September 18, 2020, 08:54:44 AM

Author Topic: Weird Druid idea  (Read 7385 times)

Vargtass

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2014, 01:48:50 AM »
Hmm... Actually I think the spellbook might work against necro as well if I just play it differently. Part of the plan is including nature spells to beef myself up, and facing a necro might be one of those cases when its time to use Cervere the forest shadow I mentioned earlier. even tho I try to play without creatures I see the use of sometimes needing something to assist me and a dodgy elusive cat would fit the bill. Instead of focusing on curse controll I focus on aggro. At its core the idea for this spellbook is that even if you face a paranoid mage they cant bring more than 6 dispells to the table and most people dont bother with purge magic. (Plus Im still not auto defeated by it because theres always nullify mindgames to be played.)

Because fliers is a clear weakness too Im thinking maby I need to have a copy of Tarok the sky hunter to assist in those cases.

Also I should add that Im ok with the spellbook having some matchups that are a bit tougher to deal with.
If this idea is good enough to work in most cases Im happy with it. When I first thought of it I wasnt sure if it would work at all, when I actually tried playing it it seemed like there might actually be something to it, and now Im just trying to spot obvious flaws with it and figure out a way to adress them (without scrapping the idea and just going "normal spellbook" to handle them). And I haveto say that I greatly apreciate all your feedback! Thanks everyone. :) The mage wars community seems to be a very nice one.

Myrddin

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2014, 05:54:49 AM »
The major vulnerability I see here, pretty much regardless of match-up, is that while you're dancing around the arena avoiding harm, I can march over to your tree and smash it into firewood. At which point a fair bit of your advantage (vines, channelling, lifebond...) is all lost.

I've only played against one Druid, so I'm probably missing something: but for me, the tree enforces some degree of defense (or more all-out offence so they have no time to respond)

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2014, 06:33:50 AM »
The major vulnerability I see here, pretty much regardless of match-up, is that while you're dancing around the arena avoiding harm, I can march over to your tree and smash it into firewood. At which point a fair bit of your advantage (vines, channelling, lifebond...) is all lost.

I've only played against one Druid, so I'm probably missing something: but for me, the tree enforces some degree of defense (or more all-out offence so they have no time to respond)

It will take you quite some time to destroy that tree even when it does not have defenses.
If that is your focus, then you will probaly be at 10+ damage before tree is down just from ghoul rot, magebane and chain of agony.
And mby even more depending on how much armor you put on. If you dont go into dispel wars he will actions and mana to acid ball you and follow up with a fireball / hurl boulder.

The vine tree can stricly be used for placing cheap bloodspine walls to delay you getting to the tree or damaging you in the process.

Remember he can transfer damage from tree to self so the tree can get rid of 4 damage in each upkeep which is pretty strong. So you have to take the tree down in maximum 2 -3 rounds or its a dead project.

Vargtass

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2014, 08:22:48 AM »
Yes Im actually pretty happy if they choose to engage the tree. Its more durable than most cratures and if I throw a regen on myself I can like Jacksmack pointed out heal 4 damage/turn passively.

If they really aim for the tree I can opt to bring out a new tree and bond with it before the old one dies. While the vine tree is an epic spell and the best suited tree for what Im trying to do, it is by no means essential to my strategy. The innate vine token/ turn is often enough to restrict my oponents movement. (Especially if he chooses to go for a strategy that has him/her standing still several turns to deal with my tree. By the time they get it down they will have a bunch of curses on them.

There are also more ways to aproach the situation. If an oponent chooses to deal quickly with the tree, it will still take them more than one turn to do so efficently, that means if I manage to stall them between landing their first and their seccond attack I can make the first attack a truly wasted effort because the tree gets a breather to recover. Since I can only have one ghoul rot on them I am free to choose a wide reange of counter measures as reaction to a tree attack. Agony to make attacks feeble, or cast reverse attack on myself and go guard the tree for a turn. A simple stumble can buy time for my tree to recover and for ghoul rot to tick away.

Long story short Im pretty happy if they go for the tree. :3

I think the greatest challenge will be to have a viable strategy against a necro who comfortably sits in a corner spamming zombies or skeletons. I hope I can fit an alternative agressive opening into the spellbook. Ill ponder all your input and get back with spellbook draft.

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2014, 08:27:11 AM »
only 1 treebond per game.

When tree is dead you dont get to treebond anymore.

Vargtass

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2014, 11:02:42 AM »
Oh? I was under the impression that you loose it if the tree dies, but if you summon a new tree before the old one dies you can bond with that instead?

Edit:

Reading the treebond rules:
When a friendly tree conjuration comes into play you may choose to bond with it. Place your treebond marker on it. [snip snip]
If the tree is destroyed, the Treebond marker is permanently lost.

The last part Ive read as clarification that you can bond with a new tree.
If the marker sticks to the first tree you bond with during the game, then there would be no use in pointing out that its permanently destroyed if your tree dies.
(That in combination that there is no mention of the marker needing to be unused to bond. It just says you put it on a tree if you choose to bond)

But if I have missunderstood this rule I stand happily corrected. Im alwasys more interested in correctly understanding the rules of a game than being correct about them when discussing the game with someone. :)
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 11:10:04 AM by Vargtass »

Laddinfance

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2014, 12:37:42 PM »
Our other markers return to you after the object they're on gets destroyed. We wanted to be clear that you could only use this marker once, and that you did not get it back.

Vargtass

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2014, 12:52:36 PM »
Oh, so just bonding to a single tree per game. Thanks for filling me in. :)
(I would however consider adding some sort of clarification on that in future editions.
Maby replacing the line about the marker getting destroyed if the tree is with something like
"You can only bond with one tree per game." That would take about the same amount of space and leave no room for questions about what happens to the marker, or the mistake I made.)

At any rate learning this will help me decide on the best way to deal with tree aggro. More disruption in case I need it, and little need to include more trees unless I specificaly want their benifit.
One thought I had on tree choise was actually using Mohktari instead of the vine tree just to get the extra stats from bonding and because if the game ends up being a battle about the tree it has more armor and heals me if I go to the zone and guard it (while having a reverse attack prepared on  myself. :3)


Wildhorn

  • Superior artificial brain, feel free to call me Blaine.
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • Mage Wars Quebec
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2014, 01:15:57 PM »
@Varglass There is no need to add clarification more than that it get destroyed when the tree get killed. A marker is not transfereable by the rules (like if a BM has a Pet, he can't transfer it to another animal until the first one die).

Vargtass

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2014, 01:24:06 PM »
Oh? Interesting. I havnt really thought that much about tokens being non transferable simply because in the cases where you get them back it generally makes sense to have the thing they are boosting keep the boost untill they die.

Anyway thanks for the update. :)

Doucotasisay

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2014, 10:29:48 PM »
I mean if you're going to be "dancing around avoiding the other mage and his creature a vinewhip staff to throw stuck conditions around is pretty tight. I was in a tight spot once and was able to stick about 2/3 of my friends animals. I'm thinking if he's stuck, you can have a falcon lay into him while you drop arrows onto him with a hunting bow. maybe even replace cervere with a spider and get some tainted conditions in the mix.

Vargtass

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2014, 01:05:08 AM »
Hmm... I like most of that idea. Not sure I understand all of it tho.
The vine staff has definetly caught my eye, and there would be a good synergy with spiders.
But Im not sure how you think the bow fits into that. If I equip the bow after managing to get something stuck and then damage it with the spider I haveto return the staff to my spellbook, and as soon as my target gets loose Im going to want the staff back. Switching between the bow and staff sounds really mana intensive.
Am I missing something? :O

zorro

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2014, 01:53:36 AM »
It will take you quite some time to destroy that tree even when it does not have defenses.

Im my (not so big) experience with the druid, the tree is really easy to destroy if opponent focus on it. A couple Force Hammer, Hurl Boulder, or Fireball, and maybe a melee strike to finish, and the tree will be over in 1-2 turns. And i find it diffucult to defend (apart from intercepting creatures, wich I consider at least medium investment in defences)
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid

jacksmack

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Banana Stickers 19
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2014, 03:30:22 AM »
Im my (not so big) experience with the druid, the tree is really easy to destroy if opponent focus on it. A couple Force Hammer, Hurl Boulder, or Fireball, and maybe a melee strike to finish, and the tree will be over in 1-2 turns. And i find it diffucult to defend (apart from intercepting creatures, wich I consider at least medium investment in defences)

Easy to destroy... you are spending 18 mana on a 'couple' of force hammers.
You cant destroy it with 1 and a melee because the mage is guarding.
Dont forget... every round you delay the destruction of the tree is another 4 damage you have to do against 2 armor.
You make it sound easy - but in reality it is not.

I remember when i played my LoF warlock against a druid. I was laughing inside myself because the game would be so easy with the big bad boy doing flame attacks against his flame+2 units. Guess what. I got completely owned.
When i summoned LoF round 2 he countered me by summoning guarding angel round 3 with rouse beast so it would guard when round 4 started. In the mean time he got vinemarkers to my NC so my warlock was slow at getting to him with my lash. He also deployed 1 or 2 snatchers and a vine snapper.
It was not pretty. I was'nt close in accomplishing anything besides destroying a tanglevine on my mage.

I could have done a couple of things different, but it was the first time i tried that matchup and ever since that i have been shaking my head at the whine threads about druid being useless vs warlock.

If you want to kill the tree do so with few bigs. Dont invest in 2-3 attack spells because after they are gone you will be left naked against snatchers, raptors and snappers while the druid is pounding on you as well.

zorro

  • Jr. Mage
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Weird Druid idea
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2014, 06:41:38 AM »
Well, i was talking when it does not have defences, as you said previously . In such scenario, i think is may be easy to destroy it (i will happily spend the mana of two big attack spells on a bonded vine tree, or whatever takes you to destroy an undefended bonded tree in 1 turn).

Of course, a defended tree is another story.
  • Favourite Mage: Wychwood Druid