So...who won Origins?

[ringkichard]

It sounds like people are arguing that the priestess build shouldn't have won, or that it got lucky, or that it can be outplayed, or whatever.

Well, maybe. But it sounds kinda like trying to argue away the tournament results and replace experience with theory.

Hypotheses are crucial. But results are why we do science.

[Texan85]

So then take this kind of build and play style and insert the new priest.

[Shad0w]

So then take this kind of build and play style and insert the new priest.

Texan this was the plan well before he played it. In fact Hellkite and I talked about it on Thursday night. I told him I was glad to see somebody else running a temple build.

[Koz]

At the end of Round 3, I had a dark pact slayer and a flaming hellion in the zone adjacent to Temple of Light. ToL attacked the same round it entered play and rolled 7 critical damage + a stun on my Dark Pact.

Fourth round, pillar of light dazed my hellion, it rolled and failed to attack. Dark pact was still stunned. My warlock summoned an imp and put on some armor. Priestess meleed for 6 dice and left my Darkpact with 1 HP. At this point, I hadn't been able to get a single attack off.

Fifth round, priestess finished off Darkpact with a 4 dice melee (1 hand for damage, 2 for armor). Temple of light rolled and stunned my flaming hellion and did a lot of damage. Flaming imp and warlock each got a melee off.

Sixth round, priestess finished off Hellion with a 6 dice melee and Temple one-shot imp.

So I lost 31 mana worth of creatures and got a single attack off. It was pretty disgusting.

Holy crap, 7 crit dice on a 5 dice attack?? Strong luck, not to mention landing the 16% chance on stun.

Anyway, thanks for the report.  My original opinion of the build still stands, probably reinforced at this point.

Obviously a 7 crit damage attack was lucky, but the build itself doesn't run on luck, it runs on math.  As I've been saying for quite some time, Daze/Stun builds are very strong and it's all about stacking Daze/Stun and Defenses to the point where your opponent can't hit anything. 

[Koz]

So then take this kind of build and play style and insert the new priest.

Texan this was the plan well before he played it. In fact Hellkite and I talked about it on Thursday night. I told him I was glad to see somebody else running a temple build.

That's exactly what I said when I saw the Priest.  Now my Staff of Asyra and Pillar of Light's can set you on fire?  Yes please!   

[werner]

Two words for this "Laser-Tower is OP" groupthink:

Teleport More.

[ringkichard]

Your disdain is evident but your assertion is unsupported.

[Shad0w]

Two words for this "Laser-Tower is OP" groupthink:

Teleport More.

Try it against a few interceptors and it will not be OP

[Arlemus]

It sounds like people are arguing that the priestess build shouldn't have won, or that it got lucky, or that it can be outplayed, or whatever.

Well, maybe. But it sounds kinda like trying to argue away the tournament results and replace experience with theory.

Hypotheses are crucial. But results are why we do science.

Hence, why I wanted to know what the warlock played.  Now that I know, it makes complete sense what the results were.  You really can't make 20-24mana (not sure what armor he played) of sub-optimal/wasteful plays and expect to win.  I've lost games from half that amount of waste.

The warlock would've been better off with another Darkpact instead of the Hellion (or stop floating mana and use Adramelech; a Darkpact and Adramelech is possible by turn 3), block(s) for the obvious incoming ToL attack each turn, and fireball(s) instead of  wasting 5 mana and a full action on an imp that was obviously going to get one-shot by ToL.

I am in no way saying the build shouldn't have won, but knowing why it won is more important than the fact that it did.  Instead of concluding that the ToL is "too strong" or "overpowered", like some others on here have, to me it is more obviously just a build that punishes loose play.

[Koz]

It sounds like people are arguing that the priestess build shouldn't have won, or that it got lucky, or that it can be outplayed, or whatever.

Well, maybe. But it sounds kinda like trying to argue away the tournament results and replace experience with theory.

Hypotheses are crucial. But results are why we do science.

Hence, why I wanted to know what the warlock played.  Now that I know, it makes complete sense what the results were.  You really can't make 20-24mana (not sure what armor he played) of sub-optimal/wasteful plays and expect to win.  I've lost games from half that amount of waste.

The warlock would've been better off with another Darkpact instead of the Hellion (or stop floating mana and use Adramelech; a Darkpact and Adramelech is possible by turn 3), block(s) for the obvious incoming ToL attack each turn, and fireball(s) instead of  wasting 5 mana and a full action on an imp that was obviously going to get one-shot by ToL.

I am in no way saying the build shouldn't have won, but knowing why it won is more important than the fact that it did.  Instead of concluding that the ToL is "too strong" or "overpowered", like some others on here have, to me it is more obviously just a build that punishes loose play.

Why is everyone just focused on what "the warlock" played?  Was that the finals of the tournament?  If not, I'm not sure why that particular match is so significant.  I'm very interested in hearing a better break down of the different matches that the winning build played against.  Did he play against a Forcemaster?  Another Priestess?  A Beastmaster swarm?  A Wizard control?  Did he lose any matches in swiss, and if so, what did he lose to?  What did he face in the finals? 

These are the questions that will give us an idea of what is happening in the meta game and what I am most interested.  That and seeing the actual breakdown of the two builds in the finals (top 4 would be better).

[Hellkite]

I have posted what I wish to post on the subject.  Break it down however you like, but I would ask you not judge so harshly unless you were actually there.  I hope to see you at GenCon!

[Shad0w]

I would have done a breakdown but like I said before Patrick has all the datas 

[reddawn]

From my knowledge, the indications from the playtesters were that there were a lot of new players there trying out the game and that the tournament wasn't representative of the actual metagame.  It was more of a fun kind of thing.  I mean, c'mon, MW doesn't really have an actual tournament scene, and 14 players isn't exactly a Grand Prix.

I don't even really know if there IS a MW metagame, now that we're on that topic.  It's not like the people who went there trolled the forums for "pro" builds or something like at a MTG tournament. From the playtester input and the photos on the Facebook page, it just looked like a bunch of people having a good time rather than hard-nosed PTQ-grinders looking to make the invitationals.

And that's ok.  Really.  Let those people have their fun and enjoy the moment.  Humble beginnings are to be expected.

[Koz]

I have posted what I wish to post on the subject.  Break it down however you like, but I would ask you not judge so harshly unless you were actually there.  I hope to see you at GenCon!

Was that referring to my post?  If so, I'm not judging anything, just looking for information.  Not sure how any of my posts seemed like "harsh judgement".  I've been a fan of Priestess Temple builds for a long time and knew they were good (look at my numerous posts talking about such).  So, again, I wasn't passing judgement on anything, just looking for a breakdown of how things played out so I can get a picture of the meta-game.

[Arlemus]

It sounds like people are arguing that the priestess build shouldn't have won, or that it got lucky, or that it can be outplayed, or whatever.

Well, maybe. But it sounds kinda like trying to argue away the tournament results and replace experience with theory.

Hypotheses are crucial. But results are why we do science.

Hence, why I wanted to know what the warlock played.  Now that I know, it makes complete sense what the results were.  You really can't make 20-24mana (not sure what armor he played) of sub-optimal/wasteful plays and expect to win.  I've lost games from half that amount of waste.

The warlock would've been better off with another Darkpact instead of the Hellion (or stop floating mana and use Adramelech; a Darkpact and Adramelech is possible by turn 3), block(s) for the obvious incoming ToL attack each turn, and fireball(s) instead of  wasting 5 mana and a full action on an imp that was obviously going to get one-shot by ToL.

I am in no way saying the build shouldn't have won, but knowing why it won is more important than the fact that it did.  Instead of concluding that the ToL is "too strong" or "overpowered", like some others on here have, to me it is more obviously just a build that punishes loose play.

Why is everyone just focused on what "the warlock" played?  Was that the finals of the tournament?  If not, I'm not sure why that particular match is so significant.  I'm very interested in hearing a better break down of the different matches that the winning build played against.  Did he play against a Forcemaster?  Another Priestess?  A Beastmaster swarm?  A Wizard control?  Did he lose any matches in swiss, and if so, what did he lose to?  What did he face in the finals? 

These are the questions that will give us an idea of what is happening in the meta game and what I am most interested.  That and seeing the actual breakdown of the two builds in the finals (top 4 would be better).

The reasons I focused on the Warlock:

1) He's the only one who provided a report.
2) He placed 2nd ( or tied for it) so logic dictates he was one of the best players there.

I didn't really mean to focus entirely on the Warlock, but that match is the most info we have on a particular match so far, and he placed well, so I figured it was a good start.

Also, I didn't mean to sound harsh, but facts are facts.  He was good enough to get to 2nd (or tie for 2nd) and I respect that, but when I hear people saying a build is overpowered and then hear of a lot of wasteful play against said build I get skeptical (especially when playtesters also state it's not OP).  I wish I could've been there, though me being there or not is irrelevant to the plays made.