"A spellbook is an item that is played per the standard item rules found in the Mage Knight complete rules of play. In Mage Knight: Sorcery, all of the spellbooks start with a "R" in their collector's number, indicating that they are relics as well. However, when a warrior is equipped with a spellbook, that warrior becomes a Sorcerer."

Later on it says that there are Counterspells that can help a "countering sorcerer"

Counterspell may be a wand proficency but it looks like you need to be a Sorcerer to use it. Which means, wand figures that don't have a spellbook equipped can't counter spells.

This makes sense since lots of people would just start building armies with 2 or 3 cheap wand figures in it... "oh look you casted arc lightning, ok you roll 2d6 three times, and I'll roll 1d6 three times, lets see if I get lucky and counter it" It's a good proficency but it is counterbalanced by the fact that if I have to spend points on a spell book in order to cast a spell, you need to spend points on a spell book in order to be able to counter my spells.

I was going to rebuff you on that, but after reading that part of the article again I'm going to have to agree. To use counterspell, the warrior has to be a sorcery, so has to be wielding a spellbook (makes sense). Mainly the line about actual counterspell spells...

Yes but it says in the original article that warriors with the :wand: get counterspell so all figures from the previous sets get an instant boost.

Remember, this articel is an articel and not the rule as it is written. I guess that anyone with the :wand: attack type can use counterspell, regardless if he is wielding a spellbook or not.

I tend to agree with Lite here. The top quote from the article mentions simply a 'wand type proficiency.' It would seem really unfair for a 'wand type proficiency' to only be able to be used by wand figures with a spell book.

But then again, Starocotes is right... these articles are sometimes contradictory to what the rules end up really being...

I tend to agree that reading the preview articles as if they were rules documents is probably a mistake. Sometimes these articles are written at different times during the design process (or so it seems) and some oddities have been known to creep in before.

Look at the Dark Riders' LE peeks. One of the early mount prize descriptions mentioned that Charge was good on a mount because it allowed the mount to attack with Mounted Charge when normally only the rider could. It's obvious that changed somewhere in the design process, but wasn't caught in the proofreading stage.

That doesn't mean they are useless. However, dissecting them is probably a mistake. Just take them at face value.

Yea, i think the best option now, is to just sit back and wait.

Woot, this has even more potential to unbalance the game then poorly tested Relics have! I pray these spells are extensivly tested so we dont get something much more worse then the current storm maul problem.

Maybe they'll allow Apoc spells to be really nasty. After all, they only get two figs.:)

My thought on the counterspells:

If I read the article correctly, anyone with a :wand: can use the :wand: profeciency of counterspell.

A sorceror is someone with a spellbook relic.

A spellbook relic can hold a spell that enhances counter spell.

So in this case, a sorceror gets some help on counterspells.

The gameplay I think will be nicer now however, I'm kinda scared cause I can't believe Dracs can use Apoc spells. I guess our rare isn't a spellcaster.

Actually that isn't true.

With the counterspell profeciency any :wand: figure has the chance of canceling any spell. This is a huge balancing factor.