August 21, 2019, 08:59:57 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 - DeckBuilder

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 34
31
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 11:43:17 AM »
I think I have covered most of this, the other suggestion is to create a combat effect that affects both living and non-living. I suggested sever as a mechanic (a successful roll convert normal dmg into critical dmg (the anti-veterans belt). I am sure someone can come up with something else or something better

Your idea to giove Jokhtari some bite against Nonliving was an excellent idea, sIKE. I hope they will use it soon.

I don't think an errata on the Wizard is an option. There must be other ways to nerf him.
My feeling is that they should make him into an Archivist, enevr to receive another Wizard Only or Arcane Only card.
Over time, this lack of "real goodies" compared to other mages will compensate for his generalist 2 schools training.
In addition, if there were lots of weaker Novice versions of Arcane staples, his training there will become devalued.
That would surely be the way to weaken his advantage and give more choice (in staples) when building your book.

I will note your comments in the Message 10 Summary.

32
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 11:04:47 AM »
I dont know if it is only me, but I think most cheesy stuff come from Enchantment Transfusion being able to transfuse facedown enchantment. These enchantment that you normally have to set up just before needed to not waste them suddently become counters on demand. I think this card should be errated or add in the rules that enchantment with mandatory reveal cant be transfused/moved. It would reduce the power of the wizard by the sameway.

Transfusion Cheese. I'm horribly biased here as I'm a control freak (you'd never guess...).
I think the card is fine as it is because of...

However, let's not forget these facts: using Enchantment Transfusion means you have additionally paid...
+1 spell point (assuming Wizard)
+1-2 to cast it
+1 mana per enchantment moved (Arcane Ring discount on Nullify)
most importantly, +1 quick action

It's fine to spenad all those extra resources above on a timed Nullify (often too pressured as Tarkin said)
That's a fair price to pay surely?

This is where both me and jacksmack have an issue

Quote
Enchantment Transfusion says "target" so it should target, not bypass Nullify.
Bypassing Nullify, we get double Nullify situations and make Transfusion free action guaranteed delivery.
We also make Transfusion mean "counter any spell targeting an enchantment on this creature".
Is "Counter" what "Transfusion" means? I never realised this when I last donated at the Blood Bank.

There is nothing intuitive about moving is a counter unless you move target so it's out of range.
What should happen is if I move an enchantment out of range of your Dispel, then it is countered.
Not just because I moved it from my mage to the creature I just summoned next to it or even you.

A creature spell targets the mage's current zone.
A mage is moved while summoning - why does it not simply target the new current zone?
Why MAKE UP a rule that seems grossly counter-intuitive - and knowingly keep it quiet for so long?

Enchantment Transfusion used to be "counter by moving to itself" in the prior FAQ.
But now it has its own rules and it has to be to another target, even in the same zone.
What is the intuitiveness of the first rule or even the second rule? Why does it counter?
The target is still in range and still has line of sight and line of effect (D&D 4E term). Why counter?

Zuberi (Judge Dredd) points out that it's in the rules, the laws are coherent.
But the rules were written for Divine Intervention, not Transfusion.
All it takes is a rules tweak that nobody (except Zuberi of course) would even notice!

By all means counter the spell if in its new location it's now an illegal target
So Dispel and Seeking Dispel has a range of 2, move it so it's out of range or out of LOS
As for Divine Intervention when I summoned Adramelech/Sardonyx, I summoned it in MY zone
That's what range 0-0 means: MY zone, wherever I am! Move me and I summon it there instead!
How much more intuitive can you get than that?

It's an awful rule and the cheese of it ("I can still target it so why is Dispel countered?") is why Transfusion is hated!

Enchantment Transfusion single handedly creates Combo (action burst) in a game of pick your cards (iawesome).
You pay a premium so it's best done in multiples but can be done for optional Nullify style effects at a steep price).
Change the stupid unintuitive rule about moving, not the spell which is great (may not be to your taste, Wildhorn).
Don't throw the baby with the bathwater!

[Returns to calm, unbiased Facilitator mode]

Wildhorn, you make an interesting point about Transfusion which does indeed deserve hate for its "cheese".
I am unsure if totally nerfing is necesary as a fair price has been paid but i do agree its "move to counter" is cheesy.
Despite my strong views on this, your viewpoint is just as valid so I will make a note of it Message 10 of this thread.

33
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:04:33 AM »
I think having more novice spells would be great. In hindsight I think they should've initially decided that either all mages or no mages were trained in arcane to maintain parity, but since that ship has sailed more novice spells will restore the balance some. I think non mandatory Nullify and block are too powerful, though.  I'd revise them so optional Nullify could only affect level 1 spells and block reduced attack dice by 4. That way books that depend on a big few creatures or spells aren't completely hobbled.

Nice, well thought-out and explained feedback. I concur. It was just a rant brain dump at the time. Thank you.

So is more Novice the way forward? But would that homogenise the game too much? Remove what makes schools special?

I think not because it's still in that school, just novice - the full fat version is available for those lucky enough to be trained.

34
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 08:30:44 AM »
Folks, this involvement is awesome. Thanks for the interest.
Problem is there are so many great ideas coming all at once.
See Message 10 where I have collated everyone's thought so far (and will continue to do so).
Feel free to contribute new ideas as and when you have them please!

However, if you look at Message 10, alot of people have mentioned more choice.
This was my post on this topic of greater choice...

Trying to not re-invent the wheel, I think this Utility school is called Novice

Novice Dispel - range 1
Novice Dissolve - range 0
Novice Teleport - range 1 friendly only
Novice Nullify - optional reveal vs. incant only (not enchants due to dupe, transfusion silver bullet anyway)
Novice Block 1 - optional reveal vs. ranged attack
Novice Block 2 - optional reveal vs. melee attack
Novice Jinx 1 -  optional reveal when casting enchant to full counter

The better versions would be in their schools

The best thing about having a mini-set of utility expansions is it gives CHOICE!
I hate the fact there is so little choice for staples

"But there's no theme in such an expansion" is no doubt the excuse bleated
And there lies the nub: 2 different philosophies
Those who see it as a roleplaying simulation with thematic pre-constructed decks
And those who see it as a blank canvas for customising and micro resource-management
Both philosophies have their strengths and should be respected but there's an imbalance

It's supposed to be a customisable game
There should be choice when choosing composition of staple mechanics

What do the forum think about such an approach?
Or would you prefer specific schools getting alternative solutions?
E.g. old one of mine "Sundering Strike, War Command, next attack dissolves equipment cost up to damage rolled"

Whilst I have in the past gone down the alternative schools path, I'm now leaning more towards weaker Novice.

Thoughts?

35
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 08:05:50 AM »
@Darth
You are referencing cards they don't know, mate. Dangers of early morning posts...

Subject Point 2: Immunity

For example, in D&D if a creature is immune to fire it takes extra damage from cold and vice versa. If having immune creatures created as many bad matchups for yourself as it created for your opponents, it would balance itself out. Currently the only drawback to being Non-Living is Finite Life. If we tack on extra drawbacks to the Psychic Immune and Poison Immune traits we could turn things around.

This is a great idea and I've already gone down this route already but ended up rejecting it: I'll explain why...

We already has special Immunity rules with Hydro and its exception rule so best make it official in the Codex?
Rules tweak: every Immunity has its own entry in the Codex which are supplemental to base Immunity rules.

Hydro Immunity. Because it is always twinned with Flame +2, its exception is for Hydro to douse all burn on it.

Poison Immunity. A trait of Nonliving but not always (Malacoda) so associated with Light vulnerability. Acid vulnerability is an obvious choice but Jelly has Acid Immunity and Acid is niche while Golem has Lightning vulnerability. I think I'd just like each poison condition rolled become "change 2 normal damage to critical damage" as this compensates but to a lesser extent. Any better ideas?

Psychic Immunity. A trait associated with Nonliving (but not if an Elemental) and Insects. This hurts Mind School so I think maybe "push effects are applied twice against these creatures"? Mind Mages will have both Psychic and Force and know that if one doesn't work, the other works alot better. This is annoying as Psychic attacks are quite often Sonic damage really. Is improving Push against them too engineered?

Flame Immunity. Well it has to be Frost +2 doesn't it? (So no vullnerability really but heigh ho, we live in hope)

Burnproof. This is a sub-benefit of Flame Immunity, Incorporeal and a few objects (e.g. Golem). Maybe make them more ponderous so worse affected by Daze, Escape, Defense so "gets -2 on all d12 rolls except damage rolls"?

Acid Immunity. I think Hydro+3 is the obvious counter vulnerability for Water trained mages. Hydro washes away the Jelly. Has it got it already?

Lightning Immunity. Again following the same principle, Wind +2 for the Air trained mages?

Light Immunity. I hate to nerf her but, lacking Necrotic damage, maybe "attacks gain +2 on effect die roll to deliver poison conditions on this creature"? That's the closest the game has to Necrotic damage really.

One problem is these are all highly engineered for game balances.
In many cases (like Plants or Golems), they have already have an in-built weakness.
The big problem iscreatures have already been costed to include current Immunities without these vulnerabilities.

So, no in the end, after exploring where this leads too, Mage Wars sadly can't go down this route with a rules tweak.

Mage Wars is a game of silver bullets.

I see you play old Temple of Light so I play Samandriel (she appeared in my Fire Wizard book with Lord of Fire then).
I don't have to go down that route but I chose it as a silver bullet.

So the solution has got to be "provide in-school silver bullets to defeat your silver bullets" like those curses listed.
I play rock. You play paper. I need to be abe to play scissors.
This was the essence of Mage duels in Arabian Nights Tales when shapechanging is used (Mouse beats Elephant).

Zuberi, do you understand why applying new vulnerabilities (requiring referencing) may not be the best approach?
As we have a partly developed game already.
Great idea though.

Sorry for going into detail down a promising false path but I had to explain why I ended up with curses (not buffs).

Still, I will put it down as a possible solution...

I am editing my prior thread with solutions as and when they are mentioned and I notice them!

36
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:39:03 AM »
@Indy & Zuberi

You addressed great issues there so let's number them for easy reference

1. NERFING WIZARD
(a) Teleport (Zuberi, Indy, jack)
(b) Spell Points (Zuberi, Indy, jack)
(c) Wizard's Tower (Zuberi)
(d) Alternatives to staples (webcatcher, Zuberi, Darth)
(e) Move does not counter if still targetable (jack)

2. IMMUNITY MATCH-UPS
(a) Poison (DB)
(b) Psychic (DB)
(c) only vs. Living (DB)

3. IMPROVING SWARM
(a) Straywood (Indy)

4. CHANGES TO RANGED
(a) Jokhtari Weapon (Zuberi, jack)
(b) More obscured (Darth)

I am trying to place the issues into broad categories with subcategories
Then referencing the solutions provided by posters

Keep them coming in, folks!
Get that great feeling of helping develop this great game.
It's a real buzz when they listen (why I do Playtesting)
It's also a real downer when they don't...

Any more?

37
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:18:34 AM »
(Lazily copying other posts is going to be tricky as I can't divulge design discussions so...)

This is a HUGE topic so let's address 1 of the issues.

MATCH-UP LOTTERY, TOO UNRELIABLE

There are mages with potential 100% Nonliving builds, namely
Necromancer
Earth Wizard
Air Wizard

This creates match-up lottery for several other mages
Why would anyone RELY on any of these abilities now?

Wounded Prey
Bloodthirsty (inc. Bloodreaper)
Bleed
Poison conditions
Psychic
Vampiric
Living Creature Curses

These are all effects that all assume you are facing Living Builds
The reason why I prefer Nonliving Mages because it counters them

As Jokhtari uses the first 3 or 4 (always felt Tegu was Jokhtari slow kill control), she is a lottery
Immunity only encourages vanilla builds of rolling max. dice, not interesting adding conditions
The game need mechanics to undo the damage of defensive silver bullets

Because the existence of these defensive silver bullets turns other cards into situational cards
And we all know from the "Categorising" thread just how overpriced in SPs situational cards are

Here was an example solution to bad match-up from the Categorising thread...

Psychic Sensitivity, Cost 2+2, Enchant Creature, Range 0-2, Mind 1, Curse
This creature loses any Psychic Immunity
Psychic attacks gain +1 attack die against this creature


Now Mind Mage books can have Psychic spells, even Psylok (also helps Harpy)
This does not totally devalue Psychic Immunity, just helps vs. a bad match-up
It costs a premium (1SP, 4-5 mana, quick action) to bypass Psychic Immunity
So you may have paid for that ability but the opponents has paid to cancel it
It also provides a Psychic Only Marked for Death so is useful in any match-up
They need to create cards like this for Siren which then resuscitates old cards

Here was an earlier stab...

NATURE'S RECLAIM
Cost 2+2+X Enchant Nonliving Creature, Nature 1, Curse
X = removal cost of all condition markers on this creature
This creature loses its Nonliving trait

It's best revealed just before Damage Effects or just before Declare Attack to use Bloodthirsty.
Note the indirect mana taxation of subsequent condition markers (as it increases Dispel cost).
Because Dispelling the enchantment would obviously make all those condition markers slip off.
It would make Traditional Jokhtari playable against Nonliving and create some new strategies.

Both of them are possible solutions to addressing this issue.

I know this is just 1 issue but let's deal with this before progressing to other factors.
Does anybody else feel that some mages are weak because of Immunity match-ups?

38
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:26:57 AM »
My feeling is more like:

1. Wizards (all flavours)
2. Druid, Necromancer, Warlock, Priestess, Forcemaster
3. Straywood, Priest, Jokhtari
4. Warlord

Ok, let's work with that as a working assumption
I expect Priest fans sIKE and Zuberi may differ

But the reality is you have played a huge amount on OCTGN (and with great success)
You are probably best placed in evaluating the strength of mages based on skill and the worldwide Meta
Because obviously mage ranks differ within localised metas

So let's discount the Warlord as he is being fixed

Also MageHorst makes a good point on HOW to fix this
I think we should contain ourselves to
(a) new cards that ideally enhance that mage's strengths
(b) new cards that weaken the Wizard's dominance
(c) slight rule tweaks via a Living FAQ

(a) is best then (b) then (c)
I don't think we should change card text
(hence my proposed solution to Teleport was a slight rules tweak)

Are A > B > C good design principles to work from?


(Now, I really must do some work but will be back on this topic!
Typical, a busy project deadline delivery day and there are some awesome hot threads!)

39
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:07:26 AM »
You beat me to starting my first public thread in ages, Charmyna! :)

Firstly, I'm a bit disconnected with the meta but would I be right in saying we could categorise mages as follows:

Current Meta?
1. Wizards (all flavours)
2. Druid, Necromancer, Straywood, Priestess, Priest
3. Warlock, Forcemaster, Jokhtari
4. Warlord

Is that a fair reflection? We need to diagnose the illness before we can offer a cure!


One thing I notice is that all of my Division 3 mages suffer from unreliability, bad match-ups against Non-living.
We must get round the design restriction that is Immunity and traits triggering against Living opponents only.

When I have time, I will steal from another essay thread I wrote to see what the public think about those issues.
I'm very happy that Laddin now openly encourages using AW's greatest resource, their loyal perceptive fanbase!

40
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:44:01 AM »
Ok maybe it's time to take a deep breath here. We're not going to get anywhere with long arguments. Teleport is awesome but it's maybe not the end all auto win. How is that for a compromise? I think we all understand the points both sides of that argument can make but not all of us agree on all points. One thing I would like to point out(and I know I'm going to get decapitated for this) is many players have learned to recognize what their opponent is setting up(like oh say casting Iron Golems and bringing out a Mage Wand....) and are learning how to counter those moves. The game is fluid and dynamic, which is why I love it.

Decapitated? Am I that scary, Silverclaw? I wouldn't decapitate you. Who would I have to chew the fat with when the rest of the US are asleep?

I realise that  the game is fluid, books adapt and the designers bring new mechanics to solve issues (e.g. Corrode).

However what Teleport Mage does is stifle innovation by imposing a spell point tax on every book.
It destroys certain strategies like Ranged Fortress, one of the cornerstones of the Warlord options.
Most importantly, it really puts off new players who just look at the manoeuvre and think "cheese!".

You would be amazed how incredibly liberating it is playing without the tyranny of this Teleport paranoia.
The game actually becomes tactical, manoeuvering of forces in different zones to destroy zone exclusive assets.
Instead of always ending up in one big brawl in a zone that can't take more than 6 cards (let alone walls).

Ranged units are skillful becauise it requires positioning and protection with melee units, ideally with Defense.
The closest we get is Gorgon Archer with Eagle Wings and you've spent all your Dispels on my Essence Drains.

Teleport is actually incredibly lazy. The hard way is to play tactically better than your opponent.

I have been quiet on my anti-Teleport crusade and failed to convince on a new spell available to all to help curb it.
What has triggered me back to being a drooling wreck is this latest incarnation.
Divine Intervention + Enchantment Transfusion is just plain too strong and anti-intuitive

[Zuberi, I will respond with my counter arguments but I'm a bit busy at work here in the UK]

41
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 26, 2014, 01:49:37 AM »
But your argument is flawed
Because all this does is give the defender the ability to teleport you into his Fortress!

And because the defender has invested in
(a) creatures and enchantment traps while you have been spending actions advancing
(b) high damage creatures
(c) often under-costed for its attack Slow creatures
He is in a far better position than you to kill you.

Teleport does not cure this. It makes it worse for the attacker!
Defender has had more actions to set up the Transfusion trap so that you can't win "Teleport Wars"!

Teleport Wars is just silly.
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in.
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in.
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in
You Teleport me out. I Teleport back in.
You have run out of Teleports. Luckily I have been using a Wand of Teleport.
I Teleport you into my Pit. GG

WHAT A SILLY GAME THAT IS!

The reality is this, Zuberi: Teleporting Mages has done incredible damage to the game.
I know some experienced playtesters who are also with me here, perhaps not as brazenly rebellious.

I am probably going to lose my Playtester privilege by confessing this.
However, unless we are testing something (like a playest or BB), we mostly play to a House Rule here.
It is based on the Stunned exception to Mages.

"A Mage has so much control over his physical body that he can choose to be Stunned instead of being Teleported.
This decision is made after knowing his Teleport destination."


Teleport therefore still remains a threat with a heavy price. But it's not lethal.
Why do you think I come up with silly creative ideas like Hoover Jelly (4 Jellies + Wand of Force Wave)?
Because we've opted to fix the game to make it more fun and balanced for all mages (still not true sadly).

This was after my main opponent rage quit, refusing to play the game unless I fixed it with a House Rule.
I want to play the game so I fixed it.
And it's a much better game with this rule added.
I urge the forum to try it this way because the books and strategies become so much more interesting.
Because you don't need to spend minimum 8 spell points on 2+ defensive Teleports.
You can actually spend it on refining your book's strategy and those extra points are huge extra diversity.
Why do you think I don't post many builds these days? Because we play to a far better game here.

Before people start deriding a House Rule, I was derided by some (e.g. jacksmack) in my "House Rules" thread.
And what happened? On many points, Mage Wars either clarified it or changed the rules to legitimise our House Rules.

Let's never forget the tripod of good strategic game design:
1. FUN - a game should be fun to play, or otherwise rewarding (fun is a subjective word)
2. INTUITIVE - a game should be intuitive, not a rules referencing chore which is not fun
3. BALANCED - a game should have counters to every strategy so no strategy is dominant

I contend Teleport undermines the "Fun" and "Balanced" tripod legs - a good game can't stand on one leg.
And using Divine Intervention like this here even undermines the "Intuitive" leg too!

I urge the forum to just try the game with this House Rule.
Free yourself from the Tyranny of Teleport!
Cast forth your shackles and give this great game the freedom it deserves to flourish to its full glory!

(Ok, I'm getting a bit carried away, Agitator was always my favourite career in Warhammer Fantasy RPG).
Seriously though, the game is much better with this House Rule.


Zuberi, as a rules expert, I can't blame you developing the mindset of treating rules as some sort of Bible.
Well, most Christians don't take the self-contradicting Bible literally - and a good thing too, in my opinion.

I weep at the damage that the wrong decision on Mind Control, championed by you, did to the Forcemaster.
I know you are arguing contrary with good intentions - but we know which road is paved by good intentions.


Surely this deliberate Divine Intervention nonsense is the final straw for many players?
It has got to stop. The game is so handicapped by this mule-headed refusal to fix a design flaw.

It's still a great game. But it could be so much better.

42
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 25, 2014, 06:32:34 PM »
In regards to being able to teleport mages in general, I'm in favor of it. If we couldn't get the enemy out of their fortress, then wouldn't the win always go to whomever stayed in their start corner all game? That sounds extremely boring to me.

I am the first to concede a good point when I see one.
And you make a good point, Zuberi.

However, think of it in Medieval Warfare terms.
Your Fortress is too strong?
I attack it with ranged attacks.
Ideally the free mana ranged troops all schools have access to.
Maybe even Zonal ranged Attacks?
Better make more balanced books then.

BB would starve you out with Obelisk.
Necromancer would twiddle its thumbs with Pestilence.

Oh, did I mention just using a Wand and Teleporting your fortified troops into mine?
I obviously pick on one that has acted that turn and bring him to me and destroy it.
That's fine by the way, part of being a Wizard is an ability to rearrange the battlefield.

But to Teleport the King into traps? It's just so brutal and route 1, no finesse, no skill.

There are many tools available beyond the route 1 "Teleport Your Mage" to break down a fort.
All this means is those tools enter the meta (when did you last see a Zone Attack being cast?)


I played a game where my opposing Wizard had to Mana Siphon himself because of my Divine Intervention.
He was fine with it because it was a fun play.
Recently, being forced to go first in Round 1, my Fire Wizard cast Drain Power in Round 2 Early QC to deny my Warlock his Adramelech then cast it myself in Round 3.
The same opponent was fine with it because it was a fun play.
The same opponent Rage Quit when I revealed Mind Control in Upkeep and killed his buffed up Grizzly to my Obelisk (that short period between the wrong ruling and the errata to cover it up).
Because it was not on the card, some off-card rule.

And that's the point here.

Cards should do what you expect them to do - and Divine Intervention does not mean "counter anything".

Enchantment Transfusion says "target" so it should target, not bypass Nullify.
Bypassing Nullify, we get double Nullify situations and make Transfusion free action guaranteed delivery.
We also make Transfusion mean "counter any spell targeting an enchantment on this creature".
Is "Counter" what "Transfusion" means? I never realised this when I last donated at the Blood Bank.

There is nothing intuitive about moving is a counter unless you move target so it's out of range.
What should happen is if I move an enchantment out of range of your Dispel, then it is countered.
Not just because I moved it from my mage to the creature I just summoned next to it or even you.

A creature spell targets the mage's current zone.
A mage is moved while summoning - why does it not simply target the new current zone?
Why MAKE UP a rule that seems grossly counter-intuitive - and knowingly keep it quiet for so long?

Enchantment Transfusion used to be "counter by moving to itself" in the prior FAQ.
But now it has its own rules and it has to be to another target, even in the same zone.
What is the intuitiveness of the first rule or even the second rule? Why does it counter?
The target is still in range and still has line of sight and line of effect (D&D 4E term). Why counter?

We can see by this change of rules in the FAQ that this is just being made up as they go.
Like an episode of Lost after the first 2 seasons.


Zuberi, I lost my argument to you about Mind Control and, soon after they realised the mistake, pride took over and we got an ugly errata instead that was first smuggled in as a "FAQ Clarification".

I lost my argument to you, Zuberi, on having a cool mechanic like secret information (Wizard Training) and to just nerf Teleport instead. After sIKE told me he had known the decision for sometime (Laddin told me I almost convinced them), I finally signed the NDA and became establishment (sort of). But that didn't really help gain much influence, no matter how much effort I put in.

So there's not much I can do - except try to highlight what a turn-off this is to a lot of people on the public forum and see if there is agreement or if I'm a lone voice. I don't think I am.


You have amazing knowledge of the rules, Zuberi.
But sometimes, you just need to rewrite the rules.

43
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 25, 2014, 04:51:46 PM »
Quote
I can counter whatever major investment you cast for 11

About Transfusion + Divine Intervention, it is not 11 mana. It is 15 mana (12+3) minus ring deductions.

I thought it was obvious 11 was the amount of mana I need to have untapped to have that level of control
Yes, it is considerable tempo cost
But that level of control is too much

And of course the opponent should disrupt your pit preparation. But nobody defends better than Priestess.

I don't know, if people don't see the un-fun brokeness of it, then they are getting the game they deserve.

44
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 25, 2014, 04:43:24 PM »
And by the time she gets through the 24 turns needed to setup this "Awesome" play from Hades what ever I have been fighting against (as I have put all of my guys in a corner) will have a Buffed Steel Claw chewing on her or after 12 turns (half of the time needed for this play) BB will move in for the kill and end the game on round 13 or 14.

Oh sIKE, you spend resources to attack a Pit.
I have troops too. By all means attack a Priestess in her Sacred Fort.

We have this argument every time - because you have this rabid hatred of a mechanic that works.
It's like some sort of denial mechanic snaps in you.
Because the rest of the world may concede it works but not you.

As for BB, you have Guardian Angels, you can out-attrition her just with more actions and healing over time

For this Grizzly build, you manage to magic up better troops than a Priestess in a corner with a Knights and Guardian Angels?

It costs you resources to move and attack me. What do you think I've been doing meantime?
Golem Pit triggered on Turn 8, sIKE. This may take a bit longer but by all means assault a Priestess and see what happens.

Just take a look at Tarkin's Priestess build. You only need to make a few changes and you have your win.

But most importantly

WHERE IS THE FUN IN THIS?

45
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 25, 2014, 04:34:14 PM »
Just imagine a world where your mage was safe from enemy Teleports...
Where you can actually spend your resources on creating troops to put between you and your enemy.
Instead of armouring up to obscene levels in case you get teleported into a Pit.
Where you can actually send forth troops, and even join them, instead of suicide attacks on Death Pits.
Where you can play Warlord Ranged, not afraid you'll just be Teleported to the other side of your own Pikes.
Where you don't have to spend 8 spell points on 2 Teleports in every book, the first thing you write down.

What a far better game it would be if Mages were immune to opponent's Teleport effects...

I have a dream that one day, we could all live in that happy world where we play Mage Wars as a skirmish game...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 34