February 25, 2020, 03:59:18 AM

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 - Koz

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26
346
General Discussion / Is the Warlock the weakest Mage?
« on: October 23, 2012, 11:23:29 AM »
I've come to believe that the Warlock is the weakest Mage and I was wondering what everyone elses thoughts were on this.  I think that the Beastmaster, Wizard and Priestess are all pretty close to being equal, with the Wizard having a possible edge, but the Warlock seems behind the curve.  Below I will list out why I think this is.

The Warlock's abilities

1. Bloodreaper: In my opinion, this is a weaker version of the Beastmaster's Pet.  Bloodthirsty is good, but requires a wounded opponent to function and also can force the Bloodreaper to not have a choice in what it attacks.  The Beastmaster's Pet get's flat bonuses that are always "on" and always effective.  In addition, paying life to summon the Bloodreaper (which you do not get back if it dies) is a much steeper cost than what the Beastmaster pays in mana for its Pet (IMO).  Yes, saving mana is good, but the loss of life is very costly as it is helping your opponent win the game.  I've seen a Beastmaster make multiple creatures his Pet in the course of a single game, but making more than one Bloodreaper is very painful (excuse the pun).

2. Curseweaving: This is a decent ability, but I think it compares poorly to the other Mage's core abilities.  The other mages tend to use their abilities very often and they seem to have a much larger impact on the game.  The Priestess's ability to gain life and remove status conditions is very good and will be used often.  The Wizard's Voltaric Sheild is very good and will save you a ton of grief if used correctly.  The Beastmaster's ability to quick summon level 1 animals is really, really good.  

Curseweaving on the other hand is only ok.  It probably won't be used every turn, or even every other turn and is dependent on your opponents build.  If your opponent is playing a self-buffing beat-down style build that either doesn't run creatures, or very few of them, Curseweaving is essentially useless.  No other Mage has an ability that can be basically neutralized like that.  While putting curses back into your book allows you to run less curses (giving you freedom to run other stuff), it just doesn't seem to hold up to the other Mage's abilities.

Battle Skill: +1 to melee is a solid ability and is used often, no real complaints on this one.

Other factors: One thing the Warlock has that is a clear advantage is being trained in two schools.  That can't be overlooked.  Only the Wizard has something similar (although the Wizard's is better).  However, I think that this bonus is counteracted by two other drawbacks.  The first is only have 9 channeling.  That hurts.  The second is paying triple for Holy spells.  While most of the other mages have a similar drawback, the penalty against Holy spells is especially painful due to the fact that it costs a lot to include any Healing spells.  Lastly, the Warlock does have one of the higher starting Life totals, which is nice, but if he uses his Bloodreaper ability that kind of counteracts that benefit.

The Warlock's Support Cards

Lash of Hellfire:  This is a great card, no complaints.

Ring of Curses: Standard cost reduction ring that each Mage has.  Solid card, but I don't think it's as versatile as the Wizard's ring or the Priestess's.

Moloch's Torment: This is a good card and can be very effective, especially when combined with something like Ghoul Rot.

Helm of Fear: Decent card...if you roll well.  The last time I played this card I failed 9 out of 9 rolls...ugh.  Basically this card is hit or miss.  When it works, it's great, when it doesn't, it's a huge mana sink.

Demonhide Armor: Don't like this card much.  You're much better off with one of the armors that have some sort of elemental protection.  The damage barrier on this is pretty weak, and you'd be better served with a Circle of Lightning if that's what your looking for.

Pentagram: Worst spawnpoint IMO.  The requirement that it only gains extra mana from damaging opposing creatures is much worse than the Priestess's temple and (especially) the Wizard's Gate to Voltari (which is the best spawnpoint).  Once again, this ability is dependent on your opponent's build.  If your opponent is playing few, or no, creatures, gaining extra mana is going to be difficult.  It's Ethereal trait is not enough of a benefit to justify the harsher requirements of mana generation.  

Gate to Hell: I really want to like this card...but I'm struggling.  It's soooo expensive for what it does.  Yes, the +1 to melee for all demons is nice and adds up, but 12 mana is an awful lot to pay to get it (compare it with the Beastmaster's conjurations that buff animals).  The ability to open the gate seems so good, but is also very expensive (another 12 mana).  It can hit a lot of stuff, but it also hits your stuff (obviously you can build in fire protection/immunity to hurt yourself less).  I dislike that it doesn't hit objects (just creatures) and that it doesn't hit fliers.  Fliers are very big in our games, so that means a lot of stuff is going to not get hit by this.  The one time I opened the Gate, it wasn't worth the massive amount of mana I spent to do it.  

Sacrificial Altar:  This card isn't terrible, but it's not really good either, and it has it's uses at certain times.  You're killing off your own creatures for only a moderate bonus.  If you kill off a Firebrand Imp (which cost you 5 mana to play) you gain a measly +1 bonus.  Sure, you can kill off something like a Darkpact Slayer for a +3, but those are expensive.  Obviously the best use is right when the creature is on the verge of death, but that can be difficult to time.  Overall, it's a situational card that can be expensive to use.  I don't think it's a terrible card, just not great.  Compare this to the Hand of Bim-Shalla which does what it does for free and is much more flexible.

Goran (the Lycanthrope):  I haven't gotten this creature into play yet, but it seems decent.  Solid overall stats.  I wish it had Regenerate though (because it's, you know, a werewolf...).  Seems like a good creature, but I need to get it into play to test it.

So, overall, I think the Warlock's core abilities and support cards (barring a few exceptions as noted above) are weaker than the other mages.  Warlock was going to be my "main" mage, because I loved the theme and flavor, but after playing a few games, I think the Wizard is probably the one I will play the most.

Thoughts?

347
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Online spell book builder?
« on: October 23, 2012, 08:47:36 AM »
This will be a good move for AW.  I have no doubt that a large number of people that, up to this point, don't know much about Mage Wars will see the logo for the game on the cardgamedb site and want to learn more about it.  This will be a great way to get players who are into all of those FFG card games to check this out.  I'm sure this move will result in not just a happier community, but a larger community in general.

348
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Online spell book builder?
« on: October 22, 2012, 03:12:09 PM »
Awesome!  I love cardgamedb!  Good choice!  Can't wait until I can start building spellbooks :evil:

349
Rules Discussion / Re: Ranged +1 and Chain Lightning
« on: October 22, 2012, 11:58:05 AM »
Man, Arcanus just got me pumped up for an expansion!  Can't wait to see what new stuff is coming out!  Hopefully both the expansion and the 2nd Core Spell Tome wilI be out by the end of the year.  I'm hoping for a good Christmas as far as Mage Wars is concerned :)

350
Rules Discussion / Reducing numbers to zero
« on: October 22, 2012, 11:39:02 AM »
I know that an attack cannot have it's dice reduced below one, but what about with Chain Lightning?  You roll one less dice for each successive attack, so does it eventually drop to zero (meaning the attack is over), or does it "bottom out" at one dice and keep bouncing from target to target until there is nothing left in range?  

Also, in another question related to reducing numbers to zero, if you reduce the cost of something (like say with Arcane Ring), you can redude the cost to zero correct?  I didn't see anything in the rules to say you can't, but I want to make sure.

351
Rules Discussion / Re: Two Questions
« on: October 22, 2012, 11:30:50 AM »
Thank you Arcanus, appreciate the quick response!  That's how I thought it worked and makes that a very powerful spell.

Also, as a follow up, Battle Fury states that the creature can make another "quick action" melee attack.  I assume that means that whatever attack they use has to be an actual quick action attack, and not just any attack they wish to use.  So a Hydra with Battle Fury cast on it could make a full attack with it's "triplestrike" attack, but would then have to follow up with it's quick action "main" attack right?  It couldn't do two triplestrike attacks with Battle Fury right?  That's how it seems to me based on the wording.

352
Rules Discussion / Two Questions
« on: October 22, 2012, 08:59:58 AM »
Hi all, I have two questions I was hoping to have answered.  The first question is regarding how Battle Fury and +x to Melee work.  I know that when you get a +x to Melee, it only works on the first strike if you make multiple strikes, but does that apply to Battle Fury since that is a completely separate attack?  So, for instance, if I have a Beastmaster with Bear's Strength on and he attacks he would roll 6 dice.  If he also had Battle Fury played on him he would make a second attack with 6 dice too right?  I would assume yes, because if a mage has +x to Ranged and makes two ranged attacks in the same round they get the bonus on each...right?

My second question involves Hand of Bim Shalla.  If you have multiple of these in play you can react and use them all to boost the same creature at the same time right?

353
I'm right over the border in Indiana and have been out to Downer's Grove to play games in the past.  Are you the same guy that owned the store that used to run Warlord events?  If so, I've been out to your store before (although I think that it might be closed now, so maybe you opened a new one if this is you).

Regardless, I couldn't commit to playing every week for a league or anything, but I would certainly be interested in coming to any tournaments your run.

354
General Discussion / Re: No, really, how do you play a game in < 1 hour?
« on: October 20, 2012, 11:19:52 AM »
Quote from: "Nihilistiskism" post=2369
Quote from: "Koz" post=2365
Quote from: "Nihilistiskism" post=2359


@Koz: I think your comment is not applicable. If Organized Play is supposed to be a reflection of the game, then it should not, by the definition of its parameters, penalize certain mages for doing what they do best.

-nihil


Your original post said nothing about Organized Play or the parameters therein.  You asked how people are playing in less than one hour.  I suggested that perhaps your choice of playing Priestess might be causing your games to go longer than others who are not playing the Priestess.  It's a completely valid point.  Logically speaking, if you tend to play a mage that is known for slower play, then you are probably in for longer games than if you play a mage that is known for being more aggressive.  How this affects the Priestess in Organized Play is a completely separate issue from your original question.  

Since you are fond of logical fallacies, what you have done here is known as shifting the goal posts.  ;)


You are misrepresenting, or misinterpreting, my position, Koz. My intent to dictate this thread toward the nature of Organized Play was implied, as otherwise there would be no presented grounds for the initial query or interest. If you feel I didn't represent my original intent sufficiently, then I believe that it is you who is guilty of the logical fallacy of "missing the point" since others who responded immediately knew the purpose of the thread, i.e. Shadow's response was entirely dictated toward Organized Play. ;-)


No presented grounds?  The "presented grounds" for the initial query seemed to be that people claim that they are playing games in less than one hour, which then prompted you to ask "how".  Do not accuse me of missing the point, when your supposed point is nowhere to be found in the OP.  Just sayin'.

You are also being overly harsh on Shadow.  Nowhere do I see him claiming to be an authority on all things Organized Play.  Saying that it's "implied" in his mention of playtesting, is stretching.  You seem to be basing a lot of your argument on things that are "implied".  

Saying that Shadow is "implying" that he's an authority simply by mentioning his playtest experience is non-sequitur.    He was simply using real world examples based on his personal experience, which comes from him being a playtester.  He never claimed to be an authority.  It's YOU who are bringing in the accusations of authority..  Nowhere does he say that he is right based on this supposed authority either (a necessary component of an appeal to authority).  He was merely stating that, in his experiences, he has noted certain things to be true most of the time.  When he uses the word "should" it shows that he acknowledges there can be extenuating circumstances which can cause these things to not be true on individual occasions.  

An appeal to authority takes the form of "person X is an authority on this subject, and they say Y.  Therefore Y is true."  You even used an example of this form of argumentation in the whole Pope vs. abortion scenario (and it was presented correctly).  Shadow's statements do not take this form however as he uses the word "should" a lot.  The word "should" does not appear in an appeal to authority, because "should", by the definition of the word, does not indicate "is".  An appeal to authority says that something "is" true based on person Y's words, not that, based on things a person may have personally seen, something "should" be true.

As an example, I watch a lot of MMA.  If I were to say "Jon Jones should crush Chael Sonnen when they fight next year as long as Jon doesn't make any significant mistakes," I am not committing an appeal to authority.  I am not claiming to be an authority firstly, and I'm not claiming that something "is" true based on any "implied" authority.  I'm saying that, based on what I have seen, then my claim "should" be true.  That's all Shadow did.  If you want to debate him on whether or not his experiences are valid in a larger tournament setting, then do that, but your claim that he is committing an appeal to authority in order to simply dismiss his arguments altogether falls flat on its face.

Honestly though, all of this is really detracting from your OP (which is apparently all about Organized Play...who knew?).

355
General Discussion / Re: No, really, how do you play a game in < 1 hour?
« on: October 20, 2012, 01:04:34 AM »
Quote from: "Nihilistiskism" post=2359


@Koz: I think your comment is not applicable. If Organized Play is supposed to be a reflection of the game, then it should not, by the definition of its parameters, penalize certain mages for doing what they do best.

-nihil


Your original post said nothing about Organized Play or the parameters therein.  You asked how people are playing in less than one hour.  I suggested that perhaps your choice of playing Priestess might be causing your games to go longer than others who are not playing the Priestess.  It's a completely valid point.  Logically speaking, if you tend to play a mage that is known for slower play, then you are probably in for longer games than if you play a mage that is known for being more aggressive.  How this affects the Priestess in Organized Play is a completely separate issue from your original question.  

Since you are fond of logical fallacies, what you have done here is known as shifting the goal posts.  ;)

356
General Discussion / Re: No, really, how do you play a game in < 1 hour?
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:11:07 AM »
I know you tend to favor the Priestess Nihil, so possibly that is the issue?  I think games with the Priestess will tend to go longer on average due to the nature of her playstyle.  I played a game recently where I was a super aggressive Beastmaster vs. the Wizard and the game went less than an hour (45-50 min).  It was probably 6 or 7 turns.  So it's certainly possible, but without knowing the specific mages and builds that you've been playing it's hard to say for certain.

357
General Discussion / Mage specific cards in future expansions?
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:55:43 PM »
Is there any thought from the design team as to whether or not there are plans to include more mage specific cards for existing mages in future expansions?  For example, will we ever see any more Wizard specific cards, or perhaps a familiar for the Warlock?  Or is what we got in the core set all that will ever be for these mages?

Personally, I hope we see more mage specific cards for existing mages in the future.  I really, really want that Warlock familiar  ;)

358
Rules Discussion / Re: Target becoming illegal during attack
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:51:12 PM »
Thanks for all the responses guys, much appreciated.  This confirms my thoughts that Divine Intervention is very powerful, which is why its costed so high.  

Thanks again everyone!

359
Rules Discussion / Re: Target becoming illegal during attack
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:21:48 PM »
Quote from: "Gewar" post=2302
Rulebook, page 19, Flying:
"A creature cannot gain or lose flying in the middle of an attack".

So the flying is easy to judge.


Well that answers that, and I figured it was covered in the rulebook.

Quote
Rulebook, page 22, Revealing Enchantments:
"Enchantments cannot affect an event that occured before it was reveled."

I would say, that your creature would be damaged, if you haven't teleported it away before it was targeted, but I'm not sure.


But, by that logic the example used in the rulebook is invalid.  In the rulebook it gives the example that a player could reveal a Rhino Hide in the middle of an attack to reduce damage, and this would certainly be "affecting an event that occured before it was revealed".  So, I don't think we have a clear answer on the Divine Intervention issue just yet.

As an additional question (more of a clarification really), going back to the revealing of a Rhino Hide during an attack, you can reveal this inbetween the rolling dice step and the apply damage step right?  So I could wait and see the damage rolled and then choose to reveal the Rhino Hide before I take any damage right?  Pretty sure I can, but I want to make sure.

360
Rules Discussion / Target becoming illegal during attack
« on: October 18, 2012, 03:10:58 PM »
This might be covered in the rulebook (and probably is), but I couldn't find it.  What happens if, in the middle of an attack, the target no longer becomes a legal target of that attack?  For instance, let's say that a Bitterwood Fox has a hidden Eagle's Wings on it and is targeted by an enemy melee strike.  Since an enchatment can be revealed between any of the 8 stages of an attack, you can reveal the Eagle's Wings after the declare attack step but before any dice have been rolled.  Since the Fox is now flying, it is not a legal target for melee strikes, so what happens?  Does the attack continue since the target was legal when it was declared, or does the attack fizzle since the target is now illegal?

A similar situation could arise with a card like Divine Intervention, where the target is suddenly on the other side of the map after the declare attack step.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26