Rebalancing the New Spells - a deep dive

[manaknight14]

Today I'll take some time to cover the spells for the Necormancer. This is the spell group I've been dreading dealing with the most, and it's mostly due to one spell in particular.

Call Skeleton, Raise the Dead, and Summon Mummy have such similar functions that I feel I need to deal with them as a single unit. These are a variety of undead summoning spells, which altogether call in 3 Skeletons and a Mummy to fight the heroes, though activating all of them requires two actions by the Necromancer plus a response trigger to a hero or mercenary killing another monster. That's a lot of work to get these undead monsters in play when the US system already has a Summon Undead spell that brings in at least four monsters as a single action. The simple solution would probably be to ditch all these spells in favor of Summon Undead, but is it balanced? Summon Undead has equal chances of summoning 4 Skeletons, 3 Skeletons and 2 Zombies, or 2 Zombies and 2 Mummies. That is an average of 9.33AD of monsters to throw at the heroes. The monsters called by the combination of the three spells from Wizards of Morcar have a total of 9AD, so that's pretty close to even. I also neglected to mention in the post on the Orc Shaman/Warcaster that I have another formula for a monster's total value that also accounts for BP and DD, and using that one the US Summon Undead spell is worth 7.78 points of value while the Wizards of Morcar spells are worth 8. This is also very very close so it seems like a good substitution. I already mentioned that this does allow the Necromancer to get all these monsters in one turn which is a pretty big add, but there are a few downsides for balance. For one, making it a single spell means it can be wiped out with a single Dispell spell (whether using the original Wizards of Morcar rules or the Mage of the Mirror version). Additionally, the Raise the Dead spell says the new Skeleton can move and attack immediately despite appearing during a hero's turn (kind of like a wandering monster), which is an effect lost by switching to Summon Undead.

Death Bolt is probably fine as is. It may only deal 1BP of damage, but being effective at range with a guaranteed hit that can't be blocked makes it more powerful than it appears. I have only seen three other spells with some amount of guaranteed damage that can't be blocked. One of them requires the target to be in melee range (Chill) and the other two are area-effect spells with the potential for some collateral damage against your own side (Firestorm and the US version of Lightning Bolt). The one thing that might be worth considering is that this spell may have been designed with mercenaries in mind as the target. The UK system's men-at-arms only had 1BP so Death Bolt was a guaranteed kill against them. One might want to consider scaling Death Bolt up to match the 2BP the US system's mercs have, but I don't think that's necessary. The Chill spell I mentioned was also used in an expansion with 2BP mercs and it only dealt 1BP of damage, so Death Bolt should be fine without modification.

Fear is another spell with a US namesake that works very differently from its counterpart. The Wizards of Morcar version is basically another scaled down version of Tempest. The target can't attack or cast spells for one turn, but can still move around. The US version of Fear still allows the target to perform any actions they usually can, but their attacks are reduced to 1AD. This version can also persist for multiple turns, but the target gets a chance to resist it with their mind points each time. I think switching to the US version in this case is the best move. It's a little more unique compared to the variety of "you can't attack this turn" spells in this expansion, and since Fear is a mental effect I like that the US version can be resisted with MP instead of a guaranteed success for one turn. However, there is some room for other options. Rise of the Dread Moon includes an enemy with an ability called Terror which is very similar to the UK version of Fear. It lasts for one turn and stops the target from attacking or casting spells, but only against the monster that used the Terror ability. Other monsters can still be targeted as usual. The other difference is that using the Terror ability does not cost an action. If you are also using the US version of Summon Undead in place of the spells I discussed earlier, the Necromancer has a few empty slots in his repertoire of spells. Zargon could opt to give him both the US Fear spell and a Terror spell that functions like either the Fear spell from Wizards of Morcar or the ability from Rise of the Dread Moon.

Finally we have Skulls of Doom. This is the spell I did not want to deal with. On its face, this is a pretty weak spell. It is basically a vanilla 2AD ranged attack with normal defense allowed. That's pretty underwhelming when the Necromancer already has 4AD for his standard attack. Its expected damage value is 0.41, which is weaker than anything else I have looked at. The question is to what extent it needs to be scaled up, and I don't have a good clear answer for this so I'll throw a bunch of options out there based on a couple of approaches. I can try to compare him to the Orc Shaman since that's another wizard with a monster type focus that includes summon and attack spells. The Shaman's one attack spell has a value of 1.05, but the Necromancer already has Death Bolt which has a guaranteed value of 1, so that would make Skulls of Doom practically unnecessary at all. We could also compare the Necromancer to the Witch Lord, who appeared to have a similar theme and spell selection(two iterations of Fear, undead summoning, a "miss a turn" effect through Tempest, and an attack spell... plus Command). The Witch Lord in the US game system had Ball of Flame as his attack spell, which has a 1.33 value against US heroes and mercs. If Skulls of Doom is only trying to replace the marginal value between Death Bolt and Ball of Flame, then it doesn't need to be modified at all. Another angle to consider is the wording on the Skulls of Doom card, which describes the skull exploding "like a fireball." It would be very easy to interpret this to mean it should work just like Ball of Flame and just be done with it. Another possibility is that since the skull has to be thrown it should still require its 2AD attack roll, but after that it is defended against like a fire spell, where the target can only roll DD equal to the number of skulls from the attack roll. This would basically mean a 25% chance of a Ball of Flame effect, a 50% chance of Fire of Wrath, and a 25% chance of nothing happening. Incidentally this has an expected value of 0.67, identical to Fire of Wrath. Going back to the Orc Shaman, one other thing we can do is evaluate the extra utility gained by adopting those spells to the US system and see if we can give the same boost to the Necromancer. I won't go into all the mathematical steps behind this, but I arrived at a target value of 1.41 for Skulls of Doom. This is pretty close to the 1.33 that Ball of Flame has, so that's another case for just swapping that spell in or modifying Skulls of Doom to work the same way (if you don't want it to be classified as a fire spell for resistance reasons).

[manaknight14]

A lot of these spells I've played with the utmost flexibility, which have opened up interesting scenarios: like Clairvoyance, I allowed the Wizard to look at the next card in the treasure deck when looking into a room. This was East Gate of Keller's Keep (my group's Wizard had a tendency to always use it on the middle room), so when he checked the middle room to see Dread Warriors and Fimirs, I pulled up the next Treasure Card to reveal a Magical Trap (Fire Burst).
In this same quest the Elf picked spells of Protection, thinking to use Dispel against Borrok. I also allowed Invisibility to allow the Invisible hero search options. So the heroes used the Fire Burst trap to their benefit, sending in the Invisible Dwarf to do a treasure search, trigging the Fire Bust trap while the other heroes blocked the doors, preventing the monsters from escaping. The Fire Burst didn't kill all the monsters in the room (only 2 Fimirs) but weakened the Dread Warriors enough for the heroes to get through the battle. It offers fun times that the heroes will potentially pull off once or twice a campaign, so I allowed it.

Okay, while I don't think I would adopt a lot of the suggestions you made in your post, this bit is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Your heroes were able to take two non-combat spells and a bad treasure card and improvise an anti-monster nuke? That's awesome.

[wallydubbs]

Okay, while I don't think I would adopt a lot of the suggestions you made in your post, this bit is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Your heroes were able to take two non-combat spells and a bad treasure card and improvise an anti-monster nuke? That's awesome.

I'm open to constructive criticism, what's wrong with my suggestions?

[manaknight14]

I'm open to constructive criticism, what's wrong with my suggestions?

You know, when I went back to find the bits I didn't like, I realize I probably should have said I wouldn't use "a few" of them rather than "a lot." This might have been a mental bias toward focusing on the things I disagreed with and not giving much attention to the good stuff, so that's my bad. No hard feelings, I hope. That said, since you asked I'll try to point out a few that I don't think I would use and why.

I think a fix for Cloak of Shadows would be to allow the spell caster to disperse the spell at any point. He has the power to create the spell, seems like he should have the ability to remove it. It's up to Zargon if this would require an action or not.

I still feel like making the Cloak of Shadows dismissible is too convenient for the heroes. The card is written in a way to make it sound like you have to be careful using it or you might disrupt your own strategies, and allowing the caster to control when it goes away diminishes that. I do think it needs to go away at some point to avoid those game-breaking scenarios we've discussed, I just don't think it should be up to the caster to control when that happens. I would rather add a line like "the Cloak of Shadows disappears after X turns" where X is a relatively large number for a combat scenario (like at least 5).

When it comes to Dispel, based on the name alone I allowed this spell several alternate uses: in addition to randomly discarding an enemy's spell; if a hero is afflicted with a Dread/Chaos spell, this spell will remove it; it may be used to disarm a magical trap (I allowed only Wizard's trap search to detect magical traps); or disarm magically sealed doors (my own implementation where heroes need to use a mind point roll to open certain doors). I understand wanting to give it the same use as the MotM Dread Spell, but that's what Potion of Magic Resistance is for.

Most of these are actually good ideas, just ones I wouldn't personally use because every Zargon has different house rules and it sounds like these ideas fit better with yours than with mine. The one thing I did want to point out is that I don't think the Potion of Magic Resistance is an adequate substitute for the MotM Dispell, because drinking the potion only protects yourself. A Dispell caster can use the spell to block a spell that targets another hero, or completely cancel an area effect spell like Firestorm.

In reading the Warcaster's spells, Shield of Protection would be rather nasty if it was a Wizards spell that could effect all heroes. I would've given this to heroes and just forget about Invisibility altogether.

This is another one I saw as "cool idea, but not for me." A spell that's basically one turn of Rock Skin for the whole party seems like a natural candidate for the Protection group (it even has the word in its name), but I'm personally trying to keep the spells in the spell groups similar in use and effect to the originals, so I wouldn't choose to make this substitution.


I'll also add a little more color to my response to your story about Kellar's Keep. I still don't think I want to allow Clairvoyance to reveal information on treasures. It treads too much into the function that is supposed to be performed by Treasure Hoard (or whatever similar spell one substitutes into the Detection group), and I like having consistency between Clairvoyance and the Potion of Vision which also did not reveal treasures. That said, you have definitely convinced me that Invisibility and/or Disappear should allow for treasure searches, especially under my earlier proposed change where traps can still affect the invisible hero, since it maintains the risk of a trapped chest or hazard card. The tricky part is what to do if the invisible hero draws a wandering monster, because I see two ways to handle that. You could either say the monster does not appear because it didn't see a hero looting the room, or the monster appears but doesn't immediately attack so other heroes might get an opportunity to deal with it before Zargon's turn.

[manaknight14]

Time for my analysis of the final spell group, those for the High Mage.

Dispell. See my analysis of the identical spell in the heroes' Protection spell group. Replacing this with the namesake spell from Mage of the Mirror is the optimal choice.

Escape is one of the few spells where we have already seen the text from the upcoming version of Wizards of Morcar. It appears that its language has been modified to match that of the Dread spell from the US core set, where the location the user teleports to is pre-determined instead of being any square Zargon chooses. As long as the quest(s) that feature the High Mage have the destination square appropriately marked on the quest map, this change makes sense to me for consistency.

Madness is a spell that is confusing in its unaltered form. It says the evil wizard may move the affected hero on "his" next turn, but it isn't clear whether this refers to the hero's next turn, Zargon's next turn, or the High Mage's next turn. If the Madness takes effect on the hero's turn, this is basically like a Tempest spell with the added effect that Zargon can change the hero's location, which is helpful if the hero is standing in a doorway or blocking monster movement in some other way. If Madness takes effect on Zargon's next turn, can the hero still act normally during the turn between? That doesn't appear to make sense, but as the card is written it's a possible interpretation. In this case it also isn't clear whether the Madness control happens in place of the High Mage's action and/or movement or in addition to them. On top of all that, this is a mental effect spell that can't be resisted, and as I mentioned in the analysis of Fear for the Necromancer, that's not something I like. I would prefer to replace this with another spell, but the question is which. Tempest is a possibility, though it loses the key feature of being able to move the afflicted hero from obstructing a path. Another choice is to use the Command spell from the US core set. This is potentially much more powerful than Madness since it can last for multiple turns and allows Zargon to not only move the hero but also have him attack his teammates (and maybe even cast spells, depending on which version of the card wording you are going by), but the tradeoff is the hero gets to resist it using MP. This option is probably my favorite one. If you feel this is too powerful of an upgrade, another option is to use the Dominate spell from Against the Ogre Horde. That spell works like Command but only functions for Zargon's current turn and is sometimes easier to resist. I would also say Dominate is weaker by design because it's meant to be cast multiple times, but since its success is based on an opposed MP roll and the High Mage is packing 8MP, one use might be plenty if you go this route.

Rust is actually more powerful in this expansion's form than the version in the US core game, since it's not limited to metal swords and helmets. Personally I would switch to the US version for consistency and flavor, since using Rust to destroy something non-metal feels counterintuitive.

Strands of Binding is a cool spell that seems very similar to Chains of Darkness from the Protection spells. The difference is this one can last multiple turns if you allow it to, but the ensnared hero can break the spell with a successful attack against 4DD. The hero can't move or make other attacks until he is freed. It does not say whether the hero can cast spells while ensnared, but I would feel inclined to say he can if we are taking the same interpretation as Chains of Darkness. It also does not say whether another hero can break the Strands of Binding instead, but I would feel inclined to allow this in order to be consistent with the Creeping Grasp spell from Jungles of Delthrak which states the spell can be removed by either the target or an adjacent hero. Creeping Grasp also only says the affected hero can't move while ensnared. I would be inclined to say a hero ensnared by Creeping Grasp could not attack but could still cast spells, if we want that one to be consistent with Chains of Darkness as well.

Wall of Flame is the final spell in my analysis, and this one can either be very simple or very complicated. On its surface this spell is identical to Wall of Ice, so the simple balancing fix is to give Wall of Flame 5DD and 2BP just like I did for the other wall spells. However, there are a lot of other considerations we can make regarding how a wall made of flame should behave differently from ice or stone. For one, the 2BP seems odd, because can you partially "damage" a fire? However, we have precedent from another expansion for attempting to destroy things made from summoned fire, and this comes from the final quest of Prophecy of Telor. The monsters there are "Zargon's Flame" monsters and they do not have body points at all. Instead, any time one is hit Zargon rolls a die and there is a 4/6 chance the monster is destroyed. Could we adapt this to the Wall of Flame? We can if we choose to, and if you keep the 5DD it gives an average survival time of 5.2 attacks, which is identical to the 5DD/2BP version so that fits. Another option to consider is how "solid" a Wall of Flame really is. We have some more precedent for this with the standing bonfires from Jungles of Delthrak. These are not treated as blocking line of sight so spells and ranged weapons can be fired through them. In fact, heroes and monsters can even walk through the fire if they have enough movement to reach an open square on the other side, with the tradeoff of a 50% chance of losing a body point to the flames. Should we adapt this rule to the Wall of Flame as well? We don't have to (Zargon could argue that a WALL of Flame should be more solid than a standard fire), but we could if we strike the right balance. If the Wall of Flame isn't solid and can't block creatures and missiles from passing through it, does being non-solid give it some other advantage as a tradeoff? Another expansion has some precedent for how we could handle this. Rise of the Dread Moon introduces ethereal monsters who are less-than-solid, with the relevant effect being that hitting them requires rolling black shields instead of skulls unless you are using a spell or magical weapon. We could use this with the Wall of Flame, essentially making it much more difficult to destroy in exchange for allowing heroes to just bypass it if they don't mind risking a BP. The average number of attacks it would take to destroy a Wall of Flame this way with ordinary weapons would be 20.2 so it's no small thing, though the heroes should have lots of artifacts and other magical attacks they could use on it by this time. That said, a few spells could use some special consideration with how they would interact with such a wall.

• Fire of Wrath, Ball of Flame, and Firestorm should not affect a Wall of Flame for reasons that should be obvious.
• Water of Healing could be used on it like an attack as it works against the Zargon's Flame monsters in Prophecy of Telor, destroying the Wall of Flame with a 5/6 chance of success.
• Tempest might be used to destroy the Wall of Flame as per the fireburst trap. Maybe give it a 4/6 chance of success like hits from most other spells and attacks.
• Veil of Mist is an interesting one, as it sounds like it can be used to destroy firebursts in the new Wizards of Morcar. I don't think I would like it being used in that way here, but I think I would allow a hero under the Veil of Mist to pass through the Wall of Flame without having to roll a combat die and risk damage.

[manaknight14]

I don't know how I missed this, but I just had an epiphany regarding the Skulls of Doom spell. There is one other source of magic out there that attacks with 2AD and is defended against normally. It is the Sapphire Skull artifact from Jungles of Delthrak. Go figure, it's even skull themed! Maybe this is a hint that the standard wording for Skulls of Doom is appropriate, but there is one big difference between the two. The Sapphire Skull is not limited to one use per quest. You can use it every turn if you so desire. Maybe an appropriate rebalance for Skulls of Doom is not to change its rules, but to say that the Necromancer can cast it "at will" instead of just once?

[wallydubbs]

No hard feelings, like I said, I'm open to constructive criticism. Prior to reading your analysis on Arrows of the Night I was in the camp of 2BP damage, defend with mind points. I never delved into the mathematical balance ratio you have, so the 3 Attack Dice makes sense.

I've even put in a brief analysis on the evil Wizard spells before, just didn't dive as deep as you did. For the most part I originally found most these spells comparatively weak compared to their attack dice. What's more effective, 1BP of ranged Damage to a hero (Death Bolt) or 4 Attack Dice (Necromancer's AD) against an adjacent hero?

When playing around with these Evil Wizards in the arena, I found a new sense of understanding for some of these spells. They'd be more effective on the Mercenaries.
Wall of Flame should definitely come with some ramifications. I understand breaking down the Wall of Ice/Stone, but fire mechanics should work differently. I'm thinking 2 or 3 fire damage for trying to walk through it. Veil of Mist could reduce the damage. I understand they want to make it defensive, but since Fire isn't anything solid, the heroes should suffer consequences and allowed to brave the fire.

I think overall Invisibility is a poor spell and it shouldn't be strictly for the Wizard's use only. In regards to the principal of this spell (protection), it only allows the Wizard safety for 1 turn. This doesn't give me any reassurance regarding its value. Casting it on another hero would definitely be more useful and certainly if we gave it longevity, like Disappear. I was hoping for improvements on these spells, but limiting Future Sight, Treasure Hoard and Invisibility strictly to the Wizard (or Elf) severely limits their value. Jungles of Delthrak offered turn order variants, allowing heroes to change up their turn order each round, which I found to be fair, as it's something I've often offered to implement at my own table, this made the old Future Sight much more powerful. Limiting this to the Wizard, who very rarely exceeds 2 attack dice revoked any desire to pick spells of Detection, certainly when Treasure Hoard has a high probability of failure (He better have the Knight present to offer Knight's Challenge). No thank you, these are not spell groups I can get behind, like you, I'll be implementing my own version of the spell.

I do understand what you mean by Magic Resistance potions not equating to Dispell. I was caught up in the affliction phase. But I can see how MotM Dispell reaches much further than this as it would be able to cancel monster benefit cards.

[manaknight14]

I think overall Invisibility is a poor spell and it shouldn't be strictly for the Wizard's use only. In regards to the principal of this spell (protection), it only allows the Wizard safety for 1 turn. This doesn't give me any reassurance regarding its value. Casting it on another hero would definitely be more useful and certainly if we gave it longevity, like Disappear. I was hoping for improvements on these spells, but limiting Future Sight, Treasure Hoard and Invisibility strictly to the Wizard (or Elf) severely limits their value. Jungles of Delthrak offered turn order variants, allowing heroes to change up their turn order each round, which I found to be fair, as it's something I've often offered to implement at my own table, this made the old Future Sight much more powerful. Limiting this to the Wizard, who very rarely exceeds 2 attack dice revoked any desire to pick spells of Detection, certainly when Treasure Hoard has a high probability of failure (He better have the Knight present to offer Knight's Challenge). No thank you, these are not spell groups I can get behind, like you, I'll be implementing my own version of the spell.

Agreed on pretty much all points. Future Sight and Invisibility are nearly useless as self-only spells, and even if they are targetable Invisibility is still very niche use if it only lasts for one turn. Treasure Hoard not being targetable doesn't bother me so much, because I interpreted it as the spell is finding the treasure for you rather than "buffing" a hero's treasure search. The problem with that one is just the high probability of drawing bad cards. As written it does mean that risk is focused onto the Wizard or Elf, but moving that risk to another hero doesn't make it much better. It has to be reworked to allow the user to avoid bad cards. It doesn't have to be a zero-risk change like substituting Treasure Without Doom. Even if you change the wording to be like "draw a treasure card, you may discard it and re-draw up to 2 times" the odds of being stuck with a bad card become like 6% instead of 80% (though it will get worse as a quest goes on if good cards have already been taken from the deck).

Also on the matter of variable turn order for heroes, that's something I've been doing since before Jungles of Delthrak because I always felt it was unfair that Zargon could change the order of his monsters each turn but the heroes couldn't. I don't think the fixed hero order was intended for game balance, but to prevent 10-year-olds from arguing over who goes first (especially in the old 1st edition days when the heroes were somewhat competing for treasure). Variable turn order is fantastic when the hero players are mature enough to work as a team. With younger players it's a challenge and often turns into arguments.

[manaknight14]

Thanks to a few lucky pre-orderers who got their Wizards of Morcar boxes early and were willing to post images of the contents, we have now seen all of the updated spell cards (except for Call Skeleton, which I doubt has any meaningful changes). I'll do a quick rundown of Avalon Hill's changes, and suggest whether I would adopt their new rules, keep the old rules, use modified rules I proposed earlier in this thread, or some combination. I'll make one post for the hero spells and one for the evil wizard spells.

Darkness spells
Arrows of the Night: Changed some wording for clarification (e.g. the spell works on monsters with no mind points), but functionally unchanged. I will stick with my analysis and update the 2AD to 3AD.
Chains of Darkness: No changes. I am fine with this.
Cloak of Shadows: Clarification to indicate the cloak blocks line of sight between creatures outside the cloak on opposite sides, and gives the cloak a timer so it expires after 3 turns. I like these changes and will adopt the new rules from Avalon Hill's version.

Detection spells
Clairvoyance: No changes. I will be adding the ability to see traps and secret doors in the selected room/area.
Future Sight: Avalon Hill actually made this spell even weaker. If you take the rules literally it is still a self-only spell, and is now limited to a single re-roll. However, it no longer consumes an action and can be cast after the initial "bad" die roll. It's now basically a Potion of Battle that can be used on things other than attack rolls. I think I will stick with the old rules but allow it to be targeted on someone other than the spellcaster. I do realize that casting it beforehand might incentivize Zargon to attack the other heroes and avoid the one with Future Sight for one turn, but that's okay to me.
Treasure Hoard: No, Avalon Hill did not correct the spelling, but they changed the rule to indicate you may discard any of the drawn cards that you don't want. So the only real risk is that you might end up with nothing if you draw three bad cards. I like this change and will be adopting the new rules, with the only question being how to handle a special treasure. I think I will count the special treasure as one of the three cards, but I will tell the caster if the treasure is trapped and let them decide if they want to take it or leave it so another hero can disarm and/or search it.

Protection spells
Dispell: Renamed to Unlearn (probably to avoid confusion with Dispell from Mage of the Mirror) but functionally unchanged. I will be substituting it with MotM's Dispell.
Invisibility: Slight wording updates but no meaningful changes. I will be changing this to be similar in function to the Disappear spell from MotM.
Wall of Stone: No changes. I will be changing the wall's stats from 1BP/6DD to 2BP/5DD for reasons I outlined earlier in the thread.

[manaknight14]

High Mage spells
Dispell: Renamed to Unlearn to make it distinct from Mage of the Mirror's Dispell, but otherwise unchanged. I will be substituting the MotM version of Dispell.
Escape: Rules changed to match the Escape spell from the US core game. I am fine with this change.
Madness: Name changed to Possess for some reason, and the wording is changed to make it clearer that Zargon takes over the target's next turn, but this is essentially unchanged. I do not care for this spell and will likely be substituting the Command spell from the US core game.
Rust: Avalon Hill modified the wording of this spell, making it weaker than the original version but stronger than the US version. The original worked on any equipment while the new version works on "metal" equipment, which is still broader than the US core version which works on "swords and helmets." Presumably the updated version could work on things like chain mail and plate mail or even a battle axe, but not a staff or shield. I have always modified my interpretation of the US core Rust to work this way, so I will adopt the updated version of this spell for the High Mage.
Strands of Binding: No significant changes. I am fine with this one.
Wall of Flame: No changes. I will be making a variety of changes to this one based on my earlier post covering the High Mage spells.

Necromancer spells
Call Skeleton: (I haven't seen this one but it is probably unchanged. See my notes for Summon Mummy.)
Death Bolt: Functionally unchanged. I am fine with this one.
Fear: Rules changed to be consistent with the Fear spell from the US core game. I like this change and will be adopting it.
Raise the Dead: No changes. See my notes for Summon Mummy.
Skulls of Doom: This is mostly unchanged, but there is a tiny wording difference that could be meaningful. The original spell said the skull explodes "like" a fireball, while the updated version says the skull explodes "into" a fireball. This makes it a bit more clear that this should count as a fire spell, so a Potion of Fire Resistance or Fire Ring should be able to block it. However, I think I will also interpret this to mean that a hero defends against it like they would against other fire spells like Ball of Flame and Fire of Wrath. This would effectively mean the DD rolled by the hero are limited to the number of skulls rolled by the Necromancer.
Summon Mummy: No change. I think Zargon has a choice in how to handle this one. Call Skeleton, Raise the Dead, and Summon Mummy could all be used as is, or Zargon could replace all of them with a single Summon Undead spell from the core US game. Either option is about the same total strength, with the tradeoff being the Summon Undead spell can be cast in a single action, but can also be wiped out by a single Dispell/Unlearn spell.

Storm Master spells
Blinding Sleet: No changes. I am fine with this, though I think I would allow spellcasting as long as the target is adjacent to the caster (or him/herself).
Earthquake: No changes. This spell is fine.
Hurricane: No apparent changes. As described in my post about the Storm Master spells, I will likely modify this spell to function more like the Hurricane trap introduced in this expansion.
Lightning Bolt: Renamed to Lightning Strike to avoid confusion with the Lightning Bolt from the core US game. I will be substituting the version from the core US game. While Lightning Strike does offer a slight chance to do 3BP of damage vs. the US Lightning Bolt's fixed 2BP, Lightning Strike is much weaker overall and I hate giving the Storm Master such a nerfed spell.
Thieving Wind: No changes. I am fine with this one.
Wall of Ice: No changes. I will be changing the 1BP/6DD to 2BP/5DD as with the Wall of Stone.

Orc Shaman a.k.a. Warcaster spells
Orc Berserker: No real changes unless you are interpreting "see" as different from "line of sight." I'm fine with this one.
Sharpen Blades: No changes. Good as is.
Shield of Protection: No changes made. Also good as is.
Spirit of Vengeance: No changes. None needed.
Summon Goblins: Name changed to Call Goblins, but otherwise unchanged aside from "see" vs. "line of sight." See my notes for Summon Orcs.
Summon Orcs: Name changed to Call Orcs to avoid confusion with Summon Orcs from the core US set, and some rule improvements were made. The Orcs being called no longer have to be within the caster's line of sight. They can be called from anywhere on the board or from out of play entirely, which is consistent with the Call Goblins spell. As with the Necromancer's summoning spells, I think Zargon has a choice here: use the updated Call Goblins and Call Orcs as they are, or drop both in favor of the US Summon Orcs spell.