Necromancer balance

[Crae]

So I want to talk about the (yet to be released) necromancer's balance against other mages. Before I start though, I want to say that I'm starting with a preconceived assumption that the necromancer is mostly based upon summoning non-living creatures. If that's not the case, then I guess this whole post is mostly pointless.

In the Mage Wars base set, all of the mages seem relatively balanced. Some, when played in one of their "intended ways" might be better suited to handle specific mages, but not by much. However, it looks like the upcoming expansion (necromancer and force master I think) may break that synergy.
The necromancer's is going to be summoning all kinds if undead, right? Well nearly all of the Holy mage's spell's are extra powerful agains non-living creatures. This means that straight off the bat, the necromancer is almost guaranteed a disadvantage when playing against the priestess.

If this is the case, what does that mean for tournament play? I have no experience with that so far, but do the opposing players know ahead of time what Mage class their opponent is rolling? If they do, is the necromancer's inherent disadvantage going to make it unplayable in tournaments?

I don't mind that kind of flavor (good beats evil) but shouldn't the necromancer's have a counter? Perhaps many of his spells are good at dealing with those pesky angels or temples? Every other strategy in the game seems to have an equally effective counter, so shouldn't this?

Also, general discussion about the necromancer.

[Shad0w]

You will not know what the other person is playing unless they tell you or you prescout the match.

The next 2 sets are

Forcemaster vs Warlord

Necromancer vs Druid

[SeanDeCoy]

Another thing to consider is that there might not be a one-to-one ratio of strength vs. weakness, but instead there might be more of a rock-paper-scissors kind of balance.

For instance, the Necromancer MAY be weak against the Priestess outright, but that isn't to say he couldn't be strong against the Beastmaster persay. The Beastmaster is largely weak against fire, but strong against other things. I think in the end it definitely evens out.

[Talamare]

You will not know what the other person is playing unless they tell you or you prescout the match.

The next 2 sets are

Forcemaster vs Warlord

Necromancer vs Druid

Will any of those 4 feature differing spell book sizes? (aka more or less than 120 point deck)

[Shad0w]

They are being tested at 120 points.
So another way of saying this would be that this is not a yes or no answer to your question.

[Spyros148]

I' sure the necromancer will have very nasty spells against living creatures and holy magic....and I think from my experience from other games that you play necros,undead etc he should have a swarm of low levels skeletons,zombies,animate dead spells, so maybe not have a big disadvantage as you think

[Mestrahd]

I was thinking you may have an advantage against the Priestess. I mean if the Necromancer comes with nonliving creatures Deathlock is a perfect fit. Then there's the idol that damages all living creatures. I would assume that a Necromancer would have a spell like "Reconstruction" or something that would heal undead and somehow get around the Finite Life trait. Yes, you'll be taking some more damage due to her bonuses, but you should have cheap ways of reanimating your fodder.

[Spyros148]

You  do not need  to "heal" the dead....Just raise them.....and I assume that if you have zombies ghouls and generally all these nice graveyard creatures you should have and nice conditions like rot,weak,plague ( a new one) and of course a graveyard as a spawn point...

[Crae]

Those could all be really cool ideas, and I don't mind those options. My question though, is if one Mage is supposed to be more effective against another Mage (like, I dunno, Pokemon or something like that), or if every Mage is supposed to have an effective counter for every Mage.

Sean seems to imply the former, that the Priestess is usually better vs Necromancer, and that each Mage has 1 or more Mage it's strong against and one or more it's weak against. If that's the case, great! And shadow has said that, in tournament play, you don't usually know which Mage your opponent is rolling, which I think is balancing in and of itself.

[Dragonsoul101]

One would also think that in tournament play that one would be able to change their spellbook with a set limit to a secondary book because I would be one to believe that real mages would have something to pull them out of a disadvantage. You know that one spell to bring around the balance to their to their side of the court and vice versa. I'm sure that in the rock, paper, scissors style each mage has the spells (or will have) to get them out of even the tightest of spots, at least for a small amount of time.

[Shad0w]

One would also think that in tournament play that one would be able to change their spellbook with a set limit to a secondary book because I would be one to believe that real mages would have something to pull them out of a disadvantage. You know that one spell to bring around the balance to their to their side of the court and vice versa. I'm sure that in the rock, paper, scissors style each mage has the spells (or will have) to get them out of even the tightest of spots, at least for a small amount of time.

Here is the thing with 120 points you should be able to include any meta cards you will need for the entire event. The matches are best of one so a side book does not seem very useful when you wont even know what the other person is playing unless you prescout, they have a labeled book, they tell you, or you look at the reg sheet. Side decks are far more useful if you are playing more then one game in a match.

[Teclis]

I can imagine that the necromancer has only few creatures by himself. Maybe some skeletons, zombies or ghouls... But he is able to resurrect the fallen creatures of the enemy mage from the discard pile. Maybe they gain a token that reduces their stats a bit and gives them the nonliving trait. That would be very cool! B)

[Brazil]

Another thing to consider is that there might not be a one-to-one ratio of strength vs. weakness, but instead there might be more of a rock-paper-scissors kind of balance.

For instance, the Necromancer MAY be weak against the Priestess outright, but that isn't to say he couldn't be strong against the Beastmaster persay. The Beastmaster is largely weak against fire, but strong against other things. I think in the end it definitely evens out.

But this is a TERRIBLE game mechanic, what this means is a diminished chance for a balanced match.  Imaging a round robin tournament with those three casters you mentioned:  The Necromancer, Priestess, and Beastmaster.  Assuming a Rock-Paper-Scissors style of balance, this means that every match played would not be balanced.  Sure one match you'd have the upper hand and the next be at a disadvantage...but that means darn few matches with an ideal "50-50 chance" of winning/losing.

[reddawn]

Yeah, I'm not behind DeCoy's imagining of game balance either.  Thankfully, this hasn't been my experience playing MW...most matchups feel very balanced.  I will say that certain mages have stronger early games and others have stronger late games and you should take that into account in the specific MUs, but I haven't experienced a "RPS" balance system so far.  

To be frank, if I did begin to experience that, I would stop playing MW.  Competitive games of MW take 45-90 minutes, which is acceptable with how things are currently balanced, but that's not a time investment I'm willing to put in if AW's long-term balance policy is "this mage counters this mage."

[Preacher]

Yeah, I'm not behind DeCoy's imagining of game balance either.  Thankfully, this hasn't been my experience playing MW...most matchups feel very balanced.  I will say that certain mages have stronger early games and others have stronger late games and you should take that into account in the specific MUs, but I haven't experienced a "RPS" balance system so far.  

To be frank, if I did begin to experience that, I would stop playing MW.  Competitive games of MW take 45-90 minutes, which is acceptable with how things are currently balanced, but that's not a time investment I'm willing to put in if AW's long-term balance policy is "this mage counters this mage."

Another +1 here. My experience with that kind of 'balance' in games is awful. It basically makes every 5th or 6th game (or more if certain mages are popular) about as much fun as watching paint dry for one or both players. Stone paper scissors balance is not balance at all and (not really talking about MW here) is very lazy design in my opinion.