Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Strategy and Tactics => Topic started by: ChimpZilla on December 04, 2013, 11:15:16 AM
-
So while wading in the cluster**** of purple in the new Mage Wars Rules and Codex Supplement, I came across this gem:
Initative
If you win the initiative roll on the first turn of the game, you may choose to allow the other player to have the intiative first.
Do you punt tempo or turn position?
Discuss.
-
I would pass initiative most of the time. I'd rather go second so I have an opportunity to read my opponent's play and adapt my strategy to combat it. Of course, you are still preparing your spells without any information, which doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room to use to adapt, but I'd rather take advantage of the little wiggle room and the little information that I can muster than go in completely blind. Going first is acting blindly.
Sometimes I would want to go first if I thought it gave me an advantage that was worth going blind. Such as in a mirror match if I wanted to ensure I could get out a legendary creature that my opponent is likely to have. But I think that would be the exception for me rather than the rule.
-
I would go first. Anyway, first turn it rarely matter what your opponent does, neither of you can interac with eacj others. I prefer to be first on second round, now knowing where my opponentnis going and what he casted first round.
In a mirror match, it depends of the mana cost of legendary that usually get cast in first few rounds. Under 20 mana, I want to go first to cast it first and deny opponent ability to cast it. Over 20 mana, I want to go second for same reason.
-
I begged, bitched, moaned, and screamed for this rule to be introduced. I'M SUCH A PROUD FATHER.
The actual intent of this rule was to try to push people to try more interesting set ups. If you were going second, your opponent could not respond to what you are doing until the next round, so you could do some pretty strange things, and get away with them. As well, you could choose to go second if you ware playing a more reactive book that needs to find out what the opponent is doing in order to crush his resources.
I don't know, there was so much I had thought of, and it was so long ago. I'm happy to see a rule I "thought" of to finally be introduced. I say that in quotes, because while there were many people who thought of it, and wanted it, I was one of the few who actually kissed Brian's feet in exchange for this rule to take effect. I'm still cleaning my mouth out.
Duder.
-
I begged, bitched, moaned, and screamed for this rule to be introduced. I'M SUCH A PROUD FATHER.
The actual intent of this rule was to try to push people to try more interesting set ups. If you were going second, your opponent could not respond to what you are doing until the next round, so you could do some pretty strange things, and get away with them. As well, you could choose to go second if you ware playing a more reactive book that needs to find out what the opponent is doing in order to crush his resources.
I don't know, there was so much I had thought of, and it was so long ago. I'm happy to see a rule I "thought" of to finally be introduced. I say that in quotes, because while there were many people who thought of it, and wanted it, I was one of the few who actually kissed Brian's feet in exchange for this rule to take effect. I'm still cleaning my mouth out.
Duder.
Personally, I always played initiative that way. Winner decides.
-
I'm not a fan of this change, but it's a small thing to me, so I'm happy His Dudeship got his holiday rule baby.
The real consideration to me on this one is Turn 3 agro. The player who goes first on turn 1 goes first on turn 3, and is in the better position to teleport something, which can often win the game on the spot.
Of course, against Gate Wizard (Watergate et. al.), you probably want to go first just to rob them of the 1 free mana from your quick cast. Lots to consider.
-
And that was the whole point. We want to give decisions as much as we can. I like to think of us players as churning the yarn of fate, deciding by chance and by strategy, who shall live, and who shall die. OR, a battle between the minds of gods, who singlehandly decide the fates of their people. Or, from a more gentle point of view, telling the story of a battle faught long and hard, becoming our own Homers. So, to decide who goes first by the hands of chance?
Mechanically, it also urges books to be both reactive and proactive, depending on the initiative and aggression. This subtle choice will change a lot of openings for a lot of books, making the slightly more apt to prepare an arcane ring, dispel for that cheetah speed. But, that's not set in stone, so only time can decide what people will do with this curious and effective amendment.
-
It's a great rule change. It suddenly adds so much to the chess-like openings. Well done, Dude, for getting this change.
Let's assume that, in a random match-up, 50% of books met want to go first and 50% of books met want to go second (note: this is 50% of books met which is similar to a mean, not 50% of books which is the median, as the frequency of meeting certain books must be accounted for).
Before, you would have had a straight 50% chance of playing in the position you prefer.
Now, you have a 75% chance of playing in the position you prefer (and so has your opponent).
Finally, seeing the mage match-up, you must evaluate what your preferred position is if you win the die roll. This adds skill which is good.
On a related topic, the Wizard does not state if you need to declare your element. This information is even more important when deciding whether to go first or second. We've not seen anything to say a Wizard has to declare his element so we don't in our local meta, yet more advantage when playing the "mysterious" Wizard. The only thread on this was this issue was here:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12973.msg21979#msg21979
No ruling was made. I was hoping the new FAQ would add clarity. Because information is power. Another point to add to the FAQ?
-
On a related topic, the Wizard does not state if you need to declare your element. This information is even more important when deciding whether to go first or second. We've not seen anything to say a Wizard has to declare his element so we don't in our local meta, yet more advantage when playing the "mysterious" Wizard. The only thread on this was this issue was here:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12973.msg21979#msg21979
No ruling was made. I was hoping the new FAQ would add clarity. Because information is power. Another point to add to the FAQ?
Announcing the wizard type is the same as asking the beastmaster to list out what animals his book has, demanding to know if the necromancer is using either zombies / skeletons, or even more ridiculously, before each match each player must hand their spell book to the opponent so that they can count spell book points.
-
We've been informed by official sources that before the match begins you must reveal your mage card and then announce your ability card. The two do not have to match up. The intent is clear that they want each player to know what type of mage they are facing before the match even begins.
Although they don't specifically state that the training of the wizard has to be included in this announcement, I think it is a reasonable assumption that training is a part of what type of mage you are playing. I think it is more similar to announcing whether you are a Johktari Beastmaster or a Straywood Beastmaster. If you didn't have to specify, then there would be a lot more mystery as to what you were capable of. I do not think it is the same thing as showing your whole book off.
Thus, I'm in favor of revealing the Wizard's training at the beginning of the game, but it is not a rule that is clearly specified. The closest thing we have to support it is that multiple times they mention you have to reveal your mage to your opponent which isn't necessarily the same thing.
-
On a related topic, the Wizard does not state if you need to declare your element. This information is even more important when deciding whether to go first or second. We've not seen anything to say a Wizard has to declare his element so we don't in our local meta, yet more advantage when playing the "mysterious" Wizard. The only thread on this was this issue was here:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12973.msg21979#msg21979
No ruling was made. I was hoping the new FAQ would add clarity. Because information is power. Another point to add to the FAQ?
Announcing the wizard type is the same as asking the beastmaster to list out what animals his book has, demanding to know if the necromancer is using either zombies / skeletons, or even more ridiculously, before each match each player must hand their spell book to the opponent so that they can count spell book points.
Ridiculous strawman argument is ridiculous.
-
Ridiculous strawman argument is ridiculous.
Wizard's elemental type choice only effects a 1 spell book point cost for a handful of spells, primarily attack spells. I believe it is a disadvantage to force a player to give hints as to his choices for spells he chose for his book because his selected mage's ability is versatility and flexibility.
-
Ridiculous strawman argument is ridiculous.
Wizard's elemental type choice only effects a 1 spell book point cost for a handful of spells, primarily attack spells. I believe it is a disadvantage to force a player to give hints as to his choices for spells he chose for his book because his selected mage's ability is versatility and flexibility.
Trying to say that knowing the training is the same as knowing what is in the player's spellbook with certainty is ridiculous.
The only "disadvantage" the Wizard gains by telling the opponent the trained element is losing the advantage gained from knowing what the opponent's training is in, but the opponent not knowing what the Wizard's training is. You can't really call leveling the playing field being put at a "disadvantage".
-
It is not giving away any more information than any other mage is. When I tell you I'm playing a Warlock you immediately know I'm going to favor fire spells and dark spells and probably include at least one demon for blood reaper. Why should you know that much about my spellbook design? Because the rules say so.
The rules are not specific about Wizards training, but it is in line with what the rules do require.
-
Well, technically you cannot conceal your training.
What you're trained in defines if certain spells can or cannot target you or be cast by you.
All I have to do is point at your card and ask "What type of Mage object is that?"
At that point, you have to tell me, or an official has to come and confirm for me. I might want to cast my Cloak of Shadows on you, so I need to know what kind of Mage you are to know if its a legal play.
Its no different than pointing at your Grizzly Bear and asking to confirm what Level it is (to calculate my Sleep's mana cost) how many Enchantments are under it. (to figure out my Purge Magic) You can't just put your hand over it and say "Cast it and find out!"
the game never allows you to conceal meta-game information in other instances. You cannot conceal your mana/health total, you cannot conceal your discard pile, you're not allowed to shuffle face down enchantments to hide their order.
So, while I do believe that revealing your training is part of revealing the mage...even if you aren't, I don't think you aren't allowed to avoid it if asked to confirm.
-
Baronzaltor makes an excellent point. There are spells that are restricted based upon school of training, thus we must know your training to know the legality of plays.
-
Baronzaltor makes an excellent point.
That he does and I am inclined to agree.
-
Is there an "elemental" specific spell one the states "fire mage only". Then why would you have to announce that your a classed mage? They released a new FAQ and still haven't wanted to say one way or another. AW hasn't made a statement so maybe their debating it as we speak.
I personally don't mind if anyone looks at my book, any of my books, before we play. You can't know what I'm going to cast at every possible moment. Why do you need to know what wizard I am. I can be a water wizard with more earth and fire spells than water. I have made wizards that could be any element at a time by balancing out elemental spells.
One game I was a air wiz, the next game I was fire, the opponent said I was cheating and I let him count my points.
I could be any of the four but why do I have to annouce it
-
One word - Fairness
In the Arena you are not playing a Wizard, but a ____ Wizard. I play a Druid and you play a Air Wizard.
The difference:
- Water Wizard I think 6 Dissolves, Surging Waves, Geysers, and Acid Ball
- Earth Wizard I think Iron Golem, Earth Quakes, Hurl Boulder/Stones/Meteorite
- Air Wizard - Lightning, Poison Gas Cloud, Jet Stream
- Fire Wizard - Fire
Now you may consider the Elements inter changeable, but they are not, they have strengths and weakness. Just as with a Beastmaster (which you "know" what he is when his card is revealed) may mean you open with Obelisk or plan for it round 2 or 3. The same holds true with the ___ Wizard, I typically run both Dragonscale and Stormdrake Hide in my books for Dissolves. But, when I play Air Wizard I am more likely to put on the Hide fist and probably an Elemental Cloak, where as a Earth Wizard (due to no Elemental boosters) put on Dragonscale and Rhino Hide myself. Your mage and his training tell me certain things that I am able to put into my planning and expectations.
The is an Arena based match and see things as such:
In this corner you have:
Glendaia the Green Druid
and in the opposite corner
Vikta the Volcanic Fire Wizard
lets get ready to rumble!
I can not imagine:
Vikta the Volcanic "we will keep it a secret" Wizard
just doesn't seem fair - I get to pick the elemental school I am trained in and I am so special that I get to keep the knowledge of that training from my opponent.
-
What if I use absolutely no elemental spells whatsoever and I choose to be a blank wizard....I want to make a fire wizard deck with no fire spells just to disrupt all your "plans"
-
That's perfectly fine. You don't have to play to stereotype. But the "type" of mage you are still matters because spells exist that play off of that. I could play a warlock who doesn't include any dark spells if I want to, but spells that affect "dark" mages will still affect me. Therefore, you have to announce what you're playing even if it doesn't have an effect on the spellbook you've built.
-
Last time I checked a warlock wasn't a dark mage. He was a mage TRAINED in the dark school. Does samdrieal get a bonus when attacking him?
Please name some of these "school/mage" cards that effect you when playing a blank wizard.
Is there a card except barkskin (which targets druid), forcefield (which targets a forcemaster), and equipment (which target mages) are the only cards I can think of off the top of my head that are specific to mages. Not a single one card say "fire, earth, air, or water only" as of right now! So what cards are you all referring to?
I'm currently at work so when I go home I will look through all my cards one at a time and say to myself,"would this card effect my game if I played against a blank wizard rather than a known wizard."
-
There are several cards in the game that reference a mage's school of magic. For example: Demonhide Armor is Dark Mage only, and Divine Intervention is Holy Mage only. A mage's training is a game Trait. It affects what cards you can put in your book, what cards you can cast, and what cards can be under your control. Game traits like this are public knowledge.
I don't think there are currently any cards in the game that reference the Elemental Schools, but that doesn't change the fact that your training in an elemental school is a game trait and is public knowledge. To give a relevant example of another such trait, the fact that Steelclaw Grizzly has Frost -3 is a game trait and public knowledge. You are not allowed to lie, hide, or obscure the fact that your Grizzly has Frost -3 if your opponent wants to know. Even though there are currently no cards or mechanics that are impacted by that trait at this time.
-
Yes it is true frost trait doesn't exist yet but that is why I reiterate the fact that just because you want to read the rules about creatures TRAITS it doesn't make a mages TRAINING a trait. Its on the attribute card and it is in its own clearly separate area of the card. The mages ability section list TRAITS of the mage IE sprinting (this mage has the fast trait)
Where in the rule books or FAQ does it state that a mages training is an attribute or trait that the mage has?
-
On a side note cards with a grey color trait are only effected for use of building the book and are not used during gameplay.
-
I am not certain on the termonology, so I will use a more generic adjective. It is a game mechanic which does affect game play as detailed on page 15 of the FAQ.
-
So how did this go from an interesting discussion on the new initiative rules to an arbitrary argument about a pedantic rule that no one really cares about? Argue strategy, tactics, not petty points like how you feel a card is just too powerful or about if you should give the school of your Mage out publicly. It's silly, petty, and should not be tolerated on this forum. I love most of you guys, so please, discuss what will actually matter.
-
deep breath. it's gonna be ok.
-
I will grant that we might have gotten off topic and should start a new thread if we wish to continue our discussion. However, I believe that discussions about rules, even small ones, do have a place on these forums. In fact, I thought that was one of the primary purposes of these forums. Your hostility does not have a place on these forums, though. Resorting to name calling and swearing, does not have a place on these forums. This should be a friendly atmosphere.
-
Eh, you see I wasn't being hostle, just stating a fact. This particular forum is entitled strategy and tactics, unless I'm incorrect and in which case I'll need to check my eyesight. And name calling it did not, although swear I did. I apologize sincerely if I offended you, or anyone else for that matter, it was not meant to harm, rather to point out a fact. It seems about half of these strategy threads these days degenerate into a rules argument about silly, yes, silly things like if your opponent should know what Mage you are. It's public information on your Mage card so, if asked, yes it is required to spell out what schools you are trained in. Pray tell, why would the wizard be any different than any other Mage? This argument is senseless as well as in the wrong place. Again, I apologize for the hostle tone, but my stance remains the same.
-
Already started a new thread
-
That is a perfectly reasonable opinion with the tone dialed back a bit. Our discussion had gotten off topic and did deserve to be moved to the rules section, as aquestrion has done. I also hope I caused no offense.
-
None taken! Tis the internet, after all, my friend. ^.^