Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Mages => Topic started by: iNano78 on April 14, 2015, 09:40:25 AM
-
There are several threads (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14864.0) and countless comments (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15363.msg49400#msg49400), not to mention tournament results, suggesting that - in the hands of experienced players - Wizards are the most consistent and overall powerful mages. This also probably explains the glaringly obvious lack of an alternate (female) Wizard in a spell tome expansion to date, with an alternate Warlord taking the Wizard's place along with the other 3 core set mages. To quickly summarize some advantages of the Wizard, he gets:
- solid special abilities that are universally useful regardless of play style or the way his deck is built (e.g. can shrug off up to 3 damage per round; always has access to a 3-dice non-elemental ranged attack = an innate way to attack flying creatures),
- naturally high channeling (10),
- exclusive access to some of the best conjurations and equipment (e.g. Suppression Cloak, Wizard's Tower, Gate to Voltari),
- a spell point discount for Arcane (e.g. staple spells like Dispel, Teleport, Nullify, Enchanter's Ring, Mage Wand; powerful spells like Banish; many high-level creatures with powerful abilities; all the mana denial enchantments, conjurations and incantations; most of the channeling increasers) AND an elemental school of his choice (e.g. Elemental Wand; Watergate = Dissolves, Acid Balls; Earth/Pit-trap = Iron Golems, Spiked Pit and all the efficient Earth attack spells; Fire with all its powerful attack spells, Battle Forge, Fireshaper Ring, etc),
- to pay triple for nothing (e.g. every out-of-school spell in the game that isn't exclusive to a type of mage/training costs double for the Wizard).
What if the Wizard paid triple for all out-of-school spells?
Suddenly the Wizard's choice of elemental school would matter a lot more. Do you go with Water to get cheap Dissolves for your "mana denial / attrition" strategy but are limited to weaker attack spells? Oh, and then you also pay triple for Battle Forge, Dragonscale Hauberk, etc. Or do you choose Fire to at least limit Battle Forge to 4 spell book points, get cheap Hauberks, make use of the many powerful attack spells? But then you pay triple for Dissolves (probably best to go with Explode), Acid Ball, etc.
Oh, and let's not forget that Reverse Attack now costs 6 to put in your book, and you'll be restricting yourself pretty heavily if you want to run Armor Ward or summon a Steelclaw Grizzly or four. Even the Nature-school enchantments like Hawkeye, Cheetah Speed, Rhino Hide, etc, are going to start putting a dent in your spell book. No more spell books with 70+ cards in them unless you want to strictly stay in school!
I really like the idea of giving the Wizard some really tough choices during spell book building so he can't be the ultimate jack-of-all-trades with cheap access to answers for everything in every spell book. It would be a pretty simple errata that could go a long way towards leveling the playing field and simultaneously open up design space for elemental school cards (e.g. powerful water attacks, Frost damage, etc) and for an alternate (female) Wizard that doesn't just end up making the existing Wizard even more powerful - e.g. maybe she's more in-touch with nature and pays single for Arcane, double for all elemental and level 1-2 Nature spells, and triple for everything else - but doesn't have as strong/universal special abilities.
If this is too much of a "nerf," a compromise might be to make non-Arcane primary schools (e.g. Dark, Nature, Holy, Mind, War) cost triple while out-of-school elemental spells cost double - or vice versa. But I think it is still possible to build (several) viable Wizard(s) using full-out "pays triple for out-of-school" rules, despite being much less flexible (e.g. fewer answers in his book). Besides, there are still 4 possible choices of elemental school, so it might actually add diversity since the four choices would have more distinct styles sort of "forced upon them," rather than slight variations on a theme all running the same toolbox of out-of-school answers.
Thoughts?
-
I really appreciate the effort you've put into thinking this through. I have been the culprit on a few of these anti-wizard comments. In the end I've chocked it up to just being inexperienced, but a few things I have noticed still cause some concern for me:
1) At least 60% of the books I see on OCTGN are wizards.
2) 100% of the wizards I see are running Wizard's Tower and a toolbox of attack spells.
3) It's not that wizards have a ton of dispels and dissolves it's that they have SO MANY ACTIONS. They can plan 4 spells a turn (2 planning, 1 tower, 1 huggin)! Not to mention the spells they have on the mage wand and the elemental wand and the action advantage they've gotten from either Gate of Voltari or Battleforge. It's disgusting. And now someone is talking about giving them a book that will let them plan another spell?! Who's drinking too much?
4) 70% of the books I see are running Wall of Thorns + Force Push
To this end I have made it my mission to find a spellbook that will destroy all wizards and punish those who play with thorns. It would be nice to have competitive matches with other mages, but in the end...I just want the wizard player to cry (in a nice and friendly competition way, of course). I haven't succeeded yet.
Keeping in mind that I have decided that I am still inexperienced; I am still holding out hope that wizards can be beaten with more regularity (I have done it, but it takes some significant effort) and that "Wall of Thorns Cheese" won't continue to get card support (Acid Ball, Rust, Surging Wave, Disarm).
All that to say that I would kind of prefer that Wizards stay where they are so that I can prove something. I do like the idea of making the elemental choice more significant in terms of how the book plays. Your changes would certainly make for some restricted diversity in wizard's spellbooks. I think the triple cost for everything else is too much by a long shot.
If things were to be changed, (probably not going to happen given Arcane Wonder's errata policy) I would suggest giving them a choice of which school (or schools) are going to be triple cost for them since the main draw and feel of the wizard is flexibility. There are several ways to do this:
1) You could pair schools together such as "Training in Water means triple cost in Fire and Dark" or "Training in Air means triple cost in Earth and War".
2) The wizard also chooses a school or two from which they cannot put spells in their book.
The first suggestion is very complicated, but it ensures at least some kind of sacrifice on the wizard's part. The second suggestion retains the flexibility and simplicity, but all the wizard would have to do is avoid one or two schools of magic when building a book which is not very hard to do.
As I said before, the wizard does concern me and I also feel that you will get virtually no support on an errata to an iconic mage. I retain a bit of optimism with the release of Harshforge Plate and Harshforge Monolith and the preview of this new "Anchored" trait from Domination that wizards might be getting their comeuppance soon.
-
My thoughts are that this specific issue(and proposed fix) has been talked about already. A lot. Then a lot more. for YEARS. It never results in the changes people want. So talk about it cuz you enjoy talking about it, not because you are trying to change basic mage wars rules, because that will just frustrate you.
Now onto the post.
1) Be the change you want to see in the world. In octgn, I often talk to players before loading a book, and ask what they want to see. when they ask me, I say no wizards, because I see too many of them.
2) Other threads addressed this. The same could be said of Galvatar or forcefield and the forcemaster. Some mages have must-have spells which are very good and urge you towards a playstyle. I personally think wizards tower could be a bit weaker to encourage build variety, but i don't see it happening.
3) RE:wizards tower and I don't see a lot of huggin, though I'd love to flameblast him. everyone has battleforge. Wands are fun to dissolve. I don't see elemental wands on them, because wizards tower preserves attack spells. The book you refer to is mordoks tome. Its a very very old promo which has yet to be released.
Promos: Don't assume that because a promo exists that it will always eventually become a "real" spell in its current form. So don't use it just as much as a "real" spell. I personally dislike it when an opponent plays more than one copy of one promo in a game(staff of storms, gloves of skill, ring of gales for example). I'm one of those who uses bear hide with its unimplemented frost-2 over that acid armor's acid-3.
4) Wall of Thorns + Force Push is a bit cliche for me, but if you don't prep for it, you are asking them to do it to you.
I kill wizards pretty well, when I'm forced to and play the right spellbook.
It reminds me of the card game Dominion. People complained that one simple strategy(just buying coins->provinces) is too good for how simple it is. Well-planned strategies will beat it, but medium-planned strategies often don't and that sucks the fun out of it by removing variety (because you have to do it too or research specific strategies to be able to compete). Again, Be the change you want to see in the world by making a personal book and learning to play it well(which can take some time and losing). Also complain when you opponent is not doing the same.
-
If the wizard was broken wouldn't he have easily won gencon?
There are some concerns with the Wizard. The Wizards tower is very powerful, but it's a conjuration, and can easily be killed with a Force hammer or a force hammer and one, maybe 2 attacks by a creature or the mage.
I don't like that it's free to change spells, and you can do it every turn with no penalty.
The wizard is the most versitile, and has access to the most weapons at their dispposal.
There are a few other cards that need to be loked at and modified, but I don't know when that would hapen. Akiro's hammer, is a great one that needs to be fixed. It's currently garbage.
-
If the wizard was broken wouldn't he have easily won gencon?
There are some concerns with the Wizard. The Wizards tower is very powerful, but it's a conjuration, and can easily be killed with a Force hammer or a force hammer and one, maybe 2 attacks by a creature or the mage.
I don't like that it's free to change spells, and you can do it every turn with no penalty.
The wizard is the most versitile, and has access to the most weapons at their dispposal.
There are a few other cards that need to be loked at and modified, but I don't know when that would hapen. Akiro's hammer, is a great one that needs to be fixed. It's currently garbage.
That's not how brokenness works. If it's significantly easier to win with the wizard than the other mages, or if other builds have to go out of their way to prevent the wizard in particular from having that advantage, then the wizard is broken, even if he doesn't actually get first place in Gen Con. In mage wars player skill plays a bigger role in who wins than spellbook building.
-
I cannot agree on the overpoweredness of the Wizard. As there was said: he is versitile, that's very true. But that does not make him more powerful as the other mages. Every mage, with the right spellbook and tactic, can beat a Wizard.
1) Huginn: In my eyes a waste of mana. He can cast incantation spells (Dispel, Dissolve, Teleport, Push), but he also wastes them. And he is very vulnerable to unavoidable attacks. You will spend more mana to protect him with enchantments and have to safe the mana to reveal them for all following rounds.
btw. Nearly every other Mage has access to a similar Familiar.
2) Wizard Tower: Good thing about it is, that he does not waste the spell. Bad thing is, that his spell cannot be improved. Why would i use a Fireball with my Wizardtower, when i can shot it with my buffed Mage for 2 additional dice? That being said, a Wizard Tower is not invulnerable. If the Wizard spends 7 mana for it and uses a spell, that will drain his mana. If you kill the Tower with mana saving melee attacks, setting up the tower will be a waste of mana for your opponent. If he is cautious and places the tower 2 zones away, you could also run out of range and make the tower useless. You might also just block its Line of Sight with a wall. All of this sounds not very overpowered to me.
3) But i can partially agree with your proposal. I like playing with and against specialized Mages. The Wizard should have an access penalty to certain schools. Maybe triple cost for the three schools, that he refused to be trained in, is not a bad idea.
-
As I said several times, I do understand that I'm significantly inexperienced compared to a tournament veteran.
1) I've never played a wizard. It's consorting with the enemy ;) So, I am a token member of build diversity community.
2) Charmyna was the one who made me hate wizards so much. He's very good and gave me a high bar to attain to with my mage wars play. He ran several builds, but all of them had a forge, a tower and a wand or two. My goal was to beat his wizard, but I've taken a long time to learn good strategies and now he doesn't play on OCTGN anymore :'(
I'm not giving up. Wizard is here to stay and I'm still trying to assert some anti-arcane dominance.
-
My goal was to beat his wizard, but I've taken a long time to learn good strategies and now he doesn't play on OCTGN anymore :'(
His spirit is still there, floating around in the wideness of OCTGN. Every player who has faced Charmyna once has internalized some of his spirit :)
-
In mage wars player skill plays a bigger role in who wins than spellbook building.
While true, skill is a vital component, what your packin counts for a lot too, ask Schwenkgott about his duels with Charmyna and his Watergate Wizard as I consider them peers as players they are good players to ask these kind of questions too.
I will not to talk further about my thoughts on the Wizard,as I have spent a couple of hundred posts on this topic already.
-
If the wizard was broken wouldn't he have easily won gencon?
There are some concerns with the Wizard. The Wizards tower is very powerful, but it's a conjuration, and can easily be killed with a Force hammer or a force hammer and one, maybe 2 attacks by a creature or the mage.
I don't like that it's free to change spells, and you can do it every turn with no penalty.
The wizard is the most versitile, and has access to the most weapons at their dispposal.
There are a few other cards that need to be loked at and modified, but I don't know when that would hapen. Akiro's hammer, is a great one that needs to be fixed. It's currently garbage.
That's not how brokenness works. If it's significantly easier to win with the wizard than the other mages, or if other builds have to go out of their way to prevent the wizard in particular from having that advantage, then the wizard is broken, even if he doesn't actually get first place in Gen Con. In mage wars player skill plays a bigger role in who wins than spellbook building.
Similarly, if it's so overpowered that it restricts design space for future cards or future mages (e.g. alternate Wizard), then a fix might be warranted. I fear that's maybe one of the reasons why we haven't seen Water spells that deal Frost damage yet. If there were Water attack spells on the same power level as Fire, Air and Earth, especially if they have some sort of freeze effect (hence "Defrost" keyword on some flame damage cards), then a Water Wizard - who already benefits from cheap Dissolves and Acid Balls - might be too strong.
Regarding Wizard's Tower, I'm always surprised it isn't Zone Exclusive. Most corporeal conjurations that represent large objects are Zone Exclusive... and surely the Battle Forge represents an object small enough to fit inside a single room in the Wizard's Tower. Yet, you can put a Wizard's Tower in the same zone as another key conjuration (like a Battle Forge). Compare to the Warlord's "outposts" that can't even be placed in adjacent zones! And free spell swapping is pretty crazy when you consider the usual spellbind swapping costs or restrictions on wands, Thoughtspores, etc.
Last night I played an Earth Wizard only because we earned story achievement points for casting attack spells and both my Warlock spell books were lent out. I briefly considered a Thoughtspore-swarm Forcemaster, but glad I didn't because another player went with exactly that.
In one of my matches, my Wizard's Tower proved to be a liability because its Hurl Boulder got Reverse Attacked for 7 self-inflicted damage (doh! should have Seeking Dispeled first). But in the other, it pulled off a free Hurl Rock to crush an Anvil Throne Crossbowman immediately after Huginn had Teleported him off of his Archer's Watchtower from behind a wall. Later, the Tower Hurled a free Boulder at the opposing mage on the final turn right after his armor had been stripped. As for Huginn, in addition to Teleporting without LoS restrictions (due to flying), he also casted an Earthquake that took out a wall and Battle Forge, and was about to Explode some armor when he failed to avoid a Hurled Rock (splat). Huginn can be a pesky threat that just adds another option each turn through additional planning, resulting in some big plays that generally only a Wizard can pull off. If he had Spellbind, he'd be way too good - but I had Dispel bound to a Mage Wand, Hurl Rock bound to an Elemental Wand, and either Rock or Boulder bound to the Wizard's Tower at any given time, so it didn't bother me too much to have Huginn burning a Teleport or Dissolve or Explode or Earthquake or... whatever each round.
We can debate whether or not each particular "Wizard only" and "Arcane Mage only" spells are overpowered compared to options available to other mages, and whether or not the current Wizard mage's abilities are too good in comparison (e.g. don't need to be built around like most of the other mage's abilities), and I'm sure there will be many pros/cons listed and many people taking the for/against sides. But as Schwenkgott noted, my proposed change doesn't errata any cards nor take away any abilities; it simply reduces the options during spell book building, limiting the number of answers (and threats, in the case of Grizzly-based Wizards) that the Wizard can bring, so he isn't as stocked full of answers. That said, he still has the cheapest access to Dispels and Teleports, both spellbind Wands, all the key channeling increasers (Crystals, Harmonize, Moonglow Amulet), most of the mana denial spells (Mordok's Obelisk, Essence Drain, Suppression Cloak - although he might be paying triple for Suppression Orb), etc... so I don't think this proposed change would make him unplayable. And all it would involve is errata to his ability card.
-
The Wizards tower is very powerful, I don't like that it's free to change spells, and you can do it every turn with no penalty.
This is my biggest issue with the Wizard and the spammy nature of the multiple actions they are allowed. The free change of spells as well as it not costing an action like a wand is a major issue. While in theory the tower is relatively weak, it can get out very quick and start doing massive damage before you can do anything to defend against it. Secondly, spending time/attacks/mana/spells to destroy the tower is a delay on doing the same to the mage which is the point of the game. I understand the versatility that the Wizard should have but the Tower is the biggest issue I think and should have been errata'd to be similar to either a wand or Akiro's Hammer in that in shouldn't be allowed to be fired every single turn or it should have a cost/action associated with changing the spell attached; if not both.
-
What if the Wizard paid triple for all out-of-school spells?
All other schools? No one would play him.
I wouldn't mind that a school or two might cost triple for him though. Maybe give the option of paying double for all non-Arcane, or taking training in one element in exchange for paying triple for the other three?
Or... War is about as opposed to Arcane as there is. Make War and the opposite element (Earth vs. Air; Fire vs. Water) cost triple.
-
i would add Nature as a triple cost for Wizard.
-
Entire schools of magic aren't always opposed to each other in mage wars, but rather the mages themselves are opposed to certain schools. Beastmaster does not pay triple for arcane or war, but he does pay triple for fire spells. Druid also pays triple for fire, but unlike the beastmaster pays triple for war spells. The warlord does not pay triple for nature nor water spells.
-
I do support the idea though of making the Wizard pay triple for nature spells.
Since the Wizard gets so many ( arcane ) staple cards so cheap, it makes sense to make another category of staples ( nature enchantments ) cost triple.
That would certainly balance things out somewhat imo.
-
* Ninja'd by Borg, who said the same thing in 1/10 the words... *
Sure, but there are both game balance and thematic forces at play here. Currently, Wizards get cheap access to arguably the most important/powerful school (Arcane) PLUS another (Elemental) school - and they don't pay triple for anything. This means they exclusively have cheap access to most of the staple utility spells (Dispel, Seeking Dispel, Teleport, Harmonize, Mana Crystal, Moonglow Amulet, Mage Wand, Enchanter's Ring, Enchantment Transfusion) along with the attack spell set of their choice (and Elemental Wand, etc), plus don't pay a premium for any of the other school's best spells (all the efficient Nature enchantments, the devastating Dark curses, the board controlling Mind spells, armour/equipment-reducing Water spells, various War equipments and attack-enhancing War spells including the all-important Battle Forge spawn point, any Holy healing spells), and either get discounted or at worst pay regular price for any "silver bullet" spells (e.g. Suppression Orb, Mordok's Obelisk, Earth Wall, Elemental Cloak, Suppression Cloak). And on top of that, they get discounts on all the mana denial tricks (Mana Siphon, Drain Power, Essence Drain, Mana Vampirism, Staff of the Arcanum), at least one trap (and two if fire), powerful creatures with effects or advantages that serve several purposes (Gorgon Archer, Darkfenne Hydra, Gargoyle Sentry, Devouring Jelly, Blue Gremlin), and two of the best spawnpoint/familiars in the game (Wizards Tower and Gate to Voltari; ignoring Huginn for the moment)... and Wizards are one of the only mages who can generate enough mana to power more than one spawnpoint/familiar at a time. All of these in-school advantages (and no "opposite" school disadvantages) means Wizards get a tremendous spell book building / versatility advantage over the other mages.
With rare exception, I think making Wizards pay triple for the elemental schools they aren't specialized in would only make Dissolves and Acid Balls cost a point more each for non-Water Wizards, or Battle Forge cost a little more for non-Fire Wizards. It would have minimal impact in all other cases. I don't think that would be enough to have much impact on Wizard spell book building. Making Nature cost triple, however, might have a significant impact on most Wizards, as Hawkeye, Rhino Hide, Eagle Wings, etc, are all important spells for Wizards - and it might make sense thematically as well since the Wizards of Sortilege corrupted the natural world, resulting in the horrors of the Darkfenne like the Hydra and Gorgon Archers as a result. It might make sense that they aren't trained in the more "natural" Nature spells and/or have to pay a premium to the "gods" of Nature in order to use their spells as a penalty for their corrupt acts against Nature... or however the fluff surrounding spell costs works. Making both War and Nature cost triple might make non-Fire Wizards think twice about Battle Forge. Adding Holy to the list might make Armor Ward a little harder to swallow, too.
As I've said up-thread, I think if Wizards had more pressure to stay in school, I think they'd still be very powerful, but wouldn't be quite so "I have all the threats AND I have an answer for everything" as they are now.
-
* Ninja'd by Borg, who said the same thing in 1/10 the words... *
Sure, but there are both game balance and thematic forces at play here. Currently, Wizards get cheap access to arguably the most important/powerful school (Arcane) PLUS another (Elemental) school - and they don't pay triple for anything. This means they exclusively have cheap access to most of the staple utility spells (Dispel, Seeking Dispel, Teleport, Harmonize, Mana Crystal, Moonglow Amulet, Mage Wand, Enchanter's Ring, Enchantment Transfusion)
Only two of those are staple utility spells, teleport and dispel. Aside from that it's a fair point. Wizards do get training for most of the staple utility spells.
along with the attack spell set of their choice (and Elemental Wand, etc)
how is this an advantage for the fire wizard over the warlock, or the water wizard over the Druid?
, plus don't pay a premium for any of the other school's best spells
paying triple for an enemy school isn't the only cost that can be used to balance a mage. For instance, the forcemaster pays triple for all non mind creatures. While it might be the case that mages must pay triple spellbook points for SOMETHING to be properly balanced, that case isn't open and shut.
(all the efficient Nature enchantments, the devastating Dark curses, the board controlling Mind spells, armour/equipment-reducing Water spells, various War equipments and attack-enhancing War spells including the all-important Battle Forge spawn point, any Holy healing spells), and either get discounted or at worst pay regular price for any "silver bullet" spells (e.g. Suppression Orb, Mordok's Obelisk, Earth Wall, Elemental Cloak, Suppression Cloak).
None of these are silver bullets. Your use of powerful adjectives doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of your arguments.
And on top of that, they get discounts on all the mana denial tricks (Mana Siphon, Drain Power, Essence Drain, Mana Vampirism, Staff of the Arcanum), at least one trap (and two if fire), powerful creatures with effects or advantages that serve several purposes (Gorgon Archer, Darkfenne Hydra, Gargoyle Sentry, Devouring Jelly, Blue Gremlin), and two of the best spawnpoint/familiars in the game (Wizards Tower and Gate to Voltari; ignoring Huginn for the moment)...
Now you're just listing off all the spells the wizard can cast that you can think of off the top of your head without explaining how they're OP.
and Wizards are one of the only mages who can generate enough mana to power more than one spawnpoint/familiar at a time.
This is just not true, unless by "one of the only" you mean every mage that has 10 channeling except the forcemaster, since she only has access to one spawnpoint?
All of these in-school advantages (and no "opposite" school disadvantages) means Wizards get a tremendous spell book building / versatility advantage over the other mages.
Versatility isn't everything. It comes at the cost of focus. There's at least several threads on this forum talking about that trade off.
With rare exception, I think making Wizards pay triple for the elemental schools they aren't specialized in would only make Dissolves and Acid Balls cost a point more each for non-Water Wizards, or Battle Forge cost a little more for non-Fire Wizards. It would have minimal impact in all other cases. I don't think that would be enough to have much impact on Wizard spell book building. Making Nature cost triple, however, might have a significant impact on most Wizards, as Hawkeye, Rhino Hide, Eagle Wings, etc, are all important spells for Wizards - and it might make sense thematically as well since the Wizards of Sortilege corrupted the natural world, resulting in the horrors of the Darkfenne like the Hydra and Gorgon Archers as a result. It might make sense that they aren't trained in the more "natural" Nature spells and/or have to pay a premium to the "gods" of Nature in order to use their spells as a penalty for their corrupt acts against Nature... or however the fluff surrounding spell costs works. Making both War and Nature cost triple might make non-Fire Wizards think twice about Battle Forge. Adding Holy to the list might make Armor Ward a little harder to swallow, too.
As I've said up-thread, I think if Wizards had more pressure to stay in school, I think they'd still be very powerful, but wouldn't be quite so "I have all the threats AND I have an answer for everything" as they are now.
Wizards don't always corrupt nature, in the same way that research and technology don't always corrupt nature. The Darkfenne was an accident caused by reckless experimentation by wizards without proper ethical and safety protocols.
I agree that the wizard is OP in the sense that other mages have to go slightly out of their way in spellbook construction to answer him. Specifically, having teleport and dispel be must haves in all non-wizard spellbooks is not good since it constrains options and potentially makes the metagame significantly less diverse. Same goes for dissolve and to a lesser extent acid ball, actually, since those two spells are usually too useful NOT to include. I think the problem that makes the wizard OP is actually that teleport doesn't have any counters (yet), and that the only counters to dispel are either arcane spells or warlord only.
-
* Ninja'd by Borg, who said the same thing in 1/10 the words... *
Sure, but there are both game balance and thematic forces at play here. Currently, Wizards get cheap access to arguably the most important/powerful school (Arcane) PLUS another (Elemental) school - and they don't pay triple for anything. This means they exclusively have cheap access to most of the staple utility spells (Dispel, Seeking Dispel, Teleport, Harmonize, Mana Crystal, Moonglow Amulet, Mage Wand, Enchanter's Ring, Enchantment Transfusion)
Only two of those are staple utility spells, teleport and dispel. Aside from that it's a fair point. Wizards do get training for most of the staple utility spells.
Seeking Dispel isn't a staple utility spell? And Mage Wand? I think the only spell book I've ever used that didn't include Mage Wand was a Warlord (and even then it was a tough decision to cut it). And at least one of Harmonize/Moonglow Amulet (or Meditation Amulet)/Mana Crystal (unless your mage gets a discount for Mana Flower) is pretty standard in all but the most aggressive spell books *edit* excluding Warlords, of course. Which explains this:
and Wizards are one of the only mages who can generate enough mana to power more than one spawnpoint/familiar at a time.
This is just not true, unless by "one of the only" you mean every mage that has 10 channeling except the forcemaster, since she only has access to one spawnpoint?
Sure, other mages could generate enough mana, but the Wizard already has cheap access to more channeling equipment/conjurations/enchantments so it's relatively easy for a Wizard to keep up with 2 (or more) spawnpoints. I rarely play Wizards, but I've had Huginn, Wizard's Tower and Battle Forge in play simultaneously and been able to deploy/cast from at least 2 of them each round without much difficulty. Most mages would have to dedicate an awful lot of spell book points to channel enough mana and cast from more than one spawn point / familiar (although it can be done). If I didn't explain this thoroughly, it's because I thought that was fairly obvious.
along with the attack spell set of their choice (and Elemental Wand, etc)
how is this an advantage for the fire wizard over the warlock, or the water wizard over the Druid?
It isn't. And you could argue it isn't an advantage over the Warlords (who get a discount on Earth) either, but the Warlords have other spell point cost-related issues. But it's an advantage over the other mages. Also, it's a choice of elemental school, while lets the Wizard choose whether access to powerful attack spells (generally lightning and flame) are more important to him than utility spells (e.g. Water for Dissolve and Acid Ball) or other tricks (e.g. Iron Golem/Spiked Pit/various Walls), etc.
, plus don't pay a premium for any of the other school's best spells
paying triple for an enemy school isn't the only cost that can be used to balance a mage. For instance, the forcemaster pays triple for all non mind creatures. While it might be the case that mages must pay triple spellbook points for SOMETHING to be properly balanced, that case isn't open and shut.
There are many ways to (re)balance a mage. I'm not the first to suggest that Wizards feel at least a little overpowered compared to other mages for reasons mentioned all over the forums (a few of which I mentioned in the first post). A lot of these ways involve heavy errata to cards or abilities (see below for examples). Adjusting spell point costs is just one way, and I feel it's a relatively minor way that would be relatively easy to implement (e.g. minimal errata, minimal risk to messing up the game balance elsewhere, etc). It's certainly not an open-and-shut case - hence I'm posting it on a public forum and encouraging discussion. Again, I mentioned in the first post that I felt this would be a relatively subtle way to adjust the Wizard's power level compared to other ways, but if you have suggestions, I'd love to hear them (or point me to them if they've been discussed elsewhere).
(all the efficient Nature enchantments, the devastating Dark curses, the board controlling Mind spells, armour/equipment-reducing Water spells, various War equipments and attack-enhancing War spells including the all-important Battle Forge spawn point, any Holy healing spells), and either get discounted or at worst pay regular price for any "silver bullet" spells (e.g. Suppression Orb, Mordok's Obelisk, Earth Wall, Elemental Cloak, Suppression Cloak).
None of these are silver bullets. Your use of powerful adjectives doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of your arguments.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but regarding my use of the term "silver bullet," I meant answers to specific threats like swarms of small creatures (e.g. dropping Suppression Orb or Mordok's Obelisk or equipping Suppression Cloak), attack spell oriented mages (e.g. Elemental Cloak), Warlocks in particular (e.g. trapping them behind Earth Wall), etc. I could have listed more, but I thought I got my point across. My apologies for misuse or overuse of adjectives.
And on top of that, they get discounts on all the mana denial tricks (Mana Siphon, Drain Power, Essence Drain, Mana Vampirism, Staff of the Arcanum), at least one trap (and two if fire), powerful creatures with effects or advantages that serve several purposes (Gorgon Archer, Darkfenne Hydra, Gargoyle Sentry, Devouring Jelly, Blue Gremlin), and two of the best spawnpoint/familiars in the game (Wizards Tower and Gate to Voltari; ignoring Huginn for the moment)...
Now you're just listing off all the spells the wizard can cast that you can think of off the top of your head without explaining how they're OP.
I was just trying to list some examples. Pretty much all of the mana denial cards are Arcane (and generally level 2+), making it difficult for any other mage to use this strategy effectively (although a Forcemaster or other mage could certainly drop a Suppression Orb and/or Mordok's Obelisk if they can justify including it). Regarding the creature list, my point was that while, for instance, Nature has access to a wide range of creatures (for thematic reasons if nothing else), Arcane gets a surprising (to me) range of utility out of their relatively few different creatures:
- Gorgon Archer has a ranged attack that can cause Weak;
- Darkfenne Hydra's triple-strike can be devastating to a mage that is pinned down (e.g. walled in or held by Force Hold);
- Blue Gremlin can basically ignore walls (for a cost that is especially cheap to a Wizard);
- Devouring Jelly reduces armor via Corrode; being uncontainable and resilient and having a built-in reconstruct makes it hard to deal with; and the Devour is an added boon against Necromancers, etc; the Jelly is useful enough to show up in some non-Wizard spell books, despite the high spell point cost;
- Gargoyle Sentry is a terrific guard with Intercept; perhaps not as good as Guardian Angel (which the Wizard could otherwise get for 6 spell book points), but it's a pretty good substitute and keeps the spell point cost down so the Wizard can have more answers for other threats.
As for the spawn points/familiars, enough has already been said about how good Wizard's Tower is. Similarly, Gate to Voltari can channel a tremendous amount of mana (it's probably better on average than Lair in terms of mana cost and average channeling, but a little easier to destroy) and can go along way to help a Wizard pay for some of his more expensive creatures - if that's part of his strategy. It's also possible for a Wizard to protect a Gate to Voltari or Battle Forge with a well-placed Wizard's Tower - which could even be in the same zone. While a Warlock could protect a key spawn point or other conjuration with Sersiryx, or a Forcemaster could protect Battle Forge with a Thoughtspore, those familiar creatures are generally more vulnerable to various spells and effects (e.g. Slam/Stun/Daze/Sleep, Teleport, etc).
All of these in-school advantages (and no "opposite" school disadvantages) means Wizards get a tremendous spell book building / versatility advantage over the other mages.
Versatility isn't everything. It comes at the cost of focus. There's at least several threads on this forum talking about that trade off.
Thank you for pointing this out. To build even mildly competitive spell books for other mages, they generally must focus on one primary strategy or win condition with a few answers to specific threats (that would otherwise be difficult for that mage/strategy). Having even one back-up plan in case the primary strategy is foiled in a given set of circumstances is very costly to most mages. A Wizard can (and often does) focus on one primary strategy, too, but I find a Wizard can afford to be much more flexible, have more answers to a wider variety of opposing threats and/or pack more threats/back-up strategies himself. For instance, one Wizard spell book might be able to go fast/aggressive with attack spells against slower mages, but also have a back-up plan of a slower mana denial / attrition strategy (with loads of Dispel/Seeking Dispel/Dissolve) against medium-speed mages, while still having specific answers to creature swarms, fast "burn" mages, slow turtle-y mages, etc.
As I mentioned earlier, there are many ways that a mage (and specifically Wizard) might be re-balanced. The whole point of this thread is to suggest a way to slightly re-balance the Wizard so he doesn't have such an easy time building such flexible spell books without fundamentally changing the way he plays, or going so far as to make him uncomepetive - assuming the Wizard is out-of-balance in the first place, of course. If someone disagrees with the premise, then that's another argument altogether.
With rare exception, I think making Wizards pay triple for the elemental schools they aren't specialized in would only make Dissolves and Acid Balls cost a point more each for non-Water Wizards, or Battle Forge cost a little more for non-Fire Wizards. It would have minimal impact in all other cases. I don't think that would be enough to have much impact on Wizard spell book building. Making Nature cost triple, however, might have a significant impact on most Wizards, as Hawkeye, Rhino Hide, Eagle Wings, etc, are all important spells for Wizards - and it might make sense thematically as well since the Wizards of Sortilege corrupted the natural world, resulting in the horrors of the Darkfenne like the Hydra and Gorgon Archers as a result. It might make sense that they aren't trained in the more "natural" Nature spells and/or have to pay a premium to the "gods" of Nature in order to use their spells as a penalty for their corrupt acts against Nature... or however the fluff surrounding spell costs works. Making both War and Nature cost triple might make non-Fire Wizards think twice about Battle Forge. Adding Holy to the list might make Armor Ward a little harder to swallow, too.
As I've said up-thread, I think if Wizards had more pressure to stay in school, I think they'd still be very powerful, but wouldn't be quite so "I have all the threats AND I have an answer for everything" as they are now.
Wizards don't always corrupt nature, in the same way that research and technology don't always corrupt nature. The Darkfenne was an accident caused by reckless experimentation by wizards without proper ethical and safety protocols.
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I was trying to come up with a thematic explanation to support the mechanical rule adjustment proposed to re-balance the Wizard through triple-cost Nature spells. I'm not trying to make generalizations regarding the effects of magic or technology on nature, in real life or elsewhere.
I agree that the wizard is OP in the sense that other mages have to go slightly out of their way in spellbook construction to answer him. Specifically, having teleport and dispel be must haves in all non-wizard spellbooks is not good since it constrains options and potentially makes the metagame significantly less diverse. Same goes for dissolve and to a lesser extent acid ball, actually, since those two spells are usually too useful NOT to include. I think the problem that makes the wizard OP is actually that teleport doesn't have any counters (yet), and that the only counters to dispel are either arcane spells or warlord only.
The cost of Teleport (being a level 2 Arcane spell) certainly makes it difficult for other mages to compete in the board control game in the absence of a direct counter to teleportation (aside from manipulating LoS through Walls or Cloak of Shadows, etc). While Arcane Wonders could errata Teleport to make it level 1 in an attempt to re-balance the Wizard by increasing the power level of all other mages, I think they prefer to avoid card errata. The spoiled anti-Teleport zone enchantment is one possible answer, but it's still possible to push a creature out of that zone and then teleport it (assuming it doesn't have something equipped/attached preventing push as well). Similarly, errata to Wizard's Tower (e.g. making it Zone Exclusive or adding a mana cost for swapping the bound spell), or other possible Wizard power adjustments, might work to re-balance the Wizard. But I think making some schools cost triple (e.g. the elemental schools not chosen, and/or Nature, and/or War) would be easier to implement and might be more acceptable to the community - especially after witnessing the effect card errata to Hand of Bim-Shallah and Temple of Light had on the community.
-
That all being said, I really don't think that the Wizard needs modification. If he were really as powerful as so many people claim, Wizards would win many more tournaments that they do. (I'm just saying that I wouldn't care if there were a school where he paid triple.)
I'm sure that the mage-specific abilities and stats are balanced by some formula or another, just as we look at creatures or other spells as being mana-costed in some equivalent manner.
-
I see the Wizard as the generalist mage in a world of specialists. Personally I think this helps to balance the meta. As a specialist mage your spellbook must be more creative to defeat a generalist.
So rather than trying to fix the Wizard why not ask how are players defeating Wizards? What is your specialized mage doing to counter the Wizard advantages?
-
I see the Wizard as the generalist mage in a world of specialists. Personally I think this helps to balance the meta. As a specialist mage your spellbook must be more creative to defeat a generalist.
So rather than trying to fix the Wizard why not ask how are players defeating Wizards? What is your specialized mage doing to counter the Wizard advantages?
Why only one generalist, then? And you think that the Wizards advantages give people more freedom to be creative with competitive spellbook building? How? Walk me through this one step by step please, since as far as I can see that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
-
I see the Wizard as the generalist mage in a world of specialists. Personally I think this helps to balance the meta. As a specialist mage your spellbook must be more creative to defeat a generalist.
So rather than trying to fix the Wizard why not ask how are players defeating Wizards? What is your specialized mage doing to counter the Wizard advantages?
Why only one generalist, then?
How many generalists do you want? If they were all generalists, there wouldn't be any flavor. One seems sufficient to me... especially one which might be considered to be four different ones, depending on training.
And you think that the Wizards advantages give people more freedom to be creative with competitive spellbook building? How? Walk me through this one step by step please, since as far as I can see that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I don't believe that he said anything related to "freedom" at all. My understanding of his point was that you may not have to be quite as creative with the Wizard as you may have to be with others in order to defeat him.
-
I see the Wizard as the generalist mage in a world of specialists. Personally I think this helps to balance the meta. As a specialist mage your spellbook must be more creative to defeat a generalist.
So rather than trying to fix the Wizard why not ask how are players defeating Wizards? What is your specialized mage doing to counter the Wizard advantages?
Why only one generalist, then?
How many generalists do you want? If they were all generalists, there wouldn't be any flavor. One seems sufficient to me... especially one which might be considered to be four different ones, depending on training.
And you think that the Wizards advantages give people more freedom to be creative with competitive spellbook building? How? Walk me through this one step by step please, since as far as I can see that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I don't believe that he said anything related to "freedom" at all. My understanding of his point was that you may not have to be quite as creative with the Wizard as you may have to be with others in order to defeat him.
In that case please explain what you all mean by "more creative", because what you call "more creativity" sounds to me like "more constrained creativity" instead. Define your terms and walk me through your reasoning process step by step. Also, please explain why the wizard alone needs to be in this special position as "the generalist" (whatever that even means) separate from all the other mages. Also, explain how the wizard not having a privileged position in the metagame as "the generalist" would harm any of the thematic elements of the game, and be specific about that.
-
1) You could pair schools together such as "Training in Water means triple cost in Fire and Dark"
What if there is steam spells in the future. fire and water.
-
I see the Wizard as the generalist mage in a world of specialists. Personally I think this helps to balance the meta. As a specialist mage your spellbook must be more creative to defeat a generalist.
So rather than trying to fix the Wizard why not ask how are players defeating Wizards? What is your specialized mage doing to counter the Wizard advantages?
Why only one generalist, then?
How many generalists do you want? If they were all generalists, there wouldn't be any flavor. One seems sufficient to me... especially one which might be considered to be four different ones, depending on training.
And you think that the Wizards advantages give people more freedom to be creative with competitive spellbook building? How? Walk me through this one step by step please, since as far as I can see that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I don't believe that he said anything related to "freedom" at all. My understanding of his point was that you may not have to be quite as creative with the Wizard as you may have to be with others in order to defeat him.
In that case please explain what you all mean by "more creative", because what you call "more creativity" sounds to me like "more constrained creativity" instead. Define your terms and walk me through your reasoning process step by step. Also, please explain why the wizard alone needs to be in this special position as "the generalist" (whatever that even means) separate from all the other mages. Also, explain how the wizard not having a privileged position in the metagame as "the generalist" would harm any of the thematic elements of the game, and be specific about that.
I will elaborate on my statements to hopefully clarify my thinking.
By 'generalist' I am referring to the training differences that have been noted before. I think of each of the schools as knowledge domains and the Wizard being trained in Arcane has an easier time to learn the other schools. His basic understanding of the arcane school gives him general knowledge of all the other schools. Therefore, he has no specific weak schools when applying the training rules to building a spellbook. The result is that the Wizard is better positioned within a 120 spell point limit to have a counter spell available for any or all of the other schools. For other mages to have an identical list of spells across all the schools they each must reduce their available spell points for non-counter spells.
The term 'more creative' is a description of how the other mages might approach spellbook design and arena play to counter the advantage described above. For example, since a non-Wizard pays a spell point penalty to have a set of counter spells across all the schools then a different strategy must be used to select spells. These are more creative in the sense that they cannot simply place standard counter spells in their book without losing some of their advantage in deep training in the other schools. i.e. If you know that a Wizard is more likely to have a counter to your fire attacks or flying creatures, etc. then what do you? If you know a Wizard will bank actions with enchantments easier than any other mage, then what is your counter strategy to it. These must exist or we would see the same winning books over and over in tournament play.
Trying to balance (or fix) the Wizard is one path that has been discussed over and over. I was asking more about the other side of the conversation. What are individuals doing to change their mage strategies to defeat the perceived advantage? It doesn't feel that this side has been explored as much by the community.
-
I was asking more about the other side of the conversation. What are individuals doing to change their mage strategies to defeat the perceived advantage? It doesn't feel that this side has been explored as much by the community.
I stopped playing the Wizard because he is boring to play is the most common answer I have seen.
-
I was asking more about the other side of the conversation. What are individuals doing to change their mage strategies to defeat the perceived advantage? It doesn't feel that this side has been explored as much by the community.
I stopped playing the Wizard because he is boring to play is the most common answer I have seen.
So do you have specific strategies you use in case you face a wizard? For example, I favor walls to counter the use of Teleport. These often take multiple actions to remove as opposed to a quickcast that removes a protecting Nullify in a single action.
-
During the development of Charmyna's Griz Wiz book, I tried all kinds of things and mages: Priestess, Warlord, FM, and BM. Most of what I found was that I was just delaying the end of the game by a couple of turns. Walls between NC and FC you would think are but in reality they are just a trap (yes think talking Lobster), once the wall comes you have a very limited field to fight or run from. The most fun I had was putting up two walls across the center and using Force Push into a Teleport Trap which moved him to the other side of the wall again. In hindsight I was being very defensive and using my mana only for/as delaying tactics and he was just banking Mana each time I did something like that. He would just come back around the wall and end his final action during the Final Quickcast Phase to teleport into position for the kill the next round would typically be the "Big" he was experimenting with that game and a Hurl Boulder. Many of the delaying tactics I used in those games lead to the "undoing" game that you see in the Watergate Wizard which then evolved into the Blasting Banker.
-
As a forcemaster player, I find that playing wizards is the toughest match up for me. The way my mage functions is to kill you quickly so the "kill the wizard tower with force hammer" is a strategy that still works for my opponent since that spell wasn't aimed at him so he lives that much longer. Also, alot of wizard books pack 2 or more towers so it just comes out again and I just spend 9 mana to kill a 7 mana object using my of my precious actions to do it (or I failed to kill it by rolling poorly).
When I played in the Gencon 14 tournament, 3 of the top 4 were wizards (out of 24 players in total tourney). Yes the winner was a Beastmaster but the sheer number of wizards and the fact they took 75% of the top 4 slots is indicative that they are very strong (won't say overpowered but definitely the meta has them over many other mages). Unfortunately nothing will be done as the errata of Arcane Wonders won't go that far but hopefully more spells come out that allow for more utility and counters for other mages to catch up.
-
Unfortunately nothing will be done as the errata of Arcane Wonders won't go that far but hopefully more spells come out that allow for more utility and counters for other mages to catch up.
This already has been in progress... case in point - new Warlord with his innate mana sink in terms of armor and runes. Give them time and I am certain that they will come out with more "in character" ways to make things more difficult for a Wizard (and others... enchantments aren't as great as they have been in the past due to Harshforge Monolith and Arcane Corruption, for example... but I digress).
-
Give them time
Well, it's been three years since the game was released. How much more time do they need?
If new cards were released for the game on a monthly schedule, fixing imbalances by releasing new cards would be fine. But with a release schedule of one or maybe two new products a year that approach is simply way too slow.
-
I've been following this thread since it started, as issues of balance are always of paramount interest for me. Today, I reread the entire thread again. It's the last comment that really got to me.
Well, it's been three years since the game was released. How much more time do they need?
It's a valid question, and frankly as someone who spends their days immersed working on Mage Wars sets of all types, I had not sat back and thought that the Core Set came out three years ago. It took me a moment, and it was also why I reread this entire post. Early on, we were incredibly worried about the Forcemaster, but since the melee +X ruling, I've been trying to keep an eye on the Wizard, as he was the next closest to having an issue. Personally, I was very happy with Forged in Fire and what it was able to accomplish. It really helped elevate the Warlord, and expand the play available to the Warlock.
But, that was last year, and I understand the frustration. You, as players, are waiting to have more Mages expanded and enriched like we did with Forged in Fire. I was excited to be working on just that. Now, after rereading this post, I have a new sense of urgency.
In the end, what do you want to see other schools get to help against a wizard? Honestly, I've always felt that the best way to handle all of this is through printing new cards. However, I'm very interested in what you feel would best help other schools.
I can't make any promises as to how often products will come out, but I do promise you I'm working on them as hard as I can.
-
Laddinfance! I really appreciate your commitment towards making this game even more awesome then it already is. The game will never be perfect, but I think as each expansion comes out it gets closer towards that.
I like the wizard a lot. He's really easy to learn, and easy to manipulate. I think a lot of new players see how this game can force players in a strategic direction through the wizard (all mages have their own way of forcing your opponent in a direction). If you don't want to errata the wizard (like making nature cost triple or wizard tower not having spellbind) then I think an easy way is to give more obscured trait cards. If you only have to be 2 zones instead of 3 zones away from the Wizard's Tower then that is a step in the right direction.
-
Maybe focus on getting Paladin vs Siren ready to release BEFORE the end of this year. Having more mind spells will definitely help flesh out the forcemaster. Although war has already gotten support in forged in fire, holy didn't really get as much support as it probably should have in Conquest of Kumanjaro.
It might also be a good idea to figure out a non-arcane way to make enchantments more durable? Too often a dispel is preferable to every enchantment that can be used as a counter. Your creature is enfeebled? You're not going to counter by revealing cheetah speed, since if you have a face down enchantment on your creature before hand your opponent might think it's a nullify and won't waste their enfeeble in the first place. Plus, they can just dispel your cheetah speed anyways.
-
Paladin/Siren is absolutely a priority for me.