Is the arena wizard still OP?

[Brian VanAlstyne]

When you can lose in 4 rounds to a mage, its OP. And I don't want to hear I could have played better because the only way to play better is to specifically design an anti-wizard book which is dumb and completely defeats the point of the game. The fact that a wizard can get in range by turn 1 if they wanted to and now start throwing 9 dice meteorites at you and there's nothing you can do about it is a joke. Then if they want to add insult to injury, they can put it on a wand, add in a wizards tower with an boulder, acid ball, fireball, anything with a 2 range and you are completely cornered and there is NOTHING you can do to stop before they have the chance to at minimum, with their channeling and maybe 1 crystal fire off 3 or 4 nasty attacks with something like 30 dice. Thats OP.

[Puddnhead]

When you can lose in 4 rounds to a mage, its OP. And I don't want to hear I could have played better because the only way to play better is to specifically design an anti-wizard book which is dumb and completely defeats the point of the game. The fact that a wizard can get in range by turn 1 if they wanted to and now start throwing 9 dice meteorites at you and there's nothing you can do about it is a joke. Then if they want to add insult to injury, they can put it on a wand, add in a wizards tower with an boulder, acid ball, fireball, anything with a 2 range and you are completely cornered and there is NOTHING you can do to stop before they have the chance to at minimum, with their channeling and maybe 1 crystal fire off 3 or 4 nasty attacks with something like 30 dice. Thats OP.

Wouldn't they run out of mana very quickly?  Even at 11-12 mana a turn.  Meteorite costs 12 and boulder costs 8.  It would be hilarious to stick a reverse attack on for that, though.

[Schwenkgott]

Just running in and using attack spells to damage the opponent is ridiciously easy to counter. That is not very advanced gameplay at all.

[sIKE]

[mwcard=MWBG1A03]Hurl Meteorite[/mwcard] is a Full Cast spell and cant be bound to a Wand. You can only carry 4 in your book. You couldn't cast Meteor and the Wizards Tower in the same turn after previously casting meteor in the previous round and even if you did you wouldn't have the mana to cast whatever is bound to the WT.

Meet cheese with stinker cheese, move a couple of zones cast Wall of Thorns and push the mana depleted Wizard through it a couple of times and you will win. Its cheesy and it stinks but you will break that Hurl Meteorite habit real quick.

But it does make a fantastic "surprise" long range finisher.....

[Ravepig]

[mwcard=MWBG1A03]Hurl Meteorite[/mwcard] is a Full Cast spell and cant be bound to a Wand. You can only carry 4 in your book. You couldn't cast Meteor and the Wizards Tower in the same turn after previously casting meteor in the previous round and even if you did you wouldn't have the mana to cast whatever is bound to the WT.

Meet cheese with stinker cheese, move a couple of zones cast Wall of Thorns and push the mana depleted Wizard through it a couple of times and you will win. Its cheesy and it stinks but you will break that Hurl Meteorite habit real quick.

But it does make a fantastic "surprise" long range finisher.....


Why can't Hurl Meteorite be bound to an elemental wand?

[iNano78]

Why can't Hurl Meteorite be bound to an [mwcard=MW1Q08]Elemental Wand[/mwcard]?

Perhaps he meant it can't be bound to [mwcard=MWSTX1CKJ02]Wizard's Tower[/mwcard], which can only cast quick attack spells.

[Puddnhead]

[mwcard=MWBG1A03]Hurl Meteorite[/mwcard] is a Full Cast spell and cant be bound to a Wand. You can only carry 4 in your book. You couldn't cast Meteor and the Wizards Tower in the same turn after previously casting meteor in the previous round and even if you did you wouldn't have the mana to cast whatever is bound to the WT.

Meet cheese with stinker cheese, move a couple of zones cast Wall of Thorns and push the mana depleted Wizard through it a couple of times and you will win. Its cheesy and it stinks but you will break that Hurl Meteorite habit real quick.

But it does make a fantastic "surprise" long range finisher.....


Why can't Hurl Meteorite be bound to an elemental wand?

[mwcard=MWBG1A03]Hurl Meteorite[/mwcard] can be bound to an [mwcard=MW1Q08]Elemental Wand[/mwcard].  It cannot be bound to a [mwcard=MWSTX1CKJ02]Wizard's Tower[/mwcard].

[sIKE]

[mwcard=MWBG1A03]Hurl Meteorite[/mwcard] is a Full Cast spell and cant be bound to a Wand. You can only carry 4 in your book. You couldn't cast Meteor and the Wizards Tower in the same turn after previously casting meteor in the previous round and even if you did you wouldn't have the mana to cast whatever is bound to the WT.

Meet cheese with stinker cheese, move a couple of zones cast Wall of Thorns and push the mana depleted Wizard through it a couple of times and you will win. Its cheesy and it stinks but you will break that Hurl Meteorite habit real quick.

But it does make a fantastic "surprise" long range finisher.....


Why can't Hurl Meteorite be bound to an elemental wand?

[mwcard=MWBG1A03]Hurl Meteorite[/mwcard] can be bound to an [mwcard=MW1Q08]Elemental Wand[/mwcard].  It cannot be bound to a [mwcard=MWSTX1CKJ02]Wizard's Tower[/mwcard].

This is what I meant....

[Brian VanAlstyne]

And the mate totally works: 20 (Crystal/Double move) -> 15 -> 26 -> Wand/Tower (Acid Ball) to 9 -> 20 (Metrorite/Acid) leaves 6 so even if I tried moving up and casting a dissolve or anything, the Wizard still had enough actions and mana to save it with a nullify or jinx or anything. I would have specifically needed to make sure my book includes enough anti-wizard strategy that my own strategy becomes useless. You can think its not OP...I won't change your mind, but you won't change mine either until they figure out a way to fix the amount of cheap spells he can carry and the ease in which if he wanted to get off a triple action, theres nothing I could do to change getting hit with 3 attack spells in a row. Especially that early in the game.

[Kaarin]

When you can lose in 4 rounds to a mage, its OP. And I don't want to hear I could have played better because the only way to play better is to specifically design an anti-wizard book which is dumb and completely defeats the point of the game. The fact that a wizard can get in range by turn 1 if they wanted to and now start throwing 9 dice meteorites at you and there's nothing you can do about it is a joke. Then if they want to add insult to injury, they can put it on a wand, add in a wizards tower with an boulder, acid ball, fireball, anything with a 2 range and you are completely cornered and there is NOTHING you can do to stop before they have the chance to at minimum, with their channeling and maybe 1 crystal fire off 3 or 4 nasty attacks with something like 30 dice. Thats OP.

Obscured, reverse attack, cheap wall to block LoS, there's plenty of cheap ways to stop such strategy. Even moving one or two zones after they use range 3 attack will force them to use teleport again.
Besides every mage can do teleport + range 3 attack (though only Wizard can have all required spells in-school). Holy mages and Johtari can attack with range 1 attack spells on first round even when enemy stays in the corner.

[Biblofilter]

People seems to have forgotten or ignoring that a Beastmaster recently won Gencon. (before Academy release)

I'm not saying Wizard is on par with every other mage out there but Over Powered?

"People" seems to take every event were Wizard do well as proof on Wizard being OP and just choose to ignore event where Wizards doesn't win.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Everyone please make sure you're familiar with the arguments of both sides before  continuing. Otherwise we could be stuck pointlessly rehashing the exact same argument instead of having a productive discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Iudicium86]

People seems to have forgotten or ignoring that a Beastmaster recently won Gencon. (before Academy release)

I'm not saying Wizard is on par with every other mage out there but Over Powered?

"People" seems to take every event were Wizard do well as proof on Wizard being OP and just choose to ignore event where Wizards doesn't win.

Just because Superman isn't OP where there's specifically kryptonite doesn't meant he's OP where there isn't such a rare mineral available on hand.

[bigfatchef]

There have been many pages written how exactly wizard is overpowered. It has been calculated through from different persons in diefferent threads. There was even a poll about it.

What has happened is not that academy or battleground changed a lot. As mentioned no card can change problems based on magestats (paying no tripple price and having a built in shield+ranged-ethereal-weapon and getting 10 channeling anyway).
What could change with some effort is that auto-includes spread over more different schools.

After reading this again and again you cannot just ask for more reasons! There are plenty and they are all written down perfectly understandable and mathematically true.

What we see at the moment is that some coreplayers/organizers start errata wizard themselfes by
- errata zap
- letting him play only one in a tournament
- even excluding him completely from a tournament.

There are good reasons to not errata too much (keep rules and cards correct) but in this particular case it seems like there is a wizard fan at arcane wonders who just blocks it. When (good) players start so many actions and discussions a reaction should be the answer.

* not to mention tower needs errate, too. This also has been calculated through excessively

** just an idea: what about changing wizards possible spellpoints to 100 instead of 120? So he actually would NEED his cheap conditions for cards to get around the same amount of cards as everybody else. Taking 10 is for that, the other 10 is for build-in weapon+shield+good channeling. And a bit for having the tower as well.
Changing only this 1 number seems a good way to me to change all his „problems“

*** what I say is that errara seems proven as needed and by not reacting players will continue to work against arcane wonders in that point. And they should better work together to enjoy the game

[Sailor Vulcan]

There have been many pages written how exactly wizard is overpowered. It has been calculated through from different persons in diefferent threads. There was even a poll about it.

What has happened is not that academy or battleground changed a lot. As mentioned no card can change problems based on magestats (paying no tripple price and having a built in shield+ranged-ethereal-weapon and getting 10 channeling anyway).
What could change with some effort is that auto-includes spread over more different schools.

After reading this again and again you cannot just ask for more reasons! There are plenty and they are all written down perfectly understandable and mathematically true.

What we see at the moment is that some coreplayers/organizers start errata wizard themselfes by
- errata zap
- letting him play only one in a tournament
- even excluding him completely from a tournament.

There are good reasons to not errata too much (keep rules and cards correct) but in this particular case it seems like there is a wizard fan at arcane wonders who just blocks it. When (good) players start so many actions and discussions a reaction should be the answer.

* not to mention tower needs errate, too. This also has been calculated through excessively

** just an idea: what about changing wizards possible spellpoints to 100 instead of 120? So he actually would NEED his cheap conditions for cards to get around the same amount of cards as everybody else. Taking 10 is for that, the other 10 is for build-in weapon+shield+good channeling. And a bit for having the tower as well.
Changing only this 1 number seems a good way to me to change all his „problems“

*** what I say is that errara seems proven as needed and by not reacting players will continue to work against arcane wonders in that point. And they should better work together to enjoy the game

So just because enough players complain about a Mage being OP enough times, that automatically makes their theory about why that Mage is OP true?

Someone else in this thread has claimed that it's only a few particular wizard strategies that are OP. I'm not entirely certain whether that's true, but I do know that the Frugal Fire Wizard, which only includes cards from one copy of the core set, is not OP in the current global meta, because I've tested it.

As I've pointed out before, the wizard is meant to be a trickster and master manipulator. He is not meant to just overwhelm the enemy Mage with brute force. I know this because it says so right in his description on the website.

The Frugal Fire Wizard does not win by overwhelming opponents with brute force. He is a trickster and master manipulator, like wizards are supposed to be. So either some card(s) introduced after the core set broke him, or he was already OP in a core set-only meta and people weren't skilled enough to take advantage of it, or both.

To test this, I propose we have a few core-only OCTGN tournaments and keep track of how well the wizards do in each one compared to other mages, as well as what their elements are. Then repeat the whole procedure with the core set and the first expansion that was released. Then repeat the procedure with the core set and the first two expansions that were released.

Continue like this until you've added all of the expansions.



-If the wizard is broken in a core only metagame, then either some card(s) in the core set broke him, the Arcane school itself was superior to all the other schools, or the problem was something in the wizard's ability card.

-If the wizard isn't broken until a certain expansion is introduced, then card(s) in that expansion broke him. His elemental training cannot be one of the main issues here because each wizard can only be trained in one element, and those elements are shared by other mages, namely the Druid, Warlord, and Warlock.

-If the wizard breaks in a particular metagame and then breaks even more in a later metagame, then the first break is caused by one of the reasons listed above, and the second break is caused either by his training in Arcane or by his elemental training. If it's the former, then the breaking points after the first breaking point should tend to be sets which introduced arcane spells. If it's the latter then the breaking points after the first breaking point should tend to be sets which introduced elemental spells, and mages that share those elements should gain a corresponding increase in power level.

We're not going to settle this debate by merely arguing theory. We've tried settling it that way several times already and it didn't work. If you all really care about this issue and want the best outcome for the game, then you guys should all just stop arguing and actually test your assertions.

There's no need to be aggressive. Please calm down and discuss this rationally everyone.