September 28, 2024, 04:52:16 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 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 28
286
Mages / Re: So ummm...anyone else notice the Warlord is getting a tank?
« on: March 01, 2014, 04:45:36 PM »
Quote from: Zuberi on March 01, 2014, 03:36:05 PM
I am not very familiar with Faraday Cages. However, sticking a fork in a light socket does not seem safer to me than sticking my finger in one. Perhaps purely metallic objects would take less damage from lightning, but the knights are still fleshy underneath all of that armor. It seems to me that the effect of the armor would be to distribute the charge equally across their entire body. This means that instead of having a singed arm, you are now singed from head to toe.

It doesn't magnify the damage. Nor does it reduce the damage. What it does do is distribute the damage to your entire body. That seems like a Lightning +X trait to me.

I also agree that the tank sounds more like a conjuration than a creature. However, it should definitely be mobile. Perhaps you attach it to a creature (like Tanglevine) who then uses it's action marker to drive the tank.

Electricity will take the easiest path from a high potential to a low one. If you stick a fork in a socket, that path is through you. If, on the other hand, you are encased in metal, then there is a fairly good chance that the easiest path will be through the metal. Lightning rods work this way by directing lightning down a wire to ground so that it doesn't pass through houses. If you were completely encased in a conductive material, you would be completely safe from electricity. In fact, this is why you are safe from lightning/downed power lines inside a car - the car directs the electricity across its outside to ground. If the current is running for long enough, the metal might heat up (proportionally to its resistance) from dissipating energy, but you won't be electrocuted.

With the knight, of course, we don't know exactly how conductive the armor is or whether it forms a complete path to ground, so it's hard to say whether he would be protected in the same way a person inside a Faraday cage is. But it shouldn't make him significantly more vulnerable than an unarmored person.

And a golem/wall being vulnerable to lightning is just ridiculous. Lightning immunity would be much more appropriate.

287
Custom Cards / Re: ACG's Custom Spells and Mages
« on: March 01, 2014, 01:12:08 PM »
Quote from: DeckBuilder on March 01, 2014, 12:17:47 PM
Hi ACG, long time no speak about your cards. We used to chat alot early in this thread (I encouraged you) then life got a bit busy.

As you know, I think you have incredible creativity and you come up with awesome off-the-wall ideas.
The only issue I have sometimes is balance in your great ideas.
Among playtesters, I'm the one who comes up with "too risky" or overpowered ideas that need curbing.
So when I find some of your ideas a bit extreme, imagine how it's taken in a more conservative setting!

Nevertheless, I'm a firm believer that the IDEA is what's priceless, the details can always be fine-tuned.
And you are full of innovative new mechanics that never ceases to amaze.

That said, some of these ideas are not as polished as some of prior work (a high standard to emulate).
You post these to collect feedback and there is nothing worse than nobody commenting so here's mine.
You know that I don't pull my punches so please don't take anything too personal (nothing bard really).

Hello, Deckbuilder,

As always, I appreciate your extraordinarily detailed comments. And thank you for the kind words. My focus is also on mechanics design rather than balance, so I recognize that many of my cards may be over/underpowered.

For the most part, I'll try to implement some of your suggestions the next time I update these cards. I don't have the time to make/post cards as often as I would like, unfortunately.

Some specifics:

Re: Reflection
I realize the mechanics are not very new; my main goal was to provide a counter to the sunflower. Probably not necessary, though.

Re: Sunflower
Point taken.

Re: Blood Pact Robe
Spawnpoints don't have to spend all of their mana. Your suggestions are probably good for balance; I wanted to make it stronger because it provides no armor and takes up a body slot. I also considered making it an amulet, but that would probably be too good.

Re: Cursed
I am thinking of maybe giving it upkeep instead of channeling and lowering the casting cost.

Re: Mycticore
I originally wanted to make it much cheaper, but couldn't think of a way to avoid it being killed off too quickly. I am hesitant to make things cantrips too casually; maybe there could be some sort of Fungal equivalent of the Samara tree to give it that trait, and just reduce it to level one (with corresponding reductions in power)


Quote from: DeckBuilder on March 01, 2014, 12:17:47 PM
And if I had a request, please can we have some more Murkh, the Anti-Mage? His flavour test had me in creases (he's my hero, can't wait for the Goblin Mage card) and more seriosuly, the anti-Arcane ideas are very relevant!

I'll see what I can do. If you have specific design challenges, I like having a concrete problem to work on (like how to make Wounded Prey or Rage more useful), but I'll post any Murkh related cards I think of otherwise.

Nice talking to you, as always.

288
Mages / Re: So ummm...anyone else notice the Warlord is getting a tank?
« on: March 01, 2014, 12:50:00 PM »
Quote from: Boocheck on March 01, 2014, 11:12:40 AM
Tank... nonliving, high armor, acid weakness. Load Tokens. I  hope not lightning -2 or something like that.


"You see soldiers of Westlock. I see little lightning rods." - Did anyone heard about Faradays Cage? :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Yes, this is one of my biggest pet peeves about the game, theme wise. Metal objects should have Lightning +X (or immunity) if anything, not -X; a conductor is much less vulnerable to electricity than a resistor. I also see no reason for plants to have hydro immunity.

289
Custom Cards / Re: ACG's Custom Spells and Mages
« on: March 01, 2014, 09:17:05 AM »

290
Creative / Re: Spellbooks
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:00:19 PM »
Also, the BGG poll is located here.

291
Creative / Re: Am I the only one who does not like playing with the Spellbook?
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:58:07 AM »
Quote from: Lord0fWinter on February 28, 2014, 11:47:54 AM
Done. On BGG at least. Hopefully enough people answer it to get a decent idea of what the general population thinks.

Poll found here for the convenience of all:


292
Creative / Re: Am I the only one who does not like playing with the Spellbook?
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:19:38 AM »
Quote from: lukard on February 28, 2014, 10:28:19 AM
It would be very good if we could know the ratio of players who fall into E1. How about if we open a new topic an ask players their opinion about it?

An excellent suggestion. Can we do polls on this site?

Also, if we do this we should also set up a poll on BGG, so that we can find out what the average player thinks (since I assume that many players do not visit this site). We need to word the question in such a way that it does not bias the responses. What about:

"Which distribution model would you prefer for mage wars expansions?

1. The current model, with spellbook binders packaged with each major expansion set.

2. Sell spellbook binders separately from expansions and reduce the price and/or increase the number of cards in each expansion.

3. No preference."


293
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:41:02 AM »
Quote from: Zuberi on February 28, 2014, 02:51:27 AM
Obviously, we need to make this ability useful against people who don't run any living creatures. I don't think we need to do an errata to the ability itself though. Perhaps create a Beastmaster only conjuration that only provides a benefit if they don't have any mage specific markers (Wounded Prey and Pet) currently in play. In a normal match up, they would then have options, and in a match up where wounded prey was useless she would have an alternative (note this would help against Solo Mages as well). It might be possible to make such a card useful to mages other than beastmasters. I don't want a card with too narrow a market, but this is an issue unique to the Johktari. Perhaps our creative expert, ACG, can come up with something more elegant. Maybe he already has and I'm just not thinking of it.

I literally can't resist a challenge. Here's a possible way to make Wounded Prey more useful by adding a card (the specific parameters may need to be tweaked a bit). I'm still trying to think of a more elegant solution.



The idea is you attach it to a mage and then use wounded prey on it. Not particularly elegant, but effective. Note it has the "creature" subtype, so can be affected by things that affect creatures. Also effective against zombies, though at a high price (in spell points and mana). Can be used to make undead creatures vulnerable to poison, etc. since it is alive. Limited among the nonliving to undead creatures, since there are several nonliving creatures for which it would make absolutely no sense (how can a fungus infect a golem?)

294
Creative / Re: Am I the only one who does not like playing with the Spellbook?
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:42:08 AM »
Quote from: sIKE on February 27, 2014, 11:21:23 AM
Not everyone comes from a MTG background or any other CCG/LCG variant. I happen to love my spellbooks, and they are an integral part of the game for me. I have never gotten (random draws determine fate) into the above games for the exact reason you guys love them (decks). So I do not necessarily agree with the removal of the spellbooks from the expansions. 

My preference to use decks above spellbooks does not stem from a CCG background; I actually dislike CCGs a lot. I prefer to use them because they are more convenient.

But the issue I have with including spellbooks in the expansions is not that I don't think people should have the option of using spellbooks, but rather that including them in the expansions is unnecessary (the core set already contains spellbooks) and wasteful. Simply put, we do not need new spellbooks in every single expansion; it makes more sense to sell them as accessories for those who want them. Including them in the expansions derives the price up and/or the potential number of cards down.

I understand that you might want to have multiple mages built at the same time, but that need can still be met with accessory spellbooks.

295
General Discussion / Leaving Room for Future Design
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:37:28 AM »
I'm not sure where this best fits, so I'll put it here.

There are several traits in the various codices that seem to me to have been inefficiently designed. By this I mean that they are far more specific than they need to be, and limit options for reuse in other contexts. I have decided to compile a list of these traits, and ways that they could be reworded to allow for the maximum possible scope of use; no need to come up with a new trait when an existing one will do.

This is NOT a revision of existing traits to incorporate rulings; any altered trait must still function in the same way as the original trait, but must also allow for applications beyond the scope of the original trait.

Revised Codex

Extendable
When you cast this conjuration, you may pay additional mana equal to its cost plus its level as part of the cost of casting the spell. If you do, when this spell resolves, you may take an additional conjuration of the same name out of your spellbook and place it on any zone adjacent to the first zone (or zone border adjacent to the first zone border if it is a wall). The second conjuration must be placed within LOS.

There is no reason to restrict this trait to walls; honestly, there is no reason to restrict it to conjurations, aside from theme.

Magebind +X
It is more difficult to cast this spell on a mage. If this spell targets a mage, its cost is increased by X. Only the reveal cost of an enchantment is affected by this trait, not the casting cost. The adjusted cost is used for all purposes in spells, abilities, or effects which refer to the cost (or reveal cost) of this spell.

Future non-enchantment spells that cost more when targeting mages seem entirely reasonable. In fact, there are perhaps even some current non-enchantment spells that would benefit from this treatment...

Novice
Basic apprentice spells. This spell costs spell points equal to its level for all mages, even when they are not trained in the appropriate schools.

An obvious change.

Indestructible
This object cannot be destroyed as a result of having more damage than life.

There is absolutely no reason to prevent an indestructible object from taking damage (if it has no life, the damage is meaningless anyway), and if a card comes along for which there is, it would be better treated as an exception than as the rule.


Please feel free to suggest other addenda to these or other traits (keeping in mind that the intent is not to clarify the rules, but rather to broaden existing traits so they can be reused in other contexts).

296
Creative / Re: Am I the only one who does not like playing with the Spellbook?
« on: February 27, 2014, 10:47:28 AM »
After trying the spellbooks a few times, I ditched them and started playing with decks in boxes instead. I have never been tempted to try the spellbooks out again; they just take way too much time.

Quote from: lukard on February 27, 2014, 09:42:53 AM
I really understand the reason for including the spellbinders in the expansions (thematic and business reasons). But it bugs me when I have these unnecessary spellbinders. It just gives the impression that it is a waist.

Does anybody agree/disagree?

I absolutely, 100% agree. Expansions should never have additional spellbooks; it is a waste of space and just adds the the price of the expansion. Particularly as more expansions come out, the price to new players will become much higher than it would if AW would just sell the new spellbooks separately for anybody who wants them. This would benefit everybody:

- People who aren't interested in the spellbooks wouldn't want to buy them, and might be willing to purchase multiples of the expansions.
- AW's production costs would be lower
- People who want new spellbooks could still get them.

If spellbooks are removed from expansions, this leaves more space for cards, or for reduction of cost.

297
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 27, 2014, 03:20:23 AM »
Quote from: DeckBuilder on February 26, 2014, 07:09:54 PM
Novice Dispel is called Dispel, exactly the same (Arcane 1) except range 1 and Novice
Novice Teleport is called Teleport, exactly the same (Arcane 2) except range 1, Friendly Creature and Novice
Novice Dissolve is called Dissolve, exactly the same (Water 1) except range 0 and Novice
And so on

You are only allowed to have 6 copies of a level 1 spell of the same name (like Dispel)
You are only allowed to have 4 copies of a level 2 spell of the same name (like Teleport)

Okay, now that I understand this proposal a little better, I have revised my opinion - I think weaker, same level novice versions of existing cards as proposed are both a good idea and highly thematic.

Good idea: They fix the problem with level 1 utility spells.
Highly thematic: Mages have more powerful versions of their own schools' spells, which makes sense.

The fact that the novice spells count as the advanced counterparts is what convinces me; I think that making two different spells to do the same thing is lazy design, but it doesn't seem so bad if they are just different versions of the same spell.

Novice Teleport doesn't work, because Teleport is a Level 2 spell and the novice trait means you always pay 1 spellpoint (another example of poor rule construction to add to my list; there are many traits that could be worded much more efficiently to allow for greater scope...)

Nerfing range alone might not be enough (the parameters could be tweaked, of course).

298
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 02:46:20 PM »
I prefer new cards as a solution rather than erratas. Also, I feel that each card should have a distinct method of accomplishing a goal; having two cards that do essentially the same thing is not interesting. For instance, Corrosive Orchid, Dissolve, and Explode are all different ways of eliminating equipment, and each has its advantages and disadvantages; none is strictly better than another (I guess I am disagreeing with Alexander West in that I do not believe there should be more "bread and butter" versions of dispel, dissolve, etc.)

Regarding specific solutions to problems, here are some of my previous proposals:

Re: The Teleport Problem (1a):


Re: Anti-Enchantment Options for the Warlord


Re: Options vs. Poison Immune (2a)


Re: Johktari Weapon (4a)


I have some other ideas, but sadly no time to post them right now...

In general, I think things can be solved with new (by which I mean also novel) cards, without the risk of power creep.

Regarding immunity, I think negating a creature's immunity is a very bad idea (as I have stated elsewhere), not for balance reasons, but for theme. Different creatures are immune to things for very different reasons, and it is impossible to make a card that makes sense thematically for all the reasons. For instance, incorporeal creatures are poison immune for the simple reason that they have no corporeal body through which the poison may flow, whereas a golem is poison immune because it's basically a magic robot. A spider is psychic immune (presumably) because its brain is too foreign for a mammalian to comprehend, whereas zombies are psychic immune because they are mindless, and a golem is psychic immune because it is controlled directly by the mind of its master (at least, this is how I thematically interpret these creatures). Any spell that removes immunity will generate complaints along the same lines as "why can't I water my plants". While strategy is important in Mage Wars, we can't lose sight of one of the game's greater assets - its theme.

Edit: Also, in making cards to address problems it is always important to remember the rule of twos. A card that only operates as a counter to a specific card is boring and doesn't enhance the game much, aside from correcting an imbalance. All counter cards should be useful even in the absence of the card they were designed to counter.

299
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 25, 2014, 03:31:16 PM »
Quote from: IndyPendant on February 25, 2014, 03:22:32 PM
Teleport

I would be interested in hearing why you believe Teleport is almost useless.

Quote from: IndyPendant on February 25, 2014, 03:22:32 PM
Samara Tree

The value of Samara Tree (and, more specifically, Seedling Pod) is in the delayed actions that it allows. Essentially, Seedling Pods allow you to put off making a decision about what to cast until you have seen your opponent's move, without having to waste one of your own actions. They are also useful on the rare occasion that you have nothing to do with your action. If you have a Samara Tree, then for a small fee (2 Mana per turn or 1 if harmonized) you can bank an action every turn indefinitely, until the tree is destroyed. I have found Samara Tree/Seedling Pod to be very useful. The point is to give yourself flexibility in the future, when you may need it. I would include Seedling Pods even in a deck without a Samara Tree, but the Tree is a nice option for a low cost.

300
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 25, 2014, 03:03:57 PM »
Quote from: DeckBuilder on February 25, 2014, 02:43:30 PM
Is this just me? Is anyone else as flabbergasted, exasperated and angry by this as me?

I think what bothers me about it is that it is not terribly intuitive from the card.

I am all in favor of cool rule interactions between cards, but I did not even think of the potential for autokilling a creature until it was pointed out here. Most of the people with whom I play Mage Wars are fairly new to the game, and do not frequent these forums. They would probably be disgusted if I tried to use DI to cancel an early game play like this, because the text of the card does not make it clear that it can be used to cancel any spell. I actually searched the rulebook again to find the relevant passage (maybe somebody can point me to it?), and was unable to do so. The parameters of what significant things a card can do ought to be clear on the card; now that I know about this, the only thing I will ever use DI for (assuming I ever play a holy mage; I am not a big fan of that school) is to cancel an opponent's spell; using it for its teleport seems like a waste. But the card is written as though its primary purpose is as an escape.

I guess I would like for card rules to be written so that their most useful purpose is clear, so that my new players can pick up on the strategy more. Many of them complain that the game feels like I am "making up rules" as we go along.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 28