Well, I stand corrected. If nothing else, this thread has gotten very educational.

You can add me to the list, too.

Much clearer now, thanks.

If a creature has melee + x and he has (or gains, through the retaliate enchantment or something) counterstrike, can the melee + x trait apply more than once per turn. For example, I activate my creature, it attacks (using up its melee + x), then it gets attacked and uses its counterstrike. And would it make a difference if the counterstrike came first and then the creature's action?

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.

If you tell us what your in-game strategy is we'll be better able to give good advice. The book you posted is fine, but it's very generalized, so without knowing where you want to go with it it's hard to say anything really helpful.

@ sIKE

I'm not convinced the sexy = empowered argument is applicable in this case because the sexy women involved aren't real. The priestess can't feel empowered because she looks good in her wedding night lingerie since there isn't a real priestess.  By the same token, the women in Mage Wars aren't victims of men dressing them up and then leering at them because the women involved are fictional. The only effect you'll get is the effect on the viewer. So the question we have to ask is "What impressions are likely to be created in the viewer by game art that depicts women as primarily (although not exclusively, as we've pointed out) scantily clad super models?" As Deckbuilder correctly pointed out, this creates the impression among many viewers that A) game nerds like to depict women as sex objects, and (especially among the young) B) it is okay for me to view women largely as sex objects. In my opinion, these impressions are both to be avoided.