August 16, 2018, 12:23:46 PM

Poll

Are the rules too convoluted and is this MW biggest problem?

Yes, too convoluted and MW biggest problem
Yes, too convoluted but not the biggest problem
No, rules are not too convoluted but it is still the biggest problem
No, rules are neither too convoluted nor is it the biggest problem

Author Topic: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty  (Read 2003 times)

Kharhaz

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2084
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2018, 05:14:18 PM »
I mean, of all the rules that are convoluted and exist with too many exceptions, that is one I have the least issue with in any sense. Magebane doesn't hit until a spell is cast and/or resolved so the attack spell has to be cast in order to die from Magebane. If that so happens to kill the opponent, so be it.


I was thinking it was after cast and not at the end of resolve.

I will edit to make more sense, but it's still crazy that a mage can deal damage equal to the life of another mage, ie winning the game, and then its a draw because it doesnt end immediately, like all other instances of destruction in the game was my point.

Still punishes the winner either way you slice it.

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2018, 09:06:48 PM »
What if mage A melee attackís mage B who has counter strike.

Is the following true?
Mage B receives fatal damage.
Mage B still gets to conduct a counter strike
Mage A receives fatal damage.
Game is a draw.

exid

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Banana Stickers 4
  • The longer the better!
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2018, 12:52:59 AM »
no counter strike if you're dead.
(but a damage barier would do it!)

werner

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2018, 12:22:57 PM »
Having played Mage Wars since First Edition coreset (pre FM/Warlord), I can honestly say Rule-Uncertainty (no denying it exists) isn't my biggest problem with Mage Wars, nor the reason I took a break/quit shortly after the HoBS/TempleLight nerf. I didn't like the flavor of the nerf(s). Still don't.

I feel as if 99% of the nerf(s) should be "____ Mage Only" adjustments. This would buff (round-a-bout) a particular mage without crushing deck-building meta. Temple of Light was nerfed into dust. HoBS too. Both should have been Priest/Priestess Only (not Holy, anticipating Pally later).

Pillar of Righteous Flame should be Pally Only, Tsunami should be Siren Only, and so on. My small group is currently in talks about house-ruling Pillar and Tsunami this way as they appear in every friggin deck (they are just that good value-wise, a druid with tsunami is kinda broken) and 120sbp is plenty of room.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2018, 12:25:27 PM by werner »

Kharhaz

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2084
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2018, 02:51:53 PM »
no counter strike if you're dead.
(but a damage barier would do it!)

Negative.

You are dead at the end of the creature activation, aka action phase, and have to proceed through all the steps are per normal.

You would indeed get a counterstrike even though you were "dead".





zot

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 617
  • Banana Stickers 4
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2018, 04:38:19 PM »
Having played Mage Wars since First Edition coreset (pre FM/Warlord), I can honestly say Rule-Uncertainty (no denying it exists) isn't my biggest problem with Mage Wars, nor the reason I took a break/quit shortly after the HoBS/TempleLight nerf. I didn't like the flavor of the nerf(s). Still don't.

I feel as if 99% of the nerf(s) should be "____ Mage Only" adjustments. This would buff (round-a-bout) a particular mage without crushing deck-building meta. Temple of Light was nerfed into dust. HoBS too. Both should have been Priest/Priestess Only (not Holy, anticipating Pally later).

Pillar of Righteous Flame should be Pally Only, Tsunami should be Siren Only, and so on. My small group is currently in talks about house-ruling Pillar and Tsunami this way as they appear in every friggin deck (they are just that good value-wise, a druid with tsunami is kinda broken) and 120sbp is plenty of room.

as one of the two players who inspired the nerfs to be required, I will say that I think the changes were elegant. and absolutely required.  being able to spam the board with hob, and a temple is way broken. to the point where you can attack someone for 12dice melee, and then do a free 6plus dice temple shot, and still have a qc to use. ridiculous beyond belief. so if you are running house rules like the old days, priestess should be near 100% win ratio. if not, then they are playing it wrong.

hob being unique balances the card extremely well. useful, bit not overpowered. which for a card is a sweet spot. not all decks run any. so in general solid useful card.

same for temple. there are few cards that have an attack that do not require mana as a cost. I cannot come up with one at the moment, but maybe there is one card that does not. so multiple dice for zero mana is broken. put this way you should come to the same conclusion. even if you restrict it to mage/school only. you may not like it, but can  hopefully see the reason why it had to be changed.

had I been on the playtest team when the wizard tower was working through the group, I would have pointed out how obscene it was. maybe they would not have listened. I think the tower change has made it a lot less useful and perhaps could have been done differently so that it may still get played at least some. but no one really runs it much any more. so a swing too far in this case.

heck same thing for ballista. a prime example of a broken card getting printed at the promo stage. ill conceived printing of cards without vetting them properly. now they are more rigorous for promos and card sets. so future errata should be rare.

and the wizard school change was another elegant example. the wizard training at that time greatly influenced(overshadowed) all development going on in the background. all cards that had any element attached had to be warped to make sure the wizard could not make better use of the card than the mage it was intended for. the air restriction was a breath of fresh air (intended) for all the mages who used elements. they immediately became better as a result and felt more unique and thematic.




Arkdeniz

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Banana Stickers 1
  • Hated by the Dice
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2018, 05:28:03 PM »
no counter strike if you're dead.
(but a damage barier would do it!)

Negative.

You are dead at the end of the creature activation, aka action phase, and have to proceed through all the steps are per normal.

You would indeed get a counterstrike even though you were "dead".


Can you cite a particular reference for all that, Kharhaz?

All I can see is, from the main rule book, combat Step 6 ("mark the damage on the defender") interacting with the rule on page 14 that states "if the object suffers damage equal to or greater than its Life value, it is destroyed" (where "destroyed" means "removed from play").

And also, from the supplement, pg 4: "if an attack destroys a creature, the destroyed creature cannot make a counterattack. Its damage barrier will still be able to make an attack."   

  • Favourite Mage: Darkfenne Necromancer
"Frost damage is a scam an armor dealer invented once to make a Beastmaster buy a new fur" - Exid

Zuberi

  • Acolyte of the Dice Gods
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2477
  • Banana Stickers 56
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2018, 07:09:02 PM »
When the mage dies, like other creatures, he is immediately destroyed and removed from play along with anything attached to him. There are a few additional restrictions that don't normally apply to other creatures, such as being unable to pay any mana for things, but for the most part it follows the normal creature death rules. I'm not really sure the problem here.

I believe Kharhaz would like the game to end immediately upon Mage Death, which is a reasonable argument, but it currently doesn't end until the phase finishes. Basically, the game can't end mid-phase which does allow time for the other Mage to be killed. Basically, if both deaths happen in the same phase it is considered simultaneous.

I'm not sure the issue with Magebane, because the Mage takes the Magebane damage after resolving the attack. As in, the Mage doesn't get to complete an attack after death and isn't working different from other creatures. The comparison to a damage barrier seems apt.

That said, I think the rules could definitely be simplified, but I don't think that's the games biggest problem and the changes I would like to see actually aren't possible without rewriting the game to a significant extent. Maybe a new edition will see them. Stuff like simplifying traits and conditions, cleaning up the spell restrictions and training rules, and yes the order of operations could use some attention. I agree with all of that, but those are significant overhauls to the game. Basically, after nearly 6 years, I feel we've learned a lot about how this very unique first of it's kind game operates and we can do better. But not without making a whole new game.

But again, that's not really the problem with the game. The real problem is output and support. LCG's tend to get an expansion per month. We've gotten 1 or 2 per year. To put out more expansions they would need to prepare more material in advance, because there's only so much you can do to speed up playtesting. So, there's no way for us to really fix that with the game already being out there, it's something that would need to be planned for pre-launch. They then also need to fix their support for the game, maybe approaching it more like a miniature war game than a CCG, but I don't really know. That's an area that they really haven't figured out yet imo, with even the GenCon tournament still experimenting on how to run things (no more timed victories this year).

Kharhaz

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2084
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #38 on: May 29, 2018, 07:17:42 PM »
@Zuberi
Here is the setup that was mentioned. Ignore my confusion on it above.

Wizard with magebane cast boulder.
Boulder kills warlock.
since you have to finish the wizard action before the game can end, the mage bane kills him.

@Arkdeniz
I quoted the FAQ segment on it and will re post it here for clarity

"Mage Death
Once a Mage dies, he cannot perform any further actions, pay mana costs, cast spells, make a counterstrike, etc. Any enchantments and equipment attached to himself are immediately destroyed. Other objects he controls in the game remain in play.

If a Mage dies, continue play until the end of that Phase (e.g. the Upkeep Phase, or the current creature's Action Phase.) If all remaining Mages die before the end of that Phase, the game is a draw.

Example: In a two-player game, a Wizard with 1 remaining health and enchanted with Magebane casts an attack spell on the enemy Warlock to kill him. The Warlock is killed and the Wizard will die from the Magebane, and the game will be a draw."

Zuberi

  • Acolyte of the Dice Gods
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 2477
  • Banana Stickers 56
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #39 on: May 29, 2018, 07:32:13 PM »
Okay, that order is correct. A dead mage would not get a counterstrike though. They are treated basically identical to other creatures upon death, with just a few additional rules tacked on. But I think your main issue is the fact that the game doesn't end immediately, and I can understand why that would be frustrating and think you have a good argument to be made. I think the fact that the game handles everything linearly though, without any "stack" or true simultaneous events, makes the whole "it ends at the end of the phase" thing make some sense. You finish what you were in the middle of, and anything that happens during that phase "kind of" happened at the same time.

I don't really have an opinion on this. I can see merit in both methods. You are right that ending it immediately would be simpler though, which is the point of the thread.

exid

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Banana Stickers 4
  • The longer the better!
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2018, 05:54:46 AM »
so... was I right?

if the mage is attacked and killed, he will not counterstrike but his barrier will attack.
or somehow els?

Puddnhead

  • Member of Arcane Duels; MageCast Co-host
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1463
  • Banana Stickers 7
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2018, 08:50:34 AM »
so... was I right?

if the mage is attacked and killed, he will not counterstrike but his barrier will attack.
or somehow els?

My understanding of the above rules is that the damage barrier would be attached to the mage and therefore destroyed along with the mage.  So you would not get a damage barrier roll if you were killed.
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

werner

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2018, 10:11:11 AM »
as one of the two players who inspired the nerfs to be required, I will say that I think the changes were elegant. and absolutely required.  being able to spam the board with hob, and a temple is way broken. to the point where you can attack someone for 12dice melee, and then do a free 6plus dice temple shot, and still have a qc to use. ridiculous beyond belief. so if you are running house rules like the old days, priestess should be near 100% win ratio. if not, then they are playing it wrong.

Our local group play-tested the ever-living crap out of HoB/Temple spam and it was hardly unbeatable. And this was before "Lesser Teleport!" Too often the Priestess got (4) HOB out and was already eating 10-15 dmg per turn with no chance of continuing to (6) HOB before dying. It was incredibly "unwise" to cast #5 and #6 in our rushdown testing. Keyword: Rushdown.

Granted, you made the NERF decision with Turtle vs. Turtle in mind, and that kinda bothers me as well.

Quote
hob being unique balances the card extremely well. useful, bit not overpowered. which for a card is a sweet spot. not all decks run any. so in general solid useful card.

I couldn't stand seeing every "class/school" running (1) HoB. Guess I'm a M:TG player at heart.

Quote
same for temple. there are few cards that have an attack that do not require mana as a cost. I cannot come up with one at the moment, but maybe there is one card that does not. so multiple dice for zero mana is broken. put this way you should come to the same conclusion. even if you restrict it to mage/school only. you may not like it, but can  hopefully see the reason why it had to be changed.

Yes, but... You start the match with 0 Temples and 0 Laser-Temples. And we're back to Massive Design Decisions being made for a Turtle vs. Turtle scenario. Rushdown really hurts Turtle-Hob/Laser spam. And here's the rub: There are MANY ways to rushdown the opponent(turtle) but there is only one way to spam HoB/Laser (lay and pray).

I wish these non-mage-specific "power-cards" didn't homogenize the deck-building meta as much as they did/have/continue to do. And I wish Dev/Playtest/QA cared about this issue as much as I do.

Edit: Our local meta died around the same time the HoB/Laser nerf hit... Consensus being homogenization over specialization.

EditEdit: On second-thought, I'm also suggesting I would've been fine with UniqueHoB *and* Priestess-only.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 10:20:06 AM by werner »

RomeoXero

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 593
  • Banana Stickers 6
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2018, 10:32:46 AM »
They were also designing the errata based on a global meta, not (and i mean no offence) a local micro meta. If you guys were play testing it a lot then your meta was used to seeing it frequently. Therefore the rush down your referring to was ready in all your books for that instance. Now we run into the same problem that was such a huge issue for the wizard and his tower. How many SP are you gonna dedicate to teching against a mage you may not see? It was also not restricted to any school or mage in particular so a wizard could just as easily spam the temples and benefit from early cheap armor off a forge and his voltaric shield so that the rush is blunted right away. Also the tactic involved having a few ToLs and the full complement of 6 HoBs. So you can drop the temple of light early and sti get the free harassment shots while you  drop the rest of the temples.
It was wildly overpowered, and had so much value that NOT running that strat would have been considered sub par play. Free dice come in small batches of 2 or 3 on conjurations and those have hefty play costs too (I'm referencing the lotus and orchid), or big timing issues (ballista, akiros hammer), or range restrictions (all of them, 0-0, 1-2, 2-3) that make them impractical to spam. Add to all that the increasing numbers of armor or healing that come with those hobs and that's a stack of bad that just keeps getting worse. It needed adjustment pretty bad.
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid
I love this game. Its awesome!

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: The biggest problem MW has: rule-uncertainty
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2018, 09:41:55 PM »
(Pre nerf) I donít understand how you can ďjustĒ finish off a priestess with 6 bims out since she can use them to heal herself or armor herself while she throws healing spells on top of that.
And letís not forget you could be dazed or stunned for your action as well.

It was OP back then. The synergie I mean. I donít mind what they did with Bim... but I donít love it either.
I think I would have liked it be priestess only as well. (Which means priest can use it also).

ToL on the other hand....
Unfortunately they made temple of light useless.
I wish they had kept it at a reasonable fixed cost to shoot the temple such as 2 or 3 mana now hat it has such a high casting cost.
What they did with it just shows that they back then had no idea how problematic ready markers on conjurations can be.

Right now itís in the state where they want to be sure they donít need to errata it again.
But I actually think they should errata it again into a sensible state where itís actually viable.