I don't think Sardonyx is a "build around" card;  I think he is a reactionary late-game card against large swarms of creatures.  I mean, his sweeping attack rolls 10(!) dice, which is ridiculous.  Not even Adramelech rolls that many.  That's the main reason to use him.

For the mage that isn't summoning as many creatures and is focusing on buffing enchants instead, Sardonyx is pretty much there as a last resort in a match where you know you aren't going to win the late game.  You pretty much trade your late game for the ability to have the most powerful creature in the game right now, specifically designed to hose hordes and be borderline untouchable.

I think the Arraxian Crown Warlock is probably best suited to use him, with his 38 health and ability to heal himself for the damage he takes in the early/mid game  A.C. Warlock also doesn't seem as good with the Pentagram, so a last-resort option in case his late game isn't looking great is more desirable.

I have played vs idol/deathlock in my campaign as a FM. I had no problem taking a measly 1 damage per round while I ignored his creatures and went for his throat. Round 6 win. He hurts himself not being able to heal. He seems very strong mid to late game with zombies/skells. Just kill him before he gets going mid to late game.

Idol and Deathlock aren't cards you play for no reason.  What is that, 18 mana for 1 damage every turn and no way to protect himself?  That's pretty terrible.

I mean, Plaguemaster is fine, but I can't imagine building around it that much...

Edit: You also can't even use the damage ability in that situation.   

I actually like skeletons more usually, with some exceptions.  This mainly has to do with the fact that most zombies can't hinder other creatures due to Pest, and that's important for making sure the Necro can keep his distance while he summons and Meditates.  Creatures that actually hinder also have good synergy with Cloak of Shadows, an equip which is incredibly important to the Necro.

Skeletons are also more efficient vs Nonliving creatures, which are harder for the Necro to interact with in terms of his Plaguemaster ability.  Against Living creatures, though, zombies are more efficient, at least in terms of dice.

Skeles also have access to powerful Soldier-specific cards like Armory, Flank Attack, Garrison/Archer outposts, etc.  Zombies have stronger support in-school, since cards like Rise Again, that Ziggurat thing, and Animate Dead only really shine in zombie builds.

Some conjurations meant for defense/late game also have the skeleton subtype, and benefit from Reassemble and Unholy Resurgence.

Overall, I'd say they're pretty equal.  Playstyle-wise, Zombies are more efficient offensively while Skeletons are more efficient defensively, given the current card pool.  When I play 10-channeling mages, I naturally tend to aim towards the lategame where I can probably overwhelm my opponent with mana and actions, so I like skeles more.  However, I also have to prop up my offensive capabilities in the matchups against mages who can be even more lategame-oriented.

Before FiF came out, I often found room for Shaggoth-Zora in every Necro book I made.  It doesn't have Pest and doesn't need much support besides a couple Crawlers to munch on to get big.  A single Ichthellid is good too, since it is its own engine given how the ability and Plaguemaster works. 

Quote from: reddawn on May 03, 2014, 06:12:50 PM

Quote from: sIKE on May 03, 2014, 04:20:34 PM

Quote from: Arlemus on May 03, 2014, 02:25:55 PM

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.   

Anyway, I never claimed that my list was the Final Word on the subject, never to change or that a mage higher on the list would always beat one lower on it. That list is based on my experiences playing the various mages in the game, and of course skill and playstyle are also factors to consider.

I'm not even entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Some mages are indisputably more powerful than others. That happens all the time in asymmetrical games. It sucks, but perfect balance is very hard to achieve, especially in a game with expansions like Mage Wars.

Right, so I'm to assume that you or anyone else is playing at such a high level that you can actually recognize the minute details of balance such that you can make a tier list about it.  Mage Wars probably isn't perfectly balanced, but the balance is far better than it was during the core set exactly because of the expansions, so your point about expansions makes zero sense.  You also avoided answering me about time limits, which should be set at 90mins if you want a fair competitive game.  Otherwise, it's no surprise that your list reflects highest to lowest channeling mages.

How do you even know the details of your suggestion that some mages are "indisputably powerful than others" if you already admitted that your experience playing the game is varied and personal?  Mage Wars hasn't even been out long enough for anyone to make that kind of claim.

And sure, you can laugh behind your internet anonymity while I assign some kind of value to the few tournaments we actually know about, but at least I can base my opinions on what little information we do have and admit I don't know absolutes.  At least it doesn't make my posts seem even half as conceited as yours.

1. Strictly speaking, I find that the mages who favor very aggressive playstyles the most are the Warlock, Straywood Beastmaster and Forcemaster.  The Warlock and Forcemaster usually have the spotlight more on them than their creatures, with lots of good stuff to cast from a Battleforge (a spawnpoint that gives equipment), whereas the Straywood Beastmaster mainly supports his creatures with buffs and his Pet ability, in addition to being able to cast more creatures more easily than either the Warlock or Forcemaster.

Basically, if you like more of a duelist who uses creatures to support aggression, the Forcemaster or Warlock should be your choice.  If you like commanding a large army of creatures, supporting them rather than being in the middle of the fight, Straywood Beastmaster is what you want.


2. In terms of an overarching strategy, I probably wouldn't worry too much about that when you're first starting out.  It's better to just get the intuitive feel of the game and keeping an open mind rather than trying to think about the game in a particular way.  Try not to think about this game in terms of other games, like MTG or SW; both are fine games, and I really like SW too (Swamp Orcs are my fav), but the strategies in those games differ very significantly and using terms like "aggro" or "control" will only hold back the learning process.  Mage wars, more than any other game I've played, is much much more about experience and just playing the game a lot than studying archives of online strategy articles and decks.

That said, generally speaking, mages with more channeling and less life are better suited for the late game, whereas mages with higher life and less channeling are more early game oriented.  I.e., if you're playing Warlock and your friend is playing Wizard, you really need to bring the fight to him before he gets too much mana to play more and more powerful spells.

3.  At least in my experience, I would say you're entering MW at a particularly good time in terms of balance.  Stacking lots of armor on your mage used to be a bit of an issue for the more aggressive mages to counter, but the Druid vs Necromancer expansion gave some good cards to deal with that well.  I don't think there are any "auto-include" or "best cards" really, but there are some that pretty much every book needs, such as Dispel, Teleport, and perhaps Dissolve.  I wouldn't put too many of those in your books, 1-2 of each is what most books will need, but the cool thing about the game is that there are various good cards for answering a particularly problem.  It's more about how those cards fit into your book rather than cramming all the "best" cards into a single book.  Synergy, in other words.

4.  If you want your friends to be more open to the game, I would suggest building the starter spellbooks (you can find the card lists on the site) and having them play with those rather than giving them a full spellbook; they'd likely get pretty overwhelmed.  I would also suggest matching players of equal experience to play against each other so that you can guide them as they play, after you get the rules mostly down yourself.  This might not seem very fun at first, but by going over the rules and watching them play, you'll learn and play quicker.  And, at least in my experience demo-ing the game a few times, newbies will do pretty much anything their first time(s) playing, so its still fun/funny to watch.  While that mostly involves making mistakes, sometimes they can surprise you with plays you didn't think of before.  As long as people are patient and willing to learn, it's a good experience all around.


(TL:DR version): Just play the game a ton and be open minded and you'll be fine.  If you need explanations, I'm sure the forums and other Etherian life-coaches will always be open to helping out any mages in training.           

I think Scourger is actually going to be more of the fotm BR when FiF hits.  It fills the level 2, 9 or less mana demon slot that Warlocks have been sorely needing since the base game, and has all-around good stats and abilities, though its health is a little on the low side for its cost (not by much though).

And yes while there are thankfully more options for countering armor since the base set, Slayers don't require much support to work outside of making sure they get attacks on relevant targets.  You need to invest more actions and mana into supporting BD to make sure its attack stays relevant.

BDs will probably be good reapers, but Slayers still seem like a significantly safer play to me.

im testing druid vs all mages, and the new warlock, i believe that the druid need something:

-A creature plant of level 1
-A resilent wall, because a fire mage run first turn and destroy your tree and end game. xd
-Seeding post are very slow, don´t work very well many times, maybe an especific spell that gives their +1 channeling, because the former problem it´s that you need 3 mana on seeding post to cast a spell.

Hey Isel!!  Sorry I burned your tree .  It did survive, though you had to transfer some damage to your Druid.

Not sure if you play exclusively online or IRL too, but either way, Conquest of Kumanjaro offers 3 different creatures with Intercept (blocks ranged attacks while on guard!), which is probably the option you're looking for to defend your Treebond-ed tree. 

All the currently released Intercept creatures are really good and cheap to cast considering how difficult they are to destroy, so you (and probably most Druid players) should include one of them in books.  They're all Living too, so they have synergy with the rest of the Druid cards.   

More OT...

With the release of Acid Ball and Meditation Amulet into the card pool, I think Spawnpoints could become much stronger.  In the past, I largely stayed away from them except Battleforge, because of the intense mana cost and the fact that small creatures quickly became obsolete when armor came into play.  However, Corrode and the ability to ramp mana with Amulet appear to solve those exact problems.  Is this the case?  I'd like to hear what the playtesters, or just anyone with some solid experience, think about the viability of spawnpoints with DvN added into the mix.

I've just got back into MW, so I don't have much experience trying out the new stuff, but from the few games I've played everything seems really strong and useful but not overpowering.  Also, the Obscure trait is something I've been wanting since the core set, and it's cool to see it here.

Good job AW!