September 26, 2022, 09:29:52 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 - Knabbmaster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Rules Discussion / Re: fast + elusive + charge
« on: August 11, 2021, 06:41:25 PM »
Yes, you can.

Spells / Re: Top 10 (LVL 2 Creatures)
« on: March 04, 2021, 02:32:27 PM »
I really like the Zombie Minion, Emerald Tegu, Knight of the Red Helm and Afflicted demon.

General Discussion / Re: Card Quote Contest!
« on: October 30, 2020, 05:31:01 PM »
"Normally, I would consider this to be a win-win."

Creative / Alt Wizard speculation
« on: October 10, 2020, 07:14:31 AM »
Since we know that we might get an alt wziard/forcemaster in the upcomming set I thought it would be fun to come up with ideas for potential ablities that she might have.

Given that the current Wizard is not only strong but also extremly flexible, we are already be able to build around any arcane or air spell with him, this makes it so that the female wizard isn't required to support any specific stratergy, instead she herself should be intresting IMO.

The one restriction I see with designing her is that she can't be too strong, because she A has acess to Gate to Voltari which is already strong and B mana denail which we don't want to be seeing too much play. I think it would be highly risky to make her stronger than (or equal to) the original wizard.

Overall power isn't the only reason that mages see play though she could be highly specialized, based entirely on theme, be a fun mage or make it so that even though she is weak she will let the player using her avoid one frustration aspect of the game (frustrating aspects can be: too long games, too short games, hidden information, randomness and so on).

Basing her on theme (and the fact that she has an hourglass) I came up with the following:

120 spellbookpoint, 10 channeling, basic melee of 3 dice (almost obvious).
Trained in the Arcane school of magic (air is not a must IMO)
29 life, lumbering (she is an old lady, though to be fair if her hair was black she would almost look young).

Dissipate 7, 'Instead of removing dissipate tokes from your mage during the upkeep phase place them on your mage stats card, if you ever run out of dissipate tokens on your mage card you lose the game. '
(The sand in her hourglass is running out!)

'As a full action you may swap all the dissipate token on your mage card and your mage stats card.'
(She can flip the hourglass to avoid death.)

'You may move a dissipate token from your mage card to your mage stats card to:
  • Gain 1 extra mana during the channeling phase.
  • Let a friendly creature make an extra move action during it's activation.
  • When you cast a spell with dissipate X give it one more dissipate token.
  • After you cast an arcane incantation you may cast it again with new targets as a free action.

Each ability may only be used once per round.'
(She can manipulate time to get stronger, but then she will also run out quicker.)

'When you activate your mage, you may pay 1 mana and all your move actions this round are teleports to the next zone.'
(I just really think this is cool, and it makes her harder to kill.)

Do you have any ideas/speculations for the alternate Wizard?

EDIT: here is the actual art

General Discussion / My thoughts on mage wars wrap up
« on: October 06, 2020, 01:18:57 PM »
There are a few cards/changes from the mage wars wrap up project ( that I am not a huge fan of, this has little to do with balance and obviously I feel much more stongly about certain issues than others.

The things that I am unhappy with are:
  • Alternate Wizard/Forcemaster
  • Natural pandemonium (the Elementalists spawnpoitnt)
  • The ehtereal change
  • The Elementalist
  • The Monk
  • The general philosophy

Alternate Wizard/Forcemaster
I think that it just makes sense to include the alternate Wizard and Forcemaster in the promo set. The artwork for these mages has been out for 5-6 years, including them would only take up 4 card slots in the expansion (so you would trade a playset of some random card for these 2 mages) and even though there isn't much time to balance them you could just make them really weak and thus make sure that they don't break the game. I certainly feel like prining weak versions of them is WAY better than not printing them at all.

Natural pandemonium (the Elementalists spawnpoitnt)
You could definitively make a good argument that this card is broken, but that is not really what I am trying to point out here. Against most spawnpoints you have 3 general stratergies: go for the mage, go for their creatures or go for the spawnpoint itself. Some spawnpoint like the Vine tree or graveyard make it HARD for the opponent to play in a certain way but not in the in the way that the Pandemonium makes it impossible for people to focus on creatures. I think it would be far less frustrating to play against if it was just really hard to kill all of the Elementalists creatures, like you don't really feel that creative about your solutions after you have decided to build a book that will try to destoy the enemy spawnpoint by round 4 for the 12th time in a row. I think you should limit the reanimation to once per round, make it cost more mana to reanimate and/or make the Pandemonium take damage whenever it brings something back. It feels good to have more options, even if they are bad.

The Natural Pandemoniums ability to get a discount based on the number of adjacent zones feels forced and unthematic imo (also this is not a huge deal). I understand why you gave it this ability, but I think it would be better if it made more thematic sense, some examples of how to make it feel better (to me): have it require something specific to actually be in those zones for it to get a discount, have it rotate 90 degrees during upkeep and only let it summon things in the zone it points to, pretend that is is massive in size and that it takes up a zone all of it's borders in order to be placed on the board, or litterally any change that helps explain the theme.

The ethereal change
I mentioned on discord that I thought it would be way better to buff incorporeal with a new card rather than a rules change. Knowing that not all rules in the rulebook apply makes it less reliable, the change makes the game slightly more complex and it could make the game feel even more different for a returning player. It should be easy to just make a card that either protects the incorporeal creatures or a card that gains a buff when they die, unless it is impossible to find artwork for such a card. Another crazy option would be to just leave incorporeal alone.

The Elementalist
Some very minor things. It feels awkward that the glyphs have different costs, I know that this might almost sound silly but it would be a lot less information to remember, probably feel smoother in a way and I don't think it would change her playstyle that much. I really think that she should have a basic melee of some sort, there really isn't any thematic explanation as to why she can't throw punches and I also think that not having a basic melee can make her harder to balance since she has so no reusable way to deal damage, which then requires compensation... and yeah. I also feel that both the monk and elementalist are slightly too complicated, I mean  I actually felt somewhat intimidated by the amount of text.

The Monk
It really didn't feel good for me to play the Monk I just felt really strangeled by not having any of the big plays that the quick cast markes offers. (IMO) There is also no good thematic explanation as to why he has 2 action markers, like if you showed me the ability without the theme I would probably guess that it had to do with time manipulation and not martial arts, I also think it is odd that he runs twice as fast as any other creature in the game and that he is the mage that has the least use for melee attack spells. The double action markers forces you to stop him from gaining melee + X which also makes no thematic sense and it is just to solve balance. He was supposed to be a solo-mage but all you really need for that to work is passive healing and burst damage.

A couple of suggestions to change him would be to: remove all ablitites aside form the once that have to do with ki, let him guard or melee attack with his qc marker (instead of removing it) or if you really want 2 action markers give him 2 mage cards (where one is a human and the other is just a spirit) so that there is no quad movement or things like that and actually makes more thematic sense.

The general philosophy
I have faced arguments such as: 'as long as it isn't more broken than the gate or melee attack spells it's fine', 'as long as it is not as frustrating to play against as mana denail it is fine', 'as long as it's matchups are not as onesided as the necromancers it is fine' and so on.
I really think it is unhealthy to use the worst possible examples as measuring sticks, A because you should try to replicate the best and not the worst things in mage wars and B because you could easily set a new bar by accident this way.
Aditionally I think that many of you value balance too much. The most important factor, even as a competetive player is that the strongest books are fun and skillful, because these are the books that you will actually be forced to sit down and play with for hours and hours.

General Discussion / Re: Create a Card - Final Vote!
« on: July 16, 2020, 04:03:58 PM »
For card 1 option 2 (the angel who opens gate to hell) I feel like you should probably add something like:
''gate to hell' can only be opened by this effect.'
At the end of the card so that it thematically makes sense for a holy mage to play her as a counter. She would essentially be an angel tasked with keeping the gate shut at all times with a tendency for betrayal.
(not that anyone was begging for a counter to gate to hell but at least  it would make the 'or holy' feel more natural).

Also I wish the flavor text would read something like: "See? I AM good... at WINNING!"

Edit: I reffered to card 1 option 1 (though that was rather obvious).

General Discussion / Re: Creating Cards - Week 2
« on: June 28, 2020, 05:42:13 PM »
I have an idea, since the angel has the gate to hell right behind her and gate to hell sucks as a card we could make her into something like:

Level 3 dark, 15 mana
flying, 7 life, 2 armor, 3 dice attack with 8 + burn
When summoned open 'gate to hell' as a free action without paying the mana cost.

General Discussion / Re: Create a Card - Together!
« on: June 20, 2020, 04:19:49 AM »
I think that the flail is too cool to not make it a creature.

For card 2 I really think that it could be an fire incantation that can only target major legendary angels, since all level 5 angels are weak and could use a buff. Like one idea could be:

Divine killer (more like the vine killer)
Range 0-2, quick action, target legendary angel, level 1 fire, 4 mana
Target gains double strike, piercing +2 and the fire damage type on their next melee attack.

It could also just be less crazy and just have the angel make an 8 dice fire attack.

Events / Re: Mod Wars - An Arcane Duels Modded Mage Wars Tournament
« on: April 21, 2020, 12:19:57 PM »
Since there is currently a bug on OCTGN where certain Druid books cause multiple errors and break the phase system, I wonder if we still need to play those games or what your solution might be.

General Discussion / Re: MW arena update 2020
« on: March 17, 2020, 03:39:24 AM »
i agree that the survey was biased towards a specific result. trying to make this new version somewhere between academy and arena. wow that would suck so much.  I think in the end they will pretty much alienate most everyone and hope to get completely new players. but the survey being biased they will get results they are expecting or hoping to get.

How was it biased? I mean at the very end they asked about keywords and the phase system but aside from that I don't really get how you drew that conclusion. They even asked about adding costumization to mages or adding benefits for standing in the centre zones which would make the game even more complex.

General Discussion / Re: Pillar of Righteous Flame - Discussion
« on: December 17, 2019, 08:21:53 AM »
Now I am not sure that pillar demands a nerf simply because I don't really see the meta becoming more diverse after it (just a few more creatures would see play). Even though it is clearly stronger than it should be.

IF you nerf it I would STRONGLY suggest that you don't add or even replace text on it. I think it could be very annoying if you can't read the card to see what it does and be forced to go to the forums just to check the wording on it before you make a play. I am a much bigger fan of removing text since then all info can still be found on the card, and it would also be quicker to explain to someone that we just  ignore the first or last sentence on a card.

The nerf I think would be the simplest is to remove it's attack during the upkeep. It would be similar to caltrops but instead of being permanent it would get one attak when you play it. And if we nerfed it this way it would reduce the amount of effects that stack in the upkeep, which I think is welcome to a lot of players.

General Discussion / Re: Pillar of Righteous Flame - Discussion
« on: November 20, 2019, 05:17:35 AM »
I don't think there is anyone who will argue that the Pillar is balanced, however the game is still enjoyable with it and it is hard to build a strategy that only revolves around the card. It is not like disciple who even though she was probably weaker than the Pillar she was much worse for the game. My main concerns about nerfing Pillar are that:

The things that it is strong against are not particularly weak, mainly referring to zombies and maybe also devouring jelly. You might need to change more things other than just the Pillar.

Not everyone will play with (or know about) the new Pillar and a nerf would to a lesser extent spilt the player base (now this has already been done with disciple so it is not THAT bad).

General Discussion / Re: Pillar of Righteous Flame - Discussion
« on: November 16, 2019, 05:07:57 AM »
Option A: cast pillar and 2 teleports.
Option B: cast pillar and 2 force pushes. (Bigger risk than A)
Option C: cast 4 level 1 attacks with hawkeye

Wizard A: 8 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Wizard B: 8 SBP, 15 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Wizard C :4 SBP, 16 mana, 4 actions, 21 dice avrage (Jet Stream)

Priestess/Paladin A: 10 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Priestess/Paladin B: 6 SBP, 15 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Priestess/Paladin C: 4 SBP, 20 mana, 4 actions, 24 dice  (Luminous Blast)

Warlock A: 14 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Warlock B: 10 SBP, 15 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Warlock C: 4 SBP, 16 mana, 4 actions, 20 dice + burns (Firestream)

Beastmaster/Druid A: 12 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Beastmaster/Druid B: 8 SBP, 15 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Beastmaster/Druid C: 4 SBP, 16 mana, 4 actions, 20 dice (Spray of Barbs)

Forcemaster A: 12 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Forcemaster B: 4 SBP, 11 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice (Force pull)
Forcemaster C: 4 SBP, 16 mana, 4 actions, 20 dice (Invisible Fist)

Warlord A: 16 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Warlord B: 8 SBP, 15 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice.
Warlord C: 4 SBP, 20 mana, 4 actions, 24 dice (Hurl Rock)

Necromancer A: 14 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Necromancer B: 10 SBP, 15 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Necromancer C: 8 SBP, 16 mana, 4 actions, 24 dice (Hurl Rock)

Siren A: 12 SBP, 15-21 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Siren B: 8 SBP, 15 mana, 3 actions, 24 dice
Siren C: 4 SBP, 16 mana, 4 actions, avrage of 22 dice (Swell)

Not taking into account that Pillar gets + 2 vs non-living or that you get controll over the zone. The only downside is that for a lot of mages the Pillar costs more SBP so you basically sacrifice SBP for tempo which I would say is worth it.

EDIT: Basically what I meant is that you gain similair efficiency to the attack spells by just playing Pillar but the difference is that you also pay maybe 6 SBP's to take controll over a zone for 3 rounds which I think is extremely strong.

Mages / Re: flipping the channeling paradigm
« on: October 29, 2019, 05:52:53 PM »
I know it is silly but I just wanted to point out that PERFECT balance means that any legal combination of cards would be equally likely to win.

Now I dont think that the meta is in that bad of a spot if you only consider mages. Like we have 3 at the very top and at least 5 that are playable in a competetive setting. Compared to color combinations in magic or classes in hearthstone this seems normal. I don't want all mages to be top tier, it is fun trying to win with terrrible mages when I'm in the right mood. Though you could argue that a game with fewer changes requier an even better meta.

The two problems IMO are:
Certain tools not beign viable or too important. Reffering to movement incantations and incorporeal creatures. This is because of pillar which does not really support any mage or gameplan in general but still makes other cards better/worse.

Mid-game stratergies dominating (what I consider mid-game is basically creature spawnpoints + extra eco). This IS bad because even though you can swap the flavour (school) of you cards you basically do the same thing in each game.

I feel like the bigger problems are due too specific cards and not the mages who are almost fine IMO.

Mages / Re: flipping the channeling paradigm
« on: October 06, 2019, 02:19:38 PM »
Mages are the last thing that you should ever buff/nerf IMO. Nefring/buffing cards and adding new mages are much better.

If I only play nercomancer and a nerf came I would not be able to run ANY of my old strats which is depressing enough to quit the game. However if a nerf came to brute or idol that would solve the same problem without killing the innocent skeltal or reanimation builds.

Now adding new mages is ofc not something we can do, alhtough I would prefer having a third (good) warlord (BM, warlock,...) introduced rather than messing with the old ones.

Before actually anwsering your question I would like to point out that the league format is not the best for testing since it makes the gaps between mages grow. Normally a FM could beat my wizard but if I cut anti-melee cards but in the league you can't trick anyone the same way and since you can prepp for everything it is about being efficent.

My tier list would change if you increased channeling (no shit). If you do the increase the paladin would be VERY good while the Forcemaster would suffer for the first time. And if you swap chaneling the Necromancer and Siren might be the only mages who keep thier spots. For example a BM + lair would get the same mana than wizard  + gate.

Currently I belive that the Necromancer is too strong and that the best ways of beating him is to play wizard or cheese. But if you nerf the necro he just gets crushed by pillar (instantly kills alomst any necro creature aside form brute). And if necro becomes bad mass eco builds don't really have any good counters left.

So I whish that pillar gets a MASSIVE nerf and Zombie necromancer gets a decent nerf as well.
The following card would also be nice
7 mana, conjuration, dark lvl 2. 'Whenever ANY object gains mana deal 2 damage to it.
But that's not in our controll.

I would also welcome buffs to spawnpoints and familiars of the other mages. (sersyrix, sectarus, barracks, echo...)

Somewhat easier is banning cards, but just like your solution that isn't very fun in my opinion.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7