Wizard Tower

[Qube]

The tower is clearly a strong card.  It's a fusion of an elemental wand and the ToL, so it seems like those are the easiest cards to compare it to.

The strengths of the tower are well furrowed ground at this point.  So, I'll focus on the advantages of the ToL and wand over the the WT.

The ToL has a chance of stunning or dazing a unit at range 2 for cost of 1 mana.  You pay for this with its initial cost of 9, but the temple will likely fire every turn it can without much drain the controlling mage's mana suppy.  Sure, the chances to stun aren't high, but you can just keep trying every turn.  Compared to the ToL, the tower is a mana hog.  The temple is a hair more durable to boot.

The Wand is cheaper, and is a bit more flexible with the spells it can be bound with.  I have been on the receiving end of a thunderbolt wand, and it hurt.. a lot.  The WT is a conjuration, and the wand is a piece of equipment, so their relative vulnerabilities are hard to gauge (it really depends on your opponent).

The only thing that bothers me about the WT is the free switch of the bound spell.  That just seems a bit too easy (with the wand needing both an action and mana switch spells).

If the WT was warlord only, I doubt anyone's feathers would be particularly ruffled.  But, the wizard has everything going for him, and this tower is just another great gadget to add to his already incredibly versatile toolbox.

[lettucemode]

Yes, I didn't say I beat your wiz, only that it is beatable ^.^

No comment on the rest of the thread but this made me laugh out loud.

[jacksmack]

@ Cube

Your points are not legit....

ToL:
ToL costs 2 more mana to play.
ToL costs mana to use
ToL does not have channeling
ToL cannot reliably get rid of guards
ToL requires other buildings to be played to go beyond 1 dice.

Eventually WT - with its lower cost, channeling - will only be slightly more expensive to operate than ToL.


Elemental Wand:
Its does NOT grant a free action.
Its NOT more flexible because u pay mana and spend an action to swap spell.
No channeling


The only advantage (which you didnt mention) that elemental wand has over WT is Hawkeye and Ring of fire/lightning.

A wizard who puts elemental wand(s) in his spellbook and leaving out WT is either dumb, unexperienced or a big Harry Potter fan.

[Wildhorn]

The closest thing to a Wizard Tower is a Thoughtspore.

[Qube]

And if thoughtspores were wizard only (instead of FM) I suspect this thread would have a different title.

The wizard is king right now for a number of synergistic reasons... but hopefully the next expansion will rock his comfy throne at the top of the heap.

Wait a bit before ye apply the nerfbat.

[Qube]

@ Cube

Your points are not legit....

Read my post again.  I was only talking about the ways that the wand and temple were superior to the tower.  I listed some examples, they were all correct.. so my points clearly are "legit" on some level.

Thanks for listing another example though... the wand can indeed benefit from hawkeye and attack boosting rings.  Wands are also mobile, which clearly has some advantages over a static conjuration.

[Baydecker]

I'm looking at Wizard's Tower and then looking at other familiars and wondering why it's so cheap.

Fellella, Pixie Familiar - no armour, 6 health, 1 channelling, casts only Enchantments - Costs 12
Sersiryx, Imp Familiar - 2 armour, 9 health, 1 channelling, casts only Level 1-2 Fire attacks or curses. Costs 12

Wizards Tower - 3 armour, 7 health, 1 channelling, non epic attack spells - costs 7?

If I look at that I can see that different cards have relative strengths and weaknesses..

The creature familiars can be buffed (but at a mana and action cost)
The creature familiars can move.
The creature familiars have instrinsic attacks.
Sersirxy has Flame -2, Fellella has a rather nifty 6+ defense (unlimited uses)

But the Wizard's tower has spellbind so can spam, while still changing spells freely
Has a hefty 3 armour
Has, effectively, it's own Quickcast marker (the ready marker)
Range 0-1, meaning it can be easily played in a central zone for almost full board coverage with it's spells.
Is a Quick spell, not full.

If you look at other Quickcast familiars - Sectarus the Rune Sword can only cast curses and only after the Mage hits something with it... no actions of its own, vulnerable to dissolve, no spellbind, no range on its spells - Costs 10.

And comparing the Wizard's tower to a Thoughtspore (1/0/7, no spell change all game, cost makes the Thoughtspore sad.

So the Wizard's tower has major strengths, and minor weaknesses compared to other familiars, all at a far reduced cost.

Based on its peers, I would be costing it around 13-14 minimum and Epic.

[Shad0w]

Bay you must also account for the fact the tower does not move. So in some games it is far easier to avoid.

[Baydecker]

Shadow,

I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.

Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.

I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...

[Shad0w]

Shadow,

I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.

Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.

I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...

We have a card in DvN (if it made the set) that being non mobile becomes a set back against. In fact it cost me 2 games in testing.

[Wiz-Pig]

Shadow,

I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.

Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.

I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...

We have a card in DvN (if it made the set) that being non mobile becomes a set back against. In fact it cost me 2 games in testing.

That's good and all, but I think this game of pretending that Wizard's Tower is in balance with other similar cards is a silly one. The thing you have to ask yourself is this: if Wizard Tower cost 9 mana would it still be a good card that sees a lot of play? I think the answer to that is pretty clear.

[Wildhorn]

Shadow,

I had taken that into account - compare with Sectarus, another quickcast familiar - which not only can't move (it can only be moved by using your mage actions) but can't do anything unless your mage is in melee and then only casts a range 0 curse - and still costs 10.

Are you..is anyone... seriously trying to argue that a mana-generator with its own quickcast, spellbind and freely changeable spells is 3 mana less powerful than that? To me, that's absurd.

I can only think that the feeble Wizard was in need of a boost, as the poor dears couldn't compete...

We have a card in DvN (if it made the set) that being non mobile becomes a set back against. In fact it cost me 2 games in testing.

So we will be required to run this card in our deck in case we face a Wizard?

The problem with wizard tower is its stats vs its mana cost. That fact that it is also a conjuration (no teleport, sleep, daze, etc) and use a ready marker instead of an action marker make it very good.

[Qube]

The wizard's tower is good... but is basically a battleforge for attack spells.  I actually think the battleforge is slightly better (churning out equipment can be huge).

I agree that familiars seem a bit overcosted though.  Hugging and Fellella are just one bad roll away from death, and the unavoidable attacks just keep multiplying.   That said, it is pretty hard to make direct comparisons between a creature and a conjuration.  Creatures can be buffed and protected with spells, they can move, they have attacks... they are just much more flexible.

Sectarus is really good.  You get a weapon and a familiar rolled into one.  But, it is a such different beast than the tower... why even bother to compare it.  It moves with your wizard!  It is not immobile in game terms.

[Wildhorn]

Sectarus is really good.  You get a weapon and a familiar rolled into one.  But, it is a such different beast than the tower... why even bother to compare it.  It moves with your wizard!  It is not immobile in game terms.

Being immobile is not a setback for Wizard Tower when with attack spell it covers the whole arena except 2 corners when it is in the middle.

[Shad0w]

Depends on LOS. I have seen WT have almost 0 effect on a match before or be completely controlling.