-sigh- This is the second lore article I've read and have been kinda disappointed with. It's interesting stuff for sure, I'm totally the type of guy to really delve into my game worlds. I just find things like this far too textbooky. It's not bad it's just dull. It's not good writing (maybe delivery is a better word). Everything said here could easily have been presented in a story type fashion with a student discovering parts of this by exploring the campus or from the perspectives of the teachers themselves. I don't want to simply know about the magic academies, I want to experience them. Have you ever experienced something from a History textbook? Probably not, but when you read a great novel you get to learn about a world by living in it through a character.

I currently live in Cheyenne Wyoming and it is not difficult at all for me to get to Fort Collins or Loveland. My parents live in Denver so that's not especially difficult. Anyway, I have gaming groups for other games that meet up every now and then, but I'm having trouble finding people who play mage wars. Anybody in the area play and willing to meet sometime for some small events?

And this is where the pro mana flower logic breaks down for me: If I save the mana, instead of spending it on a Flower, the next turn I have far more options available than even +1 channeling would give me. It seems like we've been ignoring the opportunity cost of the mana.

Please watch the video I posted to better understand my points. I know you're new to the conversation but you are regurgitating information that has been said and I have reacted to in detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqMV0wBFu54

You have created a model to give you the "value" of a card. The problem is that it is not possible to assign a value to a card, due to the complexity of the resources in the game, and therefore this analysis does not tell us anything useful.

This is incorrect. You can assign a value to anything and, in concept, it's actually pretty easy. By analyzing traits and giving each certain effect value by ratio you can create an index number to represent a card. My analysis does not include every single trait that the mana crystal holds but rather the most important ones. This does not give the most accurate index number but it's good enough for the relationships we are trying to draw between cards, because the only application of the index numbers we can create is only relevant in comparison to each other. To say that it is impossible to create index values of a card is to say that you cannot compare goblin grunt to adramelach and definitively determine which is more useful. You are correct in saying that there are a ton of elements to consider when doing this but just because the solution isn't simple, doesn't mean it's impossible. I also find it curious that you deny the existence of such a process then immediately attempt to due one with your meditation amulet example. (Which is interesting by the way, I like it. So much that I may include it by concept in my own valuation to make it more accurate. However I'm not sure I totally agree with your valuation of a quick action. Actions are often in flux because one possible and often feasible action is to do no action at all. But I digress.)

Now to answer the action potential question. Action potential IS measurable, it is what a card has the ability to do, more or less. Now this is a complex concept as it is "potential" meaning it has not done what it has the ability to do. Mana crystal, rather than increasing it's own action potential, increases your mage's action potential, and that is where I'm getting the .5 by physical account. It increases the amount of stuff the mage can do on a per turn basis. The fact that .5 is the number .5 is because I believe that, by ratio, the increase in action potential is worth half of that of each mana it gives you back. So basically, the card's index value increases by 1.5 each turn after it is cast until the end of the game which is the only point in time which you can fully and accurately asses the index value of the card. That is why we must use variables in it's value assessment equation.

So perhaps you are correct in saying my valuation is not complete objective, but it's also not objective from the stand point of each mage as well. Especially until we include a clause concerning spell points and those heavy on zone-exclusives.

So in conclusion, no, my valuation is not simple and is far from totally complete, but that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. Isn't that what progress is anyway? Finding something that works until we prove it wrong and then we refine it further so it works again.

The end value number is simply an abstract representation of a card. The number exists simply because we want it to. When applying the possible uses of this card, we might compare one card's value index number to another's. So to pick one out of a hat let's use Goblin Grunt.

A grunt cost's 4, has 4 life, and an attack of 3. I have yet to do a full valuation of a creature card so I'm just going to say that each life has 1 value and each attack die has 1 value. In this case that mean that a life or a die is equal to 1 mana in terms of comparing to mana crystal. so grunt's equation might look something like this: (-4)+(4+3y). Y=number of times he has attacked during the game. If we assume that goblin grunt attacks every turn you can translate y to x or turns after it was cast in the same way we did with mana crystal. This is of course excluding the factor of the possibility that it literally can't attack for a certain instance and thus the value over the time of the game would decrease.

But for the sake of experimentation, we can estimate. So let say a game last 8 rounds and the grunt is able to attack on 5 of those rounds.

Mana Crystal (7-5)+(0.5*7) = 5.5
Goblin Grunt (-4)+(4+3y)   = 15

In this case the goblin grunt was worth nearly 3 times more than the mana crystal, but that is likely a flawed outcome due to that attack dice are not necesarilly equal to mana or action potential. Could be more, could be less, but it's all theoretical. What my argument says is that the increased action potential that mana crystal gives you increases the game value of itself.

Okay, I just wanted to see what you thought on that card. I suppose I can try to give you what you're asking for about falsifying my argument. For me to completely flip sides, you would have to prove to me that there is absolutely no value in spending mana for increased or decreased channeling. To do this you would have to prove my assessment of mana sources from the video false, though I think that will be very hard because I just used elements of the game, nothing theoretical or made up. I still think there is value in being able to cast greater spells without the negative effects I discussed for the cost of 5 or 10 early game mana. If this were not true I don't think it would be such a commonly used card. However, you have already succeeded in proving that the value that I was placing on this bonus is not as valuable as the mana gained after turn 6. I have reduced the value of my assessment to this equation: (x-5)+(.5x) Remember that the value of the increased channeling is represented as the ".5" and that is what you would have to prove to me that is equal to zero for me to be completely on your side. This is perhaps a very difficult feat as on any given turn, if I have higher channeling then I have some advantage regardless of the mana available. Since we have to have some way of valuating the amount of turns we have been talking about it in the context from turn 1.

All right, well...it doesn't look like an understanding is forthcoming here between the two sides of this debate. As much as I like arguing, and as curious as I am about the short-term benefit claim that several have made (because I still do not understand it), this is pretty much it for me here.

I think you are right. I think the best example I can give is the Forcemaster dwarven leader I talked about before but like you say, it can still be "mimiced." I think there is value in not having to mimic it but maybe it's become more of a matter of personal preference then? If you choose to value the increase in action potential then it works but that's very un-scientific and not very satisfying to people like you and me who like to find an answer. It's just that, even though I believe there is value before 6 turns, it doesn't change the fact that the mana crystal is a long game card and wouldn't be worth playing if the text said it is "limited to 5 turns after summoning" or something like that. I will still be on the lookout for examples that might work ACG (will PM you if I find one). In the meantime, handshake and agree to disagree?
 
So anyway, hopefully my argument hasn't insulted anybody, I definitely don't mean to do that. So, in case I have, sorry to those who have had a constructive conversation with me and haven't attacked me, my personality, or religion in the process.

I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.

I think Sike and cannonjr have pretty much plugged my perspective head on. Both of them explained it in ways I couldn't think of. So thanks for that. On the surface my points seemed easy to grasp for me but when comparing all the different examples that everyone has come up with, especially zorro and ACG, it's hard to put it in perspective. I'm not sure that I have anything that I am able to add to the conversation but I will definitely keep listening. This has been a neat study in resource management for this game. Sorry I don't have much else to add.