FiF and the Bloodwave Warlord

[Arlemus]

(I'm mainly looking for playtester opinion, since this post is about information only they have access to.)

I'm curious about how much those playtesting FiF think it'll help the Warlord in terms of viability.  I've never been been part of the "Warlord sucks" bandwagon, and I think he is a good bit stronger than everyone seems to think, but I welcome the idea of him having a power bump and I'm just wondering what the consensus is among playtesters (if there is one) as to whether or not FiF helps the old warlord enough.

[Zuberi]

Let me preface this with the fact that I just became a play tester and haven't actually had a hand in FiF. Also, that information you talk about only us having is under an NDA so that makes it hard to answer you with any kind of details. However, I think everyone knows improving the warlord was a goal of this set, and just the cards previewed thus far should show that we have indeed made an effort at that. I think everyone will be pleased and I can't wait to get ahold of the expansion myself.

[Lord0fWinter]

Yeah i think just by looking at the spoiled cards for him so far, you can see that both warlords are getting a boost. I'm not a playtester (maybe someday hopefully), but I've been paying close attention to what's been revealed and I think this expansion will get him out of the 'lower tier' of mages.

All of the cards so far can be found here http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13984.0

[Arlemus]

Let me preface this with the fact that I just became a play tester and haven't actually had a hand in FiF. Also, that information you talk about only us having is under an NDA so that makes it hard to answer you with any kind of details. However, I think everyone knows improving the warlord was a goal of this set, and just the cards previewed thus far should show that we have indeed made an effort at that. I think everyone will be pleased and I can't wait to get ahold of the expansion myself.

I definitely agree that the previewed cards do show an effort to support the Warlord and just judging from the previews I'm sure the set will be a blast.  However, the point of my post was to find out if those who playtested FiF feel as if the Warlord has been "fixed" (I don't think he was ever broken).  I know that might be hard to say one way or the other without providing specific examples, but I wasn't necessarily looking for specific examples, and it doesn't seem like a general feeling or opinion would be under NDA.  I appreciate the response though.

[Arlemus]

Yeah i think just by looking at the spoiled cards for him so far, you can see that both warlords are getting a boost. I'm not a playtester (maybe someday hopefully), but I've been paying close attention to what's been revealed and I think this expansion will get him out of the 'lower tier' of mages.

All of the cards so far can be found here http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13984.0

Right, I've seen the spoilers.  I'm not sure I'd consider the previews as boosts to the AT Warlord, considering he hasn't been released yet, but I understand what you mean; and while the AT Warlord looks great, I'm more concerned with the older Warlord.  I've put a good bit of effort into streamlining him and making him work, and though I feel he isn't as weak as others claim, I feel he needs something to fill out the inconsistencies in his card base.

[Zuberi]

it doesn't seem like a general feeling or opinion would be under NDA

Perhaps, but again I'm new and don't want to risk anything. Tis better to err on the side of caution.

[shapeshifter]

I never felt the 1st Warlord needed "fixing". Yes, he may be a little below the curve to other mages but I still enjoy playing him and his unique playstyle. He's not unplayable with no tools.

In game design you cant keep leep frogging weaker mages above stronger mages because that creates power creep. From the cards spoiled so far, I think the 1st Warlord will be pleased with the many new options in his arsenal, particularly the new altars and outposts. Do I see him moving to a top tier mage; certainly not but he seems more comparable and that is good design.

I play the Warlord now and am excited to continue doing so after FIF

[Kharhaz]

(I'm mainly looking for playtester opinion, since this post is about information only they have access to.)

I'm curious about how much those playtesting FiF think it'll help the Warlord in terms of viability.  I've never been been part of the "Warlord sucks" bandwagon, and I think he is a good bit stronger than everyone seems to think, but I welcome the idea of him having a power bump and I'm just wondering what the consensus is among playtesters (if there is one) as to whether or not FiF helps the old warlord enough.

I probably playtested lock and load with the Bloodwave more than the Anvil Throne, at the very least a 1:1 ratio (probably closer to 2:1)

Even though I think Runesmithing and Battle Hardened  >  Veteran Tokens, Battle Skill and 2 hit points, I believe Bloodwave fans will be very pleased.

[Arlemus]

I never felt the 1st Warlord needed "fixing". Yes, he may be a little below the curve to other mages but I still enjoy playing him and his unique playstyle. He's not unplayable with no tools.

In game design you cant keep leep frogging weaker mages above stronger mages because that creates power creep. From the cards spoiled so far, I think the 1st Warlord will be pleased with the many new options in his arsenal, particularly the new altars and outposts. Do I see him moving to a top tier mage; certainly not but he seems more comparable and that is good design.

I play the Warlord now and am excited to continue doing so after FIF

I play him mainly too and I agree he doesn't need "fixed."  I was mostly just wondering if the people playtesting FiF bridges whatever gap a section of the MW population feels there is between him and the others.  After playing him many many times I don't think that gap actually exists, but I don't think people should perceive one either.

[sIKE]

Understand when we say broken, we are saying you can take any book you build for the Warlord play it, put all the cards back in the book, and then pull out the Warlord Mage and Mage Stat card and place the Wizards Mage and Mage Stat card in the same book, add in spells (as this is the power of the wizard) to fill in for the extra spellpoints that are available and play a better Warlord than the Warlord.....hence broken.

[Arlemus]

Understand when we say broken, we are saying you can take any book you build for the Warlord play it, put all the cards back in the book, and then pull out the Warlord Mage and Mage Stat card and place the Wizards Mage and Mage Stat card in the same book, add in spells (as this is the power of the wizard) to fill in for the extra spellpoints that are available and play a better Warlord than the Warlord.....hence broken.

Yeah I don't think the Warlord is anywhere close to that, obviously.

[sIKE]

Yeah I don't think the Warlord is anywhere close to that, obviously.

By this do you mean that: that the Warlord is able to beat the Earth Wizard that is running his book (bit better in reality), or you think the Warlord is not that bad as described?

[Arlemus]

Yeah I don't think the Warlord is anywhere close to that, obviously.

By this do you mean that: that the Warlord is able to beat the Earth Wizard that is running his book (bit better in reality), or you think the Warlord is not that bad as described?

Oh, sorry if I was unclear.  I mean to say that I think (unlike some people that post on here) that the Warlord is entirely viable.  That is, no other mage could play his book better and with practice, he can be just as viable as any other mage.

I think the reasons many people seem to dislike him, or reasons people are so outspoken against him, is because the spellbook he was released with was pretty terrible and offered no guidance as to how to play him; along with the fact that he pays triple for arcane.  I don't believe either of those things hamper him as much as people think. 

To tie this in, I do believe that it is the responsibility of Arcane Wonders to make all the mages seem balanced to the general population playing their game which they haven't currently accomplished.  The reason I started the thread was to inquire as to whether or not those with complete knowledge of the expansion would agree that it has accomplished this goal.

[sIKE]

I think that the ball has moved in a positive direction for the Warlord with the upcoming FiF release. How big of a move is still the question in my mind. I am positive that we have moved it a good bit but how far that is has yet to be revealed.

[Kharhaz]

Oh, sorry if I was unclear.  I mean to say that I think (unlike some people that post on here) that the Warlord is entirely viable.  That is, no other mage could play his book better and with practice, he can be just as viable as any other mage.

He is not unplayable but most players in my gaming group consider him outclassed without realistic access to enchantment removal, teleportation, and nullify.

Example: A warlock places a ghoul rot, poison blood, enfeeble, and magebane on your warlord. You lose. Triple arcane means that you do not have the tools to counter that kind of enchantment assault. Even if the warlord places a cheetah speed or regeneration or whatever the warlock can win in that exchange of enchantment removal and replacement.

I was playing a game with the bloodwave where my minotaur with lion savagery charged into a beastmaster that I quick cast pushed through a wall of pikes and into range of a ballista bolt. That is 18 attack dice. The Warlord has tools to win games, I do not want you to think that I am saying he does not. I think he just has a much harder time doing so without the same access everyone else does to core game mechanic cards in the arcane school.

To partially answer your question, Harshforge Monolith already adds a cheap answer to the above example and expands the toolbox of the warlord.