Slow Builds, Mana Curve and Spell Level

[MrSaucy]

Note you didn't choose to quote the rest of the message which does explain what he meant. If you wanted to be critical, instead of saying things like "good  non aggro players know this", or "If anybody is actually doing this, they are playing their spells incorrectly". Whether you meant to or not, it did seem to be that you were implying him to be a novice.

I was a little too harsh by saying you were flaming him, and I do apologize for that sincerely. And I'm not sure how I was condescending, but if you took it the wrong way, my fault man.

This:

By disagreeing with somebody you aren't automatically calling them inexperience and stupid. Stop taking everything so seriously.

I'm not sure what this is, but it's definitely not true. I'm incredibly open on these forums, and almost none of it is serious.  I respect everyone on here for their ideas and their openness to critical feedback. I just don't see how your arguments were critical as much as just disagreement. I've seen your responses on other threads, and you haven't been exactly "open" to feedback.

I like your ideas, and think you bring up great points, and I don't want this laughable argument to hinder further community involvement in Mage Wars. I do apologize if you felt I was trying to attack you in any way with this or my previous post, I was simply stating my opinion. Cheers man!

Okay I understand. I have learned to be much more "open" to feedback. The situation you are referring to where I was acting like a dick had more to do with the fact that I hadn't slept in two days and was studying for finals. Apart from that ONE time where I snapped, I have been very open and have taken advice from others. And I owned up to the fact that I had acted like an a**hole, so what is done is done. You don't need to bring it up anymore.

I didn't feel like I was implying him to be a novice. I was completely agreeing with him about the fact that relying on casting 2 spells per turn is a bad move. I agree that move actions are just as valuable a resource as mana. That must have gotten lost in the translation.

"I just don't see how your arguments were critical as much as just disagreement."

Well, if I am completely agreeing with an idea, I don't see how I could be critical of that idea at the same time. I was communicating my criticisms. My criticisms, arguments, whatever you want to call him were never meant to be more than my thoughts on the matter. I believe you should question everything, so that is what I was doing. Arguments are stronger if they can hold up to scrutiny.

These forums bring up a lot of interesting analysis. If I thought anybody was a novice, I wouldn't be posting in their thread in the first place.

[The Dude]

They are always welcome man! Seriously, all thoughts are amazing on here, as it doesn't seem like we get enough new content on here as it is. I shouldn't have accused you of implications without knowing the entirety of the situation. I take full responsibility, and hope you accept that and keep coming back.

[Koz]

Wands are supposed to help with this problem: they're slower and cost more, but don't run out.

When a Wand is dissolved you lose both the Wand and the bound spell, while your opponent only pays for a level-1 Dissolve.

I've seen people make this statement before but it's only partially true.  If you cast a Fireball what happens to the spell after you cast it?  It goes to your discard.  If the Fireball is on a Wand and the Wand gets Dissolved where does the Fireball go?  Into the Discard where it would have been had you never played the Wand in the first place.  Either way, the Fireball ends up in the same place. 

You only come out behind if you bind a spell and then the Wand gets Dissolved before you cast it.  If your Wand gets Dissolved in that situation, you lose two cards for your opponents one play (that sucks).  If you did cast the bound spell at least once, you are only really losing the Wand, because the bound spell should already be in the discard at that point anyway.  As long as you've cast the bound spell at least once and your opponent Dissolves the Wand, you are breaking even with him as far as actions and mana cost are concerned.

With all that said, I don't really play Wands anymore.  I can't remember the last time I did.  However, if you are going to play one, make sure you cast the bound spell ASAP so that if the Wand gets Dissolved you don't get hit with the "double whammy". 

My 2 cents.

[sIKE]

I agree with Koz, if you are a Wizard and you spam lightning bolt or fireball, expect you wand to get melted just like a Warlock should expect that his LOH to get dissolved.

If you get your wand out and are able to use it 3-4 times (at least) then you have more than broken even from a Spell Point cost in your Spell book. That is what I am looking for from a Wand or Helm. Something that lets me put a bit more power spell wise, in at cheaper spell book point cost with a trade off of cost in more Mana and actions. Now the math also needs to add in the cost of the counter measures. At a point it gets too expensive from a mana/action/point cost then you need to look at a different path.

I really have not played mages that spam these kind of spells. The only wand I have had dissolved is one I bound Minor Heal on and used 3-4 times before it was taken out of play...

With all of that said, if you are able to use it only twice and it gets dissolved, then you have forced an action cost upon your rival who should be trying to kill you and not your equipment, after all it is Mage Wars not Equipment Wars.

[MrSaucy]

Wands are supposed to help with this problem: they're slower and cost more, but don't run out.

When a Wand is dissolved you lose both the Wand and the bound spell, while your opponent only pays for a level-1 Dissolve.

I've seen people make this statement before but it's only partially true.  If you cast a Fireball what happens to the spell after you cast it?  It goes to your discard.  If the Fireball is on a Wand and the Wand gets Dissolved where does the Fireball go?  Into the Discard where it would have been had you never played the Wand in the first place.  Either way, the Fireball ends up in the same place. 

You only come out behind if you bind a spell and then the Wand gets Dissolved before you cast it.  If your Wand gets Dissolved in that situation, you lose two cards for your opponents one play (that sucks).  If you did cast the bound spell at least once, you are only really losing the Wand, because the bound spell should already be in the discard at that point anyway.  As long as you've cast the bound spell at least once and your opponent Dissolves the Wand, you are breaking even with him as far as actions and mana cost are concerned.

With all that said, I don't really play Wands anymore.  I can't remember the last time I did.  However, if you are going to play one, make sure you cast the bound spell ASAP so that if the Wand gets Dissolved you don't get hit with the "double whammy". 

My 2 cents.

Some really good points here. I tend to run any Wand as a last resort. For example, if I am on my last type of a certain attack spell, call it attack spell X, I bind X to my Elemental wand. Likewise, if I am on my last type of a certain incantation, incantation Y, I will bind Y to a Mage Wand. Playing this way also means you will bring out your Wand a little later than usual, which might decrease the odds of it being dissolved in the first place.

[MrSaucy]

I really have not played mages that spam these kind of spells. The only wand I have had dissolved is one I bound Minor Heal on and used 3-4 times before it was taken out of play...

With all of that said, if you are able to use it only twice and it gets dissolved, then you have forced an action cost upon your rival who should be trying to kill you and not your equipment, after all it is Mage Wars not Equipment Wars.

I feel like I use dissolve against enemy Wands more than anything else. When an enemy is dissolving your equipment, this can, like you said, mean you are winning by dictating the play and forcing the opponent to respond to you. There is also an advantage to playing with a lot of equipment because if something gets dissolved it probably won't be that big of a deal.

[The Dude]

Usually if I run wands, I run two. I will place a not as powerful spell that I have more than one of, expecting to get it dissolved. The reason I love wands especially with battle forge is that for no actions, I am scaring the opponent to dissolve my wand. It's a small tempo gain, but incredibly worth it, especially in the end game.

[Kharhaz]

Those three very valid options pious

@1) Lower spell book cost, even at a high cost, is ideal for mages like the warlord who need access to the basic counters in the game. Dispel as a novice card fills a big hole in that archetype right now!


It is also that almost all of the control spells in this game are quick actions and all the creatures are full round. So the quick attack, mitigate defensive creature build can easily do 36 damage to your mage while disrupting your defense. The best defense is a better offense and I think that hurts the "tactical" strategy in Mage Wars.

In 15 rounds you know who is going to win the game (if it is not already over), it is the mage who has had the best action efficiency. Action efficiency is too good right now to even begin looking at 25 turns into the game. What this game needs to help make long term a viable strategy is a way to turn off (even temporarily) the cards that make the agro builds possible so you have time to grow a long term strategy.

For example, There are some killer conjurations that only support few to zero creature spell books, that are easily cast, and effect the entire arena. With one card I have created an archetype disrupting situation that your opponent has to run all the way across the board to stop if his deck wants to get going. (poor poor beastmaster)