Best mages to start with?

[Jestor]

I am looking to show off this game to a buddy of mine.  He is a veteran board gamer, mini's gamer and card gamer so I was going to jump straight in with the preconned decks from the rule book instead of doing an in person version of the video tutorial.  

Which two decks do you believe match up best?

Which two decks are the easiest to use?

Which two decks are best to teach the game with?

Thanks!

[Gigan]

The Beastmaster and Warlock, using the suggested builds in the rulebook, are the easiest ones to learn.  They are the most straight forward in terms of gameplay.

[Shad0w]

The Beastmaster and Warlock, using the suggested builds in the rulebook, are the easiest ones to learn.  They are the most straight forward in terms of gameplay.

I would agree its swarm and overwhelm VS. Set it on fire

[Nihilistiskism]

I agree to a point:

It really depends on what kind of player you are that dictates what mage is easiest to learn/play. If you are a careful/calculated player by nature, then running up and throwing fireballs will not come naturally to you. Similarly, if you are, by nature, an "all eggs in one basket" kind of player, then swarming the opponent with multiple creatures will not fit with your playstyle.

For example: I went straight to the Priestess because that is what is natural to me. My natural instincts have led me to a solid spellbook build because I am comfortable with the style of play presented by that particular mage.

-nihil

[Shad0w]

The reason I picked those was they are the most simple ideas. I was not looking at overall play style just simple concepts.

Priestess is  methodical strategist while the Wizard is a toolbox  not always easy comcepts for easy people to get into.

[Nihilistiskism]

The reason I picked those was they are the most simple ideas. I was not looking at overall play style just simple concepts.

Priestess is  methodical strategist while the Wizard is a toolbox  not always easy comcepts for easy people to get into.

I see your reasoning, here. I was just trying to illustrate the concept that the "easiest" to learn with can very readily be the one who's style of play most conforms to your own predilections in gameplay.



-nihil

[Shad0w]

As I said before my choice was about easy to teach concepts not play styles. Several major TCGs have shown the type of environments the majority of players tend to enjoy most are when creatures are attacking more often.

[Benesephiir]

As a person who tends toward Priestess style (I like to  never lose any creatures) with a usual gaming partner who tends toward Wizard style (he likes to mess with my plans), our first game took a very long time while we tried to learn the cards while simultaneously out-think each other's long game. I had no idea that my usual style of play vs his would make the game take 5+ hours. It was so fun we barely noticed, but still, it was 5 hours. (you can read about it from Majai's side on Boardgame Geek)

Our second game (Me as Beastmaster vs Warlord) took a little over 1 hour. Furthermore, being encouraged to rush with creatures due to Beastmater abilties taught me quite a bit about what I really should have done with the priestess the first game and how I would alter her deck.

After these games, I have to agree with the Warlord vs Beastmaster 1st game recommendation. If someone has an extreme favoring of a specificically the Wizard or Priestess, I think they should just do it anyway, as at least one person will be playing agressively. I would warn people against Wizard v Priestess as a likely 5 hour + first game though.

[Shad0w]

For a first play I would try to keep it under the 90 minute mark. :dry:

[Benesephiir]

Yes, I agree with under 90 minute mark goal. If we had to do it all over and had knowledge of the apprentice books at the time, we would used them, or used the more aggressive mages for the first game.

I have heard of other 1st game Wizard v Priestess games being very long when the apprentice books are not used. I think this is due to learning the game at the same time as figuring out and executing what appear to be the "best" strategies for these mages at first glance. As I see it, both of these mages have more defensive "control issues," (i.e. the priestess "wants" to make her creatures indestructable and the wizard "wants" to figure out what you are doing and use it against you.) All of these things make the game slightly longer, but multiply when you are doing them at the same time.

We had a great time that first game even though it was so long, and none of our games since has been over 90 minutes. I just think that it should be strongly suggested that (unless you want a very long 1st game) do not play the Wizard v Priestess with the 120 point starter decks the first game. Or, at least know that you should play more aggressively if you want the game to not take as long.

This is a fantastic game and we are planning on showing it to many friends who we want to love it as much as we do. It looks like you have come up with many good suggestions to keeping the first game "lighter" and shorter. I just want to warn the people who might like to ignore your well thought out suggestions.

[Shad0w]

I may have played a game or two so I would say the best way to show people the basics would be the apprentice books. The biggest thing is that when you hand somebody a full book they seem to get overwhelmed by the choices.