Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lord0fWinter on April 17, 2014, 04:44:41 PM
-
Article is here http://www.arcanewonders.com/arcane-wonders/the-designers-desk
He talks about an alternative way to play called "Domination" where the goal is to control certain zones of the board that have special arena objects in them called "power orbs". There were 6 of them, and to win, you needed control of 5. You controlled them if you had a creature in the zone and your opponent did not. Also, for each one you controlled, your mage gained channel +1.
He also talks about how they are releasing modular boards later on with scenarios. This pack will be called "Mage Wars Battlegrounds". This sounds like a fantastic way to play the game. There will be even more strategy than there already is, because you want to keep your opponents creatures out of the zones you control. Walls and other things will become even more important than they already are.
Perhaps this is a lead-in to the Altar of Domination card that we've seen? An alternate win condition where if you control a certain number of zones, you win?
-
I have actually been thinking about a similar mode.
4 neutral flag conjurations are placed in the arena, they each have 12 or so life, when the flag is destroyed and you have zone control the controller may immediately replace it with a flag that they control for free. When you control all these flag conjurations on the board you win.
-
Oh just great! I'm going to go from spending most of my life wishing I was playing Mage Wars to ALL of my life wishing I was playing Mage Wars... I have enough meetings now where I sit there wondering why I'm wasting my life not playing Mage Wars but this sounds even more amazing!
-
I am extremely excited about the Modular Boards and the extended Multiplayer Rules. Although, I really enjoy the team variant that I created, I really want to see what the experts have come up with. Domination mode, and other possible "scenarios", also sounds intriguing.
-
There are some strategies that just won't work at all in Domination Mode (Forcemaster Battleforge rush will be horrible for example), but it will be a very different flavor to Mage Wars, and I look forward to trying it.
-
Indeed. Solo mages in general won't be viable, while those with bonuses for swarming will have a unique advantage. As the article mentioned, Domination does not seem to be well balanced for a great variety of strategies and mages, but it does sound like fun to try. I'm curious what these other "scenarios" he mentioned might involve. I also wonder what happens in Domination if you ignore the objectives and do just try to kill the opposing mage. Have the mages become indestructible in this mode?
-
Seems interesting but as someone who enjoys playing their solo Forcemaster, I would not be able to participate in Domination even if I wanted to change my deck. The cost is too prohibitive to include non Force creatures which is what would be required to be competitive. I can see Druid being very powerful in Domination though with vines allowing you to spring up a creature almost anywhere.
-
Hello All! To answer the question, if you can kill the enemy Mage, you also win the game. SO this may be a viable alternative during domination mode. Usually we have found that it is harder for a solo Mage to take out the enemy Mage, than it is for the other Mage to take over the Power Orbs, and this is partially due to the increased channeling they gain from each Power Orb they conquered. Domination is not a fair fight for every Mage and play style, but a worthwhile alternative for any spellbook with a good number of creatures.
-
I'm gonna try playing this soon. I had a question though. I think I know the answer, but I just wanted to make sure.
So to control the power orbs, you need to be the only mage with a creature in that zone at the end of the turn. However, do those creatures need to stay in the zone to maintain control of the orb? Or once you take it over, can you move all your creatures away from the zone and still control it?
Naturally, this would make it easier for your opponent to take control of the zone from you if you did this, since you already killed the Ssslaak. They could just move a creature into the zone and automatically take control. But it would mean you wouldn't have to leave creatures in the zones to protect them, and could be more aggressive instead.
-
They need to remain in the zone to control it, as per Zone Control. :)
Please let us know how that goes! We'd love to see your experiences with Domination!
-
Why do the orbs have to give plus one channeling? I think this would be much more balanced if:
1. Orbs did not give plus one channeling
2. the orb's true locations aren't known at the start of the game. Put some false orbs on the board face down, and put the actual orbs face down too. This could buy a bit more time for a solo or buddy build, so they can do a lot of damage before their enemies can figure out where the orbs are. Maybe only require control over three orbs for an entire round as the second win condition, rather than immediately upon gaining control over a fifth orb.
3. Remember that sslaks can't hinder anyone's movement because a creature only hinders enemy creatures. A neutral creature is not friendly, but it's not enemy either so it doesn't hinder.
If changes 1 and 3 are implemented, I'm not even sure 2 is even necessary. 3 isn't really a change so much as a reminder/correction based on the current wording of hindering, friendly and enemy in the codex.
In other words, if the plus one channeling benefit of controlling an orb is removed, and if the codex remains consistent between this format and the regular game, then there's no reason I can think of that solo and buddy builds would be any less likely to win than in regular mage wars.
Consider that if the enemy mage spends too many of his/her actions trying to get the orbs before you, you can kill him/her instead while they're distracted by the shiny orbs.
That said, I'm not sure why a swarming mage would make their creatures stay put when it's probably a lot more efficient to attack the enemy mage. Perhaps killing the enemy mage shouldn't be a win condition at all in this format. If a mage dies, their creatures are still there.
-
Forcemaster can make a fun go of controlling orbs by mind controlling guardians and pulling enemy creatures out if zones
-
Solo builds would still be at a disadvantage. It is impossible for them to compete over orbs, so even though it is theoretically just as easy for them to kill their opponent as always, they now have to worry about both being ignored as well. They have to focus on both restricting their opponent's creatures AND killing their opponent's mage without dying themselves. Solo mages are already short on actions, and this added stress of multitasking will really push them over their limits I think.
Still, removing the orb channeling bonus may be a good idea. I like the idea of getting some kind of reward for owning them, but it may end up with a run away leader issue. The person with control over more orbs, the one who is winning, is receiving the bigger boost to help them to win the game overall. So, while I like the idea thematically, it would make more sense mechanically for the orbs to give a penalty to the one who controls them. That way the losing mage has a small advantage to help catch up. This can also be thematic if done right, representing the stress of controlling such powerful relics. People may wonder why you would want to fight over objects that tax you, but that's a simple storytelling fix. Maybe they are incredibly helpful but it requires a large number of them (5) before you can activate them and receive the benefit. At which point, the game is simply declared over because they are so powerful you auto win.
This coming from someone who has never tried it before after reading an article regarding how extensively it's been playtested and enjoyed in it's current format. So, I feel kind of bad for criticizing it without trying it.
I love the idea that Sslaks can't hinder. I don't know if that really is part of the way they work or not. Using their affiliation as justification makes sense, but is questionable without neutral objects ever being mentioned before in the rules. Some people may consider anything that's not "friendly" to be their enemy. However it is explained though, I agree that they shouldn't hinder.
I don't really like the random orb placement. With 6 orbs in 12 zones, there's not really a lot of room for variation without clustering the orbs in some way which may result in an unfair layout. They are currently spaced roughly every other zone which seems like a good pattern to me.
-
Solo builds would still be at a disadvantage. It is impossible for them to compete over orbs, so even though it is theoretically just as easy for them to kill their opponent as always, they now have to worry about both being ignored as well. They have to focus on both restricting their opponent's creatures AND killing their opponent's mage without dying themselves. Solo mages are already short on actions, and this added stress of multitasking will really push them over their limits I think.
Still, removing the orb channeling bonus may be a good idea. I like the idea of getting some kind of reward for owning them, but it may end up with a run away leader issue. The person with control over more orbs, the one who is winning, is receiving the bigger boost to help them to win the game overall. So, while I like the idea thematically, it would make more sense mechanically for the orbs to give a penalty to the one who controls them. That way the losing mage has a small advantage to help catch up. This can also be thematic if done right, representing the stress of controlling such powerful relics. People may wonder why you would want to fight over objects that tax you, but that's a simple storytelling fix. Maybe they are incredibly helpful but it requires a large number of them (5) before you can activate them and receive the benefit. At which point, the game is simply declared over because they are so powerful you auto win.
This coming from someone who has never tried it before after reading an article regarding how extensively it's been playtested and enjoyed in it's current format. So, I feel kind of bad for criticizing it without trying it.
I love the idea that Sslaks can't hinder. I don't know if that really is part of the way they work or not. Using their affiliation as justification makes sense, but is questionable without neutral objects ever being mentioned before in the rules. Some people may consider anything that's not "friendly" to be their enemy. However it is explained though, I agree that they shouldn't hinder.
I don't really like the random orb placement. With 6 orbs in 12 zones, there's not really a lot of room for variation without clustering the orbs in some way which may result in an unfair layout. They are currently spaced roughly every other zone which seems like a good pattern to me.
A forcemaster should ignore the enemy creatures and focus on killing the enemy mage while his creatures are occupied fighting the sslaks. I see your point about random orb placement. And I suppose I should have tried it before giving my opinion. I apologize if I came across like I was ridiculing the format. That is not what I intended. Maybe if I played it I would understand why they would need the orbs to give channeling bonuses.
-
OH! OH! OH! I apologize, I wasn't referring to you when I talked about criticizing the format. I was actually talking about myself, lol. I feel bad for criticizing it because I haven't tried it any. I have no clue what all you've done to test out the format and I don't want to make you feel bad for voicing an opinion on the topic. I clearly see now why you would think that I was, since I was addressing the issues you brought up, but I assure you that was not my intent.
Thinking about it further, if the orbs lacked bonuses, and especially if they actually gave penalties, players would probably just ignore/avoid them until they felt like they could capture all 5 in a single round. This would most likely negatively impact game play.
-
The more Orbs the mage controls the more Dominating he/she becomes......
-
Thinking about it further, if the orbs lacked bonuses, and especially if they actually gave penalties, players would probably just ignore/avoid them until they felt like they could capture all 5 in a single round. This would most likely negatively impact game play.
Not only this, but if they did indeed give reduced channeling instead of additional channeling, it would probably greatly extend the amount of time it took to play the game. The catch-up factor would becoming increasingly ridiculous the closer one player got to winning. I'm pretty sure this would make the game MUCH longer to complete. Unless of course, you managed to set it up to where you could get 5 in one round, which is very unlikely/hard to do.
I think the way it is currently designed is probably the best way to do it. The increased channeling is just an incentive to go after the orbs instead of sitting back and turtling. If a few turns after the beginning of the game, your opponent has control of 4 orbs and you don't have any, well, that's probably your own fault for not being aggressive enough. And at that point, you probably would be in a bad situation anyway because they likely have better board control than you do. Each mage is just as close to orbs as the other mage is in the beginning, so as long as you are playing smart and not turtling in your corner, you have an equal opportunity to grab the orbs.
-
Also, anything that benefits swarm-style builds over few-big/solo builds is only to the good, in the current meta.
-
Idol of Pestilence would be an interesting play in this mode, me thinks. Has anyone tried it?
-
I'm sure the Necromancer wouldn't mind trying it.
-
Mordok's Obelisk= All guardians die instantly due to not having a controlling mage to pay mana?