Meditation Amulet

[Shad0w]

Now we are on to something.

Vs an agressive opponent you might have to have the Forge deploy an armor (6 mana) round 2 in order to negate burst damage.

Then you QC amulet and FA meditate.

You can still deploy from Temple next round - and here you ofc harmonize it so you can do so every round while meditating and Forge fills you up with gloves, leather boots and cape (if needed).


Imagine the amulet gave 6 mana per turn??? then it wouldnt be knights you summoned every turn from round 3, then it would be 21 mana angels....

Then we would have aggro priestess. 

[IndyPendant]

The problem isn't so much negating the burst damage; the Priestess is very good at recovery from damage dealt to her.  The problem is having the Temple destroyed by the super-aggressor and his Big Few.  I suppose, if I cast the Temple in the starting corner that would probably allow it to last until the first Knight comes out.  After that, survival to mid-game should be a possibility.

However, if I try to Armour up and Harmonize, I wouldn't be able to Amulet and Knight the next round.  Maybe if I were to limit myself to Boots or Gloves in Round 2 instead...

[jacksmack]

The problem isn't so much negating the burst damage; the Priestess is very good at recovery from damage dealt to her.  The problem is having the Temple destroyed by the super-aggressor and his Big Few.  I suppose, if I cast the Temple in the starting corner that would probably allow it to last until the first Knight comes out.  After that, survival to mid-game should be a possibility.

However, if I try to Armour up and Harmonize, I wouldn't be able to Amulet and Knight the next round.  Maybe if I were to limit myself to Boots or Gloves in Round 2 instead...

ofc u would...

20
Forge -8
Temple -10
2

12+1+1
Forge: hauberk -6
Temple: none
QC: Amulet -4
FA: meditate +3
6+0+1

16+1+2
Forge: leather boots -2
Temple: knight of westlock -13
FA: meditate +3
QC: harmonize temple -4
3+0+0

round 4:
13+1+2


When that is said, then i would probaly open with 2 guardian angels - and if my opponent aint rushing me 1 cleric, then guardian.

Also Few big takes 2 turns to summon (1 big obviously only takes 1), and then its still standing in start corner... you are deploying in round 3 and on.

[Zuberi]

Downside: can't Deploy a pet Wolf, unfortunately.

Why not?

The problem is having the Temple destroyed by the super-aggressor and his Big Few.

As pointed out by Jacksmack, you have a few turns before your opponent gets to you. If he spends a round summoning a creature without moving, then he won't be in your face until round 4. To combat an aggressor I would probably modify things this way

(10) Round 1 (+10)
(20) Cast Battle Forge (-8)
(12) Cast Temple of Asyra (-10)

(2) Round 2 (+10 +1 +1)
(14) Deploy Meditation Amulet (-4)
(10) Meditate (+3)
(13) Cast Harmonize on Temple (-4)

(9) Round 3 (+10 +1 +2)
(22) Deploy Dragonscale Hauberk (-6)
(16) Deploy Knight of Westlock (-13)
(3) Meditate (+3)
(6) Cast Rouse The Beast (-3)
(3) Knight of Westlock Guards

[jacksmack]

My opening was a suggestion to counter a super Agro opening with double fireball in face round 2. After round 1 you will be able to foresee this during the planning face, and you can handle it accordingly. If your opponent slows, you might wanna put out  double cleric and harmonize.

/From phone

[Zuberi]

Both openings had the same goal in mind, to gear up enough to fend off an aggressive opponent. We just went about it slightly differently. You postponed Harmonize a round to get out both the Hauberk and the Leather Boots. I sacrificed the Leather Boots to get out Harmonize Earlier and to get my Knight on guard duty straight away. Both are good options. Yours works better against a double fireball to the face, mine works better against them moving in to swing in melee. Mine also provides some protection of the precious spawnpoint via the guard.

[IndyPendant]

Hmm, that might work, particularly when I add in a Rouse the Beast.  Thanks, guys.

Downside: can't Deploy a pet Wolf, unfortunately.

Why not?

Sorry, I was being imprecise here.  I meant that if you did not use the Meditation Amulet, you could bring out a Pet Wolf on Turn 2.  If you cast the Meditation Amulet on Turn 1, then you start Turn 2 with 9 (base) + 2 (Lair) mana--one short of Deploying a Pet Wolf.  If you wanted a Pet right away, you'd probably have to settle for a Falcon.

So, no Amulet on Turn 1: Pet Wolf on Turn 2 is possible.  Amulet on Turn 1: no Pet Wolf on Turn 2.

[Zuberi]

Sorry, I was being imprecise here.  I meant that if you did not use the Meditation Amulet, you could bring out a Pet Wolf on Turn 2.

That makes sense.

Hmm, that might work, particularly when I add in a Rouse the Beast.  Thanks, guys.

Glad to offer some insight. I hope testing these ideas proves to be fun!

[Kharhaz]

Then we would have aggro priestess. 

Which is absolutely fine.

No archetype should be excluded from any type of play style / book construction.


My group came to the conclusion about the meditation amulet. It is not about the mana it produces but the option to produce it.

From the wearer's perspective you can more easily react to an opponent's play when you have the ability to generate 3 (unpreventable) mana now. It adds stress to mana-lock decks. Will it stop a solid mana lock? No but it does help with a nudge here and a nudge there.

When you are sitting across from one it is much harder to read an opponents play. When they have a battle forge, sectarus, libro, graveyard, and pentagram out (an exaggerated theoretical situation ) with a myriad of mana across all that and 5 extra prepared spells on the board I can not realistically anticipate every play. That is compounded with the meditation amulet.

It has some benefit in that mind game aspect of the game. It is much harder to try to plan what your opponent is planning when they have an extra 3 mana they can produce at will.

If your opponent tightens their mana budget to anticipate a card you never actually use, than I would argue meditation amulet has paid for itself and then some.

All that to say

I understand it's purpose, and the reason they wanted to include it, however I do not think that this card is going to make a lot of noise right now and I am not a huge fan of it. But who knows, maybe in 3-4 sets this card will be the lynch pin of every book?

[Aylin]

When they have a battle forge, sectarus, libro, graveyard, and pentagram out (an exaggerated theoretical situation )

An actually impossible situation, unless you're house-ruling that a Necromancer can use Warlock-only spells or vice-versa. Though I'd say that Sectarus does not mesh well with Meditation Amulet due to positional reasons, so you'd probably be better off with a Mage Wand in the off hand.

All that to say

I understand it's purpose, and the reason they wanted to include it, however I do not think that this card is going to make a lot of noise right now and I am not a huge fan of it. But who knows, maybe in 3-4 sets this card will be the lynch pin of every book?

I would love for this card to be useable in many books... I just have no idea how they're going to make it desirable.

[Zuberi]

I do not think that this card is going to make a lot of noise right now

We'll have to wait and see, but I expect it will have a big impact on the current meta. Plain and simple, it will make spawnpoints viable. Currently, it usually takes you 7+ rounds to make back your investment in a spawnpoint and, in order to gain an action advantage from the spawnpoint, you have to limit yourself to level 1 or 2 creatures.

With the Meditation Amulet, you can make back your investment in 4 rounds and you can maintain your number of actions while pumping out level 2 or 3 creatures. This is a significant improvement and I expect to start seeing spawnpoints in play for a lot more builds.

[Kharhaz]

An actually impossible situation, unless you're house-ruling that a Necromancer can use Warlock-only spells or vice-versa. Though I'd say that Sectarus does not mesh well with Meditation Amulet due to positional reasons, so you'd probably be better off with a Mage Wand in the off hand.

I was throwing out all the dark spawnpoints on a dime and was just illistrating that the more mana they have access to the more difficult it is to lan accordingly.

However about sectarus,

I use a quick cast to place a retaliate / reverse attack and then full round to channel 3 mana.

You declare an attack against me and now I have extra mana to reveal / place a curse on you (if I went with retaliate) or I just channeled the extra mana to turn a block into a reverse attack with only minimal setbacks.

Be cautious of the Necro equipped with sectarus. Counter attacking with a main wings on the back end puts flyers in a bad place. Not to mention Rise Again, Whats better than channeling 3 extra mana to help pay for a counterattack that ends with you getting a creature you just destroyed?


It's not meta changing, but it adds some new options to the mana management department.

[Aylin]

However about sectarus,

I use a quick cast to place a retaliate / reverse attack and then full round to channel 3 mana.

You declare an attack against me and now I have extra mana to reveal / place a curse on you (if I went with retaliate) or I just channeled the extra mana to turn a block into a reverse attack with only minimal setbacks.

Be cautious of the Necro equipped with sectarus. Counter attacking with a main [sic] wings on the back end puts flyers in a bad place. Not to mention Rise Again, Whats better than channeling 3 extra mana to help pay for a counterattack that ends with you getting a creature you just destroyed?


It's not meta changing, but it adds some new options to the mana management department.

My point was that when meditating, you cannot move normally (you could use force push or teleport I suppose, but that would be a bad choice except in specific situations hence I am ignoring it), making it harder for you to be in melee range when you want to be.

I'm not saying that using Retaliate to hit a flying creature with Sectarus (and simultaneously applying a Maim Wings) wouldn't be effective, but doing that requires you to have a new Retaliate every time you do that trick (which probably won't work more than once against an opponent), and you have to hope they don't Seeking Dispel your Retaliate or have a Block/Reverse Attack. Reverse Attack on the other hand isn't limited to Sectarus issues, so I have no idea why you brought that up.

A Mage Wand on the other hand can have a spell bonded to it with a range of 0-2 (lessening positional issues), and doesn't have as many requirements to be useful at the same time as your Meditation Amulet (no need for Retaliate, chiefly).

The main thing you're buying with Sectarus is the ability to apply curses while doing something that a melee-oriented dark mage wants to be doing anyway; punching the enemy. Using a Meditation Amulet prevents you from doing that though, which is why I think you'd be better off using an item that lets you use it during your quick cast.

Now, I think a Necromancer without Meditation Amulet can use Sectarus almost as well as a Warlock (no innate melee +1 and no curseweaving are minor detriments).

[Kharhaz]

Reverse Attack on the other hand isn't limited to Sectarus issues, so I have no idea why you brought that up.

Block is 2 cast / 2 reveal.

Reverse Attack is 2 cast / 5 reveal

Just illustrating that 3 mana can go a long way sometimes, not necessarily tied to Sectarus.


End of the day it is still a meh - ditation amulet

[barriecritzer]

In my opinion this was not a spell that was developed with the expectation that everyone would be adding it to their spell books. It is a spell that certain builds (those that have ways of gaining extra actions during deployment) will find useful in some situations and certain builds. Will everybody fall in love with this card and add it to their spell books? Probably not. Will some people find this card useful in some of their builds? Probably.