Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Strategy and Tactics => Topic started by: Reddicediaries on March 20, 2017, 05:25:34 PM
-
So I played a game with my paladin vs Jacksmacks gate wizard. He played vastly superior to me and props to him. But in after game discussion, it became apararent that it seems paladin has less than a 10% chance of beating gate wizard. To me, this seems VASTLY wrong. No mage should be completely unable to beat others in most circumstances. If two players of roughly equal skill and book advantages vs each other face of with pally vs gate wizard, gate wizard SHOULD NOT win about 90% of the time.
What are the communities thoughts on this topic?
-
I'm seriously curious as to how you came to that math. And for what it's worth i believe those numbers to be both bunk and hokem. I don't understand how one could factor play skill, and every possible strategy a pally could use against a wizard with a spawnpoint? Dice rolls? Spells in book? I simply don't understand this kind of talk. It actually kind of frustrates me when folks boil this incredibly complex game down into percentages and tiers and stuff. I'm sure my best priest or pally could beat another's best wizard, or warlock, or forcemaster, etc etc etc.
-
Not sure what a "gate wizard" is - A wizard using [mwcard=MW1J07]Gate to Voltari[/mwcard]? Does the wizard have any other spells? ;)
Anyway, yes, I think there is definitely a "rock-paper-scissors" aspect to Mage Wars Arena. Assuming roughly equal player skill, I am of the opinion that:
- My curse-based Arraxian Crown Warlock is strong against most mages (and especially heavily armored mages) but has almost no way to win against a Necromancer;
- My [mwcard=FWC08]Invisible Stalker[/mwcard] Forcemaster is strong against many mages but has almost no way to win against a Wizard ('cause unlimited Ethereal quick-spell ranged attacks, which cut through both the Stalker and Mind's Eye like a warm knife through butter);
- My [mwcard=MWSTX1CKC01]Bridge Troll[/mwcard] Forcemaster is strong against many mages but struggles against Fire-based mages ('cause Troll has Flame +2 and no built-in armor);
- My [mwcard=MW1C26]Necropian Vampiress[/mwcard] Forcemaster is strong against many mages but struggles against Undead swarms ('cause Vampiress only gets Vampiric vs living, and undead are generally Psychic-Immune, etc).
- A well-played Druid is strong against many mages but has more trouble with Warlocks ('cause Flame +X, and mostly [mwcard=MW1J19]Deathlock[/mwcard]);
- Necromancers are strong against many mage types but have more trouble against Holy mages ('cause of all the "+X vs Undead" effects);
- Priest can have not-terrible match-ups, but pity the Priest who comes up against an Adramelech Warlock!
Yes, if there is a vast difference in player skill, the more skilled player will almost always win despite the match-up. But for players close in skill, the match-up can be a very uphill/downhill battle for some match-ups.
Another way to think about it: There are many "counters" in the game, and you generally can't afford all of them (which is a good thing, actually, because it makes for interesting deck-building). If a mage is willing to spend sbp's on counters to living creature swarms (e.g. perhaps has cheap access to Idol of Pestilence and/or Suppression Orb and/or Mordok's Obelisk and/or Pillar of Righteous Flame, etc), then they're going to have an easy time against a mage whose primary game plan is to spam living creatures. A curse-heavy mage easily counters a mage based around armor. Banish can ruin the day of a single-big-buffed-buddy build. Purge Magic can wreck a curse-based mage. Waterfall Cloak and Raincloud can counter a Burn-based mage who doesn't have any answers to them. Chitin Armor + Waterfall Cloak, with protection, can counter a Jelly pit (at least until they're Dissolved). Psychic-Immunity ruins a Song-based Siren.
If a mage has enough counters (or has counters built in to their mage abilities, like Ethereal attacks or an inherent way to move Burn tokens, etc), that mage becomes scissors to the opposing paper to some degree. Maybe not 100-0, or even 90-10, but it almost certainly isn't 50-50.
-
I'm seriously curious as to how you came to that math. And for what it's worth i believe those numbers to be both bunk and hokem. I don't understand how one could factor play skill, and every possible strategy a pally could use against a wizard with a spawnpoint? Dice rolls? Spells in book? I simply don't understand this kind of talk. It actually kind of frustrates me when folks boil this incredibly complex game down into percentages and tiers and stuff. I'm sure my best priest or pally could beat another's best wizard, or warlock, or forcemaster, etc etc etc.
Well it seems the paladin has to rush or they get out economied. If the defender makes all the right choices, I believe they will generually win due to action advantage and board presence.
The math is not exact I will not hesitate to admit. I should have done more research before posting those numbers,
I do my best to make books that contend with the following list of things so kindly provided by Jacksmack:
Gate wiz
Late game Necro
Warlock Fire rush
Temple
Flying
Buddy mages that chain you into specific zones then murder you
Tanks
Dot
Swarm
Think I got all of it.
-
Oh and druid with cheap plants and all that regen.
-
Whether or not the match is timed or not also plays a big factor. In an untimed match, the wizard can outlast the dmg and come back and win. In a time match, the wiz has a harder time setting up and coming back from and early dmg disadvantage.
-
I agree with nano that in MW not every mage has the same win-chances against each other.
Firstly, there are certain builds which are inherently favored against other types.
Secondly, there are some mages who are inherently favored against other mages.
And lastly there are differences in the "power level" of all the builds. (there are strong strategies and weaker strategies how you can build/play your mage)
I think very few people will dispute these basic thoughts? No news here.
The notion that every mage can win against any other mage probably has it's origin in the fact that it happens all the time. Even a curse warlock can win against a necromancer who is fundamentally favored in such a match-up.
First: If the warlock-player is a good one, he has thought about how to deal with a necromancer and prepared a plan B for these encounters.
Another possible advantage: The curse warlock already played numerous times against necromancers and knows exactly what he has to do.
To boil it down: The warlock player plays better (is more experienced) than the necromancer therefore he has a decisive advantage and can overcome his inherent disadvantages.
Okay, now to the question at hand: Is the wizard inherently favored against a paladin?
I think the answer is a clear "yes".
Why?
There are in general 3 ways to play a mage. Aggressive, midgame, control.
The paladin is intended for aggression (because of the banner and his specialty that allows him to fight in the front lines [fighting in the front lines is most effective in the early game])
Problem is that the wizard is (together with the druid) the best mage who can deal with early aggression.
=> Early aggression with paladin against wizard is doomed to fail. Even if you manage to take out the gate.Or especially if you focus on the gate. Because in the time the paladin deals 15 dmg to the gate it is prudent to assume that the wizard dealt (at least) 15 dmg to the paladin... But if the paladin focuses on the wizard he is at a big disadvantage again because wizard absorbs dmg and he has his reinforcements right where they are needed and ready to interfere in fight.
Midgame-strategy: Playing with the temple.. hmm...
Problem is, that the wizard uses 1 action in the first turn to get to 13 channeling and the paladin uses 1 action to go to 10 channeling. So after turn 1 the wizard already has a pretty big mana advantage. (11 to 14)
Turn 2... paladin shouldn't summon clerics (that would be control-strategy) but bring some better creatures to fight. Problem here is, in turn 2 wizard will deploy the lightning raptor and in turn 3 the gorgon archer. T4 the archer can start dealing weak markers and even if the paladin has some purifies that only makes the mana difference between both of them bigger.
Soo.. doesn't seem too promising tbh.
Midgame strategy with amulet: That way the mana difference in turn 2 is something like: 15 vs 14 for the paladin. (Amulet is great against the gate)
First time the paladin has an advantage whatsoever. Problem is now he is behind in terms of actions. And if the gorgon archer again starts to deal weak markers on his holy creatures, that reduces his actions to zero and his mana advantage disappears as well. But I'd say there is at least a fighting chance in terms of general setup.
Lategame strategy: Going temple and t2 cleric and t3 cleric = pretty much auto loss (even worse than early aggression). Because when the paladin finally summons his first fighting creature there are already waiting 2 gorgon archers for him, rendering the creature useless in only 1 turn. I don't see the paladin ever being able to put something on the board with which he could kill these gorgon archers. (Ballista isn't effective against them because they regenerate 4 dmg until the Ballista can shoot again ..)
Maybe if the paladin plays with 2-3 guardian angels and he manages to intercept all these nasty gorgon archer arrows.. Maaaybe? Problem is, while the paladin is summoning his angels and is bolstering his defense the wizard can summon a hydra and then teleport the paladin out of his protected zone and then he gets like 9+4+4 dice from the wizards creatures.. mhhh..
All in all: I think the paladin really has an inherent disadvantage against the gate wizard (played with hydras and gorgon archers). And the fact that jacksmack plays the wizard certainly doesn't make it easier to beat him ^^
-
So essentially, if you play paladin and the two of you are equally skilled, pally can barely ever win.
-
The biggest problem is this setup is the gorgon archer.
With paladin you should play some big, strong, living creatures.
And against that gorgon archer is just perfect.
And to make things worse the wizard probably generates more mana every turn, increasing his advantage from turn to turn even further.
If he could somehow kill both gorgon archers that would even out the odds. But at least when I played with my paladin against jack, he was pretty good in denying me the kill. Eagle wings and stuff ^^
-
While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.
-
While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.
I agree, the tone of the post was poorly put.
-
While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.
You can put it to the test and challenge jack's wizard :p
And then you can report back, if these games have changed your mind ^^
/edit: And after the second or third match you'd even have an additional advantage since you already know all the cards he is using. I'd be trilled if you'd actually put it to the test!
-
While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.
You can put it to the test and challenge jack's wizard :p
And then you can report back, if these games have changed your mind ^^
It seems the American player base believe any mage can beat another.
The international player base seems to lean more towards the "this mage can not beat this mage"
Why is that so?
-
Uhm. I never said paladin can't beat wizard.
What I said is that jacks specific wizard is in many regards heavily favored against a paladin.
-
Uhm. I never said paladin can't beat wizard.
What I said is that jacks specific wizard is in many regards heavily favored against a paladin.
Badly quoted sry.
I meant heavily unfavored for certain mages to beat others.
-
While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.
You can put it to the test and challenge jack's wizard :p
And then you can report back, if these games have changed your mind ^^
/edit: And after the second or third match you'd even have an additional advantage since you already know all the cards he is using. I'd be trilled if you'd actually put it to the test!
I'm afraid I don't play on OCTGN except to play test new cards, and even then it's rare I'd rather just make copies and play with other local play testers.
-
While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.
You can put it to the test and challenge jack's wizard :p
And then you can report back, if these games have changed your mind ^^
/edit: And after the second or third match you'd even have an additional advantage since you already know all the cards he is using. I'd be trilled if you'd actually put it to the test!
I'm afraid I don't play on OCTGN except to play test new cards, and even then it's rare I'd rather just make copies and play with other local play testers.
It can't hurt can it?
-
No but I game to enjoy time with my friends in person and have no interest in playing online. If it makes me a "weaker" player in the long run so be it. I've held my own against every single person I've played in real life and while I can't say I've won every match I've had against non-local players I can say I've won enough and played well enough to make new friends.
-
No but I game to enjoy time with my friends in person and have no interest in playing online. If it makes me a "weaker" player in the long run so be it. I've held my own against every single person I've played in real life and while I can't say I've won every match I've had against non-local players I can say I've won enough and played well enough to make new friends.
Good reasoning!
-
i am in the camp that any given match any mage can beat any other. while knowing some mages have bad match up against certain other mages. skill very much skews the ratio. that skill very much includes deck building as well as in game strategy and tactical play. generally experience will improve all three.
i agree with the first five sentences romeo posted
-
My thoughts are that it comes down to skill and having the right book. As I have said many times before you win or lose games in the book building process and that is why it is so important to get right.
If there is a wizard in your meta, or it is the match up that after long contemplation that this is your hardest match, the question becomes how do I beat this mage? Is there a counter I can offer to this style of play? Can I afford 20-30 sbp (it should rarely take this much) maybe to devote to this strategy, as long as it does not impact my plan A and B or my toolbox?
-
ב"ה
I didn't play this match yet, but if the main problem is weak condition markers, then should the Cleansing aura help a lot to counter it?
It allows as a quick healing spell for 1 valor to heal a creature 2 damage and remove a poison condition by paying it's removal cost.
I usually carry one purify as well (because getting rid of poison blood and ghoul rot as a quick action if nice, and I rather spend my full action on a melee attack rather than remove curse).
Beside, against mages than use their full action on attacking rather than casting spells, gate to voltary is a little less effective (for getting only 1 mana per round from opponent casting). At least that was the way it felt against other melee mages, I didn't try it against the paladin yet.
-
I feel like people are misinterpreting what Enti is trying to say.
Try to think about it in terms of probabilities. If Player A and B are both well known figures in the MW scene and are considered to be very and about equally strong. Now A says "I will play a very aggressive Pally" and B says "I will play a Gate Wizard" and both agree to play 10 games against each other with those decks.
Now I offer you 1.01€ return on a 1€ bet on the pally. Would you take it? What if I offered 2?
In the starting post RDD was basically saying: I would only take this bet, if you offered me 9 to 1 or better.
Seems a bit much to me. But I personally would indeed offer at least 1.5:1 in that scenario.
Of course I might lose some money, but I expect to win money in the long run.
-
So the source of this problem seems to be the spawn point advantage.
What tools does your paladin have to remove the spawn point Red?
-
Well my current paladin is currently experiencing some revisions, but it uses temple so it's better against spawnpoints than earlier iterations.
I tested both the monk crystal and temple harmonize opening and I have to say that while both opening are strong in their own way, I like monk crystal more. Yes, temple harmonize gets the temple out early, but harmonize is 2 SBP that: a. make the temple a more appealing target and b. are 2 SBP that only do 1 thing as opposed to clerics.
Red helms I don't like as much as I initially did BC their strongest creature mechanic often works against making the right tactical decision
-
Hi! I thought I would weigh in on this thread, I think Red was referring to the conversation he and I had after Jack pimp-slapped him with his wizard (sry Red!). I have also made comments about tier differences before, so I want to try to defend my ridiculous statements.
First of all, of course skill matters, both in book building and play. If one player is a wizard and fills his book with nothing but useless cards (you can have 4xSardonyx in a book, why not?) and then stand in his corner and guards the whole game, the other player will win with any mage, if he puts any effort into it. Extreme example! But the point is that there is no auto win and skill matters (a lot!).
Now assume two players of equal skill level, this is also an unlikely example, but for the sake of argument; if they play a mirror match with exact same books, then luck will determine the outcome. Luck also matters in Mage Wars.
Another thing that can turn the tide in Mage Wars is the match-up, different choices in books and poor preparation againt a specific mages weakpoints (as in the warlock vs necro example mentioned by Enti). Deck building skill is a thing too!
Mage Wars is a game of small advantages. Sometimes it boils down to 1 life difference in who wins the game. Doesn't matter if you win by 1 life though, you win, and the opponent gets nothing. You only need that one little extra advantage that makes the difference. Every action taken is an attempt to gain a little bit of more advantage, and preferably more-so than the actions the opponent did the same round.
Statcards! Statcards are full of little advantages that makes each mage different and interesting. Channeling 1 mana more than another mage is a little advantage. It may seem like it is not a lot, but if you strip stat cards of all abilities except channeling, and then compare a 9 channel vs 10 channel, the 10 is about 11% better. Meaning in a mirror match, the channel 10 would have ~55% (hoping I did the math somewhat right here) chance of winning, not an auto-win, but a higher chance of winning, even before the first spells are selected, and again disregarding all other factors. It will matter very little in short games, but it may be the difference between casting the one spell you needed that round to not die or to kill the opponent before dying. The longer the game lasts, the bigger the advantage gets, +1 channeling is 20 mana after 20 rounds.
Red's original post was about the wizard vs paladin match-up, all mage match-ups can be analyzed individually, and one could write a book about all the different match-ups and the implications of each. However, for now, compare the statcards of the wizard and the paladin objectively, without concern for player skill (in book building or play) or luck. One could go further and analyze individual cards, such as the gate, but not all wizards bring gates, so I do not take cards into account when I say:
To me, in my personal opinion, the wizard is just better. In this particular case, it's not even a contest, the wizard wins in channeling, but also in the abilities of which the wizards are more flexible, and in the schools, I would prefer to have wizards schools with no level restrictions (and no opposed school) any day, all at the cost of having 4 less max life. I will not assign a % win chance to this match-up, whatever number I pick someone will disagree, but suffice to say the wizard will have more than 50% chance of winning, before we select the players and spellbooks are built.
This is what I mean when I say that there are tier differences. There are mages that I consider on the wizards tier, and mages I consider below the paladins, though once again, it is possible in every game for the paladin to beat the wizard, with player skill, good book building and/or luck. But he will always be at a disadvantage in my eyes.
So I said to Reddicediaries, if you wanna win more, play wizard more. And now here we are. ;D
Rant over, and let me just finish off with a tip of my hat to the guys behind the current ADMW, the system they introduced for using mages is a direct response to this problem, and I love it! It has made the tournament a lot more interesting and fun! ... In my opinion!
-
Hi! I thought I would weigh in on this thread, I think Red was referring to the conversation he and I had after Jack pimp-slapped him with his wizard (sry Red!). I have also made comments about tier differences before, so I want to try to defend my ridiculous statements.
First of all, of course skill matters, both in book building and play. If one player is a wizard and fills his book with nothing but useless cards (you can have 4xSardonyx in a book, why not?) and then stand in his corner and guards the whole game, the other player will win with any mage, if he puts any effort into it. Extreme example! But the point is that there is no auto win and skill matters (a lot!).
Now assume two players of equal skill level, this is also an unlikely example, but for the sake of argument; if they play a mirror match with exact same books, then luck will determine the outcome. Luck also matters in Mage Wars.
Another thing that can turn the tide in Mage Wars is the match-up, different choices in books and poor preparation againt a specific mages weakpoints (as in the warlock vs necro example mentioned by Enti). Deck building skill is a thing too!
Mage Wars is a game of small advantages. Sometimes it boils down to 1 life difference in who wins the game. Doesn't matter if you win by 1 life though, you win, and the opponent gets nothing. You only need that one little extra advantage that makes the difference. Every action taken is an attempt to gain a little bit of more advantage, and preferably more-so than the actions the opponent did the same round.
Statcards! Statcards are full of little advantages that makes each mage different and interesting. Channeling 1 mana more than another mage is a little advantage. It may seem like it is not a lot, but if you strip stat cards of all abilities except channeling, and then compare a 9 channel vs 10 channel, the 10 is about 11% better. Meaning in a mirror match, the channel 10 would have ~55% (hoping I did the math somewhat right here) chance of winning, not an auto-win, but a higher chance of winning, even before the first spells are selected, and again disregarding all other factors. It will matter very little in short games, but it may be the difference between casting the one spell you needed that round to not die or to kill the opponent before dying. The longer the game lasts, the bigger the advantage gets, +1 channeling is 20 mana after 20 rounds.
Red's original post was about the wizard vs paladin match-up, all mage match-ups can be analyzed individually, and one could write a book about all the different match-ups and the implications of each. However, for now, compare the statcards of the wizard and the paladin objectively, without concern for player skill (in book building or play) or luck. One could go further and analyze individual cards, such as the gate, but not all wizards bring gates, so I do not take cards into account when I say:
To me, in my personal opinion, the wizard is just better. In this particular case, it's not even a contest, the wizard wins in channeling, but also in the abilities of which the wizards are more flexible, and in the schools, I would prefer to have wizards schools with no level restrictions (and no opposed school) any day, all at the cost of having 4 less max life. I will not assign a % win chance to this match-up, whatever number I pick someone will disagree, but suffice to say the wizard will have more than 50% chance of winning, before we select the players and spellbooks are built.
This is what I mean when I say that there are tier differences. There are mages that I consider on the wizards tier, and mages I consider below the paladins, though once again, it is possible in every game for the paladin to beat the wizard, with player skill, good book building and/or luck. But he will always be at a disadvantage in my eyes.
So I said to Reddicediaries, if you wanna win more, play wizard more. And now here we are. ;D
Rant over, and let me just finish off with a tip of my hat to the guys behind the current ADMW, the system they introduced for using mages is a direct response to this problem, and I love it! It has made the tournament a lot more interesting and fun! ... In my opinion!
Huh. Interesting take on things. I would also like to say that skill plays a much bigger role in mw than Mage choice. Choosing a wizard over a paladin might increase your chances of winning, but probably not by very much at all. The "tiers" in Mage Wars are very close together. If the wizard has an advantage against the paladin, the advantage is not a very big one. That being said, a larger portion of the wizard's small advantage probably comes from his Arcane training rather than his abilities. And with all the holy spells that have been introduced with PvS and Academy Priestess, and considering the paladin hasn't been out for that long yet, I would be cautious about forming conclusions about what "tier" he's in just yet.
Also, there have been polls on these forums, and there is pretty much zero consensus on what mages are in what tiers. You might be right that if you don't count player skill or good deckbuilding or luck that mages will end up in different tiers. But the impact of player skill and good deckbuilding is so much larger than the impact of Mage choice that it's really hard to tell how much of an impact Mage choice actually has. Whenever a particular Mage is losing more often than winning, it could be the difficulty of learning how to play that Mage, rather than a disadvantage of the Mage itself. For instance, the johktari bm and Malakai priest are challenging to learn how to play, and for a long time everyone thought they were just really weak mages, but then we found out that we were just playing them wrong--and that took at least a couple years after the set came out.
Mage Wars is a complex game and player skill is not one dimensional. I'm not sure there are any mw players who are exactly perfectly evenly matched with each other in skill at any time. While "tiers" might exist, it would be very difficult to verify what they are.
-
It's infuriating to read here.
There are clear and distinct advantages certain mages have over other mages.
And only because there is no consensus in the polls doesn't mean that it does not exist.
The main reason why many people think "all mages are more or less even - and if there's a gap between them this gap is not that wide" is because Mage Wars is (not yet) played on a professional level.
I'm sure some of you know Magic the Gathering. If that game would only be played casual - like Mage Wars is played at the moment - people would think the exact same thing. That there is no "strongest deck" or "best tactic", that is always boils down to skill and luck (far more luck than in MW, just saying :p).
Every casual gamer who invests 5-15 hours a week would have his own view and his own opinion about it. But because in Magic there are many people who play it for a living, literally earning tens of thousands of Dollars, they invest far more time and effort and that way they are able to actually build the best decks. Figuring out the best card combination in their 60 cards decks by trial and error and with the help of mathematics.
Thinking that MW is sooo much more complex and therefore such a distinction is not feasible really startles me. Of course there are significant differences in the powerlevel of some mages.
And of course there are builds which are inherently superior to other builds. Red's example is a good one.
Paladin (no matter which build) against a gatewizard + gorgon archer certainly reduces the chances for a paladin noticeable.
And everyone who is denying that is welcome to fight me ^^
On OCTGN. I'm going to build this wizard now. And then we'll see! :p
/edit: And by the way I agree with the assessment that skill is even more important than the choice of mage. Everyone who played 100+ games could easily beat a novice who has not yet 10 games played. Even if he'd play with a wizard and the experienced player would play with Siren. Doesn't matter because the difference in skill is too big. He could even play with an apprentice-mage and would still win.
But the more even the skill of the player gets, the more important gets the choice and book of the actual mage.
Because as Keejchen pointed out, every small advantage counts and can make the difference in the end.
I hope nobody is offended ^^
-
It's infuriating to read here.
There are clear and distinct advantages certain mages have over other mages.
And only because there is no consensus in the polls doesn't mean that it does not exist.
The main reason why many people think "all mages are more or less even - and if there's a gap between them this gap is not that wide" is because Mage Wars is (not yet) played on a professional level.
I'm sure some of you know Magic the Gathering. If that game would only be played casual - like Mage Wars is played at the moment - people would think the exact same thing. That there is no "strongest deck" or "best tactic", that is always boils down to skill and luck (far more luck than in MW, just saying :p).
Every casual gamer who invests 5-15 hours a week would have his own view and his own opinion about it. But because in Magic there are many people who play it for a living, literally earning tens of thousands of Dollars, they invest far more time and effort and that way they are able to actually build the best decks. Figuring out the best card combination in their 60 cards decks by trial and error and with the help of mathematics.
Thinking that MW is sooo much more complex and therefore such a distinction is not feasible really startles me. Of course there are significant differences in the powerlevel of some mages.
And of course there are builds which are inherently superior to other builds. Red's example is a good one.
Paladin (no matter which build) against a gatewizard + gorgon archer certainly reduces the chances for a paladin noticeable.
And everyone who is denying that is welcome to fight me ^^
On OCTGN. I'm going to build this wizard now. And then we'll see! :p
/edit: And by the way I agree with the assessment that skill is even more important than the choice of mage. Everyone who played 100+ games could easily beat a novice who has not yet 10 games played. Even if he'd play with a wizard and the experienced player would play with Siren. Doesn't matter because the difference in skill is too big. He could even play with an apprentice-mage and would still win.
But the more even the skill of the player gets, the more important gets the choice and book of the actual mage.
Because as Keejchen pointed out, every small advantage counts and can make the difference in the end.
I hope nobody is offended ^^
Not offended. If I may ask, how do you know what the tiers are then? Since last time I looked at a poll on these forums it wasn't just casual players who weren't agreeing on a tier list. There are probably plenty of players who are very competitive at using a couple of mages, novice or near novice level at using a couple other mages and moderately good at using the rest. I suppose if we take two polls, one of gen con finalists and one of admw finalists, we might get a better idea of what the tiers are if there are any. To be honest if there are tiers they might be based around individual deck strats rather than whole Mage classes. For instance, gate wizard specifically might be tier 1, rather than wizards in general.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well right now, Gate wizard is one of if not the only high level way to play wiz imo.
Tbh. have not seen any non gate wizard since the nerf except elemental lord. ;)
-
Well right now, Gate wizard is one of if not the only high level way to play wiz imo.
Tbh. have not seen any non gate wizard since the nerf except elemental lord. ;)
I haven't seen very many wizards at all in a while tbh
-
Well right now, Gate wizard is one of if not the only high level way to play wiz imo.
Tbh. have not seen any non gate wizard since the nerf except elemental lord. ;)
First, there are lots of non-Gate non-Gorgon Wizard possibilities.
Second, this thread is going off the rails. It isn't "yet another tier discussion," it's a specific match-up discussion. All other things being equal, does one specific Mage have a distinct advantage over another specific Mage. I would say yes with certainty. I've played other 2-player competitive asymmetric games at the highest levels of competition and Mage Wars is no different in this respect - there is some degree of rock-paper-scissors. It isn't just an issue of "everyone is playing that Mage wrong" - a Malakai Priest has his Burn token ability neutralized by an Adramelech Warlock. Any Wizard has all the tools to disarm a Mind's Eye Forcemaster. You don't need to be a Gen Con or ADMW champion to see that. Yes, it's still possible for a Priest to beat a Warlock, or a Forcemaster to beat a Wizard. But some mages have built-in counters to other mages. And some mages have an easier time building counters into their books to win specific matchups. Yes, it's possible to build your book with cards specifically to mitigate your bad matchups, and a good player will do this instinctively - but that's the point. You need to go out of your way to mitigate against your bad matchups, and that fact tells you that some mages have an advantage in some matchups if/when it isn't a matchup that they have to come up with a specific strategy for dealing with. There are good matchups and bad matchups.
-
Well right now, Gate wizard is one of if not the only high level way to play wiz imo.
Tbh. have not seen any non gate wizard since the nerf except elemental lord. ;)
First, there are lots of non-Gate non-Gorgon Wizard possibilities.
Second, this thread is going off the rails. It isn't "yet another tier discussion," it's a specific match-up discussion. All other things being equal, does one specific Mage have a distinct advantage over another specific Mage. I would say yes with certainty. I've played other 2-player competitive asymmetric games at the highest levels of competition and Mage Wars is no different in this respect - there is some degree of rock-paper-scissors. It isn't just an issue of "everyone is playing that Mage wrong" - a Malakai Priest has his Burn token ability neutralized by an Adramelech Warlock. Any Wizard has all the tools to disarm a Mind's Eye Forcemaster. You don't need to be a Gen Con or ADMW champion to see that. Yes, it's still possible for a Priest to beat a Warlock, or a Forcemaster to beat a Wizard. But some mages have built-in counters to other mages. And some mages have an easier time building counters into their books to win specific matchups. Yes, it's possible to build your book with cards specifically to mitigate your bad matchups, and a good player will do this instinctively - but that's the point. You need to go out of your way to mitigate against your bad matchups, and that fact tells you that some mages have an advantage in some matchups if/when it isn't a matchup that they have to come up with a specific strategy for dealing with. There are good matchups and bad matchups.
I'm sure there are, I just have only seen the lord and gate wiz since the nerf.
-
Well right now, Gate wizard is one of if not the only high level way to play wiz imo.
Tbh. have not seen any non gate wizard since the nerf except elemental lord. ;)
First, there are lots of non-Gate non-Gorgon Wizard possibilities.
Second, this thread is going off the rails. It isn't "yet another tier discussion," it's a specific match-up discussion. All other things being equal, does one specific Mage have a distinct advantage over another specific Mage. I would say yes with certainty. I've played other 2-player competitive asymmetric games at the highest levels of competition and Mage Wars is no different in this respect - there is some degree of rock-paper-scissors. It isn't just an issue of "everyone is playing that Mage wrong" - a Malakai Priest has his Burn token ability neutralized by an Adramelech Warlock. Any Wizard has all the tools to disarm a Mind's Eye Forcemaster. You don't need to be a Gen Con or ADMW champion to see that. Yes, it's still possible for a Priest to beat a Warlock, or a Forcemaster to beat a Wizard. But some mages have built-in counters to other mages. And some mages have an easier time building counters into their books to win specific matchups. Yes, it's possible to build your book with cards specifically to mitigate your bad matchups, and a good player will do this instinctively - but that's the point. You need to go out of your way to mitigate against your bad matchups, and that fact tells you that some mages have an advantage in some matchups if/when it isn't a matchup that they have to come up with a specific strategy for dealing with. There are good matchups and bad matchups.
The question isn't whether there's some degree of Rock Paper Scissors or not. The question is
1. whether the Rock Paper Scissors happens for specific decks or for entire mages
And
2. Whether some mages or specific decks must spend more spell points to counter the matchups they're weak against than others do
And
3. Depending on the answer to 2, is the difference in spell point cost for countering one's weak matchups mitigated by playing more aggressively and finishing the game faster in that matchup? Or perhaps by having a plan B that shares a lot of spell points in common with plan A? (Backup plan uses a lot of same cards as main strat)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I read all that stuff and for myself i must add. Luck during dice rolls aside...
Certain strategy/player/state of the mind will NEVER win against certain strategy/player/state of the mind.
There is no "ULTIMATE" spellbook. If ten players will look at this ULTIMATE spellbook and build it, it doesnt mean that all of them will win all the time.
Mage wars are a living organism. Game evolves, spellbook evolves players evolves. Last month i was totaly destroyed by a player with less experience but one with diffrent angle on how value each card.
-
To answer your question: NO, every mage has the potential of beating another mage.
Since this game is designed around diffrent mages and diffrent schools you will always have one mage with an advantage/disadvantage.
I would never claim that a matchup is unwinnable. It more or less comes down to player experince with diffrent mages and how to play diffrent ways with books you've designed.
-
The single best weapon any mage can have is flexibility. A sharp knowledge of what your mage can and can't do as well as the ability to adapt to an opponent on the fly will win you more matches than anything you can put in your book.
-
Red, I have a wizard that mainly focusses on summoning a few big guys from the start and afterwards start destroying everything with lightning attack spells and the zap. (staff of storms, gloves of skill, hawkeye, akiro, lightning ring and maybe even the hill conjuration) Since it has many attack spells it also includes a wizard tower if needed. Its a pretty fun book.
It also has a light amount of mana denial. It isnt the main focus but I use the academy robes and a few mana denial spells mostly to make a small difference.
-
And I've got a Mana Denial Wizard that focuses on that strategy nearly exclusively. It's so annoying to play against that I don't even like playing it, but it has been quite successful. When it takes your opponent 2-3 rounds to channel enough mana to remove a Ghoul Rot, you know they're not having a good day. Oh, it does use the Gate to Voltarii, but no Gorgon Archers, as it prefers Mana Worms, Mana Leeches, a Devouring Jelly and a Gargoyle.
And I've been playing against an Undo Wizard who has enough Dissolve/Dispel and Attack spells to undo anything you try to do, then sticks some DoT with Arcane Ward / Enchanter's Wardstone and watches you die a slow death (but can be accelerated through lightning). No Gate to Voltarii in this one.
A well-played Paladin could win against either of these Wizards, I'd assume. Pillar of Righteous Flame could take out a Mana Worm swarm with a little assistance, and a Paladin has enough healing to survive DoT for quite a while, during which time hopefully he can get some damage through. He needs at least a couple creatures, though, as the first melee attack each round is going to be mostly neutralized by the Voltaric Shield.
-
And I've got a Mana Denial Wizard that focuses on that strategy nearly exclusively.
Would you mind posting your book, iNano ? ( in another thread of course )
I'm quite interested in seeing all its contents.
Don't feel obliged ;)
-
And I've got a Mana Denial Wizard that focuses on that strategy nearly exclusively.
Would you mind posting your book, iNano ? ( in another thread of course )
I'm quite interested in seeing all its contents.
Don't feel obliged ;)
It's a work in progress. I recently cut the Worms in favour of more Leeches, and made a few other changes (e.g. dropped Jinx'es, added more DoT curses). And I've only played it locally; I don't do OCTGN for various reasons.
-
And I've got a Mana Denial Wizard that focuses on that strategy nearly exclusively. It's so annoying to play against that I don't even like playing it, but it has been quite successful. When it takes your opponent 2-3 rounds to channel enough mana to remove a Ghoul Rot, you know they're not having a good day. Oh, it does use the Gate to Voltarii, but no Gorgon Archers, as it prefers Mana Worms, Mana Leeches, a Devouring Jelly and a Gargoyle.
And I've been playing against an Undo Wizard who has enough Dissolve/Dispel and Attack spells to undo anything you try to do, then sticks some DoT with Arcane Ward / Enchanter's Wardstone and watches you die a slow death (but can be accelerated through lightning). No Gate to Voltarii in this one.
A well-played Paladin could win against either of these Wizards, I'd assume. Pillar of Righteous Flame could take out a Mana Worm swarm with a little assistance, and a Paladin has enough healing to survive DoT for quite a while, during which time hopefully he can get some damage through. He needs at least a couple creatures, though, as the first melee attack each round is going to be mostly neutralized by the Voltaric Shield.
Uh oh. Are we seeing Blasting Banker 2.0?
Does the second book use a forge?
What's it's main strat if you can recall?
-
Uh oh. Are we seeing Blasting Banker 2.0?
Does the second book use a forge?
What's it's main strat if you can recall?
No.
Not that I recall (although maybe?).
I'm not at liberty to say.
-
I don´t think Paladin should be in real bad shape vs a Gate Wizard.
What are we talking about?
Unlimited time and unlimited card pool? More or less like an OCTGN tourney. Dragon would be legal etc, the channeling advantage means more.
Real life tourney like Gen-Con? Channeling means less. The Life difference matters. In a timed event the mages with less life has to do something.
A spellbook created for a tourney like Gen-Con would be different as it has to be able to beat all likely mages. In a tourney like ADWS you only have to prepare for one specific opponent, and you could take a chance and just prepare for one mage only.
So how would I go vs a Gate Wizard.
Vs the Gate id like a spawnpoint of my own and a meditation amulet.(to negate Gate a bit)
Lair, Vine Tree, Temple, Barracks.
Vs Gorgon Archer its really good vs Paladin and most of his creatures. But we could still counter it to some degree. Chant of Rage is really good. Guardian Angels with a defense and intercept seems a good option also.
Removing weak tokens should be possible with Mage Wands and Cure. Wand of healing, Renewing Spring maybe, but i would consider just go Priestess instead if i really wanted to counter Gorgon Archer.
Vs Devouring Jelly id still like Chant of Rage, else Chitin Armor and Waterfall Cloak is pretty good.
Vs Blue Gremlins id go with Brogan x2 and pack Morningstar and maybe 1 or 2 Falcon Precision.
We could go on like that - what i trying to say that most mages would have a pretty good chance of beating Gate Wizard if they knew their opponent was going to use that and the Wizard had to prepare for almost every mage.
Some mages has built in good or bad matches like Johktari and Gorgon Archer is a creature that have good and bad matchups ( or good, better, best)
Same thing if you have a nature mage and choice between Emerald Tegus or Timber Wolfs. The more creatures Tegus, Dire Wolfs etc. that you put in a spellbook, the more likely you are to have good and bad matchups.
So how many you put in should be determined by who and what you think your up against.
I don´t really believe that Paladin is at a disadvantage vs Gate Wizard (or any other mage really) It really depends on the situation.
-
I don´t really believe that Paladin is at a disadvantage vs Gate Wizard (or any other mage really) It really depends on the situation.
As I offered before: You are welcome to actually try it.
Not in theory on paper, but on the battlefield.
And after that game, or 2-3 games, you can share your insights. Maybe your opinion changes, maybe not, but I really encourage you to try it.
Just write me a message when you are online on OCTGN! :)
(even better, try to beat jack's wizard since he has far more experience playing this build)
-
Challenge accepted!
I have to back online more anyway.
Ill take on both you and Jacksmack :) (not on the same time)
Video?
Ive played like zero games with Paladin up to now, but i still think i have a fighting chance.
Just have to try to beat Keejchen first in our upcomming live monthly MW day this saturday.
-
Well Biblo so long as you're taking on challengers....you've stated you'll be at Gen Con...I'll be at Gen Con.
I'm just saying brother our "conversation" is a long way from done :) I'm your huckleberry.
-
Biblo, if you want any thoughts on a meditation paladin, just pm me. I've got a pretty solid one I've been playing for a month or so now.
-
Sorry for necro-ing, was curious what ended up happening here.
-
You mean like who was right? :)
-
Well we never got around to play.
It did get me started on Paladin :)