Can Certain Mages Not win vs Others?!

[silverclawgrizzly]

While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.

You can put it to the test and challenge jack's wizard :p
And then you can report back, if these games have changed your mind ^^

/edit: And after the second or third match you'd even have an additional advantage since you already know all the cards he is using. I'd be trilled if you'd actually put it to the test!

I'm afraid I don't play on OCTGN except to play test new cards, and even then it's rare I'd rather just make copies and play with other local play testers.

[Reddicediaries]

While I agree with the rock/paper/scissors comparison I firmly believe any mage can beat any other. You just might have a harder time of it.

You can put it to the test and challenge jack's wizard :p
And then you can report back, if these games have changed your mind ^^

/edit: And after the second or third match you'd even have an additional advantage since you already know all the cards he is using. I'd be trilled if you'd actually put it to the test!

I'm afraid I don't play on OCTGN except to play test new cards, and even then it's rare I'd rather just make copies and play with other local play testers.

It can't hurt can it?

[silverclawgrizzly]

No but I game to enjoy time with my friends in person and have no interest in playing online. If it makes me a "weaker" player in the long run so be it. I've held my own against every single person I've played in real life and while I can't say I've won every match I've had against non-local players I can say I've won enough and played well enough to make new friends.

[Reddicediaries]

No but I game to enjoy time with my friends in person and have no interest in playing online. If it makes me a "weaker" player in the long run so be it. I've held my own against every single person I've played in real life and while I can't say I've won every match I've had against non-local players I can say I've won enough and played well enough to make new friends.

Good reasoning!

[zot]

i am in the camp that any given match any mage can beat any other. while knowing some mages have bad match up against certain other mages. skill very much skews the ratio. that skill very much includes deck building as well as in game strategy and tactical play. generally experience will improve all three.

i agree with the first five sentences romeo posted

[Beldin]

My thoughts are that it comes down to skill and having the right book. As I have said many times before you win or lose games in the book building process and that is why it is so important to get right.

If there is a wizard in your meta, or it is the match up that after long contemplation that this is your hardest match, the question becomes how do I beat this mage? Is there a counter I can offer to this style of play? Can I afford 20-30 sbp (it should rarely take this much) maybe to devote to this strategy, as long as it does not impact my plan A and B or my toolbox?

[Super Sorcerer]

ב"ה
I didn't play this match yet, but if the main problem is weak condition markers, then should the Cleansing aura help a lot to counter it?
It allows as a quick healing spell for 1 valor to heal a creature 2 damage and remove a poison condition by paying it's removal cost.
I usually carry one purify as well (because getting rid of poison blood and ghoul rot as a quick action if nice, and I rather spend my full action on a melee attack rather than remove curse).
Beside, against mages than use their full action on attacking rather than casting spells, gate to voltary is a little less effective (for getting only 1 mana per round from opponent casting). At least that was the way it felt against other melee mages, I didn't try it against the paladin yet.

[MrBubu]

I feel like people are misinterpreting what Enti is trying to say.
Try to think about it in terms of probabilities. If Player A and B are both well known figures in the MW scene and are considered to be very and about equally strong. Now A says "I will play a very aggressive Pally" and B says "I will play a Gate Wizard" and both agree to play 10 games against each other with those decks.

Now I offer you 1.01€ return on a 1€ bet on the pally. Would you take it? What if I offered 2?
In the starting post RDD was basically saying: I would only take this bet, if you offered me 9 to 1 or better.

Seems a bit much to me. But I personally would indeed offer at least 1.5:1 in that scenario.

Of course I might lose some money, but I expect to win money in the long run.

[littlenog]

So the source of this problem seems to be the spawn point advantage.

What tools does your paladin have to remove the spawn point Red?

[Reddicediaries]

Well my current paladin is currently experiencing some revisions, but it uses temple so it's better against spawnpoints than earlier iterations.
I tested both the monk crystal and temple harmonize opening and I have to say that while both opening are strong in their own way, I like monk crystal more. Yes, temple harmonize gets the temple out early, but harmonize is 2 SBP that: a. make the temple a more appealing target and b. are 2 SBP that only do 1 thing as opposed to clerics.
Red helms I don't like as much as I initially did BC their strongest creature mechanic often works against making the right tactical decision

[keejchen]

Hi! I thought I would weigh in on this thread, I think Red was referring to the conversation he and I had after Jack pimp-slapped him with his wizard (sry Red!). I have also made comments about tier differences before, so I want to try to defend my ridiculous statements.

First of all, of course skill matters, both in book building and play. If one player is a wizard and fills his book with nothing but useless cards (you can have 4xSardonyx in a book, why not?) and then stand in his corner and guards the whole game, the other player will win with any mage, if he puts any effort into it. Extreme example! But the point is that there is no auto win and skill matters (a lot!).

Now assume two players of equal skill level, this is also an unlikely example, but for the sake of argument; if they play a mirror match with exact same books, then luck will determine the outcome. Luck also matters in Mage Wars.

Another thing that can turn the tide in Mage Wars is the match-up, different choices in books and poor preparation againt a specific mages weakpoints (as in the warlock vs necro example mentioned by Enti). Deck building skill is a thing too!

Mage Wars is a game of small advantages. Sometimes it boils down to 1 life difference in who wins the game. Doesn't matter if you win by 1 life though, you win, and the opponent gets nothing. You only need that one little extra advantage that makes the difference. Every action taken is an attempt to gain a little bit of more advantage, and preferably more-so than the actions the opponent did the same round.

Statcards! Statcards are full of little advantages that makes each mage different and interesting. Channeling 1 mana more than another mage is a little advantage. It may seem like it is not a lot, but if you strip stat cards of all abilities except channeling, and then compare a 9 channel vs 10 channel, the 10 is about 11% better. Meaning in a mirror match, the channel 10 would have ~55% (hoping I did the math somewhat right here) chance of winning, not an auto-win, but a higher chance of winning, even before the first spells are selected, and again disregarding all other factors. It will matter very little in short games, but it may be the difference between casting the one spell you needed that round to not die or to kill the opponent before dying. The longer the game lasts, the bigger the advantage gets, +1 channeling is 20 mana after 20 rounds.

Red's original post was about the wizard vs paladin match-up, all mage match-ups can be analyzed individually, and one could write a book about all the different match-ups and the implications of each. However, for now, compare the statcards of the wizard and the paladin objectively, without concern for player skill (in book building or play) or luck. One could go further and analyze individual cards, such as the gate, but not all wizards bring gates, so I do not take cards into account when I say:

To me, in my personal opinion, the wizard is just better. In this particular case, it's not even a contest, the wizard wins in channeling, but also in the abilities of which the wizards are more flexible, and in the schools, I would prefer to have wizards schools with no level restrictions (and no opposed school) any day, all at the cost of having 4 less max life. I will not assign a % win chance to this match-up, whatever number I pick someone will disagree, but suffice to say the wizard will have more than 50% chance of winning, before we select the players and spellbooks are built.

This is what I mean when I say that there are tier differences. There are mages that I consider on the wizards tier, and mages I consider below the paladins, though once again, it is possible in every game for the paladin to beat the wizard, with player skill, good book building and/or luck. But he will always be at a disadvantage in my eyes.

So I said to Reddicediaries, if you wanna win more, play wizard more. And now here we are. 

Rant over, and let me just finish off with a tip of my hat to the guys behind the current ADMW, the system they introduced for using mages is a direct response to this problem, and I love it! It has made the tournament a lot more interesting and fun! ... In my opinion!

[Sailor Vulcan]

Hi! I thought I would weigh in on this thread, I think Red was referring to the conversation he and I had after Jack pimp-slapped him with his wizard (sry Red!). I have also made comments about tier differences before, so I want to try to defend my ridiculous statements.

First of all, of course skill matters, both in book building and play. If one player is a wizard and fills his book with nothing but useless cards (you can have 4xSardonyx in a book, why not?) and then stand in his corner and guards the whole game, the other player will win with any mage, if he puts any effort into it. Extreme example! But the point is that there is no auto win and skill matters (a lot!).

Now assume two players of equal skill level, this is also an unlikely example, but for the sake of argument; if they play a mirror match with exact same books, then luck will determine the outcome. Luck also matters in Mage Wars.

Another thing that can turn the tide in Mage Wars is the match-up, different choices in books and poor preparation againt a specific mages weakpoints (as in the warlock vs necro example mentioned by Enti). Deck building skill is a thing too!

Mage Wars is a game of small advantages. Sometimes it boils down to 1 life difference in who wins the game. Doesn't matter if you win by 1 life though, you win, and the opponent gets nothing. You only need that one little extra advantage that makes the difference. Every action taken is an attempt to gain a little bit of more advantage, and preferably more-so than the actions the opponent did the same round.

Statcards! Statcards are full of little advantages that makes each mage different and interesting. Channeling 1 mana more than another mage is a little advantage. It may seem like it is not a lot, but if you strip stat cards of all abilities except channeling, and then compare a 9 channel vs 10 channel, the 10 is about 11% better. Meaning in a mirror match, the channel 10 would have ~55% (hoping I did the math somewhat right here) chance of winning, not an auto-win, but a higher chance of winning, even before the first spells are selected, and again disregarding all other factors. It will matter very little in short games, but it may be the difference between casting the one spell you needed that round to not die or to kill the opponent before dying. The longer the game lasts, the bigger the advantage gets, +1 channeling is 20 mana after 20 rounds.

Red's original post was about the wizard vs paladin match-up, all mage match-ups can be analyzed individually, and one could write a book about all the different match-ups and the implications of each. However, for now, compare the statcards of the wizard and the paladin objectively, without concern for player skill (in book building or play) or luck. One could go further and analyze individual cards, such as the gate, but not all wizards bring gates, so I do not take cards into account when I say:

To me, in my personal opinion, the wizard is just better. In this particular case, it's not even a contest, the wizard wins in channeling, but also in the abilities of which the wizards are more flexible, and in the schools, I would prefer to have wizards schools with no level restrictions (and no opposed school) any day, all at the cost of having 4 less max life. I will not assign a % win chance to this match-up, whatever number I pick someone will disagree, but suffice to say the wizard will have more than 50% chance of winning, before we select the players and spellbooks are built.

This is what I mean when I say that there are tier differences. There are mages that I consider on the wizards tier, and mages I consider below the paladins, though once again, it is possible in every game for the paladin to beat the wizard, with player skill, good book building and/or luck. But he will always be at a disadvantage in my eyes.

So I said to Reddicediaries, if you wanna win more, play wizard more. And now here we are. 

Rant over, and let me just finish off with a tip of my hat to the guys behind the current ADMW, the system they introduced for using mages is a direct response to this problem, and I love it! It has made the tournament a lot more interesting and fun! ... In my opinion!

Huh. Interesting take on things. I would also like to say that skill plays a much bigger role in mw than Mage choice. Choosing a wizard over a paladin might increase your chances of winning, but probably not by very much at all. The "tiers" in Mage Wars are very close together. If the wizard has an advantage against the paladin, the advantage is not a very big one. That being said, a larger portion of the wizard's small advantage probably comes from his Arcane training rather than his abilities. And with all the holy spells that have been introduced with PvS and Academy Priestess, and considering the paladin hasn't been out for that long yet, I would be cautious about forming conclusions about what "tier" he's in just yet.

Also, there have been polls on these forums, and there is pretty much zero consensus on what mages are in what tiers. You might be right that if you don't count player skill or good deckbuilding or luck that mages will end up in different tiers. But the impact of player skill and good deckbuilding is so much larger than the impact of Mage choice that it's really hard to tell how much of an impact Mage choice actually has. Whenever a particular Mage is losing more often than winning, it could be the difficulty of learning how to play that Mage, rather than a disadvantage of the Mage itself. For instance, the johktari bm and Malakai priest are challenging to learn how to play, and for a long time everyone thought they were just really weak mages, but then we found out that we were just playing them wrong--and that took at least a couple years after the set came out.

Mage Wars is a complex game and player skill is not one dimensional. I'm not sure there are any mw players who are exactly perfectly evenly matched with each other in skill at any time. While "tiers" might exist, it would be very difficult to verify what they are.

[Enti]

It's infuriating to read here.

There are clear and distinct advantages certain mages have over other mages.

And only because there is no consensus in the polls doesn't mean that it does not exist.

The main reason why many people think "all mages are more or less even - and if there's a gap between them this gap is not that wide" is because Mage Wars is (not yet) played on a professional level.

I'm sure some of you know Magic the Gathering. If that game would only be played casual - like Mage Wars is played at the moment - people would think the exact same thing. That there is no "strongest deck" or "best tactic", that is always boils down to skill and luck (far more luck than in MW, just saying :p).

Every casual gamer who invests 5-15 hours a week would have his own view and his own opinion about it. But because in Magic there are many people who play it for a living, literally earning tens of thousands of Dollars, they invest far more time and effort and that way they are able to actually build the best decks. Figuring out the best card combination in their 60 cards decks by trial and error and with the help of mathematics.

Thinking that MW is sooo much more complex and  therefore such a distinction is not feasible really startles me. Of course there are significant differences in the powerlevel of some mages.
And of course there are builds which are inherently superior to other builds. Red's example is a good one.
Paladin (no matter which build) against a gatewizard + gorgon archer certainly reduces the chances for a paladin noticeable.

And everyone who is denying that is welcome to fight me ^^
On OCTGN. I'm going to build this wizard now. And then we'll see! :p


/edit: And by the way I agree with the assessment that skill is even more important than the choice of mage. Everyone who played 100+ games could easily beat a novice who has not yet 10 games played. Even if he'd play with a wizard and the experienced player would play with Siren. Doesn't matter because the difference in skill is too big. He could even play with an apprentice-mage and would still win.

But the more even the skill of the player gets, the more important gets the choice and book of the actual mage.
Because as Keejchen pointed out, every small advantage counts and can make the difference in the end.

I hope nobody is offended ^^

[Sailor Vulcan]

It's infuriating to read here.

There are clear and distinct advantages certain mages have over other mages.

And only because there is no consensus in the polls doesn't mean that it does not exist.

The main reason why many people think "all mages are more or less even - and if there's a gap between them this gap is not that wide" is because Mage Wars is (not yet) played on a professional level.

I'm sure some of you know Magic the Gathering. If that game would only be played casual - like Mage Wars is played at the moment - people would think the exact same thing. That there is no "strongest deck" or "best tactic", that is always boils down to skill and luck (far more luck than in MW, just saying :p).

Every casual gamer who invests 5-15 hours a week would have his own view and his own opinion about it. But because in Magic there are many people who play it for a living, literally earning tens of thousands of Dollars, they invest far more time and effort and that way they are able to actually build the best decks. Figuring out the best card combination in their 60 cards decks by trial and error and with the help of mathematics.

Thinking that MW is sooo much more complex and  therefore such a distinction is not feasible really startles me. Of course there are significant differences in the powerlevel of some mages.
And of course there are builds which are inherently superior to other builds. Red's example is a good one.
Paladin (no matter which build) against a gatewizard + gorgon archer certainly reduces the chances for a paladin noticeable.

And everyone who is denying that is welcome to fight me ^^
On OCTGN. I'm going to build this wizard now. And then we'll see! :p


/edit: And by the way I agree with the assessment that skill is even more important than the choice of mage. Everyone who played 100+ games could easily beat a novice who has not yet 10 games played. Even if he'd play with a wizard and the experienced player would play with Siren. Doesn't matter because the difference in skill is too big. He could even play with an apprentice-mage and would still win.

But the more even the skill of the player gets, the more important gets the choice and book of the actual mage.
Because as Keejchen pointed out, every small advantage counts and can make the difference in the end.

I hope nobody is offended ^^

Not offended. If I may ask, how do you know what the tiers are then? Since last time I looked at a poll on these forums it wasn't just casual players who weren't agreeing on a tier list. There are probably plenty of players who are very competitive at using a couple of mages, novice or near novice level at using a couple other mages and moderately good at using the rest. I suppose if we take two polls, one of gen con finalists and one of admw finalists, we might get a better idea of what the tiers are if there are any. To be honest if there are tiers they might be based around individual deck strats rather than whole Mage classes. For instance, gate wizard specifically might be tier 1, rather than wizards in general.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reddicediaries]

Well right now, Gate wizard is one of if not the only high level way to play wiz imo.
Tbh. have not seen any non gate wizard since the nerf except elemental lord.