Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pfft holy mages, fires, whatever. My warlord solves all those problems the same way, throw enough boulders and it'll put out any fire you want. You scrubs let me know when you want to cast some REAL spells.
The Priest will smite you for being the Wizard Next-Worst-Thing-To-Devil dealing mage you are!
look paladin wannabe, you only wish you could cast smite.
I know you miss your ability to set things on fire. It's ok you can fan the hierarchical flames on my enemies after they are judged to bring them a swift salvation.
But you'e gonna see a reasonably skilled player do his best with her next month. At least it's not a friggin Druid
I'd like to change my vote to Forcemaster after finding out that Grizzly would never play it without being forced to.
My favorite equipment is Dragonscale Hauberk
No bias there...
I'm kinda curious about this. I keep hearing Arena players complaining about how much they don't like MW Academy and how they think it's a bad game. Some people have called it "watered down Arena" or a ripoff of MtG. (Btw, these last two blatantly contradict each other. Either its watered-down Arena or its a ripoff of MtG. NOT both.)
But then one of my friends who helped playtest it and played it about 100 times ALSO says that Academy is a ripoff of MtG. Specifically he said that Academy is MtG with a different skin--same mechanics but in a different thematic setting. Now, this same friend said that yugioh and pokemon tcgs are ALSO ripoffs of MtG, rather than just being in the same genre, so its possible that the entire CCG genre looks like basically the same one game to him for some reason.
The biggest issue I have with Academy as a competitive format is that it competes with many other games in the same genre with similar play time that are either better (imo) or have a huge existing player base. Given the opportunity, I'd rather play Ashes: Rise of the Pheonixborn than Academy... except that it doesn't cost me anything to play Academy because I already own and am familiar with all the Academy cards. Thus, for a lot of Arena players, Academy becomes a tool for introducing players to the larger Mage Wars universe (e.g. Arena), rather than being a preferred format.
Arena is more like a miniatures game played with cards, and is/was often compared to Summoner Wars for that reason. Due to its play length and lack of zones, Academy will inevitably be compared to Ashes, Epic, MtG and other 15-30 minute card duelling games. Academy will always have a difficult time in this space due to market saturation/competition. Communities for CCG's (like MtG) and LCG's (eg half of FFG's roster) are easy to find and since they're already established and growing it can be hard to lure players away from those games unless there's something specific to Academy that they feel is truly lacking in the other games. Getting to choose spells from a book might not be enough for the average Netrunner or AGOT or YuGiOh player.
What I have said, is if I want to play a quicker 2p duel game, then I'd much rather play MtG, which is quite different. Or half a dozen other CCG/LCG's to be honest.
It's the latter point that's the real killer as far as I am concerned. Academy is not a terrible game, by any stretch. It's an okay game. But I don't care whether I am playing in AW's IP or anyone elses to be honest, and if I want a game that fits that niche, there are better games, with huge pools of local players, and if I'm playing that sort of game, then I'll be picking one of those. I have better games to use my time on than play Academy, not so Arena.
Put another way - Arena is something completely unique. It's the best game that exists of that type, but in truth it has few competitors. It's my favourite game ever. Academy is a competent, but nothing special game in a field swamped by huge numbers of similar games - it's better than some, and not as good as others, but... no... therefore! there's no reason for me to ever want to play it.
One trillion percent disagree. A tie means equal, the same, no difference.
If you have less life remaining at the end of a timed game, you LOSE. In an ideal world, no games would be timed, but that's not feasible at live events. Therefore you have to play with a slightly different subset of rules including timed WINS & LOSSES. Not if a game goes to time, its always a tie.
. So if someone builds a book that goes to time 4/4 matches in a tournament where wins are counted only at mage death, then maybe in the next tournament they should build something that aims to win earlier. I still believe one can play defensively and still win in 75-90 mins. I just prefer to keep the win condition the same (Mage death) instead of relying on a condition that doesn't signal whether someone has won or is even "winning" (life remaining). To each their own. Relax friends it's just a discussion. I'm with you on this as it's just not practical that all matches end in death. Thus a compromise must be made. Can't punish a player for time restrictions they didn't come up with.
. In regards to the bolded part above, you could make the point that you can't punish a player for a victory condition they didn't come up with either. Not that it takes away from the merit of your point, just showing a different side to it.
