May 12, 2021, 07:28:36 PM

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 ... 34
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Poor gorilla
« on: March 04, 2014, 07:17:01 PM »
Sticking the OP, the only time I played a Gorilla was with the Jokhtaro
I chose it because it was thematic of Kumanjaro

The strategy was

Gorrilla (guards Lair) + Rhino Hide + Divine Protection

Because I was also playing Deathlock (for plentiful Bleed), the lack of healing was not an issue

It was however too big a defensive investment for a Beastmaster (even a Mid Range that planted Flowers)

And there lies the issue: it doesn't really gel with its school's strategies

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Poor gorilla
« on: March 04, 2014, 06:26:50 PM »
Oh, WebC, we seem to be shockingly in tune... I too weep for the poor unloved Gorilla...

I wrote a long thread about "Resuscitating Unloved Cards"
My approach was to change the Codex, not the cards
Here is a carefully edited excerpt relating to the Gorilla.

5. Rage tokens are not removed by Healing

Nature has some great Level 4 Elites: Grizzly, Cervere, Redcalw, Galador, Kralathor - Gorilla is not one
For c.16 mana, I've far better options than a Gorilla - the solution is to make Rage and Climbing better!
Because it's enemy creature attacks only (no Jelly chomping on Thornlasher companion), it's not great
I get 4 dice now with a promise of 7 dice if I survive 3 enemy creature attacks, too much future benefit
That's why the Gorilla also needs Climbing to be upgraded

6. Climbing is a move action

Climbing currently appears on just 4 cards: Eagleclaw Boots, Gorilla, Animal Kinship and Ichthellid
Climbing currently interacts with 3 cards in a rubbish way: Wall of Stone, Wall of Steel, Wall of Bone
The moving through Passage Attacks clause makes no sense, further validating need for a re-write
To make matters worse, Restrain stops move actions but not a Climb full action, it needs a re-write

Because I can always move 1 then cast a Wall across the border I moved, Climbing is situational
Climbing as it stands is a defensive situational trait while it could be so much more useful in books
By making Climbing a move action, it solves Restrain, brings Passage Blocks mazes into the game
The mage who puts Climbing into his book is incentivised to add those Walls - good for the game

For me, the priority is to re-invigorate old cards and introduce styles, even if I'm playing fast and loose
I see no issue Climbing being code for "ignore Passage Blocked", like Reach is dubious "ignore Flying"
By making Climbing a move action, it adds relevance to this trait, opening up some interesting builds
It also solves the Restrained issue (Passage Attacks "benefit" is simply dropped as makes no sense)

I think Rage and Climbing could be such cool traits

The only reason Climbing is relevant is to don Eagleclaw Boots to climb out of a Pit
(Yes, an Ichthellid can climb over a Bone Fortress then be easily killed so it's flawed)
If the cheesy Pit strategy finally gets nerfed, what is it good for?

I don't think the Gorilla would suddenly become overpowered with these changes
There is a very easy way to avoid Rage and that's to just avoid attacking it, leaving it as a vanilla 4 dice
It would make a great Bodyguard but there are ways round this: Push, Tanglevine, Mongoose, Slam etc
Of course it's only enemy creatures so you can damage it with attack spells before swarming for the kill

Unfortunately "Resuscitating Unloved Cards" was felt to be too reactive so didn't get much open support
But I still contend you can elegantly make lots of these bad cards playable if you just changed the Codex
I mean, does anyone really play Staff of Arcanum or Mana Leeches? Now what do they have in common...
I just want these rejected cards to become useful without card erratas, by just changing their keywords

And I just wish the Gorilla could join the rest of the great level 4 Nature creatures out there to choose from
(Makunda is another poor level 4 because, even with future Cat support, he compares poorly to Redclaw)

General Discussion / Re: FIF: Adramelech's Touch Preview
« on: March 03, 2014, 07:52:44 PM »
Just for you Deck and from your side of the pond! Touch!

Thank you for that memory lane trip, sIKE! I think you meant to link Sam Fox's "Touch me"? Good cheesy song.
I did not realise she was known across the pond... Obviously known by you for her musical talent...
You proto-feminist, you...

I'm surprised there isn't a well-known song with both "Touch" and "Fire" in its title
I guess you just get your fingers burnt...

General Discussion / Re: FIF: Adramelech's Touch Preview
« on: March 03, 2014, 06:08:57 PM »
Baron, you're gonna start a music link thread! Again!
Do you know how many songs have "Touch" in their title?

I think it's more appropriate that Laddin started his shy foreplay with a coy Touch...

General Discussion / Re: FIF: Adramelech's Touch Preview
« on: March 03, 2014, 05:58:06 PM »
Oh, this is going to be agony, sitting through these previews instead of joining in.
Playtesters have to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement so sadly I can't say anything.
However, I can quote...

This card isn't very impressive in a vacuum, but it appears as though there will be other cards that only have an effect if there are burns/curses on the target, or increase in effect the more burns/curses there are. Adramelech's Touch will have great value when played with those cards.

It's niche, a pricey 2 SPs for a Warlock who you would think has better alternatives.
It's very cheap to reveal and just as cheap to Dispel. However, quoting the review...

By itself Adramelech’s Touch does nothing.

Who will waste a precious Dispel on this Curse that does nothing? When there are so many worse ones?
So there it is: 2 levels of curses on you and 1 burn that sometimes does no damage but it never goes out.
Nothing to worry about...

I'm shocked he opened with this spell to puzzle everyone. He's such a tease...
I read someone elsewhere mentioned foreplay and building up to a crescendo...

Wow, what a great healthy meta you have, Griz!
The Druid and, to a lesser extent, the Necromancer have started with bad match-ups
I'd dearly love the Warlord to win but I can't see it sadly with this match-up (Mana Denial, Teleport etc)
The Warlock and Jokhtari may have problems against the Necromancer in future rounds

So my blind (no-books) tip is the Forcemaster
Because I think he's played by your roomie who used to whup you when you were a wee cub :)

Well done on organising this and keep us appraised...

I think this is a great thread, Boomfrog, to capture all the great ideas that are out there.
Not just ideas to nerf the Wizard but, following Zuberi's Go Slow plan, to raise the others to his level.
For example a quick ranged weapon for Jokthari has been mentioned but AW were already on the case.

You would be surprised how many of these ideas are already back burners.
The problem is there is no "fixing mages" expansion as it is not thematic.
Instead you get insertions in thematic sets that stick out.
But it can't go on forever. How many promos this year so far? So how many promos per expansion? Do the maths.

I urge fans to post their creative ideas for weaker mages (but not Warlord, hopefully fixed, or Warlock vs Nonliving).
Don't let ACG have a monopoly! :)
As well as ideas that weaken the Wizard. So everybody, let's show some positively by showing off your creativity?
And let's all give them ideas to improve this game we love together?

Cards that help Jokthari, Priest, Straywood Swarm, Forcemaster non-Grizzly builds.
Cards that hurt Wizard too.
Ideas please?

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: March 01, 2014, 07:36:02 PM »
Dissolve is not Arcane though a Wizard may be trained in Water which is what school it is in

I know, that is why I discounted Option 3 in my list (Arcane level 1 is Universal)
The argument for Option 1 (more opposed) is it would impact on the Wizard's ability to buy the essentials
Which is why I included it in the shortlist
Option 2 (Novice) and Option 4 ("Pro Rules" auto-inclusion) already covers the staples
Option 5 is obviously not Fast so has been discounted

Oy vey! This will take for ever and not solve the issue. Sorry, more cards will make the other mages better, but net effect is it will just make the Wizard even that much better.

I totally agree with you.
Some people are incredibly resistant to change, anything outside their comfort zone.
This sort of demagoguery, based on strict adherence to rules, is very damaging, even if well-intentioned.

Which is why I advise you to not bother with this thread anymore and just talk to Aaron direct.
Which is what he invited me to do and no doubt will be happy to have a OCTGN meta expert like you too.

In Netrunner, FFG actually pay strict attention to results on OCTGN
I wonder if Arcane Wonders bothers or if it's based on local metas?
Because I know my remnants of a local meta is very Nonliving
I wonder if other key decision makers are playing different local metas?
May explain why some wrote "LOL" at some of my comments, want Range Strategy even more stuffed etc

In the end, the biggest meta is OCTGN (certainly not BashCon timed tournament)
And that's where input from you, Charmyna, Lettucemode, jacksmack and the rest of the regulars is vital

So just go to Aaron direct because I'm just so tired of these pointless debates with The Unbending One
Time and time again, everywhere I turn, the same Wall of Resistance to Change
After a while, you just snap and I'm now past caring

It's Aaron and other decision makers we have to convince so why bother trying to convince others?

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: March 01, 2014, 05:58:10 PM »
Don't bother, Webcatcher
I think the paradigm shift of a "new rule", defacing the Tablets of Stone (gasp!), is too much for some
That's why I've given up on this thread

It doesn't even need to be a new rule per se.
When Magic first started, it didn't have the 4 copies rule
4 copies was the "tournament rules" that then became standard

The same would apply with "Pro Rules" added to the Living FAQ
Though I personally feel they should grab opportunity for a rewrite rules as a download
So traits could to be adjusted to be more relevant to the game (like Rage or Mana Drain)

Magic has changed its rules so many times
Game of Thrones and Netrunner both had worse absolutely broken rules when they were CCGs

I recall how difficult it was getting a Living FAQ to be the norm here (still no version control)
But it happened, we got a Living FAQ, something which is normal in Customised Card Games
So maybe rules changes may happen too - but I won't hold my breath

Options for Wizard (in order proposed)

1. Errata Wizard Training (various options)
2. Novice spells + other essential copies in Utility Pack
3. All Arcane Level 1 trained
4. "Pro Rules" auto-includes (details still TBC, just concept)
5. Wait for expansions to improve other mages but not Wizard (maybe a new "Non-Wizards Only" criteria? :) )

EDIT: 6. Errata Wizard's Tower - this is surely a given but alone won't solve it

I really like the elegance of option 3 but the only options which
(a) Get changes FAST and
(b) Cover Dispel, Dissolve and Teleport
are sadly either Options 1, 2 or 4
And people seem undecided on whether Option 1 would really hurt and remove Wizard's concept as a generalist

"Ooh, it will hurt enchantments too much"
No it won't, they have 6 Dispels and 6 Seeking Dispels maximum
Builds will have to decide on 12 Persistent Enchantments or 12 Triggered Enchantments or both!
Jeez, every book we see has so many more enchantments, it's why Wizards play with Dispel Wands!
And the very nature of you being able to QC cast reveal attack with benefit means you are always up.
Yes, level 2+ enchantments become SP disadvantage, but you only bring them out later or to attract Dispels
Essence Drain, Vampirism, Ghoul Rot, Eagleclaw Wings, Force Hold, they are all great as 1 use forcing a Dispel
They become even better if opponent runs out of Dispels or for attracting them so as to protect Mongoose Agility!
I don't buy the argument that more Dispels and Seeking Dispels will be bad for the game
I think it will be good as we will then spend more on CREATURES which we avoid purely because of Obelisk/Orb!

"Ooh it will hurt equipment too much"
I should hope so too, turn 1 Forge (which should have range 1, not 10 out of 12 zones) is so dull
Mages carry so much equipment that it's a wonder they don't qualify for the Lightning +2 Bad Science penalty!

The design flaw is a lack of a Universal school (Neutral in Game of Thrones, No Faction in Netrunner)
Magic went down the let's give 2-3 colours out of 5 their own flavour spells with the same function
Destroying Enchantments: Green, White (Blue can bounce/counter)
Destroying Artifacts: Red, Green, White (Blue can bounce/counter)
Destroying Creatures: Black, Red, White (Blue can bounce/counter)
Mage Wars could go down the same path of similar function spells in different schools
But the problem is this would take a long time to implement
In the meantime, there are a lot of Disenchanted (pun intended) players like Aylin and my meta out there
Gamers are fickle, they have plenty of disposable and they rarely go back
All my ex-Mage Wars friends (hence me) are playing Serpent's Tongue (spells from spellbooks), their latest fad
The woods are burning, gentlemen, while we stick with the most conservative "rules are sacrosanct" approach?

Dammit, I've posted again on this thread after promising myself I will never bother again...
I don't need my blood pressure rising everytime I bang my head against the same wall of resistance in every thread

Oh ACG, you have to spoil it with Science! :)

Lightning +2 of heavy armour troops is ridiculous but it's a cypher (and I'm happy they have it as Lightning needs love with Plants all Flame +2)

I personally love the Hydrophobic plants...
I could have sworn there was some H2O in the photosynthesis formula...

Although 2 opposing Jellies fighting each other will be pretty dull...
They can't even touch each other - thank goodness for mitosis else they would be an endangered species!
(Hardly likely to ever get extinct with Infinite Armour and Regen 4 cannot be nerfed by Finite Life)

I actually LOVE the Bad Science in Mage Wars
It's like those campy Sci-Fi shows like Flash Gordon
In fact, everytime I look at an Angel, I think of Barbarella.
That 70s Retro chic look is why I love its not-so PC quirks.
And embrace its Bad Science as part of a huge "in joke".

General Discussion / Re: A little positivity.
« on: March 01, 2014, 02:28:58 PM »
+1 on Indy's list - except Balance, which means a lot to me as a competitor

I would also add these extra traits to Indy's list

* Fun (it's Inner Child fantasy, immersive role-playing a mage/general)
* Intuitive (most of the time, grrr)
* Rewards Skill (except for a few bits of cheese, grr)

It's a good thread by Silverclaw to remind ourselves why we love the game

Custom Cards / Re: ACG's Custom Spells and Mages
« on: March 01, 2014, 01:32:04 PM »
Re: Cursed
I am thinking of maybe giving it upkeep instead of channeling and lowering the casting cost.

Re: Mycticore
I originally wanted to make it much cheaper, but couldn't think of a way to avoid it being killed off too quickly. I am hesitant to make things cantrips too casually; maybe there could be some sort of Fungal equivalent of the Samara tree to give it that trait, and just reduce it to level one (with corresponding reductions in power)

I like your suggestions for Cursed
For Fungus, just make it level 1, it's niche, disposable does nothing unless attacked then you're risking opponent finishing it off.
Now if it did full damage and did not heal itself, that may interesting. Like rot markers that can be scraped off.
Which I guess is what "that nasty rash you caught from Grusilda the Troll" is actually.
You would need to parameterise carefully on Life, Level and Cost but such an evolution would be more usable.

As for Rage, let me dig up some "Resuscitating Unloved Cards" stuff I wrote.
My idea was simply to move the goalposts, rewrite the rules, so that current crap cards became playable.
Also add X cards that makes 3X existing unloved cards played - far more value than cards that don't do this.
But the game is very theme driven, only so much space in a set etc. So foiled again.
You can guess from the title what element we get alot of though instead...

Requests? More humorous flavour test please. Even if you need to reverse engineer a witty text into a card.
I need cheering up as I'm a bit depressed at the ostriche trajectory of the game.
And the inertia of influential ultra-conservative posters I keep clashing with who prefer no change or slow change.

Wake up, the woods are burning! So instead, let's all drip-feed possible solutions that may never materialise.
I've heard of "fighting fire with fire" but fire-fighting current issues this way is like putting out fire with gasoline.
(I think I've laboured the analogy to ashes.)

We want Murkh, the Anti-Mage! (Some of your best work was there, including his Acolytes)

Custom Cards / Re: ACG's Custom Spells and Mages
« on: March 01, 2014, 12:17:47 PM »
Hi ACG, long time no speak about your cards. We used to chat alot early in this thread (I encouraged you) then life got a bit busy.

As you know, I think you have incredible creativity and you come up with awesome off-the-wall ideas.
The only issue I have sometimes is balance in your great ideas.
Among playtesters, I'm the one who comes up with "too risky" or overpowered ideas that need curbing.
So when I find some of your ideas a bit extreme, imagine how it's taken in a more conservative setting!

Nevertheless, I'm a firm believer that the IDEA is what's priceless, the details can always be fine-tuned.
And you are full of innovative new mechanics that never ceases to amaze.

That said, some of these ideas are not as polished as some of prior work (a high standard to emulate).
You post these to collect feedback and there is nothing worse than nobody commenting so here's mine.
You know that I don't pull my punches so please don't take anything too personal (nothing harsh really).

(Caveat: I'm visiting family, no rulebook, bored hence feedback on your thread as the most interesting new one, so may be rules errors.)

Orb of Obsession
I love the idea, having to block LOS before moving etc. I would make it "non-mage enemy creature" else you are design restricting the Siren creature base. It's as wordy as one of my posts so I'd delete the last line of text. It's Psychic so most Nonliving (not Elementals) and Insects will be immune to it according the subtextual science behind Mage Wars (when they keep consistency). I would also make it Incorporeal as we need greater relevance for Ethereal (we have 3 creatures + 5 conjurations that are Incorporeal, we have at least 23 spells with Ethereal).

Light is already the weakest damage type so it doesn't need this. It is also too situational, like Mind Shield, to be ever useful. This also does not add new mechanic, just an optional Reverse Attack for Light. If it was an optional redirect any attack to a friendly creature in your zone (Dark 1) which is funny ("what else are minions for?") then it would be more worthy of your usual creativity. Sorry but a miss in my books.

Ok, I know you like the Defensive Samara Tree Conjurations Druid build. But there is a reason why Flowers are all range 0-0 as they want to avoid Ballistas concentrating on 1 zone, giving you ready marker action firepower. This falls prey to the design flaw of Ballista (which is at least Zone Exclusive). If you made it Nature 3 range 0 then I think this may be more possible. However I really hate ready marker attacks, I think they made a huge error with Flowers because the issue of Temple of Light, Hand of Bim-Shalla and Wizard's Tower (not Sacrificial Altar as they nerfed recursion in Obliterate's wording) was down to having extra QC markers that are ready marker attacks. This was highlighted long before Flowers (even my Resources article highlighted ready marker attacks were incredibly valuable for flexibility and action burst). I was proposing solutions (like Winter Orb's 1 reset) to curb them so as to remove the ugly erratas (and hurt Wizard's Tower) then Flowers came out to legitimise this mechanic. So I am incredibly biased against these mechanics, as I was when I reviewed Ballista. So sorry again, ACG old chap, but this is plain broken as is and needs to be range 0-0 so at least you are limited to 3 Flower attacks max in each zone (due to the Highlander rule) - even then, that's potentially 6 Flowers attacking with a Snatch (non-futureproofed name for Siren's Pull) through Bloodspine all in 1 action burst. Just feel they opened Pandora's Box with Flowers (there are other ways to bypass Nullify to kill Teleport Wands) and this is Ballista-broken.

Blood Pact Robe
I like it. I would nerf it a bit but also make it more flexible. "The first time each round that this Mage takes damage from an enemy attack, place mana equal to that damage on Blood Pact Robe. Blood Pact Robe may summon a Demon whose level is less than the mana on it." Spawnpoints only summon in Deployment anyway, right? Also, I assume Spawnpoints must spend all mana on them? (I always do but is it compulsory?) If not, the Robes needs to stipulate this. The first time gives opponent tactical options and enemy ensures no cheesy self-attacks. Finally I think Enhancement is unnecessary, just give it the 3 Life cantrip effect of Libro Mortis. I'm starting to feel we should minimise new keywords unless they really add to the game and Enhance was added for Enchant Equipment to avoid 2-for-1 which I was never hugely taken with. It's personal prejudice. Overall though, a typical ACG nice idea.

Too good. And you know what I think about fiddly mana on enchantments from your Spirit spawnpoint. So it will come as no surprise that I would remove the 1 Channeling, then it's definitely an interesting idea. Probably would be considered "too risky" though sadly. Another nice ACG idea, though its derivative of your Spirit spawnpoint.

Gate of Eternity
I love some of the mechanics (Suspend in Magic). My main issues is it doesn't get Passage Attacks trait so a Push cost 3 kills a mage! The game is totally against kill spells (Drain Soul closest) which I fully support. Also it should be Incorporeal (for reasons given above) and never gain Indestructible, another game principle (objects can be removed). So I'd rechrome it as (a) Incorporeal, (b) Blocks LOS, Passage Attacks and (c) "During each Upkeep, place a Time Token on Gate of Eternity. If a creature whose level is lower than the number of Time Tokens on it passes through it, move all Time Tokens to that creature and remove it from the arena, removing 1 Time Token each Upkeep until it has 0 Time Tokens when it reappears in a random zone (assign and roll a d12)." This is to prevent it being constantly pushed through if it always appeared in an adjoing zone. Because it's mandatory, this gives the opponent tactical plays to send sacrificial minions through allowing safe passage for others. Such a Wall need not be Epic Legendary, could be Extendable and unfortunately would need to be Arcane for Banish consistency. It still is your Time Token Wall idea, but applied to Banish. Clever cards like this would only work if Arcane 1 was the Universal school. Currently the version I've adapted would be an innovative but sadly meta-unbalanced idea. I like your thinking though.

I see no problem with Fungus growing on Golems. Just has to be "Corporeal Creature". I appreciate creature subtype is to provoke Wounded Prey but also create some other unwanted interactions like Rhino Hide and Bull's Endurance and Regrowth. You know how much I hated Plants being given Animal characteristics (as it moves an intuitive RPG skirmish simulation closer to Magic's ridiculous Loxodon Warhammer-wielding Birds of Paradise). So again this is personal taste. However, I like your idea of a Fungus that does damage to you if you fail to kill it in 1 round. It's a bit niche currently, just for Jokhtari Wounded Prey and even then not that good. I'd just change the wordy text to "During upkeep, remove all damage on Mycticore and place it on attached target.". I'd also add Cantrip or tone down level as it will be easy to overdo damage and kill it (aided by opponent) or to Teleport away, destroying it (don't clunkily nerf this as opponent used up a valuable Teleport). This version works well with Flame attacks too so not just for 1 function. It's a good idea but it feels extremely engineered, a bit more elegance is required in my books.

Riftmeister's Mantle
I've already suggested a similar cloak (not in Arcane, we can't give a school its own counters) and sadly, that did not fly. I appreciate competing with 2 great Cloaks has Opportunity Cost and as the first power is situational, you need to give a second power that will be always useful but feel giving a Mage Uncontainable and move action Climbing may be too much so I would add "Unless Restrained" to the second ability, else you are really hurting Nature and Mind which Restrain. You need re-chrome it to not be Arcane. Anyway, my similar idea didn't make it so this is a nice idea that's sadly ahead of its time. I suspect we may see something similar sometime in the future for whoever's still playing a cheesy-Teleport unbalanced game then.

Typing this, I really miss our chats. It's so refreshing to discuss ideas with someone where design, not theme, is the primary driver. You have a far more creative mind than me (I'm good at improving other people's spark of genius) but you need to address balance and meta as well, focus your creativity on what's needed in the game. I know that's hard when inspiration can't be channeled like mana. It's good to see you still crafting nice ideas. And some of your droll witty flavour text really appeals to me too ("the gift that keeps on giving"). I'm surprised there isn't a humorous (but subtle) STD reference for the fungus... Sadly none of my similarly droll flavour text gained favour so again it's a clash of styles I think, as I think they are aiming the game at parents playing with their children, or assume so from a lack of subtlety there.

And if I had a request, please can we have some more Murkh, the Anti-Mage? His flavour test had me in creases (he's my hero, can't wait for the Goblin Mage card) and more seriosuly, the anti-Arcane ideas are very relevant!

Keep up the good work, ACG. I may have been quiet (slightly on orders) but I do read and appreciate your posts here.

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:18:05 PM »
Thank you for the dig, Zuberi.
Unfortunately, using larger font size does not mean you are necessarily correct, Zuberi.

So far, you have written extremely well-written but bleeding obvious appraisals of 4 mages.
I think every contributor in this thread knew the problems, though it did serve purpose to have consensus.

Now you trump it with the bleeding obvious "Arcane School is unbalanced, stronger than the rest".
Wow. What an insight. We never could have worked that one out ourselves.

Please, Zuberi, use your undoubted eloquence to come up with CREATIVE SOLUTIONS here? If possible?

What you suggest is what Arcane Wonders is already doing!
But I can tell you that Forged in Fire does NOTHING to diminish Arcane, despite my blatant attempts
(I even suggested "Immunity from Arcane" in exasperation!)

What you suggest is the super-conservative "won't turn on a dime" slow change that will take 3 more sets.
Because next set is about Holy + mish mash.
We haven't even had the Alternate Wizard vs. alternate Forcemaster yet!!!
We almost had a Warlock vs. Wizard set if Aaron hadn't saved the day there (or so I'm told).
We still get so much Arcane love card ideas and new playtesters like me, Kich, sIKE confer and are appalled

Meantime, I know plenty of players quitting Mage Wars in exasperation due to imbalance and cheese.
And yours DEFINITELY is the better approach? Said with so much certainty too!

At least other posters here have the good grace to show they are uncertain what is the best approach.
But not Zuberi. Zuberi knows.
It must be great to be so all-knowing.

Everybody, except maybe the Wizard, will max out these Novice spells

No maybe about it. With the exception of Novice Teleport (which can easily be adjusted by a more future proofed Novice rule), the Wizard will NEVER choose a Novice Arcane spell because normal costs the same.

The fact this hasn't been appreciated but you proclaim in large font with such certainty makes me shudder.

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Bringing all mages on par!
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:52:25 PM »
I did notice that, and I wasn't particularly surprised since you and I seem to agree a lot. I think the main objection to your standard-core-spells idea will be that it cuts down on choice for those who don't necessarily want those spells. I might suggest 2 or 3 core spellbooks that mages could choose from to add a little more variety in case someone doesn't want the blocks or they'd rather pay for decoys than seeking dispel or something.

We do think so similar! Because I thought the same as well. But then I ended up with what i came up with.
(Your "elegant interesting solution" that I said I would think about provoked my thought processes on this.)

My thought process developing this idea:

In custom card games, there are various models.
Some, like Game of Thrones, allow for a single "Restricted" card that you may have legal copies of.
Some, like Netrunner, encourage a certain size deck and limit you to c.15 influence (out of school).

Well, you can immediately see the 66 cards to fit 120 points comes from Netrunner.
Because Netrunner melds opportunity cost (takes up limited space) and points buy (our spell points).

I then translated Restricted as "what if every mage had 12 spell levels of Arcane for free?"
But I felt this gave too much flexibility in the end, too much unrestricted budget inflation.
In the end, the reality is 2 Dispel + 2 Dissolve + 2 Teleport is a compulsory minimum buy.
And it was this ability to buy essentials on the cheap which gives Wizard his power base.
So I felt give them to all. Wizards gains the least and is nerfed because 66 spell slots only.

Part of the fun of this "Pro" rule is you KNOW I have 2 Nullify, 2 Block and 2 Seeking Dispel.
Believe me because I love playing tricksy builds, this gives you amazing bluffing opportunity.
You don't need Decoy (that Retaliate could be first thought as Nullify then Block) to bluff.
If you do want Decoy (and you know how much a fan I am of its style), it's a Novice spell.

Then I thought about the expanding card pool collection, ever growing competition for inclusion.
The game is actually nerfing itself in its diversity so here was a chance to also expand diversity.
As well as weaken equipment (enchantments are great anyway, you always get a 1 use benefit).

I know MW has a lot of "y = mx + c" linear relationships hidden with it (all good games are maths).

spell's lifetime benefit = (average lifetime x per round benefit) - constants (spell points, action, mana)

Actually that's the simplest relationship model but we'll go with it
Everyone was talking about altering the multipliers but it's the spell point tax that hurts

Anyway, that's the reasoning why I decided against a flexible Arcane budget
I just felt that KNOWING these spells exist in the opponent's book adds so much awesome mind games.

And of course it stuffs the Wizard (because Wizard may think it's a Nullify and Fireball to find it's a Block).

Anyway, I'm not against the idea of more free flexibility.
But thematically, every Mage apprenticing with the same base spells also feels better.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34