While I do think it's good to at least have some realization that this may be a possiblity, using the half of a game that I recorded as the only evidence right now is NOT what I would consider proper testing methods. I still think that there were multiple times that if vulcan had cards that weren't restricted to JUST the core set then he'd have won the game. There were also cards IN the core set that I'd have used that he did not and still more ways to come up with to have combated the Wizard in Warlock's clothing that would have done the warlock better. When you use EVERY card available + PROMOS vs someone with ONLY ONE CORE SET there is BOUND to be a difference. Player skill can help mitigate some of this, but you're still playing with one arm behind your back.

All I'm saying from all of this, is that using this recording as the only piece of evidence on either side of any argument that a wizard can warlock better than a warlock can is irresponsible from a testing perspective and leads to knee jerk reactions

   Agreed. While I have not seen the match, I also believed there was a build issue at play too. So, the immediate jump to a conclusion is just wrong here. It is a bad conclusion. And again the chorus of change, change, change. More time and tournaments are needed. Along the same time aw will be releasing more products which will include bumps for the lower tier mages.

   I think that the no time limit would not be much of an issue. The finals did not last very long on day 2. And I just found your wizard thread, and will continue this discussion there. I felt the heat during our match indeed. I still have the sunburns.

   I just found this thread. I just mentioned about the wizard under the gencon discussion thread. I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I do not think the wizard is over powered, or needs any changes. I also agree that we should not make a bunch of his spells novice. As is mentioned, nullify is not in every book, but dispel is in many. They just release a new dispel for academy which may prove useful to some. So, changes are happening over time as is normal.

   I think tweaking should not happen to any of it at this point. A bm won gencon last year, and the tower was out then too. So, any given day anything can happen.

   I cannot agree enough that it is the player, not the mage. However, that said, some mages are better than others. You cannot create true parity with mages who have different flavors and uniqueness. It is bound to happen some are better than others. However, you can try to minimize the disparity between them. I suspect that over time, the ones on the bottom rungs will get improved. PVS cannot do anything but help the wizard since it will round out the water element. But, hopefully the wizard will become somewhat static, while other mages get some new tools as other sets are released.

   I almost lost to sharkbait in our match. He was hyper aggressive and it was a chore to weather that firestorm. I probably was lucky he did not off me along the way. I managed to turn the corner on him and fight my way back. And he did not have a tower, playing the fire sorceress.

   One thing I noticed from watching the awesome interviews that the AD folks filmed at gencon was the over emphasis on wizard and asking about whether we believe the wizard is over powered. While I have not kept up on the forums and have probably missed most of the conversation surrounding this topic, I would like to put in my $.02 without dredging up a bunch of conflict.

   There were only 5 wizards at the tourney, not half the field. If just playing pure random, at least one wizard likely makes it to the finals. I played a wizard, not so much because I feel he is the most powerful in the game, it is because I like wizards generally. I am very comfortable playing a wizard. He certainly is a top tier mage, and therefore very competitive. I believe that necro, and original warlock are also top tier. With priestess, and original bm in the next tier. Followed by fm, and everyone else. The priest, and johktari at the bottom.  The top 4 were: 2 wizards, a priestess, and a fm. That is a decent mix. Had the initial field been larger, I would have expected to see some warlords and more warlocks, and a couple more necros. Who knows what the top would have looked like then? It is true if more folks play wizards, then more will make the finals just on sheer numbers. Same can be said for any mage. It is interesting to note that there were not so many swarming mages in the field. That surprised me. It was refreshing to see that folks did not just copy previous success and field clones, and instead brought their own creations. That was great to see. You do not get that in mtg competitions. Where everyone buys the current deck of the week, and you end up fighting yourself a dozen times over. How boring.

   Further, I also believe that any mage in the hands of an experienced player has a better chance too. I would think that several players in the tourney could field a well crafted non top tier mage and still have a decent shot at the final day. I even mentioned in my interview with the AD crew that more plays matter. It gives you more experience encountering or formulating tactics. Over the long run, you will be able to handle more situations and have a firmer grasp of what to prep when it matters most. When is it time to break off an attack run to handle something the opponent has done, or to perhaps heal yourself some? In a timed game those decisions are magnified. More games with experienced players makes an even bigger difference because you may be challenged more often or quicker.

   I am not trying to open a new can of worms here, but it was just a topic that I saw recur in the interviews which implied that the film crew were trying to get folks to say or confirm that wizards are broken somehow. I think that over time other mages will get benefits from cards along the way to elevate them rather than fall prey to the chorus chanting nerf nerf nerf. The constant rulings on cards and outright bans on cards right after print in mtg was a huge turnoff for most of my friends and I, and large part of the reason we quit the game. It meant that wotc really did not do its testing correctly and implied that it was just churning out shoddy product so fast just to make a buck, rather than trying to maintain a quality game. Really what is the point of buying something if you have to constantly look on some website just to see what the cards really do?  However the fact that they are still printing money may mean that they finally got that under control. I just would hate to see the same thing in yet another great game.

   I am sure over time, the other mages will get their status elevated along the way. There will always be top tier mages, and bottom feeders. Which ones those are will morph over time. But the stark difference between the top and the very bottom should compress over time so there are not so many levels between them. And then the matches will be more often decided with the better tactics winning (on average - discounting getting diced) rather than which mage is being played.

   

  I beg to differ. My wizard was very aggressive. I only slowed a touch to try to keep the temp on my side expecting jinx. I used the zap many times to ditch the jinx and still had 2 spells to choose from for my main action.  As it was, I was one damage shy (on a significantly low roll (2 pts under average at least) of a hurl boulder - with hawkeye) kill shot and ending the game many turns earlier.

when is the next tournement?

.  MW has many elements to it. It is like chess, magic the gathering, fantasy miniatures war battles all combined. Each one of those element items are each very heavilly dominated by males. It would seem to follow that since this game combines all of those, then mw would also be heavilly dominated by males. I don't care whether my opponent is a girl or not. i have actually played against another mw players' wife. She played well too btw. I just want to play and have a great time with folks playing a great game. It just does not surprise me that there are not more women playing. Would definitely like to see more though.

Perhaps a simpler way of looking at it, is say with a 9 channel caster. If on turn one I case 2 mana enhancers, from then on I have 11 per turn generating presuming they stick around. From turn 2 on, I can churn out 11 cost creatures or less without having to save mana for a round. There are a lot of 11 cost war creatures as an example. Of course there would be some rounds where you skip creatures to play other things such as cool armor or enchantments etc, but with 11 channel you have more options to accomplish those decisions.