I dont know if it is only me, but I think most cheesy stuff come from Enchantment Transfusion being able to transfuse facedown enchantment. These enchantment that you normally have to set up just before needed to not waste them suddently become counters on demand. I think this card should be errated or add in the rules that enchantment with mandatory reveal cant be transfused/moved. It would reduce the power of the wizard by the sameway.

Transfusion Cheese. I'm horribly biased here as I'm a control freak (you'd never guess...).
I think the card is fine as it is because of...

However, let's not forget these facts: using Enchantment Transfusion means you have additionally paid...
+1 spell point (assuming Wizard)
+1-2 to cast it
+1 mana per enchantment moved (Arcane Ring discount on Nullify)
most importantly, +1 quick action

It's fine to spenad all those extra resources above on a timed Nullify (often too pressured as Tarkin said)
That's a fair price to pay surely?

This is where both me and jacksmack have an issue

Enchantment Transfusion says "target" so it should target, not bypass Nullify.
Bypassing Nullify, we get double Nullify situations and make Transfusion free action guaranteed delivery.
We also make Transfusion mean "counter any spell targeting an enchantment on this creature".
Is "Counter" what "Transfusion" means? I never realised this when I last donated at the Blood Bank.

There is nothing intuitive about moving is a counter unless you move target so it's out of range.
What should happen is if I move an enchantment out of range of your Dispel, then it is countered.
Not just because I moved it from my mage to the creature I just summoned next to it or even you.

A creature spell targets the mage's current zone.
A mage is moved while summoning - why does it not simply target the new current zone?
Why MAKE UP a rule that seems grossly counter-intuitive - and knowingly keep it quiet for so long?

Enchantment Transfusion used to be "counter by moving to itself" in the prior FAQ.
But now it has its own rules and it has to be to another target, even in the same zone.
What is the intuitiveness of the first rule or even the second rule? Why does it counter?
The target is still in range and still has line of sight and line of effect (D&D 4E term). Why counter?

Zuberi (Judge Dredd) points out that it's in the rules, the laws are coherent.
But the rules were written for Divine Intervention, not Transfusion.
All it takes is a rules tweak that nobody (except Zuberi of course) would even notice!

By all means counter the spell if in its new location it's now an illegal target
So Dispel and Seeking Dispel has a range of 2, move it so it's out of range or out of LOS
As for Divine Intervention when I summoned Adramelech/Sardonyx, I summoned it in MY zone
That's what range 0-0 means: MY zone, wherever I am! Move me and I summon it there instead!
How much more intuitive can you get than that?

It's an awful rule and the cheese of it ("I can still target it so why is Dispel countered?") is why Transfusion is hated!

Enchantment Transfusion single handedly creates Combo (action burst) in a game of pick your cards (iawesome).
You pay a premium so it's best done in multiples but can be done for optional Nullify style effects at a steep price).
Change the stupid unintuitive rule about moving, not the spell which is great (may not be to your taste, Wildhorn).
Don't throw the baby with the bathwater!

[Returns to calm, unbiased Facilitator mode]

Wildhorn, you make an interesting point about Transfusion which does indeed deserve hate for its "cheese".
I am unsure if totally nerfing is necesary as a fair price has been paid but i do agree its "move to counter" is cheesy.
Despite my strong views on this, your viewpoint is just as valid so I will make a note of it Message 10 of this thread.

Folks, this involvement is awesome. Thanks for the interest.
Problem is there are so many great ideas coming all at once.
See Message 10 where I have collated everyone's thought so far (and will continue to do so).
Feel free to contribute new ideas as and when you have them please!

However, if you look at Message 10, alot of people have mentioned more choice.
This was my post on this topic of greater choice...

Trying to not re-invent the wheel, I think this Utility school is called Novice

Novice Dispel - range 1
Novice Dissolve - range 0
Novice Teleport - range 1 friendly only
Novice Nullify - optional reveal vs. incant only (not enchants due to dupe, transfusion silver bullet anyway)
Novice Block 1 - optional reveal vs. ranged attack
Novice Block 2 - optional reveal vs. melee attack
Novice Jinx 1 -  optional reveal when casting enchant to full counter

The better versions would be in their schools

The best thing about having a mini-set of utility expansions is it gives CHOICE!
I hate the fact there is so little choice for staples

"But there's no theme in such an expansion" is no doubt the excuse bleated
And there lies the nub: 2 different philosophies
Those who see it as a roleplaying simulation with thematic pre-constructed decks
And those who see it as a blank canvas for customising and micro resource-management
Both philosophies have their strengths and should be respected but there's an imbalance

It's supposed to be a customisable game
There should be choice when choosing composition of staple mechanics

What do the forum think about such an approach?
Or would you prefer specific schools getting alternative solutions?
E.g. old one of mine "Sundering Strike, War Command, next attack dissolves equipment cost up to damage rolled"

Whilst I have in the past gone down the alternative schools path, I'm now leaning more towards weaker Novice.

Thoughts?

@Indy & Zuberi

You addressed great issues there so let's number them for easy reference

1. NERFING WIZARD
(a) Teleport (Zuberi, Indy, jack)
(b) Spell Points (Zuberi, Indy, jack)
(c) Wizard's Tower (Zuberi)
(d) Alternatives to staples (webcatcher, Zuberi, Darth)
(e) Move does not counter if still targetable (jack)

2. IMMUNITY MATCH-UPS
(a) Poison (DB)
(b) Psychic (DB)
(c) only vs. Living (DB)

3. IMPROVING SWARM
(a) Straywood (Indy)

4. CHANGES TO RANGED
(a) Jokhtari Weapon (Zuberi, jack)
(b) More obscured (Darth)

I am trying to place the issues into broad categories with subcategories
Then referencing the solutions provided by posters

Keep them coming in, folks!
Get that great feeling of helping develop this great game.
It's a real buzz when they listen (why I do Playtesting)
It's also a real downer when they don't...

Any more?

My feeling is more like:

1. Wizards (all flavours)
2. Druid, Necromancer, Warlock, Priestess, Forcemaster
3. Straywood, Priest, Jokhtari
4. Warlord

Ok, let's work with that as a working assumption
I expect Priest fans sIKE and Zuberi may differ

But the reality is you have played a huge amount on OCTGN (and with great success)
You are probably best placed in evaluating the strength of mages based on skill and the worldwide Meta
Because obviously mage ranks differ within localised metas

So let's discount the Warlord as he is being fixed

Also MageHorst makes a good point on HOW to fix this
I think we should contain ourselves to
(a) new cards that ideally enhance that mage's strengths
(b) new cards that weaken the Wizard's dominance
(c) slight rule tweaks via a Living FAQ

(a) is best then (b) then (c)
I don't think we should change card text
(hence my proposed solution to Teleport was a slight rules tweak)

Are A > B > C good design principles to work from?


(Now, I really must do some work but will be back on this topic!
Typical, a busy project deadline delivery day and there are some awesome hot threads!)

Ok maybe it's time to take a deep breath here. We're not going to get anywhere with long arguments. Teleport is awesome but it's maybe not the end all auto win. How is that for a compromise? I think we all understand the points both sides of that argument can make but not all of us agree on all points. One thing I would like to point out(and I know I'm going to get decapitated for this) is many players have learned to recognize what their opponent is setting up(like oh say casting Iron Golems and bringing out a Mage Wand....) and are learning how to counter those moves. The game is fluid and dynamic, which is why I love it.

Decapitated? Am I that scary, Silverclaw? I wouldn't decapitate you. Who would I have to chew the fat with when the rest of the US are asleep?

I realise that  the game is fluid, books adapt and the designers bring new mechanics to solve issues (e.g. Corrode).

However what Teleport Mage does is stifle innovation by imposing a spell point tax on every book.
It destroys certain strategies like Ranged Fortress, one of the cornerstones of the Warlord options.
Most importantly, it really puts off new players who just look at the manoeuvre and think "cheese!".

You would be amazed how incredibly liberating it is playing without the tyranny of this Teleport paranoia.
The game actually becomes tactical, manoeuvering of forces in different zones to destroy zone exclusive assets.
Instead of always ending up in one big brawl in a zone that can't take more than 6 cards (let alone walls).

Ranged units are skillful becauise it requires positioning and protection with melee units, ideally with Defense.
The closest we get is Gorgon Archer with Eagle Wings and you've spent all your Dispels on my Essence Drains.

Teleport is actually incredibly lazy. The hard way is to play tactically better than your opponent.

I have been quiet on my anti-Teleport crusade and failed to convince on a new spell available to all to help curb it.
What has triggered me back to being a drooling wreck is this latest incarnation.
Divine Intervention + Enchantment Transfusion is just plain too strong and anti-intuitive

[Zuberi, I will respond with my counter arguments but I'm a bit busy at work here in the UK]

In regards to being able to teleport mages in general, I'm in favor of it. If we couldn't get the enemy out of their fortress, then wouldn't the win always go to whomever stayed in their start corner all game? That sounds extremely boring to me.

I am the first to concede a good point when I see one.
And you make a good point, Zuberi.

However, think of it in Medieval Warfare terms.
Your Fortress is too strong?
I attack it with ranged attacks.
Ideally the free mana ranged troops all schools have access to.
Maybe even Zonal ranged Attacks?
Better make more balanced books then.

BB would starve you out with Obelisk.
Necromancer would twiddle its thumbs with Pestilence.

Oh, did I mention just using a Wand and Teleporting your fortified troops into mine?
I obviously pick on one that has acted that turn and bring him to me and destroy it.
That's fine by the way, part of being a Wizard is an ability to rearrange the battlefield.

But to Teleport the King into traps? It's just so brutal and route 1, no finesse, no skill.

There are many tools available beyond the route 1 "Teleport Your Mage" to break down a fort.
All this means is those tools enter the meta (when did you last see a Zone Attack being cast?)


I played a game where my opposing Wizard had to Mana Siphon himself because of my Divine Intervention.
He was fine with it because it was a fun play.
Recently, being forced to go first in Round 1, my Fire Wizard cast Drain Power in Round 2 Early QC to deny my Warlock his Adramelech then cast it myself in Round 3.
The same opponent was fine with it because it was a fun play.
The same opponent Rage Quit when I revealed Mind Control in Upkeep and killed his buffed up Grizzly to my Obelisk (that short period between the wrong ruling and the errata to cover it up).
Because it was not on the card, some off-card rule.

And that's the point here.

Cards should do what you expect them to do - and Divine Intervention does not mean "counter anything".

Enchantment Transfusion says "target" so it should target, not bypass Nullify.
Bypassing Nullify, we get double Nullify situations and make Transfusion free action guaranteed delivery.
We also make Transfusion mean "counter any spell targeting an enchantment on this creature".
Is "Counter" what "Transfusion" means? I never realised this when I last donated at the Blood Bank.

There is nothing intuitive about moving is a counter unless you move target so it's out of range.
What should happen is if I move an enchantment out of range of your Dispel, then it is countered.
Not just because I moved it from my mage to the creature I just summoned next to it or even you.

A creature spell targets the mage's current zone.
A mage is moved while summoning - why does it not simply target the new current zone?
Why MAKE UP a rule that seems grossly counter-intuitive - and knowingly keep it quiet for so long?

Enchantment Transfusion used to be "counter by moving to itself" in the prior FAQ.
But now it has its own rules and it has to be to another target, even in the same zone.
What is the intuitiveness of the first rule or even the second rule? Why does it counter?
The target is still in range and still has line of sight and line of effect (D&D 4E term). Why counter?

We can see by this change of rules in the FAQ that this is just being made up as they go.
Like an episode of Lost after the first 2 seasons.


Zuberi, I lost my argument to you about Mind Control and, soon after they realised the mistake, pride took over and we got an ugly errata instead that was first smuggled in as a "FAQ Clarification".

I lost my argument to you, Zuberi, on having a cool mechanic like secret information (Wizard Training) and to just nerf Teleport instead. After sIKE told me he had known the decision for sometime (Laddin told me I almost convinced them), I finally signed the NDA and became establishment (sort of). But that didn't really help gain much influence, no matter how much effort I put in.

So there's not much I can do - except try to highlight what a turn-off this is to a lot of people on the public forum and see if there is agreement or if I'm a lone voice. I don't think I am.


You have amazing knowledge of the rules, Zuberi.
But sometimes, you just need to rewrite the rules.

And by the time she gets through the 24 turns needed to setup this "Awesome" play from Hades what ever I have been fighting against (as I have put all of my guys in a corner) will have a Buffed Steel Claw chewing on her or after 12 turns (half of the time needed for this play) BB will move in for the kill and end the game on round 13 or 14.

Oh sIKE, you spend resources to attack a Pit.
I have troops too. By all means attack a Priestess in her Sacred Fort.

We have this argument every time - because you have this rabid hatred of a mechanic that works.
It's like some sort of denial mechanic snaps in you.
Because the rest of the world may concede it works but not you.

As for BB, you have Guardian Angels, you can out-attrition her just with more actions and healing over time

For this Grizzly build, you manage to magic up better troops than a Priestess in a corner with a Knights and Guardian Angels?

It costs you resources to move and attack me. What do you think I've been doing meantime?
Golem Pit triggered on Turn 8, sIKE. This may take a bit longer but by all means assault a Priestess and see what happens.

Just take a look at Tarkin's Priestess build. You only need to make a few changes and you have your win.

But most importantly

WHERE IS THE FUN IN THIS?