I've been trying a couple of the white spires books amongst others to try an explore some winning concepts (rather than just battle of attrition). 

I got a version of Westlock angels working really nicely, I guess the main concept was pretty obvious.  The group I was playing with were well impressed with the mana economy and the clever use of enchantment transfusion (I maxed it out).

The one I've been really struggling with, however, is the straywood beastmaster - http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14540.0

This really bums me out, as its got the best play description of all of them. 

The trouble is I really struggle with the tempo and placement of the main support conjurations.  My efforts to date have maintained the main strategy of rushing to centre, casting Lair and popping out Falcons as fast as possible.  So far, however, a wizard with akiro's hammer or wizards tower has torn apart my falcons and/or lair before I've gotten much pressure on them. 

Rajan's Fury and Etherian lifetree both increase pressure and sustainability of my attack, but it feels hard to time them right - too soon and I'm not getting the falcons onto the enemy mage, too late and everythings dead :/  Again, renewing spring should be the source of healing, but its another mage action to cast it and with a falcon dying almost every round, not getting more out takes the pressure off and leaves me more vulnerable.

Any advice?

How many other spells can target a non-mage object?  Just wondering how obvious it is when there's an arcane ward on equipment as there isn't anything else it can be?

Have wondered a few times how a warrior could be pulled off in the MW format.  Not a warrior mage, but a more straight up conan style fighter who could be competitive in the arena, and still fun to play.

They'd need some kind of spell resistance to be competitive - not total immunity, but something like magebind on all spells targeting them might help.

They'd need spells, but they - a bit like the warlord could be framed more as devices and tools - perhaps he has a magic bag and its full of random stuff just in case.

Thinking randomly:
He starts with high health - say 40+, low channeling (but his spells and devices would need to be low mana). 
Special abilities could be regen +1 and automatic charge. 

Has a ready token that can be used to pull something out of his bag once a turn for free. 
Guess I thought he could be action enhanced to make up for the low action advantage he'd get from casting few creatures/conjurations.   

Meta style would need to be fast solo agro - like the force master often plays but more stripped back.  Perhaps he can manipulate local terrain, so walls and obstacles that you hadn't noticed get in your way. 

Anyway, just curious - there are a heap of Fight and fantasy type archtypes out there that in the books and memes are all battling.  I wouldn't want to see MW lose its richness, but would be interested in seeing if the format could handle assassin/monk/warrior/ vs mage battles.

Just tried teaching my first game.  Now have a lot more appreciation for the person who taught me!

Having read through a lot of the early board game geek (BGG) posts, I just want to add my appreciation for both the apprentice spell books and the ‘how to teach mage wars’ resource.  While I love the spell building aspect to MW, if that’s all it had, I don’t imagine I could get many friends to invest the time the game needed to get hooked.  Even the starter spell lists have a fair bit of complexity.  The apprentice books and starting rules are perfect for getting us going, still feeling we’re having a good game yet not burning out the games welcome.  We’re all commited to learning games, but 3-4 hours when you know you’re going to lose is a big ask!

Anyway, we had a couple of questions.  I noted them down as we went and have managed to look some up and answer them.  A couple I didn’t think I’d found a solid answer to.

I do have one request.  The codex seems to skip a lot of functional game terms, like enchantment, mage, creature etc.  These terms are key to interpreting what a spell means.  It seems surprising that they aren’t defined in the codex.  I know many are in the rule book, but the codex is the quick reference guide. If stuff isn’t in there… we’re seldom going to find it mid game…It would be great if a lot of these commonly used terms were referenced in there, we were often discussing what an 'object' was, which are 'creatures' which arent.  Im sure we'll get to know these things over time, but today we didn't.  The codex could have helped us.

So our questions:

Is ‘equipment’ an ‘enchantment’?

Our call was no.  It seems implied, but not stated, that spell types are exclusive.  This was argued a little, as living creature does include mages, which are other times are excluded by stating ‘non-mage living creature’, but we thought it seemed a reasonable starting point.

Is the mage a creature? 

We decided Yes, and I then clarified it with this post:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=6442.msg6444#msg6444

However, references page 3 of the rule book which seems to have changed.  Anyone got a more recent/up to date reference?


Does stun negate both the quick cast (QC) phase and the Action phase?
Guessing not, as stun is removed after action, so would negate first QC, but stun is removed after mages action phase.  So a final QC spell would be possible.

Nope, turns out we played this one wrong.  Under Incapacitated in the codex, a mage can still cast quick but not full action spells.  This is where the best codex in the world doesnt help those who don't read it

I take it this then doesn’t affect the QC option then.


How bloodthirsty is Goran?

The card states that he is bloodthirsty +1, but goes on to say is bloodthirsty +1 when in same zone as his controller.  Does this mean he is +2 when in the zone with his controller?  (or just +1 with controller and is ‘normal’ the rest of the time?)  We played +2 with his mage.

Aegis X – We were playing that this applied to every attack, even doublestrike etc.  I found this link confirming this, but wondered if anyone could point me to a section in the rule book or FAQ?  I guess its covered by the wording of the FAQ that says ‘All attacks…’

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=3024.msg3032#msg3032

PS.  When I went to post in the rules discussion/general question section, its got the 'read before you post' sticky.  http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=48.0

This takes me to the main AW site and not to anywhere ummm more helpful for someone about to post...

Just curious if anyone can shed any light on the decision to make the quick action only allowable after movement (if moving at all) during an action phase?

Its one of the only parts of the battle sequence that feels artificial,;that a mage, or creature can move and act (quick), but not act (quick) and then move seems rather arbitrary.

I'm guessing it was set that way to maintain a certain balance.  It would seem at least that ranged weapons are made more viable (or at least quick attack melee are less viable) if you can't hit and run with a melee attack.

I guess it also would slow down the play a little also; this way you have to run in an attack etc, but can't run attack and run away.  But I guess some players would seem to warrant a hit and run approach..

Just curious really. 
 
Sorry if this has been answered/discussed elsewhere - I did a bit of a search and read through all the clarifications on quick action, but didn't find a rationale for why it was like that.

I've seen some of the alternate art for each mage on Facebook. I get the impression that these mage cards are being released somewhere,  possibly along with alternate mage stat cards. Is this the case?  They do seem the kind of thing that would make great promotional cards, but I always feel a little bitter when that's the approach, as promos struggle to get to the southern hemisphere for a reasonable cost.

Anyway,  just curious as I really like the idea of being able to choose the look and feel of my mage (which I guess I could anyway, don't know why we've never mixed up the mage cards   for some reason we'd got a bit stuck on 'that's the mage,  that's the beast master').