The Mage Scale and Matchups

[Biblofilter]

Concept: Create a scale that rates/lists mages based generally on whether that mage excels in the early, mid, or late game. 

For those who don't really know what "X"-game means, the term refers to how much stuff has happened since the start of the game, usually measured by the amount of cards in play. So, "early-game" would be the first few or so rounds of the game when neither player has played many cards, "midgame" would be when both players have some cards, and "lategame" is when you would expect both players to have played many cards. A mage's stats and the kinds of cards he or she has access determines where they fall on the scale of early, middle, or lategame.

My list, in early/mid/late-game order:


Forcemaster - Straywood Beastmaster - Arraxian Crown Warlock - Priest - Johktari Beastmaster - Bloodwave Warlord - Anvil Throne Warlord - Adramelech Warlock - Druid - Wizard - Necromancer - Priestess.

Generally, the mages nearer to the beginning of the list want to be applying pressure through attacks on the opposing mage, whereas the mages nearer to the end focus more on getting more mana and cards.  Depending on the mage you're playing and the mage your opponent is playing, you may want to be playing more offensively or defensively than you anticipated; that's fundamentally what a matchup is.


Granted, that I still have a lot to learn , I attribute a lot of my better playing/deckbuilding to recognizing how a particular mage relates to the other mages in terms of how I should spend mana in a given matchup.  Maybe knowing matchups comes to some players naturally, but Mage Wars gives the player access to so many choices at once that knowing which choice is right can be overwhelming.  This is doubly complicated in that, once you start playing against tougher opponents, you're also trying to out-think your opponent at the same time, preparing a counter for the counter you expect .

That's when a mental exercise like the "mage scale" is useful; by knowing where each mage sits, you can cut through the "analysis paralysis" and narrow down your choices during deckbuilding and during a match.  Sometimes the answer to what you should be playing or how to counter your opponent isn't obvious, but knowing how the mages in that game basically relate to each other can at least point you in the right direction.

I'd like to see other players' "mage scales" too 

I pretty much agree with your list. As others have pointed out is also possible to play all the Mages with an early- mid- or lategame fokus, but i think most of the time mages follow some kind of scale.

Some classes more naturally tends to favor mid- to lategames, like Water Wizard. He has a spellbook advantage, often manifested in more (cheaper) Dissolves and  Acid Balls. More "defensive" Attack spells and like the rest of the Wizard cheap access to Arcane School (fx Mana Crystal) So a long game really favor the Wizard especially a Water Wizard.

Still i think people sometimes forget that a Wizard is the mage than can kill you in the fastest way possible.

Beastmasters are generally played very fast, but nature school are pretty amazing. Regeneration, buffs, defences could easily go for a mid- or lategame strategy.

A Necromancer with Finite Life and Deathlock never seem to see any endgame, so vs. him things tend to change to faster games.

[Laddinfance]

I don't know that the mages fit neatly into one line. Though, now I want to make a nice Ven Diagram...

[DaveW]

I didn't say that a Water-trained Wizard was weak... just that it doesn't have as many effective attack spells as an Earth-trained Wizard would, what with Hurl Boulder in particular. I have just completed my first Wizard book where the Wizard was trained in Water, and over just a few battles, I have found myself hoping for a level 2 attack spell in school sometime in the near future.

The Water-trained Wizard goes about doing things that other Wizards do in slightly different ways. Extra (good) Surging Waves, Geysers, and Acid Balls are added to replace the "heavier" attack spells. He also has no zone attack spell, range three attack spell, "Circle" defensive spell, etc. that I can think of, so instead he likely will have to rely on more creatures and/or spawnpoints than those with other training. Add to this, he likely will use Rusts which can be handy, have extra Dissolves, etc., which modify the Wizard's play a bit.

I'm just saying that if you are talking aggressive vs. passive... different training may affect how you view the Wizard.

I don't know that the mages fit neatly into one line. Though, now I want to make a nice Ven Diagram...

I find it interesting that there is a generally agreed-upon ranks of aggressive vs. passive mages, whereas the book build discussion (solo, few big, swarm, etc.) results in a more "circular" result.