Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: patrickconnor on October 02, 2013, 08:16:25 AM
-
(https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1383088_579250278777735_1142040839_n.png)
-
Still anxious to hear precisely what devour does.
Right now, Kralathor looks like a specific hoser for Undead. +2 attack and devour are both mean, but it looks somewhat underpowered against everyone else. I'm a little concerned that Druid needed this, the same way Warlord's Iron Golem raises a red flag. If a Mage needs a targeted solution for its sibling, what does that say about relative power levels? Warlord needed Iron Golem because he was weak (and with Bim-Shalla, Forcemaster was strong). Is Druid weak (doesn't seem likely)? Is Necromancer over-strong?
Nervous-nelly worrying aside, I wonder if a nature mage might cast a bunch of small creatures to bait the Necromancer into using Ziggurat to raise them all as Undead, allowing Kralathor to eat them all. Plant Gambit.
Also, I do like the different ways Growth tokens effect plants and zombies, because of the way the Druid's life abilities and Necromancer's resilient interact differently. That's a neat trick.
-
An official wording for devour would be nice. What I presume it does is that when a creature with devour kills another creature, the destroyed creature is removed from the game (or exiled if you play Magic) instead of discarded. This is most useful against the necromancer and his reanimates, but perhaps it might apply in the future to any creatures that get the cantrip ability.
Remind me again what Growth does. Is it +1 melee and +3 life?
-
Yep, +1 melee, +3 life. Does anyone remember if the life gain is intrinsic?
-
Yes, it's Innate Life - otherwise it would have been kind of useless on the undead with their Finate Life :P
-
Well, we've seen this one already, so nothing new, but its still cool. Initially it will be weak vs non-undead armies, but with it's ability to gain Growth markers it can theoretically get pretty big. We'll have to see how it plays out.
-
There is no limit to its Growth counters! Most others have limits to avoid abuse. That is big in a swarm environment.
Devour does Obliterate, I saw it somewhere. Otherwise there would be fully recursive shenanigans and designers will be paranoid of what we creative players will dream up. Hence why, apart from Eternal Servant, zombie theme is only semi recursive, more "recycle 1 more time as weaker version". Also why Rousing Beast is "haste" and not "untap".
I agree with ringkichard about the +2 Undead being too much of a Nemesis balancing factor, just like Iron Golems. Mechanics like that just feels horribly blatantly Paper-Scissors-Stone in match-ups. At least they made it Epic. No more unsubtle balancers like that please?
-
Yep, +1 melee, +3 life. Does anyone remember if the life gain is intrinsic?
It is inherient life, yes.
-
Necro unable to turn most of Druid's plant life into zombies since not classified as 'creature', Druid's plants have devour ability which again greatly hampers Necro's game strategy, Some of druid's plants now also have + attack damage to undead for some odd reason (maybe because bone meal helps plants grow???). So basically what you are saying is reach for your other non Necromancer books if your partner pulls out the Druid.
I guess the poison build may still hold up. I'm kind of feeling cutoff at the knees :'(.
-
Plenty of plants are creatures, including Kralathor. You can't reanimate Kralathor because it's Nature Mage Only, but you could reanimate plant creature without those restrictions.
-
Having playtested this match-up quite a bit, the Necro still has teeth. I've had several times where I needed every die that Kralathor rolled just to try to stop a zombie.
-
Having playtested this match-up quite a bit, the Necro still has teeth. I've had several times where I needed every die that Kralathor rolled just to try to stop a zombie.
Zombies are still resilient. I think that counts for a lot. The Druid's armor elimination cards have to effect on that.
-
I agree with ringkichard about the +2 Undead being too much of a Nemesis balancing factor, just like Iron Golems. Mechanics like that just feels horribly blatantly Paper-Scissors-Stone in match-ups. At least they made it Epic. No more unsubtle balancers like that please?
The expansion is named Druid vs. Necromancer or Life vs. Death. I hope I am drawing a big circle around this point. I would be greatly disappointed if the Druid was excellent at fighting the Forcemaster at least from a "mechanics" point of view.
What is surprising a bit to me, is that Holy gains very little here. Light doesn't have any uplift (Light +2 etc.) and healing doesn't cause damage. So for the Priest/Priestess going out to battle the Undead, have only the Staff of Asyra, Blinding Light, Pillar of Light, and the Angel of Light get nonliving buffs....no love on that front at all (so far, fingers crossed).
-
The expansion is named Druid vs. Necromancer or Life vs. Death. I hope I am drawing a big circle around this point. I would be greatly disappointed if the Druid was excellent at fighting the Forcemaster at least from a "mechanics" point of view.
I get the theme. I just think there are subtler ways of balancing than a simple bonus vs. the opponent in that set. Should they design a card to be simply a Silver Bullet against one particular opponen?. It's far too narrow a benefit. Surely cards need to be designed for interactions with all current cards? I am very impressed with many aspects of this set previewed so far, just +2 vs. undead feels like lazy design. Sorry.
For example. zombies have resilient and lumbering. They have already added Acid Ball as a level 1 water spell to bypass resilience whilst also solving the meta issues like Golems. They gave the Druid (only) the "I can sprout my vines anywhere" mechanic to exploit lumbering (then balanced it with Rooted). These are mechanics that also interact with other mages. That's why I complimented the design team so profusely as I was really impressed by the interactions, the thought that has gone into them and how they completely shake up the meta.
I appreciate there is the Strategy-Focused vs. Opponent-Toolbox axis of the game. I don't have any issue with promoting a reactive toolbox strategy. So now my Beastmaster has Galador vs. metal/incorporeal and Kralathor vs. undead. So, after thinking about it more, this is only 1 Epic card which cites "undead". I think having a few such cards is probably good for the game in opening Toolbox book strategies more.
After considering this more, I retract my initial concern (+2 bonus does seem thematically forced, they even added flavour text to explain it) in the fervent hope there will be only Epic creatures that are +2 vs. undead. Else it is a far too unsubtle direct mechanic for balancing. A bit of toolbox (Epic so can't be spammed) is good for the game. Anything that adds more variety (hence surprise) to our spell books is good.
What is surprising a bit to me, is that Holy gains very little here. Light doesn't have any uplift (Light +2 etc.) and healing doesn't cause damage. So for the Priest/Priestess going out to battle the Undead, have only the Staff of Asyra, Blinding Light, Pillar of Light, and the Angel of Light get nonliving buffs....no love on that front at all (so far, fingers crossed).
You forgot Temple of Light (still viable, especially as toolbox vs. undead). Light hurting non-living more (+2 or just +1 if also hurts all Dark) partly makes perfect sense thematically (vs. undead) but also for balance (vs. constructs, elementals). They could have made Light more powerful against a narrower category (+3 vs. undead) but that would make it too much of a Silver Bullet which I don't feel comfortable with in a game of "pick your spell". I think they pitched Light right between the range of what it benefits (more than thematically makes sense) and the bonus Light gains. Also, the very fact there will soon be far more non-living creatures in the game benefits Holy mages indirectly.
A rule "Healing instead deals damage to Undead" is neat (very D&D) but does not work consistently with current card text. Minor Heal and Heal will hurt them but Group Heal, Asryan Cleric, Healing Charm, Vampirism and Regrowth won't (those enchantments can't target them else you will have the ability to use Regrowth like Ghoul Rot for undead). Such inconsistency jars with me. I would far prefer a consistent approach. Also, where would you add this? Undead is a subtype, not a keyword. When there are more important intuitive issues to solve (plants cannot be doused when burning, area poison effects do not damage plant conjurations), both of which I hope they do solve, I don't see the value in adding this Heal vs. Undead rule. It's a neat idea though, and would add to the versatility of unloved active healing spells.
If Altar of Peace (a total game changer for any control mage build) and Temple High Guard are in the set, would that make you happy? :)
-
I get the theme. I just think there are subtler ways of balancing than a simple bonus vs. the opponent in that set. Should they design a card to be simply a Silver Bullet against one particular opponent?. It's far too narrow a benefit. Surely cards need to be designed for interactions with all current cards? I am very impressed with many aspects of this set previewed so far, just +2 vs. undead feels like lazy design. Sorry.
I know how you feel. I have always felt the +2 lighting weakness, on armored knights, as an unnecessary flavor theme.
Kralathor can get out of hand quick by the way. As a vine he can sprout just about anywhere and since he is tied to nature mages expect lots of enchantments headed his way. He can also grow from friendly foxes and birds that are near death if he so chooses. Reach is an awesome ability on this guy to round out one of the more versatile nature legendary creatures.
-
I see this guy being hit by a bunch of Fireballs and a Fireshaper ring will have to go back into the kit.....
-
Yeah, even worse than the +2 burn chance, +2 dice is killer. Fire Wizard with ring and Hawkeye is so much fun anyway, with plants you're just tossing so many dice.
-
I see this guy being hit by a bunch of Fireballs and a Fireshaper ring will have to go back into the kit.....
Much like shaggy if he gets out of control then you better just try to ignore him.
growth is powerful but so is the in school flexibility of cobra reflex, rhino hide, bull endurance, falcon precision, bear strength, lion sav (when charge enchant becomes a thing), or eagle wings.
Once Kralathor hits 3 growth tokens he is 7 melee attack die and 22 health with armor and regeneration.
-
And with that kind of potential power he's a no brainer for any nature book. That's a very easy 4 point decision.
-
Well, a lot of nature books currently play Valshalla, especially because of her great bonuses against Iron Golems. Kralathor competes for that strategic role of "big creature that gets bigger". They're very different mechanically, but does a book want to run both? If not, is Kralathor better/more efficient?
It changes the nature book from one that wants to run lots of creatures to one that wants the opponent to run lots of creatures. This may depend largely on what opponents are playing.
-
Nice comparison.
In most cases, I'd say Kralathor is better simply because of 4 vs. 10 spell points
But Kralathor is only good if opponent is playing Swarm (so is a Toolbox solution)
Valshalla is good because you know you are playing Swarm when you include her
You could also argue that Kralathor is a "win more" card as you grow by winning
While Valshalla is a "mitigate losses" card as it leaves opponent with a quandary
However the main reason Kralathor is better against an unknown opponent is...
Kralathor is your Big that you summon against Undead
Galador is your Big that you summon against Metal and Incorporeal
The fact Valshalla overlaps with Galador means that Kralathor is the better choice.
Well, that's my analysis anyway.
(Against Fire Wizard, you simply don't bring it out of your toolbox.)
The big winner here is Warlock.
Warlock can play Undead (non-zombie) with a few Demon Bloodreapers.
Kralathor is Scissors to Undead's Paper
But Warlock also has Fire, the Stone to Kralathor's Scissors.
Warlock can leverage most of the new Dark cards and the Druid's Fire vulnerability.
(We have to trust that this has been playtested)
-
That dynamic points to Beastmaster playing toolbox bigs (Galador, Kralathor) instead of universal power bigs (Steelclaw). Which is interesting, because Steelclaw is so good it gets poached, but I haven't seen or heard of non-nature mages playing Galador.
Is Galador really that great vs. Iron Golems? I need to give him another try: when I included him I always just ended up summoning another steelclaw instead.
-
I found Galador pretty good vs. Golems because of range 0-1 and Golems are Slow, especially with Eagle Wings.
Still lost to Golem Pit but won against Golem Warlord (but doesn't everyone?).