Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Player Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: timer000 on January 20, 2014, 03:16:54 AM
-
In the new promo card~
there is a new warlord weapon~
Heart of Gravitor lv3
10 mana
quick ation: 4 attack dices ,+2 vs conjuction
full action:0-1 range 3 attack dices,8+slam
This weapon is better than war slege.
But in my opion, this weapon is still very weak.
Another promo card:
vorpal blade is much good!
vorpal blade lv1
5 mana
quick ation: 4 attack dices ,+2 piecring
It has lower mana and lower spell point.
Most important! ~ When attacking conjuction, "+2 piecring" is better than "+2 vs conjuction"" in most situation.
In future, if there is a simillar weapon has 4 attack dice & 1 piecring with 5 mana cost . i think it is still better than Heart of Gravitor
Another suggestion:
About Akiro's Battle Cry
If I have 3 soldier, this card only give me most 6 addition attack dices bonus.
In better situtation, I have 4 soldier, this card only give me most 8 addition attack dices bonus.
(In really situtation, it will give me 2-6 dices attack dices bonus because enemy creatures will hinder my soldier's fast &charge ability.)
14 mana for 8 attack dices (Akiro's Battle Cry )
8 mana for 7 attack dices and wont be limited by soldiers number ( Earth attack spell)
And it is lucky that "Akiro's Battle Cry" have 6 attack dices bonus with 4 soldiers .
I think "Akiro's Battle Cry" is really very hard hard to use!!!!!!!
-
1. Heart of Gravikor is "War Mage Only", not "Warlord Only". Any future mages that are trained in at least War 2 will be able to use it.
2. +2 Dice > +2 Piercing, always. /mathfail
3. Comparing Heart of Gravikor to Vorpal Blade is like comparing apples to oranges. Vorpal Blade is meant to deal damage, while Heart of Gravikor is a support weapon. It's great at destroying troublesome conjurations, but the main draw of the weapon is the 0-1 Ranged 8+ Slam attack.
4. You didn't actually offer any suggestions. Everyone already knows that Akiro's Battle Cry is a horrible, horrible card that will never see play.
-
Both weapons are good, but they are used differently. If I'm just going to run up and stand on the enemy with a beatdown I'd use the Vorpal Blade, but if I want to do a more support oriented Warlord I'm going Heart of Gravitor all the way. As pointed out, the ranged slam attack is the main appeal, but it also means I can run around smashing down those pesky Wizard's Towers and Battle Forges with, on average, one attack and a Piercing Strike.
And while not the greatest card, Akiro's Battle Cry certainly has it's uses. Try coupling it with Force Wave to clear a path for your charging soldiers. But you're right, it is a hard card to use effectively. The high mana cost means that it's definitely not a spell that you just whip out, but rather something that you plan for, setting up your pieces in the most optimal position before throwing it out.
-
+2 dice is not always better. against 2 and 3 armor targets they are at worst equal. Also with any of the cards that grant multiple strikes (double strike,etc) the piercing will be better against targets with an armor value close to the p+ number.
-
+2 dice is not always better. against 2 and 3 armor targets they are at worst equal. Also with any of the cards that grant multiple strikes (double strike,etc) the piercing will be better against targets with an armor value close to the p+ number.
*Sigh.*
Average damage for a 4-die/2-pierce attack is ~4.00 against 2 armour and ~3.20 against 3. Average damage for a 6-die attack is ~4.31 against 2 armour and ~3.74 against 3 armour. I assume you can see that 4.31 > 4.00 and 3.74 > 3.20
The only cards that would give a creature "multistrike" right now are Battle Fury and Whirling Strike, the latter one seeing hardly any use. However, those are only relevant when you're talking about enchantments or equipment that give either a piercing +X or melee +X benefit that persists through multiple attacks in the same action. There are exactly two cards that do this: Lion Savagery and Vorpal Blade (neither of which are currently in the game). That one case doesn't make piercing better than extra dice in general.
Where the heck did this ridiculous idea that piercing is equal to or better than extra dice come from? It's just basic math for ****'s sake!
-
+2 dice is not always better. against 2 and 3 armor targets they are at worst equal. Also with any of the cards that grant multiple strikes (double strike,etc) the piercing will be better against targets with an armor value close to the p+ number.
*Sigh.*
Average damage for a 4-die/2-pierce attack is ~4.00 against 2 armour and ~3.20 against 3. Average damage for a 6-die attack is ~4.31 against 2 armour and ~3.74 against 3 armour. I assume you can see that 4.31 > 4.00 and 3.74 > 3.20
The only cards that would give a creature "multistrike" right now are Battle Fury and Whirling Strike, the latter one seeing hardly any use. However, those are only relevant when you're talking about enchantments or equipment that give either a piercing +X or melee +X benefit that persists through multiple attacks in the same action. There are exactly two cards that do this: Lion Savagery and Vorpal Blade (neither of which are currently in the game). That one case doesn't make piercing better than extra dice in general.
Where the heck did this ridiculous idea that piercing is equal to or better than extra dice come from? It's just basic math for ****'s sake!
Not that it has any bearing on your point, but Sacrificial Altar also gives Piercing until the end of the round.
-
Not that it has any bearing on your point, but Sacrificial Altar also gives Piercing until the end of the round.
Opps, missed that one. Thanks. I keep forgetting that card exists.
-
+2 dice is not always better. against 2 and 3 armor targets they are at worst equal. Also with any of the cards that grant multiple strikes (double strike,etc) the piercing will be better against targets with an armor value close to the p+ number.
*Sigh.*
Average damage for a 4-die/2-pierce attack is ~4.00 against 2 armour and ~3.20 against 3. Average damage for a 6-die attack is ~4.31 against 2 armour and ~3.74 against 3 armour. I assume you can see that 4.31 > 4.00 and 3.74 > 3.20
The only cards that would give a creature "multistrike" right now are Battle Fury and Whirling Strike, the latter one seeing hardly any use. However, those are only relevant when you're talking about enchantments or equipment that give either a piercing +X or melee +X benefit that persists through multiple attacks in the same action. There are exactly two cards that do this: Lion Savagery and Vorpal Blade (neither of which are currently in the game). That one case doesn't make piercing better than extra dice in general.
Where the heck did this ridiculous idea that piercing is equal to or better than extra dice come from? It's just basic math for ****'s sake!
You were talking in extremes, extremes are rarely true. Even if there is only a single instance that it is at least equal your statement is incorrect, and extremly condescending to say the least. In the current set of 6d6 against 4d6 p+2 there are many instances that is is equal, because in game we deal with whole numbers. How many attacks will it take for each to kill a 2 armor character with 8 HP on average? Would you agree that both are two. I don't have a PhD in math, but I am pretty sure 2=2. There is a whole host of 2 armor and X HP combinations that it will take the same number of strikes to kill the target. In your statment you were not talking about what was available because of your use of "always." That is all encompassing. If you use such a term you must account for all posibilities or be prepared to get questioned.
In sets of +x dice against +x piercing the average results will overlap a great deal just because of significant figures. This alone removes "always."
I was mainly showing my contemp for your stament of "always" and the condescending /failmath
Hedge
-
You were talking in extremes, extremes are rarely true. Even if there is only a single instance that it is at least equal your statement is incorrect, and extremly condescending to say the least. In the current set of 6d6 against 4d6 p+2 there are many instances that is is equal, because in game we deal with whole numbers. How many attacks will it take for each to kill a 2 armor character with 8 HP on average? Would you agree that both are two. I don't have a PhD in math, but I am pretty sure 2=2. There is a whole host of 2 armor and X HP combinations that it will take the same number of strikes to kill the target. In your statment you were not talking about what was available because of your use of "always." That is all encompassing. If you use such a term you must account for all posibilities or be prepared to get questioned.
What makes extra dice superior is that, given some number of rounds, giving an attack extra dice has a higher probability of killing the target than giving it an equal amount of piercing. The fact that occasionally they will roll the same damage after armour is irrelevant.
I was mainly showing my contemp for your stament of "always" and the condescending /failmath
Actually it was /mathfail, but I can see how you'd be confused.
-
You were talking in extremes, extremes are rarely true. Even if there is only a single instance that it is at least equal your statement is incorrect, and extremly condescending to say the least. In the current set of 6d6 against 4d6 p+2 there are many instances that is is equal, because in game we deal with whole numbers. How many attacks will it take for each to kill a 2 armor character with 8 HP on average? Would you agree that both are two. I don't have a PhD in math, but I am pretty sure 2=2. There is a whole host of 2 armor and X HP combinations that it will take the same number of strikes to kill the target. In your statment you were not talking about what was available because of your use of "always." That is all encompassing. If you use such a term you must account for all posibilities or be prepared to get questioned.
What makes extra dice superior is that, given some number of rounds, giving an attack extra dice has a higher probability of killing the target than giving it an equal amount of piercing. The fact that occasionally they will roll the same damage after armour is irrelevant.
I was mainly showing my contemp for your stament of "always" and the condescending /failmath
Actually it was /mathfail, but I can see how you'd be confused.
Occasionally excludes Always from being appropriate. I do not deny that over the course of a game it is better, But that is not always.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is your argument so weak that you must resort to such base behavior?
Hedge
-
To Aylin:
If we dont consider "battle fury" & stable injuries ,you are right.
"+2 vs conjuction" is good than "+2 pierce" in math.
But the key point is the sitution which fit "+2 vs conjuction" is very less.
In most cases,"+2 pierce " is much powerful than "+2 conjuction",when facing creatures &mages .
I think the only good of "Heart of Gravitor" is the 3 attack dices range attack.
But i still considered this range ability is useless.and vorpal blade has lower mana cost & LV1,
-
To Aylin:
If we dont consider "battle fury",you are right.
"+2 vs conjuction" is good than "+2 pierce".
No, considering Battle Fury is fine, as long as you also consider Dispel, Dissolve, Acid Ball, and the fact that the extra piercing might be completely wasted (such as against a zombie).
But the key point is the sitution which fit "+2 vs conjuction" is very less.
Yes, +2 Piercing will be relevant more often than +2 vs. Conjurations. However, I was responding to your claim that against conjurations that the piercing was better.
I think the focal point of "Heart of Gravitor" is the 3 attack dices range attack.
But i still considered this range ability is useless.
It's primarily a support weapon, not one meant to bring destruction to the enemy. There is no other way to Slam targets at range without spending mana on it every time (and out of those only Force Bash always Slams).
and vorpal blade has lower mana cost & LV1,
And Vorpal Blade and Heart of Gravikor still fill very different roles, so it isn't fair to compare them.
I could do the same thing in reverse:
Vorpal blade is worse than the Heart against zombies or anything else with 0 armour.
Vorpal blade can't hit flying targets.
Vorpal blade can't hit guards without triggering their counterstrike.
Vorpal blade is more easily dissolved/stolen/exploded.
Vorpal blade can't Slam targets.
Obviously Vorpal blade is a terrible weapon, and for only 5 more mana you can upgrade to a superior weapon.
Except if I were to do that I would be completely ignoring the Vorpal Blade's intended role and strengths in that role.
-
We want to keep this all civil. What may seem obvious to some may not be to others, and so we want to keep our conversations respectful on all sides.
As for the card in question Vorpal Blade is much more focused than Heart of Gravikor. In that way you'll be able to pay less for something more focused. Heart of Gravikor is a more utility card, it gives options. Now some playstyles will shy away from the five extra mana in favor of the focused Vorpal Blade. But other builds may find the flexible Heart of Gravikor well worth its cost.
-
I think I agree with Aylin. The piercing 2 trait, a specific whole number of dice, the faces of those dice that can be landed on—these are all exact numbers, and they are already given. They are not measurements.
Therefore, significant figures don't apply here. A small difference is still a difference in this case. A 6 dice attack is more likely to do more damage than a four dice attack with piercing, though not by much.
That being said, I suspect that the majority of people are bad at math. There's no reason to get hostile at them for it, you just politely correct them and move on.
-
It is true, mathematically, +2 dice is better than +2 piercing. One only needs to look at Piercing and Power Strike. Both novice spells and with the same mana costs, yet the values are +3 for piercing and +2 for dice. When comparing the possible roll results, things seem to even out as opposed to a mirror +2 vs +2.
I have gone the route of dice is usually better, especially, with resilient targets becoming much more common. Very situationally piercing can be better when you just need a guarenteed low damage attack that will bring down a 5+ Armor target. Think of it as terrible luck mitigation. Some people just feel safer even if +2 dice is better on average if they just need 2 or 3 damage. The math of lower expectations :p
-
I beg to differ Magemuse. While more dice is superior to piercing, piercing is still useful. if you have more dice AND piercing, you're more likely to do more damage then if you just had one of them. Piercing effectively converts a certain amount of normal damage to critical. So aside from any critical damage dealt normally with extra dice, you now get some of your normal damage to go through armor too. This is useful against creatures with more armor.
-
I beg to differ Magemuse. While more dice is superior to piercing, piercing is still useful. if you have more dice AND piercing, you're more likely to do more damage then if you just had one of them. Piercing effectively converts a certain amount of normal damage to critical. So aside from any critical damage dealt normally with extra dice, you now get some of your normal damage to go through armor too. This is useful against creatures with more armor.
It is very useful for High Armor creatures. On a mage with a [mwcard=MW1J04] Battle Forge[/mwcard] throwing out armor like beads at Mardi Gras, you go get more dice, I will take the piercing any day. Irregardless regardless of the math.
-
I beg to differ Magemuse. While more dice is superior to piercing, piercing is still useful. if you have more dice AND piercing, you're more likely to do more damage then if you just had one of them. Piercing effectively converts a certain amount of normal damage to critical. So aside from any critical damage dealt normally with extra dice, you now get some of your normal damage to go through armor too. This is useful against creatures with more armor.
It is very useful for High Armor creatures. On a mage with a [mwcard=MW1J04] Battle Forge[/mwcard] throwing out armor like beads at Mardi Gras, you go get more dice, I will take the piercing any day. Irregardless regardless of the math.
For me that would depend heavily on how many dice, I'm already rolling. If I'm already at 6-8 dice versus a 6 armor target without any means of getting rid of it, I will opt for the +3 piercing. There comes a point when you can almost assume +3 piercing equals +3 damage against a 3 armor target. 3-4 I'm more likely going the dice route UNLESS I only need to bump my opponent to make it fall over. You should always have an answer to high armor targets. Point being, overall dice are always useful, piercing is situational but you will REALLY miss it when you need it.
-
You should always have an answer to high armor targets. Point being, overall dice are always useful, piercing is situational but you will REALLY miss it when you need it.
This!
-
This thread is in full silly mode. +2 dice is almost always better than +2 piercing, and +4 dice is better than +2 dice & +2 Piercing.
The exact math doesn't follow the rule of thumb perfectly, but generally, armor stops about .5 damage per point. Sometimes it stops as much as 1 damage per point (if your armor score is low compared to the number of dice. Other times it stops as little as 0 damage per point (if your armor score is high, compared to the number of dice.
You can see this by imagining a 3 die attack against a 6 armor creature. That 6th point of armor is largely worthless, and will only make a difference if the attack rolls all non-crit 2s.
Conversely, if you imagine a 3 die attack against a 1 armor creature, that 1 point of armor is very likely to be relevant. Any die that comes up non-crit (1 or 2) will make the armor useful.
--
So what does this mean? Against a highly armored target you do not want piercing if the alternative is more dice. Piercing is less useful against highly armored targets, because Armor is less useful on highly armored targets. Taking an Iron golem from 5 arm to 4 arm is not helpful with a 3 die attack. 4 arm is still enough to soak all the non-crit damage most of the time, and whenever that happens, the piercing is worthless.
If that piercing had been +1 melee instead, the expected increase in damage value is at least .5 because of crits, and maybe higher if you can go over the top of the armor with normal damage.
Of course, against a very low armored target, you do not want piercing. Piercing is useless against unarmored targets, because armor is zero bounded. You can't have negative armor.
And in the Goldilocks zone, of neither too heavily armored nor too lightly armored, piercing is still almost-never better than just adding one more die.
The only time +X Piercing is better than +X attack is when it stretches across multiple attacks per activation, like when the creature both guards and attacks, or uses battle fury. But that's not because of the dice math, it's because of the limitation on melee+X in the rules. But then, you're comparing +X piercing to +0 dice in a corner case. And a printed 6 die melee attack is always better than a 4 die +2 Piercing attack, all other things being equal.
So, I'll say it again, if the alternative is +X dice, you never want +X piercing instead.
-
Go fight Charmnya and see what you thoughts are then. I can not prove it via math but Piercing plays a nice roll against high armor values. I would rather have 3 die with 3 piercing over 6 die no piercing.
Experience on my part tells me something different than what the mathematicians and/or statisticians are able to document and I am not the flat earther type. But it sure feels like it here.
Like you Ring I am done with this.
-
Sat down and rolled dice ... and rolled... ...and rolled dice.
I would roll 6 dice assuming +3 Piercing versus 3 armor and 6 armor
I would then roll 2 additional dice.
Ring makes very valid points, but I just want to show my train of thought.
This is what I observed... Piercing needs the targeted creature with an armor value equal to its number value. This is assuming one realizes that +3 Piercing to +2 Dice are closer in performance than +2 Pierce and +2 Dice (it's not even close).
On the best roll possible, +3 piercing will never exceed the result from just adding 2 dice by more than 3 and that's assuming double blanks on the 2 extra dice. Now consider a target with 6 Armor. Roll 6 dice repeatedly. Notice anything? It's not easy to get exactly 6 normal damage to take advantage of the +3 Piercing. Now try rolling 2 extra dice along with those. Now you will get those darn blanks but you will see 1s and 2s, some normal, some crits. What I have found is whenever piercing reaches its full potential, it also means any normal 1s and 2s, rolled on the +2 dice, would result in damage to the target.
Example: 6 Dice Result of only 6 normal damage to a 6 armor creature.
+3 Piercing = 3 damage
The +2 dice could roll any normal damage result of 3 or more and meet/exceed the above damage.
+3 Piercing rolls can get the most favorable result and only beat an avg +2 dice roll (2 result) by 1. Trust me getting 2-3 normal/crit damage from 2 dice is much easier than getting 6+ normal damage from 6 dice. Have to say, piercing should be reserved for multistrikes.
Now if there's any holes in my observations, please point them out.
-
Ok, lets look at out from a defender's perspective. A Wall is being attacked by a Troll. Which would the Wall rather have: armor +2 or aegis +2?
Aegis, right? It's better for the wall if the dice are never rolled to begin with, instead of risking a crit.
But these are equivalent questions! If the Wall would rather that the attack had less dice (aegis +x) than giving the Wall more armor (armor +x), then the troll should want the opposite and prefer armor +x to aegis +x. And if the Troll prefers higher armor but more dice, then the Troll should also prefer melee +x to piercing +x.
Basically, if someone offered the Troll +infinite melee but all targets got Resiliant (effectively infinite armor) shouldn't the Troll take that? More armor just isn't as good as more dice, which is why it's not worth trading away dice for piercing.
-
Ok, lets look at out from a defender's perspective. A Wall is being attacked by a Troll. Which would the Wall rather have: armor +2 or aegis +2?
Aegis, right? It's better for the wall if the dice are never rolled to begin with, instead of risking a crit.
But these are equivalent questions! If the Wall would rather that the attack had less dice (aegis +x) than giving the Wall more armor (armor +x), then the troll should want the opposite and prefer armor +x to aegis +x. And if the Troll prefers higher armor but more dice, then the Troll should also prefer melee +x to piercing +x.
Basically, if someone offered the Troll +infinite melee but all targets got Resiliant (effectively infinite armor) shouldn't the Troll take that? More armor just isn't as good as more dice, which is why it's not worth trading away dice for piercing.
I think this is a great topic but I am going to open up a thread on Dice vs. Piercing (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13576.0#new).