What errata would balance all mages immediatly?

[sIKE]

Oh,  and if you're thinking about starting a thread titled "Wizard nerf necessary?" I'd recommend against it.

Bwahahaha!

[Borg]

If they would make it only able to target friendly creature, then it would make turtling in your corner too powerful and the only viable and boring strategy since enemy mage could not force you out of your forteress.

Maybe it would be a good idea then to expand on the winning conditions and create a winning condition which discourages turtling, like :

You win the game :
A- If you kill the opposing Mage
or
B- If you control 9+ zones at the end of any round ( with "control" to be defined ... ) ... just an idea

[Wildhorn]

Controlling a zone already been defined by Conquer card. It means you have at least 1 creature  and opponenent has none (pest and indered doesnt count for control).

But I like the idea. Would make swarm more viable and open new spellbook style. Would also increase utility of walls and traps imo.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I like the idea of Teleport not being able to target enemy mages. I would prefer a spell that pushes the mage two zones instead, or maybe something that makes them Blink 2.

However, more than that I would like non arcane spells that teleport creatures other than Divine Intervention.

Also, I think people underestimate new cards for balancing metagame.

Imagine that every card in the game were must haves. Once there were enough of them, none of them would necessarily be must haves anymore.

[sIKE]

Controlling a zone already been defined by Conquer card. It means you have at least 1 creature  and opponenent has none (pest and indered doesnt count for control).

But I like the idea. Would make swarm more viable and open new spellbook style. Would also increase utility of walls and traps imo.

That would require 8 creatures and Orb + Obelisk totally kills this idea.

[Shad0w]

Instead to create a new topic, you could have joined one of the already numerous topics about this subject.

I am going to merge the threads.   

[ChimpZilla]

The best suggestions I've seen on Teleport so far:

1. Make it Epic.
2. Borg's.

In that order.

I favor one because:

• It stops wand spam
• The power is on par, if not exceeds, epic spells in general.
• Kills the cascading arms race for non-arcane mages...*cough* Warlord *cough*
• Is a solution we already have, isn't tryhard ( dudeletsadderratathatsaysitcanonlytargetgreenmagesonoddturnsOMGSOCOOLNAILEDIT), and prevents rules-lawyer riverdancing in the sea of red ink already drowning this game.
• Let's board position be a thing which is kinda relevant now with what's on the horizon.
• It's a deckbuilding nerf, not mechanical, so you don't have to reference in-game if you have the non-errata'd version.

I'd like number two more if it stopped the abusive interactions with ridiculously undercosted, slow creatures.

[Borg]

I'd like to make a couple more suggestions - which do make sense to me atm - and hear your input on this.

1- Instead of focusing on making a change to the Teleport card itself, why not leave it exactly as it is ... BUT ... instead
change Nullify to become NON-MANDATORY. ( just change the "must" to "may" )

Instead of having to spend your Nullify on the first Incantation/Enchantment thrown your way, let the Nullify controlling player decide if he wants to spend his Nullify or suffer the spell's result.
This way Nullify would become more like a "counterspell" in Magic : having the potential to counter a spell but at the same time having to decide when and what exactly you're going to counter/nullify.

Sure, Nullify would get "better" with this change but certainly without becoming overpowered imo.
You can still only stop 1 spell per Nullify, but you get more control over what you counter and this could possibly be just the right medicine to tone down Teleport.

And after all .... there's still Seeking Dispel in case you want to remove a face down enchantment on the opposing Mage.

2- the second suggestion I'd like to make expands on the previous suggestion :
allow players to play multiple copies of NON-mandatory face down enchantments on an object.
atm I don't see how this could be broken ( but maybe I'm missing something and that's why I'd like to hear your input )
So what's the problem if your opponent wants to play a back-up, face down, Bear Strength on his creature ?
If I end up not destroying the first Bear Strength he's just wasted 2 mana and a Quick Action on a card that will not see play.

However, having two (non-mandatory) Nullify's in place could actually secure you of not being able to be messed with at all in a given turn ( read : teleported ). However, you've still invested two actions and 4 mana in it beforehand without knowing if you'll actually need them, making this quite balanced IMO.

[Kharhaz]

Instead to create a new topic, you could have joined one of the already numerous topics about this subject.

I am going to merge the threads.   

Is that like crossing the streams? 

[Laddinfance]

When someone asks you if you're a god Ray, you say yes!

[Wildhorn]

Instead to create a new topic, you could have joined one of the already numerous topics about this subject.

I am going to merge the threads.   

Is that like crossing the streams? 

I almost did that joke... But told to myself: Naaaa.

[Wildhorn]

@Borg:

1- It would totally overpower Nullify. Being able to decide when you can say "Nope, dont want that shit casted on me" is way too powerful.

2- Would also to be too powerful. People would stack healing charms. Or "You dispelled my Bear's Strenght? I had one in backup!"

And if you combine your two suggestion, stack Nullify, now you get an immune to magic mage.

[Dr.Cornelius]

With respect to balancing the Wizard immediately, surprised no one mentioned simply reducing the Wizard's channeling from 10 to 9.  It seems to me the Wizard's primary advantage is not in the spellbook but in channeling one additional mana.