FiF and the Bloodwave Warlord

[Bluebaron]

Sorry to say this but one game cannot prove anything. However it would be a lot of fun to watch. 

[Sailor Vulcan]

I didn't say proof, I said strong evidence. It wouldn't be absolutely certain after just one game. However, it would be a lot more likely

[sIKE]

Haven't seen Charm in a bit, but would expect to see him pop back up after FiF.

@reddawn - Cheesy seems a bit much, but we each have our own experiences and can form our own opinions. My playing skill level is not as good as Charm's or Murphy's. If I have a lot of time and can think things through I can do very well, but when playing with shorter amounts of times during the planning phase on OCTGN, I do not do as well I as I would like. Many times after I have made my spell selection and after we have moved on to the Deploy phase, I realize what I should of done and same goes in the Action phase for me.

With that all said, maintaining all of the card data for OCTGN has given me a grasp of the cards and though I am not good at playing the game as I would like, I am able to see all of the mechanics at work with the game (just not fast enough to play them) to realize certain strengths and weaknesses between all of the mages. I do not want to reduce (or demean) anyone players enjoyment for playing certain mages or play styles there are many many reasons to enjoy this game....

[Arlemus]

Because that's apparently the only way to truly test anything in MW, not by playing yourself, but by letting other people play and decide what's best.  I mean, what's the point of anyone actually ordering FiF when instead we can just get on OCTGN and watch the "pros" duke it out. Give me a break.

[sIKE]

I didn't say proof, I said strong evidence. It wouldn't be absolutely certain after just one game. However, it would be a lot more likely

This wouldn't strike me as proof at all. What I would want, is to see is them play the two mages several times, tuning their spellbooks as they go. Ending up in what they consider as optimum spellbooks as they learn the spells that became available with FiF. Once that was done I would like to see how this end state spellbook performs against other mages. What is the win/loss ratio of the books against all mages? Spellbooks can be built to counter a specific mage/play type that win but end up being so meta that they fall flat against other mages and/or play styles.....

[Sailor Vulcan]

Step 1 is test the spellbooks without showing them to each other. I thought that implied that they'd be testing them against other players who are not going to just be using warlords and wizards. Then only after sufficient testing against other players do they duke it out with each other. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

And yes, having all of the games they play with those builds in the testing phase be recorded would boost the reliability of the test. However, none of that changes the fact that if a warlord and earth wizard were played by equally or close to equally skilled players and the game is still close, that on its own would still be very strong evidence for the warlord's viability/competetiveness, even though it's not proof.

[Aylin]

1. Why do you need so many copies of these?  There are multiple ways of solving problem enchantments other than removing them and I don't know why you would ever need 3 Dissolves when Acid Ball deals with the most problematic equip--Armor (Warlord doesn't pay 3x for them anyway, so it hardly matters).

This is ridiculous.

Armour isn't the "most problematic" equipment, nor can Acid Ball remove Damage Type -X on equipment. Acid Ball is a specialized tool; it solves one problem spectacularly well (removing armour) but it is useless at dealing with anything else. It cannot deal with Wands, Weapons, Defense equipment, etc. Additionally, Corrode Tokens can be removed with the incredibly cheap Wand of Healing, or by the Priestess' Restore ability. Relying on a single Dissolve to solve all of the problems Acid Ball cannot is a very dangerous strategy. Especially since Acid Ball and Dissolve cost the same to include in any book...

1 Dispel sure, maybe 2 if you're paranoid, but 3 is overkill.  The Warlord only needs to pay 2 more points for those Dispels at that point.

There are many enchantments that simply cannot be solved by any spell except for Dispel. Forcefield, Force Crush, Force Hold, Mage Bane, Circle of Fire/Lightning, Vampirism, Bear Strength, etc.

If anything, three might not be enough. It definitely isn't overkill.

Teleport is a good card, but it's also very expensive mana-wise.  Charge can accomplish much of the same for less and give the target and extra die. 

The most effective use of Teleport is to move your enemy to you. Charge cannot do that.

2.  Other than the fact that it [Barracks] makes more mana if you play it, and for cheaper than a Mana Crystal/Flower?

Makes more mana than what? A Mana Crystal of Flower? If that's what you mean, that is incorrect. A Mana Crystal/Flower costs 5 and makes 1 mana each turn. The Barracks costs 12 and makes 1 mana per Outpost. All other currently released Outposts cost 4 mana, so the cost/gain ratio is:

Barracks: 12 - 1
Barracks + 1 Outpost: 16 - 2 -> 8 - 1
Barracks + 2 Outpost: 20 - 3

In terms of mana generation Barracks is the worst Spawnpoint.

Or, you can play one and cast a soldier 1 zone away...and still make more mana.  Most other Spawnpoints require the player to fulfill some sort of condition that requires regular actions; the Barracks does not, and the outposts serve another function should you need it.  Your definition of synergy is obviously pretty limited.

If you use Barracks to summon a creature, you cannot summon it in a location you have a Garrison Post. They do NOT work together, no matter how you try to spin it. Absolutely no synergy here.

As for Archer's Watchtower, you need to spend a whole round moving the creature to the proper zone to make use of it. Also, since Barracks counts as an Outpost it makes it harder to place your Watchtowers. I'm not sure how you can possibly call this Synergy either.

The Armory in FiF that gives all Friendly Soldiers Armor +1 and Piercing +1 has synergy with Barracks. Neither of these do.

Now, as for the other spawnpoints...
Lair just makes 2 mana per turn.
Pentagram gives you 1 extra man each time you damage a different enemy creature (max 2) in a turn, which is something you want to be doing anyway (at least to the mage).
Temple requires friendly Clerics to spend a full action praying, which is admittedly pretty bad. However, cost of 2 Clerics + Temple is the same as Barracks + 2 Outposts, and the Clerics can guard, heal, or attack if needed instead of Praying.
Gate to Voltari gives you mana when your opponent casts a spell.
Libro Mortuous just makes 1 per turn.
Battleforge just makes 1 per turn.
Graveyard is more variable, though it doesn't require you to do anything you wouldn't be doing anyway (killing your opponent and their creatures).
Vine Tree just makes 1 per turn.
Samara Tree + Seedling Pod I hate for different reasons, but those are off-topic to this discussion.

However, other spawnpoints (except 1) don't require you to be doing anything you wouldn't want to be doing anyway, so I'm not sure what your point even was.

3.  "So many Warlords?"  That looks like an exaggeration if I've ever seen one.  I doubt enough people even play the game, much less the Warlord, to make an assumption like that.

The War school lacks a non-Legendary soldier creature that both hits hard and is hard to kill, while both Holy and Dark have those. A majority of the Warlord books I've played against since DvN or seen on these forums have focused on one of those two schools for that reason. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "many" by any reasonable definition. Remember, "many" does not mean "most".

I've helped build Warlord books that included skeletons or holy creatures, and after testing came to the conclusion that the Warlord doesn't need point-expensive situational creatures like Knights or S. Minions.  Butchers and Slingers, like Timber Wolves for Beastmasters, meet most of the Warlord's needs. 

Butchers compare unfavourably to Timber Wolves, both because the Warlord must go out of school to buff it, but also because it lacks the survivability the Timber Wolf has.

The Slinger has no analogue in another school. A 6 HP 0 Armor creature isn't hard to take out, however. The attack is pretty sub-par as well.

Trolls are there if you need fatter guys; they aren't as vulnerable to Sleep as Westlock Knights and require less support to survive than do Skeletal Knights.

Trolls cost a Warlord 5 spellpoints. Knights of Westlock and Skeletal Knights cost the Warlord 6. Neither of the Knights are vulnerable to Fire (the most common elemental damage currently), both have the same 5-dice attack as the Troll, they have better defenses, and the mana cost for all three is 13.

Plus all you really need to do to suppose a Knight of Westlock is to put Regrowth on it. Troll would need Rhino Hide anyway.

Also, you can't do 1:1 comparisons of creatures based just on level.  There are a bunch of creatures that are the same level but that's where the similarities end.  Other than abilities, Cost is a big motivator to consider less expensive, same level creatures over more expensive ones.

You think I ignore cost when comparing creatures?

4.  What do you mean "no one plays swarm"? 

I mean it isn't competitive in any real sense.

Playing with lots of creatures happens to be very good right now with Acid Ball and Meditation Amulet.  Not everyone plays the way you do or in the environment that you do.

In some metas, Swarm has a place. However, that doesn't make it an effective strategy. Acid Ball doesn't lend itself overtly to any particular strategy, and Meditation Amulet strategies are vulnerable to Dissolve (in my experience, it tends to mess up the tempo of the book significantly).

And yeah, some games Veteran isn't relevant, that's true. 

Sure.

The Warlord's abilities also cost nothing (because you should be using the Ring of Command) and require virtually no work. 

They still cost a quick action.

A mage isn't defined solely by abilities either; there are mage-specific or easy-access cards that help him or her out too.

I'm actually glad you bring that up!

Warlord/War Mage Only Cards:
Thorg - Decent
Akiro's Hammer - Awful
Barracks - Awful
Standard Bearer - Decent
Helm of Command - Decent
Horn of Gothos - Decent
War Sledge - Awful
Akiro's Battle Cry - Awful

Nearly all of them are sub-par at best, and none are that great overall.

5.  Well, the novice War incantations are good cheap options but they're hardly "the best." 

There are 9 War Incantations. 3 are Novice (Power Strike, Perfect Strike, and Piercing Strike). Akiro's Battle Cry is just plain awful. Whirling Strike is pretty much just a worse version of Battle Fury, so is not worth taking.

The rest are all level 1, but not Novice (Sniper Shot, Battle Fury, Charge, Evade).

So yes, all the best War School incantations are level 1, with nearly half being Novice.

It's not just about paying spellbook points for something; the Warlord's helm lets him cast/change those cards on the cheap without actually expending them, which is a fact that many anti-warlord posters here apparently overlook. 

It's a Mage Wand that's even more limited. Please excuse me if I don't get overly excited about it.

Power Strike/etc every turn if you need it plus another creature or extra mana is pretty good in my experience, and lets him use the extra spellbook slots he saves for other cards.  Like that extra Dispel or Teleport you need so badly.

The problem arises in switching spells, since it takes an entire action. It really isn't that great.

[Arlemus]

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. 

[Aylin]

Things I have time to address right now:

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

You got me on Poisoned Blood, unless the creature is Poison Immune. I suppose on Agony as well. The other examples still stand however.

It is important to note that using one enchantment to counteract the effects of another enchantment is vulnerable to Enchantment Transfusion + Nullify tricks though, which do need to be considered.

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.

Beastmasters can buff their animals with Totems, with Pet, and situationally with Wounded Prey in addition to Enchantments and Incantations.

Warlord can only buff with Enchantments and Incantations.

Not to mention the fact that Beastmasters have more tools for Animals than Warlords do for Soldiers...

Now, to start with going from 1 armour to 2 is more than worth it if the cost is only 1 mana.

Lair >>>> Barracks right now, so casting Timber Wolves from a Lair is better than casting Orc Butchers from a Barracks. Instead of casting useless Garrison Posts or semi-useless Archer's Watchtowers the Beastmaster can cast some mix of 1-2 Rajan's Fury and/or Tooth and Nail.

Or if you want to compare Hard casting, the Beastmaster still wins because of the Ring of Beasts, so they would cost the same to summon, except the Wolves have better stats.

Timber Wolf out-performs Orc Butcher easily. The Warlord just has a hard time support its troops effectively (something the Beastmaster is much better at) right now, in addition to having worse stats even when accounting for the price difference.

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.  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.

1 Mana less to initially cast is fairly minor, as is -2 cost to change spells. Neither of those make up for the fact that there are only 7 spells that are worth throwing on it, and every single one of them is level 1, especially since the major cost of changing a spell is not the mana spent, but the action spent. The only saving grace of the thing is that it fills the oft-empty head slot.

The main benefits of a Mage Wand are saving your useful spells into the late game, and having three spells to choose from in any given turn. The Warlord is ill-equipped to last into the late game, so the question is whether or not the extra spell per turn is worth the cost.

Quite frankly, only 2 of the 7 available spells are worth having as an option in general; Battle Fury and Charge. And unfortunately neither of those are better than a Wand with Teleport/Dispel/Dissolve/etc, since Charge is situational and Battle Fury was nerfed pretty heavily. And honestly, if you made use of the spells on the Helm more than a couple of times it'd probably get Dissolved (and you pay 3x for Nullify and Enchantment Transfusion). Besides, the Warlord already has extra spells available every turn, in the form of Battle Orders.

Now I'm not saying the Helm of Command is a terrible play. However, if you're casting equipment there are much better things you could cast instead (like Dancing Scimitar), which is the problem. Unless the Warlord somehow gets better at  the late game or gets a lot more worth-while Commands, the Helm will never be better than okish.

____________________
Incidentally, the action cost is why it's better casting Bear Strength once than casting Power Strike multiple times (even twice) if your creature is living.

[lettucemode]

In response to the discussion about watching the pros duke it out, Imaginator's suggestion is a good one. That's why games have playtesters after all - any competitive game in development needs them to ensure that what is printed is well-balanced. The suggestion just needs to be tweaked a bit so that 10 games are played instead of just 1.

In a perfect world, we'd want all mages to be 5:5 against each other. That is, if expert players were to play 10 games with the same mages and decks, we'd expect each one to win 5 games out of that series. Obviously such a thing is not possible; I don't know of a single asymmetric competitive game in the entire world that manages at least a 6:4 among all possible matchups. But you want them to be as close as you can get them. The fact that you can customize a spellbook throws a pretty big wrench into the equation, but that effect can be mitigated with sideboarding or comparing on a per-strategy-per-mage basis rather than just per-mage.

Honestly I would be very surprised if the playtesters didn't already maintain an internal chart of matchup ratios.

[Shad0w]

Also remember that filling out the war school is not a one set job. We still have P v S on the way. 

[Aylin]

Also remember that filling out the war school is not a one set job. We still have P v S on the way. 

I definitely don't expect FiF to move either Warlord above where the Priest is now (compared to the other mages).

My hope is that PvS will boost both Priest and Warlords, and hopefully have a couple bones in it for the J. BM as well (like a quick action ranged weapon!)