I have to admit I too am surprised this discussion has gone on this long. 
To everyone's credit - kudos for your civility and thoughtful inputs.

First, the normal crystal is better than your made-up crystal because it gives you back some of you investment every turn instead to wait 5 turns.

In your fictitious conjuration example, Mana Crystal is certainly better than that conjuration, ....

To Wildhorn and ACG - why did you decide the real Mana Crystal was better than the fictitious Mana Crystal?  Why is the round-by-round return better when your argument is no benefit in rounds 2-5?

I know it is a bit rhetorical but I think your answer is exactly why DaFurryFury, myself, and a few others see short term value with this card in addition to its long-term benefit.  My fictitious example returns the same value by turn 6 as the Mana Crystal and yet you both suggest it is worse than the real Mana Crystal.  Why if it costs the same and provides the exact same return by round 6?

I think most respondents to DaFurryFury's argument are focused on the wrong thing.  It is not what you could do instead of playing the Mana Crystal but rather what you can do after playing it.  It is not whether the Mana Crystal is a better play than some other card, but rather the options it now affords you to respond to your opponents actions as well as the new options it opens for you in subsequent rounds.

I believe we all can agree that everyone has different styles, strategies, tactics, etc depending upon the mage your playing and the degree of experience you have against your opponent (i.e. their style, strategies, tactics, etc).  We all value one card over another as it works to achieve these ends.

My interpretation of "action potential" is what I can now do to respond to actions my opponent has taken or not taken while staying focused on my own strategy.  I know I cannot anticipate everything my opponent might do anymore than I can expect to do everything I would like to do when I want to do it.

The Mana Crystal gives me two key benefits:

• Long-term channeling growth
• Extra capability to respond to unforeseen actions on the part of my opponent

Am I sacrificing the play of some other spell so I can play the Mana Crystal?  Of course I am but that is a decision we make with every spell.  My opponent did so too with whatever they chose in the early game.  Maybe it was armor that they won't need until round 6 or maybe it was for a wand that I later dissolve before they ever use it; whatever it does not matter, we all make choices.

What I am wanting, is to be in a position as early as possible to respond to my opponent when necessary while keeping my eye on the end game when I can (hopefully) overwhelm them.   I want more mana and especially more than my opponent.  This may take several rounds but I know the game will last at least that long and I plan my strategy for it.

I assume we will both spend our starting mana quickly on things we want.  The subsequent rounds will be all about what we're willing to bank and our channeling.  This is where the "action potential" comes into play.  As the game unfolds we both will eventually find ourselves in a position where we need to respond to something our opponent has done.  If I can channel 11 vs. my opponents 10 then I am in a better position to not only respond but possibly doing so while still moving forward with my own strategy and tactics.  If I don't need to respond then I am in a better position to force my opponent to respond to my actions because I am spending more each individual round than they are.

Bottom line is that I see value in the 5-mana "sacrifice" that the Mana Crystal gives me on the rounds immediately after its cast.  It is an investment in the near and long-term future that I am after and worth whatever else I might play that needs that 5-mana. 

Is this true in all situations?  No . 
Could my opponent surprise me and attack aggressively at the start?  Sure, but I don't think 5-mana will put me at too much risk. 
Could I have banked the 5-mana and used that as my "action potential"?  Sure, but would I ... probably not (I'd likely spend it on something else).
Could my opponent play something that might prove, in hindsight, to be more valuable than my Mana Crystal?  Of course.  But will they?  We'll never know until we play.


BTW - while I often have this spell in my book I usually don't cast it until rounds 3 or 4.  I have more important spells to get out early (e.g. spawnpoints, large creature, or something else that my strategy requires be out early).  This also allows me to get a early read on my opponent's likely strategy and know whether it is "safe" to cast the Mana Crystal or if I need that 5-mana for some immediate response.  Baring an immediate need then I cast it and continue on with my own game tempo.

DaFurryFury you are spot on with your math and your common sense. 

However, I think Gregstrom's comment earlier in this thread sums it up very concisely:

What I get if I put 5 of my initial mana into a mana crystal instead of some other asset is added ongoing flexibility

It is too simplistic to see value in the Mana Crystal/Mana Flower over a long game (i.e. more mana) just as it is to shut the idea down as a wasted turn vs. other options (i.e. 5 mana + 1 action wasted).  The real RoI of a small sacrifice in turn 1 for added capability from turn 2 onward is just not as apparent for some as it is for others. 

To myself, DaFurryFury, Gregstrom, and others the concept is easily grasped.  Wildhorn and others see lost opportunity and prefer more direct options.  Disagreements like these validate this game and help ensure a long life of enjoyment to its fans.  If all spells had obvious value, or lack of value, then the game would be boring and die a quick death. 

For me, I nearly always stock my spell book with 2 Mana Crystals/Mana Flowers depending upon my Mage.  I usually open playing 1 or 2 of these conjurations within the first 3 rounds.  Obviously an aggressive opening by my opponent will influence what I really do, but most players tend to spend the first few rounds "setting up" and the real action doesn't happen until rounds 4+.  My experience also shows that most games will last at least 14 rounds.  The advantage of the early mana conjuration gets realized early and continues as I am in a better position to control the game tempo.  "Early", as I have the potential of a better response to my opponent's opening, and "continues" as I have more mana = more options later when my opponent is stressed trying to manage the little mana he has.

BTW - If my overall strategy is to try to force a long game then I might have a third that gets played by round 6/7. 

After reading  this thread I am intrigued by Zubrei's suggestion to have joint-team turns. 

My group has played quite a few 2v2 games with team mates sitting across table.  We initially discussed joint-team play but elected not to go down this route.  We wanted to avoid changing the official rules. 

We did change the board though: http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14232.0).

Regarding players sitting next to one another or collaborating in secret, while the two mages are acting as a single player, they are two mages and should act accordingly.  We permit cross-table talk.  The two mages can talk or yell in the arena.  Allowing the two mages to secretly collaborate during planning is not permitted; they can talk to each other but they must do so across the table in the presence of their opponents.  Again, these mages are in combat in an arena, not sitting next to each other in the stands operating robots.

The joint-life total was also discussed early in our team-play but was quickly discarded due to the rule challenges it poses (Regen, Finite Life, Blood-thirsty, condition markers, mage specific traits, and many more).  We have not experienced any problems with individual mages' life.  Each mage needs to look after one another - if one mage dies early then the other mage is likely doomed. 

I will revisit the joint-team play idea with my group.  This seems like a very doable idea and solves one pesky challenge we've had with "passing" because you have the fewest active creatures (do you have the fewest literally or fewer than your opponent).

In free for alls, making the win condition be "last mage standing" biases the game in favor of control mages.

I agree - that is the natural tendency but aggro play has worked on occasion especially when the opponents were too focused on control/turtle-ling.

If the win condition were "first to kill an enemy mage", this biases in favor of aggro. In a 4 player free for all, having exactly two winners and two losers doesn't really work.

We've never tried this but I would agree it would definitely encourage aggro and discourage control.

If you're looking for balance, I would say play a game with two teams of even size, or a much larger free for all.

Agreed - We enjoy team-play the most.  Very interesting mage-combos and inter-player collaboration open a whole new aspect to the game.

We are in the process of training a 6th player into our group and looking forward to a 2v2v2 or 3v3 game.  Wish you [Imaginator] and others were close by; I'd like to introduce you to the group and the hex board. I've solicited for others in the San Antonio - Austin corridor but no takers yet   

BTW - see the following topic regarding the "hex board" I was referring to.
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14232

I like the dice idea a lot - I'm surprised we never thought of this before 

That makes a lot of sense to me. Have you considered discounting walls by 1 mana to make up for the 20 or so degrees lost? Or do you think it's not really necessary?

No, we did not consider this.  Messing with mana cost was a Pandora's box that we did not want to open.

Any proposed change had to (1) solve a problem introduced by the hex map board, (2) be simple, (3) not create a new problem.  LoS determination on a hex map board was an obvious problem that had to be addressed.  Our solution was simple and easy to implement.  Our solution did not create a new problem rather it diminished an existing problem.

We have a group of 5 in the San Antonio area that regularly plays Mage Wars and are looking to include others in the San Antonio to Austin corridor.

We regularly play multiplayer games (1v1v1, 2v2, 1v1v1v1) on a hex map board.  We are very interested in trying out a 2v2v2 or 3v3.

See topic about our hex map boards http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14232.0

If you are interested please reply to this post.  We can host or are willing to travel if you wish to host.