Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: MrSaucy on June 04, 2013, 08:06:48 PM
-
Warning: if you aren't mildly familiar with Magic The Gathering, this probably won't make any sense!
In my opinion, one of the most influential things created by MTG was the color pie. It was an interesting and thoughtful way to describe the game mechanics, value system, and "flavor" behind each type of magic. Having switched (permanently) from MTG to MW, I found myself wondering if MW has its own implicit version of the color pie. Since each color in MTG had its own value system, each color in MTG had two ally colors and two enemy colors based on this system of values.
So I want to pose a question and then give my answer. Do you think MW has an implicit color pie in any shape or form? If so, which MW schools of magic would you associate with the MTG colors of magic?
My answer is Yes. I do think MW has a sort of color pie. (This is obvious; otherwise, what point would I have in writing this post?)
White = Holy
Blue = Arcane, Mind
Black = Dark
Red = Fire, Earth
Green = Natural, Water, Air
In MTG, White and Blue are very controlling areas of magic; in MW, the Holy, Arcane, and Mind schools are the most controlling schools of magic.
In MTG, White and Green have life gain and "growth" cards; In MW, the Holy and Nature schools have spells with life gain/regenerate effects, like Heal, Regrowth Belt.
In MTG, White is enemies with Red (since Red values aggression over defense) and Black (since Black is immoral). Likewise, in MW the Holy school is filled with protective/defensive spells whereas Fire and Earth spells are rarely defensive and emphasize total offense. Obviously, Holy spells are seen as moral whereas Dark spells are immoral.
Blue in MTG is friends with White but also with Black. Blue and Black share the desire for secrecy, power, and control and aren't above manipulation and trickery. I can't help but think of Arcane, Mind, and Dark spells the same way.
Blue in MTG doesn't like Red (because Red emphasizes spontaneity over strategy) or Green (because Green emphasizes nature over the unnatural). In MW, Arcane and Mind magic is very strategic and doesn't focus on brute force; Fire and Earth magic is very direct and all about dealing damage quickly. Admittedly, I think the Blue vs Green case doesn't apply as cleanly as it does to MW (i.e. Arcane, Mind VS Nature). Or maybe we have yet to see anti-unnatural cards from the Nature school and anti-nature cards from the Arcane and Mind schools.
Black and Red are friends in MTG. Dark and Fire are friends in MW. Just look at the Warlock! Black hates White, as mentioned earlier, and it hates Green too. Black is about decay and death. Green is about life and growth. You see this Black vs Green distinction in MW all the time. What do curses from the Dark school do? They weaken, they kill, they drain things, they cripple things. What is magic from the Natural school capable of? Regenerating life, boosting creatures, and turning things that are weak into things that are strong.
Finally, Red hates Blue and White (as mentioned already) but is friends with Black and Green. At first thought, Red and Green might not seem to have much in common in either MTG or MW. (Afterall, isn't the Beastmaster, a master of nature, very WEAK against FIRE spells?) But in MTG, Red and Green share a tie to nature. You will notice I have outlined the "MW color pie" such that all the elemental schools (earth, fire, air water) are in the Red and Green categories.
You may have noticed I left the War school out of the picture. This is open for discussion, but I don't think the War school of magic really fits into this argument. (Not dissing on the War school. I think it is awesome personally.)
In conclusion, I hope this post was informative or at least a little interesting. I also hope I may have convinced you that MW does indeed have its own version of the color pie as seen in MTG, albeit an implicit one.
As a final note, I am in NO shape or form accusing MW of "ripping off" MTG. I just wanted to show how MTG could have possibly influenced MW, as I am sure it did.
-
MW is very different from MTG - it's true.
Green = Natural, Water, Air.
Lots of good fliers in green!!! Eagle wings?
Haste in green so far.
Direct lightning damage? Air school has two types of damage (wind and lightning). it is blue and red from MtG i think.
You may have noticed I left the War school out of the picture. This is open for discussion, but I don't think the War school of magic really fits into this argument. (Not dissing on the War school. I think it is awesome personally.)
War school is more like a white swarm. it is largely focused on the defense.
Where artifact/enchantment removal? in Blue! Dissolve and Force Hammer.
-
MW is very different from MTG - it's true.
Green = Natural, Water, Air.
Lots of good fliers in green!!! Eagle wings?
Haste in green so far.
Direct lightning damage? Air school has two types of damage (wind and lightning). it is blue and red from MtG i think.
You may have noticed I left the War school out of the picture. This is open for discussion, but I don't think the War school of magic really fits into this argument. (Not dissing on the War school. I think it is awesome personally.)
War school is more like a white swarm. it is largely focused on the defense.
Where artifact/enchantment removal? in Blue! Dissolve and Force Hammer.
Yeah, it isn't a perfect match. Air has wind spells and lightning spells. Wind would be Blue in MTG whereas lightning would be Red in MTG.
War is too general to fit into one color. Could fit into White or Red.
-
What I think is refreshing about MW is that it doesn't have a color pie. It isn't like MTG, which lacks a cohesive universe. Sure there are bits and pieces that players can identify with (a fact which WOTC has recently been milking...hard), but it's pretty much just a conglomeration of stuff that kind of sort of has to do with a story about two brothers that new players don't know anything about and old players have an even harder time making it relevant. And by the by, there's this even older dragon god who isn't really a god anymore and he's working in the background because well he's evil, except that he actually sucks at controlling his undead minions, and other EVEN MORE EVIL-ER AND OLDER machine-human hybrid things are better at it and steal his minions...and werewolves and vampires, because werewolves and vampires.
No seriously, you just experienced MTG's story, except I saved you the part where you actually have to read the novels, which are so poorly written they could be used to torture prisoners of war. It's that bad.
MW, thankfully, is starting out not as a series of worlds, but a place on a world, like a country. Mages have a history of being jerks, just like anyone with power really, but never gods. They don't warp reality and create planes of existence like Yahweh on LSD (i.e., planeswalkers), they work with the natural world and very traditional mythical creatures that embody the elements of that natural world.
I'm sure AW is going to think up new ways through which to interpret what we think of as the natural world, or how a particular creature might belong to a particular school of magic. At least, I sure hope they continue to be inventive, if they expect me to give them my money. But most of all, I hope they stay true to their principle of showing us what magic would really be like if it were real. Too many other games are trying to wow me with stories and worlds I can't ever relate to, when in reality I just want to see a bear fight a unicorn.
-
when in reality I just want to see a bear fight a unicorn.
I'd pull up a chair in the arena with a beer to watch that spectacle!
-
I'm pretty sure the bear wins.
-
when in reality I just want to see a bear fight a unicorn.
I'd pull up a chair in the arena with a beer to watch that spectacle!
I'm pretty sure the bear wins.
I added a poll. We shall see what the forum thinks ;D
-
I actually intended that as a joke but...
I played against a Priestess player this week and the armor stacks on the Unicorn really started to add up. I suppose any creature with ridiculous amounts of armor is hard to take down, but getting beat up by a unicorn is more than mildly emasculating..
Watch your step, Steelclaw.
-
I was assuming they weren't being supported. If you supported both the Steelclaw and the Unicorn, the Steelclaw would still probably win.
-
I was assuming they weren't being supported. If you supported both the Steelclaw and the Unicorn, the Steelclaw would still probably win.
:( hey man, unicorns can dream.
-
I was assuming they weren't being supported. If you supported both the Steelclaw and the Unicorn, the Steelclaw would still probably win.
:( hey man, unicorns can dream.
And bears can maul. :P
-
I was assuming they weren't being supported. If you supported both the Steelclaw and the Unicorn, the Steelclaw would still probably win.
:( hey man, unicorns can dream.
And bears can maul. :P
Unicorn winning the internet poll. WHATS UP NOW SON?! Now that I gots the internetz on my side, I know I'm right!...
-
The most fun you can have with a Unicorn is to be playing a team game as Priest and Original Beastmaster
One of you plays Highland Unicorn-
A friendly animal creature came into play, so a Beastmaster can name it as his pet
A friendly holy creature came into play, so the Priest can make it his holy avenger.
Holy Avenging Pet Unicorn rampage.
-
Wait, so multiplayer rules consider ally creatures to be controlled by both mages?
That seems pretty busted O_o
-
Wait, so multiplayer rules consider ally creatures to be controlled by both mages?
That seems pretty busted O_o
neither ability specifies that you have to be the controller... just says it has to be "friendly" which I've always assumed an allies creatures are.
To my knowledge there aren't many "official" mulitplayer rules though.
-
I love how this thread started out about the MW color pie but is now about bears fighting unicorns ;D
-
That sounds amazing! Bear doesn't stand a chance.
-
I think it depends. Unicorns are quicker than bears. And they often are depicted as having wings. If the unicorn has wings, if it can't fly, it will probably be able to glide a bit, or at least run faster. Not to mention those horns can be really sharp. The bear has a lot of brute strength, sharp claws and teeth, and a very heavy body. It's also of course not as fast as a unicorn. Naturally this would usually equate to a an aggro-midrange versus an aggro-control style battle of sorts, with the unicorn using its magic combined with hit and run tactics to tire the bear, and the bear trying to land the one or two hits it needs to kill the unicorn before the unicorn can get out of its range. Of course, if the unicorn gets really angry, it might try a charge with its horn. Against the bear this tactic probably has a relatively low chance of success in spite of the bear's low reflexes. If the unicorn gets angry it will likely make loud hoofsteps and possibly neigh, giving the bear more than enough time to react to the charge.
And this is all without the supervision of a mage.
So in conclusion, it could go either way, but the unicorn has the advantage.
-
A Pegasus has wings, not a unicorn. Since there is 1 bear (Steelclaw Grizzly) and 1 unicorn (Highland Unicorn) in the game thus far, I was assuming that they were fighting.
Steelclaw hits much harder, and the unicorn's Charge +2 would come into play at most once without support. The Highland Unicorn Regenerates, but the differences in total health, effective armor, and attack strength are just too big for the Highland Unicorn to have a good chance without support of some kind.
-
Yeah, there's no way Highland Unicorn could beat the Steelclaw. It's a support creature more than anything else.
But the sarcasm is well taken.
-
1. That's not what the poll say (unicorn is winning against the bear right now)
2. It doesn't say in Mage Wars or use their specific names, so you assumption is perhaps misplaced.
3. It's more entertaining to image the unicorn winning.