Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Laddinfance on April 03, 2014, 07:18:58 PM
-
>>HERE<< (http://www.arcanewonders.com/arcane-wonders/creative-corner) you can find my creative corner article, which I am very excited about. Enjoy the Anvil Throne Warlord!
-
(http://www.arcanewonders.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Warlord_Mage_and_Ability_Cards_300px.png) (http://www.arcanewonders.com/arcane-wonders/creative-corner)
Warlock tomorrow? ;)
-
The Quick March! Order is VERY powerful. I think I would prefer this Warlord over the other just for that.
-
Not bad for Laddin's 999th post!
-
He looks really awesome. Really captures the feel of a dwarf. Tough and Crafty. Can't wait to combine him with a Colossus belt as suggested. Tough -4 sounds amazing. And being able to Rune my equipment? Yes please. I also like his battle orders.
Still gotta hope that the card pool released supports both Warlords, but things are looking good so far.
-
Not bad for Laddin's 999th post!
Now he need to make an epic post for his 1000th and nothing would be epic enough beside revealing Warlock of Adramelech... So if he wants to post, he has to reveal it now... Do it! I want to know!
-
He's an absolute beast! I can't wait to play him. Thanks for posting.
-
I wonder:
If you rune up boots, then cast new boots so the old ones go into your spellbook, do you reacquire the rune to cast on something later? prolly dont reacquire it
Rune of Power: does "Spell action" include changing the spell on a mage wand? what other relevent spell actions are there now other than on wands, mohtari ring, and war helmet?
Rune of Precision: piercing +1 applies to all attacks or the first attack on an action? prolly each attack
I'm guessing if you nullify a dissolve, they dont have to pay that extra 2 mana from a rune being present. combining runes with armor ward sounds like some fun.
I hope there will be a new way to add tough, so that he can get to -6 tough.
-
The card says specifically that you do not ever reacquire runes. They seem to be one time use.
It should reduce the cost of switching spells on a mage wand, since you do that as a Quick Spell (i.e. Spell Action). I'm wondering if it would work on Horn of Gorthos which modifies a Spell Action rather than granting one.
The weapon gains the Piercing +1 trait. The rules state Piercing +X affects all attacks.
You must pay for the Dissolve during Step 1: Cast Spell before the Nullify is revealed. Thus you would have to pay the two extra mana for the Rune being present. Combining with Armor Ward does indeed sound like some fun.
-
I am fully excited but somewhat sad at the same time. Old Green Warlord compared to New Dwarf should be renamed from Warlord to "playground skirmish lord"
Veteran ability Vs. Runesmithing
used occasionally XXX used EVERY game
Battle Orders ORC Vs. Battle Orders Dwarf
+1 ranged dice XXX +2 piercing
Charge XXX Fast
Armor +1 and Attack +1 XXX Armor+1 and Though -2
And his Battle Hardened ability is awesome too. When Mage doing Melee attack, he is not casting spell.
I hope that upcoming War and Earth cards will boost Orc in a same way it will boost dwarf :(
I hope that Dwarf would be not considered OP and be hated same way Orc is ignored.
-
I was worried about this too Boocheck. I think there's still room for the old Warlord and he can still be viable even as opposed to the new hotness. Like you though I'm interested in seeing more cards though.
-
I will definitely be building a spellbook for this guy. Amazing artwork, and amazing rules. My only problem is now which Warlord will be my favorite.
-
At Zuberi.
You must pay for the Dissolve during Step 1: Cast Spell
I did some research and...
FAQ
Armor Ward(Conquest of Kumanjaro)
For example, if the opponent casts a Dissolve spell to attempt to destroy your Hunting Bow, he will pay the
normal 11 mana to cast the Dissolve. Then, when the Dissolve spell resolves, he will have to pay an additional 4
mana to destroy the Hunting Bow.
If you reveal Armor Ward at the end of the Counter Spell Step of a Dissolve, then the opponent will have to pay
the extra 4 mana to destroy it. (Thus, the spell will be wasted if the opponent does not have the 4 mana to pay.)
Seems that the extra mana is paid during the resolve spell step rather than the cast spell step.
I assume these runes will function the same as Armor Ward
-
Yeah the Rune/Armor Ward combo is going to be very nice. So tired of Druids ruining my stuff as is ;D
-
The kermitlord does seem stronger than he used to, but for so many scenarios the new warlord just looks better. Guess we'll just have to play them off against each other and see!
I was worried about this too Boocheck. I think there's still room for the old Warlord and he can still be viable even as opposed to the new hotness. Like you though I'm interested in seeing more cards though.
-
My apologies, echephron. Reading over the new Warlord's rune ability again, it is indeed worded very similar to Armor Ward, suggesting an extra cost paid during the Resolve Spell Step instead of simply increasing the initial cost paid during the Cast Spell Step as I had originally interpreted it. Good catch.
-
I am fully excited but somewhat sad at the same time. Old Green Warlord compared to New Dwarf should be renamed from Warlord to "playground skirmish lord"
Veteran ability Vs. Runesmithing
used occasionally XXX used EVERY game
Battle Orders ORC Vs. Battle Orders Dwarf
+1 ranged dice XXX +2 piercing
Charge XXX Fast
Armor +1 and Attack +1 XXX Armor+1 and Though -2
And his Battle Hardened ability is awesome too. When Mage doing Melee attack, he is not casting spell.
I hope that upcoming War and Earth cards will boost Orc in a same way it will boost dwarf :(
I hope that Dwarf would be not considered OP and be hated same way Orc is ignored.
I don't see that the two Warlords are all that different, honestly. A lot of people would value Melee +1 over Tough -2, actually. More aggressive people. I think the two traits are very comparable. In that same line of thought, I would consider the Battle Orders for the two to be equal as well. The main place where they differ, to me, is Veterans vs Runesmithing. As you stated, the Veterans ability is situational, depending greatly on what your opponent does, and is not seen in every game. Meanwhile, Runesmithing will always be of aid to you. That makes the new Warlord superior to the old one in my opinion, but not to any great extent.
The old Warlord looks to be better at dealing damage (both by himself and with his creatures), while the new one is better at defending himself, defending his creatures, and positioning his creatures. Both should be desirable depending on play style of the player in question.
To me, the great thing about the new Warlord isn't so much in how powerful his abilities are, which I stated don't seem much better than the old one's, but rather how thematic his abilities are. He really feels like a dwarf to me. Crafting awesome equipment and shrugging off magical effects are very dwarvish traits in my mind.
-
Remember that Runes are only useful if you want to run enough equipment to use them. Bloodwave can ignore some equipment to make room for other stuff in the spellbook.
-
All you need is one piece of equipment for the Runes to be useful. You don't have to use all of them. Just one makes them useful. How many games do you play where you don't cast any equipment at all? Granted, your point is still valid in that this is something that you have to want to do and plan for, but it is also something that you CAN plan for. It is completely in your control, and most mages would want to run some equipment (at least some armor).
Meanwhile Vet requires your opponent to summon creatures for you to want to take the time to kill. If he only summons one or two big then it may be better to just use crowd control or otherwise ignore them instead of killing them to gain the Vet ability. If he doesn't summon anything (not common but it does happen) then you CAN'T use Vet at all. Thus, the ability is situational and really out of your control.
But otherwise, I'm one of the people who would actually prefer the Orc's abilities. Extra attack dice to fuel my aggression sounds better than the defensive traits to me. This makes his Battle Skill and Battle Orders both more attractive to me than the Dwarf's. I would play either of them as long as the card pool supports them enough to make them viable.
-
A lot of people would value Melee +1 over Tough -2,
The main difference I have found (and really come to appreciate) is that the Melee trait can only be used once per round (maybe twice with a counterstrike), however that Tough trait is applied to every attack. Now every game is not going to rely heavily on effects but for those that do, this trait really bends the curve a bit. More to say later.....
-
A lot of people would value Melee +1 over Tough -2,
The main difference I have found (and really come to appreciate) is that the Melee trait can only be used once per round (maybe twice with a counterstrike), however that Tough trait is applied to every attack. Now every game is not going to rely heavily on effects but for those that do, this trait really bend the curve a bit. More to say later.....
This. Tough - 2 can be a lifesaver in many situations.
-
That is a good point. The Tough -2 is useful against every attack that comes your way while Melee +1 is only useful once per round usually (occasionally twice with Counterstrikes). However, you should also consider the percentages involved. Tough -2 only has a 17% chance of affecting the effect outcome, while Melee +1 has a 67% chance of adding an extra 1.5 damage. This means the Melee +1 will be relevant 4x as often as the Tough -2. Now, it is true that the effect die would have a bigger impact on the game, but the fact that the die has to be rolled 4x as often before the outcome is affected does quite a bit to balance it with the impact that the extra damage from Melee +1 has on the game. We're now talking about comparing avoiding one application of Burn, or Rot, or perhaps most damaging of all a Stun, with an extra 6 damage dealt from the Melee +1 trait. These two things are fairly comparable in my opinion. I probably would rather avoid the Stun than get the extra 6 damage, but I'd rather the extra damage than avoid any other Condition I can think of. Especially if I have ways to remove the condition (such as the awesome Healing Wand).
-
I would take the 6 damage instead of the stun prevention. Since the stun most likely will just prevent an attack of 4-6 damage ;)
-
(Not to mention Wand of Healing works on Stun also. Just use your Quick Cast and then take your action as normal. But I think they are close enough in impact on the game that it becomes a personal preference.)
-
That is a good point. The Tough -2 is useful against every attack that comes your way while Melee +1 is only useful once per round usually (occasionally twice with Counterstrikes). However, you should also consider the percentages involved. Tough -2 only has a 17% chance of affecting the effect outcome, while Melee +1 has a 67% chance of adding an extra 1.5 damage. This means the Melee +1 will be relevant 4x as often as the Tough -2. Now, it is true that the effect die would have a bigger impact on the game, but the fact that the die has to be rolled 4x as often before the outcome is affected does quite a bit to balance it with the impact that the extra damage from Melee +1 has on the game. We're now talking about comparing avoiding one application of Burn, or Rot, or perhaps most damaging of all a Stun, with an extra 6 damage dealt from the Melee +1 trait. These two things are fairly comparable in my opinion. I probably would rather avoid the Stun than get the extra 6 damage, but I'd rather the extra damage than avoid any other Condition I can think of. Especially if I have ways to remove the condition (such as the awesome Healing Wand).
In a vacuum yes, but in the meta I see High Armor really blunts +1 Melee, however Tough -2 as I have learned during the FiF play testing it is a very synergistic trait. Can't say more though.....
-
Truth, I was comparing them in a vacuum and I kinda slipped back to comparing them on a one for one basis when your point was that Tough can apply multiple times per round. If your opponent is making 4 effect die rolls per round, then the Tough -2 trait will be coming in handy just as often on a per round basis as the Melee +1 trait and be having a greater impact on the game. Preferably though, your opponent isn't getting in more than a couple of attacks on your mage each round. If he is, then you're probably in trouble no matter which trait you have.
We could then jump into talking about stacking armor diminishing Melee +1, as well as counters to your opponent stacking armor, and how this would cause issues for both versions of the mage. We could also talk about the Synergy with the Colossus Belt (and perhaps some to be announced spells) and how those affect both versions of the mage. We could go into quite a bit of conjecture (conjecture for me at least since I haven't tested it, lol).
I wouldn't be surprised if the Tough trait does end up proving to be better, especially given your testimony of having actually used it (which I kinda forgot about people being play testers on here and was just gleefully indulging in playing with it in my mind). However, I haven't been shown any actual reason yet why they aren't both decent options. I am a fairly aggressive player myself, and the extra attack dice look very enticing to me (if the Warlord had the cards to back him up). I probably would gravitate to the Dwarf in the end because, everything else being equal I do think the Runesmithing is better than Veterans, and I really like Dwarves more than Orcs, lol. Besides those two things though, I think the extra attack dice on the Orc are still solid bonuses from my perspective.
-
Did steal equipment just get a buff in this expansion?
-
At Zuberi.
You must pay for the Dissolve during Step 1: Cast Spell
I did some research and...
FAQ
Armor Ward(Conquest of Kumanjaro)
For example, if the opponent casts a Dissolve spell to attempt to destroy your Hunting Bow, he will pay the
normal 11 mana to cast the Dissolve. Then, when the Dissolve spell resolves, he will have to pay an additional 4
mana to destroy the Hunting Bow.
If you reveal Armor Ward at the end of the Counter Spell Step of a Dissolve, then the opponent will have to pay
the extra 4 mana to destroy it. (Thus, the spell will be wasted if the opponent does not have the 4 mana to pay.)
Seems that the extra mana is paid during the resolve spell step rather than the cast spell step.
I assume these runes will function the same as Armor Ward
Correct
-
Did steal equipment just get a buff in this expansion?
Yes, a stolen piece of gear would keep its Rune.. just like a Mind Controlled Pet keeps its Pet token.
Steal Equipment will also bypass the 2 mana "destruction tax" (if you keep the item)
Also with the Dwarf Warlord, its noteworthy that Tough -2 stacks with elemental resists too.
Like, he has -2 to all effect rolls, but if you put a Dragon Scale Haubrek and Elemental Cloak on you have:
-2 to all effect rolls
-4 to lightning and frost effect rolls
-6 to fire effect rolls
Add in a Colossus Belt for -4/-6/-8, Tough -4 means you're immune to effects that require 9+.
Im probably still a bigger fan of Vetern's Belt over Colossus Belt despite the stack ability.
Putting the Armor +1 Rune on an Elemental Cloak makes it a pretty solid package (2 armor, elemental resists, +2 destruction tax).
His +2 Defense Rune stacks with the +1 boost from Ring of Defense, so you can build up +3,
-
Upon reflection, I dont like how easy it is to take this guys "pets"(buff tokens to equipment) away. no other "pet" can be dissolved instantly for minimal cost. they only pay 1 mana more to dissolve it than you did to cast it(which doesnt matter as much for "reforging" i guess). Plus consider that dissolve is a very popular spell choice such that out of school, many people still pick up 4.
After considering that, it seems to me that Armor Ward becomes too important, which i dislike since it is 3 spell points and may have bad interactions with Harshforge stuff.
-
Other pets can be Banished, put to Sleep, or Mind Controlled. Maybe not quite as effective as Dissolve, but not incredibly distant from it either. And the Dwarf gets 5 equipment buffs he can have out at one time, while nobody else can buff more than a single creature at a time with their "pet" buffs (unless we count Veteran as a Pet buff, but that requires you to kill something to gain rather than just buffing upon summoning so I feel it is a different category).
Plus, his "pet" buffs are a lot cheaper at only 1 mana each to apply. Easier to apply and more plentiful, but also easier to remove by his opponents. Seems fair to me. Especially when you add on Armor Ward, which I feel is definitely worth the 3 points for an Equipment centric mage (My Priest definitely loves his Armor Wards). Now they have to pay 6 extra mana to dissolve your precious piece of equipment? Yes, please!!!
I'm not sure what bad interactions it may have with Harshforge, though. I have not seen anything to be worried about as of yet.
-
I don't see that the two Warlords are all that different, honestly. A lot of people would value Melee +1 over Tough -2, actually. More aggressive people. I think the two traits are very comparable.
Actually, its not even close if you assume the Dwarf will always be swinging with a rune weapon. After paying one mana for a Precision Rune, the Anvil Dwarf has piercing +1 on all of his attacks, which is not far from +1 melee once per turn. The Dwarf also has the flexibility to put his Piercing Rune on a ranged weapon as well. And it costs his opponent an extra two mana (net one mana disadvantage) do dissolve the rune weapon.
The comparison is not even close.
-
Ok I get that it costs more, but I'm still going to Dissolve a Rune Weapon if I get a chance. If it's that annoying I'll even pay for the Armor Ward. It's a deterrent but not a complete protection from losing the weapon.
-
Dear Dr. Cornelius,
I appreciate your insight and contributions on these forums, and welcome you as a brother to discuss matters pertaining to the Arena. I must say though, that I am not pleased that you would take a snippet of what I've said and claim it to be unfounded or invalid. Especially without proving your point. I do make mistakes, but you have not shown this to be one of them.
To start with, the statement you quoted was directly comparing Melee +1 with Tough -2. I discussed the Rune ability later in the post, but it had nothing to do with the statement you quoted. You failed to show me that Melee +1 and Tough -2 are not comparable traits themselves. If you will look at other posts, sIKE made very insightful comments as to how Tough becomes better when you are outnumbered and your mage is suffering from multiple attacks per round, which is much more pertinent to the quote you cited. I still maintain that that's not a situation you would want to be in though, and many players will prefer the increased damage over the increased insurance against a possible bad situation.
Second, your assumption that the Dwarf will always have the Piercing +1 Rune on his weapon is false. As silverclawgrizzly pointed out, it can and often will be Dissolved. Also, there are players who may prefer to make their weapon a Cantrip rather than giving it Piercing. That way they don't have to worry about losing it or packing a spare in their spellbook. At least that's an option I've been thinking about, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
Finally, if you read my entire post, you would see that I actually came to the conclusion that the Dwarf is superior to the Orc in a general sense. I just don't think it's to any great extent. The reason I think the Dwarf is superior is exactly because of his Rune ability. It is more reliable and versatile than the Veteran ability. However, the Orc still wins out on sheer aggression. All of his abilities, including all three of his Battle Orders, are aimed at increasing damage. Meanwhile, the Dwarf has only 1 Rune and 1 of his 3 Battle Orders which increase damage. Thus, the Orc will appeal to more aggressive players as being the better option for their playstyle. The benefits of the Dwarf in reliability and versatility won't matter so much to someone who just wants to beat the crap out of their opponent, and they are not great enough benefits to completely overshadow the bonus damage from the Orc, which is what those players will be looking at. Thus, the two aren't that far apart and both will see play. The Orc has not simply been replaced.
-
I would just like to mention I'm a huge fan of the "beat the crap out of my opponent" play style Zuberi mentioned. It wins me a lot of matches 8) Far far more than the "get the crap beaten out of me" style. I've tried both extensively, I know where my preferences lie.
I'll use the Dwarf cause....he's a Dwarf and I'm a geek. I don't think he's necessarily better than the Orc though. My roommates and I are going to have a Bloodwave VS Anvil Throne battle the day he set comes out. I'll let you know how it goes.
-
It appears to me that the dwarf will be superior in offense simply because of the Charge battle cry.
now... i am not a playtester so i cant tell how it actually works out. But on paper i see this as an extremely strong ability that with timing can get the upper hand when engaging battle especially combined with an retalite or reverse attack.
-
It appears to me that the dwarf will be superior in offense simply because of the Charge battle cry.
now... i am not a playtester so i cant tell how it actually works out. But on paper i see this as an extremely strong ability that with timing can get the upper hand when engaging battle especially combined with an retalite or reverse attack.
The Fast trait is good until the board is crowded or filled with vine markers. Then it becomes really less useful.
-
Quick question:
Does the cantrip rune go away after the weapon is destroyed? If so, that makes it sort of a one time cantrip instead of a real cantrip.
-
Quick question:
Does the cantrip rune go away after the weapon is destroyed? If so, that makes it sort of a one time cantrip instead of a real cantrip.
Yes it goes away. It is even explained in the article if I remember.
-
The nice thing here is that this dwarf is able to put on a bit more pressure than what we have traditionally come to expect from a Warlord. In my playtesting books, I have still carried two sets of armor to deal with this situation. I will have more to say on this topic later....
-
Yeah, going from two armors to three for zero spellbook points is fantastic.
-
The questions I have are around whether there are limitations around what sort of equipment you can put your runes on.
For example The Rune of Precision looks like it only works with weapons/equipment with an inherent attack. That seems pretty straightforward, adding precise to something that doesn't roll attack dice would be fairly pointless.
But does The Rune of Fortification only work if the equipment already grants armour? Or could you put it on your Eagle-claw boots?
-
The questions I have are around whether there are limitations around what sort of equipment you can put your runes on.
For example The Rune of Precision looks like it only works with weapons/equipment with an inherent attack. That seems pretty straightforward, adding precise to something that doesn't roll attack dice would be fairly pointless.
But does The Rune of Fortification only work if the equipment already grants armour? Or could you put it on your Eagle-claw boots?
It is all explained in the article. You just need to read it.
-
The questions I have are around whether there are limitations around what sort of equipment you can put your runes on.
For example The Rune of Precision looks like it only works with weapons/equipment with an inherent attack. That seems pretty straightforward, adding precise to something that doesn't roll attack dice would be fairly pointless.
But does The Rune of Fortification only work if the equipment already grants armour? Or could you put it on your Eagle-claw boots?
Here is the rule for the Rune of Fortification:
Rune of Fortification: If this equipment gives an Armor +X bonus to the Mage, it gives an additional Armor +1.
Hope this helps!
-
It is all explained in the article. You just need to read it.
Wildhorn - true, the article uses the example of Leather Gloves, but the token reads "Armor +1" and there are plenty of other effects that give armour +1 without requiring it to be linked to another source of armour. It seemed worth clarifying whether the author just used the Leather Gloves as an example for simplicity or whether the rules required it.
sIKE - thanks! That clears it up nicely.
-
It is all explained in the article. You just need to read it.
Wildhorn - true, the article uses the example of Leather Gloves, but the token reads "Armor +1" and there are plenty of other effects that give armour +1 without requiring it to be linked to another source of armour. It seemed worth clarifying whether the author just used the Leather Gloves as an example for simplicity or whether the rules required it.
sIKE - thanks! That clears it up nicely.
If you read correctly you will see it clearly say that you can increase the armor of an equipment that as already armor.