January 27, 2021, 05:07:26 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 - Ganpot

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
Well it's certainly not any more of a leap than a Mage Wars dungeon crawler (I am quite curious about how that is going to end up working). 

Truth be told, I don't think a Grand Strategy variant would be all that hard to implement.  Mage Wars already has a simple built-in economy model (mana) and positioning of units.  Additionally, Domination added variable terrain and control points (as well as a 2nd economy resource with V'Tar).  There's only a couple things that would need to be changed / added:

1. Larger Scale - you would need a LOT more tiles to approach something like a real Grand Strategy game (we're talking 50 plus).  Plus a very, very large table.  You'd also need to use more cards (not a problem for people who have bought the expansions) and implement limits on unit stacking. 
2. Changed Terrain - it would also be far more fitting for a Grand Strategy game to take place on a country or continent wide scale.  This would require changing the artwork on the tiles to represent cities/mountains/fields/hills/etc. and making ALL OF THEM possess unique terrain (no blanks). 
3. Political System - especially when dealing with more than 2 players, a Grand Strategy pretty much requires some form of political system. 
4. Leaders (Mages) as Secondary - most Grand Strategy consider rulers/generals/etc. as secondary to cities and nations.  This would necessitate changing the victory conditions away from killing the enemy Mage (at best, it should slow the enemy down or provide an inconvenience), as well as reducing the overall power and importance of Mages (cities cast most spells instead, etc.).  Domination did do this to an extent, but it would have to be taken further. 

That being said, I cannot even imagine how much time a single game would take.  The vast majority of people wouldn't have the patience for it (as sad as that makes me). 

General Discussion / Re: Standardized Card Numbers
« on: October 25, 2015, 10:32:56 am »
Dancing Scimitar is level 2, and generally only level 1 equipments could get 4 copies.
Psi-Orb is a mage only equipment, and so you only get 2 copies.
Sectarus is the same.
Thoughtspore is mind mage only, however as it's one of 3 creatures the Forcemaster has, and it's pretty useful we included 4.
Charm and Mind Control were included at max copies because they're key to the style of the forcemaster, at least from a thematic approach.

Mohktari's Branch is a pretty specialized piece of equipment and so it gets 3 copies.
Samara Tree is a typo. There are 2 of them in the set, as there should be with almost any epic card.
Seedling Pod is needed in large numbers to work with Samara tree and so we included the full 6 cards.
Rise Again and Animate Dead were key cards conceptually for the Necromancer, also they're all fully usable by Warlocks so we put 4 copies in.
Burst of Thorns is very much like an attack spell and we wanted to give you the copies needed to cast this throughout the game.

Eisenach's Forge Hammer is two copies because it is a mage only piece of equipment.
Harshforge Plate is the same.
Otto Kronig is a typo, there are 3 copies of him.
Combustion should have 6 copies under normal rules. However, because of how the spell works it's incredibly unlikely that anyone would cast 6 of these in a game and so we cut it down to 4 copies. Still well more than you need.

One last thing to keep in mind. Sometime to make a set fit, we have to look at the options availible to us and prune some copies back to allow us to fit on the sheet. In the end we want to give our players the best possible expansion, with the best overall distribution of cards. I hope this is somewhat helpful. Enjoy your Sunday.

I was literally about to hit the post button in response to the previous replies when your post popped up, so perfect timing.  ;D

Thanks for clarifying the reasoning behind some of the card numbers.  I wasn't aware that level 2+ equipment typically only got 3 copies.  It's also nice to know someone on the dev team didn't fall crazily in love with the Samara Tree and decide to sneak in 4 extra copies of it (I still have my suspicions about Minor Heal ;)). 

I do have one last question though.  Some of the cards listed are school-only instead of mage-only.  I previously assumed there was a difference, and that the two things were treated differently (with school-only getting another copy).  Is that not the case?  For example, [mwcard=MWSTX2FFQ05] Harshforge Plate[/mwcard] is War Mage Only but not Warlord Only.  For the purposes of card numbering, is that distinction meaningless?

To be honest, I do find the distinction strange in a couple of cases.  Harshforge Plate and Eisenach's Hammer seem pretty specific to the Warlord (specifically the Alt Warlord, but of course no cards are restricted to just a single version of a mage).  Maybe the designers just felt that future War mages would need those cards?  I'm also pretty surprised Mohktari's Branch isn't mage or school restricted (since it's extremely unlikely that any non-Nature mage would be running enough plants to make the card worth taking).   

Mages / Re: Top-Tier viable mages?
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:27:29 pm »
The wizard can only be trained in one elemental school at a time. The warlock is also fully trained in fire as well as a major school, just like the wizard. Unlike the warlock, wizard is trained in arcane, not dark.
Yes, but the warlock can't suddenly decide to include a ton of water or earth spells when those sets get expanded without investing a lot in them, while the wizard is completely free to change to fit the current meta.  Additionally, the wizard doesn't pay triple price for ANYTHING.  He is basically the jack of all trades, while simultaneously having his own area of mastery. 

This means that if the problem is with the wizard's abilities it's probably either that the arcane school itself is too powerful, or the wizard tower is OP, or some combination of the two.

Personally I'm thinking possibility #3 is most likely. Dispel is still too often an auto-include in so many spellbooks. It's not as bad as it used to be for the warlord now that we have harshforge, and astral anchor should help against teleport a lot. Therefore, fleshing out the other schools more might go a long way towards fixing the wizard.
Another good idea might be to give errata to wizard tower.

Back when it was just the base set, I suspect that his superior access to dispel and teleport was what made him slightly more powerful back then. It wasn't the number of elemental spells.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the Arcane school is too powerful and that the Wizard's Tower needs to be changed somehow.  I just also think the Wizard himself is too flexible as well.  I also agree that back in the base set, the reason the Wizard was arguably more powerful was his easy access to dispel and teleport, but that has slowly changed to some extent with the continuous addition of new elemental spells. 

I assure you, there is a plan. You may not like it, or think it'll work, or even be allowed to know it, but there is a plan. From what I've seen, AW doesn't like this situation either, and they're trying to solve it in a careful and effective manner. As always: effective, fast, safe; pick two.
Based on their past actions, my best guess is that they plan on fixing the wizard by slowly introducing new cards which counter his mainstay cards.  Astral Anchor to counter Teleport, Harshforge Plate to counter Dispel, Rolling Fog to counter Wizard's Tower.  While I think that can and will work for the arcane school as a whole, I'm not sure that will work for the wizard himself or for the Wizard's Tower.  Like I've said previously, the wizard's training gives him too much flexibility, and the Wizard's Tower simply has too many upsides with almost no downsides.  Countering the wizard's training would require making a LOT more cards mage and school specific, and introducing hard counters to the Wizard's Tower would also heavily nerf other conjurations or ranged attacks which are not overpowered.  I appreciate Arcane Wonder's desire to not errata cards unless they absolutely have to, but it would honestly be the easiest and most sure-fire way to fix the problem in this particular case because it would ensure there were no collateral side-effects. 

General Discussion / Re: Standardized Card Numbers
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:39:55 pm »
I also just double-checked and realized that if mage-only and class-only did not reduce card numbers, other cards which did previously seem to apply to the standardization really don't.  So in other words, I still have no idea what the system is.   :-\

General Discussion / Re: Standardized Card Numbers
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:35:53 pm »
To clarify what I'm talking about, I'll give a list of cards which seem to go against the typical system without any obvious reason.  I'll leave out the level 1 equipment, since the replies about them make sense.  I'll also skip the releases which don't currently adhere to the system (the core set and Conquest of Kumanjaro). 

Forcemaster vs Warlord (updated version):
-Dancing Scimitar x 3 (should be 4)
-Psi-Orb x 2 (should be 3; mind mage only but not forcemaster only)
-Sectarus, Dark Rune Sword x 2 (should be 3; legendary and dark mage only)
-Mana Prism x 4 (should be 3; unique) (strangely enough, the old version actually gave the correct amount)
-Thoughtspore x 4 (should be 3; mind mage only)
-Charm x 4 (should be 3; mind mage only)
-Mind Control x 4 (should be 3; mind mage only)

Druid vs Necromancer:
-Mohktari's Branch x 3 (should be 4)
-Samara Tree x 6 (should be 2; druid only and epic)
-Seedling Pod x 6 (should be 2; druid only)
-Rise Again x 4 (should be 3; dark mage only)
-Animate Dead x 4 (should be 3; dark mage only)
-Burst of Thorns x 6 (should be 2; druid only)

Forged in Fire:
-Eisenach's Forge Hammer x 2 (should be 3; war mage only)
-Harshforge Plate x 2 (should be 3; war mage only)
-Otto Kronig, Master Engineer x 4 (should be 3; legendary)
-Combustion x 4 (should be 6; level 1)
-Conquer x 4 (should be 3; war mage only)

Battlegrounds Domination:
-Skeelax, Taunting Imp x 3 (should be 2; warlock only)

Based on that, I'd guess class and school restricted cards only have decreased card numbers when they are also a piece of equipment.  That still doesn't explain everything, though.  I have to assume the 6 copies of Samara Tree is a typo on the website, because that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Dancing Scimitar, Psi-Orb, and Sectarus are each missing one copy, but I assume that's due to Arcane Wonders just kind of drawing the line since they already added roughly 30 extra cards to the new version of FvW. 

That leaves Mana Prism, Mohktari's Branch, Eisenach's Forge Hammer, Harshforge Plate, Otto Kronig, and Combustion as unexplained. 

Also, about Combustion.  It isn't listed as fire mage only (and I just showcased how that probably wouldn't matter anyway), and there are several other elemental spells which do possess 6 copies.  There are also other cards which are very unlikely to have 6 copies ever placed in a spellbook, but which possess 6 copies nonetheless.  So there must be some other reason. 

Mages / Re: Top-Tier viable mages?
« on: October 24, 2015, 03:35:53 pm »
I'm not convinced that the Wizard is somehow going to be brought in line as the card pool grows, at least considering the current pattern of releases; the problem is that he can, through his training, just adapt to best suit the current card pool. 

For the Wizard to be balanced via new releases, those new releases, maybe a couple or so, would need to stop introducing important cards that the Wizard can include at base spellbook point cost...which is pretty limiting from a design perspective, considering that would include all of the minor schools (and Arcane).  But as Academy gives the Wizard lots of new toys, such as a level 1 Arcane creature (the Wizard used to be the only Mage with a Spawnpoint without that, IIRC), I just don't see that happening. 

I hope that as I play these new releases, I'll see yet more improvement in terms of balance, but I really see the problem with the Wizard based in his mage stats card (primarily) and the unyielding expansion of the Arcane/Minor schools, not necessarily the lack of options for other mages.
I completely agree.  Back with only the base set, there were still arguments that the Wizard was slightly more powerful than the other 3 mages, but it was generally considered a very small difference in power.  From what I've seen, the wizard has actually gotten more powerful with almost every expansion due to his deck-building options.  Forcemaster vs Warlord made Earth Wizards more viable, Forged in Fire gave Fire Wizards a lot more tools, and Paladin vs Siren is almost definitely going to give the Wizard lots of Water cards he can make use of. 

Long story short, without an errata of some kind, the Wizard is always going to remain one of the most powerful mages.  He can make too much use of the overall card pool, so he's not going to ever fall behind (unless Arcane Wonders releases an expansion with practically no elemental or Arcane cards, and even then he can just pay double for any other stuff he's really interested in).  But if Arcane Wonders is going to errata the Wizard himself, they really need to do it before they release Alt Wizard vs Alt Forcemaster, which is going to be their next minor Arena expansion. 

I'm not sure why the first set of Academy was Wizard v. Beastmaster and not Priestess v. Warlock, to be honest.
While it is a bit awkward, I do see the logic in having Beastmaster vs Wizard be the first release.  The latest release was Forged in Fire, which helped out Warlocks.  The next Arena release is going to be Paladin vs Siren, which is obviously going to help out the Priestess as well with new Holy school cards.  So Arcane Wonders kind of had to give the Beastmasters something to prevent them from getting stale. 

General Discussion / Standardized Card Numbers
« on: October 24, 2015, 03:09:20 pm »
So I've recently been analyzing the list of cards compiled in the Spellbook Builder (what?  I'm a bit obsessive compulsive, I admit), and I have a question.  I know that between the releases of Conquest of Kumanjaro and Druid vs Necromancer Arcane Wonders instituted a standardized card numbering system.  However, I'm unclear on the exact specifics of this system.  I thought I knew what it was, but there are some anomalies which seem to indicate I was wrong. 

level 1 cards = 6 copies
legendary, unique, or school-only = 3 copies
epic or mage-only = 2 copies
all other cards = 4 copies

However, there seem to be exceptions to this in the newer releases.  Level 1 equipment spells never have 6 copies, and sometimes school-only and mage-only spells possess 4 copies instead of 3 or 2.  Occasionally, weirder stuff will happen.   For example, Forged in Fire only contains 4 copies of Combustion, even though it is a level 1 incantation spell.  So, can anyone clear up for me what the exact formula is for determining card numbers?

I don't really get your reply, mind is fine for the forcemaster, the invisibile stalker is mind school.  I'm not sure what other school force is referring to, I understood it was a subtype, like animal, demon etc.

So Mind/Dark gives the creature a lot of flexibility that doesnt have to rely on psychic only. Basically an invisible stalker that throws out curses like bees poo honey would be a mind/dark creature that fits the bill...
Force and Psychic are both sub-types of the Mind school (similar to how acid and hydro are 2 sub-types of the Water minor school).  The problem is that a lot of creatures possess Psychic Immunity, which makes all Psychic type attacks and spells useless against them.  For example, the [mwcard=FWC12]Psylok[/mwcard] creature can't affect Psychic Immune creatures because its only attack has the Psychic sub-type.  That creature represents a full 33% of the Mind school's current creature pool.  Therefore, some people want a creature for the Forcemaster that isn't countered by Psychic Immunity. 

The problem is that Mage Wars tends to follow theme extremely well.  In general, everything does exactly what you'd expect it to do.  Why can the [mwcard=MW1C26]Necropian Vampiress[/mwcard] fly during its activation?  Because a lot of vampire myths claim vampires are capable of limited flight.  Why does [mwcard=MW1C29]Redclaw, Alpha Male[/mwcard] buff up surrounding wolves?  Because wolves usually travel in packs, and the designers wanted players to mirror that through gameplay.  There are a ton of examples of this stuff. 

So what do most people think of when they imagine a nightmare creature?  I'd bet they usually think of psychic abilities.  Take Freddy Krueger from A Nightmare on Elm Street: he can usually only injure/kill people in their dreams, and only because he's feeding off their emotions.  If, hypothetically, he was tasked with killing a robot in one of his movies, do you think he'd be very effective at it? 

That basically describes the situation.  Some people want the creature to be useful and fill a niche for the Forcemaster, but it's difficult for that to happen while the card still stays true to its theme. 

just picking one idea out at a time, why couldn't a mind/dark creature fill a niche for the Forcemaster?  The Forcemaster is trained in the mind school.  The invisible stalker is a mind school spell with a force type.  I don't know if we need to make the FM a one trick pony.

I understood the gap we were trying to fill was a strong secondary creature that would compliment the FM nicely against different builds, particularly swarm.
I think what Vulcan was trying to point out is that the two major weaknesses of the Forcemaster are a lack of any decent creatures, and psychic-immunity.  It is absolutely possible for a dark/mind nightmare creature to be a decent creature choice for the Forcemaster, but it is VERY awkward to try to design one which doesn't rely at all on psychic abilities or attacks due to its theme.  Nightmares are traditionally thought of as purely mental phenomenon.  To be honest, force creatures sound like they would fit much better under mind/war or mind/nature than mind/dark.  But, people voted for a mind/dark nightmare creature, so now the community has to try to design one while still helping out the Forcemaster. 

Mentioning swarm builds did actually give me an idea, though.  We could design a creature which scales off of the number of surrounding enemies. 

Name: Nightmare Phantasm
Cost: 16
Level: 3 mind & 1 dark
Armor: 0 (incorporeal)
Health: 8
Attacks: quick action, 3 dice, ethereal / full action, 3 dice, sweeping, ethereal
Abilities: incorporeal / non-living / at the beginning of its activation, this creature may pick a zone bordering its zone and push all creatures from that zone into its zone.  For each enemy creature in its zone, this creature gains health +2, melee +1, and reconstruct +1. 

It should still get wrecked by ethereal or strong single monsters, but I could totally see that making players wary against blindly swarming against a Forcemaster.  At the very least, it should force some scattering and tactical positioning from such builds. 

the first question is do we want this creature to be Legendary or not?

First there is the creature who feeds on dreams. This would be like a kick ass version of haunter from pokemon. It puts you to sleep and then feeds on you without breaking the condition. Then, there is the "Phantom Force Nightmare". This one could be like a poltergeist or some form of intangible force knight with a horrifying presence.  And I'm sure you guys have ideas for this as well. We're close. After this step I'll build some playtest cards for us to see just what we've come up with.

Personally, I'd prefer non-legendary.  While a Legendary creature allows for more unique abilities, the mind school kind of needs solid mid-tier soldiers to deploy.  That being said, I do have an idea or two for a legendary creature as well.  Disclaimer: these are all initial ideas, and have had absolutely no thought given to balance concerns yet. 

1. Mind-Consuming Darkness
Idea = a dedicated anti-familiar.  Consumes them and grows more powerful.
Specifics = attacks gain Unavoidable and +2 against all familiars.  If a familiar is killed by this creature's attack, its card is placed under this creature's card.  These creatures cannot be resurrected or regained in any way by their mage.  For each captured creature card under it, this creature gains Reconstruct +1, Melee +2, and an extra action marker (giving it an extra turn).  Whenever this creature takes damage, its controlling mage may discard one of the creature cards under it to regain health equal to the number of health listed on that card.  Afterwards, that card is Obliterated. 
Notes = the upside is that it's very different from any other existing creatures, and it suits the theme fairly well.  The downside is that its abilities would only suit a legendary creature, and familiars aren't extremely popular or prevalent anyway (meaning the card would be HIGHLY situational).

2. Haunting Shadows
Idea = relatively weak creature which enemy mages are forced to deal with personally.  Sort of like living homing missiles.
Specifics = this creature may only move in the direction of the nearest enemy mage.  It cannot be targeted by any non-mage creatures or conjurations.  It is Obscured, Unstoppable, and Uncontainable.  It cannot attack anything except a mage, and its attacks are Unavoidable and Critical.  It is unaffected by terrain and walls. 
Notes = upside is it doesn't have to be legendary, is somewhat unique, and fits the theme of a "phantom force nightmare".  Downside is that it will be challenging to make this idea scary instead of annoying for an opposing mage while not having it be too powerful.

3. Nightmare Illusionist
Idea = a solid mid-tier creature which can make damaging illusions of itself, making the enemy guess as to which one is real
Specifics = this card comes with 4 tokens.  all tokens possess the same face-up side, and 3 of them say illusion on the other side.  The last token says real on its face-down side.  When this creature is summoned, place all 4 tokens in areas within 1 space of the controlling mage (can be placed in different spaces from each other).  Place the creature card next to the mage's equipment.  Each token possesses its own action marker and takes its own turn.  Whenever one of the tokens is attacked, it is flipped over.  If the token says real, the creature card is placed in that space and all illusion tokens are discarded.  If the token says illusion, that token is discarded.   Each token may attack and deal damage as normal, but only the real token may damage psychic-immune creatures. 
Notes = on the upside, this would give the mind school a solid soldier card, while also incorporating the theme of mind games.  On the downside, this might prove unwieldy and intrude too much on whatever is planned for the Siren (or a future Illusionist).  It also relies on psychic attacks by necessity (which might be a problem). 

I might think of other ideas later. 

Mages / Re: Top-Tier viable mages?
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:28:15 pm »
Figured I might as well chip in. 

I disagree that the AC Warlock is in a bad place, and I'm not sure why people would think that in the first place.  He's not absolute top-tier or anything, but he's still solid and has a nice niche.  The Anvil Throne (AT) Warlord has some really good abilities, but the war school is still a tad lacking in areas.  The Bloodwave (BW) Warlord is kind of a different story.  His battle orders are roughly as good as the AT Warlord's, but his veterans ability is really, really bad.  It's extremely limited (doesn't apply to ranged units, doesn't stack, and requires both players to summon lots of creatures), and it doesn't synergize well with most of the units that he is supposed to use thematically (like goblins) because they can be killed off pretty easily.  In short, there's no reason to use him over the AT Warlord.  I can't comment very much on the Malakai (MK) Priest because I haven't played much with him, but what I can say is that the Adramelech (AM) Warlock can actually make his malakai's fire ability work against him, so you have to be careful with that.  Otherwise, he seems decent.  Holy avenger is a really good buff, especially if you also have some good guarding creatures available. 

Like everyone else here, I'm going to list the Wizard as a top-tier choice.  He possesses an insane amount of flexibility, cheap access to most work-horse cards, and Wizard's Tower is an extremely good card. 

Everything after that gets a bit hazy and more open to argument.  The druid in general is very good, but fire (ie, both warlocks) absolutely destroys her.  Priestess is also very good, but she has a harder time than usual in tournaments due to time constraints, which make her late-game emphasis a liability.  Forcemaster is fantastic early-game but really suffers against psychic-immunity and opponents who can control her.  The devs have done a surprisingly good job of making the mages feel different but being balanced overall, so it's basically impossible to make a single chart of mage strength and have it be reliable. 

That being said, there are a couple mages that stand out to me as being less effective than most.  I firmly believe that the Johktari (JT) Beastmaster and the Bloodwave (BW) Warlord are the worst mages in the game at the moment.  I've already been over the BW Warlord, but the JT Beastmaster might be even worse.  Her primary ability is actually functionally useless a decent amount of the time, since it requires a living target to work.  Having innate fast and ranged +1 would be nice, but her signature bow also kind of sucks.  She might get a much-needed boost from some cards in Academy, but at the moment the Straywood (SW) Beastmaster can pretty much do everything better than the JT one if you pack a cheetah speed into your spellbook. 

General Discussion / Re: Community Card Construction: Concept Decision
« on: September 21, 2015, 03:33:58 pm »
It might be helpful to define or elaborate on what constitutes a "Nightmare Creature".  That choice seems to have a lot of potential overlap between "Psychic Ghost" and "Creature from Beyond". 

Anyway, I'm voting for Cthonian-Style Creature from Beyond, mainly because I feel it is the most logical direction for Mind & Dark cards to go in.  We already have ghosts which are pure Dark, so having ghosts also be the Mind & Dark combo will make it feel less distinct and special.  I view Brain in a Jar as more natural as a Mind & Arcane combo than Mind & Dark (there's nothing necessarily evil about surviving as a brain in a vat...  Heck, some of my best friends might be brains in vats for all I know!).  I would be really excited for Zombie Fungus (I really want fungus/mushroom people), but that seems like an ideal Nature & Dark combo.  Mental Parasite could be good, but I think it's pretty similar to how the Zombie Fungus could work.  And Nightmare Creature is a bit vague at the moment. 

Just my 2 cents. 

General Discussion / Re: Two Handed Melee Weapons.
« on: September 01, 2015, 08:53:35 pm »
The only way 2-handed weapons will be viable is if they are slightly more powerful than a 1-handed weapon and an offhand piece of equipment combined.  There are two reasons for this: 1. a 2-handed weapon is more risky to play than 2 separate pieces of equipment, because it is more likely to get targeted for destruction by your opponent.  2. 2-handed weapons lack the potential variety of mixing and matching 2 different pieces of equipment. 

That's more or less the massive issue with War Sledge at the moment: it's takes up 2 equipment slots but is pretty much comparable to most 1-handed weapons. 

At the very least, 2-handed weapons need to roll 1 more die for each attack (possibly 2), and possess some kind of great passive ability which might normally be seen on a wand/shield/etc. 

For Example:
Claymore - 2 handed melee weapon
Cost - 14
Level - 2 War & 2 Holy
Attacks - 1) quick action - 5 dice, piercing +1, counterstrike  2) full action - 6 dice, piercing +1, sweeping
Abilities - any creature under level 4 that is damaged by this weapon's counterstrike becomes dazed. 

That might be a tad too powerful, but you get the gist of it. 

Mages / Re: The Wizard discussion
« on: August 28, 2015, 11:54:59 pm »
Wizard Tower is just a really really strong card, in an already potent school, that plays to the major strengths of the wizard's wheelhouse.

All that to say:
The complexity of this "issue" is two fold.  The wizard and the arcane school.

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I think I agree with the above statements most.  The wizard by himself is good, but not overpowered.  The arcane school by itself is good but not overpowered.  And the Wizard's Tower by itself is good, but not overpowered.  By combining them, however, you get a really nasty and hard to beat opponent. 

I think the wizard's abilities themselves are fine.  They are powerful, but they cost mana to make up for it.  The wizard's main problem is that his deck-building flexibility is almost unlimited.  The easiest way to fix that would be to make the wizard pay triple for the element which opposes his chosen element (water = fire, air = earth), and for all War school cards.  Without the element restriction, the long-rumored elementalist mage would be unnecessary, since the wizard could simply do the job himself (with the added benefit of still having access to Arcane spells).  And the War restriction makes thematic sense. 

As for the Arcane school itself, the 3 main problems are Teleport, Dispel, and Nullify.  From what I understand, each of these cards is considered top tier in the meta, and have been for a long time.  This hasn't really happened with cards from other schools, at least to this extent.  In order to fix this, Arcane Wonders needs to design and release cards (from schools OTHER than Arcane) that directly counter these cards in order to reduce their popularity to manageable levels.  It should be perfectly viable to build a competitive deck with absolutely no copies of those spells at all.  Astral Anchor and Harshforge Plate are a good start, but it's not enough. 

Last is the Wizard's Tower.  I think the only things that should be changed are that it should cost a quick action to change out the tower's spells, and the tower itself should be epic.  Being able to bring out another tower as soon as the first one is destroyed is just silly, and the quick action to change spells would bring it more in line with other familiars. 

We now have the art for the Dawnbreaker's Chosen. Check it out >>HERE<<.

I'm sorry, but I really must object....

This artwork is WAY too good to just be used on a creature.  Why is this not being saved for the alternate Paladin?  It would fit so well!  Don't make me print off this picture and paste it over the picture of the alternate (or even the original) Paladin, because I will. 

On a related note, when are we getting a giant 2-handed sword as a piece of equipment?  I'll beg if I have to.  I'm dead serious. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7