September 18, 2020, 08:58:43 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 - Arlemus

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]
181
General Discussion / Re: Druid vs Necro Spoilers
« on: August 22, 2013, 11:39:57 AM »
I'm an evil person,  ;D

182
General Discussion / Druid vs Necro Spoilers
« on: August 22, 2013, 11:18:50 AM »
Is there a date set for when AW will start spoiling the new set?

183
This may be the most important concept in mage wars, at least in terms of setting yourself up for success.  I also feel like the natural channeling of each mage heavily influences decisions in this regard, because as you say even having 1 more channeling than your opponent can make a huge difference.

184
    So I was wondering how many of you Priest/Priestess players out there are reworking your books in light of the now Unique Hand of Bim-Shalla.  Since you can't have more than one out at a time what do you build now, or do you still put two or three copies of the card in your book just in case the one you put out gets blasted?

My (Priest) build usually starts out as:

Turn 1: 2 mana flowers

Turn 2: Guardian angel or Knight

Turn 3: Holy avenger Knight

I only use a Hand about half of my games.  There's no point in casting them at the start (Turn 1-3ish), they'd just sit there, and if your opponent is keeping his/her plays relevant Hands don't really solve any 1 problem well enough.  If your opponent isn't keeping his/her plays relevant well, congrats on your win.  Not to say hands are bad or a bad investment, I just think they aren't as staple as people try to make them seem.

Even as a Priest/Priestess main, I never bought into this whole "temple build" phenomenon.  Temple build was just a way to punish loose builds and basically just take advantage of newer players.  But I digress.




185

*A strong opponent will almost certainly neutralize your first NV. Don't be tempted to sway from the strategy - stay the course, it will pay off!*


I think a stronger opponent would invest more heavily into strong creatures and not have to worry about neutralizing the NV when they could just deter it (or kill) with heavy dice count.  If that first NV moves in to attack turn 4 (which is the soonest it can without movement assistance, and assumes your opponent moved towards you a zone) and your opponent is investing properly into strong creatures, it's going to face some serious punishment.

186
General Discussion / Re: So...who won Origins?
« on: June 19, 2013, 03:02:09 PM »
It sounds like people are arguing that the priestess build shouldn't have won, or that it got lucky, or that it can be outplayed, or whatever.

Well, maybe. But it sounds kinda like trying to argue away the tournament results and replace experience with theory.

Hypotheses are crucial. But results are why we do science.

Hence, why I wanted to know what the warlock played.  Now that I know, it makes complete sense what the results were.  You really can't make 20-24mana (not sure what armor he played) of sub-optimal/wasteful plays and expect to win.  I've lost games from half that amount of waste.

The warlock would've been better off with another Darkpact instead of the Hellion (or stop floating mana and use Adramelech; a Darkpact and Adramelech is possible by turn 3), block(s) for the obvious incoming ToL attack each turn, and fireball(s) instead of  wasting 5 mana and a full action on an imp that was obviously going to get one-shot by ToL.

I am in no way saying the build shouldn't have won, but knowing why it won is more important than the fact that it did.  Instead of concluding that the ToL is "too strong" or "overpowered", like some others on here have, to me it is more obviously just a build that punishes loose play.

Why is everyone just focused on what "the warlock" played?  Was that the finals of the tournament?  If not, I'm not sure why that particular match is so significant.  I'm very interested in hearing a better break down of the different matches that the winning build played against.  Did he play against a Forcemaster?  Another Priestess?  A Beastmaster swarm?  A Wizard control?  Did he lose any matches in swiss, and if so, what did he lose to?  What did he face in the finals? 

These are the questions that will give us an idea of what is happening in the meta game and what I am most interested.  That and seeing the actual breakdown of the two builds in the finals (top 4 would be better).

The reasons I focused on the Warlock:

1) He's the only one who provided a report.
2) He placed 2nd ( or tied for it) so logic dictates he was one of the best players there.

I didn't really mean to focus entirely on the Warlock, but that match is the most info we have on a particular match so far, and he placed well, so I figured it was a good start.

Also, I didn't mean to sound harsh, but facts are facts.  He was good enough to get to 2nd (or tie for 2nd) and I respect that, but when I hear people saying a build is overpowered and then hear of a lot of wasteful play against said build I get skeptical (especially when playtesters also state it's not OP).  I wish I could've been there, though me being there or not is irrelevant to the plays made.

187
General Discussion / Re: So...who won Origins?
« on: June 19, 2013, 01:45:55 PM »
It sounds like people are arguing that the priestess build shouldn't have won, or that it got lucky, or that it can be outplayed, or whatever.

Well, maybe. But it sounds kinda like trying to argue away the tournament results and replace experience with theory.

Hypotheses are crucial. But results are why we do science.

Hence, why I wanted to know what the warlock played.  Now that I know, it makes complete sense what the results were.  You really can't make 20-24mana (not sure what armor he played) of sub-optimal/wasteful plays and expect to win.  I've lost games from half that amount of waste.

The warlock would've been better off with another Darkpact instead of the Hellion (or stop floating mana and use Adramelech; a Darkpact and Adramelech is possible by turn 3), block(s) for the obvious incoming ToL attack each turn, and fireball(s) instead of  wasting 5 mana and a full action on an imp that was obviously going to get one-shot by ToL.

I am in no way saying the build shouldn't have won, but knowing why it won is more important than the fact that it did.  Instead of concluding that the ToL is "too strong" or "overpowered", like some others on here have, to me it is more obviously just a build that punishes loose play.


188
General Discussion / Re: So...who won Origins?
« on: June 18, 2013, 09:37:38 PM »
At the end of Round 3, I had a dark pact slayer and a flaming hellion in the zone adjacent to Temple of Light. ToL attacked the same round it entered play and rolled 7 critical damage + a stun on my Dark Pact.

Fourth round, pillar of light dazed my hellion, it rolled and failed to attack. Dark pact was still stunned. My warlock summoned an imp and put on some armor. Priestess meleed for 6 dice and left my Darkpact with 1 HP. At this point, I hadn't been able to get a single attack off.

Fifth round, priestess finished off Darkpact with a 4 dice melee (1 hand for damage, 2 for armor). Temple of light rolled and stunned my flaming hellion and did a lot of damage. Flaming imp and warlock each got a melee off.

Sixth round, priestess finished off Hellion with a 6 dice melee and Temple one-shot imp.

So I lost 31 mana worth of creatures and got a single attack off. It was pretty disgusting.

Holy crap, 7 crit dice on a 5 dice attack?? Strong luck, not to mention landing the 16% chance on stun.

Anyway, thanks for the report.  My original opinion of the build still stands, probably reinforced at this point.

189
General Discussion / Re: So...who won Origins?
« on: June 18, 2013, 07:36:12 PM »
The build seems pretty cheesy, I just don't see it working vs. people dropping big creature threats to guard/attack.  I also imagine that intercept shuts this build down completely now.

I would agree this build is pretty cheesy, however it works just fine against big creatures.  The ToL drops them fast and dazes/stuns them at the same time.  I have seen alot of big creatures not even get off an attack before they are dropped. 

I don't really see a 5 dice attack dropping Thorg/Adramelech fast, especially with damage/attack mitigation on them.  Any chance at a battle report (video even)?

190
General Discussion / Re: So...who won Origins?
« on: June 18, 2013, 07:02:39 PM »
The build seems pretty cheesy, I just don't see it working vs. people dropping big creature threats to guard/attack.  I also imagine that intercept shuts this build down completely now, along with blocks and reverse attacks.

191
Spells / Re: Angels
« on: June 15, 2013, 04:23:03 AM »
My reasoning for each angel goes as follows:

Samandriel: Use against the warlock.  Almost (if not every) core creature for the warlock is dark, which Samandriel gets +1 against.  The chance for a daze off her attack also cripples aggro.

Selesius: Use against the forcemaster.  Winged Wing Blast (her full action attack) is unavoidable and sweeping, meaning the forcemaster can't use a defense against it, allowing you a decent chance of pushing her away if she's going aggro on you.  Also, the +2 against flying (along with the push) can mess with her thoughtspores. 

Valshalla:  She's the most generic angel, her usage is feels more based on your overall strategy rather than a fit against a certain situation.  Also, I haven't gotten to try her against a wizard, but I imagine the -2 to lightning works well against him.  Other than that just summon priests/gray angels and use them until they die I suppose.

192
General Discussion / Re: Conquest of Kumanjaro - SPOILERS
« on: June 12, 2013, 05:52:49 PM »
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/143092/mage-wars-conquest-of-kumanjaro-spell-tome-expan

Guys, note: "106 New Spell Cards"

This is just a suggestion, but Arcane Wonders might want to make some kind of announcement stating that the cards spoiled are NOT all the cards in the set.  I see an unsettling number of individuals thinking that the only cards in the set are those spoiled.  IIRC only 20-ish cards have actually been spoiled and I don't want to see people disinterested because they falsely believe that's all their getting in the expansion. 


193
Spells / Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Neglected...
« on: June 10, 2013, 02:17:21 AM »

The Bad:

  • Standard Bearer... 7 Mana to paint a large bullseye on your creature, in addition to encouraging crowding your soldiers into a target rich environment vulnerable to a Zone Attack, while the Standard Bearer himself gets no bonus whatsoever?  Why?  Just.... why?   ???
  • Barracks...  1) May not be adjacent to another outpost... 2) Flame +2.... 3)  May not be adjacent to another outpost... 4)  Did I mention it can't be adjacent to another outpost?   :-[
  • Pentagram... I love the Warlock... But this is arguably the worst Spawnpoint in the game.  I want to make it work, but 14 Mana in the first round of the game doesn't fit the Warlock's aggressive style.   >:(
  • Mangler Caltrops... I only see the Warlord possibly including these in his spellbook since they are in his school, but why he would waste 5 precious mana points to throw down a Jacks game, sans the rubber ball?  Meh. 
  • War Sledge... The War Sledge is a Two-Handed weapon.... The Horn of Gothos is a one-handed item...  Warlord can't use both at the same time...  See ya later War Sledge!
  • Akiro's Hammer... So many people were giddy when they first saw this 8 Dice flinging War Machine... giddy, that it, until they read the fine print...  Expensive, slow to reload, Flame +2, with a minimum range of 2, and only does zone attacks (meaning your opponent can simply snuggle up to your creatures, negating the non-conjuration attack threats)... That "new war machine smell" didn't last long.  I originally had this in the Neglected" list, but after one more try, had to relegate this wooden monstrosity to the "Bad" list.  Fun to use occasionally, but just not competitive. 


Standard Bearer: Summon Thorg, put the Standard on him, and place a Fortified position in the zone (+2armor) and I bet you'll have a different opinion of this card.  +3 armor to anything in the zone with a 6 armor Thorg.  Also, you shouldn't be paying 7 mana for this, you should have your ring out already and flip it for a total of 6. 

Barracks:  barracks is a situational card, like most cards in MW.  Do not use against the Forcemaster or Warlock, they will immediately fireball or force hammer it to death, as they should.  Unlike what most people on these forums think, barracks should be reactionary.

War Sledge:  If people would use sledge as it's supposed to be used, they would have better opinions of it.  It's great for winning ground wars against multiple enemy creatures.  If your warlord is in the same zone as the standard bearer, which he should be, you're rolling for a total of 10 dice in a single attack (6 on the first, 4 on the second), not to mention 2 chances for 50% stuns (which can force wasted attacks).  War sledge is not a replacement for the warhorn, they're meant for entirely different situations, so they should not be compared against one another.

Akiro's Hammer:  Another situational card.  Should only be used as a reaction to topple more than, or at least its own cost, in mana.  If you drop this just because it's cool/badass, it's going to have mediocre returns at best.

Other than the above I roughly agree with your opinions.   Having 5/6 of your "Bad" cards be Warlord related doesn't seem like a fair analysis of the entire game to me, especially when those cards can be ridiculously efficient for their job.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]