1
General Discussion / Re: Spell Zone Pack Announced
« on: March 22, 2013, 12:09:52 PM »
It continually amazes me that the last place to get news about Mage Wars is the actual Mage Wars website. Thanks for the info, Koz!
November 23, 2024, 07:29:06 AM
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.
2
General Discussion / Re: Who has received their expansion? Thoughts?
« on: March 11, 2013, 04:33:38 PM »Quote from: "Sausageman" post=8956
It's interesting, because the more I play this game, the more I question the value of these mana generators in every spell book (clearly they have their places in some).
I agree Sausageman. For weeks, the default opening move for everyone up here was mana crystals/mana flowers. The damn arena looked like a mana crystal farm. Nowadays, there might be one or two on the board max.
Also, can we all agree that it's "tome" and not "tomb?" It's a rather significant difference.
3
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Earth Wizard
« on: March 06, 2013, 01:04:41 PM »
Even if you could use Sosruko, it would be a 4 point card for the Wizard not a 1 pointer as you have it in that list. 
4
General Discussion / Re: Replacement Cards?
« on: March 06, 2013, 12:41:22 PM »
There was a night back in the mid 90s my gaming group was doing our thing, playing Magic until the wee hours of dawn when it occurred to us that we all had full-sized three ring binders stuffed full of printed errata that we had to have to play the game. It was not a fun realization and likely contributed to the downfall of that game's primacy with our circle.
While I do not think this new shiny FAQ for Mage Wars is the same thing exactly, it does give me a bad vibe that one expansion in there is now a host of actual rule changes, card changes, and errata piling up to play the game.
Some of that is simply unavoidable as the designers innovate and add new systems to the game, and I not only understand that but welcome it. However... I echo Sausageman's request for some way to get this info on the cards themselves to keep the game easy to play and teach. Nothing kills a new player's interest more than trying to learn a game and constantly having their understanding of the game upset with seemingly random rules lawyering read from some dubious print out or web forum.
While I do not think this new shiny FAQ for Mage Wars is the same thing exactly, it does give me a bad vibe that one expansion in there is now a host of actual rule changes, card changes, and errata piling up to play the game.
Some of that is simply unavoidable as the designers innovate and add new systems to the game, and I not only understand that but welcome it. However... I echo Sausageman's request for some way to get this info on the cards themselves to keep the game easy to play and teach. Nothing kills a new player's interest more than trying to learn a game and constantly having their understanding of the game upset with seemingly random rules lawyering read from some dubious print out or web forum.
5
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Is Sectarus just bad? Warlock Curse Build
« on: March 05, 2013, 05:18:22 PM »
Actually sIKE, the underrated Mage Staff has Reach too. I can't think of any others besides those too, however.
@gos_jim, I haven't played with Sectarus yet, but I simply dont see it replacing the Lash for my Warlock book. There is too much synergy in the fire damage and the delicious burn stacks to pass up. And as sIKE mentioned, the reach trait is a key advantage.
I'm not sure Sectarus is bad, though. I suspect the Lash is just that good.
@gos_jim, I haven't played with Sectarus yet, but I simply dont see it replacing the Lash for my Warlock book. There is too much synergy in the fire damage and the delicious burn stacks to pass up. And as sIKE mentioned, the reach trait is a key advantage.
I'm not sure Sectarus is bad, though. I suspect the Lash is just that good.
6
Rules Discussion / Re: Hindering, flying, and timing
« on: March 05, 2013, 02:30:19 PM »
Arcanus,
I've gone from feeling I had the correct answer here to not understanding the timing. The Necropian Vampiress cannot gain flying until she is activated. Hinder states that if a creature starts its action phase in a zone where it can be hindered, it becomes hindered. This is not the same case as Eagle Wings, as you could reveal that before the creature becomes active. Thus, there is no way the Vampiress could avoid hinder, as she will always start her action on the ground, and thus hindered.
I had assumed Teleport was an exception to this rule, but now it seems that extends beyond Teleport?
I've gone from feeling I had the correct answer here to not understanding the timing. The Necropian Vampiress cannot gain flying until she is activated. Hinder states that if a creature starts its action phase in a zone where it can be hindered, it becomes hindered. This is not the same case as Eagle Wings, as you could reveal that before the creature becomes active. Thus, there is no way the Vampiress could avoid hinder, as she will always start her action on the ground, and thus hindered.
I had assumed Teleport was an exception to this rule, but now it seems that extends beyond Teleport?
7
Rules Discussion / Re: Mangler Caltrops
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:13:43 PM »
If this game had come out in the early 90s in addition to Magic, Vampire, Netrunner, Heresy, etc... I would NOT have survived my undergrad years. Well, I might have literally survived, but I would have been booted to the curb for complete failure to actually attend class and learn stuff.
8
General Discussion / Re: Mage specific cards in future expansions?
« on: March 04, 2013, 12:22:21 PM »
It took me a a second read through of Koz's initial post, coupled with some shock that Nihil was back before my brain caught up with the thread necromancy going on here. Good old Monday morning...
I am in the same camp as Tacullu, where I play all six mages and want each to be significantly different from the others. This expansion is fantastic! However, I absolutely see the point of view of the one or two mage "specialists" being disappointed in this expansion. It isn't a view shared by me or my gaming circle and to be honest, we consider the "watering down" of any given mage with cherry picking the "best" spells to be a game flaw to a certain extent.
That being said, I believe you have two ways an expansion can grow, vertically or horizontally. By which I mean: vertically adding depth to the current spell lists (ie, adding more spells for existing mages to use) or by horizontally adding breadth to the available mages themselves. Forcemaster v Warlord skewed heavily towards the horizontal option.
I love that there are now 6 distinctly different mages and I look forward to more mages in the future, complete with mage specific cards. I am also very interested in a vertical expansion where the current base of mages are expanded.
The only things I'm not looking forward to are the strange multiplayer Archmage type expansions which change the entire concept of the game. But that, as they say, is a horse of another color for a different thread.
I am in the same camp as Tacullu, where I play all six mages and want each to be significantly different from the others. This expansion is fantastic! However, I absolutely see the point of view of the one or two mage "specialists" being disappointed in this expansion. It isn't a view shared by me or my gaming circle and to be honest, we consider the "watering down" of any given mage with cherry picking the "best" spells to be a game flaw to a certain extent.
That being said, I believe you have two ways an expansion can grow, vertically or horizontally. By which I mean: vertically adding depth to the current spell lists (ie, adding more spells for existing mages to use) or by horizontally adding breadth to the available mages themselves. Forcemaster v Warlord skewed heavily towards the horizontal option.
I love that there are now 6 distinctly different mages and I look forward to more mages in the future, complete with mage specific cards. I am also very interested in a vertical expansion where the current base of mages are expanded.
The only things I'm not looking forward to are the strange multiplayer Archmage type expansions which change the entire concept of the game. But that, as they say, is a horse of another color for a different thread.
9
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Fire Wizard
« on: March 01, 2013, 07:59:13 PM »
Let's take a look at your planned opening against a few openings I use with various mages:
If you follow through your plan, you are into turn 3 with your quick cast down. You are channeling 14 mana, and holding 14 in your pool. Your Battle Forge has 2 mana on it. You have one card prepared in hand. You have setup a strong economy, betting on living into late game where it will start paying dividends.
Opening Warlock:
T1 - channel to 19, move, move
T2 - channel to 28, cast Lord of Fire, cast Cheetah Speed on LoF
T3 - channel to 11, cast Lash of Hellfire, reveal Speed
So you have spent 30 mana setting up an economy which will show its first positive return late in the game where the warlock now has a fast Big Bad and an armed Warlock ready to start the beatdown. If I'm playing the warlock, I like what I'm seeing.
Opening Priestess:
T1 - channel to 20, cast royal archer
T2 - channel to 18, cast royal archer
T3 - channel to 16, cast Brogan
Again, the priestess is now projecting some serious board control with the archers and a Brogan is out ready for some buffs, heals, and general asswhoopery versus a heavy economy setup. I like my odds with this.
I am a very strong believer that you must get some creatures out early and adapt from there. I would say that turn 2 will show you just how agressive your opponent is, and you can start adjusting from there. But to spend your first two full turns, let alone part of the third, building an economy... you are so far behind, your demise is nigh.
As always, just some opinions from me.
If you follow through your plan, you are into turn 3 with your quick cast down. You are channeling 14 mana, and holding 14 in your pool. Your Battle Forge has 2 mana on it. You have one card prepared in hand. You have setup a strong economy, betting on living into late game where it will start paying dividends.
Opening Warlock:
T1 - channel to 19, move, move
T2 - channel to 28, cast Lord of Fire, cast Cheetah Speed on LoF
T3 - channel to 11, cast Lash of Hellfire, reveal Speed
So you have spent 30 mana setting up an economy which will show its first positive return late in the game where the warlock now has a fast Big Bad and an armed Warlock ready to start the beatdown. If I'm playing the warlock, I like what I'm seeing.
Opening Priestess:
T1 - channel to 20, cast royal archer
T2 - channel to 18, cast royal archer
T3 - channel to 16, cast Brogan
Again, the priestess is now projecting some serious board control with the archers and a Brogan is out ready for some buffs, heals, and general asswhoopery versus a heavy economy setup. I like my odds with this.
I am a very strong believer that you must get some creatures out early and adapt from there. I would say that turn 2 will show you just how agressive your opponent is, and you can start adjusting from there. But to spend your first two full turns, let alone part of the third, building an economy... you are so far behind, your demise is nigh.
As always, just some opinions from me.
10
General Questions / Re: Invisible Creature and Sleep
« on: March 01, 2013, 07:04:22 PM »
You are correct, a zone attack would be your only recourse to waking a sleeping invisible creature. Not even an Idol of Pestilence or Malacoda would help.
11
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Lord of Terror (Bashcon Beatdown Build)
« on: March 01, 2013, 05:54:29 PM »
hehe, I'd think you've been spying on my games Koz! That's the key to my favorite book, basilisks and gorgons to control/debuff the hell out of everything while I keep them alive. Eagle Wings can really extend longevity too (and gets my lovely archers and basilisks over enemy walls).
This is an interesting discussion as I almost always play the wizard this way, and everyone else plays the warlock in a beatdown style simular to flea's. Of course, now it's ForcemasterMania2013 up here... everyone LOVES her. I can't say I blame them, either.
This is an interesting discussion as I almost always play the wizard this way, and everyone else plays the warlock in a beatdown style simular to flea's. Of course, now it's ForcemasterMania2013 up here... everyone LOVES her. I can't say I blame them, either.
12
Rules Discussion / Re: Hindering, flying, and timing
« on: March 01, 2013, 03:45:35 PM »
Hi Skytale,
First, let's get Hinder defined to work from:
Hinder:
If a creature begins its Action Phase in a zone with any enemy creatures, it is hindered and may only move 1 zone during its Action Phase (even if it has the Fast trait). If it moves into a zone occupied by an enemy creature, it is hindered, and must stop and cannot take any more move actions this Action Phase. Incapacitated, Restrained, or Pest creatures cannot hinder movement. Flying creatures cannot hinder the movement of non-Flying creatures, and visa-versa. Elusive creatures cannot be hindered by other creatures. (page 41)
So the answers from that would be:
1) In your specific example, your creature is hindered regardless of what what effects you add AFTER the fact. If you revealed the Elusive or Flying trait enabler effects before it's action phase began, you could avoid Hinder that way.
2) This is one of those sticky timing rules, but the way I play it would be your creature started it's action phase non-flying and in a square with a non-pest creature. Thus it is hindered and flying. Guard is removed at the beginning of the action phase.
For reference:
Guard:
Guard markers are always removed at the beginning of a creature’s Action Phase. (page 29)
First, let's get Hinder defined to work from:
Hinder:
If a creature begins its Action Phase in a zone with any enemy creatures, it is hindered and may only move 1 zone during its Action Phase (even if it has the Fast trait). If it moves into a zone occupied by an enemy creature, it is hindered, and must stop and cannot take any more move actions this Action Phase. Incapacitated, Restrained, or Pest creatures cannot hinder movement. Flying creatures cannot hinder the movement of non-Flying creatures, and visa-versa. Elusive creatures cannot be hindered by other creatures. (page 41)
So the answers from that would be:
1) In your specific example, your creature is hindered regardless of what what effects you add AFTER the fact. If you revealed the Elusive or Flying trait enabler effects before it's action phase began, you could avoid Hinder that way.
2) This is one of those sticky timing rules, but the way I play it would be your creature started it's action phase non-flying and in a square with a non-pest creature. Thus it is hindered and flying. Guard is removed at the beginning of the action phase.
For reference:
Guard:
Guard markers are always removed at the beginning of a creature’s Action Phase. (page 29)
13
Rules Discussion / Re: Magebane & Dispel
« on: March 01, 2013, 11:47:20 AM »
Well, the build-up by Shad0w is now making me think I'm missing something, but it just seems to make sense that:
1) Magebane is in play, and any time that target mage casts and resolves a spell, they take a point of DD.
2) Dispel is cast, which immediately fulfills the pre-existing condition of #1.
3) It can't dispel without damage, because it has to resolve before doing so.
I think it comes down to Magebane being a pre-existing effect.
1) Magebane is in play, and any time that target mage casts and resolves a spell, they take a point of DD.
2) Dispel is cast, which immediately fulfills the pre-existing condition of #1.
3) It can't dispel without damage, because it has to resolve before doing so.
I think it comes down to Magebane being a pre-existing effect.
14
General Discussion / Re: tips for making proxies?
« on: March 01, 2013, 11:42:15 AM »
When we use proxies, we actually use proxy cards and not counterfeit/copy cards. As an example, when I just had the one core box to play and I wanted more Hand of Bims I took 3 firebrand imps and made sure my opponent knew that when my priestess deck played an imp, it was really a Hand. I can see where your method would look better, but it seems a lot of work and murky in terms of copyright stuff.
15
Rules Discussion / Re: Enchantments and Targeting
« on: February 28, 2013, 07:27:04 PM »
That is a great aspect of the Mage Wars game, the bluffing of the various enchantments. Is it a Decoy? Is it a Reverse? Is that a trap? Did you just put a friggin' Ghoul Rot on your own creature to fake me into dispelling it?!?
I can't say I find the idea of just casting any particular enchant anywhere with no targetting rules even a little bit appealing, however.
I can't say I find the idea of just casting any particular enchant anywhere with no targetting rules even a little bit appealing, however.
