Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Enti on May 24, 2018, 10:26:16 PM
-
Most people I know, maybe every one (now that I think about it) who are considering stopping to play MW or already stopped playing it did so because the rules get more convoluted with every further expansion.
Even I have sometimes problems figuring out what the rules are. And I play pretty frequently, I read the forum, watch games on yt and octgn and I am still uncertain in some situations.
So I can understand the complains because I have similar albeit not as serious problems figuring out the rules.
There is a long list of "problems" that are not self-explanatory. For example until recently I presume 95% of the MW players weren't aware that cloak of shadows hinders the vine tree to tanglevine you if you are more than 1 field away from the tree.
But this kind of uncertainty is not easily eliminated because the root of this particular problem is the complexity of MW itself and the interaction between all the keywords there are.
What really drives people mad is the upkeep dilemma. What happens first. Do you get dmg first, or do you regenerate.
Most people know the rule "if your object is affected you decide".
Sounds simple at first glance. But what happens if your Pillar of Righteous Flame removes a Dissipate token and you want to attack the enemy creature, BEFORE it regenerates.
Some people even know the second rule, I think it's: "if there is a relative timing-issue initiative decides"
Well... again, the rule sounds easy but it's sooo hard to actually apply it. Especially if you don't play 5 times a month...
---
I was thinking of naming all the different problems but I presume you already encountered them yourself often enough. But if you want a convoluted scenario, check that out:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=18071.msg84446#msg84446
---
I rather save the space for my solution-proposal:
We should fix the order in which the effects happen. It might not be as "fair" or "logical" (although that is open for debate) but it would simplify the upkeep-drama significantly. Seriously. Please do give that proposal genuine consideration.
For example (no exhaustive list):
1. Regenerate
2. Heal (Healing Madrigal, Meridias Blessing, Theft of Life, Life Link, Death Link, ...)
3. Conditions & Effects (burn, rot, Drown, ...)
4. Damage-effects (Ghoul Rot, Plagued, Curse Item, Curse of Decay, Force Crush, Life Link, Death Link, Arcane Corruption, Malacoda, Colossal Crab, Consecrated Ground, Stranglevine, Poison Gas Cloud...)
5. Attacks (Goblin Bomber, ...)
6. Dissipate Token removal
7. Regenerate
8. Heal
9. Conditions (Lullaby, ...)
10. Damage-effects
11. Attacks (Telekinetic Bomb, PoRF, Whirlpool, ...)
As I said before, it's open to debate if that system is "fairer" but it is at least comprehensible for everyone.
And that way you always get 3 attacks with the Whirlpool and 2 chances of dazing/stunning with Lullaby because that's another thing that irks people. And they don't believe me even if I explain to them that initiative matters when you remove the second Dissipate token from Lullaby.. hehe, seriously, that regularly causes a dispute and normally we propose house rules in the beginning to avoid arguments about Whirlpool and Lullaby. Game is complicated enough as it is. And one single (important) rules-dispute can kill the mood for the entire evening, having someone going on about the "illogicality" of the game for hours...
What do you think: Is my proposed solution easier to grasp than the current rules and do you agree that the convolution of the rules is the biggest problem for MW right now?
-
And to avoid the haters: I do not want to senselessly criticize and bash the game. Far from it. Purpose of this thread is to improve the game because I love it.
-
The rules are rather straightforward, at least compared to the majority of tabletop RPG games that I have played, so I do not see it as a problem. When I was playing Mage Wars on a regular basis, I was playing with other tabletop RPG gamers, so they understood the rules after a couple of games (though I think that everyone likes to have a copy of the rules available). Compared to the rules GURPS or Pathfinder, the rules of Mage Wars are simple, and I never knew of anyone who quit because they thought that Mage Wars was too complex. When it comes to upkeep order, we always used Initiative order, with the person with Initiative deciding the effects for their objects first and then the other person deciding the effects for their objects.
-
The rules are rather straightforward
[...]
When it comes to upkeep order, we always used Initiative order
Obsidian, you are a gem.
First you say the rules are not too complex and in the next sentence you say you made house-rules to simplify the official rules.
Isn't that exactly the point I just tried to make? That we need an easier system? Always using initiative would also be okay, that makes it probably even easier than my suggestion.
And also: You cannot compare Mage Wars complexity with that of a tabletop game because MW is NOT a table top game. And you are right, the tabletop players I know do not complain about the ambiguity of the rules, they are used to muuuch worse. Hehe. But not all MW players have played a tabletop game before they started with MW.
/edit: I am curious. I don't know a single person who stopped playing who did not at least partly blamed it on the rules. Why did the players you know stop playing?
-
The wizard need. We had a very competitive wizard player who quit over the nerf. Also some have quit as it just wasn't their game, didn't have time to play, or have moved away.
-
The rulebook says that everything occurs in Initiative Order. It says that the player with Initiative always goes first in the ordering of events and then the player without Initiative goes next. In the case of a timing conflict in the upkeep phase, it says that the player with the Initiative decides the order of the events.
The primary reason why people stop playing in my experience is that they either get tired of the slow rate of expansions for Mage Wars or they move to an area without Mage Wars players. In each case, it is not because of the complexity of the rules.
-
i like complex rules. but the complexity have to bring fun.
i think a few MW rules are too detailed for the fun they bring (i mentioned for example the many conditions for the same "critical wound" or "loosing capacities" effect)... how to simplify them without loosing all the fun?
some rules should be clarified or rewritten (initiative, cards interactions,...).
there was an "official supplement", i think it's a necessary tool for MW. AW used to upgrade it, it disappeared with there investment in this game. I write my own, with items i find in the rules section and home made rules for what's left.
-
Hello Enti,
The order you propose certainly has merit but may have a few drawbacks of its own.
1. If any new effects are released in the future, they need their spot in that order as well which means potential errata, which should be avoided as much as possible imo.
2. Biggest potential problem : by giving a fixed order you may take away many potential tactics. I've always believed good game rules should be as simple as possible and give the players as many choices as possible.
A fixed ranking kind of takes away from the possibilities.
3. Barring any serious problems I'd be in favor to have 1 simple rule for this : Initiative decides the order in ALL situations where there are timing questions. It may not be 100% perfect but hopelly it would take care of nearly all timing problems.
-
Maybe this is a bit too radical, and would change how the game is ultimately played, but what if I told you that the problem wasn't the order in which things happen being nebulous 8). I contend that the true root of the problem here ends up being the fact that the order changes, thus causing things to play out according to different priorities each turn.
What if we came up with a system in which initiative didn't pass automatically? Some examples from other games: Star wars armada gives initiative to the player who brought the fewest points to the fight (called the initiative bid).
Using a bid system (say someone brought 115 points vs a 120 point book) could make it so that the person with initiative would still get to decide the order of things, but would keep that priority the same.
Star wars destiny, on the other hand, allows you to claim the battlefield as an action to either keep "initiative", or the equivalent of, or take it. This allows priority and initiative to change, but it's done in an intentional manner.
While the above examples are both star wars games, the point is more to highlight different systems that don't have as much of a resolution problem as Mage Wars seems to have. I'm also not advocating for either system specifically,or even that we HAVE to change something, just giving some examples of other systems in hopes of inspiring discussion about what the real problem is and how we might solve it.
-
The solution I propose for "the initiative problem" keeps the control of your stuff in your hands:
New Upkeep Phase:
1) Pay all costs.
This includes life (sardonyx), Seal tokens (need reword), Upkeep +X
2) Trigger all effects
All of the triggered effects go on a "stack" per creature. At this time your Deathlink triggers 2 damage on an enemy creature and 2 healing on your mage, you whirlpool triggers damage and your pillar triggers an attack. Here we follow the rule that all effects triggered on your own creatures are resolved in whatever order you choose
3) Remove Dissipates
This is when Pillar, lullaby, madrigal, etc are destroyed.
Enchantments may not be revealed during upkeep. (EXCEPTION: if an attack occurs during the upkeep then only enchantments that affect that particular attack sequence may be revealed)
-
New Upkeep Phase:
1) Pay all costs.
This includes life (sardonyx), Seal tokens (need reword), Upkeep +X
2) Trigger all effects
All of the triggered effects go on a "stack" per creature. At this time your Deathlink triggers 2 damage on an enemy creature and 2 healing on your mage, you whirlpool triggers damage and your pillar triggers an attack. Here we follow the rule that all effects triggered on your own creatures are resolved in whatever order you choose
3) Remove Dissipates
This is when Pillar, lullaby, madrigal, etc are destroyed.
This is clear, effective and as simple as possible.
I'd be definitely in favor of this suggestion.
-
Have anyone played Epic?
I really like the rules they use for resolving conflicts..
And fhat game certainly can have heavy interactions.
-
I think that this is a false problem, at least when it comes to upkeep, as the rulebook has simple and straightforward rules. First, effects always occur in Initiative Order. Second, players always decide the order of the effects on their objects unless there is a timing conflict between the effects of objects controlled by the player with the Initiative and the effects of objects controlled by the player without the Initiative. Third, since effects always occur in Initiative Order, the player with Initiative decides the order when a timing conflict exists.
-
I think that this is a false problem, at least when it comes to upkeep, as the rulebook has simple and straightforward rules. First, effects always occur in Initiative Order. Second, players always decide the order of the effects on their objects unless there is a timing conflict between the effects of objects controlled by the player with the Initiative and the effects of objects controlled by the player without the Initiative. Third, since effects always occur in Initiative Order, the player with Initiative decides the order when a timing conflict exists.
I'm in the camp that thinks the other guy shouldn't be able to decide whether MY creature regens or takes damage first. The "Initiative Decides" rule causes so many pauses and hiccups between players on what triggers when and who decides stuff and is, ultimately, a capital 'S' Stupid rule.
The Fact that I can lose a dissipate off of something just by playing it on the wrong initiative is a PROBLEM.
Deathlink, Whirlpool, Lullaby are all significantly affected by this timing issue thing. That's really what needs to be cleaned up. It may have been fine in the original core set, but there's been too much bloat that hasn't had a robust follow-up with rules changes.
Movement got a significant change in the 4th edition update to solve some movement interaction issues. I think Upkeep should have the same--a breakdown into steps. I also think that it's more than a little important to restrict enchantment reveals during upkeep otherwise you create even more problems.
-
I've always hated the reveal ghoul rot during upkeep ruling. If you didn't have enough mana to reveal before the end of final quickcast, you can reveal after channeling but I shouldn't have to take the damage. I know there needs to be steps to make things clear but I've always thought of everything happening during upkeep as simultaneous so the damage couldn't happen unless the card was revealed previously.
-
Enchantments may not be revealed during upkeep. (EXCEPTION: if an attack occurs during the upkeep then only enchantments that affect that particular attack sequence may be revealed)
This causes fundamental issues in the way some cards are designed.
It is important to note that the Upkeep phase has no steps. It's a book keeping phase. There should be no discussion on what to do, you follow the cards and effects active; choosing the order of events effecting your things as needed. (Design Goal)
The arguement that "initative timing can be stupid" is valid sometimes, but you should not attempt a fix that prevents a multitude of interatctions from taking place that is rendering cards temporarily ineffective (enchantment transfusion or healing charm, etc.)
You really should note make Upkeep contain a separate set of rules. If Upkeep and dissipate are a problem then it's something that can be tweaked with dissipate.
@DevilsVendetta can you link the ruling on ghoul rot so I can read that again by chance?
To answer the topic at hand: FAQ sup has 46 pages; There is a rule clarity issue.
-
What if we came up with a system in which initiative didn't pass automatically?
That's an interesting idea, having events unfold based on spell level.
Spell level one effects happen first, then resolve 2nd level, etc....
-
I don't know where the ruling was or if it was just told to me during a game, but I know you can reveal during upkeep and force the 2 damage during the same upkeep phase. It's never made any sense to me.
-
I don't know where the ruling was or if it was just told to me during a game, but I know you can reveal during upkeep and force the 2 damage during the same upkeep phase. It's never made any sense to me.
Firing form the hip but revealing an enchantment can only be done after phases, not in them unless an event that has steps like an attack gives you that option.
I don't want to derail the this post, was just curious to reread some of the older posts
-
Channel phase happens before upkeep. Therefore you actually HAVE mana to spend on upkeep costs and such. There is therefore a legal window to flip your ghoul rot after channel phase, before upkeep. Doesnt seem right on octgn where many of these actions are autoed or clunky in the interface. It only seems like the enchant is flipping in upkeep since that's the first time the automation lets you manipulate the board again.
-
no revealing during upkeep, but just befor upkeep is possible.
during upkeep, the player A with initiative can make the player B take the last dissipate off one of his cards befor the card affects A.
I like these initiative questions. not the timinig part, but the fact that I have to think on what round I cast a spell to take the most advantage from it.
-
I would prefer it if you could only reveal enchantments during the action phase.
-
I think generally the rules are pretty straightforward, there are a few exceptions the most obvious one to me being enchantment transfusion and how tricky it can be to understand.
I do not know how the translated versions of MW are since I only played the English version, perhaps that plays a big part in rule-uncertainty?
If there's something tricky, generally there's already a thread about it. Perhaps adding more explanations to certain cards/traits could be needed and just added to a rule- & tricks book online? Would solve most of the confusion and also give new players an insight into "more advanced mechanics" of play.
-
Isn’t this rules and tricks thing much like the existing supplement?
-
I do not know how the translated versions of MW are since I only played the English version, perhaps that plays a big part in rule-uncertainty?
the translated versions of MW were very badly supported... that's another reason why MW didn't grew more: a lot of people don't read enough english to play in original version (for example kids, who don't have enough money to buy minis and would be happy to have a card version of a mini game!).
Isn’t this rules and tricks thing much like the existing supplement?
the supplement should be upgraded regularly...
-
this rules item seems a bit much of a tempest in a teapot. there are very few places the rules could be an issue. and those are mostly rare circumstances generally. so this is overblown imo. the rules are overwhelmingly solid.
-
this rules item seems a bit much of a tempest in a teapot. there are very few places the rules could be an issue. and those are mostly rare circumstances generally. so this is overblown imo. the rules are overwhelmingly solid.
;D
that was the classic AW answer when I tried to make them fix effectively these rules problems a few years ago!
I really don't like to stop a game because we arrive on one of these few situations.
-
Isn’t this rules and tricks thing much like the existing supplement?
Yeah, it already exists, but it would be nice to see if some few are chosen to be able to edit or add clarifications to it. Making the games more advanced and hard to get elements more transparent.
-
this rules item seems a bit much of a tempest in a teapot. there are very few places the rules could be an issue. and those are mostly rare circumstances generally. so this is overblown imo. the rules are overwhelmingly solid.
The rules supplement is 46 pages and roughly 27,000 words when thrown into word by the way.
TL;DR If you need 8 examples and 700 words to describe something then the rules are not clear.
It's not about being "solid"; it's about density. The rules are to dense, there are literally thousands of unnecessary words to describe interactions in this game. That's not debatable by the way, it's one of the reason that the game is in the state it is in. Every expansion comes with ~60 cards and a few thousand new words to describe corner case interactions within it. The rules are drafted in such a way to make the game longer and less fun.
Some people don't mind all that and that's fine, but that is not a defense. Look at what I am talking about
"Mage Death
Once a Mage dies, he cannot perform any further actions, pay mana costs, cast spells, make a counterstrike, etc. Any enchantments and equipment attached to himself are immediately destroyed. Other objects he controls in the game remain in play.
If a Mage dies, continue play until the end of that Phase (e.g. the Upkeep Phase, or the current creature's Action Phase.) If all remaining Mages die before the end of that Phase, the game is a draw.
Example: In a two-player game, a Wizard with 1 remaining health and enchanted with Magebane casts an attack spell on the enemy Warlock to kill him. The Warlock is killed and the Wizard will die from the Magebane, and the game will be a draw."
1.) Overcomplicated rules for corner cases are not good and literally bogging down the game.
2.) That example allows for a complete attack sequence to continue when the mage is already "dead". This rule allows for the incredibly rare situation for a draw outcome when there does not need to be. I would argue that this situation is only a detriment to the game as the Warlock, if I were in that position, would be pissed his spell didn't actually kill you and you got to complete an entire attack sequence, even though you were dead and no other creature functions like that in the game, it's only mages for some allow the phase to continue instead of ending the game there.
-
I mean, of all the rules that are convoluted and exist with too many exceptions, that is one I have the least issue with in any sense. Magebane doesn't hit until a spell is cast and/or resolved so the attack spell has to be cast in order to die from Magebane. If that so happens to kill the opponent, so be it.
-
I mean, of all the rules that are convoluted and exist with too many exceptions, that is one I have the least issue with in any sense. Magebane doesn't hit until a spell is cast and/or resolved so the attack spell has to be cast in order to die from Magebane. If that so happens to kill the opponent, so be it.
I was thinking it was after cast and not at the end of resolve.
I will edit to make more sense, but it's still crazy that a mage can deal damage equal to the life of another mage, ie winning the game, and then its a draw because it doesnt end immediately, like all other instances of destruction in the game was my point.
Still punishes the winner either way you slice it.
-
What if mage A melee attack’s mage B who has counter strike.
Is the following true?
Mage B receives fatal damage.
Mage B still gets to conduct a counter strike
Mage A receives fatal damage.
Game is a draw.
-
no counter strike if you're dead.
(but a damage barier would do it!)
-
Having played Mage Wars since First Edition coreset (pre FM/Warlord), I can honestly say Rule-Uncertainty (no denying it exists) isn't my biggest problem with Mage Wars, nor the reason I took a break/quit shortly after the HoBS/TempleLight nerf. I didn't like the flavor of the nerf(s). Still don't.
I feel as if 99% of the nerf(s) should be "____ Mage Only" adjustments. This would buff (round-a-bout) a particular mage without crushing deck-building meta. Temple of Light was nerfed into dust. HoBS too. Both should have been Priest/Priestess Only (not Holy, anticipating Pally later).
Pillar of Righteous Flame should be Pally Only, Tsunami should be Siren Only, and so on. My small group is currently in talks about house-ruling Pillar and Tsunami this way as they appear in every friggin deck (they are just that good value-wise, a druid with tsunami is kinda broken) and 120sbp is plenty of room.
-
no counter strike if you're dead.
(but a damage barier would do it!)
Negative.
You are dead at the end of the creature activation, aka action phase, and have to proceed through all the steps are per normal.
You would indeed get a counterstrike even though you were "dead".
-
Having played Mage Wars since First Edition coreset (pre FM/Warlord), I can honestly say Rule-Uncertainty (no denying it exists) isn't my biggest problem with Mage Wars, nor the reason I took a break/quit shortly after the HoBS/TempleLight nerf. I didn't like the flavor of the nerf(s). Still don't.
I feel as if 99% of the nerf(s) should be "____ Mage Only" adjustments. This would buff (round-a-bout) a particular mage without crushing deck-building meta. Temple of Light was nerfed into dust. HoBS too. Both should have been Priest/Priestess Only (not Holy, anticipating Pally later).
Pillar of Righteous Flame should be Pally Only, Tsunami should be Siren Only, and so on. My small group is currently in talks about house-ruling Pillar and Tsunami this way as they appear in every friggin deck (they are just that good value-wise, a druid with tsunami is kinda broken) and 120sbp is plenty of room.
as one of the two players who inspired the nerfs to be required, I will say that I think the changes were elegant. and absolutely required. being able to spam the board with hob, and a temple is way broken. to the point where you can attack someone for 12dice melee, and then do a free 6plus dice temple shot, and still have a qc to use. ridiculous beyond belief. so if you are running house rules like the old days, priestess should be near 100% win ratio. if not, then they are playing it wrong.
hob being unique balances the card extremely well. useful, bit not overpowered. which for a card is a sweet spot. not all decks run any. so in general solid useful card.
same for temple. there are few cards that have an attack that do not require mana as a cost. I cannot come up with one at the moment, but maybe there is one card that does not. so multiple dice for zero mana is broken. put this way you should come to the same conclusion. even if you restrict it to mage/school only. you may not like it, but can hopefully see the reason why it had to be changed.
had I been on the playtest team when the wizard tower was working through the group, I would have pointed out how obscene it was. maybe they would not have listened. I think the tower change has made it a lot less useful and perhaps could have been done differently so that it may still get played at least some. but no one really runs it much any more. so a swing too far in this case.
heck same thing for ballista. a prime example of a broken card getting printed at the promo stage. ill conceived printing of cards without vetting them properly. now they are more rigorous for promos and card sets. so future errata should be rare.
and the wizard school change was another elegant example. the wizard training at that time greatly influenced(overshadowed) all development going on in the background. all cards that had any element attached had to be warped to make sure the wizard could not make better use of the card than the mage it was intended for. the air restriction was a breath of fresh air (intended) for all the mages who used elements. they immediately became better as a result and felt more unique and thematic.
-
no counter strike if you're dead.
(but a damage barier would do it!)
Negative.
You are dead at the end of the creature activation, aka action phase, and have to proceed through all the steps are per normal.
You would indeed get a counterstrike even though you were "dead".
Can you cite a particular reference for all that, Kharhaz?
All I can see is, from the main rule book, combat Step 6 ("mark the damage on the defender") interacting with the rule on page 14 that states "if the object suffers damage equal to or greater than its Life value, it is destroyed" (where "destroyed" means "removed from play").
And also, from the supplement, pg 4: "if an attack destroys a creature, the destroyed creature cannot make a counterattack. Its damage barrier will still be able to make an attack."
-
When the mage dies, like other creatures, he is immediately destroyed and removed from play along with anything attached to him. There are a few additional restrictions that don't normally apply to other creatures, such as being unable to pay any mana for things, but for the most part it follows the normal creature death rules. I'm not really sure the problem here.
I believe Kharhaz would like the game to end immediately upon Mage Death, which is a reasonable argument, but it currently doesn't end until the phase finishes. Basically, the game can't end mid-phase which does allow time for the other Mage to be killed. Basically, if both deaths happen in the same phase it is considered simultaneous.
I'm not sure the issue with Magebane, because the Mage takes the Magebane damage after resolving the attack. As in, the Mage doesn't get to complete an attack after death and isn't working different from other creatures. The comparison to a damage barrier seems apt.
That said, I think the rules could definitely be simplified, but I don't think that's the games biggest problem and the changes I would like to see actually aren't possible without rewriting the game to a significant extent. Maybe a new edition will see them. Stuff like simplifying traits and conditions, cleaning up the spell restrictions and training rules, and yes the order of operations could use some attention. I agree with all of that, but those are significant overhauls to the game. Basically, after nearly 6 years, I feel we've learned a lot about how this very unique first of it's kind game operates and we can do better. But not without making a whole new game.
But again, that's not really the problem with the game. The real problem is output and support. LCG's tend to get an expansion per month. We've gotten 1 or 2 per year. To put out more expansions they would need to prepare more material in advance, because there's only so much you can do to speed up playtesting. So, there's no way for us to really fix that with the game already being out there, it's something that would need to be planned for pre-launch. They then also need to fix their support for the game, maybe approaching it more like a miniature war game than a CCG, but I don't really know. That's an area that they really haven't figured out yet imo, with even the GenCon tournament still experimenting on how to run things (no more timed victories this year).
-
@Zuberi
Here is the setup that was mentioned. Ignore my confusion on it above.
Wizard with magebane cast boulder.
Boulder kills warlock.
since you have to finish the wizard action before the game can end, the mage bane kills him.
@Arkdeniz
I quoted the FAQ segment on it and will re post it here for clarity
"Mage Death
Once a Mage dies, he cannot perform any further actions, pay mana costs, cast spells, make a counterstrike, etc. Any enchantments and equipment attached to himself are immediately destroyed. Other objects he controls in the game remain in play.
If a Mage dies, continue play until the end of that Phase (e.g. the Upkeep Phase, or the current creature's Action Phase.) If all remaining Mages die before the end of that Phase, the game is a draw.
Example: In a two-player game, a Wizard with 1 remaining health and enchanted with Magebane casts an attack spell on the enemy Warlock to kill him. The Warlock is killed and the Wizard will die from the Magebane, and the game will be a draw."
-
Okay, that order is correct. A dead mage would not get a counterstrike though. They are treated basically identical to other creatures upon death, with just a few additional rules tacked on. But I think your main issue is the fact that the game doesn't end immediately, and I can understand why that would be frustrating and think you have a good argument to be made. I think the fact that the game handles everything linearly though, without any "stack" or true simultaneous events, makes the whole "it ends at the end of the phase" thing make some sense. You finish what you were in the middle of, and anything that happens during that phase "kind of" happened at the same time.
I don't really have an opinion on this. I can see merit in both methods. You are right that ending it immediately would be simpler though, which is the point of the thread.
-
so... was I right?
if the mage is attacked and killed, he will not counterstrike but his barrier will attack.
or somehow els?
-
so... was I right?
if the mage is attacked and killed, he will not counterstrike but his barrier will attack.
or somehow els?
My understanding of the above rules is that the damage barrier would be attached to the mage and therefore destroyed along with the mage. So you would not get a damage barrier roll if you were killed.
-
as one of the two players who inspired the nerfs to be required, I will say that I think the changes were elegant. and absolutely required. being able to spam the board with hob, and a temple is way broken. to the point where you can attack someone for 12dice melee, and then do a free 6plus dice temple shot, and still have a qc to use. ridiculous beyond belief. so if you are running house rules like the old days, priestess should be near 100% win ratio. if not, then they are playing it wrong.
Our local group play-tested the ever-living crap out of HoB/Temple spam and it was hardly unbeatable. And this was before "Lesser Teleport!" Too often the Priestess got (4) HOB out and was already eating 10-15 dmg per turn with no chance of continuing to (6) HOB before dying. It was incredibly "unwise" to cast #5 and #6 in our rushdown testing. Keyword: Rushdown.
Granted, you made the NERF decision with Turtle vs. Turtle in mind, and that kinda bothers me as well.
hob being unique balances the card extremely well. useful, bit not overpowered. which for a card is a sweet spot. not all decks run any. so in general solid useful card.
I couldn't stand seeing every "class/school" running (1) HoB. Guess I'm a M:TG player at heart.
same for temple. there are few cards that have an attack that do not require mana as a cost. I cannot come up with one at the moment, but maybe there is one card that does not. so multiple dice for zero mana is broken. put this way you should come to the same conclusion. even if you restrict it to mage/school only. you may not like it, but can hopefully see the reason why it had to be changed.
Yes, but... You start the match with 0 Temples and 0 Laser-Temples. And we're back to Massive Design Decisions being made for a Turtle vs. Turtle scenario. Rushdown really hurts Turtle-Hob/Laser spam. And here's the rub: There are MANY ways to rushdown the opponent(turtle) but there is only one way to spam HoB/Laser (lay and pray).
I wish these non-mage-specific "power-cards" didn't homogenize the deck-building meta as much as they did/have/continue to do. And I wish Dev/Playtest/QA cared about this issue as much as I do.
Edit: Our local meta died around the same time the HoB/Laser nerf hit... Consensus being homogenization over specialization.
EditEdit: On second-thought, I'm also suggesting I would've been fine with UniqueHoB *and* Priestess-only.
-
They were also designing the errata based on a global meta, not (and i mean no offence) a local micro meta. If you guys were play testing it a lot then your meta was used to seeing it frequently. Therefore the rush down your referring to was ready in all your books for that instance. Now we run into the same problem that was such a huge issue for the wizard and his tower. How many SP are you gonna dedicate to teching against a mage you may not see? It was also not restricted to any school or mage in particular so a wizard could just as easily spam the temples and benefit from early cheap armor off a forge and his voltaric shield so that the rush is blunted right away. Also the tactic involved having a few ToLs and the full complement of 6 HoBs. So you can drop the temple of light early and sti get the free harassment shots while you drop the rest of the temples.
It was wildly overpowered, and had so much value that NOT running that strat would have been considered sub par play. Free dice come in small batches of 2 or 3 on conjurations and those have hefty play costs too (I'm referencing the lotus and orchid), or big timing issues (ballista, akiros hammer), or range restrictions (all of them, 0-0, 1-2, 2-3) that make them impractical to spam. Add to all that the increasing numbers of armor or healing that come with those hobs and that's a stack of bad that just keeps getting worse. It needed adjustment pretty bad.
-
(Pre nerf) I don’t understand how you can “just” finish off a priestess with 6 bims out since she can use them to heal herself or armor herself while she throws healing spells on top of that.
And let’s not forget you could be dazed or stunned for your action as well.
It was OP back then. The synergie I mean. I don’t mind what they did with Bim... but I don’t love it either.
I think I would have liked it be priestess only as well. (Which means priest can use it also).
ToL on the other hand....
Unfortunately they made temple of light useless.
I wish they had kept it at a reasonable fixed cost to shoot the temple such as 2 or 3 mana now hat it has such a high casting cost.
What they did with it just shows that they back then had no idea how problematic ready markers on conjurations can be.
Right now it’s in the state where they want to be sure they don’t need to errata it again.
But I actually think they should errata it again into a sensible state where it’s actually viable.
-
yes. they were non-competitive designers creating an awesome thing and did not understand how to balance things properly. overall they did great, but a few glaring items made it through and had to be fixed after the fact. if you can design with a serious fixation on competitive balance, then everything else should fall into place and be solid generally.
so when you have events, or competitive players showing up, they do not break your game. future sets have to be carefully tested as they are being created. as the card pool grows this becomes increasingly more time consuming. no one wants errata. but it is at times needed to fix things that get missed.
-
yes. they were non-competitive designers creating an awesome thing and did not understand how to balance things properly. overall they did great, but a few glaring items made it through and had to be fixed after the fact. if you can design with a serious fixation on competitive balance, then everything else should fall into place and be solid generally.
Absolutely agreed. MW was an awesome design, but lacked something in the development. It was definitely not playtested as it needed - as well as the obvious few overpowered things once you start playing to win, rather than for theme, there's a whole bunch of stuff that's overcosted (whole traits in fact).
so when you have events, or competitive players showing up, they do not break your game. future sets have to be carefully tested as they are being created. as the card pool grows this becomes increasingly more time consuming. no one wants errata. but it is at times needed to fix things that get missed.
Sadly, Bryan still has the same design philosphy, and is still making the same mistake (hence changing DoR from okay to broken, post-playtest).
-
That's very interesting for me: i play to win, but nearly never competitive. I try to make create spellbooks that have a chance, but not too "closed"... for example i play defensives priestress but never built a turtle...
the bad design you mention is perhaps the reason why MW is really a game for me!
-
I have played priestess for six years, and the turtle priestess only worked for the first six months before everyone figured out how to counter it. It is just too easy for another mage to target your creatures (or you if you have nothing facedown) and murder them with their own creatures or otherwise incapacitate them. For example, I have had people teleport and then tanglevine my Guardian Angels to get them out of the way (a Beastmaster or a Druid with a teleport wand is a pain, as is a Warlock or a Wizard who decides to invest in a few tangelvines).
-
it is a great design. and great thematics. just that had they competitive players in the playtesters from early on, things would have been much more balanced for everything. some mins/maxes where competitive players could eek advantages, or enable superior tactics. but not enough to warp the game. enough where better strategy and tactics win generally but not always. I think that is the sweet spot for design. strong for competition, but still accessible to casual and them players and enable them to have a shot at wins too.
sometimes I think bryan just likes broken mechanics. which is really very bad for the game overall.
-
(Pre nerf) I don’t understand how you can “just” finish off a priestess with 6 bims out since she can use them to heal herself or armor herself while she throws healing spells on top of that.
1: Sprint + Teleport / Forcepush
2: Summon something w/ Ranged (or just a Tegu) + Magebane/Ghoul Rot (@ Priestess)
3. Summon something + Direct Dmg
Summoning 6 HoBS would put you behind the 8-ball in this rushdown scenario. The times we saw Priestess win in the face of serious rushdown are when you counter the Rush with Armor and Summons, not more HoBS. Yes, I run Magebane and Ghoul Rot in every deck (should be Dark Only, IMO).
-
You should also add Poison Blood. I tend to run two Poison Bloods in every non-Holy deck just to act as Dispel bait, Nullify triggers, Regeneration prevention, etc. While Holy can deals with them easily with Purify, it tends to be a problem for everyone else except Necromancers.
-
I admit that I am surprised that only roughly 50% of the community have the impression that the current convoluted rules are a problem.
My attempt at an explanation:
#1: Those people who were really bothered by it left long ago
#2: "Casual players" who are bound to have more trouble with the rules are not actively reading here
#3: Even people who admit that the rules are too complex by using easier house-rules vote for "nah, not to complex" to show off or sth.
My point remains, there were some nice ideas to make the upkeep phase easier, why not adopt those ideas?
Forbidding enchantment reveal obviously is obviously out of the question. Curse lock already is pretty weak and that would make him downright unplayable.
-
by this same logic a lot of people who left may have had the same opinion as the clear majority (55%) - a more likely possibility if the responses are an average. further the 50% you cite is incorrect. the poll numbers show was closer to 40% think similarly to you. and there may be a lot who have no opinion either way. there are many who read the site but never post anything. so no real conclusions can be drawn from this. nor can one conclude rules were the reason why folks left. perhaps that was the reason for some of them. we will not know. however that is not to discount some interesting suggestions. but to say hey the minority has it correct and we need to make serious changes does not follow.
-
Meh, I don't like this reasoning. It's too much in the direction of "we cannot know anything with certainty" a la David Hume.
Of course this poll is not a representative sample but despite that many active, probably experienced players have voted and you can interpret the findings.
-
Forbidding enchantment reveal obviously is obviously out of the question. Curse lock already is pretty weak and that would make him downright unplayable.
For what it's worth, you can't gain the effect of enchantments revealed during upkeep right now as it is unless it's part of an attack sequence. DoT must be revealed before the beginning of the upkeep, same with Regen.
What I'm saying with my change proposal is that all the effects that will affect each object during the upkeep go into a pool at the beginning of the upkeep. If those effects have a cost, that cost must get paid BEFORE they go into the pool and I would propose to fix dissipate to be removed at the end of all effect resolutions hence:
1) Pay costs
2) resolve effects
3) remove dissipates.
The problem is that introduces steps into the upkeep phase which allows for crazy enchantment reveal timings. THIS is why I say "no enchantment reveals during upkeep". Another way of putting it would be "effects which were not in effect before the beginning of the upkeep do not get added to the pool of effects to resolve".
-
Yeah, I understand. You don't want to let them "borrow" mana and have the effect one turn earlier. But as I said, I don't see the need to change that particular rule. On the contrary, that actually leads to some interesting situations during the play.
For example if you reveal regrowth with your 10 channeling you already only have 6 mana for the next turn. The enemy can take that into account and you limit yourself - for the 2 regeneration you gained. I actually like that a lot, there are times when I play with my curselock that I don't have any mana for my turn because I revealed 2 curses during upkeep..
As I said, that feature makes MW more interesting and diverse, why do you feel the need to change that?
-
Yeah, I understand. You don't want to let them "borrow" mana and have the effect one turn earlier. But as I said, I don't see the need to change that particular rule. On the contrary, that actually leads to some interesting situations during the play.
For example if you reveal regrowth with your 10 channeling you already only have 6 mana for the next turn. The enemy can take that into account and you limit yourself - for the 2 regeneration you gained. I actually like that a lot, there are times when I play with my curselock that I don't have any mana for my turn because I revealed 2 curses during upkeep..
As I said, that feature makes MW more interesting and diverse, why do you feel the need to change that?
What you are pointing out here is still possible with Puddn's steps. Revealing after the channeling phase but before upkeep is still a timing possibility. Even now, the sequence described above is only possible if you reveal after the channeling step but before upkeep (since there are no steps in upkeep currently). Puddn's steps are for during the upkeep phase itself. No enchantments being revealed during the upkeep phase itself prevents someone from revealing healing madrigal (for example) after the remove dissipates step and getting a free round out of it.
This plays a little into the complex interactions part, but this is one of the complex interactions I like. I do agree on the whole though that the inconsistencies are a problem.
-
#1: Those people who were really bothered by it left long ago
#2: "Casual players" who are bound to have more trouble with the rules are not actively reading here
#3: Even people who admit that the rules are too complex by using easier house-rules vote for "nah, not to complex" to show off or sth.
and some people like comlicate rules!
I didn't vote, because I think that a few rules are too complicate (i.e. bad ratio fun brought/complication) but that it's not a big problem, and no item said that.
-
Just to further clarify and enhance shark's explanation:
The rules for revealing enchantments are that you may reveal an enchant immediately after any "step" in a sequence. The current upkeep phase has zero steps in it. It is illegal to reveal any enchantment during upkeep. However, the steps to a game round are:
Initiative, Channel, Upkeep, Planning, Deployment, etc. Therefore there is a step (channeling) after which you have mana and can reveal enchantments that will affect upkeep.
My proposed upkeep change has no effect on this mechanic. All it does is streamline interactions during upkeep while keeping the enchantment reveal problem out of the phase.
Honestly, Pillar of Righteous Flame should do its attack at the end of the round because it adds steps to a phase that shouldn't have them.