by Saan
Koz1120 wrote:
ghbell wrote:
I haven't tested the 3 of each very well. Ultimately that Purify, while nice, would cost me 4 points or there abouts.
That list I have dropped 3 points of creatures and added a Marked for Death and a Seeking Dispel.
Adding a purify is an option but it would hurt.
I will likely take the Mana Crystal out. It doesn't belong in this deck when it comes down to it.
That list I have dropped 3 points of creatures and added a Marked for Death and a Seeking Dispel.
Adding a purify is an option but it would hurt.
I will likely take the Mana Crystal out. It doesn't belong in this deck when it comes down to it.
I'm not sure how many of each attack spell hits the "sweet spot" yet. Right now I'm leaning towards your way of thinking that having a few extra is always better than not having enough. It's good to be versitale so that way if you are having trouble in melee (due to multiple defense dice, having stacks of Weak on you, or being Stunned a lot) you still have a viable offense.
Bottom line is that right now I'm thinking it's poor planning to base your entire offense off of one thing (like say Lash + Battle Fury). Having the versatility to swich to ranged attack spells is a good thing IMO.
I agree, for the most part. You definitely need multiple attack paths. I just find that, in playing Warlock, attack spells get super restrictive mana-wise very quickly. Vs the wizard especially - its nice to have a fireball or two to chuck at the wizard, but he has lots of methods to suck the mana out of you. Generally, teleport + melee whack is going to be cheaper, mana-wise, and will set you up better for dealing more damage in later turns.
Its a tough balancing act, to be sure. I starting with 6+ attack spells in my warlock deck, and match after match I found myself trimming that down because they didnt get used.