Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Texan85 on July 08, 2013, 02:15:46 AM
-
Mage wars FB says warlock took first?
Anyone have 411 to spill? As much info and details as possible is awesome.
-
Would be nice to get more consistent information about what peoples winning strategies are. I feel like there is a lot of user created content on this forum and some more input from the other side would be nice.
-
doesn't anybody at AW or the TO have a tripod and camera, a full replay on youtube wont be that hard. it also would be a a viable form of referee in case anything need to be disputed. hek if i knew we had enough people where i live to have a large comp i would design and bring a table that fits 3 camera's; 1 over the top, and 2 able to see the upside down card mages select from there book (kind of like TV poker shows).
-
This is actually the thing that annoys me. From a cost benefit analysis this is a very cheap cost that they can do. It's not more content, story lore, or online gameplay; it is someone at each tournament walking around taking notes and essentially writing a story or blog about it.
And like most tcg tournaments they should have a list if all the cards in the books, they should publish the top 4, 8, or 16.
And I'm not trying to be mean, but as a consumer this is very disappointing because they already have people at this convention, and are even running it.
But then again it was yesterday, and it does take time. However, if AW or MW under performs in reporting tournament data then to me that shows a lack of commitment and thoughtfulness.
So, let's see what we get. Tournament play is going to be the difference between this game being a mtg like phenomenon versus a fad. The learning curve of this game entices a certain kind of gamer, and it's not really casual gamer. It's the people that want tournament play.
-
@Texan - It is a big difference in what I want to give you guys and what you do get. I know what we should be getting but for some reason it is not happening. If all goes well Gencon will be very different 8)
-
My point does stim from the info that was supposed to come from the origins tournament, either I missed the info that was gonna come grow aw or it didn't.
But To the point I think most people want what was easily observable by any spectator. The process is as simple as a pen, paper, notes, and thoughtful observations. And if that is what you are referring to shadow, well that sucks. But I fell that makes a point, but as you allude to gencon, let's hope.
A very streamlined process to report tournament happenings would be a very cost effective means of providing the same excitement that is normally found during an expansion release. It actually seems more important than some other efforts, because it can fill a void for those frustrated trying to find other ppl to play against.
But TLDR, was anyone there than can recap what was played?
-
A very streamlined process to report tournament happenings would be a very cost effective means of providing the same excitement that is normally found during an expansion release. It actually seems more important than some other efforts, because it can fill a void for those frustrated trying to find other ppl to play against.
Yeah being that we are probably a more hardcore audience we are all hungry for different strategies and whats happening out in the wild. I find it curious that during the last few tourneys it was actually the players who posted all the information - with little coming from the other side.
As great as a FB update is, you would think they would want free marketing by having meatier posts on there website.
-
Hi guys. I won the DTC tournament playing a Warlock. My deck was very heavy on enchantments and armor, with few creatures. The best decks I played at the con were a Priestess and two Forcemasters.
The Priestess (played by Graham) was a very solid turtle deck. The main creature was Brogan Bloodstone, supported by a few Knights of Westlock and an Angel or two. He also deployed two Temples of Bim Shalla and a Temple of Light. I was kept alive by judicious use of Deathlink. It was an extremely long match (3 hours), at the end of which I had 0 damage and he had 35-ish damage and 60 life. We drew, but if we had continued, I'm certain I would have won.
The first Forcemaster, played by Jesse, went very aggressive early. I countered by kiting and using curses. When he brought out his Thoughtspore (with dissolve), I immediately took it down with a fireball (+Fireshaper Ring). He got my battleforge with a psychic hammer. Eventually, he ran out of dissolves and dispels, and I got a Ghoul Rot on him. Meanwhile, my regrowth belt was keeping me alive. He got out an Invisible Stalker, and had it following me around, hitting me at the end of each turn. I used the reflex boots to dodge. I got out a mage wand, attached dissolve to it, and dissolved Galvitar. He got it back, recast it, and I redissolved it. After that, he stopped trying and began to run away. Eventually, the ghoul rot (plus my attacks) took their toll and he lost.
The second forcemaster, played by Phil, played more conservatively. I came to him. He got out a thoughtspore, which I attacked with a fireball and damaged for 6 life. Next turn, I ran away (mongoose agility + cheetah speed), and he got out a second spore. On the following turn, I used battleforge to get out a lash, ran up, killed the new thoughtspore with the lash, and quickcast a flameblast on the other one. I fell back again, to one of my corners; he attacked, I hit him back with 9 dice (Lash + 1 fireshaper ring + 1 gauntlets + 2 bear strength + 1 warlock ability) and hurt him badly. He changed tactics, moving away and casting hidden Hellfire traps on both zones adjacent to my corner. Next turn, I seeking dispelled one of the zones, he countered by casting a poisned cloud in my corner and walls of fire on both adjacencies. I killed the cloud with a lash attack followed by a dancing scimitar. By this time, we were both hurting pretty bad - I had about 22-ish damage and he was up around 25. He had a ghoul rot on him, and a temple out, for 1 net damage per turn. I had lost all my regen (the regrowth belt had been exploded and got the vampirism with purge magic). So, with no other options, I cast Goran, put deathlink on him, and left him in the corner (the walls of fire block line of sight, preventing the Forcemaster from mind controlling him) I came out through the walls of fire (Haberk + clock meant it was fairly painless) and attacked him. He used reverse attack to hit me back with my own lash.
At this point, we were forced to quit (the con was ending) so we had to call it a draw. I had 33 damage on me, Phil had about 28; I was healing two per upkeep and he was taking one damage. In the last turn, we were both in the same space, he had initiative (and agony). I think if we had played one more turn, I would have finished him.
-
I like to think of myself as a major fan of Mage Wars, I have bought just about one or two of everything they have put out along with my buddy doing the same. Being tourney season, I don't expect a lot of comm's to come out from Arcane Wonders other than tourney reports from the previous weekend. I know it is a very small company and has very few FTE's, but this should be vital output during this time of year. Having a good synopsis of the meet, the types of spell books (Mage Types) and maybe a game report from the final round(s). I am very interested to see what style of play is winning and how I can make myself a better Mage Warrior :)
-
BTW thanks Mark
-
Thanks for the write up Mark! Sounds like you play an interesting breed of Warlock, very curse heavy with kiting / solo melee. Its one of the reasons I like the warlock, is his different play styles.
That last Forcemaster had a bit of an odd set up with seemingly lots of out of school spells.
-
Greetings to All,
First, DrMark...Congratulations on the win and thank you for the tournament recap! We appreciate it greatly.
Next, I hear what you're saying about more timely reporting. I agree that it should happen right away. Our person responsible for getting that posted was stuck in an airport yesterday. As soon as he gets home we should see the spellbook builds and rankings from Dice Tower Con.
We have several changes to be implemented prior to Gencon which should make the rest of this run smoothly.
As an additional item, during this period of website upgrade we will be implementing a tactics web page to help corral the player driven content. We hope to have it running soon. I will post a definitive due date as soon as I have it.
Thank you all for your patience and support. We are taking notes and improving how we handle the forums.
Sincerely,
John
-
Thanks for the info Thessial
-
Two draws doesn't seem very promising from a time standpoint, especially if matches are taking 3 hours (that seems totally excessive, honestly). Is the intention for comp play to have a standard time limit or will it fluctuate? This distinction is pretty important because time limits affect the viability of certain ways of playing the game, and thus balance.
-
Thank you for your report, Mark. Congrats!
-
Two draws doesn't seem very promising from a time standpoint, especially if matches are taking 3 hours (that seems totally excessive, honestly). Is the intention for comp play to have a standard time limit or will it fluctuate? This distinction is pretty important because time limits affect the viability of certain ways of playing the game, and thus balance.
I completely agree and thus advocate the 75-90min rounds. 75min seems ideal from all the events I have run
-
Thank you very much, DrMark, for the summary of your matches.
-
Glad to see some details. I am looking forward to the full reports and deck lists.
Might I add....I hope everyone had FUN! :o
-
These results seem a little...odd. 3 hour games? Multiple games ending in draws? Why wasn't a time limit implemented for this tournament? How many players were there?
And...HOW were the games running so long? I haven't had games last that long since my first two games...
-
This solidifies something that myself and my play group (me, Steve, Tim, and John - collectively we have #1/#2 at Bashcon and #1/#2/#4 at Origins) have suspected for quite a while:
Mage Wars turns into a completely different game depending on the time limit for matches.
When we play casually with no time limit, many of us have been building relatively slow-starting, defensively-oriented builds. With enough defensive cards and skillful play you can hold off "beatdown" builds, turn the corner and eventually win. Problem is, none of those slow decks can hope to win in less than 2 hours, even though we are fairly quick with our playing. They would never win a single game in a 90 minute format.
When we practice for 75-90 minute tournament time limits, every one of us ends up with a one-dimensional beatdown deck. Not because that's the only way to play the game, but because of the time limit.
At Origins I'd said something about not wanting >2 hour limits because it would just be too exhausting to play through all the matches. Now that I think about it I am actually wishing for longer time limits.
-
When we practice for 75-90 minute tournament time limits, every one of us ends up with a one-dimensional beatdown deck. Not because that's the only way to play the game, but because of the time limit.
I think that's a serious over-exaggeration. 75-90 minutes is plenty of time for a more defensive, control-oriented opening if you are familiar with your book (which you should be in a tournament situation, it's pretty similar to piloting decks in other games). MTG has a far more established tournament scene, and you can still get DQ-ed for taking too long or drawing out the game, but control decks have no problem winning pro tours.
Just because the objective is to kill the opposing Mage/Player doesn't mean control book somehow loose out; properly piloted and constructed, they have more than enough ability to kill the opposing mage. I've played aggro vs control in MW enough times to see that there is always a point in which aggro needs to finish off the opponent, but if it doesn't and you are playing against a competent control player, you will be overwhelmed and die very soon after that point.
-
I think that's a serious over-exaggeration. 75-90 minutes is plenty of time for a more defensive, control-oriented opening if you are familiar with your book (which you should be in a tournament situation, it's pretty similar to piloting decks in other games). MTG has a far more established tournament scene, and you can still get DQ-ed for taking too long or drawing out the game, but control decks have no problem winning pro tours.
Just because the objective is to kill the opposing Mage/Player doesn't mean control book somehow loose out; properly piloted and constructed, they have more than enough ability to kill the opposing mage. I've played aggro vs control in MW enough times to see that there is always a point in which aggro needs to finish off the opponent, but if it doesn't and you are playing against a competent control player, you will be overwhelmed and die very soon after that point.
M:TG is not relevant, as the pace of MW is completely different from M:TG.
During Origins, I played a highly aggressive deck. The only piece of channeling I had in my entire deck was a battleforge. Yet I managed to run up against the 75 minute limit twice, both times defeating my opponent after the timer rung.
Here's the thing: in both games I was down a bunch of health and creatures early on, but I switched to a more defensive/evasive playstyle. Despite not having a defensively-built deck, I turned the corner and won both games. Skilled players are more than capable of making a comeback despite being down in channeling/health/creatures/etc, but it takes a whole bunch of rounds to do so. In both game my opponents were good sports and avoided any intentional slow play. All it would have taken to turn 2 of my wins into draws are a little more hemming and hawing during the preparation phase, and taking a little longer to figure out which creature to activate.
And this is with super-aggressive aggro build vs. super-aggressive aggro build.
There is an immense amount of positional play in high-level MW, and such play tends to draw out the game as both players jockey to get their mages/creatures in the right zones instead of going straight in.
-
I think that's a serious over-exaggeration. 75-90 minutes is plenty of time for a more defensive, control-oriented opening if you are familiar with your book (which you should be in a tournament situation, it's pretty similar to piloting decks in other games). MTG has a far more established tournament scene, and you can still get DQ-ed for taking too long or drawing out the game, but control decks have no problem winning pro tours.
Just because the objective is to kill the opposing Mage/Player doesn't mean control book somehow loose out; properly piloted and constructed, they have more than enough ability to kill the opposing mage. I've played aggro vs control in MW enough times to see that there is always a point in which aggro needs to finish off the opponent, but if it doesn't and you are playing against a competent control player, you will be overwhelmed and die very soon after that point.
M:TG is not relevant, as the pace of MW is completely different from M:TG.
During Origins, I played a highly aggressive deck. The only piece of channeling I had in my entire deck was a battleforge. Yet I managed to run up against the 75 minute limit twice, both times defeating my opponent after the timer rung.
Here's the thing: in both games I was down a bunch of health and creatures early on, but I switched to a more defensive/evasive playstyle. Despite not having a defensively-built deck, I turned the corner and won both games. Skilled players are more than capable of making a comeback despite being down in channeling/health/creatures/etc, but it takes a whole bunch of rounds to do so. In both game my opponents were good sports and avoided any intentional slow play. All it would have taken to turn 2 of my wins into draws are a little more hemming and hawing during the preparation phase, and taking a little longer to figure out which creature to activate.
And this is with super-aggressive aggro build vs. super-aggressive aggro build.
There is an immense amount of positional play in high-level MW, and such play tends to draw out the game as both players jockey to get their mages/creatures in the right zones instead of going straight in.
Aggro vs. Aggro games in my experience rarely last an hour. You were totally vague in terms of what you actually played during your games, so there's no real way for me to know what your definition of aggro is, but chances are pretty good that if you're playing Battleforge, you're not playing aggro.
There is a little positioning "jockeying" at the beginning of the game, true, but it hardly warrants excessive play time, and if you're the decidedly more "aggro" book than your opponent, you're going to make the first move because it's in your best interest anyway.
My point wasn't to draw parallels to the pace of the games, it was to address the fact that at "pro-level play," which Origins was decidedly not (and such arguably doesn't exist except perhaps among playtesters), 75-90 minute time restrictions should not inhibit players that are interested in completing the objective of the game and experienced pilots of their books.
-
If anyone's interested, here's the deck I won the tournament with:
Equipment (Total: 30)
1 x Dragonscale Haubert (1)
1 x Demonhide Armor (2)
2 x Lash of Hellfire (4)
2 x Mage Wand (4)
1 x Gautlets of Strength (2)
1 x Helm of Fear (2)
1 x Regrowth Belt (2)
1 x Reflex Boots (4)
1 x Dancing Scimitar (4)
1 x Fireshaper Ring (1)
1 x Elemental Cloak (2)
1 x Moonglow Amulet (2)
Creatures (Total: 7)
1 x Dark Pact Slayer (3)
1 x Goran, Werewolf Pet (4)
Enchantments (Total: 30)
1 x Bear Strength (2)
1 x Rhino Hide (2)
2 x Falcon Precision (4)
1 x Armor Ward (5)
1 x Moongoose Agility (2)
1 x Cheetah Speed (2)
1 x Vampirism (2)
2 x Death Link (4)
2 x Ghoul Rot (4)
1 x Nullify (2)
1 x Agony (1)
Incantations (Total: 29)
1 x Purify (3)
1 x Knockdown (2)
2 x Battle Fury (4)
1 x Purge Magic (6)
1 x Teleport (4)
2 x Dispel (4)
2 x Dissolve (4)
1 x Seeking Dispel (2)
Attack (Total: 8 )
1 x Firestorm (3)
1 x Flameblast (1)
2 x Fireball (4)
Conjurations (Total: 15)
1 x Idol of Pestilence (2)
1 x Enchanter's Ward (2)
1 x Pentagram (4)
1 x Battle Forge (3)
2 x Mana Crystal (4)
Almost immediately after the tournament was over, I made some changes to it based on what happened in the finals. It's a bit nastier now - I dropped the Pentagram, Dark pact slayer, and a couple other things to make room for Aldramech, tainted blood, mage bane, another battle forge, etc.
-
Pious and Red we are off topic you can start a new thread to debate the pro and cons of a time limit.
-
Two draws doesn't seem very promising from a time standpoint, especially if matches are taking 3 hours (that seems totally excessive, honestly). Is the intention for comp play to have a standard time limit or will it fluctuate? This distinction is pretty important because time limits affect the viability of certain ways of playing the game, and thus balance.
And that's the $250k question.
-
When we practice for 75-90 minute tournament time limits, every one of us ends up with a one-dimensional beatdown deck. Not because that's the only way to play the game, but because of the time limit.
I think that's a serious over-exaggeration. 75-90 minutes is plenty of time for a more defensive, control-oriented opening if you are familiar with your book (which you should be in a tournament situation, it's pretty similar to piloting decks in other games). MTG has a far more established tournament scene, and you can still get DQ-ed for taking too long or drawing out the game, but control decks have no problem winning pro tours.
Just because the objective is to kill the opposing Mage/Player doesn't mean control book somehow loose out; properly piloted and constructed, they have more than enough ability to kill the opposing mage. I've played aggro vs control in MW enough times to see that there is always a point in which aggro needs to finish off the opponent, but if it doesn't and you are playing against a competent control player, you will be overwhelmed and die very soon after that point.
.
Mtg doesn't have you pick from your deck each turn, and there is no chess like movement component for each card with turn exchanges between both,
Apples /= oranges.
-
Two draws doesn't seem very promising from a time standpoint, especially if matches are taking 3 hours (that seems totally excessive, honestly). Is the intention for comp play to have a standard time limit or will it fluctuate? This distinction is pretty important because time limits affect the viability of certain ways of playing the game, and thus balance.
Reddawn - the 3-hour match Mark alluded to was NOT a tournament game, but a casual game he played with a friend/fellow gamer. During the 8-person final tournament on Sunday at Dice Tower Convention in Orlando, the match time limit was 75 minutes. Mark (Warlock) basically steamrolled his first two opponents, then battled to a hard-fought draw in the final against Phil (Forcemaster). Some matches seemed predestined to go to time, such as Priestess (Robert (me) - Temple of Light + heavy Bim-Shalla build) v Priestess (Patrick - Temple of Asyra, clerics, power-up to fatties build). In my opinion, I believe another 15 minutes would have resulted in match wins for the majority of matches that ended in draws, and I know that the folks at Arcane Wonders are continuing to tweak the numbers based on feedback from players and tournament data.
We'll see if things get better at Gen Con!!!
-
rcone002 your first five post need to be approved before they can be seen.I fixed the double post for you.
-
"the 3-hour match Mark alluded to was NOT a tournament game, but a casual game he played with a friend/fellow gamer. " -- that's not correct. The three hour game I played against Graham was my second match during the Tuesday pre-lims. (Both Graham and I had won our first match that day). The 75 minute time-limit was imposed later in the week, I think.
-
"the 3-hour match Mark alluded to was NOT a tournament game, but a casual game he played with a friend/fellow gamer. " -- that's not correct. The three hour game I played against Graham was my second match during the Tuesday pre-lims. (Both Graham and I had won our first match that day). The 75 minute time-limit was imposed later in the week, I think.
I apologize if it was in a preliminary tournament at Dice Tower (since the convention didn't start until Wednesday, did you mean Wednesday and not Tuesday, Mark?). I'm guessing if there were just 4 of you in the prelim on Wednesday, whoever was running the tournament may have just decided to let you play it out until someone won the match instead of adhering to the 75-minute time limit, which was strictly enforced in the final tournament on Sunday.
I want to hear your opinion, though, Mark, on the time limit. As your build was pretty aggressive, I assume you don't really have a problem with the 75-minute time limit? If the limit had been 90 minutes at DTC, do you think that would have been better or worse for the overall tournament structure and participants? I feel that 90 minutes would have greatly reduced the number of ties (I believe we had 2 ties and 2 wins/losses each round out of the 3 rounds total).
I'm just worried that time constraints at Gen Con will force the final tournament time limit to something like 65 minutes per match, and that may preclude all but the most aggressive builds from being viable.
-
It's a shame that a time limit wasn't imposed on these games right from the start. The results from this tournament are being used by a poster on BGG to criticize the game in a review thread about the game being too slow and long to play. Stuff like that can keep players from trying the game, which is a shame.
-
"since the convention didn't start until Wednesday, did you mean Wednesday and not Tuesday, Mark?)." -- oops, yes, I meant Wednesday.
" I'm guessing if there were just 4 of you in the prelim on Wednesday, whoever was running the tournament may have just decided to let you play it out until someone won the match" -- I only saw four of us on Wednesday, so that's probably correct.
-
The time limit thing and game play is going to be a community issue, a solution that will be generally positive and promote incentives to play quickly is needed.
-
We discussed various tie-breakers at Dice Tower. (Note: The goal of the tie breaker should be to be "fair" which I define as awarding the match to whoever would have won if the match was played all the way to a conclusion)
Various metrics were suggested including:
* Less damage - although this is simple, this tends to disfavor slow-starting decks and favor agro decks.
* Unspent spell book points (Sum of spellbook points of all cards still in the spellbook)
* Unspent spellbook points + spellbook points in play
Personally, I really like one person's suggestion for something to the blinds in poker. That is, starting 60 minutes into a match, the tournament director announces that during each upkeep, both players take a certain amount of damage. Five minutes later, the upkeep increases; five minutes later, it increases again. It keeps increasing like that until one of the mages is dead. If they die simultaneously, it's a draw.
-
Personally, I really like one person's suggestion for something to the blinds in poker. That is, starting 60 minutes into a match, the tournament director announces that during each upkeep, both players take a certain amount of damage. Five minutes later, the upkeep increases; five minutes later, it increases again. It keeps increasing like that until one of the mages is dead. If they die simultaneously, it's a draw.
Sounds like the person who can keep the Sunfire Amulet the longest will win in this scenario...just run to a corner and start life buffing/healing yourself....he who can heal the most wins.
-
If anyone's interested, here's the deck I won the tournament with:
Equipment (Total: 30)
1 x Dragonscale Haubert (1)
1 x Demonhide Armor (2)
2 x Lash of Hellfire (4)
2 x Mage Wand (4)
1 x Gautlets of Strength (2)
1 x Helm of Fear (2)
1 x Regrowth Belt (2)
1 x Reflex Boots (4)
1 x Dancing Scimitar (4)
1 x Fireshaper Ring (1)
1 x Elemental Cloak (2)
1 x Moonglow Amulet (2)
Creatures (Total: 7)
1 x Dark Pact Slayer (3)
1 x Goran, Werewolf Pet (4)
Enchantments (Total: 30)
1 x Bear Strength (2)
1 x Rhino Hide (2)
2 x Falcon Precision (4)
1 x Armor Ward (5)
1 x Moongoose Agility (2)
1 x Cheetah Speed (2)
1 x Vampirism (2)
2 x Death Link (4)
2 x Ghoul Rot (4)
1 x Nullify (2)
1 x Agony (1)
Incantations (Total: 29)
1 x Purify (3)
1 x Knockdown (2)
2 x Battle Fury (4)
1 x Purge Magic (6)
1 x Teleport (4)
2 x Dispel (4)
2 x Dissolve (4)
1 x Seeking Dispel (2)
Attack (Total: 8 )
1 x Firestorm (3)
1 x Flameblast (1)
2 x Fireball (4)
Conjurations (Total: 15)
1 x Idol of Pestilence (2)
1 x Enchanter's Ward (2)
1 x Pentagram (4)
1 x Battle Forge (3)
2 x Mana Crystal (4)
Almost immediately after the tournament was over, I made some changes to it based on what happened in the finals. It's a bit nastier now - I dropped the Pentagram, Dark pact slayer, and a couple other things to make room for Aldramech, tainted blood, mage bane, another battle forge, etc.
I think that spellbook is illegal.
"2 x Mage Wand (4)" but the Mage Wand is a level 2 arcane spell so it costs 4 points each copy.