The Magician: a very different mage

[reddawn]

"What I could appreciate from just Core set cards was that a Warlock is indeed inferior to Beastmaster based on abilities and access to mage-specific cards (not school-specific). However what Koz was not counting was the synergetic value of Dark + Fire (opposed Holy) vs. Nature (opposed Fire)."

This is the quote I'm talking about.  Obviously, you take into account what Koz didn't and I acknowledge that, but you nevertheless agree with part of his assumption.  I'll more clearly say that I disagree with your opinion that the Warlock's abilities and access to mage-specific cards was worse than the Beastmaster's in the core set.  You don't really give a reason why you believe that, which is why I disagree in the first place.  I don't really know what the BM does that the WL doesn't that is so important in the core set anyway.

I guess what I'm wondering is, what is the basis for that opinion? 

And in terms of the Warlord, his problem isn't his own, it's how the company chose to present him.  His starting spellbook gives players the impression that he is supposed to spam creatures, which isn't the case (if you want to win anyway). 

If by "results" you mean "tournaments," there really haven't been any yet we could call competitive yet so...

And yeah, this is the Creative section.  But the problem I had with your post wasn't really anything that had to do with your creations.  I mean, you're basically making the case that this "creation" is nothing more than an excersize in strategy theorycrafing.  Which is fine....but you're not in the strategy forums.

Disillusioned would be a good way of describing my reaction.

[Fentum]

I do agree there are SO MANY fun combos, but no matter which mage I pick I feel somewhat constrained and limited by spell book points to go too far outside of my school(s) of training (esp for lvl 3-4 cards) that I rarely put them in.  What does that do?  It does just like you said makes people build "semi" predictable spell books relying heavily on their school with dabbling in the other schools (mainly for utility).

I can't tell you how many times I played a Preist but wished I could add a Gorgon Archer in my deck.  Can I?  SURE, but is it worth the spell book points when I can have TWO holy creatures for the price of ONE good other creature?  Debatable.

The thing with a "anything goes" type of thing is it reminds me of a 5 color deck in Magic the Gathering.  You play against that and you have no idea what is coming at you.

Anyways I'm kind of rambling, but it sounds cool!

It IS cool.

Post the errata, I have been trying out some new ideas along just those lines. I am REALLY not concerend with the spell costs. I build the core theme of the book, find the best cards and worry about balancing to 120 at the end. As an example, my latest Air Wizard has A Nec Vampire and a Guardian Angel. Expensive, yes but they are EXACTLY what I want for this book. I still have plenty points left for utility.

Brief aside, on topic...

Imagine our amusement when Charmyna and I sat down for an OCTGN match.  We have been playing quite a bit and talking startgey pre - errata. This was our first match post errata. We both mentioned that we had been thinking about builds.

Both Wizards.

Turn 1
Ch - Guardian Angel, Mana Crystal
Me - Nec Vamp plus ench

Turn 2
Ch - Nec Vamp plus ench
Me - Guardian Angel, Mana Crystal

It was a hoot, and I still managed to lose.

[cbalian]

That is how I build too.  Put in what I want, prune at the end, if needed.  There are those few 'expensive' cards I put in like you said, especially if it works as a means to the end theme I am working on.

Not to take the discussion too off topic from the very cool Magician idea, that was part of my point about this mage.  Put in whatever you want without having to regard the cost.  Where as with any other mage you can put stuff in, like you mentioned, but I feel it constricts you a bit.

I guess basically I am saying (to varying degrees) all of the mages kind of 'lead' you towards certain cards, strats etc.  BUT that does get me thinking now of if say I really like Gorgon Archer + Basilisk combo (it has won me several games) but if I don't want to do the Wizard (who I do like but like the Priest better) I should try to add something out of the ordinary to my cool priest book and kind of mix it up.  That is the beauty of this Magician dude, it can really mix things up to unexpected combos.  *lol that was my effort to tie this all in together so as to not derail the thread, it really is Magician related still 

[Sailor Vulcan]

While it sounds really fun, I think there should have more flavor. Instead of using the generic name "magician", it should be a "Hedge Witch". You know, since she has no particular training? However, what the Hedge Witch lacks in education she makes up for with adaptability and raw power. In fact, Hedge Witches would sometimes have trouble controlling their power, so they might occasionally suffer some adverse effects when channeling, hence why they can't be properly educated in a school.


Also, because of their versatility (as well as their lack of education) perhaps the Hedge Witch should have higher channeling but lower spellbook points? I'm thinking around 100 or so spellbook points and 12 channeling. I think the Hedge Witch's versatility should come more from her spellbook design then from actual play. If you want a mage with tons of versatility in play but less in designing their book, I think a good idea would be a pictomage, that can make their art real. The pictomage would be trained in Water, their creatures would be shapeshifting ink blobs, and they would have enchantments and incantations that could copy or steal spells from the opponent.

What do you think?

[reddawn]

A pictomage would be sick.  I think you may want to make it more of a rune mage that uses pictograph-like runes, just so that it fits better in Etheria. 

[Sailor Vulcan]

I suppose that makes more sense. They'd be trained in arcane, then, instead of water.

[reddawn]

I suppose that makes more sense. They'd be trained in arcane, then, instead of water.

Why not both? The Major school/minor school training combo seems to be the norm 

[Sailor Vulcan]

I suppose, but I wouldn't normally expect a pictomancer using runes to also be trained in water. Earth I can almost see, since runes are often carved in stone, but I don't think earth training is fitting for a pictomancer. And before anyone says that the Pictomancer should be called an Erilaz, Erilaz means earl, not rune master. Of course, since Etheria is not Earth, etymology of certain words could be different. Hmm, perhaps Erilaz would be a cool word for a mage that uses runes after all. Problem is, it sounds a lot cooler than Hedge Witch.