Ok, so this may get a bit messy. My one ground rule for this thread is to not have it become overtaken by discussions on encumber. There are other threads for that, go there. I've been trying to build out different parties and something is bugging me. Wizards are very flexible, they can be built in many different ways. For example you can have fireball wizards, encumber wizards, wall building wizards,or utility wizards of all different kinds. Essentially you can never be sure what type of wizard you're running into, so it's hard to specialize your cards against them, instead you need generalized solutions like smokebomb or counterspell (notice that the solutions to wizards require wizards). Warriors, on the other hand, are more or less all the same. They may use step attacks, or all out attack for one big hit, or stabs, or maybe even slicing or something else odd like that. But in the end each warrior is more or less trying to do the same thing in the game, get close and attack you. This to me is an issue. Wizards are assymettric, due to their unique abilities you need to use different tactics or cards. Warriors, all being very similar, are much easier to plan for. I think warriors need more options.
Then again, warriors have much higher damage output, more hitpoints and better mitigation... It isn't same as variety or flexibility, but instead compensates for the lack. Can't really say which way balance tips at the moment, but increasing flexibility should in most cases reduce other benefits. And there's (theoretical?) archtypes of "tank" and "area denial" warriors.
I think ranged attack weapons would be a great way to open up different warrior builds and bows would be sweet.
At the moment, I'm trying three different things with three warriors: Chop, Bash, and Stab, corresponding vaguely to the Martial Skills (though you'll notice I have no Penetrating in there). This is similar to how Wizards may be channeled by Arcane Skills boosting Fire or Electrical. Results? Yes, they play very differently. If you haven't run a Bash Warrior, try it: it's difficult. The enemy keeps being pushed away! On purpose! Therefore, I run my Bash Warrior together with my Stab Warrior. This is my best party so far. I'm running my Chop Warrior in another party with two Priests. The idea is that the Priests put various Frenzy effects on the Warrior, then the use of Chops effectively doubles damage output. These are also mostly Dwarves, so I wait for the enemy to reach me (while I'm preparing Frenzy), unlike the Bash-and-Stab setup. Effectiveness? Not so much yet, unfortunately. I can see it would work best in single-player, but even then I'm not sure I have it quite right. And notice again that I've said nothing about Penetrating (and thus Impaler-based builds). But that's all I've got for now. Edited P.S.: It's pretty easy to guess that ranged weapons will come in when they introduce the Rogue class. I imagine that "Ranger" will be a build of Rogue.
Why should warriors have more options? In a game filled with so many types of utility and choices, I think a baseline class you can count on to do it's job (damage) is a nice feature. Even then, warriors can do loads of other things for their team, Battlefield tactics (giving cards away) Major's Helmet, they can Shout away blocks Bellowing Helm, have additional team movement Commander's Cap, or forfeit attacks to equip weapons that have blocks draws( Dancer's Dagger, sitting on victory points and soaking up cards from the enemy team. The problem right now, is that their attack options are so potent, why would you "waste" Pips on Utility when you can have raw damage to do the best control in the game: Death. While warriors don't quite have the flexibility that 4 Arcane Item slots have, do you really think they should? would it be fair to other classes with less health and armor options, would anyone even use that flexibility given the damage alternative?
This isn't so much about power, rather tactical options. Warriors are a known quantity at the start of the game. Your opponent knows what they'll be trying to do. You still have options as a player, but in a general tactical sense a warriors got to do what a warriors got to do. They only have their one trick, it's a good trick (death), but that's it. I tend to think that is a problem. For example, if you want to build out a wizard to try to control your opponents warriors it's relatively trivial. Some mix of encumber, damage, some forced moves, and maybe some armor/card discard. This doesn't guarantee victory over the warrior, but it gives the wizard player tools against everything a warrior is going to try to do. Now imagine the reverse scenario. Playing a warrior you have no idea what the wizard player may have. You may want to play around encumber, but maybe it's a wall building wizard instead, or a fireball throwing wizard. The warrior player has to alter their tactics on the fly in a way that wizards aren't forced to do. This also get's reflected in a warrior's build, if you're worried about wizards you can only do so much; add movement, alter your blocks, maybe use arrogant armor. And, due to the flexibility of wizards, these options are of differing value depending on what type of wizard you face. In many ways wizards have a huge amount of unique abilities, priests have a smaller amount, and warriors have very few. It's an admittedly poor anology, but much like the colors in Magic I'd expect more even spreading of the abilities. If one color get's most of the abilities it can overwhelm the others with superior options. An example of that, is that many of the direct answers to wizards, such as counterspell or forgetfulness, lie in wizard cards. That can't exactly lead you to an environment with fewer wizards. Much how wizards have the key warrior containing ability in encumber, I would think warriors should have the best answer to wizards. To me that would probably be card discarding.
What martial skills are useful for Stab warriors? My warriors occasionally use Impaler skills, but most of the time they're using Frenzied Slicing because I just don't have anything else that's useful.
That's what I was trying to say with that "vaguely" bit. No Martial Skill helps my Stab Warrior. Edit: Lemme just rephrase this. I do use Impaler on that Warrior for Puncturing Stab and what-have-you. Trained Impaling gives a copy of the latter, thus fitting the "Stab" theme. And without ANY anti-Armor stuff, I'd probably die anyway, so why not? Otherwise, the Impaler card is just some deck-cycling and attachment-flushing.
Encumber doesn't counter warriors, all everyone does is run human teams with lots of team shift/run/push cards. Warriors are a flat class and are overpowered - either they have the cards to kill you (i.e. lots of move cards and powerful attack cards) or they draw nothing and are just meat shields to hold the point. Warriors need a major overhaul for PvP, but they are fine in PvE. The warrior meta shouldn't be, "Either draw good cards or lose." That's why there virtually no dwarf warriors - no movement options, rendering their attack cards worthless. I would be in favor of nerfing most warrior cards (or making the warrior cards that deal anything over 11 cost a red orb or above) if it meant warriors got a few more ranged options such as crossbows and such, because right now the way warriors play make them a bit of a joke. They cannot be countered by most classes unless they get bad draws. It's not a good way to balance a game.
I find that even though wizards have a wider range of abilities, it's actually very hard to focus them on a specific role because of how their equipment slots work; I can't make a pure Shock wizards, because there is 12 cards worth of slots (Arcane Items) that electrical cards can't be found on. I can't make a pure Wind wizard because there is 12 cards worth of slots (Staffs) that also don't support it. Fire wizards seem to be the only pure build that is supported by all of the class specific items, including skill slot, which Fireball and fire tiles aside seems to be the worst build of wizard. (Not even Ice spells have an Arcane Skill, even though Cone of Cold appears on a couple Arcane Items; And Cone of Cold is the only frost card that goes that far as far as I know) The only saving grace is that Frost and Wind are very complimentary playstyles, and use up the Staff slots and Arcane Items respectively.
Heh I ran two dwarf warriors and a dwarf mage for some time with some success. The wizard had a bunch of winds of war/whirlwind/frost/terrain attachment cards. The idea is to get them to use their moves first and try to bait out move cards with the wizard's antics, then whirlwind the table while my warriors still had their move card and hopefully a Dancing Cut-type card. Sometimes I'd pass three times in a row, let my opponent use all three basic move cards to get near the victory locations, and get a lucky whirlwind that either gets an easy kill or chunks the enemy so hard that having two 33 health warriors becomes an overwhelming advantage. Dwarf warriors are mostly for cheesy builds, but I can attest the health advantage is a nice thing to have.
I'll use a MTG Response. Warriors are Green Wizards are Red/Blue Priests are White/Black If you want Warriors to have a splash of another color, they have to give up some of the power that they currently have. What would you give up?
I think what you say is true, but I don't think it's a balance problem and I don't think it will ultimate lead to too many wizards. If it's just a matter of warrior vs wizard, then the wizard will probably win because they are able to (more-or-less) control any type of warrior. But I think a key thing missing in what you've described is the fact that games aren't 1v1 battles. With the aid for other characters, a warrior can cut down a wizard pretty damn quickly. Warriors may be 'only' about death (both dealing it to the enemies, and avoiding it for themselves), but that's perhaps the most important part of the game. Wizard spells such as armour removal, forced moves, and walls, are not going to win the game on their own. Ultimately, to win the game, the team either needs to be able to kill the enemy or to tank damage at the victory squares - both of which warriors excel at. It may well be that wizards are more diverse than warriors, but I don't think warriors are in any danger of becoming extinct.
I think the deck building options for each class right now are very much in line with the classic archetypes of wizard, cleric, and warrior. Can you suggest some card ideas for the warrior that fit within the current framework? In the same way that wizards can have very different decks, your defense against those decks can be just as variant.
They are, but warriors are OP right now. They can deal far more dmg than either the priest or wizard can. A lot of the cards that hit for more than 11 or step move for more than 2 should have costs that require power tokens greater than yellow, and shouldn't be in multiplayer. They clearly break warriors and I'm sure the data Blue Manchu has reflects that. Specifically, how many warriorless teams are there? Most likely less than 15%, and even smaller once you go above 1000 elo.
I on the other hand have to fight wizard teams or wizard priest teams every 3rd fight or so and whirlwind is driving me mad, and I'm over 1000 so I have no idea where you get your numbers from. Even then I see 2 wizards warrior, or two priests warrior, rarely more then 1 warrior ever. Stop pulling numbers out of your ass and assuming, I see you doing that in every thread
In mp above 1k elo I feel there are two teams (setting aside leadership go infinite priests) 1) team step-kill 1-2 warriors with step attacks, big damage, and all out attack. 0-1 frenzy/battle cleric 1 wind/ice/smoke/counter spell wizard (I call these "batman wizards") 2) bombardment 2-3 encumber/lava/fireball wizards (I call these "elementalists") 0-1 unholy well priests And you basically run what you have equipment for. Step kill wins both small boards, bombard wins both big boards, and they split the middle distance. I think power level is close, and the mus are interesting, but two major archetypes is pretty shallow meta. Note that all teams use wizards, going to the basic point of the thread.
Don't be obtuse. Giving numbers as estimates provide useful benchmarks for other players to compare to. Whirlwind is also clearly an OP card that relies on nothing more than luck. Sometimes I've used that card and it's thrown the enemy onto a random lava tile, while other times it puts them directly next to my wizards. I hate having to depend on it, but it's too powerful not to include. It's probably best if whirlwind enemies was replaced just with whirlwind, because as of right now it's really unfair for warriors. But since warriors have cards that hit for over 11, there's really no way for wizards to survive over 3-4 rounds unless they get a whirlwind card at some point. Eventually a warrior team with even a bit of priest support will be able to close the distance on any wizard team and one shot them. I'm running a walls/lava/volcano/whirlwind/encumber team and without whirlwind I think this team would have approx. 25-40% less wins.
Throughout the campaign, we face radically different types of warriors. These different types of warriors require us to adapt our tactics in order to beat them. War Monkeys fight very differently than Trees which fight differently than Mercenaries or Lizardmen. When we get to MP we lack that same vibrant diversity in warrior tactics. Which reduces the tactics we need to consider. Wizards have far more options, though they too can't do everything that the campaign wizards can. I would like to see more options for warriors in MP, not that those options need to be as powerful.
