial release since FiF (including spoilers).

2. Lack of forum(s) activity, both from good players/contributors and the few individuals I could care less for.
Could be intertwined with point 1.

3. AW releasing a revamped core set that has a lighter footprint and two expansions that introduce a new wincon and a stripped down version of the game.

4. Bare OCTGN presence (compare to Netrunner).

5. The disaster that was Origins last year.

6. My local experience which jibes with others. I'm down to 1-2 other friends who'll play when I can find the time. And I live in a major metropolitan area in the Northeast for ****'s sake. I can't even get my kids or the missus to play. It's depressing.

7. My increasing ambivalence to the game itself. I like it, and I'll still play, but I also play MtG (Legacy), Netrunner, Summoner Wars, Hearthstone, & Malifaux, and I find those games to be more competitively, strategically, and tactically satisfying. There are points where I can't get past the niggling design flaws, particularly involving resource management and board control mechanics, to really justify the time commitment.
<<<<<<<DEPLOYS FLAMESUIT>>>>>>>>>>>
This is completely jarring when juxtaposed to Summoner Wars, where I feel like it's roughly the same game, just more tactically challenging, mechanically efficient, and with harder choices that have an impact on game play. And I can get people to play that game. That's a huge factor that I think many of the superfans here casually gloss over. The reason I still invest is because of AW, who are legit trying, and whose customer experience is the twinkie-****ting-rainbow-belching unicorn variety.

You have some good points (mainly the first one regarding lack of new content released lately, and several months behind the original released schedule), but many of your points don't make sense to me.  The lack of OCTGN presense, for instance, is a symptom of lack of popularity, not a cause; ditto for forum activity.   Second, most of what you state in point 7 and after deploying your flamesuit (LOL) is simply false.  Mage Wars is more tactical (and arguably more strategic) than most of the similar games you list, with harder decisions that have bigger consequences (vs "draw a card and hope it helps me").  The design flaws you list are the main reasons I got out of MtG - specifically its flawed resource system (e.g. MtG's resource system depends on "luck of the draw", where you routinely get mana flooded or mana screwed through no fault of your own, leading to ~ 40% "interesting matches" that aren't decided by who got less screwed by their mana supply)... although the cost of a collectible game with stupid-ridiculous secondary market economy helped (who can still afford to play that game?!).  And the board control mechanics are among the features of Mage Wars that make it unique and interesting - along with access to any card in your entire "deck" on any given turn, the way enchantments work, etc.

I'm actually a little worried about Mage Wars: Academy, as I fear it will be too similar to MtG - which is bad both because it would compete directly with an established juggernaut in the market... and/or might get a cease & desist / lawsuit from WotC.  But I digress.

We also have Guam.

Apparently there are 16 US territories, not including a chunk of Antarctica and Cuba (i.e. Guantanamo Bay).  The first I thought of (aside from Puerto Rico) were the Virgin Islands... probably because I'm dreaming of a day when the snow might melt...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territory

Skeelax is not Warlord but Warlock only and i must say, your eyes and reading skills are un natural. I salute you!

Oops, yes, meant Warlock.  My bad.

I assumed it was a force projection based on its "Force" subtype. I assume it is not a straight copy of a D&D monster, and that the name similarity is coincidental. But perhaps that is the explanation.

^^ this, and the fact that it gets discounts with [mwcard=FWQ03]Force Ring[/mwcard] and [mwcard=FWQ07]Psi-Orb[/mwcard]... definitely feels like a projection of the mind.  Unfortunately you can't "heal" it in the same way as Wall of Force.

The only Psychic card that interacts unintuitively/antithematic with Invisible Stalker is [mwcard=MW1E30]Pacify[/mwcard].  [mwcard=MW1I26]Sleep[/mwcard]/[mwcard=FWI05]Mass Sleep[/mwcard] can't target non-living creatures, and [mwcard=FWE08]Mind Shield[/mwcard] doesn't interact with Invisible Stalker as it isn't Psychic.  That only leaves [mwcard=FWE07]Mind Control[/mwcard] and [mwcard=FWE01]Charm[/mwcard], which are both "Mind Mage only" ... so matters only in a duel between two Forcemasters (or future Mind mages) battling for control of the Stalker... which works well enough.  But Pacify affecting the Invisible Stalker is weird...

And that doesn't address any of the elementals/spirits mentioned above.

Quote from: iNano78 on March 08, 2015, 10:19:14 AM

Quote from: ACG on March 05, 2015, 11:55:14 AM

No. Sorry, but the necromancer's eternal ability does not count as a Necro or undead spell (it isn't even a spell), so it does not receive the discount.

Thanks. That's what I figured.

Next question:
Is the Necromancer (and [mwcard=MW1C23]Malacoda[/mwcard], for that matter) immune to [mwcard=MW1E19]Ghoul Rot[/mwcard]?  Unlike [mwcard=MW1J11]Idol of Pestilence[/mwcard], Ghoul Rot's text hasn't been updated to say "direct poison damage." On the other hand, maybe it isn't necessary because Ghoul Rot has the "poison" subtype. Is Necromancer immune to every card with the "poison" subtype (e.g. would also include [mwcard=MW1E31]Poisoned Blood[/mwcard])?

Yes. Yes.

Excellent!! Thanks.

I can't seem to find an answer to this question... and I made sure to check the Rules and Codex Supplement this time.

Does reanimating the Necromancer's "Eternal Servant" get a discount from [mwcard=DNQ02]Death Ring[/mwcard]?  The Necromancer's reference card doesn't state that it counts as a "necro" or "undead" spell (probably because it isn't an action), but Reanimate is bolded and all other reanimation abilities are "necro" - and the creature being (re)summoned this way is "undead" by requirement of "Eternal Servant" ("you may pay mana equal to its casting cost to Reanimate it"). The Rules and Codex Supplement refers to the "Eternam Servant" getting "summoned" to the zone it was destroyed in, similar to [mwcard=DNE02]Rise Again[/mwcard] / [mwcard=DNI01]Animate Dead[/mwcard] and cards with the Reanimate keyword, but never calls this particular reanimation a "spell" as would seem to be required to get Death Ring's discount.

For example, I'd like to have an "Eternal Servant" [mwcard=DNC09]Plague Zombie[/mwcard] in a key combat zone, have him attack during his activation, then sacrifice him to an [mwcard=MW1J20]Altar[/mwcard] to trigger his ability upon being destroyed (and to give melee +2 and piercing +2 to a friendly), then reanimate him to do it all next turn.  With the Death Ring, does it cost 9 or 8 to reanimate my "Eternal Servant" Plague Zombie? It seems to depend on his "casting cost". Is the casting cost always 9, as printed on the card, or is it 8 because I would get a discount if I casted it as a spell?

I'll be forwarding this on to Bryan. Hopefully he'll rule on it soon.

Thanks for looking into this.  We assumed it was a relatively common situation and didn't expect it to lead to such a rules debate. As casual fans of the game who are starting organized play, we're as interested in the process (e.g. arguments for and against a ruling, and where to get official rulings on ambiguous situations) as the resolution.

Another quick question, just to be sure we understand correctly:

The Wizard has already activated in a given round.   The Forcemaster casts [mwcard=FWI03]Force Bash[/mwcard] on the Wizard to push him 1 zone and put a Slam condition marker on him.  The next time the Wizard activates (next round, in this case), he flips the Slam condition to a Daze condition.  Does this Daze condition go away at the end of this same activation - e.g. the same activation that he flipped it from Slam to Daze - or does it stick around until his next activation (next round)?  It seems the former is correct based on the timing of when these conditions get flipped/removed (marked in red below).

Slam (Condition Marker)
Creature is Incapacitated. When this creature is activated remove Slam and replace with a Daze condition. Unmovable creatures receive a Daze condition instead of Slam. Has a removal cost of 3.

Daze (Condition Marker)
Creature is disoriented and/or blinded. Whenever this creature makes an attack, roll the effect die at the end of the Declare Attack Step. If the attack skips that step, then roll as soon as the attack starts. If the result is 7 or higher, the attack is resolved normally. If the result is 6 or less, the attack "misses" its target and is considered to have been avoided (even if the attack is Unavoidable). If it makes a Zone Attack, only check once: the entire attack either fails or succeeds. If a creature has more than one Daze on it, roll only one time to see if the creature misses. In addition, the Dazed creature suffers a -2 penalty to all Defense rolls for each Daze marker it has. All Daze markers are removed at the end of the creature's Action Phase. Daze has a removal cost of 2. Conjurations cannot be Dazed.