Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Spells => Topic started by: Charmyna on August 22, 2013, 12:46:25 AM
-
I know ballista is a promo. Still, it might be good if we, the players, have a deeper look into it in theory as well as in real games before its released.
Compared to creatures in that cost range, Ballista does twice the damage but can attack every other round. So on time average it seems like it does the same damage. But, you need to consider that the Ballista starts with a load token. Therefore, the round after its summoned it does twice the damage of a creature!
Here are a couple of games in which I used a ballista focused opening:
The first one is me playing a Fire Wizard against a Warlord. I summoned 4 Ballistae until round 3 whereas the Warlord used Brogan. Even though I had quite some bad rolls and the Warlord had decent rolls against the Ballistae, the damage from the ballistae combined with the wizard towers utility was too much.
http://www.twitch.tv/charmyna/c/2795140
This one was vs a BM:
http://www.twitch.tv/charmyna/c/2795732
And one against an air wizard with Grizzly+Vamp:
http://www.twitch.tv/charmyna/c/2796603
Here is a really tough game against Fentum (Air wizard). He destroyed two ballistae quickly with wizard tower + fireball. After that he pushed me through wall of thorns twice (I couldnt do anything because he had ini next round). In the end I survived with 1 life left!
http://www.twitch.tv/charmyna/c/2796757
This video somehow shows that fire+2 is an important weakness of the ballista. Still, mana and action wise its inefficient to kill ballista with fireball since the chance to not instantly kill it isnt that small. Even if you oneshot the ballista, it might had the chance to shoot once depending on Ini.
A solution might be to start with zero load tokens or to make ballista unique. One ballista is only a minor threat since you can move into its zone to avoid its damage. But stacking ballistae really hurts - especially because of the nature of the ready marker mechanic. Therefore, a solution could be to change the ready marker mechanic for all conjurations (e.g. only one conjuration may be activated before or after a friendly creatures action phase).
If ballista is made unique (and no change to ready marker mechanic), this might not solve the problem forever. In a discussion with murphy yesterday he pointed out that at some point we might have a couple of really good conjurations that are all unique (e.g. Hand of Bimshalla, Temple of Light if there are more cheap temples in the future, Wizard Tower, Ballista). Even though these conjurations are unique they can stack with other unique conjurations leading to the same problem we started with.
-
LOVE the card! It's just BEAST! However, the consensus (at least among those I have spoken and played with) seems to be that it should be unique and/or have the attack reduced to 4 dice with pierce +2. In either case, absolutely War Mage only.
In the end, Ballista is simply too effective when stacked as it is and if I were a betting man I would go all in on the prospect of the card being altered at some point before general release, but for now - as mentioned earlier...It's just BEAST! ;D
-
Hi Charmyna,
How do you solve a problem like Ballista?
Good summary. I'm with you on the hypothesis that the action mechanic is the possible route of a small amount of evil in an otherwise (and still) excellent system.
The 'problems' with HoB and Ballista are only evident when multiple are out, and all are acting together. Often followed by a Wizard's Tower. It's the free action stacking that's the problem.
Only allowing a single card to activate seems a bit harsh. How about only allowing a single activation of a card with the same name? You could still activate one HoB, one Ballista, etc. It would need to work such that it wouldn't be possible to activate before and then after a single creature action.
-
I think the Free Action ready mechanic needs to be heavily restricted and monitored. In a game like MW in which actions are king even above mana, excessive free actions should be a big red flag.
Free action cards like Hand of Bim-Shalla and others really need to be School/Class specific, so that 1. they're balanced and 2. they actually FEEL Unique as part of why you play that mage.
I mean, I don't see a reason why a Warlock or Wizard should have access to something like HoB. Bim-Shalla is apparently quite an important Holy School/Asyra related figure, as he's referenced in a lot of flavor texts, and thematically it doesn't make sense for any mage except a Holy one to actually have the training to use that conjuration. Other free action producers, such as Sectarus, Fellella, etc are at least school-only and feel more interesting because of it.
Same goes for the Ballista; a WAR machine is the realm of a WAR mage and operating one should take a lot of focus, so that it's Unique.
-
I have advocated limiting the ready marker action. But now my solution is more elegant.
New rule. During the Reset phase, only 1 Ready marker on a conjuration may be turned to Ready by each player chosen in Initiative order.
This elegantly returns HoB and ToL as printed while weakening Wizard's Tower. Future "conjurations no creatures" build with current Epics plus Altar of Peace temple is also blunted by this new rule. Currently this build would be near broken so the rule is needed.
Access vs Theme Mage limiting is another issue. Some players prefer strong themes. Others prefer the ability to create ingenious builds. The important thing is to make each mage equal via exclusive access.
-
I have advocated limiting the ready marker action. But now my solution is more elegant.
New rule. During the Reset phase, only 1 Ready marker on a conjuration may be turned to Ready by each player chosen in Initiative order.
This elegantly returns HoB and ToL as printed. Future conjuration only build with current Epics plus Altar of Peace temple is also blunted by this new rule. Currently this build would be near broken so the rule is needed.
Access vs Theme Mage limiting is another issue. Some players prefer strong themes. Others prefer the ability to create ingenious builds. The important thing is to make each mage equal via exclusive access.
it doesnt solve the problem with ballistas.
You can still have 2 ballistas do their thing because it takes 2 rounds to reload them anyway.
In fact im gonna argue that you can still do 3 ballistas.... put down 2 @ once have them shoot the round after. 2 rounds later both are ready and has 2 load tokens. Now you put down the third and do pew pew with QC and AP and 3 ballistas. Load tokens are automatical from here, and you must use brain when choosing which 1 of the 3 to reayd first... the second 1 is obvious (the 1 that actually HAS targets to hit the current round).
-
Yeah. Ballista should not start with a load token. Then it would not make Akiro Hammer so poor in comparison.
There is a danger of fixing in a vacuum. Meta context is key. For example, I have proposed "Dwarf Engineer" that full action adds or removes 1 token from a conjuration in its zone (mana, damage, load etc not a marker like ready). If that exists then Ballista coming in with 0 load would be fine. It would also strengthen creature spawnpoints. So it is dangerous to discuss 1 card alone.
I was focusing on the ready action marker mechanic and Mage exclusivity issues, broader than one card. Fixing one card does not solve the bigger problem.
-
@Charmyna
I have played 2 Ballista against your build several times BN(before the nerf). Really didn't do much. I do think that it is powerful, but as I have argued, I don't think too powerful. I think you fireballed one plus a BG took it out after it fired one time. You then did the same the next round on the other one, so for 16 mana I only got two shots off total(one shot each). Now if I were to play two more, that is the spell book max. If an opponent let that happen then that would be a mistake on their part. I don't think that it should be War only, however I think it should be a bit less powerful for a non-war Mage. I think we talked about a creature for the Warlord that would add load tokens (like the Clerics for the Priestess) to speed firing up. Maybe a reduction in dice or piercing maybe in order, but then they are not scary at all, as I think that the idea of them being out in multiples should be the point (board control) and force the other mage to counter.
-
@Charmyna
I have played 2 Ballista against your build several times BN(before the nerf). Really didn't do much. I do think that it is powerful, but as I have argued, I don't think too powerful. I think you fireballed one plus a BG took it out after it fired one time. You then did the same the next round on the other one, so for 16 mana I only got two shots off total(one shot each). Now if I were to play two more, that is the spell book max. If an opponent let that happen then that would be a mistake on their part. I don't think that it should be War only, however I think it should be a bit less powerful for a non-war Mage. I think we talked about a creature for the Warlord that would add load tokens (like the Clerics for the Priestess) to speed firing up. Maybe a reduction in dice or piercing maybe in order, but then they are not scary at all, as I think that the idea of them being out in multiples should be the point (board control) and force the other mage to counter.
A guy spend 8 mana on Ballista and shoots it once vs the enemey. Opponent spends 8 mana on fireball and presumably atleast 1 more action on finishing off the ballista.
Who gained momentum here?
This right here is one of the key aspects of how you win games in MW. Present enough threats to your opponent he is forced to spend actions and mana on. More actions and/or mana than you spend on putting the threat into play that is.
And dont forget... ballista still did 5 dice of damage with pierce +3 - whereas the opponent did 0 damage.
-
@Charmyna
I have played 2 Ballista against your build several times BN(before the nerf). Really didn't do much. I do think that it is powerful, but as I have argued, I don't think too powerful. I think you fireballed one plus a BG took it out after it fired one time. You then did the same the next round on the other one, so for 16 mana I only got two shots off total(one shot each). Now if I were to play two more, that is the spell book max. If an opponent let that happen then that would be a mistake on their part. I don't think that it should be War only, however I think it should be a bit less powerful for a non-war Mage. I think we talked about a creature for the Warlord that would add load tokens (like the Clerics for the Priestess) to speed firing up. Maybe a reduction in dice or piercing maybe in order, but then they are not scary at all, as I think that the idea of them being out in multiples should be the point (board control) and force the other mage to counter.
A guy spend 8 mana on Ballista and shoots it once vs the enemey. Opponent spends 8 mana on fireball and presumably atleast 1 more action on finishing off the ballista.
Who gained momentum here?
This right here is one of the key aspects of how you win games in MW. Present enough threats to your opponent he is forced to spend actions and mana on. More actions and/or mana than you spend on putting the threat into play that is.
And dont forget... ballista still did 5 dice of damage with pierce +3 - whereas the opponent did 0 damage.
You are so right. It is the key aspect of how to win games and it is why ballista is too good.
-
The real question is, "Would a creature with Ballistia's stats and rules be more powerful, or less?"
It feels like Ballistia got a mana discount for not being a creature, which seems wrong. I mean, compare Ballistia to Goblin Slinger.
-
2 ballista and 1 fireball takes Down a grizzly or necro vamp on average in 1 turn.
Its 24 mana where as the opponent spent 16 or 17 - hence so its 7 or 8 more.
Its also 3 actions to one.... But the fact remains in this made up scenario that enemy is pretty much forced to spend 2 actions and X mana (likely higher than 7) to get equal Things.
Unless he chooses to focus on something else. In the case of that i then the ballista combo only spend 8 mana and 2 actions more than its opponent and it will have a stable source of damage every second round.
If the vamp had bearstrength (dont they all?) then you can add 5 mana in favor of the ballista combo.
Its a made up scenario i know. But with normal actions its alot harder to focus stuff Down because enemy can move / teleport / guard / heal / etc / etc.
With the fast actions ballista provide the only solution is to predict what your opponent will do with them ballistas when you see them dropped as last thing in a round where YOU have initiative.
And if you dont have a nullify on you, then he can always jinx you and then there is for a matter of fact absolutely nothing you can do from preventing an action (fireball?) + 2 ballista on whatever target he Desires.
-
I just played two matches vs Charmyna and his 'four ballistae zero creatures' start. I used a general Air Wizard Assassin / Big Two / Control book.
I got completely whipped first time.
Second time we played through using the same spellbooks. We played 'competitively' but together in terms of sharing a few ideas to counter and so on. Allowing spell reselection a couple of times as it was a learning game.
THAT game I took Charmyna's mage to 31/32 damage, but he got me the next turn.
I played against four ballistae several times before. That, plus these two sessions make me think that something is very wrong with that promo card as it stands. Sorting the free actions would eb my shout. Not the Warlord theme.
-
I just played two matches vs Charmyna and his 'four ballistae zero creatures' start. I used a general Air Wizard Assassin / Big Two / Control book.
I got completely whipped first time.
Second time we played through using the same spellbooks. We played 'competitively' but together in terms of sharing a few ideas to counter and so on. Allowing spell reselection a couple of times as it was a learning game.
THAT game I took Charmyna's mage to 31/32 damage, but he got me the next turn.
I played against four ballistae several times before. That, plus these two sessions make me think that something is very wrong with that promo card as it stands. Sorting the free actions would eb my shout. Not the Warlord theme.
I just want to underline the importance of playing vs the same strat several times.
Its very very hard and require tons experience to react optimal to a new threat you have not experienced before. And when you said you played against it before, it still different when a new player like charm plays it because chances are he is much more skilled than the previous opponent and he is probaly using the ballistas in a different synergy you havent seen before.
Which reminds me of a horrible game yesterday where i got my own *** handed to me by a solo cheetah in your face warlord with a promo weapon my strat certainly couldnt handle.
The Next time i see this opening (battleforge turn 1 on MY side of the board :O), i will adress the issue differently now that i have spent the day thinking this particular game through .
-
I just played two matches vs Charmyna and his 'four ballistae zero creatures' start. I used a general Air Wizard Assassin / Big Two / Control book.
I got completely whipped first time.
Second time we played through using the same spellbooks. We played 'competitively' but together in terms of sharing a few ideas to counter and so on. Allowing spell reselection a couple of times as it was a learning game.
THAT game I took Charmyna's mage to 31/32 damage, but he got me the next turn.
I played against four ballistae several times before. That, plus these two sessions make me think that something is very wrong with that promo card as it stands. Sorting the free actions would eb my shout. Not the Warlord theme.
I just want to underline the importance of playing vs the same strat several times.
Its very very hard and require tons experience to react optimal to a new threat you have not experienced before. And when you said you played against it before, it still different when a new player like charm plays it because chances are he is much more skilled than the previous opponent and he is probaly using the ballistas in a different synergy you havent seen before.
Which reminds me of a horrible game yesterday where i got my own *** handed to me by a solo cheetah in your face warlord with a promo weapon my strat certainly couldnt handle.
The Next time i see this opening (battleforge turn 1 on MY side of the board :O), i will adress the issue differently now that i have spent the day thinking this particular game through .
Agreed. My previous 'multiple' ballista games had also been vs Charmyna, I just wanted to point out that i wasn't basing my thoughts off just a couple of games. The meta has changed a bit since then, so it was good to see how it worked right now.
It was still a nightmare.
I guess that you COULD argue that in game 2 using the same spellbook, it could have gone either way. It's just that it seems like MUCH LESS FUN when the opponent is spamming identical engines of death. No hassle ref Charmyna here - we deliberately agreed to play Ballistae to try it out.
It's just that I have much more fun losing to him when he uses more interesting books.... :o
-
Just to let everyone know, I am putting on the Devils advocate hat here....
<Hat>
The meta is easily beatable if you recognize it and adapt to it. Is it OP in a different mage's hand? I will argue that in combination with the Wizards Tower it is very over powering. Playing as a Warlord, I have them chopped down so fast that I plan them now as a one shot piece.
As for the argument that the opponent has to spend actions and creatures to take one or two down. So? If you want to focus damage only on the mage (the major meta) but can't, doesn't make the Ballista over powered, just annoying as it takes you away from your strategy.
New players have to learn. The Force Push though Wall of Thorns (no armor) is quite deadly (even more so than the Ballista) and is only two actions (three if you need to dissolve the armor), is extremely cheap and actions wise and can end a game so quickly as to be breath taking. Should we nerf this combo too?
To put 4 Ballista in a Wiz book takes 16 spellbook points. It takes 32 mana and 2 complete rounds deploy and 3 to utilize. The main problem people seem to have is how fast they come online.
</Hat>
You might argue more than any thing else a mana cost increase is needed. At a 8 mana cost they are cheap to deploy, what if the cost were 11 instead? The other stats stay the same. How about a level increase from 2 to 3? Non War book cost would go up to 24 points and once again the other stats stay the same.
-
Sike, I like your new hat. ;)
My purely personal view is that spell level is almost irrelevant in these discussions. If four ballistae is your bag, you put that in the book first and build from there. Plenty left for a few basic counters, a secondary gang, etc.
-
Has anyone considered the effect of changing the casting range to 0-0?
-
My initial thought when I first saw it was that it'd be interesting for its attack to only be able to target Conjurations. between itself and Arkiro's Hammer it would create the theme that the main function of War Machines is Anti-Conjuration devices and create a niche for it in War School (breaking down walls, blowing up temples, spawn points, totems, altars, death locks, wizard towers, outposts, etc). Arkiro's Hammer would then be the longer range, more expensive version which also includes a creature hitting zone attack while ballista would be a cheaper version that was only exclusively conjuration control.
Another thing worth pointing out about Ballista is that Reverse Attack stands a good chance of making a Ballista 1-shot itself on a decent roll due to its own heavy pierce rating.
-
My initial thought when I first saw it was that it'd be interesting for its attack to only be able to target Conjurations. between itself and Arkiro's Hammer it would create the theme that the main function of War Machines is Anti-Conjuration devices and create a niche for it in War School (breaking down walls, blowing up temples, spawn points, totems, altars, death locks, wizard towers, outposts, etc). Arkiro's Hammer would then be the longer range, more expensive version which also includes a creature hitting zone attack while ballista would be a cheaper version that was only exclusively conjuration control.
Another thing worth pointing out about Ballista is that Reverse Attack stands a good chance of making a Ballista 1-shot itself on a decent roll due to its own heavy pierce rating.
Reverse is ok but I don't fancy carrying four of the little buggers!
-
A thematic shift could be for the ballista to need to be targeted in a zone before it strikes - so it would have an aim marker that's placed in the upkeep phase - which would make it less effective against creatures who can clear the area before it's launched. Multiple ballista would still be strong, but not the instant kills they can be now.
I do agree with someone's earlier post cautioning single card tweaks - usually cards are tested in a larger game space than we have access to, so there might well be a range of balancing strategies coming in future expansions. This doesn't mean that cards should be allowed to unbalance the existing system, but tweaks in isolation seem a little fraught.
At the same time, never underestimate the ingenuity of the human mind when it comes to making something do something it wasn't designed for :)
-
Every other turret in the game is Unique. I'd start there and test it.
-
Do that and it is practically useless.
-
Maybe? Have you tested that?
-
If ballista is made unique, its still a very efficient way of dealing damage compared to creatures or attack spells. And what Jacksmack posted earlier still is the biggest problem I have with ballista:
@Charmyna
I have played 2 Ballista against your build several times BN(before the nerf). Really didn't do much. I do think that it is powerful, but as I have argued, I don't think too powerful. I think you fireballed one plus a BG took it out after it fired one time. You then did the same the next round on the other one, so for 16 mana I only got two shots off total(one shot each). Now if I were to play two more, that is the spell book max. If an opponent let that happen then that would be a mistake on their part. I don't think that it should be War only, however I think it should be a bit less powerful for a non-war Mage. I think we talked about a creature for the Warlord that would add load tokens (like the Clerics for the Priestess) to speed firing up. Maybe a reduction in dice or piercing maybe in order, but then they are not scary at all, as I think that the idea of them being out in multiples should be the point (board control) and force the other mage to counter.
A guy spend 8 mana on Ballista and shoots it once vs the enemey. Opponent spends 8 mana on fireball and presumably atleast 1 more action on finishing off the ballista.
Who gained momentum here?
This right here is one of the key aspects of how you win games in MW. Present enough threats to your opponent he is forced to spend actions and mana on. More actions and/or mana than you spend on putting the threat into play that is.
And dont forget... ballista still did 5 dice of damage with pierce +3 - whereas the opponent did 0 damage.
Unlike a normal creature, the ballista pays off much quicker and you can summon two in one round. Killing them quickly with whatever cant be the solution since that is mana/action inefficient and will make you loose in the long term. Even if its unique all these reasons still apply.
In the end, I fear many will feel like they need to put in 2-4 ballistae into their build (even if unique), because the card is too efficient to not play it every game.
-
This whole thread makes me very happy that this card is only a promo!!!
-
Charmyna: I'd love to see you test Unique on your stream because I somewhat disagree. I don't see an 8 mana investment that's tempo loss, grants 2.5 attack dice per turn, range 1-2, and melts to fire as wildly efficient. Balance that with piercing +3 and the free action and it seems more reasonable on paper than OTT. And in a vacuum, an opponent can avoid and react to it.
But that's the thing... You've demonstrated that spamming eliminates all those downsides. And the thing that was missed in the uproar over HoBS errata was the Zone Exclusive factor. Easy spamming wrestles board control over your opponents' conjurations.
Every other attack generating con in the game is either Unique, Legendary, or Epic. AW has shown an aversion to stacking and double dipping game mechanics (justifiable IMO). I could be wrong, and it may not be the only fix, but starting there seems more historically intuitive than wading in the murk of stat changes.
My $0.02.
-
Making overpowered cards unique is a pretty good nerf the first time you do it. But eventually you accumulate enough of them that they cross the threshold anyway.
I think it says something interesting about the game and how we percieve it that we can generally agree that 4 Batista is a very strong play, but that 1 Balista may seem very weak.
I think this says something important about Strategy and Tactics in Mage Wars.
-
Making overpowered cards unique is a pretty good nerf the first time you do it. But eventually you accumulate enough of them that they cross the threshold anyway.
I think it says something interesting about the game and how we percieve it that we can generally agree that 4 Batista is a very strong play, but that 1 Balista may seem very weak.
I think this says something important about Strategy and Tactics in Mage Wars.
I agree, though I think it says even more about the usefulness of multiple free actions without the chance for a riposte.
I can see a time when a player has..
Ballista
Wizard's Tower
Mangonel
Trebuchet
Scorpion
etc, etc
and chains multiple free actions to cause mayhem. Unique won't help here.
I hope that we can avoid that, and for me it is the free action stacking that is the killer mechanic, not any one card in particular.
(PS I made a few of those up!)
-
If ballista is made unique, its still a very efficient way of dealing damage compared to creatures or attack spells. And what Jacksmack posted earlier still is the biggest problem I have with ballista:
Charmyna, I know of no experienced mage that would let 2 much less 3/4 ballista last 4 rounds. You (as well as I now) are quite ruthless in chopping those things down as quick as possible. Yes the opposing mage looses actions, mana, etc, but isn't that the point?
I agree, though I think it says even more about the usefulness of multiple free actions without the chance for a riposte.
I can see a time when a player has..
Ballista
Wizard's Tower
Mangonel
Trebuchet
Scorpion
etc, etc
and chains multiple free actions to cause mayhem. Unique won't help here.
I hope that we can avoid that, and for me it is the free action stacking that is the killer mechanic, not any one card in particular.
(PS I made a few of those up!)
Pre-Nerf, Charmyna's build leveraged ToL+HoB Spamed + WT this way. It was killer. I tried Warlord + 2 Ballista as a counter. I fired the two shots the next round into the ToL did not kill it (I'm known for bad rolls on Octgn), Charmyna then kill one the same round, and then killed the 2nd one the next round. I was very dismayed. He then proceeded to kick my mages arse and I lost once again.
I at one point here on these forums said exactly the same thing about action advantages being key to winning the game. I think Padwan jumped in and disagreed. Now that I think about it, I didn't phrase things the way I meant. The "chains multiple free actions to cause mayhem" was what I was trying to say.
-
I think the Ballista is a bit too strong too.
Normally you would have to pay 7-8 mana for an attackspell that has 5 dice and 3 piercing.
And if you time it a bit, you can use the ballista nearly as good as an attack spell. Final quickcast phase you could play it and use it right in the beginning of your next Action phase.
The problem is, the enemy has so respond immediately to this threat, somehow. Because otherway you get a 7-8 mana attackspell for free in 2 rounds.
I think starting with 0 load tokens would really decrease the pressure these ballistas can generate. Because one round of preparation really makes a difference.
And I also liked the idea of a Goblin worker who can charge the Ballista faster. If there are 2 goblin workers and they both spend their full action charging the Ballista, then I am fine with it shooting every round. It is kind of exactly what these small Goblins are good for. Nocking arrows in a warmachine and maybe even taking damage by doing it ^^
Because the Ballista is still a promo I hope it is okay resurrecting this thread.
-
I would really like to see a chance (dice roll) that Goblin will mistakly load himself :)
-
I would really like to see a chance (dice roll) that Goblin will mistakly load himself :)
http://www.rmichelson.com/Artist_Pages/Diterlizzi/Magic-Cards/Fodder-Cannon-8x10.jpg (http://www.rmichelson.com/Artist_Pages/Diterlizzi/Magic-Cards/Fodder-Cannon-8x10.jpg)
My Favorite Flavor Text from a Magic the Gathering Card -
Step 1: Find your cousin.
Step 2: Get your cousin in the cannon.
Step 3: Find another cousin.
-
The cost should be higher and level 3 spell.
-
Yesterday played two times aggro Forcemaster with battleforge and 4 ballista in deck (2 on the board) vs female warlock
My initiative run two spaces, and put one space away battle forge (into opponents side side of the board, i forgot how to say two letter board spaces if anyone could link me there i would appreciate). Next turn, dancing scimitar from forge, summon two ballista. Third turn, with quick cast plant jinx and before action phase melt faces with 10 dice attack, run into him if he moved from starting zone add another 6 dice attack. Followed the opponent with casting dissolve and dispel/seeking dispel, and slashing the back, using FM ability to pull them into ballista's range.
Those were my fastest matches, lasting 15 min, opponent knew that i'm gonna use ballista, even fireball couldnt one shot ballista. I know my opponent could have played better we never had such one sided match.
Two well placed ballista can cover the whole arena. Imho it's too durable or too cheap.
-
Balista is a great lesson in the whole being stronger than the parts. It's only when you consider Balista in the context of tempo and inevitability that you can see why it's so good.
Balista is good for the same reason Aviary Beastmaster is good, but it doesn't require spending 3/4 of your starting mana on Lair, and any mage can play it.
-
I haven't tested it but I believe the counter to ballista is walls. One wall of earth cost 5 mana and will block a ballista twice or at least once and absorb an enemy creatures melee attack. For 5 mana you've negated an 8 mana thing for 3 or so rounds. That's a good deal.
The unfair part of ballista is that is can attack instantly as a combo with another creatures move. Movement control like teleport usually only lets you force one positional dependent hit. If you teleport your opponent you only get to hit him with one hydra not all your hydras. You have to have an elaborate pit to keep him in position to have all your hydras attack. But for a single teleport or force push you get to have one hydra and all your ballistas attack. You get too much benefit.
Fundamentally conjuration attacks should have used action tokens and taken turns, but it's too late for that. A reasonable fix would be restricting the ballista to only attack before a friendly action and before quick cast, but that's an awkward rule. The problem is the chain of actions in a row, it has to be broken somehow. Or simply raise the cost of ballista.
-
Or limit the number of balistas you can have in play. Maybe give it the unique trait, and if that's too much, invent the unique 2 trait?
-
i've also didn't play with/against Ballista, but have same feeling that it can be too powerful. Make it full action to cast can slow down this tactics a bit. i'm wondering if in the future there will be some spell (incantation / creature) or mage ability which will allow to add token for War Machine subtypes conjurations :)
-
Just proxy them. I think your results and opinions will help this card to be balanced.
-
Making it unique only pushes the problem into the future. Now they can't release any future conjurations with a creature targeting ranged attack. That seems like a design space they would like to explore more.
Anyway, even devouring ooze plus one ballista is really strong.
-
Putting class and unique limitations on conjurations that are independently very good seems like the best solution and would make the game more thematic.
With the corrode creatures and Acid Ball and Lion Savagery out, though, I don't think destroying conjurations is the hassle it once was. I do feel like some cards that seem to specifically address them, particularly Earthquake and Force Hammer, are lost opportunities.
Both cards can be used in difference circumstances but they aren't that great in either situation.
For its cost of 9 mana and a full action Earthquake should deal direct damage to conjurations, but instead the attacks have Unavoidable, which is completely irrelevant. A good chance to Slam a lot of creatures is fine, but you can probably get the same effect for less mana and as a QC in Force Bash and with a push effect.
Force Hammer is, at best, mediocre. 8 dice for 9 mana is a good ratio against conjurations, but with how much armor most conjurations naturally have, a 1:1 ratio of dice to mana seems more appropriate. Granted, it has ethereal, so maybe that would be too much utility.
-
Putting class and unique limitations on conjurations that are independently very good seems like the best solution and would make the game more thematic.
With the corrode creatures and Acid Ball and Lion Savagery out, though, I don't think destroying conjurations is the hassle it once was. I do feel like some cards that seem to specifically address them, particularly Earthquake and Force Hammer, are lost opportunities.
Both cards can be used in difference circumstances but they aren't that great in either situation.
For its cost of 9 mana and a full action Earthquake should deal direct damage to conjurations, but instead the attacks have Unavoidable, which is completely irrelevant. A good chance to Slam a lot of creatures is fine, but you can probably get the same effect for less mana and as a QC in Force Bash and with a push effect.
Force Hammer is, at best, mediocre. 8 dice for 9 mana is a good ratio against conjurations, but with how much armor most conjurations naturally have, a 1:1 ratio of dice to mana seems more appropriate. Granted, it has ethereal, so maybe that would be too much utility.
Maybe defenses will become used more in the future. That would be nice. I like defenses. It's awesome to be able to avoid an attack altogether, but unfortunately in the current meta their usefulness tends to be rather limited.
I used to think that a defense is to unavoidable as 1 armor is to 1 corrode and a failed defense roll against 1 defense is akin to 1 critical damage rolled against 1 armor. There are plenty of ways to deal with corrode, but the only current counters to unavoidable are: Forcefield, fumble, jinx (for attack spells), helm of fear, and intercept. If I've forgotten any if them old let me know.
If defenses were used more then maybe earthquake would be used more. I've only come up with a single spellbook list that includes earthquake, and it's specifically for Druid matchups. And even then I'm not positive how useful it will be.
I wonder if maybe there will eventually be a possible way to give a defense to conjurations like ballista. Not sure how powerful that would be though.
-
I find defenses very good, especially if they're just a natural part of a creature's stats (can't be dissolved/dispelled). Your mage should probably get some armor on first, but in builds that build up a bit before going on offense, they can be invaluable. Even though there are answers for defenses, the opponent still has to spend mana, if not mana and a QC/action, on doing something that isn't increasing their dice count, which likely means more turns and more advantage for you. And if you have more answers for their Unavoidable than they have cards that give Unavoidable, they're in deep trouble if your mage isn't close to dead.
Also, you can use the defenses that can block ranged attacks to protect your armor from Acid Ball (if your build is very defensive), which is something I don't see most players do even though giving ranged attacks Unavoidable is significantly more difficult.
I'm not sure how well a defense would translate to a conjuration, even though conjurations will probably have them in the future. Right now only the Intercept creatures and I guess walls can give conjurations a pseudo-defense. Being able to give epic conjurations like Spawnpoints a defense feels off though, so going non-epic with the target line should be considered.
-
I find defenses very good, especially if they're just a natural part of a creature's stats (can't be dissolved/dispelled). Your mage should probably get some armor on first, but in builds that build up a bit before going on offense, they can be invaluable. Even though there are answers for defenses, the opponent still has to spend mana, if not mana and a QC/action, on doing something that isn't increasing their dice count, which likely means more turns and more advantage for you. And if you have more answers for their Unavoidable than they have cards that give Unavoidable, they're in deep trouble if your mage isn't close to dead.
Also, you can use the defenses that can block ranged attacks to protect your armor from Acid Ball (if your build is very defensive), which is something I don't see most players do even though giving ranged attacks Unavoidable is significantly more difficult.
I'm not sure how well a defense would translate to a conjuration, even though conjurations will probably have them in the future. Right now only the Intercept creatures and I guess walls can give conjurations a pseudo-defense. Being able to give epic conjurations like Spawnpoints a defense feels off though, so going non-epic with the target line should be considered.
The problem is that it's really difficult to have more answers to their unavoidable than they have cards that give unavoidable. Forcefield is Forcemaster only. Helm of Fear is warlock only. Jinx gives them their card back and doesn't work against non-spell attacks. Fumble gets discarded after use. There are currently only four sources of intercept in the game, and they all cost a full action and at least 11 mana to cast.
Every flameblast costs 5 mana and quick action. 6 flameblasts costs 30 mana. 6 fumbles used against flameblasts costs either 18 mana (if thoughtspore is the flameblast-caster), 24 mana (if sersyrix is the flame-blast caster) or 42 mana (if the flameblast-caster is the mage)
6 jinxes costs 18 mana in total, but it refunds both the flameblast cards and the mana spent on them, and requires perfect prediction of the flameblasts.
All currently existing intercept creatures can only stop 1 flameblast per turn, and they all cost at least 11 mana to summon.
Forcefield and helm of fear are only forcemaster only and warlock only respectively.
Falcon precision is relatively easier to counter by destroying the enchantment, but innate unavoidable is much more of a problem.
Oh wait, I just remembered 3 more counters to unavoidable: daze, stun, and disable. Unfortunately extra daze conditions does not mean extra daze rolls, and disarm only works on equipment.
So we have helm of fear (warlock only), forcefield (forcemaster only), jinx (which refunds everything so they use the same attack again), fumble (which gets discarded after use and is too mana intensive to use that many times against the mage or brogan or similarly high-level creatures), intercept (only 4 creatures in the game that have it, all of them can only stop one unavoidable attack per round, all costing at least 11 mana).
With 3 fumbles (21 mana and 3 mage's quick actions against unavoidable mage attack), 3 jinxes (9 mana and 3 mage's quick actions), 1 intercepting creature (11 mana and one full mage's action), you've used 41 mana and about 8 quick actions to block (6 unavoidable attacks +1 unavoidable attack per round after intercept creature is summoned)
6 flameblasts costs 30 mana, 6 quick actions and about 12 spellbook points if you're not trained in fire.
3 jinxes and 3 fumbles costs 30 mana, 6 quick actions, and 12 spellbook points if you're not trained in arcane or mind.
However, many flameblast users will be trained in fire, so 30 mana, 6 quick actions and 6 spellbook points.
If you are trained in arcane but not mind or mind and not arcane, you pay 30 mana, 6 quick actions, and 9 spellbook points.
So being trained in the school of an unavoidable-counter is helpful, but it's not necessarily enough. Not unless you are trained in both mind and arcane, or dark and arcane/mind (since helm of fear)
So even though they seem to cost about the same, having to pay more spellbook points for the same amount of resources means you will have less of them than you're opponent would per spellbook point. I suppose the question then becomes a matter of whether conditions like daze, stun, and disable even out this inequality.
I'm guessing that they don't in the current meta, and your statement that defenses are better for strategies that want to take a bit of time to setup before going on the offensive as opposed to the more defensive strategies (pun intended) seems to support this.
Also, you're right that ballista can be taken down with acid ball and melee attack(s). Ballista's attack range is 1-2. The build I made that has an earthquake in it might like stomping all over some poor mage's ballistas. :D
-
Your forgetting that the best counter to one for unavoidable damage is healing. If you have dispel, dissolve and a bunch of healing you will make them pay more to kill you then you pay to survive. Of course you have to leverage that survivability into victory, but highly defensive strategies do exist.
-
What if the only change to balista was the range, from 1-2 to 2-2?
-
Now THAT's interesting.
-
What if the only change to balista was the range, from 1-2 to 2-2?
It is a direct fire weapon how would that work, the bolt doesn't pass through zone 1?
-
You already can't shoot someone point blank. Let's say it's too easy to dodge at range 1.
The farther you are from a seige weapon the more distance it can adjust with the same change in angle.
I still think the fundamental issue remains with stacking instant attacking conjurations but it would help a lot. And it would make it much more of the siege season it is supposed to be. Designed to attack an entrenched but immobile defense.
-
What if the only change to balista was the range, from 1-2 to 2-2?
I also like this idea. It definitely makes for a more interesting positioning game.
-
After playing with ballista we came up with few ideas:
1. Changing range 1-1 or 2-2
2. Lowering Piercing/dice
3. Starts with 0 tokens, soldiers as a full action can load a token
4. Lower survivability (hp/armor)
5. Increase cost and level
6. Unique, rule update - can only use one before/after conjuration per action.
Choose one 8)
-
I guess another option (which is much like #6) would be to make them have a "crewed" trait (i.e. can only fire during a full Creature action, with the Creature in the same zone). That would naturally prevent multiple Ballistae from firing at the same time, so no real need to make them unique. This also raises the cost of the attack by actually using a Creature action when attacking.
-
I guess another option (which is much like #6) would be to make them have a "crewed" trait (i.e. can only fire during a full Creature action, with the Creature in the same zone). That would naturally prevent multiple Ballistae from firing at the same time, so no real need to make them unique. This also raises the cost of the attack by actually using a Creature action when attacking.
So you would change it to "once per round as a full action, a friendly (soldier?) creature in this zone may make the following attack"? I suppose you could keep the load token requirement, but that wouldn't seem to be necessary anymore with such a restriction.
I like that suggestion. It does depart from the precedent set by Akiro's Hammer, but that doesn't matter so much; it would certainly seem to fix a lot of the Ballista's problems, and it also makes Goblin Grunts a lot more useful (a good thing).
Probably best not to invent a new trait, though.
-
I guess the load token would keep it from being fired each round. If the occupying a soldier-type creature allows it to be used each round, then remove the load tokens altogether. If we keep the load tokens, then the wording would be changed slightly to include the two load token cost to fire as well.
-
So... is Ballista out now? What are the final stats, if so? Any changes to the promo that I have?
-
Unique and warlord only
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Unique and warlord only
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unique and War Mage only. Minor difference, but it does affect the paladin