Overused cards?

[Koz]

As to your little point, I agree. Warlord was neutered because he was "too powerful". This is why he has the triple arcane cost. There aren't many people who do think it's balanced. That being said, can you give me another example of a mage who was neutered because of school and spellpoint costs?

That WAS the example.  My point was that these staples can be an unfair disadvantage to certain mages, not that it's running rampant in the game at this point.

Did you have anything to add that wasn't overly defensive or hand-wavingly dismissive?

[ringkichard]

From a competitive standpoint, I suspect that Wizards would have an easier time staying in school than other mages, if there were a restriction on out of school spells. Arcane+Element is a much wider pool than Holy, for example.

[The Dude]

Eh. Exactly how you said my first point was a copout, I think switching staples is just as much of a copout instead of a real answer. If I make a Dispel that is holy but only destroys level 1 enchantments, then I know of three mages that will use that card over arcane holy any day. Staples are created for every card game available. Kati Jones and Data sucker for netrunner. But I do see your point, These are staples that are faction or deck specific, and not game specific. But I also think you overly exaggerate the number of staple cards in this game. As I said, there are only three staple cards that I will use in a build, and even those are meta specific. In a game with no variance in card draw, of course the most powerful card is going to win. This is part of the core dynamic of the game. As I said before, its the splashes that make the game interesting, not the few staples.

As well, you give one example that was shown to be a mistake that hasn't happened since.

I'm not sure what you find to be overly defensive or dismissive, I'm only disagreeing with what you say. You say it's a problem, and I don't see it as such. You say that over twenty cards are staples of a book, and I don't agree, because it's not true. There are a few staples, as they are good, universal cards with powerful abilities that can't be ignored. But going as far to say that cards like Block and Elemental Cloak are staples are more a statement to your building style than a statement of the game itself.

[Koz]

From a competitive standpoint, I suspect that Wizards would have an easier time staying in school than other mages, if there were a restriction on out of school spells. Arcane+Element is a much wider pool than Holy, for example.

Yeah, that would certainly be an issue.  There may not be a good solution to the issue with the current mechanics of the game. 

One thing that might help, as someone in this thread mentioned (perhaps you), were spells that were similar to other spells but in different schools.  The example used was a War school card that destroyed equipment but in a way that was flavorful to the War school.  Having more cards like that would see the sameness of different Mages diminish while still seeing the same level of sameness between mages of the same school(s).  That would be very similar to how other games work (ccg or mini), where builds of the same faction have similarities, but are completely different than a build from another faction.

[ringkichard]

Some day, I'm going to get the playtesters intoxicated and pump them for the story of the Warlord. He seems like he was supposed to be what the Druid is (hopefuly) going to be: area control appealing to people who want to play SimCity. But during development he was strong enough that he could take on Forcemaster agro, so something clearly happened to him.

[Koz]

Eh. Exactly how you said my first point was a copout, I think switching staples is just as much of a copout instead of a real answer. If I make a Dispel that is holy but only destroys level 1 enchantments, then I know of three mages that will use that card over arcane holy any day. Staples are created for every card game available. Kati Jones and Data sucker for netrunner. But I do see your point, These are staples that are faction or deck specific, and not game specific. But I also think you overly exaggerate the number of staple cards in this game. As I said, there are only three staple cards that I will use in a build, and even those are meta specific. In a game with no variance in card draw, of course the most powerful card is going to win. This is part of the core dynamic of the game. As I said before, its the splashes that make the game interesting, not the few staples.

As well, you give one example that was shown to be a mistake that hasn't happened since.

I'm not sure what you find to be overly defensive or dismissive, I'm only disagreeing with what you say. You say it's a problem, and I don't see it as such. You say that over twenty cards are staples of a book, and I don't agree, because it's not true. There are a few staples, as they are good, universal cards with powerful abilities that can't be ignored. But going as far to say that cards like Block and Elemental Cloak are staples are more a statement to your building style than a statement of the game itself.

I'd say that the majority of my "mandatory" list is pretty damn close to what most competitive players put in their builds, barring a card here or there.  By the way, Block is not on my list at all, but I would be extremely surprised by any top player not running a copy of Elemental Cloak.  That card is too good and versitale to NOT include.  Especially since the only other cloak in the game is Cloak of Suppression, so it's not like there's a lot of competition for the slot.

Out of curiostity, if you were making a competitive tournament build (not a "fun" build), which of the cards on my mandatory list would you not include, and why (you can go mage specific if you want to in your explanations)?  Also, which of the cards on my "obvious choices" list for each mage/strategy would you not include and why?  I'd just be interested in seeing your explanations, not that I'm trying to call you out.  I'm honestly curious. 

Remember, I'm talking a competitive build here, not a "fun" build.

[ringkichard]

Remember that shared core resources have major design benefits, too. If there were 6 seperate ways to destroy Equipment and six more to destroy Enchantments, and 6 more to heal creatures, (etc) that would be a lot of design work and game space spent re-inventing the wheel. I'd much rather see Druid vs Nero introduce new cool things than have 23 words for snow.

[Koz]

Remember that shared core resources have major design benefits, too. If there were 6 seperate ways to destroy Equipment and six more to destroy Enchantments, and 6 more to heal creatures, (etc) that would be a lot of design work and game space spent re-inventing the wheel. I'd much rather see Druid vs Nero introduce new cool things than have 23 words for snow.

I get your point, but I think you may be going a bit overboard.  Would you consider Turn to Stone, Tanglevine, Force Hold, Spiked Pit and Force Crush all just different words for snow?  I don't, I consider them similar in application and strategic use, but different enough that they aren't just "different names for snow". 

I don't see why they couldn't do the same thing for other types of effects like equipment removal or enchantment removal.  And not EVERY school would need to have a spell that does every type of effect, just like not every school needs their own version of Tanglevine. 

[DeckBuilder]

Woah. Let's keep this friendly. We all love this game and are on the same game. wanting to improve it. Constructive criticism should not be treated as attacks to be responded to defensively, nor should we get too argumentative. Chill...

I don't think this problem will go away as the card pool expands either.  For instance, the only card that is going to replace Dispel in builds is a card that does the same thing but more efficiently.  So you just swap one staple for another.

I have to respectfully disagree with the above about "staples". It is possible to create variant spells that may suit some builds better than others. My rules for building for example are something like...

Wizards have 1 Purge (3pts) plus X Dispels (1pt), I sadly can't fit Purge in most other builds.
Warlocks have 1 Dissolve (2pts) plus X Explodes (2pts) for that low-mana Dissolve window.
Non-Wizards/Warlords have 1 Seeking (2pts) plus X Decoys (1pt) to ferret out Nullify/Reverse Magic.
Warlords have 1 Teleport (6pts) plus X Force Push (2pts), others have more Teleports

There is currently a small amount of variety among the staples. But this is based solely on Training access, the spell point cost.

Even Dude should agree that what the game needs is more genuine trade-off variants. I mentioned "Sunder" before as a hypothetical example. Here is a more crucial hypothetical spell.

"Negate": enchantment 2+3 metamagic, you MAY reveal this enchantment to counter an incantation just cast solely targeting the enchanted creature

Here we give players the option to mix-and-match cheaper, greater scope but no flexibility Nullify with a slightly more expensive, more limited scope but fully controlled timing Negate. The existence of this spell will then make ferreting Nullify with a Decoy before your kill-zone Teleport no longer possible.

In Magic, there are upteen variants of the same spell function:
(a) counter spell (hard, bypassaple, limited category, extra benefit, extra penalty etc)
(b) destroy enchantment (exiled, gain life, return to hand = "book", global effect etc)
(c) destroy artifact
(d) creature control
and so on

With all these variants, even within Standard rotation, it empowers players to build with certain subtle nuances of X of type A and Y of type B. Currently in Mage Wars, apart from choices gained from Training access (detailed above), we are pretty much railroaded in what we choose as our "staples".

Each expansion is theme-centred as it introduces new mages. Because the game is theme-centred. It could be argued that what the game needs to get round this "staples" issue is an expansion of alternative utility spells. Then this would give book-builders the creative license they crave to trade-off choices and mix-and-match.

Final point: please let's not forget that we are all on the same side. We all love this game and as such it is easy to let our passion spill over.

[Koz]

Woah. Let's keep this friendly. We all love this game and are on the same game. wanting to improve it. Constructive criticism should not be treated as attacks to be responded to defensively, nor should we get too argumentative. Chill...


Final point: please let's not forget that we are all on the same side. We all love this game and as such it is easy to let our passion spill over.

How dare you!  This is the internet!  We're supposed to get heated and out of hand and flame anyone who disagrees with us!  Who taught you how to post on the internet FFS?

 

[The Dude]

So, here is a competitive build that I have been playing around with that has had moderate success, not having lost a game in it's current form:

Johktari Beastmaster

Ring of Beasts
Regrowth Belt
Bearskin
Elemental Cloak
Hunting Bow
Moonglow Amulet
Enchanter's Ring

points: 11

2 Battle Fury
2 Seeking
Tele
Purify
Dissolve
Force Push
Heal
2 Dispel
4 Rouse
2 Sniper Shot

points: 34

Lair
2 Mana Flower
Wall of Thorns
2 Rajan's
2 Tanglevine

points: 13

Galador
3 Dire Wolf
2 Steelclaw

points: 22

3 Hurl Boulder

points: 12

Divine Protection
2 Jinx
Marked for Death
Harmonize
Nullify
Ghoul Rot
Block
Healing Charm
Bear Strength
Eagle Wings
Hawkeye
Cheetah Speed
Rhino Hide
Falcon Precision
Lion Savagery (or second Bear Strength if not using promos)

points: 28

That's basically it. Sure, it uses a few staples, but not nearly as many as the list states. As well, there are a lot of cards in here that are not used at all, Lair, Dire Wolf, hunting bow, and Galador being a few examples.

[Koz]

What, is that the only build you have not running Battleforge? 

Not to sound crappy, but this seems more like a fun build than a competitive one, just because of the inclusion of Lair over Battleforge.  I just can't help but think how much better it would run with the Battleforge.  And a few other changes.  Bearhide...bleh.  Never understood why anyone would run this in a competitive build at this stage in the game (maybe once Druid/Necro comes out it will be worth it).  It's far too easy to eek out another point to put in Stormdrake's Hide instead.  Or, better yet, drop the Block and the Bearhide and put in a Dragonscale Hauberk.

Anyway, you should throw this up on Octgn and see how you do against Charmyna or any other competitive player.  I'll play you too, but I have yet to find time to get a single game in, but I think I'll be able to this weekend.

If you can beat competitve builds regularly with this Beastmistress then I'll stop looking at it as a "fun" build.  Until then, all I see when I look at it is the Lair and the Bearhide and can't help but think that it could use some tweaking. 

Again, not trying to be offensive, maybe you play it really well and it plays way better with the Lair than I can believe.  But I'd need to see it in action

Anyway, you have to admit that this is a very non-standard build you've posted, and that competitive builds, by and large, run pretty much every card on my list, in pretty close to the same numbers.   

[The Dude]

As you said before, I gave you an example.

You come across kind of rude man, to be completely honest. Just because you haven't seen something work does not mean it doesn't. Lair is actually really effective against wizard type builds that rely on mana denial, as it acts as a static 3 channeling (with harmonize). This, coupled with ranged package, leads to some very effective games. No, your right, it doesn't have battle forge. But it also doesn't need it. Only a few of those pieces of equipment do I actually need in any given game, and although the free action +1 mana is nice, it isn't necessary.

As well, I am out of Battle forges range most of the time, making it inefficient for me to use. It is much more efficient for me to use lair as my free action, rouse with my quick, and still be able to shoot my bow.

As for your criticism on bearhide, it's fair. It's not like this book is perfect, and I didn't claim it to be. But it does win, believe it or not.

If all you see is two cards when eyeing a build, it further proves that your original list on "overused" cards is completely subjective, as you seem to overrate some cards completely, while underrating others.

You asked for a competitive example, and I gave you one.

As for your poke at not including battle forge: I include it where appropriate. Jamming every decent card in the game simply because they are good does not make your build competitive.

[Koz]

I wasn't trying to be rude, apologies if I came off that way.  Perhaps we've both taken each other the wrong way in this thread.

Also, I never said your build couldn't be competitive, I just said I'd need to see it to believe it because it seems like it could be more efficient (in my opinion).  Honestly though, I haven't played with or against a Beastmistress yet, so she may break the mold of the standard staple inclusions just due to her being the first purely ranged focused Mage.  Don't know yet, guess time will tell.

And honestly, I was serious about you throwing this up on Octgn.  I'd like to see you go up against Charmyna or another player with a competitive build and see how this does.  Charmyna is always on it seems and I will be on this weekend at some point so if you want to give it a whirl, pop on. 

I'm not calling you out or saying you aren't going to win or anything like that.  This isn't a "put your money where your mouth is" challenge.  I just want to see a tested Beastmistress in action and see how it runs

Again, sorry if I came off as rude, it wasn't intended.

[The Dude]

No worries, to be honest, it was kind of expected. I mean seriously, who in their right minds posts a lair build and gets away with calling it competitive... but it works!


IF my connection wasn't so damn spotty, I would love to try out octgn's mage wars interface. I'm stuck playing IRL at the moment. What a drag