Overused cards?

[Koz]

The issues with Battleforge are that it's cheap enough to fit into pretty much any build, it's the safest/strongest action advantage option at the moment, it doesn't constrain your actions particularly to take advantage of due to all of the cheap equipment cards available, and there is not an action efficient way to deal with equipment spam.

I don't actually want a Purge Equipment spell introduced. I think that would push things too far in the other direction. Purge Magic works well within the game because it punishes overcommitment to enchanting a single creature, but you can spread enchantments around. You can't spread equipment around, you can only equip your mage. I think we need a more action efficient way of dealing with equipment, but I'm a bit concerned that a straightup Purge would make equipment too weak (or force Armor Ward on all equipment builds, which may or may not work out well in practice). The other thing that I think we need, which should be released in the next few sets hopefully, is better access to piercing. That will make getting damage through to high armor targets more manageable, and make stacking equipment somewhat less of an issue.

I'd like to see more competition between Battleforge and other action advantage cards so that there would be more variety in builds and matchups. I like Battleforge, I just feel like it's too much the default way to play. Right now I feel like you need a reason not to include Battleforge rather than a reason to justify running it.

It doesn't really bother me that there are cards that are staples, I just don't think any single action advantage card should be a staple for all classes.

I agree that there needs to be better alternatives to action advantage cards.  Right now Battleforge is an auto-include because it is the best and safest spawnpoint.  Wizards Tower is amazing as well, but that card serves a different purpose and does not replace Battleforge in Wizard builds.  Other than the Temple of Asyra, nobody really runs the other spawnpoints in competitive play because they are so expensive.  Nobody runs the familiars anymore either, because they are both expensive AND fragile.  Sectarus seems to be taking a backseat to Lash of Hellfire because Battleforge is still the Warlock's preferred card of choice for action advantage (and people don't generally run two action advantage cards because they are too expensive).  So that leaves Battleforge.

Companies are often reluctant, or outright unwilling, to errata cards to be MORE powerful, so I doubt we will see any re-releasing of existing spawnpoints with adjustments that would make them more attractive in comparison to Battleforge.  Which is a shame, because that's kind of what would fix the Battleforge problem.  If creature spawnpoints were more viable, people would actually have to choose between using one of them over Battleforge and you would see some variety.   

[Fentum]

@ Wiz-Pig

WOAH! Hold up.

Where did THAT come from?  Can you please reference or link the Director's comment?  Ballista is MAD as currently written. Charmyna started a really good thread about this with various constructive commnest and suggetsions. Are they all to be ignored by principle?

[sdougla2]

I still think Thoughtspores are potentially worthwhile because they're cheap enough that losing them to an attack spell is not terribly inefficient, and they can offer a great deal of tactical flexibility.

The problem with Fellella and Huginn is that they are incredibly fragile for their cost. Defenses are good on creatures that are tough enough that the defense isn't necessary for them to survive a hit, or creatures that are so cheap that the defense makes them efficient at guarding or attacking a guard. If someone Fireblasts my Feral Bobcat, I'll just shrug it off, since the Bobcat costs about what the Fireblast does. If they Fireblast Knight of Westlock, that's fine, he'll probably be okay unless he's already taken a decent amount of damage. If they Fireblast Fellella or Huginn, I'm generally pretty far behind. If Fellella and Huginn were cheaper, it might be worth the risk, but as they are currently priced, it's hard to justify.

Similarly, the expensive spawnpoints are so expensive that they stifle your ability to do anything impressive for too long. Lair costs 15. If you think of that as 2 Mana Flowers and a full action each turn, it sounds good, but the channeling is inflexible, and you're severely constrained in your ability to take advantage of the action advantage offered by Lair while simultaneously consistently using your QC and your mage's activation effectively. I think that Lair would be fine if it cost 12 honestly.

[Doma0997]

@ Wiz-Pig

WOAH! Hold up.

Where did THAT come from?  Can you please reference or link the Director's comment?  Ballista is MAD as currently written. Charmyna started a really good thread about this with various constructive commnest and suggetsions. Are they all to be ignored by principle?

Ho Hum. Just a friendly neighborhood directory here.
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12908.30

[Memnaelar]

I think this is a really useful conversation to have.  While, obviously, when playing for fun with friends, I'll end up experimenting with cards quite a bit regardless of efficiency, it has been a bit jarring to note that the tournament decks I've seen listed here seem to have a lot of commonalities.  I'm sure this will even out a bit as more sets are released and certain cards and strategies have their counters released as well, but it's worth taking a look at the thinking behind these repetitions even if their efficiency is theoretically going to be cut down in the long term. 

Me, I just hope a card's released that makes me want to pay the terrible costs for Gate to Hell.  What a great idea for a card that just doesn't seem like it'll ever find its way onto the table for me.

[Fentum]

@ Wiz-Pig

WOAH! Hold up.

Where did THAT come from?  Can you please reference or link the Director's comment?  Ballista is MAD as currently written. Charmyna started a really good thread about this with various constructive commnest and suggetsions. Are they all to be ignored by principle?

Ho Hum. Just a friendly neighborhood directory here.
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=12908.30

Thanks

[ringkichard]

Would you play this card?
New Lair. Level 3 Nature. 10 mana. Conjuration. 8 hp, Arm 2. Spawnpoint. Nature Mage Only. 0 channeling. May cast a creature every turn during deployment.

What if it had this rule instead?
"New Lair may play one creature per turn during the final Quick Cast phase, regardless of that spell's action length."

Still not convinced? What if it had this rule, too: Do not select a creature spell for New Lair during Deployment. Instead, select a creature spell during your final Quick Cast.

The new rules don't change the long term strategic value of the New Lair, but they sure do make it more tactically useful. I think the version with both rules might be as strong as Wizard's Tower.

Aside from the great strategic value of spawning creatures (free full actions) the tactical value of the existing creature spawnpoints is kinda terrible: the spawned creature sits there doing nothing for your entire turn, waiting to get hit, and that's after you spend a turn casting the Lair, which does nothing for a turn, either. The problem with spawnpoints isn't just that they're too expensive, it's that they're too slow.

I mean, strategically, Real Lair is 10 mana for 2 channeling and one free full action every turn. That's probably a really good deal, especially because two mana flowers take up 2 actions to cast. It's just not any help in combat for a long time, so it's a tactical liability instead of a strategic asset.

[Fentum]

Would you play this card?
New Lair. Level 3 Nature. 10 mana. Conjuration. 8 hp, Arm 2. Spawnpoint. Nature Mage Only. 0 channeling. May cast a creature every turn during deployment.

What if it had this rule instead?
"New Lair may play one creature per turn during the final Quick Cast phase, regardless of that spell's action length."

Still not convinced? What if it had this rule, too: Do not select a creature spell for New Lair during Deployment. Instead, select a creature spell during your final Quick Cast.

The new rules don't change the long term strategic value of the New Lair, but they sure do make it more tactically useful. I think the version with both rules might be as strong as Wizard's Tower.

Aside from the great strategic value of spawning creatures (free full actions) the tactical value of the existing creature spawnpoints is kinda terrible: the spawned creature sits there doing nothing for your entire turn, waiting to get hit, and that's after you spend a turn casting the Lair, which does nothing for a turn, either. The problem with spawnpoints isn't just that they're too expensive, it's that they're too slow.

I mean, strategically, Real Lair is 10 mana for 2 channeling and one free full action every turn. That's probably a really good deal, especially because two mana flowers take up 2 actions to cast. It's just not any help in combat for a long time, so it's a tactical liability instead of a strategic asset.

I do occasionally wonder if there is a slow build meta that I am missing. One where many creatures come out to do battle in a grand melee style. When perusing art and just looking at the game, it looks as though that might happen. When actually playing the game COMPETITIVELY, it seems better to have just a couple of creatures and go for the kill.

The assassin style just leaves all the spawn points far too slow, as you say.

[sdougla2]

I think you raise some good points Ringkichard, although I would also say that the channeling on a Lair is significantly worse than a pair of Mana Flower because playing a creature every turn severely constrains your actions. Channeling on Battleforge is almost as good as having 1 extra channeling for the next 6-8 turns because of how cheap some of the efficient equipment options are. A big part of the problem with spawnpoints is how tactically weak they are, and allowing you to play something at the end of the turn would drastically help with that.

I still probably wouldn't play much with the first version you mention, but the final version sounds very interesting.

In terms of spamming creatures, I just tend to think that it's better for most mages to spam creatures without a spawnpoint if they want to spam creatures. The creature spawnpoints are expensive enough that you could have had an extra creature out a turn faster, and even if you're both going for board dominance plays, you're usually better off with that extra creature out a turn early, as you can either kill your opponent's spawnpoint or the creatures that they're generating with your early board advantage. You may be forced to switch into assassination based play if they start spamming Darkfenne Hydras or something, but you're still in good shape in that case anyway.

[Koz]

There are two other problems with creature spawnpoints vs Battleforge.  Creature spawnpoints can only summon into their zone, while Equipment has a range of 0-2 which is a HUGE advantage.  The other issue is that when spawnpoints summon creatures, those creatures are useless for a turn while equipment is immediately useable the same turn. 

Creature spawnpoints should have broken the rules when it comes to spawning creatures if they were going to be so expensive.  They should have been able to either summon their creatures at range (0-2 or even just 0-1) or they should have been able to summon them with ready action markers.  They just need something to make them a more attractive option in competitive play.

[Moonglow]

One approach to boost familiars a little would be to give them a rule update rather than errata the cards. 

Something that makes sense thematically and would make them a little more robust would be to allow familiars to share damage with their owner - keeping it simple would be assigning any damage taken by the familiar or owner to either or both.  Basically you could keep your familiar alive, but it would weaken you.  Similarly you could sacrifice your familiar if you take an unexpected hit and would die otherwise.

Its a little like the casting already is, in that familiars and spawnpoints can use the owners mana to cast as well as their own.

There might be more complicated approaches that could be a bit more balanced, like if the familiar would die, the owner can divert any damage that takes the familiar below 1 to themselves at x 2, cost leaving the familiar on 1.

[ringkichard]

Yowsa! Letting a Mage take the damage for a familiar would be
1. Elegant rules design.
2. Only of medium difficulty to implement.
3. Potentially game Breaking.

Even if you restricted it to living familiars (to exclude Wizard's Tower) Hugin and Fellella and the Imp would become frighteningly good.

As an Enchantment, though, that effect could go a long way to solving Familiars' problems.

Sympathetic Ward: Enchantment. Level 3 Psychic. 2+6. Living Creature. If this creature would take damage, the owner may instead lose life equal to this creature's life. If so, cancel all damage to this creature.

Ghoul Rot or Triple Attack would still be terrifying, because the caster would have to pay dearly every time, but killing Familiars wouldn't be Flameblast and done. And that Enchantment could go on other important creatures, too, though you'd have to think twice about putting it on a Grizzly.

[Moonglow]

I was only thinking of the living familiars - I hadn't thought of WT as a familiar, more an incantation spawnpoint but guess its closer in nature to a familiar.  So yeah, living familiars only.

I'm not sure how game breaking it would be - I totally concede the possibility though.  I guess like has been discussed on other threads, the point of the game is to kill the other wizard.  Voluntarily taking damage yourself is helping the oppositions cause, so it has to have some greater benefit to you.  It'd definately need some play testing, but could also be done in different ways that aren't so strong, or make the cost to the familiar's owner greater, like you take x2 damage.

I do like the enchantment approach too though, although it seems expensive, both spell book wise and casting wise - 8 + the cost of hugin doesn't seem to address the concern that the familiar's are too expensive to be useful.  I appreciate it makes them less fragile, so the cost is balanced, but its .... ok just had a look at Hugin, 11 + 8 doesn't seem that expensive for what you'd get.

Did you mean take damage equal to the familiars life? So like for Hugin you'd take 5 damage?  Why not just take the damage from the attack - I guess the creatures life is all the damage it would take, the rest being surplus to requirements   but it might have only been 1-2 hits that got through...

I guess from your grizzly comment, you're thinking of it as a way to balance it from being used on everything, taking 15 hits would make it not worth playing unless you were at full health and you were saving the Grizzly's life.

I'd been thinking of restricting it to familiars, but your way makes it a more interesting card.

Yowsa! Letting a Mage take the damage for a familiar would be
1. Elegant rules design.
2. Only of medium difficulty to implement.
3. Potentially game Breaking.

Even if you restricted it to living familiars (to exclude Wizard's Tower) Hugin and Fellella and the Imp would become frighteningly good.

As an Enchantment, though, that effect could go a long way to solving Familiars' problems.

Sympathetic Ward: Enchantment. Level 3 Psychic. 2+6. Living Creature. If this creature would take damage, the owner may instead lose life equal to this creature's life. If so, cancel all damage to this creature.

Ghoul Rot or Triple Attack would still be terrifying, because the caster would have to pay dearly every time, but killing Familiars wouldn't be Flameblast and done. And that Enchantment could go on other important creatures, too, though you'd have to think twice about putting it on a Grizzly.

[The Dude]

I've said this before, and I will say it again. What makes MW deckbuilding so special isn't the "mandatory" part of the building. Arguably every single "deckbuilding" game on the market today has elements that every deck will include as it makes them either playable, or better. From the ones I have played and love, there are a few examples I could give. If we look at one of the recently popular Android Netrunner, there are a few builds in particular, that, in order to be "competitive", need Account Siphon, as well as some amount of breakers, and economy. This is just one of many. You can't play Standard Magic the gathering without including lands in your deck, and you certainly can't be competitive without including "dual" lands. (Dada, I see your belcher and it is an exception, not a rule). As well, even if you look at minis games, which are closer to Mage Wars, have certain "necessities" that are required for tournament friendly builds.

Next, let's compare card pools to that of many other games. Let's face it: There aren't THAT many cards in Mage Wars. I mean, compared to Magic: The gathering or Warhammer, and the comparison isn't even there. This isn't the fault of the creators or the game itself, it simply means the game is young. Even Netrunner has a comparatively larger cardpool, as well as much faster churn rate (defined as new cards added to the old card pool in order to stimulate growth in players and the game itself). Again, this is due to the model of Mage Wars, which isn't a problem at all.

What makes Mage Wars Deckbuilding so special is the sheer amount of splashes you can make in a build. The fact that a Grizzly can be summoned and then have a circle of fire cast on it... from a priestess. What also makes this game so interesting is that there is no "tournament" formula. As the player skill is relatively similar and the same people come to tournaments, the builds tend to be the same. If we took everyone on these forums and had a massive single elem tournament, we would see builds we never even thought of.

As well, free actions are nigh unbeatable. With proper thought and planning, free actions become a bane instead of a boon. Battle forge is the strongest spawnpoint we have right now, we the reason being that what we cast is static, hard to destroy, and cheap. Battle forge itself is hard to destroy, but it is very, very beatable. Even when combined with Wizard's Tower, it is still beatable.

Dude.

[ringkichard]

Yeah, since there's no chance my crazy design ideas for rebalanced familiars would ever be adopted, I just kinda went nuts with it.

Making a creature potentially immortal seems really strong to me, just because of the action advantage, but is immortal Hugin any better than Wizard's Tower? Hugin does cast Teleport, which I think is the best spell in the Game, but has an action marker instead of a ready marker,  so... I dunno.

Here's another crazy idea for an Enchantment: Haste: Level 2 War. 2+5 Non-Mage Living Creature. Replace this creature's action marker with a ready marker. It now activates before or after any other friendly creature's activation.