Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MageMuse

Pages: [1]

Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Necromancer Build

« on: January 26, 2014, 07:41:07 PM »

One thing that sticks out to me is a lack of ranged attacks. I know I've seen Necro builds without attack spells but it might be a good idea to at least include Force Hammer. I did surprise a friend with a Thunderbolt at range 3 from my Necro last weekend. Build probably could use a Mage wand. Lastly, I would suggest Marked for Death, Power Strike and Battle Fury to give your Zombies a nastier punch.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Dice vs. Piercing

« on: January 23, 2014, 08:21:08 AM »

Quote from: Hedge on January 23, 2014, 03:39:25 AM

Quote from: MageMuse on January 23, 2014, 03:03:01 AM
I understand it just fine, but if the opportunity costs are the same, then why do I care if I might do too much damage to a target? I understand the concept of distributing attacks in an efficient manner.

It isn't about any of that.

Hedge

Look up all the creatures and conjurations that have exactly 2 armor and ones that have 8 HP and could be buffed to 2 armor. Now check to see how many of those have exactly 8 hit points AND 2 armor then consider how often those are used. If you're going to calculate +2 dice overkill it's also fair to calculate how often +2 piercing is wasted against resilient targets and +1 armor targets and when not enough normal damage is rolled for piercing to have an effect, especially, against high armor targets.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Dice vs. Piercing

« on: January 23, 2014, 03:03:01 AM »

I understand it just fine, but if the opportunity costs are the same, then why do I care if I might do too much damage to a target? I understand the concept of distributing attacks in an efficient manner.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Dice vs. Piercing

« on: January 23, 2014, 02:29:44 AM »

Does your meta operate under Trivial Pursuit rules? (I'm joking with you, not mocking)

I suppose if I had both I could use the inferior 4D +2P on weaker targets and the much more powerful 6D attack on the mage. OR I can just be more efficient and use both on the mage, wishing I had 2 Six dice attacks instead of one.

Edit: If we are going to talk efficiency then you have to give real examples with differing opportunity costs. If I have a choice of one and only one attack, I will choose 6D over 4D +2P every single time. Telling me, I might do too much damage if I go +2 dice is not a winning proposition for piercing.

Strategy and Tactics / Re: Dice vs. Piercing

« on: January 23, 2014, 12:13:29 AM »

Quote from: Hedge on January 22, 2014, 11:22:15 PM

I will use the 4d6 +2 P(A) and 6d6(B) set against a 2 Armor 8 HP creature in explaining the hypothisis.

The first strike from A will always be at 100% efficiency. However, B's can be as low as 67%. It is rare though to roll all Crits. On the second strike, if it is not killed by the first, B has a greater chance of producing significant damage that is wasted because of the low amount of HP. If we continue this out for a whole game would the difference be even quantifiable.

Hedge

If the 4D +2 Piercing nets 2 piercing damage against a 2 armor 8 HP creature then it stands to reason that +2 dice added to that same roll will score damage whether there are critical or normal results. Looks pretty efficient to me.

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: About warlord only card

« on: January 22, 2014, 02:49:50 AM »

Sat down and rolled dice ... and rolled... ...and rolled dice.

I would roll 6 dice assuming +3 Piercing versus 3 armor and 6 armor

I would then roll 2 additional dice.

Ring makes very valid points, but I just want to show my train of thought.

This is what I observed... Piercing needs the targeted creature with an armor value equal to its number value. This is assuming one realizes that +3 Piercing to +2 Dice are closer in performance than +2 Pierce and +2 Dice (it's not even close).

On the best roll possible, +3 piercing will never exceed the result from just adding 2 dice by more than 3 and that's assuming double blanks on the 2 extra dice. Now consider a target with 6 Armor. Roll 6 dice repeatedly. Notice anything? It's not easy to get exactly 6 normal damage to take advantage of the +3 Piercing. Now try rolling 2 extra dice along with those. Now you will get those darn blanks but you will see 1s and 2s, some normal, some crits. What I have found is whenever piercing reaches its full potential, it also means any normal 1s and 2s, rolled on the +2 dice, would result in damage to the target.

Example: 6 Dice Result of only 6 normal damage to a 6 armor creature.

+3 Piercing = 3 damage

The +2 dice could roll any normal damage result of 3 or more and meet/exceed the above damage.

+3 Piercing rolls can get the most favorable result and only beat an avg +2 dice roll (2 result) by 1. Trust me getting 2-3 normal/crit damage from 2 dice is much easier than getting 6+ normal damage from 6 dice. Have to say, piercing should be reserved for multistrikes.

Now if there's any holes in my observations, please point them out.

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: About warlord only card

« on: January 21, 2014, 07:36:08 PM »

Quote from: sIKE on January 21, 2014, 02:40:52 PM

Quote from: Imaginator on January 21, 2014, 12:43:29 PM
I beg to differ Magemuse. While more dice is superior to piercing, piercing is still useful. if you have more dice AND piercing, you're more likely to do more damage then if you just had one of them. Piercing effectively converts a certain amount of normal damage to critical. So aside from any critical damage dealt normally with extra dice, you now get some of your normal damage to go through armor too. This is useful against creatures with more armor.
It is very useful for High Armor creatures. On a mage with a [mwcard=MW1J04] Battle Forge[/mwcard] throwing out armor like beads at Mardi Gras, you go get more dice, I will take the piercing any day. ~~Irregardless~~ regardless of the math.

For me that would depend heavily on how many dice, I'm already rolling. If I'm already at 6-8 dice versus a 6 armor target without any means of getting rid of it, I will opt for the +3 piercing. There comes a point when you can almost assume +3 piercing equals +3 damage against a 3 armor target. 3-4 I'm more likely going the dice route UNLESS I only need to bump my opponent to make it fall over. You should always have an answer to high armor targets. Point being, overall dice are always useful, piercing is situational but you will REALLY miss it when you need it.

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: About warlord only card

« on: January 21, 2014, 12:23:10 PM »

It is true, mathematically, +2 dice is better than +2 piercing. One only needs to look at Piercing and Power Strike. Both novice spells and with the same mana costs, yet the values are +3 for piercing and +2 for dice. When comparing the possible roll results, things seem to even out as opposed to a mirror +2 vs +2.

I have gone the route of dice is usually better, especially, with resilient targets becoming much more common. Very situationally piercing can be better when you just need a guarenteed low damage attack that will bring down a 5+ Armor target. Think of it as terrible luck mitigation. Some people just feel safer even if +2 dice is better on average if they just need 2 or 3 damage. The math of lower expectations :p

General Discussion / Re: New Mage Wars Promos available.

« on: January 16, 2014, 05:24:59 PM »

Quote from: Aylin on January 16, 2014, 03:40:56 PM

Quote from: MageMuse on January 16, 2014, 02:55:46 PM
Love Dragon's Breathe. Can deal with the full action with a 0-3 range and the ability to hit 2 targets in seperate zones.

Wall of poisen gas looks pretty wicked, especially, for the Necromancer.

Lightning beetle looks awesome! Has 4 armor, -2 Lightning, Melee and Ranged Lightning attack, plus it's psychic immune? The Lightning and flame strike cards could be a way of getting around elemental resistances. An Arc Lightning can give you lightning damage, but just imagine Steelclaw with Lightning Strike versus Brogan (Ok piercing strike could probably be better unless you score a stun). Maybe change a sweeping attack to the lightning effect to daze and stun multiple targets.

It says next melee attack on the card, so it would only apply to the first attack in a Sweeping or Multistrike attack sequence.

Whoops, had a brainfart. I forget that sweeping is essentially a multistrike just spread out among targets.

General Discussion / Re: New Mage Wars Promos available.

« on: January 16, 2014, 02:55:46 PM »

Love Dragon's Breathe. Can deal with the full action with a 0-3 range and the ability to hit 2 targets in seperate zones.

Wall of poisen gas looks pretty wicked, especially, for the Necromancer.

Lightning beetle looks awesome! Has 4 armor, -2 Lightning, Melee and Ranged Lightning attack, plus it's psychic immune? The Lightning and flame strike cards could be a way of getting around elemental resistances. An Arc Lightning can give you lightning damage, but just imagine Steelclaw with Lightning Strike versus Brogan (Ok piercing strike could probably be better unless you score a stun). Maybe change a sweeping attack to the lightning effect to daze and stun multiple targets.

Spells / Re: Commonly Useful Spells

« on: January 07, 2014, 01:27:23 PM »

Quote from: baronzaltor on January 06, 2014, 01:34:26 PM

Id mention another factor that strengthens Arcane though that doesn't get brought up often... its also an issue that has always annoyed me about the schools in general. Arcane has magic and mana flavored cards but it also gets metamagic, which means it contains all of its own counters. So an Arcane mage not only has an edge on you with those core utilities, but he also edges you out if you try to run counters on them. I think counter magic and mana denial should have a been Mind spells with a "force of will" flavoring. It would make it easier to swallow that Arcane can run more Teleports, Harmonizes, Wands, Transfusions and Wardstones and so on if they weren't also the mage who could easily pack more Dispels, Nullifies and Jinxes too. Arcane should have tricks and mana, but someone else should have counters and mana denial to break up the overall monopoly Arcane has on itself. A card like Mana Prism really should have been a Nature or Holy card as it is made to combat a theme that is almost purely Arcane, (with a little Mind for Supression Orb), while the Prism itself is an Arcane card.

Schools containing their own counters is something that irks me in general… Mind Shield is a Mind Spell, so the mage who can use it most easily is the one who needs it the least. The spell was made to help protect other mages from all the new mind school control effects, but it is governed by the same mage (honestly, it should have just been Novice). Dragonscale Hauberk is a fire spell, so the nature mages who pay triple for fire spells AND generally have a fire weakness have the hardest time using it while the Warlock with multiple fire immune creatures and fire attacks (and his own school-unique armor) can run it easily. Having schools contain their own counters has just always kinda bugged me.

In my humble opinion, the cleaniest tweak would be to make Nullify, Dispel, and Jinx into Novice spells. That and Teleport only targeting friendly creatures. Don't know if that would be enough or too much, but it would certainly tilt the power away from Arcane. Would certainly help out the Warlord.

Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Alternative female mage art?

« on: January 03, 2014, 06:56:18 PM »

I'm may not be personally offended by the artwork (I've seen far worse, so maybe I have become numb to it). HOWEVER, I do understand why people would be turned away from the game. Before I ever read this thread, I had already begun to make new printable versions to sleeve over the original artworks. Fact is this is a social game and half of my gaming group is female. Second, if after being married and I have daughters, I plan to raise them in a way that give them the most control of their destiny (my fiancee and I agreed that we want ALL of our kids trained in self-defense) and a healthy view of their roles within society. In short, I have some empathy for those that do take some offense. The easiest card solution has been the dispel card since it's a matter of simply printing out the one depicting a fully armored female over the woman, who looks like she's wearing a workout bra and panties. To be honest, the replacement looks much cooler. Being an artist and a photoshop adept (16 years of experience), I plan to to this for other cards when I can buy some time. Depending on whether I use found art or my own is entirely up to time constraints. Won't guarentee it, but I might post my replacements. I also won't guarantee they will be enough but it will be toned down.

Pages: [1]