Reply: Mage Wars:: Strategy:: Re: Warlock weakest of all mages?

by Koz1120

MajaiofDreams wrote:

Allow me to give a more elaborate answer. I am still a fairly new player and have less than a dozen games under my belt. But the idea of game balance always intrigues me.

The way I am looking at it is that all the mages are very close in balance. Even if the Warlock is the weakest, I do not see it by a large margin.

I said exactly the same thing in the other thread. Unless someone wants to pretend that absolute perfect balance has been achieved with these mages (nearly impossible in any game system), then one of them has to fall slightly behind the others. I think it's the Warlock, but only by a bit. So, we agree here.

And when you say weakest, do you mean that he has a lesser chance of winning? If that is the case, then I say no. There are so many factors with all the spells that weigh heavily into it. And with each new expansion, I am sure the balance of power will shift a bit.

It is true that at this point in the game; no mage is better at offensive spells than any other, save for spellbook costs. A fire wizard is equal to a warlock in the realm of fire magic. Neither has an ability or piece of equipment that exclusively makes them better at those spells. I prefer lightning thematically, but I love the burn ability. It can do so much long term damage. A stun is nice to remove a creature for a bit and that can be crucial. But the burn effect with good rolling can drop creatures very efficiently.

I'm not comparing Stunning a creature vs. putting a Burn on a creature, I'm comparing Stunning a MAGE vs. putting a Burn marker on them. Stunning a mage is huge. Even Dazing a mage is a big deal.

I do feel the Beastmaster’s pet ability is a bit better than the blood reaper ability due to my play style. I do not like taking big risks like that. Sacrificing a chunk of my life that I may not get back is a big risk. I prefer the ability to make a new minion a pet without the drawback. But to the right player, this ability of the warlocks can do some damage. I am also someone who tries to keep my mage from taking any damage. In most games I played, the winner won with a considerable amount of life left over. So sending out a blood reaper or two will not be a huge drawback.

I'm not sure if you are playing the ability wrong or are just saying it wrong. You NEVER get the loss of life back from the Bloodreaper. It's not damage, it's loss of life, meaning your life total is reduced. Permanently.

Personally I enjoy the curse weaving ability.

So do I actually.

I think that is a very useful ability if you capitalize on it. I play a curse heavy warlock and focus on minion destruction, so I get a big recycling engine of curses going. This is his best ability to me.

But therein lies the problem with the ability. It's the ONLY mage ability that is dependent on what your opponent is playing. What if you are facing a mage with either no creatures, or very few? By your own admission the Warlock's BEST ability has been neutralized. No other mage has that problem. I personally have a Wizard deck that focuses on movement and attack spells with only 4 creatures in the deck that are there for emergency purposes only. The Warlock's "best" ability is essentially useless against that deck, while the Wizard's Voltaric Shield will be a major factor.

I enjoy his pentagram as well. The ethereal quality of it was extremely frustrating to my opponent on the first game it was played. I did a significant amount of damage to a variety of the minions and was always able to add a couple extra mana each turn.

Pentagram is the worst spawnpoint, hands down. Who cares about the ethereal trait? Why would anyone waste resources attacking it?

Over all I feel that what makes the mage better or not is the skill of the spellbook build. The abilities on the card add some flavor and a little boost. But they do not always have to define the mage. I think the strength of the mage is in the school and the spells within said school.

Then the next Dark mage will just make the Warlock obsolete if it all comes down to schools. You've just made an argument as to why the Dark school is good, not the Warlock.

The wizard is hands down my favorite mage, but it is strictly because of his school access. His voltaric shield and arcane zap are nifty. But I play so far from the fray that neither ability sees much play at all.
The only mage that I feel that really gets constant use of all their abilities is the Beastmaster. The pet and quick cast creature abilities are a staple of him. In all the games I have played, the other mages use their abilities a fraction of how much he does. But does it necessarily make him better? I do not think so.
A mage can do perfectly fine without relying on their abilities.

This is an odd statement to me and I would like to see how your games are played. By what you are saying here, the next Holy mage will be basically indistinguishable from the Priestess since abilities don't matter, only the school access. Personally, I see the Priestess's ability to gain life (not heal, GAIN) is significant and if used correctly should be gaining her life almost every turn. Removing status markers is a big deal too.

So in my experience, I feel the warlock is not underpowered. The fact that he has 1 lower channeling makes me think this was done to keep his power in check. Dark and fire schools are a vicious combination, and they harmonize well. All the dark demons that deal in fire and are immune to it as well. It is a great combination. Do any other 2 schools harmonize in such a way?

And the game is still in its fledgling stages, several of the schools have not even been sufficiently fleshed out yet. Once all schools are on equal footing, and all schools represented in a mage. I think we can revisit this and really see how they all measure up.

I'll finish by repeating what I said in the other thread. I think the Warlock is good, I really do, and I really enjoy playing him due to flavor, but he falls just a bit short on the power curve.

The best point that has been made in either thread, was on the other forums where a poster said that the Warlock isn't as good as any other mage at what that mage is best at, but he is better than them at where they are weak. I agree actually, and it's something to think about.