Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Arlemus on May 01, 2014, 05:38:07 PM
-
(I'm mainly looking for playtester opinion, since this post is about information only they have access to.)
I'm curious about how much those playtesting FiF think it'll help the Warlord in terms of viability. I've never been been part of the "Warlord sucks" bandwagon, and I think he is a good bit stronger than everyone seems to think, but I welcome the idea of him having a power bump and I'm just wondering what the consensus is among playtesters (if there is one) as to whether or not FiF helps the old warlord enough.
-
Let me preface this with the fact that I just became a play tester and haven't actually had a hand in FiF. Also, that information you talk about only us having is under an NDA so that makes it hard to answer you with any kind of details. However, I think everyone knows improving the warlord was a goal of this set, and just the cards previewed thus far should show that we have indeed made an effort at that. I think everyone will be pleased and I can't wait to get ahold of the expansion myself.
-
Yeah i think just by looking at the spoiled cards for him so far, you can see that both warlords are getting a boost. I'm not a playtester (maybe someday hopefully), but I've been paying close attention to what's been revealed and I think this expansion will get him out of the 'lower tier' of mages.
All of the cards so far can be found here http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13984.0
-
Let me preface this with the fact that I just became a play tester and haven't actually had a hand in FiF. Also, that information you talk about only us having is under an NDA so that makes it hard to answer you with any kind of details. However, I think everyone knows improving the warlord was a goal of this set, and just the cards previewed thus far should show that we have indeed made an effort at that. I think everyone will be pleased and I can't wait to get ahold of the expansion myself.
I definitely agree that the previewed cards do show an effort to support the Warlord and just judging from the previews I'm sure the set will be a blast. However, the point of my post was to find out if those who playtested FiF feel as if the Warlord has been "fixed" (I don't think he was ever broken). I know that might be hard to say one way or the other without providing specific examples, but I wasn't necessarily looking for specific examples, and it doesn't seem like a general feeling or opinion would be under NDA. I appreciate the response though.
-
Yeah i think just by looking at the spoiled cards for him so far, you can see that both warlords are getting a boost. I'm not a playtester (maybe someday hopefully), but I've been paying close attention to what's been revealed and I think this expansion will get him out of the 'lower tier' of mages.
All of the cards so far can be found here http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13984.0
Right, I've seen the spoilers. I'm not sure I'd consider the previews as boosts to the AT Warlord, considering he hasn't been released yet, but I understand what you mean; and while the AT Warlord looks great, I'm more concerned with the older Warlord. I've put a good bit of effort into streamlining him and making him work, and though I feel he isn't as weak as others claim, I feel he needs something to fill out the inconsistencies in his card base.
-
it doesn't seem like a general feeling or opinion would be under NDA
Perhaps, but again I'm new and don't want to risk anything. Tis better to err on the side of caution.
-
I never felt the 1st Warlord needed "fixing". Yes, he may be a little below the curve to other mages but I still enjoy playing him and his unique playstyle. He's not unplayable with no tools.
In game design you cant keep leep frogging weaker mages above stronger mages because that creates power creep. From the cards spoiled so far, I think the 1st Warlord will be pleased with the many new options in his arsenal, particularly the new altars and outposts. Do I see him moving to a top tier mage; certainly not but he seems more comparable and that is good design.
I play the Warlord now and am excited to continue doing so after FIF :)
-
(I'm mainly looking for playtester opinion, since this post is about information only they have access to.)
I'm curious about how much those playtesting FiF think it'll help the Warlord in terms of viability. I've never been been part of the "Warlord sucks" bandwagon, and I think he is a good bit stronger than everyone seems to think, but I welcome the idea of him having a power bump and I'm just wondering what the consensus is among playtesters (if there is one) as to whether or not FiF helps the old warlord enough.
I probably playtested lock and load with the Bloodwave more than the Anvil Throne, at the very least a 1:1 ratio (probably closer to 2:1)
Even though I think Runesmithing and Battle Hardened > Veteran Tokens, Battle Skill and 2 hit points, I believe Bloodwave fans will be very pleased.
-
I never felt the 1st Warlord needed "fixing". Yes, he may be a little below the curve to other mages but I still enjoy playing him and his unique playstyle. He's not unplayable with no tools.
In game design you cant keep leep frogging weaker mages above stronger mages because that creates power creep. From the cards spoiled so far, I think the 1st Warlord will be pleased with the many new options in his arsenal, particularly the new altars and outposts. Do I see him moving to a top tier mage; certainly not but he seems more comparable and that is good design.
I play the Warlord now and am excited to continue doing so after FIF :)
I play him mainly too and I agree he doesn't need "fixed." I was mostly just wondering if the people playtesting FiF bridges whatever gap a section of the MW population feels there is between him and the others. After playing him many many times I don't think that gap actually exists, but I don't think people should perceive one either.
-
Understand when we say broken, we are saying you can take any book you build for the Warlord play it, put all the cards back in the book, and then pull out the Warlord Mage and Mage Stat card and place the Wizards Mage and Mage Stat card in the same book, add in spells (as this is the power of the wizard) to fill in for the extra spellpoints that are available and play a better Warlord than the Warlord.....hence broken.
-
Understand when we say broken, we are saying you can take any book you build for the Warlord play it, put all the cards back in the book, and then pull out the Warlord Mage and Mage Stat card and place the Wizards Mage and Mage Stat card in the same book, add in spells (as this is the power of the wizard) to fill in for the extra spellpoints that are available and play a better Warlord than the Warlord.....hence broken.
Yeah I don't think the Warlord is anywhere close to that, obviously.
-
Yeah I don't think the Warlord is anywhere close to that, obviously.
By this do you mean that: that the Warlord is able to beat the Earth Wizard that is running his book (bit better in reality), or you think the Warlord is not that bad as described?
-
Yeah I don't think the Warlord is anywhere close to that, obviously.
By this do you mean that: that the Warlord is able to beat the Earth Wizard that is running his book (bit better in reality), or you think the Warlord is not that bad as described?
Oh, sorry if I was unclear. I mean to say that I think (unlike some people that post on here) that the Warlord is entirely viable. That is, no other mage could play his book better and with practice, he can be just as viable as any other mage.
I think the reasons many people seem to dislike him, or reasons people are so outspoken against him, is because the spellbook he was released with was pretty terrible and offered no guidance as to how to play him; along with the fact that he pays triple for arcane. I don't believe either of those things hamper him as much as people think.
To tie this in, I do believe that it is the responsibility of Arcane Wonders to make all the mages seem balanced to the general population playing their game which they haven't currently accomplished. The reason I started the thread was to inquire as to whether or not those with complete knowledge of the expansion would agree that it has accomplished this goal.
-
I think that the ball has moved in a positive direction for the Warlord with the upcoming FiF release. How big of a move is still the question in my mind. I am positive that we have moved it a good bit but how far that is has yet to be revealed.
-
Oh, sorry if I was unclear. I mean to say that I think (unlike some people that post on here) that the Warlord is entirely viable. That is, no other mage could play his book better and with practice, he can be just as viable as any other mage.
He is not unplayable but most players in my gaming group consider him outclassed without realistic access to enchantment removal, teleportation, and nullify.
Example: A warlock places a ghoul rot, poison blood, enfeeble, and magebane on your warlord. You lose. Triple arcane means that you do not have the tools to counter that kind of enchantment assault. Even if the warlord places a cheetah speed or regeneration or whatever the warlock can win in that exchange of enchantment removal and replacement.
I was playing a game with the bloodwave where my minotaur with lion savagery charged into a beastmaster that I quick cast pushed through a wall of pikes and into range of a ballista bolt. That is 18 attack dice. The Warlord has tools to win games, I do not want you to think that I am saying he does not. I think he just has a much harder time doing so without the same access everyone else does to core game mechanic cards in the arcane school.
To partially answer your question, Harshforge Monolith already adds a cheap answer to the above example and expands the toolbox of the warlord.
-
Ballista will be released in FiF :D:D:D:D:D:D
-
Playtesters test promos. Arcane Wonders has said that all promos will be released, but there has been no official statement made about when Balista will be published for tournament play.
-
Oh, sorry if I was unclear. I mean to say that I think (unlike some people that post on here) that the Warlord is entirely viable. That is, no other mage could play his book better and with practice, he can be just as viable as any other mage.
He is not unplayable but most players in my gaming group consider him outclassed without realistic access to enchantment removal, teleportation, and nullify.
Example: A warlock places a ghoul rot, poison blood, enfeeble, and magebane on your warlord. You lose. Triple arcane means that you do not have the tools to counter that kind of enchantment assault. Even if the warlord places a cheetah speed or regeneration or whatever the warlock can win in that exchange of enchantment removal and replacement.
Well, depending on how that situation actually went down, I don't think automatic loss would the be the outcome. You can purify off both ghoul rot and poison blood, and if you did them both together you'd actually be on top for actions. Run 2 if you're scared, they don't cost triple. You can counter enfeeble with cheetah speed, like you said. There's no hard counter to magebane but a sunfire amulet would probably work pretty well. I just don't see the Warlord automatically losing in that situation since purify exists. Even if you run 2 dispel in addition to the other counters, just in case, that's only 2 points over what others pay, hardly unrealistic access.
-
Well, depending on how that situation actually went down, I don't think automatic loss would the be the outcome. You can purify off both ghoul rot and poison blood, and if you did them both together you'd actually be on top for actions. Run 2 if you're scared, they don't cost triple. You can counter enfeeble with cheetah speed, like you said. There's no hard counter to magebane but a sunfire amulet would probably work pretty well. I just don't see the Warlord automatically losing in that situation since purify exists. Even if you run 2 dispel in addition to the other counters, just in case, that's only 2 points over what others pay, hardly unrealistic access.
In a vacuum most of this is true, but the rules and current card set currently favor other mages in such a manner that Warlord has very little chance to win in a tournament setting and even in casual play he is pretty had to win with. I think that FiF will help this a bit though.
-
Well, depending on how that situation actually went down, I don't think automatic loss would the be the outcome. You can purify off both ghoul rot and poison blood, and if you did them both together you'd actually be on top for actions. Run 2 if you're scared, they don't cost triple. You can counter enfeeble with cheetah speed, like you said. There's no hard counter to magebane but a sunfire amulet would probably work pretty well. I just don't see the Warlord automatically losing in that situation since purify exists. Even if you run 2 dispel in addition to the other counters, just in case, that's only 2 points over what others pay, hardly unrealistic access.
In a vacuum most of this is true, but the rules and current card set currently favor other mages in such a manner that Warlord has very little chance to win in a tournament setting and even in casual play he is pretty had to win with. I think that FiF will help this a bit though.
Maybe you could clarify which cards you mean in the current card set and rules specifically favor mages who aren't the Warlord? I get that seeing the Warlord in a positive light isn't a popular stance in these forums, but after playing with and against the Warlord a lot, I find gross generalizations like this hard to believe.
-
Well, depending on how that situation actually went down, I don't think automatic loss would the be the outcome. You can purify off both ghoul rot and poison blood, and if you did them both together you'd actually be on top for actions. Run 2 if you're scared, they don't cost triple. You can counter enfeeble with cheetah speed, like you said. There's no hard counter to magebane but a sunfire amulet would probably work pretty well. I just don't see the Warlord automatically losing in that situation since purify exists. Even if you run 2 dispel in addition to the other counters, just in case, that's only 2 points over what others pay, hardly unrealistic access.
In a vacuum most of this is true, but the rules and current card set currently favor other mages in such a manner that Warlord has very little chance to win in a tournament setting and even in casual play he is pretty had to win with. I think that FiF will help this a bit though.
Maybe you could clarify which cards you mean in the current card set and rules specifically favor mages who aren't the Warlord? I get that seeing the Warlord in a positive light isn't a popular stance in these forums, but after playing with and against the Warlord a lot, I find gross generalizations like this hard to believe.
This is very simple build you two copies of whatever Warlord book you like. Take the second copy and replace the mage with an Earth Wizard, remove any mage only cards (9 potentials), fill in any additional spells you would like to add with the additional spellpoints and duke it out.
Let us know who wins that battle. Not trying to be rude or mean, but if you need/want cold hard proof that is the best way I can think of the provide it to you.
-
Well, depending on how that situation actually went down, I don't think automatic loss would the be the outcome. You can purify off both ghoul rot and poison blood, and if you did them both together you'd actually be on top for actions. Run 2 if you're scared, they don't cost triple. You can counter enfeeble with cheetah speed, like you said. There's no hard counter to magebane but a sunfire amulet would probably work pretty well. I just don't see the Warlord automatically losing in that situation since purify exists. Even if you run 2 dispel in addition to the other counters, just in case, that's only 2 points over what others pay, hardly unrealistic access.
In a vacuum most of this is true, but the rules and current card set currently favor other mages in such a manner that Warlord has very little chance to win in a tournament setting and even in casual play he is pretty had to win with. I think that FiF will help this a bit though.
Maybe you could clarify which cards you mean in the current card set and rules specifically favor mages who aren't the Warlord? I get that seeing the Warlord in a positive light isn't a popular stance in these forums, but after playing with and against the Warlord a lot, I find gross generalizations like this hard to believe.
This is very simple build you two copies of whatever Warlord book you like. Take the second copy and replace the mage with an Earth Wizard, remove any mage only cards (9 potentials), fill in any additional spells you would like to add with the additional spellpoints and duke it out.
Let us know who wins that battle. Not trying to be rude or mean, but if you need/want cold hard proof that is the best way I can think of the provide it to you.
That's just another roundabout way to call the warlord bad and not have to explain. It's also a complete overexaggeration considering its not even possible do such a thing without taking out more than just mage only cards. You would have to take out all war school creatures, etc, that now cost double for the wizard, or take a massive spellbook penatly. The biggest argument against the warlord is based in spellbook cost so saying the wizard can take a much more substantial hit then the mild one the warlors takes in arcane, but for war, makes literally no sense.
-
Well, depending on how that situation actually went down, I don't think automatic loss would the be the outcome. You can purify off both ghoul rot and poison blood, and if you did them both together you'd actually be on top for actions. Run 2 if you're scared, they don't cost triple. You can counter enfeeble with cheetah speed, like you said. There's no hard counter to magebane but a sunfire amulet would probably work pretty well. I just don't see the Warlord automatically losing in that situation since purify exists. Even if you run 2 dispel in addition to the other counters, just in case, that's only 2 points over what others pay, hardly unrealistic access.
In a vacuum most of this is true, but the rules and current card set currently favor other mages in such a manner that Warlord has very little chance to win in a tournament setting and even in casual play he is pretty had to win with. I think that FiF will help this a bit though.
Maybe you could clarify which cards you mean in the current card set and rules specifically favor mages who aren't the Warlord? I get that seeing the Warlord in a positive light isn't a popular stance in these forums, but after playing with and against the Warlord a lot, I find gross generalizations like this hard to believe.
This is very simple build you two copies of whatever Warlord book you like. Take the second copy and replace the mage with an Earth Wizard, remove any mage only cards (9 potentials), fill in any additional spells you would like to add with the additional spellpoints and duke it out.
Let us know who wins that battle. Not trying to be rude or mean, but if you need/want cold hard proof that is the best way I can think of the provide it to you.
Apparently it's not "very simple," otherwise you'd just tell me the specific cards and rules you're talking about. You wouldn't have to worry about being rude or mean if you just answered my question. I'm pretty sure I play MW regularly enough to be confident in my ability to question someone who makes blanket statements.
I disagree with the attitude that the Warlord sucks whenever he has plenty of good tools and I've seen him be effective. He has good equipment, one of the better spawnpoints since it doesn't require almost any work to get 2 channeling (at least), and with Meditation Amulet he can pretty much continually summon and buff his creatures all while making extra mana. The newer Skeletons also give him some good options if a player is worried about Sleep or other psychic-based control cards, and Acid Ball keeps his efficient creatures relevant.
I don't think the Warlord was good at the time of his release, but the same went for pretty much any mage that required lots of creatures to function properly. There weren't enough ways to attack Armor such that level 1-2 creatures really had a chance once the Armor values got high enough (2 or higher).
I guess that means someone has to own the expansions to really make creature-heavy mages like the Warlord viable, but that's really not a big deal considering how good DvN is. The Beastmasters had an easier time with it since they had Tooth and Nail, but paying 14 to counter 2 armor is obviously worse than paying 5.
-
Basic auto-includes:
3x Dispel
3x Dissolve
2x Teleport
A Warlord pays an extra 7 over other mages (like Beastmater, Necromancer, Priestess, etc).
Barracks is currently the WORST spawnpoint in the entire game, as the only way to increase it's base channeling is to play more Outposts, except neither Garrison Post nor Archer's Watchtower have any synergy with Barracks.
On top of that, War creatures are, in general, weak compared to other creatures of the same level from different schools. Why do you think so many Warlord books use Skeletons only? Or the Holy soldiers? Except for Thorg and Dwarf Panzerguarde, none of the War creatures are that great.
Veteran Tokens work best against someone playing Swarm...and right now no one plays Swarm. In most games you're lucky to get 2, with 0 or 1 much more likely.
All of the best War school spells are level 1...with a good chunk of them being Novice. You'll notice Druids are only sad to pay 3x cost for Battle Fury and Charge...
Summary:
The War school is weak
One of the Warlord's major powers is nearly useless
Warlord pays more to include basic spells than anyone else, on top of having a weak school
THAT is why Warlord is weak. Can you still win games with the Warlord? Yes; skill plays an important part. That doesn't make the Warlord not terrible.
-
And the best creature in Warlord book other than Thorg (who cant Taunt a mage) is the Iron Golem who is Earth and would probably replace Thorg in the Wizards book.
The reason the Wizard wins is he can carry many Dispels, Wands, and Teleports. The Warlord, as he is today, is very likely to die a pit style death due to these factors.
The reason I refuse to provide anything is because after playing Charmyna about 20 games against his Wizards I never came close to winning a game and really have nothing worthwhile to post. Now my play skill is not up to his level, but it doesn't take long playing the Warlord vs. Earth Wizard to see that the best parts of War/Earth sections of the FvM set are played better by the Wizard.
I am sorry to disappoint, but I really really liked the Warlord, but he just ended up being beat. Now against other mages he may have a better chance at a win. As previously mentioned not so much with Curse decks that do DoT, agro rush decks (a well played FM literally Ginsu's the guy in like 5 rounds).
-
Ballista will be released in FiF :D:D:D:D:D:D
First, That example was a reference to an organized playkit book I ran, not a playtest book. Anyone can do that with the promos that are floating around the scene today.
Secondarily, I am not saying that the Warlord cannot win, but in a side by side comparison, I think he has more uphill battles than some other archetypes. Harder choices during construction and has less overall flexibility. That has nothing outright to do with his win - loss %; A lot of varying factors like both players skill, decisions made in any given game, and the randomness nature of dice.
-
1. Basic auto-includes:
3x Dispel
3x Dissolve
2x Teleport
A Warlord pays an extra 7 over other mages (like Beastmater, Necromancer, Priestess, etc).
2. Barracks is currently the WORST spawnpoint in the entire game, as the only way to increase it's base channeling is to play more Outposts, except neither Garrison Post nor Archer's Watchtower have any synergy with Barracks.
3. On top of that, War creatures are, in general, weak compared to other creatures of the same level from different schools. Why do you think so many Warlord books use Skeletons only? Or the Holy soldiers? Except for Thorg and Dwarf Panzerguarde, none of the War creatures are that great.
4. Veteran Tokens work best against someone playing Swarm...and right now no one plays Swarm. In most games you're lucky to get 2, with 0 or 1 much more likely.
5. All of the best War school spells are level 1...with a good chunk of them being Novice. You'll notice Druids are only sad to pay 3x cost for Battle Fury and Charge...
Summary:
The War school is weak
One of the Warlord's major powers is nearly useless
Warlord pays more to include basic spells than anyone else, on top of having a weak school
THAT is why Warlord is weak. Can you still win games with the Warlord? Yes; skill plays an important part. That doesn't make the Warlord not terrible.
1. Why do you need so many copies of these? There are multiple ways of solving problem enchantments other than removing them and I don't know why you would ever need 3 Dissolves when Acid Ball deals with the most problematic equip--Armor (Warlord doesn't pay 3x for them anyway, so it hardly matters). 1 Dispel sure, maybe 2 if you're paranoid, but 3 is overkill. The Warlord only needs to pay 2 more points for those Dispels at that point.
Teleport is a good card, but it's also very expensive mana-wise. Charge can accomplish much of the same for less and give the target and extra die.
2. Other than the fact that it makes more mana if you play it, and for cheaper than a Mana Crystal/Flower? Or, you can play one and cast a soldier 1 zone away...and still make more mana. Most other Spawnpoints require the player to fulfill some sort of condition that requires regular actions; the Barracks does not, and the outposts serve another function should you need it. Your definition of synergy is obviously pretty limited.
3. "So many Warlords?" That looks like an exaggeration if I've ever seen one. I doubt enough people even play the game, much less the Warlord, to make an assumption like that.
I've helped build Warlord books that included skeletons or holy creatures, and after testing came to the conclusion that the Warlord doesn't need point-expensive situational creatures like Knights or S. Minions. Butchers and Slingers, like Timber Wolves for Beastmasters, meet most of the Warlord's needs. Trolls are there if you need fatter guys; they aren't as vulnerable to Sleep as Westlock Knights and require less support to survive than do Skeletal Knights.
Also, you can't do 1:1 comparisons of creatures based just on level. There are a bunch of creatures that are the same level but that's where the similarities end. Other than abilities, Cost is a big motivator to consider less expensive, same level creatures over more expensive ones.
4. What do you mean "no one plays swarm"? Playing with lots of creatures happens to be very good right now with Acid Ball and Meditation Amulet. Not everyone plays the way you do or in the environment that you do.
And yeah, some games Veteran isn't relevant, that's true. The Warlord's abilities also cost nothing (because you should be using the Ring of Command) and require virtually no work. A mage isn't defined solely by abilities either; there are mage-specific or easy-access cards that help him or her out too.
5. Well, the novice War incantations are good cheap options but they're hardly "the best." It's not just about paying spellbook points for something; the Warlord's helm lets him cast/change those cards on the cheap without actually expending them, which is a fact that many anti-warlord posters here apparently overlook. Power Strike/etc every turn if you need it plus another creature or extra mana is pretty good in my experience, and lets him use the extra spellbook slots he saves for other cards. Like that extra Dispel or Teleport you need so badly.
@sIKE: Has Charmyna even been on the forums or OCTGN in over a couple months? I mean, I played against his cheesy Wizard build before (got stomped the first time) and after 2 hours (the second time) had no damage on my Warlock and 10+ damage on his Wizard. This was before Armor had good answers though, so I can see how creature-reliant mages would struggle.
Charm obviously knew what he was doing with the Wizard and I can't imagine playing 20 games against someone's best mage when you're trying the Warlord out is really going to get you anywhere. Looks to me more like a bad experience learning how to play a mage than evidence that said mage somehow sucks.
-
Guys don't you all know Wizards are all unbeatable super Mages and everything is is for newbs and losers? I assure you this debate has been made 1,000 times. As we all know, there's only one way to play this game competitively after all! I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would ever want to play anything other than a Wizard.
When I first joined the forums I got the same crap about the Beast Master as we're hearing about the Warlord in this thread. Oh he's useless! Oh he's not competitive! Oh nobody uses swarm and that's the only way to ever play him! I disagreed, got told I was a newb and I'd learn better. I did learn, I learned how to add people to my Ignore List :) Though I'm still waiting for whatever evidence I was suppose to find that the Wizard is the end all be all and how my favorite mage is crap I would heartily recommend the use of the Ignore List on certain members.
Go up to your Profile at the top, Click on Buddies/Ignore List under Modify Profile, and save yourself some grief.
-
I believe the Warlord does have a lot of issues. I don't think he is unplayable, but he is at a severe disadvantage currently. The fact that you can give his book over to a Wizard and have spellpoints to spare is a very disconcerting issue which DOES happen.
Presumably if the Warlord spent at least 40 points in War School Spells, the Wizard would end up over budget when you switched them out. However, the Warlord might not actually invest that heavily into his trained school and many of those War Spells will be Novice so that they don't actually tax the Wizard when you switch. Once you take out the Warlord Only cards and receive the discount on Arcane Spells (because the Warlord is one of very few mages who you can expect will dip into his Weak School) then you end up with the absurd reality that the Wizard will actually have points to spare and can turn it into a bigger and more versatile book.
From the cards we've seen thus far from Forged in Fire though I think the Warlord will be considerably better.
-
I haven't seen charmyna online in quite a while, but he has a knack for making the most of his cards and abilities. However, I think I thought of a really good way to test the Bloodwave Warlord's competitiveness/viability after FiF is released:
1. After FiF is released, have Charmyna build a new Earth Wizard book and test it until he thinks he's perfected it, WITHOUT posting it on the forums or showing it murphy. Have murphy do the same, but with a Bloodwave Warlord, and not post it on the forums or show it to Charmyna. (murphy doesn't have a forum account, so that should be simple enough)
2. Have them duke it out with their new spellbooks, while the rest of us watch.
3. Have all of the spectators to their game loosely estimate how even or uneven the game was, then figure out how much that was due to skill level and how much to the power levels of their mages.
I think that if it's a close fight, and if murphy's and charmyna's skill levels are relatively equal, then that would be strong evidence of FiF making the Bloodwave warlord competitive.
-
Sorry to say this but one game cannot prove anything. However it would be a lot of fun to watch. :)
-
I didn't say proof, I said strong evidence. It wouldn't be absolutely certain after just one game. However, it would be a lot more likely
-
Haven't seen Charm in a bit, but would expect to see him pop back up after FiF.
@reddawn - Cheesy seems a bit much, but we each have our own experiences and can form our own opinions. My playing skill level is not as good as Charm's or Murphy's. If I have a lot of time and can think things through I can do very well, but when playing with shorter amounts of times during the planning phase on OCTGN, I do not do as well I as I would like. Many times after I have made my spell selection and after we have moved on to the Deploy phase, I realize what I should of done and same goes in the Action phase for me.
With that all said, maintaining all of the card data for OCTGN has given me a grasp of the cards and though I am not good at playing the game as I would like, I am able to see all of the mechanics at work with the game (just not fast enough to play them) to realize certain strengths and weaknesses between all of the mages. I do not want to reduce (or demean) anyone players enjoyment for playing certain mages or play styles there are many many reasons to enjoy this game....
-
Because that's apparently the only way to truly test anything in MW, not by playing yourself, but by letting other people play and decide what's best. I mean, what's the point of anyone actually ordering FiF when instead we can just get on OCTGN and watch the "pros" duke it out. Give me a break.
-
I didn't say proof, I said strong evidence. It wouldn't be absolutely certain after just one game. However, it would be a lot more likely
This wouldn't strike me as proof at all. What I would want, is to see is them play the two mages several times, tuning their spellbooks as they go. Ending up in what they consider as optimum spellbooks as they learn the spells that became available with FiF. Once that was done I would like to see how this end state spellbook performs against other mages. What is the win/loss ratio of the books against all mages? Spellbooks can be built to counter a specific mage/play type that win but end up being so meta that they fall flat against other mages and/or play styles.....
-
Step 1 is test the spellbooks without showing them to each other. I thought that implied that they'd be testing them against other players who are not going to just be using warlords and wizards. Then only after sufficient testing against other players do they duke it out with each other. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
And yes, having all of the games they play with those builds in the testing phase be recorded would boost the reliability of the test. However, none of that changes the fact that if a warlord and earth wizard were played by equally or close to equally skilled players and the game is still close, that on its own would still be very strong evidence for the warlord's viability/competetiveness, even though it's not proof.
-
1. Why do you need so many copies of these? There are multiple ways of solving problem enchantments other than removing them and I don't know why you would ever need 3 Dissolves when Acid Ball deals with the most problematic equip--Armor (Warlord doesn't pay 3x for them anyway, so it hardly matters).
This is ridiculous.
Armour isn't the "most problematic" equipment, nor can Acid Ball remove Damage Type -X on equipment. Acid Ball is a specialized tool; it solves one problem spectacularly well (removing armour) but it is useless at dealing with anything else. It cannot deal with Wands, Weapons, Defense equipment, etc. Additionally, Corrode Tokens can be removed with the incredibly cheap Wand of Healing, or by the Priestess' Restore ability. Relying on a single Dissolve to solve all of the problems Acid Ball cannot is a very dangerous strategy. Especially since Acid Ball and Dissolve cost the same to include in any book...
1 Dispel sure, maybe 2 if you're paranoid, but 3 is overkill. The Warlord only needs to pay 2 more points for those Dispels at that point.
There are many enchantments that simply cannot be solved by any spell except for Dispel. Forcefield, Force Crush, Force Hold, Mage Bane, Circle of Fire/Lightning, Vampirism, Bear Strength, etc.
If anything, three might not be enough. It definitely isn't overkill.
Teleport is a good card, but it's also very expensive mana-wise. Charge can accomplish much of the same for less and give the target and extra die.
The most effective use of Teleport is to move your enemy to you. Charge cannot do that.
2. Other than the fact that it [Barracks] makes more mana if you play it, and for cheaper than a Mana Crystal/Flower?
Makes more mana than what? A Mana Crystal of Flower? If that's what you mean, that is incorrect. A Mana Crystal/Flower costs 5 and makes 1 mana each turn. The Barracks costs 12 and makes 1 mana per Outpost. All other currently released Outposts cost 4 mana, so the cost/gain ratio is:
Barracks: 12 - 1
Barracks + 1 Outpost: 16 - 2 -> 8 - 1
Barracks + 2 Outpost: 20 - 3
In terms of mana generation Barracks is the worst Spawnpoint.
Or, you can play one and cast a soldier 1 zone away...and still make more mana. Most other Spawnpoints require the player to fulfill some sort of condition that requires regular actions; the Barracks does not, and the outposts serve another function should you need it. Your definition of synergy is obviously pretty limited.
If you use Barracks to summon a creature, you cannot summon it in a location you have a Garrison Post. They do NOT work together, no matter how you try to spin it. Absolutely no synergy here.
As for Archer's Watchtower, you need to spend a whole round moving the creature to the proper zone to make use of it. Also, since Barracks counts as an Outpost it makes it harder to place your Watchtowers. I'm not sure how you can possibly call this Synergy either.
The Armory in FiF that gives all Friendly Soldiers Armor +1 and Piercing +1 has synergy with Barracks. Neither of these do.
Now, as for the other spawnpoints...
Lair just makes 2 mana per turn.
Pentagram gives you 1 extra man each time you damage a different enemy creature (max 2) in a turn, which is something you want to be doing anyway (at least to the mage).
Temple requires friendly Clerics to spend a full action praying, which is admittedly pretty bad. However, cost of 2 Clerics + Temple is the same as Barracks + 2 Outposts, and the Clerics can guard, heal, or attack if needed instead of Praying.
Gate to Voltari gives you mana when your opponent casts a spell.
Libro Mortuous just makes 1 per turn.
Battleforge just makes 1 per turn.
Graveyard is more variable, though it doesn't require you to do anything you wouldn't be doing anyway (killing your opponent and their creatures).
Vine Tree just makes 1 per turn.
Samara Tree + Seedling Pod I hate for different reasons, but those are off-topic to this discussion.
However, other spawnpoints (except 1) don't require you to be doing anything you wouldn't want to be doing anyway, so I'm not sure what your point even was.
3. "So many Warlords?" That looks like an exaggeration if I've ever seen one. I doubt enough people even play the game, much less the Warlord, to make an assumption like that.
The War school lacks a non-Legendary soldier creature that both hits hard and is hard to kill, while both Holy and Dark have those. A majority of the Warlord books I've played against since DvN or seen on these forums have focused on one of those two schools for that reason. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "many" by any reasonable definition. Remember, "many" does not mean "most".
I've helped build Warlord books that included skeletons or holy creatures, and after testing came to the conclusion that the Warlord doesn't need point-expensive situational creatures like Knights or S. Minions. Butchers and Slingers, like Timber Wolves for Beastmasters, meet most of the Warlord's needs.
Butchers compare unfavourably to Timber Wolves, both because the Warlord must go out of school to buff it, but also because it lacks the survivability the Timber Wolf has.
The Slinger has no analogue in another school. A 6 HP 0 Armor creature isn't hard to take out, however. The attack is pretty sub-par as well.
Trolls are there if you need fatter guys; they aren't as vulnerable to Sleep as Westlock Knights and require less support to survive than do Skeletal Knights.
Trolls cost a Warlord 5 spellpoints. Knights of Westlock and Skeletal Knights cost the Warlord 6. Neither of the Knights are vulnerable to Fire (the most common elemental damage currently), both have the same 5-dice attack as the Troll, they have better defenses, and the mana cost for all three is 13.
Plus all you really need to do to suppose a Knight of Westlock is to put Regrowth on it. Troll would need Rhino Hide anyway.
Also, you can't do 1:1 comparisons of creatures based just on level. There are a bunch of creatures that are the same level but that's where the similarities end. Other than abilities, Cost is a big motivator to consider less expensive, same level creatures over more expensive ones.
You think I ignore cost when comparing creatures?
4. What do you mean "no one plays swarm"?
I mean it isn't competitive in any real sense.
Playing with lots of creatures happens to be very good right now with Acid Ball and Meditation Amulet. Not everyone plays the way you do or in the environment that you do.
In some metas, Swarm has a place. However, that doesn't make it an effective strategy. Acid Ball doesn't lend itself overtly to any particular strategy, and Meditation Amulet strategies are vulnerable to Dissolve (in my experience, it tends to mess up the tempo of the book significantly).
And yeah, some games Veteran isn't relevant, that's true.
Sure.
The Warlord's abilities also cost nothing (because you should be using the Ring of Command) and require virtually no work.
They still cost a quick action.
A mage isn't defined solely by abilities either; there are mage-specific or easy-access cards that help him or her out too.
I'm actually glad you bring that up!
Warlord/War Mage Only Cards:
Thorg - Decent
Akiro's Hammer - Awful
Barracks - Awful
Standard Bearer - Decent
Helm of Command - Decent
Horn of Gothos - Decent
War Sledge - Awful
Akiro's Battle Cry - Awful
Nearly all of them are sub-par at best, and none are that great overall.
5. Well, the novice War incantations are good cheap options but they're hardly "the best."
There are 9 War Incantations. 3 are Novice (Power Strike, Perfect Strike, and Piercing Strike). Akiro's Battle Cry is just plain awful. Whirling Strike is pretty much just a worse version of Battle Fury, so is not worth taking.
The rest are all level 1, but not Novice (Sniper Shot, Battle Fury, Charge, Evade).
So yes, all the best War School incantations are level 1, with nearly half being Novice.
It's not just about paying spellbook points for something; the Warlord's helm lets him cast/change those cards on the cheap without actually expending them, which is a fact that many anti-warlord posters here apparently overlook.
It's a Mage Wand that's even more limited. Please excuse me if I don't get overly excited about it.
Power Strike/etc every turn if you need it plus another creature or extra mana is pretty good in my experience, and lets him use the extra spellbook slots he saves for other cards. Like that extra Dispel or Teleport you need so badly.
The problem arises in switching spells, since it takes an entire action. It really isn't that great.
-
Things I have time to address right now:
1). Explain how poison blood doesn't solve vampirism and agony doens't solve bear strength.
2). Butchers also cost less than timber wolves, so obviously you're going to get less for the cost (shocking). That doesn't mean they're in any way bad. If your definition of "buffing" is only enchanting then my argument would be there are instances (many) when you want to spend less mana (much less) giving temporary buffs in the form of incantations. Yeah I could bear strength my butcher out of school for 5 mana, or i could spend 1 mana (reduced by command ring) to give that same buff temporarily.
3) The helm is a more restrictive mage wand. There's also the part where it costs less not only initially but 3x less to switch out a spell. Also, it doesn't take up a hand slot. If you don't think that's worth it (obviously you don't) then that's your opinion but isn't really based in anyone else's reality. If you want to make an argument about how the reduced cost isn't worth it then it'd be more interesting to read what you had to say.
-
Things I have time to address right now:
1). Explain how poison blood doesn't solve vampirism and agony doens't solve bear strength.
You got me on Poisoned Blood, unless the creature is Poison Immune. I suppose on Agony as well. The other examples still stand however.
It is important to note that using one enchantment to counteract the effects of another enchantment is vulnerable to Enchantment Transfusion + Nullify tricks though, which do need to be considered.
2). Butchers also cost less than timber wolves, so obviously you're going to get less for the cost (shocking). That doesn't mean they're in any way bad. If your definition of "buffing" is only enchanting then my argument would be there are instances (many) when you want to spend less mana (much less) giving temporary buffs in the form of incantations. Yeah I could bear strength my butcher out of school for 5 mana, or i could spend 1 mana (reduced by command ring) to give that same buff temporarily.
Beastmasters can buff their animals with Totems, with Pet, and situationally with Wounded Prey in addition to Enchantments and Incantations.
Warlord can only buff with Enchantments and Incantations.
Not to mention the fact that Beastmasters have more tools for Animals than Warlords do for Soldiers...
Now, to start with going from 1 armour to 2 is more than worth it if the cost is only 1 mana.
Lair >>>> Barracks right now, so casting Timber Wolves from a Lair is better than casting Orc Butchers from a Barracks. Instead of casting useless Garrison Posts or semi-useless Archer's Watchtowers the Beastmaster can cast some mix of 1-2 Rajan's Fury and/or Tooth and Nail.
Or if you want to compare Hard casting, the Beastmaster still wins because of the Ring of Beasts, so they would cost the same to summon, except the Wolves have better stats.
Timber Wolf out-performs Orc Butcher easily. The Warlord just has a hard time support its troops effectively (something the Beastmaster is much better at) right now, in addition to having worse stats even when accounting for the price difference.
3) The helm is a more restrictive mage wand. There's also the part where it costs less not only initially but 3x less to switch out a spell. If you don't think that's worth it (obviously you don't) then that's your opinion but isn't really based in anyone else's reality. If you want to make an argument about how the reduced cost isn't worth it then it'd be more interesting to read what you had to say.
1 Mana less to initially cast is fairly minor, as is -2 cost to change spells. Neither of those make up for the fact that there are only 7 spells that are worth throwing on it, and every single one of them is level 1, especially since the major cost of changing a spell is not the mana spent, but the action spent. The only saving grace of the thing is that it fills the oft-empty head slot.
The main benefits of a Mage Wand are saving your useful spells into the late game, and having three spells to choose from in any given turn. The Warlord is ill-equipped to last into the late game, so the question is whether or not the extra spell per turn is worth the cost.
Quite frankly, only 2 of the 7 available spells are worth having as an option in general; Battle Fury and Charge. And unfortunately neither of those are better than a Wand with Teleport/Dispel/Dissolve/etc, since Charge is situational and Battle Fury was nerfed pretty heavily. And honestly, if you made use of the spells on the Helm more than a couple of times it'd probably get Dissolved (and you pay 3x for Nullify and Enchantment Transfusion). Besides, the Warlord already has extra spells available every turn, in the form of Battle Orders.
Now I'm not saying the Helm of Command is a terrible play. However, if you're casting equipment there are much better things you could cast instead (like Dancing Scimitar), which is the problem. Unless the Warlord somehow gets better at the late game or gets a lot more worth-while Commands, the Helm will never be better than okish.
____________________
Incidentally, the action cost is why it's better casting Bear Strength once than casting Power Strike multiple times (even twice) if your creature is living.
-
In response to the discussion about watching the pros duke it out, Imaginator's suggestion is a good one. That's why games have playtesters after all - any competitive game in development needs them to ensure that what is printed is well-balanced. The suggestion just needs to be tweaked a bit so that 10 games are played instead of just 1.
In a perfect world, we'd want all mages to be 5:5 against each other. That is, if expert players were to play 10 games with the same mages and decks, we'd expect each one to win 5 games out of that series. Obviously such a thing is not possible; I don't know of a single asymmetric competitive game in the entire world that manages at least a 6:4 among all possible matchups. But you want them to be as close as you can get them. The fact that you can customize a spellbook throws a pretty big wrench into the equation, but that effect can be mitigated with sideboarding or comparing on a per-strategy-per-mage basis rather than just per-mage.
Honestly I would be very surprised if the playtesters didn't already maintain an internal chart of matchup ratios.
-
Also remember that filling out the war school is not a one set job. We still have P v S on the way. :P
-
Also remember that filling out the war school is not a one set job. We still have P v S on the way. :P
I definitely don't expect FiF to move either Warlord above where the Priest is now (compared to the other mages).
My hope is that PvS will boost both Priest and Warlords, and hopefully have a couple bones in it for the J. BM as well (like a quick action ranged weapon!)