The more I read here, the more it seems that any mage without a heavy selection of arcane spells (teleports, dispels etc) will always be subpar. All skills being equal, a mage which has a lot of arcane utility spells will beat a mage without lots of arcane.
This - from what I glean - is because arcane offers the key to rushing (both in executing it, and defending against it), and from what I see, rushing is the dominant strategy. (ie There is no time to build up a beautiful array of defences and outposts). It also appears to be the primary means of countering or fizzling opponents' spells, which is always important, and in getting your big creatures, or mage, out of any tricks and traps.
Of course it's possible for someone to win without arcane, and obviously this is only really relevant once people delve deep into min maxing their mages. Personally, I am never likely to progress much beyond casual play, so it probably doesn't matter.
But this sits uncomfortably with me.
The fact that triple arcane cost effectively rules the warlord out of the game (on top of the fact that a mage built around spawning lots of soldiers and buffingis very bad at spawning lots of soldiers and buffing them), and that any mage without a heavy selection of arcane spells will necessarily be subpar.
My ideal of mage wars is that mages from different schools of magic pits their wits against each other, and all stand a good chance of competing. There should be an opportunity for mages which don't stuff their spellbooks with arcane to win the game.
Of course, there will always be dominant strategies in any game like this; it is almost impossible to have this much variety and keep it balanced. There will almost always some schools that are better than others.
But for one school to be so dominant seems a curious design decision.
I hope I have misunderstood, and that I am wrong in this!