Do walls block LoS of a flying creature?

The rules say that flying creatures "ignore walls," which obviously means they can move past them and cannot take damage from them. Does this mean they can see past them as well?

The rule book defines the word "ignored," but only in the context of ignored creatures, and walls are not creatures.

Two new books will be most welcome.

One concern I have is that the arena has already been kind of nebulous. How big are these "temples" my priestess summons? And now were adding "towers" and such to the mix?

But I can deal with it.

Quote from: "Badmojojojo" post=7067

For Wizard, what spells should I adjust for more control?  I think I need walls and bigger damage options?  Is there a way to get an 8-9 dice attack?

Plenty. With walls, I can't think of any without convoluted methods (like a Jet Stream plus successful push through a wall) - I actually highly rate the Wall of Thorns for damage. Against an unarmed Mage is devastating. In fact, I got a kill when on the ropes using this tactic: quick cast a Jet Stream for 2 dice damage, push was successful and moved him through the Wall of Thorns for a further 10 dice of damage (five lots of 2 dice). And then as my action I repeated it and killed him And remember, pushing them into the arena walls do 3 dice damage when pushed into them. Oh, and teleport trap/hellfire trap trigger when you push an opponent into them too

As for bolstering damage options, there are attack spells (fire and lightning being the heaviest damage options currently). Add Hawkeye and applicable 'plus damage' ring for two extra dice.  As for creatures, many of the Arcane school creatures are worth a go, and pretty dangerous to boot.

For Beastmaster, I am fond of getting my gate out and increasing it's channling. This brings it up to 3, which makes foxes cost only 2 mana. Make a fox your pet, give it bear strength, get it in the same square as Beastmaster and Redclaw, and watch your opponent develop an irrational fear of small canines.

Great discussion guys.

We went through a process of general streamlining - removing everything that was not essential or had little impact on game play, in order to make the rules more concise, and the game easier to grasp.  

Removing the ability to roll fewer dice was one of those things. As a designer note - Along with this we removed other things like archer suppression (attacking a creature with a melee attack prevents that creature from making a ranged attack that same round), LoF (Line of Fire - a wall could block LoS but not necessarily LoF, or visa versa, which made for some interesting tactics), and others. I'd like to state for the record that I fought kicking and screaming to keep these things in the game!    (I am expecting hate emails from the playtesters later tonight!)

I must concede that it is certainly quite realistic and feasible to roll fewer attack dice, but currently it is not in the rules.  For whatever it is worth, Sleep was priced with this in mind (that only a small creature or attack can effectively be used to wake creatures up).  Sleep would be a tad cheaper mana-wise if you could voluntarily roll fewer dice.

I love the fact that devs respond on this forum.

I find it hard to argue against streamlining the game, or doing anything to make the game more newb-friendly. LoF and Archer suppression sound really cool, but I can see how it could increase the learning curb pretty significantly, and frustrate a new player when their opponent uses it to ignore their wall.

One of the things that is apparent in the design process of this game is the desire to make everything as intuitive as possible. Choosing to roll fewer dice seems pretty intuitive to me, but then again I haven't playtested the game for hours on end, and have only seen hardcore gamers play the game for the first time. Ultimately, I imagine it is difficult to determine exactly what mechanics players will grasp quickly and which they wont, so I suppose there is no wrong answer to the question of what mechanics to remove to make a game accessible. It sounds like I would fall on Arcanus' side, but Dreallin's answer reveals a flaw in our arguments, because a larger portion of text would have to be inserted in the rulebook explain how lowering attack dice works when effects modify the amount of attack dice normally rolled. Even if the barest of explanation was put in, which implicitly deals with Drealin's point, I imagine there would still be some confusion.

to be fair LCG is becoming a common term used for a fixed distribution card game. it is not like we have another term to use atm unless someone standardizes one.

Precisely. I love this game, but one of the draws was that I could play with two people out of the box and have all the cards I need. Unfortunately this is not the case, at least to a certain extent, because some cards do not have duplicates, or not enough duplicates.

Still, I am eternally grateful to Arcane Wonders.

Quote from: "jcox2820" post=6814

"I'm not playing it, there's no Necromancer." - My Roomate.

But seriously, I would love to see gender variants of the mage cards. Also, I've thought it would be cool to have official, option miniatures to use on the battlefield in the place of the mage card.

I'm not sure why they didn't make the mages double sided - with a male on one side and a female on the other.  It would have fixed a lot of issues for those that like one gender over another.

To be fair, this game is quite cheap when you consider how many high-quality components there are. That probably would have increased their printing costs a bit.

How exactly does removing an effect by paying the mana cost work? Does it require an action or quickcast, or do you ust pay the mana when you feel like and be done with it?

What predator said. However, I'm not quite sure how your question could have come into play, since I would think you would have to have activated your creature in order for it to guard as a quick action.