One thing I noticed from watching the awesome interviews that the AD folks filmed at gencon was the over emphasis on wizard and asking about whether we believe the wizard is over powered. While I have not kept up on the forums and have probably missed most of the conversation surrounding this topic, I would like to put in my $.02 without dredging up a bunch of conflict.
There were only 5 wizards at the tourney, not half the field. If just playing pure random, at least one wizard likely makes it to the finals. I played a wizard, not so much because I feel he is the most powerful in the game, it is because I like wizards generally. I am very comfortable playing a wizard. He certainly is a top tier mage, and therefore very competitive. I believe that necro, and original warlock are also top tier. With priestess, and original bm in the next tier. Followed by fm, and everyone else. The priest, and johktari at the bottom. The top 4 were: 2 wizards, a priestess, and a fm. That is a decent mix. Had the initial field been larger, I would have expected to see some warlords and more warlocks, and a couple more necros. Who knows what the top would have looked like then? It is true if more folks play wizards, then more will make the finals just on sheer numbers. Same can be said for any mage. It is interesting to note that there were not so many swarming mages in the field. That surprised me. It was refreshing to see that folks did not just copy previous success and field clones, and instead brought their own creations. That was great to see. You do not get that in mtg competitions. Where everyone buys the current deck of the week, and you end up fighting yourself a dozen times over. How boring.
Further, I also believe that any mage in the hands of an experienced player has a better chance too. I would think that several players in the tourney could field a well crafted non top tier mage and still have a decent shot at the final day. I even mentioned in my interview with the AD crew that more plays matter. It gives you more experience encountering or formulating tactics. Over the long run, you will be able to handle more situations and have a firmer grasp of what to prep when it matters most. When is it time to break off an attack run to handle something the opponent has done, or to perhaps heal yourself some? In a timed game those decisions are magnified. More games with experienced players makes an even bigger difference because you may be challenged more often or quicker.
I am not trying to open a new can of worms here, but it was just a topic that I saw recur in the interviews which implied that the film crew were trying to get folks to say or confirm that wizards are broken somehow. I think that over time other mages will get benefits from cards along the way to elevate them rather than fall prey to the chorus chanting nerf nerf nerf. The constant rulings on cards and outright bans on cards right after print in mtg was a huge turnoff for most of my friends and I, and large part of the reason we quit the game. It meant that wotc really did not do its testing correctly and implied that it was just churning out shoddy product so fast just to make a buck, rather than trying to maintain a quality game. Really what is the point of buying something if you have to constantly look on some website just to see what the cards really do? However the fact that they are still printing money may mean that they finally got that under control. I just would hate to see the same thing in yet another great game.
I am sure over time, the other mages will get their status elevated along the way. There will always be top tier mages, and bottom feeders. Which ones those are will morph over time. But the stark difference between the top and the very bottom should compress over time so there are not so many levels between them. And then the matches will be more often decided with the better tactics winning (on average - discounting getting diced) rather than which mage is being played.
