Wizard Tower

[HomelessJoe]

You've surprised me with another ludicrous assertion. Whether a card unbalances the metagame or not isn't based on just a single game or matchup. You know that just as well as the rest of us. If you don't have time to give a decent logical explanation, even a short one, then maybe someone else can do it instead. Just because you're too busy and don't care enough to explain it anytime soon doesn't mean that everyone is.

Although the fact that you've posted on this thread multiple times today, and even was the first person to post here again after you spoke of not having enough time, makes me wonder how busy you actually are.

Wow dude. I think some perspective is in order. I cannot remember another product where the company was so concerned about feedback. Moderators, playtesters and even the designers regularly post on this forum to answer questions, brainstorm etc. None of them HAVE to do this. Many company's keep their fanbase in the dark and if they aren't happy with the product then tough. Shadow has responded to you many times. Because you don't like the answer or feel it wasn't long enough doesn't warrant this type of response. Please in the future keep in mind the type of company Arcane Wonders is before posting this kind of unnecessary aggressive post.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I am so sorry. I should have read what I had written more thoroughly before posting it. I didn't mean to come across so short. I'm not angry at all, just baffled, but I suppose it didn't come out like I meant it to. I appreciate all of the hard work you're doing, I really do. I will edit that post right now and try to fix it.

[Qube]

What kind of argument is that?

Are you serious? Think about a billion of dollars, then think about 100 billions dollars. The 100 billions dollars are clearly better.

Of course a moving WT is better than an immobile one. It doesnt make an immobile one less powerful

It is a pretty simple argument, actually.  So, a mobile wizard's tower is better, but not more powerful?  This just makes me scratch my head.  You do realize that your sentence makes two statements that directly contradict each other...don't you?

I'm agree with Moonglow btw.  You guys are clearly very passionate about how OP the wizard's tower is, but your really need to take the aggression down a notch or three.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Please understand. At the time I wrote that I really didn't feel like I was being aggressive at all. I wasn't even angry. I didn't realize what message people were perceiving from me until I saw the reactions. Saying stupid things that I don't mean and not being completely aware of how other people feel in response is one of my biggest faults that I've been trying and failing to fix all my life. It's no exaggeration to say that it is my greatest shame and the source of my greatest fears. I already apologized to Shad0w for my latest bout of sheer idiocy and deleted what I wrote, and I just sent him a second apology. I am not aware of anything else I can do to make amends, but if you are, I would love to hear it.



Back on topic though, I suppose it's possible that part of the reason that Shad0w is so sure that the Wizard's tower isn't overpowered, is because he has a different experience of it, being a playstester and all. He's probably played against it while testing the latest expansion. While I don't like the whole idea of fixing overpowered cards by making new cards designed to counter it, the game is still young and the cardpool might not be big enough yet for this to have huge consequences on the metagame. Even though it seems VERY likely that it is overpowered, perhaps we should give Wizard's tower the benefit of the doubt until the expansion after Druid vs Necromancer. Perhaps by then it will go from being "borderline/nearly overpowered" to being just not overpowered.

Perhaps if cards designed to counter wizards towers have more purposes than just that, the metagame will be able to grow over and past mistakes until the mistakes are so small in comparison to the size of the cardpool that it isn't so noticeable anymore. I'm guessing that would only work if such an course of action was rare, and implemented less as the game ages and gains more cards and mechanics that need to be balanced. This is all just conjecture of course, the only real way to find out is to wait and see. Although I still think the Tower is overpowered.

[Moonglow]

Please understand. At the time I wrote that I really didn't feel like I was being aggressive at all. I wasn't even angry. I didn't realize what message people were perceiving from me until I saw the reactions. .....

I am not aware of anything else I can do to make amends, but if you are, I would love to hear it.

Sweet as, I wouldn't stress too much over it, like you say you've done what you can, now its up to others to act like adults.  There's always the delayed internet effect where an issues over and resolved but late comers to the party still want to play in the pool too. 

Back on topic though, I suppose it's possible that part of the reason that Shad0w is so sure that the Wizard's tower isn't overpowered, is because he has a different experience of it, being a playstester and all. He's probably played against it while testing the latest expansion. While I don't like the whole idea of fixing overpowered cards by making new cards designed to counter it, the game is still young and the cardpool might not be big enough yet for this to have huge consequences on the metagame. Even though it seems VERY likely that it is overpowered, perhaps we should give Wizard's tower the benefit of the doubt until the expansion after Druid vs Necromancer. Perhaps by then it will go from being "borderline/nearly overpowered" to being just not overpowered.

Tis a hard one to know, I kinda agree that it seems like a very strong card that distorts the metagame space.  However, like the underpoweredness of the Warlord, the shifting gamespace/spell base is responding to some of these issues.  I guess there is an interesting life to the Mage Wars metagame, particularly at the forum/competition level.  As people find and discuss particular tactics and strategies, clever ways to use spells etc, then the metagame evolves in response.  However, you can always take advantage of that view to bluff or try something noone does any more - no noone carries the counter as a matter of course.  I imagine in time there will be some strong counters to the Wizards tower.  For a while everyone will carry them cause they feel they have to.  Eventually, WT will be less dominant cause its getting hammered so hard.  Then you can be the guy who pulls it out as a surprise - a bit like Hydra is having a little more love again now its become more a situational or occasional play and not everyone carries agony just in case.   

[HomelessJoe]

Please understand. At the time I wrote that I really didn't feel like I was being aggressive at all. I wasn't even angry. I didn't realize what message people were perceiving from me until I saw the reactions. Saying stupid things that I don't mean and not being completely aware of how other people feel in response is one of my biggest faults that I've been trying and failing to fix all my life. It's no exaggeration to say that it is my greatest shame and the source of my greatest fears. I already apologized to Shad0w for my latest bout of sheer idiocy and deleted what I wrote, and I just sent him a second apology. I am not aware of anything else I can do to make amends, but if you are, I would love to hear it.

Most would not reply with this level of honesty. That takes courage and I commend you for it. Everybody has faults. Well done. Time to move on.

[Qube]

Hey Imaginator,

I didn't mean to twist the knife after you'd already apologized.  I just failed to see your post (or homeless joe's) when I wrote mine.  I was multi-tasking and didn't refresh my screen.

[Shad0w]

I was more annoyed then offended by the post. I work in a help desk for a company with about 5k users. If I post something and it seems to be short or one sided I may have several reasons for it.

I may not have time to do a long post.
I may not be allowed to do a more detailed post.
I just may not be in the mood to respond in detail

Since it was brought up I will talk about it when I am looking at the meta I have a near gods eye view.

Take HOB for example. By late Nov 2012 I knew it was going to become an issue when working on the FM but we had hoped that what Heat, Guardian, and I had envisioned would not come to pass. It took 4 months after the release of FM vs WL for that to hit the public eye. 

So now lets get into more detail.
When making a set we have a goal or design intent in mind. A group of us brainstorm cards based of what we are given. Bryan also has binders of new cards at his office. We compile a list of 40-70 cards that we want to explore further and test then from that we vote on what card best meet the design, have the best set flavor, or are placed in to evolve the meta, and also the cards we think are most needed. Form that list we take about 30 cards to make a set.

If we find a card that does not make the list but it is important we add that to the list of cards for the next set.  My team had already been working on the HOB meta in late March of 2013 just in case it did make a showing a Origins 2013. Most of those cards have not been revealed yet but has they do come out they will smooth the meta in many ways. Our plan was a multiple step approach to fix many things in the meta some of them the community still has not discovered.

[Wildhorn]

What kind of argument is that?

Are you serious? Think about a billion of dollars, then think about 100 billions dollars. The 100 billions dollars are clearly better.

Of course a moving WT is better than an immobile one. It doesnt make an immobile one less powerful

It is a pretty simple argument, actually.  So, a mobile wizard's tower is better, but not more powerful?  This just makes me scratch my head.  You do realize that your sentence makes two statements that directly contradict each other...don't you?

I'm agree with Moonglow btw.  You guys are clearly very passionate about how OP the wizard's tower is, but your really need to take the aggression down a notch or three.

No, what I meant is that it is not because you think of a more powerful version (mobile WT) of something that suddently make the current version (immobile WT) balanced.

[DeckBuilder]

Wow. I haven't seen so much passion since Temple of Light.

Let us define 4 above-the-curve power levels here.
1. Undercosted = popular in books because of cost-benefit analysis
2. Auto-Include = compulsory in all eligible books
3. Overpowered = needs to be nerfed as it is game imbalancing
4. Broken = needs to be banned as nerfing it makes it useless

Wizard's Tower is definitely at level 2. It is under-costed, has ready marker action burst flexibility, free switching utility (only increases with more attack spells), not Zone Exclusive (easier to protect) and Unique not Epic (morale-sapping knowing another may arrive if destroyed). What were they thinking?

However the tech exists to handle it. The Warlord has Akiro's Hammer (under-rated silver bullet against Wizard control). Any Earth mage can cause a favourable mana trade with Steel Wall (before Acid Ball). Add Archer's Watchtower behind Wall and a ranged creature? Any mage can take it out with useful Grimson Deadeye. I admit the problem with burst damage (Force Hammer, Earthquake, Hurl Boulder, Thunderbolt on stick etc.) is you invest more mana (and actions) than the Tower so you come off worse. But there is tech out there even now and if it really creates problems, you need to include this tech in your books.

Because Tower is Arcane Mage Only, I just view it as part of the Wizard package, just like Galvitar is part of Forcemaster package. I read it as an unwritten ability on the Wizard card: "has access to Wizard's Tower". This access was one of the reasons why I felt a Wizard would win Gencon. Also why I was so surprised by the recent Con results (6 Beastmasters, 1 Wizard?) because Wizards are too good currently.

As someone who vocally kicked and screamed that Temple of Light needed nerfing (even more of a brat back then), there are a few key differences here:

(a) Wizard's Tower requires mana (and extra spell points) to use unlike original Temple of Light

(b) Wizard's Tower is an Arcane Mage Only benefit while Temple of Light could be in every book

The question when building a Wizard book is "1 copy or 2 of Tower?" It is bad to be a compulsory card irrespective of element or strategy. But every Forcemaster has Galvitar. Tower is just an extension ability of Arcane Mage. Those who play Magic will remember Skullclamps, an artifact that could be played in almost every deck hence became ubiquitous. It wasn't that broken but made the meta dull as it was in every deck so had to be banned. Ubiquity is not possible with Wizard's Tower. Being compulsory is not a problem if access is restricted.

Apart from Devouring Jelly, we have seen no Wizard love in the new cards so far. In fact, we have seen mechanics like Corrode to reduce resilience of Wizard's Tower, Battle Forge, Iron Golem and armoured wizard with Voltaric Shield. Also all these new conjurations means more conjuration hate like Earthquake, Force Hammer etc. Living creatures can be pumped by Etherian Lifetree so there should be more swarms and Wizard's Tower cannot cast full action zone attacks. Wizards also use equipment more (those Teleport Wands) and Orchid helps curtail this. The meta will change significantly.

I personally think Teleport and Enchantment Transfusion are far more to open to abuse than this 3 armour 7 life corporeal conjuration that needs mana to be useful. There are subtler plays than just placing Tower/Lighthouse in Near Centre, knowing that the extra resource cost to remove it gains you tempo. However, there is no doubt Wizard's Tower is very powerful, borderline overpowered - when it needs nerfing.

I think they should have written it "you may bind any number of non-Epic quick action attack spells", removing its change spell ability last line (so less text). When you cast it, you work out how flexible you want it to be, how many spell points you want to invest, while opponent knows what it can cast, does not have to worry "what if his Tower can cast X?". If this is still too good, maybe change Unique to Epic Zone Exclusive but I don't think that's necessary. The key ability is its unknown utility (which defines it, like a Wizard's versatility) and this would retain that flexibility but as a front-ended spell points investment cost, removing its unknown capabilities.

However, we are at the cusp of a major new expansion. The designers know about cards like Wizard's Tower and Battle Forge and we can assume (and see) that they have taken steps to undo these excesses of the past. So please let's just wait a little while until we get the new cards and see how the new meta settles before we call out for the nerf stick to be applied?

[Qube]

Good assessment Deckbuilder.  I am largely on the same page.  However, the current deck I'm working on is a wizard that may not get a WT.  It is a deck with a very particular focus, and (if all goes according to plan) I doubt I will ever want to drop a tower down.  It does have a tower right now, but I'm still refining and paring down, and the tower is on the chopping block.

[Aylin]

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.

I'm guessing it didn't make the set? The main thing I can see against immobile is Cloak of Shadows, but that's limited only to Dark mages. (Though we haven't seen Renewing Rain anywhere yet, so maybe that has some effect here?)

At least we'll have Acid Ball though.

[Alpha]

Sorry to jump in here.. can I ask a Wizard's Tower/Conjuration related quick question?

First off here is the Wizard's Tower.
Wizard's Tower
-Conjuration Tower
-Spellbind, Familiar, Unique, Arcane Mage Only
-Conjuration adds Nonliving, Psychic Immunity, Unmovable
-Nonliving adds Poison Immunity and Finite Life

My question is 'which' conditions apply to a card like Mage Tower.
1. Of course all types of Poisons don't work due to Poison Immunity. (Rot, Weak, Cripple).
2. Slam, Daze in the codex mention 'creature' and since this isn't a creature these wouldn't apply.
3. Burn would apply as the codex says 'Object is on fire'.
4. Stun in the codex mentions 'creature' similarly to Slam and Daze so again it doesn't look like it affects Wizard's Tower but then the rule says 'Cannot affect Conjurations'.

Now if my Stun can't affect conjurations because the codex says 'creature' then what is the purpose of adding this last line 'Cannot affect Conjurations' to the rule. Unless there are Conjuration/Creatures? .. I don't think so.

5. Lets say we had a different Conjuration just like Wizard's Tower with the same exact traits except it was 'Living' which means it didn't get Poison Immunity and Finite Life. Since this conjuration no longer has Poison Immunity theoretically conditions such as rot, weak, cripple could affect it. However looking closer, weak mentions 'creature' so it shouldn't work, rot mentions 'object' so it should work, cripple says 'creature' so again shouldn't work.

Thinking about it logically with rules aside it makes sense for a non living conjuration to be immune to conditions such as rot, weak, cripple, on the other hand it definitely makes sense that a living conjuration would be immune to weak and cripple but susceptible to rot. Thinking about the other conditions such as burn, stun, slam this also makes sense. SO if everything works the way I outlined it.. then why does Stun EXPLICITLY say 'Cannot affect Conjurations'.

6. Corrode, this one nicely states in the codex 'creature or conjuration' hurray!

Thank you!

[Zuberi]

Yes, you are correct on every point.

why does Stun EXPLICITLY say 'Cannot affect Conjurations'.

Because they felt like being explicit? If it makes you feel better, Daze and Cripple do both have similar wording at the end of their Codex entries. So really it is Weak and Slam that are the oddballs for missing this clarification. Slam I can understand, because the Codex entry for Incapacitate specifically states that Conjurations can not be Incapacitated, therefore they can not be affected by Slam. I do not know why the entry for Weak lacks such specificity, but it seems clear enough to me that it only affects Creatures.

[jacksmack]

weak is poisen... buildings are poisen immune.