The Harry Potter mechanic of the game bothers me a bit.

[wtcannonjr]

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

Second that.

It seems that magic must remain stationary to be effective since moving the caster or target of a spell will cancel it.

[Brazil]

Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.

But how are they when played against a competent player on the other side of the board?

My problem with the Golem Pit + Transfusion (as always) is you are talking at least 6-7 rounds before you can pull it off, and you are telegraphing like crazy. Even a turtling Priestess should be able to disrupt thisplay. Plus counters get involved, dispels and reverse magic, and don't forget seeking dispel. If we get the chance to play on OCTGN, I promise to load up my spellbook with 6 Seeking Dispels.......Transfuse that

So you're giving yourself the advantage of knowing what Book you will be playing against and building your book accordingly.    That's hardly fair.   In a tournament situation you would not know what type of Book you will be facing, so loading up your book with anti-wand spells just makes you that much weaker when facing non-wand decks.    What you should be asking yourself is "Would your tournament book", the one you build not knowing what wizard you will face would be able to deal with each type of book effectively.   NOT building a book specifically to deal with a certain type of book.  (Obviously anyone could do that if they knew what they're opponet's book was going to be ahead of time.)   In fact it should tell you something about how powerful wand decks are given that you feel you need to construct your book in a special way to face it.

[wtcannonjr]

Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.

But how are they when played against a competent player on the other side of the board?

My problem with the Golem Pit + Transfusion (as always) is you are talking at least 6-7 rounds before you can pull it off, and you are telegraphing like crazy. Even a turtling Priestess should be able to disrupt thisplay. Plus counters get involved, dispels and reverse magic, and don't forget seeking dispel. If we get the chance to play on OCTGN, I promise to load up my spellbook with 6 Seeking Dispels.......Transfuse that

So you're giving yourself the advantage of knowing what Book you will be playing against and building your book accordingly.    That's hardly fair.   In a tournament situation you would not know what type of Book you will be facing, so loading up your book with anti-wand spells just makes you that much weaker when facing non-wand decks.    What you should be asking yourself is "Would your tournament book", the one you build not knowing what wizard you will face would be able to deal with each type of book effectively.   NOT building a book specifically to deal with a certain type of book.  (Obviously anyone could do that if they knew what they're opponet's book was going to be ahead of time.)   In fact it should tell you something about how powerful wand decks are given that you feel you need to construct your book in a special way to face it.

This is an example of what I mentioned earlier about Tournament meta. Some players take the view of building and discussing "Tournament books", while other players place themselves in the world of Etheria and resolve conflicts in the arena where the type of opponent you will face is known. Both are legitimate ways to play the game, but the online discussions often get mixed with perspectives from each view. Since the type of information that is available to players at the start of a battle is different it can lead to different analysis, discussion and conclusions by each of us.

Would it help to establish a separate Forum for Etheria-based players so those who start with different information can discuss the game from their perspective?

[DeckBuilder]

@Brazil
I don't think sIKE was being serious - I'm not into emoticons but I think that's what it means...

A good player will always respect the metagame (obviously you do not know your opponent's build)
There is nothing wrong with having "just in case" cards, especially a weakness (e.g. Druid and Fire)
Every book I have ever played has (at least) 1 Dragonscale Hauberk
That's because Fire has always been good but, with the latest release, it is now even more in vogue

The whole concept of toolbox is to have the right answer at the right time
Falcon Precision, Maim Wings, Surging Wave, Mage Staff, these are all examples of toolbox solutions
Because they are situational, but sometimes you just need the right card to do something with 1 QC

To call toolbox "constructing your deck in a special way to beat it" is missing the point of versatility
I believe there are 2 axis in the game: one is Aggro vs. Control, the other is Focus vs. Versatility
Some books are very focused but lack versatility to cope, others very versatile but lack a focused strategy
Where you map the book you are building is based on personal taste and your strategy concept
There is slight correlation between Aggro and Focus (short game), also Control and Versatile (long game)
But I've seen Versatile Aggro books (see Bashcon Beatdown) and Focused Control books (many of mine)

Dispel, Dissolve and Teleport are not toolbox cards where you have 1 copy only - they are essentials


Folks, let's take a recap of this thread:

Brazil contends you can build books with just 1 copy of every incantation you want and simply use a Wand
Everyone else has patiently tried to explain that this is a local meta anomaly and does not survive aggro books
I interjected when people started saying Wands do not appear in tournament builds
I added the proviso "wands are great in some books but not as a substitute for multiple copies of basic utilities"
I now regret my interjection

I remember when I started playing the game
I devoured the written wisdom of the forum experts: Dude, piousflea, Tacullu64, sdougla2, sIKE, ringkichard etc
Like every new player, I got excited over Mage Wand + Sleep; it's trading mana for tempo, good but not broken.
Piousflea once told me that Elemental Wand + range 3 Thunderbolt was a poor choice for Mana Denial strategy.
I arrogantly thought better - but guess what? The player who was more experienced than me was right! Fancy!

People contribute and correct out of goodwill, they get nothing out of helping a stranger
I have to admire the chutzpah of somebody who can sermonize sIKE for a joke about Enchantment Transfusion
Which has nothing really to do with Wands (the build discussed needs no Wands, just a single deadly Teleport)

I think Brazil is to be commended for opening this subject as a Wand is often viewed as a Swiss Army knife
Frequent posters have even commented that it's been educational - so thank you Brazil for this discussion

But here in the UK, we have a saying: "you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".
I don't think there's any point in trying to disabuse someone of opinions that are firmly entrenched.

[webcatcher]

Since we're summing up I'd like  add one point: Much of this thread is what the Warhammer folks call 'theoryhammer' (I don't know if we have a term for it in Mage Wars). I'm sure it looks to Brazil like we're being closed minded, but we're not,  theoretical arguments just don't prove much. Several people have offered to rethink their position on wands pending a detailed game report or octgn game, which maybe has gotten overshadowed with all the debating. I think we're still all willing to give Brazil's arguments some more weight if he's willing to publicly test his ideas.

[sIKE]

I was being a bit checky in my response. But the point I was getting across was that yes Pit can be deadly, but it is (IMHO) easy to counter mainly because it takes so long to setup and spring once played against.

If I got beat by it a couple of times (and was new to playing) my meta (local) would be to deck my mage out with bunches of Dispels, Dispel Wand, Reverse Mage, a Wand to put Dispel on (Dissolve bait). Add in Piercing and some walls, cheap ones like Fog or Earth walls to disrupt LoS. Plus I would be a bit aggressive and get in there and make the opposing mage respond to me (take tempo) vs. cast Golem cast Enchantment (what he has to do for like 6-7 rounds). My theory is that this strategy would fall apart quickly and he would have to change gears.

[Sailor Vulcan]

Since we're summing up I'd like  add one point: Much of this thread is what the Warhammer folks call 'theoryhammer' (I don't know if we have a term for it in Mage Wars). I'm sure it looks to Brazil like we're being closed minded, but we're not,  theoretical arguments just don't prove much. Several people have offered to rethink their position on wands pending a detailed game report or octgn game, which maybe has gotten overshadowed with all the debating. I think we're still all willing to give Brazil's arguments some more weight if he's willing to publicly test his ideas.

Theory Wars--We'd love to hate them and we hate to love them.

[ringkichard]

The problem with disrupting the golem pit with agro is that you have to do it very carefully. Those are, after all, Golems. Nearly impossible to kill efficiently, and 6 die quick attacks. Bringing the fight to the Golem is not a great idea.  They don't even have to cast the enchantments if you're going to stick around voluntarily.

[sIKE]

Oh no way would anyone want to go toe to toe with 4 [mwcard=FWC09] Iron Golem's[/mwcard] in the same zone. But the mana cost to get that all setup is steep and with proper play on the easy side to disrupt.

[webcatcher]

On a sort of related note (I consider this thread already hijacked) has the corrosive orchid completely changed the equipment protection game? For 12 Mana that Wand is gone unless your enchantment happens to be block instead of Nullify.

[baronzaltor]

On a sort of related note (I consider this thread already hijacked) has the corrosive orchid completely changed the equipment protection game? For 12 Mana that Wand is gone unless your enchantment happens to be block instead of Nullify.

Corrosive Orchid's attack is Unavoidable, so Block won't help either. 

[Shad0w]

So are we getting back to wand war theory craft?

[webcatcher]

I'm not trying to start another fight. I'm just curious whether the group at large thinks that having corrosive orchid in your book trumps equipment protection.

[Shad0w]

I'm not trying to start another fight. I'm just curious whether the group at large thinks that having corrosive orchid in your book trumps equipment protection.

Put that in another thread please. I try to take a weekend to work on new cards and the thread wanders off the rails.

[Charmyna]

sIKE. You and I always seem to be on opposite sides of debates.
Maybe it's just play style as I find Priest the least interesting mage.

I think the dismissive "the golem pit you so much like" is unfair
Golem Pit is more than just "Teleport your mage into my horde"
It involved the Transfusion set-up to ensure the kill in 2 rounds
None of the 3 Mage builds in the thread I linked uses the Golem Pit Transfusion trick
Instead of defensive (Golem Pit), they play aggressive (defensive needs patience which needs to be learnt)
The Earth swarms, Air pushes to Clouds, Fire buffs Hydras (as OP was about beating Necro with Wizard/BM)
I linked them because it demonstrated the variety that can be done with it (now trying Hydra + Thornlasher)

I have been pushing since Golem Pit to curb the power of Teleport

It's not my fault 4 Teleport Wands + 8 Slow Monsters (buy all 16 cards for 40 now) = very strong Wizard build
I was so shocked when they previewed Devouring Jelly (more so than Zombie Brute)
To not play a broken strategy seems perverse - the designers should not allow it to exist
I believe you loved playing Forcemaster + Hand of Bim Shalla + Battle Furies from Spores?

If Kich or Charmyna read this thread, I would really be interested to read your view on "Wizard Wand Control"

Mage Wands are great because an Incantation called Teleport is broken when played by a competent player.

Sorry to join the discussion so late. Next time pls send me a message here in the forum or in Octgn .

About Mage Wands: They are my highest priority very often! The reasons are:
- They allow you to save many Spellpoints (not mana!)
- Maybe even more important: They give you flexibility in planning (its like planning a third card)

For these Reasons most of my Decks have 5-6 dissolves (also those that need to pay two points per dissolve). I never want to be in a game where the opponent has a mage wand left and I dont have a dissolve!
You might think that I carry four mage wands often since they are so good. I dont! A decent player often dissolves them quickly, which in many cases means the player with the Mage Wand actually looses more Spellpoints (again not Mana!) than the opponent. So in non-Wizard decks I barely carry more than one Mage Wand since four spellpoints is too much to have four copies. In Wizard decks I consider having more Wands but only if I assume the game will be VERY long.
During my last games I actually found the value of the mage wand not in the saved spellpoints but in the flexibility while planning! That way I could risk to plan a card I might not be able to use but if used it would be awesome. In the case I cant use it, I still have the seeking dispel/dispel/Push/dissolve on Mage Wand to do something useful (at least trigger his Nullify).
Btw the Mage Wand slows you down a bit (action and mana wise) but if you got the Battle Forge to cast it, thats much less a problem!

Towards Watergate Wizard and similar build relying on Teleport Wand and slow creatures: I still like them alot, but I have the feeling that a very aggressive druid with many rouse the beasts, vine tree and Vine Snappers casted early on the Gate will be very strong against the Watergate Wizard.
I havent seen such a game, so atm its only theorycrafting.
Btw my new Blasting Banker build will most likely kill Watergate since the latter is too slow! At least Watergate Wizard would need alot defensive stuff on himself, which costs his own actions since at the beginning he does not have the mana to cast the Forge.
Another btw: I guess an Obelisk (maybe + suppression orb) in the opposite corner would be very annoying for Watergate since the slow creatures take forever to get there and even teleporting them isnt good since it costs so much mana and you loose the spell or give the opponent the opportunity to dissolve the valuable Wand early on.

So in the end: At the moment I really like playing a Wizard without any creatures and Forge+high armor+obelisk+Suppression Cloak+Essence Drain! This combination works really nicely to slow down the opponent and give your mage time to bank actions (enchants on him and on opponent) while saving more than 30 mana! At that point the opponent is too far behind action and mana wise . Therefore, with the help of a fresh wizards tower+some fireballs/flameblasts+revealing the "banked" Magebane/Ghoul Rot and using the hidden poisoned blood+nullify to prevent healing, he can be killed within only a few rounds. In my last games most were dead within two rounds I think (they were at full life or only a few damage before).
Here you can find a Summary of my recent games and links to the full match videos including many audio comments:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13428.0

Sorry for the self-promotion - its just I really like the Blasting Banker . Besides that, this is the kind of build that doesnt care too much about teleport wands I think (because of high armor+voltaric shield+veterans belt+suppression cloak). Still, I would dissolve them quickly!