wow just lost my post, I blame my laptop mouse pad!
In short though, I love the effort and thought put into your errata! I have no problem with it in general. I am sure due diligence was put in before making these decisions. I do think that this was a bit extreme however. it seems like a HUGE balance change. one or two more up front mana, one or two more spell points, a weaker effect die; or even better, other viable options, all seem like they might have the desired effect. The holy spell-book is already one of the most restricted out there, there just aren't a ton of good combos. I dont mind that mind you. it is stable and dependable, In my mind it is sort of the steady middle ground in mage wars. and this was one of its reliable pillars. I feel like this kinda nerfs not just the card, but the whole spell-book. It was already, essentially a 9 cost non-mobile archer with a base attack of 1 and an admittedly useful effect die. It was an investment already. I guess all of this boils down to the fact that I am fine with errata. This seems overly large for an adjustment, but all in all I am fine with that too, I guess I would just rather nerfs be small. I think that if it was still too stong after a small errata change, you could find ways of indirectly impacting it. For instance add cards that make the beasmaster swarm a little more viable, one light attack in a sea of many is going to do much less than it does in the current few big trend. This effectively nerfs the Temple, and brings back creatures that I would LOVE to love. We expand gameplay rather than patching it, and get some more use out of some interesting cards we already have.
Anyways My intent is to be constructive, not negative! I always appreciate the effort, and love the game no matter what!
