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 - Moonglow

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30

Rules Discussion / Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker

« on: November 26, 2015, 05:27:26 PM »

Its magic man, its magic!

I guess the main point here is that the game is designed to minimise take backs/unwinds. Once something has happened, you can't reverse it. If the dice are rolled, you can't change your ability to reroll them - if you have the ability to reroll them, then when they're rolled you can. If the damage is allocated, you can't suddenly change your mind and reveal rhino hide to make it less (although in most games I'd probably let you as the line there seems pretty arbitrary, but its a house rule/gentleman's agreement).

Mage wars gets tense enough as it is with the revealing your plan to see if they can counter it, revealing stuff after I've landed a good hit would drive me nuts

I think the steps in rules v4 are pretty clear (and not that different to previous steps). Reveals applying to future steps, not previous steps seems a fair and consistent application. Its not as fickle as you seem to feel if you are clear about the attack resolution steps.

Alternative Play / Re: Mage Wars Arena: New Apprentice mode

« on: November 26, 2015, 05:26:34 PM »

WTcannon answered my question which was a little bit about how do these rules contrast with the original apprentice books/game.

What's your rational for the different features?

1-3 seem quite similar to original, with the 10 spell book points noted by WT. I'm not sure if the original apprentice - lets call it OA - mode restricted level 5, but it seems about right.

Reducing dice by one damage seems the biggest change. What are you after here? I thought that one of the appeals of apprentice mode was the shorter play time, this seems to go against that.

Rules Discussion / Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker

« on: November 26, 2015, 12:13:48 PM »

I was commenting more from a rules perspective. In a realism sense I'd note that the spell is already cast, just not revealed. In that moment of impact, where its like holy $hit this is going to hurt! the mage winks in the final step for rhino hide to be revealed.

Now akiros favour could do the same as the other mage picks up the huge handful of dice, but if they didn't, its too late to say ooohhh shite I've going to die, please god pretend I'd asked your favour 0.3 seconds ago!

Quote from: Halewijn on November 26, 2015, 06:15:54 AM

In my opinion revealing brace yourself/rhino hide after the dice were rolled is also ridiculous. "Oh, the opponent has just hit me with a hard hit, let's brace myself ". The point of armor/defensive stance is to get it BEFORE it hits you. It's very illogical to say there is a finite time to react between "getting hit" and "getting damage". Before I was active on this forum we didn't play it like that. Revealing enchantments was only possible before rolling the dice.

For a while now I also play it like everybody else. But differentiating between enchantments seems like a horrible idea. Keep it one way or another:

- for the sake of realism: do not allow it.
- for the sake of the mechanics: allow it.

The interpretation difference of Moonglow/Exid & Schwenkgott/myself. Neither of us is wrong or right. It's really just how you view the effect/description.

Rules Discussion / Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker

« on: November 26, 2015, 03:47:34 AM »

They are different though, neither brace yourself or rhino hide are trying to alter the dice roll that has already happened, they are influencing the application of the damage, which is a clear next step.

Quote from: Halewijn on November 26, 2015, 03:07:03 AM

Quote from: Exid on November 26, 2015, 02:33:42 AM
Quote from: Schwenkgott on November 26, 2015, 02:21:08 AM
I don't see the problem here. Who ever does not like the outcome of the roll dice step can say: I want to reroll. After that the other one can do the same.
Who ever come first, rolls first.
the problem is if Akira's favor isn't revealed before the roll step.

Schwenkgott says the exact thing I was thinking.

If it is possible to reveal brace yourself/ rhino hide AFTER the dice have been rolled it should also be possible to reveal akiro's favor afterwards. Don't make it harder by making differences between enchantments for some kind of different interpretation. I see why you would not allow it, but it is just as easy to advocate the opposite. The game is hard enough as it is.

Rules Discussion / Re: Akiros Favor VS Temple of the Dawnbreaker

« on: November 24, 2015, 07:42:25 PM »

Quote from: ACG on July 23, 2014, 10:18:49 AM

These two cards have completely different functions. Akiro's Favor lets you reroll when attacking, whereas Temple of the Dawnbreaker lets you reroll when defending or escaping. Combine the two, and you just have both effects - I don't think the two cards interact with each other at all.

The do and they don't, Dawnbreaker does allow you to reroll the attack (or effect) dice affecting a friendly creature.

Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Lunchtime for Kralathor

« on: November 24, 2015, 12:32:43 AM »

Quote from: RomeoXero on November 23, 2015, 04:01:17 PM

1. I see what you're doing with the bobcat feeding, but it seems like the dice you are wasting ( harsh wording sorry) by eating the bobcat might be better spent just sending them in to attack on there own. If they move they get 4 dice and If they dodge something you might get that twice before they die. I see you have a lot of them so maybe you still can later ( with the ones who don't become snacks) but the full action spent on such a small creature might put you behind.

I was wondering a little bit of the same, but thought perhaps you were trying to get a hit or two in with them before having them for lunch? I like temple of the dawnbreaker with anything carrying defense. It might cost you too many book points but would keep tataree going longer also, which maintains your spore's mana generation.

I like the lifetree for making small creatures more viable, but that investing in keeping your bobcats alive longer probably goes against the whole philosophy of your book.

Rules Discussion / Re: Tanglevine & flyers

« on: November 22, 2015, 11:41:27 AM »

Yeah I think you worked it out. By watch I think you mean guard (the game term). When a flyer guards it loses flying for the turn.

General Discussion / Re: Card Distributions - Academy

« on: November 19, 2015, 02:30:48 AM »

My thing atm would be to request no more spell books... I'm all keen on more mages and more spells, but I've got two core sets, all the expansions and some other bits all stored nicely in the two core set boxes (the domination board insert fits nicely in with some trimming). However, the spell books are spilling over. I brought a few extra, but then as I get more every expansion, they stop fitting. I didn't mind at first as it always seems handy to have another book 'ready'. But now I've started a bookshelf just for spell books... it needs to stop!

Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity

« on: November 18, 2015, 12:29:21 AM »

I did say above that I could see how the point is similar, but the immune guard seems more like gaming the rules than a clever play. My question isn't really about the ability of a low level spell to be powerful it's the mechanism it uses to do it.

Quote from: sIKE on November 17, 2015, 09:35:18 PM

I am not trying to be snarky, but I could say the same about this Guard, you can push him, teleport him, Surging Wave (with a roll push him), sounds very much like the same thing you are advising me here.

Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity

« on: November 17, 2015, 08:08:43 PM »

I imagine you even picked it as an example because I referred to a level 1 creature negating a level 4 creature....

I think my reply covered this, but my point was that I don't see a problem with a low level spell negating an attack or move from a more powerful creature or spell, but it should be part of clever, well timed, or positioned play.

You can't actually use a wall of earth to negate Adramelech on its own. You'd need to remove its flying. You'd also need to have it positioned in a way that you can cast two wall of earth at once in a manner that blocks it. Not particularly easy.

Blocking any fire creature from attacking anything in a zone just needs a fire creature to guard as a result of the mechanics of immunity.

Quote from: sIKE on November 17, 2015, 03:22:03 PM

one of my points was that the Wall is lvl 1 too.

Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity

« on: November 17, 2015, 02:22:34 PM »

Yeah but that's just clever play and seems thematically sound. You'd also need to negate flying, so it's possible but also foreseeable, and negotiable.

The analogy someone gave of the imp being burn proof no matter how many times you try and burn it doesn't work with the guard scenario as it's not just immune itself, its effectively making everyone else in the zone immune (they can't be targeted either). Maybe this is the same as your wall of earth example, but it feels much more gamey than clever. If someone dropped the wall of earth on my lord of fire after throwing a maim wings I'd be like sweet move. If they protected their whole zone against all my fire attacks by guarding with an imp I'd think it was dumb and annoying. But perhaps that's just me.

Quote from: sIKE on November 17, 2015, 08:19:08 AM

Quote
This seems a better (to my mind) solution than having a level 1 creature negating a level 4 creature with regard the whole zone.
You can trap LoF and even the Ada Warlock behind a couple of Walls of Earth and if she doesn't have any non-Flame Attack Spells or Equipment with non-Flame Attacks she is hosed and so is the LoF. It been like this for a long time, and it is just a big pile of dirt and Level 1.

General Discussion / Re: Mind Spawnpoint

« on: November 17, 2015, 02:10:57 PM »

How would you implement it in practice? Just hand over your spellbook? Seems a little harsh as it not only gives the forcemaster a creature but deprives you of yours. I guess the costs are high, but there's also a free peek at your book that seems to break the meta a little.

Quote from: Gogolski on November 17, 2015, 11:17:22 AM

Something extremely powerfull for the forcemaster's spawnpoint is casting creatures from your oponents spellbook. The only creature cast by the spawnpoint would be the cantrip force-clone with a cost of X and allowing the forcemaster to look through the oponents creatures. The chosen creature would cost double mana and have an upkeep cost equal to their level. (It has a force-clone token to indicate this.) If the creature dies, it goes back to the oponents spellbook.

It would be in line with the forcemaster having a difficult time putting creatures in his book and controlling the oponents stuff...

Then again, I think a bunch of people would ban such a card and burn it as soon as they get their hands on it...

Rules Discussion / Re: Hand of Bin-Shalla, Temple of Light, And Battle Fury Errata - Explanation

« on: November 17, 2015, 01:22:01 AM »

Hi, I know that this is totally a thread necro, but was just curious about whether the approach of releasing new versions of the erattad spells in an expansion had ever happened?

I'd be really keen to purchase new versions of these through the BGG store or even direct from arcane wonders. I've got 2 older base sets and a spell tomb or two. I'd love to have the correct text on all my cards, but especially these major errata.

Thanks

Rules Discussion / Re: About Immunity

« on: November 17, 2015, 12:59:55 AM »

I get that, I know how to play...that's the condunrum of this whole post - the attacker must attack the immune creature that's guarding (because it guarding) but can't target it because its immune.

Its the idea that because its immune AND guarding that it prevents an attack to anything else in the zone that seems a poor thematic fit and a little OP.

My suggestion was to mediate this. It didn't change the effect on the immune creature, its still immune and can't be targetted. It does, however, allow other creatures/targets in the zone to be attacked. This seems a better (to my mind) solution than having a level 1 creature negating a level 4 creature with regard the whole zone.

Quote from: Exid on November 16, 2015, 11:57:08 PM

Quote from: Moonglow on November 16, 2015, 04:40:32 PM
Quote from: Mystery on November 09, 2015, 10:18:12 AM
when he is guarding he is standing in front of the mage protecting it. so to get to the mage adramalech has to get through the aura. If he is not guarding he is not constantly "in front" of the mage. The aura is always effecting as the imp himself is always immun. But only on guard the mage gets "in the influence range" of the aura

I'd rather introduce the idea that an immune creature can't guard against attacks its immune to. If the attack is essentially invisible to the creature with immunity, they're so immune they can't even be targeted, then how could they guard against the attack. They've basically unaware of it as for them it can't happen.

Some wording like 'guard tokens on immune creatures are considered removed during an attack of that type and returned once the attack is resolved'.

it is not guarding: it keeps the creature from attacking (it keeps its guard marker)

General Discussion / Re: Mage Wars Companion App - Bug Reports

« on: November 16, 2015, 07:25:01 PM »

I'm having the same crashing problems on a galaxy tab 8.9. The app starts ok, will download the books, but then when I select builder it says loading for a few seconds and then crashes out.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30