Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Spells => Topic started by: jacksmack on September 04, 2013, 09:16:49 AM
-
I have been very annoyed by the Wizard tower lately, and i suspect it will only be worse as more expansions gets released due to the versatility of the tower will increase substantially with new attack utility spells seeing the day.
Right now its incredible useful with:
Surging Wave - Very nice to get 10/12 chance of getting a slam on target and 42% of push.
Jetstream - incredibly strong vs flyers. Whenever Opponent has a Tower in NC there is basicly 2 zones flyers
can be in to avoid getting 4 dice + 11/12 chance of getting an additional 3 dice from wall bashing due to push.
(unless they remove themselves from combat and stand in 1 of the 2 safe corners).
And lets not forget Daze and the Wall push combos provided here.
Flameblast - remove potential block / reverse attack.
Geyser - taking away burn on self without spending an action from mage.
If you wanna do damage with the tower from ball or bolt then that is certainly an option as well, however... usually one is better off with casting the cheap utility spells and soon we can add Acid ball to pool.
Acid Ball is gonna be a strong combo with Jetstream for even more hardcore wall push combos due to less armor on target.
- Hello mid / late game Wall of Thorns 10 dice push.
Lets look @ the tower.
1)
Costs 7 Mana.
Channeling 1.
Its a Quickcast Spell with a readymarker (and spellbind)
Can be cast 0-1 range away.
2)
Its not zone exclusive.
3)
Spellbind
Familiar
Free to bind new spell during prep phase
Its a lvl 2 spell
4)
Its Unique and not Epic
It has 7 HP and 3 Armor
- 1 -
7 mana for the cheapest familiar and/or spawnpoint (extra action) in the game to the mage who has the most channeling and does everything the cheapest (Arcane Ring and/or Enchanters ring.)
So its gonna repay itself incredibly fast. Just after 3-4 rounds you have payed very little for this extra action / threat.
It can be cast 0-1 zones away, so its not even hard to put in one of the 2 NC zones. If it was 0-0 it would atleast put the wizard in some sort of threat when playing this.
And of course... its Quickcast.
Again its easy for the Wizard to play this spell, and on TOP of that... if he has 11 mana when casting this he can fire off a Jetstream immidiatly.
He doesnt even lose an action when playing this spell! Sure he is forced to use the action he gets on an attack spell... but lets face it... its not an attackspell. Its a utility spell or BOTH attack and utility.
I think it would be alot more balanced if it was Fullcast and / or 0-0 Range combined with a mana cost of 9-10 or 0 channeling. This sounds like a big nerf but im sure it would still be included in each and every (competetive) Wizard book.
- 2 -
Its not zone exclusive... This right here is just a gamebreaker.
ATLEAST make it zone exclusive so i can plaster the NC up with conjurations he has to tear down first if he wishes to put in the best spots on the board.
I dont care too much about how much of the board is covered (1-2 zones range on most spells) - the problem here is that all non-NC zones provides Wall bash when pushed by Jetstream and Surging wave.
- 3 -
Spellbind
Familiar
Free to bind new spell during prep phase
Its a lvl 2 spell
This is alot to put under the same category. But they are all linked.
Spellbind:
Spell is not discarded: Versatility - Spellbook making. You include very few attack spells and you get to cast them a ton of times.
Familiar:
You can change the spell every preparation phase plus it has channeling. Even more mana to spend for the most mana rich mage on top of the options a new spell gives.
No cost associated with changing the bind spell. Helm of Command (The most poor mage mana-wise) costs if you want to replace it. Thoughtspores CANNOT replace the spell. Wands pay etc.
No payment for being versatile choosing from a permanent pool of attack spells - He can spend his mana on other stuff. And i often see Wizards change spell every round or every second.
Put a 2 mana cost to this. Would the tower still be in each Wizard Spellbook? Yes it would.
Its a lvl 2 spell.
The mage with the biggest spellbook pays only 2 spellpoints to include this in his book.
Biggest spellbook because:
He has no opposing school - no tripple cost.
He Freely chooses the elemental school that fits his strategy the best.
He is specialized in Arcane and have cheap mandatory spells. Teleport, Dispell, Nullify, Jinx
This card should be level 4 or 5 and guess what... it would still be included in every spellbook.
Those 2-3 points just give the wizard 1 or 2 extra spells to add to the book - Even more spells to choose from.
- 4 -
Its Unique and not Epic
It has 7 HP and 3 Armor
Taking down the tower is not even an option, because then you just see a second tower the round after.
The tower is so cheap to cast that it hardly matters for the Wizard. He is probaly happy that you choose to go for something that has 7 HP and 3 Armor... Because it would actually hurt the Wizard of you put that damage on him instead.
It should have been Epic so the momentum you lose by focusing down this building of horror by channeling mana and actions into tearing down the tower will not be completely wasted by a Quickcast for 7 mana the round after by the enemy who even gets the action spend returned in form of a Quickspell attack option.
-
Yah, I think it's pretty clear that someone with a lot of influence was really overexcited about this card. When you compare what this thing does to how the Temple of Light nerf ended up you have to scratch your head.
-
You should of seen the combo of the two PN, ToL + Wizard Tower same zone, blasting away. Most games ran less than 10 rounds.
-
Yah, I think it's pretty clear that someone with a lot of influence was really overexcited about this card. When you compare what this thing does to how the Temple of Light nerf ended up you have to scratch your head.
I have no comment about that. :(
-
The nerf seems to make the argument that the problem with ToL was strategic: that it could attack without mana cost. Wizard's Tower shows that the problem was probably tactical: creature quality actions but without loss of tempo.
-
Maybe people who want a shorter game should play with more of them :)
You should of seen the combo of the two PN, ToL + Wizard Tower same zone, blasting away. Most games ran less than 10 rounds.
-
Why are there so many complaints about everything that you don't like/think is broken? Just because the card is good does not mean it's broken, nor that it should be nerfed.
-
Well, some of it is the old, "Rock is OP; Paper is fine! Love, Scissors."
But I gotta tell you that I've played a lot of different books and if I had to pick one right now to battle for the fate of the Earth, it would be Wizard splashing Nature and maybe Dark creatures. This in large part because of how good Wizard's Tower is.
Is it OP? I don't know. I don't really think any one person can reliably be the judge of that. But it is kinda telling that the two cards that have been eratta'd already are both ready marker conjurations, and now Wizard's Tower is starting the same conversation. My recommendation, if it's not too late, is to take a long last look at any ready marker conjurations in Druid v. Necro because they're probably the first thing Charmyna is going to try to break.
-
Why are there so many complaints about everything that you don't like/think is broken? Just because the card is good does not mean it's broken, nor that it should be nerfed.
I think you need to break you Octgn fast and try a half dozen games with Charmyna then come back and let us know what side of thing you are on. When you see what he does in game over and over again with ease, with all kinds of different mages, different books, different tactics, and different strategies that all fail, you might take a different view. The most challenging book for him to beat is another Wizard running....you guessed it, a Wizard Tower. I have seen the latest iteration (well I have been off for several days) of his book and it is of all things running a Water Wizard.
-
Why are there so many complaints about everything that you don't like/think is broken? Just because the card is good does not mean it's broken, nor that it should be nerfed.
I have spoken about 4 cards i think are broken.
ToL
Bim Shalla
Ballista
Wizard tower
ToL:
It got nerfed later on - not much to say here.
Bim Shalla:
It got nerfed later on - not much to say here.
Ballista:
Its still on promo stage. Others have reported similar concerns about this card not being Unique (atleast) because it gives so much burst damage having 1 or 2 of these along with a QC marker, a potential wizard tower and an action from a big creature. All this lands at once without your opponent has anything to say besides foresee the enemies action and put 1 enchantment down.
Wizard tower:
I have just posted a very long thread... Thank you very much dear mr play tester for your help on how i can counter the Wizard tower.
I wonder if you even took your time to read my OP.
I will try to implement your great suggestions the next time i play 4 vs AI big bad uber baws mage.
On a more serious note - maybe point out where im wrong in my assumptions about the wizard tower.
I personally believe that ToL was nerfed too much. But if you look at the current ToL and compare it to the wizard tower - how on earth can wizard tower be balanced?
-
Every card has a weakness and can be taken down. I agree just because a card is good doesn't mean it is broken, do we want a bunch of "not good" cards? What it does provide in the game is a challenge. Just like there are ways to deal with Temple builds (so didn't need to be nerfed), there are ways to deal with a Wizard Tower.
Just toss some resources at it and blow it up, it dies like everything else. What is the big deal with it?
Yep it has good armor but it doesn't have a ton of life, so piercing attacks are great.
A) melee swarm it, take it down. If it is running single target spell it can only push/nuke one of you
B) range swarm it, take it down. If it is running AE nuke spell then put archers and mage 1-2 zones away and shoot it down (again with piercing it only takes a couple hits, it doesn't have high life).
So if folks don't like the Wizard Tower in their arena destroy it! It's good but not broken or unkillable by any means.
-
Every card has a weakness and can be taken down.
When I read that, it sounds like you mean that no card could ever be too good. Is that really what you mean?
-
But if you look at the current ToL and compare it to the wizard tower - how on earth can wizard tower be balanced?
Quite the truth! It is blatantly over powered, the OP nails down exactly why this is. I would like to see Padawan and Shadow (or another lay tester) play test the Earth Wizard build that Charmyna posted multiple times and work the meta up to beat it, and post that build here on the forums.....
-
Let's not make Charmyna into the Dark Destroyer here. Charmyna's a very good player and an even better spellbook designer (better than I at both) but not the grand champion who can never be defeated.
And more to the point, I don't know if Charmyna has made any statements suggesting that Wizard's Tower needs to be nerfed. Lets not put words in Charmyna's mouth.
And even more to the point, I do think that a lot of the negative reaction to Wizard's Tower is because it's flashy. It gets a lot of attention playing attack spells that are tactically really strong, but cost a lot of manna somewhat inefficiently. But when you lose to Wizard's Tower you know it: your stuff got slammed, dazed, pushed, set on fire, and crushed to death.
Battleforge, which I have never heard anyone call to be nerfed, is very nearly as powerful. It's just much quieter, and far more long term strategic. You have to be paying pretty close attention to know that a Battleforge killed you.
-
Every card has a weakness and can be taken down.
When I read that, it sounds like you mean that no card could ever be too good. Is that really what you mean?
That is pretty close to what I mean yes.
Every "too good" card I've seen just adds challenge to the game. It makes me think of ways to take it down, which makes the game a challenge. There is always a way, it might just be harder or more difficult. Who wants it too easy? That is boring. More powerful the better bring it on. Gives a challenge.
I suppose there is an outer threshold to the argument that indeed there might possibly be something so out of balance that it is just unkillable there is NO way to win a game when that card hits the table, but I have yet to see that card exist.
-
At what mana cost would Steelclaw Grizzly be too good, if any?
-
At what mana cost would Steelclaw Grizzly be too good, if any?
He would start to reduce to the fun of the game costed at 15 mana because he would start pushing out a lot of variety from Beastmaster decks since he would be so clearly the better choice in most cases. At 12 mana he would start to cause some serious problems to the balance of the game as you could set up the ability to summon one every turn. I think in my mind he would be too good at 15 mana, but it really depends on how to define 'too good'.
I have a real problem with cards that a so much better then other options with similar functions not because that have the ability to ruin the playability of the game as a whole or because they are undefeatable, but because I love variety and they have a tendency to diminsh the variety of viable strategies in the game.
-
Let's not make Charmyna into the Dark Destroyer here. Charmyna's a very good player and an even better spellbook designer (better than I at both) but not the grand champion who can never be defeated.
I have said nothing about a Dark Destroyer here or some one being one. Yes he is a very good player and is able to sus out very powerful card combo's. What I have suggested is to take a known build of his and have some play testers run against in number. That is the only way MW team will be able to determine if it is over powered or not. I can sit here all day and howl how powerful a card it is and nothing is going to change. It will have to be those who do the play testing to make the determination. With that said, it is still my opinion that the card is over powered for the combination of the four points in the OP itself. Cost/non-Zone Exclusiveness/Spellbind/not Epic. Tune one of the parameters here and you will bring the card back into balance.
A Steelclaw Grizzly has a mana cost of 17, is a full cast, I cant change him out with another creature every turn, his book cost (non-nature) is 8. So he is balanced.
- Make him a Quick Cast, unbalanced
- Make him cost 10 mana, unbalanced
- Let me change him out with another critter, brake the game
- Drop his level to 2, unbalanced
Here is the opposite of the Wizard Tower, if you make just one change on the Steelclaw he is very unbalanced. Honestly you could make a couple of change to the Tower and not break it or nerf it much. If you read through other threads here on the forums, you will clearly see that I am a staunch anti-nerf kind of guy. I have quit other game cold turkey. So for me to say something like this, I must think something is really broken.
-
There is a difference between "balanced properly" and "too good".
Even if it was mana free doesn't mean you couldn't kill it or deal with it.
Yes it would be out of balance though. Besides it just would mean everyone would put a grizzly in their deck then it kind of negates it.
But you are right balance is key. There are some cards a LOT of people use in a lot of decks, and there are some cards that hardly get dusted off. Every card should get used some time, but I know some cards rarely do. Maybe those are "too bad"? No one talks about those cards, just the "too good" ones. All subjective.
-
I am done here, I have no more to say on the topic after this post. It is what is, I still suggest that anyone on the it is Balanced side of things run against a Earth Wizard build that uses WT in style reminiscent of a certain player on Octgn 20 or so times and then come back and let everyone know what they think from the experience they gain in those 20 or so games.
-
And even more to the point, I do think that a lot of the negative reaction to Wizard's Tower is because it's flashy. It gets a lot of attention playing attack spells that are tactically really strong, but cost a lot of manna somewhat inefficiently. But when you lose to Wizard's Tower you know it: your stuff got slammed, dazed, pushed, set on fire, and crushed to death.
Battleforge, which I have never heard anyone call to be nerfed, is very nearly as powerful. It's just much quieter, and far more long term strategic. You have to be paying pretty close attention to know that a Battleforge killed you.
This is a good point.
I do think that these cards that have ready markers should be watched carefully. They provide a huge action advantage that cannot be overstated. But I don't suggest any rush to judgement on them or any sort of knee-jerk errata. I think the Temple errata's went too far and I'd hate to see that precedent continued with Wiaard's Tower and Ballista.
-
@ Stormmaster
Just because a card can be killed or destroyed doesnt mean its fine.
Are we back to the "i just use a fireball vs ballista" solution?
Spending equal or more ressources to deal with a threat that already unleashed some of its damage / potential is very rarely going to win you any games.
I realize the that "equal" is a relative term simply because 10 mana for 1 one mage by more or less than 10 mana for another mage.
Some would argue that a mage with channeling 13 spends 11 mana to get rid of a threat that costs 10 mana played by a mage with 9 channeling actually gained momentum here if that threat never managed to release damage or have effect on the game before it was destroyed.
And this is alot more complex than so.
Just to mention a few factors:
Permanent Invested mana (creatures, conjurationsa, enchantments etc) and the current HP of these.
Channeling.
Life remaining on mages.
Board position.
Current initiative.
Next round initiative.
These factors and more unmentioned will of course manipulate wether its worth it or not to dedicate more ressources to deal with a threat your opponent presented than he payed for bringing it into play.
-
One thing that balances (or helps balance) Wizard tower is you need to use your mana resources EVERY time you use it. It isn't like it casts anything for 'Free'. It gives you action advantage, and the slight channeling, but you still can't just chain cast huge fireballs or chain lightning or anything every turn without using up an entire turn's worth of mana. So I think it is good but the mana need to fuel it balances it. You have to "choose" cast a big spell or a medium creature, you can't do both. So it has it's limits.
I guess I am just anti changing cards after they have been printed. Add new cards that can deal with them, don't change existing ones. I don't think they should have ever changed the temples (and that isn't because I even used them much) I just think they were good but could be played around or killed. Just like the tower.
Further to the point these "too good" cards adds a challenge and complexity to the game which I really enjoy tackling, so hope they don't nerf or get rid of fun challenges to puzzle through and play with just because folks think they are good.
-
One thing that balances (or helps balance) Wizard tower is you need to use your mana resources EVERY time you use it. It isn't like it casts anything for 'Free'. It gives you action advantage, and the slight channeling, but you still can't just chain cast huge fireballs or chain lightning or anything every turn without using up an entire turn's worth of mana. So I think it is good but the mana need to fuel it balances it. You have to "choose" cast a big spell or a medium creature, you can't do both. So it has it's limits.
This right here tells me you have not played againts opponents who played a strong wizard including wizard tower.
You even make me doubt you read my OP in this thread.
Out of all the games i have lost to a wizard i have still to see a fireball or a chainlightning to be fired off the wizard tower.
_It_is_not_a_damage_tower_
And trust me... a good wizard will find those 3 mana to fire off a jetstream if its needed or 4mana for a surge wave. (tower pays 1).
And there will be a few rounds where it makes no sense to use tower, and then the action is wasted, but you gain additional discount the round after because it has channelled 1 more mana.
-
I am going to break my own statement. Many times it is Harmonized and is generating 2 Mana a round....
-
Charmyna, The Dude and I have already sat down and talked about getting a meta game shift to happen. We are all working on alt Wizard builds everything for Earth Wizard control all the way to Earth Wizard Aggro and so many ideas in between. One of the things we agreed upon was the tower shines in the level of utility it provides. We did not agree that it was overpowered or not but I conceded it was near the border of being OP.
Yes it gives you a free action but you are still spending mana on each cast. Yes it may a be 3-5 mana per cast but that does have to be figured into the balance of this card. One thing that my group did was also compare the Damage Per Cast out to creatures that cost the same amount of mana.
We play the tower at 7 getting a hurl rock and casting it. that is 11cc for 5d, next round WT channels 1 so the next rock is 4-1 bc of WT ch bringing our total CC to 14 for 5d+5d. The thing is due to the fact creature cant act the turn they coming play the WT is a round faster on the avg Damage Per Round due to the fact creatures need to ready before they can act.
When going into this debate we have so many factors to look at we could spend a day on each.
Some examples are
WT has no movement but spells have range is this greater asset than creatures that are able to move?
What is the value of a saved QC action?
How much does the 1 CH factor in?
-
I've beaten Charmyna twice now. I haven't played a serious book against his wizard, but it is beatable.
-
It's also worth considering that perhaps it's thematic for every wizard to want their own tower :)
I'm not sure the conclusion from ToL to wizards tower comparisons are totally fair. The ToL had the same free action, both are range limited, the tower by the spell, tol by its range 0-2 . ToL was mana free, but needed powering by temple building, which is 5-10 per temple to set up. The temples all give other benefits, but it's not a 0 to lethal in 60 seconds build. WT can start cracking on reasonable damage from word go. ToL is a one trick pony, WT is as good as the use you put it to. Most temples (all?) are zone exclusive, WT isn't, though I'm not sure that makes a huge difference does it? Since WT isn't like ToL where you want to stack multiple temples.
Ok think I've convinced myself, seems hard to see that the ToL is so much different to WT that it deserved nerfing while WT doesn't.. Except every wizard should want a tower :)
I guess I can also see that the WT still supports interesting combos, while ToL strategies pre nerf seemed a little boring and frustrating. Not that being kicked around the arena by the WT isn't frustrating, but at least it doesn't have the effects of 6 other temples behind it.
-
The reason WT is so good isn't because it is so versatile. That is part of it, yeah, no doubt, but what makes it so good is that it allows a player to actually turtle without fear of just about anything. I mean, I've seen/played the WT build 15-20 times now, and what do they use the tower to do? Sit in it. It's an effective, albeit boring strategy, and it is very, very much beatable. It just takes something more creative than a Warlock with Lash of Hellfire or a petted Grizzly.
-
In my experience Wizard's Tower is not played best as a turtle card, any more than Temple of Light was.
For example, I lost a game to Charm where Tower figured heavily. I made some tactical advantage with Teleport against his Gorgon to strand it in melee and the game came down to "who controls where the Gorgon is?" Which would normally favor me because Gorgon is slow and my Grizzly isn't, and I have it where I want it the turn I gain initiative. Unfortunately for me, Jetstream is a reliable push, and I could only push twice a turn while he could push thrice, and I could only combo once while he could combo twice. The Gorgon got shots off that a towerless Earth Mage wouldn't, and it was all downhill from there.
And just to comment on games I've won, too, I've definitely used Wizard's Tower to win games against better players that I wouldn't otherwise be have been able, and did it without much trouble. I promise I wasn't turtling with my Fire Mage. Hawkeye meant that I could cast Arcane Zap + Flameblast + Tower Attack for serious damage turn after turn and be gaining mana each turn.
I do have hope that Zombies will be a good counter to Wizard's Tower, because right now the best I can think of is to drop an Iron Golem on it.
For me, Wizard's Tower actually is what I expected Spawnpoints to be when I first started playing.
-
I've only fought against the Wizard Tower a couple times but I just ranged it down each time. It can only hit one target generally so if you hit it with 3 targets it falls down in a couple turns. I just try to use a bow with piercing and ranged attacks with piercing (due to its armor). Since it has such a low life total it isn't too powerful or strong.
I could see how the tower would be rough if folks play one or two big creatures, but Wizard Tower can fall to any mini swarm strategy and it only stays on the board a couple turns so it is rough but can't cause too much damage.
I suppose properly defended esp with intercept guards it might stand up to ranged piercing attacks but ways around that turtle too.
-
I think being borderline OP could still a problem, because it means you have to be that much more careful with adding new cards to the game that can combo with it. If it's borderline OP, maybe choosing the right subtle nerf might be enough to stabilize its balance in the long run?
Of course, I'm not a playtester, so I wouldn't really know...
-
I've beaten Charmyna twice now. I haven't played a serious book against his wizard, but it is beatable.
If I remember correctly, you beat my warlock twice. The wizard is still unbeaten. Not saying its unbeatable - just didnt happen yet ;).
Great thread about the wiz tower! It is an awesome card and I wouldnt be surprised if its nerfed soon. The attack spells you mentioned add great utility to the damage (surging wave, jet stream, geyser), which allows the wizard to often save actions. And as you pointed out with acid ball from the new expansion the wiz tower will be even more useful. For now I cant say if the tower is OP or not, but if i compare it to mana crystal I find it surprising that the crystal only costs 2 mana more and is much tougher and allows for so many combos. Maybe the designers thought that the tower is balanced because you cant decide what to spend the mana on. But, with so many utility attack spells that isnt really an issue.
In the end, I guess we have to wait and see how the meta after the release of the expansion evolves before we can say whether or not it needs to be nerfed.
-
I've beaten Charmyna twice now. I haven't played a serious book against his wizard, but it is beatable.
If I remember correctly, you beat my warlock twice. The wizard is still unbeaten. Not saying its unbeatable - just didnt happen yet ;).
Great thread about the wiz tower! It is an awesome card and I wouldnt be surprised if its nerfed soon. The attack spells you mentioned add great utility to the damage (surging wave, jet stream, geyser), which allows the wizard to often save actions. And as you pointed out with acid ball from the new expansion the wiz tower will be even more useful. For now I cant say if the tower is OP or not, but if i compare it to mana crystal I find it surprising that the crystal only costs 2 mana more and is much tougher and allows for so many combos. Maybe the designers thought that the tower is balanced because you cant decide what to spend the mana on. But, with so many utility attack spells that isnt really an issue.
In the end, I guess we have to wait and see how the meta after the release of the expansion evolves before we can say whether or not it needs to be nerfed.
It's not the tower, it's the action marker chaining mechanic that is a worry.
-
I've beaten Charmyna twice now. I haven't played a serious book against his wizard, but it is beatable.
If I remember correctly, you beat my warlock twice. The wizard is still unbeaten. Not saying its unbeatable - just didnt happen yet ;).
Great thread about the wiz tower! It is an awesome card and I wouldnt be surprised if its nerfed soon. The attack spells you mentioned add great utility to the damage (surging wave, jet stream, geyser), which allows the wizard to often save actions. And as you pointed out with acid ball from the new expansion the wiz tower will be even more useful. For now I cant say if the tower is OP or not, but if i compare it to mana crystal I find it surprising that the crystal only costs 2 mana more and is much tougher and allows for so many combos. Maybe the designers thought that the tower is balanced because you cant decide what to spend the mana on. But, with so many utility attack spells that isnt really an issue.
In the end, I guess we have to wait and see how the meta after the release of the expansion evolves before we can say whether or not it needs to be nerfed.
It's not the tower, it's the action marker chaining mechanic that is a worry.
Well, I think its both. Even without ready marker mechanic the wizard tower would allow the wizard to save actions often. The ready marker mechanic makes it alot worse for the opponent though. Still, im not sure if it would be enough to change the ready marker into an action marker in order to balance the tower. Anyway, that would bring other problems (the total number of action markers is often important for tactical play and a relatively cheap but tough conjuration with an action marker might be problematic).
-
Yes, I didn't say I beat your wiz, only that it is beatable ^.^
-
I've beaten Charmyna twice now. I haven't played a serious book against his wizard, but it is beatable.
If I remember correctly, you beat my warlock twice. The wizard is still unbeaten. Not saying its unbeatable - just didnt happen yet ;).
Great thread about the wiz tower! It is an awesome card and I wouldnt be surprised if its nerfed soon. The attack spells you mentioned add great utility to the damage (surging wave, jet stream, geyser), which allows the wizard to often save actions. And as you pointed out with acid ball from the new expansion the wiz tower will be even more useful. For now I cant say if the tower is OP or not, but if i compare it to mana crystal I find it surprising that the crystal only costs 2 mana more and is much tougher and allows for so many combos. Maybe the designers thought that the tower is balanced because you cant decide what to spend the mana on. But, with so many utility attack spells that isnt really an issue.
In the end, I guess we have to wait and see how the meta after the release of the expansion evolves before we can say whether or not it needs to be nerfed.
It's not the tower, it's the action marker chaining mechanic that is a worry.
Well, I think its both. Even without ready marker mechanic the wizard tower would allow the wizard to save actions often. The ready marker mechanic makes it alot worse for the opponent though. Still, im not sure if it would be enough to change the ready marker into an action marker in order to balance the tower. Anyway, that would bring other problems (the total number of action markers is often important for tactical play and a relatively cheap but tough conjuration with an action marker might be problematic).
Agreed. I quite like the proposal of allowing only a single ready marker to be flipped such that chains become shorter.
-
I know that sounds like a nerf, and it'll help some with Ballista, but I don't know if it would hurt Wizard's Tower much at all. If I quick cast, then action, then ready marker, I'm still playing solitaire. Wizard's Tower's sweet spot is with Battle Forge and Hand of Bim-Shalla, and the hand doesn't need to be part of the combo, usually.
-
I know that sounds like a nerf, and it'll help some with Ballista, but I don't know if it would hurt Wizard's Tower much at all. If I quick cast, then action, then ready marker, I'm still playing solitaire. Wizard's Tower's sweet spot is with Battle Forge and Hand of Bim-Shalla, and the hand doesn't need to be part of the combo, usually.
Yup, I agree. I just worry about future ready action cards adding more opportunities for chained mayhem.
-
I think what would actually help a lot is less synergistic X mage only ready action marker conjurations. That way people can still have the fun of the ready action marker, but they have to kind of build around it more. A good example of this is Battle Forge actually. You kind of have to build your deck specifically for battle forge. Sure I can throw just any equipment IK want to, but in order to justify the 2-5 points it takes, I'm going to have to invest at least part of my spellbook to it. Although it's not a ready marker conjuration, it still does net you those powerful free actions, and they are pretty cheap, too.
-
Tbh im not sure Charms water wizard build is beatable. It doesn't worry me much for now, because we got (imo) the biggest meta game changer expansion on the steps - though CoK did a very good job on this as well!
I might be beatable by a deck that is build specifically to destroy just this particular turtle strat.
But part of building a spellbook is to make it playable (as decent / good chance to win) vs different strats.
So if I come up with 1 book with specific opening the first 5 rounds that lands the hammer round 6 and focus all or almost all 120 spellbook points into that - then im going to lose every time vs BM rush, warlock cursing etc etc.
I have tried - because I enjoy the challenge - to come up with different openings vs the Gate turtle opening.
Non have succeded so far. Those that came close destroyed the harmonized gate in round 4 without using attack spells. (no promos were used either - I would assume double ballista could be strong vs spawnpoints)
Still I was too far behind action wise, and ended up taking too much damage from a couple of blue gremlins and even with gate destroyed and the wizard losing 18 mana invsted, he had probably gotten 10-12 back mana on it before its destroyed so effectively he lost maybe 6-8 mana. And because I spend the same amount of mana (cheetah speed and shift enchantment / transfusion) and ALOT more than his 1 action I was too far behind.
And you can do some pretty sexy openings vs a spawnpoint cast 1 zone away from start zone.
Anyway... the wizard tower has a big say in this, because it can geyser burn or slam / push me depending on whats needed.
-
Yes but it's always cast near his starting zone. He uses it specifically for turtling and punishing the player that tries to go the wrong way about being aggressive.
-
I don't know about the games that everyone else has played but he depending upon how aggressive or slow I play put the tower in either his on my NC. With this done he basically has board control expect for the opposite corners from the tower. This plus the free action, plus the free changing out of spells, plus the mana generation makes it OP.
-
And you break your promise again. Tsk tsk.
I have yet to have anyone give, in concrete, indisputable fact that WT is OP. Good cards aren't always OP, and not every card has to suck to be balanced. What makes the Wizard so good (not the WT, btw) is the Voltaric shield, coupled with even a couple of points of armor. This, in conjunction with the birth of spells the Wizard is trained in, as well as the inherent attack spell that he can cast, makes him extremely powerful. This does not mean that the WT alone is OP, nor does the free action, nor the changing of spells, nor the mana generation. Correlation: The Wizard is too powerful. Let's nerf another card we don't like. Out of the games I have played with your fabled "Dark Destroyer" none of them has been affected by WT. It was shot once. And it pushed and slammed a creature. Any other time he just used it to attack with himself, WT, and then QC inherent zap. There are a few things about the Wizard I do not like, and do not see being good for the game, but no, the Wizard's Tower is not OP.
Now, unlike sikE, I have nothing more to say on the matter.
-
Well, now Charmyna has to add "Dark Destroyer" to the caption below the forum avatar.
-
Also, can we disable that damned emoticon?
-
And you break your promise again. Tsk tsk.
Sometimes passion rules!
I have yet to have anyone give, in concrete, indisputable fact that WT is OP.
People can get sentenced to death with less, beyond a reasonable doubt this card is over powered.
Good cards aren't always OP, and not every card has to suck to be balanced. What makes the Wizard so good (not the WT, btw) is the Voltaric shield, coupled with even a couple of points of armor. This, in conjunction with the birth of spells the Wizard is trained in, as well as the inherent attack spell that he can cast, makes him extremely powerful.
So what you are saying that the 5 mana cost Wand, that costs a Quick Action to change out a spell plus a bit of mana and can be dissolved for a mere 5 mana and a single QC is the card that sucks here not that the WT is OP? As far I can tell everything you described above is exactly why it is overpowered. It knocks the game out of balance in a manner very much like the ToL + HoB pre-nerf was and look how awfully bad that combo was nerfed.
Now, unlike sIKE, I have nothing more to say on the matter.
More power to ya!
-
Good cards aren't always OP, and not every card has to suck to be balanced. What makes the Wizard so good (not the WT, btw) is the Voltaric shield, coupled with even a couple of points of armor. This, in conjunction with the birth of spells the Wizard is trained in, as well as the inherent attack spell that he can cast, makes him extremely powerful.
So what you are saying that the 5 mana cost Wand, that costs a Quick Action to change out a spell plus a bit of mana and can be dissolved for a mere 5 mana and a single QC is the card that sucks here not that the WT is OP? As far I can tell everything you described above is exactly why it is overpowered. It knocks the game out of balance in a manner very much like the ToL + HoB pre-nerf was and look how awfully bad that combo was nerfed.
Lol, yes clearly it is every other comparable card in the game that is underpowered. Also I find it really cute that any time we have a card that is disruptive to the balance of the game the defenders start crowing about how it is "beatable" and thus not over powered. When was this established as the standard?
-
@The Dude, (and anyone else who cares)
We all know that a card being good by itself doesn't automatically make it OP. Nobody believes that, nobody is arguing it, and anyone who said that probably would not be taken seriously.
However, the power level of a card does not exist in a vacuum, and it is influenced by how it interacts with other cards. There's a reason we use the word "balanced" to refer to a healthy metagame. Not all cards are equally powered, and they're not supposed to be.
I think how you define "overpowered", depends on what the game is supposed to be like. For a customizable strategy game like Mage Wars, you want players to have freedom to customize their competitive strategies how they want to, resulting in greater strategic/playstyle diversity, which makes the game more interesting. A card that makes a particular strategic playstyle (or in this case a specific mage) more competitive then the others is unbalanced.
In some games there are "tiers" where builds of different power levels are more or less competitive. In those games, unbalance would not automatically equate with a damaged or broken metagame. However, at least for now, Mage Wars is not one of those games.
You think Arcane Zap is overpowered? Seriously? Did you actually think about that before you said it? There are a lot of weak creatures with 3 dice melee attacks that they don't need mana to use, and some more powerful creatures with far more powerful attacks than Arcane Zap that they can use for no cost other than the mana it took to summon them. And let's not forget that all mages are Lv 6 creatures. Sure, they get onto the field at the start of the game for no cost, so one could argue that the mages are overpowered. But considering that they are SUPPOSED to be the centerpieces of the game from which the resources for all strategies originate, that's hardly a problem.
But if the Wizard himself was "overpowered" and more competitive than any of the other mages, the playtesters would have noticed that long before now.
Considering all the great strategy articles you've written, I'm shocked by the nonsense you're spouting. Perhaps you should calm down a bit and look at this matter later with a clearer head.
Ultimately, I think whether Wizard's tower is OP or not is for the playtesters to determine and not anyone else. We should trust them to do their jobs, rather than sitting here fighting about it. I personally think that because people fought too much the last time with HoB and all those other spells that were nerfed, some of them were nerfed more than they needed to be. We should trust the playtesters to figure this sort of thing out, rather than pressuring our own views onto each other and them. So lets just stop fighting, continue to enjoy ourselves, and wait.
-
So looking at the discussion rationally what is the (non subjective) definition of something "Overpowered". What conditions (since they are not absolutes or in a vacumm) can objectively determine that?
What do the playtesters use when they are seeing if something is out of balance or not?
Combination of factors, but is it on a sliding scale? Is it the potential interactions with other cards? Various synergies and combos that are presented?
If it is a sliding scale what is the range?
Like how do you evaluate: mana cost vs spell book cost vs armor, hp, damage, effects etc etc to see if something is too good or too low?
Note: I'm totally not taking any side or even commenting on anyone elses views. Just interested in this discussion and trying to step back from it and look at it from all angles, since this is undoubtably going to come up again and again with DvN coming out. I KNOW someone's going to say something is OP, but I don't want the playtesters or the game developers to be afraid to make "good" cards because of it. I'd rather have cards that range in "goodness", they don't all have to be perfectly balanced to make the game fun and interesting. I also am not a fan of errata/nerfing or changing a card AFTER it is in print. There are other options, such as new cards that bring things back in balance if something does get out of balance.
-
Some things may appear to be op or close to till you see the feb / march set then the choices should be more clear
-
I would like to see where I said Arcane Zap was OP please.
-
"Good cards aren't always OP, and not every card has to suck to be balanced. What makes the Wizard so good (not the WT, btw) is the Voltaric shield, coupled with even a couple of points of armor. This, in conjunction with the birth of spells the Wizard is trained in, as well as the inherent attack spell that he can cast, makes him extremely powerful."
Oh. I think I might have misread it. You said voltaric shield, not arcane zap. Oops, my bad!
I can almost see what you mean about voltaric shield being overpowered. For only 2 mana per use, it functions much like 3 armor that also works on critical damage. However, there are two things to keep in mind that lower the power of Voltaric shield.
First of all, there's the fact that it only works against the first attack he receives during the round. Second of all, unlike Block, which prevents ALL damage from the attack for a a reveal cost of 2 (total mana cost of 4), Voltaric shield only prevents up to three damage, and you can only cast it during the upkeep, which means you have to predict whether there's a chance of taking an attack during this round that you don't want.
The fact that Voltaric shield is reusable every round as long as you have at least 2 mana doesn't seem like such a huge obstacle. There are multiple more powerful abilities that after paying their cards' mana costs, you don't have to pay mana whenever you flip the ready marker. Such as certain defenses.
-
OK, new poll: in the current metagame, what's the most Mana you'd pay for Wizard's Tower? Also what is the least cost you think would be fair?
-
In my experience voltaric shield is the reason why wizards are the most powerful of all mages. Builds who focus on attacking the wizard early have no chance at all, because 2-4 armor+voltaric shield+regrowth let him survive everything in the current meta. Curses could be a threat, but as a wizard dispel/nullify/mage wand are so cheap that curses are no matter as well (I had enough games against good warlocks).
Sure, the voltaric shield is gone after the first attack that deals damage, but with some armor on you, low dice attacks have a realistic chance to not deal any damage at all. In the worst case, the shield absorbs 1 damage, which still is important in a damage race and 2 mana for 1 hp isnt that bad if u consider that you did not use an action for it! Anyway, with my build I have enough creatures to focus down the sources of low dice attacks quickly. Therefore, the opponent is only left with high dice rolls, against which the voltaric shield is just awesome. I had so many games in which a hurl boulder did 0 damage because my wizard had 4+ armor and all crits were absorbed by voltaric shield.
@Zap: Its not nearly as great as voltaric shield, but still very useful and I think everyone who played the wizard knows it. No need to explain further.
IMO these two innates are the strongest abilities from all mages except the Forcemaster. Deflect can be better or worse than voltaric shield, depending on situation. The same applies for force pull and zap. What makes the wizard so incredibly powerful that I never lost with him for many games, is the combination of awesome innates, arcane school, an elemental school of choice and no opposing school! Arcane school has cheap access to most of the mandatory spells and in addition the wizard tower, a great spawnpoint and some really nice creatures (hydra, gremlin, gorgon archer, gargoyle). Sure, nature has better creatures and better enchantments; dark has nice creatures as well and awesome curses. But still, many good players consider arcane school as the strongest.
So what else does wizard have? Oh yes, an elemental school of his choice. Cheap golems+hurl boulder. Or cheap fireballs etc. With the current meta, even water works great because dissolve, surging wave and geyser are awesome spells in the right situation (with the expansion I guess water will become the strongest wizard).
Last but not least, the wizard has no opposing school.
All these strength add up and make the wizard the most powerful mage of all currently available. Actually, I would go so far and say that an elaborated wizard build has a chance to win of over 80% against the overwhelming majority of non-wizard builds (maybe even all non-wizard builds). There might be some specialised builds that can scratch the 50% win chance mark against an elaborated wizard build. But, those builds will be so specialiced that they have no real chance to win against most other builds.
In the end, im really curious about the new mages. They might re-establish the rock-paper-scissors environment that is needed for a healthy game.
-
I have yet to have anyone give, in concrete, indisputable fact that WT is OP.
@ D00D
WT is great for other than a Gate wizard. In fact its great for any wizard.
OP lists all the good things about the tower.
I cannot tell you WT is OP because it costs only 3 mana to play. Or that its OP because it has 5 channeling and 35 HP
This is obviously not the case, its a combination of all the good aspects of this tower that makes it so strong.
In particular:
Non zone excluse
Non legendary
Another Ready marker
Free (actionwise AND mana wise) change of spells. (wands dont grant this)
Decent HP / armor
I was not the one turning this discussion to how the wizard tower operates within Charmynas turtle gate strat.
In regards to this, i can just say that the wizard tower covers the only weakness the wizard has when opening with Harmonized Gate and following up with 2 crystals and Arcane ring - which imo is a pretty hefty build up.
Rush - Its no longer (as) weak to the 1 big 1 medium or 2 big opening and with WT the wizard manages to outlast the early damage till gate has produced enough critters to take down the enemy.
I realize voltaric shield has a great say in this, but WT was the last card to come to this build (with surging wave.)
You seem to be quite arrogant like someone insulted you personally?! I have the right to express my feelings about any card i wish to.
I am a huge fan of this game, but i am not going to ignore what i see could be potential issues long term like a blind fanboi.
I believe that, Supporting any product without the slighest sense of criticism is franktly not doing any good for that product long term.
Could you enlighten the mob with your infinite wisdom on how to handle the Wizard Tower?
-
In my experience voltaric shield is the reason why wizards are the most powerful of all mages. Builds who focus on attacking the wizard early have no chance at all, because 2-4 armor+voltaric shield+regrowth let him survive everything in the current meta. Curses could be a threat, but as a wizard dispel/nullify/mage wand are so cheap that curses are no matter as well (I had enough games against good warlocks).
Sure, the voltaric shield is gone after the first attack that deals damage, but with some armor on you, low dice attacks have a realistic chance to not deal any damage at all. In the worst case, the shield absorbs 1 damage, which still is important in a damage race and 2 mana for 1 hp isnt that bad if u consider that you did not use an action for it! Anyway, with my build I have enough creatures to focus down the sources of low dice attacks quickly. Therefore, the opponent is only left with high dice rolls, against which the voltaric shield is just awesome. I had so many games in which a hurl boulder did 0 damage because my wizard had 4+ armor and all crits were absorbed by voltaric shield.
@Zap: Its not nearly as great as voltaric shield, but still very useful and I think everyone who played the wizard knows it. No need to explain further.
IMO these two innates are the strongest abilities from all mages except the Forcemaster. Deflect can be better or worse than voltaric shield, depending on situation. The same applies for force pull and zap. What makes the wizard so incredibly powerful that I never lost with him for many games, is the combination of awesome innates, arcane school, an elemental school of choice and no opposing school! Arcane school has cheap access to most of the mandatory spells and in addition the wizard tower, a great spawnpoint and some really nice creatures (hydra, gremlin, gorgon archer, gargoyle). Sure, nature has better creatures and better enchantments; dark has nice creatures as well and awesome curses. But still, many good players consider arcane school as the strongest.
So what else does wizard have? Oh yes, an elemental school of his choice. Cheap golems+hurl boulder. Or cheap fireballs etc. With the current meta, even water works great because dissolve, surging wave and geyser are awesome spells in the right situation (with the expansion I guess water will become the strongest wizard).
Last but not least, the wizard has no opposing school.
All these strength add up and make the wizard the most powerful mage of all currently available. Actually, I would go so far and say that an elaborated wizard build has a chance to win of over 80% against the overwhelming majority of non-wizard builds (maybe even all non-wizard builds). There might be some specialised builds that can scratch the 50% win chance mark against an elaborated wizard build. But, those builds will be so specialiced that they have no real chance to win against most other builds.
In the end, im really curious about the new mages. They might re-establish the rock-paper-scissors environment that is needed for a healthy game.
This is a fantastic post!
-
Ok, I suppose I stand corrected about voltaric shield, and possibly the wizard too. However, I still think that instead of having a long argument, it would be better to just report the problem (or what we think is a problem) and have the playtesters investigate it.
Also, I don't think Rock-Paper-Scissors is necessary for a healthy metagame. In fact, I think Rock-Paper-Scissors means a lot less strategy in game, and more strategy out of game creating your build. That's not fun. One mage being overpowered isn't evidence for the superiority of rock-paper-scissors.
Also, while nobody really likes banning and errata, I think that just creating cards to counter the overpowered cards will throw the game out of whack too by making things rock-paper-scissors. If a card is overpowered, and then you put some cards in the cardpool to counter that OP card, then everyone will essentially HAVE TO include one of the counters, wasting resources in the game to deal with a version of a card that shouldn't be there anyways because it was a mistake. I think admitting one's mistakes and fixing them is a far better solution than trying to cover it up and make the mistake look better. Nobody's perfect, and customizable strategy games are a big balancing act. If broken cards slip through the cracks, no big deal, just fix them. While it's ideal to be able to do that before the cards are printed, there are only so many playtesters, and there are a lot more players. The playtesters can't predict every single strategy that players come up with. It's called customizable for a reason after all.
-
This is a fantastic post!
Thx :).
However, I still think that instead of having a long argument, it would be better to just report the problem (or what we think is a problem) and have the playtesters investigate it.
You keep saying we should let the playtesters do their jobs. The problem here is that mage wars has way too many cards to test them all in every possible situation (actually you would need to test them several times in the same situation because of different dice rolls). Therefore, i guess it is helpful if we support the playtesters with our findings.
Also, I don't think Rock-Paper-Scissors is necessary for a healthy metagame. In fact, I think Rock-Paper-Scissors means a lot less strategy in game, and more strategy out of game creating your build. That's not fun. One mage being overpowered isn't evidence for the superiority of rock-paper-scissors.
I didnt mean a 100% Rock-Paper-Scissors environment. I just think something like the following would be a healthy metagame: Mage A has a win chance of over 50% against Mage B. Mage B has over 50% win chance against Mage C. Mage C has over 50% win chance against Mage A. The win chances should vary with specific build, strategy and mostly player experience, but it should not be like one Mage dominates all others (in the sense that he has over 50% win chance against all). Currently a well played wizard dominates all other mages (and im not talking of win chances slightly above 50%)!
-
- "Hello mid / late game Wall of Thorns 10 dice push."
Put a wall up with the passage block trait in front of their wall- You would take slam damage but hey.
You could also get that wall gone rather quickly....or just move away from it.
And Acid ball will be a duel edged gain for the tower- When used against the tower (Especially in conjunction with Spitting raptor) that tower is going to become a 7 life no armor pile of rubble. (Not to mention that you will be getting damage on the tower with the attacks that cause the corrode)
Not to mention there are plenty of cards that havent been spoiled yet- so to factor in Acid ball to the overall power of the WT is jumping the gun a little. (IMO) good points though all around.
-
The tower is clearly a strong card. It's a fusion of an elemental wand and the ToL, so it seems like those are the easiest cards to compare it to.
The strengths of the tower are well furrowed ground at this point. So, I'll focus on the advantages of the ToL and wand over the the WT.
The ToL has a chance of stunning or dazing a unit at range 2 for cost of 1 mana. You pay for this with its initial cost of 9, but the temple will likely fire every turn it can without much drain the controlling mage's mana suppy. Sure, the chances to stun aren't high, but you can just keep trying every turn. Compared to the ToL, the tower is a mana hog. The temple is a hair more durable to boot.
The Wand is cheaper, and is a bit more flexible with the spells it can be bound with. I have been on the receiving end of a thunderbolt wand, and it hurt.. a lot. The WT is a conjuration, and the wand is a piece of equipment, so their relative vulnerabilities are hard to gauge (it really depends on your opponent).
The only thing that bothers me about the WT is the free switch of the bound spell. That just seems a bit too easy (with the wand needing both an action and mana switch spells).
If the WT was warlord only, I doubt anyone's feathers would be particularly ruffled. But, the wizard has everything going for him, and this tower is just another great gadget to add to his already incredibly versatile toolbox.
-
Yes, I didn't say I beat your wiz, only that it is beatable ^.^
No comment on the rest of the thread but this made me laugh out loud.
-
@ Cube
Your points are not legit....
ToL:
ToL costs 2 more mana to play.
ToL costs mana to use
ToL does not have channeling
ToL cannot reliably get rid of guards
ToL requires other buildings to be played to go beyond 1 dice.
Eventually WT - with its lower cost, channeling - will only be slightly more expensive to operate than ToL.
Elemental Wand:
Its does NOT grant a free action.
Its NOT more flexible because u pay mana and spend an action to swap spell.
No channeling
The only advantage (which you didnt mention) that elemental wand has over WT is Hawkeye and Ring of fire/lightning.
A wizard who puts elemental wand(s) in his spellbook and leaving out WT is either dumb, unexperienced or a big Harry Potter fan.
-
The closest thing to a Wizard Tower is a Thoughtspore.
-
And if thoughtspores were wizard only (instead of FM) I suspect this thread would have a different title. ;D
The wizard is king right now for a number of synergistic reasons... but hopefully the next expansion will rock his comfy throne at the top of the heap.
Wait a bit before ye apply the nerfbat.
-
@ Cube
Your points are not legit....
Read my post again. I was only talking about the ways that the wand and temple were superior to the tower. I listed some examples, they were all correct.. so my points clearly are "legit" on some level.
Thanks for listing another example though... the wand can indeed benefit from hawkeye and attack boosting rings. Wands are also mobile, which clearly has some advantages over a static conjuration.
-
I'm looking at Wizard's Tower and then looking at other familiars and wondering why it's so cheap.
Fellella, Pixie Familiar - no armour, 6 health, 1 channelling, casts only Enchantments - Costs 12
Sersiryx, Imp Familiar - 2 armour, 9 health, 1 channelling, casts only Level 1-2 Fire attacks or curses. Costs 12
Wizards Tower - 3 armour, 7 health, 1 channelling, non epic attack spells - costs 7?
If I look at that I can see that different cards have relative strengths and weaknesses..
The creature familiars can be buffed (but at a mana and action cost)
The creature familiars can move.
The creature familiars have instrinsic attacks.
Sersirxy has Flame -2, Fellella has a rather nifty 6+ defense (unlimited uses)
But the Wizard's tower has spellbind so can spam, while still changing spells freely
Has a hefty 3 armour
Has, effectively, it's own Quickcast marker (the ready marker)
Range 0-1, meaning it can be easily played in a central zone for almost full board coverage with it's spells.
Is a Quick spell, not full.
If you look at other Quickcast familiars - Sectarus the Rune Sword can only cast curses and only after the Mage hits something with it... no actions of its own, vulnerable to dissolve, no spellbind, no range on its spells - Costs 10.
And comparing the Wizard's tower to a Thoughtspore (1/0/7, no spell change all game, cost 8) makes the Thoughtspore sad.
So the Wizard's tower has major strengths, and minor weaknesses compared to other familiars, all at a far reduced cost.
Based on its peers, I would be costing it around 13-14 minimum and Epic.
-
Bay you must also account for the fact the tower does not move. So in some games it is far easier to avoid.
-
Shadow,
I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.
Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.
I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...
-
Shadow,
I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.
Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.
I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...
We have a card in DvN (if it made the set) that being non mobile becomes a set back against. In fact it cost me 2 games in testing.
-
Shadow,
I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.
Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.
I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...
We have a card in DvN (if it made the set) that being non mobile becomes a set back against. In fact it cost me 2 games in testing.
That's good and all, but I think this game of pretending that Wizard's Tower is in balance with other similar cards is a silly one. The thing you have to ask yourself is this: if Wizard Tower cost 9 mana would it still be a good card that sees a lot of play? I think the answer to that is pretty clear.
-
Shadow,
I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.
Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.
I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...
We have a card in DvN (if it made the set) that being non mobile becomes a set back against. In fact it cost me 2 games in testing.
So we will be required to run this card in our deck in case we face a Wizard?
The problem with wizard tower is its stats vs its mana cost. That fact that it is also a conjuration (no teleport, sleep, daze, etc) and use a ready marker instead of an action marker make it very good.
-
The wizard's tower is good... but is basically a battleforge for attack spells. I actually think the battleforge is slightly better (churning out equipment can be huge).
I agree that familiars seem a bit overcosted though. Hugging and Fellella are just one bad roll away from death, and the unavoidable attacks just keep multiplying. :( That said, it is pretty hard to make direct comparisons between a creature and a conjuration. Creatures can be buffed and protected with spells, they can move, they have attacks... they are just much more flexible.
Sectarus is really good. You get a weapon and a familiar rolled into one. But, it is a such different beast than the tower... why even bother to compare it. It moves with your wizard! It is not immobile in game terms.
-
Sectarus is really good. You get a weapon and a familiar rolled into one. But, it is a such different beast than the tower... why even bother to compare it. It moves with your wizard! It is not immobile in game terms.
Being immobile is not a setback for Wizard Tower when with attack spell it covers the whole arena except 2 corners when it is in the middle.
-
Depends on LOS. I have seen WT have almost 0 effect on a match before or be completely controlling.
-
Depends on LOS. I have seen WT have almost 0 effect on a match before or be completely controlling.
That's strange. I have had that very experience with almost every card!
Which is a GOOD thing in my book.
Makes things far from boring.
-
Depends on LOS. I have seen WT have almost 0 effect on a match before or be completely controlling.
That's strange. I have had that very experience with almost every card!
Which is a GOOD thing in my book.
Makes things far from boring.
A well placed wall can do wonders against WT
-
Being immobile is not a setback for Wizard Tower when with attack spell it covers the whole arena except 2 corners when it is in the middle.
Are you being serious? Think about the current tower, then consider a tower that can move. The moving tower is clearly better. Sure, you can place your tower in the center squares, but that makes it more vulnerable.
-
Being immobile is not a setback for Wizard Tower when with attack spell it covers the whole arena except 2 corners when it is in the middle.
Are you being serious? Think about the current tower, then consider a tower that can move. The moving tower is clearly better. Sure, you can place your tower in the center squares, but that makes it more vulnerable.
Mobile would make a massively overpowered card break the game even more. I would house rule this mobile card out, as it stands, I am very tempted to house rule out the WT as it is currently written. If for one minute you think placing that card NC "makes" it vulnerable enough for it to be costed as is, I have a UberFireBall (promo) that increases its damage die by +1 per zone, up to four zones away and starts with 4 attack dice. Only level 1 Fire/1 Arcane of course, wouldn't want to screw the wizard too hard. And close! Now back in reality the Wizard Tower is very poorly costed and should be nerfed, it is way out of balance and breaks the current game. I will play with Acid Ball a bit after DvN is released to see if it is a bit more balanced...
(Hope the sarcasm comes over as playful not mean spirited)
-
Being immobile is not a setback for Wizard Tower when with attack spell it covers the whole arena except 2 corners when it is in the middle.
Are you being serious? Think about the current tower, then consider a tower that can move. The moving tower is clearly better. Sure, you can place your tower in the center squares, but that makes it more vulnerable.
What kind of argument is that?
Are you serious? Think about a billion of dollars, then think about 100 billions dollars. The 100 billions dollars are clearly better.
Of course a moving WT is better than an immobile one. It doesnt make an immobile one less powerful
-
I am just saying the card is not broken. Yes it is more powerful than most cards but I do not even know if I would call it overpowered. It is very close to being over powered but just because you cast it does not give you a win.
-
Something doesn't have to be an automatic win card to be overpowered. It just needs to unbalance the game--make it so that players' in-game tactics and book-making decisions are significantly altered to compensate for it. If nothing else, the fact that a great playtester like you used such an obviously pathetic argument proves that you're clutching at straws.
I am of the strong opinion that the metagame of EVERY customizable strategy game is an endless experiment, an eternal balancing act. There are so many complex factors, so many different ways to play. And the people who work so hard to make such games work are only human. No matter how hard they try, some things will slip under the radar, they WILL make mistakes, and there WILL be misprints.
That being said, I think that its possible to minimize how many mistakes are made, and then directly fixing the ones that are made, rather than trying to compensate for a mistake with more mistakes.
I think the reason card edits after printing look so bad to people is because people are evaluating this game in the same way they would evaluate games from other gaming genres. I personally think rulings to fix errata are actually vital every once in a while in a customizable strategy game.
What are you going to do when you start releasing different formats (including multiplayer formats)? Cards that are well balanced in one format might sometimes be game breaking in another.
I also strongly suggest that each format eventually develop a banned/restricted list on an as needed basis. Maybe you could create a sort of Epic #2 trait, where a maximum of two copies of a specific card with the trait can be included in the spellbook.
Please consider what I have said. It's not too late to fix things.
-
well put imaginator.
I too was surprised about Shadows response reassuring us the tower is definately not being OP, but certainly more powerful than most cards, but only borderline OP - still never garuanteeing a win.
Its not like anyone ever claim that Wizard tower = auto win.
Must a card now be autowin in order to be OP?
-
@Imaginator (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?action=profile;u=4247)
Nope just at work and do not care enough to put more time into the post. I could do a full write up but I just do not have the time currently
-
well put imaginator.
I too was surprised about Shadows response reassuring us the tower is definately not being OP, but certainly more powerful than most cards, but only borderline OP - still never garuanteeing a win.
Its not like anyone ever claim that Wizard tower = auto win.
Must a card now be autowin in order to be OP?
No but it must always unbalance the game state when it is played. In many games this is not the case with WT. Yes it can be hard to play against but I would say it does not unbalance a game.
-
Deleted my post
-
well put imaginator.
I too was surprised about Shadows response reassuring us the tower is definately not being OP, but certainly more powerful than most cards, but only borderline OP - still never garuanteeing a win.
Its not like anyone ever claim that Wizard tower = auto win.
Must a card now be autowin in order to be OP?
No but it must always unbalance the game state when it is played. In many games this is not the case with WT. Yes it can be hard to play against but I would say it does not unbalance a game.
Thats not really true... It doesnt neccesarily have to be put into play each and every game in order to be OP.
There is also a spellbook building aspect that has to be balanced... WT skews this too.
Why?
Because a wizard only has to put in 1 jet stream 1 surge wave and 1 geyser with this card.
He will be able to cast each spell 4 times easily.... the NEEDED that is... others have to spend way more spell points to get the same flexibility.
im not saying WT is OP because of this...im just saying its not ONLY about when cards are being played.
-
I am just saying the card is not broken. Yes it is more powerful than most cards but I do not even know if I would call it overpowered. It is very close to being over powered but just because you cast it does not give you a win.
I am not quite sure what it takes to call a card OP but I know you have a threshold vis-a-vie the Battle Fury nerf. I do know that every game I have played either against or with the WT the player with the WT has won. I do mean every game. With a skilled opponent vs. other skilled opponent I would wager the win rate of the mage with the WT is in the high 90 percentile of wins.
I despise nerfing any card, I still chafe mightily at the BF/HoB/ToL nerfs, but this card deserves to have some tuning of stats to make it a bit more fair to against other mages. Nothing as severe as the aforementioned nerfs though. I would think Epic as a starter and casting cost in the 11 range or Epic and how the spell is changed out costs the mage a quick action.
-
You've surprised me with another ludicrous assertion. Whether a card unbalances the metagame or not isn't based on just a single game or matchup. You know that just as well as the rest of us. If you don't have time to give a decent logical explanation, even a short one, then maybe someone else can do it instead. Just because you're too busy and don't care enough to explain it anytime soon doesn't mean that everyone is.
Although the fact that you've posted on this thread multiple times today, and even was the first person to post here again after you spoke of not having enough time, makes me wonder how busy you actually are.
Enough to only do shorter posts like this not a 3-4 paragraph write up.
-
Pretty rude post dude - Its probably a bit awkward for the moderator to tell you to calm it down without looking like a despot, but I for one wouldnt call it unjustified.
Sure there are other people working for or affiliated with AW that could make a post, but they've a lot going on atm I'd imagine with Essen and getting DvsN out. Even without that, Shadow is one of the more prolific posters/advisers on the forums, so it would suggest he tracks the content and material more than the others do.
Calling his views ludicrous is kinda well ludicrous. I didn't get the impression that Shadow was saying what you assert he said and besides, even if he did, perhaps dignify him (and others) with the credit that they're not being total d!cks and perhaps have a valid point even if it didn't come across clearly. I mean if nothing else he's part of the group whose probably more familiar with the game and its emerging game space than any other.
A little patience, or respectful comment that you don't agree, or would appreciate further clarification, would seem more useful than ragging someone for giving the time and attention they can.
You've surprised me with another ludicrous assertion. Whether a card unbalances the metagame or not isn't based on just a single game or matchup. You know that just as well as the rest of us. If you don't have time to give a decent logical explanation, even a short one, then maybe someone else can do it instead. Just because you're too busy and don't care enough to explain it anytime soon doesn't mean that everyone is.
Although the fact that you've posted on this thread multiple times today, and even was the first person to post here again after you spoke of not having enough time, makes me wonder how busy you actually are.
-
You've surprised me with another ludicrous assertion. Whether a card unbalances the metagame or not isn't based on just a single game or matchup. You know that just as well as the rest of us. If you don't have time to give a decent logical explanation, even a short one, then maybe someone else can do it instead. Just because you're too busy and don't care enough to explain it anytime soon doesn't mean that everyone is.
Although the fact that you've posted on this thread multiple times today, and even was the first person to post here again after you spoke of not having enough time, makes me wonder how busy you actually are.
Wow dude. I think some perspective is in order. I cannot remember another product where the company was so concerned about feedback. Moderators, playtesters and even the designers regularly post on this forum to answer questions, brainstorm etc. None of them HAVE to do this. Many company's keep their fanbase in the dark and if they aren't happy with the product then tough. Shadow has responded to you many times. Because you don't like the answer or feel it wasn't long enough doesn't warrant this type of response. Please in the future keep in mind the type of company Arcane Wonders is before posting this kind of unnecessary aggressive post.
-
I am so sorry. I should have read what I had written more thoroughly before posting it. I didn't mean to come across so short. I'm not angry at all, just baffled, but I suppose it didn't come out like I meant it to. I appreciate all of the hard work you're doing, I really do. I will edit that post right now and try to fix it.
-
What kind of argument is that?
Are you serious? Think about a billion of dollars, then think about 100 billions dollars. The 100 billions dollars are clearly better.
Of course a moving WT is better than an immobile one. It doesnt make an immobile one less powerful
It is a pretty simple argument, actually. So, a mobile wizard's tower is better, but not more powerful? This just makes me scratch my head. You do realize that your sentence makes two statements that directly contradict each other...don't you?
I'm agree with Moonglow btw. You guys are clearly very passionate about how OP the wizard's tower is, but your really need to take the aggression down a notch or three.
-
Please understand. At the time I wrote that I really didn't feel like I was being aggressive at all. I wasn't even angry. I didn't realize what message people were perceiving from me until I saw the reactions. Saying stupid things that I don't mean and not being completely aware of how other people feel in response is one of my biggest faults that I've been trying and failing to fix all my life. It's no exaggeration to say that it is my greatest shame and the source of my greatest fears. I already apologized to Shad0w for my latest bout of sheer idiocy and deleted what I wrote, and I just sent him a second apology. I am not aware of anything else I can do to make amends, but if you are, I would love to hear it.
Back on topic though, I suppose it's possible that part of the reason that Shad0w is so sure that the Wizard's tower isn't overpowered, is because he has a different experience of it, being a playstester and all. He's probably played against it while testing the latest expansion. While I don't like the whole idea of fixing overpowered cards by making new cards designed to counter it, the game is still young and the cardpool might not be big enough yet for this to have huge consequences on the metagame. Even though it seems VERY likely that it is overpowered, perhaps we should give Wizard's tower the benefit of the doubt until the expansion after Druid vs Necromancer. Perhaps by then it will go from being "borderline/nearly overpowered" to being just not overpowered.
Perhaps if cards designed to counter wizards towers have more purposes than just that, the metagame will be able to grow over and past mistakes until the mistakes are so small in comparison to the size of the cardpool that it isn't so noticeable anymore. I'm guessing that would only work if such an course of action was rare, and implemented less as the game ages and gains more cards and mechanics that need to be balanced. This is all just conjecture of course, the only real way to find out is to wait and see. Although I still think the Tower is overpowered.
-
Please understand. At the time I wrote that I really didn't feel like I was being aggressive at all. I wasn't even angry. I didn't realize what message people were perceiving from me until I saw the reactions. .....
I am not aware of anything else I can do to make amends, but if you are, I would love to hear it.
Sweet as, I wouldn't stress too much over it, like you say you've done what you can, now its up to others to act like adults. There's always the delayed internet effect where an issues over and resolved but late comers to the party still want to play in the pool too.
Back on topic though, I suppose it's possible that part of the reason that Shad0w is so sure that the Wizard's tower isn't overpowered, is because he has a different experience of it, being a playstester and all. He's probably played against it while testing the latest expansion. While I don't like the whole idea of fixing overpowered cards by making new cards designed to counter it, the game is still young and the cardpool might not be big enough yet for this to have huge consequences on the metagame. Even though it seems VERY likely that it is overpowered, perhaps we should give Wizard's tower the benefit of the doubt until the expansion after Druid vs Necromancer. Perhaps by then it will go from being "borderline/nearly overpowered" to being just not overpowered.
Tis a hard one to know, I kinda agree that it seems like a very strong card that distorts the metagame space. However, like the underpoweredness of the Warlord, the shifting gamespace/spell base is responding to some of these issues. I guess there is an interesting life to the Mage Wars metagame, particularly at the forum/competition level. As people find and discuss particular tactics and strategies, clever ways to use spells etc, then the metagame evolves in response. However, you can always take advantage of that view to bluff or try something noone does any more - no noone carries the counter as a matter of course. I imagine in time there will be some strong counters to the Wizards tower. For a while everyone will carry them cause they feel they have to. Eventually, WT will be less dominant cause its getting hammered so hard. Then you can be the guy who pulls it out as a surprise - a bit like Hydra is having a little more love again now its become more a situational or occasional play and not everyone carries agony just in case.
-
Please understand. At the time I wrote that I really didn't feel like I was being aggressive at all. I wasn't even angry. I didn't realize what message people were perceiving from me until I saw the reactions. Saying stupid things that I don't mean and not being completely aware of how other people feel in response is one of my biggest faults that I've been trying and failing to fix all my life. It's no exaggeration to say that it is my greatest shame and the source of my greatest fears. I already apologized to Shad0w for my latest bout of sheer idiocy and deleted what I wrote, and I just sent him a second apology. I am not aware of anything else I can do to make amends, but if you are, I would love to hear it.
Most would not reply with this level of honesty. That takes courage and I commend you for it. Everybody has faults. Well done. Time to move on.
-
Hey Imaginator,
I didn't mean to twist the knife after you'd already apologized. I just failed to see your post (or homeless joe's) when I wrote mine. I was multi-tasking and didn't refresh my screen. :-[
-
I was more annoyed then offended by the post. I work in a help desk for a company with about 5k users. If I post something and it seems to be short or one sided I may have several reasons for it.
I may not have time to do a long post.
I may not be allowed to do a more detailed post.
I just may not be in the mood to respond in detail
Since it was brought up I will talk about it when I am looking at the meta I have a near gods eye view.
Take HOB for example. By late Nov 2012 I knew it was going to become an issue when working on the FM but we had hoped that what Heat, Guardian, and I had envisioned would not come to pass. It took 4 months after the release of FM vs WL for that to hit the public eye.
So now lets get into more detail.
When making a set we have a goal or design intent in mind. A group of us brainstorm cards based of what we are given. Bryan also has binders of new cards at his office. We compile a list of 40-70 cards that we want to explore further and test then from that we vote on what card best meet the design, have the best set flavor, or are placed in to evolve the meta, and also the cards we think are most needed. Form that list we take about 30 cards to make a set.
If we find a card that does not make the list but it is important we add that to the list of cards for the next set. My team had already been working on the HOB meta in late March of 2013 just in case it did make a showing a Origins 2013. Most of those cards have not been revealed yet but has they do come out they will smooth the meta in many ways. Our plan was a multiple step approach to fix many things in the meta some of them the community still has not discovered.
-
What kind of argument is that?
Are you serious? Think about a billion of dollars, then think about 100 billions dollars. The 100 billions dollars are clearly better.
Of course a moving WT is better than an immobile one. It doesnt make an immobile one less powerful
It is a pretty simple argument, actually. So, a mobile wizard's tower is better, but not more powerful? This just makes me scratch my head. You do realize that your sentence makes two statements that directly contradict each other...don't you?
I'm agree with Moonglow btw. You guys are clearly very passionate about how OP the wizard's tower is, but your really need to take the aggression down a notch or three.
No, what I meant is that it is not because you think of a more powerful version (mobile WT) of something that suddently make the current version (immobile WT) balanced.
-
Wow. I haven't seen so much passion since Temple of Light.
Let us define 4 above-the-curve power levels here.
1. Undercosted = popular in books because of cost-benefit analysis
2. Auto-Include = compulsory in all eligible books
3. Overpowered = needs to be nerfed as it is game imbalancing
4. Broken = needs to be banned as nerfing it makes it useless
Wizard's Tower is definitely at level 2. It is under-costed, has ready marker action burst flexibility, free switching utility (only increases with more attack spells), not Zone Exclusive (easier to protect) and Unique not Epic (morale-sapping knowing another may arrive if destroyed). What were they thinking?
However the tech exists to handle it. The Warlord has Akiro's Hammer (under-rated silver bullet against Wizard control). Any Earth mage can cause a favourable mana trade with Steel Wall (before Acid Ball). Add Archer's Watchtower behind Wall and a ranged creature? Any mage can take it out with useful Grimson Deadeye. I admit the problem with burst damage (Force Hammer, Earthquake, Hurl Boulder, Thunderbolt on stick etc.) is you invest more mana (and actions) than the Tower so you come off worse. But there is tech out there even now and if it really creates problems, you need to include this tech in your books.
Because Tower is Arcane Mage Only, I just view it as part of the Wizard package, just like Galvitar is part of Forcemaster package. I read it as an unwritten ability on the Wizard card: "has access to Wizard's Tower". This access was one of the reasons why I felt a Wizard would win Gencon. Also why I was so surprised by the recent Con results (6 Beastmasters, 1 Wizard?) because Wizards are too good currently.
As someone who vocally kicked and screamed that Temple of Light needed nerfing (even more of a brat back then), there are a few key differences here:
(a) Wizard's Tower requires mana (and extra spell points) to use unlike original Temple of Light
(b) Wizard's Tower is an Arcane Mage Only benefit while Temple of Light could be in every book
The question when building a Wizard book is "1 copy or 2 of Tower?" It is bad to be a compulsory card irrespective of element or strategy. But every Forcemaster has Galvitar. Tower is just an extension ability of Arcane Mage. Those who play Magic will remember Skullclamps, an artifact that could be played in almost every deck hence became ubiquitous. It wasn't that broken but made the meta dull as it was in every deck so had to be banned. Ubiquity is not possible with Wizard's Tower. Being compulsory is not a problem if access is restricted.
Apart from Devouring Jelly, we have seen no Wizard love in the new cards so far. In fact, we have seen mechanics like Corrode to reduce resilience of Wizard's Tower, Battle Forge, Iron Golem and armoured wizard with Voltaric Shield. Also all these new conjurations means more conjuration hate like Earthquake, Force Hammer etc. Living creatures can be pumped by Etherian Lifetree so there should be more swarms and Wizard's Tower cannot cast full action zone attacks. Wizards also use equipment more (those Teleport Wands) and Orchid helps curtail this. The meta will change significantly.
I personally think Teleport and Enchantment Transfusion are far more to open to abuse than this 3 armour 7 life corporeal conjuration that needs mana to be useful. There are subtler plays than just placing Tower/Lighthouse in Near Centre, knowing that the extra resource cost to remove it gains you tempo. However, there is no doubt Wizard's Tower is very powerful, borderline overpowered - when it needs nerfing.
I think they should have written it "you may bind any number of non-Epic quick action attack spells", removing its change spell ability last line (so less text). When you cast it, you work out how flexible you want it to be, how many spell points you want to invest, while opponent knows what it can cast, does not have to worry "what if his Tower can cast X?". If this is still too good, maybe change Unique to Epic Zone Exclusive but I don't think that's necessary. The key ability is its unknown utility (which defines it, like a Wizard's versatility) and this would retain that flexibility but as a front-ended spell points investment cost, removing its unknown capabilities.
However, we are at the cusp of a major new expansion. The designers know about cards like Wizard's Tower and Battle Forge and we can assume (and see) that they have taken steps to undo these excesses of the past. So please let's just wait a little while until we get the new cards and see how the new meta settles before we call out for the nerf stick to be applied?
-
Good assessment Deckbuilder. I am largely on the same page. However, the current deck I'm working on is a wizard that may not get a WT. It is a deck with a very particular focus, and (if all goes according to plan) I doubt I will ever want to drop a tower down. It does have a tower right now, but I'm still refining and paring down, and the tower is on the chopping block.
-
We have a card in DvN (if it made the set) that being non mobile becomes a set back against. In fact it cost me 2 games in testing.
I'm guessing it didn't make the set? The main thing I can see against immobile is Cloak of Shadows, but that's limited only to Dark mages. (Though we haven't seen Renewing Rain anywhere yet, so maybe that has some effect here?)
At least we'll have Acid Ball though.
-
Sorry to jump in here.. can I ask a Wizard's Tower/Conjuration related quick question?
First off here is the Wizard's Tower.
Wizard's Tower
-Conjuration Tower
-Spellbind, Familiar, Unique, Arcane Mage Only
-Conjuration adds Nonliving, Psychic Immunity, Unmovable
-Nonliving adds Poison Immunity and Finite Life
My question is 'which' conditions apply to a card like Mage Tower.
1. Of course all types of Poisons don't work due to Poison Immunity. (Rot, Weak, Cripple).
2. Slam, Daze in the codex mention 'creature' and since this isn't a creature these wouldn't apply.
3. Burn would apply as the codex says 'Object is on fire'.
4. Stun in the codex mentions 'creature' similarly to Slam and Daze so again it doesn't look like it affects Wizard's Tower but then the rule says 'Cannot affect Conjurations'.
Now if my Stun can't affect conjurations because the codex says 'creature' then what is the purpose of adding this last line 'Cannot affect Conjurations' to the rule. Unless there are Conjuration/Creatures? .. I don't think so.
5. Lets say we had a different Conjuration just like Wizard's Tower with the same exact traits except it was 'Living' which means it didn't get Poison Immunity and Finite Life. Since this conjuration no longer has Poison Immunity theoretically conditions such as rot, weak, cripple could affect it. However looking closer, weak mentions 'creature' so it shouldn't work, rot mentions 'object' so it should work, cripple says 'creature' so again shouldn't work.
Thinking about it logically with rules aside it makes sense for a non living conjuration to be immune to conditions such as rot, weak, cripple, on the other hand it definitely makes sense that a living conjuration would be immune to weak and cripple but susceptible to rot. Thinking about the other conditions such as burn, stun, slam this also makes sense. SO if everything works the way I outlined it.. then why does Stun EXPLICITLY say 'Cannot affect Conjurations'.
6. Corrode, this one nicely states in the codex 'creature or conjuration' hurray!
Thank you!
-
Yes, you are correct on every point.
why does Stun EXPLICITLY say 'Cannot affect Conjurations'.
Because they felt like being explicit? If it makes you feel better, Daze and Cripple do both have similar wording at the end of their Codex entries. So really it is Weak and Slam that are the oddballs for missing this clarification. Slam I can understand, because the Codex entry for Incapacitate specifically states that Conjurations can not be Incapacitated, therefore they can not be affected by Slam. I do not know why the entry for Weak lacks such specificity, but it seems clear enough to me that it only affects Creatures.
-
weak is poisen... buildings are poisen immune.
-
Conjurations (aka "buildings") are not inherently Poison Immune. They are *usually* Nonliving, which grants Poison Immunity. However, there are some (quite a few with the new expansion actually) Living Conjurations which can indeed be effected by Poison.
-
Creatures are per default living.
Conjurations are per default non-living.
Non-living = poisen immune
If a conjuration has the "living" trait then it overrules the default non-living.
If a living conjuration gets a weak condition marker feel free to put it on the conjuration.
However since the codex for weak says:
"Weak - This is a Poison condition which weakens a creature. For each Weak condition on it, the creature loses 1 attack die from all non-spell attacks it makes. Cannot reduce an attack to zero dice. Has no effect on damage barriers or attack spells. Weak has a removal cost of 2"
I will just bother putting tainted and rot on living buildings.
-
That's why I made the statement: "I do not know why the entry for Weak lacks such specificity, but it seems clear enough to me that it only affects Creatures."
I think we are actually on the same page. I just wasn't understanding why you brought Poison Immunity into the conversation. Obviously objects that are Poison Immune can not receive Poison conditions. However not all Conjurations are Poison Immune...
In the end though, the specific use of the word "creature" in the Codex entry for Weak seems perfectly clear.
-
4. Stun in the codex mentions 'creature' similarly to Slam and Daze so again it doesn't look like it affects Wizard's Tower but then the rule says 'Cannot affect Conjurations'.
Now if my Stun can't affect conjurations because the codex says 'creature' then what is the purpose of adding this last line 'Cannot affect Conjurations' to the rule. Unless there are Conjuration/Creatures? .. I don't think so.
Are you certain that Conjuration/Creatures do not exist? :-X
-
Just use akiros hammer for this, not good for much more but take down tower with this, also use grimson dead eye, wall of steel and archer tower, or conquer, for warlord. warlock, drain soul all the way, ignore the tower. Beast master... no. druid, strangle vine, run, strangle vine, run... Necro maybe swarm. forcemaster thought spores with forcefield and nullifies. Priestess, heal on mage wand.
-
Welcome 7 months in past?
-
Dont be rude on time travelers! :)
-
Dont be rude on time travelers! :)
I am not. I said welcome :P
-
This is clearly dead locking.
This way you need a TARDIS to get in :P