So I am excited that I can finally share a little bit more. More importantly, I want to hear from you. We are in the initial stages of developing a new version. Certainly it is true that we want to broaden the player base with this, but we also want to have a game that gives that Mage Wars "feel". This means some things will be new, but backwards compatibility is a significant part of our discussions. Certainly we want to create some extended utility of the products that you already own, but as some have noted, excessive backwards compatibility can create design constraints that lead to unintended consequences and limitations.

That all sounds terrible to me - I'm out. I play a few games every week, and the game just is fine (excellent even), there are only two problems - not enough content, and too much weak content (the costing formulae are wrong in several areas, leading to overcosted cards). Anything less than 100% backwards compatibility makes the exercise pointless IMO (at least for me, and what I want from the game).

Any amount of change you could credibly call a new edition is too much (something on the scale of 4th printing/Arena is fine), there is no need for anything beyond a few errata (maybe a lot with cost reductions), a few rulings being updated and added, and a lot more content. I realise the survey was blue-sky brainstorming, but most of those options? Yeuk... I don't want another 'streamlined' and dumbed down version od anything thanks, nor do I want different ways to play, different arenas, different anything - it's not broke (but it will never be a roaring commercial success whatever). I don't want minis, or online and I certainly don't want anything less complex or shorter (more complex and longer and we can talk, but that survey was horribly biased). I realise that doesn't play to wanting to leverage a shiny new edition for cash, but as opined a while back, this future is much worse than leaving it dead.

None of this is helped by the fact that whilst Mage Wars is my #1 game, I have no faith or loyalty to AW at all - I've got playtest and development credits with lots of games and companies, but I've never tested for such a shambles as AW. As a consumer, it's just worse they make massive misstep over massive misstep... Produce more Arena content, and I'll buy it (if it's not monk garbage, etc), but ask me to set aside my current (and considerable) investment in something that's great despite AW, and then invest in something new from them? No thanks.

Would you please have me removed from the PlayTesting list - I want nothing to do with this direction of travel, it's the wrong solution to the wrong problem as far as I am concerned. Playtesting was largely a waste of time anyway - it was all focused on dumbed down for Academy, the problems were rarely listened to, and bigger problems inserted by fiat post-playtesting anyway...

I mean what is this? Our version of "What have the romans ever done for us?"
"What makes you think that Pillar is overpowered?"

Actually, yes it is exactly that. People are posting their opinions, I've heard all the arguments so far, and I think they are over-stated, I'm not convinced the card is any more in need of nerfing than a dozen other great cards (and they don't either).

I don't think a Priest should run mana crystals, Cassiel, etc - at that point you are investing for a long game, and you'd be much off as a Priestess.

The trouble you have with playing it aggressive is that frankly a Paladin does it better. Arguably a Priestess too.

dave no one knows what a good priest looks like. because it does not exist.

Agreed.

I had a similar issue recently with Priestess and Priestess only spells. Didn't try swapping the stat card around though - I will.

Don't agree entirely. Different strong players have different opinions. It is much too early to make any assumptions about power level.

How is 7 years too early? Or many hundreds of games?

Yes pretty terrible idea - removes most of the skill and tactics...

Apprentice mode is a 6 tile grid. That game already exists, it's not Academy.

You are missing it's most important ability by far...

If you are using Dig In/Form Ranks, see yourself using Hold the Line a lot, and use Standard Bearer then Panzergarde is better. Otherwise Angel is much better, but obviously more spellbook points - depends how tight you are. Royal Armourer works equally well on both btw.

Dwarven Vanguard is a good card, but in my opinion it's a Vigilant soldier that happens to have Intercept, rather than an Interceptor that happens to have Vigilant. It's a great card, and good to have as a backup interceptor - but he won't last long jumping in front of fireballs on his own. He does benefit hugely from Form Ranks, btw.

So pragmatically I'd go for a Panzergarde  AND Vanguard (which costs the same as an angel). If you find you somehow have points to spare, then consider an Angel upgrade.