The things I want the most are:

1. Total quantity played of each mage across each qualifier, and in finals.

2. Top list from each qualifier, and all lists in finals (published on delay, after all tourney games are finished Monday).

Hopefully this is as easy as scanning and OCRing the checked decklists. Also would you consider accepting digital decklist submissions in .txt or.csv formats for the tournament? Paper decklists are so 20th century.

What ringkichard said but I would like the mages listed in the order they finish each qualifier plus their record. I would also like to see all book lists, after the event is over of course. No sense giving away someone's list before the tournament is over, they may want to keep their exact list a secret.

Quote from: Tacullu64 on August 07, 2013, 02:44:42 PM

I'm not a huge fan euro-games either, although I do like small world quite a bit.

Really?  Smallworld was a huge flop in my gaming group.  It was unique, but the gameplay was nothing short of yawn-worthy.

Not that all games need MW-like depth, but I can only laugh at Muddy Mudmen so many times.

heh-heh...damnit.

I don't know how to explain it. It's not my type of game but I like it anyways. One of life's little mysteries I guess.

Yea, it's disappointing that we didn't make the top 50 list for July.

That said, I'm confident that this years GenCon will get this game in the hands of many new players and I'm excited about that.

Also, what a leap on BGG! I look away for one second and WE ASCEND FROM 35 TO 32! Like. A. Boss.

Oh, and here's the thing - why did the collective whole rest on AmeriTrash as a descriptive reference for board games in the first place? Even if its not meant to be malicious, if I called someone's mothers cooking MamaTrash (say it with a smile) then I don't know how anyone could take that as not offensive in a small way. Jussayn!

It is offensive in a small way. For me it's the type of thing I just get over. I don't like me when I'm angry. So I try to only get upset over the big things, and then I try to get over those as quick as possible.

Its my understanding another of the key differences is player elimination. In euro games players aren't eliminated. The game ends after x turns or some other condition and then the players count victory points to determine the winner.

I'm not saying the player who has done the most damage. That would be the current system, which removes healing from the equation. I'm saying count damage remaining on the mages when time is called. I would prefer life remaining because that would allow the priestess to take advantage of her Divine Reward ability on her card. But as I've stated before I don't feel that is a viable tiebreaker anymore. It is a shame her best ability can't be much of a factor in tournament games.

Tacullu, I guess I don't agree that the player who has done the most damage deserves to win, because the major strategy control books use is to spend life points as a resource to gain control.The agro book almost always does the most damage in the beginning, that doesn't mean that the agro book always starts the game winning.

My main premise is that a tiebreaker should be as simple and fair as possible. The current is neither, although it is fairly simple. If there really is an imbalance in tournament play the biggest culprit is the time limit not the tiebreaker. There is a chance that the imbalance will correct itself as control players perfect their style of play. It has been shown in game after game that aggro has an early advantage and that control has to play catch up for a while. It is also my contention that MW may not be at the stage where control players have reached their potential and caught up to aggro players. However if the tools do not already exist to correct the imbalance my preference would be to release new cards to even the playing field in a 60-75 minute game. If there is an imbalance control players need cards that will let them get to their endgame quicker not a complicated tiebreaker system to even the playing field. That is how MW was meant to be played, in the arena, not on the score card. It would be better to reduce the number of ties to a number so small that any tiebreaker will suffice, not build the perfect tiebreaker. Failing that, reduce the number of ties to the point that even the current tiebreaker is a non-issue.

A quick summary of my points/hopes for the game.

1.  Games should be decided in the arena not on the scorecard. In my opinion that is both the spirit of the game and the intent of the game.

2.  If control can't finish the game in 60-75 minutes that build needs cards to get them to their end game quicker. If players have the tools and don't take advantage of them that's on the players.

3.  A tiebreaker should be simple and as fair as possible. I put simple first for a reason.


Personally, I would hate to see Mage Wars become a euro game where we are counting victory points to determine who wins. I realize this is a personal preference that may not be shared by all.

@ringkichard.
It is possible we just can't agree on this and that is ok. While its nice when people find consensus, the world would be a boring place if everybody thought the same.

I was rushed for time on my last post and forgot to address one of your points.

First I would like to say that it seems we have the same goals and agree about almost everything except how to achieve those goals. I very much want to see control builds be a part of a healthy environment.

It has been my experience that it is not uncommon for aggro builds to dominate early in a games life and after significant expansions are released. This usually results in a natural self correction that brings up the level of control builds to near or maybe even a little bit better than that of aggro builds as control players fine tune their craft. If this self correction doesn't occur our concerns will be justified. I don't think we have reached the time yet in MW for that self correction to happen. If it doesn't happen I would prefer that Arcane Wonders correct the imbalance gradually by releasing cards to strengthen control builds as opposed to adjudicating it through a complex tie breaker system.

I do think the current tie breaker probably needs some tweaking to something more fair, just not a complete overhaul.

I'm going to cover my thoughts on several aspects of tie breakers so this might be a bit lengthy when I'm done. If I start to ramble off on tangents as I am wont to do, it will definately get lengthy.

Current Tie Breaker
My first topic is the current tie breaker. My gut feelings are to dislike it. On the surface it appears to give aggro builds and mages who are more efficient at dealing damage an advantage. The biggest beneficiary is the warlock. He has his battle skill, great weapons only he can use, in school access to burn effects (shared only with the fire wizard), in school access to efficient damage dealing creatures, and the cherry on top, in school access to direct damage curses. I would say the warlocks closest rival is the beastmaster of straywood. The beastmaster boast his own battle skill, the best buffs in the game, in school access to efficient damage dealing creatures, in school access to the bleed condition, and the quick summon ability. Now I realize that any mage can go the aggro route, my point is some are significantly better at it. I'm looking at you warlock. It would seem that a tie breaker that so strongly favors a particular style of play and those mages that are best at it would unbalance tournaments.

So, what does the current tie breaker have going for it? If you could forget about the in game bookkeeping it would be simple. I really, really, really, favor simple tie breakers. The only other reason I can think of to keep the current system is that so far all we have is supposition that it is a bad system. There has not been enough tournaments to generate the kind of data we need to prove it is a bad tie breaker system. This alone may be enough to warrant keeping it for a while longer.

My Former Preferred Tie Breaker
My original favorite tie breaker was life remaining (max life - damage on mage). However two cards that I really like a lot from CoK ruin remaining life as a tie breaker.

The first is Sunfire Amulet. Sunfire Amulet is a cool card but if remaining life was the tie breaker it would be in every spell book built and could become a focal point of tournament games and this would be unhealthy. If AW is going to promote tournament play I wonder about the wisdom of creating cards that are designed to prolong the game. The time limit is already a topic of much debate.

The second card is Drain Soul, another card that may only be used by the warlock at the moment (is a warlock secretly in control of AW, he is currently getting a lot of love). I thought that the priestess was supposed to be the best mage at life gain, not anymore, with sole access to Drain Soul the warlock is king. The warlock starts with the most life at 38 and with quick six from DS he is at 44. The priestess will never catch him in life total. This tie breaker system favors the warlock even more than the current one. Best damage dealer combined with most life equals guaranteed win if it goes to the tie breaker.

Tie Breaker I Currently Favor
The tie breaker I currently like best is damage on the mage. The main reason I like it is that its simple. Another reason I like it is that it doesn't rule out healing. I don't understand why people are hellbent on removing healing as a factor in tie breakers, it is a part of the game too. Finally, it is fairer than the current tie breaker.

Boxing and Mage Wars
In my youth I watched quite a bit of boxing. It wasn't all that uncommon for one fighter to win more rounds but be on the ropes in the final round, close to getting knocked out. All he had to do was make it out of the round and he would probably win. Sometimes he would survive to take it to the judges score cards and win a decision and sometimes he would get knocked out and lose. In any case the judges score cards reflected what happened during the fight not who they thought would win if the fight continued. So what does this have to do with Mage Wars your wondering?

There has been some discussion about a tie breaker that would award the game to the mage who was going to win if the game continued. While I like the concept, the application is flawed short of a machine that can peer into the future to watch the demise of the eventual loser. The tie breaker should determine the winner based on what has already occurred. The goal of the game is to make the opposing mage's damage marker meet his life marker, not cast the most creatures, or have the least spell points left in your spell book, or whatever other condition can be thought up. Going in to the match both players know how much time they have to knock out the opposing mage. The winner should be determined based on what occurred during the time allotted. That is why I liked the life remaining tie breaker because that would tell you which mage was closer to victory when the match ended. However that is no longer viable due to the reasons I mentioned above. That left me believing the damage on the mage when time is called is the fairest to all mages and styles of play. Is it perfect? No, but your goal should be to make sure the game doesn't go to the judges scorecard.

That I believe is everything I have at the moment.

I know I run some in my favorite forcemaster build..but it really isn't going to affect my overall love of this game, nor it going to make it any less fun playing every week for 12 hours.

I have been mad at errata before,so I understand. I have had $150 cards become banned after obtaining 4 of them for my deck...and no matter how mad it has made me, it has not gotten in the way of me loving and playing a game.

To me, this is such a small change, some games that have came out after Mage Wars like netrunner,DC and Marvel deck building games have had more errata then this, and it has not got in the way for the fans to continue loving their game.

Just putting my thoughts out there.

Fair enough thats your opinion and you know I respect you and your opinions.

I loathe errata and bannings. As I stated in another post I believe they are bad for games even when they are necessary. I am withholding my decision on my MW future pending an explanation. If I'm convinced it was necessary I'll stick with it, but reserve the right to grumble under my breath about it. Up to this point we still haven't received an official explanation. If they have been discussing this since May they should have their reasons firmed up and like I said in my first post errata usually comes complete with the reasons for it.