This was the response on FB to that question: "Defend was novice for two reasons. First, we felt that this was a simple order. Any intellegent living creature could be ordered to guard something, so this was a a simple spell to encourage them to do so. Second, when we wanted to have spell to encourage more creature combat. That was something we wanted everyone to have access to.

When looking at the Warlord and command spells, it's good to keep in mind that he has three cards for him alone that improve the use of commands, Gurmash, Helm of Command, and Ring of Command. Of these Gurmash and the Helm are superb with this command."

seems like pretty weak reasoning to me.

This is a pretty cool way of looking at things. I like how you've laid out your ideas. I think though that there is probably a lot more variability of the value of an ability based on context. And I don't think that Armor and Health are equivalent in value.

My point being which would you say is a better more survivable creature?

A creature with 12 health, or a creature with 10 health and 2 armor? I think it's pretty clear that the 10 health and 2 armor is more survivable to most damage scenarios (piercing +2 being the obvious exception).

Also, I should think that certain traits have greater value in combination than separately. A creature with Intercept is of course much better if it has high armor, a defense, or both. Intercept on a creature with 5 health could still be useful but not nearly so much. Perhaps certain traits could have value thresholds relating to other traits.

I do think that the observation of higher level creatures being more Mana efficient is an interesting one, they do cost more to put in your spell book, so there is a certain trade off there, but they are also more action efficient in the sense that you can get more on the board with a single full action... perhaps the trade off comes in the number of actions you can take and the number of places you can be in at one time with smaller creatures.

As a final note: I would think certain abilities might have a multiply effect on the thing that they modify instead of an inherent value. The one that comes to mind as the most clear cut example is Resilient. This trait functions effectively as infinite armor (except for the case of corrode), but what is that worth? Clearly it's not worth infinite points. What it does do is almost effectively double the number of attack dice that it takes to kill a creature. Although they can theoretically get lucky and roll a lot of criticals taking a creature with 7hp and resilient down much faster than one with 14 hps (A single 4 die attack could potentially one shot kill vs. minimum of 7 dice for 14 hp).

So that's your handle on the Forum. I was really out of it during our match, though I concede you likely would have thrashed me anyway. I'd be happy to help you test your deck next time with a Warlock Lord of Fire build, Or a Fire Wizard.

Some people play with people who don't own their own copies of the game. Have two copies of these cards allows for these people to play the same mages against such an opponent. Other than that I can't really see the reason for the inclusion, but anyway there was a rather big survey with quite a bit of detail to determine what people wanted. AW is giving people what they said they wanted. Personally I think the card distribution as it stands now is much better (for the most part) then it was before the change.

Rules Book:
There is no limit to the number of different enchantments
that can be on an object, but each object or zone cannot
have more than one enchantment with the same name
attached to it at one time. This includes both hidden and
revealed enchantments. For example, you cannot attach two
Bear Strength spells to the same creature. It is possible that
both players may attach an identical enchantment to the
same target. If an identical enchantment is revealed on the
same target, it is immediately destroyed

This creates some interesting interactions if players unknowingly play the same enchantment facedown on a creature. I remember there being a discussion a while back about the potential for counter spelling given the interaction.

I think they are. Bleed was updated to not effect plant creatures. Perhaps we will get a patch on flying rooted interaction as we'll.

So, rush builds seem to be king atm, and the DvN expansion does not look to be changing this.

I really don't think you can assert this. Both the Druid and the Necromancer seem built with a slower strategy in mind. Especially the Druid. It seems to me that there will be a shift with this expansion away from rush to some extent.

What a horrible month of waiting for me. Gotta wait for the Druid Vs Necromancer expansion, BattleCON: Devastation of Indines, Nexus 5, PS4, the new Zelda 3DS game... 

#firstworldproblems