Armory and Royal Armorer

[Arkdeniz]

Just want to check my understanding here.

the Royal Armourer gives a +1 Armour token to a soldier that does not already have one, while the Armory just gives +1 Armour.

The Armoury’s power will not interfere with the Armourer’s power, correct?

A Vet token gives +1 melee and +1 armour. Does that count as an Armour +1 token for the purpose of the Armourer? I assume it is something different again.

[Grimstringer]

Just want to check my understanding here.

the Royal Armourer gives a +1 Armour token to a soldier that does not already have one, while the Armory just gives +1 Armour.

The Armoury’s power will not interfere with the Armourer’s power, correct?

A Vet token gives +1 melee and +1 armour. Does that count as an Armour +1 token for the purpose of the Armourer? I assume it is something different again.

armory doesn't give tokens, it's an effect that is active as long as armory remains, like warlord's orders give +1 armor while guarding, until end of turn, the token is something more permanent

[Brian VanAlstyne]

The armorer is separate from everything else that gives bonus armor. Hypothetically you could have the crown of protection and Armorer and stack armor on a creature. One from Armorer and unlimited from crown.

[SirJasonCrage]

I was actually under the impression that crown is actually the one thing that does interfere with the armorer.

Those two are the only things in the game that place armor tokens. If you use crown first, you can't use armorer, since armorer clearly states he can be used on creatures without armor tokens.

[Puddnhead]

Sir Jason is correct. Royal Armorer interacts with only "armor +1" tokens. Everything else can exist simultaneously on a creature and it will not block the armorer's ability. If you use the Armorer first, you are still able to use the crown. If you use the crown first, you may not use the Armorer on the same creature.

[Brian VanAlstyne]

I don't understand the rules for this game. I really don't.

[Arkdeniz]

Good. Thanks everyone.

Always nice to see I was reading something right.

[Arkdeniz]

Another wording question:

Alandell:
“He gains Melee +1 and adds +1 to his effect rolls for each mana spent”

Now, this does not seem 100% clear to me.

Does each mana give +1 melee and +1 effect,
or
does the first mana give +1 melee and +1 effect, and each subsequent mana only gives a +1 effect

I can read both options into the wording.

What is the right one?

[RomeoXero]

 The former. He gains both melee plus one and +1 effect die value per mana spent. 4 mana= melee plus 4 effect die plus 4

[Arkdeniz]

That was certainly my first assumption, given how expensive he is.

[DaveW]

It would have been the latter had there been a comma after the phrase “Melee +1”

Also, if that were the case, the melee +1 would not depend on spending any mana at all... the effect would be constant. The comma would separate the melee bonus from any discussion on spending mana.