Things I have time to address right now:

1). Explain how poison blood doesn't solve vampirism and agony doens't solve bear strength.

2). Butchers also cost less than timber wolves, so obviously you're going to get less for the cost (shocking).  That doesn't mean they're in any way bad.  If your definition of "buffing" is only enchanting then my argument would be there are instances (many) when you want to spend less mana (much less) giving temporary buffs in the form of incantations.  Yeah I could bear strength my butcher out of school for 5 mana, or i could spend 1 mana (reduced by command ring) to give that same buff temporarily.

3) The helm is a more restrictive mage wand.  There's also the part where it costs less not only initially but 3x less to switch out a spell.  Also, it doesn't take up a hand slot. If you don't think that's worth it (obviously you don't) then that's your opinion but isn't really based in anyone else's reality.  If you want to make an argument about how the reduced cost isn't worth it then it'd be more interesting to read what you had to say. 

Quote from: reddawn on May 03, 2014, 06:12:50 PM

Quote from: sIKE on May 03, 2014, 04:20:34 PM

Quote from: Arlemus on May 03, 2014, 02:25:55 PM

Well, depending on how that situation actually went down, I don't think automatic loss would the be the outcome.  You can purify off both ghoul rot and poison blood, and if you did them both together you'd actually be on top for actions.  Run 2 if you're scared, they don't cost triple.  You can counter enfeeble with cheetah speed, like you said.  There's no hard counter to magebane but a sunfire amulet would probably work pretty well.  I just don't see the Warlord automatically losing in that situation since purify exists.  Even if you run 2 dispel in addition to the other counters, just in case, that's only 2 points over what others pay, hardly unrealistic access.

In a vacuum most of this is true, but the rules and current card set currently favor other mages in such a manner that Warlord has very little chance to win in a tournament setting and even in casual play he is pretty had to win with. I think that FiF will help this a bit though.

Maybe you could clarify which cards you mean in the current card set and rules specifically favor mages who aren't the Warlord?  I get that seeing the Warlord in a positive light isn't a popular stance in these forums, but after playing with and against the Warlord a lot, I find gross generalizations like this hard to believe.

This is very simple build you two copies of whatever Warlord book you like. Take the second copy and replace the mage with an Earth Wizard, remove any mage only cards (9 potentials), fill in any additional spells you would like to add with the additional spellpoints and duke it out.

Let us know who wins that battle. Not trying to be rude or mean, but if you need/want cold hard proof that is the best way I can think of the provide it to you.

That's just another roundabout way to call the warlord bad and not have to explain.  It's also a complete overexaggeration considering its not even possible do such a thing without taking out more than just mage only cards.  You would have to take out all war school creatures, etc, that now cost double for the wizard, or take a massive spellbook penatly.  The biggest argument against the warlord is based in spellbook cost so saying the wizard can take a much more substantial hit then the mild one the warlors takes in arcane, but for war, makes literally no sense.

Quote

Yeah I don't think the Warlord is anywhere close to that, obviously.

By this do you mean that: that the Warlord is able to beat the Earth Wizard that is running his book (bit better in reality), or you think the Warlord is not that bad as described?

Oh, sorry if I was unclear.  I mean to say that I think (unlike some people that post on here) that the Warlord is entirely viable.  That is, no other mage could play his book better and with practice, he can be just as viable as any other mage.

I think the reasons many people seem to dislike him, or reasons people are so outspoken against him, is because the spellbook he was released with was pretty terrible and offered no guidance as to how to play him; along with the fact that he pays triple for arcane.  I don't believe either of those things hamper him as much as people think. 

To tie this in, I do believe that it is the responsibility of Arcane Wonders to make all the mages seem balanced to the general population playing their game which they haven't currently accomplished.  The reason I started the thread was to inquire as to whether or not those with complete knowledge of the expansion would agree that it has accomplished this goal.

I never felt the 1st Warlord needed "fixing". Yes, he may be a little below the curve to other mages but I still enjoy playing him and his unique playstyle. He's not unplayable with no tools.

In game design you cant keep leep frogging weaker mages above stronger mages because that creates power creep. From the cards spoiled so far, I think the 1st Warlord will be pleased with the many new options in his arsenal, particularly the new altars and outposts. Do I see him moving to a top tier mage; certainly not but he seems more comparable and that is good design.

I play the Warlord now and am excited to continue doing so after FIF

I play him mainly too and I agree he doesn't need "fixed."  I was mostly just wondering if the people playtesting FiF bridges whatever gap a section of the MW population feels there is between him and the others.  After playing him many many times I don't think that gap actually exists, but I don't think people should perceive one either.

Some of comparisons in this thread don't even make any sense.  You play Togorah for his abilities.  If you don't need his traits, you don't play him.  Does that mean he's situational? Yes.  Does that mean he's bad? No.   

Let me preface this with the fact that I just became a play tester and haven't actually had a hand in FiF. Also, that information you talk about only us having is under an NDA so that makes it hard to answer you with any kind of details. However, I think everyone knows improving the warlord was a goal of this set, and just the cards previewed thus far should show that we have indeed made an effort at that. I think everyone will be pleased and I can't wait to get ahold of the expansion myself.

I definitely agree that the previewed cards do show an effort to support the Warlord and just judging from the previews I'm sure the set will be a blast.  However, the point of my post was to find out if those who playtested FiF feel as if the Warlord has been "fixed" (I don't think he was ever broken).  I know that might be hard to say one way or the other without providing specific examples, but I wasn't necessarily looking for specific examples, and it doesn't seem like a general feeling or opinion would be under NDA.  I appreciate the response though.

Quote from: Aylin on April 29, 2014, 12:54:48 AM

Quote from: Arlemus on April 29, 2014, 12:44:17 AM

With all the low cost walls out/coming out I don't really see the issue...

They're gonna eat through walls very easy...

Yeah but a simple Fog/Dirt Wall will cost them 3 turns.

This.  And unless they're lucky, that's 4 turns. (Should take more than 1 attack to take down incorpreal, even at 5 dice)