February 27, 2020, 08:23:31 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 6 ... 34
46
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 25, 2014, 04:21:22 PM »
Thanks, folks, for making me feel better on this
I have always considered Divine Intervention to be friendly creature (intuitive) and I had to double-check.
Here is the main reason I take issue with this

Enchantment Transfusion + Divine Intervention

That's 2 free action Teleports that you have banked
It's just too powerful control
I can counter whatever major investment you cast for 11
That insurance policy is huge
You can't even kill it with Seeking Dispel as I just move it
However, as Golem Pit showed, that's the main use for it

Forget the Wizard, he's past it!

The Priestess can create a Corner Pit of 4 Bear Strength Knights (in Sacred Ground if necessary)
She's steps out, protected by her Guardian Angel, and casts a Steel Wall around it
Then Teleport to within 2, Transfuse Intervention onto the enemy mage and send him into your Pit
I don't even need to Transfuse Nullify + Jinx + Force Hold if I know he doesn't have Eagleclaw Boots
(Last time I looked, the rules were not clear on Climbing and Restrained so we play it does prevent)

Unstoppable

Wow, that's really going to help me attract new players to this game!

When will they listen about "Teleport your mage" cheese?
In many storytelling conventions, it's a standard trope for the hero to suffer a downfall because of hubris.
Refusal to see how the game could be so much better by admitting a big flaw is pride, a common hubris.
And we all know what pride comes before.

47
Rules Discussion / Re: Divine Intervention & Creature Spell
« on: February 25, 2014, 02:43:30 PM »
To do this it is turn 1 teleport 2 then move 1 and cast DI on other mage. If you have initiative for round 2 you then QC a Nullify. I did not to tell people about this until it got noticed. Took you all long enough  :P .

Is it just me that finds this just too cheesy?
I think I would rage quit if someone did this and I didn't about this trick then
Just like when a friend rage quit when I revealed Mind Control in ready phase (since nerfed)
There are some maneouvres that make a mockery of all the hard work it should take to do it

Teleporting Enemy Mages should not be allowed under any circumstances

Mark my warning: this Teleport cheese is hurting the game.
Someone already wrote his local meta doesn't play Wizards.
Mine allow Wizards only with the permission of his opponent.
Now we have this which feels so wrong in theme and design.

It's not funny that this silliness is actually knowingly tolerated by AW and even encouraged to be announced.
Kich has even written a really good interesting article (with pictures) about Teleport and this on the website.
I'm baffled AW would actually want to boast about cheesy mechanics that put potential players off the game.
It's like watching a one-armed man repeatedly load the shotgun and shoot himself in the foot until it falls off.

For a game that prides itself in
* No Guaranteed Kill Spells (Drain Soul closest)
* No Hard Control Spells
there's this huge disjoint when it comes to evaluating how broken "Teleporting the enemy mage" effects are.

Imagine in Chess if you could Teleport the enemy King...

I think what got me is it's a long-known manoeuvre, so many chances to be subtly removed by amending the FAQ.
They actually worded the FAQ to ensure this is possible.

It's not clever. It's not fun. It's just silly value destruction of a great game.

Is this just me? Is anyone else as flabbergasted, exasperated and angry by this as me?

48
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 25, 2014, 02:00:46 PM »
I'll give it a shot...

That's better! Our programmer for OCTGN vents his frustration...
I will try my best to defend your cards, lettucemode (though most are really hard to justify)

Hellfire Trap - don't get me ranting about Mandatory Reveal
It would be so much more fun if Traps were not Mandatory Reveal
It's Dark 1, isn't it? So it's a 1SP Fire spell for Necro against Druid?

Animal Kinship - this is a Timmy card., right?
So that Timmy can boast my Beastmaster is +11 Armour and attacks for Melee +12!
(He forgets to mention his opponent was asleep and left him unmolested to do this)
Yes, this one is there with Gate to Hell in my books

Animate Dead - well, you can Wand this unlike Rise Again
Again for the type of player who doesn't want to win the game
Just kill every enemy creature then bring them back as zombies
Especially laughing at his Zombie Valshalla as it gets angrier
Sadly. his opponent will be attacking himself to end the pain...

Earthquake - I reckon it will become more useful
It's good at killing vines, damaging flowers and trees
I believe Earthquake is a "sleeper card" for the future
My issue with it is it's so meh, it's just this little tremor
Earthquake! should be Epic. arena wide, damaging all non-flying objects
"Did the earth move for you when I cast that spell?" - er, not really mate

Circle of Fire - agree Lightning is so much better
Especially since Dragonscale and Clloak is everywhere
Also all those creatures with Flame -2 or Lightning +2
But only Air Wizard pays 2SPs for a Circle of Lightning
A Druid who has run out of Dispels may not like it much
Burn is also a good weapon against Resilient Zombies
If Swarm becomes more popular, I could see it played
In fact, after Forged In Fire, this could be played more

Force Wave - this is the only spell in your list that I like
Yes, I've had some fun with Force Wave and Zombies
But the most fun I had was with my Jelly Hoover build
4 Jellies + Wand of Force Waves pushing them around
Only problem is when you hit the wall edges or corners
It was a hilarious fun build as locals are sick of Teleport
Force Wave is also ok vs. Swarm, there's an old post on it
Wall of Thorns is a very cheap way for spread damage

Repulse - ok, this I cannot defend really because random
If only it wasn't random but instead all in 1 chosen direction

Giant Wolf Spider - how much? For those stats? Next please.
And to add insult to injury, it's not even animal for synergy!
(Yes, arthropod) - I see other insects appearing in promos.

Staff of Beasts - this could be easily saved with this support card:
"When this mage heals a target, pay to remove 1 condition on it"
I believe this Paladin card is needed to make active healing better
We can't all be carrying Healing Wands in our left hands, it's silly!

So, in summary. here is where I stand with your list, Lettucemode:
Needs the Right Build - Force Wave
Awaiting Future Cards - Earthquake. Circle of Fire, Staff of Beasts
Only for Casual Play - Hellfire Trap, Animate Dead, Giant Wolf Spider
Lowest Plane of Hell - Animal Kinship, Repulse

Maybe others have found interesting uses for these subpar cards?

49
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 25, 2014, 01:09:13 PM »
No card ranking discussion proceed without mentioning how terrible Psylock is.

Psyloks are indeed terribe but not beyond hope.
All of these poor cards can be resuscitated if there was a will to do so
For example, imagine if this card came out...

Psychic Sensitivity, Cost 2+3, 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

So I believe rubbish creatures are actually very easy to fix
Either using new cards or by tweaking the rules just a bit
What I feel is far more difficult to fix is non-creature spells.
Here, let's take Charmyna's example: Light attack spells.

Nonliving is common in the current meta (Jelly, Golems and Spirits hate Light too for some reason)
Priest (guarded) + Dawnbreaker Ring + Hawkeye + Wand of Pillar of Light doesn't feel too shabby?
But here is a spell that is probably only good for 1 mage due to his ability and in a specific build too.

Blinding Flash however is another matter because it is 2SPs
it can be great in a Jelly/Golem Pit but it's just too situational, reliant on opponent's build.
This is where I feel they don't cost some spells properly.
Because there is a multipler, "how likely will I play it?" that is not applied to spell point cost.
They seem to fixate on level as indication of the power of the spell in the best possible case.
Instead of "what is a fair price in SPs to pay for this spell taking into account its likelihood to be useful?"
With Novice being used to give all mages access to "must have" cards (I'm looking at you, Water Wizard).

Because, as someone keeps on wisely saying : "it's (almost) all about the spell points!"

This is all linked to the same topic of many lower end cards: how situational is the card?

With an ever-growing pool, they can't continue to give levels to situational cards based on "potential full impact"
They need to multiply it with "% possibility of achieving full impact" and reduce situational card spell point costs
Else they'll never get played as competition for a place in your cram-packed 120 budget gets ever more difficult

As for current situational cards, they need to introduce mechanics to make them more reliable
Priest showed how to make Pillar of Light playable in a specific build (even then, dissolve the Wand)
For Psyloks (which started this post), a curse like Psychic Sensitivity would help (still not great)
But the main problem with Psyloks (and the rubbish Harpy scream) is the full action range 0 attack
I assume they had visions of Force Hold on victim while the Psyloks circled above which is possible

In the end, Psyloks and Blinding Flash are pretty hard to defend with the current pool of cards

My personal hate is Firestorm: I'd love to range 1 nuke but can't swallow its spell point cost.
Because like Destroy Magic, casting a full action spell at range 1 (don't hurt yourself) is tricky.
Has the existence of the Druid in the meta brought this card into play?

50
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:17:15 PM »
So we;ve had under the microscope...

* Destroy Magic
* Rise Again
* Mana Siphon
* Banish

All of them proven to have some utility to varying degrees.
Surely there must be some other cards that people want to place with Gate to Hell?

What about understanding Opportunity Cost?
You can only wear 1 Belt
Regrowth and Veteran's Belt are both great
Colossus Belt is not only situational but never going to compete in that hotly contested slot
Colossus Belt - I hereby consign you to join Gate to Hell

Much like a new Cloak would have to be as good as Elemental
But any old Helmet would be added to many Forge builds.

Well, we all know there are lots of sub-optimal cards, especially creatures
Er, was there a Gorilla in the core set? Faeries? Leeches?  Harpies? Trolls?
Creatures are just too easy a target as there are a lot of parameters to balance.

What's really interesting are those cards that are potentially useful but you just can't see the use for it.

Stranglevine seems over-costed - but then again it kills Blasting Banker with its ranged only attacks.

What we really need are a few brave souls to accuse some grey area cards of not being that good really.

Surely someone else will bite? (Where's Aylin when you need some lively debate on this forum...)

I know I have learnt at least 3 new things from this thread so far. To question is to learn.


51
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 01:54:18 PM »
Creatures enchanted with Turn to Stone or hit with Sleep can still be buffed, and the enchantment or condition itself can be gotten rid of the next turn, or sooner if the other player anticipated it. Banish however has no such counter-play. That's why I consider it the superior answer to one-big-rush strategies like Adramelech.

That's a good point. Also Turn to Stone has a 6 point upfront cost too.
Yes, I am starting to see the value of Banish. Thank you, ACG and Lettuce, for the insight.

Force Hold is my favourite control card (for FM: 2+1 with ring, upkeep 2 with orb is amazing)
Maybe that's why I didn't give Stumble attention (until now)

The not being stunned is an excellent reason to reanimate plants (thornlashers especially). However, reanimated creatures do not gain the Resilient trait (which is probably a good thing).

Guess who stopped reading when he saw "Slow" on Reanimates...?
These Reanimates are even more rubbish than I thought.

However sIKE's trick of Rise Again on Vine Snapper Treebond guard is still great.
Hmm, I may give Rise Again a spin in a combative Sectarus Curse Warlock build.
But it's such situational 3SP card, only useful against a handful of Living targets.
If only there was a better Dark Living than Hellion as a good guaranteed target...

Naah, it's just too much of a long shot gamble for 3SPs - but probably yes for 2SPs.
Which proves my point about opponent-build based spells needing to be lower level.
Would there be more Reversal of Fortune fun if Steals were more common at level 2?

52
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 12:11:46 PM »
@Deckbuilder,

I have found Rise Again to be almost magical against the Druid. She likes to put a Vine Snapper in the same zone as her tree to protect it. I like to put Rise Again on it, then kill the Vine Snapper, making sure I have enough mana on hand to cast it when it finally dies. Now, I don't have to stay near the Tree getting zapped by vines exploding thorns like crazy and being still for those hard hitting stationary critters of the Druids. I can shoot off a fireball (Wand of Fieballs) pull back and let a mid-critter finish off the snapper and now I have two critters chomping on the tree and the snapper is quite efficient at it. When the end is nigh I get close and pop in a Fireball. That Intercept stuff works both ways...

That's really clever. Plants with their high hit points become Resilient and are Rooted not Slow so not even Stunned. Wow!

It's almost like the designers did this on purpose...:)

Learnt 2 good things about Mage Wars in this thread

53
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 11:50:54 AM »
Okay, I can point a few fingers, in the hopes of learning something new:

Mana Siphon: I see little reason to choose this over essence drain. I suppose against a solo mage it might have some utility, but generally people have at least one creature, and essence drain pays for itself twice as fast (or destroys a creature cheaply, which is even better). I suppose Mana Siphon can't be dispelled, but I still don't see its utility.

Banish: This card seems too expensive to me for what it does. Remove a creature for 3 turns only to have it return unscathed for 14 mana? Why not summon my own strong creature with that mana, or do something else?

That's more like it, ACG! Let me try to help out here.

MANA SIPHON

In Denial Wizard, I play Mana Siphon with Essence Drains, Obelisk, Orb, Cloak, Armour Ward, Wardstones
Because every extra point of denial is better than last as a spell's cost = mana cost/(channel-burdens)
Using your zones to deny mana is actually more effective than increasing your mana (or that's my theory)
But it's a strategy you have to go all in

I generally use it as early as possible, and like it
It serves these purposes
(a) it destroys the opponent's carefully micro-managed maths at the start
(b) I want to deny more than 3 mana Essence Drain costs (1 for my Ring, 2 for when reveal before Upkeep)
(c) its incredibly resilient (with ethereal less popular) and distracts the opponent's units from attacking me

In Mana Denial, you are simply trading
Essence Drain is trading your 2 SPs for his 1-2 SPs Dispel (1 of 6 max.) and 3 mana (a good trade)
Mana Siphon is trading 3SPs and 11 mana for a few turns of distraction plus 2 mana for each turn surviving
In isolation, none of them work well but combined, they hurt incredibly when your channel 7 has burden 6

I'm pretty sure you play Magic, ACG, and you know how the control decks leverage mana advantage to win
It's just the same here - but it was very frustrating for the opponent which is why I don't play it anymore

There's an old thread "Is mana denial viable?" where piousflea taught a new poster called DeckBuilder a few lessons on this strategy.

Mana Siphon is good - but only in conjunction with all the other Mana Denial tools that the Wizard has.


BANISH

This one is harder to justify as I have never ever played it or even included it in a Wizard book.

Your opponent has Lord of Fire with Bear Strength, Cheetah Speed, Mongoose Agility, Vampirism on it.
That's a lot of eggs in 1 basket.

In theory, a Wand of Banish will probably cost you 1 rounds mana in every 3 to remove it from the game.

Nowadays it would be Shaggoth Zora bloated with 6 Crawlers emerging from it. You can't sleep Shaggoth.

It's not much different to Turn to Stone which costs 12 mana for those 3 turns.
Yeah Force Crush is better for 12 but that's too expensive, Force Hold is just 9 in 3 turns.
But all 3 of those are suddenly Dispelled and the creature is ready to not-so-surprise attack you.

Banish is a tempo play like Sleep and above enchantments (ok, Force Crush can be part of a Win Condition)

Is it good? Well, I've never played it.
And whip Vinewhip Staff, I can't see anybody relying solely on a single Timmy behemoth strategy anymore.
Banish it will be great if creatures with a coming-into-play or leaving-play disadvantage become popular.
So maybe it's just "ahead of its time"?

Oh, who am I kidding, I can't defend Banish, sorry.

54
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 11:07:04 AM »
@Silverclawgrizzly: ... Yes, interesting. ... I can see why you would put them in every book.  How many Bear Strength do you like, and how do you like to use it?

@Zuberi: ... I am incredibly curious to "get a glimpse into your mindset", and that of anyone else who is willing to share....

@DeckBuilder: I guess my goal is to expose how we are each thinking about spells both so that we all gain by gaining insight into other player's evaluations, but also might have a greater understanding...

Why do I get this feeling that we're all being analysed by a psychiatrist here?
"Hmmm. Interesting. Very insightful. Now tell me more about your mother..."
I just worry about when he PMs me his invoice... :)

Yeah, AlexW, I do realise that our categorisation are different.
My categorisation is a 2x2 grid quadrant really.

One one axis you have Proactive (based on my strategy) and Reactive (based on your strategy)
This is the point you brought up with Charmyna in the Banking Blaster thread

The other axis is Undercosted or Overcosted

But what you have brought in is a third dimension, making it a 2x2x2 cube
The z axis being Trained or Untrained
Where Undercosted or Overcosted removes the school of the spell in its evaluation (which mine included)

[Trained or Untrained] x [Reactive or Proactive] x [Undercosted or Overcosted] = 8 possible categories

Again, I think the scope is just too huge.
Which is why I focused on just 1 aspect (Proactive vs. Reactive) because it helps me in non-public debates


Even though I feel this subject needs de-scoping, I will be following this thread and hope contribute more soon.

55
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 10:44:17 AM »
@ Lettucemode, Boomfrog, Webcatcher

Thank you for your interest.
Yes, yes, I can see where it can be used and you give very insightful feedback
But let me ask you this simple question...

"Have you ever played Destroy Magic or even included it (more than once) in a book?"

The Prosecution rests its case, your honour.

56
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 10:40:14 AM »
Both good points, webcatcher

DESTROY MAGIC

I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of Destroy Magic, full action range 0-1 like Firestorm etc.
The point I'm trying to make is this.

Spells which are reliant on opponent's build need to be cheap in levels
Else they won't be put into books on the off chance when there is so many others competing
The Opportunity Cost is simply too high just for an off-chance

I have nothing against the in-game cost
Purge Magic - 12 mana, range 1, quick spell (QC flexibility), can be Nullified
Destroy Magic - 16 mana, range 1, full action (mage stationary)
That seems imminently fair
What I have trouble is the spell points cost

4SP toolbox will never get into a book
Toolbox spells that rely on opponent's build have to be low level for game variety

I tell you what Destroy Magic should have been. Level 4 War with an exclamation mark.
It's just like a brainless Orc Barbarian to destroy magic and not care who controls it.
Then it stops being a sledgehammer Toolbox and becomes a Strategy piece for Warlord.
Opponents know they can't over commit to enchantments with this.
(16 mana is just 3-4 enchantments and you get action advantage)
This would also explain why Warlord is better off with Commands.
Who needs Dispels when you have a deterrent to avoid over-use?

RISE AGAIN

At Level 3 Dark Mage Only, this was obviously for the Warlock who can recast his only copy
I don't know what its interaction with Sectarus is but I'm hoping it's what I think it is do you time its use
Though if you lose Sectarus with it, that 6SPs lost

I won't go into the ins and outs of why it doesn't work
(Mainly because I don't want this to be any more negative)

But the point is this - it is incredibly situational
It does not work on the Nonliving
It assumes I want to kill the only huge buffed Elite that you use rather than just kill you
Even if I reanimate it, adding slow makes it situationally useful
It's great for Grimson but rubbish for Necropian Vampiress (who loses her teeth, a Slow short-hop flyer)
And then there is the tempo cost of always having the mana spare to reanimate

Also Zombies is best if you play Zombie support (Frenzy, Shaggoth etc)
Which means you might as well be playing Necromancer Zombies with level 2 Ziggurat
Though again that suffers from the same situational issues as Rise Again which is why it fails the cut

Time and time again we see this lack of understanding with situational cards
Steal Enchantment is level 3 (rationale must have been: you gain 1 quick action advantage)
Steal Equipment is level 3 (again same rationale)
Mind Control is level 6 (er, anyone who reads the forum what I think of it with the nerf)
But like Rise Again, Ziggurat and Animate Dead, all of them suffer from this issue:

"What makes you think that I want any cards of yours?"

This "situational" issue is why REACTIVE cards have to be lower spell level than PROACTIVE cards.
Otherwise the spell will just never get into books.

You have no idea how relevant this discussion is and why I jumped on this thread to explore issues.
Else we will just have same over-costed (in spell points) reactive spells that we have seen so far.


So, surely everybody must have a few "WTF?" cards they are willing to share?
I know AlexW will have to explain his hatred of Stumble (which I've discovered is actually nifty for FM).

Everyone makes mistakes (I certainly stumbled in this thread).
But not everyone realises they have made mistakes and why they have made it unless it's spelt out.
Sometimes I feel like a Lone Voice fighting my corner in vain so I came to the public forum for your help.

If nobody is willing to finger-point specific cards, does anybody agree or disagree with me?

57
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:42:06 AM »
So folks, this unintentionally demonsrates what I said

I think the most fun to be had is a thread dedicated to Category (E) = laminate as a coaster
And then others can defend why those crads deserve to be in Category (D) = niche strategy

People should post what they think are stinker cards
And others can come to its defence and prove them wrong
The poster and those who agreed with him learn something
The rest of us are entertained

Now even as a mandatory, I thought Stumble was Niche
Now I know it's non-mandatory. I would rank it as Workhorse (rejected in most builds because of its 2SPs)

However my personal bete noir which I just can't understand how it ever passed Quality Control is...

4 Destroy Magiic? - er, no thanks (0 would have been a nice number until we get more zone/conjuration enchants)

Cards that rely on opponent's build are Toolbox
(Cards that rely on your own niche build are Strategic)

So here we have a Toolbox Level 4 Arcane FULL ACTION spell
Costs Wizard 4 and others 8 (let's not talk about the Warlord...)

What possible use has this spell got in the current meta (let alone when it appeared)?
Yes a Beastmaster may buff himself and his Grizzly with Bear Strength, Vampirism, Regowth, Rhino Hide
But you also lose own enchants which therefore requires positioning (full action) and not mixing own on targets
As for trap builds, they rely on Transfuison which can save the stack of cheaply cast hidden enchants anyway!

Surely the point about Toolbox cards which are based on opponent's build is you need them to be low SP cost
So that they get included in builds as "Golden Toolbox" for those what-if matches - and certainly not level 4

Spell level is surely an indication of that school's exclusivity?
If it's above level 2, it is almost "Trained Only" in our ever-growing bulging 120 budget books
A spell which fits with your strategy should have different levels to one based on a possible opposing build
Because your build is 100% certain so it's relevant - the opposing build is a % chance based on changing meta

I'm bringing this up specifically because I'm interested in the public view on this (being discussed elsewhere)
And because it's relevant to the categorisation of spells (Rise Again is level 3 but costs 2+0)

Anyone else willing to point the finger at a card that baffles them?
I'm not trying to be nasty but constructive as mistakes are simply opportunities to learn and not repeat.

58
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 05:53:35 AM »
How wrong I am - I must have misread it.
Serves me right for carrying forward my venting steam on Mandatory Reveal (another thread elsewhere).

Stumble is a pretty good trap then. A definite upgrade iin my eyes,
I wonder why AlexW put it lowest category (probably misread it like me).
His low ranking certainly assured me my false memory of it was correct.
Will have to giye it a try, seems perfect for some of my builds - thanks.

I'd hardly call it a "boom (head explodes)" moment, jacksmack
But then I've got used to your style which is certainly one of a kind on this forum :)

Thanks for the correct and the trouble you took typing both version texts
It certainly improved my MW and for that I am grateful
(The gloating public humiliation less so...)

59
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 05:27:48 AM »
Stumble is not mandatory reveal.


*boom* (head explodes)

Your usual inimicable style, jack.
At work here, doesn't it say "the next time this creature would move2 in its text?

60
Spells / Re: Categorizing Power Levels of Spells in Mage Wars
« on: February 24, 2014, 05:03:04 AM »
The scope is far too large
And the value of cards varies with the mages playing (cost-benefit), other cards in the book and your local meta
For example, AlexW, you posted Pushy Wizard hence Eagleclaw up there
Yet in my meta, Veteran's Belt + High Armour has nerfed Thorns Push and Wall Bash

Interesting though this discussion will be, it falls prey to the same assumptions fas723 made with "most efficient creatures"
The reality is you would need to map out a Kohonen Network of card interactions
Then apply it to a changing meta propensity to encounter opponent cards to evlaute this

For example, in a meta of Buffed Forcemasters, Curse Stacking and Buffed Elites, Purge Magic immediately becomes a valuable threat.
There are just so many dimensions that I think the thread's subject should be de-scoped to just one aspect

Broadly your 5 categories are:
(A) Always Golden (e.g. Teleport)
(B) Toolbox Golden (e.g. Purge Magic) - reacting to opponent's strategy
(C) Workhorse - the majority - just don't talk about these and cloud the issue
(D) Niche Strategy (e.g. Rajan's Fury) - useful only for certain own strategies
(E) Waste of Trees (e.g. Destroy Magic)

I think the most fun to be had is a thread dedicated to Category (E) = laminate as a coaster
And then others can defend why those crads deserve to be in Category (D) = niche strategy
For example, if they release cheap mobile Demons, Gate to Hell is borderline Niche Strategy
But spending 4+SPs on reactive opponent's build-reliant spell like full action Destroy Magic is never going to happen

Another example: you hate Stumble
But actually it's Niche suitable for at least these strategies
Teleport to Monster Pit + Transfusion Jinx Nullify Force Hold Stumble
(Could be played in-school with Forcemaster Force Pull into Teleport Trap into Pit of 4 Psyloks if only better)
It could also help Warlord Ranged Strategy against Melee Units (e.g. 6 Falcons + 4 Rajan's Fury BM Swarm)
Aniother edge case: playing against Golem Warlord with a Helm of Charge
The problem is the mandatory reveal which I so hate in this game
We have this awesome mechanic where we bank actions as enchantments with instant speed surprise reveals
And then they nerf the most enchanting aspect of the game with dumb down mandatory reveal
In the case of Stumble, there is only a tiny window before it has to be revealed
What is the point of an enchantment you can't bank for surprise reveal as moving is such a common action?
To add insult to injury, Force Hold is non-mandatory, provokes Dispel for cost 3 and only costs 1 more mana
So Stumble becomes an incredibly situational "poor man's Force Hold" for those who can't afford 4SPs
I think they put it in DvN because thematically it fits with Horror Movies etc (theme plays a very high priority)
When really they are never going to catch-up on their promo card backlog so might as well forget failures

You've got me ranting again! :)
But mandatory reveal so annoys me because its a great game needlessly shooting itself in the foot again.
Just imagine what a high skill finesse spell Stumble could have been if it was not a mandatory reveal...?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 34