Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Brazil on July 07, 2013, 01:22:47 PM
-
So I have only played a few dozen games but I am one of the stronger players in my play group. ( I'm just qualifying that I'm a solid player but not necessarily a "Master".)
So the Harry Potter mechanic - is Wand Wars. It appears that if one player can blow up the other player's wand while not getting his own blown up, that gives that player a nearly overwhelming advantage. (Rarely when I play, if I'm able to be the player who's wands live, do I lose the game.)
This I believe is caused by a number of factors - Direct damage spells can be super potent, that and the ability to put teleport on a wand, can keep your Mage out of danger while he plinks away at creature and/or temples. Not to mention putting Resurrection on a wand means you never lose the battle of "Ran out of Creatures in Spell Book". It's hard to build an effective spell book based on Direct damage, because you run out of spells too fast unless you bind your direct damage to a wand. Too many creatures to deal with and opposing mage to deal with. You'd have to commit a huge portion of your spell book to direct damage, and that would leave you woefully short on Creatures and other utility spells you'd need to deal with problems that come up.
Someone who builds a deck based on creatures could probably get away without a wand....but the clock is ticking, the longer the game goes, the higher the risk of running out of creatures, where as this is not an issue for the Wanded caster.
The game can get really ugly really fast if something gets cast that you can't deal with like a nasty Curse put on you when you're out of disenchants. So it's pretty important to stock up on those....but you only get 6. Where as a mage who's wand hasn't blown up, by only having one disenchant in your spell book can cast it an unlimited number of times if he can keep his wand safe.
So the just of what I'm getting at is: It seems to me that wands are just way too important in the game. The game is often won or lost by blowing up your opponent's wand while keeping your own safe. That seems to be the single most important factor in determining the outcome of the game. I'm likening it to a Harry Potter wizard battle, whomever successfully casts "Dispelliamus" and disarms the opposing wizard wins. (Of course that analogy is a bit exaggerated. It is still possible to win without wands, but I have to say that the advantage is hugely in the favor of the mage who wins the wand battle.
Things to solve the problem:
Cantrips to me seem to be the biggest possible solution to the wand issue. The biggest problem is when a mage can no longer deal with something; He runs out of creatures to throw into the frey, or gets cursed and runs out of disenchants or gets hit with effects, and can't get rid of them (Like Weakness). If there were utility cantrips out there that did everything you need to do, like disenchant, or get rid of conditions, or resurrection(Or animate dead...for evil folk) and the spell were a cantrip....but one that was harder or more expensive to cast than the non-cantrip version....at least every mage could still fall back on a cantrip to deal with something.
Another option is make Wands indestructible (By rule). Then the wand battle goes away. Just make a rule that "Spellbound" objects can't be destroyed.
Or maybe just release some "Indestructible Wands".
If the wands can't be blown up, then the focus of the game will turn away from trying to blow up each other's wands.
I don't know that that's the best solution, but something. (I believe is needed), to take the focus away from the early game "Wand battle" that can be so critical to the outcome of the game.
-
I've played a few games so far and other people have talked about their spellbooks on this forum, and I've yet to see anyone having this issue. What kinds of spellbook builds are the people in your playgroup using? The metagame of your playgroup might be more of the problem, rather than the metagame of Mage Wars as a whole.
-
I agree with Imaginator. I've never encountered a problem similar to the one you describe.
Unless I anticipate a longer match I rarely consider either of the two wands. I prefer having two or three copies of spells I use often. Does your play group have multiple core sets and/or spell tomes 1 or 2 purchased? In your description it seems that the wands are used to extend the playability of cards that players don't readily have an abundance of. If card availability is not the problem then perhaps there is dead space in player spell books (spells that get little to no use). Post your book build in spellbook construction; I'm sure the community will pitch you some solid adjustment ideas.
Also, I completely agree that spellbound objects should never be able to be destroyed. INVINCIBLE THOUGHTSPORES... FOREVAR!
But here's the thing... they'll never do it. :'(
-
One of the things I love about this game is the variety of viable approaches.
This thread suggests that wands are uber important. A previous thread suggests they are an inefficient mana sink.
Who knows?
Local metas will have a profound effect on the efficacy of particular spells.
My own take is that wands can be part of a good wizard control deck. Elsewhere there is always the risk of a dissolve taking out quite a bit of mana investment. Should I then protect my wand? But that tue up even more mana...
Choices, choices! Love it.
-
People play wands in touney builds?
In 80% of the build I have seen wands do not get used or are a toss in due to extra points.
-
People play wands in touney builds?
In 80% of the build I have seen wands do not get used or are a toss in due to extra points.
This.
The spellbind mechanic is a neat idea, but paying 5 mana to essentially do nothing is not great. I'd easily play a familiar before I'd play a wand.
-
So I have only played a few dozen games but I am one of the stronger players in my play group. ( I'm just qualifying that I'm a solid player but not necessarily a "Master".)
So the Harry Potter mechanic - is Wand Wars. It appears that if one player can blow up the other player's wand while not getting his own blown up, that gives that player a nearly overwhelming advantage. (Rarely when I play, if I'm able to be the player who's wands live, do I lose the game.)
This I believe is caused by a number of factors - Direct damage spells can be super potent, that and the ability to put teleport on a wand, can keep your Mage out of danger while he plinks away at creature and/or temples. Not to mention putting Resurrection on a wand means you never lose the battle of "Ran out of Creatures in Spell Book". It's hard to build an effective spell book based on Direct damage, because you run out of spells too fast unless you bind your direct damage to a wand. Too many creatures to deal with and opposing mage to deal with. You'd have to commit a huge portion of your spell book to direct damage, and that would leave you woefully short on Creatures and other utility spells you'd need to deal with problems that come up.
Someone who builds a deck based on creatures could probably get away without a wand....but the clock is ticking, the longer the game goes, the higher the risk of running out of creatures, where as this is not an issue for the Wanded caster.
The game can get really ugly really fast if something gets cast that you can't deal with like a nasty Curse put on you when you're out of disenchants. So it's pretty important to stock up on those....but you only get 6. Where as a mage who's wand hasn't blown up, by only having one disenchant in your spell book can cast it an unlimited number of times if he can keep his wand safe.
So the just of what I'm getting at is: It seems to me that wands are just way too important in the game. The game is often won or lost by blowing up your opponent's wand while keeping your own safe. That seems to be the single most important factor in determining the outcome of the game. I'm likening it to a Harry Potter wizard battle, whomever successfully casts "Dispelliamus" and disarms the opposing wizard wins. (Of course that analogy is a bit exaggerated. It is still possible to win without wands, but I have to say that the advantage is hugely in the favor of the mage who wins the wand battle.
Things to solve the problem:
Cantrips to me seem to be the biggest possible solution to the wand issue. The biggest problem is when a mage can no longer deal with something; He runs out of creatures to throw into the frey, or gets cursed and runs out of disenchants or gets hit with effects, and can't get rid of them (Like Weakness). If there were utility cantrips out there that did everything you need to do, like disenchant, or get rid of conditions, or resurrection(Or animate dead...for evil folk) and the spell were a cantrip....but one that was harder or more expensive to cast than the non-cantrip version....at least every mage could still fall back on a cantrip to deal with something.
Another option is make Wands indestructible (By rule). Then the wand battle goes away. Just make a rule that "Spellbound" objects can't be destroyed.
Or maybe just release some "Indestructible Wands".
If the wands can't be blown up, then the focus of the game will turn away from trying to blow up each other's wands.
I don't know that that's the best solution, but something. (I believe is needed), to take the focus away from the early game "Wand battle" that can be so critical to the outcome of the game.
You make a lot of assumptions that are incorrect, and most likely because your play group isn't large or you don't get a challenge.
No one will go into a game without being ready to trash the Opponents wands, and honestly when everyone takes into account the wands then it is no longer an issue, and will likely rotate out of spell books because they are a Kill on sight item. So then what's wrong with them?
And before Harry potter, wands existed and have been about of fantasy genre, so it is honestly a thing that has always been in the game.
Secondly, the spell bound to the wand has to be paid for, so aside from not having to have more than one, there is no great advantage unless you cast it more times than copies of that spell in your book. Also it's a risk because if you cast the wand and it is dissolved you lose mana and take a hit in whatever strategy you want to develop.
-
My immediate thought is that you're not being aggressive enough. Having a wand when your opponent is out of ways to destroy equipment can give you a huge advantage in a severely protracted game, but if the game ends on turn 7, it probably wasn't worth it.
-
I found the OP quite an interesting read - simply to get a perspective on a different meta. Currently the only wand I use is the holy one which can remove various effects (mainly weakness), otherwise I don't see very much value in the spell bound versions.
It sounds like your games are going for a long time, whats your average play time?
-
i have to agree with the notion that your assumptions are terribly wrong, on the borderline of trolling. but I know nobody in the MW community would do that.
when I first started playing we had 6 hour long games that resembled more like Sim city then Mage wars. I would agree in those games wands ate vital.
but every comp game I played has ended in less then 20 turns. ask your self what you need your wand for? for example I used to run wand+battle fury. but the wand would be dissolved after in use it once. now I run 3 battle fury.
there are very few spells that I consider worthy to attach to wand/helm
battle fury, charge (for iron golems), and attack spells.
just for a laugh try a game where your core involves a combination of spells that kill the other mage before turn 10. (this usally means 110 mana of spells to make 32-38 damage). see if there wands help them then.
-
I like the idea of wands, but much like spawnpoints, they are not as useful as they first seem.
I've seen new players that at first assumed that a wand spell was free. As stated above, make sure you all realize that you still have to pay for the wanded spell.
Otherwise, I think this is a product of local meta/groupthink. I rarely use a wand, and if I do it's usu for something very specific to that game. They need to be cheap to be worth it, but they're (currently) too easy to dissolve to waste the ap.
-
place a wand with decoy as a "bluff" (stated in rules as OK). make it get dispelled, all enchantments turn face up when dispelled. the enchantment states you get 2 mana when it is destroyed. all of a sudden you have a 2 mana advantage over other mage and made them waste a dissolve (2 points) for a wand + decoy (2+1 for arcane, or any element school)
-
place a wand with decoy as a "bluff" (stated in rules as OK). make it get dispelled, all enchantments turn face up when dispelled. the enchantment states you get 2 mana when it is destroyed. all of a sudden you have a 2 mana advantage over other mage and made them waste a dissolve (2 points) for a wand + decoy (2+1 for arcane, or any element school)
Errm, no wand lets you spell bind an enchantment so how would this work?
-
(rule book p15) note: you may assign a spell to your familiar that you do not intend to cast (or cannot cast) as a "bluff"
this is a note so not a rule, so I assumed it worked for spellbound spells you don't intend on using. it matches thematically and is based on a similar rule (familiar v spellbound)
remember you don't cast decoy you keep it face down and it auto reveals when it is destroyed
-
Per the rulebook's spellbind section
When you cast a spell with the Spellbind trait,
you may immediately bind a spell to it. You can
choose any spell from your spellbook that fulfills the
limitations on the Spellbind object. For example, the
Mage Wand can only bind an incantation spell, so
you could not bind an attack spell or enchantment
to it. Place the bound spell face down under the
Spellbind object.
You cannot bind decoy on a magewand. Even if you could, when the mage wand is destroyed the decoy would be revealed without effect as it was never cast.
-
with familiars you can place the spells that you can't cast as a bluff, so bluff with your wand.
and decoy does resolve when it is destroyed. the card states that
-
First off, Decoy would be discarded in that case, not destroyed.
In the second place, spellbind only allows the type of effect given in the description to be bound, so Mage Wand can only bind incantations.
In the third place, I'm not entirely convinced that the "(or cannot cast)" means spells that the familiar could never cast. It could just mean that the spell doesn't need to be one you have enough mana between your familiar and your mage to cast.
-
Sdougla2 is correct, you cannot place cards the familiar is incapable of casting on it. You can place ones you can't afford but are still a legal type in the first place.
-
OK I am still confused about the bluff wording so I made a topic about it in rules discussion.
because "cannot cast" should be better defined. a spell can or cannot be cast. saying its a mana only restriction should be mentioned.
as for decoy, refer to page 12
"if your familiar is destroyed before it casts the spell you assigned to it, the spell is destroyed" (note destroyed not discarded)
decoy is destroyed you gain 2 mana
-
You cannot bind decoy on a magewand. Even if you could, when the mage wand is destroyed the decoy would be revealed without effect as it was never cast.
Cast = Legally binded
-
I find wands are usually a waste of mana/actions, unless you are ahead in tempo and your objective is to bait a Dissolve.
-
Wands are pretty much KOS (Kill On Sight) in most of the games I've played.
So for 5 extra mana you can cast the spell (at least once that turn) but for the 5 extra mana it eats a dissolve, and I usually keep a Reverse Magic or Nullify on myself so it eats a dispell too.
Since both of us usually just kill the wand right away it just really eats spell book points.
There was ONE game I bound a Chain Lightning to a wand and chain casted Chain Lightning and tore into stuff and kept 4-5 things stun locked. It was very mana intensive but kind of cool. But again that only happened once. Usually I cast it and it gets destroyed the next turn or maybe after 2 turns.
Although I guess I could try teleport or somehow else bind the other mage more than 2 spaces away. But then I wouldn't be within 2 spaces either so depending what is bound it might not be that useful.
-
I find wands are usually a waste of mana/actions, unless you are ahead in tempo and your objective is to bait a Dissolve.
This.
But here's the thing... read it again.
-
I find wands are usually a waste of mana/actions, unless you are ahead in tempo and your objective is to bait a Dissolve.
This.
But here's the thing... read it again.
Ok you managed to confuse me. Did you want to say that I'm right or that I'm wrong?
-
Wands are a luxury item. If you have the quick action (or battleforge) and 5 mana to cast a wand, it is really nice to be able to cast a spell more than once. Just make sure you actually CAST the spell. Nothing sucks more than equipping a wand with a hurl boulder only to get it dissolved before you actually cast the hurl boulder.
On the other hand, if you are sufficiently short on mana you may not be able to afford 5 mana. And if you are short on actions and don't have a battleforge, you DEFINITELY can't afford the quick action.
This definitely isn't Harry Potter wandcraft. I'd say that in the majority of my games I never bring out a wand. It's a personal playstyle though, some people almost always bring out wands. It's very well balanced actually.
-
Dave are you trying to troll us?
You are basically asking if it is ok to cheat :o
>:( No it is not ok to cheat
-
I honestly miss understand the definition of "can't cast"
and the part about "cheating" I really just wanted to see of there was any official info for comp rulings.
-
I honestly miss understand the definition of "can't cast"
and the part about "cheating" I really just wanted to see of there was any official info for comp rulings.
"can't cast" = Not enough mana available or does not currently have a legal target in play.
Comp Rulings = this is another side project we the rules team has talked about but we have also been backed up with a new doc that "should go up early next week".
-
So most of my games do stretch well over an hour, and I frequenly run my opponent out of creatures and dispells/disolves. I usually try to win the wand war. I take the two spellbindable wands and attach Teleport and (pick your favorite damaging spell), on the other. Additionally I attempt to get on a regenerating item or enchantment, and load up on protection (Aegis, Armor, Defense, circle of Lightning+Lightning ring). I try to set up a solid defenive position early with a couple Gorgons and Hydras. The Gorgons weaken incoming creatures (which can be a pain for anyone but the Priestess to deal with. I can play super defensive, being able to teleport away from creatures if I'm suffering damage, and still being able to plink away at them at the same time.) If I'm not playing the priestess, then my opponent has big problems from the Gorgons. If I'm able to disolve my opponent's healing wand, then they usually have no way to remove "Weaken", and the Gorgons turn any creatures they send forward into useless dead weight.
I'm definitely the one who's attempting to drag the game out. I've played aggressive players and they tend to get overextended trying too hard to push into my defenses and get blasted. If they can't push forward and sustain their attack they will find I've put a Mana Siphon on them and they will be losing the mana war, if they don't push forward to deal with it. And when I get ahead on mana production or face someone using swarm deck I will drop Mordock's Obelisk to further slow the game and keep swarm teams in check. I play with 6 Nullifies to keep my wands safe. And will try to destroy opposing wands to keep opponents from wanding up a disolve.
Playing with wands allows me to be very diverse in my strategies. With one of each of the following spells I can:
1) Ressurection - I will never run out of creatures, on several occations I've run my opponent completely out of creatures, then resurrected all of mine. (Game over)
2) Teleport - I can play bounce away and pick things off at range. Taking minimal damage that I regenerate back.
3) Steal Enchantment - I can steal every useful enchantment my opponent casts. Then they waste their own disenchants, disenchanting their own enchantments....but they run out of the disenchants, were as I never run out of the ability to steal their enchantments.
4) a diversity of direct damage - Chain lightning is great for small creature swarm teams. Other spells are more efficient against larger creatures. And a variety of damage Fire, Lightning...etc in case an opponent is using a creaure that is vunerable to a particular type.
5) Heal - If regenerate isn't enough I can want up the heal and use it to get back to full, then back to teleport.
6) Force Push - Pushing things through walls of Fire can be entertaining and efficient.
7) Explode - I can detonate every piece of equipment my opponent has. Since I have an unlimited supply...no piece of equpiment is too small to overlook detonating or disolving.
By just having one of each of the above spells, and two wands, I can cast those spells an unlimited number of times.
Win the wand war and you can play defensively to drag the game out and consume opponent's resources and eliminate is ability to deal with things.
As I said, maybe I haven't played anyone who's agressive and efficient. I have managed to stave off death and drag out games. I don't alwasy win, but I do win more than I lose. And the Winning the Wand War is key.
Since I only put one copy of important spells in my spell book, it allows me to be very diverse. If you win the wand war, now your opponent will run out of more and more ways to deal with things as the game goes on.
-
Sounds like your experience is entirely a product of two things. 1. Your own strategy (and a person should not whine about the consequences of their own strategy. 2. A lack of skilled opponents (find some better opponents, you local gaming store may host a Mage Wars night.)
-
I would like the comment however, that it sounds like you understand the real value of wands. Which is of course versatility, not efficiency. Having more strategic options can be a great thing, which is a huge part of the value of familiars as well.
-
Okay, so I have now played many more games against a wider variety of opponents. And I'll stand by my original assessment. Wands are too powerful, and winning the wand battle, more often than not determines the outcome.
Here is the deal: Having two wands ( Mage Wand & Elemental Wand ), allows you to do the following:
Cast unlimited numbers of any of the following spells:
Heal
Damage dealing spells (Direct Single Creature damage, Whole zone Damage, range 3 damage) by only having a single copy of each.
Dispel
Drain Power
Resurrection
Teleport
Disolve and/or Explode
Steal Enchantment
Steal Equipment
Force Push
Yes, initially it cost 5 extra mana, but the trade of is you only have to have one of each spell in your spell book to cast these spells an unlimited number of times.
This is TOO powerful. Way too powerful. The game creators limited level 1 spells to 6 of each, and spells above that to 4 of each. But if you have it on a wand.....you can cast it a unlimited number of time.
Why this is critical:
1) No, wand and you're limited to resurrecting 4 creatures. With wand....no limit. (This can end a game, when your opponent runs out of creatures, and you never do.
2) No wand and you can heal a limited amount. If your opponent is trying to kill you with direct spell damage you can cast heal every turn (forever), and he will run out of attack spells. (Then he loses)
3) No wand and you can teleport 4 times. With wand - You can teleport every turn. Arm if you have a damage dealing spell in one wand and teleport in the other, your opponent won't be catching you, and you can skirmish him to death.
4) Enchantments. Anyone relying on enchantments to enhance himself or his creatures is boned if you can cast an unlimited number of "Steal Enchantments". This also shuts down Curse Books - Put his own Curses on his own creatures or Mage.
5) Equipment. Anyone relying on equipment loses, when his opponent can cast an unlimited number of Dissolves, or worse Steal Equipments. Or for more fun Explode everything he builds.
Wands are just way to effective, they allow you to be versatile and use strategies that completely shut down certain opposing spell books with only a few spells.
When I play with wands (If I win the wand battle) I know that the only way I'm going to lose is if I lose the "creature swarm" battle early game. And I build with this in mind, I can shut down all the other types of books listed above with a couple wands and only about 10% of my spell book. I put 6 nullifies, and sometimes reverse magic in my deck and it all comes down to winning the wand battle.
-
1. Wait, people run Resurrection? I have never played against a book that took this spell. Ever. Anyway, the game is not about killing more of your opponents creatures than s/he kills of yours. The game is about killing the other mage. You don't even need a single creature to do that (solo FM builds for example).
2. Why, exactly, is your opponent throwing attack spells at you every turn? That's never a good strategy. Attack spells are used for killing things (such as Fireball or Hurl Boulder), utility (applying Daze/Slam/Stun or Pushing for example), or to wipe out swarms/remove enemy guard tokens so you can hit the mage. The best way to apply damage is by using a creature's attack. If you want to cast heal every turn for that, be my guest. You're spending mana and I'm not. That greatly limits the stuff you can do.
3. All your opponent needs to catch you is Cheetah Speed, and Mongoose Agility if you have guards or are hindering in some way (only except is if you're Druid, but then you just need something that flies). And again, casting an attack spell every turn from an elemental wand is a pretty bad strategy.
4. Steal Enchantment is pretty expensive to cast (twice the casting cost and reveal cost, plus potential Magebind costs if the present target and/or new target is a mage). This doesn't exactly shut down a curse book, especially if that book is using Sectarus and Ring of Curses, since you're paying 2(x+2) where x is what they're paying. Plus they're, ya' know, hitting you.
5. Nullify and Armour Ward can help protect equipment.
6. To change the spell on your wand you have to spend a quick action and mana. This makes changing your bound spell difficult and time-consuming.
7. It doesn't matter if you have 6 Nullifies or 10 in your book; you can only place one on yourself at a time. If my opponent has a wand out and a face-down enchantment, I'm casting some incantation/enchantment I don't care about (most often Decoy) to remove the potential Nullify, then I dissolve your wand. The best you could do would be to cast Jinx on me first...which gives your Wand 1 more turn of living at best.
Wands can be powerful, but they're only worth it if you're playing for the long game and can expect to get there. But you're vastly overestimating them. Against a skilled opponent your wand won't last for more than 2 turns.
-
I was going to say a lot but Aylin pretty much nailed it with the last post. I never use wands anymore and I don't regret it one bit. There are rarely any incantation/attack spells I feel like playing more than 4 times during a game anyways. Casting nothing but attack spells is predictable, ineffective, and mana consuming.
-
Look, I base my Book on stopping opposing creatures...(and casing my own) 85-90% of my spell book is dedicated to that. (Note, I'm not trying to be aggressive with creatures, I'm being defensive against creatures.)
The remaining 10-15% of my spell book is wands, and protecting wands, along with one each of the following:
Disenchant
Steal Enchantment
Drain Power
Resurrection
Teleport
Desolve
Heal
Force Push
(and about a half dozen damage spells of different types - Zone attack, long range attack(range 3), lightning, fire...etc)
Nullifyx6
That small 15% of my deck, because of the re-castability of those spells affords me a wide variety of strategies which can completely styme non-creature based attacks.
1) Resurection - Yes, on several occasions I've traded creatures with my opponent until we were both nearly out of creatures. Then I started resurrecting mine....and he ran out.....game over.
2) I played a match today where and opponent cast 3-4 creatures, and charged me with his creatures and Mage. I used my creatures and Mage to defeat his creatures, and he attacked my mage, knocking me down to less than 10% health by the time I eliminated his wand (which had his only Dissolve), and his creatures. I then cast heal on my self every turn as my creatures turned on him. I was able to heal myself back to near full health, and he gave up. He didn't have the resources to deal with what I had on the map.
3) "All you need is Cheetah speed", did you miss the part where I have "Steal Enchantment"? Your Cheetah speed becomes my creature's Cheetah speed. (as many enchantments as you cast, I can steal.) I've noticed after you steal 2-3, opponent's wise up and quit casting Enchantments. (to avoid me stealing them)
4) have Disenchant in my book if I just want to get rid of an enchantment rather than bounce it back. Plus if my opponent isn't trying to destroy my wand, guess what else Nullify works on?
5) Nullify and Armor ward - Yes I know. I have both in my deck, I'm quite practiced at winning the Wand War. The whole point of this post is, that the one who wins the wand war, is then in a situation with a huge upper hand because of the effectiveness of wands.
6) Yes, the Spell book I'm describing is not a "Fast win" spell book. But it is a super effective defensive spell book, and the longer the game goes, the higher my chance of winning, as my opponent will start to run out of spells, and I NEVER will. That's one of the strengths of the Wands. LONG games, not short games. Play things to drag out games and deal with creatures. Then when your opponent runs out of resources, resurrect your creatures, and you still have an unlimited amount of direct damage...and you can get rid of all his equipment. It's the unlimited number of all the utility and attack spells where this book has a huge advantage, I build the book to exploit that. And it works. It's easily my most effective spell book. (I rarely lose with that book)
7) Again, you're talking about how to play "Wand Wars". I assure you I am a very experienced veteran of "wand wars", there are lots of tricks to keep your wands safe and deal with your opponent's wands. I'm not arguing about the best way to win "Wand Wars", what I'm saying is, "He who wins the Wand War, has a Major upper hand in the game". If you blow up my wands, and still have your own, YOU have the upper hand. That's my point ... whomever wins the wand war gains a huge advantage. And about winning the wand war...it sounds like you guys don't think wands are that effective, does that mean you jammed your own spell book full of Dissolves, and Decoys, and whatever other suggestions you had for defeating a wand deck? I assure you I put a solid amount of Wand Defense, and Wand destruction, in my deck. (I can cast my ONE Dissolve an unlimited number of times), so you will run out of nullifies, and eventually you'll run out of all your equipment, when I dissolve all that too, while keeping my own. That is why the Winner of the Wand War, has the huge upper hand.
That part of the game is just too important. (Or at least in my experience it seems to be)
-
7. It doesn't matter if you have 6 Nullifies or 10 in your book; you can only place one on yourself at a time. If my opponent has a wand out and a face-down enchantment, I'm casting some incantation/enchantment I don't care about (most often Decoy) to remove the potential Nullify, then I dissolve your wand. The best you could do would be to cast Jinx on me first...which gives your Wand 1 more turn of living at best.
Jinx and Nullify must both be revealed when you cast a decoy on the enemy mage (assuming jinx on you and nullify on the enemy.)
The only way to stop a dissolve for longer than 1 round is by having an enchant transfusion set up with a nullify on another creature.
(assuming that range and LOS is not an issue + the dissolver has an extra 4 mana for a potential armor ward)
-
Being able to cast the same spell multiple times is nice, but is only 'overpowered' if the game goes on for so long that both players use most of their spellbooks. This has happened to me only once, under unusual circumstances (I was trying to divide the board in half with a wall and turtle behind it. It didn't work). I think your experience may be due to your local metagame. It strikes me as odd that the creatures in your games suffer such high attrition rates without taking out the mage - generally, I see creatures ignoring other creatures and going straight for the mage. If you and your opponents focus on taking out creatures first, this might explain why your games go on long enough to give an edge to the player that still has a wand. As for things like stealing enchantments and equipment those are very expensive to cast since they require a good amount of mana and one of your precious full actions - it sounds to me as though you have a substantial mana advantage, which suggests that your opponents are not being as aggressive in the early game as they should be.
That being said, one of my favorite wizard tactics is binding a drain power to a mage wand and then repeatedly draining my opponent. By the time I have the resources to do that, of course, I have already won, wand or no wand.
-
Watergate Wizard is this style book, so yes, control with wands is quite deadly. But Watergate abuses Wizard's Tower and Gate as well as wands, and I don't usually think of the wands as the real dangerous part of that book. I mean, you still have to spend your mage's action and pay the mana cost of the attached spell, as well as the one time action cost and mana cost of the wand, so it's the extra-action conjurations and mana sources that are the winning strategy that makes wand recursion possible.
The attrition style control you're describing works, but those wands aren't really helping most books win, they're just a victory condition after you've locked down your opponent.
Can you give a sample booklist, and gameplan for the first 5 turns or so?
Though now I'm kinda thinking of building a Harry Potter wizard with 4+4 wands and armour ward to see if I can overload my oponent's desolves.
-
I have found that the best way to work against both Watergate and Wands is mana denial. That wand is useless if your opponent has very little mana. You get to force choices such as reveal that enchantment (curse on me) or cast that dispel. Jinx with no mana = dissolved wand. Wizard Tower with Attached spell with no mana = mana sink.
Typically this forces the opposing mage to become much more aggressive with this style of play and you have to be very aware of your board and NC control is very important in this style of play as if your NC has a WT in it, it is much more difficult to keep your mana draining conjuration up and running. I suggest a bunch of pushes and teleports to take advantage of your opponent paying to move to kill your conjurations and teleport traps are quite wicked here also.
-
ACG and RingKichard nailed it.
Somebody give them a banana sticker.
-
1) Resurection - Yes, on several occasions I've traded creatures with my opponent until we were both nearly out of creatures. Then I started resurrecting mine....and he ran out.....game over.
That's more of an issue with your opponent not playing correctly than with Ressurection on a Wand, which is in general pretty weak.
2) I played a match today where and opponent cast 3-4 creatures, and charged me with his creatures and Mage. I used my creatures and Mage to defeat his creatures, and he attacked my mage, knocking me down to less than 10% health by the time I eliminated his wand (which had his only Dissolve), and his creatures. I then cast heal on my self every turn as my creatures turned on him. I was able to heal myself back to near full health, and he gave up. He didn't have the resources to deal with what I had on the map.
If your opponent has only a single Dissolve in her/his entire book, then your opponent ****** up before the game began. Dissolve is too useful to risk losing your only copy on a wand. Three is the absolute minimum number of destroy-equipment spells.
3) "All you need is Cheetah speed", did you miss the part where I have "Steal Enchantment"? Your Cheetah speed becomes my creature's Cheetah speed. (as many enchantments as you cast, I can steal.) I've noticed after you steal 2-3, opponent's wise up and quit casting Enchantments. (to avoid me stealing them)
I didn't miss anything. You must have missed the fact that you can only have one Wand out at a time, and changing the spell takes a quick action. You can either have the Teleport or the Steal Enchantment on it, but not both. There's no way you could cast both from a wand in a single turn. If you take the time to switch, you're not Teleporting, so they can catch you anyway.
4) have Disenchant in my book if I just want to get rid of an enchantment rather than bounce it back. Plus if my opponent isn't trying to destroy my wand, guess what else Nullify works on?
Getting through Nullify is trivially easy and cheap to do. It's one of the reasons many players no longer run any at all. If your opponent is expecting one, it doesn't really act as a defense. Also, Disenchant is not a spell currently in the game. I assume you mean Dispel.
5) Nullify and Armor ward - Yes I know. I have both in my deck, I'm quite practiced at winning the Wand War. The whole point of this post is, that the one who wins the wand war, is then in a situation with a huge upper hand because of the effectiveness of wands.
This is only if the game runs a long time.
7) Again, you're talking about how to play "Wand Wars". I assure you I am a very experienced veteran of "wand wars", there are lots of tricks to keep your wands safe and deal with your opponent's wands. I'm not arguing about the best way to win "Wand Wars", what I'm saying is, "He who wins the Wand War, has a Major upper hand in the game". If you blow up my wands, and still have your own, YOU have the upper hand. That's my point ... whomever wins the wand war gains a huge advantage. And about winning the wand war...it sounds like you guys don't think wands are that effective, does that mean you jammed your own spell book full of Dissolves, and Decoys, and whatever other suggestions you had for defeating a wand deck? I assure you I put a solid amount of Wand Defense, and Wand destruction, in my deck. (I can cast my ONE Dissolve an unlimited number of times), so you will run out of nullifies, and eventually you'll run out of all your equipment, when I dissolve all that too, while keeping my own. That is why the Winner of the Wand War, has the huge upper hand.
Honestly from your posts it sounds like your opponents are making mistakes when they build their spellbooks. If you're able to reuse a single copy of Dispel, Dissolve or Teleport with a Mage Wand, that tells me that your opponent's books aren't able to combat equipment in general, like that game you mentioned earlier where your opponent had only a single Dissolve.
If your book has only a single copy of those staple spells, you're at a disadvantage. You can't cast one of them if it's not on your wand if you know you'll need it in a later turn. Switching spells takes a whole action making it harder for you to adapt to your opponent. And what happens if you lose your wand with that spell on it?
@jacksmack
Thanks for the correction. I should have known it was Transfusion shenanigans.
-
Wands can be powerful, but they're only worth it if you're playing for the long game and can expect to get there. But you're vastly overestimating them. Against a skilled opponent your wand won't last for more than 2 turns.
I assure you I protect my wand, if you don't commit serious resources to destroying it, you won't. If you do commit serious resources to destroying it, then you have in fact bought in to the concept that "Winning the Wand war is crucial". You will not destroy my wand with a couple disolves and seeking dispells.
-
Wands can be powerful, but they're only worth it if you're playing for the long game and can expect to get there. But you're vastly overestimating them. Against a skilled opponent your wand won't last for more than 2 turns.
I assure you I protect my wand, if you don't commit serious resources to destroying it, you won't. If you do commit serious resources to destroying it, then you have in fact bought in to the concept that "Winning the Wand war is crucial". You will not destroy my wand with a couple disolves and seeking dispells.
I'm not arguing that if you play for a long game keeping your wands safe while destroying your opponents is a good strategy.
I'm arguing that wands aren't that powerful overall, and that you should have more than one copy of Dispel, Dissolve, and Teleport.
-
@ Brazil
The next time you play a game, take careful notes and post a detailed game report for us. You're obviously playing in a different local meta than most of us and I'd be fascinated to see how one of your games plays out. My local meta is very aggressive (as I think many are) and I think if I ever took the time to protect a wand that thoroughly I'd be dead before I had my wand defense set up.
-
You will not destroy my wand with a couple disolves and seeking dispells.
I estimate that i have tried to dissolve wands around 20 times.
I have failed doing so a total of one time. (due to an unexpected armor ward.)
Spending your Action Marker to nullify the enemy and then your Quickcast to Dissolve (having 9 mana) results in a destroyed wand almost always.
Divine intervention - so be it. The priestess needs to get positional advantage as well in order for this to be worth it. The nulify stays and isnt wasted so its 12 mana vs 5 mana. (unless she choose to reveal during nullify cast, but then she spends 12 mana vs 2 mana.)
Transfusion+nullify combo. In order for this to work you need to have a hidding enchantment on your mage as well otherwise i just seeking dispell your creature with 2 face down enchantments and then dissolve ur mage.
If you do this you spend 3 actions + an action casting mage wand and then i simply find other stuff to do taking advantage of you setting up an extreme overkill of Wand Destruction Emergency Plan.
-
You will not destroy my wand with a couple disolves and seeking dispells.
I estimate that i have tried to dissolve wands around 20 times.
I have failed doing so a total of one time. (due to an unexpected armor ward.)
Spending your Action Marker to nullify the enemy and then your Quickcast to Dissolve (having 9 mana) results in a destroyed wand almost always.
Divine intervention - so be it. The priestess needs to get positional advantage as well in order for this to be worth it. The nulify stays and isnt wasted so its 12 mana vs 5 mana. (unless she choose to reveal during nullify cast, but then she spends 12 mana vs 2 mana.)
Transfusion+nullify combo. In order for this to work you need to have a hidding enchantment on your mage as well otherwise i just seeking dispell your creature with 2 face down enchantments and then dissolve ur mage.
If you do this you spend 3 actions + an action casting mage wand and then i simply find other stuff to do taking advantage of you setting up an extreme overkill of Wand Destruction Emergency Plan.
Again, the point of this thread isn't "How to win the wand war" the point is, one player wins the wand war (keeps his wand and his opponent has no wand, either because they were destroyed or they just didn't bother to bring one), the player with the wand has a Huge advantage for the remainder of the game.
You have said your own playing crowd isn't very Wand centric - Mine is. The people I play usually both use wands and commit resources to keeping their wand and destroying their opponent's wand.
Out of curiousity - What do you normally have in your spell books for for "Wand destruction"? How many Disolves, explodes, dispells, and seeking dispells, and Steal Equipments? (and any other spells you use for Wand destruction?) Additionally is your mage of choice the Priestess? If not what and how much do you put in your spell book to counter "effects"?
-
@ Brazil
The next time you play a game, take careful notes and post a detailed game report for us. You're obviously playing in a different local meta than most of us and I'd be fascinated to see how one of your games plays out. My local meta is very aggressive (as I think many are) and I think if I ever took the time to protect a wand that thoroughly I'd be dead before I had my wand defense set up.
This is not necessarily going to indicate much, as I vary my openings based on what type of opponent I'm facing.
If I'm facing a swarming/creature centric opponent, then after an initial Gate of Voltari, and channel boosters, I try to get two Gorgons and a Hydra on the map as quickly as possible. And if I think my opponent is going to swarm me with little creatures, I'll put out a Mordock's Obelisk. After that I'll start casting equipment defense and bring out equipment. If my opponent comes in range, I'll a Mana Siphon on him. I also have a Wizard's Tower I'll put out conditionally.
If my opponent is looking to charge ahead with his Wizard and fewer creatures, I'll get out the Gorgons, and maybe the Hydra sooner if I think he's going to try to get in the same square as me. Then some enchantment defense and defensive enchantments, then gear. And put the Obelisk on him much earlier.
If my opponent has a Mage that I don't think he'll be coming forward early game with, then getting a Wizards tower out earlier than later. Once defenses are in place (creatures, gear protection, enchantments and gear, I'll force my opponent to come forward by wanding up a Thunderbolt and destroying things on his side of the map.)
If my opponent is playing the super annoying Priestess, I may need to Start Dropping Thunderbolts and move Gorgon's forward to take out his Temples. (one of the few mages I actually have to more aggressive against)
Most mages I hole up and concentrate on defense rather than offense until my defenses are built up. And Agressive Priestess's are the worst! They do give me the most trouble.
-
Brazil, what we're saying is that wands only matter if your book won't win until late in the game. If you start playing books that aim to win the early or mid games, wands won't help you; they'll just drain your resources. If you don't like how important wands are in the late-game, why don't you try different strategies instead of complaining about it?
-
Even when I play Gate of Voltari and have very strong attrition options, I find that I can often end the game before wands matter much.
-
Wands don't change the strategy. Play to counter the tactic/strategy the opponent is attempting to accomplish with his wand instead of focusing on the wand itself.
I never think "what if my opponent uses a wand?" when building a book or strategy. I think in terms of how to match tactics. The wand doesn't do anything you couldn't already do anyway. I always assume an opponent has a spammable supply of any spells they run when choosing my moves, wether or not you put it on a wand doesn't change anything in my process. If anything it makes it easier for me to read your plays and get ahead on action/mana.
Ive never seen a bound spell cast 6+ times, and never really seen a spell spammed that many times normally.. generally the game is either decided or over before it comes to such an extreme.
If my answer to your strategy is strong enough, the wand won't matter. If my answer isn't strong enough, then theres a good chance you would have won without the wand anyway.
Thats not to say wands don't have a place in some builds, but it is a piece of a bigger machine and not a machine unto itself.
-
And Agressive Priestess's are the worst! They do give me the most trouble.
But nothing a the good old Epic uber Harry Potter double cheese combo of Elemental wand + Magic Wand cant solve right?
-
And Agressive Priestess's are the worst! They do give me the most trouble.
But nothing a the good old Epic uber Harry Potter double cheese combo of Elemental wand + Magic Wand cant solve right?
You didn't actually answer my question about how much "Anti-Wand" you normally put in your spell book.
To answer your question, I win more than I lose against the Priestess. But that might be due to skill level of the player, not the innate strength of the Mage.
And I should probably say I play the Arcane Wizard mostly, who does have an advantage in the Wand Wars, in that my Dispels, and nullifies cost half what they cost everyone else.
-
My immediate thought is that you're not being aggressive enough. Having a wand when your opponent is out of ways to destroy equipment can give you a huge advantage in a severely protracted game, but if the game ends on turn 7, it probably wasn't worth it.
Wait, do I get "Extra points" for being aggressive? My win/loss ratio is very good. Is it worth more to Win aggressively, than to win defensively?
I think I've done well against both Aggressive and passive opponents. But I could concede that my opponent's may not be as strong as you guys.
-
Wands don't change the strategy. Play to counter the tactic/strategy the opponent is attempting to accomplish with his wand instead of focusing on the wand itself.
I never think "what if my opponent uses a wand?" when building a book or strategy. I think in terms of how to match tactics. The wand doesn't do anything you couldn't already do anyway. I always assume an opponent has a spammable supply of any spells they run when choosing my moves, wether or not you put it on a wand doesn't change anything in my process. If anything it makes it easier for me to read your plays and get ahead on action/mana.
Ive never seen a bound spell cast 6+ times, and never really seen a spell spammed that many times normally.. generally the game is either decided or over before it comes to such an extreme.
If my answer to your strategy is strong enough, the wand won't matter. If my answer isn't strong enough, then theres a good chance you would have won without the wand anyway.
Thats not to say wands don't have a place in some builds, but it is a piece of a bigger machine and not a machine unto itself.
It not about casting a particular spell a certain number of times, it's about being able to cast the spell you need, as many times as you need it, and having a wide variety with a small portion of my spell book.
With a Wand and one each of the following:
Dispel
Disolve
Heal
Insert your favorite attack spell
Regenerate
With under 15 spell points for the spells listed above, I have the power to destroy as many items, and enchantments, as my opponent casts, I can heal 8 dice in damage per turn (endlessly if needed), I can cast attack spells endlessly. Wands afford you a variety of options.
If my opponent is relying on tanking himself up with equipment or enchantments I can destroy everything he puts on, no matter how many he put in his book, if I need to weather an onslaught of direct damage spells, as I pointed out I can heal 8 dice a turn, every turn until my opponent runs out of direct damage. If it's creature wars, it's my creatures VS his creatures, and I can support my creatures with an endless supply of direct damage or healing.
Wands allow for a diverse options for countering opponent's options. This is why it seems the winner of the wand war gains a huge upper hand.
It seems to me listening to the way you guys describe your books, that you can force a game to end in 7-10 turns. And I think that's quite reasonable if both players are playing "attacking" decks without much in the way of defense. But it's been my experience, particularly with the Arcane Mage, that I can hold off aggressive decks and stretch out games, until my opponent runs out of resources, then turn the game in my favor. (If I win the Wand War), if I lose the wand war, then I know I have a limited time to beat my opponent before I run out of resources. (Or at least the resources that I want for critical situations.)
At least that's been my experience.
-
And Agressive Priestess's are the worst! They do give me the most trouble.
But nothing a the good old Epic uber Harry Potter double cheese combo of Elemental wand + Magic Wand cant solve right?
You didn't actually answer my question about how much "Anti-Wand" you normally put in your spell book.
To answer your question, I win more than I lose against the Priestess. But that might be due to skill level of the player, not the innate strength of the Mage.
And I should probably say I play the Arcane Wizard mostly, who does have an advantage in the Wand Wars, in that my Dispels, and nullifies cost half what they cost everyone else.
Standard is 3 dissolves. Some books have 5-6 a few has just 2 or maybe even 1. Uber aggro books dont have time to dissolve. They work around it.
You add regen belt or i expect you to start healing? i drop Deathlock.
You armor up? i drop acid balls.
You drop wand and facedown enchantment? thank you sir - i do something else. If i lose it is not because of
your wand.
I seem to be dissolving less and less mainly due to acid ball.
The Gate Wizard was horribly strong pre DvsN. Mainly because of the high mana generation from gate, the solid defensive arcane creatures AND because the wizard could armor up and voltaric shield himself to live long enough for the hydras and gorgons to get out.
The wands only played a minor role in this strategy. If any1 challenged you to wand wars they applied the wrong tactics strategy.
Anyway. Your impossible to argue with. You got your local meta and assume there is problems with wands.
People here with differnet metas and the online meta from OCTGN tells you wands are fine. Hell there has even been threads about wands sucks...
The only way to find out is if you make your way to OCTGN and show us how powerful spamming spells from wands actually is.... until i see it wreck havoc i wont believe it.
-
This is not necessarily going to indicate much, as I vary my openings based on what type of opponent I'm facing.
It's not really the specific moves of the opening I'm concerned about. What I mean is that if your local meta focuses heavily on defense or long openings then your games will tend to be very long and, yes, wands will matter more. That doesn't mean wands are too powerful, though, that just means they're an effective part of your strategy. Where I'm from, the dominant builds are very fast solo/few creature builds or BM swarms with the Lair and they all open very quickly and end the game very quickly. I think a wand-dependent build would do less well in my meta because the game isn't going to last that long and I think you'll be left with the choice of either not getting your wand defenses set up properly and getting it dispelled or spending the actions to get it set up properly and then being so far behind that it's too late (2 nullifies, 1 enchantment transfusion, and 1 wand are 2 entire turns of actions, which is maybe 25% of all the turns there are going to be if your opponent is playing aggressively).
The only way to find out is if you make your way to OCTGN and show us how powerful spamming spells from wands actually is.... until i see it wreck havoc i wont believe it.
This is why I wanted the game report.
-
This is not necessarily going to indicate much, as I vary my openings based on what type of opponent I'm facing.
It's not really the specific moves of the opening I'm concerned about. What I mean is that if your local meta focuses heavily on defense or long openings then your games will tend to be very long and, yes, wands will matter more. That doesn't mean wands are too powerful, though, that just means they're an effective part of your strategy. Where I'm from, the dominant builds are very fast solo/few creature builds or BM swarms with the Lair and they all open very quickly and end the game very quickly. I think a wand-dependent build would do less well in my meta because the game isn't going to last that long and I think you'll be left with the choice of either not getting your wand defenses set up properly and getting it dispelled or spending the actions to get it set up properly and then being so far behind that it's too late (2 nullifies, 1 enchantment transfusion, and 1 wand are 2 entire turns of actions, which is maybe 25% of all the turns there are going to be if your opponent is playing aggressively).
The only way to find out is if you make your way to OCTGN and show us how powerful spamming spells from wands actually is.... until i see it wreck havoc i wont believe it.
This is why I wanted the game report.
Or even worse, having the Wand setup, Wan defenses setup, and being forced to do something other than what you have bound to the wand. You are then forced to either do that "something else" or pay the three mana and swap out the spell bound to that wand with that "something else" and end up for practical purposes with only one action (quick or full). Don't say Battleforge as that is during the Deployment Phase, what I am talking about happens after during the Action phases. Get caught like that a couple of times and you will start thinking like the rest of us: Wand - meh.
-
Wands are good, just very unflexible. If both sides are enamored with wands, then wands are the best thing ever, because nobody does anything unexpected (as both sides are busy building up their wand fortress). If one side consequently plays around the opposing side having a wand, they aren't anywhere near as good.
-
It seems to me listening to the way you guys describe your books, that you can force a game to end in 7-10 turns. And I think that's quite reasonable if both players are playing "attacking" decks without much in the way of defense. But it's been my experience, particularly with the Arcane Mage, that I can hold off aggressive decks and stretch out games, until my opponent runs out of resources, then turn the game in my favor.
I think many of the responses on this board come from players who are living in the Tournament meta of this game. Consequently aggressive attack decks are favored in this meta in order to maximize damage dealt to the opponent mage within a given time period. As I understand the current Tournament meta a player is not rewarded for playing defense as much since damage dealt is the tie breaker. Games do not "stretch out" as you say since they must be completed within a set time limit.
However, I do agree with an earlier post that if the 'wand war' bothers you, then take up the challenge to try other deck designs / mages that focus on defeating this type of strategy. For example, what mage and spellbook can you develop that does not rely on equipment or enchantments that must remain in play for long periods to be effective? Every mage has a focus of their power - find one that doesn't need a wand. :)
-
Or even worse, having the Wand setup, Wan defenses setup, and being forced to do something other than what you have bound to the wand. You are then forced to either do that "something else" or pay the three mana and swap out the spell bound to that wand with that "something else" and end up for practical purposes with only one action (quick or full). Don't say Battleforge as that is during the Deployment Phase, what I am talking about happens after during the Action phases. Get caught like that a couple of times and you will start thinking like the rest of us: Wand - meh.
I agree this does happen sometimes. But (in my opinion), I think it's better to be able to swap the bound spell and do what you need to do, and always have that option available, rather than "try to guess which spells I'll need and in which quantity I'll need them, be wrong, and not be able to deal with something."
Without a wand - Do I put 3, 4, or 6 Dispels in my Book? 6 Dispels for a non-Arcane Mage would be 12 points worth of spells! (that's a full 10% of my allotment.) And what if my opponent isn't using enchantmens...then that was a waist. What if he has more than 6 enchantments in his book....everything beyond 6, I now have no way to deal with. Same thing for Equipment. Do I commit another 10% of my allocation of spells to deal with 6 pieces of equipment I may want to dissolve. What if he has more than 6, now I need "Explodes" or "Steal equipment (based on the cost of the items I'll have to deal with...which I don't know when I'm constructing my books). How much of my book do I commit to this? I have no way of knowing how much I'll need, and if I don't bring enough, then I can't deal with problem items my opponent may cast after I'm out of Dissolves.
With the wand life is much simpler - ONE wand and ONE Dispel gets rid of as many Enchantments as I need to get rid of. That's 6 total points of my allocation that's 5% of my build total. So it cost me 5% instead of 10% and has unlimited uses. (much more efficient). AND if I can deal with both objects and enchantments with ONE wand ONE Dispell, and ONE Dissolve all for 8 spell points - That's 7.5% of my build total, and I'm dealing with as many of BOTH Equipment and Enchantments. But wait, there's more!
What if my opponent throws an Earth Elemental, Iron Golum or some other big SLOW creature, with One Force Push I can now keep that elemental away from my Mage and Spawning point (or whatever I want to keep him away from), until my ranged attackers can whittle him down. And that's only another 2 points. So now I can deal with ALL Enchantments, ALL Equipment and cast Push as much as I need to for still under the 10% of my Book total someone without a wand would need to commit to just deal with 6 Enchantments.
But wait...there's more want to add an unlimited amount of healing? add ONE Heal card, unlimited Teleportation, ONE Teleport.... Never run out of any of the creatures you cast .... One Resurrection. The price of setting up some wand protection, and the price of having to pay 3 mana and a quick cast action to swap spells I think is an excellent value in all of the diversity it affords me.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm never satisfied with the contents of my spell book. Once I reach 120 points there are still a bunch of cards I want to put in my book that I might need. And I'm someone who uses wands in almost every book I build. If I didn't have the wands, I'd have to guess in the dark as to how much of many things I'll need, risk being wrong and come up against something I can't deal with.....and I'll have less room in my spell book to put the things I think I'll need for offense in there.
You guys who end games in 7-10 turns....when you build your spell books you must get about 60 points in and go...."That's it", that's all I'll need to win. I'll just put 60 points worth of utility spells in here "Just in case". Is that the way it works for you? Not me - When I build books, I try to think of what I'll need. "What if my opponent does this?" do I have the spells to deal with that, what if he's doing this? Then I'll need these spells too... I pretty much never get to a point where I think "I have everything I'll need in my spellbook" before I hit 120 points....heck, even at 120 points, there are always a handful of cards I need to guess and make compromises on due to the limit. Without wands it would be horrible, I'd just have to build decks that I know have glaring weaknesses.
-
@Brazil:
Running just one copy of those key incantations (Teleport, Dispel, Dissolve mainly) is not a good idea, IMO. Sure, once you bind it to the wand you can spam the spell until the wand gets dissolved. And it will get dissolved if your opponent wants to, leaving you with no extra copies of those incantations. So once you've lost your Dissolve wand you will not be able to deal with any piece of equipment (same for Teleport and Dispel).
In my defensive builds I usually play 2 wands (to replace the first one once it's gone), but I also run 2-3 Teleports, 3-4 Dispel and 3-4 Dissolve. Not only I will have access to more copies of the bound spell when my opponent destroys my wand, but I have not always a free action to cast the wand and then QC the bound spell, especially against an aggressive opponent.
Wands are very important when both players aim for the long-term game. But that will not always happen and, even in that scenario, winning the wand war is far from winning the match. Who cares about wands when I telekill your mage into a Golem pit?
-
Without a wand - Do I put 3, 4, or 6 Dispels in my Book? 6 Dispels for a non-Arcane Mage would be 12 points worth of spells! (that's a full 10% of my allotment.) And what if my opponent isn't using enchantmens...then that was a waist.
Turning unused Dispels into a part of the human body would be quite a feat.
Without wands it would be horrible, I'd just have to build decks that I know have glaring weaknesses.
The thing is you're already building books with a glaring weakness; your wands. With only a single copy of all these different utility spells, it's very very easy for an opponent to see what you can do on any given round, and then play around that. If you lose your wand while it has an important spell attached to it, you're sunk. Why would you intentionally put this weakness in?
-
The problem is if you run 1 dispel, 1 dissolve and so on then use a wand.. you cannot cast those spells with out the wand.
If Im using equipment AND enchantments instead of overloading on one then you then are forced to choose which to purge or spend actions and mana swapping out your wand. If you are constantly swapping out your wand you are going to get buried by tempo loss and mana spending. Basically swapping wands turns quick action spells into full actions.
If you are spamming heals, then get a poison blood dropped on you… are you going to swap to a dispel just to purge that and then swap back to the heal to keep spamming or are you going to spend your only dispel… which will then leave you high and dry when I add in a ghoul rot and a mage bane.
having 1-2 copies + a wand paints you into a bad corner.
Ive seen the "swiss army wand" before… but you are basically having to reload a musket whenever you need a key spell changed out, while the opponent can just change gears with out a sacrifice his own pace or agenda. Wands allow unlimited use of one spell, but without multiple copies you can't access all of them as freely when you need.
-
@Brazil:
Running just one copy of those key incantations (Teleport, Dispel, Dissolve mainly) is not a good idea, IMO. Sure, once you bind it to the wand you can spam the spell until the wand gets dissolved. And it will get dissolved if your opponent wants to, leaving you with no extra copies of those incantations. So once you've lost your Dissolve wand you will not be able to deal with any piece of equipment (same for Teleport and Dispel).
In my defensive builds I usually play 2 wands (to replace the first one once it's gone), but I also run 2-3 Teleports, 3-4 Dispel and 3-4 Dissolve. Not only I will have access to more copies of the bound spell when my opponent destroys my wand, but I have not always a free action to cast the wand and then QC the bound spell, especially against an aggressive opponent.
Wands are very important when both players aim for the long-term game. But that will not always happen and, even in that scenario, winning the wand war is far from winning the match. Who cares about wands when I telekill your mage into a Golem pit?
Right, which brings us right back to my original point about "how important winning the Wand War is ..... basically the Harry Potter effect". It's all a trade off, you seem to be accounting for the eventuality of having your wand destroyed and having a backup in place. (this consumes more of you spell book as now you are needing multiple copies of all your utility spells) I choose instead to put a little more effort into wand defense in the first place, thereby reducing the chances of losing my wand thereby eliminating the need for "backup spell copies" or "backup wands". I do realize this does make me more vulnerable should I lose my wand(s), but it also makes me stronger defending my wands in the first place.
All that said, as most of you seem pretty doggedly convinced "Wands are bad", I'm trying to construct a few books without wands, (or at least less reliant on wands), but as of now, building those books seems to leave me feeling my books are far more vulnerable than my normal wand books.
-
Turning unused Dispels into a part of the human body would be quite a feat.
Damn, busted on bad spelling. (wasted...is that better)?
The thing is you're already building books with a glaring weakness; your wands. With only a single copy of all these different utility spells, it's very very easy for an opponent to see what you can do on any given round, and then play around that. If you lose your wand while it has an important spell attached to it, you're sunk. Why would you intentionally put this weakness in?
And here I think the opposite.
I commit strongly to defending my wand. Precisely so that I don't lose it. (but admittedly I do lose it sometimes, and yes I am probably in a worse position if I do.)
But everything is a trade off. It breaks down like this:
I can commit about 15% of my spell book to utility spells (by using ONE of each) And with this much commitment I have the ability to deal with nearly everything. Equipment, Enchantments, variety of Direct damage, healing, Teleporting, Pushing.... I think I account for nearly every contingent.
Then I commit another 15% of my spell book to keeping my wands safe.
This leaves me with (unlimited ability to deal with everything), and a strong chance of winning the wand war. And it leaves 70% of my book free for my own Creatures and other Defenses and Offensive game planning.
If you're going to put multiple copied of spells in your spell book then you are either committing well more than 15% to Utility spells, which means you have to make a trade-off. Either you don't have as complete of a variety of utility spells as me, or you have less wand defense, and/or less than 70% of your book remaining for your main offensive/defensive strategy.
I do pay a penalty in the 3 points of mana and consumed Quick action for changing out my wand spell. But I feel like the price is worth it in not having to give up the vast amount of utility at such a small cost to my spell book total. I have been known to on occasion to put more than one Disolve, seeking Dispell, or Wand in my book.....but currently I'm not....but that option all falls under the category of "Best way to win the Harry Potter wand battle" not the whole overall question which I'm asking here, which is" "I think wands are too powerful, and consequently make the "who wins the Harry Potter Wand battle" way to critical in determining the outcome of the game.
-
You guys who end games in 7-10 turns....when you build your spell books you must get about 60 points in and go...."That's it", that's all I'll need to win. I'll just put 60 points worth of utility spells in here "Just in case".
Yes. In an average game I'll use most of my core spells and one or two of my just-in-case spells.
All that said, as most of you seem pretty doggedly convinced "Wands are bad", I'm trying to construct a few books without wands, (or at least less reliant on wands), but as of now, building those books seems to leave me feeling my books are far more vulnerable than my normal wand books.
As Carl Sagan famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without a solid game report or an octgn game someone here can reference, most people are probably going to continue to think that wands are situational and not over powered in most metas.
-
If you are spamming heals, then get a poison blood dropped on you… are you going to swap to a dispel just to purge that and then swap back to the heal to keep spamming or are you going to spend your only dispel… which will then leave you high and dry when I add in a ghoul rot and a mage bane.
having 1-2 copies + a wand paints you into a bad corner.
Ive seen the "swiss army wand" before… but you are basically having to reload a musket whenever you need a key spell changed out, while the opponent can just change gears with out a sacrifice his own pace or agenda. Wands allow unlimited use of one spell, but without multiple copies you can't access all of them as freely when you need.
And see I think when I "Steal Enchantment" and put someone's Ghoul Rot or Mage Bane back onto them, I actually feel that they are "Sacrificing their own pace and agenda". Or when I steal their Bear Strength, or blow up the weapon or armor they're using....all these things do have a negative impact on my opponent's agenda" Or if he blows through his direct damage while I am healing my self back up at 8 dice per turn....eventually he will run out of attack spells. (And I'm not out of healing, attack spells or creatures (cuz I can resurrect ALL my dead ones).
It's all a trade off. Let me ask the same thing back at you people who don't use wands. What do you do about Ghoul Rot, or Mage Bane....or your opponent having some annoying enchantments (like Vampirism) or Equipment....and you've run out of Disolves or Dispells. Aren't you in a pickle then? If you're not using a wand you can only consume 10% of your spell book on 6 Dispells. You could consume a bunch more of your spell book if you wanted multiple Steal Enchantments as well. The problem here is if someone is going to commit to something, they are likely going to do it strongly. Not just one or two ghoul Rots and Mage bane's but a whole bunch of them. AND if you're being Enchantment heavy, it would be wise to pack your book with Enchantments....you put 5-6 bad enchantments in your book, and they get dispelled...you put 20 enchantment in your book and you get to keep 60-70% of them (when your opponent runs out of Dispells and steal enchantments.)...you save a few aweful ones for last and he has no way to deal with them. But, if you face a wand deck and you didn't win the Harry Potter battle, he can now deal with ALL your enchantments. And the same thing for an equipment intensive deck. If your opponent isn't using a wand, then you get to keep all your equipment when your opponent runs out of Dissolves.
This is precisely why I think wands are so powerful, and why consequently winning the Harry Potter Wand battle is so critical.
-
@Brazil
Load up OCTGN, load your books in and lets have a spin, just don't play Charmyna as you will rue the day, as I still do. When you read about Watergate Wizard the point to it is that 6 Dispels and 6 Dissolves only cost 12 spellbook points. You cast Battleforge and then suits up in his armor during the Ready Stage, sets a Wizard Tower up during his action phase and starts blowing your mage up, all the while out forth pour creatures. The wand in this scenario does very little for you, your wasting ACTIONS while his number of actions keep growing.
It is not a fast book, but very deadly.
-
Brazil, you seem to be utterly missing the point of what we're saying. At this point I don't think words will get through to you. So let's set up a time to play on OCTGN, and we'll see whose book wins.
-
I have been playing MW since the winter of 2011 as a play tester. From what I have seen when a game is played in a tourney style format with a 75 - 90 minute clock and a 2min planning phase(so people can't try to burn the clock)
Each time a player casts a wand they have an advantage in terms of spell options but same player loses out in action and mana efficiency. A wand does not gain any actions in fact each time you change the spell out you are losing tempo, quick action and mana. When you look at this over the extent of a game you will see the why wands fell out of favor. Lets say you change out a spell 2x you have lost about 6-11 mana (if you count the wand cast), 2 quick action(3 if you count the wand cast). When looking at new cards we check to see how the card would function in many different builds. Not once have we ever said / thought "This card is too overpowered because wands exist"
-
I've avoided this thread because I seem to disagree with the common consensus here that "Wands are bad"
In the right build, I contend that Wands can be amazing
I play Wizards a lot (or used to until my local meta stopped playing Mage Wars because "Teleport is broken" etc)
When I start building a Wizard's book, I load up a default skeleton build on my Excel builder...
1 Battle Forge (4/3)
2 Mana Crystal (2)
1 Wizard's Tower (2)
1 Arcane Ring (1)
1 Moonglow Amulet (1)
1 Elemental Cloak (1)
1 Dragonscale Hauberk (1-2)
1 Leather Gloves (1)
1 Elemental Wand (2)
4 Mage Wand [8]
4 Teleport [8]
4 Dissolve (8/4)
1 Purge Magic (3)
4 Dispel (4)
2 Seeking Dispel (2) - for control match-ups or if target has 1 hidden enchant (cost 1 with ring)
6 Nullify (6) - disrupt/delay protection, root out Nullify like Decoy (sets up disrupt if none there)
3 Harmonize (3)
1 Rhino Hide (2)
1-2 Hurl Boulder (4)
1-2 Fireball (4)
1-2 Surging Wave (2)
1-2 Jet Stream (2)
I then add my "strategy" creature base + support, adding and culling the above
I posted some quickly-devised examples (Fire, Earth Swarm, Air) in this thread
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13316.msg26545#msg26545
Although those were before the FAQ and I cringe at some build mistakes there
Anyway, I have a lot of success in my local meta playing Wizard + Teleport Wands
Especially if you got a Forge to switch your Wand spell for no action, often 0 mana
The power to always be able to Teleport anything with Slow monsters is too much
Why not Wand + Steal Enchantment?
I find Steal Enchantment to be situational (don't work with Devouring Jelly/Iron Golem/Whirling Spirit)
I appreciate the action-saving value but often I prefer to (simply threaten) a Purge all buffs or curses
If Wardstones become more prevalent in my meta (only I play Mana Denial), then I would consider it
Steal Artifact is even more situational with so many Mage Exclusive pieces and limited mage item slots
Yes, it's a nice idea (especially as it's range 2) so maybe in a Hydras + Thornlashers build, it may work
So what I would add to the debate here is:
1. Mage Wand does not let you skimp on Incants (Tower and Elemental lets you skimp on Attack spells)
2. Wands do allow you to focus on a range 2 spell (above Dissolve range) and abuse it with other spells
3. The hate they attract (2 spell action burst at range 1 due to Nullify) also protects your other equipment
4. Wand Control requires discipline to win within a time limit so if your opponent plays slowly, change tack
5. Give up on playing Wand Control if facing the Druid (a vine range Dissolve that bypasses Nullify - gulp!)
Wands do play a part in Mage Wars, but mainly playing Wizard Control
Wands act as an insurance policy to pursue a particular strategy
-
You are running multiples, which is fine if you want to spend the action on the wand to cast one of your 4 Dispels. His argument is to run one of each kind of spell and swap them out, with a lot of defenses on the wand. We have just been saying dissolve the Wand and you have lost your Dissolve or your Dispel and now you have to spend another action to spin up another Wand and its defenses. Therefore it is very much not a war of wands.
He has mentioned nothing about Forge and swapping wands that way, but once again that is done during Upkeep and not during action Phases. If you have the wrong spell bound you are screwed. As a wizard I would prefer to add in more teleports, dissolves, and dispels instead of wands....
I do think that your meta never worked out a well done counter wand strategy and therefore the hate on teleport by the meta. Plus the golem pit you so much like plays into this as well. But we have had this conversation before....
-
sIKE. You and I always seem to be on opposite sides of debates.
Maybe it's just play style as I find Priest the least interesting mage.
I think the dismissive "the golem pit you so much like" is unfair
Golem Pit is more than just "Teleport your mage into my horde"
It involved the Transfusion set-up to ensure the kill in 2 rounds
None of the 3 Mage builds in the thread I linked uses the Golem Pit Transfusion trick
Instead of defensive (Golem Pit), they play aggressive (defensive needs patience which needs to be learnt)
The Earth swarms, Air pushes to Clouds, Fire buffs Hydras (as OP was about beating Necro with Wizard/BM)
I linked them because it demonstrated the variety that can be done with it (now trying Hydra + Thornlasher)
I have been pushing since Golem Pit to curb the power of Teleport
It's not my fault 4 Teleport Wands + 8 Slow Monsters (buy all 16 cards for 40 now) = very strong Wizard build
I was so shocked when they previewed Devouring Jelly (more so than Zombie Brute)
To not play a broken strategy seems perverse - the designers should not allow it to exist
I believe you loved playing Forcemaster + Hand of Bim Shalla + Battle Furies from Spores?
If Kich or Charmyna read this thread, I would really be interested to read your view on "Wizard Wand Control"
Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.
-
Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.
But how are they when played against a competent player on the other side of the board?
My problem with the Golem Pit + Transfusion (as always) is you are talking at least 6-7 rounds before you can pull it off, and you are telegraphing like crazy. Even a turtling Priestess should be able to disrupt thisplay. Plus counters get involved, dispels and reverse magic, and don't forget seeking dispel. If we get the chance to play on OCTGN, I promise to load up my spellbook with 6 Seeking Dispels.......Transfuse that ;)
-
I've avoided this thread because I seem to disagree with the common consensus here that "Wands are bad"
To be fair, I don't think most of use are saying that wands are useless, we're just disagreeing with the OP's statement that they are...hang on, let me find it...
the single most important factor in determining the outcome of the game.
-
Plus counters get involved, dispels and reverse magic, and don't forget seeking dispel. If we get the chance to play on OCTGN, I promise to load up my spellbook with 6 Seeking Dispels.......Transfuse that ;)
Actually, as per new FAQ, Enchantment Transfusion counters Seeking Dispel and Dispel
As long as I have a different target to move set-up to, even in the same zone (see FAQ)
So if I have 4 stacked hidden enchants, all Seeking Dispel does is cost me 1 Transfusion
As for trying to hit my wizard with any Incantation (like counter Teleport) that I don't like...
"Wizard says: Deny!" (Oh, fond memories of my Kismet Stasis Howling Mine denial deck)
Yes, I really do need to learn OCTGN, just to expose to new metas
I confess I am scared as I will be useless while I learn the interface
I will probably join under another name while learning the interface
One day soon, sIKE (or GenCon? I'm definitely flying over this year)
My problem with the Golem Pit + Transfusion (as always) is you are talking at least 6-7 rounds before you can pull it off, and you are telegraphing like crazy.
Yes, it's a round 7 kill against no disruption (never happens) but it summons a Golem on round 2, 4, 5 and 6.
That's quite a defence to penetrate. It faced so many aggro builds and won. I feared Control builds far more.
Even a turtling Priestess should be able to disrupt this play.
You're right, sIKE, my only loss piloting Golem Pit was a marathon against Priestess who turtled (as Koz said)
But that was a book built specifically to beat it (Divine Intervention, why does Light harm ferric metal so much?)
I also made a mistake at the end (my play skill deteriorates over long social gaming as my bladder expands...)
But how are they when played against a competent player on the other side of the board?
My local meta may not be your standard, sIKE (I look up to Charmyna and Piousflea most) but they're not bad.
I play other books, sIKE, Straywood is probably my next best mage, but prefer Wizard Wand Control variants.
You can spot I was an Azorius player (Blue White denial/kill control) in my competitive tournament Magic days.
Back to the topic:
You seem to have almost a pathological hatred of Wands, the implements of Wizards.
I think you missed my implicit criticism that Wands are great but only in specific builds.
Mage Wands So what I would add to the debate here is:
1. Mage Wand does not let you skimp on Incants (Tower and Elemental lets you skimp on Attack spells)
2. Wands do allow you to focus on a range 2 spell (above Dissolve range) and abuse it with other spells
3. The hate they attract (2 spell action burst at range 1 due to Nullify) also protects your other equipment
4. Wand Control requires discipline to win within a time limit so if your opponent plays slowly, change tack
5. Give up on playing Wand Control if facing the Druid (a vine range Dissolve that bypasses Nullify - gulp!)
Wands do play a part in Mage Wars, but mainly playing Wizard Control
Wands act as an insurance policy to pursue a particular strategy
-
@Deckbuilder,
I have no hate for Wands, just builds that primary focus is Wand to generate the win condition. I like to have one typically and something scary on it, as Dissolve bait, they work real good for that purpose. Just been caught by Charmnya with a Wand and something (useless) bound to it and feeling that I had wasted mana and actions.
As for Enchantment Transfusion, what page did you read that on? If I Seeking Dispel your Enchantment Transfusion you can not activate it and it is gone.
-
As for Enchantment Transfusion, what page did you read that on? If I Seeking Dispel your Enchantment Transfusion you can not activate it and it is gone.
He meant that if he had a creature with at least two enchantments on it, one being Enchantment Transfusion and some unknown enchantment, and you targeted the unknown enchantment with Seeking Dispel, he could reveal Enchantment Transfusion to move the enchantment to a new creature, making the Seeking Dispel have no legal target.
-
As for Enchantment Transfusion, what page did you read that on? If I Seeking Dispel your Enchantment Transfusion you can not activate it and it is gone.
p7 point 2
p34 top
Next thing you will tell us you have been shuffling your hidden enchants! :)
Edit: oh just realised Aylin has already explained. Soz
-
As for Enchantment Transfusion, what page did you read that on? If I Seeking Dispel your Enchantment Transfusion you can not activate it and it is gone.
p7 point 2
p34 top
Next thing you will tell us you have been shuffling your hidden enchants! :)
Edit: oh just realised Aylin has already explained. Soz
Still if I target the hidden Enchantment Transfusion with Seeking Dispel you can not counter it by revealing the Enchantment Transfusion, other than by Jinxing me...
Next thing you will tell us you have been shuffling your hidden enchants! :)
Funny, but we need a spell to do that 8)
-
SiKE, Do you think that would be a good spell for the illusionist?
And Brazil, if wands were as overpowered as you seem to think they are, don't you think that many of the more experienced players would have noticed by now? What are the chances of one card that everyone knows about that has been present since the core set, that pretty much everyone has either played or played against being overpowered with only your playgroup realizing it? The chances of that are astronomically small.
Multiple people have given very good explanations of how wands are not overpowered, except possibly in your own group's meta, and gave you sound strategic advice for how to solve the wand problem that your playgroup is having. Why not try to apply some of that advice, and then come back to this thread and tell us how it went?
If nothing else works, try having someone record a game log and then post that log on here, and we can help you figure out what's causing the wands to be monopolizing the gameplay in your meta, and how to fix it.
-
I feel as though wands are a very useful tool in any mages book. I generally play Beast Master and my spell book is of course filled with creatures. I do keep a Mage Wand and an Elemental Wand on hand however with a few spells to let me adapt to a situation as need be. Mind you I'm paying 6 points to keep them in my spellbook but then I like to keep my options open as that's my play style.
However as a Beast Master I've found that a large group of hungry critters is a fantastic way to bring down Harry, Dumbledore, or any other "Potter Duel" you'd care to name. Hehehe trying producing a Patronus when there's a grizzly bear mauling your face!
-
I feel as though wands are a very useful tool in any mages book. I generally play Beast Master and my spell book is of course filled with creatures. I do keep a Mage Wand and an Elemental Wand on hand however with a few spells to let me adapt to a situation as need be. Mind you I'm paying 6 points to keep them in my spellbook but then I like to keep my options open as that's my play style.
However as a Beast Master I've found that a large group of hungry critters is a fantastic way to bring down Harry, Dumbledore, or any other "Potter Duel" you'd care to name. Hehehe trying producing a Patronus when there's a grizzly bear mauling your face!
Why are you spending 6 points? The Beastmaster isn't trained in Arcane or any element, so the cost to include either the elemental or mage wand is 4.
-
Because my math skills are poor due to the lack of proper math teachers in Straywood. Forgot the Mage Wand is a 2 cost and not a 1. It's correctly counted in my spellbook. Sorry bout that, at work and mildly distracted. Thanks for catching it.
-
As for Enchantment Transfusion, what page did you read that on? If I Seeking Dispel your Enchantment Transfusion you can not activate it and it is gone.
He meant that if he had a creature with at least two enchantments on it, one being Enchantment Transfusion and some unknown enchantment, and you targeted the unknown enchantment with Seeking Dispel, he could reveal Enchantment Transfusion to move the enchantment to a new creature, making the Seeking Dispel have no legal target.
Not sure if this is correct. Since the spell targets the enchantment and not the creature why does moving it to another creature make it no longer a legal target? Is that in the FAQ?
-
I think the point is that you move the targeted enchantment out of range so it's no longer a legal target.
-
I think the point is that you move the targeted enchantment out of range so it's no longer a legal target.
No, the targeted enchant just needs to be moved to another target to attach onto, even in the same zone.
See the page 7 point 2 and top of page 34 of FAQ.
Yes, you can "counter" a Dispel or Steal Enchant or Seeking Dispel by spending a Transfuion hidden with target to move it to another target, even in the same zone.
It's to keep uniformity with instant speed Teleport that is Divine Intervention.
-
Well, I stand corrected. If nothing else, this thread has gotten very educational.
-
Ok, I want to understand what you are saying here.
I reveal Seeking Dispel, you say "stop" reveal Enchantment Transfusion and move all of the Enchantments off to another target creature? Now my Seek Dispel is useless?
No where in the FAQ or rules do I come away with that understanding.
If I target an unrevealed Enchantment with Seeking Dispel that is not the Enchantment Transfusion, then what you have described is true during the Counter Spell step, however if I target the un-revealed Enchantment Transfusion, it is gone nothing you can do but have a Jinx already attached to me.
Regardless if I make you pop your ET early, more than likely it is a tempo disrupter and could really disrupt all of your plans. What if I use the Seeking Dispel to rid the zone of the Teleport Trap? Many ways to pop a hole in that strategy.
-
If I target an unrevealed Enchantment with Seeking Dispel that is not the Enchantment Transfusion, then what you have described is true during the Counter Spell step, however if I target the un-revealed Enchantment Transfusion, it is gone nothing you can do.
Yes, you pick Transfusion in the stack and it's dead because of Seeking Dispel wording.
You pick any other hidden enchant and I can always opt to save it (if it's my last copy)
You try to Purge Magic my stack and I move it onto you in response
But this all assumes you are within 2 of me (1 in case of Purge) which means trouble!
What if I use the Seeking Dispel to rid the zone of the Teleport Trap? Many ways to pop a hole in that strategy.
The Teleport Trap is only ever cast if I have to teleport my victim from his corner to my corner.
How can you Seeking Dispel it from your corner when I've recently cast it in my Near Centre?
Otherwise I don't need Teleport Trap. I don't really need Spiked Pit either. It's all just insurance!
Plenty of ways to skin a cat, Force Hold, Tanglevine etc. You pick a weakness in enemy's build.
Hey, the build has aged with new DvN cards but every piece (Fog Bank vs. Hammer etc) plays it part
The Dude appreciated the relevance of each of the pieces, why it's so damningly effective (and boring)
Although I made references to it a full month before (GenCon prediction etc), I kept it under wraps
As I felt it did not do the game benefit to expose what I tested was such a simple powerful strategy
I unveiled just before original DvN release date as I thought Acid Ball & Raptors previewed weaken it
What weakens it is Orchid (but it packs 4 Teleports anyway) and Cloak of Shadows (Dark Mage Only)
Let's not discuss what I see as design mistakes (Iron Golem was too good, Hurl Boulder maybe too)
It's all academic as you and I both know steps are being taken to curb Teleport Wars and Tele-kills
sIKE. Let's not argue over Golem Pit in a thread where many will be totally mystified by our squabble
How come we're on the same wavelength in PMs yet clash so often? (Mind Control, Golem Pit, the list feels endless.)
Very recently, I found myself arguing the same as you. "This can't be right" I said so I switched sides! :)
Back to the topic at hand, folks (before a Shad0w looms above these petty squabbles)
Let's see... how to bring Tranfusion into the Harry Potter OP...
Because you can use Transfusion to move Nullify onto your Mage when Dissolve is cast on your Wand, it is possible to protect it but you are trading 2 actions for 1 (less mana probably with Arcane and Enchanter's Ring as standard). It isn't just the single Nullify you need to trigger off before the Dissolve but the back-up that comes whizzing in from that Hydra within 2. Getting an uninterrupted burst of 3 fast spell actions is almost impossible (Example: cast last in Final QC, gain Iniitiative, Early QC then act first - but opponent can lay down another Nullify in his Early QC phase).
I say "almost impossible" because it is possible. Just very difficult to pull off.
Enchant Transfusion moving multiple enchantments (curses anyone?) is "action compression" within a non-action opportunity window. Conjuring spell actions out of nowhere (you have paid for them already +1 for Transfusion) is priceless. This underused spell promotes so much Control and almost single handedly creates the Combo archetype in a game of pick your cards.
-
Well, I stand corrected. If nothing else, this thread has gotten very educational.
Second that.
It seems that magic must remain stationary to be effective since moving the caster or target of a spell will cancel it.
-
Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.
But how are they when played against a competent player on the other side of the board?
My problem with the Golem Pit + Transfusion (as always) is you are talking at least 6-7 rounds before you can pull it off, and you are telegraphing like crazy. Even a turtling Priestess should be able to disrupt thisplay. Plus counters get involved, dispels and reverse magic, and don't forget seeking dispel. If we get the chance to play on OCTGN, I promise to load up my spellbook with 6 Seeking Dispels.......Transfuse that ;)
So you're giving yourself the advantage of knowing what Book you will be playing against and building your book accordingly. That's hardly fair. In a tournament situation you would not know what type of Book you will be facing, so loading up your book with anti-wand spells just makes you that much weaker when facing non-wand decks. What you should be asking yourself is "Would your tournament book", the one you build not knowing what wizard you will face would be able to deal with each type of book effectively. NOT building a book specifically to deal with a certain type of book. (Obviously anyone could do that if they knew what they're opponet's book was going to be ahead of time.) In fact it should tell you something about how powerful wand decks are given that you feel you need to construct your book in a special way to face it.
-
Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.
But how are they when played against a competent player on the other side of the board?
My problem with the Golem Pit + Transfusion (as always) is you are talking at least 6-7 rounds before you can pull it off, and you are telegraphing like crazy. Even a turtling Priestess should be able to disrupt thisplay. Plus counters get involved, dispels and reverse magic, and don't forget seeking dispel. If we get the chance to play on OCTGN, I promise to load up my spellbook with 6 Seeking Dispels.......Transfuse that ;)
So you're giving yourself the advantage of knowing what Book you will be playing against and building your book accordingly. That's hardly fair. In a tournament situation you would not know what type of Book you will be facing, so loading up your book with anti-wand spells just makes you that much weaker when facing non-wand decks. What you should be asking yourself is "Would your tournament book", the one you build not knowing what wizard you will face would be able to deal with each type of book effectively. NOT building a book specifically to deal with a certain type of book. (Obviously anyone could do that if they knew what they're opponet's book was going to be ahead of time.) In fact it should tell you something about how powerful wand decks are given that you feel you need to construct your book in a special way to face it.
This is an example of what I mentioned earlier about Tournament meta. Some players take the view of building and discussing "Tournament books", while other players place themselves in the world of Etheria and resolve conflicts in the arena where the type of opponent you will face is known. Both are legitimate ways to play the game, but the online discussions often get mixed with perspectives from each view. Since the type of information that is available to players at the start of a battle is different it can lead to different analysis, discussion and conclusions by each of us.
Would it help to establish a separate Forum for Etheria-based players so those who start with different information can discuss the game from their perspective?
-
@Brazil
I don't think sIKE was being serious - I'm not into emoticons but I think that's what it means...
A good player will always respect the metagame (obviously you do not know your opponent's build)
There is nothing wrong with having "just in case" cards, especially a weakness (e.g. Druid and Fire)
Every book I have ever played has (at least) 1 Dragonscale Hauberk
That's because Fire has always been good but, with the latest release, it is now even more in vogue
The whole concept of toolbox is to have the right answer at the right time
Falcon Precision, Maim Wings, Surging Wave, Mage Staff, these are all examples of toolbox solutions
Because they are situational, but sometimes you just need the right card to do something with 1 QC
To call toolbox "constructing your deck in a special way to beat it" is missing the point of versatility
I believe there are 2 axis in the game: one is Aggro vs. Control, the other is Focus vs. Versatility
Some books are very focused but lack versatility to cope, others very versatile but lack a focused strategy
Where you map the book you are building is based on personal taste and your strategy concept
There is slight correlation between Aggro and Focus (short game), also Control and Versatile (long game)
But I've seen Versatile Aggro books (see Bashcon Beatdown) and Focused Control books (many of mine)
Dispel, Dissolve and Teleport are not toolbox cards where you have 1 copy only - they are essentials
Folks, let's take a recap of this thread:
Brazil contends you can build books with just 1 copy of every incantation you want and simply use a Wand
Everyone else has patiently tried to explain that this is a local meta anomaly and does not survive aggro books
I interjected when people started saying Wands do not appear in tournament builds
I added the proviso "wands are great in some books but not as a substitute for multiple copies of basic utilities"
I now regret my interjection
I remember when I started playing the game
I devoured the written wisdom of the forum experts: Dude, piousflea, Tacullu64, sdougla2, sIKE, ringkichard etc
Like every new player, I got excited over Mage Wand + Sleep; it's trading mana for tempo, good but not broken.
Piousflea once told me that Elemental Wand + range 3 Thunderbolt was a poor choice for Mana Denial strategy.
I arrogantly thought better - but guess what? The player who was more experienced than me was right! Fancy!
People contribute and correct out of goodwill, they get nothing out of helping a stranger
I have to admire the chutzpah of somebody who can sermonize sIKE for a joke about Enchantment Transfusion
Which has nothing really to do with Wands (the build discussed needs no Wands, just a single deadly Teleport)
I think Brazil is to be commended for opening this subject as a Wand is often viewed as a Swiss Army knife
Frequent posters have even commented that it's been educational - so thank you Brazil for this discussion
But here in the UK, we have a saying: "you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
I don't think there's any point in trying to disabuse someone of opinions that are firmly entrenched.
-
Since we're summing up I'd like add one point: Much of this thread is what the Warhammer folks call 'theoryhammer' (I don't know if we have a term for it in Mage Wars). I'm sure it looks to Brazil like we're being closed minded, but we're not, theoretical arguments just don't prove much. Several people have offered to rethink their position on wands pending a detailed game report or octgn game, which maybe has gotten overshadowed with all the debating. I think we're still all willing to give Brazil's arguments some more weight if he's willing to publicly test his ideas.
-
I was being a bit checky in my response. But the point I was getting across was that yes Pit can be deadly, but it is (IMHO) easy to counter mainly because it takes so long to setup and spring once played against.
If I got beat by it a couple of times (and was new to playing) my meta (local) would be to deck my mage out with bunches of Dispels, Dispel Wand, Reverse Mage, a Wand to put Dispel on (Dissolve bait). Add in Piercing and some walls, cheap ones like Fog or Earth walls to disrupt LoS. Plus I would be a bit aggressive and get in there and make the opposing mage respond to me (take tempo) vs. cast Golem cast Enchantment (what he has to do for like 6-7 rounds). My theory is that this strategy would fall apart quickly and he would have to change gears.
-
Since we're summing up I'd like add one point: Much of this thread is what the Warhammer folks call 'theoryhammer' (I don't know if we have a term for it in Mage Wars). I'm sure it looks to Brazil like we're being closed minded, but we're not, theoretical arguments just don't prove much. Several people have offered to rethink their position on wands pending a detailed game report or octgn game, which maybe has gotten overshadowed with all the debating. I think we're still all willing to give Brazil's arguments some more weight if he's willing to publicly test his ideas.
Theory Wars--We'd love to hate them and we hate to love them. ::)
-
The problem with disrupting the golem pit with agro is that you have to do it very carefully. Those are, after all, Golems. Nearly impossible to kill efficiently, and 6 die quick attacks. Bringing the fight to the Golem is not a great idea. They don't even have to cast the enchantments if you're going to stick around voluntarily.
-
Oh no way would anyone want to go toe to toe with 4 [mwcard=FWC09] Iron Golem's[/mwcard] in the same zone. But the mana cost to get that all setup is steep and with proper play on the easy side to disrupt.
-
On a sort of related note (I consider this thread already hijacked) has the corrosive orchid completely changed the equipment protection game? For 12 Mana that Wand is gone unless your enchantment happens to be block instead of Nullify.
-
On a sort of related note (I consider this thread already hijacked) has the corrosive orchid completely changed the equipment protection game? For 12 Mana that Wand is gone unless your enchantment happens to be block instead of Nullify.
Corrosive Orchid's attack is Unavoidable, so Block won't help either.
-
So are we getting back to wand war theory craft?
-
I'm not trying to start another fight. I'm just curious whether the group at large thinks that having corrosive orchid in your book trumps equipment protection.
-
I'm not trying to start another fight. I'm just curious whether the group at large thinks that having corrosive orchid in your book trumps equipment protection.
Put that in another thread please. I try to take a weekend to work on new cards and the thread wanders off the rails.
-
sIKE. You and I always seem to be on opposite sides of debates.
Maybe it's just play style as I find Priest the least interesting mage.
I think the dismissive "the golem pit you so much like" is unfair
Golem Pit is more than just "Teleport your mage into my horde"
It involved the Transfusion set-up to ensure the kill in 2 rounds
None of the 3 Mage builds in the thread I linked uses the Golem Pit Transfusion trick
Instead of defensive (Golem Pit), they play aggressive (defensive needs patience which needs to be learnt)
The Earth swarms, Air pushes to Clouds, Fire buffs Hydras (as OP was about beating Necro with Wizard/BM)
I linked them because it demonstrated the variety that can be done with it (now trying Hydra + Thornlasher)
I have been pushing since Golem Pit to curb the power of Teleport
It's not my fault 4 Teleport Wands + 8 Slow Monsters (buy all 16 cards for 40 now) = very strong Wizard build
I was so shocked when they previewed Devouring Jelly (more so than Zombie Brute)
To not play a broken strategy seems perverse - the designers should not allow it to exist
I believe you loved playing Forcemaster + Hand of Bim Shalla + Battle Furies from Spores?
If Kich or Charmyna read this thread, I would really be interested to read your view on "Wizard Wand Control"
Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.
Sorry to join the discussion so late. Next time pls send me a message here in the forum or in Octgn ;).
About Mage Wands: They are my highest priority very often! The reasons are:
- They allow you to save many Spellpoints (not mana!)
- Maybe even more important: They give you flexibility in planning (its like planning a third card)
For these Reasons most of my Decks have 5-6 dissolves (also those that need to pay two points per dissolve). I never want to be in a game where the opponent has a mage wand left and I dont have a dissolve!
You might think that I carry four mage wands often since they are so good. I dont! A decent player often dissolves them quickly, which in many cases means the player with the Mage Wand actually looses more Spellpoints (again not Mana!) than the opponent. So in non-Wizard decks I barely carry more than one Mage Wand since four spellpoints is too much to have four copies. In Wizard decks I consider having more Wands but only if I assume the game will be VERY long.
During my last games I actually found the value of the mage wand not in the saved spellpoints but in the flexibility while planning! That way I could risk to plan a card I might not be able to use but if used it would be awesome. In the case I cant use it, I still have the seeking dispel/dispel/Push/dissolve on Mage Wand to do something useful (at least trigger his Nullify).
Btw the Mage Wand slows you down a bit (action and mana wise) but if you got the Battle Forge to cast it, thats much less a problem!
Towards Watergate Wizard and similar build relying on Teleport Wand and slow creatures: I still like them alot, but I have the feeling that a very aggressive druid with many rouse the beasts, vine tree and Vine Snappers casted early on the Gate will be very strong against the Watergate Wizard.
I havent seen such a game, so atm its only theorycrafting.
Btw my new Blasting Banker build will most likely kill Watergate since the latter is too slow! At least Watergate Wizard would need alot defensive stuff on himself, which costs his own actions since at the beginning he does not have the mana to cast the Forge.
Another btw: I guess an Obelisk (maybe + suppression orb) in the opposite corner would be very annoying for Watergate since the slow creatures take forever to get there and even teleporting them isnt good since it costs so much mana and you loose the spell or give the opponent the opportunity to dissolve the valuable Wand early on.
So in the end: At the moment I really like playing a Wizard without any creatures and Forge+high armor+obelisk+Suppression Cloak+Essence Drain! This combination works really nicely to slow down the opponent and give your mage time to bank actions (enchants on him and on opponent) while saving more than 30 mana! At that point the opponent is too far behind action and mana wise . Therefore, with the help of a fresh wizards tower+some fireballs/flameblasts+revealing the "banked" Magebane/Ghoul Rot and using the hidden poisoned blood+nullify to prevent healing, he can be killed within only a few rounds. In my last games most were dead within two rounds I think (they were at full life or only a few damage before).
Here you can find a Summary of my recent games and links to the full match videos including many audio comments:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13428.0
Sorry for the self-promotion - its just I really like the Blasting Banker ;). Besides that, this is the kind of build that doesnt care too much about teleport wands I think (because of high armor+voltaric shield+veterans belt+suppression cloak). Still, I would dissolve them quickly!