July 02, 2024, 09:11:39 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ACG

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28
211
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: siren creature suggestion
« on: August 23, 2014, 07:56:07 PM »
My suggestion (though the pricing is likely off):



(It would probably interact with terrain, but I don't know what terrain does, so I'm not going to speculate)

This gets around the ranged vs. "ranged melee" issue.

212
Rules Discussion / Re: Can Gurmash, orc seargent, cast enchantment commands?
« on: July 30, 2014, 05:25:56 AM »
Quote from: zorro on July 30, 2014, 05:00:37 AM
Can [mwcard=MWSTX2FFC07] Gurmash, Orc Seargeant[/mwcard] cast enchantment commands as [mwcard=MWSTX2FFE04] Brace Yourself[/mwcard], [mwcard=FWE06] Fortified Position[/mwcard] or [mwcard=FWE09] Standard Bearer[/mwcard]?

He can cast command spells, so no problem with incantationes, or with creatures, conjurations, or other kind of spells may appear in the future with command subtype. But enchantments are cast face down...

Can Gurmash cast them, if they are from command subtype?
Is he forced to cast them face up?
Or maybe enchantments had no subtype while facedown, so Gurmash can not cast them?

He may, as his power does not specify a type of spell. As far as verification goes, enchantments may always be verified later (even if it is a pain to remember restrictions on them), so he can cast them face-down.

213
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Aggressive use of spawnpoints
« on: July 25, 2014, 11:25:30 AM »
Quote from: zorro on July 25, 2014, 09:15:32 AM
Quote from: BoomFrog on July 25, 2014, 08:07:49 AM
Vine tree is very aggressive

I really agree with that, i think is the most aggresive spawnpoint.

I like Vine Tree (9) on starting zone, sprint to near center. Second turn, deploy vine far center, deploy second vine next to opponent's starting zone (1), deploy Raptor Vine (8+1), and enchant (2+up to 4) and rouse (3) it, move if needed (1)...

I would consider that agressive, specialy if you get initiative on turn 3, hehe

I don't think that is possible. The druid can only deploy vine markers in her zone or in zones adjacent to existing vine markers, and you wouldn't have any vine markers in NC at the start of the second round. The furthest you could deploy your raptor vine is FC. Of course, if you enchant it with Cheetah Speed, you can still get it to your opponent's starting zone, and your opponent may have moved adjacent to NC anyway.

214
Rules Discussion / Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker
« on: July 23, 2014, 10:18:49 AM »
These two cards have completely different functions. Akiro's Favor lets you reroll when attacking, whereas Temple of the Dawnbreaker lets you reroll when defending or escaping. Combine the two, and you just have both effects - I don't think the two cards interact with each other at all.

215
Spells / Re: New warlock stuff!
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:12:01 PM »
I'll give it a shot:

Consider the simple case in which a creature has one burn, and assume that you will always pay the mana cost to keep the burn. Each upkeep phase, there is a 2/3 chance of doing 1.5 damage (on average) and a 1/3 chance of paying 1 mana. Over an infinite number of turns, the mana-to-damage ratio is (1/3):(1) = 1:3

So for each burn, Adramelech's Touch has a mana-to-damage ratio of 1:3.

This is hardly surprising; the average damage done by a burn over an infinite number of turns is 3, and Adramelech's touch basically lets you pay 1 mana to place a burn on a creature when an existing burn vanishes.

Damage per mana per burn = 3

Edit: Note that I am ignoring the casting cost, since it vanishes at the limit of infinity. Obviously, the casting cost would have a larger impact on the overall cost in an actual game. For analysis, it's probably best to separate the casting cost from the cost of using the ability; think of it as paying 3 mana (or 5 for a mage) to give you the option of inflicting 3 damage per mana per burn on the creature.

216
Custom Cards / Re: Prophet Mini-Expansion (printable)
« on: July 16, 2014, 10:22:25 AM »
lettucemode is correct. Essentially, you can surprise the Prophet, but to do so will cost extra mana.

I should note that the prophet does not gain mana for each unused counter; he only gains 1 mana if there are any unused counters, i.e. there is a maximum gain of 1 (maybe this could be better worded).

As far as balance goes, I think playtesting is probably the best way to find out. The Prophet will only gain a crushing mana advantage if his opponent is too free or too stingy with his premonition tokens; the better his predictions about his own actions are, the less of a lead the prophet gets. My idea was to incentivize giving the prophet information without forcing the opponent to stick exactly to his plan.

217
Custom Cards / Prophet Mini-Expansion (printable)
« on: July 14, 2014, 02:09:50 PM »
After making some significant modifications to the prophet and his equipment, I thought it might be fun to put it together with some other cards to make a mini expansion. The file is too large to upload here, so I put it on BGG:

http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/105433/prophet-fan-made-mini-expansion

It features some of my older cards with modifications, as well as a few completely new cards (themed around prophecy).

If you want to try it out, the cards are formatted 9 to a sheet on letter-sized paper, so all you have to do is print it out, cut out the cards, and put them in sleeves in front of official cards. If you do try it out, I would be interested to hear how the game goes.

218
Rules Discussion / Re: Decoy and Seeking Dispel interaction
« on: July 07, 2014, 03:47:14 PM »
Quote from: Shad0w on July 07, 2014, 01:30:06 PM
It is puzzle time all.


Why does [mwcard=MW1E10] Decoy[/mwcard] give back the mana when it is destroyed by [mwcard=MW1I24] Seeking Dispel[/mwcard]?

Let see who can explain it best.
If you can explain this correctly in detail I will give you 2 stickers.  8)

Because "Destroyed" effects (effects that occur when the spell is destroyed) are treated differently than all other effects in the game in that they apply to their enchantments even when unrevealed. Since the effect does not require that Decoy be revealed, it doesn't matter that Seeking Dispel prevents it from being revealed.

An excellent example is the cantrip trait on Standard Bearer and Barkskin. Even if these enchantments are destroyed while unrevealed, they are still returned to the spellbook.

Of course, Cantrips came after Seeking Dispel, so a better answer is probably that the rules supplement says that it does. It would be a good idea to make explicit this generalization (that Destroyed effects apply to unrevealed enchantments) in the rules.

219
Rules Discussion / Re: Restrained spells and teleport.
« on: June 28, 2014, 09:14:54 AM »
You were correct. If a creature teleports, any conjurations attached to that creature are destroyed, but enchantments will remain attached.

220
General Discussion / Re: New Promo Cards Sighted
« on: June 27, 2014, 10:03:57 PM »
Quote from: baronzaltor on June 27, 2014, 03:07:03 PM
Since Staff of Storms "adds dice of damage" instead of granting "melee/ranged +X" and doesnt specify non-zone attacks:

Staff of Storms promo + Sandstorm promo= Pure chaos.

QUICKcast, 0-2 Range, 8 mana-
6 Dice ZONE attack... +2 vs flyers, +1 Pierce.

Guarenteed push or daze, if not both on effect chance, with random push directions... possibly into a wall or border for 3 more dice damage.

Its a fun combo if you play with promos.

But a zone attack makes a separate attack against each object in the zone, and the Staff of Storms only boosts 1 attack (the removal of tokens to boost the attack takes place during the Roll Dice Step, so it pretty clearly would not apply to each individual attack).

221
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Arenas with larger zones
« on: June 26, 2014, 01:46:11 PM »
You can easily make an arena with arbitrarily large zones by placing objects to mark the zone intersections. This is what I do, and it allows for a lot more space than using a board (and is more portable).

Plus you can adjust zone sizes mid game when needed.

222
General Discussion / Re: Card spoilers so far.
« on: June 24, 2014, 10:52:35 AM »
Quote from: sIKE on June 24, 2014, 09:15:33 AM
Quote from: ringkichard on June 23, 2014, 10:22:29 PM
Quote from: Alex319 on June 20, 2013, 10:32:01 PM
In the upcoming FAQ, we will state that any object that is attached to another object (like an enchantment attached to a creature) is destroyed if the target it is attached to becomes illegal. Thus if you Mind Control a creature with a Standard Bearer attached, the Standard Bearer will be destroyed.
That doesn't make a lick of sense! I understand objects limited to school or mage but if it was legal when cast such as Standard Bearer and the creature is still a Soldier why would you add a Dispel function to this already powerful spell?

It makes a lick of sense. Suppose there is some enchantment that gives a creature poison immunity (call it "immunity"). Suppose that creature has ghoul rot or poisoned blood revealed on it. When immunity is revealed on that creature, it ought to eliminate the poison enchantments attached to that creature.

Or suppose there is an enchantment ("undeath") which gives a living creature the nonliving trait. Suppose that creature has Bear Strength, or some other living-only enchantment. When undeath is revealed, the creature should lose such enchantments.

223
Rules Discussion / Re: Druid and elemental wand
« on: June 18, 2014, 01:11:03 PM »
It costs 4 points.

The wand may be considered a lv2 water spell.

The druid is not trained in lv2 water.

Therefore it costs points equal to double its level.

224
Strategy and Tactics / Re: My thought on Seedling Pods
« on: June 16, 2014, 03:18:27 PM »
Quote from: jacksmack on June 16, 2014, 02:32:24 PM
Quote from: ACG on June 16, 2014, 01:55:37 PM
Casting a mana flower normally and casting it via seedling pod have the same cost, in both mana and time. Consider the cost to the caster:

3 mana for the pod + 5 mana for the flower; however, the mana from the pod pays some of the cost for the flower, so the the druid pays from her mana supply a total of:

3+2=5
or
4+1=5
or
5+0=5
(obviously, you would be wasting mana if you cast the flower on a pod with more than 5 mana).

As far as the amount of time to pay off the cost of the flower goes, the two situations are again identical. The pod's channeling is identical to the mana channeled by the flower as far as paying off the casting cost is concerned. By the fifth round, the total cost of the flower to the druid has been paid off either way.

If you need more channeling and have an extra seedling pod lying around, I see no reason not to turn it into a flower. The advantage to seedling pods is the sheer flexibility they give you in allowing you to delay your choice; if you start with a mana flower but your opponent goes aggro, it may hurt you; if you start with a seedling pod, you can turn it into a resource generator or an offensive conjuration/creature, depending on what your opponent does.

You equal the channeling of the pod with the increased channeling to the mage provided by the flower.
Im fine with that.

But you forget that you pay 3 mana + 5 mana for your combo.

Flower only costs you 5 mana only.

So your down 3 mana, or it takes you additional 3 rounds to break even.


The pod doesn't cover the cost of the mana flower because you are missing out on the extra channeling from the flower in the first place.

going mana flower with pod = doom. Except in the rare case where somebody runs heavy heavy mana denial on you, and still I consider it a bad move. 8 rounds to break even is just not worth casting it in the first place.

You're right. I forgot to take that into account.

225
Strategy and Tactics / Re: My thought on Seedling Pods
« on: June 16, 2014, 01:55:37 PM »
Casting a mana flower normally and casting it via seedling pod have the same cost, in both mana and time. Consider the cost to the caster:

3 mana for the pod + 5 mana for the flower; however, the mana from the pod pays some of the cost for the flower, so the the druid pays from her mana supply a total of:

3+2=5
or
4+1=5
or
5+0=5
(obviously, you would be wasting mana if you cast the flower on a pod with more than 5 mana).

As far as the amount of time to pay off the cost of the flower goes, the two situations are again identical. The pod's channeling is identical to the mana channeled by the flower as far as paying off the casting cost is concerned. By the fifth round, the total cost of the flower to the druid has been paid off either way.

If you need more channeling and have an extra seedling pod lying around, I see no reason not to turn it into a flower. The advantage to seedling pods is the sheer flexibility they give you in allowing you to delay your choice; if you start with a mana flower but your opponent goes aggro, it may hurt you; if you start with a seedling pod, you can turn it into a resource generator or an offensive conjuration/creature, depending on what your opponent does.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28