It's all about spell points!

[Koz]

Charmyna's games are recorded on his twitch feeds on OCTGN.  In fact I just watched one where he played gate on turn 1.  I think since the gate can get 3 mana per turn that is a nice boon and it pays off faster than some of the other spawnpoints, plus mana aside it gives you an extra action per turn.  Use gate to summon a creature instead of wasting your full cast when you can use that for something else like an attack.

What is the link for these?

[Charmyna]

Charmyna's games are recorded on his twitch feeds on OCTGN.  In fact I just watched one where he played gate on turn 1.  I think since the gate can get 3 mana per turn that is a nice boon and it pays off faster than some of the other spawnpoints, plus mana aside it gives you an extra action per turn.  Use gate to summon a creature instead of wasting your full cast when you can use that for something else like an attack.

Oh, I understand what the Spawnpoint brings to the table, I had just found them too expensive and a bit restrictive (since they can only summon a certain type of creature). 

It's interesting that he's using Hydras.  In the early days Hydras were all the rage, but then people started to adapt to them with things like high armor, Agony, and Aegis, all of which make the Hydra's Triplestrike pretty weak.  However, recently I had been toying with the idea of trying them out again because I was wondering if people had stopped meta-gaming against them since they weren't showing up as much (now it's the Iron Golem that's all the rage). 

I see I'm not alone in thinking this way

Armor helps against the hydras, but above 2 armor, the effect of armor decreases rapidly. Even against well armored targets, the hydra does nice damage. The point of the hydra is, that with 9 dices you roll alot of crits, hydra has inherent counterstrike and regen! The slow is no real problem since I include 4 teleports in my book anyway. Agony, weak and divine protection are a problem, but thats where 6 dispels and purify shine at. Not many play divine protection these days anyway.
Btw, if fighting against the necromancers zombies, piercing (e.g. grizzly or deathpact slayer) wont matter at all. Additionally it will make no difference that the hydra strikes three times instead of one big hit. The only thing that matters against zombies is total dice amount (and maybe conditions like daze, stun and burn). Considering total dice amounts noone can beat the hydra.
You talked about the spawnpoint being restricive. You got a point here and this is why for a long time I preferred to use battle forge as a spawnpoint instead (i think you really need a spawnpoint to win). But, after playing with the gate+gremlins+hydra+gargoyle+gorgon archer, I dont feel like this restriction hurts that much. There has not been a situation that I could not manage with the five creatures listed (and maybe huginn). Earth golems are really nice for sure, but I prefer to be water wizard and to rely on gate+arcane creatures.

Charmyna's games are recorded on his twitch feeds on OCTGN.  In fact I just watched one where he played gate on turn 1.  I think since the gate can get 3 mana per turn that is a nice boon and it pays off faster than some of the other spawnpoints, plus mana aside it gives you an extra action per turn.  Use gate to summon a creature instead of wasting your full cast when you can use that for something else like an attack.

What is the link for these?

Its here:
http://www.twitch.tv/charmyna

I will stream a few more games with the gate opening soon.

[Stormmaster]

I know this isn't the Wizard Strategy thread (I should make one or look one up), but one of my favorite ones (especially when guarding the gate or a wizard tower) is 2 Gorgon Archers + Hydra/Gargoyle/etc for defense.
By the time something actually gets in range to do damage to your gate or tower it is so plugged full of holes from arrows and so weak from the archers putting out 2-4 weak counters per round that it hits like a little kitten.  Also a great way to take down a Grizzly or Golem or those 'big guys', they aren't so bad with a pile of weak conditions on.

[Charmyna]

I know this isn't the Wizard Strategy thread (I should make one or look one up), but one of my favorite ones (especially when guarding the gate or a wizard tower) is 2 Gorgon Archers + Hydra/Gargoyle/etc for defense.
By the time something actually gets in range to do damage to your gate or tower it is so plugged full of holes from arrows and so weak from the archers putting out 2-4 weak counters per round that it hits like a little kitten.  Also a great way to take down a Grizzly or Golem or those 'big guys', they aren't so bad with a pile of weak conditions on.

Gorgon archers are nice, but their big weakness is being teleported into the opponents horde and most good players use teleport alot! Because of the minimum range the gorgon archer cant even use his attack in this scenario.
On the other side, if your opponent teleports your hydra into his death zone, the hydra can still use its full attack and inherent counterstrike (unless its incapped).

[ringkichard]

I do wonder about Water Wizard's match up against a lightly metagamed Earth Wizard. Earth is probably still very strong against everything else, and Iron Golems seem good against Wizard's Tower, Hydras, and Gorgon Archers, while Archers are ideal against Hydras. Any thoughts?

[DeckBuilder]

Yet another excellent OP by Charmyna.

However, I would caution against a tendency to view things in black and white. "It's all about the spell points". "Mana generation over damage". "Grizzly Bear and Sniper". "Guardian Angel and Vampiress". Each iteration as the meta-game evolves is stated very confidently.

But the metagame evolves (even without releases). And opinon-makers, talented players with influence like Charmyna, should beware of creating fashions and shaping the meta!

I have found playing other games in my local meta that we have been guilty of "group think". We suddenly encounter someone else at a GamesCon who plays in a different way and we (secretly) think what a numpty and then he thrashes us. Because he is exploiting our group think and leveraging the flaws in it.

That Priestess Temple Crawl win is a good example of finding a "gap in the meta". I believe many followed Piousflea's super-aggressive Warlock build with their own variants and this played into the Priestess.

The tone of this post is about playing "attritional defensive Wizard" and is primarily focused at wizard vs. wizard "because wizard is best". This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy! Defensive wizard is best hence the most dangerous opponent is another defensive wizard hence defensive wizard becomes even better.

I am not contesting what's been written here (very valid points), just the black-and-white super confidence that this is 100% the best way. It's more complicated than that, a game of greys thankfully.

In case I did not make it clear (I don't embarrassingly gush, I'm a silent fan of Charmyna, I have chided someone for pooh-poohing the Jet Stream-Thorns-Push "trick"), the opening post has very good points and is definitely true when you build a book for an attritional strategy.

But consider the value of toolbox. By sticking entirely in school (except mandatories), you sacrifice flexibility of having the ideal answer to every situation. I'm not saying toolbox is better. Just that there is a very real trade-off here that has not been given voice. The view here is said so confidently (and is highly respected) but is also if you analyse it quite unbalanced. Valshalla in a Beastmaster swarm build as she works so well against Iron and the meta has moved against anti-swarm cards? Surely it's all about being 1 step ahead of the curve?

Another excellent thought-provoking post, even if I think it needs a few disclaimers, more blurring of what is presented as "gospel truth".

[Charmyna]

I do wonder about Water Wizard's match up against a lightly metagamed Earth Wizard. Earth is probably still very strong against everything else, and Iron Golems seem good against Wizard's Tower, Hydras, and Gorgon Archers, while Archers are ideal against Hydras. Any thoughts?

I havent faced many earth wizards with this build, so im not sure.
To compare the strength of creatures I like throwing them in a one zone arena and let them fight each other. The iron golem would do something like 5 damage each turn. The hydra will do like 4.5 crits each turn from her full attack and 2 crits from the counterstrike. Additionally the hydra will regen two damage. Therefore, at the beginning of the second round the golem will have 6.5 damage on him (maybe even more if the hydra rolls high normal damage) whereas the hydra will have 3 damage on her. Sure this is very simplified, but I think it shows that iron golem is not per se better than the hydra - even if you count in the higher mana cost of the hydra. Sure the golem has great traits, but still its not like an earth wizard has a huge advantage if fighting against a water wizard because he has golems vs hydra.
Golems are good against wizard tower, but hydras arent bad as well.
Gorgon Archers are great against Hydras if they shoot first. But, if the archer is teleported before he can shoot the hydra, then the archer is gone soon. Btw a gargoyle is great to protect the hydra from weaks. In the end, a game of gorgon archer vs hydra+gargoyle is very tricky and its difficult to say which one would win. To come to the point, I would not say that gorgon archers are ideal against hydras. They are for sure better against hydras as against other strong creatures (e.g. grizzly). But its not like archers totally counter hydras.

Yet another excellent OP by Charmyna.

However, I would caution against a tendency to view things in black and white. "It's all about the spell points". "Mana generation over damage". "Grizzly Bear and Sniper". "Guardian Angel and Vampiress". Each iteration as the meta-game evolves is stated very confidently.

But metagames evolve, especially with new cards. And opinon-makers, talented players with influence like Charmyna, should beware of creating fashions and shaping the meta!

I have found playing other games in my local meta that we have been guilty of "group think". We suddenly encounter someone else at a GamesCon who plays in a different way and we (secretly) think what a numpty and then he thrashes us. Because he is exploiting our group think and leveraging the flaws in it.

That Priestess Temple Crawl win is a good example of finding a "gap in the meta". I believe many followed Piousflea's super-aggressive Warlock build with their own variants and this played into the Priestess.

The tone of this post is about playing "attritional defensive Wizard" and is primarily focused at wizard vs. wizard "because wizard is best". This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy! Defensive wizard is best hence the most dangerous opponent is another defensive wizard hence defensive wizard becomes even better.

I am not contesting what's been written here (very valid points), just the black-and-white super confidence that this is 100% the best way. It's more complicated than that, a game of greys thankfully.

In case I did not make it clear (I don't embarrassingly gush, I'm a silent fan of Charmyna, I have chided someone for pooh-poohing the Jet Stream-Thorns-Push "trick"), the opening post has very good points and is definitely true when you build you build for an attritional strategy.

But consider the value of toolbox. By sticking entirely in school (except mandatories), you sacrifice flexibility of having the ideal answer to every situation. I'm not saying toolbox is better. Just that there is a very real trade-off here that has not been given voice. The view here is said so confidently (and is highly respected) but is also if you analyse quite unbalanced. Valshalla in a Beastmaster swarm build as she works so well against Iron and the meta has moved against anti-swarm cards? Surely it's all about being 1 step ahead of the curve?

Yet another excellent thought-provoking post, even if I think it needs a few disclaimers, more blurring of what is presented as "gospel truth".

You got me . I know there is not only black and white - especially not in Mage Wars. But, its often very difficult to paint all colors between black and white. And btw, I wanted the OP to start a fruitful discussion filled with approval and disapproval. Pressing ones point clearly, without too much doubts, helps to provoke a discussion. I know there is not one truth, there never is, and I apologize if the OP conveys that impression.

But consider the value of toolbox. By sticking entirely in school (except mandatories), you sacrifice flexibility of having the ideal answer to every situation. I'm not saying toolbox is better. Just that there is a very real trade-off here that has not been given voice. The view here is said so confidently (and is highly respected) but is also if you analyse quite unbalanced. Valshalla in a Beastmaster swarm build as she works so well against Iron and the meta has moved against anti-swarm cards? Surely it's all about being 1 step ahead of the curve?

Yeah, I dont want to discourage exploring new ways or building a flexible spell book. Its just those out of school cards should have a noticable impact on the game which makes them worth the extra cost. For example, the sunfire amulet if dissolved soon has a very small impact compared to the spell point cost. On the other side, renewing spring has similar spell point cost but might have a much bigger impact since its a conjuration that cant be dissolved the next round. To be honest, im not sure how good renewing spring is, I still need more experience with it. The point is, that you should make sure that those out of school cards stay long enough in the game to make them worth the extra cost.
Another example are creatures. IMO an out of school creature really needs to have a very noticable benefit compared to an in school creature or otherwise I would prefer to take two in school creatures instead. The Grimson Sniper might be such an example since he is the only ranged creature with range 3. The grizzly is another example because its base values compared to mana cost are so great (although I still prefer two hydras over grizzly).
Another example is heal (the level 2 one). If, as a wizard, you use heal to save a hydra, its not a great move IMO (unless its from a mage wand). The heal costs 4 spell points as does the hydra. Therefore I would prefer to summon another hydra instead of healing one. This is different if you use heal to save an out of school creature or  maybe even an in school creature with a couple enchantments since in this case the saved spell points will be alot more compared to the spell points used for heal.
If you use heal to save your mage, its a totally different story anyway.
Oh, and if you think about 2 in school creatures vs 1 out of school creature or 1 in school creature+heal, you need to consider this: In practice a creature absorbs more damage than it has life. This is because in most cases your opponent will do more damage with the last hit than the creatures remaining life. This is much in favor of two creatures as compared to one creature+heal etc.

[sIKE]

Another example is heal (the level 2 one). If, as a wizard, you use heal to save a hydra, its not a great move IMO (unless its from a mage wand). The heal costs 4 spell points as does the hydra. Therefore I would prefer to summon another hydra instead of healing one.

Be careful here, as we have discussed yes they are both 4 spell book points, but one is a FC and the other is a QC. You can heal the Hydra during the First QC phase and have him hit hard THAT turn or you could summon another Hydra that will do nothing till the next round, expect maybe get beat up or teleported off some where useless.

[aquestrion]

Charmyna you always made the book before I evern finished thinking about it....I loathe and appreciate u at the same time

I've been trying to test this out but u beat me to it dratz .

[The Dude]

This is quite the interesting take on spellbook building, but I think this applies really only to the Wizard at the moment. Don't worry, I do have a reason. The Wizard really has the most options as far as staying in school. Every other build you CAN build kind of needs outside help.

As well, this doesn't really take into account the Nature enchantments, which can be duplicated with commands, but at the same cost, which to splash is an important decision.

But, like I said, Wizard is the easiest to stay in school, as he has the most varied, and some of the best options in the game at the moment. Any splash you or I may use is in an effort to change the damage output and tempo of the natural Wizard build, and can be effective, but also very punishing, as below average dice rolls can hurt the day.

As well, there are certain curses I'm probably going to always run one of. Yes, there are often exceptions in which I won't include them, but they often are so important in the late game it's hard to leave home without them. Ghoul Rot, for example, is critical to gaining tempo in the late game banking on the waste of a dispel (yes, it's a card for a card and an action for an action, as well as 8 mana for 8 mana, but I'm using my action to act, while my opponent is forced to react, thereby giving me a turn). But, it's not always necessary.

[sIKE]

(yes, it's a card for a card and an action for an action, as well as 8 mana for 8 mana, but I'm using my action to act, while my opponent is forced to react, thereby giving me a turn). But, it's not always necessary.

Especially if you save it for the Final QC Phase of the OP Mages Init

[Moonglow]

This is quite the interesting take on spellbook building, but I think this applies really only to the Wizard at the moment. Don't worry, I do have a reason. The Wizard really has the most options as far as staying in school. Every other build you CAN build kind of needs outside help.

This could potentially explain why the Wizard has for the most part been the dominating build (although the Warlock had his day too).

[Stormmaster]

And now we have a Mage with 1st level Water spells as a trained class with the Druid for those that like those dissolves they only take up 1 point. : )

[Charmyna]

This is quite the interesting take on spellbook building, but I think this applies really only to the Wizard at the moment. Don't worry, I do have a reason. The Wizard really has the most options as far as staying in school. Every other build you CAN build kind of needs outside help.

This could potentially explain why the Wizard has for the most part been the dominating build (although the Warlock had his day too).

This and cheap spells from one elemental school, voltaric shield, zap, wizard tower and great spawnpoint. Arcane school is for sure the biggest strength of the wizard, but all the other stuff mentioned is really great as well leading to the wizard as the lonely champion.

[DarthDadaD20]

I agree- Spell points are very much a tempo in this game as card advantage,mana generation, and early leads.

I think this is something that has not really been said much before- so amazing job OP.

I often think about how much mana I have to use to counter something of my opponents and vice versa. If I have paid more to get rid of something that my opponent has, and he has paid less- I know I have just caused a mana disadvantage for myself. I dont often think about the spell points aspect of it much- So I feel like keeping that into consideration makes me a better player.

Again, great job.